# NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 (overclocking DRAM on AM4) + MEMbench 0.8 (DRAM bench)



## 1usmus

*AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide*

AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide

*MEMbench 0.6 README*


https://www.overclock.net/forum/27960952-post4412.html



*HOW USE MEMTEST in MEMbench *


https://www.overclock.net/forum/28069030-post5047.html




*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 + MEMbench 0.8*
Last update : 14 May




























*Download:*
*Techpowerup link*
*Guru3d link
WCCFTECH link
Сomputerbase.de link*
*Techspot link*
​
*Video instruction:*


Spoiler



























*Instruction + recommendations*


Spoiler






https://www.overclock.net/forum/27694284-post3363.html






*The results of a successful overclocking can be seen here:*
*AMD OC Statistics*
*ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread*

*Some interesting posts:*
What is a single error?
*Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"
Effect of temperature and higher voltage on memory stability
Effect of the CPU frequency on the stability of the RAM*

Great gratitude *STaRDoGG* , *slafniy* , *ajc9988* and *A_z_z_y* for help !

This program is publicly available for publication in news resources and preparation of reviews. The copyright to the logic of the program and the product is present.​


----------



## spinFX

dont have a ryzen system, but nice work!


----------



## LightningManGTS

Good stuff,







maybe people can stop complaining in the Crosshair board about you taking the board over with your calc









Should probably update your sig as well to point here


----------



## datonyb

nice to see you have your own thread now

it will be easier to find the updates 1usmus

i can also confirm this program does make things a lot easier with setting up the ram on ryzen


----------



## poisson21

Tried it with my 4*16Gb of f4-3200c14 16gtz, able to boot but memtest found error really fast so i'll try later to meddle with the timmings more. Currently going to work for the next 36 hrs ;'(.


----------



## lordzed83

Tested timings from V2 as i see V3 gives same numbers.


500% give or take 1 hour Y-Cruncher and loads LOADS of IBT runs.

With those timings my system Scores more. Its more responsive at lower volts !!! dont think i can get anything more from this motherboard cpu and ddr combo lol









Is it ok to link this topic on forums ?? Deffo out of alpha stage even passed beta stage !!!


----------



## ku4eto

You need to mention, people need to be REAL careful with the Taiphoon Burner. Or they may brick their RAM sticks.


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordzed83*
> 
> Tested timings from V2 as i see V3 gives same numbers.
> 
> 
> 500% give or take 1 hour Y-Cruncher and loads LOADS of IBT runs.
> 
> With those timings my system Scores more. Its more responsive at lower volts !!! dont think i can get anything more from this motherboard cpu and ddr combo lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok to link this topic on forums ?? Deffo out of alpha stage even passed beta stage !!!


I already went ahead and linked it, but as far it being out of any stage.... ehh? I mean thats up to 1usmus to decided if he feels its truly ready for the limelight and well... some sort of additional calc variable for blk offset would be nice.







No idea how hard it would be or if it even matters, I'm ganna end up seeing if I get any sort of different results with gear down disabled now that memory is completely strapped or if a looser tRC or using tRFC ult instead does me any favors in that regard.


----------



## Jeager

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ku4eto*
> 
> You need to mention, people need to be REAL careful with the Taiphoon Burner. Or they may brick their RAM sticks.


How ?


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ku4eto*
> 
> You need to mention, people need to be REAL careful with the Taiphoon Burner. Or they may brick their RAM sticks.
> 
> 
> 
> How ?
Click to expand...

if have Asus aura or a similar program that accesses the spd bus running and active while attempting to read the spd of a ram stick in typhoon burner you can potentially corrupt it


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordzed83*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Tested timings from V2 as i see V3 gives same numbers.
> 
> 
> 500% give or take 1 hour Y-Cruncher and loads LOADS of IBT runs.
> 
> With those timings my system Scores more. Its more responsive at lower volts !!! dont think i can get anything more from this motherboard cpu and ddr combo lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ok to link this topic on forums ??
> 
> 
> Deffo out of alpha stage even passed beta stage !!!


Don't think it's ready yet to go out of Beta stage
Still some non-functioning features in it
Plus... usmus is still working on finetuning the calculation(s) of certain timings (i asume)


----------



## Anty

Additionally if you use typhoon to read SPD close hwinfo64 because it may screw readings.


----------



## Jeager

Ok thanks but otherwise nothing will be erased (firmware or another stuff like that) right ?


----------



## 1usmus

Thanks guys for advice and support









I think at the current stage the program has a beta stage, the main functions work but you still need to work on the balance, the nuances turned out to be much more than just using the formula for calculations

the difference between 0.9.9 2 and 0.9.9 3 in optimizing the download speed, the changed interface and instructions









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ku4eto*
> 
> You need to mention, people need to be REAL careful with the Taiphoon Burner. Or they may brick their RAM sticks.


it's impossible to spoil anything








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poisson21*
> 
> Tried it with my 4*16Gb of f4-3200c14 16gtz, able to boot but memtest found error really fast so i'll try later to meddle with the timmings more. Currently going to work for the next 36 hrs ;'(.


most likely the problem in the settings of "RTT" or "proODT", it is worth checking all


----------



## ibeat117

Thanks for your work i´m now using my 4 DPC B-Die at 3466 fast @1,45v , but there is still a issue:



i would be very thankful if you would edit that out or change it to something else


----------



## LicSqualo

For my kit, RGB GSkill 3600C16 2x8Gb, I can use TheStilt fast timings for 3200 Mhz profile with the 3466 speed.











I've tweaked also some timings (tRRDS from 6 to 4; tFAW from 36 to 24; tWRWR SD and DD from 7 to 5; and tRDRD SD and DD from 5 to 3 and last tCKE from 9 to 1) a bit strictly and the system is benchable and playable (I think to be rock stable I've to play also with other settings as CLDO_VDDP and VDDP)









Due my low knowledge, when possible, I prefer to leave the settings on auto.











One of the most important thing (for my experience on this platform) to boot in my case are also the BGS and GDM settings.









The settings proposed in that fields are really a no go for me.



Good work 1usmus


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ibeat117*
> 
> Thanks for your work i´m now using my 4 DPC B-Die at 3466 fast @1,45v , but there is still a issue:
> 
> 
> 
> i would be very thankful if you would edit that out or change it to something else


agree, corrected, link updated


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LicSqualo*
> 
> For my kit, RGB GSkill 3600C16 2x8Gb, I can use TheStilt fast timings for 3200 Mhz profile with the 3466 speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've tweaked also some timings (tRRDS from 6 to 4; tFAW from 36 to 24; tWRWR SD and DD from 7 to 5; and tRDRD SD and DD from 5 to 3 and last tCKE from 9 to 1) a bit strictly and the system is benchable and playable (I think to be rock stable I've to play also with other settings as CLDO_VDDP and VDDP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due my low knowledge, when possible, I prefer to leave the settings on auto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most important thing (for my experience on this platform) to boot in my case are also the BGS and GDM settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The settings proposed in that fields are really a no go for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Good work 1usmus


thanks ,some understated timings are responsible for recharging banks and read / write commands in one / different banks, you cut them, the speed of this action will not increase unfortunately, but the system will lose stability.You tested the system with a test of HСI 16 X 750 mb ?


----------



## LicSqualo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> thanks ,some understated timings are responsible for recharging banks and read / write commands in one / different banks, you cut them, the speed of this action will not increase unfortunately, but the system will lose stability.You tested the system with a test of HСI 16 X 750 mb ?


THANK YOU!







Yes, tested and not stable,







give me errors at 300% or more. So I've to move to tWRWR SD and DD to 7 and tRDRD SD and DD to 5 to try to be stable... this night?







TechpowerupMemTest 64 is the same?


----------



## 1usmus

tWRWR SD and DD to 7 and tRDRD SD and DD to 5 + 14 14 14 14 28 42 primary timings

I dislike TechpowerupMemTest 64 , he seldom finds errors. HCI 16 window 750mb - best test


----------



## ku4eto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> How ?


If you put wrong timings - like too low, not correct formula, you may not ever boot again with that stick. Esp if you touch the lowest frequency strap (2133Mhz or whatever is for DDR4). Otherwise, if you crap out only the highest frequency, you can always just reset CMOS and run at lower speed into Windows and edit back with Typhoon.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> it's impossible to spoil anything


There is always way to break something


----------



## Jeager

I was confused, I tough it was with the calculator and not with Typhoon


----------



## 1usmus

*@ku4eto*
we just read the information, and not change the SPD profile


----------



## LicSqualo

Ok, test passed






























Thank you 1usmus!!!







but of course I've tested only changing tWRWR and tRDRD









So, my kit can manage these settings and perhaps also better! I'm thinking to lower tRC and tRAS as suggested by your calculator, next...


----------



## LicSqualo

For BGS and GDM i noted that are wrong in calculator for my kit, both! and if I change GDM from "auto" to "Disabled" is a no go (no boot) and BGS -one of the two- are to be active to boot, as suggested is a no boot.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LicSqualo*
> 
> For BGS and GDM i noted that are wrong in calculator for my kit, both! and if I change GDM from "auto" to "Disabled" is a no go (no boot) and BGS -one of the two- are to be active to boot, as suggested is a no boot.


impressive! you have a very high-quality copy of the processor and memory


----------



## d0mini

Hey 1usmus, I've been happily and vicariously reading the ryzen overclocking threads and am very impressed by your efforts.

I have a question, how useful would this tool be for non-ryzen systems using DDR4? I've never seen anything quite like it, if you made it compatible with intel I'm sure this software would take off into the RAM overclocking stratosphere, even more than it already is. ?

No matter what, +rep for your efforts and contribution to the overclocking community here. Maybe I'll persuade my non-tekky friend with a 1700 and a crosshair VI to try using your tool!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d0mini*
> 
> Hey 1usmus, I've been happily and vicariously reading the ryzen overclocking threads and am very impressed by your efforts.
> 
> I have a question, how useful would this tool be for non-ryzen systems using DDR4? I've never seen anything quite like it, if you made it compatible with intel I'm sure this software would take off into the RAM overclocking stratosphere, even more than it already is. ?
> 
> No matter what, +rep for your efforts and contribution to the overclocking community here. Maybe I'll persuade my non-tekky friend with a 1700 and a crosshair VI to try using your tool!


Hello, thank you!









I think timings are compatible with Intel, the rest are not. The amd has a different approach to bus and termination.


----------



## lordzed83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> tWRWR SD and DD to 7 and tRDRD SD and DD to 5 + 14 14 14 14 28 42 primary timings
> 
> I dislike TechpowerupMemTest 64 , he seldom finds errors. HCI 16 window 750mb - best test


I use both first 15 minutes of TPU one then i move to 16x900 like a boss to make it work hard


----------



## datonyb

another big thank you to 1usmus

your ryzen ram calculator has just got a long time trouble set of corsair ram to finally boot 2933

before it was stuck at 2400/2666 (2666 with cold boot issues)

now it booted 2933 directly for the first time








http://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=6011&PN=11&title=agesa-1006b


----------



## Mandarb

How do you calculate Trfc2/3/4_SM from Trfc_SM since those aren't provided in the calculator?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mandarb*
> 
> How do you calculate Trfc2/3/4_SM from Trfc_SM since those aren't provided in the calculator?


Ryzen system not use tRFC2/4 ,it's a fake in the timing settings. There you can set any values without any effect on the system








If they are added in the future - they will appear in the calculator


----------



## zulex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Ryzen system not use tRFC2/4 ,it's a fake in the timing settings. There you can set any values without any effect on the system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are added in the future - they will appear in the calculator


tRFC 2 and 4? or tRFC 2 to 4?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zulex*
> 
> tRFC 2 and 4? or tRFC 2 to 4?


tRFC 2 and 4 , tRFC 3 does not exist


----------



## Mandarb

Didn't know. But I did just calculate them from the ratios from the XMP timings.. ^^

Also thanks, can run my 2x16 GB G.Skill TridentZ 3200MHz CL14 at fast settings! ?

Passed HCI 4000% coverage without a hitch. Now I just have to hope I am not getting cold boot issues anymore.

Before I calculated the timings I suddenly couldn't boot on 3200MHz anymore on my own settings, put in yours, didn't help. Cleared CMOS, reapplied and.. lo and behold. Booted.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v4*

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byx_5So-FNsdOGIzMU81d2x2dnc/view?usp=sharing

* added tab "Power supply system" - the power system (VRM) of the Ryzen processors has a "noise" property. These noises and interference affect the memory controller and the "CAD_BUS",so in most cases, the memory runs with errors.
* changed settings CAD_BUS for HQ calculator


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mandarb*
> 
> Didn't know. But I did just calculate them from the ratios from the XMP timings.. ^^
> 
> Also thanks, can run my 2x16 GB G.Skill TridentZ 3200MHz CL14 at fast settings! ?
> 
> Passed HCI 4000% coverage without a hitch. Now I just have to hope I am not getting cold boot issues anymore.
> 
> Before I calculated the timings I suddenly couldn't boot on 3200MHz anymore on my own settings, put in yours, didn't help. Cleared CMOS, reapplied and.. lo and behold. Booted.


*try my setting for DR 3333 cl14 fast*

CLDO_VDDP 425


Spoiler: tap tap



[2017/10/17 00:21:14]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
Performance Bias [None]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Enabled]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.31875]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [0.98750]
DRAM Voltage [1.41500]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
Trc_SM [44]
TrrdS_SM [6]
TrrdL_SM [9]
Tfaw_SM [34]
TwtrS_SM [4]
TwtrL_SM [12]
Twr_SM [12]
Trcpage_SM [Auto]
TrdrdScl_SM [2]
TwrwrScl_SM [2]
Trfc_SM [267]
Trfc2_SM [Auto]
Trfc4_SM [Auto]
Tcwl_SM [14]
Trtp_SM [8]
Trdwr_SM [7]
Twrrd_SM [3]
TwrwrSc_SM [Auto]
TwrwrSd_SM [Auto]
TwrwrDd_SM [Auto]
TrdrdSc_SM [Auto]
TrdrdSd_SM [Auto]
TrdrdDd_SM [Auto]
Tcke_SM [1]
ProcODT_SM [68.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [40.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [60.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.51500]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [300]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Regular]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.41500]


----------



## BUFUMAN

Thx for the tool!


----------



## WarpenN1

I can do 1300% coverage multiple times in a row with FAST settings and one error comes up about 1100% to 1400% of coverage almost always. That seems like just a tiny instability with RAM. I'm trying to go up in voltage with VDDSoC and DRAM voltage with just fraction 0.01v of voltage, if that tiny instability would disappear completely







. Do you have other suggestions where could that instability lie. I've raised DRAM voltage from 1.385 to 1.39v/vttdr to 0.7v and VDDSoC from recommended 1.031v to 1.05v

Otherwise I'm using pretty much the recommended settings like rzq 7/3/1 PROCODT 68.6 and bus block 24/24/24/24 cldo_vddp 425

But this is first time that my RAM settings are this stable with so tight secondary and subtimings timings


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

@WarpenN1
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I can do 1300% coverage multiple times in a row with FAST settings and one error comes up about 1100% to 1400% of coverage almost always. That seems like just a tiny instability with RAM. I'm trying to go up in voltage with VDDSoC and DRAM voltage with just fraction 0.01v of voltage, if that tiny instability would disappear completely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Do you have other suggestions where could that instability lie. I've raised DRAM voltage from 1.385 to 1.39v/vttdr to 0.7v and VDDSoC from recommended 1.031v to 1.05v
> 
> Otherwise I'm using pretty much the recommended settings like rzq 7/3/1 PROCODT 68.6 and bus block 24/24/24/24 cldo_vddp 425
> 
> But this is first time that my RAM settings are this stable with so tight secondary and subtimings timings


for what memory strap ?


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @WarpenN1
> for what memory strap ?


3200mhz 100bclk


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

you can try
vttdr up a notch and/or ram volts up a notch
if it doesn't help.. up the soc a notch
if that doesn't help either... come back and post your settings here please so we can have a closer look

Also i'd like to suggest that you add your hardware in your signature... that could be very useful info for those that want to help you


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> you can try
> vttdr up a notch and/or ram volts up a notch
> if it doesn't help.. up the soc a notch
> if that doesn't help either... come back and post your settings here please so we can have a closer look
> 
> Also i'd like to suggest that you add your hardware in your signature... that could be very useful info for those that want to help you


Okay yeah sure! But It's so close of being stable that it's not even funny everytime I run memtest it can pass 1000% coverage. Trying to keep volts as low as possible, so that I don't have to worry about signal reflection issues. But using calculator suggested termination and cad block resistances, seems to have helped quite a lot with reflection issues. That's why I'm getting constant over 1000% of coverage.

Before that I think it was mostly luck if I got it over 1000%coverage with 3200mhz but next run it could've failed as early as 170% coverage







But yeah, now getting constant 10X coverage without errors^^

Now I'm testing it with 1.05v VDDSoC as I haven't completed it yet to see how it affects stability.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

vttdr would normaly be at half the dram volts but from my experience i found that most of times... mem stabilty is there when it's a notch or two notches higher


----------



## stewwy

Thanks for a brilliant tool 

Question:

Which works best starting from the XMP settings or starting from the non XMP settings,
trying to get to 3333Mhz or higher Stable

My Rig:
Stable 3.75Mhz @ 1.3v 3200Mhz cl14 @1.35

Biostar X370GT7
Ryzen 1700
Gskill 3200cl14 bdie
240 AIO cooling
GTX1080


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

whatever you feel comfortable with imo
my advise... enter the 4 main xmp timings
do your tests to gain stability
when your satisfied... add the rest of the timings and run another test(s) to make sure it's still stable


----------



## Ex0cet

@1usmus

Thank you very much for creating and sharing this tool!

I've found it incredibly useful and I've learned a lot from it and from reading your tests and recommendations.

I have a question that has been intriguing me about the presets that your Ryzen Calculator is giving for this config:

*UHQ XMP / Memory Rank 1 / DIMM Modules 4*

I've notice that it recommends disabling BGS and BGS alt.

And I remember reading Stilt's advice, a few months back, about only disabling BGS/BGS alt with 2 Single Rank DIMMS. And leaving it on AUTO when using 4 Single Rank DIMMS and/or DualRank RAM.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> No.
> 
> If you are using dual rank or 2 DPC single rank modules, you don't touch these options at all. This results in BankGroupSwap = Enabled and BankGroupSwapAlternative = Disabled (the configuration I was using).
> 
> With 1 DPC single rank configuration you should *either* disable both of them, or set BankGroupSwapAlternative = Enabled.
> 
> Enabling BankGroupSwapAlternative has the same positive effect on the real world performance as *disabling* BankGroupSwap does, however it doesn't have it's down sides (i.e. the lower reported bandwidth figures).


I would like to ask you, if disabling BGS / BGS alt is really recommended for 4 SingleRank Modules?

If so, why would Stilt advice the opposite back in the day?

I remember reading AMD's article "Ryzen Memory Showdown" where they showed some benchmarks comparing BGS ON vs OFF. But intersting enough, they never talk nor mention anything about "only enabling" BGS with 2 Single Rank modules. Neither did they mention anything about avoiding "disabling" with 4 dimms modules or DualRank RAM.


----------



## Ex0cet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v4*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byx_5So-FNsdOGIzMU81d2x2dnc/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * added tab "Power supply system" - the power system (VRM) of the Ryzen processors has a "noise" property. These noises and interference affect the memory controller and the "CAD_BUS",so in most cases, the memory runs with errors.
> * changed settings CAD_BUS for HQ calculator


About the tab "Power Supply System".

I've noticed that *it recommends setting higher levels of LLC for both the CPUv and the SOCv.*

And again, *isn't this agaisnt Stilt's and Elmor's recommendations*? *If so, why?*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> You are getting paranoid with the voltages. Just keep the voltages at sane levels (< 1.45V for VDDCR_CPU, < 1.10V for VDDCR_SoC) and don't tamper with the load-line settings, unless you actually MEASURE significant amounts of droop, under load (which is not likely on C6H). Voltage overshoot hurts just as bad as undershoot, when it comes to stability. If you need to increase the load-line setting (i.e. introduce overshoot) to maintain stability, then your voltages are not set correctly to begin with.
> 
> The load-line options in bios translate to:
> 
> Auto = ±0% (1.425mOhm)
> Level 1 = -40% (0.855mOhm)
> Level 2 = -50% (0.7125mOhm)
> Level 3 = -75% (0.35625mOhm)
> Level 4 = -85% (0.21375mOhm)
> Level 5 = -100% (0.0000mOhm)
> 
> I personally recommend to keep the load-line settings at "Auto" at all times, unless you are doing LN2 runs.
> 
> The main difference between the different Ryzen 7-series SKUs (aside of the clocks) is the leakage. The 1700 SKUs have low leakage characteristics, while both 1700X & 1800X are high(er) leaking silicon. Because of that 1700 requires even less load-line biasing than the other two (due the currents being lower).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> Just something a bit more objective to help scotch some of the eternal LLC debates. LLC 1 works quite well for everyday use. Just a stock capture here. That said, the CPUs don't pull much current at all, so I don't expect big changes. Small FFT Prime load hitting the VRM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue trace = Vcore
> Yellow trace = current (peak is around 130W)
> 
> 1.40 VID set in UEFI gives around 1.38V "idle", dipping no more than 20mv when hit with load.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> There's no need to go through all of them. Not from my perspective, anyway.
> 
> If you're wondering what happens at level 5, here's a very crude (non-ideal) capture:
> 
> 
> 
> With an LLC of 5, if VID is set to 1.40V in UEFI (manual), you'll see load voltages in the ballpark of 1.45V. When releasing the load, the voltage will momentarily peak around 1.47V, before it returns to idle state. The overshoot duration is sub 50uS, but the CPU frequently sees 50~70mv more than what you've set. With "Voffset removed" the VRM has to substantially ramp the voltage when the load hits (will vary somewhat depending upon current), which puts more strain on the FETs. It's just more strenuous on the system to have to ramp voltage by ~50mv while dealing with a transient. How that may impact things down the road is always up in the air. You're playing with percentages/potential for failure, and what that means to you. Whether or not it *will* happen is difficult to quantify.
> 
> If you have sympathy for electronics, you'd likely opt for LLC 1 or 2. At those levels, peak overshoot is constrained 10-20mV over the user-applied VID at durations that likely fall within the tolerance guidelines. Those levels are complimentary to the associated devices. From levels 3 and above, the actual voltage is ramped above the user-defined value, and we start seeing excursions of 30mV+ past the user-set value.


----------



## palanoid

thank you for this calculator

is spectek considered micron in this software? trying to detemine which memory type

my board, asrock x370 killer sli, doesn't have as many controls as those shown in the "power supply system" tab.
is it okay to skip those I don't have?


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *palanoid*
> 
> thank you for this calculator
> 
> is spectek considered micron in this software? trying to detemine which memory type
> 
> my board, asrock x370 killer sli, doesn't have as many controls as those shown in the "power supply system" tab.
> is it okay to skip those I don't have?


spectek is micron so that would be a yes imo
regarding the power supply system tab... the settings might be hidden or in some advanced menu


----------



## 1usmus

*@Ex0cet*

thanks for the interesting questions!









At the moment the support for 4 modules is made conditional, closer to the new year I'm going to do testing more tightly + add support Threadripper . But I say right away - *Stilt* right.
The only exception is that not all modules allow you to disable BGS/BGS alt, are to blame for this developer bios firmware.
My recommendation is to leave these options in mode auto in all cases.

For example, DDR3 prefetches eight words, which means that every time a read or a write operation is performed, it is performed on eight words of data, and bursts out of, or into, the SDRAM over four clock cycles on both clock edges for a total of eight consecutive operations. Fundamentally, it can be thought of that for DDR3's prefetch of eight, the interface is eight times faster than the DRAM core.

The downside to the prefetch is that it effectively determines the minimum burst length for the SDRAMs. For example, it is very difficult to have an efficient burst length of four words with DDR3's prefetch of eight. The bank group feature allows designers to keep a smaller prefetch while increasing performance as if the prefetch is larger.

About llc:
Most users do not know how to set up the LLC, so Stilt did not recommend using it, since changing the voltage jump can be initiated at the processor's switching point (transition from active to idle mode)


If we use "safe-LLC" in manual mode, we control the voltage surges ourselves


Why can not "LLC" leave in auto mode:
Increased voltage causes digital noise and thermal noise, if digital can partially overcome - there is no thermal noise. IMС does not like large voltage, the system is at times more stable at lower voltage.

If we have a processor with large leakage currents (similar to 1800X or 1600X with good overclock potential), our situation becomes even more complicated.

I spent several months testing the influence of the VRM system, it was with this discovery that I was able to stabilize the dual rank at a frequency of 3333 and run at 3466. No one else could do it.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *palanoid*
> 
> thank you for this calculator
> 
> is spectek considered micron in this software? trying to detemine which memory type
> 
> my board, asrock x370 killer sli, doesn't have as many controls as those shown in the "power supply system" tab.
> is it okay to skip those I don't have?


the main condition is to adjust the power phases, if there are no minor settings, there is nothing to worry about


----------



## chroniclard

Gah annoying, had 3333 stable system, tried for 3466 using the tool, now unstable. Thought I had saved the bios settings but no.....

Should i use every single recommended setting?

Try again tonight.....


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> I can do 1300% coverage multiple times in a row with FAST settings and one error comes up about 1100% to 1400% of coverage almost always. That seems like just a tiny instability with RAM. I'm trying to go up in voltage with VDDSoC and DRAM voltage with just fraction 0.01v of voltage, if that tiny instability would disappear completely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Do you have other suggestions where could that instability lie. I've raised DRAM voltage from 1.385 to 1.39v/vttdr to 0.7v and VDDSoC from recommended 1.031v to 1.05v
> 
> Otherwise I'm using pretty much the recommended settings like rzq 7/3/1 PROCODT 68.6 and bus block 24/24/24/24 cldo_vddp 425
> 
> But this is first time that my RAM settings are this stable with so tight secondary and subtimings timings


This feature is associated with the controller "I/O", the step voltage for each motherboard is different, because of this, not all voltages of RAM will be adequate. If you are using C6H, the stepping voltage of the controller is ~ 22 mV. The reference point is 1.35 volts. For example 1.35 + 0.022 + 0.022 = ~1,394 V.
That's why I created a calculator dram/vtddr voltage
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chroniclard*
> 
> Gah annoying, had 3333 stable system, tried for 3466 using the tool, now unstable. Thought I had saved the bios settings but no.....
> 
> Should i use every single recommended setting?
> 
> Try again tonight.....


almost all the settings have a relationship, I do not advise you to violate the rule only in the termination block


----------



## lcbbcl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> This feature is associated with the controller "I/O", the step voltage for each motherboard is different, because of this, not all voltages of RAM will be adequate. If you are using C6H, the stepping voltage of the controller is ~ 22 mV. The reference point is 1.35 volts. For example 1.35 + 0.022 + 0.022 = ~1,394 V.
> That's why I created a calculator dram/vtddr voltage
> almost all the settings have a relationship, I do not advise you to violate the rule only in the termination block


Ooo man thanks.now i understand why the cpu,ram,soc volts are different from what i set.
So using your example 1.394 V its the real value what Ram will get?
thanks


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lcbbcl*
> 
> Ooo man thanks.now i understand why the cpu,ram,soc volts are different from what i set.
> So using your example 1.394 V its the real value what Ram will get?
> thanks


yes, then it will be 1,415 , 1,44, 1,46


----------



## LicSqualo

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *@Ex0cet*
> 
> thanks for the interesting questions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment the support for 4 modules is made conditional, closer to the new year I'm going to do testing more tightly + add support Threadripper . But I say right away - *Stilt* right.
> The only exception is that not all modules allow you to disable BGS/BGS alt, are to blame for this developer bios firmware.
> My recommendation is to leave these options in mode auto in all cases.
> 
> For example, DDR3 prefetches eight words, which means that every time a read or a write operation is performed, it is performed on eight words of data, and bursts out of, or into, the SDRAM over four clock cycles on both clock edges for a total of eight consecutive operations. Fundamentally, it can be thought of that for DDR3's prefetch of eight, the interface is eight times faster than the DRAM core.
> 
> The downside to the prefetch is that it effectively determines the minimum burst length for the SDRAMs. For example, it is very difficult to have an efficient burst length of four words with DDR3's prefetch of eight. The bank group feature allows designers to keep a smaller prefetch while increasing performance as if the prefetch is larger.
> 
> About llc:
> Most users do not know how to set up the LLC, so Stilt did not recommend using it, since changing the voltage jump can be initiated at the processor's switching point (transition from active to idle mode)
> 
> 
> If we use "safe-LLC" in manual mode, we control the voltage surges ourselves
> 
> 
> Why can not "LLC" leave in auto mode:
> Increased voltage causes digital noise and thermal noise, if digital can partially overcome - there is no thermal noise. IMС does not like large voltage, the system is at times more stable at lower voltage.
> 
> If we have a processor with large leakage currents (similar to 1800X or 1600X with good overclock potential), our situation becomes even more complicated.
> 
> I spent several months testing the influence of the VRM system, it was with this discovery that I was able to stabilize the dual rank at a frequency of 3333 and run at 3466. No one else could do it.















THANK YOU!!!!!!









So is better with a light LLC than without.









I will try a level2, considering that I'm on a non X cpu but clock as a 1800X or better! Right consideration? Or is better a more light level 1 to start?

(I'm testing the new low timings you have proposed 22 and 36, but the answer is inside the other thread)


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LicSqualo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is better with a light LLC than without.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try a level2, considering that I'm on a non X cpu but clock as a 1800X or better! Right consideration? Or is better a more light level 1 to start?
> 
> (I'm testing the new low timings you have proposed 22 and 36, but the answer is inside the other thread)


thanks for testing









I use the smallest voltage for the "CPU" with which Windows can start and add "LLС4" to it. So I can be sure that there will not be huge jumps and the voltage for the processor will be as stable as possible. And the more stable the voltage, the less friezes, lags, and statters in games for example.


----------



## LicSqualo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> thanks for testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use the smallest voltage for the "CPU" with which Windows can start and add "LLС4" to it. So I can be sure that there will not be huge jumps and the voltage for the processor will be as stable as possible. And the more stable the voltage, the less friezes, lags, and statters in games for example.


you break "my" TheStilt rule: not over LLC level 3
















and you know TheStilt







(I'm not sure, but my feeling is too high







) so if you have same processor (1700) your suggestion are gold for my case









This processor can load windows at 1.40V







(or minus) at this clock (4100)







and I never used LLC until now.









Because I waiting a full and stable bios. Is too young now, and I don't want to fix nothing in my configuration, but surely I will start to test next days (I'm a bit conservative, understand me, this system is going like a rocket and I don't want to break anything







)

Thank you for your time. Much appreciated.








Licinio


----------



## figarro

I have one quick question about "power supply system" tab. On my ASUS X370 Prime I have the following options for CPU and SOC Power Phase Control: Standard, Optimized, Extreme. Which one is equivalent to Power Phase Response? Thanks


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I have one quick question about "power supply system" tab. On my ASUS X370 Prime I have the following options for CPU and SOC Power Phase Control: Standard, Optimized, Extreme. Which one is equivalent to Power Phase Response? Thanks


i think Standard or Optimized best choice
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LicSqualo*
> 
> you break "my" TheStilt rule: not over LLC level 3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you know TheStilt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm not sure, but my feeling is too high
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) so if you have same processor (1700) your suggestion are gold for my case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This processor can load windows at 1.40V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (or minus) at this clock (4100)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I never used LLC until now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I waiting a full and stable bios. Is too young now, and I don't want to fix nothing in my configuration, but surely I will start to test next days (I'm a bit conservative, understand me, this system is going like a rocket and I don't want to break anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Thank you for your time. Much appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Licinio


I work at 1.3-1.32 volts, I like the incredible silence of the system, for the voltage of 1.4 I would not advise using LLC3 or 4


----------



## gopackersjt

I'm gonna need to try this.... My LPX ram doesn't like going about 2933mhz, but maybe this will get it running a little faster. Thanks!


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I have one quick question about "power supply system" tab. On my ASUS X370 Prime I have the following options for CPU and SOC Power Phase Control: Standard, Optimized, Extreme. Which one is equivalent to Power Phase Response? Thanks


i dont remember but i think phase freq. or similar name...

auto or manual
manual = 300 to 600hz value

sorry, i dont have my pc here.

in phase settings set ever extreme.


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ex0cet*
> 
> About the tab "Power Supply System".
> 
> I've noticed that *it recommends setting higher levels of LLC for both the CPUv and the SOCv.*
> 
> And again, *isn't this agaisnt Stilt's and Elmor's recommendations*? *If so, why?*


just touching up on this a bit as well and referring mostly back to what the stilts is talking about. He's right that if your using load line calibration, whether its only llc1 or 2, your not running or doing a very good job about your voltage BUT if the voltage you need to achieve the overclock is say 1.5 due the X cpu's and they're volt leakage then thats a no go either as at that rate your risking longevity of the cpu as well as reducing the stability of your ram oc due to vrm noise like 1usmus was saying. where as I personally can run my 1800x at 4.1 at 1.456v with LLC3 where it would probably need 1.475 without or with LLC1.


----------



## Ex0cet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *@Ex0cet*
> 
> thanks for the interesting questions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment the support for 4 modules is made conditional, closer to the new year I'm going to do testing more tightly + add support Threadripper . But I say right away - *Stilt* right.
> The only exception is that not all modules allow you to disable BGS/BGS alt, are to blame for this developer bios firmware.
> My recommendation is to leave these options in mode auto in all cases.
> 
> For example, DDR3 prefetches eight words, which means that every time a read or a write operation is performed, it is performed on eight words of data, and bursts out of, or into, the SDRAM over four clock cycles on both clock edges for a total of eight consecutive operations. Fundamentally, it can be thought of that for DDR3's prefetch of eight, the interface is eight times faster than the DRAM core.
> 
> The downside to the prefetch is that it effectively determines the minimum burst length for the SDRAMs. For example, it is very difficult to have an efficient burst length of four words with DDR3's prefetch of eight. The bank group feature allows designers to keep a smaller prefetch while increasing performance as if the prefetch is larger.
> 
> About llc:
> Most users do not know how to set up the LLC, so Stilt did not recommend using it, since changing the voltage jump can be initiated at the processor's switching point (transition from active to idle mode)
> 
> 
> If we use "safe-LLC" in manual mode, we control the voltage surges ourselves
> 
> 
> Why can not "LLC" leave in auto mode:
> Increased voltage causes digital noise and thermal noise, if digital can partially overcome - there is no thermal noise. IMС does not like large voltage, the system is at times more stable at lower voltage.
> 
> If we have a processor with large leakage currents (similar to 1800X or 1600X with good overclock potential), our situation becomes even more complicated.
> 
> I spent several months testing the influence of the VRM system, it was with this discovery that I was able to stabilize the dual rank at a frequency of 3333 and run at 3466. No one else could do it.


Thank you again for sharing your wisdom!

I'm very interested in trying to understand every aspect and opinion about this.

I will try and play with both LLC settings for CPUv and SOCv on my 1700. I've been using CPU LLC2 when at 1.4v and higher until now, to prevent the voltage overshoot when the "load voltage" gets released and cpu goes back to idle.

I didn't played too much with SOCv LLC, because I noticed during benchmarks and stress tests, that leaving the SOCv LLC on AUTO, gave back a constant voltage value for both idle and load SOCv. This is true (at least with my hardware config) up to 1.175 SOCv, anything higher than that and SOCv will indeed start vDroping a little.

So, because of this, I always remained UNDER 1.175 SOCv thinking/believing that would be optimal or ideal, "VRM noise wise".

Furthermore, throughout all this months of testing, I've found that voltage undershoot/overshoot, particularly with the SOCv, would cause crashes rather sooner than later, when comparing the same DRAM and BIOS settings with different SOCv values. That's why, at some point, I actually stopped playing with higher SOCv values than 1.175 and SOCv LLC.

What values of CPUv and SOCv, would you consider in the "safe range" when using CPUv LLC3/4 and SOCv LLC2/3?

My 1700 is not golden, but I can manage stability with 1.4v & LLC2 @ 3.9Ghz

I suppose I could try and stabilize my 3.9Ghz mark, increasing CPUv LLC to 3 or 4, and reducing the CPUv to something like 1.35.

SOCv LLC wise, should I remain where I am at now? (SOC LLC on AUTO with a steady value and no voltage undershoot/overshoot)

Or should I aim to overshoot a little with LLC3 on the SOC? VRM noise wise, would this be really ideal?

Cheers!


----------



## porschedrifter

Hey guys, so i'm running 2800 and tighter timings than my XMP profile wants, so how can I calculate the lower timings correctly to nanoseconds to calculate timings for me in the app?
Is it (CL/(freq-in-MHZ) * 1000) = timing in ns

xmp wants CAS Latency Time (tAA): 16T N/A
RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD): 16T N/A
Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP): 16T N/A
Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS): 36T N/A
Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC): 52T

but I'm running:
CAS Latency Time (tAA): 16T N/A
RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD): 15T N/A
Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP): 15T N/A
Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS): 36T N/A
Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC): 50T


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ex0cet*
> 
> Thank you again for sharing your wisdom!
> 
> I'm very interested in trying to understand every aspect and opinion about this.
> 
> I will try and play with both LLC settings for CPUv and SOCv on my 1700. I've been using CPU LLC2 when at 1.4v and higher until now, to prevent the voltage overshoot when the "load voltage" gets released and cpu goes back to idle.
> 
> I didn't played too much with SOCv LLC, because I noticed during benchmarks and stress tests, that leaving the SOCv LLC on AUTO, gave back a constant voltage value for both idle and load voltages. This is true (at least with my hardware config) up to 1.175 SOCv, anything higher than that and it will indeed start vDroping a little.
> 
> So, because of this, I always remained UNDER 1.175v thinking/believing that would be optimal or ideal, "VRM noise wise".
> 
> Furthermore, throughout all this months of testing, I've found that voltage undershoot/overshoot, particularly with the SOCv, would cause crashes rather sooner than later, when comparing the same DRAM and BIOS settings with different SOCv values. That's why, at some point, I actually stopped playing with higher SOCv values than 1.175 and SOCv LLC.
> 
> What values of CPUv and SOCv, would you consider in the "safe range" when using CPUv LLC3/4 and SOCv LLC2/3?
> 
> My 1700 is not golden, but I can manage stability with 1.4v & LLC2 @ 3.9Ghz
> 
> I suppose I could try and stabilize my 3.9Ghz mark, increasing CPUv LLC to 3 or 4, and reducing the CPUv to something like 1.35.
> 
> SOCv LLC wise, should I remain where I am at now? (SOC LLC on AUTO with a steady value and no voltage undershoot/overshoot)
> 
> Or should I aim to overshoot a little with LLC3 on the SOC? VRM noise wise, would this be really ideal?
> 
> Cheers!


as someone who has previously own amd cpu's and asus mobo's and lives by LLC I've been setting both CPU and SOC at LLC 3 since day one with only a small stint of soc being at LLC2. on that note SOC stays steady at 1.2v regardless of load so... *shrugs* I could probably do 1.15 or 1.1 SOC with LLC3 but given how high I have to run my cpu voltage I rather leave some room there given how insane my IF bandwidth and latency is (I feel like 53.5gb/s of bandwidth interconnecting two 4 core dies running at 4.1ghz is pretty insane anyways)

edit: I wanna clarify that when I was running soc at LLC2 and auto it would droop with my ram and cpu clocked to where I have em.


----------



## WarpenN1

Quick question about variables.

Are there any variables, eg. upping or decreasing voltages like DRAM or soc for example or changing something else, that's going to need different termination block or cad bus settings in order to stabilize system for that particular combination of voltages?

And about setting my CPU power phase response to regular, needs a huge bump in voltage in order to stabilize it or at least it was with my first Ryzen CPU. Something like 0.05 to 0.1v bump in vcore compared to ultra fast.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *porschedrifter*
> 
> Hey guys, so i'm running 2800 and tighter timings than my XMP profile wants, so how can I calculate the lower timings correctly to nanoseconds to calculate timings for me in the app?
> Is it (CL/(freq-in-MHZ) * 1000) = timing in ns
> 
> xmp wants CAS Latency Time (tAA): 16T N/A
> RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD): 16T N/A
> Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP): 16T N/A
> Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS): 36T N/A
> Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC): 52T
> 
> but I'm running:
> CAS Latency Time (tAA): 16T N/A
> RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD): 15T N/A
> Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP): 15T N/A
> Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS): 36T N/A
> Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC): 50T


the calculator is able to do it, what for to invent a wheel anew?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> Quick question about variables.
> 
> Are there any variables, eg. upping or decreasing voltages like DRAM or soc for example or changing something else, that's going to need different termination block or cad bus settings in order to stabilize system for that particular combination of voltages?
> 
> And about setting my CPU power phase response to regular, needs a huge bump in voltage in order to stabilize it or at least it was with my first Ryzen CPU. Something like 0.05 to 0.1v bump in vcore compared to ultra fast.


Each system is individual and everywhere there is dependence. It is for this recommendation that the calculator gives a few. Everything can be learned practically.

I did not understand the tension. After changing the response of phases, consumption increased?


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> the calculator is able to do it, what for to invent a wheel anew?
> 
> *
> *
> 
> Each system is individual and everywhere there is dependence. It is for this recommendation that the calculator gives a few. Everything can be learned practically.
> 
> I did not understand the tension. After changing the response of phases, consumption increased?


Like I had to increase vcore a lot to be stable at a given frequency when setting CPU power phase response to regular compared to ultra fast.

Short examples:

CPU power phase response = regular

CPU frequency 3.825GHZ = 1.4vcore STABLE

CPU power phase response = ultra fast

CPU frequency 3.95GHZ = 1.4vcore STABLE


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> Like I had to increase vcore a lot to be stable at a given frequency when setting CPU power phase response to regular compared to ultra fast.
> 
> Short examples:
> 
> CPU power phase response = regular
> 
> CPU frequency 3.825GHZ = 1.4vcore STABLE
> 
> CPU power phase response = ultra fast
> 
> CPU frequency 3.95GHZ = 1.4vcore STABLE


interesting result , I'll try to test it today









but again, the lower the switching speed, the less noise...

+

the kernel utilization factor and the multi-threading coefficient depend only on the "Infinity fabric", overclocking the processor is not as useful as overclocking RAM


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> interesting result , I'll try to test it today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but again, the lower the switching speed, the less noise...
> 
> +
> 
> the kernel utilization factor and the multi-threading coefficient depend only on the "Infinity fabric", overclocking the processor is not as useful as overclocking RAM


Okay !







I'm now testing higher switching frequency and phase responses for dram and vddsoc with these settings just to see what it's does to stability now with 1000%-1600% coverage stable settings. Yet my RAM settings are not yet 100% stable, maybe 95% stable but would be awesome to get 100% stable









At least my first Ryzen CPU liked higher CPU switching frequency and (or) Ultra fast- fast power phase response

I dunno if it was combination of switching frequency or if it was all on fastest power phase response settings that allowed to lower voltage because I raised both CPU switching freq to 400khz and power phase to ultra fast at same time so I really didn't test them separately









CPU 300khz switching frequency with regular power phase compared to CPU 400khz switching frequency with ultra fast response allowed approximately 100mhz more on CPU frequency on the same VCORE.


----------



## Rizen1700

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> interesting result , I'll try to test it today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but again, the lower the switching speed, the less noise...
> 
> +
> 
> the kernel utilization factor and the multi-threading coefficient depend only on the "Infinity fabric", overclocking the processor is not as useful as overclocking RAM


I thought the higher the switching frequency, the higher SNR and less the noise. Are you saying at higher switching frequency, the interference noise footprint is higher? What about the power supply unit quality of dc conversion and harmonic filtering? Could a low grade power supply be responsible for system instability?


----------



## Karagra

With your tools settings I can't seem to get a post at 3600mhz, but using the preset 3600mhz with the board will grant me a post just wont boot into windows any ideas?
This is my ram


----------



## porschedrifter

Not sure I follow, as far as I can tell I need to convert my tighter timings from ticks to ns then I can input them into your calculator app, correct?


----------



## lcbbcl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *porschedrifter*
> 
> Not sure I follow, as far as I can tell I need to convert my tighter timings from ticks to ns then I can input them into your calculator app, correct?


Thaipoon burner will do that for you.Go at Report and at bottom you will find Show Delays in nanoseconds.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *porschedrifter*
> 
> Not sure I follow, as far as I can tell I need to convert my tighter timings from ticks to ns then I can input them into your calculator app, correct?


Instructions is in the first post
Did you even bother to read it ?


----------



## WarpenN1

I can still at least make it to 900%(_*in progress*_) coverage when changing vddsoc from optimized to fast and changing dram's and VDDSoC switching freq from 300khz to 400khz.

*Ryzen is kind of random







. Maybe some Ryzen's like faster switching and higher current output and others don't(?) I have (yet) to notice any difference with my chip.*

But if and when errors are found in like 900%-2000% coverage region. How usually are those random errors stabilized? Should I then up in voltage something or touch termination or cad bus? That's darn long time to run stress test and when it finds error, changing one thing at time lol







Now it's been like 7-12 hours into memtest and 912% coverage.


----------



## 1usmus

*I want to share with you a short VRM test*








my power supply is platinum series, I can not sin on it




*@WarpenN1*

Indeed, in the ultrafast phase, the voltage is lower to start the processor at a frequency of 4 gigahertz
regular - 1.42, ultra fast - 1.369



try to copy my settings completely and check the stability of the system









*@Rizen1700*

If we increase voltage, the amount of noise increases in proportion to the signal strength. Depending on the selected mode, the number of power phases varies, which directly affects the stability of the processor, especially when overclocked, and inversely proportional to the energy efficiency of the converter. Perhaps the loss of stability is due to increased leakage currents, which in turn are a source of thermal noise + my test "VRM" can not be otherwise explained as the effect of coils on "CAD_BUS" and "IMC".

A poor-quality power supply will affect the overclocking potential even more.


----------



## Rizen1700

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *I want to share with you a short VRM test*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my power supply is platinum series, I can not sin on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@WarpenN1*
> 
> Indeed, in the ultrafast phase, the voltage is lower to start the processor at a frequency of 4 gigahertz
> regular - 1.42, ultra fast - 1.369
> 
> 
> 
> try to copy my settings completely and check the stability of the system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@Rizen1700*
> 
> If we increase voltage, the amount of noise increases in proportion to the signal strength. Depending on the selected mode, the number of power phases varies, which directly affects the stability of the processor, especially when overclocked, and inversely proportional to the energy efficiency of the converter. Perhaps the loss of stability is due to increased leakage currents, which in turn are a source of thermal noise + my test "VRM" can not be otherwise explained as the effect of coils on "CAD_BUS" and "IMC".
> 
> A poor-quality power supply will affect the overclocking potential even more.


I use titanium certified power supply and never experienced any system instability. Tested many combinations, tried 500kHz VRM switching in C6H mb. If the harmonic filters are working perfectly in the PSU and mb circuitry, the residual noise should not make a system unstable. Thermal noise is unavoidable for any system. It could be the 5th and 7th order harmonics in the PSU chain!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rizen1700*
> 
> I use titanium certified power supply and never experienced any system instability. Tested many combinations, tried 500kHz VRM switching in C6H mb. If the harmonic filters are working perfectly in the PSU and mb circuitry, the residual noise should not make a system unstable. Thermal noise is unavoidable for any system. It could be the 5th and 7th order harmonics in the PSU chain!


in your system, the memory controller works with two ranks or four?


----------



## WarpenN1

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *I want to share with you a short VRM test*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my power supply is platinum series, I can not sin on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@WarpenN1*
> 
> Indeed, in the ultrafast phase, the voltage is lower to start the processor at a frequency of 4 gigahertz
> regular - 1.42, ultra fast - 1.369
> 
> 
> 
> try to copy my settings completely and check the stability of the system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@Rizen1700*
> 
> If we increase voltage, the amount of noise increases in proportion to the signal strength. Depending on the selected mode, the number of power phases varies, which directly affects the stability of the processor, especially when overclocked, and inversely proportional to the energy efficiency of the converter. Perhaps the loss of stability is due to increased leakage currents, which in turn are a source of thermal noise + my test "VRM" can not be otherwise explained as the effect of coils on "CAD_BUS" and "IMC".
> 
> A poor-quality power supply will affect the overclocking potential even more.






Okay trying







I'm always getting error in the 1000-2000% coverage region and I still haven't figured out what could cause that :S


----------



## Rizen1700

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> in your system, the memory controller works with two ranks or four?


I only utilized twin module kit. After 3 trial and error I settled on G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW (8gb x2) kit.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rizen1700*
> 
> I only utilized twin module kit. After 3 trial and error I settled on G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZKW (8gb x2) kit.


this is a weak load on the memory controller, because of this, any power settings will in most cases be approached


----------



## Rizen1700

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> this is a weak load on the memory controller, because of this, any power settings will in most cases be approached


Does this mean that the IMC is not designed to handle task loads with fully populated memory modules above 2666MHz RAM speed? If it can handle twin modules why not quad?


----------



## lcbbcl

So usgin ultrafast phase will have negative sides in the future?
I ask for daily use.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rizen1700*
> 
> Does this mean that the IMC is not designed to handle task loads with fully populated memory modules above 2666MHz RAM speed? If it can handle twin modules why not quad?


I think if it's 8 ranks - the maximum frequency is 3200, if it's 4 ranks - 3333-3466. It is difficult to control the address bus and memory bandwidth with increasing modules.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lcbbcl*
> 
> So usgin ultrafast phase will have negative sides in the future?
> I ask for daily use.


1) It all depends how much your processor has large leakage currents. More preferably, if it is a processor without X.
2) affects the number of ranks of memory in the system, if their 2 - I think you can use even Ultrafast phase


----------



## lcbbcl

i have 1700x at 3.93ghz and dual rank b-die at 3200mhz with your settings..
i set fast(to test) and now from 1.395 V i am at 1.375 v,both cases LLC3 and seems to be stable.1h+ of p95.
if its stable to at least 5hours i will lower vcore again or oc to 3.95ghz


----------



## LightningManGTS

a few things I wish to touch base on this switching noise discussion

Current capability; specifically how much switching noise does it really introduce at +100%. Wouldn't a greater capability range reduce noise due to less constrain current?

and then phase control; wouldn't optimized with locked switching frequency's of 300 produce a negligible amount more switching noise with much greater efficiency and stability or does dram extreme phase control at 100% capability and locked switching frequency, especially with the crosshairs vi hero's 2 phase memory vrm, produce less noise then if it was set to optimized and 130% with locked switching frequency?

also termination frequency's, as someone who can't set rtt nom and wr to disabled/off with 4 dimm's me thinks there needs to be some way to calculate, as your dual rank 2 dimm settings work very well for me and end up being the difference between tentative and rock solid

Below is the calc for my kit, as always trc is set at 44 instead of 54 with gear down disabled (although I'm tempted to run it wihout gear down and trc 54 to see what happens, might need to disabled active spectrum as well)


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Arengeta

Subbed. Hello 1usmus over here aswell


----------



## WarpenN1

Somehow with these settings and with these new chip. I can raise DRAM and vddsoc higher without it becoming more unstable  I don't know if it's because of this chip or is it because I have more "proper" settings for my memory controller so when raising voltage(s). Leakage current isn't raising so much?


----------



## 1usmus

*@WarpenN1* and *@LightningManGTS*

I think if you limit the current, it will reduce the leakage currents and allow painlessly to raise the voltage where it is needed.

As for the frequency of power, I will say frankly that I almost did not test this parameter.

Please write your suggestion what to change and I will conduct the tests









*@Arengeta*

Hi









________________________________________________________________________________________

*A small announcement*

In the new version of the calculator an extreme preset for memory will be available, it has an average of 4 ns less delay


----------



## WarpenN1

I appreciate your work.







Now I'm getting over 2000% in progress coverage when I raised my DRAM and VDDSoC voltage from calculator's max recommended to 1.415V dram and 1.1v VDDSoC









Edit: now it's 2200% coverage with zero errors yet


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *@WarpenN1* and *@LightningManGTS*
> 
> I think if you limit the current, it will reduce the leakage currents and allow painlessly to raise the voltage where it is needed.
> 
> As for the frequency of power, I will say frankly that I almost did not test this parameter.
> 
> Please write your suggestion what to change and I will conduct the tests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@Arengeta*
> 
> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> *A small announcement*
> 
> In the new version of the calculator an extreme preset for memory will be available, it has an average of 4 ns less delay


I got one error but now at 2300% coverage, 

Hmmmmmmmmmm this is longg process

But my Bios settings

3200mhz_setting.txt 20k .txt file


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> I got one error but now at 2300% coverage,
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmm this is longg process
> 
> But my Bios settings
> 
> 3200mhz_setting.txt 20k .txt file


this process is endless


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *@WarpenN1* and *@LightningManGTS*
> 
> I think if you limit the current, it will reduce the leakage currents and allow painlessly to raise the voltage where it is needed.
> 
> As for the frequency of power, I will say frankly that I almost did not test this parameter.
> 
> Please write your suggestion what to change and I will conduct the tests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@Arengeta*
> 
> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> *A small announcement*
> 
> In the new version of the calculator an extreme preset for memory will be available, it has an average of 4 ns less delay


I suppose the single most important thing to figure out is what would be better, more leakage and less noise with lower voltage or less noise and less leakage but a ton more voltage when trying to stabilise ram and at what point do you set what terminators ect, even then that leakage from greater current capacity can be reduced using load line calibration so... I do feel like the lack of proper terminators settings is what's holding me back as for whatever reason setting dual rank terminations works marginally (I say marginally cause now I'm getting stuck at an IF q code after a while of using rzq 7/3/1 60 proc and I haven't gone back to test it after setting that all back to auto)

Edit: reading back my point became a bit foggy but in fairness to myself I wrote the first and second half half an hour apart. Also there where I was talking about voltages was referring to all voltages and not just dram voltage, specifically when your doing 4.0~4.1 GHz cpu overclock


----------



## Anty

I would say the best is perfect match - obvious things are obvious








In general it means you set ideal impedances / terminations - this would lead to lower voltages. Lower voltages means less current - less current means less noise.
But there is no exact formula how to do it. So often you fix one problem by introducing another problem (say bumping voltages). And so on....


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> I would say the best is perfect match - obvious things are obvious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general it means you set ideal impedances / terminations - this would lead to lower voltages. Lower voltages means less current - less current means less noise.
> But there is no exact formula how to do it. So often you fix one problem by introducing another problem (say bumping voltages). And so on....


Current is a fixed value based off of the work load and is represented by amperage, voltage is what drives the amperage to the silicon, more voltage means the same amount of amperage is reaching the silicon but in smaller faster intervals. Resistance will reduce the amount of voltage there by reducing the speed at which the amperage is hitting the silicon and in larger intervals. The way I understand terminators is that they reduce the amount voltage and amperage to parts of the ram that are otherwise sensitive to spikes of voltage or vrm noise. My question is what do these bits like more? greater amperage range and lesser voltage or greater voltage and less amperage range? (The current capability bit is what let's it draw more amperage from the voltage but there is only so much amperage a certain amount of voltage can provide, it's why undervolting reduces power draw)


----------



## porschedrifter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Instructions is in the first post
> Did you even bother to read it ?


Yes you seem to misunderstand my original question....

I know what is being said in the instructions, which shows you only the nanosecond conversions for XMP profile. However if you are using differen't timings than what XMP is showing you, well then, you indeed have to calculate your NS timings yourself. Which I was seeking clarification for, which was, is there a conversion calculator in the Ryzen Dram Calc app itself, or not.

Answer is, no there's not.

No worries though, the formula to convert timings from ticks to ns was provided, by me, in my original question post.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *porschedrifter*
> 
> Yes you seem to misunderstand my original question....
> 
> I know what is being said in the instructions, which shows you only the nanosecond conversions for XMP profile. However if you are using differen't timings than what XMP is showing you, well then, you indeed have to calculate your NS timings yourself. Which I was seeking clarification for, which was, is there a conversion calculator in the Ryzen Dram Calc app itself, or not.
> 
> Answer is, no there's not.
> 
> No worries though, the formula to convert timings from ticks to ns was provided, by me, in my original question post.


you still dont get it

to use the calculator you need to just enter the thiaphoon xmp settings not your own tightened timings or the output will not show correct figures


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v5*

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byx_5So-FNsdZVRsb2ZValFmc1U/view?usp=sharing

* Improved support for HOF memory
* added an extreme preset for Samsung b-die (of course for the brackets are not OEMs)
* Syntax editing
* Added a memory quality analyzer for all manufacturers + he can predict what frequency of the clock your memory can work on and on what preset

If the bars do not pull this preset - add tension. If adding voltage did not help - increase tCWL to 14.


----------



## Spectre73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *porschedrifter*
> 
> Yes you seem to misunderstand my original question....
> 
> I know what is being said in the instructions, which shows you only the nanosecond conversions for XMP profile. However if you are using differen't timings than what XMP is showing you, well then, you indeed have to calculate your NS timings yourself. Which I was seeking clarification for, which was, is there a conversion calculator in the Ryzen Dram Calc app itself, or not.
> 
> Answer is, no there's not.
> 
> No worries though, the formula to convert timings from ticks to ns was provided, by me, in my original question post.


That is completely wrong. You use the timings provided by thaiphoon burner. The calculated values are based on XMP settings. The only timing you change, is the DRAM frequency. There you enter the desired target frequency.
Not the original speed of the RAM.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v5*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byx_5So-FNsdZVRsb2ZValFmc1U/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * Improved support for HOF memory
> * added an extreme preset for Samsung b-die (of course for the brackets are not OEMs)
> * Syntax editing
> * Added a memory quality analyzer for all manufacturers + he can predict what frequency of the clock your memory can work on and on what preset
> 
> If the bars do not pull this preset - add tension. If adding voltage did not help - increase tCWL to 14.


ooohhhhhh let me have a look at the new version


----------



## datonyb

ram quaility = 85%


----------



## LicSqualo

good work 1usmus.

Probably the value safe & fast are reverted.











I will try the new "estreme" settings and I will show the results here.











Thank you!









This is my actual "safe and stable" settings (4.050Mhz) with my 1700 adding an offset of +0,22500V with auto LLC.


----------



## SpecChum

For tRFC do you input the value for 1, 2 or 4?

I note in your example image you've put the value in for 2?


----------



## 1usmus

There are no errors, we just enter only trfc, trfc2 / 4 - is not touched anywhere else


----------



## SpecChum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> There are no errors, we just enter only trfc, trfc2 / 4 - is not touched anywhere else


What I mean tho is here: 

You've put 260 in tRFC but it show 350 on the TB image, 260 is from tRFC2.


----------



## 1usmus

in the instruction error, thanks, I will correct


----------



## Anty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LicSqualo*
> 
> Probably the value safe & fast are reverted.


No - safe has looser timings, fast is tight so it shows "possible" max freq for given type of timings.

@1usmus - could you add load / save settings to file? If would help when upgrading versions (just copy file and not enter again).

There are some possible enhancements for lazy people







(I know you are doing it for free - just a thought):
- read SPD info directly from RAM (hard)
- read output file from typhoon and parse it
- enter values in clocks not ns
- have builtin database with most common RAM sticks

Anyway good job


----------



## LicSqualo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> No - safe has looser timings, fast is tight so it shows "possible" max freq for given type of timings.
> 
> 
> 
> right?


----------



## LicSqualo

yes Anty could be, you really right!
But "timings" are supposed... because is not so clear.


----------



## porschedrifter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre73*
> 
> That is completely wrong. You use the timings provided by thaiphoon burner. The calculated values are based on XMP settings. The only timing you change, is the DRAM frequency. There you enter the desired target frequency.
> Not the original speed of the RAM.


Ok, so there's no need to try and run tighter timings than xmp suggests? Even if you are running at a lower memory speed than xmp profile?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> No - safe has looser timings, fast is tight so it shows "possible" max freq for given type of timings.
> 
> @1usmus - could you add load / save settings to file? If would help when upgrading versions (just copy file and not enter again).
> 
> There are some possible enhancements for lazy people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I know you are doing it for free - just a thought):
> - read SPD info directly from RAM (hard)
> - read output file from typhoon and parse it
> - enter values in clocks not ns
> - have builtin database with most common RAM sticks
> 
> Anyway good job


* read SPD info directly from RAM (hard) - no access to documents SMBUS, NDA imposed + I do not have time to invent the wheel or compete with other programs

* read output file from typhoon and parse it - more complicated code for 1 second advantage. I will think

* enter values in clocks not ns - how do you imagine a precise count of timings for absolutely approximate values? The nanoseconds of CL14 can reach ~8,155 and 9,375. Rejected

* have builtin database with most common RAM sticks - I will not copy the data base Typhoon burner. This will not make life easier for users, they will have to spend time comparing with the profile

* could you add load / save settings to file? If would help when upgrading versions (just copy file and not enter again). - will do


----------



## sb43

Ok, I just saw this thread last night, and I'm trying to enter the values, but I'm obviously not entering anything correctly. Here is a screen shot of my report. Can anyone help me get started?


----------



## datonyb

yes your nerely there
after report button
scroll right down to bottom
hit display in nanoseconds

and there ya go the info to input in left coloum of `usmus wonderful tool


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sb43*
> 
> Ok, I just saw this thread last night, and I'm trying to enter the values, but I'm obviously not entering anything correctly. Here is a screen shot of my report. Can anyone help me get started?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


In the Thaiphoon burner on the page at the very bottom XMP nanoseconds


----------



## LightningManGTS

I'm back to running rqz 7/3/1 except now I'm doing procodt 68.8ohm with all the current capability's maxed and all phase control besides ram set to optimized. the diffference in stability is night and day like I was saying earlier. (the only reason why I disabled it all was because I was getting stuck at a weird boot code due to the nvidia drivers breaking everything and thought that might be it)

trc 48 seems like an interesting prospect, if only I could figure out why I need gear down to post....


also I... Hmm... I.... Hmm...... Your tempting me 1usmus


Edit now that I think about it, it might have something to do with the everything to do with the ec micro code I'm using


----------



## lcbbcl

Nice update but the extreme its actually impossible at least for me.I have F4-3200C14-32GVK and with fast i am stable,extreme need to be a mix of extreme and fast.
Memory chip quality 92% but 3333mhz its not stable dosen't matter what i do. I have the "luck" of a bad IMC?
What is TRFC alt?


----------



## LightningManGTS

had to set proc to auto and do the thing thats suggested in the power plan tab (no idea if thats helped in any way or not) but otherwise all I had to do was change like three or four other timmings and I got 3466cas14 to work with no immediate sign of errors by setting blck to 104mhz solid and memory to 3333mhz




at somepoint I'm ganna get bench scores but that also involves me having time. gonna go run aida now and see how long this lasts


----------



## datonyb

anyone going to pint out rtc indicates 3333 and we think you forgot to change that bit


----------



## Jeager

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v5*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byx_5So-FNsdZVRsb2ZValFmc1U/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * Improved support for HOF memory
> * added an extreme preset for Samsung b-die (of course for the brackets are not OEMs)
> * Syntax editing
> * Added a memory quality analyzer for all manufacturers + he can predict what frequency of the clock your memory can work on and on what preset
> 
> If the bars do not pull this preset - add tension. If adding voltage did not help - increase tCWL to 14.


Improved sup for HOF ? What do you mean with improved sup since you can only switch "Memory type" and the program will just calculate stuff from hardcoded settings ?

What's the max safe for 24/7 for bdie ? 1.5v ?
I think i'm stuck at 3333 for days since there is LCC options on the asrock x370 gaming x ...


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Improved sup for HOF ? What do you mean with improved sup since you can only switch "Memory type" and the program will just calculate stuff from hardcoded settings ?
> 
> What's the max safe for 24/7 for bdie ? 1.5v ?
> I think i'm stuck at 3333 for days since there is LCC options on the asrock x370 gaming x ...


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=max+voltage+samsung+b+die


----------



## Jeager

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=max+voltage+samsung+b+die


http://img.techpowerup.org/171104/zp5tm1qbi6.png

Nothing clear that's why i'm asking others POV


----------



## Anty

It depends what you consider safe








Samsung in its b-die specification says 1.5 is absolute maximum and
Quote:


> Stresses greater than those listed under "Absolute Maximum Ratings" may cause permanent damage to the device. This is a stress rating only and functional operation of the
> device at these or any other conditions above those indicated in the operational sections of this specification is not implied. Exposure to absolute maximum rating conditions
> for extended periods may affect reliability.


From the other side some people are running out of spec for long time.


----------



## LightningManGTS

Speaking of out of spec I couldn't get 3466 running without errors and the one time I did was a false positive. Back to running 3344 with tras at 30 and trc at 48 with no errors so its a definite improvement


----------



## Steelraven

Same question as @lcbbcl.
What is "tRFC (alt)"? Where am I supposed to put that in?
Also your program gives us every timing, but noch tRFC_1, _2, _4. This should stay on auto?


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> Same question as @lcbbcl.
> What is "tRFC (alt)"? Where am I supposed to put that in?
> Also your program gives us every timing, but noch tRFC_1, _2, _4. This should stay on auto?


It's an alternative of tRFC. With Fast preset alternative of tRFC is higher (if you are unstable with tight tRFC) and with safe preset, alternative you could use is tighter.


----------



## Steelraven

@WarpenN1
Ah ok, I understand. Thank you.

Another question:
When I enter timings, calculate a preset and click "Save Setting" the fields in the program are empty when I restart it.
I see that you generate a folder in AppData-Local with a settings file. But why isn't it saved?


----------



## Jeager

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> It depends what you consider safe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung in its b-die specification says 1.5 is absolute maximum and
> From the other side some people are running out of spec for long time.


Safe of any damage so it should be 1.5 max right ? (1.4v should be np since some 4XXX memory kit are rated at 1.4v default!)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> @WarpenN1
> Ah ok, I understand. Thank you.
> 
> Another question:
> When I enter timings, calculate a preset and click "Save Setting" the fields in the program are empty when I restart it.
> I see that you generate a folder in AppData-Local with a settings file. But why isn't it saved?


It should be saved, did you rename the folder or .exe aftert restarting the program ?


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> @WarpenN1
> Ah ok, I understand. Thank you.
> 
> Another question:
> When I enter timings, calculate a preset and click "Save Setting" the fields in the program are empty when I restart it.
> I see that you generate a folder in AppData-Local with a settings file. But why isn't it saved?


Nvm, it works now with v5. Kinda curious.
Ah yes right, I renamed v5 .exe what I didn't with v4.


----------



## WarpenN1

Hmmm does anybody know how much heat affects RAM stability and data integrity?


----------



## sakae48

i still confused at how this calculator works.. i mean.. how to determine the values if i want to change my RAM speed? I got the default timing speed at first but now thaiphoon burner doesnt even read the RAM








i'm running 3466 CL14 using someone's B-Die timings (i forgot who is it. definitely not stilt's) and now i want to try higher


----------



## LightningManGTS

so I understand and apologize if my work and my results seem inconsistent but in fairness to my self test 9 of memtest86+ (random number sequence all cores) is a true trial by fire way in finding errors and instability; it throwing a false positive is a new experience

also












I went back to trc 44 but also did tras 30 so... my only issue is that after a certain time while running aida's stress test fan control breaks









right now I'm running everything from the suggested power control panel from the calc in bios except for dram at 130% capability, cpu phase control set to auto, and doing the rqz dual rank settings like I said I've been doing like usual. oh and I'm leaving procodt on auto


Spoiler: My specific calc screens again if anyone wants to see the reference


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> so I understand and apologize if my work and my results seem inconsistent but in fairness to my self test 9 of memtest86+ (random number sequence all cores) is a true trial by fire way in finding errors and instability; it throwing a false positive is a new experience


Try HCI memtest. Run 12 applications with 750Mb memory size if you have Ryzen 5 1600 or 16 apps with 750mb memory size if you have Ryzen 7. If that passes 1 hour without errors or any instabilities your system is 100% stable.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sakae48*


Easy.
* Read out SPD (xmp) using either Taiphoon or use a alternative as mentioned at bottom of this post.
* Enter the corresponding nanoseconds for each timing into the calculator.
* Select "memory type"... where the B-die sticks are considered UHQ (Ultra High Quality)
* Select the apropriate memory rank for your dimm-sticks
* Select the amount of dimm-sticks used
* Enter the frequency of wich you want to know the settings of (for example we set "3200" without quotations for the 3200MT/s strap)
* Press one of the "preset" buttons to let it calculate

As a alternative to using the Thaiphoon methode, you can use this to read the nanoseconds instead
















Or try this if you like, to read SPD info.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Improved sup for HOF ? What do you mean with improved sup since you can only switch "Memory type" and the program will just calculate stuff from hardcoded settings ?
> 
> What's the max safe for 24/7 for bdie ? 1.5v ?
> I think i'm stuck at 3333 for days since there is LCC options on the asrock x370 gaming x ...


this memory often has all the parameters inadequately inflated, the calculator analyzes what the user enters and he himself recognizes what needs to be done in the calculations even more

1,46-1,48 - I consider these values as safe as possible
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> @WarpenN1
> Ah ok, I understand. Thank you.
> 
> Another question:
> When I enter timings, calculate a preset and click "Save Setting" the fields in the program are empty when I restart it.
> I see that you generate a folder in AppData-Local with a settings file. But why isn't it saved?


I use the standard storage method for variables, you can see for yourself what the program will save








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> Hmmm does anybody know how much heat affects RAM stability and data integrity?


of course, there are thermal noise on the module, and the lower their temperature, the more steely their operation, up to 60 degrees on the modules, is the upper norm


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> so I understand and apologize if my work and my results seem inconsistent but in fairness to my self test 9 of memtest86+ (random number sequence all cores) is a true trial by fire way in finding errors and instability; it throwing a false positive is a new experience
> 
> 
> 
> Try HCI memtest. Run 12 applications with 750Mb memory size if you have Ryzen 5 1600 or 16 apps with 750mb memory size if you have Ryzen 7. If that passes 1 hour without errors or any instabilities your system is 100% stable.
Click to expand...

Memtest 86 is a better way to test for stability imo
Usually... if that trows you a error... then your OC is considered "not stable"
False positives can only happen if you let the memtest86 run on multiple cores (Ryzen CPU).
So to eliminate false positives... it's best to let it run... using only 1 core (default for the ryzen platform)


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM calculator - video guide*

https://youtu.be/6-XkaF_Rp0c


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Improved sup for HOF ? What do you mean with improved sup since you can only switch "Memory type" and the program will just calculate stuff from hardcoded settings ?
> 
> What's the max safe for 24/7 for bdie ? 1.5v ?
> I think i'm stuck at 3333 for days since there is LCC options on the asrock x370 gaming x ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this memory often has all the parameters inadequately inflated, the calculator analyzes what the user enters and he himself recognizes what needs to be done in the calculations even more
> 
> 1,46-1,48 - I consider these values as safe as possible
Click to expand...

According to the B-die specs in this document... 1.5V is the absolute max (page 11)


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> Hmmm does anybody know how much heat affects RAM stability and data integrity?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> According to the B-die specs in this document... 1.5V is the absolute max (page 11)


so I wrote about 1.46-1.48







When I tested for 1.5 memory stability on this voltage was not at any VTT DDR


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> Hmmm does anybody know how much heat affects RAM stability and data integrity?
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> According to the B-die specs in this document... 1.5V is the absolute max (page 11)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I wrote about 1.46-1.48
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I tested for 1.5 memory stability on this voltage was not at any VTT DDR
Click to expand...

The maximum also applies to Hynix dimms according to this datasheet (4Gb) and this datasheet (8Gb)
If i read it right

EDIT :
I didn't mention VTT DDR


----------



## sakae48

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Easy.
> * Read out SPD (xmp) using either Taiphoon or use a alternative as mentioned at bottom of this post.
> * Enter the corresponding nanoseconds for each timing into the calculator.
> * Select "memory type"... where the B-die sticks are considered UHQ (Ultra High Quality)
> * Select the apropriate memory rank for your dimm-sticks
> * Select the amount of dimm-sticks used
> * Enter the frequency of wich you want to know the settings of (for example we set "3200" without quotations for the 3200MT/s strap)
> * Press one of the "preset" buttons to let it calculate
> 
> As a alternative to using the Thaiphoon methode, you can use this to read the nanoseconds instead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or try this if you like, to read SPD info.


oooo...... nice! big thanks! i'll use SIV instead. dunno why thaiphoon suddenly won't read my SPD anymore


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Memtest 86 is a better way to test for stability imo
> Usually... if that trows you a error... then your OC is considered "not stable"
> False positives can only happen if you let the memtest86 run on multiple cores (Ryzen CPU).
> So to eliminate false positives... it's best to let it run... using only 1 core (default for the ryzen platform)


I say false positive only because I may have rebooted the system too quickly and it would of errored in pass 2 of the single test mode hence why there was no stability to be found in os running aida's stress test.

Also if running aida's stress test for 6 hours while your out at the movies isn't a sure sign of stability I don't know what is..


----------



## Jeager

Ok thanks, the HOF 3600 are actually what I have.

I raised the voltage a bit and it look like I only have one errors now with these settings :



My tRFC is a bit high but since I wasnt passing memtest I incresed it like my tFAW.
I'm rebenching it now with 1.416v to see if there is any errors at this voltage and I will see next if i can't lower other timings


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Memtest 86 is a better way to test for stability imo
> Usually... if that trows you a error... then your OC is considered "not stable"
> False positives can only happen if you let the memtest86 run on multiple cores (Ryzen CPU).
> So to eliminate false positives... it's best to let it run... using only 1 core (default for the ryzen platform)


Tested with many programs and only one that could actually find an error was HCI. After some tests and changing between 2133mhz and 3466mhz my overclock would not be stable in games, they would randomly crash. Memtest86, testmem5, aida64, prime95 and linx would work without any errors for several hours, HCI showed me an error within 10 minutes. Even my friend who has stability issues with his system has errors on 1st or 2nd minute of HCI stress test while he can play games for 10 minutes and crash or for 5-6 hours without crashes.
I do not trust memtest86 while overclocked, only to check if the ram is faulty.


----------



## sakae48

so, i OC'd my RAM to 3600 with timings based on 1usmus'es calculator. one thing that bothers me, the tFAW value were higher than maximum value allowable on UEFI. apps said 114 while the UEFI won't allow higher than 54. i ended to leave it auto



detected as 36 on RTC


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> Tested with many programs and only one that could actually find an error was HCI. After some tests and changing between 2133mhz and 3466mhz my overclock would not be stable in games, they would randomly crash. Memtest86, testmem5, aida64, prime95 and linx would work without any errors for several hours, HCI showed me an error within 10 minutes. Even my friend who has stability issues with his system has errors on 1st or 2nd minute of HCI stress test while he can play games for 10 minutes and crash or for 5-6 hours without crashes.
> I do not trust memtest86 while overclocked, only to check if the ram is faulty.


memtest86 and memtest86+ are two separate programs with + being the better program
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sakae48*
> 
> so, i OC'd my RAM to 3600 with timings based on 1usmus'es calculator. one thing that bothers me, the tFAW value were higher than maximum value allowable on UEFI. apps said 114 while the UEFI won't allow higher than 54. i ended to leave it auto
> 
> 
> 
> detected as 36 on RTC


you need to switch your tfaw and trrds ns values


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sakae48*
> 
> so, i OC'd my RAM to 3600 with timings based on 1usmus'es calculator. one thing that bothers me, the tFAW value were higher than maximum value allowable on UEFI. apps said 114 while the UEFI won't allow higher than 54. i ended to leave it auto
> 
> 
> 
> detected as 36 on RTC


probably worth reading what you type (the last three lines)


----------



## sakae48

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> memtest86 and memtest86+ are two separate programs with + being the better program
> you need to switch your tfaw and trrds ns values


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> probably worth reading what you type (the last three lines)


snap. i misread my own writing









sorry for being dumb


----------



## figarro

@1usmus Do you think running ProcODT at 68.8 Ohm 24/7 is safe? I'm asking because your timings program even recommends 80 Ohm for some configurations and I've seen that video with the AMD guy saying ProcODT should be set somewhere in the 40 to 60 region...


----------



## 1usmus

procODT - a resistance value, in ohms, that determines how a completed memory signal is terminated. Higher values can help stabilize higher data rates.

For single rank 43-60 , for dual rank 60-96.


----------



## elguero

what's gbs and gbs alt and where can I find them on the crosshair hero vi bios?


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> procODT - a resistance value, in ohms, that determines how a completed memory signal is terminated. Higher values can help stabilize higher data rates.
> 
> For single rank 43-60 , for dual rank 60-96.


Did you find these values somewhere in a specsheet? I'm not doubting you as you've already helped me reach 2933 with Hynix dual-rank memory. I'm just trying to be sure it won't have long term effects.

Thanks.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elguero*
> 
> what's gbs and gbs alt and where can I find them on the crosshair hero vi bios?


advanced -> amd cbs -> umc
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> Did you find these values somewhere in a specsheet? I'm not doubting you as you've already helped me reach 2933 with Hynix dual-rank memory. I'm just trying to be sure it won't have long term effects.
> 
> Thanks.


These documents are under NDA. I explained that this value means there can be no consequences


----------



## figarro

Thanks for clarifying that. Now I'm going to try 3066 to see if a higher than 68.8 ProcODT value will help


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that. Now I'm going to try 3066 to see if a higher than 68.8 ProcODT value will help


Do you have a dual rank?


----------



## figarro

I've got a 32 GB kit (2 x 16) of Corsair 3000MHz CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 with Hynix M-Die.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I've got a 32 GB kit (2 x 16) of Corsair 3000MHz CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 with Hynix M-Die.


I think you need 80 to use for 3200


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I think you need 80 to use for 3200


I have not idea how to stabilize the RAM for 3066. I've tried 80Ohm, lower vSoC, higher vSoC, vDIMM up to 1.375, CAD_BUS 24 24 24 24 and 30 30 40 60. 80 Ohm seems to make the system bootable most of the times without auto shutdown/restart, but Intel Burn Test fails all the time after the second calculation on Standard. CPU is not overclocked and I'm using the power configuration that provides less VRM noise. And using 3200 timings for 3066 doesn't help either.

3200 doesn't boot, never did, even if I use the relaxed timings from 3333 or 3466. CPU is 1700x, stock frequency.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I have not idea how to stabilize the RAM for 3066. I've tried 80Ohm, lower vSoC, higher vSoC, vDIMM up to 1.375, CAD_BUS 24 24 24 24 and 30 30 40 60. 80 Ohm seems to make the system bootable most of the times without auto shutdown/restart, but Intel Burn Test fails all the time after the second calculation on Standard. CPU is not overclocked and I'm using the power configuration that provides less VRM noise. And using 3200 timings for 3066 doesn't help either.
> 
> 3200 doesn't boot, never did, even if I use the relaxed timings from 3333 or 3466. CPU is 1700x, stock frequency.


try it soc 1.1 vdram 1.415


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> try it soc 1.1 vdram 1.415


Same story. Now it doesn't even boot as consistently as before with these higher voltages. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I've got a 32 GB kit (2 x 16) of Corsair 3000MHz CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 with Hynix M-Die.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I think you need 80 to use for 3200


hynix m-die (single rank) 60ohm or 53.3 (3200mhz) in my pc. 1.375v before, with new bios in my asus prime x370 pro i dont need to set procODT and my voltage of ram is 1.35.

in past bios your app help me to use 1T, now my bios use this in auto... i think Asus read this forum...


----------



## kaseki

I strongly suspect that the memory boards do not present a constant impedance to the transmission lines connected to them from the CPU. The effective impedance may change with frequency, board and chip manufacturer, memory size, and slot used. Each motherboard will be different, and we don't know how tightly Ryzens hold to whatever their ideal impedances are. To compensate for this, we have proc_ODT and CLDO_VDDP to play with, among other possible tweaks. In my experience, the optimal combination for 3200 MT/s is not the optimal combination for 3333 MT/s. This hints that the transmission line VSWR is not well controlled at any particular frequency (at least at any frequency well above the 2133 MT/s or whatever design frequency), and the complex reflections on the lines require voltage changes as well as load resistance supplementation to find the sweet spot in the "eye diagram" that best discriminates "1s" and "0s".

I used 96 ohms for proc_ODT and auto for CLDO_VDDP at 3200 MT/s on Trident Z 3200C14 2 x 16 boards with success on the C6H, but going to 3133, I had to hunt through a range of CLDO_VDDP values for each proc_ODT value to find the combination that POSTed best, and then that tested best. I settled on 68.8 ohms and 0.91V respectively. YMMV.

Whether using someone's values associated with reported success with similar parts, or using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator that extrapolates from a large set of successful results, a baseline set of timing/resistance/voltage values should be considered a point from which experimental parameter perturbation should be performed if good enough stability is not evident in testing the given baseline.


----------



## AvengerUK

Great tool









I've been playing around with my oc settings, and it seems the best I can get is 3333 using safe settings. Anything else I.e. fast @ 3200, 3333 etc all result in memtest errors 20+ mins in.



Any suggestions for tighter timings







?

(1800x, taichi, cl16 b due 3600 2x 8gb)


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Ok thanks, the HOF 3600 are actually what I have.
> 
> I raised the voltage a bit and it look like I only have one errors now with these settings :
> 
> 
> 
> My tRFC is a bit high but since I wasnt passing memtest I incresed it like my tFAW.
> I'm rebenching it now with 1.416v to see if there is any errors at this voltage and I will see next if i can't lower other timings


your trrds and tfaw seem very low to me

maybe thats more the issue ?


----------



## Jeager

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengerUK*
> 
> Great tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been playing around with my oc settings, and it seems the best I can get is 3333 using safe settings. Anything else I.e. fast @ 3200, 3333 etc all result in memtest errors 20+ mins in.
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions for tighter timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> (1800x, taichi, cl16 b due 3600 2x 8gb)


Same problem, I'll retry safe with CAS & RCD & tRP to 14 and I'll see.
In your case I think you can try to lowerz tRAS & tRC and maybe before tRDRD & tWRWR to 2


----------



## Jeager

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> your trrds and tfaw seem very low to me
> 
> maybe thats more the issue ?


Well it look like I can't have something HCI free so I think I will restart my stability test with everything in safe & first timing to Fast and I'll see
I'm a bit bored of the Gaming X, you can't adjust LLC etc :s


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Well it look like I can't have something HCI free so I think I will restart my stability test with everything in safe & first timing to Fast and I'll see
> I'm a bit bored of the Gaming X, you can't adjust LLC etc :s


what does the calculator suggest for the settings i suggested ?


----------



## Jeager

tRRDS 7 / 6 in fast
tFAW 39 / 36 in fast

I'm with 7 & 39 + tRFC 433 atm and it's not ok

http://img.techpowerup.org/171106/p1kalmig2k.png

SOC is at 1.087 but I can only add an offset of 0.06 (which result in a 1.137v, this might to high for 24/7 ?)


----------



## WarpenN1

I'm now trying to stabilize higher voltage amount. Just to see how stable I can get RAM with higher DRAM VDDSoC compared to avarage voltages.

*All done with 3200mhz 14-13-13-26-40-256*

*Starting point:*

ProcODT: 60ohm
VDDSoC: 1.05V
DRAM: 1.395v
CAD_resistances 24, 24, 24, 24

*First memtest error at 2000%*

*Results 1:*

ProcODT: 60ohm
VDDSoC: 1.135V
DRAM: 1.45v
CAD_resistances 24, 24, 24, 24

*First memtest error at 34%*

*Results 2:*

ProcODT: 60ohm
VDDSoC: 1.135V
DRAM: 1.45v
CAD_resistances 30, 30, 40, 60

*First memtest error at 240%*

*Gonna update this as I get more tests done.*


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now trying to stabilize higher voltage amount. Just to see how stable I can get RAM with higher DRAM VDDSoC compared to avarage voltages.
> 
> *All done with 3200mhz 14-13-13-26-40-256*
> 
> *Starting point:*
> 
> ProcODT: 60ohm
> VDDSoC: 1.05V
> DRAM: 1.395v
> CAD_resistances 24, 24, 24, 24
> 
> *First memtest error at 2000%*
> 
> *Results 1:*
> 
> ProcODT: 60ohm
> VDDSoC: 1.135V
> DRAM: 1.45v
> CAD_resistances 24, 24, 24, 24
> 
> *First memtest error at 34%*
> 
> *Results 2:*
> 
> ProcODT: 60ohm
> VDDSoC: 1.135V
> DRAM: 1.45v
> CAD_resistances 30, 30, 40, 60
> 
> *ON PROGRESS but looks more stable than result 1 (87% at the moment)*
> 
> *Gonna update this as I get more tests done.*


14-13-13-26-40-256 ...
256 beiing the tRFC i presume
Suggest you try your luck with getting the same timings stable first, whilst tRFC is at the default value
IMO, a tRFC tweak can best be performed after you have found your magic-combo-of-settings for the memory frequency


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> 14-13-13-26-40-256 ...
> 256 beiing the tRFC i presume
> Suggest you try your luck first with getting the same timings stable first, whilst tRFC is at the default value
> IMO, a tRFC tweak can best be performed after you have found your magic-combo-of-settings for the memory frequency


I've been trying to get these timings 100% stable but haven't yet tried to tweak settings with high voltages that I'm running now. I've been thinking about just trying to stabilize these settings with higher voltages.

I'm just wondering maybe my previous voltages aren't just enough even with right resistances because of little random errors that appears in 1000-2200% coverage soo..

Raising VDDSoC from 1.05v to 1.135v and dram from 1.395v to 1.45v alone unstabilized my RAM settings so that first error count decreased from 2000% to 34%. But increasing CAD resistances from 24, 24, 24, 24 to 30, 30, 40, 60 Stabilized my higher voltage amount greatly. from 34% to 150% (and counting..)


----------



## LightningManGTS

speaking of proc I saw less success at 68.8 and more at 60 and then 53 with the 1usmus recommended dual rank termination on 4 Sammy-B dimms with my 3344 timmings. it took me saying screw it and putting it on auto after going back to 3344 for it to all of sudden to do aida for 6 hours and mining for 8-10... not to mention its half tempting to go back and see if 53 proc with 3466+fast timmings is as stable on this termination set... yet messing with cldo is never a fun time...

Disclaimer in case anyone thinks otherwise; I am NOT a seasoned memory overclocker and am just a monkey pushing numbers into the grinders with the glare of future shiny baubles in my eye's. This might as well be witchcraft for what little I have learned over the course of this thread evolving. 1usmus has done the terrible thing of feeding my overclocker's addiction with his wonderful calculator and so I'm merely throwing my petty observations and lack of scientific method out there in case it helps and/or is useful to anyone else.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> I strongly suspect that the memory boards do not present a constant impedance to the transmission lines connected to them from the CPU. The effective impedance may change with frequency, board and chip manufacturer, memory size, and slot used. Each motherboard will be different, and we don't know how tightly Ryzens hold to whatever their ideal impedances are. To compensate for this, we have proc_ODT and CLDO_VDDP to play with, among other possible tweaks. In my experience, the optimal combination for 3200 MT/s is not the optimal combination for 3333 MT/s. This hints that the transmission line VSWR is not well controlled at any particular frequency (at least at any frequency well above the 2133 MT/s or whatever design frequency), and the complex reflections on the lines require voltage changes as well as load resistance supplementation to find the sweet spot in the "eye diagram" that best discriminates "1s" and "0s".
> 
> I used 96 ohms for proc_ODT and auto for CLDO_VDDP at 3200 MT/s on Trident Z 3200C14 2 x 16 boards with success on the C6H, but going to 3133, I had to hunt through a range of CLDO_VDDP values for each proc_ODT value to find the combination that POSTed best, and then that tested best. I settled on 68.8 ohms and 0.91V respectively. YMMV.
> 
> Whether using someone's values associated with reported success with similar parts, or using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator that extrapolates from a large set of successful results, a baseline set of timing/resistance/voltage values should be considered a point from which experimental parameter perturbation should be performed if good enough stability is not evident in testing the given baseline.


Each board has an individual length of the bus, the quality of the shielding and the materials used. Each IMC has different leakage currents. Same thing with RAM. You are right about everything. By the way, my 910 does not work at all, although we have identical boards ...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> I've been trying to get these timings 100% stable but haven't yet tried to tweak settings with high voltages that I'm running now. I've been thinking about just trying to stabilize these settings with higher voltages.
> 
> I'm just wondering maybe my previous voltages aren't just enough even with right resistances because of little random errors that appears in 1000-2200% coverage soo..
> 
> Raising VDDSoC from 1.05v to 1.135v and dram from 1.395v to 1.45v alone unstabilized my RAM settings so that first error count decreased from 2000% to 34%. But increasing CAD resistances from 24, 24, 24, 24 to 30, 30, 40, 60 Stabilized my higher voltage amount greatly. from 34% to 150% (and counting..)


when we raise the voltage, the level of useful signal and noise increases, for this we change the impedance of the bus to less sensitive, as a result, we have better stability of the system
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> speaking of proc I saw less success at 68.8 and more at 60 and then 53 with the 1usmus recommended dual rank termination on 4 Sammy-B dimms with my 3344 timmings. it took me saying screw it and putting it on auto after going back to 3344 for it to all of sudden to do aida for 6 hours and mining for 8-10... not to mention its half tempting to go back and see if 53 proc with 3466+fast timmings is as stable on this termination set... yet messing with cldo is never a fun time...
> 
> Disclaimer in case anyone thinks otherwise; I am NOT a seasoned memory overclocker and am just a monkey pushing numbers into the grinders with the glare of future shiny baubles in my eye's. This might as well be witchcraft for what little I have learned over the course of this thread evolving. 1usmus has done the terrible thing of feeding my overclocker's addiction with his wonderful calculator and so I'm merely throwing my petty observations and lack of scientific method out there in case it helps and/or is useful to anyone else.


this is partly a quote was Stilt's words and I agree with him. In my case, I observed this situation: for a frequency of 3200, the minimum working procODT is 60, for 3333 - 68.6, for 3466 - 80.

When 4 modules are not installed in the system, 2 empty dimm connectors serve as an antenna for em of interference, accordingly we need to increase either procODT or change the state of the memory terminators. When 4 modules are installed in the system - procODT can be reduced by a step or two.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengerUK*
> 
> Great tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been playing around with my oc settings, and it seems the best I can get is 3333 using safe settings. Anything else I.e. fast @ 3200, 3333 etc all result in memtest errors 20+ mins in.
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions for tighter timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> (1800x, taichi, cl16 b due 3600 2x 8gb)


tRRDS 6
tRRDL 9
tFAW 34

you have HOF memory?


----------



## chroniclard

Noob question, what does "rank" mean? Single sided/double sided?


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chroniclard*
> 
> Noob question, what does "rank" mean? Single sided/double sided?


Ram have 2 sides ("left" "right" if you have chips in one side you have sigle rank if you have chips in two sides you have double rank.)


----------



## chroniclard

Cool, thanks.

First stage testing with app generated 3333 "fast" settings, 200% memtest passed. Will leave it going overnight see if can get further.

Think 3466 is beyond the memory/IMC. Unsure if 3333 fast would be better than 3466 safe.


----------



## chroniclard

Annoying, 1 error in nearly 4000% memtest @ 3333/fast.....think I will just ignore it.....


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chroniclard*
> 
> Annoying, 1 error in nearly 4000% memtest @ 3333/fast.....think I will just ignore it.....


I think that there will not be problems


----------



## ytv

Can someone help me out with getting my system back to a stable overclock at 3200mhz? Was running the system fine from 7/7 and a couple days ago got a bluescreen that ended up pointing to memory.

My specs are :
1700x (stock clock speeds)
RAM : F4-3200C14D-16GTZ (16 gbs, 8 gb each stick) G.SKILL TridentZ Series
motherboard : x370 msi SLI plus

I was able to run HCI test 850 - 16 instances and go to nearly 2000% 

I thought the system was stable until I got a bluescreen. I ended up doing a clean install of windows to ensure there was no software at fault for the bluescreen, and ran the HCI test again. Fails anywhere between 100 - 200% and nothing was changed in my bios.

Settings for ram were basically setting the profile to 3200mhz with the timings of 14-14-14-34. I believe SOC was set to auto or they were default. I haven't messed around with those settings at all.

Thanks to anyone that can help out.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ytv*
> 
> Can someone help me out with getting my system back to a stable overclock at 3200mhz? Was running the system fine from 7/7 and a couple days ago got a bluescreen that ended up pointing to memory.
> 
> My specs are :
> 1700x (stock clock speeds)
> RAM : F4-3200C14D-16GTZ (16 gbs, 8 gb each stick) G.SKILL TridentZ Series
> motherboard : x370 msi SLI plus
> 
> I was able to run HCI test 850 - 16 instances and go to nearly 2000%
> 
> I thought the system was stable until I got a bluescreen. I ended up doing a clean install of windows to ensure there was no software at fault for the bluescreen, and ran the HCI test again. Fails anywhere between 100 - 200% and nothing was changed in my bios.
> 
> Settings for ram were basically setting the profile to 3200mhz with the timings of 14-14-14-34. I believe SOC was set to auto or they were default. I haven't messed around with those settings at all.
> 
> Thanks to anyone that can help out.


cad_bus 30 30 40 60 + vddp 0.900


----------



## WR-HW95

Nice program, but looks like doesnt work too good with 64Gb.








If I try to set CAD_BUS or Termination block settings, I get stuck on F9 boot loop.
Actually even suggested procODT (43.6Ohm) makes that. 60Ohms works for me.
CLDO_VDDP on 425mV made my system to run again on 3333MHz divider after months, but still have to go for CR 2T.
I was using 3333 before weeks before I got first crash and after that it just made BSOD every time on desktop, so I have been running on 3200 since.


----------



## ytv

@1usmus

Hey thanks for the reply. I was a little bit proactive in this situation. I used your tool and this is the settings that were given to me


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







I'm not 100% familiar with overclocking ram and not sure what all the settings do, but I took this information and I basically plugged in the numbers into the respective fields.

here are all the screenshots of my bios with the updated values.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!














I don't believe I changed the settings that you suggested (cad_bus 30 30 40 60 + vddp 0.900) I do see the CLDO_VDDP voltage setting. I think that setting is in the 1st screen shot and currently it is set to auto. I am not 100% sure what you are talking about when you speak of the cad_bus. Is it the last screen shot where I have everything set to 24 ohm?

Please, do let me know if any of these settings in the bios seem off or unsafe in anyway. Because like I said; I took your tool and simply plugged in the numbers into the bios. I can provide additional screenshots of my bios if needed.

By the way with those current settings in bios (excluding the two you mentioned) I am currently above 1000% in HCI - Here is a screen shot of that as well. I have then since stopped the test.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Thank you once again.


----------



## WarpenN1

@1usmus

Setting my vddsoc to optimized actually puts SOC's phase response to fast. I noticed when I changed it to regular as upon when saving and exiting bios, it lists all the changes that I've made and one of the changes was VDDSoC phase response fast ---> regular even though it was set to optimized.

What is your take on new agesa that's going to be released? How much further do you think memory tweaks can be made with AMD generic encapsulated software architecture (A.G.E.S.A) updates without changing the whole IMC? I've read somewhere on the internet that they have rewritten whole memory management or something. Hopefully it shortens bios post times









Just some random idea for RAM calculator : something like CAD_Bus/resistance to voltage relationship directive little calculator would be super neat!


----------



## datonyb

@ 1usmus

heres an intresting question

how suitable do you feel the calculator will be in assisting ram settings for the x399 threadrippers bios/ram ?


----------



## chroniclard

woooo 4000% hci memtest passed, [email protected], thank you 1usmus!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WR-HW95*
> 
> Nice program, but looks like doesnt work too good with 64Gb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I try to set CAD_BUS or Termination block settings, I get stuck on F9 boot loop.
> Actually even suggested procODT (43.6Ohm) makes that. 60Ohms works for me.
> CLDO_VDDP on 425mV made my system to run again on 3333MHz divider after months, but still have to go for CR 2T.
> I was using 3333 before weeks before I got first crash and after that it just made BSOD every time on desktop, so I have been running on 3200 since.


most likely if you set "RTT" manually - the settings will not change, for the 2 modules will be the same as for 4
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> @ 1usmus
> 
> heres an intresting question
> 
> how suitable do you feel the calculator will be in assisting ram settings for the x399 threadrippers bios/ram ?


this system has no differences, everything will work similarly. The exception is one - the number of memory modules may affect overclocking. In the near future, will support these processors and 100%


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ytv*
> 
> @1usmus
> 
> Hey thanks for the reply. I was a little bit proactive in this situation. I used your tool and this is the settings that were given to me
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not 100% familiar with overclocking ram and not sure what all the settings do, but I took this information and I basically plugged in the numbers into the respective fields.
> 
> here are all the screenshots of my bios with the updated values.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I changed the settings that you suggested (cad_bus 30 30 40 60 + vddp 0.900) I do see the CLDO_VDDP voltage setting. I think that setting is in the 1st screen shot and currently it is set to auto. I am not 100% sure what you are talking about when you speak of the cad_bus. Is it the last screen shot where I have everything set to 24 ohm?
> 
> Please, do let me know if any of these settings in the bios seem off or unsafe in anyway. Because like I said; I took your tool and simply plugged in the numbers into the bios. I can provide additional screenshots of my bios if needed.
> 
> By the way with those current settings in bios (excluding the two you mentioned) I am currently above 1000% in HCI - Here is a screen shot of that as well. I have then since stopped the test.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you once again.


on the last picture "CAD_BUS" 30 30 40 60 instead of 24 24 24 24. But if everything is stable, you do not need to change anything


----------



## ytv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> on the last picture "CAD_BUS" 30 30 40 60 instead of 24 24 24 24. But if everything is stable, you do not need to change anything


Damn, was playing overwatch today and got a bluescreen. stop error code 0a. Interesting how that happens even after 1000% in HCI. I'll try out the cad bus 30 30 40 60 & setting the vddp to 0.900 to see if the issue keeps happening.

Edit :

Ran HCI again over night with new settings and got to 1500%


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Hopefully I do not get any random bsod


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ytv*
> 
> Damn, was playing overwatch today and got a bluescreen. stop error code 0a. Interesting how that happens even after 1000% in HCI. I'll try out the cad bus 30 30 40 60 & setting the vddp to 0.900 to see if the issue keeps happening.
> 
> Edit :
> 
> Ran HCI again over night with new settings and got to 1500%
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully I do not get any random bsod


good news


----------



## Highebd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> good news


Hello

Could you advise me what best setting for RAM "CL / MHz" and CPU overclocking? Thank you

- ROG CROSSHAIR VI HERO
- G.Skill Trident Z RGB 16GB DDR4 3600MHz (F4-3600C16D-16GTZR)


----------



## Highebd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> good news


Hello

Could you advise me what best setting for RAM "CL / MHz" and CPU overclocking?
Thank you

- R7 1700
- ROG CROSSHAIR VI HERO
- G.Skill Trident Z RGB 16GB DDR4 3600MHz (F4-3600C16D-16GTZR)


----------



## Gadfly

Here are my timings and Aida scores, what can I do to try to bring the latency down a bit?

BankswapAlt: Enabled



Bandswapalt: disabled



Timings:



Voltages:

CPU 1.375v Dram: 1.47 Soc 1.1375v VDDP .9v

Cadbus is set to 24/24/24/24


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gadfly*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Here are my timings and Aida scores, what can I do to try to bring the latency down a bit?
> 
> BankswapAlt: Enabled
> 
> 
> 
> Bandswapalt: disabled
> 
> 
> 
> Timings:
> 
> 
> 
> Voltages:
> 
> CPU 1.375v Dram: 1.47 Soc 1.1375v VDDP .9v
> 
> Cadbus is set to 24/24/24/24


You could try to lower these tRCD tRP tRAS tRC tFAW
Other then that... seems there's not much else you can do about it


----------



## Jeager

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gadfly*
> 
> Here are my timings and Aida scores, what can I do to try to bring the latency down a bit?
> 
> BankswapAlt: Enabled
> 
> Bandswapalt: disabled
> 
> Timings:
> 
> 
> 
> Voltages:
> 
> CPU 1.375v Dram: 1.47 Soc 1.1375v VDDP .9v
> 
> Cadbus is set to 24/24/24/24


Do you see any dif with BGSA enable or disable otherwise that aida ? I can't see any dif in games benchs but it's seems a bit better (like 0.5% in x264 bench)

I can't find informations regarding this (except the old post on the AMD blog but BGSA didn't exist at this time)


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

This AMD article can shed some light on the BGS settings


----------



## Jeager

No, read all my sentence


----------



## Karagra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> No, read all my sentence


I feel like the article he posted is a 100% accurate answer ?


----------



## Jeager

I'm referring to the same article but BGS is not BGSAlternative which is why I asked but nvm ..


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> I'm referring to the same article but BGS is not BGSAlternative which is why I asked but nvm ..


In Jeager's defense here the specific article he both initially mentioned and got given to as a response/answer does not touch on bgsalternaitve which is quite different to bank group swapping, and as some one who doesn't know what bgsalternative does other then bringing greater stability with no loss of performance I too would like to know exactly what it does to effect stability and what the down sides of it being enabled are.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Well...BankgroupSwap is related to memsticks on the same bank (for instance Bank A / Bank A) and BankgroupSwapAlt is related to that of different banks (bank A & Bank B)... i think
Or was it the other way around ? Can't remember Lol








So... that's that


----------



## Atomfix

Tried this with the G.Skill Trident Z 3000MHz CL15 16GB kit I've got which uses Hynix M-Die. The settings it gives me "Safe Preset" doesn't post on boot. Was trying to get some stable timings for 3200MHz with fail. Fast Preset also failed at the stock 3000MHz speed.


----------



## marcola20

sorry for the message...discard


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marcola20*
> 
> Hi, I'm Brazilian and I have a problem, my memory is the CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 on a MSI B350 TOMAHAWK Motherboard (MS-7A34) and I can not get the speed of 2933MHZ or 3066MHZ, I get stuck at 2800MHz because I do not know how to use it correctly all available tools, besides the Ryzen Memory Cauculator what more can I do to have all the correct parameters to try one of the two speeds above.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> also follow images if they help in anything.
> 
> -snip-


your not ganna be able to run any kit that isn't samsung b die ram without setting any sort of timings on ryzen, whether its just setting the primary's or otherwise, follow the directions in how to use the calc, punch the numbers into your bios, and see what happens. feel free to ask for further assistance (I am personally unavailable for the most part today so this is really all I'm good for)

also @1usmus a small suggestion might be to put a warning in the op to run the calculator yourself first before asking for assistance. This thread, while useful for general timming discussion and more specific questions and assistance IN use of the calculator, might end up becoming bogged down if more and more people come here just blatantly asking for what timmings to run without helping themselves by running the calc first...


----------



## WarpenN1

I backed down my RAM frequency by 97mhz from 3200mhz to fully stabilize it and to have some breathing space to possibly tighten some timings even more. Now hci have been running straight 65 hours with 3400% coverage







My RAM doesn't really like 3200mhz or higher. It's pretty hard to get it stable even with loosened timings ;I.

Next time i'm going for highly binned 3600 or 4000mhz RAM sticks that aren't so picky ;P


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> your not ganna be able to run any kit that isn't samsung b die ram without setting any sort of timings on ryzen, whether its just setting the primary's or otherwise, follow the directions in how to use the calc, punch the numbers into your bios, and see what happens. feel free to ask for further assistance (I am personally unavailable for the most part today so this is really all I'm good for)
> 
> also @1usmus a small suggestion might be to put a warning in the op to run the calculator yourself first before asking for assistance. This thread, while useful for general timming discussion and more specific questions and assistance IN use of the calculator, might end up becoming bogged down if more and more people come here just blatantly asking for what timmings to run without helping themselves by running the calc first...


I can not help people who can not enter the bios ... for competent system overclocking it is necessary to understand if it is not there - it is worth asking a competent person or studying. In YouTube there are a lot of videos
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> I backed down my RAM frequency by 97mhz from 3200mhz to fully stabilize it and to have some breathing space to possibly tighten some timings even more. Now hci have been running straight 65 hours with 3400% coverage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My RAM doesn't really like 3200mhz or higher. It's pretty hard to get it stable even with loosened timings ;I.
> 
> Next time i'm going for highly binned 3600 or 4000mhz RAM sticks that aren't so picky ;P


you have a lot of free time for tests, Windows raises much more errors than you can find in a multi-hour test

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Atomfix*
> 
> Tried this with the G.Skill Trident Z 3000MHz CL15 16GB kit I've got which uses Hynix M-Die. The settings it gives me "Safe Preset" doesn't post on boot. Was trying to get some stable timings for 3200MHz with fail. Fast Preset also failed at the stock 3000MHz speed.


motherboard?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Do you see any dif with BGSA enable or disable otherwise that aida ? I can't see any dif in games benchs but it's seems a bit better (like 0.5% in x264 bench)
> 
> I can't find informations regarding this (except the old post on the AMD blog but BGSA didn't exist at this time)


good article








https://www.synopsys.com/designware-ip/technical-bulletin/ddr4-bank-groups.html

in most cases, disabling these technologies will increase the performance in games, but I waste memory bandwidth


----------



## ajc9988

So, @1usmus - has anyone tried your calculator for TR so far? Considering trying it on my sets, just didn't know if the extra channels could cause conflict. I've already got what works for me set, just thinking of trying other timings to see if any improvement can be had. Here is my current settings.


I had [email protected] working until the recent bios update, but...


----------



## Clukos

Thanks for this, applied your fast preset with only a few tweaks for my memory, seems pretty stable!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ajc9988*
> 
> So, @1usmus - has anyone tried your calculator for TR so far? Considering trying it on my sets, just didn't know if the extra channels could cause conflict. I've already got what works for me set, just thinking of trying other timings to see if any improvement can be had. Here is my current settings.
> 
> 
> I had [email protected] working until the recent bios update, but...


settings for timings on all systems will be identical, differences only in procODT
frequency 3600 is a very rare phenomenon, to get it you need to have a very high-quality copy IMC
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> Thanks for this, applied your fast preset with only a few tweaks for my memory, seems pretty stable!


you have understated timings tRRDS/tRRDL/tFAW, mode of addressing 512 bytes instead of 1 kilobyte per page, I advise you to use the settings that the calculator recommends, otherwise you lose performance


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> settings for timings on all systems will be identical, differences only in procODT
> frequency 3600 is a very rare phenomenon, to get it you need to have a very high-quality copy IMC


I know. I got lucky with my SL 1950X. Here is some pics of what my 3600 scores looked like:





So, that isn't an issue (although I've never found a boot solution above 3600 with my chip, unfortunately). But, I can do 3600 CL16, it just doesn't perform as well as my 3466CL14 timings. So, figuring this saves some time for rough estimates in my process, and go from there. Just needed info if any differences are known to be needed.

BTW, for procODT, are we talking higher or lower than recommended for Ryzen when applying this to TR?


----------



## Anty

@ajc9988

what RAM you have?


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ajc9988*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> settings for timings on all systems will be identical, differences only in procODT
> frequency 3600 is a very rare phenomenon, to get it you need to have a very high-quality copy IMC
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I got lucky with my SL 1950X. Here is some pics of what my 3600 scores looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, that isn't an issue (although I've never found a boot solution above 3600 with my chip, unfortunately). But, I can do 3600 CL16, it just doesn't perform as well as my 3466CL14 timings. So, figuring this saves some time for rough estimates in my process, and go from there. Just needed info if any differences are known to be needed.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, for procODT, are we talking higher or lower than recommended for Ryzen when applying this to TR?
Click to expand...

ProcODT seems to need lower value when adding more mem sticks... Just tried it in the calculator...
Going from 2 sticks to 4 sticks made Proc go from 60 to 53 in the calc on same settings
So assuming it sorta applies in the same way for TR... going for 8 mem sticks would probably be needing a proc of 40-ish


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> @ajc9988
> 
> what RAM you have?


I'm running 4133 Trident Z black/white 19-21-21-41. I bought two kits when I had my Skylake build, so I threw the 32GB (4x8GB SR) into my TR build and put 16GB on the Skylake (Trident Z 3200), which is now my router/firewall/squid.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> ProcODT seems to need lower value when adding more mem sticks... Just tried it in the calculator...
> Going from 2 sticks to 4 sticks made Proc go from 60 to 53 in the calc on same settings
> So assuming it sorta applies in the same way for TR... going for 8 mem sticks would probably be needing a proc of 40-ish


Yeah, so far I've let the system handle many secondary/tertiary timings and other settings, but am planning on taking another crack at it soon. So, figured I'd ask.


----------



## Anty

I would try to lower your timings with your RAM. If you can run CL14 than I can say nice set you have. Check 14-14-14 or 14-15-15 - if it would work I would be jealous








What DRAM voltage you use?
BTW - why aida shows 14-18-18-46 and other app 14-18-19-38?
I have 4x8 and procODT have to be 53.3 for higher speeds (3466, 3600). Other won't work at all or unstable as hell (48 ohm). CAD bus settings help too.


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> I would try to lower your timings with your RAM. If you can run CL14 than I can say nice set you have. Check 14-14-14 or 14-15-15 - if it would work I would be jealous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What DRAM voltage you use?
> BTW - why aida shows 14-18-18-46 and other app 14-18-19-38?
> I have 4x8 and procODT have to be 53.3 for higher speeds (3466, 3600). Other won't work at all or unstable as hell (48 ohm). CAD bus settings help too.


Before talking, try to understand that if a person already has such timings, and has shown a modicum of already having their own custom settings, they have already ******* tried tightening those other timings. The only way for me to POTENTIALLY lower those is to raise the CL. Period. And that is no guarantee. I start with 1.5V on DIMM and 1.2 on SOC. Not going to be a voltage issue. 0.75/0.77 for the separate channels. I lower after I find full stability. At 3466 I'm running 1.4 on the ram, 1.0 on the SOC. I probably could go lower, but called it good enough, considering my ram don't get hotter than 34C under load (fans active cooling).

Also, those were two different runs when I was fine tuning it previously, trying multiple configs to find optimal performance in different use scenarios for different programs. That was to give a general sense of what I was getting with BIOS 1.70 on my Asrock Taichi X399 BEFORE the BIOS 1.80 with AGESA 1.0.0.4, which brought compatibility for Hynix and 128GB setups with all 8 slots populated.

So, before saying "you'd be jealous" try putting up and showing the results of your ram OC. If you have a TR and have higher performance with your timings, then let's see it and let's have an actual discussion on the topic, rather than this "did you try these obvious settings that everyone and their mother tries when they mess with ram timings." Seriously, I find your comment disrespectful and will not abide. If you want to see more of my OCing work, here: http://hwbot.org/user/ajc9988/

Edit: Sorry for the tone, but the only thing of use in your comment is discussion of the procODT and CAD bus settings. These sticks are what they are, and I had to pull similar on my Skylake build to run [email protected] and [email protected] The sticks want what they want.


----------



## Anty

Calm down. My point in "would be jealous" is that my chip will not do CL14 at 3600 at all with sane voltages (1.5 and 1.2) with trident z [email protected] Best so far was 15-14-14-38 but far from stability. 15-15-15 was OKish but tests with different apps show it is worse than [email protected] overall. But I aim for real life use not beating world records in particular app and looking for best settings for single given task.


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> Calm down. My point in "would be jealous" is that my chip will not do CL14 at 3600 at all with sane voltages (1.5 and 1.2) with trident z [email protected] Best so far was 15-14-14-38 but far from stability. 15-15-15 was OKish but tests with different apps show it is worse than [email protected] overall. But I aim for real life use not beating world records in particular app and looking for best settings for single given task.


I'll start with your last comment first. In figuring out what works best in a particular app or with specific workloads, you can decide to take a hit in performance or reading in another app, that way you do, overall, get the performance you seek.

Next, I hear you on the sane voltages, which is why I start with the higher on safe voltages, then reduce later. It is trying to remove one factor from the equation on getting the timings I'm looking for. But my timings on the RCD and RP have always sat higher than my CL. I've actually seen I can get those lower by raising the CL, but the performance lost (at least on the Skylake system, so I didn't try it here yet) was more than the performance gained by tightening those timings (on my sticks, in my old build, so caveat on this, as mileage varies).

I actually have a write-up I did on my general procedure on getting ram timings (I suppose I'll copy it here). This was to help a friend that was having some issues finding stability in overclocking his ram (with the friend I was helping being different than the friend mentioned in the edit part of the parenthetical below).

Also, I look for maximizing performance generally. So knowing what you use the computer for the most (or optimizing for the most intensive activity), while making sure it doesn't hurt performance much elsewhere is just part of it.
Quote:


> What you are getting at is the problem of Auto-tuning! I've had it also. To deal with it, I usually try to pick a CL that should work at a given speed and put the rest on auto. If it doesn't work, then I add a couple more of the primary timings and see if it boots. That is why I put so much emphasis on a boot solution. You cannot control the algorithm(s) used for the ram. You just can't. So, when you copy over ALL of the timings from what the algo said manually, it is unseen timings and timings you didn't change that make it not boot. In other words, the algo cannot find it's own solution if you fill in too many variables.
> 
> Next, you mentioned using mode 2 for the ram. That's good! On Asus boards, they have two algos: 1) I'm going to rip off your head and **** down your throat, and 2) aggressive, but a normal type of aggressive. If mode 1 doesn't work on an Asus board, always try mode 2.
> 
> So, generalized memory timing advice:
> 1) don't be afraid to leave a larger gap than 2 ticks between the CL and RCDWR and RCDRD timings (RCD). I regularly need 3-4 ticks between the two (CL14 18; CL14 17). In fact, you can go even looser if you need to in finding a boot solution.
> 2) populate the CWL! - Sometimes, the board will use the old, tighter Cas write latency instead of matching it to the CL! That can prevent it from booting A LOT OF THE TIME. Just populating that with the same CL you are trying can save on many no boot situations.
> 3) The RP DOES NOT have to match the RCD timings. It can be a couple ticks looser (I usually keep it within 2, like 18 20 when trying timings, but the point is, it doesn't have to be the same).
> 4) RAS is normally calculated as 2*RCD or tCL + tRCD + tRP (so a range is possible). You can do 2*RCD-1 to 2*RCD+10 or more. So sometimes having that looser can help find a boot solution. Try 2*RCD+(5 to 7). That can sometimes help.
> 5) Keep the RFC Loose. Loosen it up a lot when starting. Like 600 or more. You will tighten it later in the process.
> 
> So, those are the first ones to populate to try to find a boot solution. Start with just the CL, then CL and CWL. Then add in the RCD, then the RP. If that still doesn't work, manually enter the RFC. Finally, add in the RAS. If all of that is still not working, then we move onto the RC, the FAW, and potentially the RRDS and RRDL timings with the FAW.
> 
> Quick Note - Setting the tREFI and tREFIx9 - When setting these two timings, it is best to be as loose as possible. But, I found with my Asus board that the tREFI fully maxed on being loose kicked errors (specifically bit flips on the memory). That means, if you are having issues, you may want to take a moderate approach to setting those while looking for a boot. Too tight and you will have issues and lower performance, or errors, but too loose can cause errors also. We will loosen them back up later in the process, so just go with something decently high, but not maxed out.
> 
> Here AMD put out a little sheet on the meaning of the timings back when Ryzen came out and people were having issues. It is a quick discussion of what the different timings are and do. https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram
> They later tested different ram settings (not all applicable on Intel boards) to give a bit of guidance to people trying to OC their ram. It is similar in some ways to the post above by papusan, where the different speeds and timings were tested. https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings
> Basically, AMD was trying to educate its users as to how to OC the ram and what to focus on to get better performance. That is how you create enthusiasts, teach them that it isn't that hard and build their confidence in playing with settings they otherwise never would touch in a million years. I'm not trying to overly sing their praises, as these skills are transferable to a large degree between AMD and Intel, but anything to help get people interested in higher performance is AWESOME!
> 
> 6) Now the tRC. Here is what AMD had to say about it: "Row cycle time, or the number of clock cycles required for a memory row to complete a full operational cycle. Lower values can notably improve performance, but should not be set lower than tRP+tRAS for stability reasons." Generally, they are right. But I still try to tighten it a lot and sometimes tighten it more than this recommendation but not by much. Overall, try doing tRP+tRAS+(5 to 10) to get it booting. This, just like tRAS, acts as a window. tRAS is "the minimum number of cycles that a row has to be active ... to ensure ... enough time to access the information." So a lot of the general guidance is adding up other settings to figure out the amount of time to allow for certain actions (hence, timings). But, back to the point, the tRC effects performance and you will want to get this one low as well.
> 7) FAW. AMD says "Four activation window, or the time that must elapse before new memory banks can be activated after four ACTIVATE commands have been issued. Configured to a minumum 4x tRRD_S, but values >8x tRRD_S are often used for stability." Now this can get you some speed, but is often overlooked. Also, as you tighten this timing, you may need to, once errors form, try to tighten the tRRDS. When tightening that timing, you may also want to tighten the tRRDL at the same time (I found with my sticks, keeping tRRDL = tRRDS+3 worked well) (edit: on this point, my friend pointed out: tRRD_L timing denotes Act to Act delay for same bank group, while tRRD_S is different bank groups. tFAW is a timing for tRRD_S only. Four concurrent Activates are not sent to same bank group, hence no tFAW_L timing exists.; my point was that, through my experience with my sticks, keeping the timings around that differential helped for stability and not generating errors). This can sometimes allow you to get the tFAW tighter than it otherwise would be.
> 8) Now that the other timings are tightened, it is time to tighten the RFC and loosen the tREFI and tREFIx9.
> 
> After all of that work, you should be ready for a drink and to watch what comes from nice, tight timings.


----------



## zulex

I have a question on dram timing.
I was able to pass a ram stress test with 3466MHZ, 14-14-14-34, 1T.
However, when I entered appropriate nano values in Thaipoon to the dram calculator, I get 15-15-15 values which are higher than my previous ram timings which were stable.
This happens same with fast and extreme presets.
Is it ok to stay at 14-14-14-34 timings while taking the other values in dram calculator?
By the way, my sticks are Samsung b-die Gkill 4000.


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zulex*
> 
> I have a question on dram timing.
> I was able to pass a ram stress test with 3466MHZ, 14-14-14-34, 1T.
> However, when I entered appropriate nano values in Thaipoon to the dram calculator, I get 15-15-15 values which are higher than my previous ram timings which were stable.
> This happens same with fast and extreme presets.
> Is it ok to stay at 14-14-14-34 timings while taking the other values in dram calculator?
> By the way, my sticks are Samsung b-die Gkill 4000.


So long as they are stable with no errors, no problem. Keep your tighter timings. Don't know how you stability tested, but assuming you have already validated.


----------



## Esenel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ajc9988*
> 
> I know. I got lucky with my SL 1950X. Here is some pics of what my 3600 scores looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, that isn't an issue (although I've never found a boot solution above 3600 with my chip, unfortunately). But, I can do 3600 CL16, it just doesn't perform as well as my 3466CL14 timings. So, figuring this saves some time for rough estimates in my process, and go from there. Just needed info if any differences are known to be needed.
> 
> BTW, for procODT, are we talking higher or lower than recommended for Ryzen when applying this to TR?


I find your scores actually very low.
Latency of 78ns? UMA or NUMA?
Should be lower/equal 70ns to be good.
And read of 85k is also just ok. I saw a TR with 100k.
802

http://www.overclock.net/t/1628751/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread/780#post_26359852
Or:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1628751/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread/690#post_26328516a


----------



## b398294l

Hello. I use F4-3200c14q-32gtzr crosshair vi hero. I use your program to Calculate the value but still can’t stable in 3200mhz


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b398294l*
> 
> Hello. I use F4-3200c14q-32gtzr crosshair vi hero. I use your program to Calculate the value but still can't stable in 3200mhz


"Hi, I have a car. I filled it up with gas like you told me, but the brakes still don't work"

Means:
- Screenshot of the program with the timings you put in und what it calculated
- what exactly means "not stable"? Where is it not stable? What happens?
- which other BIOS options did you change except timings?


----------



## b398294l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> "Hi, I have a car. I filled it up with gas like you told me, but the brakes still don't work"
> 
> Means:
> - Screenshot of the program with the timings you put in und what it calculated
> - what exactly means "not stable"? Where is it not stable? What happens?
> - which other BIOS options did you change except timings?





dram 1.365v, soc 1.05v
procODT53.3, RTT NOM DIS, RTT WR OFF, RTT PARK RZQ/5
CAD_BUS 30 30 30 30
VTT DDR 0.6815, boot dram 1.365
I only change this value. when i open 16 memtest and set to 850, it will be bluescreen


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> What you are getting at is the problem of Auto-tuning! I've had it also. To deal with it, I usually try to pick a CL that should work at a given speed and put the rest on auto. If it doesn't work, then I add a couple more of the primary timings and see if it boots. That is why I put so much emphasis on a boot solution. You cannot control the algorithm(s) used for the ram. You just can't. So, when you copy over ALL of the timings from what the algo said manually, it is unseen timings and timings you didn't change that make it not boot. In other words, the algo cannot find it's own solution if you fill in too many variables.
> 
> Next, you mentioned using mode 2 for the ram. That's good! On Asus boards, they have two algos: 1) I'm going to rip off your head and **** down your throat, and 2) aggressive, but a normal type of aggressive. If mode 1 doesn't work on an Asus board, always try mode 2.
> 
> So, generalized memory timing advice:
> 1) don't be afraid to leave a larger gap than 2 ticks between the CL and RCDWR and RCDRD timings (RCD). I regularly need 3-4 ticks between the two (CL14 18; CL14 17). In fact, you can go even looser if you need to in finding a boot solution.
> 2) populate the CWL! - Sometimes, the board will use the old, tighter Cas write latency instead of matching it to the CL! That can prevent it from booting A LOT OF THE TIME. Just populating that with the same CL you are trying can save on many no boot situations.
> 3) The RP DOES NOT have to match the RCD timings. It can be a couple ticks looser (I usually keep it within 2, like 18 20 when trying timings, but the point is, it doesn't have to be the same).
> 4) RAS is normally calculated as 2*RCD or tCL + tRCD + tRP (so a range is possible). You can do 2*RCD-1 to 2*RCD+10 or more. So sometimes having that looser can help find a boot solution. Try 2*RCD+(5 to 7). That can sometimes help.
> 5) Keep the RFC Loose. Loosen it up a lot when starting. Like 600 or more. You will tighten it later in the process.
> 
> So, those are the first ones to populate to try to find a boot solution. Start with just the CL, then CL and CWL. Then add in the RCD, then the RP. If that still doesn't work, manually enter the RFC. Finally, add in the RAS. If all of that is still not working, then we move onto the RC, the FAW, and potentially the RRDS and RRDL timings with the FAW.
> 
> Quick Note - Setting the tREFI and tREFIx9 - When setting these two timings, it is best to be as loose as possible. But, I found with my Asus board that the tREFI fully maxed on being loose kicked errors (specifically bit flips on the memory). That means, if you are having issues, you may want to take a moderate approach to setting those while looking for a boot. Too tight and you will have issues and lower performance, or errors, but too loose can cause errors also. We will loosen them back up later in the process, so just go with something decently high, but not maxed out.
> 
> Here AMD put out a little sheet on the meaning of the timings back when Ryzen came out and people were having issues. It is a quick discussion of what the different timings are and do. https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram
> They later tested different ram settings (not all applicable on Intel boards) to give a bit of guidance to people trying to OC their ram. It is similar in some ways to the post above by papusan, where the different speeds and timings were tested. https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings
> Basically, AMD was trying to educate its users as to how to OC the ram and what to focus on to get better performance. That is how you create enthusiasts, teach them that it isn't that hard and build their confidence in playing with settings they otherwise never would touch in a million years. I'm not trying to overly sing their praises, as these skills are transferable to a large degree between AMD and Intel, but anything to help get people interested in higher performance is AWESOME!
> 
> 6) Now the tRC. Here is what AMD had to say about it: "Row cycle time, or the number of clock cycles required for a memory row to complete a full operational cycle. Lower values can notably improve performance, but should not be set lower than tRP+tRAS for stability reasons." Generally, they are right. But I still try to tighten it a lot and sometimes tighten it more than this recommendation but not by much. Overall, try doing tRP+tRAS+(5 to 10) to get it booting. This, just like tRAS, acts as a window. tRAS is "the minimum number of cycles that a row has to be active ... to ensure ... enough time to access the information." So a lot of the general guidance is adding up other settings to figure out the amount of time to allow for certain actions (hence, timings). But, back to the point, the tRC effects performance and you will want to get this one low as well.
> 7) FAW. AMD says "Four activation window, or the time that must elapse before new memory banks can be activated after four ACTIVATE commands have been issued. Configured to a minumum 4x tRRD_S, but values >8x tRRD_S are often used for stability." Now this can get you some speed, but is often overlooked. Also, as you tighten this timing, you may need to, once errors form, try to tighten the tRRDS. When tightening that timing, you may also want to tighten the tRRDL at the same time (I found with my sticks, keeping tRRDL = tRRDS+3 worked well) (edit: on this point, my friend pointed out: tRRD_L timing denotes Act to Act delay for same bank group, while tRRD_S is different bank groups. tFAW is a timing for tRRD_S only. Four concurrent Activates are not sent to same bank group, hence no tFAW_L timing exists.; my point was that, through my experience with my sticks, keeping the timings around that differential helped for stability and not generating errors). This can sometimes allow you to get the tFAW tighter than it otherwise would be.
> 8) Now that the other timings are tightened, it is time to tighten the RFC and loosen the tREFI and tREFIx9.
> 
> After all of that work, you should be ready for a drink and to watch what comes from nice, tight timings.


Most of the information is untrue, if you have knowledge of how RAM works, I can explain. There are formulas for counting quantities, the method "finger in the sky" does not fit here. Based on the mathematical calculations, a calculator + approximated values (Rtt / procODT).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I will be brief and will not consider all timings, only the main points

*Relationships between primary timings*

In conclusion of this part, devoted to the delays in accessing data, we will consider the main relationships between the most important timings parameters for the example of simpler data reading operations. As we discussed above, in the simplest and most general case, for the batch reading of a given amount of data (2, 4 or 8 elements), the following operations must be performed:

1) activate the row in the memory bank using the ACTIVATE command;
2) issue a command to read READ data;
3) read data coming to the external data bus of the chip;
4) close the line using the PRECHARGE row recharging command (as an option, this is done automatically if you use the "RD + AP" command in the second step).

The time interval between the first and second operations is the "delay between RAS # and CAS #" (tRCD), between the second and third - "CAS # delay" (tCL). The time interval between the third and fourth operations depends on the length of the transmitted packet. Strictly speaking, in memory bus cycles, it is equal to the length of the transmitted packet (2, 4 or 8) divided by the number of data elements transmitted on the external bus in one clock cycle - 1 for SDR type devices, 2 for DDR devices. Conditionally, we call this value "tBL".
It is important to note that the SDRAM chips allow the third and fourth operations to be performed in a sense "in parallel". To be precise, the PRECHARGE command can be used for a number of measures x before the moment at which the last data element of the requested packet occurs, without fear of the occurrence of a "break" condition of the transmitted packet (the latter occurs if the PRECHARGE command is submitted after commands READ with a time interval, less than x). Without going into details, we note that this time interval is equal to the value of the delay of the signal CAS # minus one (x = tCL - 1).

Finally, the time interval between the fourth operation and the subsequent repetition of the first operation of the cycle is the "recharge time of the line" (tRP).
At the same time, the minimum activity time of the line (from the ACTIVATE command to the PRECHARGE command, tRAS), by its definition, exactly corresponds to the time interval between the start of the first and the beginning of the fourth operation. This implies the first important relationship between memory timings:

tRAS, min = tRCD + tCL + (tBL - (tCL-1)) - 1,

where tRCD is the execution time of the first operation, tCL is the second, (tBL - (tCL-1)) is the third; finally, the subtraction of the unit is due to the fact that the tRAS period does not include the clock on which the PRECHARGE command is given. Reducing this expression, we get:

tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.

The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.

The second important relationship between timings follows from the fact that the full cycle of packet data reading - from the 1st stage to its repetition - is referred to as the "minimum cycle time of the string", tRC. Since the first three stages, as we showed above, can not take a time shorter than tRAS, and the latter takes a time strictly equal to tRP, we get:

tRC = tRAS + tRP.

The ratio of secondary timings will depend on the size of the addressing page (512 bytes / 1 kb / 2 kb)



Trrd, ACTIVE bank A to ACTIVE bank B command, RAS to RAS Delay, Row Active to Row Active - the minimum time between the activation of the lines of different banks. Architectually open a row in another bank can be immediately after the opening of the line in the first bank. The restriction is purely electrical - the activation takes a lot of energy, and therefore with frequent line activations, the electrical load on the circuit is very high. To reduce it, this delay was introduced. Used to implement the interleaving function.

As you can see, everything has a clear pattern and if it is met - the system will be stable. And no matter which processor will be used

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

About procODT:
The more memory modules are installed in the mother memory, the less there will be the re-reflections of either the line, the procODT will be smaller.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b398294l*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dram 1.365v, soc 1.05v
> procODT53.3, RTT NOM DIS, RTT WR OFF, RTT PARK RZQ/5
> CAD_BUS 30 30 30 30
> VTT DDR 0.6815, boot dram 1.365
> I only change this value. when i open 16 memtest and set to 850, it will be bluescreen


VDDP 0.900 + cad bus 30 30 40 60


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zulex*
> 
> I have a question on dram timing.
> I was able to pass a ram stress test with 3466MHZ, 14-14-14-34, 1T.
> However, when I entered appropriate nano values in Thaipoon to the dram calculator, I get 15-15-15 values which are higher than my previous ram timings which were stable.
> This happens same with fast and extreme presets.
> Is it ok to stay at 14-14-14-34 timings while taking the other values in dram calculator?
> By the way, my sticks are Samsung b-die Gkill 4000.


The quality of the chips is always a lottery, can work on understated timings, and may not work. for example tRAS 34 and tRC 48 this is already a huge insurance for stability, the maximum performance for tCL14 will be tRAS 22 tRC 36. Difference of at least 2 nanoseconds


----------



## b398294l

I tried and I still bluescreen with page fault in nonpaged area. Is it 4 ram hard to overclock?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b398294l*
> 
> I tried and I still bluescreen with page fault in nonpaged area. Is it 4 ram hard to overclock?


we have the same system with you, here's my profile, activate in bios and be happy









http://dropmefiles.com/ZjzEb


----------



## b398294l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> we have the same system with you, here's my profile, activate in bios and be happy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://dropmefiles.com/ZjzEb


Thanks!!! I will run memtest when I sleep.


----------



## Clukos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> you have understated timings tRRDS/tRRDL/tFAW, mode of addressing 512 bytes instead of 1 kilobyte per page, I advise you to use the settings that the calculator recommends, otherwise you lose performance


Is this the minimum recommended value?


----------



## Anty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b398294l*
> 
> dram 1.365v, soc 1.05v
> procODT53.3, RTT NOM DIS, RTT WR OFF, RTT PARK RZQ/5
> CAD_BUS 30 30 30 30
> VTT DDR 0.6815, boot dram 1.365
> I only change this value. when i open 16 memtest and set to 850, it will be bluescreen


Don't treat 1usmus tool as absolute solution for all.
It is good starting point but CPUs differ a lot so what works for 3/4 of people may not work for 1/4 for example.
I have same RAM config and DRAM and SOC voltages from the tool will not work stable for me for 3200. 1.4 DRAM (actually 1.41 to eliminate cold boots) and 1.135 - 1.15 SOC are required for me. Same was for previous CPU I had.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b398294l*
> 
> Thanks!!! I will run memtest when I sleep.


do you have 2 or 4 modules? if 4 - it is worth using the built-in presets in BIOS
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> Is this the minimum recommended value?


tRRDS 6 tRRDL 9 tFAW 24


----------



## b398294l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> do you have 2 or 4 modules? if 4 - it is worth using the built-in presets in BIOS


Yes 4 modules


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> Don't treat 1usmus tool as absolute solution for all.
> It is good starting point but CPUs differ a lot so what works for 3/4 of people may not work for 1/4 for example.
> I have same RAM config and DRAM and SOC voltages from the tool will not work stable for me for 3200. 1.4 DRAM (actually 1.41 to eliminate cold boots) and 1.135 - 1.15 SOC are required for me. Same was for previous CPU I had.


Pretty much, for myself I found that the sub timings the calc spits out is perfectly fine and all I really needed to do was mess around with the termination and noise outside of what the calc was saying as that's by and large where the system to system differences stem from, especially when you start to get into different boards from different companies on top of different memory kits with different dies


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Esenel*
> 
> I find your scores actually very low.
> Latency of 78ns? UMA or NUMA?
> Should be lower/equal 70ns to be good.
> And read of 85k is also just ok. I saw a TR with 100k.
> 802
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1628751/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread/780#post_26359852
> Or:
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1628751/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread/690#post_26328516a


The second link doesn't show anything related to your point. The first one does. But there is another factor there not considered, frequency of the CPU. Literally running 175MHz faster than my CPU, which would effect Memory read. Second, his other performance in benches is the direct same as mine scaled. My scores are roughly comparable to Chew's, give or take here or there. So, if the memory isn't fully translating into a massive change in benches that are memory sensitive, eh...

Also, you are saying Chew's memory read is "just ok." Do you get your lack of understanding?

http://www.overclock.net/t/1636550/amd-ryzen-threadripper-owners-club-1950x-1920x-1900x/2030#post_26418386

Maybe back up and try again, please.


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Most of the information is untrue, if you have knowledge of how RAM works, I can explain. There are formulas for counting quantities, the method "finger in the sky" does not fit here. Based on the mathematical calculations, a calculator + approximated values (Rtt / procODT).
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I will be brief and will not consider all timings, only the main points
> 
> *Relationships between primary timings*
> 
> In conclusion of this part, devoted to the delays in accessing data, we will consider the main relationships between the most important timings parameters for the example of simpler data reading operations. As we discussed above, in the simplest and most general case, for the batch reading of a given amount of data (2, 4 or 8 elements), the following operations must be performed:
> 
> 1) activate the row in the memory bank using the ACTIVATE command;
> 2) issue a command to read READ data;
> 3) read data coming to the external data bus of the chip;
> 4) close the line using the PRECHARGE row recharging command (as an option, this is done automatically if you use the "RD + AP" command in the second step).
> 
> The time interval between the first and second operations is the "delay between RAS # and CAS #" (tRCD), between the second and third - "CAS # delay" (tCL). The time interval between the third and fourth operations depends on the length of the transmitted packet. Strictly speaking, in memory bus cycles, it is equal to the length of the transmitted packet (2, 4 or 8) divided by the number of data elements transmitted on the external bus in one clock cycle - 1 for SDR type devices, 2 for DDR devices. Conditionally, we call this value "tBL".
> It is important to note that the SDRAM chips allow the third and fourth operations to be performed in a sense "in parallel". To be precise, the PRECHARGE command can be used for a number of measures x before the moment at which the last data element of the requested packet occurs, without fear of the occurrence of a "break" condition of the transmitted packet (the latter occurs if the PRECHARGE command is submitted after commands READ with a time interval, less than x). Without going into details, we note that this time interval is equal to the value of the delay of the signal CAS # minus one (x = tCL - 1).
> 
> Finally, the time interval between the fourth operation and the subsequent repetition of the first operation of the cycle is the "recharge time of the line" (tRP).
> At the same time, the minimum activity time of the line (from the ACTIVATE command to the PRECHARGE command, tRAS), by its definition, exactly corresponds to the time interval between the start of the first and the beginning of the fourth operation. This implies the first important relationship between memory timings:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tCL + (tBL - (tCL-1)) - 1,
> 
> where tRCD is the execution time of the first operation, tCL is the second, (tBL - (tCL-1)) is the third; finally, the subtraction of the unit is due to the fact that the tRAS period does not include the clock on which the PRECHARGE command is given. Reducing this expression, we get:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.
> 
> The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.
> 
> The second important relationship between timings follows from the fact that the full cycle of packet data reading - from the 1st stage to its repetition - is referred to as the "minimum cycle time of the string", tRC. Since the first three stages, as we showed above, can not take a time shorter than tRAS, and the latter takes a time strictly equal to tRP, we get:
> 
> tRC = tRAS + tRP.
> 
> The ratio of secondary timings will depend on the size of the addressing page (512 bytes / 1 kb / 2 kb)
> 
> 
> 
> Trrd, ACTIVE bank A to ACTIVE bank B command, RAS to RAS Delay, Row Active to Row Active - the minimum time between the activation of the lines of different banks. Architectually open a row in another bank can be immediately after the opening of the line in the first bank. The restriction is purely electrical - the activation takes a lot of energy, and therefore with frequent line activations, the electrical load on the circuit is very high. To reduce it, this delay was introduced. Used to implement the interleaving function.
> 
> As you can see, everything has a clear pattern and if it is met - the system will be stable. And no matter which processor will be used
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> About procODT:
> The more memory modules are installed in the mother memory, the less there will be the re-reflections of either the line, the procODT will be smaller.


Thank you for the more in depth explanation. Just having my first cup of coffee, so I'll need to review it again after fully awake.

What I wrote was, in part, to help a person who could not find a boot solution and teaching them how to search for a boot solution (even you know that the timings generated from accurate calculations, which I will concede I do not have in what I wrote, can still wind up in a no boot situation and the person driving themselves crazy looking for one). But, I will need to take the accurate calculation information, then modify how to perform a search for something bootable at a given speed. (In other words, if a person is persistent to reach a certain speed, this is a way to achieve "finger in the sky" over nothing).

With that said, I can only speak from my current level of knowledge on the topic, so I welcome being taught more and learning more on this topic. Once again, thank you. I do apologize if anything in this post gave offense, just waking up atm.


----------



## porschedrifter

Hey dudes!
So what is everyone using to benchmark and compare their memory scores?
I'm found an old (but latest) MaxxMem 2.04, which is old and no longer being developed which seems to work
Oddly enough, my scores running 16-15-15-15-36-50 1t (with all other advanced timings on auto) have a tiny bit better performance than the Calc's suggested fast timings of 16-16-16-16 for the same speed of 2800

If I go to 2966MHz for the timings I have to run to be stable, 3000 as well, the score is actually worse than the tighter timings. So I guess I'll keep with the lower speed and tighter timings.

MaxxMem 2.04 (old but latest version I could find online is here 2.04)
http://www.computerbild.de/download/MaxxMEM2-15080919.html

So here are the results:
16-15-15-15


And the Ryzen Dram Calc settings:


So my next question is, how can I figure out the advanced tweaked timings for running 16-15-15-15-36-50?
Or even some suggestions to tweak just a few of the more crucial timings, otherwise I'll just settle for auto









*Also, for those of you using HCI's MemTest, they recently updated their error detection guidelines* saying you shouldn't need to go past 400%:
"How long to test: Executive summary: 100% coverage represents a very thorough testing your memory, and will catch all but the most intermittent problems. To catch those much more rare intermittent errors run to 400%.

Empirically we have found that the vast majority of errors are found in just a few minutes. 60% of bad RAM is detected after just 10% MemTest coverage. Running the test 10 times longer (100% coverage) raises the bad RAM detection rate to 95%. The remaining 5% are intermittent errors. Unfortunately, there's no way to speed up detection of intermittent errors - you have to wait for them to happen. The same pattern may be stored accurately the first 1000 times it is written, only to fail on the 1001th write. We have found that testing to 400% coverage will catch almost all intermittent errors, but rather than trying to hit that number exactly, we recommend testing overnight. Your computer is not doing anything else at night anyway. Or, you can run MemTest Pro while you use your computer for other tasks, which can also help identify memory errors which only show up while the computer is under normal load. "


----------



## Esenel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ajc9988*
> 
> The second link doesn't show anything related to your point. The first one does. But there is another factor there not considered, frequency of the CPU. Literally running 175MHz faster than my CPU, which would effect Memory read. Second, his other performance in benches is the direct same as mine scaled. My scores are roughly comparable to Chew's, give or take here or there. So, if the memory isn't fully translating into a massive change in benches that are memory sensitive, eh...
> 
> Also, you are saying Chew's memory read is "just ok." Do you get your lack of understanding?
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1636550/amd-ryzen-threadripper-owners-club-1950x-1920x-1900x/2030#post_26418386
> 
> Maybe back up and try again, please.


You are right. The second link messed up.
But you did not answer if the score is UMA or NUMA based?
Also using NUMA gives roughly +5% performance in games.
Is yours a more gaming related rig oder for content creation?
Because using Uniform Memory Access screws your latency.
Could you provide a NUMA score?

Just my opinion.

Thanks.


----------



## ajc9988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *porschedrifter*
> 
> Hey dudes!
> So what is everyone using to benchmark and compare their memory scores?
> I'm found an old (but latest) MaxxMem 2.04, which is old and no longer being developed which seems to work
> Oddly enough, my scores running 16-15-15-15-36-50 1t (with all other advanced timings on auto) have a tiny bit better performance than the Calc's suggested fast timings of 16-16-16-16 for the same speed of 2800
> 
> If I go to 2966MHz for the timings I have to run to be stable, 3000 as well, the score is actually worse than the tighter timings. So I guess I'll keep with the lower speed and tighter timings.
> 
> MaxxMem 2.04 (old but latest version I could find online is here 2.04)
> http://www.computerbild.de/download/MaxxMEM2-15080919.html
> 
> So here are the results:
> 16-15-15-15
> 
> 
> And the Ryzen Dram Calc settings:
> 
> 
> So my next question is, how can I figure out the advanced tweaked timings for running 16-15-15-15-36-50?
> Or even some suggestions to tweak just a few of the more crucial timings, otherwise I'll just settle for auto


Use AIDA64 and SuperPi (especially SPi32M). That will give you a much better idea than MaxxMem at this point.

Edit: You can also do CB and wprime to see to some degree, but these already have their own variances on variables. The above two will give a good idea.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Esenel*
> 
> You are right. The second link messed up.
> But you did not answer if the score is UMA or NUMA based?
> Also using NUMA gives roughly +5% performance in games.
> Is yours a more gaming related rig oder for content creation?
> Because using Uniform Memory Access screws your latency.
> Could you provide a NUMA score?
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Thanks.


It is UMA. I don't mess with NUMA and will not do a NUMA score (I must have missed that part when waking up). Multiple reviews show little actual performance gains while it does nothing for my workload (content creation as a hobby). If I was building a gaming rig, why would I come from a 6700K to a 1950X? Literally, my 4.8GHz daily driver on an AIO outperformed this beast in gaming (although now I have a custom loop, first built, but I mis-seated the block on the CPU (first time I seated it, it was perfect contact, but I had to remove it for some reason, I forget why atm, and evidently the second time, due to the posts being so tight on the fitting distance, I got it wrong, evidently), so am limited by temps at 4.05, even though I have an XSPC TR4 block, at least until I have the time to drain and reseat). In fact, I ignore ALL NUMA scores on this platform.

But that does explain some of the confusion/disagreement between us, which is awesome. (please read the above as a direct statement, not as sass/snark/caddy). I am aware that UMA makes latency higher, but in actual performance, for the most part, it doesn't whereas NUMA can hurt performance in some things.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ajc9988*
> 
> Thank you for the more in depth explanation. Just having my first cup of coffee, so I'll need to review it again after fully awake.
> 
> What I wrote was, in part, to help a person who could not find a boot solution and teaching them how to search for a boot solution (even you know that the timings generated from accurate calculations, which I will concede I do not have in what I wrote, can still wind up in a no boot situation and the person driving themselves crazy looking for one). But, I will need to take the accurate calculation information, then modify how to perform a search for something bootable at a given speed. (In other words, if a person is persistent to reach a certain speed, this is a way to achieve "finger in the sky" over nothing).
> 
> With that said, I can only speak from my current level of knowledge on the topic, so I welcome being taught more and learning more on this topic. Once again, thank you. I do apologize if anything in this post gave offense, just waking up atm.


everything is normal







not always accurate calculations give the result, some values have to be selected manually, as you described, this is a real example. These people are called overclockers









the main thing is that in this thread nobody cursed


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> the main thing is that in this thread nobody cursed


... out loud [fixed it for you]


----------



## Xzow

ryzenramtimings3200xmp.JPG 263k .JPG file


How come it recommends me worse timings than the default DOCP profile (16-18-18-18)?


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xzow*
> 
> ryzenramtimings3200xmp.JPG 263k .JPG file
> 
> 
> How come it recommends me worse timings than the default DOCP profile (16-18-18-18)?


1st safe presets will always give you worse timmings as thats what they are-loose and safe timmings that can't possibly ever error check what fast timmings spit out and see what happens. 2nd, I might not have a general idea what hynix timmings look like in nanoseconds like I do sammy b but I can at least say your trfc vaule is utterly off and maybe your trc and tras but those could be right

also embed the photo in the post and not as an attachment, this forum is nice in that it lets you not have to download every image to see it


----------



## SexySale

Hi @1usmus,

I very grateful for your work and dedication to Overclock community and Ryzen users, especially RAM memory.
I am roaming around Overclock forum in search of answers to my RAM issues and most elaborate answers are coming from U and few other guys.

U did a great job regarding Calculator software. Concretizing spreadsheet values accumulated into one software








Thank U for that... Also BIOS MODS...

I almost sound as your groupie








I wanted to say few words of praise in one place and I thought this thread was suitable









Now I want to ask a few questions before I make some stupid move and make it worse, so please don't mind my ignorance.

I am the owner of Asus Prime B350 Plus, Ryzen 1600 CPU with 3.8Mhz at 1.275V and Corsair LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16(R - red) v.5.39 Hynix chip - rank 1.
I know this is not the good combination for CPU, MB and RAM, but at time of buying, this was not debated or mentioned anywhere as a problem. I have bought all in April, so I wasn't aware of that...

3066 from Agesa 1.0.0.6 is good and stable. No errors - no issues. But I want little more, don't blame me...









Because I have issues getting to 3200. I have tried all possible variations from the calculator, Stilt's MFR timings, other users timings, the voltage from 1.35 to 1.45, cad bus voltage, procODT, etc...
Nothing is working as expected. Sometimes not even cold boot, sometimes BSOD before Windows, sometimes after 20% Memtest errors, sometimes random BSOD (Memory controller, Timing "something, something")... So I tried really almost everything from previous posts and other users comments.

That said, now to real questions. I will try to make it short and concise as much as I can.

1. Because B350 BIOS doesn't have VDDP voltage as an option, do U think that it will change anything and use your MOD for this motherboard?

2. Do U need me to add my calculator screenshot timings and voltage here to show what I tried, to get a clearer image of what may be an issue?

3. Do U think maybe PSU has to do with it something?

This is for now...

I am sorry for taking your time and please don't mind me be this extensive.

Thank U in advance.


----------



## b398294l

Now d.o.c.p 3200mhz with 4 rams are stable on linx 20 times. 14 14 14 34 78.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

New Bios for the Killer SLI X370 is out.

But it does not work for me.
Bios does not see v3.4 but it does see v3.2

Tried global EU and China links, but none are seen









And i/we waited so long


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Hi @1usmus,
> 
> I very grateful for your work and dedication to Overclock community and Ryzen users, especially RAM memory.
> I am roaming around Overclock forum in search of answers to my RAM issues and most elaborate answers are coming from U and few other guys.
> 
> U did a great job regarding Calculator software. Concretizing spreadsheet values accumulated into one software
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank U for that... Also BIOS MODS...
> 
> I almost sound as your groupie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to say few words of praise in one place and I thought this thread was suitable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I want to ask a few questions before I make some stupid move and make it worse, so please don't mind my ignorance.
> 
> I am the owner of Asus Prime B350 Plus, Ryzen 1600 CPU with 3.8Mhz at 1.275V and Corsair LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16(R - red) v.5.39 Hynix chip - rank 1.
> I know this is not the good combination for CPU, MB and RAM, but at time of buying, this was not debated or mentioned anywhere as a problem. I have bought all in April, so I wasn't aware of that...
> 
> 3066 from Agesa 1.0.0.6 is good and stable. No errors - no issues. But I want little more, don't blame me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have issues getting to 3200. I have tried all possible variations from the calculator, Stilt's MFR timings, other users timings, the voltage from 1.35 to 1.45, cad bus voltage, procODT, etc...
> Nothing is working as expected. Sometimes not even cold boot, sometimes BSOD before Windows, sometimes after 20% Memtest errors, sometimes random BSOD (Memory controller, Timing "something, something")... So I tried really almost everything from previous posts and other users comments.
> 
> That said, now to real questions. I will try to make it short and concise as much as I can.
> 
> 1. Because B350 BIOS doesn't have VDDP voltage as an option, do U think that it will change anything and use your MOD for this motherboard?
> 
> 2. Do U need me to add my calculator screenshot timings and voltage here to show what I tried, to get a clearer image of what may be an issue?
> 
> 3. Do U think maybe PSU has to do with it something?
> 
> This is for now...
> 
> I am sorry for taking your time and please don't mind me be this extensive.
> 
> Thank U in advance.


there is hope

maybe more so for you with later bios updates

why ?

i used a 1600 and that exact ram for a build but used an msi tomahawk board..and that automatically loaded xmp profile for ram which to this day has run stable at 3200 (were talking 6+ weeks now )

my point ? if it can be done on agesa 1006 inside a msi bios ,then theres now real reason why not with a future asus bios
(maybe msi bios team actually had that exact or very similar kit to hand when writing there bios .i dont know )
but i was skeptical to the system owner who bought that ram that i would be able to get it to 3200 for him, but it just worked plug and play to BOTH our delights
(in another similar cpu/board i managed to just click 2933 and it worked ....but this time it was with 2400 corsairs !!!) so the corsair isnt quite as awful as we have seen


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> New Bios for the Killer SLI X370 is out.
> 
> But it does not work for me.
> Bios does not see v3.4 but it does see v3.2
> 
> Tried global EU and China links, but none are seen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And i/we waited so long


tried instant flash via bios + internet ?

and what is so important about
grey out instant flash with ftpm enabled ?


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> there is hope
> 
> maybe more so for you with later bios updates
> 
> why ?
> 
> i used a 1600 and that exact ram for a build but used an msi tomahawk board..and that automatically loaded xmp profile for ram which to this day has run stable at 3200 (were talking 6+ weeks now )
> 
> my point ? if it can be done on agesa 1006 inside a msi bios ,then theres now real reason why not with a future asus bios
> (maybe msi bios team actually had that exact or very similar kit to hand when writing there bios .i dont know )
> but i was skeptical to the system owner who bought that ram that i would be able to get it to 3200 for him, but it just worked plug and play to BOTH our delights
> (in another similar cpu/board i managed to just click 2933 and it worked ....but this time it was with 2400 corsairs !!!) so the corsair isnt quite as awful as we have seen


Thank U @datonyb,
I had the similar issue regarding 2933 stuck for few months, but after one of the updates I got 3066 no problems, so U are right








There is hope...

Maybe wait for little more, but I wanted to ask experts before that, so I don't make a critical mistake and make it worse.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

No i have not tried over the net, think i will skip that tho.

One thing i noticed in windows is that v3.2 is a Type 20 FILE and v3.4 is a Type 40 FILE.


----------



## WarpenN1

My CPU seems to be VDDSoC voltage hungry.









Vcore 1.39v now testing with 3.925GHZ. VDDSoC 1.05v prime95 crashes my PC in about 5 minutes inside the first set of iteration. But raising VDDSoC to 1.1v allowed it to pass 3-4 iterations already, 15 minutes without crashing yet.

But GOD my temps are a lot worse with kryonaut than with conductonaut :'(

Have to see memory stability again now that I touched VDDSoC









Edit yeah Got error just in 1 hr mark compared to crashing whole PC in 5 minutes with 1.05 vddsoc and now it's been longer stable (1.3hr) without errors yet in prime95 as I raised VDDSoC even more (to 1.12v)

Does infinity fabric use VCore voltage or is infinity's voltage supplied by VDDSoC?


----------



## Xzow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> 1st safe presets will always give you worse timmings as thats what they are-loose and safe timmings that can't possibly ever error check what fast timmings spit out and see what happens. 2nd, I might not have a general idea what hynix timmings look like in nanoseconds like I do sammy b but I can at least say your trfc vaule is utterly off and maybe your trc and tras but those could be right
> 
> also embed the photo in the post and not as an attachment, this forum is nice in that it lets you not have to download every image to see it


The fast preset was very similar timings, 21/22 or so.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Hi @1usmus,
> 
> I very grateful for your work and dedication to Overclock community and Ryzen users, especially RAM memory.
> I am roaming around Overclock forum in search of answers to my RAM issues and most elaborate answers are coming from U and few other guys.
> 
> U did a great job regarding Calculator software. Concretizing spreadsheet values accumulated into one software
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank U for that... Also BIOS MODS...
> 
> I almost sound as your groupie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to say few words of praise in one place and I thought this thread was suitable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I want to ask a few questions before I make some stupid move and make it worse, so please don't mind my ignorance.
> 
> I am the owner of Asus Prime B350 Plus, Ryzen 1600 CPU with 3.8Mhz at 1.275V and Corsair LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16(R - red) v.5.39 Hynix chip - rank 1.
> I know this is not the good combination for CPU, MB and RAM, but at time of buying, this was not debated or mentioned anywhere as a problem. I have bought all in April, so I wasn't aware of that...
> 
> 3066 from Agesa 1.0.0.6 is good and stable. No errors - no issues. But I want little more, don't blame me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have issues getting to 3200. I have tried all possible variations from the calculator, Stilt's MFR timings, other users timings, the voltage from 1.35 to 1.45, cad bus voltage, procODT, etc...
> Nothing is working as expected. Sometimes not even cold boot, sometimes BSOD before Windows, sometimes after 20% Memtest errors, sometimes random BSOD (Memory controller, Timing "something, something")... So I tried really almost everything from previous posts and other users comments.
> 
> That said, now to real questions. I will try to make it short and concise as much as I can.
> 
> 1. Because B350 BIOS doesn't have VDDP voltage as an option, do U think that it will change anything and use your MOD for this motherboard?
> 
> 2. Do U need me to add my calculator screenshot timings and voltage here to show what I tried, to get a clearer image of what may be an issue?
> 
> 3. Do U think maybe PSU has to do with it something?
> 
> This is for now...
> 
> I am sorry for taking your time and please don't mind me be this extensive.
> 
> Thank U in advance.


Hi!

1. VDDP greatly affects the stability. In the modification of the bios, there are other useful things like CLDO_VDDP, it can help stabilize the system. If you have BSOD this is more of a problem with signal quality. Try it for 30 30 60 60 for CAD_BUS (or 20 20 30 30 if the signal quality is poor. This can be known when you check both values).

2. RTС screenshot only needed

3. The influence of the power unit is not excluded
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> My CPU seems to be VDDSoC voltage hungry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vcore 1.39v now testing with 3.925GHZ. VDDSoC 1.05v prime95 crashes my PC in about 5 minutes inside the first set of iteration. But raising VDDSoC to 1.1v allowed it to pass 3-4 iterations already, 15 minutes without crashing yet.
> 
> But GOD my temps are a lot worse with kryonaut than with conductonaut :'(
> 
> Have to see memory stability again now that I touched VDDSoC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit yeah Got error just in 1 hr mark compared to crashing whole PC in 5 minutes with 1.05 vddsoc and now it's been longer stable (1.3hr) without errors yet in prime95 as I raised VDDSoC even more (to 1.12v)
> 
> Does infinity fabric use VCore voltage or is infinity's voltage supplied by VDDSoC?


Lack of voltage for CPU can affect the voltage SOC.I advise you to try to increase the voltage on the processor by a step or two, and only then increase the voltage to SOC.


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 1. VDDP greatly affects the stability. In the modification of the bios, there are other useful things like CLDO_VDDP, it can help stabilize the system. If you have BSOD this is more of a problem with signal quality. Try it for 30 30 60 60 for CAD_BUS (or 20 20 30 30 if the signal quality is poor. This can be known when you check both values).
> 
> 2. RTС screenshot only needed
> 
> 3. The influence of the power unit is not excluded


Thank U @1usmus for the response.

I will try this CAD_BUS suggestion from point 1, and give it a go. I have tried with 30 30 40 60 and 20 20 40 60 before, but, I will let U know.
Thank U for your time...


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Well i used the online update for the Bios, and it worked.
Strange how the Bios does not see it but does see the 3.2 version on my mem stick.

And so far i see no difference at all.









Will keep trying tho

Have tried the settings for 2933Mhz and still i get the fans spinning up on reboot, how do i stop it doing this ?

Otherwise seems ok with Cinebench but as i cant stop the fans spinning up at reboot i have not tried further testing.

M Die Corsair 32GB 2x16GB LPX Vengence, so i may still be pushing my luck.

I thought i would check my settings in Typhoon, just in case i got something wrong









Now Typhoon was taking ages to read my memory, after 5 minutes i made a cup of tea.

When i came back my PC had rebooted. Oh Buzzcocks

Help, my main problem is not having enough time to really look at it.
I should lock myself away for a day but i never get the time too.
So very frustrating


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 1. VDDP greatly affects the stability. In the modification of the bios, there are other useful things like CLDO_VDDP, it can help stabilize the system. If you have BSOD this is more of a problem with signal quality. Try it for 30 30 60 60 for CAD_BUS (or 20 20 30 30 if the signal quality is poor. This can be known when you check both values).
> 
> 2. RTС screenshot only needed


Hi @1usmus,
I will go straight for answers:

Tried those CAD_BUS values. Got little stable on 20 20 30 30 (on 30 30 60 60 earlier errors or BSOD), but still random BSOD and Memtest errors after 10%, sometimes immediately. Tried also various
DRAM Voltage for 1.385 - 1.42.
SOC - 1.08.
On 2T and GDM Disable, can't cold boot...wierd.
Here is RTC



Please let me know if U think your BIOS MOD should do some wonders or should I wait for AGESA 1.0.0.7 (1.0.7.0)?
I read in few places that it won't bring some major additional improvement of memory, just overhaul of BIOS...

Велике спасибі за ваш час та підтримку


----------



## BUFUMAN

His Bios Mod work superb!

I have no f***ing stuttering anymore
The latency timer is down to *3.2* from 3.8.

Southbridge without spread spectrum and HPET.

Control over SATA > i choosed show as ID 0x7904.

Win 10 fall fresh install with this > https://sourceforge.net/projects/windows-10-lite/

No iNet connection.
Disabled allow driver download.
Installed Amd Chipset driver, nvidia 388, latest Intel Lan driver 22.9, Titanium HD Pax 3.7.
Recognized with SDI https://sdi-tool.org that there is a SATA driver available for Amd sata installed it.

And beng! Fps is higher teamspeak starts without mouse stuck. And this time i have no sound scratches with sata driver installed (had this all the time before).

Btw i was on 9940 bios version.

This time i dont know why i had luck with 1701 because of the calc









Thx mate! I hate everything with *Spread* in it.
And i dont understand why they dont let us choose it.


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BUFUMAN*
> 
> His Bios Mod work superb!
> 
> I have no f***ing stuttering anymore
> The latency timer is down to *3.2* from 3.8.
> 
> Southbridge without spread spectrum and HPET.
> 
> Control over SATA > i choosed show as ID 0x7904.
> 
> Win 10 fall fresh install with this > https://sourceforge.net/projects/windows-10-lite/
> 
> No iNet connection.
> Disabled allow driver download.
> Installed Amd Chipset driver, nvidia 388, latest Intel Lan driver 22.9, Titanium HD Pax 3.7.
> Recognized with SDI https://sdi-tool.org that there is a SATA driver available for Amd sata installed it.
> 
> And beng! Fps is higher teamspeak starts without mouse stuck. And this time i have no sound scratches with sata driver installed (had this all the time before).
> 
> Btw i was on 9940 bios version.
> 
> This time i dont know why i had luck with 1701 because of the calc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thx mate! I hate everything with *Spread* in it.
> And i dont understand why they dont let us choose it.


Do you have some results for us? What did you test? What exactly runs faster and how much?


----------



## BUFUMAN

My only test is World of warships.
Max Frames moved up to 165fps from 140fps. Min frames 78fps to 90-95fps

The system feels snappy. Like with i7









I dont have mouse stuck when starting a program.

This is all i tested so far.

Update:
Windows changed something now the mouse stuttering is back when starting TeamSpeak. But fps are high as yesterday.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Hi @1usmus,
> I will go straight for answers:
> 
> Tried those CAD_BUS values. Got little stable on 20 20 30 30 (on 30 30 60 60 earlier errors or BSOD), but still random BSOD and Memtest errors after 10%, sometimes immediately. Tried also various
> DRAM Voltage for 1.385 - 1.42.
> SOC - 1.08.
> On 2T and GDM Disable, can't cold boot...wierd.
> Here is RTC
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if U think your BIOS MOD should do some wonders or should I wait for AGESA 1.0.0.7 (1.0.7.0)?
> I read in few places that it won't bring some major additional improvement of memory, just overhaul of BIOS...
> 
> Велике спасибі за ваш час та підтримку


tRTP 12 + try installing the MOD_BIOS and using CLDO 425 or 855 mv
agesa 1.0.0.7 , i think it will worsen the overclocking of memory, it should not be expected
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BUFUMAN*
> 
> My only test is World of warships.
> Max Frames moved up to 165fps from 140fps. Min frames 78fps to 90-95fps
> 
> The system feels snappy. Like with i7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have mouse stuck when starting a program.
> 
> This is all i tested so far.
> 
> Update:
> Windows changed something now the mouse stuttering is back when starting TeamSpeak. But fps are high as yesterday.


good result !


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> tRTP 12 + try installing the MOD_BIOS and using CLDO 425 or 855 mv
> agesa 1.0.0.7 , i think it will worsen the overclocking of memory, it should not be expected


Thank U @1usmus, I will try those settings.

I have tried to install Moded BIOS from U (ASUS Prime B350 Plus 1002), but I am gotting error after typing
AFUDOS B350PLUS1002MOD.rom /GAN > *30 - error problem opening file for reading*

Do U know maybe reason why?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Thank U @1usmus, I will try those settings.
> 
> I have tried to install Moded BIOS from U (ASUS Prime B350 Plus 1002), but I am gotting error after typing
> AFUDOS B350PLUS1002MOD.rom /GAN > *30 - error problem opening file for reading*
> 
> Do U know maybe reason why?


Rename a file for example in 123.rom , should help


----------



## 1usmus

I tested *Memory Interleaving* and got interesting results:

3.8ghz EDC disable

1kb - not started system
512 bytes - 1703 CB score
256 bytes - 1713 CB score

and this is not a statistical error, I ran 10 starts in each mode

y-cruncher test coming soon


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I tested *Memory Interleaving* and got interesting results:
> 
> 3.8ghz EDC disable
> 
> 1kb - not started system
> 512 bytes - 1703 CB score
> 256 bytes - 1713 CB score
> 
> and this is not a statistical error, I ran 10 starts in each mode
> 
> y-cruncher test coming soon


1usmus

sometimes the translation does not come over very well

what did you do to memory interleaving ?

turn on turn off ?

please expand your testing discription friend


----------



## SLOWION

Thanks for this tool, very helpful in getting started! Finally got my G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3000C15D-16GVKB (Hynix M-Die) up to 3200Mhz, 1.4v voltage, 1.10 SoC, procODT 53.3

Took me a couple attempts to get this stable so I'm not sure if I should go for 3066 with tighter timings instead or keep it as is


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SLOWION*
> 
> Thanks for this tool, very helpful in getting started! Finally got my G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3000C15D-16GVKB (Hynix M-Die) up to 3200Mhz, 1.4v voltage, 1.10 SoC, procODT 53.3
> 
> Took me a couple attempts to get this stable so I'm not sure if I should go for 3066 with tighter timings instead or keep it as is


I think it's best to leave 3200 + tRDRD/tWRWR 4 or 5


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> 1usmus
> 
> sometimes the translation does not come over very well
> 
> what did you do to memory interleaving ?
> 
> turn on turn off ?
> 
> please expand your testing discription friend


there is no setting to enable or disable, there is only a choice of page size : 256 / 512 / 1 / 2
CB = Cine-bench

that requires explanation?


----------



## CharlieWheelie

1asmus do you think that i would be able to get my RAM to run @ 3200 or am i better off running slower ?

With your software at least now i know where to start, and this weekend i'm locking myself away for the day.
I am definitely closer now, did not stand a chance before.

Cheers your a Diamond Geezer









Internet update worked, but for some reason i can't get VDDP to go lower than 0.912v in HWInfo even when setting Bios below 0.9v
Worked on the last Bios v3.2

If i'm gonna stress myself out, i at least want to know if i'm banging my head against a wall first.
Then i shall just play games









Corsair LPX Vengence CMK32GX4M2B3200C16
1800X [email protected]


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> 1asmus do you think that i would be able to get my RAM to run @ 3200 or am i better off running slower ?
> 
> With your software at least now i know where to start, and this weekend i'm locking myself away for the day.
> I am definitely closer now, did not stand a chance before.
> 
> Cheers your a Diamond Geezer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internet update worked, but for some reason i can't get VDDP to go lower than 0.912v in HWInfo even when setting Bios below 0.9v
> Worked on the last Bios v3.2
> 
> If i'm gonna stress myself out, i at least want to know if i'm banging my head against a wall first.
> Then i shall just play games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corsair LPX Vengence CMK32GX4M2B3200C16
> 1800X [email protected]


it all depends on the processor instance, if the MEMCLK hole is in the range of 3200 - the memory will work

do not pay attention to the value that sees hwinfo, all values in the calculator are values that we set manually


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Rename a file for example in 123.rom , should help


Yes, that worked... I feel dumb right now









Ok, so I tried everthing U suggested, no stability.

So what I did is:

VDDP Voltage (both) > 0.9 V
DRAM Voltage > 1.35 - 1.45 V
CLDO_VDDP > 425, 855, 866, 945 mV
CAD_BUS > 20 20 30 30, 30 30 40 60, 30 30 60 60
VTT DDR Voltage > 0.6992, 0.7 V
SoC VOltage > 1.05 - 1.1 V
tRTP > 12
Is there any combination I should try or I just need to give up?

Thank U @1usmus for guidence, time and patience.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BUFUMAN*
> 
> ....
> Recognized with SDI https://sdi-tool.org that there is a SATA driver available for Amd sata installed it.
> .....


Thanks for the tip.
That tool works better then the tools i used before and saves me time


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> it all depends on the processor instance, if the MEMCLK hole is in the range of 3200 - the memory will work
> 
> do not pay attention to the value that sees hwinfo, all values in the calculator are values that we set manually


Cheers 1usmus, i was nearly there with 2933Mhz with your Calculator settings before the update.
But now after quick testing i need to sort my cpu out again, i know where to start anyway now with both cpu and mem.
So hopefully this weekend i can get both sorted.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> there is no setting to enable or disable, there is only a choice of page size : 256 / 512 / 1 / 2
> CB = Cine-bench
> 
> that requires explanation?










i think we all understood the cinebench reference

i was asking for some details on the actual bios adjustment and findings

so im assuming on the interleaving tab in bios there is settings for 256/512 etc and these can make a good adjustment to cb scores ?

you see myself like many others have not the high level of experiance as yourself /stilt / elmor / chew

the thing i like about your posts and wisdom is usually you explain things better to other people

us mere 'learners' somethimes dont fully understand what experts post, hence why i asked

sorry if you felt i was being rude


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Thanks for the tip.
> That tool works better then the tools i used before and saves me time


i looked into that yesterday

it seems you need to be careful where exactly you download that tool

some sources have had it 'doctored' by driveagent into having a load of adware

no doubt its a great assett esp for on the go pc driver updating, just be careful where you get the download

(apprently the original author used to work for driveagent and left etc etc etc and they purposely try to mess his program)


----------



## xcr89

trfc (alt) same value should go in trfc2 and trfc4?

The CLDO_VDDP says 425 it should be 0.425 in bios?

Any idea how i can improve my timings further or what values i should try out to get better ns on memory, the docp profile that i based the fast preset on.

I'm using cmk16gx4m2z3200c16 4.31 b-die, CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB)

Here is some pics

 

Currently using timings from this preset below



Thanks in advance


----------



## WarpenN1

I was in contact with NZXT about possibility of buying a new copper plate for my x62 because it looks like a metal block now.. That could maybe be the part reason why my temps are wayy worse with kryonaut than with conductonaut was.

Now I'm getting 77c prime95 temps with fans set to max at 1.4v llc5... I noticed with my first ryzen (when I had stock cooler installed and even at 3.7ghz) that at higher temps it could easily throw a 00 q code, processor not working. Though i had sense skew enabled so I really didn't know my temps back then.

I was wondering if when overclocking Ryzen, that it would become much more sensitive to heat caused errors?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Yes, that worked... I feel dumb right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so I tried everthing U suggested, no stability.
> 
> So what I did is:
> 
> VDDP Voltage (both) > 0.9 V
> DRAM Voltage > 1.35 - 1.45 V
> CLDO_VDDP > 425, 855, 866, 945 mV
> CAD_BUS > 20 20 30 30, 30 30 40 60, 30 30 60 60
> VTT DDR Voltage > 0.6992, 0.7 V
> SoC VOltage > 1.05 - 1.1 V
> tRTP > 12
> Is there any combination I should try or I just need to give up?
> 
> Thank U @1usmus for guidence, time and patience.


I think it's worth checking this out CLDO_VDDP 0.700 , this value from the new BIOS, the tests showed very good stability and easy start of the system
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think we all understood the cinebench reference
> 
> i was asking for some details on the actual bios adjustment and findings
> 
> so im assuming on the interleaving tab in bios there is settings for 256/512 etc and these can make a good adjustment to cb scores ?
> 
> you see myself like many others have not the high level of experiance as yourself /stilt / elmor / chew
> 
> the thing i like about your posts and wisdom is usually you explain things better to other people
> 
> us mere 'learners' somethimes dont fully understand what experts post, hence why i asked
> 
> sorry if you felt i was being rude


I understood what you mean. Changing option 512 -> 256 increases processor performance. I tested very superficially, I will need to check these settings in game tests


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xcr89*
> 
> trfc (alt) same value should go in trfc2 and trfc4?
> 
> The CLDO_VDDP says 425 it should be 0.425 in bios?
> 
> Any idea how i can improve my timings further or what values i should try out to get better ns on memory, the docp profile that i based the fast preset on.
> 
> I'm using cmk16gx4m2z3200c16 4.31 b-die, CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB)
> 
> Here is some pics
> 
> 
> 
> Currently using timings from this preset below
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance


425mv = 0.425v
trfc (alt) - this is a safer value for tRFC.
tRFC2 or tRFC4 does not support in Ryzen system , they can not be touched and left in auto mode.
At the moment, you have the correct settings


----------



## xcr89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 425mv = 0.425v
> trfc (alt) - this is a safer value for tRFC.
> tRFC2 or tRFC4 does not support in Ryzen system , they can not be touched and left in auto mode.
> At the moment, you have the correct settings


Alright thanks alot


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I think it's worth checking this out CLDO_VDDP 0.700 , this value from the new BIOS, the tests showed very good stability and easy start of the system


i was trying to adjust cldo volts earlier on an msi tomahawk it wont allow the 425 setting with ram at 1.35 but auto corrects any attempt to 700 if this makes any sense to you

(maybe this formula is already in msi bios )


----------



## ht_addict

Does the calculator work with 8 modules?


----------



## datonyb

and another friend has been delighted tonight by using the ryzen ram calculator

we had previously set up his system with corsair 3000 mhz ram and the msi board did indeed plug and play and click and work xmp 2933

he mentioned hes had a few game crashes this week, so we runa quick disk clean up etc trimmed the ssd
and

nore importantly run thaiphoon and 1usmus calculator

several timings worked out tighter some were set by xmp quite aggressive and the calculator suggested to loosen them from the default xmp (which i feel might have been the issue)

well after that he reports quite a considerable increase in his game fps seriously large he said from 60ish before to solid 100+

it seems strange to me that just sub timings can have that much affect but hey i believe him (hes not that into how pc's work) so has no reason to exaggerate

i can only presume the system was really struggling with some settings before with the default xmp timings

so once again thank you 1usmus for sharing your tool and taking the time to design it


----------



## stryk9

Hello, I was hoping somebody could lead me in the right direction with an issue I'm experiencing.

I cannot seeem to stabilize my G.Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZR @ 3466CL14.
It will successfully run CB15 once but crash on the second run and in games.
3466 CL16 is fine but requires me to have CLDO_VDDP modded to 866 to resolve a memory leak causing crashing in games (although it would pass benchmarks at the time)

My settings are below from the calculator:



BIOS Settings would be set to what was recommended in the Power Supply Systems tab along with the max voltages that I worked up to in attempts to stabilize.

DRAM 1.5
SOC 1.1
VTT DDR 0.749
Boot DRAM 1.5
CLDO_VDDP 866

The below works best for booting and successfully training the timings:
procODT 53
RTT NOM DIS
RTT WR OFF
RTT PARK RZQ/6

For the CAD_BUS, I've tried all recommended combinations.

Thanks in advance for your time and for the amazing tool 1usmus.


----------



## ZeNch

really i dont know but some users have better stability with:
bgs off
bgsa on
tcke 8

your mother have bios with agesa 1.0.0.7?
if yes, try with this new bios.


----------



## stryk9

Yes, I am running 1.0.0.7. I will try with those settings now and see if it stabilizes it and report back.

Edit:

Unfortunately still the same issue after:
bgs off
bgsa on
tcke 8


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> i was trying to adjust cldo volts earlier on an msi tomahawk it wont allow the 425 setting with ram at 1.35 but auto corrects any attempt to 700 if this makes any sense to you
> 
> (maybe this formula is already in msi bios )


In the new biome AMD has artificially limited the minimum value of 0.700, which is bad
I will think how to solve this problem









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ht_addict*
> 
> Does the calculator work with 8 modules?


settings will be the same as for 4 modules

example:
2 dimm SR procODT 60-53
2 dimm DR procODT 60-80
4/8 dimm SR procODT 48-53
4/8 dimm DR procODT 60-68

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> and another friend has been delighted tonight by using the ryzen ram calculator
> 
> we had previously set up his system with corsair 3000 mhz ram and the msi board did indeed plug and play and click and work xmp 2933
> 
> he mentioned hes had a few game crashes this week, so we runa quick disk clean up etc trimmed the ssd
> and
> 
> nore importantly run thaiphoon and 1usmus calculator
> 
> several timings worked out tighter some were set by xmp quite aggressive and the calculator suggested to loosen them from the default xmp (which i feel might have been the issue)
> 
> well after that he reports quite a considerable increase in his game fps seriously large he said from 60ish before to solid 100+
> 
> it seems strange to me that just sub timings can have that much affect but hey i believe him (hes not that into how pc's work) so has no reason to exaggerate
> 
> i can only presume the system was really struggling with some settings before with the default xmp timings
> 
> so once again thank you 1usmus for sharing your tool and taking the time to design it


secondary and tertiary timings play a very huge role for stabilization







today or tomorrow I will publish an update, there will be some minor timings and new features


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stryk9*
> 
> Hello, I was hoping somebody could lead me in the right direction with an issue I'm experiencing.
> 
> I cannot seeem to stabilize my G.Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZR @ 3466CL14.
> It will successfully run CB15 once but crash on the second run and in games.
> 3466 CL16 is fine but requires me to have CLDO_VDDP modded to 866 to resolve a memory leak causing crashing in games (although it would pass benchmarks at the time)
> 
> My settings are below from the calculator:
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS Settings would be set to what was recommended in the Power Supply Systems tab along with the max voltages that I worked up to in attempts to stabilize.
> 
> DRAM 1.5
> SOC 1.1
> VTT DDR 0.749
> Boot DRAM 1.5
> CLDO_VDDP 866
> 
> The below works best for booting and successfully training the timings:
> procODT 53
> RTT NOM DIS
> RTT WR OFF
> RTT PARK RZQ/6
> 
> For the CAD_BUS, I've tried all recommended combinations.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your time and for the amazing tool 1usmus.


Are you sure that this is a memory problem? I think it's CPU dissatisfaction, need more voltage
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZeNch*
> 
> really i dont know but some users have better stability with:
> bgs off
> bgsa on
> tcke 8
> 
> your mother have bios with agesa 1.0.0.7?
> if yes, try with this new bios.


bgs off
bgsa on

these values are suggested by AMD from the very beginning, they stand by default

tcke 8 - for 3200/3333 , for 3466 - 9
there is a rigid formula for calculations


----------



## stryk9

So I backed off my CPU OC from 4 GHz @ 1.41 to 3.9 GHz @ 1.38125 and it will do conistent CB runs perfectly fine @ the same RAM timings (CL14). Strange how that extra 100 MHz causes it to be unstable.

In the past at attempts to reach 3466 CL14 timings, I did notice actually that 3.9 had better luck, although it is stable @ 4 GHz 1.41 + 3466 CL16. Can't really explain this, but maybe my CPU cooler is just not good enough to handle the stressload. It appears that any further bump on the cpu will not stabilize at 4 GHz.
I will try again and report back.

A step closer in the right direction!









Thank you!

Update:

I have since stabilized my system at 4GHz 1.40625 + 3466 14-14-14-14-28-44 timings =)
It ran CB15 countless times. My previous issue with crashing was probably due to my CPU cooler as eventually I got the "CPU OVER TEMPERATURE" error after a restart from a crash. I have since turned up the fans to max while running benchmarks but will switch back to my custom profile for normal usage.



I am still going to run some memtests and report back, but hit a new record today as well =) 1851!

A huge thank you to this community. I've been an owner of my 1800X since launch and have spent a lot of time tinkering, only recently having a desire to get my RAM speeds higher. I originally had Corsair Vengeance 3200 C16 that I gladly sold to get my Trident Z kit. Hope I can give back to this community and share some of my experiences with this platform as much as possible. Feel free to PM me if interested.


----------



## 1usmus

I decided to write a small article explaining why some systems work fine at 3200+ and others do not at all

*Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"*

CLDO_VDDP is a voltage regulator for the module (physical interface) of encoding and decoding of the transmitted and received data stream. The purpose of coding is to simplify the process of restoring the data stream of the receiver. It determines the signals, signal ratios and time parameters necessary for transferring control information, reading and writing data to DRAM devices. In plain language, CLDO_VDDP is the voltage that regulates the memory access at a certain frequency. "Hole" in turn - the frequency gap on which the memory controller can operate with our RAM.

Consider this simple picture:



It shows 3 identical systems (motherboard + RAM + processor). All 3 systems were overclocked and received the following results:

1) The system was perfectly dispersed to a frequency of 3333 MHz
2) The system was accelerated to 2933
3) The system did not start at all

If all systems are the same, why such results? Let's understand. The bottom line is that each memory controller (IMC) has its own technical characteristics ("voltage" and time) and at the same voltage / frequency it will behave differently, namely it will have different access to memory. Red marked our MEMCLK holes, these are the very hole-mediators through which our memory controller communicates with RAM, and if there is no hole in the frequency range chosen by us - the system does not start or start, but the memory runs with errors. At you I think there was a question as these holes to move and expand - all is very simple, voltage CLDO_VDDP allows to spend the given manipulations. The only difficulty is that these holes can not be mathematically calculated. A vivid example of CLDO_VDDP 866 which is magical for many. The hole of this voltage is in the region of 3300-3500 MHz, but again not for all systems. As shown by our internal tests, not all of it works, I repeat all the IMC are different and require a different voltage CLDO_VDDP to achieve the same frequency.

In view of the fact that the shape of the voltage CLDO_VDDP is wave, the minimum voltage change can drastically change the stability of the system. The voltage step is 1 mv. Borders from 700 to 975.

I also want to publish a list of CLDO_VDDP, which can help stabilize your memory



Spoiler: CLDO_VDDP list (volts)



0.562
0.568
0.573
0.579
0.585
0.590
0.596
0.601
0.607
0.613
0.618
0.624
0.630
0.635
0.641
0.646
0.652
0.658
0.663
0.669
0.675
0.680
0.686
0.691
0.697
0.703
0.708
0.714
0.720
0.725
0.731
0.736
0.742
0.748
0.753
0.759
0.765
0.770
0.776
0.781
0.787
0.793
0.798
0.804
0.810
0.815
0.821
0.826
0.832
0.838
0.843
0.849
0.855
0.860
0.866
0.871
0.877
0.883
0.888
0.894
0.900
0.905
0.911
0.916
0.922
0.928
0.933
0.939
0.945
0.950
0.956
0.961
0.961
0.967
0.973



*upd 1 : small addition-explanation*

The curve represente your dram voltage signal, changing cldo_vddp move back and forth this signal compared to your available frequency setting.
The purpose to changing it is to make the curve crossed your setting line on the appropriate frequency setting.
Whereas the zone where there is no curve present is a memory hole .
Depending of your IMC or RAM the curve can vary in lenght or thickness.



only the form is more oblate, in dozens of times


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

@1usmus
Your talking about millivolts, yet your "list" shows values behind the komma
Think you should refrase something there








Like... Change the list... From volts to MilliVolts values


----------



## WarpenN1

I've perceived a little pattern about different kind of crashes

*A. Prime95 large ffts (core(s) fail but no crash)*
Too little Vcore or memory unstable.

*B. Prime95 large ffts (Screen blacks out and code 08 (processor not operational)*
Most of the time it's too high of a heat output combined with high clocks and vcore. Over 75c is the point where Ryzen stability increasingly suffers to the point of 08 (non operational CPU)
I wouldn't recommend over 80C or most likely you would see 08 stop code within couple of hours prime95, at least in my experience.

*C. I haven't really noticed any pattern for BSoD*


----------



## Anty

Tool bug report.

When saving settings number of DIMMs is not saved. When tool is opened again it will show 2 instead of saved value e.g. 4.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v6
*

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zVtLtmSzEaLE4iC7CVdVk1KOax-EABfZ/view?usp=sharing

* Added support for 8 RAM modules
* Redesigned saving algorithm (now after updating the program all previously entered data will be available)
* fixed tRTP calculation for all calculators
* fixes in Termination block
* Block Drive strength added (auxiliary parameters for memory stabilization)
* Added a block of memory interleaving (a small increase in processor performance)
* partially reworked Extreme preset (memory bandwidth is reduced, but latency is improved)
* small visual improvements


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @1usmus
> Your talking about millivolts, yet your "list" shows values behind the komma
> Think you should refrase something there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like... Change the list... From volts to MilliVolts values


done








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> Tool bug report.
> 
> When saving settings number of DIMMs is not saved. When tool is opened again it will show 2 instead of saved value e.g. 4.


done








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> I've perceived a little pattern about different kind of crashes
> 
> *A. Prime95 large ffts (core(s) fail but no crash)*
> Too little Vcore or memory unstable.
> 
> *B. Prime95 large ffts (Screen blacks out and code 08 (processor not operational)*
> Most of the time it's too high of a heat output combined with high clocks and vcore. Over 75c is the point where Ryzen stability increasingly suffers to the point of 08 (non operational CPU)
> I wouldn't recommend over 80C or most likely you would see 08 stop code within couple of hours prime95, at least in my experience.
> 
> *C. I haven't really noticed any pattern for BSoD*


I hear a lot of feedback that this program often works oddly, the simplest solution is to use other stress tests


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear a lot of feedback that this program often works oddly, the simplest solution is to use other stress tests


I have too huge urge to buy 1800x on black Friday if It's on the sale just because hoping to run it with lower volts than 1700 LOL







. Hopefully zen 2nd gen will be released in February or quite soon.
Why 1800x is still like 140€ more than 1700 :O. Is binning that expensive?


----------



## Anty

Zen2 is not same as Zen+. Next year there will be zen+ which is die shrink, not new arch.


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> Zen2 is not same as Zen+. Next year there will be zen+ which is die shrink, not new arch.


I didn't say zen2, I said *zen 2nd generation*









Edit: I just found 1800x for the 326€ aaah this is really hard to not to buy :S


----------



## datonyb

from the rumour mills

the implication is a 1700 would be more likely to run at lower volts than the 1800x due to being binned on its tdp ability

ive not got any first hand proof myself but this sounds feasable to me

e.g. simplfied binning process

ohhhhhhhhh nice low volter chuck that in 1700 bin

ohhhhhhhhh nice clocker chuck that in the 1800x bin

anything left throw it in the 1700x 'lets fist the buyer bin'


----------



## WarpenN1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> from the rumour mills
> 
> the implication is a 1700 would be more likely to run at lower volts than the 1800x due to being binned on its tdp ability
> 
> ive not got any first hand proof myself but this sounds feasable to me
> 
> e.g. simplfied binning process
> 
> ohhhhhhhhh nice low volter chuck that in 1700 bin
> 
> ohhhhhhhhh nice clocker chuck that in the 1800x bin
> 
> anything left throw it in the 1700x 'lets fist the buyer bin'


The legend goes that when compared to clock to clock 1800x can run lower volts and lower power draw in average compared to 1700.









Only reason why 1700 has so low TDP is because it's stock 3.0ghz clocks but when It's overclocked to 3.7ghz, power usage raises with it, from 65 to 95 watts or over. When I overclock it even further 3.9ghz power usage almost doubles, to 170 watts.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

@1usmus
Calculated with fast settings
2nd tab looks like this

Why on earth does it say at Memory Interleaving "Socket" ?








Think it said "Channel" when i first used the calculator. After rebooting it now says the mentioned "Socket" (i didn't change anything)

From my testings i found following settings to give the best result
* First place > "Memory Interleaving Set @ Channel 256bytes auto-cached + Bias @ CB11.5"


* Second place > "Memory Interleaving Set @ Channel 256bytes auto-cached"


----------



## Bing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @1usmus
> Calculated with fast settings
> 2nd tab looks like this
> 
> Why on earth does it say at Memory Interleaving "Socket" ?


Another question for 1usmus on the 2nd Advanced Tab recommendation.

At the "Overclocking potential (Mhz)" , why the recommended "Safe" speed (3658) is higher than "Fast" speed (3525) ?

Or did I miss anything ?


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bing*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @1usmus
> Calculated with fast settings
> 2nd tab looks like this
> 
> Why on earth does it say at Memory Interleaving "Socket" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another question for 1usmus on the 2nd Advanced Tab recommendation.
> 
> At the "Overclocking potential (Mhz)" , why the recommended "Safe" speed (3658) is higher than "Fast" speed (3525) ?
> 
> Or did I miss anything ?
Click to expand...

That's just BS... ignore it








That shouldn't even be in the calc IMO
It's not a function helpful to any one


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bing*
> 
> Another question for 1usmus on the 2nd Advanced Tab recommendation.
> 
> At the "Overclocking potential (Mhz)" , why the recommended "Safe" speed (3658) is higher than "Fast" speed (3525) ?
> 
> Or did I miss anything ?


let's logically think together, what will be more stable 3200CL12 or 3200CL14? probably 14. The higher the frequency, the more secure timings are needed, the lower the frequency - you need aggressive timings

this function is useful to those who do not sit on the forums, do not know statistics and do not want to know. A person sees what he can count on without any help
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @1usmus
> Calculated with fast settings
> 2nd tab looks like this
> 
> Why on earth does it say at Memory Interleaving "Socket" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think it said "Channel" when i first used the calculator. After rebooting it now says the mentioned "Socket" (i didn't change anything)
> 
> From my testings i found following settings to give the best result
> * First place > "Memory Interleaving Set @ Channel 256bytes auto-cached + Bias @ CB11.5"
> 
> 
> * Second place > "Memory Interleaving Set @ Channel 256bytes auto-cached"


there is a very small gain in latency (0.2-0.3 ns)


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bing*
> 
> Another question for 1usmus on the 2nd Advanced Tab recommendation.
> 
> At the "Overclocking potential (Mhz)" , why the recommended "Safe" speed (3658) is higher than "Fast" speed (3525) ?
> 
> Or did I miss anything ?
> 
> 
> 
> let's logically think together, what will be more stable 3200CL12 or 3200CL14? probably 14. The higher the frequency, the more secure timings are needed, the lower the frequency - you need aggressive timings
> 
> this function is useful to those who do not sit on the forums, do not know statistics and do not want to know. A person sees what he can count on without any help
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @1usmus
> Calculated with fast settings
> 2nd tab looks like this
> 
> Why on earth does it say at Memory Interleaving "Socket" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think it said "Channel" when i first used the calculator. After rebooting it now says the mentioned "Socket" (i didn't change anything)
> 
> From my testings i found following settings to give the best result
> * First place > "Memory Interleaving Set @ Channel 256bytes auto-cached + Bias @ CB11.5"
> 
> 
> * Second place > "Memory Interleaving Set @ Channel 256bytes auto-cached"
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is a very small gain in latency (0.2-0.3 ns)
Click to expand...

Yeah... soooo
That's gain !!!
But my point was more... Why did the calc setting change when i rebooted
That shouldn't have happend
Especialy since the "Channel" setting is actually the one giving better output


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Yeah... soooo
> That's gain !!!
> But my point was more... Why did the calc setting change when i rebooted
> That shouldn't have happend
> Especialy since the "Channel" setting is actually the one giving better output


I do not mind







I found more mistakes, so I'll fix it in the near future


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Cheers Looking forward to it
Keep it up


----------



## Bing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> let's logically think together, what will be more stable 3200CL12 or 3200CL14? probably 14. The higher the frequency, the more secure timings are needed, the lower the frequency - you need aggressive timings
> 
> this function is useful to those who do not sit on the forums, do not know statistics and do not want to know. A person sees what he can count on without any help


Are you saying the formula you used here is derived and concluded from large statistic RAM OC that you've collected ?


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Ok, so I tried everthing U suggested, no stability.
> 
> So what I did is:
> VDDP Voltage (both) > 0.9 V
> DRAM Voltage > 1.35 - 1.45 V
> CLDO_VDDP > 425, 855, 866, 945 mV
> CAD_BUS > 20 20 30 30, 30 30 40 60, 30 30 60 60
> VTT DDR Voltage > 0.6992, 0.7 V
> SoC VOltage > 1.05 - 1.1 V
> tRTP > 12


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I think it's worth checking this out CLDO_VDDP 0.700 , this value from the new BIOS, the tests showed very good stability and easy start of the system


Hi @1usmus,
I have new BIOS update, thank U for that (if U haven't seen previous words of praise







).

I have tried multiple variations from CLDO_VDDP list from 700 to 945 (at least 15 variations tried)... nothing.

Random BSOD even before windows, sometimes after memtest starts.
Longest without BSOD (3% memtest







) was one with >
- DRAM voltage: 1.385 V
- SoC voltage: 1.08 V
- CLDO_VDDP: 700 or 866
- VTT DDR Voltage: 0.6992

BSOD error code I am getting lately with this setup is IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL

Larger DRAM voltage (from 1.405 - 1.45 V) don't get me to Windows at all... weird...

Here is RTC from previous post:

_tRTP - 12_

Do U have any recommendation?


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Hi @1usmus,
> I have new BIOS update, thank U for that (if U haven't seen previous words of praise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> I have tried multiple variations from CLDO_VDDP list from 700 to 945 (at least 15 variations tried)... nothing.
> 
> Random BSOD even before windows, sometimes after memtest starts.
> Longest without BSOD (3% memtest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) was one with >
> - DRAM voltage: 1.385 V
> - SoC voltage: 1.08 V
> - CLDO_VDDP: 700 or 866
> - VTT DDR Voltage: 0.6992
> 
> BSOD error code I am getting lately with this setup is IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL
> 
> Larger DRAM voltage (from 1.405 - 1.45 V) don't get me to Windows at all... weird...
> 
> Here is RTC from previous post:
> 
> _tRTP - 12_
> 
> Do U have any recommendation?


Your system runs stable with BIOS defaults?


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> Your system runs stable with BIOS defaults?


Hi @Steelraven
Yes, I do.
I have the stable system using 3.8Ghz - 1.3V, Ram 3066 MHz, DRAM 1.35V. No BIOS issues.

Is that what U referenced in question?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Hi @1usmus,
> I have new BIOS update, thank U for that (if U haven't seen previous words of praise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> I have tried multiple variations from CLDO_VDDP list from 700 to 945 (at least 15 variations tried)... nothing.
> 
> Random BSOD even before windows, sometimes after memtest starts.
> Longest without BSOD (3% memtest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) was one with >
> - DRAM voltage: 1.385 V
> - SoC voltage: 1.08 V
> - CLDO_VDDP: 700 or 866
> - VTT DDR Voltage: 0.6992
> 
> BSOD error code I am getting lately with this setup is IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL
> 
> Larger DRAM voltage (from 1.405 - 1.45 V) don't get me to Windows at all... weird...
> 
> Here is RTC from previous post:
> 
> _tRTP - 12_
> 
> Do U have any recommendation?


I think the problem is in the voltage for the RAM, the I / O controller can not provide 1.385, the step is 22 millivolts. Total that we have: 1.35, 1.372, 1.394, 1.415

VDDP 0.900 + cad bus 20 20 30 30 or 30 30 40 60


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Hi @Steelraven
> Yes, I do.
> I have the stable system using 3.8Ghz - 1.3V, Ram 3066 MHz, DRAM 1.35V. No BIOS issues.
> 
> Is that what U referenced in question?


You should try to OC RAM first. Let the CPU on default.
If you get it stable then start to OC CPU again.

It is possible that 1.3VCore isn't enough for 3.8 AND that "high" RAM clock.


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> You should try to OC RAM first. Let the CPU on default.
> If you get it stable then start to OC CPU again.
> 
> It is possible that 1.3VCore isn't enough for 3.8 AND that "high" RAM clock.


Thank U @Steelraven.

There is logic in it, and I will definitely try it, good advise








I already asked @1usmus that PSU may be part of the problem, but I would leave it as a last option.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I think the problem is in the voltage for the RAM, the I / O controller can not provide 1.385, the step is 22 millivolts. Total that we have: 1.35, 1.372, 1.394, 1.415
> 
> VDDP 0.900 + cad bus 20 20 30 30 or 30 30 40 60


Thank U @1usmus for voltage. This voltage was in your calculator, so if this is the reason, maybe calculator adjustments can be added.

Those CAD_BUS values I have already tried, as I mentioned in previous posts, but I will try to cycle it with different voltage values.

Thank U guys for effort ( @Steelraven, @1usmus), it really means much


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> You should try to OC RAM first. Let the CPU on default.
> If you get it stable then start to OC CPU again.
> 
> It is possible that 1.3VCore isn't enough for 3.8 AND that "high" RAM clock.


plus one and agree here

3.8 at 1.3 volts is pretty low on average esp. when combined with seeking higher ram overclock

i had to bump my cpu bolts from a stable 1.3 v (that had been fine for well over 5 months) when i increased my demands/settings for ram

suggest 'old skool' overclocking advise
find out maximum limits for BOTH cpu and ram seperate from each other and then only try to find the COMBINED best speeds for both


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> plus one and agree here
> 
> 3.8 at 1.3 volts is pretty low on average esp. when combined with seeking higher ram overclock
> 
> i had to bump my cpu bolts from a stable 1.3 v (that had been fine for well over 5 months) when i increased my demands/settings for ram
> 
> suggest 'old skool' overclocking advise
> find out maximum limits for BOTH cpu and ram seperate from each other and then only try to find the COMBINED best speeds for both


my processor is not a high-leakage instance (X version), but for a 3.8 frequency it's 1.24 volts if I use fast phases and 1.29 if I use slow phases

overclocking RAM partially "eats" the voltage of the processor, so you need to increase it by two steps


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SexySale*
> 
> Hi @1usmus,
> I have new BIOS update, thank U for that (if U haven't seen previous words of praise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> I have tried multiple variations from CLDO_VDDP list from 700 to 945 (at least 15 variations tried)... nothing.
> 
> Random BSOD even before windows, sometimes after memtest starts.
> Longest without BSOD (3% memtest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) was one with >
> - DRAM voltage: 1.385 V
> - SoC voltage: 1.08 V
> - CLDO_VDDP: 700 or 866
> 
> - VTT DDR Voltage: 0.6992
> 
> BSOD error code I am getting lately with this setup is IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL
> 
> Larger DRAM voltage (from 1.405 - 1.45 V) don't get me to Windows at all... weird...
> 
> Here is RTC from previous post:
> 
> _tRTP - 12_
> 
> Do U have any recommendation?


Hi SexySale, I had IRQ and memory mapping errors when i changed tRC so I tried one higher.

Mine so far



tWR @10 did not work so tried 20 and it does.
tCL 15 did not but 14 did

tCKE Did not try as i remembered 1usmus saying something about it being best @ 8, so i left it there.

tCWL would not take till others were in place. Same with tRDRD SCL & tRWRW SCL

Cheers 1usmus it just gets better every day. And will try 3200Mhz soon.

EDIT:

Personal best for Corona
Pre DRAM Calculator
00:02:05.06 3,885,830 @4040Ghz 2933Mhz

down/up too Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v5
00:02:04.71 3,896,520 @4000Ghz 2933Mhz

down/up too Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v6
00:02:03.82 3,924,590 @4000Ghz 2933Mhz



Says it all me thinks









Cheers again 1usmus
















PS: the memory was not stable @2933Mhz when i started on this board, original time was on a ASUS board which died.


----------



## ZeNch

i have at the momment in the last days 3 freeze screen (not bsod, not black screen) i think i need more Ram voltage.
What do you think?

(i have the last official bios of prime x370 pro.)

My rams are clocked with 16-16-16-18-36-56-1T @3200mhz 1.4v (now 1.41 to test) Mdie SR.

my TRFC is 560 in windows but bios show 312 (i have in auto this settings, all other settings manual)

ps: one of these freezes is with mkv "render" (i add other audio). other with virus scan. different disk, and different cable sata.


----------



## Acidstorm

I have the Prime X370-Pro, so it'll be a bit different in some of the power system area, but I'm gonna give this a go and see what I can come up with. Using Hynix 2400 Corsair Vengeance stuff, which I have successfully tweaked to 2933 with a ton of trial and error and guess work on my part. Gonna try 3066 with the timings and settings from the calc and see if that'll work for me. I'll post my results in a couple of days.


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I decided to write a small article explaining why some systems work fine at 3200+ and others do not at all
> 
> *Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"*
> 
> CLDO_VDDP is a voltage regulator for the module (physical interface) of encoding and decoding of the transmitted and received data stream. The purpose of coding is to simplify the process of restoring the data stream of the receiver. It determines the signals, signal ratios and time parameters necessary for transferring control information, reading and writing data to DRAM devices. In plain language, CLDO_VDDP is the voltage that regulates the memory access at a certain frequency. "Hole" in turn - the frequency gap on which the memory controller can operate with our RAM.
> 
> Consider this simple picture:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows 3 identical systems (motherboard + RAM + processor). All 3 systems were overclocked and received the following results:
> 
> 1) The system was perfectly dispersed to a frequency of 3333 MHz
> 2) The system was accelerated to 2933
> 3) The system did not start at all
> 
> If all systems are the same, why such results? Let's understand. The bottom line is that each memory controller (IMC) has its own technical characteristics ("voltage" and time) and at the same voltage / frequency it will behave differently, namely it will have different access to memory. Red marked our MEMCLK holes, these are the very hole-mediators through which our memory controller communicates with RAM, and if there is no hole in the frequency range chosen by us - the system does not start or start, but the memory runs with errors. At you I think there was a question as these holes to move and expand - all is very simple, voltage CLDO_VDDP allows to spend the given manipulations. The only difficulty is that these holes can not be mathematically calculated. A vivid example of CLDO_VDDP 866 which is magical for many. The hole of this voltage is in the region of 3300-3500 MHz, but again not for all systems. As shown by our internal tests, not all of it works, I repeat all the IMC are different and require a different voltage CLDO_VDDP to achieve the same frequency.
> 
> In view of the fact that the shape of the voltage CLDO_VDDP is wave, the minimum voltage change can drastically change the stability of the system. The voltage step is 1 mv. Borders from 700 to 975.
> 
> I also want to publish a list of CLDO_VDDP, which can help stabilize your memory
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CLDO_VDDP list (volts)
> 
> 
> 
> 0.562
> 0.568
> 0.573
> 0.579
> 0.585
> 0.590
> 0.596
> 0.601
> 0.607
> 0.613
> 0.618
> 0.624
> 0.630
> 0.635
> 0.641
> 0.646
> 0.652
> 0.658
> 0.663
> 0.669
> 0.675
> 0.680
> 0.686
> 0.691
> 0.697
> 0.703
> 0.708
> 0.714
> 0.720
> 0.725
> 0.731
> 0.736
> 0.742
> 0.748
> 0.753
> 0.759
> 0.765
> 0.770
> 0.776
> 0.781
> 0.787
> 0.793
> 0.798
> 0.804
> 0.810
> 0.815
> 0.821
> 0.826
> 0.832
> 0.838
> 0.843
> 0.849
> 0.855
> 0.860
> 0.866
> 0.871
> 0.877
> 0.883
> 0.888
> 0.894
> 0.900
> 0.905
> 0.911
> 0.916
> 0.922
> 0.928
> 0.933
> 0.939
> 0.945
> 0.950
> 0.956
> 0.961
> 0.961
> 0.967
> 0.973


Thank you for this, but I have to note two things:

While I am impressed at the range of languages you are conversant with, this was the most difficult to follow comment of yours that I have read. In addition to the "hole-mediator" commentary, the use of the terms "dispersed" and "accelerated" in the list are confusing.
In the terminology used in the C6H thread (first place that I had ever read of a memory hole), my understanding was that the memory hole was a range of frequencies for which the memory would *not* work. That seems to be the opposite of your usage, assuming that I understood what you meant above. I used the term memory peak when reporting regions where best (or sometimes any) performance was found on my system when trying combinations of CLDO_VDDP and Proc_ODT.
I raise these points because I am uncertain whether I have understood you, or misunderstood you.


----------



## Ex0cet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v6
> *
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zVtLtmSzEaLE4iC7CVdVk1KOax-EABfZ/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * Added support for 8 RAM modules
> * Redesigned saving algorithm (now after updating the program all previously entered data will be available)
> * fixed tRTP calculation for all calculators
> * fixes in Termination block
> * Block Drive strength added (auxiliary parameters for memory stabilization)
> * Added a block of memory interleaving (a small increase in processor performance)
> * partially reworked Extreme preset (memory bandwidth is reduced, but latency is improved)
> * small visual improvements


Thank you again @1usmus !

*The new recommendations in v6 has allowed me to stabilize 3466 CL15 CR1 for the first time with 4 sticks!*









Just for the record:



It has survived 2hs of AIDA64 stress test and I've been playing around and testing games with no problems at all









While trying to get there I tried every termination block & CAD BUS block recommendation of v6

ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/5 > CAD_BUS AUTO = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 5 min.

ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/6 > CAD_BUS AUTO = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 7 min.

ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/7 > CAD_BUS AUTO = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 10 min.

Sticked with the one that survived the longest and started playing around with CAD_BUS.

So...*ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/7*

CAD_BUS 24-24-24-24 = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 10 min. (I guess this would be the same as AUTO)

CAD_BUS 30-30-30-30 = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 18 min.

CAD_BUS 30-30-40-60 = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 14 min

CAD_BUS 40-40-40-40 = Survived 2 hs of AIDA64 Stress test, then games without crashing or BSODing

Fun fact, never even tried 40-40-40-40 before. It was just a lucky guess I made and tried when I saw that 30-30-40-60 failed earlier than 30-30-30-30.

Maybe my RAM @3466 just likes 40 ohms in the CAD BUS? Who knows?


----------



## beardlessduck

Thank you so much for this! With the new BIOS and your calculator, I am able to boot up with faster settings than ever before!

I have one question that I'm sure is stupid... Where is BGS in the BIOS? I was able to find everything else.

So far, I've been able to boot with my RAM (4x F4-3866C18-8GTZR) at 3600MHz but with a crash in Prime95 after a few minutes. I seem stable at 3333MHz with safe timings and I'm currently testing 3466MHz with safe timings. My previous best on BIOS 1701 was 3200MHZ RAM with ****ty timings so I already have a great improvement.


----------



## neur0cide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> 
> While I am impressed at the range of languages you are conversant with, this was the most difficult to follow comment of yours that I have read. In addition to the "hole-mediator" commentary, the use of the terms "dispersed" and "accelerated" in the list are confusing.
> In the terminology used in the C6H thread (first place that I had ever read of a memory hole), my understanding was that the memory hole was a range of frequencies for which the memory would *not* work. That seems to be the opposite of your usage, assuming that I understood what you meant above. I used the term memory peak when reporting regions where best (or sometimes any) performance was found on my system when trying combinations of CLDO_VDDP and Proc_ODT.
> I raise these points because I am uncertain whether I have understood you, or misunderstood you.


You're not alone with your confusion. I had the very same difficulties making sense of 1usmus comment and choice of words. I can't even tell what the diagram is supposed to show.
elmor and The Stilt introduced memory holes as rather narrow frequency ranges where the memory does not work. 1usmus seems to invert that concept.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> Thank you for this, but I have to note two things:
> 
> While I am impressed at the range of languages you are conversant with, this was the most difficult to follow comment of yours that I have read. In addition to the "hole-mediator" commentary, the use of the terms "dispersed" and "accelerated" in the list are confusing.
> In the terminology used in the C6H thread (first place that I had ever read of a memory hole), my understanding was that the memory hole was a range of frequencies for which the memory would *not* work. That seems to be the opposite of your usage, assuming that I understood what you meant above. I used the term memory peak when reporting regions where best (or sometimes any) performance was found on my system when trying combinations of CLDO_VDDP and Proc_ODT.
> I raise these points because I am uncertain whether I have understood you, or misunderstood you.


Thank you for being with me and helping!
It really happens to me (sometimes) is difficult to correctly present technically complex information.
I understand you, in my article the terms "hole" may be incorrectly used, but the main idea is that there are several dead regions. This conclusion I made on the basis of the cases when the memory of Samsung B-die was not responding at a frequency of over 3200 on default CLDO_VDDP (I had several 1700 processors, one of them could work with frequency memory 2933 and 3600, between these frequencies was a dead region). Therefore, my theory is slightly different from the information that was in the thread C6H.

this article is my guess, to check it need an oscilloscope ...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> You're not alone with your confusion. I had the very same difficulties making sense of 1usmus comment and choice of words. I can't even tell what the diagram is supposed to show.
> elmor and The Stilt introduced memory holes as rather narrow frequency ranges where the memory does not work. 1usmus seems to invert that concept.


you correctly understood me, this conclusion was based on practical tests


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZeNch*
> 
> i have at the momment in the last days 3 freeze screen (not bsod, not black screen) i think i need more Ram voltage.
> What do you think?
> 
> (i have the last official bios of prime x370 pro.)
> 
> My rams are clocked with 16-16-16-18-36-56-1T @3200mhz 1.4v (now 1.41 to test) Mdie SR.
> 
> my TRFC is 560 in windows but bios show 312 (i have in auto this settings, all other settings manual)
> 
> ps: one of these freezes is with mkv "render" (i add other audio). other with virus scan. different disk, and different cable sata.


I think it is necessary to expose 1,415, there is no threat to the system with a specified voltage

Do not pay attention to what BIOS suggests


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ex0cet*
> 
> Thank you again @1usmus !
> 
> *The new recommendations in v6 has allowed me to stabilize 3466 CL15 CR1 for the first time with 4 sticks!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record:
> 
> 
> 
> It has survived 2hs of AIDA64 stress test and I've been playing around and testing games with no problems at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While trying to get there I tried every termination block & CAD BUS block recommendation of v6
> 
> ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/5 > CAD_BUS AUTO = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 5 min.
> 
> ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/6 > CAD_BUS AUTO = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 7 min.
> 
> ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/7 > CAD_BUS AUTO = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 10 min.
> 
> Sticked with the one that survived the longest and started playing around with CAD_BUS.
> 
> So...*ProcODT 53 > RTT_NOM RZQ/7 > RTT_WR OFF > RTT_PARK RZQ/7*
> 
> CAD_BUS 24-24-24-24 = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 10 min. (I guess this would be the same as AUTO)
> 
> CAD_BUS 30-30-30-30 = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 18 min.
> 
> CAD_BUS 30-30-40-60 = Failed AIDA64 Stress test in 14 min
> 
> CAD_BUS 40-40-40-40 = Survived 2 hs of AIDA64 Stress test, then games without crashing or BSODing
> 
> Fun fact, never even tried 40-40-40-40 before. It was just a lucky guess I made and tried when I saw that 30-30-40-60 failed earlier than 30-30-30-30.
> 
> Maybe my RAM @3466 just likes 40 ohms in the CAD BUS? Who knows?


very interesting find, I'll try to check your values







thanks


----------



## blair

Hey just wanted to chime in, i'm using G.SKill RIpjaw V 3600 CL16 Kit x2 (4x8Gb B-Die).

When plugging in my kit data i get Mem quality 91%. I presume because out of box it's a low latency 3600 kit

The point of this post is purely around me noticing a substantially improved ability to Train my 4 Dimms with a modest speed of 3466 without any effort or tweaking.. system has been operational for 4-6 hours so far no issues, slept, hibernated and woke a couple of times without issue... yet... I will stab test later on. I think my 1700 might be a good one, so I will give 3600 a stab at some point too... Safe preset for sure..

I was able to work my way into 3466 1000% HCI some time ago but after a cold start or two i lost the ability to get it going again? It is of note it would take 4-8 attempts to train at 3466 previously.

I tried out 3466 Safe i believe and i found much more solid training. i suspect my issue may have been voltage before as i was 3466 CL16 1000% @ 1.41v. Now i am running 1.44v

I powered down system and booted a few times from hard off.

1st - second training attempt > BOOT
2nd - first training attempt > BOOT
3rd - second training attempt > BOOT

i didn't both trying again as previously i'd hit 4-8 attempts with about 50% chance of it default to 1866..









I previously was just using timings directly from my XMP but wasn't hitting CLDO/VDDP as much..

either way, here is dump from the Calc i entered in the EFI this time.

If i understand the values correct some are variable and we just need to fiddle..

DRAM 1.44v
DRAM BOOT 1.44v
VDDP 0.900
CLDO_VDDP 866
tRFC 450
SOC Volt 1.075v
Termination block Ohm > Rec. settings Top to Bot >> 53 > RZQ/7 > OFF > RZQ/5
CAD BUS 30-30-40-60 (this seemed to work for me before..)

Every other settings was set as per below screenshts. CPU is @ 3.9Ghz 1.35v (it can run 3.95 at around 1.31-1.33v but i couldn't be bother with any chance of instability this time..)


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I think it is necessary to expose 1,415, there is no threat to the system with a specified voltage
> 
> Do not pay attention to what BIOS suggests


Thanks,i raise my vSoc to 1.2v and render some times the same file, if i get other error i try with 1.415v in Ram.

The soc is used to pciex16+sata+ram, but the principal reason to raise it is ram.
If i use my ram with lower latency, i need more soc voltage? or it only depends to memory frequency?


----------



## Disassociative

I can train my RAM to 3466CL14 easily, but it usually crashes out on AIDA64 memory stability testing within half an hour. 3333CL14 runs flawless as far as I can tell, any variation of 3600 doesn't even POST so far. Still, 3333mhz with the timings your DRAM Calculator generated runs ****loads better than it did with the D.O.C.P. automatic timings!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZeNch*
> 
> Thanks,i raise my vSoc to 1.2v and render some times the same file, if i get other error i try with 1.415v in Ram.
> 
> The soc is used to pciex16+sata+ram, but the principal reason to raise it is ram.
> If i use my ram with lower latency, i need more soc voltage? or it only depends to memory frequency?


I have a stable system at 0.98750, I do not think that values above 1.05 can help








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Disassociative*
> 
> I can train my RAM to 3466CL14 easily, but it usually crashes out on AIDA64 memory stability testing within half an hour. 3333CL14 runs flawless as far as I can tell, any variation of 3600 doesn't even POST so far. Still, 3333mhz with the timings your DRAM Calculator generated runs ****loads better than it did with the D.O.C.P. automatic timings!


try it 15 15 15 15 30 54

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> Hey just wanted to chime in, i'm using G.SKill RIpjaw V 3600 CL16 Kit x2 (4x8Gb B-Die).
> 
> When plugging in my kit data i get Mem quality 91%. I presume because out of box it's a low latency 3600 kit
> 
> The point of this post is purely around me noticing a substantially improved ability to Train my 4 Dimms with a modest speed of 3466 without any effort or tweaking.. system has been operational for 4-6 hours so far no issues, slept, hibernated and woke a couple of times without issue... yet... I will stab test later on. I think my 1700 might be a good one, so I will give 3600 a stab at some point too... Safe preset for sure..
> 
> I was able to work my way into 3466 1000% HCI some time ago but after a cold start or two i lost the ability to get it going again? It is of note it would take 4-8 attempts to train at 3466 previously.
> 
> I tried out 3466 Safe i believe and i found much more solid training. i suspect my issue may have been voltage before as i was 3466 CL16 1000% @ 1.41v. Now i am running 1.44v
> 
> I powered down system and booted a few times from hard off.
> 
> 1st - second training attempt > BOOT
> 2nd - first training attempt > BOOT
> 3rd - second training attempt > BOOT
> 
> i didn't both trying again as previously i'd hit 4-8 attempts with about 50% chance of it default to 1866..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I previously was just using timings directly from my XMP but wasn't hitting CLDO/VDDP as much..
> 
> either way, here is dump from the Calc i entered in the EFI this time.
> 
> If i understand the values correct some are variable and we just need to fiddle..
> 
> DRAM 1.44v
> DRAM BOOT 1.44v
> VDDP 0.900
> CLDO_VDDP 866
> tRFC 450
> SOC Volt 1.075v
> Termination block Ohm > Rec. settings Top to Bot >> 53 > RZQ/7 > OFF > RZQ/5
> CAD BUS 30-30-40-60 (this seemed to work for me before..)
> 
> Every other settings was set as per below screenshts. CPU is @ 3.9Ghz 1.35v (it can run 3.95 at around 1.31-1.33v but i couldn't be bother with any chance of instability this time..)


you have a really good memory controller, a great rarity of 3466 for 4 modules
I'm waiting for results from 3600


----------



## Disassociative

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> try it 15 15 15 15 30 54


I'll give it a try soon, thanks








For what it's worth this is what I have https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530

Update: it's hit the 30 minute mark without failing - will leave it overnight and see how it goes. Fingers crossed slightly loosening those timings as you suggested will do the trick.


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> .....
> 
> this article is my guess, to check it need an oscilloscope ...


Well beyond my willingness to pay to eke out 10% more bandwidth, but here is an example of what you need loaded on the oscilloscope that can run it: https://www.tek.com/datasheet/dpojet-datasheet-1


----------



## LightningManGTS

Honestly I'm at the point where methinks using memtest86+ is no longer a viable solution, what is everyone else using? I see people talk about memtest but is there other viable options for test memory that isn't that or its pro version? I certainly don't have the patience to sit there and open 16 instances of the freeware version and I rather not pay 14 bucks for the bootable version as nice as it would be.


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> you have a really good memory controller, a great rarity of 3466 for 4 modules
> I'm waiting for results from 3600


I think i have a good chip all around, it seems to need less voltage than most report when i really try for lower voltages. If you are interested it's a 1724 Malaysia 1700 (I opted for this in the hopes it'd need less voltage, as the 1700 is binned to be lower than 65watts rather than X variants binned for clock speed. Consuming less power to me would indicate a potentially higher circuit quality.

I also have better memory than most who are running 4 modules (most buy 3200 or lower from what i've seen) as mentioned these are CL16 3600 kit, they weren't cheap, but well worth it given Ryzen's thirst for memory clock.

I'll try 3600 at some point soon to see if it's bootable.... As mentioend this time.. 3466 was only a 1-2 train with your calculator. Thanks a ton for working it all out, it's saved so many people so much time.


----------



## Acidstorm

I'm using Hynix M-die memory. I followed the instructions and I couldn't get any variation of timings to work that came out of the calculator. Hynix is the HQ XMP correct? I basically used the 2400 timings of CL14-16-16-31 at 2933 and that worked better than the timings from the calc. Most of those timings wouldn't even POST, and I spent hours listening to the 3 beeps as I tried damn near every itteration of timings and alternatives from the calc. Except I can't get it 100% stable. Won't pass IBT on high, but will on standard. Also ran a P95 last night while sleeping and woke up to a black screen...

So yeah, it's frustrating because I had 2933 stable before and those settings aren't working anymore. I was trying to get 3066 to work, but I know the Hynix (the RAM was free, otherwise I would of bought some Samsung B-die kits) stuff is just not really good beyond 2800 or so. Speaking of 2800, can't seem to get that 100% stable either. I updated to 1201 BIOS, from 0810, so I don't know if it's the BIOS, or the recent windows updates screwing with things.

I'm about to say screw it and go back to the DOCP of 2400, which I found to have messed up timings for a few settings that I have to manually tweak. I'll just get some proper B-die stuff when prices have come back down to earth.

Overclocking RAM is way more a pain in the butt than I thought it would be. It's a fun challenge, but when you can do certain things on your PC and everything seems fine, but you know there is that slight instability just waiting to make you crash, it's just frustrating and hard to figure out why.


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acidstorm*
> 
> So yeah, it's frustrating because I had 2933 stable before and those settings aren't working anymore. I was trying to get 3066 to work, but I know the Hynix (the RAM was free, otherwise I would of bought some Samsung B-die kits) stuff is just not really good beyond 2800 or so. Speaking of 2800, can't seem to get that 100% stable either. I updated to 1201 BIOS, from 0810, so I don't know if it's the BIOS, or the recent windows updates screwing with things.


Please fill out your system specs, referring to BIOS revisions when we don't know anything about your system is not going to get you much help or direction to make the right settings changes.

I recommend just investing in B-Die as you mentioned. Anything else I don't really think is worth the time (my opinion no offence to anyone without B-Die







). But.. Free RAM is free







so I'd use it too!!! haha
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> Honestly I'm at the point where methinks using memtest86+ is no longer a viable solution, what is everyone else using? I see people talk about memtest but is there other viable options for test memory that isn't that or its pro version? I certainly don't have the patience to sit there and open 16 instances of the freeware version and I rather not pay 14 bucks for the bootable version as nice as it would be.


I've been using Run MemTest Version 2.5 (Dang Wang version) I cannot remember where i got it.. i am pretty sure thinking about it's just memtest86 :S which won't really help you...

This auto starts 16 copies for each thread with a set memory value..

HCI is the got to though these days..


----------



## Disassociative

Seems like setting the timings to 15-15-15-15-30-54 was the key to stability - 14 hours and counting with no errors. Thanks @1usmus


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> Well beyond my willingness to pay to eke out 10% more bandwidth, but here is an example of what you need loaded on the oscilloscope that can run it: https://www.tek.com/datasheet/dpojet-datasheet-1


Thank you, with all the desire and respect for this study, it takes a lot of time ... I unfortunately do not have it. Maybe it will be for Christmas holidays
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> Honestly I'm at the point where methinks using memtest86+ is no longer a viable solution, what is everyone else using? I see people talk about memtest but is there other viable options for test memory that isn't that or its pro version? I certainly don't have the patience to sit there and open 16 instances of the freeware version and I rather not pay 14 bucks for the bootable version as nice as it would be.


i use hci memtest pro (5$) + special launcher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acidstorm*
> 
> I'm using Hynix M-die memory. I followed the instructions and I couldn't get any variation of timings to work that came out of the calculator. Hynix is the HQ XMP correct? I basically used the 2400 timings of CL14-16-16-31 at 2933 and that worked better than the timings from the calc. Most of those timings wouldn't even POST, and I spent hours listening to the 3 beeps as I tried damn near every itteration of timings and alternatives from the calc. Except I can't get it 100% stable. Won't pass IBT on high, but will on standard. Also ran a P95 last night while sleeping and woke up to a black screen...
> 
> So yeah, it's frustrating because I had 2933 stable before and those settings aren't working anymore. I was trying to get 3066 to work, but I know the Hynix (the RAM was free, otherwise I would of bought some Samsung B-die kits) stuff is just not really good beyond 2800 or so. Speaking of 2800, can't seem to get that 100% stable either. I updated to 1201 BIOS, from 0810, so I don't know if it's the BIOS, or the recent windows updates screwing with things.
> 
> I'm about to say screw it and go back to the DOCP of 2400, which I found to have messed up timings for a few settings that I have to manually tweak. I'll just get some proper B-die stuff when prices have come back down to earth.
> 
> Overclocking RAM is way more a pain in the butt than I thought it would be. It's a fun challenge, but when you can do certain things on your PC and everything seems fine, but you know there is that slight instability just waiting to make you crash, it's just frustrating and hard to figure out why.


I advise you to install a new modified BIOS, it should help
http://www.overclock.net/t/1640394/unlocked-amd-cbs-for-ryzen-motherboard/0_20


----------



## Acidstorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I advise you to install a new modified BIOS, it should help
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1640394/unlocked-amd-cbs-for-ryzen-motherboard/0_20


I'm a bit sketchy on that idea. If I brick my board I can't replace it anytime soon. I did however mess with some timings I found in the JDEC of the RAM and just put the basics in, and came up with this:


I decided to throw some bigger volts and see what happened. I went with 1.425v on the RAM, and 1.12v on the SOC. I may not need that much and at least the initial stability is there. I will tweak and see if I can't run without GD Mode and CR1... I'm doubtful on CR1, it didn't even want to do that on 2400 speeds. But maybe it just needed more juice. I had avoided anything over 1.4v on the RAM til now.

I will look over the custom BIOS. I already gave it a glance, those extra voltage controls might help me push this RAM to 3200, which would be really nice to hit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> Please fill out your system specs, referring to BIOS revisions when we don't know anything about your system is not going to get you much help or direction to make the right settings changes.
> 
> I recommend just investing in B-Die as you mentioned. Anything else I don't really think is worth the time (my opinion no offence to anyone without B-Die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). But.. Free RAM is free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so I'd use it too!!! haha


I just want to get a handle on overclocking at the moment and this kit allows me to deal with a tough one. I'll get some B-die when I can afford it.

I'll fill in the system specs. Just for quick reference, it's R5 1600 3.9Ghz 1.381v, RAM Corsair Vengeance 2400 OC (WIP 3066), Asus Prime X370-Pro motherboard. Also using LLC3 with optimized VRM settings.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acidstorm*
> 
> I'll fill in the system specs. Just for quick reference, it's R5 1600 3.9Ghz 1.381v, RAM Corsair Vengeance 2400 OC (WIP 3066), Asus Prime X370-Pro motherboard. Also using LLC3 with optimized VRM settings.


you realise ratio wise you already getting a good overclock from 2400>2933

thats more than most of the samsung b dies owners are getting from there stock speeds

my friend has the same 2400 corsair hes using the msi tomahawk and a r5 1600
set 2933 via xmp profiles from day one and its never had a glitch,,seems the 2400 corsair isnt that bad


----------



## poisson21

@LightningManGTS

For me testing my memory is really time consuming,with 64Gb, using memtest pro it takes more than 12 Hrs to go to 100%+

So i use mainly Gsat, it can find error faster.

You can find how to install it in the op of this thead :http://www.overclock.net/t/1628751/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread/0_100.


----------



## domcale

This calculator really is a miracle, i went from fighting for stability at 2933MHz to being completely stable at 3066 CL14 and booting at 3200MHz with 2x8GB Micron dual rank memory







My only question is, is it somehow possible to make this stable? I tried everything, loosening the timings, pumping up the voltages (DRAM, SOC, Vcore), and it's always the same. Boots, can run a few benchmarks, but stuff just crashes and HCI finds errors almost immediately. Does the same thing on AGESA 1.0.0.6b and 1.0.0.7. Is it worth flashing a modded BIOS and messing with CLDO_VDDP
? I'm on the B350 Prime Plus board with a 1600.
Oh yeah, CAD bus settings are 30 30 60 60, RTT is RZQ7/3/1 and ProcODT is at 80, 68.6Ohms posts after 4-5 tries and 96Ohms doesn't post at all.


----------



## Acidstorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> you realise ratio wise you already getting a good overclock from 2400>2933
> 
> thats more than most of the samsung b dies owners are getting from there stock speeds
> 
> my friend has the same 2400 corsair hes using the msi tomahawk and a r5 1600
> set 2933 via xmp profiles from day one and its never had a glitch,,seems the 2400 corsair isnt that bad


Yeah, I don't think it is that bad. It's just tricky finding the timings that it likes. Seems to like 14-16-16-16-31... even though that is the DOCP timings for 2400! It doesn't like the loose timings from the RAM calc at 2933, but I can plug in 14-16-16-16-31 and get it running. Only issue is I don't have it stable anymore. I think it's really my SoC, as I decided to add more voltage, I found 2800 with those timings and 1.36 volts was stable with a custom IBT using 12GB RAM and ran for 5 tests. 30 minutes of IBT without errors usually means I'm rock solid.

Anyways, I know that I am getting good performance, just want to eek out as much as I can without going over 1.4v. I'm thinking of using the custom BIOS with the extra voltage setting, that might get me to 3200. Besides, who else has gotten this RAM to 3200? The effort might help others achieve this if I find solid numbers for it.


----------



## blair

Put on memtest before going out @ 3466, came home and found system had completely rebooted and mem running at 1866, something went wrong, don't know what...

Bumped the voltage of SOC from 1.05 to 1.08, CLDO_VDDP to 875, VTTDDR to 0.73, DRAM to 1.45, DRAM BOOT to 1.46 <-- not sure which of these made any difference, if at all?

set memtest off before bed last night and now over 600%, 4x8Gb B-Die @ 3466


----------



## Acidstorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> Put on memtest before going out @ 3466, came home and found system had completely rebooted and mem running at 1866, something went wrong, don't know what...
> 
> Bumped the voltage of SOC from 1.05 to 1.08, CLDO_VDDP to 875, VTTDDR to 0.73, DRAM to 1.45, DRAM BOOT to 1.46 <-- not sure which of these made any difference, if at all?
> 
> set memtest off before bed last night and now over 600%, 4x8Gb B-Die @ 3466


I might have to get the modded BIOS to hit 3066 or 3200, although even with the CLDO_VDDP, I'm not sure that'll be enough considering the Hynix M-die stuff I have. Currently have 2933 14-16-16-16-31 @ 1.38v running stable (again). After the BIOS update that OC became unstable. It's quite a good OC from the XMP profile of 2400, so if I can't get 3066 or 3200, it's not a huge deal. I've gotten close on 3066, I think it'll just need more voltage than I want to put on there. I've also had to bump my SoC to 1.1v for 2933, when 1.08 sufficed with the 0810 BIOS. I'm currently on the 1201 BIOS with the Asus Prime X370-Pro.

Oddly enough a lot of the slower timings using the RAM calc do not want to POST at all. That kit REALLY likes it's XMP timings even if it makes the chips running faster. It's the most confusing thing I've ever tried to overclock. You would think the relaxed timings would make it cooperate easier, but doesn't. Not sure if I want to go with 2933 14-16-16-16-31, or go for 12-14-14-14-27 @2800 speed. Not sure if the lower CL will be better than the higher clock. I have gotten those CL12 timings to run @2800, but figured the higher clock was worth it for the infinity fabric through-put.

I know I need to get my PC specs in my profile... I'll do that now.


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acidstorm*
> 
> I might have to get the modded BIOS to hit 3066 or 3200, although even with the CLDO_VDDP, I'm not sure that'll be enough considering the Hynix M-die stuff I have. Currently have 2933 14-16-16-16-31 @ 1.38v running stable (again). After the BIOS update that OC became unstable. It's quite a good OC from the XMP profile of 2400, so if I can't get 3066 or 3200, it's not a huge deal. I've gotten close on 3066, I think it'll just need more voltage than I want to put on there. I've also had to bump my SoC to 1.1v for 2933, when 1.08 sufficed with the 0810 BIOS. I'm currently on the 1201 BIOS with the Asus Prime X370-Pro.
> 
> Oddly enough a lot of the slower timings using the RAM calc do not want to POST at all. That kit REALLY likes it's XMP timings even if it makes the chips running faster. It's the most confusing thing I've ever tried to overclock. You would think the relaxed timings would make it cooperate easier, but doesn't. Not sure if I want to go with 2933 14-16-16-16-31, or go for 12-14-14-14-27 @2800 speed. Not sure if the lower CL will be better than the higher clock. I have gotten those CL12 timings to run @2800, but figured the higher clock was worth it for the infinity fabric through-put.
> 
> I know I need to get my PC specs in my profile... I'll do that now.


Getting that 2400 kit to 2933 is a savage OC really. It'd be hard to push 3200 with those given their base clocks. The inifinty fabric throughput gains start to diminish after 2933 mark if i recall correctly. Maybe it's worth it to just get that stable and roll with it until you can afford the B-die delight!!

Not many buy 3600mhz kits for Ryzen as it's relatively difficult to reach anyway..

My hope is the 12nm die shrink (Ryzen+) will help...


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *domcale*
> 
> This calculator really is a miracle, i went from fighting for stability at 2933MHz to being completely stable at 3066 CL14 and booting at 3200MHz with 2x8GB Micron dual rank memory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only question is, is it somehow possible to make this stable? I tried everything, loosening the timings, pumping up the voltages (DRAM, SOC, Vcore), and it's always the same. Boots, can run a few benchmarks, but stuff just crashes and HCI finds errors almost immediately. Does the same thing on AGESA 1.0.0.6b and 1.0.0.7. Is it worth flashing a modded BIOS and messing with CLDO_VDDP
> ? I'm on the B350 Prime Plus board with a 1600.
> Oh yeah, CAD bus settings are 30 30 60 60, RTT is RZQ7/3/1 and ProcODT is at 80, 68.6Ohms posts after 4-5 tries and 96Ohms doesn't post at all.


Once I was a witness when the memory of microns operated on a frequent 3200, a person used the mother memory which had only 2 memory slots. your 3066 is a very good result.

only "VPP" and "VTT DDR" can help stabilize memory
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> Put on memtest before going out @ 3466, came home and found system had completely rebooted and mem running at 1866, something went wrong, don't know what...
> 
> Bumped the voltage of SOC from 1.05 to 1.08, CLDO_VDDP to 875, VTTDDR to 0.73, DRAM to 1.45, DRAM BOOT to 1.46 <-- not sure which of these made any difference, if at all?
> 
> set memtest off before bed last night and now over 600%, 4x8Gb B-Die @ 3466


try this vboot = vdram , cldo_vddp 0.700, soc 1.05
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acidstorm*
> 
> I might have to get the modded BIOS to hit 3066 or 3200, although even with the CLDO_VDDP, I'm not sure that'll be enough considering the Hynix M-die stuff I have. Currently have 2933 14-16-16-16-31 @ 1.38v running stable (again). After the BIOS update that OC became unstable. It's quite a good OC from the XMP profile of 2400, so if I can't get 3066 or 3200, it's not a huge deal. I've gotten close on 3066, I think it'll just need more voltage than I want to put on there. I've also had to bump my SoC to 1.1v for 2933, when 1.08 sufficed with the 0810 BIOS. I'm currently on the 1201 BIOS with the Asus Prime X370-Pro.
> 
> Oddly enough a lot of the slower timings using the RAM calc do not want to POST at all. That kit REALLY likes it's XMP timings even if it makes the chips running faster. It's the most confusing thing I've ever tried to overclock. You would think the relaxed timings would make it cooperate easier, but doesn't. Not sure if I want to go with 2933 14-16-16-16-31, or go for 12-14-14-14-27 @2800 speed. Not sure if the lower CL will be better than the higher clock. I have gotten those CL12 timings to run @2800, but figured the higher clock was worth it for the infinity fabric through-put.
> 
> I know I need to get my PC specs in my profile... I'll do that now.


the memory frequency is directly related to the "infinite fabrick" frequency, the higher the frequency, the higher the utilization rate of the cores. This undoubtedly gives an increase in productivity. Try to set the system to "СLDO_VDDP" 0.700. Hynix-M can work perfectly even at 3466.

35 line
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ubpbdMcdiS37g_dReCX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388


----------



## figarro

Any ideas what to do when testing different CLDO_VDDP settings and the system fails memory training? When do I power down the system to cold boot (so that a new voltage is applied)? If I let the system fail testing it gets to the Press F1 screen...


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I decided to write a small article explaining why some systems work fine at 3200+ and others do not at all
> 
> *Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"*
> 
> CLDO_VDDP is a voltage regulator for the module (physical interface) of encoding and decoding of the transmitted and received data stream. The purpose of coding is to simplify the process of restoring the data stream of the receiver. It determines the signals, signal ratios and time parameters necessary for transferring control information, reading and writing data to DRAM devices. In plain language, CLDO_VDDP is the voltage that regulates the memory access at a certain frequency. "Hole" in turn - the frequency gap on which the memory controller can operate with our RAM.
> 
> Consider this simple picture:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows 3 identical systems (motherboard + RAM + processor). All 3 systems were overclocked and received the following results:
> 
> 1) The system was perfectly dispersed to a frequency of 3333 MHz
> 2) The system was accelerated to 2933
> 3) The system did not start at all
> 
> If all systems are the same, why such results? Let's understand. The bottom line is that each memory controller (IMC) has its own technical characteristics ("voltage" and time) and at the same voltage / frequency it will behave differently, namely it will have different access to memory. Red marked our MEMCLK holes, these are the very hole-mediators through which our memory controller communicates with RAM, and if there is no hole in the frequency range chosen by us - the system does not start or start, but the memory runs with errors. At you I think there was a question as these holes to move and expand - all is very simple, voltage CLDO_VDDP allows to spend the given manipulations. The only difficulty is that these holes can not be mathematically calculated. A vivid example of CLDO_VDDP 866 which is magical for many. The hole of this voltage is in the region of 3300-3500 MHz, but again not for all systems. As shown by our internal tests, not all of it works, I repeat all the IMC are different and require a different voltage CLDO_VDDP to achieve the same frequency.
> 
> In view of the fact that the shape of the voltage CLDO_VDDP is wave, the minimum voltage change can drastically change the stability of the system. The voltage step is 1 mv. Borders from 700 to 975.
> 
> I also want to publish a list of CLDO_VDDP, which can help stabilize your memory
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CLDO_VDDP list (volts)
> 
> 
> 
> 0.562
> 0.568
> 0.573
> 0.579
> 0.585
> 0.590
> 0.596
> 0.601
> 0.607
> 0.613
> 0.618
> 0.624
> 0.630
> 0.635
> 0.641
> 0.646
> 0.652
> 0.658
> 0.663
> 0.669
> 0.675
> 0.680
> 0.686
> 0.691
> 0.697
> 0.703
> 0.708
> 0.714
> 0.720
> 0.725
> 0.731
> 0.736
> 0.742
> 0.748
> 0.753
> 0.759
> 0.765
> 0.770
> 0.776
> 0.781
> 0.787
> 0.793
> 0.798
> 0.804
> 0.810
> 0.815
> 0.821
> 0.826
> 0.832
> 0.838
> 0.843
> 0.849
> 0.855
> 0.860
> 0.866
> 0.871
> 0.877
> 0.883
> 0.888
> 0.894
> 0.900
> 0.905
> 0.911
> 0.916
> 0.922
> 0.928
> 0.933
> 0.939
> 0.945
> 0.950
> 0.956
> 0.961
> 0.961
> 0.967
> 0.973


In the Ryzen DRAM Calculator the recommanded CLDO_VDDP value is 425 mV no matter the type of memory you have. ALT 1 is 866 mV and ALT 2 is 945 mV. Is there an error there? You said earlier "The voltage step is 1 mv. Borders from 700 to 975." 425 mV is way lower than 700.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> Any ideas what to do when testing different CLDO_VDDP settings and the system fails memory training? When do I power down the system to cold boot (so that a new voltage is applied)? If I let the system fail testing it gets to the Press F1 screen...


here, unfortunately, you always need a cold start in order to return the desired value
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> In the Ryzen DRAM Calculator the recommanded CLDO_VDDP value is 425 mV no matter the type of memory you have. ALT 1 is 866 mV and ALT 2 is 945 mV. Is there an error there? You said earlier "The voltage step is 1 mv. Borders from 700 to 975." 425 mV is way lower than 700.


All the voltages are safe, I will soon release a new version of the calculator with new recommendations.This voltage has a waveform of the signal. That is, after a certain period, the memory loses stability and again gets it. A finer adjustment requires a step-by-step selection of voltage.At the moment I like 425 and 700 very much.


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> Any ideas what to do when testing different CLDO_VDDP settings and the system fails memory training? When do I power down the system to cold boot (so that a new voltage is applied)? If I let the system fail testing it gets to the Press F1 screen...


What I did when plodding through the CLDO_VDDP/Proc_ODT morass was to let the system try to POST, and after a few F9s I would push the "start" button at the lower edge of the board (in vertical ATX cases). The BIOS would then restart and POST at 2133 (for my 2 x 16 RAM) but leave all the settings in the BIOS alone. I could then try a new CLDO-VDDP and/or Proc_ODT. It was possible this way to map out various areas where the memory hole was or wasn't, while taking only a minute or so for each test.

However, note that to get the setting in the AMD menu section to "take," it is necessary to do a BIOS hard restart, which occurs automatically if one changes the DRAM boot voltage by a tiny amount (suggestion from RAMAD).


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> try this vboot = vdram , cldo_vddp 0.700, soc 1.05


I understand that the vBoot is only used during the training phase and then the vdram is used post training?

If it is, couldn't extra voltage for the training phase assist in having more consistent memory training/sync?

Is there any methodology behind setting cldo_vddp or is it one of those "i've tested/observed lots and this seems best with frequency X, latency Y, voltage Z"?

I.E. is more CLDO beneficial for higher clocks, or lower clocks? Or is it literally 100% random across all IMCs with some voltages that seem to be 'OK for most'?

When I come to fiddling with 3600 what is your recommendation for SOC, vDRAM/BOOT/CLDO_VDDP and VDDP? I can give it a whirl over the next few days and see what happens as i'll be back at work and can leave memtest running for up to 14 hrs


----------



## poisson21

With my little understanding and poor drawing skill i'll try to "explain" how cldo_vddp work.



The curve represente your dram voltage signal, changing cldo_vddp move back and forth this signal compared to your available frequency setting.

The purpose to changing it is to make the curve crossed your setting line on the appropriate frequency setting.

Whereas the zone where there is no curve present is a memory hole .

Depending of your IMC or RAM the curve can vary in lenght or thickness.

If i understand it properly, it work like that.

Sorry for my poor english.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poisson21*
> 
> With my little understanding and poor drawing skill i'll try to "explain" how cldo_vddp work.
> 
> 
> The curve represente your dram voltage signal, changing cldo_vddp move back and forth this signal compared to your available frequency setting.
> The purpose to changing it is to make the curve crossed your setting line on the appropriate frequency setting.
> Whereas the zone where there is no curve present is a memory hole .
> Depending of your IMC or RAM the curve can vary in lenght or thickness.
> If i understand it properly, it work like that.
> 
> Sorry for my poor english.


All is true, only the form is more oblate, in dozens of times


----------



## BWG

This post...

I want to frame it in platinum on my wall because I've struggled with my sk-hynix 3200 set since this systems inception. I can't believe I went from 2933 to 3333 so far with using all of the settings on each tab.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> I understand that the vBoot is only used during the training phase and then the vdram is used post training?
> 
> If it is, couldn't extra voltage for the training phase assist in having more consistent memory training/sync?
> 
> Is there any methodology behind setting cldo_vddp or is it one of those "i've tested/observed lots and this seems best with frequency X, latency Y, voltage Z"?
> 
> I.E. is more CLDO beneficial for higher clocks, or lower clocks? Or is it literally 100% random across all IMCs with some voltages that seem to be 'OK for most'?
> 
> When I come to fiddling with 3600 what is your recommendation for SOC, vDRAM/BOOT/CLDO_VDDP and VDDP? I can give it a whirl over the next few days and see what happens as i'll be back at work and can leave memtest running for up to 14 hrs


An overabundance of voltage generates digital and thermal noise, increasing the voltage can both positively and negatively affect on system. To simplify your life put vdram = vboot dram.By my observation vboot also takes part in the work of the system after training.

Сalculate СLDO_VDDP is impossible, it is always different. It is also influenced by procODT. The values that the calculator offers are values that work successfully on most systems. They are found purely in practice.

It is extremely difficult to configure the 3600. It is necessary to regulate constantly additional voltages : VPP , VDDP , PLL and VTT DDR. Increasing the voltage to SOC will not help, and in most cases worsen the situation. The controller is very sensitive to noise.


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poisson21*
> 
> With my little understanding and poor drawing skill i'll try to "explain" how cldo_vddp work.
> 
> 
> The curve represente your dram voltage signal, changing cldo_vddp move back and forth this signal compared to your available frequency setting.
> The purpose to changing it is to make the curve crossed your setting line on the appropriate frequency setting.
> Whereas the zone where there is no curve present is a memory hole .
> Depending of your IMC or RAM the curve can vary in lenght or thickness.
> If i understand it properly, it work like that.
> 
> Sorry for my poor english.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> All is true, only the form is more oblate, in dozens of times


Thank you both









This makes much more sense. So that would mean the only way to difinitively tell what your ideal setting is is to have an oscilloscope







haha otherwise trial and error... with a few 'common starting points'
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> An overabundance of voltage generates digital and thermal noise, increasing the voltage can both positively and negatively affect on system. To simplify your life put vdram = vboot dram.By my observation vboot also takes part in the work of the system after training.
> 
> Сalculate СLDO_VDDP is impossible, it is always different. It is also influenced by procODT. The values that the calculator offers are values that work successfully on most systems. They are found purely in practice.
> 
> It is extremely difficult to configure the 3600. It is necessary to regulate constantly additional voltages : VPP , VDDP , PLL and VTT DDR. Increasing the voltage to SOC will not help, and in most cases worsen the situation. The controller is very sensitive to noise.


I see, so to try and get 3600 stable i'm going to need to play, and play









It may not be worth my time given my system is mostly used for gaming sub 100 fps. I'm more than happy to test for the sake of knowledge though


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> Thank you both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This makes much more sense. So that would mean the only way to difinitively tell what your ideal setting is is to have an oscilloscope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haha otherwise trial and error... with a few 'common starting points'
> I see, so to try and get 3600 stable i'm going to need to play, and play
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be worth my time given my system is mostly used for gaming sub 100 fps. I'm more than happy to test for the sake of knowledge though


The memory frequency of 3466+ is meaningless, CPU utilization and multi-core efficiency depend on the Infiniti fabrick. There comes a moment when growth stops because the core frequently reaches the limit.
At the moment the memory frequency of 3466 corresponds to the processor frequency of 4100 MHz.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> Any ideas what to do when testing different CLDO_VDDP settings and the system fails memory training? When do I power down the system to cold boot (so that a new voltage is applied)? If I let the system fail testing it gets to the Press F1 screen...
> 
> 
> 
> What I did when plodding through the CLDO_VDDP/Proc_ODT morass was to let the system try to POST, and after a few F9s I would push the "start" button at the lower edge of the board (in vertical ATX cases). The BIOS would then restart and POST at 2133 (for my 2 x 16 RAM) but leave all the settings in the BIOS alone. I could then try a new CLDO-VDDP and/or Proc_ODT. It was possible this way to map out various areas where the memory hole was or wasn't, while taking only a minute or so for each test.
> 
> However, note that to get the setting in the AMD menu section to "take," it is necessary to do a BIOS hard restart, which occurs automatically if one changes the DRAM boot voltage by a tiny amount (suggestion from RAMAD).
Click to expand...

There's a easier way to let it stick
Just enter the settings that you want... then press F10 to save+exit
Watch the countre on the motherboard start to go trough varius codes <- as soon as it starts going trough those boot-codes... press the "reset-button" of your mobo
Now it will reboot with your settings if it excepts your settings
To verify... Enter bios asap after you have pressed the reset-button and check if the settings are applied

This works every time for me and i don't have to see it go trough many failed attempts


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> There's a easier way to let it stick
> Just enter the settings that you want... then press F10 to save+exit
> Watch the countre on the motherboard start to go trough varius codes <- as soon as it starts going trough those boot-codes... press the "reset-button" of your mobo
> Now it will reboot with your settings if it excepts your settings
> To verify... Enter bios asap after you have pressed the reset-button and check if the settings are applied
> 
> This works every time for me and i don't have to see it go trough many failed attempts


Unfortunately for me I have the Asus X370 Pro, which doesn't feature reset buttons on the motherboard or LED debugger. It will take ages to get my dual Rank Hynix M-DIE (I suppose is the same thing as MFR) over 2933.

Also as of 2 hours ago I'm running a modified BIOS and some settings are duplicated in the DRAM timings menu and CBS menu (geardown, CAD_BUS). Don't know which ones take precedence, if it's the case...


----------



## LG25

I just wanted to thank you for the Ryzen calculator, as it just helped me achieve a stable 3200 CL 16 memory configuration, after hitting a wall at 2933 CL 14 for the last month. I really appreciate this. Thank you.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> There's a easier way to let it stick
> Just enter the settings that you want... then press F10 to save+exit
> Watch the countre on the motherboard start to go trough varius codes <- as soon as it starts going trough those boot-codes... press the "reset-button" of your mobo
> Now it will reboot with your settings if it excepts your settings
> To verify... Enter bios asap after you have pressed the reset-button and check if the settings are applied
> 
> This works every time for me and i don't have to see it go trough many failed attempts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for me I have the Asus X370 Pro, which doesn't feature reset buttons on the motherboard or LED debugger. It will take ages to get my dual Rank Hynix M-DIE (I suppose is the same thing as MFR) over 2933.
> 
> Also as of 2 hours ago I'm running a modified BIOS and some settings are duplicated in the DRAM timings menu and CBS menu (geardown, CAD_BUS). Don't know which ones take precedence, if it's the case...
Click to expand...

Sorry.. i ment... i use the reset button on my housing
Np if your motherboard doesn't have the counter... just count to "2" and then press the button.
Two secs should be enough i think
Setting in CBS section will be ignored if settings in timings section are set (on my motherboard anyway)


----------



## realmaddog

is 1,45v realy safe for 24/7 settings?


----------



## Disassociative

I believe the maximum voltage allowed for XMP certification is 1.5v, so if that’s correct hypothetically it should be fine. Someone who knows what they’re talking about should confirm though lol


----------



## realmaddog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Disassociative*
> 
> I believe the maximum voltage allowed for XMP certification is 1.5v, so if that's correct hypothetically it should be fine. Someone who knows what they're talking about should confirm though lol


Yeah my question is also how high is still good for the ryzem memory controler.


----------



## chroniclard

1.45 v is fine for B Die, dunno about others.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Confirmed... 1.5V is the absolute max for Vram (DRAM Voltage)








.


Spoiler: B-Die



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jeager*
> 
> Improved sup for HOF ? What do you mean with improved sup since you can only switch "Memory type" and the program will just calculate stuff from hardcoded settings ?
> 
> What's the max safe for 24/7 for bdie ? 1.5v ?
> I think i'm stuck at 3333 for days since there is LCC options on the asrock x370 gaming x ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this memory often has all the parameters inadequately inflated, the calculator analyzes what the user enters and he himself recognizes what needs to be done in the calculations even more
> 
> 1,46-1,48 - I consider these values as safe as possible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the B-die specs in this document... 1.5V is the absolute max (page 11)
Click to expand...







Spoiler: Hynix



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *WarpenN1*
> 
> Hmmm does anybody know how much heat affects RAM stability and data integrity?
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> According to the B-die specs in this document... 1.5V is the absolute max (page 11)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so I wrote about 1.46-1.48
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I tested for 1.5 memory stability on this voltage was not at any VTT DDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The maximum also applies to Hynix dimms according to this datasheet (4Gb) and this datasheet (8Gb)
> If i read it right
> 
> EDIT :
> I didn't mention VTT DDR
Click to expand...


----------



## veryusername

I've been trying to get my ram stable @ 3333, but no luck so far. Hope someone can help me which direction should I go forward.

The rig:
- 1800X
- Asus x370 Prime Pro
- 2 x G.Skill F4-3600C15-8GTZ (B-die, single rank)

*Current, STABLE* settings:
- CPU multiplier: 40.00
- VDDR CPU: 1.38125
- VDDR SoC: 0.9315
- DRAM: 1.395
- ProcODT: 53.3 Ohm



(Probably could tighten the timings a bit more, but I'm just glad it's stable at this point.)

And so here we comes: _ALL_ other settings are default, not touched.

I can/could boot @3333 many times, but it never was stable, MemTest (HCI) failed right away. The calculator gives me some really extreme timings, so no real luck there.
I'm guessing I should play around with CLDO_VDDP, but as far as I can see, the setting is removed from the latest BIOS (1.0.0.7.1) - if not, please tell me where it is.

Besides the CLDO_VDDP option, what else could I try?


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryusername*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying to get my ram stable @ 3333, but no luck so far. Hope someone can help me which direction should I go forward.
> 
> The rig:
> - 1800X
> - Asus x370 Prime Pro
> - 2 x G.Skill F4-3600C15-8GTZ (B-die, single rank)
> 
> *Current, STABLE* settings:
> - CPU multiplier: 40.00
> - VDDR CPU: 1.38125
> - VDDR SoC: 0.9315
> - DRAM: 1.395
> - ProcODT: 53.3 Ohm
> 
> 
> 
> (Probably could tighten the timings a bit more, but I'm just glad it's stable at this point.)
> 
> And so here we comes: _ALL_ other settings are default, not touched.
> 
> I can/could boot @3333 many times, but it never was stable, MemTest (HCI) failed right away. The calculator gives me some really extreme timings, so no real luck there.
> I'm guessing I should play around with CLDO_VDDP, but as far as I can see, the setting is removed from the latest BIOS (1.0.0.7.1) - if not, please tell me where it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the CLDO_VDDP option, what else could I try?


* DRAM voltage > up towards 1.4V (max. ±1.48V)
* SoC voltage (max. 1.15V)
* CADbus settings (see calculator)
* ProcODT (optional @ 60.0 Ohm)


----------



## Spectre73

I really think your SoC Voltage could use a healthy bump to about 1.05v or 1.025v at least. It should greatly stabilize your RAM. And it is in accordance to the ryzen DRAM calculator


----------



## veryusername

Well the thing is... Asus' new BIOS sets the SoC voltage to 1.1V default, and at that voltage (or even above 1.0V) my 3200 Mhz settings totally goes unstable... In fact, even at 0.95V it was unstable, but not as much as on higher voltage.

Also the calculator says 53.3 Ohm as recommended for me, only the last option (Alt 3) is 60 Ohm.
Regarding higher DRAM voltage I really didn't see any improvement, albeit I only went up to 1.45V before.


----------



## Acidstorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> Getting that 2400 kit to 2933 is a savage OC really. It'd be hard to push 3200 with those given their base clocks. The inifinty fabric throughput gains start to diminish after 2933 mark if i recall correctly. Maybe it's worth it to just get that stable and roll with it until you can afford the B-die delight!!
> 
> Not many buy 3600mhz kits for Ryzen as it's relatively difficult to reach anyway..
> 
> My hope is the 12nm die shrink (Ryzen+) will help...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Once I was a witness when the memory of microns operated on a frequent 3200, a person used the mother memory which had only 2 memory slots. your 3066 is a very good result.
> 
> only "VPP" and "VTT DDR" can help stabilize memory
> try this vboot = vdram , cldo_vddp 0.700, soc 1.05
> the memory frequency is directly related to the "infinite fabrick" frequency, the higher the frequency, the higher the utilization rate of the cores. This undoubtedly gives an increase in productivity. Try to set the system to "СLDO_VDDP" 0.700. Hynix-M can work perfectly even at 3466.
> 
> 35 line
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ubpbdMcdiS37g_dReCX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388


Currently, I have 2933 stable with 1.38v and SoC to 1.1v. 14-16-16-16-31 timings. I haven't installed the modded BIOS. So, I think for now I'm just gonna stick with that OC and just save for faster B-die stuff later. I had to jump the voltage on the RAM to 1.4v to even get 3066 to POST, so I think the RAM is pretty close to being maxed out. I also can't seem to run the RAM in CR1 with GD mode off. I can turn GD mode off and run CR2... Not sure if I should turn GD mode off or not.

Thanks for linking that spreadsheet. I'll have to go over the timings there and might find something useful to try. I'm pretty happy with my OC at this point. The system is snappier than it was with the RAM at 2400 speeds. So anything extra I come up with is just icing on the cake.


----------



## Spectre73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryusername*
> 
> Well the thing is... Asus' new BIOS sets the SoC voltage to 1.1V default, and at that voltage (or even above 1.0V) my 3200 Mhz settings totally goes unstable... In fact, even at 0.95V it was unstable, but not as much as on higher voltage.
> 
> Also the calculator says 53.3 Ohm as recommended for me, only the last option (Alt 3) is 60 Ohm.
> Regarding higher DRAM voltage I really didn't see any improvement, albeit I only went up to 1.45V before.


There is a correlation between ProcODT and RAM or SOC voltages (don't know which, but 1usmus exlkained it). If with 0.95v and ProcODT 53,3 your RAM is barely stable and becomes less stable with more SoC voltage, you have to increase the resistance via ProcODT. The stronger signal from the SoC needs stronger termination.


----------



## veryusername

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre73*
> 
> There is a correlation between ProcODT and RAM or SOC voltages (don't know which, but 1usmus exlkained it). If with 0.95v and ProcODT 53,3 your RAM is barely stable and becomes less stable with more SoC voltage, you have to increase the resistance via ProcODT. The stronger signal from the SoC needs stronger termination.


Alright, will try it later, thanks!

Is there a way to see what's the current CLDO_VDDP setting?


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> The memory frequency of 3466+ is meaningless, CPU utilization and multi-core efficiency depend on the Infiniti fabrick. There comes a moment when growth stops because the core frequently reaches the limit.
> At the moment the memory frequency of 3466 corresponds to the processor frequency of 4100 MHz.


I see, so that's likely why people see diminishing returns on RAM OC, as most, won't be running 4-4.1ghz, and more commonly say, 3.8-3.9Ghz which i presume would be about 3066-3200mhz as the 'DRAM speed that is enough to remove infinity fabric bottlenecks'??

Given this i may be better off just sitting back at 3333mhz with tighter timings? I say this as i'm temperature limited on the core right now anything over 3.9Ghz (considered a 280/360mm CLC a few times but my 240mm Corsair seems to be fine really..)


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> I see, so that's likely why people see diminishing returns on RAM OC, as most, won't be running 4-4.1ghz, and more commonly say, 3.8-3.9Ghz which i presume would be about 3066-3200mhz as the 'DRAM speed that is enough to remove infinity fabric bottlenecks'??
> 
> Given this i may be better off just sitting back at 3333mhz with tighter timings? I say this as i'm temperature limited on the core right now anything over 3.9Ghz (considered a 280/360mm CLC a few times but my 240mm Corsair seems to be fine really..)


[email protected] (svi2, 1.381v bios with llc3) @72c max in stress test with lucifer v2 with original cooler at 1400rpm and a koolance 12025hbk at 1400rpm max.
this is better than my Corsair H80iGT at full speed (2 years old).

i use G.Skill M-Die SR 2x8gb @[email protected] c16-16-16-18-36-56-1T.

i dont try more speed on my ram at the moment.

Edit: for games and VM is better more bandwith or less latency?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryusername*
> 
> Well the thing is... Asus' new BIOS sets the SoC voltage to 1.1V default, and at that voltage (or even above 1.0V) my 3200 Mhz settings totally goes unstable... In fact, even at 0.95V it was unstable, but not as much as on higher voltage.
> 
> Also the calculator says 53.3 Ohm as recommended for me, only the last option (Alt 3) is 60 Ohm.
> Regarding higher DRAM voltage I really didn't see any improvement, albeit I only went up to 1.45V before.


most of the settings are specially made incorrect so that when new processors come out to announce the benefits

few people know but the memory on the micron chips is capable of operating at a frequency of 3200 MHz at a voltage of 1.3 volts. At 1.35 there is no start. Similarly, the voltage of the SOC, the system is stable at 0.85V.

I believe that the maximum voltage should not be more than 1.05 volts, but there are instances of processors with low leakage currents, that's why this overcharge is important for them
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acidstorm*
> 
> Currently, I have 2933 stable with 1.38v and SoC to 1.1v. 14-16-16-16-31 timings. I haven't installed the modded BIOS. So, I think for now I'm just gonna stick with that OC and just save for faster B-die stuff later. I had to jump the voltage on the RAM to 1.4v to even get 3066 to POST, so I think the RAM is pretty close to being maxed out. I also can't seem to run the RAM in CR1 with GD mode off. I can turn GD mode off and run CR2... Not sure if I should turn GD mode off or not.
> 
> Thanks for linking that spreadsheet. I'll have to go over the timings there and might find something useful to try. I'm pretty happy with my OC at this point. The system is snappier than it was with the RAM at 2400 speeds. So anything extra I come up with is just icing on the cake.


на данный момент у вас очень хорошие тайминги. Но в будущем я б советовал попробовать победить 3200









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryusername*
> 
> Alright, will try it later, thanks!
> 
> Is there a way to see what's the current CLDO_VDDP setting?


there is no such possibility

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> I see, so that's likely why people see diminishing returns on RAM OC, as most, won't be running 4-4.1ghz, and more commonly say, 3.8-3.9Ghz which i presume would be about 3066-3200mhz as the 'DRAM speed that is enough to remove infinity fabric bottlenecks'??
> 
> Given this i may be better off just sitting back at 3333mhz with tighter timings? I say this as i'm temperature limited on the core right now anything over 3.9Ghz (considered a 280/360mm CLC a few times but my 240mm Corsair seems to be fine really..)


I think that for 3,8-3,9 you need a frequency of 3200-3333. If your memory runs at a higher frequency, this can improve the performance of the minimum and average frame rate, or may worsen it. All individually, you need to test


----------



## veryusername

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> most of the settings are specially made incorrect so that when new processors come out to announce the benefits
> 
> few people know but the memory on the micron chips is capable of operating at a frequency of 3200 MHz at a voltage of 1.3 volts. At 1.35 there is no start. Similarly, the voltage of the SOC, the system is stable at 0.85V.
> 
> I believe that the maximum voltage should not be more than 1.05 volts, but there are instances of processors with low leakage currents, that's why this overcharge is important for them
> ...
> there is no such possibility


Thanks!

So then, do you think I should just use the modded BIOS by you and see if it's possible to reach 3200+ with CLDO_VDDP tweaking, or just forget about it? What's your opinion?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryusername*
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> So then, do you think I should just use the modded BIOS by you and see if it's possible to reach 3200+ with CLDO_VDDP tweaking, or just forget about it? What's your opinion?


CLDO setup can help stabilize the system and improve overclocking. The patience that you give to the platform for checking options from the calculator is important

I want to share with you the results of the experiment with a voltage of 700 for CLDO_VDDP. Memory now works fine on voltage and 1.385. Previously, it only worked at 1,415. The procODT also changed, the memory with a frequency of 3333 can be loaded with the parameter 60. Previously, the minimum was 68.6.

p.s. memory dual rank


----------



## veryusername

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> CLDO setup can help stabilize the system and improve overclocking. The patience that you give to the platform for checking options from the calculator is important
> 
> I want to share with you the results of the experiment with a voltage of 700 for CLDO_VDDP. Memory now works fine on voltage and 1.385. Previously, it only worked at 1,415. The procODT also changed, the memory with a frequency of 3333 can be loaded with the parameter 60. Previously, the minimum was 68.6.
> 
> p.s. memory dual rank


Alright, thanks! I'll try to use the modified BIOS then. I'm very patient so that won't be a problem, I'm just a bit scared I'll brick my board.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryusername*
> 
> Alright, thanks! I'll try to use the modified BIOS then. I'm very patient so that won't be a problem, I'm just a bit scared I'll brick my board.


everything will be fine, the main thing is that the light is not turned off


----------



## Acidstorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> на данный момент у вас очень хорошие тайминги. Но в будущем я б советовал попробовать победить 3200


Thanks. I've been trying to get 3200 to even POST. I think my IMC/SoC (not sure if those are intertwined on the architecture or not) isn't that great. I seem to need more voltage than suggested to get things stable. Also today I tried to turn down the SoC phase from 'Extreme' to 'Optimized' and it became unstable. Also tried to lower voltage from 1.1v to 1.08v and that caused IBT to crash.

3200 would be nice, but all the RAM timings, voltages and everything else I've seen from RAM calc, and others settings, nothing has worked so far. Today, I put SoC to 1.2v, and RAM to 1.45, then messed with timings, ProcODT from 43 to 80 with timings of 14-16-16-16-31-47, and 16-18-18-18-36-54, GD mode on, with CR to auto, and it takes a long, long, time to test each of these between POST fails lol

I'll give it a try later. I'd like to run 2933 without GD mode and CR1 timings, but I don't think this kit likes CR1, even the DOCP setting has it as CR2. And when I try to losen timings, oddly enough the kit seems to respond worse, unless it's just the sub-timings I'm not getting correct. Lately, I've been leaving subtimings on auto, which responded better than using the RAM calc subtimings. Even when using those timings for 2933, it wouldn't POST. And for the most part it's very minimal performance gain, I'm just stubborn and want to figure this out! lol


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 V7*

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3QQ5-VLD3WLNHMKuL0ND6CDKi5f3oWu/view?usp=sharing

* added a separate calculator for memory with E / D / C-die chips Samsung (test version)
* edit tWTRS in calculators for the Samsung (the understated value adversely affected the FPS)
* adaptation of the program to the settings of AGESA 7
* the recommendations in the CAD_BUS block are changed
* slight correction of timings tRAS and tRC
* minor edits


----------



## chroniclard

Thanks for all the effort with this. Helped me a lot with tweaking.









Giving new version a go.


----------



## Valter84

Thank you for your great work!
I wish I had asus ch6 to benefit at 100% from your calculator.
But I was able to get 3333mhz with my asus prime. I will have a look on your new version, but I suspect i won`t able to get more from this motherboard.


----------



## datonyb

downloading now to have a look


----------



## khristoananas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 V7*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3QQ5-VLD3WLNHMKuL0ND6CDKi5f3oWu/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * added a separate calculator for memory with E / D / C-die chips Samsung (test version)
> * edit tWTRS in calculators for the Samsung (the understated value adversely affected the FPS)
> * adaptation of the program to the settings of AGESA 7
> * the recommendations in the CAD_BUS block are changed
> * slight correction of timings tRAS and tRC
> * minor edits


E / D / C-die chips Samsung, what the main difference between E/D/C die and B die ? Any advantage ?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *khristoananas*
> 
> E / D / C-die chips Samsung, what the main difference between E/D/C die and B die ? Any advantage ?


chips for different market segments, have different overclocking capabilities


----------



## datonyb

testing version v7 now at 3200 fast as compared to v5 3200 fast (which was very stable)
differences between v7 and v5 were small
twtrs now 4 instead of 3
rtt nom now 7 instead of dis

cad bus to 30ohm instead of 24
cldo vddp 700 instead of 425

ram is 3200 cl15 samsung b die gskill trident

i will let you know if anything changes


----------



## khristoananas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> chips for different market segments, have different overclocking capabilities


And what is the best for overclocking ?


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *khristoananas*
> 
> And what is the best for overclocking ?


samsung b die

available on 8gb sticks single sided and 'some' 16gb sticks double sided

single is better for overclocking


----------



## Bartouille

Anyone actually managed to STABILIZE anything by tweaking CLDO_VDDP? Not talking about CLDO_VDDP helping to boot here. I'm asking because I'm trying to stabilize 3600MHz on 1950X (boots all the time, but gets errors in HCI Memtest after 200%) and I don't want to waste time tweaking this voltage if it doesn't help stability.


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 V7*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3QQ5-VLD3WLNHMKuL0ND6CDKi5f3oWu/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * added a separate calculator for memory with E / D / C-die chips Samsung (test version)
> * edit tWTRS in calculators for the Samsung (the understated value adversely affected the FPS)
> * adaptation of the program to the settings of AGESA 7
> * the recommendations in the CAD_BUS block are changed
> * slight correction of timings tRAS and tRC
> * minor edits


I'm not sure if it's a problem with the new version, but for Hynix dual rank 2933 and 3066 timings are identical. I'm using the old version timings for 2933 (tighter than the new version) for the past couple of weeks without stability issues. The new 3066 didn't work at all (not now, not before).


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I'm not sure if it's a problem with the new version, but for Hynix dual rank 2933 and 3066 timings are identical. I'm using the old version timings for 2933 (tighter than the new version) for the past couple of weeks without stability issues. The new 3066 didn't work at all (not now, not before).


forgot to write about it. made specially more secure timings for the frequency 2933








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> testing version v7 now at 3200 fast as compared to v5 3200 fast (which was very stable)
> differences between v7 and v5 were small
> twtrs now 4 instead of 3
> rtt nom now 7 instead of dis
> 
> cad bus to 30ohm instead of 24
> cldo vddp 700 instead of 425
> 
> ram is 3200 cl15 samsung b die gskill trident
> 
> i will let you know if anything changes


small changes really more


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bartouille*
> 
> Anyone actually managed to STABILIZE anything by tweaking CLDO_VDDP? Not talking about CLDO_VDDP helping to boot here. I'm asking because I'm trying to stabilize 3600MHz on 1950X (boots all the time, but gets errors in HCI Memtest after 200%) and I don't want to waste time tweaking this voltage if it doesn't help stability.


what current settings do you currently have and what kind of memory?


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> forgot to write about it. made specially more secure timings for the frequency 2933


I dream of the day when I'll be able to run my dual rank kit above 3000 stable. I've tried 3200, 3333 and 3466 timings for 3066 and they didn't work (have tried procODT up to 80 Ohm and CLDO_VDDP aat 425, 700, 866 and 945). Maybe that's the limit with my RAM... even if the timings calculator says it should work up to 3400 MHz with safe timings.


----------



## Bartouille

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> what current settings do you currently have and what kind of memory?


I'm using auto timings (trying to get 3600MHz stable before tightening). 60 ohm ProcODT (53.3 ohm works too, 48.0 ohm and 68.6 ohm do not), CLDO_VDDC is 975. Memory is G.SKILL F4-3733C17D-8GVK (E-Die).


----------



## qwea0x

My B-die RAM (CMR16GX4M2C3466C16) is unable to start up when I have both GDM disabled and CR set to 1T. If I enable GDM or set CR to 2T, it boots up just fine. Is this a limitation of my RAM or is there something I could try? I've already tried most the recommendations suggested to me but no matter what I do, it just keeps failing to train the memory.


----------



## zulex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwea0x*
> 
> My B-die RAM (CMR16GX4M2C3466C16) is unable to start up when I have both GDM disabled and CR set to 1T. If I enable GDM or set CR to 2T, it boots up just fine. Is this a limitation of my RAM or is there something I could try? I've already tried most the recommendations suggested to me but no matter what I do, it just keeps failing to train the memory.


I think it could be the limitation of your ram or CPU memory controller or MB. It is hard to say which one unless you try and error in multiple cases.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwea0x*
> 
> My B-die RAM (CMR16GX4M2C3466C16) is unable to start up when I have both GDM disabled and CR set to 1T. If I enable GDM or set CR to 2T, it boots up just fine. Is this a limitation of my RAM or is there something I could try? I've already tried most the recommendations suggested to me but no matter what I do, it just keeps failing to train the memory.


i too had this issue

no boot any time i switched off geardown mode

however now i use the ryzen calculator and ALL the settings i can boot with geardown turned off...............

it obviously was a combination of something i hadnt set correctly in bios


----------



## zulex

Anybody using F4-4000C19-8GTZ memory kit?
when I run Ryzen DRAM Calculator, Cas Latency(TCL) is 15.
However, I can train my memory with Cas 14.
Can I just take Cas 14, and take the rest values in DRAM Calculator?
Is it okay to take the numbers in DRAM Calculator even if I change Cas Latency?


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zulex*
> 
> Anybody using F4-4000C19-8GTZ memory kit?
> when I run Ryzen DRAM Calculator, Cas Latency(TCL) is 15.
> However, I can train my memory with Cas 14.
> Can I just take Cas 14, and take the rest values in DRAM Calculator?
> Is it okay to take the numbers in DRAM Calculator even if I change Cas Latency?


dram calculator say to me 16-17-17 in fast mode, i use 16-16-16 and the other timmings of dram calculator. work to me.


----------



## zulex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZeNch*
> 
> dram calculator say to me 16-17-17 in fast mode, i use 16-16-16 and the other timmings of dram calculator. work to me.


Are you using the same F4-4000C19-8GTZ memory kit?
My memory frequency was set to 3466MHz, and when I entered all nano values in Thaipoon, I got 15-15-15 in the fast preset. However, I could train my ram 14-14-14.
If it is okay, I will take 14-14-14, and take the rest values in DRAM Calculator.
I am just curious if one of the values in the DRAM Calculator changes, then it affects the rest settings.


----------



## zulex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 V7*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3QQ5-VLD3WLNHMKuL0ND6CDKi5f3oWu/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * added a separate calculator for memory with E / D / C-die chips Samsung (test version)
> * edit tWTRS in calculators for the Samsung (the understated value adversely affected the FPS)
> * adaptation of the program to the settings of AGESA 7
> * the recommendations in the CAD_BUS block are changed
> * slight correction of timings tRAS and tRC
> * minor edits


Thank you for the new release. I really appreciate it.
However, I would like to suggest to change the wording in Memory Rank.
I think it would be easier to understand if the option "1", "2" is changed to "Single", "Dual".


----------



## Disassociative

I know we’ve settled on a safe voltage - but what’s everyone’s opinion on a average safe temperature for DDR4 in general? Mine ranges between 42 and 49 degrees when stress testing and gaming.


----------



## chroniclard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Disassociative*
> 
> I know we've settled on a safe voltage - but what's everyone's opinion on a average safe temperature for DDR4 in general? Mine ranges between 42 and 49 degrees when stress testing and gaming.


Never even looked at RAM temp.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I dream of the day when I'll be able to run my dual rank kit above 3000 stable. I've tried 3200, 3333 and 3466 timings for 3066 and they didn't work (have tried procODT up to 80 Ohm and CLDO_VDDP aat 425, 700, 866 and 945). Maybe that's the limit with my RAM... even if the timings calculator says it should work up to 3400 MHz with safe timings.


try to rearrange the modules 2 -> 4 , 4 -> 2
this sometimes helps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bartouille*
> 
> I'm using auto timings (trying to get 3600MHz stable before tightening). 60 ohm ProcODT (53.3 ohm works too, 48.0 ohm and 68.6 ohm do not), CLDO_VDDC is 975. Memory is G.SKILL F4-3733C17D-8GVK (E-Die).


975 is not the optimal value, try 700 or 425

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwea0x*
> 
> My B-die RAM (CMR16GX4M2C3466C16) is unable to start up when I have both GDM disabled and CR set to 1T. If I enable GDM or set CR to 2T, it boots up just fine. Is this a limitation of my RAM or is there something I could try? I've already tried most the recommendations suggested to me but no matter what I do, it just keeps failing to train the memory.


This is an architectural feature of the memory on the Hunix chips. GDM can not be disabled. GDM enable + 1T not work?


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> try to rearrange the modules 2 -> 4 , 4 -> 2
> this sometimes helps
> 975 is not the optimal value, try 700 or 425
> This is an architectural feature of the memory on the Hunix chips. GDM can not be disabled. GDM enable + 1T not work?


1 - Thanks for the suggestion: I'll try swapping the two modules around.
2 - I mean 945, the one from the DRAM Timings Calculator. I will try 700 again.
3 - Only GDM with 1T works. Can't turn off GDM and can't set 2T, no matter the combination of the two options set in BIOS. I remember seeing 2T at one time working in the past, but must have been below 2933 (2666 if I remember correctly).

I've been also playing with DRAM voltage up to 1.45V and VSoC up to 1.1V, but the memory is not stable at all, plus I get weird boot issue with motherboard not recovering automatically after a failed start (had to reset CMOS)...


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zulex*
> 
> Anybody using F4-4000C19-8GTZ memory kit?
> when I run Ryzen DRAM Calculator, Cas Latency(TCL) is 15.
> However, I can train my memory with Cas 14.
> Can I just take Cas 14, and take the rest values in DRAM Calculator?
> Is it okay to take the numbers in DRAM Calculator even if I change Cas Latency?


most calculations are performed with a margin for stability
you can enter values tRP / tRCDWR / tRCRD the same as tCL and see whether the system is stable


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> 1 - Thanks for the suggestion: I'll try swapping the two modules around.
> 2 - I mean 945, the one from the DRAM Timings Calculator. I will try 700 again.
> 3 - Only GDM with 1T works. Can't turn off GDM and can't set 2T, no matter the combination of the two options set in BIOS. I remember seeing 2T at one time working in the past, but must have been below 2933 (2666 if I remember correctly).
> 
> I've been also playing with DRAM voltage up to 1.45V and VSoC up to 1.1V, but the memory is not stable at all, plus I get weird boot issue with motherboard not recovering automatically after a failed start (had to reset CMOS)...


each version of the BIOS has changes that do not write in release note, the most optimal version of GDM Enable + 1T
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Disassociative*
> 
> I know we've settled on a safe voltage - but what's everyone's opinion on a average safe temperature for DDR4 in general? Mine ranges between 42 and 49 degrees when stress testing and gaming.


the permissible limit is in the region of 70-80 degrees


----------



## qwea0x

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> This is an architectural feature of the memory on the Hunix chips. GDM can not be disabled. GDM enable + 1T not work?


For my B-die chip, I can disable GDM and run 2T. Or I can enable GDM and run 1T. But I cannot disable GDM and run 1T or it just fails to boot. I'm currently using the fast 3333MHz presets with the exception of GDM being enabled and its mostly stable so far.

How big of a performance decrease is having GDM enabled?


----------



## Disassociative

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> the permissible limit is in the region of 70-80 degrees


Ahh well, I got nothing to worry about then


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwea0x*
> 
> For my B-die chip, I can disable GDM and run 2T. Or I can enable GDM and run 1T. But I cannot disable GDM and run 1T or it just fails to boot. I'm currently using the fast 3333MHz presets with the exception of GDM being enabled and its mostly stable so far.
> 
> How big of a performance decrease is having GDM enabled?


A familiar problem, it sometimes occurs. All b-die SR memory supports the GDM disable. Why this happens I can not explain, most likely it's a bios bug

The difference between the GDM enable and the GDM disable several percentages


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwea0x*
> 
> For my B-die chip, I can disable GDM and run 2T. Or I can enable GDM and run 1T. But I cannot disable GDM and run 1T or it just fails to boot. I'm currently using the fast 3333MHz presets with the exception of GDM being enabled and its mostly stable so far.
> 
> How big of a performance decrease is having GDM enabled?


i too have had issues with this

may i ask have you tried using the am4 advanced boot training set to auto/on and the fail count raised to 5

this resolved the issue for me (allthough it does increase the bios boot time)


----------



## qwea0x

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> i too have had issues with this
> 
> may i ask have you tried using the am4 advanced boot training set to auto/on and the fail count raised to 5
> 
> this resolved the issue for me (allthough it does increase the bios boot time)


It's already at 5 for me and it doesn't work. I can't increase it more as it just ignores whatever number I put and always defaults to 5.


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zulex*
> 
> Are you using the same F4-4000C19-8GTZ memory kit?
> My memory frequency was set to 3466MHz, and when I entered all nano values in Thaipoon, I got 15-15-15 in the fast preset. However, I could train my ram 14-14-14.
> If it is okay, I will take 14-14-14, and take the rest values in DRAM Calculator.
> I am just curious if one of the values in the DRAM Calculator changes, then it affects the rest settings.


no, other kit but i say what you can use other CAS but the same others timmings in calculator.


----------



## domcale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Once I was a witness when the memory of microns operated on a frequent 3200, a person used the mother memory which had only 2 memory slots. your 3066 is a very good result.
> 
> only "VPP" and "VTT DDR" can help stabilize memory


I'm pretty happy with 3066MHz considering this is a relatively cheap 2133MHz rated kit and it's dual rank, would be great to reach 3200MHz stable though







Spent whole weekend trying and it just doesn't want to do it.

This is what I run 24/7 ATM, 0.9v SOC, 1.375v DRAM, CPU is at 3900MHz 1.354v idle / ~1.330v load (measured with a multimeter at the back of the socket). Boots at CL12 but unstable even at 1.475v.


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *domcale*
> 
> I'm pretty happy with 3066MHz considering this is a relatively cheap 2133MHz rated kit and it's dual rank, would be great to reach 3200MHz stable though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I run 24/7 ATM, 0.9v SOC, 1.375v DRAM, CPU is at 3900MHz 1.354v idle / ~1.330v load (measured with a multimeter at the back of the socket). Boots at CL12 but unstable even at 1.475v.


I'm really impressed. What kind of memory chips do you have there? Hynix M/A, Samsung?


----------



## domcale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I'm really impressed. What kind of memory chips do you have there? Hynix M/A, Samsung?


Micron 4Gb, so that makes a 8GB stick dual rank. Here's a shot of Taiphoon burner and RTC at 3200MHz I posted earlier (again, totally unstable)


----------



## st0neh

So using the calculator I can happily boot 3466 fast and it's stable enough to mess about in Windows, but HCI Memtest throws errors within a few minutes.

What should I be tweaking to try and stabilize memory once it's actually making it into Windows?

I'm on an X370 Strix with F4-3200C14D-16GTZR B-die.


----------



## figarro

I really don't know what to do anymore to stabilize RAM @3066. I'm running my CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 32GB dual-rank Hynix M-Die kit @3066 by using the settings in the Dram Timings calculator and the only way to boot reliably (with only one turn Off - turn On sequence each time) is with ProcODT 80 Ohm, CAD BUS 30 30 40 60 and CLDO at 866 mV. Nothing else seems to boot. Upping vDimm to 1.365 and vSoC to 1.5 from 1.35 and 1.31 respectively makes the system unbootable.

Any ideas?


----------



## chroniclard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *st0neh*
> 
> So using the calculator I can happily boot 3466 fast and it's stable enough to mess about in Windows, but HCI Memtest throws errors within a few minutes.
> 
> What should I be tweaking to try and stabilize memory once it's actually making it into Windows?
> 
> I'm on an X370 Strix with F4-3200C14D-16GTZR B-die.


For me its come down to the voltage and then trying each of the different recommended settings, eventually finding a stable combination.

It may not actually be possible to get that speed stable though.


----------



## st0neh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chroniclard*
> 
> For me its come down to the voltage and then trying each of the different recommended settings, eventually finding a stable combination.
> 
> It may not actually be possible to get that speed stable though.


Yeah 3466 might just be out of reach, there are so many different options to change though I'm at a loss as to where to start.

I can run 3200 14-14-14-28 all day but if I drop to 14-13-13 I have the same problem, Memtest errors.

It could be that my chip/memory just can't handle it but I have no idea.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *st0neh*
> 
> Yeah 3466 might just be out of reach, there are so many different options to change though I'm at a loss as to where to start.
> 
> I can run 3200 14-14-14-28 all day but if I drop to 14-13-13 I have the same problem, Memtest errors.
> 
> It could be that my chip/memory just can't handle it but I have no idea.


first off you need to work out if even 3466 at any latency is faster than 3200 cl14

then work out if the amount of time any faster ram speed will save you over the next few months is worth the time spent sitting there testing ram settings


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *st0neh*
> 
> So using the calculator I can happily boot 3466 fast and it's stable enough to mess about in Windows, but HCI Memtest throws errors within a few minutes.
> 
> What should I be tweaking to try and stabilize memory once it's actually making it into Windows?
> 
> I'm on an X370 Strix with F4-3200C14D-16GTZR B-die.


1 step. Set CLDO_VDDP , DRAM voltage
2 step. Set VDDP , SOC , RTT , procODT
3 step. more fine-tuning is carried out with the help of VTT_DDR and VPP MEM

or try this settings


Spoiler: tap tap



Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.50]
Performance Bias [None]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.38125]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05]
DRAM Voltage [1.41500] and boot dram
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]

Mem Over Clock Fail Count [4]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
[/B]DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
Trc_SM [54]
TrrdS_SM [6]
TrrdL_SM [9]
Tfaw_SM [36]
TwtrS_SM [4]
TwtrL_SM [12]
Twr_SM [12]
Trcpage_SM [Auto]
TrdrdScl_SM [2]
TwrwrScl_SM [2]
Trfc_SM [277]
Trfc2_SM [192]
Trfc4_SM [115]
Tcwl_SM [14]
Trtp_SM [12]
Trdwr_SM [8]
Twrrd_SM [3]
TwrwrSc_SM [1]
TwrwrSd_SM [7]
TwrwrDd_SM [7]
TrdrdSc_SM [1]
TrdrdSd_SM [5]
TrdrdDd_SM [5]
Tcke_SM [1]
ProcODT_SM [53]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.900]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.900]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto] 1.800


----------



## Zartan2

Hi, I wanted to thank the author of the program, thanks to him now I can use my ram G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZ @ 3200 cl14 stable.
Thank you for your support


----------



## Esenel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Disassociative*
> 
> Ahh well, I got nothing to worry about then


For my system I discovered that when the RAM sticks are at 52°C during HCI Memtest they produce errors between 80-200%. When I tune up the fans and they stay at 47°C they pass the 400%. Settings stayed the same of course.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zartan2*
> 
> Hi, I wanted to thank the author of the program, thanks to him now I can use my ram G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZ @ 3200 cl14 stable.
> Thank you for your support


they should also work at 3466 frequency








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Esenel*
> 
> For my system I discovered that when the RAM sticks are at 52°C during HCI Memtest they produce errors between 80-200%. When I tune up the fans and they stay at 47°C they pass the 400%. Settings stayed the same of course.


I confirm if the temperature becomes 52 degrees there are errors


----------



## b398294l

My 4x8gb Samsung b die only work on 3200mhz ,it can’t work on 3333mhz. I try 53ohm and 30 30 40 60, it still no stable


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b398294l*
> 
> My 4x8gb Samsung b die only work on 3200mhz ,it can't work on 3333mhz. I try 53ohm and 30 30 40 60, it still no stable


Yea I'm Having the same issues. Can't get stable past 3200mhz with 4x8gb Samsung B-die.

To people running 3333mhz+, are you using those speed dram ratio like 3333mhz or 3600mhz instead of using 3200mhz + block frequency?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


----------



## nelsonjrgomes

First of all, thank you @1usmus, for this great calculator that has really helped me.

I have the B350 Asus ROG Strix F-Gaming motherboard, with a Ryzen 5 1600 and TeamGroup DDR4 3600C16, 2x8Gb, single rank b-die (I exchanged my previos dual rank samsung D-die Ripjaws F4-3200C16D-8GVK, as I was unable to run them faster than 3066C16, and no boot at 3200mhz). With you calculator settings, my memory is stable @3200C14 with safe settings (with 1.05v SOC and 1.375v DRAM), but in fast settings, I'm plagued by errors as soon as I disable geadown mode (with GDM on, fast settings are stable) - odd or not, usually errors appear as a multiple of 8 in each thread.

With your latest V7 version calculator, I was able, for the first time,to boot @3333 (2T command rate), but not stable - and most of the times memory training fails. Was stilll in bios 1002 (AGESA 1.0.0.6b), but upgraded to latest official BIOS yesterday (with AGESA 1.0.0.7), and wasn't able to carry further tests

As my mobo doesn't allow me to change CLDO_VDDP, I'm temped to try your custom BIOS, as this appears to be the necessary tweak that is missing to achieve greater speeds and overall stability. I just recently found the AFUDOS version that is in your screenshot (3.04.03), as apparently, in later ones /GAN is disabled - if I'm allowed the sugestion, you could link this utility in your post.

Thank you once again (and every contributor in the various threads), and I'll keep you guys informed.


----------



## Anty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> Yea I'm Having the same issues. Can't get stable past 3200mhz with 4x8gb Samsung B-die.
> 
> To people running 3333mhz+, are you using those speed dram ratio like 3333mhz or 3600mhz instead of using 3200mhz + block frequency?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


Just RAM speed, no BCLK.
procODT 53, CAD BUS 40 40 40 40


----------



## ressonantia

Hi, can anyone point in the right direction of how to stabilise my RAM? I can boot into Windows and it runs normally but it fails GSAT. I've been using The Stilts safe 3200 memory preset in my C6H so far and its been good and fast but I wanted to try and push to 3466 which apparently according to the calc I should be able to do (I've got 92% overclocking potential or something). So my current settings are:



And the bios settings are:


Spoiler: Warning: Bios settings dump!



[2017/11/28 23:18:51]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
DRAM Voltage [1.42000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [3]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
Trc_SM [54]
TrrdS_SM [6]
TrrdL_SM [9]
Tfaw_SM [36]
TwtrS_SM [4]
TwtrL_SM [12]
Twr_SM [12]
Trcpage_SM [Auto]
TrdrdScl_SM [2]
TwrwrScl_SM [2]
Trfc_SM [277]
Trfc2_SM [192]
Trfc4_SM [115]
Tcwl_SM [14]
Trtp_SM [12]
Trdwr_SM [8]
Twrrd_SM [3]
TwrwrSc_SM [1]
TwrwrSd_SM [7]
TwrwrDd_SM [7]
TrdrdSc_SM [1]
TrdrdSd_SM [5]
TrdrdDd_SM [5]
Tcke_SM [1]
ProcODT_SM [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.42000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
RGB LED lighting [Enabled]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [WDC WD10EZEX-00BN5A0]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
Lexar USB Flash Drive 1100 [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [600 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
W_PUMP+ Control [Auto]
Water Pump Upper Temperature [70]
Water Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump Middle Temperature [45]
Water Pump Middle. Duty Cycle(%) [100]
Water Pump Lower Temperature [40]
Water Pump Min. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [Multiple Sources]
Temperature Source 1 [MotherBoard]
Temperature Source 2 [VRM]
Temperature Source 3 [PCH]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [Multiple Sources]
Temperature Source 1 [MotherBoard]
Temperature Source 2 [VRM]
Temperature Source 3 [PCH]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [Multiple Sources]
Temperature Source 1 [MotherBoard]
Temperature Source 2 [VRM]
Temperature Source 3 [PCH]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Disabled]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Enabled]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
HPET In SB [Auto]
MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
IOMMU [Auto]
Remote Display Feature [Auto]
Gnb Hd Audio [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [1 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Auto]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [Stock_3200MT]
Save to Profile [1]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]



According to the calculator I should be able to use these settings:


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 V7*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3QQ5-VLD3WLNHMKuL0ND6CDKi5f3oWu/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * added a separate calculator for memory with E / D / C-die chips Samsung (test version)
> * edit tWTRS in calculators for the Samsung (the understated value adversely affected the FPS)
> * adaptation of the program to the settings of AGESA 7
> * the recommendations in the CAD_BUS block are changed
> * slight correction of timings tRAS and tRC
> * minor edits


In your update v.9.9 app you only have listed 1 tRfc setting. What happened to _2 and _4? No recommended to adjust those?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> Yea I'm Having the same issues. Can't get stable past 3200mhz with 4x8gb Samsung B-die.
> 
> To people running 3333mhz+, are you using those speed dram ratio like 3333mhz or 3600mhz instead of using 3200mhz + block frequency?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Just RAM speed, no BCLK.
> procODT 53, CAD BUS 40 40 40 40
Click to expand...

At what timings? I trying to get 3333mhz 14-14-14-14


----------



## Anty

[email protected]-14-14-28 or [email protected] (or 36 don't remember now)


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> [email protected] or [email protected] (or 36 don't remember now)


3466mhz at 14-14-14-28. How? Would you mind sharing your configuration and ram size/model. That's an awesome oc.


----------



## Anty

Well - for me it is nothing special - even my previous CPU did that







and new one from RMA is even better.
4x8GB trident Z [email protected]
Timings from calculator, SOC 1.15 DRAM 1.42, procODT 53, CAD BUS 40 40 40 40. Asus C6H BIOS 1701


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> Well - for me it is nothing special - even my previous CPU did that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and new one from RMA is even better.
> 4x8GB trident Z [email protected]
> Timings from calculator, SOC 1.15 DRAM 1.42, procODT 53, CAD BUS 40 40 40 40. Asus C6H BIOS 1701


I see. Thanks for sharing. Is it okay to run 1.42 on vdram?


----------



## Anty

B-dies can take 1.5 easily.


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> I see. Thanks for sharing. Is it okay to run 1.42 on vdram?


DDR4 can go up to 1.5v.

I'd go to about 1.475 max just to allow for VRM output variance/sensor innacuracy. If you can read the voltage of the memory off the board with a multimeter then you can push higher..

You could go beyond 1.5 but you'll likely risk long term damage or catastrophic failure.


----------



## b398294l

Very nice! Have any pictures for more details?


----------



## 1usmus

*Effect of temperature and higher voltage on memory stability*

I will not bother you with complex terms and will try to explain simply









A serial digital signal can suffer impairments as it travels from a transmitter to a receiver. The transmitter, PCB traces, connectors, and cables will introduce interference that will degrade a signal both in its amplitude and timing. A signal can also suffer impairments from internal sources.

There is a term / diagram "date eye" which is an indicator of the quality of signals in high-speed digital transmissions.



Variations in process, voltage, and temperature can reduce the size of data eyes.



The figure above illustrates the effect that Output Driver Calibration has on the magnitude of overshoot and undershoot along the transmission line. The reduction in overshoot and under-shoot results in increased voltage and timing margins.

The reference resistor RZQ and much of the circuitry for Output Driver Calibration can also be utilized for on-die termination ODT calibration.

Another temporary error is "jitter".



Jitter occurs when a riding or falling edges occur at times that differ from the ideal time. Some edges occur early, some occur late. In a digital circuit, all signals are transmitted in reference to clock signals. The deviation of the digital signals as a result of reflections, intersymbol interference, crosstalk, PVT (process-voltage-temperature) variations, and other factors amounts to jitter. Some jitter is simply random.

Data eyes reveal characteristics of the quality of the signaling environment such as timing and voltage margins. Robust signaling relies on having wide (good timing margin) and tall (good voltage margin) data eyes. Output drivers are designed to drive signals between high and low voltage levels, shown as Voh and Vol in next illustration.



Variations in process, voltage, temperature, and other factors can cause output drivers to overshoot and/or undershoot the desired signaling voltage levels, resulting in reduced margins that impact signal integrity. Reduced timing margins limit the maximum signaling speed because the window of time over which the data is valid (width of the data eye) is smaller. Reduced voltage margins can require larger IO voltage swings to ensure accurate transmission of data, but such larger swings result in increased IO power and can increase the sensitivity of the system to cross talk. In order to increase signaling rates and reduce IO power, output driver overshoot and undershoot must be managed.

Output driver calibration allows for optimal signaling levels to be established and maintained using adjustable output drive strengths to compensate for variations in process, voltage, and temperature. Calibrating the output drivers during normal operation allows for drive strength adjustments to respond to changes in voltage and temperature which can fluctuate while a system is in use.

Output Driver Calibration uses feedback that is provided to the output driver circuitry to adjust the output impedance of the output driver circuitry, thereby controlling the circuit's drive strength.in order to achieve optimal signal performance. The driver's output impedance is compared to a reference resistor RZQ that is placed off the device. The output impedance is then calibrated to be equal to or proportional to the reference precision resistor.

*Summarize:*

1. Vdram voltage must always be minimum. The stability of the system is determined by stress tests. Usually the voltage vdram is 0.01 Volt higher than the voltage at which the system can start.

2. Use always additional cooling of memory modules, this will help get rid of the "PVT problem" .

3. Voltage VTT DDR should always be in the range VDRAM / 2. Otherwise, we will get a small "Data eye" and overshoot / undershoot on fronts .

4. Try to use the most proportional default settings for CAD_BUS. 30 30 30 30 and so on. Otherwise, we run the risk of increasing jitter.

5. Try to use all RZQ reference resistors (I strongly advise you not to turn them off). Calibration has a huge impact on signaling levels. For example we have such settings Disable / Dynamic ODT OFF / RZQ5, if we want to improve signaling levels, we need to change the settings to the following RZQ4 / RZQ3 / RZQ5. These settings work fine at 3466 (but this does not mean that they will necessarily suit you).

I really hope that I have not forgotten anything. Thank you for attention! with respect , 1usmus











Spoiler: Sources:



https://www.micron.com/about/blogs/2013/march/optimizing-high-speed-embedded-memory-interface-designs
https://www.edn.com/design/test-and-measurement/4389368/Eye-Diagram-Basics-Reading-and-applying-eye-diagrams
https://www.rambus.com/output-driver-calibration/
https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/memory/the_secrets_of_pc_memory_part_3/9/


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Effect of temperature and higher voltage on memory stability*
> 
> I will not bother you with complex terms and will try to explain simply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> A serial digital signal can suffer impairments as it travels from a transmitter to a receiver. The transmitter, PCB traces, connectors, and cables will introduce interference that will degrade a signal both in its amplitude and timing. A signal can also suffer impairments from internal sources.
> 
> There is a term / diagram "date eye" which is an indicator of the quality of signals in high-speed digital transmissions.
> 
> 
> 
> Variations in process, voltage, and temperature can reduce the size of data eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> The figure above illustrates the effect that Output Driver Calibration has on the magnitude of overshoot and undershoot along the transmission line. The reduction in overshoot and under-shoot results in increased voltage and timing margins.
> 
> The reference resistor RZQ and much of the circuitry for Output Driver Calibration can also be utilized for on-die termination ODT calibration.
> 
> Another temporary error is "jitter".
> 
> 
> 
> Jitter occurs when a riding or falling edges occur at times that differ from the ideal time. Some edges occur early, some occur late. In a digital circuit, all signals are transmitted in reference to clock signals. The deviation of the digital signals as a result of reflections, intersymbol interference, crosstalk, PVT (process-voltage-temperature) variations, and other factors amounts to jitter. Some jitter is simply random.
> 
> Data eyes reveal characteristics of the quality of the signaling environment such as timing and voltage margins. Robust signaling relies on having wide (good timing margin) and tall (good voltage margin) data eyes. Output drivers are designed to drive signals between high and low voltage levels, shown as Voh and Vol in next illustration.
> 
> 
> 
> Variations in process, voltage, temperature, and other factors can cause output drivers to overshoot and/or undershoot the desired signaling voltage levels, resulting in reduced margins that impact signal integrity. Reduced timing margins limit the maximum signaling speed because the window of time over which the data is valid (width of the data eye) is smaller. Reduced voltage margins can require larger IO voltage swings to ensure accurate transmission of data, but such larger swings result in increased IO power and can increase the sensitivity of the system to cross talk. In order to increase signaling rates and reduce IO power, output driver overshoot and undershoot must be managed.
> 
> Output driver calibration allows for optimal signaling levels to be established and maintained using adjustable output drive strengths to compensate for variations in process, voltage, and temperature. Calibrating the output drivers during normal operation allows for drive strength adjustments to respond to changes in voltage and temperature which can fluctuate while a system is in use.
> 
> Output Driver Calibration uses feedback that is provided to the output driver circuitry to adjust the output impedance of the output driver circuitry, thereby controlling the circuit's drive strength.in order to achieve optimal signal performance. The driver's output impedance is compared to a reference resistor RZQ that is placed off the device. The output impedance is then calibrated to be equal to or proportional to the reference precision resistor.
> 
> *Summarize:*
> 
> 1. Vdram voltage must always be minimum. The stability of the system is determined by stress tests. Usually the voltage vdram is 0.01 Volt higher than the voltage at which the system can start.
> 
> 2. Use always additional cooling of memory modules, this will help get rid of the "PVT problem" .
> 
> 3. Voltage VTT DDR should always be in the range VDRAM / 2. Otherwise, we will get a small "Data eye" and overshoot / undershoot on fronts .
> 
> 4. Try to use the most proportional default settings for CAD_BUS. 30 30 30 30 and so on. Otherwise, we run the risk of increasing jitter.
> 
> 5. Try to use all RZQ reference resistors (I strongly advise you not to turn them off). Calibration has a huge impact on signaling levels. For example we have such settings Disable / Dynamic ODT OFF / RZQ5, if we want to improve signaling levels, we need to change the settings to the following RZQ4 / RZQ3 / RZQ5. These settings work fine at 3466 (but this does not mean that they will necessarily suit you).
> 
> I really hope that I have not forgotten anything. Thank you for attention! with respect , 1usmus


I think forgot the links to the information above.








Please provide links to the sources of the information you are providing, especially when in a copy-paste situations. The information here belongs to their respectable publishers. Use " " when quoting and link to the site you got the information from, or it would be understood as if you yourself have written the information, which is not the case here.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> I think forgot the links to the information above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide links to the sources of the information you are providing, especially when in a copy-paste situations. The information here belongs to their respectable publishers. Use " " when quoting and link to the site you got the information from, or it would be understood as if you yourself have written the information, which is not the case here.


I agree


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> I think forgot the links to the information above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide links to the sources of the information you are providing, especially when in a copy-paste situations. The information here belongs to their respectable publishers. Use " " when quoting and link to the site you got the information from, or it would be understood as if you yourself have written the information, which is not the case here.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree
Click to expand...

While you advise strongly to use RZQ settings, is there a reason why your calculator recommends some of it to be off?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> While you advise strongly to use RZQ settings, is there a reason why your calculator recommends some of it to be off?


At the moment, a new version of the calculator is being tested, these values are taken from it


----------



## Ex0cet

Just for the record.

4x8gb Samsung B die running stable at the edge of my 1700's IMC limit.



PowerDown disabled.

*Also @3466 , with these Termination Block + CAD BUS combo, tried:*

CL14 CR1 = Failed.

CL14 GD Enable = Failed.

CL14 CR2 = Failed.

CL15 CR1 = Failed.

CL15 CR2 = Stable (screenshot)

CL16 GD Enable = Stable

CL16 CR1 = Failed

CL16 CR2 = Stable.

*Failed = Not passing 2hs of AIDA64 memory stress test.
Stable = Surviving 2hs of AIDA64 memory stress test.*


----------



## LG25

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> most of the settings are specially made incorrect so that when new processors come out to announce the benefits
> 
> few people know but the memory on the micron chips is capable of operating at a frequency of 3200 MHz at a voltage of 1.3 volts. At 1.35 there is no start. Similarly, the voltage of the SOC, the system is stable at 0.85V.
> 
> I believe that the maximum voltage should not be more than 1.05 volts, but there are instances of processors with low leakage currents, that's why this overcharge is important for them
> на данный момент у вас очень хорошие тайминги. Но в будущем я б советовал попробовать победить 3200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no such possibility
> I think that for 3,8-3,9 you need a frequency of 3200-3333. If your memory runs at a higher frequency, this can improve the performance of the minimum and average frame rate, or may worsen it. All individually, you need to test


Hey, I thank you again for some great info, that got me to 3200. I noticed your rig specs are same as mine regarding memory and mobo, but I have an 1800x. These 32GB sticks (F4-3200C14D-32GTZR) are a lot less common than others, so If I could bug you for your settings for 3333? I thank you again.


----------



## sap21

thank you got to 2933 on my 1600 and X370 Killer SLI/ac with Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3000C15


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LG25*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> most of the settings are specially made incorrect so that when new processors come out to announce the benefits
> 
> few people know but the memory on the micron chips is capable of operating at a frequency of 3200 MHz at a voltage of 1.3 volts. At 1.35 there is no start. Similarly, the voltage of the SOC, the system is stable at 0.85V.
> 
> I believe that the maximum voltage should not be more than 1.05 volts, but there are instances of processors with low leakage currents, that's why this overcharge is important for them
> на данный момент у вас очень хорошие тайминги. Но в будущем я б советовал попробовать победить 3200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no such possibility
> I think that for 3,8-3,9 you need a frequency of 3200-3333. If your memory runs at a higher frequency, this can improve the performance of the minimum and average frame rate, or may worsen it. All individually, you need to test
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I thank you again for some great info, that got me to 3200. I noticed your rig specs are same as mine regarding memory and mobo, but I have an 1800x. These 32GB sticks (F4-3200C14D-32GTZR) are a lot less common than others, so If I could bug you for your settings for 3333? I thank you again.
Click to expand...

I have the same sticks but 4x8GB. Would you mind sharing your configurations. And how stable it is, I think I heard to disable the led on the sticks, is it true?


----------



## st0neh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 1 step. Set CLDO_VDDP , DRAM voltage
> 2 step. Set VDDP , SOC , RTT , procODT
> 3 step. more fine-tuning is carried out with the help of VTT_DDR and VPP MEM
> 
> or try this settings
> 
> 
> Spoiler: tap tap
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.50]
> Performance Bias [None]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.38125]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05]
> DRAM Voltage [1.41500] and boot dram
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [4]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> [/B]DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
> Trc_SM [54]
> TrrdS_SM [6]
> TrrdL_SM [9]
> Tfaw_SM [36]
> TwtrS_SM [4]
> TwtrL_SM [12]
> Twr_SM [12]
> Trcpage_SM [Auto]
> TrdrdScl_SM [2]
> TwrwrScl_SM [2]
> Trfc_SM [277]
> Trfc2_SM [192]
> Trfc4_SM [115]
> Tcwl_SM [14]
> Trtp_SM [12]
> Trdwr_SM [8]
> Twrrd_SM [3]
> TwrwrSc_SM [1]
> TwrwrSd_SM [7]
> TwrwrDd_SM [7]
> TrdrdSc_SM [1]
> TrdrdSd_SM [5]
> TrdrdDd_SM [5]
> Tcke_SM [1]
> ProcODT_SM [53]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.900]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.900]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto] 1.800


Endless bluescreens if I try those settings.


----------



## 1usmus

*Solution of the temperature effect of memory modules on the bus*

*CAD BUS 60 60 60 60 - not started*

*CAD BUS 40 40 40 40 - first error on 47 degrees and BSOD on 50*

*CAD_BUS 30 30 30 30 / 24 24 24 24 - first error on 50-52 degrees*


*CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20 - 58.3 degrees without error*


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ex0cet*
> 
> Just for the record.
> 
> 4x8gb Samsung B die running stable at the edge of my 1700's IMC limit.
> 
> 
> 
> PowerDown disabled.
> 
> *Also @3466 , with these Termination Block + CAD BUS combo, tried:*
> 
> CL14 CR1 = Failed.
> 
> CL14 GD Enable = Failed.
> 
> CL14 CR2 = Failed.
> 
> CL15 CR1 = Failed.
> 
> CL15 CR2 = Stable (screenshot)
> 
> CL16 GD Enable = Stable
> 
> CL16 CR1 = Failed
> 
> CL16 CR2 = Stable.
> 
> *Failed = Not passing 2hs of AIDA64 memory stress test.
> Stable = Surviving 2hs of AIDA64 memory stress test.*


thanks for testing, really 2T mode makes the system more stable

the area of the "eye of data" is much larger


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LG25*
> 
> Hey, I thank you again for some great info, that got me to 3200. I noticed your rig specs are same as mine regarding memory and mobo, but I have an 1800x. These 32GB sticks (F4-3200C14D-32GTZR) are a lot less common than others, so If I could bug you for your settings for 3333? I thank you again.


my current settings


Spoiler: tap tap



Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.28750]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]

Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [44]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [24]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [267]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [12]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]

ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [2T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/4]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]

VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.51500]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Enabled]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [700]

CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.41500]


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> I have the same sticks but 4x8GB. Would you mind sharing your configurations. And how stable it is, I think I heard to disable the led on the sticks, is it true?


I suggest to try this


Spoiler: tap tap



Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.28750]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]

Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [44]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [24]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [267]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [12]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]

ProcODT [53 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/4]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]

VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.51500]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Enabled]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [700]

CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.41500]


----------



## LG25

Thanks for taking the time to do this, I'll try it out this weekend.


----------



## Ex0cet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> thanks for testing, really 2T mode makes the system more stable
> 
> the area of the "eye of data" is much larger


Interesting graph. Indeed it shows how much benevolent CR2 is with its signal and interference.

I wonder how a "GearDown enabled" graph would look like? Would it be somewhere in the middle of those CR1 and CR2 graphs? Signal-wise... Would it be closer to CR1? Closer to CR2?

I've read so many things about GearDown... And although, I get the practical effects, I still dont understand what exactly is it doing and how.

I've read that GearDown = CR1.5
I've read that GearDown is CR1 for primary timings and CR2 for secondary timings
I've read that GearDown effects not only affect the command rate but also other variables...

Who really knows? So unclear...


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ex0cet*
> 
> Interesting graph. Indeed it shows how much benevolent CR2 is with its signal and interference.
> 
> I wonder how a "GearDown enabled" graph would look like? Would it be somewhere in the middle of those CR1 and CR2 graphs? Signal-wise... Would it be closer to CR1? Closer to CR2?
> 
> I've read so many things about GearDown... And although, I get the practical effects, I still dont understand what exactly is it doing and how.
> 
> I've read that GearDown = CR1.5
> I've read that GearDown is CR1 for primary timings and CR2 for secondary timings
> I've read that GearDown effects not only affect the command rate but also other variables...
> 
> Who really knows? So unclear...


*Command Rate* - this is the so-called command timing, the delay function between the stages of the DRAM controller (a chip that controls memory). The timings constitute a separate customizable group of BIOS options.

For the best understanding of the meaning of the option in question, it is necessary to trace the process of reading data from memory. The initial read request for information sent by the operating system to the memory controller does not contain the exact "coordinates", the unique physical address of the requested data. The system transmits only a symbol, a virtual address, with which the memory controller starts working, converting it to a physical address. At the same time, the controller activates the memory bank containing the information necessary for the system. This happens by assigning a signal to this bank using the Chip Select command. The result of converting or decoding the virtual address is the necessary physical address of the data; After it is received, the controller starts executing the read commands.

That is, simply put, instead of immediately initializing the read operation, the controller is delayed for carrying out the address translation. The timing interval is directly proportional to the amount of memory being processed and the number of its banks. Accordingly, with an increase in the "amount of work", the controller needs more time to perform this operation.

Timing Command Rate allows the user to independently determine the interval of the delay described above, choosing between 1T or 2T (beat).

Should I enable the option?

It would seem that the choice is obvious: the smaller the delay interval, the faster the processing of the controller commands. However, this is not quite true. It is clear that when the waiting time is extended, the controller is unnecessarily delayed and sends commands later than necessary. As a result, memory performance is reduced, and RAM performance is degraded. But if the timing is too small, the memory management chip simply does not have time to decode and send addresses, so that the information can be damaged or lost.

*Geardown Mode* allows the DRAM device to run off its internally-generated ½ rate clock for latching on the command or address buses. ON is the default for speeds greater than DDR4-2667, however the benefit of ON vs. OFF will vary from memory kit to memory kit. Enabling Gear down Mode will override your current command rate.

The correct theses look like this :

1) GearDown enable = ~CR1.5
2) GearDown effects not only affect the command rate but also other variables , as this becomes the system bottleneck
3) CR mode affects all timings


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LG25*
> 
> Hey, I thank you again for some great info, that got me to 3200. I noticed your rig specs are same as mine regarding memory and mobo, but I have an 1800x. These 32GB sticks (F4-3200C14D-32GTZR) are a lot less common than others, so If I could bug you for your settings for 3333? I thank you again.
> 
> 
> 
> my current settings
> 
> 
> Spoiler: tap tap
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.28750]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [24]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [267]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [12]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> 
> ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
> Cmd2T [2T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/4]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> 
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.51500]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Enabled]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.41500]
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> I have the same sticks but 4x8GB. Would you mind sharing your configurations. And how stable it is, I think I heard to disable the led on the sticks, is it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest to try this
> 
> 
> Spoiler: tap tap
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.28750]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [24]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [267]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [12]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> 
> ProcODT [53 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/4]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> 
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.51500]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Enabled]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.41500]
Click to expand...

I tried your suggested configurations and my system fails the ram training. Im sure it wouldn't be a memhole because with default clod_vddp I can boot to windows with 3333-3600mhz with no problems(at default timings).

Another thing, my ram kits doesn't really like T1 with tight timings at all, it'll give me bosd at boot or not boot. It would work with GDM-Enabled and T1 or GDM-disabled and T2. (perhaps this is because im using 2dpc single rank, 4x8gb)

Moreover, i also found your vcore to be quite low for my cpu (1800x), perhaps I'm wrong. What's intersting is that my ram oc is stable (2hr wgsat) using stilts safe 3200mhz preset from the mobo but I was getting error even at your safe 3200mhz.

The following is my current setup so you can get an overview. If you would help me figure out how I could at least get somewhat tight timings at 3333 - 14-14-14-14 it'll be so great. Thanks

CPU: 1800x
Mobo: ROG CH6 Wifi (1107 bios)
Ram kit: 2 x f4-3200c14d-16gtzr(rgb versions, b-die) | 4x8Gb=32GB
AIO: kraken x62


----------



## Gadfly

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> I tried your suggested configurations and my system fails the ram training. Im sure it wouldn't be a memhole because with default clod_vddp I can boot to windows with 3333-3600mhz with no problems(at default timings).
> 
> Another thing, my ram kits doesn't really like T1 with tight timings at all, it'll give me bosd at boot or not boot. It would work with GDM-Enabled and T1 or GDM-disabled and T2. (perhaps this is because im using 2dpc single rank, 4x8gb)
> 
> Moreover, i also found your vcore to be quite low for my cpu (1800x), perhaps I'm wrong. What's intersting is that my ram oc is stable (2hr wgsat) using stilts safe 3200mhz preset from the mobo but I was getting error even at your safe 3200mhz.
> 
> The following is my current setup so you can get an overview. If you would help me figure out how I could at least get somewhat tight timings at 3333 - 14-14-14-14 it'll be so great. Thanks
> 
> CPU: 1800x
> Mobo: ROG CH6 Wifi (1107 bios)
> Ram kit: 2 x f4-3200c14d-16gtzr(rgb versions, b-die) | 4x8Gb=32GB
> AIO: kraken x62


- Upgrade your bios to 0052
- Your kit will run much better at 1T than 2T
- Make sure that gear down is set to disabled, if you need to stabilize the memory, try to enable gear down, but you shouldn't need GDM for 3466.
- What is your memory voltage set to? Set your DRAM boot voltage to 1.45 and your Dram voltage to 1.4v and work your way up. Don't go much over 1.5v.
- Set your Train attempts to 5
- Start with the "Stilt 3466 fast" timing preset found in the bios
- Down load the Ryzen Timing checker and post your full timings.

I have never seen the kit you have not at least hit 3466 15-15-15-15-32 or 3466 14-14-14-14-30, Also 3466 1T with GDM enabled is much faster than 3333 1T GDM disabled.


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gadfly*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> I tried your suggested configurations and my system fails the ram training. Im sure it wouldn't be a memhole because with default clod_vddp I can boot to windows with 3333-3600mhz with no problems(at default timings).
> 
> Another thing, my ram kits doesn't really like T1 with tight timings at all, it'll give me bosd at boot or not boot. It would work with GDM-Enabled and T1 or GDM-disabled and T2. (perhaps this is because im using 2dpc single rank, 4x8gb)
> 
> Moreover, i also found your vcore to be quite low for my cpu (1800x), perhaps I'm wrong. What's intersting is that my ram oc is stable (2hr wgsat) using stilts safe 3200mhz preset from the mobo but I was getting error even at your safe 3200mhz.
> 
> The following is my current setup so you can get an overview. If you would help me figure out how I could at least get somewhat tight timings at 3333 - 14-14-14-14 it'll be so great. Thanks
> 
> CPU: 1800x
> Mobo: ROG CH6 Wifi (*1704 bios*)
> Ram kit: 2 x f4-3200c14d-16gtzr(rgb versions, b-die) | 4x8Gb=32GB
> AIO: kraken x62
> 
> 
> 
> - Upgrade your bios to 0052
> - Your kit will run much better at 1T than 2T
> - Make sure that gear down is set to disabled, if you need to stabilize the memory, try to enable gear down, but you shouldn't need GDM for 3466.
> - What is your memory voltage set to? Set your DRAM boot voltage to 1.45 and your Dram voltage to 1.4v and work your way up. Don't go much over 1.5v.
> - Set your Train attempts to 5
> - Start with the "Stilt 3466 fast" timing preset found in the bios
> - Down load the Ryzen Timing checker and post your full timings.
> 
> I have never seen the kit you have not at least hit 3466 15-15-15-15-32 or 3466 14-14-14-14-30, Also 3466 1T with GDM enabled is much faster than 3333 1T GDM disabled.
Click to expand...

Where can I get the latest bios? I went to Asus support page and their "recent" or latest one was 1107, Unless I missed Something.

edit: I actually have BIOS 1704 not 1107... is it still worth going 52 or 02 for now..?


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 V7*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3QQ5-VLD3WLNHMKuL0ND6CDKi5f3oWu/view?usp=sharing
> 
> * added a separate calculator for memory with E / D / C-die chips Samsung (test version)
> * edit tWTRS in calculators for the Samsung (the understated value adversely affected the FPS)
> * adaptation of the program to the settings of AGESA 7
> * the recommendations in the CAD_BUS block are changed
> * slight correction of timings tRAS and tRC
> * minor edits
> 
> 
> 
> In your update v.9.9 app you only have listed 1 tRfc setting. What happened to _2 and _4? No recommended to adjust those?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

tRFC (tRFC1) is what is beiing used.
The tRFC2 and tRFC4 are in the bios but aren't utilized (to my knowledge)
I'd suggest to set these both to "auto" when tweaking the tRFC (tRFC1).


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> I really don't know what to do anymore to stabilize RAM @3066. I'm running my CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 32GB dual-rank Hynix M-Die kit @3066 by using the settings in the Dram Timings calculator and the only way to boot reliably (with only one turn Off - turn On sequence each time) is with ProcODT 80 Ohm, CAD BUS 30 30 40 60 and CLDO at 866 mV. Nothing else seems to boot. Upping vDimm to 1.365 and vSoC to 1.5 from 1.35 and 1.31 respectively makes the system unbootable.
> 
> Any ideas?


* vDimm (DramVoltage) can go as high 1.47







Absolute max is 1.5V !!! Never ever go above this value !!! If you do, then your definitely risking serious damages.
* vSoC is advised to never exceed 1.15 volts. So your 1.5v is definitely way to much.


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> * vDimm (DramVoltage) can go as high 1.47 ;-) Absolute max is 1.5V !!! Never ever go above this value !!! If you do, then your definitely risking serious damages.
> * vSoC is advised to never exceed 1.15 volts. So your 1.5v is definitely way to much.


I made a typo. I meant vSOC 1.05V. I've tried vDIMM up to 1.45V and vSOC up to 1.1V, but still no luck. I don't think there's a problem of voltage, but maybe tweaking something like CAD_BUS or timings (I'm using what the DRAM Calculator tells me, safe values). ProcODT I think it's OK. It only boots at 80 Ohm and CLDO is at 866 mV (nothing else works)...


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *figarro*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> * vDimm (DramVoltage) can go as high 1.47 ;-) Absolute max is 1.5V !!! Never ever go above this value !!! If you do, then your definitely risking serious damages.
> * vSoC is advised to never exceed 1.15 volts. So your 1.5v is definitely way to much.
> 
> 
> 
> I made a typo. I meant vSOC 1.05V. I've tried vDIMM up to 1.45V and vSOC up to 1.1V, but still no luck. I don't think there's a problem of voltage, but maybe tweaking something like CAD_BUS or timings (I'm using what the DRAM Calculator tells me, safe values). ProcODT I think it's OK. It only boots at 80 Ohm and CLDO is at 866 mV (nothing else works)...
Click to expand...

Ah, i see
That makes more sense








What more can you try... let's see ...
> Timings (as mentioned)
> ProcODT (as mentioned)
> vSoC (mentioned)
> Dram Volts (mentioned)
> Dram Boot Volts (typical at same voltage as Dram Volts but sometimes for better boot it is required to be slightly difrent)
> VTTDDR Volts (typical at half the Dram Volts but most of the times required to be 1 or 2 step above it) Don't exceed 0.75Volt. Max=0.9volts according to AMD
> VDDP Volts (0.9V is advised. Upping can help with stabilizing memOC. AMD advised to not exceed 1.425V)
> CommandRate 1T / 2T / 1,5T (1,5T by enabling GeardownMode and enabled 2T)
> Setup the RTT-parameters
> CADbus settings (mentioned)
> VDDSoC LoadLine Calibration (Lvl 2 is advised)
> Dram Current Capability (110% is advised)
> Dram Power Phase Control (Advised at Extreme or Optimized)

So, you see... plenty of options








Good luck


----------



## kaseki

Last I read, the functioning options are:
2T geardown disabled
1T geardown enabled
1T geardown disabled


----------



## b398294l

BankGroupSwap and BankGroupSwapAlt should be disable?


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *b398294l*
> 
> BankGroupSwap and BankGroupSwapAlt should be disable?


You leave it default or auto if you are using either:

1dpc dual rank
2dpc single rank
2dpc dual rank.

If you are using 1dpc single rank you;

Disable both BGS and BGSA
Or disable BGS and enable BGSA


----------



## sifusanders

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> my current settings
> 
> 
> Spoiler: tap tap
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.28750]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [24]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [267]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [12]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> 
> ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
> Cmd2T [2T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/4]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> 
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.51500]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Enabled]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.41500]
> 
> 
> I suggest to try this
> 
> 
> Spoiler: tap tap
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.28750]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [24]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [267]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [12]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> 
> ProcODT [53 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/4]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> 
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.51500]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Enabled]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.41500]


Heyo,

i myself have the G.skill TridentZ 3200cl14 2x8 and tried your timings (the second ones). I get over 1000 % hci but after that i got an error. What can i do to make it more stable? Should i increase vDiMM or vSoc?

I've been starting with 1,385 and increased it in small steps after hci errors. now i was using 1,41 vDim and so far the errors started appearing later. is that the right direction to go in? also ive been using rzq/7 for RttNom 200% more in hci


----------



## STaRDoGG

Small request for us OC n00bs?









How about adding the ability to the calc, to import the exported settings from Thaiphoon, rather than hand transfer everything, and do all the calculations from the Thaiphoon results to the calc text fields? it would also save a lot of time and help automate things more.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Small request for us OC n00bs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about adding the ability to the calc, to import the exported settings from Thaiphoon, rather than hand transfer everything, and do all the calculations from the Thaiphoon results to the calc text fields? it would also save a lot of time and help automate things more.


can create a program that will itself overclock the system and test?


----------



## JeyD02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Small request for us OC n00bs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about adding the ability to the calc, to import the exported settings from Thaiphoon, rather than hand transfer everything, and do all the calculations from the Thaiphoon results to the calc text fields? it would also save a lot of time and help automate things more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can create a program that will itself overclock the system and test?
Click to expand...

For example. Asus Ai suite with 5 optimization...

They are trying.... I guess


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Small request for us OC n00bs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about adding the ability to the calc, to import the exported settings from Thaiphoon, rather than hand transfer everything, and do all the calculations from the Thaiphoon results to the calc text fields? it would also save a lot of time and help automate things more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can create a program that will itself overclock the system and test?
Click to expand...

sarcasm








I mentioned a similar thing to you earlier though















aka... let the calc read out the timings and insert them into your algorithms
That would automate it better imo


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> can create a program that will itself overclock the system and test?


Sounds even better.









C'mon. it can't be that hard to parse the exported html file and put them into the text boxes for you ...


----------



## LicSqualo

... as example, I don't use Taiphoon and I don't want to use it.


----------



## jearly410

@1usmus

Thank you for this program!

Prior overclock attempts had me at 3200 14 14 14 28 1t stable and I was able to get 3333/3466 to boot but no stability.

Now I am running 3466 16 17 17 17 33 1t 24/7 stable with much faster speeds!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Sounds even better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon. it can't be that hard to parse the exported html file and put them into the text boxes for you ...


If I do this, the program will no longer be a freeware.


----------



## Pablogamer

Calculator fail on my system. 1700x+X370 Pro (AGESA 1071)+ KFA2 HoF 4000MHZ CL19 8X2GB, its unstable with the timming from the program.

Some suggestion?


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pablogamer*
> 
> Calculator fail on my system. 1700x+X370 Pro (AGESA 1071)+ KFA2 HoF 4000MHZ CL19 8X2GB, its unstable with the timming from the program.
> 
> Some suggestion?


What memory clocks are you trying to achieve? Anything above 3200mhz on that motherboard is a real gamble.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pablogamer*
> 
> Calculator fail on my system. 1700x+X370 Pro (AGESA 1071)+ KFA2 HoF 4000MHZ CL19 8X2GB, its unstable with the timming from the program.
> 
> Some suggestion?


The calculator is not a solution to any problems
it shows the direction, where user must go
Try combining safe primary timings with fast secondary for example or increase voltage
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> What memory clocks are you trying to achieve? Anything above 3200mhz on that motherboard is a real gamble.


now I believe that there are problems on this motherboard ...


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> now I believe that there are problems on this motherboard ...


Well we have to figure out what he's trying to achieve, 3466mhz or 3200mhz.
But I kinda have no faith in Asus middle-range boards after Prime B350 Plus having same issues with the same kit. Nothing goes above 2933mhz regardless the timings used.


----------



## st0neh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jearly410*
> 
> @1usmus
> 
> Thank you for this program!
> 
> Prior overclock attempts had me at 3200 14 14 14 28 1t stable and I was able to get 3333/3466 to boot but no stability.
> 
> Now I am running 3466 16 17 17 17 33 1t 24/7 stable with much faster speeds!


Sadly performance may have been better at 3200 CL14.


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> If I do this, the program will no longer be a freeware.


Looks like it's coded in .NET; if you care to give me access to the source code I'll be happy to contribute to the project and do it myself. Should only take me about ~1 hour. Basic string handling.

1 hour of initial coding to save me numerous hours of manually transferring and typing is well worth it.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Looks like it's coded in .NET; if you care to give me access to the source code I'll be happy to contribute to the project and do it myself. Should only take me about ~1 hour. Basic string handling.
> 
> 1 hour of initial coding to same me numerous hours of manually transferring and typing is well worth it.


Instead of entering the values yourself, do you offer to import data from "taiphoon" and then export them to calculator?
"taiphoon" is not a console program + automatically generate html it can not
I do not see any advantages here, it will only confuse the newcomers

the ideal solution is the implementation of reading the XMP profile, but there are no documents to the SMBUS


----------



## deehoC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Instead of entering the values yourself, do you offer to import data from "taiphoon" and then export them to calculator?
> "taiphoon" is not a console program + automatically generate html it can not
> I do not see any advantages here, it will only confuse the newcomers
> 
> the ideal solution is the implementation of reading the XMP profile, but there are no documents to the SMBUS


Would it be possible to pull the information necessary from AIDA64 or something similar?


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Instead of entering the values yourself, do you offer to import data from "taiphoon" and then export them to calculator?
> "taiphoon" is not a console program + automatically generate html it can not
> I do not see any advantages here, it will only confuse the newcomers
> 
> the ideal solution is the implementation of reading the XMP profile, but there are no documents to the SMBUS


In Thaiphoon after reading the SPD, and then showing the Report, there's a button to Export that HTML report to a file; you can then easily parse that HTML file for exactly the fields that need to be placed into the Calc. You could add a button to the calc to "Import result from Thaiphoon", that lets the user select that HTML export, then the calc just parses and fills in the respective fields.

After getting that made, it could possibly be even more simplified in ways I haven't taken the time to consider yet.

I've been a software dev myself since 1997, including selling shareware for many years, and for me it's always been about making things as easy as possible for the end user to get a task accomplished as quickly as possible.


----------



## JeyD02

The above ^^ sounds like promising little project


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Looks like it's coded in .NET; if you care to give me access to the source code I'll be happy to contribute to the project and do it myself. Should only take me about ~1 hour. Basic string handling.
> 
> 1 hour of initial coding to same me numerous hours of manually transferring and typing is well worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of entering the values yourself, do you offer to import data from "taiphoon" and then export them to calculator?
> "taiphoon" is not a console program + automatically generate html it can not
> I do not see any advantages here, it will only confuse the newcomers
> 
> 
> 
> the ideal solution is the implementation of reading the XMP profile, but there are no documents to the SMBUS
Click to expand...

If there is no documentation on SMbus... i wonder why i can get all the results when i search it via google








Like this
Surely there are enough details there to figure out how to code it


----------



## STaRDoGG

It might be easier and faster to implement just an import of TB's results, but if you really wanted to have it more 'native' (at least functionally), though I haven't looked very close at these, perhaps they might be useful?

https://rweverything.com

https://www.passmark.com/products/rammon.htm

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/spdtool-read-edit-and-flash-your-memorys-spd.20349/


----------



## ZeNch

if 1usmus say no or doesnt like it... is no.

he did this for free and it's a utility.
He also uploaded a video explaining its use.

Would it be useful? Yeah.
Is this implementation necessary? no.

He didn't even put up a link to receive donations or "beers/café.

Sorry for intruding.


----------



## 1usmus

Once again I will repeat the information. Unfortunately there are no documents for Ryzen SMbus (they will be published probably in February), the only program that can read XMP fully is Thaiphoon.

Searching in Google will not produce results, and these programs will not help either.

The only way is to decompile Thaiphoon and steal code from it. Do you like it? I do not.

_____________________________________________________________________

At the moment I have a lot of work and tests. I can not do everything physically at once. Serious mistakes I correct right away, wishes - whenever possible. If you want to help - you can write an html parser.
I'll be very grateful.

The code at the moment looks exactly like this

Code:



Code:


                rank = double.Parse(comboBox2.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                frequency = double.Parse(textBox222.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tCLns = double.Parse(textBox4.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRCDRWns = double.Parse(textBox5.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRCDRDns = double.Parse(textBox6.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRPns = double.Parse(textBox7.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRASns = double.Parse(textBox8.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRCns = double.Parse(textBox9.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRRDSns = double.Parse(textBox10.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRRDLns = double.Parse(metroTextBox24.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tFAWns = double.Parse(textBox12.Text.Replace(',', '.'));
                tRFCns = double.Parse(textBox13.Text.Replace(',', '.'));

Hope for understanding.Best regards, Jury.


----------



## st0neh

I'd rather see your time free to work on and improve the program itself than add an import system that saves a couple minutes at best.

The time saving from importing the memory latencies would probably be far smaller than the time saved using the calculator.


----------



## jearly410

@st0neh

Nope! Faster with 3466


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> If you want to help - you can write an html parser. I'll be very grateful.


Np, I'll whip up some code for ya later on today probably, and send it to you via PM.

I'm ignoring all of the White Knights; there's nothing wrong with trying to improve a product by offering suggestions and contributions. In fact, it's often called "open-source", and many are fond of open-source software.


----------



## Pablogamer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> What memory clocks are you trying to achieve? Anything above 3200mhz on that motherboard is a real gamble.


I was trying 3200 14 14 14 14 28 but no stable, finally i get 14 15 15 15 28 and 100% stable.


----------



## st0neh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Np, I'll whip up some code for ya later on today probably, and send it to you via PM.
> 
> I'm ignoring all of the White Knights; there's nothing wrong with trying to improve a product by offering suggestions and contributions. In fact, it's often called "open-source", and many are fond of open-source software.


There's a difference between pestering somebody to implement changes you want and an open source project.


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> If you want to help - you can write an html parser. I'll be very grateful.


Here ya go. Source Code

Should be a piece of cake to add to the calc now.









It'll import from the exported HTML file, filling in the respective fields, then just behave as usual. (i.e. you'll still be able to do the * = double.parse(etc.) stuff.)


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *st0neh*
> 
> There's a difference between pestering somebody to implement changes you want and an open source project.


Yea, the difference is with open-source you can just add the code yourself, otherwise, you have no choice but to "pester" ....

Run along now, White Knight, the adults are talking.


----------



## keng

This needs to be a sticky and first post should better explain how *critical* this is.

I have written a PSA type post in my signature which references this.
See and let me know what needs to be added.

I think you need to put in big bold letters in the first post, something like:

*Welcome to AMD, you have a new Ryzen or Threadripper system?
Flash bios 804 and install OS.
Before installing a single thing on your OS, download Thaiphoon Burner and check what RANK your memory sticks are. Please do as follows in BIOS before overclocking your CPU, changing lights,etc.
*

Done.
1) Most people do not know that Threadripper is Ryzen, plain and simple
2) Most people get shi!tty advice that to use DOCP or simply enter xmp timings into bios. This is just plain ***** advice.

Also, amd should pay money as you managed to make "unsupported" ram work perfectly, even non-samsung b die dual rank ram (B die works because it is on single rank modules, simply).
In theory dual-rank is better for just about everything you throw at it, but more tricky to configure, but not rocket science again as ASUS does the same RAM calculations say in their Intel BIOS as is necessary to do in their AMD bios, yet for some mysterious reason chooses not to do it.

And we get people saying ***** ooh if you are luck with the internal memory controller you might get xyzq mghz on your ram. This is simply not true as Threadripper CPUs are most likely full fledged EPYC microprocessors (used exponentially more in the supercomputers being built today (just go look at linus tech tips, and others) with cores disabled to facilitate higher clocks making them desktop environment friendly. Hence, you can probably have upwards of terabyte of ram on threadripper boards should you want to. Can you imagine how good an IMC really has to be allow this? yea.


----------



## st0neh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> Yea, the difference is with open-source you can just add the code yourself, otherwise, you have no choice but to "pester" ....
> 
> Run along now, White Knight, the adults are talking.


An adult would have accepted that the guy making this program in his own free time can choose what he wants to add to it.


----------



## deehoC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *st0neh*
> 
> An adult would have accepted that the guy making this program in his own free time can choose what he wants to add to it.


That's the wonderful thing here...no one is forcing him to do anything. People are passing ideas around and one other member of our community seems willing and able to help him flesh this idea out in due time.

I don't see how anyone is pestering 1usmus as badly as you make it sound.

1usmus mentioned in a previous post " If you want to help - you can write an html parser.
I'll be very grateful. "

I could be misinterpreting this but who knows.


----------



## 1usmus

1. There will never be an open code, copyright for intellectual property is present. All formulas and values differ from reference ones. I do not want to give my experience and test results to anyone (i spent 8 months to create this product). Therefore, the project will be just like what I see it.

2. Automatic input of values will be implemented in the calculator as soon as they publish documents on Smbus Ryzen.

3. Thaiphoon in half the cases incorrectly reads the type of memory, rank or the entire profile as a whole (about this, I completely forgot, therefore I apologize for this misunderstanding. *STaRDoGG* thanks for trying to help ).
Therefore, export from html will not be implemented at all. This breaks the concept of the calculator. This complicates the instruction (for new users) and does not save time (you at least have to do a few more actions than now). This decision is final and I do not want to discuss it.

4. The next program update will be final for the Zen 1.
Version AGESA 1072b (possibly the name will be different) is the last step in the development of the Zen 1 architecture. Potential is probably exhausted completely.

5. In February, a new version of the program will be published, which will support a new generation of Zen + processors.

6. The product will always be freeware.

Thank for attention.


----------



## Keith Myers

Hope someone can answer a question. I have two Ryzen systems, one Win10 and the other Linux. I can't run either TB or the Calculator on the Linux system obviously. I have F4-3600D16-16GTZ in the Windows system. I have F4-3200D14-16GTZ in the Linux system. Can I use the Calculator's output values derived for the Windows system on the Linux system? Or would TB interpret the F4-3200D14-16GTZ reported nanoseconds values differently from the F4-3600D16-16GTZ values if I swapped the RAM to read the 3200 memory in TB?


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deehoC*
> 
> That's the wonderful thing here...no one is forcing him to do anything. People are passing ideas around and one other member of our community seems willing and able to help him flesh this idea out in due time.
> 
> I don't see how anyone is pestering 1usmus as badly as you make it sound.
> 
> 1usmus mentioned in a previous post " If you want to help - you can write an html parser.
> I'll be very grateful. "


+1 Perfectly said.

Hey, I tried to help the guy out (and the community using it) with his program, but, some people are just resistant right out of the gate. *shrug*

P.S. Just between you and me, in retrospect, I think 1susmus was being snarky with his HTML parser comment. I think he didn't think I'd be able to write one. Especially that fast.


----------



## keng

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Keith Myers*
> 
> Hope someone can answer a question. I have two Ryzen systems, one Win10 and the other Linux. I can't run either TB or the Calculator on the Linux system obviously. I have F4-3600D16-16GTZ in the Windows system. I have F4-3200D14-16GTZ in the Linux system. Can I use the Calculator's output values derived for the Windows system on the Linux system? Or would TB interpret the F4-3200D14-16GTZ reported nanoseconds values differently from the F4-3600D16-16GTZ values if I swapped the RAM to read the 3200 memory in TB?


different ram sticks,possibly different memory ICS. to make sure you get the best solution, just take linux box ram, put in windows box (remove win box sticks), have thaiphoon read the spd of linux sticks, and proceed by replacing sticks in linx box. That is most fullproof solution


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 3. Thaiphoon in half the cases incorrectly reads the type of memory, rank or the entire profile as a whole (about this, I completely forgot, therefore I apologize for this misunderstanding. *STaRDoGG* thanks for trying to help ).
> Therefore, export from html will not be implemented at all. This breaks the concept of the calculator. This complicates the instruction (for new users) and does not save time (you at least have to do a few more actions than now). This decision is final and I do not want to discuss it.


Well ... that was a complete waste of time ...









Suggestion; since TP gives bad information half the time, it seems like you should add that "small" bit of information to the main post. Considering your tutorial shows the steps of running TP and copying the information from it...

Ah well, personally, I don't see how it complicates things one iota since it just transfers all that info from your tutorial reducing it to a couple steps instead of many, but it is what it is. I'll just have to write an AHK script to do it for myself instead. I tried! Carry on!


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Keith Myers*
> 
> Hope someone can answer a question. I have two Ryzen systems, one Win10 and the other Linux. I can't run either TB or the Calculator on the Linux system obviously. I have F4-3600D16-16GTZ in the Windows system. I have F4-3200D14-16GTZ in the Linux system. Can I use the Calculator's output values derived for the Windows system on the Linux system? Or would TB interpret the F4-3200D14-16GTZ reported nanoseconds values differently from the F4-3600D16-16GTZ values if I swapped the RAM to read the 3200 memory in TB?


It will be pretty much the same if you're not planning to run above 3333mhz.


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> have thaiphoon read the spd of linux sticks, and proceed by replacing sticks in linx box. That is most fullproof solution


I wouldn't recommend, recommending TP to people (1susmus says half the time the info it gives is bad).


----------



## Keith Myers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> It will be pretty much the same if you're not planning to run above 3333mhz.


I figured since both systems have B-die, they would be pretty similar. So far I have just used the Stilt's settings to get the Win10 system to 3333 @ CL14 Safe and the Linux system to 3200 @ CL14 Safe. I corrupted Win10 when I attempted 3466 and I segfaulted the Linux system when I attempted 3333.

I'm going to try and tighten systems up to Fast with the Calculator tomorrow during the SETI normal Tuesday outage.


----------



## Keith Myers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> I wouldn't recommend, recommending TP to people (1susmus says half the time the info it gives is bad).


As long as you don't have another program reading the SM Bus at the same time that Thaiphoon Burner is reading the sticks, everything works fine. I quit SIV first before I use TB and it produces valid numbers.

I was just trying to avoid having to tear both systems apart just to swap sticks so I could read the 3200 memory and get the values from TB. Both systems run BOINC 24/7/365.


----------



## LG25

I'm still very happy with it. I was stuck at 2933 before I happened upon it. Now I'm up to 3333 cl14. I was the one who asked you for a config dump because I had the same mem as you, I followed it and it's working fine, although I haven't stressed it yet.. btw, what is good for stress test these days? Aida64 ok?

My CPU isn't Oc, and I really don't need any more than it has, I just wanted better mem bandwidth that I had before. Thank you again for your help.


----------



## Anty

@Keith Myers

You know that in TB there is option called "SPD Browser"







?
You don't have to take out RAM from linux box - just get values from TB.

I will do you a favour - here you go:

Speed Grade: DDR4-3604
DRAM Clock Frequency: 1802 MHz
Module VDD Voltage Level: 1.35 V
Minimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK): 0.555 ns
CAS Latencies Supported: 16T
CAS Latency Time (tAA): 8.869 ns
RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD): 8.869 ns
Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP): 8.869 ns
Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS): 19.875 ns
Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC): 28.639 ns
Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW): 24.000 ns
Short Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S): 3.500 ns
Long Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L): 5.000 ns
Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1): 350.000 ns
2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2): 260.000 ns
4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4): 160.000 ns

Speed Grade: DDR4-3200
DRAM Clock Frequency: 1600 MHz
Module VDD Voltage Level: 1.35 V
Minimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK): 0.625 ns
CAS Latencies Supported: 14T
CAS Latency Time (tAA): 8.750 ns
RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD): 8.750 ns
Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP): 8.750 ns
Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS): 21.250 ns
Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC): 0.000 ns
Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW): 24.000 ns
Short Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S): 3.500 ns
Long Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L): 5.000 ns
Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1): 350.000 ns
2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2): 260.000 ns
4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4): 160.000 ns


----------



## ZeNch

I change my case and cpu cooler and disconect power cable (obviously)

now my ram have cold boot continuous with last settings and other settings include DOCP (and not DOCP) (i try with different ProcODT and rtt values) (default at 2133 boot perfect)

(i dont change ram to other socket)

its rare.


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> Problems? What problems you are talking about? I told you several times that TB is free from bugs in decoding XMP data and even showed by example how Thaiphoon Burner calculates tRDD_S and tRRD_L. But you seem to be deaf. I know everything about my software, you don't.


I can confirm that TB does not read all information about the modules being used in the memory. The memory I had problems with reading in TB were Patriot Viper 4 kits, the one 1usmus linked you. It is not bug free, sorry to inform you. If you're gonna go out with "delete or close all your useless software", those readings were done on clean system install, right before proceeding overclocking.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> @Keith Myers
> Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC): 0.000 ns


Also how is this possible? It's not a bug, it's a special feature, right?


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> I can confirm that TB does not read all information about the modules being used in the memory.


What information exactly do you need to be read about your memory modules?


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> What information exactly do you need to be read about your memory modules?


Everything. Dies being used in the memory, manufacturer at least, or unidentified information in your program is not your fault and is the memory distributor fault?
Hell, we're overclocking ryzen that is very sensitive to memory and when buying certain memory we cannot confirm that it is what we need. I love your program, but it does have some read issues with specific ram kits.


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> Everything.










I am not a wizard, dude.
Quote:


> Dies being used in the memory, manufacturer at least, or unidentified information in your program is not your fault and is the memory distributor fault?


Memory module manufacturers do not program Die Revision at all. Don't you know? Patriot does not program IC manufacturer and leaves it blank. Don't you know? That's why Thaiphoon Burner displays "Undefined" or "Not determined" for all the fields left blank by the memory manufacturer. Don't you know? Contact Patriot Memory and ask why their modules have so poor SPD instead of saying my app is buggy.


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a wizard, dude.
> Memory module manufacturers do not program Die Revision at all. Don't you know? Patriot does not program IC manufacturer and leaves it blank. Don't you know? That's why Thaiphoon Burner displays "Undefined" or "Not determined" for all the fields left blank by the memory manufacturer. Don't you know? Contact Patriot Memory and ask why their modules have so poor SPD instead of saying my app is buggy.


What can you say about the tRC = 0 ns in the post above?
I believe it was made with your program.


----------



## Anty

It was from SPD browser to be exact.
I don't know if author of TB put data there himself from RAM he has or just upload what people send to him. If second than somebody didn't check if CRC was ok (which is not most of the time if another app reads SPD in same time) and submit.
If I read SPD from SMBUS it is correct all the time for me as long no other crap is running. Any software that reads SPD will generate wrong readout sooner or later (but at least it says CRC is invalid).


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> What can you say about the tRC = 0 ns in the post above?


What is the part number of the module that you mean? F4-3200C14-8GTZKO?


----------



## Anty

I think it was F4-3200C14-16GTZ - I can confirm when I'm at home.


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

*Arengeta*,

Here is the formula to calculate tRC: tRC=(SPDByte_404[7:4] shl 8)+SPDByte_406[7:0]. I have checked Byte 404 and Byte 406 and they are blank.



So, what can you say now? Any "bugs" else, dude?


----------



## 1usmus

In my topic came the developer of third-party software. What for? to blame or insult? PR? To prove that everything works? OK. it is easier for me to yield to you.

You are a guest, try to observe the etiquette and distance


----------



## Karagra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> In my topic came the developer of third-party software. What for? to blame or insult? PR? To prove that everything works? OK. it is easier for me to yield to you.
> 
> You are a guest, try to observe the etiquette and distance


You are saying he insulted you but when I go back I believe you were the one who was rude, this man came to defend his program and himself due to your false accusations about it and rudely acting like you are better than him below.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> ahahahhaha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you? Did you create something useful? does your theme have 1 million views? 20 thousand messages? ( https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=573656&start=19060 ) who are you?
> 
> *good luck , troll*


I don't usually comment but be respectful to people around you 1usmus, you fly off the hing so easily. I mean after all your program requires his program for yours to even work correctly.


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> In my topic came the developer of third-party software. What for? to blame or insult? PR? To prove that everything works? OK. it is easier for me to yield to you.
> You are a guest, try to observe the etiquette and distance


Do I need a special permission from you to participate in your thread? LOL. I'm here just for dispel your doubts concerning my software. Take my dislike, dude.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Karagra*
> 
> You are saying he insulted you but when I go back I believe you were the one who was rude, this man came to defend his program and himself due to your false accusations about it and rudely acting like you are better than him below.


He instead of explaining why incorrectly program read information just wrote nasty things.

There were no accusations towards the program, there was a statement of the fact that one can not rely on a product that yields ambiguous results.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> Do I need a special permission from you to participate in your thread? LOL. I'm here just for dispel your doubts concerning my software. Take my dislike, dude.


Try not to choke with self-esteem, dude


----------



## Karagra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 3. Thaiphoon in half the cases incorrectly reads the type of memory, rank or the entire profile as a whole


Well you threw his program under the bus like it had a problem with it, which it doesn't. I would be pissed if someone went around throwing out false info about something of mine. You did the same thing in the ROG Crosshair thread blaming the motherboard for not being able to do 3600mhz meanwhile a bunch of us can do 3600mhz and a lot of them told you to stop making stuff up... Like your doing here with his stuff.


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> He instead of explaining why incorrectly program read information just wrote nasty things.


OMG! What should I explain to you exactly? If the Earth is round, why should I state it is flat? It is ridiculous.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Karagra*
> 
> Well you threw his program under the bus like it had a problem with it, which it doesn't. I would be pissed if someone went around throwing out false info about something of mine. You did the same thing in the ROG Crosshair thread blaming the motherboard for not being able to do 3600mhz meanwhile a bunch of us can do 3600mhz and a lot of them told you to stop making stuff up... Like your doing here with his stuff.


No one has provided me with proof of the stable work of 3600. no one. AIDA picture is not proof


----------



## Karagra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> No one has provided me with proof of the stable work of 3600. no one. AIDA picture is not proof


That's great that no one proved it to you =D, But again you like to make false accusations because if you think its right then it has to be.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Karagra*
> 
> That's great that no one proved it to you =D, But again you like to make false accusations because if you think its right then it has to be.


what do you want me to prove know? if the program does not display the information correctly it's good?

no one forces you to use this products or follow my words


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Try not to choke with self-esteem, dude


So, are you going to provide me with any proof concerning:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 3. Thaiphoon in half the cases incorrectly reads the type of memory, rank or the entire profile as a whole


----------



## Karagra

I like to check up the ROG Crosshair forums and this one, but today seeing you talk down to someone/ that persons software for no reason irritated me. Do what you want 1usmus I just don't approve the way you treat others.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> So, are you going to provide me with any proof concerning:


you are an adult boy, you can flip through the pages yourself
sorry I do not have free time to entertain the trolls


----------



## Voodoo Jungle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> you are an adult boy, you can flip through the pages yourself
> sorry I do not have free time to entertain the trolls


That's is just an excellent proof! Thank you!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> That's is just an excellent proof! Thank you!


not at all


----------



## Spectre73

Everyone should just calm down.

This thread is about a very useful and important program that allows many Ryzen users to bring their RAM to maximum speed. We should not let this derail into some petty arguments and focus on the software.

To be honest it is 1usmus' program and he can do anything he want.

It is obvious that he does not want to provide some automation regarding Import of RAM settings so let us settle this and move on.

The Software is much more than some Import function. Let us focus on the important aspects.


----------



## Ex0cet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre73*
> 
> Everyone should just calm down.
> 
> This thread is about a very useful and important program that allows many Ryzen users to bring their RAM to maximum speed. We should not let this derail into some petty arguments and focus on the software.
> 
> To be honest it is 1usmus' program and he can do anything he want.
> 
> It is obvious that he does not want to provide some automation regarding Import of RAM settings so let us settle this and move on.
> 
> The Software is much more than some Import function. Let us focus on the important aspects.


I approve this gentleman's message.


----------



## WexleySnoops

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ex0cet*
> 
> I approve this gentleman's message.


Double approve. Everyone just needs to grab a cold brew and simmer down.

I'm looking forward to setting up my new Ryzen system and testing these 2 magnificent pieces of software. You two should be proud of what you have done with this software, and be open to constructive criticism.

None of this "neener-neener" troll ****. Are you 12? Discuss like adults or have a time-out, it's simple. Us newbies enjoy reading the wealth of knowledge provided, but the bickering needs to stop.


----------



## LicSqualo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> No one has provided me with proof of the stable work of 3600. no one. AIDA picture is not proof


Me too I'm waiting to see one 3600 stable with all the details (RTC + HCI or other ram program test).

I've managed 3600







or better (and for my intention) I see some time 1800 Mhz Infinity running in my PC but always unstable.


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre73*
> 
> Everyone should just calm down.
> 
> This thread is about a very useful and important program that allows many Ryzen users to bring their RAM to maximum speed. We should not let this derail into some petty arguments and focus on the software.
> 
> To be honest it is 1usmus' program and he can do anything he want.
> 
> It is obvious that he does not want to provide some automation regarding Import of RAM settings so let us settle this and move on.
> 
> The Software is much more than some Import function. Let us focus on the important aspects.


I agree for the most part.









But, this bit of bickering between the TP author, and the calc author might actually turn out useful if something in either of their software ends up fixed/better in the end.

Btw, you missed the part where 1usmus said he decided he was going to add the import feature. It's a small feature, but very useful once you see it in action. I have it working here and all you need to do is export the TP results to a file, select the file in the calc, and **boom**, instafill of all the respective fields. If you end up having to run the calc over and over while OC'ing, copying over the TP results by hand over and over, this autofill will seems like a bit of a God send. Either way, in the end though, if he decides not to add it, I've got it working here for my personal use.


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> *Arengeta*,
> 
> Here is the formula to calculate tRC: tRC=(SPDByte_404[7:4] shl 8)+SPDByte_406[7:0]. I have checked Byte 404 and Byte 406 and they are blank.
> So, what can you say now? Any "bugs" else, dude?


That's cool pal but I don't really care as I understand nothing in what you're showing me. You could've just stated that ram manufacturers do not store that information in SPD and there's nothing to read. As 1usmus has stated before
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 3. Thaiphoon in half the cases incorrectly reads the type of memory, rank or the entire profile as a whole (about this, I completely forgot, therefore I apologize for this misunderstanding. *STaRDoGG* thanks for trying to help).


And the end result it doesn't show the memory type at all. He didn't say that your program is bugged, you jumped that bandwagon, he simply said it incorrectly shows specific information. Instead of throwing **** around you could've just explained why it doesn't show that information and ended the argument.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> If you end up having to run the calc over and over while OC'ing, copying over the TP results by hand over and over, this autofill will seems like a bit of a God send. Either way, in the end though, if he decides not to add it, I've got it working here for my personal use.


There's a save button in the bottom left corner for delays, next time you boot the program it'll have the left column already filled.


----------



## datonyb

wow can i just add

please guys calm down

as a user and someone who is very very grateful to BOTH of you and your time effort and skill at providing US with useful tools to help ALL

i presume as well as pride in what you can do ,you also take satisfaction and feel good knowing you have helped people out

if not you BOTH should do !

with your tools i have managed now to not only get my ram faster and stable but also personally helped two good friends get theres running better

and the asrock support forum also is full of people using these tools to help them

the only thing i find that saddens me is you two having course words

hopefully you can move on and work some things or new issues or programs out by sharing your skills in future

i sincerely thank BOTH of you for what yo have done for ryzen and its users


----------



## 1usmus

@Voodoo Jungle

*Forgive me for the conflict*, you have a wonderful program, but there are nuances because of which it is difficult to implement automatic data entry

_________________________________________________________________________

Everything will be fine, do not worry. I will try not to create conflicts , sorry ... a lot of work worsens my emotional state









now I communicate with *STaRDoGG*, we have new ideas, in the near future we will try to present them to you









Pls, write your wishes, when there are 4 hands, everything can be done much easier and faster


----------



## Keith Myers

Yes, that invalid value had me scratching my head as it is one of the necessary values to input to the DRAM Calculator. I researched the tRC parameter and think it is tRC = tRAS + tRP. So I added those values together to get tRC from the post. Hope I am correct.


----------



## Anty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> What is the part number of the module that you mean? F4-3200C14-8GTZKO?


Just checked - yes it was F4-3200C14-8GTZKO.

How unlucky I found this one first in SPD browser








Other [email protected] are OK.

Keith - good you managed to fix it. tRC is indeed 30ns for [email protected] sticks.


----------



## Karagra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LicSqualo*
> 
> Me too I'm waiting to see one 3600 stable with all the details (RTC + HCI or other ram program test).
> 
> I've managed 3600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or better (and for my intention) I see some time 1800 Mhz Infinity running in my PC but always unstable.


I have yet to try getting 3600mhz stable due to everyone saying 3466mhz is faster but i did have fun messing around with it a few days ago


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Keith Myers*
> 
> Yes, that invalid value had me scratching my head as it is one of the necessary values to input to the DRAM Calculator. I researched the tRC parameter and think it is tRC = tRAS + tRP. So I added those values together to get tRC from the post. Hope I am correct.


Correct








Quote:


> Row Cycle Time (tRC).
> Determines the minimum number of clock cycles a memory row takes to
> complete a full cycle, from row activation up to the precharging of
> the active row. For optimal performance, use the lowest value you can,
> according to the tRC = tRAS + tRP formula. For example:
> if your memory module's tRAS is 7 clock cycles and its tRP is 4 clock cycles,
> then the row cycle time or tRC should be 11 clock cycles.


Source's :
http://www.tweakers.fr/timings.html
https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram?sf82393396=1


----------



## Anty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Karagra*
> 
> I have yet to try getting 3600mhz stable due to everyone saying 3466mhz is faster but i did have fun messing around with it a few days ago


First - upgrade your AIDA









Second - you need to run some benchmarks. But if you can do 14-14-14-26 1T this is win-win situation. Almost








Hint - check L3 cache speed.
There is significant drop in all cases I saw vs 3466.
There must be some internal multipliers/additional latencies introduced by AGESA/BIOS for high IF speeds and this is measurable. This sucks.

LicSqualo

What voltages you use and what is you CPU batch number?


----------



## Esenel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> No one has provided me with proof of the stable work of 3600. no one. AIDA picture is not proof


Does this one not count:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1628751/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread/150_30#post_26110425

But I admit it is very rare.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> @Voodoo Jungle
> 
> Everything will be fine, do not worry. I will try not to create conflicts , sorry ... a lot of work worsens my emotional state


That is good to hear and also understandable. You did the same to me, by accusing of cheat results :-D
But helped me a lot this two times. So you have still one free ;-)

Just do not stress out. And with the help of you all, a lot of people can use Ryzen to it's full potential. Thanks for that.


----------



## LicSqualo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> LicSqualo
> 
> What voltages you use and what is you CPU batch number?


Hi Anty,

thank you for the interest







Basicly I'm always (24/7) in Pstate0 near 4,1G at 1,44V idle and 1,39V load and my batch is 1709PGT (malaysia) adding 0,2500 in offset. These days I'm testing the "level 3" llc, before was always in auto.
With old bioses I've reach many rock stable configurations with 3200 Mhz ram and 4,1 Ghz at 1.35 to 1,37 under load and 1,42 idle. This CPU run 4,0 Ghz rock stable at 1,31v under load.
If this new agesa will be a flop (for my hardware, of course) I will come back starting to find my best bios for ram cpu and voltages. I don't know if all these bios update was really good for my case. I was stable from the day 1 (march) with 4100 CPU and 3200 ram. Now I've a better comprehension of ram timings, thanks to the people that "work" here as 1usmus for all of us, and I will retry with old bios to found my best configuration with lower voltages.


----------



## Anty

By stable you mean prime95 28.10 / IBT AVX / OCCT AVX stable? What temps? And what DRAM and SOC?

I'm asking because of several things:
- 1.39 load and AVX heavy code means 200W burned in CPU - this will be HOT








- not all are aware there is strict dependency between high RAM speed and required core voltage (ont only SOC + DRAM) - you may have 4.0GHz + 3200 stable or 3.6GHz + 3600 stable with same voltages but 4.0 + 3600 will not work







- in best case you need to fix voltages or drop one of the two a bit
- 1709 PGT is strong indication you have segfaulting chip - I need to find more people with "good" chips to confirm one theory
- were you able to hit 3600 with BIOSes up to 1701? new beta seems more mature and many people were able to boot at this speed (or 3733) for a first time which was no-go before

If you didn't play with RTT, CAD bus and procODT yet then good - you still have some room for improving stability


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> By stable you mean prime95 28.10 / IBT AVX / OCCT AVX stable? What temps? And what DRAM and SOC?
> 
> I'm asking because of several things:
> - 1.39 load and AVX heavy code means 200W burned in CPU - this will be HOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - not all are aware there is strict dependency between high RAM speed and required core voltage (ont only SOC + DRAM) - you may have 4.0GHz + 3200 stable or 3.6GHz + 3600 stable with same voltages but 4.0 + 3600 will not work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - in best case you need to fix voltages or drop one of the two a bit
> - 1709 PGT is strong indication you have segfaulting chip - I need to find more people with "good" chips to confirm one theory
> - were you able to hit 3600 with BIOSes up to 1701? new beta seems more mature and many people were able to boot at this speed (or 3733) for a first time which was no-go before
> 
> If you didn't play with RTT, CAD bus and procODT yet then good - you still have some room for improving stability


I can load into windows with 3600mhz on ram, but cannot start any programs








But my timings are nowhere near to those of G.skill sets... OEM Samsung B-die works at 3466 mhz for right now stable with 4.0Ghz (if I have additional good cooling for my MSI VRM), 24/7 use is 3.9Ghz @ 1.376V (in windows, bios is at 1.3625)


----------



## Keith Myers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> Just checked - yes it was F4-3200C14-8GTZKO.
> 
> How unlucky I found this one first in SPD browser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other [email protected] are OK.
> 
> Keith - good you managed to fix it. tRC is indeed 30ns for [email protected] sticks.


The crazy thing was.... is that the Calculator dumps out exactly the same settings for 3333 Fast for both the 3600 and 3200 sticks even though the primary timings are slightly different. I thought I had mislabeled the printouts at first but when I went back and re-entered them again, I got the same results.

While I was waiting for [email protected] to come back up, I entered the new Calculator derived Fast 3333 settings into both the Linux and Win10 machines and they have been happily crunching all day with those RAM speeds. I've shaved a couple minutes off the CPU tasks completion times. So a big gain on the Linux machine and another boost in performance for the Win10 machine from Stilt Safe 3333 settings.

Now to try for 3466 I guess. The DRAM Calculator is a very useful tool to quickly find stable settings without days of trial and error testing.


----------



## goncalossilva

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> 1709 PGT is strong indication you have segfaulting chip - I need to find more people with "good" chips to confirm one theory


What theory?


----------



## WarpenN1

Putting a fan to directly blow air into RAM's shaved about 10C off RAM temperatures. RAM temperatures are now at 37.5c and other one being 34.8c. Testing stability right now but a huge temperature improvement. I'm considering putting my RAM's under liquid loop that I'm gonna buy in a near future.


----------



## keng

Good work, running Samsung E-die dual rank at 3466 with tighter timings than XMP.
AMD owes you some sort of compensation as well as ASUS.



btw, the russian overclockers forum is where you can find real and serious discussion about ryzen, these forums are embarrassing as it turns out.

p.s. also works with 1T /gear down timings, but this is much more stable. Will try to see if it goes higher
.
I have not experimented much with REFCLK overclocking as I don't think that would be a good idea and I haven't found any documentation how you should make sure that the whole PCIE/mobo/OS doesn't implode as all of them are pretending the refclk is 100 and nothing else.


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> That's cool pal but I don't really care as I understand nothing in what you're showing me. You could've just stated that ram manufacturers do not store that information in SPD and there's nothing to read.


But without the image we'd have people whining about the program still being buggy, he provided exactly what he needed to stop any further 'it's buggy' claims








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Voodoo Jungle*
> 
> *Arengeta*,
> 
> Here is the formula to calculate tRC: tRC=(SPDByte_404[7:4] shl 8)+SPDByte_406[7:0]. I have checked Byte 404 and Byte 406 and they are blank.


Voodoo's post included screenshots of the hexadecimal data pulled from the SPD profile stored on the memory DIMMs, this is the second layer we can read into what the hardware (whatever it may be) has written to it (the first layer being Binary, for all I know it could be reading the binary (most likely) and simply converting that to a Hex value to make it about 1/4 the length to our eyes/brains.
I.E. instead of Hex 00 we'd have Binary '00000000' or Hex FF and in binary '11111111', another example 0F = '00001111'. For reference 1 Hex value is 0-F = 4 binary bits '0000' to '1111' (a nibble), combine two hex values (nibbles) and we are left with a byte,

The screen shot highlights the two Hex values (byte 404/406) that when added together equal the value we know as tRC. As both byte 404 and 406 are Hex code 00 (a.k.a No Value) 0+0 = 0 (ns in this case), which by my standards shows that TB is working perfectly and it's just the manufacturer being lazy (maybe as they buy whatever Memory IC they want and smash them onto a PCB and sell it at Loose ass timings that will work with every mem IC they buy? (i don't know.. just theorising here







)

Anyway i hope you (and anyone else) now understand Hex/Binary a tiny bit better than before.


----------



## blair

double posted like a scrub!!


----------



## LicSqualo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> By stable you mean prime95 28.10 / IBT AVX / OCCT AVX stable? What temps? And what DRAM and SOC?
> 
> I'm asking because of several things:
> - 1.39 load and AVX heavy code means 200W burned in CPU - this will be HOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - not all are aware there is strict dependency between high RAM speed and required core voltage (ont only SOC + DRAM) - you may have 4.0GHz + 3200 stable or 3.6GHz + 3600 stable with same voltages but 4.0 + 3600 will not work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - in best case you need to fix voltages or drop one of the two a bit
> - 1709 PGT is strong indication you have segfaulting chip - I need to find more people with "good" chips to confirm one theory
> - were you able to hit 3600 with BIOSes up to 1701? new beta seems more mature and many people were able to boot at this speed (or 3733) for a first time which was no-go before
> 
> If you didn't play with RTT, CAD bus and procODT yet then good - you still have some room for improving stability


THANK YOU for your interest.








SEGFAULT is the sword over my head (!!!), but this can really affect my PC when running windows? And I fear that RMAing my CPU i will receive a not golden one like mine now. This is the first time I'm lucky!
And yes, stable I mean IBT AVX / OCCT running. I've picture for you, but not now (i'm at work).
Temps reached 51°C when under stress but I'm watercooled with a monster alphacool 480 UT60, and the rad is outside my window. So CPU temperatures are out of my equation. Yes is hot but the power consumption is approximately 120-130W when stressed. Remember is a 1700 not X.








I've reduced my SOC (was 1,15) to 1,08V and this is a good thing (thx to Sandman).








You can see the bios version in the last line of AIDA benchmark







Last bios 3008 is not so good for my system and I'm planning to downgrade to find better voltages and temperatures.
I've touch 3600 with first bios (perhaps 1001 or 0082 I don't remember exactly) with a base clock overclock. But my old 295x2 refuse to work with high pci-ex clocks. Now with VEGA is all resolved








And yes RTT and CAD are untouched, only Proc-ODT is set and stable with 60ohm. Not possible to raise or lower this value.
I hope that I will receive help when I will try to break my limits.


----------



## LicSqualo

This is my last stable screenshot,



but I also tested this











today, as you can see...

And now? I know that I've a golden chip but segfault affected.

I've to investigate and think... HEEELP!





































This chip is AMAZING and surely I'll receive a bad one compared to this...

RMA time... perhaps... but in January, not surely now...

I've time to really understand

before to do something

against my lovely ryzen chip

(soo amazing!!!)









Lic

SORRY for the OFF topic


----------



## ZeNch

in your place i use this chip to the next ryzens cpu and in this momment change por new one (ryzen 2xxx for example).

is your oportunity to upgrade without lose money.


----------



## ZeNch

Months with the same OC in cpu and now fail? -.- its rare. In the past i pass every tests.

Hi i have some doubts.

if i set more vSoc i have drop of bandwith in cache L3 (copy)

if i set more voltage to ram i have drop of bandwith in cache L3 (write and copy)

if i test my cpu OC without ram OC is perfect stable.

if i test RAM OC i have errors in little time.

my ram OC is stable before but no now.
i have better results with:
cad_bus 30-30-40-60 (with 30-30-30-30 and 30-30-20-20 is worst)
ProcODT 60ohm
rtt 7-off-4

The only change in my system is what i change my ram to other sockets.

Should I ignore the L3 cache and look for stability or should I pay attention to it?

My ram is SR hynix M-Die 2x8gb 3200mhz
my cpu Ryzen5 [email protected]

ps: i repeat each test 5 to 10 times and this night im testing my CPU OC again.

Any ideas?


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Ok this is as good as it gets for me.
Corsair M-Die 2x16GB CMK32GX4M2B3200C16



1.36v Dram - 1.05v SOC LLC 2
tRFC 416 any thing lower fails HCI memtest
tCL will not go to 15 no boot
tRC 51 will not go lower.
tCWL 15 will not go.

CR 2 much more stable latency, slightly slower data speeds, 1-200MB lower . Latency 76.6ish vs 77.0 - 78.6
AIDA used.

ProcODT 53.3 is stable gets worse the higher i go, 80 will not even get to Bios.
RTT settings on Auto as it crashes on Calc settings.
CAD BUS block on Auto
CLDO_VDDP 700

ZeNch i noticed the L3 cache suffered badly at times, just did not pay enough attention to it.
Glad it was not just me tho


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> Ok this is as good as it gets for me.
> Corsair M-Die 2x16GB CMK32GX4M2B3200C16
> 
> 
> 
> 1.36v Dram - 1.05v SOC LLC 2
> tRFC 416 any thing lower fails HCI memtest
> tCL will not go to 15 no boot
> tRC 51 will not go lower.
> tCWL 15 will not go.
> 
> CR 2 much more stable latency, slightly slower data speeds, 1-200MB lower . Latency 76.6ish vs 77.0 - 78.6
> AIDA used.
> 
> ProcODT 53.3 is stable gets worse the higher i go, 80 will not even get to Bios.
> RTT settings on Auto as it crashes on Calc settings.
> CAD BUS block on Auto
> CLDO_VDDP 700
> 
> ZeNch i noticed the L3 cache suffered badly at times, just did not pay enough attention to it.
> Glad it was not just me tho


How did you get to disable GearDownMode and select Command Rate 2T. I can't do it on my Asus X370-Pro motherboard, no matter what combination of settings I select. I also have a Hynix M-Die dual rank kit, but 3000MHz CL15 (CMK32GX4M2B3000C15). Max frequency is also 2933, but with looser timings.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

I have the Killer SLI so i don't know how you would do it. Sorry


----------



## figarro

No problem. I understood that CR 2T is not possible with Hynix memory because of architectural limitations. Apparently it's just a problem with the ASUS board...


----------



## keng

It is a bios glitch, one of many.
You need to go apply one of "The Stilt" presets and it will magically change to 2t.
The reason is that some of the RAM settings are hidden in the regular bios and you can't change.


----------



## figarro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> It is a bios glitch, one of many.
> You need to go apply one of "The Stilt" presets and it will magically change to 2t.
> The reason is that some of the RAM settings are hidden in the regular bios and you can't change.


Interesting. I'll try on my modded BIOS. Maybe CT 2T will help me go beyond 2933MHz.


----------



## 1usmus

1) the technical process has not changed, the 4th generation 14nm "aka 12nm" (maximum + 400mhz)
2) a photograph of the crystal with two CCX complexes is remembered (8 cores will be maximum for the platform)
3) there will never be 2 HEDT platforms


----------



## st0neh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 3) there will never be 2 HEDT platforms


This is the big one for me.

AMD is still having issues with 8 core mainstream CPUs not being utilized, why would they release 12 core mainstream CPUs?


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *st0neh*
> 
> This is the big one for me.
> 
> AMD is still having issues with 8 core mainstream CPUs not being utilized, why would they release 12 core mainstream CPUs?


maybe due to TR having at least the die/base to be a 4 zen 32 core

as seen when delidded and amd asked for the video to be taken down

as i said we will see

before ryzen was released i watched many leaked slides and benches

there were far MORE truthful things than incorrect points

technically the die shrink may be able to have an additional 2 cores


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> newsflash
> ryzen 2 slides leaked
> feb launch
> r7 2700 10c 4.0-4.5 ghz
> r7 2800 12c 4.4-4.9 ghz
> r7 2800x 12c 4.6-5.1 ghz
> 
> redgamingtech on you tube


Stop spamming this offtopic comment and your copy and paste answers.

http://www.overclock.net/f/379/rumors-and-unconfirmed-articles

if you like upload the video and information post in the correct section.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZeNch*
> 
> Stop spamming this offtopic comment and your copy and paste answers.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/f/379/rumors-and-unconfirmed-articles
> 
> if you like upload the video and information post in the correct section.


stop accusing me of copy paste answer when there are non
THANK YOU !


----------



## WexleySnoops

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> stop accusing me of copy paste answer when there are non
> THANK YOU !


Well you did copy/paste the same comment in twothree separate threads...



He is right it should be in _unconfirmed_ articles....there are new guys always roaming these forums, and this is the type of info that will only confuse them until it is official.


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> stop accusing me of copy paste answer when there are non
> THANK YOU !


you copy and paste here and in taichi thread the same response. Good bye.


----------



## Avalar

So I think I did this right..?



I have a Ryzen system, so yeah, I got the wrong RAM. I mean, at least it was on sale... I wanna get more than 2133MHz out of my *3200MHz* G Skill Ripjaws RAM, though. Was just gonna ask, where in this image does it show how many MHz I'll get after applying these settings?


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Avalar*
> 
> So I think I did this right..?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Ryzen system, so yeah, I got the wrong RAM. I mean, at least it was on sale... I wanna get more than 2133MHz out of my *3200MHz* G Skill Ripjaws RAM, though. Was just gonna ask, where in this image does it show how many MHz I'll get after applying these settings?


the calc takes what your ram is based off of its default timmings at its rated speed and gives you timmings based off what speeds you want to hit. ex. I have a kit of ram rated at 3200 cl14 but I wanna hit 3466 cl14, so I put the timmings in nano seconds for what the kits rated at (3200) and when I go to set a speed I put the speed I want to hit (3466) and it'll spit out timmings that compliment it. Obviously I'm going for fast timmings so I select fast timmings and it gives me cl14 timmings verses safe timmings which it gave me cl15


----------



## Avalar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> the calc takes what your ram is based off of its default timmings at its rated speed and gives you timmings based off what speeds you want to hit. ex. I have a kit of ram rated at 3200 cl14 but I wanna hit 3466 cl14, so I put the timmings in nano seconds for what the kits rated at (3200) and when I go to set a speed I put the speed I want to hit (3466) and it'll spit out timmings that compliment it. Obviously I'm going for fast timmings so I select fast timmings and it gives me cl14 timmings verses safe timmings which it gave me cl15


So, I entered 3200, the highest rated speed for my RAM. I'm technically not even overclocking lol. The timings it spits out will let me achieve 3200? How does the calculator know what can be done with every system and every stick of RAM?


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Avalar*
> 
> So, I entered 3200, the highest rated speed for my RAM. I'm technically not even overclocking lol. The timings it spits out will let me achieve 3200? How does the calculator know what can be done with every system and every stick of RAM?


It doesnt, it gives you the most stable set of timings based off mathmatical calculations that are extrapulated from the design and limitations of your set based on the provided timings in nanoseconds and what manufacturer and die type your set by has.

More simply put the calculator gives you the most stable set of stable/fast/extreme timings and an OUTLINE of other settings to use to help stability. But overall theres a chance it's not going to be 100% perfectly stable for your system or use case. This calculator is a wonderful start that might lead to a quick finish. Nothing more nothing less (maybe).

Overall anytime you go above 2133 on ddr4 your technically overclock, even more so if your going 2666 over on ryzen


----------



## keng

Updates for 1usmus:

at least with Threadripper I have, everything in your calc is excellent, except:

1) If your settings don't work, simply setting the *ProcODT to Auto,* just magically works.

2) As a side, I have stumbled at your customizing Bios page, that is excellent work. One thing you can also add is that you can flash modded bioses from windows (no need for boot usb) using *afuwin romname.rom /GAN* (this is what amd has you do on their EPYC systems) as long as the afuwin is 3.05 version (gan is removed in the latest versions







)

Keep up the good work


----------



## thcmaniac

I have F4-3000C16D-16GTZR and Gigabyte AB350N itx. My goal is 3200mhz (without your program I couldn't achieve this result) - 3333mhz isn't stable on CL18...

Program calculated that should I set CL17 for 3200mhz (safe mode, fast mode isn't stable). I wanted to improve some timings and now I have sth like that 3200mhz CL16 (left - my settings, right - settings from program).

Could you check this timings which I set? Should I change sth? (If I set CL16-18-18-18 ram isn't stable even on 1.45V,)



Could you check this timings which I set? Should I change sth? (If I set CL16-18-18-18 ram isn't stable even on 1.45V,)

BTW/// On my Motherboard I couldn't find CAD_BUS and CLDO_VPP.


----------



## keng

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thcmaniac*
> 
> I have F4-3000C16D-16GTZR and Gigabyte AB350N itx. My goal is 3200mhz (without your program I couldn't achieve this result) - 3333mhz isn't stable on CL18...
> 
> Program calculated that should I set CL17 for 3200mhz (safe mode, fast mode isn't stable). I wanted to improve some timings and now I have sth like that 3200mhz CL16 (left - my settings, right - settings from program).
> 
> Could you check this timings which I set? Should I change sth? (If I set CL16-18-18-18 ram isn't stable even on 1.45V,)
> 
> 
> 
> Could you check this timings which I set? Should I change sth? (If I set CL16-18-18-18 ram isn't stable even on 1.45V,)
> 
> BTW/// On my Motherboard I couldn't find CAD_BUS and CLDO_VPP.


generally as you max your ram settings, to debug you need to:

Go to cmd rate *2t*
Set the procODT to Auto
loosen timings, esp your tFAW looks very tight
those other things are probably just hidden on your bios


----------



## thcmaniac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> generally as you max your ram settings, to debug you need to:
> 
> Go to cmd rate *2t*
> Set the procODT to Auto
> loosen timings, esp your tFAW looks very tight
> those other things are probably just hidden on your bios


If I change CR to 2T I need also change GearDown to disable. If I set GearDown to disable (If I didn't change it system boot with 1T....) system isn't stable even If I increase voltage of Ram and SOC(Blue screen and problem with reboot).

I will loosen timings but which one ? secondary timings? I want to tighten primary timings to CL16-18-18-18 with 3200mhz.

Please tell me also which option will be better CL16-19-19-19-39 3200mhz or CL18-20-20-20-43 3333mhz? ( In my opinion first one, but please correct me If I'm wrong)


----------



## keng

The other thing you should also make sure is that your CPU is running 1.25x the RAM speed or more. I read this in the AMD programming manual, and I am not exactly sure if it means single or double channel

From my testing, it seems you get a faster system with lower strap such as 3200 and tight timings.

Also, after messing with HPET and modding my bios, I think having HPET turned on is probably a good thing, as the system is much more responsive, smooth and just breath taking (i.e. the little windows hourglass never shows







)


----------



## x58haze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Hi guys, I created a calculator that will make it easier to overclock the memory. It works with all kinds of memory and all zen processors.*
> 
> To increase the chances of successful overclocking I advise you to adhere to all the offers that the calculator gives on main page.
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v7*
> Last update : 26 November
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3QQ5-VLD3WLNHMKuL0ND6CDKi5f3oWu/view?usp=sharing
> 
> *Video instruction: how to work with a calculator*
> 
> https://youtu.be/6-XkaF_Rp0c
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Instruction (full version)
> 
> 
> 
> Step 0 : Download Thaiphoon burner and run
> Step 1 :
> 
> Step 2 :
> 
> Step 3 :
> 
> Step 4:
> 
> 
> *the names can be in different order!* *the names must match!*
> 
> Step 5 : It is necessary to choose the frequency (desired frequency), memory type ( Samsung b-die with XMP, Hynix with XMP , memory without XMP or C/E/D-die + Micron memory with XMP) and rank of memory (1 or 2)
> Step 6 : Click "Calculate Safe" or "Calculate Fast"
> Step 7 : Now you need to enter all values in the BIOS
> Step 8 : Test the stability of the system with the help of such programs: Linx 1.0.0 AMD Edition, Aida stress test and HCI
> 
> 
> 
> The results of a successful overclocking can be seen here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ubpbdMcdiS37g_dReCX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/29140_20#post_26416693


Hello 1usmus, thanks for the guide, but i would highly appreciate if you can help me, i'm so frustrated till the point i feel stuck, because, you know i bought a pair of rams
model ram: Patriot 2x4 (8 gb) 3200 pc4-25600 (Timing 16-16-16-36) And to be honest I really don't know what chipset it is?
I tried to contact the manufacturer via Email, and you know what they said: Oh sorry we don't know what chipset it is :/

So I tried to use thaiphon burner, and still not recognized :/








So i really need help, i don't want to burn my pair of rams, i'm needing this becasuse i feel my games like frame skipping or lag, i tried frame-time msi after burner, many windows update, many windows versions, and problem persist, and guessing this has to be my rams! help plz :/

Patriot viper rams where i bought : NEWEGG
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220983


----------



## ZeNch

You can disassemble your ram and see the memory chips but i dont recommend it.

The problem here is Patriot, dont write the info in the ram.

in your place i try with hynix chip in the calculator.


----------



## keng

It could clock high, but you have to be determined. To get it clocking high, just loosen the timings to 20-20-20-20 and pump some 1.5-1.7 volts (don't worry you can run it at 2+ volts, but don't increase your SOC or CPU volts !!) should be able to get 3200


----------



## Ramad

@ x58haze
I have the 2x8GB Elite version which uses the same die as yours. PM me if you want the full timings for it.
I use my own method to calculate and sync the timings, so they are not based on the tool here. They should do fine between 1.35V to 1.38V, good dies.


----------



## x58haze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> @ x58haze
> I have the 2x8GB Elite version which uses the same die as yours. PM me if you want the full timings for it.
> I use my own method to calculate and sync the timings, so they are not based on the tool here. They should do fine between 1.35V to 1.38V, good dies.


I will my friend i'm so happy to see that i'm not the only, with this ram, thanks so much, send you a private.


----------



## Anty

Isn't it made with K4A4G085WE (samsung e-die)?


----------



## Anty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> The other thing you should also make sure is that your CPU is running 1.25x the RAM speed or more. I *read this in the AMD programming manual*


Which one?
I don't see it here:
Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family 17h Processors
Processor Programming Reference (PPR) for AMD Family 17h Model 01h, Revision B1 Processors


----------



## PuPpEt

Can someone help me?
I'm trying to boot with 3466 fast preset but it doesn't boot (F9 taichi debug).
With 3466 safe preset everything seems smooth and boot normal.
RAM G.skill F4-3466C16D-16GTZR | MB: x370 Taichi

*Safe preset:*


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








*Fast preset:*


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








I tried every combo: voltage up to 1.48, SOC up to 1.1, procODT every combination, CAD_BUS every combination, VDDP up to 900, CLDO_VDDP up to 937, VTTDDR up to 0.74.

I can't understand why it doesn't even boot.
I'm at 3.8Ghz 1.35v (and i can go down).

Safe preset works like a charm, every setting as Rec.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Thanks for this tool, I have been running 3200Mhz on my TR System but have used this tool to get the likely settings to get me to 3466Mhz and will give this a go to see if I can. Though we will see if the BIOS will be kind enough to let me on 0804 on the Asus ZE lol.


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> Can someone help me?
> I'm trying to boot with 3466 fast preset but it doesn't boot (F9 taichi debug).
> With 3466 safe preset everything seems smooth and boot normal.
> RAM G.skill F4-3466C16D-16GTZR | MB: x370 Taichi
> Safe preset works like a charm, every setting as Rec.


tRC and/or tRFC is very low. Try combining safe and fast presets (like 15-15-15-37-55)


----------



## SaccoSVD

I could boot my 64GB Hynix dual rank (4dimm kit) several times at 3200Mhz









Not stable yet but close:

These timings were the best so far, I could boot into windows and run tests but eventually get a green screen each time:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Memory Frequency: DDR4-3200MHz

DRAM Voltage: 1.35 V

DRAM Timings:

DRAM CAS# Latency: 16

Trcdrd: 18

Tcdwr: 18

DRAM RAS# PRE Time: 18

DRAM RAS# ACT Time: 38

Trc_SM: 72

TrrdS_SM: 6

TrrdL_SM: 8

Tfaw_SM: 39

TwtrS_SM: 4

TwtrL_SM: 12

Twr_SM: 22

Trcpage_SM: 0

Trdrdscl_SM: 6

TwrwrSd_SM: 6

Tfrfc_SM: 560

Trfc2_SM: 416

Trfc4_SM: 256

Tcwl_SM: 16

Trtp_SM: 12

Trdwr_SM: 6

Twrrd_SM: 4

TwrwrSc_SM: 1

TwrwrSd_SM: 7

TwrwrDd_SM: 7

TrdrdSc_SM: 1

TrdrdSd_SM: 5

TrdrdDd_SM: 5

Tcke_SM: 8

ProcODT_SM: Auto

Cmd2T: 2T

Gear Down Mode: Disabeled

RttNom: Auto

RttWr: Auto

RttPark: Auto



I also tried these but while it posted sometimes it was very unstable:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







No idea what to do next. Any ideas? I'm amazed I can run such kit at 3200Mhz ...I'm so close


----------



## PuPpEt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arengeta*
> 
> tRC and/or tRFC is very low. Try combining safe and fast presets (like 15-15-15-37-55)


I tried every combination + your advice on tRC and tRFC, but still can't boot


----------



## abso

Does the CPU need more VCore Voltage if I lower the RAM timings same as it does when I increase RAM clockspeeds or do timings only effect the RAM?


----------



## neur0cide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JeyD02*
> 
> While you advise strongly to use RZQ settings, is there a reason why your calculator recommends some of it to be off?
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment, a new version of the calculator is being tested, these values are taken from it
Click to expand...

What does "Off" mean for RTT Write? I can disable RTT Read and RTT Park, but for RTT Write I only have "Dynamic ODT Off" as an option, which messes up my overclock.


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> What does *"Off"* mean for RTT Write? I can disable RTT Read and RTT Park, but for RTT Write I only have "Dynamic ODT *Off*" as an option, which messes up my overclock.


----------



## thcmaniac

Hello,
As I wrote last time I had a problem with achieve CL16-18-18-18 3200mhz (even with very loose timings, and with very high voltage more than 1.5V)

So yesterday and today I did many test and now I have sth like that:



Can you tell me settings like that looks correctly? or tRCDRD should has the same value like tRCDWR and tRP?

How is look the other timings in your opinion?


----------



## datonyb

well as a rule of thumb (and to be honest i had more luck using the calculator than the rule of thumb)

but tras = tcl+trcd + (2~5ish)
trc = tras+trp
tfaw = trrds x 6 (so yours seems a little low)
tcwl =tcl

in no way am i an expert but it seems these are sort of good rules to listen to


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> well as a rule of thumb (and to be honest i had more luck using the calculator than the rule of thumb)
> 
> but tras = tcl+trcd + (2~5ish)
> trc = tras+trp
> tfaw = trrds x 6 (so yours seems a little low)
> tcwl =tcl
> 
> in no way am i an expert but it seems these are sort of good rules to listen to


general rule of thump is tRAS = tCL + tRCD +2

btw. tFAW needs to be between 4x and 8x tRRD_S so his value is fine
Could be lowered even to 24 (=4x6)


----------



## dspx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> general rule of thump is tRAS = tCL + tRCD +2
> 
> btw. tFAW needs to be between 4x and 8x tRRD_S so his value is fine
> Could be lowered even to 24 (=4x6)


DRAM Calculator suggested 32 for my tRAS, tCL and tRCD are 16 each.
Should I use that, or add 2 as you suggested?
My system seems to be stable.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dspx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> general rule of thump is tRAS = tCL + tRCD +2
> 
> btw. tFAW needs to be between 4x and 8x tRRD_S so his value is fine
> Could be lowered even to 24 (=4x6)
> 
> 
> 
> DRAM Calculator suggested 32 for my tRAS, tCL and tRCD are 16 each.
> Should I use that, or add 2 as you suggested?
> My system seems to be stable.
Click to expand...

what ever you feel comfortable with
Usually "overclockers" try to squeeze the most out of their memory by tightening the timings while aiming to still be "stable"
This requires you to do a often quite some trial and error.... See what combo of settings will run and which ones will give you best performance
So... it really comes down to... what you try to achieve


----------



## thcmaniac

What about tRCDRD can be higher than tRCDWR and tRP? I couldn't find any information in internet...


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> btw. tFAW needs to be between 4x and 8x tRRD_S so his value is fine


well im basing my experiance of x6 on every result i got out of the ryzen ram calculator including 3200/3333/3466/3600 speeds and at fast and extreme

and also off all of my ram jedecs specs

they all are times 6

as i said im no proclaimed expert

but everything i have to refer to is all x6


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thcmaniac*
> 
> What about tRCDRD can be higher than tRCDWR and tRP? I couldn't find any information in internet...


sometimes these timings (tRCDRD and tRCDWR) can be made lower than tRP

Trcd (tRCDRD and tRCDWR) , RAS to CAS delay is the time required to activate the bank line, or the minimum time between the RAS # signal and the column selection signal (CAS #).

To improve synchronization, these three timings always make the same. But no one forbids you to break the rules. Reducing these timings improves the latency of memory and the performance of the system as a whole .The only thing I do not advise is to reduce tRP. This timing is very critical (Trp, Row Precharge - the time required for precharge the bank (precharge). In other words, the minimum time to close a line, after which you can activate a new line of the bank.) .
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dspx*
> 
> DRAM Calculator suggested 32 for my tRAS, tCL and tRCD are 16 each.
> Should I use that, or add 2 as you suggested?
> My system seems to be stable.


in the calculator you use 2 variants of calculation of timings:
1) regarding the delays that exist in the profile of the XMP (safe)
2) approximation of theoretical values (fast / extreme)

I do not advise violating the suggestions of the calculator
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> What does "Off" mean for RTT Write? I can disable RTT Read and RTT Park, but for RTT Write I only have "Dynamic ODT Off" as an option, which messes up my overclock.


"OFF" is the abbreviation Dynamic ODT Off
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abso*
> 
> Does the CPU need more VCore Voltage if I lower the RAM timings same as it does when I increase RAM clockspeeds or do timings only effect the RAM?


It is often necessary to increase the voltage per step for CPU and SOC (Just in the BIOS, use the "+")


----------



## Arengeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> I tried every combination + your advice on tRC and tRFC, but still can't boot


Have you tried 16-15-15?


----------



## keng

Team, we need a large excel sheet with all the different variables, and a *little python neural net ala tensor flow /keras* and this nonsense would be done by now. Lets go!


----------



## thcmaniac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> sometimes these timings (tRCDRD and tRCDWR) can be made lower than tRP
> 
> Trcd (tRCDRD and tRCDWR) , RAS to CAS delay is the time required to activate the bank line, or the minimum time between the RAS # signal and the column selection signal (CAS #).
> 
> To improve synchronization, these three timings always make the same. But no one forbids you to break the rules. Reducing these timings improves the latency of memory and the performance of the system as a whole .The only thing I do not advise is to reduce tRP. This timing is very critical (Trp, Row Precharge - the time required for


Thank you for very precisie reply. According to your information, I increased trp value to 19. Only tRCDWR is 18. Now I have sth like that (Ram - 1,39V, SOC - 1V). Is it correct or can I improve/change sth?



Thank you in advance!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> Team, we need a large excel sheet with all the different variables, and a *little python neural net ala tensor flow /keras* and this nonsense would be done by now. Lets go!


what do you mean? to create a description of all timings + functions (BGS GDM etc.)?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thcmaniac*
> 
> Thank you for very precisie reply. According to your information, I increased trp value to 19. Only tRCDWR is 18. Now I have sth like that (Ram - 1,39V, SOC - 1V). Is it correct or can I improve/change sth?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance!


if the system is stable you can leave it as it is now


----------



## Dotachin

*URGENT* The Stilt Ryzen Timing Calculator IS a Rootkit Installing Trojan Horse (VIRUS, no f[]cking false positive bs)


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dotachin*
> 
> *URGENT* The Stilt Ryzen Timing Calculator IS a Rootkit Installing Trojan Horse (VIRUS, no f[]cking false positive bs)


If you look at the other threads this piece of work has made, you should be able to make some conclusions of your own: http://www.overclock.net/t/1643860/the-security-hole-that-is-uefi/0_50


----------



## Disassociative

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> If you look at the other threads this piece of work has made, you should be able to make some conclusions of your own: http://www.overclock.net/t/1643860/the-security-hole-that-is-uefi/0_50


Ugh, enough said


----------



## Dotachin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> If you look at the other threads this piece of work has made, you should be able to make some conclusions of your own: http://www.overclock.net/t/1643860/the-security-hole-that-is-uefi/0_50


Good to know


----------



## abso

I see some people getting lots more bandwidth and better latency in AIDA with only slightly faster RAM when Im looking at their settings. Anyone can give me some tips what I could try to improve? I dont have special B-Die ram for ryzen so I dont expect to break any records. Mine are E-Die Dual Rank and here you can see where I'm at right now.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abso*
> 
> I see some people getting lots more bandwidth and better latency in AIDA with only slightly faster RAM when Im looking at their settings. Anyone can give me some tips what I could try to improve? I dont have special B-Die ram for ryzen so I dont expect to break any records. Mine are E-Die Dual Rank and here you can see where I'm at right now.


Try lowering xSCL timings as much as you can.
Those will have the biggest effect.

I have no idea how low E-die can go thou.


----------



## abso

DRDSCL and RWRSCL are the ones you are talking about?


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abso*
> 
> DRDSCL and RWRSCL are the ones you are talking about?


Yes.


----------



## neur0cide

In case you have 2x8GB of E-die:



ProcODT: 60 Ohm
RttNom: RZQ/7
RttWR: RZQ/3
RttPark: RZQ/1
DRAM (Boot) Voltage: 1.35v - 1.4v
Power Down Mode: off

These settings worked for all of the D- and E-die I had on my ASUS C6H.
Some I could even push as high as 3333-16-16-16-16 with less than 1.4v.

As The Stilt said: RDRDSCL and WRWRSCL have a huge impact on performance.


----------



## abso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> In case you have 2x8GB of E-die:
> 
> 
> 
> ProcODT: 60 Ohm
> RttWR: RZQ/7
> RttRD: RZQ/3
> RttPark: RZQ/1
> DRAM (Boot) Voltage: 1.35v - 1.4v
> Power Down Mode: off
> 
> These settings worked for all of the D- and E-die I had on my ASUS C6H.
> Some I could even push as high as 3333-16-16-16-16 with less than 1.4v.
> 
> As The Stilt said: RDRDSCL and WRWRSCL have a huge impact on performance.


Yes my LPX are Samsung E-Die. I will give those settings a try, thanks.


----------



## Avalar

Could somebody maybe help me with my RAM OC? At the time when I was buying parts for my new PC, I didn't know that I would have any compatibility problems with the RAM I picked and the CPU/mobo. At least it was on sale lol.

Mobo: AB350 Pro4
CPU: Ryzen 1600
RAM: https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-16gvgb - Two 8GB sticks

Never OC'd RAM before, so I wouldn't know the first thing. Also the only time I ever OC'd the CPU too, which was pretty basic, so I don't really know much about that, either. I just set the voltage to the highest AMD recommends to run 24/7 and bumped it up to 3.6GHz; Never did any benchmarks, either. The default 3200 XMP profile doesn't work, of course, and some timings from this calculator also did not work. I'm tring to achieve at least the MHz that this RAM is rated for (3200), or if that's not possible with my setup, to at least get close. Or should I sell these sticks and get a different set? The difference in price for what I paid for the sticks I have now and the cheapest 14-14-14-XX I could find would be about $70, which I'd be willing to pay if this proves to be too cumbersome.

Also, what does Gear-Down Mode do, and how might it affect overclocking? I've never heard of it before.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> here is more of the disassebmby, they keep taking it down, but whoever downloaded stilts **** is compromised. I really hope he is working for a government agency
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> .text:0000000140018A6B                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10], r8
> .text:0000000140018A6F                 lea     r8, aStringupper ; "STRINGUPPER"
> .text:0000000140018A76                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEEA0, 1
> .text:0000000140018A80                 movups  xmm0, [rbp+var_10]
> .text:0000000140018A84                 mov     cs:qword_1400DEF00, r8
> .text:0000000140018A8B                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10+8], 0
> .text:0000000140018A93                 lea     r8, sub_140099A9C
> .text:0000000140018A9A                 movaps  cs:xmmword_1400DEEE0, xmm0
> .text:0000000140018AA1                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10], r8
> .text:0000000140018AA5                 lea     r8, aTan        ; "TAN"
> .text:0000000140018AAC                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEEA4, 2
> .text:0000000140018AB6                 movups  xmm0, [rbp+var_10]
> .text:0000000140018ABA                 mov     cs:qword_1400DEF28, r8
> .text:0000000140018AC1                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10+8], 0
> .text:0000000140018AC9                 lea     r8, sub_140086C34
> .text:0000000140018AD0                 movups  cs:xmmword_1400DEF08, xmm0
> .text:0000000140018AD7                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10], r8
> .text:0000000140018ADB                 lea     r8, aTcpaccept  ; "TCPACCEPT"
> .text:0000000140018AE2                 mov     cs:byte_1400DEEA8, 0
> .text:0000000140018AE9                 movups  xmm0, [rbp+var_10]
> .text:0000000140018AED                 mov     cs:qword_1400DEF50, r8
> .text:0000000140018AF4                 lea     r8, sub_14008A084
> .text:0000000140018AFB                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10+8], 0
> .text:0000000140018B03                 movaps  cs:xmmword_1400DEF30, xmm0
> .text:0000000140018B0A                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10], r8
> .text:0000000140018B0E                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEEC8, 2
> .text:0000000140018B18                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEECC, 2
> .text:0000000140018B22                 movups  xmm0, [rbp+var_10]
> .text:0000000140018B26                 mov     cs:byte_1400DEED0, 0
> .text:0000000140018B2D                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEEF0, 2
> .text:0000000140018B37                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEEF4, 2
> .text:0000000140018B41                 movups  cs:xmmword_1400DEF58, xmm0
> .text:0000000140018B48                 mov     cs:byte_1400DEEF8, 0
> .text:0000000140018B4F                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF18, 1
> .text:0000000140018B59                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF1C, 1
> .text:0000000140018B63                 mov     cs:byte_1400DEF20, 0
> .text:0000000140018B6A                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF40, 1
> .text:0000000140018B74                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF44, 1
> .text:0000000140018B7E                 mov     cs:byte_1400DEF48, 0
> .text:0000000140018B85                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF68, 1
> .text:0000000140018B8F                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF6C, 1
> .text:0000000140018B99                 mov     cs:byte_1400DEF70, 0
> .text:0000000140018BA0                 lea     r8, aTcpclosesocket ; "TCPCLOSESOCKET"
> .text:0000000140018BA7                 mov     cs:qword_1400DEF78, r8
> .text:0000000140018BAE                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10+8], 0
> .text:0000000140018BB6                 lea     r8, sub_14008A114
> .text:0000000140018BBD                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10], r8
> .text:0000000140018BC1                 lea     r8, aTcpconnect ; "TCPCONNECT"
> .text:0000000140018BC8                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF90, 1
> .text:0000000140018BD2                 movups  xmm0, [rbp+var_10]
> .text:0000000140018BD6                 mov     cs:qword_1400DEFA0, r8
> .text:0000000140018BDD                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10+8], 0
> .text:0000000140018BE5                 lea     r8, sub_14008A19C
> .text:0000000140018BEC                 movaps  cs:xmmword_1400DEF80, xmm0
> .text:0000000140018BF3                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10], r8
> .text:0000000140018BF7                 lea     r8, aTcplisten  ; "TCPLISTEN"
> .text:0000000140018BFE                 mov     cs:dword_1400DEF94, 1
> .text:0000000140018C08                 movups  xmm0, [rbp+var_10]
> .text:0000000140018C0C                 mov     cs:qword_1400DEFC8, r8
> .text:0000000140018C13                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10+8], 0
> .text:0000000140018C1B                 lea     r8, sub_14008A32C
> .text:0000000140018C22                 movups  cs:xmmword_1400DEFA8, xmm0
> .text:0000000140018C29                 mov     qword ptr [rbp+var_10], r8
> .text:0000000140018C2D                 lea     r8, aTcpnametoip ; "TCPNAMETOIP"


Hopefully you can get all the help you need and get your issues sorted









Meanwhile, I suggest that you take a look at AutoIT: https://www.autoitscript.com/site/autoit/downloads/
My code doesn't use any of the network functionality supported by AutoIT, because there is no need to. In fact once the program has loaded it does nothing.

You are disassembling AutoIT code (AutoIt3_x64.exe), not any code of mine









AutoIT itself is totally harmless, but it can be easily used for malicious purposes as well.
You can kill a man with a pencil. Should pencils be banned because of that?


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> yeah that is not supposed to be in the ******* ram checker software, which is password protected and has a ****load of packed and encrypted data.
> If it wasn't an issue you wouldn't have taken down my thread detailing exactly how the RTC turns into a ******* virus downloader, mr tolpalla


The archive is password protected because it is hosted at OneDrive. OneDrive will block all archives containing an exe file inside them.

None of the data is encrypted, the code is obfuscated to protect the Zeppelin register information (which are confidential and have not been released yet by AMD).

How exactly does the code turn suddenly into "a virus downloader", please elaborate?

Your thread was taken down because it contained my personal information.
Feel free to make a new thread, but this time without my personal information.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> Protect Zepellin information? what are you on. The ******* program has a ****** AUtoit script in it. There is no faking reason for that, and faskldfjalksdjf winsock. are you stupid?
> there is no reason for ram software to access the motherfuuuukgin internet


Get some help mate.


----------



## WexleySnoops

I think we would have known by now if the software had issues with it.

Clearly you are upset, but mouthing off on a forum, and slandering other users publicly is not how you go about dealing with this.

PM him to sort out your issues, as we could care less what you have to say and hate having threads go way off topic for pages for no reason.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> The whole Zeppelin register thing, is just ****** stupid. you do not need proprietary fuuuking information to query ram timings. it is open mother ****** source. in fuyuuuuking github


It is?
Please provide me the information to UMC (DRAM) register descriptions for Zeppelin (17h 00-0Fh)?
Either at GitHub or at AMD's site









Also I wish you would make a new thread for this (same as the previous one, but without the personal info), so that more skilled people could analyze what the program actually does.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> https://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/cpu-development/
> https://developer.amd.com/resources/developer-guides-manuals/
> 
> and *RTC was released well before zepellin[/B, which the people using your RTC **** do not have any chance of having.
> 
> You are going to have some nice people talking to you. From both sides. Have fun.*


So you fail to provide me a link to the information, which proves my statement about Zeppelin register being confidential as BS?
As I've already told you, the public PPR (#54945) for Zeppelin does not disclose any of these registers.

http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/54945_PPR_Family_17h_Models_00h-0Fh.pdf

RTC (1.0) was released 6/2/2017, Ryzen released 3/2/2017...

I definitely will


----------



## abso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> In case you have 2x8GB of E-die:
> 
> 
> 
> ProcODT: 60 Ohm
> RttWR: RZQ/7
> RttRD: RZQ/3
> RttPark: RZQ/1
> DRAM (Boot) Voltage: 1.35v - 1.4v
> Power Down Mode: off
> 
> These settings worked for all of the D- and E-die I had on my ASUS C6H.
> Some I could even push as high as 3333-16-16-16-16 with less than 1.4v.
> 
> As The Stilt said: RDRDSCL and WRWRSCL have a huge impact on performance.


Ok, so I check the BIOS of my STRIX X370 and have a few more question you mb can help me with.

It has this options

RttNom: goes up to RZQ/7
RttWR: goes only up to RZQ/3 not 7
RttPark: was able to set it to RZQ/1

I also didnt find any settings to change Bankgroupswap. It is set to Swap = Disabled and Swapalt = Enabled. You have it exaclty the other way.

thank you once again


----------



## neur0cide

Stop posting pictures of a person without his consent!


----------



## neur0cide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abso*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> In case you have 2x8GB of E-die:
> 
> 
> 
> ProcODT: 60 Ohm
> RttWR: RZQ/7
> RttRD: RZQ/3
> RttPark: RZQ/1
> DRAM (Boot) Voltage: 1.35v - 1.4v
> Power Down Mode: off
> 
> These settings worked for all of the D- and E-die I had on my ASUS C6H.
> Some I could even push as high as 3333-16-16-16-16 with less than 1.4v.
> 
> As The Stilt said: RDRDSCL and WRWRSCL have a huge impact on performance.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so I check the BIOS of my STRIX X370 and have a few more question you mb can help me with.
> 
> It has this options
> 
> RttNom: goes up to RZQ/7
> RttWR: goes only up to RZQ/3 not 7
> RttPark: was able to set it to RZQ/1
> 
> I also didnt find any settings to change Bankgroupswap. It is set to Swap = Disabled and Swapalt = Enabled. You have it exaclty the other way.
> 
> thank you once again
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't know what I wrote there. It is of course
RttNom: RZQ/7
RttWR: RZQ/3
RttPark: RZQ/1

Your mainboard might not have BankGroupSwap as an option.
If it does you might find it here: Advanced -> AMD CBS -> UMC Common Options -> DRAM Memory Mapping -> BankGroupSwap


----------



## abso

I was checking AMD CBS but no luck there =(. Hope they will add it with another BIOS. How bad is it to have swap diabled and swapalt enabled?


----------



## neur0cide

That you best ask The Stilt.









http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/21450#post_26193751
http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/21480#post_26194247


----------



## Anty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> https://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/cpu-development/
> https://developer.amd.com/resources/developer-guides-manuals/
> 
> and *RTC was released well before zepellin which the people using your RTC **** do not have any chance of having.
> 
> Linux runs on Zepelin. Linux is open source and on GitHub. Linux access allll of the motherflygin registers. Ergo, it is open ****** source. And you do not need any special registers to query fuuking ram timings, including gear down or anything.
> 
> For those that are not exactly following, you just need to read the ***** memory with something like
> https://rweverything.com/screenshots/
> 
> 
> You are going to have some nice people talking to you. From both sides. Have fun.*


dude - before you submit something check information first:
1) links you provided do not contain info about UMC and integrated peripherals
I also asked you before where did you get info about "requirement" that core must run 1.25 faster than memory - because it is not in available documentation (yes - I've read whole freaking public documentation for ryzen)
2) linux does NOT "access allll of the motherflygin registers" - it didn't even have temperature readout because IT IS NOT PUBLIC information so linux devs couldn't implement it - not to mention UMC programming
3) SPD is not CPU register information

so all your info is full of s..t


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> RTC is fingerprinted by its debug data back in 2015.


Correction: The AutoIT version used by RTC was first seen in 2015.
AutoIT 3.3.14.2 was released to public in 09/18/2015


----------



## abso

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> That you best ask The Stilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/21450#post_26193751
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/21480#post_26194247


So I guess I shouldnt change this options then anyway. Sadly I only got the two SLC Timings down to 4 and not 2.








Any lower than 4 and Memtest had errors after a short time already.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abso*
> 
> So I guess I shouldnt change this options then anyway. Sadly I only got the two SLC Timings down to 4 and not 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any lower than 4 and Memtest had errors after a short time already.


Pretty much expected.
AFAIK only B-die is able to run at xSCL 2 CLK, at least when it comes to 8Gb ICs.


----------



## neur0cide

D- and E-die are perfectly capable of running xSCL at 2 CLK. I briefly owned four kits of E-die and three Kits of D-die in the last couple of months (all 8GB modules). They could all do 3200-14-15-15-15-32-48-1T (GD on) with your B-die Subtimings and 1.35v or 1.375v. Since using the above mentioned Rtt dividers (as suggested by 1usmus), I was able to push the two most recent kits of D-die to 3333-16-16-16-16 with xSCL still at 2. None of these kits was rated better than 3200 C16.


----------



## deehoC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LG25*
> 
> I think it's time to take your meds. AutoIT makes an .exe file out of script. Like any .exe file, there's a level of trust that must be invested when downloading it. And AV software has no trust of any .exe file without you allowing an exception (as I have in Avast). Many of us have done this, and you obviously don't have the same trust. None of us have had any negative side effects, but have had some pretty darn good positives.. especially in the early days of this board when it tried to force 2133 in every mem type. I used a port scanning utility called cports, and this calculator never once tried to establish communication, even as I spammed the "Calculate Safe preset" ""Fast preset" and ""Extreme"". Nothing.


While I agree with what you're saying the program hes accusing is not the DRAM Calculator linked in this OP but TheStilt's RTC (Ryzen Timing Checker). Hopefully someone with the proper experience can come in and validate the fact that RTC is doing nothing fishy.


----------



## LG25

Oh, geez. I thought it was the .. god, I just let this guy have it for no reason. I'll have to look at this. Have a link to it?


----------



## LG25

I hope you aren't too upset about the last post lol. I thought you were talking about the Ryzen DRAM Calculator (subject of thread). I have not seen this one you are talking about. If you give a link I'll take a look at it. I'm deleting the first post. My mistake.


----------



## deehoC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LG25*
> 
> I hope you aren't too upset about the last post lol. I thought you were talking about the Ryzen DRAM Calculator (subject of thread). I have not seen this one you are talking about. If you give a link I'll take a look at it. I'm deleting the first post. My mistake.


I think this is the latest version since it's the most recent link I could find going back through TheStilt's posts.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/24800_50#post_26254606


----------



## LG25

Got it. Thank you. I'll run it on a less cared for PC tomorrow, I've been up for 18 hours and it's starting to show. Thanks again.


----------



## 1usmus

I did not watch the RTC code, but the last update of Windows simply blocked this program without the possibility of adding to the exceptions

I want to believe *Stilt* that it's all because of the curved packer, but the code that *keng* provided is talking about another

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abso*
> 
> Ok, so I check the BIOS of my STRIX X370 and have a few more question you mb can help me with.
> 
> It has this options
> 
> RttNom: goes up to RZQ/7
> RttWR: goes only up to RZQ/3 not 7
> RttPark: was able to set it to RZQ/1
> 
> I also didnt find any settings to change Bankgroupswap. It is set to Swap = Disabled and Swapalt = Enabled. You have it exaclty the other way.
> 
> thank you once again


Bankgroupswap on agesa 1.0.7.1+ always and for everyone will look like this : BGS disable , BGS alt enable. Automatically, everything is correctly installed.


----------



## The Stilt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I want to believe *Stilt* that it's all because of the curved packer


What packer?


----------



## smash1904

So I just had something happen that was really strange: when opening Taiphoon it gave a sort of warning about reading the dimms and corsair link. I didn't click anything other than the bottom right screen to close Corsair link before proceeding but this caused it to proceed. It ran for a few seconds before closing Corsair link and seemed to sort of freeze reading upon which I closed Taiphoon too. How do I make sure I didn't just corrupt or damage my dram? Its Gskill rgb so I was already caught off guard about this pop up warning msg and didn't think not selecting yes or no would cause it start before closing Corsair link and now I'm getting error codes, float point errors, missing digits in the description like: F4-426 9-8GTZR where it should say F4-4266 19-8GTZR - can I fix this? I sorta realized something was wrong because of the timings being spit out - some of the numbers are HUGE.


----------



## kladve

Can anybody help me take 3466?

I was very tired and tried everything I could


ASUS PRIME X370-PRO
G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GTZ
RYZEN 7 1700


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



[2017/12/13 17:58:34]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [36.00]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [Auto]
VDDCR CPU Voltage [Manual]
VDDCR CPU Voltage Override [1.23750]
VDDCR SOC Voltage [Manual]
VDDCR SOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
CPU 1.80V Voltage [1.83000]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.75500]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52500]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
VDDCR CPU Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDCR CPU Current Capability [130%]
VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [300]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VDDCR CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
VDDCR CPU Power Phase Control [Manual]
Manual Adjustment [Regular]
VDDCR SOC Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDCR SOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [300]
VDDCR SOC Power Phase Control [Optimized]
Target TDP [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [1]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [14]
Trcdwr [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc_SM [48]
TrrdS_SM [6]
TrrdL_SM [8]
Tfaw_SM [36]
TwtrS_SM [4]
TwtrL_SM [12]
Twr_SM [12]
Trcpage_SM [Auto]
TrdrdScl_SM [2]
TwrwrScl_SM [2]
Trfc_SM [277]
Trfc2_SM [Auto]
Trfc4_SM [Auto]
Tcwl_SM [14]
Trtp_SM [8]
Trdwr_SM [7]
Twrrd_SM [3]
TwrwrSc_SM [1]
TwrwrSd_SM [7]
TwrwrDd_SM [7]
TrdrdSc_SM [1]
TrdrdSd_SM [5]
TrdrdDd_SM [5]
Tcke_SM [1]
ProcODT_SM [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [Auto]
Security Device Support [Enable]
Pending operation [None]
Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
TPM2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
IGFX Multi-Monitor [Disabled]
Primary Video Device [PCIE / PCI Video]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By Ring [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX16_3 4X-2X Switch [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
RGB LED lighting [Enabled]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
Charging USB devices in Power State S5 [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3_C7 [Auto]
Serial Port 1 [Enabled]
Change Settings [IO=3F8h; IRQ=4]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Generic Flash Disk 8.07 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_9 [Enabled]
USB3_10 [Enabled]
USB3.1_C1 [Enabled]
USB3_C7 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Enabled]
USB_1 [Enabled]
USB_2 [Enabled]
USB_3 [Enabled]
USB_4 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
VDDCR CPU Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [EZ Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
HDD BootSector Write [Normal]
SATA Boot Only [Disabled]
USB Boot [Enabled]
Watchdog Support [Disabled]
ASUS RMT Tool Support [Enabled]
Computrace function [Disabled]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name []
Save to Profile [1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]


----------



## Disassociative

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kladve*
> 
> Can anybody help me take 3466?
> 
> I was very tired and tried everything I could
> 
> 
> ASUS PRIME X370-PRO
> G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GTZ
> RYZEN 7 1700
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> [2017/12/13 17:58:34]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [36.00]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage [Manual]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage Override [1.23750]
> VDDCR SOC Voltage [Manual]
> VDDCR SOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 1.80V Voltage [1.83000]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.75500]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> VDDCR CPU Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDCR CPU Current Capability [130%]
> VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [300]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VDDCR CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> VDDCR CPU Power Phase Control [Manual]
> Manual Adjustment [Regular]
> VDDCR SOC Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDCR SOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [300]
> VDDCR SOC Power Phase Control [Optimized]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [1]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [14]
> Trcdwr [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc_SM [48]
> TrrdS_SM [6]
> TrrdL_SM [8]
> Tfaw_SM [36]
> TwtrS_SM [4]
> TwtrL_SM [12]
> Twr_SM [12]
> Trcpage_SM [Auto]
> TrdrdScl_SM [2]
> TwrwrScl_SM [2]
> Trfc_SM [277]
> Trfc2_SM [Auto]
> Trfc4_SM [Auto]
> Tcwl_SM [14]
> Trtp_SM [8]
> Trdwr_SM [7]
> Twrrd_SM [3]
> TwrwrSc_SM [1]
> TwrwrSd_SM [7]
> TwrwrDd_SM [7]
> TrdrdSc_SM [1]
> TrdrdSd_SM [5]
> TrdrdDd_SM [5]
> Tcke_SM [1]
> ProcODT_SM [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
> PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> IGFX Multi-Monitor [Disabled]
> Primary Video Device [PCIE / PCI Video]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By Ring [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_3 4X-2X Switch [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> RGB LED lighting [Enabled]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> Charging USB devices in Power State S5 [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3_C7 [Auto]
> Serial Port 1 [Enabled]
> Change Settings [IO=3F8h; IRQ=4]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Generic Flash Disk 8.07 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_9 [Enabled]
> USB3_10 [Enabled]
> USB3.1_C1 [Enabled]
> USB3_C7 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Enabled]
> USB_1 [Enabled]
> USB_2 [Enabled]
> USB_3 [Enabled]
> USB_4 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [EZ Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> HDD BootSector Write [Normal]
> SATA Boot Only [Disabled]
> USB Boot [Enabled]
> Watchdog Support [Disabled]
> ASUS RMT Tool Support [Enabled]
> Computrace function [Disabled]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name []
> Save to Profile [1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]


Give this a try - it's what I've been using for a while and it's stable for me - 1usmus recommended loosening some of the timings a notch when I had trouble maintaining stability at 3466CL14 like you and it worked great


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash1904*
> 
> So I just had something happen that was really strange: when opening Taiphoon it gave a sort of warning about reading the dimms and corsair link. I didn't click anything other than the bottom right screen to close Corsair link before proceeding but this caused it to proceed. It ran for a few seconds before closing Corsair link and seemed to sort of freeze reading upon which I closed Taiphoon too. How do I make sure I didn't just corrupt or damage my dram? Its Gskill rgb so I was already caught off guard about this pop up warning msg and didn't think not selecting yes or no would cause it start before closing Corsair link and now I'm getting error codes, float point errors, missing digits in the description like: F4-426 9-8GTZR where it should say F4-4266 19-8GTZR - can I fix this? I sorta realized something was wrong because of the timings being spit out - some of the numbers are HUGE.


do you have a highlight (RGB) on the memory?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kladve*
> 
> Can anybody help me take 3466?
> 
> I was very tired and tried everything I could
> 
> 
> ASUS PRIME X370-PRO
> G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GTZ
> RYZEN 7 1700
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> [2017/12/13 17:58:34]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [36.00]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage [Manual]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage Override [1.23750]
> VDDCR SOC Voltage [Manual]
> VDDCR SOC Voltage Override [1.07500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 1.80V Voltage [1.83000]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.75500]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> VDDCR CPU Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDCR CPU Current Capability [130%]
> VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [300]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VDDCR CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> VDDCR CPU Power Phase Control [Manual]
> Manual Adjustment [Regular]
> VDDCR SOC Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDCR SOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [300]
> VDDCR SOC Power Phase Control [Optimized]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [1]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [14]
> Trcdwr [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc_SM [48]
> TrrdS_SM [6]
> TrrdL_SM [8]
> Tfaw_SM [36]
> TwtrS_SM [4]
> TwtrL_SM [12]
> Twr_SM [12]
> Trcpage_SM [Auto]
> TrdrdScl_SM [2]
> TwrwrScl_SM [2]
> Trfc_SM [277]
> Trfc2_SM [Auto]
> Trfc4_SM [Auto]
> Tcwl_SM [14]
> Trtp_SM [8]
> Trdwr_SM [7]
> Twrrd_SM [3]
> TwrwrSc_SM [1]
> TwrwrSd_SM [7]
> TwrwrDd_SM [7]
> TrdrdSc_SM [1]
> TrdrdSd_SM [5]
> TrdrdDd_SM [5]
> Tcke_SM [1]
> ProcODT_SM [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
> PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> IGFX Multi-Monitor [Disabled]
> Primary Video Device [PCIE / PCI Video]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By Ring [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_3 4X-2X Switch [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> RGB LED lighting [Enabled]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> Charging USB devices in Power State S5 [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3_C7 [Auto]
> Serial Port 1 [Enabled]
> Change Settings [IO=3F8h; IRQ=4]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Generic Flash Disk 8.07 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_9 [Enabled]
> USB3_10 [Enabled]
> USB3.1_C1 [Enabled]
> USB3_C7 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Enabled]
> USB_1 [Enabled]
> USB_2 [Enabled]
> USB_3 [Enabled]
> USB_4 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [600 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [EZ Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> HDD BootSector Write [Normal]
> SATA Boot Only [Disabled]
> USB Boot [Enabled]
> Watchdog Support [Disabled]
> ASUS RMT Tool Support [Enabled]
> Computrace function [Disabled]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name []
> Save to Profile [1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]


unfortunately on this motherboard 3466 I have never seen ... try to loosen timings


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> What packer?


I believe 1usmus is referring to the exe compiler you used and is saying that Keng code that he showed makes it look like that you supposedly used another compiler. not that there is any credit to the matter as for all we know he could just be showing code thats part of an unrelated program.

also to address something LG25 said even if he misinterpetured what was and what someone else said about windows auto deleting RTC and not letting them add it as an exception. I was also having issues intially with the calculator and windows deleting the exe on me more then likely due to it being compiled on unsigned compiler. ended up needing to screw around with folder exceptions until it stopped, same with RTC.

lastly; an unrelated update to my previous topic of discussion but is on topic for the thread itself specifically. Its on something miraculous that I discovered a couple of days ago thanks to Warpen1N over in the crosshair thread; thanks to dropping the pll to 1.6v I was able to correct and tune the termination for 3466cas14 on my sticks to error only after 7 or so passes of my normal test of test 9allcore range 28-32 in memtest86+



not perfect but still a hell of alot more stable so if and when I access more then 30gb (if ever) on my system the chances of hitting an error are more like 1 in 7 vs the previous 1 in 3. which by computation standards is still horrendous but is still less threatening given the chances of that 4th dimm's last 2 memory chips being used to r/w is incredibly low for my daily use of mining and gaming


----------



## Avalar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Avalar*
> 
> Could somebody maybe help me with my RAM OC? At the time when I was buying parts for my new PC, I didn't know that I would have any compatibility problems with the RAM I picked and the CPU/mobo. At least it was on sale lol.
> 
> Mobo: AB350 Pro4
> CPU: Ryzen 1600
> RAM: https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-16gvgb - Two 8GB sticks
> 
> Never OC'd RAM before, so I wouldn't know the first thing. Also the only time I ever OC'd the CPU too, which was pretty basic, so I don't really know much about that, either. I just set the voltage to the highest AMD recommends to run 24/7 and bumped it up to 3.6GHz; Never did any benchmarks, either. The default 3200 XMP profile doesn't work, of course, and some timings from this calculator also did not work. I'm tring to achieve at least the MHz that this RAM is rated for (3200), or if that's not possible with my setup, to at least get close. Or should I sell these sticks and get a different set? The difference in price for what I paid for the sticks I have now and the cheapest 14-14-14-XX I could find would be about $70, which I'd be willing to pay if this proves to be too cumbersome.
> 
> Also, what does Gear-Down Mode do, and how might it affect overclocking? I've never heard of it before.


So uh...


----------



## smash1904

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> do you have a highlight (RGB) on the memory?


I'm not sure what you mean - this was my first time trying to use this software to find custom values for my memory. The RGB strip seems to be working normally if that's what you're asking but Taiphoon, which I've used before, is throwing out weird info when I scan them now. Can I flash the correct numbers again or something? Did I somehow just void my warranty or really mess my kit up by pushing read with Corsair Link open? I mean *** it warned me and started anyways as I tried to close Corsair to solve the problem... It said something along the lines of "Something using the same resources and causing issues or corruption if run" then listed Corsair link with a yes or no at the bottom and when I went to close Corsair link it started running - I think I might have closed it assuming it would stop rather than run... I mean seriously they implement a fail safe that starts the read if you push the X up in the corner?


----------



## Anty

You need to close every app that may use SMBUS before running TB. Especially those which control LEDs otherwise you risk SPD corruption.


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> an unrelated update to my previous topic of discussion but is on topic for the thread itself specifically. Its on something miraculous that I discovered a couple of days ago thanks to Warpen1N over in the crosshair thread; thanks to dropping the pll to 1.6v I was able to correct and tune the termination for 3466cas14 on my sticks to error only after 7 or so passes of my normal test of test 9allcore range 28-32 in memtest86+


@1usmus any chance you can have a look at PLL voltages impact to signal stability with your oscilloscope? (fairly sure you had one, or had access to one.. sorry if you don't)

Also... trying out 3333 FAST preset.. will it be better than 3466 Safe? (CL15, vs CL14) and any suggestions if i should drop primary timings? I tried 3333 Extreme and couldn't get it to boot after a few fiddles looking back i should have tried pumping DRAM/SOC voltage up a tad above REC.

for the 3333 Fast i used all REC. values.

WIll run memtest before i go to bed tonight, aiming for 400% + (8-10hrs)


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> @1usmus any chance you can have a look at PLL voltages impact to signal stability with your oscilloscope? (fairly sure you had one, or had access to one.. sorry if you don't)
> 
> Also... trying out 3333 FAST preset.. will it be better than 3466 Safe? (CL15, vs CL14) and any suggestions if i should drop primary timings? I tried 3333 Extreme and couldn't get it to boot after a few fiddles looking back i should have tried pumping DRAM/SOC voltage up a tad above REC.
> 
> for the 3333 Fast i used all REC. values.
> 
> WIll run memtest before i go to bed tonight, aiming for 400% + (8-10hrs)


'

the waveform changes on every millivolt, in the calculator I not just indicated the range of 1.77 - 1.83. This should be available for calibration of the BCLK
3333 fast can be faster than 3466 safe, you need to check in specific tasks and most importantly, do not pay attention at all to the memory bandwidth


----------



## 1usmus

I want to share with you the results of my testing









*In most cases, the memory works incorrectly because of incorrect voltage DRAM and VTT_DDR*
On this picture in green I selected the best options

do not argue, they are not universal, to calculate their personal voltages, use my calculator, the tab VDRAM / VTT DDR Calculator


----------



## Spectre73

I have a question regarding the VTT DDR setting.

On which DRAM value should I base the UEFI setting on?

In the UEFI I set the DDR voltage to 1,365 volts. HWInfo64 reads that as 1,376 volts (so my ASRock x370 taichi overvolts by about 0,01v).

Should I base my VTT DDR setting on the UEFI or HWInfo64 value?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre73*
> 
> I have a question regarding the VTT DDR setting.
> 
> On which DRAM value should I base the UEFI setting on?
> 
> In the UEFI I set the DDR voltage to 1,365 volts. HWInfo64 reads that as 1,376 volts (so my ASRock x370 taichi overvolts by about 0,01v).
> 
> Should I base my VTT DDR setting on the UEFI or HWInfo64 value?


you should focus only on the values that are set in the BIOS
in your case, you should calculate relative to 1.365 voltage vtt ddr
and used *A-tuning* for debugging during testing


----------



## Fright

Hi, 1usmus thx again for your amazing tool. This helped me alot much appreciated.

Could you explain tRFC2 and tRFC4 values and their purpose, please? (you said in a pm that both values could be left on auto but when I leave tRFC2 on auto I'm getting blue screen errors it has to be 416 with safe xmp b die settings according to your tool so could you please add also a tRFC4 value for your tool) =?

edit: tRFC4 is on auto because the tool has no value for it^^


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fright*
> 
> Hi, 1usmus thx again for your amazing tool. This helped me alot much appreciated.
> 
> Could you explain tRFC2 and tRFC4 values and their purpose, please? (you said in a pm that both values could be left on auto but when I leave tRFC2 on auto I'm getting blue screen errors it has to be 416 with safe xmp b die settings according to your tool so could you please add also a tRFC4 value for your tool) =?
> 
> edit: tRFC4 is on auto because the tool has no value for it^^


tRFC2 and tRFC4 not used in Ryzen systems
these parameters are empty - they do not affect anything


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fright*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, 1usmus thx again for your amazing tool. This helped me alot much appreciated.
> 
> 
> *Could you explain tRFC2 and tRFC4 values and their purpose, please?* (you said in a pm that both values could be left on auto but when I leave tRFC2 on auto I'm getting blue screen errors it has to be 416 with safe xmp b die settings according to your tool so could you please add also a tRFC4 value for your tool) =?
> 
> edit: tRFC4 is on auto because the tool has no value for it^^


Your tRFC values are: 560(tRFC) - 416(tRFC2) - 256(tRFC4)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> tRFC2 and tRFC4 not used in Ryzen systems
> these parameters are empty - they do not affect anything


*Fright* was asking you to *explain* tRFC2 and tRFC4 and their purpose. I hope that you can explain that for him.

I would like to ask for the source of tRFC2 and tRFC4 not being used on Zen platform when tRFC2 and tRFC4 are part of JEDEC, I mean not like in "some members said ..." but a reliable source, like AMD themselves.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> I would like to ask for the source of tRFC2 and tRFC4 not being used on Zen platform when tRFC2 and tRFC4 are part of JEDEC, I mean not like in "some members said ..." but a reliable source, like AMD themselves.


The easy route








You could test for yourselves...
Like experiment with them... i suspect you will see they do absolutely nothing


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> The easy route
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could test for yourselves...
> Like experiment with them... i suspect you will see they do absolutely nothing


Was asking for a reliable source.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> Your tRFC values are: 560(tRFC) - 416(tRFC2) - 256(tRFC4)
> *Fright* was asking you to *explain* tRFC2 and tRFC4 and their purpose. I hope that you can explain that for him.
> 
> I would like to ask for the source of tRFC2 and tRFC4 not being used on Zen platform when tRFC2 and tRFC4 are part of JEDEC, I mean not like in "some members said ..." but a reliable source, like AMD themselves.


if not mistaken the source of these words *Stilt*
+
any value that I set did not have any effect on stability

if you have any refuting information, I'll be glad to listen


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> if not mistaken the source of these words *Stilt*
> +
> any value that I set did not have any effect on stability
> 
> if you have any refuting information, I'll be glad to listen


I don't work for AMD, but to my understanding AMD did include tRFC2 and tRFC4 in the BIOS/AGESA for a reason:



Source: https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram

Has it not been used, at least in some cases, then they would not have included it, logically thinking. I'm suggesting that your tool should at least provide tRFC2 and tRFC4. If those values are not used by the memory controller then no harm is done, but in case it's used then you have that covered. Decreasing the tRFC2 and tRFC4 latencies (decreasing clocks) can be done with the same percentage that is done with tRFC1.

Fright says that if he does not set tRFC2 in the BIOS then he gets BSOD, it's something you need to listen to and not everything is reported by the users of your tool in this thread, in fact, they usually move on using other settings if the settings does not work.

You know that I'm not a fan of reducing tRFC timings which reduces the time that is necessary to refresh *all* die rows, but since many are doing it anyway while using your tool, then you can at least provide the other 2 values in your tool.


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> if not mistaken the source of these words *Stilt*
> +
> any value that I set did not have any effect on stability
> 
> if you have any refuting information, I'll be glad to listen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't work for AMD, but to my understanding AMD did include tRFC2 and tRFC4 in the BIOS/AGESA for a reason:
> 
> 
> 
> Source: https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram
> 
> Has it not been used, at least in some cases, then they would not have included it, logically thinking. I'm suggesting that your tool should at least provide tRFC2 and tRFC4. If those values are not used by the memory controller then no harm is done, but in case it's used then you have that covered. Decreasing the tRFC2 and tRFC4 latencies (decreasing clocks) can be done with the same percentage that is done with tRFC1.
> 
> Fright says that if he does not set tRFC2 in the BIOS then he gets BSOD, it's something you need to listen to and not everything is reported by the users of your tool in this thread, in fact, they usually move on using other settings if the settings does not work.
> 
> You know that I'm not a fan of reducing tRFC timings which reduces the time that is necessary to refresh *all* die rows, but since many are doing it anyway while using your tool, then you can at least provide the other 2 values in your tool.
Click to expand...

For those new to this skirmish, in one dimension we have two seemingly contradictory facts to contend with. On the one hand the JEDEC calls for the capability of the DRAM to be able to use tRFC2 and tRFC4, and we have R. Hallock of AMD in _Community Update #4_ providing a list of memory parameters including tRFC2 and tRFC4 (see above). On the other hand, The Stilt -- not an employee of AMD, as far as I am aware, but considered an authority on Ryzen by many -- asserting that these two parameters are not used by the Ryzen memory controller. In the other (transverse) dimension we have had @Ramad making rational assertions about what the values of tRFC, etc.should be, but with others in the C6H thread pointing out that shorter times work fine (as they seem to do for me). In the past we have speculated on why that might be, but no "authority" has volunteered a reason.

It is the first dimension issue that confronts us now, and it boils down to (in my opinion) the Descartes like question of whether, if tRFC2 and tRFC4 might be used in spite of assertions otherwise, should we not populate those parameters with reasonable values?


----------



## hurricane28

So much settings.. It boggles the mind man, how can one understand all of them...

I tried this ram calculator program but non of the settings actually work for me.. I could stabilize 3466 MHz CL14 before but now i can't pass Memtest86 anymore..

3466 MHz CL14 seems very hard on the IMC.


----------



## hurricane28

Ever since i flashed back to 1701 from 3008 i have some weird behavior man.

I set the stable 3466 MHz CL14 settings and system had a hard time on booting all of a sudden.. These settings were completely stable before..
After 3 shut downs during post, memory was set at 2400 MHz instead of 3466 MHz..

Guess this 3008 BIOS still has some resentments even after flashing new BIOS.. Weird man.


----------



## SaccoSVD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> tRFC2 and tRFC4 not used in Ryzen systems
> these parameters are empty - they do not affect anything


I just read this.

That means we could leave that at auto and not worry about them?


----------



## chaosblade02

AX4U300038G16-DRG

What type of ram is this? Is it samsung/hynix, etc? A quick search turned up nothing.

I bought this ram kit a few weeks ago because it was really cheap (relatively speaking). $146 for 16GBs (8x2).

I haven't been able to get 2933mhz, or 3200mhz stable. XMP profiles brick my PC, and I have to reset the Cmos. It's not on my motherboard's QVL, but no 'reasonably' priced ram kits were. So took a gamble, and considering every ram kit I checked on the QVL list was $220+, a $146 ram kit seemed like it was worth the gamble to save $74+ on ram. The MSI motherboard was $100 on sale. I'm assuming it's better than the Asus B350, which is a similarly priced motherboard.

I managed to get the kit running @ 2667mhz with 13, 14, 14, 14, 28 timings @ 1.3v with 1.0 SOC, and +40ohm on procODT. Is this the best I'm gonna be able to get with this kit?

2667mhz @ CAS 13 is better than 3000mhz @ CAS 16, right? Or would Ryzen benefit more from the higher frequency, regardless of CAS timing?

I can get the PC to boot into windows, @ 3200mhz/CAS 16, but I need 1.5v, 1.2V (SOC), and +80ohm (procODT). I'm gonna assume those voltages are not safe for 24/7 usage?

Anyone have any luck trying to OC 'oddball' ram kits on Ryzen boards like the one I got?


----------



## Bing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> For those new to this skirmish, in one dimension we have two seemingly contradictory facts to contend with. On the one hand the JEDEC calls for the capability of the DRAM to be able to use tRFC2 and tRFC4, and we have R. Hallock of AMD in _Community Update #4_ providing a list of memory parameters including tRFC2 and tRFC4 (see above). On the other hand, The Stilt -- not an employee of AMD, as far as I am aware, but considered an authority on Ryzen by many -- asserting that these two parameters are not used by the Ryzen memory controller. In the other (transverse) dimension we have had @Ramad making rational assertions about what the values of tRFC, etc.should be, but with others in the C6H thread pointing out that shorter times work fine (as they seem to do for me). In the past we have speculated on why that might be, but no "authority" has volunteered a reason.
> 
> It is the first dimension issue that confronts us now, and it boils down to (in my opinion) the Descartes like question of whether, if tRFC2 and tRFC4 might be used in spite of assertions otherwise, should we not populate those parameters with reasonable values?


All of this mess is because Ryzen is still beta version, just look for official documents for this processor like datasheet, whitepapers and etc, none existed.

Have to admit in this documentation dept, Intel really kicks ass.









I strongly believe the ofiicial Ryzen documents mostly are still in early draft stages, heck, even the AGESA is still in development stage imo. How could someone finalize the "official" document at the period like this ?









Hence thats why certain people which has accessed to these draft documents, probably leaked from mobo manufacturer staffs, will become celebrities.


----------



## Fright

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> if not mistaken the source of these words *Stilt*
> +
> any value that I set did not have any effect on stability
> 
> if you have any refuting information, I'll be glad to listen


When I let tRFC2 on auto I'm getting blue screens (auto setting is 362 or something like that) has to be 416 for my ram to work. tRFC4 is on 256 now, but still getting error 55 when booting up the machine. This platform is a mess. : /


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> AX4U300038G16-DRG
> 
> What type of ram is this?


its adata








http://www.adata.com/upload/downloadfile/Datasheet-XPG%20GAMMIX%20D10%20DDR4%20Memory%20Module_20170727.pdf

seriously though have you tried running thiaphoon burner to see what chips it has ?

and then run 1usmus ram calculator to suggest settings


----------



## Bing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fright*
> 
> When I let tRFC2 on auto I'm getting blue screens (auto setting is 362 or something like that) has to be 416 for my ram to work. tRFC4 is on 256 now, but still getting error 55 when booting up the machine. This platform is a mess. : /


The RAM clocking details are still classified information under tweaking








.. here, straight from AMD , though not official document.









Mark the words "*derived from* other values".









So meanwhile, just stick to JEDEC's timing.

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram


----------



## Avalar

So does anyone want my RAM? I'd rather pay the difference for a set of more compatible sticks with more overclocking potential than have to mess around with the timings on my current sticks. Especially since I have no idea how lol.

Do the XMP profiles for Samsung b-die RAM work right away with Ryzen?


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Avalar*
> 
> So does anyone want my RAM? I'd rather pay the difference for a set of more compatible sticks with more overclocking potential than have to mess around with the timings on my current sticks. Especially since I have no idea how lol.
> 
> Do the XMP profiles for Samsung b-die RAM work right away with Ryzen?


They didn't for me at 3200. Fortunately, proc_ODT was "discovered" to be important around that time and adjustment allowed getting past (IIRC) 2933. Note that default proc_ODT may not be the same with each BIOS variant, and depending on "memory hole" location, CLDO_VDDP may need to be varied. And given @elmor's recent comment on the C6H thread "Sensors are quite inaccurate yes. It's a quality control issue with the Super I/O ICs causing boards to vary in reading up to +/- 44mV. The offset can be -44/-22/0/+22/44, ie some boards reads better than others. It's not fixable by any software updates. The voltage regulation for any of the rails does not have an overshoot/undershoot/droop problem." the CLDO_VDDP that works for someone else may still require exploratory tuning on one own's board at any given frequency..


----------



## Avalar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> They didn't for me at 3200. Fortunately, proc_ODT was "discovered" to be important around that time and adjustment allowed getting past (IIRC) 2933. Note that default proc_ODT may not be the same with each BIOS variant, and depending on "memory hole" location, CLDO_VDDP may need to be varied. And given @elmor's recent comment on the C6H thread "Sensors are quite inaccurate yes. It's a quality control issue with the Super I/O ICs causing boards to vary in reading up to +/- 44mV. The offset can be -44/-22/0/+22/44, ie some boards reads better than others. It's not fixable by any software updates. The voltage regulation for any of the rails does not have an overshoot/undershoot/droop problem." the CLDO_VDDP that works for someone else may still require exploratory tuning on one own's board at any given frequency..


Ah, wait, I forgot I could just check the QVL for 3200 RAM with my mobo.

This I don't get, though.


Is this saying that RAM set to exactly 3000MHz will downgrade, or anything set to 3000MHz _or above_ will be downgraded? If the latter is the case, then how did they test RAM at 3000 and above?


----------



## Bing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaseki*
> 
> And given @elmor's recent comment on the C6H thread "Sensors are quite inaccurate yes. It's a quality control issue with the Super I/O ICs causing boards to vary in reading up to +/- 44mV. The offset can be -44/-22/0/+22/44, ie some boards reads better than others. It's not fixable by any software updates. The voltage regulation for any of the rails does not have an overshoot/undershoot/droop problem." the CLDO_VDDP that works for someone else may still require exploratory tuning on one own's board at any given frequency..


Lets alone the Super IO A/D voltage reading accuracy and resolution, the VRM controller it self also has it's limitation.

Say you instruct the VRM to supply an "exact" 1.000 volt, and most VRM has a typical internal reference accuracy of +/- 0.5% , meaning you want the VRM to produce output at 1.000 V, then it can only generate the output between 0.995 Volt up to 1.005 volt as the VRM manufacturer guaranteed, so you have +/- 5 mili Volt inaccuracy.

Now, add up that into the inaccuracy of -> (super i/o chip's reading +/- 44mV) + (VRM output inaccuracy +/- 5mV) = +/- 49 mV

So for setting the 1.000 Volt, your software reading will get the output that may hover around 0.951 Volt up to 1.049 Volt, and that is an industry standard.


----------



## blair

so i've been playing about with C6H 3008 the last few days trying to get 3333mhz stable after being able to get 3466 600-1000% stable in the past, i figured 3333 might be easier.. nope..

on 3333, about 40 errors at about 120%,
another time on 3333, 50% and already over 40 errors (lowered CLDO I think)
another time.. BSOD... during testing.. unsure what %

Tried 3600 for an hour or so of just fiddling about with CLDO_VDDP and Safe preset and couldn't even get a sucessful boot.. saying that.. 3600 4x8GB will be terribly difficult to run.. rofl...

can't get 3333 stable .. back to 3466mhz again. 3466 is booting more reliably than 3333, which is interesting.. I bet it's just memory hole related to CLDO_VDDP not being set quiet right for 3333.... or even Timing related..

so.. back to 3466mhz testing..

Using all Recommended timings and voltages from 0.9.9 V7, except..

VTTDDR 1.45v, vboot 1.46
CLDO_VDDP 875 (worked in the past to 600-1000%)
CAD 30-30-40-60
VDDP is Auto... Manually setting this hasn't seemed to make a major different for me...

Will update once i have done some more thorough testing..
so far i've tested 1 boot before this one on 3466.

voltage 1.44, CLDO_VDDP 866 got errors at 1.5% ish..
jumped those to the above mentioned and now no errrors in first 5 mins.. will let it run later tonight after raid..

Right now i'm pretty much on identical settings to what resulted in 650% HCI, and slightly different to my old 1000% stable from before that..


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> I don't work for AMD, but to my understanding AMD did include tRFC2 and tRFC4 in the BIOS/AGESA for a reason:
> 
> 
> 
> Source: https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/05/25/community-update-4-lets-talk-dram
> 
> Has it not been used, at least in some cases, then they would not have included it, logically thinking. I'm suggesting that your tool should at least provide tRFC2 and tRFC4. If those values are not used by the memory controller then no harm is done, but in case it's used then you have that covered. Decreasing the tRFC2 and tRFC4 latencies (decreasing clocks) can be done with the same percentage that is done with tRFC1.
> 
> Fright says that if he does not set tRFC2 in the BIOS then he gets BSOD, it's something you need to listen to and not everything is reported by the users of your tool in this thread, in fact, they usually move on using other settings if the settings does not work.
> 
> You know that I'm not a fan of reducing tRFC timings which reduces the time that is necessary to refresh *all* die rows, but since many are doing it anyway while using your tool, then you can at least provide the other 2 values in your tool.


quite logical, well I'll add TRFC2 / 4, they will not prevent








Thank you
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> so i've been playing about with C6H 3008 the last few days trying to get 3333mhz stable after being able to get 3466 600-1000% stable in the past, i figured 3333 might be easier.. nope..
> 
> on 3333, about 40 errors at about 120%,
> another time on 3333, 50% and already over 40 errors (lowered CLDO I think)
> another time.. BSOD... during testing.. unsure what %
> 
> Tried 3600 for an hour or so of just fiddling about with CLDO_VDDP and Safe preset and couldn't even get a sucessful boot.. saying that.. 3600 4x8GB will be terribly difficult to run.. rofl...
> 
> can't get 3333 stable .. back to 3466mhz again. 3466 is booting more reliably than 3333, which is interesting.. I bet it's just memory hole related to CLDO_VDDP not being set quiet right for 3333.... or even Timing related..
> 
> so.. back to 3466mhz testing..
> 
> Using all Recommended timings and voltages from 0.9.9 V7, except..
> 
> VTTDDR 1.45v, vboot 1.46
> CLDO_VDDP 875 (worked in the past to 600-1000%)
> CAD 30-30-40-60
> VDDP is Auto... Manually setting this hasn't seemed to make a major different for me...
> 
> Will update once i have done some more thorough testing..
> so far i've tested 1 boot before this one on 3466.
> 
> voltage 1.44, CLDO_VDDP 866 got errors at 1.5% ish..
> jumped those to the above mentioned and now no errrors in first 5 mins.. will let it run later tonight after raid..
> 
> Right now i'm pretty much on identical settings to what resulted in 650% HCI, and slightly different to my old 1000% stable from before that..


this indicates that unsuitable CLDO_VDDP
I had cases with a dead intermediate frequency


----------



## hurricane28

Weird man, on 1701 BIOS i was stable at 3466 MHz CL14 and when i flashed to 3008 BIOS i am not... Not even when i flashed back to 1701...


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!










Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







This CH6 Hero is no Hero at all, its a pain in the butt...


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Weird man, on 1701 BIOS i was stable at 3466 MHz CL14 and when i flashed to 3008 BIOS i am not... Not even when i flashed back to 1701...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This CH6 Hero is no Hero at all, its a pain in the butt...


dude, AGESA 1.0.7.1 is not yet stable, we are waiting for 1.0.7.2b
Next week there should be a beta version


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Weird man, on 1701 BIOS i was stable at 3466 MHz CL14 and when i flashed to 3008 BIOS i am not... Not even when i flashed back to 1701...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This CH6 Hero is no Hero at all, its a pain in the butt...


how did you flash back mate ?

chew was finding with the taichi using the bios based instant flash to flashback it left traces of the newer bios still imbedded in the earlier ones

he solved that issue by using an old skool dos flash, which seems to properly erase bios before writing the new files

eg going forward bios version is ok with flash in bios ,going back needs the dos booted bios flasher


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> dude, AGESA 1.0.7.1 is not yet stable, we are waiting for 1.0.7.2b
> Next week there should be a beta version


You don't say...

Why did they release it than in the first place..?
Now back on 1701 i am still not able to stabilize 3466 MHz...

This ain't cool man... I starting to think that Asus "engineers" have no idea what they are doing... This CH6 Hero board is a big joke man.. People on cheaper board get better results..

Sensors are a mess, readings are way off, BIOS problems etc. And yet this is still no valid reason for RMA Elmor told me.. I wonder what is actually..


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> how did you flash back mate ?
> 
> chew was finding with the taichi using the bios based instant flash to flashback it left traces of the newer bios still imbedded in the earlier ones
> 
> he solved that issue by using an old skool dos flash, which seems to properly erase bios before writing the new files
> 
> eg going forward bios version is ok with flash in bios ,going back needs the dos booted bios flasher


I flashed back via USB BIOS port on the back side of the board.

That's need, can you provide me that info please? As i still have problems with this 1701 BIOS which were caused by 3008 BIOS.

Thnx.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> You don't say...
> 
> Why did they release it than in the first place..?
> Now back on 1701 i am still not able to stabilize 3466 MHz...
> 
> This ain't cool man... I starting to think that Asus "engineers" have no idea what they are doing... This CH6 Hero board is a big joke man.. People on cheaper board get better results..
> 
> Sensors are a mess, readings are way off, BIOS problems etc. And yet this is still no valid reason for RMA Elmor told me.. I wonder what is actually..


You remember well that I blamed the asus, that the voltage on the memory is too high and it is different on each slot.

Elmore will never write that the problem exists at the design stage. Otherwise, everyone will make a request to replace the motherboard

and most likely the problem is not even in the motherboard, but in AMD calculations. It was according to the AMD calculations that the motherboard manufacturers created the final products.

In any case, in February I will change the motherboard on CH7









p.s. At me on 3008 the frequency 3333 normally stopped working. You are not alone.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> I flashed back via USB BIOS port on the back side of the board.
> 
> That's need, can you provide me that info please? As i still have problems with this 1701 BIOS which were caused by 3008 BIOS.
> 
> Thnx.


its buried in the taichi thread mate

chew has been doing lots of testing for asrock and testing the beta bios

he made mention a few times he has to use dos based bios flash to go backwards or the older bios is still having some later cr4p in it

http://www.overclock.net/t/1627407/asrock-x370-taichi-overclocking-thread/2740

it might well be mentioned in one of his bios videos for the taichi as well on his youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPCRzey5fS3cuIauRXZoTiQ/videos


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> You remember well that I blamed the asus, that the voltage on the memory is too high and it is different on each slot.
> 
> Elmore will never write that the problem exists at the design stage. Otherwise, everyone will make a request to replace the motherboard
> 
> and most likely the problem is not even in the motherboard, but in AMD calculations. It was according to the AMD calculations that the motherboard manufacturers created the final products.
> 
> In any case, in February I will change the motherboard on CH7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. At me on 3008 the frequency 3333 normally stopped working. You are not alone.


I hear ya man, this is unacceptable imo... We pay top € for a top end board but we get budget components which is not right at all...

I am going to contact my retail store about this as i have enough of this crappy erratic board and all of its problems which are unsolvable..


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> I hear ya man, this is unacceptable imo... We pay top € for a top end board but we get budget components which is not right at all...
> 
> I am going to contact my retail store about this as i have enough of this crappy erratic board and all of its problems which are unsolvable..


I have an idea

let's find out if there are newer revision fees
At me for an example 1.03 (on a card it is written near a slot of a videocard)


----------



## ZeNch

i remember my old gigabyte motherboard with 5 versions of the same board XD.

i wait for the next Bios. (my problem is similar, update bios i cant get stable memory, downgrade bios and use my old settings... unstable again -.- ).

I have a Prime Pro of Asus.

I like to see Sabertooth model in 2k18 (with cover *-* ).


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I have an idea
> 
> let's find out if there are newer revision fees
> At me for an example 1.03 (on a card it is written near a slot of a videocard)


Can you point out where that is? Can't seem to find it on my board.

This would be a very good idea actually, this way we can determine if some problems are fixed in newer revisions or which revision is best.


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Avalar*
> 
> Ah, wait, I forgot I could just check the QVL for 3200 RAM with my mobo.
> 
> This I don't get, though.
> 
> 
> Is this saying that RAM set to exactly 3000MHz will downgrade, or anything set to 3000MHz _or above_ will be downgraded? If the latter is the case, then how did they test RAM at 3000 and above?


The English in those red-boxed notes is somewhat ambiguous, hence so is the meaning.

To answer the second question, my understanding from delving into this topic for most of Ryzen's lifetime is that memory is typically rated by testing it on some standardized Intel board layout. Most of the early overclocking time spent on Asus C6H for example has been to get the system stable with memory transfer frequencies as high as specified on the DRAM assembly. Once that was achieved (at least at the 3200 level), then attempts to get further were made by many. For example, my F4-3200C14D-32GTZ (2 x 16 TridentZ B-die) were not on any Ryzen QVL. But with a lot of experimentation on this forum, and new C6H BIOSes by Asus, new AGESAs by AMD, operation at 3200 and above has been achieved. With the techniques and support now available, most should be able to reach 3200 MT/s with 3200 or higher grade DRAM. The chip timings, however, may vary with the memory, and the voltages and impedance matching values may vary. The result will be that not everyone's 3200 operation leads to the same latency or memory bandwidth.

For yet higher transfer rates, there seems to be a point of diminishing returns where the benchmarking scores tend to flatten with ever tighter timing requirements. If one has a goal other than benchmarking scores, then one's system needs to be stable over the range of temperatures that it will see over the time of ownership, and perhaps, stable over the range of dust bunnies that accumulate over the time of ownership.


----------



## 4gvnsnr

Is there any information to glean from HCI errors popping up late in the testing (1000-1200%)? I'm able to get there running mainly The Stilt 3200 timings at 1.38v but never any further and have no idea what to try next. Not sure if I should be adjusting voltages timings or both. I assume being able to routinely get that far should mean I'm pretty close?

edit: follow up...just downloaded RTC to check my timings and while most are being applied correctly tRC, tFAW, tWR, and tRFC are all defaulting to higher presets no matter how many times or where I change them. Is this abnormal? do I have some other setting incorrect?


----------



## blair

Left stress test overnight while sleeping at 3466..

stability is far far greater.

It had 1 error on #9, when i click stop memtest 1 error popped onto #13.

I am very close to stability on 3008 it seems



EDIT: I was getting more errors on previous tests this test was one where i did plop a SP120 fan pointing at my memory. Typically i'd hit 50-53C on memory... usually around 45-49 at idle.. last nights run was as below


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

@hurricane28
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> I flashed back via USB BIOS port on the back side of the board.
> 
> That's need, can you provide me that info please? As i still have problems with this 1701 BIOS which were caused by 3008 BIOS.
> 
> Thnx.
> 
> 
> 
> its buried in the taichi thread mate
> 
> chew has been doing lots of testing for asrock and testing the beta bios
> 
> he made mention a few times he has to use dos based bios flash to go backwards or the older bios is still having some later cr4p in it
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1627407/asrock-x370-taichi-overclocking-thread/2740
> 
> it might well be mentioned in one of his bios videos for the taichi as well on his youtube channel
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPCRzey5fS3cuIauRXZoTiQ/videos
Click to expand...

Prolly the same tool that usmus said to use for flashing modified BIOS (rom-file)
http://www.overclock.net/t/1640394/unlocked-amd-cbs-for-ryzen-motherboard#post_26403470
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4gvnsnr*
> 
> Is there any information to glean from HCI errors popping up late in the testing (1000-1200%)? I'm able to get there running mainly The Stilt 3200 timings at 1.38v but never any further and have no idea what to try next. Not sure if I should be adjusting voltages timings or both. I assume being able to routinely get that far should mean I'm pretty close?
> 
> edit: follow up...just downloaded RTC to check my timings and while most are being applied correctly tRC, tFAW, tWR, and tRFC are all defaulting to higher presets no matter how many times or where I change them. Is this abnormal? do I have some other setting incorrect?


Hard to tell without you sharing your hardware details and your current settings


----------



## datonyb

^ yes sorry i skimed reading didnt understand what you asked ^

ok download the dos flash file for your board ,and make a bootable dos usb drive with rufus


----------



## Keith Myers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Avalar*
> 
> So does anyone want my RAM? I'd rather pay the difference for a set of more compatible sticks with more overclocking potential than have to mess around with the timings on my current sticks. Especially since I have no idea how lol.
> 
> Do the XMP profiles for Samsung b-die RAM work right away with Ryzen?


They did on both my mobos and chips. YMMV.


----------



## hurricane28

I finally got some stability again:



Will run it overnight in order to be sure its stable.


----------



## Spectre73

I never heard of anyone using the Techpowerup mem test Software. Is it reliable for detecting Memory Errors? All People ever use is HCI Memtest or GSAT.

I myself find HCI memtest reliably detecting Errors.


----------



## chaosblade02

If XMP profiles don't work with the ram + motherboard I got, I'm assuming I check the box for "Without XMP'? And use Dram timing parameters instead of XMP parameters? So if I input these numbers in on my motherboard this *might* work?


----------



## datonyb

what does thaiphoon report your chips as ?

samsung b/d/ dies ?
hynix micron ?


----------



## chaosblade02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> what does thaiphoon report your chips as ?
> 
> samsung b/d/ dies ?
> hynix micron ?


Hynix.

Also, every single 'calculate safe preset' for 2667, 2933, and 3200 doesn't work. Won't boot into windows with any of them. I don't know enough about ram, or even know that it's even possible to even OC this ram. Or I'm not inputting the information in correctly. I require extremely specific instrutions on something like this.

It's DDR4 3000 CAS 16, 18, 18, 18, 32 memory, and it won't run higher than CAS 2667 @ CAS 14.

Will newegg give me a refund on this ram because it doesn't run anything close to specified parameters?

None of the XMP profiles work, they all default to 2667mhz. And it seems impossible to OC this ram with XMP disabled. I've been trying, and trying and trying with no luck. I'm coming to the conclusion that this is just complete garbage ram.

The motherboard is an MSI X370 gaming pro carbon motherboard.

After trying to go cheap on ram, and spending a week (and failing) at trying to OC ram, I'd gladly pay $50-$100 more for ram to get something that just freaking runs 3200mhz with an XMP profile and doesn't give me any problems.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> Hynix.
> 
> Also, every single 'calculate safe preset' for 2667, 2933, and 3200 doesn't work. Won't boot into windows with any of them. I don't know enough about ram, or even know that it's even possible to even OC this ram.
> 
> It's DDR4 3000 CAS 16, 18, 18, 18, 32 memory, and it won't run higher than CAS 2667 @ CAS 14.
> 
> Will newegg give me a refund on this ram because it doesn't run anything close to specified parameters?
> 
> None of the XMP profiles work, they all default to 2667mhz. And it seems impossible to OC this ram with XMP disabled. I've been trying, and trying and trying with no luck. I'm coming to the conclusion that this is just complete garbage ram.


well i wont try and tell you its great ram

but i managed to get some corsair lpx 2400 to one click 2933 and work fine for over 3 months now on an msi tomahawk for a friend

may i ask are you entering ALL of the ram calculator settings ?
and setting correctly the initial first coloum ?

eg hynix xmp
dual or single rank/sided
2 sticks ?

and then using all settings from both pages


----------



## chaosblade02

I used all the settings from both pages. I took a SC of them with my phone. There is no way I could have input it wrong. I triple checked everything before saving.

The PC will not boot into windows at 2933 or 3200 at *any* settings. Boot loop with 2933 or 3200.

I managed to get it to boot @ 2933 into windows once, but upon rebooting my PC, it went into a boot loop. The absolute highest it will boot into windows without boot looping is 2667mhz. This Dram calculator was quite literally my last resort.

Should I RMA this ram?

I really don't get it, AMD has had nearly a whole year to get this ram issue solved. Is there some chance that I didn't get the micro code update that's supposed to fix some of the ram issues? I updated my bios to the latest version. So I should have gotten the micro code update, yes? Or is there anything else I need to get?

I have seen others having this issue of not being able to get ram to run higher than 2667mhz, but these are all people posting topics from back in March, and AMD has released a few fixes since then. I can't find any recent topics where people are still having this issue. Yet here I am.


----------



## datonyb

yes stuck at 2666 does seem a very old issue from launch time

do you have am4 advanced boot training set to auto and the retry count set to 5 ?

and tried the 'alt' settings offered in ram calculator ?


----------



## chaosblade02

The only thing I can think of is that I somehow don't have the micro code update. No topics about the microcode update happen to explain how you're supposed to get it. Or the particular Hynix ram I'm using still isn't compatible.


----------



## chaosblade02

There is a 'supposed' memory expert (RemusM) on MSI forums telling people flat out wrong information, claiming that the maximum memory supported is 2667mhz:

https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=73k9jk9rqkoshikl3oiash45g0&topic=283351.600

Does this look like damage control by MSI to you guys? Because that's what it looks like to me.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> There is a 'supposed' memory expert (RemusM) on MSI forums telling people flat out wrong information, claiming that the maximum memory supported is 2667mhz:
> 
> https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=73k9jk9rqkoshikl3oiash45g0&topic=283351.600
> 
> Does this look like damage control by MSI to you guys? Because that's what it looks like to me.


He means the maximum guaranteed memory speed by AMD for Ryzen is 2667MT/s, any memory speed above that is considered overclocking and is not guaranteed.

Example:



He is correct on that.

Edit: But that does not mean that you can't get your RAM to run higher if the right settings are used and if the memory controller can.


----------



## chaosblade02

Give me an honest opinion about what you guys would do if you were in my shoes? Would you start RMAing parts? Maybe the CPU is a silicon lottery loser and it's memory controller is junk? Possibly something wrong with the motherboard? Maybe the ram lost the silicon lotto? I'm quite literally considering bulk-RMAing some parts here, because I'm not happy with the speeds I'm getting.

3.8ghz seems to be about as high as this CPU will overclock as well. Based on a few quick runs. 4.0ghz won't even boot into windows, even at 1.5vcore. 3.9 boots, but isn't stable, even at 1.5v. Crashed in a 2 minute stress test. 3.8 seems to run at 1.45v, but won't run at 1.4. Can't confirm whether it's 100% stable or not at that clock and voltage either.

CPU won't OC, and the ram won't run anything close to specified speeds. I'm not happy with this PC at all. That's why I'm considering bulk RMAing stuff. I feel like I got shipped below average components.


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> Give me an honest opinion about what you guys would do if you were in my shoes? Would you start RMAing parts? Maybe the CPU is a silicon lottery loser and it's memory controller is junk? Possibly something wrong with the motherboard? Maybe the ram lost the silicon lotto? I'm quite literally considering bulk-RMAing some parts here, because I'm not happy with the speeds I'm getting.
> 
> 3.8ghz seems to be about as high as this CPU will overclock as well. Based on a few quick runs. 4.0ghz won't even boot into windows, even at 1.5vcore. 3.9 boots, but isn't stable, even at 1.5v. Crashed in a 2 minute stress test. 3.8 seems to run at 1.45v, but won't run at 1.4. Can't confirm whether it's 100% stable or not at that clock and voltage either.
> 
> CPU won't OC, and the ram won't run anything close to specified speeds. I'm not happy with this PC at all. That's why I'm considering bulk RMAing stuff. I feel like I got shipped below average components.


Well, you use Hynix memory which isn't the best at overclocking.

If you want to overclock higher you have to spend more on some Samsung B-die RAM.

There is an old saying here at ocn, budget components results in budget results.


----------



## chaosblade02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Well, you use Hynix memory which isn't the best at overclocking.
> 
> If you want to overclock higher you have to spend more on some Samsung B-die RAM.
> 
> There is an old saying here at ocn, budget components results in budget results.


Do you think newegg would give me a refund on the ram?

If they'd give me a refund, I'd order some Gskill flare X 3200 CL 14 ram, right now. But I'd expect it to run 3200 with the XMP profile, if not I'm RMAing more stuff.


----------



## datonyb

to be honest i cant see any real issue as to why its so bad
in my experiance msi have been one of the better guys at getting faster ram stable, and cheap ram to perform very well
i checked your power supply type ...wow what an overkill for the rest of your system, so its not a cheap underpowered psu causing issues

i can only wonder and i mean a wild guess that msi may have focused more on corsair ram tweaked xmp settings , than adata, (but then thats not making sense if you are trying manual settings for timings )


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> Do you think newegg would give me a refund on the ram?
> 
> If they'd give me a refund, I'd order some Gskill flare X 3200 CL 14 ram, right now. But I'd expect it to run 3200 with the XMP profile, if not I'm RMAing more stuff.


Idk man, never dealt with newegg.

You can always ask them, just tell them how you feel about it and maybe they are willing to work with you.


----------



## chaosblade02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> to be honest i cant see any real issue as to why its so bad
> in my experiance msi have been one of the better guys at getting faster ram stable, and cheap ram to perform very well
> i checked your power supply type ...wow what an overkill for the rest of your system, so its not a cheap underpowered psu causing issues
> 
> i can only wonder and i mean a wild guess that msi may have focused more on corsair ram tweaked xmp settings , than adata, (but then thats not making sense if you are trying manual settings for timings )


The PSU was reused from my old PC. According to any and all tests I've put it through, it's solid. I know what sorta issues a bad PSU will cause. Not booting after turning up ram from 2667mhz to 2933mhz couldn't possibly be PSU related, anyway. Especially given no other indications that would hint to a bad PSU. The PSU used to push 2 GPUs in SLI. Even if it's degraded a little bit it should have more than enough juice to feed my PC.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> Give me an honest opinion about what you guys would do if you were in my shoes? Would you start RMAing parts? Maybe the CPU is a silicon lottery loser and it's memory controller is junk? Possibly something wrong with the motherboard? Maybe the ram lost the silicon lotto? I'm quite literally considering bulk-RMAing some parts here, because I'm not happy with the speeds I'm getting.
> 
> 3.8ghz seems to be about as high as this CPU will overclock as well. Based on a few quick runs. 4.0ghz won't even boot into windows, even at 1.5vcore. 3.9 boots, but isn't stable, even at 1.5v. Crashed in a 2 minute stress test. 3.8 seems to run at 1.45v, but won't run at 1.4. Can't confirm whether it's 100% stable or not at that clock and voltage either.
> 
> CPU won't OC, and the ram won't run anything close to specified speeds. I'm not happy with this PC at all. That's why I'm considering bulk RMAing stuff. I feel like I got shipped below average components.


Can you post more information about the voltages you are using, AUTO will not do, the motherboard should view the voltages it's using, such as RAM, SOC, 1.8 PLL, south bridge...etc.
CPU voltage will not solve all your problems, other voltages have a roll to play too. The CPU cooler is not the best, but is fine for an R5, but what temps. are your reading? Nobody can help you with so little information. A screenshot of the RAM data collected by Taiphoon Burner can help too.


----------



## chaosblade02

Based on what I've read about others using the same ram with Ryzen processors, my results are typical, if not slightly better than average. I was at least able to lower the timings a little bit, to CAS 14. Maybe I'll just stick with what I got until ram prices drop.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> Can you post more information about the voltages you are using, AUTO will not do, the motherboard should view the voltages it's using, such as RAM, SOC, 1.8 PLL, south bridge...etc.
> CPU voltage will not solve all your problems, other voltages have a roll to play too. The CPU cooler is not the best, but is fine for an R5, but what temps. are your reading? Nobody can help you with so little information. A screenshot of the RAM data collected by Taiphoon Burner can help too.


Every Ryzen 5 OC video/guide I've seen, everybody just says set the Vcore to 1.45 and the multiplier to x39 or x40, and voila! Like magic. Using a stock cooler. My 212+ evo is better than a wraith spire. Nobody ever goes into any details about what 'other' settings you need to tinker with to get a stable OC on Ryzen. If you know of a guide that talks about doing more than bumping voltage and multiplier for a stable OC on Ryzen, I'm listening.


----------



## chaosblade02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> A screenshot of the RAM data collected by Taiphoon Burner can help too.


Here you go:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> B
> Every Ryzen 5 OC video/guide I've seen, everybody just says set the Vcore to 1.45 and the multiplier to x39 or x40, and voila! Like magic. Using a stock cooler. My 212+ evo is better than a wraith spire. Nobody ever goes into any details about what 'other' settings you need to tinker with to get a stable OC on Ryzen. If you know of a guide that talks about doing more than bumping voltage and multiplier for a stable OC on Ryzen, I'm listening.


Sure, if you want to burn your CPU then that's a way to do it.









I tune the whole BIOS not relying on one single voltage and don't use AUTO settings:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/31520#post_26504246

I think your motherboard have most of the setting that my motherboard have. The solution to your system could be because your RAM voltage is low, wrong Rtt values, low SOC voltage or all of them. I hope you are not trying to run your RAM at 3000MT/s at CAS 14 because that will never happen.









You have an AFR Hynix die, they should do fine up 2933MT/s, as far as I know.


----------



## chaosblade02

The ram won't even run 3200mhz @ CAS 22. Not that I'd be OK with those timings, but the point is it won't do 3200mhz regardless of the timings. Or voltages for that matter. 1.5v, and 1.2 on SOC, still get a boot loop.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> The ram won't even run 3200mhz @ CAS 22. Not that I'd be OK with those timings, but the point is it won't do 3200mhz regardless of the timings. Or voltages for that matter. 1.5v, and 1.2 on SOC, still get a boot loop.


That's a different topic. You can't run your RAM at rated speed yet, but want to run it at 3200MT/s. You want a 3200MT/s RAM then get a 3200MT/s RAM then you can complain if it does not run at it's rated speed.


----------



## chaosblade02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> That's a different topic. You can't run your RAM at rated speed yet, but want to run it at 3200MT/s. You want a 3200MT/s RAM then get a 3200MT/s RAM then you can complain if it does not run at it's rated speed.


It won't run 2933mhz at the same settings, either. But based on my findings about others using this ram, nobody else on a Ryzen board can either, so it's not just me.

Also, your OCing guide - That's an awful lot of settings to keep track of just to get 200mhz more OC on a chip. With that many settings tweaked, and considering so many issues share the same BSOD codes, how the hell do you even figure out what needs a bump, or if something is too high? My I5 2500k ran 4.2ghz on auto for many years and it didn't get burned up. Temps were very manageable. And temps are lower on Ryzen than on Sandy Bridge. Ryzen most definitely runs cooler than any of the newer Intel chips (without a delid).


----------



## kaseki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> That's a different topic. You can't run your RAM at rated speed yet, but want to run it at 3200MT/s. You want a 3200MT/s RAM then get a 3200MT/s RAM then you can complain if it does not run at it's rated speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't run 2933mhz at the same settings, either. But based on my findings about others using this ram, nobody else on a Ryzen board can either, so it's not just me.
> 
> Also, your OCing guide - That's an awful lot of settings to keep track of just to get 200mhz more OC on a chip. With that many settings tweaked, and considering so many issues share the same BSOD codes, how the hell do you even figure out what needs a bump, or if something is too high? My I5 2500k ran 4.2ghz on auto for many years and it didn't get burned up. Temps were very manageable. And temps are lower on Ryzen than on Sandy Bridge. Ryzen most definitely runs cooler than any of the newer Intel chips (without a delid).
Click to expand...

Tuning a large number of parameters that may not even be independent of each other is the name of the overclocking game. Only you can decide if all of the learning and testing is worth the modestly improved processing speed to be applied to whatever you intend to use the PC for.

I am reasonably certain from my experience here that a given Ryzen model, given motherboard model, and given DRAM model do not overclock successfully with a "use these values" approach (using AMD's definition of overclock). A set of values someone else was successful with is at best a starting point for most, unless very lucky.

1usmus has attempted to correlate potentially successful parameter sets with different DRAM by the use of his calculator, but he doesn't provide a warranty.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> It won't run 2933mhz at the same settings, either. But based on my findings about others using this ram, nobody else on a Ryzen board can either, so it's not just me.
> 
> Also, your OCing guide - That's an awful lot of settings to keep track of just to get 200mhz more OC on a chip. With that many settings tweaked, and considering so many issues share the same BSOD codes, how the hell do you even figure out what needs a bump, or if something is too high? My I5 2500k ran 4.2ghz on auto for many years and it didn't get burned up. Temps were very manageable. And temps are lower on Ryzen than on Sandy Bridge. Ryzen most definitely runs cooler than any of the newer Intel chips (without a delid).


I was quite sure that you were an Intel user, given the concentration you had on CPU voltage.








It's not hard to set the CPU voltage to 1.35V, SOC voltage to 1.15V, 1.8V PLL to 1.9V and DRAM voltage to 1.4V. And set the first 5 RAM timings to 16 - 18 - 18 - 18 - 38 with RAM multiplier to 2933MT/s and see if it boots at these settings.

If you have no patience then it's better that you return or sell your Ryzen system parts and get an Intel system instead. Tuning Ryzen requires patience to get the desired results.








Either way, I wish you good luck.


----------



## chaosblade02

I just spoke to a newegg rep, and they agreed to refund the full purchase price of the ram.

It appears Gskill Flare X 3200mhz CAS 14 is sold out on newegg, so if anyone knows of comparable ram kits that will just run their freaking XMP profile with no fuss, I'm interested. I'm done trying to OC this junk ram. I couldn't be hapier to pay $100 more for a ram kit after trying (and failing) to OC a junk ram kit for a week. You guys wouldn't believe how fast the money is ready to leave my pocket.

A better ram kit would also make my CPU OC better, yes?


----------



## keng

not really that much difference
I ran 3200 and 3500 with little, like ~10% diff. not worth it for day to day.
just get 4ghz or so on all the cores and it is pretty sweet. invest rest of time and energy /money enjoying or upgrade your gfx card or add another m.2 or whatever your heart desires. You will really quickly see most ram being able to hit at least 3333 with certain timings etc. Platform is new and therefore almost all ram timings/timers and buses are not 100% configured. To make matters even worse AMD has not yet released certain bios developer guides to everyone so there is that bit of uncertainty. Just sit back and enjoy. Or put linux on it!


----------



## chaosblade02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> I was quite sure that you were an Intel user, given the concentration you had on CPU voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to set the CPU voltage to 1.35V, SOC voltage to 1.15V, 1.8V PLL to 1.9V and DRAM voltage to 1.4V. And set the first 5 RAM timings to 16 - 18 - 18 - 18 - 38 with RAM multiplier to 2933MT/s and see if it boots at these settings.


I've already tried modifying all those settings you mentioned. I'm not the most patient person, I admit. But at some point, you gotta stop and just cut your losses. Like after a week of failures at trying to OC a junk ram kit, it's about time for me to say enough is enough. I'm not as hardcore or fanatical about OCing as some of you are. I can't say I really enjoy the process, and the end result is the only thing that really matters to me. I'm not trying to develop a full and complete understanding of what every acronym with decimal point numbers means in my motherboard's bios.

That's funny that you bring up Intel, even though the example I used was for 90% of the Ryzen OCing guides out there. I went through the same hurdles trying to get an I5 2500k to run 4.5ghz+ stable, and had to give up and settle for 4.2ghz on auto. After about a week of failure. Nobody could tell me why the chip would boot into Windows @ 4.7ghz, but wouldn't boot @ 4.5 or 4.6. If CPUs are really that finnicky, then I don't even have a baseline of where to start. No such guides exist. I looked.


----------



## Keith Myers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> I just spoke to a newegg rep, and they agreed to refund the full purchase price of the ram.
> 
> It appears Gskill Flare X 3200mhz CAS 14 is sold out on newegg, so if anyone knows of comparable ram kits that will just run their freaking XMP profile with no fuss, I'm interested. I'm done trying to OC this junk ram. I couldn't be hapier to pay $100 more for a ram kit after trying (and failing) to OC a junk ram kit for a week. You guys wouldn't believe how fast the money is ready to leave my pocket.
> 
> A better ram kit would also make my CPU OC better, yes?


You said you would be willing to pay $100 more to be rid of the aggravation.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232205
Plunk in 3200 XMP profile and be done with it.


----------



## Ashura

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







@1usmus do I have the worst ram imaginable? or am I doing something wrong here


----------



## kazablanka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I want to share with you the results of my testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In most cases, the memory works incorrectly because of incorrect voltage DRAM and VTT_DDR*
> On this picture in green I selected the best options
> 
> do not argue, they are not universal, to calculate their personal voltages, use my calculator, the tab VDRAM / VTT DDR Calculator


Setting my dram voltage at 1.385 volts for 3333mhz i take error in memtest, lowering the voltage to 1.375v passed 4 hours memtest. I cant understand why is this happening and what makes this to happend. Bad components or something else?

I also wonder if rising only the vttddr voltage improves stability.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus do I have the worst ram imaginable? or am I doing something wrong here


you must use the "WITHOUT XMP" calculation









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kazablanka*
> 
> Setting my dram voltage at 1.385 volts for 3333mhz i take error in memtest, lowering the voltage to 1.375v passed 4 hours memtest. I cant understand why is this happening and what makes this to happend. Bad components or something else?
> 
> I also wonder if rising only the vttddr voltage improves stability.


all voltages, LLC, power phase adjustment affect stability
1,385 even on my table is not workable
I advise you to use all that is marked green


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> you must use the "WITHOUT XMP" calculation


Ah, thought so. Thanks.


----------



## lordzed83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blair*
> 
> Left stress test overnight while sleeping at 3466..
> 
> stability is far far greater.
> 
> It had 1 error on #9, when i click stop memtest 1 error popped onto #13.
> 
> I am very close to stability on 3008 it seems
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I was getting more errors on previous tests this test was one where i did plop a SP120 fan pointing at my memory. Typically i'd hit 50-53C on memory... usually around 45-49 at idle.. last nights run was as below


something Like I'w got ??


----------



## lordzed83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaosblade02*
> 
> Do you think newegg would give me a refund on the ram?
> 
> If they'd give me a refund, I'd order some Gskill flare X 3200 CL 14 ram, right now. But I'd expect it to run 3200 with the XMP profile, if not I'm RMAing more stuff.


As always id go for
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313712

Very Happy with 3733 kit


----------



## keng

Is anyone able to run the ProcODT of 80 or 86? I can't figure out how to get my dual rank booting with this. Do you think I need to change other variables besides the cldo_vddp? I am using dual rank and it does seem that i am encountering more errors at higher speeds 3466+ regardless of looseness of timings


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> Is anyone able to run the ProcODT of 80 or 86? I can't figure out how to get my dual rank booting with this. Do you think I need to change other variables besides the cldo_vddp? I am using dual rank and it does seem that i am encountering more errors at higher speeds 3466+ regardless of looseness of timings


60 for 3200 DR
60/68.6 for 3333 DR
80 for 3466 DR
96 I did not test

BUT, the higher the resistance the worse the stability. The memory controller is not able to control over/undershoots


----------



## Ashura

Hey @1usmus ,

The calculator shows trfc @513.3, but if I put in the bios it resets to 60, what should be done?

Also, what is trfc alt? And lastly, what should the values for trfc 1, 2, 3 should be(in the Bios)?

Sorry if you've already mentioned before


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> Hey @1usmus ,
> 
> The calculator shows trfc @513.3, but if I put in the bios it resets to 60, what should be done?
> 
> Also, what is trfc alt? And lastly, what should the values for trfc 1, 2, 3 should be(in the Bios)?
> 
> Sorry if you've already mentioned before


@1usmus

You better put that in the OP of this thread since people are lazy ***** and will ask and not understand this a far more times here


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> Hey @1usmus ,
> 
> The calculator shows trfc @513.3, but if I put in the bios it resets to 60, what should be done?
> 
> Also, what is trfc alt? And lastly, what should the values for trfc 1, 2, 3 should be(in the Bios)?
> 
> Sorry if you've already mentioned before


alt is alternative








you only need to change trfc (no trfc 2/4)
i only can to use trfc 560 with 3200mhz (hinyx M-Die)


----------



## Avalar

Can somebody link me those timings to try with two 8GB sticks of Hynix RAM? I lost em.


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZeNch*
> 
> alt is alternative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you only need to change trfc (no trfc 2/4)
> i only can to use trfc 560 with 3200mhz (hinyx M-Die)


Thanks, and also thanks for sharing your experience, might help me out.


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Hi guys, I created a calculator that will make it easier to overclock the memory. It works with all kinds of memory and all zen processors.


Hi.

I just got here, per recommendation from Asrock forum folks. I have hard time making G.Skill Flare X (2x8 GB), DDR4 3200 work with Ryzen 1700X at anything above 2133 MHz.

But I'm a Linux user, so trying to run your calculator as is in Wine didn't really work, and I suspect tools like Thaiphoon burner won't work either. Did you publish the source for you tool anywhere? It would be very useful if it would be cross platform and can be used on Linux natively (not sure where to get the input values that Thaiphoon burner provides, but I suppose those are standard for each RAM type?).

Such tool can be even turned into a web application, making it even easier to use from anywhere simply from the browser.

Or may be you documented how you calculate each value? I can do it manually in the worst case.


----------



## STaRDoGG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> not sure where to get the input values that Thaiphoon burner provides, but I suppose those are standard for each RAM type?.
> 
> Or may be you documented how you calculate each value? I can do it manually in the worst case.


The OP shows where to actually get the values from Thaiphoon. I also added code to the calc that'll import all those values into the calc for you, but 1susmus hasn't released it yet. I think he's adding a few other things to it before he does.


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> The OP shows where to actually get the values from Thaiphoon.


What I mean is how to get those values *without* Thaiphoon (as above, it's not going to work on Linux). Are they something dynamically detected, or it's just some known values for each RAM type?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STaRDoGG*
> 
> I also added code to the calc that'll import all those values into the calc for you,


Is the code published somewhere? I'd like to see if it's possible to redo it to run on Linux, or at least understand how it calculates the result.


----------



## wolfpack122

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> What I mean is how to get those values *without* Thaiphoon (as above, it's not going to work on Linux). Are they something dynamically detected, or it's just some known values for each RAM type?
> Is the code published somewhere? I'd like to see if it's possible to redo it to run on Linux, or at least understand how it calculates the result.


Read this: https://superuser.com/questions/593772/calculate-performance-of-ram-using-timing-and-speed


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wolfpack122*
> 
> Read this: https://superuser.com/questions/593772/calculate-performance-of-ram-using-timing-and-speed


Thanks! That explains how to calculate CL, RtC, RtP and tRAS. What about the rest? And if all that simply can be calculated from frequency and timing values like 14-14-14-34, why can't calculator simply take that as an input and it could skip this whole Thaiphoon step?


----------



## datonyb

can anyone post a screenshot of flarex 3200 for him please in thaiphoon


----------



## wolfpack122

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> Thanks! That explains how to calculate CL, RtC, RtP and tRAS. What about the rest? And if all that simply can be calculated from frequency and timing values like 14-14-14-34, why can't calculator simply take that as an input and it could skip this whole Thaiphoon step?


The same formula is used to convert all timings to seconds, just apply it to the rest of the timings.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> Thanks! That explains how to calculate CL, RtC, RtP and tRAS. What about the rest? And if all that simply can be calculated from frequency and timing values like 14-14-14-34, why can't calculator simply take that as an input and it could skip this whole Thaiphoon step?


You can try the timings below:


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> You can try the timings below:


Is it OK that you are using 30 there instead of 34?

I'm trying your suggestion now, at least it boots OK.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> Is it OK that you are using 30 there instead of 34?
> 
> I'm trying your suggestion now, at least it boots OK.


Yes it's OK. The timings are synced and suited for 1866MT/s, means tighter than 3200MT/s timings.


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> Yes it's OK. The timings are synced and suited for 1866MT/s, means tighter than 3200MT/s timings.


Thanks, so while suited for 1866MT/s, they are still supposed to work with 3200MT/s? I'm running it now with selecting 3200 profile, and tweaking the values per your suggestion. I'll run some memtest86+ later, to verify stability further.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> Thanks, so while suited for 1866MT/s, they are still supposed to work with 3200MT/s? I'm running it now with selecting 3200 profile, and tweaking the values per your suggestion. I'll run some memtest86+ later, to verify stability further.


The subtimings are suited for 1866MT/s. Using the same timings on my dual rank RAM, so they should run fine on your single rank RAM.
I left the primary timings at 14 for your RAM but did reduce tRAS a little so they are synced. Good Luck.


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> The subtimings are suited for 1866MT/s. Using the same timings on my dual rank RAM, so they should run fine on your single rank RAM.


I guess I'm trying to understand why subtimings suited for lower frequency and transfer rate would work for higher one (at 3200 MT/s). At least dmidecode still shows the result as 3200 for me (that's a snippet just for one stick out of two):

Code:



Code:


        Total Width: 64 bits
        Data Width: 64 bits
        Size: 8192 MB
        Form Factor: DIMM
        Set: None
        Locator: DIMM 1
        Bank Locator: CHANNEL B
        Type: DDR4
        Type Detail: Synchronous Unbuffered (Unregistered)
        Speed: 3200 MT/s
        Part Number: F4-3200C14-8GFX
        Rank: 1
        Configured Clock Speed: 1600 MT/s


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> I guess I'm trying to understand why subtimings suited for lower frequency and transfer rate would work for higher one (at 3200 MT/s). At least dmidecode still shows the result as 3200 for me (that's a snippet just for one stick out of two):
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Total Width: 64 bits
> Data Width: 64 bits
> Size: 8192 MB
> Form Factor: DIMM
> Set: None
> Locator: DIMM 1
> Bank Locator: CHANNEL B
> Type: DDR4
> Type Detail: Synchronous Unbuffered (Unregistered)
> Speed: 3200 MT/s
> Part Number: F4-3200C14-8GFX
> Rank: 1
> Configured Clock Speed: 1600 MT/s


They work because the RAM can keep up with lower subtimings. Lower timings means lower delays between operations, which means the RAM completes the requested operation faster than when using subtimings suited for 3200MT/s, because subtimings for 1866MT/s are lower(passes faster). Your RAM is still running at 3200MT/s but does the job faster than when running at stock timings.


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> They work because the RAM can keep up with lower subtimings.


Ah, thanks! I knew that lower (faster) subtimings usually in turn match lower frequencies (and the other way around), but I was missing that RAM can keep up with faster timings even at higher frequency sometimes.


----------



## Shoodoo-Shadow

Are you suppose to turn off XMP/DOCP? Because everytime I try to boot with the ryzen timings with it off it fails.


----------



## nelsonjrgomes

Hi,

@1usmus, I've been using your modded BIOS for Asus Rog Strix b350, version 3203, and finally I have my teamforce dark pro ddr4 3600C16 working with your Calc settings, at 3200 with fast settings preset, but with gear down mode enabled (I've tried everything to make it work with gdm disabled, but so far I had no success) - 1.375 dram voltage, 1.0565 soc voltage,ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.7, with a voltage offset of +0,1875.
But you stated previously that this new bios updates used 0.700 as cldo_vddp. However, with that voltage manually imputed in my mobo bios, my memory isn't stable. When I define cldo_vddp as auto, the errors go away - just food for though, as it seems that the default cldo_vddp isn't set as 0.700


----------



## blair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lordzed83*
> 
> something Like I'w got ??


Exactly like this



Notice that elite mounting scheme?


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v8*
Download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=16Ym7yqmkG8-HQPPxFtMi5LbZlmQY3sw1

instruction:
https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow

changelog:
• Made App DPI Aware for High DPI Monitors
• Added Thaiphoon Burner Import Profile function + button
• Changed "calculate button colors" for a bit of 'flavor'
• Added Form Clearing + Resetting (reset to defaults on first 2 tabs; clear calcs on voltage calc tab)
• Added saving/restoring of the CR2 check-box setting.
• Added message-box after saving settings, for a little bit of user feedback.
• Fixed bug in voltage calcs when a non-numeric character was entered (only allows numbers and decimal now. Clears fields as needed.)
• Fixed the app load combobox 1 text misnamed issue.
• Removed all the redundant Settings save calls; it's only necessary to save once, after making all desired settings changes.
• Reorganized tab indexes
• Changed "Instruction" to "About"
• Other small GUI design tweaks
• A couple of minor English spellcheck fixes
• Added TRFC2 / TRFC4 calculator
• Reworked voltage block for all memory type (VTT DDR too)
• Added new CAD_BUS recommendation
• Added information about the developers and who took part in this project
• Added support for frequencies 3733 and 3866
• Some changes in the Memory Interleaving block
• Some changes in presets (timings)

great gratitude *STaRDoGG* for help !


----------



## b398294l

NICE!!!!


----------



## kladve

bug report


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kladve*
> 
> 
> bug report


2 kb, it's not bug


----------



## kladve

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 2 kb, it's not bug


omg im sorry, i think its 256


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kladve*
> 
> omg im sorry, i think its 256


in new bios (agesa 1.0.7.1+) was added support for 2 kilobytes


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

@1usmus
Think you should revise the tRFC2 and tRFC4 implementation
Instead of having a separate calc for the values... you should just add these 2 fields to the main window imo
And add a recommendation of some sort... as in...
Enter the tRFC4 value in the tRFC field and set tRFC2 + tRFC4 at "auto" for improved performance.

My 2 cents
Btw. Good work on trying to improve this tool. Keep it up


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @1usmus
> Think you should revise the tRFC2 and tRFC4 implementation
> Instead of having a separate calc for the values... you should just add these 2 fields to the main window imo
> And add a recommendation of some sort... as in...
> Enter the tRFC4 value in the tRFC field and set tRFC2 + tRFC4 at "auto" for improved performance.
> 
> My 2 cents
> Btw. Good work on trying to improve this tool. Keep it up


I agree, it was a speedy solution to the problem
but to add to the main tab it will take 4 more cells, they can not be inserted (there are very few places for cells) ... I'll think about how to combine everything


----------



## st0neh

Is this where some crazy appears and starts claiming this app is malware?


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> @1usmus
> Think you should revise the tRFC2 and tRFC4 implementation
> Instead of having a separate calc for the values... you should just add these 2 fields to the main window imo
> And add a recommendation of some sort... as in...
> Enter the tRFC4 value in the tRFC field and set tRFC2 + tRFC4 at "auto" for improved performance.
> 
> My 2 cents
> Btw. Good work on trying to improve this tool. Keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, it was a speedy solution to the problem
> but to add to the main tab it will take 4 more cells, they can not be inserted (there are very few places for cells) ... I'll think about how to combine everything
Click to expand...

tRFC alt can be re-used by tRFC2 so you'd need to find only room for 1 additional row.
In order to fit tRFC4


----------



## blikblue

Not display correctly, can't work on windows 7 x64, tried all compatibility settings with no luck.


----------



## hurricane28

I downloaded the newest DRAM Calculator and it says that my memory chip quality is 92% and it can do 3733 MHz save and 3600 MHz fast.

Going to put that quality to the test tomorrow and see how far i can go with it.


----------



## hurricane28

I tried 3733 MHz save and something didn't like it, not one bit..

It keept going though post codes and didn't want to boot at all.


----------



## Wolfeshaman

Is this just for a specific board? Or would it be relatively alright to give a shot with a Asus Prime X370 board?


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wolfeshaman*
> 
> Is this just for a specific board? Or would it be relatively alright to give a shot with a Asus Prime X370 board?


You can try and see. Just put in the settings you can do on your board.


----------



## Wolfeshaman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> You can try and see. Just put in the settings you can do on your board.


Yeah I'm going to give it a shot. Right now it's telling me a safe of 2703 and a fast of 2570. This should be interesting to say the least.


----------



## HiGhEnDcZ

Hi guys

I really do not know where there might be a bug but this setting just does not want to run a boot system windows throw bluescreen.

C6H BIOS 3101
R7 1700
G.Skill Trident Z RGB 16GB DDR4 3600MHz (F4-3600C16D-16GTZR)

Please any one help me ?


----------



## Ndii

Can't find VTT DDR Voltage on my MSI B350 Gaming Pro Carbon but it has DRAM CH_A VREF Voltage and DRAM CH_B VREF Voltage.
Does anyone know what it does or is it simple MSI name for VTT DDR Voltage?


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> in new bios (agesa 1.0.7.1+) was added support for 2 kilobytes


Are there performance benefits for 2kb?


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> in new bios (agesa 1.0.7.1+) was added support for 2 kilobytes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there performance benefits for 2kb?
Click to expand...

if you can get it to run at that... you should see better performance


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> You can try the timings below:


So far it has been stable. Thanks a lot for the suggestion! Those random freezes were quite frustrating.


----------



## shmerl

@Ramad: Nope, I just got another freeze







From your settings I used minimal values everywhere. Some of them you wrote with or or max. Do you recommend to tweak some of those values from minimal to what you specified / experiment with different combinations? Should I start with tweaking something in particular?


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> @Ramad: Nope, I just got another freeze
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your settings I used minimal values everywhere. Some of them you wrote with or or max. Do you recommend to tweak some of those values from minimal to what you specified / experiment with different combinations? Should I start with tweaking something in particular?


I wrote "or" because not all RAM can run at the low values, use the higher values for tRC page and SCL (1, 3 and 3). Raise SOC voltage to 1.15V and VDDP to 1V and see if you still get those freezes.

Want to add that low CPU voltage also can cause those freezes, make sure CPU voltage is good too.


----------



## shmerl

Trying that now. CPU volate is raised already by selecting XMP profile 2.0 in Asrock firmware, so that's probably good. I raised SOC and VDDP to those values (they were just slightly lower before that), and set 1, 3, 3 as you specified. Will see how it goes.


----------



## shmerl

Still freezing. CPU vcore is shown as 1.008 V, CPU LLC: level 5 (auto), SOC LLC: level 5 (auto). Proc ODT also is set to auto.


----------



## Ramad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shmerl*
> 
> Still freezing. CPU vcore is shown as 1.008 V, CPU LLC: level 5 (auto), SOC LLC: level 5 (auto). Proc ODT also is set to auto.


Are you trying to run your 1700X at 1V? This will never happen.








Set CPU voltage to 1.3V for now if it is running at stock frequency, make sure you disable Core Performance or XFR (this is important), I'm not familiar with Asrock motherboards, Core Performance Boost is when a core runs at higher frequency, which you don't need right now, maybe never will need it.


----------



## blikblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v8*
> Download:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=16Ym7yqmkG8-HQPPxFtMi5LbZlmQY3sw1
> 
> instruction:
> https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> changelog:
> • Made App DPI Aware for High DPI Monitors
> • Added Thaiphoon Burner Import Profile function + button
> • Changed "calculate button colors" for a bit of 'flavor'
> • Added Form Clearing + Resetting (reset to defaults on first 2 tabs; clear calcs on voltage calc tab)
> • Added saving/restoring of the CR2 check-box setting.
> • Added message-box after saving settings, for a little bit of user feedback.
> • Fixed bug in voltage calcs when a non-numeric character was entered (only allows numbers and decimal now. Clears fields as needed.)
> • Fixed the app load combobox 1 text misnamed issue.
> • Removed all the redundant Settings save calls; it's only necessary to save once, after making all desired settings changes.
> • Reorganized tab indexes
> • Changed "Instruction" to "About"
> • Other small GUI design tweaks
> • A couple of minor English spellcheck fixes
> • Added TRFC2 / TRFC4 calculator
> • Reworked voltage block for all memory type (VTT DDR too)
> • Added new CAD_BUS recommendation
> • Added information about the developers and who took part in this project
> • Added support for frequencies 3733 and 3866
> • Some changes in the Memory Interleaving block
> • Some changes in presets (timings)
> 
> great gratitude *STaRDoGG* for help !


@1usmus,
Please help, I'm using windows 7 x64 and the program only displayed in half, no full screen on double click and no button on top right.
Tried to change settings on compatibility mode with no luck.


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> Are you trying to run your 1700X at 1V? This will never happen.


I just had it on auto. Apparently, that's how Asrock sets it. I set it now to 1.3 V, and CPU LLC to level 4.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> make sure you disable Core Performance or XFR (this is important), I'm not familiar with Asrock motherboards, Core Performance Boost is when a core runs at higher frequency, which you don't need right now, maybe never will need it.


It was set to auto, changed it to disabled. Let's see if this will help.


----------



## shmerl

Still froze. I changed CPU LLC to level 3.


----------



## 4gvnsnr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4gvnsnr*
> 
> Is there any information to glean from HCI errors popping up late in the testing (1000-1200%)? I'm able to get there running mainly The Stilt 3200 timings at 1.38v but never any further and have no idea what to try next. Not sure if I should be adjusting voltages timings or both. I assume being able to routinely get that far should mean I'm pretty close?
> 
> edit: follow up...just downloaded RTC to check my timings and while most are being applied correctly tRC, tFAW, tWR, and tRFC are all defaulting to higher presets no matter how many times or where I change them. Is this abnormal? do I have some other setting incorrect?


So just to update this in case someone else has the same problem in the future... in my Bios it was asking for hex values not decimal so when I input the values from either the calculator or the Stilts presets it was converting them to the corresponding hex values which were obviously much different. So I found a converter online input the correct values and I'm now good to go.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> if you can get it to run at that... you should see better performance


It runs no issue for me.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4gvnsnr*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *4gvnsnr*
> 
> Is there any information to glean from HCI errors popping up late in the testing (1000-1200%)? I'm able to get there running mainly The Stilt 3200 timings at 1.38v but never any further and have no idea what to try next. Not sure if I should be adjusting voltages timings or both. I assume being able to routinely get that far should mean I'm pretty close?
> 
> edit: follow up...just downloaded RTC to check my timings and while most are being applied correctly tRC, tFAW, tWR, and tRFC are all defaulting to higher presets no matter how many times or where I change them. Is this abnormal? do I have some other setting incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> So just to update this in case someone else has the same problem in the future... in my Bios it was asking for hex values not decimal so when I input the values from either the calculator or the Stilts presets it was converting them to the corresponding hex values which were obviously much different. So I found a converter online input the correct values and I'm now good to go.
Click to expand...

What ?
AsRock has it's users put timings in via hex instead of integer decimals ?
LOL
Not very user friendly imo


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v9*

Download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2WQNm3qiJ9zifdrkjvgK0lCkBX31Z1z

instruction:
https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow

changelog:
• added calculation of TRFC2 / TRFC4 and TRFC2 alt / TRFC4 alt on the *Main* tab
• CR , BGS , GDM moved to the *Advanced* tab
• change in voltage for frequencies 3466 +
• new recommendations for Hynix chips (DRAM, SOC, VDDP , CLDO_VDDP voltages)
• improved calculator VTT DDR (added Vref and over/undershoots* VTT DDR voltages)
• added *Screenshot* button in *Additional Calculators* tab
• option to scale the program window (test version)

* in this range should be your voltage


----------



## shmerl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ramad*
> 
> make sure you disable Core Performance or XFR (this is important), I'm not familiar with Asrock motherboards, Core Performance Boost is when a core runs at higher frequency, which you don't need right now, maybe never will need it.


What I noticed, that when core performnace boost is disbaled, CPU frequency never goes up to 3.4 GHz that it's supposed to reach. Even at 100% CPU load (compiling Mesa), cpupower shows me this:

Code:



Code:


.   |Mperf               || Idle_Stats
CPU | C0   | Cx   | Freq || POLL | C1   | C2
   0| 99.33|  0.67|  2199||  0.00|  0.65|  0.00
   1| 80.27| 19.73|  2199||  0.00|  9.80| 10.08
   2| 72.54| 27.46|  2193||  0.00| 14.56| 13.07
   3| 75.71| 24.29|  2193||  0.00| 11.96| 12.45
   4| 90.26|  9.74|  2199||  0.00|  6.43|  3.37
   5| 99.97|  0.03|  2199||  0.00|  0.00|  0.00
   6| 94.80|  5.20|  2199||  0.00|  1.96|  3.25
   7| 87.99| 12.01|  2199||  0.00|  5.38|  6.67
   8| 86.40| 13.60|  2198||  0.00|  6.61|  7.04
   9| 85.82| 14.18|  2198||  0.00|  6.59|  7.64
  10| 99.97|  0.03|  2200||  0.00|  0.00|  0.00
  11| 95.95|  4.05|  2199||  0.00|  0.15|  3.89
  12| 80.51| 19.49|  2199||  0.00|  3.31| 16.22
  13| 92.97|  7.03|  2199||  0.00|  2.32|  4.72
  14| 91.42|  8.58|  2199||  0.00|  2.12|  6.46
  15| 83.41| 16.59|  2198||  0.00|  1.14| 15.45

I.e. the most it gets is around 2200 MHz. That doesn't sound right.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v9*
> 
> Download:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2WQNm3qiJ9zifdrkjvgK0lCkBX31Z1z
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> instruction:
> https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> changelog:
> • added calculation of TRFC2 / TRFC4 and TRFC2 alt / TRFC4 alt on the *Main* tab
> • CR , BGS , GDM moved to the *Advanced* tab
> • change in voltage for frequencies 3466 +
> • new recommendations for Hynix chips (DRAM, SOC, VDDP , CLDO_VDDP voltages)
> • improved calculator VTT DDR (added Vref and over/undershoots* VTT DDR voltages)
> • added *Screenshot* button in *Additional Calculators* tab
> • option to scale the program window (test version)
> 
> * in this range should be your voltage


Looking much better
Although i don't really see the point in having added the alternative tRFC-fields

NOTE :
It might be helpfull to users if you was to report in the program... on what AGESA version you based the suggested settings


----------



## hurricane28

Yess, found some stability again:


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkLordThe1st*
> 
> What ?
> AsRock has it's users put timings in via hex instead of integer decimals ?
> LOL
> Not very user friendly imo


nope asrock has two different ram timing folders in bios

one is staring users right in the face in the same tab as cpu volts etc confusingly called 'over clock tweaker'......................... sarcasm

yet 'some' users manage to miss that entirely and hunt down a hidden folder where they can indeed find ram settings in hex....................


----------



## 4gvnsnr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> nope asrock has two different ram timing folders in bios
> 
> one is staring users right in the face in the same tab as cpu volts etc confusingly called 'over clock tweaker'......................... sarcasm
> 
> yet 'some' users manage to miss that entirely and hunt down a hidden folder where they can indeed find ram settings in hex....................


Or maybe their timings timings weren't being posted when changed in the OC tab and were forced to use the cbs folder... obviously not something you even considered. But carry on with your misguided sarcasm if it makes you feel good.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blikblue*
> 
> @1usmus,
> Please help, I'm using windows 7 x64 and the program only displayed in half, no full screen on double click and no button on top right.
> Tried to change settings on compatibility mode with no luck.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1640919/ryzen-dram-calculator-overclocking-dram/780_20#post_26515914
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Yess, found some stability again:


helped tips?


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4gvnsnr*
> 
> Or maybe their timings timings weren't being posted when changed in the OC tab and were forced to use the cbs folder... obviously not something you even considered. But carry on with your misguided sarcasm if it makes you feel good.


ok well to carry on then i must have missed the whole episode in my life when you told me you couldnt enter values where everyone else can


----------



## brenopapito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v9*
> 
> Download:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2WQNm3qiJ9zifdrkjvgK0lCkBX31Z1z
> 
> instruction:
> https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> changelog:
> • added calculation of TRFC2 / TRFC4 and TRFC2 alt / TRFC4 alt on the *Main* tab
> • CR , BGS , GDM moved to the *Advanced* tab
> • change in voltage for frequencies 3466 +
> • new recommendations for Hynix chips (DRAM, SOC, VDDP , CLDO_VDDP voltages)
> • improved calculator VTT DDR (added Vref and over/undershoots* VTT DDR voltages)
> • added *Screenshot* button in *Additional Calculators* tab
> • option to scale the program window (test version)
> 
> * in this range should be your voltage


Thank you very much for this update!

I'm using these timings and voltages but I'm running 15 15 15 15. Any other suggestion to achieve 14 14 14 14 without crash?





Hero VI bios 3101
2x8gb G.Skill F4-3000C14-8GTZR


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1640919/ryzen-dram-calculator-overclocking-dram/780_20#post_26515914
> helped tips?


Idk to be honest, i tried some other settings in this new calculator and it worked. After the holidays i will investigate more.

I tried 3733 MHz but that wouldn't even boot, perhaps with new BIOS or is 3466 MHz the limit of these chips?


----------



## Jackalito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v9*
> 
> Download:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q2WQNm3qiJ9zifdrkjvgK0lCkBX31Z1z
> 
> instruction:
> https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> changelog:
> • added calculation of TRFC2 / TRFC4 and TRFC2 alt / TRFC4 alt on the *Main* tab
> • CR , BGS , GDM moved to the *Advanced* tab
> • change in voltage for frequencies 3466 +
> • new recommendations for Hynix chips (DRAM, SOC, VDDP , CLDO_VDDP voltages)
> • improved calculator VTT DDR (added Vref and over/undershoots* VTT DDR voltages)
> • added *Screenshot* button in *Additional Calculators* tab
> • option to scale the program window (test version)
> 
> * in this range should be your voltage


Thank you mate for yet another update on this great application and Merry Christmas!!!


----------



## 1usmus

Happy Holidays to everyone!

*DUAL RANK 3200 CL12*


----------



## hurricane28

Pretty sweet, but what about max frequency?









I couldn't even boot 3733 MHz as my board had no idea what hit it lol.

It was like: "3733MHz?! Are you crazy?" lmao.


----------



## LicSqualo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Happy Holidays to everyone!
> 
> *DUAL RANK 3200 CL12*












Merry Christmas to you too!


----------



## blikblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1640919/ryzen-dram-calculator-overclocking-dram/780_20


The windows programs works now but unfortunately none of the calculation boot to my G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GTZB (cheap Hynix M-die) on Asrock AB350 Pro4, not even at 2666.




The highest stable I can reach is with default XMP running at 2666, or with this settings:
Any tips?


----------



## phazer11

Thanks for the calculator. Looks like my RAM (or perhaps the processor) just won't really do much over the stock 3000 MHz. Tried several iterations and adjustments from what the calculator provided and even bumped some of those up some but no luck booting with any of them (even at stock speed with adjusted volts). Merry Christmas and happy holidays.


----------



## hurricane28

Damn, not quite there yet...

Me in front of the PC overclocking Ryzen:


----------



## harrysun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *DUAL RANK 3200 CL12*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> 3200MHz = 12-12-12-28-54-140ns-9-8-12-2-2-GDME-1T (tCL-tRCDR/W-tRP-tRAS-tRC-tRFC-tCWL-tRTP-tWR-tWRWRSCL-tRDRDSCL)
> 3466MHz = 14-14-14-28-54-192ns-14-8-12-2-2-GDMD-1T (tCL-tRCDR/W-tRP-tRAS-tRC-tRFC-tCWL-tRTP-tWR-tWRWRSCL-tRDRDSCL)
> 
> 140ns @ 3200MHz = 224 CLK
> 192ns @ 3466MHz = 333 CLK


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Stilt*
> 
> Higher DFICLK itself doesn't improve the performance. Increasing the DFICLK (by increasing the MEMCLK) only helps if the DFI is the bottle neck.
> 1600MHz DFICLK (i.e. 3200MHz MEMCLK) is sufficient for > R7 1800X and the returns from higher speeds are diminishing. At higher CPU speeds (which are unachievable on current gen. Ryzen CPUs) the required DFICLK for optimal performance will increase as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latency is king >= 3200MHz.


Some real world tests would be better instead of AIDA64 mem&cache benchmarking only. Do you have the ability to confirum such a huge improvement with a CPU limiting game?


----------



## overheatisbad

Thanks for calculator. But my corsair ram must run at higher voltage that calculator say. Any suggestion to lower that voltage ?
I use corsair 16gb corsair rgb 32gb 3000mhz c15 at 3300mhz c16 right now.
My motherboard is asus x370 strix f-gaming


----------



## HiGhEnDcZ

This is Good ?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *harrysun*
> 
> Some real world tests would be better instead of AIDA64 mem&cache benchmarking only. Do you have the ability to confirum such a huge improvement with a CPU limiting game?


the voltage for these timings is 1.55, I decided to wait for additional cooling to conduct tests








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> Thanks for calculator. But my corsair ram must run at higher voltage that calculator say. Any suggestion to lower that voltage ?
> I use corsair 16gb corsair rgb 32gb 3000mhz c15 at 3300mhz c16 right now.
> My motherboard is asus x370 strix f-gaming


this is individual, do not be afraid to try the voltage from the frequency which is one step higher or lower
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HiGhEnDcZ*
> 
> This is Good ?


yes, excellent result


----------



## ZeNch

wooooooooooow very good, the difference of ram for ryzen is very notable.
Im build my ryzen when i dont knowed the problem of ram and i use M-die =c
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> the voltage for these timings is 1.55, I decided to wait for additional cooling to conduct tests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is individual, do not be afraid to try the voltage from the frequency which is one step higher or lower
> yes, excellent result


If you buy DDR4 block for water cooling (if you have one) you have compatibility for some years (if you change your memory kit)
Your timmings/speed are very high, in the next generation of ryzen you can reach more than it sure


----------



## keng

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HiGhEnDcZ*
> 
> This is Good ?


Excellent!
Now try to push the Bclk say to 101 or 102 for additional 50-100 hz. Do not worry about overclocking ht PCIe lanes, it only makes system even faster, it turns out Ryzen mobos, at least OC ones, have automatic down-gening. You might need to have ASUS utilizs installed which interface with the auxiliary timer chips on the board. Very cool stuff


----------



## HiGhEnDcZ

I can not find anywhere in the bios 3101 do not you know where it is? | Bank Group Swap Alt |


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> Excellent!
> Now try to push the Bclk say to 101 or 102 for additional 50-100 hz. Do not worry about overclocking ht PCIe lanes, it only makes system even faster, it turns out Ryzen mobos, at least OC ones, have automatic down-gening. You might need to have ASUS utilizs installed which interface with the auxiliary timer chips on the board. Very cool stuff


At me always speed of devices always dropped even if to increase dispersal on 2mhz frequency of the bus

*upd:*

*you're right, everything works fine!*









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HiGhEnDcZ*
> 
> I can not find anywhere in the bios 3101 do not you know where it is? | Bank Group Swap Alt |


these settings are now hidden + now everything is automatically determined correctly, no need for interventions


----------



## HiGhEnDcZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> At me always speed of devices always dropped even if to increase dispersal on 2mhz frequency of the bus
> 
> *upd:*
> 
> *you're right, everything works fine!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these settings are now hidden + now everything is automatically determined correctly, no need for interventions


Gear Down mode is auto system working. Disabled and system is freeze and crash whats wrong ?


----------



## overheatisbad

Yes i use 3333 c16 at 1.45volt right now. I monitor temperature at max 53.. so i think it's ok for me.
Already use real word program for converting video and everything fine
Maybe next step is oc bclk 1 or 2 point


----------



## ph1ber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> Yes i use 3333 c16 at 1.45volt right now. I monitor temperature at max 53.. so i think it's ok for me.
> Already use real word program for converting video and everything fine
> Maybe next step is oc bclk 1 or 2 point


You don't need that much voltage. I was also using that before but I'm down to 1.3375V for 3466MHz. You have some timing, memory setting or line level calibration or something like that wrong. Start by only overclocking ram and leave CPU alone.


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ph1ber*
> 
> You don't need that much voltage. I was also using that before but I'm down to 1.3375V for 3466MHz. You have some timing, memory setting or line level calibration or something like that wrong. Start by only overclocking ram and leave CPU alone.


That actually depends on the quality of your RAM. Some kits need more volts than others.

It differs from BIOS to BIOS too, i need more volts in 3101 than on 1701 BIOS to stabilize 3466 MHz RAM. Also needed to put vcore up a notch or 2.


----------



## ph1ber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> That actually depends on the quality of your RAM. Some kits need more volts than others.
> 
> It differs from BIOS to BIOS too, i need more volts in 3101 than on 1701 BIOS to stabilize 3466 MHz RAM. Also needed to put vcore up a notch or 2.


You're probably right but in the beginning I was unstable at 3333MHz at 1.45V but now I'm stable at [email protected] I was so locked into having low timings that it was messing everything up. I'd rather have low temps and quiet PC than gaining that extra 1%. I'm at 16-14-15-14 but with pretty good sub timings and I'm getting some of the best result so far and stable at that. The best I've gotten in AIDA64 is around 55000MB/s read speed and 67.5ns latency but that was at really high voltage. With current voltage and timings I'm still getting 54000MB/s read and 68.5ns latency. The extra perfomance is not worth it imo.


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

@keng
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *HiGhEnDcZ*
> 
> This is Good ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent!
> Now try to push the Bclk say to 101 or 102 for additional 50-100 hz. Do not worry about overclocking ht PCIe lanes, it only makes system even faster, it turns out Ryzen mobos, at least OC ones, have automatic down-gening. You might need to have ASUS utilizs installed which interface with the auxiliary timer chips on the board. Very cool stuff
Click to expand...

what asus utilities do you refer to? link ?


----------



## keng

i think there is a special prog like asbclk.exe or something similar you need for proper bclk oc. I had difficulty with it.

Also, I played around with the turboV app that comes with mobo, you can do some adjusting of various voltages and things. Asus needs to give us some sort of OSland ways of changing the BIOS settings.

I have cooked up a custom (read: corrupted settings in hilarious ways) bios for what I need which is also making things screwy. Meh, it would be nice if UEFIs were all open source as the UEFI code is not something that makes anyone any money and lousy implementations just end up in consumers RMAing too many boards, driving up the cost, while limiting performance.


----------



## overheatisbad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ph1ber*
> 
> You don't need that much voltage. I was also using that before but I'm down to 1.3375V for 3466MHz. You have some timing, memory setting or line level calibration or something like that wrong. Start by only overclocking ram and leave CPU alone.


Enlight me please about that


----------



## keng

on the zenith for 1950x i just do pstate preset OC, set volts for cpu to 1.4, llc3, dram volts to 1.55, soc to 1.15 and the thing flies at any ram strap 3200-3466, this works with any bios including 0211. Pretty sure most of the ddr4 ram can run at like 1.8volts without sweat, just take a look at the hwbot forums to get an idea.

What I found is:

*Essentially if your PC does not boot (cold boot, cycle ram training, etc) it does not mean you can't run your ram at a certain setting, but rather that your CLDO_VDDP +/- PROC_ODT is wrong.
*

...and if your PC bsods on boot, it just needs more juice to the ram, as the chipset would not let the OS boot start if it didn't think the ram was controllable loosely speaking.
Sometimes, just flick that reboot button if your PC seems to hang, and it should train your memory just fine, slightly diff paths in how "warm" boot runs.

Here is what the AGESA/aka AMD boot looks like.



The whole doc is here, quite cool stuff, might help you in your OC efforts ->http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/44065_Arch2008.pdf


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keng*
> 
> i think there is a special prog like *asbclk.exe* or something similar you need for proper bclk oc. I had difficulty with it.
> 
> Also, I played around with the turboV app that comes with mobo, you can do some adjusting of various voltages and things. Asus needs to give us some sort of OSland ways of changing the BIOS settings.
> 
> I have cooked up a custom (read: corrupted settings in hilarious ways) bios for what I need which is also making things screwy. Meh, it would be nice if UEFIs were all open source as the UEFI code is not something that makes anyone any money and lousy implementations just end up in consumers RMAing too many boards, driving up the cost, while limiting performance.


Doesn't seem to exist any more.
So...








Could use ASUS AI Suite 3, but it's totally crap


----------



## ph1ber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> Enlight me please about that


What CPU, RAM etc. are you running for Ryzen 1600 and good Samsung B-die ram look below.

Try this:


Spoiler: 3.9Ghz/3466Mhz Stable BIOS Settings



[2017/12/29 13:10:01]
Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 15-15-15-35-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.2000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3473MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.33750]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
DRAM Voltage [1.37500]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [15]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [22]
Trc [38]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [280]
Trfc2 [450]
Trfc4 [277]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [5]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [4]
TwrwrDd [4]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [4]
TrdrdDd [4]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.69300]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [300]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Regular]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Regular]
DRAM Current Capability [120%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.37500]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [On]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [INTEL SSDSC2CW120A3]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
Generic Ultra HS-SD/MMC [Auto]
Lexar JD FireFly 1100 [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Silent]
W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
HPET In SB [Auto]
MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [4]
Profile Name [3466LL3.9GHzSb]
Save to Profile [4]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


----------



## overheatisbad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ph1ber*
> 
> What CPU, RAM etc. are you running for Ryzen 1600 and good Samsung B-die ram look below.
> 
> Try this:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3.9Ghz/3466Mhz Stable BIOS Settings
> 
> 
> 
> [2017/12/29 13:10:01]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 15-15-15-35-1.35V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.2000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3473MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.33750]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.37500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [15]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [22]
> Trc [38]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [280]
> Trfc2 [450]
> Trfc4 [277]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [5]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [4]
> TwrwrDd [4]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [4]
> TrdrdDd [4]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.69300]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [300]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Regular]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Regular]
> DRAM Current Capability [120%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.37500]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Enabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [INTEL SSDSC2CW120A3]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> Generic Ultra HS-SD/MMC [Auto]
> Lexar JD FireFly 1100 [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Silent]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Silent]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Silent]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
> HPET In SB [Auto]
> MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [4]
> Profile Name [3466LL3.9GHzSb]
> Save to Profile [4]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


I use motherboard asus x370 strix f-gaming
RAM corsair rgb 3000mhz c15 cmr32gx4m4c3000c15 use 2 of 4 pieces
Cpu ryzen 5 1600
Psu Antec EDGE 550
Will try that later


----------



## ph1ber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*


Ok well you're trying to run 3333MHz LL on RAM that's only rated at 3000MHz and they're rated at CL15 at that clock. I'd start at trying to get 2933MHz working...


----------



## overheatisbad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ph1ber*
> 
> Ok well you're trying to run 3333MHz LL on RAM that's only rated at 3000MHz and they're rated at CL15 at that clock. I'd start at trying to get 2933MHz working...


Already done now i use 3333mhz 16-17-17-17-37 but with overvoltage.


----------



## goncalossilva

@1usmus I have a challenge for you









I have this kit: F4-3200C15D-32GTZSK, 32GB DR b-die (also confirmed in Taiphoon).

I've spent countless days tweaking my system and am currently stable at 4GHz on my 1800X (offset +0.0375) and all of your fast timings for 3200 *except tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP*. For some reason, I can't lower these to 14 in _any_ circumstances I've tried. These include:

DRAM voltage from 1.35 all the way up to 1.5. From ~1.42 and up stability is worsened significantly. VTT DDR always adjust accordingly.
Countless DRAM voltage, CLDO_VDPP, ProcODT, RTT and CAD combinations. Started with Auto, moved to your calculator's suggestions and then almost every other combination.
Tweaking VDDP (1.0, 0.9, 0.855 and some values in between) and VPP.
Running in 2T.
Reverting the CPU OC.
Loosening other timings to see if that would allow me to bump those 3.
Trying with a single RAM dimm in all 4 slots (neither dimm / slot is stable).
All other relevant settings are set according to the calculator. I am even stable with the same timings at 3333 (at 1.415V). Just can't touch those 3, even at 2933 (didn't try lower). I'm beginning to suspect my CPU's IMC might be the limitation here, although I have no idea if these timings in particular are used by it.

What would be your guess as the limiting factor here, and anything else I could try?


----------



## ph1ber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> Already done now i use 3333mhz 16-17-17-17-37 but with overvoltage.


What kind of timings and voltages could you get at 2933 and 3200MHz? Might be worth moving down a notch for timings and heat.


----------



## overheatisbad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ph1ber*
> 
> What kind of timings and voltages could you get at 2933 and 3200MHz? Might be worth moving down a notch for timings and heat.


At 2933 i can get standart timing 15-17-17-17-35
At 3200 get 16-17-17-17-36
And max temp around 5 celcius lower


----------



## ph1ber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> At 2933 i can get standart timing 15-17-17-17-35
> At 3200 get 16-17-17-17-36
> And max temp around 5 celcius lower


Each to their own I guess







Personally I just feel uneasy pushing the DRAM voltage too high for 24/7..well at least not when considering what I paid for my RAM







A lot of people are running between 1.4 and 1.45 but I'm trying to stay under 1.4 just in case. Just a few months ago people couldn't get 3200MHz no matter what from what I read and now everybody is getting there pretty much so I'm just gonna wait for more bios updates and who knows with Zen+ maybe hitting 3600MHz is easy without too much voltage. That's how I look at it. Keeping this RAM for a long time.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v10*

Download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rd3cDcL7BygJPVgcau-U2JHIQUH2y-nk

instruction:
https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow

changelog:
• added overclocking via BCLK for all type memory and presets (there are no restrictions, but over 104.8 MHz will be unavailable PCI Gen3)*
• in the upper right corner now the program shows the real frequency of RAM (with considering BCLK)
• added option PowerDown in *Advanced* tab

* overclocking through the BCLK allows you to raise the frequency of RAM within 100mhz without raising the voltage / change procODT

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I want to congratulate everyone on the coming *New Year*! Thanks to everyone who was near, supported. I hope that in the new year the difficulties with overclocking will become much less.I want to wish you patience and success in all your endeavors









with best wishes, Yuri Bublii aka 1usmus


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *goncalossilva*
> 
> @1usmus I have a challenge for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have this kit: F4-3200C15D-32GTZSK, 32GB DR b-die (also confirmed in Taiphoon).
> 
> I've spent countless days tweaking my system and am currently stable at 4GHz on my 1800X (offset +0.0375) and all of your fast timings for 3200 *except tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP*. For some reason, I can't lower these to 14 in _any_ circumstances I've tried. These include:
> 
> DRAM voltage from 1.35 all the way up to 1.5. From ~1.42 and up stability is worsened significantly. VTT DDR always adjust accordingly.
> Countless DRAM voltage, CLDO_VDPP, ProcODT, RTT and CAD combinations. Started with Auto, moved to your calculator's suggestions and then almost every other combination.
> Tweaking VDDP (1.0, 0.9, 0.855 and some values in between) and VPP.
> Running in 2T.
> Reverting the CPU OC.
> Loosening other timings to see if that would allow me to bump those 3.
> Trying with a single RAM dimm in all 4 slots (neither dimm / slot is stable).
> All other relevant settings are set according to the calculator. I am even stable with the same timings at 3333 (at 1.415V). Just can't touch those 3, even at 2933 (didn't try lower). I'm beginning to suspect my CPU's IMC might be the limitation here, although I have no idea if these timings in particular are used by it.
> 
> What would be your guess as the limiting factor here, and anything else I could try?


I correctly understood that 2933 and 3333 MHz operating frequencies? but 3200 nope?


----------



## hurricane28

Thnx Mus, but what does memory chip quality means? It says that mines are 92% and the potential has of 3600 MHz fast or 3733 MHz save. None of them actually worked. Does this mean that my RAM is capable but my CPU isn't?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Thnx Mus, but what does memory chip quality means? It says that mines are 92% and the potential has of 3600 MHz fast or 3733 MHz save. None of them actually worked. Does this mean that my RAM is capable but my CPU isn't?


in your case, memory can, the processor can not. I think with the new processor (zen+) 3733 will become a reality


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> in your case, memory can, the processor can not. I think with the new processor (zen+) 3733 will become a reality


Alright, thnx. Seems like i have very good quality RAM if its indeed 92% capable.

I can do 3600 MHz though, i only see no point as i drastically have to reduce my CPU OC. I tried 3733 MHz but the CPU doesn't like it, not one bit.. Motherboard has no idea what hits it because i am going though boot loops with post codes until it stops at post code xx.


----------



## ZEN1X

Got my CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 (Hynix) to run an those settings!



I have 3 questions tho: how does CLDO_VDDP voltage work and what's the default value? According to an AMD blog post reducing it helps with memory stability, but when I use 0.700V given by the calculator (I'm not able to type or set 0.425V [alt1] and 0.985V [alt2] fails also sometimes) sometimes I get memory training issues. With 1V I never get memory training.

How does ProcODT work and what's the default value? I've seen some videos with guy from AMD adivising not to go beyond 80ohm (40-80ohm range). I can't boot with any manual settings, just auto.

Is it ok if I use 1.4V on DRAM and 1.1 on SoC? Values given by the calculator don't seem to work.


----------



## goncalossilva

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I want to congratulate everyone on the coming *New Year*! Thanks to everyone who was near, supported. I hope that in the new year the difficulties with overclocking will become much less.I want to wish you patience and success in all your endeavors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with best wishes, Yuri Bublii aka 1usmus


Happy New Year!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I correctly understood that 2933 and 3333 MHz operating frequencies? but 3200 nope?


No, all 3 operating frequencies work well







But *tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP* can't be lower than 15 in any of them. That's the puzzle for me. It should easily handle 14, or even 13 with higher DRAM voltage (see the link I posted). Every other timing can be tweaked without much difficulty, just not these 3. I wonder if this is an IMC limitation?


----------



## overheatisbad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *goncalossilva*
> 
> Happy New Year!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all 3 operating frequencies work well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But *tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP* can't be lower than 15 in any of them. That's the puzzle for me. It should easily handle 14, or even 13 with higher DRAM voltage (see the link I posted). Every other timing can be tweaked without much difficulty, just not these 3. I wonder if this is an IMC limitation?


Look like non samsung have higher timing. I doubt can run 14 at higher freq


----------



## goncalossilva

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> Look like non samsung have higher timing. I doubt can run 14 at higher freq


It's Samsung B-die DR. At least according to:

This.
The serial number starting with 1704A5 (first 4 digits it's year / week, and after the letter it's 5 for Samsung and 4 for Hynix).
Thaiphoon Burner marks them as B-die as well.
Luckily, everything points to B-die.









I can also tighten the heck out of all other timings except those 3, which wouldn't be as easy on non-Samsung.


----------



## Anty

It is lower grade than 14-14-14 and dual rank.


----------



## Jackalito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I correctly understood that 2933 and 3333 MHz operating frequencies? but 3200 nope?


Thanks for the new update and Happy New Year to you too. Thanks for everything you do for the whole community!!! It's much appreciated!!!


----------



## LightningManGTS

@1usmus
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jackalito*
> 
> Thanks for the new update and Happy New Year to you too. Thanks for everything you do for the whole community!!! It's much appreciated!!!


what this guy said. I'm too sick and lazy to just directly copy paste him







everyone enjoy the festivities without me!


----------



## dspx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZEN1X*
> 
> Got my CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 (Hynix) to run an those settings!
> 
> 
> 
> I have 3 questions tho: how does CLDO_VDDP voltage work and what's the default value? According to an AMD blog post reducing it helps with memory stability, but when I use 0.700V given by the calculator (I'm not able to type or set 0.425V [alt1] and 0.985V [alt2] fails also sometimes) sometimes I get memory training issues. With 1V I never get memory training.
> 
> How does ProcODT work and what's the default value? I've seen some videos with guy from AMD adivising not to go beyond 80ohm (40-80ohm range). I can't boot with any manual settings, just auto.
> 
> Is it ok if I use 1.4V on DRAM and 1.1 on SoC? Values given by the calculator don't seem to work.


I have the same kit. Try these: 3200 MHz, 16-18-18-37-55 2T, 1.37V ProcODT 48, SoC 1.1V, I left everything else at auto. If it doesn't work, try increasing the voltage to 1.375

/edit
I had to revert to 16-18-18-38-56, still testing stability.


----------



## Jackalito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> @1usmus
> what this guy said. I'm too sick and lazy to just directly copy paste him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> everyone enjoy the festivities without me!


Hey mate! What's wrong? Too much booze last night?


----------



## LightningManGTS

Nah, a stomache and sore throat. It's all quite vicious


----------



## AlphaC

How accurate are the Hynix timings? :O


Spoiler: thaiphoon










Spoiler: hwinfo



[General Module Information]
Module Number: 3
Module Size: 8 GBytes
Memory Type: DDR4 SDRAM
Module Type: Unbuffered DIMM (UDIMM)
Memory Speed: 1600.0 MHz (DDR4-3200 / PC4-25600)
Module Manufacturer: EVGA
Module Part Number: 8GX-D4-3200-MR
Module Revision: 0.1
Module Serial Number: 0
Module Manufacturing Date: N/A
Module Manufacturing Location: 0
SDRAM Manufacturer: SK Hynix
DRAM Steppping: 0.0
Error Check/Correction: None

[Module Characteristics]
Row Address Bits: 16
Column Address Bits: 10
Module Density: 8192 Mb
Number Of Ranks: 1
Device Width: 8 bits
Bus Width: 64 bits
Die Count: 1
Module Nominal Voltage (VDD): 1.2 V
Minimum SDRAM Cycle Time (tCKAVGmin): 0.93800 ns
Maximum SDRAM Cycle Time (tCKAVGmax): 1.60000 ns
CAS# Latencies Supported: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Minimum CAS# Latency Time (tAAmin): 13.750 ns
Minimum RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCDmin): 13.750 ns
Minimum Row Precharge Time (tRPmin): 13.750 ns
Minimum Active to Precharge Time (tRASmin): 33.000 ns

Supported Module Timing at 1066.1 MHz: 15-15-15-36
Supported Module Timing at 1000.0 MHz: 14-14-14-33
Supported Module Timing at 933.3 MHz: 13-13-13-31
Supported Module Timing at 866.7 MHz: 12-12-12-29
Supported Module Timing at 800.0 MHz: 11-11-11-27
Supported Module Timing at 733.3 MHz: 11-11-11-25
Supported Module Timing at 666.7 MHz: 10-10-10-22

Minimum Active to Active/Refresh Time (tRCmin): 46.750 ns
Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC1min): 350.000 ns
Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC2min): 260.000 ns
Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC4min): 160.000 ns
Minimum Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAWmin): 21.000 ns
Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Different Bank Group (tRRD_Smin): 3.700 ns
Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Same Bank Group (tRRD_Lmin): 5.300 ns
Minimum CAS to CAS Delay Time - Same Bank Group (tCCD_Lmin): 5.625 ns

[Features]
Module Temperature Sensor (TSOD): Not Supported
Module Nominal Height: 31 - 32 mm
Module Maximum Thickness (Front): 1 - 2 mm
Module Maximum Thickness (Back): 1 - 2 mm
Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM: Standard

[Intel Extreme Memory Profile (XMP)]
XMP Revision: 2.0

[Certified Profile [Enabled]]
Module VDD Voltage Level: 1.35 V
Minimum SDRAM Cycle Time (tCKAVGmin): 0.625 ns
CAS# Latencies Supported: 16
Minimum CAS# Latency Time (tAAmin): 10.000 ns
Minimum RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCDmin): 11.250 ns
Minimum Row Precharge Time (tRPmin): 11.250 ns
Minimum Active to Precharge Time (tRASmin): 23.750 ns

Supported Module Timing at 1600.0 MHz: 16-18-18-38

Minimum Active to Active/Refresh Time (tRCmin): 35.000 ns
Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC1min): 350.000 ns
Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC2min): 260.000 ns
Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC4min): 160.000 ns
Minimum Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAWmin): 24.000 ns
Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Different Bank Group (tRRD_Smin): 3.500 ns
Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Same Bank Group (tRRD_Lmin): 5.000 ns


sticks are 16-18-18-38 , 3200MHz @ 1.35V

result from calculator (safe)

result from calculator (fast)


P.S. I think you should mention the ability to import from Thaiphoon burner html report files in the OP.









----

they're running 16-16-16-30 (tWR 10) CR1 on my x370 gaming 5 with ~1.4V dram and 1.1V SOC...

edit: I think if it was the Corsair sticks with Hynix the calculator might be more accurate , those have 16-18-18-36 out of the box I think. GSkill ones seem to have 16-18-18-38 as well as 16-16-16-36.

edit 2: see http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/24130#post_26242714


----------



## iahoo

o


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZEN1X*
> 
> Got my CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 (Hynix) to run an those settings!
> 
> 
> 
> I have 3 questions tho: how does CLDO_VDDP voltage work and what's the default value? According to an AMD blog post reducing it helps with memory stability, but when I use 0.700V given by the calculator (I'm not able to type or set 0.425V [alt1] and 0.985V [alt2] fails also sometimes) sometimes I get memory training issues. With 1V I never get memory training.
> 
> How does ProcODT work and what's the default value? I've seen some videos with guy from AMD adivising not to go beyond 80ohm (40-80ohm range). I can't boot with any manual settings, just auto.
> 
> Is it ok if I use 1.4V on DRAM and 1.1 on SoC? Values given by the calculator don't seem to work.


I see an error in the RTT, in a few hours I will publish a new version
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> How accurate are the Hynix timings? :O
> 
> 
> Spoiler: thaiphoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: hwinfo
> 
> 
> 
> [General Module Information]
> Module Number: 3
> Module Size: 8 GBytes
> Memory Type: DDR4 SDRAM
> Module Type: Unbuffered DIMM (UDIMM)
> Memory Speed: 1600.0 MHz (DDR4-3200 / PC4-25600)
> Module Manufacturer: EVGA
> Module Part Number: 8GX-D4-3200-MR
> Module Revision: 0.1
> Module Serial Number: 0
> Module Manufacturing Date: N/A
> Module Manufacturing Location: 0
> SDRAM Manufacturer: SK Hynix
> DRAM Steppping: 0.0
> Error Check/Correction: None
> 
> [Module Characteristics]
> Row Address Bits: 16
> Column Address Bits: 10
> Module Density: 8192 Mb
> Number Of Ranks: 1
> Device Width: 8 bits
> Bus Width: 64 bits
> Die Count: 1
> Module Nominal Voltage (VDD): 1.2 V
> Minimum SDRAM Cycle Time (tCKAVGmin): 0.93800 ns
> Maximum SDRAM Cycle Time (tCKAVGmax): 1.60000 ns
> CAS# Latencies Supported: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
> Minimum CAS# Latency Time (tAAmin): 13.750 ns
> Minimum RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCDmin): 13.750 ns
> Minimum Row Precharge Time (tRPmin): 13.750 ns
> Minimum Active to Precharge Time (tRASmin): 33.000 ns
> 
> Supported Module Timing at 1066.1 MHz: 15-15-15-36
> Supported Module Timing at 1000.0 MHz: 14-14-14-33
> Supported Module Timing at 933.3 MHz: 13-13-13-31
> Supported Module Timing at 866.7 MHz: 12-12-12-29
> Supported Module Timing at 800.0 MHz: 11-11-11-27
> Supported Module Timing at 733.3 MHz: 11-11-11-25
> Supported Module Timing at 666.7 MHz: 10-10-10-22
> 
> Minimum Active to Active/Refresh Time (tRCmin): 46.750 ns
> Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC1min): 350.000 ns
> Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC2min): 260.000 ns
> Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC4min): 160.000 ns
> Minimum Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAWmin): 21.000 ns
> Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Different Bank Group (tRRD_Smin): 3.700 ns
> Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Same Bank Group (tRRD_Lmin): 5.300 ns
> Minimum CAS to CAS Delay Time - Same Bank Group (tCCD_Lmin): 5.625 ns
> 
> [Features]
> Module Temperature Sensor (TSOD): Not Supported
> Module Nominal Height: 31 - 32 mm
> Module Maximum Thickness (Front): 1 - 2 mm
> Module Maximum Thickness (Back): 1 - 2 mm
> Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM: Standard
> 
> [Intel Extreme Memory Profile (XMP)]
> XMP Revision: 2.0
> 
> [Certified Profile [Enabled]]
> Module VDD Voltage Level: 1.35 V
> Minimum SDRAM Cycle Time (tCKAVGmin): 0.625 ns
> CAS# Latencies Supported: 16
> Minimum CAS# Latency Time (tAAmin): 10.000 ns
> Minimum RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCDmin): 11.250 ns
> Minimum Row Precharge Time (tRPmin): 11.250 ns
> Minimum Active to Precharge Time (tRASmin): 23.750 ns
> 
> Supported Module Timing at 1600.0 MHz: 16-18-18-38
> 
> Minimum Active to Active/Refresh Time (tRCmin): 35.000 ns
> Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC1min): 350.000 ns
> Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC2min): 260.000 ns
> Minimum Refresh Recovery Time Delay (tRFC4min): 160.000 ns
> Minimum Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAWmin): 24.000 ns
> Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Different Bank Group (tRRD_Smin): 3.500 ns
> Minimum Active to Active Delay Time - Same Bank Group (tRRD_Lmin): 5.000 ns
> 
> 
> sticks are 16-18-18-38 , 3200MHz @ 1.35V
> 
> result from calculator (safe)
> 
> result from calculator (fast)
> 
> 
> P.S. I think you should mention the ability to import from Thaiphoon burner html report files in the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> they're running 16-16-16-30 (tWR 10) CR1 on my x370 gaming 5 with ~1.4V dram and 1.1V SOC...
> 
> edit: I think if it was the Corsair sticks with Hynix the calculator might be more accurate , those have 16-18-18-36 out of the box I think. GSkill ones seem to have 16-18-18-38 as well as 16-16-16-36.
> 
> edit 2: see http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/24130#post_26242714


I do not advise you to look at these presets, they have serious errors

I need statistics to change recommendations,
please send all your settings


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I see an error in the RTT, in a few hours I will publish a new version
> I do not advise you to look at these presets, they have serious errors
> 
> I need statistics to change recommendations,
> please send all your settings


Is this for all types of RAM? I mean, i use your presets with more voltage and i am "stable" for now.

One hour of Realbench, i hour of Prime95 and it passes Memtest86 overnight.

With latest Beta BIOS i need a lot more voltage for the same clocks unfortunately.. I use offset voltage from now on because i feel that my system feels snappier and more stable compared to VID voltage change.

Wanna see my settings too?


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v11*

Download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1n-sILfAndZMJ1uVHbjzholbbJl_R8776

instruction:
https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow

changelog:
• added a separate calculator for memory on Micron chips (only safe preset)
• redesigned *Termination Block* (in particular for the memory of Hynix, serious errors were found)
• added preliminary support samsung s-die
• improved memory type detection


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Is this for all types of RAM? I mean, i use your presets with more voltage and i am "stable" for now.
> 
> One hour of Realbench, i hour of Prime95 and it passes Memtest86 overnight.
> 
> With latest Beta BIOS i need a lot more voltage for the same clocks unfortunately.. I use offset voltage from now on because i feel that my system feels snappier and more stable compared to VID voltage change.
> 
> Wanna see my settings too?


samsung barely touched the RTT problem








what offset do you use? what are the voltages?


----------



## darknezx

Am using an Asus X370-F Gaming and F4-3200C16D-16GTZB. It's supposed to be 16-18-18-38, Hynix, C16, single rank.

Got this in my calculator:









For some reason it gives me post issues, pc cannot boot up at all. Have also no idea how I should key in .1 in the settings.

Any ideas?


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Happy New Year Everyone, Hope all is well









1usmus i have 2933Mhz stable


Thaiphoon Burner read out

CorsairCMK32GX4M2B3200C16.zip 3k .zip file


But when i put in 3066Mhz the settings are the same








And voltages stay the same as well.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darknezx*
> 
> Am using an Asus X370-F Gaming and F4-3200C16D-16GTZB. It's supposed to be 16-18-18-38, Hynix, C16, single rank.
> 
> Got this in my calculator:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason it gives me post issues, pc cannot boot up at all. Have also no idea how I should key in .1 in the settings.
> 
> Any ideas?


1) you entered values without XMP
2) http://www.overclock.net/t/1640919/ryzen-dram-calculator-overclocking-dram/840_20#post_26527628

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> Happy New Year Everyone, Hope all is well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1usmus i have 2933Mhz stable
> 
> 
> Thaiphoon Burner read out
> 
> CorsairCMK32GX4M2B3200C16.zip 3k .zip file
> 
> 
> But when i put in 3066Mhz the settings are the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And voltages stay the same as well.


memory on the chips of the Hynix is very voracious, because nothing has changed. At 3200 it will change
3200 do not work?


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> samsung barely touched the RTT problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what offset do you use? what are the voltages?


Weird man.

0.15000 is my CPU offset.

Here are my total system settings:

3.950GHz3466MHZ14_setting.txt 20k .txt file


----------



## iahoo

Hi guys
I could calculate DRAM but I do not know where the inputs should apply on Bios settings.
Where is tCL?
Where is tRCDWR?
Where is tRP?
Where is tRRDL?
and so on.

My Pc:
Ryzen 1700x
RoG Crosshair Vl
GeilX !6 GB


----------



## overheatisbad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> Hi guys
> I could calculate DRAM but I do not know where the inputs should apply on Bios settings.
> Where is tCL?
> Where is tRCDWR?
> Where is tRP?
> Where is tRRDL?
> and so on.
> 
> My Pc:
> Ryzen 1700x
> RoG Crosshair Vl
> GeilX !6 GB


Go to bios-ai tweaker-ram timming


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@1usmus
I'm slowly getting 3066Mhz stable at the moment. 1.415v Dram & 1.112v SOC

I did try a couple of times to get 3200Mhz running but no luck.


----------



## iahoo

Great!
I could overclock my RAM to 3200. It ran without any issue after 1 hour.
Now the turn is for CPU OC to 4. any solution?


----------



## overheatisbad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> Great!
> I could overclock my RAM to 3200. It ran without any issue after 1 hour.
> Now the turn is for CPU OC to 4. any solution?


Test your oc ram with memtest...see if that have error or not


----------



## Jackalito

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> Nah, a stomache and sore throat. It's all quite vicious


I've got up with the flu today








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v11*
> 
> Download:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1n-sILfAndZMJ1uVHbjzholbbJl_R8776
> 
> instruction:
> https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> changelog:
> • added a separate calculator for memory on Micron chips (only safe preset)
> • redesigned *Termination Block* (in particular for the memory of Hynix, serious errors were found)
> • added preliminary support samsung s-die
> • improved memory type detection


Thanks for the new update, mate!


----------



## iahoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> Test your oc ram with memtest...see if that have error or not


I have done it using AIDA 64.


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v11*
> 
> Download:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1n-sILfAndZMJ1uVHbjzholbbJl_R8776
> 
> instruction:
> https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> changelog:
> • added a separate calculator for memory on Micron chips (only safe preset)
> • redesigned *Termination Block* (in particular for the memory of Hynix, serious errors were found)
> • added preliminary support samsung s-die
> • improved memory type detection


updates for hynix in perticular is always handy, unfortunately correcting the termination calculation for hynix breaks it for samsung-b, specifically any value lower then rqz/7 for rtt nom does not boot (or maybe you can do this on two single rank sticks, I have no clue)



so yeah... I mean I say no lower then 7 but it could very will be a combination of rqz6/off/ect that works and I would have no idea, there are simply way to many combinations and not enough hours in the day for me to test all them without knowing the math behind why certain combinations work and don't; hence why I'll continue punching numbers in to the metaphorical cog that the calc spits out like the monkey I am in hopes that the feedback is helpful


----------



## AlphaC

@ LightningManGTS

I would try to use the main timings and see how much it differs after memory training.

Also use Stilt's settings as a guideline , rather than a rule, of what to expect.

1usmus,

My Hynix sticks (likely MFR) were running 16-16-16-30 @ 1.38V-1.4V
procODT=60
tRC = 60
tRRDS= 6
tRRDL = 9
tFAW = 34
tFAWDLR= 0
tFAWsLR= 0
tWTRS= 4
tWTR = 12
tWR= 10
tRCPage= 0
tRDRDSCL = 6 (I should drop this further to 5 or 4)
tRDWRSCL = 6 (I should drop this further to 5 or 4)

tRFC = 480
tRFC2 = 300
tcwl = 16
tRTP = 12

etc...

Code:



Code:


XMP+ manual tRC      1st tweak       2nd tweak
        1.35V   1.35V   1.37
Proc ODT        60      60      60
tCL     16      16      16
tRCDWR  18      16      16
tRCDRD  18      16      16
tRP     18      16      16
tRAS    38      36      30
tRC     56      75      60
tRRDS   6       6       6
tRRDL   9       9       9
tFAW    34      34      34
tFAWDLR 0       0       0
tFAWSLR 0       0       0
tWTRS   4       4       4
tWTRL   12      12      12
tWR     24      24      10
tRCPage 0       0       0
tRDRDSCL        6       6       6
tRDWRSCL        6       6       6

tRFC    560     560     480
tRFC2   350     350     300
tcwl    16      16      16
tRTP    12      12      12
tRDWR   6       6       6
tWRRD   3       3       3
tWRWRSC 1       1       1
tWRWRSD 7       7       7
rWRWRDD 7       7       7
tRDRDSC 1       1       1
tRDRDSD 5       5       5
tRDRDDD 5       5       5
tCKE    8       8       8
tRPPB   0       0       0
tRCPB   0       0       0
tRRDDLR 0       0       0
tRDRDBAN        Ban 2   Ban 2   Ban 2

tRDRDSCDLR      0       0       0
tWRWRBAN        Ban 2   Ban 2   Ban 2
tWRWRSCDL       0       0       0
tWRRDSCDLR      0       0       0
tREF    12480   12480   12480
tREF(ns)        7800    7800    7800
tMOD    24      24      24
tMODPDA 24      24      24
tMRD    8       8       8
tMRDPDA 16      16      16
tSTAG   9       9       9
tPHYWRD 2       2       2
tPHYWRL 11      11      11
tPHYRDL 24      24      24
tRDDATA 11      11      11
tSTAGLR Disabled        Disabled        Disabled
tWRMPR  24      24      24

I ran the numbers from your calculator for my XMP profile and some things I noticed:

tRAS is higher than it has to be , can run 30 easily instead of 34 for fast preset rather than suggested by the calculator (safe preset ought to be 38)
tRC for my XMP profile is 56 and Stilt's presets have 56 or higher for Hynix MFR but your calculator gives 53 for fast preset
tFAW = 34 out of the box (& Stilt's presets) yet the calculator gives 36
tRFC = 416 seems unlikely for Hynix MFR , Stilt's AFR fast recommendation is 416
tRDWR from calculator is 7 but out of the box is 6 and all Stilt's presets have 6
*tCKE = 1 while Stilt's presets and my out of the box value is 8* , please check into this for fast preset since the safe preset gives 8


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> @ LightningManGTS
> 
> I would try to use the main timings and see how much it differs after memory training.
> 
> Also use Stilt's settings as a guideline , rather than a rule, of what to expect.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 1usmus,
> 
> My Hynix sticks (likely MFR) were running 16-16-16-30 @ 1.38V-1.4V
> procODT=60
> tRC = 60
> tRRDS= 6
> tRRDL = 9
> tFAW = 34
> tFAWDLR= 0
> tFAWsLR= 0
> tWTRS= 4
> tWTR = 12
> tWR= 10
> tRCPage= 0
> tRDRDSCL = 6 (I should drop this further to 5 or 4)
> tRDWRSCL = 6 (I should drop this further to 5 or 4)
> 
> tRFC = 480
> tRFC2 = 300
> tcwl = 16
> tRTP = 12
> 
> etc...
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> XMP+ manual tRC      1st tweak       2nd tweak
> 1.35V   1.35V   1.37
> Proc ODT        60      60      60
> tCL     16      16      16
> tRCDWR  18      16      16
> tRCDRD  18      16      16
> tRP     18      16      16
> tRAS    38      36      30
> tRC     56      75      60
> tRRDS   6       6       6
> tRRDL   9       9       9
> tFAW    34      34      34
> tFAWDLR 0       0       0
> tFAWSLR 0       0       0
> tWTRS   4       4       4
> tWTRL   12      12      12
> tWR     24      24      10
> tRCPage 0       0       0
> tRDRDSCL        6       6       6
> tRDWRSCL        6       6       6
> 
> tRFC    560     560     480
> tRFC2   350     350     300
> tcwl    16      16      16
> tRTP    12      12      12
> tRDWR   6       6       6
> tWRRD   3       3       3
> tWRWRSC 1       1       1
> tWRWRSD 7       7       7
> rWRWRDD 7       7       7
> tRDRDSC 1       1       1
> tRDRDSD 5       5       5
> tRDRDDD 5       5       5
> tCKE    8       8       8
> tRPPB   0       0       0
> tRCPB   0       0       0
> tRRDDLR 0       0       0
> tRDRDBAN        Ban 2   Ban 2   Ban 2
> 
> tRDRDSCDLR      0       0       0
> tWRWRBAN        Ban 2   Ban 2   Ban 2
> tWRWRSCDL       0       0       0
> tWRRDSCDLR      0       0       0
> tREF    12480   12480   12480
> tREF(ns)        7800    7800    7800
> tMOD    24      24      24
> tMODPDA 24      24      24
> tMRD    8       8       8
> tMRDPDA 16      16      16
> tSTAG   9       9       9
> tPHYWRD 2       2       2
> tPHYWRL 11      11      11
> tPHYRDL 24      24      24
> tRDDATA 11      11      11
> tSTAGLR Disabled        Disabled        Disabled
> tWRMPR  24      24      24
> 
> I ran the numbers from your calculator for my XMP profile and some things I noticed:
> 
> tRAS is higher than it has to be , can run 30 easily instead of 34 for fast preset rather than suggested by the calculator (safe preset ought to be 38)
> tRC for my XMP profile is 56 and Stilt's presets have 56 or higher for Hynix MFR but your calculator gives 53 for fast preset
> tFAW = 34 out of the box (& Stilt's presets) yet the calculator gives 36
> tRFC = 416 seems unlikely for Hynix MFR , Stilt's AFR fast recommendation is 416
> tRDWR from calculator is 7 but out of the box is 6 and all Stilt's presets have 6
> *tCKE = 1 while Stilt's presets and my out of the box value is 8* , please check into this for fast preset since the safe preset gives 8


As I have, and as I said, I'm running 4 sticks of sammy-b thats rated for standard 3200cas14CR1 so really termination at stock timings and training can almost be left to default/auto but incapable of running any of the stilts suggested termination settings as the one's I remember/can reference are all for 2 sticks of sammy-b and not 4 (ex. rqzdisable/off/#). The problem ends up being when doing timmings greater then 3333 causing weird bit flipping issues on the 4th dimm that don't exist if I was just just running two single rank sticks instead, ergo I have to use the calc's/1usmus recommended termination settings as its the main thing keeping my kit solid at 3333/3344. I'm simply reporting on the fact that rttnom rqz/5 does not work on the 4 sticks with the timings also provided (which really only ever require me to add 2 to tras for stability) to assist 1usmus in tweaking the calculation and bug fixing it and all that not unlike yourself (except you know exactly what your doing, as well as the math behind it, where I'm just a monkey banging away behind a computer







) on that note the only other needing to mentioned is that running geardown disabled using fast timmings simply does not work on my system, and while I have not tried running it disabled on base timmings and speed in forever, I don't ever remember being able to run stock 3200 without gear down enabled at cr1. I have mentioned this in the past but I can't blame anyone for not remembering as I myself only vaugly remember mentioning it to some extent.


----------



## Kayant

@1usmus

Thanks again for your tool just wanted to share some stats/feedback.

With the recent update I have been able to boot 3466 for the first time and was even able to start memtest for the first time but it's very unstable. Still it was awesome to see it boot didn't expect to ever do it so thank you for that
















In terms of ram I have a Gskill F4-3000C15D-16GVRB Hynix MFR kit that am running at 3200 atm. I was previously able to get 3333 but iirc it wasn't fully stable/lost the settings during a bios update doh!

With recent update I was again able to boot at 3333 but still can't get it stable. I am fine with where am at atm but I probably will try again at a later point.

Things I have noticed is as The Stilt mentioned in a post that Hynix MFR isn't able to do tRDRDSCL/tRDWRSCL at <=3 in my case that holds true even at lower settings 2933/3006 I tried so far.

I used The Stilt's suggested timings as a baseline when I started and tweaked some things because with earlier versions of the calculator I can't boot with the suggested settings now it's probably be fine with the latest verison(not tested).
I can run stable at 1.35v with my current settings but without geardown enabled. Atm it's 1.4v because Asrock B350 itx doesn't have manual voltage for ram I guess i probably need 1.36-7v to make it stable with GDM.

Stock Ram timings/info -



Current settings -


Calculator suggested -


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Well looks like this is it for me 2933Mhz


Termination & CAD BUS block & Memory interleaving = AUTO
CLDO_VDDP 700
100% HCI Memtest pro

3066Mhz & 3200Mhz still not stable

3066Mhz is 2% HCI stable
SOC 1.125v & 1.415v DRAM & CLDO_VDDP 700



3200Mhz will not even boot too bios, no matter what i put in. Still lots to try though.









Also 2 questions
1: Why does the screen go blank when running HCI ? voltage ?
It does return then disappear again.

2: Why does my Bios lock up after about 15 seconds ?


----------



## Kayant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> 2: Why does my Bios lock up after about 15 seconds ?


In my experience that is one hint your the ram isn't stable.

Edit -
This is if it's happening only when you're overclocking ram otherwise it could be something else like the bios itself not being stable.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> @1usmus
> I'm slowly getting 3066Mhz stable at the moment. 1.415v Dram & 1.112v SOC
> 
> I did try a couple of times to get 3200Mhz running but no luck.


in your case, the frequency of 3200 is in the "dead zone". Try the options CLDO_VDDP 985 mv + VDDP 975 mv
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> updates for hynix in perticular is always handy, unfortunately correcting the termination calculation for hynix breaks it for samsung-b, specifically any value lower then rqz/7 for rtt nom does not boot (or maybe you can do this on two single rank sticks, I have no clue)
> 
> 
> 
> so yeah... I mean I say no lower then 7 but it could very will be a combination of rqz6/off/ect that works and I would have no idea, there are simply way to many combinations and not enough hours in the day for me to test all them without knowing the math behind why certain combinations work and don't; hence why I'll continue punching numbers in to the metaphorical cog that the calc spits out like the monkey I am in hopes that the feedback is helpful


the situation is very controversial, but it was the version with RZQ / 5 that allowed to lower the voltage to reach 3466 on the memory of the Samsung c-die OEM. 1.35V for 3466MHz this is the record



there are also comments that did not notice any changes in the stability

if you have time please check all RTT_NOM options for stability








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> @ LightningManGTS
> 
> I would try to use the main timings and see how much it differs after memory training.
> 
> Also use Stilt's settings as a guideline , rather than a rule, of what to expect.
> 
> 1usmus,
> 
> My Hynix sticks (likely MFR) were running 16-16-16-30 @ 1.38V-1.4V
> procODT=60
> tRC = 60
> tRRDS= 6
> tRRDL = 9
> tFAW = 34
> tFAWDLR= 0
> tFAWsLR= 0
> tWTRS= 4
> tWTR = 12
> tWR= 10
> tRCPage= 0
> tRDRDSCL = 6 (I should drop this further to 5 or 4)
> tRDWRSCL = 6 (I should drop this further to 5 or 4)
> 
> tRFC = 480
> tRFC2 = 300
> tcwl = 16
> tRTP = 12
> 
> etc...
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> XMP+ manual tRC      1st tweak       2nd tweak
> 1.35V   1.35V   1.37
> Proc ODT        60      60      60
> tCL     16      16      16
> tRCDWR  18      16      16
> tRCDRD  18      16      16
> tRP     18      16      16
> tRAS    38      36      30
> tRC     56      75      60
> tRRDS   6       6       6
> tRRDL   9       9       9
> tFAW    34      34      34
> tFAWDLR 0       0       0
> tFAWSLR 0       0       0
> tWTRS   4       4       4
> tWTRL   12      12      12
> tWR     24      24      10
> tRCPage 0       0       0
> tRDRDSCL        6       6       6
> tRDWRSCL        6       6       6
> 
> tRFC    560     560     480
> tRFC2   350     350     300
> tcwl    16      16      16
> tRTP    12      12      12
> tRDWR   6       6       6
> tWRRD   3       3       3
> tWRWRSC 1       1       1
> tWRWRSD 7       7       7
> rWRWRDD 7       7       7
> tRDRDSC 1       1       1
> tRDRDSD 5       5       5
> tRDRDDD 5       5       5
> tCKE    8       8       8
> tRPPB   0       0       0
> tRCPB   0       0       0
> tRRDDLR 0       0       0
> tRDRDBAN        Ban 2   Ban 2   Ban 2
> 
> tRDRDSCDLR      0       0       0
> tWRWRBAN        Ban 2   Ban 2   Ban 2
> tWRWRSCDL       0       0       0
> tWRRDSCDLR      0       0       0
> tREF    12480   12480   12480
> tREF(ns)        7800    7800    7800
> tMOD    24      24      24
> tMODPDA 24      24      24
> tMRD    8       8       8
> tMRDPDA 16      16      16
> tSTAG   9       9       9
> tPHYWRD 2       2       2
> tPHYWRL 11      11      11
> tPHYRDL 24      24      24
> tRDDATA 11      11      11
> tSTAGLR Disabled        Disabled        Disabled
> tWRMPR  24      24      24
> 
> I ran the numbers from your calculator for my XMP profile and some things I noticed:
> 
> tRAS is higher than it has to be , can run 30 easily instead of 34 for fast preset rather than suggested by the calculator (safe preset ought to be 38)
> tRC for my XMP profile is 56 and Stilt's presets have 56 or higher for Hynix MFR but your calculator gives 53 for fast preset
> tFAW = 34 out of the box (& Stilt's presets) yet the calculator gives 36
> tRFC = 416 seems unlikely for Hynix MFR , Stilt's AFR fast recommendation is 416
> tRDWR from calculator is 7 but out of the box is 6 and all Stilt's presets have 6
> *tCKE = 1 while Stilt's presets and my out of the box value is 8* , please check into this for fast preset since the safe preset gives 8


not all have luck, as you can see, for many, the border is 2933

MFR has a better architecture than AFR, because of this it is such proposals tRFC








regarding the remaining timings - the program does not yet have the final version, some timings will be corrected


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> in your case, the frequency of 3200 is in the "dead zone". Try the options CLDO_VDDP 985 mv + VDDP 975 mv
> the situation is very controversial, but it was the version with RZQ / 5 that allowed to lower the voltage to reach 3466 on the memory of the Samsung c-die OEM. 1.35V for 3466MHz this is the record
> 
> 
> 
> there are also comments that did not notice any changes in the stability
> 
> if you have time please check all RTT_NOM options for stability


Just messing with rtt nom you say...







yeah give me a bit. Also like I mentioned before there's no stability to check as the system will just boot loop until training fails if I put in anything less then rqz7 and gear down must be enabled if I'm running CR1, albeit I have not tried running my kit as loose as I need without gear down so that it trains and boots but.... I'll try rqz/6 and failing that I might mess a bit around with rtt park and see if that does anything; might as well try setting rtt wr to 3 again with rtt nom rqz/6 to see if that does anything


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> Just messing with rtt nom you say...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah give me a bit. Also like I mentioned before there's no stability to check as the system will just boot loop until training fails if I put in anything less then rqz7 and gear down must be enabled if I'm running CR1, albeit I have not tried running my kit as loose as I need without gear down so that it trains and boots but.... I'll try rqz/6 and failing that I might mess a bit around with rtt park and see if that does anything; might as well try setting rtt wr to 3 again with rtt nom rqz/6 to see if that does anything


for example my testing:

CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20 (minimal ODT/ CRC Latency)
procODT 68.6
RTT_WR RZQ/3 (80)
RTT_PARK RZQ/1 (240)
BCLK 104.8 (Used to overclock the bus to make the system more unstable)
DRAM SPEED 3353


HCI 5.1 16x500mb

RTT_NOM DISABLE - no start
RTT_NOM RZQ / 1 (240 ohm) - there is no start
RTT_NOM RZQ / 2 (120 ohm) - there is a start from the second reboot, 140% + BSOD
RTT_NOM RZQ / 3 (80 ohm) - there is a start from the second reboot, 40% the first error with code 80 000
RTT_NOM RZQ / 4 (60 ohm) - there is a start, the first error is 117%, the second error is 300%, the error code is 80 000
RTT_NOM RZQ / 5 (48 ohms) - there is a start, the first error of 150%, the second did not wait, it was already 300+
RTT_NOM RZQ / 6 (40 ohm) - there is a start, 15%, an error with code 8. This indicates that the alarm is broken.
RTT_NOM RZQ / 7 (34 ohm) - there is a start, with the second reboot, the first error is 80%, the code is 2 000 000

I many times heard that this is a "free" parameter. This test completely refutes these words. Maybe you will find something interesting, too


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> for example my testing:
> 
> CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20
> procODT 68.6
> RTT_WR RZQ/3 (80)
> RTT_PARK RZQ/1 (240)
> BCLK 104.8
> DRAM SPEED 3353
> 
> 
> HCI 5.1 16x500mb
> 
> RTT_NOM DISABLE - no start
> RTT_NOM RZQ / 1 (240 ohm) - there is no start
> RTT_NOM RZQ / 2 (120 ohm) - there is a start from the second reboot, 140% + BSOD
> RTT_NOM RZQ / 3 (80 ohm) - there is a start from the second reboot, 40% the first error with code 80 000
> RTT_NOM RZQ / 4 (60 ohm) - there is a start, the first error is 117%, the second error is 300%, the error code is 80 000
> RTT_NOM RZQ / 5 (48 ohms) - there is a start, the first error of 150%, the second did not wait, it was already 300+
> RTT_NOM RZQ / 6 (40 ohm) - there is a start, 15%, an error with code 8. This indicates that the alarm is broken.
> RTT_NOM RZQ / 7 (34 ohm) - there is a start, with the second reboot, the first error is 80%, the code is 2 000 000
> 
> I many times heard that this is a "free" parameter. This test completely refutes these words. Maybe you will find something interesting, too


That I have, rqz6/off/5 boots apparently (go figure) and am at 6 passes of my normal test on my 3466cas 14 settings before I hit my first error, let me see what upping and lower rqz park does and I'll report back


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> That I have, rqz6/off/5 boots apparently (go figure) and am at 6 passes of my normal test on my 3466cas 14 settings before I hit my first error, let me see what upping and lower rqz park does and I'll report back


thanks, I'll wait









Still it is interesting, with what RTT_NOM system can be loaded successfully on 3600/3733 (my future plans







)


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> samsung barely touched the RTT problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what offset do you use? what are the voltages?


Did you find the time to look in to my settings yet?

I find it rather strange that i need a lot more volts on this BIOS to be stable compared to 1701 BIOS.. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Did you find the time to look in to my settings yet?
> 
> I find it rather strange that i need a lot more volts on this BIOS to be stable compared to 1701 BIOS.. Any thoughts on this?


I would reconfigure the power system with an emphasis on overclocking the processor + the current limitation on SOC/DRAM will allow for greater stability for system









CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]

->

CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
*CPU Current Capability [130%]*
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
*CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]*
*VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]*
*VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]*
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
*VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]*
*DRAM Current Capability [100%]*
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
*Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]*

by the way i come back again on 3101, he is pleasant to me more. At 1701 there are problems and a long start


----------



## LightningManGTS

Rqz 6/off/4

Rqz 6/off/6


12 passes before hitting an error is arguably the best I've ever had on this system running at these settings, at least short of setting the pll to 1.6 and hitting 14 passes at rqz 7/off/5 but then that's lyable to cause instability in itself do to running a blck OC on less voltage as well as a myrid of other things. Rounding things off with rtt park 7 to see if that does anything, shouldn't take much longer


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> Rqz 6/off/4
> 
> Rqz 6/off/6
> 
> 
> 12 passes before hitting an error is arguably the best I've ever had on this system running at these settings, at least short of setting the pll to 1.6 and hitting 14 passes at rqz 7/off/5 but then that's lyable to cause instability in itself do to running a blck OC on less voltage as well as a myrid of other things. Rounding things off with rtt park 7 to see if that does anything, shouldn't take much longer


you RTT_PARK tested or RTT_NOM?
from manufacturers, these items in the menu can be presented in a different order
decode please


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> you RTT_PARK tested or RTT_NOM?
> from manufacturers, these items in the menu can be presented in a different order
> decode please


oh sorry ^^; yeah it's rtt nom/wr/park so my last test was rtt nom rqz/6, rtt wr dyn. odt off, and rtt park rqz/6. Now testing rqz6/off/7 gets me an error at 5 passes

Overall it's quite odd since hitting the restart button after hitting these errors on those terminations caused my system to boot loop and fail training. I could probably drop the pll voltage again and run 6/off/6 to see what happens but the system would probably end up woefully unstable even if the the termination errors I'm getting end up being resolved


----------



## SpecChum

Genuine question.

Do you actually notice the difference after all this or is it just for science and the fun of it?

I'm asking as I "accidentally" ran my RAM at 2933 instead of 3200 after a BIOS update for about a week and didn't even notice lol

Again, genuine question, I really am interested (hence why I'm subbed to this thread







)


----------



## iahoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> Great!
> I could overclock my RAM to 3200. It ran without any issue after 1 hour.
> Now the turn is for CPU OC to 4. any solution?


An issue found:
Whenever I shut down the PC and then want to turn on it, system starts regularly but ram frequency gets back to default one unless i enter to bios settings and just select "save setting" when exiting from Bios while I have not done any new change on Bios. What is problem?


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpecChum*
> 
> Genuine question.
> 
> Do you actually notice the difference after all this or is it just for science and the fun of it?
> 
> I'm asking as I "accidentally" ran my RAM at 2933 instead of 3200 after a BIOS update for about a week and didn't even notice lol
> 
> Again, genuine question, I really am interested (hence why I'm subbed to this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


there's a very obvious difference in applications as anything less then 3200mhz bottlenecks your gpu do to the nature of ryzen's infinity fabric (example you end up getting a 7-10 fps jump on average in most games when going from 2933 to 3200mhz) anything above 3200 starts to become negligible. I'm vaguely assuming that with the better imc on the upcoming refresh we'll see more gains from 3200mhz+ assuming the imc is the bottleneck of the scalability of the infinity fabric. if your not familiar with what the infinity fabric is, its effectively a slightly slower pcie interconnect between the two dies on the processor pcb of ryzen processors with the capability of being faster then pcie 3.0 as you overclock memory due to the infinity fabric bandwidth speed being based off the processors imc.

I'm probably slightly wrong on something here, but thats the simplest way I have to explain it all without just copying and pasting the wiki on how these little marvels of modern engineering work


----------



## harrysun

@iahoo: The magic word is "memory hole":
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I decided to write a small article explaining why some systems work fine at 3200+ and others do not at all
> 
> *Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"*
> 
> CLDO_VDDP is a voltage regulator for the module (physical interface) of encoding and decoding of the transmitted and received data stream. The purpose of coding is to simplify the process of restoring the data stream of the receiver. It determines the signals, signal ratios and time parameters necessary for transferring control information, reading and writing data to DRAM devices. In plain language, CLDO_VDDP is the voltage that regulates the memory access at a certain frequency. "Hole" in turn - the frequency gap on which the memory controller can operate with our RAM.
> 
> Consider this simple picture:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows 3 identical systems (motherboard + RAM + processor). All 3 systems were overclocked and received the following results:
> 
> 1) The system was perfectly dispersed to a frequency of 3333 MHz
> 2) The system was accelerated to 2933
> 3) The system did not start at all
> 
> If all systems are the same, why such results? Let's understand. The bottom line is that each memory controller (IMC) has its own technical characteristics ("voltage" and time) and at the same voltage / frequency it will behave differently, namely it will have different access to memory. Red marked our MEMCLK holes, these are the very hole-mediators through which our memory controller communicates with RAM, and if there is no hole in the frequency range chosen by us - the system does not start or start, but the memory runs with errors. At you I think there was a question as these holes to move and expand - all is very simple, voltage CLDO_VDDP allows to spend the given manipulations. The only difficulty is that these holes can not be mathematically calculated. A vivid example of CLDO_VDDP 866 which is magical for many. The hole of this voltage is in the region of 3300-3500 MHz, but again not for all systems. As shown by our internal tests, not all of it works, I repeat all the IMC are different and require a different voltage CLDO_VDDP to achieve the same frequency.
> 
> In view of the fact that the shape of the voltage CLDO_VDDP is wave, the minimum voltage change can drastically change the stability of the system. The voltage step is 1 mv. Borders from 700 to 975.
> 
> I also want to publish a list of CLDO_VDDP, which can help stabilize your memory
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CLDO_VDDP list (volts)
> 
> 
> 
> 0.562
> 0.568
> 0.573
> 0.579
> 0.585
> 0.590
> 0.596
> 0.601
> 0.607
> 0.613
> 0.618
> 0.624
> 0.630
> 0.635
> 0.641
> 0.646
> 0.652
> 0.658
> 0.663
> 0.669
> 0.675
> 0.680
> 0.686
> 0.691
> 0.697
> 0.703
> 0.708
> 0.714
> 0.720
> 0.725
> 0.731
> 0.736
> 0.742
> 0.748
> 0.753
> 0.759
> 0.765
> 0.770
> 0.776
> 0.781
> 0.787
> 0.793
> 0.798
> 0.804
> 0.810
> 0.815
> 0.821
> 0.826
> 0.832
> 0.838
> 0.843
> 0.849
> 0.855
> 0.860
> 0.866
> 0.871
> 0.877
> 0.883
> 0.888
> 0.894
> 0.900
> 0.905
> 0.911
> 0.916
> 0.922
> 0.928
> 0.933
> 0.939
> 0.945
> 0.950
> 0.956
> 0.961
> 0.961
> 0.967
> 0.973
> 
> 
> 
> *upd 1 : small addition-explanation*
> 
> The curve represente your dram voltage signal, changing cldo_vddp move back and forth this signal compared to your available frequency setting.
> The purpose to changing it is to make the curve crossed your setting line on the appropriate frequency setting.
> Whereas the zone where there is no curve present is a memory hole .
> Depending of your IMC or RAM the curve can vary in lenght or thickness.
> 
> 
> 
> only the form is more oblate, in dozens of times


----------



## SpecChum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> there's a very obvious difference in applications as anything less then 3200mhz bottlenecks your gpu do the nature of ryzen's infinity fabric (example you end up getting a 7-10 fps jump on average in most games when going from 2933 to 3200mhz) anything above 3200 starts to become negligible. I'm vaguely assuming that with the better imc on the upcoming refresh we'll see more gains from 3200mhz+ assuming the imc is the bottleneck of the scalability of the infinity fabric. if your not familiar with what the infinity fabric is, its effectively a slightly slower pcie interconnect between the two dies on the proccesor pcb of ryzen processors with the capability of being faster then pcie 3.0 as you overclock memory due to the infinity fabric bandwidth speed is based off the processors imc.
> 
> I'm probably slightly wrong on something here, but thats the simplest way I have to explain it all without just copying and pasting the wiki on how these little marvels of modern engineering work


It's fine, I appreciate the answer









I know what the infinity fabric is, yeah, I've been Ryzen since day 1 but I've always just ran the DDR at spec.

I meant more from going to 14-13-13-28 instead of 14-14-14-34 for example - would you notice this? People here seem to spend hours doing this and I just wanted to know if it's noticeable or more to say "YEAH! DID IT!"


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpecChum*
> 
> It's fine, I appreciate the answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the infinity fabric is, yeah, I've been Ryzen since day 1 but I've always just ran the DDR at spec.
> 
> I meant more from going to 14-13-13-28 instead of 14-14-14-34 for example - would you notice this? People here seem to spend hours doing this and I just wanted to know if it's noticeable or more to say "YEAH! DID IT!"


Oh that? Yeah no, other then maybe improving the latency of pcie a tad bit because of the IF, memory timmings only really affect the normal stuff like rendering times and cryptomining, the affects in games end up as negligible as always. Except you know, high clocks end up being Paramount


----------



## harrysun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpecChum*
> 
> It's fine, I appreciate the answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the infinity fabric is, yeah, I've been Ryzen since day 1 but I've always just ran the DDR at spec.
> 
> I meant more from going to 14-13-13-28 instead of 14-14-14-34 for example - would you notice this? People here seem to spend hours doing this and I just wanted to know if it's noticeable or more to say "YEAH! DID IT!"


From 14-13-13-28 instead of 14-14-14-34 at the same MT/s it is not noticable. Only for the leaderboard (and ego).

Few sources if memory speeds matter?

YT: Does Ryzen Really Need Fast Memory? Guide for Gamers
YT: Ryzen 7 EVEN FASTER - Low Latency RAM testing
Hitman Memory Benchmarking (Timings used for 3200LL & 3466LL)
AMD: Memory OC Showdown: Frequency vs. Memory Timings
AMD Ryzen 7 AGESA 1006 performance and DDR4 memory check - review - An introduction at a double data-rate
AMD Ryzen Memory Analysis: 20 Apps & 17 Games, up to 4K Review


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I would reconfigure the power system with an emphasis on overclocking the processor + the current limitation on SOC/DRAM will allow for greater stability for system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> 
> ->
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> *CPU Current Capability [130%]*
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
> *CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]*
> *VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]*
> *VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]*
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> *VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]*
> *DRAM Current Capability [100%]*
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> *Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]*
> 
> by the way i come back again on 3101, he is pleasant to me more. At 1701 there are problems and a long start


I am already stable, the problem is that i need a lot more Vcore.. I need to set 1.400 vcore in BIOS with LLC 3 instead of 1.3875...

I tried other settings you recommended but they also didn't work.. Its the BIOS man, dying to see some improvements in next release.


----------



## iahoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> An issue found:
> Whenever I shut down the PC and then want to turn on it, system starts regularly but ram frequency gets back to default one unless i enter to bios settings and just select "save setting" when exiting from Bios while I have not done any new change on Bios. What is problem?


any idea?


----------



## harrysun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> any idea?


@iahoo, like quoted on the last page, you have to modify CLDO_VDDP. Nobody can tell you what yours number is. You have to experiment yourself, starting with the sugestions from @1usmus for example.


----------



## iahoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *harrysun*
> 
> @iahoo, like quoted on the last page, you have to modify CLDO_VDDP. Nobody can tell you what yours number is. You have to experiment yourself, starting with the sugestions from @1usmus for example.


acctually i could not find CLDO_VDDP in RoG Bios settings


----------



## harrysun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> acctually i could not find CLDO_VDDP in RoG Bios settings


Which motherboard and BIOS version are you using? With C6H BIOS 1701 you can find it in "Advanced \ AMD CBS \ NBIO Common Options". But they changed the location already many times and newer BIOS have it somewhere else.


----------



## iahoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *harrysun*
> 
> Which motherboard and BIOS version are you using? With C6H BIOS 1701 you can find it in "Advanced \ AMD CBS \ NBIO Common Options". But they changed the location already many times and newer BIOS have it somewhere else.


ROG Crosshair Vl 1501


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> ROG Crosshair Vl 1501


then its exactly where harrysun said it is


----------



## DarkLordThe1st

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> ROG Crosshair Vl 1501
> 
> 
> 
> then its exactly where harrysun said it is
Click to expand...

jep
And to make it stick.... is tricky








My trick for this is as followed
Enter what ever you want to test (in that section)
Now go Exit and Save the bios if your ready to do so
*NOTE : After like 1 or 2 seconds orso... press the Reset button so the Q-code timer starts to count "again"*
You can check if it sticked by entering the bios again right away

Good luck


----------



## Neoony

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iahoo*
> 
> acctually i could not find CLDO_VDDP in RoG Bios settings


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *harrysun*
> 
> Which motherboard and BIOS version are you using? With C6H BIOS 1701 you can find it in "Advanced \ AMD CBS \ NBIO Common Options". But they changed the location already many times and newer BIOS have it somewhere else.


Just for the info ( for the future







)...In *BIOS 3101*
CLDO_VDDP is located in Extreme Tweaker - Tweakers Paradise (complete bottom there)



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Ryzen DRAM Calculator


By the way, a huge thanks for the Calculator. Really awesome helping hand / guidance.

Even if the settings arent completely universal for every set up, its awesome at giving hints on what to try messing with next.

Great job!


----------



## Keith Myers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpecChum*
> 
> It's fine, I appreciate the answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the infinity fabric is, yeah, I've been Ryzen since day 1 but I've always just ran the DDR at spec.
> 
> I meant more from going to 14-13-13-28 instead of 14-14-14-34 for example - would you notice this? People here seem to spend hours doing this and I just wanted to know if it's noticeable or more to say "YEAH! DID IT!"


I don't game so have no idea whether faster memory clock or faster timings has a beneficial effect on framerates. Most of the reviews from gaming sites say it does.

For me, my two Ryzen BOINC crunchers most definitely see an improvement with both faster clocks and faster timings. Depending on project, depending on task type, I see from 5- 15% improvement in task completion times for BOTH cpu and gpu tasks.


----------



## darknezx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 1) you entered values without XMP
> 2) http://www.overclock.net/t/1640919/ryzen-dram-calculator-overclocking-dram/840_20#post_26527628
> memory on the chips of the Hynix is very voracious, because nothing has changed. At 3200 it will change
> 3200 do not work?


This is the raw Thaiphoon stats:



I went back to redo it without XMP, but I think there is probably some problems with importing the correct figures (for some reason it imports the XMP values rather than the actual values):



In any case, I keyed in manually and got these figures:



PC wouldn't boot at all, it'd just go into a boot loop. Not sure how I can get these settings to work


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Shouldn't you be using the XMP readings at the bottom of Typhoon.
You seem to be using the non XMP settings half way down.
Click 'Show delays in nanoseconds' very bottom on the right


@1usmus
I tried your suggestions, nope no work.
Will try again this weekend using other settings around that area.
So many things to try, i really need to keep better records of what i have tried.


----------



## darknezx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> Shouldn't you be using the XMP readings at the bottom of Typhoon.
> You seem to be using the non XMP settings half way down.
> Click 'Show delays in nanoseconds' very bottom on the right
> 
> 
> @1usmus
> I tried your suggestions, nope no work.
> Will try again this weekend using other settings around that area.
> So many things to try, i really need to keep better records of what i have tried.


I tried it too and it couldn't start up as well. Trident Z was for intel boards, so I was thinking XMP settings wouldn't really work well?

Edit: For some reason I went to do it again, it boots now if I select Hynix XMP, so not sure whether I should've selected that option from the start? Not sure how stable it is, gotta test it using HCI.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darknezx*
> 
> This is the raw Thaiphoon stats:
> 
> 
> 
> I went back to redo it without XMP, but I think there is probably some problems with importing the correct figures (for some reason it imports the XMP values rather than the actual values):
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, I keyed in manually and got these figures:
> 
> 
> 
> PC wouldn't boot at all, it'd just go into a boot loop. Not sure how I can get these settings to work


you have a Hynix TFC memory, you must use the Hynix calculator and enter the data with XMP
this memory can work on 3480 mhz

ProcODT 53.3
RTT Nom RZQ/5
RTT Wr Dinamic ODT off
RTT Park RZQ/6
VDDP 900
CLDO_VDDP 425
VPP_Mem 2.52
SoC 1.10
DRAM 1.4
CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20
BCLK 100,4


----------



## darknezx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> you have a Hynix TFC memory, you must use the Hynix calculator and enter the data with XMP
> this memory can work on 3480 mhz
> 
> ProcODT 53.3
> RTT Nom RZQ/5
> RTT Wr Dinamic ODT off
> RTT Park RZQ/6
> VDDP 900
> CLDO_VDDP 425
> VPP_Mem 2.52
> SoC 1.10
> DRAM 1.4
> CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20
> BCLK 100,4


Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it! By Hynix calculator, do you mean to select from the drop down box Hynix XMP? So far after selecting that the safe settings work pretty well for me. I'm trying to overclock my ryzen 7, after that is stable i will go back to try to OC the ram. but so far I think 3200 should be sufficient for me


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darknezx*
> 
> Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it! By Hynix calculator, do you mean to select from the drop down box Hynix XMP? So far after selecting that the safe settings work pretty well for me. I'm trying to overclock my ryzen 7, after that is stable i will go back to try to OC the ram. but so far I think 3200 should be sufficient for me


Yes


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Just had a quick go at it again.

It now tries to stick @ 3200Mhz CLDO_VDDP 985 & VDDP 975 have helped, so i now have a chance.









Fun times ahead this weekend.


----------



## Spectre73

There is one thing I do not understand.

Regarding BankGroupSwap values.

The stilt recommends BankGroupSwap ENABLE for DR Ram, the calc recommends DISABLE and vice versa for BankGroupSwapAlt.

So what is the deal here?


----------



## darknezx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darknezx*
> 
> Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it! By Hynix calculator, do you mean to select from the drop down box Hynix XMP? So far after selecting that the safe settings work pretty well for me. I'm trying to overclock my ryzen 7, after that is stable i will go back to try to OC the ram. but so far I think 3200 should be sufficient for me


For some reason it gave me an error on memtest HCI using the recommended voltage and soc, but that was resolved by going up and using the alt recommendation. This calculator is a work of a genius, thanks so much!


----------



## Korennya

I'm unsure which value to put into your calculator for tRFC. I was going under the assumption that you want the value from tRFC1 in tiaphoon burner. However, looking at your instructions in the first post with images is confusing. The last image with the red box highlighting the values needed to be entered into the calculator has tRFC1 as the highlighted value. BUt if you look at the data that is entered into the corresponding field in your calculator you actually have tRFC2 data entered.

So do we use tRFC1 data or tRFC2 data?


----------



## stewwy

First column in calculator is for your ram values from taiphoon

all the other columns are the calculated values


----------



## LightningManGTS

He's referring to the image guide and how 1usmus goofed and put the wrong value in the field for the example. Do as he says not as he does in this case.


----------



## Korennya

That's kinda what I figured. Thought it was an err. Just wanted to confirm before I tried it.


----------



## LightningManGTS

There's also an import option to take the dump from tiaphoon so...


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre73*
> 
> There is one thing I do not understand.
> 
> Regarding BankGroupSwap values.
> 
> The stilt recommends BankGroupSwap ENABLE for DR Ram, the calc recommends DISABLE and vice versa for BankGroupSwapAlt.
> 
> So what is the deal here?


AGESA 1.0.0.7+ made changes, now it should be just like this








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Korennya*
> 
> I'm unsure which value to put into your calculator for tRFC. I was going under the assumption that you want the value from tRFC1 in tiaphoon burner. However, looking at your instructions in the first post with images is confusing. The last image with the red box highlighting the values needed to be entered into the calculator has tRFC1 as the highlighted value. BUt if you look at the data that is entered into the corresponding field in your calculator you actually have tRFC2 data entered.
> 
> So do we use tRFC1 data or tRFC2 data?


350 value for 8gb chips, 260 for 4 gb


----------



## Korennya

Is the current calculator still valid for older bios. I'm still running 1701


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Great Work Bratan'
Slawa


----------



## porschedrifter

Hey guys, could someone explain to me what TCK is? I've been trying to look it up but found nothing on what it does or how a lower value would help speeds.

Default mine is 7 in bios
and fast in the calc suggests 1

Thaiphoon says Minimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK): 0.667 ns

So does that mean that I could probably run 1 without issue?


----------



## stewwy

From your sig it looks like you have a mismatched pair of ram sticks so your tCK will be whichever is the worst (slowest stick)

Don't confuse the minimum cycle time (0.667ns) with the cycle number (number of cycles to do something)

If you want to OC your ram I would get the timings for both sticks with taiphoon take the worst timing of each chip for the calc and work from there

Hopefully your ram chips will be from the same manufacturer and the same die


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ne01 OnnA*
> 
> Great Work Bratan'
> Slawa


















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *porschedrifter*
> 
> Hey guys, could someone explain to me what TCK is? I've been trying to look it up but found nothing on what it does or how a lower value would help speeds.
> 
> Default mine is 7 in bios
> and fast in the calc suggests 1
> 
> Thaiphoon says Minimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK): 0.667 ns
> 
> So does that mean that I could probably run 1 without issue?


No error, 1 will work better than other variants


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

8 tCK for me at 2933 105FSB = 3080Mhz 16-15-15-15 36 52 36 1T 400/285/175








No other will be good. BF1 will tell me


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ne01 OnnA*
> 
> 8 tCK for me at 2933 105FSB = 3080Mhz 16-15-15-15 36 52 36 1T 400/285/175
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No other will be good. BF1 will tell me


BCLK above 104.8 will turn off PCI GEN 3...


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Not on my RIG, on me it will turn off PC above 105 so only up to 105 FSB on my setup.
105.1 and insta crash on 3D Mark13









(F4-3200C16D-16GVK)

Im on 3200 G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4,
16GB (8GBx2), 3200MHz,
CL16-16-16, 1.35V

Rtune is 64 on all
CAD bus 30-30-40-40 VDPP = 990
VPP Volt = 2.5500
VTT DDR = 0.72600
CLDO_VDDP = 980

Hope this helps on future revisions











This is far as i can go on 1403 BIOS (im not changing to new because i'm gaming xTreme tooo much







)


----------



## -antero-

Hi guys,

Did my first Ryzen build last year and ever since been trying to set my ddr to run at 3200mhz. Still no success, so maybe someone can help me with that









Found this thread yesterday and did little bit of testing with the calculator but still could not get my system to boot up with the recommended settings. I am using AsRock AB350M Pro4 with Corsair Vengeance LPX White 16GB DDR4 3200MHz CL16 kit. Only stable speed is 2800 with xmp profile, anything above that won't post (cycles 3 times and then boots with default speeds). My cpu at the moment is oc'd to 3.8ghz @ 1.237v and it is stable.

Should I disable xmp and try to oc memory through other settings in bios. What I mean is that in bios I can oc memory from the oc tweaker (xmp profile settings) and also I can do it from the Advanced menu. Current bios version is 3.10 but will update it as soon as I get home.
Tried with these settings:


----------



## Steelraven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Did my first Ryzen build last year and ever since been trying to set my ddr to run at 3200mhz. Still no success, so maybe someone can help me with that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Found this thread yesterday and did little bit of testing with the calculator but still could not get my system to boot up with the recommended settings. I am using AsRock AB350M Pro4 with Corsair Vengeance LPX White 16GB DDR4 3200MHz CL16 kit. Only stable speed is 2800 with xmp profile, anything above that won't post (cycles 3 times and then boots with default speeds). My cpu at the moment is oc'd to 3.8ghz @ 1.237v and it is stable.
> 
> Should I disable xmp and try to oc memory through other settings in bios. What I mean is that in bios I can oc memory from the oc tweaker (xmp profile settings) and also I can do it from the Advanced menu. Current bios version is 3.10 but will update it as soon as I get home.
> Tried with these settings:


Try it without CPU OC and post result.


----------



## datonyb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Did my first Ryzen build last year and ever since been trying to set my ddr to run at 3200mhz. Still no success, so maybe someone can help me with that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Found this thread yesterday and did little bit of testing with the calculator but still could not get my system to boot up with the recommended settings. I am using AsRock AB350M Pro4 with Corsair Vengeance LPX White 16GB DDR4 3200MHz CL16 kit. Only stable speed is 2800 with xmp profile, anything above that won't post (cycles 3 times and then boots with default speeds). My cpu at the moment is oc'd to 3.8ghz @ 1.237v and it is stable.
> 
> Should I disable xmp and try to oc memory through other settings in bios. What I mean is that in bios I can oc memory from the oc tweaker (xmp profile settings) and also I can do it from the Advanced menu. Current bios version is 3.10 but will update it as soon as I get home.
> Tried with these settings:


on your board the bios is similar to my taichi so
use the dram settings section from oc tweaker (the dram settings in advanced have a lot that need setting in hex code and thats a pain in the butt)
also note not all settings in the 1usmus tool can be altered or even found in the ab350m bios as its not very high up the overclockers dream list of boards, it has a more basic range of bios options to reflect its price and build


----------



## -antero-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steelraven*
> 
> Try it without CPU OC and post result.


Will try, thanks!


----------



## -antero-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *datonyb*
> 
> on your board the bios is similar to my taichi so
> use the dram settings section from oc tweaker (the dram settings in advanced have a lot that need setting in hex code and thats a pain in the butt)
> also note not all settings in the 1usmus tool can be altered or even found in the ab350m bios as its not very high up the overclockers dream list of boards, it has a more basic range of bios options to reflect its price and build


Thanks, I will give it a try tonight.
I agree, it is not the best board for overclocking but it was the only mAtx available when I was building my pc


----------



## 1usmus

*Micron 3466*
the impossible is possible


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ne01 OnnA*
> 
> Not on my RIG, on me it will turn off PC above 105 so only up to 105 FSB on my setup.
> 105.1 and insta crash on 3D Mark13
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (F4-3200C16D-16GVK)
> 
> Im on 3200 G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4,
> 16GB (8GBx2), 3200MHz,
> CL16-16-16, 1.35V
> 
> Rtune is 64 on all
> CAD bus 30-30-40-40 VDPP = 990
> VPP Volt = 2.5500
> VTT DDR = 0.72600
> CLDO_VDDP = 980
> 
> Hope this helps on future revisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is far as i can go on 1403 BIOS (im not changing to new because i'm gaming xTreme tooo much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


I think everything will be better with the new bios








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Did my first Ryzen build last year and ever since been trying to set my ddr to run at 3200mhz. Still no success, so maybe someone can help me with that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Found this thread yesterday and did little bit of testing with the calculator but still could not get my system to boot up with the recommended settings. I am using AsRock AB350M Pro4 with Corsair Vengeance LPX White 16GB DDR4 3200MHz CL16 kit. Only stable speed is 2800 with xmp profile, anything above that won't post (cycles 3 times and then boots with default speeds). My cpu at the moment is oc'd to 3.8ghz @ 1.237v and it is stable.
> 
> Should I disable xmp and try to oc memory through other settings in bios. What I mean is that in bios I can oc memory from the oc tweaker (xmp profile settings) and also I can do it from the Advanced menu. Current bios version is 3.10 but will update it as soon as I get home.
> Tried with these settings:


I advise you to install a 4.40 version of the BIOS, very good test results and try to raise the frequency for RAM


----------



## -antero-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> I advise you to install a 4.40 version of the BIOS, very good test results and try to raise the frequency for RAM


Updating BIOS today, but what to you mean by raising the frequency? Above 3200?
Try to raise it with safe settings or with fast?

Thanks!


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Will try, thanks!


tcke = 7 or 8
Tras = 36
tCWL = 12 or 13/14
tRTP = 11/12
tRDWR = 10/11

Begin with that
Also SOC V 1.150v
RAM at 1.45v


----------



## bigfootnz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Did my first Ryzen build last year and ever since been trying to set my ddr to run at 3200mhz. Still no success, so maybe someone can help me with that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Found this thread yesterday and did little bit of testing with the calculator but still could not get my system to boot up with the recommended settings. I am using AsRock AB350M Pro4 with Corsair Vengeance LPX White 16GB DDR4 3200MHz CL16 kit. Only stable speed is 2800 with xmp profile, anything above that won't post (cycles 3 times and then boots with default speeds). My cpu at the moment is oc'd to 3.8ghz @ 1.237v and it is stable.
> 
> Should I disable xmp and try to oc memory through other settings in bios. What I mean is that in bios I can oc memory from the oc tweaker (xmp profile settings) and also I can do it from the Advanced menu. Current bios version is 3.10 but will update it as soon as I get home.
> Tried with these settings:


Here are setting for my same kit, black color, running at 3200MHz @ 1.375V, Vsoc @ 1.1V and my CPU is at 3.9Ghz @ 1.315V, ProcODT 60. These are stable settings.



If you cannot boot with these setting you can try to increase:
tRCDWR 18
tRCDRD 18
tRP 18
tRFC 560
add more voltage to RAM


----------



## ZeNch

I don't remember what bios but I had 3200 with 1.375v now I need 1.39 to 3066.

I hope the next bios can help me (x370 prime pro


----------



## -antero-

Jep, still no luck. Managed to get 2933 bootable with the new 4.3 bios using safe settings but anything above that fails. I think that my board just sucks big time. Tomorrow after work give it another try with fast but I’m not feeling lucky. Also my board max memory voltage is 1.4 and it steps down by 0.5 (1.350 etc) and some settings are missing. Do you guys have xmp enabled when doing oc and do you set mem voltage from there or somewhere else?


----------



## bigfootnz

I'm doing everything manually, voltage and most of timings (I leave some on auto as board is setting them correctly).


----------



## -antero-

Strange is that when I tryed to change mem speed to 1600mhz from the advanced -> amd cbs -> dram timing configuration menu (xmp disabled) then it posted perfectly with all my settings but without the correct mem speed. Speed was still set to 2133mhz. Then I tryed to set the speed from xmp profile, changed that to 3200mhz and nothing, boot loop. After that reset, restart and inserted the same settings but this time changed mem speed in xmp profile to 2933mhz and all good.
Maybe I am doing something wrong (first time doing this kind of mem overclock) or my board is just really picky








I know that there are users who can get the same combo working just using xmp profile and thats that, unfortunately I am not one of them


----------



## b398294l

Waiting new version for c6h bios


----------



## Anty

There is new beta 3501 for C6H....


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anty*
> 
> There is new beta 3501 for C6H....


oh yeah I guess with the latest bios for it giving us more frequency speeds it ends not being calculable with the latest calc cause its drop down menu's now....


----------



## -antero-

Tried 2933mhz with fast settings and got it to post with any problems. I will add RTC readings for you guys, maybe someone can give any suggestion for safe boot with 3200mhz to try out.


----------



## -antero-

Noticed one strange thing with new asrock bios today. Task manager shows that cpu is at 4,++mhz but actually it is set at 3,8++ mhz


----------



## LightningManGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Noticed one strange thing with new asrock bios today. Task manager shows that cpu is at 4,++mhz but actually it is set at 3,8++ mhz


sigh
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LightningManGTS*
> 
> So People keep complaining about windows not reporting the right cpu speeds and other applications that rely on windows to report it. Simply put, its never worked right and if it worked for you at some point then congrats because thats certainly not window's default state as far as ryzen is concerned
> 
> 
> 
> this is a pstate overclock of 4.1ghz
> and the same could be said for the voltage readings, the cold boot fix that was shown off in 9920 ages ago broke mine and others through all flashes since. I'm assuming, since 3008 includes the CB fix and this is the first time I hear people complaining about them, that it still breaks voltage readings across the board
> 
> from now on if I see people complaining about either of these two things I'll just quote back to this if people don't mind, as I'm sure others including myself are getting tired of repeating this


also to add to this statment, chances are good if you have stock speeds with xfr it probably reports right to some extent but the fact that anytime I reference this people are setting an oc that point overall becomes mute


----------



## blikblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> BCLK above 104.8 will turn off PCI GEN 3...


Hey, i just noticed that my motherboard (Asrock AB350 Pro4) BCLK is just 99.8 read in AIDA and HWinfo. Is that the reason why I always fail using the calculator with my G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GTZB ?
BTW the CPU is 1600X.


----------



## rossctr

Having a problem stabilising my RAM. As soon as I select 1T I get a BSOD during Windows boot, 2T works fine. Any suggestions I could try? Memory is 2x 8gb F4-3600c17 B-Die, Crosshair 6 Hero Bios 3501.



Thanks


----------



## dual109

Hi Mate,

What MB are you running?

Thankis


----------



## mk16

so, Im trying to get get my ram a little faster and as tight of timings as i can but ive noticed some thing odd. when i import my readings the calculator will always change back to b-die even though i have a hynix kit and when set to hynix and my xpm clock of 3200, the safe option spits out timings slower then the xmp and the fast option is only one step down(i.e 17 instead of 18). is this just a bug with hynix kits or am i doing something wrong?


----------



## rossctr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dual109*
> 
> Hi Mate,
> 
> What MB are you running?
> 
> Thankis


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rossctr*
> 
> Having a problem stabilising my RAM. As soon as I select 1T I get a BSOD during Windows boot, 2T works fine. Any suggestions I could try? Memory is 2x 8gb F4-3600c17 B-Die, *Crosshair 6 Hero Bios 3501*.
> 
> Thanks


If that reply was to me of course


----------



## -antero-

aaand my 2933mhz oc also failed, 15min of memtest and pc either freezes or restarts. Went back to 2800mhz, run memtest for about an hour and everything runs smoothly. Seems like for me the easiest way to achieve 3200mhz is to buy new mem kit















Mission impossible!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blikblue*
> 
> Hey, i just noticed that my motherboard (Asrock AB350 Pro4) BCLK is just 99.8 read in AIDA and HWinfo. Is that the reason why I always fail using the calculator with my G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GTZB ?
> BTW the CPU is 1600X.


no, there is no problem, this is the *spread spectrum* , it affects the BCLK frequency
stabilize the bus frequency is impossible, so I advise you not to pay attention








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mk16*
> 
> so, Im trying to get get my ram a little faster and as tight of timings as i can but ive noticed some thing odd. when i import my readings the calculator will always change back to b-die even though i have a hynix kit and when set to hynix and my xpm clock of 3200, the safe option spits out timings slower then the xmp and the fast option is only one step down(i.e 17 instead of 18). is this just a bug with hynix kits or am i doing something wrong?


In the screenshot you are all right, but there are nuances:
In the calculator I disabled in some formulas rounding, because people want a higher frequency and +1 to all timings can save the situation.

Thanks for the question, I'll think about how to improve the formula








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> aaand my 2933mhz oc also failed, 15min of memtest and pc either freezes or restarts. Went back to 2800mhz, run memtest for about an hour and everything runs smoothly. Seems like for me the easiest way to achieve 3200mhz is to buy new mem kit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mission impossible!


most likely just not enough power, I often occasionally have options when the memory needs 1.45+ for stable operation at 3200


----------



## -antero-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> most likely just not enough power, I often occasionally have options when the memory needs 1.45+ for stable operation at 3200


Thanks for the reply. There is little problem with my voltage settings, I can't put in anything above 1,35V. I tryed with 1,4 and it would not boot up. Also 1,4 is the maximum that I can put in, for in example if I input 1,45 then it automatically sets it to 1,35


----------



## blikblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> no, there is no problem, this is the *spread spectrum* , it affects the BCLK frequency
> stabilize the bus frequency is impossible, so I advise you not to pay attention


I just tried again the calculator's results at 2800, dram voltage= 1.36, vddp= 1.05, it boot well at first attempt - windows 7 boot smoothly - running AIDA stability test several minutes, no errors - restart from os 3x, all boot smoothly at first attempt.
Then I try the 2933 settings, it won't boot at all - went back again to 2800, all boot attempt failed again!








What happen???


----------



## bigfootnz

@1usmus

I've question about your calculator and LLC settings.

But firstly thank you for your calculator as it has helped me with OC my hynix memory to 3200MHz.

You calculator is recommending, even on safe presets, in my case CPU LLC 3/4 and SOC LLC 2/3. After some reading here I see that Raja and Stilt and some other experienced members that we should not use higher than LLC2 and if it is possible to leave it on auto.

Reason why I'm asking this, as I've one dead 1700x you can see it in my topic, and as I'm not sure what has caused (in my opinion it was not voltage but again I cannot be sure.

Can you please give me your opinion about LLC and why your calculator is recommending to use higher LLC. Thanks


----------



## PuPpEt

There's a typo on last version: when you calculate safe preset, in the Memory Interleaving Size field appear "2" and not "256".


----------



## SexySale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> There's a typo on last version: when you calculate safe preset, in the Memory Interleaving Size field appear "2" and not "256".


It's not typo. Read complete topic and U will find reason from 1usmus ?

Послато са SM-G920F уз помоћ Тапатока


----------



## Warlord1981

Hello everyone and @1usmus big thank you for this awesome tool!









Just 1 question: In ASUS BIOS do we first select DOCP and then enter all the values from the Calculator or we leave everything default and manually enter all values from the Calculator?


----------



## neur0cide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rossctr*
> 
> Having a problem stabilising my RAM. As soon as I select 1T I get a BSOD during Windows boot, 2T works fine. Any suggestions I could try? Memory is 2x 8gb F4-3600c17 B-Die, Crosshair 6 Hero Bios 3501.


A stable overclock with 1T above 3200 MT/s with tight timings is near impossible unless you use very high voltages. Set 1T and GearDownMode = enable. This gives you performance somewhere between 1T and 2T, yet it has almost no negative impact on stability compared to 2T. You can't however use an uneven CAS Latency (e.g. CL 15) when GDM is enabled.


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> You can't however use an uneven CAS Latency (e.g. CL 15) when GDM is enabled.


this explain much to me


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Thanks for the reply. There is little problem with my voltage settings, I can't put in anything above 1,35V. I tryed with 1,4 and it would not boot up. Also 1,4 is the maximum that I can put in, for in example if I input 1,45 then it automatically sets it to 1,35


it happens that the memory works fine and at 1.32, you can have very successful chips







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blikblue*
> 
> I just tried again the calculator's results at 2800, dram voltage= 1.36, vddp= 1.05, it boot well at first attempt - windows 7 boot smoothly - running AIDA stability test several minutes, no errors - restart from os 3x, all boot smoothly at first attempt.
> Then I try the 2933 settings, it won't boot at all - went back again to 2800, all boot attempt failed again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happen???


invalid procODT, with the frequency it grows too. In the calculator at the moment all possible options are collected, the best option I can not offer
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigfootnz*
> 
> @1usmus
> 
> I've question about your calculator and LLC settings.
> 
> But firstly thank you for your calculator as it has helped me with OC my hynix memory to 3200MHz.
> 
> You calculator is recommending, even on safe presets, in my case CPU LLC 3/4 and SOC LLC 2/3. After some reading here I see that Raja and Stilt and some other experienced members that we should not use higher than LLC2 and if it is possible to leave it on auto.
> 
> Reason why I'm asking this, as I've one dead 1700x you can see it in my topic, and as I'm not sure what has caused (in my opinion it was not voltage but again I cannot be sure.
> 
> Can you please give me your opinion about LLC and why your calculator is recommending to use higher LLC. Thanks


Еach overclocker has its own nuances and suggestions. I do not consider dangerous 3 and 4 LLC. But, I would not advise using LLC4 if the voltage will be more than 1.4 volts, since in the moment when the processor moves from the loaded state to the idle, there will be a voltage surge.

For example LLC 4,5


and LLC 1,2,auto


I have been using LLC3 / 4 mode for a year now, I do not observe crystal degradation








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> There's a typo on last version: when you calculate safe preset, in the Memory Interleaving Size field appear "2" and not "256".


256 bytes and 2 kb
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warlord1981*
> 
> Hello everyone and @1usmus big thank you for this awesome tool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just 1 question: In ASUS BIOS do we first select DOCP and then enter all the values from the Calculator or we leave everything default and manually enter all values from the Calculator?


yes, it is possible and so


----------



## Warlord1981

Hello again









Having applied ALL settings of image below exactly as Calculator suggests I get BSOD after almost 20mins of HCI memtest (running 16 times with 830mb each)
Which setting should i first start tweaking? DRAM Voltage/SOC Voltage? Or a certain Timing?

Want to achive 3200 stable. (Hynix-A)

CPU: 1700X
Mobo: ASUS ROG Strix X370-F
RAM: F4-3000C15-16GTZR


----------



## blikblue

@1usmus
I think i found it! Now the hynix works at 3066!
I noticed on every fail boot, the dram voltage reset back to 1.35 volts.
Don't now if the Powerdown mode affect this, but after disable it really works
Going to try 3200 now......
Thanks for this amazing calculator!!!

Update 3200 works! But less stable, mostly fail at first boot attempt.


----------



## 7nationarmy

Hey guys, is this a good result for a Hynix M-die (3000 16GB 16-18-18-38)? I am still quite new to this so I have no idea what is the ballpark. CL20 seems pretty high, but after trying out the stock XMP (2933) and 3200, this gives the lowest latency. Voltage is at 1.45. Just did AIDA64 memory stress test and was stable for 4 hours. Did some browsing and gaming for 2 hours, no crashes (My first try with RAM OC made all my browser tabs to crash very frequently lol). Will do more testing.


----------



## bigfootnz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Еach overclocker has its own nuances and suggestions. I do not consider dangerous 3 and 4 LLC. But, I would not advise using LLC4 if the voltage will be more than 1.4 volts, since in the moment when the processor moves from the loaded state to the idle, there will be a voltage surge.
> 
> For example LLC 4,5
> 
> 
> and LLC 1,2,auto
> 
> 
> I have been using LLC3 / 4 mode for a year now, I do not observe crystal degradation


Thank you for detailed explanation


----------



## dspx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *7nationarmy*
> 
> Hey guys, is this a good result for a Hynix M-die (3000 16GB 16-18-18-38)? I am still quite new to this so I have no idea what is the ballpark. CL20 seems pretty high, but after trying out the stock XMP (2933) and 3200, this gives the lowest latency. Voltage is at 1.45. Just did AIDA64 memory stress test and was stable for 4 hours. Did some browsing and gaming for 2 hours, no crashes (My first try with RAM OC made all my browser tabs to crash very frequently lol). Will do more testing.


You managed to run 3466?


----------



## neur0cide

@1usmus
Today I had a look at your most recent calculator and noticed, that you changed the recommended RttNom divider for single rank modules at procODT=53 Ohm from RZQ/7 to RZQ/5.
May I ask why you did this? Is RttNom=RZQ/5 an adjustment to changes in the new AGESA 1.0.0.0a?

I ask because I currently have a kit with pretty decent B-die installed (F4-3200C14D-16GTZKY) set to 3466-14-13-13-13-26-42-1T (GDM on) @1.395v (procODT=53; RZQ/7; off; RZQ/5). This is 1000%+ HCI MemTest stable with RttNom=RZQ/7. I tried RZQ/5 and got 2 errors within only 120%.
My C6H is still on BIOS 1401 (AGESA 1.0.0.6) though.

If I find the time, I'll do some more testing tomorrow with the other single rank B-die kits I have at home, but I'm pretty sure, that I will see more or less similar results.


----------



## 7nationarmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dspx*
> 
> You managed to run 3466?


Yes 3466MHz but at 20-20-20-40. Stable so far. When I left for work this morning memtest was at 6 passes with no errors, and I left it running.


----------



## Rizen1700

procODT=53 Ohm and RZQ/5 also give me error on samsung b-die. with RZQ/7 it did not on bios 1701.


----------



## zulex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rizen1700*
> 
> procODT=53 Ohm and RZQ/5 also give me error on samsung b-die. with RZQ/7 it did not on bios 1701.


In my experience with Samsung B-die, procODT=53 Ohm was not stable too. I feel like procODT=60 Ohm is more stable.


----------



## -antero-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blikblue*
> 
> @1usmus
> I think i found it! Now the hynix works at 3066!
> I noticed on every fail boot, the dram voltage reset back to 1.35 volts.
> Don't now if the Powerdown mode affect this, but after disable it really works
> Going to try 3200 now......
> Thanks for this amazing calculator!!!
> 
> Update 3200 works! But less stable, mostly fail at first boot attempt.


Nice find! Will give this a try when I have some spare time. I have the same problem, voltage keeps reseting to 1,35 all the time.


----------



## blikblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-antero-*
> 
> Nice find! Will give this a try when I have some spare time. I have the same problem, voltage keeps reseting to 1,35 all the time.


Just to let you know, disabling powerdown mode seems not work all the time.
My motherboard full of mystery, upon overclocking once all boot attempts fail, it will fail all the time no matter how i modify the voltage it will keeps resetting to 1.35.
The only workaround to make it work is first disabling the xmp - save & exit - boot to windows - restart - activate the xmp overclock again - save & exit.
And if I pass that windows boot part mostly still won't boot at all.
Don't know if this also the same issue with your motherboard.


----------



## DaddyDankee

Greetings ya'll! I'm new here and also have RAM dillemas!

So I have a R5 1600 OC'd to 3.8 @1.32V CPU
Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 2x8 RAM sticks
Gigabyte AB350 Gaming (rev 1.o) Mobo
Seasonic S12ii 520 PSU
XFX RX 480 GTR GPU

So far I'm capped at 2933 Mhz with 1.4+ V to boot, but Cinebench crashes. And while I have not done a proper stability test with this settings yet, I'm pretty sure it won't be stable. I downloaded and tried the DRAM Calculator but I dont really know what to do with all those settings in the BIOS. I guess I just typed them in their respective fields in my BIOS and hoped for the best but I'm pretty lost here.

Anyway, I'm looking for any help from people with similar setups or Ryzen RAM guru's that could point me in the right direction to get the most out of my gear.

Here's the pictures of the calculator with my imported settings:





Thanks in advance! I'm happy to join the community and ready to learn as much as possible!


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaddyDankee*
> 
> Greetings ya'll! I'm new here and also have RAM dillemas!
> 
> So I have a R5 1600 OC'd to 3.8 @1.32V CPU
> Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 2x8 RAM sticks
> Gigabyte AB350 Gaming (rev 1.o) Mobo
> Seasonic S12ii 520 PSU
> XFX RX 480 GTR GPU
> 
> So far I'm capped at 2933 Mhz with 1.4+ V to boot, but Cinebench crashes. And while I have not done a proper stability test with this settings yet, I'm pretty sure it won't be stable. I downloaded and tried the DRAM Calculator but I dont really know what to do with all those settings in the BIOS. I guess I just typed them in their respective fields in my BIOS and hoped for the best but I'm pretty lost here.
> 
> Anyway, I'm looking for any help from people with similar setups or Ryzen RAM guru's that could point me in the right direction to get the most out of my gear.
> 
> Here's the pictures of the calculator with my imported settings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance! I'm happy to join the community and ready to learn as much as possible!


Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 2x8 RAM sticks - *is not B-die*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> @1usmus
> Today I had a look at your most recent calculator and noticed, that you changed the recommended RttNom divider for single rank modules at procODT=53 Ohm from RZQ/7 to RZQ/5.
> May I ask why you did this? Is RttNom=RZQ/5 an adjustment to changes in the new AGESA 1.0.0.0a?
> 
> I ask because I currently have a kit with pretty decent B-die installed (F4-3200C14D-16GTZKY) set to 3466-14-13-13-13-26-42-1T (GDM on) @1.395v (procODT=53; RZQ/7; off; RZQ/5). This is 1000%+ HCI MemTest stable with RttNom=RZQ/7. I tried RZQ/5 and got 2 errors within only 120%.
> My C6H is still on BIOS 1401 (AGESA 1.0.0.6) though.
> 
> If I find the time, I'll do some more testing tomorrow with the other single rank B-die kits I have at home, but I'm pretty sure, that I will see more or less similar results.


quite right, *the latest version of the calculator is adapted to agesa 1.0.7.1+ and 1.0.0.0a*

in most cases, RZQ5 allows you to reduce the voltage on the RAM and improve stability. I really hope that most users will install BIOS update and there will not be any problems anymore


----------



## DaddyDankee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 2x8 RAM sticks - *is not B-die*


Well crap I forgot to set it to Hynx. Hynx XMP should be the one to go with right?


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Can anyone here help me please.

I have the 3.4 bios for my Killer SLi installed.

But if i try to update to the latest Bio's 3.5 absolutely nothing works.

Have tried all the recommended ways, following the instructions.

Even tried Internet update but everything fails. Update not seen on USB nor the Internet. mad.gif

Looks like i am stuck on 3.4 Bio.

Is my Mobo Borked and should i RMA or does someone know how i can get it too update ?


----------



## ZeNch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> Can anyone here help me please.
> 
> I have the 3.4 bios for my Killer SLi installed.
> 
> But if i try to update to the latest Bio's 3.5 absolutely nothing works.
> 
> Have tried all the recommended ways, following the instructions.
> 
> Even tried Internet update but everything fails. Update not seen on USB nor the Internet. mad.gif
> 
> Looks like i am stuck on 3.4 Bio.
> 
> Is my Mobo Borked and should i RMA or does someone know how i can get it too update ?


Your USB need fat32 format and you need to extract the bios file if this is compressed.

If don't work try to download again the file of other server.


----------



## darknezx

Just a quick question. When the calculator tells me to set tRFC to 583.3, do I key it in without the decimal point? Asus bios doesn't let me key in the .3.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v12*

Download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=18362Dr4pQ0sLWzOTQuqC3yVWf9efKvyW

instruction:
https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow

changelog:
• supported AGESA 1.0.0.0a PinnaclePi (for example RTT NOM now RZQ5)
• supported new frequency dividers (3266,3400,3533 etc)
• supported overclock memory up to 4200 MHz for samsung B/S-die
• significant changes in the formulas for tRAS / tRC for all Fast presets (i think that these timings should always be even)
• samsung s-die was moved to b-die (this memory is very similar to B-die)


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v12*
> 
> Download:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=18362Dr4pQ0sLWzOTQuqC3yVWf9efKvyW
> 
> instruction:
> https://youtu.be/xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> changelog:
> • supported AGESA 1.0.0.0a PinnaclePi (for example RTT NOM now RZQ5)
> • supported new frequency dividers (3266,3400,3533 etc)
> • supported overclock memory up to 4200 MHz for samsung B/S-die
> • significant changes in the formulas for tRAS / tRC for all Fast presets (i think that these timings should always be even)
> • samsung s-die was moved to b-die (this memory is very similar to B-die)


Thnx dude









Will try it later this day.


----------



## neur0cide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> quite right, *the latest version of the calculator is adapted to agesa 1.0.7.1+ and 1.0.0.0a*
> 
> in most cases, RZQ5 allows you to reduce the voltage on the RAM and improve stability. I really hope that most users will install BIOS update and there will not be any problems anymore


Thx 1usmus. I appreciate the clarification.
I'll keep sticking to 1401 and RttNom for a while though, as I'm quite happy with my results.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v12*
> 
> ...
> 
> • samsung s-die was moved to b-die (this memory is very similar to B-die)


Can you tell me about S-die?
I know that some Team Group modules feature S-die and that they are 4Gbit chips. Since they are not mentioned in Samsung's product list, I always assumed that they are relabeled D- or E-die. Maybe high speed binned E-die?
I always found D- and E-die (DR) to behave quite similar to B-die (DR) but with less overclocking potential.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaddyDankee*
> 
> Well crap I forgot to set it to Hynx. Hynx XMP should be the one to go with right?


yeah








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> Can anyone here help me please.
> 
> I have the 3.4 bios for my Killer SLi installed.
> 
> But if i try to update to the latest Bio's 3.5 absolutely nothing works.
> 
> Have tried all the recommended ways, following the instructions.
> 
> Even tried Internet update but everything fails. Update not seen on USB nor the Internet. mad.gif
> 
> Looks like i am stuck on 3.4 Bio.
> 
> Is my Mobo Borked and should i RMA or does someone know how i can get it too update ?


I know there really are problems. I advise you to wait for the update that will be released in early February (new BIOS)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darknezx*
> 
> Just a quick question. When the calculator tells me to set tRFC to 583.3, do I key it in without the decimal point? Asus bios doesn't let me key in the .3.


there are cases when the calculator shows 583.3 and the system does not work for 583. But works on 584
You have a choice
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Thnx dude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will try it later this day.


----------



## 7nationarmy

My results from using v11. I am not sure if this is a good result or not since I am quite new to this. Thoughts?


Gonna try v12 later.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> Thx 1usmus. I appreciate the clarification.
> I'll keep sticking to 1401 and RttNom for a while though, as I'm quite happy with my results.
> Can you tell me about S-die?
> I know that some Team Group modules feature S-die and that they are 4Gbit chips. Since they are not mentioned in Samsung's product list, I always assumed that they are relabeled D- or E-die. Maybe high speed binned E-die?
> I always found D- and E-die (DR) to behave quite similar to B-die (DR) but with less overclocking potential.


no, it's completely different types of memory and different chips
this memory came out on the 34th week of 2017, on timings it has a much better energy efficiency than b-die


----------



## neur0cide

So it's not the K4A4G085W*S* found on these modules, but 8Gbit K4A8G085W*S*. Never seen those before.
I wonder why only Team Group gets these S-die. I am still not convinced, that they are not E-die and B-die relabeled specifically for Team Group.
What do you mean by energy efficiency?
The B-die on my G.Skill 3200 C14 sticks also have 8,750 ns on CL, RCP and RD. They have a slightly higher latency on RAS though (21,250 ns). My 3600 C15 have 8,174 and 19,375 ns.


----------



## darknezx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> yeah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are cases when the calculator shows 583.3 and the system does not work for 583. But works on 584
> You have a choice


Thanks bro. I have been trying out 583 for now, with safe settings and recommended voltages, memtest passed with 900+% coverage, but sometimes it would refuse to boot. When it does refuse to boot, it typically restarts and then all is fine, the system is stable. Is this normal?


----------



## DaddyDankee

Welp. None of the settings given to me in the DRAM Calc worked. Back to stock stuff. RIP:


----------



## dspx

The calculator changed the recommendation for procODT to 60 a few versions back for Hynix memory, I tried it but 48 is the only one that works for me.
The problem is that I guess that RTT values are tied to procODT, so I should not enter the ones from the calculator because it shows 60?

I have Corsair Vengeance LPX 2 x 8GB - CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 running at the values pictured below. Default values are 15-17-17-35-52


----------



## DaddyDankee

Does it really make a big difference though? I haven't tried it but I might..

Calculator settings boot (not all) and run fine at PUBG. I actually saw an increase in performance. However Prime95 tests crashes pretty quickly.


----------



## neur0cide

proc_ODT and the Rtt dividers make a world of a difference. Also CLDO_VDDP in some cases.
You can forget about the CAD bus settings though.


----------



## DaddyDankee

I'll try fiddlin with those. What VDDP do you recomend? Usually I get 700 with an ocasional 900.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neur0cide*
> 
> So it's not the K4A4G085W*S* found on these modules, but 8Gbit K4A8G085W*S*. Never seen those before.
> I wonder why only Team Group gets these S-die. I am still not convinced, that they are not E-die and B-die relabeled specifically for Team Group.
> What do you mean by energy efficiency?
> The B-die on my G.Skill 3200 C14 sticks also have 8,750 ns on CL, RCP and RD. They have a slightly higher latency on RAS though (21,250 ns). My 3600 C15 have 8,174 and 19,375 ns.


3600С15 are selective chips, therefore they have such delays, theatgroup gets the most usual chips which are already competitive with 3600С15. For example tRAS, 21250/19000 ~ 13%

tRAS - the minimum time between the activation of the line (by opening it) and the command to precharge (the beginning of the closing of the line). Hence the conclusion that these chips have the best energy potential by default, respectively, the best overclocking potential








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darknezx*
> 
> Thanks bro. I have been trying out 583 for now, with safe settings and recommended voltages, memtest passed with 900+% coverage, but sometimes it would refuse to boot. When it does refuse to boot, it typically restarts and then all is fine, the system is stable. Is this normal?


yes, normal, cold boot is one of the nuances for this platform
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dspx*
> 
> The calculator changed the recommendation for procODT to 60 a few versions back for Hynix memory, I tried it but 48 is the only one that works for me.
> The problem is that I guess that RTT values are tied to procODT, so I should not enter the ones from the calculator because it shows 60?
> 
> I have Corsair Vengeance LPX 2 x 8GB - CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 running at the values pictured below. Default values are 15-17-17-35-52


You have a good instance of RAM, use 48-53, there's nothing wrong with that. In the old version of the calculator was this option for memory on Hynix chips
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaddyDankee*
> 
> Does it really make a big difference though? I haven't tried it but I might..
> 
> Calculator settings boot (not all) and run fine at PUBG. I actually saw an increase in performance. However Prime95 tests crashes pretty quickly.


I advise you to test the system with a Linx 0.7.0 (6-10gb)


----------



## DaddyDankee

What language is that program in? Is there any tutorial or guide in english?


----------



## darknezx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> yes, normal, cold boot is one of the nuances for this platform


Sorry I think I should've been more specific. I think this might be different from cold boot. I usually need to start up twice (the first being from cold boot) before I can power on proper.

But in this case, I get some random startups having the memory error beeps from the Asus mobo, and then it will restart. Only this time it would work. Is that also a cold boot problem?


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 3600С15 are selective chips, therefore they have such delays, theatgroup gets the most usual chips which are already competitive with 3600С15. For example tRAS, 21250/19000 ~ 13%
> 
> tRAS - the minimum time between the activation of the line (by opening it) and the command to precharge (the beginning of the closing of the line). Hence the conclusion that these chips have the best energy potential by default, respectively, the best overclocking potential
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, normal, cold boot is one of the nuances for this platform
> You have a good instance of RAM, use 48-53, there's nothing wrong with that. *In the old version of the calculator was this option for memory on Hynix chips*
> I advise you to test the system with a Linx 0.7.0 (6-10gb)


I only ever had 60-80 with my chips.


----------



## blikblue

Updating my bios (ab350 pro4) to 4.4 (agesa 1.0.7.2), using calculator v12 result at 3200 with no luck, unable to boot all attempts.
v11 better on hynix H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC .


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blikblue*
> 
> Updating my bios (ab350 pro4) to 4.4 (agesa 1.0.7.2), using calculator v12 result at 3200 with no luck, unable to boot all attempts.
> v11 better on hynix H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC .


differences in only two timings, rounding in the big side
pls publish the comparison


----------



## dspx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CharlieWheelie*
> 
> I only ever had 60-80 with my chips.


Mine seems to be different, 21 nm Hynix A-die, single rank


----------



## 7nationarmy

So I updated my Asrock AB350 ITX BIOS from 3.40 to 4.40, now 3466 does not work using both v11 and v12 fast preset. Also voltage keeps going back to 1.35V randomly.

On BIOS 3.40, v11 at 3466 fast preset was stable, but v12 fast crashes instantly on AIDA64. Voltage was 1.45.


----------



## dspx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> You have a good instance of RAM, use 48-53, there's nothing wrong with that. In the old version of the calculator was this option for memory on Hynix chips


Thank you. Does lowering tCL to 14 shortens its life span? Or is it tied to voltage only?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *7nationarmy*
> 
> So I updated my Asrock AB350 ITX BIOS from 3.40 to 4.40, now 3466 does not work using both v11 and v12 fast preset. Also voltage keeps going back to 1.35V randomly.
> 
> On BIOS 3.40, v11 at 3466 fast preset was stable, but v12 fast crashes instantly on AIDA64. Voltage was 1.45.


1) you want the impossible from Hynix memory and the motherboard on the chipset 350. 3466 this does not mean success, timings 20 20 20 20 it's just a disaster, it's worse than 16 18 18 18 at 3200
+ BIOS update seriously affected memory stability

2) The calculator only indicates the direction where it is worth moving, but in no way is a 100% solution

I unfortunately can not surpass AMD in setting up memory and research








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dspx*
> 
> Thank you. Does lowering tCL to 14 shortens its life span? Or is it tied to voltage only?


I think the advantage is possible only in the working frequency


----------



## 7nationarmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 1) you want the impossible from Hynix memory and the motherboard on the chipset 350. 3466 this does not mean success, timings 20 20 20 20 it's just a disaster, it's worse than 16 18 18 18 at 3200
> + BIOS update seriously affected memory stability
> 
> 2) The calculator only indicates the direction where it is worth moving, but in no way is a 100% solution


3466 at 20-20-20-40 gave me the lowest latency (77ns) from AIDA64 and was stable (20 passes on memtest and no crashes in Windows yet). Honestly I don't know if that's good (still new to this). While default XMP (2933 16-18-18-38) gave 85ns and crashes on Chrome/Firefox.

As for the BIOS, I think the new one is bugged. Some people are reporting issues too. I'll have to flash it back.


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *7nationarmy*
> 
> 3466 at 20-20-20-40 gave me the lowest latency (77ns) from AIDA64 and was stable (20 passes on memtest and no crashes in Windows yet). Honestly I don't know if that's good (still new to this). While default XMP (2933 16-18-18-38) gave 85ns and crashes on Chrome/Firefox.
> 
> As for the BIOS, I think the new one is bugged. Some people are reporting issues too. I'll have to flash it back.


try to increase by 2 tRAS and tRC, maybe this is the problem


----------



## 7nationarmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> try to increase by 2 tRAS and tRC, maybe this is the problem


For which settings (2933 or 3466)?

Also is it weird that 2933 C16 gave higher latency than 3466 C20 on AIDA64?


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *7nationarmy*
> 
> For which settings (2933 or 3466)?
> 
> Also is it weird that 2933 C16 gave higher latency than 3466 C20 on AIDA64?


I suggest checking first on 3466, and then increase tRCDWR/tRCDRD/tRP +1

3200 does not work?


----------



## 7nationarmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I suggest checking first on 3466, and then increase tRCDWR/tRCDRD/tRP +1
> 
> 3200 does not work?


Not stable on both v11 fast and safe preset. Have not tried v12 for 3200


----------



## 7nationarmy

Weird enough, after trying both safe and fast presets on v11 and v12 for 2933, 3200 and 3466, (including 1usmus' earlier suggestions) the only stable ones are the v11 3466 settings.

So I am now running at 20-20-20-40, but at least it's stable. The others don't even POST consistently.


----------



## blikblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *7nationarmy*
> 
> Weird enough, after trying both safe and fast presets on v11 and v12 for 2933, 3200 and 3466, (including 1usmus' earlier suggestions) the only stable ones are the v11 3466 settings.
> 
> So I am now running at 20-20-20-40, but at least it's stable. The others don't even POST consistently.


What's your memory? Our mobo pretty much the same, and have you tried lowering the BCLK value? Now I'm able to boot at 3200 with v12 by lowering the BCLK value to 99.8.
@1usmus , not sure if this correct but here's the result after I lowering the BCLK.


----------



## Atomfix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blikblue*
> 
> What's your memory? Our mobo pretty much the same, and have you tried lowering the BCLK value? Now I'm able to boot at 3200 with v12 by lowering the BCLK value to 99.8.


Here's Mine.


----------



## dspx

OMG, I totally overlooked BCLK... Had it left at 100, but it's 99.8 in my BIOS.


----------



## WarpenN1

Those memory interleaving settings are unstabilizing RAM overclock quite dramatically :d

...

Like quite a lot :dd


----------



## 7nationarmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blikblue*
> 
> What's your memory? Our mobo pretty much the same, and have you tried lowering the BCLK value? Now I'm able to boot at 3200 with v12 by lowering the BCLK value to 99.8.
> @1usmus , not sure if this correct but here's the result after I lowering the BCLK.


BCLK also at 99.8.

RAM kit is Team Vulcan 16GB 3000 16-18-18-38 (Hynix M die single rank).

I can POST relatively consistently at 3200 CL16, but I keep getting tab crashes on both Chrome and Firefox. Using my current 3466 CL20 settings I have never seen the browser crash.


----------



## overheatisbad

Just sily question
1. Which better for ryzen between higher speedd with loose timing or lower speed with tigher timing ?
2. Should i try overclocking ram before cpu because so far usually ppl overclocking cpu first.


----------



## Warlord1981

@1usmus

When with the Calculator settings the PC manages to post, boot, go into Windows 10 & run HCI memtest but then gives errors or BSODs after some minutes, which are the settings from the calculator that should be first tweaked?

I own F4-3000C15D-16GTZR (Hynix-A) and trying to stabilize @ 3200 safe timings

Thanks!


----------



## DaddyDankee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> try to increase by 2 tRAS and tRC, maybe this is the problem


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I suggest checking first on 3466, and then increase tRCDWR/tRCDRD/tRP +1
> 
> 3200 does not work?


I'm not the original poster you are replying to but I will try increasing those parameters with my settings to see if I can achieve some stability.

I have a couple questions:

When Calculator shows me tRFC values in fractioned numbers i.e. 465.2, 345.7 o 212.6; should I round them to the closest number and enter the values? Or just enter them fractioned and stick to whatever number my particular BIOS sets it to? Because if I set for example 465.2 and press enter, my BIOS sets it to something like 472 (totally made up number).

My UEFI has no "off" options for RTT's per se. It has a "turn dynamic ODT off" or something like that. Is that the equivalent to "OFF"? This also applies to tRC PAGE; setting it to 0 leaves it at "AUTO".

CLDO_VPP voltages are 700, 425 and 985 for Rec. Alt1 and Alt 2 respectively. Is there any risk or considerations I should keep in mind when configuring these parameters?

My kit Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 is supposedly made for "extreme overclocking" and it's listed voltage is of 1.35 V. However, the max frequency I can get to work with stock voltages of 1.2 V is 2666. Anything past that needs 1.4 to 1.45 V. Would these voltages be OK or should I stick to voltages closest to 1.35 v?

Thanks a bunch!


----------



## PuPpEt

I'll post it here too...

Hope anyone can help me... i'm trying to get stable G.Skill F4-3466C16-8GTZR @ 3333Mhz.
CPU is at 3.9Ghz @ 1.33v (but i can go lower)
CPU LLC 3, SOC LLC 2
Motherboard: AsRock x370 Taichi bios 3.20a

I've used the DRAM Calculator "Fast Preset".



But i'm getting error from 1 to 10 minutes of HCI Memtest...

I've tried changing with almost every combination possible:
- DRAM Voltage from 1.35v to 1.39v in BIOS (showing in HWiNFO64 from 1.36v to 1.41v);
- SOC Voltage from 1.025v to 1.05v (showing in HWiNFO64 from 1.030v to 1.051v);
- The three combination of procODT as the calculator suggest;
- The four combination of CAD_BUS as the calculator suggest;
- VDDP Voltage 850 and 900;
- CLD0_VDDP: 700, 425 and 866 (but i'm not 100% sure if on Taichi the COLD RESET i do to trigger the value is correct... i can't find a way to check);
- VTTDDR is automatic, 0.680 or 0.690.

I can pass a IBS AVX of 10 passes on Very High with all those settings and prolly Prime95, but i fail always HCI Memtest...

I don't understand and don't know what to do anymore...


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *7nationarmy*
> 
> BCLK also at 99.8.
> 
> RAM kit is Team Vulcan 16GB 3000 16-18-18-38 (Hynix M die single rank).
> 
> I can POST relatively consistently at 3200 CL16, but I keep getting tab crashes on both Chrome and Firefox. Using my current 3466 CL20 settings I have never seen the browser crash.


all depends on the processor still, it happens that at the interval of 3200-3333 the dead zone
http://www.overclock.net/t/1640919/ryzen-dram-calculator-overclocking-dram/280_20#post_26457559
+
I'd count timings yet for BCLK 100, 99.8 it's temporary jumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warlord1981*
> 
> @1usmus
> 
> When with the Calculator settings the PC manages to post, boot, go into Windows 10 & run HCI memtest but then gives errors or BSODs after some minutes, which are the settings from the calculator that should be first tweaked?
> 
> I own F4-3000C15D-116GTZR (Hynix-A) and trying to stabilize @ 3200 safe timings
> 
> Thanks!


I think either low voltage or not suitable settings CAD_BUS
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> I'll post it here too...
> 
> Hope anyone can help me... i'm trying to get stable G.Skill F4-3466C16-8GTZR @ 3333Mhz.
> CPU is at 3.9Ghz @ 1.33v (but i can go lower)
> CPU LLC 3, SOC LLC 2
> Motherboard: AsRock x370 Taichi bios 3.20a
> 
> I've used the DRAM Calculator "Fast Preset".
> 
> 
> 
> But i'm getting error from 1 to 10 minutes of HCI Memtest...
> 
> I've tried changing with almost every combination possible:
> - DRAM Voltage from 1.35v to 1.39v in BIOS (showing in HWiNFO64 from 1.36v to 1.41v);
> - SOC Voltage from 1.025v to 1.05v (showing in HWiNFO64 from 1.030v to 1.051v);
> - The three combination of procODT as the calculator suggest;
> - The four combination of CAD_BUS as the calculator suggest;
> - VDDP Voltage 850 and 900;
> - CLD0_VDDP: 700, 425 and 866 (but i'm not 100% sure if on Taichi the COLD RESET i do to trigger the value is correct... i can't find a way to check);
> - VTTDDR is automatic, 0.680 or 0.690.
> 
> I can pass a IBS AVX of 10 passes on Very High with all those settings and prolly Prime95, but i fail always HCI Memtest...
> 
> I don't understand and don't know what to do anymore...




RTT 7 / off / 5 + procODT 53


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *overheatisbad*
> 
> Just sily question
> 1. Which better for ryzen between higher speedd with loose timing or lower speed with tigher timing ?
> 2. Should i try overclocking ram before cpu because so far usually ppl overclocking cpu first.


1. The advantage of frequency will always be, since at this frequency works Infinity fabrick
2. Testing is always necessary at every stage, unfortunately
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaddyDankee*
> 
> I'm not the original poster you are replying to but I will try increasing those parameters with my settings to see if I can achieve some stability.
> 
> I have a couple questions:
> 
> When Calculator shows me tRFC values in fractioned numbers i.e. 465.2, 345.7 o 212.6; should I round them to the closest number and enter the values? Or just enter them fractioned and stick to whatever number my particular BIOS sets it to? Because if I set for example 465.2 and press enter, my BIOS sets it to something like 472 (totally made up number).
> 
> My UEFI has no "off" options for RTT's per se. It has a "turn dynamic ODT off" or something like that. Is that the equivalent to "OFF"? This also applies to tRC PAGE; setting it to 0 leaves it at "AUTO".
> 
> CLDO_VPP voltages are 700, 425 and 985 for Rec. Alt1 and Alt 2 respectively. Is there any risk or considerations I should keep in mind when configuring these parameters?
> 
> My kit Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 is supposedly made for "extreme overclocking" and it's listed voltage is of 1.35 V. However, the max frequency I can get to work with stock voltages of 1.2 V is 2666. Anything past that needs 1.4 to 1.45 V. Would these voltages be OK or should I stick to voltages closest to 1.35 v?
> 
> Thanks a bunch!


1) can be rounded up and down (depending on the stability), but the main thing is tRFC (not tRFC2/tRFC4)
2) dynamic ODT off = off
3) When setting the CLDO voltage within the range of 425-1000mV, there is no risk
4) Adhere to the recommendations of the calculator, 1.5 volts for RAM are not terrible


----------



## Warlord1981

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> I think either low voltage or not suitable settings CAD_BUS


Hmm, you mean the voltage of DRAM or SOC? or play with all of them (including VTT etc)?

Regarding the CAD_BUS settings, my ASUS ROG Strix X370-F does not have these specific CAD_BUS settings in the BIOS.. Is this a problem?


----------



## ressonantia

Hi @1usmus,

Thanks to your calculator, I think I've managed to stabilise my FlareX G.Skill kit (F4-3200C14D-16GFX) at 3466C14. I do have a question though, I've run GSAT for an hour and its come back with no errors but while running the test, I've noticed that sometimes the computer kind of hangs or freezes for about 2-3 seconds before resuming. Is that normal? Or is that a sign of instability? And if so, how do I make it more stable?

I'm basing off these settings:


And these are the results I got:


The difference between what I've set and the calc is:
* Set ProcODT = 60ohm
* DRAM voltage = 1.4V
* SOC volatge = 1.075V
* CAD_Bus block = all auto

I've noticed that in HWinFO, the DRAM voltage is showing up as 1.373V instead of the 1.4V that I've set, should I increase DRAM voltage?


----------



## PuPpEt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> I'll post it here too...
> 
> Hope anyone can help me... i'm trying to get stable G.Skill F4-3466C16-8GTZR @ 3333Mhz.
> CPU is at 3.9Ghz @ 1.33v (but i can go lower)
> CPU LLC 3, SOC LLC 2
> Motherboard: AsRock x370 Taichi bios 3.20a
> 
> I've used the DRAM Calculator "Fast Preset".
> 
> 
> 
> But i'm getting error from 1 to 10 minutes of HCI Memtest...
> 
> I've tried changing with almost every combination possible:
> - DRAM Voltage from 1.35v to 1.39v in BIOS (showing in HWiNFO64 from 1.36v to 1.41v);
> - SOC Voltage from 1.025v to 1.05v (showing in HWiNFO64 from 1.030v to 1.051v);
> - The three combination of procODT as the calculator suggest;
> - The four combination of CAD_BUS as the calculator suggest;
> - VDDP Voltage 850 and 900;
> - CLD0_VDDP: 700, 425 and 866 (but i'm not 100% sure if on Taichi the COLD RESET i do to trigger the value is correct... i can't find a way to check);
> - VTTDDR is automatic, 0.680 or 0.690.
> 
> I can pass a IBS AVX of 10 passes on Very High with all those settings and prolly Prime95, but i fail always HCI Memtest...
> 
> I don't understand and don't know what to do anymore...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> 
> 
> RTT 7 / off / 5 + procODT 53


I tried your settings, but i still get errors in HCI


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ressonantia*
> 
> Hi @1usmus,
> 
> Thanks to your calculator, I think I've managed to stabilise my FlareX G.Skill kit (F4-3200C14D-16GFX) at 3466C14. I do have a question though, I've run GSAT for an hour and its come back with no errors but while running the test, I've noticed that sometimes the computer kind of hangs or freezes for about 2-3 seconds before resuming. Is that normal? Or is that a sign of instability? And if so, how do I make it more stable?
> 
> I'm basing off these settings:
> 
> 
> And these are the results I got:
> 
> 
> The difference between what I've set and the calc is:
> * Set ProcODT = 60ohm
> * DRAM voltage = 1.4V
> * SOC volatge = 1.075V
> * CAD_Bus block = all auto
> 
> I've noticed that in HWinFO, the DRAM voltage is showing up as 1.373V instead of the 1.4V that I've set, should I increase DRAM voltage?


some Windows processes have higher priority than the test program. I think everything is fine
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> I tried your settings, but i still get errors in HCI


my suggestion to check these options

rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 53
rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 53
rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 60
rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 60


----------



## PuPpEt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> my suggestion to check these options
> 
> rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 53
> rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 53
> rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 60
> rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 60


I tried:

rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 53
rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 53
rtt : 5 / off / 7 + procODT 53

rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 60
rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 60
rtt : 5 / off / 7 + procODT 60

Still getting errors


----------



## 1usmus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PuPpEt*
> 
> I tried:
> 
> rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 53
> rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 53
> rtt : 5 / off / 7 + procODT 53
> 
> rtt : 5 / off / 5 + procODT 60
> rtt : 7 / off / 5 + procODT 60
> rtt : 5 / off / 7 + procODT 60
> 
> Still getting errors


hmm...
try to increase the voltage on the RAM up to 1.410

or try to stabilize 3466


----------



## PuPpEt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1usmus*
> 
> hmm...
> try to increase the voltage on the RAM up to 1.410
> 
> or try to stabilize 3466


Nothing, always errors. Tried till 1.42v

3466 fast preset doesn't even boot...

I think i'll try 3200mhz and see if i can get it stable.


----------



## PuPpEt

Managed to stabilize 3200Mhz with a copy/paste of "Fast" settings:

User: PuPpEt
CPU: 1700 @ 3.9Ghz - 1.31875v (BIOS) 1.312 (HWiNFO64)
Motherboard: ASRock X370 Taichi
Speed: 3200-14-14-14-28-1T @ 1.355v (BIOS) 1.376v (HWiNFO64)
SOC: 1.025v (BIOS) 1.032v (HWiNFO64)
BIOS: P3.20A
Model: F4-3466C16-8GTZR
Test: IBS AVX 10 Passes "Very High" - Prime95 "Blend" 1 Hour - HCI 400%

Other settings: CPU LLC 3 - SOC LLC 2 - procODT 53 RTT 5 / Off / 5 - CAD BUS 20 / 20 / 20 / 20 - CLD0 VDDP 700


----------



## Decoman

*deleted*

(I forgot about all the things I have to check. I'll maybe come back later.)


----------



## Warlord1981

@1usmus & everyone else:

Managed to stabilize my F4-3000C15D-16GTZR @ 3200.

Ran HCI Memtest up to 1200% with no errors, IntelBurnTest:Maximum 10 runs with no errors, Prime95 for 12 hours with no errors, LinX for 1 hour with no errors and OCCT:Linpack for 3 hours with no errors.

The only issue is that approximately 2 out of 10 times when booting (even from restarts) I get the tripple beep error (RAM error), where the pc after the beeping turns off and then automatically re-turns on and boots without problem and of course once inside Windows it is stable in every task (incl. gaming).

I checked for the DDR Boot Voltage but there is no such option on my motherboard (ASUS ROG Strix X370-F Gaming), so last night I just increased the VRAM by 0.005V.

Is this instability in booting ok or I should worry? Do you advise I should leave it like this or do you recommend any other action?

Thank you in advance!


----------



## TripleTurbo

I have managed to get my G.Skill dual 8GB kit running at 3466 MHz with (relatively) tight timings, riding shotgun to a Ryzen 1700X saddling a Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7.



This is my first venture modifying RAM timings on any platform, though I've dabbled with bare-bones XMP adjustment on a Rampage IV Extreme , an i7 3960X & oodles of Patriot quad-channel memory (all novice RAM tuners can claim enforcing XM profiles, though). It would have likely been a demonstration of wisdom to educate myself in this skill on a mature platform with a more forgiving array of hardware. Granted, the specificity of tuning and the logic associated with it aren't going to afford much flexibility, but infant BIOS variants definitely restrained the limits of my CPU & memory, effecting outbursts of sheer frustration whence hanging during the memory training POST procedure; finding passage to the OS once of every thrice attempt, & seeming unsatisfactory to boot at random, though I'm sure there was some mysterious cause I'll never understand.

In any case, the F7A & F7B bios versions have been much better, especially during the training process, & ULTRA FAST boots on my RD400 m.2 drive is under 7 seconds. Very satisfied. Can't wait for the Ryzen update.


----------



## Zendal

@TripleTurbo

Would you mind sharing your full memory settings? I'm kinda struggling to get to 3466CL14, I could use another angle


----------



## Dimaggio1103

Thanks to the excel doc I was able to get 3200Mhz on my CMR16GX4M2C3000C15 kit. Settings are: 3200 16-18-18-18-38-54-1T SoC 1.1 Voltage 1.4 ProcODT 58ohm CAD_BUS 30-30-30-30 7/off/6

is 1.1 soc and 1.4 on dram relatively safe for a year or two?


----------



## brenopapito

Any advice to stabilize my memories?

G.Skill F4-3000C14-8GTZR (2x8gb) (B-die) @ 3333MHz - 14 14 14 14 28 (I just changed these timings)

DRAM Voltage: 1.375v
SOC Voltage: 1.05v
VTT DRAM Voltage: 0.6864v
Boot DRAM Voltage: 1.375v
VDDP Voltage: 855
VPP Voltage: 2.5v
PLL Voltage: 1.8v
CLDO_VDDP Voltage: 700

procODT: 53 / 60
RTT NOM: RZQ 5 / RZQ 7
RTT WR: Off
RTT PARK: RZQ 5

Mobo: Asus Hero VI
Bios: 3501

When is stressing with Memtest, always freeze/bsod after 5 minutes or less.


----------



## Floyd31

Vdram => 1.4


----------



## Atomfix

The new V12 of the calculator gives me Fast and Safe settings for my Hynix M-Die unbootable. Use settings from V11 and it boots again, but still unstable


----------



## Curvy Groyper

What is worst memory for overclocking on Ryzen? I am poor engineering student and I needed big RAM to be able to run simulations,and with the brutal RAM price hike,in my country 300% there was no way I could afford B die.

So I bought cheapest Crucial 2x16gb 2133 MHz CL15 RAM without heatsink,anyone have one? How do 16gb sticks with Micron chip overclock? On positive side,I have X370 Taichi... what is highest frequency I can hope to achieve with 1.35 max voltage and loose but not insanely bad timings?


----------



## Anty

@1usmus

FYI

I would say SOC voltages from tool for 4 sticks b-dies (probably not most common configuration) tend to be too low. Checked with 1701 and 3501 on C6H - anything below 1.13 as bare minimum will give errors with decent core OC. 
1.14 - 1. 15 is OK for [email protected] with core running around 3.9 - 4.0.
And I'm quite sure it is SOC and not core voltage as at 1.35 I can run 4.0 with heaviest AVX load - at 1.35 I can do CB15 @4050 and AIDA @4150 
4.2 is too much for 1.35 for sure.


----------



## 1usmus

Dimaggio1103 said:


> Thanks to the excel doc I was able to get 3200Mhz on my CMR16GX4M2C3000C15 kit. Settings are: 3200 16-18-18-18-38-54-1T SoC 1.1 Voltage 1.4 ProcODT 58ohm CAD_BUS 30-30-30-30 7/off/6
> 
> is 1.1 soc and 1.4 on dram relatively safe for a year or two?



absolutely safe 



brenopapito said:


> Any advice to stabilize my memories?
> 
> G.Skill F4-3000C14-8GTZR (2x8gb) (B-die) @ 3333MHz - 14 14 14 14 28 (I just changed these timings)
> 
> DRAM Voltage: 1.375v
> SOC Voltage: 1.05v
> VTT DRAM Voltage: 0.6864v
> Boot DRAM Voltage: 1.375v
> VDDP Voltage: 855
> VPP Voltage: 2.5v
> PLL Voltage: 1.8v
> CLDO_VDDP Voltage: 700
> 
> procODT: 53 / 60
> RTT NOM: RZQ 5 / RZQ 7
> RTT WR: Off
> RTT PARK: RZQ 5
> 
> Mobo: Asus Hero VI
> Bios: 3501
> 
> When is stressing with Memtest, always freeze/bsod after 5 minutes or less.


VDDP 0.900 and VDRAM 1.395 possibly help



Atomfix said:


> The new V12 of the calculator gives me Fast and Safe settings for my Hynix M-Die unbootable. Use settings from V11 and it boots again, but still unstable


try to use for Safe Preset 1.35 volts for RAM 



Curvy Groyper said:


> What is worst memory for overclocking on Ryzen? I am poor engineering student and I needed big RAM to be able to run simulations,and with the brutal RAM price hike,in my country 300% there was no way I could afford B die.
> 
> So I bought cheapest Crucial 2x16gb 2133 MHz CL15 RAM without heatsink,anyone have one? How do 16gb sticks with Micron chip overclock? On positive side,I have X370 Taichi... what is highest frequency I can hope to achieve with 1.35 max voltage and loose but not insanely bad timings?


this memory can work on 3466, but I advise you to start from 2933-3066. By the way the radiators play a very small role 



Anty said:


> @1usmus
> 
> FYI
> 
> I would say SOC voltages from tool for 4 sticks b-dies (probably not most common configuration) tend to be too low. Checked with 1701 and 3501 on C6H - anything below 1.13 as bare minimum will give errors with decent core OC.
> 1.14 - 1. 15 is OK for [email protected] with core running around 3.9 - 4.0.
> And I'm quite sure it is SOC and not core voltage as at 1.35 I can run 4.0 with heaviest AVX load - at 1.35 I can do CB15 @4050 and AIDA @4150
> 4.2 is too much for 1.35 for sure.


Thanks for the information, I'll take into account in the new version of the calculator  
what is the batch of your processor?


----------



## Anty

1usmus said:


> what is the batch of your processor?


1730SUS from RMA (segfault free)


----------



## fallrisk

Atomfix said:


> The new V12 of the calculator gives me Fast and Safe settings for my Hynix M-Die unbootable. Use settings from V11 and it boots again, but still unstable


On my absolutely crap AFR sticks, I've never once had successful settings from this calc. The only thing that currently works for my sticks is using Stilt's 3200c14 settings for 3000mhz. 3000c15 AFR > Stilt's settings for 3200c14 on 3000c14.. That's the best I've managed, but MFR should fair much better.


----------



## 1usmus

fallrisk said:


> On my absolutely crap AFR sticks, I've never once had successful settings from this calc. The only thing that currently works for my sticks is using Stilt's 3200c14 settings for 3000mhz. 3000c15 AFR > Stilt's settings for 3200c14 on 3000c14.. That's the best I've managed, but MFR should fair much better.


please describe what settings and timings you use


----------



## robolee

Atomfix said:


> The new V12 of the calculator gives me Fast and Safe settings for my Hynix M-Die unbootable. Use settings from V11 and it boots again, but still unstable


Same this V12 setting can't even bypass the window logo. I have to revert to V10 setting. i wish i have V11 to try but what the change over V10 to V11?


----------



## Synoxia

1usmus said:


> please describe what settings and timings you use


I'm pretty ignorant on Rams, but i guess this is supposed to work better than stilt settings? Also, i have a 3600c17 b-die kit from gskill, advanced settings tells me my chip has an 86% quality and that 3466 safe and 3333 fast is possible. 3466 c14 doesn't show anywhere, does this mean that i should let go 3466 c14 and just go on 3333 c14?


----------



## LicSqualo

@Synoxia
Just to share (another time) my experience. I've 3600C16 GSkill ram and I use "theStilt" preset of 3200 mhz ram to have c14 on 3466Mhz speed. 
I don't know if 1usmus have a magic hand to correct all the ram in the world used for Ryzen, but seems to me a bit exagerate.
Please read this forum (and also the one specific for your motherboards) and try. This is the only way we all used 'till now. 
Perhaps the next year most of the ram problems could be solved, but for the moment the only way is TRY and TEST.
Ryzen Dram Calculator is a suggestion, not a "vangelo". 
My opinion, of course.
Take a stamp to show my timings (extreme preset with some tweaking) and results.
Thanks to 1usmus and OCN forums community.


----------



## Synoxia

LicSqualo said:


> @Synoxia
> Just to share (another time) my experience. I've 3600C16 GSkill ram and I use "theStilt" preset of 3200 mhz ram to have c14 on 3466Mhz speed.
> I don't know if 1usmus have a magic hand to correct all the ram in the world used for Ryzen, but seems to me a bit exagerate.
> Please read this forum (and also the one specific for your motherboards) and try. This is the only way we all used 'till now.
> Perhaps the next year most of the ram problems could be solved, but for the moment the only way is TRY and TEST.
> Ryzen Dram Calculator is a suggestion, not a "vangelo".
> My opinion, of course.
> Take a stamp to show my timings (extreme preset with some tweaking) and results.
> Thanks to 1usmus and OCN forums community.


I can't find plenty of information for my motherboard (GB Aorus k7 x370) as i can find for the CH6 so idk where to look for.
Yes ofcourse it's not a vangelo but i was wondering if it's supposed to give "a better suggestion" compared to Stilt setting.
P.S The screen seems to have poor quality, but anyway amazing result, wish i could 3466 c14 with my kit too


----------



## LicSqualo

I swapped from Gigabyte (that I use until now with my FX-8350 a GA990FXA-UD7) to Asus for support reasons.
For my idea theStilt's settings work on Asus and "not so well" for other MB's manufacturers. 
I cutted the picture, hoping this time you can see my parameters in RTC.
And I've also some AIDA test with ram at 3600 with this last bios. Not stable.


----------



## robolee

LicSqualo said:


> I swapped from Gigabyte (that I use until now with my FX-8350 a GA990FXA-UD7) to Asus for support reasons.
> For my idea theStilt's settings work on Asus and "not so well" for other MB's manufacturers.
> I cutted the picture, hoping this time you can see my parameters in RTC.
> And I've also some AIDA test with ram at 3600 with this last bios. Not stable.


Anyone have V11 and willing to upload it for me to try out?
this V12 setting can't even bypass the window logo. I have to revert to V10 setting (boot and tested stable). i wish i have V11 to try and see what the different on V10 and V11


----------



## robolee

Anyone have V11 and willing to upload it for me to try out?
this V12 setting can't even bypass the window logo. I have to revert to V10 setting (boot and tested stable). i wish i have V11 to try and see what the different on V10 and V11


----------



## LicSqualo

*No problem to have a old version*



robolee said:


> Anyone have V11 and willing to upload it for me to try out?
> this V12 setting can't even bypass the window logo. I have to revert to V10 setting (boot and tested stable). i wish i have V11 to try and see what the different on V10 and V11


Yes, wait a bit, tonight when come back to home.


----------



## robolee

LicSqualo said:


> Yes, wait a bit, tonight when come back to home.


Thanks in advance. and sorry for the dbl post. The lag there :<


----------



## 1usmus

The new version will be released on February 8-9, I will try to take into account all the comments


----------



## SexySale85

*What settings caouse which type of error?*

Hi @1usmus,
thank U for everything.

I have written few times about Hynix RAM I have and it's instability. I have that famous Corsair LPX 16GB 3200 sticks...

New Bios for Asus B350 board is much better regarding cold boot and stability, but I still can't get rated frequency.
3066 is only stable - no error. Auto settings (Calculator Safe presets have MemTest errors and Fast won't even boot for 3066).

So I was experimenting with 3133 and 3200... On both, I can get it to boot, but of course MemTest errors after few percents... No matter how much DRAM voltage from 1.35 - 1.45V and a bunch of variations of RTT and other options. Even 2T same, without Proc overclock...

What I usually get for 3200 is the Blue screen with Memory management or IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL messages after few percents of MemTest or sometimes just MemTest errors...

Question is:


Is there any setting I should check/change for these type of blue screen messages?
Is there any general advice based on a type of MemTest error (divider 80 or 8) or percent when error starts, what setting we should look at?
What problem can we expect when wrong RTT dividers are?
What kind of errors occurs for CAD_BUS, ProcODT, VDDP and DRAM Voltage, etc? What settings to change/adjust?
I am really aware you are not God, but you are one of the most knowledgeable people around with great will to help us - poor souls  
I am sry for the long post, but I think that there are also people with similar questions.

Thank's again for great work U did for us all and ofc Elmor, Stilt, etc...


----------



## Atomfix

1usmus said:


> The new version will be released on February 8-9, I will try to take into account all the comments


Don't take it as a negative. Love the calculator, with V11, I can get safe preset at 3200MHz to boot. but it's unstable after 2 mins of Prime95. However, with V12 safe preset at 3200MHz. It's stuck in memory training.

The RAM I've got is "G.Skill Trident Z 3000MHz 16GB Kit." (F4-3000C15-8GTZB) Hynix M-Die. It boots with XMP profile and completely stable. Any information I can contribute that could maybe improve your calculator?


----------



## Heidi

Obviously depends on the RAM...with mine, I can only say...success!
It worked first shot...good job!
Pretty much it is up to individual modules n variation between them...


----------



## Synoxia

1usmus said:


> The new version will be released on February 8-9, I will try to take into account all the comments


Great work dude! I achieved this by just picking the 3333 "fast" and then just pumping some voltage (1.43) and some timings

Thank you


----------



## dspx

*Finally!*

I just wanted to say that I managed to achieve a stable 3266 MHz on my Hynix 3000 MHz single-sided A-die memory (CMK16GX4M2B3000C15) after updating to the latest Asus B350-Plus BIOS

I have set tRFC to auto, ProcODT to 48 ohm, 1.39V DRAM voltage

Thanks a lot @1usmus !


----------



## Targonis

As another Hynix M-die "victim", I've gone all around the issues getting my RAM to the rated 3200, with success on the latest two BIOS versions. When people say they have "the latest BIOS", people really need to provide the actual BIOS version, because what they THINK the latest BIOS is does not necessarily mean it is the latest BIOS version. With the Crosshair VI Hero for example, we have gotten pre-beta BIOS versions that have given us early improvements to RAM compatibility as well as some problems. We post our issues, and another version comes out with many/most of the issues fixed. The current version is 3502(unless I missed a post from Elmor). Even without the calculator, I can get my g.skill DDR4-3200CL16 memory to run decently and only had to up the DRAM voltage to 1.41. The calculator helps with the timings though, and getting the best performance out of my memory.

So, please provide the BIOS you are using, since you may not even realize there is a new BIOS version. The new AGESA 1.0.0.0a really helps for Hynix users.


----------



## Atomfix

Targonis said:


> As another Hynix M-die "victim", I've gone all around the issues getting my RAM to the rated 3200, with success on the latest two BIOS versions. When people say they have "the latest BIOS", people really need to provide the actual BIOS version, because what they THINK the latest BIOS is does not necessarily mean it is the latest BIOS version. With the Crosshair VI Hero for example, we have gotten pre-beta BIOS versions that have given us early improvements to RAM compatibility as well as some problems. We post our issues, and another version comes out with many/most of the issues fixed. The current version is 3502(unless I missed a post from Elmor). Even without the calculator, I can get my g.skill DDR4-3200CL16 memory to run decently and only had to up the DRAM voltage to 1.41. The calculator helps with the timings though, and getting the best performance out of my memory.
> 
> So, please provide the BIOS you are using, since you may not even realize there is a new BIOS version. The new AGESA 1.0.0.0a really helps for Hynix users.


Using the latest AGESA on my board, doesn't help much overclocking from 3000MHz default to 3200-OC, however, It's let me keep tighter timings at 3000MHz


----------



## figarro

I've been using the new 3803 BIOS for my ASUS X370 Prime and it did wonders for my dual rank Hynix M-die kit. I can now boot reliably at 3133 Mhz, but it's not stable at all (doesn't pass Intel Burn test, as this is the fastest way to test stability). 3066 and 3000 are also bootable, but not stable (I get a few crashes a day), so I'm basically back to 2933.

From what I can see as new behavior is that when the system crashes there's no more blue screen. Instead, I get artifacts on the screen (you can't read anything, the screen is full with artifacts) and that's it: I need to rest the PC to boot up again. Any ideas how to stabilize memory with this BIOS version or what causes this new type of crash?


----------



## Darkomax

Validated 3333 CL14 1.42v, 53.3 Ohm, 1.1v vSoC . It stall at 3400MHz.
Using a Ryzen 5 1600, 3600C17 Galax/KFA2 and a Gigabyte B350 Gaming 3.


----------



## figarro

Darkomax said:


> Validated 3333 CL14 1.42v, 53.3 Ohm, 1.1v vSoC . It stall at 3400MHz.
> Using a Ryzen 5 1600, 3600C17 Galax/KFA2 and a Gigabyte B350 Gaming 3.


I'm curious what program are you using for testing for RAM stability.


----------



## Darkomax

figarro said:


> I'm curious what program are you using for testing for RAM stability.


This one, but it's not free http://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1644432-great-new-memory-stability-tester-ram-test.html
If you like to min-max your memory, it will saves you days of testing though, it's about 10x faster than HCI.


----------



## ZeNch

Darkomax said:


> This one, but it's not free http://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1644432-great-new-memory-stability-tester-ram-test.html
> If you like to min-max your memory, it will saves you days of testing though, it's about 10x faster than HCI.


In my opinion:

The memory test can't be more fast than others really (if both use all cores).

Each software to test ram have different "tests" 0 and 1 / 8bit/ random pattern/ etc.
If this program is faster, this software have less tests.

Test memory fails is random. example:

Soft1: Fail at 5 minutes
Soft2: Fail at 30 minutes

In other day same test can be:
Soft1: Fail at 20 minutes
Soft2: Fail at 13 minutes

Other thing is the order of test.
Some test fails represent low voltage, others bad timings for example.

If this software use the tests with more fail % in Ryzen first it can be more fast to users but not faster really.


I can be wrong, Im not a developer.


----------



## Darkomax

ZeNch said:


> In my opinion:
> 
> The memory test can't be more fast than others really (if both use all cores).
> 
> Each software to test ram have different "tests" 0 and 1 / 8bit/ random pattern/ etc.
> If this program is faster, this software have less tests.
> 
> Test memory fails is random. example:
> 
> Soft1: Fail at 5 minutes
> Soft2: Fail at 30 minutes
> 
> In other day same test can be:
> Soft1: Fail at 20 minutes
> Soft2: Fail at 13 minutes
> 
> Other thing is the order of test.
> Some test fails represent low voltage, others bad timings for example.
> 
> If this software use the tests with more fail % in Ryzen first it can be more fast to users but not faster really.
> 
> 
> I can be wrong, Im not a developer.


I don't know, I was sceptcal at first but since it has been supported by The Stilt, I guess it's a reliable memtest. So far it has been as good as HCI as detecting errors, but instead of waiting 10-30min, it takes 1-2 min to detect them. Those annoying 2000+% errors are much faster to find now. (I though I was stable with a 1h GSAT and 2500% HCI, well it wasn't, I even crashed while simply browsing)


----------



## Leftezog

Greetings everyone!!! This is my first post in the forum and I want to ask some questions about the ryzen calculator and how we embed the settings into the uefi. First of all the gear I have is CH6 mobo with 1800x and tridentz 3600 c16 2x8gb kit samsung b die. I want to keep 1800x at stock settings and overclock only the memory. My goal is 3466 Mhz with c14 timings. I have read a lot of comments in this thread and in the ryzen memory stability thread and after a lot of tries with 3200Mhz stilt's presets from bios and tweaking into dimm and soc voltages I couldn't find something stable in HCI memtest. I was able to boot into windows most of the times but hci gives errors before 50%. I tried fast and safe stilt's 3200 preset and changed the speed to 3466 and the vsoc to 1.15, vdimm and vdimm boot to 1.44 but it isn't stable in hci. I tried to copy many of the 3466 c14 settings many achieved inside the thread but everything I tried gives me errors in hci before 100%. The stable settings I have managed so far and gave me over 400% error free HCI memtest are from taking fast 3466 settings from the calculator and making tcl and tcwl from 15 to 14. Also vdimm and vdimm boot is at 1.44 and SOC at 1.15. All the rest settings including procODT(53), RTT(5,off,5) and CAD values(20,20,20,20) are as the calculator.

The questions I have now are:

1) In the calculator do I always have to change also the values found in the advanced tab or change something when needed?
2) Is it necessary to bump up the vcore voltage to achieve 3466 c14 timings?
3)Is it something wrong with my current settings and need to change something crucial before proceeding to more aggressive timings?
Thanks you all and I'm so glad that I finally made into Ryzen upgrading my last 10 years old pc(Intel q9550) and finding such an awesome community in this forum. Really the knowledge is endless here. Any help and tip about making my settings better are highly appreciated!!!
These are screenshots of calculator, ryzen timing checker and AIDA64 mem bench:


----------



## LicSqualo

Leftezog said:


> Greetings everyone!!! This is my first post in the forum and I want to ask some questions about the ryzen calculator and how we embed the settings into the uefi. First of all the gear I have is CH6 mobo with 1800x and tridentz 3600 c16 2x8gb kit samsung b die. I want to keep 1800x at stock settings and overclock only the memory. My goal is 3466 Mhz with c14 timings. I have read a lot of comments in this thread and in the ryzen memory stability thread and after a lot of tries with 3200Mhz stilt's presets from bios and tweaking into dimm and soc voltages I couldn't find something stable in HCI memtest. I was able to boot into windows most of the times but hci gives errors before 50%. I tried fast and safe stilt's 3200 preset and changed the speed to 3466 and the vsoc to 1.15, vdimm and vdimm boot to 1.44 but it isn't stable in hci. I tried to copy many of the 3466 c14 settings many achieved inside the thread but everything I tried gives me errors in hci before 100%. The stable settings I have managed so far and gave me over 400% error free HCI memtest are from taking fast 3466 settings from the calculator and making tcl and tcwl from 15 to 14. Also vdimm and vdimm boot is at 1.44 and SOC at 1.15. All the rest settings including procODT(53), RTT(5,off,5) and CAD values(20,20,20,20) are as the calculator.
> 
> The questions I have now are:
> 
> 1) In the calculator do I always have to change also the values found in the advanced tab or change something when needed?
> 2) Is it necessary to bump up the vcore voltage to achieve 3466 c14 timings?
> 3)Is it something wrong with my current settings and need to change something crucial before proceeding to more aggressive timings?
> Thanks you all and I'm so glad that I finally made into Ryzen upgrading my last 10 years old pc(Intel q9550) and finding such an awesome community in this forum. Really the knowledge is endless here. Any help and tip about making my settings better are highly appreciated!!!
> These are screenshots of calculator, ryzen timing checker and AIDA64 mem bench:


Same ram kit. The only parameters you are differing (from me and for my experience) is the ProcODT. I'm stable only with 60 Ohm. 53 is a no go also for my kit (perhaps for lower speed can be used).
Just my opinion.


----------



## Leftezog

LicSqualo said:


> Same ram kit. The only parameters you are differing (from me and for my experience) is the ProcODT. I'm stable only with 60 Ohm. 53 is a no go also for my kit (perhaps for lower speed can be used).
> Just my opinion.


So you have the same settings with me but with 14-14-14-14 timings and proODT at 60 ohm? Any setting that may be different? Did you changed some of the advanced settings in the calculator or only the main page settings? Thanks for your reply!


----------



## LicSqualo

Leftezog said:


> So you have the same settings with me but with 14-14-14-14 timings and proODT at 60 ohm? Any setting that may be different? Did you changed some of the advanced settings in the calculator or only the main page settings? Thanks for your reply!


Yes, and I can move and tight my timing until 14-13-13-13-22-36-1T with trfc 256 (tried also 248 and 260, but is the same). 
I used to start with 3466 speed ratio and 3200-TheStilt-fast preset as base timings.


----------



## Leftezog

LicSqualo said:


> Yes, and I can move and tight my timing until 14-13-13-13-22-36-1T with trfc 256 (tried also 248 and 260, but is the same).
> I used to start with 3466 speed ratio and 3200-TheStilt-fast preset as base timings.


I tried so many times in the stilts presets and I just can't get how in most of you they are working out of the box. My kit will not be stable at fast or safe 3200 preset with 3466 speed no matter what I do from vsoc to vdimm procodt and cad variables. I think my cpu isn't capable enough or I do something wrong. Now testing 3333mhz stilts fast preset with 14-14-14-30-1t and I'm passing 70% hci memtest right now. Maybe my kit isn't capable of 3466 mhz with 14 timings? Don't know.


----------



## LicSqualo

*Check the hardware*

Really strange. 
Have you tested more relaxed timings as 3466 preset? 
Have you tried lower speed as 3200 with ram stable in HCI?
At the end, can you check your CRC status? Because I used only one time tayphoon burner to see my timings with Aura in background and BAM! one of my stick take some wrong information and the result was one CRC bad status, stick damaged. Solved quickly with Elmor "safe-my-life" program (SPDcheck, if I remember correctly, available here).


----------



## Leftezog

LicSqualo said:


> Really strange.
> Have you tested more relaxed timings as 3466 preset?
> Have you tried lower speed as 3200 with ram stable in HCI?
> At the end, can you check your CRC status? Because I used only one time tayphoon burner to see my timings with Aura in background and BAM! one of my stick take some wrong information and the result was one CRC bad status, stick damaged. Solved quickly with Elmor "safe-my-life" program (SPDcheck, if I remember correctly, available here).


I am able to do 14-15-15-15-30-1T with 3466 like my screenshot of ryzen timer above. I guess I have to manually work my way down on timings and other parameters slowly. I will check CRC status when I get home but anyway I never used AURA and typhoon burner together because I knew the bug they have long time ago.


----------



## LicSqualo

Good to know  (Aura + TB = NO).
I write this because I found your timings are a bit different than mine. I've 8,8750 and not 8,869, or 24,875 and not 24,869. The others are the same.
I haven't touch nothing to have this ram kit stable at this speed. All in auto except timings, ProcODT, GDM and DRam voltage + Soc Voltage. All quite similar to yours. I'm sorry that my help is not effective.


----------



## Leftezog

LicSqualo said:


> Good to know  (Aura + TB = NO).
> I write this because I found your timings are a bit different than mine. I've 8,8750 and not 8,869, or 24,875 and not 24,869. The others are the same.
> I haven't touch nothing to have this ram kit stable at this speed. All in auto except timings, ProcODT, GDM and DRam voltage + Soc Voltage. All quite similar to yours. I'm sorry that my help is not effective.


By checking CRC status you mean to open typhoon burner and let its read from SPDS like the guide video for the calculator shows? If you mean this, yes typhoon can read all the info without error and i exported them to html file and imported them to ram calculator. I have this thought also too that in everyone having the same kit with mine has 8.8750 latencies and i have something worse. I have the 3600 c16 rgb kit. Is it possible to play a role in the latencies? My rgb sticks also don't have thermal sensors on them too. :-/


----------



## LicSqualo

Hi, I don't know if the values are the same because the rams are the same or different. I can only say that from the program I use, SIV (http://rh-software.com/) and I have attached a screenshot, hoping that this can help, as you can see the values I have obtained are different. 
In the meddle of the picture you can see two square green blob, they are the CRC status. In the bottom you will found the values I obtained.
Unfortunately the only time I used TB I had problems and sincerely I'm not going to risk again. I'm so happy now.

Now I've found your values also in SIV, they are the same but with fine offset of -0,6 (as in picture attached).

But this don't solve your stability problem. 
Sincerly if they are b-die is the first time I see problems with Thestilt presets. I will eliminate the "hardware" issue variable and checking if one of your ram stick is well connected and the CRC status on SPD is ok (you can try also with the MB bios section dedicated to the SPD check, if I remember correctly). Just to be sure is not a simply little grain of dust in the wrong position, I will check also the hardware connection looking for dust near the ram connector.


----------



## Leftezog

LicSqualo said:


> Hi, I don't know if the values are the same because the rams are the same or different. I can only say that from the program I use, SIV (http://rh-software.com/) and I have attached a screenshot, hoping that this can help, as you can see the values I have obtained are different.
> In the meddle of the picture you can see two square green blob, they are the CRC status. In the bottom you will found the values I obtained.
> Unfortunately the only time I used TB I had problems and sincerely I'm not going to risk again. I'm so happy now.
> 
> Now I've found your values also in SIV, they are the same but with fine offset of -0,6 (as in picture attached).
> 
> But this don't solve your stability problem.
> Sincerly if they are b-die is the first time I see problems with Thestilt presets. I will eliminate the "hardware" issue variable and checking if one of your ram stick is well connected and the CRC status on SPD is ok (you can try also with the MB bios section dedicated to the SPD check, if I remember correctly). Just to be sure is not a simply little grain of dust in the wrong position, I will check also the hardware connection looking for dust near the ram connector.



OMG!!! Opened SIV64X and it shows only one's ram stick SPD details  See the screenshot below. Pc recognises 16gb and 16 gb are also usable. Is my ram sticks corrupted? How can I fix this?


----------



## Keith Myers

No, there is nothing wrong with your memory. Just turn off "Suppress same" checkbox in the top of the SPD Details page. It will show all your sticks.


----------



## Leftezog

Keith Myers said:


> No, there is nothing wrong with your memory. Just turn off "Suppress same" checkbox in the top of the SPD Details page. It will show all your sticks.


Oh thanks for the tip Keith!


----------



## DarkBlade6

What... a DRAM calculator?? what the f is this non-sense.
DRAM speed is also subject to silicon lottery, as well as your motherboard and your CPU !!! 
I mean how in the mtfing hell can you even predict your fastest memory speed (also considering the fact that there is so many different SKUs)
I call BS, trial and error is still the best way to go.


----------



## LicSqualo

DarkBlade6 said:


> What... a DRAM calculator?? what the f is this non-sense.
> DRAM speed is also subject to silicon lottery, as well as your motherboard and your CPU !!!
> I mean how in the mtfing hell can you even predict your fastest memory speed (also considering the fact that there is so many different SKUs)
> I call BS, trial and error is still the best way to go.


We can predict the speed. As example my kit is rated for 3600 Mhz, your?  I have reach this speed and perhaps i can go also further. So the predict is possible. But you right when you write that is subject to different factors (CPU, MB, PSU and probably also others factor unknow to us). But a calculator is a good start. Overall to suggest us (people without dram knowledge) some timings that are results of calculations. I take 1usmus (THANK YOU!!!) program as a base suggestion to start my ram overclock. And is really a good start (don't mention the Hynix ram where the calculator is a panacea, really good).
Anyway the case of Leftezog is strange for my knowledge.


----------



## figarro

For me the calculator did wonders with Hynix M-Die dual rank. I was running at 2666 for pretty much the better half of 2017 until I've found the calculator. I'm running at 2933 stable ever since, and with the latest BIOS version for my Asus X370 Prime I'm able to boot reliably at 3133 Mhz and run benchmarks, but it's not 100% stable. Hoping a new BIOS version will improve stability.



LicSqualo said:


> We can predict the speed. As example my kit is rated for 3600 Mhz, your?  I have reach this speed and perhaps i can go also further. So the predict is possible. But you right when you write that is subject to different factors (CPU, MB, PSU and probably also others factor unknow to us). But a calculator is a good start. Overall to suggest us (people without dram knowledge) some timings that are results of calculations. I take 1usmus (THANK YOU!!!) program as a base suggestion to start my ram overclock. And is really a good start (don't mention the Hynix ram where the calculator is a panacea, really good).
> Anyway the case of Leftezog is strange for my knowledge.


----------



## 1usmus

decided to publish an intermediate version 
*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v13*

* Download* -> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MpIZ2C5Ju-EvoJim6kaEEGVoIKU-rzU9

* instruction for memory with XMP *​



* instructions for memory without XMP *​




Change-log:

* Fixed a bug of voltage DRAM / SOC at a frequency of 3400
* Fixed bug of high tRC value of Safe preset in calculator for memory without XMP profile
* Added new version of procODT for memory on Hynix chips
* All versions of RTT + procODT for memory on Micron chips are reworked
* Improved overclocking Micron memory up to 3466
* Changes in the calculation for all timings for memory on Micron chips 
* Changes in the calculation of timings tRCDRD, tRCDWR, tRP, tRAS, tRC, tRDWR, tWRRD for Hynix chips (Improved overclocking)
* Changing the recommendations of Memory interleaving size

*since AGESA 1.0.0.0a is not the final version of the changes in the calculator there will be quite a lot...*


----------



## kaseki

DarkBlade6 said:


> What... a DRAM calculator?? what the f is this non-sense.
> DRAM speed is also subject to silicon lottery, as well as your motherboard and your CPU !!!
> I mean how in the mtfing hell can you even predict your fastest memory speed (also considering the fact that there is so many different SKUs)
> I call BS, trial and error is still the best way to go.


Unless you have read the entirety of the C6H thread, as well as the entirety of this thread, and the DRAM thread of guptserg, you aren't qualified to comment [or troll].

It is also evident that you don't know what this calculator is intended to accomplish, so I'll provide a hint. It aggregates the knowledge of hundreds (at least) of successful overclockers' DRAM and DRAM tuning configurations so that new overclockers have a starting point for DRAM tuning refinement. I would estimate that 1000s of man-hours have been and will be saved world-wide as a result of this facility.


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> decided to publish an intermediate version
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v13*
> 
> * Download* -> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NM0TgDsX489OVBvk7bQhXABYfB7cfaf9
> 
> * instruction for memory with XMP *​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWJD5P0x9Ow
> * instructions for memory without XMP *​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-XkaF_Rp0c&t=0s
> 
> Change-log:
> 
> * Fixed a bug of voltage DRAM / SOC at a frequency of 3400
> * Fixed bug of high tRC value of Safe preset in calculator for memory without XMP profile
> * Added new version of procODT for memory on Hynix chips
> * All versions of RTT + procODT for memory on Micron chips are reworked
> * Improved overclocking Micron memory up to 3466
> * Changes in the calculation for all timings for memory on Micron chips
> * Changes in the calculation of timings tRCDRD, tRCDWR, tRP, tRAS, tRC, tRDWR, tWRRD for Hynix chips (Improved overclocking)
> * Changing the recommendations of Memory interleaving size
> 
> *since AGESA 1.0.0.0a is not the final version of the changes in the calculator there will be quite a lot...*


Thnx mussi, will take a look tomorrow, its too late here now and time for bed lol. 

Cheers.


----------



## hurricane28

DarkBlade6 said:


> What... a DRAM calculator?? what the f is this non-sense.
> DRAM speed is also subject to silicon lottery, as well as your motherboard and your CPU !!!
> I mean how in the mtfing hell can you even predict your fastest memory speed (also considering the fact that there is so many different SKUs)
> I call BS, trial and error is still the best way to go.


Under what rock did they pull you from...? 

Lower the tone a bit dude, you have no idea what you are talking about...


----------



## CharlieWheelie

I think there be a problem with the group tRFC1-4 and Alt settings
Here is V12 and V13 BOTH 2933Mhz & 3200Mhz


----------



## Anty

tRDRD SCL does not seem ok too (it grows instead of drop for fast/extreme vs safe).


----------



## 1usmus

sorry guys, the virus killed a lot of files, I retrieved the calculator code from memory, maybe bugs, but I'll clean them all up tomorrow

Version reupload https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MpIZ2C5Ju-EvoJim6kaEEGVoIKU-rzU9 , *without bug tRFC and tRDRD SCL*  

Today I want to release another update related to tRFC, I have some ideas


----------



## Spectre73

I am running 2x16 GB F4-3200C14-16GTZSW at its rated speed with new Agesa 1.0.0.0a on a x370 Taichi. I found stable settings and voltages more or less on Auto/XMP timings.

So my timings are quite bad, but at least they are stable. Each time I try to tighten some timing, I immediately get memory errors. So obviously with my concrete setup I am at a limit.

Which setting (ProcODT, RTT, CAD_BUS, Voltage) is most likely to allow me to tighten my timings further (remember, I can not even improve SCL values from 6 down with current setup).

My goal would be to reach SCL setting of 2, tWR of 10 or 12 and tRFC as low as possible (would already be happy with 416 or 309).


----------



## 3200MHz

1usmus said:


> decided to publish an intermediate version


Thank you.
Isn't it a bug with overclocking potential values?
(Похоже, перепутаны значения. Раньше всё наоборот было.)


----------



## 1usmus

3200MHz said:


> Thank you.
> Isn't it a bug with overclocking potential values?
> (Похоже, перепутаны значения. Раньше всё наоборот было.)


True, in some places have changed + collect reviews on the rest of the bugs 
да, перепутаны, на днях исправлю все остальные баги , пока собираю отзывы


----------



## 1usmus

V14 coming soon


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> V14 coming soon


Nice  Looking forward to it...


----------



## Sev501

1usmus said:


> V14 coming soon


Thanks for this! Was able to make my hynix m-dies (whot I thought was stable) to be more reliable on my Giga x370 K7. Maybe the new version would give me a better base setting to make it stable with our latest bios f20.

Thank you for your efforts and glad you got the virus problem resolved.


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> V14 coming soon


Neat! Looking forward to it! :specool:


----------



## bottlefedchaney

Keep up the great work with this tool, it has helped me a lot. On another note, my Hynix M-die ram which never would boot @3200 on 1CR with Gear Down disabled, does now. I don't know which to attribute it to new bios updates or changing my rzq settings to what your tool recommended, I'm pleased either way.

Good work.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 Beta*

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Vv6-cBw9J74vPqNuV-6Xn-skVUZk_m49

Changes:

* Optimization of primary timings for the Zen1 memory controller (round to even)
* VTT DDR prediction now has margins (vtt ddr min and vtt ddr max)
* some RTT changes for Hynix and Micron
* added a new separate calculator tRFC with nine variants of calculations
* changed tRFC / tRFC2 / tRFC4 in all presets
* Most timings in all presets have been reworked (in critical timings there is rounding to even)
* significant changes to tRDWR (can help with errors code 8 and code 2000 in HCI)
* reworked Samsung B-die Extreme preset
* In most calculators tRC has a small margin (should improve the situation with stability)
* Fixed bug tRRDS = tRRDL for Samsung C / E / D-die
* Fixed bug in Overclocking Potential tab
* Changed the quality of Micron chips (Overclocking Potential tab)
* fix minor bugs and visual edits​


----------



## SexySale

Thank you @1usmus


----------



## LicSqualo

*Thank you!*

A big THANK YOU 1usmus.
I will try 3600MHz and I wil post my results.


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 Beta*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Vv6-cBw9J74vPqNuV-6Xn-skVUZk_m49
> 
> Changes:
> 
> * Optimization of primary timings for the Zen1 memory controller (round to even)
> * VTT DDR prediction now has margins (vtt ddr min and vtt ddr max)
> * some RTT changes for Hynix and Micron
> * added a new separate calculator tRFC with nine variants of calculations
> * changed tRFC / tRFC2 / tRFC4 in all presets
> * Most timings in all presets have been reworked (in critical timings there is rounding to even)
> * significant changes to tRDWR (can help with errors code 8 and code 2000 in HCI)
> * reworked Samsung B-die Extreme preset
> * In most calculators tRC has a small margin (should improve the situation with stability)
> * Fixed bug tRRDS = tRRDL for Samsung C / E / D-die
> * Fixed bug in Overclocking Potential tab
> * Changed the quality of Micron chips (Overclocking Potential tab)
> * fix minor bugs and visual edits​


Thank you so much, mate! Hope to be able to test this new version before the end of the week! :thumb:


----------



## Anty

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 Beta*
> ​




First bug reports 
1) calculations for 3533 and up do not seem OK (check values for safe, fast end extreme primary timings)
2) "additional calculators" tab - if you enter just "tRFC ns" without speed it gives exception, if only speed without ns it gives proper error message​


----------



## hurricane28

Weird, i used this new calculator and my system won't even boot due to RAM misconfiguration.. Loaded The Stilt presets and it booted no problem..


----------



## 1usmus

LicSqualo said:


> A big THANK YOU 1usmus.
> I will try 3600MHz and I wil post my results.


at the moment I'm focused on the 3200 frequency for all types of memory, the frequencies 3466+ have not yet been engaged


----------



## 1usmus

hurricane28 said:


> Weird, i used this new calculator and my system won't even boot due to RAM misconfiguration.. Loaded The Stilt presets and it booted no problem..


tRDWR 6 
tWRRD 3


----------



## hurricane28

Thnx, will try tomorrow, i am quite done for today tweaking this system.


----------



## blikblue

Reporting my result, with Beta version Hynix M-die on Arock AB350 Pro4 at 3200 fail from cold boot, haven't try different tRFC though.
Still stick on 0.9.9 V12.


----------



## Spectre73

1usmus said:


> at the moment I'm focused on the 3200 frequency for all types of memory, the frequencies 3466+ have not yet been engaged


That is great to hear. Any chance that you look at DR ram at that frequency, too? (DR 3200 B-die, e.g.). Great work, btw!


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 Beta*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Vv6-cBw9J74vPqNuV-6Xn-skVUZk_m49
> 
> Changes:
> 
> * Optimization of primary timings for the Zen1 memory controller (round to even)
> * VTT DDR prediction now has margins (vtt ddr min and vtt ddr max)
> * some RTT changes for Hynix and Micron
> * added a new separate calculator tRFC with nine variants of calculations
> * changed tRFC / tRFC2 / tRFC4 in all presets
> * Most timings in all presets have been reworked (in critical timings there is rounding to even)
> * significant changes to tRDWR (can help with errors code 8 and code 2000 in HCI)
> * reworked Samsung B-die Extreme preset
> * In most calculators tRC has a small margin (should improve the situation with stability)
> * Fixed bug tRRDS = tRRDL for Samsung C / E / D-die
> * Fixed bug in Overclocking Potential tab
> * Changed the quality of Micron chips (Overclocking Potential tab)
> * fix minor bugs and visual edits​


THX, Danke, Спасиьа, Spasiba, dziekuje etc....


----------



## Pimpmuckl

Thanks for the tool! I have a question about the Dual Rank MFR Hynix Die: The calculator suggests die disable BGS, yet I'm preeetty sure it is supposed to be enabled. I'll test in a bit, but is dual rank Hynix die supported in general? As an example, I don't have a Bank Group Swap Alt option in AMD CBS -> UMC -> DRAM Memory Mapping, only a normal BankGroupSwap option.

Edit: Thanks for the answer below


----------



## Kayant

Pimpmuckl said:


> Thanks for the tool! I have a question about the Dual Rank MFR Hynix Die: The calculator suggests die disable BGS, yet I'm preeetty sure it is supposed to be enabled. I'll test in a bit, but is dual rank Hynix die supported in general? As an example, I don't have a Bank Group Swap Alt option in AMD CBS -> UMC -> DRAM Memory Mapping, only a normal BankGroupSwap option.


Explicit control over Bank Group Swap Alt was removed in the latest Agesa bios releases. When you have Bank Group Swap to disabled it enables Bank Group Swap alt.

I have a Dual-Rank Hynix MFR kit and it works fine for me.


----------



## tfran1990

ok so im guessing now i enter in all the values from the main,advance,power supply system tabs?(what about the additional calculators tab)

another question... way does thaiphoon burner say my ram is F4-3400C16-16GTZ on the lable from the box it says F4-340016D-32GTZ maybe because its one stick?

if this does not work do i try another Frequency, or do i tinker with some voltages?


----------



## harrysun

@tfran1990 The D within F4-340016D-32GTZ stands for two peaces of F4-3400C16-16GTZ. Thaiphoon Burner reads the SPD content of one of the sticks.


----------



## ZeNch

tfran1990 said:


> ok so im guessing now i enter in all the values from the main,advance,power supply system tabs?(what about the additional calculators tab)
> 
> another question... way does thaiphoon burner say my ram is F4-3400C16-16GTZ on the lable from the box it says F4-340016D-32GTZ maybe because its one stick?
> 
> if this does not work do i try another Frequency, or do i tinker with some voltages?


The calculator not is perfect but help much to find your correct settings.

You can try with more and less freq. And yes in some cases people need more voltage.


----------



## Rossi87

I am having problems with my G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZ, I know its B-die but I get errors in MemTest after about 80% when trying to hit 3200. 
Is this an issue with the 16GB Duel Rank sticks being harder to overclock than the 8GB Single Rank? The calculator suggests i use 1.35 but I am running this at 1.44 and 1.15 SOC and it's definitely not stable. I don't really want to give it too much more voltage, since the XMP only needs 1.35v.
Anyone have any ideas on how to get more stability? Should I loosen the timings to 3400 timings? 
My motherboard is the Gigabyte is the X370 Gaming K7 CPU 1800x.


----------



## harrysun

Rossi87 said:


> I am having problems with my G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZ, I know its B-die but I get errors in MemTest after about 80% when trying to hit 3200.
> Is this an issue with the 16GB Duel Rank sticks being harder to overclock than the 8GB Single Rank? The calculator suggests i use 1.35 but I am running this at 1.44 and 1.15 SOC and it's definitely not stable. I don't really want to give it too much more voltage, since the XMP only needs 1.35v.
> Anyone have any ideas on how to get more stability? Should I loosen the timings to 3400 timings?
> My motherboard is the Gigabyte is the X370 Gaming K7 CPU 1800x.


Dual rank is harder to setup right then the single rank modules. Refer to my footer for information how to get them working on a ASUS Crosshair VI Hero board. It's is a combination of VDDSOC / CAD_BUS / ProcODT / RttNom / RttWr / RttPark etc. I do not even know if it is possible to setup them all with a Gigabyte BIOS.


----------



## WexleySnoops

With the release of Bios 4.40 for Taichi, and the newest version of this calculator, I was able to finally get my 1700 to 3800 @ 1.25V, as well as my ram to 3200 @ 14-16-16-34-52 @ 1.35V (not the greatest timings, but the ram was a steal given current prices..)

Ram sticks are Corsair CMR16GX4M2C3600C18.

Will be running memtest, etc. to ensure this is all stable. 

Thanks!


----------



## AlphaC

> I ran the numbers from your calculator for my XMP profile and some things I noticed:
> 
> tRAS is higher than it has to be , can run 30 easily instead of 34 for fast preset rather than suggested by the calculator (safe preset ought to be 38)
> tRC for my XMP profile is 56 and Stilt's presets have 56 or higher for Hynix MFR but your calculator gives 53 for fast preset
> tFAW = 34 out of the box (& Stilt's presets) yet the calculator gives 36
> tRFC = 416 seems unlikely for Hynix MFR , Stilt's AFR fast recommendation is 416
> tRDWR from calculator is 7 but out of the box is 6 and all Stilt's presets have 6
> *tCKE = 1 while Stilt's presets and my out of the box value is 8* , please check into this for fast preset since the safe preset gives 8


Per my above concerns from January 2018 , 
* Safe preset now properly has 38 tRAS 
* Still 60 tRC for safe preset , but 56 for fast preset is more or less spot on
* tFAW is 38 for safe and 30 for fast ---- need to check this
* tRFC is 440 for fast preset now
* tRDWR is 6 (fixed)
* tCKE is 8 for safe but 1 for fast preset ?


----------



## tfran1990

when i enter in all the setting given by the calculator do i select the xmp profile in the drop down? or do i select the speed from the dropdown in the manual portion?


----------



## christoph

AlphaC said:


> Per my above concerns from January 2018 ,
> * Safe preset now properly has 38 tRAS
> * Still 60 tRC for safe preset , but 56 for fast preset is more or less spot on
> * tFAW is 38 for safe and 30 for fast ---- need to check this
> * tRFC is 440 for fast preset now
> * tRDWR is 6 (fixed)
> * tCKE is 8 for safe but 1 for fast preset ?




yeah I noticed the tCKE being 8 for safe but 1 for fast is been kinda hard to put my ram at the rated speed but the calculator helps a lot


----------



## Bulorf

Anyone using Hynix SR MFR with Asus B350-Plus that has calculator settings that work?


----------



## crakej

with the beta I tried 3200, 3333, 3400 fast settings. none of them boot for me - the bios doesn't even start, I get a black screen and no beep, reset does work, but you have to power off/on a couple of time before safe mode engages. I tried with and without channel interleaving which made no difference, and played with voltages a bit but still nothing 

previous version gave me timings (for above speeds) that would boot so I could play with them.... sticking with that for now on 3200 fast. Thanks for the hard work you're putting in.

Prime X370 Pro


----------



## Zendal

@crakej That was happening to me until I used tRDWR 6 instead of 5. Maybe that will help you.


----------



## crakej

Zendal said:


> @crakej That was happening to me until I used tRDWR 6 instead of 5. Maybe that will help you.


Wow - just that cause the same blackscreen for you?

I will give that a go later and see what happens. Thanks for the tip.

Edit: this worked at 3200! I changed tRRDS and and tRDWR to 6 and it booted first time! Thank you so much

Edit1: still no 3333 or 3466


----------



## 1usmus

*I will publish a hot fix version today*



crakej said:


> Wow - just that cause the same blackscreen for you?
> 
> I will give that a go later and see what happens. Thanks for the tip.
> 
> Edit: this worked at 3200! I changed tRRDS and and tRDWR to 6 and it booted first time! Thank you so much
> 
> Edit1: still no 3333 or 3466


tRDWR 7 (or 8) for 3333 and 3466


----------



## 1usmus

AlphaC said:


> Per my above concerns from January 2018 ,
> * Safe preset now properly has 38 tRAS
> * Still 60 tRC for safe preset , but 56 for fast preset is more or less spot on
> * tFAW is 38 for safe and 30 for fast ---- need to check this
> * tRFC is 440 for fast preset now
> * tRDWR is 6 (fixed)
> * tCKE is 8 for safe but 1 for fast preset ?


this is taken into account in the new version of the calculator,
  it is already at the testing stage. thanks for the info

tCKE 1 if explained in a primitive language, automatic mode


----------



## kladve

crakej said:


> Wow - just that cause the same blackscreen for you?
> 
> I will give that a go later and see what happens. Thanks for the tip.
> 
> Edit: this worked at 3200! I changed tRRDS and and tRDWR to 6 and it booted first time! Thank you so much
> 
> Edit1: still no 3333 or 3466


hi hi hi

dont waste your time to overclock 3333 or 3466 on prime, use extreme preset calculator 3200, works fine with yours kits


----------



## 1usmus

*370 PRIME* has an error in the board design, in most cases procODT needs a step less + CAD_BUS 30 30 40 60


----------



## hurricane28

has anyone actually achieved booting on 3733 MHz? I tried but it was a no go for me, board or CPU didn't like it at all and was stuck, had to hard reset it lol.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 Beta 2*

download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SAx3EA3t6BFv9rDkcP9T5DgIw4rB6G5M

changes:
* tRDWR tWRRD fix (elimination of a system start-up error)


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> *370 PRIME* has an error in the board design, in most cases procODT needs a step less + CAD_BUS 30 30 40 60


Thanks for the info and making the changes - I'll give it a try later. Whats this error in board design? How did you find out?


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> *370 PRIME* has an error in the board design, in most cases procODT needs a step less + CAD_BUS 30 30 40 60


Is same with *B350 PRIME*?


----------



## 1usmus

crakej said:


> Thanks for the info and making the changes - I'll give it a try later. Whats this error in board design? How did you find out?




The practical investigation was conducted on an identical processor and identical memory. For system , you always needed a smaller procODT and other settings for CAD_BUS
+ the maximum threshold is 3200 for overclocking the RAM... 



SexySale said:


> Is same with *B350 PRIME*?


this board does not have this problem


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> this board does not have this problem


Thank you for confirmation.

Maybe, one of future updates for Calculator can be option for board, for those cases you are aware of.

Thank you for all work on this.


----------



## hurricane28

Hey mussie, 

Have you ever booted 3733 MHz? I am curious. If not, what is the max frequency you ever booted and was stable?


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> The practical investigation was conducted on an identical processor and identical memory. For system , you always needed a smaller procODT and other settings for CAD_BUS
> + the maximum threshold is 3200 for overclocking the RAM...


But I could boot to a desktop at 3333 and 3466 with older versions - the timings are radically different - how is that? Is it because of newer AGESA? 3333 was nearly stable too.

I know the board has the AMD reference trace and that it was different. So you took CPU and RAM from a CH6 or something else that was working and tried it on the Prime?

Thanks again - you have saved me much time! Just interested to try figure out whats so different about the Prime.


----------



## Zendal

1usmus said:


> The practical investigation was conducted on an identical processor and identical memory. For system , you always needed a smaller procODT and other settings for CAD_BUS
> + the maximum threshold is 3200 for overclocking the RAM...


Really? I can also boot higher than 3200 but no luck getting anything stable above that...

I can still return my Prime X370-PRO, which one of these would be better for overclock?

Asus STRIX X370-F GAMING
Asrock X370 Taichi 
Gigabyte GA-AX370-GAMING-K7


----------



## hsn

hurricane28 said:


> Hey mussie,
> 
> Have you ever booted 3733 MHz? I am curious. If not, what is the max frequency you ever booted and was stable?


yes i did boot on 3733 dual channel but loose timing


----------



## hurricane28

That's need, i never managed to do that but than again, i am on different chip.


----------



## 1usmus

SexySale said:


> Thank you for confirmation.
> 
> Maybe, one of future updates for Calculator can be option for board, for those cases you are aware of.
> 
> Thank you for all work on this.


I have great hope that motherboard manufacturers will eventually finalize all their products

example: taichi on 1.0.0.0a requires more voltage for Soc than ASUS boards
it should not be. Each motherboard manufacturer has access to bus calibrations, but apparently they do not have time to fix anything



hurricane28 said:


> Hey mussie,
> 
> Have you ever booted 3733 MHz? I am curious. If not, what is the max frequency you ever booted and was stable?


3533 it was a maximum on my old 1700 (batch 6) but unstable
much depends on quality memory...i have bad b-die kit 
for example 3600CL14 stable https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?p=15383857#p15383857



Zendal said:


> Really? I can also boot higher than 3200 but no luck getting anything stable above that...
> 
> I can still return my Prime X370-PRO, which one of these would be better for overclock?
> 
> Asus STRIX X370-F GAMING
> Asrock X370 Taichi
> Gigabyte GA-AX370-GAMING-K7


Asrock X370 Taichi or CH6 



hsn said:


> yes i did boot on 3733 dual channel but loose timing


wow :specool:
RTC? procODT? RTT?


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> I have great hope that motherboard manufacturers will eventually finalize all their products
> 
> example: taichi on 1.0.0.0a requires more voltage for Soc than ASUS boards
> it should not be. Each motherboard manufacturer has access to bus calibrations, but apparently they do not have time to fix anything
> 
> 
> 
> 3533 it was a maximum on my old 1700 (batch 6) but unstable
> much depends on quality memory...i have bad b-die kit
> for example 3600CL14 stable https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?p=15383857#p15383857
> 
> 
> 
> Asrock X370 Taichi or CH6
> 
> 
> 
> wow :specool:
> RTC? procODT? RTT?


So ware you saying that the chip IMC of these CPU's probably can do it? 
Why did you link an Russian website? lol. Can't read that dude.


----------



## 1usmus

hurricane28 said:


> So ware you saying that the chip IMC of these CPU's probably can do it?
> Why did you link an Russian website? lol. Can't read that dude.


from the IMC depends on the result and the quality of memory, 50 to 50. In my case I have bad memory and a bad processor 

I gave you a link so that you looked at the pictures, you do not need to read anything 

*elesin38* has the best memory you can buy (G.skill 3600CL15), it was able to achieve stability at 3600 + txt file https://pastebin.com/fMCdSWyM


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> from the IMC depends on the result and the quality of memory, 50 to 50. In my case I have bad memory and a bad processor
> 
> I gave you a link so that you looked at the pictures, you do not need to read anything
> 
> *elesin38* has the best memory you can buy (G.skill 3600CL15), it was able to achieve stability at 3600 + txt file https://pastebin.com/fMCdSWyM


Nice speed! I see some scary settings tho. LLC level 5? And for the Soc Level 4. I would never do that to my system as i use it every day all day long. 

Nevertheless, very impressive.


----------



## pennhaven

1usmus said:


> *370 PRIME* has an error in the board design, in most cases procODT needs a step less + CAD_BUS 30 30 40 60


Does this also apply for X370-F Gaming?

Thanks for all your work!


----------



## pennhaven

Anyone else unable to save screenshots with 1.0.0beta2? For me it acts as though it is saving them, but no .png shows up in the save-to file folder. 0.9.9 v12/13 worked OK.


----------



## Zendal

It's working for me, @pennhaven


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> wow :specool:
> RTC? procODT? RTT?


all is set auto XMP enable on bios


----------



## MagiRaven

Ryzen Dram Calculator helped me hit 3200Mhz and pretty much eliminate the cold boot. I think that is pretty good for 64gb memory. I'm not sure how much higher I could go. Big thanks to the creator of this wonderful tool!


----------



## seniorfallrisk

So, I haven't bothered to post until now but ever since I first started trying this calc (v7) if has been way off on coming close to even posting on my Hynix AFR kit. I'm able to run Stilt's MFR 3200mhz settings at 3000mhz on my sticks, but have never once been able to post with this calculator's settings. 

Since even v7, the only values that have changed are the primaries on 3000mhz from 15-17-17-17-35 then to 16-16-16-16-34 now.. I can't be the only one that finds this thing to never work?

I've got a 1700 on a C6H and 3000c15 Corsair LPX with Hynix AFR..


----------



## Leftezog

hurricane28 said:


> Nice speed! I see some scary settings tho. LLC level 5? And for the Soc Level 4. I would never do that to my system as i use it every day all day long.
> 
> Nevertheless, very impressive.


What is wrong with CPU LLC lvl 5? Isn't this the only llc level that keeps vcore stable all the time and nearly identical as you put it on the uefi?


----------



## hurricane28

Leftezog said:


> What is wrong with CPU LLC lvl 5? Isn't this the only llc level that keeps vcore stable all the time and nearly identical as you put it on the uefi?


Level 5 is extreme LLC which is very dangerous for the CPU because of high voltage overshoot. Did you never read about LLC BEFORE overclocking? If i were you i would use level 3 instead of 5 if you want your components to last. 

Level 3 is the sweet spot when it comes to LLC. 

Here is a video for you to understand why its not a good idea to use extreme LLC:


----------



## crakej

Many of us with Prime X370 use LLC5 - I'm sure this is dependent on which board you have, but users have measured the outputs with a scope to see if we're getting any big spikes, but none have been found. This guy points out that the extreme setting is bad, but we don't have this setting, we only have LLC5 which is *flat*. I have been running like this for nearly a year without problems.


----------



## hurricane28

crakej said:


> Many of us with Prime X370 use LLC5 - I'm sure this is dependent on which board you have, but users have measured the outputs with a scope to see if we're getting any big spikes, but none have been found. This guy points out that the extreme setting is bad, but we don't have this setting, we only have LLC5 which is *flat*. I have been running like this for nearly a year without problems.



No you are wrong.. Level 5 is extreme.. Raja Asus and Elmor clearly pointed that out in the CH6 thread on the first page. I never managed to measure it myself as i don't have scope but i would like to have one just to measure myself.


----------



## hurricane28

Sorry, its in this thread: http://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1625015-ryzen-essential-info-link-owners-info-db.html


----------



## Zendal

I'm with @crakej here, at least on the SOC side (I didn't need to fiddle with CPU LLC). On my Prime X370 I needed SOC on Level 4 to maintain a stable voltage, anything below that would Vdroop considerably under load.


----------



## hurricane28

Zendal said:


> I'm with @crakej here, at least on the SOC side (I didn't need to fiddle with CPU LLC). On my Prime X370 I needed SOC on Level 4 to maintain a stable voltage, anything below that would Vdroop considerably under load.


Than you are doing something wrong. What program do you use for monitoring?


----------



## Zendal

Checked with Aida, HWinfo and OCCT, same readings. Again, I need lvl 4 SOC LCC to get rid of Vdroop on THIS board. My previous B350, for example, didn't need that.


----------



## SexySale

Is there any LLC settings for B350 boards? (Asus Prime for instance)


----------



## Zendal

SexySale said:


> Is there any LLC settings for B350 boards? (Asus Prime for instance)


Auto/Regular/Medium/High/Extreme If I remember correctly. Under Digi+ VRM.


----------



## crakej

Some users of the Prime Pro have measured with a scope to see if there are any spikes but none have been found - this is not to say there aren't any, but with the equipment to hand none were able to be measured - so yes, there could be VERY brief spikes, but none of us have seen them on SVI2.....on THIS board. For memory stability I have to use it if I want any OC.


----------



## SexySale

Zendal said:


> Auto/Regular/Medium/High/Extreme If I remember correctly. Under Digi+ VRM.


Yes thank you for answer. I have seen it like VDDR Load-line calibration, but is that correspondent to e.x. level 1 for Regular or level 3 is for High ?


----------



## hurricane28

crakej said:


> Some users of the Prime Pro have measured with a scope to see if there are any spikes but none have been found - this is not to say there aren't any, but with the equipment to hand none were able to be measured - so yes, there could be VERY brief spikes, but none of us have seen them on SVI2.....on THIS board. For memory stability I have to use it if I want any OC.


Can you proof this? It simply doesn't make sense when on my CH6 there are voltage spikes when using high LLC levels and on other boards aren't.. I am not saying that you are wrong, its just very unlikely and i would like to see some proof of this. IF indeed there are no voltage spikes, that means that its completely save to use high LLC levels on my board too which than means higher overclocks.


----------



## WexleySnoops

hurricane28 said:


> Can you proof this? It simply doesn't make sense when on my CH6 there are voltage spikes when using high LLC levels and on other boards aren't.. I am not saying that you are wrong, its just very unlikely and i would like to see some proof of this. IF indeed there are no voltage spikes, that means that its completely save to use high LLC levels on my board too which than means higher overclocks.


If one board does not have voltage spikes from LLC, that does NOT mean the same for your board. How does that even make any sense?

Every manufacturer will use different components to make their boards, hence the need for different LLC levels to attain certain overclocks.

To think that because the Prime X370 can use LLC 5 with no voltage spikes ALSO means that your CH6 will experience the same...well...as an engineer this is simply illogical. 

The fact that they are experiencing no, or very little, voltage spikes using highest LLC does seem odd, sure, but is not totally out of the realm of possibilities.


----------



## hurricane28

WexleySnoops said:


> If one board does not have voltage spikes from LLC, that does NOT mean the same for your board. How does that even make any sense?
> 
> Every manufacturer will use different components to make their boards, hence the need for different LLC levels to attain certain overclocks.
> 
> To think that because the Prime X370 can use LLC 5 with no voltage spikes ALSO means that your CH6 will experience the same...well...as an engineer this is simply illogical.
> 
> The fact that they are experiencing no, or very little, voltage spikes using highest LLC does seem odd, sure, but is not totally out of the realm of possibilities.


It has nothing to do with the board, its simply how electronics and CPU voltages work... Nothing else to it really. 

You are clearly no engineer otherwise you would know this. 

Now, I am not going to debate about this for a couple of pages, i just want so see some proof of this if there is any towards these claims. I know 4 REAL engineers that measured this which is Elmor (asus) , RajaAsus, the guy i posted a video from and Der8auer which also made a video about this.


----------



## dspx

seniorfallrisk said:


> So, I haven't bothered to post until now but ever since I first started trying this calc (v7) if has been way off on coming close to even posting on my Hynix AFR kit. I'm able to run Stilt's MFR 3200mhz settings at 3000mhz on my sticks, but have never once been able to post with this calculator's settings.
> 
> Since even v7, the only values that have changed are the primaries on 3000mhz from 15-17-17-17-35 then to 16-16-16-16-34 now.. I can't be the only one that finds this thing to never work?
> 
> I've got a 1700 on a C6H and 3000c15 Corsair LPX with Hynix AFR..


Stable 3200 MHz using Hynix A-Die CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 1.365 V, mobo Asus Prime B350-Plus
16-18-18-18-34-56-5-8-30-4-12-12-0-4-4
tRFC 440 (rest tRFC values to Auto)
16-12-7-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1
GearDownMode enabled (disabled was a bit faster but not stable)


----------



## SexySale

dspx said:


> Stable 3200 MHz using Hynix A-Die CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 1.365 V, mobo Asus Prime B350-Plus
> 16-18-18-18-34-56-5-8-30-4-12-12-0-4-4
> tRFC 440 (rest tRFC values to Auto)
> 16-12-7-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1
> GearDownMode enabled (disabled was a bit faster but not stable)


ProcODT? CAD_BUS? RTT values? CLDO_VDDP?


----------



## dspx

SexySale said:


> ProcODT? CAD_BUS? RTT values? CLDO_VDDP?


ProcODT 48 ohm, everything else at Auto


----------



## SexySale

dspx said:


> ProcODT 48 ohm, everything else at Auto


Great  You are lucky guy. Good work and glad that you are using full memory potential.


----------



## st0neh

hurricane28 said:


> Level 5 is extreme LLC which is very dangerous for the CPU because of high voltage overshoot. Did you never read about LLC BEFORE overclocking? If i were you i would use level 3 instead of 5 if you want your components to last.
> 
> Level 3 is the sweet spot when it comes to LLC.
> 
> Here is a video for you to understand why its not a good idea to use extreme LLC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIh8dTdJwI


The thing is, it's only really a bad idea to use high LLC if you're already pushing up against safe voltage limits.

But one of the benefits of high LLC is it allows you to get little to no vdroop which means you can actually run a lower vcore to begin with and maintain stability. Meaning the spikes won't put you anywhere near unsafe voltage limits.


----------



## seniorfallrisk

dspx said:


> Stable 3200 MHz using Hynix A-Die CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 1.365 V, mobo Asus Prime B350-Plus
> 16-18-18-18-34-56-5-8-30-4-12-12-0-4-4
> tRFC 440 (rest tRFC values to Auto)
> 16-12-7-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1
> GearDownMode enabled (disabled was a bit faster but not stable)


Thanks for that. Here are my settings, everything after the geardown is set to auto.


----------



## Keith Myers

*Been using LLC5 since day one*



crakej said:


> Many of us with Prime X370 use LLC5 - I'm sure this is dependent on which board you have, but users have measured the outputs with a scope to see if we're getting any big spikes, but none have been found. This guy points out that the extreme setting is bad, but we don't have this setting, we only have LLC5 which is *flat*. I have been running like this for nearly a year without problems.


I too have no issues with LLC5. Only setting that keeps the set BIOS voltage close to actual. Don't have to worry about any supposed overshoots since the cpu is NEVER unloaded. Can't overshoot because it is always at 100% loading.


----------



## Keith Myers

*Not the CH6!*



hurricane28 said:


> No you are wrong.. Level 5 is extreme.. Raja Asus and Elmor clearly pointed that out in the CH6 thread on the first page. I never managed to measure it myself as i don't have scope but i would like to have one just to measure myself.


What has this to do with the Prime Pro? It is not the CH6. Different motherboards and designs. Previous posts in this Prime thread have shown no overshoots on the Prime on oscilloscope traces.


----------



## Leftezog

Keith Myers said:


> What has this to do with the Prime Pro? It is not the CH6. Different motherboards and designs. Previous posts in this Prime thread have shown no overshoots on the Prime on oscilloscope traces.


I have Asus CH6 and LLC5 is the only setting that keeps my cpu vcore just like I set it in the bios. In CH6 1.40625 in bios translates in 1.4v vcore in usage and in standby. No spikes at all. It stays always at 1.4v in hwinfo.


----------



## hurricane28

Keith Myers said:


> What has this to do with the Prime Pro? It is not the CH6. Different motherboards and designs. Previous posts in this Prime thread have shown no overshoots on the Prime on oscilloscope traces.


I want to see proof.. I already explained why this is unlikely.. But if it is, i would like to see some proof.


----------



## hurricane28

Leftezog said:


> I have Asus CH6 and LLC5 is the only setting that keeps my cpu vcore just like I set it in the bios. In CH6 1.40625 in bios translates in 1.4v vcore in usage and in standby. No spikes at all. It stays always at 1.4v in hwinfo.


Come to the CH6 thread, were more than happy to help you explain what LLC level is and does to your motherboard..


----------



## Keith Myers

hurricane28 said:


> I want to see proof.. I already explained why this is unlikely.. But if it is, i would like to see some proof.


If you had at least done a simple search in the Prime Pro X370 thread, you would have seen this discussed ad nauseum. Here you go. Just one of many oscilloscope images of LLC5 on the Prime.

http://www.overclock.net/forum/26350199-post4583.html


----------



## 1usmus

pennhaven said:


> Anyone else unable to save screenshots with 1.0.0beta2? For me it acts as though it is saving them, but no .png shows up in the save-to file folder. 0.9.9 v12/13 worked OK.


net framework 4.0+ needed

in which tab the button does not work?



seniorfallrisk said:


> So, I haven't bothered to post until now but ever since I first started trying this calc (v7) if has been way off on coming close to even posting on my Hynix AFR kit. I'm able to run Stilt's MFR 3200mhz settings at 3000mhz on my sticks, but have never once been able to post with this calculator's settings.
> 
> Since even v7, the only values that have changed are the primaries on 3000mhz from 15-17-17-17-35 then to 16-16-16-16-34 now.. I can't be the only one that finds this thing to never work?
> 
> I've got a 1700 on a C6H and 3000c15 Corsair LPX with Hynix AFR..


Try procODT 43 om , in most cases it will help. 48 Ohm does not work on AFR, and 53 and 60 if they work, they have errors


----------



## dspx

seniorfallrisk said:


> Thanks for that. Here are my settings, everything after the geardown is set to auto.


I didn't have any luck so far using odd values for first 4 timings, I see that you used "17".

/edit

Testing 16-17-17-17 right now for stability, I think this is the first time I managed to load Windows using these, must be Gear Down Mode enabled setting that helped.

/edit2

Nope, not stable.


----------



## pennhaven

1usmus said:


> net framework 4.0+ needed
> 
> in which tab the button does not work?


It was all of them, but not your issue! Security software I use had your app sandboxed so it could not write to disk until I gave it permission to run normally. Works now.

Thanks!

Still curious whether my Asus X370-F Gaming has the same issue you mentioned for the Prime Pro? Would like to push my Gskill 3000 Hynix kit to 3200. Is stable at 3133 with V13 settings, but not @ 3200.


----------



## 1usmus

*memory interleaving size 256 does wonders, lower latency, higher stability  *
the default is 1 kb and 2 kb for SR and DR

*for example DR 3267*


Spoiler















CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20 
procODT 60
RTT 7 3 1
memory interleaving size 256


----------



## crakej

Glad requested proof has been provided to the thread monitor.

I'd also like to point out, so as not to put off other Prime Pro users of the calculator, that while it's harder on our board than the C6H, it is in fact possible to run ram higher than 3200, some have achieved 3333 and there are even a few running at 3466. I don't need to prove this - it's just what users have reported. This calculator is still a good place to start with RAM OCing and getting working settings, particularly for those who want to try for 3200+ on Prime Pro (and others of course)

I only came here to give feedback and report what I've found using this excellent tool - didn't realize I would get the spanish inquisition lol


----------



## st0neh

hurricane28 said:


> Come to the CH6 thread, were more than happy to help you explain what LLC level is and does to your motherboard..


Everyone in here knows what LLC is and what it does.

We're just not wildly exaggerating the dangers of it.


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *memory interleaving size 256 does wonders, lower latency, higher stability  *
> the default is 1 kb and 2 kb for SR and DR


Unfortunately, Asus Prime B350-Plus BIOS offers these only: None, Channel, Die, Socket, Auto


----------



## christoph

dspx said:


> I didn't have any luck so far using odd values for first 4 timings, I see that you used "17".
> 
> /edit
> 
> Testing 16-17-17-17 right now for stability, I think this is the first time I managed to load Windows using these, must be Gear Down Mode enabled setting that helped.
> 
> /edit2
> 
> Nope, not stable.



I have this stable, try it

sorry, can't post a picture


----------



## rush2049

I don't know if it is stable yet. But I just booted into windows successfully and Prime95 doesn't immediately crash workers.


----------



## SexySale

dspx said:


> Unfortunately, Asus Prime B350-Plus BIOS offers these only: None, Channel, Die, Socket, Auto


In moded BIOS from @1usmus there are additional settings unlocked in AMD CBS > DF Common Options


----------



## dspx

SexySale said:


> In moded BIOS from @1usmus there are additional settings unlocked in AMD CBS > DF Common Options


Nice. Did you observe any benefits by changing it to 256?


----------



## hurricane28

SexySale said:


> In moded BIOS from @1usmus there are additional settings unlocked in AMD CBS > DF Common Options


What board are you on? This was present on the CH6 for some time now, don't know what it does exactly.


----------



## SexySale

dspx said:


> Nice. Did you observe any benefits by changing it to 256?


Yes, better latency as 1usmus mentioned.


----------



## SexySale

hurricane28 said:


> What board are you on? This was present on the CH6 for some time now, don't know what it does exactly.


This is replay on @dspx comment and in his question was asked about ASUS B350 Prime - which by default doesn't has that settings unlocked.

Regarding question what it does exactly from technical perspective, more info can provide @1usmus.


----------



## dspx

SexySale said:


> Yes, better latency as 1usmus mentioned.


Thanks, I will give it a shot.


----------



## christoph

hi guys question related to the images above too


the calculator says that I should put VTT DDR Voltage at 0.702, right now I have it at 0.69, should I change it to .70??

the memory interleaving should be set to "channel" and size to 512, so should I make sure is set that way?


----------



## dspx

Memory interleaving set to "channel" and size to 256 = no difference to my previous settings, I get the same latency.
Any thoughts?


----------



## christoph

dspx said:


> Memory interleaving set to "channel" and size to 256 = no difference to my previous settings, I get the same latency.
> Any thoughts?



yeah I tried the same too, besides that I get the same latency, that made my ram unstable


----------



## werpu123

*A lot of thanks*

Thanks for this tool. I have 4 g.skill flare-x 3200 ram bars, and I could not stabilize them in a four slot config higher than 2800 MHz. I now applied the calculator settings and I finally can rum them stable at 3200-14-14-14-34 which they were sold for (funnily in a two slot config I was able to just apply xamp2 and run them at this speed)

This calculator is heavens sent for those of us who do not want to wade dozends of hours through ram specs and infos on how to properly oc the ram.


----------



## SexySale

dspx said:


> Memory interleaving set to "channel" and size to 256 = no difference to my previous settings, I get the same latency.
> Any thoughts?


I have difference of ~1.1ns on 3066 Fast preset. I still can get stable 3200, so that don't help me at all.


----------



## BillysManis

Hello guys! I need your knowledge/opinion... Which should perform better: 3200Mhz (16-18-18-18-34-56) or 3000Mhz (14-16-16-16-32-54)? Secondary timings are identical. 

P.S.: I got Hynix MFR 3200C16 GSkill


----------



## christoph

BillysManis said:


> Hello guys! I need your knowledge/opinion... Which should perform better: 3200Mhz (16-18-18-18-34-56) or 3000Mhz (14-16-16-16-32-54)? Secondary timings are identical.
> 
> P.S.: I got Hynix MFR 3200C16 GSkill



well, Ryzen likes more speed over latency


----------



## hurricane28

christoph said:


> well, Ryzen likes more speed over latency


No it doesn't.. 3466 MHz CL14 is the sweet spot due to lower latency. 3600 MHz is not going to get you any more performance.


----------



## Anty

[email protected] WILL give you more performance...


----------



## LicSqualo

My personal tentative of reach a 3600 Mhz ram stable settings had not success until now, but the numbers I got from AIDA are good. 56XXX range for read and write and 52XXX for copy. Latency around 70 ns as usual.
When we can reach a "stable" 3600 MHz configuration I think we have to accept that with higher ram settings we have more performance.
As 3466 is better than 3200. Is a fact.
We have arguing until now with 3600 speed and timings only because really few have reach this speed.
I remember an Esopo fable when I was child... https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_volpe_e_l'uva


----------



## hurricane28

Anty said:


> [email protected] WILL give you more performance...


No it doesn't dude.. I did some testing and because of the higher latency overall 3466 MHz CL14 is faster than 3600 MHz CL15. Other people also did testing with this and noticed that 3466 MHz CL14 is the sweet spot with Ryzen. If you think otherwise, i would like to see some proof of this as i saw no gains in fps nor better Aida64 benchmark scores compared to 3466 MHz CL14.


----------



## Anty

I clearly wrote CL14 not CL15. 14-14-14-28 1T to be clear.
With same subtimings it is obvious 3600 > 3466, dude

I've already posted AIDA scores in C6H thread for 3600. And AIDA will always give higher scores for mem access for 3600 even with worse subs. Other things need comparable subs (in terms on ns) to have similar worst case scenario (random access).


----------



## hurricane28

Anty said:


> I clearly wrote CL14 not CL15. 14-14-14-28 1T to be clear.
> With same subtimings it is obvious 3600 > 3466, dude
> 
> I've already posted AIDA scores in C6H thread for 3600. And AIDA will always give higher scores for mem access for 3600 even with worse subs. Other things need comparable subs (in terms on ns) to have similar worst case scenario (random access).


Yes, but no one can actually achieve 3600 MHz with CL14 now can they... I did a run with 3466 MHz CL15 vs 3600 MHz CL16 and there is barely any difference, in fact, my Firestrike score went down on 3600 MHz vs 3466 MHz CL14.. 

Here is my proof: https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13016797/fs/13016851

Look at the Physics score, the lower score was with 3600 MHz CL16 vs 3466 MHz CL14. 

I Checked my images for 3466 vs 3600 MHz and indeed the scores are a little higher on the 3600 but its only marginal and not worth the extra stress on the imc or the RAM kit. Even Mind blank tech did a video on this here:


----------



## dspx

christoph said:


> yeah I tried the same too, besides that I get the same latency, that made my ram unstable


It made it unstable for me, too.


----------



## christoph

hurricane28 said:


> No it doesn't.. 3466 MHz CL14 is the sweet spot due to lower latency. 3600 MHz is not going to get you any more performance.



can you post a screenshot of AIDA cache & memory bench with those settings?


----------



## hurricane28

christoph said:


> can you post a screenshot of AIDA cache & memory bench with those settings?


Sure, here they are:


----------



## hurricane28

As you can clearly see, the gain from 3200 to 3466 MHz has the most impact. Going from 3466 to 3600 MHz doesn't really noticeably improve.


----------



## Anty

Because you should have at least 56GBps read for 3600 not 54.8


----------



## hurricane28

Anty said:


> Because you should have at least 56GBps read for 3600 not 54.8


Are you running 3600 MHz? If so, what timings and is it stable? Could you show us some benchmarks?


----------



## Leftezog

hurricane28 said:


> Sure, here they are:


Hurricane my ram settings have better ns latency at Aida at 2t than 1t at the cost of about 1000 MB/s in read and write. 1t is about 1ns slower constantly but about 1000 MB/s faster in read and write. In cinebench 1t and 2t gives the same score overall. What I must choose? 1t or 2t?


----------



## hurricane28

Leftezog said:


> Hurricane my ram settings have better ns latency at Aida at 2t than 1t at the cost of about 1000 MB/s in read and write. 1t is about 1ns slower constantly but about 1000 MB/s faster in read and write. In cinebench 1t and 2t gives the same score overall. What I must choose? 1t or 2t?


If you can run them at 1T i would do that obviously. I couldn't do 1T at 3600 MHz unfortunately which is why i ran it at 2T. My current overclock runs 1T.


----------



## 1usmus

*DR 3333 EXTREME(my current settings fully stable)*

CH6 6001 cmo download
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EmgpoXMIBE-2xq_j88kJEeLxP1UMkmUT/view

picture


Spoiler















txt


Spoiler



[2018/02/20 18:37:36]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [6300]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [+]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.20000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
TrdrdBan [Auto]
TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
TrwtWB [Auto]
TrwtTO [Auto]
data drive strength [Auto]
DQS drive strength [Auto]
processor on-die termination [Auto]
CKE setup time [Auto]
CKE fine delay [Auto]
CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
address/command setup time [Auto]
address/command fine delay [Auto]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [312]
Trfc2 [192]
Trfc4 [132]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [2T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [300]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.39000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Disabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
CPB Mode [Enabled]
C6 Mode [Enabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Disabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [Off]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [Off]
Intel LAN Controller [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [WDC WD30EFRX-68EUZN0]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
VerbatimSTORE N GO 1.00 [Auto]
Generic-SD/MMC/MS/MSPRO 1.00 [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [Ignore]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
HPET In SB [Disabled]
MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
POST Report [1 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name []
Save to Profile [1]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]



________________________________________________________________________




dspx said:


> Nice. Did you observe any benefits by changing it to 256?


improved stability and performance 



christoph said:


> hi guys question related to the images above too
> 
> 
> the calculator says that I should put VTT DDR Voltage at 0.702, right now I have it at 0.69, should I change it to .70??
> 
> the memory interleaving should be set to "channel" and size to 512, so should I make sure is set that way?


Voltage can be left untouched if there is stability
the page size for the interleaving changes when:
1) the system is not stable
2) want less latency

________________________________________________________________________


*3600cl14 will have an advantage over 3466cl14 , I do not understand what the dispute is about *


----------



## tfran1990

i used the calculator to get my kit to 3400 16-16-16-36 1.35Vwhich is the rated speed, but after2 hours of testing i got 1 error. That is with the voltage at 1.4 and it auto bumps up to 1.435 at times. Anyone have a suggestion, bumping the voltage up any further is probably not a good idea. 

whats my next step to get stability ?


should i try for a stable lower speed with tighter timings?

also i find my cpu temp 2-3 dig. higher then no oc on ram. is this due to the increase in SOC voltage? 

is 45c a safe temp for my ram?


----------



## kaiserc

*3200 Extreme Timings Achieved!*

This was done on one of the cheapest X370 Boards 
MSI X370 Gaming Plus

Using the 8Pack Memory From OCUK (https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...3200mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-08l-tg.html)
(Default 14-14-14-31 Timings)
High Quality B-die!

I will try the calculator for higher speeds later but really impressed and its stable as a rock.


----------



## -antero-

Today decided to update BIOS and apply to new OC parameters. Finally, I can say that I got the 3200mhz memory (Hynix chip) on the Asrock ab350m plate stable. I will also post all kinds of screenshots here, maybe those will help someone on this difficult road. Much respect for 1usmus for creating such wonderful application! 
Altough it seems that with the latest Bios upgrade, the CPU OC has suffered a bit of damage, in the past I got 3.9 even more significantly with a lower voltage than today..

Also maybe there is something that I can change to make things even more better?


----------



## SexySale

-antero- said:


> Today decided to update BIOS and apply to new OC parameters. Finally, I can say that I got the 3200mhz memory (Hynix chip) on the Asrock ab350m plate stable. I will also post all kinds of screenshots here, maybe those will help someone on this difficult road. Much respect for 1usmus for creating such wonderful application!
> Altough it seems that with the latest Bios upgrade, the CPU OC has suffered a bit of damage, in the past I got 3.9 even more significantly with a lower voltage than today..
> 
> Also maybe there is something that I can change to make things even more better?


Great man. Good stuff  What are your bios settings? DRAM voltage? ProcODT? CAD_BUS?


----------



## dspx

-antero- said:


> Today decided to update BIOS and apply to new OC parameters. Finally, I can say that I got the 3200mhz memory (Hynix chip) on the Asrock ab350m plate stable. I will also post all kinds of screenshots here, maybe those will help someone on this difficult road. Much respect for 1usmus for creating such wonderful application!
> Altough it seems that with the latest Bios upgrade, the CPU OC has suffered a bit of damage, in the past I got 3.9 even more significantly with a lower voltage than today..
> 
> Also maybe there is something that I can change to make things even more better?


Nice. Could you say which Hynix memory did you use?
Also, could you try testing stability using Hyper PI 32M?


----------



## rush2049

This any good?

I can't get it prime (w/ AVX) stable. But it's pubg stable and general windows use stable.

My processor can go up to 4.2 Ghz, but I am only pushing memory at the moment.


----------



## christoph

rush2049 said:


> This any good?
> 
> I can't get it prime (w/ AVX) stable. But it's pubg stable and general windows use stable.
> 
> My processor can go up to 4.2 Ghz, but I am only pushing memory at the moment.



can you share your timings, the whole thing, voltages, whats enable and disable, ProcODT an all those things?


----------



## rush2049

They may not be in the right order, but here ya go:

https://imgur.com/a/wECiO

with all the same settings, but 3600 mhz ram I can pass 30 minutes or so of this:


----------



## christoph

rush2049 said:


> They may not be in the right order, but here ya go:
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/wECiO
> 
> with all the same settings, but 3600 mhz ram I can pass 30 minutes or so of this:



well yeah me too, can't seen to put my ram stable at 3600

one question, how can I know what procODT is the motherboard setting at AUTO? 


setting it at 60 it improves stability right?, I have it at auto with 3466 stable, but want to try to stabilize 3600


----------



## rush2049

christoph said:


> well yeah me too, can't seen to put my ram stable at 3600
> 
> one question, how can I know what procODT is the motherboard setting at AUTO?
> 
> 
> setting it at 60 it improves stability right?, I have it at auto with 3466 stable, but want to try to stabilize 3600


From my understanding of procODT, there is a setting that is most stable for each combo of MemController+Motherboard+RAM
If you can boot into windows and start a benchmark at all then procODT doesnt need to be fiddled with.

The same goes for my understanding of CLDO_VDDP, once you can boot correctly and start a benchmark, then no reason to change it. 

Stability will be modified by other settings.


Perhaps I am wrong, but that was my understanding.


The DrvStrengths and RttNom, RttWr, and RttPark I find have a big influence on stability at extreme settings.


----------



## christoph

rush2049 said:


> From my understanding of procODT, there is a setting that is most stable for each combo of MemController+Motherboard+RAM
> If you can boot into windows and start a benchmark at all then procODT doesnt need to be fiddled with.
> 
> The same goes for my understanding of CLDO_VDDP, once you can boot correctly and start a benchmark, then no reason to change it.
> 
> Stability will be modified by other settings.
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am wrong, but that was my understanding.
> 
> 
> The DrvStrengths and RttNom, RttWr, and RttPark I find have a big influence on stability at extreme settings.



ok, I'll take a look at those settings then


----------



## -antero-

Soo experienced a crash today. Got this error: irql_not_less_or_equal. I think that my memory is still buggy, need to change something but don't know what 
Any suggestions?


----------



## -antero-

SexySale said:


> Great man. Good stuff  What are your bios settings? DRAM voltage? ProcODT? CAD_BUS?


I am using Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 kit. DRAM voltage is set to 1,35 because I can't change it. Anything I put in changes back to 1,35 automatically 
I think ProcODT was set to 48, but I will double check this and the CAD_BUS value for you.
Also noticed that my mouse seems to be little bit laggy, could it be also memory issue?


----------



## SexySale85

-antero- said:


> I am using Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 kit. DRAM voltage is set to 1,35 because I can't change it. Anything I put in changes back to 1,35 automatically
> I think ProcODT was set to 48, but I will double check this and the CAD_BUS value for you.
> Also noticed that my mouse seems to be little bit laggy, could it be also memory issue?


Thank you for checking 
Did you do test - e.x. HCI?


----------



## -antero-

ProcODT was at 60.
Did little bit testing, but mem is unstable. 30minutes and crash, restart. Any suggestions what to change?


----------



## christoph

-antero- said:


> I am using Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 kit. DRAM voltage is set to 1,35 because I can't change it. Anything I put in changes back to 1,35 automatically
> I think ProcODT was set to 48, but I will double check this and the CAD_BUS value for you.
> Also noticed that my mouse seems to be little bit laggy, could it be also memory issue?


did you noticed the mouse on lower ram speed, cause that's more likely to be windows 10


----------



## -antero-

nope, I think it started after last Bios update.


----------



## christoph

-antero- said:


> nope, I think it started after last Bios update.



well, I've said this a few time, latest bios brings instability


----------



## 1usmus

*Announcement Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 Beta 3 *










changelog:

* recommendations on DQS drive strength will be added (improving the overclocking potential by one or two steps)
* built-in presets will be added for each type of memory, this will allow you to simply press 1 button and all fields will be filled by yourself. No need to enter manually or import. The main thing is to know what chips you have and what rank of memory.
* another improvements​


----------



## LicSqualo

*THANK YOU!*

Thanks 1usmus 

"Can't wait" to try higher speed and perhaps stable settings.


----------



## SexySale85

Thx @*1usmus* :specool:. When we can expect it?


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 beta 3*










*Download >>* https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zVby2KY-e5J1Tq6rdNKXdL9tsgdptOY7​*
Changelog:*

* Added 2 presets (*HQ* - High quality and *UHQ* - ultra high quality) for each memory type. These presets are basic and I recommend that they be used by beginners when overclocking. To use the prepared preset you need:
1) Choose the type of memory, the rank of memory, the desired frequency of overcloking
2) Press the "Auto HQ" or "Auto UHQ" button
3) Press the calculation button "Calculate Safe" or "Calculate Fast"

* *Memory Interleaving Size* algorithm for frequencies 3333+ reworked
* Numerous errors in calculations for *Samsung D / E / C-die* chips are corrected
* Small changes *tRRDS* & *tFAW* for Fast preset Samsung b/s-die
* Added test option *DRAM R1-R4 Tune*. Allows you to improve the stability of the system. 40 is my recommendation, 63 is the base value. The option is only available for Crosshair IV Hero / Extreme.
* Fixed a bug where the system did not start on Micron chips when *tRDRD SCL / tWRWR SCL* was set 3. Now the value is 4.

* Added a test option in the block of terminators *DQS str* (*DQS drive strength*). It can help improve the overclocking of RAM. Unfortunately this option is only available on Asus boards with a *modified BIOS*.
This option caused a big resonance in the society, so I asked for testing. The results were identical to mine, this option has a serious influence on overclocking the system. 
For example now 3533MHZ stable (post by Bigotus): 


Spoiler














Mass testing has already begun. I will write to you about all the changes.

+ I want to say that the options *DQS drive strength* and *Data drive strength* allow you to partially bypass the Memory Hole. For example my system DR 3333 now fully stable (thanks to the change in DQS from Auto (53 ohm) to 60 ohms)


Spoiler














I used the tests 0,1,2 because they are the most difficult for the RAM + save time.

My current settings here:


Spoiler



Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [6300]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [+]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.20000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]

Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]

DQS drive strength [60]

Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [312]
Trfc2 [192]
Trfc4 [132]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [2T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [40]
DRAM R1 Tune [40]
DRAM R2 Tune [40]
DRAM R3 Tune [40]
DRAM R4 Tune [40]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Disable]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [300]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.39000]

Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]

SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
HPET In SB [Disabled]
MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]



*Thank all for help and attention! *


----------



## ZeNch

I miss the time when I select XMP/DOCP and all work fine, thanks 1usmus I try again with the next Bios update. (Since Bios 810 x370 prime pro I can't reach 3200 full stable)


----------



## SexySale

Thx @1usmus


----------



## 1usmus

ZeNch said:


> I miss the time when I select XMP/DOCP and all work fine, thanks 1usmus I try again with the next Bios update. (Since Bios 810 x370 prime pro I can't reach 3200 full stable)


I counted about 11 people who have problems with overclocking RAM on 3803 on your motherboard. In the near future will be published 3805 or 6ХХХ bios. Approximately this will happen in 7-10 days. 
you do not want to buy another motherboard?



SexySale said:


> Thx @1usmus


----------



## dspx

Thx @1usmus

Thanks for TestMem, I have configured it the way you did and I have managed to get no errors and a stable 3200 on my Hynix A-Die 3000, using DQS 60 and memory interleaving size of 512.
Here are the timings. I will continue further testing with higher frequencies.










/EDIT
I have tried 16-17-17-19 and it has passed TestMem but didn't pass AIDA64 stress test.

/EDIT2
I have now changed interleaving to 256 because it was more stable.


----------



## ZeNch

1usmus said:


> I counted about 11 people who have problems with overclocking RAM on 3803 on your motherboard. In the near future will be published 3805 or 6ХХХ bios. Approximately this will happen in 7-10 days.
> you do not want to buy another motherboard?


no no, i try in the next months with other CPU (new 1600 or 2600... my 1600 have segfault error)but not with other MB.

If the next bios dont help me (with your calc) i try to downgrade to 810 (i dont know if it is possible, with AFUDOS obviously) (in 810 bios i need more cpu vCore but i have stable 3200mhz ram).

i like to see opinions of memory with high freq. in ryzen 2000 series, more easy? the same? worse?.

(It was a bad decision to update the bios when I already had a stable configuration)

When I hear about my Rig, I'll let you know.


----------



## TheHorse

Soooo I'm confused, for memory type how do I know what to enter?


----------



## SexySale

TheHorse said:


> Soooo I'm confused, for memory type how do I know what to enter?


Look at video from beggining of thread - first post, how to export html file from Theiphoon burner.

After importing into calculator, select "Micron" from the first item - Memory type.


----------



## TheHorse

missed the second part of your post nvm


----------



## SexySale

TheHorse said:


> missed the second part of your post nvm


I am typing on phone, so some times I don't manage to type everything before post - like checking previous post while I am writhing this one


----------



## mk16

so i've run in to the a little oddity

everytime i import my html file the calculator changes the memory type to samsung even though i have hynix. is this normal?


----------



## SexySale

mk16 said:


> so i've run in to the a little oddity
> 
> everytime i import my html file the calculator changes the memory type to samsung even though i have hynix. is this normal?


Yes it is. Use Save settings after first import, when you set Hynix mem.type.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@1usmus
My M-Die Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200Mhz still won't boot at 3200Mhz

I tried your suggestion of VDDP 975 & CLDO_VDDP 985. No go.

Any other ideas ?

I now have 3066Mhz stable-ish 25% Memtest Pro is all i had time for last night.
But that is better than before, so cheers buddy 

1.415v DRAM 1.13v Soc will try and lower later.
procODT 53.3
RTT NOM, RTT WR and RTT PARK all fail to boot up, so left on auto.
tRFC i took from the 3133Mhz recommendation and not 3066Mhz.
tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL will not go to 3, no boot.


----------



## 1usmus

@TheHorse 

select the type of memory *Micron* and *frequency* -> then press *HQ Auto* -> * calculate safe *
@CharlieWheelie

Are you sure that you have a dual rank?

SR Hynix loves procODT 43 53 and 60 + try 16 18 18 18 36 60 (secondary and tertiary timings leave in automatic mode) + double save preferences in BIOS (need 2 reboots)


----------



## CharlieWheelie

1usmus said:


> @TheHorse
> 
> select the type of memory *Micron* and *frequency* -> then press *HQ Auto* -> * calculate safe *
> 
> @CharlieWheelie
> 
> Are you sure that you have a dual rank?
> 
> SR Hynix loves procODT 43 53 and 60 + try 16 18 18 18 36 60 (secondary and tertiary timings leave in automatic mode) + double save preferences in BIOS (need 2 reboots)


 @1usmus
I'm sure i did get it to boot before with your suggestions, will try later.
Gonna see what i can achieve with 3066Mhz first, i know it will go tighter. Stable... well that's the BIG Q ?

CMK32GX4M2B3200C16
Number of DIMM Ranks:	2


----------



## 1usmus

CharlieWheelie said:


> @1usmus
> I'm sure i did get it to boot before with your suggestions, will try later.
> Gonna see what i can achieve with 3066Mhz first, i know it will go tighter. Stable... well that's the BIG Q ?
> 
> CMK32GX4M2B3200C16
> Number of DIMM Ranks:	2


in this case it is worth checking procODT 68.6 and 80 + soc 1.11 or 1.13


----------



## 1usmus

*New video instruction *

The video showed 2 ways how to fill the calculator.





​


----------



## SexySale

Hi @1usmus,
I have noticed 2 things for your calculator that can be add/modified.
I am (un)fortunate user of Corsair Vengeance 3200 LPX Hynix M-die memory (1 rank).

Currently I am on 3066 Fast preset. 
When I tried various values I have noticed 3 properties that are causing Computer not to boot at all. Those are:

1. *tRDRD SCL/tWRWR SCL - Can't be beneth 4.* 
On fast preset calculator offers value 3, but can't even cold boot. Must reset BIOS on board

2. *tRC - Can't be beneth 52.* 
I have found that 54 is lowest stable (sweet spot) without random BSOD on fast preset. I think you already know something about it.

If I found something consistently repeat as pattern, I will let you know.

Thank you for your great work


----------



## CharlieWheelie

SexySale said:


> Hi @1usmus,
> I have noticed 2 things for your calculator that can be add/modified.
> I am (un)fortunate user of Corsair Vengeance 3200 LPX Hynix M-die memory (1 rank).
> 
> Currently I am on 3066 Fast preset.
> When I tried various values I have noticed 3 properties that are causing Computer not to boot at all. Those are:
> 
> 1. *tRDRD SCL/tWRWR SCL - Can't be beneth 4.*
> On fast preset calculator offers value 3, but can't even cold boot. Must reset BIOS on board
> 
> 2. *tRC - Can't be beneth 52.*
> I have found that 54 is lowest stable (sweet spot) without random BSOD on fast preset. I think you already know something about it.
> 
> If I found something consistently repeat as pattern, I will let you know.
> 
> Thank you for your great work




I agree Sexy  same with me on Dual Rank


----------



## 1usmus

well guys, in the next release I'll make your adjustments!

Thank you!


----------



## dspx

My memory is still stable at 3200 MHz, I changed memory interleaving size to 256 because it was more stable than 512.

Going higher than 3200 gives me errors so I guess there is a memory hole nearby. Which frequency should I check next to pass the memory hole?


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> well guys, in the next release I'll make your adjustments!
> 
> Thank you!


Glad to help and to read this 
Thx.


----------



## SaccoSVD

What are you guys normally doing with these values (RTT and CAD_BUS)? do you let those at auto or have some specific way to deal with them.

In other words, did any of these helped you, which ones?

Here my ProcODT must be set to the highest (68.6) for example, but don't know what to do with the rest.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

SaccoSVD said:


> What are you guys normally doing with these values (RTT and CAD_BUS)? do you let those at auto or have some specific way to deal with them.
> 
> In other words, did any of these helped you, which ones?
> 
> Here my ProcODT must be set to the highest (68.6) for example, but don't know what to do with the rest.



Hi SaccoSVD

For RTT i leave on Auto as the recommendation does not work. 7-3-1 no boot at all
CAD_BUS i have on 20-20-30-30 - got this a recommendation tho
ProcODT is on 53.3 for my memory - not on Calculator as recommendation but works best


----------



## Radiologist

*My experience with Micron*

So, I have been meaning to post for two weeks now, but couldn't get my account activated, so there's that. I have 2 x 8gb 2666 16-18-18-18-36 Micron Ram. Ι have attached the beta v3 suggestions.

-So, the suggestions for 2933 and 3200 of beta versions 1 and 2 suggested tRDRD and tWRWR equal to 3, which was unbootable for me. After I relaxed them to 4 (which is what v3 now suggests), it booted wonderfully with the 68.6 ohm procodt (and both presets are also stable). But for 2666 (which is my ram's stock speed) tRDRD and tWRWR can even go down to 2, so keep this in mind! For 2666, I can also get it working with the faster alternative of the tRFC and with tFAW down to 20 (to match the tFAW = tRRD x 4 formula). Haven't tested that with 2933 and 3200 yet.

Some questions now:

1) @3200 when I try to tighten the timings at 16-18-18-18-40 I get the following situation: ram boots (and the ram led even flickers the same way as when it boots without issues), the cpu led goes on and fails, back to ram led (again with the hopeful flicker), cpu led on and fail and so on. The pc never shuts off during this loop, it just goes on.

Any ideas what might cause this? Maybe which setting I might play with? I threw more voltage to the CPU just to be sure, but to no avail. It just feels that it doesn't have to do too much with my ram... Could this be a faulty bios issue (bios 3401 on Strix b350f gaming, Ryzen 5 1600)?

2) AIDA64 reports pretty much the same ram latency with both [email protected] and [email protected] (88 ns, remains around that with [email protected], too). Shouldn't I at least get lower latency with [email protected]?

3) Is procodt 68.6 safe? Robert Hallock had suggested 40-60 in that video everyone refers to.

4) It seems the DRAM Calculator uses the following formula: min tRC= tRAS+tCL (and I am stable with this). But the one I have read in most guides is min tRC= tRAS+tRCD (or tRP?). Can anyone elaborate on this?

5) Any other reliable formulas for timings there? I 've seen the "min TRAS=tRCD+tRP" and "min tFAW=tRRD x 4" in multiple places. But for example @2666, tRDRD=tWRWR=3 feels faster than tRDRD=tWRWR=2 (cinebench is consistently a tiny bit faster with 3) which makes me suspect that lowering each timing as much as possible isn't absolute, so they must depend on each other in more complicated ways (maybe some groupings of timings have to satisfy certain ratios etc).


----------



## tfran1990

ok so ive been trying for days and i cant get anything to test for more then 30min.

when ever i enter my VDDP voltage(900) it reverts to 1.6XXX and the value is red so i dont enter it. i dont know where to find CLDO_VDDP Voltage.

i cant get a boot when i use ProcODT 68.6 but i can when i use 60.(if i use the 80 would it be more stable?)

my cad bus is 30,30,40,60

i have tried voltages beyond 1.4 still crash after 30min.

one thing to note is my kit is G.Skill F4-3400C16-16GTZ but the drop down on my CH6 does not give me the option for 3400 in bios(im not talking about the XMP or the DOHC setting), will this matter?

some post from the forum people are using auto and just entering the stuff on the first page should i try that?

as far as the DRAM tune R1-4 im using 40 would 63 give me better stability?

my ch6 does not like 13 as a CL so it reverts 14-13-13-13 but at 1.3v still does not work.
can someone help point me in the right direction? 

i have a 16x2 GIG kit. 

PLEASE HELP!!!!


----------



## christoph

tfran1990 said:


> ok so ive been trying for days and i cant get anything to test for more then 30min.
> 
> when ever i enter my VDDP voltage(900) it reverts to 1.6XXX and the value is red so i dont enter it. i dont know where to find CLDO_VDDP Voltage.
> 
> i cant get a boot when i use ProcODT 68.6 but i can when i use 60.(if i use the 80 would it be more stable?)
> 
> my cad bus is 30,30,40,60
> 
> i have tried voltages beyond 1.4 still crash after 30min.
> 
> one thing to note is my kit is G.Skill F4-3400C16-16GTZ but the drop down on my CH6 does not give me the option for 3400 in bios(im not talking about the XMP or the DOHC setting), will this matter?
> 
> some post from the forum people are using auto and just entering the stuff on the first page should i try that?
> 
> as far as the DRAM tune R1-4 im using 40 would 63 give me better stability?
> 
> my ch6 does not like 13 as a CL so it reverts 14-13-13-13 but at 1.3v still does not work.
> can someone help point me in the right direction?
> 
> i have a 16x2 GIG kit.
> 
> PLEASE HELP!!!!




13-13-13 is too low, you're not going to be able to stabilize that, unless you're doing 2166


----------



## Trippen Out

Howdy,

So whats the word on A-die? Below is a screen of my kit. It says hynix and A-die. Does this mean I should select the Hynix from the drop down ? When I load the import file the filed does not change from B/S Die and Id like to make sure I am using the correct configuration. Also if some of the fields do not exist in our bios and or does exist but is not listed in the program should we just leave it default?

Kind Regards


----------



## tfran1990

christoph said:


> 13-13-13 is too low, you're not going to be able to stabilize that, unless you're doing 2166



using duel rank ram should i go for the rated 16-16-16 or try something else?



ok, i just realized im on bios 1501..... i see many other version say they help improve system stability. what version should i go with 6001? 

can i jump that high?(1501 all the way up to 6001)?


----------



## tfran1990

Trippen Out said:


> Howdy,
> 
> So whats the word on A-die? Below is a screen of my kit. It says hynix and A-die. Does this mean I should select the Hynix from the drop down ? When I load the import file the filed does not change from B/S Die and Id like to make sure I am using the correct configuration. Also if some of the fields do not exist in our bios and or does exist but is not listed in the program should we just leave it default?
> 
> Kind Regards






this chart may help you get started 
http://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1627555-ryzen-memory-ic-collection-thread.html


----------



## christoph

tfran1990 said:


> using duel rank ram should i go for the rated 16-16-16 or try something else?
> 
> 
> 
> ok, i just realized im on bios 1501..... i see many other version say they help improve system stability. what version should i go with 6001?
> 
> can i jump that high?(1501 all the way up to 6001)?



I don't know your board, try in your motherboard thread to see whats best to flash


and the lowest I seen in timings are 14-14-14, so start from there


----------



## Anty

13-13-13 on dual ranks at 1.35V?
good luck


----------



## Kayant

Trippen Out said:


> Howdy,
> 
> So whats the word on A-die? Below is a screen of my kit. It says hynix and A-die. Does this mean I should select the Hynix from the drop down ? When I load the import file the filed does not change from B/S Die and Id like to make sure I am using the correct configuration. Also if some of the fields do not exist in our bios and or does exist but is not listed in the program should we just leave it default?
> 
> Kind Regards


Yes you want to select Hynix iirc 1usmus combined both in some update a while ago. You used to be able to select between A/M Die for Hynix.

Yes only enter the timings you can see the other are currently not exposed.


----------



## pennhaven

1usmus said:


> *370 PRIME* has an error in the board design, in most cases procODT needs a step less + CAD_BUS 30 30 40 60





pennhaven said:


> Does this also apply for X370-F Gaming?


After a lot of testing I believe I've finally answered my own question.

My *ROG STRIX X-370-F Gaming* using BIOS 3803 with Ryzen 1700 does best sticking with the Termination Block *Rec* settings (i.e., *procODT 60*, etc.) and the CAD_BUS Block *Alt 1* settings (i.e., *30:30:30:30*).

RAM is GSkill Model Number: F4-3000C15D-16GTZR (Module Part Number: F4-3000C1 -8GTZR; Hynix DRAM Components: H5AN8G8NAFR-TFC).

Using DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 Beta 3 SAFE 3133 settings (via Thaiphoon readout import), adjusted to *DRAM-V 1.355, SOC-V 1.125, VTT DDR .673*, there are no memory errors through 1000% HCI Memtest 16 threads .

_Nothing_ I've attempted at 3200 has gotten this RAM past 400%, so waiting for next BIOS.


----------



## crakej

This is what I got on my Prime Pro: ram @ *1.365v*, ProcODT @ 53 - interestingly,I had to reduce ODT from 60 to 53 to get this to work. My ram has slightly different timings to those offered by the auto options, but once i'd put those in - it worked. I also have interleave on channel with 512byte and hashing on. I've left CadBus at auto and DQS. rtt is 7,off,5. This is a first for me and tempts me to go back to bios 3803 and see how much further I can get as these timings never used to work for me. Thanks to all those responsible for the Calculator. If I have my ram at 1.4 with these timings I fail all tests. I will report back further when I have time to update the bios


----------



## neur0cide

Nice work, @1usmus!
I'm glad you changed back your recommendation from RttNom=RZQ/5 to RZQ/7. I asked around what works better for users and my count currently is 9 (RZQ/7) vs. 2 (RZQ/5). So good choice, 1usmus.



SexySale said:


> Hi @1usmus,
> I have noticed 2 things for your calculator that can be add/modified.
> I am (un)fortunate user of Corsair Vengeance 3200 LPX Hynix M-die memory (1 rank).
> 
> Currently I am on 3066 Fast preset.
> When I tried various values I have noticed 3 properties that are causing Computer not to boot at all. Those are:
> 
> 1. *tRDRD SCL/tWRWR SCL - Can't be beneth 4.*
> On fast preset calculator offers value 3, but can't even cold boot. Must reset BIOS on board
> 
> 2. *tRC - Can't be beneth 52.*
> I have found that 54 is lowest stable (sweet spot) without random BSOD on fast preset. I think you already know something about it.


Hynix MFR behave quite differently to AFR.
Your findings pretty much match those of The Stilt from some while ago: The Stilt's Hynix settings - AFR vs. MFR
Most noticeable is the huge disparity in tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL and tRC.
imho the Calculator should reflect this disparity.



The Stilt said:


> Of the most common DDR4 ICs Hynix MFR is the worst for Ryzen.
> It can achieve lower tRCDR/W and tRP than Hynix AFR, however it cannot handle the extremely performance critical tRDRDSCL or tWRWRSCL timings < 4 CLK at 3200MHz. Both Samsung B-die and Hynix AFR can handle tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL 2 CLK at 3200MHz.
> 
> Also unlike Samsung B-die, neither of the Hynix ICs can handle GearDownMode = Disabled with 1T CR either.


I have just tested a pretty decent AFR Kit and The Stilt's recommendations for AFR are *absolutely spot on*.
Those sticks only start to perform at 1.415v and above. Anything less turns them into duds.
Note that tRFC won't work below 250 ns in any strap.
This is the max (>1000% HCI MemTest stable) I can achieve with this Kit (CMR16GX4M2C3200C16 ver. 5.31):


----------



## Firedrops

Trippen Out said:


> Howdy,


I, too, need help with a G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GTZR. I'm on an ASUS Crosshair VI Hero with 3502 bios. I think this kit seems to have problems with tRAS and tRC (or maybe just tRAS which affects tRC timings), since that's the main culprit I've had to loosen in 3200MHz attempts, compared to what everyone recommends on the forums, but I don't know enough about RAM to really say. I don't know if loosening one of 20 or so smaller timings can help with the main ones, either.

The calculator's Safe 3200 MHz also will not boot at all, requiring manually loosened timings to similar levels of the 3333 MHz, so I might as well use 3333 instead of 3200. 

I've been able to boot 3333MHz, but only with much looser timings than the Calculator's "Safe" timings. I got to boot with 18-19-20-40-60, and apps crash maybe once every 2 days for normal usage/gaming, but it won't be stable to even 100% under memtest.

Additional questions: 

1: I often get decimal places or very random numbers for tRFC, tRFC 2, and tRFC 4. Should they be rounded up or down? Even/odd numbers? Any formula/relationship between them? Is higher or lower more stable?

2: tWR and tCKE varies SO much between Safe and Fast, is that normal? tWR goes from 24 to 12, and tCKE from 8 to 1, when comparing Safe to Fast.


----------



## christoph

Firedrops said:


> I, too, need help with a G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GTZR. I'm on an ASUS Crosshair VI Hero with 3502 bios. I think this kit seems to have problems with tRAS and tRC (or maybe just tRAS which affects tRC timings), since that's the main culprit I've had to loosen in 3200MHz attempts, compared to what everyone recommends on the forums, but I don't know enough about RAM to really say. I don't know if loosening one of 20 or so smaller timings can help with the main ones, either.
> 
> The calculator's Safe 3200 MHz also will not boot at all, requiring manually loosened timings to similar levels of the 3333 MHz, so I might as well use 3333 instead of 3200.
> 
> I've been able to boot 3333MHz, but only with much looser timings than the Calculator's "Safe" timings. I got to boot with 18-19-20-40-60, and apps crash maybe once every 2 days for normal usage/gaming, but it won't be stable to even 100% under memtest.
> 
> Additional questions:
> 
> 1: I often get decimal places or very random numbers for tRFC, tRFC 2, and tRFC 4. Should they be rounded up or down? Even/odd numbers? Any formula/relationship between them? Is higher or lower more stable?
> 
> 2: tWR and tCKE varies SO much between Safe and Fast, is that normal? tWR goes from 24 to 12, and tCKE from 8 to 1, when comparing Safe to Fast.




use this preset, with 16 timing, the 15 is what I'm going to test later for me, the 16 is really stable for my setup, just use ram voltage 1.37 and SOC voltage 1.1, I know we got different RAM but hey just try...


forgot to mention, if I get the voltage for my ram up to 1.39 or beyond that it gets really unstable, maybe you got the same problem


----------



## dspx

neur0cide said:


> Hynix MFR behave quite differently to AFR.
> Your findings pretty much match those of The Stilt from some while ago: The Stilt's Hynix settings - AFR vs. MFR
> Most noticeable is the huge disparity in tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL and tRC.
> imho the Calculator should reflect this disparity.
> 
> I have just tested a pretty decent AFR Kit and The Stilt's recommendations for AFR are *absolutely spot on*.
> Those sticks only start to perform at 1.415v and above. Anything less turns them into duds.
> Note that tRFC won't work below 250 ns in any strap.
> This is the max (>1000% HCI MemTest stable) I can achieve with this Kit (CMR16GX4M2C3200C16 ver. 5.31):


Thanks a lot for The Stilt's recommendations for AFR, great starting points!
I couldn't get it all the way, but here is my tweaked extreme setting, passed TestMem and Hyper PI without errors. I have used 1.405 V, but I will try lower values tomorrow.

Tried 3333, but couldn't make it stable.

/EDIT
The lowest RAM voltage that is stable for me with these timings is 1.395 V


----------



## neur0cide

Firedrops said:


> I, too, need help with a G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GTZR. I'm on an ASUS Crosshair VI Hero with 3502 bios. I think this kit seems to have problems with tRAS and tRC (or maybe just tRAS which affects tRC timings), since that's the main culprit I've had to loosen in 3200MHz attempts, compared to what everyone recommends on the forums, but I don't know enough about RAM to really say. I don't know if loosening one of 20 or so smaller timings can help with the main ones, either.
> 
> The calculator's Safe 3200 MHz also will not boot at all, requiring manually loosened timings to similar levels of the 3333 MHz, so I might as well use 3333 instead of 3200.
> 
> I've been able to boot 3333MHz, but only with much looser timings than the Calculator's "Safe" timings. I got to boot with 18-19-20-40-60, and apps crash maybe once every 2 days for normal usage/gaming, but it won't be stable to even 100% under memtest.
> 
> Additional questions:
> 
> 1: I often get decimal places or very random numbers for tRFC, tRFC 2, and tRFC 4. Should they be rounded up or down? Even/odd numbers? Any formula/relationship between them? Is higher or lower more stable?
> 
> 2: tWR and tCKE varies SO much between Safe and Fast, is that normal? tWR goes from 24 to 12, and tCKE from 8 to 1, when comparing Safe to Fast.



1. Doesn't matter if you round up or down tRFC. 1 clock cycle doesn't make that much of a difference. Leave tRFC2 and tRFC4 on Auto as they aren't used anyway.
2. Care about tWR later. tCKE is irrelevant as long as you set Power Down Mode to disabled, which you should do.

I guess you have Hynix MFR. Usually 3333 MT/s is too much for them to handle. Only few MFR or AFR can go that high.

Key to a max overclock are not main- or subtimings, but procODT, RTT values and also DRAM Voltage. Don't slavishly follow the first recommendation of the calculator.

First raise DRAM Voltage to 1.415v or slightly more (don't forget: DRAM Boot Voltage = DRAM Voltage and VTTDDR = DRAM Voltage/2) and
SOC Voltage to 1.075v.
Set RTT values to RZQ/7-Off-RZQ/5.
Then experiment with procODT. Begin with 53 Ohm, compare to 60 Ohm and then to 48 Ohm.
When you have found the best value for procODT, experiment with the RTT settings. Compare 7-Off-5 to 5-Off-5, 7-Off-4 and so on.
When you are happy with a combination, move to the CAD Bus settings. Compare Auto to 20-20-20-20, 30-30-30-30 and 30-30-40-60.
You might also want to compare SOC Voltages 1.05v, 1.075v, 1.1v and 1.125v.
Only then start optimizing the timings.

Of course you need to stress-test the RAM after each new setting, or else you won't be able to discern the impact.
Use HCI MemTest for that purpose. Start as many iterations (i.e. windows) of this tool as your CPU has threads, leave 2GB of your RAM for the OS and split the rest evenly on every window. Let em run anything from 20 to 100% and count the errors (depending on the time you can spare). Compare the error count among your settings.

Of course this is time consuming, but if you aim for high straps on Hynix ICs (like 3200 or 3333) that's what you gotta do.

Still success is not guaranteed. You might have to settle with 3066 MT/s, in case you lost out on the silicon lottery.


----------



## 1usmus

crakej said:


> This is what I got on my Prime Pro: ram @ *1.365v*, ProcODT @ 53 - interestingly,I had to reduce ODT from 60 to 53 to get this to work. My ram has slightly different timings to those offered by the auto options, but once i'd put those in - it worked. I also have interleave on channel with 512byte and hashing on. I've left CadBus at auto and DQS. rtt is 7,off,5. This is a first for me and tempts me to go back to bios 3803 and see how much further I can get as these timings never used to work for me. Thanks to all those responsible for the Calculator. If I have my ram at 1.4 with these timings I fail all tests. I will report back further when I have time to update the bios


I found yesterday the option that Memory interleaving 2kb improves stability, but you can use this feature when tRRDS / tRRDL / tFAW is on the safe (that is, I have 6 8 34)
maybe help, try


----------



## 1usmus

neur0cide said:


> 1. Doesn't matter if you round up or down tRFC. 1 clock cycle doesn't make that much of a difference. Leave tRFC2 and tRFC4 on Auto as they aren't used anyway.
> 2. Care about tWR later. tCKE is irrelevant as long as you set Power Down Mode to disabled, which you should do.
> 
> I guess you have Hynix MFR. Usually 3333 MT/s is too much for them to handle. Only few MFR or AFR can go that high.
> 
> Key to a max overclock are not main- or subtimings, but procODT, RTT values and also DRAM Voltage. Don't slavishly follow the first recommendation of the calculator.
> 
> First raise DRAM Voltage to 1.415v or slightly more (don't forget: DRAM Boot Voltage = DRAM Voltage and VTTDDR = DRAM Voltage/2) and
> SOC Voltage to 1.075v.
> Set RTT values to RZQ/7-Off-RZQ/5.
> Then experiment with procODT. Begin with 53 Ohm, compare to 60 Ohm and then to 48 Ohm.
> When you have found the best value for procODT, experiment with the RTT settings. Compare 7-Off-5 to 5-Off-5, 7-Off-4 and so on.
> When you are happy with a combination, move to the CAD Bus settings. Compare Auto to 20-20-20-20, 30-30-30-30 and 30-30-40-60.
> You might also want to compare SOC Voltages 1.05v, 1.075v, 1.1v and 1.125v.
> Only then start optimizing the timings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you need to stress-test the RAM after each new setting, or else you won't be able to discern the impact.
> Use HCI MemTest for that purpose. Start as many iterations (i.e. windows) of this tool as your CPU has threads, leave 2GB of your RAM for the OS and split the rest evenly on every window. Let em run anything from 20 to 100% and count the errors (depending on the time you can spare). Compare the error count among your settings.
> 
> Of course this is time consuming, but if you aim for high straps on Hynix ICs (like 3200 or 3333) that's what you gotta do.
> 
> Still success is not guaranteed. You might have to settle with 3066 MT/s, in case you lost out on the silicon lottery.


tRFC2/4 currently working  Unfortunately . I tried to enter manually and by no means always this is the best option for stability...

"tCKE is irrelevant as long as you set Power Down Mode to disabled, which you should do" can I ask for a source?


----------



## neur0cide

1usmus said:


> tRFC2/4 currently working  Unfortunately . I tried to enter manually and by no means always this is the best option for stability...


They do?? I'll keep them on Auto then. Hasn't done me any harm yet 




1usmus said:


> "tCKE is irrelevant as long as you set Power Down Mode to disabled, which you should do" can I ask for a source?





[email protected] said:


> tCKE is the minimum number of cycles that must elapse before the clock can transition from active to low power state. This setting is only effective if dram power saving modes are enabled. If not, the clock remains active all the time.


There are subsequent messages from Raja on the followimg pages.

I tried to quickly verify this back then and indeed I found no difference in performance or stability with tCKE set to either 1, 6 or 9 with Power Down disabled.


----------



## Leftezog

1usmus said:


> *DR 3333 EXTREME(my current settings fully stable)*
> 
> CH6 6001 cmo download
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EmgpoXMIBE-2xq_j88kJEeLxP1UMkmUT/view
> 
> picture
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> txt
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/02/20 18:37:36]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [6300]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> CPU Offset Mode Sign [+]
> - CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.20000]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [Auto]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [312]
> Trfc2 [192]
> Trfc4 [132]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [6]
> Trdwr [6]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
> Cmd2T [2T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.90000]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [300]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.39000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Disabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> CPB Mode [Enabled]
> C6 Mode [Enabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Disabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [Off]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [Off]
> Intel LAN Controller [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [WDC WD30EFRX-68EUZN0]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> VerbatimSTORE N GO 1.00 [Auto]
> Generic-SD/MMC/MS/MSPRO 1.00 [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [Ignore]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> HPET In SB [Disabled]
> MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> POST Report [1 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name []
> Save to Profile [1]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> [/B]


Hey 1usmus. Just copied your ram settings from your txt to my bios and they worked flawlessly. Ultra stable in gaming, browsing, stress testing and in ramtest. But I saw that you have 32gb of memory when I have only 16gb. I have 3600c16 2x8gb trident z b-die kit. Also my latency even though my cpu is clocked at 3.9Ghz too is more than you. It's around 69.5ns. What I can do to improve the settings? Thanks for the awesome calculator also it's a time savior.


----------



## Atomfix

Anyone with this RAM able to overclock to 3200MHz stable? or tight timings at 3000MHz? Nothing I try seems to be memtest stable. G.Skill Trident Z 3000 16GB Hynix M


----------



## 1usmus

@neur0cide

thanks! 




Leftezog said:


> Hey 1usmus. Just copied your ram settings from your txt to my bios and they worked flawlessly. Ultra stable in gaming, browsing, stress testing and in ramtest. But I saw that you have 32gb of memory when I have only 16gb. I have 3600c16 2x8gb trident z b-die kit. Also my latency even though my cpu is clocked at 3.9Ghz too is more than you. It's around 69.5ns. What I can do to improve the settings? Thanks for the awesome calculator also it's a time savior.


memory interleaving 256? cad_bus 20 20 20 20?
perhaps another version of Aida affects the results

+ my memory DR 

try the 3466 frequency 



Atomfix said:


> Anyone with this RAM able to overclock to 3200MHz stable? or tight timings at 3000MHz? Nothing I try seems to be memtest stable. G.Skill Trident Z 3000 16GB Hynix M


do you have a system running at 3200? what settings do you use?


----------



## Kayant

Atomfix said:


> Anyone with this RAM able to overclock to 3200MHz stable? or tight timings at 3000MHz? Nothing I try seems to be memtest stable. G.Skill Trident Z 3000 16GB Hynix M


Not exactly the same kit series but we have similar timings/memory configuration.

Setup:
ASRock B350 itx on 3.40 bios
+35mV on SOC for about 1.31(Hwinfo64) probably can leave it on auto but cba to test it again atm.
ProODT 60ohm
Ryzen 5 [email protected]
1.35V

Has passed iirc 5 or 6 passes of passmark memtest and ramtest over 7000%



Spoiler


----------



## Atomfix

1usmus said:


> @neur0cide
> 
> thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> memory interleaving 256? cad_bus 20 20 20 20?
> perhaps another version of Aida affects the results
> 
> + my memory DR
> 
> try the 3466 frequency
> 
> 
> 
> do you have a system running at 3200? what settings do you use?





Kayant said:


> Not exactly the same kit series but we have similar timings/memory configuration.
> 
> Setup:
> ASRock B350 itx on 3.40 bios
> +35mV on SOC for about 1.31(Hwinfo64) probably can leave it on auto but cba to test it again atm.
> ProODT 60ohm
> Ryzen 5 [email protected]
> 1.35V
> 
> Has passed iirc 5 or 6 passes of passmark memtest and ramtest over 7000%
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 100433
> 
> 
> View attachment 100441
> 
> 
> View attachment 100449
> 
> 
> View attachment 100457


I can boot with XMP which is 3000MHz CL16. I can also boot at 3200MHz (Overclock) with your 0.9.9 V11 Calculator. It boots, and I can benchmark but memtests pops up with errors after about 3-5mins.

Ryzen 1700 @ 3.6GHz P-State overclock. 1.18V Stock Cooler 1.1V SOC
G.Skill Trident Z 3000MHz CL16 16GB Kit, Hynix-M Die
Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K5 F22B BIOS
Nvidia GTX 770
Samsung EVO 960
Superflower 650W


----------



## -antero-

Atomfix said:


> I can boot with XMP which is 3000MHz CL16. I can also boot at 3200MHz (Overclock) with your 0.9.9 V11 Calculator. It boots, and I can benchmark but memtests pops up with errors after about 3-5mins.
> 
> Ryzen 1700 @ 3.6GHz P-State overclock. 1.18V Stock Cooler 1.1V SOC
> G.Skill Trident Z 3000MHz CL16 16GB Kit, Hynix-M Die
> Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K5 F22B BIOS
> Nvidia GTX 770
> Samsung EVO 960
> Superflower 650W


Same here.. 
3200Mhz boots up nicely, can run benchmarks, but memtest fails shortly and sometimes system does restart after that failure but then boots up again with 3200Mhz without any problems (Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16W).


----------



## BloOdje

Anyone one have Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-16GVKB and stable at 3200? I'm stuck at 2933 for now on with timings just from Thaipoonburner and even after using DRAM Calculator safe preset for 3200 it's unstable in Prime95 (getting errors after 3 mins). With XMP it's more stable but still getting blue screens in games + Prime95 and AIDA64 crashing after some time. Would need some help since it's my first time trying to make it run at 3200 and im kinda new to oc.

Specs:

Ryzen 1600 3.8
ASUS Prime B350-Plus
G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-16GVKB


----------



## dspx

BloOdje said:


> Anyone one have Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-16GVKB and stable at 3200? I'm stuck at 2933 for now on with timings just from Thaipoonburner and even after using DRAM Calculator safe preset for 3200 it's unstable in Prime95 (getting errors after 3 mins). With XMP it's more stable but still getting blue screens in games + Prime95 and AIDA64 crashing after some time. Would need some help since it's my first time trying to make it run at 3200 and im kinda new to oc.
> 
> Specs:
> 
> Ryzen 1600 3.8
> ASUS Prime B350-Plus
> G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-16GVKB


Have you tried these for your M-Die (MFR)?
http://www.overclock.net/forum/26242714-post24134.html


----------



## BloOdje

For now on seems fine - passed 3 blend test in Prime95 without any errors. Gonna let it pass little bit more and later on test in games but it seems more stable than before


----------



## Ramad

*Replay to 1usmus*

This is my replay to your post: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3421.html#post26870289 regrading my earlier post here: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3420.html#post26869369

This is my answer:



1usmus said:


> "So 32GB of RAM means the possibility for errors to occur is twice as 16GB? Should that matter or what matters is showing a stable system?"
> I'll ask you a simple question, which is more difficult, a bicycle or a car? What do you think, why the controller has a limitation in memory size and ranks?
> 
> The controller has to operate with twice the amount of memory. Simultaneously. If the system is unstable, errors will occur many times, if not by an order of magnitude. My 17 minute test at the moment is equal to your 60 minute test. Why? because for the controller the volume of memory was allocated only 1/4. The signal line of addresses and data is loaded only by 1/4.
> 
> In such a load, we do not see even minimal problems with user settings. Because the frequency of 3200 is not an indicator for tests. It does not bear any value. We do not use extreme limits, but we use a favorable space for 3200.
> And only in the case when we find our mistakes or system errors at the extreme limit, we will be able to improve our performance at a lower frequency. Banal interpolation.
> 
> I never treated you badly and where I was wrong I always apologized.You are a wonderful provocateur and you have so much dependence and hatred. I am not the source of your problems, you are in control of your time. It's been 2 weeks and you did not check DQS. It's been 4 months since the publication of my temperature test and you absolutely did not do anything. You did not check the voltage on the memory. I believe that people need to allocate important information, for most of users this will be tantamount to opening  It's my fault?
> 
> You can publish anything and anywhere. The theory from the screenshot is wonderful, but we are interested in reality. But I want to remind you of your ideal settings, in which CAD_BUS 120 120 120 120 it was the norm (I remember very well that you were asked to leave the forum, also I remember CAD_BUS timings 63 63 63, but this is not a resistance, but a bit mask). If you are such a professional of a similar number, we would not have seen here. But I do not remind you of this in every message. I understand that people can be wrong
> You again spend a lot of time to find/create dirt. Do not waste power on me, start helping people. And we will not quarrel :cheers:


1. It does not matter if you have 128GB or 4GB of RAM, calling a RAM stable while using 50% of the capacity is not correct. The system is either stable or not installed memory size has nothing to do with it. 

2. Using only 12 threads of an R7 1700 (8cores/16 threads) is not optimal to call the system stable. Why not use 2 cores/ 4 threads and call it a day, much easier, right? 

3. You RAM is G.Skill F4-3000c14D-32GTZR (dual rank, 16GB pr. stick) *Link* while the RAM used in the test is G.Skill F4-3000C14-16GTZR (single rank, 8GB pr. stick) *Link*, this can't be denied while the screenshots clearly are showing that.

4. Not so long ago, @@Reous; did post here saying that there was no difference in stability regardless of which value he used. *Link*, I don't recall seeing many success stories around this DQS fairy tale, when is it going to happen?

5. I don't hate you, I hate that you had no respect for any one, and I hate that you used words such "lies" and "deceive" several times in this thread. (It seems this about to change)

6. You did not apologize because you are respectful and kind but because I was right.

7. Some members can't handle the truth, especially when it does not match the will of the Gods. You were one of the members that did ask me to leave this this forum, because you did ride with the flow, and you did not stop until I threatened with reporting you to the forum moderators (I can find those posts if you want). Asking a member to leave a public forum is not a right given to you. You have been in my ignore list till I began seeing other members quoting your posts that did include misleading information.

8. Regrading CAD settings. I did post my results regrading those settings, does this makes these settings wrong if they don't work on your system? You use Rtt settings as RZQ/7-OFF-RZQ/1 ( I could be wrong), did I write that your settings were wrong because they do not match my settings? 

9. You know that the difference between 3200MT/s and 3333MT/s is 66MHz right? Why are you do you feel the need to prove that you can run your RAM at 3333MT/s when your system can't? There is always a hardware limit, you will not get good results until you learn to live with these limits.


----------



## 1usmus

*23 MSI + 17 Gigabyte motherboard unlocked (mod BIOS)* -> http://www.overclock.net/forum/26874145-post152.html


----------



## xcr89

Can someone please help me i am clueless as to how to get my system stable, thoese are my settings



Spoiler



[2018/03/03 09:36:47]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [1]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
DRAM Voltage [1.37500]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
TrdrdBan [Auto]
TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
TrwtWB [Auto]
TrwtTO [Auto]
data drive strength [Auto]
DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
processor on-die termination [Auto]
CKE setup time [Auto]
CKE fine delay [Auto]
CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
address/command setup time [Auto]
address/command fine delay [Auto]
Trc [44]
TrrdS [5]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [25]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [309]
Trfc2 [230]
Trfc4 [141]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [60 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.68640]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
CPB Mode [Enabled]
C6 Mode [Enabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [On]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [TOSHIBA-TR150]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
JetFlashTranscend 8GB 1100 [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
HPET In SB [Disabled]
MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [UEFI driver first]
Boot from Storage Devices [UEFI driver first]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [UEFI driver first]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [base stability]
Save to Profile [1]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]



I need some help here, i have the following kit CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16 - it's a Ver: 4.31 kit B-die.

I have tested thoese settings aswell and here you can see the difference when the error starts.



Spoiler



Thoese are the values set in bios (Not readouts)

First test overnight, 25 min - 1 error, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, Soc 1.050.

[8720] Sat Mar 03 00:45:40 2018 >> Memory error detected between 0xf514a830, 0xc4c6a830 difference = 4
[8720] Sat Mar 03 00:50:36 2018 >> Status Update: 166.3% Coverage, 1 Errors <----------------- start error

[8720] Sat Mar 03 08:00:36 2018 >> Status Update: 2559.8% Coverage, 4 Errors
[12876] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1275.5% Coverage, 2 Errors
[4324] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1275.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
[10468] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1277.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
[5892] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1486.0% Coverage, 5 Errors
[5892] Sat Mar 03 08:03:57 2018 >> Test finished. 5 errors found.

[12876] Sat Mar 03 08:03:59 2018 >> Test finished. 2 errors found.

[4324] Sat Mar 03 08:04:02 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.

[8720] Sat Mar 03 08:04:03 2018 >> Test finished. 4 errors found.

[10468] Sat Mar 03 08:04:05 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.

58 min - 1 error, 1.415 DRAM Voltage, 1.050 soc.

[3488] Sat Mar 03 10:42:12 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xe511b930, 0x421ab194, difference =4
[3488] Sat Mar 03 10:44:09 2018 >> Status Update: 194.8% Coverage, 1 Errors

31 min - 1 error, 1.415 DRAM Voltage, 1.075 soc.

[6032] Sat Mar 03 11:32:19 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xa9db0a88, 0x101206f0, difference =4



Any help would be preciated.


----------



## 1usmus

xcr89 said:


> Can someone please help me i am clueless as to how to get my system stable, thoese are my settings
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/03/03 09:36:47]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [1]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.37500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [5]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [25]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [309]
> Trfc2 [230]
> Trfc4 [141]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [60 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.68640]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Enabled]
> CPB Mode [Enabled]
> C6 Mode [Enabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [TOSHIBA-TR150]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
> JetFlashTranscend 8GB 1100 [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> HPET In SB [Disabled]
> MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [UEFI driver first]
> Boot from Storage Devices [UEFI driver first]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [UEFI driver first]
> OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [base stability]
> Save to Profile [1]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> 
> 
> 
> I need some help here, i have the following kit CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16 - it's a Ver: 4.31 kit B-die.
> 
> I have tested thoese settings aswell and here you can see the difference when the error starts.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Thoese are the values set in bios (Not readouts)
> 
> First test overnight, 25 min - 1 error, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, Soc 1.050.
> 
> [8720] Sat Mar 03 00:45:40 2018 >> Memory error detected between 0xf514a830, 0xc4c6a830 difference = 4
> [8720] Sat Mar 03 00:50:36 2018 >> Status Update: 166.3% Coverage, 1 Errors <----------------- start error
> 
> [8720] Sat Mar 03 08:00:36 2018 >> Status Update: 2559.8% Coverage, 4 Errors
> [12876] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1275.5% Coverage, 2 Errors
> [4324] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1275.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [10468] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1277.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [5892] Sat Mar 03 08:00:37 2018 >> Status Update: 1486.0% Coverage, 5 Errors
> [5892] Sat Mar 03 08:03:57 2018 >> Test finished. 5 errors found.
> 
> [12876] Sat Mar 03 08:03:59 2018 >> Test finished. 2 errors found.
> 
> [4324] Sat Mar 03 08:04:02 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.
> 
> [8720] Sat Mar 03 08:04:03 2018 >> Test finished. 4 errors found.
> 
> [10468] Sat Mar 03 08:04:05 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.
> 
> 58 min - 1 error, 1.415 DRAM Voltage, 1.050 soc.
> 
> [3488] Sat Mar 03 10:42:12 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xe511b930, 0x421ab194, difference =4
> [3488] Sat Mar 03 10:44:09 2018 >> Status Update: 194.8% Coverage, 1 Errors
> 
> 31 min - 1 error, 1.415 DRAM Voltage, 1.075 soc.
> 
> [6032] Sat Mar 03 11:32:19 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xa9db0a88, 0x101206f0, difference =4
> 
> 
> 
> Any help would be preciated.


try it


Spoiler



Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [1]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [*1.02500*]
DRAM Voltage [*1.39000*]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]

Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [*28*]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
TrdrdBan [Auto]
TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
TrwtWB [Auto]
TrwtTO [Auto]
data drive strength [Auto]
DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
processor on-die termination [Auto]
CKE setup time [Auto]
CKE fine delay [Auto]
CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
address/command setup time [Auto]
address/command fine delay [Auto]
Trc [*42*]
TrrdS [*6*]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [*34*]
TwtrS [*3*]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [*312*]
Trfc2 [*Auto*]
Trfc4 [*Auto*]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [*6*]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [*8*]
ProcODT [*53 ohm*] or 60
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [*Enable*]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [*0.69300*]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [*0.90000*]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
CPU Load-line Calibration *[Level 2]*
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration *[Level 2]*
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [*1.3900*]


----------



## xcr89

1usmus said:


> try it
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [1]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [*1.02500*]
> DRAM Voltage [*1.39000*]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [*28*]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [*42*]
> TrrdS [*6*]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [*34*]
> TwtrS [*3*]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [*312*]
> Trfc2 [*Auto*]
> Trfc4 [*Auto*]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [*6*]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [*8*]
> ProcODT [*53 ohm*] or 60
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [*Enable*]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [*0.69300*]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [*0.90000*]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> CPU Load-line Calibration *[Level 2]*
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration *[Level 2]*
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]


Thanks i will try it soon i am currently testing thoese final values before i try your settings.


----------



## 1usmus

xcr89 said:


> Thanks i will try it soon i am currently testing thoese final values before i try your settings.


I think your main mistake is the wrong VTT DDR was, for 1.375 - 0.6864 is not correct. 0.6864 for 1.38 - 1.385 pretty good fit


----------



## 1usmus

Ramad said:


> This is my replay to your post: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3421.html#post26870289 regrading my earlier post here: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3420.html#post26869369
> 
> This is my answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It does not matter if you have 128GB or 4GB of RAM, calling a RAM stable while using 50% of the capacity is not correct. The system is either stable or not installed memory size has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 2. Using only 12 threads of an R7 1700 (8cores/16 threads) is not optimal to call the system stable. Why not use 2 cores/ 4 threads and call it a day, much easier, right?
> 
> 3. You RAM is G.Skill F4-3000c14D-32GTZR (dual rank, 16GB pr. stick) *Link* while the RAM used in the test is G.Skill F4-3000C14-16GTZR (single rank, 8GB pr. stick) *Link*, this can't be denied while the screenshots clearly are showing that.
> 
> 4. Not so long ago, @@Reous; did post here saying that there was no difference in stability regardless of which value he used. *Link*, I don't recall seeing many success stories around this DQS fairy tale, when is it going to happen?
> 
> 5. I don't hate you, I hate that you had no respect for any one, and I hate that you used words such "lies" and "deceive" several times in this thread. (It seems this about to change)
> 
> 6. You did not apologize because you are respectful and kind but because I was right.
> 
> 7. Some members can't handle the truth, especially when it does not match the will of the Gods. You were one of the members that did ask me to leave this this forum, because you did ride with the flow, and you did not stop until I threatened with reporting you to the forum moderators (I can find those posts if you want). Asking a member to leave a public forum is not a right given to you. You have been in my ignore list till I began seeing other members quoting your posts that did include misleading information.
> 
> 8. Regrading CAD settings. I did post my results regrading those settings, does this makes these settings wrong if they don't work on your system? You use Rtt settings as RZQ/7-OFF-RZQ/1 ( I could be wrong), did I write that your settings were wrong because they do not match my settings?
> 
> 9. You know that the difference between 3200MT/s and 3333MT/s is 66MHz right? Why are you do you feel the need to prove that you can run your RAM at 3333MT/s when your system can't? There is always a hardware limit, you will not get good results until you learn to live with these limits.


1. ask *Stilt* about this
2. half a year as I do not conduct tests on 12 cores. Now I'm constantly using 16 cores 
3. yes, there are 8GB chips, and there is another strapping and it will differ from 4GB chips
4. you were afraid to check the truth and now you do not. It is absolutely incorrect to compare absolutely different motherboards. The success of this setting is present on CH6. I left the choice to people in the thread overclockers.ru there are people who noticed a difference in stability.I will not get absolutely anything if it does not work and I do not get anything if it works. I consider it possible to argue in one case, when both participants in the discussion conducted testing. I will not believe the above-mentioned persons, they can hide information from us and this is absolutely natural. It's business.
5. well, I'll write a few synonyms for the case of incorrect translation
6,7. we see this situation absolutely differently . If there is a fault for me, I apologize to you. I hope for the future we will not have differences
8. 120 ohm is too much for this system, as I indicated. At the moment it's great that we have a unanimous point of view and this is 20th ohm.
9. I agree, the limit is present (perhaps, but I'm not sure, it took almost a year and every week a new discovery occurs), I run tests at 3333+ to then start the system on 3267 or 3200 with increased stability. 

thank you for writing here


----------



## Krisztias

Hi Everyone!

I have problem to stabilize my Flare X 3200CL14 @ 3466MHz. DOCP Standard works fine, 3200 fast too (I got cold boot issue by 3200 fast preset -1 shutdown-, with or without to set DRAM Vboot to 1.36V or Auto)
I took the suggestions vom 1usmus Calculator, but I'm not stable with this settings ( HCI 1000%-1100% 1 error, RamTest 5500%-8500% 1 error).
It seems like the suggestions are ok ( is much better, like everything else), but I need a lot of SoC Voltage: 1.14375V for 3466MHz @ default settings. Everybody speeks abaut max. 1.1V, but over and under 1.14375 I get errors very quickly. If I put Phase Control to Optimized, LLC on Level 2 I need only a notch less. What do you think, why? What can be wrong with my settings? Is my CPU so bad? (P-state OC 3,8GHz with offset +0.025 is stable with 3200MHz RAM)

1700x
C6H
Flare X 3200C14
UEFI 6001

Please help, I would like to run my memory stable @3466MHz 
Thank you Guys!
Special thanks to 1usmus for the Work with the Calculator!


----------



## xcr89

1usmus said:


> I think your main mistake is the wrong VTT DDR was, for 1.375 - 0.6864 is not correct. 0.6864 for 1.38 - 1.385 pretty good fit


yes i think i put in the wrong value aswell, but sometimes when i take dram voltage / 2 it doesnt give me correct values becouse it rounds up the voltage i try to put in and gives me way bigger/lower round up on the VTTDDR then i want to and puts it in a bad range wich i can do nothing about.

Anyways here is my latest results way better then before, i havent tested the ones you stated yet i will test them later i think there is some minor instability here what do you think?



Spoiler



2H 25M - 2 errors, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, 1.050 soc

[7392] Sat Mar 03 14:39:05 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xe7c566f0, 0x46b460b4, difference =4
[8924] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 477.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
[10180] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.5% Coverage, 0 Errors
[1348] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
[7392] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 444.8% Coverage, 1 Errors
[7204] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 454.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
[7392] Sat Mar 03 14:44:43 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xee77a6f0, 0x4d66a6dc, difference =4
[7392] Sat Mar 03 14:45:21 2018 >> Test finished. 2 errors found.

[10180] Sat Mar 03 14:45:23 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.

[7204] Sat Mar 03 14:45:24 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.

[1348] Sat Mar 03 14:45:26 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.

[8924] Sat Mar 03 14:45:28 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.



Settings:



Spoiler



[2018/03/03 15:17:55]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [1]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
DRAM Voltage [1.40000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
TrdrdBan [Auto]
TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
TrwtWB [Auto]
TrwtTO [Auto]
data drive strength [Auto]
DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
processor on-die termination [Auto]
CKE setup time [Auto]
CKE fine delay [Auto]
CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
address/command setup time [Auto]
address/command fine delay [Auto]
Trc [44]
TrrdS [5]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [25]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [309]
Trfc2 [230]
Trfc4 [141]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [60 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.69960]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
CPB Mode [Enabled]
C6 Mode [Enabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [On]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [TOSHIBA-TR150]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
JetFlashTranscend 8GB 1100 [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
HPET In SB [Disabled]
MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [UEFI driver first]
Boot from Storage Devices [UEFI driver first]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [UEFI driver first]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [mem400stable]
Save to Profile [2]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


----------



## 1usmus

Krisztias said:


> Hi Everyone!
> 
> I have problem to stabilize my Flare X 3200CL14 @ 3466MHz. DOCP Standard works fine, 3200 fast too (I got cold boot issue by 3200 fast preset -1 shutdown-, with or without to set DRAM Vboot to 1.36V or Auto)
> I took the suggestions vom 1usmus Calculator, but I'm not stable with this settings ( HCI 1000%-1100% 1 error, RamTest 5500%-8500% 1 error).
> It seems like the suggestions are ok ( is much better, like everything else), but I need a lot of SoC Voltage: 1.14375V for 3466MHz @ default settings. Everybody speeks abaut max. 1.1V, but over and under 1.14375 I get errors very quickly. If I put Phase Control to Optimized, LLC on Level 2 I need only a notch less. What do you think, why? What can be wrong with my settings? Is my CPU so bad? (P-state OC 3,8GHz with offset +0.025 is stable with 3200MHz RAM)
> 
> 1700x
> C6H
> Flare X 3200C14
> UEFI 6001
> 
> Please help, I would like to run my memory stable @3466MHz
> Thank you Guys!
> Special thanks to 1usmus for the Work with the Calculator!


publish your settings in a text file, as the previous person did and we'll check everything 



xcr89 said:


> yes i think i put in the wrong value aswell, but sometimes when i take dram voltage / 2 it doesnt give me correct values becouse it rounds up the voltage i try to put in and gives me way bigger/lower round up on the VTTDDR then i want to and puts it in a bad range wich i can do nothing about.
> 
> Anyways here is my latest results way better then before, i havent tested the ones you stated yet i will test them later i think there is some minor instability here what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 2H 25M - 2 errors, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, 1.050 soc
> 
> [7392] Sat Mar 03 14:39:05 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xe7c566f0, 0x46b460b4, difference =4
> [8924] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 477.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [10180] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.5% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [1348] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [7392] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 444.8% Coverage, 1 Errors
> [7204] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 454.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [7392] Sat Mar 03 14:44:43 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xee77a6f0, 0x4d66a6dc, difference =4
> [7392] Sat Mar 03 14:45:21 2018 >> Test finished. 2 errors found.
> 
> [10180] Sat Mar 03 14:45:23 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.
> 
> [7204] Sat Mar 03 14:45:24 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.
> 
> [1348] Sat Mar 03 14:45:26 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.
> 
> [8924] Sat Mar 03 14:45:28 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.
> 
> 
> 
> Settings:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/03/03 15:17:55]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [1]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.40000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [5]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [25]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [309]
> Trfc2 [230]
> Trfc4 [141]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [60 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.69960]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Enabled]
> CPB Mode [Enabled]
> C6 Mode [Enabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [TOSHIBA-TR150]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
> JetFlashTranscend 8GB 1100 [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> HPET In SB [Disabled]
> MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [UEFI driver first]
> Boot from Storage Devices [UEFI driver first]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [UEFI driver first]
> OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [mem400stable]
> Save to Profile [2]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


why do you use only 5 windows? the number of windows must be equal to the number of cores
at the moment, still unsatisfactory

I stressed to you important information in the past post, parameters that you should pay attention to, try to test this recommendation


----------



## xcr89

1usmus said:


> publish your settings in a text file, as the previous person did and we'll check everything
> 
> 
> 
> why do you use only 5 windows? the number of windows must be equal to the number of cores
> at the moment, still unsatisfactory
> 
> I stressed to you important information in the past post, parameters that you should pay attention to, try to test this recommendation


idk i use memtest pro, it makes the windows auto for me?

i will test your settings tonight let it run overnight

is there a easier way to make a window for each core? i saw your russian program but i dont know how to set it up for 16GB if you could setup the config for me i will use that one instead as i guess it splits on all cores.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

xcr89 said:


> idk i use memtest pro, it makes the windows auto for me?
> 
> i will test your settings tonight let it run overnight
> 
> is there a easier way to make a window for each core? i saw your russian program but i dont know how to set it up for 16GB if you could setup the config for me i will use that one instead as i guess it splits on all cores.


Try this
MemTestPro Launcher
http://www.overclock.net/forum/10-a...memory-stability-thread-102.html#post26419580


----------



## dspx

xcr89 said:


> idk i use memtest pro, it makes the windows auto for me?
> 
> i will test your settings tonight let it run overnight
> 
> is there a easier way to make a window for each core? i saw your russian program but i dont know how to set it up for 16GB if you could setup the config for me i will use that one instead as i guess it splits on all cores.


The Russian program does it automatically.


----------



## xcr89

CharlieWheelie said:


> Try this
> MemTestPro Launcher
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/10-a...memory-stability-thread-102.html#post26419580


thanks i will use it meanwhile.



dspx said:


> The Russian program does it automatically.


Could you set it up for me the config if your familiar with it, tests i should use, i have 16GB ram, 1700 and ch6

like edit the cfg for me and upload it so i can just replace the file or make a spoiler with the whole edited config would preciate it!


----------



## dspx

xcr89 said:


> Could you set it up for me the config if your familiar with it, tests i should use, i have 16GB ram, 1700 and ch6
> 
> like edit the cfg for me and upload it so i can just replace the file or make a spoiler with the whole edited config would preciate it!


It's really easy, manually edit MT.cfg file, find "Cycles" and set how much times would you like the test to repeat itself, I believe the default was 6.
Also, you can enable or disable each of the 6 tests (0-5), but I would leave it as it is, so basically there is no need for you to change anything, everything is already automated.


----------



## xcr89

1usmus said:


> why do you use only 5 windows? the number of windows must be equal to the number of cores
> at the moment, still unsatisfactory
> 
> I stressed to you important information in the past post, parameters that you should pay attention to, try to test this recommendation


I tried your settings 23 min in i had a error i ran the memtest pro in 16 instances with 944MB on each one.



Spoiler



[4624] Sun Mar 04 05:06:30 2018 >> Test started. Allocated 944 MB of memory for testing.
[996] Sun Mar 04 05:29:31 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xf3702bd0, 0xd5f027f0, difference =4
[3600] Sun Mar 04 05:30:15 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xe71832f8, 0xc9982830, difference =4
[996] Sun Mar 04 05:36:30 2018 >> 
[6656] Sun Mar 04 05:36:30 2018 >> Status Update: 77.7% Coverage, 1 Errors
[2632] Sun Mar 04 05:36:30 2018 >>



When i woke up the pc had rebooted itself due to a crash i am guessing.


----------



## Krisztias

1usmus said:


> publish your settings in a text file, as the previous person did and we'll check everything
> 
> 
> 
> why do you use only 5 windows? the number of windows must be equal to the number of cores
> at the moment, still unsatisfactory
> 
> I stressed to you important information in the past post, parameters that you should pay attention to, try to test this recommendation


Thank you 1usmus! 
My settings:


----------



## Darkomax

Managed to stabilize my memory at 3333CL14 1.37v using RTT settings 7/off/6 instead of 1.42v and auto RTT. Really happy with it, I felt like 1.42v was a lot for 3333CL14. There are some timings I can't lower as much as with 1.42v (makes sense) but those seem to have very little impact on performance (or none for the games I tried), notably any tRRD and tWTR timings.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 or attempt to fix all*

I have recently been observing that the calculator is not able to help properly. The problem lies in the following. The calculations use an XMP profile that is relevant only to Intel architecture controllers.
Version 0.9.9 V13 had 5 thousand lines of code, when 1.0.0 beta 3 already has 7 thousand lines of code. Foresee all options and exceptions - I'm not in a position. Trends in improving overclocking, I do not see. Therefore, I decide to start development of the standard A-XMP which will be an exclusive for Ryzen.
I do not understand why AMD did not introduce such a standard with a new architecture. They created absolutely nothing. They left people to their fate. And the most opposite in this situation - there are no documents to the memory controller.

The shell of the program and the appearance will try to leave the one that is now.
In the new version I plan to completely untie the calculator from Thaiphoon (I do not see any reason to rely on the profile from Intel), I will leave the possibility of manual input of information + create a universal preset A-XMP for each type of memory.
To rewrite everything, it takes time. Approximately a week or two.

Thank you for attention


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 or attempt to fix all*
> 
> I have recently been observing that the calculator is not able to help properly. The problem lies in the following. The calculations use an XMP profile that is relevant only to Intel architecture controllers.
> Version 0.9.9 V13 had 5 thousand lines of code, when 1.0.0 beta 3 already has 7 thousand lines of code. Foresee all options and exceptions - I'm not in a position. Trends in improving overclocking, I do not see. Therefore, I decide to start development of the standard A-XMP which will be an exclusive for Ryzen.
> I do not understand why AMD did not introduce such a standard with a new architecture. They created absolutely nothing. They left people to their fate. And the most opposite in this situation - there are no documents to the memory controller.
> 
> The shell of the program and the appearance will try to leave the one that is now.
> In the new version I plan to completely untie the calculator from Thaiphoon (I do not see any reason to rely on the profile from Intel), I will leave the possibility of manual input of information + create a universal preset A-XMP for each type of memory.
> To rewrite everything, it takes time. Approximately a week or two.
> 
> Thank you for attention


Thank you @1usmus for all your work and all time you put in this! We all really appropriate all you have done.
Hope that knowledgeable people from forum will join and help you with development and ideas.

Keep up with great work [emoji3]


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@1usmus
I look forward to trying it out for ya mate.

Out of interest, do you still have 0.9.9 v9 of the software and earlier versions. Say v6 or even earlier ?
As these ones gave slightly different settings, some closer to what works for me.

Would be nice to see some other recomendations.
I have print outs of settings but not what i want.

Cheers


----------



## Zendal

I think MSI has some profiles labeled A-XMP on their boards already, but a similar idea would be definitely great for the Calc . Keep it up, Usmus!


----------



## 1usmus

Zendal said:


> I think MSI has some profiles labeled A-XMP on their boards already, but a similar idea would be definitely great for the Calc . Keep it up, Usmus!


Hmmm...R-XMP ! 



CharlieWheelie said:


> @1usmus
> I look forward to trying it out for ya mate.
> 
> Out of interest, do you still have 0.9.9 v9 of the software and earlier versions. Say v6 or even earlier ?
> As these ones gave slightly different settings, some closer to what works for me.
> 
> Would be nice to see some other recomendations.
> I have print outs of settings but not what i want.
> 
> Cheers


Maybe it still exists somewhere 
Intermediate version for testing, I will publish soon, do not need to look for old variants of this program


----------



## xcr89

1usmus said:


> try it
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [1]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [*1.02500*]
> DRAM Voltage [*1.39000*]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [*28*]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [*42*]
> TrrdS [*6*]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [*34*]
> TwtrS [*3*]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [*312*]
> Trfc2 [*Auto*]
> Trfc4 [*Auto*]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [*6*]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [*8*]
> ProcODT [*53 ohm*] or 60
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [*Enable*]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [*0.69300*]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [*0.90000*]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> CPU Load-line Calibration *[Level 2]*
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration *[Level 2]*
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [*1.3900*]


I tried your settings 23 min error 77.7% coverage, i ran the memtest pro in *16 instances* , also noticed the timings you gave me was like 3-4 ns slower in memory etc in aida from my previous settings.


I went back to the original most stable i have gotten this far and did as you requested *memtest pro 16 instances*



Spoiler



1 error 278% coverage - 1h25min, *1.050 soc*, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, *memtest pro (16 instances)*

[4968] Sun Mar 04 18:14:30 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xebc72bcc, 0xce472830, difference =4
[4968] Sun Mar 04 18:19:37 2018 >> Status Update: 278.8% Coverage, 1 Errors

comparison of the test 5 vs 16 instances as you can see above and below

1 error 444.8% coverage - 2h25min, 1.4 DRAM Voltage,*1.050 soc*, *memtest pro (5 instances)*

[7392] Sat Mar 03 14:39:05 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xe7c566f0, 0x46b460b4, difference =4
[8924] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 477.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
[10180] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.5% Coverage, 0 Errors
[1348] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
[7392] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 444.8% Coverage, 1 Errors
[7204] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 454.7% Coverage, 0 Errors

I also tested additional soc voltages below.

1 error 40% coverage - 13 min, *1.1 soc*, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, *memtest pro (16 instances)*

[6612] Sun Mar 04 15:49:32 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xf79427f0, 0xda142334, difference =4
[5028] Sun Mar 04 15:51:18 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.

[6612] Sun Mar 04 15:51:19 2018 >> Test finished. 1 errors found.


1 error 93.2% coverage - 29 min, *1.025 soc*, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, *memtest pro (16 instances)*

[2500] Sun Mar 04 16:26:02 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xfce526f0, 0xdf65216c, difference =4
[2292] Sun Mar 04 16:26:58 2018 >> Status Update: 93.8% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 86.6% Coverage, 0 Errors
[3168] Sun Mar 04 16:26:58 2018 >> 
[2500] Sun Mar 04 16:26:58 2018 >> Status Update: 93.2% Coverage, 1 Errors



Seems it is very picky with the range of soc voltage? I mean it shouldnt be impossible to stabilize the latency i have now without sacrificing it for worse latency since i afterall have a B-die kit

this is the base settings i use, values not stated in above tests.



Spoiler



[2018/03/03 15:17:55]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [1]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
DRAM Voltage [1.40000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
TrdrdBan [Auto]
TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
TrwtWB [Auto]
TrwtTO [Auto]
data drive strength [Auto]
DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
processor on-die termination [Auto]
CKE setup time [Auto]
CKE fine delay [Auto]
CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
address/command setup time [Auto]
address/command fine delay [Auto]
Trc [44]
TrrdS [5]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [25]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [309]
Trfc2 [230]
Trfc4 [141]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [60 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.69960]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
CPB Mode [Enabled]
C6 Mode [Enabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [On]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [TOSHIBA-TR150]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
JetFlashTranscend 8GB 1100 [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
HPET In SB [Disabled]
MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [UEFI driver first]
Boot from Storage Devices [UEFI driver first]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [UEFI driver first]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [mem400stable]
Save to Profile [2]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


----------



## 1usmus

xcr89 said:


> I tried your settings 23 min error 77.7% coverage, i ran the memtest pro in *16 instances* , also noticed the timings you gave me was like 3-4 ns slower in memory etc in aida from my previous settings.
> 
> 
> I went back to the original most stable i have gotten this far and did as you requested *memtest pro 16 instances*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 1 error 278% coverage - 1h25min, *1.050 soc*, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, *memtest pro (16 instances)*
> 
> [4968] Sun Mar 04 18:14:30 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xebc72bcc, 0xce472830, difference =4
> [4968] Sun Mar 04 18:19:37 2018 >> Status Update: 278.8% Coverage, 1 Errors
> 
> comparison of the test 5 vs 16 instances as you can see above and below
> 
> 1 error 444.8% coverage - 2h25min, 1.4 DRAM Voltage,*1.050 soc*, *memtest pro (5 instances)*
> 
> [7392] Sat Mar 03 14:39:05 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xe7c566f0, 0x46b460b4, difference =4
> [8924] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 477.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [10180] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.5% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [1348] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 445.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [7392] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 444.8% Coverage, 1 Errors
> [7204] Sat Mar 03 14:44:39 2018 >> Status Update: 454.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
> 
> I also tested additional soc voltages below.
> 
> 1 error 40% coverage - 13 min, *1.1 soc*, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, *memtest pro (16 instances)*
> 
> [6612] Sun Mar 04 15:49:32 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xf79427f0, 0xda142334, difference =4
> [5028] Sun Mar 04 15:51:18 2018 >> Test finished. 0 errors found.
> 
> [6612] Sun Mar 04 15:51:19 2018 >> Test finished. 1 errors found.
> 
> 
> 1 error 93.2% coverage - 29 min, *1.025 soc*, 1.4 DRAM Voltage, *memtest pro (16 instances)*
> 
> [2500] Sun Mar 04 16:26:02 2018 >> Memory error found copying between 0xfce526f0, 0xdf65216c, difference =4
> [2292] Sun Mar 04 16:26:58 2018 >> Status Update: 93.8% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 86.6% Coverage, 0 Errors
> [3168] Sun Mar 04 16:26:58 2018 >>
> [2500] Sun Mar 04 16:26:58 2018 >> Status Update: 93.2% Coverage, 1 Errors
> 
> 
> 
> Seems it is very picky with the range of soc voltage? I mean it shouldnt be impossible to stabilize the latency i have now without sacrificing it for worse latency since i afterall have a B-die kit
> 
> this is the base settings i use, values not stated in above tests.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/03/03 15:17:55]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [1]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [39.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.37500]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.40000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [6]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [5]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [25]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [309]
> Trfc2 [230]
> Trfc4 [141]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [60 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.69960]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [700]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Enabled]
> CPB Mode [Enabled]
> C6 Mode [Enabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [TOSHIBA-TR150]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> USB Flash Disk 1100 [Auto]
> JetFlashTranscend 8GB 1100 [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> HPET In SB [Disabled]
> MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [UEFI driver first]
> Boot from Storage Devices [UEFI driver first]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [UEFI driver first]
> OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [mem400stable]
> Save to Profile [2]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


TrrdS [*6*]

Tfaw [*34*]

Trdwr [*6*]


----------



## xcr89

1usmus said:


> TrrdS [*6*]
> 
> Tfaw [*34*]
> 
> Trdwr [*6*]


Changed the values to your suggested

Random reboot during night, no errors, maybe instability in cpu?





Spoiler



*0 error 300-337%? coverage - 2h, 1.050 soc, TrrdS [6], Tfaw [34], Trdwr [6], memtest pro (16 instances)*

[9476] Mon Mar 05 05:06:17 2018 >> rrorsStatus Update: 274.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[3948] Mon Mar 05 05:06:17 2018 >> Status Update: 274.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[1184] Mon Mar 05 05:06:17 2018 >> Status Update: 276.4% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 274.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[1208] Mon Mar 05 05:06:17 2018 >> Status Update: 263.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
[1452] Mon Mar 05 05:06:17 2018 >> Status Update: 274.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[6972] Mon Mar 05 05:06:17 2018 >> Status Update: 275.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[10220] Mon Mar 05 05:06:17 2018 >> Status Update: 276.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[3884] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> 
[7600] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 282.6% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 280.9% Coverage, 0 Errors
[4796] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 312.8% Coverage, 0 Errors
[4512] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 312.8% Coverage, 0 Errors
[11176] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> 
[10904] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> 
[9476] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 307.8% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 303.9% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 299.8% Coverage, 0 Errors
[3948] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 306.8% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 305.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
[4580] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> 
[1184] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 309.0% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 296.2% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 280.9% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 299.3% Coverage, 0 Errors
[6972] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 307.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[10220] Mon Mar 05 05:16:17 2018 >> Status Update: 307.4% Coverage, 0 Errors
[7600] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> 
[9272] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 308.8% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 309.9% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 306.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
[4796] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 342.9% Coverage, 0 Errors
[4512] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 343.1% Coverage, 0 Errors
[11176] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> 
[10904] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 337.5% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 336.8% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 333.4% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 329.9% Coverage, 0 Errors
[3948] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 335.6% Coverage, 0 Errors
[1184] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 325.7% Coverage, 0 Errors
[1208] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> 
[1452] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 308.7% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 339.2% Coverage, 0 ErrorsStatus Update: 329.8% Coverage, 0 Errors
[6972] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 337.2% Coverage, 0 Errors
[10220] Mon Mar 05 05:26:17 2018 >> Status Update: 337.1% Coverage, 0 Errors



Any ideas why my pc is randomly rebooting?


----------



## blikblue

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 or attempt to fix all*
> 
> I have recently been observing that the calculator is not able to help properly. The problem lies in the following. The calculations use an XMP profile that is relevant only to Intel architecture controllers.
> Version 0.9.9 V13 had 5 thousand lines of code, when 1.0.0 beta 3 already has 7 thousand lines of code. Foresee all options and exceptions - I'm not in a position. Trends in improving overclocking, I do not see. Therefore, I decide to start development of the standard A-XMP which will be an exclusive for Ryzen.
> I do not understand why AMD did not introduce such a standard with a new architecture. They created absolutely nothing. They left people to their fate. And the most opposite in this situation - there are no documents to the memory controller.
> 
> The shell of the program and the appearance will try to leave the one that is now.
> In the new version I plan to completely untie the calculator from Thaiphoon (I do not see any reason to rely on the profile from Intel), I will leave the possibility of manual input of information + create a universal preset A-XMP for each type of memory.
> To rewrite everything, it takes time. Approximately a week or two.
> 
> Thank you for attention


Not trying to outsmart, but I guess you already tried to search here?: https://support.amd.com/en-us/search/tech-docs


----------



## Krisztias

Krisztias said:


> Hi Everyone!
> 
> I have problem to stabilize my Flare X 3200CL14 @ 3466MHz. DOCP Standard works fine, 3200 fast too (I got cold boot issue by 3200 fast preset -1 shutdown-, with or without to set DRAM Vboot to 1.36V or Auto)
> I took the suggestions vom 1usmus Calculator, but I'm not stable with this settings ( HCI 1000%-1100% 1 error, RamTest 5500%-8500% 1 error).
> It seems like the suggestions are ok ( is much better, like everything else), but I need a lot of SoC Voltage: 1.14375V for 3466MHz @ default settings. Everybody speeks abaut max. 1.1V, but over and under 1.14375 I get errors very quickly. If I put Phase Control to Optimized, LLC on Level 2 I need only a notch less. What do you think, why? What can be wrong with my settings? Is my CPU so bad? (P-state OC 3,8GHz with offset +0.025 is stable with 3200MHz RAM)
> 
> 1700x
> C6H
> Flare X 3200C14
> UEFI 6001
> 
> Please help, I would like to run my memory stable @3466MHz
> Thank you Guys!
> Special thanks to 1usmus for the Work with the Calculator!





1usmus said:


> publish your settings in a text file, as the previous person did and we'll check everything
> 
> 
> 
> why do you use only 5 windows? the number of windows must be equal to the number of cores
> at the moment, still unsatisfactory
> 
> I stressed to you important information in the past post, parameters that you should pay attention to, try to test this recommendation





Krisztias said:


> Thank you 1usmus!
> My settings:


Do you have an idea what do I do wrong?


----------



## ressonantia

Hi @1usmus,

Not sure if you're aware or this or not, but there seems to be a bug in the calculations for B/S-die at 3600MHz? For some reason the Fast preset has looser timings compared to the Safe preset.


----------



## 1usmus

ressonantia said:


> Hi @1usmus,
> 
> Not sure if you're aware or this or not, but there seems to be a bug in the calculations for B/S-die at 3600MHz? For some reason the Fast preset has looser timings compared to the Safe preset.


http://www.overclock.net/forum/26880129-post1301.html


----------



## Ramad

1usmus said:


> 1. ask *Stilt* about this
> 2. half a year as I do not conduct tests on 12 cores. Now I'm constantly using 16 cores
> 3. yes, there are 8GB chips, and there is another strapping and it will differ from 4GB chips
> 4. you were afraid to check the truth and now you do not. It is absolutely incorrect to compare absolutely different motherboards. The success of this setting is present on CH6. I left the choice to people in the thread overclockers.ru there are people who noticed a difference in stability.I will not get absolutely anything if it does not work and I do not get anything if it works. I consider it possible to argue in one case, when both participants in the discussion conducted testing. I will not believe the above-mentioned persons, they can hide information from us and this is absolutely natural. It's business.
> 5. well, I'll write a few synonyms for the case of incorrect translation
> 6,7. we see this situation absolutely differently . If there is a fault for me, I apologize to you. I hope for the future we will not have differences
> 8. 120 ohm is too much for this system, as I indicated. At the moment it's great that we have a unanimous point of view and this is 20th ohm.
> 9. I agree, the limit is present (perhaps, but I'm not sure, it took almost a year and every week a new discovery occurs), I run tests at 3333+ to then start the system on 3267 or 3200 with increased stability.
> 
> thank you for writing here


I will keep it short.

1. I don't have to ask, I can make up my own mind and I do have a system to test and get result. According to The Stilt, you must not change RTT values from Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 (AUTO setting), well good luck booting an E-die or a Hynix based RAM @3200MT/s with that setting. If I did not use many hours trying to find the RTT settings that works with my system then I and many members would be stuck at 2933MT/s, don't you agree? My goal is to show users how to find settings that are usable for their systems and let them make their own minds, not to tell them what to do, this is a difference that you may not be aware of.

Help my out here: testing an 8 core/16 threads system by using only 6 cores/12 threads is wrong, but testing 16GB RAM using 50% of it or 32GB using 25% of it is correct? Where is the logic in that?
You have clearly not used Memtest86+, both Linux and Windows provide it with the OS to test memory, try it and see if you get the option to reduce the allocated memory for the test. Memory testing on OS gives us the privilege of allocating memory to test the RAM while we have the rest to do other things while the test is running. You want to test right, then you should be close to 100% of memory utilization (OS + allocated memory space for stability testing). 

2. OK.

3. I meant the test was not made by you, you have just used screenshots provided by someone else, you just failed to mention which user it belongs to, because your RAM is different than the RAM used in the test. 

4. I'm facing the truth which is: Enabled DQS setting have no effect, your test shows that too because it did not prove a stable system at any DQS value. My answer to you was presented in C6H thread, no need to repeat the same here. This is just like the NB frequency setting, a lot of hype but the setting has no effect. I think you should start facing the truth that it's hidden on all motherboards of all motherboard manufacturers for a reason.

5. OK.

6 and 7. If I'm wrong then I would say I'm wrong, can you do the same? http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2762.html#post26367939

8. Take your time to absorb this: 






If the settings aren't working for you then it's your system and settings, not my fault.

9. OK.

You are welcome.


----------



## Darkstalker420

Hi just downloaded the calculator and just wanted to be sure i'm using it right. The inputs on the left side do i input the timings that are on the SPD on my sticks OR do i input the timings i want to achieve (The Stilts "safe" 3200Mhz preset). Thanks for the tool i'm really hoping it will fix the travesty that is BIOS 3803 for the B350 Strix.

Thanx.


----------



## dspx

Darkstalker420 said:


> Hi just downloaded the calculator and just wanted to be sure i'm using it right. The inputs on the left side do i input the timings that are on the SPD on my sticks OR do i input the timings i want to achieve (The Stilts "safe" 3200Mhz preset). Thanks for the tool i'm really hoping it will fix the travesty that is BIOS 3803 for the B350 Strix.
> 
> Thanx.


I suggest you take a look at the video 1usmus posted at the beginning of this thread, it's all explained there.


----------



## bigfootnz

Ramad said:


> According to The Stilt, you must not change RTT values from Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 (AUTO setting), well good luck booting an E-die or a Hynix based RAM @3200MT/s with that setting. If I did not use many hours trying to find the RTT settings that works with my system then I and many members would be stuck at 2933MT/s, don't you agree?


Let me just correct you here. I've Hynix working at 3200 with RTT auto values, I've done HCI 1500% and GSAT 3h.


----------



## Ramad

bigfootnz said:


> Let me just correct you here. I've Hynix working at 3200 with RTT auto values, I've done HCI 1500% and GSAT 3h.


I did write about older versions of BIOS when those settings where introduced (RTT and CAD), BIOS settings have changed a lot since then. I know that you didn't know what I was talking about. Here are some links if you want to know more:

http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2114.html#post26187638

Read following posts until you get to: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2115.html#post26187690

I have been running my RAM at 3200MT/s for a long time:http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2094.html#post26183912 
Figured that out when only Samsung B-die could run 3200MT/s, because nobody was allowed to change RTT settings which was tuned only to work with Samsung B-die. 

So, no, I'm correct.


----------



## Darkstalker420

dspx said:


> I suggest you take a look at the video 1usmus posted at the beginning of this thread, it's all explained there.


Thanks buddy can't believe i missed that one.........

Thanx.


----------



## bigfootnz

Ramad said:


> I did write about older versions of BIOS when those settings where introduced (RTT and CAD), BIOS settings have changed a lot since then. I know that you didn't know what I was talking about. Here are some links if you want to know more:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2114.html#post26187638
> 
> Read following posts until you get to: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2115.html#post26187690
> 
> I have been running my RAM at 3200MT/s for a long time:http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2094.html#post26183912
> Figured that out when only Samsung B-die could run 3200MT/s, because nobody was allowed to change RTT settings which was tuned only to work with Samsung B-die.
> 
> So, no, I'm correct.


I'm running BIOS 1701, yes it is not old like that ones what you have quoted but again it is neither latest.

OK, let me ask you this way, on my 1701 what are settings on RTT auto? Are they still Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 (AUTO setting) or something else now?


----------



## Ramad

bigfootnz said:


> I'm running BIOS 1701, yes it is not old like that ones what you have quoted but again it is neither latest.
> 
> OK, let me ask you this way, on my 1701 what are settings on RTT auto? Are they still Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 (AUTO setting) or something else now?


We were using alpha or beta BIOS at that time, right after AMD enabled memory timings, RTT and CAD settings with BIOS 9845 and 9843. I don't think they are still the same.
They have released 1401, 1403, 1501 and 1602 before 1701. I don't know what the settings are right now, I actually did not bother to check.

Try changing them from AUTO to Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 and see if your system can boot at 3200MT/s, if it does then they are still the same and if not then you have your answer.


----------



## bigfootnz

Ramad said:


> We were using alpha or beta BIOS at that time, right after AMD enabled memory timings, RTT and CAD settings with BIOS 9845 and 9843. I don't think they are still the same.
> They have released 1401, 1403, 1501 and 1602 before 1701. I don't know what the settings are right now, I actually did not bother to check.
> 
> Try changing them from AUTO to Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 and see if your system can boot at 3200MT/s, if it does then they are still the same and if not then you have your answer.


OK, I'll try it today when I get home.


----------



## dspx

Darkstalker420 said:


> Thanks buddy can't believe i missed that one.........
> 
> Thanx.


:thumb:


----------



## kaseki

Ramad said:


> I will keep it short. ...
> 
> 4. I'm facing the truth which is: Enabled DQS setting have no effect, your test shows that too because it did not prove a stable system at any DQS value. My answer to you was presented in C6H thread, no need to repeat the same here. This is just like the NB frequency setting, a lot of hype but the setting has no effect. I think you should start facing the truth that it's hidden on all motherboards of all motherboard manufacturers for a reason.
> 
> ... You are welcome.


 @Ramad: I disagree with the last clause of your first sentence, but also its antithesis. In other words, I doubt that the tests either prove or disprove a DQS sensitivity.

As I recall correctly (not a sure thing) back in the day of Proc_ODT and VDDP settings, you (and I) were using marginally stable (not even bootable in some cases) configurations to find the magic combo that worked best (filled the memory hole). Now I agree that if one never finds a stable setting for a given series of tests, the configuration stability may be too poor to depend on the resulting variation in failure rates to prove assertions about the variables being changed and tested. I think it would be best to run the memory where GSAT or equivalent shows a few errors per hour, and then see if there is a significant change in error rate with a change in DQS. Significant means more than 3 standard deviations from the mean. I am not in a position to do that myself at present, so I would hope my thoughts help with some convergence of test methods.


----------



## Ramad

kaseki said:


> @*Ramad* : I disagree with the last clause of your first sentence, but also its antithesis. In other words, I doubt that the tests either prove or disprove a DQS sensitivity.
> 
> As I recall correctly (not a sure thing) back in the day of Proc_ODT and VDDP settings, you (and I) were using marginally stable (not even bootable in some cases) configurations to find the magic combo that worked best (filled the memory hole). Now I agree that if one never finds a stable setting for a given series of tests, the configuration stability may be too poor to depend on the resulting variation in failure rates to prove assertions about the variables being changed and tested. I think it would be best to run the memory where GSAT or equivalent shows a few errors per hour, and then see if there is a significant change in error rate with a change in DQS. Significant means more than 3 standard deviations from the mean. I am not in a position to do that myself at present, so I would hope my thoughts help with some convergence of test methods.


You may have missed some posts. It's not about the DQS itself but the DQS setting 1usmus enabled in his modded BIOS. He claims that it can stabilize the system yet have not showed a stable system while manipulating it. The settings is hidden for the user on all AM4 motherboards, he made the setting visible in the BIOS along with a setting called NB frequency, which he claimed worked at 63x (good luck with that) but there was no change in performance at any value, then DQS setting and still did not present any test that shows any gain in changing DQS value. He just can't accept that this setting has no receiver on the other side, that you can chose any value with no effect what so ever.

I guess you missed this post: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3408.html#post26819457

Do you find any stable setting there?

Reous posted that he also did not see any effect by changing the value of the setting: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3413.html#post26832793

Do you really think that if this setting had any effect that we would not then see users posting about it and how they got their systems stable by changing the value of DQS?

What really upsets me is how many members do not read, and they have no knowledge of the backstory yet they still comment on thing that they don't know anything about.

I would be happy if you flashed 1usmus modded BIOS for C6H and manipulate DQS values all you like then post your results showing you findings. If you are stable or unstable at all DQS values then you have the answer because you can't be stable or unstable with all values. One value must make the system stable or the setting have no effect.

Yes, we used hours testing until we found settings we could call stable, 1usmus tests for 15 min. at most because "it takes a long time to test".

1usmus made a big deal of my posted settings regarding CAD setting, he would not believe that those settings was real (63-63-63 at 120 Ohm) at the time of BIOS 1501 so I made him a video (check a few posts back). Do you know why someone does not or cannot believe other people are telling the truth, I know why, but do you?


----------



## kaseki

Ramad said:


> You may have missed some posts. It's not about the DQS itself but the DQS setting 1usmus enabled in his modded BIOS. He claims that it can stabilize the system yet have not showed a stable system while manipulating it. The settings is hidden for the user on all AM4 motherboards, he made the setting visible in the BIOS along with a setting called NB frequency, which he claimed worked at 63x (good luck with that) but there was no change in performance at any value, then DQS setting and still did not present any test that shows any gain in changing DQS value. He just can't accept that this setting has no receiver on the other side, that you can chose any value with no effect what so ever.
> 
> I guess you missed this post: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3408.html#post26819457
> 
> Do you find any stable setting there?
> 
> Reous posted that he also did not see any effect by changing the value of the setting: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3413.html#post26832793
> 
> Do you really think that if this setting had any effect that we would not then see users posting about it and how they got their systems stable by changing the value of DQS?
> 
> What really upsets me is how many members do not read, and they have no knowledge of the backstory yet they still comment on thing that they don't know anything about.
> 
> I would be happy if you flashed 1usmus modded BIOS for C6H and manipulate DQS values all you like then post your results showing you findings. If you are stable or unstable at all DQS values then you have the answer because you can't be stable or unstable with all values. One value must make the system stable or the setting have no effect.
> 
> Yes, we used hours testing until we found settings we could call stable, 1usmus tests for 15 min. at most because "it takes a long time to test".
> 
> 1usmus made a big deal of my posted settings regarding CAD setting, he would not believe that those settings was real (63-63-63 at 120 Ohm) at the time of BIOS 1501 so I made him a video (check a few posts back). Do you know why someone does not or cannot believe other people are telling the truth, I know why, but do you?


I read every message of both threads. However, I do not necessarily retain them all (or most). I am pretty sure I noted that I am not presently in a position to mess with DQS, or even upgrade BIOSes. Further, now that you have reminded me that DQS is in a modified BIOS, I have to ask: Do I recall correctly that the compilation(?) of it requires Windows? That would preclude messing with the BIOS. I run Linux; there will be no Windows beyond what Crossover Linux emulates. 

I would also add that I have noted at least twice before that one's goal should be stability over reasonable changes in voltage and temperature as well as with test programs. If we have to depend on buried tweaks for stability, we are too far from where we should be. These buried tweaks are seen by me a possible facilitators for improving memory bandwidth and latency, but I think using them for stability is a bridge too far unless they uncover a fundamental necessary change in how the RAM is communicated with by Ryzen.


----------



## 1usmus

Ramad said:


> You may have missed some posts. It's not about the DQS itself but the DQS setting 1usmus enabled in his modded BIOS. He claims that it can stabilize the system yet have not showed a stable system while manipulating it. The settings is hidden for the user on all AM4 motherboards, he made the setting visible in the BIOS along with a setting called NB frequency, which he claimed worked at 63x (good luck with that) but there was no change in performance at any value, then DQS setting and still did not present any test that shows any gain in changing DQS value. He just can't accept that this setting has no receiver on the other side, that you can chose any value with no effect what so ever.
> 
> I guess you missed this post: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3408.html#post26819457
> 
> Do you find any stable setting there?
> 
> Reous posted that he also did not see any effect by changing the value of the setting: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-3413.html#post26832793
> 
> Do you really think that if this setting had any effect that we would not then see users posting about it and how they got their systems stable by changing the value of DQS?
> 
> What really upsets me is how many members do not read, and they have no knowledge of the backstory yet they still comment on thing that they don't know anything about.
> 
> I would be happy if you flashed 1usmus modded BIOS for C6H and manipulate DQS values all you like then post your results showing you findings. If you are stable or unstable at all DQS values then you have the answer because you can't be stable or unstable with all values. One value must make the system stable or the setting have no effect.
> 
> Yes, we used hours testing until we found settings we could call stable, 1usmus tests for 15 min. at most because "it takes a long time to test".
> 
> 1usmus made a big deal of my posted settings regarding CAD setting, he would not believe that those settings was real (63-63-63 at 120 Ohm) at the time of BIOS 1501 so I made him a video (check a few posts back). Do you know why someone does not or cannot believe other people are telling the truth, I know why, but do you?


I repeat once again that to prove that it does not work, you need to install a BIOS mod and prove it. At the moment it's just words. I showed you the video difference in the frequency of errors, provided a test from the site overclockers.ru, but everyone looked at him with their eyes closed. Earlier in this thread there were reports that DQS 60 helped stabilize the system. 

And the question to you, why are you trying to compared ABSOLUTELY different motherboards in every message? in which case we can compare Pentium 4 and Ryzen, both products are made of silicon, so they are equal. I do not see any evidence that DQS does not work. No one. 
+ CH6 has some exclusive settings that are not available to the owners of other motherboards. DQS can be one of them, the same as TUNE DRAM


________________________________________________________

You write that you have your opinion and *Stilt's* opinion does not interest you. I agree that the disable / off / rzq5 will not run memory on a double rank. But he is also a man and can be wrong, most of his words have helped people. Correspondingly, the load on the signal characteristics of the lines increases with the amount of memory used.

________________________________________________________

About your video. 

You bit mask (delay) compared with the resistance. CAD_BUS timing is the delay (coarse / fine) of the receiver. I do not understand the essence of this test. What for? Who can benefit from these settings? 40 40 40 + 40 40 40 40 or 63 63 63 + 120 120 120 120. The system started it does not mean success. The system is stable with these settings at low frequency, this is not a success.
Example.I can run the processor at a frequency of 550 MHz. What will it give us?

________________________________________________________


We again spend time on words instead of actions...

________________________________________________________

*Ramad*, I deleted all the code of the calculator and create it from scratch, I work very much. I would gladly DQS test it for days, but I do not have such an opportunity. If you do not like my mod BIOS, make your own, it's quick and easy 
I need help from smart people, I really hope that the controversial settings we will check together.


----------



## Ramad

1usmus said:


> I repeat once again that to prove that it does not work, you need to install a BIOS mod and prove it. At the moment it's just words. I showed you the video difference in the frequency of errors, provided a test from the site overclockers.ru, but everyone looked at him with their eyes closed. Earlier in this thread there were reports that DQS 60 helped stabilize the system.
> 
> And the question to you, why are you trying to compared ABSOLUTELY different motherboards in every message? in which case we can compare Pentium 4 and Ryzen, both products are made of silicon, so they are equal. I do not see any evidence that DQS does not work. No one.
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> 
> You write that you have your opinion and *Stilt's* opinion does not interest you. It does not interact for one simple reason, because the amount of memory affects the load of the signal lines.
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> 
> About your video.
> 
> You bit mask (delay) compared with the resistance. It's very good that no one believed you, because at the moment these are two absolutely different values that do not depend on each other. CAD_BUS timing is the delay (coarse / fine) of the receiver. I do not understand the essence of this test. What for? Who can benefit from these settings? 40 40 40 + 40 40 40 40 or 63 63 63 + 120 120 120 120. The system started it does not mean success. The system is stable with these settings at low frequency, this is not a success.
> Example.I can run the processor at a frequency of 550 MHz. What will it give us?


I don't know how your mind works, first you cast doubts about the CAD settings I have posted at the time of 1501, now you claim they may not be stable regardless of testings I did at the time I posted those settings at that time. 

Throwing The Stilt name now and then will not help you, remember that he also told you that DQS setting you enabled in the modded BIOS does not have an effect at all. 

I'm not going to waste any more time replaying to any of your posts, because you have showed, many times, that you don't know a bit about what you are talking about. Good luck to you and good luck to any member/reader that believes in your fairy tells.


----------



## Ramad

1usmus said:


> We again spend time on words instead of actions...
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> 
> *Ramad*, I deleted all the code of the calculator and create it from scratch, I work very much. I would gladly DQS test it for days, but I do not have such an opportunity. If you do not like my mod BIOS, make your own, it's quick and easy
> I need help from smart people, I really hope that the controversial settings we will check together.


I have done a lot of testings for hours and have posted all of my results of hours of testing which proved system stability with those settings. I use hours, you can use your 15 min. of testing and call stable.
I have done the actions, you can do what you are best at which are words. 

No need for mods, the board have everything I need to make it stable so no, thank you.

I'm out.


----------



## 1usmus

*Effect of the CPU frequency on the stability of the RAM*

*Effect of the CPU frequency on the stability of the RAM*​
I want to share with you the test results. Many thanks to *Nattvasen* for these tests.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1trjycKzGH-QUVMCclos5st_MXQVgj-Knyvv4FPMjzZI/edit#gid=0

*Сonclusions:*

1) even +25 MHz for the CPU affect the stability of the RAM
2) the higher the voltage on the DRAM, SOC , CPU, the more leakage currents, and accordingly the temperature noise, which negatively affects the stability of the system 


Spoiler










3) noise from VRM affects system stability 


Spoiler






















4) the higher the temperature of the processor, the more voltage it needs (recursion)


Spoiler














5) error 8 is the indicator of unstable overclocking of the processor (by the way, this error is affected by the timing tRDWR)
6) the high SOC voltage does not always improve the stability of the system


----------



## bigfootnz

Ramad said:


> I did write about older versions of BIOS when those settings where introduced (RTT and CAD), BIOS settings have changed a lot since then. I know that you didn't know what I was talking about. Here are some links if you want to know more:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2114.html#post26187638
> 
> Read following posts until you get to: http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2115.html#post26187690
> 
> I have been running my RAM at 3200MT/s for a long time:http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2094.html#post26183912
> Figured that out when only Samsung B-die could run 3200MT/s, because nobody was allowed to change RTT settings which was tuned only to work with Samsung B-die.
> 
> So, no, I'm correct.


OK, I've done my homework, as you have requested.



Ramad said:


> We were using alpha or beta BIOS at that time, right after AMD enabled memory timings, RTT and CAD settings with BIOS 9845 and 9843. I don't think they are still the same.
> They have released 1401, 1403, 1501 and 1602 before 1701. I don't know what the settings are right now, I actually did not bother to check.
> 
> Try changing them from AUTO to Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 and see if your system can boot at 3200MT/s, if it does then they are still the same and if not then you have your answer.


You said that you were talking about BIOS 9845 and 9843. According to this Stilt list of all available BIOS http://www.mediafire.com/folder/xcheoyf3gq1e4/Release these two BIOS do not exist. Probably you were referring to BIOS 9945 and 9943 with EC 9845 and made type as you are in hurry to prove me wrong.

My BIOS is 1701 which is running AGESA 1.0.0.6 just like all those BIOS 9943, 9945, 1403, 1501 and 1602. 1401 is also AGESA 1.0.0.6 but RC4. Why I'm pointing this, as all these BIOS are using same AGESA versions and if you set up all settings (exact value) in BIOS same, I'm stating same not leave it on auto, then on all these BIOS memory should work same. 

Yesterday I've modified up RTT to Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5. Not only that I was able to boot in Win, but I've also done Prime95 blend test for one hour all that @3200 with Hynix. So once more let me correct you, as you are wrong again.

Now only difference between all these BIOS, regarding memory, is what are default/auto setting. Even if I flash BIOS 9945/9943 on my mobo, I'm stating my mobo and I'll explain later on why, I'll be able to boot into Win if I setup all settings in that BIOS same like it is on my 1701. 

Why I'm stating on my mobo, as what I saw here, every CH6 mobo is story for it self. For example, how many people are complaining that they cannot switch Aura when PC is off and on other hand how many people is stating completely opposite that it is working correctly, on my is working correctly. Everybody is stating that before BIOS 3008 you should not change VID for P-state OC as it will not work, even in all CH6 guides is same statement. But on my mobo from day one VID change is working correctly in P-state, either below 1.35V (1700X) or above 1.35V. Or some people complain, even I've experienced it, going from BIOS 1701 to 3502/6001 I need more voltage for CPU for same OC, again on other hand lots of people is saying that is not case with them.

My is point that your statement is not correct
Either, as you are not right that only these particular RTT settings will not even to boot in Win with Hyinx on 2933/3200, or these RTT values Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 together with some setting in BIOS 9943/9945 which on auto had different setting that 1701 was causing instability.


Ramad said:


> I will keep it short.
> According to The Stilt, you must not change RTT values from Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5 (AUTO setting), well good luck booting an E-die or a Hynix based RAM @3200MT/s with that setting. If I did not use many hours trying to find the RTT settings that works with my system then I and many members would be stuck at 2933MT/s, don't you agree?



Now, let me explain why I've even bother in first place to respond to your statement. 
You are criticizing 1usmus for doing same thing what you have done here. He has stated that DSQ is affecting memory stability without proper testing which I agree with you. But than you have stated that not one even one Hynix will boot into Win according to your experience and some posts here on forum. Maybe I'm wrong here, but you do not have Hynix, and you have done OC testing only on your mobo and samy B-die, and then you are claiming that all Hynix will not boot with RTT values Disabled-Disabled-RZQ/5, where is your proof here? And then when I told you that is working in my case you were so quick to jump in conclusion that I'm wrong as I'm just newbie and I'm running new BIOS, without asking first.
Secondly you have started this without clearly stating on which BIOS you are referring and again you were so quick to say:


Ramad said:


> I know that you didn't know what I was talking about.


How I could know if you didn't clarify it?

And thirdly you have said this


Ramad said:


> What really upsets me is how many members do not read, and they have no knowledge of the backstory yet they still comment on thing that they don't know anything about.


I'm assuming, that I'm one of these members who do not know anything about it. This is just wrong to say. In my opinion if you are starting discussion on any thread with somebody, you have to expect other people to join it otherwise do it on pm. Also if you are not clear in you post, like you were not in that first post, how you can expect somebody else to know what you are referring to if they are new to this thread? Or maybe, as we are newbie, we should not be allowed to comment post from older members?

I could be wrong with whole this my post if you are from Asus/AMD engineering department, but I do not think so. Once more I respect you as member with great experience with Ryzen platform, but on other hand you should have respect for other members and have in mind we all do make mistakes.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

I don't think he is from Asus/AMD engineering department.

"He's a Very Naughty Boy!"
Monty Python's Life of Brian
*****


----------



## specialedge

@bigfootnz whoa! Easy there, Socrates!


----------



## bigfootnz

specialedge said:


> @bigfootnz whoa! Easy there, Socrates!


And why?


----------



## Zendal

Thank you @1usmus, your calc guided me quite a bit 
If it's of any help, my F4-3200C14D-16GFX ended up like this on the Taichi:

DRAM: 1.44v
VDDP: 0.900
SOC: 1.0v
Proc_ODT: 53.3
RTT, Cad_Bus, CLDO_VDDP... Auto


----------



## neur0cide

Zendal said:


> RTT, Cad_Bus, CLDO_VDDP... Auto


So what did you need the calculator for?


----------



## Zendal

neur0cide said:


> So what did you need the calculator for?


What do you mean? Timings, subtimings, voltages... there's a lor more than CAD and RTTs, I don't understand. 

It's my first time overclocking RAM so it came in very handy.


----------



## dspx

Zendal said:


> Thank you @1usmus, your calc guided me quite a bit
> If it's of any help, my F4-3200C14D-16GFX ended up like this on the Taichi:
> 
> DRAM: 1.44v
> VDDP: 0.900
> SOC: 1.0v
> Proc_ODT: 53.3
> RTT, Cad_Bus, CLDO_VDDP... Auto


Next time I am buying Samsung B-Die


----------



## neur0cide

Just kiddin. Don't take it the hard way.
The Rtt resistances are paramount for the stability of your RAM at high overclocks. I don't know what the Auto settings on the Taichi are these days and they might be spot on already.
Did you stress test your RAM with these settings? The Subtimings are extreme and I can hardly believe, that the RAM will run 100% stable that way.


----------



## Zendal

neur0cide said:


> Just kiddin. Don't take it the hard way.
> The Rtt resistances are paramount for the stability of your RAM at high overclocks. I don't know what the Auto settings on the Taichi are these days and they might be spot on already.
> Did you stress test your RAM with these settings? The Subtimings are extreme and I can hardly believe, that the RAM will run 100% stable that way.


I tried all the suggestions given by the calc on Rtt and CAD. None of the values that worked seemed to make a difference (that I could notice) so yeah, I guess Auto values are spot on but I don't know what they are, sadly 

About stressing, for now they did 2400+HCI as they are (had one error with trfc 240 the night before) and about 2 hours of FFXV
Tonight is gonna be Prime95 night, wish me luck


----------



## neur0cide

Zendal said:


> About stressing, for now they did 2400+HCI as they are (had one error with trfc 240 the night before) and about 2 hours of FFXV
> Tonight is gonna be Prime95 night, wish me luck


That's impressive. Never before saw working subtimings that tight @3466 MT/s. Congrats!
Good luck with your Prime95 run!


----------



## Superbegita

dspx said:


> Next time I am buying Samsung B-Die


Yopu really should buddy yup ^^I have some and the timings and frequency are excellent (with a 1800X however). I have noticed soon that ....when you gave 4 sticks dimm..you MUST absolutely raise the latence a bit more high than usual.

I was on 14-13-13-13-24-34 with 2x8go at 22533Mhz...and when i put 2 others stivcks..i am now at 16-16-16-16 etc


----------



## specialedge

whats the best way to stress test these settings? I ran memtest overnight, 16x instances (one per core) with 1990mb ram each (16 x 1990 = 31840mb/32768mb total) and woke up with all but one instance showing an error. The remaining instance was at 1668% error-free.

I ran prime 95 for half an hour without any error, but thats so short I will have to do an 8+hour run to even consider it tested. 

Intel Burn Test xtreme stress mode very high successfully ran 10 iterations, at a rate of 168-169 gflops, which is the highest i have ever seen, and almost twice what I was running before. This didn't even heat my cpu beyond 62, which surprised me.

This is all with cpu settings at stock. At this rate, I wonder whether I will even return to cpu overclocking for this bad boy. 

System info:

ryzen 1800x @ default stock, h100iv2 cooled
crosshair 6 hero
4x 8gb trident.z F4-3200C16D-16GTZR
bclock 102, memory clock at 3264mhz
1usmus's safe settings per attachments below


----------



## dspx

Superbegita said:


> Yopu really should buddy yup ^^I have some and the timings and frequency are excellent (with a 1800X however). I have noticed soon that ....when you gave 4 sticks dimm..you MUST absolutely raise the latence a bit more high than usual.
> 
> I was on 14-13-13-13-24-34 with 2x8go at 22533Mhz...and when i put 2 others stivcks..i am now at 16-16-16-16 etc


The problem was that I have a Noctua cooler and the memory I got was an obvious choice being a low profile one. At the prices kits go these days I seriously doubt I can afford a faster one.
All in all, I am satisfied with the speed/timings I managed to get, but you always want to squeeze out as much as you can


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 Beta 1*








*Features:*
* completely re-created from scratch calculator
* this is the first beta, bugs and oddities are possible
* timings calculation is strongly recommended through the *R-XMP* button, then the button with the *preset* (Safe or Fast)

*Download: *
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hENn7JfaczpZYOo64PVmwjLFwt-LnAXF

*Changelog:*
* extended list of supported memory types
* thanks to the active participation of the forum participants, the R-XMP profile was developed. He is an exclusive for the Ryzen processors.
* the voltage step for each frequency has been reduced for more flexible tuning
* there are no frequency limits for calculating timings
* new tRFC calculator
* the appearance of the program has been partially changed
* available presets:


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 Beta 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Features:*
> * completely re-created from scratch calculator
> * this is the first beta, bugs and oddities are possible
> * timings calculation is strongly recommended through the *R-XMP* button, then the button with the *preset* (Safe or Fast)
> 
> *Download: *
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hENn7JfaczpZYOo64PVmwjLFwt-LnAXF
> 
> *Changelog:*
> * extended list of supported memory types
> * thanks to the active participation of the forum participants, the R-XMP profile was developed. He is an exclusive for the Ryzen processors.
> * the voltage step for each frequency has been reduced for more flexible tuning
> * there are no frequency limits for calculating timings
> * new tRFC calculator
> * the appearance of the program has been partially changed
> * available presets:


Are you following Asus now? Release new firmware with bugs?  Nah i'm kidding, will test it out later man.


----------



## @purple

Tried this one and the latest one and there is no way to run my RAM at 3200.I just don't know what else to do.

RAM : https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-8gvkb


----------



## mtrai

@1usmus about to test it out since I was trying to go back my stable CL 14 timings on my Hynix M CL 16 ram...though I do have a question for you and the other ram gurus 

I cannot figure this one out.

My Ram is G.skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16-8GVKB with H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC M-die

I have ran them stable at stock, and 16-16-16-16 I see a a slight performance boost.

When I run them at 14-15-15-15 stable all other settings the same there is no additional boost at all in any test. I am just confused as heck. TBH to get them stable and bootable does obviously require more dram and associated voltage.

Am I missing something?


----------



## mtrai

@1usmus about to test it out since I was trying to go back my stable CL 14 timings on my Hynix M CL 16 ram...though I do have a question for you and the other ram gurus 

I cannot figure this one out.

My Ram is G.skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16-8GVKB with H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC M-die

I have ran them stable at stock, and 16-16-16-16 I see a a slight performance boost.

When I run them at 14-15-15-15 stable all other settings the same there is no additional boost at all in any test. I am just confused as heck. TBH to get them stable and bootable does obviously require more dram and associated voltage.

Am I missing something?


----------



## mtrai

@1usmus Just wanted to let you know the values for my G.skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16-8GVKB with H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC M-die with your new calculator are pretty much spot on with with what I have gotten stable and to pass HCL mem testing to 1000%+ on both safe and fast. Though I need more dram and soc voltage and the trfc is a bit lower then the calculator it give 480 while I use 460. 

I know the calculator is just a jumping point.


----------



## Krisztias

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 Beta 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Features:*
> * completely re-created from scratch calculator
> * this is the first beta, bugs and oddities are possible
> * timings calculation is strongly recommended through the *R-XMP* button, then the button with the *preset* (Safe or Fast)
> 
> *Download: *
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hENn7JfaczpZYOo64PVmwjLFwt-LnAXF
> 
> *Changelog:*
> * extended list of supported memory types
> * thanks to the active participation of the forum participants, the R-XMP profile was developed. He is an exclusive for the Ryzen processors.
> * the voltage step for each frequency has been reduced for more flexible tuning
> * there are no frequency limits for calculating timings
> * new tRFC calculator
> * the appearance of the program has been partially changed
> * available presets:


R-XMP doesn't mach the readings for my UHQ b-die Flare X 3200C14 stick via TPB.
It seems like the r-xmp is more "UHQ" 
Is that a problem for me?


----------



## 1usmus

hurricane28 said:


> Are you following Asus now? Release new firmware with bugs?  Nah i'm kidding, will test it out later man.


Yes, I periodically follow the thread. With new bios improvements will no longer be for us, support for the first generation is over ...



kush113 said:


> Tried this one and the latest one and there is no way to run my RAM at 3200.I just don't know what else to do.
> 
> RAM : https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-8gvkb


you are doing something wrong, *mtrai* system works well, ask for the entire list of settings



mtrai said:


> @1usmus about to test it out since I was trying to go back my stable CL 14 timings on my Hynix M CL 16 ram...though I do have a question for you and the other ram gurus
> 
> I cannot figure this one out.
> 
> My Ram is G.skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16-8GVKB with H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC M-die
> 
> I have ran them stable at stock, and 16-16-16-16 I see a a slight performance boost.
> 
> When I run them at 14-15-15-15 stable all other settings the same there is no additional boost at all in any test. I am just confused as heck. TBH to get them stable and bootable does obviously require more dram and associated voltage.
> 
> Am I missing something?


what current voltage do you have?
you can see the difference in games or in the AID test (-1.5ns), otherwise some timings can be a bottleneck for cl14 (need RTC)



Krisztias said:


> R-XMP doesn't mach the readings for my UHQ b-die Flare X 3200C14 stick via TPB.
> It seems like the r-xmp is more "UHQ"
> Is that a problem for me?


There is no error, some values are really lower than UHQ


----------



## WarpenN1

Usmus, My chip seems to like CLDO vddp at 915mv quite better than at 700mv (have to still test more vddp voltages). It seems to aid CPU overclocking and helps me to lower VDDSoC, and it stops those hard crashes too like forced restart or black screens during test.

For example blend test on prime95 doesn't instantly crash anymore like it did with 700mv on 963vSoC RAM being at 3200mhz. It needed exactly 1.025v for the best stability. Any higher or lower, stability suffered.

Now maximum VDDSoC power usage at these settings 3.9GHZ 3200mhz fast settings is like little over 13watts just 

Btw, it is good to stress rams with memtest and blend/or custom ram settings on prime95 as the load and therefor leakage is different


----------



## 1usmus

WarpenN1 said:


> Usmus, My chip seems to like CLDO vddp at 915mv quite better than at 700mv (have to still test more vddp voltages). It seems to aid CPU overclocking and helps me to lower VDDSoC, and it stops those hard crashes too like forced restart or black screens during test.
> 
> For example blend test on prime95 doesn't instantly crash anymore like it did with 700mv on 963vSoC RAM being at 3200mhz. It needed exactly 1.025v for the best stability. Any higher or lower, stability suffered.
> 
> Now maximum VDDSoC power usage at these settings 3.9GHZ 3200mhz fast settings is like little over 13watts just
> 
> Btw, it is good to stress rams with memtest and blend/or custom ram settings on prime95 as the load and therefor leakage is different


07.29.2017 i conducted a CLDO test and 913 had very good results (https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?p=14936498#p14936498 mid column - number of errors)  
I believe you,i check again, thanks


----------



## @purple

1usmus said:


> you are doing something wrong, *mtrai* system works well, ask for the entire list of settings



What do you mean with "mtrai"? What's this? Please point me in the right direction please. Where to ask for this list? I'm sorry but I'm little bit lost now.


----------



## -antero-

With my Hynix chips trc below 52 won't boot. At the moment runnning with 16,17,17,17,34,56. Memtest fails, error between copying or smth  
What to try to get 3200 stable without any memtest errors? I can do almost anything at these settings that I am currently running but would like to be sure that when my wife uses pc it would not crash 
What information is needed to get any good feedback from you guys?

EDIT: Can even boot with 3334mhz but memtest fails and working with excel ended with restart...


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> Yes, I periodically follow the thread. With new bios improvements will no longer be for us, support for the first generation is over ...
> 
> 
> 
> you are doing something wrong, *mtrai* system works well, ask for the entire list of settings
> 
> 
> 
> what current voltage do you have?
> you can see the difference in games or in the AID test (-1.5ns), otherwise some timings can be a bottleneck for cl14 (need RTC)
> 
> 
> 
> There is no error, some values are really lower than UHQ


I'm afraid so too man... I contacted my retail store today and i could return this erratic CH6 back when new X470 boards arrive, they are familiar with the CH6 problems and offer excellent support. 
I don't think i will go Asus again, at least not before doing some proper research on their components.. 

Anyway, which version of your program do you recommend these days? The new beta one or the one prior to that?


----------



## SexySale

-antero- said:


> With my Hynix chips trc below 52 won't boot. At the moment runnning with 16,17,17,17,34,56. Memtest fails, error between copying or smth
> What to try to get 3200 stable without any memtest errors? I can do almost anything at these settings that I am currently running but would like to be sure that when my wife uses pc it would not crash
> What information is needed to get any good feedback from you guys?
> 
> EDIT: Can even boot with 3334mhz but memtest fails and working with excel ended with restart...


Hi @-antero-. We have same memory and board. There is nothing wrong with your settings, just Hynix memory is not stable yet on rated speeds. There is possibility in next bios releases to be stable, but for now not. There are bunch of settings you can try from calculator, but there is NO quick fix or cure for your situation.
For now you can only use fast preset for 3066 with no issues at all.
Good luck


----------



## mtrai

kush113 said:


> What do you mean with "mtrai"? What's this? Please point me in the right direction please. Where to ask for this list? I'm sorry but I'm little bit lost now.


He was referring to me...my username I could not finish yesterday again with figuring out why CL 14 or 16 gives me the same performance as me and my partner started drinking...and I have found in my experience overclocking and drinking or rather drunk overclocking does not ever work out well. I am trying to back track through the posts to see what you are needing...he 1usmus was telling you to ask me for my bios settings list. I will get that for your shortly and post it. I have my G.skill ripjaws hynix m die pass 1400% memtest before. Though I have a different issue I am trying to work out. My CL16 settings are rock stable. But need more voltage to get there.


----------



## @purple

mtrai said:


> He was referring to me...my username I could not finish yesterday again with figuring out why CL 14 or 16 gives me the same performance as me and my partner started drinking...and I have found in my experience overclocking and drinking or rather drunk overclocking does not ever work out well. I am trying to back track through the posts to see what you are needing...he 1usmus was telling you to ask me for my bios settings list. I will get that for your shortly and post it. I have my G.skill ripjaws hynix m die pass 1400% memtest before. Though I have a different issue I am trying to work out. My CL16 settings are rock stable. But need more voltage to get there.


Ok so you are the guy who can help me out then, right?Great news then. Do you have same RAM like me? What about motherboard? If you could help me out that would be amazing.

RAM : https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-8gvkb


----------



## mtrai

kush113 said:


> Ok so you are the guy who can help me out then, right?Great news then. Do you have same RAM like me? What about motherboard? If you could help me out that would be amazing.
> 
> RAM : https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-8gvkb


Should be but grab Thaiphoon burner and get the readout ...read the ram then click report...and post it...I am doing some stability checking again today since a few days I cross flashed my C6H Wifi to 1usmus C6H modded bios. Just making sure of a few things. I am just gonna post my safe CL 16 3200 settings. As CL 14 quite simply needs too much voltage at least with the previous bios. It pays to double check then just assume the kits are the same die.


----------



## mtrai

Does this option do what I think it does? 

Memory Clear
When this feature is disabled, BIOS does not implement MemClear after memory training
(only if non-ECC DIMMs are used).

It sounds how Intel added the option to skip ddr4 training on the skylake system. Back then there were training issues...and they added an option to the bios to allow you skip training on reboots or power ups if training had been previously successful. Is this the same thing and we have kind of overlooked it?


----------



## 1usmus

-antero- said:


> With my Hynix chips trc below 52 won't boot. At the moment runnning with 16,17,17,17,34,56. Memtest fails, error between copying or smth
> What to try to get 3200 stable without any memtest errors? I can do almost anything at these settings that I am currently running but would like to be sure that when my wife uses pc it would not crash
> What information is needed to get any good feedback from you guys?
> 
> EDIT: Can even boot with 3334mhz but memtest fails and working with excel ended with restart...


the quality of memory chips does not allow to work with the current profile
I'll add one more profile (HQ profile) for some memory types in the next version



hurricane28 said:


> I'm afraid so too man... I contacted my retail store today and i could return this erratic CH6 back when new X470 boards arrive, they are familiar with the CH6 problems and offer excellent support.
> I don't think i will go Asus again, at least not before doing some proper research on their components..
> 
> Anyway, which version of your program do you recommend these days? The new beta one or the one prior to that?


good news! I watch more and more disgruntled users every day! 
I'm also selling my motherboard, maybe I'll buy Asrock

1.1.0 Beta 2, which will be published in a few days 



mtrai said:


> Does this option do what I think it does?
> 
> Memory Clear
> When this feature is disabled, BIOS does not implement MemClear after memory training
> (only if non-ECC DIMMs are used).
> 
> It sounds how Intel added the option to skip ddr4 training on the skylake system. Back then there were training issues...and they added an option to the bios to allow you skip training on reboots or power ups if training had been previously successful. Is this the same thing and we have kind of overlooked it?


I played with this option today, but so far I can not draw any conclusions ... need more tests and controversial situations


----------



## mtrai

1usmus said:


> I played with this option today, but so far I can not draw any conclusions ... need more tests and controversial situations


I disabled memory clear and so far not had any boot up stops and it boots faster. But yes I need to test it more. Been re-booting all morning trying to get stable with lower voltage across the board



kush113 said:


> Ok so you are the guy who can help me out then, right?Great news then. Do you have same RAM like me? What about motherboard? If you could help me out that would be amazing.
> 
> RAM : https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-8gvkb


My stable settings...keep in I am working with my voltage today and not had time to do long extensive testing so you may need more or less voltages.

C6H Wifi Crossflashed to modded 6001 C6H bios 1700x 2 x 8 G.Skill @ 4Ghz and 3200 testing timing not tested voltage settings below.


----------



## Superbegita

*Ram overclocking*



1usmus said:


> the quality of memory chips does not allow to work with the current profile
> I'll add one more profile (HQ profile) for some memory types in the next version
> 
> 
> 
> good news! I watch more and more disgruntled users every day!
> I'm also selling my motherboard, maybe I'll buy Asrock
> 
> 1.1.0 Beta 2, which will be published in a few days
> 
> 
> 
> I played with this option today, but so far I can not draw any conclusions ... need more tests and controversial situations


Yo ! Humm if i may allow me...i won't recommandered ASRock for what concerns ram overclocking.. I know someone with an actual X370 Killer and ..well is he compàletely stuck at 3066Mhz.. (and yeson the very last BIOS) And he us as me some G.Skill Trident Z (so Samsung B Die aka the best chips for Ryzen..)
But he have only a R6 1600...guess the memory controller is not very good either...sort of..

For comparing... with my actual Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7 i am running at 3533Mhz for my two sticks in 2x8go G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4266Mhz. At those timings: 14-14-14-28-46 and of course al sub timings modified for.

By the way i know that now 4 sticks work well on too. ^^

Honestly never been disapponted by Gigabyte motherboard (what for VRM are excellent températures, overcliockng processor and ram etc and good audio chip).

I am running my 1800X at exactly 4.13ghz in stable state at 1.57500 VCore (soc VCore is at 1.20). No problem at all with.


----------



## dspx

Recommended Gear Down disabled for Hynix AFR is not good here, I can't boot into Windows and get multiple resets.


----------



## -antero-

What soft to you guys use to get those settings in .txt file?


----------



## christoph

Superbegita said:


> Yo ! Humm if i may allow me...i won't recommandered ASRock for what concerns ram overclocking.. I know someone with an actual X370 Killer and ..well is he compàletely stuck at 3066Mhz.. (and yeson the very last BIOS) And he us as me some G.Skill Trident Z (so Samsung B Die aka the best chips for Ryzen..)
> But he have only a R6 1600...guess the memory controller is not very good either...sort of..
> 
> For comparing... with my actual Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7 i am running at 3533Mhz for my two sticks in 2x8go G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4266Mhz. At those timings: 14-14-14-28-46 and of course al sub timings modified for.
> 
> By the way i know that now 4 sticks work well on too. ^^
> 
> Honestly never been disapponted by Gigabyte motherboard (what for VRM are excellent températures, overcliockng processor and ram etc and good audio chip).
> 
> I am running my 1800X at exactly 4.13ghz in stable state at 1.57500 VCore (soc VCore is at 1.20). No problem at all with.




i'm running 3466 with Taichi no problems


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus Thank you for the tools you have provided to use. I'm having some real issues getting my Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3600C18 B Die stable at 3200Mhz on my B350 Strix (3803 BIOS). I'm running (safe 3200Mhz) timings worked out by your 1.0.0 Beta3 calculator. These have been to only timings that have enabled me to make it through 2 passes of Intel Burn Test AVX on MAXIMUM. With 1.37v 53ohm ProcODT and CLDO_VDDP at 700. GDM OFF 1T. (other things set as calculator advised).

If i use your latest release i get VERY low timings that won't get as far in IBT AVX. I can run 28,14,14,14,14 (The Stilts safe 3200Mhz) timings and be stable in day to day usage but it WON'T pass any sort of stress test on max (all available DRAM tested EVER!). Even on the D.O.C.P setting with the nastiest 3600Mhz timings it still won't pass @3200!?! Wondered it you could offer any advice regarding this problem.

I will attach a picture of what timings i'm running NOW (on the left in RTC). And what your calculator says my sticks SHOULD do @3200MHz on the right (they won't they fail on V HIGH IBT on second/third pass everytime i try. V's etc don't help at all tbh). Would be very happy with [email protected] 14 timings but won't pass stress test at all (any i've tried) but stable to game/browse etc. Hope you can offer some advice.

Thanx.


----------



## @purple

mtrai said:


> Should be but grab Thaiphoon burner and get the readout ...read the ram then click report...and post it...I am doing some stability checking again today since a few days I cross flashed my C6H Wifi to 1usmus C6H modded bios. Just making sure of a few things. I am just gonna post my safe CL 16 3200 settings. As CL 14 quite simply needs too much voltage at least with the previous bios. It pays to double check then just assume the kits are the same die.


I've been trying with Thaiphoon couple of times but it doesn't work, I mean PC restart couple of times and RAM go back to default.




mtrai said:


> I disabled memory clear and so far not had any boot up stops and it boots faster. But yes I need to test it more. Been re-booting all morning trying to get stable with lower voltage across the board
> 
> 
> 
> My stable settings...keep in I am working with my voltage today and not had time to do long extensive testing so you may need more or less voltages.
> 
> C6H Wifi Crossflashed to modded 6001 C6H bios 1700x 2 x 8 G.Skill @ 4Ghz and 3200 testing timing not tested voltage settings below.


It sure does work on your motherboard but I'm having problems with mine.(AB350 Gaming 3)


----------



## mtrai

-antero- said:


> What soft to you guys use to get those settings in .txt file?


Asus bios allows us to save our bios settings to a text file.


----------



## dspx

Darkstalker420 said:


> @*1usmus* Thank you for the tools you have provided to use. I'm having some real issues getting my Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3600C18 B Die stable at 3200Mhz on my B350 Strix (3803 BIOS). I'm running (safe 3200Mhz) timings worked out by your 1.0.0 Beta3 calculator. These have been to only timings that have enabled me to make it through 2 passes of Intel Burn Test AVX on MAXIMUM. With 1.37v 53ohm ProcODT and CLDO_VDDP at 700. GDM OFF 1T. (other things set as calculator advised).
> 
> If i use your latest release i get VERY low timings that won't get as far in IBT AVX. I can run 28,14,14,14,14 (The Stilts safe 3200Mhz) timings and be stable in day to day usage but it WON'T pass any sort of stress test on max (all available DRAM tested EVER!). Even on the D.O.C.P setting with the nastiest 3600Mhz timings it still won't pass @3200!?! Wondered it you could offer any advice regarding this problem.
> 
> I will attach a picture of what timings i'm running NOW (on the left in RTC). And what your calculator says my sticks SHOULD do @*3200MHz* on the right (they won't they fail on V HIGH IBT on second/third pass everytime i try. V's etc don't help at all tbh). Would be very happy with [email protected] 14 timings but won't pass stress test at all (any i've tried) but stable to game/browse etc. Hope you can offer some advice.
> 
> Thanx.


Try setting CLDO_VDDP to auto, I would not touch this unless you know what you are doing. ProcODT is system dependent, so try several values until you find one that works best, or try auto. I would also set GDM to enable.


----------



## Darkstalker420

dspx said:


> Try setting CLDO_VDDP to auto, I would not touch this unless you know what you are doing. ProcODT is system dependent, so try several values until you find one that works best, or try auto. I would also set GDM to enable.


Thanks man will try that and see how it goes.

**EDIT**. Nope still got errors as before. Didn't seem to help but will try some other variations.

Thanx.


----------



## WarpenN1

1usmus said:


> 07.29.2017 i conducted a CLDO test and 913 had very good results (https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?p=14936498#p14936498 mid column - number of errors)
> I believe you,i check again, thanks


Okay thanks!

I haven't still made an all in testing or confirmed full stability of that but looks good, still cldo at 915mv as I want to test that as much as possible before trying 913mv 

But of what I already know. PC endured whole night about 8-10hrs of blend test on prime95 when I stopped it as I needed some processing power to run android emulator to play that one grinding game 

But VDDSoC being at 963mv, HWinfo sv2 tfn voltage shows it as 0.956v. Isn't it a very good result if it even endures stress test like blend with that low amount of voltage?

Edit: But I'm concerned about those CPU temps, as I've had very bad luck with cooling Ryzen after my first chip, is 80c way too hot for Ryzen to assure full stability?


Edit 2: Actually my cldo vddp voltage was 950 when I did those all tests, but endured 5 hours of prime95 large ffts before crash, without cldo tweak that time would've been impossible to achieve at same vcore, now testing 913mv


----------



## hurricane28

WarpenN1 said:


> Okay thanks!
> 
> I haven't still made an all in testing or confirmed full stability of that but looks good, still cldo at 915mv as I want to test that as much as possible before trying 913mv
> 
> But of what I already know. PC endured whole night about 8-10hrs of blend test on prime95 when I stopped it as I needed some processing power to run android emulator to play that one grinding game
> 
> But VDDSoC being at 963mv, HWinfo sv2 tfn voltage shows it as 0.956v. Isn't it a very good result if it even endures stress test like blend with that low amount of voltage?
> 
> Edit: But I'm concerned about those CPU temps, as I've had very bad luck with cooling Ryzen after my first chip, is 80c way too hot for Ryzen to assure full stability?
> 
> 
> Edit 2: Actually my cldo vddp voltage was 950 when I did those all tests, but endured 5 hours of prime95 large ffts before crash, without cldo tweak that time would've been impossible to achieve at same vcore, now testing 913mv


Do you reset your system when changing cldo vddp voltage?


----------



## WarpenN1

hurricane28 said:


> Do you reset your system when changing cldo vddp voltage?


Always, now i'm testing 953 with same vddsoc but with two notches higher vcore and 3.925mhz. vddsoc power usage is crazy low now like 11-12 watts on prime95. And idle soc power usage is about 9 watts

It's crazy to think about when turning vddsoc to all the way up to the 1.1v. Power usage of soc is 20watts under prime..

And I really need new case and new cooler, custom water cooler. If someone would have some suggestions, that would beat this thermaltake's water ultimate 360 in the ass. 

My temps are like 80c now, would there be like visible stability differences between this and 60 or 65c max?


----------



## hurricane28

So first you reset your system than apply new vddp cldo voltage and overclocl and boot and test?

How you reset? Cmos or load default settings?


----------



## WarpenN1

hurricane28 said:


> So first you reset your system than apply new vddp cldo voltage and overclocl and boot and test?
> 
> How you reset? Cmos or load default settings?


I just change RAM(S) booting voltage to one notch .

hmm I'm wondering if procodt has too any correlation to vcore.

Lower procodt seems to play quite nice with low vddsoc


----------



## WarpenN1

Finding perfect balance is really really tough. Does anyone have any link to give to page that would have actual in depth explanation of different resistance settings and what part of the components they affect, or is there even any? Too low vddsoc can have that problem that It can't withstand higher load situation like prime95 even though memtest would be error free.


----------



## bottlefedchaney

Keep up the good research going into this, with the new more accurate Hynix mdie profile I have now got a new high on my Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16. No real stress testing to see how perfectly stable, but past experience has told me if it last on 2 hrs of BF2 @ 4k its on the right track. I'm going to stress it later tonight in the mean time im going to game hard on it. Again props for the time put in with this.


----------



## -antero-

bottlefedchaney said:


> Keep up the good research going into this, with the new more accurate Hynix mdie profile I have now got a new high on my Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16. No real stress testing to see how perfectly stable, but past experience has told me if it last on 2 hrs of BF2 @ 4k its on the right track. I'm going to stress it later tonight in the mean time im going to game hard on it. Again props for the time put in with this.


Daaang... I have almost the same kit as you (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16W ) and I can't get even 3200mhz stable 
Going to try your settings tonight after work to see if I am even able to boot with your timings 

Is it reasonable to change my kit for this one: F4-3200C15Q-32GTZ (I might be able to buy half of this kit, 2*8GB)?
Seller confirmed that they are samsung B-Die's.


----------



## Superbegita

Yo everybody ! ///humm tell me what is exactly the R-XMP settings in the new version ? The 1.1.0 Bêta 1? Thanks you by advance !


----------



## bottlefedchaney

If you can get B-Dies always do that.


----------



## hurricane28

@mus1mus, did you read this?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1252...lish-ryzen-flaws-gave-amd-24-hours-to-respond

you are from Russia correct? Are you trying to hack us via your tweaked BIOS on the CH6? Lmao.


----------



## LightningManGTS

hurricane28 said:


> @mus1mus, did you read this?
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/1252...lish-ryzen-flaws-gave-amd-24-hours-to-respond
> 
> you are from Russia correct? Are you trying to hack us via your tweaked BIOS on the CH6? Lmao.


Good meme hurricane except you @'d the wrong person :laugher:


----------



## 1usmus

hurricane28 said:


> @mus1mus, did you read this?
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/1252...lish-ryzen-flaws-gave-amd-24-hours-to-respond
> 
> you are from Russia correct? Are you trying to hack us via your tweaked BIOS on the CH6? Lmao.


vulnerabilities have always been and will be, I advise you not to pay attention to these news at all 

Ukraine (it's not Russia) 



Superbegita said:


> Yo everybody ! ///humm tell me what is exactly the R-XMP settings in the new version ? The 1.1.0 Bêta 1? Thanks you by advance !


on the first page I published the link, in which the entire list of changes. This profile was created specifically for Ryzen processors. We select the memory type, press the R-XMP button and press the Safe or Fast button


----------



## BUFUMAN

yes i was going to tell him russia and ukraine are not the same  but a good one hurricane28 

CTS is not reliable founding was 2017, Hompage listet since February 2018 if i remember it correctly.

This bi**** are paid by a big player in my opionion. They just invested 4.5Mrd. US doller in Israel. Who was it?


----------



## -antero-

Anyone uses or knows something about this F4-3200C15Q-32GTZ gskill kit? 
Still wondering if I should change my Corsair kit (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) for this one or not  
If they are better than the Corsair ones that I have right now then I will buy 2*8GB sticks. Seller is splitting this kit in half, 32GB is little bit expensive right now


----------



## Leftezog

Hi to everyone! Anyone can suggest a specific order for ram overclocking for 3333 mhz or 3466 for Samsung b die on asus ch6? I have 3600 c16 2x8gb kit and the best I managed so far is 3200c14 stilt's safe timings. I can boot with ease with either 3333c14 ,3466c14 or 3600c16 but I cant find stable settings that passes hci memtest. Anyone have a suggestion about an order? Like first we put some loose primary timings to the ram and the rest on auto, dram voltage at 1.4 or 1.44 according to speed and timings or if I must first adjust vddp or something else on tweaker's paradise and after mess with proc odt cad and rtt values? Anyone can help ?


----------



## christoph

Leftezog said:


> Hi to everyone! Anyone can suggest a specific order for ram overclocking for 3333 mhz or 3466 for Samsung b die on asus ch6? I have 3600 c16 2x8gb kit and the best I managed so far is 3200c14 stilt's safe timings. I can boot with ease with either 3333c14 ,3466c14 or 3600c16 but I cant find stable settings that passes hci memtest. Anyone have a suggestion about an order? Like first we put some loose primary timings to the ram and the rest on auto, dram voltage at 1.4 or 1.44 according to speed and timings or if I must first adjust vddp or something else on tweaker's paradise and after mess with proc odt cad and rtt values? Anyone can help ?



I think at least you should be able to achieve 3466 stable, what are all the timings you're using, you don't want the timings in auto, use the calculator for Ryzen ram and start from there

http://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...lator-1-1-0-beta-1-overclocking-dram-am4.html


----------



## LightningManGTS

Leftezog said:


> Hi to everyone! Anyone can suggest a specific order for ram overclocking for 3333 mhz or 3466 for Samsung b die on asus ch6? I have 3600 c16 2x8gb kit and the best I managed so far is 3200c14 stilt's safe timings. I can boot with ease with either 3333c14 ,3466c14 or 3600c16 but I cant find stable settings that passes hci memtest. Anyone have a suggestion about an order? Like first we put some loose primary timings to the ram and the rest on auto, dram voltage at 1.4 or 1.44 according to speed and timings or if I must first adjust vddp or something else on tweaker's paradise and after mess with proc odt cad and rtt values? Anyone can help ?


could be a limitation of your imc, for instance on my 1800x I can only really do 3344 at max before I dredge into land of never stable 3466. personally haven't tried running 3400 yet, no idea if the imc will care for it or not


----------



## specialedge

Is there a calculator like this for DDR3? My 1800 X is on memtest86 hour 23 of the 3200 timings for my 3200 Trident z and I could not be happier. Now I’m messing with my sabertooth 990fx on evga 2133 ddr3 cl11 and I am most envious of my ryzen’s performance boost. 

Or otherwise can someone recommend a good read to understand what’s going on with these timings? I kind of got a taste as I was inputting the timings for my ddr4, but I don’t know what is my next step


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> vulnerabilities have always been and will be, I advise you not to pay attention to these news at all
> 
> Ukraine (it's not Russia)
> 
> 
> 
> on the first page I published the link, in which the entire list of changes. This profile was created specifically for Ryzen processors. We select the memory type, press the R-XMP button and press the Safe or Fast button


I hear ya, i was joking man, sorry i couldn't resist Lmao. 

Anywho, i want to tinker with the VDDP CLDO voltage but in BIOS it says that i have to cold reset my system? what does that even mean? lol. Shut down first and than push reset button or something?


----------



## Neoony

Shut down and turn off the PSU or disconnect the power cable...wait 10 seconds or until any light on MB powers down and then start up.

Thats cold boot..starting from 0 power


----------



## hurricane28

Ah of course, thnx for that. 

Any ideas as to what an good value is? I set it to 700 and it appears stable for now.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Findings so far with 2933Mhz
Vengeance LPX CMK32GX4M2B3200C16 M-Die
Soc 1.025v DRAM 1.36v 
LLC2 Will try lower Voltages later on
procODT - RTT & CAD BUS on Auto
tRCDWR - tRCDRD & tRP 15 As 14 crashes
tWR will not go as low as 9 changes to Auto
tRRDS & tRRDL @ 6 & 9, As 5-8 Results in mouse lag.
tRFC @ 419 Which is the recommendation for 3000Mhz
tRDWR @ 7
tWRWR SD & DD @ 7 Unstable @ 6

3066Mhz so far Bluescreens resulting in Kernel missing or corrupt and other messages. 
Soc 1.125v DRAM 1.415v to boot

Reboot with 2933Mhz resolves problems

I hate this Game, it's so addictive. Just one more go though. I'm in need of therapy  LOL

Now if only i could go back to a previous Bios, but nothing i have read helps.
But will keep trying, maybe one day it will


----------



## Rossi87

Has anyone got the R-XMP to work with b-die dual rank sticks? I get Blue Screens and Memtest error within minutes using mine - https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-32gtzkw
I am using the 1800x @ 4.0 (1.38v) Gigabyte Gaming K7 F22 bios, The Ram runs at 3000 without Ram Errors I tested upto 3200% HCI. Gigabyte need to improve their Bios anyway to allow more settings, but I have a feeling they are more interested in X470 now


----------



## Superbegita

Rossi87 said:


> Has anyone got the R-XMP to work with b-die dual rank sticks? I get Blue Screens and Memtest error within minutes using mine - https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-32gtzkw
> I am using the 1800x @ 4.0 (1.38v) Gigabyte Gaming K7 F22 bios, The Ram runs at 3000 without Ram Errors I tested upto 3200% HCI. Gigabyte need to improve their Bios anyway to allow more settings, but I have a feeling they are more interested in X470 now


Humm ? Well well well..what do we have here? ...Strange however.. I am still running my ram at 3533Mhz in 14-14-14-14-28-46 in 2x8go Dual channel and no worries at all... BUT ! Of course it's in single rank not dual ones.. I just know that nowadays 4 sticks in single rank are good support for (tested on my Gaming K7 AX370 from Gigabyte) on the last BIOS for now the F22b

Like you i have a 1800X but running to 4.13ghz. I wonder if it's not your memory controller who is not so good? 

By example i can bot to 3600/3666MLhz but even with very bad timings (let in Auto mode)..it crashs BSOD etc

And you say you can't reach 3200Mhz and more?

From what i can tell you...Gigabyte told me that actually they "can't' give me some response concerning the futur légendarous Gaming 7 Wifi (AX470). Well for customers according to them ^^

Here for illustrating what i said: https://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2018/11/3/1521045863-capture-d-ecran-124.png


----------



## porschedrifter

*Which speed would be quicker?*

Ok guys, so I'm curious which would be better timings for me..
I can do 2800mhz with 16-15-15-15-36
Or 3000 18-18-18-18-39

And is there a calculation or app to easily tell you which timings/speed is optimal?


----------



## blikblue

@1usmus this is the fastest I could get from G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GTZB (Hynix MFR) for the first time, using R-XMP fast settings. Haven't got time to torture test.
Nothing works above 3200, I can't get the ram voltage above 1.35v with this cheap mobo.


----------



## Spectre73

Rossi87 said:


> Has anyone got the R-XMP to work with b-die dual rank sticks? I get Blue Screens and Memtest error within minutes using mine - https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-32gtzkw
> I am using the 1800x @ 4.0 (1.38v) Gigabyte Gaming K7 F22 bios, The Ram runs at 3000 without Ram Errors I tested upto 3200% HCI. Gigabyte need to improve their Bios anyway to allow more settings, but I have a feeling they are more interested in X470 now


Do not start with R-XMP. Even with R-XMP and safe settings it is far to agressive. I am using the same RAM kit.

In my case, procODT 60 was not very stable but, 68.8 was quite stable, 80 won't boot and 53.3 was - surpisingly - the most stable. Still from time to time I got mem errors at 3200 MHz UNTIL I increased VDDP to 1.0v. That was a tip I read somewhere which the calc never took into account! The calc recommends about max 0.900 and that was never stable.

Try these settings with 

ProcODT 53.3
VDDP 1.0
and my attached timings (I am using the taichi, but it is worth a try regardless, the taichi is very sensitive)


----------



## christoph

Leftezog said:


> Hi to everyone! Anyone can suggest a specific order for ram overclocking for 3333 mhz or 3466 for Samsung b die on asus ch6? I have 3600 c16 2x8gb kit and the best I managed so far is 3200c14 stilt's safe timings. I can boot with ease with either 3333c14 ,3466c14 or 3600c16 but I cant find stable settings that passes hci memtest. Anyone have a suggestion about an order? Like first we put some loose primary timings to the ram and the rest on auto, dram voltage at 1.4 or 1.44 according to speed and timings or if I must first adjust vddp or something else on tweaker's paradise and after mess with proc odt cad and rtt values? Anyone can help ?





Spectre73 said:


> Do not start with R-XMP. Even with R-XMP and safe settings it is far to agressive. I am using the same RAM kit.
> 
> In my case, procODT 60 was not very stable but, 68.8 was quite stable, 80 won't boot and 53.3 was - surpisingly - the most stable. Still from time to time I got mem errors at 3200 MHz UNTIL I increased VDDP to 1.0v. That was a tip I read somewhere which the calc never took into account! The calc recommends about max 0.900 and that was never stable.
> 
> Try these settings with
> 
> ProcODT 53.3
> VDDP 1.0
> and my attached timings (I am using the taichi, but it is worth a try regardless, the taichi is very sensitive)



i'm going to take that advise to try my ram at 3466 and 3600


----------



## Ricey20

@1usmus
Thanks for all the work that you've done. I've been using your calculator for awhile now but I'm still using 1.0.0 Beta 3 settings because I haven't been able to get the new version settings stable. I have a question on my 3333cl14 settings. It passes GSAT 4 hours and works fine but sometimes I get a windows BSOD for Memory_Management. Any idea what I should change to get rid of the BSOD?
I'm using 1.375v DRAM, 1.05 SOC, VDDP 900, CLDO 700. Everything else is what is Rec. Thanks


----------



## christoph

Ricey20 said:


> @1usmus
> Thanks for all the work that you've done. I've been using your calculator for awhile now but I'm still using 1.0.0 Beta 3 settings because I haven't been able to get the new version settings stable. I have a question on my 3333cl14 settings. It passes GSAT 4 hours and works fine but sometimes I get a windows BSOD for Memory_Management. Any idea what I should change to get rid of the BSOD?
> I'm using 1.375v DRAM, 1.05 SOC, VDDP 900, CLDO 700. Everything else is what is Rec. Thanks


upping TWR to 12 or 14, that settings really help with stability

maybe even tFAW up to 32


----------



## porschedrifter

How do you actually go about enabling BGS Alt on the CHVI? Do you just disable BGS? And Enabling BGS I take it turns on regular BGS?


----------



## Spectre73

christoph said:


> i'm going to take that advise to try my ram at 3466 and 3600


I was answering a question regarding Dual Rank B-Die memory. So unless you are also using Dual Rank, my advice may not work for you. I do not expect to be able to run 2x 16 GB B-Die at anything higher than 3200 MHz. I had so much trouble getting them stable at 3200, I am more than happy.....


----------



## christoph

Spectre73 said:


> I was answering a question regarding Dual Rank B-Die memory. So unless you are also using Dual Rank, my advice may not work for you. I do not expect to be able to run 2x 16 GB B-Die at anything higher than 3200 MHz. I had so much trouble getting them stable at 3200, I am more than happy.....


I know but every possible setting to make ram stable is a must to try, so trying your settings more or less, just VDDP 0.960 and SOC at 1.125 with LLC lvl 3 and RAM at 1.4v is stable now at 3466mhz; I bet I can stabilize 3600


----------



## feathers632

Doesn't work now. 110 Beta 1 Gives totally incorrect timings... 14 14 14 14 even beyond 3600mhz. Previous version 09v13 worked fine and got my ram to 3533.

Module Manufacturer:	Team Group
Module Part Number:	TEAMGROUP-UD4-4000
DRAM Manufacturer:	Samsung
DRAM Components:	K4A8G085WB-BCPB
DRAM Die Revision / Lithography Resolution:	B / 20 nm
Module Manufacturing Date:	Week 37, 2017
Module Manufacturing Location:	Taiwan
Module Serial Number:	0202ADE7h
Module PCB Revision:	00h


----------



## lordzed83

feathers632 said:


> Doesn't work now. 110 Beta 1 Gives totally incorrect timings... 14 14 14 14 even beyond 3600mhz. Previous version 09v13 worked fine and got my ram to 3533.
> 
> Module Manufacturer:	Team Group
> Module Part Number:	TEAMGROUP-UD4-4000
> DRAM Manufacturer:	Samsung
> DRAM Components:	K4A8G085WB-BCPB
> DRAM Die Revision / Lithography Resolution:	B / 20 nm
> Module Manufacturing Date:	Week 37, 2017
> Module Manufacturing Location:	Taiwan
> Module Serial Number:	0202ADE7h
> Module PCB Revision:	00h


I confirm gives same values to me also.


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus
Where Can i grab Older version of calculator to play about ??


----------



## WarpenN1

Now running blend test with vddsoc at 0.950v, and vddsoc power usage is just 11.8watts, insane


----------



## feathers632

lordzed83 said:


> I confirm gives same values to me also.


Not just me then!



lordzed83 said:


> @1usmus
> Where Can i grab Older version of calculator to play about ??


https://we.tl/TKk7i1hWEW

I've uploaded it. Couldn't find it on google.


----------



## lordzed83

feathers632 said:


> Not just me then!
> 
> 
> 
> https://we.tl/TKk7i1hWEW
> 
> I've uploaded it. Couldn't find it on google.


Thanks same could not find


----------



## 1usmus

CharlieWheelie said:


> Findings so far with 2933Mhz
> Vengeance LPX CMK32GX4M2B3200C16 M-Die
> Soc 1.025v DRAM 1.36v
> LLC2 Will try lower Voltages later on
> procODT - RTT & CAD BUS on Auto
> tRCDWR - tRCDRD & tRP 15 As 14 crashes
> tWR will not go as low as 9 changes to Auto
> tRRDS & tRRDL @ 6 & 9, As 5-8 Results in mouse lag.
> tRFC @ 419 Which is the recommendation for 3000Mhz
> tRDWR @ 7
> tWRWR SD & DD @ 7 Unstable @ 6
> 
> 3066Mhz so far Bluescreens resulting in Kernel missing or corrupt and other messages.
> Soc 1.125v DRAM 1.415v to boot
> 
> Reboot with 2933Mhz resolves problems
> 
> I hate this Game, it's so addictive. Just one more go though. I'm in need of therapy  LOL
> 
> Now if only i could go back to a previous Bios, but nothing i have read helps.
> But will keep trying, maybe one day it will


Arock x370 Killer SLi *Bios 3.4*?



porschedrifter said:


> Ok guys, so I'm curious which would be better timings for me..
> I can do 2800mhz with 16-15-15-15-36
> Or 3000 18-18-18-18-39
> 
> And is there a calculation or app to easily tell you which timings/speed is optimal?


the frequency will have some gain, since the main bottleneck is the frequency of Infinity fabric (3000mhz better)



Ricey20 said:


> @1usmus
> Thanks for all the work that you've done. I've been using your calculator for awhile now but I'm still using 1.0.0 Beta 3 settings because I haven't been able to get the new version settings stable. I have a question on my 3333cl14 settings. It passes GSAT 4 hours and works fine but sometimes I get a windows BSOD for Memory_Management. Any idea what I should change to get rid of the BSOD?
> I'm using 1.375v DRAM, 1.05 SOC, VDDP 900, CLDO 700. Everything else is what is Rec. Thanks


tFAW 34 + VDRAM 1.39 



Spectre73 said:


> Do not start with R-XMP. Even with R-XMP and safe settings it is far to agressive. I am using the same RAM kit.
> 
> In my case, procODT 60 was not very stable but, 68.8 was quite stable, 80 won't boot and 53.3 was - surpisingly - the most stable. Still from time to time I got mem errors at 3200 MHz UNTIL I increased VDDP to 1.0v. That was a tip I read somewhere which the calc never took into account! The calc recommends about max 0.900 and that was never stable.
> 
> Try these settings with
> 
> ProcODT 53.3
> VDDP 1.0
> and my attached timings (I am using the taichi, but it is worth a try regardless, the taichi is very sensitive)


the profile is based on real tests, in most cases procODT 60 works better, but no one denies 53. The calculator shows all possible options. There will be no universality. Everyone has a different system .

+

owners of Taichi have a huge advantage in overclocking the RAM. The last bios for these boards was a magic.



porschedrifter said:


> How do you actually go about enabling BGS Alt on the CHVI? Do you just disable BGS? And Enabling BGS I take it turns on regular BGS?


at the moment these options work only in automatic mode



lordzed83 said:


> @1usmus
> Where Can i grab Older version of calculator to play about ??


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Btste6NeeS99Ih5SAR199vwtR6mckykB


----------



## SexySale

*Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 - Stable 3133 Safe preset*

Hi guys,
I wanted to share my testing and findings regarding famous Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-Die on ASUS Prime B350 - Plus.
I hope this will help those guys who are having same problems like me (e.x. @-antero-) and maybe @1usmus will take some info from this (BTW: Thank you @1usmus for credit me in your calculator. I rly appreciate it  ).

I have attached my best Fast preset settings on 3066 MHz and only faster stable Safe preset 3133 MHz.
3200 MHz is still with errors, but settings from 3133 MHz with more DRAM voltage has less errors (few errors), but still it's not stable.

Anybody with some recommendation how to get 3200 MHz stable or maybe 3133 MHz Fast preset (why not  ) I would not mind...

I would like to share @1usmus that newest version is not working for me 
I have take mix of all posts here of people findings, your calculator and my own investigations/testing and came up with "almost" perfect solution for my problem.

Keep up with good work @1usmus and thank you all for sharing your wisdom and findings, especially @bottlefedchaney which findings helped me A LOT! 

Have a nice evening


----------



## christoph

SexySale said:


> Hi guys,
> I wanted to share my testing and findings regarding famous Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-Die on ASUS Prime B350 - Plus.
> I hope this will help those guys who are having same problems like me (e.x. @-antero-) and maybe @1usmus will take some info from this (BTW: Thank you @1usmus for credit me in your calculator. I rly appreciate it  ).
> 
> I have attached my best Fast preset settings on 3066 MHz and only faster stable Safe preset 3133 MHz.
> 3200 MHz is still with errors, but settings from 3133 MHz with more DRAM voltage has less errors (few errors), but still it's not stable.
> 
> Anybody with some recommendation how to get 3200 MHz stable or maybe 3133 MHz Fast preset (why not  ) I would not mind...
> 
> I would like to share @1usmus that newest version is not working for me
> I have take mix of all posts here of people findings, your calculator and my own investigations/testing and came up with "almost" perfect solution for my problem.
> 
> Keep up with good work @1usmus and thank you all for sharing your wisdom and findings, especially @bottlefedchaney which findings helped me A LOT!
> 
> Have a nice evening



sorry, have you tried something like this? maybe add 1 each timing to see if you can stable the 3200

but I'd tell this, if I lower to TWR, tWTRL and tFAW it quickly gets unstable, those timings helps a lot to stability but lowering those numbers doesn't improve performance that much


----------



## Leftezog

Guys what is the best version of the calculator according to your testing which gives somewhat stable and correct values? I'm talking about b die kits.


----------



## ZEN1X

B350 Tomahawk and Ryzen 1600 here.
Finally got my Hynix AFR to 3200 with the 1.1.0 calc.
Also for the owners of Tomahawk - update to the newest 7A34v1F BIOS, it improves memory stability / OC by a lot!
My RAM is Corsair's CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 3000MHz CL15 with Hynix AFR modules.

My settings:
SOC 1.075V (probably could lower it but I'm fine with it for now), CLDO_VDDP 0.965V, DRAM 1.41V

GDM off, Power Down Mode on, BGS off,
ProcODT 53.3, RttNom 34, RttWr off, RttPark 48,
CAD Bus all on 20 ohm

Timings


Spoiler


----------



## Damis

Hey guys,
what is actually better? Single rank or Dual Rank?


----------



## AlphaC

Have you all seen this review? I think there's variances in the GSKill 3200C14 kits' subtimings out of the box.

http://www.tomshardware.fr/articles/comparatif-memoire-ddr4-ddr4-3200-ryzen,2-2743-6.html
Timings (CL-RCD-RP-RAS-RC-FAW CR)
FlareX 3200C14: 14-14-14-34-48-39 1T , GDM enabled, BGS disabled 
TridentZ 3200C14: 14-14-14-34-48-39 1T , GDM enabled, BGS disabled
Vengeance LPX 3200C16 :16-18-18-36-54-36 1T , GDM enabled, BGS disabled

PNY Anarchy with 4x4GB kit was providing better results in gaming in some cases.


----------



## numlock66

SexySale said:


> Hi guys,
> I wanted to share my testing and findings regarding famous Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-Die on ASUS Prime B350 - Plus.
> I hope this will help those guys who are having same problems like me (e.x. @-antero-) and maybe @1usmus will take some info from this (BTW: Thank you @1usmus for credit me in your calculator. I rly appreciate it  ).
> 
> I have attached my best Fast preset settings on 3066 MHz and only faster stable Safe preset 3133 MHz.
> 3200 MHz is still with errors, but settings from 3133 MHz with more DRAM voltage has less errors (few errors), but still it's not stable.
> 
> Anybody with some recommendation how to get 3200 MHz stable or maybe 3133 MHz Fast preset (why not  ) I would not mind...
> 
> I would like to share @1usmus that newest version is not working for me
> I have take mix of all posts here of people findings, your calculator and my own investigations/testing and came up with "almost" perfect solution for my problem.
> 
> Keep up with good work @1usmus and thank you all for sharing your wisdom and findings, especially @bottlefedchaney which findings helped me A LOT!
> 
> Have a nice evening


I only enabled xmp and change the tRC timing to 75 and the memo works at 3200mhz in a Taichi (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die) memtest86 pass



christoph said:


> sorry, have you tried something like this? maybe add 1 each timing to see if you can stable the 3200
> 
> but I'd tell this, if I lower to TWR, tWTRL and tFAW it quickly gets unstable, those timings helps a lot to stability but lowering those numbers doesn't improve performance that much


Man this timing is for a Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die? if yes post your config please. i want to try on mine! none above 3200 have worked for me!


----------



## christoph

numlock66 said:


> I only enabled xmp and change the tRC timing to 75 and the memo works at 3200mhz in a Taichi (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die) memtest86 pass
> 
> 
> 
> Man this timing is for a Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die? if yes post your config please. i want to try on mine! none above 3200 have worked for me!



no, those timings are not, but like I said if you increase the timings for TWR, tWTRL and tFAW those will improve stability a lot, I'm seeing the timings you are using and you are setting them too low, I mean, I'm not saying that you haven't try everything nor I'm trying to tell you what to do, but hey, every possible solution is a must to try isn't it?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Yo, THX for the good work Bratan'

Here my D-die, OC full stable at 3080MHz CL15-15 1T
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4, 16GB (8GBx2), 3200MHz, CL16, 1.35V (F4-3200C16D-16GVK)

For you to have some insights into E/D/C dies (all similar IMO)

You just can't get decent OC without:
V RAM at min. 1.45v + SOC at min. 1.150v
VDDP 975, CLDO-VDDP 855
BIOS: CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO-ASUS-1403

Rest is in screen below 
Take care.


----------



## 1usmus

*I finished testing CLDO 913, the result is excellent, I did not find a hole in the range 3200-3533 MHz*

Current settings:

BIOS 6001mod

DQS 60 , Memory interleaving 2kb + channel mode + memory clear disable, CLDO_VDDP 913mv
I also added cooling for RAM and won -20 degrees (less thermal noise = better stability)

Conclusions:
1) VDDP voltage increase really improves stability (0.900> 0.975)
2) manual TRFC2 / TRFC4 degrades stability, auto mode better
3) memory interleaving 2kb seriously added stability
4) DQS (strobe-ready data bus memory) 60 in my case added stability (default is 53)
5) tCKE 3,5,6,7,8,9 + Power Down enable degrades stability. I used tCKE 1 + Power Down disable
6) VDRAM 1.39 VBOOT DRAM 1.395, if you synchronize - there will be no stability (this was a surprise to me)
7) VTT DDR in auto mode is incorrect, i used manual



Spoiler



[2018/03/16 13:01:04]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [+]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.16250]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]

Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]

data drive strength [Auto]
DQS drive strength [60 ohms]

Trc [42]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [34]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [266]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [6] or 5
Twrrd [3] or 2
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]

VTTDDR Voltage [0.69300]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [0.55000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [0.55000]
VDDP Voltage [0.97500]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [0]
DRAM R2 Tune [0]
DRAM R3 Tune [0]
DRAM R4 Tune [0]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [High]
CLDO VDDP voltage [913]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Regular]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.39500]

PSS Support [Auto]
PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
NX Mode [Disabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
CPB Mode [Enabled]
C6 Mode [Enabled]

Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]

SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
HPET In SB [Disabled]
MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]


----------



## 1usmus

SexySale said:


> Hi guys,
> I wanted to share my testing and findings regarding famous Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-Die on ASUS Prime B350 - Plus.
> I hope this will help those guys who are having same problems like me (e.x. @-antero-) and maybe @1usmus will take some info from this (BTW: Thank you @1usmus for credit me in your calculator. I rly appreciate it  ).
> 
> I have attached my best Fast preset settings on 3066 MHz and only faster stable Safe preset 3133 MHz.
> 3200 MHz is still with errors, but settings from 3133 MHz with more DRAM voltage has less errors (few errors), but still it's not stable.
> 
> Anybody with some recommendation how to get 3200 MHz stable or maybe 3133 MHz Fast preset (why not  ) I would not mind...
> 
> I would like to share @1usmus that newest version is not working for me
> I have take mix of all posts here of people findings, your calculator and my own investigations/testing and came up with "almost" perfect solution for my problem.
> 
> Keep up with good work @1usmus and thank you all for sharing your wisdom and findings, especially @bottlefedchaney which findings helped me A LOT!
> 
> Have a nice evening


there are still a lot of changes ahead 
thank you very much for the information!



Leftezog said:


> Guys what is the best version of the calculator according to your testing which gives somewhat stable and correct values? I'm talking about b die kits.


I think the latest will be the best, since it has a special profile



Damis said:


> Hey guys,
> what is actually better? Single rank or Dual Rank?


the single rank has a more simple overclocking, I advise you it. Dual rank at the moment is a very special product, which can not be configured by every user



AlphaC said:


> Have you all seen this review? I think there's variances in the GSKill 3200C14 kits' subtimings out of the box.
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.fr/articles/comparatif-memoire-ddr4-ddr4-3200-ryzen,2-2743-6.html
> Timings (CL-RCD-RP-RAS-RC-FAW CR)
> FlareX 3200C14: 14-14-14-34-48-39 1T , GDM enabled, BGS disabled
> TridentZ 3200C14: 14-14-14-34-48-39 1T , GDM enabled, BGS disabled
> Vengeance LPX 3200C16 :16-18-18-36-54-36 1T , GDM enabled, BGS disabled
> 
> PNY Anarchy with 4x4GB kit was providing better results in gaming in some cases.


thanks for the information, it was interesting to read!

1) G.skill has better performance due to other secondary and tertiary timings
2) everything is correct, PNY have totals 4 ranks, the more ranks the higher the productivity 



Ne01 OnnA said:


> Yo, THX for the good work Bratan'
> 
> Here my D-die, OC full stable at 3080MHz CL15-15 1T
> G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4, 16GB (8GBx2), 3200MHz, CL16, 1.35V (F4-3200C16D-16GVK)
> 
> For you to have some insights into E/D/C dies (all similar IMO)
> 
> You just can't get decent OC without:
> V RAM at min. 1.45v + SOC at min. 1.150v
> VDDP 975, CLDO-VDDP 855
> BIOS: CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO-ASUS-1403
> 
> Rest is in screen below
> Take care.


The last bios is well optimized for double rank, especially the Hynix. Why do not you try it?

+

increasing DRAM ctrl ref can reduce the need for memory in voltage


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

'The last bios is well optimized for double rank, especially the Hynix. Why do not you try it? "
(you mean that new from ASUS? 6001 i just want to wait for newer one, this one i have is OK for now)

+

"increasing DRAM ctrl ref can reduce the need for memory in voltage."
(eloborate more? maby some Hint )


----------



## 2curious

@1usmus, Thank you very much for all of your effort to create your Ryzen DRAM Calculator. This is my first time to try overclocking because my new PC build tests at 95+ percentile for all metrics except memory - where, at 2133, it resides in the bottom 2%. 

After following your intstructions, running thphn110f and importing results into your Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v11, I calculated SAFE but was not sure exactly what & how to update the BIOS values. In the meantime, I read your posts about developing a new calculator, so I decided to wait.

Now, I have downloaded Calculator 1.1.0 beta1 but I see lots of posts about CH6. So, my basic question is - What is the best version to use for my Threadripper configuration? (My full configuration is in RigBuilder).

Threadripper 1900X
ASUS ROG ZENITH EXTREME sTR4 AMD X399
G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) F4-3200C16Q-32GTZR

As you can tell, I really don't know what I am doing, so any specific directions or advice will be appreciated.


----------



## AlphaC

numlock66 said:


> I only enabled xmp and change the tRC timing to 75 and the memo works at 3200mhz in a Taichi (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die) memtest86 pass
> 
> 
> 
> Man this timing is for a Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die? if yes post your config please. i want to try on mine! none above 3200 have worked for me!


The Taichi is a top tier board , possibly better than Hero for memory.

The B350 Plus is a budget board. I don't think you can expect Taichi level results from it.


----------



## GreenVolume

I never expected something from my Corsair 2x4GB kit on Micron B-die.

https://imgur.com/a/daO32 + https://imgur.com/a/Q5Iks

God dammit, I'm waiting for fast calc for Micron B-die. 

But I have little problem. I can't use voltage higher than 1,4V because it always ends with no boot or bios crush immediately when I try to open it. I have to juggle with RAM to reset settings. What I'm doing wrong? Maybe too low SoC voltage (I always use Auto setting because bios set SoC on more than Calc want)? Maybe I need more SoC voltage cause I OC my CPU?

Sorry for maybe stupid questions but I'm new with that.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

2curious said:


> @1usmus, Thank you very much for all of your effort to create your Ryzen DRAM Calculator. This is my first time to try overclocking because my new PC build tests at 95+ percentile for all metrics except memory - where, at 2133, it resides in the bottom 2%.
> 
> After following your intstructions, running thphn110f and importing results into your Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v11, I calculated SAFE but was not sure exactly what & how to update the BIOS values. In the meantime, I read your posts about developing a new calculator, so I decided to wait.
> 
> Now, I have downloaded Calculator 1.1.0 beta1 but I see lots of posts about CH6. So, my basic question is - What is the best version to use for my Threadripper configuration? (My full configuration is in RigBuilder).
> 
> Threadripper 1900X
> ASUS ROG ZENITH EXTREME sTR4 AMD X399
> G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) F4-3200C16Q-32GTZR
> 
> As you can tell, I really don't know what I am doing, so any specific directions or advice will be appreciated.


For starters try my settings, or very similar
C/D/E die IMO will go to 3080-3300 NP


----------



## Nighthog

GreenVolume said:


> I never expected something from my Corsair 2x4GB kit on Micron B-die.
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/daO32 + https://imgur.com/a/Q5Iks
> 
> God dammit, I'm waiting for fast calc for Micron B-die.
> 
> But I have little problem. I can't use voltage higher than 1,4V because it always ends with no boot or bios crush immediately when I try to open it. I have to juggle with RAM to reset settings. What I'm doing wrong? Maybe too low SoC voltage (I always use Auto setting because bios set SoC on more than Calc want)? Maybe I need more SoC voltage cause I OC my CPU?
> 
> Sorry for maybe stupid questions but I'm new with that.


I always used a older Thaipoon burner version that reported my memory as Micron A-die (D9RGQ) 30nm.. New version says Micron B-die (MT40A512M8RH-093E:B) 25nm...
Corsair LPX CMK16GX4M2A2666C16R 2x8Gb

If the newer is correct here are my 3200Mhz settings.

DRAM Voltage *1.460V*
procODT *80Ohm* (other values much worse)
All cad bus 40Ohm (though I haven't seen this make any difference being 20 or any other value like 60 either(60 might have been more unstable though) or AUTO)
all RTT *AUTO*

SoC *NORMAL* (no extra voltage than BIOS choose ~1.117V max)

I can boot 3266Mhz, 3333Mhz but they are unstable with what I've gone through thus far. (found no safe setting for them, though I mainly used the same as 3200Mhz)


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> *I finished testing CLDO 913, the result is excellent, I did not find a hole in the range 3200-3533 MHz*
> 
> Current settings:
> 
> BIOS 6001mod
> 
> DQS 60 , Memory interleaving 2kb + channel mode + memory clear disable, CLDO_VDDP 913mv
> I also added cooling for RAM and won -20 degrees (less thermal noise = better stability)
> 
> Conclusions:
> 1) VDDP voltage increase really improves stability (0.900> 0.975)
> 2) manual TRFC2 / TRFC4 degrades stability, auto mode better
> 3) memory interleaving 2kb seriously added stability
> 4) DQS (strobe-ready data bus memory) 60 in my case added stability (default is 53)
> 5) tCKE 3,5,6,7,8,9 + Power Down enable degrades stability. I used tCKE 1 + Power Down disable
> 6) VDRAM 1.39 VBOOT DRAM 1.395, if you synchronize - there will be no stability (this was a surprise to me)
> 7) VTT DDR in auto mode is incorrect, i used manual
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/03/16 13:01:04]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [38.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> CPU Offset Mode Sign [+]
> - CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.16250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> 
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [60 ohms]
> 
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [8]
> Tfaw [34]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [266]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [6] or 5
> Twrrd [3] or 2
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> 
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.69300]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [0.55000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [0.55000]
> VDDP Voltage [0.97500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.90000]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [0]
> DRAM R2 Tune [0]
> DRAM R3 Tune [0]
> DRAM R4 Tune [0]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Disabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [High]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [913]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Regular]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.39500]
> 
> PSS Support [Auto]
> PSTATE Adjustment [PState 0]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Disabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> CPB Mode [Enabled]
> C6 Mode [Enabled]
> 
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]
> 
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> HPET In SB [Disabled]
> MsiDis in HPET [Disabled]



Thnx for sharing your settings dude, will try them.


----------



## 1usmus

*DUAL RANK 3400 CL14* 

CLDO 913


----------



## -antero-

What would be the best settings for G.Skill F4-3200C15-8GTZ (2*8GB kit) on AsRock AB350M Pro4? Played little bit, but managed to screw up even 3200 safe timings 
Is it better to go with cl14 or cl16 (probably cl16 would be safer bet)? I know that Ryzen doesn't support cl15 as my kit is stated to run, automatically sets it to cl16.
Bios is the latest one from AsRock homepage (4.70)


----------



## Superbegita

2curious said:


> @1usmus, Thank you very much for all of your effort to create your Ryzen DRAM Calculator. This is my first time to try overclocking because my new PC build tests at 95+ percentile for all metrics except memory - where, at 2133, it resides in the bottom 2%.
> 
> After following your intstructions, running thphn110f and importing results into your Ryzen DRAM Calculator 0.9.9 v11, I calculated SAFE but was not sure exactly what & how to update the BIOS values. In the meantime, I read your posts about developing a new calculator, so I decided to wait.
> 
> Now, I have downloaded Calculator 1.1.0 beta1 but I see lots of posts about CH6. So, my basic question is - What is the best version to use for my Threadripper configuration? (My full configuration is in RigBuilder).
> 
> Threadripper 1900X
> ASUS ROG ZENITH EXTREME sTR4 AMD X399
> G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) F4-3200C16Q-32GTZR
> 
> As you can tell, I really don't know what I am doing, so any specific directions or advice will be appreciated.



He ! Look like you're lycky one i just have read your post.. I can help you..since i have to some G.Skill Trident Z RGB (so of course Samsung B-die in memory chips so as you).

I can tell you that..normally you can push them at leat at 3466/3533Mhz see if you 're lucky 3600Mhz and a bit above.

See the quality of the chips you can at least run at Fast preset yes (like me). The memory controller of the X séries have a lot more chances to get excellent compare to the no X versions.

Here..for illustrating what i am saying: (in Fast preset seem in Extreme i can get some BOSD sadly)

Personnaly i cant boot at 3600/3666Mhz but it crash after really ..quickly just after the boot to Windows..So with very bad timings (as..wel 21-20-20-20 all set in Auto mode...)

https://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2018/12/1/1521477212-capture-d-ecran-137.png


----------



## Superbegita

-antero- said:


> What would be the best settings for G.Skill F4-3200C15-8GTZ (2*8GB kit) on AsRock AB350M Pro4? Played little bit, but managed to screw up even 3200 safe timings
> Is it better to go with cl14 or cl16 (probably cl16 would be safer bet)? I know that Ryzen doesn't support cl15 as my kit is stated to run, automatically sets it to cl16.
> Bios is the latest one from AsRock homepage (4.70)


Humm..i guesse you have a Ryzen no X versions isn't it?

And what G.Skill do you have exactly?

Saif it to you but it realy look like that only released more high timings isn't enough for being completely stable... You have to have the mlemory controller really support the frequencies you want to.

I know well.. i have made numerous of tryings for frequencies between else ^^

Exemple can boot to 3600/3666Mhz but even if i let timings in Auto mode (for said..the timiungs will be REALLY a far wose than usual...) well...no matter....it gert BOSD at each time ..enough quickly.

In reality you thva eto boot...with normal timings (see released them a bit) and after some days tell you "Ok..now i can try to reach much better timings")

Beging by Safe ..and after if it's ok..Fast etc etc.


----------



## bottlefedchaney

numlock66 said:


> I only enabled xmp and change the tRC timing to 75 and the memo works at 3200mhz in a Taichi (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die) memtest86 pass
> 
> 
> 
> Man this timing is for a Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die? if yes post your config please. i want to try on mine! none above 3200 have worked for me!


here are my settings for Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die bios 6001. Stable; hours of gaming, one hour on OCCT, 2 hours on AIDA64. 


M-die doesn't need 75 tRC necessarily, for me it caps at 56 for 3200, 57 for 3266, 58 for 3333.....sometimes it hurts latency being at the cap and will gain some by raising it some...you have to play with it...a lot of restarts.


----------



## xcr89

I have a really hard time getting my memory stable at decent timings.

I have 

CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16 V4.31 (Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 Black 3200MHz Ryzen-edition)
ASUS Crosshair VI Hero (bios 6001)
Evga supernova g2 850W gold
1700

Can anyone help me for the love of god i just want decent latency around 70-71 is this to much to ask for for a b-die kit?

Should i swap them out or what should i do, if yes what other manufacturer should i go i have looked at gskill, teamgroup, KFA2

problem with my current ones is that everytime i test memory settings it throws off the previous ones and errors randomly at different points so i have no clue what setting improve and what not.


----------



## bottlefedchaney

SexySale said:


> Hi guys,
> I wanted to share my testing and findings regarding famous Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-Die on ASUS Prime B350 - Plus.
> I hope this will help those guys who are having same problems like me (e.x. @-antero-) and maybe @1usmus will take some info from this (BTW: Thank you @1usmus for credit me in your calculator. I rly appreciate it  ).
> 
> I have attached my best Fast preset settings on 3066 MHz and only faster stable Safe preset 3133 MHz.
> 3200 MHz is still with errors, but settings from 3133 MHz with more DRAM voltage has less errors (few errors), but still it's not stable.
> 
> Anybody with some recommendation how to get 3200 MHz stable or maybe 3133 MHz Fast preset (why not  ) I would not mind...
> 
> I would like to share @1usmus that newest version is not working for me
> I have take mix of all posts here of people findings, your calculator and my own investigations/testing and came up with "almost" perfect solution for my problem.
> 
> Keep up with good work @1usmus and thank you all for sharing your wisdom and findings, especially @bottlefedchaney which findings helped me A LOT!
> 
> Have a nice evening


I don't have good luck with DOCHP unless im oc'ing bclk. stick it to auto imo. for 3200 leave everything at auto except 16-16-16-16-30-56 put TRdrdscl & twrwrscl @ 4. Vdimm @ 1.39 boot into windows and run a test before going back and changing anything else.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@1usmus

I thought i had changed my Sig, but i hadn't.
I had finally managed to update my BIOS to 4.5 which left me with what appeared in various software as one core stuck @3.6Ghz
And memory @2.6Ghz, benchmarks with some software seemed to suggest so but others suggested nothing was wrong. What !?
Also it was very unstable even at 2933Mhz memory, my luck was not getting any better.

But because i followed your advise over @ http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...ectly-unlocked-amd_cbs-ryzen-motherboard.html 
I was able to take it back successfully to 3.4 were everything is working again. Yay 
I think the Bios update just went badly and never got any better even after reinstalling a couple of times. After taking it back to 3.4
it has sorted it out.
I will try to update again to 4.6 if it does bring benefits to my Memory, which if i recall correctly it does(or should), and maybe my Nvme drive too will benefit.

So back on 3.4 but going to try 4.6 again soon. Now i know i can and won't screw it up.
Famous last words eh.


----------



## numlock66

bottlefedchaney said:


> here are my settings for Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die bios 6001. Stable; hours of gaming, one hour on OCCT, 2 hours on AIDA64.
> 
> 
> M-die doesn't need 75 tRC necessarily, for me it caps at 56 for 3200, 57 for 3266, 58 for 3333.....sometimes it hurts latency being at the cap and will gain some by raising it some...you have to play with it...a lot of restarts.


Very good MAN! Mine at 3333mhz rock solid with your config!! Thankful! I lost the last weekend trying that with no luck!

My Taichi board don't let me to choose many frequencies. I have only the options ... 3200, 3333, 3466mhz ... Why I can't choose 3400mhz anyone can help? 
On CBS a can choose 1700mhz but a got code b9 and the board reboot on UEFI all defaut loaded!

I'm also trying to read all the Thread from page 1 to the end. Page 52 for now.


----------



## christoph

numlock66 said:


> Very good MAN! Mine at 3333mhz rock solid with your config!! Thankful! I lost the last weekend trying that with no luck!
> 
> My Taichi board don't let me to choose many frequencies. I have only the options ... 3200, 3333, 3466mhz ... Why I can't choose 3400mhz anyone can help?
> On CBS a can choose 1700mhz but a got code b9 and the board reboot on UEFI all defaut loaded!
> 
> I'm also trying to read all the Thread from page 1 to the end. Page 52 for now.




I can't choose 3400 either, that's the board, you can reach 3400 OCing with BLCK


----------



## bottlefedchaney

numlock66 said:


> Very good MAN! Mine at 3333mhz rock solid with your config!! Thankful! I lost the last weekend trying that with no luck!
> 
> My Taichi board don't let me to choose many frequencies. I have only the options ... 3200, 3333, 3466mhz ... Why I can't choose 3400mhz anyone can help?
> On CBS a can choose 1700mhz but a got code b9 and the board reboot on UEFI all defaut loaded!
> 
> I'm also trying to read all the Thread from page 1 to the end. Page 52 for now.



Don't mess with the mem oc settings in CBS IMO, at least on this board it f's more up that it helps. Just try 3466, start out with trfc settings at auto and tune sub timings as needed. I booted with these settings on 3466 but if I remember right I had to use a bit more voltage. If you want to stay 3333 I would try 16-17-17-17-32-62.....or just use the screen I posted.


----------



## SexySale85

bottlefedchaney said:


> I don't have good luck with DOCHP unless im oc'ing bclk. stick it to auto imo. for 3200 leave everything at auto except 16-16-16-16-30-56 put TRdrdscl & twrwrscl @ 4. Vdimm @ 1.39 boot into windows and run a test before going back and changing anything else.


Hi @*bottlefedchaney* ,
thank you for everything. 
I have already taken your settings for 3400 and adjust it, so 3133 is working fine and I have tightened it up, but... please have in mind that I have B350 so the board is not ready for high OC. It's a budget board, so OC is not it's primary function :sadsmiley

Going from that point, same OC setting that is working on great boards (like Taichi) and X370, not necessarily mean it will work on B350 boards. There is also BIOS that is part of the whole story.

For example, your settings for 3200 are not working for me. Bunch of errors immediately. I found out that on 3133 16-16-16-16-30 is not either working for me, but 16-17-17-17-30 magically works fine! Also, we all know that tRC is 56 in the specification , but 60 is lowest for 3133! tRRDS - 7 and tRRDL - 10 are lowest for higher frequencies. CLDO VDDP voltage of 912 did magic (thank you for that! ), but at 913 errors again.

I have spent 5 hours yesterday to tighten up each value for 3133, restart each time and test it, so I know limitations for Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die on Asus B350 Prime board for now.
Beta Bios mod made it possible to deliver stable 3133.
(I will attach my "almost" fast preset of 3133 when I come home after work and Lara Croft movie  )

So, to sum it a little bit here:


B350 boards are limited in high OC possibilities (as we already know, but forget somehow)
Same settings on different boards don't mean it will work on each board same, which raises other question regarding code quality, manufacturers, etc...
3200 is not stable (few errors, so tighten up is needed)
CLDO VDDP 912 is working for 3133 flawlessly, *BUT 912/913 not filling a memory hole for 3200 on single rank* - please don't take this for granted as I will continue to adjust timings and play around to confirm.
3133 findings for LOWEST possible -> tRC 60, tRRDS - 7, tRRDL - 10, tFAW 36, tWTRS 4, tWTRL 12, tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP 17
DRAM voltage 1.375 lowest and raising voltage up to 1.415 didn't help me to get stable tighten timings.
Ofc I will not give up and I will work on 3200 to make it stable and thank you all for your effort and recommendations. 
I RLY APPRECIATE IT 

BTW: Guys, I am @SexySale, but when Overclock moved to other theme, it caused that my original account was blocked, so I have opened other one. This left me logged in on Work computer so sry for confusion


----------



## Superbegita

numlock66 said:


> Very good MAN! Mine at 3333mhz rock solid with your config!! Thankful! I lost the last weekend trying that with no luck!
> 
> My Taichi board don't let me to choose many frequencies. I have only the options ... 3200, 3333, 3466mhz ... Why I can't choose 3400mhz anyone can help?
> On CBS a can choose 1700mhz but a got code b9 and the board reboot on UEFI all defaut loaded!
> 
> I'm also trying to read all the Thread from page 1 to the end. Page 52 for now.


Well if it an help too..this is mine :

I have needing some tweaks or MUCH try for achive this.

If..some of you need some well... exacts timings or...my proper timings i used for succed it... I would be glad tohelp you all ^^

Keep going gyus ! Next step is the future famous 4000Mhz on Pinnacle Ridge ^^

edit ah.. yes ! I have noticed that if you DISABLED SMT in the BIOS.. to the place to the 4100/4125 maximum (notice in manager tasking: 4.13ghz) you could achieve to reach exactly 4175 Mhz ^^

I now really think that i have reached my best ram overclocking so far..See i can boot indeed at 3600/3666Mhz but...no matter how hard i try..No matter the bad timing i let the BIOS choose (for being sure to be able to tighten them after and beng stable)..i can't be stable at 3600/3666Mhz.

For the motherboard it's a Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7 (their actual flagship)


----------



## KoeRt

Thank you for research with B350 boards @*SexySale85*
I'm looking forward to your findings as I also try to get my Hynix MFR, spec'd for 3200, to run full speed on my ASUS B350.

So far I got 2933 to work but I will give your settings a go and see if it will work without big adjustments.


----------



## SexySale

KoeRt said:


> Thank you for research with B350 boards @*SexySale85*
> I'm looking forward to your findings as I also try to get my Hynix MFR, spec'd for 3200, to run full speed on my ASUS B350.
> 
> So far I got 2933 to work but I will give your settings a go and see if it will work without big adjustments.


Hi @KoeRt,
here is my post a few days back:
http://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...1-overclocking-dram-am4-142.html#post26969945

Please try this settings from .txt files, first for 3066 Fast preset and later 3133 Safe preset if you want.
I suggest using 3066 Fast preset as it's giving better performance than 3133.

Before everything, I suggest using moded BIOS from @1usmus and latest BIOS - http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...ectly-unlocked-amd_cbs-ryzen-motherboard.html
I can confirm that this approach with the new and clean update of BIOS helped me A LOT! 
Please be careful and read all instructions!

Give it a go and please share your thoughts...

As I mention, this evening I will upload 3133 Fast preset .txt file you can try if you manage to get Safe preset for 3133 for now...

EDIT: Here is 3133 Fast preset


----------



## numlock66

bottlefedchaney said:


> Don't mess with the mem oc settings in CBS IMO, at least on this board it f's more up that it helps. Just try 3466, start out with trfc settings at auto and tune sub timings as needed. I booted with these settings on 3466 but if I remember right I had to use a bit more voltage. If you want to stay 3333 I would try 16-17-17-17-32-62.....or just use the screen I posted.


I want to try 3466 but my timings are different look:


----------



## KoeRt

SexySale said:


> Before everything, I suggest using moded BIOS from @*1usmus* and latest BIOS - http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...ectly-unlocked-amd_cbs-ryzen-motherboard.html
> I can confirm that this approach with the new and clean update of BIOS helped me A LOT!
> Please be careful and read all instructions!


Could you please explain in how far the flash of the modded BIOS has helped in regard of adjusting the memory timings to stable speeds?

I mean I see the statements on the first post about BCLK frequency stabilization but honestly I'm very reluctant to flash my board with some modded BIOS out of fear bricking it. And I can't just buy a new board, I just do not have the money to replace it right now.

Deep down I hope that ASUS is releasing a new version, current one is v3803, soon that will fix it, but I fear that this won't happen due to the release of Pinnacle Ridge and the new X470 chipset.


----------



## bottlefedchaney

numlock66 said:


> I want to try 3466 but my timings are different look:


That's your factory xmp timings, mine are the same. What you do is put the calc on Hynix mfr 3200 and then hit the r-xmp button it will insert the timings based off profiles made by the stilt forever ago then hit safe just to lock it in, then hit save settings, I fine tuned mined from those base settings because my kit is a decent Hynix, since yours and mine are similar you could try my adjustments. I posted factory vs mine here so you can see.


----------



## bottlefedchaney

SexySale85 said:


> Hi @*bottlefedchaney* ,
> thank you for everything.
> I have already taken your settings for 3400 and adjust it, so 3133 is working fine and I have tightened it up, but... please have in mind that I have B350 so the board is not ready for high OC. It's a budget board, so OC is not it's primary function :sadsmiley
> 
> Going from that point, same OC setting that is working on great boards (like Taichi) and X370, not necessarily mean it will work on B350 boards. There is also BIOS that is part of the whole story.
> 
> For example, your settings for 3200 are not working for me. Bunch of errors immediately. I found out that on 3133 16-16-16-16-30 is not either working for me, but 16-17-17-17-30 magically works fine! Also, we all know that tRC is 56 in the specification , but 60 is lowest for 3133! tRRDS - 7 and tRRDL - 10 are lowest for higher frequencies. CLDO VDDP voltage of 912 did magic (thank you for that! ), but at 913 errors again.
> 
> I have spent 5 hours yesterday to tighten up each value for 3133, restart each time and test it, so I know limitations for Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die on Asus B350 Prime board for now.
> Beta Bios mod made it possible to deliver stable 3133.
> (I will attach my "almost" fast preset of 3133 when I come home after work and Lara Croft movie  )
> 
> So, to sum it a little bit here:
> 
> 
> B350 boards are limited in high OC possibilities (as we already know, but forget somehow)
> Same settings on different boards don't mean it will work on each board same, which raises other question regarding code quality, manufacturers, etc...
> 3200 is not stable (few errors, so tighten up is needed)
> CLDO VDDP 912 is working for 3133 flawlessly, *BUT 912/913 not filling a memory hole for 3200 on single rank* - please don't take this for granted as I will continue to adjust timings and play around to confirm.
> 3133 findings for LOWEST possible -> tRC 60, tRRDS - 7, tRRDL - 10, tFAW 36, tWTRS 4, tWTRL 12, tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP 17
> DRAM voltage 1.375 lowest and raising voltage up to 1.415 didn't help me to get stable tighten timings.
> Ofc I will not give up and I will work on 3200 to make it stable and thank you all for your effort and recommendations.
> I RLY APPRECIATE IT
> 
> BTW: Guys, I am @SexySale, but when Overclock moved to other theme, it caused that my original account was blocked, so I have opened other one. This left me logged in on Work computer so sry for confusion


to be honest I didnt pay enough attention to see you were on b350. I dont have much experience with that....I will by this weekend as I have a build im doing on that chipset with mfr Hynix ram going in it so hopefully ill learn something. 

Just some curious questions...what ram slots are you currently in? I have had different results from switching before.


----------



## SexySale

bottlefedchaney said:


> to be honest I didnt pay enough attention to see you were on b350. I dont have much experience with that....I will by this weekend as I have a build im doing on that chipset with mfr Hynix ram going in it so hopefully ill learn something.
> 
> Just some curious questions...what ram slots are you currently in? I have had different results from switching before.


Hi @bottlefedchaney,
thank you for recommendations, it was very helpful, no matter X370 or B350 -> it was good direction 

I am using A2 B2 slots, which are optimum slots, but I get your point 

Will inform about my other findings regarding 3200.
For now 3133 is good and stable, and here are my settings -> http://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...1-overclocking-dram-am4-145.html#post26991377



KoeRt said:


> Could you please explain in how far the flash of the modded BIOS has helped in regard of adjusting the memory timings to stable speeds?
> 
> I mean I see the statements on the first post about BCLK frequency stabilization but honestly I'm very reluctant to flash my board with some modded BIOS out of fear bricking it. And I can't just buy a new board, I just do not have the money to replace it right now.
> 
> Deep down I hope that ASUS is releasing a new version, current one is v3803, soon that will fix it, but I fear that this won't happen due to the release of Pinnacle Ridge and the new X470 chipset.


Hi @KoeRt,
I have flashed modded 3805 - Beta version with 1usmus flashing method.

I can tell you for a fact, that that flashing made my OC more stable! 
That cleaning method and flashing modded version made stable 3133 fast preset (also 3066) with less voltage and NO COLD BOOT issues. I could even boot up with ProcODT 48.8 and 53.3. Even Boot into Windows with 3400... ofc errors and BSOD, but man... I was so excited 
This Beta BIOS from Asus is best one for me, flashing it with 1usmus mod and his manual hit bulls-eye.

I suggest you don't do anything if you are afraid you will brick the board. Nobody can guaranty you 100% safety. 
you can do it on your own risk and YOU MUST FOLLOW MANUAL VERY CAREFULLY!
There are un-bricking options, but that you can research on forum...
Good luck


----------



## KoeRt

SexySale said:


> Hi @KoeRt,
> I have flashed modded 3805 - Beta version with 1usmus flashing method.
> 
> I can tell you for a fact, that that flashing made my OC more stable!
> That cleaning method and flashing modded version made stable 3133 fast preset (also 3066) with less voltage and NO COLD BOOT issues. I could even boot up with ProcODT 48.8 and 53.3. Even Boot into Windows with 3400... ofc errors and BSOD, but man... I was so excited
> This Beta BIOS from Asus is best one for me, flashing it with 1usmus mod and his manual hit bulls-eye.
> 
> I suggest you don't do anything if you are afraid you will brick the board. Nobody can guaranty you 100% safety.
> you can do it on your own risk and YOU MUST FOLLOW MANUAL VERY CAREFULLY!
> There are un-bricking options, but that you can research on forum...
> Good luck


Hi @SexySale
Thanks for your presets, I appreciate it. :thumb:

After your encouraging words I might give it a try this weekend when I have enough time to read through every instruction.


----------



## GreenVolume

Nighthog said:


> I always used a older Thaipoon burner version that reported my memory as Micron A-die (D9RGQ) 30nm.. New version says Micron B-die (MT40A512M8RH-093E:B) 25nm...
> Corsair LPX CMK16GX4M2A2666C16R 2x8Gb
> 
> If the newer is correct here are my 3200Mhz settings.
> 
> DRAM Voltage *1.460V*
> procODT *80Ohm* (other values much worse)
> All cad bus 40Ohm (though I haven't seen this make any difference being 20 or any other value like 60 either(60 might have been more unstable though) or AUTO)
> all RTT *AUTO*
> 
> SoC *NORMAL* (no extra voltage than BIOS choose ~1.117V max)
> 
> I can boot 3266Mhz, 3333Mhz but they are unstable with what I've gone through thus far. (found no safe setting for them, though I mainly used the same as 3200Mhz)


Like I said, I can't use DRAM Voltage higher than 1.4V on my MSI B350 PRO-VDH (no boot/crush immediately).


----------



## Radiologist

*Micron B-die*



Nighthog said:


> I always used a older Thaipoon burner version that reported my memory as Micron A-die (D9RGQ) 30nm.. New version says Micron B-die (MT40A512M8RH-093E:B) 25nm...
> Corsair LPX CMK16GX4M2A2666C16R 2x8Gb
> 
> If the newer is correct here are my 3200Mhz settings.
> 
> DRAM Voltage *1.460V*
> procODT *80Ohm* (other values much worse)
> All cad bus 40Ohm (though I haven't seen this make any difference being 20 or any other value like 60 either(60 might have been more unstable though) or AUTO)
> all RTT *AUTO*
> 
> SoC *NORMAL* (no extra voltage than BIOS choose ~1.117V max)
> 
> I can boot 3266Mhz, 3333Mhz but they are unstable with what I've gone through thus far. (found no safe setting for them, though I mainly used the same as 3200Mhz)


Wow, these are some amazing timings if you ask me. I have 2 x CMK8GX4M1A2666C16R (2x8Gb), which I think it is pretty much the same as yours, same 16-18-18-35-53 (although, if I remember correctly, mine is 20nm instead of 25nm, have to check again once home; maybe I should update the version of my taiphoon burner as well?).

Best I can achieve with my memory is either 16-17-17-34 @ 3066 with 1.35v or [email protected] with 1.375v (although I am still torn with respect to what is better for ryzen, given that the former has better latency). 3200 with timings 16-18-18-36 doesn't even post, no matter what combinations of voltage I have tried. 3200 with 16-19-19-38 posts though and has potential to be stabilised (passes memtest86), although I have the feeling that the 3066 setting behaves better. Everything described in this paragraph is with procodt 68.6, which seems to be the correct procodt in the range of 1.35-1.375v in my case.

CL14 is science fiction for me even at 2933 I think (even more with twrwr equal to 2, I can't even boot with 3), although I have never tried 1.46v like you. I tried to achieve 3466 with CL18 (which would be better latency than the 3066-CL16 I use now), but I can't get it to post no matter what. I went up to 1.43v trying procodt both 68.6 and 80 to no avail. CADbus all 20 has been working very well in all the previous stable setups I have tried, so I haven't tried different values for 3466. I had the feeling they don't play any role in terms of boot ability, but I might be wrong?). 

So, is 1.46v really safe for 24/7? I am tempted to try it now that someone else with the same RAM has success with this voltage, but kinda scared to go that high...

PS: As far as Micron B-die is concerned, 1.0.0 v3 seems to be much safer to use. The r-XMP in 1.1.0 seems to suggest hopelessly aggressive timings, at least for my case.


----------



## Scorpion49

So I took a look at the latest update... the same inputs that for the older version for my 3200 B-die kit that gave me 14-14-14-14-30 now gives me 19-21-21-21-42 which is waaaaaaay slower than even the XMP setting. What?


----------



## Keith Myers

*Why does the R-XMP use the same inputs for different memory kits?*

So, I am confused on how this new beta comes up with the same input values for different memory kits? I know that it doesn't import the Thaiphoon Burner export file anymore.

So why does it use the same input values for my G. Skill F4-3600C16D-8GTZ memory kit as for my G.Skill F4-3200C14D-8GTZ memory kit. The primary timings were different in Thaiphoon Burner.

How does the new Beta differentiate between the two differently binned B-die kits?


----------



## Darkstalker420

Yeah i've found the results from the 1.0.0 Beta 3 version to be about the best. The latest release set some very aggressive timings that had no chance tbh. Have to say the software has been a god send for me though trying to exorcize my B350 Strix of the "evils" of BIOS 3803!! Thanks 1usmus once again though.

Thanx.


----------



## -antero-

Did little bit testing tonight. [email protected] settings, hci memtest 210% and no errors 
Next goal will be 3466...
For timings I used Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 beta3 because 1.1.0 beta1 offered little bit too aggressive timings


----------



## hurricane28

-antero- said:


> Did little bit testing tonight. [email protected] settings, hci memtest 210% and no errors
> Next goal will be 3466...
> For timings I used Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 beta3 because 1.1.0 beta1 offered little bit too aggressive timings


210% is nothing man, try at least 1000% before you call yourself stable. I always let the test run overnight and if that is stable it is really stable.


----------



## dual109

bottlefedchaney said:


> here are my settings for Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Hynix M-die bios 6001. Stable; hours of gaming, one hour on OCCT, 2 hours on AIDA64.
> 
> 
> M-die doesn't need 75 tRC necessarily, for me it caps at 56 for 3200, 57 for 3266, 58 for 3333.....sometimes it hurts latency being at the cap and will gain some by raising it some...you have to play with it...a lot of restarts.



Hi,

Have exact same mem kit as you and board and running [email protected] using your timings. I have had to add a bit more voltage (1.43 reported by hrdware info) to my ram to keep it stable. Its stable in Aida for hours but errors on Real Bench although not sure you where its failing exaclty in realbench. I'll give OCCT a go its just a gaming PC so no need to go crazy with stability testing.

Thanks for your timings btw and I'll be doing more testing and report back with any improvements. btw I'm running bios 6001.

Cheers


----------



## -antero-

hurricane28 said:


> 210% is nothing man, try at least 1000% before you call yourself stable. I always let the test run overnight and if that is stable it is really stable.


Yes, I know that but before that I had errors right after running the memtest. Like 10% through and first error popped up.


----------



## 1usmus

Keith Myers said:


> So, I am confused on how this new beta comes up with the same input values for different memory kits? I know that it doesn't import the Thaiphoon Burner export file anymore.
> 
> So why does it use the same input values for my G. Skill F4-3600C16D-8GTZ memory kit as for my G.Skill F4-3200C14D-8GTZ memory kit. The primary timings were different in Thaiphoon Burner.
> 
> How does the new Beta differentiate between the two differently binned B-die kits?


the profile is based on the memory architecture, rather than the marketing distinction
in 90% of cases the B-die will work anyway identically


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> Yeah i've found the results from the 1.0.0 Beta 3 version to be about the best. The latest release set some very aggressive timings that had no chance tbh. Have to say the software has been a god send for me though trying to exorcize my B350 Strix of the "evils" of BIOS 3803!! Thanks 1usmus once again though.
> 
> Thanx.





-antero- said:


> Did little bit testing tonight. [email protected] settings, hci memtest 210% and no errors
> Next goal will be 3466...
> For timings I used Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.0.0 beta3 because 1.1.0 beta1 offered little bit too aggressive timings


guys, aggressive timings require more voltage. If you are trying to use a basic voltage, nothing will work. This program is an overclocker tool. In fact, I do not think that you need to enter your values, for this there is R-XMP + I left the fields so that AMD saw it and listened to the recommendations (I know perfectly well that they periodically attend this topic)

but you overlook one nuance - the bus layout for DRAM
motherboards on the chipset 350 initially have worse overclocking capabilities (artificial limitation + quality of materials)
The aggressive timings do not affect stability as much as the quality of the bus (in the new 470 motherboards improved the screening of the bus and changed the power system)


----------



## Darkstalker420

Hi 1usmus you mention using more DRAM voltage. The calc only says 1.350 to 1.360v for the suggested timings. I have ran upto 1.42v but alas this wouldn't stabilise enough to pass OCCT/IBT AVX. Can you tell us why the big difference between "detected" timings using R-XMP in the latest release and importing the HTML into the prior 1.0.0 B3 release.

Just interested why it spits out completely different results with the same DRAM. 

Thanks.


----------



## 1usmus

*Timing rules of a successful system on 3200*

1) tRRDS 6 tRRDL 8(9) tFAW 32 or tFAW 34 (the minimum time between the activation of the rows of different banks. Architectually open a row in another bank can be immediately after the opening of the line in the first bank. The restriction is purely electrical - the activation takes a lot of energy, and therefore with frequent line activations, the electrical load on the circuit is very high. To reduce it, this delay was introduced. Do not make them low, you will not get any boost other than beautiful numbers)

2) tRDWR 6 (or 7 or 8) + tWRRD 3 (Read-to-write and write-to-read latency, or the time that must elapse between issuing sequential read/write or write/read commands.)

3) tRCDRD = tCL or tRCDRD = tCL + 1 (or 2) ( the time required to activate the bank line, or the minimum time between the RAS # signal and the column selection signal (CAS #). It's a bottleneck in the memory controller Ryzen )

4) tRTP 12 or 8 (the minimum interval between the command to read before the command for the preliminary charge)

5) In almost all my experiments, tCKE + power down enable caused errors. My suggestion is tCKE 1 + power down disable ( tCKE is the minimum number of cycles that must pass before a clock can go from an active state to a low state )

6) Memory interleaving size , more size = better 

7) In conclusion of this part, devoted to the delays in accessing data, we will consider the main relationships between the most important timings parameters for the example of simpler data reading operations. As we discussed above, in the simplest and most general case, for the batch reading of a given amount of data (2, 4 or 8 elements), the following operations must be performed:

1. activate the row in the memory bank using the ACTIVATE command;

2. issue a command to read READ data;

3. read data coming to the external data bus of the chip;

4. close the line using the PRECHARGE row recharging command (as an option, this is done automatically if you use the "RD + AP" command in the second step).

The time interval between the first and second operations is the "delay between RAS # and CAS #" (tRCD), between the second and third - "CAS # delay" (tCL). The time interval between the third and fourth operations depends on the length of the transmitted packet. Strictly speaking, in memory bus cycles, it is equal to the length of the transmitted packet (2, 4 or 8) divided by the number of data elements transmitted on the external bus in one clock cycle - 1 for SDR type devices, 2 for DDR devices. Conditionally, we call this value "tBL" ( tBL for DDR4 = 8 )

It is important to note that the SDRAM chips allow the third and fourth operations to be performed in a sense "in parallel". To be precise, the PRECHARGE command can be used for a number of measures x before the moment at which the last data element of the requested packet occurs, without fear of the occurrence of an "interruption" of the transmitted packet (the latter occurs if the PRECHARGE command is submitted after commands READ with a time interval, less than x). Without going into details, we note that this time interval is equal to the value of the delay of the signal CAS # minus one (x = tCL - 1).

Finally, the time interval between the fourth operation and the subsequent repetition of the first operation of the cycle is the "recharge time of the line" (tRP).

At the same time, the minimum activity time of the line (from the ACTIVATE command to the PRECHARGE command, tRAS), by its definition, exactly corresponds to the time interval between the start of the first and the beginning of the fourth operation. This implies the first important relationship between memory timings:

tRAS, min = tRCD + tCL + (tBL - (tCL-1)) - 1,
where tRCD is the execution time of the first operation, tCL is the second, (tBL - (tCL-1)) is the third; finally, the subtraction of the unit is due to the fact that the tRAS period does not include the clock on which the PRECHARGE command is given. Reducing this expression, we get:

tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.
The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.

here is the my proof of the system's operability with real tRAS / tRC


Spoiler















+ *derp* prof 


Spoiler















As for the maximum value, there is an unspoken rule tRAS, max = tRCD * 2 (this rule is published on the Internet)

The second important relationship between timings follows from the fact that the full cycle of packet data reading - from the 1st stage to its repetition - is called the "minimum time of the line cycle", tRC itself. Since the first three stages, as we showed above, can not take a time shorter than tRAS, and the latter takes a time strictly equal to tRP, we get:

tRC = tRAS + tRP.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If the timings are OK, then a fault in the voltage or resistance on the bus (I will try to write an explanation for these nuances latter)

_________________________________________________________________________________


of course example, DR3400CL14 imposible posible 



Spoiler


----------



## hurricane28

-antero- said:


> Yes, I know that but before that I had errors right after running the memtest. Like 10% through and first error popped up.


Great, so first test your current setting for at least 1000% before going any further. This to prevent future disappointment.


----------



## Radiologist

As an initial comment, I 'd like to say that in my case it's not easy to boot my Micron Memory with DRAM with voltages above 1.385v. It just seems it doesn't like this high of voltage, so it's not straight forward to make it work just by increasing the voltage (have tried increasing the procodt as well, etc).

Thanks for your last post 1usmus, I had asked these questions previously in the thread, but didn't get any feedback back then.



1usmus said:


> *Timing rules of a successful system on 3200*
> 
> 1) tRRDS 6 tRRDL 8(9) tFAW 32 or tFAW 34 (the minimum time between the activation of the rows of different banks. Architectually open a row in another bank can be immediately after the opening of the line in the first bank. The restriction is purely electrical - the activation takes a lot of energy, and therefore with frequent line activations, the electrical load on the circuit is very high. To reduce it, this delay was introduced. Do not make them low, you will not get any boost other than beautiful numbers)


I have seen the formula min tFAW=tRRDs x 4 (or x 8), for example here here. You say one shouldn't get tFAW lower than 32 or 34 , since it doesn't increase performance. But on the other hand the DRAM calculator suggests lower tFAW values for lower speeds and not the same for all speeds (would still be the same performance according to what you said). So, I take your suggestion is purely experimental for 3200 and not derived after some rule?



1usmus said:


> 3) tRCDRD = tCL or tRCDRD = tCL + 1 (or 2) ( the time required to activate the bank line, or the minimum time between the RAS # signal and the column selection signal (CAS #). It's a bottleneck in the memory controller Ryzen )


This has been a bit weird for me, you are right that this seems to be a bottleneck. I can boot 16-19-16-16 at 3200, and initially seems stable, but 16-18-18-18 is just straight unbootable (or 16-18-20-20 etc). It just doesn't like tCL 16 tRCDRD 18.

Which brings me to the next question: if I have different tRCDRD and tRCDWR values, to which one refer the tRCD values in the formulas below (I would assume tRCDRD)?



1usmus said:


> tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.
> The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.
> 
> As for the maximum value, there is an unspoken rule tRAS, max = tRCD * 2 (this rule is published on the Internet)
> 
> The second important relationship between timings follows from the fact that the full cycle of packet data reading - from the 1st stage to its repetition - is called the "minimum time of the line cycle", tRC itself. Since the first three stages, as we showed above, can not take a time shorter than tRAS, and the latter takes a time strictly equal to tRP, we get:
> 
> tRC = tRAS + tRP.


In all the versions of the calculator, the tRC = tRAS + tRP formula has never been respected in the suggestions for Micron RAM. Moreover, could you give a reference for max tRAS= tRCD * 2? I 've never seen this before, I always thought it was min tRAS=tRCD * 2.


----------



## Darkstalker420

1usmus said:


> *Timing rules of a successful system on 3200*
> 
> 1) tRRDS 6 tRRDL 8(9) tFAW 32 or tFAW 34 (the minimum time between the activation of the rows of different banks. Architectually open a row in another bank can be immediately after the opening of the line in the first bank. The restriction is purely electrical - the activation takes a lot of energy, and therefore with frequent line activations, the electrical load on the circuit is very high. To reduce it, this delay was introduced. Do not make them low, you will not get any boost other than beautiful numbers)
> 
> 2) tRDWR 6 (or 7 or 8) + tWRRD 3 (Read-to-write and write-to-read latency, or the time that must elapse between issuing sequential read/write or write/read commands.)
> 
> 3) tRCDRD = tCL or tRCDRD = tCL + 1 (or 2) ( the time required to activate the bank line, or the minimum time between the RAS # signal and the column selection signal (CAS #). It's a bottleneck in the memory controller Ryzen )
> 
> 4) tRTP 12 or 8 (the minimum interval between the command to read before the command for the preliminary charge)
> 
> 5) In almost all my experiments, tCKE + power down enable caused errors. My suggestion is tCKE 1 + power down disable ( tCKE is the minimum number of cycles that must pass before a clock can go from an active state to a low state )
> 
> 6) Memory interleaving size , more size = better
> 
> 7) In conclusion of this part, devoted to the delays in accessing data, we will consider the main relationships between the most important timings parameters for the example of simpler data reading operations. As we discussed above, in the simplest and most general case, for the batch reading of a given amount of data (2, 4 or 8 elements), the following operations must be performed:
> 
> 1. activate the row in the memory bank using the ACTIVATE command;
> 
> 2. issue a command to read READ data;
> 
> 3. read data coming to the external data bus of the chip;
> 
> 4. close the line using the PRECHARGE row recharging command (as an option, this is done automatically if you use the "RD + AP" command in the second step).
> 
> The time interval between the first and second operations is the "delay between RAS # and CAS #" (tRCD), between the second and third - "CAS # delay" (tCL). The time interval between the third and fourth operations depends on the length of the transmitted packet. Strictly speaking, in memory bus cycles, it is equal to the length of the transmitted packet (2, 4 or 8) divided by the number of data elements transmitted on the external bus in one clock cycle - 1 for SDR type devices, 2 for DDR devices. Conditionally, we call this value "tBL" ( tBL for DDR4 = 8 )
> 
> It is important to note that the SDRAM chips allow the third and fourth operations to be performed in a sense "in parallel". To be precise, the PRECHARGE command can be used for a number of measures x before the moment at which the last data element of the requested packet occurs, without fear of the occurrence of an "interruption" of the transmitted packet (the latter occurs if the PRECHARGE command is submitted after commands READ with a time interval, less than x). Without going into details, we note that this time interval is equal to the value of the delay of the signal CAS # minus one (x = tCL - 1).
> 
> Finally, the time interval between the fourth operation and the subsequent repetition of the first operation of the cycle is the "recharge time of the line" (tRP).
> 
> At the same time, the minimum activity time of the line (from the ACTIVATE command to the PRECHARGE command, tRAS), by its definition, exactly corresponds to the time interval between the start of the first and the beginning of the fourth operation. This implies the first important relationship between memory timings:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tCL + (tBL - (tCL-1)) - 1,
> where tRCD is the execution time of the first operation, tCL is the second, (tBL - (tCL-1)) is the third; finally, the subtraction of the unit is due to the fact that the tRAS period does not include the clock on which the PRECHARGE command is given. Reducing this expression, we get:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.
> The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.
> 
> As for the maximum value, there is an unspoken rule tRAS, max = tRCD * 2 (this rule is published on the Internet)
> 
> The second important relationship between timings follows from the fact that the full cycle of packet data reading - from the 1st stage to its repetition - is called the "minimum time of the line cycle", tRC itself. Since the first three stages, as we showed above, can not take a time shorter than tRAS, and the latter takes a time strictly equal to tRP, we get:
> 
> tRC = tRAS + tRP.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> If the timings are OK, then a fault in the voltage or resistance on the bus (I will try to write an explanation for these nuances latter)
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> of course example, DR3400CL14 imposible posible
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Thanks for that. I often wonder how various timings are worked out and what they do etc. I would be very interested regarding anything you can tell me about the whole matter tbh. I've "kind of" managed to get my rig to pass ONE round of IBT V HIGH for 10 passes and ONE round of OCCT AVX for 60 mins. This is "ok" but i don't think i could perhaps get those same results if i ran them again. I have spoken to ASUS Tech Support and they say some of the issue is with the 3803 BIOS and that a fix is on the way.

But anything regarding this i'm happy to read.

Thanx.


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> Thanks for that. I often wonder how various timings are worked out and what they do etc. I would be very interested regarding anything you can tell me about the whole matter tbh. I've "kind of" managed to get my rig to pass ONE round of IBT V HIGH for 10 passes and ONE round of OCCT AVX for 60 mins. This is "ok" but i don't think i could perhaps get those same results if i ran them again. I have spoken to ASUS Tech Support and they say some of the issue is with the 3803 BIOS and that a fix is on the way.
> 
> But anything regarding this i'm happy to read.
> 
> Thanx.


Yes, at the moment Asus testing agesa 1.0.0.2 pinacle pi, it has improvements in the overclocking potential of memory, the work of automation, changes in readings of voltages and temperature sensors + some calibration in voltages (dLTo is now enabled)




Radiologist said:


> As an initial comment, I 'd like to say that in my case it's not easy to boot my Micron Memory with DRAM with voltages above 1.385v. It just seems it doesn't like this high of voltage, so it's not straight forward to make it work just by increasing the voltage (have tried increasing the procodt as well, etc).
> 
> Thanks for your last post 1usmus, I had asked these questions previously in the thread, but didn't get any feedback back then.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the formula min tFAW=tRRDs x 4 (or x 8), for example here here. You say one shouldn't get tFAW lower than 32 or 34 , since it doesn't increase performance. But on the other hand the DRAM calculator suggests lower tFAW values for lower speeds and not the same for all speeds (would still be the same performance according to what you said). So, I take your suggestion is purely experimental for 3200 and not derived after some rule?
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a bit weird for me, you are right that this seems to be a bottleneck. I can boot 16-19-16-16 at 3200, and initially seems stable, but 16-18-18-18 is just straight unbootable (or 16-18-20-20 etc). It just doesn't like tCL 16 tRCDRD 18.
> 
> Which brings me to the next question: if I have different tRCDRD and tRCDWR values, to which one refer the tRCD values in the formulas below (I would assume tRCDRD)?
> 
> 
> 
> In all the versions of the calculator, the tRC = tRAS + tRP formula has never been respected in the suggestions for Micron RAM. Moreover, could you give a reference for max tRAS= tRCD * 2? I 've never seen this before, I always thought it was min tRAS=tRCD * 2.


tFAW. There are formulas, there is a theory, but at the moment the theory and reality have a difference. tFAW is interconnected with tRRDS, but no one perceives it as a separate timing. Purpose - the minimum time of activity of four lines. The memory bank can have time to charge, and the long-term long.My opinion is that it's best to configure this timing separately.

tRCD. tRCD is a single unit, but the low frequencies allow you to make different tRCDRD and tRCDWR. There are 2 conditions for the correct operation of this timing:
1) tRAS with a reserve (the minimum time for the activity of the line, that is, the minimum time between the activation of the line (opening it) and the command to precharge (the line closes) .The line can not be closed before this time)
2) the correct tRC (the minimum time between the activation of the rows of one bank)

tRAS = tRCD * 2 is my formula, it is certainly rough. The essence is simple, we increase the activity time of the entire line artificially + it depends on the energy capabilities of the memory architecture. Attached the picture.

tRC. Your memory needs a full working cycle. In our system, quite a lot of timings will affect the full working cycle. I have not indicated this anywhere. Dependencies are from secondary timings + energy efficiency of memory. In most cases, people calculate tRAS = tCAS + tRCD + 2 instead of tRAS = tRCD + tBL, thereby creating a reserve for the full tRC runtime. In the formula tRAS = tCAS + tRCD + 2, the effect of default secondary timings is very roughly taken into account. Memory on micron chips is not capable of working at high frequencies (over 3000 with adequate timings), this is a limitation of architecture, but users of Ryzen systems want more because of IF. Want a high frequency - you need to increase the full working cycle (and this is a kind of deception, to productivity will not be because of the increased working cycle). Everything is simple.

If you do not work 16 18 18 18 36 54 - you do not have harmony in the secondary timings


----------



## christoph

how do you calculate tWTRL and tWR?


----------



## JD809

1usmus said:


> Yes, at the moment Asus testing agesa 1.0.0.2 pinacle pi, it has improvements in the overclocking potential of memory, the work of automation, changes in readings of voltages and temperature sensors + some calibration in voltages (dLTo is now enabled)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tFAW. There are formulas, there is a theory, but at the moment the theory and reality have a difference. tFAW is interconnected with tRRDS, but no one perceives it as a separate timing. Purpose - the minimum time of activity of four lines. The memory bank can have time to charge, and the long-term long.My opinion is that it's best to configure this timing separately.
> 
> tRCD. tRCD is a single unit, but the low frequencies allow you to make different tRCDRD and tRCDWR. There are 2 conditions for the correct operation of this timing:
> 1) tRAS with a reserve (the minimum time for the activity of the line, that is, the minimum time between the activation of the line (opening it) and the command to precharge (the line closes) .The line can not be closed before this time)
> 2) the correct tRC (the minimum time between the activation of the rows of one bank)
> 
> tRAS = tRCD * 2 is my formula, it is certainly rough. The essence is simple, we increase the activity time of the entire line artificially + it depends on the energy capabilities of the memory architecture. Attached the picture.
> 
> tRC. Your memory needs a full working cycle. In our system, quite a lot of timings will affect the full working cycle. I have not indicated this anywhere. Dependencies are from secondary timings + energy efficiency of memory. In most cases, people calculate tRAS = tCAS + tRCD + 2 instead of tRAS = tRCD + tBL, thereby creating a reserve for the full tRC runtime. In the formula tRAS = tCAS + tRCD + 2, the effect of default secondary timings is very roughly taken into account. Memory on micron chips is not capable of working at high frequencies (over 3000 with adequate timings), this is a limitation of architecture, but users of Ryzen systems want more because of IF. Want a high frequency - you need to increase the full working cycle (and this is a kind of deception, to productivity will not be because of the increased working cycle). Everything is simple.
> 
> If you do not work 16 18 18 18 36 54 - you do not have harmony in the secondary timings


How would I alter CAD_BUS settings on a Biostar motherboard, I can't seem to find these settings anywhere?


----------



## Leftezog

An error appears at 700+%. What it might be? Any thoughts?Also my full bios settings are these:



Spoiler



[2018/03/22 00:47:13]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.42000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [34]
Trc [48]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [9]
Tfaw [40]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [24]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [3]
TwrwrScl [3]
Trfc [583]
Trfc2 [433]
Trfc4 [266]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [12]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [8]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [2T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.72600]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
VDDP Standby Voltage [0.85500]
1.8V Standby Voltage [1.80000]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [913]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.44000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [On]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [Off]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
Wi-Fi Controller [Enabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [OCZ-VERTEX3]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
Patriot Memory PMAP [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Turbo]
W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
HPET In SB [Auto]
MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [2]
Profile Name [3333_O]
Save to Profile [2]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


----------



## christoph

try tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL with 4 and tWRRD with 3


----------



## numlock66

bottlefedchaney said:


> Don't mess with the mem oc settings in CBS IMO, at least on this board it f's more up that it helps. Just try 3466, start out with trfc settings at auto and tune sub timings as needed. I booted with these settings on 3466 but if I remember right I had to use a bit more voltage. If you want to stay 3333 I would try 16-17-17-17-32-62.....or just use the screen I posted.


Should i take care of this 1 error and my dram voltage at 1.44v?


----------



## bottlefedchaney

numlock66 said:


> Should i take care of this 1 error and my dram voltage at 1.44v?


It's hard to define caring tbh, i have seen ram that had more errors and was solid at hours of gaming that I would roll with. Personally I test, then game hard to test for real, gaming with a game that pushes your system is the best mark for stability for me. 

What are your SoC voltage? I wouldn't think you need that much voltage for 3333, in my experience too much voltage is just bad, it messes with stability as well as latency on this platform. Try 1.075 SoC voltage, 1.4 dram v, .706 vttddr , .885 vddp. 

I have also read about other and now have been toying with myself not matching dram v and dram boot v. For example 1.39 dram 1.395 boot. Worth a try. I have it that way on my current setup with no negative effects so far, I also can't report any positive findings either but I have seen others who claim they have.


----------



## 1usmus

del


----------



## 1usmus

christoph said:


> how do you calculate tWTRL and tWR?


I take the information from the documentation (the picture is embedded)
Only tWR is understated manually (the minimum time between the end of the write operation and the command to precharge the line (Precharge) for one bank)



Leftezog said:


> An error appears at 700+%. What it might be? Any thoughts?Also my full bios settings are these:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/03/22 00:47:13]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.42000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [34]
> Trc [48]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [9]
> Tfaw [40]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [24]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [3]
> TwrwrScl [3]
> Trfc [583]
> Trfc2 [433]
> Trfc4 [266]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [12]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [8]
> ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [2T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [20.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.72600]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [0.85500]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [1.80000]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [913]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [300]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.44000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Enabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [Off]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> Wi-Fi Controller [Enabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [OCZ-VERTEX3]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> Patriot Memory PMAP [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Turbo]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
> HPET In SB [Auto]
> MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [2]
> Profile Name [3333_O]
> Save to Profile [2]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


1) too high voltage (1.375-1.39 maximum for fast and 1.35-1.365 for safe)
2) porridge in primary timings, 14 14 14 28 42 + tRRDS 6 tRRDL 8 tFAW 32 tWR 12 tRP 8
3) insufficient memory module cooling



numlock66 said:


> Should i take care of this 1 error and my dram voltage at 1.44v?


tRDWR 7 or 8


----------



## -antero-

hurricane28 said:


> Great, so first test your current setting for at least 1000% before going any further. This to prevent future disappointment.


You were right. Tested with HCI memtest overnight and in the morning when I went to check the results windows logon screen was on. Did a quick test again and in some point pc just restarts without any error.. So somewhere I made a mistake, it is going to be long night tonight


----------



## Fright

Commandrate Setting is missing in the latest Version? Nowhere to be found. And also the R-XMP Shows other values than previous imported ones from thaiphoon, what's the catch with that?

Ryzen DRAM Calc 1.0.0 Beta3 Taiphoon Burner imported Values : tRAS 21,250 | tRC 30,000 | tRFC 350,000 | tRRDS 3,500 | tFAW 24,000

Ryzen DRAM Calc 1.1.0 Beta1 R-XMP : tRAS 17,500 | tRC 31,000 | tRFC 260,000 | tRRDS 3,800 | tFAW 21,000 (guess R stands for read xmp?) With the resulting Timings from this values I got microstutters and non-starting games (wolfenstein II put out a run out of Memory error before Startup etc., Vermintide 2 was microstuttering an crashing. With the Taiphoon imported values it all worked fine as it used to be.)

Keep up your awesome work.


----------



## Leftezog

1usmus said:


> 1) too high voltage (1.375-1.39 maximum for fast and 1.35-1.365 for safe)
> 2) porridge in primary timings, 14 14 14 28 42 + tRRDS 6 tRRDL 8 tFAW 32 tWR 12 tRP 8
> 3) insufficient memory module cooling


Thanks 1usmus! Do I must adjust voltage first and after mess with timings or change both and test? Also do you mean tRTP 8 and not tRP? Because tRP 8 is too low for 3333. Regarding ram cooling I have Phanteks P400 with 3 120mm fans for intake at about 15-20 cm from memory and 3 120mm fans for exhaust . Unfortunately my trident rgb kit doesn't have temperature sensors so I can't see what the temp is. But seeing my mobo vrms never exceed low 50's in stress testing I assume that I have sufficient case airflow so my memory temps aren't high.


----------



## hurricane28

-antero- said:


> You were right. Tested with HCI memtest overnight and in the morning when I went to check the results windows logon screen was on. Did a quick test again and in some point pc just restarts without any error.. So somewhere I made a mistake, it is going to be long night tonight


Great, now you are getting somewhere. 

Good luck.


----------



## Radiologist

1usmus said:


> Yes, at the moment Asus testing agesa 1.0.0.2 pinacle pi, it has improvements in the overclocking potential of memory, the work of automation, changes in readings of voltages and temperature sensors + some calibration in voltages (dLTo is now enabled)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tFAW. There are formulas, there is a theory, but at the moment the theory and reality have a difference. tFAW is interconnected with tRRDS, but no one perceives it as a separate timing. Purpose - the minimum time of activity of four lines. The memory bank can have time to charge, and the long-term long.My opinion is that it's best to configure this timing separately.
> 
> tRCD. tRCD is a single unit, but the low frequencies allow you to make different tRCDRD and tRCDWR. There are 2 conditions for the correct operation of this timing:
> 1) tRAS with a reserve (the minimum time for the activity of the line, that is, the minimum time between the activation of the line (opening it) and the command to precharge (the line closes) .The line can not be closed before this time)
> 2) the correct tRC (the minimum time between the activation of the rows of one bank)
> 
> tRAS = tRCD * 2 is my formula, it is certainly rough. The essence is simple, we increase the activity time of the entire line artificially + it depends on the energy capabilities of the memory architecture. Attached the picture.
> 
> tRC. Your memory needs a full working cycle. In our system, quite a lot of timings will affect the full working cycle. I have not indicated this anywhere. Dependencies are from secondary timings + energy efficiency of memory. In most cases, people calculate tRAS = tCAS + tRCD + 2 instead of tRAS = tRCD + tBL, thereby creating a reserve for the full tRC runtime. In the formula tRAS = tCAS + tRCD + 2, the effect of default secondary timings is very roughly taken into account. Memory on micron chips is not capable of working at high frequencies (over 3000 with adequate timings), this is a limitation of architecture, but users of Ryzen systems want more because of IF. Want a high frequency - you need to increase the full working cycle (and this is a kind of deception, to productivity will not be because of the increased working cycle). Everything is simple.


Thank you for taking the time to reply. Is there a reference with the description of the micron architecture?



1usmus said:


> If you do not work 16 18 18 18 36 54 - you do not have harmony in the secondary timings


Let me try to explain why the "tRCDRD 18 at 3200" problem is so weird in my case. Don't get me wrong: (as I had described in a previous post in the thread some weeks ago) the memory boots; it's the CPU (or motherboard) that doesn't like it. I know this because of the Q-leds of my board: the posting procedure doesn't get stuck on the ram led (which is the case when my timings are off). Ram led turns on, then CPU led proceeds to turn on, which doesn't accept the settings and the posting goes back to ram led, ram boots again, CPU led rejects the settings and this keeps alternating indefinitely (without PC ever turning off).

Let me try to further back up why this is so weird. My 2666 16-18-18-18-36 rated memory boots by itself at 3200 with every timing on auto (I have only kept the procodt setting manually at 68.6, which is also a very successful recommendation of the DRAM calculator for dual rank micron). The timings are abysmal (16-22-22-22-70), but it still boots by itself on auto, and with tCL 16! Now I do the following: I keep everything on auto and set tRCDRD to 18. Bam, the same ram-cpu led loop happens, which tells me that the mob can't find any abysmal settings that boot with tRCDRD 18 at 3200. My r5 1600 probably just doesn't like it.

I 've only mentioned this again, in hopes that maybe someone might be able to shed some light on this. I 've googled so much, but couldn't find anything relevant. I was hoping for a new decent bios from ASUS that might solve the problem but their last one for my strix b350f gaming (3803) was reported as awful, so didn't even try it. On the weekend I am going to swap slots of my 2 dimms in hopes that just some weird electrical abnormality goes on, which sounds like an insanely long shot, but I have pretty much made peace with the phenomenon.


----------



## Nighthog

Radiologist said:


> Wow, these are some amazing timings if you ask me. I have 2 x CMK8GX4M1A2666C16R (2x8Gb), which I think it is pretty much the same as yours, same 16-18-18-35-53 (although, if I remember correctly, mine is 20nm instead of 25nm, have to check again once home; maybe I should update the version of my taiphoon burner as well?).
> 
> Best I can achieve with my memory is either 16-17-17-34 @ 3066 with 1.35v or [email protected] with 1.375v (although I am still torn with respect to what is better for ryzen, given that the former has better latency). 3200 with timings 16-18-18-36 doesn't even post, no matter what combinations of voltage I have tried. 3200 with 16-19-19-38 posts though and has potential to be stabilised (passes memtest86), although I have the feeling that the 3066 setting behaves better. Everything described in this paragraph is with procodt 68.6, which seems to be the correct procodt in the range of 1.35-1.375v in my case.
> 
> CL14 is science fiction for me even at 2933 I think (even more with twrwr equal to 2, I can't even boot with 3), although I have never tried 1.46v like you. I tried to achieve 3466 with CL18 (which would be better latency than the 3066-CL16 I use now), but I can't get it to post no matter what. I went up to 1.43v trying procodt both 68.6 and 80 to no avail. CADbus all 20 has been working very well in all the previous stable setups I have tried, so I haven't tried different values for 3466. I had the feeling they don't play any role in terms of boot ability, but I might be wrong?).
> 
> So, is 1.46v really safe for 24/7? I am tempted to try it now that someone else with the same RAM has success with this voltage, but kinda scared to go that high...
> 
> PS: As far as Micron B-die is concerned, 1.0.0 v3 seems to be much safer to use. The r-XMP in 1.1.0 seems to suggest hopelessly aggressive timings, at least for my case.


Micron memory doesn't like the tRCDRD timing being tight. It wants it to be loose to work. The higher speed the more loose it needs to be. Voltage might help tighten it down a notch but not much.
I guess quality of kit/motherboard combo can be of relevance on what you can use.
I once used 13.14.17.17.30.47 (RTC) for 3200Mhz with some older BIOS. CL can often be much lower than the other primary timings.

I see you are having familiar settings I was using with some iterations of BIOS on my motherboard. Not the best versions though (earlier ones).
I started out with procODT 68.6Ohm and it was the best value for many earlier BIOS but then came memory improvements and it needed to be 80Ohm and that was when I could lower tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL from 5 down to 3&2. I would guess your BIOS is not where it needs to be in improvements to get the most out of your kit. Or it's just a miss of stuff tried or the motherboard etc.

On the voltage front, I've been running this memory in the 1.460v-1.490V range the whole time, no issues yet from it. (BIOS specific which is needed depending on timings etc)
I can mention 3200Mhz needs 1.450+ volts to be stable, I have found. 2933/3066 etc can stay in the low 1.350-1.400V range with not much hassle and keep the good timings.
I see the more speed you want the more voltage you need to bring. Timings are "free" it seems from the required voltage, or just a little extra for the slight extra touch.

It can be mentioned though above 1.500V is bad. 1.530~ and things get unstable on voltage alone. I guess it's heat or just too much for these chips.


----------



## christoph

Nighthog said:


> Micron memory doesn't like the tRCDRD timing being tight. It wants it to be loose to work. The higher speed the more loose it needs to be. Voltage might help tighten it down a notch but not much.
> I guess quality of kit/motherboard combo can be of relevance on what you can use.
> I once used 13.14.17.17.30.47 (RTC) for 3200Mhz with some older BIOS. CL can often be much lower than the other primary timings.
> 
> I see you are having familiar settings I was using with some iterations of BIOS on my motherboard. Not the best versions though (earlier ones).
> I started out with procODT 68.6Ohm and it was the best value for many earlier BIOS but then came memory improvements and it needed to be 80Ohm and that was when I could lower tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL from 5 down to 3&2. I would guess your BIOS is not where it needs to be in improvements to get the most out of your kit. Or it's just a miss of stuff tried or the motherboard etc.
> 
> On the voltage front, I've been running this memory in the 1.460v-1.490V range the whole time, no issues yet from it. (BIOS specific which is needed depending on timings etc)
> I can mention 3200Mhz needs 1.450+ volts to be stable, I have found. 2933/3066 etc can stay in the low 1.350-1.400V range with not much hassle and keep the good timings.
> I see the more speed you want the more voltage you need to bring. Timings are "free" it seems from the required voltage, or just a little extra for the slight extra touch.
> 
> It can be mentioned though above 1.500V is bad. 1.530~ and things get unstable on voltage alone. I guess it's heat or just too much for these chips.



how long you been using 1.49v for the ram?

mine can do 3466 completely stable with 1.42v in the bios, 1.44v at hardware monitoring software, I can boot to 3600 but is not stable and I think it might need 1.46v at least to make it stable but to me is too much


----------



## Nighthog

christoph said:


> how long you been using 1.49v for the ram?
> 
> mine can do 3466 completely stable with 1.42v in the bios, 1.44v at hardware monitoring software, I can boot to 3600 but is not stable and I think it might need 1.46v at least to make it stable but to me is too much


1.490V wasn't used too much, mostly been 1.470~ (used at present). It's soon been a year now. take a month or two.


----------



## -antero-

How to set correct SOC Voltage with asrock ab350m pro4? Bios shows that option but it requires vid value?

EDIT:
If I use this memory kit: F4-3200C15-8GTZ (2*8GB), should I put them in slots A1/B1 on asrock ab350m pro4? I'm little bit confused right now. With my Corsair kit recommended slots were A2/B2, but I just read that single rank should be in A1/B1? Or maybe I have "used" too much wine for this job


----------



## crakej

@1usmus - thank you for taking the time to explain some of the relationships between the settings, and how they relate to Ryzen - very interesting reading....i've copied the good bits to my DDR information sheet I keep handy when OCing

Could I ask you - I have the Trident 4266C19 b-dies running 3200MTs tight timings. I have to have Ram volts @ 1.355, SoC 0.975v - if I have these voltages any higher then RamTest fails within 22% cover. Are these differences in voltage due to the memory or perhaps mem power on my motherboard? I see others having success with your voltage settings and just wondered why mine always seemed to be wanting to be a little lower - especially on the SoC

I've also found with these rams that they seem to be happier on Ryzen running with tRFC @ 160ns instead of the rated 350ns. Should I try to stay with this tRFC as I try for higher speeds or will it need to come closer to spec for higher speeds?

Again, many thanks for your hard work!


----------



## SexySale

*Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 - 3133 and 3200 testing*

Hi guys,
I have mentioned few days ago that I will try to get stable 3200 and post here my findings.

So for beginning I will add here my hardware info:
----------------------------------------------------------------
MB: ASUS Prime B350-Plus (Bios 3805 - modded version by 1usmus)
CPU: Ryzen 5 1600
RAM: Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 2x8GB Hynix M-Die
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=123193&thumb=1

Few days ago I have mentioned that I have successfully got my memory to 3133 speed which was almost impossible for me to achieve.
First, I got 3066 without problems and made Fast preset settings after many mistakes. After that, I started testing and experimenting with higher frequencies.
3133 after to many unsuccessful attempts, I have finally manage after post from @bottlefedchaney here -> http://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...1-overclocking-dram-am4-138.html#post26943129

That gave me idea and starting point which after few tweaks worked flawlessly. Thank you man for that 
I have tighten up those timings and I got it stable. I am very satisfied, but ofc, my plan is rated speeds...

I stared on that premise and base to create version for 3200. Nothing was working same  I got nearly mad.
Today, I have read from @Nighthog that he is using big voltages and doesn't have issues after some time. So I did it my self...
Setup what I found almost working and "crank it up" to 1.45V and VOILA! It worked!

I was very excited  I have uploaded all info in this post.

But now here are my 2 important images that are comparison of settings and timings:
http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=123185&thumb=1
http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=123177&thumb=1

Bold values are DIFFERENCES between settings, so I would need help and answers from you guys, especially you @1usmus.

- Why is such a large difference between DRAM Voltages, but timings are almost the same?
- Where can I look to reduce that voltage (insane difference for 66Mhz!)?
- Any other recommendation?

Please, keep in mind some big notes:
- This is B350
- This is Single rank Hynix M-Die
- THESE ARE LOWEST timings and settings I have used without errors

Thank you guys and sorry for large post 

Good night.


----------



## christoph

Nighthog said:


> 1.490V wasn't used too much, mostly been 1.470~ (used at present). It's soon been a year now. take a month or two.



thanks for the info


----------



## 1usmus

*3533CL14 fully stable* on CH6 6001 mod (*elesin38*)

pictures


Spoiler































settings


Spoiler



[2018/03/23 22:32:39]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [40.00]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
NB Frequency [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.36250]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [*1.12500*]
DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
1.05V SB Voltage [1.05000]
Target TDP [Auto]

Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
TrdrdBan [Auto]
TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
TrwtWB [Auto]
TrwtTO [Auto]
data drive strength [Auto]
DQS drive strength [*53.3 ohms*]
processor on-die termination [Auto]
CKE setup time [Auto]
CKE fine delay [Auto]
CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
address/command setup time [Auto]
address/command fine delay [Auto]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [252]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [5]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [5]
TwrwrDd [5]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [3]
TrdrdDd [3]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [*48 ohm*]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [*RZQ/4*]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 5]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Regular]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
DRAM Current Capability [120%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]






Fright said:


> Commandrate Setting is missing in the latest Version? Nowhere to be found. And also the R-XMP Shows other values than previous imported ones from thaiphoon, what's the catch with that?
> 
> Ryzen DRAM Calc 1.0.0 Beta3 Taiphoon Burner imported Values : tRAS 21,250 | tRC 30,000 | tRFC 350,000 | tRRDS 3,500 | tFAW 24,000
> 
> Ryzen DRAM Calc 1.1.0 Beta1 R-XMP : tRAS 17,500 | tRC 31,000 | tRFC 260,000 | tRRDS 3,800 | tFAW 21,000 (guess R stands for read xmp?) With the resulting Timings from this values I got microstutters and non-starting games (wolfenstein II put out a run out of Memory error before Startup etc., Vermintide 2 was microstuttering an crashing. With the Taiphoon imported values it all worked fine as it used to be.)
> 
> Keep up your awesome work.


insufficient voltage on the DRAM
you can not use the settings with chunks! main page is an indivisible settings complex


______________________________________________


I'll answer the rest of the questions later


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Ok after much pain i got BIOS 4.6 stable, i just needed to reinstall it with AfuEfix64.
Using the BIOS to update from 3.4 to 4.6 was making it unstable, very very unstable.
Even 3.4 was better after redoing with AfuEfix64.

I have got 2933Mhz stable although only done 30 mins ramtest & 50 mins MemTestPro
Lower timings and more consistant as well, less variation with cachemem.

Aida and SIV64X miss read the CPU, as benchmarks in Cinebench and Corona 1.3 are as expected 
for 3.95Ghz. 
SIV64X also missreads Memory speeds as well on main page but on clicking memory 
it reads correctly.

3.95Ghz CPU is the sweet spot for 2933Mhz as any higher on the CPU the Memory looses 500MB Read/Write/Copy and 1.1ns on average.

EDIT: Interleaving set at Channel 2K Auto
Will try 3066Mhz soon and see what it can do there.


----------



## Leftezog

1usmus said:


> *3533CL14 fully stable* on CH6 6001 mod (*elesin38*)
> 
> pictures
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> settings
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/03/23 22:32:39]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [40.00]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.36250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [*1.12500*]
> DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [1.05000]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [*53.3 ohms*]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [5]
> Trdwr [6]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [5]
> TwrwrDd [5]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [3]
> TrdrdDd [3]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [*48 ohm*]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [*RZQ/4*]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 5]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Regular]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
> DRAM Current Capability [120%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> insufficient voltage on the DRAM
> you can not use the settings with chunks! main page is an indivisible settings complex
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> 
> 
> I'll answer the rest of the questions later


From my experience RAM Test is a bit incosistent. I was able to hit nearly 13000% on my settings and call it "stable" and after restarting my pc and test my settings again I got error at 2500%. Half an hour on RAM Test is nothing. I was curious about this program too and the fast testing that it does but it appears that it is only good in finding the errors faster that HCI in early stages of changing settings in ram. To find if your memory is fully stable you must run a memtest program at least 6+ hours so to tighten your timings more and be stable enough.


----------



## KLU

Hey guys! Maybe it's a stupid question, but I want to make sure. The tRFC values show as float, e.g. 513.3, but my BIOS (3.40, ASRock X370 Gaming K4) allows only to enter integers. So, if I have 513.3, I should enter 513, and if I have 410,6 I should enter 411?


Thanks! And cheers *1usmus *for your awesome work!


----------



## Leftezog

KLU said:


> Hey guys! Maybe it's a stupid question, but I want to make sure. The tRFC values show as float, e.g. 513.3, but my BIOS (3.40, ASRock X370 Gaming K4) allows only to enter integers. So, if I have 513.3, I should enter 513, and if I have 410,6 I should enter 411?
> 
> 
> Thanks! And cheers *1usmus *for your awesome work!


It's the same in Asus ch6 too you can't put float values in tRFC only integer . So in my testing I use integer like in case of 508.3 for example I put 508.


----------



## KLU

Leftezog said:


> It's the same in Asus ch6 too you can't put float values in tRFC only integer . So in my testing I use integer like in case of 508.3 for example I put 508.


Thanks, man. Will try that.

I noticed that when you click on R-XMP, the values are lower than from the Thaiphoon read out. So, the question is - for the *Hynix AFR* (Corsair Vengeance RGB CMR16GX4M2C3000C15), do you recommend to use R-XMP or just manually put the values detected by Thaiphoon?

Cheers!


----------



## dspx

KLU said:


> Thanks, man. Will try that.
> 
> I noticed that when you click on R-XMP, the values are lower than from the Thaiphoon read out. So, the question is - for the *Hynix AFR* (Corsair Vengeance RGB CMR16GX4M2C3000C15), do you recommend to use R-XMP or just manually put the values detected by Thaiphoon?
> 
> Cheers!


Use R-XMP


----------



## xcr89

1usmus said:


> *3533CL14 fully stable* on CH6 6001 mod (*elesin38*)
> 
> pictures
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> settings
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/03/23 22:32:39]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [40.00]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> NB Frequency [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.36250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [*1.12500*]
> DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [1.05000]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> 
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> DRAM REF Cycle Time [Auto]
> TrdrdBan [Auto]
> TrdrdSdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdDc [Auto]
> TrdrdSdScL [Auto]
> TwrwrSdScL [Auto]
> TrwtWB [Auto]
> TrwtTO [Auto]
> data drive strength [Auto]
> DQS drive strength [*53.3 ohms*]
> processor on-die termination [Auto]
> CKE setup time [Auto]
> CKE fine delay [Auto]
> CS/ODT setup time [Auto]
> CS/ODT fine delay [Auto]
> address/command setup time [Auto]
> address/command fine delay [Auto]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [5]
> Trdwr [6]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [5]
> TwrwrDd [5]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [3]
> TrdrdDd [3]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [*48 ohm*]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [*RZQ/4*]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [30.0 Ohm]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [0.85500]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 5]
> CPU Current Capability [130%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Regular]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
> DRAM Current Capability [120%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> insufficient voltage on the DRAM
> you can not use the settings with chunks! main page is an indivisible settings complex
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> 
> 
> I'll answer the rest of the questions later


How do you get 64 ns on memory latency i dont get it i have mine at 3466 right now at the same settings how am i at 70.3 ns on memory latency, it's mindblowing how all of you guys show 64 ns memory latency but for me i dont even know how i get even close to it, what am i doing wrong?




Spoiler


----------



## Anty

Turn off "DRAM power down" or "DRAM energy saving" (whatever it is called in your BIOS) and you will get your few ns decrease.


----------



## dual109

SexySale85 said:


> Hi @*bottlefedchaney* ,
> thank you for everything.
> I have already taken your settings for 3400 and adjust it, so 3133 is working fine and I have tightened it up, but... please have in mind that I have B350 so the board is not ready for high OC. It's a budget board, so OC is not it's primary function :sadsmiley
> 
> Going from that point, same OC setting that is working on great boards (like Taichi) and X370, not necessarily mean it will work on B350 boards. There is also BIOS that is part of the whole story.
> 
> For example, your settings for 3200 are not working for me. Bunch of errors immediately. I found out that on 3133 16-16-16-16-30 is not either working for me, but 16-17-17-17-30 magically works fine! Also, we all know that tRC is 56 in the specification , but 60 is lowest for 3133! tRRDS - 7 and tRRDL - 10 are lowest for higher frequencies. CLDO VDDP voltage of 912 did magic (thank you for that! ), but at 913 errors again.
> 
> I have spent 5 hours yesterday to tighten up each value for 3133, restart each time and test it, so I know limitations for Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die on Asus B350 Prime board for now.
> Beta Bios mod made it possible to deliver stable 3133.
> (I will attach my "almost" fast preset of 3133 when I come home after work and Lara Croft movie  )
> 
> So, to sum it a little bit here:
> 
> 
> B350 boards are limited in high OC possibilities (as we already know, but forget somehow)
> Same settings on different boards don't mean it will work on each board same, which raises other question regarding code quality, manufacturers, etc...
> 3200 is not stable (few errors, so tighten up is needed)
> CLDO VDDP 912 is working for 3133 flawlessly, *BUT 912/913 not filling a memory hole for 3200 on single rank* - please don't take this for granted as I will continue to adjust timings and play around to confirm.
> 3133 findings for LOWEST possible -> tRC 60, tRRDS - 7, tRRDL - 10, tFAW 36, tWTRS 4, tWTRL 12, tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP 17
> DRAM voltage 1.375 lowest and raising voltage up to 1.415 didn't help me to get stable tighten timings.
> Ofc I will not give up and I will work on 3200 to make it stable and thank you all for your effort and recommendations.
> I RLY APPRECIATE IT
> .
> BTW: Guys, I am @SexySale, but when Overclock moved to other theme, it caused that my original account was blocked, so I have opened other one. This left me logged in on Work computer so sry for confusion


For the record I have same memory kit Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die and same motherboard as bottlefedchaney and used his settings he has posted back on page 144, been playing all weekend and could only get 3133 stable only difference is our processors are different.(bios 6001) 

I'm using 1.43v (reported) and even with 1.46v ram wasn't stable at 3200Mhz. Also try different stress tests. I use Aida stability test and Asus Realbench 5.26.

Good luck with your B350 and let us know how you go.

bottlefedchaney, any further pointers on trying to hit 3200? btw you settings have been the most stable so far.

Cheers


----------



## SexySale

dual109 said:


> For the record I have same memory kit Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die and same motherboard as bottlefedchaney and used his settings he has posted back on page 144, been playing all weekend and could only get 3133 stable only difference is our processors are different.(bios 6001)
> 
> I'm using 1.43v (reported) and even with 1.46v ram wasn't stable at 3200Mhz. Also try different stress tests. I use Aida stability test and Asus Realbench 5.26.
> 
> Good luck with your B350 and let us know how you go.
> 
> bottlefedchaney, any further pointers on trying to hit 3200? btw you settings have been the most stable so far.
> 
> Cheers


Hi @dual109,
I have reported my findings here ->
http://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?p=27016897

You have come to same conclusion as you can see...

I hope new bios version will make difference. Also some advise from @1usmus regarding my post 2 days ago pasted here, would be great and much appreciated


----------



## bottlefedchaney

dual109 said:


> For the record I have same memory kit Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die and same motherboard as bottlefedchaney and used his settings he has posted back on page 144, been playing all weekend and could only get 3133 stable only difference is our processors are different.(bios 6001)
> 
> I'm using 1.43v (reported) and even with 1.46v ram wasn't stable at 3200Mhz. Also try different stress tests. I use Aida stability test and Asus Realbench 5.26.
> 
> Good luck with your B350 and let us know how you go.
> 
> bottlefedchaney, any further pointers on trying to hit 3200? btw you settings have been the most stable so far.
> 
> Cheers


you could try different RTT settings, i have had mixed results with all of them tbh, but it may get you farther. The ones I have found that worked well with 60ohm other than the one you're currently using 
RZQ/7 
off 
RZQ/5

off 
off
RZQ/5 

RZQ/5 
off
RZQ/5


You can also try and see how different cldo_ vddp works 425,700,866, 912

Will it boot with xmp 3200?

i hope it helps, it seems you have a hell of a memory hole there.


----------



## Leftezog

xcr89 said:


> How do you get 64 ns on memory latency i dont get it i have mine at 3466 right now at the same settings how am i at 70.3 ns on memory latency, it's mindblowing how all of you guys show 64 ns memory latency but for me i dont even know how i get even close to it, what am i doing wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Fist set performances mode in bios as CB15. When testing Aida 64 perform a PC restart first and close all background programs and then test memory. I believe you will be at least at 66ns with your settings.


----------



## Superbegita

bottlefedchaney said:


> you could try different RTT settings, i have had mixed results with all of them tbh, but it may get you farther. The ones I have found that worked well with 60ohm other than the one you're currently using
> RZQ/7
> off
> RZQ/5
> 
> off
> off
> RZQ/5
> 
> RZQ/5
> off
> RZQ/5
> 
> 
> You can also try and see how different cldo_ vddp works 425,700,866, 912
> 
> Will it boot with xmp 3200?
> 
> i hope it helps, it seems you have a hell of a memory hole there.


YTup ! Yeah indeed guy it's true it's the same i have the habtit to use with procODT to 60ohms. But there i have let some in Auto mode..No problem at all.

Just waiting the new version of the DRAM Calculator for try again the Extreme mode (ram currently at 3533Mhz in Fast preset).


----------



## -antero-

Short of got something stable yesterday. HCI memtest for overnight resulted with 2 errors, fortunately no restart. Pc was fully useable in the morning and memtest was still running, ended it at ~1700% coverage. After that did little bit Aida64 system stability ~45min, 4-5 runs of Cinebench15 and at the end did also Heaven Benchmark 4.0. So far everything is running, now I'm going to do some gaming tests and after that HCI again.


----------



## Superbegita

-antero- said:


> Short of got something stable yesterday. HCI memtest for overnight resulted with 2 errors, fortunately no restart. Pc was fully useable in the morning and memtest was still running, ended it at ~1700% coverage. After that did little bit Aida64 system stability ~45min, 4-5 runs of Cinebench15 and at the end did also Heaven Benchmark 4.0. So far everything is running, now I'm going to do some gaming tests and after that HCI again.


Humm not bad at all tell me ! ^^


----------



## st0neh

I've had the most luck so far trying to run 3466 with the latest version of the calculator, now it's just a case of actually finding the time to tweak it.


----------



## xcr89

Anty said:


> Turn off "DRAM power down" or "DRAM energy saving" (whatever it is called in your BIOS) and you will get your few ns decrease.


I already did, when i took that screenshot it was already off.

Am i missing something else?


----------



## -antero-

Superbegita said:


> Humm not bad at all tell me ! ^^


Yup, but Aida scores could be bit better. I have seen similar memory kits achieve much better results. At this point don't want to change anything, I have lost to much of valuable sleeping hours to get this far  Going to have fun for sometime with this setup and maybe at some point will try to get better performance out of this kit


----------



## dspx

xcr89 said:


> I already did, when i took that screenshot it was already off.
> 
> Am i missing something else?


As someone has mentioned try changing performance bias, but it may affect your RAM stability.


----------



## Superbegita

Hi guys ! Humm tell me i am testing some différents settings and i have found something weird..well sort of.

Here it is: when i set Gear Down Mode in Disabled..ONLY there it allow me to set the CR to 2T (and not the usual 1T)

I have heard that ram with high speed (or very high speed?) need 2T and not 1T.

I want to go here...the Ryzen DRA Calculator in 1.1.0 bêta 1 with R-XMP setting told me to put : 1T in both Safe or Fast settings...ok And for being safe ...Gear Down Mode in Enabled ...

There i have put all the settings in safe mode (i am running my ram at 3533Mhz in 14-14-14-14-30-54 and all the others timings and sub timings modified of course ^^) BUT ! I have Disabled the Gear Down mode and set CR to 2T . (manually)

I can boot no proble and for now .no problems at all.. So i am wondering ?

I have noticed that in 3600/3666Mhz i can boot ..ONLY and only if i let all timings in Auto mode (with of course VERY BAD timings)... And of course at this rate i am completely unstable.. 

I was telling me if it won't be useful to..well... Take some screenshots with Timing checker and CPU-Z for seeing what exactly the mobo had done one i am at 3600/3666Mhz .no ? What do you think of that?


----------



## Superbegita

-antero- said:


> Yup, but Aida scores could be bit better. I have seen similar memory kits achieve much better results. At this point don't want to change anything, I have lost to much of valuable sleeping hours to get this far  Going to have fun for sometime with this setup and maybe at some point will try to get better performance out of this kit


Humm i see yeah ^^ Honestly i run too much more better résults..my best score so far have been ..hu 55000 in writing ..at 3533Mhz with very low timings (but look like that it wasn't very stable at 100%)

Humm now i really look at your score and mine..Wow ! Indeed for just 33Mhz of différence it's drop a enormous gain for sure 0.0

1usmus : Yop ! ..very good update sure.. But i was wondering .. What do you think of my posts above ? I am realy try to push harder for seeing if i can make it through the very big ones: 3600/3666Mhz


----------



## dual109

bottlefedchaney said:


> you could try different RTT settings, i have had mixed results with all of them tbh, but it may get you farther. The ones I have found that worked well with 60ohm other than the one you're currently using
> RZQ/7
> off
> RZQ/5
> 
> off
> off
> RZQ/5
> 
> RZQ/5
> off
> RZQ/5
> 
> 
> You can also try and see how different cldo_ vddp works 425,700,866, 912
> 
> Will it boot with xmp 3200?
> 
> i hope it helps, it seems you have a hell of a memory hole there.


Thanks for reply, yep boots with 3200Mhz stress test fails after bout 5-10 minutes. 3133Mhz is fine.

I will play around with same of the settings above and report back if there are any improvements.

Cheers


----------



## -antero-

Superbegita said:


> Humm i see yeah ^^ Honestly i run too much more better résults..my best score so far have been ..hu 55000 in writing ..at 3533Mhz with very low timings (but look like that it wasn't very stable at 100%)
> 
> Humm now i really look at your score and mine..Wow ! Indeed for just 33Mhz of différence it's drop a enormous gain for sure 0.0


Can you post all your memory settings? I would be happy to try them out, maybe I can get better results with your settings


----------



## porschedrifter

Hey guys, curious what to do when the tRFC values that are like 450.9 or 350.5, what are we to put in, do we round up or down at a certain point since you cannot put those kind of values in the bios?


----------



## SexySale

porschedrifter said:


> Hey guys, curious what to do when the tRFC values that are like 450.9 or 350.5, what are we to put in, do we round up or down at a certain point since you cannot put those kind of values in the bios?


http://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?p=27020049


----------



## Superbegita

-antero- said:


> Can you post all your memory settings? I would be happy to try them out, maybe I can get better results with your settings


Yes sir without problems ^^

So...all my timings and settings..here we are.

Actually i am testing well to put the tRFC in their Extreme mode preset...and let all the others in Fast preset of course ^^ It look very decent i have to say.

So for put my memory to work very well at 3533Mhz CAS14

tCL: 14
tRCDWR: 14
tRCDRD: 14
tRP: 14
tRAS: 30
tRC: 44
tRRDS: 6
tRRDL: 8
tFAW: 24
tWTRS: 4
tWTRL: 12
tWR: 12
tRC Page (for fun): 0
tRDRD SCL: 3
t WRWR SCL: 3

tRFC: 282,6 (i put 282 in reality ^^)
tRFC 2: 210
tRFC 4: 129,2 (so 129 in fact)

tCWL: 14
tRTP: 8
tRDWR: 7
tWRRD: 3
tWRWR SC: 1
tWRWR SD: 7
tWRWR DD: 7
tRDRD SC: 1
tRDRD SD: 5
tRDRD DD: 5
tCKE: 1

For the voltyages i put:

For the ram it's adveise to put ..in Fast mode 1.46 ..i put 1.47..but see i am raising the tRFC..i put 1.48 finally for being sure.

Soc Voltage: i put 1.14325 

I let al the memory interleaving and others iun Auto mode (no problems at all)

For Gear Down: Disable 

Wich allow me to put something i know now is very responsable for instability...

I put no CR in 1T ... (contray who his advertise in DRAM Calculator) bnut i set it in 2T. (beware ! If ou don't disable Gear Down mode..you can't set CR in 2T !)

And i set Power Down in Disable too.

Here it is ^^

Tested on my motherboard Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7 and my Ryzen R7 1800X oc to 4.1ghz. (ram tested two sticks of G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4266Mhz with Samsung B-die chips of course).

Honestly here i am waiting if i can push to Extreme mode preset my ram actually. I wait for the next update of Ryzen DRAM Calculator.


In all cases i have noticed that when you run high memory speed you MUST set tCR in 2T..Not at all 1T or you'll have crash and BSOD for sure. (either very quickly ..either in some a couplke of hours on basics tasks).

I can boot also to 3600/3666Mhz but no matter who hard i try and retry...nothing to do...it's unstable. I really think that 3533Mhz is my limit memory controiller.

But i am rellay happy of course (it was unexpected ..when i see some toehrs who can hardly past above 3200Mhz - -)
I have noticed somethin else too with experience for now

The more the Ryzen is good (exemple 1700 toward 1700X and for finish 1800X) the more you'ill have big chances to have alos a very good memory controler.
Before on a tested 1700 i can just reach in the best case and scenario 3200Mhz..There 3533Mhz and in Fast mode preset for now..


----------



## bottlefedchaney

First time overclocking on the 350 platform, still need to do stress testing I just wanted to post this as a reference, this is what my setup defaults to with factory 3200 xmp. This is with a b-350f with a 2400g ryzen processor. It is a bit different than with my x370 and 1700x. Will report back with more findings.


----------



## Sekki

Can anybody give me some advice ?

I got my F4-3200C16-8GVKB Hynix M-Die stable with 3066MHz these are my settings:

CPU Vcore: 1.4V
CPU Clock Ratio: 39.00x
SoC Voltage: 1.15V
LLC for CPU and SoC: Mode 4
CLDO_VDDP Voltage: 0.700V
DRAM Voltage: Auto
MSI B350 PC MATE (latest BIOS AGESA 1.0.0.1a)
Ryzen R5 1600

As soon as I pull the frequency up to 3133MHz or 3200MHz I get application and windows crashes.
I tried the calculator but none of the settings I tried worked. Tried higher voltage for SoC and DRAM but it still didn't work.


----------



## SexySale

Sekki said:


> Can anybody give me some advice ?
> 
> I got my F4-3200C16-8GVKB Hynix M-Die stable with 3066MHz these are my settings:
> 
> CPU Vcore: 1.4V
> CPU Clock Ratio: 39.00x
> SoC Voltage: 1.15V
> LLC for CPU and SoC: Mode 4
> CLDO_VDDP Voltage: 0.700V
> DRAM Voltage: Auto
> MSI B350 PC MATE (latest BIOS AGESA 1.0.0.1a)
> Ryzen R5 1600
> 
> As soon as I pull the frequency up to 3133MHz or 3200MHz I get application and windows crashes.
> I tried the calculator but none of the settings I tried worked. Tried higher voltage for SoC and DRAM but it still didn't work.


Try settings from here -> http://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?p=26969945

Download .txt files and look and settings. That is your starting point + calculator.


----------



## Blumondae

Hi everyone, and many thanks for the tool 1usmus!

Unfortunately I wanted to report that none of the versions I tried of the calculator (0.9.9v12 & 1.1.0beta1) worked for me with the following gear:
- TridentZ 2x8gb 3200-C16 (Hynix AFR)
- R7 1700 @ 3.9GHz
- Crosshair VI Hero (bios 3501)

Basically I am not stable above 3066 and most importantly the suggested values for tRC, tRFC are completely out (in both fast and safe)! I can't even boot below tRC=56 (when the calculator suggests tRC=36) and tRFC=480 even at 3066MHz. Best stability is reached with ram voltage at 1.4v and soc 1.025v it seems.

Am I doing something wrong? I didn't try all the alt presets though (only rec and alt1, both didn't even boot).

Here are the lowest timings I can reach:


Interestingly, in terms of timings, it seems like it's either it doesn't boot, or it boots and is stable (HCI Memtest). For the frequency above 3066 it's a bit different as it can boot but then might not be 100% stable.


----------



## cy3br_odyssey

First off thank you so much @1usmus this is going to make my life so much easier. 

Tho I do have a quick question about the tool using Thaiphoon burner how do I know if my RAM is Hynix AFR or MFR because all I can see is my RAM is Hynix. Also is there an updated guide on how to use the 1.1.0 Beta 1?


----------



## numlock66

cy3br_odyssey said:


> First off thank you so much @1usmus this is going to make my life so much easier.
> 
> Tho I do have a quick question about the tool using Thaiphoon burner how do I know if my RAM is Hynix AFR or MFR because all I can see is my RAM is Hynix. Also is there an updated guide on how to use the 1.1.0 Beta 1?


MFR. You can see on part number.

Use the timings on dram calc. by click on R-XMP. You don't need to import anymore.


----------



## Sekki

SexySale said:


> Try settings from here -> http://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?p=26969945
> 
> Download .txt files and look and settings. That is your starting point + calculator.


Ok thank you !

I got the 3133Mhz kinda stable will have to test it more only had time for 30min techpowerup memtest64 but I had no errors for now.

Turns out the calculator settings do work I guess I used it wrong.


----------



## cy3br_odyssey

numlock66 said:


> MFR. You can see on part number.
> 
> Use the timings on dram calc. by click on R-XMP. You don't need to import anymore.


Thanks :thumb:


----------



## bottlefedchaney

Here are my initial oc settings for my b-dies. I'm also going to work on the Hynix mfr's on the b350f tonight i still haven't go 3200 stable on it


----------



## SexySale

Sekki said:


> Ok thank you !
> 
> I got the 3133Mhz kinda stable will have to test it more only had time for 30min techpowerup memtest64 but I had no errors for now.
> 
> Turns out the calculator settings do work I guess I used it wrong.


Great. Keep up in right way


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@1usmus
I think an aplology to you is in order. I am very sorry please disregard every thing i have previously said.
Let me explain, as i have said before i have had problems with updating my Bios.
Thank you for supplying me with the answer to my problem. The only one to work for me.
http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...ectly-unlocked-amd_cbs-ryzen-motherboard.html

Starting way back at Bios 3.2, i was only able to update 3.4 over the internet through the bios.
There i was stuck until i used your solution. From there i went to 3.5 - 4.5 - 4.6 using a USB stick through the bios.
And it was very unstable went back to 3.4 where it was all good again. Same as before with 2933Mhz & 3066Mhz. YAY 

From there i went straight to 4.6 using AfuEfix64, all seemed good with tight timings but speeds looked wrong with Latency down by a fair bit at 2933Mhz. At least better than before when using USB stick to update through Bios. Unfortunately @3066Mhz i was not able to get even remotely stable and my fans kept spinning up for no reason. Even the bios was not telling me which fans were spinning up. HWInfo actually showed Chassis2 fans spinning DOWN when they were actually going UP. LOL

So finally gone back to 3.4.
I'm sure there has been a problem with my bios from the beginning, now i am even surer.

After using AfuEfix64 this last time to install 3.4, it's as if it has only just installed properly for the first time.
I'm already getting better timings @2933Mhz than i have ever done before with 3.4. Will try 3066Mhz later.
But for now i have to stop, i have given myself a bad case of RSI.

Again my apologies @1usmus, hopefully things will be better from now on


----------



## Sekki

SexySale said:


> Great. Keep up in right way


Yeah I got 3200MHz stable for gamung now turns out the red screen crashes were caused by my GPU overclock where the voltage was to high or something like that. The safe preset works fine now I'm gonna try the fast preset soon.

If anyone wants to know for overclocking:
MSI B350 PC MATE
G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16-GVKB
Ryzen R5 1600 @3.9GHz 1.4V
All LLC on Mode 2


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> At the same time, the minimum activity time of the line (from the ACTIVATE command to the PRECHARGE command, tRAS), by its definition, exactly corresponds to the time interval between the start of the first and the beginning of the fourth operation. This implies the first important relationship between memory timings:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tCL + (tBL - (tCL-1)) - 1,
> where tRCD is the execution time of the first operation, tCL is the second, (tBL - (tCL-1)) is the third; finally, the subtraction of the unit is due to the fact that the tRAS period does not include the clock on which the PRECHARGE command is given. Reducing this expression, we get:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.
> The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.


You were right about tRAS. I guess this is fine for B-Die but I could not achieve a stable tRAS 25, on the other hand 26 works fine for Hynix AFR. I ran some tests but could not see any difference in speed or latency between 26 and 30 which was my prebious setting.
I also had to change a few other settings to be completely stable, it seems the instability happened when I flashed to 3803.
Changed tRFC from 432 to 440, tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL from 2 to 3, and tRTP from 10 to 12.

Here are my new stable timings:


----------



## numlock66

CharlieWheelie said:


> @1usmus
> I think an aplology to you is in order. I am very sorry please disregard every thing i have previously said.
> Let me explain, as i have said before i have had problems with updating my Bios.
> Thank you for supplying me with the answer to my problem. The only one to work for me.
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...ectly-unlocked-amd_cbs-ryzen-motherboard.html
> 
> Starting way back at Bios 3.2, i was only able to update 3.4 over the internet through the bios.
> There i was stuck until i used your solution. From there i went to 3.5 - 4.5 - 4.6 using a USB stick through the bios.
> And it was very unstable went back to 3.4 where it was all good again. Same as before with 2933Mhz & 3066Mhz. YAY
> 
> From there i went straight to 4.6 using AfuEfix64, all seemed good with tight timings but speeds looked wrong with Latency down by a fair bit at 2933Mhz. At least better than before when using USB stick to update through Bios. Unfortunately @3066Mhz i was not able to get even remotely stable and my fans kept spinning up for no reason. Even the bios was not telling me which fans were spinning up. HWInfo actually showed Chassis2 fans spinning DOWN when they were actually going UP. LOL
> 
> So finally gone back to 3.4.
> I'm sure there has been a problem with my bios from the beginning, now i am even surer.
> 
> After using AfuEfix64 this last time to install 3.4, it's as if it has only just installed properly for the first time.
> I'm already getting better timings @2933Mhz than i have ever done before with 3.4. Will try 3066Mhz later.
> But for now i have to stop, i have given myself a bad case of RSI.
> 
> Again my apologies @1usmus, hopefully things will be better from now on


Where i find this Ram Test?


----------



## Spectre73

numlock66 said:


> Where i find this Ram Test?


This one?

https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/

It cost a little bit of money but it is well worth it because of reliability and speed of the solution.


----------



## SexySale

numlock66 said:


> Where i find this Ram Test?


This one is free: http://testmem.tz.ru/testmem5.htm#05


----------



## Zendal

1usmus said:


> *Timing rules of a successful system on 3200*
> 1) tRRDS 6 tRRDL 8(9) tFAW 32 or tFAW 34 (the minimum time between the activation of the rows of different banks. Architectually open a row in another bank can be immediately after the opening of the line in the first bank. The restriction is purely electrical - the activation takes a lot of energy, and therefore with frequent line activations, the electrical load on the circuit is very high. To reduce it, this delay was introduced. Do not make them low, you will not get any boost other than beautiful numbers)



Tested this. I went from tRRDS 4 tRRDL 6 and tFAW 16 to 6,8,32 respectively and performance is identical. Altought, I still require the same DRAMv.


----------



## neur0cide

I tested this too and I found that lowering these timings results in lower overall latency. Just as one woul expect.
All three have significant impact on latency, yet tRRDS and tRRDL are more critical to stability than tFAW is.


----------



## Zendal

@neur0cide , retested just in case 

tRRDS 6, tRRDL 8, tFAW 32
Read: 54.9/54.7/54.7/55.0/54.2
Write: 53.4/53.4/53.3/53.4/53.3
Copy: 51.3/51.1/51.1/50.9/49.6
Laten: 66.3/66.5/66.9/66.8/66.6

tRRDS 4, tRRDL 6, tFAW 16
Read: 54.7/54.9/54.8/54.7/54.7
Write: 53.4/53.4/53.4/53.5/53.4
Copy: 50.7/51.1/49.9/50.6/50.8 
Laten: 67.1/67.0/66.5/66.8/66.6


----------



## neur0cide

I have carried out extensive tests (lots and lots of AIDA scores) measuring the influence of certain timings and documented my findings.
Since I'm not at home right now, I had someone turn on my PC so that I could have a look at my results via remote connection.
You are right, I was wrong. I did not find significant improvements in latency. But I did find some minor gains in throughput.

6-8-36: 50143--49817--46436--69,86
4-6-24: 50724--49915--46626--69,84
6-8-24: 50486--49900--46477--69,79
6-8-48: 49972--49838--45905--69,78

These are average scores from 7 or more AIDA runs with each setting.

EDIT: I'm a bit puzzled by your latency scores being all over the place. My latency scores are far more consistent, never differing more than 0.2ns among each other. Sure I have the occasional freak value being ~0.5ns higher or lower than usual, but those are very rare.


----------



## Zendal

neur0cide said:


> EDIT: I'm a bit puzzled by your latency scores being all over the place. My latency scores are far more consistent, never differing more than 0.2ns among each other. Sure I have the occasional freak value being ~0.5ns higher or lower than usual, but those are very rare.


No idea why that would be, it's always been like that for me with this kit (F4-3200C14D-16GFX) even with different motherboard, CPU and timings. I thought that ~0.6ns was normal. Oh well, I guess I'll suck it up


----------



## 1usmus

*The new version of the calculator will be in a few days *

*About 6/8/32 or 4/6/16*

It is necessary to test in a safe mode, the readings will be much more accurate


----------



## 1usmus

CharlieWheelie said:


> @1usmus
> I think an aplology to you is in order. I am very sorry please disregard every thing i have previously said.
> Let me explain, as i have said before i have had problems with updating my Bios.
> Thank you for supplying me with the answer to my problem. The only one to work for me.
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...ectly-unlocked-amd_cbs-ryzen-motherboard.html
> 
> Starting way back at Bios 3.2, i was only able to update 3.4 over the internet through the bios.
> There i was stuck until i used your solution. From there i went to 3.5 - 4.5 - 4.6 using a USB stick through the bios.
> And it was very unstable went back to 3.4 where it was all good again. Same as before with 2933Mhz & 3066Mhz. YAY
> 
> From there i went straight to 4.6 using AfuEfix64, all seemed good with tight timings but speeds looked wrong with Latency down by a fair bit at 2933Mhz. At least better than before when using USB stick to update through Bios. Unfortunately @3066Mhz i was not able to get even remotely stable and my fans kept spinning up for no reason. Even the bios was not telling me which fans were spinning up. HWInfo actually showed Chassis2 fans spinning DOWN when they were actually going UP. LOL
> 
> So finally gone back to 3.4.
> I'm sure there has been a problem with my bios from the beginning, now i am even surer.
> 
> After using AfuEfix64 this last time to install 3.4, it's as if it has only just installed properly for the first time.
> I'm already getting better timings @2933Mhz than i have ever done before with 3.4. Will try 3066Mhz later.
> But for now i have to stop, i have given myself a bad case of RSI.
> 
> Again my apologies @1usmus, hopefully things will be better from now on


thanks that you checked out two types of BIOS setup, this confirms my theory that the BIOS needs to be installed by a special program (afuefix64)



Sekki said:


> Yeah I got 3200MHz stable for gamung now turns out the red screen crashes were caused by my GPU overclock where the voltage was to high or something like that. The safe preset works fine now I'm gonna try the fast preset soon.
> 
> If anyone wants to know for overclocking:
> MSI B350 PC MATE
> G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16-GVKB
> Ryzen R5 1600 @3.9GHz 1.4V
> All LLC on Mode 2


:thumb:



dspx said:


> You were right about tRAS. I guess this is fine for B-Die but I could not achieve a stable tRAS 25, on the other hand 26 works fine for Hynix AFR. I ran some tests but could not see any difference in speed or latency between 26 and 30 which was my prebious setting.
> I also had to change a few other settings to be completely stable, it seems the instability happened when I flashed to 3803.
> Changed tRFC from 432 to 440, tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL from 2 to 3, and tRTP from 10 to 12.
> 
> Here are my new stable timings:


next week all motherboard manufacturers will publish new bios, let's see how it all works on them


----------



## neur0cide

1usmus said:


> It is necessary to test in a safe mode, the readings will be much more accurate


You are right. I always do. I have a dedicated Windows profile for that, with only the bare minimum of services and apps loaded.
I tend to forget, that most people use their everyday working/gaming environment for testing. There are quite a bunch of apps and services that heavily impact latency.


----------



## Zendal

neur0cide said:


> I tend to forget, that most people use their everyday working/gaming environment for testing. There are quite a bunch of apps and services that heavily impact latency.


Oops, that would be me >.<

I always test with afterburner in the background, Bluetooth on and Totalmix for an external audio interface. I guess I have my answer now


----------



## herericc

Hello everyone - I've managed to pass 6 hours of stressapptest at 3.9GHz 1.35V, and 3066MHz 1.39V using beta 1's timings for HYNIX M-DIE at 3200MHz. 


Still unhappy with my system overall - this gigabyte motherboard is a real crappy thing considering the price.... I had to roll back to BIOS F7a to get these ram speeds working.

Don't get the Gaming K7 lol.

Hopefully eventually I'll get 3200MHz running and STABLE, but for now 3066 will have to do.


Thanks for all your work 1usmus!


----------



## dspx

New RTC version is released. Changelog:


> Added CAD & Data bus parameter reading for Zeppelin based Ryzen parts (Summit Ridge, Pinnacle Ridge, Threadripper).
> Summit Ridge requires 25.83.0 SMU firmware version (PinnaclePI 1.0.0.0a based bios) or newer for the new parameters to be supported.
> Enhanced driver de-initialization.


Download here: https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-timing-checker/


----------



## numlock66

dspx said:


> New RTC version is released. Changelog:
> Download here: https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-timing-checker/


Did you get right read from RttNom and RttWr ? Here on a Taichi board they always report disabled even if not on UEFI.


----------



## dspx

numlock66 said:


> Did you get right read from RttNom and RttWr ? Here on a Taichi board they always report disabled even if not on UEFI.


I also got disabled, but I left them at auto.

After setting ProcODT to auto to check what the default was I couldn't boot, so I went back to 48 which I used before.


----------



## christoph

dspx said:


> I also got disabled, but I left them at auto.
> 
> After setting ProcODT to auto to check what the default was I couldn't boot, so I went back to 48 which I used before.



default=auto is 60


----------



## Superbegita

Hiy guys ! I was asking me...when the Extreme preset will be available? With the news Ryzen Zen+ i have good hope that it could be support that ^^

Thanks you by advance !


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Blumondae said:


> Hi everyone, and many thanks for the tool 1usmus!
> 
> Unfortunately I wanted to report that none of the versions I tried of the calculator (0.9.9v12 & 1.1.0beta1) worked for me with the following gear:
> - TridentZ 2x8gb 3200-C16 (Hynix AFR)
> - R7 1700 @ 3.9GHz
> - Crosshair VI Hero (bios 3501)
> 
> Basically I am not stable above 3066 and most importantly the suggested values for tRC, tRFC are completely out (in both fast and safe)! I can't even boot below tRC=56 (when the calculator suggests tRC=36) and tRFC=480 even at 3066MHz. Best stability is reached with ram voltage at 1.4v and soc 1.025v it seems.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? I didn't try all the alt presets though (only rec and alt1, both didn't even boot).
> 
> Here are the lowest timings I can reach:
> 
> 
> Interestingly, in terms of timings, it seems like it's either it doesn't boot, or it boots and is stable (HCI Memtest). For the frequency above 3066 it's a bit different as it can boot but then might not be 100% stable.


Try my settings. Don't even bother with lower V  1.45v RAM & 1.150v SOC is recommended by me.
(just remember, that Infinity Fabric or Hyper Transport 5.0 binding all together in ZEN Platform that's why apriopriate V is needed for SOC/RAM/CPU etc.| and in near future will also do that with Vega/Navi GPUs)


----------



## darknezx

hey guys, am trying out the latest calculator. i just found that we need not import settings, but when i click on calculate xmp, it seems a bit different from what thaiphoon burner is reporting. is that alright?


----------



## palanoid

darknezx said:


> hey guys, am trying out the latest calculator. i just found that we need not import settings, but when i click on calculate xmp, it seems a bit different from what thaiphoon burner is reporting. is that alright?


ya i wonder that myself.

from thaiphoon 13.0 it reported that i have a micron b-die (part number MT40A1G8WE-083E:B), even though the manufacturer is Spectek.
in my case the xmp parameters are way looser than the ones incorporated in the calculator. i'm guessing Spectek took whatever's left by Micron and made this for Team Group.

at the end i typed in the parameters from thaiphoon and worked from there.


----------



## specialedge

These settings were using from previous version (1.0.0 beta 1 I believe). Hardware is:

r7 1800x
crosshair 6 hero - bios 3008
2x unmatched 2x8gb trident z rgb 3200 kits ( https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-16gtzr ) - hynix mfr

It really runs smooth as butter. For my preliminary testing, I couldn't be more pleased with it. Tonight I will begin the memtest86 run, but the last time I think i made it to 4800% error free. I will have to follow up. 

I have been entirely unable to get the recommended settings to boot OS using the newest update. But I have very high esteem for your calculator 1usmus and have recommended it to many users on reddit as well as in person. My next project is a 4x8gb 3200 corsair vengeance rgb kit I purchased which uses the hynix afr ics. I also plan to get the crosshair 6 hero ekwb monoblock to step my cooling up another level as I attempt for clocks beyond 4.0ghz. I believe the memory timings will help me with this pursuit.


----------



## 1usmus

*2600Х @3666 cl 14 
*


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 beta2*








*Download:*
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IXkR7KVUg97QMPWbWZH4mPsyL5sKI7f7

*Changes:*
* added an additional profile R-XMP for Samsung / Hynix (currently recommended profiles are now 2, V1 and V2)
* custom profile added for users who want to enter values ​​themselves and perform calculations
* fields for entering primary and secondary timings are blocked when using V1 and V2 profiles (protection from "fools")
* odd timings for tRCD and tRP are enabled
* support windows X86 
* added calculation of the Extreme preset for Samsung b-die
* numerous adjustments to primary timings

*Feature:*
* Custom profile is in the initial stage, it is impossible to calibrate all offsets for version 1 of the program


----------



## crakej

Thanks for the update! Will be playing around with this this afternoon


----------



## Superbegita

The same here^^ i am going to take this as a base for my future Coffeelake rigv ^^

I should at the minimum hazndle the Extreme profil see above without problems.


----------



## crakej

Thanks again @1usmus! My machine again will boot at 3466 - not in any useful way (yet!) but it can do it. Have been able to get to my desktop at 3466 and 3400. Determined to find out how to get it working stable!


----------



## neur0cide

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Try my settings. Don't even bother with lower V  1.45v RAM & 1.150v SOC is recommended by me.
> (just remember, that Infinity Fabric or Hyper Transport 5.0 binding all together in ZEN Platform that's why apriopriate V is needed for SOC/RAM/CPU etc.| and in near future will also do that with Vega/Navi GPUs)


Your E-die dual rank settings on the termination block are not suitable for single rank Hynix AFR.
Also [email protected] does harm RAM oc considerably on my side. Everything above 1.1v does. So high vDDSOC is not always a good thing.


----------



## Lemuel

Thank you, now i have a stable 2800 . Thanks for your tips disable HPET in device manager is amazing.


----------



## neur0cide

The L2 and L3 cache readouts fluctuate a lot in AIDA. Do a couple of AIDA runs and see for yourself.
Also raise tRCDWR, tRCDRD and tRP to 17 and tRFC to something like 450. This gives you headroom for achieving higher memory frequencies.
Oh, and also raise DRAM Voltage to 1.4v or slightly higher.


----------



## rzrPT

Hello guys, I'm new here. 
I recently purchased a ryzen system and am doing a small OC to improve machine performance but i'm having worse results with cpu overlock.

cpu is ryzen5 1600 at 3.8ghz with 1,288 vcore stable
ram is 2400mhz 14-16-16-31 with a little overclock to 2666mhz 14-16-16-34
the results in aida64 get worse with overclocking on cpu



*First attached pic *
Cpu clock AUTO goes to 3.7ghz
Vcore AUTO

*Second attaced pic*

cpu clock 3.8ghz
Vcore 1.288

*Third attaced pic*

Ryzen timing checker

Does anyone know what might be wrong?
thANKS


----------



## Lemuel

neur0cide , was the SOC Voltage. In the calculator is rec. 1.025 for Safe but when i apply the offset (-0.075)from 1.1 (auto) in BIOS, windows read is 1.012-1.019 v . Now i apply Auto and windows read 1.087 voltage stable in HWINFO 5.79 beta 3395.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

THX Bratan'


----------



## numlock66

rzrPT said:


> Hello guys, I'm new here.
> I recently purchased a ryzen system and am doing a small OC to improve machine performance but i'm having worse results with cpu overlock.
> 
> cpu is ryzen5 1600 at 3.8ghz with 1,288 vcore stable
> ram is 2400mhz 14-16-16-31 with a little overclock to 2666mhz 14-16-16-34
> the results in aida64 get worse with overclocking on cpu
> 
> 
> 
> *First attached pic *
> Cpu clock AUTO goes to 3.7ghz
> Vcore AUTO
> 
> *Second attaced pic*
> 
> cpu clock 3.8ghz
> Vcore 1.288
> 
> *Third attaced pic*
> 
> Ryzen timing checker
> 
> Does anyone know what might be wrong?
> thANKS


Perhaps you uefi with Pinnacle PI 1.0.0.1a try one UEFI with Pinacle PI 1.0.0.0a, Taichi board has the same issue with this new AGESA code Pinacle PI 1.0.0.1a.


----------



## dspx

rzrPT said:


> Hello guys, I'm new here.
> I recently purchased a ryzen system and am doing a small OC to improve machine performance but i'm having worse results with cpu overlock.
> 
> Does anyone know what might be wrong?
> thANKS


Try running AIDA in safe mode to get consistent results.


----------



## Spectre73

rzrPT said:


> Hello guys, I'm new here.
> I recently purchased a ryzen system and am doing a small OC to improve machine performance but i'm having worse results with cpu overlock.
> 
> cpu is ryzen5 1600 at 3.8ghz with 1,288 vcore stable
> ram is 2400mhz 14-16-16-31 with a little overclock to 2666mhz 14-16-16-34
> the results in aida64 get worse with overclocking on cpu
> 
> Does anyone know what might be wrong?
> thANKS


Your ram is running in single channel mode. Check if you did not insert your ram sticks in the wrong slots.


----------



## rzrPT

and I can put an earlier version of AGESA?


----------



## rzrPT

dspx said:


> Try running AIDA in safe mode to get consistent results.


 I tried in safe mode and it is the same


----------



## rzrPT

Spectre73 said:


> Your ram is running in single channel mode. Check if you did not insert your ram sticks in the wrong slots.



I introduced the second slot as it says in the manual
I only have one ram module


----------



## rzrPT

I increased the CPU voltage a bit, I might be needing more but it's the same


----------



## Rossi87

rzrPT said:


> I introduced the second slot as it says in the manual
> I only have one ram module


You need 2 RAM sticks, that is why you are not running Dual Channel.


----------



## rzrPT

Rossi87 said:


> You need 2 RAM sticks, that is why you are not running Dual Channel.


So I put it in the first slot?


----------



## CJMitsuki

rzrPT said:


> Hello guys, I'm new here.
> I recently purchased a ryzen system and am doing a small OC to improve machine performance but i'm having worse results with cpu overlock.
> 
> cpu is ryzen5 1600 at 3.8ghz with 1,288 vcore stable
> ram is 2400mhz 14-16-16-31 with a little overclock to 2666mhz 14-16-16-34
> the results in aida64 get worse with overclocking on cpu
> 
> 
> 
> *First attached pic *
> Cpu clock AUTO goes to 3.7ghz
> Vcore AUTO
> 
> *Second attaced pic*
> 
> cpu clock 3.8ghz
> Vcore 1.288
> 
> *Third attaced pic*
> 
> Ryzen timing checker
> 
> Does anyone know what might be wrong?
> thANKS



Its possible your CPU is introducing instability at that OC with that voltage. Try 1.35v or 1.375v with your CPU overclock and see if it has better results. Not everyones CPU is going to overclock well at low voltages. Your CPU should be pretty safe up to 1.4v without liquid cooling but just keep an eye on the temps and make sure your fan profile is set to kick on earlier. If you dont feel comfortable increasing voltages then back the overclock off a bit to see how memory performance is affected. Me personally, I run 4ghz at 1.4v and I only hit 27c idling and 63c in Prime95 but my CPU loses stability at that voltage so I back it off to 3.9ghz bc I dont want to raise the voltage above 1.4v. It would more than likely be safe for me to do so as I run a small h60 liquid cooler but 3.9 is fine for me. My memory performance would suffer a bit when CPU was unstable as well.


----------



## CJMitsuki

rzrPT said:


> So I put it in the first slot?


If you are running one module then you just follow what the instructions tell you in your mobo manual for single channel.


----------



## rzrPT

CJMitsuki said:


> If you are running one module then you just follow what the instructions tell you in your mobo manual for single channel.



in manual does not refer anything to single channel just says to put first in slot2


----------



## rzrPT

CJMitsuki said:


> Its possible your CPU is introducing instability at that OC with that voltage. Try 1.35v or 1.375v with your CPU overclock and see if it has better results. Not everyones CPU is going to overclock well at low voltages. Your CPU should be pretty safe up to 1.4v without liquid cooling but just keep an eye on the temps and make sure your fan profile is set to kick on earlier. If you dont feel comfortable increasing voltages then back the overclock off a bit to see how memory performance is affected. Me personally, I run 4ghz at 1.4v and I only hit 27c idling and 63c in Prime95 but my CPU loses stability at that voltage so I back it off to 3.9ghz bc I dont want to raise the voltage above 1.4v. It would more than likely be safe for me to do so as I run a small h60 liquid cooler but 3.9 is fine for me. My memory performance would suffer a bit when CPU was unstable as well.


oc is super stable at now ran prime95 for 8 hours and everything okay
with 1.37 vcore the results are the same but I went down to 3.4 and improved the results of ai64


----------



## numlock66

rzrPT said:


> and I can put an earlier version of AGESA?


Of course, just find an old UEFI with this agesa and flash.


----------



## Dvorak_Key

Thanks @1usmus for the calculator

But i don't know why my single channel 16GB Hynix M-chip never pass HCI MemTest without any errors


(XMP Profile: 3000MHz 15-16-16-36 1.35v)


----------



## dspx

Dvorak_Key said:


> Thanks @*1usmus* for the calculator
> 
> But i don't know why my single channel 16GB Hynix M-chip never pass HCI MemTest without any errors
> 
> 
> (XMP Profile: 3000MHz 15-16-16-36 1.35v)


Try CL14 or 16


----------



## Dvorak_Key

dspx said:


> Try CL14 or 16



You ran your DRAM at 1.405v... I only ran it at 1.376 and never pass MemTest at 3200MHz CL16

But does it safe for hynix chip if I set it at 1.4v?


----------



## dspx

Dvorak_Key said:


> You ran your DRAM at 1.405v... I only ran it at 1.376 and never pass MemTest at 3200MHz CL16
> 
> But does it safe for hynix chip if I set it at 1.4v?


Yes, it is safe up to 1.5V, but I think 1.4 would be enough.
In my experience with Hynix AFR I never had luck with CL15 and I also read that other guys also had the same problem so try CL14 or 16, it should give you more stability.


----------



## neur0cide

Timing wise MFR and AFR don't behave much alike. Much less than say B-die and E-/D-die.
What AFR and MFR have in common is that they don't like Command Rate set to 1T (either use 2T or turn on Gear Down Mode) and that they need high tRFC (AFR 250ns or more, MFR 260ns or more).
Have a look at The Stilts' Timings. They are pretty much spot on.


----------



## dspx

neur0cide said:


> Timing wise MFR and AFR don't behave much alike. Much less than say B-die and E-/D-die.
> What AFR and MFR have in common is that they don't like Command Rate set to 1T (either use 2T or turn on Gear Down Mode) and that they need high tRFC (AFR 250ns or more, MFR 260ns or more).
> Have a look at The Stilts' Timings. They are pretty much spot on.


Yes, these timings helped a lot. But, as you can see from my sig, I am running 1T GDM enabled, could not set to 2T and GDM disabled gave me crashes.


----------



## SexySale

dspx said:


> Yes, these timings helped a lot. But, as you can see from my sig, I am running 1T GDM enabled, could not set to 2T and GDM disabled gave me crashes.


Hynix MFR here  Strangely, 2T is also problematic for me... 1T more stability


----------



## Xuper

did you remove import? I use latest version and here my complete report.


----------



## krissbay

I actualy have a strange difficulty with my RAM and CPU OC.
If i OC the RAM alone my memory speed(read, write and copy) ist around 50000 MB/s but when i OC my CPU in the same time 
these Speeds drop to around 40000 MB/s. For both CPU and GPU i set 1.4 V.
did anybody experienced something similar and know whats causing this?
the System is exept that stable.


----------



## neur0cide

dspx said:


> Yes, these timings helped a lot. But, as you can see from my sig, I am running 1T GDM enabled, could not set to 2T and GDM disabled gave me crashes.


Sorry! My advice was meant for Dvorak_Key as an addition to yours.
Been a while since I have tested Hynix ICs and can't remember how they behaved with 2T. I might unearth my remaining AFR kit and have look.


----------



## incontempt

Thank you for the app, it's really useful, managed to get to 3066 with Kingston KHX3000C15D4-8GX 2x8gb sticks hynix die on PRIME-B350-PLUS-ASUS-3806 MODED BIOS


----------



## 1usmus

thank you for sharing your experiences, I'm studying everything and making changes in the project by the opportunity 



Xuper said:


> did you remove import? I use latest version and here my complete report.


at the moment this action is no longer required, all is simpler, 2 profiles are created which should work + the third profile is "custom" for manual input 



incontempt said:


> Thank you for the app, it's really useful, managed to get to 3066 with Kingston KHX3000C15D4-8GX 2x8gb sticks hynix die on PRIME-B350-PLUS-ASUS-3806 MODED BIOS


what DRAM voltage do you use?


----------



## incontempt

dram 1.38v , cldo_vddp 950 , everything else on auto


----------



## Faleene

r-xmp gives me significantly tighter timings than what Thaiphoon's xmp values are. Which are correct?


----------



## spadizzle

Faleene said:


> r-xmp gives me significantly tighter timings than what Thaiphoon's xmp values are. Which are correct?


I personally use the values from Thaiphoon since that is what my speed of the memory is.
However the r-xmp is pretty much the same thing as 3200 cl14

Just make sure your using the numbers from the XMP profile of your memory from Thaiphoon. Not the JDEC numbers.


----------



## CM_Elite_110

Hi! Wanted to share my setup with u al.
Been reading thru this wonderfull thread 
Dram voltage is stock on my GA-AB350N-Gaming WIFI
It was pretty easy to overclock the dram, but the timings was waay slow in auto. These are the my latest timings. I had other tRFC values that feelt super smooth. Had to begin al over after a hardrive corruption issu (actually two of these).


----------



## BUFUMAN

@1usmus i cant use the tool, every value stays blank when i try to add one.


----------



## spadizzle

BUFUMAN said:


> @1usmus i cant use the tool, every value stays blank when i try to add one.


You have to use custom if you want to enter values manually. If not, then hit the R-XMP button to use default settings.


----------



## BUFUMAN

spadizzle said:


> You have to use custom if you want to enter values manually. If not, then hit the R-XMP button to use default settings.


thanks mate.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

My apologies if this question has already been answered, but will this calculator work with second generation Ryzen+ CPUs as well, or just original Ryzen?


----------



## ajc9988

Well, gave it a try a couple weeks back and your b-die settings at 3466 worked with my TR. Noticed the timings were similar to what I had, but your timings have extra stability with the change in resistance settings. Isn't as fast as I previously had, but rock stable with fast settings first try with 1,000% on memtest HCI. 

I'll look through the new version and check things more later, but thank you for your work. Thought you would want to know about that with TR quad channel.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## 3200MHz

@1usmus

Could you, please, add a kind of tooltips to the fields which require user input to configure the Calculator? Because now the effect of some options is unclear.
For example, I thought "Profile version" is a version of XMP profile, which is 2.0 for my sticks, but V1 in the Calculator reads out the values closest to the ones written in XMP, and V2 reads out something… I don't know what it reads.


----------



## 1usmus

Butthurt Beluga said:


> My apologies if this question has already been answered, but will this calculator work with second generation Ryzen+ CPUs as well, or just original Ryzen?


Yes, there will be support for new processors, the expected date of publication in the first days of May 



3200MHz said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Could you, please, add a kind of tooltips to the fields which require user input to configure the Calculator? Because now the effect of some options is unclear.
> For example, I thought "Profile version" is a version of XMP profile, which is 2.0 for my sticks, but V1 in the Calculator reads out the values closest to the ones written in XMP, and V2 reads out something… I don't know what it reads.


I'll add hints in the next version. V1 and V2 are 2 versions of optimized profiles for Ryzen, "Custom" is a profile for manual calculation using Thaiphoon


----------



## crakej

@1usmus

Found minor bug in beta 2 - when you click on Extreme it says 'Fast Preset' at the top. It should of course read 'Extreme Preset'


----------



## 1usmus

crakej said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Found minor bug in beta 2 - when you click on Extreme it says 'Fast Preset' at the top. It should of course read 'Extreme Preset'


really ... thanks


----------



## ninjaquick

Micron A-Die here, and i can reliably hit 3466 with full stability, but 3600 is just no-go 

so far i've managed to get my aida memory latency down to 72.7, can probably do better though.


----------



## pawnipt

Whoa, love your app man , appreciate the time you spent making it!
Samsung E-die dual-rank here, clocked at 3333 mhz and got my latency down to 67ns with my 1500x. I was having trouble with getting the bandwidth up to speed though ( i do have bankgroupswap disabled which is partly why i think ) but...
After tinkering with your app I discovered the wonders of tightening burst read/write operations, holy hell that really improves bandwidth!


----------



## Max78

Well I tried tuning to the "fast" preset on my system and it did not take and ended up slower. I will have to try some of the alternate settings.

What would be considered "good" latency and speeds?

I remember my latency was 75 before tuning, after it was 95. . .All other speeds went from the mid to upper 40's down to the upper to mid 30's on the Aida benchmarks.

Edit: Lol, I just watched the video.


Spoiler



I'm pretty sure I have Samsung D-dies, but what it the best way to verify that?



Thanks for the help!!!


----------



## 3200MHz

Max78 said:


> I'm pretty sure I have Samsung D-dies, but what it the best way to verify that?


Taiphoon Burner


----------



## MacG32

@1usmus When I click the R - XMP button, the values aren't correct. Thaiphoon Burner has the correct ns values. There's no where to import Thaiphoon Burner's report, as shown in the video.


----------



## ressonantia

MacG32 said:


> @1usmus When I click the R - XMP button, the values aren't correct. Thaiphoon Burner has the correct ns values. There's no where to import Thaiphoon Burner's report, as shown in the video.


I think the main idea behind R-XMP is that the XMP settings that come on all RAM SPD modules are tuned/optimized for Intel CPUs. The R-XMP ones are tuned/optimized for Ryzen CPUs hence why they are different. If you want to use the values from Thaiphoon, you can click on Custom under Profile Version and enter in the values from Thaiphoon manually.


----------



## pawnipt

Was wondering if anyone had any information to add to this comparison between geardownmode+CR1 vs CR2.
This is with Dual-rank samsung E-die more specifically this kit "F4-3400C16D-16GTZ".
It seems CR2 offers slightly lower latency.
People seem to suggest CR1 is better even with geardownmode enabled, I'm starting to think this isn't always the case.

Hope im not overstepping my bounds by posting about this in this thread.. great app btw, seems to calculate for samsung e-die dual-rank quite well.


----------



## Max78

So I loaded Thaiphoon to check what memory dies I have and well. . . It does not know. I sent an email to Patriot asking them, hopefully I get a half decent response.










I ran some stock benchmarks and then tried tightening timings again and it still got slower. I will have to try the safe preset next time. 

Stock






















After


----------



## hurricane28

ninjaquick said:


> Micron A-Die here, and i can reliably hit 3466 with full stability, but 3600 is just no-go
> 
> so far i've managed to get my aida memory latency down to 72.7, can probably do better though.


Nice, how do you determine stability and for how long?


----------



## harrysun

I'm missing in 1.0.0 beta2 the Import button. I'm also not able to enter any values. What's going wrong here?


----------



## SexySale

harrysun said:


> I'm missing in 1.0.0 beta2 the Import button. I'm also not able to enter any values. What's going wrong here?


http://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?p=26929553

Послато са SM-G950F уз помоћ Тапатока


----------



## zila

I'm tuned in and quite happy with the results. Ryzen 5 1600 is a little beast of a chip.


----------



## harrysun

Is there a way to squeeze out a lower latency then 71ns without cheating with bias? Here are some of my results:


----------



## neur0cide

Latency is a little high indeed.
If you haven't done so already, deactivate Power Down in BIOS. Also bench in Windows Safe Mode or at least terminate every app and service possible.
Other than that you can only tweak the timings some more.
See here my subtimings and AIDA scores.


----------



## ejk33

Hi, with g.skill F4-3000C16D-16GISB
it shows it's Hynix M-Die








So in the calculator is that Hynix MFR? (or AFR?)


----------



## neur0cide

H5AN8G8N*MFR*-TFC


----------



## zila

Mine is done in Windows(not in safe mode)Although my results are exactly the same. Performance Bias isn't needed. I just turn it off. You just have to test each and every one of the timings til you find what works for your particular rig. It IS time consuming. Lots of blue screens. I don't use D.O.C.P. at all. It's crap. Manually tune the ram.


----------



## ejk33

neur0cide said:


> H5AN8G8N*MFR*-TFC


thanks!


----------



## harrysun

neur0cide said:


> Latency is a little high indeed.
> If you haven't done so already, deactivate Power Down in BIOS. Also bench in Windows Safe Mode or at least terminate every app and service possible.
> Other than that you can only tweak the timings some more.
> See here my subtimings and AIDA scores.


Thx. Retest with Power Down disabled and Windows Safe Mode.


----------



## harrysun

Double post.


----------



## neur0cide

harrysun said:


> Thx. Retest with Power Down disabled and Windows Safe Mode.


You're welcome.
Nice side effect of Power Down disabled is that you never have to bother about tCKE again.


----------



## hurricane28

Sorry for late reply @mus1mus but this is the problem i am having with the latest ram calculator.


----------



## hurricane28

As you can see in the yellow the values differ from each other, the newest is wrong and ram is not stable at all with those settings. 
I tried to put them in manually but i can't for some reason.


----------



## neur0cide

Under "Profile version" you need to choose "custom" for manual input.


----------



## hurricane28

neur0cide said:


> Under "Profile version" you need to choose "custom" for manual input.


Need, didn't know that. Thnx for that!


----------



## 1usmus

hurricane28 said:


> Sorry for late reply @mus1mus but this is the problem i am having with the latest ram calculator.



there is no mistake, this is a special profile


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> there is no mistake, this is a special profile


 @1usmus are you still thinking of going over to TaiChi? I ask as I wondered if you'll be doing modded bios (if needed, think they expose everything though!) and also will that mean this app development will be good for others on the TaiChi (if it isn't already)? I've already seen people saying the calc timings work well on the x370

It would just be good to know if someone with your skills will be working on that - it might convince me to buy it too lol


----------



## 1usmus

crakej said:


> @1usmus are you still thinking of going over to TaiChi? I ask as I wondered if you'll be doing modded bios (if needed, think they expose everything though!) and also will that mean this app development will be good for others on the TaiChi (if it isn't already)? I've already seen people saying the calc timings work well on the x370
> 
> It would just be good to know if someone with your skills will be working on that - it might convince me to buy it too lol


Asrosk recalled the BIOSes on AGESA 1.0.0.2 for taichi x370 and 470. They are not usable. Tentatively on April 25, asrock will publish either news or bios on AGESA 1.0.0.3a.
At the moment I advise you to wait, a difficult situation...

about myself: the processor (2700X) came to me and I will first start testing it on CH6, the rest of the motherboards I will check later


----------



## ninjaquick

Here's my working timings for 3466 1.35v Micron M-Die no changes other than page 1.

Taichi X370 1700X at 3.9.

4.40 Bios

Memory is Geil 2400 2x8 CL15. I did some bclk oc on stable findings to narrow latency (ns) down. Spent too much time doing this.


----------



## 3200MHz

On Crosshair VI Extreme @ 6101 BIOS.
Profile V1 gives the best overall results but only if I enter the timings and primary voltages from "Voltage block" section. The rest is on "Auto" in BIOS.
As soon as I enter the all the values, including the ones from "Advanced" tab of the Calculator - the memory performance and latency degrades.


----------



## Korennya

Getting errors using 3333 safe settings. THis is from using numbers from latest calulator. I put in my numbers in from my spd dump. Samsung b die. Using gskill 3200 c14 8gbx2. 

One of my questions is regarding cad bus. In the bios seem to be two different locations that that info can be entered. One in the memory timing section, the other under amd cbs umc settings. Entering in one spot won't put it in the other, so where is the prefered location for this data?

Right now i put it in both places.

In amd cbs there's are both cad bus timing and cad bus drive strength. I was assuming this was for drive strength given that ohms is stated and your fields in the calc end in DRV. Leave the cad bus timing on auto??

EDIT: forgot i'm bios 1701 

EDIT2: These are my current 3333 timings. Basically this is my loaded 3200 xmp profile and i just bumped up to 3333. So far I've gotten 1 error at 400% on one 2000mb of memtest. The rest are at 600% with no errors. So what do I change to get rid of that one error? Suggestions?

The calculator for 3333 safe gave me errors with in 30% coverage. Some times as low as 8%


----------



## 1usmus

Korennya said:


> Getting errors using 3333 safe settings. THis is from using numbers from latest calulator. I put in my numbers in from my spd dump. Samsung b die. Using gskill 3200 c14 8gbx2.
> 
> One of my questions is regarding cad bus. In the bios seem to be two different locations that that info can be entered. One in the memory timing section, the other under amd cbs umc settings. Entering in one spot won't put it in the other, so where is the prefered location for this data?
> 
> Right now i put it in both places.
> 
> In amd cbs there's are both cad bus timing and cad bus drive strength. I was assuming this was for drive strength given that ohms is stated and your fields in the calc end in DRV. Leave the cad bus timing on auto??
> 
> EDIT: forgot i'm bios 1701
> 
> EDIT2: These are my current 3333 timings. Basically this is my loaded 3200 xmp profile and i just bumped up to 3333. So far I've gotten 1 error at 400% on one 2000mb of memtest. The rest are at 600% with no errors. So what do I change to get rid of that one error? Suggestions?
> 
> The calculator for 3333 safe gave me errors with in 30% coverage. Some times as low as 8%


1) No need to enter values in the AMD_CBS menu
2) strange values for you, I advise you to use V1 or V2 to calculate timings
3) or my current settings


Spoiler



[2018/04/22 08:59:21]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
eCLK Mode [Synchronous mode]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Performance Enhancer [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [42.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3333MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Enabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [+]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.13125]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.03125]
DRAM Voltage [1.37000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
1.05V SB Voltage [1.05000]

Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [8]
Tfaw [34]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [266]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [High]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [130%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [300]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Standard]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.37000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Disabled]

Super I/O Clock Skew [Disabled]

M.2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]

Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
HPET In SB [Auto]
MsiDis in HPET [Auto]

Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]


----------



## 1usmus

*Changes in the calculator for Zen + are not needed, the only nuance, perhaps memory will require less voltage*


----------



## Korennya

Here's my settings that ran over night.. I"ll try your settings now. IS this something that maybe adjusting vpp voltage would help with? currently on auto which produces .98v or 1.003 in hwinfo

apologies, I don't know yet how to make this forum do the spoiler thing for big pictures/ text blocks

Oh.. and it's always the same 2gb block that produces the errors.. 6-8gb range.


----------



## Korennya

I put in your values you gave.. everything except CPU voltages. Changed everything else to match. Went to windows with only 1 mem training retry. System behaves very very different. In a good way.. super snappy to user input. Is there a better way to shake down memory stabilty than memtest? memtest can take hours sometimes to produce an error, which really sucks if you want to change one setting and see what happens.

Aida64 system memory test maybe? IBT avx on maximum? What produces memory errors reliably fast followed by a memtest for longterm when you think you've got it dialed in.

Well. I hit 400% coverage with no errors, while mining and playing a facebook flash game. Looking pretty good now.

Now.. what the hell made the difference between your given settings and the settings your program put out? 

I'm wondering if it's the settings that you left on auto, but i changed to follow your program and put a number in. What ever it is it worked better your way. Maybe try for 3466??


----------



## Korennya

Thank you for your help @1usmus


----------



## ZeNch

Hi, I have a doubt:
If I have 3000 mhz stable and I want to go for 3200 I need to try mainly? (3000mhz with calculator timmings for 3200mhz, that is high timmings obbiously)

Firstly:
-Ram Voltage (Now 1.36v but i can low more voltage for 3000, need time and tests)
-SOC Voltage (Now 0.96v aprox with LLC3, i dont try less but with more is stable as well)

Secondly:
-CLDO_VDPP (If i have memory hole) (I think this is not my problem, i can use 3200 but not full stable)
-CPU PLL and VPP Voltage (?) (If im not wrong i use 1.83 and 2.525 to this values now)

Or i need to change other values like CAD_BUS // RTT // ProcODT ?? 

I have Asus Prime x370 PRO with latest official Bios (4008).

ps: In the past i reach 3200mhz stable with this ram/cpu but i use older bios (i believe 902 or 1001 version), now I'm frustrated months (almost a year) ago with 3000 as maximum memory speed.


----------



## iDShaDoW

System:
-2700X
-ASUS ROG Strix X470-F motherboard
-G.Skill Tridentz RGB 3200MHz CL14 32GB (2x16GB) kit

I was initially able to get it working on BIOS 4008 using your tool and the SAFE settings at 3200MHz @ 1.35v.

I kept tinkering and thought I'd try the Extreme settings at which point it failed to POST or even go back to safe settings after restarts - had to remove the CMOS battery.

I set everything back to the way it was and am stilling having trouble getting it to even do 3200MHz now - best I can get is 2866MHz.

I've tried with no luck:
-BIOS 4010
-SOC Voltage up to 1.1v
-DRAM Voltage up to 1.385v
-Different RAM slots (A1/B1 instead of A2/B2)

I plan to run MemTest86 overnight but any thoughts on what could cause it to not be able to do 3200MHz when it was able to before? And what I should do to try to get it back to doing 3200MHz again?


----------



## lcbbcl

@iDShaDoW 
I might be wrong but i think that we have the same chips in our memory,mine are for sure b-die 2x16Gb and i use this settings
Dram and boot Dram 1.34V
SOC 0.975V (mine work with 0.875V also)


----------



## Leftezog

Are the ram optimizations for the first gen zen proccessors already at best? I mean can we hope for further improvement in ram oc for our cpus(1800X, 1700X, 1700 etc)?


----------



## lcbbcl

Leftezog said:


> Are the ram optimizations for the first gen zen proccessors already at best? I mean can we hope for further improvement in ram oc for our cpus(1800X, 1700X, 1700 etc)?


Not even intel have xmp working 100%,so i doubt that amd have profiles set right,we are lucky with people like @1usmus if we have 3200+Mhz


----------



## iDShaDoW

lcbbcl said:


> @iDShaDoW
> I might be wrong but i think that we have the same chips in our memory,mine are for sure b-die 2x16Gb and i use this settings
> Dram and boot Dram 1.34V
> SOC 0.975V (mine work with 0.875V also)


Thanks. I'll give it a try. I'm just confused as to why the system refused to even POST at anything above 2800MHz yesterday.

I ran MemTest overnight and got 0 errors this time and then decided to try again and now it lets me do up to 3333MHz.

Are your settings "better" or more likely to succeed than what 1usmus' calculator gives (1st picture)? Should I back down to 3200MHz before trying your settings?

2nd picture is what it's at now with most of the settings on Auto.


----------



## cameronmc88

Hey does anybody know why R - XMP button does nothing for me? I'm using F4-3200C14D-16GFX Samsung B-Dies with X370 TaiChi.


----------



## Mansquatch

Can't get anything to load with the calculator settings on my msi x370 GPC. Tried 3200 & 3333mhz but no luck. I set everything to what it says & all I get is a boot loop/crash. A-XMP profile 2 (3200mhz) works but benchmark score seems really low compared to some I've seen with the same board & memory. About ready to give up. 

Added some pics of the settings I've tried, aida64 benchmark, current timings & info from Thaiphoon.


----------



## dspx

Mansquatch said:


> Can't get anything to load with the calculator settings on my msi x370 GPC. Tried 3200 & 3333mhz but no luck. I set everything to what it says & all I get is a boot loop/crash. A-XMP profile 2 (3200mhz) works but benchmark score seems really low compared to some I've seen with the same board & memory. About ready to give up.
> 
> Added some pics of the settings I've tried, aida64 benchmark, current timings & info from Thaiphoon.


Try Gear Down Enabled


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Well there is a new Bios for me 4.7
'Enhance compatibility for Raven CPU with Intel WiFi.'
Not much too the notes as usual.

Is this the update we have been waiting for ? that you were speaking of.

Or shall i wait ?

Also @1usmus
When i was on 4.5 the voltages would not stick.
But in RTC 1.03 it reported that my default CAD BUS BLOCK was 24-24-24-24
TERMINATION BLOCK was DISABLED-RZQ/3-RZQ/1
procODT was 68.6

CORSAIR VENGEANCE LPX M-DIE


----------



## 1usmus

*The memory controller in ZEN+ (credits by The Stilt)*

The memory controller in Pinnacle Ridge is identical to the one found in Raven. There are some differences in the software configuration, however the Phy IP itself is no doubt identical as the two share the same controller firmwares.

Compared to Summit Ridge, the revised controller in Pinnacle Ridge provides < 8.7% lower access latency on average (2133-3466MHz). The latency difference is largest at =< 2666MHz frequencies and starts to tail off at higher speeds.

Likewise, the SDF latency has slightly benefited from the changes. The average latency improvement (CCX2CCX latency) is < 2.2%, but just like with the memory latency the difference is tailing off as the memory speed increases. At 3200MHz MEMCLK the SDF latency difference almost falls within the margin of error.










Despite the extremely welcome latency improvement in Pinnacle Ridge, the memory latency is unfortunately still < 38% higher on average (2133-3466MHz) than on its closest rival from Intel (Coffee Lake).

While the changes to the memory controller in Pinnacle Ridge do provide lower latency, unfortunately the highest achievable memory frequency seems to be exactly the same as on Summit and Raven Ridge parts. A realistic expectation would be 3400 - 3533MHz depending on the silicon quality, the motherboard and the DRAM modules used. Some CPU specimens featuring an exceptional memory controller might be able to reach 3600MHz while maintaining true stability, however all of the tested 2700X samples were limited to 3400 - 3533MHz on both Crosshair VII Hero and MSI B350I PRO AC motherboards, regardless of the settings or the memory modules used. The stability was determined using “Ram Test” utility, which obviously sets the bar for stability a lot higher than the tests methods other reviewers typically use to deem the memory as “stable” at certain frequency.

On the tested samples, the distribution of the maximum achievable memory frequency was following:

3400MHz – 12.5% of the samples
3466MHz – 25.0% of the samples
3533MHz – 62.5% of the samples

There are clear differences in how the memory controller behaves on the different CPU specimens. The majority of the CPUs will do 3466MHz or higher at 1.050V SoC voltage, however the difference lies in how the different specimens react to the voltage. Some of the specimens seem scale with the increased SoC voltage, while the others simply refuse to scale at all or in some cases even illustrate negative scaling. All of the tested samples illustrated negative scaling (i.e. more errors or failures to train) when higher than 1.150V SoC was used. In all cases the maximum memory frequency was achieved at =< 1.100V SoC voltage.

AMD has revised the memory layout design guidance with Pinnacle Ridge targeting motherboards (i.e. 400-series) in an effort to potentially make the higher memory frequencies possible.

While this might theoretically improve the frequencies on some motherboards, generally the frequency limiting factor is the memory controller itself and not the topology the motherboard uses for memory signaling. Because of that, the newer 400-series motherboards alone should not be expected to provide improved memory frequencies at least by a significant margin.


----------



## PapitaHD

*new ram, hard time with finding the right timings*

Hi everyone!
First of all I would like to thank you 1usmus for your work, I've been using your calculator from the beginning and it helped me a lot!
Recently I did a slight upgrade and replaced my TridentZ 3733cl17 kit with even better samsung b-dies as I got the 3600cl15 one. I've been testing it for almost 2 weeks now and basically the thing is that the only timings it likes is the Stilt's 3466 preset from the C6H's bios. With the previous kit I could use the fast/extreme presets from the calculator and it was perfectly stable but no luck with the new ram kit. Fortunately it's hci memtest stable with the Stilt's cl15 preset at 3533 and almost stable at 3600 (managed to go 800+% without an error) but I think it has some room for tightening at 3466-3533.
I attached the timing that works now, I really tried every power option, I think I have the best settings with the voltages and everything but I don't understand how the timings work. As soon as I change anything on the attached preset (at 3466-3533) it's not stable anymore.
Could anyone give me some suggestions how could I tighten the timings?


----------



## Whatisthisfor

Thank you for that configurator. Great work! I was able to improve the latency and throughoutput drastically for my 1800x and since yesterday i have the 2700x. In my case it seems to help regarding stability after i did set slightly higher values for tRDRDSD and tRDRDDD: instead of 5 i did set 6.

As for the 2700x the latency is quite nice. I did not go above 3400 yet. I believed, with the new cpu it would be easier to reach higher memory clocks, but the 2700x proved me wrong, at least in my case. Mabye with future Agesa/BIOS optimizations for Ryzen+ and my mobo. I use only slightly more voltage: 1.38V (https://www.gskill.com/en/product/F4-4000C18D-16GTZR/) and leaving SOC on stock. CPU undervolted by -0.1250V offset and both llc leaving on auto (Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming K7). I had almost the same setting for the 1800x (AIDA64 last pic note the latency diff to pinnacle). On the 1800x i did overvolt the SOC slightly but i dont know if it was necessary because had not much time to test stability with/without.


----------



## lcbbcl

iDShaDoW said:


> Thanks. I'll give it a try. I'm just confused as to why the system refused to even POST at anything above 2800MHz yesterday.
> 
> I ran MemTest overnight and got 0 errors this time and then decided to try again and now it lets me do up to 3333MHz.
> 
> Are your settings "better" or more likely to succeed than what 1usmus' calculator gives (1st picture)? Should I back down to 3200MHz before trying your settings?
> 
> 2nd picture is what it's at now with most of the settings on Auto.


My settings are 90% from @1usmus calculator but the extreme profile and are stable at 3200mhz
3333mhz i can post but because we have Dual Rank memory its hard to make them stable.
I might try tonight 3333 default or very relax timings,if i can get stable then i will start to tweak timings.


----------



## iDShaDoW

Seems like when I try any of the settings at 20 Ohms, it doesn't like it although it wasn't too finnicky about it before.

Also, the Ryzen Timing Checker doesn't show tRFC 2 or 4 which my BIOS has settings for. Could you share what you have for those?

Right now I have everything on Auto except 
3333MHz
14-14-14-14-34 1T
GearDown Enabled
Power Down(?) Disabled
24 Ohms for CLKDrvStr, AddrCmdDrvStr, RttPark
RttNom, Rttwr, RttPark are also set statically
0 for the CmdSetup, OdtSetup, CkeSetup
SOC Voltage 1.0v (going to back it down to .975v - I upped it to 1.0v along with the Core to 1.25v after a random freeze on Windows desktop - should've just adjust only 1). 

Prob won't pass a stress test but I played Sea of Thieves for awhile with no issue and going to test something else like Rainbow Six Siege.

AIDA64 is showing 68.2 ns latency.


----------



## pawnipt

lcbbcl said:


> My settings are 90% from @1usmus calculator but the extreme profile and are stable at 3200mhz
> 3333mhz i can post but because we have Dual Rank memory its hard to make them stable.
> I might try tonight 3333 default or very relax timings,if i can get stable then i will start to tweak timings.



Which motherboard and ram do you have?

I have dual-rank samsung e-die stable at 3333, maybe i can help.
motherboard: ASRock AB350 Fatal1ty gaming itx
ram: F4-3400C16D-GTZ

ram is at 1.4 volts
soc at 1.1 volts

I dunno what my cldo vddp is set to. Kinda wish I knew a way to figure that out, I tried a lot of manual numbers that all failed. But yeah I have that on auto, probably different if a different motherboard.


----------



## Wally West

No profile for Micron D Die? :/


----------



## Mansquatch

dspx said:


> Try Gear Down Enabled


Tried Gear Down = Enabled with 3200 and 3333mhz. Still nothing but blue screen. Tried recommended and alt settings but no luck. Not sure what else I can do. Guess I'm stuck for now.


----------



## z0mgi

No more "import" in 1.1.0beta2


----------



## lcbbcl

iDShaDoW said:


> Seems like when I try any of the settings at 20 Ohms, it doesn't like it although it wasn't too finnicky about it before.
> 
> Also, the Ryzen Timing Checker doesn't show tRFC 2 or 4 which my BIOS has settings for. Could you share what you have for those?
> 
> Right now I have everything on Auto except
> 3333MHz
> 14-14-14-14-34 1T
> GearDown Enabled
> Power Down(?) Disabled
> 24 Ohms for CLKDrvStr, AddrCmdDrvStr, RttPark
> RttNom, Rttwr, RttPark are also set statically
> 0 for the CmdSetup, OdtSetup, CkeSetup
> SOC Voltage 1.0v (going to back it down to .975v - I upped it to 1.0v along with the Core to 1.25v after a random freeze on Windows desktop - should've just adjust only 1).
> 
> Prob won't pass a stress test but I played Sea of Thieves for awhile with no issue and going to test something else like Rainbow Six Siege.
> 
> AIDA64 is showing 68.2 ns latency.





pawnipt said:


> Which motherboard and ram do you have?
> 
> I have dual-rank samsung e-die stable at 3333, maybe i can help.
> motherboard: ASRock AB350 Fatal1ty gaming itx
> ram: F4-3400C16D-GTZ
> 
> ram is at 1.4 volts
> soc at 1.1 volts
> 
> I dunno what my cldo vddp is set to. Kinda wish I knew a way to figure that out, I tried a lot of manual numbers that all failed. But yeah I have that on auto, probably different if a different motherboard.


 3333 its hard at least from my experience,the same with 1700x and now using 2700x
CLDO VDDP might be the key but never found a good number
i use this http://hcidesign.com/memtest/ to test my memory


Spoiler



[2018/04/25 09:22:44]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
eCLK Mode [Synchronous mode]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Performance Enhancer [Level 3 (OC)]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [None]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.35000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [13]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [13]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [22]
Trc [36]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [18]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [256]
Trfc2 [190]
Trfc4 [117]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [6]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [4]
TrdrdDd [4]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [68.6 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Enabled]
Sense MI Offset [267]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [130%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Optimized]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.33000]


 this are my settings right now


----------



## 1usmus

The new generation of processors is very capricious, DR to overclock to 3333 while there is no possibility. With the new processor overclocking deteriorated.



z0mgi said:


> No more "import" in 1.1.0beta2


most likely I will return it in the next version
@lcbbcl

PE3 is death overclocking RAM, I do not advise you to use it at the moment, it has a huge number of flaws


----------



## lcbbcl

1usmus said:


> The new generation of processors is very capricious, DR to overclock to 3333 while there is no possibility. With the new processor overclocking deteriorated.
> 
> 
> 
> most likely I will return it in the next version
> 
> @lcbbcl
> 
> PE3 is death overclocking RAM, I do not advise you to use it at the moment, it has a huge number of flaws


Just PE3?poor PE,8 hours i was stable under prime95 and today after 2 min 1 core crash,not to mention that now PE3 its 41.5x and next restart can be 41.25x.
If i don't let auto settings in DIGI+ i will crash for sure in tests.


----------



## chroniclard

Must say with a 2700X I am struggling to get 3333 HCI stable with the same settings/board as previously. Newer bios though.


----------



## iDShaDoW

1usmus said:


> PE3 is death overclocking RAM, I do not advise you to use it at the moment, it has a huge number of flaws


What level would you use for Performance Enhancer?

Mine has Levels 1-4, Default, and Auto.

I had been leaving it on either Auto or Default myself...


----------



## lcbbcl

iDShaDoW said:


> What level would you use for Performance Enhancer?
> 
> Mine has Levels 1-4, Default, and Auto.
> 
> I had been leaving it on either Auto or Default myself...


PE3 should work in all cpus,because its 41.5x multi and its easy to reach.Just set PE3 and use Vcore: Offset - Auto,everything else related to the cpu auto for now.
As @1usmus said,PE its f..ed,but will work at least all 8 cores to 41.5X with boost to 43.5x.
Don't panic if today you will have 41.5X and next restart will be 41.25X another bug.
With my testings Vcore spikes at idle are the same like stock settings


----------



## iDShaDoW

My system doesn't seem to like the extreme-type settings.

As soon as I try, it doesn't POST, doesn't do a boot loop. Have to shut down, pop out the CMOS battery and try again.

Fortunately, this time it let me load my last saved BIOS profile and took it - previous 2 times I had to pop the CMOS, it didn't want to do anything besides BIOS defaults.

Not sure what to do at this point - I can do the calculator's "Safe" settings but it doesn't seem to make much if any difference show on my AIDA64 latency test.


----------



## Mansquatch

iDShaDoW said:


> My system doesn't seem to like the extreme-type settings.
> 
> As soon as I try, it doesn't POST, doesn't do a boot loop. Have to shut down, pop out the CMOS battery and try again.
> 
> Fortunately, this time it let me load my last saved BIOS profile and took it - previous 2 times I had to pop the CMOS, it didn't want to do anything besides BIOS defaults.
> 
> Not sure what to do at this point - I can do the calculator's "Safe" settings but it doesn't seem to make much if any difference show on my AIDA64 latency test.


I'm in the same situation. Safe nor Fast settings work. No matter what I try, I either boot loop, lock up or BSOD soon as PC loads past BIOS. I gave up & went back to default settings (A-XMP)

Guess I'm cursed with bad luck.


----------



## christoph

Mansquatch said:


> I'm in the same situation. Safe nor Fast settings work. No matter what I try, I either boot loop, lock up or BSOD soon as PC loads past BIOS. I gave up & went back to default settings (A-XMP)
> 
> Guess I'm cursed with bad luck.


what are the setting?


----------



## M150

1usmus said:


> *Hi guys, I created a calculator that will make it easier to overclock the memory. It works with all kinds of memory and all zen processors.*
> 
> To increase the chances of successful overclocking I advise you to adhere to all the offers that the calculator gives on main page.
> 
> 
> Step 5 : It is necessary to choose the frequency (desired frequency), memory type ( Samsung b-die with XMP, Hynix with XMP , memory without XMP or C/E/D-die + Micron memory with XMP) and rank of memory (1 or 2)
> Step 6 : Click "Calculate Safe" or "Calculate Fast"
> Step 7 : Now you need to enter all values in the BIOS
> Step 8 : Test the stability of the system with the help of such programs: Linx 1.0.0 AMD Edition, Aida stress test and HCI[/SPOILER]
> 
> great gratitude *STaRDoGG* for help !​




Can this tool be used for overclocking with higher frequency than the profile in XMP? For example, I'm using a Corsair Vengeance RGB 3000 C15 and want to overclock it to >3200Mhz, will it work? What numbers should I use to fill in those (ns) fields? Great thanks.​


----------



## lcbbcl

iDShaDoW said:


> My system doesn't seem to like the extreme-type settings.
> 
> As soon as I try, it doesn't POST, doesn't do a boot loop. Have to shut down, pop out the CMOS battery and try again.
> 
> Fortunately, this time it let me load my last saved BIOS profile and took it - previous 2 times I had to pop the CMOS, it didn't want to do anything besides BIOS defaults.
> 
> Not sure what to do at this point - I can do the calculator's "Safe" settings but it doesn't seem to make much if any difference show on my AIDA64 latency test.


When you fail to post raise Dram and boot Dram V,and play with ProcODT until you post in windows.Try to use Auto Timings after you start to tweak your settings


----------



## dspx

M150 said:


> Can this tool be used for overclocking with higher frequency than the profile in XMP? For example, I'm using a Corsair Vengeance RGB 3000 C15 and want to overclock it to >3200Mhz, will it work? What numbers should I use to fill in those (ns) fields? Great thanks.


Yes, it can.


----------



## M150

dspx said:


> Yes, it can.


Thank you. Can you please help with my concern as below:

1. Is this RAM *"Hynix AFR"* or *"Hynix MFR"*?










2.* Did I input these correctly? Is 1.415V too high? What is the safe limit for DDR4 voltage should I follow?*

Sorry for asking too much as I'm new to this. Thank you for your help.


----------



## lcbbcl

M150 said:


> Thank you. Can you please help with my concern as below:
> 
> 1. Is this RAM *"Hynix AFR"* or *"Hynix MFR"*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.* Did I input these correctly? Is 1.415V too high? What is the safe limit for DDR4 voltage should I follow?*
> 
> Sorry for asking too much as I'm new to this. Thank you for your help.


In your 1 capture i see A-die


----------



## SexySale

M150 said:


> Thank you. Can you please help with my concern as below:
> 
> 1. Is this RAM *"Hynix AFR"* or *"Hynix MFR"*?


You can see it in Part number:
H5AN8G8N*AFR*-TFC
So it's Hynix AFR


----------



## Pilotasso

I finally settled for 3533 Mhz CL 16 CR=1T.

I selected profile V2 and used the suggested FAST timings in Ryzen DRAM calculator and DRAM voltage, PROCDT, CAD_BUS and RTT. Left everything else on auto including VDDTR, CLDO_VDDP and SOC. I felt I was still biased by my experience with the 1700X and feared that the SOC side of things would be different on the new 2700X so I left them alone.


----------



## knight1301

I can't input any values from CAS to tFAW except BCLK, any help please!


----------



## cameronmc88

I've tried the below settings for hours with Prime95 Blend etc. and it's all stable, but I've also tried with leaving procODT, RTTNOM, WR and PARK on Auto.. same with CAD BUS Block + Timings on Auto and not even touching the Memory Interleaving hash/size settings AT ALL just auto everything.

Both methods by manually using all the settings in the picture and the auto for the extra settings net me the same results in Cache + Memory benchmark so my question is, is it really worth touching the CAD BUS, procODT + memory interleaving settings if they net the same results? or is the ones I'm using for stability?

Kind Regards,
Cameron.


----------



## dspx

knight1301 said:


> I can't input any values from CAS to tFAW except BCLK, any help please!


Watch the instruction video in the first post.


----------



## Anakha56

Hello, so I am hoping someone could assist me in getting tighter timings on my RAM. I have used the DRAM calculator and the system is extremely unstable when booting with the Safe Settings, the same as post 1665. So onto my RAM and the settings. I have G-Skill F4-3200C16-8GVKB and at the time it was the RAM in budget for my 1700X build little did I know that I received the "bad" batch of sticks, they are the Hynix MFR batch. The mainboard is the Asus X370-Pro and I am running the latest Asus BIOS, power supply is a Corsair HX750. Below is what my BIOS was reading at auto settings VS recommended from the calculator. Apologies for the wall of text I am seriously wanting to get as much out of this RAM as possible. Attached are screenshots from Thaipoon Burner as well as proposed settings when I capture readings from TB. Neither safe settings are able to boot the system at all. Currently running the RAM at DDR4 3000 with everything set to Auto. Any idea where I have gone wrong?

Description Current Values Recommended Alt
CHA	CHB CHA	CHB
DRAM CAS Latency 16	16 16
Trcdrd 21	21 17
Trcdwr 21	21 17
DRAM RAS# PRE Time	21	21 Not sure what this is in the tool?	
DRAM RAS# ACT Time	50	50 Not sure what this is in the tool?	
Trc 71	71 60
TrrdS 6	6 6
TrrdL 8	8 9
Tfaw 32	32 34
TwtrS 4	4 4
TwtrL 12	12 12
Twr 24	24 24
Trcpage 0	0 0
TrdrdScl 6	6 5
TwrwrScl 6	6 5
Trfc 312	312 560
Trfc2 192	192 416
Trfc4 132	132 256
Tcwl 16	16 16
Trtp 12	12 12
Trdwr 7	7 6
Twrrd 4	3 3
TwrwrSc 1	1 1
TwrwrSd 7	7 7
TwrwrDd 7	7 7
TrdrdSc 1	1 1
TrdrdDd 5	5 5
Tcke 8	8 8
ProcODT Auto 60
Cmd2T Auto ?
Gear Down Mode Auto Enable
Power Down Mode Auto Enable
RttNom Auto RZQ/7(34)
RttWr Auto Off
RttPark Auto RZQ/5(48)
MemAddrCmdSetup Auto ?
MemCsOdtSetup Auto ?
MemCkeSetup Auto ?
MemCadBusClkDrvStren Auto ?
MemCadBusAddCmdDrvStren| Auto ?
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren| Auto ?
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren| Auto ?
Mem Over Clock Fail Count| Auto ?
CLDO VDDP voltage Auto ?
DRAM Voltage 1.365 1.375
SOC Voltage 1.025 1.05


----------



## Anakha56

Hello, so I am hoping someone could assist me in getting tighter timings on my RAM. I have used the DRAM calculator and the system is extremely unstable when booting with the Safe Settings, the same as post 1665. So onto my RAM and the settings. I have G-Skill F4-3200C16-8GVKB and at the time it was the RAM in budget for my 1700X build little did I know that I received the "bad" batch of sticks, they are the Hynix MFR batch. The mainboard is the Asus X370-Pro and I am running the latest Asus BIOS, power supply is a Corsair HX750. Attached are screenshots from Thaipoon Burner as well as proposed settings and when I capture readings from TB. Neither safe settings are able to boot the system at all. Currently running the RAM at DDR4 3000 with everything set to Auto.


----------



## HatchetEgg

Thanks for making such an awsome calculator for RAM timings!

I have had alot of trouble with getting the sugested timings stable. Even with R-xmp, I found out for me TRAS was set to low, Although I remember in an old froum once you can set TRAS lower than whats recommended when overclocking the RAM. But normally TRAS should be TCL+TRCD+TRP, so for me that would be 14+14+6 from the calculator which is 34 rather than 28 as what is suggested.

And boom everything is stable for me now on 3533 at 1.46v on 14-14-14-34


----------



## Unoid

Anyone have success with g.skill F4-3200C14-16GTZ? my 1700 Oc'd to 3.8 at 1.3V isn't windows stable at default XMP 3200 with 2T. I had to drop it down to 2933. 

I'm about to try out the recommended settings for 2933/3000/3200 recommended by the tool. I feel like it's asking a lot for the "safe" preset. 2x16gb saying to use 1T + geardown?


----------



## HatchetEgg

Unoid said:


> Anyone have success with g.skill F4-3200C14-16GTZ? my 1700 Oc'd to 3.8 at 1.3V isn't windows stable at default XMP 3200 with 2T. I had to drop it down to 2933.
> 
> I'm about to try out the recommended settings for 2933/3000/3200 recommended by the tool. I feel like it's asking a lot for the "safe" preset. 2x16gb saying to use 1T + geardown?


I have the flare version of that ram, but you may find that you will not be able to disable Geardown if your use 1T.

I would not worry to much with the timings for safe, since you have b-die RAM it should handle the extream preset just fine.


----------



## Unoid

HatchetEgg said:


> I have the flare version of that ram, but you may find that you will not be able to disable Geardown if your use 1T.
> 
> I would not worry to much with the timings for safe, since you have b-die RAM it should handle the extream preset just fine.


I was unable to boot with 2933 settings . Probaby my 1700's IMC not up to snuff?

https://i.imgur.com/CbTzMm5.png


----------



## HatchetEgg

Unoid said:


> I was unable to boot with 2933 settings . Probaby my 1700's IMC not up to snuff?
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/CbTzMm5.png


try setting your TRAS to 36


----------



## AT0MAC

maybe a stupid question, but is there a similar calc for Intel systems?


----------



## HatchetEgg

AT0MAC said:


> maybe a stupid question, but is there a similar calc for Intel systems?


I think they can be interchanged since both manufactures have to meet the DDR4 standerd.


----------



## dspx

HatchetEgg said:


> I think they can be interchanged since both manufactures have to meet the DDR4 standerd.


Just don't use R-XMP


----------



## Rossi87

Unoid said:


> I was unable to boot with 2933 settings . Probaby my 1700's IMC not up to snuff?
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/CbTzMm5.png


I have the F4-3200C14-32GTZKW and I have it running at 3200 Mhz. I am still trying to tighten the settings. I have the 8Gb version too and these are super easy to get to 3333Mhz as they are single rank.

The 16Gb Dual Rank are much harder to get. I found that I needed to change
RttNom to 48 Ohms (RZQ/5)
RttWr to Disable
RttPark to Disable
ProcODT to 68.6 Ohms.

I am still going to get faster timings but this passed 16hrs of memory testing. (You might want to try a higher tRFC to calculators)
Also, what Motherboard are you using, I am using the Gigabyte Gaming K7 Bios 23d which is still crap. Can't adjust a lot of settings, There isn't DRAM boot voltage, CLDO_VDDP Control CLDO_VDDP Voltage. The VDDP voltage is an offset voltage and pState overclocking isn't working properly on this bios. 

But at least Ram is at 3200 now.


----------



## 1thou

My specs are 1700 @ 3.725 Asus prime x370 64gb flare X 2400 cl16 (micron b-die)

im trying to get my ram to 2933 and the ram calculator suggests cl14 @ 2933 with 1.32v. but with that im not able to even boot.

thats because I have a that strange problem that my ram is kinda acting up with anything above 1.2v. 
right now i am running my ram with 2933mhz at 1.2v cl18 but as soon as i try to increase only 0.025 or so it just shuts down during windows (for example when i copy files from one hd to another for some time). When i give around 1.25-1.3 i get constant shut down as soon as i try to archive something with winrar (only packing. Unpacking works fine and 7zip also works) anything around 1.3 or above doesnt let me boot into windows. I tryed google but i couldnt find anybody who jad that same problem that their ram didnt take anything higher than 1.2v

EDIT: pc just did shut down when i tried to change it back from 1.35 to 1.2v in the bios when i pressed save changes but before i could confirm.

Also when it shuts down afterwards it rarely has strange behaviour. Sometimes some usb stuff doesnt work until unplugges and replugged after the next start. Also very rarely it doesnt start at all when i tried pushing the start button only fans spin up for a split second and then nothing. First time it worked after unplugging my usb hub and second time i needed to take my 4 port usb 3.0 pci-e card out of my pc which worked ok the days before. (This was reproducable. As soon as i plugged the power cable to the pci-e card the computer wouldnt boot up.


----------



## neur0cide

Unoid said:


> Anyone have success with g.skill F4-3200C14-16GTZ? my 1700 Oc'd to 3.8 at 1.3V isn't windows stable at default XMP 3200 with 2T. I had to drop it down to 2933.
> 
> I'm about to try out the recommended settings for 2933/3000/3200 recommended by the tool. I feel like it's asking a lot for the "safe" preset. 2x16gb saying to use 1T + geardown?





Unoid said:


> I was unable to boot with 2933 settings . Probaby my 1700's IMC not up to snuff?
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/CbTzMm5.png



Use 1T with Gear Down = enabled
Oddly I found this to be more stable than 2T with GDM=disabled most of the time.

2933-12-12-12 is much harder on the IMC and the RAM than e.g. 3200-14-14-14. So better aim for a higher clock and the standard "fast" or "safe" timings from the calculator (you might need to relax tRAS a bit, though not as much as suggested by HatchetEgg).
Try procODT=60 Ohm instead of the 68 Ohm recommended by the calculator. Don't forget to set the Rtt dividers as recommended. These values are absolutely crucial when overclocking Dual Rank modules.
Also don't be shy on DRAM Voltage. B-die can take a lot (but remember to set DRAM Boot Voltage accordingly and VTTDDR to half of DRAM Voltage). You can still lower those voltages once you have found a stable RAM setup.

In a nutshell:


basic dual rank settings

D.O.C.P./XMP = manual
Memory Frequency = DDR4-3200
procODT = 60 Ohm
RttNom = off (or RZQ/7)
RttWr = RZQ/3
RttPark = RZQ/1

voltages

DRAM Voltage = 1.425v (you can lower this after you have found a stable memory setup)
DRAM Boot Voltage = 1.425v (same as DRAM Voltage)
VTTDDR = 0.7128v (should be roughly half of DRAM Voltage)
SOC Voltage = 1.05v (1.000v up to 1.075v; whatever works best for you)
VDDP Voltage = 0.9v
VPP Voltage = 2.5v
Power Down = disabled

​If this doesn't help your RAM to reach 3200 MT/s you can optimize CLDO_VDDP as a last resort (given that your board allows manipulating this voltage). Dual Rank kits greatly benefit from an optimized CLDO_VDDP voltage, but it takes a lot of effort and patience to find a perfect value.
If you don't have success with the recommendations above, come back here to learn about CLDO_VDDP.


----------



## ejk33

dspx said:


> Just don't use R-XMP


I assume you're saying "don't use R-XMP for Intel"?

The recommended procedure for Ryzen is still to press R-XMP right?


----------



## opethdisciple

This confuses me too.

R-XMP displays slightly different values to what Typhon Burner displays.

I assume R-XMP is more correct?


----------



## opethdisciple

Guys, I seem to have a stable 3200MHz on my ram.

No amount of tweaking the SOC and DRAM voltage helped until I added LLC 3 on my CPU and LLC 1 on my SOC.

Firstly my ram is 3200MHz C14. From a gaming perspective should I bother trying to push for higher? Maybe 3466MHz?

Is it worth the hassle?

And secondly to stabilise such an overclock make my LLC settings higher (CPU and SOC)?


----------



## dspx

ejk33 said:


> I assume you're saying "don't use R-XMP for Intel"?
> The recommended procedure for Ryzen is still to press R-XMP right?


Right


opethdisciple said:


> This confuses me too.
> R-XMP displays slightly different values to what Typhon Burner displays.
> I assume R-XMP is more correct?


Yes


----------



## HatchetEgg

opethdisciple said:


> This confuses me too.
> 
> R-XMP displays slightly different values to what Typhon Burner displays.
> 
> I assume R-XMP is more correct?


theres not alot of diffrence in it other than it would be slightly lower timings, you could always use the ones in thypone afterburner if you find it's unstable.


----------



## andrewtheambler

hello everyone, i am trying to oc my corsair ram and i have a question about the app. Basically i'm using all the correct info from Thaiphoon burner but the results i'm getting from the calculator are extremely high. My ram's xmp profile is 15-17-17-35-52 / 1.35 V at 3000 mhz and even when inputting the stock speed of my ram the results i get are so high even for the safe profile. I'm talking about numbers over 20. What i'm i doing wrong? My ram is corsair vengeance lpx CMK8GX4M2B3000C15 3000 mhz


----------



## dspx

andrewtheambler said:


> hello everyone, i am trying to oc my corsair ram and i have a question about the app. Basically i'm using all the correct info from Thaiphoon burner but the results i'm getting from the calculator are extremely high. My ram's xmp profile is 15-17-17-35-52 / 1.35 V at 3000 mhz and even when inputting the stock speed of my ram the results i get are so high even for the safe profile. I'm talking about numbers over 20. What i'm i doing wrong? My ram is corsair vengeance lpx CMK8GX4M2B3000C15 3000 mhz


Check out my signature, or use R-XMP which should get you there. I set GDM enabled, otherwise it won't work.


----------



## andrewtheambler

dspx said:


> Check out my signature, or use R-XMP which should get you there. I set GDM enabled, otherwise it won't work.


thanks mate I'll try it later, what is gdm though and how do i enable it? Can't seem to find anything online
edit: nevermind i found it


----------



## andrewtheambler

dspx said:


> Check out my signature, or use R-XMP which should get you there. I set GDM enabled, otherwise it won't work.


not posting unfortunately


----------



## andrewtheambler

andrewtheambler said:


> not posting unfortunately


edit: it booted once at 3200 but never again, have to go back to 3133. Should still be an improvement though with these timings


----------



## christoph

andrewtheambler said:


> edit: it booted once at 3200 but never again, have to go back to 3133. Should still be an improvement though with these timings



raise the ram voltage to 1.37v and the soc to 1.1, and get tFAW timing at least at 34, trfc timings put them in Auto


----------



## Shawn Shutt jr

When ever i try to type in the Nano seconds nothing happens. cant type anything into the bars. what am i doing wrong?


----------



## neur0cide

You need to set "Profile version" to "Custom".


----------



## Shawn Shutt jr

neur0cide said:


> You need to set "Profile version" to "Custom".


derp! Thanks. i havent used this in awhile and its been updated. do they not have an upload button anymore?


does the below picture look about right?


----------



## neur0cide

If you have a 2x16GB kit, yes. Otherwise you need to set _Memory Rank_ to _1_.



Shawn Shutt jr said:


> do they not have an upload button anymore?





1usmus said:


> most likely I will return it in the next version


----------



## Shawn Shutt jr

neur0cide said:


> If you have a 2x16GB kit, yes. Otherwise you need to set _Memory Rank_ to _1_.




i do!! thanks, timings seem abit high for 3200mhz but ill play around with it. shouldnt be to hard....


kit is CMD32GX4M2B3000C15


----------



## Reygamez

I am on the asrock Taichi x370 board on the latest bios and have the F4-3200C16D-16GTZR. I cannot get anything to be stable over 2133. I have no idea what I am doing wrong and I have been trying to figure it out since I bought the system last April. I have had it at 2933 at one point but it was not very stable. Does anyone have any ideas? I have increased the SOC voltage up to 1.2 and increased the ram voltage at different intervals. Nothing seems to work.


----------



## CoUsT

I have question related to resistance. Can I change settings such as RTT NOM/WR/PARK and CAD_BUS as much as I want? Will it make my RAM stop working (if wrong settings) until I reset settings or can they damage RAM? For ProcODT it's recommended to be within 40-80 Ohm range. What about the settings I mentioned before?

I believe I'm very close to make my 3466 MHz stable but I don't want to **** up as I'm already using 1.45V and changing resistance might damage something, so I want to be sure before playing with these settings.


----------



## dspx

Reygamez said:


> I am on the asrock Taichi x370 board on the latest bios and have the F4-3200C16D-16GTZR. I cannot get anything to be stable over 2133. I have no idea what I am doing wrong and I have been trying to figure it out since I bought the system last April. I have had it at 2933 at one point but it was not very stable. Does anyone have any ideas? I have increased the SOC voltage up to 1.2 and increased the ram voltage at different intervals. Nothing seems to work.


Have you tried different ProcODT values? My board defaults to 60, but as soon as I overclock the RAM the only stable one is 48 ohm.


----------



## Moustachos

@*1usmus* : just wanted to thank you (and the other contributors) for this awesome tool!

I built my rig in January, so l've been quite lucky with the numerous BIOS improvements since the release and my 3200Mhz Ripjaws V B-Die ran at its XMP specs out of the box.

Thanks to your tool I've been able to tighten my timings to a nice 14-14-14-14-22-36 (XMP were 15-15-15-15-35-50) @1.39V (SOC: 1.05625 in BIOS).

The best part is that after several days of tweaking, it's fully stable (switching to 60 ProcODT helped a lot):
- 8h Prime95 (custom @13600Mb RAM)
- 2400%+ coverage HCI MemTest
- 10000%+ coverage RamTest

I'll probably keep these settings for a long time (RAM overclocking is so time consuming) but in case I would try to hit 3333 or even 3466Mhz one day, does it seem doable with my ram? (I'd like to keep low timings, since Ryzen seems to love them)

Thanks again!


----------



## cameronmc88

On the right side there is Rec and then Alt.1 and Alt.2, now If i can get stable with HCI MemTest + Prime95 Blend using the Rec, is it worth going for the Alt 1 or 2? example: Rec is 53 ProcODT, 20/20/20/20 for CAD BUS stuff.

Which is faster and which is more stable is my question?


----------



## crakej

Hey @1usmus - I went for the C7H in the end, and I'm very happy. Still with my 1700x, and some guidance from the calculator, after a week my ram is up from an unstable 3200 on my x370 Prime Pro to 3533cl14 low latency - about 64ns.

The tool has been great for providing numbers to base my timings from - made it so much easier! I will be trying for higher speeds, but have found that 3600 and up are going to need work - otherwise everything is on auto 

I have found that for me, 3200MTs and higher could only work with geardown=on - which never worked on my old board.

Thanks again!


----------



## KaneTW

Anyone have some tips overclocking KVR24E17D8/16MA modules? They run at 2666MHz with no ECC errors at 1.2V + Auto (16-16-16-39) but going for the calculator DRAM recommended options at 2800MHz crashes.

Settings: https://i.imgur.com/OhUJJZM.png


----------



## Reygamez

dspx said:


> Have you tried different ProcODT values? My board defaults to 60, but as soon as I overclock the RAM the only stable one is 48 ohm.


The highest I've tried was 60. I have tried 53.3 and 48. Not sure if I should go higher. I remember in the MSI Overclocking video that 80 ohm was max. Thanks for replying. I just need to keep at it. I might just change to an x470 board.


----------



## Aenra

@1usmus, i keep forgetting to thank you for this. Did it myself the first time around and it took aaaaages. This baby makes it a breeze. So thanks a mil dude. I hope you continue to update it, if/when needed


----------



## 1usmus

Thank you guys for the feedback. yes, the product will receive updates


----------



## Aenra

1usmus said:


> Thank you guys for the feedback. yes, the product will receive updates



:wheee:


----------



## tfran1990

with my CH6 im on bios 1701. a while ago i spent days messing with the calculator but was never able to get stable over 2933.(was on bios 1501)

im going to give it another go, before i start over again is there anyone that could recommend some known good timings? 
1usmus maybe you have a place for me to start.

my ram kit is F4-340016D-32GTZ 16-16-16-36

i see alot of people with the 16G kit achieve 3200 close to 16-16-16-36 with duel rank should there be looser timings from the start with the 32G kit?


----------



## pawnipt

tfran1990 said:


> with my CH6 im on bios 1701. a while ago i spent days messing with the calculator but was never able to get stable over 2933.(was on bios 1501)
> 
> im going to give it another go, before i start over again is there anyone that could recommend some known good timings?
> 1usmus maybe you have a place for me to start.
> 
> my ram kit is F4-340016D-32GTZ 16-16-16-36
> 
> i see alot of people with the 16G kit achieve 3200 close to 16-16-16-36 with duel rank should there be looser timings from the start with the 32G kit?


I have dual-rank samsung e-die (F4-3400C16D-16GTZ)... I see you have b-die dual-rank (F4-3400C16D-32GTZ)

I would try with the XMP set timings but clocked at 3200 mhz. It will likely be your procODT and cad bus ohm's settings that will stabilize your ram, so play with those first. Also go with 1.4 volts for the dram, and make sure you're soc volts is set to 1.1. You'll likely be able to disable geardownmode only if command rate is set to 2.

If you're able to get it stable that way then you can try tighter timings.


----------



## Nighthog

Tried out a new kit of memory today.

Some Kingston HyperX kits.

Bought 2x kits of 2x8Gb 3466Mhz 1.2Volts. Part: HX434C19FB2K2/16, for 4dimms 32Gb. 

They work outright without issues on my Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3 at their rated speed and timings with XMP/AUTO on BIOS F23d.

They are Micron E-die, 16nm single-rank memory.

Will be trying tweaks later, I'm sick today so need to lay down in bed at intervals.


----------



## tfran1990

the 3200 memory strap for the CH6 does not even like to boot. it rolls back to defaults. the 2933 strap works tho.


----------



## larrydavid

Nighthog said:


> Tried out a new kit of memory today.
> 
> Some Kingston HyperX kits.
> 
> Bought 2x kits of 2x8Gb 3466Mhz 1.2Volts. Part: HX434C19FB2K2/16, for 4dimms 32Gb.
> 
> They work outright without issues on my Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3 at their rated speed and timings with XMP/AUTO on BIOS F23d.
> 
> They are Micron E-die, 16nm single-rank memory.
> 
> Will be trying tweaks later, I'm sick today so need to lay down in bed at intervals.


16nm E-die, 3466 1.2 volts...

Would you mind trying to overclock it? Maybe run it at 1.35volts and see how tight you can get the timings?

I'm still waiting for 10nm Samsung DDR4, but maybe this Micron stuff would work well too.


----------



## Nighthog

larrydavid said:


> 16nm E-die, 3466 1.2 volts...
> 
> Would you mind trying to overclock it? Maybe run it at 1.35volts and see how tight you can get the timings?
> 
> I'm still waiting for 10nm Samsung DDR4, but maybe this Micron stuff would work well too.


I've already tested 3600Mhz @ 1.300V with close to stock timings as "stable".
Trying to tighten timings down at 3600Mhz but need to increase voltage it seems. 
18.21.21.21.42.78 tWRWRSCL/[email protected]/4... They aren't really happy with low timings I've noted. Refuses to boot with below 21 in primary timings and txxxxSCL at 2 or 3 is a big issue but boots(windows blue-screens at load).

EDIT: 18.21.21.21.42.78... 4/4 works with 1.320V @ 3600Mhz.


----------



## SexySale

*RTT and CAD_BUS different between Agesa?*

Hi @1usmus and guys,
I have ASUS Prime B350 Plus board and Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die memory.

I have stability issues long time, so I manage to get 3133 as I inform this thread few times.

I have noticed something very strange and any thoughts or explanation can be helpful for Calculator.
There is difference in stable RTT and CAD_BUS settings between Agesa and BIOS versions.

Here http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=173713&thumb=1 is mine finding.

Values from 38XX version is not stable on 40XX bios version, and vice versa!
Any ideas @1usmus? Is this helpful for your calculator?

Cheers guys.


----------



## 1usmus

SexySale said:


> Hi @1usmus and guys,
> I have ASUS Prime B350 Plus board and Corsair LPX 3200 Hynix M-die memory.
> 
> I have stability issues long time, so I manage to get 3133 as I inform this thread few times.
> 
> I have noticed something very strange and any thoughts or explanation can be helpful for Calculator.
> There is difference in stable RTT and CAD_BUS settings between Agesa and BIOS versions.
> 
> Here http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=173713&thumb=1 is mine finding.
> 
> Values from 38XX version is not stable on 40XX bios version, and vice versa!
> Any ideas @1usmus? Is this helpful for your calculator?
> 
> Cheers guys.


these 2 pictures... the system is stable with these settings?


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> these 2 pictures... the system is stable with these settings?


Yes, those are stable on respected BIOS number. 
BIOS' versions with stable settings for 3133 are in yellow numbering above RTC. 
So to write comparison:

38XX -> RTT: RZQ/7-OFF-RZQ/4 and CAD_BUS: 30/30/30/30
40XX -> RTT: OFF-OFF-RZQ/5 and CAD_BUS: 24/24/24/24

So if I do 38XX settings on 40XX not stable and other way around.

What do you think @1usmus?

BTW: Still 3200 is impossible mission


----------



## GUSTAVAUMEISTER

@*1usmus Thanks very much for this tool, I managed to get all my 4 [email protected] (and all timmings that were advised by your tool :thumb. @1.36v OCed from 2666 (rated speed) to 2933, pretty happy with it! (I have 1500x @3.9 and B350 board)

Regards,
Gustavo
*


----------



## CoUsT

@1usmus, can I change RTT and DrvStr values as high/low as I want without damaging memories? So I can try all settings without damaging anything? Are they only for stability or something else?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> larrydavid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16nm E-die, 3466 1.2 volts...
> 
> Would you mind trying to overclock it? Maybe run it at 1.35volts and see how tight you can get the timings?
> 
> I'm still waiting for 10nm Samsung DDR4, but maybe this Micron stuff would work well too.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already tested 3600Mhz @ 1.300V with close to stock timings as "stable".
> Trying to tighten timings down at 3600Mhz but need to increase voltage it seems.
> 18.21.21.21.42.78 tWRWRSCL/[email protected]/4... They aren't really happy with low timings I've noted. Refuses to boot with below 21 in primary timings and txxxxSCL at 2 or 3 is a big issue but boots(windows blue-screens at load).
> 
> EDIT: 18.21.21.21.42.78... 4/4 works with 1.320V @ 3600Mhz.
Click to expand...

At that frequency I would go with 1.4v DRAM and 1.05v SoC. You may even need to bump to 1.42v DRAM and 1.075v SoC, depends on the personality of the RAM honestly.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> At that frequency I would go with 1.4v DRAM and 1.05v SoC. You may even need to bump to 1.42v DRAM and 1.075v SoC, depends on the personality of the RAM honestly.


I don't know but these are *MICRON* E-die 16nm. I find no other info on them!

SoC @ 1.05? NOPE! I need +0.042offset = *1.140V*. System would otherwise freeze when loading up memory for testing. CPU IMC limitation for the 3600Mhz speed. 
Stock SoC 1.100V worked up to 3533Mhz then I needed to add more from the AUTO settings.

I've been really careful about voltage on these chips. I do everything else but add voltage as a last resort for every step I've done... LOL... taken too much time.

Either way Results for today:
... still getting error randomly... 370%... Improving though(started at 50%. then 100% to 200-->250%...)
ProcODT 43.6 Ohm works slightly better than 40 Ohm it seems.(such a slight difference though >_>; )
timings tweaking takes time.

EDIT2: I got impatient...

3733Mhz untested for stability. needs around and above +0.132 offset to be able to test memory and.. errors too many.
3666Mhz more reasonable with +0.090V offset needed not to freeze during memory test.

EDIT3: Really seems 3600Mhz is best I can do with all 4 sticks. One stick in particular flakes out completely above this speed no matter the voltage it seems. (1.400V tested) 
It's this particular area that is almost always the weak spot at any setting giving errors earlier and more often. 
3733Mhz was giving really too much trouble overall. SoC voltage above 1.20volts to even begin booting(more needed to be able to go into windows and start testing memory 1.230V+) and even then giving errors at the loosest possible timings even.
I can preliminary set voltage to 1.400V it seems, no idea how they really like it though but seems unnecessary really, 3600Mhz seems to be fine between 1.300-1.350V anyway.

EDIT4:
I did let MemTest run over the night but one instance got a single error @ 400% and another at 500% rest were good to 600-700% without errors. This was 3600Mhz/1.330V with some tighter timings but not much better than said before (subtimings) ProcODT @ 48Ohm seems even better than 40/43.6.
I've now trying 1.340V with other small tweaks I hope this is enough. Might be 1.350V is needed for full 3600Mhz stability. 
I have not tried to change RTT values. Could give better results with them changed but I'll leave that for next if this is no good either.


----------



## chroniclard

Should I be using Thaiphoon settings or XMP Settings?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> I don't know but these are *MICRON* E-die 16nm. I find no other info on them!
> 
> SoC @ 1.05? NOPE! I need +0.042offset = *1.140V*. System would otherwise freeze when loading up memory for testing. CPU IMC limitation for the 3600Mhz speed.
> Stock SoC 1.100V worked up to 3533Mhz then I needed to add more from the AUTO settings.
> 
> I've been really careful about voltage on these chips. I do everything else but add voltage as a last resort for every step I've done... LOL... taken too much time.
> 
> Either way Results for today:
> ... still getting error randomly... 370%... Improving though(started at 50%. then 100% to 200-->250%...)
> ProcODT 43.6 Ohm works slightly better than 40 Ohm it seems.(such a slight difference though >_>; )
> timings tweaking takes time.
> 
> EDIT2: I got impatient...
> 
> 3733Mhz untested for stability. needs around and above +0.132 offset to be able to test memory and.. errors too many.
> 3666Mhz more reasonable with +0.090V offset needed not to freeze during memory test.
> 
> EDIT3: Really seems 3600Mhz is best I can do with all 4 sticks. One stick in particular flakes out completely above this speed no matter the voltage it seems. (1.400V tested)
> It's this particular area that is almost always the weak spot at any setting giving errors earlier and more often.
> 3733Mhz was giving really too much trouble overall. SoC voltage above 1.20volts to even begin booting(more needed to be able to go into windows and start testing memory 1.230V+) and even then giving errors at the loosest possible timings even.
> I can preliminary set voltage to 1.400V it seems, no idea how they really like it though but seems unnecessary really, 3600Mhz seems to be fine between 1.300-1.350V anyway.
> 
> EDIT4:
> I did let MemTest run over the night but one instance got a single error @ 400% and another at 500% rest were good to 600-700% without errors. This was 3600Mhz/1.330V with some tighter timings but not much better than said before (subtimings) ProcODT @ 48Ohm seems even better than 40/43.6.
> I've now trying 1.340V with other small tweaks I hope this is enough. Might be 1.350V is needed for full 3600Mhz stability.
> I have not tried to change RTT values. Could give better results with them changed but I'll leave that for next if this is no good either.


Micron E-Die? Ouch...Thats going to be your biggest headache and honestly if I were you I would do what I could to save and sell that set or just keep as a back up and get B Die. It is a world of difference. Also, I dont trust the accuracy of HCI memtest as far as the application that is used within Windows. I use only their bootable Deluxe version, I dont trust Ramtest unless cache is disabled because it throws out tons of false positives from the CPU. I personally run Memtest86 in parallel with all cores then I run HCI memTest Deluxe to get my benchmark score then I move into the OS. I never boot into the OS until I have at least run 1 full pass of MemTest86 and 100% at HCI Memtest Deluxe. Once I boot into OS and I will run RamTest at full speed to see if any errors pop then with cache disabled and let it work slowly. Once it can hit 500% at disabled then I am almost ready to call it stable. I will restart and run at least 5 full passes of MemTest86 with only Core 0 or just have it switch cores but only with one core at any given time as to rule out a possibility of false positives from the CPU. Lastly Ill run HCI MemTest Deluxe one last time to 500-1000%. Then it is stable.

I see so many people that only run an application in Windows to 1000% and say it is stable. This is not guaranteed stable because you are not using all memory. There is 15% or so of your memorythat is being used by OS and startup services etc. The 85% or so that you tested is probably stable so, in turn, when you only test in Windows you are only sure of the stability of the ram that is tested and not what the OS was using. I think you have to use a combination but at the very least run outside of the OS. I will be making a thread soon with some things that I have been testing on this subject to prove what I am saying, aside from it just making sense in the first place. If you test your RAM in a much slower way you may find that you dont have as manyt errors. You will probably still encounter them but you will not have as much of a chance for the CPU to introduce the instability.


----------



## 1usmus

SexySale said:


> Yes, those are stable on respected BIOS number.
> BIOS' versions with stable settings for 3133 are in yellow numbering above RTC.
> So to write comparison:
> 
> 38XX -> RTT: RZQ/7-OFF-RZQ/4 and CAD_BUS: 30/30/30/30
> 40XX -> RTT: OFF-OFF-RZQ/5 and CAD_BUS: 24/24/24/24
> 
> So if I do 38XX settings on 40XX not stable and other way around.
> 
> What do you think @1usmus?
> 
> BTW: Still 3200 is impossible mission


It's difficult for me to evaluate these changes, but maybe they changed the tire calibration. We need more people with the same results 



CoUsT said:


> @1usmus, can I change RTT and DrvStr values as high/low as I want without damaging memories? So I can try all settings without damaging anything? Are they only for stability or something else?


all the settings you listed are absolutely safe, they can not damage the motherboard / memory / processor


----------



## 1usmus

*Just a moment of attention!* A new generation of processors can indeed run without errors at a frequency of 3600.

Here are some tips for you:

* do not use extreme phase mode
* use switching frequencies 300-400khz for SOC and DRAM VRM
* Voltage for SOC within the range of 1,025-1,0625 has better stability
* for the frequency 3533 + I advise using the PTT_PARK 60th (RZQ / 4)

example:

3400CL16 @ 3600CL14

SOC 1,0625
DRAM 1,42


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> * do not use extreme phase mode
> * use switching frequencies 300-400khz for SOC and DRAM VRM
> * Voltage for SOC within the range of 1,025-1,0625 has better stability
> * for the frequency 3533 + I advise using the PTT_PARK 60th (RZQ / 4)


Just a quick question regarding switching frequency - VDDCR CPU switching frequency on my mobo defaults to 200, but I have set it to 300. Is it safe?


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> Micron E-Die? Ouch...Thats going to be your biggest headache and honestly if I were you I would do what I could to save and sell that set or just keep as a back up and get B Die. It is a world of difference. Also, I dont trust the accuracy of HCI memtest as far as the application that is used within Windows. I use only their bootable Deluxe version, I dont trust Ramtest unless cache is disabled because it throws out tons of false positives from the CPU. I personally run Memtest86 in parallel with all cores then I run HCI memTest Deluxe to get my benchmark score then I move into the OS. I never boot into the OS until I have at least run 1 full pass of MemTest86 and 100% at HCI Memtest Deluxe. Once I boot into OS and I will run RamTest at full speed to see if any errors pop then with cache disabled and let it work slowly. Once it can hit 500% at disabled then I am almost ready to call it stable. I will restart and run at least 5 full passes of MemTest86 with only Core 0 or just have it switch cores but only with one core at any given time as to rule out a possibility of false positives from the CPU. Lastly Ill run HCI MemTest Deluxe one last time to 500-1000%. Then it is stable.
> 
> I see so many people that only run an application in Windows to 1000% and say it is stable. This is not guaranteed stable because you are not using all memory. There is 15% or so of your memorythat is being used by OS and startup services etc. The 85% or so that you tested is probably stable so, in turn, when you only test in Windows you are only sure of the stability of the ram that is tested and not what the OS was using. I think you have to use a combination but at the very least run outside of the OS. I will be making a thread soon with some things that I have been testing on this subject to prove what I am saying, aside from it just making sense in the first place. If you test your RAM in a much slower way you may find that you dont have as manyt errors. You will probably still encounter them but you will not have as much of a chance for the CPU to introduce the instability.


I've basically gotten the Memory "stable"(no good timings though)... Got it to 1000% HCI memtest stable but was running too low SoC voltage it seems. I was setting up the necessary info for the screen-capture but managed to freeze on the last software loading before I took that capture... 
I've now been testing which SoC Voltage is really needed. 1.142V was to little. I've come to conclude trough various stress testing (prime95) that it seems to variate on the actual clock-speed i run on cpu and temperatures. (Been having a little temperature issues with a bad mount on water-block I haven't fixed)
With a simpler clock of 3600Mhz CPU it can run Prime95 custom(24000Mb) 26.6/29.4 with [email protected] no issue(until random freeze loading cpu-z), cpu stays around 55-60C (you see there on the temp the bad mount)
With just faster speed 3700Mhz CPU it was needed to be more... 1.154-1.160V to not freeze right away starting Prime95. Even more with faster cpu clock(though the temperatures are basically a problem already and can be the cause of the freezes). 
I need around 1.154V++ SoC Voltage to not get freezes.. not found the exact minimum required yet when stressing the system. It seems a little random but more speed more voltage. 

For reference see attachment for my HCI 1000% stable settings for [email protected], exact SoC Voltage to be yet decided. but it worked HCI error free with only 1.142V. and cpu was my not thermal runaway speed for desktop/games 3900Mhz. 
I can say Prime95 didn't even want to start with that SoC voltage at that cpu speed though(instant freeze). (was getting results with close to 1.200V though but thermals hindered me from really trying)

EDIT: Did a quick game test and it wanted to crash in lobby until I increased SoC Voltage to [email protected] 3800Mhz CPU with 3600Mhz Memory.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> I've basically gotten the Memory "stable"(no good timings though)... Got it to 1000% HCI memtest stable but was running too low SoC voltage it seems. I was setting up the necessary info for the screen-capture but managed to freeze on the last software loading before I took that capture...
> I've now been testing which SoC Voltage is really needed. 1.142V was to little. I've come to conclude trough various stress testing (prime95) that it seems to variate on the actual clock-speed i run on cpu and temperatures. (Been having a little temperature issues with a bad mount on water-block I haven't fixed)
> With a simpler clock of 3600Mhz CPU it can run Prime95 custom(24000Mb) 26.6/29.4 with [email protected] no issue(until random freeze loading cpu-z), cpu stays around 55-60C (you see there on the temp the bad mount)
> With just faster speed 3700Mhz CPU it was needed to be more... 1.154-1.160V to not freeze right away starting Prime95. Even more with faster cpu clock(though the temperatures are basically a problem already and can be the cause of the freezes).
> I need around 1.154V++ SoC Voltage to not get freezes.. not found the exact minimum required yet when stressing the system. It seems a little random but more speed more voltage.
> 
> For reference see attachment for my HCI 1000% stable settings for [email protected], exact SoC Voltage to be yet decided. but it worked HCI error free with only 1.142V. and cpu was my not thermal runaway speed for desktop/games 3900Mhz.
> I can say Prime95 didn't even want to start with that SoC voltage at that cpu speed though(instant freeze). (was getting results with close to 1.200V though but thermals hindered me from really trying)
> 
> EDIT: Did a quick game test and it wanted to crash in lobby until I increased SoC Voltage to [email protected] 3800Mhz CPU with 3600Mhz Memory.


I would be careful with SoC, especially since with those timings you would be much better off running 3200c16 which would more than likely outperform 3600 with those timings since you would more than likely be able to tighten it up much more in the sub timings. The dangerous water you are treading is not worth it unless you can get 3600c16 minimum. Maybe you could even get 3400c14 with tight timings or c15 and would smoke 3600c17 and even be comparable to 3600c16 depending on how far you could take the sub timings. Your risk is far outweighing your reward, unless you just have the money to throw around for new parts...To somwhat calculate if a speed is worth trying at a specific Cas just use this formula---Mhz/Cas=Z. If Z becomes equivalent to other speeds then the higher speed is better at the same subtimings so it would come down to how well you could tighten the subs at that point and the performance gain from it.

This is why 3200 was the sweet spot for memory on 1st gen and for right now 3400 seems to be the sweet spot (at least for me but I still have 1700x on x470) and I assume in a few months 3600 will take its place. If you run a particular speed and have no headroom then there is not much point if you can drop a step or 2 and tighten the subs massively.


----------



## Trender

The calculator always gives me 53 OHms+ when my RAMs only wants 43.6 OHm or it isn't stable
(samsung [email protected] single rank 2x8 gb, running them at 3333mhz)


----------



## ZeNch

1usmus said:


> *Just a moment of attention!* A new generation of processors can indeed run without errors at a frequency of 3600.
> 
> Here are some tips for you:
> 
> * do not use extreme phase mode
> * use switching frequencies 300-400khz for SOC and DRAM VRM
> * Voltage for SOC within the range of 1,025-1,0625 has better stability
> * for the frequency 3533 + I advise using the PTT_PARK 60th (RZQ / 4)
> 
> example:
> 
> 3400CL16 @ 3600CL14
> 
> SOC 1,0625
> DRAM 1,42


Wow! good!

when do you say "do not use extreme phase mode" you mean to SOC, CPU or both?

My IMC cant reach this freq. but i like to test all values and see the changes.

Thanks for all 1Usmus


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *Just a moment of attention!* A new generation of processors can indeed run without errors at a frequency of 3600.
> 
> Here are some tips for you:
> 
> * do not use extreme phase mode
> * use switching frequencies 300-400khz for SOC and DRAM VRM
> * Voltage for SOC within the range of 1,025-1,0625 has better stability
> * for the frequency 3533 + I advise using the PTT_PARK 60th (RZQ / 4)
> 
> example:
> 
> 3400CL16 @ 3600CL14
> 
> SOC 1,0625
> DRAM 1,42


These new settings got 3600 Extreme settings stable when plugging in the custom XMP values for my G.Skill 4133 kits. Pretty good AIDA scores when using channel interleaving.


----------



## Shaav

Hey guys,

could submit your RAM oc results in this excel sheet so that we have a nice overview which settings everbody used for his RAM? Most sheets are missing some very important informationion and I hope this one will include all necessairy one and will therfore help people with their overclocking:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKPVfDcFO-aieAOXHFQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=0


----------



## herericc

What set of RAM do you have? 

I can't seem to get my Team Group Dark Pro 2x8GB 3200MT C14 kit to be stable past 3200. I am able to boot into windows however. 

Do you guys usually match all the "alt" settings, so if setting 1 doesnt work (for all settings with alternate options) do you set everything then to the "Alt 1" for example??

When going up in frequency does more or less resistance usually help?

I'd really like to get my RAM running at 3433 or 3600 but until I have some more information about what these values actually do I feel like I'm blindly entering values and crossing my fingers.

For my current lazy stable settings, I'm using XMP profile, then manually setting 14-14-14-14-28-42 and TRFC to 312. Stable in RAM Test app, 1000%. Haven't seen any crashes on those settings thus far, and usually Rainbow Six Siege reacts pretty quickly to ram instability by crashing to desktop without any error messages.


edit: forgot system specs 

Team Dark Pro 16GB 3200MT C14
Ryzen 7 2700X
Crosshair VI
1080Ti
M.2. SSD for OS.
850W PSU


----------



## Filters83

*nothing special but ...*

Just want to say thx for the thread and for the software!
It work pretty well for me whit my Gskill 3200cl14 oc as on the image no problem what so ever using fast settings 
I also used for my brother pc but he have Dual Rank memory so cant go over 2933 but i fixed timing and it work pretty well ^^


----------



## CJMitsuki

I was able to get 3600 to work and left plenty of headroom for tightening timings but it was 4am and had to get ready for work with no sleep but the biggest change that made the difference, for me at least was going to 2T on the command rate and taking Gear Down back to disabled instead of Enabled like it has had to be done lately above 3200mhz. I got it working at c16 easily with no memory training so Im feeling good about either c16 with tight timings or c15 with "meh" timings. Seeing how tight timings on 1 Cas higher pretty much always beats lower Cas with "meh" timings Ill probably stick with 16 rather than fight 15 for no performance gain. Just with initial loose timings it is comparable to my 3466mhz with tight timings, although 3466 pulls ahead just a bit. With 3600 ironed out that wont be the case. I also booted up to 3733 but that is a timing fight I will have to start on tomorrow when my 2700x arrives. Keep in mind this is with my segfault bugged 1700x that is definitely becoming a pain now but the RMA process is nearly to the acceptance stage so i will build my daughter a computer with the new one and my x370 Prime board. Below is is a quick bench i ran this morning before leaving for work on the crap timings I slapped together in literally 10 minutes. If you are running 1st gen on x470 and are nearly able to get 3600mhz just try 2T with Gear Down Disabled and see if it helps. I also ran my Cad_Bus at 24ohm rather than the usual 20ohm. By the way, I was running HCIm memtest deluxe outside of OS and with crap timings only had 6 errors per 1044% so definitely with some adjustments and bumps to some voltages 3600mhz stable easily if not a step higher.


----------



## 1usmus

*Announcement : Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 1*​
changelog:

* added initial support for the Zen + (new soc voltage, cad_bus, rtt, e.t.c.)
* support DRAM OC 3666+ for Zen+ and X470 motherboard (only Samsung b-die) thanks @olegdjus for testing
* Thaiphoon XMP import is back (some adaptation of imported profiles may be necessary)
* after importing the Thaiphoon report, information about your memory will be provided in the upper right corner of the program (in the future, extended information will be provided)
* new cad_bus timings recommendation
* Power Supply System] tab with new recommendation is back
* bug fixing

The *release* is scheduled for this week :devil:


----------



## Pilotasso

oooh, me wants thx 1usmus


----------



## numlock66

1usmus said:


> *Announcement : Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 1*​
> changelog:
> 
> * added initial support for the Zen + (new soc voltage, cad_bus, rtt, e.t.c.)
> * support DRAM OC 3666+ for Zen+ and X470 motherboard (only Samsung b-die) thanks @olegdjus for testing
> * Thaiphoon XMP import is back (some adaptation of imported profiles may be necessary)
> * after importing the Thaiphoon report, information about your memory will be provided in the upper right corner of the program (in the future, extended information will be provided)
> * new cad_bus timings recommendation
> * Power Supply System] tab with new recommendation is back
> * bug fixing
> 
> The *release* is scheduled for this week /forum/images/smilies/devil.gif


3600mhz only on x470 boards?


----------



## herericc

1usmus said:


> *Announcement : Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 1*​
> changelog:
> 
> * added initial support for the Zen + (new soc voltage, cad_bus, rtt, e.t.c.)
> * support DRAM OC 3666+ for Zen+ and X470 motherboard (only Samsung b-die) thanks @olegdjus for testing
> * Thaiphoon XMP import is back (some adaptation of imported profiles may be necessary)
> * after importing the Thaiphoon report, information about your memory will be provided in the upper right corner of the program (in the future, extended information will be provided)
> * new cad_bus timings recommendation
> * Power Supply System] tab with new recommendation is back
> * bug fixing
> 
> The *release* is scheduled for this week :devil:


AWESOME! Thanks for your work 1usmus!

I'll be sure to try to get to 3466 again with the new version, need to play around with the cldo_vddp and resistance settings some more.

I wonder if the Thaifoon import will help too, because I think the R-XMP import wasn't giving the correct values for my RAM chips ( different from old versions when we were using the thaifoon XMP settings )


----------



## herericc

I think he means that they were testing 3600+ on zen+ and 4xx boards, not that you can't try the settings out on your x370.

I'll certainly be giving it a shot on my Crosshair VI + 2700X


----------



## Anty

Calculator for 3600 for "old ryzen" was broken in several previous releases even though it was possible to do it.


----------



## Pilotasso

Given that the IMC is in the SOC I think the biggest factors in memory overclocks are :

1-Silicon lottery
2-the quality of the BIOS from each brand
3-the quality of the other components in the system (cooler, power supply, RAM of course)

Only then can you talk about design changes of the motherboard (VRM for example) and chipset change.

Proof to this is that I can run 4 sticks @ 3533 (was limited to 3200 CR=2T with my original 1700X) on an X370 while many others are capped at 3333 on X470 with just 2.

The 3 variables I listed above can easily reverse your expectation of the actual overclock achieved.


----------



## 1usmus

Anty said:


> Calculator for 3600 for "old ryzen" was broken in several previous releases even though it was possible to do it.


The problem is not in the calculator but in the bus topology, the new motherboards do have fixes for a number of problems: ground slots, VRM shielding,screening of tires, new topology, additional MLCC etc

and do not forget that each system requires individual settings. It is impossible to create a calculator that could help everyone without exception.


what was spoiled?



numlock66 said:


> 3600mhz only on x470 boards?


yes, only x470 (asus prime and msi m7,the remaining motherboards not have serious differences from the previous generation)


----------



## Trender

1usmus said:


> The problem is not in the calculator but in the bus topology, the new motherboards do have fixes for a number of problems: ground slots, VRM shielding,screening of tires, new topology, additional MLCC etc
> 
> and do not forget that each system requires individual settings. It is impossible to create a calculator that could help everyone without exception.
> 
> 
> what was spoiled?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, only x470 (asus prime and msi m7,the remaining motherboards not have serious differences from the previous generation)


Could I get some calculation for my RAM? 
Mine wanted 43.6 OHms exclusively for 3333 MHz on my old x370 mobo and wouldnt be stable at anything but 43.6 OHm as much as ryzen calculator said 53 ohms and it didn't boot more than that.
I bought asus x470 strix-f and now I load 3600 MHz with XMP profile at first but it isn't stable, should I put more OHms at higher speed? Its single-rank samsung b-die.
Also my timings from thaiphoon nare different than R-XMP, which one should I load into calc?


----------



## Anty

1usmus said:


> what was spoiled?


I'm not talking about platform limitation or if they work or not.

Last good version (at least the one I have on disk) is 0.9.9 v13

Next one 1.0.0 beta3 does calculate in wrong way (and I reported it weeks back)

Screenshots tell the story 

http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=180785&thumb=1

http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=180793&thumb=1


----------



## Rossi87

Anty said:


> I'm not talking about platform limitation or if they work or not.
> 
> Last good version (at least the one I have on disk) is 0.9.9 v13
> 
> Next one 1.0.0 beta3 does calculate in wrong way (and I reported it weeks back)
> 
> Screenshots tell the story
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=180785&thumb=1
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=180793&thumb=1




This issue was fixed in 1.1.0 beta1 & 1.1.0 beta2. You should download a newer iteration.


----------



## Anty

OK - 1.1.0 b2 fixed problem shown above.
But IMHO "safe" settings are still too optimistic - what is shown for 3733 should be for 3600. You can try 16-16-16 2T and there is a chance it will work fine but good luck with 14-15-15. Not to mention 4 sticks...


----------



## ajc9988

Anty said:


> OK - 1.1.0 b2 fixed problem shown above.
> But IMHO "safe" settings are still too optimistic - what is shown for 3733 should be for 3600. You can try 16-16-16 2T and there is a chance it will work fine but good luck with 14-15-15. Not to mention 4 sticks...


Variant 1 I can do 3600 with 4 sticks on safe. Variant 2 I can do safe and fast with 1.1.0 beta 2 with B-die. On custom and using the XMP timings for my 4133 Trident X 19-21-21 two kits of 2x8GB, I can even use extreme settings from the calculator. Testmem5 with 3 passes finishes in around 5 min., give or take a little. HCI in OS to 1,000% stable. Granted this is with a binned 1950X from Silicon Lottery on an X399 Taichi board. I think you should try the new calculator and play with your settings a bit and remember that the IMC really was a lottery for Zen 1.


----------



## Anty

TR is already based on best binned dies and has 2 separate sets of IMC (I assume you have 1DPC configuration not 2DPC) so this may be the answer. Anyway - what SOC and VDDR are you using?


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> I was able to get 3600 to work and left plenty of headroom for tightening timings but it was 4am and had to get ready for work with no sleep but the biggest change that made the difference, for me at least was going to 2T on the command rate and taking Gear Down back to disabled instead of Enabled like it has had to be done lately above 3200mhz. I got it working at c16 easily with no memory training so Im feeling good about either c16 with tight timings or c15 with "meh" timings. Seeing how tight timings on 1 Cas higher pretty much always beats lower Cas with "meh" timings Ill probably stick with 16 rather than fight 15 for no performance gain. Just with initial loose timings it is comparable to my 3466mhz with tight timings, although 3466 pulls ahead just a bit. With 3600 ironed out that wont be the case. I also booted up to 3733 but that is a timing fight I will have to start on tomorrow when my 2700x arrives. Keep in mind this is with my segfault bugged 1700x that is definitely becoming a pain now but the RMA process is nearly to the acceptance stage so i will build my daughter a computer with the new one and my x370 Prime board. Below is is a quick bench i ran this morning before leaving for work on the crap timings I slapped together in literally 10 minutes. If you are running 1st gen on x470 and are nearly able to get 3600mhz just try 2T with Gear Down Disabled and see if it helps. I also ran my Cad_Bus at 24ohm rather than the usual 20ohm. By the way, I was running HCIm memtest deluxe outside of OS and with crap timings only had 6 errors per 1044% so definitely with some adjustments and bumps to some voltages 3600mhz stable easily if not a step higher.


It's good to see someone having easier success, I don't know what but something broke with my settings and I can't get 3600Mhz ram to be able to run Prime95 any more. Errors out within a minute(IBT AVX, HCI memtest etc work though). Had settled on some better timings I could coax out from my memory kit(3600CL16,21,21,18,40,63...SCL 2/2) but then on Monday as I had my computer shut off for a extended time and I got back from work I thought I'll try 3666Mhz next as the memory seems capable and it's just a question of correct SoC voltage. Did and tried. Got a unusual amount of issues, (graphics drivers kept crashing though HCI memtest was running along fine testing the ram)
Well I returned to 3600Mhz but things weren't fine as they were before and haven't since been able to have Prime95 run without errors instantly at that speed (auto timings or other increased voltages)

Probably a issue with my CPU IMC. Did something it din't like and can't get it to run as smooth as before. 

Having some success off 3533Mhz working in Prime95... 

The issue kept looking like the graphics drivers wanted to crash when I was testing the memory(which was not producing errors or crashing with HCI, IBT AVX produced no fails and passed but got some wrong values on the time and GFlops at times, looked like a value was passed from time to Gflops and back and at others they were just random(it still continued to run and find the correct calculation result))

EDIT:
Might have been a bad combo of settings that made it not work any more. 
Seems Memory interleaving options have a high chance of probability to cause the issue with stability at this speed. And they need paired with my ProcODT and DrvStr values that I found best earlier.
I had without thought set "size 2Kb" but it's more unstable than "1Kb" which might be AUTO and the setting I had stability with before. (3600Mhz is not failing Prime95 instantly now, as it was before)


----------



## ajc9988

Anty said:


> TR is already based on best binned dies and has 2 separate sets of IMC (I assume you have 1DPC configuration not 2DPC) so this may be the answer. Anyway - what SOC and VDDR are you using?


So SOC is running at 1.075V and the Ram is at 1.44V. I used the recommendations for higher timings for X470. My VTT is 0.72 and 0.74, depending on channels. Then you have choices on how to setup the memory, whether doing UMA or NUMA, etc. So there is more to consider, but it all depends on what you are doing as to which mem config you want for best benches. Channel interleaving gives you the highest reads in AIDA64, but may hurt bench performance to a degree over just leaving auto, for example.


----------



## MNMadman

Thanks @1usmus for this! *Heatripper Threadkiller* is now running the Fast preset at 3232MHz and passed 1000% on RAM Test. Will do more thorough testing later, but happy with this for now.

Looking forward to the new stuff in 1.2.0 Beta 1.

Edit: Further tweaked it to the 3333 Fast settings. The RAM is actually running at 3366MHz due to the 101MHz BCLK. Been a long time since I've run RAM past its rated timings, but this is working well.


----------



## spyshagg

How do I know if my Hynix is AFR MFR V1 or V2 ?


edit: Also, the version 1.1.0 doesn't have an "Import" button the youtube video shows


----------



## looniam

just dropping this to let you guys know got a mention in AMD AMA on ananandtech yesterday:

AMD AMA - Starts at 12PM EST on Wednesday May 9


> Better, more recent testing shows that the impact of sub-timings on memory is around 10-15% - https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/pinnacle-ridge-speicher-tuning/ (GER).
> 
> The overclocked memory sphere is tuned for our competitor, so we're all learning together how to adapt and utilize these high speed memory kits to best effect. I really like the work the awesome community at overclock.net did with the Ryzen DRAM calculator. Those are some great timings suggestions, takes 85% of the effort out so you're really left with what your silicon and memory chips and motherboards can do.
> 
> Latency is one of the things we're looking at, but it's not the only thing.


cheers.


----------



## SexySale

looniam said:


> just dropping this to let you guys know got a mention in AMD AMA on ananandtech yesterday:
> 
> AMD AMA - Starts at 12PM EST on Wednesday May 9
> 
> 
> cheers.


Thx man for sharing this. Great work @1usmus and you should be mentioned [emoji3]


----------



## crakej

@1usmus - why do you say not to use extreme power phase for =>3600?

I've always put extreme power phase on as soon as I OC...


----------



## MNMadman

MNMadman said:


> Thanks @1usmus for this! *Heatripper Threadkiller* is now running the Fast preset at 3232MHz and passed 1000% on RAM Test. Will do more thorough testing later, but happy with this for now.
> 
> Looking forward to the new stuff in 1.2.0 Beta 1.
> 
> Edit: Further tweaked it to the 3333 Fast settings. The RAM is actually running at 3366MHz due to the 101MHz BCLK. Been a long time since I've run RAM past its rated timings, but this is working well.


Apparently, I was a bit too hasty in my enthusiasm.

I had actually tried the 3466 and 3333 Fast timings and they both booted normally and ran programs/games, but they both failed RAM Test within a couple hundred percent. I backed it down to the 3200 Fast timings and it failed at just over 4000%.

Turns out the last time I made sure the RAM was stable with a 10000% run was at a lower CPU overclock (3939MHz). I have to establish a new baseline for RAM stability now that the CPU is overclocked to 4141MHz. Going to back the timings down to XMP settings and make sure it passes 10000%. I have a feeling that I will need to increase the SOC voltage.


----------



## Whatisthisfor

Is anybody using a Gigabyte board and getting 3600 stable?


----------



## ZeNch

spyshagg said:


> How do I know if my Hynix is AFR MFR V1 or V2 ?
> 
> 
> edit: Also, the version 1.1.0 doesn't have an "Import" button the youtube video shows


Open Thaiphoon Burner software and click in "Read"

In the result search:
Dram components>Part Number> H5AN8G8N*MFR*-TFC
or:
Dram components>Die Density / Count>8 Gb *M-die* (25 nm) / 1 die 

M is MFR
A is AFR

select the correct in Dram Calculator ans try with R-XMP (in my opinion is very good)
good luck


----------



## Nighthog

Whatisthisfor said:


> Is anybody using a Gigabyte board and getting 3600 stable?


Took it's time but I've about located my issues and found stable settings for 3600Mhz on my Gigabyte AB350-Gaming 3 it seems*. 
(*could not get Prime95 to instantly fail before I located the problems that was causing the instability, other things were working alright)

Need to test longer though but it seems 98% ok.

tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL were the problem. Values @ 2 or 3 would cause issues. 4 Works with 1.350V... Value "3" needs ~1.430V. Haven't gone all out yet to see which voltage "2" needs or fully tested "3" yet. All other timings the same.


----------



## spyshagg

ZeNch said:


> Open Thaiphoon Burner software and click in "Read"
> 
> In the result search:
> Dram components>Part Number> H5AN8G8N*MFR*-TFC
> or:
> Dram components>Die Density / Count>8 Gb *M-die* (25 nm) / 1 die
> 
> M is MFR
> A is AFR
> 
> select the correct in Dram Calculator ans try with R-XMP (in my opinion is very good)
> good luck


Thanks 

My dual ranked 2x16GB 2400 hynix MFR wont accept less than 16-18-18-18 @ 3133mhz. But it does accept most of the subtimings the tool gives. It boosted AIDA64 from ~41GB/s up to 48GB/s. Pretty good!

But I am having negative scaling with voltage on this ram. More than 1.4v = more errors. Maybe heat related, they are quite hot even with a fan on top.

Great tool


----------



## Mandarb

I have the C6H and 2x 16GB 3200MHz CL14 Trident Z (dual ranked). I can get it perfectly stable, 6500% HCI coverage, 5h memtest64+.

What I can't do is getting to reliably boot. Sometimes I spend one hour just to get it to boot, and that includes reverting back to to factory by pushing the CMOS button.

It's pretty weird, I played with SOC voltage, it starts more reliably with less, but likes to blackscreen reboot as soon as i'm below 0.968V. I used to have a 1800X, now I have a 2700X.A

Anyone here who got that same RAM stable? I'm really rather disappointed here and not really sure if my board is maybe faulty. When I got it halfways reliably to boot it would "drift" and become unreliable after a couple days.


----------



## spyshagg

Is it normal to have memory chips degrade when trying to memory training with lower subtimings ?

My stable preset is no longer error free after trying lowering the subtimings even more. Black screens started to happen as well.


----------



## mtrai

Mandarb said:


> I have the C6H and 2x 16GB 3200MHz CL14 Trident Z (dual ranked). I can get it perfectly stable, 6500% HCI coverage, 5h memtest64+.
> 
> What I can't do is getting to reliably boot. Sometimes I spend one hour just to get it to boot, and that includes reverting back to to factory by pushing the CMOS button.
> 
> It's pretty weird, I played with SOC voltage, it starts more reliably with less, but likes to blackscreen reboot as soon as i'm below 0.968V. I used to have a 1800X, now I have a 2700X.A
> 
> Anyone here who got that same RAM stable? I'm really rather disappointed here and not really sure if my board is maybe faulty. When I got it halfways reliably to boot it would "drift" and become unreliable after a couple days.


Have you disabled Memory Clear in the CBS options and also set the memory retry count to 3 and check if that fixes it for you? Also make sure you are setting dram boot voltage as well.


----------



## ajc9988

spyshagg said:


> Is it normal to have memory chips degrade when trying to memory training with lower subtimings ?
> 
> My stable preset is no longer error free after trying lowering the subtimings even more. Black screens started to happen as well.


So, a although men can degrade, I'd look to the IMC first. What voltage and llc are you using on SOC?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## spyshagg

ajc9988 said:


> So, a although men can degrade, I'd look to the IMC first. What voltage and llc are you using on SOC?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


all stock on everything cpu, vsoc, llc . Ram was set to 1.385v

I think the issue is temperature. The hynix ram is dualrank with 8GB on each side, they get very hot with the stock prism cpu cooler. Increasing the vmem actually produces worse stability and errors (coherent with heat issues).

Tomorrow I'll have my custom WC on the cpu so I will find out the causes for the sudden instability I'm having.


----------



## crakej

didn't it say a few pages back that MFR down't need much voltage? like about 1.3 and more for 3200?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Got 3533mhz tuned for the most part. Could probably tighten the timings a hair more but I doubt performance will have a significant gain. I can boot at 4000mhz and should be able to have 3600-3733mhz stable soon.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> It's good to see someone having easier success, I don't know what but something broke with my settings and I can't get 3600Mhz ram to be able to run Prime95 any more. Errors out within a minute(IBT AVX, HCI memtest etc work though). Had settled on some better timings I could coax out from my memory kit(3600CL16,21,21,18,40,63...SCL 2/2) but then on Monday as I had my computer shut off for a extended time and I got back from work I thought I'll try 3666Mhz next as the memory seems capable and it's just a question of correct SoC voltage. Did and tried. Got a unusual amount of issues, (graphics drivers kept crashing though HCI memtest was running along fine testing the ram)
> Well I returned to 3600Mhz but things weren't fine as they were before and haven't since been able to have Prime95 run without errors instantly at that speed (auto timings or other increased voltages)
> 
> Probably a issue with my CPU IMC. Did something it din't like and can't get it to run as smooth as before.
> 
> Having some success off 3533Mhz working in Prime95...
> 
> The issue kept looking like the graphics drivers wanted to crash when I was testing the memory(which was not producing errors or crashing with HCI, IBT AVX produced no fails and passed but got some wrong values on the time and GFlops at times, looked like a value was passed from time to Gflops and back and at others they were just random(it still continued to run and find the correct calculation result))
> 
> EDIT:
> Might have been a bad combo of settings that made it not work any more.
> Seems Memory interleaving options have a high chance of probability to cause the issue with stability at this speed. And they need paired with my ProcODT and DrvStr values that I found best earlier.
> I had without thought set "size 2Kb" but it's more unstable than "1Kb" which might be AUTO and the setting I had stability with before. (3600Mhz is not failing Prime95 instantly now, as it was before)


I would say that more than likely during your memory testing something got corrupted. Its happened to me plenty, You may end up having to do a clean install of your graphics drivers or even a clean install of your OS if you dont get it working like normal. Ive ran into weird problems and most of the time it was corruption due to booting into OS with memory errors.


----------



## Mandarb

mtrai said:


> Have you disabled Memory Clear in the CBS options and also set the memory retry count to 3 and check if that fixes it for you? Also make sure you are setting dram boot voltage as well.


Retry is set to four, CBS clear I haven't touched. This time around I left DRAM boot voltage alone as it was suggested it could introduce boot problems. I did play with it in the past. Didn't help (much) when I upped it in the past.

The board also likes to crash in BIOS sometimes and now has trouble even booting after CMOS clear, yesterday at stock memory it blackscreened in Windows.

At this point I am thinking of sending it in for warranty, at which point I should get it replaced, while ordering a C7H so I am not stuck without a PC, then selling the C6H...

My memory setup was nothing but troublesome since the start, at first I thought it was the BIOS and it would get better, but it's been only going downhill since 3008.

Edit: other issues I have: Canon camera disconnects from front USB when downloading pictures, works on the back CPU USB without problems. Elgato HD60S stops working when I connect my new Elgato camlink, doesn't matter whether I connect both to CPU USB or one to CPU and the other to chipset. One or the other is ok, both won't work.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> I would say that more than likely during your memory testing something got corrupted. Its happened to me plenty, You may end up having to do a clean install of your graphics drivers or even a clean install of your OS if you dont get it working like normal. Ive ran into weird problems and most of the time it was corruption due to booting into OS with memory errors.


Was nothing that bad as corruption, was bad memory interleaving setting in combo with to tight tWRWRSCL/tRDRDSCL for the voltage applied. I've found out SCL @ 4/4 works with 1.340V... 3/3 needs 1.440V. All other setting the same.

I've now been trying to see if CL14 can be made to work. Though it requires quite a lot of voltage. I'm at 1.490V right now...  Might need 1.500V... No idea what voltage is really safe for these 16nm chips though in the long term.


----------



## Whatisthisfor

I was able to overclock memory to 3466 MHZ on a Gigabyte X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI (BIOS F4e) with fast settings from Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0 Beta 2. See the results below. The applied settings were stable for the AIDA64 stresstest running more than five minutes, which proved to me to be a quite good indicator for all-day stability like in in games in the past. Tried also 3466 extreme settings, but the stresstest failed after 2 minutes. Offset for the 2700x was -0,125V (its quite easy to undervolt actually and its very needed) what helps TEMP CPU Tdie to keep some distance to 70° Celsius even while AIDA64 stability test and this offset also proved to be stable for all-day use to me for weeks now. For CPU cooling i use Kraken X42. The voltage applied for SOC was 1.05V and for DRAM was 1.4V.


----------



## Palulukas

Greetings,

I wasn't able to achieve the 3200 mhz with my Samsung E-Die Corsair CMD32GX4M4B3200C16 RAM-Kit. Processor is a TR 1950X on a Zenith Extreme (BIOS 1003). 
The calculated settings can be found at the end of this post. 

First, I struggled with stability in memtest, getting random reboots without any display of failures. Then, the PC stopped at Postcode 4B (Load VGA BIOS) or 1F (Detect Memory). Completely random.

I don't know, what to do. I also tried D.O.C.P. settings + the calculated but that didn't work out either. 


With kind regards

Palulukas


----------



## i_max2k2

Guys I'm having trouble trying to stabilize stock settings for my dual rank Samsung B Die ram, any help would be appreciation, the kit is a G.Skill 2x16gb 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34. I got the 2700X & X470 CH7. Initially I was using higher SoC and the ram was very unstable, lately I have dropped the SoC voltage to around 1.025 and I can go deeper into stability testing. However, my system still crashes within an hour of using Ram Test. I've tried using the safe presets from the Dram calc, but as I see now some settings will be different for X470. But for the time being, would be the best way to just get stable settings for the Ram on stock clocks?

Thanks


----------



## MNMadman

Okay, so the 3232 Safe preset is stable for me -- got through an 18,000% RAM Test run with zero errors. I also modified some settings -- GearDownMode and BankGroupSwapAlt are now disabled (both were enabled by default and with XMP settings).



Palulukas said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I wasn't able to achieve the 3200 mhz with my Samsung E-Die Corsair CMD32GX4M4B3200C16 RAM-Kit. Processor is a TR 1950X on a Zenith Extreme (BIOS 1003).
> The calculated settings can be found at the end of this post.
> 
> First, I struggled with stability in memtest, getting random reboots without any display of failures. Then, the PC stopped at Postcode 4B (Load VGA BIOS) or 1F (Detect Memory). Completely random.
> 
> I don't know, what to do. I also tried D.O.C.P. settings + the calculated but that didn't work out either.
> 
> 
> With kind regards
> 
> Palulukas





i_max2k2 said:


> Guys I'm having trouble trying to stabilize stock settings for my dual rank Samsung B Die ram, any help would be appreciation, the kit is a G.Skill 2x16gb 3200Mhz 14-14-14-34. I got the 2700X & X470 CH7. Initially I was using higher SoC and the ram was very unstable, lately I have dropped the SoC voltage to around 1.025 and I can go deeper into stability testing. However, my system still crashes within an hour of using Ram Test. I've tried using the safe presets from the Dram calc, but as I see now some settings will be different for X470. But for the time being, would be the best way to just get stable settings for the Ram on stock clocks?


Questions for both of you...

Is it stable on *actual* stock RAM settings (Auto everything)? Have you tried Auto RAM settings but with RAM speed set to 2933 or even 2800 (or enable DOCP/XMP but set the speed to 2800/2933)? Some CPUs just aren't capable of 3200 RAM speeds -- even the heavily-binned Threadripper.


----------



## PopnOffatTheF

*can't get 3200c14 stable on any preset*

I've been trying for weeks (every evening after work) to get my 3200c14 stable. I've tried all presets from the DRAM calculator (all the combinations & a lot of voltage increments for SOC and DRAM) & I still cannot get this memory stable. I'm at the end of my rope, someone please point me in the right direction or tell me what I'm doing wrong, it's maddening how hard this is. I noticed other people with TeamGroups RAM kits also had this weird setting for RttNOM & rttWr - if that's a clue I'm too ignorant and inexperienced to understand it. The screenshot is the closest thing to stable I was able to get on 3200 so far - by putting in 16-16-16-16-36 and leaving all the rest on auto except voltage.

My using Ryzen 1700 @3.8Ghz, on ASUS b350 Strix-F, with TeamGroup Dark Pro 3600c16 RAM kit (samsung b-die, single rank...that's supposed to be good right?). Seasonic prime titanium 1000W psu.

I cannot for the life of me get that 3200c14....to add insult to injury - did a build for a friend with FlareX RAM kit (1700X & b350 Strix) - DRAM calculator worked first try - rock stable.
If nothing can help, what component should I look at replacing - CPU? Motherboard?

Please help, you kind people.


----------



## Palulukas

MNMadman said:


> Okay, so the 3232 Safe preset is stable for me -- got through an 18,000% RAM Test run with zero errors. I also modified some settings -- GearDownMode and BankGroupSwapAlt are now disabled (both were enabled by default and with XMP settings).
> 
> 
> Questions for both of you...
> 
> Is it stable on *actual* stock RAM settings (Auto everything)? Have you tried Auto RAM settings but with RAM speed set to 2933 or even 2800 (or enable DOCP/XMP but set the speed to 2800/2933)? Some CPUs just aren't capable of 3200 RAM speeds -- even the heavily-binned Threadripper.


Hello MNMadman,

The RAM is technically ok - JEDEC standard is stable. I haven‘t tried D.O.C.P. with 2800 or 2933 MHz yet.
The CPU is definately capable of at least 3200 MHz, because it already worked with safe-preset on BIOS 0902, calculated with DRAM Calculator V. 0.9.9. 
Unfortunately I removed the calculator screenshots...

With kind regards

Palulukas


----------



## i_max2k2

MNMadman said:


> Okay, so the 3232 Safe preset is stable for me -- got through an 18,000% RAM Test run with zero errors. I also modified some settings -- GearDownMode and BankGroupSwapAlt are now disabled (both were enabled by default and with XMP settings).
> 
> 
> 
> Questions for both of you...
> 
> Is it stable on *actual* stock RAM settings (Auto everything)? Have you tried Auto RAM settings but with RAM speed set to 2933 or even 2800 (or enable DOCP/XMP but set the speed to 2800/2933)? Some CPUs just aren't capable of 3200 RAM speeds -- even the heavily-binned Threadripper.


Thank you, so I had tried DOCP and auto everything else, that would fail. I tried DOCP + 1.36v for Ram and SoC @ 1.0v, its has run stable so far on Ram test at 1700%+ the longest I have had with no errors.


----------



## WarpenN1

Dram calculator extreme preset gives a weird low tRRDS value of 3 as 4 is the lowest :O


----------



## MNMadman

Palulukas said:


> The CPU is definately capable of at least 3200 MHz, because it already worked with safe-preset on BIOS 0902, calculated with DRAM Calculator V. 0.9.9.


If everything was working fine on BIOS 0902 and the new BIOS didn't fix anything for you ... then you should go back to the old BIOS. New BIOS/AGESA doesn't mean anything if you have to downgrade to use it.


----------



## i_max2k2

MNMadman said:


> Okay, so the 3232 Safe preset is stable for me -- got through an 18,000% RAM Test run with zero errors. I also modified some settings -- GearDownMode and BankGroupSwapAlt are now disabled (both were enabled by default and with XMP settings).
> 
> 
> 
> Questions for both of you...
> 
> Is it stable on *actual* stock RAM settings (Auto everything)? Have you tried Auto RAM settings but with RAM speed set to 2933 or even 2800 (or enable DOCP/XMP but set the speed to 2800/2933)? Some CPUs just aren't capable of 3200 RAM speeds -- even the heavily-binned Threadripper.


So at 1.37v on Ram and 1.025 on SoC, this is where I'm now. How stable would this be considered. I'm increasing the ram voltage to 1.38v and testing now.


----------



## MNMadman

i_max2k2 said:


> So at 1.37v on Ram and 1.025 on SoC, this is where I'm now. How stable would this be considered. I'm increasing the ram voltage to 1.38v and testing now.


I would consider that a fail.

My personal standard is 10,000% or more with no errors. It's just an arbitrary number I picked.


----------



## i_max2k2

MNMadman said:


> I would consider that a fail.
> 
> My personal standard is 10,000% or more with no errors. It's just an arbitrary number I picked.


I can understand I noticed on the site that 6000% is a good number, but if it would pass 10,000% that would be even better. I increased the voltage to 1.38v and same SoC, but it failed at close to 500%. I'm wondering if windows corruption could be making it worse. Perhaps I should test with Memtest86 and see how that goes.


----------



## ressonantia

So I've got this, but I'm not convinced its totally stable. It failed (1 error) at about 1700% using the karhusoftware Ram Test, but then I re-ran it and it passed 17000% before I turned it off with no errors. How can I be assured of stability?

SOC voltage: 1.05V
RAM voltage: 1.38V


----------



## i_max2k2

MNMadman said:


> I would consider that a fail.
> 
> My personal standard is 10,000% or more with no errors. It's just an arbitrary number I picked.


So I had memtest86 running overnight on test 8, with no errors, I'm wondering if the test fail is really because of Windows getting messed up because unstable run the last few days.


----------



## Palulukas

MNMadman said:


> If everything was working fine on BIOS 0902 and the new BIOS didn't fix anything for you ... then you should go back to the old BIOS. New BIOS/AGESA doesn't mean anything if you have to downgrade to use it.


Hello MNMadman,

it actually fixed something for me so... I would like to keep BIOS 1003. 
What can I do now (other than buying B-Die RAM)? I'm not so familiar with RAM-OC. 


With kind regards

Palulukas


----------



## hsn

Thank you @1usmus for your software.
finally i can pass memtest using your tips.

1.44v dram
1.1475v soc


----------



## seansplayin

*Ryzen with 3733 memory*



CJMitsuki said:


> I was able to get 3600 to work and left plenty of headroom for tightening timings but it was 4am and had to get ready for work with no sleep but the biggest change that made the difference, for me at least was going to 2T on the command rate and taking Gear Down back to disabled instead of Enabled like it has had to be done lately above 3200mhz. I got it working at c16 easily with no memory training so Im feeling good about either c16 with tight timings or c15 with "meh" timings. Seeing how tight timings on 1 Cas higher pretty much always beats lower Cas with "meh" timings Ill probably stick with 16 rather than fight 15 for no performance gain. Just with initial loose timings it is comparable to my 3466mhz with tight timings, although 3466 pulls ahead just a bit. With 3600 ironed out that wont be the case. I also booted up to 3733 but that is a timing fight I will have to start on tomorrow when my 2700x arrives. Keep in mind this is with my segfault bugged 1700x that is definitely becoming a pain now but the RMA process is nearly to the acceptance stage so i will build my daughter a computer with the new one and my x370 Prime board. Below is is a quick bench i ran this morning before leaving for work on the crap timings I slapped together in literally 10 minutes. If you are running 1st gen on x470 and are nearly able to get 3600mhz just try 2T with Gear Down Disabled and see if it helps. I also ran my Cad_Bus at 24ohm rather than the usual 20ohm. By the way, I was running HCIm memtest deluxe outside of OS and with crap timings only had 6 errors per 1044% so definitely with some adjustments and bumps to some voltages 3600mhz stable easily if not a step higher.


hi, I am also able to boot, benchmark with 3733 memory but errors in memtest within the first couple minutes. I've done some searching for what settings or voltages to increase to stable it out but no luck so far. If you learn something please share.

Thanks,
Sean
water cooled 1800x on C6H bios 6001 with 16GB of Gskill 4266 memory


----------



## chakku

@1usmus curious to know what timings/settings you're currently running your F4-3000C14D-32GTZR kit at?

Sorry for the offtopic comment, looking forward to the 1.2.0 calculator update for Zen+ in the meantime.


----------



## CJMitsuki

seansplayin said:


> hi, I am also able to boot, benchmark with 3733 memory but errors in memtest within the first couple minutes. I've done some searching for what settings or voltages to increase to stable it out but no luck so far. If you learn something please share.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sean
> water cooled 1800x on C6H bios 6001 with 16GB of Gskill 4266 memory


Youll be much better off running 3666mhz tightened than 3733mhz right now. I almost had 3733 stable but apparently I corrupted the SPD in my 4133mhz kit so I have to wait on a response from the Thaiphoon Burner support as to the reason my ability to rewrite SPD data is gone after the update. Might have to swap boards just to have that ability temporarily so i can fix my RAM or else it has 2 bits flipping in MemTest86, tons of errors with the same 2 bits. I just posted some of my memory OC stuff in the Rog Crosshair VII Hero thread a few moments ago. It tells of a couple quirks I had with 3666 and 3733 that may or may not apply to you.


----------



## i_max2k2

MNMadman said:


> I would consider that a fail.
> 
> My personal standard is 10,000% or more with no errors. It's just an arbitrary number I picked.


So finally I believe, the system is 100% stable on 3200Mhz, Used some of the Calculator values along with what people found to stabilize their Dual Rank sticks. This is running slightly tighter timings. I think one of the issues is when we set Dram voltage in bios, it shows up less then whats being supplied, I had to set the voltage to 1.38v in bios to see 1.363v supplied to ram. So happy I have atleast one set of settings which is definitely stable. Will try to overclock bit more now.


----------



## dspx

i_max2k2 said:


> So finally I believe, the system is 100% stable on 3200Mhz, Used some of the Calculator values along with what people found to stabilize their Dual Rank sticks. This is running slightly tighter timings. I think one of the issues is when we set Dram voltage in bios, it shows up less then whats being supplied, I had to set the voltage to 1.38v in bios to see 1.363v supplied to ram. So happy I have atleast one set of settings which is definitely stable. Will try to overclock bit more now.


How did you check the actual voltage supplied to RAM?


----------



## i_max2k2

dspx said:


> How did you check the actual voltage supplied to RAM?


I was comparing from the HWinfo under the Asus section, which after you asked me realize its probably not accurate, is there anyway to find the accurate value, perhaps through the multi-meter?



ressonantia said:


> So I've got this, but I'm not convinced its totally stable. It failed (1 error) at about 1700% using the karhusoftware Ram Test, but then I re-ran it and it passed 17000% before I turned it off with no errors. How can I be assured of stability?
> 
> SOC voltage: 1.05V
> RAM voltage: 1.38V


I am not 100% sure if this is true, but now I think when you restart, Windows 10 tries to dump ram like hibernate and pick up on the restart. I feel this could be impacting the Ramtest results. I now shutdown my PC, change settings and then start Ramtest. I have seen the same behavior as yours, and upon doing this, I see the Ramtest run longer. But perhaps its just coincidence. But give that a try and see.


----------



## bouchnick

I have a really weird issue trying to overclock my ram. I have 3200cl14 Samsung b-die Team Dark pro ram (Single rank 2x8gb) both in the 2/4 slots of my Asus Prime x470-Pro motherboard. Paired with a 2700x.

I can easily get the extreme timings at 3200mhz cl14 stable with a 10 hours memory test, but as soon as I raise the frequency to a mere 3246mhz I'll get an error within 30 minutes to an hour. Even with timings looser than the safe presets. My DRAM is at 1.4v and SOC at 1.075 (the most stable settings I got so far).

Any idea what the hell is going on?


----------



## i_max2k2

bouchnick said:


> I have a really weird issue trying to overclock my ram. I have 3200cl14 Samsung b-die Team Dark pro ram (Single rank 2x8gb) both in the 2/4 slots of my Asus Prime x470-Pro motherboard. Paired with a 2700x.
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily get the extreme timings at 3200mhz cl14 stable with a 10 hours memory test, but as soon as I raise the frequency to a mere 3246mhz I'll get an error within 30 minutes to an hour. Even with timings looser than the safe presets. My DRAM is at 1.4v and SOC at 1.075 (the most stable settings I got so far).
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea what the hell is going on?




Try slightly lower SoC, I know this varies from CPU to CPU, but I have found mine to be most stable around 1.033.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Whatisthisfor

Anybody with the MSI M7? If so, how is Ram performing? It's better than the Asus VII X470 Crosshair regarding Ram overclocking?


----------



## Flybel

My PC won't run the values the calculator gives me. First of all, in the video there is an import button which does not exist for me, so I entered things manually. This is what I came up with:


Spoiler
































































My hardware is
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 @3,8 GHz 1.300V with stock cooling
16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 (Dual Kit) - CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 -> currently @3,2 GHz with A-XMP, but I'm trying to get either better timings or higher clock speeds with same or better timings for 24/7 use.
MSi B350 Tomahawk

My BIOS settings look like this:


Spoiler


























* -> * 
























Some of the input fields allow only certain values and decimals are not accepted at all, so I cannot enter everything precisely as the calculator wants me to.
The problem is that every time I manually set RAM settings, if they don't work the PC does not retry but gets stuck (with black screen and CPU and DRAM LED on) instead which means I have to do a physical CMOS reset which makes trial & error pretty annoying. It works however with A-XMP.
I am sure the issue exists between chair and keyboard, but what am I doing wrong? Am I putting the values in the wrong place? Any help is appreciated.


----------



## Anty

procODT, RTT, SOC & DRAM voltages are AUTO - try manual settings


----------



## BloOdje

Anyone got G.Skill Ripjaws V (F4-3200C16D-16GVKB - Hynix MFR) working at 3200mhz with Asus Prime B350-Plus (newest moded bios)? I tried everything using DRAM Calculator and im getting errors after 1 minute using 12 instances of HCI memtest. I just set everything like on screenshots below but for now on im stuck with 2933mhz.


----------



## ressonantia

i_max2k2 said:


> I am not 100% sure if this is true, but now I think when you restart, Windows 10 tries to dump ram like hibernate and pick up on the restart. I feel this could be impacting the Ramtest results. I now shutdown my PC, change settings and then start Ramtest. I have seen the same behavior as yours, and upon doing this, I see the Ramtest run longer. But perhaps its just coincidence. But give that a try and see.


In my case, I didn't even restart between tests. I've just clicked start straight after but I'm not sure how to actually stabilise it. That said though, it was borderline stable and would blue screen sometime when transcoding HEVC so I've dialled it back to my tuned 3200MHz settings for now. I might try again over the weekend to see if I can stabilise it further.


----------



## karenin

Just wanted to let you know, that for Micron B-Die your values are generally correct, but you need them to round up. F.Ex if something is 15,4 -> 16 not 15. Especially true for tRCD and tRP. 3200 at tRCD/tRP 18 would kill it, at 19 they run just fine.
But note that mine are the "cheap" 2666 Sports, the more expensive Crucial Kits are maybe able to run it your way. Maybe add a second Profile for the cheaper ones?


----------



## aft_lizard01

181 Pages....so I am hoping no rules are broken. 

My Team xTreem 3600 CL17 Ram is a samsung S-Die according to Thaipoon. The latest Beta wont read the XMP so I can calculate the timings and voltages. Am I doing anything wrong?


----------



## clintyip

Recently bought a new mobo, CPU and ram kit as follows:
- ASUS TUF B350M-PLUS Gaming Motherboard - latest BIOS (AGESA 1.0.0.2a update)
- Ryzen 5 2600x
- Gskill FlareX 3200Mhz CL14 2x8GB (pretty sure this is Samsung B-Die)

I've tried following the instructions to the letter and using the numbers generated in the calculator (Safe) - still get errors in Memtest HCI (even BSOD'd once)....

XMP default profile settings didn't work for me either....

I'm running the official bios - do I need to use the modded one?

Anyone got any idea?


----------



## ressonantia

aft_lizard01 said:


> 181 Pages....so I am hoping no rules are broken.
> 
> My Team xTreem 3600 CL17 Ram is a samsung S-Die according to Thaipoon. The latest Beta wont read the XMP so I can calculate the timings and voltages. Am I doing anything wrong?


The new idea behind this calculator is that since XMP is pretty much Intel specific, using the XMP settings on your RAM will result in non-optimum settings for Ryzen. That being said, if you don't want to use the "R-XMP" settings from the calculator just choose "Custom" under "Profile Version" and that will allow you to input your RAMs XMP settings as what is outputted by Thaiphoon. Or just pick the B-die and hit R-XMP and click on Fast/Safe/Extreme and tweak from there.



clintyip said:


> Recently bought a new mobo, CPU and ram kit as follows:
> - ASUS TUF B350M-PLUS Gaming Motherboard - latest BIOS (AGESA 1.0.0.2a update)
> - Ryzen 5 2600x
> - Gskill FlareX 3200Mhz CL14 2x8GB (pretty sure this is Samsung B-Die)
> 
> I've tried following the instructions to the letter and using the numbers generated in the calculator (Safe) - still get errors in Memtest HCI (even BSOD'd once)....
> 
> XMP default profile settings didn't work for me either....
> 
> I'm running the official bios - do I need to use the modded one?
> 
> Anyone got any idea?


Have you tried just inputting the primary timings + subtimings and leaving everything else alone (Termination block, CAD_BUS block, etc)? Also what are your voltages?


----------



## clintyip

ressonantia said:


> The new idea behind this calculator is that since XMP is pretty much Intel specific, using the XMP settings on your RAM will result in non-optimum settings for Ryzen. That being said, if you don't want to use the "R-XMP" settings from the calculator just choose "Custom" under "Profile Version" and that will allow you to input your RAMs XMP settings as what is outputted by Thaiphoon. Or just pick the B-die and hit R-XMP and click on Fast/Safe/Extreme and tweak from there.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried just inputting the primary timings + subtimings and leaving everything else alone (Termination block, CAD_BUS block, etc)? Also what are your voltages?


I'll try again when I get home in a bit - I had my DRAM voltage up to 1.4V and SOC to 1.2 (max safe voltage that I was told) - still crashed.

Is crashing possible from having TOO MANY volts?


----------



## ressonantia

clintyip said:


> I'll try again when I get home in a bit - I had my DRAM voltage up to 1.4V and SOC to 1.2 (max safe voltage that I was told) - still crashed.
> 
> Is crashing possible from having TOO MANY volts?


Actually, yes! It seems like for the new Ryzen 2xxx series the SOC voltage should be between 1.0V and 1.05V so try 1.05V SOC voltage and then 1.35V DRAM voltage. You should have no problems running that RAM at rated speed.

You could try these settings:
SOC Voltage: 1.05V
DRAM Voltage: 1.36V
GDM: Disabled
BGS: Disabled
Powerdown: Disabled


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 1*

today - tomorrow there will be another version of the calculator, Beta 2








*download:*
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wU3vRYsfrtQh-NZmuxz4LvHy7wXWTVKX

*changelog:*
* added initial support for the Zen + (new soc voltage, cad_bus, rtt, e.t.c.)
* support DRAM OC 3666+ for Zen+ and X470 motherboard (only Samsung b-die) thanks @olegdjus for testing
* Thaiphoon XMP import is back (some adaptation of imported profiles may be necessary)
* after importing the Thaiphoon report, information about your memory will be provided in the upper right corner of the program (in the future, extended information will be provided)
* new cad_bus timings recommendation
* Power Supply System tab with new recommendation is back
* bug fixing

*plans:*
* new bios have a new SMU, voltage adjustments for DRAM are needed. I will try to make them in 1.2.0 beta 2
* some adaptation of imported profiles
* tRRDS does not always work correctly and rounding is required


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wU3vRYsfrtQh-NZmuxz4LvHy7wXWTVKX
> 
> *changelog:*
> * added initial support for the Zen + (new soc voltage, cad_bus, rtt, e.t.c.)
> * support DRAM OC 3666+ for Zen+ and X470 motherboard (only Samsung b-die) thanks @olegdjus for testing
> * Thaiphoon XMP import is back (some adaptation of imported profiles may be necessary)
> * after importing the Thaiphoon report, information about your memory will be provided in the upper right corner of the program (in the future, extended information will be provided)
> * new cad_bus timings recommendation
> * Power Supply System tab with new recommendation is back
> * bug fixing
> 
> *plans:*
> * new bios have a new SMU, voltage adjustments for DRAM are needed. I will try to make them in 1.2.0 beta 2
> * some adaptation of imported profiles


Thank you @1usmus for all hard work [emoji3]


----------



## lcbbcl

@1usmus nice to see you alive
where i can find the option DQS str?


----------



## 1usmus

lcbbcl said:


> @1usmus nice to see you alive


I have a very difficult month, a lot of problems, a lot of work but I'm with you 

DQS/Drive strenght only in ASUS mod bios...

________________________________________________________________

*To ALL.*If there are serious questions - write again. Thanks!


----------



## neur0cide

aft_lizard01 said:


> My Team xTreem 3600 CL17 Ram is a samsung S-Die according to Thaipoon. The latest Beta wont read the XMP so I can calculate the timings and voltages. Am I doing anything wrong?



Those S-are actually B-die.
Under _Profile version_ you got to choose _Custom_ and then type in the numbers from Thaiphoon Burner yourself.


EDIT: Never mind. XMP import is back in the new version of the Calculator.


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wU3vRYsfrtQh-NZmuxz4LvHy7wXWTVKX
> 
> *changelog:*
> * added initial support for the Zen + (new soc voltage, cad_bus, rtt, e.t.c.)
> * support DRAM OC 3666+ for Zen+ and X470 motherboard (only Samsung b-die) thanks @olegdjus for testing
> * Thaiphoon XMP import is back (some adaptation of imported profiles may be necessary)
> * after importing the Thaiphoon report, information about your memory will be provided in the upper right corner of the program (in the future, extended information will be provided)
> * new cad_bus timings recommendation
> * Power Supply System tab with new recommendation is back
> * bug fixing
> 
> *plans:*
> * new bios have a new SMU, voltage adjustments for DRAM are needed. I will try to make them in 1.2.0 beta 2
> * some adaptation of imported profiles
> * tRRDS does not always work correctly and rounding is required


Nice dude!

Will test it today man. Nice to see you around too.


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *To ALL.*If there are serious questions - write again. Thanks!


Thank you @1usmus

I had a hard time with my RAM overclock recently, it wasn't stable using previous stable settings on previous BIOSes, so I recently stumbled upon a great tip I found in Crosshair VII overclocking thread - "Reset your bios to default optimized settings if you find that your previously stable overclock is now BSODing or freezing. I then reloaded the exact same profile and haven't had any instability for a week."

So that obviously helped. Looking forward to the new voltage adjustment settings in the next beta!


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

THX Bratan' for your work


----------



## neur0cide

@*1usmus* 
I had a quick look at the new calculator. It's much more polished than your last one. Great work.
The Power section looks really nice and I'm looking forward on testing those new recommendations.
XMP import works as intended.
So far I could not detect any major flaws or bugs.

I do however have different views on some of your recommendations for the Termination Block:


For DR B-die you recommend *procODT=68.6 Ohm* as first option. I disagree. I gave support to a couple of users who actually needed _68.6 Ohm_, but from all I have seen and tested for myself, _60 Ohm_ still works best for the majority of users.



 *RttNom=RZQ/7* is now the only recommendation for any type of IC. You might remember, that I tried to convince you to recommend _RZQ/7_ over _RZQ/5_, since I did a survey on what works best for the users out of these two options. Though _RZQ/7_ yielded better results for the vast majority of users, there were some cases, where _RZQ/5_ prevailed. So I think this should still stand as an alt recommendation.
There is also _RttNom=disabled/off_. I don't notice any difference using _disabled_ or _RZQ/7_. A lot of users prefer this over _RZQ/7_. So I think this should be _Alt. 1_ and _RZQ/5_ should be _Alt. 2_.
EDIT: I should add, that I consider the impact of RttNom much bigger than that of RttPark.
 
Just my two cents.


----------



## Neoony

Flybel said:


> My PC won't run the values the calculator gives me. First of all, in the video there is an import button which does not exist for me, so I entered things manually.


The "R - XMP" button will read/import your ram things.
The import was in the older version.


----------



## 1usmus

*Determining the name of the RAM does not always work correctly, today there will be a fix*


----------



## ekimneems

Hey guys - Just want to double-check, is my 2200G a Zen 1 or Zen +?


----------



## i_max2k2

1usmus said:


> *Determining the name of the RAM does not always work correctly, today there will be a fix*


Thank you for your work here @1usmus! I was wondering do any settings change for X470, is there a way to toggle or the setting displayed apply for both? A screenshot button at the PSU setting would also be a great addition. 

Thanks again!


----------



## mtrai

@1usmus THANKS MAN....was getting a bit worried about you no posts here in days or on the .RU website. Glad your okay.


----------



## 1usmus

@neur0cide

60 ohms are ideal for 3200 MHz, but for 3280 MHz + you already need 68.6 ohms

about rtt_nom:

I agree, I'm trying to find the cases in which the RZQ5 has better stability ... 



i_max2k2 said:


> Thank you for your work here @1usmus! I was wondering do any settings change for X470, is there a way to toggle or the setting displayed apply for both? A screenshot button at the PSU setting would also be a great addition.
> 
> Thanks again!


In the future, all recommendations for a new generation of processors and new motherboards will be updated



ekimneems said:


> Hey guys - Just want to double-check, is my 2200G a Zen 1 or Zen +?


14nm , its zen


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> @neur0cide
> 
> 60 ohms are ideal for 3200 MHz, but for 3280 MHz + you already need 68.6 ohms
> 
> about rtt_nom:
> 
> I agree, I'm trying to find the cases in which the RZQ5 has better stability ...


You talk Micron B-die? 

I can vouch for 68.6 Ohm being the best.

Any plans for Micron E-die I've been trying my best to squeeze to death in your software any time? Or am I the only one with these yet?

They are quite easy to bring up in speed but timings are a hell to tighten properly(3600 and above).

ProcODT 48Ohm seems best for Micron E-die for stability. They boot with 40->53.3Ohm though. And all DrvStr at 40 Ohm has been best when squeezing it all out. And you can do 3600Mhz with 1.35Volts if not trying to hard to squeeze blood out of it.
RTT I've left with AUTO as they seem quite fine but I'll probably next try to change them out as I'm just on some edges off stability on timings I want to work out.


----------



## kawzir

Does anyone know if the FlareX 3200CL14 16gb ram kit could run stable on the 3466 fast presets? My motherboard is ASUS Prime X470Pro, I have been experimenting for 2 weeks and have no success on achieving it. Best stable settings for me are 3333CL14 Stilt timings. Wondering if its my MB hindering me.


----------



## neur0cide

1usmus said:


> @*neur0cide*
> 
> 60 ohms are ideal for 3200 MHz, but for 3280 MHz + you already need 68.6 ohms.



Interesting. I even had a case where one user needed a whopping 80 Ohm @3200 for Sammy B-die despite setting the Rtt dividers.
I'll have a go with 68,6 Ohm next week, when I'm back home. I currently have three DR kits to test this on (2x Samsung E-die kits and one B-die).




Nighthog said:


> You talk Micron B-die?



Nah, Samsung B-die. I have never owned or tested any DDR4 Micron ICs.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 2*

*Download:*
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NuEE2J3_il4Qa3Mn6iHS3RnYoBEnUxeS

*Changelog:*
* added recommendations DRAM Voltage for ZEN +
* fix recommendations CAD_BUS for ZEN + / ZEN
* fix memory information
* added added initial support for Samsung S-die (only custom profile)
* another bug fix


----------



## i_max2k2

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 2*
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *Download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NuEE2J3_il4Qa3Mn6iHS3RnYoBEnUxeS
> 
> 
> *Changelog:*
> * added recommendations DRAM Voltage for ZEN +
> * fix recommendations CAD_BUS for ZEN + / ZEN
> * fix memory information
> * added added initial support for Samsung S-die (only custom profile)
> * another bug fix


Thank you Sir!


----------



## numlock66

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.2.0 Beta 2*
> 
> *Download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NuEE2J3_il4Qa3Mn6iHS3RnYoBEnUxeS
> 
> *Changelog:*
> * added recommendations DRAM Voltage for ZEN +
> * fix recommendations CAD_BUS for ZEN + / ZEN
> * fix memory information
> * added added initial support for Samsung S-die (only custom profile)
> * another bug fix


Theses new configs works with x370 + ryzen 2xxx?


----------



## larrydavid

@1usmus : What are your settings for your G.Skill [email protected]? I'm looking to get higher than 3200 on my 2700X with Dual-Rank B-Die.

Thanks for all your hard work!


----------



## kawzir

@1usmus Thanks for the amazing work. Finally I can get 3466Fast presets running stable. Turns out I have pushed the VDIMM and Soc voltage a bit far, they were 1.45 and 1.05. With few steps of voltage backwards, I can finally get HCI 400%+ with 3466CL14 to work, voltages are now 1.42 and 1.03125. The zen+ category implementation is superb. I guess I will keep this settings and stop pushing the limits, until new bios release. 

Lastly, one question: Is 14-14-14-28 notably hard to achieve? After I get the 3466 fast presets stable, I tried to change tRCDRD from 15 to 14 and get HCI error nearly instantly. Tried to put more VDIMM and no improvement.


----------



## spadizzle

Silly ?, ZEN + is just the newer gen Ryzen?


----------



## MNMadman

spadizzle said:


> Silly ?, ZEN + is just the newer gen Ryzen?


Zen+ is the 12nm refresh of the original 14nm Zen architecture.

The 1000-series Ryzen CPUs use the original 14nm Zen architecture.
The 1000-series Threadripper CPUs use the original 14nm Zen architecture.
The 2000-series Ryzen APUs use the original 14nm Zen architecture.
The 2000-series Ryzen CPUs use the 12nm Zen+ architecture.
The 2000-series Threadripper CPUs coming in 2H 2018 will use the 12nm Zen+ architecture.

The 3000-series Ryzen and Threadripper CPUs coming in 2019 will use the 7nm Zen2 architecture.


----------



## Dokoram

1usmus 

1.1.0 was good
1.2.0 even better (simple import now)

Thx


----------



## matsal3

*3200 cl14 ->3333cl 14*

@1usmus thx
I stablize 3333-14-14-14-24-38-4-6-24-242. 1.41v ,soc volt 1.025,vddp 0.9, vpp mem 2.505 from Team Group 3200cl14 SS B-die.(Hci memtest 650%)
2700x c6h fits cadbus 20 20 30 30.(Not stable in 20 20 20 20, 24 24 24 24, 40 20 40 40)


----------



## dspx

The recommended DQS setting of 53.3 gave me errors in TM5, 60 is working fine.


----------



## Pilotasso

Thx 1usmus! I wouldnt know where to start without your tool!

testing 3600 safe settings. Im was 3533 stable with 4 DIMMS of 4266 GSkil's


----------



## Palulukas

New version of 1usmus! tool, new try with my corsair dominator... no luck. 
The tool gave me new recommendations than version 1.1.0 beta 2 but they didn't work out. 
All I know by now is that ProOCT below 60 ohms results in hangs while booting and disabling GearDown results in a hang at BIOS Code 15 (detecting memory).


With kind regards

Palulukas


----------



## Pilotasso

No luck with 3600Mhz on 4 sticks. Went back to 3533 with tightened timings (CL-14-15-15 VS CL-16-16-16). Looks good so far.


----------



## nithindv

Hey,

Trying to overclock my G.Skill F4-2400C15-8GVR kit and doesn't look like the tool has the Fast / Extreme Preset for this kit yet, not surprised though since this is a pretty cheap low end kit. It's a Micron A-Die 30nm, DRAM component [D9RGQ (MT40A512M8HX-093E:A)]. I'm able to run the current SAFE preset generated by the tool, which gives me 18-20-20-20-38 [tRFC 480, tRDRD SCL and tWRWR SCL at 5] -1.35V. Is there any chance I can do better, anyone have any experience with this kit? Kindly assist, if more information / screenshots are required do let me know. 

Running this on a MSI X370 krait and Ryzen 2600


----------



## MacG32

I understand that tighter timings are faster, but what about Ohms? Is lower or higher faster? How about this. Termination Block; is Rec., Alt. 1, or Alt. 2 better? Same with CAD_BUS Block; is Rec., Alt. 1, Alt. 2, or Alt. 3 better?


----------



## Anty

Resistances do not change speed only affect stability.


----------



## kamikatze13

hitting R-XMP button on my surface book results in the same values as on the machine with 3200CL14 trident z kit i try to finetune. that's not right, is it?


----------



## MacG32

Anty said:


> Resistances do not change speed only affect stability.



So these only need changed to become more stable? Makes sense then. Thank you.



kamikatze13 said:


> hitting R-XMP button on my surface book results in the same values as on the machine with 3200CL14 trident z kit i try to finetune. that's not right, is it?



That reads the XMP profile, from what I've seen. Select a different MHz you're trying to reach, Fast, or Extreme for different settings to try.


----------



## kawzir

Is it possible that the ram passes 500% HCI test but causes crash in games? I could run 3333 fast presets and no crash, but running 3466 fast presets cause crashes during games, both passes 500% HCI test.


----------



## MacG32

kawzir said:


> Is it possible that the ram passes 500% HCI test but causes crash in games? I could run 3333 fast presets and no crash, but running 3466 fast presets cause crashes during games, both passes 500% HCI test.



Sure. Strictly RAM testing can lead to failures in other applications. Prime95 Torture Test Blend tests lots of RAM and system stability, IntelBurnTest AVX, RealBench, and x264: The Cool Stresser tests stability.


----------



## brenopapito

Not stable with these settings (less than 30m with MemTest). Any other recommendation?


----------



## Nighthog

MacG32 said:


> Sure. Strictly RAM testing can lead to failures in other applications. Prime95 Torture Test Blend tests lots of RAM and system stability, IntelBurnTest AVX, RealBench, and x264: The Cool Stresser tests stability.


I've noted that HCI might pass with 0 errors on like 1.490v but Prime95 isn't happy until I give 1.510V to even start without instant failure running 3600Mhz CL14.(15).21.15.30.63... (sub-timings to still be tweaked for best stability)


----------



## Pilotasso

brenopapito said:


> Not stable with these settings (less than 30m with MemTest). Any other recommendation?


use safe timings with profile 2, and the highest of the VSOC and VDIMM alternatives presented there.


----------



## kamikatze13

MacG32 said:


> That reads the XMP profile, from what I've seen. Select a different MHz you're trying to reach, Fast, or Extreme for different settings to try.


the surfacebook has hardly an xmp profile embedded, and even if it did, i'd wager it wouldn't have the same values, would it?

what i'm trying to say is the calc read the values of my rig incorrectly, since these seem to be some sort of default values. i resorted to extracting the timings from the thaiphoon burner database for my kit, which, again, showed that the values read by the calc were incorrect.


----------



## Mr Splash

What is meant by profile version in the settings?


----------



## MacG32

kamikatze13 said:


> the surfacebook has hardly an xmp profile embedded, and even if it did, i'd wager it wouldn't have the same values, would it?
> 
> what i'm trying to say is the calc read the values of my rig incorrectly, since these seem to be some sort of default values. i resorted to extracting the timings from the thaiphoon burner database for my kit, which, again, showed that the values read by the calc were incorrect.



I had the same problem when using R-XMP. I followed the instructions in the OP and manually inputted the XMP settings. I was explained that the settings pulled by R-XMP are optimized for your kit.



Mr Splash said:


> What is meant by profile version in the settings?



It's the XMP Profile your RAM has as read through Thaiphoon Burner. Profile 1 = V1 & Profile 2 = V2.


----------



## AwesomeBrownGuy

*Cannot get Patriot RAM Above 2133 No matter what*

I've been at this for 8ish hours now and for the life of me cannot get my RAM to go above 2133. I have an AsRock b350 Pro4 and a 1700x. I have tried putting things in exactly as they are including the alternatives but for the life of me it won't boot with anything above 2133. It'll boot with 2400 but even that is unstable with extremely loose timings. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have attached screenshots of everything that i have been using. Thanks in advance guys.


----------



## Nighthog

AwesomeBrownGuy said:


> I've been at this for 8ish hours now and for the life of me cannot get my RAM to go above 2133. I have an AsRock b350 Pro4 and a 1700x. I have tried putting things in exactly as they are including the alternatives but for the life of me it won't boot with anything above 2133. It'll boot with 2400 but even that is unstable with extremely loose timings. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have attached screenshots of everything that i have been using. Thanks in advance guys.


I suggest you pick the right memory in the Ryzen DRAM Calculator, your screenshot says Micron A-die... Typhoon says Hynix...


----------



## AwesomeBrownGuy

Nighthog said:


> I suggest you pick the right memory in the Ryzen DRAM Calculator, your screenshot says Micron A-die... Typhoon says Hynix...


I looked up the model and it says it's a Micron A-Die. That was from googling. If not, then what die Hynix is it?


----------



## Nighthog

AwesomeBrownGuy said:


> I looked up the model and it says it's a Micron A-Die. That was from googling. If not, then what die Hynix is it?


Unknown, I see it not mentioned. Try each profile and see if either works.

EDIT: raw card was SK Hynix... memory spectek?? A micron division... though still kinda unknown for me.

EDIT2: Seems the DRAM is only rated for 2133Mhz 15.15.15... Patriot seems to OC to get the 2666Mhz rating.
You can try 18.18.18 or 19.19.19 for 2666Mhz. ... If they are Micron, they should work with 1.200V. Though more can be needed as they aren't binned for the higher speeds.


----------



## AwesomeBrownGuy

Nighthog said:


> Unknown, I see it not mentioned. Try each profile and see if either works.
> 
> EDIT: raw card was SK Hynix... memory spectek?? A micron division... though still kinda unknown for me.
> 
> EDIT2: Seems the DRAM is only rated for 2133Mhz 15.15.15... Patriot seems to OC to get the 2666Mhz rating.
> You can try 18.18.18 or 19.19.19 for 2666Mhz. ... If they are Micron, they should work with 1.200V. Though more can be needed as they aren't binned for the higher speeds.


I've tried 21 22 22 22 44 and it still won't boot lmao I don't know what I can do here. I'm still in the return window, should I return it? I got it for $110. Also, maybe it's my motherboard? I have an AsRock AB350 Pro4 mobo.


----------



## MacG32

AwesomeBrownGuy said:


> I've tried 21 22 22 22 44 and it still won't boot lmao I don't know what I can do here. I'm still in the return window, should I return it? I got it for $110. Also, maybe it's my motherboard? I have an AsRock AB350 Pro4 mobo.



Your motherboard doesn't list that specific memory, although it should work. You'd be better off with tightly timed RAM at the motherboard's default memory speed that's on the Memory QVL. :thumb:


----------



## shmerl

Just for the reference, DRAM calculator is now launching in the latest Wine on Linux, but input fields don't work. I also don't see any auto calculation buttons like in the video tutorial.


----------



## Moparman

Ok so I fired up my build tonight for the first time.
2700x, X470 Taichi , 2x8 Team Dark pro 3200c14 Bdie
So far stock voltage on mem and everything else auto 4.050 cpu (stock cooler for testing) mem is at [email protected] 1.35v. So not sure what to try now. I have been reading through the post here and will give this calc a try tomorrow.


----------



## roomTemperature

Moparman said:


> Ok so I fired up my build tonight for the first time.
> 2700x, X470 Taichi , 2x8 Team Dark pro 3200c14 Bdie
> So far stock voltage on mem and everything else auto 4.050 cpu (stock cooler for testing) mem is at [email protected] 1.35v. So not sure what to try now. I have been reading through the post here and will give this calc a try tomorrow.


those are really tight timings for 3500mhz at only 1.35V

is is stable?


----------



## Moparman

roomTemperature said:


> those are really tight timings for 3500mhz at only 1.35V
> 
> is is stable?


As of now yes no issues at all. only had just over an hour to play with it. Will have more testing soon. It wouldn't change the CL14 though for some reason but I will work on it.


----------



## MNMadman

Moparman said:


> It wouldn't change the CL14 though for some reason but I will work on it.


GearDownMode may need to be enabled to use odd CL number. That used to be the case with X370 and I don't know if they ever fixed it.


----------



## Flybel

Quick question, Taiphoon report contains
DRAM Manufacturer:	Hynix
DRAM Components:	H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC
but the latest version of the calculator sets it to Samsung B-Die when importing the HTML. Bug or is that not actually Hynix MFR?


----------



## SexySale

Flybel said:


> Quick question, Taiphoon report contains
> DRAM Manufacturer:Hynix
> DRAM Components:H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC
> but the latest version of the calculator sets it to Samsung B-Die when importing the HTML. Bug or is that not actually Hynix MFR?


You set your self... it doesn't set it automatically


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus this new calculator deffo is no good for teamgroup memories. Extreme profile is like slower than safe on old ones 😛


----------



## seansplayin

on my corsair vengeance lpx memory if I disabled Gear Down Mode it wouldn't even post. I was able to run at 53 & 60 ohms for procodt when memory speed was around 3000+.


----------



## Flybel

SexySale said:


> You set your self... it doesn't set it automatically


I had it set to Hynix MFR before though, and after importing, it was reset. Not a big deal but something that could be fixed.


----------



## Valka814

Flarex 3200 16GB, C6H and R1700 here. Trying to stabilize the memory at 3333 with fast preset with no luck.
Its stable with 1.60 Dram voltage, 1.025 SOC voltage at 3266 extreme preset.
Ideas? Thanks!


----------



## Guest

Hi,


I recently built this pc:



Cpu: AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
MB: Gigabyte AX-370M Gaming 3
Ram: G.Skill F4-3200C16D-8GVK, 8gb DDR4 Dual Channel 3200 16-16-16-36 1.5v XMP (Samsung D-die, SR, Profile V2 in calculator)

PSU: Corsair CX450 80+ Bronze
CPU Cooler: Antec C400


I am unable to run the ram even at XMP ratings. I have tried high voltages but nothing worked. Am running at 3066 15-15-15-35 but it fails later on in stability test (normal usage don't feel unstable). 



Will be trying the 3200 safe and fast values now. If the recommended settings don't work, which ALT setting do i go with first? TRC,2,4 or termination block or cad_bus block?


----------



## VeritronX

Is there an intel version of this.. or some general settings to change for use with coffee lake? I want to do a direct comparison between my 1700 and 8600K with the same sticks of ram, on the 1700 I'm running 3333C14 fast timings from this calculator.


----------



## MNMadman

Valka814 said:


> Flarex 3200 16GB, C6H and R1700 here. Trying to stabilize the memory at 3333 with fast preset with no luck.
> Its stable with 1.60 Dram voltage, 1.025 SOC voltage at 3266 extreme preset.
> Ideas? Thanks!


You're already running over the maximum recommended voltage for DDR4 (which is 1.5v). You might be able to do faster speeds if you try higher SOC. The maximum recommended for that is 1.2v.


----------



## Valka814

MNMadman said:


> You're already running over the maximum recommended voltage for DDR4 (which is 1.5v). You might be able to do faster speeds if you try higher SOC. The maximum recommended for that is 1.2v.


My bad. Its 1.36V, not 1.6.


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

Hi all!

How much voltage is safe for the IMC on the R7 2700X 1.20 or 1.35 or more?

What is the best OC memory for it? 

Is Crucial good for a ryzen , or kingston or another vendor since i'm really outdated to this matter i would appreciate any help or hints into the right direction if possible :thumb:

My Board is a Asus TUF x470 Plus Gaming which is capable of 3200mhz if i'm right.


So *IF* i also would take a faster memory like 3466 ,would it be possible to underclock it to 3200 ?

Or do *timings* matter more than the overclocked memory?


Have a nice day!


----------



## MNMadman

You want SOC voltage to stay below 1.25v.

You want memory with Samsung B dies for best results. The most common would be G.Skill 3200C14 (FlareX, TridentZ, etc.) but other brands have kits with Samsung B chips. Most RAM at 3600 or above uses Samsung B chips. 2x8GB kits work best for getting higher speeds.

Yes, you can underclock RAM. I had a G.Skill 3600C16 kit at Ryzen launch that worked perfectly at 3200 14-14-14-34-48-1T but wasn't stable at higher speed.


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

BIG THX MNMadman


----------



## Nighthog

Wuest3nFuchs said:


> Hi all!
> 
> How much voltage is safe for the IMC on the R7 2700X 1.20 or 1.35 or more?
> 
> What is the best OC memory for it?
> 
> Is Crucial good for a ryzen , or kingston or another vendor since i'm really outdated to this matter i would appreciate any help or hints into the right direction if possible :thumb:
> 
> My Board is a Asus TUF x470 Plus Gaming which is capable of 3200mhz if i'm right.
> 
> 
> So *IF* i also would take a faster memory like 3466 ,would it be possible to underclock it to 3200 ?
> 
> Or do *timings* matter more than the overclocked memory?
> 
> 
> Have a nice day!


I've had success with Micron based RAM IC's, not as good as B-die from Samsung but it works quite well and I've not had problems with XMP not working.
I've had a Corsair Micron 25nm B-die kit 2666Mhz 16.18.18... 1.200V kit works as advertised and OC:ed to 3200Mhz 14.17.17... 1.480V etc.
And a new Kingston Micron 16nm E-die 3466 19.23.23 1.200V kit works as it should stock and XMP (though 20/18.23.23) OC:ed to 3600Mhz 14.23.15... 1.500V.

Though much work involved to get to the OC:ed specs.. (weeks of my time and days testing to realize those were bad settings that wont work until I found what works)


----------



## benjyss1

Hi, I am using the G Skill Trident Z RGB 3000C14 16GB x2 (Dual rank) and a 2700X. 3200C14 is ok but 3333C14 is a no go for me even if I select V2 profile and use the safe timing provided by the calculator. 
Tried to increase my DRAM voltage to 1.4v and SOC to 1.06, still BSOD. Any chance of getting 3333C14 stable? 

Spec:
ASUS C6H
2700X
GSKILL 3000C14 16GB x 2
FSP PT1000W

Thank you so much!


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

Nighthog said:


> I've had success with Micron based RAM IC's, not as good as B-die from Samsung but it works quite well and I've not had problems with XMP not working.
> I've had a Corsair Micron 25nm B-die kit 2666Mhz 16.18.18... 1.200V kit works as advertised and OC:ed to 3200Mhz 14.17.17... 1.480V etc.
> And a new Kingston Micron 16nm E-die 3466 19.23.23 1.200V kit works as it should stock and XMP (though 20/18.23.23) OC:ed to 3600Mhz 14.23.15... 1.500V.
> 
> Though much work involved to get to the OC:ed specs.. (weeks of my time and days testing to realize those were bad settings that wont work until I found what works)



Thank you also very much ,sounds excellent !


----------



## chroniclard

Can anyone tell me why Thaiphoon readings are different from the R- XMP readings and which ones I should be using?


----------



## seansplayin

mind posting your Ryzen Timing Checker?


----------



## seansplayin

the IMC see's two voltages, SOC and DRAM. according to AMD 1.2v is the maximum you should go on SOC and 1.5v is the maximum you should go on DRAM. that said many people including myself use more than 1.5v for DRAM. you have ZEN+ so your peek stability SOC voltage will likely be closer to 1.03V, on my 2700x raising the SOC voltage up to 1.13V actually caused memory errors where as on my 1800X using 1.13V SOC actually slightly improved stability. 

just my 2cents


----------



## Nighthog

This is not stable but for stupid fun. 3733Mhz.

SoC = ~1.322V required to not get freezes running the memory testing only to see them fail with errors no matter what you try. I found it quite... what to say... the more loose the timings the easier the errors kept coming, it worked better whit ~tight~ timings. 

This motherboard can't push more than ~1.520V memory above that and more errors keeps coming like a avalanche. Same thing happened with my older corsair kit. I probably needed more for stability only if it was capable(2 different samples of this board, similar results). 

I'm seeing now if 3666Mhz will do but that voltage limit causes me need to use worse timings than 3600Mhz. ~1.238V SoC is ~stable~.


----------



## os2wiz

MNMadman said:


> GearDownMode may need to be enabled to use odd CL number. That used to be the case with X370 and I don't know if they ever fixed it.



Yes they fixed it. I do not use gear down mode for performance reasons and I have no problem with odd CL on MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC board.


----------



## os2wiz

Nighthog said:


> This is not stable but for stupid fun. 3733Mhz.
> 
> SoC = ~1.322V required to not get freezes running the memory testing only to see them fail with errors no matter what you try. I found it quite... what to say... the more loose the timings the easier the errors kept coming, it worked better whit ~tight~ timings.
> 
> This motherboard can't push more than ~1.520V memory above that and more errors keeps coming like a avalanche. Same thing happened with my older corsair kit. I probably needed more for stability only if it was capable(2 different samples of this board, similar results).
> 
> I'm seeing now if 3666Mhz will do but that voltage limit causes me need to use worse timings than 3600Mhz. ~1.238V SoC is ~stable~.


 That SOC voltage is way too high at 1.238. I would never do it simply because my memory is too expensive to mess with it.


----------



## Nighthog

os2wiz said:


> That SOC voltage is way too high at 1.238. I would never do it simply because my memory is too expensive to mess with it.


Those SoC voltages are the required voltages for those speeds if you want 16 instances of HCI at a time or want to run Prim95 16threads and test all your memory and all threads ~stable~
And I can say the voltage required drifts pending on if you have a cold computer just started or have it run hot for a while running stress tests. You tend to need more SoC voltage after startup from cold, 2-3 extra notches 0.012-0.018V extra or the computer will start to fail when running too many threads after a while.
The SoC voltage needed to boot is much lower it's when you want to test stability you need the increases or you will be limited to a few threads at most before you start getting freezes. 

Here is what is basically stable for 3667Mhz, seeing which few settings can still be lowered. (CL14/15 doesn't work with the voltage limit I have, I need a few more notches but I've run out of voltage to give)
Found some things that can be lowered for my 3600Mhz testing this. And identified issues and workarounds for the last quirks.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> Those SoC voltages are the required voltages for those speeds if you want 16 instances of HCI at a time or want to run Prim95 16threads and test all your memory and all threads ~stable~
> And I can say the voltage required drifts pending on if you have a cold computer just started or have it run hot for a while running stress tests. You tend to need more SoC voltage after startup from cold, 2-3 extra notches 0.012-0.018V extra or the computer will start to fail when running too many threads after a while.
> The SoC voltage needed to boot is much lower it's when you want to test stability you need the increases or you will be limited to a few threads at most before you start getting freezes.
> 
> Here is what is basically stable for 3667Mhz, seeing which few settings can still be lowered. (CL14/15 doesn't work with the voltage limit I have, I need a few more notches but I've run out of voltage to give)
> Found some things that can be lowered for my 3600Mhz testing this. And identified issues and workarounds for the last quirks.





SoC varies by memory kit and IMC of your CPU. For instance, my 3200c14 kit will only run high frequencies at tight timings with SoC 1.05 while the 4133 kit I had would run at different SoC voltages depending on frequency 1.1-1.2v but I never would go past 1.2v in fear of hurting the IMC. Anything else and I will get errors at a higher frequency (3466+) with tight timings. The real danger you are facing running your SoC that high is you are destroying your IMC and ultimately the memory compatibility will just get worse as the memory controller becomes damaged if the CPU doesnt stop working altogether. Are you running BDie(hopefully not)?


----------



## Screemi

i have a biostar gt7 and would love to set the CLKDrvStr, CKEDrvStr, AddrCmdDrvStr and CsOdtDrvStr because they are fixed to 120 Ohm. procodt is set to 60 ohm but not showing up, looks like a bug in ryzen timing checker as far as i recall reading. Anybody with that board ever got a different resistance for those values?

the problem is that i can't get my Gskill F4-3200C16D-32GVKA to have a higher read speed then 43K mb/s. those are two samsung b-die dual ranked modules with 16gb capacity each. even with those timings i am [email protected]~43-44k MB/s: 



















the next issue is that i can't get my memory latency below 70ns and i don't get why. one other issue is that all my cache benchmark results are at least 10% short of the average for a 1600x i found online. any ideas?

that strangest thing about my board is that if i put the ram in bank 1 and 3 i can't even boot with 2933Mhz with the xmp timing of 3200mhz (16-16-16-16). as soon as i put the ram modules in bank 2 and 4 the above timings are no problem to boot.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> SoC varies by memory kit and IMC of your CPU. For instance, my 3200c14 kit will only run high frequencies at tight timings with SoC 1.05 while the 4133 kit I had would run at different SoC voltages depending on frequency 1.1-1.2v but I never would go past 1.2v in fear of hurting the IMC. Anything else and I will get errors at a higher frequency (3466+) with tight timings. The real danger you are facing running your SoC that high is you are destroying your IMC and ultimately the memory compatibility will just get worse as the memory controller becomes damaged if the CPU doesnt stop working altogether. Are you running BDie(hopefully not)?


All I've seen is most are afraid and refuse to even consider it. I wanted to see what this setup could do and I've found out what it can do about now. 
Realized how much SoC voltage is needed for stability for higher Infinity Fabric speeds. I've not seen people test this too much.

I'm running some Micron E-die. No Samsung IC:s here.


----------



## Nighthog

Screemi said:


> i have a biostar gt7 and would love to set the CLKDrvStr, CKEDrvStr, AddrCmdDrvStr and CsOdtDrvStr because they are fixed to 120 Ohm. Anybody with that board ever got a different resistance for those values?
> 
> the problem is that i can't get my Gskill F4-3200C16D-32GVKA to have a higher read speed then 43K mb/s. those are two samsung b-die dual ranked modules with 16gb capacity each. even with those timings i am [email protected]~43-44k MB/s:
> 
> img
> img
> 
> the next issue is that i can't get my memory latency below 70ns and i don't get why. one other issue is that all my cache benchmark results are at least 10% short of the average for a 1600x i found online. any ideas?


If you use P-state OC AIDA can't read your values correctly.. it flunks out completely. Only Latency is ~correct~. (I suggest you set your cpu clock back to stock/Auto to get correct values)
And about the 70ns latency. It's about right. First gen Ryzen doesn't do much better. The limit depends on board/bios capabilities on how low it will go. Sub timings are critical for it and the capabilities of your motherboard play a huge part.


----------



## Screemi

haven't used p-state oc. set the 1600x to multi of 41 and that's it. but will try your suggestions! thx.

i had the latency down to about 68ns before, but not really stable. then i tried swapping the banks, with the outcome i described above. maybe i have to fiddle around with the timings a little bit more. any suggestions which values effect the latency the most?

*€dit:* ok i reset the cpu-oc to default and now i get around 50k MB/s read in aida bench. that looks better. on the other hand my memory latency got even worse and dropped to ~73,5ns


----------



## Nighthog

Screemi said:


> haven't used p-state oc. set the 1600x to multi of 41 and that's it. but will try your suggestions! thx.
> 
> i had the latency down to about 68ns before, but not really stable. then i tried swapping the banks, with the outcome i described above. maybe i have to fiddle around with the timings a little bit more. any suggestions which values effect the latency the most?
> 
> €dit: ok i reset the cpu-oc to default and now i get around 50k MB/s read in aida bench. that looks better. on the other hand my memory latency got even worse and dropped to ~73,5ns


Most are already low but tRFC. You could try to eat a little on tRRDL/tWTRS/tWTRL if they can be lowered, though they don't gain much.

I've had 69.0ns as best in my testing, but those were not stable settings either in the end. 70-71ns seems to be were it wants it when stable. 
I've seen tight tCL and tWR with low tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL usually gives lower latencies. But you have already about at max with those. tRAS could give some.

EDIT: ok about as I thought. Your OC latency is correct for your OC but now you get your stock speed MB/s and you can about see how much they are off from their correct values.
In my case if I OC my cpu to 4000Mhz using P-states I'm 25% low on all values except latency that is correct. 
Straight multi-plier OC doesn't give this issue but then I'm limited to only +-0.300V on offset voltage from stock. With P-state I can set what voltage I want even 1.550V max but AIDA reads things wrong and gives crap scores.


----------



## Screemi

thanks for your hints!

does oc really effekt memory performance i the way aida shows it or is that really problem with aida?


----------



## DMCbr

I have R5 1600X, ASUS B350 Prime Plus and Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 (Hynix M).
The maximum speed i can run with this calculator is 2933 safe, which is better than 2933 stock i was using till now. 
So thanks i guess...


----------



## lordzed83

chroniclard said:


> Can anyone tell me why Thaiphoon readings are different from the R- XMP readings and which ones I should be using?


just came here to ask same question...
@1usmus any ideas WHY ??


----------



## neur0cide

What do you mean? Those R-XMP latencies are tied to the chosen profile version in the drop down menu. Those profiles resemble typical values. V1 seems to be G.Skill high speed B-die and V2 I don't know.
Choose "Custom" under Profile version and hack in your Thaiphoon readouts. Then choose SAFE, FAST or EXTREME. Don't bother with R-XMP.


----------



## dspx

For anyone wondering about R-XMP...



1usmus said:


> thanks to the active participation of the forum participants, the R-XMP profile was developed. He is an exclusive for the Ryzen processors.


----------



## numlock66

Hey, after billions tries, B-die stable (17.5 hours RAM test) with Dram Calc 1.2.0 beta 2:
*2700X*
*X370 Taichi* BIOS *4.64 beta*
Corsair *CMR16GX4M2C3600C18*

Steps for newbie. I don't know which step gave me stability, so:
Update bios.
Internal jumper clear CLCMOS1 for about 5-10 minutes, after remove battery, wait 1 minute then replace it. This with PSU off.
Enter Bios, set all default, save exit.
Enter Bios, set fan police save and exit.
Set all other values: PCB enable, memory voltages and timings ... Save and exit.
Change to AMD CBS Mode, save and exit.
Turn off PC, and go to windows.

All settings set manually in bios from recommended Main and Advanced Dram Calc pages, except these values:

Main Page:
DRAM voltage *1.415v*
Using tRFC (alt) values
tRFC4 (alt) *127*

Advanced Page:
VPP *AUTO*
PLL *AUTO*
CLDO_VDDP *AUTO*
GearDown *Enable*


----------



## dspx

numlock66 said:


> Hey, after billions tries, B-die stable (17.5 hours RAM test) with Dram Calc 1.2.0 beta 2:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *2700X*
> *X370 Taichi* BIOS *4.64 beta*
> Corsair *CMR16GX4M2C3600C18*
> 
> Steps for newbie. I don't know which step gave me stability, so:
> Update bios.
> Internal jumper clear CLCMOS1 for about 5-10 minutes, after remove battery, wait 1 minute then replace it. This with PSU off.
> Enter Bios, set all default, save exit.
> Enter Bios, set fan police save and exit.
> Set all other values: PCB enable, memory voltages and timings ... Save and exit.
> Change to AMD CBS Mode, save and exit.
> Turn off PC, and go to windows.
> 
> All settings set manually in bios from recommended Main and Advanced Dram Calc pages, except these values:
> 
> Main Page:
> DRAM voltage *1.415v*
> Using tRFC (alt) values
> tRFC4 (alt) *127*
> 
> Advanced Page:
> VPP *AUTO*
> PLL *AUTO*
> CLDO_VDDP *AUTO*
> GearDown *Enable*


Nice timings!


----------



## Aenra

@1usmus or anyone else for that matter,

I have these settings in the motherboard (Gigabyte) that i haven't seen covered, Ryzen calc does not list them; any clue as to their function? I've left them on 'Auto' for now:

CAD BUS Setup Timing:
_AddrCmdSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
_CsOdtSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
_CkeSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)

* Not to be confused with the driver strentgth entries, in which values are measured in Ohms (20, 24, 30, 40, 60); these are separate.


----------



## chck1118

*Pubg crash*

I have been crashing on pubg with ram xmp at 3200 

Similar issue as https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS/comments/697gwl/pubg_and_xmp/


The game runs perfectly fine at 2133
What setting should I alter?



Ryzen 1600 3.7Hz 1.2v
Galax hof 3200c14 14-14-14-34 
DRAM 1.35v soc 1.025v
Asus b350 plus


----------



## Valka814

What is the recommended step by cldo vddp voltage?


----------



## hurricane28

lordzed83 said:


> just came here to ask same question...
> 
> @1usmus any ideas WHY ??


Mus1Mus left us like he said Elmor would lol.


----------



## MNMadman

Aenra said:


> @1usmus or anyone else for that matter,
> 
> I have these settings in the motherboard (Gigabyte) that i haven't seen covered, Ryzen calc does not list them; any clue as to their function? I've left them on 'Auto' for now:
> 
> CAD BUS Setup Timing:
> _AddrCmdSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
> _CsOdtSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
> _CkeSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
> 
> * Not to be confused with the driver strentgth entries, in which values are measured in Ohms (20, 24, 30, 40, 60); these are separate.


I don't know what they are, but the calculator has 0 for the Recommended on all three settings and 1 for the Alternate on all three settings (at least for Samsung B-die V1). It's in the Advanced tab under CAD_BUS Timings.

Edit: Those might be just placeholder values though. I put mine on 0 and left them.


----------



## Aenra

MNMadman said:


> I don't know what they are, but the calculator has 0 for the Recommended on all three settings and 1 for the Alternate on all three settings (at least for Samsung B-die V1). It's in the Advanced tab under CAD_BUS Timings.
> 
> Edit: Those might be just placeholder values though. I put mine on 0 and left them.


Thanks for replying MNM 
You got me curious now. I'm going to check again, lol, 'cause if there _is_ an advanced tab, well.. i've missed it!


----------



## ressonantia

chck1118 said:


> I have been crashing on pubg with ram xmp at 3200
> 
> Similar issue as https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS/comments/697gwl/pubg_and_xmp/
> 
> 
> The game runs perfectly fine at 2133
> What setting should I alter?
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen 1600 3.7Hz 1.2v
> Galax hof 3200c14 14-14-14-34
> DRAM 1.35v soc 1.025v
> Asus b350 plus


Try using 1.05V SOC voltage. Ryzen first gen needs a bit more voltage to the IMC.


----------



## chck1118

ressonantia said:


> Try using 1.05V SOC voltage. Ryzen first gen needs a bit more voltage to the IMC.


thanks for replying
will give a try, update soon


----------



## 1usmus

chroniclard said:


> Can anyone tell me why Thaiphoon readings are different from the R- XMP readings and which ones I should be using?


XMP is the standard for Intel. Can you eat soup with a fork? I think no. It's the same here. 




Aenra said:


> @1usmus or anyone else for that matter,
> 
> I have these settings in the motherboard (Gigabyte) that i haven't seen covered, Ryzen calc does not list them; any clue as to their function? I've left them on 'Auto' for now:
> 
> CAD BUS Setup Timing:
> _AddrCmdSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
> _CsOdtSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
> _CkeSetup_ (values can range from 1 to 63)
> 
> * Not to be confused with the driver strentgth entries, in which values are measured in Ohms (20, 24, 30, 40, 60); these are separate.


this is the delay of the receiver, I advise you to use individually from 0 to 2 values. Why? all depends individually on each motherboard and its bus routing



Valka814 said:


> What is the recommended step by cldo vddp voltage?


1mV



chck1118 said:


> I have been crashing on pubg with ram xmp at 3200
> 
> Similar issue as https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS/comments/697gwl/pubg_and_xmp/
> 
> 
> The game runs perfectly fine at 2133
> What setting should I alter?
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen 1600 3.7Hz 1.2v
> Galax hof 3200c14 14-14-14-34
> DRAM 1.35v soc 1.025v
> Asus b350 plus


VDDP 0.900



hurricane28 said:


> Mus1Mus left us like he said Elmor would lol.


no one left you, I just have nothing to comment on in the thread CH ...


----------



## chck1118

1usmus said:


> VDDP 0.900


thanks for replying

asus b350 plus mod bios VDDP's minimum value is 0.900, so it has always been set as stated in the calculator, do i need to add it up?


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> XMP is the standard for Intel. Can you eat soup with a fork? I think no. It's the same here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the delay of the receiver, I advise you to use individually from 0 to 2 values. Why? all depends individually on each motherboard and its bus routing
> 
> 
> 
> 1mV
> 
> 
> 
> VDDP 0.900
> 
> 
> 
> no one left you, I just have nothing to comment on in the thread CH ...


I was joking man, you know me


----------



## Aenra

1usmus said:


> this is the delay of the receiver, I advise you to use individually from 0 to 2 values. Why? all depends individually on each motherboard and its bus routing


Thank you very much for replying


----------



## chck1118

chck1118 said:


> thanks for replying
> 
> asus b350 plus mod bios VDDP's minimum value is 0.900, so it has always been set as stated in the calculator, do i need to add it up?


still crashing with 0.900v VDDP, what should i do?


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@chck1118 My board needs .910
.900 is not stable nor is .920 nor are the other Alt settings on my mine.
Try this thou .910 or around that area.


----------



## sakae48

1.1.0 Beta2 doesnt seem to work on me. tried with only TridentZ 3200C15 and keep failing to boot. don't know if new bios is the culprit or not


----------



## CJMitsuki

sakae48 said:


> 1.1.0 Beta2 doesnt seem to work on me. tried with only TridentZ 3200C15 and keep failing to boot. don't know if new bios is the culprit or not


The DRAM Calculator isn’t meant to be a plug and play. Every setup is different, every set of RAM, every CPU, every mobo. The calculator just helps you get close to by giving you general settings. You have to make adjustments to fit your specific setup. Will some be able to plug and play? Sure. But that will not be the majority of experiences. Put 2T in instead of 1T and that will give you some headroom without much penalty. Also relax some timings if it isn’t booting. What is your mobo model? You can’t expect to get the same ease of use from something like a x370 that you would from a good x470 board. Same goes for 1st gen as opposed to 2nd gen Ryzen cpus. You will have to work harder with 1st gen.


----------



## mollikolli

Are these timings normal? When I enter them into dram calculator, it suggests super high latencies like cl22 etc.

This kit runs stilt3466 profile with no errors so it's working fine but I would like to see how far I can take it.


----------



## CJMitsuki

mollikolli said:


> Are these timings normal? When I enter them into dram calculator, it suggests super high latencies like cl22 etc.
> 
> This kit runs stilt3466 profile with no errors so it's working fine but I would like to see how far I can take it.



You are looking at the wrong timings to enter into the calculator. Scroll to the bottom to the XMP profile and click the link that changes the clock cycles into nanoseconds and enter those in. You can also export the html file and use the calculator to import it and it will put all of the numbers in for you


----------



## mollikolli

CJMitsuki said:


> You are looking at the wrong timings to enter into the calculator. Scroll to the bottom to the XMP profile and click the link that changes the clock cycles into nanoseconds and enter those in. You can also export the html file and use the calculator to import it and it will put all of the numbers in for you


Thx for the quick help!


----------



## CJMitsuki

mollikolli said:


> Thx for the quick help!



No problem


----------



## sakae48

CJMitsuki said:


> The DRAM Calculator isn’t meant to be a plug and play. Every setup is different, every set of RAM, every CPU, every mobo. The calculator just helps you get close to by giving you general settings. You have to make adjustments to fit your specific setup. Will some be able to plug and play? Sure. But that will not be the majority of experiences. Put 2T in instead of 1T and that will give you some headroom without much penalty. Also relax some timings if it isn’t booting. What is your mobo model? You can’t expect to get the same ease of use from something like a x370 that you would from a good x470 board. Same goes for 1st gen as opposed to 2nd gen Ryzen cpus. You will have to work harder with 1st gen.


i'm using X370-F Gaming board. i previously use 0.9.9 beta 12 and haven't come here since then. I did assume it will work as the previous release works like magic. and now i'm confused why my CPU won't OC after i clear CMOS. oopsie..

will try again after i got some nap


----------



## nuthead53

I've been unsuccessful so far.

I have some Corsair 3600 b die ram (Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3600C18R Vengeance) and a Ryzen 2700x in a MSI Mortar 350b (latest bios). CPU on auto clocks, voltage etc.

Started with safe settings including advanced at 3400 and haven't managed to get it running without errors in memtest. Currently trying some of the alternative setting.

There are a couple of options which are missing on the MSI Mortar.
TRFC 2 and 4
and DQS Strength

perhaps a few more that I can't remember too.

Also initially I exported a Thaiphoon profile and loaded this,but perhaps I need to double check the initial values.

Also on the mortar you can't just do the soc voltage on it's own, it's linked with the chipset, so i've had this at 1.1v

Any advice would be welcome, perhaps from someone with the same/similar motherboard.


----------



## nuthead53

nuthead53 said:


> I've been unsuccessful so far.
> 
> I have some Corsair 3600 b die ram (Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3600C18R Vengeance) and a Ryzen 2700x in a MSI Mortar 350b (latest bios). CPU on auto clocks, voltage etc.
> 
> Started with safe settings including advanced at 3400 and haven't managed to get it running without errors in memtest. Currently trying some of the alternative setting.
> 
> There are a couple of options which are missing on the MSI Mortar.
> TRFC 2 and 4
> and DQS Strength
> 
> perhaps a few more that I can't remember too.
> 
> Also initially I exported a Thaiphoon profile and loaded this,but perhaps I need to double check the initial values.
> 
> Also on the mortar you can't just do the soc voltage on it's own, it's linked with the chipset, so i've had this at 1.1v
> 
> Any advice would be welcome, perhaps from someone with the same/similar motherboard.


I don't think the initial settings copied over when I tried loading in the Thaiphoon profile. Just copied them over manually and the timmings are slower than before and closer to stock.

Had a quick go at a 3400 safe and my PC wouldn't post so had to pull the motherboard battery. I'll look into this more when I have time and make sure I copied the initial values over properly and that I put them into my bios correctly too.
Also used the advanced settings and voltages etc.

This is my Thaiphroon profile and what The calculator is showing - https://ibb.co/hZipxd


----------



## Screemi

same for me. timings read by calc are others then shown in typhoon burner:










Btw. why can't i upload any screenshots in the forum. i just get a "Upload of file failed.".


----------



## chck1118

CharlieWheelie said:


> @chck1118 My board needs .910
> .900 is not stable nor is .920 nor are the other Alt settings on my mine.
> Try this thou .910 or around that area.


thanks for replying, but one step wise is 0.050 for my board => 0.950


----------



## CJMitsuki

Screemi said:


> same for me. timings read by calc are others then shown in typhoon burner:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw. why can't i upload any screenshots in the forum. i just get a "Upload of file failed.".



I couldnt find your specific model GVKA ram in the browser but I did find the tridentz version that is exactly the same and it imported just fine. Also there are 3 different g.skill 3200c16 kits one is Samsung Bdie, one is Samsung DDie and one is Hynix. Yours is BDie it seems but i couldnt find that model in the SPD browser anywhere although the f4-3200c16-16gtza is exactly like it as far as the chips and xmp profile that is used. The other models have more relaxed timings on the xmp. Maybe that model was either discontinued or who knows why the calculator couldnt read it.


----------



## Whatisthisfor

@1usmus did you already switch mainboard and if so, to which one? Is MSI's X470 memory solution better than Asus' from you your perspective? Currently i have the Gigabyte top end board and 4x8GB 4133 CL17 rated memory but i only reach 3466 14-15-15-15-34-50 @1.40V HCI stable with it. Could be the board or the CPU or memory misconfiguration ofc. I guess ill wait till next Agesa before thinking about a switch.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Whatisthisfor said:


> @1usmus did you already switch mainboard and if, which one? Is MSI's X470 memory solution better than Asus' from you your perspective? Currently i have the Gigabyte top end board and 4x8GB 4133 CL17 rated memory but i only reach 3466 14-15-15-15-34-50 @1.40V HCI stable with it. Could be the board or the CPU or memory misconfiguration ofc . I guess ill wait till next Agesa before thinking about a switch.


Once you get above 3400 I would shift my focus away from the highest frequency I could attain and go for the lowest latency. It seems like the CPU starts to benefit much more from latency drops rather than frequency gains. For instance, I can run 3600c14 but the 3466c14 and even my 3553c15 setup end up with much better performance than 3600, btw I even run 3466 and 3553 in 2T because from what I have seen there is not much of a detriment to performance from using 2T for more headroom if it lets you get your timings low enough to stay <60ns latency which seems like Ryzen+ loves more than higher frequency once you get above 3400mhz. Also avoid using Gear Down since it will add a massive amount of latency for the headroom it gives you and will more than likely kill any performance gain you could get from the extra headroom.


----------



## Whatisthisfor

CJMitsuki said:


> Once you get above 3400 I would shift my focus away from the highest frequency I could attain and go for the lowest latency. It seems like the CPU starts to benefit much more from latency drops rather than frequency gains. For instance, I can run 3600c14 but the 3466c14 and even my 3553c15 setup end up with much better performance than 3600, btw I even run 3466 and 3553 in 2T because from what I have seen there is not much of a detriment to performance from using 2T for more headroom if it lets you get your timings low enough to stay <60ns latency which seems like Ryzen+ loves more than higher frequency once you get above 3400mhz. Also avoid using Gear Down since it will add a massive amount of latency for the headroom it gives you and will more than likely kill any performance gain you could get from the extra headroom.


Yes i know, but Geardown disabled will force 2T on Gigabyte board. I did try 14-14-14 on 3466 but did not manage to get it HCI-stable yet. I run BLK 102 which gives a slight boost to memory performance too. I'll try to improve latency on my 14-15-15-15 setting but still wonder if improvements may be a little limited by memory topology of my Gigabyte X470 board..


----------



## CJMitsuki

Whatisthisfor said:


> Yes i know, but Geardown disabled will force 2T on Gigabyte board. I did try 14-14-14 on 3466 but did not manage to get it HCI-stable yet. I run BLK 102 which gives a slight boost to memory performance too. I'll try to improve latency on my 14-15-15-15 setting but still wonder if improvements may be a little limited by memory topology of my Gigabyte X470 board..


Gear Down is way worse for performance than 2T is, take some benchmarks with Gear Down enabled and then take some with it disabled and 2T instead and see how it compares. For me, I didnt notice hardly any bandwidth drop and it dropped my latency by 3.5ns and gave the headroom needed to tighten timings to nearly get a 2000 in Cinebench.


----------



## nuthead53

CJMitsuki said:


> Gear Down is way worse for performance than 2T is, take some benchmarks with Gear Down enabled and then take some with it disabled and 2T instead and see how it compares. For me, I didnt notice hardly any bandwidth drop and it dropped my latency by 3.5ns and gave the headroom needed to tighten timings to nearly get a 2000 in Cinebench.



When I disable gear down or set command rate to 2 my computer won't boot and I have to reset the bios.
Was hoping it might help as I haven't even been able to get 3400 safe to run without errors on my Corsair 3600 Samsung bdie.

Playing around with trfc alt settings at the moment as that seems to be helping.


----------



## chck1118

chck1118 said:


> I have been crashing on pubg with ram xmp at 3200
> 
> Similar issue as https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp..../pubg_and_xmp/
> 
> 
> The game runs perfectly fine at 2133 without overclocking
> What setting should I alter?
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen 1600 3.7Hz 1.2v
> Galax hof 3200c14 14-14-14-34
> DRAM 1.36v soc 1.025v VDDP 0.900
> Asus b350 plus


goshhhh, i am still crashing with the current setting in pubg, can anyone help?


----------



## MNMadman

chck1118 said:


> goshhhh, i am still crashing with the current setting in pubg, can anyone help?


Some CPUs simply can't do 3200 RAM.

Have you tried the RAM speed steps in between 2133 and 3200? Most can get to 2800 or 2933 with 3200-rated RAM.


----------



## nuthead53

worked out the failing to boot is because tcl was on 17 when I tried to set command line to 2. Turns out it needs to be an even number... ideally the calculator wouldn't suggest disabling geardownmode if you have an odd tcl. Would also be nice if my motherboard did some validation to avoid that situation 

EDIT.
I didn't notice it also suggested manually setting it to 1t on advanced page...


----------



## MNMadman

nuthead53 said:


> Would also be nice if my motherboard did some validation to avoid that situation


Never going to happen. Mainboard manufacturers won't ever validate overclocking. And manually messing with any settings at all is overclocking in their eyes.


----------



## nuthead53

MNMadman said:


> Never going to happen. Mainboard manufacturers won't ever validate overclocking. And manually messing with any settings at all is overclocking in their eyes.


There was some validation to make sure tclw wasn't an odd number if tcl was.

Anyway, noticed that the calculator did actually suggest cr 1t with geardown disabled... so my mistake.

memtest has been running on fast for a while now and so far error free. Certainly more stable than before. Might even push for extreme settings


----------



## CJMitsuki

nuthead53 said:


> worked out the failing to boot is because tcl was on 17 when I tried to set command line to 2. Turns out it needs to be an even number... ideally the calculator wouldn't suggest disabling geardownmode if you have an odd tcl. Would also be nice if my motherboard did some validation to avoid that situation
> 
> EDIT.
> I didn't notice it also suggested manually setting it to 1t on advanced page...


That is odd. Usually if Gear Down is ENABLED you have to set even numbers and even if you set an odd number it will make the tCL even, like setting 13-13-13-13 the mobo would (or at least mine) will set it to 14-13-13-13 if Gear Down is enabled. If Gear Down is DISABLED then you are free you set even or odd numbers in the tCL slot as long as they are supported by your SPD. 2T is used to give yourself more headroom if you cant boot with current settings bc in my eyes using Gear Down is one of the last resorts. I would even bump tCL up one before enabling Gear Down. It is too much of a detriment to performance in my opinion. You should always start out with 1T and Gear Down/Power Down disabled and Proc ODT around 53 or 60 then you can work from there. Those are some of the settings that can give you more headroom by adjusting if your other setting are fine. Some memory and processors are very particular about certain settings at certain frequencies. My CPU for instance throws errors if I run anything but SoC at 1.05 or Proc ODT at anything but 53. My 1700x wanted SoC at 1.1v but I had leeway to adjust it down or up at different frequencies to get better stability. Youll just have to learn the "personality" of your particular setup as everyone will have differences. Aside from Primary timings the "SCL", tRFC, tRTP, tRRD, and tFAW can have profound impacts on performance, especially tRFC and SCL timings. I usually go with certain rules for certain timing groups as well like tFAW=TRRDLx4 or tRC is greater than or equal to tRP+tRAS and anytime I have ever tried to adjust tCWL from 14 it has always caused massive errors so I dont touch it anymore. Those are just some things that I have followed as a general rule but you can deviate from those and try anything and see what can work for you.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> That is odd. Usually if Gear Down is ENABLED you have to set even numbers and even if you set an odd number it will make the tCL even, like setting 13-13-13-13 the mobo would (or at least mine) will set it to 14-13-13-13 if Gear Down is enabled. If Gear Down is DISABLED then you are free you set even or odd numbers in the tCL slot as long as they are supported by your SPD. 2T is used to give yourself more headroom if you cant boot with current settings bc in my eyes using Gear Down is one of the last resorts. I would even bump tCL up one before enabling Gear Down. It is too much of a detriment to performance in my opinion. You should always start out with 1T and Gear Down/Power Down disabled and Proc ODT around 53 or 60 then you can work from there. Those are some of the settings that can give you more headroom by adjusting if your other setting are fine. Some memory and processors are very particular about certain settings at certain frequencies. My CPU for instance throws errors if I run anything but SoC at 1.05 or Proc ODT at anything but 53. My 1700x wanted SoC at 1.1v but I had leeway to adjust it down or up at different frequencies to get better stability. Youll just have to learn the "personality" of your particular setup as everyone will have differences. Aside from Primary timings the "SCL", tRFC, tRTP, tRRD, and tFAW can have profound impacts on performance, especially tRFC and SCL timings. I usually go with certain rules for certain timing groups as well like tFAW=TRRDLx4 or tRC is greater than or equal to tRP+tRAS and anytime I have ever tried to adjust tCWL from 14 it has always caused massive errors so I dont touch it anymore. Those are just some things that I have followed as a general rule but you can deviate from those and try anything and see what can work for you.


I found that my particular cpu doesn't care what SoC voltage I run but that it's good enough for the speed I want from the IMC/memory or else it would freeze in testing. Memory errors usually came from bad timing combinations or I just had 1 notch too little SoC voltage if Prime95 failed instances for a particular speed. Didn't matter if it was more than needed if you used good settings otherwise. 
Having good *DrvStr* settings is critical! Having correct RTT values is important as well, I found *RZQ/7 Nom, RZQ/3 Wr, RZQ/1 Park* worked best!
40,40,40,40 or 40,60,40,40 is good for me on DrvStr. Anything other than 48Ohm ProcODT is bad for the higher speeds on my my Micron chips.

My 3600Mhz memory is good for ~700% HCI without errors now after I found some good subtiming combinations. 32Gb takes so long to test I wanted to sleep and it was 30+ degrees ambient in the room.

I tested Geardown "disabled" and 2T as is needed with Gigabyte for it to even boot and I can concur it improves the latency but it also is much more demanding and unstable as such. I need other timings than for Geardown "enabled" T1, usualy I needed to relax them for it to start working being at the edge of what is stable.
I've wasted so much time on this now I kinda can't but laugh now. Been trying to get 3733 to work error free but it just doesn't want to it seems.(geardown enabled/disabled T1/T2)


----------



## Floyd31

drap


----------



## rzrPT

hello guys

I have my memory Hynix MFR 2400 overclocked to 2933 stable on Memtest and prime95 for some hours (5+-) and everything ok, but in some gaming fps dropping (csgo) and small crashing that barely notice (pubg)
What can I change to solve this?
My settings are below

Ryzen 1600 3.9Hz 1.336v
TeamGroup Vulcan red 2400mhz 14-16-16-16-31 @ 2933mhz 16-18-18-18-38
DRAM 1.376 soc 1.048v
MSI B350 Gaming Plus (Last bios)


----------



## numlock66

numlock66 said:


> Hey, after billions tries, B-die stable (17.5 hours RAM test) with Dram Calc 1.2.0 beta 2:
> *2700X*
> *X370 Taichi* BIOS *4.64 beta*
> Corsair *CMR16GX4M2C3600C18*
> 
> Steps for newbie. I don't know which step gave me stability, so:
> Update bios.
> Internal jumper clear CLCMOS1 for about 5-10 minutes, after remove battery, wait 1 minute then replace it. This with PSU off.
> Enter Bios, set all default, save exit.
> Enter Bios, set fan police save and exit.
> Set all other values: PCB enable, memory voltages and timings ... Save and exit.
> Change to AMD CBS Mode, save and exit.
> Turn off PC, and go to windows.
> 
> All settings set manually in bios from recommended Main and Advanced Dram Calc pages, except these values:
> 
> Main Page:
> DRAM voltage *1.415v*
> Using tRFC (alt) values
> tRFC4 (alt) *127*
> 
> Advanced Page:
> VPP *AUTO*
> PLL *AUTO*
> CLDO_VDDP *AUTO*
> GearDown *Enable*


Sometimes o got F9 code when rebooting, trying to solve I noticed that my system is more stable with SOC LLC 3 and AddrCmdSetup 1, CsOdtSetup 1, CkeSetup 1.


----------



## Rossi87

numlock66 said:


> Sometimes o got F9 code when rebooting, trying to solve I noticed that my system is more stable with SOC LLC 3 and AddrCmdSetup 1, CsOdtSetup 1, CkeSetup 1.


I have F9 cold boot issues at 3200. 
If i put it in bios It passed 22hours of MemTest64 HCI. 
But won’t boot up first time. 

I have tried so many things. I’m using a gigabyte gaming k7 and 1800x. 

I can only boot with rtt nom RZQ/5 and rttwr disable and rttpark disable. 
I can use procODT 53 - 68. 


Anything else and it boot loops.


----------



## Whatisthisfor

Which LLC should i choose on Gigabyte (i use X470) for vcore and vsoc? High?


----------



## bouchnick

I can run my 2x8gb b-dies at 3200mhz cl14 at extreme timings without any issues, but no matter what I've tried they refuse to be stable at over 3200mhz no matter how loose the timings are. Any ideas? 

Running a 2700x with Asus Prime x470-Pro.


----------



## MNMadman

bouchnick said:


> I can run my 2x8gb b-dies at 3200mhz cl14 at extreme timings without any issues, but no matter what I've tried they refuse to be stable at over 3200mhz no matter how loose the timings are. Any ideas?


Yes - be happy you got them to work at their advertised speed. Even with the new Ryzens, that's not guaranteed.

If you _really_ feel the need to run them at higher than rated speed, you can try increasing the RAM voltage (max 1.5v) and SOC voltage (max 1.2v).


----------



## Nighthog

Well I'm exhausted. Seems about as this much is the limit. tRFC 560 compared to screenshot is ok as well and was the Aida64 score given.

Memory Read: ~54,7GB/s 
Memory Write: ~56.4GB/s
Memory Copy: ~54.2GB/s
Latency: 69.7 ns

CPU stock speeds. 
Was trying 3733Mhz way too much but it would not yield. 
There is a question if 3600Mhz CL14 is better, Latency could be improved to 69.4ns with 2T but bandwith is lower. (for example: 14-22-16-34-2T or 14-21-15-34-1T if 1T timings are preffered but latency is worse at ~70,x+)


----------



## Whatisthisfor

Achieved 3533MHZ CL14 HCI 300% stable with Ryzen 2700X, a 32 DDR4 Kit (F4-4133C17Q-32GTZR) on a Gigabyte X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI, 1,44V Vcore, 1,025V SOC + BLK 102. Timings are loose and could probably be tightened here and there.


----------



## CJMitsuki

bouchnick said:


> I can run my 2x8gb b-dies at 3200mhz cl14 at extreme timings without any issues, but no matter what I've tried they refuse to be stable at over 3200mhz no matter how loose the timings are. Any ideas?
> 
> Running a 2700x with Asus Prime x470-Pro.


Ram behaves oddly at higher frequencies, if you devote enough time you will learn what your Ram/cpu like as far as subtimings and voltages go. Sometimes a kit will only run at certain settings and it won’t like anything else. That can change from frequency to frequency as well. My kit will not run error free with any other SoC than 1.05 and I had to change PLL to 1.9v once I went above 3400 and there were other changes for me to get 3533 stable that were even more odd but that’s how it goes. You just have to devote the time and I mean a lot of time to learning your kit. If you find it satisfying to OC Ram then it shouldn’t be a problem but a lot of the time I put more hours into my ram than I do at my 40 hour a week job...


----------



## mtrai

Whatisthisfor said:


> Achieved 3533MHZ CL14 HCI 300% stable with Ryzen 2700X, a 32 DDR4 Kit (F4-4133C17Q-32GTZR) on a Gigabyte X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI, 1,44V Vcore, 1,025V SOC + BLK 102. Timings are loose and could probably be tightened here and there.


Nice man...gonna try your settings today on my 4133 16 gb kit 2x8


----------



## Whatisthisfor

mtrai said:


> Nice man...gonna try your settings today on my 4133 16 gb kit 2x8


Will be interesting if it works too on your setup.


----------



## bouchnick

CJMitsuki said:


> a lot of the time I put more hours into my ram than I do at my 40 hour a week job...


That's what i felt like the week I bought my kit


----------



## CJMitsuki

bouchnick said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lot of the time I put more hours into my ram than I do at my 40 hour a week job...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what i felt like the week I bought my kit
Click to expand...

I still put quite a bit of hours per week into it but I enjoy it. As frustrating as it may be sometimes, it’s also rewarding when you can see the added performance for all of the time spent.


----------



## Whatisthisfor

Achieved 3600 CL16-15-15 HCI 300 (32GB) BLC 102 on 2700x & Gigabyte X470 7 Wifi. Vcore 1,45V and SOC 1,025V. LLCs on Auto. Geardown disabled wont boot unfortunately (endless loop), so CL15 wasnt possible, maybe with upcoming BIOS? CL14 did fail after 150%. 3666 works too with 1,48V, but no HCI test yet.


----------



## 1usmus

*At the moment I can not tell you everything, it's a secret, but I'm negotiating with very important people. I'm going to bring the calculator to a new level and I need information from you.

+

I'm interested in your achievements in overclocking on new motherboards. Thanks *


----------



## 1usmus

Whatisthisfor said:


> @1usmus did you already switch mainboard and if so, to which one? Is MSI's X470 memory solution better than Asus' from you your perspective? Currently i have the Gigabyte top end board and 4x8GB 4133 CL17 rated memory but i only reach 3466 14-15-15-15-34-50 @1.40V HCI stable with it. Could be the board or the CPU or memory misconfiguration ofc. I guess ill wait till next Agesa before thinking about a switch.


I can not give you a detailed description of all the products now, but at the moment the M7 has the best trace of tires, for the frequency of 3533, procODT 43 is enough. And this is not the limit. I currently on CH6, tests on new motherboards will be soon. I will repeat. I have ambitious plans to improve the calculator.



rzrPT said:


> hello guys
> 
> I have my memory Hynix MFR 2400 overclocked to 2933 stable on Memtest and prime95 for some hours (5+-) and everything ok, but in some gaming fps dropping (csgo) and small crashing that barely notice (pubg)
> What can I change to solve this?
> My settings are below
> 
> Ryzen 1600 3.9Hz 1.336v
> TeamGroup Vulcan red 2400mhz 14-16-16-16-31 @ 2933mhz 16-18-18-18-38
> DRAM 1.376 soc 1.048v
> MSI B350 Gaming Plus (Last bios)


VDDP volatge? 



Whatisthisfor said:


> Achieved 3600 CL16-15-15 HCI 300 (32GB) BLC 102 on 2700x & Gigabyte X470 7 Wifi. Vcore 1,45V and SOC 1,025V. LLCs on Auto. Geardown disabled wont boot unfortunately (endless loop), so CL15 wasnt possible, maybe with upcoming BIOS? CL14 did fail after 150%. 3666 works too with 1,48V, but no HCI test yet.


AddrCMDSetup in bios 0 or auto?


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> *At the moment I can not tell you everything, it's a secret, but I'm negotiating with very important people. I'm going to bring the calculator to a new level and I need information from you.
> 
> +
> 
> I'm interested in your achievements in overclocking on new motherboards. Thanks /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif*


Are you intereseted in how far we can go with frequency? If so, what would you want? AIDA64 and RTC screens? Also visit the CH7 thread, there’s quite a bit of 3466-3600 MHz test info in there.


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> Are you intereseted in how far we can go with frequency? If so, what would you want? AIDA64 and RTC screens? Also visit the CH7 thread, there’s quite a bit of 3466-3600 MHz test info in there.


3533 in the CH7 thread is the limit and this value corresponds to CH6

I'm interested in the maximum stable frequency, the RTC screenshot will be enough


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you intereseted in how far we can go with frequency? If so, what would you want? AIDA64 and RTC screens? Also visit the CH7 thread, there’s quite a bit of 3466-3600 MHz test info in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 3533 in the CH7 thread is the limit and this value corresponds to CH6
> 
> I'm interested in the maximum stable frequency, the RTC screenshot will be enough /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Ok, I stopped at 3600 since 3533 and 3600 gave me much worse cpu performance than 3466 which I was nearly able to get 2000 Cinebench score at 4.275ghz 3533 and 3600 were around 1940-1965 so much worse. Didn’t try to get 3666+ after that but I’ll get back to work and maybe I’ll find a strap that my CPU likes more than 3466 but I doubt it. 
Also I think 3533 was the max bc no one really wanted to push higher than CL14 to push higher frequency since it wouldn’t benefit performance more than likely over cl14.


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> Ok, I stopped at 3600 since 3533 and 3600 gave me much worse cpu performance than 3466 which I was nearly able to get 2000 Cinebench score at 4.275ghz 3533 and 3600 were around 1940-1965 so much worse. Didn’t try to get 3666+ after that but I’ll get back to work and maybe I’ll find a strap that my CPU likes more than 3466 but I doubt it.
> Also I think 3533 was the max bc no one really wanted to push higher than CL14 to push higher frequency since it wouldn’t benefit performance more than likely over cl14.


Invalid timings or other settings, up to 3666 scalability is present


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I stopped at 3600 since 3533 and 3600 gave me much worse cpu performance than 3466 which I was nearly able to get 2000 Cinebench score at 4.275ghz 3533 and 3600 were around 1940-1965 so much worse. Didn’t try to get 3666+ after that but I’ll get back to work and maybe I’ll find a strap that my CPU likes more than 3466 but I doubt it.
> Also I think 3533 was the max bc no one really wanted to push higher than CL14 to push higher frequency since it wouldn’t benefit performance more than likely over cl14.
> 
> 
> 
> Invalid timings or other settings, up to 3666 scalability is present /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Yes, probably. I spent roughly 40-50 hours trying to find those settings for 3533 with no luck. Was super stable but the cpu performance was not there for my findings for now. I just needed a break. I have been spending at least 5-6 hours a day for the past 5+ months on 1st gen and 2nd gen so my mind needed a break for a couple of days ha


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> Yes, probably. I spent roughly 40-50 hours trying to find those settings for 3533 with no luck. Was super stable but the cpu performance was not there for my findings for now. I just needed a break. I have been spending at least 5-6 hours a day for the past 5+ months on 1st gen and 2nd gen so my mind needed a break for a couple of days ha


+ the bios is still quite raw


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, probably. I spent roughly 40-50 hours trying to find those settings for 3533 with no luck. Was super stable but the cpu performance was not there for my findings for now. I just needed a break. I have been spending at least 5-6 hours a day for the past 5+ months on 1st gen and 2nd gen so my mind needed a break for a couple of days ha
> 
> 
> 
> + the bios is still quite raw
Click to expand...

Exactly, there hasn’t been an update for awhile so I’m hoping maybe in the next month we will see some more progress on Bios.


----------



## Pilotasso

Elmor did post new BIOSes less than 2 weeks ago for the CH6 and CH7. So far support has been nearly the same for both. I can just hope it will continue for the next months untill the 7nm parts arrive. The Guys at ASUS must be all over the new 8 core I9's and Threadripper boards. Maybe thats whats keeping them busy.


----------



## 1usmus

Pilotasso said:


> Elmor did post new BIOSes less than 2 weeks ago for the CH6 and CH7. So far support has been nearly the same for both. I can just hope it will continue for the next months untill the 7nm parts arrive. The Guys at ASUS must be all over the new 8 core I9's and Threadripper boards. Maybe thats whats keeping them busy.



0601 for CH7 long time available, more than a month
or did I miss something?


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> Pilotasso said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elmor did post new BIOSes less than 2 weeks ago for the CH6 and CH7. So far support has been nearly the same for both. I can just hope it will continue for the next months untill the 7nm parts arrive. The Guys at ASUS must be all over the new 8 core I9's and Threadripper boards. Maybe thats whats keeping them busy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0601 for CH7 long time available, more than a month
> or did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Yes, Elmor posted a link to it before it was available on most vendor sites. I do believe there may have been a microcode update in the one that was released on the vendor sites but not sure. The 0601 that elmor gave us early should have a link on the front page of the CH7 thread, unless it was removed.


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *At the moment I can not tell you everything, it's a secret, but I'm negotiating with very important people. I'm going to bring the calculator to a new level and I need information from you.
> 
> +
> 
> I'm interested in your achievements in overclocking on new motherboards. Thanks *


Great news 

So, you are only interested in X470 boards, right?


----------



## CJMitsuki

dspx said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *At the moment I can not tell you everything, it's a secret, but I'm negotiating with very important people. I'm going to bring the calculator to a new level and I need information from you.
> 
> +
> 
> I'm interested in your achievements in overclocking on new motherboards. Thanks /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif*
> 
> 
> 
> Great news /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> So, you are only interested in X470 boards, right?
Click to expand...

From the sound of it he is probably talking to either a motherboard vendor or AMD or both. I know for a fact AMD officials have used his calculator for memory testing so I’m sure they are interested in the data. 
Motherboard vendors could use it to help their future mobos and even current bios updates set auto timings much better so that would help all Ryzen boards. Of course they would only want the most up to date data though but it would trickle down into all of it. This is of course pure speculation on my part but it’s what I’m guessing.


----------



## sakae48

I'm successfully run 3533 at CL16 on my 3200 CL15 B-Die. not yet tested for high load but definitely usable for browsing and movie. But i only adjust the primary timing since safe preset is somehow giving me way too high tRAS and tRC. on fast preset, the number is fine. any idea why?
it's showing 16-16-16-16-886-902 while fast mode is 16-16-16-16-32-48


----------



## Nighthog

I can boot and use all they way to 3800Mhz that I have tested but I only have found stable settings for max 3666Mhz. 
You need to get ridiculous on SoC voltage for each speed bump it seems. 

Gigabyte AUTO SoC voltage works up to about 3466Mhz I can guess on my side. Had no issues with it like so. (1.100V)
3600Mhz needs +0.084V offset (1.184V)
3666Mhz needs +0.144V offset (1.244V)
3733Mhz needs +0.210V offset (1.310V)
3800Mhz, uncertain what is needed but it's more than 1.350V++, you can only boot and run a couple threads stressed like this unless you want freezes with so little.
You need to keep adding voltage until you can run 16threads/instances of memory stress-test/error-check and the voltage required drifts with temperatures. A cold computer can require less but as it heats up after a while of testing it will need a small increase to keep being stable. 

With too little voltage you get hard locks like you do on CPU OC side. I'm thinking the IMC needs as much voltage as the CPU side for similar frequencies/speeds. 
There is way to little testing done on this and what actually is doable.


----------



## sakae48

Nighthog said:


> I can boot and use all they way to 3800Mhz that I have tested but I only have found stable settings for max 3666Mhz.
> You need to get ridiculous on SoC voltage for each speed bump it seems.
> 
> -snip-(sorry!)
> 3800Mhz, uncertain what is needed but it's more than 1.350V++, you can only boot and run a couple threads stressed like this unless you want freezes with so little.
> You need to keep adding voltage until you can run 16threads/instances of memory stress-test/error-check and the voltage required drifts with temperatures. A cold computer can require less but as it heats up after a while of testing it will need a small increase to keep being stable.
> 
> With too little voltage you get hard locks like you do on CPU OC side. I'm thinking the IMC needs as much voltage as the CPU side for similar frequencies/speeds.
> There is way to little testing done on this and what actually is doable.


Yes it does. For 3333 i could keep SOC on 1.05v. at 3466, I need like 1.1v and 1.125v for 3533
Also agree that you'll most likely to crash when the system is warm already. after 24/7 run, now I get a few glitch like crashing apps. Seems like I need one or two more voltage step


----------



## seansplayin

@1usmus on my 1800x/C6H running bios 6001 and using Gskill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZKW I finally have 3533 stable with 14,15,14,14,28,42,1T and tightened subtimings. here is a full list of my bios settings. a couple things to mention of the top of my head, running high CPU core clock (4.1ghz) and high memory speed (3466 and up) required additional voltage on the 1.8V PLL, at 3466 memory I used 1.83V and at 3533 I use 1.95 although I may be able to lower it a little. Also VDDP, on this system VDDP set to auto results in an applied voltage of 0.98v. when referencing Ryzen Dram Calculator it showed 0.9v so I manually 0.9v, I was able to pass 2200% coverage with 16 instanced of HCI Memtest and 30minutes of Prime95 Blend and 30 minutes of Prime95 extreme heat small fft but when I tried encoding videos it would lock up. I returned VDDP to auto and now I'm able to encode with handbrake again. Also my experience is when using fast memory with low timings your CPU will require more voltage to remain stable. 
My friend has same 1800x/C6H running bios 6001 with the G-skill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZR RGB kit and his VDDP auto voltage is 0.9V. getting his kit stable at 3466 with stilts preset took me around 14 hours and uses different procodt, CAD Bus and RTTNOM/RTTPARK settings. figuring out the right combination of these settings on my computer enabled me to raise memory speed from 3466 to 3533 increasing only one timing, the trcdrd 14 to 15 and also drop memory voltage from 1.54 down to 1.44v. speaking of memory voltage, raising memory voltage by only 0.01v will cause hci errors. 
1800x with C6H bios6001
HCI Memtest with RTC -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...Instances 2600 with one error_zpsnpeqof9q.png


Geekbench4 with RTC -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/geekbench_zps3ppbz0qb.jpg


AIDA64 Memory & Cache with RTC -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/aida64_zpswzhwedmi.jpg


Cinebench R15 with RTC -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/Cinebench_zpsjhj2n8ky.jpg


bios settings list -


Spoiler



[2018/06/09 23:21:51]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [41.00]
Performance Bias [CB15]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.55000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.13125]
DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.95000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [5]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [24]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [340]
Trfc2 [252]
Trfc4 [155]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [48 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/7]
MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52500]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [900]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [500]
CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.44000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [On]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [SanDisk Ultra II 480GB]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
KingstonDataTraveler 3.0PMAP [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Auto]
USB3_6 [Auto]
USB3_7 [Auto]
USB3_8 [Auto]
USB3_9 [Auto]
USB3_10 [Auto]
USB2_11 [Auto]
USB2_12 [Auto]
USB2_13 [Auto]
USB2_14 [Auto]
USB_15 [Auto]
USB_16 [Auto]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
HPET In SB [Auto]
MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
POST Report [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [6]
Profile Name [dramcalc3533]
Save to Profile [6]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]



as for the 2700x/C7H Wifi on bios 6001 with Gskill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZKW Memory,
stock CPU with memory at 3466.

HCI Memtest with RTC -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/2700x C7H Wifi/stable to 20001_zpswubysprn.jpg


Firestrike physics -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...stock cpu- stilts 3466 preset_zpsnir0kpe9.jpg


Geekbench4 with RTC -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...stock cpu- stilts 3466 preset_zps10zsejgr.jpg


AIDA64 Memory & Cache -


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/... Wifi/AIDA64 memory benchmark_zpsb0hpmopv.jpg


Cinebench R15 with RTC


Spoiler



http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...k cpu stilts 3466 mem at 3.9v_zps4jhqkptx.jpg





Spoiler



[2018/06/02 20:37:02]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
Performance Enhancer [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Auto]
DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Target TDP [Auto]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [51]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [3]
TwrwrScl [3]
Trfc [260]
Trfc2 [160]
Trfc4 [110]
Tcwl [11]
Trtp [5]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [4]
TwrwrDd [4]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [4]
TrdrdDd [4]
Tcke [6]
ProcODT [60 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
Firmware TPM [Disable]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
Primary Video Device [PCIE / PCI Video]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
When system is in working state [On]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
Wi-Fi Controller [Enabled]
Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Device [SanDisk Ultra II 480GB]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
ST2000DM001-1CH164 CC29 [Auto]
U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
U31G1_5 [Enabled]
U31G1_6 [Enabled]
U31G1_7 [Enabled]
U31G1_8 [Enabled]
U31G1_9 [Enabled]
U31G1_10 [Enabled]
USB11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
USB14 [Enabled]
USB15 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
Generic Mode [Auto]
SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
SPI Read Mode [Auto]
SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
SPI Burst Write [Auto]
I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
SATA D3 Support [Auto]
EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
SD D3 Support [Auto]
S0I3 [Auto]
Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
HPET In SB [Auto]
MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
_OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
USB MSI Option [Auto]
LPC MSI Option [Auto]
PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
AB MSI Option [Auto]
SB C1E Support [Auto]
SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
POST Report [5 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
Load from Profile [6]
Profile Name [stilt3466stabl]
Save to Profile [3]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


----------



## Screemi

CJMitsuki said:


> I couldnt find your specific model GVKA ram in the browser but I did find the tridentz version that is exactly the same and it imported just fine. Also there are 3 different g.skill 3200c16 kits one is Samsung Bdie, one is Samsung DDie and one is Hynix. Yours is BDie it seems but i couldnt find that model in the SPD browser anywhere although the f4-3200c16-16gtza is exactly like it as far as the chips and xmp profile that is used. The other models have more relaxed timings on the xmp. Maybe that model was either discontinued or who knows why the calculator couldnt read it.
> 
> 
> View attachment 201726


i think i found the problem i have. i didn't the the provile version correctly. with it set to v2, which tburner shows my xmp profiles are, i only get cl16 timings even on extreme. looks like i am out of look for some cl15 or even cl14 with my pair of dimms. r-xmp with version v2 does still reads significantly different timings in ns then tburner does.


----------



## y0bailey

Alright...I'm full of rage with this right now. 

Any suggestions for getting my Hynix MFR (corsair lpx 8gb x 2) running at 3200mhz on C6H. I can run 3066 fine, but no luck with 3200mhz. So many hours wasted.

Anyone with this kit have any "eureka" settings I need to try?


----------



## dspx

y0bailey said:


> Alright...I'm full of rage with this right now.
> 
> Any suggestions for getting my Hynix MFR (corsair lpx 8gb x 2) running at 3200mhz on C6H. I can run 3066 fine, but no luck with 3200mhz. So many hours wasted.
> 
> Anyone with this kit have any "eureka" settings I need to try?


http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2414.html#post26242714


----------



## dorbot

dspx said:


> http://www.overclock.net/forum/11-a...vi-overclocking-thread-2414.html#post26242714



lol.
Funny man....
Well I chuckled. How many thousand posts is that monster now?


----------



## chroniclard

Woo, few hours tweaking, seems good.


----------



## Aenra

@1usmus while i wish you every success (am assuming this can be potentially a big deal to you), i do have to ask you to refrain from doing what others have done in your shoes, in various projects over the years;

- "discontinued" because "it is now available through 'x' (and _only_ 'x') motherboard vendor"
- "yes, but you need the special version" (which is only available in 'y' product)

And so on 
Your code, your call of course, this is just me making a simple request.


----------



## dspx

dorbot said:


> lol.
> Funny man....
> Well I chuckled. How many thousand posts is that monster now?


I gave you a direct link to The Stilt's settings for Hynix AFR and MFR, did you click on it?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Spoiler






seansplayin said:


> @*1usmus* on my 1800x/C6H running bios 6001 and using Gskill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZKW I finally have 3533 stable with 14,15,14,14,28,42,1T and tightened subtimings. here is a full list of my bios settings. a couple things to mention of the top of my head, running high CPU core clock (4.1ghz) and high memory speed (3466 and up) required additional voltage on the 1.8V PLL, at 3466 memory I used 1.83V and at 3533 I use 1.95 although I may be able to lower it a little. Also VDDP, on this system VDDP set to auto results in an applied voltage of 0.98v. when referencing Ryzen Dram Calculator it showed 0.9v so I manually 0.9v, I was able to pass 2200% coverage with 16 instanced of HCI Memtest and 30minutes of Prime95 Blend and 30 minutes of Prime95 extreme heat small fft but when I tried encoding videos it would lock up. I returned VDDP to auto and now I'm able to encode with handbrake again. Also my experience is when using fast memory with low timings your CPU will require more voltage to remain stable.
> My friend has same 1800x/C6H running bios 6001 with the G-skill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZR RGB kit and his VDDP auto voltage is 0.9V. getting his kit stable at 3466 with stilts preset took me around 14 hours and uses different procodt, CAD Bus and RTTNOM/RTTPARK settings. figuring out the right combination of these settings on my computer enabled me to raise memory speed from 3466 to 3533 increasing only one timing, the trcdrd 14 to 15 and also drop memory voltage from 1.54 down to 1.44v. speaking of memory voltage, raising memory voltage by only 0.01v will cause hci errors.
> 1800x with C6H bios6001
> HCI Memtest with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...Instances 2600 with one error_zpsnpeqof9q.png
> 
> 
> Geekbench4 with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/geekbench_zps3ppbz0qb.jpg
> 
> 
> AIDA64 Memory & Cache with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/aida64_zpswzhwedmi.jpg
> 
> 
> Cinebench R15 with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/Cinebench_zpsjhj2n8ky.jpg
> 
> 
> bios settings list -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/06/09 23:21:51]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [41.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.55000]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.13125]
> DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.95000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [5]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [24]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [340]
> Trfc2 [252]
> Trfc4 [155]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [48 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/7]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52500]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [900]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.44000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [SanDisk Ultra II 480GB]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> KingstonDataTraveler 3.0PMAP [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
> HPET In SB [Auto]
> MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> POST Report [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [6]
> Profile Name [dramcalc3533]
> Save to Profile [6]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> 
> 
> 
> as for the 2700x/C7H Wifi on bios 6001 with Gskill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZKW Memory,
> stock CPU with memory at 3466.
> 
> HCI Memtest with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/2700x C7H Wifi/stable to 20001_zpswubysprn.jpg
> 
> 
> Firestrike physics -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...stock cpu- stilts 3466 preset_zpsnir0kpe9.jpg
> 
> 
> Geekbench4 with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...stock cpu- stilts 3466 preset_zps10zsejgr.jpg
> 
> 
> AIDA64 Memory & Cache -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/... Wifi/AIDA64 memory benchmark_zpsb0hpmopv.jpg
> 
> 
> Cinebench R15 with RTC
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...k cpu stilts 3466 mem at 3.9v_zps4jhqkptx.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/06/02 20:37:02]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
> Performance Enhancer [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [51]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [3]
> TwrwrScl [3]
> Trfc [260]
> Trfc2 [160]
> Trfc4 [110]
> Tcwl [11]
> Trtp [5]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [4]
> TwrwrDd [4]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [4]
> TrdrdDd [4]
> Tcke [6]
> ProcODT [60 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> Firmware TPM [Disable]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
> Primary Video Device [PCIE / PCI Video]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
> PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
> When system is in working state [On]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> Wi-Fi Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [SanDisk Ultra II 480GB]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> ST2000DM001-1CH164 CC29 [Auto]
> U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
> U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
> U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> U31G1_5 [Enabled]
> U31G1_6 [Enabled]
> U31G1_7 [Enabled]
> U31G1_8 [Enabled]
> U31G1_9 [Enabled]
> U31G1_10 [Enabled]
> USB11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> USB14 [Enabled]
> USB15 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
> HPET In SB [Auto]
> MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
> Load from Profile [6]
> Profile Name [stilt3466stabl]
> Save to Profile [3]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]







Nice timings. Not trying to knock them at all but why is tRC at 51? I would say 42-43 with those timings. Might be why your latency is above 60ns, could be something to check into. I usually go by the (tRP+tRAS=tRC) rule and its pretty much always spot on. If it isnt then just +1 and thats it 99% of the time. Just dont go lower than that rule, higher usually introduces latency for no reason.


----------



## 1usmus

Screemi said:


> i think i found the problem i have. i didn't the the provile version correctly. with it set to v2, which tburner shows my xmp profiles are, i only get cl16 timings even on extreme. looks like i am out of look for some cl15 or even cl14 with my pair of dimms. r-xmp with version v2 does still reads significantly different timings in ns then tburner does.


Quality memory (HQ or UHQ) on chips b-die has a delay of 8,175ns, you have 10ns (its LQ). Calculator you get everything right.
15th timings are blocked, they are not stable, therefore the calculator will never offer them.
If you are working timings CL14 is a great success, no more.



Nighthog said:


> I can boot and use all they way to 3800Mhz that I have tested but I only have found stable settings for max 3666Mhz.
> You need to get ridiculous on SoC voltage for each speed bump it seems.
> 
> Gigabyte AUTO SoC voltage works up to about 3466Mhz I can guess on my side. Had no issues with it like so. (1.100V)
> 3600Mhz needs +0.084V offset (1.184V)
> 3666Mhz needs +0.144V offset (1.244V)
> 3733Mhz needs +0.210V offset (1.310V)
> 3800Mhz, uncertain what is needed but it's more than 1.350V++, you can only boot and run a couple threads stressed like this unless you want freezes with so little.
> You need to keep adding voltage until you can run 16threads/instances of memory stress-test/error-check and the voltage required drifts with temperatures. A cold computer can require less but as it heats up after a while of testing it will need a small increase to keep being stable.
> 
> With too little voltage you get hard locks like you do on CPU OC side. I'm thinking the IMC needs as much voltage as the CPU side for similar frequencies/speeds.
> There is way to little testing done on this and what actually is doable.


Over 1.2 volts for SOC is the risk


----------



## 1usmus

y0bailey said:


> Alright...I'm full of rage with this right now.
> 
> Any suggestions for getting my Hynix MFR (corsair lpx 8gb x 2) running at 3200mhz on C6H. I can run 3066 fine, but no luck with 3200mhz. So many hours wasted.
> 
> Anyone with this kit have any "eureka" settings I need to try?


you tried all the alternative recommendations of RTT + procODT ?
Soc 1.11v ?



Aenra said:


> @1usmus while i wish you every success (am assuming this can be potentially a big deal to you), i do have to ask you to refrain from doing what others have done in your shoes, in various projects over the years;
> 
> - "discontinued" because "it is now available through 'x' (and _only_ 'x') motherboard vendor"
> - "yes, but you need the special version" (which is only available in 'y' product)
> 
> And so on
> Your code, your call of course, this is just me making a simple request.


I understand perfectly your fears, but I'm not going to turn this product (calculator) into an exclusive for a certain brand. It was and will be universal for all motherboards.
This product will receive updates, but it seems to me that shortly there will not be any changes in the code of the program. The product is logically completed. I know that vendors of motherboards use a calculator for testing, in comparison with the old microcode a lot of changes were made, in particular to the work of RTT, procODT and even VDDP / CLDO. I believe that this relationship will allow the user to improve the overclocking of the components of the AM4 platform. Soon will be released microcode 1.0.0.3 which will be the final correction of the shortcomings for the next six months.

I also want to note the fact that some RAM modules will not improve their overclocking capabilities. Some chips are inherently of poor quality, some simply have problems with capacitors, and some have problems with tracing. At the moment, the only (unfortunately) manufacturer of chips, with a mimimum number of deviations is Samsung. I strongly advise most of you to switch to b-die, in any case this is the starting point for future generations. Zen 2 will also have a huge love for these chips. 2017 is a truly revolutionary year, in which operative memory has taken a worthy place in the computer ecosystem. It has become as important as a processor or graphics card.

Certainly in the future some motherboards will receive special, exclusive presets from me with improved overclocking of RAM.


----------



## 1usmus

seansplayin said:


> @1usmus on my 1800x/C6H running bios 6001 and using Gskill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZKW I finally have 3533 stable with 14,15,14,14,28,42,1T and tightened subtimings. here is a full list of my bios settings. a couple things to mention of the top of my head, running high CPU core clock (4.1ghz) and high memory speed (3466 and up) required additional voltage on the 1.8V PLL, at 3466 memory I used 1.83V and at 3533 I use 1.95 although I may be able to lower it a little. Also VDDP, on this system VDDP set to auto results in an applied voltage of 0.98v. when referencing Ryzen Dram Calculator it showed 0.9v so I manually 0.9v, I was able to pass 2200% coverage with 16 instanced of HCI Memtest and 30minutes of Prime95 Blend and 30 minutes of Prime95 extreme heat small fft but when I tried encoding videos it would lock up. I returned VDDP to auto and now I'm able to encode with handbrake again. Also my experience is when using fast memory with low timings your CPU will require more voltage to remain stable.
> My friend has same 1800x/C6H running bios 6001 with the G-skill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZR RGB kit and his VDDP auto voltage is 0.9V. getting his kit stable at 3466 with stilts preset took me around 14 hours and uses different procodt, CAD Bus and RTTNOM/RTTPARK settings. figuring out the right combination of these settings on my computer enabled me to raise memory speed from 3466 to 3533 increasing only one timing, the trcdrd 14 to 15 and also drop memory voltage from 1.54 down to 1.44v. speaking of memory voltage, raising memory voltage by only 0.01v will cause hci errors.
> 1800x with C6H bios6001
> HCI Memtest with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...Instances 2600 with one error_zpsnpeqof9q.png
> 
> 
> Geekbench4 with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/geekbench_zps3ppbz0qb.jpg
> 
> 
> AIDA64 Memory & Cache with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/aida64_zpswzhwedmi.jpg
> 
> 
> Cinebench R15 with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/Bios 6001/3533TT/Cinebench_zpsjhj2n8ky.jpg
> 
> 
> bios settings list -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/06/09 23:21:51]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [41.00]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Manual mode]
> - CPU Core Voltage Override [1.55000]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.13125]
> DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.95000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [5]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [24]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [340]
> Trfc2 [252]
> Trfc4 [155]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [48 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/7]
> MemAddrCmdSetup_SM [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup_SM [0]
> MemCkeSetup_SM [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren_SM [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52500]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [900]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 4]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [500]
> CPU Power Duty Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.44000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [SanDisk Ultra II 480GB]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> KingstonDataTraveler 3.0PMAP [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Auto]
> USB3_6 [Auto]
> USB3_7 [Auto]
> USB3_8 [Auto]
> USB3_9 [Auto]
> USB3_10 [Auto]
> USB2_11 [Auto]
> USB2_12 [Auto]
> USB2_13 [Auto]
> USB2_14 [Auto]
> USB_15 [Auto]
> USB_16 [Auto]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
> HPET In SB [Auto]
> MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> POST Report [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [6]
> Profile Name [dramcalc3533]
> Save to Profile [6]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> 
> 
> 
> as for the 2700x/C7H Wifi on bios 6001 with Gskill TridentZ F4-4266C19D-16GTZKW Memory,
> stock CPU with memory at 3466.
> 
> HCI Memtest with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/seansplayin/2700x C7H Wifi/stable to 20001_zpswubysprn.jpg
> 
> 
> Firestrike physics -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...stock cpu- stilts 3466 preset_zpsnir0kpe9.jpg
> 
> 
> Geekbench4 with RTC -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...stock cpu- stilts 3466 preset_zps10zsejgr.jpg
> 
> 
> AIDA64 Memory & Cache -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/... Wifi/AIDA64 memory benchmark_zpsb0hpmopv.jpg
> 
> 
> Cinebench R15 with RTC
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/...k cpu stilts 3466 mem at 3.9v_zps4jhqkptx.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/06/02 20:37:02]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
> Performance Enhancer [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3466MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [51]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [3]
> TwrwrScl [3]
> Trfc [260]
> Trfc2 [160]
> Trfc4 [110]
> Tcwl [11]
> Trtp [5]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [4]
> TwrwrDd [4]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [4]
> TrdrdDd [4]
> Tcke [6]
> ProcODT [60 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.40000]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> Firmware TPM [Disable]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
> Primary Video Device [PCIE / PCI Video]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
> PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
> When system is in working state [On]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> Wi-Fi Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Device [SanDisk Ultra II 480GB]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> ST2000DM001-1CH164 CC29 [Auto]
> U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
> U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
> U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> U31G1_5 [Enabled]
> U31G1_6 [Enabled]
> U31G1_7 [Enabled]
> U31G1_8 [Enabled]
> U31G1_9 [Enabled]
> U31G1_10 [Enabled]
> USB11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> USB14 [Enabled]
> USB15 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> OnChip SATA Channel [Auto]
> OnChip SATA Type [AHCI]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> IR Config [RX & TX0 Only]
> SdForce18 Enable [Disabled]
> SD Mode configuration [AMDA]
> Uart 0 Enable [Enabled]
> Uart 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 0 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 1 Enable [Enabled]
> I2C 2 Enable [Disabled]
> I2C 3 Enable [Disabled]
> GPIO Devices Support [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 0 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 1 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 2 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 3 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 4 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 5 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 6 [Auto]
> ESATA Port On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 0 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 1 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 2 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 3 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 4 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 5 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 6 [Auto]
> SATA Power On Port 7 [Auto]
> SATA Port 0 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 1 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 2 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 3 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 4 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 5 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 6 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Port 7 MODE [Auto]
> SATA Hot-Removable Support [Auto]
> SATA 6 AHCI Support [Auto]
> Int. Clk Differential Spread [Auto]
> SATA MAXGEN2 CAP OPTION [Auto]
> SATA CLK Mode Option [Auto]
> Aggressive Link PM Capability [Auto]
> Port Multiplier Capability [Auto]
> SATA Ports Auto Clock Control [Auto]
> SATA Partial State Capability [Auto]
> SATA FIS Based Switching [Auto]
> SATA Command Completion Coalescing Support [Auto]
> SATA Slumber State Capability [Auto]
> SATA MSI Capability Support [Auto]
> SATA Target Support 8 Devices [Auto]
> Generic Mode [Auto]
> SATA AHCI Enclosure [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 0 [Auto]
> SATA SGPIO 1 [Disabled]
> SATA PHY PLL [Auto]
> AC/DC Change Message Delivery [Disabled]
> TimerTick Tracking [Auto]
> Clock Interrupt Tag [Auto]
> EHCI Traffic Handling [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C Multi-Core [Disabled]
> Fusion Message C State [Disabled]
> SPI Read Mode [Auto]
> SPI 100MHz Support [Auto]
> SPI Normal Speed [Auto]
> SPI Fast Read Speed [Auto]
> SPI Burst Write [Auto]
> I2C 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 4 D3 Support [Auto]
> I2C 5 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 0 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 1 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 2 D3 Support [Auto]
> UART 3 D3 Support [Auto]
> SATA D3 Support [Auto]
> EHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> XHCI D3 Support [Auto]
> SD D3 Support [Auto]
> S0I3 [Auto]
> Chipset Power Saving Features [Enabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum Option [-0.375%]
> HPET In SB [Auto]
> MsiDis in HPET [Auto]
> _OSC For PCI0 [Auto]
> USB Phy Power Down [Auto]
> PCIB_CLK_Stop Override [0]
> USB MSI Option [Auto]
> LPC MSI Option [Auto]
> PCIBridge MSI Option [Auto]
> AB MSI Option [Auto]
> SB C1E Support [Auto]
> SB Hardware Reduced Support [Auto]
> GPP Serial Debug Bus Enable [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> POST Report [5 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
> Load from Profile [6]
> Profile Name [stilt3466stabl]
> Save to Profile [3]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]


thank you very much for the report, it will come in handy


----------



## Aenra

1usmus said:


> I understand perfectly your fears, but I'm not going to turn this product (calculator) into an exclusive for a certain brand. It was and will be universal for all motherboards



:thumb:


----------



## Kildar

I have this RAM G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GTZR.

What would I need to plug in to get timings for a overclock of 3400 or 3466??

TIA

Mel


----------



## Screemi

1usmus said:


> Quality memory (HQ or UHQ) on chips b-die has a delay of 8,175ns, you have 10ns (its LQ). Calculator you get everything right.
> 15th timings are blocked, they are not stable, therefore the calculator will never offer them.


that's what i said or at least ment with "out of luck for my pair of dimms". still the r-xmp readout is falls  you can see it in the screenshot i postet. 

but never the less, thanks for your reply and keep up the great work!


----------



## Jayjr1105

So I have Hynix MFR 3200 Corsair sticks, the only thing I don't understand from the calculator is Profile Version. V1, V2, Custom? Is it asking what version of XMP I'm using?


----------



## Whatisthisfor

1usmus said:


> *At the moment I can not tell you everything, it's a secret, but I'm negotiating with very important people. I'm going to bring the calculator to a new level and I need information from you.
> 
> +
> 
> I'm interested in your achievements in overclocking on new motherboards. Thanks *


Well ofc. Glad your work is recognized "by the industry" and its justified imo because for Ryzen such tools like yours are rare but desperately needed given that xmp doesnt work for the platform and the consumers have to set timings. These are my latest stable achievements (oldest first) on 3533, 3600 and 3466 on a Gigabyte X470 Wifi 7. Settings for the 3466 are the same just one time hci 200 and ram test 7000% screens. BLK 102 & SOC voltage was 1,025 in all cases, 1,4V for 3466CL14, 1,44V for 3533CL14 and 1,45V for 3600CL16. LLCs on Auto. Geardown disable is broken currently so i was forced to live with CL16 on 3600. The settings for 3533 and 3600 are not optimal. I currently trying to tighten them.

http://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...2-overclocking-dram-am4-196.html#post27482632
http://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...2-overclocking-dram-am4-196.html#post27487412


----------



## MNMadman

Jayjr1105 said:


> So I have Hynix MFR 3200 Corsair sticks, the only thing I don't understand from the calculator is Profile Version. V1, V2, Custom? Is it asking what version of XMP I'm using?


It is asking what XMP profile your BIOS is using. Usually, the BIOS will list "XMP 2.0 Profile 1" or similar.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@1usmus
Do you know if the new Agesa yet to be released, will in any way help with us early adopters.
And with my Memory CORSAIR VENGEANCE LPX M-DIE ?

Thanks bud


----------



## HarryC93

is it ok that Taiphoon burner shows a lower tRC timing than othersoftwares such as HWInfo or Ryzen Timing checker? Taiphoon Burner shows me a tRC of 48T while all the othersoftware shows a Timing of 75T? (This is all at stock with just DOCP Enabled in BIOS) 

Sorry if this has been answered or is a noobish question, all these numbers just go straight over my head haha.


----------



## spadizzle

HarryC93 said:


> is it ok that Taiphoon burner shows a lower tRC timing than othersoftwares such as HWInfo or Ryzen Timing checker? Taiphoon Burner shows me a tRC of 48T while all the othersoftware shows a Timing of 75T? (This is all at stock with just DOCP Enabled in BIOS)
> 
> Sorry if this has been answered or is a noobish question, all these numbers just go straight over my head haha.


Make sure you're reading from XMP parameters on Taiphoon from the very bottom of the report, and also at the very bottom click the link on the report to change it over to nanoseconds.


----------



## CJMitsuki

spadizzle said:


> HarryC93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it ok that Taiphoon burner shows a lower tRC timing than othersoftwares such as HWInfo or Ryzen Timing checker? Taiphoon Burner shows me a tRC of 48T while all the othersoftware shows a Timing of 75T? (This is all at stock with just DOCP Enabled in BIOS)
> 
> Sorry if this has been answered or is a noobish question, all these numbers just go straight over my head haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure you're reading from XMP parameters on Taiphoon from the very bottom of the report, and also at the very bottom click the link on the report to change it over to nanoseconds.
Click to expand...

Those timings you see in TB are not your timings. They are the timings stored in your SPD within the memory. It’s just a JEDEC and XMP profile timings stored on the chip. RTC and HWiNFO64 show your actual timings. HWiNFO just doesn’t show them as detailed as RTC. Do not use Thaiphoon to try to read your timings. It is used for reading SPD and reprogramming it if you have the paid version.


----------



## xixou

With 8 populated slots using a 1950X CPU and 3666 MHz ddr4 samsung die e,
you can only go up to 2666 MHz.


----------



## Orb

Any one has the issue when the computer is still cool, the ram overclock is unstable?

Im using 4 dimms and get a stable overclock on 3266 mhz, always.
But on 3333 mhz, the first or maybe second attempt with ram test always gives an error within a few minutes.
After that I can get 3000% coverage and its rock stable.

bumping voltages cpu, soc, ram voltages does not solve it.


----------



## CJMitsuki

xixou said:


> With 8 populated slots using a 1950X CPU and 3666 MHz ddr4 samsung die e,
> you can only go up to 2666 MHz.


I’m surprised you can get that frequency with 8 populated slots and E Die.



Orb said:


> Any one has the issue when the computer is still cool, the ram overclock is unstable?
> 
> Im using 4 dimms and get a stable overclock on 3266 mhz, always.
> But on 3333 mhz, the first or maybe second attempt with ram test always gives an error within a few minutes.
> After that I can get 3000% coverage and its rock stable.
> 
> bumping voltages cpu, soc, ram voltages does not solve it.


Honestly, you are running 4 dimms so it is going to be much more difficult to get higher frequencies. Single rank, dual channel with 2 dimms is optimal for higher frequencies, dual rank being worse. I guess that’s the trade off for the added bandwidth of running more memory. Your IMC can only do so much but 3200 and 3266 has some good performance. When I was pushing my 3200mhz strap I got it stable at CL13 1T and it performed similarly to 3466 in benchmarks. If I were you I would tighten everything up at 3266 or drop one step and do the same. Frequency doesn’t always equate to performance, just potential performance. If you are unable to get timings nice and tight, similar to the strap below it then it will more than likely be a performance loss. This becomes even more evident when you get to 3400+ and latency starts to have an even more profound effect over frequency. For instance, if I can get 3200 to 14-14-14-22-36 but can only get 3333 to 14-14-14-28-42 assuming both have basically the same subtimings then more often than not 3200 is going to provide better performance and probably much better latency.


----------



## Orb

Yeah know 3333 mhz is pretty much limit for IMC with 4 dimms.

But for some reason e.g on 3200 mhz 
16-16-16-16, is not stable at all
16-17-16-16, is stable

So was pushing for bit higher freqeuncy
3266 cl15-17-17-17-34-54-2T geardown disabled also works


----------



## CJMitsuki

Orb said:


> Yeah know 3333 mhz is pretty much limit for IMC with 4 dimms.
> 
> But for some reason e.g on 3200 mhz
> 16-16-16-16, is not stable at all
> 16-17-16-16, is stable
> 
> So was pushing for bit higher freqeuncy
> 3266 cl15-17-17-17-34-54-2T geardown disabled also works


Have you tried 2T at all with GD enabled at higher? latency will suffer quite a bit though. I generally only use one or the other, GD enabled with 1T or 2T with GD disabled if I cant get 1T with GD diabled to work. Both together is just not ideal. In your case I would say 3266 with lower CL looks better but until you benchmark them in Cinebench and some gaming benches depending on what you will be using the computer for, you wont know for certain which performs best. You must be using a B Die kit that has a lower qualoty B Die chip for those timings.


----------



## Orb

CJMitsuki said:


> Have you tried 2T at all with GD enabled at higher? latency will suffer quite a bit though. I generally only use one or the other, GD enabled with 1T or 2T with GD disabled if I cant get 1T with GD diabled to work. Both together is just not ideal. In your case I would say 3266 with lower CL looks better but until you benchmark them in Cinebench and some gaming benches depending on what you will be using the computer for, you wont know for certain which performs best.


hmm will give it a try for testing purposes, thought Geardown enabled would always overwrite command rate.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Orb said:


> hmm will give it a try for testing purposes, thought Geardown enabled would always overwrite command rate.


I thought it just added .5 to the command rate so 1.5T or 2.5T but no idea honestly. I do know both together give more stability but at added latency and you cant run GD enabled with an odd Cas Latency as it will revert it to the next even number higher. Id say that it will not benefit you to go a tiny bit higher with those enabled though. Almost certainly going to perform worse unless you were able to go to 3400+ with decent timings then you may fair better.


----------



## Orb

CJMitsuki said:


> I thought it just added .5 to the command rate so 1.5T or 2.5T but no idea honestly. I do know both together give more stability but at added latency and you cant run GD enabled with an odd Cas Latency as it will revert it to the next even number higher. Id say that it will not benefit you to go a tiny bit higher with those enabled though. Almost certainly going to perform worse unless you were able to go to 3400+ with decent timings then you may fair better.


Geardown enabled 1T or 2T, shows for me in Ryzen Timing Checker same settings and get the same latency 65.6 in Aida.
Cant test if it does anything stablitiy wise, would have to wait till my computer is cool again, because thats the only time I get the errors.

But yeah probably stick with on of these 2
3266 cl15-17-17-17-34-54-2T 
3266 cl16-17-17-17-17-54-1T GD enabled.

cl15-2T has slightly better latency, cl16 1T-GD has slightly better read speed


----------



## CJMitsuki

Orb said:


> Geardown enabled 1T or 2T, shows for me in Ryzen Timing Checker same settings and get the same latency 65.6 in Aida.
> Cant test if it does anything stablitiy wise, would have to wait till my computer is cool again, because thats the only time I get the errors.
> 
> But yeah probably stick with on of these 2
> 3266 cl15-17-17-17-34-54-2T
> 3266 cl16-17-17-17-17-54-1T GD enabled.
> 
> cl15-2T has slightly better latency, cl16 1T-GD has slightly better read speed


can you hit 3200c14 at all with 2T GD disabled? Also if you get any errors at any time then you dont need to use that set up. Do you use a memory testing program at all? HCI Memtest or RamTest or even memTest86? If not you need to be doing that as errors will cause you much misery. 1 error is 1 too many.


----------



## xixou

"I’m surprised you can get that frequency with 8 populated slots and E Die.",
what were you expecting?
Less like 2400 or more like 2800?


----------



## CJMitsuki

xixou said:


> "I’m surprised you can get that frequency with 8 populated slots and E Die.",
> what were you expecting?
> Less like 2400 or more like 2800?


Barely, if any OC at all with E Die since it isnt that great for Ryzen and then maxing out DPC on the board is another detriment to memory OC. Dunno if it is dual or single rank so if it is dual rank that is another detriment. But Im sure there is tons of bandwidth. Do you use it for gaming or is it just a workstation?


----------



## xixou

It is single rank.
I use it for gaming and mining ^^:

http://users.skynet.be/xixou/tower_xixou_b.jpg

Running at 1.4V
http://users.skynet.be/xixou/ddr4.png
http://users.skynet.be/xixou/ddr4_b.png


----------



## CJMitsuki

xixou said:


> It is single rank.
> I use it for gaming and mining ^^:
> 
> http://users.skynet.be/xixou/tower_xixou_b.jpg


Ah, nice. I dunno what mining needs more bandwidth or speed so you may be good with that much memory even if you cant OC too much. If you want to get the ram faster your best bet is Samsung B Die, Single Rank, 2 dimms but that limits you to 16gb memory. Max speed is 3600 for most IMCs and optimum speed is 3466-3533mhz @ CL14 but thats with 2700x. Im not sure about Threadripper IMC.


----------



## xixou

With 2 dimms you loose a lot over 4 dimms (quad channel)


----------



## kawzir

Orb said:


> Any one has the issue when the computer is still cool, the ram overclock is unstable?
> 
> Im using 4 dimms and get a stable overclock on 3266 mhz, always.
> But on 3333 mhz, the first or maybe second attempt with ram test always gives an error within a few minutes.
> After that I can get 3000% coverage and its rock stable.
> 
> bumping voltages cpu, soc, ram voltages does not solve it.


I don't know if it's related but I also got some issues when the computer is "cold".

I boot my computer when I wake up, at the windows loading screen, normally there are circle of dots under the blue windows logo, but it always does't appear at the first time boot. Then after one second my monitor will show "no signal" and after a while it will load into windows login screen. Then usually the PC will freeze when I browse the internet for like 30 minutes. But the freeze may be related to my CPU Vcore -0.05 offset, I'm still testing it.

But after the second boot, it will run with no problem with long gaming session and multitasking, even with the Vcore offset. The same goes for ramtest. It shows more stable results when the tests are done after the computer ran for a period of time and is "warm". My specs are 2700x on ASUS Prime x470-Pro with Flare X 3200C14 8x2kit, don't know if it's related to ASUS MB.


----------



## caton

kawzir said:


> I don't know if it's related but I also got some issues when the computer is "cold".
> But after the second boot, it will run with no problem with long gaming session and multitasking, even with the Vcore offset. The same goes for ramtest. It shows more stable results when the tests are done after the computer ran for a period of time and is "warm". My specs are 2700x on ASUS Prime x470-Pro with Flare X 3200C14 8x2kit, don't know if it's related to ASUS MB.


I suspect it is related to MB. Because I have same problem with my Prime X470-Pro. System often fails ram tests after cold boot. However after reboot it behaves normally. Ram passes all tests without hiccups (>20000% in Karhu mem test, >750% HCI, TM5, GSAT 1h, Occt, LinX, Prime95 Blend). This board lacks Dram Boot Voltage control setting in Bios. Maybe it has some memory training issues on cold boot.
My specs: 
Asus Prime X470-Pro 4011 bios.
Ryzen [email protected] 1.225V 
Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3733C17 samsung b-die [email protected] 28 1.42V
SOC 0.925V (raising voltage doesn't solve this problem)

I've been experimenting with various Bios settings looking for possible culprits. Setting Global C-state Control (Advanced>AMD CBS) to Auto and lowering SOC voltage (in my case to 0.925, 0.915 after LLC) somehow seem to alleviated cold boot issue. However I need to do much more thorough testing to confirm this.


----------



## Orb

CJMitsuki said:


> can you hit 3200c14 at all with 2T GD disabled? Also if you get any errors at any time then you dont need to use that set up. Do you use a memory testing program at all? HCI Memtest or RamTest or even memTest86? If not you need to be doing that as errors will cause you much misery. 1 error is 1 too many.


I ussualy test with ram test or maybe prime custom 512-4096.
If it can 3000% coverage every time, then I consider it stable for use.

But on 3200 mhz cant do cl14 3200 mhz or CL 16-16-16, lowest I can go is
CL 15-17-16-16 2T
CL 16-17-16-16 1T GD
So my ram does not really like low timings, that why im using 3266 mhz with 4 dimms atm.


----------



## Orb

kawzir said:


> I don't know if it's related but I also got some issues when the computer is "cold"


Yeah could be similar issue, although have no issues with monitor going black. Experienced this in the past when vcore was to low on idle or load, strange this happens only when computer is cold.


----------



## hurricane28

xixou said:


> With 2 dimms you loose a lot over 4 dimms (quad channel)


4 Dimms doesn't mean you are using quad channel... its still dual channel only with 4 sticks instead of 2..


----------



## xixou

Orb said:


> Yeah could be similar issue, although have no issues with monitor going black. Experienced this in the past when vcore was to low on idle or load, strange this happens only when computer is cold.


This is not strange, on low technology nodes (sub C40), the worst case is on cold condition (-40C) over hot condition (+125C) to meet timings.


----------



## st0neh

hurricane28 said:


> 4 Dimms doesn't mean you are using quad channel... its still dual channel only with 4 sticks instead of 2..


It does on Threadripper.


----------



## Pilotasso

the memory controller on the 2700x is limited to dual channel even when 4 dimms are used.


----------



## caton

kawzir said:


> I don't know if it's related but I also got some issues when the computer is "cold".
> But after the second boot, it will run with no problem with long gaming session and multitasking, even with the Vcore offset. The same goes for ramtest. It shows more stable results when the tests are done after the computer ran for a period of time and is "warm". My specs are 2700x on ASUS Prime x470-Pro with Flare X 3200C14 8x2kit, don't know if it's related to ASUS MB.


I suspect it is related to MB. Because I have same problem with my Prime X470-Pro. System often fails ram tests after cold boot. However after reboot it behaves normally. Ram passes all tests without hiccups (>20000% in Karhu mem test, >750% HCI, TM5, GSAT 1h, Occt, LinX, Prime95 Blend).
This board lacks Dram Boot Voltage control setting in Bios. Maybe it has some memory training issues on cold boot.
PC specs: 
Asus Prime X470-Pro 4011 bios.
Ryzen [email protected] 1.225V 
Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3733C17 samsung b-die [email protected] 28 1.42V
SOC 0.925V (raising voltage doesn't solve this problem)


----------



## Pilotasso

Orb said:


> Yeah know 3333 mhz is pretty much limit for IMC with 4 dimms.
> 
> But for some reason e.g on 3200 mhz
> 16-16-16-16, is not stable at all
> 16-17-16-16, is stable
> 
> So was pushing for bit higher freqeuncy
> 3266 cl15-17-17-17-34-54-2T geardown disabled also works


3533 is the limit for 4 dimms, and 3666 has been demonstrated with 2. I think you didnt win the silicon lottery.

I got 3533 easily, and so did many others.


----------



## kawzir

caton said:


> kawzir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if it's related but I also got some issues when the computer is "cold".
> But after the second boot, it will run with no problem with long gaming session and multitasking, even with the Vcore offset. The same goes for ramtest. It shows more stable results when the tests are done after the computer ran for a period of time and is "warm". My specs are 2700x on ASUS Prime x470-Pro with Flare X 3200C14 8x2kit, don't know if it's related to ASUS MB.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it is related to MB. Because I have same problem with my Prime X470-Pro. System often fails ram tests after cold boot. However after reboot it behaves normally. Ram passes all tests without hiccups (>20000% in Karhu mem test, >750% HCI, TM5, GSAT 1h, Occt, LinX, Prime95 Blend).
> This board lacks Dram Boot Voltage control setting in Bios. Maybe it has some memory training issues on cold boot.
> PC specs:
> Asus Prime X470-Pro 4011 bios.
> Ryzen [email protected] 1.225V
> Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3733C17 samsung b-die [email protected] 28 1.42V
> SOC 0.925V (raising voltage doesn't solve this problem)
Click to expand...

It's such a shame, hope next bios update would provide the settings and fix this problem. I thought this would be a good value motherboard, but it turns out the VRM temperature is so high and seems to have worse capability on ram OC.


----------



## Whatisthisfor

Pilotasso said:


> 3533 is the limit for 4 dimms, and 3666 has been demonstrated with 2. I think you didnt win the silicon lottery.
> 
> I got 3533 easily, and so did many others.


The question is: is it stable at this frequency. I can easily reach 3533, 3600, it feels stable even within gaming, but if it test with Ram test, i get errors after an hour ore more.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Best for ZEN is to have 4xDDR4


----------



## varyak

Way less stable than just using the XMP Profile and changing a few timings.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Best for ZEN is to have 4xDDR4
> 
> https://youtu.be/wWDXMoEaoy0


Too bad youd be stuck with CL16 with 4x4gb setup and 4x8gb cl14 doesnt outperform 2x8gb cl14. He is using lower binned kits so im sure there is going to be more variation in those tests using low quality B Die rather than the higher quality bins.


----------



## 1usmus

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Best for ZEN is to have 4xDDR4
> 
> https://youtu.be/wWDXMoEaoy0


or 2 DR (4 ranks)


----------



## Kildar

I can get my G.Skill Trident 3200 14-14-14-34 to extreme timings but I cant get them to overclock for crap!


----------



## CJMitsuki

Kildar said:


> I can get my G.Skill Trident 3200 14-14-14-34 to extreme timings but I cant get them to overclock for crap!


I’ll take 3200mhz with great timings over 3466 with okay timings all day long. I’ve gotten 3200 to CL13 with tight timings at 2T to perform just as good as 3466 with tight timings. Just not as much bandwidth but that wasn’t noticeable in benchmarks at all. Both performed almost the same.


----------



## jznomoney

I have a g.skill sniper x 3600mhz kit. The part # is H5AN8G8NCFR-TFC. It states that it is hynix c-die. This utility doesn't list c-die. Is it more comparable to mfr or afr? Thanks in advanced.


----------



## 1usmus

jznomoney said:


> I have a g.skill sniper x 3600mhz kit. The part # is H5AN8G8NCFR-TFC. It states that it is hynix c-die. This utility doesn't list c-die. Is it more comparable to mfr or afr? Thanks in advanced.


pls Thaiphoon pic


----------



## jznomoney

There you go. I hope this helps.


----------



## 1usmus

jznomoney said:


> There you go. I hope this helps.


yes, you have a new generation of memory, it's good 
approximately 3466 CL 16 at 1.4 volts they should take
if you want I can offer you a variant of the settings

on memory modules, what is the production date?
what is your motherboard?


----------



## jznomoney

march 2018 is the production date. 










here is a link to my motherboard https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X470-GAMING-PRO.html


----------



## dspx

I am wondering how does it compare to Samsung B-Die


----------



## jznomoney

if you could recommend the settings that would be great.


----------



## Mungojerrie

Hi! First I'd like to thank 1usmus for a really fantastic utility! Overclocking RAM with it is no longer a chore, but a breeze!


Second - at some point, to further increase memory clock or tighten up memory timings, one has to either enable *Gear Down Mode* or set *Command Rate* to *2T.* Both of them have performance impact, both of options improve stability. According to AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark, 2T Command rate hurts performance more than Gear Down Mode. But I'd like to get your opinions - which should used first? Which one of them hurts real performance(in games for example) less? How you personally balance these options ion your RAM overclock?


Thanks in advance.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Mungojerrie said:


> Hi! First I'd like to thank 1usmus for a really fantastic utility! Overclocking RAM with it is no longer a chore, but a breeze!
> 
> 
> Second - at some point, to further increase memory clock or tighten up memory timings, one has to either enable *Gear Down Mode* or set *Command Rate* to *2T.* Both of them have performance impact, both of options improve stability. According to AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark, 2T Command rate hurts performance more than Gear Down Mode. But I'd like to get your opinions - which should used first? Which one of them hurts real performance(in games for example) less? How you personally balance these options ion your RAM overclock?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.


First off, dont use Aida64 to gauge performance of memory. It is more of a software for general knowledge on the potential of the ram rather than actual performance. As far as 2T and GD go, they are situational, in one situation GD will perform better and in others 2T will. You need to test for yourself using various benchmarks that reflect your particular usage since others experiences and usage will differ from yours. I always run tests using each one and I have some frequency profiles that run better with 2T and others with GD.


----------



## Mungojerrie

CJMitsuki said:


> As far as 2T and GD go, they are situational, in one situation GD will perform better and in others 2T will.


Thanks for the reply! In your experience in which use cases one or the other tends to be better? Say for general use, gaming or say rendering? Or is it completely application-specific and does not depend much on the "type" of workload?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Mungojerrie said:


> Thanks for the reply! In your experience in which use cases one or the other tends to be better? Say for general use, gaming or say rendering? Or is it completely application-specific and does not depend much on the "type" of workload?


I havent went that far into testing it. Im not sure exactly what affects them differently. I ran Cinebench and various gaming benchmarks and it was still situational in both types of benchmarks so it must be something that isnt noticeable affecting those in that way. Maybe certain timings or something that can make one perform better or something to that effect but I didnt notice either being specific to gaming or rendering.


----------



## 1usmus

jznomoney said:


> if you could recommend the settings that would be great.


I will add this type of memory in the next version of the calculator, even from you I need an html file with a typhoon




Mungojerrie said:


> Hi! First I'd like to thank 1usmus for a really fantastic utility! Overclocking RAM with it is no longer a chore, but a breeze!
> 
> 
> Second - at some point, to further increase memory clock or tighten up memory timings, one has to either enable *Gear Down Mode* or set *Command Rate* to *2T.* Both of them have performance impact, both of options improve stability. According to AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark, 2T Command rate hurts performance more than Gear Down Mode. But I'd like to get your opinions - which should used first? Which one of them hurts real performance(in games for example) less? How you personally balance these options ion your RAM overclock?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.



the difference in fractions of a percentage, that is, there is almost no
my opinion: choose a mode that will give greater stability


----------



## Mungojerrie

CJMitsuki, 1usmus
Understood, thank you both!


----------



## Mungojerrie

Oh, and another question: if a preset(for example 3200 b-die extreme) is unstable, then I should try alt1/alt2 settings. Question is - should I try them one by one - first DRAM Voltage Alt1, then ProcODT Alt 1, then VDDP Voltage Alt1, and so on. Or the whole batch of all Alt1(or Alt2) settings?


----------



## jznomoney

I will add this type of memory in the next version of the calculator, even from you I need an html file with a typhoon


1usmus
I tried uploading it here but everything I try says invalid. So I uploaded it to dropbox.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmpedc7cudjld3j/G.Skill F4-3600C19-8GSXK.zip?dl=0


----------



## CJMitsuki

Mungojerrie said:


> Oh, and another question: if a preset(for example 3200 b-die extreme) is unstable, then I should try alt1/alt2 settings. Question is - should I try them one by one - first DRAM Voltage Alt1, then ProcODT Alt 1, then VDDP Voltage Alt1, and so on. Or the whole batch of all Alt1(or Alt2) settings?


When you are changing settings to find stability you always only change one thing then test. If you do more than one setting at once then how do you know if one of the settings helped but the other hurt stability? The only real way to troubleshoot anything and I do mean anything is to rule out possible problems and you can only do that by changing one thing and seeing if it made a difference then taking notes. It might take longer but if there is stability to be found you will eventually find it. If you just change a bunch of stuff you’re relying on luck more than anything. Also to determine if you should just try the alts depends on if you got a ton of errors fast or did you get like an error or 2 after 500%. I think you see where I am going with this. Lots of errors quickly means you probably need to either increase voltage and test again and see if it made a noticeable impact or not. If not then you either loosen timings(not really a good choice) or drop a frequency strap and start again. You want to aim for nicely tightened timings at whatever frequency you can get to. Loose timings on a higher frequency is more than likely a performance loss overall. Possibly a big loss over a lower frequency tightened nicely. If you are just getting a couple of errors then you can start tweaking setting within that frequency if you are going to maintain decent timings. If your timings are already loose and you are getting errors well, I think you know what has to happen.


----------



## Mungojerrie

CJMitsuki
Appreciate the explanation! BTW, I'm not using MemTest for stability testing, I'm using Prime95 Custom based on Blend with increased RAM provisioning and Aida64 memory stress test.
By "what has to happen" I assume you meant lowering frequency?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Mungojerrie said:


> CJMitsuki
> Appreciate the explanation! BTW, I'm not using MemTest for stability testing, I'm using Prime95 Custom based on Blend with increased RAM provisioning and Aida64 memory stress test.
> By "what has to happen" I assume you meant lowering frequency?


Yes, depending on frequency and Cas Latency you are running at that time. I would assume you could hit 3400c14 which is actually a nice spot for Ryzen. 3400-3600 with good timings is what you should aim for but everything above 3200 feels really good. Having a really low latency which will come from the low timings seem to feed the infinity fabric really well.


----------



## NoDestiny

I took my time and did 1 setting at a time to get the majority of the Fast profile down at 1.35v, then went to 1.4v and 1 setting at a time until I hit all of the extreme, which worked! Thanks for the calculator, really helped! (testing was 8 passes of memtest86 each time... it took a long time, but I wanted insured stability!) Ram is the G.Skill TridentZ RGB 2x8GB 3600 CL16 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...cm_re=g.skill_3600_RBG-_-20-232-491-_-Product). Ryzen+ 2600X on a B350 mITX Asrock board. Couldn't ever get past 3200, so made the best of it.


----------



## CJMitsuki

NoDestiny said:


> I took my time and did 1 setting at a time to get the majority of the Fast profile down at 1.35v, then went to 1.4v and 1 setting at a time until I hit all of the extreme, which worked! Thanks for the calculator, really helped! (testing was 8 passes of memtest86 each time... it took a long time, but I wanted insured stability!) Ram is the G.Skill TridentZ RGB 2x8GB 3600 CL16 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...cm_re=g.skill_3600_RBG-_-20-232-491-_-Product). Ryzen+ 2600X on a B350 mITX Asrock board. Couldn't ever get past 3200, so made the best of it.


Nice, I’m betting with the timings and voltages you are showing that you can hit 3400 CL14 as well but with more voltage of course.


----------



## NoDestiny

CJMitsuki said:


> Nice, I’m betting with the timings and voltages you are showing that you can hit 3400 CL14 as well but with more voltage of course.


I wish! I go from 3200 to 3333 with the WORST timings I could come up with and upped voltage, it still won't stay stable. For whatever reason, 3200 is my max. Hence, why I took it as far as I could. This is my first time really tightening RAM, so it was a good exercise.


----------



## Nighthog

NoDestiny said:


> I wish! I go from 3200 to 3333 with the WORST timings I could come up with and upped voltage, it still won't stay stable. For whatever reason, 3200 is my max. Hence, why I took it as far as I could. This is my first time really tightening RAM, so it was a good exercise.



I found out I needed to really play around with the DrvSTr settings and ProcODT and even the RTT values to get the most speed out from my memory. ( I use much different values than most)

I see many that say they can't get higher than 3200Mhz but they use the "stock" DrvStr values of *24* Ohm, and haven't tried another ProcODT value either. 
I saw much improvement in stability increasing the DrvStr at higher speeds. About 40,40,40,40 was best all around for my motherboard/memory. Anything higher than 24 was better for stability/errors free testing.


----------



## PopnOffatTheF

I have TeamGroup (Dark Pro 8pack edition) 3600c16 kit, I cannot for the life of me get any stable timings, best I got was like 3200c15-14-14-14.

Now this was on 1700 & asus strix b350. I now have 2700x & crosshair 7, so I will be trying once more - but if you could post any stable configs - I would much appreciate!


----------



## NoDestiny

Nighthog said:


> I found out I needed to really play around with the DrvSTr settings and ProcODT and even the RTT values to get the most speed out from my memory. ( I use much different values than most)
> 
> I see many that say they can't get higher than 3200Mhz but they use the "stock" DrvStr values of *24* Ohm, and haven't tried another ProcODT value either.
> I saw much improvement in stability increasing the DrvStr at higher speeds. About 40,40,40,40 was best all around for my motherboard/memory. Anything higher than 24 was better for stability/errors free testing.


Interesting, I set my ProcODT to 53ohm, as the calculator told me to. Must... obey...  I'll investigate into the rest, though! Mine seems to be set to Auto for the DrvStr currently.


----------



## Mungojerrie

NoDestiny said:


> testing was 8 passes of memtest86 each time...


Yeah, about that... I've used MemTest86 free version for some time as a RAM stability test, and it has proven to be pretty bad at it. I've had OC attempts where MemTest86 would show 0 errors in 6 passes, and then Aida64 memory stress test would halt due to a hardware error in 45 minutes. I've even had BSODs, but MemTest86 completed a few passes with 0 errors.


People here seem to use HCI MemTest, I personally prefer Aida64 memory stress test and Prime95 Custom test(it's Blend with 13000 MB of RAM provisioned).


----------



## 1usmus

*How to improve stability DRAM (This will be included in the new version of the calculator) *

*AMD CBS settings:*

Opcache - disable
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
Memory clear - disable
Super I/O Clock Skew - disable

*MOD BIOS:*

Spread Spectrum - enable
The default value is -0.375%. Recently wrote one forumchanin that if you turn off the SS, the system does not even start at a frequency of 3600mhz.
In mods, I have the SS turned off or running in the -0.362% mode. I have an idea to create and test the intermediate options, for example -0.400 and -0.425%. Who wants to check with himself - write.

*NEWS! What will be new in version 1.3.0*

* changes in RTT, procODT (more flexible change of recommendations depending on frequency)
* voltage recommendations will be more accurate 
* improved overclocking of RAM (samsung b-die)
* some changes in primary/secondary timings 
* additional tips for improving the stability of RAM
* added support for hynix 18nm c-die
* the separation between generations of processors will be realized differently, a more important part is played by the chipset rather than the processor (topology effect)

The approximate release date is July 14-21


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> I found out I needed to really play around with the DrvSTr settings and ProcODT and even the RTT values to get the most speed out from my memory. ( I use much different values than most)
> 
> I see many that say they can't get higher than 3200Mhz but they use the "stock" DrvStr values of *24* Ohm, and haven't tried another ProcODT value either.
> I saw much improvement in stability increasing the DrvStr at higher speeds. About 40,40,40,40 was best all around for my motherboard/memory. Anything higher than 24 was better for stability/errors free testing.


very interesting
do you have screenshots of RTC?



jznomoney said:


> I will add this type of memory in the next version of the calculator, even from you I need an html file with a typhoon
> 
> 1usmus
> I tried uploading it here but everything I try says invalid. So I uploaded it to dropbox.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmpedc7cudjld3j/G.Skill F4-3600C19-8GSXK.zip?dl=0


RTT 7 / OFF / 5
procODT 53
CAD_BUS 24 24 24 24
soc 1.03125
dram 1.4
frequency 3466
16 18 18 18 36 58 4 8 34


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> very interesting
> do you have screenshots of RTC?


Here:

Though I'm seeing end results that I've not improved performance in any signifiant way compare to my old memory kit which ran only 3200Mhz(dual-rank). (why I kept pushing speed for so long... wanted better but it didn't give it)


----------



## Anty

1usmus said:


> *How to improve stability DRAM (This will be included in the new version of the calculator) *
> 
> *AMD CBS settings:*
> 
> Opcache - disable


You better add note to calculator that it will cost you 5-7% CPU performance drop depending on application .

If one needs to disable it it means CPU has segfault issue and best what can be done is to RMA and get new one - not only free of this bug but almost certainly better OCer.


----------



## The Chosen One

First off thanks for all the work on the program!

I just got my new pc setup (https://nl.hardware.info/usersystemen/28203/quietum-grandis---ryzen-2700x-game-pc) and just fiddling around with some software/games with ram at stock (2xxx) speeds.

Got 64GB Trident Z (2nd hand so very nice price) and sold 32 GB again so I basicly got; https://nl.hardware.info/product/382702/gskill-trident-z-rgb-32gb-ddr4-3600-cl17-kit now.

I made a 2nd profile for the ram settings in BIOS and got it mostly figured out but I could use a few pointers with some last settings. Not all Bios are the same obviously but I can at least try. 

*Questions!:*

Dram voltage I can find under Advanced Voltage Settings but at which setting or which setting do I use to fill in the SOC Voltage?
My DRAM Calc says tRCPage 0. If I put that into the bios it jumps to Auto. I asume thats correct?
Command rate (tCMD) is also on auto in bios, can't find the setting on/in the DRAM Calc. Also correct?

CAD Bus Setup Timing all needs to stay on auto?
CAD Bus Drive Strenght are the ohm settings from the bottom right?

Does all info given with DRAM Calc need to be entered somewhere? Don't think I saw something where DQS str could be entered. (bad memory too but still (my memory that is))

2700X, Aorus Gaming 7 (for rest see link above), guess I could try if it will be stable at 3200 for starters and if not wait for new version or if it is stable wait for new version to go 3466 or so.


----------



## st0neh

1usmus said:


> *NEWS! What will be new in version 1.3.0*


It may be outside of the scope of this application but for us potato memory overclockers some kind of way to suggest what to tune and in what order to try and finalize stability would be SUPER handy.


----------



## goncalossilva

Has anybody experienced negative scaling with voltage on dual-rank b-die? I am unsure if this is specific to my kit, or all combinations of ProcODT / RTT / CAD BUS that I have tried (and believe me, I've tried a ton), but my kit shows some very noticeable negative scaling after 1.375V. Temperatures are about the same for all test runs (+-0.5ºC).

This is the kit: https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-32gtz

To be clear, bumping voltage helps stabilize the RAM all the way up to 1.375V, but this is a wall. After that, it's pretty clear it does the reverse.

For instance, a configuration that is 1600% HCI MemTest stable at 1.375V will throw errors at the 200% mark when using 1.385V. Same exact settings, only changing DRAM voltage. Being a b-die kit (despite being dual-rank), this feels a bit unexpected.

I wonder if anyone has encountered this?


----------



## Lumpus

Ryzen 2700X w/Tachi X470 board - G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3466 (PC4 27700) Desktop Memory Model F4-3466C16D-16GTZR memory

I can get it to run at default XMP settings (16-18-18-38), but even trying the Safe DRAM Calc 1.2b2 settings causes it to boot cycle 2-3 times and then default down to 2133mhz
(attached is my Taiphoon)









Any suggestions for tighter timings or should I just wait for 1usmus to update the DRAM Calc in July?


----------



## 1usmus

The Chosen One said:


> First off thanks for all the work on the program!
> 
> I just got my new pc setup (https://nl.hardware.info/usersystemen/28203/quietum-grandis---ryzen-2700x-game-pc) and just fiddling around with some software/games with ram at stock (2xxx) speeds.
> 
> Got 64GB Trident Z (2nd hand so very nice price) and sold 32 GB again so I basicly got; https://nl.hardware.info/product/382702/gskill-trident-z-rgb-32gb-ddr4-3600-cl17-kit now.
> 
> I made a 2nd profile for the ram settings in BIOS and got it mostly figured out but I could use a few pointers with some last settings. Not all Bios are the same obviously but I can at least try.
> 
> *Questions!:*
> 
> Dram voltage I can find under Advanced Voltage Settings but at which setting or which setting do I use to fill in the SOC Voltage?
> My DRAM Calc says tRCPage 0. If I put that into the bios it jumps to Auto. I asume thats correct?
> Command rate (tCMD) is also on auto in bios, can't find the setting on/in the DRAM Calc. Also correct?
> 
> CAD Bus Setup Timing all needs to stay on auto?
> CAD Bus Drive Strenght are the ohm settings from the bottom right?
> 
> Does all info given with DRAM Calc need to be entered somewhere? Don't think I saw something where DQS str could be entered. (bad memory too but still (my memory that is))
> 
> 2700X, Aorus Gaming 7 (for rest see link above), guess I could try if it will be stable at 3200 for starters and if not wait for new version or if it is stable wait for new version to go 3466 or so.


all that is on the main page is desirable to enter, then you need to adjust the dram voltage , if there are errors
If the errors do not disappear, you need to check the alternative settings. Unfortunately it's not fast




Anty said:


> You better add note to calculator that it will cost you 5-7% CPU performance drop depending on application .
> 
> If one needs to disable it it means CPU has segfault issue and best what can be done is to RMA and get new one - not only free of this bug but almost certainly better OCer.


by default, starting with agesa 1.0.0.6 - disable



goncalossilva said:


> Has anybody experienced negative scaling with voltage on dual-rank b-die? I am unsure if this is specific to my kit, or all combinations of ProcODT / RTT / CAD BUS that I have tried (and believe me, I've tried a ton), but my kit shows some very noticeable negative scaling after 1.375V. Temperatures are about the same for all test runs (+-0.5ºC).
> 
> This is the kit: https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-32gtz
> 
> To be clear, bumping voltage helps stabilize the RAM all the way up to 1.375V, but this is a wall. After that, it's pretty clear it does the reverse.
> 
> For instance, a configuration that is 1600% HCI MemTest stable at 1.375V will throw errors at the 200% mark when using 1.385V. Same exact settings, only changing DRAM voltage. Being a b-die kit (despite being dual-rank), this feels a bit unexpected.
> 
> I wonder if anyone has encountered this?


I also sometimes notice a similar situation



Lumpus said:


> Ryzen 2700X w/Tachi X470 board - G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3466 (PC4 27700) Desktop Memory Model F4-3466C16D-16GTZR memory
> 
> I can get it to run at default XMP settings (16-18-18-38), but even trying the Safe DRAM Calc 1.2b2 settings causes it to boot cycle 2-3 times and then default down to 2133mhz
> (attached is my Taiphoon)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions for tighter timings or should I just wait for 1usmus to update the DRAM Calc in July?


there are 2 profiles, v1 and v2, try them


----------



## goncalossilva

1usmus said:


> I also sometimes notice a similar situation


Have you found this to be specific to the kit, or to some other setting(s) in use?


----------



## Lumpus

1usmus said:


> there are 2 profiles, v1 and v2, try them



Nope, the ASRock BIOS (latest Beta 1.35a) only has two Set XMP Settings - Auto or XMP 2.0 Profile 1


----------



## CJMitsuki

Anty said:


> You better add note to calculator that it will cost you 5-7% CPU performance drop depending on application .
> 
> If one needs to disable it it means CPU has segfault issue and best what can be done is to RMA and get new one - not only free of this bug but almost certainly better OCer.





For the vast majority of users it will not have an impact on their applications such as games and your normal everyday applications. It could affect you if you do a lot of compiling and similar tasks. Doesnt hurt to have an option to test and see how it works.


----------



## spadizzle

Anty said:


> You better add note to calculator that it will cost you 5-7% CPU performance drop depending on application .
> 
> If one needs to disable it it means CPU has segfault issue and best what can be done is to RMA and get new one - not only free of this bug but almost certainly better OCer.



I just ran couple benches and noticed negligible differences with having it enabled/disabled. I searched Google for awhile and disabling it seems to be helping the Linux users avoid "segfault" issues. I wasn't able to locate any performance related documentation. Any chance you could respond with a reference or two, that way I can learn some more.

I ran 3DMark and AIDA64 CPU/Membench. I have the screenshots but of course this site isn't letting me attach them. Maybe its my add blocker?


----------



## CJMitsuki

spadizzle said:


> I just ran couple benches and noticed negligible differences with having it enabled/disabled. I searched Google for awhile and disabling it seems to be helping the Linux users avoid "segfault" issues. I wasn't able to locate any performance related documentation. Any chance you could respond with a reference or two, that way I can learn some more.
> 
> I ran 3DMark and AIDA64 CPU/Membench. I have the screenshots but of course this site isn't letting me attach them. Maybe its my add blocker?



Segfault issues havent been a thing since just after the first generation Ryzen launch. I had one of the early CPUs that were affected and had to go through RMA for it but since they fixed it around October or something like that it hasnt been an issue. Im sure there are some out there that have no clue about the segfault bug that own some of those early CPUs but more than likely they arent doing heavy compiling in Linux which is where the segfault problem was affecting users.




Lumpus said:


> Nope, the ASRock BIOS (latest Beta 1.35a) only has two Set XMP Settings - Auto or XMP 2.0 Profile 1



He meant there is a tab on the calculator that say V1 or V2. V2 gives a more loose set up it seems, try it and see if it helps you. Drop down the tab and pick V2 click R-XMP tab then the safe settings tab and see if the timings work a bit better


----------



## 1usmus

@CJMitsuki

thanks 



goncalossilva said:


> Have you found this to be specific to the kit, or to some other setting(s) in use?


refers to the dual rank, this type uses large resistances for termination and with increased voltage the signal becomes noisier
what is your motherboard?

on friday I will gather the second stand and start to check on other motherboards all the features and dependencies (thanks for the iron to my new partners  )



Spoiler


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> *How to improve stability DRAM (This will be included in the new version of the calculator) *
> 
> *AMD CBS settings:*
> 
> Opcache - disable
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> Memory clear - disable
> Super I/O Clock Skew - disable
> 
> *MOD BIOS:*
> 
> Spread Spectrum - enable
> The default value is -0.375%. Recently wrote one forumchanin that if you turn off the SS, the system does not even start at a frequency of 3600mhz.
> In mods, I have the SS turned off or running in the -0.362% mode. I have an idea to create and test the intermediate options, for example -0.400 and -0.425%. Who wants to check with himself - write.



In the most recent CH7 Bios update they hid a lot of options that were kind of hidden before but you could see them if you used the search function in the bios. The 0702 update is fairly nice, I just wish they wouldnt have made it unable to search for those options, several of which you quote above to help memory stability but there are several that cause problems like disabling hpet can cause boot loops and such.




1usmus said:


> @*CJMitsuki*
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> 
> refers to the dual rank, this type uses large resistances for termination and with increased voltage the signal becomes noisier
> what is your motherboard?
> 
> on friday I will gather the second stand and start to check on other motherboards all the features and dependencies (thanks for the iron to my new partners  )
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



1usmus Congratulations on the partnership, your calculator has helped ryzen with memory far more than anything else I have seen and even workers for AMD use it themselves as well as being mentioned in many YouTube videos from bigger YouTubers. You deserve the partners and hopefully it just gets better.


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> In the most recent CH7 Bios update they hid a lot of options that were kind of hidden before but you could see them if you used the search function in the bios. The 0702 update is fairly nice, I just wish they wouldnt have made it unable to search for those options, several of which you quote above to help memory stability but there are several that cause problems like disabling hpet can cause boot loops and such.


Need a mod?


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> Need a mod?



That would be awesome if you had the time for it. I wanted to test those options to see if there were any benefits to be had, I just didnt expect them to make them completely invisible to the search. I guess it wasnt a good idea to bring it up in the thread Elmor started :lachen: Im sure they saw it and hid them.


----------



## SexySale

CJMitsuki said:


> 1usmus Congratulations on the partnership, your calculator has helped ryzen with memory far more than anything else I have seen and even workers for AMD use it themselves as well as being mentioned in many YouTube videos from bigger YouTubers. You deserve the partners and hopefully it just gets better.


Surely he is! 
Thank you @1usmus for all your hard work and uncountable number of hours spent in this.
Rly appreciate it and keep up...
We (m-die and other non b-dies) users still struggle a bit, but you are every step closer to finally help us all 

Let us know how we can help you...


----------



## Anty

spadizzle said:


> I just ran couple benches and noticed negligible differences with having it enabled/disabled. I searched Google for awhile and disabling it seems to be helping the Linux users avoid "segfault" issues. I wasn't able to locate any performance related documentation. Any chance you could respond with a reference or two, that way I can learn some more.
> 
> I ran 3DMark and AIDA64 CPU/Membench. I have the screenshots but of course this site isn't letting me attach them. Maybe its my add blocker?



You won't see it in membench or other mem limited apps. It has to be software doing actual computational work able to fully saturate frontend decoders.
I did several tests with different software (but no games) and I got numbers shown above. Other person on phoronix said he measured avg 6% which align to my numbers.


----------



## The Chosen One

Let me make my questions from previous post a little more clear/easy to read without all the extra fluff.



1. Where in the BIOS (many are different ofc) can I enter the *SOC Voltage* value of DRAM Calc? I see SOC multiple times.What's it named?
2. Do I need to enter the *DQS str*value, and if so where?
-
3. DRAM Calc value of *tRCPage = 0*. 0 in bios settings = auto. Correct?
4. *Command rate (tCMD)* in Bios is auto. Correct?
5. *CAD Bus Setup Timing* all on auto. Correct?

(X470 Aorus Gaming 7, R7 2700X)


----------



## goncalossilva

1usmus said:


> refers to the dual rank, this type uses large resistances for termination and with increased voltage the signal becomes noisier
> what is your motherboard?
> 
> on friday I will gather the second stand and start to check on other motherboards all the features and dependencies (thanks for the iron to my new partners  )
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


It's the C7H. Sounds great, looking forward!


----------



## MNMadman

The Chosen One said:


> Let me make my questions from previous post a little more clear/easy to read without all the extra fluff.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Where in the BIOS (many are different ofc) can I enter the *SOC Voltage* value of DRAM Calc? I see SOC multiple times.What's it named?
> 2. Do I need to enter the *DQS str*value, and if so where?
> -
> 3. DRAM Calc value of *tRCPage = 0*. 0 in bios settings = auto. Correct?
> 4. *Command rate (tCMD)* in Bios is auto. Correct?
> 5. *CAD Bus Setup Timing* all on auto. Correct?
> 
> (X470 Aorus Gaming 7, R7 2700X)


1. There is no standardized naming convention. What are the different SOC options you have?
2. It's not in my BIOS, so I can't enter it. Might be manufacturer-specific. You'll have to search for it in yours.
3. Does the same thing on mine. Auto must equal Disabled for that setting, which is what entering 0 does.
4. Auto does its own thing. If you want it on a certain value, enter it manually.
5. Same as 4.

You can use Ryzen Timing Checker to see what those Auto values actually are. Then you can change them manually if necessary.

Edit: I stopped using the Auto settings. Even if I use the same timing as the Auto setting, I put them in manually. At least that way you know what it will be at every boot.


----------



## Keith Myers

*Both week 37 and 38 1700X/1800X have segfault issues*



CJMitsuki said:


> Segfault issues havent been a thing since just after the first generation Ryzen launch. I had one of the early CPUs that were affected and had to go through RMA for it but since they fixed it around October or something like that it hasnt been an issue. Im sure there are some out there that have no clue about the segfault bug that own some of those early CPUs but more than likely they arent doing heavy compiling in Linux which is where the segfault problem was affecting users.


I RMA'd a week 7 1700X and got back a week 37 cpu, Still was getting segfaults every once in a while in Windows 10. My week 38 1800X was not supposed to have the segfault issue since it was manufactured well past the week "fix" date. But it regularly creates segfault errors in work under Linux 16.04. I haven't bothered to try RMA'ing since one of the questions in the RMA return documents is what week was the manufacturing date.

I haven't tried setting the opcache to disabled yet since I do nothing but heavy math processing all the time. Probably should try it at sometime to see if the segfaults stop and what kind of performance hit I get.

The 2700X machines have been flawless OTOH. Really with the C7H, those systems show a much more polished product and are obviously Gen 2 without Gen 1's problems.:specool:


----------



## H-man

Does the "Samsung OEM" setting apply to B die memory sticks made by Samsung?
EDIT: I'm assuming it does for now, but I'd like clarification still.


----------



## Firedrops

Just updated to Asus CH6 bios 6201, and dialled in stable CPU (R5 1600) at 39.25x, 1.375v.

Trying to get my memory back to old 3200MHz settings, but cannot.

I am using Trident RGB, so it's Hynix A-die, H5AN8G8NAFR-TFC. Settings from Calculator 1.2.0 beta 2, 3200MHz, safe values. I have tried every single reccomended and Alt combination, even pushed DRAM voltage to 1.4v, SOC to 1.1v to no avail. Nothing manages to boot Windows 10 without BSOD. Most settings fail even before initialising Windows from Bios.

I have also set Command Rate to 2T, disabled Gear Down and Power Down, as well as all these below tips:



1usmus said:


> *How to improve stability DRAM (This will be included in the new version of the calculator) *
> 
> *AMD CBS settings:*
> 
> Opcache - disable
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> Memory clear - disable
> Super I/O Clock Skew - disable


Could anyone please give some advice?


----------



## HatchetEgg

Hi, guys, I was wondering if you could help me,

My OC had been stable for some time for my R5 2600 non X at 4.3Ghz at 4.25v, on prime95 no errors. But on the next reboot on the next day my OC is unstable, I tried nearly all the settings in the BIOS and still unstable. Now for the strange part, if I underclock to 4.2Ghz and then clock back to 4.3 GHz, it is stable again even in prime 95.

What do you think is going on? Is there anything I can do to stop this.

Thanks in advance


----------



## CJMitsuki

HatchetEgg said:


> Hi, guys, I was wondering if you could help me,
> 
> My OC had been stable for some time for my R5 2600 non X at 4.3Ghz at 4.25v, on prime95 no errors. But on the next reboot on the next day my OC is unstable, I tried nearly all the settings in the BIOS and still unstable. Now for the strange part, if I underclock to 4.2Ghz and then clock back to 4.3 GHz, it is stable again even in prime 95.
> 
> What do you think is going on? Is there anything I can do to stop this.
> 
> Thanks in advance


You have a 2600 that is 4.3ghz stable with all cores in P95? If so then that is a chip that reaches stable frequencies that 95% of 2700x’s can’t. How many hours of P95 do you run and is this all core OC? You could have a golden 2600.


----------



## H-man

Is it stable if you set the 4.3GHz, boot into windows, then restart? If not, you have an issue. I'd cycle through stress test apps until you find one to crash the OC because that doesn't sound stable. I'd try backing off a hair on the multiplier if you don't have voltage headroom. Conditional stability is lame.


----------



## HatchetEgg

H-man said:


> Is it stable if you set the 4.3GHz, boot into windows, then restart? If not, you have an issue. I'd cycle through stress test apps until you find one to crash the OC because that doesn't sound stable. I'd try backing off a hair on the multiplier if you don't have voltage headroom. Conditional stability is lame.



Yer I can boot into windows fine and reboot, I can play the latest prey without any issues just in prime95 now and again I get some core just fail and other times just freezes.


----------



## Mungojerrie

HatchetEgg said:


> Yer I can boot into windows fine and reboot, I can play the latest prey without any issues just in prime95 now and again I get some core just fail and other times just freezes.


 This is NOT a stable overclock by any stretch. The fact that it sometimes can run Prime95 for "some" time means nothing, instability takes time to reveal itself. IT could be literal seconds or hours. Consider your overclock stable if it runs Prime95 Large FFTs for 8 hours straight without any errors.


That, and yeah, 4300 on 1600 is not realistic. 4100 is a golden chip already, 4200 stable is like one in thousands.


I think your problem is that you don't run stress tests for long enough, maybe even just minutes, when it should be hours. Any worker stopping in Prime95 or system freeze = unstable overclock.


----------



## H-man

An overclock that I can crash under any stress test is not stable. Stable means I can start stress testing it when I go to sleep and have it still running when I wake up in the morning. Freezes are not acceptable. When I sit down to stress test a machine, I'm going to try as hard as I can to make it crash. If it crashes then, it crashes on my own terms.


----------



## HatchetEgg

H-man said:


> An overclock that I can crash under any stress test is not stable. Stable means I can start stress testing it when I go to sleep and have it still running when I wake up in the morning. Freezes are not acceptable. When I sit down to stress test a machine, I'm going to try as hard as I can to make it crash. If it crashes then, it crashes on my own terms.



This is true, also I started to use AIDA64 and I noticed the temps in Ryzen master jumped to 97C! And that it is cooled by a custom loop with two 240mm rads with EK cool stream PE and four Noctua nf-f12


----------



## Mungojerrie

HatchetEgg said:


> This is true, also I started to use AIDA64 and I noticed the temps in Ryzen master jumped to 97C! And that it is cooled by a custom loop with two 240mm rads with EK cool stream PE and four Noctua nf-f12


Either something's wrong or maybe Ryzen Master adds 20C to the measurement. Maybe the contact between the cold plate and CPU' IHS is not good enough? Thermal paste spread poorly? My 2600 doesn't reach 80C under torturous Prime95 Small FFT stress test, and that with a regular tower cooler with one 120mm fan.


----------



## CJMitsuki

H-man said:


> An overclock that I can crash under any stress test is not stable. Stable means I can start stress testing it when I go to sleep and have it still running when I wake up in the morning. Freezes are not acceptable. When I sit down to stress test a machine, I'm going to try as hard as I can to make it crash. If it crashes then, it crashes on my own terms.


While I agree with what you say to an extent, I also know that there are plenty of stress tests that put unrealistic loads onto a CPU. If you only game on your system and you don’t do heavy rendering and compiling and similar tasks then you aren’t going to need to have it pull 10 loops of very high IBT AVX, or 24 hours of Prine95 small FFT, and such nonsense since you are barely going to use 25% of your CPU at any given time and not even with a heavy load. Those types of torture tests are just going to end up subjecting your system to unnecessarily high heat and possibly degradation of the IMC as well as other components in the system. Now, if you have a system that will be undergoing such loads and you need that level of stability then I say you should make sure it is stable in those conditions definitely. For the average gamer/user it is not a problem. I’d say an hour or so with Prime95 Blend is fine for average user. I personally run IBT AVX on high for 10 loops for CPU alone then test memory in several different ways aside from the CPU then use Prime95 blend to test them together. Stability is going to be up to the person and their uses for the PC. I do feel you should go beyond what your system needs just for the extra safety and peace of mind though.


----------



## HatchetEgg

Mungojerrie said:


> Either something's wrong or maybe Ryzen Master adds 20C to the measurement. Maybe the contact between the cold plate and CPU' IHS is not good enough? Thermal paste spread poorly? My 2600 doesn't reach 80C under torturous Prime95 Small FFT stress test, and that with a regular tower cooler with one 120mm fan.



Well, I use thermal grizzly kroynuaght, and must have replaced it three times with no difference in temp. I had a R5 1600 before and that would not even go past 60c in prim96 at 4Ghz 1.425v with the same setup.


----------



## Firedrops

Firedrops said:


> Just updated to Asus CH6 bios 6201, and dialled in stable CPU (R5 1600) at 39.25x, 1.375v.
> 
> Trying to get my memory back to old 3200MHz settings, but cannot.
> 
> I am using Trident RGB, so it's Hynix A-die, H5AN8G8NAFR-TFC. Settings from Calculator 1.2.0 beta 2, 3200MHz, safe values. I have tried every single reccomended and Alt combination, even pushed DRAM voltage to 1.4v, SOC to 1.1v to no avail. Nothing manages to boot Windows 10 without BSOD. Most settings fail even before initialising Windows from Bios.
> 
> I have also set Command Rate to 2T, disabled Gear Down and Power Down, as well as all these below tips:
> 
> *AMD CBS settings:*
> 
> Opcache - disable
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> Memory clear - disable
> Super I/O Clock Skew - disable
> 
> Could anyone please give some advice?


Anyone? please!


----------



## HatchetEgg

Try with the gear mode on, I have also of stability problems in the past when switched off.​


----------



## H-man

CJMitsuki said:


> While I agree with what you say to an extent, I also know that there are plenty of stress tests that put unrealistic loads onto a CPU. If you only game on your system and you don’t do heavy rendering and compiling and similar tasks then you aren’t going to need to have it pull 10 loops of very high IBT AVX, or 24 hours of Prine95 small FFT, and such nonsense since you are barely going to use 25% of your CPU at any given time and not even with a heavy load. Those types of torture tests are just going to end up subjecting your system to unnecessarily high heat and possibly degradation of the IMC as well as other components in the system. Now, if you have a system that will be undergoing such loads and you need that level of stability then I say you should make sure it is stable in those conditions definitely. For the average gamer/user it is not a problem. I’d say an hour or so with Prime95 Blend is fine for average user. I personally run IBT AVX on high for 10 loops for CPU alone then test memory in several different ways aside from the CPU then use Prime95 blend to test them together. Stability is going to be up to the person and their uses for the PC. I do feel you should go beyond what your system needs just for the extra safety and peace of mind though.


You are right that it would be silly to demand server level stability from a gaming box, however the line between 'gaming stable' and 'scrambles windows again' is perilously thin to the point that you'll probably miss it, thus it's far less aggravating to just back off enough that the box isn't allergic to stress tests being ran for more than 10 min (I've found that out first hand when I had to reinstall windows and download 4 years of updates over dialup. ), so I'll have to agree on the right test for an hour being good enough for just gaming.

Extreme time isn't needed under most cases, however extreme torture is. Some stability tests are aggressive enough they'll crash the machine before heat can even be an issue (on the phenom II chips, I found the right stress test could tell me more in 10 min than the wrong test could tell me overnight). This is a huge boon since it makes it possible get the OC dialed in enough in a single afternoon that the overnight stress test is just a formality at best, or a minor settings tweak at worse. If the system's power, silicon, or cooling systems can't handle those settings being dialed in during the stress test, then those settings need to be rolled back because normal use is going to degrade them too. Torture tests have a higher probability of failure so you can simulate more hours of normal use per hour of testing. 

An example: If I use timings for one speed of my ram and ramp them up, under normal use WHEA won't report any errors even when I'm 400Mhz past stable for my ram. Fire up google stress test app and WHEA is logging events constantly.


----------



## Firedrops

HatchetEgg said:


> Try with the gear mode on, I have also of stability problems in the past when switched off.​


Thanks for the tip! I tried that, but still no luck. Also, I thought GDM just switched 1T to 2T occasionally, so it doesn't matter if I'm already forcing 2T?

I managed to get it to boot, quite stably, by upping tRAS to 40 and tRC to 58, though. Used "Rec" timings for everything else. 

Does 1usmus get these timings from theoretical calculations? Or from aggregating data?


----------



## Kleer Kut

Is there an online version of this calculator? I'm on Linux and not installing Windows just for a calculator.


----------



## deckert

Long time reader of this thread, first time poster :wave2:



Kleer Kut said:


> Is there an online version of this calculator? I'm on Linux and not installing Windows just for a calculator.



Out of curiosity I just gave the app a go under wine. After installing the tahoma font and .Net 4.6 (winetricks also installed 4.0 and 4.5 first so not sure which version was actually needed) it ran pretty much perfectly. 

Here is a screenshot of it running under Linux Mint 19 beta, including a screenshot taken under Windows 10 for comparison (I kept getting an error trying to attach the image to the post, so I uploaded it to imgur):

https://imgur.com/NGCxgPg


----------



## 1usmus

Firedrops said:


> Thanks for the tip! I tried that, but still no luck. Also, I thought GDM just switched 1T to 2T occasionally, so it doesn't matter if I'm already forcing 2T?
> 
> I managed to get it to boot, quite stably, by upping tRAS to 40 and tRC to 58, though. Used "Rec" timings for everything else.
> 
> Does 1usmus get these timings from theoretical calculations? Or from aggregating data?


and calculations and practical results are used in this program
reinvent the wheel is not necessary, it is already ready and has at least 3 options
why do you use the "custom" mode if there is a profile *V2* that offers tRC 58?

Overabundance of voltage has a negative impact on the start and stability of the system



Kleer Kut said:


> Is there an online version of this calculator? I'm on Linux and not installing Windows just for a calculator.


there is a very old version, but it has lost relevance half a year ago
Use the emulator to launch win applications


----------



## Firedrops

1usmus said:


> and calculations and practical results are used in this program
> reinvent the wheel is not necessary, it is already ready and has at least 3 options
> why do you use the "custom" mode if there is a profile *V2* that offers tRC 58?
> 
> Overabundance of voltage has a negative impact on the start and stability of the system


Sorry! Never noticed the V2. I just tried it, but it gives me exactly the same values for every field. I checked Zen1, Hynix AFR, Profile V2, 1 Rank, 3200 MT/s. Am I missing anything?


----------



## H-man

Firedrops said:


> Sorry! Never noticed the V2. I just tried it, but it gives me exactly the same values for every field. I checked Zen1, Hynix AFR, Profile V2, 1 Rank, 3200 MT/s. Am I missing anything?


You need to hit R-XMP between setting it to [AFR and V2] and when you hit calculate.


----------



## Firedrops

H-man said:


> You need to hit R-XMP between setting it to [AFR and V2] and when you hit calculate.


Thank you!! Everything's working as recommended now


----------



## TaurezAG

@*1usmus* 
Posting this here since I saw your post.
https://i.imgur.com/dXviQ8q.png
https://i.imgur.com/HFC9J6x.png
Stability verified by stressapptest 1 hour
Error at ~1000% in Karhu
Leaving the images up since it's pretty close to stable[loosen tRFC] and can be used as inspiration.
DRAM chip: Hynix A-die


----------



## Mungojerrie

TaurezAG said:


> @*1usmus*
> Posting this here since I saw your post.
> https://i.imgur.com/dXviQ8q.png
> https://i.imgur.com/HFC9J6x.png
> Stability verified by stressapptest 1 hour
> DRAM chip: Hynix A-die


Hmmm. These results are certainly impressive, especially for Hynix AFR. I would suggest running AIDA64 stability test with only "Stress system memory" checked, I suspect this overclock might not be entirely stable.


----------



## os2wiz

Keith Myers said:


> I RMA'd a week 7 1700X and got back a week 37 cpu, Still was getting segfaults every once in a while in Windows 10. My week 38 1800X was not supposed to have the segfault issue since it was manufactured well past the week "fix" date. But it regularly creates segfault errors in work under Linux 16.04. I haven't bothered to try RMA'ing since one of the questions in the RMA return documents is what week was the manufacturing date.
> 
> I haven't tried setting the opcache to disabled yet since I do nothing but heavy math processing all the time. Probably should try it at sometime to see if the segfaults stop and what kind of performance hit I get.
> 
> The 2700X machines have been flawless OTOH. Really with the C7H, those systems show a much more polished product and are obviously Gen 2 without Gen 1's problems.:specool:


 Really without a C7H, I have an MSI Gaming M7 AX, I have every bit the memory performance the C7H has and the cpu overclocking capability as well. Arrogance of ROG ownership is showing its ugly face again.


----------



## Ukee

Hello, I'm pretty new to RAM overclocking but I was wondering what's the different between the profile versions (V1, V2 and Custom)?


----------



## Keith Myers

*Good for you*



os2wiz said:


> Really without a C7H, I have an MSI Gaming M7 AX, I have every bit the memory performance the C7H has and the cpu overclocking capability as well. Arrogance of ROG ownership is showing its ugly face again.


Good for you that you are able to get equivalent performance out of your MSI board at what I assume is less cost. I have had bad experiences with MSI motherboards and will not buy again from them. My $0.02 of opinion.


----------



## Mungojerrie

Ukee said:


> Hello, I'm pretty new to RAM overclocking but I was wondering what's the different between the profile versions (V1, V2 and Custom)?


V1 calculates delays according to XMP profile #1 of your memory sticks, V2 - to XMP Profile #2. Custom is used to calculate settings when you import data from a Typhoon Burner export.


----------



## chroniclard

Mungojerrie said:


> V1 calculates delays according to XMP profile #1 of your memory sticks, V2 - to XMP Profile #2. Custom is used to calculate settings when you import data from a Typhoon Burner export.


and which should you actually use....?


----------



## MNMadman

chroniclard said:


> and which should you actually use....?


Every RAM kit I've ever used (Corsair, Crucial, G.Skill) only had one XMP profile. If yours has two at the rated speed, test them both and use the better one.


----------



## Ukee

Mungojerrie said:


> V1 calculates delays according to XMP profile #1 of your memory sticks, V2 - to XMP Profile #2. Custom is used to calculate settings when you import data from a Typhoon Burner export.


I see, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## CJMitsuki

os2wiz said:


> Really without a C7H, I have an MSI Gaming M7 AX, I have every bit the memory performance the C7H has and the cpu overclocking capability as well. Arrogance of ROG ownership is showing its ugly face again.



I dont know about arrogance being related to ROG ownership as thats more of a personal trait for the individual. I tend to watch Buildzoid and go with his assessments of motherboards and even he says that C7H is massive overkill for literally every part of the board. Its built more for heavy overclocking capabilities and its more than likely going to have the same memory capabilities as the other high end x470 boards but the capability to deal with heavy overclocking much better is a known fact compared to the rest of the x470 boards. As for cpu overclocking capability, im not sure you have every bit of the same capabilities as the C7H. I would have to test both to be sure myself but I have my doubts that I could pull off 4.45ghz with AIO on other boards and the VRMs dont even get hot with LLC maxed out. Have yet to see VRMs hit 40c in a stress test at 4.4ghz+ with stock heatsink and thermal pads. I would love to see testing on the Gaming M7 though to see how well it does bc Im looking for a good board that isnt as pricey so I can start getting into LN2 with the C7H and have the other board for a daily user.


----------



## tekjunkie28

Mungojerrie said:


> V1 calculates delays according to XMP profile #1 of your memory sticks, V2 - to XMP Profile #2. Custom is used to calculate settings when you import data from a Typhoon Burner export.


I have a set of Ripjaws 3200Mhz 14-14-14-14-34 I believe. They dont match either on of the samsung B die profiles exactly. the tRFC is 350 instead of the typically 260. Why is that? Is the Ripjaws just a mediocre set of fast 3200 14CL ram? I would love to have faster ram but its unstable it seems with any timings after 3333Mhz. Any help here in appreciated in understanding this stuff!


----------



## Mungojerrie

tekjunkie28 said:


> I have a set of Ripjaws 3200Mhz 14-14-14-14-34 I believe. They dont match either on of the samsung B die profiles exactly. the tRFC is 350 instead of the typically 260. Why is that? Is the Ripjaws just a mediocre set of fast 3200 14CL ram? I would love to have faster ram but its unstable it seems with any timings after 3333Mhz. Any help here in appreciated in understanding this stuff!


Besides 3 profiles (2 from XMP and one custom from Thaiphoon) there are 3 presets. Start from Safe settings, and when you're stable, dial it up to Fast, and then to Extreme.
Currently on Ryzen platform anything stable above 3200 with decent timings is at least decent. 3333 with reasonable timings is good, so no worries there.
Also, Calculator offers entire two pages of different settings with several options(alt1, alt2 etc) for some of them. 3200 is relatively simple, but anything after 3266 might require some tinkering. So do not ignore those ProcODT, CAD_BUS and different voltages from page 2, you might need them to get a stable OC.


----------



## 1usmus

*Draft version, with release 1.3.0 will be published the final version*


----------



## 1usmus

*I do not think that you need to use Thaiphoon (custom profile) in the future, everything is much easier
I'll try to improve the profiles of V1 and V2 so it's easier to configure the system. *

____________________________




TaurezAG said:


> @*1usmus*
> Posting this here since I saw your post.
> https://i.imgur.com/dXviQ8q.png
> https://i.imgur.com/HFC9J6x.png
> Stability verified by stressapptest 1 hour
> DRAM chip: Hynix A-die



Wow, It looks fantastic. Please provide a screenshot Thaiphoon + RTC.
Dram voltage?


----------



## dspx

What is "2 step"?


----------



## aliquiswe

dspx said:


> What is "2 step"?


Since it says + 2 step I assume he may mean +0.02 volt.


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> What is "2 step"?


1 step = 0.005v


----------



## st0neh

Many thanks for the flow chart, that's exactly what I've been hoping for!


----------



## VDNKh

I spent a little too much time last night playing around with the timings that DRAM calculator gave me. This is all done with Corsair CMK32GX4M4B3200C16 DIMMs (Hynix MFR Rank 1), Threadripper 1900X, ASUS X399 PRIME A, and BIOS ver. 0503.

BLK: 104.8MHz DRAM: 3213MHz in quad-channel.

What I found was that when "Gear Down" set to "Disabled" it would just cause it to fail POST with code '15', and that the tRC value the calculator gave was way to low. My motherboard, on "Auto", puts that value at 72 but the calculator suggests 54. I haven't tried going lower than 72 yet but that was causing me a lot of grief with failing to POST as well. I would have to reset the CMOS to get it to boot again.

The calculator also put some values too high. First value is from the calculator, second is what the Auto setting set: 
tFAW: 35 -> 33
tRFC: 482 -> 312
tRFC 2: 358 -> 192
tRCF 4: 220 -> 132
tWRWR SD: 7 -> 6
tWRWR DD: 7 -> 6
tRDRD SD: 5 -> 4
tRDRD DD: 5 -> 4

I used the recommended procODT, RTT, CAD_BUS values. Per your flowchart, should I try alternate termination block values to get tRC down to 54? Is this calculator suited for X399?


----------



## CJMitsuki

VDNKh said:


> I spent a little too much time last night playing around with the timings that DRAM calculator gave me. This is all done with Corsair CMK32GX4M4B3200C16 DIMMs (Hynix MFR Rank 1), Threadripper 1900X, ASUS X399 PRIME A, and BIOS ver. 0503.
> 
> BLK: 104.8MHz DRAM: 3213MHz in quad-channel.
> 
> What I found was that when "Gear Down" set to "Disabled" it would just cause it to fail POST with code '15', and that the tRC value the calculator gave was way to low. My motherboard, on "Auto", puts that value at 72 but the calculator suggests 54. I haven't tried going lower than 72 yet but that was causing me a lot of grief with failing to POST as well. I would have to reset the CMOS to get it to boot again.
> 
> The calculator also put some values too high. First value is from the calculator, second is what the Auto setting set:
> tFAW: 35 -> 33
> tRFC: 482 -> 312
> tRFC 2: 358 -> 192
> tRCF 4: 220 -> 132
> tWRWR SD: 7 -> 6
> tWRWR DD: 7 -> 6
> tRDRD SD: 5 -> 4
> tRDRD DD: 5 -> 4
> 
> I used the recommended procODT, RTT, CAD_BUS values. Per your flowchart, should I try alternate termination block values to get tRC down to 54? Is this calculator suited for X399?



I would say it is going to be a difficult road getting quad channel and refclk OC to produce low timings without a lot of voltage or lowering the freq. Generally tFAW should be roughly tRRDLx4 and tRC should = tCL+tRAS, Maybe add 2 to 4 to that for added stability if needed. What are your voltages looking like? Since you are running a refclk higher than stock what is your PLL and the 2.5v SB voltages set at? VPP_MEM? refclks higher than stock tend to stress the IMC and make it difficult to get same frequencies at normal base clock so you have to try to offset that somehow and you are running quad channel so thats more stress on the IMC. Also, What model ram are you using?
Remember, the calculator isnt always "input these numbers and profit" with certain setups and variations in the silicon you are going to run into situations that arent ideal for those timings that are recommended. I use the calculator more for getting me close or just as a suggestion. If you are running SR and 1DPC with B Die then sure, you are probably likely to be able to input those timings all the way to 3533mhz and be fine even on extreme if you have a decent mobo and cpu. When you start adding extra stress to the IMC with other setups (ie base clock OC, 2dpc, 4dpc, dual rank memory, etc) then you are going to have to account for that and find a way to compensate for that stress. It may be that you have reached the limitations of your cpu, mobo, or ram also.


----------



## 1usmus

st0neh said:


> Many thanks for the flow chart, that's exactly what I've been hoping for!


I'll improve it to release 1.3.0, at the moment it's a draft version 



VDNKh said:


> I spent a little too much time last night playing around with the timings that DRAM calculator gave me. This is all done with Corsair CMK32GX4M4B3200C16 DIMMs (Hynix MFR Rank 1), Threadripper 1900X, ASUS X399 PRIME A, and BIOS ver. 0503.
> 
> BLK: 104.8MHz DRAM: 3213MHz in quad-channel.
> 
> What I found was that when "Gear Down" set to "Disabled" it would just cause it to fail POST with code '15', and that the tRC value the calculator gave was way to low. My motherboard, on "Auto", puts that value at 72 but the calculator suggests 54. I haven't tried going lower than 72 yet but that was causing me a lot of grief with failing to POST as well. I would have to reset the CMOS to get it to boot again.
> 
> The calculator also put some values too high. First value is from the calculator, second is what the Auto setting set:
> tFAW: 35 -> 33
> tRFC: 482 -> 312
> tRFC 2: 358 -> 192
> tRCF 4: 220 -> 132
> tWRWR SD: 7 -> 6
> tWRWR DD: 7 -> 6
> tRDRD SD: 5 -> 4
> tRDRD DD: 5 -> 4
> 
> I used the recommended procODT, RTT, CAD_BUS values. Per your flowchart, should I try alternate termination block values to get tRC down to 54? Is this calculator suited for X399?


these overstated timings do not play any role for performance. TRFC2 / 4 should only be used in auto mode

yes the calculator has initial support for these processors.

next week there will be a release of the new version, there are taken into account and processed a lot of nuances


----------



## lcbbcl

1usmus said:


> *Draft version, with release 1.3.0 will be published the final version*


Nice way to explain how to OC dram,but raising dram and soc V can help also when you have memory errors,at least for me.
I appreciate your work,without your program and your hints it would be for people like me a endless "what this value do?" )


----------



## VDNKh

CJMitsuki said:


> I would say it is going to be a difficult road getting quad channel and refclk OC to produce low timings without a lot of voltage or lowering the freq. Generally tFAW should be roughly tRRDLx4 and tRC should = tCL+tRAS, Maybe add 2 to 4 to that for added stability if needed. What are your voltages looking like? Since you are running a refclk higher than stock what is your PLL and the 2.5v SB voltages set at? VPP_MEM? refclks higher than stock tend to stress the IMC and make it difficult to get same frequencies at normal base clock so you have to try to offset that somehow and you are running quad channel so thats more stress on the IMC. Also, What model ram are you using?
> Remember, the calculator isnt always "input these numbers and profit" with certain setups and variations in the silicon you are going to run into situations that arent ideal for those timings that are recommended. I use the calculator more for getting me close or just as a suggestion. If you are running SR and 1DPC with B Die then sure, you are probably likely to be able to input those timings all the way to 3533mhz and be fine even on extreme if you have a decent mobo and cpu. When you start adding extra stress to the IMC with other setups (ie base clock OC, 2dpc, 4dpc, dual rank memory, etc) then you are going to have to account for that and find a way to compensate for that stress. It may be that you have reached the limitations of your cpu, mobo, or ram also.


I was able to get tRC stable at 55 but at 54 it would just fail to POST with code 4F no matter what I did, I'll look at those voltages next. I mentioned the model number and what die I used in my original post. I can actually get the refclk speeds with just the DOCP settings pretty easily. 



1usmus said:


> these overstated timings do not play any role for performance. TRFC2 / 4 should only be used in auto mode
> 
> yes the calculator has initial support for these processors.
> 
> next week there will be a release of the new version, there are taken into account and processed a lot of nuances


Thanks!


----------



## CJMitsuki

lcbbcl said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Draft version, with release 1.3.0 will be published the final version*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice way to explain how to OC dram,but raising dram and soc V can help also when you have memory errors,at least for me.
> I appreciate your work,without your program and your hints it would be for people like me a endless "what this value do?" /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Click to expand...

Raising the Dram and SoC needs to be the last place to find stability bc you will just run into a wall at higher frequencies and those high dram and SoC voltages can actually be the cause of instability. There are many other ways to add stability aside from those 2 voltages. You shouldn’t really need much more than 1.4v Dram and 1.1v SoC all the way to 3600c15 for B Die. You quite literally have about 10 other voltages and settings that offer a better way to stabilize RAM. Just gotta invest time.


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> Raising the Dram and SoC needs to be the last place to find stability bc you will just run into a wall at higher frequencies and those high dram and SoC voltages can actually be the cause of instability. There are many other ways to add stability aside from those 2 voltages. You shouldn’t really need much more than 1.4v Dram and 1.1v SoC all the way to 3600c15 for B Die. You quite literally have about 10 other voltages and settings that offer a better way to stabilize RAM. Just gotta invest time.


Not all memory chips or memory controller have identical high quality, voltage regulation is mandatory in the second step
Secondary voltages (VDDP / VPP / VTT DDR) are not important at the time the system is started up. Their role is the last stage of debugging.
CLDO - at the moment it is difficult for me to assess the importance of this parameter, the value of 700 mv is quite universal. I will consider this nuance, thank you.

To stabilize the memory at the last stage, you need to add a voltage adjustment, I agree

The given algorithm will be finished, I only show a principle as it is necessary to operate


----------



## Espenn

I don't understand this flow chart. What does "Yes 1-2" or "Yes 3+" mean? Does this mean, for example, if you encounter 3+ memory errors that timings must be changed?

I have a 2700X, Crosshair VII, Gskill 3600C15 and I'm having one hell of a time getting it stable at 3466, 3533, or 3600. I have imported my Thaiphoon Burner dump, but have also used the built-in V1 profiles. Even using Stilt 3466CL15 produces errors.

Do I have the world's ****tiest IMC, or am I missing something?


----------



## Mungojerrie

Espenn said:


> I have a 2700X, Crosshair VII, Gskill 3600C15 and I'm having one hell of a time getting it stable at 3466, 3533, or 3600. I have imported my Thaiphoon Burner dump, but have also used the built-in V1 profiles. Even using Stilt 3466CL15 produces errors.
> 
> Do I have the world's ****tiest IMC, or am I missing something?


It's normal. Stable 3466 with decent timings is quite often the upper limit of realistic RAM OC on Ryzen, even with great RAM IMC and best motherboards out there. My RAM kit is 3600CL16 and getting it fully stable on 3333 with Extreme Calculator preset timings is no trivial task at all.
If I were you, I'd do the following: get 3400 with Safe DRAM Calculator preset fully stable, then with Fast preset, then with Extreme. After all is done, go for 3466, but don't get your hopes too high. But do not get disappointed either, memory performance on Ryzen scales somewhat differently, and getting 3200-3333 with tight timings isn't really worse than getting 3466-3600 with looser timings.


----------



## juliangri

my timmings on corsair vengance rgb 3000mhz cl 15 (cmr16gx4m2c3000c15) hynix afr: https://imgur.com/a/eSF0DxT
Stability tested with memtest (3 hours). I can get 3266 stable with the same timmings and 1,15vscoc, but sometimes the pc stays black on cold boots.









Anything obvius i can improve?


----------



## lcbbcl

juliangri said:


> my timmings on corsair vengance rgb 3000mhz cl 15 (cmr16gx4m2c3000c15) hynix afr: https://imgur.com/a/eSF0DxT
> Stability tested with memtest (3 hours). I can get 3266 stable with the same timmings and 1,15vscoc, but sometimes the pc stays black on cold boots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything obvius i can improve?


With 3h i won't say that the memory its free of errors,try to test at least 12h.Also when pc will fail to post look at q code(or led) to see if its ram.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Espenn said:


> I don't understand this flow chart. What does "Yes 1-2" or "Yes 3+" mean? Does this mean, for example, if you encounter 3+ memory errors that timings must be changed?
> 
> I have a 2700X, Crosshair VII, Gskill 3600C15 and I'm having one hell of a time getting it stable at 3466, 3533, or 3600. I have imported my Thaiphoon Burner dump, but have also used the built-in V1 profiles. Even using Stilt 3466CL15 produces errors.
> 
> Do I have the world's ****tiest IMC, or am I missing something?





Mungojerrie said:


> It's normal. Stable 3466 with decent timings is quite often the upper limit of realistic RAM OC on Ryzen, even with great RAM IMC and best motherboards out there. My RAM kit is 3600CL16 and getting it fully stable on 3333 with Extreme Calculator preset timings is no trivial task at all.
> If I were you, I'd do the following: get 3400 with Safe DRAM Calculator preset fully stable, then with Fast preset, then with Extreme. After all is done, go for 3466, but don't get your hopes too high. But do not get disappointed either, memory performance on Ryzen scales somewhat differently, and getting 3200-3333 with tight timings isn't really worse than getting 3466-3600 with looser timings.



Well, Im not sure I agree with 3466 being the top with his 3600c15 kit which along with the 3200c14 kits are 2 of the best B Die kits there are and can easily hit 3533c14 with very tight timings if you invest the time into it. Sometimes its as simple as having a voltage a couple of steps off or 1 timing could be upsetting the whole kit. I dont think he has a bad IMC but more likely there is something you are overlooking. Post your RTC and voltages and whatever other relevant info you have on the memory. As for your 3600c16 kit id say that realistically you are possibly getting close to maxing it out depending on which kit you got. I think there are 3 different Dies you can potentially get at 3600c16 and 3600c15 is definitely B Die and night and day difference from 3600c16. Funny how the only thing visibly different is the Cas latency but in terms of binning they are miles apart. Keep working at that 3600c15 kit, youll get 3466c14 with great timings which will run better than 3600c15 with loose timings all day long. Focus more on lower latencies rather than bandwidth as well bc Ryzen responds very well to drops in latency. There can be massive leaps of performance in subtimings so it is very well worth it to test and tweak them. There is a threshold to where lowering timings can be detrimental to performance so lower isnt always better. Best thing to do is only ever change one thing at a time in bios then test that change and have a notebook and make note of every change and the result from testing so you can refer back to it later on and start to see how your cpu likes to behave. And dont be afraid to use 2T or Geardown enabled above 3400 as sometimes is has a very negligible "cost" relative to the stability granted.


----------



## aliquiswe

Espenn said:


> I don't understand this flow chart. What does "Yes 1-2" or "Yes 3+" mean? Does this mean, for example, if you encounter 3+ memory errors that timings must be changed?
> 
> I have a 2700X, Crosshair VII, Gskill 3600C15 and I'm having one hell of a time getting it stable at 3466, 3533, or 3600. I have imported my Thaiphoon Burner dump, but have also used the built-in V1 profiles. Even using Stilt 3466CL15 produces errors.
> 
> Do I have the world's ****tiest IMC, or am I missing something?


I assume Step 1 is the first thing to try to improve the situation and Step 2 is the second one.


----------



## 1usmus

Espenn said:


> I don't understand this flow chart. What does "Yes 1-2" or "Yes 3+" mean? Does this mean, for example, if you encounter 3+ memory errors that timings must be changed?
> 
> I have a 2700X, Crosshair VII, Gskill 3600C15 and I'm having one hell of a time getting it stable at 3466, 3533, or 3600. I have imported my Thaiphoon Burner dump, but have also used the built-in V1 profiles. Even using Stilt 3466CL15 produces errors.
> 
> Do I have the world's ****tiest IMC, or am I missing something?


this is the numbering of your actions, you start with 1-2, if it did not turn out to go to 3-4-5 and so on

_________________________________________

3466 is not the limit








DRAM 1.45v
Soc 1.07v



juliangri said:


> my timmings on corsair vengance rgb 3000mhz cl 15 (cmr16gx4m2c3000c15) hynix afr: https://imgur.com/a/eSF0DxT
> Stability tested with memtest (3 hours). I can get 3266 stable with the same timmings and 1,15vscoc, but sometimes the pc stays black on cold boots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything obvius i can improve?


psychics are not here, indicate the voltage on the DRAM


----------



## 1usmus

*Good news for you guys.*

At the moment, *AGESA 1.0.0.4 Pinnacle Pi* is being tested. The main change is improved DRAM overclocking.
Estimated release date - mid-July.

_________________________________________

*Configuring Ryzen Systems v2* *by me*


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> *Good news for you guys.*
> 
> At the moment, *AGESA 1.0.0.4 Pinnacle Pi* is being tested. The main change is improved DRAM overclocking.
> Estimated release date - mid-July.
> 
> _________________________________________
> 
> *Configuring Ryzen Systems V2*


Thats great news 
Is that agesa for 3xx chips too?

Thank you for diagram too and good news 

I can't wait your update on calculator and new agesa


----------



## dspx

Thank you 1usmus, can't wait to see if it will improve my OC. I replaced the PSU recently and it made my DRAM OC worse, despite getting a gold+ one with a very low ripple.


----------



## Mungojerrie

dspx said:


> I replaced the PSU recently and it made my DRAM OC worse


That's pretty interesting. COuld you share the specifics? Meaning what was your OC and your previous PSU, and the new ones?


----------



## dspx

Mungojerrie said:


> That's pretty interesting. COuld you share the specifics? Meaning what was your OC and your previous PSU, and the new ones?


The previous one was a Cooler Master G550M and the new one is in my signature, as well as the RAM OC. Since then I have been trying to stabilize it but haven't had much luck.


----------



## drkCrix

Just recieved the 1.0.0.4 agesa bios for the x370 Taichi, going to test tonight and see if 3466 is within reach


----------



## juliangri

lcbbcl said:


> With 3h i won't say that the memory its free of errors,try to test at least 12h.Also when pc will fail to post look at q code(or led) to see if its ram.


i have those settings since may 5th and i didnt have a single crash. I also tested prime 95 blend (wich is decently memory intensive) for 6 hours.


----------



## Spectre73

*Agesa 1.0.0.4*

So I am on Agesa 1.0.0.4 with dual ranked 3200 B-Die.

It seems each new Agesa version changes everything around necessary mem voltages and mem timings, not always for the better.

With my DR memory kit on my Taichi mobo BIOS 3.30 was the most stable (Agesa 1.0.0.6b). Nothing newer is as stable.

On the newest bios the recommended values from the calculator do not seem to work anymore. 

I believe, if at all possible, it would be beneficial for the calculator to take into account the different Agesa versions (maybe the 2 most recent and one that is the most stable for a given cpu stepping? Zen and Zen+ for example).

I have no idea of the underlying workings of each Agesa version but the changes regarding mem compatibility seem to be substantial.


Alternatively you already have a generation selector. Maybe you could put in an info field which agesa version was used for the corresponding recommended settings?


----------



## juliangri

1usmus said:


> psychics are not here, indicate the voltage on the DRAM


for 3200mhz i use 1,35v, for 3266 and up i tested up to 1,5v and 1,2v vsoc and dont make any difference.


----------



## TaurezAG

1usmus said:


> *I do not think that you need to use Thaiphoon (custom profile) in the future, everything is much easier
> I'll try to improve the profiles of V1 and V2 so it's easier to configure the system. *
> ____________________________
> 
> Wow, It looks fantastic. Please provide a screenshot Thaiphoon + RTC.
> Dram voltage?


The config was not stable unfortunately [error in Karhu] but I have another config which I think you will find interesting.
https://i.imgur.com/A48vzQj.png
https://i.imgur.com/zPAI5V2.png
Maxed out VRM config for all 3: CPU, SoC, DRAM
DRAM voltage[in BIOS] - 1.45 V
SoC voltage[in BIOS] - 1.025 V


----------



## CJMitsuki

juliangri said:


> for 3200mhz i use 1,35v, for 3266 and up i tested up to 1,5v and 1,2v vsoc and dont make any difference.



If you keep going up in dram and soc voltages and nothing is changing then that means the instability lies elsewhere, drop back to 1.4v and whatever your original stable soc was and try to find the source of the instability. sometimes its as simple as a voltage being 1 tick too much or little or a setting needs adjusting. Thats what makes OC fun, There has to be a challenge to it.


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> _________________________________________
> 
> 3466 is not the limit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DRAM 1.45v
> Soc 1.07v


I tried my best to hit 3666 with stability but it just wasnt happening for me tonight but I did find a better set of timings for my 3600 setup. 99% stable but im not going to worry about a rare error here or there. It made my cpu run like a crackhead at a coffee shop though. We can see that @1usmus mustve gotten his hands on some special binned ram and cpu from his newly acquired connections :lachen:Just share some early bios for C7H if you come across it. Just send to my inbox, my lips will be sealed :hannibals



Spoiler


----------



## lordzed83

@CJMitsuki You know how it is... He's at 4200 more and more just gets harder to get this all stable on memory side heh. I cant rl do much testing myself cause of temperatures in uk. Yesterday my ambient was 28c. When I'w gotten 2700x was 15-16c extra 13 does not help at all. Getting extra 11-12c on ibt run HAHA


----------



## CJMitsuki

lordzed83 said:


> @CJMitsuki You know how it is... He's at 4200 more and more just gets harder to get this all stable on memory side heh. I cant rl do much testing myself cause of temperatures in uk. Yesterday my ambient was 28c. When I'w gotten 2700x was 15-16c extra 13 does not help at all. Getting extra 11-12c on ibt run HAHA


It’s hot here as well, 96f yesterday. I don’t feel like converting it to celsius since I’m trying to be lazy today. It’s not even the hottest part of the summer here yet. It will end up around 105f at 100% humidity at the peak of summer but I make sure I’m inside my house with the A/C at 65f hahaha. You can open the door to my house and as soon as you step outside you are pouring sweat. It won’t cool off until end of November.


----------



## tekjunkie28

CJMitsuki said:


> It’s hot here as well, 96f yesterday. I don’t feel like converting it to celsius since I’m trying to be lazy today. It’s not even the hottest part of the summer here yet. It will end up around 105f at 100% humidity at the peak of summer but I make sure I’m inside my house with the A/C at 65f hahaha. You can open the door to my house and as soon as you step outside you are pouring sweat. It won’t cool off until end of November.


Not to get off topic but GEEZ, how high in your electric bill if your AC is maintaining 65 when its 96 outside?

How back to semi topic. Is there anyone that has done tests with water cooling on Ryzen 2nd gen? I have heard that but no proof of a 50 Mhz increase by keeping temps lower. I'm assuing thats an all core active 50 Mhz.


----------



## CJMitsuki

tekjunkie28 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s hot here as well, 96f yesterday. I don’t feel like converting it to celsius since I’m trying to be lazy today. It’s not even the hottest part of the summer here yet. It will end up around 105f at 100% humidity at the peak of summer but I make sure I’m inside my house with the A/C at 65f hahaha. You can open the door to my house and as soon as you step outside you are pouring sweat. It won’t cool off until end of November.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to get off topic but GEEZ, how high in your electric bill if your AC is maintaining 65 when its 96 outside?
> 
> How back to semi topic. Is there anyone that has done tests with water cooling on Ryzen 2nd gen? I have heard that but no proof of a 50 Mhz increase by keeping temps lower. I'm assuing thats an all core active 50 Mhz.
Click to expand...

I pay 90usd a month for electric. Cooling doesn’t cost much but heating the house in winter does. I pay over 200 per month in winter.


----------



## tekjunkie28

CJMitsuki said:


> I pay 90usd a month for electric. Cooling doesn’t cost much but heating the house in winter does. I pay over 200 per month in winter.


Oh not bad at all. I pay 160-180 in the summer. Winter is known to get to $330 one month. I have been doing some work to the house since we moved in and its came down some but the heatpump/electric furnace is 17 years old. A can of foam can go along way. I'm also looking in to solar.


----------



## 1usmus

@CJMitsuki

I will definitely mention you in the next version of the calculator. The memory is really conditionally stable, but I made some additional edits. The problem with the temperature remains, when memory warms over 52 degrees there are errors. (on M7 too...)

Increase CAD _BUS is the right step, the resistance increases with frequency. This applies to both procODT and PTT_Park. With increasing frequency, the value of the active resistance of symmetric circuits increases due to losses in the conductor to eddy currents and in isolation to dielectric polarization.



Spoiler















*UPD: without error*



Spoiler















CAD_BUS 40 30 30 40


----------



## Nighthog

After a while my 3666 CL14 1T Geardown "enabled" settings flunked out and didn't want to work any more properly. Had to go back to my 3666 CL15 2T Geardown "disabled" settings to regain stability. Doesn't matter much, performance was so similar I could not spot it but see it in the better "values".


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> After a while my 3666 CL14 1T Geardown "enabled" settings flunked out and didn't want to work any more properly. Had to go back to my 3666 CL15 2T Geardown "disabled" settings to regain stability. Doesn't matter much, performance was so similar I could not spot it but see it in the better "values".


I'll check your find  thanks for the information
@Nighthog , please upload micron e-die typhoon full report


----------



## Mungojerrie

Kind of a silly offtop question... My motherboard(MSI B350 Gaming Pro Carbon) changed RTTPark from 40 ohm to 48 ohm BY ITSELF(after I turned the PC off), which led to an unstable overclock. What the hell is this? Did this happen to anyone else? How can someone prevent motherboards from randomly changing settings?


----------



## 1usmus

Mungojerrie said:


> Kind of a silly offtop question... My motherboard(MSI B350 Gaming Pro Carbon) changed RTTPark from 40 ohm to 48 ohm BY ITSELF(after I turned the PC off), which led to an unstable overclock. What the hell is this? Did this happen to anyone else? How can someone prevent motherboards from randomly changing settings?


this is what you saw in the BIOS or in the RTC?
I saw that MSI motherboard itself changed some timings (tRDWR & tWRRD) that were set manually. What is your BIOS version?


----------



## Dbsjej56464

lordzed83 said:


> @CJMitsuki You know how it is... He's at 4200 more and more just gets harder to get this all stable on memory side heh. I cant rl do much testing myself cause of temperatures in uk. Yesterday my ambient was 28c. When I'w gotten 2700x was 15-16c extra 13 does not help at all. Getting extra 11-12c on ibt run HAHA


I'm having the same issues with the weather, had to stop playing certain games because of the heat! It was a cooler day in Yorkshire yesterday though!

Not OC weather at all!


----------



## Mungojerrie

1usmus said:


> this is what you saw in the BIOS or in the RTC?
> I saw that MSI motherboard itself changed some timings (tRDWR & tWRRD) that were set manually. What is your BIOS version?



I remember setting RTTPark to 40, and logging it into my OC history table. Then I ran some tests and shut down the PC. After later that day I ran stress test again only to have it fail much earlier than expected - first test ran successfully for 5+ hours and was manually stopped. Second test failed at 3 hours.
I Checked RTC - it showed 48 RTTPark. Immediately went into BIOS, checked it there - it was 48 too. Set it to 40 again, it seems to hold for now.

Bios version is *7B00v1C*, dated_ 2018-05-04_. AGESA code *1.0.0.2a*.
Mobo is MSI B350 Gaming Pro Carbon.


Oh, and also earlier I've been testing A-XMP profile 1 with rest of the settings at auto, and at some point motherboard dropped tRFC from 631 to 584 all on its own.


----------



## imsyB

Hello all,
I am having some problems with a pair of Trident Z F4-3600C15-8GTZ (B-die)
I bought these from Amazon warehouse deal for cheap. But having issues running them at the XMP speed.

MB is a Asus X470-F Strix with a Ryzen 5 [email protected] 4Ghz. Just crossed over to AMD camp from a i7 2700k which I had since 2011. So I am in unfamiliar territory.
Need some help. 

I tried on the latest bios 4011 and it posts on 3600mhz C15 but get errors with Ram test tool from Karhu Software. I tried manual dram timings and DOCP using voltage upto 1.4v and SOC 1.10v
I get errors at all speeds and timigs. 

Today I rolled back to bios 4008 and its stable with out any errors at 3333mhz at 14-14-14-35-75.
Is this the best for this ram? I saw others get 3533mhz CL14 stable with the same ram.

As this is a used refurbished ram - is it possible that its a slower ram and someone could have rewritten the spd?
The label looks genuine. Can't seem to upload images - will try again.


----------



## CJMitsuki

imsyB said:


> Hello all,
> I am having some problems with a pair of Trident Z F4-3600C15-8GTZ (B-die)
> I bought these from Amazon warehouse deal for cheap. But having issues running them at the XMP speed.
> 
> MB is a Asus X470-F Strix with a Ryzen 5 [email protected] 4Ghz. Just crossed over to AMD camp from a i7 2700k which I had since 2011. So I am in unfamiliar territory.
> Need some help.
> 
> I tried on the latest bios 4011 and it posts on 3600mhz C15 but get errors with Ram test tool from Karhu Software. I tried manual dram timings and DOCP using voltage upto 1.4v and SOC 1.10v
> I get errors at all speeds and timigs.
> 
> Today I rolled back to bios 4008 and its stable with out any errors at 3333mhz at 14-14-14-35-75.
> Is this the best for this ram? I saw others get 3533mhz CL14 stable with the same ram.
> 
> As this is a used refurbished ram - is it possible that its a slower ram and someone could have rewritten the spd?
> The label looks genuine. Can't seem to upload images - will try again.


rewriting the SPD won’t do anything to the ram capabilities. You will manually control the timings so the SPD is really only going to contain the jedec information and XMP profiles. Now someone could’ve rewritten the XMP profiles and if you use the XMP then that would affect you but generally speaking, don’t use XMP as it usually uses garbage timings that will only be optimal for a very select few setups. Also don’t worry about trying to get 3600mhz unless you are very familiar with memory timings it is quite difficult to hit that speed and be stable. 3533 is definitely something that you can achieve but you will have to put in some work to find the right settings and timings for it. 3400-3466 shouldn’t be too hard to get stable. Your particular set is one of the best bins for BDie along with 3200c14 so just work at it and you’ll get higher freqs.


----------



## tekjunkie28

imsyB said:


> Hello all,
> I am having some problems with a pair of Trident Z F4-3600C15-8GTZ (B-die)
> I bought these from Amazon warehouse deal for cheap. But having issues running them at the XMP speed.
> 
> MB is a Asus X470-F Strix with a Ryzen 5 [email protected] 4Ghz. Just crossed over to AMD camp from a i7 2700k which I had since 2011. So I am in unfamiliar territory.
> Need some help.
> 
> I tried on the latest bios 4011 and it posts on 3600mhz C15 but get errors with Ram test tool from Karhu Software. I tried manual dram timings and DOCP using voltage upto 1.4v and SOC 1.10v
> I get errors at all speeds and timigs.
> 
> Today I rolled back to bios 4008 and its stable with out any errors at 3333mhz at 14-14-14-35-75.
> Is this the best for this ram? I saw others get 3533mhz CL14 stable with the same ram.
> 
> As this is a used refurbished ram - is it possible that its a slower ram and someone could have rewritten the spd?
> The label looks genuine. Can't seem to upload images - will try again.


3333Mhz seems to be the sweet spot. I Have slightly tighter timings than your x-x-x-35-75 but cant get anything higher then that stable with 3200mhz 14CL ripjaws. I stopped trying for the moment as going from 3200mhz to 3333mhz "fast" timings got me a decent performance boost. I would love to get 3466mhz stable but I dont think its going to happen without a performance hit. 

Im also eagerly awaiting for Gigabyte to release the new bios for the X470 gaming 5 with the new Agesa so I can do more testing. Also I will be replacing a 10 year old antec PSU with a brand new seasonic prime ultra titanium so I'm curious if my system gets more stable. My old Antec Earthwatts 650 has been an amazing PSU buts its not quite as clean as the seasonic so we shall see. I will update here with any changes that this may bring.


----------



## Trender

Guys is this stable?
(ram is 16 gb 3600 cl17-18 samsung-b) 


Also: I can boot 3600 but can't get it stable. r7 2700x


----------



## Mungojerrie

Trender said:


> Guys is this stable?


Only 27 minutes in test and 1 error? Definitely not stable.
But definition of "stable" is somewhat blurry. Sure it is nice to have absolute 100% stability, but not everybody needs it. If you mainly use your computer for internet, movies and games, then probably this is enough. If you need it for work, rendering etc., then set higher standards for yourself, since probability of encountering an error is higher and the cost is higher too.

I personally consider overclock stable if I can run Prime95 Custom test with 2048-4096 kB FFTs and 13000 Mb RAM for 5+ hours with 0 errors *and* AIDA64 Stress Memory test for 7+ hours without failing.


----------



## JSebastian

*Keep getting CRC Error on Thaiphoon Burner...*

Hello all!!! I was hoping to get some insight for Thaiphoon Burner detecting a CRC Error for both my stick... I have a 16GB (2x8GB) G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 kit... (G.Skill F4-3200C14-8GFX) Also only ONE stick is detected as UDIMM... The other as NVM... Thats quite weird and not supposed to happen AFAIK... I'm trying to upload the screenshots but it keeps failing to add the PNG files...


----------



## 1usmus

Mungojerrie said:


> Only 27 minutes in test and 1 error? Definitely not stable.
> But definition of "stable" is somewhat blurry. Sure it is nice to have absolute 100% stability, but not everybody needs it. If you mainly use your computer for internet, movies and games, then probably this is enough. If you need it for work, rendering etc., then set higher standards for yourself, since probability of encountering an error is higher and the cost is higher too.
> 
> I personally consider overclock stable if I can run Prime95 Custom test with 2048-4096 kB FFTs and 13000 Mb RAM for 5+ hours with 0 errors *and* AIDA64 Stress Memory test for 7+ hours without failing.


you test very little, you need 72 hours in AIDA and 160 hours in Prime. :axesmiley

You will in any case get a resonance of the thermal resonance which will give an error.
1-2 hours of test is enough and redundant.


----------



## enerdjysk

hello guys im newbie in overclocking of ryzen and dram at all, so i need some advices 
i've got m378a1k43bb2-crc 2x8, 2600X and b350-f strix
after 2 and half hours of testing ram (1.385v) i've got this 


Spoiler














so heres few questions: how bad it would be if i increase ram voltage a bit more? could it make errors disappear? and in general what can i improve in this ram settings? how valuable ram tests using this software or maybe there is no really difference of what i use? maybe 3400 are too big value for OEM samsung b-die?
thanks in advice


----------



## tekjunkie28

enerdjysk said:


> hello guys im newbie in overclocking of ryzen and dram at all, so i need some advices
> i've got m378a1k43bb2-crc 2x8, 2600X and b350-f strix
> after 2 and half hours of testing ram (1.385v) i've got this
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so heres few questions: how bad it would be if i increase ram voltage a bit more? could it make errors disappear? and in general what can i improve in this ram settings? how valuable ram tests using this software or maybe there is no really difference of what i use? maybe 3400 are too big value for OEM samsung b-die?
> thanks in advice


Those timings are awful. Lower your speed and tighten those timings. The key with Ryzen is lowering latency, its already got the grit to move MB/s.


----------



## enerdjysk

tekjunkie28 said:


> Those timings are awful. Lower your speed and tighten those timings. The key with Ryzen is lowering latency, its already got the grit to move MB/s.


i've used numbers what calculator gave me, can you say timings i want get please?


----------



## tekjunkie28

enerdjysk said:


> i've used numbers what calculator gave me, can you say timings i want get please?


Primary timings should be 14 to 16CL and some of your subtimings are REALLY high. I ahve heard that for performance that you want the bottom 2 in the left most column be 2. 4 is accecptable but they are a large performance determiner.


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus hows situation with new calculator looking ?? Checking here daily now


----------



## CharlieWheelie

enerdjysk said:


> i've used numbers what calculator gave me, can you say timings i want get please?


Could you post screen grab of your Typhoon Burner profile and your Calculator Timings please.
If they are your timings given by the calculator they seem a bit high.
Maybe something is wrong, and we can help.

@tekjunkie28
I had my mem with tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL on 2 but pCARS2 would crash my Graphics drivers killing the game.
On 4 all is fine. So good in theory but not in practice. Well with one game anyway and it took 4 days to find.
Only cos i left the memory to last, after trying every fix i could find on the net and none working.

NEW BIOS
Killer SLI 4.80 is out woohoo, now where is that New Calculator ? Come on chop chop, lets be avin it


----------



## enerdjysk

CharlieWheelie said:


> Could you post screen grab of your Typhoon Burner profile and your Calculator Timings please.
> If they are your timings given by the calculator they seem a bit high.
> Maybe something is wrong, and we can help.


They are even higher seems like :S


Spoiler


----------



## 1usmus

enerdjysk said:


> hello guys im newbie in overclocking of ryzen and dram at all, so i need some advices
> i've got m378a1k43bb2-crc 2x8, 2600X and b350-f strix
> after 2 and half hours of testing ram (1.385v) i've got this
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so heres few questions: how bad it would be if i increase ram voltage a bit more? could it make errors disappear? and in general what can i improve in this ram settings? how valuable ram tests using this software or maybe there is no really difference of what i use? maybe 3400 are too big value for OEM samsung b-die?
> thanks in advice


I think you should add a DRAM voltage + tRCDRD 20
or turn off RTT_NOM (perhaps)




lordzed83 said:


> @1usmus hows situation with new calculator looking ?? Checking here daily now


most likely will be next week, I now check all the presets. Here are some of them :


*3600CL14 HQ
*
SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.45


Spoiler















*3600CL14 UHQ*

SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.45


Spoiler















*3533CL14 HQ*

SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.43-1.44


Spoiler


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> lordzed83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus hows situation with new calculator looking ?? Checking here daily now /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> 
> 
> most likely will be next week, I now check all the presets. Here are some of them :
> 
> 
> *3600CL14 HQ
> *
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.45
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3600CL14 UHQ*
> 
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.45
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3533CL14 HQ*
> 
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.43-1.44
> 
> 
> Spoiler
Click to expand...

I know, I’m expecting to input timings for 3800mhz exactly as the calculator tells me and if I’m not 100% stable in Aida, Prime95, HCI, and RamTest for 600hours I will be disappointed hahaha. Jk @1usmus


----------



## enerdjysk

@1usmus i've just tried to use 3333 safe preset and it started just fine seems like no errors and ram speed in AIDA seems similar to 3400, may be for my ram 3400 too much? m378a1k43bb2-crc


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> I think you should add a DRAM voltage + tRCDRD 20
> or turn off RTT_NOM (perhaps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most likely will be next week, I now check all the presets. Here are some of them :
> 
> 
> *3600CL14 HQ
> *
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.45
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3600CL14 UHQ*
> 
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.45
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3533CL14 HQ*
> 
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.43-1.44
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Thanks Ill test HQ now see how it goes 

Well stayed at T1 no geardown upped volts to 1.46 passed 1000% of HCI 0 errors with 3600cl14 first setting


----------



## opethian2710

Hello everyone, i'm new to overclocking so please help me figure out what is wrong with my system
I currently using ryzen 5 1400 @3.8ghz + Giga AB350 Gaming 3 + 2 Corsair CMR16GX4M2C3000C15 running fine at 3000 Mhz (16 18 18 18 36 @ 1.35 Vol)
But i still want to OC the ram stick to 3200Mhz and I did try various profiles found on internet but nothing can be applied (i mean system is unstable, aida 64 shows hardware error, crashing while gaming...)

So please give me advice how to diagnose what parameter should be fixed in the bios to stabilize the system 

PS: I already used the Ryzen DRAM calculator in this topic but system still unstable (https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...m-am4-217.html)

Tonight i will try this timings out (took from Nighthog's sign)
4x8Gb Kingston HX434C19FB2K2/16 3466C19 1.2V @ 3666Mhz 14.(16).23.16.36.65 1.510V (Micron E-die 16nm)
Corsair LPX 2x8Gb 2666C16R @ 3200Mhz 14.(17).17.17.31.49...(260) 1.470V (Micron B-die 25nm)


----------



## CJMitsuki

opethian2710 said:


> Hello everyone, i'm new to overclocking so please help me figure out what is wrong with my system
> I currently using ryzen 5 1400 @3.8ghz + Giga AB350 Gaming 3 + 2 Corsair CMR16GX4M2C3000C15 running fine at 3000 Mhz (16 18 18 18 36 @ 1.35 Vol)
> But i still want to OC the ram stick to 3200Mhz and I did try various profiles found on internet but nothing can be applied (i mean system is unstable, aida 64 shows hardware error, crashing while gaming...)
> 
> So please give me advice how to diagnose what parameter should be fixed in the bios to stabilize the system
> 
> PS: I already used the Ryzen DRAM calculator in this topic but system still unstable (https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...m-am4-217.html)
> 
> Tonight i will try this timings out (took from Nighthog's sign)
> 4x8Gb Kingston HX434C19FB2K2/16 3466C19 1.2V @ 3666Mhz 14.(16).23.16.36.65 1.510V (Micron E-die 16nm)
> Corsair LPX 2x8Gb 2666C16R @ 3200Mhz 14.(17).17.17.31.49...(260) 1.470V (Micron B-die 25nm)


There is nothing wrong with your system. You are running Ryzen first gen and also using a b350 mobo and not very high quality ram. You can’t expect to OC very much with those odds against you. I think you did well at 3000 with what you are working with and I would work on tightening timings rather than pushing for higher frequency. My first Ryzen board was a B350 so I know how rough it is trying to OC with one. Your only real hope of pushing higher frequency where it will actually benefit you will be found with higher quality hardware. Better motherboard or Ryzen+ cpu would probably be the biggest help and I’d lean more toward the motherboard being the biggest factor right now for you. An expensive mobo is worth it IMO. It makes overclocking much more pain free. You could probably even get an X370 board for a really good price, like a c6h or something similar.


----------



## opethian2710

thank you very much


----------



## lordzed83

opethian2710 said:


> thank you very much


Dont wxpect too much from that memory kit mate :/


----------



## Nighthog

opethian2710 said:


> Hello everyone, i'm new to overclocking so please help me figure out what is wrong with my system
> I currently using ryzen 5 1400 @3.8ghz + Giga AB350 Gaming 3 + 2 Corsair CMR16GX4M2C3000C15 running fine at 3000 Mhz (16 18 18 18 36 @ 1.35 Vol)
> But i still want to OC the ram stick to 3200Mhz and I did try various profiles found on internet but nothing can be applied (i mean system is unstable, aida 64 shows hardware error, crashing while gaming...)
> 
> So please give me advice how to diagnose what parameter should be fixed in the bios to stabilize the system
> 
> PS: I already used the Ryzen DRAM calculator in this topic but system still unstable (https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-a...m-am4-217.html)
> 
> Tonight i will try this timings out (took from Nighthog's sign)
> 4x8Gb Kingston HX434C19FB2K2/16 3466C19 1.2V @ 3666Mhz 14.(16).23.16.36.65 1.510V (Micron E-die 16nm)
> Corsair LPX 2x8Gb 2666C16R @ 3200Mhz 14.(17).17.17.31.49...(260) 1.470V (Micron B-die 25nm)



Mine settings are absolute maxxed out any faster/tighter and you get problems. 
Probably shouldn't try mine right away. Many settings other than those in the signature are critical to get it to work.

Were your kit Micron based as well, I see no mention of it? Corsair mixes quite a lot on the memory chips you get with the different kits. 
Different memory different potential for OC.


----------



## opethian2710

Nighthog said:


> Mine settings are absolute maxxed out any faster/tighter and you get problems.
> Probably shouldn't try mine right away. Many settings other than those in the signature are critical to get it to work.
> 
> Were your kit Micron based as well, I see no mention of it? Corsair mixes quite a lot on the memory chips you get with the different kits.
> Different memory different potential for OC.


it wont boot haha
mine are hynix based memory kit, i should have bought a samsung based kit, samsung's compatibility for OC is just best


----------



## 1usmus

*3666CL14 HQ 99% stable *

SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.49 + additional 140mm FAN @ 800



Spoiler


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> Mine settings are absolute maxxed out any faster/tighter and you get problems.
> Probably shouldn't try mine right away. Many settings other than those in the signature are critical to get it to work.
> 
> Were your kit Micron based as well, I see no mention of it? Corsair mixes quite a lot on the memory chips you get with the different kits.
> Different memory different potential for OC.


Please, send me Thaiphoon full report your Micron E-die 16nm


----------



## tekjunkie28

1usmus said:


> *3666CL14 HQ 99% stable *
> 
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.49 + additional 140mm FAN @ 800
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Your voltages are extremely stable, mine are not even with a new PSU. My Gigabyte x470 gaming 5 even over-volts my ram. Its set to 1.35 and it over-volts to 1.368. Also my SoC voltage fluctuates from 1.094 to 1.118. Is that a mother board issue it a gigabyte issue. This is the first Gigabyte board I have own and its looking more and more likely to the be last one. Another thing I noticed last night is that when my Dram is coming in at 1.368V then my Dram VVT is coming in at a solid 0.600V? That seems to be a large discrepancy?? Like I said this is my 1st gigabyte board and 1st AMD processor since the AMD K6/2 533Mhz so any help on the voltages would be appreciated. 

PS The new power supply seems to be wonderful. Voltages are higher across the board when referring to the 3.3v, 5v and 12v.


----------



## opethian2710

1usmus said:


> Please, send me Thaiphoon full report your Micron E-die 16nm


im looking forward seeing it also


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> Please, send me Thaiphoon full report your Micron E-die 16nm


Made a HTML complete report in a .zip 
I presume that is what you wanted?


----------



## Mungojerrie

CJMitsuki said:


> An expensive mobo is worth it IMO


Well, one could ague otherwise. Sure, no doubt a good mobo is a good thing, it gets better OC results and does so easier. But the price difference must be taken into an account. Upgrading from an okay B350 to a good X370/X470 motherboard is easily a $60-100 investment. And this money could be spent elsewhere - getting a better kit of RAM(which is the most important thing in memory overclocking), or a higher-tier CPU, or even a better video card.


In *opethian2710'*s case getting say a Ryzen 5 1600 will get him a much higher performance gain than almost any RAM overclock. Not to mention that if GPU-bound (as it is very common in gaming), RAM overclock, even an impressive one, usually lends to a relatively modest performance improvement.


That said, my argument is completely invalid if a good RAM overclock is the goal, then sure - a good motherboard is surely a must-have, but I'd argue that getting a good kit of RAM is priority #1, as a decent 3200CL14 kit will OC way better on a meh B350 board, than a mediocre Hynix or Micron-based kit even on C7H.


----------



## CJMitsuki

ok, what good is a good kit of ram if the hardware that it is inserted into is sub par? Thats like putting a turbo on a Kia, wouldnt it be better spent on the hardware that increases the capabilities of the entire system first? Your motherboard is the base of your entire system. The foundation of a house has to be strong before you start building onto it. It makes no sense to upgrade the components of a board if the board is not capable of decent overclocking in the first place. By the way, a good 16gb ram kit will be well over 200$. Meanwhile the motherboard upgrade gives better overclocking setting in the bios, better memory traces, better sensors, more options for components. The list can go on as to why you wouldnt want to put a 250$ set of memory into a b350 board but Im fairly certain that is common sense at this stage of the game. He can get a better kit of ram later on, as 3000mhz is not too shabby and more than likely will be able to go 3200-3333 with a bit of work on a cheaper x370 c6h or something. Dont have to get x470 if he is on a budget. x370 boards are fine and not only will his memory have a better chance his cpu will as well. The entire system is likely to gain stability just from a better motherboard. Memory prices will decline so be patient and wait for them to drop then snag a 3200c14 g.skill set. I wont lie, it will be expensive but it will lead to less frustration and more time to do other things and much more performance but in my opinion the motherboard has to be decent first and foremost.


----------



## Mungojerrie

CJMitsuki said:


> The list can go on as to why you wouldnt want to put a 250$ set of memory into a b350 board but Im fairly certain that is common sense at this stage of the game.


Let's just agree to disagree. I won't comment on the importance of motherboard, but any decent B350 motherboard will surely not get not all OC potential, but most of practical OC potential of CPU and RAM? Kinda getting there. Sure, good OC is nice to have, and a good mobo is a must have if high OC numbers themselves are important. Yes, 3500+ MHz RAM OC on a B350 board may be just out of the question, but how much practical difference is there between say 3200 with good timings and 3533 with good timings? Realistically - not that much IMO.


And as someone, who put an almost $300 kit of RAM into a B350 motherboard - it works. My previous kit was Hynix MFR, best I could get was 3200 16-18-18-18. With the new kit I'm currently on 3333-14-14-14 with Fast Calculator preset timings. I'm taking it very slowly, since I'm new to RAM overclocking


Spoiler



(66 MHz steps, getting Safe, then Fast, then Extreme presets stable, so it takes a lot of time)


, but it feels like there is enough headroom to get to 3400 Extreme, maybe even 3466 Fast or Extreme. How much better would I be off with a fantastic X370 or X470 motherboard with my older kit of MFR RAM? Not much I feel.



Again, my point is that of practicality. Someone with a 1400 on a B350 mobo is likely to be quite limited in ones budget, and would be better off getting most bang for the buck. And the way I see it, spending this money elsewhere first would get better results. Not denying the importance of the motherboard though, of course, but IMO in his case a motherboard upgrade is a secondary or a tertiary concern, depending on what he needs of course.


----------



## 1usmus

*3666CL14 fully stable *











SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.49
RTT_PARK 80ohm
Spread Spectrum - enable


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> *3666CL14 fully stable *
> 
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.49
> RTT_PARK 80ohm
> Spread Spectrum - enable



Good for you, you clearly have a better memory kit/cpu/motherboard. 
It takes time to get it right at the faster speeds. So much tweaking, took me ages to get it stable at that speed for myself. 
Had to pester about in 3733 and 3800Mhz to find what was more stable in those and then go back to test those in the lower straps to improve stability there.

I can hint it was tRRDS/tRRDL and tWTRS/tWTRL that needed to find their "best" values. Either too low or too high caused issues. It wanted to have it at specific values for best results.

I think you might be able to handle 3733+ if you go a little off the safe path on SoC voltage if the InfintyFabric can handle it. You have a 2700X right? I haven't seen people try push the limits on SoC and memory speeds fully in the extreme yet on those.
You clearly don't need the same amounts of SoC voltage as on Ryzen Gen1. I need ~1.244V SoC for 3666Mhz on mine R7 1700.


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> Good for you, you clearly have a better memory kit/cpu/motherboard.
> It takes time to get it right at the faster speeds. So much tweaking, took me ages to get it stable at that speed for myself.
> Had to pester about in 3733 and 3800Mhz to find what was more stable in those and then go back to test those in the lower straps to improve stability there.
> 
> I can hint it was tRRDS/tRRDL and tWTRS/tWTRL that needed to find their "best" values. Either too low or too high caused issues. It wanted to have it at specific values for best results.
> 
> I think you might be able to handle 3733+ if you go a little off the safe path on SoC voltage if the InfintyFabric can handle it. You have a 2700X right? I haven't seen people try push the limits on SoC and memory speeds fully in the extreme yet on those.
> You clearly don't need the same amounts of SoC voltage as on Ryzen Gen1. I need ~1.244V SoC for 3666Mhz on mine R7 1700.


I think SOC 1.1 volts for 3666 is still redundant (the actual frequency of Infinity is 2 times lower), the main problem is the entire line's impedance. Too large or too low a resistance provokes jitter, which you can not fix by timings (except for the tCKE constraint). I think 4000 MHz for memory is not a problem.

I agree with you that these 4 timings can influence the situation, but in my research other timings play a much larger role (tRCDRD, tRDWR, tWRRD, tRTP)

Did you try to get 3466 on your memory?


----------



## imsyB

I see your DIMM temps going over 49c. Is this safe?
What should be ideal temp? I see around 43c max @ 1.4250V

Managed to set my F4-3600C15D at 3400 14-14-14-14-28-42 @ 1.4v SOC 1.0250
But had to disable GDM and select Cmd 2T to make is stable. This setting also gives me lowest latency of 62.0ns.

So for a Ryzen system - Should the main objective is to get the lowest latency possible? Should that be the main objective of RAM tweaking?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

I have like this now, and it's fully stable.
I just can't go with 3200 and on 3080 i can't have CL15 1T only 2T (Latency is ~75ns)
FSB 105 so it's 3079MHz

Any sugestions Bratan' what i can achieve?
G-Skill RipJawsV 3200 CL 16-16-16-16


----------



## 1usmus

imsyB said:


> I see your DIMM temps going over 49c. Is this safe?
> What should be ideal temp? I see around 43c max @ 1.4250V
> 
> Managed to set my F4-3600C15D at 3400 14-14-14-14-28-42 @ 1.4v SOC 1.0250
> But had to disable GDM and select Cmd 2T to make is stable. This setting also gives me lowest latency of 62.0ns.
> 
> So for a Ryzen system - Should the main objective is to get the lowest latency possible? Should that be the main objective of RAM tweaking?



Up to 52 degrees, the system will be stable. Dangerous temperature 70+ degrees

Command rate (CR) - the amount of time, in cycles, between when a DRAM chip is selected and a command is executed. 2T CR can be very beneficial for stability with high memory clocks, or for 4-DIMM configurations.
The best option I think is 1T

Special for u

DRAM 1.41
SOC 1.025 



Spoiler


















Ne01 OnnA said:


> I have like this now, and it's fully stable.
> I just can't go with 3200 and on 3080 i can't have CL15 1T only 2T (Latency is ~75ns)
> FSB 105 so it's 3079MHz
> 
> Any sugestions Bratan' what i can achieve?
> G-Skill RipJawsV 3200 CL 16-16-16-16





Spoiler


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Hmm, here is mine:


----------



## numlock66

@1usmus, Could you take a look at my try to get 3466mhz, cas 14, at Agesa 1.0.0.4? what do you think? It was stable at Agesa 1.0.0.2.

http://www.overclock.net/forum/27536422-post3933.html


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> I think SOC 1.1 volts for 3666 is still redundant (the actual frequency of Infinity is 2 times lower), the main problem is the entire line's impedance. Too large or too low a resistance provokes jitter, which you can not fix by timings (except for the tCKE constraint). I think 4000 MHz for memory is not a problem.
> 
> I agree with you that these 4 timings can influence the situation, but in my research other timings play a much larger role (tRCDRD, tRDWR, tWRRD, tRTP)
> 
> Did you try to get 3466 on your memory?


3466Mhz is stock XMP on these and it works without issue, though it goes CL20 rather than the CL19 it should. (both the micron B-die and E-die works without issues @ stock/XMP 1.200Vmem)
The only thing that requires the high voltage(~1.500) is really if you want to use CL14 or tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL @ 2 at the high speeds... if you use CL16 or xxxxSCL 4 etc you can use much lower voltages. 
I had 3600 working with around ~1.330V with some relaxed timings in the beginning, like 18.21.20.40.78 [email protected] etc.


----------



## Espenn

I can post all day long at 3533 and 3600, but I just can't find the right recipe to resolve memory test errors. 

Ryzen 7 2700X
2x8GB Gskill 3600C15
Crosshair VII

I've swept up and down SoC from 0.9V to 1.1V

Up and down VDIMM from 1.35 to 1.45V

All sorts of CAD_Bus settings (24-24-24-24, 30-30-30-30, 40-40-40-40, 40-40-60-60, 30-30-40-60, 20-20-20-20)

All sorts of RTT Settings (Nom OFF, Wr OFF, 48/60 Park seems to work best for POST)

ProcODT 60 seems to be the sweet spot for POST

I just can't figure it out. So frustrating.


----------



## imsyB

Espenn said:


> I just can't figure it out. So frustrating.


You may want to try my settings, I think I have the same ram as yours
But its for 3400mhz.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Espenn said:


> I can post all day long at 3533 and 3600, but I just can't find the right recipe to resolve memory test errors.
> 
> Ryzen 7 2700X
> 2x8GB Gskill 3600C15
> Crosshair VII
> 
> I've swept up and down SoC from 0.9V to 1.1V
> 
> Up and down VDIMM from 1.35 to 1.45V
> 
> All sorts of CAD_Bus settings (24-24-24-24, 30-30-30-30, 40-40-40-40, 40-40-60-60, 30-30-40-60, 20-20-20-20)
> 
> All sorts of RTT Settings (Nom OFF, Wr OFF, 48/60 Park seems to work best for POST)
> 
> ProcODT 60 seems to be the sweet spot for POST
> 
> I just can't figure it out. So frustrating.



If you take into account the sheer number of unique combinations and factors that influence memory instability then you will wonder how you manage to even get anything stable. Say for instance you have settings that are 98% stable but anything you try causes more errors. Well, that could be bc there are several settings that could need to be changed bc changing X changes the way other settings behave causing Y to need adjusting which causes other settings to behave differently. It can be an exponential headache. Sometimes the solution is to just take a break and erase your mind of the memory settings and in a week or so youll have an idea that pops into your head so you try it and it doesnt lead anywhere. So, you chill for a bit longer playing games or whatever it is that you normally do and eventually you will get a spark that will have you jumping back into memory OC with a fresh mind and less frustration. Sometimes frustration can lead us to work in a sub optimal fashion. When that happens you need to realize it and step away to refresh yourself or you will eventually get angry and no one makes good decisions when they are that frustrated. I stepped away for a couple weeks and started messing around on HWBOT.org to take my mind off of it and after a couple weeks I got an idea that lead me to get 3600 damn near stable then with a bit of work its stable but I couldnt for the life of me see the solution bc I was frustrated with the errors. 



Also, what @*1usmus* says about impedance is 100% true. Resistance, in my opinion is probably the single largest factor in Ryzen memory stability. If those settings arent perfectly optimized then it decides your frequency ceiling and no amount of voltage will change that. Especially at higher frequencies where the margin of error is tiny, one wrong setting whether it be in Cad_Bus, rtt, procODT, etc will screw the whole thing up. just those 3 areas have around 8 different things you can adjust with about 6-10 different adjustments for each one so you can see how it would take a massive amount of time and also recording everything down in notes and probably a bit of luck to be able to find the right settings. Thats not even counting all the other settings, voltages, timings that have an ever reducing margin for error as the frequencies get higher. At some point you just have to realize that you need to relax and wait for the bios to mature or calm down and dig back into it. Dont let yourself get frustrated for too long as you cant blame yourself for not getting those higher frequencies stable at this point. Statistics are literally against you and just getting them near stable is a mathematical feat of skill or luck...probably a bit of both.


----------



## 1usmus

*3666CL14 V2 (tuned tFAW)*

interesting nuances:
1) tFAW 27 has better stability than 24, I think that the rule of tRRDS is multiplied by a coefficient - it became irrelevant
2) RTT_WR 80 ohm + RTT_PARK 60 ohm has a similar system stability on these frequency
3) over 3533 I do not see improvement in the latency of RAM, but there are improvements for Infinity



Spoiler















______________________________________________________



Ne01 OnnA said:


> Hmm, here is mine:


I gave you the settings with the new version of the calculator, try them.
I do not need to send the old version, it has lost relevance



numlock66 said:


> @1usmus, Could you take a look at my try to get 3466mhz, cas 14, at Agesa 1.0.0.4? what do you think? It was stable at Agesa 1.0.0.2.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27536422-post3933.html


You have too high impedance, on the new AGESA there is an optimization of the line, try this one

make settings 1 in 1 all without exception
SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.41
procODT 43 recomeded but maybe you need to increase it (48,53 ohm)



Spoiler

















Nighthog said:


> 3466Mhz is stock XMP on these and it works without issue, though it goes CL20 rather than the CL19 it should. (both the micron B-die and E-die works without issues @ stock/XMP 1.200Vmem)
> The only thing that requires the high voltage(~1.500) is really if you want to use CL14 or tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL @ 2 at the high speeds... if you use CL16 or xxxxSCL 4 etc you can use much lower voltages.
> I had 3600 working with around ~1.330V with some relaxed timings in the beginning, like 18.21.20.40.78 [email protected] etc.


I ask you this because I would like to add memory support to the new calculator ... if you would provide the result, I would be very grateful to you



Espenn said:


> I can post all day long at 3533 and 3600, but I just can't find the right recipe to resolve memory test errors.
> 
> Ryzen 7 2700X
> 2x8GB Gskill 3600C15
> Crosshair VII
> 
> I've swept up and down SoC from 0.9V to 1.1V
> 
> Up and down VDIMM from 1.35 to 1.45V
> 
> All sorts of CAD_Bus settings (24-24-24-24, 30-30-30-30, 40-40-40-40, 40-40-60-60, 30-30-40-60, 20-20-20-20)
> 
> All sorts of RTT Settings (Nom OFF, Wr OFF, 48/60 Park seems to work best for POST)
> 
> ProcODT 60 seems to be the sweet spot for POST
> 
> I just can't figure it out. So frustrating.


Have you tried these settings?
https://www.overclock.net/forum/27533804-post2171.html


----------



## HatchetEgg

Well, I found out my stability issue,


Even the 4.3 GHz is stable I end up sacrificing RAM overclocking headroom. So at 4.3, I can only go as far as 3466, if I try 3533 I can boot and do 2 passes on memtest 86 without any issues. But in windows tabs in firefox crash and prey stop working after some time.


I am also running the moded BIOS 4012 for my ASUS ROG Strix x370-f Gaming, but I have not lost hope maybe the newer AGESA will help with this if not that then maybe even the newer calculator for RAM may be more beneficial.


----------



## HatchetEgg

1usmus said:


> *3666CL14 fully stable *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.49
> RTT_PARK 80ohm
> Spread Spectrum - enable



I really hope that's a mistake! 37,250 C I would like to know how you managed to keep it running without melting the Dimms. Realistically it is more like 37.250C.


----------



## Filters83

Hello guys i have some trouble why my brother build.
Ryzen 5 1600 on an Asus B350 F strix ) latest bios ) i tried for week but cant do past 2933mhz
In the zip file you can see the typhoon report for the ram stick its a D die if im not mistaken and in the other file the setting i tried ) at least the last one whit the last calculator version )
So basicly 90% of the time i get error in bios like fail to post, in the 10% stuck on windows load so never work 
Any help or advice ? 
Thx in advance !

P.S. 
Ofc also tried read xmp and V1 and V2. My goal its a stable 3200Mhz


----------



## tekjunkie28

For all those that have experience with the new Agesa version 1.0.0.4 what are you all seeing that's new or improved. Is there any issues that are new? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## CharlieWheelie

tekjunkie28 said:


> For all those that have experience with the new Agesa version 1.0.0.4 what are you all seeing that's new or improved. Is there any issues that are new?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



Well i just tried the 4.80 on the Killer SLI.
Some settings reset after a failed mem clock.
Cold boot failure, needs rebooting 3 times before successful launch to windows.
Keyboard/mouse does not work on every boot.
Mem speeds are down again.
In short....Poooo 


Gone back to 3.40 and now have this, the best yet.
Strange how every time i reinstall this Bios, i get better timings


----------



## Screemi

HatchetEgg said:


> I really hope that's a mistake! 37,250 C I would like to know how you managed to keep it running without melting the Dimms. Realistically it is more like 37.250C.


in every civilized country the separator for the fractional part is a comma


----------



## MNMadman

Screemi said:


> in every civilized country the separator for the fractional part is a comma


Glad to be a citizen of the barbaric US of A.


----------



## Leesha

Anyone had any success in overclocking K4A8G085WB-BCRC b-die ram? Trying 3200 safe settings does not even POST. Loosening timings to 16-16-16-34-54 did not help. Samsung OEM Safe boots but is still unstable. Running 2600x+strix x470-f. By tweaking a lot of timings I managed to pass HCI 400% at 3333-16-17-17 and high voltages: Dram: 1.4v, VTTDDR: 0.7V.

Timings profile:
https://imgur.com/a/niRGaTX


----------



## HatchetEgg

Screemi said:


> in every civilized country the separator for the fractional part is a comma



I totally forgot it must have been designed in the US, so there for it's the American English of grammar.


----------



## jinsk8r

I'm a newbie please help.
Finally I managed to make my kit run at 3600c16 but it's totally unstable.

MB: Asrock X370 Taichi
Bios: 3.20 (I tried 4.60 but it's too bad I needed to roll back to 3.20)
CPU: Ryzen 1700
Ram: Galax HOF 3600 8GBx2 Kit in A2 B2 slots
Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 fan Perf

Ram Overclocking:
I used BIOS 3.20 back then and overclocked my kit to [email protected] and it worked well (never tested with software because I didn't know).
Then later I updated BIOS to 4.60 but they changed many things (Removed C-State option etc) and I couldnt overclock my ram (harder than before, and sometimes it just didnt let me overclock both CPU and ram)
Now I rolled back to 3.20 and managed to OC my kit to [email protected], loaded Windows but there are BSOD sometimes so I raised the dram voltage, but I still think it will not last the stress test.

My voltage:
CPU LLC lv3
VSOC LLC lv2
Dram: 1.46 (Windows load 1.496)
Vsoc: 1.106
Vtt DDR: 0.7
VDDP: 0.85

My timings I set as this preset (the setting in red DQS str I can't find it in my BIOS):









SO HERE ARE MY QUESTIONs:
- What do I do now to make my kit stable (maybe to reduce voltage as well)?
- When I test using Mem Test or Ram Test, what do I do if errors occur? (Changing which timings, reducing voltage..etc?)

Thank you!



Optional question:

CPU Overclocking:
CPU 3.8GHZ with fixed Vcore of 1.2125V (1.206 when load in Windows), CPU LLC Level 2, SOC LLC Level 2. "C6" disabled also "c-state" are disabled. Temp is 40c idle and 72c Prime95 Small (Ambient 28c). I feel this temp is a little too hight, isn't it?


----------



## Enferlain

Does anyone have 3200mhz timings with tCL13 or 12?


----------



## amazinspacefrog

Hi all,

I'm new to Ryzen and very new to RAM overclocking in general so I hope I don't come across as a total noobie 
I've been reading this forum post these past few weeks trying to make sense of it all and I must say the overclocking results are looking more and more impressive every day and I have finally decided to post my own findings.
I seem to be stuck overclocking my RAM past 3200. I have tried many of your suggested tweaks from the calculator and thanks to the guidance I have been able to tune my RAM to run at both fast and extreme settings. I can boot my system without any issues at 3400 and 3533 however I just can't pass the stability tests. (tried just a quick AIDA64 stress test and it fails after 2 mins)
I'm using 'Import XMP' function from Thaiphoon Burner. This method gives me higher tFAW and tRRDS / tRRDL values than V1/V2 profiles. However my motherboard seem to be locked to '54' max for tFAW, so unfortunately I can't try some of the profiles that set my tFAW to '60'
Here are my thoughts on my overclock so far:

Looking at my Ryzen Timing Checker results, for some reason all values I set to '0' as per recommendation show up as '1/31' 
(AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup) Is this normal ? I can't figure out why this is.

ANother thing I want to mention is that I can't find 'DQS str' setting anywhere in my BIOS. Is this setting super essential ?
(BGS alt is also nowhere to be found but it seems to default to 'enabled')

VTT DRR Voltage in my BIOS seems to move up in rather large increments e.g from 0.7 to 0.715 to 0.725 etc I assume this doesn't need to follow to recommend value exactly ? So far I've been trying to keep somewhere within both recommended values and the other 2 alternative values but it always seem to fall few volts outside of the recommended values. (as far as I understand this should be around half of voltage for RAM)

Some settings from 'debug voltage' I'm not even entirely sure I found the correct entries in the BIOS because the names are slightly different, I assume these are the voltages with similar names just below 'VTT DRR' voltage in 'tweaker's paradise'

And one last question is how important are these BIOS options :

Opcache - disable
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
Memory clear - disable
Super I/O Clock Skew - disable 

Do I always need to enable these options or case by case basis or in a worst case scenario ? 
Also 'Super I/O Clock Skew' setting is nowhere to be found in my BIOS, I tried browsing and using the 'search' BIOS utility. 

I was hoping to give it another go to try go above 3200 when the new version of DRAM calculator comes out.
I appreciate your comments and thanks for being awesome !


----------



## hurricane28

amazinspacefrog said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm new to Ryzen and very new to RAM overclocking in general so I hope I don't come across as a total noobie
> I've been reading this forum post these past few weeks trying to make sense of it all and I must say the overclocking results are looking more and more impressive every day and I have finally decided to post my own findings.
> I seem to be stuck overclocking my RAM past 3200. I have tried many of your suggested tweaks from the calculator and thanks to the guidance I have been able to tune my RAM to run at both fast and extreme settings. I can boot my system without any issues at 3400 and 3533 however I just can't pass the stability tests. (tried just a quick AIDA64 stress test and it fails after 2 mins)
> I'm using 'Import XMP' function from Thaiphoon Burner. This method gives me higher tFAW and tRRDS / tRRDL values than V1/V2 profiles. However my motherboard seem to be locked to '54' max for tFAW, so unfortunately I can't try some of the profiles that set my tFAW to '60'
> Here are my thoughts on my overclock so far:
> 
> Looking at my Ryzen Timing Checker results, for some reason all values I set to '0' as per recommendation show up as '1/31'
> (AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup) Is this normal ? I can't figure out why this is.
> 
> ANother thing I want to mention is that I can't find 'DQS str' setting anywhere in my BIOS. Is this setting super essential ?
> (BGS alt is also nowhere to be found but it seems to default to 'enabled')
> 
> VTT DRR Voltage in my BIOS seems to move up in rather large increments e.g from 0.7 to 0.715 to 0.725 etc I assume this doesn't need to follow to recommend value exactly ? So far I've been trying to keep somewhere within both recommended values and the other 2 alternative values but it always seem to fall few volts outside of the recommended values. (as far as I understand this should be around half of voltage for RAM)
> 
> Some settings from 'debug voltage' I'm not even entirely sure I found the correct entries in the BIOS because the names are slightly different, I assume these are the voltages with similar names just below 'VTT DRR' voltage in 'tweaker's paradise'
> 
> And one last question is how important are these BIOS options :
> 
> Opcache - disable
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher - enable
> Memory clear - disable
> Super I/O Clock Skew - disable
> 
> Do I always need to enable these options or case by case basis or in a worst case scenario ?
> Also 'Super I/O Clock Skew' setting is nowhere to be found in my BIOS, I tried browsing and using the 'search' BIOS utility.
> 
> I was hoping to give it another go to try go above 3200 when the new version of DRAM calculator comes out.
> I appreciate your comments and thanks for being awesome !



Super I/O Clock Skew, That is the setting i can't find either on my BIOS.. Weird. Maybe its disabled or enabled by default? I ask Elmor about this. Thnx, i forgot how that setting was called btw.


----------



## CJMitsuki

hurricane28 said:


> Super I/O Clock Skew, That is the setting i can't find either on my BIOS.. Weird. Maybe its disabled or enabled by default? I ask Elmor about this. Thnx, i forgot how that setting was called btw.



It was hidden by them on 0702, you could never just navigate to it but I found that you could use the bios search function and find lots of hidden settings on the C7H but I guess I wasnt thinking and posted my findings on Elmor's thread and the next bios update had them completely hidden. Im not sure of the reason they are hiding about 15+ settings but maybe @*1usmus* could stumble upon an unlocked version for the C7H? :yessir:


Also if anyone uses HCI Memtest and hates having to make a bunch of instances of it everytime check out a thread I made detailing how to automate it entirely to creating and opening a batch file. It will start as many instances as you want and enter the value you want in all of the instances as well as start it up for you and even end the test at a certain point if you wish HCI MEMTEST AUTOMATION


----------



## Enferlain

Hey. Can I just change tCL to 13 here or do I need to mess around with the other timings as well?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Enferlain said:


> Hey. Can I just change tCL to 13 here or do I need to mess around with the other timings as well?


Well, as I don’t know the details of your system. I would say that if you go to CL13 you will have errors. I would sit at 14, if you are looking for more performance my choice would be to relax tRFC to about 300, go to the Rtt settings and disable RttWr and RttNom and RttPark around RzQ6 which should be 40ohm. What kit are you running? If it’s a decent kit you can probably turn Gd mode off bc the change in Rtt settings I mentioned will more than likely give you a lot of stability over what you currently have set. You may also try Proc ODT at 53.3ohm and tCKE possibly to 1. The Rtt settings and the tRFC would more than likely keep you from jumping up to 3333mhz . You may even be able to go ahead and jump to 3400 depending on your kit. With a decent kit you usually don’t have to use GD mode or 2T until 3466 and up. Also you can take RttPark to RzQ5 or even 4 for added stability they are 48ohm and 60ohm respectively. If that is a 3200c14 kit 2x8gb then it should overclock very well. What I usually find that gives good performance on BDie for a lot of different speeds is 14-14-14-26-40-4-6-24-4-12-12-0-2-2-275-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1. There can be tweaks to that here and there but that’s what I’ve found to be really close to a good setup of timings for BDie for most situations. Your resistance settings and dram voltage and SoC are going to be the biggest factors for stability. So, CadBus, Rtt, ProcODT are pretty heavy influences.


----------



## tekjunkie28

CJMitsuki said:


> Well, as I don’t know the details of your system. I would say that if you go to CL13 you will have errors. I would sit at 14, if you are looking for more performance my choice would be to relax tRFC to about 300, go to the Rtt settings and disable RttWr and RttNom and RttPark around RzQ6 which should be 40ohm. What kit are you running? If it’s a decent kit you can probably turn Gd mode off bc the change in Rtt settings I mentioned will more than likely give you a lot of stability over what you currently have set. You may also try Proc ODT at 53.3ohm and tCKE possibly to 1. The Rtt settings and the tRFC would more than likely keep you from jumping up to 3333mhz . You may even be able to go ahead and jump to 3400 depending on your kit. With a decent kit you usually don’t have to use GD mode or 2T until 3466 and up. Also you can take RttPark to RzQ5 or even 4 for added stability they are 48ohm and 60ohm respectively. If that is a 3200c14 kit 2x8gb then it should overclock very well. What I usually find that gives good performance on BDie for a lot of different speeds is 14-14-14-26-40-4-6-24-4-12-12-0-2-2-275-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1. There can be tweaks to that here and there but that’s what I’ve found to be really close to a good setup of timings for BDie for most situations. Your resistance settings and dram voltage and SoC are going to be the biggest factors for stability. So, CadBus, Rtt, ProcODT are pretty heavy influences.


Oh man thanks for that info. I have 3200CL14 Bdie and at 3200 I have never been able to turn off gear down mode. I am at 3333 14-14-14-30-54 stable with tRFC at 320. I have been unstable at any timings at anything above 3333Mhz reguardless of voltages. I also cannot undervolt the SoC on this mother board AFAIK (x470 gaming 5 wifi). I will try these setting for this kit. I have been afraid of touching all these other settings.


----------



## CJMitsuki

tekjunkie28 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I don’t know the details of your system. I would say that if you go to CL13 you will have errors. I would sit at 14, if you are looking for more performance my choice would be to relax tRFC to about 300, go to the Rtt settings and disable RttWr and RttNom and RttPark around RzQ6 which should be 40ohm. What kit are you running? If it’s a decent kit you can probably turn Gd mode off bc the change in Rtt settings I mentioned will more than likely give you a lot of stability over what you currently have set. You may also try Proc ODT at 53.3ohm and tCKE possibly to 1. The Rtt settings and the tRFC would more than likely keep you from jumping up to 3333mhz . You may even be able to go ahead and jump to 3400 depending on your kit. With a decent kit you usually don’t have to use GD mode or 2T until 3466 and up. Also you can take RttPark to RzQ5 or even 4 for added stability they are 48ohm and 60ohm respectively. If that is a 3200c14 kit 2x8gb then it should overclock very well. What I usually find that gives good performance on BDie for a lot of different speeds is 14-14-14-26-40-4-6-24-4-12-12-0-2-2-275-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1. There can be tweaks to that here and there but that’s what I’ve found to be really close to a good setup of timings for BDie for most situations. Your resistance settings and dram voltage and SoC are going to be the biggest factors for stability. So, CadBus, Rtt, ProcODT are pretty heavy influences.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man thanks for that info. I have 3200CL14 Bdie and at 3200 I have never been able to turn off gear down mode. I am at 3333 14-14-14-30-54 stable with tRFC at 320. I have been unstable at any timings at anything above 3333Mhz reguardless of voltages. I also cannot undervolt the SoC on this mother board AFAIK (x470 gaming 5 wifi). I will try these setting for this kit. I have been afraid of touching all these other settings.
Click to expand...

A good rule of thumb on some primary timings is tCL+tRAS=tRC so your 14-14-14-30 setup means tRC should be 44 but you can bump it a hair higher if it gives you stability but never lower than that rule. Also tFAW=tRRDL multiplied by 4. The Rtt settings I mentioned are pretty huge for what I’ve seen. I rarely ever use RttNOM or RttWR, usually just RttPARK an at lower frequencies it’s usually at RzQ6 and mid frequencies you may see you need RzQ5 then around 3533+ you will probably be using RzQ4 and 3. ProcODT plays a smaller role but 48ohm-60ohm is where most sit at. I’m personally at 53.3 and never had to change. CadBus I was usually sitting at 24-24-24-24ohm for most frequencies but around 3533+ I found 30-30-40-40ohm was working better. You shouldn’t have to have a high Soc more than likely 1.1v or lower is where you need to be and DRAM voltage will probably be 1,4v or lower until around 3400+. Of course these all vary from system to system but 3200c14 BDie generally responds well to the settings I’ve mentioned and I’ve used this kit ever since Ryzen launched.


----------



## tekjunkie28

CJMitsuki said:


> A good rule of thumb on some primary timings is tCL+tRAS=tRC so your 14-14-14-30 setup means tRC should be 44 but you can bump it a hair higher if it gives you stability but never lower than that rule. Also tFAW=tRRDL multiplied by 4. The Rtt settings I mentioned are pretty huge for what I’ve seen. I rarely ever use RttNOM or RttWR, usually just RttPARK an at lower frequencies it’s usually at RzQ6 and mid frequencies you may see you need RzQ5 then around 3533+ you will probably be using RzQ4 and 3. ProcODT plays a smaller role but 48ohm-60ohm is where most sit at. I’m personally at 53.3 and never had to change. CadBus I was usually sitting at 24-24-24-24ohm for most frequencies but around 3533+ I found 30-30-40-40ohm was working better. You shouldn’t have to have a high Soc more than likely 1.1v or lower is where you need to be and DRAM voltage will probably be 1,4v or lower until around 3400+. Of course these all vary from system to system but 3200c14 BDie generally responds well to the settings I’ve mentioned and I’ve used this kit ever since Ryzen launched.


I tried your setting and 3200mhz is faster but it still still not boot with GD disable and 1T. Absolutely refusing to. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## CJMitsuki

tekjunkie28 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good rule of thumb on some primary timings is tCL+tRAS=tRC so your 14-14-14-30 setup means tRC should be 44 but you can bump it a hair higher if it gives you stability but never lower than that rule. Also tFAW=tRRDL multiplied by 4. The Rtt settings I mentioned are pretty huge for what I’ve seen. I rarely ever use RttNOM or RttWR, usually just RttPARK an at lower frequencies it’s usually at RzQ6 and mid frequencies you may see you need RzQ5 then around 3533+ you will probably be using RzQ4 and 3. ProcODT plays a smaller role but 48ohm-60ohm is where most sit at. I’m personally at 53.3 and never had to change. CadBus I was usually sitting at 24-24-24-24ohm for most frequencies but around 3533+ I found 30-30-40-40ohm was working better. You shouldn’t have to have a high Soc more than likely 1.1v or lower is where you need to be and DRAM voltage will probably be 1,4v or lower until around 3400+. Of course these all vary from system to system but 3200c14 BDie generally responds well to the settings I’ve mentioned and I’ve used this kit ever since Ryzen launched.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried your setting and 3200mhz is faster but it still still not boot with GD disable and 1T. Absolutely refusing to.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Give me the settings you are running with it and I’ll send you things to tweak. Try 2T and leave GD disabled. Tell me all of your voltages and other settings that you haven’t already provided. Sometimes a setup won’t boot bc a certain voltage is a little too high or low. A lot of memory kits have a specific SoC voltage it likes and doesn’t want anything else or it will spit errors. Same with CLDO_VDDP voltage. Some memory is just picky about what you feed it. Mine likes 1.0875 SoC for anything above 3466 and it will only run 1.05v SoC below that frequency. Same with DRAM voltage, you can be .2v too high and not boot. Sensitive IMC possibly


----------



## numlock66

It is sure to get 3446mhz and higher frequencies cas 14 on a F4-3200C14D-16GTZR, this is a very good piece to overclock? I found one at a reasonable price I'm thinking to replace mine. 3600cas18.


----------



## CJMitsuki

numlock66 said:


> It is sure to get 3446mhz and higher frequencies cas 14 on a F4-3200C14D-16GTZR, this is a very good piece to overclock? I found one at a reasonable price I'm thinking to replace mine. 3600cas18.


Yes, depending on your IMC of course. I run that exact kit myself and I’ve gotten 3600c14 stable. It wasn’t easy to get 3600c14 but 3533c14 was no problem and great performance at 14-14-14-26-40 1.45v and 1.0875v SoC. Runs great benchmarks as well. Just make sure the kit you are getting is 2x8gb which the model number says it is but it’s the only one that I’ve seen in that line of ram that pushes high over locks besides the 3600c15 kit


----------



## maslows

not sure if good or bad but here it is


----------



## numlock66

CJMitsuki said:


> Yes, depending on your IMC of course. I run that exact kit myself and I’ve gotten 3600c14 stable. It wasn’t easy to get 3600c14 but 3533c14 was no problem and great performance at 14-14-14-26-40 1.45v and 1.0875v SoC. Runs great benchmarks as well. Just make sure the kit you are getting is 2x8gb which the model number says it is but it’s the only one that I’ve seen in that line of ram that pushes high over locks besides the 3600c15 kit


There is a tip or others signs to discover if is my IMC or my memory limiting overclock by not testing on other system you just know stable at that frequencies.


----------



## VDNKh

1usmus said:


> VDNKh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent a little too much time last night playing around with the timings that DRAM calculator gave me. This is all done with Corsair CMK32GX4M4B3200C16 DIMMs (Hynix MFR Rank 1), Threadripper 1900X, ASUS X399 PRIME A, and BIOS ver. 0503.
> 
> BLK: 104.8MHz DRAM: 3213MHz in quad-channel.
> 
> What I found was that when "Gear Down" set to "Disabled" it would just cause it to fail POST with code '15', and that the tRC value the calculator gave was way to low. My motherboard, on "Auto", puts that value at 72 but the calculator suggests 54. I haven't tried going lower than 72 yet but that was causing me a lot of grief with failing to POST as well. I would have to reset the CMOS to get it to boot again.
> 
> The calculator also put some values too high. First value is from the calculator, second is what the Auto setting set:
> tFAW: 35 -> 33
> tRFC: 482 -> 312
> tRFC 2: 358 -> 192
> tRCF 4: 220 -> 132
> tWRWR SD: 7 -> 6
> tWRWR DD: 7 -> 6
> tRDRD SD: 5 -> 4
> tRDRD DD: 5 -> 4
> 
> I used the recommended procODT, RTT, CAD_BUS values. Per your flowchart, should I try alternate termination block values to get tRC down to 54? Is this calculator suited for X399?
> 
> 
> 
> these overstated timings do not play any role for performance. TRFC2 / 4 should only be used in auto mode
> 
> yes the calculator has initial support for these processors.
> 
> next week there will be a release of the new version, there are taken into account and processed a lot of nuances
Click to expand...

Quick update on this. My BIOS was lying to me, the actual tRFC value was around 500 set to Auto. I lowered tRFC to the settings I posted and it was stable, the 7% lower tRFC Alt setting was not stable. At 5% lower it was stable and improved latency and bandwidth a little. If I left tRFC2/4 on Auto they were not set right, manually setting them also helped performance a little. Also I tried setting T2 CR to improve quad-channel stability but that would also cause my motherboard to fail to POST like Gear Down Disable would. I've also updated to BIOS 0601/AGESA 1.0.0.5. when testing all this.


----------



## chroniclard

maslows said:


> not sure if good or bad but here it is


Terrible, its running at 2133! Like its failed memory training. 

Need to work on that!


----------



## jinsk8r

Overcoming those frustrations of cold boots, finally I got my kit running well in Windows.
I set these settings: Fast 3466C14









However when I use Mem Test it pops error after a few minutes and my PC blacks out (literally the screen turned black) and resets. Same issue when stress with Prime95 Blend.

What is my problem here and how to fix it? Thank you!

My Spec:


> MB: Asrock X370 Taichi
> Bios: 3.20 (I tried 4.60 but it's too bad I needed to roll back to 3.20)
> CPU: Ryzen 1700
> Ram: Galax HOF 3600 8GBx2 Kit in A2 B2 slots
> Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 fan Perf


My voltage:


> CPU LLC lv2
> VSOC LLC lv2
> Dram: 1.415 (Windows load 1.44)
> Vsoc: 1.05
> Vtt DDR: 0.7
> VDDP: 0.85


----------



## CJMitsuki

maslows said:


> not sure if good or bad but here it is


Not sure what I’m looking at either. Looks like you left everything on auto and you are running your ram at 2133c15 2T. I bet it feels ridiculously slow huh? Well, if you will be on here shortly I will help you sort it out a little and make it faster. The ram is so pitiful I can’t help it, I have to make it faster. Good thing is that even though it probably isn’t the best kit in the world, we can probably hit the XMP speed at the very least. Maybe even get 3200mhz working. I love how RTC is trying to say that kit is dual rank when it isn’t. I had RTC do that many times to me. Usually happens when memory isn’t 100% stable.


----------



## ajc9988

So, x399 taichi bios 3.0 dropped today with agesa 1.1.0.0. Old timings are unstable. Tracked it down to a couple likely suspects: CL, RDRD SCL & WRWR SCL, or RTP. Those are the three I loosened to get over 15 minute test in testmem (8 cycles completed) at 3600MT.

This isn't suggesting stable, before those comments start. It is saying those timings may be in play for the new AGESA. Once I find which one and confirm stability over the next couple days, I will give more information and my timings.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## MNMadman

ajc9988 said:


> So, x399 taichi bios 3.0 dropped today with agesa 1.1.0.0. Old timings are unstable. Tracked it down to a couple likely suspects: CL, RDRD SCL & WRWR SCL, or RTP. Those are the three I loosened to get over 15 minute test in testmem (8 cycles completed) at 3600MT.
> 
> This isn't suggesting stable, before those comments start. It is saying those timings may be in play for the new AGESA. Once I find which one and confirm stability over the next couple days, I will give more information and my timings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Since this BIOS is specifically targeted at the Threadripper Gen2 CPUs, I'm sure those timings had to be adjusted for one reason or another. Maybe because two of the dies don't have memory controllers on them.


----------



## jinsk8r

Update: I still get cold boots on these settings but I tried to bump SOC voltage to 1.1v and ProcODT to 60ohm now I can test on Prime95 Blend, but it pops the Rounding error after a while.

I set these settings: Fast 3466C14









What is my problem here and how to fix it (stable test and cold boots)? Thank you!

My Spec:


> MB: Asrock X370 Taichi
> Bios: 3.20 (I tried 4.60 but it's too bad I needed to roll back to 3.20)
> CPU: Ryzen 1700
> Ram: Galax HOF 3600 8GBx2 Kit in A2 B2 slots
> Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 fan Perf


My voltage:


> CPU LLC lv2
> VSOC LLC lv2
> Dram: 1.415 (Windows load 1.44)
> Vsoc: 1.05
> Vtt DDR: 0.7
> VDDP: 0.85


----------



## PunkX 1

I'm currently running the Ryzen 1600 on the Crosshair Hero VI mobo with 16GB of Geil RAM. I've been wanting to push the RAM as far as possible and noticed that there was a lot of good information on this thread. I'm not new to overclocking but it does seem like overclocking RAM on the Ryzen platform is an all-new ball game. Here's a screenshot of the specs of my RAM. Does it look any good?


----------



## dspx

PunkX 1 said:


> I'm currently running the Ryzen 1600 on the Crosshair Hero VI mobo with 16GB of Geil RAM. I've been wanting to push the RAM as far as possible and noticed that there was a lot of good information on this thread. I'm not new to overclocking but it does seem like overclocking RAM on the Ryzen platform is an all-new ball game. Here's a screenshot of the specs of my RAM. Does it look any good?


Yes, Samsung B-Die is best for Ryzen, go for 3200 CL14 or 3600 CL15/16.


----------



## PunkX 1

dspx said:


> Yes, Samsung B-Die is best for Ryzen, go for 3200 CL14 or 3600 CL15/16.


Okay, then that's good news. The XMP Profile is 3200MHz @ CL16. Also, what is 1 Rank and 2 Rank memory?


----------



## Mungojerrie

PunkX 1 said:


> Okay, then that's good news. The XMP Profile is 3200MHz @ CL16. Also, what is 1 Rank and 2 Rank memory?


Single rank RAM has actual memory chips soldered onto single side of the PCB. Dual rank has chips soldered on both sides. On Ryzen higher frequencies are achievable with single-rank, but at equal frequency and timings dual-rank is faster.


----------



## rx7racer

Hi all, so I have been digging around as I have contemplated doing a switch from my Intel build to an AMD build.

With price of ram I was debating on just using my current set, but upon finding out some of the ram quirks for Ryzen I'm second guessing the switch.

I already have the cpu, a Ryzen 2700 as well as a Ryzen 2600 and am going to use the Asus Rog Strix X470-I(coming in tomorrow) to keep my case in use.

Am I going to regret trying to get G.Skill 16GB kit using Samsung 4Gbit D-Die DS Dimms to work?

Have tried to dig up specifics but it's such an old kit it doesn't seem like anyone has tried.


----------



## tekjunkie28

rx7racer said:


> Hi all, so I have been digging around as I have contemplated doing a switch from my Intel build to an AMD build.
> 
> With price of ram I was debating on just using my current set, but upon finding out some of the ram quirks for Ryzen I'm second guessing the switch.
> 
> I already have the cpu, a Ryzen 2700 as well as a Ryzen 2600 and am going to use the Asus Rog Strix X470-I(coming in tomorrow) to keep my case in use.
> 
> Am I going to regret trying to get G.Skill 16GB kit using Samsung 4Gbit D-Die DS Dimms to work?
> 
> Have tried to dig up specifics but it's such an old kit it doesn't seem like anyone has tried.


Any ram stick will work but it may not work at the XMP rating. Best performance is gonna be found with a 3600Mhz CL15 or a 3200CL14 kit that is single rank. I would try your kit before buying one.


----------



## rx7racer

tekjunkie28 said:


> Any ram stick will work but it may not work at the XMP rating. Best performance is gonna be found with a 3600Mhz CL15 or a 3200CL14 kit that is single rank. I would try your kit before buying one.


Thanks for the input, I'm hoping it at least boots.

It's a F4-3200C16-8GTZ kit so I will expect some rather nasty timings probably. Hard to believe I only paid like $80 for the kit a couple years and few months ago.


----------



## TombsClawtooth

*Trouble with Sniper X*

I bought a set of 2x8gb G.Skill Sniper X 3400CL16 memory after finding out it was B-Die and was on sale.










I have tried and tried and tried to get it to run at both the XMP profile settings, as well as fully entering the ryzen calculator information on the most conservative side. I have had no luck what so ever, but it does seem to boot every time, it's just unstable as soon as it gets to my desktop or as soon as I run a game.

My board is an Asus PRIME x370-PRO, my processor is a Ryzen 7 2700x. Running the newest bios and chipset drivers. Bios is 4012.

Currently the best I have managed is this:








Running at 1.36v.

Any help would be wonderful as I've been banging my head against the wall for days trying to hit rated speeds, or even simply tighten up timings.

So I discovered the correct inputs for the calculator... It's spitting out a latency of 22 which my memory doesn't support, guess my mobo's auto presets are doing as good as can be done here.

So here's what the calculator is giving me:









Should I input the tCL as 16, and the rest as is shown? Also when it comes to decimal places, my mobo doesn't seem to support those... Do I round up or down?


----------



## tekjunkie28

TombsClawtooth said:


> I bought a set of 2x8gb G.Skill Sniper X 3400CL16 memory after finding out it was B-Die and was on sale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried and tried and tried to get it to run at both the XMP profile settings, as well as fully entering the ryzen calculator information on the most conservative side. I have had no luck what so ever, but it does seem to boot every time, it's just unstable as soon as it gets to my desktop or as soon as I run a game.
> 
> My board is an Asus PRIME x370-PRO, my processor is a Ryzen 7 2700x. Running the newest bios and chipset drivers. Bios is 4012.
> 
> Currently the best I have managed is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Running at 1.36v.
> 
> Any help would be wonderful as I've been banging my head against the wall for days trying to hit rated speeds, or even simply tighten up timings.


That is absolutely awful. I have never seen Bdie that bad. Try procOTD at 53. Just for the heck of it lower your timings to 14 14 14 14 34 48 and see if it boots


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## dspx

Try different ProcODT values and see which one works best, don't just use one that is suggested by the Calculator because every motherboard is different.


----------



## numlock66

TombsClawtooth said:


> I bought a set of 2x8gb G.Skill Sniper X 3400CL16 memory after finding out it was B-Die and was on sale.
> 
> I have tried and tried and tried to get it to run at both the XMP profile settings, as well as fully entering the ryzen calculator information on the most conservative side. I have had no luck what so ever, but it does seem to boot every time, it's just unstable as soon as it gets to my desktop or as soon as I run a game.
> 
> My board is an Asus PRIME x370-PRO, my processor is a Ryzen 7 2700x. Running the newest bios and chipset drivers. Bios is 4012.
> 
> Currently the best I have managed is this:
> Running at 1.36v.
> 
> Any help would be wonderful as I've been banging my head against the wall for days trying to hit rated speeds, or even simply tighten up timings.
> 
> So I discovered the correct inputs for the calculator... It's spitting out a latency of 22 which my memory doesn't support, guess my mobo's auto presets are doing as good as can be done here.
> 
> So here's what the calculator is giving me:
> 
> Should I input the tCL as 16, and the rest as is shown? Also when it comes to decimal places, my mobo doesn't seem to support those... Do I round up or down?



You need to use R-XMP values v1 or v2 from dram calc, don't import the values from Thaiphoon Burner.


----------



## TombsClawtooth

numlock66 said:


> You need to use R-XMP values v1 or v2 from dram calc, don't import the values from Thaiphoon Burner.


Those values don't even make it into windows.

I'm currently testing these values:









Not sure if they're stable yet, the previous values were not.

*Edit* Nope, they aren't stable. Had to go back to my previous settings. Having much the same experience with this as I did the corsair vengeance memory I had before this that wasn't stable above 2933.


----------



## CJMitsuki

TombsClawtooth said:


> Those values don't even make it into windows.
> 
> I'm currently testing these values:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if they're stable yet, the previous values were not.
> 
> *Edit* Nope, they aren't stable. Had to go back to my previous settings. Having much the same experience with this as I did the corsair vengeance memory I had before this that wasn't stable above 2933.


First off why go to [email protected] when you had [email protected] running? Even if you got it running, the performance would have been god awful compared to the 3200 profile you had going. Aside from all of that it looks like something is amiss with your set. Either you have a picky set of ram that wants a certain SoC voltage and dont run on anything else or you have some hardware issues. You need to go back to the profile you had working and test different SoC voltages and 1.38v DRAMv. Starting 1.0875 SoC isnt a bad plave to start. Go up a tick or 2 then run a memory test and take note of how long it takes to find an error. If errors are immediate the keep moving on the voltage, if the errors get worse then reset back to 1.0875 and move in the other direction. Dont be afraid to loweR OR bump DRAM voltage a bit. Memory sets are very picky at times, mine being no exception. My SoC has to be right on or I get errors also. You can also play with ProcODT, CAD_Bus, and RttPark for stability. 53.3 ProcODT is usually what ive found runs best, RttPark can offer more stability going to RZQ4 or 3, Ive found that disabling the others is the best (RttNOM and RttWR), Cad_Bus is usually good at 24ohm at lower frequencies but can be tuned to 30ohm and 40ohm offering more stability, Gear Down Enabled will also boost stability at a small latency penalty, Same goes for 2T, so dont be afraid to use either. Power Down enabled is something I havent tested much but it did seem that it wasnt worth the performance hit for any stability that it may have given so I would just keep it disabled. For Samsung BDIE you are going to want to aim for [email protected] for starters, and I honestly think you can get there but your ram is just being difficult and wants to be picky. Good rule of thumb for starting timings out for picky ram is set 14-14-14-14 then think of tRas and tRC as buddies. When you change one you need to change the other and ill tell you how, its very simple. tCL+tRAS=tRC. You can bump tRC up a couple if needed but never ever go below that equation. tRAS is usually found between the values 20-40, start at 40 which means according to that equation at cl14 you must have tRC no lower than 54. Make the other values auto if you want to just focus on these timings at first but you can input something like 400 or 450 tRFC and can work it down lower later and maybe tRRDS 7, tRRDL 9, and tFAW will almost always be best at this equation (tRRDL*4) so 9*4 means tFAW will be 36. Later on you can work those 3 values down to 4, 6, 24 or even 4, 4, 16 but I wouldnt worry about that too much until you get the hang of some of the timings. Dont be afraid to run timings on auto so you arent overwhelmed, and when making adjustments never make multiple adjustments at one time. You adjust only one timing or setting and then test or else how will you know which of the changes actually made an impact? You wont. Memory OC takes a ridiculous amount of time and research, dont be afraid to take notes as well. Buy a cheap notebook and write everything down for reference as well as read some articles or watch some YouTube videos about ram timings. With plenty of time and patience you will get it but if for some reason nothing of what I told you helps the ram at all then you may need to look to it being a hardware issue of some sort because if you follow what I have said then you should see a positive change. Sorry for typos and rambling on but I have just finished working 14 hours and Im very worn out. If you need any more information just tag me in the message or quote me or something and I will eventually get back to you when I have time. Good Luck. Oh, before I go...When you are wondering if a certain frequency will be an improvement at a different tCL then just use a simple equation (Frequency/tCL=X) the higher the value for X the more potential performance there is so 3200c16 is 200 where 3400c23 is 147.8 so you see the 3400 setup would be trash. If the X value is pretty close then the higher frequency wins. Just work toward getting 3200 down to tCL 14 and you should be fine.


----------



## TombsClawtooth

Well I just discovered 3200mhz at CL16-22-22-54-74 isn't reliable, even at 1.38v. 

I'm tempted to do a return to newegg at this point, I've had enough crashes and reboots that I think I'm losing hair.

Does anyone know of a memory kit for this motherboard that will actually achieve good timings and doesn't take babying every single figure only for it to crash after 6+ hours of thinking I'm golden?


----------



## CJMitsuki

TombsClawtooth said:


> Well I just discovered 3200mhz at CL16-22-22-54-74 isn't reliable, even at 1.38v.
> 
> I'm tempted to do a return to newegg at this point, I've had enough crashes and reboots that I think I'm losing hair.
> 
> Does anyone know of a memory kit for this motherboard that will actually achieve good timings and doesn't take babying every single figure only for it to crash after 6+ hours of thinking I'm golden?



G.Skill TridentZ 3200c14 I think the model number is F4-3200c14d-gtzr or something like that. There is rgb and non rgb, I prefer the non rgb even though I have the rgb :/ That kit is one of the best for Ryzen. HERE


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> First off why go to [email protected] when you had [email protected] running? Even if you got it running, the performance would have been god awful compared to the 3200 profile you had going. Aside from all of that it looks like something is amiss with your set. Either you have a picky set of ram that wants a certain SoC voltage and dont run on anything else or you have some hardware issues. You need to go back to the profile you had working and test different SoC voltages and 1.38v DRAMv. Starting 1.0875 SoC isnt a bad plave to start. Go up a tick or 2 then run a memory test and take note of how long it takes to find an error. If errors are immediate the keep moving on the voltage, if the errors get worse then reset back to 1.0875 and move in the other direction. Dont be afraid to loweR OR bump DRAM voltage a bit. Memory sets are very picky at times, mine being no exception. My SoC has to be right on or I get errors also. You can also play with ProcODT, CAD_Bus, and RttPark for stability. 53.3 ProcODT is usually what ive found runs best, RttPark can offer more stability going to RZQ4 or 3, Ive found that disabling the others is the best (RttNOM and RttWR), Cad_Bus is usually good at 24ohm at lower frequencies but can be tuned to 30ohm and 40ohm offering more stability, Gear Down Enabled will also boost stability at a small latency penalty, Same goes for 2T, so dont be afraid to use either. Power Down enabled is something I havent tested much but it did seem that it wasnt worth the performance hit for any stability that it may have given so I would just keep it disabled. For Samsung BDIE you are going to want to aim for [email protected] for starters, and I honestly think you can get there but your ram is just being difficult and wants to be picky. Good rule of thumb for starting timings out for picky ram is set 14-14-14-14 then think of tRas and tRC as buddies. When you change one you need to change the other and ill tell you how, its very simple. tCL+tRAS=tRC. You can bump tRC up a couple if needed but never ever go below that equation. tRAS is usually found between the values 20-40, start at 40 which means according to that equation at cl14 you must have tRC no lower than 54. Make the other values auto if you want to just focus on these timings at first but you can input something like 400 or 450 tRFC and can work it down lower later and maybe tRRDS 7, tRRDL 9, and tFAW will almost always be best at this equation (tRRDL*4) so 9*4 means tFAW will be 36. Later on you can work those 3 values down to 4, 6, 24 or even 4, 4, 16 but I wouldnt worry about that too much until you get the hang of some of the timings. Dont be afraid to run timings on auto so you arent overwhelmed, and when making adjustments never make multiple adjustments at one time. You adjust only one timing or setting and then test or else how will you know which of the changes actually made an impact? You wont. Memory OC takes a ridiculous amount of time and research, dont be afraid to take notes as well. Buy a cheap notebook and write everything down for reference as well as read some articles or watch some YouTube videos about ram timings. With plenty of time and patience you will get it but if for some reason nothing of what I told you helps the ram at all then you may need to look to it being a hardware issue of some sort because if you follow what I have said then you should see a positive change. Sorry for typos and rambling on but I have just finished working 14 hours and Im very worn out. If you need any more information just tag me in the message or quote me or something and I will eventually get back to you when I have time. Good Luck. Oh, before I go...When you are wondering if a certain frequency will be an improvement at a different tCL then just use a simple equation (Frequency/tCL=X) the higher the value for X the more potential performance there is so 3200c16 is 200 where 3400c23 is 147.8 so you see the 3400 setup would be trash. If the X value is pretty close then the higher frequency wins. Just work toward getting 3200 down to tCL 14 and you should be fine.


1) tCL + tRAS = tRC - not true
2) (tRRDL * 4) so 9 * 4 means tFAW will be 36 - not true
3) must have tRC no lower than 54 - not true
etc

absolutely every timing is *INDEPENDENT*, I advise everyone to forget about these primitive formulas

____________________________________

For batch reading of a given amount of data, the following operations must be performed:

1) activate the row in the memory bank using the ACTIVATE command;

2) issue a command to read READ data;

3) read data coming to the external data bus of the chip;

4) close the line using the PRECHARGE row recharging command (as an option, this is done automatically if you use the "RD + AP" command in the second step).

The time interval between the first and second operations is the "delay between RAS # and CAS #" (tRCD), between the second and third - "CAS # delay" (tCL). The time interval between the third and fourth operations depends on the length of the transmitted packet. Strictly speaking, in memory bus cycles, it is equal to the length of the transmitted packet (2, 4 or 8) divided by the number of data elements transmitted on the external bus in one clock cycle - 1 for SDR type devices, 2 for DDR devices. Conditionally, we call this value "tBL".

It is important to note that the SDRAM chips allow the third and fourth operations to be performed in a sense "in parallel". To be precise, the PRECHARGE command can be used for a number of measures x before the moment at which the last data element of the requested packet occurs, without fear of the occurrence of a "break" condition of the transmitted packet (the latter occurs if the PRECHARGE command is submitted after commands READ with a time interval, less than x). Without going into details, we note that this time interval is equal to the value of the delay of the signal CAS # minus one (x = tCL - 1).

Finally, the time interval between the fourth operation and the subsequent repetition of the first operation of the cycle is the "recharge time of the line" (tRP).

At the same time, the minimum activity time of the line (from the ACTIVATE command to the PRECHARGE command, tRAS), by its definition, exactly corresponds to the time interval between the start of the first and the beginning of the fourth operation. This implies the first important relationship between memory timings:

tRAS, min = tRCD + tCL + (tBL - (tCL-1)) - 1,
where tRCD is the time of the first operation, tCL is the second, (tBL - (tCL-1)) is the third; finally, the subtraction of the unit is due to the fact that the tRAS period does not include the clock on which the PRECHARGE command is given. Reducing this expression, we get:

tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.
The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.

The second important relationship between timings follows from the fact that the full cycle of packet data reading - from the 1st stage to its repetition - is called the "minimum time of the line cycle", tRC itself. Since the first three stages, as we showed above, can not take a time shorter than tRAS, and the latter takes a time strictly equal to tRP, we get:

tRC = tRAS + tRP.
Note that some memory controllers allow independent setting of timings tRAS and tRC, which in principle can lead to non-observance of the above equality. Nevertheless, this inequality does not make much sense - it will only mean that the tRAS or tRC parameters will be automatically "adjusted" (in the direction of a larger value) to comply with the equality discussed.

The same goes for the rest of the timings, a vivid example of tFAW = 27 I have for 3666.

p.s. tBL for DDR4 always = 8


----------



## tekjunkie28

1usmus said:


> 1) tCL + tRAS = tRC - not true
> 2) (tRRDL * 4) so 9 * 4 means tFAW will be 36 - not true
> 3) must have tRC no lower than 54 - not true
> etc
> 
> absolutely every timing is *INDEPENDENT*, I advise everyone to forget about these primitive formulas
> 
> ____________________________________
> 
> For batch reading of a given amount of data, the following operations must be performed:
> 
> 1) activate the row in the memory bank using the ACTIVATE command;
> 
> 2) issue a command to read READ data;
> 
> 3) read data coming to the external data bus of the chip;
> 
> 4) close the line using the PRECHARGE row recharging command (as an option, this is done automatically if you use the "RD + AP" command in the second step).
> 
> The time interval between the first and second operations is the "delay between RAS # and CAS #" (tRCD), between the second and third - "CAS # delay" (tCL). The time interval between the third and fourth operations depends on the length of the transmitted packet. Strictly speaking, in memory bus cycles, it is equal to the length of the transmitted packet (2, 4 or 8) divided by the number of data elements transmitted on the external bus in one clock cycle - 1 for SDR type devices, 2 for DDR devices. Conditionally, we call this value "tBL".
> 
> It is important to note that the SDRAM chips allow the third and fourth operations to be performed in a sense "in parallel". To be precise, the PRECHARGE command can be used for a number of measures x before the moment at which the last data element of the requested packet occurs, without fear of the occurrence of a "break" condition of the transmitted packet (the latter occurs if the PRECHARGE command is submitted after commands READ with a time interval, less than x). Without going into details, we note that this time interval is equal to the value of the delay of the signal CAS # minus one (x = tCL - 1).
> 
> Finally, the time interval between the fourth operation and the subsequent repetition of the first operation of the cycle is the "recharge time of the line" (tRP).
> 
> At the same time, the minimum activity time of the line (from the ACTIVATE command to the PRECHARGE command, tRAS), by its definition, exactly corresponds to the time interval between the start of the first and the beginning of the fourth operation. This implies the first important relationship between memory timings:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tCL + (tBL - (tCL-1)) - 1,
> where tRCD is the time of the first operation, tCL is the second, (tBL - (tCL-1)) is the third; finally, the subtraction of the unit is due to the fact that the tRAS period does not include the clock on which the PRECHARGE command is given. Reducing this expression, we get:
> 
> tRAS, min = tRCD + tBL.
> The rather amazing conclusion resulting from the detailed consideration of the data access scheme contained in SDRAM memory is that the minimum value of tRAS does not depend (!) On the delay value CAS #, tCL. The dependence of the former on the latter is a fairly common misconception, quite often encountered in various manuals on RAM.
> 
> The second important relationship between timings follows from the fact that the full cycle of packet data reading - from the 1st stage to its repetition - is called the "minimum time of the line cycle", tRC itself. Since the first three stages, as we showed above, can not take a time shorter than tRAS, and the latter takes a time strictly equal to tRP, we get:
> 
> tRC = tRAS + tRP.
> Note that some memory controllers allow independent setting of timings tRAS and tRC, which in principle can lead to non-observance of the above equality. Nevertheless, this inequality does not make much sense - it will only mean that the tRAS or tRC parameters will be automatically "adjusted" (in the direction of a larger value) to comply with the equality discussed.
> 
> The same goes for the rest of the timings, a vivid example of tFAW = 27 I have for 3666.
> 
> p.s. tBL for DDR4 always = 8


Well not to he mean but his timings works and everything he told me has helped right out of the gate. I have yet to find a PC where your Dram Calculator even works on safe.... shouldn't safe be the guaranteed stability for sacrificing performance?? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mungojerrie

TombsClawtooth said:


> Does anyone know of a memory kit for this motherboard that will actually achieve good timings and doesn't take babying every single figure only for it to crash after 6+ hours of thinking I'm golden?


Actually any [email protected] kit will do. [email protected] should too.
As you already know Ryzen prefers any decent kit with Samsung B-Die memory chips. Refer to this list to check whether or not the RAM kit has b-die. It should cover most, if not all, relevant memory kits. "Ja" means it has b-die modules.


----------



## caton

tekjunkie28 said:


> Well not to he mean but his timings works and everything he told me has helped right out of the gate. I have yet to find a PC where your Dram Calculator even works on safe.... shouldn't safe be the guaranteed stability for sacrificing performance??
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



There is no such thing as "guaranteed stability". There are too many variables (ram chips, ram pcb, IMC quality, motherboard layout and Vrm quality, user ability and knowledge and so on) and calculator cannot account for them all.
RDC, at least in my perspective is a tool to guide you in the right direction when you are trying to achieve something with your ram. Be it overclocking, stability or something else. And as with everything else in life - your mileage may vary


----------



## emissary42

Mungojerrie said:


> Refer to this list to check whether or not the RAM kit has b-die. It should cover most, if not all, relevant memory kits. "Ja" means it has b-die modules.


All kits listed are known or have been proven to utilize B-Die. On kits tagged with B-Die exclusive = yes (ja) to my knowledge no other ICs are used on them by their manufacturer. So they are safe buys, for now at least. Anything which is tagged non-exclusive (nein) or not tagged yet can (probably) have other IC types as well.

If someone here has Thaiphoon screenshots of unlisted kits utilizing B-Die or prove for other ICs being used on kits listed as exclusive, you are welcome to contact me via PM or directly at Hardwareluxx


----------



## st0neh

tekjunkie28 said:


> Well not to he mean but his timings works and everything he told me has helped right out of the gate. I have yet to find a PC where your Dram Calculator even works on safe.... shouldn't safe be the guaranteed stability for sacrificing performance??
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


When it comes to overclocking the "guaranteed stability for sacrificing performance" is stock settings.


----------



## porschedrifter

1usmus said:


> Thanks guys


So the calc for me is suggesting a very low 9 TWR as opposed to 20. Bios won't let me go lower than 10, any suggestions as what to use?


----------



## tekjunkie28

st0neh said:


> When it comes to overclocking the "guaranteed stability for sacrificing performance" is stock settings.


Yea.. well on my pc stock settings are 3200mhz. To me 3200 Mhz memory clock speed is what 800Mhz is to DDR2.... Maybe my mentality is wrong in thinking about it like that. My last processor was a 4670K and I used DDR3 1866Mhz on it. I set XMP and left it. AFAIK in those day the ram speeds were no where near as critical to performance as they are now. I also never overclocked ram before other then set xmp profile on that stick of memory. 

I also fell that the Calculator should get you in the ball park better then what it does or be more user friendly. I would like to see some included info or something about how to use it. Maybe a color coded window with segments describing what to do if these setting dont work. Label red as the most sensitive to performance yellow-performace vs stability and green would be settings that have minor affect on performance but potentially large impacts on stability. I know I maybe asking a lot but I have used repair built and have made a small career out of dealing with issues related to PC's and this calculator makes me feel ******ed.


----------



## caton

tekjunkie28 said:


> Yea.. well on my pc stock settings are 3200mhz. To me 3200 Mhz memory clock speed is what 800Mhz is to DDR2....



If you have Zen+ cpu then max officialy supported ram speed (stock settings) is 2933MHz. Everything above that, as far as Amd is concerned - is overclocking. And much more variables are in play in this case.


----------



## Darkomax

I received my X370 Gaming 5 (on sale for 110€), working on 3400MHz. It shows potential as I can use 3400MHz, my Asus X370-Pro had errors in the first 10% at anything above 3200. I still don't know if I can stabilize but it lasts several hundreds % before having an error. I miss Asus BIOS though.

Yep, it's promising (RTC doesn't work for some reason, but I have tweaked a few subtimings). 1.41V DRAM / 1.05V SOC


----------



## Keith Myers

*An appeal to any SIV users for Save files from the developer*

The developer of SIV is needing Save_Local files from anyone running SIV 5.32 Beta-12 or later and owners of the Strix B450-F (0503, maybe earlier)
and Strix X470-I (0701) motherboards. The C6H and C7H boards are already covered. ASUS has been implementing WMI interrogations of ACPI resources in their latest BIOS. This is to standardize polling of motherboard sensor data across all platforms and to eliminate the conflicts that arise when multiple programs access the sensors at the same time, vis-a-vis the recent issues with HWinfo and AIDA64.

So anyone that might be running SIV could you please update to version 5.32 Beta-12 or later and let the system run for an hour before clicking the Save_Local file function. That creates two debug files that the developer uses to find the bugs in SIV and the ASUS BIOS of which many have been found already. You can send the Save files from within the Save_Local function after the polling finishes and creates the files. Only takes a minute.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Cheers, Keith


----------



## Espenn

I finally discovered my issue. After screwing around with 3466, 3533, 3600 with no stability in sight... I had a eureka moment: what if it was temperature? There was just no possible way that my kit of hardware could be so bad as to be incapable of running the 3466 Safe preset. To act on my hunch, I opened the case and put a floor fan blowing into the chassis. Brought the DIMMs down from 45-48C under stress to ≤39C. 

Suddenly I was passing 2+ hours Karhu RAMTest @ 3466 Extreme, and I'm feeling optimistic about 3533 as well.

If you just can't get stability: remember your temps. I've since cranked up the case fans a bit and all is well.


----------



## Darkomax

Damn the Gaming 5 X370 is pretty impressive, I'm running 3466 for an hour without errors. I always tought my IMC was limiting but the board actually makes a hefty difference. Don't regret dropping the Prime X370. That is without any real tweaking (default RTT/CAD Bus and 53Ohm for ProcODT)

Raising TRCDRD to 15 as the calc suggest improves stability quite dramatically too.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

porschedrifter said:


> So the calc for me is suggesting a very low 9 TWR as opposed to 20. Bios won't let me go lower than 10, any suggestions as what to use?



Same here for my memory, i have TWR on 10 and tWTRL ON 9
They seem to be the wrong way round as the Calculator says tWR 9 & tWTRL 10
Still tweaking mine, after trying out Bios 4.80 and giving up and then going back to 3.40


----------



## jad_tv

Hey guys, I have the F4-3200C14D-16GFX with a 2600X and asus X470-I. The ram's XMP wasn't stable for me and I couldn't get either of the SAFE or FAST timings from the dram calculator stable. Finally got it working at 3200 by only setting 14-14-14-28, disabling GearDownMode, setting Cmd2T to 1T, ProcODT to 53.3, dram voltage to 1.4V and Vsoc to 1.1V. Everything else is left at auto... 

I would love to get it to 3466 or tighter timings but I feel like the moment I touch something it'll break again. Could I get suggestions of what to try?


----------



## jinsk8r

*I give this **** up. No way I could get my ram stable even at 1.4v @3200c14 or even c16, soc 1.1v. Everytime I stress with Prime95 Blend test it gets Rounding error or my system freezes.*


----------



## Mungojerrie

jinsk8r said:


> *I give this **** up. No way I could get my ram stable even at 1.4v @3200c14 or even c16, soc 1.1v. Everytime I stress with Prime95 Blend test it gets Rounding error or my system freezes.*


All Prime95 tests are very sensitive to CPU stability. If there is even a hint of an unstable CPU overclock, even Blend will get errors or freezes. So you might wanna check whether or not your CPU is 100% stable first with Small FFTs first, in case you didn't do that already.


----------



## chroniclard

jinsk8r said:


> *I give this **** up. No way I could get my ram stable even at 1.4v @3200c14 or even c16, soc 1.1v. Everytime I stress with Prime95 Blend test it gets Rounding error or my system freezes.*


Have you tried less soc. Seems quite high.


----------



## jinsk8r

chroniclard said:


> Have you tried less soc. Seems quite high.


From 1.025 to 1.1 i tried all


----------



## jinsk8r

Mungojerrie said:


> All Prime95 tests are very sensitive to CPU stability. If there is even a hint of an unstable CPU overclock, even Blend will get errors or freezes. So you might wanna check whether or not your CPU is 100% stable first with Small FFTs first, in case you didn't do that already.


I did with Small FFT overnight, my CPU is rock solid


----------



## Enferlain

CJMitsuki said:


> Well, as I don’t know the details of your system. I would say that if you go to CL13 you will have errors. I would sit at 14, if you are looking for more performance my choice would be to relax tRFC to about 300, go to the Rtt settings and disable RttWr and RttNom and RttPark around RzQ6 which should be 40ohm. What kit are you running? If it’s a decent kit you can probably turn Gd mode off bc the change in Rtt settings I mentioned will more than likely give you a lot of stability over what you currently have set. You may also try Proc ODT at 53.3ohm and tCKE possibly to 1. The Rtt settings and the tRFC would more than likely keep you from jumping up to 3333mhz . You may even be able to go ahead and jump to 3400 depending on your kit. With a decent kit you usually don’t have to use GD mode or 2T until 3466 and up. Also you can take RttPark to RzQ5 or even 4 for added stability they are 48ohm and 60ohm respectively. If that is a 3200c14 kit 2x8gb then it should overclock very well. What I usually find that gives good performance on BDie for a lot of different speeds is 14-14-14-26-40-4-6-24-4-12-12-0-2-2-275-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1. There can be tweaks to that here and there but that’s what I’ve found to be really close to a good setup of timings for BDie for most situations. Your resistance settings and dram voltage and SoC are going to be the biggest factors for stability. So, CadBus, Rtt, ProcODT are pretty heavy influences.


Thanks for the tips. I have a F4-3200C14D-32GTZR(2x16). I'm just trying to see what's the highest I can push to and whether I should be lowering timings on 3200 further or going higher than 3200. So going higher in frequency will give better performance easier than staying at 3200 and trying to go lower in timings which might be difficult? Would there be a difference in performance if I were to try to go for 13-13-13-13 3200 compared to staying at the setup you told me on 3333 or 3400?

To be clear, my pc isn't looking at serious tasks. I'm simply trying to get as close to a 240 stable fps in Overwatch as I can, even though my cpu(Ryzen 1800x) might play a bigger factor in that.


----------



## hsn

hello ..

i want to ask about what wrong with my setting. 
this setting is passed and no error detected.

but when i restart my computer, my computer is BSOD.

any advice or there is somthing wrong with my setting?

thank you


----------



## imsyB

hsn said:


> hello ..
> 
> i want to ask about what wrong with my setting.
> this setting is passed and no error detected.
> 
> but when i restart my computer, my computer is BSOD.
> 
> any advice or there is somthing wrong with my setting?
> 
> thank you


What is the DRAM voltage at? Have you tried increasing it?
You could try to increase the boot voltage for DRAM if you have that option.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Enferlain said:


> Thanks for the tips. I have a F4-3200C14D-32GTZR(2x16). I'm just trying to see what's the highest I can push to and whether I should be lowering timings on 3200 further or going higher than 3200. So going higher in frequency will give better performance easier than staying at 3200 and trying to go lower in timings which might be difficult? Would there be a difference in performance if I were to try to go for 13-13-13-13 3200 compared to staying at the setup you told me on 3333 or 3400?
> 
> To be clear, my pc isn't looking at serious tasks. I'm simply trying to get as close to a 240 stable fps in Overwatch as I can, even though my cpu(Ryzen 1800x) might play a bigger factor in that.


the 32gb kit is going to be much harder to get to a higher frequency than a 2x8gb kit. If it is a 2x16gb kit it will be easier than a 4x8gb kit though. You may be able to get 3466 with decent timings though. Not entirely sure as that will depend on the CPU and motherboard too. 3200 at c13 is quite the difference compared to 3333 or 3466 at c14. Its going to also be difficult to get it at decent timings with 100% stability. If you are just gaming you won’t see a huge difference though so I wouldn’t worry about it. You also will never use 32gb of memory if you are gaming alone. I have 16 and I rarely even use 20% outside of benchmarking and testing memory. You’ll be perfectly fine in gaming with 3200mhz with nice tight timings. Subtimings will play more of a factor than raw speed will so take that into account. You would probably be better off at 3200c14 and tuning it as far as you can unless you just have the time to go for much higher frequencies bc it will be time consuming. If you just want something quick and still very comparable then sit at 3200 and tune the timings and you’ll be perfectly fine. The main thing is stability so you don’t want to necessarily push to the edge of what the memory can do if you are gaming. Your gfx and cpu will be the determining factors much more than the memory for Overwatch.


----------



## hsn

imsyB said:


> What is the DRAM voltage at? Have you tried increasing it?
> You could try to increase the boot voltage for DRAM if you have that option.


my dram volt 1.45v
increase volt until 1.5v is same happen.


----------



## Enferlain

CJMitsuki said:


> the 32gb kit is going to be much harder to get to a higher frequency than a 2x8gb kit. If it is a 2x16gb kit it will be easier than a 4x8gb kit though. You may be able to get 3466 with decent timings though. Not entirely sure as that will depend on the CPU and motherboard too. 3200 at c13 is quite the difference compared to 3333 or 3466 at c14. Its going to also be difficult to get it at decent timings with 100% stability. If you are just gaming you won’t see a huge difference though so I wouldn’t worry about it. You also will never use 32gb of memory if you are gaming alone. I have 16 and I rarely even use 20% outside of benchmarking and testing memory. You’ll be perfectly fine in gaming with 3200mhz with nice tight timings. Subtimings will play more of a factor than raw speed will so take that into account. You would probably be better off at 3200c14 and tuning it as far as you can unless you just have the time to go for much higher frequencies bc it will be time consuming. If you just want something quick and still very comparable then sit at 3200 and tune the timings and you’ll be perfectly fine. The main thing is stability so you don’t want to necessarily push to the edge of what the memory can do if you are gaming. Your gfx and cpu will be the determining factors much more than the memory for Overwatch.


I'm maxed out on the GPU front and the only CPU upgrade I have is going 2700x. On stock 3.7ghz I'm running between 190-240 fps, it's not really stable. I have the Taichi x370, not sure how the ram overclocking is affected on it. Anyways thanks for the insight! I'll just try out what works.

One more thing, what voltage do you recommend for either 3466 or 3200 c13? Currently sitting on 1.365 I think.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Enferlain said:


> I'm maxed out on the GPU front and the only CPU upgrade I have is going 2700x. On stock 3.7ghz I'm running between 190-240 fps, it's not really stable. I have the Taichi x370, not sure how the ram overclocking is affected on it. Anyways thanks for the insight! I'll just try out what works.
> 
> One more thing, what voltage do you recommend for either 3466 or 3200 c13? Currently sitting on 1.365 I think.



there really is no recommended voltage, just whatever is stable but id say it will be 1.4v+ but the exact voltage will vary from kit to kit. Too much or too little voltage can cause instability so testing is required, same with SoCv


----------



## Krisztias

CJMitsuki said:


> Well, as I don’t know the details of your system. I would say that if you go to CL13 you will have errors. I would sit at 14, if you are looking for more performance my choice would be to relax tRFC to about 300, go to the Rtt settings and disable RttWr and RttNom and RttPark around RzQ6 which should be 40ohm. What kit are you running? If it’s a decent kit you can probably turn Gd mode off bc the change in Rtt settings I mentioned will more than likely give you a lot of stability over what you currently have set. You may also try Proc ODT at 53.3ohm and tCKE possibly to 1. The Rtt settings and the tRFC would more than likely keep you from jumping up to 3333mhz . You may even be able to go ahead and jump to 3400 depending on your kit. With a decent kit you usually don’t have to use GD mode or 2T until 3466 and up. Also you can take RttPark to RzQ5 or even 4 for added stability they are 48ohm and 60ohm respectively. If that is a 3200c14 kit 2x8gb then it should overclock very well. What I usually find that gives good performance on BDie for a lot of different speeds is 14-14-14-26-40-4-6-24-4-12-12-0-2-2-275-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1. There can be tweaks to that here and there but that’s what I’ve found to be really close to a good setup of timings for BDie for most situations. Your resistance settings and dram voltage and SoC are going to be the biggest factors for stability. So, CadBus, Rtt, ProcODT are pretty heavy influences.


Thank you for your post!!! 
This post was the key to achieve, what I could not in the last 7 months!!! I disabled RttWr and RttNom and bummm, I got 3400MHz !Extreme! profile from 1usmus calculator stable!  I wasnt able to achieve anyting over 3333MHz extreme stable, but now....


----------



## numlock66

Krisztias said:


> Thank you for your post!!! /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> This post was the key to achieve, what I could not in the last 7 months!!! I disabled RttWr and RttNom and bummm, I got 3400MHz !Extreme! profile from 1usmus calculator stable! /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif I wasnt able to achieve anyting over 3333MHz extreme stable, but now.... /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


Could you post which is your board and agesa? All others configs exactly the same from DRAM CALC?


----------



## maslows

Motherboard - ASRock - Fatal1ty X470 Gaming-ITX (Bios ver 1.30)
CPU - AMD Ryzen 2700x 
Storage - Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 1TB (With EKWB EK-M.2 NVMe Heatsink, Nickel)
Memory - G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) F4-2933C14D-32GTZRX
PSU - SILVERSTONE SFX SX800
GPU - Asrock Vega 64

Does everything look in order?


----------



## Espenn

I have stabilized the following memory configuration after weeks of trying. I have tried, quite literally, hundreds of combinations and spent hours each day trying to get this to work. Here's what I've discovered:

1) VTT_DDR had to be set from Auto to 0.719V. I believe this was the critical setting to achieve stability. (Note: this is slightly higher than 1/2 my VDIMM)
2) I need direct airflow on the DIMMs. This one requires more explanation.

Explanation:
I have a Fractal Define R6 with excellent, and meticulously-planned airflow. Up to 210 CFM of intake (no obstruction), and 190 CFM of exhaust (no obstruction) for a slightly negative pressure chassis. This keeps my GPU and CPU nice and chilly. But what about the RAM? It's sort of behind the CH7 power connector, and tucked beneath my NH-D15S. Maybe not so much airflow there...

After reading every single page of this thread, plus the 24/7 DRAM Stability thread, I concluded that it was highly improbable my parts were so bad that even _highly_ relaxed 3466 settings with both stingy and generous voltage(s) weren't stable. I felt like I was missing something simple and obvious that no one was discussing. A comment from The Sandman helped me stumble onto the VTTDDR realization, and that alone spiked my RAM Test stability from 1 hours to two. But I still wasn't stable past that, and I knew from past experimentation that I could try CAD/RTT/ProcODT/voltages until I was blue in the face and nothing was going to get better. I was still missing something.

That lead me to suspect temperatures. So I got over the arrogance of "muahaha my airflow is so great", plopped down a floor fan, cracked open the case and pointed it at the DIMMs... BOOM! 5 hours of RAM Test. A new record for me by over 2x. I got bored of staring at the timer, so I just killed it and went about my day. To verify my suspicion, I resealed the case and tested again. Errors in 45 minutes as the DIMMs crossed 48C. Open the case again and retest with a fan, DIMMs again at 38-41C: super stable. Ran for hours (what you see below). 

What I'm not yet clear on is whether this direct airflow is solving _DIMM temperature_ problems, or _power-phases-for-the-memory-and-SOC_ temperature problems. I don't know where the Crosshair VII VRM temperature probe actually polls to give the VRM temp reading, though they're not at all concerning. It could be that the Asus EC only polls the socket VRMs, and the DIMM/SoC VRMs are suffocating up there. I'll never really know. But what I _do_ know is that direct airflow in that area is my meal ticket to 60.1ns memory latency at perfect stability, so I'll be point a fan right there shortly--already have it on order.

Since I took the screenshot, I have disabled GDM and dropped VDDCR_SOC to 1V and all seems to be well. Wish I had a better way to control DRAM (or DRAM VRM!) temperatures, but it only cost me $12 to fix the problem.

Settings not shown:
1. DRAM R1-R4 tune = 63
2. 1.42 VDIMM in BIOS
3. 1.0V SOC in BIOS
4. VDDP 855mV
5. No changes to CLDO_VDDP, VPP, PLL voltages
6. No CPU overclock of any kind
7. DRAM Power Down and Memory Clear still ENABLED
8. VRM Spread Spectrum DISABLED

And that's how I got a tight 3466CL14 to stabilize on my 2700X.


----------



## Krisztias

numlock66 said:


> Could you post which is your board and agesa? All others configs exactly the same from DRAM CALC?


C6H with UEFI 6201, its AGESA 1.0.0.2c, Flare X 3200C14, 2700x.
Yes, every setting comes from the timing page (latest version of the calculator,) except SOC, DRAM Voltage and RttNom - wich is disabled (that was the key to achieve stability by me).

CLDO VDDP 913
VPP MEM 2.5
VDDP 0.9
VDRAM 1.425
VTT DDR 0.72xx - on C6H must be ca. the half of VDRAM - if I let it on auto drops errors, if I give less/more than half drops errors, so -> working voltages are: 1.4V, 1.415V, 1.425V and 1.44V (more haven't tried)
and fans over my RAM Sticks

Unfortunately I'm only a hobby OC'er, so I am not able to change timings from myself, and if CJMitsuki not comes with the idea to disable RttNom...


----------



## dspx

Espenn said:


> I have a Fractal Define R6 with excellent, and meticulously-planned airflow. Up to 210 CFM of intake (no obstruction), and 190 CFM of exhaust (no obstruction) for a slightly negative pressure chassis. This keeps my GPU and CPU nice and chilly. But what about the RAM? It's sort of behind the CH7 power connector, and tucked beneath my NH-D15S. Maybe not so much airflow there...


I have a similar situation - Define R5 and NH-D15, and my RAM sticks are under the Noctua fan. I was thinking of buying a NF-A6x25 and put it above them.

Nice work on stabilizing the mem :thumb:

/edit
I just bought the small fan, it will probably arrive tomorrow so I will let you know if it worked for me.


----------



## tekjunkie28

Darkomax said:


> Damn the Gaming 5 X370 is pretty impressive, I'm running 3466 for an hour without errors. I always tought my IMC was limiting but the board actually makes a hefty difference. Don't regret dropping the Prime X370. That is without any real tweaking (default RTT/CAD Bus and 53Ohm for ProcODT)
> 
> Raising TRCDRD to 15 as the calc suggest improves stability quite dramatically too.


I have heard more then a few issues released to memory temps. I may try this myself but the next question is how to remedy the situation permenantly


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus i see new calculator still not tested?


----------



## iaminheaven

can someone please tell me what type of memory i have? what i need to pick on the RAM Calculator Micron A, B, H? I tried all 3 none works. Only running at 2400. The memory is compatible to my motherboard at speed around 2900. I have a 2600, do I need to oc the cpu in order to run the memory around 2900?

I have a Asrock AB350 motherboard, where can i find DQS str?
Also for the SOC Voltage on the calculator, on motherboard there is only option for VDDCR SOC Voltage (offset) omV? What i need to put correspond to the SOC Voltage on the calculator?
thanks for all you help


----------



## DomiksPL

After 2 days of tweaking, I've got my F4-3200C16-8GTZKO Samsung D-die Dual Rank stable (1h of GSAT) at 3066 CL14 on GA-AB350M-Gaming 3 nad R5 1400. To get it stable I needed 1.37 DRAM Voltage, ProcOdt 60Ω, DrvStr 30Ω and Memory Interleaving Size 256 (I think this was one of the most important setting for stability).


----------



## tekjunkie28

iaminheaven said:


> can someone please tell me what type of memory i have? what i need to pick on the RAM Calculator Micron A, B, H? I tried all 3 none works. Only running at 2400. The memory is compatible to my motherboard at speed around 2900. I have a 2600, do I need to oc the cpu in order to run the memory around 2900?
> 
> I have a Asrock AB350 motherboard, where can i find DQS str?
> Also for the SOC Voltage on the calculator, on motherboard there is only option for VDDCR SOC Voltage (offset) omV? What i need to put correspond to the SOC Voltage on the calculator?
> thanks for all you help


I cant find anything on that. Hmm...


----------



## Thibis

Nice work! 

When Micron b-die will be available?


----------



## imsyB

Espenn said:


> And that's how I got a tight 3466CL14 to stabilize on my 2700X.


What RAM are you using?

I am using Trident Z F4-3600C15D
You timings are very similar to mine but I can only go upto 3400 with these timings.
Any higher - I get errors. Also had to disable GDM

Currently at 61.4ns latency so its not too bad


----------



## 1usmus

*What affects the overclocking of RAM?*

That's how the tires look inside your motherboard










But such minor changes affect signal quality and delay (pictures are hidden in the spoiler)



Spoiler































And each motherboard is completely different.

The timings, most that the calculator offers have a huge reserve, and even a minor error in them will be forgiven.

The calculator will never give you guarantees, it is a collection of research and results, this is a methodical tool that can help you. But only AMD can significantly improve overclocking.

____________________________________

*The development of a new version of the calculator is over, the changes are huge, I think it's easier to call his a new product. At the moment, there is a closed test. 25-26 it will be published on most news resources.*


----------



## SexySale

Great news and biiiiig thank you @1usmus! 
We rly grateful for all your efforts to help us. We are in your debt.

Great work man!


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *The development of a new version of the calculator is over, the changes are huge, I think it's easier to call his a new product. At the moment, there is a closed test. 25-26 it will be published on most news resources.*


Can't wait 

Thanks for your effort @1usmus, greatly appreciated.


----------



## hsn

r7 2700 3.8ghz 
Gigabyte B350n gaming wifi
team 16gb ddr4 4133

after use fan 12cm 2000rpm that i put on my ram,succes and stable on this setting


----------



## tekjunkie28

hsn said:


> r7 2700 3.8ghz
> Gigabyte B350n gaming wifi
> team 16gb ddr4 4133
> 
> after use fan 12cm 2000rpm that i put on my ram,succes and stable ont his setting


Interesting. What were your ram temps getting to before the fan? Were they error out around the same temps?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## hsn

tekjunkie28 said:


> Interesting. What were your ram temps getting to before the fan? Were they error out around the same temps?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


i dont know my temperature before, but this setting is same as before using fan. 
and getting error on 3minute


----------



## jinsk8r

jinsk8r said:


> *I give this **** up. No way I could get my ram stable even at 1.4v @3200c14 or even c16, soc 1.1v. Everytime I stress with Prime95 Blend test it gets Rounding error or my system freezes.*


*Flashed X370 Taichi BIOS 4.40 and no more bandwidth bug and my ram is stable so far at 3200C14 fast preset, i will test 3466 later. This BIOS looks solid.*


----------



## Chargeit

Sweet man.

I just upgraded my ryzen vr rig to a ryzen 7 2700. My ram xpm profile was unstable. I was able to get it stable with putting in the basic timings but the performance was really bad. Running userbenchmark confirmed my ram was really under performing. I used your program to get the timings all manually put in. Ran userbenchmark and my ram scored high. I'm currently stress testing the system with aida64 for 1 hour.

This tool might of just saved me from having to buy a new 16gb kit of ram or changing out mobo. 

I think I might make a basic video explaining how this tool works. At first it's intimidating and I didn't find solid examples of how to use it. Really great tool. Thanks! Hope the stress test works out.


----------



## larrydavid

hsn said:


> r7 2700 3.8ghz
> Gigabyte B350n gaming wifi
> team 16gb ddr4 4133
> 
> after use fan 12cm 2000rpm that i put on my ram,succes and stable on this setting


Nice! It'd be good if we could isolate which settings may help with temperature related ram instability, so we don't need to resort to such measures


----------



## maslows

My first experience with adjusting RAM, any feedback?

Motherboard - ASRock - Fatal1ty X470 Gaming-ITX (Bios ver 1.30)
CPU - AMD Ryzen 2700x 
Storage - Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 1TB (With EKWB EK-M.2 NVMe Heatsink, Nickel)
Memory - G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) F4-2933C14D-32GTZRX
PSU - SILVERSTONE SFX SX800
GPU - Asrock Vega 64


----------



## lcbbcl

maslows said:


> My first experience with adjusting RAM, any feedback?
> 
> Motherboard - ASRock - Fatal1ty X470 Gaming-ITX (Bios ver 1.30)
> CPU - AMD Ryzen 2700x
> Storage - Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 1TB (With EKWB EK-M.2 NVMe Heatsink, Nickel)
> Memory - G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) F4-2933C14D-32GTZRX
> PSU - SILVERSTONE SFX SX800
> GPU - Asrock Vega 64


Ram its stable?but i would suggest to go for 3200mhz it can be done very easy.


----------



## Thibis

*The development of a new version of the calculator is over, the changes are huge, I think it's easier to call his a new product. At the moment, there is a closed test. 25-26 it will be published on most news resources.*[/QUOTE]

Really? =O

Nice! I can't wait for the new version


----------



## hsn

And still same setting

r7 2700 3.8ghz 
Gigabyte B350n gaming wifi
team 16gb ddr4 4133

soc 1.0625v
dram 1.45v

yes this fan help my setting stable,

thank to this thread


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.0*

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.0 *









*download:*
coming soon

*changelog:*
* Fast preset more optimized, I advise you to start with it
* added initial support Hynix CFR (18nm), Micron E-die (16nm) 
* substantially reworked most of the presets (timings, procODT, RTT, voltages)
* the "custom profile" now works a little differently, in most cases the XMP data is simply not compatible with Ryzen, so some timings are calculated according to a special algorithm. My opinion, importing a profile in most cases will not be successful anyway, AMD and Intel controllers have huge architectural differences and signal tolerances.
* combined Samsung e-die / d-die (v1 profile d-die, v2 - e-die)
* *Extreme preset* got a new life (I remind you that any memory requires additional cooling, if the memory heats above 52 degrees the system loses stability. AMD I have notified.)
* *Overclocking potential DRAM* is back for samsung b-die (for other chips, support will be added later)
* the combination for procODT + RTT now has more accurate recommendations for frequencies, with a change in frequency, these parameters change
* some items have been removed (for example, the recommendations have become smaller, DQS str + Data drive has been removed because most motherboards do not have these settings. These settings work only on ASUS CH6 / 7)
* new AGESA brought some changes in the power supply (PMU) for SOC / DRAM, the difference between generations of processors I did not see, because the choice of processor generation was removed
* appeared protection from stupid situations, when memory is not capable of working at the desired frequency, but the calculator gives suggestions
* added *Help* tab with 4 button (Overclocking Statistics + Information support)
* in the folder with the program now there is a picture, it is a methodical tool to help you set up the system


Spoiler














* adaptation for older versions of Windows
* small UI changes
* TRFC2/4 now painted in gray color, that is, I do not recommend using them
* bug fixing

*news and some important information:*
A huge amount of time was spent on testing, because of this I had to delay the release of the new version. There is a problem you need to know about. Timing tFAW in most cases does not have a fixed time, the rule tFAW = tRRDS * 4 does not work, this timing must be selected manually. For example, 3666 I have stable only at tFAW = 27, and 3333 at tFAW = 17. 

There is also a nuance, not all motherboards of the X470 generation received a new bus topology. The difference is in procODT, for example 3666, I can make it work with procODT 48, but some cards require procODT 60. In case of failure, you need to check the neighboring values of procODT.

AGESA 1.0.0.4c has an improvement in DRAM overclocking, at the moment AMD strives to ensure that most of the key settings work perfectly in automatic mode. First of all it concerns CAD_BUS. The values 24 24 24 24 are relevant for single rank. The release of the final bios is scheduled for the end of July.

At the moment, AMD has provided the developers of motherboards with a new AGESA 1.0.0.5. In addition to the Specter 2 patch, it is not known what it provides yet.

__________________

*Thank you for being with me and helping with research* 

__________________

*Special thanks AMD ( Steve Bassett and James Prior) for assistance in product development !*


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.0 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=107Prv-5iCdzMSs_y6MgGpzOgODAPof2m
> 
> *changelog:*
> * added initial support Hynix CFR (18nm), Micron E-die (16nm)
> * substantially reworked most of the presets (timings, procODT, RTT, voltages)
> * the "custom profile" now works a little differently, in most cases the XMP data is simply not compatible with Ryzen, so some timings are calculated according to a special algorithm. My opinion, importing a profile in most cases will not be successful anyway, AMD and Intel controllers have huge architectural differences and signal tolerances.
> * combined Samsung e-die / d-die (v1 profile d-die, v2 - e-die)
> * *Extreme preset* got a new life (I remind you that any memory requires additional cooling, if the memory heats above 52 degrees the system loses stability. AMD I have notified.)
> * *Overclocking potential DRAM* is back for samsung b-die (for other chips, support will be added later)
> * the combination for procODT + RTT now has more accurate recommendations for frequencies, with a change in frequency, these parameters change
> * some items have been removed (for example, the recommendations have become smaller, DQS str + Data drive has been removed because most motherboards do not have these settings. These settings work only on ASUS CH6 / 7)
> * new AGESA brought some changes in the power supply (PMU) for SOC / DRAM, the difference between generations of processors I did not see, because the choice of processor generation was removed
> * appeared protection from stupid situations, when memory is not capable of working at the desired frequency, but the calculator gives suggestions
> * added *Help* tab with 4 button (Overclocking Statistics + Information support)
> * in the folder with the program now there is a picture, it is a methodical tool to help you set up the system
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * adaptation for older versions of Windows
> * small UI changes
> * bug fixing
> 
> *news and some important information:*
> A huge amount of time was spent on testing, because of this I had to delay the release of the new version. There is a problem you need to know about. Timing tFAW in most cases does not have a fixed time, the rule tFAW = tRRDS * 4 does not work, this timing must be selected manually. For example, 3666 I have stable only at tFAW = 27, and 3333 at tFAW = 17.
> 
> There is also a nuance, not all motherboards of the X470 generation received a new bus topology. The difference is in procODT, for example 3666, I can make it work with procODT 48, but some cards require procODT 60. In case of failure, you need to check the neighboring values of procODT.
> 
> AGESA 1.0.0.4c has an improvement in DRAM overclocking, at the moment AMD strives to ensure that most of the key settings work perfectly in automatic mode. First of all it concerns CAD_BUS. The values 24 24 24 24 are relevant for single rank. The release of the final bios is scheduled for the end of July.
> 
> At the moment, AMD has provided the developers of motherboards with a new AGESA 1.0.0.5. In addition to the Specter 2 patch, it is not known what it provides yet.
> 
> __________________
> 
> *Thank you for being with me and helping with research*


How Could You I'm a t work !!! Ill try to get out early !!!


----------



## dspx

Damn... AFR fast preset just got harder to achieve.. Will post my experience later.

Thanks @1usmus


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.0 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=107Prv-5iCdzMSs_y6MgGpzOgODAPof2m
> 
> *changelog:*
> * added initial support Hynix CFR (18nm), Micron E-die (16nm)
> * substantially reworked most of the presets (timings, procODT, RTT, voltages)
> * the "custom profile" now works a little differently, in most cases the XMP data is simply not compatible with Ryzen, so some timings are calculated according to a special algorithm. My opinion, importing a profile in most cases will not be successful anyway, AMD and Intel controllers have huge architectural differences and signal tolerances.
> * combined Samsung e-die / d-die (v1 profile d-die, v2 - e-die)
> * *Extreme preset* got a new life (I remind you that any memory requires additional cooling, if the memory heats above 52 degrees the system loses stability. AMD I have notified.)
> * *Overclocking potential DRAM* is back for samsung b-die (for other chips, support will be added later)
> * the combination for procODT + RTT now has more accurate recommendations for frequencies, with a change in frequency, these parameters change
> * some items have been removed (for example, the recommendations have become smaller, DQS str + Data drive has been removed because most motherboards do not have these settings. These settings work only on ASUS CH6 / 7)
> * new AGESA brought some changes in the power supply (PMU) for SOC / DRAM, the difference between generations of processors I did not see, because the choice of processor generation was removed
> * appeared protection from stupid situations, when memory is not capable of working at the desired frequency, but the calculator gives suggestions
> * added *Help* tab with 4 button (Overclocking Statistics + Information support)
> * in the folder with the program now there is a picture, it is a methodical tool to help you set up the system
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * adaptation for older versions of Windows
> * small UI changes
> * bug fixing
> 
> *news and some important information:*
> A huge amount of time was spent on testing, because of this I had to delay the release of the new version. There is a problem you need to know about. Timing tFAW in most cases does not have a fixed time, the rule tFAW = tRRDS * 4 does not work, this timing must be selected manually. For example, 3666 I have stable only at tFAW = 27, and 3333 at tFAW = 17.
> 
> There is also a nuance, not all motherboards of the X470 generation received a new bus topology. The difference is in procODT, for example 3666, I can make it work with procODT 48, but some cards require procODT 60. In case of failure, you need to check the neighboring values of procODT.
> 
> AGESA 1.0.0.4c has an improvement in DRAM overclocking, at the moment AMD strives to ensure that most of the key settings work perfectly in automatic mode. First of all it concerns CAD_BUS. The values 24 24 24 24 are relevant for single rank. The release of the final bios is scheduled for the end of July.
> 
> At the moment, AMD has provided the developers of motherboards with a new AGESA 1.0.0.5. In addition to the Specter 2 patch, it is not known what it provides yet.
> 
> __________________
> 
> *Thank you for being with me and helping with research*


COOL! thnx for the info man, will test later when its cooled down a bit, its like living in an oven right now that's how hot it is here..


----------



## Darkomax

@1usmus thanks again for your hard work.


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> Damn... AFR fast preset just got harder to achieve.. Will post my experience later.
> 
> Thanks @1usmus



I expect memory on hynix chips, I hope this happens in the coming weeks. Then it will be easier for me to check this or that theory


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> I expect memory on hynix chips, I hope this happens in the coming weeks. Then it will be easier for me to check this or that theory


14-16-17-16 didn't work, Karhu Ram test gave errors almost immediately.

Also, GDM disabled will not POST, as said many times before.


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> 14-16-17-16 didn't work, Karhu Ram test gave errors almost immediately.
> 
> Also, GDM disabled will not POST, as said many times before.



1) voltage of 1,4 +? also need to manually check the tFAW, starting with 24+
2) its error, thanks! reuploaded done


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.0 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QUuLLDmqCa_qJS8LeMJaWNvhzaCh3Xpb
> 
> *changelog:*
> * Fast preset more optimized, I advise you to start with it
> * added initial support Hynix CFR (18nm), Micron E-die (16nm)
> * substantially reworked most of the presets (timings, procODT, RTT, voltages)
> * the "custom profile" now works a little differently, in most cases the XMP data is simply not compatible with Ryzen, so some timings are calculated according to a special algorithm. My opinion, importing a profile in most cases will not be successful anyway, AMD and Intel controllers have huge architectural differences and signal tolerances.
> * combined Samsung e-die / d-die (v1 profile d-die, v2 - e-die)
> * *Extreme preset* got a new life (I remind you that any memory requires additional cooling, if the memory heats above 52 degrees the system loses stability. AMD I have notified.)
> * *Overclocking potential DRAM* is back for samsung b-die (for other chips, support will be added later)
> * the combination for procODT + RTT now has more accurate recommendations for frequencies, with a change in frequency, these parameters change
> * some items have been removed (for example, the recommendations have become smaller, DQS str + Data drive has been removed because most motherboards do not have these settings. These settings work only on ASUS CH6 / 7)
> * new AGESA brought some changes in the power supply (PMU) for SOC / DRAM, the difference between generations of processors I did not see, because the choice of processor generation was removed
> * appeared protection from stupid situations, when memory is not capable of working at the desired frequency, but the calculator gives suggestions
> * added *Help* tab with 4 button (Overclocking Statistics + Information support)
> * in the folder with the program now there is a picture, it is a methodical tool to help you set up the system
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * adaptation for older versions of Windows
> * small UI changes
> * TRFC2/4 now painted in gray color, that is, I do not recommend using them
> * bug fixing
> 
> *news and some important information:*
> A huge amount of time was spent on testing, because of this I had to delay the release of the new version. There is a problem you need to know about. Timing tFAW in most cases does not have a fixed time, the rule tFAW = tRRDS * 4 does not work, this timing must be selected manually. For example, 3666 I have stable only at tFAW = 27, and 3333 at tFAW = 17.
> 
> There is also a nuance, not all motherboards of the X470 generation received a new bus topology. The difference is in procODT, for example 3666, I can make it work with procODT 48, but some cards require procODT 60. In case of failure, you need to check the neighboring values of procODT.
> 
> AGESA 1.0.0.4c has an improvement in DRAM overclocking, at the moment AMD strives to ensure that most of the key settings work perfectly in automatic mode. First of all it concerns CAD_BUS. The values 24 24 24 24 are relevant for single rank. The release of the final bios is scheduled for the end of July.
> 
> At the moment, AMD has provided the developers of motherboards with a new AGESA 1.0.0.5. In addition to the Specter 2 patch, it is not known what it provides yet.
> 
> __________________
> 
> *Thank you for being with me and helping with research*
> 
> __________________
> 
> *Special thanks AMD ( Steve Bassett and James Prior) for assistance in product development !*


is this only for Zen+?


----------



## Nighthog

I saw the support for preliminary Micron E-die and I can tell the suggested settings aren't going to work.

I'm going trough some stuff to see if I can find settings for a preliminary Safe Preset Calculation that actually work and maybe doesn't need the amount of voltage your application suggests. 

The RTT values are no go outright for my Gigabyte motherboard. Doesn't work at all with the suggested values. 
On this Board the "AUTO" settings are best and the only settings that really work. (RTT_NOM RZQ/7, RTT_WR RZQ/2, RTT_PARK RZQ/7, does work)

And I can mention the values for *tRCDRD* are too low and don't work. So does neither the suggested *tRC* value work, needs to be higher.

EDIT: *16.(18).22.18.38.60* for the first main timings works with *1.300Volts* 3466Mhz, tRRDS/tRRDL can be lower like 4/6. 
Stuff took longer than planned as I had hiccups with errors I had to locate which settings was causing it. 
tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL need to be checked still what voltage they require. Usually the lower the more voltage. (I kept them at 6/6 as 4/4 wasn't working with only ~1.270V)

tRFC is bad with suggested value off 520 at this voltage and other adjoined settings, it's too low. (my kits usually don't work below 310ns(voltage and other setting play into it how low you can go))


----------



## lcbbcl

Thanks @1usmus and others members who help him,finally after 15 months i have my 32gb DR at 3333mhz,never passed 15 min with memtest in the past.I know that it might not be 100% stable but for sure it can be now with some small tweaks.
Nice work with the new version.


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> 1) voltage of 1,4 +? also need to manually check the tFAW, starting with 24+
> 2) its error, thanks! reuploaded done


No, I tried with 1.39 but I have a small fan blowing at the sticks, although not at full force, I would rather have it silent.
1.39 gave me less errors than 1.4V


----------



## chroniclard

Thanks for the new calc. 

Confused now on what I should be doing, R - XMP or import from thaiphoon?


----------



## tekjunkie28

chroniclard said:


> Thanks for the new calc.
> 
> Confused now on what I should be doing, R - XMP or import from thaiphoon?


I dont think it matters bc for my samsung Bdie importing from thaiphoon made no difference is timings... which its bizarre at my my timings once again do NOT correlate with Dram calculator


----------



## Chargeit

Hey guys. I made an instruction video on how to use the Ryzen Dram Calculator. Should help someone who has no idea what's going to to get their ram stable.


----------



## dspx

Chargeit said:


> Hey guys. I made an instruction video on how to use the Ryzen Dram Calculator. Should help someone who has no idea what's going to to get their ram stable.
> 
> https://youtu.be/Q9bekQTRnzY


Wrong video?

/edit
Oh, it's fine now.


----------



## 1usmus

hsn said:


> is this only for Zen+?


Zen and Zen+ 



Chargeit said:


> Hey guys. I made an instruction video on how to use the Ryzen Dram Calculator. Should help someone who has no idea what's going to to get their ram stable.
> 
> https://youtu.be/Q9bekQTRnzY


thanks, I'll add this to the homepage 



chroniclard said:


> Thanks for the new calc.
> 
> Confused now on what I should be doing, R - XMP or import from thaiphoon?


I think it's worth trying in the first place R-XMP



dspx said:


> No, I tried with 1.39 but I have a small fan blowing at the sticks, although not at full force, I would rather have it silent.
> 1.39 gave me less errors than 1.4V


perhaps you need a fine adjustment of the CAD _BUS, since you have a 350th chipset


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> I saw the support for preliminary Micron E-die and I can tell the suggested settings aren't going to work.
> 
> I'm going trough some stuff to see if I can find settings for a preliminary Safe Preset Calculation that actually work and maybe doesn't need the amount of voltage your application suggests.
> 
> The RTT values are no go outright for my Gigabyte motherboard. Doesn't work at all with the suggested values.
> On this Board the "AUTO" settings are best and the only settings that really work. (RTT_NOM RZQ/7, RTT_WR RZQ/2, RTT_PARK RZQ/7, does work)
> 
> And I can mention the values for *tRCDRD* are too low and don't work. So does neither the suggested *tRC* value work, needs to be higher.
> 
> EDIT: *16.(18).22.18.18.38.60* for the first main timings works with *1.300Volts*, tRRDS/tRRDL can be lower like 4/6.
> Stuff took longer than planned as I had hiccups with errors I had to locate which settings was causing it.
> tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL need to be checked still what voltage they require. Usually the lower the more voltage. (I kept them at 6/6 as 4/4 wasn't working with only ~1.270V)
> 
> tRFC is bad with suggested value off 520 at this voltage and other adjoined settings, it's too low. (my kits usually don't work below 310ns(voltage and other setting play into it how low you can go))


I thank you for the information and would like to ask the RTC for example for the frequency 3200


----------



## Chargeit

1usmus said:


> thanks, I'll add this to the homepage



Cool. Thanks for the great tool!


----------



## player1

Anyone know why my latency is so high? Hynix AFR @1.405V


----------



## 1usmus

player1 said:


> Anyone know why my latency is so high? Hynix AFR @1.405V


Origin and steam negatively affect the result, test the memory in windows safe mode


----------



## juliangri

yay! it looks like i finally got my hynix afr kit (corsair vengance rgb 3000mhz c15) 100% stable. It passed testmem5 v012 with no problems. I played dota 2 and bf1 for like 3 hours and no crash... 
I cant get the primary timmings lower without errors, i tighten the other timmings a little bit more than the "fast settings" in the new calculator. I think i got pretty decent bandwith and latency numbers. 










I tried 3400mhz with the recomended settings by the calculator, it booted, but when i launched testmem5 the pc rebooted as if i pressed the reset button in the case, thats... low vram voltage?


----------



## player1

1usmus said:


> player1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know why my latency is so high? Hynix AFR @1.405V
> 
> 
> 
> Origin and steam negatively affect the result, test the memory in windows safe mode
Click to expand...

Even in safe mode, latency is 79.6 ns, any other ideas? Or is this normal?


----------



## dspx

player1 said:


> Even in safe mode, latency is 79.6 ns, any other ideas? Or is this normal?


Try loosening the timings. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it does not hurt trying.


----------



## neur0cide

Hey 1usmus!


I had a quick glance at your new calculator and some things puzzle me:




No more support for Summit Ridge: there's no option to choose between Summit and Pinnacle Ridge, so recommendations for vSOC are solely aimed at PI.
Recommendation for SR B-die now is 43.6 Ohm and 53 only coming in at third place behind 48 Ohm. Good luck with that!
Recommendation for SR B-die now is RttNom=off with no alternative provided. I've been through 4 X370 Boards, 5 CPUs and more DIMMs that I can count and RZQ/7 always won. This might not be universal, but RZQ/7 will prevail.
You can calculate 4xDR B-die up to DDR4-4200 but 4xSR B-die is restricted to DDR4-3466??!! I can push 4xSR B-die to 3600-14-15-15, but 2xDR not even close to this, let alone 4xDR.
Samsung OEM sticks are all lumped together. There are huge differences between the different ICs. Especially the broadly available C-dies are a whole different breed.
Alt settings on Refresh Cycle Time are very tight. Even with B-die certain mainboards require quite high tRFC just beyond 212 ns (i.e. Taichi X470 Ultimate).
There is an option for 18nm Hynix CFR (aka CJR). Have you and your associates tested those? Are your findings based on OEM or Retail sticks?
Other than that I found nothing to complain about. Yet I have barely scratched the surface of your marvelous tool.


Cheers and thx for the new version!


----------



## 1usmus

player1 said:


> Even in safe mode, latency is 79.6 ns, any other ideas? Or is this normal?


for your CPU frequency - yes



juliangri said:


> yay! it looks like i finally got my hynix afr kit (corsair vengance rgb 3000mhz c15) 100% stable. It passed testmem5 v012 with no problems. I played dota 2 and bf1 for like 3 hours and no crash...
> I cant get the primary timmings lower without errors, i tighten the other timmings a little bit more than the "fast settings" in the new calculator. I think i got pretty decent bandwith and latency numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried 3400mhz with the recomended settings by the calculator, it booted, but when i launched testmem5 the pc rebooted as if i pressed the reset button in the case, thats... low vram voltage?


excellent result
yes, I think you should increase the voltage of DRAM




neur0cide said:


> Hey 1usmus!
> 
> 
> I had a quick glance at your new calculator and some things puzzle me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more support for Summit Ridge: there's no option to choose between Summit and Pinnacle Ridge, so recommendations for vSOC are solely aimed at PI.
> Recommendation for SR B-die now is 43.6 Ohm and 53 only coming in at third place behind 48 Ohm. Good luck with that!
> Recommendation for SR B-die now is RttNom=off with no alternative provided. I've been through 4 X370 Boards, 5 CPUs and more DIMMs that I can count and RZQ/7 always won. This might not be universal, but RZQ/7 will prevail.
> You can calculate 4xDR B-die up to DDR4-4200 but 4xSR B-die is restricted to DDR4-3466??!! I can push 4xSR B-die to 3600-14-15-15, but 2xDR not even close to this, let alone 4xDR.
> Samsung OEM sticks are all lumped together. There are huge differences between the different ICs. Especially the broadly available C-dies are a whole different breed.
> Alt settings on Refresh Cycle Time are very tight. Even with B-die certain mainboards require quite high tRFC just beyond 212 ns (i.e. Taichi X470 Ultimate).
> There is an option for 18nm Hynix CFR (aka CJR). Have you and your associates tested those? Are your findings based on OEM or Retail sticks?
> Other than that I found nothing to complain about. Yet I have barely scratched the surface of your marvelous tool.
> 
> 
> Cheers and thx for the new version!


1) I advise you to read the list of changes several times (there is an answer for SOC Voltages)
2) Why do you deceive? you confuse the recommendation and the second alternative . BUT. The recommended procODT for DDR4 is 40 ohms, here is an example


Spoiler














3) I advise you to read notes in the program which are marked with an asterisk and colored text
4) Why do you deceive?
5) not true, SOC work is identical for all types of memory, the difference is only in the impedance
6) Why do you deceive? recommendation 211 ns is present at a frequency of 3600+ . I published the results.
7) G.skill Sniper X not retail or OEM

To me write a lot of people, but most people have real problems. You have a list of problems of your inattention. I do not understand the purpose of this message


----------



## dspx

player1 said:


> Even in safe mode, latency is 79.6 ns, any other ideas? Or is this normal?


1usmus is right, I haven't paid enough attention to your pic. When you change BCLK it negatively impacts your latency. You will see an improvement once you change it back to 100.


----------



## tekjunkie28

1usmus said:


> for your CPU frequency - yes
> 
> 
> 
> excellent result
> yes, I think you should increase the voltage of DRAM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I advise you to read the list of changes several times (there is an answer for SOC Voltages)
> 2) Why do you deceive? you confuse the recommendation and the second alternative . BUT. The recommended procODT for DDR4 is 40 ohms, here is an example
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I advise you to read notes in the program which are marked with an asterisk and colored text
> 4) Why do you deceive?
> 5) not true, SOC work is identical for all types of memory, the difference is only in the impedance
> 6) Why do you deceive? recommendation 211 ns is present at a frequency of 3600+ . I published the results.
> 7) G.skill Sniper X not retail or OEM
> 
> To me write a lot of people, but most people have real problems. You have a list of problems of your inattention. I do not understand the purpose of this message


Could you explain more about 40 ProcODT and how to even get that to boot? Anything lower then 53 procODT and my PC just resets the bios after failing to train (I think). I can not get 3466Mhz stable to save my life. ProcODT doesnt boot at 46 or 40. I can not disable geardown mode for anything afaik except for 2400Mhz because that is my default ram speed. @1usmus I want you knowledge!!

Also which X470 motherboards did NOT get the redesigned memory circuits?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## neur0cide

1usmus said:


> 1) I advise you to read the list of changes several times (there is an answer for SOC Voltages)
> 2) Why do you deceive? you confuse the recommendation and the second alternative . BUT. The recommended procODT for DDR4 is 40 ohms, here is an example
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I advise you to read notes in the program which are marked with an asterisk and colored text
> 4) Why do you deceive?
> 5) not true, SOC work is identical for all types of memory, the difference is only in the impedance
> 6) Why do you deceive? recommendation 211 ns is present at a frequency of 3600+ . I published the results.
> 7) G.skill Sniper X not retail or OEM


What?? I don't want to deceive anyone. :headscrat
I didn't thoroughly test the new Calculator and merely took a look at your recommendations for 4xSR B-die. So there is a lot that I have missed and that I have falsley attributed to other options which I have not been looking at. Sorry for that.





> * new AGESA brought some changes in the power supply (PMU) for SOC / DRAM, the difference between generations of processors I did not see, because the choice of processor generation was removed


Seems that in the Calculator Rec. now is for Pinnacle Ridge and Alt. is for Summit Ridge. Right?
With 4xSR your recommendations for procODT are turned upside down. That's what I was referring to and I falsely thought that this rec would apply to other options as well. Sorry!


Spoiler















Found it. Thx! 
See screenshot above. The Timings are calculated for DDR4-3533 but nothing else (voltages, termination etc.). Also there is this popup. Try it.
What does "Samsung OEM" entail? There are 4GBit D-/E-die and 8GBit B- and C-die. They don't all behave the same.
For DR C-die your fast timings below won't work (main timings & tRFC). You'd need something close to the safe timings or more accurate those in the RTC screenshot.


Spoiler























Just saying it's a tad bit tight. I currently have an X470 Taichi Ultimate on my testbench and it requires 215 ns on tRFC. On this board 211 ns is too tight.
Thx! I guess it's the 3600 C19 kits then.<img id="hzDownscaled" style="position: absolute; top: -10000px;">


----------



## PokerFan

First off, thank you so much for the utility. I don't think I would've gotten as far as I have without it. Of course, I want to go further, so here are my specs and current results:

-Asus Crosshair VII Hero WiFi motherboard (Latest 0804 BIOS)
-Ryzen 2700x (*asynchronous* OC, changed the multiplier to 42, CPU voltage is on auto but sits between 1.43-1.45)
-4x16GB Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR4 3800 CMR128GX4M8X3800C19 (It's an 8-pack, I bought 4 sticks off of someone)

I am unable to get past DDR4 3000 currently. These are the settings I'm using:


Spoiler














I've made changes to the voltage (1.45v) and I also left the fields in Termination Block and CAD_BUS Block on auto instead of manually setting them to the suggestions because I did not have any luck changing those. All the timings are identical though (using tRFC (alt) instead of tRFC if that matters). After some reading I left tRFC 2 and 4 on auto as well.

I've used the same methodology to try and get to DDR4 3200 and while I can get it to boot I get memory errors the instant I start any sort of stress test. I even relaxed the timings to what was suggested for DDR4 3800. I also tried just using the XMP profile settings and setting the speed to DDR4 3200 and upping the voltage from 1.35v to 1.5v with no luck.

I'm kind of an amateur at this stuff but I understand after reading through a lot of things that DDR4 3800 will be a bit of a reach. I do think I should be able to hit at least DDR4 3400 though.

Does anyone have any suggestions on strategies to try moving forward? I have attached all of the calculations I have from the DRAM calculator. R-XMP was used to get all the values needed.


----------



## player1

dspx said:


> player1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even in safe mode, latency is 79.6 ns, any other ideas? Or is this normal?
> 
> 
> 
> 1usmus is right, I haven't paid enough attention to your pic. When you change BCLK it negatively impacts your latency. You will see an improvement once you change it back to 100.
Click to expand...

My board, asrock ab350 pro4, doesn't have bclk adjustment as far as I can tell. It automatically lowers it to 98-99. Same with soc voltage, it automatically sets it to 1.0875 if I overclock, there is no setting to adjust it myself.


----------



## dspx

player1 said:


> My board, asrock ab350 pro4, doesn't have bclk adjustment as far as I can tell. It automatically lowers it to 98-99. Same with soc voltage, it automatically sets it to 1.0875 if I overclock, there is no setting to adjust it myself.


Oops, sorry. I was right the first time, I looked at the wrong pic. 

I am not sure about the latency, I am getting around 72.x ns, but my timings are not so tight.


----------



## tekjunkie28

player1 said:


> Anyone know why my latency is so high? Hynix AFR @1.405V


Huh, thats really odd. Those secondary and tertiary timings are relatively tight. I am running almost the exact same timings on samsung b die but 14-14-14-14-28-44 and getting 64ns @3200MHz. what happens when you loosen the CL to 16? I wanna say my set of Hynix AFR's got 70ms latency but I will try to confirm that later this weekend. Those stick are currently at my wifes cousins PC and they are remodelding thier house so it ends up his pc is unusable atm.


----------



## tekjunkie28

What does everyone determine what is stable to them? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## dspx

Here are my current CL16 results, I will try CL14 tomorrow. Funny thing is that I noticed TestMem5 giving me errors much earlier than Karhu RAM Test, sometimes in a couple of minutes, while RAM Test ran 400, 500% or sometimes not giving errors at all.


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> I expect memory on hynix chips, I hope this happens in the coming weeks. Then it will be easier for me to check this or that theory


Sorry I didn't get this posted sooner, although your notes on the new calculator explains some of what I saw with my X399 Taichi board after updating to BIOS 3.0 and 3.1 with AGESA 1.1.0.0.

On 3.0, I could still get it stable if I loosened the CL and CWL to 16 from 14 and made the RTC auto. Rest of your calculator, using the custom from my ram's XMP (it worked for mine, but I'm using the old G.Skill 4133 19-21-21 kits before the 19-19-19 came out that are about a year and a half to two years old). 

For 3.1, I had to lower the SOC from 1.0375 to 1.025V, lower the speed to 3466 (never could get this timing stable before) from 3600, use the V1 timings for 3466 on the calculator, leave the RFC to auto for all three timings, set the RTT NOM to dis, RTTWR to dynamic off, and RTT Park to RZQ/4, all CAD_BUS block to 20, lower the SOC voltage to 1.025V, and play a bit with the ram voltages (still within range of what I was using before). Hope this helps anyone that is having issues getting stable on X399 after the same BIOS update.

Plan on playing with 3600 and 3733 more in the future, as both booted, 3600 with my tweaks I got to around 300% HCI before an error. 3733 tight, like 3600 timings at CL16 tight, booted, but had errors. So working out stability on those will take a bit more work. I'll report my findings when I get them.


----------



## chenszhanx

Thanks for the calculator and flow chart.

But I am confuse here.
https://i.imgur.com/vmfYQBC.jpg

The CAD_BUS means the CAD_BUS timing or block Ohm?
It say yes 1-2
I guess it means timing?
Or I should try all 6 combination 

And should I keep the Alt. CAD_BUS value
When I trying VDDP voltage? 

I tried to figure it out by myself.
But none of ever helped...


----------



## chakku

Looking great @1usmus am able to boot into 3333MT/s fast mode (with geardown enabled) on my dual rank B-Die, am just testing stability now, did get an error with Memtest using 24/24/24/24 CAD Bus but hoping 30/30/40/60 does the trick. Maybe 20/20/20/20?


----------



## 1usmus

tekjunkie28 said:


> Could you explain more about 40 ProcODT and how to even get that to boot? Anything lower then 53 procODT and my PC just resets the bios after failing to train (I think). I can not get 3466Mhz stable to save my life. ProcODT doesnt boot at 46 or 40. I can not disable geardown mode for anything afaik except for 2400Mhz because that is my default ram speed. @1usmus I want you knowledge!!
> 
> Also which X470 motherboards did NOT get the redesigned memory circuits?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


not all B-die chips are of high quality, most likely this is your case, try it:

RTT: RZQ/7 Dynamic ODT off RZQ/5 
procODT: 53 
CAD_BUS Auto
Geardown Enabled 
+
Fast preset 

some B-die chips can only work like this:









DRAM 1.42
SOC 1.025

*I plan to publish tomorrow 1.3.1, it will have recommendations for similar chips* 

_______________


@PokerFan

2 versions:

1) RTT: RZQ/7 RZQ/3 /RZQ/1 + procODT 43 48 53 60
2) RTT: RZQ/7 Dynamic ODT off PARK Disabled + procODT 43 48 53 60
other settings - offered by the calculator



chenszhanx said:


> Thanks for the calculator and flow chart.
> 
> But I am confuse here.
> https://i.imgur.com/vmfYQBC.jpg
> 
> The CAD_BUS means the CAD_BUS timing or block Ohm?
> It say yes 1-2
> I guess it means timing?
> Or I should try all 6 combination
> 
> And should I keep the Alt. CAD_BUS value
> When I trying VDDP voltage?
> 
> I tried to figure it out by myself.
> But none of ever helped...


CAD_BUS timings i do not advise you to touch

VDDP (not CLDO) 855mv and 900mv are fully stable, you can check them in any order



ajc9988 said:


> Sorry I didn't get this posted sooner, although your notes on the new calculator explains some of what I saw with my X399 Taichi board after updating to BIOS 3.0 and 3.1 with AGESA 1.1.0.0.
> 
> On 3.0, I could still get it stable if I loosened the CL and CWL to 16 from 14 and made the RTC auto. Rest of your calculator, using the custom from my ram's XMP (it worked for mine, but I'm using the old G.Skill 4133 19-21-21 kits before the 19-19-19 came out that are about a year and a half to two years old).
> 
> For 3.1, I had to lower the SOC from 1.0375 to 1.025V, lower the speed to 3466 (never could get this timing stable before) from 3600, use the V1 timings for 3466 on the calculator, leave the RFC to auto for all three timings, set the RTT NOM to dis, RTTWR to dynamic off, and RTT Park to RZQ/4, all CAD_BUS block to 20, lower the SOC voltage to 1.025V, and play a bit with the ram voltages (still within range of what I was using before). Hope this helps anyone that is having issues getting stable on X399 after the same BIOS update.
> 
> Plan on playing with 3600 and 3733 more in the future, as both booted, 3600 with my tweaks I got to around 300% HCI before an error. 3733 tight, like 3600 timings at CL16 tight, booted, but had errors. So working out stability on those will take a bit more work. I'll report my findings when I get them.


unfortunately this is just the beginning, there will be a lot of changes for these processors

_____________
@neur0cide

Thanks for the information, but pop-ups take precedence, if there is a mistake written, then the information is not relevant, which is written by the calculator
I will some changes in 1.3.1


----------



## Darkstalker420

Hi 1usmus wondered if you (or anyone) could offer me some advice regarding my memory settings. A few weeks ago i started to get thread_stuck_in_device_driver BSOD's and thought meh will upgrade to newest BIOS for my B350 Strix (4011). This didn't fix it (though i have now sorted it out by dropping some timings that were stable in the 3805 BIOS). I thought i would re run my IBT V HIGH tests to see if this was still passing.....

.... It failed on the 3rd pass *sigh*. So i began to fiddle with various things and found it was ProcODT which used to like 53Ohms. Now like to be on 43.6Ohms!? I ran IBT V HIGH and it passed all 10 passes with ease and i was happy again..... Until i restarted the rig and got three beeps and multiple reboots (trying to train i guess?). This fails and default 2133Mhz is loaded and Windows boots. I can pass stress tests on 43.6Ohms but can't restart Windows apparently now?!?!? If i set ProcODT to 48Ohms it will make 4 or so passes but still fail. 53Ohms gets me 2 or 3 passes at the most. Just wondered how i could go about this as it "needs" 43.6Ohms to pass tests but won't boot/restart. Im stuck tbh!!

DRAM is @1.39v and the timings are as shown in the screenshot i have attached. No other voltages are changed from default LLC on AUTO for everything i have tried a few CAD adjustments but this doesn't help and i'm worried i will go off on a tangent and "tweek" myself out of what i have now (almost stable). Thanks anyone who can help. If you need to know anymore please do ask.



Thanx.


----------



## Nighthog

Darkstalker420 said:


> text...
> Thanx.


Try increasing *AddrCmdDrvStr* Ohm. I've noted that increasing this may help with problems on boot at times. (particularly for me 3600+ speeds want it to be higher or I might get random failure to boot like you mention)

Try 30 and then maybe 40.


----------



## Darkstalker420

Nighthog said:


> Try increasing *AddrCmdDrvStr* Ohm. I've noted that increasing this may help with problems on boot at times. (particularly for me 3600+ speeds want it to be higher or I might get random failure to boot like you mention)
> 
> Try 30 and then maybe 40.


Thanks for the advice bud but sadly both settings were a no boot/reset to 2133Mhz. I find this Ryzen setup even on what should be mature BIO'es (4xxx!!) so finicky. I mean i got it to boot and run IBT V HIGH with these settings ONCE (43.6Ohms ProcODT) i even saved the screenshot for future reference!!. Yet now with the same settings i can't even boot to windows. So frustrating imho. If i had hair i would be pulling it out LMAO!! I just am wary of messing with settings that unbeknownst could be making it worse and also then just to be doing countless loops of IBT only for it to continually fail on pass 2 or 3 like always.

I have in the past wasted WHOLE days (weeks perhaps) 3 mins at a time running IBT. I'm 41 soon and the rig is a HTPC and other people (and me tbh!) don't really have the patience for all day IBT fail sessions now. So frustrating as 43.6Ohms was like a "magic" switch nothing i have tried bar that has enable it to pass IBT V HIGH. I just don't understand why it would do it once but not even boot now. Electronics i feel shouldn't change behaviour if it works once and passes a stress test surely it should at least boot to Windows..... In some ways i miss my Phenom II simple easy to tweek if you set something and it worked it STAYED working.... All i want is 3200Mhz IBT stable. Not pushing for high clocks would be happy with 3200. BUT has to pass IBT really for me to be happy.

Thanks for the help though mate. *goes looking for hammer*

Thanx.


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> I thank you for the information and would like to ask the RTC for example for the frequency 3200


I've been testing this morning 3200Mhz now for you. 

I can run 1.200Volts and mostly AUTO and then tightening down some timings. Sadly seems at these setting/voltage stock tRFC is only good. 
I seem to error out at some time or another if I try anything lower than stock/AUTO for tRFC. 

*tRFC (ns) 350ns, tRFC 560* for *3200Mhz 1.200Volts*
Same seems to apply for the 3466Mhz testing I did before with 1.300Volts, though it could be a little lower. Seems to be voltage dependent. 
More voltage and you can start lowering it at small increments, though it's at max with about tRFC (ns) 310ns/305ns with 1.500Volts I've noted.

I have noticed there are some heat related issues for me now that ambient temperatures are around 30C degrees and my rebuild of PC made my memory temperatures a lot worse, I reckon that's why 3666Mhz stopped working for me a while back. I've seen a lot of errors at times testing when I forgot to have fans running at max speeds(why I realized this issue)


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> I've been testing this morning 3200Mhz now for you.
> 
> I can run 1.200Volts and mostly AUTO and then tightening down some timings. Sadly seems at these setting/voltage stock tRFC is only good.
> I seem to error out at some time or another if I try anything lower than stock/AUTO for tRFC.
> 
> *tRFC (ns) 350ns, tRFC 560* for *3200Mhz 1.200Volts*
> Same seems to apply for the 3466Mhz testing I did before with 1.300Volts, though it could be a little lower. Seems to be voltage dependent.
> More voltage and you can start lowering it at small increments, though it's at max with about tRFC (ns) 310ns/305ns with 1.500Volts I've noted.
> 
> I have noticed there are some heat related issues for me now that ambient temperatures are around 30C degrees and my rebuild of PC made my memory temperatures a lot worse, I reckon that's why 3666Mhz stopped working for me a while back. I've seen a lot of errors at times testing when I forgot to have fans running at max speeds(why I realized this issue)


Thank you for the information
I am confused by RTT + procODT, at low frequency a huge impedance is used, but previously you wrote this



Nighthog said:


> The RTT values are no go outright for my Gigabyte motherboard. Doesn't work at all with the suggested values.
> On this Board the "AUTO" settings are best and the only settings that really work. (RTT_NOM RZQ/7, RTT_WR RZQ/2, RTT_PARK RZQ/7, does work)


Explain please what happens with RTT + procODT at 3200+


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> Thank you for the information
> I am confused by RTT + procODT, at low frequency a huge impedance is used, but previously you wrote this
> 
> Explain please what happens with RTT + procODT at 3200+


I used "AUTO" settings, then it set 60Ohm, though 60ohm was bad.. got 1 error at 101% Memtest. I used 53.3Ohm now and it's good. Though I have to say I get best OC results when using 48Ohm so the board doesn't choose best settings in AUTO. I can mostly pick and choose between 40-60Ohm when using stock/XMP timings.


----------



## Pilotasso

Calculator 1.3.0 says 3533 is not supported for 4 sammy B die sticks (2 kits of RGB G skill 4266Mhz) however I'm running this very frequency per previous version 1.2.0 Beta 2 settings for months and had no issues (tested 3 hours AIDA 64 without errors and have not even had a single blue screen all this time).

Did I get a super IMC in the lottery? or did I do something wrong?


----------



## neur0cide

No, that's common. I can push 4 B-die to 3600-14-15-15.
1usmus messed that part up a bit but announced to fix it in 1.3.1


----------



## Terror-Byter

*1.3.0 Helpfull with Latencies but not Terminations on Teamgroup B-Dies*

1.3.0 still does not show the correct RRT's and CAD bus for my 4x8 Teamgroup Dark Pro 8Pack Sticks.
Only at 3000mhz can I use 24-24-24-24 CAD bus. Anything higher requires 40-20-40-40.

Wondering if its motherboard related or specfic kit related... here is so far how far I have gotten with stability.


Need a Taihpoon of my B-dies?


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> Hi 1usmus wondered if you (or anyone) could offer me some advice regarding my memory settings. A few weeks ago i started to get thread_stuck_in_device_driver BSOD's and thought meh will upgrade to newest BIOS for my B350 Strix (4011). This didn't fix it (though i have now sorted it out by dropping some timings that were stable in the 3805 BIOS). I thought i would re run my IBT V HIGH tests to see if this was still passing.....
> 
> .... It failed on the 3rd pass *sigh*. So i began to fiddle with various things and found it was ProcODT which used to like 53Ohms. Now like to be on 43.6Ohms!? I ran IBT V HIGH and it passed all 10 passes with ease and i was happy again..... Until i restarted the rig and got three beeps and multiple reboots (trying to train i guess?). This fails and default 2133Mhz is loaded and Windows boots. I can pass stress tests on 43.6Ohms but can't restart Windows apparently now?!?!? If i set ProcODT to 48Ohms it will make 4 or so passes but still fail. 53Ohms gets me 2 or 3 passes at the most. Just wondered how i could go about this as it "needs" 43.6Ohms to pass tests but won't boot/restart. Im stuck tbh!!
> 
> DRAM is @1.39v and the timings are as shown in the screenshot i have attached. No other voltages are changed from default LLC on AUTO for everything i have tried a few CAD adjustments but this doesn't help and i'm worried i will go off on a tangent and "tweek" myself out of what i have now (almost stable). Thanks anyone who can help. If you need to know anymore please do ask.
> 
> Thanx.


do you use memory clear? (AMD_CBS)



Nighthog said:


> I used "AUTO" settings, then it set 60Ohm, though 60ohm was bad.. got 1 error at 101% Memtest. I used 53.3Ohm now and it's good. Though I have to say I get best OC results when using 48Ohm so the board doesn't choose best settings in AUTO. I can mostly pick and choose between 40-60Ohm when using stock/XMP timings.


so far it is difficult for me to understand what is micron e-die 
you have a screenshot of RTC 3666?



Pilotasso said:


> Calculator 1.3.0 says 3533 is not supported for 4 sammy B die sticks (2 kits of RGB G skill 4266Mhz) however I'm running this very frequency per previous version 1.2.0 Beta 2 settings for months and had no issues (tested 3 hours AIDA 64 without errors and have not even had a single blue screen all this time).
> 
> Did I get a super IMC in the lottery? or did I do something wrong?


this is not a lottery, I just did not have time to write the program completely. At the moment, now I'm writing 1.3.1 and I am correcting all the shortcomings in it. I have time until Monday (on Monday it will go to all the information resources).
so it did not take long to wait 

I would like to compare your screenshot and the result 1.3.1, please send the RTC



Terror-Byter said:


> 1.3.0 still does not show the correct RRT's and CAD bus for my 4x8 Teamgroup Dark Pro 8Pack Sticks.
> Only at 3000mhz can I use 24-24-24-24 CAD bus. Anything higher requires 40-20-40-40.
> 
> Wondering if its motherboard related or specfic kit related... here is so far how far I have gotten with stability.
> 
> 
> Need a Taihpoon of my B-dies?


The recommendation for CAD_BUS and RTT + procODT is not 100% compatible. CAD_BUS is a finer calibration of the tire, and for each manufacturer the results may be different, but it is advisable for you to check the options that are most compatible with your system
so at the moment AMD from each AGESA changes some internal calibrations. While this process is not over, it is difficult to give an accurate recommendation
Yes, just in case, show Taihpoon


----------



## Terror-Byter

Screenshot of Thaiphoon, and the HTML report is in the zip file.


Also, Im waiting for a thermal probe to arrive to monitor the temps of my ram, they feel very warm to the touch, so they might need some cooling on them.
Might have to order some kind of ram cooler to get rid of those errors during the late stages of the ram tests.


1.3.0 gave me better tertiary timings to use on extreme profile. The timings from 1.2.2 causes PC to not post with error code 8.
Only the cas latencies I cannot get down to 12-13-13-13 as suggested. Might need more volts, but ill wait till I can better monitor the temps and cool the ram better before trying that.


Thanks for a great utility


----------



## 1usmus

Terror-Byter said:


> Screenshot of Thaiphoon, and the HTML report is in the zip file.
> 
> 
> Also, Im waiting for a thermal probe to arrive to monitor the temps of my ram, they feel very warm to the touch, so they might need some cooling on them.
> Might have to order some kind of ram cooler to get rid of those errors during the late stages of the ram tests.
> 
> 
> 1.3.0 gave me better tertiary timings to use on extreme profile. The timings from 1.2.2 causes PC to not post with error code 8.
> Only the cas latencies I cannot get down to 12-13-13-13 as suggested. Might need more volts, but ill wait till I can better monitor the temps and cool the ram better before trying that.
> 
> 
> Thanks for a great utility


you use RTT for dual rank ... why?
you have an excellent motherboard and b-die new memory (the chips of 2018 have the best overclocking potential, the Samsung secretly made some corrections of the PCB and chips)

special for u

geardown disabled 
power down disabled
SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.43-1.44


Spoiler


----------



## 1usmus

Terror-Byter said:


> Screenshot of Thaiphoon, and the HTML report is in the zip file.
> 
> 
> Also, Im waiting for a thermal probe to arrive to monitor the temps of my ram, they feel very warm to the touch, so they might need some cooling on them.
> Might have to order some kind of ram cooler to get rid of those errors during the late stages of the ram tests.
> 
> 
> 1.3.0 gave me better tertiary timings to use on extreme profile. The timings from 1.2.2 causes PC to not post with error code 8.
> Only the cas latencies I cannot get down to 12-13-13-13 as suggested. Might need more volts, but ill wait till I can better monitor the temps and cool the ram better before trying that.
> 
> 
> Thanks for a great utility


you use RTT for dual rank ... why?
you have an excellent motherboard and b-die new memory (the chips of 2018 have the best overclocking potential, the Samsung secretly made some corrections of the PCB and chips)

special for u

geardown disabled 
power down disabled
SOC 1.1
DRAM 1.43-1.44
procODT 43 or 48
RTT 7 off 5 or 7 off 4


Spoiler


----------



## Terror-Byter

1usmus said:


> you use RTT for dual rank ... why?
> you have an excellent motherboard and b-die new memory (the chips of 2018 have the best overclocking potential, the Samsung secretly made some corrections of the PCB and chips)
> 
> special for u
> 
> geardown disabled
> power down disabled
> SOC 1.1
> DRAM 1.43-1.44
> 
> 
> Spoiler



If I turn it off, I get lots of blue screens and crashes. Ive been trying different combinations for almost 4 weeks now, 53/80/240 - 40-20-40-40 is the only thing I can use to keep stable. Might be Teamgroup implimetation of the memory... not sure.


----------



## 1usmus

Terror-Byter said:


> If I turn it off, I get lots of blue screens and crashes. Ive been trying different combinations for almost 4 weeks now, 53/80/240 - 40-20-40-40 is the only thing I can use to keep stable. Might be Teamgroup implimetation of the memory... not sure.


Pilotasso will send a picture, wait for it


----------



## Darkstalker420

1usmus said:


> do you use memory clear? (AMD_CBS)
> 
> 
> 
> so far it is difficult for me to understand what is micron e-die
> you have a screenshot of RTC 3666?
> 
> 
> 
> this is not a lottery, I just did not have time to write the program completely. At the moment, now I'm writing 1.3.1 and I am correcting all the shortcomings in it. I have time until Monday (on Monday it will go to all the information resources).
> so it did not take long to wait
> 
> I would like to compare your screenshot and the result 1.3.1, please send the RTC
> 
> 
> 
> The recommendation for CAD_BUS and RTT + procODT is not 100% compatible. CAD_BUS is a finer calibration of the tire, and for each manufacturer the results may be different, but it is advisable for you to check the options that are most compatible with your system
> so at the moment AMD from each AGESA changes some internal calibrations. While this process is not over, it is difficult to give an accurate recommendation
> Yes, just in case, show Taihpoon


Hi 1usmus. Sadly i don't have that option in my BIOS. Any other suggestions would be great. Do you have any idea why i was able to post boot to Windows AND pass stress tests once but not even be able to boot the same settings? (just hoping to learn something tbh). I have tried the CLDO_VDDP settings offered by the calc. The VDDP settings recommended i can't try two of them (855 815) because my VDDP range starts at 900!? All other settings (CAD/RTT/etc are on AUTO). None helped still crashes on second IBT V HIGH pass everytime now. The only thing that worked was the "one time only" 43.6Ohms. Truly frustrating/bizarre the memory sub system for these Ryzen CPU's. I personally don't understand why one time it works and passes tests another it doesn't even boot?? Can you shed any light on this?? Thanks once again for the calc/tech support LOL!).

Thanx.


----------



## chrcoluk

can I ask why this is AMD only? ddr4 is ddr 4 right isnt overclocking valid on both platforms, if this tool is not suitable for z370 can you please make one for it?

thanks.


----------



## tekjunkie28

OK guys this is what I have in thiaphoon burner, can you tell me about my ram chips? are they any good?

Are these old chips? I can get 3200mhz stable and somewhat tight. 3400+ is a bear. Any help is appriciated at this point. @1usmus THANK YOU!! The 1.3.0 update to the calculator is spot on for my memory at 32 safe and fast seems okay BUT the V1 and V2 do not correlate to my tRFC timings and importing from Thaiphoon Burner doesnt result in a change of timings. I would love to see an improvment and Thank You again for you hard work. I have been much more in the ball park with my 3333Mhz and somewhat successfull at 3400Mhz. 

EDIT: Does anyone know of the batch file for running multiple instances of HCI memtest?


----------



## neur0cide

1usmus said:


> I would like to compare your screenshot and the result 1.3.1, please send the RTC


Here's one for 4x8GB SR B-die @DDR4-3600


Spoiler














Performance Bias = AIDA/GeekBench


----------



## Pilotasso

1usmus said:


> I would like to compare your screenshot and the result 1.3.1, please send the RTC


here you go! Remember this was based on calculator 1.2.0 Beta 2, but I may not have fully optimized this. Use as a reference and not the optimal values.

EDIT: changed screenshot to latest RTC 1.04. Also: I almost can run 3600 (It boots and benches but fails stress test) but could not find what to change to stabilize.


----------



## damnson90

*Nothing past standard XMP seems to work*

Hey guys I am trying to get my Ram stable at 3333 Mhz which adds up to 3400 Mhz alongside a BCLK overclock of 102 Mhz Bus clock. But apparently, my Ram is not able to handle anything beyond the XMP profile provided by my Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 Wifi. Everything beyond that creates around 200 memory errors in 16 passes (around 9 hours) of Memtest86+ (bootable flashdrive). I mostly tried overclocks based on the 1.2 version from Extreme to Safe, but with 1.3 it got even worse (more/faster error counts). I always tried both Rec. and Alt. settings.

I even tried stock BCLK with 3400 fast to extreme, still the same outcome, nothing seems to work with the calculated settings. Can these dimms really be that bad, that they can not handle anymore than stock XMP?

I will attach my Rams Thaiphoon and the last setting i tried...I am really running out of options. Is there anything else I can try, to get those running at 3400Mhz, other than hoping for a new Bios provided by Gigabyte? Oh and why I noticed, there is no option to regulate VTT DDR voltage...I don't know if this matters.


----------



## tekjunkie28

damnson90 said:


> Hey guys I am trying to get my Ram stable at 3333 Mhz which adds up to 3400 Mhz alongside a BCLK overclock of 102 Mhz Bus clock. But apparently, my Ram is not able to handle anything beyond the XMP profile provided by my Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 Wifi. Everything beyond that creates around 200 memory errors in 16 passes (around 9 hours) of Memtest86+ (bootable flashdrive). I mostly tried overclocks based on the 1.2 version from Extreme to Safe, but with 1.3 it got even worse (more/faster error counts). I always tried both Rec. and Alt. settings.
> 
> I even tried stock BCLK with 3400 fast to extreme, still the same outcome, nothing seems to work with the calculated settings. Can these dimms really be that bad, that they can not handle anymore than stock XMP?
> 
> I will attach my Rams Thaiphoon and the last setting i tried...I am really running out of options. Is there anything else I can try, to get those running at 3400Mhz, other than hoping for a new Bios provided by Gigabyte? Oh and why I noticed, there is no option to regulate VTT DDR voltage...I don't know if this matters.


Me and you have almost the same setup. Gaming 5 wifi here... let me start by saying I'm not impressed with this motherboard. 2nd i have errors if i do anything over 1.380V dram. I can get 3400 safe mostly stable with rrtnom at 34ohms. That got me stable and now I am reducing timings. Also set your tRFC to something like 440 or even auto. The calculator sets it to low is my personal thoughts. Geardown mode enabled. Power down disabled. Hope this helps let me know. I also use ramtest by karhu to test. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## spadizzle

We shouldn't be pushing memory past 1.5v correct? RDC 1.3 is recommending 1.51 and I'm tempted just to see but don't wanna hurt the babies. They are so new 😋


----------



## 1usmus

@neur0cide

thanks!



spadizzle said:


> We shouldn't be pushing memory past 1.5v correct? RDC 1.3 is recommending 1.51 and I'm tempted just to see but don't wanna hurt the babies. They are so new 😋



I at the request of people created the next extreme regime, without good cooling there will be problems, therefore I advise you to limit yourself to reasonable frames (maximum 1.47)
in fact 1.5v for 20nm+ process technology is not terrible, the degradation of the crystal is minimal



chrcoluk said:


> can I ask why this is AMD only? ddr4 is ddr 4 right isnt overclocking valid on both platforms, if this tool is not suitable for z370 can you please make one for it?
> 
> thanks.


create a calculator for Intel systems?


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> Hi 1usmus. Sadly i don't have that option in my BIOS. Any other suggestions would be great. Do you have any idea why i was able to post boot to Windows AND pass stress tests once but not even be able to boot the same settings? (just hoping to learn something tbh). I have tried the CLDO_VDDP settings offered by the calc. The VDDP settings recommended i can't try two of them (855 815) because my VDDP range starts at 900!? All other settings (CAD/RTT/etc are on AUTO). None helped still crashes on second IBT V HIGH pass everytime now. The only thing that worked was the "one time only" 43.6Ohms. Truly frustrating/bizarre the memory sub system for these Ryzen CPU's. I personally don't understand why one time it works and passes tests another it doesn't even boot?? Can you shed any light on this?? Thanks once again for the calc/tech support LOL!).
> 
> Thanx.


VDDP 900 is an artificial limitation from motherboard vendor...

you need a BIOS, it has everything 
I can explain why this is so:
at the first start of the system, a complete training of the system (called its coldboot) takes place, after changing the parameters and restarting, partial training of the system takes place. You changed the procODT at the partial training stage, and the system received a special kind of training that turned out to be good. To repeat this again, you need to train the system first to start with which you started to search for stability and then go to 43 ohms.



Pilotasso said:


> here you go! Remember this was based on calculator 1.2.0 Beta 2, but I may not have fully optimized this. Use as a reference and not the optimal values.
> 
> EDIT: changed screenshot to latest RTC 1.04. Also: I almost can run 3600 (It boots and benches but fails stress test) but could not find what to change to stabilize.



the link to the picture does not work ...



tekjunkie28 said:


> OK guys this is what I have in thiaphoon burner, can you tell me about my ram chips? are they any good?
> 
> Are these old chips? I can get 3200mhz stable and somewhat tight. 3400+ is a bear. Any help is appriciated at this point. @1usmus THANK YOU!! The 1.3.0 update to the calculator is spot on for my memory at 32 safe and fast seems okay BUT the V1 and V2 do not correlate to my tRFC timings and importing from Thaiphoon Burner doesnt result in a change of timings. I would love to see an improvment and Thank You again for you hard work. I have been much more in the ball park with my 3333Mhz and somewhat successfull at 3400Mhz.
> 
> EDIT: Does anyone know of the batch file for running multiple instances of HCI memtest?


*HCI PRO launcher*
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fO9zitZSywdLZXo_fmoa6JLnJVYJLoqu

70% of system stability depends on procODT + RTT, 15% of voltage for DRAM, the rest of the calculator provides fairly accurate

you have good b-die, they have to work, you just need to spend time to check the alternative settings. at the moment it's hard for me to understand why your memory does not want to get a big frequency ...

why do not you just want to try 3466? your processor may have a frequency hole on which memory can not be stabilized



damnson90 said:


> Hey guys I am trying to get my Ram stable at 3333 Mhz which adds up to 3400 Mhz alongside a BCLK overclock of 102 Mhz Bus clock. But apparently, my Ram is not able to handle anything beyond the XMP profile provided by my Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming 7 Wifi. Everything beyond that creates around 200 memory errors in 16 passes (around 9 hours) of Memtest86+ (bootable flashdrive). I mostly tried overclocks based on the 1.2 version from Extreme to Safe, but with 1.3 it got even worse (more/faster error counts). I always tried both Rec. and Alt. settings.
> 
> I even tried stock BCLK with 3400 fast to extreme, still the same outcome, nothing seems to work with the calculated settings. Can these dimms really be that bad, that they can not handle anymore than stock XMP?
> 
> I will attach my Rams Thaiphoon and the last setting i tried...I am really running out of options. Is there anything else I can try, to get those running at 3400Mhz, other than hoping for a new Bios provided by Gigabyte? Oh and why I noticed, there is no option to regulate VTT DDR voltage...I don't know if this matters.


1) when you change the frequency bclk you need to change the voltage pll
2) most motherboards still do not work well with bclk
3) *Zen + OC statistic* https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm2i2-YIQKrZGpLO60l3JKX3nlMIr8ChhBTxvXQb13Y/edit#gid=0


----------



## Pilotasso

1usmus said:


> the link to the picture does not work ...


How about now?


----------



## level555

I'm trying to use this program to run my RAM at better than XMP-profile settings, but I can't find where to adjust VDDP (MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon, BIOS E7B78AMS.230 Agesa 1.0.0.4C)


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus

Hi thanks for the help once again sorry to sound dumb but i can't quite make out what you mean from the answer "you need to train the system first to start with which you started to search for stability and then go to 43 ohms". Do you mean train it from cold boot (as in set ProcODT to 43Ohms in BIOS then power off rig hold down power in BIOS?? as once i leave the BIOS the "normal" way save/exit the rig doesn't boot so can't train and requires me to remove DRAM power on a few times then replace the sticks and it loads default) Sorry once again i just want to get the procedure ABSOLUTELY correct could you specify exactly how i would accomplish this in order of steps if you would be so kind.

This "training" thing is a real problem for me to get my head around (coming from a Phenom II). Thanks once again for putting up with Ryzen n00bs like me LMAO!!

Thanx.


----------



## Darkstalker420

Tried the following @ 43.6Ohms:

2400Mhz = boots ok.
2666Mhz = boots ok.
2800Mhz = boots ok.
2933Mhz = boots ok.
3066Mhz = boots ok.

3200Mhz = three beeps reboots and sets 2133Mhz default. 48Ohms boots fine but doesn't fix the IBT crash on second pass.

Running settings as shown in screenshot attached these "seem" ok for use BUT will sometimes BSOD THREAD_STUCK_IN_DEVICE_DRIVER. And of course will fail IBT second pass everytime. Also trying to lower tCL TO 16 (stability?) results in a no post and much messing around to get it going.

Thanx.


----------



## Screemi

something is broken in 1.3.0:

my ram has very lousy samsung b-dies and is ratet at 3200 cl16. it's a dualranked 32gb kit. when i read my xmp settings, which i saved with typhoon burner as html, with 1.2.0 beta2 i get the following result if i calculate save settings:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=208536&thumb=1

if i do the same with 1.3.0 i get the following result. by no chance i can get those settings working with my kit:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=208534&thumb=1

the attached txt-file is the typhoon report. simply rename it to .html.


----------



## Darkstalker420

*Sigh* Just BSOD'ed sat at desktop THREAD_STUCK_IN_DEVICE_DRIVER.....

Sad thing is i picked these Corsair sticks because they were on the QVL for 3200Mhz operation (D.O.C.P). But even using the D.O.C.P profile (really lousy timings!) it STILL fails IBT V HIGH on pass 2..... In fact regardless of timings (28,14,14,14,14) or (36,18,18,18,18) and regardless of DRAM V's 1.35 all the way to 1.45 and SoC V's and LLC. None make a difference.

Tried 3066Mhz..... Fails on second pass IBT..... (!!?!?!). Tried all the rec's for CAD_BUS made no difference. Nothing i have tried will remain stable @3200MHz. Yet even ASUS say with these B Die sticks it should be. Crashes are so sporadic you can think you have fixed it for days then BAM! BSOD (USUALLY THREAD_STUCK but sometimes others). Will game fine but crash Netflix! Will crash YouTube! Yet somedays it will not crash at all. I have no clue what to try tbh. I wish i had just sprung for some "cheap" 2933Mhz sticks and kept the change. Pffft rated 3600Mhz B Dies and can't get 3200Mhz stable no matter what....

Thanx.


----------



## 1usmus

Pilotasso said:


> How about now?


great , thanks! 



level555 said:


> I'm trying to use this program to run my RAM at better than XMP-profile settings, but I can't find where to adjust VDDP (MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon, BIOS E7B78AMS.230 Agesa 1.0.0.4C)


in mod 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/27551858-post542.html


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Hi thanks for the help once again sorry to sound dumb but i can't quite make out what you mean from the answer "you need to train the system first to start with which you started to search for stability and then go to 43 ohms". Do you mean train it from cold boot (as in set ProcODT to 43Ohms in BIOS then power off rig hold down power in BIOS?? as once i leave the BIOS the "normal" way save/exit the rig doesn't boot so can't train and requires me to remove DRAM power on a few times then replace the sticks and it loads default) Sorry once again i just want to get the procedure ABSOLUTELY correct could you specify exactly how i would accomplish this in order of steps if you would be so kind.
> 
> This "training" thing is a real problem for me to get my head around (coming from a Phenom II). Thanks once again for putting up with Ryzen n00bs like me LMAO!!
> 
> Thanx.


you must repeat the sequence of your actions earlier, for example, your system worked on procODT 53, then you just changed this value to 43 and everything became good

or try it

procODT 43 + RTT : Disabled / OFF / 7


Spoiler

















Screemi said:


> something is broken in 1.3.0:
> 
> my ram has very lousy samsung b-dies and is ratet at 3200 cl16. it's a dualranked 32gb kit. when i read my xmp settings, which i saved with typhoon burner as html, with 1.2.0 beta2 i get the following result if i calculate save settings:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=208536&thumb=1
> 
> if i do the same with 1.3.0 i get the following result. by no chance i can get those settings working with my kit:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=208534&thumb=1
> 
> the attached txt-file is the typhoon report. simply rename it to .html.


today will be published 1.3.1, in it I added another profile, just the situation like you


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus

Thanks for the reply. I tried the settings you gave me and again the rig didn't post. I tried 53.3Ohms ProcODT and it did boot (with the RTT settings you supplied) but still failed as always on pass 2 of IBT V HIGH. I have turned the DRAM up to 1.39v and LLC for CPU/SoC to EXTREME and also a small + bump in V's for SoC.... As usual made no difference. I can myself do no more as making "wild" swings in V's used/timings form slow to fast make no difference tbh.

If you can offer more help i'm all ears but this is very demoralizing tbh "build yourself i nice new rig...... Crashes and is more temperamental than the old rig it replaced" which is till purring away without any issue. Getting the 43.6Ohm to post earlier was a fluke and i didn't follow any kind of steps/setting things in order to do it i just was running the timings shown in the screenshot and just thought "hmmm will try 43.6Ohms" and it booted. But selecting it (over half a dozen attempts now) just result in a restart/2133Mhz default. Any other help you can offer would be great. It's not like i can even drop to 3066Mhz as that crashed the same on IBT. I'm just tired of "fiddling" with this rig and just want it to stop BSODing tbh. It was fine until the latest Windows Build update (1803) then the BSOD's returned now i can't get rid of them again. 

Thanx.


----------



## 1usmus

I have prepared for you an approximate tablet, in which there is a dependence of the change of procODT + RTT on the frequency. The PTT PARK parameter is marked with a blue color, which in most cases will have the best ratio of the useful signal to noise. Gray color indicates what I did not test. In the future, I will try to provide you with a more accurate version.

Remember, each memory module is a silicic lottery + printed circuit board has a different wiring (impedance).


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I tried the settings you gave me and again the rig didn't post. I tried 53.3Ohms ProcODT and it did boot (with the RTT settings you supplied) but still failed as always on pass 2 of IBT V HIGH. I have turned the DRAM up to 1.39v and LLC for CPU/SoC to EXTREME and also a small + bump in V's for SoC.... As usual made no difference. I can myself do no more as making "wild" swings in V's used/timings form slow to fast make no difference tbh.
> 
> If you can offer more help i'm all ears but this is very demoralizing tbh "build yourself i nice new rig...... Crashes and is more temperamental than the old rig it replaced" which is till purring away without any issue. Getting the 43.6Ohm to post earlier was a fluke and i didn't follow any kind of steps/setting things in order to do it i just was running the timings shown in the screenshot and just thought "hmmm will try 43.6Ohms" and it booted. But selecting it (over half a dozen attempts now) just result in a restart/2133Mhz default. Any other help you can offer would be great. It's not like i can even drop to 3066Mhz as that crashed the same on IBT. I'm just tired of "fiddling" with this rig and just want it to stop BSODing tbh. It was fine until the latest Windows Build update (1803) then the BSOD's returned now i can't get rid of them again.
> 
> Thanx.


tCL 16
Soc 1.025 or 1.03125
Dram 1.36-1.375
cad bus 20 20 20 20


----------



## hsn

my ram cannot boot stable on cl14 ...
so this is the best timing for my ram (team xtreeem) 

1.05 soc
1.42v dram voltage


----------



## 1usmus

hsn said:


> my ram cannot boot stable on cl14 ...
> so this is the best timing for my ram (team xtreeem)
> 
> 1.05 soc
> 1.42v dram voltage


you have a great result for your board

for 3666CL14 you need more voltage for SOC and DRAM, 1.1+ & 1.47+
and and possibly other RTT + procODT


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> you have a great result for your board
> 
> for 3666CL14 you need more voltage for SOC and DRAM, 1.1+ & 1.47+
> and and possibly other RTT + procODT


i did everything to get cl14
3533 cl14 sometime boot or not,,,maybe my bdie stable on cl16 only. but i still want to test on x470 (still on the way)

thank you for your software,still wait the last version.


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus

Thanks once again for the help and table (was very helpful). I have since i last posted:

Flashed back to BIOS 4009 (read posts at various places that 4011 was more prone to BSOD).
set all timings back to AUTO except the "main" timings which are 32,16,16,16,16 @1.375v and tRFc which was set to 312.
SoC is on 1.03v.
CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20.

I tried the RTT PARK & 43.8Ohm combination you suggested and it still wouldn't post?? I looked at the table you provided and worked out the correct PARK setting for 53.3Ohms 3200Mhz (DISABLED) and that BSOD'ed before windows could load!! So now i'm at the settings shown in the screencap on the voltages above. It still crashes during IBT V HIGH second pass. I don't seem to be able to make any headway tbh and settings that even you (who i know understands what he is talking about) recommends won't even boot. 43.8Ohms is a complete NO GO it seems even after working that once and EVEN with the correct RTT PARK setting.

I truly do NOT understand why these B Die won't pull a stable 3200Mhz. When i have seen others with similar B350's hit that and then some (3466Mhz in some cases!). I only (over)paid for these sticks because the QVL said essentially "easy D.O.C.P 3200Mhz". Thanks once again for the help though i'm not sure what more you can suggest tbh.....

Thanx


----------



## tekjunkie28

Darkstalker420 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Thanks once again for the help and table (was very helpful). I have since i last posted:
> 
> Flashed back to BIOS 4009 (read posts at various places that 4011 was more prone to BSOD).
> set all timings back to AUTO except the "main" timings which are 32,16,16,16,16 @1.375v and tRFc which was set to 312.
> SoC is on 1.03v.
> CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20.
> 
> I tried the RTT PARK & 43.8Ohm combination you suggested and it still wouldn't post?? I looked at the table you provided and worked out the correct PARK setting for 53.3Ohms 3200Mhz (DISABLED) and that BSOD'ed before windows could load!! So now i'm at the settings shown in the screencap on the voltages above. It still crashes during IBT V HIGH second pass. I don't seem to be able to make any headway tbh and settings that even you (who i know understands what he is talking about) recommends won't even boot. 43.8Ohms is a complete NO GO it seems even after working that once and EVEN with the correct RTT PARK setting.
> 
> I truly do NOT understand why these B Die won't pull a stable 3200Mhz. When i have seen others with similar B350's hit that and then some (3466Mhz in some cases!). I only (over)paid for these sticks because the QVL said essentially "easy D.O.C.P 3200Mhz". Thanks once again for the help though i'm not sure what more you can suggest tbh.....
> 
> Thanx


Are you even sure your sticks are actually good??

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Darkstalker420

tekjunkie28 said:


> Are you even sure your sticks are actually good??
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I would LMAO tbh as i never tested them. Can you recommend something? should i run at Ryzen default (2400Mhz 1.2v) or what i'm trying now? Never thought to check tbh i ALWAYS just use IBT to test my rigs if it passes IBT MAX i don't usually have an issue ever with crashing/BSOD's. I will pull a stick and try IBT with each one. Back when i have done it.

Thanx.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.1 pre-release*

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.1 pre-release *









*download:*
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dpbP2_6Dh2r8qCQcGAjolDB5KgsfBi0x

*changelog:*
* new extreme presets for samsung b-die
* correction procODT+RTT_PARK for samsung b-die, all micron + correction RTT_NOM for all memory
* new V2 profile (low quality chips) for samsung b-die 
* added support high frequency for 4 dimm samsung b-die
* added support Hynix AFR/MFR in Overclocking potential DRAM 
* pop-up windows are added for some situations
* main recomendation 20 20 20 20 for CAD_BUS is back
* correction some timings in all samsung b-die presets
* some correction in micron e-die preset
* picture "b-die termination" in folder 
* bug fix


----------



## josephimports

Thanks for the update. Stability testing up next.


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus

Well PHEW!! at last LMAO!! loading up the V2 profile for B Die and twiddling with CLDO_VDDP (913) and setting the other calc recommended settings i have FINALLY after 12 months and hell knows how many BIOS flashes/days messing with settings i had no idea about got my 10 passes of IBT V HIGH @3200MHz. Turns out it was CLDO_VDDP after all!!! I have messed with it but couldn't find the "sweet spot" before but 913 was the magic number.

I can finally start to enjoy this rig and now have a "stable" base to go from. For now i will leave as is but will when i can face it LMAO!! see if i can tighten up some timings etc. Cheers buddy you have saved me from a life of BSOD's/crashes. If i could buy you a beer mate i would.

Thanx.


----------



## spadizzle

*Differences*

Note: ROG Zenith board

RTC showing default safe settings for booting purposes. Default ProcODT is 68.6

With RDC 1.3.1, I do noticed a change in ProcODT going from 68.6(2DIMM) to 60(4DIMM). My question is, should I just leave RDC set for 2 dim since its a TR4 board or go for the 4 dim setting? I have been having all sorts of post issues ever since I switched from 1 rank to dual rank memory. 


Also between the V1 and custom settings, V1 recommends geardown enabled and Custom says to leave disabled. Just something I noticed and so far I have been unable to accomplish a post without geardown enabled.

PDF is Taiphoon memory stats.


----------



## tekjunkie28

Well I seem to have 3400Mhz stable minus dialing in tRFC. I will post timings when I get it stable but tRFC in the calc is still miles off. I'm not even stable at 360 tRFC. Once I get these stable I will try something higher. I can boot everything higher but it's not stable under any memory test. 

Is there anyone reporting higher then 3400mhz in a Auros gaming 5 wifi x470?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

spadizzle said:


> Note: ROG Zenith board
> 
> RTC showing default safe settings for booting purposes. Default ProcODT is 68.6
> 
> With RDC 1.3.1, I do noticed a change in ProcODT going from 68.6(2DIMM) to 60(4DIMM). My question is, should I just leave RDC set for 2 dim since its a TR4 board or go for the 4 dim setting? I have been having all sorts of post issues ever since I switched from 1 rank to dual rank memory.
> 
> 
> Also between the V1 and custom settings, V1 recommends geardown enabled and Custom says to leave disabled. Just something I noticed and so far I have been unable to accomplish a post without geardown enabled.
> 
> PDF is Taiphoon memory stats.


excellent, you found a bug 
i think 4 dimm in TR = 2 dimm in RDC



Darkstalker420 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Well PHEW!! at last LMAO!! loading up the V2 profile for B Die and twiddling with CLDO_VDDP (913) and setting the other calc recommended settings i have FINALLY after 12 months and hell knows how many BIOS flashes/days messing with settings i had no idea about got my 10 passes of IBT V HIGH @3200MHz. Turns out it was CLDO_VDDP after all!!! I have messed with it but couldn't find the "sweet spot" before but 913 was the magic number.
> 
> I can finally start to enjoy this rig and now have a "stable" base to go from. For now i will leave as is but will when i can face it LMAO!! see if i can tighten up some timings etc. Cheers buddy you have saved me from a life of BSOD's/crashes. If i could buy you a beer mate i would.
> 
> Thanx.


I'm glad that you have success


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> excellent, you found a bug
> i think 4 dimm in TR = 2 dimm in RDC


That is usually how I do it, setting to 2 dimm instead of 4, while looking at any changes in timings between 2 and 4 dimms in the calculator for hints on what may need tweaked slightly if it isn't fully stable, aside from the ordinary suspects.


----------



## ressonantia

I believe I have found a bug.

Steps to replicate:
1. Samsung b-die profile v2 R-XMP
2. Select 3600
3. Select Fast
4. Look at TFAW


----------



## tekjunkie28

What exactly does the different cad bus and procODT stuff do? Is there a reason to run different ohms if each of them work? I know they said something about not running procODT at 80ohms unless you have extreme cooling. So would running st 48 or 43 ohms lower my temp? Would that apply to cad bus? Does any of these different selections affect speed or latency? 

My ram defaults to cab bus 24omhs but the calc recommends 20ohms. What's the gist of all this stuff?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## zxche

Good day @1usmus .

I have information and questions for you, mostly questions... I'm using 2600X, X370-F and Team Group Nighthawk 3200 @ 16-18-18-38, running at 1.385 DRAM voltage.

1) How are my timings? Is it possible to tighten them down anymore or is it more of a trial and error kind of thing?
My timings are mostly from other posters seeing how low I can possibly go without being unstable. When I tried to set tWCL from 16 to 14 or tRDRDSCL & TWRWRSCL to 3 or below it wouldn't post. Does this suggest I need to find the lower boundary for each timing?
Does all the timings have a negative relationship to RAM performance? (i.e. lower timing = at least no performance gain or faster performance)
Is there a group of timings that may have adverse impact on RAM performance?

2) What are the most reliable way to benchmark RAM performance? 
My opinion is Karhu's Ram Test coverage read speed per second and AIDA64's Memory read speed and latency speed, are there other ways?

3) Thaiphoon Burner shows that my kit is a B-die, but it is advertised at C16 rather than C14. Does this mean it is one of the worst B-die and cannot run at 3200 C14?
I've tried up to 1.5 DRAM voltage and 1.175 SoC voltage already at 3200 but it wouldn't post.

4) On a slightly unrelated topic, the STRIX X370-F does not have Performance Enhancer levels feature but can be manually set in Manual PBO so that it is equal to PE Lvl 2 (i.e. setting all 3 settings to 1000). However, it is impossible to replicate the PBO Scalar setting without using your BIOS mod. What is the difference between using a board without PBO scalar, and using PBO scalar from 0x to 10x.

Thank you very much for your time.


----------



## drkCrix

@1usmus

Thanks for this great tool, I have been using it for awhile now and recently have been trying to find the max that I can go with my ram (G.Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZ).

Currently I am at 3466 @ CL14 using your timings (the timings from the Taiphoon dump didn't seem to work all that well) with a slight adjustment in the termination block settings (1.3.1 states a rtt_park of 60 Ohm but in the B-die image you included you had a value of 48 Ohm with a procODT of 53 Ohm) and the tRFC (using 333 instead of 277)

Curios to know if you think my ram could go higher or not (I have attached both the R-XMP values and the Taiphoon values in the calculator)

Thanks and keep up the great work!


----------



## lcbbcl

@1usmus the last version its not optimized for DR ram,its suggest to disable GearDown and that its instant blue screen for me.


----------



## 1usmus

*Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.1 release*








*download:*
Techpowerup link
Guru3d link

*changelog pre-release:*
* new extreme presets for samsung b-die
* correction procODT+RTT_PARK for samsung b-die, all micron + correction RTT_NOM for all memory
* new V2 profile (low quality chips) for samsung b-die 
* added support high frequency for 4 dimm samsung b-die
* added support Hynix AFR/MFR in Overclocking potential DRAM 
* pop-up windows are added for some situations
* main recomendation 20 20 20 20 for CAD_BUS is back
* correction some timings in all samsung b-die presets
* some correction in micron e-die preset
* picture "b-die termination" in folder 
* minor bug fix

*changelog release:*
* geardown bug fix


----------



## chakku

32GB Dual Rank B-Die @ 3333MT/s just hit 300% in HCI Memtest with just a manual change of VDDP voltage, the flowchart is the best part of this update for sure thank you @1usmus I assume this geardown bug fix is referring to it recommending 'disabled' for dual rank kits when it's too hard on them?


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.3.1 release*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *download:*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wwskKmzRcTC9LL06CmDHPRUDbKfzQ1AT
> 
> *changelog pre-release:*
> * new extreme presets for samsung b-die
> * correction procODT+RTT_PARK for samsung b-die, all micron + correction RTT_NOM for all memory
> * new V2 profile (low quality chips) for samsung b-die
> * added support high frequency for 4 dimm samsung b-die
> * added support Hynix AFR/MFR in Overclocking potential DRAM
> * pop-up windows are added for some situations
> * main recomendation 20 20 20 20 for CAD_BUS is back
> * correction some timings in all samsung b-die presets
> * some correction in micron e-die preset
> * picture "b-die termination" in folder
> * minor bug fix
> 
> *changelog release:*
> * geardown bug fix


Excellent work man! Thank you!

I was wondering why you now advise not to enter tRFC2/4? Last time I looked with Aida64, it did not set them correctly automatically - that was a few months back I must admit...


----------



## imsyB

Is there a sticky for other bios recommendations other than the dram timings like the CBS settings etc?
EDIT: I just saw the advanced and power supply tabs on the tool. Use that as a guide 
I was interested in Asus bios in particular as I have a X470-F gaming strix on bios 4018. 

Just can't seem to make the ram stable above 3400 @CL14.My target is to keep the latency as close as possible to 60ns.
I will try the new tool v.1.3.1


----------



## tekjunkie28

imsyB said:


> Is there a sticky for other bios recommendations other than the dram timings like the CBS settings etc?
> I was interested in Asus bios in particular as I have a X470-F gaming strix on bios 4018.
> 
> Just can't seem to make the ram stable above 3400 @CL14.My target is to keep the latency as close as possible to 60ns.
> I will try the new tool v.1.3.1


Those timings are pretty amazing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

ressonantia said:


> I believe I have found a bug.
> 
> Steps to replicate:
> 1. Samsung b-die profile v2 R-XMP
> 2. Select 3600
> 3. Select Fast
> 4. Look at TFAW


no, this is not a bug, often tFAW needs to be selected manually



tekjunkie28 said:


> What exactly does the different cad bus and procODT stuff do? Is there a reason to run different ohms if each of them work? I know they said something about not running procODT at 80ohms unless you have extreme cooling. So would running st 48 or 43 ohms lower my temp? Would that apply to cad bus? Does any of these different selections affect speed or latency?
> 
> My ram defaults to cab bus 24omhs but the calc recommends 20ohms. What's the gist of all this stuff?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


procODT is the global setting of the entire line(bus), CAD_BUS is fine tuning for some signals of this global line

differences will always be, because the calculator offers 3 variants of procODT + RTT to increase the chance to stabilize the memory

the effect of temperature on procODT is certainly there too, I do not have any more specific information, because this is too complex a study that will require a good oscillograph

in some situations, CAD_BUS 20 ohm makes it possible to postpone the thermal resonance on the bus, if we use 24 ohms - then the stability limit will end at 52 degrees, if we use 20 ohms, then this limit is 59 degrees
about this is not written anywhere, but there is a video in which I showed a loss of memory stability due to temperature



zxche said:


> Good day @1usmus .
> 
> I have information and questions for you, mostly questions... I'm using 2600X, X370-F and Team Group Nighthawk 3200 @ 16-18-18-38, running at 1.385 DRAM voltage.
> 
> 1) How are my timings? Is it possible to tighten them down anymore or is it more of a trial and error kind of thing?
> My timings are mostly from other posters seeing how low I can possibly go without being unstable. When I tried to set tWCL from 16 to 14 or tRDRDSCL & TWRWRSCL to 3 or below it wouldn't post. Does this suggest I need to find the lower boundary for each timing?
> Does all the timings have a negative relationship to RAM performance? (i.e. lower timing = at least no performance gain or faster performance)
> Is there a group of timings that may have adverse impact on RAM performance?
> 
> 2) What are the most reliable way to benchmark RAM performance?
> My opinion is Karhu's Ram Test coverage read speed per second and AIDA64's Memory read speed and latency speed, are there other ways?
> 
> 3) Thaiphoon Burner shows that my kit is a B-die, but it is advertised at C16 rather than C14. Does this mean it is one of the worst B-die and cannot run at 3200 C14?
> I've tried up to 1.5 DRAM voltage and 1.175 SoC voltage already at 3200 but it wouldn't post.
> 
> 4) On a slightly unrelated topic, the STRIX X370-F does not have Performance Enhancer levels feature but can be manually set in Manual PBO so that it is equal to PE Lvl 2 (i.e. setting all 3 settings to 1000). However, it is impossible to replicate the PBO Scalar setting without using your BIOS mod. What is the difference between using a board without PBO scalar, and using PBO scalar from 0x to 10x.
> 
> Thank you very much for your time.


1) All timings are a single organism, breaking one of them will have a negative impact on performance. The offer of the calculator has a very delicate balance for all timings. Some can squeeze even more, but they will have a negative effect. Example: you have tWTRS / tWTRL too low, maybe you will get better latency but also you will get the worst FPS in games.
Compressing the SCL timings does not improve the memory bandwidth, in the new version of the calculator this is taken into account. If we increase the SCL we will not lose performance but improve stability. At the moment there are a lot of wrong information on the Internet, so I advise you to follow the recommendations.

*SCL example*


Spoiler















2) for example, the speed of passing the test TM5 0.12 very well demonstrates how optimized memory. But for this you need to have your own sample of the results of the default state so that you can match the results.
or such as games, ROTR, Witcher 3 

3) The b-die chips have a different revision, the diagnostic programs will not tell you about it, so the V2 profile was created

4) the difference in the frequency curve, if there is a scalar setting, then the frequency in the boost for all cores can be increased automatically



chakku said:


> 32GB Dual Rank B-Die @ 3333MT/s just hit 300% in HCI Memtest with just a manual change of VDDP voltage, the flowchart is the best part of this update for sure thank you @1usmus I assume this geardown bug fix is referring to it recommending 'disabled' for dual rank kits when it's too hard on them?


there was a mistake (geardown bug), I fixed it
block scheme is not final, but I'm glad that it can already help 



crakej said:


> Excellent work man! Thank you!
> 
> I was wondering why you now advise not to enter tRFC2/4? Last time I looked with Aida64, it did not set them correctly automatically - that was a few months back I must admit...


I think that these timings are dummy 
maybe in Zen2 they will work



imsyB said:


> Is there a sticky for other bios recommendations other than the dram timings like the CBS settings etc?
> EDIT: I just saw the advanced and power supply tabs on the tool. Use that as a guide
> I was interested in Asus bios in particular as I have a X470-F gaming strix on bios 4018.
> 
> Just can't seem to make the ram stable above 3400 @CL14.My target is to keep the latency as close as possible to 60ns.
> I will try the new tool v.1.3.1


you already have a very good result, but you can try to raise the frequency still 
There are no specific recommendations, there are common ones that are in the calculator



drkCrix said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Thanks for this great tool, I have been using it for awhile now and recently have been trying to find the max that I can go with my ram (G.Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZ).
> 
> Currently I am at 3466 @ CL14 using your timings (the timings from the Taiphoon dump didn't seem to work all that well) with a slight adjustment in the termination block settings (1.3.1 states a rtt_park of 60 Ohm but in the B-die image you included you had a value of 48 Ohm with a procODT of 53 Ohm) and the tRFC (using 333 instead of 277)
> 
> Curios to know if you think my ram could go higher or not (I have attached both the R-XMP values and the Taiphoon values in the calculator)
> 
> Thanks and keep up the great work!


I think this is not the limit for your memory, but it can be the limit for the motherboard. Try to stabilize 3533


----------



## ressonantia

1usmus said:


> no, this is not a bug, often tFAW needs to be selected manually


I think its the only setting where tFAW has a value of +25. What does that mean? Does it mean look at the current value and add 25 to it?


----------



## 1usmus

ressonantia said:


> I think its the only setting where tFAW has a value of +25. What does that mean? Does it mean look at the current value and add 25 to it?


this means that you should start selecting this timings from the number 25, then try 26 and so on. At a high frequency, primitive rules such as tRRDS * 4 do not work and there are no clear delays in JEDEC documents. It's almost a free parameter.


----------



## Screemi

1usmus said:


> today will be published 1.3.1, in it I added another profile, just the situation like you


perfect! thx a lot!


----------



## Syldon

congrats on the sponership.. Nice to see you get some reward for the work you put into the app.


----------



## 1usmus

*I am very grateful to you all for the questions and for the help, and I am glad that this topic is developing*


----------



## imsyB

1usmus said:


> *I am very grateful to you all for the questions and for the help, and I am glad that this topic is developing* /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif



Thank you for your kindness and eagerness to help everyone. It makes a huge difference.


----------



## tekjunkie28

@1usmus I have had my system put together since April 28th. Originally I has some Gskill Hynix 16-18-18-18 chips and was lucky enough that they were stable at 3200 with xmp profile with added voltage of 1.380v (according to bios setting, my motherboard reports slighly higher voltages at 1.35 to 1.39 range, 1.35 setting results in 1.368v apparently). I decided to buy some new chips that were samsung B die and they have worked out of the box with the xmp profile but like everyone I wanted to push them further. With your help I was able to get even 3400Mhz stable although I need more time with it to tweak if for even more speed. I now have them stable at 3200 fast settings and even another set of timings that might be even faster. I thank you for your help and knowledge. I have never done anything with ram before my ryzen system although I have overclocked most of my processors before to some extent.


----------



## i_max2k2

@1usmus.

Thank you so much for keep updating this tool and the effort you put on this. I wanted to ask if there should be any changes in this for Zen+ 470 motherboards?

Thanks


----------



## larrydavid

chakku said:


> 32GB Dual Rank B-Die @ 3333MT/s just hit 300% in HCI Memtest with just a manual change of VDDP voltage, the flowchart is the best part of this update for sure thank you @1usmus I assume this geardown bug fix is referring to it recommending 'disabled' for dual rank kits when it's too hard on them?


Which motherboard and CPU are you running? Do you have geardown mode enabled or disabled?


----------



## chakku

larrydavid said:


> Which motherboard and CPU are you running? Do you have geardown mode enabled or disabled?


2700X + C7H WIFI. I did get one error at 500% so maybe needs some more minor tweaking, big improvement over the error I was getting at 50-80% before changing VDDP voltage.


----------



## y0bailey

Dumb question....is techpowerup Memtest64 set to max an acceptable mem stability test. HCI memtest is just so clunky and rage inducing? 

prime95 custom mem amount works, but takes awhile for me to find errors. Looking for something faster. Thoughts?


----------



## tekjunkie28

y0bailey said:


> Dumb question....is techpowerup Memtest64 set to max an acceptable mem stability test. HCI memtest is just so clunky and rage inducing?
> 
> prime95 custom mem amount works, but takes awhile for me to find errors. Looking for something faster. Thoughts?


Ramtest by karhu or aida64

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## zxche

1usmus said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 1) All timings are a single organism, breaking one of them will have a negative impact on performance. The offer of the calculator has a very delicate balance for all timings. Some can squeeze even more, but they will have a negative effect. Example: you have tWTRS / tWTRL too low, maybe you will get better latency but also you will get the worst FPS in games.
> Compressing the SCL timings does not improve the memory bandwidth, in the new version of the calculator this is taken into account. If we increase the SCL we will not lose performance but improve stability. At the moment there are a lot of wrong information on the Internet, so I advise you to follow the recommendations.
> 
> *SCL example*
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) for example, the speed of passing the test TM5 0.12 very well demonstrates how optimized memory. But for this you need to have your own sample of the results of the default state so that you can match the results.
> or such as games, ROTR, Witcher 3
> 
> 3) The b-die chips have a different revision, the diagnostic programs will not tell you about it, so the V2 profile was created
> 
> 4) the difference in the frequency curve, if there is a scalar setting, then the frequency in the boost for all cores can be increased automatically


Hi again, @1usmus .

As per your suggestion, the good news is that I no longer need to reset CMOS. Unfortunately it won't post to desktop, I've tried with 1.475 DRAM voltage and 1.175 SoC voltage and no luck (with X370-F the debug LED goes, DRAM > CPU > VGA then repeats itself for a few times until the RAM profile resets). I really do think it's quite impossible to get to 3200 C14 with this kit. I've tried the different ProcODT and RTT_Park combinations too. I've attached my information to this post.

As for the SCL timings, it simply cannot go below 4. I don't know why, but since it doesn't affect performance it should be fine?

Thanks!


----------



## ajc9988

zxche said:


> Hi again, @1usmus .
> 
> As per your suggestion, the good news is that I no longer need to reset CMOS. Unfortunately it won't post to desktop, I've tried with 1.475 DRAM voltage and 1.175 SoC voltage and no luck (with X370-F the debug LED goes, DRAM > CPU > VGA then repeats itself for a few times until the RAM profile resets). I really do think it's quite impossible to get to 3200 C14 with this kit. I've tried the different ProcODT and RTT_Park combinations too. I've attached my information to this post.
> 
> As for the SCL timings, it simply cannot go below 4. I don't know why, but since it doesn't affect performance it should be fine?
> 
> Thanks!


OK, try going lower on voltage. I have to ignore his recs with my sticks in this regard, to a degree. My ram gets more errors with the amounts suggested. I have a threadripper 1950X, mind you, so some variance expected. My DRAM voltage needs to be at 1.4V for 3466 and 1.41 or around that for 3600 (still working on getting that stable again). My SOC seems to like 1.025V better after the last firmware update (I was using 1.0375 to 1.075; some boards use more voltage than you set on SOC, so you could be overvolting the SOC unwittingly). So, instead, try lowering those slowly and seeing if it goes further or causes more instability. Just as a place to start.


----------



## jad_tv

I only see VDDP Standby Voltage and CLDO_VDDP in my bios (asus x470-i 0804); which one of these is the VDDP voltage mentioned in the calculator? Or does my bios not allow adjusting it


----------



## ajc9988

jad_tv said:


> I only see VDDP Standby Voltage and CLDO_VDDP in my bios (asus x470-i 0804); which one of these is the VDDP voltage mentioned in the calculator? Or does my bios not allow adjusting it


Probably standby. CLDO is a different voltage. Go to Advanced page in the calculator and you will see the CLDO voltages.


----------



## Mr.N00bLaR

So if you guys were going to be running your ryzen system at some kind of intense load 24/7 for 5 years, how far would you go voltage-wise on the memory? My PC will probably be encoding as long as I have it.


----------



## MNMadman

Mr.N00bLaR said:


> So if you guys were going to be running your ryzen system at some kind of intense load 24/7 for 5 years, how far would you go voltage-wise on the memory? My PC will probably be encoding as long as I have it.


I would have no issues running DDR4 at 1.5v and my Threadripper at 1.45v with constant fixed-speed overclock under sustained load 24/7. That's basically what I'm doing with either [email protected] or World Community Grid.


----------



## damnson90

I have a question abou the Ryzen System training scheme:

About how long should I count errors to determine which amount of errors I am encountering, whithout encountering the same ones...because, the longer I test my memory, the more errors I encounter naturally. Are we talking about how many errors do we encounter over the span of 100% of memory testing, or do I have to count errors about 10000% of memory testing, because if so, I always encounter 10+ errors, which means, that my Ram can not handle 3400 Mhz 14-14-14-28-42. Oh and in that scheme it says, when encountering 10+ errors, I should change timings (tFAW 16+) but I already have tFAW at 24 already...sorry, I am pretty new to Ram overclocking, but I just want to get the most out of my FlareX Ram.

Thanks for your answers in advance.

PS: I only got my Ram to run at 3200 Mhz at 14-14-14-28-42 so far and then I jumped straight to overclocking to 3400 Mhz with those timings.

Edit: Where can I adjust CLDO_VDDP, VPP, PLL, Spread Spectrum, VDDP voltage for Ram (I only have CPU VDDP and VDD18 and it differs a lot from the recommended Ram calculator settings as in they are too low to be set in the BIOS) on Gigabyte Boards with the F4g Bios?


----------



## Rossi87

To those who use Ram Test, how long are you testing for? I get errors around 7000% 32GB DR on my Gigabyte Gaming K7.
Anyone have any tips to get rid of these errors?


----------



## dspx

Rossi87 said:


> To those who use Ram Test, how long are you testing for? I get errors around 7000% 32GB DR on my Gigabyte Gaming K7.
> Anyone have any tips to get rid of these errors?


From their FAQ:



> Q: How long should I test?
> A: Error detection rates by test duration*:
> 
> 
> 
> Duration ≤ 1 min: 47,44 %
> Duration ≤ 5 min: 74,41 %
> Duration ≤ 10 min: 83,66 %
> Duration ≤ 30 min: 95,67 %
> Duration ≤ 60 min: 98,43 %
> * RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error
> 
> 
> Q: How much coverage is enough?
> A: Error detection rates by test coverage*:
> 
> 
> 
> Coverage ≤ 100 %: 64,57 %
> Coverage ≤ 200 %: 75,79 %
> Coverage ≤ 400 %: 82,68 %
> Coverage ≤ 800 %: 91,34 %
> Coverage ≤ 1600 %: 96,06 %
> Coverage ≤ 3200 %: 98,03 %
> Coverage ≤ 6400 %: 99,41 %
> * RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error, normalized to 16384 MB test region size


----------



## amazinspacefrog

The DRAM Calculator recommends to set RttWr to 'OFF', does this refer to 'Dynamic ODT Off' option on ASUS Crosshair VII Hero ? When I leave it on Auto , Ryzen Timing Calculator reports it as disabled.
Also should I be rounding off decimals the nearest whole number mathematically or use the calculator value ? For example for 3533 Mhz I get recommendation 282.6, so the nearest whole number would be '283' ?


----------



## larrydavid

chakku said:


> 2700X + C7H WIFI. I did get one error at 500% so maybe needs some more minor tweaking, big improvement over the error I was getting at 50-80% before changing VDDP voltage.


Thanks. Maybe I'll give higher than 3200 a shot again. I'm also on a 2700X and C7H, with come Corsair LPX b-die.


----------



## zulex

Why Spread Spectrum is enabled now?


----------



## damnson90

Please tell me, that the App Center is not the only way to adjust VDDP on Gigabyte boards...because I can't install the App center. As soon as I reboot with it installed, my Bios gets wiped. Is there any way on Gigabyte boards to change the DRAM VDDP in the Bios?


----------



## tekjunkie28

damnson90 said:


> Please tell me, that the App Center is not the only way to adjust VDDP on Gigabyte boards...because I can't install the App center. As soon as I reboot with it installed, my Bios gets wiped. Is there any way on Gigabyte boards to change the DRAM VDDP in the Bios?


Not that I know of. The only VDDP that i see is CPU.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ajc9988

So, just more info on my trying to stabilize 3733. I need 1.05v SOC llc level 2 asrock. 1.41 DRAM. Using CLDO of 913. But, trying to find the tRFC because it seems to effect the error rate a bit and heads a bit toward stability. But, work in progress. Best is 4 errors in 6 minutes so far, but I've seen much worse

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## xlollomanx

@1usmus 

Sorry for disturb, but I'm running 2x4gb of samsung e-die on asrock b350m pro4 and ryzen 1600 at the specs reported in ryzen dram calculator 1.2.0beta 2 sinsce months without any problems. I tried to do calculation with newer 1.3.1 but there are some mismatch in calculation of timings. At first look timings on 1.2.0 beta2 are fairly better. This is an error or the setup created by 1.3.1 is better? Thank you


off-topic: set 1.4v on dram is safe? I don't found any good response on that, since my board not let me to fine tuning my dram voltage. I can only set 1.35 an then it jump to 1.4, I'd like to test higher dram clock. No chance to set 1.365, for example.


----------



## Enferlain

CJMitsuki said:


> there really is no recommended voltage, just whatever is stable but id say it will be 1.4v+ but the exact voltage will vary from kit to kit. Too much or too little voltage can cause instability so testing is required, same with SoCv


I tried 3466 earlier but it didn't boot, then I tried 3333 but that crashed. After that I tried disabling geardownmode with my current (https://i.gyazo.com/a62e5ac16f81f58687e3a1427c2e0a4d.png) timings but it didn't boot either. As I don't know exactly what to try and I don't have the patience to manually clear settings(it doesnt autoreset for some reason) every time, I'll probably be leaving it at this. I just had a memory_management bsod earlier so I thought I'd try some other stuff. I'll probably experiment later with the calculator presets.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Enferlain said:


> I tried 3466 earlier but it didn't boot, then I tried 3333 but that crashed. After that I tried disabling geardownmode with my current (https://i.gyazo.com/a62e5ac16f81f58687e3a1427c2e0a4d.png) timings but it didn't boot either. As I don't know exactly what to try and I don't have the patience to manually clear settings(it doesnt autoreset for some reason) every time, I'll probably be leaving it at this. I just had a memory_management bsod earlier so I thought I'd try some other stuff. I'll probably experiment later with the calculator presets.


Your tRFC is really low...raise it to 350 and re-enable gear down as disabling it will make it less stable, start relaxing primary timings like run 14-14-14-14-34-48 you can work them back down tighter later on. You just want stability for now. You can run Cad_Bus at 24-24-30-30ohm or even 30-30-40-40ohm, you can also try RttPark settings at RZQ/4 or even 3 for more stability. ProcODT can grant more stability by lowering resistance to 53.3 or 48ohm. Lots of things you can try but you have to realize when you jump up in frequency you need to relax timings then once stable tighten them to their working values at said frequency.


----------



## Silence Your Mind

@*1usmus
*
I wanted to say thank you and all the people who have participated in this project, it has been very useful!


----------



## 1usmus

i_max2k2 said:


> @1usmus.
> 
> Thank you so much for keep updating this tool and the effort you put on this. I wanted to ask if there should be any changes in this for Zen+ 470 motherboards?
> 
> Thanks


in some cases, you need to choose the option with the lowest procODT + RTT, I did not see any more differences 



y0bailey said:


> Dumb question....is techpowerup Memtest64 set to max an acceptable mem stability test. HCI memtest is just so clunky and rage inducing?
> 
> prime95 custom mem amount works, but takes awhile for me to find errors. Looking for something faster. Thoughts?


I test using TM5 0.12, it has the best algorithms and speed of error finding. 15 cycles is 22 minutes to be sure of full memory stability

long tests I think this is the worst scenario for testing RAM, since the generation boards 3XX and 4XX do not have enough bus-shielding + they are very exposed to the problem with temperature resonance




zxche said:


> Hi again, @1usmus .
> 
> As per your suggestion, the good news is that I no longer need to reset CMOS. Unfortunately it won't post to desktop, I've tried with 1.475 DRAM voltage and 1.175 SoC voltage and no luck (with X370-F the debug LED goes, DRAM > CPU > VGA then repeats itself for a few times until the RAM profile resets). I really do think it's quite impossible to get to 3200 C14 with this kit. I've tried the different ProcODT and RTT_Park combinations too. I've attached my information to this post.
> 
> As for the SCL timings, it simply cannot go below 4. I don't know why, but since it doesn't affect performance it should be fine?
> 
> Thanks!


There are two types of b-die, CL14 and CL16, option CL16 in CL14 mode will not work. Use the V2 profile



jad_tv said:


> I only see VDDP Standby Voltage and CLDO_VDDP in my bios (asus x470-i 0804); which one of these is the VDDP voltage mentioned in the calculator? Or does my bios not allow adjusting it


for your motherboard you need a mod-bios
Soon will be released AGESA 1.0.0.4s and I will publish modifications for most motherboards



ajc9988 said:


> So, just more info on my trying to stabilize 3733. I need 1.05v SOC llc level 2 asrock. 1.41 DRAM. Using CLDO of 913. But, trying to find the tRFC because it seems to effect the error rate a bit and heads a bit toward stability. But, work in progress. Best is 4 errors in 6 minutes so far, but I've seen much worse
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


it will be no less than 211 ns + the entire setting of this frequency is in the fine tuning of CAD_BUS



damnson90 said:


> I have a question abou the Ryzen System training scheme:
> 
> About how long should I count errors to determine which amount of errors I am encountering, whithout encountering the same ones...because, the longer I test my memory, the more errors I encounter naturally. Are we talking about how many errors do we encounter over the span of 100% of memory testing, or do I have to count errors about 10000% of memory testing, because if so, I always encounter 10+ errors, which means, that my Ram can not handle 3400 Mhz 14-14-14-28-42. Oh and in that scheme it says, when encountering 10+ errors, I should change timings (tFAW 16+) but I already have tFAW at 24 already...sorry, I am pretty new to Ram overclocking, but I just want to get the most out of my FlareX Ram.
> 
> Thanks for your answers in advance.
> 
> PS: I only got my Ram to run at 3200 Mhz at 14-14-14-28-42 so far and then I jumped straight to overclocking to 3400 Mhz with those timings.
> 
> Edit: Where can I adjust CLDO_VDDP, VPP, PLL, Spread Spectrum, VDDP voltage for Ram (I only have CPU VDDP and VDD18 and it differs a lot from the recommended Ram calculator settings as in they are too low to be set in the BIOS) on Gigabyte Boards with the F4g Bios?


these numbers indicate not the number of errors, but the priority in setting up the system or steps, in which order the system should be set up



Rossi87 said:


> To those who use Ram Test, how long are you testing for? I get errors around 7000% 32GB DR on my Gigabyte Gaming K7.
> Anyone have any tips to get rid of these errors?


your system is stable
memory interleaving is capable of creating errors in Windows, more recently, Microsoft has chaotically corrected this problem
you can try to change RTT + procODT or start using Fast preset if you want to get something more



amazinspacefrog said:


> The DRAM Calculator recommends to set RttWr to 'OFF', does this refer to 'Dynamic ODT Off' option on ASUS Crosshair VII Hero ? When I leave it on Auto , Ryzen Timing Calculator reports it as disabled.
> Also should I be rounding off decimals the nearest whole number mathematically or use the calculator value ? For example for 3533 Mhz I get recommendation 282.6, so the nearest whole number would be '283' ?


OFF = Dynamic ODT Off
this is created for clarity, to see what is worth trying (282 and 283)



zulex said:


> Why Spread Spectrum is enabled now?


this setting has great stability at high frequencies, AMD makes optimization with this setting
so disabling requires an in-depth understanding of signals and tires, which is a big problem for beginners


----------



## 1usmus

damnson90 said:


> Please tell me, that the App Center is not the only way to adjust VDDP on Gigabyte boards...because I can't install the App center. As soon as I reboot with it installed, my Bios gets wiped. Is there any way on Gigabyte boards to change the DRAM VDDP in the Bios?


possibly modification of the bios can help or use* ryzen master*
default VDDP = 900mv



xlollomanx said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Sorry for disturb, but I'm running 2x4gb of samsung e-die on asrock b350m pro4 and ryzen 1600 at the specs reported in ryzen dram calculator 1.2.0beta 2 sinsce months without any problems. I tried to do calculation with newer 1.3.1 but there are some mismatch in calculation of timings. At first look timings on 1.2.0 beta2 are fairly better. This is an error or the setup created by 1.3.1 is better? Thank you
> 
> 
> off-topic: set 1.4v on dram is safe? I don't found any good response on that, since my board not let me to fine tuning my dram voltage. I can only set 1.35 an then it jump to 1.4, I'd like to test higher dram clock. No chance to set 1.365, for example.


this is a small inaccuracy in the V1 profile for a frequency that is below 3200
you should have intermediate values between 1.35 and 1.4, use them
the safe voltage is 1.5 volts, the critical one is 1.6 volts



Silence Your Mind said:


> @*1usmus
> *
> I wanted to say thank you and all the people who have participated in this project, it has been very useful!


nice to hear


----------



## gupsterg

Rossi87 said:


> To those who use Ram Test, how long are you testing for? I get errors around 7000% 32GB DR on my Gigabyte Gaming K7.
> Anyone have any tips to get rid of these errors?


I don't use RAM Test currently.

I use HCI/GSAT. A profile I deem stable will pass HCI/GSAT overnight (ie ~8hrs). Otherwise it is not something I would consider using 24/7. I will run GSAT in bash for windows and also Linux Mint.

I would also check for POST to POST variation in RAM training by rerunning stability tests. I have encountered POST to POST variation more, at equal to and greater than 3466MHz. I can show screenies/logs of passing say 2hrs of a "test", repost after ending test and it will fail in minutes. So do not just go for length, do some lower length and reboot system.

For example I may do 15min HCI/GSAT, repost, then 30min, repost, then 1hr. Once at least 3 occurrences of rebooting pass, then I move on to another test, even the next stage of testing (ie P95, etc) will also be done with reposts, etc.


----------



## steve2563

Nothing to see here, i was dumb.


----------



## Screemi

is there any other way to change cad-bus settings apart of the bios? not even the beta-bios with agesa 1.0.0.4a supports cad-settings. here are my really lax settings for my ram. procODT is set to 68,5Ohm and vram is 1,375v. even with these bad settings i get errors in tm5 withon the first minute.

the txt is the html report of typhoon. simply rename to html.


----------



## tekjunkie28

gupsterg said:


> I don't use RAM Test currently.
> 
> I use HCI/GSAT. A profile I deem stable will pass HCI/GSAT overnight (ie ~8hrs). Otherwise it is not something I would consider using 24/7. I will run GSAT in bash for windows and also Linux Mint.
> 
> I would also check for POST to POST variation in RAM training by rerunning stability tests. I have encountered POST to POST variation more, at equal to and greater than 3466MHz. I can show screenies/logs of passing say 2hrs of a "test", repost after ending test and it will fail in minutes. So do not just go for length, do some lower length and reboot system.
> 
> For example I may do 15min HCI/GSAT, repost, then 30min, repost, then 1hr. Once at least 3 occurrences of rebooting pass, then I move on to another test, even the next stage of testing (ie P95, etc) will also be done with reposts, etc.


THIS!! I am running into this now and its driving me insane... what exactly it is training?? Any value that I have set to auto or unseen/unchangeable values or both?? I there a method to diagnose this?

EDIT: is there an english version of testmem5 0.12?


----------



## hsn

Corsair Vengeance led 2x8gb (hynixMFR DR)
This is maximum speed i can get

SOC 1v
Dram 1.4volt


----------



## tekjunkie28

hsn said:


> Corsair Vengeance led 2x8gb (hynixMFR DR)
> This is maximum speed i can get
> 
> SOC 1v
> Dram 1.4volt


240 RTTpark? Is that safe?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## hsn

this is use fastpreset


----------



## damnson90

1usmus said:


> possibly modification of the bios can help or use* ryzen master*
> default VDDP = 900mv


Which of the settings is VDDP in Ryzen Master?


----------



## sethion

Hi Guys,


I have been an frequent visitor on this forum since 1 july when i got my new ryzen build:




 2600x
 crosshair vi hero
 gskill 3466 CL 16 (https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3466c16d-8gvk)


Unfortunately, i was little cheap and uninformed ( b-die is a b-die they said ....) So i bought this terrible kit, which I am unable to stabilize using fast settings, safe settings, nor using data from SPD ( contrary to what newegg reviewers said using the same setup).


I have no problem with booting even at 3466 cl 14, but I'm unable to pass OCCT or gsat for longer than one hour. ( >3333MHz crashes after max 2 minutes, even on safe, <=3333 Mhz after a little longer)

I thinking off selling this and buying flarex, but i thought that i would give it a shot and ask you.... IS it possible to do something reasonable with this kit, or I had bought junk memory?

Tests ( testmem5, memestes) on auto settings do not detect errors, so the kit is error free.


@1usmus


Is it normal, that your calc ( 1.3.0) suggests for my kit the same settings as for V1 profile ( on 1.2 there was rather large difference between those two)? 

Thanks


----------



## spadizzle

tekjunkie28 said:


> THIS!! I am running into this now and its driving me insane... what exactly it is training?? Any value that I have set to auto or unseen/unchangeable values or both?? I there a method to diagnose this?
> 
> EDIT: is there an english version of testmem5 0.12?



Went to the website and grabbed a link for the 0.12. it wants admin privs and is easy to understand english wise.

http://testmem.tz.ru/tm5.rar

Once you launch the program, testing has already started, just so your aware.


Edit: @1usmus , do you have a mem config test file you would care to share that you use?


Edit2: I'm not sure its running, just loaded presets, trying to figure out how to start it lol.


----------



## gupsterg

gupsterg said:


> I don't use RAM Test currently.
> 
> I use HCI/GSAT. A profile I deem stable will pass HCI/GSAT overnight (ie ~8hrs). Otherwise it is not something I would consider using 24/7. I will run GSAT in bash for windows and also Linux Mint.
> 
> I would also check for POST to POST variation in RAM training by rerunning stability tests. I have encountered POST to POST variation more, at equal to and greater than 3466MHz. I can show screenies/logs of passing say 2hrs of a "test", repost after ending test and it will fail in minutes. So do not just go for length, do some lower length and reboot system.
> 
> For example I may do 15min HCI/GSAT, repost, then 30min, repost, then 1hr. Once at least 3 occurrences of rebooting pass, then I move on to another test, even the next stage of testing (ie P95, etc) will also be done with reposts, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> tekjunkie28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS!! I am running into this now and its driving me insane... what exactly it is training?? Any value that I have set to auto or unseen/unchangeable values or both?? I there a method to diagnose this?
> 
> EDIT: is there an english version of testmem5 0.12?
Click to expand...

Training is where basically CPU IMC/DRAM "communicate" with each other and set parameters "we" may not have access to. IMO would be too much to go into for a post. Plenty of articles, etc online, one such example.

UEFI updates can have CPU IMC firmware updates, so perhaps on a later UEFI this issue may just resolve itself.



tekjunkie28 said:


> 240 RTTpark? Is that safe?


Changing ProcODT, CAD Bus and or RTT, is safe. So tinker away  , worst case is mobo doesn't POST and you may need to CLRCMOS. I'd just make sure you have backups of OS, etc  . So far only once killed OS from RAM tinkering.


----------



## 1usmus

Screemi said:


> is there any other way to change cad-bus settings apart of the bios? not even the beta-bios with agesa 1.0.0.4a supports cad-settings. here are my really lax settings for my ram. procODT is set to 68,5Ohm and vram is 1,375v. even with these bad settings i get errors in tm5 withon the first minute.
> 
> the txt is the html report of typhoon. simply rename to html.


RTC does not support AGESA 1.0.0.4c.
Or you do not have BIOS settings?

your memory has an anomalous timing tRC. But in any case it will be a V2 profile and this is a Single rank.
Try these timings, 16 16 16 16 32 58 (or 60)




hsn said:


> Corsair Vengeance led 2x8gb (hynixMFR DR)
> This is maximum speed i can get
> 
> SOC 1v
> Dram 1.4volt


You have good timings for this memory and this frequency
3200-3266 will be the limit on the current generation of processors, but it will take much more voltage for DRAM and SOC

@tekjunkie28

about TM5 0.12

in folder *bin* open with txt file MT.cfg
set *Language=0*



spadizzle said:


> Went to the website and grabbed a link for the 0.12. it wants admin privs and is easy to understand english wise.
> 
> http://testmem.tz.ru/tm5.rar
> 
> Once you launch the program, testing has already started, just so your aware.
> 
> 
> Edit: @1usmus , do you have a mem config test file you would care to share that you use?
> 
> 
> Edit2: I'm not sure its running, just loaded presets, trying to figure out how to start it lol.


my config
https://dropmefiles.com/puaU9
replace the file in the bin folder

+ open program with admin privileges


----------



## damnson90

1usmus said:


> my config
> https://dropmefiles.com/puaU9
> replace the file in the bin folder
> 
> + open program with admin privileges


Can anyone upload this on another hoster? Whenever I click on "Download", it just reloads the site and nothing happens (disabled adblocker etc.)


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus

Hi mate it's me again *sigh* i posted a page or two back remarking how changing my CLDO_VDDP to 913 allowed me to do 10 full passes of IBT V HIGH (first time ever). I thought today i would begin tweaking those timings a little so before i did i ran IBT V HIGH again (**WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY SETTINGS**). Expecting it to pass all 10 like last time i was dismayed only to have the rig FAIL now on the second pass (it used to make at least another one). So tbh it's even worse now. Just wondered if threr is anything else you can suggest? I have tried CLDO_VDDP V's around the 910 to 915 area each failing on pass 2 again.

SoC on 1.05v. DRAM 1.36v LLC on AUTO for both. All other settings as per B Die V2 calc output (though i changed tCL to 14 from the recommended 16). Though if i put it back to 16 it still crashes out on pass 2 so tbh makes no difference. Any help would be great as i don't want to play with all the settings and make it worse. I just don't understand this rig at all tbh. 

**EDIT** Just tried OCCT Linpack AVX and it was still running error free @ 15 mins when i stopped it to do something with the rig. Going to bin IBT AVX tbh as it just seems unreliable imho. Will let rig do an hour run if it will i'll probably exept it as "ok for now" 

Thanx.


----------



## tekjunkie28

I have still been playing around with 3466Mhz stability and I found that if I lower my ProcODT to 48 that its much more stable but still with errors. The problem is that my pc mostly refused to boot with that. It bootloops a few times (i assume training memory and failing) and it just reverts back to 2400Mhz ram speed. Only a few times was it able to train and boot up which when it did I was really stable. Is there a way to boot at lower ProcODT settings? I basilly used the ProcODT and RTT settings from the 3533mhz samsung b die V1 profile from the calculator to get that.


----------



## Nighthog

tekjunkie28 said:


> I have still been playing around with 3466Mhz stability and I found that if I lower my ProcODT to 48 that its much more stable but still with errors. The problem is that my pc mostly refused to boot with that. It bootloops a few times (i assume training memory and failing) and it just reverts back to 2400Mhz ram speed. Only a few times was it able to train and boot up which when it did I was really stable. Is there a way to boot at lower ProcODT settings? I basilly used the ProcODT and RTT settings from the 3533mhz samsung b die V1 profile from the calculator to get that.


What DrvStr values do you use and what motherboard?

For higher speeds 30Ohm might be needed to a few of the DrvStr values. (test 30Ohm if you have 20 or 24Ohm previously)


----------



## tekjunkie28

Nighthog said:


> What DrvStr values do you use and what motherboard?
> 
> For higher speeds 30Ohm might be needed to a few of the DrvStr values. (test 30Ohm if you have 20 or 24Ohm previously)


I assume it is the CkeDrv in the calc? 20 and 24 and 60 so far. The motherboard is the craptastic Gigabyte Aorus gaming 5 wifi X470


----------



## damnson90

Okay...so the highest I can get to run my FlareX Ram seems to be 3400 with the "Safe preset" (14-14-15-14-30-44) and 3333 Mhz with "fast" (14-14-14-14-28-42). I think, as many of you told me, the one thing that keeps my Ram back is VDDP, since on 3400 Mhz "Safe", any setting higher than the Ram calculator presets for my ram (tRCDRD 14 instead of 15, tRAS 29 instead of 30, tRC 43 instead of 44, or 325 instead of 326) make the Ram unstable in TM5 after 2-5 minutes (first error occurs) and the only setting that I can not change is the Ram VDDP. I even tried 1.45 DRAM V and 1.25 on SOC. Did not work. So yeah...I basically have to pray, that Gigabyte includes the VDDP setting in one of their Bios updates.

anyways...can you tell me which of those both settings is better for gaming? 3333 Mhz "Fast" or 3400 "Safe". I have no AIDA 64 (I am not willing to pay 35€ for a program that I use once to adjust my Ram for gaming and then never use it again), or are there any free Ram benchmarks?


----------



## MNMadman

damnson90 said:


> anyways...can you tell me which of those both settings is better for gaming? 3333 Mhz "Fast" or 3400 "Safe". I have no AIDA 64 (I am not willing to pay 35€ for a program that I use once to adjust my Ram for gaming and then never use it again), or are there any free Ram benchmarks?


Those timings are very similar, which means any differences will be small or nonexistent. RAM benchmarks won't tell you anything useful real-world. The only way to tell which settings are faster is to test with the programs/games you use and see if you can tell.


----------



## spadizzle

damnson90 said:


> Can anyone upload this on another hoster? Whenever I click on "Download", it just reloads the site and nothing happens (disabled adblocker etc.)


I just put the config into a zip for ya, I had issues with IE downloading, retrieved it using firefox


----------



## tekjunkie28

damnson90 said:


> Okay...so the highest I can get to run my FlareX Ram seems to be 3400 with the "Safe preset" (14-14-15-14-30-44) and 3333 Mhz with "fast" (14-14-14-14-28-42). I think, as many of you told me, the one thing that keeps my Ram back is VDDP, since on 3400 Mhz "Safe", any setting higher than the Ram calculator presets for my ram (tRCDRD 14 instead of 15, tRAS 29 instead of 30, tRC 43 instead of 44, or 325 instead of 326) make the Ram unstable in TM5 after 2-5 minutes (first error occurs) and the only setting that I can not change is the Ram VDDP. I even tried 1.45 DRAM V and 1.25 on SOC. Did not work. So yeah...I basically have to pray, that Gigabyte includes the VDDP setting in one of their Bios updates.
> 
> anyways...can you tell me which of those both settings is better for gaming? 3333 Mhz "Fast" or 3400 "Safe". I have no AIDA 64 (I am not willing to pay 35€ for a program that I use once to adjust my Ram for gaming and then never use it again), or are there any free Ram benchmarks?


So far I can tell you 3200Mhz fast is perfect for me gaming wise. Right now I'm currently trying to get 3466Mhz stable on my FlareX. 3400 needs some more tweaking for speed so I will let you know what I get.


----------



## hammadnadeemx

Thanks for the neat tool 1usmus. Is there any chance it will support ram made from hyundia chips ? i am using CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 corsiar lpx with asus b350 prime plus and a ryzen 1700. My ram version is 6.39 and siv details are in the attached files. It says dram manufacturers as hyundai. Please help i paid extra for 3200mhz ram and i am stuck at 2133.


----------



## y0bailey

Memory testing software update. 

I've been on the brink of stable with my ****ty Corsair LPX Hynix MFR for weeks now, and finally got to stable 3266mhz yesterday. I know that doesn't sound like much, but it was to me. I think 3200mhz is a bit fat memory hole on my system, and just going above it made my overclocking easier. I still have to work at timings...but so far I'm just happy to run at or above the damn rated speed. 

BUT, while testing stability, I was also testing stability testers. 

Conclusions:
1) Ram Test isn't super reliable in my opinion. I ran it for 5 hours with no errors, something like 12000%, thought "I'm stable!!!!", the fired up PUBG and had a crash after a few hours. Went back to P95 and it failed within an hour. It's been voted off the island

2) MT5 is good for the quick and dirty test. 15 loops gets you "ballpark" stable, but I still don't trust this as the end-all-be-all. 

3) Prime 95, custom blend, using basically all of your free ram, always finds errors unless things are 100% stable. Slow and steady wins the race. 

4) Funny enough, PUBG also does a good job at finding these errors. I've passed Ram Test, MT5, and crashed PUBG to then fire up P95 and confirm an instability. 

So there ya are.


----------



## MNMadman

y0bailey said:


> Memory testing software update.
> 
> I've been on the brink of stable with my ****ty Corsair LPX Hynix MFR for weeks now, and finally got to stable 3266mhz yesterday. I know that doesn't sound like much, but it was to me. I think 3200mhz is a bit fat memory hole on my system, and just going above it made my overclocking easier. I still have to work at timings...but so far I'm just happy to run at or above the damn rated speed.
> 
> BUT, while testing stability, I was also testing stability testers.
> 
> Conclusions:
> 1) Ram Test isn't super reliable in my opinion. I ran it for 5 hours with no errors, something like 12000%, thought "I'm stable!!!!", the fired up PUBG and had a crash after a few hours. Went back to P95 and it failed within an hour. It's been voted off the island
> 
> 2) MT5 is good for the quick and dirty test. 15 loops gets you "ballpark" stable, but I still don't trust this as the end-all-be-all.
> 
> 3) Prime 95, custom blend, using basically all of your free ram, always finds errors unless things are 100% stable. Slow and steady wins the race.
> 
> 4) Funny enough, PUBG also does a good job at finding these errors. I've passed Ram Test, MT5, and crashed PUBG to then fire up P95 and confirm an instability.
> 
> So there ya are.


You should never trust one program 100% for stability. ALWAYS use multiple programs. You can be stable in all but one game -- and that one game that crashes means you're not stable.

For RAM Test, I always do two runs -- 10,000% then reboot, then 10,000% again. I have had issues after passing only one run. I have never had instability issues after having passed the second RAM Test run. And then I do testing with other stuff because one program is never enough.

My basic stability testing routine:
RAM Test 10,000% then reboot then 10,000% again.
Prime95 v29.4b8 Small FFT preset, eight hours.
Prime95 v29.4b8 Blend, eight hours.
RealBench v2.56 32GB RAM selected (my system has 32GB), eight hours.
Y-Cruncher default stress test, eight hours.

Note that I only do that full run when testing a new system. When tweaking RAM on a stable system I would only do four-hour runs of each program (except RAM Test -- I do the full double-run of that).


----------



## chakku

MNMadman said:


> You should never trust one program 100% for stability. ALWAYS use multiple programs. You can be stable in all but one game -- and that one game that crashes means you're not stable.
> 
> For RAM Test, I always do two runs -- 10,000% then reboot, then 10,000% again. I have had issues after passing only one run. I have never had instability issues after having passed the second RAM Test run. And then I do testing with other stuff because one program is never enough.
> 
> My basic stability testing routine:
> RAM Test 10,000% then reboot then 10,000% again.
> Prime95 v29.4b8 Small FFT preset, eight hours.
> Prime95 v29.4b8 Blend, eight hours.
> RealBench v2.56 32GB RAM selected (my system has 32GB), eight hours.
> Y-Cruncher default stress test, eight hours.
> 
> Note that I only do that full run when testing a new system. When tweaking RAM on a stable system I would only do four-hour runs of each program (except RAM Test -- I do the full double-run of that).


What do you have your 32GB kit running at with this kind of stability?


----------



## dspx

I had 3200 stable initially, but after retesting I could not get it stable again.. I don't know what is wrong, it all went downhill a few BIOS revisions ago and getting a new PSU did not help at all.
I finally had it and could not wait for new AGESA and BIOS update and went back to 3133 which proved to be very stable previously.
So, here are my new results, AFR definitely can't do any better at these summer temperatures, I set the voltage to 1.39V


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Hi mate it's me again *sigh* i posted a page or two back remarking how changing my CLDO_VDDP to 913 allowed me to do 10 full passes of IBT V HIGH (first time ever). I thought today i would begin tweaking those timings a little so before i did i ran IBT V HIGH again (**WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY SETTINGS**). Expecting it to pass all 10 like last time i was dismayed only to have the rig FAIL now on the second pass (it used to make at least another one). So tbh it's even worse now. Just wondered if threr is anything else you can suggest? I have tried CLDO_VDDP V's around the 910 to 915 area each failing on pass 2 again.
> 
> SoC on 1.05v. DRAM 1.36v LLC on AUTO for both. All other settings as per B Die V2 calc output (though i changed tCL to 14 from the recommended 16). Though if i put it back to 16 it still crashes out on pass 2 so tbh makes no difference. Any help would be great as i don't want to play with all the settings and make it worse. I just don't understand this rig at all tbh.
> 
> **EDIT** Just tried OCCT Linpack AVX and it was still running error free @ 15 mins when i stopped it to do something with the rig. Going to bin IBT AVX tbh as it just seems unreliable imho. Will let rig do an hour run if it will i'll probably exept it as "ok for now"
> 
> Thanx.


the memory training algorithm is unfortunately not perfect, try this:
1) shut down the computer from the network (power cord)
2) hold the power button for a minute (discharge all capacitors)
3) change the RAM in the slots with each other (reset RTT)
4) turn on the computer and manually enter all the settings (I do not recommend using the saved profile!)



damnson90 said:


> Can anyone upload this on another hoster? Whenever I click on "Download", it just reloads the site and nothing happens (disabled adblocker etc.)


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MZx5rCozbDzSgmUZxCl-HonL_VTH4n7e



tekjunkie28 said:


> I have still been playing around with 3466Mhz stability and I found that if I lower my ProcODT to 48 that its much more stable but still with errors. The problem is that my pc mostly refused to boot with that. It bootloops a few times (i assume training memory and failing) and it just reverts back to 2400Mhz ram speed. Only a few times was it able to train and boot up which when it did I was really stable. Is there a way to boot at lower ProcODT settings? I basilly used the ProcODT and RTT settings from the 3533mhz samsung b die V1 profile from the calculator to get that.


I use an unsuccessful workout for full stability 3666, the system refuses to start from the first time, but from the second it will be full stability
For procODT 43, 48, 53 the range of RTT_PARK is 34-80 ohm



damnson90 said:


> Okay...so the highest I can get to run my FlareX Ram seems to be 3400 with the "Safe preset" (14-14-15-14-30-44) and 3333 Mhz with "fast" (14-14-14-14-28-42). I think, as many of you told me, the one thing that keeps my Ram back is VDDP, since on 3400 Mhz "Safe", any setting higher than the Ram calculator presets for my ram (tRCDRD 14 instead of 15, tRAS 29 instead of 30, tRC 43 instead of 44, or 325 instead of 326) make the Ram unstable in TM5 after 2-5 minutes (first error occurs) and the only setting that I can not change is the Ram VDDP. I even tried 1.45 DRAM V and 1.25 on SOC. Did not work. So yeah...I basically have to pray, that Gigabyte includes the VDDP setting in one of their Bios updates.
> 
> anyways...can you tell me which of those both settings is better for gaming? 3333 Mhz "Fast" or 3400 "Safe". I have no AIDA 64 (I am not willing to pay 35€ for a program that I use once to adjust my Ram for gaming and then never use it again), or are there any free Ram benchmarks?


the differences between safe and fast are almost nonexistent, I think 3400 will be better for you



hammadnadeemx said:


> Thanks for the neat tool 1usmus. Is there any chance it will support ram made from hyundia chips ? i am using CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 corsiar lpx with asus b350 prime plus and a ryzen 1700. My ram version is 6.39 and siv details are in the attached files. It says dram manufacturers as hyundai. Please help i paid extra for 3200mhz ram and i am stuck at 2133.









y0bailey said:


> Memory testing software update.
> 
> I've been on the brink of stable with my ****ty Corsair LPX Hynix MFR for weeks now, and finally got to stable 3266mhz yesterday. I know that doesn't sound like much, but it was to me. I think 3200mhz is a bit fat memory hole on my system, and just going above it made my overclocking easier. I still have to work at timings...but so far I'm just happy to run at or above the damn rated speed.
> 
> BUT, while testing stability, I was also testing stability testers.
> 
> Conclusions:
> 1) Ram Test isn't super reliable in my opinion. I ran it for 5 hours with no errors, something like 12000%, thought "I'm stable!!!!", the fired up PUBG and had a crash after a few hours. Went back to P95 and it failed within an hour. It's been voted off the island
> 
> 2) MT5 is good for the quick and dirty test. 15 loops gets you "ballpark" stable, but I still don't trust this as the end-all-be-all.
> 
> 3) Prime 95, custom blend, using basically all of your free ram, always finds errors unless things are 100% stable. Slow and steady wins the race.
> 
> 4) Funny enough, PUBG also does a good job at finding these errors. I've passed Ram Test, MT5, and crashed PUBG to then fire up P95 and confirm an instability.
> 
> So there ya are.


About testing methods, I agree with you, but
I repeat once more, prolonged load = temperature rise, high temperature = loss of stability due to thermal resonance.

What does the temperature affect?

1) capacitance of capacitors
2) the leakage currents in the processor
3) change in the resistance of the bus
4) Efficiency of VRM



dspx said:


> I had 3200 stable initially, but after retesting I could not get it stable again.. I don't know what is wrong, it all went downhill a few BIOS revisions ago and getting a new PSU did not help at all.
> I finally had it and could not wait for new AGESA and BIOS update and went back to 3133 which proved to be very stable previously.
> So, here are my new results, AFR definitely can't do any better at these summer temperatures, I set the voltage to 1.39V


you are not alone, most motherboards on the chipset 350 got downgrade with new bios, I recommend that you do not use the new ones, 3XXX are the best choice


----------



## MNMadman

chakku said:


> What do you have your 32GB kit running at with this kind of stability?


It's a G.Skill F4-3200C14Q-32GTZRX 4x8GB (Samsung B-die) kit on a Threadripper 1950X, running at its rated speed of 3200 but with timings between XMP and Fast. I can get a screenshot of Ryzen Timing Checker when I get home from work.

I have tried faster speeds but never got them stable. I might try the newest version of the Calculator to see if that changes things.


----------



## SexySale

Can you please share your CLDO_VDDP and DRAM voltage values?

Thanks


----------



## dspx

SexySale said:


> Can you please share your CLDO_VDDP and DRAM voltage values?
> 
> Thanks


Are you asking me?


----------



## SexySale

y0bailey said:


> Memory testing software update.
> 
> I've been on the brink of stable with my ****ty Corsair LPX Hynix MFR for weeks now, and finally got to stable 3266mhz yesterday. I know that doesn't sound like much, but it was to me. I think 3200mhz is a bit fat memory hole on my system, and just going above it made my overclocking easier. I still have to work at timings...but so far I'm just happy to run at or above the damn rated speed.
> 
> BUT, while testing stability, I was also testing stability testers.
> 
> Conclusions:
> 1) Ram Test isn't super reliable in my opinion. I ran it for 5 hours with no errors, something like 12000%, thought "I'm stable!!!!", the fired up PUBG and had a crash after a few hours. Went back to P95 and it failed within an hour. It's been voted off the island
> 
> 2) MT5 is good for the quick and dirty test. 15 loops gets you "ballpark" stable, but I still don't trust this as the end-all-be-all.
> 
> 3) Prime 95, custom blend, using basically all of your free ram, always finds errors unless things are 100% stable. Slow and steady wins the race.
> 
> 4) Funny enough, PUBG also does a good job at finding these errors. I've passed Ram Test, MT5, and crashed PUBG to then fire up P95 and confirm an instability.
> 
> So there ya are.


Can you please share your CLDO_VDDP and DRAM voltage values?


----------



## SexySale

dspx said:


> Are you asking me?


No sry man 
Was on phone and wrongly added quotes


----------



## hammadnadeemx

Thanks for the quick response. I thaiphoon says i have got hynix m-die so i choose hynix mfr. let me try these settings out.


----------



## damnson90

Whoa...I did not realise, that having an external HDD connected to your PC without even using it, bogs your performance down by a lot...I went from 65,9 ns latency on my 3333 Mhz 14-14-14-14-28-42 to 60,0 ns on the AIDA 64 Extreme benchmark (Demo version) just by disconnecting the external HDD.


----------



## MNMadman

damnson90 said:


> Whoa...I did not realise, that having an external HDD connected to your PC without even using it, bogs your performance down by a lot...I went from 65,9 ns latency on my 3333 Mhz 14-14-14-14-28-42 to 60,0 ns on the AIDA 64 Extreme benchmark (Demo version) just by disconnecting the external HDD.


There are probably processes happening in the background related to that drive or synching with it or something, that are using CPU cycles and memory. Unplugging it stops those processes.

Note that the 6ns difference in the benchmark probably makes no difference whatsoever to the speed of your applications/games. We're talking about six _billionths_ of a second here.


----------



## Darkstalker420

WOW!! At last!! got 10 passes IBT V HIGH repeatable after restart by doing the following (on BIOS 4011 B350 Strix):

CPU LLC HIGH.
SoC LLC HIGH.
Phase set to EXTREME.
**Switching Frequency to 350**.
CLDO_VDDP 866.
DRAM 1.36v.
CPU V's AUTO.
SoC V's AUTO.
Other V's AUTO.

Using current V1 B Die "safe" profile (30,14,14.14.14 307 tRFC 44 tRC). I think switching to 350 was the one tbh. Never had repeatable runs that would pass. B350 owners struggling with repeating passes of stress test programs if you have the option to change Switching Frequency in your BIOS do so and re run your progs!! Never before have i been able to restart the rig or power off and be able to pass IBT. Even if i could get 10 passes (1 out of 10 tries if lucky) restarting would "break" the settings and i would be back to fail on 2nd/3rd pass EVERYTIME.

I have tried multiple IBT runs ALL passing without a hiccup..... I built this rig about this time last year and it has taken until NOW to get this to work 2 freakin' years of fail IBT 2nd/3rd pass. I'm gob smacked LMAO!! Thanks once again 1usmus for your software i would of been doomed without it tbh. *phew* No more IBT swallowing my whole days 3 mins at a time!! WOOP!!

Thanx.


----------



## y0bailey

SexySale said:


> Can you please share your CLDO_VDDP and DRAM voltage values?


Literally just changed the circled options, and didn't go below the 16-18-18-18-36 settings under timings, and didn't change CLDO_VDPP (auto). Did change dram voltage to 1.375, VDDP voltage to 0.855.


----------



## Silence Your Mind

I've been trying for several months to reach an optimal level of stability but I think I'm still 90% or so. BSOD (rarely) and overclocking instability when turning on my PC (very rarely).

All my settings:

-BIOS



Spoiler







































-RAM (Kingston KHX3200C16D4-8GX)



Spoiler















































Personally, I think it's due to some timings of my RAM.

Any help or suggestion is really appreciated, I'm still a noob regarding overclock and stuff like that. I appreciate your time and disposition guys!


----------



## ajc9988

Edit: Also, on TM5, I have rarely seen an error past cycle 48 (yes, I've done 210 for about 6 hours of testing on tight timings where it completes under 5 minutes on the original, not this edited version)

@1usmus - did you see this mod someone did to TM5 v0.12? http://hwtips.tistory.com/2548
Here is what is in the MT.cfg (haven't tested yet, but thought I'd share since we both enjoy using that program):

Memory Test config file v0.02
Copyrights to the program belong to me.
Serj
testmem.tz.ru
[email protected]

[Main Section]
Config Name=Default
Config Author=serj
Cores=0
Tests=12
Time (%)=100
Cycles=5
Language=0
Test Sequence=6,12,14,2,15,10,5,1,4,3,0,13,9,7,8,1,11

[Global Memory Setup]
Channels=2
Interleave Type=1
Single DIMM width, bits=64
Operation Block, byts=64
Testing Window Size (Mb)=1024
Lock Memory Granularity (Mb)=16
Reserved Memory for Windows (Mb)=128
Capable=0x1
Debug Level=7

[Window Position]
WindowPosX=726
WindowPosY=426

[Test0]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=RefreshStable
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test1]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=1
Pattern Param0=0x1E5F
Pattern Param1=0x45357354
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=16

[Test2]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0x14AAB7
Pattern Param1=0x6E72A941
Parameter=254
Test Block Size (Mb)=32

[Test3]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=MirrorMove
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=1
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test4]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=MirrorMove128
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=510
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test5]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=MirrorMove
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=4
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test6]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=1

[Test7]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=2

[Test8]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test9]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test10]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=8

[Test11]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=16


----------



## oswinso

I've just started trying to overclock RAM, but I'm not able to get as tight subtimings as in the DRAM calculator. I've got Corsair Vengeance CMK16GX4M2B3000C15, which should be Hynix A-die according to Thaiphoon Burner. I'm able to get to 3200 CL14, but I'm having trouble hitting tRP of 16 and the tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL of 3, as tm5 shows me an error within the first 20 seconds.

CPU: 2600X
Mobo: Fatal1ty B450 Gaming-ITX/ac



Spoiler









Spoiler







Any tips on how to further tighten the timings? I've tried changing the CLDO_VDDP to the alternate ones in the calculator but I couldn't get it stable.


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> Edit: Also, on TM5, I have rarely seen an error past cycle 48 (yes, I've done 210 for about 6 hours of testing on tight timings where it completes under 5 minutes on the original, not this edited version)
> 
> @1usmus - did you see this mod someone did to TM5 v0.12? http://hwtips.tistory.com/2548
> Here is what is in the MT.cfg (haven't tested yet, but thought I'd share since we both enjoy using that program):
> 
> Memory Test config file v0.02
> Copyrights to the program belong to me.
> Serj
> testmem.tz.ru
> [email protected]
> 
> [Main Section]
> Config Name=Default
> Config Author=serj
> Cores=0
> Tests=12
> Time (%)=100
> Cycles=5
> Language=0
> Test Sequence=6,12,14,2,15,10,5,1,4,3,0,13,9,7,8,1,11
> 
> [Global Memory Setup]
> Channels=2
> Interleave Type=1
> Single DIMM width, bits=64
> Operation Block, byts=64
> Testing Window Size (Mb)=1024
> Lock Memory Granularity (Mb)=16
> Reserved Memory for Windows (Mb)=128
> Capable=0x1
> Debug Level=7
> 
> [Window Position]
> WindowPosX=726
> WindowPosY=426
> 
> [Test0]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=RefreshStable
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=0
> 
> [Test1]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=1
> Pattern Param0=0x1E5F
> Pattern Param1=0x45357354
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=16
> 
> [Test2]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=2
> Pattern Param0=0x14AAB7
> Pattern Param1=0x6E72A941
> Parameter=254
> Test Block Size (Mb)=32
> 
> [Test3]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=MirrorMove
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=1
> Test Block Size (Mb)=0
> 
> [Test4]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=MirrorMove128
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=510
> Test Block Size (Mb)=0
> 
> [Test5]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=MirrorMove
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=4
> Test Block Size (Mb)=0
> 
> [Test6]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=1
> 
> [Test7]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=2
> 
> [Test8]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=0
> 
> [Test9]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=4
> 
> [Test10]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=8
> 
> [Test11]
> Enable=1
> Time (%)=100
> Function=SimpleTest
> DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> Pattern Param1=0x0
> Parameter=0
> Test Block Size (Mb)=16


useless configuration for testing if the template is not random, 
here's my suggestion 

*TM5 0.12 config mod by 1usmus*


Spoiler














download: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZz_mbcEgdizSx3NR2gJIXkqU0wfh4Ep


----------



## SexySale

y0bailey said:


> Literally just changed the circled options, and didn't go below the 16-18-18-18-36 settings under timings, and didn't change CLDO_VDPP (auto). Did change dram voltage to 1.375, VDDP voltage to 0.855.


Thanks man, great work on explaining 

I will try that and let you know is it working on 1st gen Ryzen.


----------



## 1usmus

oswinso said:


> I've just started trying to overclock RAM, but I'm not able to get as tight subtimings as in the DRAM calculator. I've got Corsair Vengeance CMK16GX4M2B3000C15, which should be Hynix A-die according to Thaiphoon Burner. I'm able to get to 3200 CL14, but I'm having trouble hitting tRP of 16 and the tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL of 3, as tm5 shows me an error within the first 20 seconds.
> 
> CPU: 2600X
> Mobo: Fatal1ty B450 Gaming-ITX/ac
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any tips on how to further tighten the timings? I've tried changing the CLDO_VDDP to the alternate ones in the calculator but I couldn't get it stable.


tfaw you need to check, starting from 24, then 25 and so on to 40


----------



## Bubar37

Thx a lot 1usmus my GSKILL F4-2400c15-8gnt (hynix MFR) works great with safe preset @2800 .


----------



## 1usmus

Bubar37 said:


> Thx a lot 1usmus my GSKILL F4-2400c15-8gnt (hynix MFR) works great with safe preset @2800 .



you should try at least 2933 and 3000, as the calculator has memory optimization for the frequency from 2933. In future versions I upgrade the offers for 2800-3133


----------



## Bubar37

Thx 2933 works too at 16 17 17 17 i'll stay at this point as the safe preset for 3000 jump to 18 18 18 18 . For low budget ram it's quite good. Amazing work


----------



## 1usmus

*I ask guests and users of the forum to write down their results in the tables, this will help me improve the product, and you will also find something useful for yourself.*
Thanks!

ZEN >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388
ZEN+ >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm2i2-YIQKrZGpLO60l3JKX3nlMIr8ChhBTxvXQb13Y/edit#gid=0


----------



## numlock66

1usmus said:


> *I ask guests and users of the forum to write down their results in the tables, this will help me improve the product, and you will also find something useful for yourself.*
> Thanks!
> 
> ZEN >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388
> ZEN+ >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm2i2-YIQKrZGpLO60l3JKX3nlMIr8ChhBTxvXQb13Y/edit#gid=0


We don't have permission to edit.


----------



## 1usmus

numlock66 said:


> We don't have permission to edit.


restrictions lifted, thanks for saying


----------



## y0bailey

I'm about to pull out what little hair I have left.

I am not stable at 3266 like I thought. There is something going on with this mobo/bios that changes from boot to boot. For instance, I was 12 hours P95/15 cycles MT5/5 hour Ramtest stable called it good. Shut the computer down, thought "finally did it!"

1 day later I boot up, get a crash in PUBG, and THE EXACT SAME SETTINGS I PASSED P95, MT5, ETC/ETC. ON CRASH IN MINUTES ON P95. 

What the flying hell!? Any thoughts?


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> useless configuration for testing if the template is not random,
> here's my suggestion
> 
> *TM5 0.12 config mod by 1usmus*
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> download: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZz_mbcEgdizSx3NR2gJIXkqU0wfh4Ep


Thanks for that. I'll be using it shortly. I think I am finally closing in on 3600 stability again on my system, thankfully. Just a point of pride because I have 3466 CL14 working with roughly your timings (minor tweaks). For CAD, I set the AddrCmd to 0 and the other two to 1 and think it may actually pass using 288 tRFC with the RFC2 and 4 set to auto. Once I get it fully stable and tested, I'll add my info to the table (and if not, I'll add my 3466 to the table). 

But, once again, thanks!

Edit: So, this is what I got with 4050MHz on core trying to get it stable, using a 913 CLDO. I'll try again later, first thing to try is loosening tRFC. I tried a couple on the tFAW, but it created more instability rather than less. Because of increased speed on core, the RFC is a good candidate (I played with voltages already and went through every variant of the CAD_BUS timings for 0 and 1 and none were as stable as 0,1,1 for me). So, still some work. BIOS screenshots attached.


----------



## Pandora's Box

Quite happy with these results. 4x8GB samsung b-die DDR4-3200


----------



## neur0cide

You got pretty good RAM, cause the X470 Taichi is terrible at ocing RAM. Especially when it comes to dual rank B-die or quad single rank as in your case.
Make use of procODT (e.g. 53 Ohm) and the Rtt dividers (e.g. RZQ/7-off-RZQ/5) and aim for DDR4-3333 or 3400. Also tame your Drive Strength values. 120-120-120-120 Ohm is nuts.


----------



## ajc9988

neur0cide said:


> You got pretty good RAM, cause the X470 Taichi is terrible at ocing RAM. Especially when it comes to dual rank B-die or quad single rank as in your case.
> Make use of procODT (e.g. 53 Ohm) and the Rtt dividers (e.g. RZQ/7-off-RZQ/5) and aim for DDR4-3333 or 3400. Also tame your Drive Strength values. 120-120-120-120 Ohm is nuts.


Ever since the recent bios updates, it seems Asrock misreports the drive strength values. Mine also read that, even though you can see changing them in BIOS does effect stability.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## tarot

MNMadman said:


> It's a G.Skill F4-3200C14Q-32GTZRX 4x8GB (Samsung B-die) kit on a Threadripper 1950X, running at its rated speed of 3200 but with timings between XMP and Fast. I can get a screenshot of Ryzen Timing Checker when I get home from work.
> 
> I have tried faster speeds but never got them stable. I might try the newest version of the Calculator to see if that changes things.


heres mine with the new 3.20 bios for the taichi 1950x at 4050

memory speed benches are very close to the 2.00 and stock it is a bit faster all round.
oh and this is manual i didn't use to memtest thing here yet i will try it to fine tune


----------



## ajc9988

tarot said:


> heres mine with the new 3.20 bios for the taichi 1950x at 4050
> 
> memory speed benches are very close to the 2.00 and stock it is a bit faster all round.
> oh and this is manual i didn't use to memtest thing here yet i will try it to fine tune


So, I just got done trying to fine tune mine, and since we have a similar setup, you may want to take a look:

I used RTT /7; dyn off; /4
CAD_BUS 0;1;1
CAD_BUS Drv of 20s for all 4

CLDO 913

I didn't get the RCDRD down to 14, but could just be my ram vs yours (tried quickly, but got lazy).
This is 102GBps Read in AIDA64 with 57.x latency. If I get 14 14 14 stable, I'll let you know because it increased the score in CB15 to 3536 and lowered latency to 56.x. But, simple voltage manipulation was not working quickly, so.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

1usmus said:


> *I ask guests and users of the forum to write down their results in the tables, this will help me improve the product, and you will also find something useful for yourself.*
> Thanks!
> 
> ZEN >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388
> ZEN+ >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm2i2-YIQKrZGpLO60l3JKX3nlMIr8ChhBTxvXQb13Y/edit#gid=0


I've added my new Super stable setup for G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GVK

Soon i will go for some 4x Dimms (4000MHz CL18 or similar)
So i will have 32GB of super fast RAMs then i will wait for ZEN_2


----------



## Valka814

*FlareX*

I'm starting to give up further memory overclocking.
Boot is not an issue as far as I tried (3466), but memory test is. At 3466, I'll get error(s) in the first 3-4 minutes. At 3333, error(s) in the first hour.

This is the best stable setup:

Dram V: 1.375V
C6H


----------



## Khanattila

1usmus said:


> *I ask guests and users of the forum to write down their results in the tables, this will help me improve the product, and you will also find something useful for yourself.*
> Thanks!
> 
> ZEN >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388
> ZEN+ >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm2i2-YIQKrZGpLO60l3JKX3nlMIr8ChhBTxvXQb13Y/edit#gid=0


Hi 1usmus, great tool.

I'm not very experienced about ram overclocking, but it's possible that Hynix CJR is not in your tool/database?
Or I can equate them with something else that I do not know.

Link: https://www.skhynix.com/products.view.do?vseq=2388&cseq=73


----------



## 1usmus

y0bailey said:


> I'm about to pull out what little hair I have left.
> 
> I am not stable at 3266 like I thought. There is something going on with this mobo/bios that changes from boot to boot. For instance, I was 12 hours P95/15 cycles MT5/5 hour Ramtest stable called it good. Shut the computer down, thought "finally did it!"
> 
> 1 day later I boot up, get a crash in PUBG, and THE EXACT SAME SETTINGS I PASSED P95, MT5, ETC/ETC. ON CRASH IN MINUTES ON P95.
> 
> What the flying hell!? Any thoughts?


If you overclock the memory but there is crash it is not a guarantee that the memory or the processor is to blame. Quality code for games is a rarity. I can catch crash even in the default state. It's mania and human fear.
I consider PUBG a game with a dirty, unoptimized code.

In any case, I advise you to pay attention to the processor voltage and the temperature inside your computer, maybe some elements are just overheating.



ajc9988 said:


> Thanks for that. I'll be using it shortly. I think I am finally closing in on 3600 stability again on my system, thankfully. Just a point of pride because I have 3466 CL14 working with roughly your timings (minor tweaks). For CAD, I set the AddrCmd to 0 and the other two to 1 and think it may actually pass using 288 tRFC with the RFC2 and 4 set to auto. Once I get it fully stable and tested, I'll add my info to the table (and if not, I'll add my 3466 to the table).
> 
> But, once again, thanks!
> 
> Edit: So, this is what I got with 4050MHz on core trying to get it stable, using a 913 CLDO. I'll try again later, first thing to try is loosening tRFC. I tried a couple on the tFAW, but it created more instability rather than less. Because of increased speed on core, the RFC is a good candidate (I played with voltages already and went through every variant of the CAD_BUS timings for 0 and 1 and none were as stable as 0,1,1 for me). So, still some work. BIOS screenshots attached.


Thanks for the detailed information 



Ne01 OnnA said:


> I've added my new Super stable setup for G.Skill F4-3200C16-8GVK
> 
> Soon i will go for some 4x Dimms (4000MHz CL18 or similar)
> So i will have 32GB of super fast RAMs then i will wait for ZEN_2


This will happen in 4 months 



Khanattila said:


> Hi 1usmus, great tool.
> 
> I'm not very experienced about ram overclocking, but it's possible that Hynix CJR is not in your tool/database?
> Or I can equate them with something else that I do not know.
> 
> Link: https://www.skhynix.com/products.view.do?vseq=2388&cseq=73


Please provide me a full Thaiphoon report


----------



## Khanattila

1usmus said:


> Please provide me a full Thaiphoon report



Sure!


----------



## iNeri

One more here with success at "fast" timings from calculator for 3466 strap:

vdimm 1.40v
vddp 0.86v
vsoc 1.037v


----------



## ajc9988

So, just finished up the HCI testing for stability to 1000% on the 3466 (posted the TM5 yesterday).


----------



## chakku

neur0cide said:


> You got pretty good RAM, cause the X470 Taichi is terrible at ocing RAM. Especially when it comes to dual rank B-die or quad single rank as in your case.
> Make use of procODT (e.g. 53 Ohm) and the Rtt dividers (e.g. RZQ/7-off-RZQ/5) and aim for DDR4-3333 or 3400. Also tame your Drive Strength values. 120-120-120-120 Ohm is nuts.


Apologies if you've posted them already but what are your timings for the 3366C14 for the 32GB kit in your signature? I'm running 3333 but it's not entirely stable (passes Memtest86 4pass, gets an error at ~500% in HCI Memtest, one error on 3rd pass of custom TM5).


----------



## tarot

ajc9988 said:


> So, I just got done trying to fine tune mine, and since we have a similar setup, you may want to take a look:
> 
> I used RTT /7; dyn off; /4
> CAD_BUS 0;1;1
> CAD_BUS Drv of 20s for all 4
> 
> CLDO 913
> 
> I didn't get the RCDRD down to 14, but could just be my ram vs yours (tried quickly, but got lazy).
> This is 102GBps Read in AIDA64 with 57.x latency. If I get 14 14 14 stable, I'll let you know because it increased the score in CB15 to 3536 and lowered latency to 56.x. But, simple voltage manipulation was not working quickly, so.


thanks i will give those a shot...i have never had any real luck hitting 3466 on mine hence why i just stuck with 3333 but who knows 
those settings of mine pretty much give me 3400 in cb 15 and and 44 seconds wprime


----------



## ajc9988

tarot said:


> thanks i will give those a shot...i have never had any real luck hitting 3466 on mine hence why i just stuck with 3333 but who knows
> those settings of mine pretty much give me 3400 in cb 15 and and 44 seconds wprime


Nice. Now, remember, voltages for stable on the ram and on the SOC may vary a bit because of hardware differences. So keep that in mind when trying to hunt and peck for stability. My voltages may differ on those grounds alone. I left level 1 SOC I believe while using 1.0375V, and my DRAM was at 1.38, with HWinfo reading 1.408 or something like that. But, never hurts to try, just finding where clicks is hard. That is why I'm still working on 3600 stable again, which I had in version 2.00 of the BIOS. 

It also took me lowering the tFAW to 18 to get cinebench to act correctly and give me 3525 (3515 with all the other things open at the same time) instead of 3300 scores. So I do hope this helps you.


----------



## amin12345

I have an A-DIE Hynix 8GB VENGEANCE which memory type do I select in the calculator program?


----------



## tekjunkie28

amin12345 said:


> I have an A-DIE Hynix 8GB VENGEANCE which memory type do I select in the calculator program?


Hynix AFR

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## steve2563

Hey 1usmus,
recently tried out the newest version of your calculator.

Using Fast-3000 preset, custom profile, as you can see it on attached pictures.
Noticed that the timings on my Hynix AFR (Vengeance LPX 8GB kit) has changed from (v1.30)14-16-16-16-32 to (v1.31)14-14-14-14-32, and i can't get it to boot.

The Thaiphoon Burner shows the minimum timings as 15-15-15-36.

Does this mean that is a bug with v1.3.1?

Thanks,
steve


----------



## browny2911

anyone know how to get my ram running faster? ive tried the dram calc but i cant get it to work.
Ryzen r5 1600 Stock clock speed while testing ram
Asus strix b350-f motherboard running latest 4011 bios
Corsair vengeance lpx 3200mhz model no. CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 (Hynix based)
gtx 1060 6gb
Samsung 250gb ssd
WD HDD 500gb


----------



## Pandora's Box

So last night I ran memtest on my 4x8gb sticks of gskill ram (4-3200C14Q-32GVK). I had the memory running at xmp settings (3200mhz) at 35. I woke up this morning to 675 errors in memtest. Before I left for work this morning I lowered the memory speed to 2933mhz with the same timings as xmp and voltage and began memtest testing again.


I'm pretty sure the ram is good as I have not ran into memtest errors in the past with using all 4 sticks on Intel systems. Is it possible I'm running into motherboard and/or cpu limitations with trying to run 4 sticks of ram and that's what's causing the memory errors? If I get home from work today and have no errors testing at 2933mhz, I am thinking of stepping down to 2x8gb and running the memory at faster speeds than what I can with 4 sticks. I don't need 32gb of ram and if it's going to result in me not being able to crank up the memory speed I'm willing to step down to 2 sticks for a total of 16GB. This is dual rank Samsung b-die. In my old Intel system I had it running at 3600mhz no problems.


I've attached the memtest results from last night with 4x8gb at xmp 3200mhz 1.35v


----------



## ajc9988

Pandora's Box said:


> So last night I ran memtest on my 4x8gb sticks of gskill ram (4-3200C14Q-32GVK). I had the memory running at xmp settings (3200mhz) at 35. I woke up this morning to 675 errors in memtest. Before I left for work this morning I lowered the memory speed to 2933mhz with the same timings as xmp and voltage and began memtest testing again.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure the ram is good as I have not ran into memtest errors in the past with using all 4 sticks on Intel systems. Is it possible I'm running into motherboard and/or cpu limitations with trying to run 4 sticks of ram and that's what's causing the memory errors? If I get home from work today and have no errors testing at 2933mhz, I am thinking of stepping down to 2x8gb and running the memory at faster speeds than what I can with 4 sticks. I don't need 32gb of ram and if it's going to result in me not being able to crank up the memory speed I'm willing to step down to 2 sticks for a total of 16GB. This is dual rank Samsung b-die. In my old Intel system I had it running at 3600mhz no problems.
> 
> 
> I've attached the memtest results from last night with 4x8gb at xmp 3200mhz 1.35v


So, those are Ripjaws 3200 sticks, correct? If so, the XMP is set for Intel and you need to change the timings to work better with the IMC of AMD CPUs. Also, the test for if ram are good is to test them at their stock, which, depending on stick and SPD, is 2133, 2400, or 2666MHz. Those should be stable timings and more platform agnostic. 

On G.Skill's website, it even shows their QVL to only be Intel platforms. Did your MB mfr. list them on their QVL?

Now, that doesn't mean they will not work with your rig. It means you have work ahead of you to figure out the timings needed to get them stable on your rig. Luckily, this calculator is meant to get you in the ballpark. If not fully stable, it should get you close. 1usmus even included a flowchart for you to use to get to stable. So, please review the calculator, the materials provided with the calculator, the other posts linked in the bottom of the OP, discussions throughout this thread, etc. You will get no easy answers, which is what you wanted. Now is time to try to read and lookup how to do this. 

Also, if you feel better after getting it stable, try pushing it further. You could surprise yourself with new found knowledge.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Pandora's Box said:


> So last night I ran memtest on my 4x8gb sticks of gskill ram (4-3200C14Q-32GVK). I had the memory running at xmp settings (3200mhz) at 35. I woke up this morning to 675 errors in memtest. Before I left for work this morning I lowered the memory speed to 2933mhz with the same timings as xmp and voltage and began memtest testing again.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure the ram is good as I have not ran into memtest errors in the past with using all 4 sticks on Intel systems. Is it possible I'm running into motherboard and/or cpu limitations with trying to run 4 sticks of ram and that's what's causing the memory errors? If I get home from work today and have no errors testing at 2933mhz, I am thinking of stepping down to 2x8gb and running the memory at faster speeds than what I can with 4 sticks. I don't need 32gb of ram and if it's going to result in me not being able to crank up the memory speed I'm willing to step down to 2 sticks for a total of 16GB. This is dual rank Samsung b-die. In my old Intel system I had it running at 3600mhz no problems.
> 
> 
> I've attached the memtest results from last night with 4x8gb at xmp 3200mhz 1.35v


Even if you could get XMP to work you really don’t want to use XMP profiles. They set some horrible timings and you lose a lot of performance. Also 4 sticks are going to make it really difficult to get high frequencies. 2 good sticks of single rank BDie can hit 3466-3533 with nice tight timings. I can hit 3600 but the timings aren’t tight enough yet to match 3533 performance. So drop to 1 dimm per channel and you should see a difference. 2 dpc stresses the IMC more so it prevents you from going to high frequencies at current. Usually 3200 with 32gb is the max I’ve seen but I’m sure there’s someone that has gotten more. The goal is to have very good timings rather than the highest frequency possible. Frequency doesn’t mean much with garbage timings.


----------



## Pandora's Box

CJMitsuki said:


> Even if you could get XMP to work you really don’t want to use XMP profiles. They set some horrible timings and you lose a lot of performance. Also 4 sticks are going to make it really difficult to get high frequencies. 2 good sticks of single rank BDie can hit 3466-3533 with nice tight timings. I can hit 3600 but the timings aren’t tight enough yet to match 3533 performance. So drop to 1 dimm per channel and you should see a difference. 2 dpc stresses the IMC more so it prevents you from going to high frequencies at current. Usually 3200 with 32gb is the max I’ve seen but I’m sure there’s someone that has gotten more. The goal is to have very good timings rather than the highest frequency possible. Frequency doesn’t mean much with garbage timings.


Got home from work a little bit ago. Memtest with 4 sticks at 2933Mhz same timings as XMP passed with no errors. I took 2 sticks out and I'm now running 2x8GB sticks. Was able to go back to 3200MHz with "fast" timings using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator.

I tried going above 3200MHz and this motherboard is not having any of it. Constant boot loops no matter what timings I go with or how much voltage I give it. I've used this ram in Intel systems in the past and I've had it running at 3600MHz with some nice timings.

Not too bothered by going down to 16GB of ram from 32GB, especially if it provides stability. All I do on the system is game anyway, no need for 32GB of RAM.


----------



## Mansquatch

browny2911 said:


> anyone know how to get my ram running faster? ive tried the dram calc but i cant get it to work.
> Ryzen r5 1600 Stock clock speed while testing ram
> Asus strix b350-f motherboard running latest 4011 bios
> Corsair vengeance lpx 3200mhz model no. CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 (Hynix based)
> gtx 1060 6gb
> Samsung 250gb ssd
> WD HDD 500gb



I have the same issue. Tried the calculator & nothing works with that RAM. Best I can get is 3200mhz with 16-18-18-36 / 1.4v (axmp profile 2 msi x370 gaming pro carbon, ryzen 5 1600 3.8ghz & 1.31v)


Would love to lower that latency (see pic)


----------



## Pandora's Box

Pandora's Box said:


> Got home from work a little bit ago. Memtest with 4 sticks at 2933Mhz same timings as XMP passed with no errors. I took 2 sticks out and I'm now running 2x8GB sticks. Was able to go back to 3200MHz with "fast" timings using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator.
> 
> I tried going above 3200MHz and this motherboard is not having any of it. Constant boot loops no matter what timings I go with or how much voltage I give it. I've used this ram in Intel systems in the past and I've had it running at 3600MHz with some nice timings.
> 
> Not too bothered by going down to 16GB of ram from 32GB, especially if it provides stability. All I do on the system is game anyway, no need for 32GB of RAM.


And I'm an idiot...Double checked some settings using Thaiphoon Burner. I must have missed where it said my ram is single rank and not dual rank. Taking that and putting it into DRAM Calculator got me booted into windows at 3433MHz @ 14-14-14-28-1T 

Now that I've figured that out...Time to tweak some more. Super impressed with the performance gain from 3200Mhz to 3433MHz


----------



## browny2911

Mansquatch said:


> I have the same issue. Tried the calculator & nothing works with that RAM. Best I can get is 3200mhz with 16-18-18-36 / 1.4v (axmp profile 2 msi x370 gaming pro carbon, ryzen 5 1600 3.8ghz & 1.31v)
> 
> 
> Would love to lower that latency (see pic)


Well 3200mhz seems good i cant run anything past 2933mhz, what version of the ram do you have hynix or b-die?


----------



## ajc9988

Mansquatch said:


> I have the same issue. Tried the calculator & nothing works with that RAM. Best I can get is 3200mhz with 16-18-18-36 / 1.4v (axmp profile 2 msi x370 gaming pro carbon, ryzen 5 1600 3.8ghz & 1.31v)
> 
> 
> Would love to lower that latency (see pic)


So, you may need to start thinking outside of the box. How much have you played with the timings? What all voltages were tried?



Pandora's Box said:


> And I'm an idiot...Double checked some settings using Thaiphoon Burner. I must have missed where it said my ram is single rank and not dual rank. Taking that and putting it into DRAM Calculator got me booted into windows at 3433MHz @ 14-14-14-28-1T
> 
> Now that I've figured that out...Time to tweak some more. Super impressed with the performance gain from 3200Mhz to 3433MHz


I spend days or weeks trying to stabilize certain timings at times. I usually set aside nearly two weeks to find the OC and to qualify it through various testing. So, a single day isn't really much for trying, although I am happy you found stable!


----------



## Mansquatch

> Well 3200mhz seems good i cant run anything past 2933mhz, what version of the ram do you have hynix or b-die?


 Ver 5.39 - hynix


Here's my current timings.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Pandora's Box said:


> Got home from work a little bit ago. Memtest with 4 sticks at 2933Mhz same timings as XMP passed with no errors. I took 2 sticks out and I'm now running 2x8GB sticks. Was able to go back to 3200MHz with "fast" timings using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator.
> 
> I tried going above 3200MHz and this motherboard is not having any of it. Constant boot loops no matter what timings I go with or how much voltage I give it. I've used this ram in Intel systems in the past and I've had it running at 3600MHz with some nice timings.
> 
> Not too bothered by going down to 16GB of ram from 32GB, especially if it provides stability. All I do on the system is game anyway, no need for 32GB of RAM.


Which board and cpu are you running? The timings aren’t the only thing to take into account when going up in frequency. The resistances like Proc ODT, cad_bus, and Rtt play a pretty big part of it. Post me what timings you were trying to run higher frequencies with also. Maybe there is something that is set in bios that is preventing it from going higher. If you want just post all of your timings as well as your bios settings and I’ll see what I can find.


----------



## drkCrix

@1usmus

Having any luck with the new agesa 1.0.0.4c bioses and the timing calculator?

Did AMD ever release any notes on the changes?

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## ts_hark

*Nanya memory*

Hey @1usmus

Is it expected to have Nanya memory support?

Thanks


----------



## 1usmus

steve2563 said:


> Hey 1usmus,
> recently tried out the newest version of your calculator.
> 
> Using Fast-3000 preset, custom profile, as you can see it on attached pictures.
> Noticed that the timings on my Hynix AFR (Vengeance LPX 8GB kit) has changed from (v1.30)14-16-16-16-32 to (v1.31)14-14-14-14-32, and i can't get it to boot.
> 
> The Thaiphoon Burner shows the minimum timings as 15-15-15-36.
> 
> Does this mean that is a bug with v1.3.1?
> 
> Thanks,
> steve


We do not need to focus on the profile of the intel, Ryzen has his own
there is no error, I think it is not enough voltage



browny2911 said:


> anyone know how to get my ram running faster? ive tried the dram calc but i cant get it to work.
> Ryzen r5 1600 Stock clock speed while testing ram
> Asus strix b350-f motherboard running latest 4011 bios
> Corsair vengeance lpx 3200mhz model no. CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 (Hynix based)
> gtx 1060 6gb
> Samsung 250gb ssd
> WD HDD 500gb


most motherboards on the b350 chipset are not able to work with high memory frequencies, 3200mhz in most cases is the limit



Pandora's Box said:


> Got home from work a little bit ago. Memtest with 4 sticks at 2933Mhz same timings as XMP passed with no errors. I took 2 sticks out and I'm now running 2x8GB sticks. Was able to go back to 3200MHz with "fast" timings using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator.
> 
> I tried going above 3200MHz and this motherboard is not having any of it. Constant boot loops no matter what timings I go with or how much voltage I give it. I've used this ram in Intel systems in the past and I've had it running at 3600MHz with some nice timings.
> 
> Not too bothered by going down to 16GB of ram from 32GB, especially if it provides stability. All I do on the system is game anyway, no need for 32GB of RAM.



you have a huge procODT ... why such? your tire does not work properly
48-53 for your motherboard is the maximum

I do not have exact information about the topology of your motherboard, if this is a "chain" then the limit for 4 modules will be 3200 if you have "T" topology then the limit is 3600. In any case, the bios is very unstable now, I advise you to follow the updates https://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/index.php



Mansquatch said:


> I have the same issue. Tried the calculator & nothing works with that RAM. Best I can get is 3200mhz with 16-18-18-36 / 1.4v (axmp profile 2 msi x370 gaming pro carbon, ryzen 5 1600 3.8ghz & 1.31v)
> 
> 
> Would love to lower that latency (see pic)


Hynix MFR V2 profile just for you



CJMitsuki said:


> Which board and cpu are you running? The timings aren’t the only thing to take into account when going up in frequency. The resistances like Proc ODT, cad_bus, and Rtt play a pretty big part of it. Post me what timings you were trying to run higher frequencies with also. Maybe there is something that is set in bios that is preventing it from going higher. If you want just post all of your timings as well as your bios settings and I’ll see what I can find.


the company Asrock has huge problems with the BIOS, every day I see new test builds for internal tests. Unfortunately, it takes time to solve all the problems



drkCrix said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Having any luck with the new agesa 1.0.0.4c bioses and the timing calculator?
> 
> Did AMD ever release any notes on the changes?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


security patches, improved overclocking potential for most memory types, some M.2 RAID fixes, improved stability for M.2

there are some nuances about which the public should not know. All you need to know - will publish the motherboard manufacturer



ts_hark said:


> Hey @1usmus
> 
> Is it expected to have Nanya memory support?
> 
> Thanks


Thaiphoon report please


----------



## tekjunkie28

Mansquatch said:


> I have the same issue. Tried the calculator & nothing works with that RAM. Best I can get is 3200mhz with 16-18-18-36 / 1.4v (axmp profile 2 msi x370 gaming pro carbon, ryzen 5 1600 3.8ghz & 1.31v)
> 
> 
> Would love to lower that latency (see pic)


Probably not gonna happen unless you have fully updated bios and/or a quality x470 mobo that actually has changed memory architecture. I'm not sure if all or only some ASUS boards do this but they automatically lower tertiary timings very well based on speed. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Darkomax

1usmus said:


> useless configuration for testing if the template is not random,
> here's my suggestion
> 
> *TM5 0.12 config mod by 1usmus*
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> download: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZz_mbcEgdizSx3NR2gJIXkqU0wfh4Ep


 @1usmus I tried this config (I never used Testmem before), it seems even faster than Karhu RAM Test. How many cycles do you recommend?


----------



## 1usmus

Darkomax said:


> @1usmus I tried this config (I never used Testmem before), it seems even faster than Karhu RAM Test. How many cycles do you recommend?


I think that for this test you need at least 5 cycles, and a maximum of 10-15 
It finds errors faster than any other program. In the future, I will make the configuration for testing even more difficult, the time of error search will be reduced


----------



## Darkomax

Thanks. I'm asking because I can sometimes pass 5 cycles and right after, it find 1-3 errors.


----------



## ts_hark

@1usmus

Here is the report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYmqBew8PC1r53buRyj6BoIBojxrNdlH

Currently, RAM is working on 3200 MHz with 16-16-16-36 timings. Subtimings are auto.


----------



## 1usmus

*Red DRAM Calculator ™ 1.4.0 (announcement)*









*Red* DRAM Calculator ™ - now the product has a separate independent trademark ,to avoid disagreements. The second reason is the need to expand support for other processors on the Zen architecture, for example Threadripper. I think that the level of predictions of the settings can be improved, which I will do in the coming weeks. And now about the changes:

* fully support Threadripper + individual tweaks (gen 1 and gen 2)
* improved voltage prediction for different processors and their generations
* additional window that will tell what minimum voltage is needed by the system (DRAM)
* improved overclocking for some micron and hynix chips
* the "Custom" profile will be based solely on the data that is placed in XMP. Its new name is "Debug". I think this mode is needed for professionals who want to see all the changes. This will allow them to see some nuances that can not provide the profiles of "V1" and "V2"
* some changes in procODT + RTT for systems in which 4 RAM SR modules
* other corrections
~ the possibility of changing the topology of the motherboard for the calculations of procODT + RTT (if I have time)


Estimated release date is August 30-31.

Best regards, Iurii Bublii (@1usmus)!


----------



## 1usmus

Video from my friends. *Effect of frequency and timings on performance in games.* Knowledge of the Russian language is not necessary. Everything is informative and understandable.

P.S. AT = timings in automatic mode, MT = manual setting.


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *Red DRAM Calculator ™ 1.4.0 (announcement)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Red* DRAM Calculator ™ - now the product has a separate independent trademark ,to avoid disagreements. The second reason is the need to expand support for other processors on the Zen architecture, for example Threadripper. I think that the level of predictions of the settings can be improved, which I will do in the coming weeks. And now about the changes:
> 
> * fully support Threadripper + individual tweaks (gen 1 and gen 2)
> * improved voltage prediction for different processors and their generations
> * additional window that will tell what minimum voltage is needed by the system (DRAM)
> * improved overclocking for some micron and hynix chips
> * the "Custom" profile will be based solely on the data that is placed in XMP. Its new name is "Debug". I think this mode is needed for professionals who want to see all the changes. This will allow them to see some nuances that can not provide the profiles of "V1" and "V2"
> * some changes in procODT + RTT for systems in which 4 RAM SR modules
> * other corrections
> ~ the possibility of changing the topology of the motherboard for the calculations of procODT + RTT (if I have time)
> 
> 
> Estimated release date is August 30-31.


That is awesome! And thank you for all of your work on this program and help with the community!


----------



## nick name

Here is something that will hopefully help with your database of numbers. I hope you will forgive me for using RAM Test instead of HCI. I did so after seeing the recommendation from The Stilt, but I purchased HCI so I can run that if you want me to get a double confirmation. 

100.6 BCLK // PE Level 3 // 3600MHz // SOC 1.11250V (Auto LLC) // DRAM 1.46V // VTTDDR .750


----------



## imsyB

nick name said:


> Here is something that will hopefully help with your database of numbers. I hope you will forgive me for using RAM Test instead of HCI. I did so after seeing the recommendation from The Stilt, but I purchased HCI so I can run that if you want me to get a double confirmation.
> 
> 100.6 BCLK // PE Level 3 // 3600MHz // SOC 1.11250V (Auto LLC) // DRAM 1.46V // VTTDDR .750



Nice timings.
Are they G Skill 3600C15 modules?


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> Video from my friends. *Effect of frequency and timings on performance in games.* Knowledge of the Russian language is not necessary. Everything is informative and understandable.
> 
> P.S. AT = timings in automatic mode, MT = manual setting.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSNvTewAAA8&feature=youtu.be​


Nice clip but what about 3466 MHz CL 14? I am running 14-14-14-22 the fast preset if i recall correctly. 

I also don't heard from someone who stabilized 3600 MHz CL 15, let alone CL14.

Oh, and 4.3 GHz with only 1.375 vcore in BIOS? Must be an golden chip than. I reach that with 4.2 GHz lol.


----------



## nick name

imsyB said:


> Nice timings.
> Are they G Skill 3600C15 modules?


Yes they are.

I've actually increased the BCLK to 101 today and haven't seen errors yet. With those timings shown above. I tried BCLK 101.2, but it produced some.

The image is what my Thaiphoon import looks like in the DRAM Calculator.


----------



## CJMitsuki

hurricane28 said:


> Nice clip but what about 3466 MHz CL 14? I am running 14-14-14-22 the fast preset if i recall correctly.
> 
> I also don't heard from someone who stabilized 3600 MHz CL 15, let alone CL14.
> 
> Oh, and 4.3 GHz with only 1.375 vcore in BIOS? Must be an golden chip than. I reach that with 4.2 GHz lol.


I’ve had 3600 at CL14 stable, it’s not that hard to get it stable but to get it stable with tight enough timings to be worth it is the problem. I was using 3600 for a short time but it really wasn’t an improvement over 3533 bc of the timings I had to use. However I did get 3533 CL13 stable and it runs amazing but I need to spend time and optimize the timings further running benchmarks. I don’t trust Aida64 to determine performance. I’ve learned that the toughest timings aren’t always the best most of the time.


----------



## hurricane28

CJMitsuki said:


> I’ve had 3600 at CL14 stable, it’s not that hard to get it stable but to get it stable with tight enough timings to be worth it is the problem. I was using 3600 for a short time but it really wasn’t an improvement over 3533 bc of the timings I had to use. However I did get 3533 CL13 stable and it runs amazing but I need to spend time and optimize the timings further running benchmarks. I don’t trust Aida64 to determine performance. I’ve learned that the toughest timings aren’t always the best most of the time.



Okay. I tried 3600 MHz before and it indeed didn't net me any more performance at all. Only in Aida64 i saw increase but as of the rest not so much, windows felt slower as well due to the timings. 

I am running 3466 MHz CL14 now and its rock stable with 4.2 GHz CPU so i guess i am good so far. Any higher isn't worth the extra volts or the immense time it takes to get things stable on this platform. 
When you're bored its nice to tinker with otherwise not worth the hassle imo, just too many settings.


----------



## 1usmus

*3733CL14*

*Began testing the fast preset 3733CL14 (announcement)*


----------



## Valka814

*IMC safe voltage*

Thanks to the calculator, finally I have 2 working and stable profile (3266 extreme, 3466fast), but...
I'm afraid how much voltage can the IMC handle in long term. SOC is fine, its 1.081 for 3466, but the required dram voltage is 1.43V and AMD recommends maximum 1.4V. I'm confused.


----------



## 1usmus

Valka814 said:


> Thanks to the calculator, finally I have 2 working and stable profile (3266 extreme, 3466fast), but...
> I'm afraid how much voltage can the IMC handle in long term. SOC is fine, its 1.081 for 3466, but the required dram voltage is 1.43V and AMD recommends maximum 1.4V. I'm confused.


Safe voltage for SOC up to 1.2 volts (APU up to 1.3)
Safe voltage for DRAM up to 1.5 

You do not have to worry about the system, everything is fine


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

1usmus said:


> Safe voltage for SOC up to 1.2 volts (APU up to 1.3)
> Safe voltage for DRAM up to 1.5
> 
> You do not have to worry about the system, everything is fine


For me it's good on 
1.475v DRAM (1.417-1.438 actual) & 1.150v SOC (1.090-1.112 actual)

Here today Bench CPU @ 4017MHz:


----------



## iNeri

1usmus said:


> *Began testing the fast preset 3733CL14 (announcement)*


Did it pass? 

That's awesome ram!!! 

Enviado desde mi HTC 10 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## R71800XSS

Thanks too for this application, 1usmus, but my F4-3200C14-32GTZ (16x2 Gb) is unstable with last official Bios (boot but always errors in test memory : memtest and AIDA64). What is best Bios at 3200-3330 with C6H and Ryzen 1800X?


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> *Began testing the fast preset 3733CL14 (announcement)*
> 
> img...


Nice, I never could get the higher speeds stable in any good manner, even though I could boot all the way to 3800Mhz. 
Which exact memory kit you be using now? SoC voltage on the Ryzen 2700x? Motherboard? special settings?


----------



## 1usmus

iNeri said:


> Did it pass?
> 
> That's awesome ram!!!
> 
> Enviado desde mi HTC 10 mediante Tapatalk


There are single errors in the later cycles, which are difficult to fix
I think I need a few days to get the result. But i can already work and play 




R71800XSS said:


> Thanks too for this application, 1usmus, but my F4-3200C14-32GTZ (16x2 Gb) is unstable with last official Bios (boot but always errors in test memory : memtest and AIDA64). What is best Bios at 3200-3330 with C6H and Ryzen 1800X?


6001-6002 best for DR memory, The last bios is terrible for this type of memory. I have a conditional stability of 3333 (6201bios), I can freely work and play games, but some tests see errors.



Nighthog said:


> Nice, I never could get the higher speeds stable in any good manner, even though I could boot all the way to 3800Mhz.
> Which exact memory kit you be using now? SoC voltage on the Ryzen 2700x? Motherboard? special settings?





Spoiler
















this memory has received an updated tracing, it really can very much + a mandatory condition, the motherboard with the topology of the chain (CH7, PRIME PRO X470, MSI M7 AC)
additional settings :

AGESA 1.0.0.4 
CLDO: default (it makes no sense to touch because the hole is very far away)
VDDP : 850mv (default 900mv) . There are windows with good stability at 990 and 1020-1030. It takes more time to check.
DRAM: 1.51v (training voltage 0, modification of the bios allows you to do some magic )
SOC: 1.1125v (windows 1.1, 1.875, 1.2 but the stability is worse. Minimum voltage in most cases, gives the best result)










other settings in automatic mode, except those that you see in the picture


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus

Hi buddy just wondered if i could ask you a few things about items you have mentioned in this thread (sorry if you have discussed them before you could link to the post rather than rewrite if you wish). 

One of the times i asked you for advice previously in this thread (regarding passing stress tests then failing the same tests at the SAME settings) you told me a tip which was: Power down the PC and hold down the power button for a minute. Then swap DIMM'S around and reboot PC. Doing this has enabled me to pass 25 mins of TM5 with the config you linked to/supplied (thanks for the tip). You mentioned it was some kind of "algorithm" that was not working as it should and i wondered if you could elaborate some more on this with a few questions if you would be so kind.

1. Can it be altered through BIOS updates and do you think AMD (or ASUS in my case) can fix the issue with it making negative/unwanted changes to settings behind your back (can it be "fixed" as such to stop it doing said behaviour)?

2. Has this been worked on for the upcoming BIOS releases (latest A.G.E.S.A's? if you know of course).

3. Being as this "allowed" me to pass 25mins TM5 after doing the reset (was getting an error in 3 seconds with the same settings!!) should i when i change settings in the BIOS (memory related such as timings/V's etc) perform this reset everytime?? as 9 times out of 10 changing ANY memory related setting will have a negative effect on testing (once i changed a setting which made my TM5 go from a 17 min "ok" to failing in 30 sec). Changing it back did nothing and i was unable to make it go for 17 mins again until i remembered your tip. Which i did and passed 25 mins  So will this help as when i change anything in the BIOS it has usually a negative effect? 

4. Do you think someone with a Gen1 Ryzen and a B350 is likely to benefit from these later BIOS revisions as you mentioned in the post about "better memory overclocking" but do you think i have any chance really of going much past 3200C16 where i am now as i struggle to get any 14 timings to work tbh (i have since you commented on one of my posts gone back to 3805 BIOS as found it somewhat "better" for my rig) but would perhaps like some of the options that MIGHT be offered in later revisions.

5. You have offered modified BIOS's for my MoBo and i'm tempted to flash one at some point BUT wondered does that then stop me from using ASUS's "official" ones?? (not being a .CAP was something i heard mentioned). Sorry if this is somewhat "off topic" but i figured you frequent this thread more than some of your others. Thanks for the help once again and without your tip i mentioned before i doubt i would of passed TM5 at all. 

Thanx.


----------



## hsn

Using fast preset with Ryzen Dram Calculator 1.3.1

1.42v dram
1.06875v soc


----------



## hurricane28

hsn said:


> Using fast preset with Ryzen Dram Calculator 1.3.1
> 
> 1.42v dram
> 1.06875v soc



Nice! My system won't even boot at that speed lol. Tried several times but its a no go and system just locks up. I am at 3466 MHz CL 14 now and it works just fine. When i have more time and its more cool over here i am willing to try again.


----------



## 1usmus

hurricane28 said:


> Okay. I tried 3600 MHz before and it indeed didn't net me any more performance at all. Only in Aida64 i saw increase but as of the rest not so much, windows felt slower as well due to the timings.
> 
> I am running 3466 MHz CL14 now and its rock stable with 4.2 GHz CPU so i guess i am good so far. Any higher isn't worth the extra volts or the immense time it takes to get things stable on this platform.
> When you're bored its nice to tinker with otherwise not worth the hassle imo, just too many settings.


Scalability is present up to 3800 precisely, so this is not only a result for the sake of result 



hsn said:


> Using fast preset with Ryzen Dram Calculator 1.3.1
> 
> 1.42v dram
> 1.06875v soc


my applause, the result is gorgeous 

*addrcmdsetup 0/11 *
Is this setting manually?


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> Scalability is present up to 3800 precisely, so this is not only a result for the sake of result
> 
> 
> 
> my applause, the result is gorgeous
> 
> *addrcmdsetup 0/11 *
> Is this setting manually?


Hmm, so you are saying the higher the frequency the better? 3600 MHz was stable on my C6H but not on my C7H board due to the stupid BIOS's.. 

Maybe 0804 is better, have to test tomorrow.


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> *addrcmdsetup 0/11 *
> Is this setting manually?


Gigabyte feature, it's what they use AUTO.


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> Gigabyte feature, it's what they use AUTO.


and if this value in BIOS is changed manually to 0?
please send a RTC screenshot


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> Scalability is present up to 3800 precisely, so this is not only a result for the sake of result
> 
> 
> 
> my applause, the result is gorgeous
> 
> *addrcmdsetup 0/11 *
> Is this setting manually?


this is auto


----------



## paih85

1usmus said:


> and if this value in BIOS is changed manually to 0?
> please send a RTC screenshot


when manually put 0 it will result auto. cannot set 0 on gigabyte motherboard.


----------



## nick name

@1usmus Sooooo I've been doing something stupid that I didn't realize because I didn't take the time to look. Everything else in the DRAM Calculator was in the same sequence in the Crosshair VII BIOS so I assumed tRCDRD was also. I've been switching tRCDRD and tRCDWR when inputting values and never got stable results when using 14-14-15-14 because I input them in that order. Well I realized my mistake and then finally input them in the order of 14-15-14-14 and I got stable results. I just wanted to make mention of this because in the Crosshair VII BIOS those values are not titled as they are in the Calculator and would assume someone else has made the same mistake as me. If it's just me then I will assume my shame as deserved, but if it isn't just me then it might be something to consider in labeling the next revision of the calculator.


----------



## MNMadman

nick name said:


> @1usmus Sooooo I've been doing something stupid that I didn't realize because I didn't take the time to look. Everything else in the DRAM Calculator was in the same sequence in the Crosshair VII BIOS so I assumed tRCDRD was also. I've been switching tRCDRD and tRCDWR when inputting values and never got stable results when using 14-14-15-14 because I input them in that order. Well I realized my mistake and then finally input them in the order of 14-15-14-14 and I got stable results. I just wanted to make mention of this because in the Crosshair VII BIOS those values are not titled as they are in the Calculator and would assume someone else has made the same mistake as me. If it's just me then I will assume my shame as deserved, but if it isn't just me then it might be something to consider in labeling the next revision of the calculator.


Is the new version board-specific? If not, the responsibility of applying the right numbers to the right values is the user's alone.


----------



## nick name

MNMadman said:


> Is the new version board-specific? If not, the responsibility of applying the right numbers to the right values is the user's alone.


No it was my mistake alone. Everything else lined up so I assumed absolutely everything lined up. It was my own dumb mistake.


----------



## MNMadman

nick name said:


> No it was my mistake alone. Everything else lined up so I assumed absolutely everything lined up. It was my own dumb mistake.


Nah we all make assumptions. You're helping by making sure everybody checks the settings.


----------



## nick name

MNMadman said:


> Nah we all make assumptions. You're helping by making sure everybody checks the settings.



Well the worst part is that inputting those settings properly perform better than the 14-15-15-15 and seem to be just as stable. So I've been missing out this entire time because I messed up.


----------



## Darkomax

Yeah RCD RD and RCD WR are also swapped on my X370 Gaming 5.


----------



## iNeri

Darkomax said:


> Yeah RCD RD and RCD WR are also swapped on my X370 Gaming 5.


X370 taichi the same. 

Enviado desde mi HTC 10 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

@Nighthog @hsn
What do I get if I manually set 10 or 11?


----------



## CJMitsuki

@*1usmus* When I am using TM5 does the time it takes for a cycle directly relate to memory performance? For instance, if it takes me 4 minutes for a cycle on "A" setup and 3:45 on "B" setup assuming everything else in bios is the same, does that make setup "B" better performing than "A"? (Using your configuration of course.)


Also, here is something for your bclk database. Was some unusual timings but produced some good results in benchmarks. DRAM voltage was 1.415v


Spoiler















Here is the same setup without bclk, I only needed to change RttPark to 60ohm for stable 102 bclk at 4.4ghz.


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> @*1usmus* When I am using TM5 does the time it takes for a cycle directly relate to memory performance? For instance, if it takes me 4 minutes for a cycle on "A" setup and 3:45 on "B" setup assuming everything else in bios is the same, does that make setup "B" better performing than "A"? (Using your configuration of course.)
> 
> 
> Also, here is something for your bclk database. Was some unusual timings but produced some good results in benchmarks. DRAM voltage was 1.415v
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 211904
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the same setup without bclk, I only needed to change RttPark to 60ohm for stable 102 bclk at 4.4ghz.


It can not be called a full-scale test that speed can measure, since this application does not always use the same amount of memory


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> It can not be called a full-scale test that speed can measure, since this application does not always use the same amount of memory



Assuming that it uses the same amount of memory or within 1% of that amount can we say that it can be used as a crude benchmark? There is a real lack of good memory benchmarks, Aida64 only shows some numbers but doesnt correlate to real world performance, only possible performance. Can you make TM5 use the same amount of memory for each cycle within the config for benchmarking purposes?


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> Assuming that it uses the same amount of memory or within 1% of that amount can we say that it can be used as a crude benchmark? There is a real lack of good memory benchmarks, Aida64 only shows some numbers but doesnt correlate to real world performance, only possible performance. Can you make TM5 use the same amount of memory for each cycle within the config for benchmarking purposes?


I can not, I do not have the source code. I'll talk to the developer, maybe I'll get your request satisfied


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> I can not, I do not have the source code. I'll talk to the developer, maybe I'll get your request satisfied


It would be great to have an option for that purpose


----------



## Reous

Khanattila said:


> ...
> I'm not very experienced about ram overclocking, but it's possible that Hynix CJR is not in your tool/database?
> Or I can equate them with something else that I do not know.


Hey, just interested. 
Do you already have any OC results of your Hynix CJR rams?


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> @Nighthog @hsn
> What do I get if I manually set 10 or 11?


i check soon when i get back home


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> Hey, just interested.
> Do you already have any OC results of your Hynix CJR rams?


Do you have the same kit? 



hsn said:


> i check soon when i get back home


thanks, I'll wait


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> @Nighthog @hsn
> What do I get if I manually set 10 or 11?


this is manually


----------



## 1usmus

hsn said:


> this is manually



I'm interested in what RTC will show if manually put 10, 11 or 12
Perhaps this will help in overclocking the RAM


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> I can not, I do not have the source code. I'll talk to the developer, maybe I'll get your request satisfied


I also cannot get quad channel to stick in the cfg file, as it keeps reverting to two in that file (even though I see speeds in some tests over what dual channel can do). Wanted to see what was up with that and mention it since you may be in contact with the developer. Thanks.


----------



## jclafi

I did optimize my Ryzen timmings and the results are great ! 

Thanks for the effort !

=D


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> I also cannot get quad channel to stick in the cfg file, as it keeps reverting to two in that file (even though I see speeds in some tests over what dual channel can do). Wanted to see what was up with that and mention it since you may be in contact with the developer. Thanks.


after editing the file, you need to set the attribute for it to "read only"



jclafi said:


> I did optimize my Ryzen timmings and the results are great !
> 
> Thanks for the effort !
> 
> =D


nice to hear


----------



## ajc9988

@1usmus - thank you. I don't know how I didn't think of that (talk about being thoughtless). Much appreciated.


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> I'm interested in what RTC will show if manually put 10, 11 or 12
> Perhaps this will help in overclocking the RAM


You get what you set, nothing fancy there. 
I've not noted much difference changing this value other than setting the other two to 10 makes my computer start rebooting without notice often, (clear CMOS required).

I've tried 1--> 30 and as far as I could tell in my little testing not much changed. It does something but it might be hard to notice or spot from all else you can change.(I notice no difference using 1-->11)

I did some adventures to try and get 3733Mhz going and didn't have much luck but I managed to find out some better more stable settings that work downwards in speed as well.
By using 80Ohm/(RZQ/3) for RttWr I can use lower DrvStr values all across from before and have better stability as well. Made me able to use tWRWRSCL/[email protected] with geardown "disabled" 2T timings.
I might find I can now lower timings even further now but haven't gone around to testing yet.

I can note Geardown "disabled" 2T *is better* than "enabled" 1T, *even with worse timings*


----------



## MrPhilo

1usmus said:


> There are single errors in the later cycles, which are difficult to fix
> I think I need a few days to get the result. But i can already work and play
> 
> 6001-6002 best for DR memory, The last bios is terrible for this type of memory. I have a conditional stability of 3333 (6201bios), I can freely work and play games, but some tests see errors.
> 
> this memory has received an updated tracing, it really can very much + a mandatory condition, the motherboard with the topology of the chain (CH7, PRIME PRO X470, MSI M7 AC)
> additional settings :
> 
> AGESA 1.0.0.4
> CLDO: default (it makes no sense to touch because the hole is very far away)
> VDDP : 850mv (default 900mv) . There are windows with good stability at 990 and 1020-1030. It takes more time to check.
> DRAM: 1.51v (training voltage 0, modification of the bios allows you to do some magic )
> SOC: 1.1125v (windows 1.1, 1.875, 1.2 but the stability is worse. Minimum voltage in most cases, gives the best result)
> 
> other settings in automatic mode, except those that you see in the picture


Can you possible explain what you mean about the tracing in the memory? Are you saying theres some different in B dies?


----------



## DomiksPL

Could someone explain to me what BGS, VDDP Voltage and Memory Interleaving Size do?

I've read soo much misleading information about BGS, AMD says that turning this off boost game performance, someone else says that this option boost only Dual Rank memory performance and the third person says that this option only do anything in Single Rank memory. And what is the difference between BGS and BGS Alt (in my BIOS BGS off = BGS Alt on)?

As far as I know VDDP Voltage is useful to match the "memory holes", so the memory could train and boot and maybe it has sweet spot for stability like DRAM Voltage?

Lowering the Memory Interleaving Size would help with performance or stability?

Also if someone could have a look at my settings and say what I could tweak for a little more (gaming) performance?

Gigabyte AB-350M Gaming 3
Agesa 1.0.0.4 (newest)
Ryzen 1400
2x8GB Samsung D-die (Dual Rank) 3200 CL16 
1.4 DRAM Voltage, SOC Voltage ~ 1.1 (offset)
Stable 55min (10 cycles) of TM5 tweaked by @1usmus


EDIT:
Not stable after cold boot overnight. Does anyone know the reason? Does RAM need to warm up or something?

It also would be nice if somebody have a time and knowledge to make a guide about DDR4 timings, settings and their impact on performance & stability.


----------



## Khanattila

Reous said:


> Hey, just interested.
> Do you already have any OC results of your Hynix CJR rams?


Well, currently they are at 3000MHz @ 16-16-16-28-56.I made some attempts at 3200MHz, but there are still some mistakes to fix.


----------



## paih85

best stable so far..

soc: 1.025
dram: 1.41


----------



## jclafi

Great clocks !!! 

=D


----------



## hurricane28

This is my current best stable 24/7 setting:


----------



## hsn

gskill tridentz 16gb ddr4 3200 (samsung edie DR)

soc 1v
dram voltage 1.45v

preset safe (3466)


----------



## CJMitsuki

paih85 said:


> best stable so far..
> 
> soc: 1.025
> dram: 1.41


Not bad timings at all and great voltages as well :thumb:


----------



## selbyftw

Hello. My RAM is showing up as Micron '8 Gb D-die (20 nm) / 1 die' there is no option in the timings calculator for Micron 'D-die' any ideas what I should do?
It's a 'CMR32GX4M4C3000C15(Ver3.32)(XMP) 4x 8GB SS ' I bough as it was on my motherboards QVL.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Here is mine:
CLDO_VDDP is 855 (Yes this info is most important)

Almost everyone is forgeting to add this v 
I can't Train >3000MHz (because i need to find CLDO_VDDP 855/860/900 is my best bet)
All i can do is >FSB + 2933 Train (End up with Max of 3080MHz CL14 which is good)

====


----------



## hurricane28

I have several RAM test programs but all have different results. I mean, RAM Test 1.1.0.0 i can run for 12 minutes or more and the TM5 0.12 mod by 1usmus is showing errors within a few minutes or les.. 

which one is the best program or is it best to run multiple programs just in case? In that case, this is endless because when you are stable in one program and you run another it finds errors than you tweak again and all programs pass but one..


----------



## Darkstalker420

*Phew* at last   

Never thought i would see this day. Stable (enough for me) "14 timings" @3200MHz. Taken me a YEAR of owning this rig to get this. Hours cursing as tests failed on the last run!! For me the issue seemed to be SoC vdroop as once i set SoC LLC to EXTREME (and also CPU Switching Frequency played a big role which i set to 350). It seemed much easier to dial in settings and things were much more predictable.

Managed with 1.355v DRAM and the SoC v's shown in RTC in the screen grab. Tried tightening up some more but didn't seem to like it tbh so will be (more) than happy to leave it there  Not bad for a B350 i think tbh. Thanks 1usmus once again for the great tool i doubt i could have done it without it.

Thanx.


----------



## hurricane28

lol what kind of voodoo magic program is this TM5 0.12 mod by 1usmus? I mean, i tried several times now and it found errors within a minute and now it passes?! 

Not very stable program if you ask me, no offence but the RAM Test 1.1.0.0 program is much more stable and consistent. If i fail i fail every time until i change something.


----------



## PopnOffatTheF

I'm really strugling to getmy RAM kit to work with any tighter timings or faster speed, it's as if Ryzen Calculator straight up doesn't work for my RAM kit (I fault the kit, not the software ofc).
The attached screenshots are the only stable 3200 speed I was able to achieve after months of trial and error & an upgrade later. Currently I have 2700X & Crosshair VII. RAM is at 1.35V, SOC 1.025V.



Literally anything else - I get memory errors to no end. I might just buy a new RAM kit at this point.


----------



## Darkstalker420

@PopnOffatTheF

Try adjusting the Switching Frequency in the BIOS (not sure where it is on the CHVII mine was in Digi+VRM). Mine was 200 default but i bumped it upto 350 (the max this board has). Also i had to bump SoC LLC to EXTREME as the SoC VDroop was a BIG cause of me not being able to get 3200Mhz stable. And also bumped my VCore up a notch or 2 and set LLC to MEDIUM (i have a small OC to 3200Mhz on my 1700 though i doubt it needs it for 200Mhz but it helped early on with some errors in IBT AVX).

My B Die's are @1.355v any higher didn't help me get "better" timings etc. 1.36v was worse tbh.

Thanx.


----------



## CJMitsuki

hurricane28 said:


> lol what kind of voodoo magic program is this TM5 0.12 mod by 1usmus? I mean, i tried several times now and it found errors within a minute and now it passes?!
> 
> Not very stable program if you ask me, no offence but the RAM Test 1.1.0.0 program is much more stable and consistent. If i fail i fail every time until i change something.


First off, do you have anything memory related set to auto in bios? That can be your variance. 2nd, you aren’t even running the program with admin privilege. 3rd, you are using the default config. 1usmus has a config that you use. The program isn’t his, only the config is. Lastly, RamTest has shown me the most inconsistent results out of all tests. It has literally never been updated while every other memory tester has. I can run Ram test and literally every run is totally different from the last. I can run every other test and it will pass for hours. HCI MemTest passed for 10 hours the other day and directly after I ran RamTest and it failed in the first 7% then the very next run went to 5000% then the next one 7% again. It’s consistently inconsistent.


----------



## PopnOffatTheF

@Darkstalker420


I actually followed what you said, decided on a new "starting point" - which is all the power suggestions from the Ryzen Timings calculator (including the switching frequency) & I stuck in my stable timings (before I kept everything on auto, aside from the 5 primary timings and DRAM Voltage, because I could never get a working combination) - and just as a joke (since no other timings ever worked for me, over the months and months I tried) - I bumped the Speed to 3466 1.4V, while keeping my 14-15-15-15-34...and eh....35+ min in stable so far, no errors in Prime95 (usually they happen for me within 10 mins)...wth...


nvm, close to an hour in - error:


> Self-test 448K passed!
> FATAL ERROR: Final result was 3EFCFAE6, expected: 62266123.
> Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.


I might try getting the DRAM voltage lower next


----------



## Darkstalker420

@PopnOffatTheF

Cool nice to see it might have helped a bit. Personally i found my particular B Die's seem to hate higher voltages (+ 1.38v) and i found the higher i went the worse it got tbh. Someone said (in this thread i think) that sometimes higher voltages cause the signals to be "dirty" and due to poor shielding (on the MoBo i think?) Ryzen's memory system is susceptible to the "dirty" signal and it can cause errors (not sure if i have worded that write tbh  ) but the take away is as i found when i was going "all out" SoC on 1.1+v which was the MoBo's AUTO setting!! and DRAM 1.4v (or much higher than 1.38v tbh!) i had very variable results.

Tests would fail then pass then fail AGAIN!! Since going for < 1.03v SoC and keeping DRAM under 1.36v (bare in mind my B Die is 3600Mhz capable @1.35v stock on other platforms) i just thought "meh try lower v's" and gained MUCH stability @3200MHz and once i could get predictable test results i could dial it in better. Would you believe it has taken me from August 2017 to get predictable results i could rely on and only about FOUR days to go from "16" timings GDM ON/Powerdown ON to what i have in my screenshot above!!! I'm fine with 3200 tbh as my 1700 is not OC'ed much and i felt i would much prefer to try and get C14 3200..... Though in the future if i go to higher clocks i will try to scale the DRAM Mhz with the core if i can.....

By all means do try lower v's you might be surprised tbh though perhaps try to get 3200Mhz stable before you push for more (my personal opinion but do go for it if you like buddy) 

Also just spotted you are using "15" timings for some of the DRAM. I found my rig hated it for some reason (never found out why tbh!). Try 14 or 16 and see if you have better luck it may help.

Thanx.


----------



## hurricane28

CJMitsuki said:


> First off, do you have anything memory related set to auto in bios? That can be your variance. 2nd, you aren’t even running the program with admin privilege. 3rd, you are using the default config. 1usmus has a config that you use. The program isn’t his, only the config is. Lastly, RamTest has shown me the most inconsistent results out of all tests. It has literally never been updated while every other memory tester has. I can run Ram test and literally every run is totally different from the last. I can run every other test and it will pass for hours. HCI MemTest passed for 10 hours the other day and directly after I ran RamTest and it failed in the first 7% then the very next run went to 5000% then the next one 7% again. It’s consistently inconsistent.


First off no, everything is set to manual. Second yes i am running the program as admin.. 3rd i know this isn't his program.. when i open the program it just starts automatically, nothing to do about it. 

Last, Really? I haven't used it a lot so i don't know, all i know is what i said earlier.


----------



## CJMitsuki

hurricane28 said:


> First off no, everything is set to manual. Second yes i am running the program as admin.. 3rd i know this isn't his program.. when i open the program it just starts automatically, nothing to do about it.
> 
> Last, Really? I haven't used it a lot so i don't know, all i know is what i said earlier.


I was just going by the screen shot you posted where it showed in compatibility mode without admin privileges. I like s RamTest at first but after 0702 it started acting up on me. I got to where I couldn’t trust it anymore and it seemed as though it wasn’t getting any support trough updates.


----------



## Darkomax

I never found a single memtest that is completely consistent. I once passed 2500% HCI and Windows literally crashed browsing, and RAM Test and Testmem both find random errors that can trigger after 2 min, or after 50 passes. Now I'm trying with 3466 to see if this is usable despite these random errors. Are these what you call intermittent errors which are extremely hard to catch?


----------



## Leftezog

Is it wrong to run HCI memtest in safe mode? Also what could be the problem with getting errors after 1000%? Low voltage or something else? Asus CH6 with 1800x and g.skill trident z 3600c16 at 3333 cl14 timings with fast preset is my systems spec.


----------



## PopnOffatTheF

Darkstalker420 said:


> @PopnOffatTheF
> 
> Cool nice to see it might have helped a bit. Personally i found my particular B Die's seem to hate higher voltages (+ 1.38v) and i found the higher i went the worse it got tbh. Someone said (in this thread i think) that sometimes higher voltages cause the signals to be "dirty" and due to poor shielding (on the MoBo i think?) Ryzen's memory system is susceptible to the "dirty" signal and it can cause errors (not sure if i have worded that write tbh  ) but the take away is as i found when i was going "all out" SoC on 1.1+v which was the MoBo's AUTO setting!! and DRAM 1.4v (or much higher than 1.38v tbh!) i had very variable results.
> 
> Tests would fail then pass then fail AGAIN!! Since going for < 1.03v SoC and keeping DRAM under 1.36v (bare in mind my B Die is 3600Mhz capable @1.35v stock on other platforms) i just thought "meh try lower v's" and gained MUCH stability @3200MHz and once i could get predictable test results i could dial it in better. Would you believe it has taken me from August 2017 to get predictable results i could rely on and only about FOUR days to go from "16" timings GDM ON/Powerdown ON to what i have in my screenshot above!!! I'm fine with 3200 tbh as my 1700 is not OC'ed much and i felt i would much prefer to try and get C14 3200..... Though in the future if i go to higher clocks i will try to scale the DRAM Mhz with the core if i can.....
> 
> By all means do try lower v's you might be surprised tbh though perhaps try to get 3200Mhz stable before you push for more (my personal opinion but do go for it if you like buddy)
> 
> Also just spotted you are using "15" timings for some of the DRAM. I found my rig hated it for some reason (never found out why tbh!). Try 14 or 16 and see if you have better luck it may help.
> 
> Thanx.


 @Darkstalker420

Man you're like a prophet - I tried getting 3466 stable with those timings, either going up or down on voltage for the DRAM or the SOC would make it unstable again. Reverted to the previous config that laster an hour - crashed in under 10 mins.

My RAM is also a 3600c16 kit, but mine doesn't seem to like 14 at all, or any timings really.
I'm back to square one, it's like any suggested steps just don't apply to my kit, instability everywhere except that damned 14-15-15-15-34. Even going 16-16-16-16-36 doesn't work at same speed (3200), it's madness.


----------



## Darkstalker420

@PopnOffatTheF

Try this little tip i was told and see if it works for you. Set your settings (perhaps the ones that WERE stable for an hour). Exit BIOS and let it boot to Windows. When at the desktop shut the rig down. switch the PSU OFF then remove the PSU lead and (i here switch the PSU ON again here then OFF to re insert power cord after) hold down the power button on your case (and keep holding it down). Fans will give a little spin and any RGB will go dark as the Cap's discharge. At this point 1usmus told me to swap the DRAM sticks around and reboot the rig. But i found just "cold booting" was good enough to fix whatever the problem was (something to do with the training algorithm messing up). Worth a try as i would fail IBT on the second pass 99% of the time until i did the "cold boot" then i would most of the time pass IBT/TM5 without issue. 

Don't know how it works but it did for me???? 

**Also I've just remembered set Phase Control (it was in Digi+VRM in my BIOS) also to EXTREME or FULL PHASE (mine defaults to OPTIMAL)**


Hope it does bud. Good luck.

Thanx.


----------



## 1usmus

*TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v2 (memory test) *



Spoiler















*Why this test/config?*
Most of the tests work on a strict template. I think it's all a waste of time. In this configurator, the pattern is random. There is a re-allocation of memory for tests. Also, temperature-related tests for errors are added, tests in which the write and read offset occurs.
For a dual rank of 5 cycles, for a single - 10, (recommendation).

*Download test:*
http://testmem.tz.ru/tm5.rar

*Download config:*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oN5MPOxJviGbm-RY4mxjnacS1tM81K37/view?usp=sharing

*How to instal:*

In the *bin* folder replace *MT.cfg*


----------



## iNeri

1usmus said:


> *TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v2 *
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K1fXImTAggyYdP4kOjNzsnZJzqHAB7LY
> 
> *How to instal:*
> 
> In the *bin* folder replace *MT.cfg*


Is it the one with x16 passes? 

Enviado desde mi HTC 10 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

iNeri said:


> Is it the one with x16 passes?
> 
> Enviado desde mi HTC 10 mediante Tapatalk


Any number of streams and channels 



PopnOffatTheF said:


> I'm really strugling to getmy RAM kit to work with any tighter timings or faster speed, it's as if Ryzen Calculator straight up doesn't work for my RAM kit (I fault the kit, not the software ofc).
> The attached screenshots are the only stable 3200 speed I was able to achieve after months of trial and error & an upgrade later. Currently I have 2700X & Crosshair VII. RAM is at 1.35V, SOC 1.025V.
> 
> 
> 
> Literally anything else - I get memory errors to no end. I might just buy a new RAM kit at this point.


Perhaps your memory likes CL16, try the V2 profile (I see the wrong values that are written in the SPD).


----------



## selbyftw

Anyone know what option I should chose in the timings APP if my ram is Micron D-die? No option in there for D-die.


----------



## Filters83

Darkstalker420 said:


> @PopnOffatTheF
> 
> Cool nice to see it might have helped a bit.  Personally i found my particular B Die's seem to hate higher voltages (+ 1.38v) and i found the higher i went the worse it got tbh. Someone said (in this thread i think) that sometimes higher voltages cause the signals to be "dirty" and due to poor shielding (on the MoBo i think?) Ryzen's memory system is susceptible to the "dirty" signal and it can cause errors (not sure if i have worded that write tbh  ) but the take away is as i found when i was going "all out" SoC on 1.1+v which was the MoBo's AUTO setting!! and DRAM 1.4v (or much higher than 1.38v tbh!) i had very variable results.
> 
> Tests would fail then pass then fail AGAIN!! Since going for < 1.03v SoC and keeping DRAM under 1.36v (bare in mind my B Die is 3600Mhz capable @1.35v stock on other platforms) i just thought "meh try lower v's" and gained MUCH stability @3200MHz and once i could get predictable test results i could dial it in better. Would you believe it has taken me from August 2017 to get predictable results i could rely on and only about FOUR days to go from "16" timings GDM ON/Powerdown ON to what i have in my screenshot above!!! I'm fine with 3200 tbh as my 1700 is not OC'ed much and i felt i would much prefer to try and get C14 3200..... Though in the future if i go to higher clocks i will try to scale the DRAM Mhz with the core if i can.....
> 
> By all means do try lower v's you might be surprised tbh though perhaps try to get 3200Mhz stable before you push for more (my personal opinion but do go for it if you like buddy)
> 
> Also just spotted you are using "15" timings for some of the DRAM. I found my rig hated it for some reason (never found out why tbh!). Try 14 or 16 and see if you have better luck it may help.
> 
> Thanx.


Oh man you actually fixed my problem aswell!
I got this kit 
F4-3200C14D-16GTZ on an Asus Rog x370 -F last bios
Never able to reach 3400 stable what so ever why i was also using 1.39/1.4 volt now at 1.365 the same i use at 3200 work fine finally 20 minute of Prime95 no problem !!
Thx rly much maby can work for all this trick ??
Btw same timing as 3200Mhx


----------



## hsn

maybe this is the best i can get ...

1.46v dram
1.2v soc

use fast preset


----------



## numlock66

hsn said:


> maybe this is the best i can get ...
> 
> 1.46v dram
> 1.2v soc
> 
> use fast preset


Could you post an Aida memory benchmark?


----------



## hurricane28

Damnit.. there is no way to stabilize 3600 MHz RAM with 4.2 GHz CPU... No matter what TM5 finds error within seconds.. 

Is there anyone who succeeded in stabilizing 3600 MHz with at least 4.2 GHz CPU clock? Plz show me and share your settings plz, thank you.


----------



## hsn

numlock66 said:


> Could you post an Aida memory benchmark?


i need test new agesa 1.0.0.4 to compare the result


----------



## porschedrifter

@1usmus, I love you, that is all! Thanks for your work.


----------



## Darkstalker420

@Filters83

No worries glad i could help.  been getting tips from this thread for a while now. Glad i could contribute somehow.

Thanx.


----------



## Leftezog

1usmus said:


> *TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v2 (memory test) *
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why this test/config?*
> Most of the tests work on a strict template. I think it's all a waste of time. In this configurator, the pattern is random. There is a re-allocation of memory for tests. Also, temperature-related tests for errors are added, tests in which the write and read offset occurs.
> For a dual rank of 5 cycles, for a single - 10, (recommendation).
> 
> *Download test:*
> http://testmem.tz.ru/tm5.rar
> 
> *Download config:*
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oN5MPOxJviGbm-RY4mxjnacS1tM81K37/view?usp=sharing
> 
> *How to instal:*
> 
> In the *bin* folder replace *MT.cfg*




Why it says to me that it runs in combatibility mode and when I run it as an administrator it says "To enable AWE, you must run without Administrator privileges!". So run in with administrator privileges or without?


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v2 (memory test) *
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why this test/config?*
> Most of the tests work on a strict template. I think it's all a waste of time. In this configurator, the pattern is random. There is a re-allocation of memory for tests. Also, temperature-related tests for errors are added, tests in which the write and read offset occurs.
> For a dual rank of 5 cycles, for a single - 10, (recommendation).
> 
> *Download test:*
> http://testmem.tz.ru/tm5.rar
> 
> *Download config:*
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oN5MPOxJviGbm-RY4mxjnacS1tM81K37/view?usp=sharing
> 
> *How to instal:*
> 
> In the *bin* folder replace *MT.cfg*


Do the 3333MT/s Dual Rank B-Die timings you have working pass this test? You mentioned that you have a stable setup for everyday use but it still gives some errors in intensive tests, I think I am in the same boat currently (TM5 gives error in cycle 3 or 4, HCI gives one at ~500%, no error in Memtest86 outside of OS) and have been using it with no issue for a few weeks now but would like to pass memory stress tests as well just to make sure it is very stable. 

Also what are your settings for this strap like?


----------



## ajc9988

Leftezog said:


> Why it says to me that it runs in combatibility mode and when I run it as an administrator it says "To enable AWE, you must run without Administrator privileges!". So run in with administrator privileges or without?


With admin privileges.


----------



## Thakushi

Hey,

I have 2 g.skill hynix mfr 2400mhz 8 gb each and i was ocing them, but i can't get past 3000mhz, im at 3000mhz at 1.35v and 1.05 soc. Before i put procodt to 48ohm i can't even boot to 3200 but after that i can boot but even if i loose timing and put 1.5v dram and 1.15 soc there's always errors on memory test and also blue screens. My motherboard is asus prime x370-pro and i'm at bios version 4012 official and my cpu is ryzen 5 1600.

These are my stable settings 1.35v dram and this values had been retrieved from ryzen calculator 3000 fast preset but i modified trcd and trp to be stable:
http://prntscr.com/kjtcfu

What can i do? or are my settings the limit of this memories?

Thanks.


----------



## Leftezog

Thakushi said:


> Hey,
> 
> I have 2 g.skill hynix mfr 2400mhz 8 gb each and i was ocing them, but i can't get past 3000mhz, im at 3000mhz at 1.35v and 1.05 soc. Before i put procodt to 48ohm i can't even boot to 3200 but after that i can boot but even if i loose timing and put 1.5v dram and 1.15 soc there's always errors on memory test and also blue screens. My motherboard is asus prime x370-pro and i'm at bios version 4012 official and my cpu is ryzen 5 1600.
> 
> These are my stable settings 1.35v dram and this values had been retrieved from ryzen calculator 3000 fast preset but i modified trcd and trp to be stable:
> http://prntscr.com/kjtcfu
> 
> What can i do? or are my settings the limit of this memories?
> 
> Thanks.


Man I have problems stabilizing my 3600cl116 kit at 3333cl14 and the thing I was doing wrong was applying too much voltage increasing ram temps. My kit is cable to do 3600cl16 at 1.35v and I was putting 1.39v at 3333cl14 which was wrong. I realised it when I moved my rig in an open air case (Thermaltake Core P5 from Phanteks P400S) and before that the ram was stable at 1000%+ HCI memtest and when I moved my rig crashes started happening. My previous Phanteks Case had 3 120mm fans for intake and 3 120mm for exhaust and had pretty good airflow and in Core p5 I didn't had any air running on the ram. I assumed that the temps was the problem and I runned HCI memtest in my new case and I was getting errors 3 times in a row and one time without even reaching 100% in HCI. After that for confirmation purposes I took a fan and put it to blow air on the ram. Guess what. Passed HCI memtest 1700%+ with no errors 3 times in a row. After I confirmed that the temps was the problem I put the voltage at 1.36v and passed again HCI 1700%+ with no erros. I advice you to start first with the lowest voltage possible and after increase if needed. 1usmus has stated that the increased voltage can cause high temps and therefore mess with the ram signal and produce errors. This man has put so much effort into this he is a genius. First of all put a fan on your ram if you don't have enough airflow so to be sure that the ram temps isn't the problem that you are not stable. Have you tried to boot in 3200mhz with 1.35v?


----------



## hurricane28

I know why people have difficulty stabilizing RAM using the calculator, the wrong values are in the calculator... 

Look at the differences:


----------



## Floyd31

same here


----------



## Pandora's Box

??

Just import the values then from Thaiphoon, non-issue.


----------



## Floyd31

profile version is "custom" like that
normal ?


----------



## MNMadman

Pandora's Box said:


> ??
> 
> Just import the values then from Thaiphoon, non-issue.


Or do a Custom profile and put them in manually.


----------



## nick name

Leftezog said:


> Man I have problems stabilizing my 3600cl116 kit at 3333cl14 and the thing I was doing wrong was applying too much voltage increasing ram temps. My kit is cable to do 3600cl16 at 1.35v and I was putting 1.39v at 3333cl14 which was wrong. I realised it when I moved my rig in an open air case (Thermaltake Core P5 from Phanteks P400S) and before that the ram was stable at 1000%+ HCI memtest and when I moved my rig crashes started happening. My previous Phanteks Case had 3 120mm fans for intake and 3 120mm for exhaust and had pretty good airflow and in Core p5 I didn't had any air running on the ram. I assumed that the temps was the problem and I runned HCI memtest in my new case and I was getting errors 3 times in a row and one time without even reaching 100% in HCI. After that for confirmation purposes I took a fan and put it to blow air on the ram. Guess what. Passed HCI memtest 1700%+ with no errors 3 times in a row. After I confirmed that the temps was the problem I put the voltage at 1.36v and passed again HCI 1700%+ with no erros. I advice you to start first with the lowest voltage possible and after increase if needed. 1usmus has stated that the increased voltage can cause high temps and therefore mess with the ram signal and produce errors. This man has put so much effort into this he is a genius. First of all put a fan on your ram if you don't have enough airflow so to be sure that the ram temps isn't the problem that you are not stable. Have you tried to boot in 3200mhz with 1.35v?


Do you re-call what your RAM temps were? I had a posted a question earlier asking when RAM temps would begin to cause instability to try to rule it out myself, but I never saw temps on my RAM go higher than 42*C. I have since adjusted to be directly above my ram and it makes at around 38.5*C now. I run 1.5V on my kit.


----------



## nick name

hurricane28 said:


> Damnit.. there is no way to stabilize 3600 MHz RAM with 4.2 GHz CPU... No matter what TM5 finds error within seconds..
> 
> Is there anyone who succeeded in stabilizing 3600 MHz with at least 4.2 GHz CPU clock? Plz show me and share your settings plz, thank you.


I don't keep my CPU clocked that high. My PBO setting keeps it closer to 41.5 and my testing for 3600MHz is stable. So much so that I am still tightening timings.


----------



## Kildar

I can't import or manually enter any values in 1.3.1.


----------



## hurricane28

nick name said:


> I don't keep my CPU clocked that high. My PBO setting keeps it closer to 41.5 and my testing for 3600MHz is stable. So much so that I am still tightening timings.


Okay, can you post some screens plz for reverence? Maybe it can help me.


----------



## Thakushi

Leftezog said:


> Man I have problems stabilizing my 3600cl116 kit at 3333cl14 and the thing I was doing wrong was applying too much voltage increasing ram temps. My kit is cable to do 3600cl16 at 1.35v and I was putting 1.39v at 3333cl14 which was wrong. I realised it when I moved my rig in an open air case (Thermaltake Core P5 from Phanteks P400S) and before that the ram was stable at 1000%+ HCI memtest and when I moved my rig crashes started happening. My previous Phanteks Case had 3 120mm fans for intake and 3 120mm for exhaust and had pretty good airflow and in Core p5 I didn't had any air running on the ram. I assumed that the temps was the problem and I runned HCI memtest in my new case and I was getting errors 3 times in a row and one time without even reaching 100% in HCI. After that for confirmation purposes I took a fan and put it to blow air on the ram. Guess what. Passed HCI memtest 1700%+ with no errors 3 times in a row. After I confirmed that the temps was the problem I put the voltage at 1.36v and passed again HCI 1700%+ with no erros. I advice you to start first with the lowest voltage possible and after increase if needed. 1usmus has stated that the increased voltage can cause high temps and therefore mess with the ram signal and produce errors. This man has put so much effort into this he is a genius. First of all put a fan on your ram if you don't have enough airflow so to be sure that the ram temps isn't the problem that you are not stable. Have you tried to boot in 3200mhz with 1.35v?


Thanks for your response yeah i tried 3200 at 1.35 it boots but it gives bluescreen and errors on memtest so idk


----------



## 1usmus

hurricane28 said:


> I know why people have difficulty stabilizing RAM using the calculator, the wrong values are in the calculator...
> 
> Look at the differences:


*The intel profile does not have to be compatible with amd or be an exact copy of . This is a feature of the calculator and fine-tuning the system.
The profile is specially called R-XMP.*





Kildar said:


> I can't import or manually enter any values in 1.3.1.


This is meaningless in 99% of cases, the laws of physics will not work otherwise. In the next version, the "custom profile" will be deleted. Instead, it will have a "debug profile" that will only show how the timings with the frequency change and what timing may need to be changed.

If memory does not work? question to the manufacturer of the motherboard. In 90% of cases, errors occur due to errors on signal lines.


----------



## Floyd31

so which profile must be use ?
v1 ? v2 ? custom ?
load from thaiphoon or load from r-xmp ?


----------



## 1usmus

Floyd31 said:


> so which profile must be use ?
> v1 ? v2 ? custom ?
> load from thaiphoon or load from r-xmp ?


It's simple, if V1R-XMP does not work, use V2 R-XMP

These profiles are based on test results (more than 10,000 hours)
You can also try to find a similar system configuration in the tables with the results.


----------



## Floyd31

thanks


----------



## Leftezog

nick name said:


> Do you re-call what your RAM temps were? I had a posted a question earlier asking when RAM temps would begin to cause instability to try to rule it out myself, but I never saw temps on my RAM go higher than 42*C. I have since adjusted to be directly above my ram and it makes at around 38.5*C now. I run 1.5V on my kit.


My ram kit doesn't have temp sensors like other tridentz kits do but I have a temp laser gun and I when I was getting errors in my ram the heatspreaders of my rams where at about 42-45 degrees celcius. That means that the actual ram chips were running warmer. It's hot during summer here in my country. Have in mind that ambient temp is most of the time above 30 degrees celcius in my room. Now with the fan on them, the heatspreaders are at aroung 38-40 degrees celcius and I dont get any errors. I tested my previous settings 3 times in a row and I was getting errors and after I put the fan no errors at all and I ran the test 3 times to be sure and passed HCI memtest the first time 2600% and the other 2 times at 1700% without errors. So now I'm still testing my kit making my timings tigher. I am currently at full fast preset in 3333 b-die kit timings from 1usmus calculator and I'm already at 850%+ in HCI without any errors. I want to reach 1500%+ without errors and run the same test 3 times in a row cause in the past(without the fan) my ram would pass 1000% without errors and in the next test could produce errors within 100%. From the moment I have the fan on my ram I have ran 7 tests, 3 with my previous settings and 4 with tightened timings on my ram and all of them passes 1500%+ error free in HCI memtest. Someone would consider this a coincidence but I didn't have so many concecutive error free runs in HCI memtest ever before.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Leftezog said:


> My ram kit doesn't have temp sensors like other tridentz kits do but I have a temp laser gun and I when I was getting errors in my ram the heatspreaders of my rams where at about 42-45 degrees celcius. That means that the actual ram chips were running warmer. It's hot during summer here in my country. Have in mind that ambient temp is most of the time above 30 degrees celcius in my room. Now with the fan on them, the heatspreaders are at aroung 38-40 degrees celcius and I dont get any errors. I tested my previous settings 3 times in a row and I was getting errors and after I put the fan no errors at all and I ran the test 3 times to be sure and passed HCI memtest the first time 2600% and the other 2 times at 1700% without errors. So now I'm still testing my kit making my timings tigher. I am currently at full fast preset in 3333 b-die kit timings from 1usmus calculator and I'm already at 850%+ in HCI without any errors. I want to reach 1500%+ without errors and run the same test 3 times in a row cause in the past(without the fan) my ram would pass 1000% without errors and in the next test could produce errors within 100%. From the moment I have the fan on my ram I have ran 7 tests, 3 with my previous settings and 4 with tightened timings on my ram and all of them passes 1500%+ error free in HCI memtest. Someone would consider this a coincidence but I didn't have so many concecutive error free runs in HCI memtest ever before.


Its not a coincidence at all, when your ram gets hot stability decreases. 40c+ is hotter than normal so definitely the cooler you keep it the better chances to get timings tighter without errors. Mine idle just below 30c normally when ambient is around 25c in the house. When im pumping cold air into my case ive seen it at 13c sometimes lower but that isnt normal operating conditions to be fair. 30-35c seems to be what most report from what ive seen. As tight as some of my setups are, I will get errors at 35c and will have to dial it back a tiny bit. So temps are a big factor in stability as with any electronics. Heat is the main enemy of your computer. While some associate voltage with degradation of the components, I think the heat caused by the voltage is the cause of the degradation. Of course at a certain point voltage will destroy components but for the most part I run my 2700x at what most consider unsafe but I never let the cpu get to 70c at 1.55v sometimes higher and I have no degradation but thats not 24/7. 24/7 voltage from xfr is probably averaging 1.45-1.48v at 4.4ghz with no sign of degradation. Now at higher voltages there is a threat of possible Electromigration over time from the high voltages that cause the degradation at an atomic level but that can take a long time. Point is that voltages cause heat and heat causes instability and degradation so whatever voltage you run at make sure you counter it with plenty of cooling whether it be Ram, CPU, or anything in your system. Now, im not saying to go and cram 1.8v in your ram as long as you are cooling it then it will be perfectly fine but Ive personally had 1.65v+ on mine for 3600c12 while I was benching but that was in short bursts. The other info was just for information sakes bc I see so many that are always concerned with voltages rather than how much heat the component is generating and I dont believe the main threat is voltage, rather heat generated from voltages considered "unsafe". That is just my opinion and there are many debates online about that subject that are in favor of both sides of the argument. You dont really ever want to give more voltage than necessary to DRAM anyway as too much voltage not only causes unnecessary heat, it will cause problems in the memory (1Usmus can get more technical about why excess voltage causes errors) like signal jitter and such. Strapping a fan to the ram with zipties is a good idea for anyone for a cheap ram cooler and youd be amazed how it will solve heat related errors that im sure many people encounter due to high ambient temps. Enough rambling, I need to get this chicken in me. Im starving :heart:


----------



## nick name

hurricane28 said:


> Okay, can you post some screens plz for reverence? Maybe it can help me.


Honestly, I have gone through many variations of 3600MHz, but I started with the SAFE timings found in the calculator for V1 Samsung b-die kit. At this point these are my stable timings, but also might use more voltage than you want to. At loser timings I was at 1.46V and currently at 1.49V with these tighter timings. 

One thing I have found is that I have to keep tCKE at 9. Changing it to 1 always seems to create instability for me at 3600MHz.


----------



## sglords

only able to get v1 fast 3200 cl14 work out of the box
tested with 10 cycles


----------



## YpsiNine

Hey 1usmus, thanks so much for this program. I've played with it for 2-3 days now trying to find the sweet spot for my 3600CL16 b-die.

Unfortunately my system doesn't really like geardown disable > 3200 MHz, it's very unstable.
So what I'm doing is using your 3466 fast preset but geardown enable.
It seems to me that too much is depending on geardown.

I have noticed one thing with your calculator though, setting "Opcache control" to disabled like the calculator says, effectively kills any performance gains.
I think it drops my CB score with about -100 points and it also reduced other benchmarks similarly.
I would appreciate any input you have on this setting, it seems to be aimed at hardcore overclockers that does not aim for performance?

Thanks.


----------



## CJMitsuki

YpsiNine said:


> Hey 1usmus, thanks so much for this program. I've played with it for 2-3 days now trying to find the sweet spot for my 3600CL16 b-die.
> 
> Unfortunately my system doesn't really like geardown disable > 3200 MHz, it's very unstable.
> So what I'm doing is using your 3466 fast preset but geardown enable.
> It seems to me that too much is depending on geardown.
> 
> I have noticed one thing with your calculator though, setting "Opcache control" to disabled like the calculator says, effectively kills any performance gains.
> I think it drops my CB score with about -100 points and it also reduced other benchmarks similarly.
> I would appreciate any input you have on this setting, it seems to be aimed at hardcore overclockers that does not aim for performance?
> 
> Thanks.


Ive seen that behavior with rendering programs so more than likely it will affect those. If you arent using it as a workstation for rendering then you should be fine. Benchmark with programs that simulate what you use the computer for to assess if it will affect you. I dont disable Opcache personally but I do have the similar Geardown characteristics but the good thing is that is doesnt kill performance as Im still able to get as much performance as someone that disables geardown. Also on a related note, i use 2T and then I can disable Geardown and sometimes I get better performance or better latency. Geardown and 2T act similarly so sometimes they are interchangeable with subtle changes in performance over the other one. So test with GD enable on 1T then swap them and test again on every setup as one may net better performance than the other with similar stability enhancing characteristics. Also it isnt aimed at hardcore overclockers that much bc many of the benchmark scores they are trying to achieve are from rendering programs. It is just an optional setting that can give a small boost to stability and to someone that uses programs that is doesnt affect could possibly use it to stabilize a memory overclock.


----------



## tekjunkie28

1usmus said:


> It's simple, if V1R-XMP does not work, use V2 R-XMP
> 
> These profiles are based on test results (more than 10,000 hours)
> You can also try to find a similar system configuration in the tables with the results.


Yes. But the profiles are flat out wrong for tRFC for almost all ram. I would like the reasoning for that so I can better understand.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## neur0cide

The reason is that on some motherboards a far higher tRFC is required than on others. For example on my C6H B-die usually run @~150 ns. On the X470 Taichi Ultimate they need ~215 ns for the refresh.


----------



## CJMitsuki

tekjunkie28 said:


> Yes. But the profiles are flat out wrong for tRFC for almost all ram. I would like the reasoning for that so I can better understand.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


its bc those profiles that you see are for Intels architecture and not optimized for Ryzen. 1Usmus made the R-XMP just for this reason. If we load XMP(Intel) values into the calculator it was giving an output based on an architecture that we are not using therefore it was skewing the output. Thats what the reason is, forget the XMP profile in Thaiphoon bc it is for Intel and not for Ryzen. Their IMC is totally different therefore Ryzen needs a base suited for its architecture rather than one for a totally different architecture.


----------



## nick name

So can anyone tell me what tCKE does? I only see the calculator give two values: 9 on SAFE settings and 1 for FAST/EXTREME. I can't seem to run 1 stable at 3600MHz for anything. Can a different value be used other than 1 or 9? Perhaps something in between?


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> So can anyone tell me what tCKE does? I only see the calculator give two values: 9 on SAFE settings and 1 for FAST/EXTREME. I can't seem to run 1 stable at 3600MHz for anything. Can a different value be used other than 1 or 9? Perhaps something in between?


Thats a possibility but I am unsure. Like you I have only used it for harder to reach straps. I only know it can have a decent impact on performance for the extra stability it gives. wait, now that I think of it I have used 6 as a value there before so it is possible to use other values just like any timing.


----------



## BLUuuE

nick name said:


> So can anyone tell me what tCKE does? I only see the calculator give two values: 9 on SAFE settings and 1 for FAST/EXTREME. I can't seem to run 1 stable at 3600MHz for anything. Can a different value be used other than 1 or 9? Perhaps something in between?





> DRAM CKE Minimum Pulse width: This setting can be left on Auto for all overclocking. CKE defines the minimum number of clocks that must elapse before the system can transition from normal operating to low power state and vice versa.


Source


----------



## Leftezog

CJMitsuki said:


> Its not a coincidence at all, when your ram gets hot stability decreases. 40c+ is hotter than normal so definitely the cooler you keep it the better chances to get timings tighter without errors. Mine idle just below 30c normally when ambient is around 25c in the house. When im pumping cold air into my case ive seen it at 13c sometimes lower but that isnt normal operating conditions to be fair. 30-35c seems to be what most report from what ive seen. As tight as some of my setups are, I will get errors at 35c and will have to dial it back a tiny bit. So temps are a big factor in stability as with any electronics. Heat is the main enemy of your computer. While some associate voltage with degradation of the components, I think the heat caused by the voltage is the cause of the degradation. Of course at a certain point voltage will destroy components but for the most part I run my 2700x at what most consider unsafe but I never let the cpu get to 70c at 1.55v sometimes higher and I have no degradation but thats not 24/7. 24/7 voltage from xfr is probably averaging 1.45-1.48v at 4.4ghz with no sign of degradation. Now at higher voltages there is a threat of possible Electromigration over time from the high voltages that cause the degradation at an atomic level but that can take a long time. Point is that voltages cause heat and heat causes instability and degradation so whatever voltage you run at make sure you counter it with plenty of cooling whether it be Ram, CPU, or anything in your system. Now, im not saying to go and cram 1.8v in your ram as long as you are cooling it then it will be perfectly fine but Ive personally had 1.65v+ on mine for 3600c12 while I was benching but that was in short bursts. The other info was just for information sakes bc I see so many that are always concerned with voltages rather than how much heat the component is generating and I dont believe the main threat is voltage, rather heat generated from voltages considered "unsafe". That is just my opinion and there are many debates online about that subject that are in favor of both sides of the argument. You dont really ever want to give more voltage than necessary to DRAM anyway as too much voltage not only causes unnecessary heat, it will cause problems in the memory (1Usmus can get more technical about why excess voltage causes errors) like signal jitter and such. Strapping a fan to the ram with zipties is a good idea for anyone for a cheap ram cooler and youd be amazed how it will solve heat related errors that im sure many people encounter due to high ambient temps. Enough rambling, I need to get this chicken in me. Im starving :heart:


Yeah exactly. I believe that the general enemy in electronics is heat but in ram situations I believe also that excessive voltage, much more than needed is a common issue that causes instability. I have red that If you apply too much voltage that is way more than ram may need to operate can cause voltage leaks and intereference with signal. That's why you must use such voltage that can be used by the ram and maybe a tiny bit more but not too much.


----------



## hsn

just got new bios with agesa 1.0.0.4

dram 1.42v
1.1v soc

try to test 10 cycles

thank you @1usmus


----------



## numlock66

hsn said:


> just got new bios with agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> dram 1.42v
> 1.1v soc
> 
> try to test 10 cycles
> 
> thank you


Which board?

Anyone with x370 taichi running memory above 3466mhz? If yes, do you mind to share the configs?


----------



## Trender

Hey guys, 1 of my RAM stick just broken, theyre 2 weeks lul. (3600 gskill tridentz rgb). I've used 1.45V and it came 1.35v on their profile but I've read that 1.45V was safe.
So did I broke the RAM stick with so many voltage or maybe it was just bad luck and faulty?


----------



## hsn

numlock66 said:


> Which board?
> 
> Anyone with x370 taichi running memory above 3466mhz? If yes, do you mind to share the configs?


i'm using gigabyte b350n wifi


----------



## tekjunkie28

CJMitsuki said:


> its bc those profiles that you see are for Intels architecture and not optimized for Ryzen. 1Usmus made the R-XMP just for this reason. If we load XMP(Intel) values into the calculator it was giving an output based on an architecture that we are not using therefore it was skewing the output. Thats what the reason is, forget the XMP profile in Thaiphoon bc it is for Intel and not for Ryzen. Their IMC is totally different therefore Ryzen needs a base suited for its architecture rather than one for a totally different architecture.


I was thinking it differently. I was under the assumption that the calculator was exactly that... a calculator. I put the XMP values in and it gives me my ryzen values. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## nick name

Trender said:


> Hey guys, 1 of my RAM stick just broken, theyre 2 weeks lul. (3600 gskill tridentz rgb). I've used 1.45V and it came 1.35v on their profile but I've read that 1.45V was safe.
> So did I broke the RAM stick with so many voltage or maybe it was just bad luck and faulty?


I think Intel guys run their sticks all the way up to 2.0V without problems. I don't think your voltages harmed your RAM.


----------



## Darkstalker420

hsn said:


> just got new bios with agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> dram 1.42v
> 1.1v soc
> 
> try to test 10 cycles
> 
> thank you @1usmus


DAMN!! That's some sweet Mhz you got there buddy..... Wish ASUS were as forthcoming with the 1.0.0.4 updates. Looked earlier still 4011 *sigh* What other "tweaks" you done to get it @3733?? Never once dreamed a B350 would go that high tbh. I thought i was doing "ok" getting 3200C14 going LMAO!!

Thanx.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Thats a possibility but I am unsure. Like you I have only used it for harder to reach straps. I only know it can have a decent impact on performance for the extra stability it gives. wait, now that I think of it I have used 6 as a value there before so it is possible to use other values just like any timing.





BLUuuE said:


> Source


I do remember seeing something about pulse width, but I don't know what that means or how to implement it. Do you have any more info?


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Thats a possibility but I am unsure. Like you I have only used it for harder to reach straps. I only know it can have a decent impact on performance for the extra stability it gives. wait, now that I think of it I have used 6 as a value there before so it is possible to use other values just like any timing.



I'm trying 6 now. I ran Ram Test for 20 minutes as a quick check and it ran error free and also seems to show slightly higher bandwidth numbers in Aida, but that may just be luck of the run.


----------



## DomiksPL

Any tips how to remove that cold start errors?
Samsung D-die Dual Rank @3066CL14


----------



## hsn

Darkstalker420 said:


> DAMN!! That's some sweet Mhz you got there buddy..... Wish ASUS were as forthcoming with the 1.0.0.4 updates. Looked earlier still 4011 *sigh* What other "tweaks" you done to get it @3733?? Never once dreamed a B350 would go that high tbh. I thought i was doing "ok" getting 3200C14 going LMAO!!
> 
> Thanx.


i use fast preset with dram calculator
and just find soc volt to get stable, and in gigabyte bios agesa 1.0.0.4 there are option BGS (set disable manually)


----------



## johnjoyjoe

hi @1usmus

i have been getting this screen on stock setting as well. In even log this BDS appears very frequently . but system does not shutdown or restart.

i am able to play games at default(auto settings). some times the stress test fails at stock. 

while i tested it on 2933 or 3000. the stress test remains stable like 8 out of 10 times. but on this frequency i cant play nay game and they all freeze or do not respond till i either Press Alt+Ctrl+del and chose to logoff. or i directly restart the system by pressing res button.

i tried using 2933 settings as mentioned in your calculator also tried all other settings for higher frequencies Keeping the frequency at 2933.


----------



## jclafi

What is the voltage for your 32GB kit ?


----------



## johnjoyjoe

jclafi said:


> What is the voltage for your 32GB kit ?



if it was for me then 

its 1.35 or 1.36


----------



## jclafi

I have Corsair 16Gb DDR4 3200 CL16. It's rated 1.35v @3200MHz but for some reason i need 1.42v to mantain stability.

Perhaps you could add some juice to your kit, looks like up to 1.5v is 'safe'.

Good Luck !



johnjoyjoe said:


> if it was for me then
> 
> its 1.35 or 1.36


----------



## KaKTy3

Ok, perhaps some of the old hands could help me, as I am pretty new to this. Here's what my new build PC looks like:

CPU: AMD Ryzen R7 1800x
MoBo: ASUS Prime x370-Pro BIOS v4012
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 Series F4-3000C15D-16GRBB DDR4 3000 MHz 16 GB Memory Kit (that's Samsung b-die single ranked according to Taiphoon Burner)
PSU: Seasonic FOCUS Plus Gold 750W
GPU: AMD RX480 4 GB

Using D.O.C.P. 3000 MHz profile, the PC boots up with no issues, it passes TM5 testing with @1usmus configuration. So far so good.

I then used v1.3.1 of the Calculator and tried both SAFE and FAST 3200 MHz settings coupled with the recommended PSU settings (i.e. settings under DIGI+ VRM). RAM set @1.35v, SoC @1.025v. When I do that, the PC tries to boot a few times, but does not POST. There is a distinct switching/clicking noise coming from the PSU each time. After 3 attempts, it comes back with American Megatrends screen suggesting it failed to POST and allowing me to go back into UEFI BIOS to Load Optimized Defaults.

Giving that weird noise from the PSU, I've verified it is actually not the DIGI+ VRM / voltage settings (as far as I can tell), as keeping those as per Calculator's recommendations, but changing the RAM settings back on D.O.C.P./Auto allows it to boot and perform normally.

What's the next step to isolate and solve the problem? Is it trying alternative RTT and CAD BUS settings, or something else?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## jclafi

What version of AGESA you have? I installed 1.0.0.4C last week, it did improve memory clocks. Right now i run 3200 CL16 w/ FAST timmings and 1.43v.

Maybe a BIOS update can do the trick !

Good Luck !


----------



## johnjoyjoe

jclafi said:


> I have Corsair 16Gb DDR4 3200 CL16. It's rated 1.35v @*3200MHz* but for some reason i need 1.42v to mantain stability.
> 
> Perhaps you could add some juice to your kit, looks like up to 1.5v is 'safe'.
> 
> Good Luck !


that is to much for 3000mhz


before that i want to know what is causing that Error in even management. if its rams then i can try something. but if it is something else then i would simply do something which was never needed.


----------



## jclafi

I did not say to you set the voltage to 1.5v ! I sayd that is somehow 'safe' until 1.5v....

You could try 1.42v and see the results.

Good Luck !


----------



## christoph

Didn't AMD said that RAM voltage up to 1.5v is safe?


----------



## 1usmus

nick name said:


> Honestly, I have gone through many variations of 3600MHz, but I started with the SAFE timings found in the calculator for V1 Samsung b-die kit. At this point these are my stable timings, but also might use more voltage than you want to. At loser timings I was at 1.46V and currently at 1.49V with these tighter timings.
> 
> One thing I have found is that I have to keep tCKE at 9. Changing it to 1 always seems to create instability for me at 3600MHz.


Imagine that we play in spies, if we turn off the power, then we write tCKE 1. This is done specifically, since the RTC does not have this line 

In fact, when power down disabled, any value in tCKE is ignored (1 or 14, for example).



YpsiNine said:


> Hey 1usmus, thanks so much for this program. I've played with it for 2-3 days now trying to find the sweet spot for my 3600CL16 b-die.
> 
> Unfortunately my system doesn't really like geardown disable > 3200 MHz, it's very unstable.
> So what I'm doing is using your 3466 fast preset but geardown enable.
> It seems to me that too much is depending on geardown.
> 
> I have noticed one thing with your calculator though, setting "Opcache control" to disabled like the calculator says, effectively kills any performance gains.
> I think it drops my CB score with about -100 points and it also reduced other benchmarks similarly.
> I would appreciate any input you have on this setting, it seems to be aimed at hardcore overclockers that does not aim for performance?
> 
> Thanks.


It's good that you got to the truth. Some memory modules really really like gear down enabled. Which ones and why, I do not yet know.

Sometimes disabling this option (Opcache control) helps to stabilize the system, in the next version the recommendation will be changed.



tekjunkie28 said:


> Yes. But the profiles are flat out wrong for tRFC for almost all ram. I would like the reasoning for that so I can better understand.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


The main task of this program is fine tuning of memory.The better the memory is configured the more performance. If you want to use the original timings - then you do not need a calculator, the huge numbers that will give you an automatic mode of the motherboard will be a native mode for memory. Are you interested in tRFC 600+? I think no. 

If you reduce one timing, then you need to change all other timings. This is a unified organism. 

I'll think about how to remove these lines in the next version. I do not understand why people are more concerned about "appearance" and not the result.



Trender said:


> Hey guys, 1 of my RAM stick just broken, theyre 2 weeks lul. (3600 gskill tridentz rgb). I've used 1.45V and it came 1.35v on their profile but I've read that 1.45V was safe.
> So did I broke the RAM stick with so many voltage or maybe it was just bad luck and faulty?


bios error or training
need to change the location of memory modules, A2->B2 В2->A2
and CLEAR CMOS

You can kill memory only if you use over 1.6 volts



hsn said:


> just got new bios with agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> dram 1.42v
> 1.1v soc
> 
> try to test 10 cycles
> 
> thank you @1usmus


awesome ! 



Darkstalker420 said:


> DAMN!! That's some sweet Mhz you got there buddy..... Wish ASUS were as forthcoming with the 1.0.0.4 updates. Looked earlier still 4011 *sigh* What other "tweaks" you done to get it @3733?? Never once dreamed a B350 would go that high tbh. I thought i was doing "ok" getting 3200C14 going LMAO!!
> 
> Thanx.


This is a feature of any motherboard that has only 2 RAM slots. Such boards have the most stable signal line (it is easier to calculate the length of the conductor for two slots + empty slots often create signal reflections and are antennas for EMP).



DomiksPL said:


> Any tips how to remove that cold start errors?
> Samsung D-die Dual Rank @3066CL14


change SOC voltage or procODT



johnjoyjoe said:


> hi @1usmus
> 
> i have been getting this screen on stock setting as well. In even log this BDS appears very frequently . but system does not shutdown or restart.
> 
> i am able to play games at default(auto settings). some times the stress test fails at stock.
> 
> while i tested it on 2933 or 3000. the stress test remains stable like 8 out of 10 times. but on this frequency i cant play nay game and they all freeze or do not respond till i either Press Alt+Ctrl+del and chose to logoff. or i directly restart the system by pressing res button.
> 
> i tried using 2933 settings as mentioned in your calculator also tried all other settings for higher frequencies Keeping the frequency at 2933.


Is HPET off? 
but I think this is an operating system problem

I had a worse situation, any application was just shut down automatically after a while. Solved the problem simply - installed a new Windows



KaKTy3 said:


> Ok, perhaps some of the old hands could help me, as I am pretty new to this. Here's what my new build PC looks like:
> 
> CPU: AMD Ryzen R7 1800x
> MoBo: ASUS Prime x370-Pro BIOS v4012
> RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 Series F4-3000C15D-16GRBB DDR4 3000 MHz 16 GB Memory Kit (that's Samsung b-die single ranked according to Taiphoon Burner)
> PSU: Seasonic FOCUS Plus Gold 750W
> GPU: AMD RX480 4 GB
> 
> Using D.O.C.P. 3000 MHz profile, the PC boots up with no issues, it passes TM5 testing with @1usmus configuration. So far so good.
> 
> I then used v1.3.1 of the Calculator and tried both SAFE and FAST 3200 MHz settings coupled with the recommended PSU settings (i.e. settings under DIGI+ VRM). RAM set @1.35v, SoC @1.025v. When I do that, the PC tries to boot a few times, but does not POST. There is a distinct switching/clicking noise coming from the PSU each time. After 3 attempts, it comes back with American Megatrends screen suggesting it failed to POST and allowing me to go back into UEFI BIOS to Load Optimized Defaults.
> 
> Giving that weird noise from the PSU, I've verified it is actually not the DIGI+ VRM / voltage settings (as far as I can tell), as keeping those as per Calculator's recommendations, but changing the RAM settings back on D.O.C.P./Auto allows it to boot and perform normally.
> 
> What's the next step to isolate and solve the problem? Is it trying alternative RTT and CAD BUS settings, or something else?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


1) DIGI+ VRM i do not advise you to touch, except tuning the power phases for the processor (LLC + phase mode)

2) The reason is simple - a small voltage SOC / DRAM (sometimes too high voltage for DRAM can be the reason for the lack of startup of the system, but this is a rarity) or incorrect procODT + RTT



christoph said:


> Didn't AMD said that RAM voltage up to 1.5v is safe?


these are my words  AMD is more conservative, up to 1.45 their recommendation


----------



## nick name

1usmus said:


> Imagine that we play in spies, if we turn off the power, then we write tCKE 1. This is done specifically, since the RTC does not have this line
> 
> In fact, when power down disabled, any value in tCKE is ignored (1 or 14, for example).
> 
> 
> 
> -SNIP-


So if I have disabled power down then tCKE doesn't matter at all?


----------



## iaminheaven

*what type ram i have*

i have a pair of patriot viper 4 ram pv416g300c6k, can anyone tell me what type memory is?


----------



## dspx

nick name said:


> So if I have disabled power down then tCKE doesn't matter at all?


Correct


----------



## Trender

Guys anyone know why i can't really get my 3600 stable. (i need 60 procodt for 3533) Kinda because Ive got it stable 2 times, but most of the times it just fails before 1-2 mins
i.e first I got this stable once
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213426&thumb=1
then reboot and it failed test again even before 1 min...
Tried all procodt + rtt and the best one for me @ 3600 is 68 ohms and rzq5(48 rttpark).
So after some hours I got it stable again, always using same settings but sometimes its stable other times barely runs 1 min
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213428&thumb=1
and so again I reboot and know what, it isn't stable again :/
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213432&thumb=1


----------



## christoph

> =1usmus;
> 
> these are my words  AMD is more conservative, up to 1.45 their recommendation



is that what they said in the video presentation?


----------



## nick name

Trender said:


> Guys anyone know why i can't really get my 3600 stable. (i need 60 procodt for 3533) Kinda because Ive got it stable 2 times, but most of the times it just fails before 1-2 mins
> i.e first I got this stable once
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213426&thumb=1
> then reboot and it failed test again even before 1 min...
> Tried all procodt + rtt and the best one for me @ 3600 is 68 ohms and rzq5(48 rttpark).
> So after some hours I got it stable again, always using same settings but sometimes its stable other times barely runs 1 min
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213428&thumb=1
> and so again I reboot and know what, it isn't stable again :/
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213432&thumb=1


I imagine you're gonna need at least a SOC of 1.1V and probably a LLC of 4 to make certain it stays there.


----------



## 1usmus

Trender said:


> Guys anyone know why i can't really get my 3600 stable. (i need 60 procodt for 3533) Kinda because Ive got it stable 2 times, but most of the times it just fails before 1-2 mins
> i.e first I got this stable once
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213426&thumb=1
> then reboot and it failed test again even before 1 min...
> Tried all procodt + rtt and the best one for me @ 3600 is 68 ohms and rzq5(48 rttpark).
> So after some hours I got it stable again, always using same settings but sometimes its stable other times barely runs 1 min
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213428&thumb=1
> and so again I reboot and know what, it isn't stable again :/
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213432&thumb=1


Your system is not stable in all three cases, procODT is too large



iaminheaven said:


> i have a pair of patriot viper 4 ram pv416g300c6k, can anyone tell me what type memory is?


micron d-die



christoph said:


> is that what they said in the video presentation?


Some recommendations that are in the BIOS code


----------



## KaKTy3

1usmus said:


> Imagine that we play in spies, if we turn off the power, then we write tCKE 1. This is done specifically, since the RTC does not have this line
> 1) DIGI+ VRM i do not advise you to touch, except tuning the power phases for the processor (LLC + phase mode)
> 
> 2) The reason is simple - a small voltage SOC / DRAM (sometimes too high voltage for DRAM can be the reason for the lack of startup of the system, but this is a rarity) or incorrect procODT + RTT


Thanks for your reply, @1usmus.

I tried to follow your advice, and first looked at what the settings are under Auto / D.O.C.P. 3000 MHz (using RTC in Windows):

VDDR RAM: 1.35v
VDDR SoC: 1.0188v

ProcODT: 60 Ohm
RTT_NOM: Off
RTT_WR: Off
RTT_Park: 48 Ohm

CSD_BUS_ClkDrv: 24 Ohm
CSD_BUS_AddrCmdDrv: 24 Ohm
CSD_BUS_CSOdtDrv: 24 Ohm
CSD_BUS_CkeDriv: 24 Ohm

I then compared the timings as recommended by the Calculator and what RTC was saying, noting that the key differences were in tRC (-27) and tRFC (-62). The v2 settings for my Samsung B-die looked closest to 'stock', so I thought why not try them still staying at 3000 MHz, but use the 'stock' ProcODT + RTT (as above), plus 1.33v for RAM and 1.025v for SoC (the latter is higher than stock).

Result: PC does not POST, but rather than attempting to reset itself with that PSU switching/clicking noise, it is staying on, but there is no display output and no HDD lights come on, suggesting it is not attempting to boot.

I didn't have the time to reset CMOS and test things further, as it was 2 AM at this point, but I am pretty puzzled by this, as I don't see what could be causing this behaviour, given the setting used weren't aggressive in any way.

Will continue to explore further tonight.


----------



## Trender

1usmus said:


> Your system is not stable in all three cases, procODT is too large
> 
> 
> 
> micron d-die
> 
> 
> 
> Some recommendations that are in the BIOS code


Yeah but its the only procodt that allows me to boot 3600


----------



## johnjoyjoe

jclafi said:


> I did not say to you set the voltage to 1.5v ! I sayd that is somehow 'safe' until 1.5v....
> 
> You could try 1.42v and see the results.
> 
> Good Luck !


Yes by saying 1.5 is too much I was trying to say that 1.45 is the chip manufacturer says is the max we should touch.
I tried and would have tried by 0.01 increment.
But I went till 1.44 and still couldn't make it stable.

Tried procodt 60,68.6,80
Vtt was half of what the dram volt.
Soc I went till 1.05.

Cad bus 
20 24 30

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

KaKTy3 said:


> Thanks for your reply, @1usmus.
> 
> I tried to follow your advice, and first looked at what the settings are under Auto / D.O.C.P. 3000 MHz (using RTC in Windows):
> 
> VDDR RAM: 1.35v
> VDDR SoC: 1.0188v
> 
> ProcODT: 60 Ohm
> RTT_NOM: Off
> RTT_WR: Off
> RTT_Park: 48 Ohm
> 
> CSD_BUS_ClkDrv: 24 Ohm
> CSD_BUS_AddrCmdDrv: 24 Ohm
> CSD_BUS_CSOdtDrv: 24 Ohm
> CSD_BUS_CkeDriv: 24 Ohm
> 
> I then compared the timings as recommended by the Calculator and what RTC was saying, noting that the key differences were in tRC (-27) and tRFC (-62). The v2 settings for my Samsung B-die looked closest to 'stock', so I thought why not try them still staying at 3000 MHz, but use the 'stock' ProcODT + RTT (as above), plus 1.33v for RAM and 1.025v for SoC (the latter is higher than stock).
> 
> Result: PC does not POST, but rather than attempting to reset itself with that PSU switching/clicking noise, it is staying on, but there is no display output and no HDD lights come on, suggesting it is not attempting to boot.
> 
> I didn't have the time to reset CMOS and test things further, as it was 2 AM at this point, but I am pretty puzzled by this, as I don't see what could be causing this behaviour, given the setting used weren't aggressive in any way.
> 
> Will continue to explore further tonight.


The reasons why there can be no POST:

1) tCWL not equal to tCL
2) tWRRD too low
3) Geardown not enabled
4) procODT

you must follow all the recommendations that are on the main page, otherwise the system may not work at all



Trender said:


> Yeah but its the only procodt that allows me to boot 3600


RTT_PARK RZQ/4 + procODT 53 does not work?



johnjoyjoe said:


> Yes by saying 1.5 is too much I was trying to say that 1.45 is the chip manufacturer says is the max we should touch.
> I tried and would have tried by 0.01 increment.
> But I went till 1.44 and still couldn't make it stable.
> 
> Tried procodt 60,68.6,80
> Vtt was half of what the dram volt.
> Soc I went till 1.05.
> 
> Cad bus
> 20 24 30
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk


in the next version I will make changes for Hynix memory, timings for frequencies 2933-3133 are too aggressive

try to use timings that the calculator offers for 3200, while in your system the frequency should be set to only 3066 or 3133


----------



## johnjoyjoe

1usmus said:


> The reasons why there can be no POST:
> 
> 1) tCWL not equal to tCL
> 2) tWRRD too low
> 3) Geardown not enabled
> 4) procODT
> 
> you must follow all the recommendations that are on the main page, otherwise the system may not work at all
> 
> 
> 
> RTT_PARK RZQ/4 + procODT 53 does not work?
> 
> 
> 
> in the next version I will make changes for Hynix memory, timings for frequencies 2933-3133 are too aggressive
> 
> try to use timings that the calculator offers for 3200, while in your system the frequency should be set to only 3066 or 3133



you mean i will use 3200 timings from Calculator settings and use 3066 or 3133 not 2933 or 3000?


I am using a Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7 
I mostly dont have same settings as Advance menu suggests. i have highlighted them in red in the SS i Attached. if you can suggest me what i should look for in the BIOS for these. Also suggest what will it be mentioned as Powerdown and geardown


----------



## dspx

johnjoyjoe said:


> you mean i will use 3200 timings from Calculator settings and use 3066 or 3133 not 2933 or 3000?


Take a look at my timings, that is exactly what I did.


----------



## Trender

1usmus said:


> The reasons why there can be no POST:
> 
> 1) tCWL not equal to tCL
> 2) tWRRD too low
> 3) Geardown not enabled
> 4) procODT
> 
> you must follow all the recommendations that are on the main page, otherwise the system may not work at all
> 
> 
> 
> RTT_PARK RZQ/4 + procODT 53 does not work?
> 
> 
> 
> in the next version I will make changes for Hynix memory, timings for frequencies 2933-3133 are too aggressive
> 
> try to use timings that the calculator offers for 3200, while in your system the frequency should be set to only 3066 or 3133


Nope it doesnt boot even at 3533. I could get 3533 stable with this: https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213622&thumb=1
Here Ill give u thaiphoon it if it helps: https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213624&thumb=1


----------



## LillysTittchen

Trender said:


> Guys anyone know why i can't really get my 3600 stable. (i need 60 procodt for 3533) Kinda because Ive got it stable 2 times, but most of the times it just fails before 1-2 mins
> i.e first I got this stable once
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213426&thumb=1
> then reboot and it failed test again even before 1 min...
> Tried all procodt + rtt and the best one for me @ 3600 is 68 ohms and rzq5(48 rttpark).
> So after some hours I got it stable again, always using same settings but sometimes its stable other times barely runs 1 min
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213428&thumb=1
> and so again I reboot and know what, it isn't stable again :/
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213432&thumb=1


Thanks, thats exactly the same what I currently notice. But in my case, I tested with MemTest and got a coverage of 8000% and after reboot I get errors instantly. 1.48 DRAM Voltage, 1.15 SoC Voltage, procODT 53.3 + 60 + 68.6 tested

What 1usmus is trying to say is none of your settings were stable. I got TestMem5 60cycles (2h) without errors but MemTest throw errors instantly...

Edit: Currently trying CLD0_VDDP Voltage from 0.9 to 1.050 V


----------



## johnjoyjoe

dspx said:


> Take a look at my timings, that is exactly what I did.



i have 16-16-16-16-38-54 even at 3466.
you can see attached SS for reference.
need to try these now!!


----------



## dspx

johnjoyjoe said:


> i have 16-16-16-16-38-54 even at 3466.
> you can see attached SS for reference.
> need to try these now!!


Is that stable? Which kit do you have?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Trender said:


> Guys anyone know why i can't really get my 3600 stable. (i need 60 procodt for 3533) Kinda because Ive got it stable 2 times, but most of the times it just fails before 1-2 mins
> i.e first I got this stable once
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213426&thumb=1
> then reboot and it failed test again even before 1 min...
> Tried all procodt + rtt and the best one for me @ 3600 is 68 ohms and rzq5(48 rttpark).
> So after some hours I got it stable again, always using same settings but sometimes its stable other times barely runs 1 min
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213428&thumb=1
> and so again I reboot and know what, it isn't stable again :/
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213432&thumb=1


Its bc none of those runs you show proves stability which leads me to believe that they werent. 3 cycles of the default test for 5 min isnt going to do anything for you as far as proving its stable. You need to use 1usmus config he posted and run 10 cycles for SR or 5 cycles for DR. If your ram is fairly fast then 10 cycles takes less than 40 min. Run it that way and see if you come up stable. Running 5 min is not enough time to test the memory, I doubt it even warms it up. Also, you need to run the program as administrator.



LillysTittchen said:


> Thanks, thats exactly the same what I currently notice. But in my case, I tested with MemTest and got a coverage of 8000% and after reboot I get errors instantly. 1.48 DRAM Voltage, 1.15 SoC Voltage, procODT 53.3 + 60 + 68.6 tested
> 
> What 1usmus is trying to say is none of your settings were stable. I got TestMem5 60cycles (2h) without errors but MemTest throw errors instantly...
> 
> Edit: Currently trying CLD0_VDDP Voltage from 0.9 to 1.050 V


What i do if i see behavior like that is reflash my Bios and sometimes even refresh my windows install. Youd be surprised at how many times ive seen either of those be the cause of false positives in a memory test.


----------



## LillysTittchen

CJMitsuki said:


> Its bc none of those runs you show proves stability which leads me to believe that they werent. 3 cycles of the default test for 5 min isnt going to do anything for you as far as proving its stable. You need to use 1usmus config he posted and run 10 cycles for SR or 5 cycles for DR. If your ram is fairly fast then 10 cycles takes less than 40 min. Run it that way and see if you come up stable. Running 5 min is not enough time to test the memory, I doubt it even warms it up. Also, you need to run the program as administrator.
> 
> 
> 
> What i do if i see behavior like that is reflash my Bios and sometimes even refresh my windows install. Youd be surprised at how many times ive seen either of those be the cause of false positives in a memory test.


But how can I ensure stability under this weird circumstances? :S


----------



## christoph

LillysTittchen said:


> But how can I ensure stability under this weird circumstances? :S


whats the program he's talking about to test stability?


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> But how can I ensure stability under this weird circumstances? :S


stability is never ensured. If you are gaming on the rig and doing normal tasks youll be fine. If you are storing sensitive government documents then you may need to do more testing.


----------



## LillysTittchen

christoph said:


> whats the program he's talking about to test stability?


I'm talking about MemTest 8000% coverage without errors and after reboot I can't even achieve 60% coverage.



> stability is never ensured. If you are gaming on the rig and doing normal tasks youll be fine. If you are storing sensitive government documents then you may need to do more testing.


Hmm when I'm gaming or doing daily tasks I never got errors with my last settings soo can I expect my system is stable??? That would mean MemTest is overrated? Btw...I'm testing with 6 instances à 1500 MB so I can play League of Legends and surf beside it. Thats actually my only test routine. Is that effective enough?

Theres another weird behaviour I noticed. With the latest Bios update an option to disable HPET came with (default: enabled). But when I disable HPET my system won't boot anymore so that I have to power off and on. The system will boot after that but with a restart it happens again. No welcome screen and display showing a "no signal" message, it looks like a no post. I can't even reach Bios then. I can only power off to continue. 

I already reflashed bios, latest version. MB: MSI x470 Gaming Pro Carbon. Some ideas?


----------



## ajc9988

LillysTittchen said:


> I'm talking about MemTest 8000% coverage without errors and after reboot I can't even achieve 60% coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm when I'm gaming or doing daily tasks I never got errors with my last settings soo can I expect my system is stable??? That would mean MemTest is overrated? Btw...I'm testing with 6 instances à 1500 MB so I can play League of Legends and surf beside it. Thats actually my only test routine. Is that effective enough?
> 
> Theres another weird behaviour I noticed. With the latest Bios update an option to disable HPET came with (default: enabled). But when I disable HPET my system won't boot anymore so that I have to power off and on. The system will boot after that but with a restart it happens again. No welcome screen and display showing a "no signal" message, it looks like a no post. I can't even reach Bios then. I can only power off to continue.
> 
> I already reflashed bios, latest version. MB: MSI x470 Gaming Pro Carbon. Some ideas?


Try not using the machine during testing and allowing the program to take control of all memory not in use by the OS. Also, this is why I do a couple things: 1) check for initial stability with TM5, and 2) perform a cold boot before testing with HCI. If you can't give up a day of use, can you overnight? Literally start HCI while going to sleep and check in the morning. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## tekjunkie28

dspx said:


> Correct


That makes no since because for me it absolutely does affect stability and I only have power down disabled.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## LillysTittchen

ajc9988 said:


> Try not using the machine during testing and allowing the program to take control of all memory not in use by the OS. Also, this is why I do a couple things: 1) check for initial stability with TM5, and 2) perform a cold boot before testing with HCI. If you can't give up a day of use, can you overnight? Literally start HCI while going to sleep and check in the morning.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Ah ok, nice answer. Regarding point 2: That should be possible. It's just sad to run the system over hours just to find out that it's still unstable and with the bunch of relevant settings (voltages, die-termination, timings etc.) its getting really frustrating...just saying. But yeah thats a good tactic.

Do you have an idea reagrding disabling HPET and Boot problem. I started a thread in the msi german forum but I have not much hope. I would like to register in msi english forum but when I click on register nothing happens  no joke (can someone prove that?) The msi forum is so crap. Last time that I buy a msi product.


----------



## Trender

Hell yeah.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213768&thumb=1
Tinkering with Digi+ thx 1usmus changing the frequencys of soc and cpu to 300 fixed and the energy to 120% both too did the trick.
Anyways im returning these crap RAMs. The same RAM I had before one stick got faulty booted all the procodts, this ones doesnt even boot 3466 withouth 60 procodt and my old ones never had to touch the digi+ ffs


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> Do you have an idea reagrding disabling HPET and Boot problem. I started a thread in the msi german forum but I have not much hope. I would like to register in msi english forum but when I click on register nothing happens  no joke (can someone prove that?) The msi forum is so crap. Last time that I buy a msi product.


The HPET thing happens to many others as well if you disable HPET in the bios. I get a boot loop and F4 QLED error code. Well that was when there was still an option to disable it. They removed it a couple updates ago for C7H. Just don’t disable HPET in bios at all.


----------



## brenopapito

I'm running exactly these settings but I can't complete 5 cycles on TM. Any suggestions?


----------



## nick name

brenopapito said:


> I'm running exactly these settings but I can't complete 5 cycles on TM. Any suggestions?


I tend to need more voltage than the calculator calls for. Try that.


----------



## hsn

Try to find the lowest volt ram,and this setting is stable for me since use agesa 1.0.0.4

dram 1.45v
soc 1.15v

try to pass cycle 7 with @1usmus profile


----------



## Darkstalker420

@hsn

Nice what sort of bandwidth is it pushing out @3800? Must be getting close to 60Gb/s..... *rubs his B350 Strix and pray's for new BIOS* Im guessing B Die???

Thanx.


----------



## Valka814

*BLCK*

Does somebody encountered instability with fixed BLCK? Looks like, once I manualy fixing the BLCK to 100 and the divider to 1, my ram oc becomes unstable.


----------



## hsn

Darkstalker420 said:


> @hsn
> 
> Nice what sort of bandwidth is it pushing out @3800? Must be getting close to 60Gb/s..... *rubs his B350 Strix and pray's for new BIOS* Im guessing B Die???
> 
> Thanx.


i'll try test with aida


----------



## CJMitsuki

Valka814 said:


> Does somebody encountered instability with fixed BLCK? Looks like, once I manualy fixing the BLCK to 100 and the divider to 1, my ram oc becomes unstable.


Leave the divider on Auto.


----------



## Valka814

Is the profile with 3266MHz better? Thanks!


----------



## Zvinarija

hey guys, I have a question. I don't know if it's been answered before, but i don't want to search  
when i open the thaiphoon burner it says that I have hynix m-die memory, but there isn't an option for hynix m-die in the dram calculator. I don't know if it's the same thing as hynix mfr so I ask to be sure. Thanks in advance!


----------



## dspx

Zvinarija said:


> hey guys, I have a question. I don't know if it's been answered before, but i don't want to search
> when i open the thaiphoon burner it says that I have hynix m-die memory, but there isn't an option for hynix m-die in the dram calculator. I don't know if it's the same thing as hynix mfr so I ask to be sure. Thanks in advance!


Yes, it's the same as MFR.


----------



## LillysTittchen

CJMitsuki said:


> The HPET thing happens to many others as well if you disable HPET in the bios. I get a boot loop and F4 QLED error code. Well that was when there was still an option to disable it. They removed it a couple updates ago for C7H. Just don’t disable HPET in bios at all.


Ah well thanks. I read about Ryzen is using another Timer than HPET...is it posibble to check that? Or asked differently: how can I ensure HPET is disabled in windows. I read about to remove the entry "useplatformclock" in bcdedit but it isn't listed for default or should I go with "bcdedit /set useplatformclock false". Is there a difference?



brenopapito said:


> I'm running exactly these settings but I can't complete 5 cycles on TM. Any suggestions?


I got it running with GearDown and PowerDown disabled but at the moment I can't say if it effects performance.



hsn said:


> Try to find the lowest volt ram,and this setting is stable for me since use agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.15v
> 
> try to pass cycle 7 with @1usmus profile


wow 3800 not bad. What RAM do you have?
Hmm I need only 15 minutes for 7 cycles. Do you have another routine/config. I'm using the default config, just edited the cycle number from 3 to 10.


This question goes to all: What happens when I leave CLDO_VDDP voltage on Auto, will it fluctuate between cold boots? I have latest HWInfo but it doesn't display this voltage, is there another posibbility to check the voltage?


----------



## nick name

LillysTittchen said:


> Ah well thanks. I read about Ryzen is using another Timer than HPET...is it posibble to check that? Or asked differently: how can I ensure HPET is disabled in windows. I read about to remove the entry "useplatformclock" in bcdedit but it isn't listed for default or should I go with "bcdedit /set useplatformclock false". Is there a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> -snip-


You can disable HPET in Device Manager. Once in Device Manager you will look under System Devices and then right-click on the High Precision Event Timer and select disable.


----------



## hsn

LillysTittchen said:


> wow 3800 not bad. What RAM do you have?
> Hmm I need only 15 minutes for 7 cycles. Do you have another routine/config. I'm using the default config, just edited the cycle number from 3 to 10.


i'm using 1usmus profile

https://www.overclock.net/forum/27577522-post2594.html


----------



## nick name

hsn said:


> i'm using 1usmus profile
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27577522-post2594.html


You have that 3800MHz stable?

And what are your Aida64 numbers with that speed?


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> Ah well thanks. I read about Ryzen is using another Timer than HPET...is it posibble to check that? Or asked differently: how can I ensure HPET is disabled in windows. I read about to remove the entry "useplatformclock" in bcdedit but it isn't listed for default or should I go with "bcdedit /set useplatformclock false". Is there a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> I got it running with GearDown and PowerDown disabled but at the moment I can't say if it effects performance.
> 
> 
> 
> wow 3800 not bad. What RAM do you have?
> Hmm I need only 15 minutes for 7 cycles. Do you have another routine/config. I'm using the default config, just edited the cycle number from 3 to 10.
> 
> 
> This question goes to all: What happens when I leave CLDO_VDDP voltage on Auto, will it fluctuate between cold boots? I have latest HWInfo but it doesn't display this voltage, is there another posibbility to check the voltage?


Hpet is not used by windows by default, only in certain situations. Ive done quite a bit of testing on this and on Ryzen you are best to leave it alone in windows. Only time I ever enable HPET is when an HWBOT benchmark requires it then I just take it back to stock setting afterwards. Do not disable it in windows or in bios, you will get worse performance or boot loops. If you are dead set on it then go ahead but im telling you that it should be left alone. Intel is another story as it has some decent performance gains but not the case with Ryzen from everything I have seen myself.



hsn said:


> Try to find the lowest volt ram,and this setting is stable for me since use agesa 1.0.0.4
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.15v
> 
> try to pass cycle 7 with @1usmus profile


That is very nice you got 3800 stable but just from the time it took to do 7 cycles it doesnt seem practical to run 3800 with those timings since youll almost 100% get better performance from lower straps with tighter timings, at least in rendering benchmarks. Not positive if games respond more to frequency than timings but Id venture to say that they dont. Still very impressive to get it there, good work showing Ryzen capabilities, maybe you can get cas to 15 or tighten primaries up and stay stable?? Then you might have a beast memory setup.
@1usmus Ive noticed something while using TM5 and adjusting timings while paying attention to cycle times. What correlation is there between tRRDS, tRRDL, and tFAW and rendering? or at least the instruction set that TM5 is using as I found that those 3 have the most significant impact on cycle times. It is rather ridiculous changes too, for instance, with 4, 6, 24 setup I get around 4:25 cycle times average and if I tighten to 4,4,16 I get 3:45 cycle time average depending on other timings a small amount. Those 3 timings make such a significant impact that its hard to ignore. It has been in my head obsessively since discovering the connection. Can you shed some light on this?


----------



## hsn

nick name said:


> You have that 3800MHz stable?
> 
> And what are your Aida64 numbers with that speed?


this is aida


----------



## CJMitsuki

hsn said:


> this is aida


Very impressive especially for a b350 board...You may have a golden IMC. I would be curious to see how your cpu overclocks memory on a better board like the one buildzoid mentions as being the best for memory. I forget which exactly, maybe the gaming 7? not positive.

Again, I wouldnt use that for any practical means given the latency and cache but the result shows how promising 1.0.0.4 really is. ty for sharing.


----------



## hsn

CJMitsuki said:


> Very impressive especially for a b350 board...You may have a golden IMC. I would be curious to see how your cpu overclocks memory on a better board like the one buildzoid mentions as being the best for memory. I forget which exactly, maybe the gaming 7? not positive.
> 
> Again, I wouldnt use that for any practical means given the latency and cache but the result shows how promising 1.0.0.4 really is. ty for sharing.


but i still confuse, i can pass 3466 cl14-14-14/14-15-14/14-15-15 
maybe my dram character on CL16

i use team xtreem 4133 cl18-18-18


----------



## 1usmus

Trender said:


> Hell yeah.
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=213768&thumb=1
> Tinkering with Digi+ thx 1usmus changing the frequencys of soc and cpu to 300 fixed and the energy to 120% both too did the trick.
> Anyways im returning these crap RAMs. The same RAM I had before one stick got faulty booted all the procodts, this ones doesnt even boot 3466 withouth 60 procodt and my old ones never had to touch the digi+ ffs



:specool:



Valka814 said:


> Does somebody encountered instability with fixed BLCK? Looks like, once I manualy fixing the BLCK to 100 and the divider to 1, my ram oc becomes unstable.



Do not touch the divider, to overclock through the BCLK, you still need to select the voltage PLL



CJMitsuki said:


> Hpet is not used by windows by default, only in certain situations. Ive done quite a bit of testing on this and on Ryzen you are best to leave it alone in windows. Only time I ever enable HPET is when an HWBOT benchmark requires it then I just take it back to stock setting afterwards. Do not disable it in windows or in bios, you will get worse performance or boot loops. If you are dead set on it then go ahead but im telling you that it should be left alone. Intel is another story as it has some decent performance gains but not the case with Ryzen from everything I have seen myself.
> 
> 
> 
> That is very nice you got 3800 stable but just from the time it took to do 7 cycles it doesnt seem practical to run 3800 with those timings since youll almost 100% get better performance from lower straps with tighter timings, at least in rendering benchmarks. Not positive if games respond more to frequency than timings but Id venture to say that they dont. Still very impressive to get it there, good work showing Ryzen capabilities, maybe you can get cas to 15 or tighten primaries up and stay stable?? Then you might have a beast memory setup.
> 
> @1usmus Ive noticed something while using TM5 and adjusting timings while paying attention to cycle times. What correlation is there between tRRDS, tRRDL, and tFAW and rendering? or at least the instruction set that TM5 is using as I found that those 3 have the most significant impact on cycle times. It is rather ridiculous changes too, for instance, with 4, 6, 24 setup I get around 4:25 cycle times average and if I tighten to 4,4,16 I get 3:45 cycle time average depending on other timings a small amount. Those 3 timings make such a significant impact that its hard to ignore. It has been in my head obsessively since discovering the connection. Can you shed some light on this?


Trrd, ACTIVE bank A to ACTIVE bank B command, RAS to RAS Delay, Row Active to Row Active - the minimum time between the activation of the lines of different banks. Architectually open a row in another bank can be immediately after the opening of the line in the first bank. The restriction is purely electrical - the activation takes a lot of energy, and therefore with frequent line activations, the electrical load on the circuit is very high. To reduce it, this delay was introduced. Used to implement the interleaving function.

Tfaw, Four Active Windows - the minimum active time of four windows (active lines).

These 3 timings have a very big impact on stability and performance. You are not mistaken, with low timings, the speed of passing the test increases.



CJMitsuki said:


> Very impressive especially for a b350 board...You may have a golden IMC. I would be curious to see how your cpu overclocks memory on a better board like the one buildzoid mentions as being the best for memory. I forget which exactly, maybe the gaming 7? not positive.
> 
> Again, I wouldnt use that for any practical means given the latency and cache but the result shows how promising 1.0.0.4 really is. ty for sharing.


this is a feature of the motherboard with two slots


----------



## DomiksPL

1usmus said:


> change SOC voltage or procODT


Tried that already. Changing any of that settings couse memory errors even when testing on "warm" system or doesn't help with cold boot. So I tried 3000MHz using as tight timmings as I can and this is my result on "cold boot":

Samsung D-die DualRank @ 1.45 Volts, B350
EDIT: Needed to bump up tRFC to 284


----------



## LillysTittchen

Sorry when I have to ask again, I guess it got overlooked: What happens when I leave CLDO_VDDP voltage on Auto, will it fluctuate between cold boots? I have latest HWInfo but it doesn't display this voltage, is there another way to check the voltage?


----------



## tekjunkie28

Switched out my gigabyte gaming 5 wifi x470 board with a Asus c7h... AMAZING difference. 3200 fast with geardown disabled. Even voltages higher then 1.38 are stable. Check your boards because I have a good feeling that the gaming 5 is only. 4 layer PCB and the fact this is has questionable Mosfets and VRM designs is the cause of most of my issues. I will see if I can get 3466mhz stable later tonight or tomorrow. Currently at 1.4v ram just for playing around and 1.075v for SOC. Amazing. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Keith Myers

tekjunkie28 said:


> Switched out my gigabyte gaming 5 wifi x470 board with a Asus c7h... AMAZING difference. 3200 fast with geardown disabled. Even voltages higher then 1.38 are stable. Check your boards because I have a good feeling that the gaming 5 is only. 4 layer PCB and the fact this is has questionable Mosfets and VRM designs is the cause of most of my issues. I will see if I can get 3466mhz stable later tonight or tomorrow. Currently at 1.4v ram just for playing around and 1.075v for SOC. Amazing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Every one of my C7H systems was a simple Stilts 3466 Fast one click selection in the BIOS. Done deal. No tweaking or testing necessary. Of course working with good G.Skill 3200 B-die in the first place.


----------



## hsn

Yes,,finally i got stable 3466 cl14

Team xtreem ddr4 4133 cl18-18-18
dram 1.45v
soc 1.03125v

use custom profile on Ryzen dram calculator

next try on b450/x470


----------



## christoph

hsn said:


> Yes,,finally i got stable 3466 cl14
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.03125v
> 
> use custom profile on Ryzen dram calculator
> 
> next try on b450/x470




whats the config for the test you're using? I ran the test 5 cycles and it only takes less than 5 min.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Latency at 4GHz 3113MHz CL14 GD

Now im waiting for new BIOS with AGESA 1.0.0.5 or 0.4
==


----------



## hsn

christoph said:


> whats the config for the test you're using? I ran the test 5 cycles and it only takes less than 5 min.


use 1usmus profile,,,

the test will be longer than default config from testmem


----------



## christoph

hsn said:


> use 1usmus profile,,,
> 
> the test will be longer than default config from testmem



ok


----------



## 1usmus

DomiksPL said:


> Tried that already. Changing any of that settings couse memory errors even when testing on "warm" system or doesn't help with cold boot. So I tried 3000MHz using as tight timmings as I can and this is my result on "cold boot":
> 
> Samsung D-die DualRank @ 1.45 Volts, B350
> EDIT: Needed to bump up tRFC to 284


I like your solution  it turned out to be very interesting, usually CL12 is more difficult to stabilize than 3200-3466CL14

in any case for your motherboard this is an excellent result



hsn said:


> Yes,,finally i got stable 3466 cl14
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.03125v
> 
> use custom profile on Ryzen dram calculator
> 
> next try on b450/x470


can you write the full name of your RAM? 



tekjunkie28 said:


> Switched out my gigabyte gaming 5 wifi x470 board with a Asus c7h... AMAZING difference. 3200 fast with geardown disabled. Even voltages higher then 1.38 are stable. Check your boards because I have a good feeling that the gaming 5 is only. 4 layer PCB and the fact this is has questionable Mosfets and VRM designs is the cause of most of my issues. I will see if I can get 3466mhz stable later tonight or tomorrow. Currently at 1.4v ram just for playing around and 1.075v for SOC. Amazing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Even greater difference you would see if you use MSI M7 



LillysTittchen said:


> Sorry when I have to ask again, I guess it got overlooked: What happens when I leave CLDO_VDDP voltage on Auto, will it fluctuate between cold boots? I have latest HWInfo but it doesn't display this voltage, is there another way to check the voltage?


there is no way to track this voltage


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> I like your solution can you write the full name of your RAM?


https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...2-overclocking-dram-am4-271.html#post27593618

edit : team xtreem ddr4 4133 cl18-18-18


----------



## DomiksPL

1usmus said:


> I like your solution  it turned out to be very interesting, usually CL12 is more difficult to stabilize than 3200-3466CL14
> 
> in any case for your motherboard this is an excellent result


So after some more testing an error appeared. tRFC wasn't a problem, but tRCDWR. Here is my result after tweaking:

Samsung D-die DualRank @ 1.45 Volts


Btw. Why you recommend 5 cycles when using DualRank kit (as far as I know this is due random memory error caused by interleaving in Widnows 10) and how memory interleaving size impact performance or stability? Also thanks for all you help


----------



## Nighthog

Using Agesa 1.0.0.4 now with F23 and it brought a slight improvement. Can now use "normal" DrvStr values. Most stable this way.

The 4050Mhz core speed is a little untested but gaming stable it seems(just started testing a few hours back). Voltage is ridiculous.


----------



## @purple

Nighthog said:


> Using Agesa 1.0.0.4 now with F23 and it brought a slight improvement. Can now use "normal" DrvStr values. Most stable this way.
> 
> The 4050Mhz core speed is a little untested but gaming stable it seems(just started testing a few hours back). Voltage is ridiculous.


Water cooled CPU or stock one?


----------



## Nighthog

kush113 said:


> Water cooled CPU or stock one?


Custom water with 360+3x120mm 45mm radiators. (I may add a fourth soon for a rebuild project)


----------



## thidiniz

hello guys, I`ve been reading this thread the last weeks trying to get some info to overclock my memory. My system is:
Gigabyte x470 gaming 7 (F4 Bios)
2700x (PBO Enable)
Patriot Viper 2x8 3733 C17 (PV416G373C7K)
Thaiphoon Memory Info


Spoiler



https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=214376&stc=1&d=1535249163



My steps to overclock is based on: Import HTML Thaiphoon to Ryzen Calculator -> Use V1 Profile -> Set Timings and Voltage on BIOS (I leave everything else on bios default, like GearDown, PowerDown, BankGroupSwap, etc.) -> Stress Tests -> minor tweaks to get it stable.

So far, I was able to:
3400 Mhz Stable: 1 hour GSAT-ok, TestMem5 1usmusv2 profile 10cycles (about 1hour to complete)-ok, browser, gaming, OK!


Spoiler



https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=214360&stc=1&d=1535249163



3466 Mhz Stable: 1 hour GSAT-ok, TestMem5 1usmusv2 profile 10cycles (about 1hour to complete)-ok, browser, gaming, OK!


Spoiler



https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=214364&stc=1&d=1535249163



3533 Mhz "Stable": 1 hour GSAT-ok, TestMem5 Default (5min to complete)-ok, TestMem5 1usmusv2 profile 10cycles (about 1hour to complete)-Completed with 4 errors.


Spoiler



https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=214372&stc=1&d=1535249163
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=214374&stc=1&d=1535249163



In every overclock scenario I have the cold boot problem (I guess), even with 2933 stable settings: I turn on my PC, it does the memory training, boot failure. Then I leave it on the bios screen for a couple of minutes, Reload bios profile, save and exit and then it boots, some times I have to do this process more then once. A fast solution i found is: disable all my cooling on Bios, CPU heats up very fast, then I Reload bios profile, save and exit and it boots. It looks like my system needs to be warm to boot with OC settings.

My questions are:
1) How can I get rid of this cold bug problem? I tried messing with ProdODT, CADBus, CDLO_VDDP (this one is really annoying to change, and the range is really big to keep testing), VSoC, DRAM, but no success.
2) What can I tweak on 3533 profile to get it stable? Since it looks like its stable, but fails on TestMes5 1usmusv2 profile 10cycles. (I`m writing this post with 3533 profile, a lot of tabs open)
3) This CPU VDDP setting on my board is the same VDDP Voltage (debug Voltage) on advanced Calculator Tab?
4) What does DIMM Config on RTC mean? I get differents info everytime, like right now is 1DPC-SR, but in the screenshots its 2DPC-DR, 2DPC-MR..

Sorry for the long post, I tried to expose all my settings, any tips, help, advice, is really appreciated.
Greetings from Brazil! thanks very much!


----------



## hsn

gskill tridentz ddr4 3200 E-DIE (dual rank)

dram 1.45v
soc 1.v

i use fan to keep my ram is cold


----------



## Borosenthusiast

hsn said:


> gskill tridentz ddr4 3200 E-DIE (dual rank)
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.v
> 
> i use fan to keep my ram is cold



Thats on the higher side of dual rank overclocks that ive seen. What motherboard do you have?


----------



## Nighthog

thidiniz said:


> My questions are:
> 1) How can I get rid of this cold bug problem? I tried messing with ProdODT, CADBus, CDLO_VDDP (this one is really annoying to change, and the range is really big to keep testing), VSoC, DRAM, but no success.


Tried to change AddrCmdSetup from 0/11 to -> 0/1?
Tried AddrCmdDrvStr 20.0Ohm to -> 24.0Ohm? I found this most helpful with boot problems when on earlier BIOS on my Gigabyte board. Though SoC voltage needs to be correct as well for best stability.

You can always try to change the memory interleaving size to different ones. The different values can add or worsen a particular setting on stability. (in AMD CBS settings)


EDIT: adding a little something, 3666Mhz seems to work again...


----------



## hsn

Borosenthusiast said:


> What motherboard do you have?


gigabyte b350n gaming wifi


----------



## @purple

Nighthog said:


> Custom water with 360+3x120mm 45mm radiators. (I may add a fourth soon for a rebuild project)


Please add some pics of it.Would love to see it.


----------



## brenopapito

I'm doing some tests and I don't know which one to choose...

Which "profile" should I use and why?

Organge= Better results
Red= Worst result


----------



## MNMadman

brenopapito said:


> I'm doing some tests and I don't know which one to choose...
> 
> Which "profile" should I use and why?
> 
> Organge= Better results
> Red= Worst result


Assuming both are equally stable, whichever one gives you the best performance in the programs/games you use. If there doesn't seem to be a difference, pick one. I'd personally go for the higher cache numbers, whether it actually makes a perceptible difference in performance or not.


----------



## brenopapito

MNMadman said:


> Assuming both are equally stable, whichever one gives you the best performance in the programs/games you use. If there doesn't seem to be a difference, pick one. I'd personally go for the higher cache numbers, whether it actually makes a perceptible difference in performance or not.


So cache numbers are the values that I should observe to achieve better performance?

Thanks!


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Had one more go with overclocking 
CORSAIR LPX [email protected] M-DIE.Bios 3.4
DRAM 1.37v Soc 1.0313v 
Interleaving - Channel 256 
procODT 68.6
Auto - CAD BUS Block & Termination Block


----------



## nick name

brenopapito said:


> I'm doing some tests and I don't know which one to choose...
> 
> Which "profile" should I use and why?
> 
> Organge= Better results
> Red= Worst result


The difference between those numbers are the variations I get between Aida runs when testing a setup. As such it can be hard to try to use Aida to compare when things are as close as that.


----------



## Reous

1usmus said:


> Do you have the same kit?


No i have a different one 3600C19
Was now able to get 3800 CL16 stable.


----------



## thidiniz

Nighthog said:


> Tried to change AddrCmdSetup from 0/11 to -> 0/1?
> Tried AddrCmdDrvStr 20.0Ohm to -> 24.0Ohm? I found this most helpful with boot problems when on earlier BIOS on my Gigabyte board. Though SoC voltage needs to be correct as well for best stability.
> 
> You can always try to change the memory interleaving size to different ones. The different values can add or worsen a particular setting on stability. (in AMD CBS settings)
> 
> 
> EDIT: adding a little something, 3666Mhz seems to work again...


Thanks for your answer, I had tried with 24.0 Ohm.. but never messed with AddrCmdSetup or Memory Interleaving Size

actually, after my post I started to do some more tests and I realized that on my old system (X370 Gaming 5 + 1700) I never had the cold bug problem, and the only difference I could remember is that on X370+1700 I used LLC for CPU and VSOC, and now on X470+2700x it was set on AUTO. So last night I set High LLC for VSOC, nothing else, then powered off my PC, unplug it from power and went to sleep. Today morning I had no problem with cold boot. Apparently, High LLC VSoc did the trick.. lets see on long term, but its looking promising..


----------



## MNMadman

brenopapito said:


> So cache numbers are the values that I should observe to achieve better performance?


No.

If you can tell the difference between the two profiles when using your normal programs and games, use the one that's faster.

If you can't tell the difference in your normal programs and games, just pick one. With that little bit of difference between the profiles, you probably won't be able to see a difference in real programs/games. I would pick the one with higher cache bandwidth, for no real reason other than I like higher cache bandwidth numbers.


----------



## tekjunkie28

Keith Myers said:


> Every one of my C7H systems was a simple Stilts 3466 Fast one click selection in the BIOS. Done deal. No tweaking or testing necessary. Of course working with good G.Skill 3200 B-die in the first place.


I will have to play around more. I just found out power down mode significantly improves performance if you disable it. I'm at higher performance now with the C7H at stock cpu and looser secondary timings 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MNMadman

Keith Myers said:


> Every one of my C7H systems was a simple Stilts 3466 Fast one click selection in the BIOS. Done deal. No tweaking or testing necessary. Of course working with good G.Skill 3200 B-die in the first place.


Mine's almost that easy. I select The Stilt's 3466 preset on my C7H WiFi, but then have to change Command Rate to 2T. Otherwise I get a BSOD immediately when starting RAM Test. G.Skill 3200C14 @ 3466.

Still doing stress testing with these settings, but it has already passed several of them.


----------



## 1usmus

Has arrived to me *Threadripper 2990WX + MSI MEG X399 CREATION*, which means that for people with such a platform will be special optimization in order to get the *maximum* in working applications and games. 
I will also publish a review of the capabilities of this processor and motherboard.

A huge thanks to *James Prior* and *Steve Bassett* for the surprise and opportunity to help users :heart:!

Due to additional testing, I have to postpone the release of the new version *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0* of the product on 2 weeks. Do not be bored, I'm preparing surprises for you


----------



## thidiniz

after a weekend of testing I can confirm now that changing VSOC LLC from AUTO to HIGH/TURBO has solved my problem with cold boot. And I was going crazy messing up with ProcODT, CAD Bus, timings, and in the end it was VSOC LLC.

One strange thing:
3400 - latency 63ns AIDA64
3466 - latency 62ns AIDA64
3533 - latency 60ns AIDA64
3600 - latency 62ns AIDA64 (exactly same 3533 settings, except the multiplier)

Why do 3600 runs with higher latency? I was expecting something around 59ns, and I do get higher Read/Write/Copy Numbers, but higher latency too


----------



## 1usmus

thidiniz said:


> after a weekend of testing I can confirm now that changing VSOC LLC from AUTO to HIGH/TURBO has solved my problem with cold boot. And I was going crazy messing up with ProcODT, CAD Bus, timings, and in the end it was VSOC LLC.
> 
> One strange thing:
> 3400 - latency 63ns AIDA64
> 3466 - latency 62ns AIDA64
> 3533 - latency 60ns AIDA64
> 3600 - latency 62ns AIDA64 (exactly same 3533 settings, except the multiplier)
> 
> Why do 3600 runs with higher latency? I was expecting something around 59ns, and I do get higher Read/Write/Copy Numbers, but higher latency too


this can be checked by another test, for example Intel MLC 3.4. This application does not show the exact result, since it is for other processors, but the frequency dependence we see can


----------



## thidiniz

1usmus said:


> this can be checked by another test, for example Intel MLC 3.4. This application does not show the exact result, since it is for other processors, but the frequency dependence we see can


Right, I'll give it a try! And thanks for your calculator, it helped me a lot!


----------



## nick name

thidiniz said:


> after a weekend of testing I can confirm now that changing VSOC LLC from AUTO to HIGH/TURBO has solved my problem with cold boot. And I was going crazy messing up with ProcODT, CAD Bus, timings, and in the end it was VSOC LLC.
> 
> One strange thing:
> 3400 - latency 63ns AIDA64
> 3466 - latency 62ns AIDA64
> 3533 - latency 60ns AIDA64
> 3600 - latency 62ns AIDA64 (exactly same 3533 settings, except the multiplier)
> 
> Why do 3600 runs with higher latency? I was expecting something around 59ns, and I do get higher Read/Write/Copy Numbers, but higher latency too


Aida can show some sizable variations between runs. It is very sensitive to other apps running in the background. I've found that using it in SAFE Mode can provide the most consistent results.


----------



## lcbbcl

1usmus said:


> Has arrived to me *Threadripper 2990WX + MSI MEG X399 CREATION*, which means that for people with such a platform will be special optimization in order to get the *maximum* in working applications and games.
> I will also publish a review of the capabilities of this processor and motherboard.
> 
> A huge thanks to *James Prior* and *Steve Bassett* for the surprise and opportunity to help users :heart:!
> 
> Due to additional testing, I have to postpone the release of the new version *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0* of the product on 2 weeks. Do not be bored, I'm preparing surprises for you


Gz man finally you got some reward for your time and work.


----------



## lubmar

hi 
so with the new version all I have to do is click the "R-XMP" and then the "calculate - SAFE" (I will choose "SAFE" first) and plug the numbers in bios ? 
the "typhoon" software is not require ?


thanks


----------



## dspx

lubmar said:


> hi
> so with the new version all I have to do is click the "R-XMP" and then the "calculate - SAFE" (I will choose "SAFE" first) and plug the numbers in bios ?
> the "typhoon" software is not require ?


Thaiphoon is useful to determine which DRAM chip and die you are using. After filling in that, just click on R-XMP in the calculator.


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> Has arrived to me *Threadripper 2990WX + MSI MEG X399 CREATION*, which means that for people with such a platform will be special optimization in order to get the *maximum* in working applications and games.
> I will also publish a review of the capabilities of this processor and motherboard.
> 
> A huge thanks to *James Prior* and *Steve Bassett* for the surprise and opportunity to help users :heart:!
> 
> Due to additional testing, I have to postpone the release of the new version *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0* of the product on 2 weeks. Do not be bored, I'm preparing surprises for you


Great! How nice of AMD!

To be honest, I am eagerly waiting for Asus to release bioses based on the new Agesa, while I can wait for a new calculator version for 2 more weeks, barely .


----------



## spadizzle

1usmus said:


> Has arrived to me *Threadripper 2990WX + MSI MEG X399 CREATION*, which means that for people with such a platform will be special optimization in order to get the *maximum* in working applications and games.
> I will also publish a review of the capabilities of this processor and motherboard.
> 
> A huge thanks to *James Prior* and *Steve Bassett* for the surprise and opportunity to help users :heart:!
> 
> Due to additional testing, I have to postpone the release of the new version *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0* of the product on 2 weeks. Do not be bored, I'm preparing surprises for you



Question: are you going to be doing the whole sandpaper thing to ensure a smooth surface between the cpu and heatsink? I read some OC articles, just not sure if it still applies in todays world. Basically I am just building confidence in doing this myself lol


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> No i have a different one 3600C19
> Was now able to get 3800 CL16 stable.


please show me 



dspx said:


> Great! How nice of AMD!
> 
> To be honest, I am eagerly waiting for Asus to release bioses based on the new Agesa, while I can wait for a new calculator version for 2 more weeks, barely .


Maybe it will happen synchronously. I saw the messages from the users of the asus, I think it's a very unfair situation, they gave priority to the BIOS for 9900/9700K...



spadizzle said:


> Question: are you going to be doing the whole sandpaper thing to ensure a smooth surface between the cpu and heatsink? I read some OC articles, just not sure if it still applies in todays world. Basically I am just building confidence in doing this myself lol


you gave a good idea, maybe I'll make a comparison between polishing and ordinary state 



lcbbcl said:


> Gz man finally you got some reward for your time and work.


thanks for your support !


----------



## nick name

lubmar said:


> hi
> so with the new version all I have to do is click the "R-XMP" and then the "calculate - SAFE" (I will choose "SAFE" first) and plug the numbers in bios ?
> the "typhoon" software is not require ?
> 
> 
> thanks


If want the specifics for you particular kit of RAM then use the Thaiphoon software. If you want a more generic profile use the R-XMP button.


----------



## Spawne32

Dunno if its in the thread but what would Samsung M-Die be on this?


----------



## thidiniz

1usmus said:


> this can be checked by another test, for example Intel MLC 3.4. This application does not show the exact result, since it is for other processors, but the frequency dependence we see can





nick name said:


> Aida can show some sizable variations between runs. It is very sensitive to other apps running in the background. I've found that using it in SAFE Mode can provide the most consistent results.


yeah, that's why I always run it more then one time, rebooting before re-running, and on a fresh W10 install.. to avoid variations..

tested with MLC 3.5, got the same results as AIDA64. Weird, since the only thing changed between 3533 and 3600 profiles was the multiplier. Anyway I'll just stick with 3466 profile by now, 3533 needs some tweaking to be 100%.

I got lower results using 3600 on others bench tools too, like CPU-z Bench and CB15. 3466 is good enough, 3533 seems to be the sweet spot for my system.


----------



## Solohuman

I assume we do the Thaiphoon burner readings only when Ram is currently running at stock?


----------



## mucia75

hi,

my conf:

asrockx399
tr4 1950x
corsair 3200 cl16 16gb x 4

it works at 3000Mhz ram and CPU 3,7MHZ but when i reeboot (cold) ive to resettings my bios everytime.

i tried the calculator too,ma it doesn't work well for me,maybe i wrong

can someone help me to speed up the ram to 3200 stable and CPU 3,9 MHZ stable ?

thnx

M.


----------



## rdr09

1usmus said:


> Has arrived to me *Threadripper 2990WX + MSI MEG X399 CREATION*, which means that for people with such a platform will be special optimization in order to get the *maximum* in working applications and games.
> I will also publish a review of the capabilities of this processor and motherboard.
> 
> A huge thanks to *James Prior* and *Steve Bassett* for the surprise and opportunity to help users :heart:!
> 
> Due to additional testing, I have to postpone the release of the new version *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0* of the product on 2 weeks. Do not be bored, I'm preparing surprises for you


Congratulations!


----------



## 1usmus

rdr09 said:


> Congratulations!


Thanks! 



Solohuman said:


> I assume we do the Thaiphoon burner readings only when Ram is currently running at stock?


We read what is written in the XMP profile, and it does not depend on the current frequency



thidiniz said:


> yeah, that's why I always run it more then one time, rebooting before re-running, and on a fresh W10 install.. to avoid variations..
> 
> tested with MLC 3.5, got the same results as AIDA64. Weird, since the only thing changed between 3533 and 3600 profiles was the multiplier. Anyway I'll just stick with 3466 profile by now, 3533 needs some tweaking to be 100%.
> 
> I got lower results using 3600 on others bench tools too, like CPU-z Bench and CB15. 3466 is good enough, 3533 seems to be the sweet spot for my system.


hmm, intresting results
I will conduct a study on your question



mucia75 said:


> hi,
> 
> my conf:
> 
> asrockx399
> tr4 1950x
> corsair 3200 cl16 16gb x 4
> 
> it works at 3000Mhz ram and CPU 3,7MHZ but when i reeboot (cold) ive to resettings my bios everytime.
> 
> i tried the calculator too,ma it doesn't work well for me,maybe i wrong
> 
> can someone help me to speed up the ram to 3200 stable and CPU 3,9 MHZ stable ?
> 
> thnx
> 
> M.


hynix mfr ?


----------



## Reous

Reous said:


> No i have a different one 3600C19
> Was now able to get 3800 CL16 stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> please show me
Click to expand...


The Thaiphoon Burner Dump you can find here if you need it:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-ic-liste-last-update-19-08-18-a-1073628.html

More about Hynix CJR and other results:
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f13/hynix-8gbit-ddr4-cjr-c-die-h5an8g8ncjr-1206340.html


Picture of the result:


----------



## mucia75

1usmus said:


> hynix mfr ?


the only way is to change my RAM corsair with hynix? sad


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> The Thaiphoon Burner Dump you can find here if you need it:
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...-ic-liste-last-update-19-08-18-a-1073628.html
> 
> More about Hynix CJR and other results:
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f13/hynix-8gbit-ddr4-cjr-c-die-h5an8g8ncjr-1206340.html
> 
> 
> Picture of the result:


this is a very cool result! thank you for testing 

but you have some timings too low and most likely the system loses performance (for example twtrs, tras , trc , etc). Passing the stability test does not guarantee an optimized work

_______________

The new line of Sniper X is really a miracle



mucia75 said:


> the only way is to change my RAM corsair with hynix? sad


You did not provide a Thaiphoon report, without it I can not say anything


----------



## Reous

What is in your opinion the best program for testing performence? I have already tried to increase some of these timings but didnt see any difference in Aida bench.


----------



## KaKTy3

1usmus said:


> Imagine that we play in spies, if we turn off the power, then we write tCKE 1. This is done specifically, since the RTC does not have this line
> 1) DIGI+ VRM i do not advise you to touch, except tuning the power phases for the processor (LLC + phase mode)
> 
> 2) The reason is simple - a small voltage SOC / DRAM (sometimes too high voltage for DRAM can be the reason for the lack of startup of the system, but this is a rarity) or incorrect procODT + RTT


Hi, @1usmus

I've wasted the better part of the last few days trying to get my system to boot with custom timings to no avail. It got to the point it stopped booting with D.O.C.P. profile either (same attempts at multiple restarts and then either coming up to failure to POST screen or not going anywhere at all, i.e. black screen). The only way I managed to resolve that was to reload BIOS using AfueEfix from your other guide (thanks for that). No combination of ProcODT / RTT appears to work, but, what's confusing, same the D.O.C.P. is working again and is showing 60 ProcODT and 24 CAD_BUS when it is enabled.

I am going to try and set the same D.O.C.P. settings as observed in BIOS / RTC as manual settings and see whether it boots that way tonight. If it doesn't, I am out of ideas (other than to return my ASUS Prime X370-Pro).

Any other suggestions?

PS: I am reading your overclockers.ru thread in parallel, but haven't come across any usable solutions in 100 or so pages (but I am at Jan-Feb posts only).


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> What is in your opinion the best program for testing performence? I have already tried to increase some of these timings but didnt see any difference in Aida bench.


ROTR , Hitman , very very sensitive to changing timings. For stability testing - TM5 (in the mode from the administrator). This is the only test that has update addresses on each cycle + a number of other features that find errors in a matter of minutes 
What is the memory temperature during the tests? is there a separate fan for memory?



KaKTy3 said:


> Hi, @1usmus
> 
> I've wasted the better part of the last few days trying to get my system to boot with custom timings to no avail. It got to the point it stopped booting with D.O.C.P. profile either (same attempts at multiple restarts and then either coming up to failure to POST screen or not going anywhere at all, i.e. black screen). The only way I managed to resolve that was to reload BIOS using AfueEfix from your other guide (thanks for that). No combination of ProcODT / RTT appears to work, but, what's confusing, same the D.O.C.P. is working again and is showing 60 ProcODT and 24 CAD_BUS when it is enabled.
> 
> I am going to try and set the same D.O.C.P. settings as observed in BIOS / RTC as manual settings and see whether it boots that way tonight. If it doesn't, I am out of ideas (other than to return my ASUS Prime X370-Pro).
> 
> Any other suggestions?
> 
> PS: I am reading your overclockers.ru thread in parallel, but haven't come across any usable solutions in 100 or so pages (but I am at Jan-Feb posts only).


you need to discharge the capacitors on the motherboard, thereby clearing the CMOS

1) Turn off the computer from the mains (power cord)
2) Hold the power button for 30 seconds
3) We take out and return the RAM
4) Turn on the power cord
5) turn on the computer and manually set all parameters (in any case I do not recommend using the saved profile)


----------



## KaKTy3

1usmus said:


> ROTR , Hitman , very very sensitive to changing timings. For stability testing - TM5 (in the mode from the administrator). This is the only test that has update addresses on each cycle + a number of other features that find errors in a matter of minutes
> you need to discharge the capacitors on the motherboard, thereby clearing the CMOS
> 
> 1) Turn off the computer from the mains (power cord)
> 2) Hold the power button for 30 seconds
> 3) We take out and return the RAM
> 4) Turn on the power cord
> 5) turn on the computer and manually set all parameters (in any case I do not recommend using the saved profile)


I am afraid this didn't work. Same as before: "Save & Reset" -> Several attempts are restarting -> Black screen. If switched off and on again, then it boots up into Windows with RAM falling back to 2133 MHz :/

I am pulling my hair out.


----------



## Floyd31

1usmus said:


> *TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v2 (memory test) *


hello, don't understand.
I want to test your little software, and when I run, I have this.

I use a right clic then "load like admin" but......

??


----------



## mucia75

1usmus said:


> You did not provide a Thaiphoon report, without it I can not say anything



sorry :

http://rgho.st/8VP4bGdHS/image.png


----------



## CharlieWheelie

@mucia75
See line below on 2nd image, 6th down
DRAM Die Revision / Lithography Resolution: A / 21 nm, so AFR mate


----------



## Reous

1usmus said:


> What is the memory temperature during the tests? is there a separate fan for memory?


I dont know. It doesnt have a temperature sensor, sadly.


----------



## josephimports

1usmus said:


> Has arrived to me *Threadripper 2990WX + MSI MEG X399 CREATION*, which means that for people with such a platform will be special optimization in order to get the *maximum* in working applications and games.
> I will also publish a review of the capabilities of this processor and motherboard.
> 
> A huge thanks to *James Prior* and *Steve Bassett* for the surprise and opportunity to help users :heart:!
> 
> Due to additional testing, I have to postpone the release of the new version *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0* of the product on 2 weeks. Do not be bored, I'm preparing surprises for you


Woohoo. Congrats on the new hardware. Looking forward to your findings regarding MSI X399 memory optimizations.


----------



## mucia75

CharlieWheelie said:


> @mucia75
> See line below on 2nd image, 6th down
> DRAM Die Revision / Lithography Resolution: A / 21 nm, so AFR mate /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif



what should I do?
Can you help me?


----------



## ressonantia

mucia75 said:


> what should I do?
> Can you help me?


If you want to OC both your CPU and your RAM, I'd suggest doing one first (e.g. RAM) before doing the other (e.g. CPU). Since we're on the DRAM calc thread, I'd suggest trying to OC the RAM first.

* Make sure your BIOS is up-to-date (Check the Asrock site https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X399 Taichi/index.asp#BIOS)
* Use the calc
* Select Hynix AFR under Memory Type
* Click on the R-XMP button
* Click on "Calculate Safe"
* Enter in all the recommended values at least on the first page
* Then troubleshoot and debug according to the "Configuring Ryzen Systems V4.jpg" file


----------



## 1usmus

mucia75 said:


> what should I do?
> Can you help me?


Your memory has A-revision, it's an old generation of memory that can not achieve serious overclocking. I think 3200 is the limit. The calculator should help, only in the calculator, the number of modules is 2, not 4. Also, I advise you to use the profile of Hynix AFR V2.
On the first page there is a video explaining how to use the calculator.



Reous said:


> I dont know. It doesnt have a temperature sensor, sadly.


Thaiphoon sees sensors 
or do you want to see them in Hwinfo?


----------



## CJMitsuki

mucia75 said:


> what should I do?
> Can you help me?


Mucia if you are completely in the dark and have no knowledge about ram overclocking at all or about overclocking in general then I wouldn’t try to overclock that ram until I got some research materials and familiarized myself with some basic knowledge. Memory OC can be quite the pain if done incorrectly, leading to corruption of system files causing the user to have to reinstall OS if they aren’t technically inclined enough to remove the corruption and restore the OS. Also, your particular memory is going to be rough to overclock so you are literally gonna have a much harder time than most people due to the type of dies your memory has. That coupled with a lack of memory OC experience sounds like a plan waiting to go wrong. If you did manage to get the max overclock (3200) you would feel an improvement but that would more than likely be a bumpy road to go down. Below 3200 you may feel an improvement with tightened timings but again, that’s more than likely a rough road full of misery, frustration, and anger. Then again, you could have a decent set of Ram and get it to 3200 easily but I’d say that would be likely be smaller odds than winning the lottery. My suggestion would be to buy different ram but I know how memory prices are and it’s hard to go out and spend 250$ or more on 16gb of B Die. If budgeting keeps you from buying the better ram then research a bit on memory overclocking and how the relationship between the CPU, IMC, and Memory reacts to overclocking. If it were me though, I wouldn’t listen to anything anyone said and I would just OC it myself and after reinstalling my OS a couple of times I would get the hang of it. If you are a very patient person then you may enjoy memory OC. Good luck :thumb:


----------



## Fanu

I have b-die 3200CL14 memory which using this tool I managed to get to 3333MHz 14-14-14-28 clocks (just selected 3333MHz and Fast preset - worked from first go)

if I want to lower those timings, is it enough to just go to BIOS and enter 13-13-13-26 without changing other values or do all values need to be changed (for optimal results) ? how do you fine tune timings using this tool (is it possible) ?


----------



## 1usmus

@Reous
I found an explanation for some of your timings.
Even with the AMD64 controller, it is possible to independently set tRAS and tRC without observing the formula tRC = tRAS + tRP (since the commands to read data coming to the external data bus of the IC and command close the line with the PRECHARGE command can be performed in parallel). The only condition is that tRC must be greater than tRAS for at least 1 clock.

But your other timings for me at the moment are a mystery (tFAW, tWTRS, tRDWR, tWRRD , tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD, tRDRDDD ) 
Perhaps the current memory controller has some surprises about which we do not know



Fanu said:


> I have b-die 3200CL14 memory which using this tool I managed to get to 3333MHz 14-14-14-28 clocks (just selected 3333MHz and Fast preset - worked from first go)
> 
> if I want to lower those timings, is it enough to just go to BIOS and enter 13-13-13-26 without changing other values or do all values need to be changed (for optimal results) ? how do you fine tune timings using this tool (is it possible) ?


you will need to change the voltage of DRAM, try


----------



## Fanu

1usmus said:


> you will need to change the voltage of DRAM, try


but what else? can ryzen calculator help me with that (fine tuning 3333 Fast preset)? 

I only understand basic timings (14-14-14-28) and not the other 20 or so values - I dont know if its enough to go to bios and just change these primary timings and up the voltage and leave everything else as it was?


----------



## 1usmus

Fanu said:


> but what else? can ryzen calculator help me with that (fine tuning 3333 Fast preset)?
> 
> I only understand basic timings (14-14-14-28) and not the other 20 or so values - I dont know if its enough to go to bios and just change these primary timings and up the voltage and leave everything else as it was?


it will be enough to change the primary timings and voltage, the others are already optimized


----------



## Reous

1usmus said:


> Thaiphoon sees sensors
> or do you want to see them in Hwinfo?


I posted a Thaiphoon screen some pages ago  It doesnt have a sensor.




1usmus said:


> @*Reous*
> I found an explanation for some of your timings.
> Even with the AMD64 controller, it is possible to independently set tRAS and tRC without observing the formula tRC = tRAS + tRP (since the commands to read data coming to the external data bus of the IC and command close the line with the PRECHARGE command can be performed in parallel). The only condition is that tRC must be greater than tRAS for at least 1 clock.
> 
> But your other timings for me at the moment are a mystery (tFAW, tWTRS, tRDWR, tWRRD , tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD, tRDRDDD )
> Perhaps the current memory controller has some surprises about which we do not know


This is only bench stable (right now) but the fact you can go that low is kinda interesting.


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> I posted a Thaiphoon screen some pages ago  It doesnt have a sensor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only bench stable (right now) but the fact you can go that low is kinda interesting.


you have already impressed me
Now even more questions 

AddrCmdSetup 18, CsOdtSetup 18 ? were these values entered manually? 
tRCDWR only 8 

I do not even know how to check what values really are instead of these numbers...


----------



## Reous

1usmus said:


> AddrCmdSetup 18, CsOdtSetup 18 ? were these values entered manually?


Yeah but it was only from a test i did before.


----------



## Remarc

Nighthog said:


> EDIT: adding a little something, 3666Mhz seems to work again...


very not bad :thumb: I thought this mobo had a freq wall at 3466


----------



## lowdog

Specific Threadripper dram calculator ready to rip yet????


----------



## Nighthog

Remarc said:


> very not bad :thumb: I thought this mobo had a freq wall at 3466


Nope, you just need a good enough memory and not be afraid to add voltage. 3800Mhz is bootable. 

I have now realized why my 3666Mhz memory OC stopped working in the summer.

*HEAT!* I had 30C+ ambient temperature and it failed to be stable. Now I'm around 21C ambient and it's stable if I run my fans 100% when stress testing. I get errors when I let the fans run slow/idle. I don't have any 'direct' but passive airflow running across them so I might need to address this somehow.


----------



## Remarc

Nighthog said:


> Nope, you just need a good enough memory and not be afraid to add voltage. 3800Mhz is bootable. I have now realized why my 3666Mhz memory OC stopped working in the summer.


it is strange,my memory gskill 3600cl15 (is it a good memory?) can 3800cl14 for bench on asus ch6,but on gigabyte only 3466cl14


----------



## nick name

Remarc said:


> it is strange,my memory gskill 3600cl15 (is it a good memory?) can 3800cl14 for bench on asus ch6,but on gigabyte only 3466cl14


I use a G.SKILL 3600CL15 kit also. 

I run it at 3600MHz~3650MHz depending on what I have my BCLK set to.


----------



## Nighthog

Remarc said:


> it is strange,my memory gskill 3600cl15 (is it a good memory?) can 3800cl14 for bench on asus ch6,but on gigabyte only 3466cl14


Mostly has to do with settings and compatibility. Really tried on the gigabyte? There are various things to try, different settings needed for a different board. Though it's a cheaper board with "less" vrm capabilities I think you need to use and set higher 'voltages' than you can get away with on the Asus one, I think this is kinda obvious now for myself. 

I really do crank voltages above where people are recommanding as safe.


----------



## inkforze

Just stats:
Ryzen 1600 @ stock + MSI B350M Mortar + Patriot Viper 4 8Gbx2 3200 kit (PV416G320C6K, dual rank, probably samsung D-die?)
Stable at 2933fast preset timings - but u can't set odd timings tCL and tCWL - so i use them at 14
Vsoc = 1.031v (bios 1.0375v-1.050v) + Vram = 1.376v (bios 1.360v-1.370v)
Everything else - Auto

On this Vsoc (dont want to push it higher) anything faster (3000safe...3200fast or 3200xmp) is bootable - but errors in TM5 from first seconds


----------



## lowdog

@1usmus any eta on the dram calculator that is specifically for Threadripper. Thanks.


----------



## Exposal

Anyone willing to hop on discord and help me with this? Not extremely educated in overclocking ram to this extent. Switching from an 5820k to a 2700k. Would greatly appreciate the help!


----------



## Remarc

Nighthog said:


> Mostly has to do with settings and compatibility. Really tried on the gigabyte? There are various things to try, different settings needed for a different board. Though it's a cheaper board with "less" vrm capabilities I think you need to use and set higher 'voltages' than you can get away with on the Asus one, I think this is kinda obvious now for myself.
> 
> I really do crank voltages above where people are recommanding as safe.


yes really tryed,3 coldboot then load 2133 or bios reset to default or some 5-6 coldboot and load from reserve bios

i too use high voltage but at the moment so far unsuccessfully


----------



## Exposal

Motherboard Bios doesn't allow me to enter decimals for timings so i'm assuming just round up? tCL is saying 8.750 but if i put that it goes down to 8?


----------



## MNMadman

Exposal said:


> Motherboard Bios doesn't allow me to enter decimals for timings so i'm assuming just round up? tCL is saying 8.750 but if i put that it goes down to 8?


Those numbers should only be integers (no decimals). Where are you getting the 8.750 from?


----------



## Exposal

MNMadman said:


> Those numbers should only be integers (no decimals). Where are you getting the 8.750 from?


The first column


----------



## MNMadman

Exposal said:


> The first column


Those numbers are from the XMP values. The numbers you should be using are the two middle columns.


----------



## Exposal

MNMadman said:


> Those numbers are from the XMP values. The numbers you should be using are the two middle columns.


Now i feel dumb lol, thanks!


----------



## mucia75

CJMitsuki said:


> mucia75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what should I do?
> Can you help me?
> 
> 
> 
> Mucia if you are completely in the dark and have no knowledge about ram overclocking at all or about overclocking in general then I wouldn’t try to overclock that ram until I got some research materials and familiarized myself with some basic knowledge. Memory OC can be quite the pain if done incorrectly, leading to corruption of system files causing the user to have to reinstall OS if they aren’t technically inclined enough to remove the corruption and restore the OS. Also, your particular memory is going to be rough to overclock so you are literally gonna have a much harder time than most people due to the type of dies your memory has. That coupled with a lack of memory OC experience sounds like a plan waiting to go wrong. If you did manage to get the max overclock (3200) you would feel an improvement but that would more than likely be a bumpy road to go down. Below 3200 you may feel an improvement with tightened timings but again, that’s more than likely a rough road full of misery, frustration, and anger. Then again, you could have a decent set of Ram and get it to 3200 easily but I’d say that would be likely be smaller odds than winning the lottery. My suggestion would be to buy different ram but I know how memory prices are and it’s hard to go out and spend 250$ or more on 16gb of B Die. If budgeting keeps you from buying the better ram then research a bit on memory overclocking and how the relationship between the CPU, IMC, and Memory reacts to overclocking. If it were me though, I wouldn’t listen to anything anyone said and I would just OC it myself and after reinstalling my OS a couple of times I would get the hang of it. If you are a very patient person then you may enjoy memory OC. Good luck /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
Click to expand...


Thnx ,I tried and tried ,with a lot of volt and soc value..but nothing,all the parameters from calculator doesn’t work with my ram system 

It’s works well on 3000mhz dram voltage and dram_cd voltage set to 1.320 and vddcr_soc_s5 0.950 .
A lot of parameters set to auto .
The problem is when I reboot from cold,I’ve to refill again all parameters.

if I push it to have 3200mhz crash always 

Anyway ,which ram do you feel to advise me? (4modules 16gb)


----------



## lowdog

@1usmus any eta on the dram calculator that is specifically for Threadripper. Thanks.


----------



## mucia75

1usmus said:


> mucia75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what should I do?
> Can you help me?
> 
> 
> 
> Your memory has A-revision, it's an old generation of memory that can not achieve serious overclocking. I think 3200 is the limit. The calculator should help, only in the calculator, the number of modules is 2, not 4. Also, I advise you to use the profile of Hynix AFR V2.
> On the first page there is a video explaining how to use the
Click to expand...

Thnx but nothing..maybe I wrong something ,

I filled every timing cell volt soc
Like in the files 

I tried with xp calculator and safe but the system turn it off for three times and reset the bios 

It works well on 3000mhz dram voltage and dram_cd voltage set to 1.320 and vddcr_soc_s5 0.950 .
A lot of parameters set to auto .
The problem is when I reboot from cold,I’ve to refill again all 

if I push it to have 3200mhz it reboot 2133 

Anyway ,which ram do you feel to advise me? (4modules 16gb)


----------



## CJMitsuki

mucia75 said:


> Thnx ,I tried and tried ,with a lot of volt and soc value..but nothing,all the parameters from calculator doesn’t work with my ram system
> 
> It’s works well on 3000mhz dram voltage and dram_cd voltage set to 1.320 and vddcr_soc_s5 0.950 .
> A lot of parameters set to auto .
> The problem is when I reboot from cold,I’ve to refill again all parameters.
> 
> if I push it to have 3200mhz crash always
> 
> Anyway ,which ram do you feel to advise me? (4modules 16gb)


3200c14
This kit is one of the best. I know for a fact as I have had the same kit for nearly 2 years and it has always pushed near the maximum frequency Ryzen can get since Ryzen first launched and I literally abuse this Ram. I beat it like it owes me money basically. Ran it over 1.7v plenty of times and it has never failed me. It runs like a beast and 3200 would be no problem and I’d say 3466 would be no problem. Depending on your cpu and ram silicon 3600 may be a breeze.

I also hear the G. Skill SniperX is really good but I cannot personally vouch for it but @1usmus can since he has that kit.


----------



## 1usmus

lowdog said:


> @1usmus any eta on the dram calculator that is specifically for Threadripper. Thanks.


I started testing and ran into new difficulties, one of the memory modules was not working + a very strange BIOS. I will not change the release date, but most likely only a part of the changes will be presented in the new version.

1.4.0 release ~14 Septemper.


----------



## lowdog

What do you mean a memory module wasn't working??? cause your HWiNFO screen shot is showing 30GB available so I assume you have 4 x 8GB modules which means they are all working.


----------



## 1usmus

lowdog said:


> What do you mean a memory module wasn't working??? cause your HWiNFO screen shot is showing 30GB available so I assume you have 4 x 8GB modules which means they are all working.


I had 2 sets G.skill 3200CL14 Flare X 2*8 , one set turned out to be defective
Now installed G.skill 3400CL16 Sniper X 2*8 + G.skill 3200CL14 Flare X 2*8 
Modules are different, overclocking of RAM is impossible 
Waiting for another set


----------



## lowdog

1usmus said:


> I had 2 sets G.skill 3200CL14 Flare X 2*8 , one set turned out to be defective
> Now installed G.skill 3400CL16 Sniper X 2*8 + G.skill 3200CL14 Flare X 2*8
> Modules are different, overclocking of RAM is impossible
> Waiting for another set



Ah ok, bummer. The flare X is good stuff, I have 2 kits sitting here but using G.Skill TridentZ 4 x 16GB DR - F4-3200C14-64GTZ atm.....never had luck @ 3200MHz with it though with X399 always end up getting an error when testing sooner or later but 3133MHz is fine. The Flare X has been good on X399 to 3400MHz without issues.


----------



## 1usmus

lowdog said:


> Ah ok, bummer. The flare X is good stuff, I have 2 kits sitting here but using G.Skill TridentZ 4 x 16GB DR - F4-3200C14-64GTZ atm.....never had luck @ 3200MHz with it though with X399 always end up getting an error when testing sooner or later but 3133MHz is fine. The Flare X has been good on X399 to 3400MHz without issues.


I conducted separate testing for Flare X on M7, they were able to take 3733CL14...

For your case (G.Skill TridentZ 4 x 16GB DR - F4-3200C14-64GTZ) try procODT 60 + RTT 7 / 3 / 1


----------



## lowdog

Ok I'll try that on the MEG but I tried that on X399 Asrock with no luck, no matter what I threw at it I could never seem to achieve stability over 3133MHz with 4 x 16GB DR on it even though it would happily boot up at 3333MHz but always throw errors @ 3200 or 3333 with ramtest sooner or later, sometimes it would run for hours error free then after a re boot throw errors within a minute but 3133MHz has been solid...….fiik


----------



## hsn

soc 1.1v
dram 1.42v

try to tight timing still continue


----------



## 1usmus

hsn said:


> soc 1.1v
> dram 1.42v
> 
> try to tight timing still continue


decrease in tertiary timings create freezing in games


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> decrease in tertiary timings create freezing in games


maybe yes,,and the score in aida64 nothing different with your calculator.


----------



## christoph

1usmus said:


> decrease in tertiary timings create freezing in games



you mean tRCDRD? I have passed 3466 TM5 stress test, but the game closes by itself out of nowhere, does this mean that increasing tRCDRD can solve that?


----------



## Anty

1. tRCDRD is primary not tetriary timing
2. memory tests in general are pretty useless to test stability in real life applications as they do not stress all parts of CPU in same time


----------



## christoph

Anty said:


> 1. tRCDRD is primary not tetriary timing
> 2. memory tests in general are pretty useless to test stability in real life applications as they do not stress all parts of CPU in same time



so should I use Prime95 to test for RAM stability?


----------



## lubmar

where should I put the "cad_bus block" values from calculator ? in my bios I have the "cad bus drive strength" and "cad bus setup timing" ?


thanks


----------



## CJMitsuki

Anty said:


> 1. tRCDRD is primary not tetriary timing
> 2. memory tests in general are pretty useless to test stability in real life applications as they do not stress all parts of CPU in same time


Thats true for some memory testers but plenty of them now utilize 100% stress on the CPU while stressing the memory.


----------



## Anty

Don't forget SOC is not only IMC but all peripherals - so if your CPU seems stable for memory test but runs on voltage stability region when heavy PCIe traffic kicks in you may end up with enough vdroop in SOC so you will got an error.


----------



## CJMitsuki

@1usmus I am about to buy a new kit of ram for testing OC and building another computer for the home. What do you suggest as far as the best OC and compatibility right now? Ive heard you say some good things about the SniperX line. Any specifics about that particular line of ram? Its actually quite cheap for the overclocks I have seen it put up compared to the TridentZ kit ive had for 1.5 years that has been amazing but I am ready to retire it to another build and get a fresh kit that will last through 2nd gen and possibly 7nm when it comes.


----------



## NaiZ1337

So maybe someone here can help me out. I tried so many different things to get my b-die dual rank stable @ 3200MHz the past months, but it just seems like it will never work. Even @2933mhz cl16 it seems not to be completly stable (3 Errors after 1000% memtest)
Setup:
Gigabyte gaming k7 (latest modded bios)
Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9 GHz but if I want to I can also run it @ 4.0 GHz 1.4v vcore 
2x16 GB dual rank b-die (G-Skill F4-3200c15D-32GVK)

Things I´ve tried so far:

Different procODT Values mostly 60, 68.6 and 80. Best resluts with 68.6. 60 would simply not even boot on most bios
All kind auf RTT_NOM, RTT_WR and RTT_Park combinations most succssessfull was RTT_NOM disabled RTT_WR RZQ/3 and lastly PARK RZQ/1
CAD_BUS Settings made nearly no difference between 20/20/20/20 and 24/24/24/24 all other values caused error after some minutes
Different CLDO_VDDP Voltages seems to have no impact too.

Other related Settings:

DRAM Voltage: 1.35-1.4
Vcore -0.725 offset
LLC both on Turbo ( gives me the most stable voltages)


----------



## Spectre73

NaiZ1337 said:


> So maybe someone here can help me out. I tried so many different things to get my b-die dual rank stable @ 3200MHz the past months, but it just seems like it will never work. Even @2933mhz cl16 it seems not to be completly stable (3 Errors after 1000% memtest)
> Setup:
> Gigabyte gaming k7 (latest modded bios)
> Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9 GHz but if I want to I can also run it @ 4.0 GHz 1.4v vcore
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die (G-Skill F4-3200c15D-32GVK)
> 
> Things I´ve tried so far:
> 
> Different procODT Values mostly 60, 68.6 and 80. Best resluts with 68.6. 60 would simply not even boot on most bios
> All kind auf RTT_NOM, RTT_WR and RTT_Park combinations most succssessfull was RTT_NOM disabled RTT_WR RZQ/3 and lastly PARK RZQ/1
> CAD_BUS Settings made nearly no difference between 20/20/20/20 and 24/24/24/24 all other values caused error after some minutes
> Different CLDO_VDDP Voltages seems to have no impact too.
> 
> Other related Settings:
> 
> DRAM Voltage: 1.35-1.4
> Vcore -0.725 offset
> LLC both on Turbo ( gives me the most stable voltages)


Since it is not stable at tweaked settings, I would try tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL and tRFC at default (so 6/6/560). For me, there was NO WAY to get 3200 stable at all (with DR b-die), at least not with karhu memtest and 6+ hours of testing. The best I could do was:










Even with way worse timings, I could not get 3200 MHz to work. So, if you can not get 3200 to work (even with default timings), maybe try my settings at 3133 with tight (for 32 GB) timings. It is nearly as fast as 3200.

I have a different board, so I do not know if my settings are applicable for you, but the key for me was CAD BUS 30/30/40/60. After that, ProcODT 60 and above would not boot anymore, so I reduced it to 53.3 and it boots flawlessly and is 100% stable.
All with AGESA 1.0.0.4

RTT values are default.


----------



## lcbbcl

NaiZ1337 said:


> So maybe someone here can help me out. I tried so many different things to get my b-die dual rank stable @ 3200MHz the past months, but it just seems like it will never work. Even @2933mhz cl16 it seems not to be completly stable (3 Errors after 1000% memtest)
> Setup:
> Gigabyte gaming k7 (latest modded bios)
> Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9 GHz but if I want to I can also run it @ 4.0 GHz 1.4v vcore
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die (G-Skill F4-3200c15D-32GVK)
> 
> Things I´ve tried so far:
> 
> Different procODT Values mostly 60, 68.6 and 80. Best resluts with 68.6. 60 would simply not even boot on most bios
> All kind auf RTT_NOM, RTT_WR and RTT_Park combinations most succssessfull was RTT_NOM disabled RTT_WR RZQ/3 and lastly PARK RZQ/1
> CAD_BUS Settings made nearly no difference between 20/20/20/20 and 24/24/24/24 all other values caused error after some minutes
> Different CLDO_VDDP Voltages seems to have no impact too.
> 
> Other related Settings:
> 
> DRAM Voltage: 1.35-1.4
> Vcore -0.725 offset
> LLC both on Turbo ( gives me the most stable voltages)


My ram is very sensitive to high voltage and if i go above 1.375V i get flood of errors.Atm my ram its at 1.35V
RTC show less SOC but in bios i have one step bellow 1.025V(i can't remember exactly the value).
I doubt that timings are the problem if you don't go to extreme.
Don't play with CLDO_VDDP with all my test never saw better or worst situation.
Main problem is procODT and SOC,try 68.6 and play just with SOC(lowering step by step).I can boot with procODT at 60 only if i set RTT_NOM disabled
CAD_BUS the best for me is 24-all
Power Down disable- i don't saw stability problem,but disabled help at least in bench.
Just change 1 setting at time,never do a mix.
Remove the CPU OC and when you are stable with Mem then you go for CPU.When you OC ram CPU need more V at same speed.


----------



## nick name

So I am trying to tighten my timings past the DRAM Calculator's timings. At 3600MHz the Calculator only provides SAFE and FAST timings. I can pass TM5 with the followings timings, but I want to know what I might be able to tighten up more before I test overnight.


----------



## leeboh

*Overclocking 3000Mhz CL15 Hynix C-Die CJR RAM - Ryzen*

As posted here, has anyone managed to OC 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3000Mhz CL15 Hynix C-Die CJR? I can't find anywhere that lists an OC for this RAM, and the tool does not have an option for Hynix CJR  Help!


----------



## tekjunkie28

If I am using 3200mhz with 1414-14-14-28-42 with the other times set to around fast from the Dram calculator for b die V1 is there a reason to seek out a higher frequency? If so is there anything I should look for numerically that would yield lower performance? Obviously if its 3400mhz CL16 then that would probably be slower then what I have now. 

Also what tertiary timings result in lower game performance and is there a rule of thumb involved in getting those correct? 

Also right now I'm running vcore undervolted by 0.075v and its running considerably cooler. May try to go farther but I'm also not using PBO enhancer atm.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## lubmar

lubmar said:


> where should I put the *"cad_bus block"* values from calculator ? in my bios I have the "cad bus drive strength" and "cad bus setup timing" ?
> 
> 
> thanks


so I did put it ("cad_bus block") in the "cad bus drive strength" (in the bios) … I can not get the 3200 , the w10 loads and before I can do anything it crashes , if I use the setting from the "3200 calculator" and set the speed to "2933" it does work (I think) the memtest64 do not show any errors but the game (fortnite) sometime crashes (not that often - I can live with it) any suggestion to make the system/game as stable as passible at the 2933 ? I will try to load the pics later 

and big thanks 1usmus for the calculator ...


----------



## lubmar




----------



## lubmar

https://ibb.co/e21FFK


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> @1usmus I am about to buy a new kit of ram for testing OC and building another computer for the home. What do you suggest as far as the best OC and compatibility right now? Ive heard you say some good things about the SniperX line. Any specifics about that particular line of ram? Its actually quite cheap for the overclocks I have seen it put up compared to the TridentZ kit ive had for 1.5 years that has been amazing but I am ready to retire it to another build and get a fresh kit that will last through 2nd gen and possibly 7nm when it comes.


Sniper X 3400CL16 is a magic product for me, the potential is higher than that of other modules 



leeboh said:


> As posted here, has anyone managed to OC 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3000Mhz CL15 Hynix C-Die CJR? I can't find anywhere that lists an OC for this RAM, and the tool does not have an option for Hynix CJR  Help!


https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f13/hynix-8gbit-ddr4-cjr-c-die-h5an8g8ncjr-1206340.html


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> Sniper X 3400CL16 is a magic product for me, the potential is higher than that of other modules
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f13/hynix-8gbit-ddr4-cjr-c-die-h5an8g8ncjr-1206340.html


Could it be that Sniper X is "certified" for Ryzen 2?


----------



## NaiZ1337

lcbbcl said:


> My ram is very sensitive to high voltage and if i go above 1.375V i get flood of errors.Atm my ram its at 1.35V
> RTC show less SOC but in bios i have one step bellow 1.025V(i can't remember exactly the value).
> I doubt that timings are the problem if you don't go to extreme.
> Don't play with CLDO_VDDP with all my test never saw better or worst situation.
> Main problem is procODT and SOC,try 68.6 and play just with SOC(lowering step by step).I can boot with procODT at 60 only if i set RTT_NOM disabled
> CAD_BUS the best for me is 24-all
> Power Down disable- i don't saw stability problem,but disabled help at least in bench.
> Just change 1 setting at time,never do a mix.
> Remove the CPU OC and when you are stable with Mem then you go for CPU.When you OC ram CPU need more V at same speed.


Hey thanks for your help. I tried everything exactly like you said and it seems like it has nothing to do with the dram voltage and soc voltage. The key for me seems to find the correct combination of CAD_BUS Values , RTT_NOM, RTT_PARK and RTT_WR.

-RTT_NOM at RZQ/7(34) is throwing instant errors, disabled is working so far the best with procODT @ 68.6
-CAD_BUS all 20 or all 24 made no difference in my tests. 

What should I do next? Just test every RTT_WR and RTT_Park value?


----------



## lubmar

ok ... need some help pls.


my system sometimes is showing errors in memtest64 ... but sometimes when I restart the system it doesn't ...


so practically it is a 50/50 chance it will show the errors (its 1 or 2 errors) ...


is that "normal" for the system to show the errors only sometimes ?


any suggestion to make it more "stable" would be great ...


thanks


----------



## Trender

In kinda having same problem too, after I had perfect stable in testmen with the 1usmus config ran it 30 mins and said it was stable but after some days I started having crashes in games I ran the test again and now have errors 😕


----------



## nick name

Trender said:


> In kinda having same problem too, after I had perfect stable in testmen with the 1usmus config ran it 30 mins and said it was stable but after some days I started having crashes in games I ran the test again and now have errors 😕


I've found that increasing DRAM voltage slightly can remedy that. So in instances where you are testing fine, but crashing in games -- bump up the voltage a little.


----------



## lubmar

Trender said:


> In kinda having same problem too, after I had perfect stable in testmen with the 1usmus config ran it 30 mins and said it was stable but after some days I started having crashes in games I ran the test again and now have errors 😕




do you now "always" have the error ? if you restart and test again and again will it always show the error ? - my is 50/50 chance of error or no error 
but I need to try a bit more to be sure ...


----------



## lubmar

nick name said:


> I've found that increasing DRAM voltage slightly can remedy that. So in instances where you are testing fine, but crashing in games -- bump up the voltage a little.


I will try that , any other settings that could/should "fix" stability ?


----------



## Trender

I'm messing now with the Digi+ and looks like it's helping, is there any downside of higher switching frequency i.e 400 like it's less safe more hot or something? Also same question but for phase response fast or ultra fast I don't know what's that nor if it's less safe
Also how comes I've always had the 2DPC-SR in RTC but now it says 1DPC-SR?


----------



## dspx

Trender said:


> I'm messing now with the Digi+ and looks like it's helping, is there any downside of higher switching frequency i.e 400 like it's less safe more hot or something? Also same question but for phase response fast or ultra fast I don't know what's that nor if it's less safe
> Also how comes I've always had the 2DPC-SR in RTC but now it says 1DPC-SR?


The downside of a higher switching frequency is that your VRM will be slightly hotter.

RTC (Ryzen Timing Checker) or RDC (Ryzen DRAM Calculator)?


----------



## dspx

Here is my new result overclocking Hynix 3000 C15 AFR. I couldn't make 3200 CL14 stable with tight enough timings, so CL16 will have to do for now.
I have tried tightening tWR, tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL but the results were getting worse, so I settled with these.


----------



## Trender

Yeah the dimm config thing in Ryzen timing checker sometimes says 1dpc and other times 2dpc.
Also guys I've tried using more voltage for ram and more than 1.43v doesn't boots lol, let me explain.
I'm trying cl16 for higher 3533 stability cuz I'm getting tired I can't get 3533 nor 3600 stables.

1) Calculator says cl14 for 3533; I can boot cl14 at 1.43V but it isn't stable, but at cl16 more than 1.425V doesn't boots.
1.2) Thats it with RttNom rzq7, with rttnom disabled I can boot cl16 with more than 1.42V.
1) EDIT: Forget what I said about the RTTNom, it just fails lots of time to boot, after several post failed of 1.43V on rzq7, I booted with rttnom disabled, then restarted, had cold boot(post failed) so in the bios I set 1.43v and rttnom rzq7 and it boots...
2) I always get cold boot and sometimes it says it fails to POST even tho it was stable the full run 30 mins of Testmen.
Maybe is this why sometimes it's stable and then it becomes unstable again ?

( I disabled fast boot on bios too, and by cold boot I mean that it doesn't post at first time, it shutdowns itself and then it either full boot or I get the OC(post) failed please press F1)


----------



## jclafi

I also have one X470 board and did not have any cold boot issues... Ram is @ 3200. Are you using extreme preset in Ryzen DRAM ?

My Hynix only goes FAST preset. Your VRAM issue is weird also, do your motherbord have any BIOS Update ? If yes try to CLEAR CMOS and update it.

I have AGESA Pinnacle 1.0.0.4c i think....



Trender said:


> Yeah the dimm config thing in Ryzen timing checker sometimes says 1dpc and other times 2dpc.
> Also guys I've tried using more voltage for ram and more than 1.43v doesn't boots lol, let me explain.
> I'm trying cl16 for higher 3533 stability cuz I'm getting tired I can't get 3533 nor 3600 stables.
> 
> 1) Calculator says cl14 for 3533; I can boot cl14 at 1.43V but it isn't stable, but at cl16 more than 1.425V doesn't boots.
> 1.2) Thats it with RttNom rzq7, with rttnom disabled I can boot cl16 with more than 1.42V.
> 
> 2) I always get cold boot and sometimes it says it fails to POST even tho it was stable the full run 30 mins of Testmen.
> Maybe is this why sometimes it's stable and then it becomes unstable again ?
> 
> ( I disabled fast boot on bios too, and by cold boot I mean that it doesn't post at first time, it shutdowns itself and then it either full boot or I get the OC(post) failed please press F1)


----------



## Trender

jclafi said:


> I also have one X470 board and did not have any cold boot issues... Ram is @ 3200. Are you using extreme preset in Ryzen DRAM ?
> 
> My Hynix only goes FAST preset. Your VRAM issue is weird also, do your motherbord have any BIOS Update ? If yes try to CLEAR CMOS and update it.
> 
> I have AGESA Pinnacle 1.0.0.4c i think....


Yes its updated to the latest and Im using the safe preset
EDIT:
Forget what I said about the RTTNom, it just fails lots of time to boot, after several post failed of 1.43V on rzq7, I booted with rttnom disabled, then restarted, had cold boot(post failed) so in the bios I set 1.43v and rttnom rzq7 and it boots...
Also I've read the CLDO VDDP Voltage thing and it *looks* like it boots easier at 700 cldo but its more stable with Auto CLDO. From what I've tried 700 were the "best" and 703, 866, 913 the worse

So I only got once stable the 3533 and since then days happened and still can't get it stable again, closest I got was finishing the testmem with 1 error but its unstable again sigh 
I think Im giving up and will get to 3466 :/


----------



## jclafi

See DDR4 @ 3466 2/ good timmings runs great for Ryzen, don´t need to bother too much dude...

Your R7 2700X w/ this memory will destroy most systems out there, actually very few will beat you. Try to set your RAM latency to about 64ns and your are good to go !

My rig w/ R5 @ 4.2Ghz and RAM @3200 w/ cusom timmings is a bullet, very very fast ! 

Enjoy !



Trender said:


> Yes its updated to the latest and Im using the safe preset
> EDIT:
> Forget what I said about the RTTNom, it just fails lots of time to boot, after several post failed of 1.43V on rzq7, I booted with rttnom disabled, then restarted, had cold boot(post failed) so in the bios I set 1.43v and rttnom rzq7 and it boots...
> Also I've read the CLDO VDDP Voltage thing and it *looks* like it boots easier at 700 cldo but its more stable with Auto CLDO. From what I've tried 700 were the "best" and 703, 866, 913 the worse
> 
> So I only got once stable the 3533 and since then days happened and still can't get it stable again, closest I got was finishing the testmem with 1 error but its unstable again sigh
> I think Im giving up and will get to 3466 :/


----------



## hsn

ddr4 3600 
1.4v dram
soc 1.05v

3600 cl16-17-16 succes on testmem usmus profile

3600 cl16-16-16 on safe preset 1.45v it's faill.
what should i change on bios?
thank you


----------



## CJMitsuki

*TM5 times*

Just curious, what is everyones 10 cycle times on TM5 with single rank 16gb running roughly the same amount of memory I am. Also everyone elses times, I am curious about the relationof cycle times and performance or frequency vs tighter timings at lower frequencies.

Mine are below with timings



Spoiler


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Just curious, what is everyones 10 cycle times on TM5 with single rank 16gb running roughly the same amount of memory I am. Also everyone elses times, I am curious about the relationof cycle times and performance or frequency vs tighter timings at lower frequencies.
> 
> Mine are below with timings
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 216150


For me, 16GB (2x8GB), it's between 17 and 22 minutes.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> For me, 16GB (2x8GB), it's between 17 and 22 minutes.


For 10 cycles of 1usmusV2 configuration? Can you post that please? Even at 5 cycles 17 min would be quite fast.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> For 10 cycles of 1usmusV2 configuration? Can you post that please? Even at 5 cycles 17 min would be quite fast.


It only does 5 cycles. 

And next time I run it I will take a screenshot.


----------



## hurricane28

hsn said:


> ddr4 3600
> 1.4v dram
> soc 1.05v
> 
> 3600 cl16-17-16 succes on testmem usmus profile
> 
> 3600 cl16-16-16 on safe preset 1.45v it's faill.
> what should i change on bios?
> thank you


Higher RAM and Soc voltage until you are stable.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> For 10 cycles of 1usmusV2 configuration? Can you post that please? Even at 5 cycles 17 min would be quite fast.


It does test more or less RAM sometimes. Sometimes it's around 896MBx16 others it's 916MBx16. Those numbers are approximates. This last run was about 18 minutes and if HPET has any impact on the timer then I should say that I have it off.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> It does test more or less RAM sometimes. Sometimes it's around 896MBx16 others it's 916MBx16. Those numbers are approximates. This last run was about 18 minutes and if HPET has any impact on the timer then I should save that I have it off.


You can change how many cycles it does by editing the config file


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> You can change how many cycles it does by editing the config file


Sweet. I did not know that. Thank you, sir.


----------



## lubmar

can somebody point me pls. to the "post" in this thread to "how to" and "what to" do if you get problems/errors/crashes with the calculator settings ?


its almost 300 pages , I am sure there is some "good" ideas for newbies ... 


for now I am trying lowering the speed ... I started from 3200 , and I am testing/trying the system on 2800 (fingers crossed)


----------



## nick name

lubmar said:


> can somebody point me pls. to the "post" in this thread to "how to" and "what to" do if you get problems/errors/crashes with the calculator settings ?
> 
> 
> its almost 300 pages , I am sure there is some "good" ideas for newbies ...
> 
> 
> for now I am trying lowering the speed ... I started from 3200 , and I am testing/trying the system on 2800 (fingers crossed)



There is a flow chart in the folder the Calculator is in. It is titled Configuring Ryzen Systems V4.


----------



## lubmar

nick name said:


> There is a flow chart in the folder the Calculator is in. It is titled Configuring Ryzen Systems V4.


thanks 
will try something on weekend , so far everything looks good on 2800 but if i can get a bit faster even better ...


----------



## MrPhilo

MNMadman said:


> Keith Myers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of my C7H systems was a simple Stilts 3466 Fast one click selection in the BIOS. Done deal. No tweaking or testing necessary. Of course working with good G.Skill 3200 B-die in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Mine's almost that easy. I select The Stilt's 3466 preset on my C7H WiFi, but then have to change Command Rate to 2T. Otherwise I get a BSOD immediately when starting RAM Test. G.Skill 3200C14 @ 3466.
> 
> Still doing stress testing with these settings, but it has already passed several of them.
Click to expand...

Turn Geardown mode on, stilt turns it off, should then work fine with 1t


----------



## MNMadman

MrPhilo said:


> Turn Geardown mode on, stilt turns it off, should then work fine with 1t


I don't use GDM, as it is effectively the same as Command Rate 2T (they trade blows performance-wise). I also disable Power Down, enable Memory Clear, and disable BankGroupSwap. I would disable BankGroupSwapAlt too, but the B450 and X470 BIOSes I've seen don't have that option (I've only seen that option in my X399 Taichi BIOS).


----------



## zGunBLADEz

1mus check ur pms!!!!

What sorcery is this? Since when hynix chips can boot @ 3733 even with those timings and even let you bench? They rated for 3600 i bought the kit thinking it was samsung dies because of the speed


----------



## zGunBLADEz

i havent done stress testing on it this one was crashing chrome there and there im just checking wth is going on before i throw the heavy hitters at her. Just the fact that she boots on this speeds ON HYNIX ram is like really and even let you bench it!!!


----------



## dspx

So you've got the new Hynix CFR/CJR?
Could you post a Thaiphoon screenshot?


----------



## nick name

zGunBLADEz said:


> i havent done stress testing on it this one was crashing chrome there and there im just checking wth is going on before i throw the heavy hitters at her. Just the fact that she boots on this speeds ON HYNIX ram is like really and even let you bench it!!!


Are you gonna show what your timings are in Ryzen Timing Checker? Don't be a tease now.


----------



## chroniclard

Picked up some cheapish DDR4 for sons Christmas build, its a Team Group Xtreem 4000 mhz kit, its b-die and supports CL18-20-20-44 @ 4000 (Amongst other speeds/timings)

I know it wont hit 4000 but should I even bother trying this on Ryzen 2700X?


----------



## LillysTittchen

@nick name @CJMitsuki

your ram configuration is impressive. Do you have any experience with Hynix AFR ram? I'm running my CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 on 3600 MHz semi stable. I could successfully run TestMem5 10 cycles (1usmus profile) without errors but got 2 errors after running the same test instantly after first run. The same with GSAT under Manjaro... 1 hour without errors and repeated instantly with 2 hours but got 2 errors (1st at 16 min and 2nd at 45 min). Thats why I call it semi stable. I would appreciate some advice...I could upload some BIOS settings + Ryzen Timing Checker screenshots.

Btw..I found the BIOS mod section (https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html) and my BIOS + latest version is listed. Should I update my BIOS with this version?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

dspx said:


> So you've got the new Hynix CFR/CJR?
> Could you post a Thaiphoon screenshot?





nick name said:


> Are you gonna show what your timings are in Ryzen Timing Checker? Don't be a tease now.


3600 HCI done.. going up the ladder cant complaint (i was in shock when i opened typhoon and saw Hynix i said oh crap lol) im kind of wow with this ram to be honest..

The gskill kit hologram says Aug 18 so pretty new stuff i supposed

























https://ibb.co/mGY89e
https://ibb.co/jFix2z


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> @nick name
> @CJMitsuki
> 
> your ram configuration is impressive. Do you have any experience with Hynix AFR ram? I'm running my CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 on 3600 MHz semi stable. I could successfully run TestMem5 10 cycles (1usmus profile) without errors but got 2 errors after running the same test instantly after first run. The same with GSAT under Manjaro... 1 hour without errors and repeated instantly with 2 hours but got 2 errors (1st at 16 min and 2nd at 45 min). Thats why I call it semi stable. I would appreciate some advice...I could upload some BIOS settings + Ryzen Timing Checker screenshots.
> 
> Btw..I found the BIOS mod section (https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html) and my BIOS + latest version is listed. Should I update my BIOS with this version?


It’s really close to stable but this is the longest part when you have to find that last thing that is destabilizing it. I would try one thing at a time. Start with the settings like ProcODT the Rtt settings etc then try to bump the voltage up and then down on both SoC and Dram and you ALWAYS ALWAYS only change one setting and test. It takes a long time but eventually you will find out what is causing it.


----------



## nick name

chroniclard said:


> Picked up some cheapish DDR4 for sons Christmas build, its a Team Group Xtreem 4000 mhz kit, its b-die and supports CL18-20-20-44 @ 4000 (Amongst other speeds/timings)
> 
> I know it wont hit 4000 but should I even bother trying this on Ryzen 2700X?


Those high speed b-die kits are usually really good binning so I would definitely give it a shot. I suspect you'll be able to get it up to 3600MHz if your CPU has a decent IMC.


----------



## nick name

LillysTittchen said:


> @nick name
> @CJMitsuki
> 
> your ram configuration is impressive. Do you have any experience with Hynix AFR ram? I'm running my CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 on 3600 MHz semi stable. I could successfully run TestMem5 10 cycles (1usmus profile) without errors but got 2 errors after running the same test instantly after first run. The same with GSAT under Manjaro... 1 hour without errors and repeated instantly with 2 hours but got 2 errors (1st at 16 min and 2nd at 45 min). Thats why I call it semi stable. I would appreciate some advice...I could upload some BIOS settings + Ryzen Timing Checker screenshots.
> 
> Btw..I found the BIOS mod section (https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html) and my BIOS + latest version is listed. Should I update my BIOS with this version?



Are you at the higher end of the voltage spectrum? And do you know what your RAM temps are? When running at the edge of stability temps start to matter. Go ahead and post your timings, voltages, etc. and I am sure someone will have a suggestion for you.


----------



## nick name

zGunBLADEz said:


> 3600 HCI done.. going up the ladder cant complaint (i was in shock when i opened typhoon and saw Hynix i said oh crap lol) im kind of wow with this ram to be honest..
> 
> The gskill kit hologram says Aug 18 so pretty new stuff i supposed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://ibb.co/mGY89e
> https://ibb.co/jFix2z


Oof. I can't read that.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

thats why i linked the pic


----------



## LillysTittchen

CJMitsuki said:


> It’s really close to stable but this is the longest part when you have to find that last thing that is destabilizing it. I would try one thing at a time. Start with the settings like ProcODT the Rtt settings etc then try to bump the voltage up and then down on both SoC and Dram and you ALWAYS ALWAYS only change one setting and test. It takes a long time but eventually you will find out what is causing it.


I'm testing since 2 months now ^^. This platform is so inconsistent, unbelievable, but it reflects exactly what other users described here. For testing I am using a matrix (excel table) where I write down every adjustment.
The big problem is that there are only 2 states: stable or not stable. Nothing between to get a hint if I am on the right way or something. But if I'm totally wrong I get instantly many errors, at least something to hold on to.
I adept every advice I read about here. Thats my test routine:

When I adjust a BIOS setting, I shutdown the system + switch off the psu button (sorry for bad description) you know what I mean. Then I run TestMem, whereas I make serveral cold boots + restarts to check if there are irregularities. A question: Do I have to switch off psu when I just change the voltage or only for specific DRAM settings like procODT or timings?



nick name said:


> Are you at the higher end of the voltage spectrum? And do you know what your RAM temps are? When running at the edge of stability temps start to matter. Go ahead and post your timings, voltages, etc. and I am sure someone will have a suggestion for you.


Hmm I guess there is still a bit buffer regarding DRAM voltage...currently running DRAM with 1.45V and SoC with 1.2V (SoC 1.2V only to exclude this as a problem). I bought a Digital Thermometer just for the purpose of measuring DRAM temps. It says max 37° C under load but I'm not sure. I would doubt that its a problem in my current configuration.

Give me 20 mins. I will compose some screenshots from BIOS and Ryzen Timing Checker.


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> I'm testing since 2 months now ^^. This platform is so inconsistent, unbelievable, but it reflects exactly what other users described here. For testing I am using a matrix (excel table) where I write down every adjustment.
> The big problem is that there are only 2 states: stable or not stable. Nothing between to get a hint if I am on the right way or something. But if I'm totally wrong I get instantly many errors, at least something to hold on to.
> I adept every advice I read about here. Thats my test routine:
> 
> When I adjust a BIOS setting, I shutdown the system + switch off the psu button (sorry for bad description) you know what I mean. Then I run TestMem, whereas I make serveral cold boots + restarts to check if there are irregularities. A question: Do I have to switch off psu when I just change the voltage or only for specific DRAM settings like procODT or timings?
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I guess there is still a bit buffer regarding DRAM voltage...currently running DRAM with 1.45V and SoC with 1.2V (SoC 1.2V only to exclude this as a problem). I bought a Digital Thermometer just for the purpose of measuring DRAM temps. It says max 37° C under load but I'm not sure. I would doubt that its a problem in my current configuration.
> 
> Give me 20 mins. I will compose some screenshots from BIOS and Ryzen Timing Checker.


When you run a higher voltage that doesn’t exclude that as the problem as a voltage that is too high will cause errors just as easily as being too low. You need to find the exact SoC voltage that particular ram likes. Mine likes 1.1v at higher frequencies and 1.05v below 3533 and 1.0875v below 3400. You can’t just hammer it with voltage and think that rules that out. That could be something causing the errors. If I change my voltage even a step in either direction I can get errors as well.


----------



## nick name

LillysTittchen said:


> I'm testing since 2 months now ^^. This platform is so inconsistent, unbelievable, but it reflects exactly what other users described here. For testing I am using a matrix (excel table) where I write down every adjustment.
> The big problem is that there are only 2 states: stable or not stable. Nothing between to get a hint if I am on the right way or something. But if I'm totally wrong I get instantly many errors, at least something to hold on to.
> I adept every advice I read about here. Thats my test routine:
> 
> When I adjust a BIOS setting, I shutdown the system + switch off the psu button (sorry for bad description) you know what I mean. Then I run TestMem, whereas I make serveral cold boots + restarts to check if there are irregularities. A question: Do I have to switch off psu when I just change the voltage or only for specific DRAM settings like procODT or timings?
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I guess there is still a bit buffer regarding DRAM voltage...currently running DRAM with 1.45V and SoC with 1.2V (SoC 1.2V only to exclude this as a problem). I bought a Digital Thermometer just for the purpose of measuring DRAM temps. It says max 37° C under load but I'm not sure. I would doubt that its a problem in my current configuration.
> 
> Give me 20 mins. I will compose some screenshots from BIOS and Ryzen Timing Checker.


I've found that too high a SOC voltage can cause instability. I would recommend staying close to or precisely at 1.1V. And those temps don't seem to high. Mine can get unstable above 40*C if my memory speed and timings are at their limits.


----------



## CJMitsuki

chroniclard said:


> Picked up some cheapish DDR4 for sons Christmas build, its a Team Group Xtreem 4000 mhz kit, its b-die and supports CL18-20-20-44 @ 4000 (Amongst other speeds/timings)
> 
> I know it wont hit 4000 but should I even bother trying this on Ryzen 2700X?


BDie is BDie, those kits are suppose to be binned better but I bought a “highly binned” trident z which may have been 4133c18 or something like that and it wasn’t great at all so they can still be hit and miss. It was likely tested on an Intel system and they can run much higher frequencies easier. Don’t put a lot of faith in the higher binned memory on Ryzen. It could be good and it could be just ok or it could be bad.


----------



## LillysTittchen

CJMitsuki said:


> When you run a higher voltage that doesn’t exclude that as the problem as a voltage that is too high will cause errors just as easily as being too low. You need to find the exact SoC voltage that particular ram likes. Mine likes 1.1v at higher frequencies and 1.05v below 3533 and 1.0875v below 3400. You can’t just hammer it with voltage and think that rules that out. That could be something causing the errors. If I change my voltage even a step in either direction I can get errors as well.


wow ok, damn. I think for an experienced users who know what hes doing will that be not as hard as for a newcomer. Lets say I got the right Soc and or DRAM voltage but I wont know because my timings or whatever is it what causes errors...really frustrating ^^.

well here it comes:

You see the BIOS settings are really straight forward...fortunately not so much to adjust here 
That are all settings regarding OC. No CPU OC applied.

EDIT: Sometimes I get Boot Loops 1-3 times but no CMOS, so after that the system boots correctly. I know its the high procODT thats causing the boot loops but 68.6 is the best value working for me on 3600.

EDIT2: I changed SoC to 1.2 V but still got errors. Further I changed procODT to 53.3 and RTT Park to 48 because the user below me has Hynix ram too with these settings. I switched off psu, then booted and got instantly > 30 errors. I did a restart and got 10 cycles with o ly 1 error. Weird not?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Testing 3733 on hci as i dont trust nothing else for errors.


----------



## rdr09

zGunBLADEz said:


> Testing 3733 on hci as i dont trust nothing else for errors.


Why you always lucky? Or is it Skilz? I recall Hynix used to be the go to manufacturer with GPU mem. Good Job.


----------



## lowdog

LOL yeah, good ol HCI and Ryzen can be 1000% + stable and next reboot/cold boot/restart throw errors! Russian roulette with mem frequencies over 2933 and Ryzen, it's going to go off, just a matter of when!


----------



## rdr09

lowdog said:


> LOL yeah, good ol HCI and Ryzen can be 1000% + stable and next reboot/cold boot/restart throw errors! Russian roulette with mem frequencies over 2933 and Ryzen, it's going to go off, just a matter of when!



This was solid for about half a year until i went from R5 to R7 with an update in BIOS. Had to bump ram vcore from 1.35 to 1.37 to keep it stable. G.Skill FlareX ran at manufacturer's spec as of Sep 2017 BIOS on my motherboard.


----------



## elguero

wow where did you got that kit?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

lowdog said:


> LOL yeah, good ol HCI and Ryzen can be 1000% + stable and next reboot/cold boot/restart throw errors! Russian roulette with mem frequencies over 2933 and Ryzen, it's going to go off, just a matter of when!


Never had boot errors just in the beginning on the b350 mortar artic which got fixed with a bios update.
Or when its a no go...

One of the few or the only one that had hynix M Die running at 3200/16 on the beginning on ryzen.

Hci test not only test your ram your cpu cache too and soc voltage.

Gsat its too soft and the other ones as well. Hci is my go to test for ram.

Also im using my ryzen to bin ram. Its easier than intel wathever is stable here intel would take it no problems. Had my 32GB kit 2x16GB wouldnt boot on my z370 on xmp at all which is weird xmp was 3600 by intel spec i had kits on that mobo all way up to 4133..

Long story short, i just binned the ram on my ryzen and copy paste my ryzen 3466/LL into intel bios and walla hci stable 0 problems

if i have boot errors then mem its not going nowhere..


@rdr09
I bought this kit thinking it was samsung die because of 3600 speed got two surprises in a row one with typhoon when i saw hynix "oh crap hynix wth" and one with the speed its running at those speed. She was qvl for this mobo so.. might give it a try.


----------



## Trender

CJMitsuki said:


> For 10 cycles of 1usmusV2 configuration? Can you post that please? Even at 5 cycles 17 min would be quite fast.



5 cycles and 30 mins at 3533


----------



## lubmar

2866 - no problems so far F4-3200C16-4GVRB (hynix M Die) 
will try higher later on ...


----------



## zGunBLADEz

so, so far this hynix ram dont interact with voltage 1.35v seems the nominal voltage for it end of story..
Not bad kit for what she cost the equal timings scheme we have with samsung die its not going to happen here XD


----------



## Reous

@zGunBLADEz are you able to boot with DDR4-4000?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Reous said:


> @zGunBLADEz are you able to boot with DDR4-4000?


manage post at 39xx but no way make it up to windows


----------



## Exposal

Got down to 62.8 NS, is this good? 3333 dual rank


----------



## zGunBLADEz

This is why i dont trust nothing other than HCI

tests were run back to back TestMem5 first then HCI




https://ibb.co/dUbJvU
https://ibb.co/cJOL9p

Edit.
Bumped soc think i fixed my hci problem now


----------



## Exposal

Is there anything I can do to squeeze a little more performance out of this kit? This is the calculate fast for B-die 3333 dual rank 100 bclk


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Try tfaw 16 and 260 on the trfc


----------



## Exposal

zGunBLADEz said:


> Try tfaw 16 and 260 on the trfc


stable, anything else?


----------



## Nighthog

Exposal said:


> stable, anything else?


Try Geardown "disabled" it gives a nice extra boost compared to "enabled"

Though it might not work depending on your motherboard that easily. Some have quirks.

Gigabyte demands "2T" timings for it to work. Though other brands might be more easier.


----------



## Reous

zGunBLADEz said:


> manage post at 39xx but no way make it up to windows


Yeah kinda same here. I'm able to boot and bench with DDR4-3933 but 4000 is impossible. Looks like i have found my IMC limit.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Exposal said:


> zGunBLADEz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try tfaw 16 and 260 on the trfc
> 
> 
> 
> stable, anything else?
Click to expand...

 did you try 3466?


----------



## 1usmus

*I have 2 good news:*

1) The development of 1.4.0 is almost finished. The product will be published next week. The only thing that will not be included in it is tweaks for X399.

2) System optimization and review of the 2990WX will be closer to the end of the month. At last MSI gave working bios and I started experiments. My first tests demonstrate that most reviewers do not know how to tune the system and the difference in the results is significant.


----------



## josephimports

1usmus said:


> *I have 2 good news:*
> 
> 1) The development of 1.4.0 is almost finished. The product will be published next week. The only thing that will not be included in it is tweaks for X399.
> 
> 2) System optimization and review of the 2990WX will be closer to the end of the month. At last MSI gave working bios and I started experiments. My first tests demonstrate that most reviewers do not know how to tune the system and the difference in the results is significant.


Excellent news. Also, please share any settings or tips that may help with memory oc stability. Finding such info for msi x399 has been rare.


----------



## lala135

@Exposal at how much Voltage you ran your memory ?


----------



## 1usmus

@josephimports

it will be in the review, there I will pay attention to the steps how to achieve a similar result


----------



## Xenagosoganex

Hi there, I'm currently trying to overclock my G.Skill Trident F4-3200C14-8GTZR memory.

One question I have is that in Thaiphoon Burner I have two sets of timing data. I have the DRAM timing Parameters and I have the XMP Parameters. If I put the first figures in my timings for the XMP profile are not as advertised (16-16-16-16-32 at 3200Hz) where as the XMP Parameters give me the desired 14-14-14-14-34 at 3200Hz.

However I'm also not clear which value for tRFC to use, since TB reports rRFC1, tRFC2 & tRFC4 (normal, x2, x4) refresh recovery delay times.

I looked at the V1 & V2 Samsung B-die profiles and these both use a figure of 260ns which corresponds with the 2x mode figure tRFC2 in my modules XMP Profile. 

Finally is there any disadvantage to setting a higher procODT than the recommended? I have previously just set and left this at 60ohm.


----------



## Kildar

What would be better 3200 with extreme timings or 3400/3466 with safe timings?

What is everyone experience on this?


----------



## Exposal

zGunBLADEz said:


> did you try 3466?


won't boot sadly, anything over 3333 doesnt boot it seems



lala135 said:


> @Exposal at how much Voltage you ran your memory ?


1.395


----------



## MNMadman

Kildar said:


> What would be better 3200 with extreme timings or 3400/3466 with safe timings?
> 
> What is everyone experience on this?


Assuming the same stability, you have to test with the programs you use. There may be no difference, very little difference (benchmarks only), noticeable difference, or a big difference, depending on the specific programs/games you run.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Exposal said:


> zGunBLADEz said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you try 3466?
> 
> 
> 
> won't boot sadly, anything over 3333 doesnt boot it seems
> 
> 
> 
> lala135 said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Exposal at how much Voltage you ran your memory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.395
Click to expand...

. 

Try 1.45v and play with the proodt to boot them

What kit it is?

Plus if it boot probably you will need to loose some of those timings so be ready.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

2ble post


----------



## Exposal

zGunBLADEz said:


> 2ble post


got it to boot but shooting a ton of errors on testmem5


----------



## Exposal

Is 2T worth trying? with 3466 and tight timings?


----------



## MNMadman

Exposal said:


> Is 2T worth trying? with 3466 and tight timings?


That's how I run mine at 3466.


----------



## Exposal

MNMadman said:


> That's how I run mine at 3466.


Mind posting your timings? also what is your latency?


----------



## Reous

@1usmus Are you going to buy some Hynix CJR too?


The Hynix CJR Dual Rank also has some potential
DDR4-3600 CL16-19-19 1.35v


----------



## christoph

MNMadman said:


> That's how I run mine at 3466.



what timings and what Aida64 score you get at that spped with 2T?


----------



## MNMadman

Exposal said:


> Mind posting your timings? also what is your latency?





christoph said:


> what timings and what Aida64 score you get at that spped with 2T?


2700X on C7H WiFi

Gear Down Mode disabled
Bank Group Swap disabled
Power Down disabled
Memory Clear enabled

Using The Stilt's 3466 preset (manually changed to 2T as the preset puts it on 1T). Could probably tune the timings down further but haven't attempted it yet.

Not sure why RTC says 2DPC-MR as it's G.Skill 2x8GB 3200C14. Also don't know why RTC has the timings at 1/31 -- it's manually set to 0 in the BIOS.


----------



## dspx

Reous said:


> @*1usmus* Are you going to buy some Hynix CJR too?
> 
> 
> The Hynix CJR Dual Rank also has some potential
> DDR4-3600 CL16-19-19 1.35v


Those are really good results, it's great that we finally have some competition for Samsung B-Die.

I see that you had some temperature problems @Reous, did you try removing the plastic heatspreader?


----------



## christoph

MNMadman said:


> 2700X on C7H WiFi
> 
> Gear Down Mode disabled
> Bank Group Swap disabled
> Power Down disabled
> Memory Clear enabled
> 
> Using The Stilt's 3466 preset (manually changed to 2T as the preset puts it on 1T). Could probably tune the timings down further but haven't attempted it yet.
> 
> Not sure why RTC says 2DPC-MR as it's G.Skill 2x8GB 3200C14. Also don't know why RTC has the timings at 1/31 -- it's manually set to 0 in the BIOS.



nice, I'm going to check your timings against mine to see if I can improve them


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> @1usmus Are you going to buy some Hynix CJR too?
> 
> 
> The Hynix CJR Dual Rank also has some potential
> DDR4-3600 CL16-19-19 1.35v


It is very cool !
3466CL14 will take?

I'll talk to my partners, maybe I'll get to Hynix CJR soon


----------



## Exposal

MNMadman said:


> 2700X on C7H WiFi
> 
> Gear Down Mode disabled
> Bank Group Swap disabled
> Power Down disabled
> Memory Clear enabled
> 
> Using The Stilt's 3466 preset (manually changed to 2T as the preset puts it on 1T). Could probably tune the timings down further but haven't attempted it yet.
> 
> Not sure why RTC says 2DPC-MR as it's G.Skill 2x8GB 3200C14. Also don't know why RTC has the timings at 1/31 -- it's manually set to 0 in the BIOS.


What voltages? very nice results


----------



## Reous

dspx said:


> I see that you had some temperature problems @*Reous* , did you try removing the plastic heatspreader?


No i didn't. I don't want to lose the guarantee or even destroy it.




1usmus said:


> 3466CL14 will take?


Sadly not. Maybe 3333 with more voltage.


----------



## LillysTittchen

dspx said:


> Those are really good results, it's great that we finally have some competition for Samsung B-Die.
> 
> I see that you had some temperature problems @Reous, did you try removing the plastic heatspreader?


What would you say are bad temperatures for 2700x? I get 70° C when running CB15 with BIOS defaults. In idle its fluctuating between 40° and 56° (depending on C&Q is active).


----------



## dspx

LillysTittchen said:


> What would you say are bad temperatures for 2700x? I get 70° C when running CB15 with BIOS defaults. In idle its fluctuating between 40° and 56° (depending on C&Q is active).


I was talking about DRAM temperatures Reous mentioned on hardwareluxx forum.


----------



## MNMadman

Exposal said:


> What voltages? very nice results


The Stilt's 3466 preset puts the DRAM voltage and boot voltage both at 1.4v. Might be able to decrease that but haven't tried. RAM temps are good even at full stress load and 1.4v is well within everyday-use tolerances.

This just works and is completely stable (as defined by my own multi-program stability assessment) as-is. CPU and GPU overclocking is fun and produces immediate results. RAM overclocking and tuning is headache-inducing, tedious, and rarely worth the effort (in my experience) in my target program type -- games. I will likely leave as-is alone.


----------



## Kildar

I finally got my 3200 stable at 3333 cl14 fast timings 1T Geardown disabled.
Could not get 3400 or 3466 stable.


----------



## chakku

Anyone got a solid stable setup for 3333C14 or better on dual rank B-Die 1DPC?


----------



## Exposal

Couldn't get anything above 3200 completely stable on dual rank so I went at tight as i could on 3200, prob still a little room for improvement.

Dram: 1.385
SOC: 1.01250


----------



## 1usmus

@Reous

Did you check your CJR profiles in games?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Got this by mistake I'm trying 1mus config on it at 3600 they rated for 320016/18/18/38

Another hynix chip


Edit: ok so far so good have soc 1.1v and kit a 1.45v for now
the problem is they cost the same as the ryzen compatible 3600 kit 

i had problems above 3733 with the 3600kit so im going to test this one


----------



## Exposal

odd my cinebench score went down when tightening the timings on my ram lol


----------



## Reous

1usmus said:


> @*Reous*
> Did you check your CJR profiles in games?


No i havent install any game on my test system.





zGunBLADEz said:


> Edit: ok so far so good have soc 1.1v and kit a 1.45v for now
> the problem is they cost the same as the ryzen compatible 3600 kit


Does your 2700X really need 1.1v for DDR4-3600?


----------



## chakku

Exposal said:


> Couldn't get anything above 3200 completely stable on dual rank so I went at tight as i could on 3200, prob still a little room for improvement.
> 
> Dram: 1.385
> SOC: 1.01250


Is RTC reporting your memory wrong? It's showing as 2DPC Single Rank. Do you have 4x 8GB sticks?


----------



## Exposal

chakku said:


> Is RTC reporting your memory wrong? It's showing as 2DPC Single Rank. Do you have 4x 8GB sticks?


2x16 gb

This is the kit to be exact:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820236319


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Reous said:


> Does your 2700X really need 1.1v for DDR4-3600?


Testmem requires less voltage for me than HCI on soc. Im using testmem for quick run before i throw it at hci as i don't trust nothing else to call it stable
proved that a couple posts ago XD


----------



## usernamedesired

Looking for some help.

Ive never been able to get my 3200 kit running at 3200, best so far is 3066 using docp/xmp.

Trying to use DRAM calculator, first attempt didnt work and boot looped to bios.

Running corsair vengeance LED CMU16GX4M2C3200C16 Which is micron A die, Which is weird as struggle to find any info on it. Nobody else seems to have A die and the DRAM calculator only has a safe preset for it.

Motherboard is asus b350f Strix, Which has DOCP rather than xmp

When going into the bios to set timings etc. Do I enable XMP/docp 3200 through AI overclock tuner then change the subtimings. Or leave it to auto, set 3200 speed and change subtimings as per DRAM Calculator?

I also seem to have found a bug/glitch. When I import XMP settings from typhoon report, It changes memory type to samsung b die and profile to "V1stom", If i change it back to micron A die and hit calculate SAFE, It tells me to use V1 profile, When I go to this, It loses the XMP settings (nanosecond timings) and generates a different set.

Ive attached what I think are the correct timings for my ram, When i import xmp it changes to b die as i mentioned, I change this back to A die and recalculate and gives me below screenshot. Tried this by going into bios, leaving ai overclocker tuner auto, set 3200mhz and set all settings as per screenshot but failed.


----------



## Exposal

chakku said:


> Is RTC reporting your memory wrong? It's showing as 2DPC Single Rank. Do you have 4x 8GB sticks?


Upped the voltage a little bit to finish getting a little tighter timings and it's showing as MR now.


----------



## Exposal

MNMadman said:


> 2700X on C7H WiFi
> 
> Gear Down Mode disabled
> Bank Group Swap disabled
> Power Down disabled
> Memory Clear enabled
> 
> Using The Stilt's 3466 preset (manually changed to 2T as the preset puts it on 1T). Could probably tune the timings down further but haven't attempted it yet.
> 
> Not sure why RTC says 2DPC-MR as it's G.Skill 2x8GB 3200C14. Also don't know why RTC has the timings at 1/31 -- it's manually set to 0 in the BIOS.


Are you manually OC'd or using XFR?


----------



## numlock66

Exposal said:


> chakku said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is RTC reporting your memory wrong? It's showing as 2DPC Single Rank. Do you have 4x 8GB sticks?
> 
> 
> 
> Upped the voltage a little bit to finish getting a little tighter timings and it's showing as MR now.
Click to expand...

MR - DUAL RANK
SR - SINGLE RANK
1DPC - 1 DIMM MODULE 
2DPC - 2 DIMM MODULE

Is it right?


----------



## chakku

numlock66 said:


> MR - DUAL RANK
> SR - SINGLE RANK
> 1DPC - 1 DIMM MODULE
> 2DPC - 2 DIMM MODULE
> 
> Is it right?


Not quite.

MR - DUAL RANK
SR - SINGLE RANK
1DPC - 1 DIMM PER CHANNEL (Eg. 2x16GB, 2x8GB)
2DPC - 2 DIMMS PER CHANNEL (Eg. 4x8GB, 4x16GB)


----------



## Exposal

chakku said:


> Not quite.
> 
> MR - DUAL RANK
> SR - SINGLE RANK
> 1DPC - 1 DIMM PER CHANNEL (Eg. 2x16GB, 2x8GB)
> 2DPC - 2 DIMMS PER CHANNEL (Eg. 4x8GB, 4x16GB)


Odd it's still showing 2DPC


----------



## chakku

Exposal said:


> Odd it's still showing 2DPC


My 2x16GB kit as an example:



Spoiler


----------



## Exposal

chakku said:


> My 2x16GB kit as an example:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


were you able to get them stable at 3333? If so what voltages? anything else special you did in the bios?


----------



## chakku

Exposal said:


> were you able to get them stable at 3333? If so what voltages? anything else special you did in the bios?


Stable enough for every day use but it will fail >500% HCI or a few passes of TM5. Clears Memtest86 no problem though.


----------



## Exposal

chakku said:


> Stable enough for every day use but it will fail >500% HCI or a few passes of TM5. Clears Memtest86 no problem though.


what volts?


----------



## LillysTittchen

I found out that enabling *GearDownMode* stabilizes my Hynix AFR ram on higher frequencies > 3400 MHz with tighter timings. For example 3533 with 1T 16-17-17-35 and GDM disabled will throw BSODs, no matter what procOdt or voltage I have set. Same with 3600 but here the system won't even boot, so that I have to clear CMOS. When I enable GDM my system is almost stable. I would even say it's semi stable.

Can someone confirm that?


----------



## MNMadman

Exposal said:


> Are you manually OC'd or using XFR?


Currently running Auto with PE Level 2. Last time I checked, it runs at 4175-4200MHz on all cores when gaming.

Going to try a manual OC (if I can get a fixed speed) or P-State OC.


----------



## Exposal

MNMadman said:


> Currently running Auto with PE Level 2. Last time I checked, it runs at 4175-4200MHz on all cores when gaming.
> 
> Going to try a manual OC (if I can get a fixed speed) or P-State OC.


Ah noticed your FSB and multiplier were higher than mine. 

I'm on auto PE lvl 3 and mine shows 99.8 fsb and 40.5x multiplier


----------



## 1usmus

Exposal said:


> Upped the voltage a little bit to finish getting a little tighter timings and it's showing as MR now.


sometimes the RTC incorrectly accesses SM_BUS and you can get the MR


@numlock66
@chakku

MR (multi rank) its single + dual rank . This is not a joke, it works.



LillysTittchen said:


> I found out that enabling *GearDownMode* stabilizes my Hynix AFR ram on higher frequencies > 3400 MHz with tighter timings. For example 3533 with 1T 16-17-17-35 and GDM disabled will throw BSODs, no matter what procOdt or voltage I have set. Same with 3600 but here the system won't even boot, so that I have to clear CMOS. When I enable GDM my system is almost stable. I would even say it's semi stable.
> 
> Can someone confirm that?


"Disabled" is not an AMD recommendation. Disabling improves performance but there is a chance of losing stability.


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> @numlock66
> @chakku
> 
> MR (multi rank) its single + dual rank . This is not a joke, it works.


But MR includes just dual rank setups as well, correct? I don't think I've ever seen RTC read "DR", only SR from screenshots and MR on my system. Not sure if many people actually run single + dual from what I've seen.


----------



## 1usmus

chakku said:


> But MR includes just dual rank setups as well, correct? I don't think I've ever seen RTC read "DR", only SR from screenshots and MR on my system. Not sure if many people actually run single + dual from what I've seen.


MR almost always works on the DR settings. Cases happen, rare.


----------



## Exposal

What does tCKE affect? Seems to be the memory portion that determines if im stable or not at 3333mhz on dual rank


----------



## Bartouille

Exposal said:


> What does tCKE affect? Seems to be the memory portion that determines if im stable or not at 3333mhz on dual rank


I think tCKE is related to Power Down Mode. IMO set Power Down Mode to Disabled and forget about this timing.


----------



## Exposal

Bartouille said:


> I think tCKE is related to Power Down Mode. IMO set Power Down Mode to Disabled and forget about this timing.


I have it disabled but raising this to 11 made 3333 much more stable in test


----------



## MNMadman

Exposal said:


> Ah noticed your FSB and multiplier were higher than mine.
> 
> I'm on auto PE lvl 3 and mine shows 99.8 fsb and 40.5x multiplier


Yeah, I don't like my BCLK less than 100, so I set it at 100.2 manually. The multiplier is at Auto.

PE Level 3 has never given me better clocks than Level 2. Don't know why. I did find that it kept a constant speed (instead of fluctuating like PE level 2 does), but it was lower than PE Level 2.

PE Level 4 gives me 4350MHz on all cores when gaming, but also hard-locks. I tried positive offset voltage, but it was going well into the 1.5v range.


----------



## numlock66

1usmus said:


> @numlock66
> @chakku
> 
> MR (multi rank) its single + dual rank . This is not a joke, it works.


Clear!

MR - MULTI RANK (single + dual rank)
DR - Only DUAL RANK 
SR - Only SINGLE RANK
1DPC - 1 DIMM PER CHANNEL (Eg. 2x16GB, 2x8GB)
2DPC - 2 DIMMS PER CHANNEL (Eg. 4x8GB, 4x16GB)


----------



## MNMadman

Also note that RTC isn't consistent with the DIMM Config detection -- I've seen mine register as 2DPC-MR, 2DPC-DR, and 1DPC-SR with the same RAM kit installed. 1DPC-SR is correct.


----------



## nick name

MNMadman said:


> Yeah, I don't like my BCLK less than 100, so I set it at 100.2 manually. The multiplier is at Auto.
> 
> PE Level 3 has never given me better clocks than Level 2. Don't know why. I did find that it kept a constant speed (instead of fluctuating like PE level 2 does), but it was lower than PE Level 2.
> 
> PE Level 4 gives me 4350MHz on all cores when gaming, but also hard-locks. I tried positive offset voltage, but it was going well into the 1.5v range.


If you want to take advantage of how PE Lvl 3 or 4 locks the speed during multi-core work, but don't like where Level 3 or Level 4 puts your speed then you can adjust them with Ryzen Master. What I do is set it to Level 3 and when my PC boots into Windows it is usually at a multiplier of 41.3 and sometimes 41. This can be adjusted by increasing the EDC value. In increments of 4 or 5. Level 3 starts at 145 I believe so if you boot in at a multiplier of 40.5 and want to increase the multiplier to 41.5 change the EDC to something like 155 or 158. See what it brings your multiplier up to and re-adjust up or down as needed. You can get Level 3 up to multiplier 42.3~42.5 by changing the EDC value up to 168.

After you make your adjustment you can close Ryzen Master. It's just something you'll have to do with every reboot, but since my CPU boots with a different multiplier sometimes I prefer it that way.


----------



## nick name

MNMadman said:


> Currently running Auto with PE Level 2. Last time I checked, it runs at 4175-4200MHz on all cores when gaming.
> 
> Going to try a manual OC (if I can get a fixed speed) or P-State OC.



Try this:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...tments-through-ryzen-master.html#post27619418


It's something I do and typed up to help others.


----------



## Exposal

Passed all 3 different mem test but when i play games i'm getting hard locks, any idea what would cause this? Only happened after I OCd RAM


----------



## nick name

Exposal said:


> Passed all 3 different mem test but when i play games i'm getting hard locks, any idea what would cause this? Only happened after I OCd RAM


I would try adding a little more voltage.


----------



## Exposal

MNMadman said:


> Yeah, I don't like my BCLK less than 100, so I set it at 100.2 manually. The multiplier is at Auto.
> 
> PE Level 3 has never given me better clocks than Level 2. Don't know why. I did find that it kept a constant speed (instead of fluctuating like PE level 2 does), but it was lower than PE Level 2.
> 
> PE Level 4 gives me 4350MHz on all cores when gaming, but also hard-locks. I tried positive offset voltage, but it was going well into the 1.5v range.


Don't think the x470f strix lets me set it to 100.2=/ was trying lol


----------



## tekjunkie28

My C7H runs the BLCK at 99.8 according to HWinfo64. If I change in to 100.2 in the bios it just goes to 100.4 or something. Is this enough to cause instability?


----------



## nick name

tekjunkie28 said:


> My C7H runs the BLCK at 99.8 according to HWinfo64. If I change in to 100.2 in the bios it just goes to 100.4 or something. Is this enough to cause instability?


The 99.8 is normal, but I haven't seen myself or from anyone else the issue you're describing. 

But yeah the BCLK going up on you can cause instability. It increases the speed of basically everything. It's only a little bit, but if you're already on the edge then it can be enough to push it over.


----------



## tekjunkie28

nick name said:


> The 99.8 is normal, but I haven't seen myself or from anyone else the issue you're describing.
> 
> But yeah the BCLK going up on you can cause instability. It increases the speed of basically everything. It's only a little bit, but if you're already on the edge then it can be enough to push it over.


I know it determines the speed of everything and all that jazz but I have never had a PC where I felt compelled to try and tinker with it. I just leave it on stock but I have played around with it and everything seems to be fine. Could this be why my Gaming 5 wifi (x470) felt unstable as my C7H is rock solid in everything. (hard to describe but you know that feeling you get when your PC is just rock solid stable?)


----------



## nick name

tekjunkie28 said:


> I know it determines the speed of everything and all that jazz but I have never had a PC where I felt compelled to try and tinker with it. I just leave it on stock but I have played around with it and everything seems to be fine. Could this be why my Gaming 5 wifi (x470) felt unstable as my C7H is rock solid in everything. (hard to describe but you know that feeling you get when your PC is just rock solid stable?)


I feel ya on the tinkering. My previous PC was an Asus ROG CB20 so there wasn't anything I could do with it. Now that I have a motherboard with a BIOS that allows for a ton of tweaks I've been playing the OC game and enjoying myself.


----------



## tekjunkie28

nick name said:


> I feel ya on the tinkering. My previous PC was an Asus ROG CB20 so there wasn't anything I could do with it. Now that I have a motherboard with a BIOS that allows for a ton of tweaks I've been playing the OC game and enjoying myself.


Yea same here except with the 2700x any my Corsair H100i installed now I just use performance enhancer 2 and undervolt and call it a day. Although I am seriously debating testing out my TridentZ RGB ram again. According to the calculator 3000mhz Hynix AFR fast timging are CL14 so I may try that and see how it performs. I know it maybe slightly slower but the RGB just looks good and if the performance isnt that much lower I may just sell that FlareX kit but no one seems to want any ram anymore...


----------



## MNMadman

tekjunkie28 said:


> I know it determines the speed of everything and all that jazz but I have never had a PC where I felt compelled to try and tinker with it. I just leave it on stock but I have played around with it and everything seems to be fine. Could this be why my Gaming 5 wifi (x470) felt unstable as my C7H is rock solid in everything. (hard to describe but you know that feeling you get when your PC is just rock solid stable?)


The BCLK at 100.4MHz should not be enough to cause instability. All of the recent computers I have overclocked were capable of 103MHz BCLK - and that includes the X370 and X470 chipsets. You might have PCIe devices that don't handle overclocked BCLK well.

Note that with the C7H you can use Asynchronous mode where PCIe devices are kept at standard speed while the BCLK is overclocked. That does introduce some extra latency though.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Exposal said:


> Passed all 3 different mem test but when i play games i'm getting hard locks, any idea what would cause this? Only happened after I OCd RAM


 vcore or drop multi.down


----------



## Exposal

zGunBLADEz said:


> vcore or drop multi.down


so cpu voltage could be causing the issue?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Exposal said:


> so cpu voltage could be causing the issue?


that or soc if you pass hci then ur cpu is unstable


----------



## Solohuman

I have followed the steps to extract data for my RAM as outlined in OP by the author, but the calculator does not record anything when I try to type it in. Using v1.3.1 either the numeric keypad or on the querty side of keyboard. Nothing works, running as admin but can enter only BCLK value. 

Have no idea what's going on here?

Edit: enabling custom fixes this.

Edit 2: entered timings for safe mode @ 3066MHz ( this is the speed I wanted to try first before 3200MHz to be sure it actually boots ) as indicated from TB but system fails to boot, only boots at 2133MHz.

System is in my "Daily Gamer".

This is my RAM.


----------



## Mr 007

That said what . How many years have them run 100 Mhz on the motherboard. Answers for a very long time. And why. Smile. And now succeed them not even that. Much fun or how. What has them found for the people. Not even 100 mhz math. As you can see, what is developed motherboard goes in only 100 Mhz of the day. 
Today, it should be at least today 2000 Mhz


----------



## christoph

Mr 007 said:


> That said what . How many years have them run 100 Mhz on the motherboard. Answers for a very long time. And why. Smile. And now succeed them not even that. Much fun or how. What has them found for the people. Not even 100 mhz math. As you can see, what is developed motherboard goes in only 100 Mhz of the day.
> Today, it should be at least today 2000 Mhz


not really, you have to take in consideration motherboard paths crosstalking


----------



## Solohuman

In regards to running Memtest, if one reads the instructions that pop up in a window when first launched, it says to run one instance for each core of the cpu, NOT for each thread, as I have observed many times throughout this entire discussion. 

Example: 8core/16thread cpu like 2700, run 8 instances of memtest. 

Seriously, that's what the instructions clearly indicate at least with latest version 6.1.


----------



## YoSmokinMAN

^I always ran one per thread. Not sure it's that great of a test though. Passed multiple 1000% runs.

I ran all the ram tests and passed multiple times but had random lockups in games. Ran 1usmus testmem config (in his sig) and found errors. Had to dial back ram oc a bit but now pass many runs of his test and no more game lockups.


----------



## lowdog

@1usmus Threadripper specific Dram Calculator ready to rock yet!!!!


----------



## Cyanold

YoSmokinMAN said:


> ^I always ran one per thread. Not sure it's that great of a test though. Passed multiple 1000% runs.
> 
> I ran all the ram tests and passed multiple times but had random lockups in games. Ran 1usmus testmem config (in his sig) and found errors. Had to dial back ram oc a bit but now pass many runs of his test and no more game lockups.


How did you dial back the ram oc just lower the frequency or loose timing, i have similar problem with my ram can run HCI test hrs but coulndt pass TM5. When you are saying game lockups you mean stuttering right?


----------



## YoSmokinMAN

^I don't mean stutters I mean game freeze total lock but can close it and system continues. That's more likely a gpu issue, if it started here revert to stock and test.

I have Micron a die sold as 2666 16-17-17-17 @1.2v It does 2933 12-12-12-28 @1.39v I may be able to lower this and soc 1.112. just a 1600.

To rid the errors I took it down from 3000 14-14-14-something unstable after 1usmus test to 2933 and could drop timings to the above. The ic's I have are D9RGJ MT40A1G4HX-083E:A prefers latency over frequency in my experience. prime plus b350. Solid board.


----------



## hsn

maybe i'm lucky for this ryzen 3

dram 1.45v
soc 1.2v


----------



## CJMitsuki

hsn said:


> maybe i'm lucky for this ryzen 3
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.2v


For a b350 board that is quite impressive. Although you should try to get something like 3466 at CL14 or 3533 at CL14 as both of those have more potential performance than 3800 at CL16 and your SoC will likely wont have to be pushing the boundaries of the IMC voltages.


----------



## hsn

CJMitsuki said:


> For a b350 board that is quite impressive. Although you should try to get something like 3466 at CL14 or 3533 at CL14 as both of those have more potential performance than 3800 at CL16 and your SoC will likely wont have to be pushing the boundaries of the IMC voltages.


yes ... i did all setting for 3466 cl14-14-14/14-15-14 but cannot get stable,always got error on test.
maybe this mainbord character or my ram carhacter doesnot like 3466 cl14


----------



## zGunBLADEz

hsn said:


> maybe i'm lucky for this ryzen 3
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.2v


 throw it at hci lol


----------



## hsn

zGunBLADEz said:


> throw it at hci lol


i agree that hci is agood software test for stability.but like usmus said that wasting time too much.
and sometime i use hci to test ram and run for 500% and got no error ,but when use usmus tools for 5cycle i got error on 3minutes.

so now i use usmus tool and playing game,,,and no error at all.


----------



## jclafi

Very good result ! Grats !

Enjoy 



hsn said:


> maybe i'm lucky for this ryzen 3
> 
> dram 1.45v
> soc 1.2v


----------



## tekjunkie28

hsn said:


> i agree that hci is agood software test for stability.but like usmus said that wasting time too much.
> and sometime i use hci to test ram and run for 500% and got no error ,but when use usmus tools for 5cycle i got error on 3minutes.
> 
> so now i use usmus tool and playing game,,,and no error at all.


Same here. In fact I can play anything at 3466mhz CL 14 and no crashes blue screens or anything but when I run a memtest it's full of errors... Any reason why??

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MNMadman

tekjunkie28 said:


> Same here. In fact I can play anything at 3466mhz CL 14 and no crashes blue screens or anything but when I run a memtest it's full of errors... Any reason why??


Just the different ways different programs use/access memory. Memory test programs really hammer the memory, just like Prime95/AIDA64/OCCT really hammer the CPU.

I use RAM Test 10,000% (twice -- test, reboot, test again) and TM5 10 passes several times. I do other tests for CPU and GPU stability.

After I determine that my system is stable, I run the stress tests again once a month to make sure stability is maintained.


----------



## ajc9988

hsn said:


> i agree that hci is agood software test for stability.but like usmus said that wasting time too much.
> and sometime i use hci to test ram and run for 500% and got no error ,but when use usmus tools for 5cycle i got error on 3minutes.
> 
> so now i use usmus tool and playing game,,,and no error at all.


Never trust just one program. I start with TM5 just because it is fast and fairly accurate. After that, it gets the HCI in OS treatment (I tried the boot disk variant, that passed, but failed in OS, just as an experiment). I then test with stressapptest in either Linux or windows bash, first doing without stress on the cache, then with stress on the cache. This gives a well rounded testing for likely stability. But there is no silver bullet, as all programs stress ram and cache differently.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## CJMitsuki

MNMadman said:


> Just the different ways different programs use/access memory. Memory test programs really hammer the memory, just like Prime95/AIDA64/OCCT really hammer the CPU.
> 
> I use RAM Test 10,000% (twice -- test, reboot, test again) and TM5 10 passes several times. I do other tests for CPU and GPU stability.
> 
> After I determine that my system is stable, I run the stress tests again once a month to make sure stability is maintained.





ajc9988 said:


> Never trust just one program. I start with TM5 just because it is fast and fairly accurate. After that, it gets the HCI in OS treatment (I tried the boot disk variant, that passed, but failed in OS, just as an experiment). I then test with stressapptest in either Linux or windows bash, first doing without stress on the cache, then with stress on the cache. This gives a well rounded testing for likely stability. But there is no silver bullet, as all programs stress ram and cache differently.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



Another big problem I have found is, if you leave any options on Auto in the bios then you can never be sure your configuration is the same from boot to boot. I found that once I set the majority of all options, especially those that have a direct effect on memory stability, I no longer had any boot to boot variances that I could tell. Once I boot I can feel confident that my configuration hasnt changed to impact the system stability in a negative way. I dont trust bios algorithms to get everything correct on every boot. The more options you set from Auto to their best value the more solid the system feels to me. All voltages are a must and it is easy to find out the voltages with several monitoring programs to find some of the more obscure ones, then settings that affect memory or cpu stability.


----------



## LillysTittchen

CJMitsuki said:


> Another big problem I have found is, if you leave any options on Auto in the bios then you can never be sure your configuration is the same from boot to boot. I found that once I set the majority of all options, especially those that have a direct effect on memory stability, I no longer had any boot to boot variances that I could tell. Once I boot I can feel confident that my configuration hasnt changed to impact the system stability in a negative way. I dont trust bios algorithms to get everything correct on every boot. The more options you set from Auto to their best value the more solid the system feels to me. All voltages are a must and it is easy to find out the voltages with several monitoring programs to find some of the more obscure ones, then settings that affect memory or cpu stability.


But what about CLDO_VDDP? I often heard about to leave it on auto and it doesn't rlly have impact on stability in most cases. And if I remember properly, someone said it can't be monitored, what would be a reason to give it a valid value instead to leave it auto. What do you think about it?


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another big problem I have found is, if you leave any options on Auto in the bios then you can never be sure your configuration is the same from boot to boot. I found that once I set the majority of all options, especially those that have a direct effect on memory stability, I no longer had any boot to boot variances that I could tell. Once I boot I can feel confident that my configuration hasnt changed to impact the system stability in a negative way. I dont trust bios algorithms to get everything correct on every boot. The more options you set from Auto to their best value the more solid the system feels to me. All voltages are a must and it is easy to find out the voltages with several monitoring programs to find some of the more obscure ones, then settings that affect memory or cpu stability.
> 
> 
> 
> But what about CLDO_VDDP? I often heard about to leave it on auto and it doesn't rlly have impact on stability in most cases. And if I remember properly, someone said it can't be monitored, what would be a reason to give it a valid value instead to leave it auto. What do you think about it?
Click to expand...

It can help with memory holes but yeah it’s only situational


----------



## LillysTittchen

CJMitsuki said:


> It can help with memory holes but yeah it’s only situational


So did u set it in your configuration or is it one of the few options which u left on auto?


----------



## MNMadman

LillysTittchen said:


> So did u set it in your configuration or is it one of the few options which u left on auto?


I have mine set to Auto running The Stilt's 3466 profile but with Command Rate 2.


----------



## hsn

ajc9988 said:


> Never trust just one program. I start with TM5 just because it is fast and fairly accurate. After that, it gets the HCI in OS treatment (I tried the boot disk variant, that passed, but failed in OS, just as an experiment). I then test with stressapptest in either Linux or windows bash, first doing without stress on the cache, then with stress on the cache. This gives a well rounded testing for likely stability. But there is no silver bullet, as all programs stress ram and cache differently.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


yes i agree with you... "never trust just one program".
now after use testmem with usmus profile and try to playing game is enough for me.


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can help with memory holes but yeah it’s only situational
> 
> 
> 
> So did u set it in your configuration or is it one of the few options which u left on auto?
Click to expand...

I always set mine to 866


----------



## ajc9988

LillysTittchen said:


> But what about CLDO_VDDP? I often heard about to leave it on auto and it doesn't rlly have impact on stability in most cases. And if I remember properly, someone said it can't be monitored, what would be a reason to give it a valid value instead to leave it auto. What do you think about it?


If you want to learn it's effect on memclk, at least in part, 1usmus has a discussion in one of the links he provides at the bottom of his first post. It can stabilize a higher clock speed by helping move the hole to get the speed you are attempting. The ones that have worked best for me are 700, 913, and auto. But, this has also changed depending on my version of AGESA and bios used. 913 helped for awhile, but newer AGESA threw that out the window on my 3600 clock. But, I can now tighten 3466 enough that in most cases, it's performance is close to what I had at 3600, and after spending the better part of two weeks trying to regain the 3600 stability I used for the better part of a year, I just moved on.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## tekjunkie28

This forum alone makes me wish I had bought Intel.


----------



## ajc9988

tekjunkie28 said:


> This forum alone makes me wish I had bought Intel.


Why? Like seriously, what is the point of your comment?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## chakku

ajc9988 said:


> Why? Like seriously, what is the point of your comment?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Coffee Lake Refresh is on the horizon, the shills are just oiling the cogs.


----------



## CJMitsuki

tekjunkie28 said:


> This forum alone makes me wish I had bought Intel.


Not sure I understand what your issue is with it. It’s people asking questions about a new architecture in order to learn and people with experiences using their knowledge and experiences to help others. If that makes you want to buy Intel then go buy it? If you are referring to the content within this thread then you should go visit the Intel memory thread and see how many are actively helping anyone. Either way, if you want to buy something then go buy it. No announcement needed.


----------



## possessed

For Raven Ridge should I use V1 or V2?


----------



## Solohuman

Quick question.
Should 'gear down mode' be set to enabled, disabled or auto with dual rank DIMMS on B450 + 2600X?

Thanks.


----------



## Solohuman

YoSmokinMAN said:


> ^I always ran one per thread. Not sure it's that great of a test though. Passed multiple 1000% runs.
> 
> I ran all the ram tests and passed multiple times but had random lockups in games. Ran 1usmus testmem config (in his sig) and found errors. Had to dial back ram oc a bit but now pass many runs of his test and no more game lockups.



Know what your saying but just passing on info from latest 6.1 version.


----------



## tekjunkie28

chakku said:


> Coffee Lake Refresh is on the horizon, the shills are just oiling the cogs.


Sorry there was more to my post but it for some reason got deleted. And the the heck is a shill?


----------



## chakku

Solohuman said:


> Quick question.
> Should 'gear down mode' be set to enabled, disabled or auto with dual rank DIMMS on B450 + 2600X?
> 
> Thanks.


Enabled generally, it's very hard to get a good OC running with GDM disabled on dual rank setups.


----------



## 1usmus

Hello. For The last 17 months I spent all my spare time on improving the connection of Zen processors and RAM. This is thousands of hours of testing and thousands of messages. Thanks to the guys from AMD are already done and will be done much more than was in the plans. But the main way is passed, other little things I will finish in the calculator in October (*Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0*). Next - a new generation of processors *Zen 2*, which you will see at the exhibition in January.

I did not forget about the promised reviews. At the moment I'm tired of fighting *MSI*, the BIOS for MEG X399 is terrible. I also do not like *G.skill's* policy, which refused to me in RMA and ignored all messages.

The policy of creating and publishing modifications for BIOS will also be revised. I think that it is impossible to make a ferrari out of a chevrolet, each price segment has its own limit. And my free time is seriously limited. Most likely, most motherboards on the chipset 350 will lose modifications, maybe even everything. I have not decided yet.

And now I need a vacation. See you in October  :heart:


----------



## josephimports

1usmus said:


> Hello. For The last 17 months I spent all my spare time on improving the connection of Zen processors and RAM. This is thousands of hours of testing and thousands of messages. Thanks to the guys from AMD are already done and will be done much more than was in the plans. But the main way is passed, other little things I will finish in the calculator in October (*Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0*). Next - a new generation of processors *Zen 2*, which you will see at the exhibition in January.
> 
> I did not forget about the promised reviews. At the moment I'm tired of fighting *MSI*, the BIOS for MEG X399 is terrible. I also do not like *G.skill's* policy, which refused to me in RMA and ignored all messages.
> 
> The policy of creating and publishing modifications for BIOS will also be revised. I think that it is impossible to make a ferrari out of a chevrolet, each price segment has its own limit. And my free time is seriously limited. Most likely, most motherboards on the chipset 350 will lose modifications, maybe even everything. I have not decided yet.
> 
> And now I need a vacation. See you in October  :heart:


 We're all grateful for your time and effort. Enjoy the vacation. :thumbsup:


----------



## rdr09

josephimports said:


> We're all grateful for your time and effort. Enjoy the vacation. :thumbsup:



^this. Have some real FUN 1usmus!


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> Hello. For The last 17 months I spent all my spare time on improving the connection of Zen processors and RAM. This is thousands of hours of testing and thousands of messages. Thanks to the guys from AMD are already done and will be done much more than was in the plans. But the main way is passed, other little things I will finish in the calculator in October (*Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0*). Next - a new generation of processors *Zen 2*, which you will see at the exhibition in January.
> 
> I did not forget about the promised reviews. At the moment I'm tired of fighting *MSI*, the BIOS for MEG X399 is terrible. I also do not like *G.skill's* policy, which refused to me in RMA and ignored all messages.
> 
> The policy of creating and publishing modifications for BIOS will also be revised. I think that it is impossible to make a ferrari out of a chevrolet, each price segment has its own limit. And my free time is seriously limited. Most likely, most motherboards on the chipset 350 will lose modifications, maybe even everything. I have not decided yet.
> 
> And now I need a vacation. See you in October


Thank you for everything you've done and enjoy your vacation


----------



## tekjunkie28

1usmus said:


> Hello. For The last 17 months I spent all my spare time on improving the connection of Zen processors and RAM. This is thousands of hours of testing and thousands of messages. Thanks to the guys from AMD are already done and will be done much more than was in the plans. But the main way is passed, other little things I will finish in the calculator in October (*Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0*). Next - a new generation of processors *Zen 2*, which you will see at the exhibition in January.
> 
> I did not forget about the promised reviews. At the moment I'm tired of fighting *MSI*, the BIOS for MEG X399 is terrible. I also do not like *G.skill's* policy, which refused to me in RMA and ignored all messages.
> 
> The policy of creating and publishing modifications for BIOS will also be revised. I think that it is impossible to make a ferrari out of a chevrolet, each price segment has its own limit. And my free time is seriously limited. Most likely, most motherboards on the chipset 350 will lose modifications, maybe even everything. I have not decided yet.
> 
> And now I need a vacation. See you in October  :heart:


Its always a pleasure to read your posts and talk with you and others here. Take some much needed time for yourself and I hope where you are the weather is still warm enough to enjoy time outside. Thank you for all you do.


----------



## LillysTittchen

Hi,
I have still no luck with stability on my ram OC, I guess I want to much with a not so good kit (check signature). Trying 3600 with 16-17-17-42. So I went back to the root and started reading from page 1 and some question came up. I hope you can help me:

Btw.: I don't overclock CPU, only ram.

1. Is my ram even able to run at 3600 16-17-17-42? 

2. When I load my Taiphoon Burner profile into DRAm Calculator my *Hynix AFR* ram (?) is displayed as *Samsung B-die* (bug?) and at 3600 frequency the calculator's safe profile recommends 16-17-17-35 timings.

3. I noticed when I set *GDM* disabled I can't boot lower timings as 17-18-18, all below won't boot and I have to clear CMOS. With this configuration high DRAm voltag like suggested by DRAM Calculator is working fine, I got my system even semi stable with this configuration. But when I enable GDM I can go lower, i.e. 16-17-17-35 but have only a DRAM voltage range from 1.35-1.36 V, all above or below give me instant BSOD. Also I don't get over 5 minutes in TM5 with this configuration, at the latest on 5 minutes the errors explode to hundreds.

4. What does leakage, noise and current mean. I read about on page 8 and 9. Also one was talking about VRM Switching Frequency...

5. Back to point 4. Im not sure..is it better to reduce or increase Switching Frequency. I have CPU Switching Frequ. and Soc Switching Frequ. but both are min 400 KHz

6. On one of the first pages 1usmus posted a full bios configuration and there was Performance Boost deactivated. I guess he deactivated it cause he manually OC CPU but just to be sure...do you disable settings like Performance Boost, C&Q, Precision Boost and C-States only for testing and after stability enable them again or do you let them enabled?

7. I often see that RTTNOM is disabled. I read about that this deactivates something internally (I read about it in some of these specifications pdf). When is it considered to disable it and why is RTTWR always disabled?

Sorry for my bad english and the bunch of questions. Unfortunately the search doesn't find abbreviations like RTTNom and anyway its hard to find information about that topic so I really appreciate your help! 

Tahnks in advance


----------



## lowdog

@1usmus Chill Bro, have a good one. Yeehah!


----------



## dspx

LillysTittchen said:


> 2. When I load my Taiphoon Burner profile into DRAm Calculator my *Hynix AFR* ram (?) is displayed as *Samsung B-die* (bug?) and at 3600 frequency the calculator's safe profile recommends 16-17-17-35 timings.


Seriously? Are you kidding me? Did you even watch the video 1usmus posted? :doh:

You have to choose the memory type yourself.

Your memory is 3000 CL15 Hynix AFR and you are trying to run it at 3600? Seriously?


----------



## LillysTittchen

dspx said:


> Seriously? Are you kidding me? Did you even watch the video 1usmus posted? :doh:
> 
> You have to choose the memory type yourself.
> 
> Your memory is 3000 CL15 Hynix AFR and you are trying to run it at 3600? Seriously?


Sure, but I noticed, when I set Hynix AFR and then "Import XMP" it switches to Samsung B-die. Thats what let me think its reading this option from profile too...

So what are the limitations of AFR?


----------



## christoph

LillysTittchen said:


> Sure, but I noticed, when I set Hynix AFR and then "Import XMP" it switches to Samsung B-die. Thats what let me think its reading this option from profile too...
> 
> So what are the limitations of AFR?



yeah, I forget how helpful is OCN nowadays


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> dspx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Are you kidding me? Did you even watch the video 1usmus posted? /forum/images/smilies/doh.gif
> 
> You have to choose the memory type yourself.
> 
> Your memory is 3000 CL15 Hynix AFR and you are trying to run it at 3600? Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but I noticed, when I set Hynix AFR and then "Import XMP" it switches to Samsung B-die. Thats what let me think its reading this option from profile too...
> 
> So what are the limitations of AFR?
Click to expand...

The limitations are that the quality of Die isn’t as good. I can’t speak for the technical things you want to know but for starters you need to start around 3200mhz and forget 3600 totally. The performance from 3200 to 3600 isn’t enough to go through the pain of failed memory OC. You’ll go through about 5 clean OS installs trying it before you realize it. 3000-3200 is where you need to start and work your way up. Honestly, 3200 may be all you get but if you tune it very well it will run beautifully. Gear down mode helps with stability. You enable it at the cost of a tiny amount of latency and you gain quite a bit of headroom to OC with. Just enable it on AFR. Set to 1T command rate, then enter the information about your ram. AFR, etc, etc, then click the R-XMP button and then choose safe settings and start there. 

Some people should give others with less knowledge a break and help them out instead of criticizing. There could be a language barrier or just plain having a bad day and don’t want to deal with memory problems. This thread is to help others with memory OC and help them out with the dram calculator


----------



## dspx

LillysTittchen said:


> Sure, but I noticed, when I set Hynix AFR and then "Import XMP" it switches to Samsung B-die. Thats what let me think its reading this option from profile too...
> 
> So what are the limitations of AFR?


Click on R-XMP, choose Hynix AFR and the Frequency and then "Save settings" in RDC.

@*CJMitsuki* explained about the limitations of AFR, but to help you OC just look at my signature, I have the exact same RAM, you can use my results and start from there.
I had CL14 at one time, but that was with an older BIOS version.

I am sorry for overreacting but it makes me mad sometimes that people can be so lazy and not even try to follow instructions, 1usmus clearly explained it in his video.


----------



## CJMitsuki

dspx said:


> Click on R-XMP, choose Hynix AFR and the Frequency and then "Save settings" in RDC.
> 
> @*CJMitsuki* explained about the limitations of AFR, but to help you OC just look at my signature, I have the exact same RAM, you can use my results and start from there.
> I had CL14 at one time, but that was with an older BIOS version.
> 
> I am sorry for overreacting but it makes me mad sometimes that people can be so lazy and not even try to follow instructions, 1usmus clearly explained it in his video.





Ill help someone that has tried to help themselves before. Some are just overwhelmed at how daunting memory OC can be for the first time as well as many dont have the technical skills needed to learn it sometimes. I help others on these assumptions but if I notice someone that just plain wants it done for them without trying, then ill ignore them outright.


----------



## Solohuman

chakku said:


> Enabled generally, it's very hard to get a good OC running with GDM disabled on dual rank setups.


Got it, thanks. I recall seeing commentary about this somewhere in these 300+ posts of this thread but dammed if I could find it again.


----------



## mtrai

CJMitsuki said:


> Ill help someone that has tried to help themselves before. Some are just overwhelmed at how daunting memory OC can be for the first time as well as many dont have the technical skills needed to learn it sometimes. I help others on these assumptions but if I notice someone that just plain wants it done for them without trying, then ill ignore them outright.


I am with you and well said. 

TBH I was once overwhelmed with CPU overclocking, and even more so with Ram as ram get infinitely more complicated. I have also been overwhelmed with GPU overclocking especially once all the things were being figured out with the vram straps and making custom straps. I was also at one time overwhelmed with bios modding. All these are pretty much a thing of the past...but I still get overwhelmed and frustrated when things are just not working the way I think they should. It can be just out right daunting.

The real issue I have with most people...is they tend to overclock every component all at once, I am dealing with that issue with someone elsewhere. Whatever I tell them, they categorically state it is not the issue, even though everyone else there has told that person to listen me and do what I tell them. Yesterday I finally threw my hands up and threw the towel in on even trying to help them.


----------



## mtrai

Solohuman said:


> Got it, thanks. I recall seeing commentary about this somewhere in these 300+ posts of this thread but dammed if I could find it again.


The big question on AMD Ryzen GDM on or off. Off if you can manage it as it give you 1T on the ram..however is very hard to achieve. GDM on will give you something in the middle even though it shows 1T it is more like 1 1/2 T or you can choose GDM off and set it 2t

See this...it is from AMD if remember correctly... this is true across any agesa version. It also has useful information on bank group swap.

https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings


----------



## dspx

mtrai said:


> I am with you and well said.
> 
> TBH I was once overwhelmed with CPU overclocking, and even more so with Ram as ram get infinitely more complicated. I have also been overwhelmed with GPU overclocking especially once all the things were being figured out with the vram straps and making custom straps. I was also at one time overwhelmed with bios modding. All these are pretty much a thing of the past...but I still get overwhelmed and frustrated when things are just not working the way I think they should. It can be just out right daunting.
> 
> The real issue I have with most people...is they tend to overclock every component all at once, I am dealing with that issue with someone elsewhere. Whatever I tell them, they categorically state it is not the issue, even though everyone else there has told that person to listen me and do what I tell them. Yesterday I finally threw my hands up and threw the towel in on even trying to help them.


I had a bad day, my fault. An acquaintance died from burns after a propane gas tank explosion, so my judgement was clearly affected, especially when a good person is gone...


----------



## tekjunkie28

dspx said:


> I had a bad day, my fault. An acquaintance died from burns after a propane gas tank explosion, so my judgement was clearly affected, especially when a good person is gone...


That's awful. That sounds like a freak accident. My condolences, nothing else to really say in a situation like that.


----------



## dspx

tekjunkie28 said:


> That's awful. That sounds like a freak accident. My condolences, nothing else to really say in a situation like that.


Thank you. Supposedly, the gas was leaking and when he turned on the light the whole thing exploded, he died later in the hospital.


----------



## LillysTittchen

dspx said:


> Click on R-XMP, choose Hynix AFR and the Frequency and then "Save settings" in RDC.
> 
> @*CJMitsuki* explained about the limitations of AFR, but to help you OC just look at my signature, I have the exact same RAM, you can use my results and start from there.
> I had CL14 at one time, but that was with an older BIOS version.
> 
> I am sorry for overreacting but it makes me mad sometimes that people can be so lazy and not even try to follow instructions, 1usmus clearly explained it in his video.


Hey no problem, I see you are a funny guy, saying I'm lazy after I told that I almost read the whole thread to gain new informations....

I know all of you are really helpful people but none of my questions were answered ^^ I really try to make effort!



LillysTittchen said:


> Hi,
> I have still no luck with stability on my ram OC, I guess I want to much with a not so good kit (check signature). Trying 3600 with 16-17-17-42. So I went back to the root and started reading from page 1 and some question came up. I hope you can help me:
> 
> Btw.: I don't overclock CPU, only ram.
> 1. Is my ram even able to run at 3600 16-17-17-42?
> 
> 2. When I load my Taiphoon Burner profile into DRAm Calculator my *Hynix AFR* ram (?) is displayed as *Samsung B-die* (bug?) and at 3600 frequency the calculator's safe profile recommends 16-17-17-35 timings.
> 
> 3. I noticed when I set *GDM* disabled I can't boot lower timings as 17-18-18, all below won't boot and I have to clear CMOS. With this configuration high DRAm voltag like suggested by DRAM Calculator is working fine, I got my system even semi stable with this configuration. But when I enable GDM I can go lower, i.e. 16-17-17-35 but have only a DRAM voltage range from 1.35-1.36 V, all above or below give me instant BSOD. Also I don't get over 5 minutes in TM5 with this configuration, at the latest on 5 minutes the errors explode to hundreds.
> 
> 4. What does leakage, noise and current mean. I read about on page 8 and 9. Also one was talking about VRM Switching Frequency...
> 
> 5. Back to point 4. Im not sure..is it better to reduce or increase Switching Frequency. I have CPU Switching Frequ. and Soc Switching Frequ. but both are min 400 KHz
> 
> 6. On one of the first pages 1usmus posted a full bios configuration and there was Performance Boost deactivated. I guess he deactivated it cause he manually OC CPU but just to be sure...do you disable settings like Performance Boost, C&Q, Precision Boost and C-States only for testing and after stability enable them again or do you let them enabled?
> 
> 7. I often see that RTTNOM is disabled. I read about that this deactivates something internally (I read about it in some of these specifications pdf). When is it considered to disable it and why is RTTWR always disabled?
> 
> Sorry for my bad english and the bunch of questions. Unfortunately the search doesn't find abbreviations like RTTNom and anyway its hard to find information about that topic so I really appreciate your help!
> 
> Tahnks in advance


----------



## MNMadman

LillysTittchen said:


> Im not sure..is it better to reduce or increase Switching Frequency. I have CPU Switching Frequ. and Soc Switching Frequ. but both are min 400 KHz


From what I've read...

Lower switching frequency = more stability but lower OC capability.
Higher switching frequency = more OC capability but lower stability.

However, I found that it didn't make a difference with my system. The stability and OC limitations must be elsewhere with my hardware.

Switching frequency also affects how much current the VRM can handle (higher frequency = less current capability), as well as the temperature of the VRM (higher frequency = higher temps).


----------



## dspx

LillysTittchen said:


> I know all of you are really helpful people but none of my questions were answered ^^ I really try to make effort!


Did you try my suggestions?


----------



## Solohuman

mtrai said:


> The big question on AMD Ryzen GDM on or off. Off if you can manage it as it give you 1T on the ram..however is very hard to achieve. GDM on will give you something in the middle even though it shows 1T it is more like 1 1/2 T or you can choose GDM off and set it 2t
> 
> See this...it is from AMD if remember correctly... this is true across any agesa version. It also has useful information on bank group swap.
> 
> https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings


Great, thanks for that but that article you linked to is for 1st gen CPU & boards.
I wonder if this will apply to Zen+ & B450 platform? 
In any case I will experiment.... as long as my time & patience hold out!


----------



## porschedrifter

Hey guys, so I cannot get my Hynix Adata ddr4 2800 to run 1T with geardown mode disabled at all.
Are there any tips or tricks to try and get it to? I can only run 2T when I disable geardown. 



@1usmus or anyone else who would know.


----------



## CJMitsuki

porschedrifter said:


> Hey guys, so I cannot get my Hynix Adata ddr4 2800 to run 1T with geardown mode disabled at all.
> Are there any tips or tricks to try and get it to? I can only run 2T when I disable geardown.
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus or anyone else who would know.


I don’t have suggestions to get it to work with those settings but I would suggest not to be so caught up on getting gem to work while disabled. It’s not really much of a difference in performance. Just enable it and run 1T. You won’t even notice a difference if you were to get it to run while disabled.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> I don’t have suggestions to get it to work with those settings but I would suggest not to be so caught up on getting gem to work while disabled. It’s not really much of a difference in performance. Just enable it and run 1T. You won’t even notice a difference if you were to get it to run while disabled.


I would like to disagree. Geardown "disabled" *IS BETTER!* 2T or 1T it's faster and as such harder to get stable than running Geardown "enabled".

1T and "disabled" is ideal for best performance. You might not get the best timings but you get better performance compared to similar "tighter" timings with geardown "enabled".

Geardown "disabled" 2T with worse timings than Geardown "enabled" 1T does perform better on my gigabyte board all around.
(though to quantify the big picture it might not be much overall but it's better in these specific memory tweaks you can try)

Though if you are after numbers to show on a screenshot on how high speed and tight timings you are running it's easier to do with Geardown "enabled". 
Overall you usually have to relax timings to run "disabled".


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t have suggestions to get it to work with those settings but I would suggest not to be so caught up on getting gem to work while disabled. It’s not really much of a difference in performance. Just enable it and run 1T. You won’t even notice a difference if you were to get it to run while disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to disagree. Geardown "disabled" *IS BETTER!* 2T or 1T it's faster and as such harder to get stable than running Geardown "enabled".
> 
> 1T and "disabled" is ideal for best performance. You might not get the best timings but you get better performance compared to similar "tighter" timings with geardown "enabled".
> 
> Geardown "disabled" 2T with worse timings than Geardown "enabled" 1T does perform better on my gigabyte board all around.
> (though to quantify the big picture it might not be much overall but it's better in these specific memory tweaks you can try)
> 
> Though if you are after numbers to show on a screenshot on how high speed and tight timings you are running it's easier to do with Geardown "enabled".
> Overall you usually have to relax timings to run "disabled".
Click to expand...

You can disagree all you want but fact of the matter is that increased performance from disabled to enabled is minimal at best. Hence why I told him that he wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference between the 2. The added stability from enabling gear down mode can be used to further increase the frequency offsetting any gains received from disabling gear down mode and having to loosen timings. Now if you can show me benchmarks backing that up I would have to agree with what you say but I’ve seen the differences and it isn’t much at all. Latency is the only real difference and even that can be tuned to be comparable with GDM disabled.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> You can disagree all you want but fact of the matter is that increased performance from disabled to enabled is minimal at best. Hence why I told him that he wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference between the 2. The added stability from enabling gear down mode can be used to further increase the frequency offsetting any gains received from disabling gear down mode and having to loosen timings. Now if you can show me benchmarks backing that up I would have to agree with what you say but I’ve seen the differences and it isn’t much at all. Latency is the only real difference and even that can be tuned to be comparable with GDM disabled.


Not much to disagree here but I would like to take the side off "Always use disabled" and tweak from there. This way you then would not have to think about missing performance when you reach the limits of you setup and have to redo your stability testing if you want to have that small extra it gives in the end because it isn't as "forgiving" of your other settings.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree all you want but fact of the matter is that increased performance from disabled to enabled is minimal at best. Hence why I told him that he wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference between the 2. The added stability from enabling gear down mode can be used to further increase the frequency offsetting any gains received from disabling gear down mode and having to loosen timings. Now if you can show me benchmarks backing that up I would have to agree with what you say but I’ve seen the differences and it isn’t much at all. Latency is the only real difference and even that can be tuned to be comparable with GDM disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much to disagree here but I would like to take the side off "Always use disabled" and tweak from there. This way you then would not have to think about missing performance when you reach the limits of you setup and have to redo your stability testing if you want to have that small extra it gives in the end because it isn't as "forgiving" of your other settings.
Click to expand...

The thing is that you don’t get any extra from GDM disabled unless you run 1T and if you aren’t able to gain anymore steps in frequency with it enabled. The latter being highly unlikely as enabling GDM gives a massive increase in stability vs disabled. Even Hallock says the only way disabled could be better is if you run 1T and are able to reach the desired frequency. Otherwise it should be enabled. For instance, with GDM disabled I can hit 3200cl14 and with it enabled I can hit 3533cl14 with tight timings. There isn’t even a comparison between the two as I have 57ns latency with it enabled as well. Benchmarks show that the 3533 set up has better performance as well. Therefore GDM disabled would be a disadvantage for me. Now, if you could not go any higher with GDM enabled and were still able to use disabled and 1T at the same frequency with decent timings then it would be better. That is a very big IF and even if that was the case the performance gain wouldn’t be much. It’s like 1T vs 1.5T with tighter timings. They will more than likely be close if tuned properly.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> The thing is that you don’t get any extra from GDM disabled unless you run 1T and if you aren’t able to gain anymore steps in frequency with it enabled. The latter being highly unlikely as enabling GDM gives a massive increase in stability vs disabled. Even Hallock says the only way disabled could be better is if you run 1T and are able to reach the desired frequency. Otherwise it should be enabled. For instance, with GDM disabled I can hit 3200cl14 and with it enabled I can hit 3533cl14 with tight timings. There isn’t even a comparison between the two as I have 57ns latency with it enabled as well. Benchmarks show that the 3533 set up has better performance as well. Therefore GDM disabled would be a disadvantage for me. Now, if you could not go any higher with GDM enabled and were still able to use disabled and 1T at the same frequency with decent timings then it would be better. That is a very big IF and even if that was the case the performance gain wouldn’t be much. It’s like 1T vs 1.5T with tighter timings. They will more than likely be close if tuned properly.


I have my own experience trying to see the difference and I could always run them at same speeds. The difference was getting it stable which required a few individual timings to be increased a step or two to run "disabled" 2T instead of "enabled" 1T. 

At most I had to increase tWRWRSCL & tRDRDSCL and tRCDRD higher as main tweaks, a 1-2 extra on tRC & tRP might also be needed. All other settings basically worked the same. And these few timings didn't make performance worse being higher with "disabled". Overall it worked out better. 

Though I can see everyone might not have the same experience tweaking this and might not get to run such similar settings in both modes. Running 3200cl14 and 3533cl14... that's a big difference... 
I was tweaking between 3666CL14 tWRWR/tRDRD 2/2 "enabled" 1T to 3666CL15 tWRWR/tRDRD 4/4 "disabled" 2T... the later being better.


----------



## Wally West

Hey, I have Micron D-die. It's not available in the calculator, so should I use Micron E die or Samsung D/E Die?


----------



## Reous

Wally West said:


> Hey, I have Micron D-die. It's not available in the calculator, so should I use Micron E die or Samsung D/E Die?



I have the same ram. You could be able to get 3200 with XMP Setting but with 1.35v

If you have a good board and imc you can also try these settings.
DDR4-3600 CL16-19-19 1.35v


----------



## Wally West

Reous said:


> I have the same ram. You could be able to get 3200 with XMP Setting but with 1.35v
> 
> If you have a good board and imc you can also try these settings.
> DDR4-3600 CL16-19-19 1.35v


Thank you man!!

edit: 3200 works, 3466/3600 doesn't work with your setting


----------



## Reous

Maybe you have to play with the timings. For example CL18-19-19 or CL16-21-21 ... Or ProcODT 53 instead 48. It is a game


----------



## chakku

Wally West said:


> Thank you man!!
> 
> edit: 3200 works, 3466/3600 doesn't work with your setting


You're better off running 3200C14 than 3600C16 anyway.


----------



## mtrai

chakku said:


> You're better off running 3200C14 than 3600C16 anyway.


No...no...no...not on Ryzen. Memory speed is king..then the tightest timing you can get. The infinity fabric is totally dependent on ram clock speed. Ryzen is not the same as Intel...what is considered the truth has changed since Ryzen. You HAVE to take in account the infinity fabric speed which is tied to the ram speed.


----------



## chakku

mtrai said:


> No...no...no...not on Ryzen. Memory speed is king..then the tightest timing you can get. The infinity fabric is totally dependent on ram clock speed. Ryzen is not the same as Intel...what is considered the truth has changed since Ryzen. You HAVE to take in account the infinity fabric speed which is tied to the ram speed.


Memory speed is king up until 3200MHz, this has been well documented and established. 3200C12 is basically the holy grail of Ryzen and IF doesn't scale about 1600MHz. 3533C14/3466C14 are the next best thing.

You can also see the "Is RAM MHz king?" section in the following post to clarify since you may not be up to speed with the current Ryzen memory 'meta':

https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1625015-ryzen-essential-info-link-owners-info-db.html


----------



## hurricane28

3466 MHz CL14 is king in every application. 3200 MHz is the easiest frequency and everyone with at least B-die can achieve that.


----------



## mtrai

chakku said:


> Memory speed is king up until 3200MHz, this has been well documented and established. 3200C12 is basically the holy grail of Ryzen and IF doesn't scale about 1600MHz. 3533C14/3466C14 are the next best thing.
> 
> You can also see the "Is RAM MHz king?" section in the following post to clarify since you may not be up to speed with the current Ryzen memory 'meta':
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1625015-ryzen-essential-info-link-owners-info-db.html


As I said you have to balance some things out...that info was true then but not now. Some of us have spent too many hours upon hours finding the tightest stable timings, which makes a difference. But the blanket statement that 3200 is the best is just plain out wrong. Also keep in mind...not everyone has the know how to even get to the timings I and other use daily. Also you have to factor in use of the PC which will also determine your best settings.

I have spent far more time tuning my ram on Ryzen then I have ever spent on ram in my lifetime. 

As another has stated 3200 is just the easiest to achieve for the masses, but it is worth the effort for example if you can stabilize 3600 at CL14 and other tight timings. Heck I can even boot into windows at 3600 cl 12 but not pass any stability testing.



hurricane28 said:


> 3466 MHz CL14 is king in every application. 3200 MHz is the easiest frequency and everyone with at least B-die can achieve that.


Yep so correct, unless you able, like to me to run the same tight 3466 CL 14 timings at 3533 or even 3600.


----------



## chakku

mtrai said:


> As I said you have to balance some things out...that info was true then but not now. Some of us have spent too many hours upon hours finding the tightest stable timings, which makes a difference. But the blanket statement that 3200 is the best is just plain out wrong. Also keep in mind...not everyone has the know how to even get to the timings I and other use daily. Also you have to factor in use of the PC which will also determine your best settings.
> 
> I have spent far more time tuning my ram on Ryzen then I have ever spent on ram in my lifetime.
> 
> As another has stated 3200 is just the easiest to achieve for the masses, but it is worth the effort for example if you can stabilize 3600 at CL14 and other tight timings. Heck I can even boot into windows at 3600 cl 12 but not pass any stability testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep so correct, unless you able, like to me to run the same tight 3466 CL 14 timings at 3533 or even 3600.



I'd like to see you running 3200C12, particularly something along the lines of AMD's settings as per their article:

DDR4-3200 “maxed” settings: tCL =12, tRCDW/R = 12, tRP = 12, tRAS = 28, tRC = 54, tWR = 12, tWCL = 9, tRFC = 224, tRTP = 8, tRDRDSCL = 2, tWRWRSCL = 2, ProcODT = 60Ω.

Or The Stilt's timings:

3200MHz = 12-12-12-28-54-140ns-9-8-12-2-2-GDME-1T (tCL-tRCDR/W-tRP-tRAS-tRC-tRFC-tCWL-tRTP-tWR-tWRWRSCL-tRDRDSCL)

It's not really a blanket statement when The Stilt tested to find 3200C12 > 3466C14 (which makes sense because the former is faster and IF doesn't scale above 1600 as mentioned before)

That's good for you that you can get into Windows with 3600C12 but it's not really relevant because I'm talking about stable settings.


----------



## hurricane28

mtrai said:


> As I said you have to balance some things out...that info was true then but not now. Some of us have spent too many hours upon hours finding the tightest stable timings, which makes a difference. But the blanket statement that 3200 is the best is just plain out wrong. Also keep in mind...not everyone has the know how to even get to the timings I and other use daily. Also you have to factor in use of the PC which will also determine your best settings.
> 
> I have spent far more time tuning my ram on Ryzen then I have ever spent on ram in my lifetime.
> 
> As another has stated 3200 is just the easiest to achieve for the masses, but it is worth the effort for example if you can stabilize 3600 at CL14 and other tight timings. Heck I can even boot into windows at 3600 cl 12 but not pass any stability testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep so correct, unless you able, like to me to run the same tight 3466 CL 14 timings at 3533 or even 3600.


Yeah, that won't happen man. 3533 MHz CL14 is really really hard on the IMC and maybe on the next AGESA we are able to as i heard its geared towards memory overclocking.


----------



## CJMitsuki

hurricane28 said:


> mtrai said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you have to balance some things out...that info was true then but not now. Some of us have spent too many hours upon hours finding the tightest stable timings, which makes a difference. But the blanket statement that 3200 is the best is just plain out wrong. Also keep in mind...not everyone has the know how to even get to the timings I and other use daily. Also you have to factor in use of the PC which will also determine your best settings.
> 
> I have spent far more time tuning my ram on Ryzen then I have ever spent on ram in my lifetime.
> 
> As another has stated 3200 is just the easiest to achieve for the masses, but it is worth the effort for example if you can stabilize 3600 at CL14 and other tight timings. Heck I can even boot into windows at 3600 cl 12 but not pass any stability testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep so correct, unless you able, like to me to run the same tight 3466 CL 14 timings at 3533 or even 3600.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that won't happen man. 3533 MHz CL14 is really really hard on the IMC and maybe on the next AGESA we are able to as i heard its geared towards memory overclocking.
Click to expand...

I’ve ran 3533 c14 for quite a long time at tight timings. I can even get c13 stable but tight timings aren’t everything. There is such as having timings too tight. You won’t get errors but you will lose performance. Certain tasks prefer certain timings to be tighter than others so you can’t just throw one setup out there and say it is king. I have ran everything from 3200c12 to 3600c14 and the most versatile I have seen is 3533c14 but it isn’t the most forgiving at times and stability can sway from one bios revision to the next but I have yet to find another strap outperform it in daily use. As far as benchmarking goes, that’s another story as there are far too many setups to even get into. Some prefer speed and some prefer bandwidth. Especially in rendering, different instruction sets prefer different timings and are very picky about them. In my opinion the best is 3533c14 if you know how to tune it properly. 
3200c12 is fast but the reason it just isn’t near as good as 3533c14 is lack of bandwidth. The extra speed doesn’t cover the gap that it leaves with low bandwidth. It just doesn’t and never will.


----------



## hurricane28

CJMitsuki said:


> I’ve ran 3533 c14 for quite a long time at tight timings. I can even get c13 stable but tight timings aren’t everything. There is such as having timings too tight. You won’t get errors but you will lose performance. Certain tasks prefer certain timings to be tighter than others so you can’t just throw one setup out there and say it is king. I have ran everything from 3200c12 to 3600c14 and the most versatile I have seen is 3533c14 but it isn’t the most forgiving at times and stability can sway from one bios revision to the next but I have yet to find another strap outperform it in daily use. As far as benchmarking goes, that’s another story as there are far too many setups to even get into. Some prefer speed and some prefer bandwidth. Especially in rendering, different instruction sets prefer different timings and are very picky about them. In my opinion the best is 3533c14 if you know how to tune it properly.
> 3200c12 is fast but the reason it just isn’t near as good as 3533c14 is lack of bandwidth. The extra speed doesn’t cover the gap that it leaves with low bandwidth. It just doesn’t and never will.



That's quite good man. I Agree with the rest man, it all depends on what you are doing which is why you need to find an midway between them. 

May i ask what setting you used for 3533 CL14 an 3600? Perhaps BIOS screens or settings? Thnx in advanced.


----------



## ajc9988

So, I agree with both sides on different points. Meanwhile, I think it would be better to look at the interconnect speed on Sisoft Sandra, which I believe capped out around 1.55GHz, unless I'm remembering wrong or was looking at something else. Either way, here are my scores from June and July, from before the BIOS update which limited me to 3466 CL14. Back then I was running 3600 CL14. I've tuned the 3466 to get roughly the same scores in rendering tasks, but with tighter primary and secondary timings.
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_u...e8d5e4c2aa97a284fcc1f0d6b3d6ebdbfd8eb383&l=en


----------



## mtrai

hurricane28 said:


> Yeah, that won't happen man. 3533 MHz CL14 is really really hard on the IMC and maybe on the next AGESA we are able to as i heard its geared towards memory overclocking.


3533 and 3600 cl 14 really hammers the IMC hard. The average user is not gonna get there...just due to the number of hours needed to fine tune every setting.


----------



## CJMitsuki

hurricane28 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve ran 3533 c14 for quite a long time at tight timings. I can even get c13 stable but tight timings aren’t everything. There is such as having timings too tight. You won’t get errors but you will lose performance. Certain tasks prefer certain timings to be tighter than others so you can’t just throw one setup out there and say it is king. I have ran everything from 3200c12 to 3600c14 and the most versatile I have seen is 3533c14 but it isn’t the most forgiving at times and stability can sway from one bios revision to the next but I have yet to find another strap outperform it in daily use. As far as benchmarking goes, that’s another story as there are far too many setups to even get into. Some prefer speed and some prefer bandwidth. Especially in rendering, different instruction sets prefer different timings and are very picky about them. In my opinion the best is 3533c14 if you know how to tune it properly.
> 3200c12 is fast but the reason it just isn’t near as good as 3533c14 is lack of bandwidth. The extra speed doesn’t cover the gap that it leaves with low bandwidth. It just doesn’t and never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite good man. I Agree with the rest man, it all depends on what you are doing which is why you need to find an midway between them.
> 
> May i ask what setting you used for 3533 CL14 an 3600? Perhaps BIOS screens or settings? Thnx in advanced.
Click to expand...

14-14-14-14-26-40-4-4-16-3-8-12-0-2-2-260-Auto-Auto-14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1 are the timings, 53.3 ProcODT, Gear Down Enabled, 1T, Power Down Disabled, Rtt resistances are Disabled, Disabled, RZQ/4. Cad_Bus settings are 0,0,0 and 20, 20, 20, 20 ohm. DRAM voltage is 1.475v although I can run it with 1.425v but I get slightly better timings at 1.475v. I don’t apply the SoC voltage in the normal way, I set it to offset and then set it to Auto as the offset voltage then I go to Advanced tab and set the SoC OC VID to a hex value of 48 I believe, which is roughly 1.1v. Using G.Skill TridentZ BDIE memory, 3200c14. That’s about all I can remember until I get home after while and pull it up.


----------



## ajc9988

mtrai said:


> 3533 and 3600 cl 14 really hammers the IMC hard. The average user is not gonna get there...just due to the number of hours needed to fine tune every setting.


Yeah, 3600 was not hard on the Taichi X399 with my Trident Z 4133 B-die running 3600 14-17-17-34-48-288 until the UEFI update with AGESA 1.1.0.x. It just went in, was fully stable, etc. After the recent firmware updates for compatibility with TR2, I could never find 3600 stable, and 3466, which was previously unstable and I could not get stable, now was and allows for 14-15-14-28-42-278 timings. That took a couple weeks to fine tune. I went through stability testing with each firmware update. In many ways, the earlier firmware was better for me, but I need the security updates of the newer AGESA, so here I am. But, I have friends that also have 1950Xs that it helped stabilize higher frequencies with tight timings for them. So, it is more about does it benefit more people overall, which it likely does. 

My point is, when you can use faster speeds with relatively tight timings, then that may be the best performing, but not always. Anything 3200MHz and over is good for single rank (2933, if setup properly for dual rank, can perform roughly around 3200 single rank from what some of my friends have tested), and then it is comparing how tight you can get the timings and the frequency you can achieve in the workloads you perform. Sometimes frequency will win (always wins if timings are tight enough), sometimes timings will win on slower frequencies. If you are at the limit on frequency and timings, then changing over to different settings to get more frequency headroom or going tighter on timings makes sense. It is all a balancing act and, ultimately, the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## usernamedesired

Is there any timings set for Micron A die yet?

Ive got corsair vengeance LED 3200, Its micron A die and it seems nobody else in the world has this. Its like it doesnt exist.

I can run 3066 xmp/docp but nothing further will boot.

Tried DRAM calculater before after importing from thaiphoon but it seemed to glitch the calculator and was giving timings for samsung b die.


----------



## dspx

usernamedesired said:


> Is there any timings set for Micron A die yet?
> 
> Ive got corsair vengeance LED 3200, Its micron A die and it seems nobody else in the world has this. Its like it doesnt exist.
> 
> I can run 3066 xmp/docp but nothing further will boot.
> 
> Tried DRAM calculater before after importing from thaiphoon but it seemed to glitch the calculator and was giving timings for samsung b die.


----------



## Bolty

Hey guys,
I have a Ryzen 1600x OC'd to 3950mhz with G.Skill Trident Z F4-4000C18D-16GTZR running at 3200 with fast timings off the calculator (TRFC at 308 instead of 306 i think from the 1.2 version of calculator) on an Asrock x370 gaming K4. It runs stable through ramtest for 6 hours. However whenever I unplug my PC from power and reconnect it always boot loops for about a minute before coming back on with all default bios, I just load up my previous profile and save and it boots up fine again. I've tried a few different voltages and I tried the timings from the 1.3.1 version but nothing improves this issue. 

My settings are: 
CPU 3950mhz
Cpu voltage 1.36875v
SMT Mode enabled 
Xmp 2.0 profile 1
Dram frequency ddr4 3200
Am4 advance boot training disabled 
See timing pic 
CPU Vcore voltage Fixed mode 
Fixed voltage 1.36875 
CPU llc level 2
Vddcr_soc fixed 1.0750
Vddcr_soc llc level 3
Dram voltage 1.375
Vtt_ddr 0.690
2.50 v_prom voltage 2.6v (auto) 
+1.8v =1.8 (auto) 
VDDP 0.975
1.05v_prom voltage 1.1v (auto) 
Vppm 2.5v

Advanced - cpu configuration 
Cool n quiet disabled 
AMD ftpm switch disabled 
Svm mode disabled
C6 mode disabled

AMD cbs - df common options 
Memory interleaving auto 
Memory interleaving size auto
Channel interleaving hash auto

CLDO_VDDP Auto

I have a attached my timings also and the calculator screen shot (however I have altered a few voltages and the TRFC)


Just wondering if anyone has any idea of how I can fix this?


----------



## BloOdje

Hello guys,

I'm still trying to get my ram working at it's rated 3200 speed but i just give up and working now with DOCP settings with 2933mhz. My mb is Asus Prime B350-Plus with newest bios and ram is G.Skill Ripjaws V 2x8 (F4-3200C16D-16GVKB). Here i my settings used from Ryzen Calculator but whenever i run TestMem5 im getting errors after 20 seconds. I'll gonna upload all screens below. Hope someone can help me a little since im really pissed off about that. 

Regards,

BloOdje


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Hi BloOdje,
i have 2x16GB hynix MFR. Unfortunately 2933Mhz is as good as it gets for me 
But the Calculator gives me this, but i can achieve that. I can go tighter but Games suffer, rendering gets better.
I leave Termination Block on Auto and also CAD BUS Block.
But i found procODT 53 to be the best, but i leave on Auto. 
Also note tRFC is 419 not 410.6, 8.4 higher so you may have to go up/down a little.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

I need to know all the Timings for this DDR4
-> http://www.inno3d.com/products_detail.php?refid=365

and if someone have this:
All are 4000MHz CL19
-> https://www.hyperxgaming.com/en/mem...4000MHz&Module Capacity=8GB&Kit=Single Module

and this:
-> https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3400c16q-32gtz

I need to know what i can do with it 
3466MHz CL14
3600MHz CL15 etc.

Next week i want to equip my RIG with 32GB 4GHz RAM


----------



## 1usmus

*I came back, if you have any questions - write, I will try to answer everyone *




Bolty said:


> Hey guys,
> I have a Ryzen 1600x OC'd to 3950mhz with G.Skill Trident Z F4-4000C18D-16GTZR running at 3200 with fast timings off the calculator (TRFC at 308 instead of 306 i think from the 1.2 version of calculator) on an Asrock x370 gaming K4. It runs stable through ramtest for 6 hours. However whenever I unplug my PC from power and reconnect it always boot loops for about a minute before coming back on with all default bios, I just load up my previous profile and save and it boots up fine again. I've tried a few different voltages and I tried the timings from the 1.3.1 version but nothing improves this issue.
> 
> My settings are:
> CPU 3950mhz
> Cpu voltage 1.36875v
> SMT Mode enabled
> Xmp 2.0 profile 1
> Dram frequency ddr4 3200
> Am4 advance boot training disabled
> See timing pic
> CPU Vcore voltage Fixed mode
> Fixed voltage 1.36875
> CPU llc level 2
> Vddcr_soc fixed 1.0750
> Vddcr_soc llc level 3
> Dram voltage 1.375
> Vtt_ddr 0.690
> 2.50 v_prom voltage 2.6v (auto)
> +1.8v =1.8 (auto)
> VDDP 0.975
> 1.05v_prom voltage 1.1v (auto)
> Vppm 2.5v
> 
> Advanced - cpu configuration
> Cool n quiet disabled
> AMD ftpm switch disabled
> Svm mode disabled
> C6 mode disabled
> 
> AMD cbs - df common options
> Memory interleaving auto
> Memory interleaving size auto
> Channel interleaving hash auto
> 
> CLDO_VDDP Auto
> 
> I have a attached my timings also and the calculator screen shot (however I have altered a few voltages and the TRFC)
> 
> 
> Just wondering if anyone has any idea of how I can fix this?


Hi, this is not a calculator problem, but a BIOS problem. I advise you to check out the latest version here https://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/index.php


----------



## Zerotre

1usmus said:


> *I came back, if you have any questions - write, I will try to answer everyone *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, this is not a calculator problem, but a BIOS problem. I advise you to check out the latest version here https://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/index.php


Welcome back!


----------



## hsn

welcomeback


----------



## hsn

1usmus said:


> *I came back, if you have any questions - write, I will try to answer everyone *


welcomeback


----------



## nick name

Ne01 OnnA said:


> I need to know all the Timings for this DDR4
> -> http://www.inno3d.com/products_detail.php?refid=365
> 
> and if someone have this:
> All are 4000MHz CL19
> -> https://www.hyperxgaming.com/en/mem...4000MHz&Module Capacity=8GB&Kit=Single Module
> 
> and this:
> -> https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3400c16q-32gtz
> 
> I need to know what i can do with it
> 3466MHz CL14
> 3600MHz CL15 etc.
> 
> Next week i want to equip my RIG with 32GB 4GHz RAM


I have a 3600CL15 kit and can run it rock stable at 3636MHz using BCLK to get that extra 36MHz with 14-15-14-28-42 timings. And at 3600Mhz I can run slightly tighter timings than the calculator recommends, but I am not sure that's worth it. 

Sometimes 3666MHz will pass tests and sometimes it won't.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

nick name said:


> I have a 3600CL15 kit and can run it rock stable at 3636MHz using BCLK to get that extra 36MHz with 14-15-14-28-42 timings. And at 3600Mhz I can run slightly tighter timings than the calculator recommends, but I am not sure that's worth it.
> 
> Sometimes 3666MHz will pass tests and sometimes it won't.


THX i will go for 4x8 of this Predators
4000MHz CL19-21-21-21-38
• XMP Profile #1: DDR4-4000 CL19-21-21 @1.35V

-> https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX440C19PB3A_8.pdf
-> https://www.hyperxgaming.com/en/mem...4000MHz&Module Capacity=8GB&Kit=Single Module

It will work with ZEN NP
-> https://media.kingston.com/pdfs/hx-product-memory-ddr4-amd-ryzen-and-hx-compatibility-en.pdf

I will try to go for LLT ~3466-3700MHz with little V bump to 1.4v


----------



## LicSqualo

Ne01 OnnA said:


> I need to know all the Timings for this DDR4
> -> http://www.inno3d.com/products_detail.php?refid=365
> 
> and if someone have this:
> All are 4000MHz CL19
> -> https://www.hyperxgaming.com/en/mem...4000MHz&Module Capacity=8GB&Kit=Single Module
> 
> and this:
> -> https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3400c16q-32gtz
> 
> I need to know what i can do with it
> 3466MHz CL14
> 3600MHz CL15 etc.
> 
> Next week i want to equip my RIG with 32GB 4GHz RAM


I've a b-die kit 2x8Gb 3600c16.
Running at 3500MHz with 101 base clock. My ryzen 1700 don't want to stabilize my system at 3600MHz ram speed. Perhaps the next new agesa...


----------



## Zerotre

Ne01 OnnA said:


> THX i will go for 4x8 of this Predators
> 4000MHz CL19-21-21-21-38
> • XMP Profile #1: DDR4-4000 CL19-21-21 @1.35V
> 
> -> https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX440C19PB3A_8.pdf
> -> https://www.hyperxgaming.com/en/mem...4000MHz&Module Capacity=8GB&Kit=Single Module
> 
> It will work with ZEN NP
> -> https://media.kingston.com/pdfs/hx-product-memory-ddr4-amd-ryzen-and-hx-compatibility-en.pdf
> 
> I will try to go for LLT ~3466-3700MHz with little V bump to 1.4v


hey mate, 2x16gb here, G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZ currently [email protected], 4x8gb perhaps are better.


----------



## Maikelses

Welcomeback 1Usmus. Thanks for All in this Plattaform AM4 Ryzen. U are The Best. Don´t Forget. 
Sorry for my English.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Zerotre said:


> Ne01 OnnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> THX i will go for 4x8 of this Predators
> 4000MHz CL19-21-21-21-38
> • XMP Profile #1: DDR4-4000 CL19-21-21 @1.35V
> 
> -> https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX440C19PB3A_8.pdf
> -> https://www.hyperxgaming.com/en/mem...4000MHz&Module Capacity=8GB&Kit=Single Module
> 
> It will work with ZEN NP
> -> https://media.kingston.com/pdfs/hx-product-memory-ddr4-amd-ryzen-and-hx-compatibility-en.pdf
> 
> I will try to go for LLT ~3466-3700MHz with little V bump to 1.4v
> 
> 
> 
> hey mate, 2x16gb here, G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZ currently [email protected], 4x8gb perhaps are better.
Click to expand...

4x8 should be tiny bit better but I would be surprised if he were to go above 3333c14 with that kit. I bought a kit similar to that but at 16gb and had my 3200c14 overclock much higher, after that I don’t pay attn to those highly binned kits. They are just overpriced.


----------



## nick name

So I tightened some timings further than I thought they would actually go and was surprised to see that it passed the tm5 1usmus_v2 profile test. Twice. RTC shows a speed of 3533MHz but I am running a BCLK of 102 so the actual speed is 3603MHz. Are these timings too tight where they would foul up something else? I am running the RAM at 1.5V


----------



## kazablanka

nick name said:


> So I tightened some timings further than I thought they would actually go and was surprised to see that it passed the tm5 1usmus_v2 profile test. Twice. RTC shows a speed of 3533MHz but I am running a BCLK of 102 so the actual speed is 3603MHz. Are these timings too tight where they would foul up something else? I am running the RAM at 1.5V


Some times tighten too much timings leads to performance lose ,you have to test these timings to see if the performance gain worths the 0.05v increase on dram


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Yo, Thanks for response 
Nice Kits you all have -> Im planing on Low V 3.950MHz with LLT RAM (it will be enough for my gaming lol)
My God i think i'll be amazed by it.

Max for gaming i have ~4016MHz at 1.417-1.438v


----------



## nick name

Ok so I recently posted something about lower secondary timings getting to the point of becoming detrimental, but I haven't heard a knowledgeable response back yet. I have tightened things up just a bit more and passed the tm5 1usmus_v2 profile test again. I've also been running Aida with each revision of the timings and haven't seen an increase in performance. So if I could ask again -- are these secondary timings at a point where they will become detrimental to performance? Thank you.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> Ok so I recently posted something about lower secondary timings getting to the point of becoming detrimental, but I haven't heard a knowledgeable response back yet. I have tightened things up just a bit more and passed the tm5 1usmus_v2 profile test again. I've also been running Aida with each revision of the timings and haven't seen an increase in performance. So if I could ask again -- are these secondary timings at a point where they will become detrimental to performance? Thank you.


I wouldn’t look to Aida64 to determine performance. Go run some benchmarks with both setups and see how each fares, then you’ll have your answer. I can make a setup that looks great in Aida but cannot perform very well at all. You can absolutely tighten up timings too far but you’ll never know if it is detrimental until you actually run some tests that are memory sensitive.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> I wouldn’t look to Aida64 to determine performance. Go run some benchmarks with both setups and see how each fares, then you’ll have your answer. I can make a setup that looks great in Aida but cannot perform very well at all. You can absolutely tighten up timings too far but you’ll never know if it is detrimental until you actually run some tests that are memory sensitive.


Can you point me at tests that are memory sensitive?


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t look to Aida64 to determine performance. Go run some benchmarks with both setups and see how each fares, then you’ll have your answer. I can make a setup that looks great in Aida but cannot perform very well at all. You can absolutely tighten up timings too far but you’ll never know if it is detrimental until you actually run some tests that are memory sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point me at tests that are memory sensitive?
Click to expand...

I prefer Passmark’s Performance Test. They have a memory tab in the test and it breaks down memory performance into something like 7 different areas and gives a score. It’s given me good results before. A good score is 2700+. It also tells you where you rank among others.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> I prefer Passmark’s Performance Test. They have a memory tab in the test and it breaks down memory performance into something like 7 different areas and gives a score. It’s given me good results before. A good score is 2700+. It also tells you where you rank among others.


Eesh $29.99. Is there anything else I can use after the 30 day trial?


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer Passmark’s Performance Test. They have a memory tab in the test and it breaks down memory performance into something like 7 different areas and gives a score. It’s given me good results before. A good score is 2700+. It also tells you where you rank among others.
> 
> 
> 
> Eesh $29.99. Is there anything else I can use after the 30 day trial?
Click to expand...

Just download it again. I use the trial and have for several years.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Just download it again. I use the trial and have for several years.


Tight secondary timings and looser secondary timings yield the same score. Around 2460. What do you do to get 2700+?


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just download it again. I use the trial and have for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> Tight secondary timings and looser secondary timings yield the same score. Around 2460. What do you do to get 2700+?
Click to expand...

I just play with the timings until I find the right ones. Primaries first, then secondaries, and I have a setup that I use for tertiaries that doesn’t change much.


----------



## CJMitsuki

CJMitsuki said:


> nick name said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just download it again. I use the trial and have for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> Tight secondary timings and looser secondary timings yield the same score. Around 2460. What do you do to get 2700+?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just play with the timings until I find the right ones. Primaries first, then secondaries, and I have a setup that I use for tertiaries that doesn’t change much.
Click to expand...

its been awhile since I’ve ran it. They could’ve updated it and the way the scores are calculated


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> its been awhile since I’ve ran it. They could’ve updated it and the way the scores are calculated


Will you give it a run and let me know if they changed the scoring?


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> its been awhile since I’ve ran it. They could’ve updated it and the way the scores are calculated
> 
> 
> 
> Will you give it a run and let me know if they changed the scoring?
Click to expand...

Yeah, gimme a few min. In the middle of running some benchmarks for HWBoT Team Cup


----------



## CJMitsuki

Its still the same it seems


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Its still the same it seems


Can you show me your Ryzen Timing Checker?


----------



## kazablanka

nick name said:


> Ok so I recently posted something about lower secondary timings getting to the point of becoming detrimental, but I haven't heard a knowledgeable response back yet. I have tightened things up just a bit more and passed the tm5 1usmus_v2 profile test again. I've also been running Aida with each revision of the timings and haven't seen an increase in performance. So if I could ask again -- are these secondary timings at a point where they will become detrimental to performance? Thank you.


run geekbench 4 for testing, or 3d mark firestrike /3d mark11 physics / winrar


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> Can you show me your Ryzen Timing Checker?


Sure, these are my max timings for performance. Forget the 3333 it shows, im running a 104.8 bclk so its 3500. 1.475v and 1.1v SoC OC VID setting. It gets me nearly a 2800 score in that benchmark and I use it for most of my benchmark sessions. Its really tight and I have to keep the memory under 30c or it may have a stray error.


----------



## blunden

I've been running my G.Skill Trident Z 2x16GB (F4-3200C14-16GTZR) sticks using settings based on ones I've found in the Ryzen overclocking thread on this forum. Out of curiosity, I check the recommended values using this program and I found a few settings it suggests I should tweak.

However, I also noticed a difference between the timing values populated when pressing the "R - XMP" button (which I assume means "Read XMP") compared to when I imported the report exported from Taiphoon Burner. Particularly, tRAS, tRC, tRFC, tRRDS and tFAW differ. Am I supposed to use the values from Taiphoon Burner or the ones the program reads itself?

Also, are the different recommended value columns (Rec., Alt. 1 and Alt. 2) for the Termination Block and CAD_BUS Block supposed to be used together, i.e. trying all values from the Rec. column, or the Alt. 1 column, etc?

In general, how are they values calculated?


----------



## blunden

I've been running my G.Skill Trident Z 2x16GB (F4-3200C14-16GTZR) sticks using settings based on ones I've found in the Ryzen overclocking thread on this forum. Out of curiosity, I check the recommended values using this program and I found a few settings it suggests I should tweak.

However, I also noticed a difference between the timing values populated when pressing the "R - XMP" button (which I assume means "Read XMP") compared to when I imported the report exported from Taiphoon Burner. Particularly, tRAS, tRC, tRFC, tRRDS and tFAW differ. Am I supposed to use the values from Taiphoon Burner or the ones the program reads itself?

Also, are the different recommended value columns (Rec., Alt. 1 and Alt. 2) for the Termination Block and CAD_BUS Block supposed to be used together, i.e. trying all values from the Rec. column, or the Alt. 1 column, etc?

In general, how are they values calculated?


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Sure, these are my max timings for performance. Forget the 3333 it shows, im running a 104.8 bclk so its 3500. 1.475v and 1.1v SoC OC VID setting. It gets me nearly a 2800 score in that benchmark and I use it for most of my benchmark sessions. Its really tight and I have to keep the memory under 30c or it may have a stray error.
> 
> View attachment 222638


My timings are extremely similar to yours except I am running 3600 at 14-15-14-28-42. I've also noticed that the PassMark test responds quite a bit to higher CPU speeds.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, these are my max timings for performance. Forget the 3333 it shows, im running a 104.8 bclk so its 3500. 1.475v and 1.1v SoC OC VID setting. It gets me nearly a 2800 score in that benchmark and I use it for most of my benchmark sessions. Its really tight and I have to keep the memory under 30c or it may have a stray error.
> 
> View attachment 222638
> 
> 
> 
> My timings are extremely similar to yours except I am running 3600 at 14-15-14-28-42. I've also noticed that the PassMark test responds quite a bit to higher CPU speeds.
Click to expand...

That would make sense as the memory controller is on the cpu. Your secondary and tertiaries may be similar but your primary timings are much more loose. Probably why you are lacking in performance. Frequency looks good on paper but without tight tightened timings to back it up then it’s lacking.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> That would make sense as the memory controller is on the cpu. Your secondary and tertiaries may be similar but your primary timings are much more loose. Probably why you are lacking in performance. Frequency looks good on paper but without tight tightened timings to back it up then it’s lacking.


After matching your timings exactly with 3600MHz I surpassed all your scores except for Available RAM, Memory Write, and Memory Latency. I know I can't beat your latency since you're running 100MHz+ more than I can on your CPU, but I don't know if that is what makes your Memory Write higher also. It isn't by much though. 

So with all that said -- thank you for helping me out. I appreciate that.


----------



## Wally West

1usmus said:


> *I came back, if you have any questions - write, I will try to answer everyone *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, this is not a calculator problem, but a BIOS problem. I advise you to check out the latest version here https://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/index.php


Hey man, can you try to add micron d die in your calculator?

Awesome tool btw 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> After matching your timings exactly with 3600MHz I surpassed all your scores except for Available RAM, Memory Write, and Memory Latency. I know I can't beat your latency since you're running 100MHz+ more than I can on your CPU, but I don't know if that is what makes your Memory Write higher also. It isn't by much though.
> 
> So with all that said -- thank you for helping me out. I appreciate that.



That setup that i showed you isnt what I done the benchmark with 


Here's with that setup that I showed you.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> That setup that i showed you isnt what I done the benchmark with
> 
> 
> Here's with that setup that I showed you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 222672


Here's what I got with your timings at 3600MHz and single core at 4.437GHz.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That setup that i showed you isnt what I done the benchmark with /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> Here's with that setup that I showed you.
> 
> 
> View attachment 222672
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I got with your timings at 3600MHz and single core at 4.437GHz.
Click to expand...

Have you checked it for errors? Your latency should be close to mine with those timings unless something is amiss. 100mhz of cpu freq isn’t going to be the difference in that latency.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Have you checked it for errors? Your latency should be close to mine with those timings unless something is amiss. 100mhz of cpu freq isn’t going to be the difference in that latency.


At 3600MHz, with your exact timings, I definitely get errors.


----------



## dspx

blunden said:


> However, I also noticed a difference between the timing values populated when pressing the "R - XMP" button (which I assume means "Read XMP") compared to when I imported the report exported from Taiphoon Burner. Particularly, tRAS, tRC, tRFC, tRRDS and tFAW differ. Am I supposed to use the values from Taiphoon Burner or the ones the program reads itself?


R-XMP means "Ryzen XMP". Plain XMP was developed by Intel and it is not advised for use on AMD motherboards.


----------



## chakku

Was messing around with hidden power option settings to see if I could get the High Performance plan to act more like balanced and let the CPU idle at 0.8MHz when idle because the constant 1.38-1.45V made the idle temps really high. Couldn't manage it but ended up messing up the Balanced profile in the meantime so I reset it.

Forgot to disable the PC sleeping after 30mins.. suddenly thought my memory OC was unstable and causing the PC to bluescreen/shutdown and was confused as hell when I got the result below but it was still doing it so frequently. Phew.

With that said would the below be considered stable? What would be an 'equivalent' HCI Memtest score?




Spoiler


----------



## 1usmus

chakku said:


> Was messing around with hidden power option settings to see if I could get the High Performance plan to act more like balanced and let the CPU idle at 0.8MHz when idle because the constant 1.38-1.45V made the idle temps really high. Couldn't manage it but ended up messing up the Balanced profile in the meantime so I reset it.
> 
> Forgot to disable the PC sleeping after 30mins.. suddenly thought my memory OC was unstable and causing the PC to bluescreen/shutdown and was confused as hell when I got the result below but it was still doing it so frequently. Phew.
> 
> With that said would the below be considered stable? What would be an 'equivalent' HCI Memtest score?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I think the system is stable


----------



## hurricane28

I find RAM overclocking on BIOS 0804 on the ROG crosshair 7 hero wifi extremely difficult and frustrating.. its really hard to get 100% stability. 

I think something degraded, its the BIOS or the program itself as i was stable perviously and now it gave me 1 error at only 6 minutes.. can anyone tell me what i should try? I tried everything i know and it failed miserably.

Running 3466 MHz with 2600x at 4.2 GHz.


----------



## ajc9988

@1usmus - have you found any insights into X399 settings you care to share before we get the new calc? Such as agesa compatibility, what you've experienced with single versus dual rank dimms, timings or resistances that seem worth note, or anything, really...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> I find RAM overclocking on BIOS 0804 on the ROG crosshair 7 hero wifi extremely difficult and frustrating.. its really hard to get 100% stability.
> 
> I think something degraded, its the BIOS or the program itself as i was stable perviously and now it gave me 1 error at only 6 minutes.. can anyone tell me what i should try? I tried everything i know and it failed miserably.
> 
> Running 3466 MHz with 2600x at 4.2 GHz.


May i ask you something? Why you run the cpu @4.2ghz? With pbo x10 and some undervolting you can have 4.25ghz on two cores and 4.150-4225mhz all core depends on the load.

Can you post your settings for the unstable memory overclocking to make a comparison with mine? On ch7 i could run my kit at 3533mhz super stable.


----------



## nick name

chakku said:


> Was messing around with hidden power option settings to see if I could get the High Performance plan to act more like balanced and let the CPU idle at 0.8MHz when idle because the constant 1.38-1.45V made the idle temps really high. Couldn't manage it but ended up messing up the Balanced profile in the meantime so I reset it.
> 
> Forgot to disable the PC sleeping after 30mins.. suddenly thought my memory OC was unstable and causing the PC to bluescreen/shutdown and was confused as hell when I got the result below but it was still doing it so frequently. Phew.
> 
> With that said would the below be considered stable? What would be an 'equivalent' HCI Memtest score?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


You can use any power plan you'd like as long as you change Processor Power Management > Minimum Processor State > 45% or lower (I use 20%). That will allow your CPU to go through all its power states and idle down to .8V or lower.


----------



## nick name

@1usmus Are these timings problematic? The setup passes several memory tests, but I haven't run one overnight yet. My concern is some timings might conflict with others, but I can't make it apparent in any of my testing.


----------



## chakku

nick name said:


> You can use any power plan you'd like as long as you change Processor Power Management > Minimum Processor State > 45% or lower (I use 20%). That will allow your CPU to go through all its power states and idle down to .8V or lower.


Even when setting minimum state between 5-45% it doesn't allow the voltage to drop to 0,8V. The clocks will go down as they normally do but the voltage stays high for whatever reason, hence why I was tinkering with the hidden settings.


----------



## hurricane28

kazablanka said:


> May i ask you something? Why you run the cpu @4.2ghz? With pbo x10 and some undervolting you can have 4.25ghz on two cores and 4.150-4225mhz all core depends on the load.
> 
> Can you post your settings for the unstable memory overclocking to make a comparison with mine? On ch7 i could run my kit at 3533mhz super stable.


Because i want 4.2 GHz at all times of course. Besides, the boosting doesn't work properly on the Ch7, BIOS is broken for stability too. This is one of the reasons you sold your c7H board wasn't it? 

I am running the Mus1Mus calculator fast settings at 3466 MHz. I was stable at tigher timings before.. so its baffling to me why i am not anymore now, not even at higher voltage. Heck, i lower it to 3400 at the same timings etc. etc. but still gave me 1 error.. I am starting to think that this board is broken as well man.. What a mess.

You were 3533 MHz super stable? May i ask what settings you used? I might give that a go.


----------



## MNMadman

chakku said:


> Even when setting minimum state between 5-45% it doesn't allow the voltage to drop to 0,8V. The clocks will go down as they normally do but the voltage stays high for whatever reason, hence why I was tinkering with the hidden settings.


Are you doing P-State overclocking? According to Asus, this is an AGESA limitation. Newer versions make it so that the voltage stays at the P0 level instead of down-volting like we expect.


----------



## chakku

MNMadman said:


> Are you doing P-State overclocking? According to Asus, this is an AGESA limitation. Newer versions make it so that the voltage stays at the P0 level instead of down-volting like we expect.


Nope, purely Performance Enhancer (Level 3) with a negative voltage offset.


----------



## nick name

hurricane28 said:


> Because i want 4.2 GHz at all times of course. Besides, the boosting doesn't work properly on the Ch7, BIOS is broken for stability too. This is one of the reasons you sold your c7H board wasn't it?
> 
> I am running the Mus1Mus calculator fast settings at 3466 MHz. I was stable at tigher timings before.. so its baffling to me why i am not anymore now, not even at higher voltage. Heck, i lower it to 3400 at the same timings etc. etc. but still gave me 1 error.. I am starting to think that this board is broken as well man.. What a mess.
> 
> You were 3533 MHz super stable? May i ask what settings you used? I might give that a go.


It may be placebo, but I've been getting better results with BIOS 1001. 

And using a 2600X do you have the Performance Enhancer Levels in BIOS?


----------



## nick name

chakku said:


> Nope, purely Performance Enhancer (Level 3) with a negative voltage offset.


So the behavior began before you started using the hidden power settings? It sounds like your CPU is operating in its "OC" mode. Things like setting the multiplier above 37, setting a manual voltage, P state manipulation, Minimum Processor State above 45% in power settings, and others. Forgive me I'm just thinking out loud. Are you waiting a minute after your boot before checking to see if its going into its lower power states? Because it does take about a literal minute before it will.


----------



## chakku

nick name said:


> So the behavior began before you started using the hidden power settings? It sounds like your CPU is operating in its "OC" mode. Things like setting the multiplier above 37, setting a manual voltage, P state manipulation, Minimum Processor State above 45% in power settings, and others. Forgive me I'm just thinking out loud. Are you waiting a minute after your boot before checking to see if its going into its lower power states? Because it does take about a literal minute before it will.


I do get the issue with it not downclocking for a minute after booting, but no this was not related to that, the PC had been on for hours and I can easily spot the difference in HWiNFO when switching between Balanced profile and High Performance with 5% minimum state set. The clocks act the same but the voltage will never drop to 0.8V with High Performance.


----------



## rene mauricio

So then, if I am reading all this correctly, using P-State to OC will cause the voltage to never drop (as it would if everything was "stock"). If that's correct, how would one go about overclocking Ryzen so that the voltage does drop?

Also; is nifty tool going to get updated to include Hynix CJR modules? I think I first noticed mentions of it in this topic back in August but nothing has come of it. Perhaps I am not looking in the right direction?


----------



## nick name

chakku said:


> I do get the issue with it not downclocking for a minute after booting, but no this was not related to that, the PC had been on for hours and I can easily spot the difference in HWiNFO when switching between Balanced profile and High Performance with 5% minimum state set. The clocks act the same but the voltage will never drop to 0.8V with High Performance.


Yeah I actually use High Performance or Ultimate Performance and still get the lower power states with Minimum Processor State at 20%. Something odd is how setting Maximum Processor State to anything less than 100% seems to keep the CPU at its lowest power state even while under load.


----------



## blunden

dspx said:


> R-XMP means "Ryzen XMP". Plain XMP was developed by Intel and it is not advised for use on AMD motherboards.


 Oh, I see. Thanks! So those values are more suitable for my sticks on my X370 board than the XMP values read via Taiphoon Burner?

I know XMP was developed by Intel but I figured the calculator would still base its calculations on the stick's XMP values, even if it adjusted a few timings when needed for stability and/or performance on Ryzen.

Got any thoughts on my other questions?


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> Because i want 4.2 GHz at all times of course. Besides, the boosting doesn't work properly on the Ch7, BIOS is broken for stability too. This is one of the reasons you sold your c7H board wasn't it?
> 
> I am running the Mus1Mus calculator fast settings at 3466 MHz. I was stable at tigher timings before.. so its baffling to me why i am not anymore now, not even at higher voltage. Heck, i lower it to 3400 at the same timings etc. etc. but still gave me 1 error.. I am starting to think that this board is broken as well man.. What a mess.
> 
> You were 3533 MHz super stable? May i ask what settings you used? I might give that a go.


No the board was boosting correctly, the firts cpu was not boosting and i rma it. The board just needed more voltage for the same overclock than prime and the qfan function was not working correctly. I think i had post you my bios settings not different from calculator's settings. Have you try to clean your ramsticks?

Have you also try to set procODT to 48ohms instead of 53?


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> I think the system is stable


Sorry if I have missed an update post but any word of when we should be expecting the new Red 1.4.0 DRAM Calc? Would be nice to see it out around the time the new 1.0.0.6 BIOS comes out with the CH7 hopefully by the end of this month.


----------



## hurricane28

kazablanka said:


> No the board was boosting correctly, the firts cpu was not boosting and i rma it. The board just needed more voltage for the same overclock than prime and the qfan function was not working correctly. I think i had post you my bios settings not different from calculator's settings. Have you try to clean your ramsticks?
> 
> Have you also try to set procODT to 48ohms instead of 53?


Ah of course i remember. 

Can't remember those settings man, can you post them again plz? I haven't tried 48 ohms or cleaner my RAM sticks, will try that. Thnx.


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> Ah of course i remember.
> 
> Can't remember those settings man, can you post them again plz? I haven't tried 48 ohms or cleaner my RAM sticks, will try that. Thnx.


This is with prime x470 pro ,but settings are the same with these i used on ch7,first of all i suggest you to unplug your ramsticks clean them and repopulate them .


----------



## hurricane28

kazablanka said:


> This is with prime x470 pro ,but settings are the same with these i used on ch7,first of all i suggest you to unplug your ramsticks clean them and repopulate them .


No matter what setting, i can't get it back to stable 3466 MHz man.. Its this crappy C7H board and their bull crap BIOS man.. I am overclocking for a long time now and never encountered this before. I am extremely angry at the moment that one minute its stable and the next it isn't at the same exact settings..


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> No matter what setting, i can't get it back to stable 3466 MHz man.. Its this crappy C7H board and their bull crap BIOS man.. I am overclocking for a long time now and never encountered this before. I am extremely angry at the moment that one minute its stable and the next it isn't at the same exact settings..


Wait for the next agesa or sell it... i couldn't wait so i sold it....
here is bios settings in case you want to take a look 



Spoiler



[2018/10/09 12:24:49]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Performance Bias [CB15]
VDDCR CPU Voltage [Offset mode]
VDDCR CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
VDDCR CPU Offset Voltage [0.10000]
VDDCR SOC Voltage [Manual]
VDDCR SOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
CPU 1.80V Voltage [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52000]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
VDDCR CPU Load Line Calibration [Auto]
VDDCR CPU Current Capability [100%]
VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
VDDCR CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
VDDCR CPU Power Phase Control [Standard]
VDDCR SOC Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDCR SOC Current Capability [120%]
VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [300]
VDDCR SOC Power Phase Control [Optimized]
Target TDP [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
Trcdrd [15]
Trcdwr [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [24]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [260]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [7]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup [0]
MemCsOdtSetup [0]
MemCkeSetup [0]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
Security Device Support [Enable]
Pending operation [None]
Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
TPM2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Enabled]
NX Mode [Enabled]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
PT USB Redriver [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
Primary Video Device [PCIE Video]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By Ring [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
Depop [Enabled]
PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth [X8 Mode]
PCIEX16_3 4X-2X Switch [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [On]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Disabled]
Serial Port 1 [Enabled]
Change Settings [IO=3F8h; IRQ=4]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Relaxed Ordering [Enabled]
Extended Tag [Disabled]
No Snoop [Enabled]
Maximum Payload [Auto]
Maximum Read Request [Auto]
ASPM Support [Disabled]
Extended Synch [Disabled]
Link Training Retry [5]
Link Training Timeout (uS) [1000]
Unpopulated Links [Keep Link ON]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Debug Port Table [Disabled]
Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
ASMT 2105 0 [Auto]
USB Device Enable [Enabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
U31G1_9 [Enabled]
U31G1_10 [Enabled]
U31G2_C1 [Enabled]
U31G1_C7 [Enabled]
U31G1_5 [Enabled]
USB_1 [Enabled]
USB_2 [Enabled]
USB_3 [Enabled]
USB_4 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
VDDCR CPU Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [70]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle. Duty Cycle (%) [60]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 2 Min. Duty Cycle (%) [31]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [EZ Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [2]
Profile Name [3600]
Save to Profile [1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]


----------



## hurricane28

kazablanka said:


> Wait for the next agesa or sell it... i couldn't wait so i sold it....
> here is bios settings in case you want to take a look
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2018/10/09 12:24:49]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3533MHz]
> Custom CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> > CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [CB15]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage [Offset mode]
> VDDCR CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
> VDDCR CPU Offset Voltage [0.10000]
> VDDCR SOC Voltage [Manual]
> VDDCR SOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.44000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 1.80V Voltage [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.52000]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> VDDCR CPU Load Line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDCR CPU Current Capability [100%]
> VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VDDCR CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> VDDCR CPU Power Phase Control [Standard]
> VDDCR SOC Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDCR SOC Current Capability [120%]
> VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency [300]
> VDDCR SOC Power Phase Control [Optimized]
> Target TDP [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [24]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [260]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [7]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [0]
> MemCsOdtSetup [0]
> MemCkeSetup [0]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> Security Device Support [Enable]
> Pending operation [None]
> Platform Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Storage Hierarchy [Enabled]
> Endorsement Hierarchy [Enabled]
> TPM2.0 UEFI Spec Version [TCG_2]
> Physical Presence Spec Version [1.3]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
> PT Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
> PT XHCI GEN1 [Auto]
> PT XHCI GEN2 [Auto]
> PT USB Equalization4 [Auto]
> PT USB Redriver [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 0 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 1 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 2 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 3 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 4 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 5 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 6 [Auto]
> PT PCIE PORT 7 [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 0 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 1 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 2 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 3 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 4 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 5 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 6 Enable [Auto]
> PT SATA PORT 7 Enable [Auto]
> Onboard PCIE LAN PXE ROM [Enabled]
> AMD CRB EHCI Debug port switch [Disabled]
> Primary Video Device [PCIE Video]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By Ring [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> Depop [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth [X8 Mode]
> PCIEX16_3 4X-2X Switch [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [On]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Disabled]
> Serial Port 1 [Enabled]
> Change Settings [IO=3F8h; IRQ=4]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Relaxed Ordering [Enabled]
> Extended Tag [Disabled]
> No Snoop [Enabled]
> Maximum Payload [Auto]
> Maximum Read Request [Auto]
> ASPM Support [Disabled]
> Extended Synch [Disabled]
> Link Training Retry [5]
> Link Training Timeout (uS) [1000]
> Unpopulated Links [Keep Link ON]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table [Disabled]
> Debug Port Table 2 [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> ASMT 2105 0 [Auto]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> U31G1_9 [Enabled]
> U31G1_10 [Enabled]
> U31G2_C1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_C7 [Enabled]
> U31G1_5 [Enabled]
> USB_1 [Enabled]
> USB_2 [Enabled]
> USB_3 [Enabled]
> USB_4 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> VDDCR CPU Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
> Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [70]
> Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [45]
> Chassis Fan 2 Middle. Duty Cycle (%) [60]
> Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
> Chassis Fan 2 Min. Duty Cycle (%) [31]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [EZ Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [2]
> Profile Name [3600]
> Save to Profile [1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]


I wait for next AGESA and if this board is still behaving badly i sell it and get something more reliable. Its not Asus but Asus ROG that sucks the wrong way though.. I personally think its R&D department man, there simply is not enough money for AMD yet i guess. 

Thnx for the BIOS screens man, will try it later.


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> I wait for next AGESA and if this board is still behaving badly i sell it and get something more reliable. Its not Asus but Asus ROG that sucks the wrong way though.. I personally think its R&D department man, there simply is not enough money for AMD yet i guess.
> 
> Thnx for the BIOS screens man, will try it later.


Ι full agree with you... i hope next agesa correct your issues


----------



## hurricane28

kazablanka said:


> Ι full agree with you... i hope next agesa correct your issues


Thnx man.

This is so frustrating beyond believe man. You know what it is. How is that Assus board of you holding up against the C7H?


----------



## Bolty

1usmus said:


> Hi, this is not a calculator problem, but a BIOS problem. I advise you to check out the latest version here https://www.jzelectronic.de/jz2/index.php


Do you recommend the latest bios for x370 on my 1600x, or do i revert to a previous bios?
I hear the 2000 series motherboard bios' have ruined lots of overclocks?


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> Thnx man.
> 
> This is so frustrating beyond believe man. You know what it is. How is that Assus board of you holding up against the C7H?


There is no issue with this board ,everything works great until now. I think this is the first time that everything is working perfect with an asus board. I hope asus dont mess everything up with next bios  It lacks of a clock generator but i can live without bulk overclocking. There is no dram boot voltage in bios but it seems that there is no need of this setting.


----------



## hurricane28

kazablanka said:


> There is no issue with this board ,everything works great until now. I think this is the first time that everything is working perfect with an asus board. I hope asus dont mess everything up with next bios  It lacks of a clock generator but i can live without bulk overclocking. There is no dram boot voltage in bios but it seems that there is no need of this setting.


Glad to hear you have no issues anymore man. 

"There is no dram boot voltage in bios but it seems that there is no need of this setting." Like 90% of the C7H BIOS. Most of it doesn't do anything let alone people know what its doing.


----------



## fcchin

hurricane28 said:


> No matter what setting, i can't get it back to stable 3466 MHz man.. Its this crappy C7H board and their bull crap BIOS man.. I am overclocking for a long time now and never encountered this before. I am extremely angry at the moment that one minute its stable and the next it isn't at the same exact settings..


The chip ages, looses it's capability and potential.

Example, my RAM CMK32GX4M2B3000C15, was running 2666 at 1.2V only, tight timings. But one month later crash a lot got to increase 1.26V, but then two months later crash a lot again then increase to 1.3V. So it's the aging issue.

i.e. F1 engine horse power drops very quickly over very short time.....

Something to consider.......


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> Glad to hear you have no issues anymore man.
> 
> "There is no dram boot voltage in bios but it seems that there is no need of this setting." Like 90% of the C7H BIOS. Most of it doesn't do anything let alone people know what its doing.


exactly


----------



## Valka814

FlareX XMP vs OC. Had to change 3 parameters to maintain stability. (VDDP, CLDO_VDDP, tRCDRC)


----------



## hurricane28

fcchin said:


> The chip ages, looses it's capability and potential.
> 
> Example, my RAM CMK32GX4M2B3000C15, was running 2666 at 1.2V only, tight timings. But one month later crash a lot got to increase 1.26V, but then two months later crash a lot again then increase to 1.3V. So it's the aging issue.
> 
> i.e. F1 engine horse power drops very quickly over very short time.....
> 
> Something to consider.......


Yeah, no... You simply can't compare F1 engines to PC's man, whole different ball game here. 

The parts age of course but not this fast.. IF they are, this is not acceptable. 

No, the problem lies in the ROG BIOS which is extremely buggy as i have proven among many other users on this forum. On one BIOS i could get 3600 MHz stable and one BIOS revision newer i couldn't even do 3466 MHz stable.When i flashed back to previous BIOS i was stable again. The downside of flashing older BIOS is that you not always get the same exact BIOS s soms newer ones change things you can't revert to.


----------



## hurricane28

Valka814 said:


> FlareX XMP vs OC. Had to change 3 parameters to maintain stability. (VDDP, CLDO_VDDP, tRCDRC)


How do you know its stable? How did you test this?


----------



## Valka814

hurricane28 said:


> How do you know its stable? How did you test this?


Have no issues in the past 6-7 weeks.


----------



## kazablanka

hurricane28 said:


> Yeah, no... You simply can't compare F1 engines to PC's man, whole different ball game here.
> 
> The parts age of course but not this fast.. IF they are, this is not acceptable.
> 
> No, the problem lies in the ROG BIOS which is extremely buggy as i have proven among many other users on this forum. On one BIOS i could get 3600 MHz stable and one BIOS revision newer i couldn't even do 3466 MHz stable.When i flashed back to previous BIOS i was stable again. The downside of flashing older BIOS is that you not always get the same exact BIOS s soms newer ones change things you can't revert to.


Have you check the memory stability with cpu at stock settings or overclocked ,may your overclock needs more voltage for memory stability. As an example, i was trying to satbilize my memory at 3600mhz. I used to set -0,1v offset with pbox10 ,for 3533mhz everything works stable but when i raise the memory speed at 3600mhz i had to set -0.075v offset for cpu to be stable.


----------



## MNMadman

hurricane28 said:


> No, the problem lies in the ROG BIOS which is extremely buggy as i have proven among many other users on this forum. On one BIOS i could get 3600 MHz stable and one BIOS revision newer i couldn't even do 3466 MHz stable.When i flashed back to previous BIOS i was stable again. The downside of flashing older BIOS is that you not always get the same exact BIOS s soms newer ones change things you can't revert to.


Apparently, it's only "extremely buggy" for some. I've never been able to hit the magical 3600 speed with my 3200 RAM, but I've been rock-solid stable at 3466 for three BIOS revisions now (0804, 0012, and 1001). Might try for 35xx when I have some time to kill.


----------



## hurricane28

MNMadman said:


> Apparently, it's only "extremely buggy" for some. I've never been able to hit the magical 3600 speed with my 3200 RAM, but I've been rock-solid stable at 3466 for three BIOS revisions now (0804, 0012, and 1001). Might try for 35xx when I have some time to kill.


Well i guess so than man. For the rest the BIOS works pretty good i think as i have no other issues besides some RAM overclocking problems. 

That being said, i think i have the solution for my RAM instability. I changed some settings and added a fan blowing on the RAM sticks and it passed this time with no errors: 

I added an 80mm fan in case things get hot i can turn it on. When the fan was at 100% no errors but when i removed the fan the errors came after the Dimms hit around 40 c.


----------



## Vrbaa

Hello guys!

I have G.SKILL Ripjaws IV 2x4GB 3200MHz CL 16-18-18-38 (Hynix MFR). The maximum stable clock is 2866MHz and 14-16-16-34-1T using very low voltage of 1.2V and 0.9V for SOC.

XMP 2933 or 3200MHz with stock latencies 16-18-18-34 and 1.36V doesn't work. I tried calculators, SOC 1.15V etc... Anything above 2866MHz is unstable, but 2866 even with 1.2V was completely stable for 24h AIDA64 memory burn test, Intel Burn Test, OCCT, Prime95. 

I'm confused because all internet said ZEN+ should easily hit 3000MHz or higher. It is unstable because Hynix MFR? Are these results okay for this type of configuration and memory or it should go higher? I have Ryzen 2600 and MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon. 

https://imgur.com/a/jWEtEYK


----------



## kazablanka

Guys can anyboby check it too. I found that disabling cstates as my ram runs at 3600mhz run solid stable and i have no ibt errors at very high ,when i enable cstates ibt give errors. I am with pbo x10 and -0.075 offset.


----------



## nick name

kazablanka said:


> Guys can anyboby check it too. I found that disabling cstates as my ram runs at 3600mhz run solid stable and i have no ibt errors at very high ,when i enable cstates ibt give errors. I am with pbo x10 and -0.075 offset.


I wonder if you need to disable all of them or if you can get the same results with only disabling C6.

Also, do you run Power Down Mode disabled? I've read that is a similar, but better solution. No explanation or reasoning was given, however. Just something I found.


----------



## nick name

Vrbaa said:


> Hello guys!
> 
> I have G.SKILL Ripjaws IV 2x4GB 3200MHz CL 16-18-18-38 (Hynix MFR). The maximum stable clock is 2866MHz and 14-16-16-34-1T using very low voltage of 1.2V and 0.9V for SOC.
> 
> XMP 2933 or 3200MHz with stock latencies 16-18-18-34 and 1.36V doesn't work. I tried calculators, SOC 1.15V etc... Anything above 2866MHz is unstable, but 2866 even with 1.2V was completely stable for 24h AIDA64 memory burn test, Intel Burn Test, OCCT, Prime95.
> 
> I'm confused because all internet said ZEN+ should easily hit 3000MHz or higher. It is unstable because Hynix MFR? Are these results okay for this type of configuration and memory or it should go higher? I have Ryzen 2600 and MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon.
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/jWEtEYK


I think newer X470 boards also help with "overclocking" RAM. I had the same Hynix kit run well on a X470 Prime Pro board. It actually ran at 3400MHz and stock timings rock solid.


----------



## Vrbaa

nick name said:


> I think newer X470 boards also help with "overclocking" RAM. I had the same Hinyx kit run well on a X470 Prime Pro board. It actually ran at 3400MHz and stock timings rock solid.


Hynix MFR?


----------



## nick name

Vrbaa said:


> Hynix MFR?


Yes, correct.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Hmm, maby i will think about the Future and pick this Kit?

• XMP Profile #1: DDR4-4133 CL19-23-23 @1.35V (It's 1.35v so i can have 4133 CL18-19-19 1T @ 1.4v easy -> with 3800X ZEN2 7nm)


-> https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX441C19PB3K2_16.pdf

-> https://www.hyperxgaming.com/en/mem...peed=4133MHz&Module Capacity=8GB&Kit=Kit of 2


----------



## chakku

Setting yourself up for failure expecting 4133 on Zen 2.


----------



## kazablanka

nick name said:


> I wonder if you need to disable all of them or if you can get the same results with only disabling C6.
> 
> Also, do you run Power Down Mode disabled? I've read that is a similar, but better solution. No explanation or reasoning was given, however. Just something I found.


Yes GD off ,i haven't c6 setting ,only cstates. But with cstates disabled the cpu can still power down at idle by lowering processor's minimum power state from windows power plan.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

chakku said:


> Setting yourself up for failure expecting 4133 on Zen 2.


Right now it is possible to have LLT at 3766MHz & 3800MHz so im north into faster experience 
Besides, it is much more Future Proof than slower DDR4 for sure.


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.0​*









*Download :*

*TechpowerUP* -> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
*Guru3d* -> https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html​*Changelog:*

* Initial support Threadripper gen 1 and gen 2
* Improved SOC voltage prediction for different processors and their generations
* Additional window that will tell what minimum DRAM voltage is needed by the system 
* Additional windows that show a nanosecond delay for the current calculated profile. It will be especially useful for users who are reflashing SPD
* Improved prediction procODT + RTT + CAD_BUS for some memory (the block has endured many changes)
* Improved overclocking for Hynix CJR . Up to 3800 MHz inclusive. Big thanks @Reous for the help
* A switch has been added to define system tasks, BGS / BGSalt recommendations depend on it. Turning off BGS allows you to increase gaming performance by up to 5%
* The "Custom" profile will be based solely on the data that is placed in XMP. Its new name is "Debug". Mode designed from scratch, available for almost all chips (but still need some time for a more subtle configuration).I think this mode is needed for professionals who want to see all the changes relative to automatic overclocking or XMP profile. This will allow them to see some nuances that can not provide the profiles of "V1" and "V2".Also, this mode will be useful to owners of systems based on Intel processors. 
* Some changes in procODT + RTT for systems in which 4 RAM SR modules
* Added support for Micron D-die
* Changes in the code that will help speed up the development of the calculator (future versions)
* Added some popup tips for key settings
* New picture in folder *Configuring Ryzen Systems v5*
* Other corrections/bug fixes


*Changes that are planned in* *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.1*

* Improved overclocking for Hynix CJR (I hope the company G. Skill will not ignore my proposal), Micron E-die and Micron H-die
* Improved support for Threadripper

Best regards, Iurii Bublii (@1usmus)!


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.0 ™​*
> *Changelog:*
> 
> * Initial support Threadripper gen 1 and gen 2
> * Improved SOC voltage prediction for different processors and their generations
> * Additional window that will tell what minimum DRAM voltage is needed by the system
> * Additional windows that show a nanosecond delay for the current calculated profile. It will be especially useful for users who are reflashing SPD
> * Improved prediction procODT + RTT + CAD_BUS for some memory (the block has endured many changes)
> * Improved overclocking for Hynix CJR . Up to 3800 MHz inclusive. Big thanks @*Reous* for the help
> * A switch has been added to define system tasks, BGS / BGSalt recommendations depend on it. Turning off BGS allows you to increase gaming performance by up to 5%
> * The "Custom" profile will be based solely on the data that is placed in XMP. Its new name is "Debug". Mode designed from scratch, available for almost all chips (but still need some time for a more subtle configuration).I think this mode is needed for professionals who want to see all the changes relative to automatic overclocking or XMP profile. This will allow them to see some nuances that can not provide the profiles of "V1" and "V2".Also, this mode will be useful to owners of systems based on Intel processors.
> * Some changes in procODT + RTT for systems in which 4 RAM SR modules
> * Added support for Micron D-die
> * Changes in the code that will help speed up the development of the calculator (future versions)
> * Added some popup tips for key settings
> * New picture in folder *Configuring Ryzen Systems v5*
> * Other corrections/bug fixes
> 
> 
> Changes that are planned in *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.1*
> 
> * Improved overclocking for Hynix CJR (I hope the company G. Skill will not ignore my proposal), Micron E-die and Micron H-die
> * Improved support for Threadripper
> 
> Best regards, Iurii Bublii (@1usmus)!


Awesome man!
I am looking forward to getting Hynix CJR hopefully soon


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.0

THX


----------



## Aenra

In-thread search for 'BGS' doesn't list anything, "too short or too common" a search criteria..

Someone educate the ignorant please; what is BGS/BGSalt? 

* And yet again, an obvious thank you for continuing to update this!


----------



## Maikelses

Very good 1usmus. First, thank you for everything you do for the community. We will thoroughly test your new tool. Pass from 3200 on a ROG Motherboard STRIX B350-F GAMING is an odyssey with AGESA 1.0.0.2a. I hope that with Agesa 1.0.0.5 it is resolved. Thank you.


----------



## 1usmus

And thank you for your support and participation in discussions 



Aenra said:


> In-thread search for 'BGS' doesn't list anything, "too short or too common" a search criteria..
> 
> Someone educate the ignorant please; what is BGS/BGSalt?
> 
> * And yet again, an obvious thank you for continuing to update this!


this is not a new feature, I just recently just remembered about it 
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-agesa-memory-bios,35012.html


----------



## Aenra

1usmus said:


> this is not a new feature, I just recently just remembered about it


Fair enough, lol.. i don't even know if i have that on.. did i ever change it even(?).. but yeah, good time to check i guess 

* Aaah, yeah! Gear swap! There, lol, it dawned on me!
Man i hate abbreviations.. why must we do it just because the yanks do, honestly. Rhetorical. English damn it, just English.


----------



## ilmazzo

thumbs up 1usmus thanks

where can one contribute to your cause?


----------



## anker020

Very nice work i i will take look for sure!!


----------



## ZeNch

I update my very old Bios today and this night i try to improve my RAM and CPU OC.

This app looks more complete to old versions, thanks 1usmus.

In the past very very past i reach @3200 in my ram but when i update bios i only reach 3000mhz... G.Skill TridentZ 3200mhz CL16-18-18-18 Hynix MFR SR (2*8gb).


----------



## Dotachin

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.0​*
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Download :*
> 
> *TechpowerUP* -> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
> *Guru3d* -> https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html​*Changelog:*
> 
> * Initial support Threadripper gen 1 and gen 2
> * Improved SOC voltage prediction for different processors and their generations
> * Additional window that will tell what minimum DRAM voltage is needed by the system
> * Additional windows that show a nanosecond delay for the current calculated profile. It will be especially useful for users who are reflashing SPD
> * Improved prediction procODT + RTT + CAD_BUS for some memory (the block has endured many changes)
> * Improved overclocking for Hynix CJR . Up to 3800 MHz inclusive. Big thanks @Reous for the help
> * A switch has been added to define system tasks, BGS / BGSalt recommendations depend on it. Turning off BGS allows you to increase gaming performance by up to 5%
> * The "Custom" profile will be based solely on the data that is placed in XMP. Its new name is "Debug". Mode designed from scratch, available for almost all chips (but still need some time for a more subtle configuration).I think this mode is needed for professionals who want to see all the changes relative to automatic overclocking or XMP profile. This will allow them to see some nuances that can not provide the profiles of "V1" and "V2".Also, this mode will be useful to owners of systems based on Intel processors.
> * Some changes in procODT + RTT for systems in which 4 RAM SR modules
> * Added support for Micron D-die
> * Changes in the code that will help speed up the development of the calculator (future versions)
> * Added some popup tips for key settings
> * New picture in folder *Configuring Ryzen Systems v5*
> * Other corrections/bug fixes
> 
> 
> *Changes that are planned in* *Red DRAM Calculator 1.4.1*
> 
> * Improved overclocking for Hynix CJR (I hope the company G. Skill will not ignore my proposal), Micron E-die and Micron H-die
> * Improved support for Threadripper
> 
> Best regards, Iurii Bublii (@1usmus)!


Thanks!
3200c14 worked on first try (1900X, x399 taichi) Ram Test at 3600% and counting :thumb:


----------



## chakku

@1usmus I noticed even with the new calculator version that 3200/3333 fast presets for dual rank memory still recommend GDM disabled at 1T, is this intentional or still a bug? I don't think the IMC can handle this.


----------



## 1usmus

chakku said:


> @1usmus I noticed even with the new calculator version that 3200/3333 fast presets for dual rank memory still recommend GDM disabled at 1T, is this intentional or still a bug? I don't think the IMC can handle this.


yes it's a bug
I sent the partners a new archive, as soon as they publish it I’ll notify you


----------



## dspx

Hynix AFR safe preset is spot on.


----------



## possessed

Hope that this can help me to get better speeds on my 2400g. I have some 3000c15 Corsair vengeance lp with Hynix AFR, and all I’ve got it stable was at 2666c14.
Since the system uses the memory for videos it’s more sensitive to instability, and it’s crippled because with higher speeds there are higher fps...


----------



## Tomate

A quick question (maybe already answer but I couldn't find it): Some suggested timing contains decimals (tRFC ones) what should we put in the bios? rounded ? truncated ?
Keep up the good work.


----------



## MacG32

New *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen v.1.4.0.1*

v.1.4.0.1 (October 12th, 2018)

Fixed Gear Down bug
Some correction DRAM voltages for OEM
Some correction Soc voltages for frequencies that are below 3333 MHz
Program signature fixed

https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html


----------



## sideeffect

DRAM calculator suggests I should be running my Dual rank RAM with Bank Group Swap enabled and Bank Group Swap alt disabled but I don't have a toggle in BIOS so am forced to use the defaults of Bank Group Swap disabled and alt enabled. Am I losing performance with this configuration?

Also my Part number is Micron (MT40A1G8??-083:?) the revision can't be detected by Thaiphoon they are 2 x 16GB modules are these perhaps all the same revision or could it be any?


----------



## Floyd31

MacG32 said:


> New *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen v.1.4.0.1*
> 
> v.1.4.0.1 (October 12th, 2018)


it's always 1.4.0 version when I download......... ?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

MacG32 said:


> New *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen v.1.4.0.1*
> 
> v.1.4.0.1 (October 12th, 2018)
> 
> Fixed Gear Down bug
> Some correction DRAM voltages for OEM
> Some correction Soc voltages for frequencies that are below 3333 MHz
> Program signature fixed
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
> 
> https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html


THX


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> yes it's a bug
> I sent the partners a new archive, as soon as they publish it I’ll notify you


Awesome thanks, additionally with the BGS option for gaming/synthentics, is this applicable to dual rank as well? I remember reading BGS=enabled benefit DR while it was better to disable on SR?


----------



## nick name

I was hoping AGESA 1.0.0.6 would address this, but the behavior still persists. When I try to use odd numbered primary timings 13 13(or 14) 13 13 or 15 15(or 16) 15 15 it fails to post, but doesn't give just one Q code -- it cycles through: 14 03 56 dE Ad F3 in half-second increments. Has anyone seen this or cured it? The peculiar thing is I can post and boot even numbered timings at the same speeds that odd numbered timings will fail.


----------



## chakku

nick name said:


> I was hoping AGESA 1.0.0.6 would address this, but the behavior still persists. When I try to use odd numbered primary timings 13 13(or 14) 13 13 or 15 15(or 16) 15 15 it fails to post, but doesn't give just one Q code -- it cycles through: 14 03 56 dE Ad F3 in half-second increments. Has anyone seen this or cured it? The peculiar thing is I can post and boot even numbered timings at the same speeds that odd numbered timings will fail.


You can't use odd timings with Geardown Mode enabled.


----------



## nick name

chakku said:


> You can't use odd timings with Geardown Mode enabled.


Sorry I should have stated I have GDM disabled. But this isn't an issue where odd numbered timings are being changed to even numbered timings after POST and boot, but a failure to POST and a weird Q code behavior in that instance.


----------



## 8000cc

Unable to boot with the safe preset 3600
Here is my spec:
CPU: Threadripper 2990wx
Motherboard: MSI MEG Creation x399 (.125)
RAM: F4-3600C18-8GTZRX (Hynix CjR die)
DIMM Modules: 4

I even try SOC voltage 1.1, CPU(3.7Ghz all core) voltage from 1.05 to 1.08, DRAM voltage from 1.35 to 1.375 but there is no luck.

i just follow the safe preset and set the all settings that i can find in my bios settings.


----------



## nick name

8000cc said:


> Unable to boot with the safe preset 3600
> Here is my spec:
> CPU: Threadripper 2990wx
> Motherboard: MSI MEG Creation x399 (.125)
> RAM: F4-3600C18-8GTZRX (Hynix CjR die)
> DIMM Modules: 4
> 
> I even try SOC voltage 1.1, CPU(3.7Ghz all core) voltage from 1.05 to 1.08, DRAM voltage from 1.35 to 1.375 but there is no luck.
> 
> i just follow the safe preset and set the all settings that i can find in my bios settings.


I haven't seen folks with more than 2 dimms anywhere close to 3600. 3200 is the highest I think I've seen any report success at.


----------



## MNMadman

Running the 3466 Safe timings (but with 2T CR) from version 1.4.0.1, on the new 1101 test BIOS for the C7HWIFI board. Preliminary stress tests passed. Full stress testing in progress.


----------



## Orb

nick name said:


> I haven't seen folks with more than 2 dimms anywhere close to 3600. 3200 is the highest I think I've seen any report success at.


3266 mhz best, I can do with 4 x 8GB, but I have not very good Samsung B-die ram, or maybe IMC is average.
Although have seen others with better results with 4 dimms

cpu voltage 1.33750 LLC4
soc voltage 1.03125 LLC2
ram voltage 1.360

tested stable:
mem test pro 400%
prime95 blend 2 hours
TM5 10 cycles


----------



## nick name

I just noticed that the L1 cache Read and Copy values are different amounts for other folks. Mine are always extremely close or near the same. Why is that? And this is in Aida64.


----------



## nick name

Someone suggested using PassMark's PerformanceTest software to gauge my RAM performance. One thing that I've seen that doesn't make sense is that I can use identical, stable timings with different speeds and see the PerformanceTest score drop and latency increase as RAM speeds increase. So 3466MHz scores higher and has a lower latency than 3540MHz which scores higher and has a lower latency than 3600MHz. Again with all the exact same timings. 

However, in Aida the higher RAM speeds translate to higher bandwidth scores and lower latency. 

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?


----------



## ajc9988

nick name said:


> Someone suggested using PassMark's PerformanceTest software to gauge my RAM performance. One thing that I've seen that doesn't make sense is that I can use identical, stable timings with different speeds and see the PerformanceTest score drop and latency increase as RAM speeds increase. So 3466MHz scores higher and has a lower latency than 3540MHz which scores higher and has a lower latency than 3600MHz. Again with all the exact same timings.
> 
> However, in Aida the higher RAM speeds translate to higher bandwidth scores and lower latency.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light on this for me?


Different workloads, not testing peak, instead averaging, etc.

Personally, I do some of my testing on sisoft Sandra and am not the biggest fan on passmark, not to say it doesn't have merit. I still prefer testing on memory intensive programs you regularly use, as it is optimized for your personal workloads. So it may be that. Also, cannot remember which parts of passmark are sensitive to the HPET latency, but know some are.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## nick name

ajc9988 said:


> Different workloads, not testing peak, instead averaging, etc.
> 
> Personally, I do some of my testing on sisoft Sandra and am not the biggest fan on passmark, not to say it doesn't have merit. I still prefer testing on memory intensive programs you regularly use, as it is optimized for your personal workloads. So it may be that. Also, cannot remember which parts of passmark are sensitive to the HPET latency, but know some are.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I had HPET off so I tested again with it on, but didn't see a difference in the numbers. 

And I was trying to expand my suite of programs for my memory performance testing so I will give sisoft a try as well. I need something other than a regular program or game -- something like a benchmark that can assign a score because I've been trying lots of different things with my RAM and I need numbers to tell me if I am going the wrong or right direction. But when two programs give me conflicting results it makes me pause and really question if I am just spinning my wheels.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> Someone suggested using PassMark's PerformanceTest software to gauge my RAM performance. One thing that I've seen that doesn't make sense is that I can use identical, stable timings with different speeds and see the PerformanceTest score drop and latency increase as RAM speeds increase. So 3466MHz scores higher and has a lower latency than 3540MHz which scores higher and has a lower latency than 3600MHz. Again with all the exact same timings.
> 
> However, in Aida the higher RAM speeds translate to higher bandwidth scores and lower latency.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light on this for me?



The answer to 3600 using those timings that I was using when i suggested that specific test to you is simple, you were producing errors as you stated while running those timings thus destroying any performance gains you could have had vs the 3466 profile I was running. Those timings were the result of many, many, many hours of changes and testing with many different programs and benchmarks. What Ive learned about Aida64 is that it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I just cant trust Aida as it never matches up to any other performance increases shown in other benchmarks. For example, I can create a wildly unstable 3600 profile that shows pretty decent numbers in Aida, much higher bandwidth than 3466 or 3533 and comparable cache latencies etc but in the real world those errors cause a significant hit in performance. Also, timings are very cryptic even now and not many understand their behavior in the least. Ive seen a frequency like certain timings and the same timings not be well received with other frequencies they are stable on. Thats why I find my own timings through testing, failing, raging, testing more, giving up, then finally coming back to it later and finding the solution to the puzzle with a clear mind. Changing one timing by one step can change behaviors of multiple other timings and may or may not be repeatable behaviors. Its the beauty of memory OC, the mystery. I just know that on my ram those timings are ridiculously good and I have them at 3495mhz and it is quite good, however I cant go much higher than 3515 with those timings unless i loosen tRFC then 3533mhz can be reached and a bit higher but the tRFC adjustments come at a latency cost as it is closely tied to memory latency. The reason I use the passmark test is because It has always scaled with gains in other benches. If i see an inprovement in that program I will see an improvement in any other memory sensitive benchmark I run as well. It also has the most detailed test specifically for memory. Sisoft is very diverse but SiSoft can be manipulated by clocks as well. Theres a reason that it or Passmarks test isnt allowed on HWBOT and Id be willing to bet it was due to the tests being easily cheated. That being said, it doesnt invalidate their results outside of competition as I wouldnt know why anyone would search for a way to cheat a benchmark that isnt being used in a competition or why anyone would cheat at all. I do know that my memory performance has always followed gains in Passmarks test and I havent found any discrepancies or contradictory results besides Aida64 and thats never followed gains in other benchmarks that are memory sensitive since the numbers dont care if the profile is stable or not and can be misleading if you gauge performance by its information. I just use it for what it is, information about potential performance for a given setup and I still hold that information on the very edge of being believable and I lean towards not believing it as ive seen the inconsistencies first hand and I just cant trust something with contradictory information that is repeatable. I makes perfect sense that dropping a couple of straps and tightening timings to the maximum threshold. Once you find that threshold where you can still tighten the timings and be stable but no real changes to performance then thats just the limit and tightening timings too much is definitely a thing and hurts performance across the board. timings are the fingerprints of the ram, no two sticks are alike and each with their own behaviors. As such, should be overclocked with that in mind as thresholds, optimal timings, max freqs, etc will be different from stick to stick. Also, Ive found that bandwidth is often a great trade off if you can gain even small decreases to latency. To a certain point of course but bandwidth has never been a problem from what ive seen with Ryzen+.


----------



## 1usmus

ilmazzo said:


> thumbs up 1usmus thanks
> 
> where can one contribute to your cause?


At the moment I have not thought about it  maybe in the future



Tomate said:


> A quick question (maybe already answer but I couldn't find it): Some suggested timing contains decimals (tRFC ones) what should we put in the bios? rounded ? truncated ?
> Keep up the good work.


I advise you to try both, sometimes it helps a lot



sideeffect said:


> DRAM calculator suggests I should be running my Dual rank RAM with Bank Group Swap enabled and Bank Group Swap alt disabled but I don't have a toggle in BIOS so am forced to use the defaults of Bank Group Swap disabled and alt enabled. Am I losing performance with this configuration?
> 
> Also my Part number is Micron (MT40A1G8??-083:?) the revision can't be detected by Thaiphoon they are 2 x 16GB modules are these perhaps all the same revision or could it be any?


I do not know for what reason AMD did for the dual rank BGS alt. Need to check



chakku said:


> Awesome thanks, additionally with the BGS option for gaming/synthentics, is this applicable to dual rank as well? I remember reading BGS=enabled benefit DR while it was better to disable on SR?


I get feedback that for dual rank this option does not work, the BIOS does not respond to a change in the parameter. Perhaps this feature for dual rank will not be useful.



nick name said:


> I was hoping AGESA 1.0.0.6 would address this, but the behavior still persists. When I try to use odd numbered primary timings 13 13(or 14) 13 13 or 15 15(or 16) 15 15 it fails to post, but doesn't give just one Q code -- it cycles through: 14 03 56 dE Ad F3 in half-second increments. Has anyone seen this or cured it? The peculiar thing is I can post and boot even numbered timings at the same speeds that odd numbered timings will fail.


I have a similar situation; all memory sets refuse to work with odd timings :/



8000cc said:


> Unable to boot with the safe preset 3600
> Here is my spec:
> CPU: Threadripper 2990wx
> Motherboard: MSI MEG Creation x399 (.125)
> RAM: F4-3600C18-8GTZRX (Hynix CjR die)
> DIMM Modules: 4
> 
> I even try SOC voltage 1.1, CPU(3.7Ghz all core) voltage from 1.05 to 1.08, DRAM voltage from 1.35 to 1.375 but there is no luck.
> 
> i just follow the safe preset and set the all settings that i can find in my bios settings.


This is a motherboard problem, my b-die on this frequency does not start too



nick name said:


> Someone suggested using PassMark's PerformanceTest software to gauge my RAM performance. One thing that I've seen that doesn't make sense is that I can use identical, stable timings with different speeds and see the PerformanceTest score drop and latency increase as RAM speeds increase. So 3466MHz scores higher and has a lower latency than 3540MHz which scores higher and has a lower latency than 3600MHz. Again with all the exact same timings.
> 
> However, in Aida the higher RAM speeds translate to higher bandwidth scores and lower latency.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light on this for me?


This is a feature of the memory controller, after 3533 progress will be very small + maybe some timing is not suitable, there should be an increase in performance, a small but should


----------



## 8000cc

> 8000cc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unable to boot with the safe preset 3600
> Here is my spec:
> CPU: Threadripper 2990wx
> Motherboard: MSI MEG Creation x399 (.125)
> RAM: F4-3600C18-8GTZRX (Hynix CjR die)
> DIMM Modules: 4
> 
> I even try SOC voltage 1.1, CPU(3.7Ghz all core) voltage from 1.05 to 1.08, DRAM voltage from 1.35 to 1.375 but there is no luck.
> 
> i just follow the safe preset and set the all settings that i can find in my bios settings.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a motherboard problem, my b-die on this frequency does not start too
Click to expand...

Disappointed... Is there any beta BIOS would help?


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> The answer to 3600 using those timings that I was using when i suggested that specific test to you is simple, you were producing errors as you stated while running those timings thus destroying any performance gains you could have had vs the 3466 profile I was running. Those timings were the result of many, many, many hours of changes and testing with many different programs and benchmarks. What Ive learned about Aida64 is that it has to be taken with a grain of salt. I just cant trust Aida as it never matches up to any other performance increases shown in other benchmarks. For example, I can create a wildly unstable 3600 profile that shows pretty decent numbers in Aida, much higher bandwidth than 3466 or 3533 and comparable cache latencies etc but in the real world those errors cause a significant hit in performance. Also, timings are very cryptic even now and not many understand their behavior in the least. Ive seen a frequency like certain timings and the same timings not be well received with other frequencies they are stable on. Thats why I find my own timings through testing, failing, raging, testing more, giving up, then finally coming back to it later and finding the solution to the puzzle with a clear mind. Changing one timing by one step can change behaviors of multiple other timings and may or may not be repeatable behaviors. Its the beauty of memory OC, the mystery. I just know that on my ram those timings are ridiculously good and I have them at 3495mhz and it is quite good, however I cant go much higher than 3515 with those timings unless i loosen tRFC then 3533mhz can be reached and a bit higher but the tRFC adjustments come at a latency cost as it is closely tied to memory latency. The reason I use the passmark test is because It has always scaled with gains in other benches. If i see an inprovement in that program I will see an improvement in any other memory sensitive benchmark I run as well. It also has the most detailed test specifically for memory. Sisoft is very diverse but SiSoft can be manipulated by clocks as well. Theres a reason that it or Passmarks test isnt allowed on HWBOT and Id be willing to bet it was due to the tests being easily cheated. That being said, it doesnt invalidate their results outside of competition as I wouldnt know why anyone would search for a way to cheat a benchmark that isnt being used in a competition or why anyone would cheat at all. I do know that my memory performance has always followed gains in Passmarks test and I havent found any discrepancies or contradictory results besides Aida64 and thats never followed gains in other benchmarks that are memory sensitive since the numbers dont care if the profile is stable or not and can be misleading if you gauge performance by its information. I just use it for what it is, information about potential performance for a given setup and I still hold that information on the very edge of being believable and I lean towards not believing it as ive seen the inconsistencies first hand and I just cant trust something with contradictory information that is repeatable. I makes perfect sense that dropping a couple of straps and tightening timings to the maximum threshold. Once you find that threshold where you can still tighten the timings and be stable but no real changes to performance then thats just the limit and tightening timings too much is definitely a thing and hurts performance across the board. timings are the fingerprints of the ram, no two sticks are alike and each with their own behaviors. As such, should be overclocked with that in mind as thresholds, optimal timings, max freqs, etc will be different from stick to stick. Also, Ive found that bandwidth is often a great trade off if you can gain even small decreases to latency. To a certain point of course but bandwidth has never been a problem from what ive seen with Ryzen+.



I am talking about using timings that are stable across all three memory straps. I thought that the instability of previous timings were the culprit, as we discussed, so I tested with timings that were stable for all three. 

So I've now since tried Sisoft Sandra and it shows that 3466MHz, at its tightest stable timings, scores just slightly less than 3600MHz, at its tightest stable timings. 

And thanks again for taking time to help me out. You're always great about that.


----------



## nick name

1usmus said:


> -snip-
> 
> 
> 
> I have a similar situation; all memory sets refuse to work with odd timings :/
> 
> 
> 
> - snip -
> 
> 
> This is a feature of the memory controller, after 3533 progress will be very small + maybe some timing is not suitable, there should be an increase in performance, a small but should


Well then I will take comfort in knowing I am not alone in this.

And I am starting to see and believe that the IMC doesn't handle higher speeds as well -- even though they can test stable.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Just couple on minits tinkering with my New RAM 
3500MHz CL14 1T GD

My GOD im Happy, all is so snappy now (was Good but now it's UFO )

What i can do next?
==
UPD. Managed to get is Stable @ 3500MHz 2T
Much work neded to get it Blazing Fast.
--
UPD.2
-> https://valid.x86.fr/ttlpgj

==
Here:


----------



## 1usmus

8000cc said:


> Disappointed... Is there any beta BIOS would help?


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GKoN5nUPOumt8Int465RqDGikaJcqCXA



Ne01 OnnA said:


> Just couple on minits tinkering with my New RAM
> 3500MHz CL14 1T GD
> 
> My GOD im Happy, all is so snappy now (was Good but now it's UFO )
> 
> What i can do next?
> ==
> UPD. Managed to get is Stable @ 3500MHz 2T
> Much work neded to get it Blazing Fast.
> --
> UPD.2
> -> https://valid.x86.fr/ttlpgj
> 
> ==
> Here:


my congratulations


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

1usmus said:


> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GKoN5nUPOumt8Int465RqDGikaJcqCXA
> 
> 
> 
> my congratulations


THX


PS.
left you somethiing funny on our Guru3D Ryzen DRAM Calculator Thread


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Whatever I may try, I can't get my Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000CL15 (CMK16GX4M2B3000C15, Hynix, AFR) to run stable even at 2866CL16 on a Taichi X370 (latest BIOS) with a R1700.

Tried almost 20 different combos, tried 2866 with 3000 safe, tried upping Vsoc, DRAM volt, nothing works.

Really really frustrated...


----------



## kazablanka

Tested with hci memtest too ,just to be sure


----------



## PopnOffatTheF

*TeamGroup is weird*



1usmus said:


> Perhaps your memory likes CL16, try the V2 profile (I see the wrong values that are written in the SPD).


I think it's a TeamGroup memory thing, it doesn't seem to want to behave like any other b-die, from what I've seen anyone, with that memory, post - it's ultra fussy.
I did a quick try one weekend for profile v2, but didn't get anywhere (crashing withing mins), I'll try again closer to christmas when I have some more time.

In the meantime the only stable settings I found (at all, in months and months) is 3200 14-15-15-15-34 & rest auto (my daily driver).
Found a couple of TeamGroup entries in your excel spreadsheet, currently trying out one of the mentioned configs: 3466 16-18-18-18-38-56 & rest auto.
MemTestv5 completed without errors, I'll see how it is for daily use.

Seriously though, TeamGroup seems to just have it's own little world when it comes to stable timings. (I almost feel like buying a new RAM kit and shipping you this one so you can investigate)
Keep up the great work though!


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Dekaohtoura said:


> Whatever I may try, I can't get my Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000CL15 (CMK16GX4M2B3000C15, Hynix, AFR) to run stable even at 2866CL16 on a Taichi X370 (latest BIOS) with a R1700.
> 
> Tried almost 20 different combos, tried 2866 with 3000 safe, tried upping Vsoc, DRAM volt, nothing works.
> 
> Really really frustrated...


Just Try like me 
Get Yourself new Kit (Kingston Predator 4133 CL19 or 4000 CL19) is now affordable -> B-Die

===
Here, my todays effort (Fully Stable at 1T GD)


----------



## parameshvara

hi, Ive been trying to get thaiphoon burner but I can't seem to connect to their website; softnology.biz.
tried changing dns, multiple browsers (private, firewalls disabled, extensions disabled), reset winsock, alternative dns, edit dns timeouts, etc, you name it.
I've flushed my dns in the last couple of days more times than a mid sized city would've flushed their toilets during a cholera outbreak.
so far I could only find outdated versions on shady websites or cracked torrents, which I don't want. I'm trying to find an alternative mirror for their freeware version.
any help?

edit: or an alternative program that could be used alongside ryzen calc. either way.


----------



## ZeNch

parameshvara said:


> hi, Ive been trying to get thaiphoon burner but I can't seem to connect to their website; softnology.biz.
> tried changing dns, multiple browsers (private, firewalls disabled, extensions disabled), reset winsock, alternative dns, edit dns timeouts, etc, you name it.
> I've flushed my dns in the last couple of days more times than a mid sized city would've flushed their toilets during a cholera outbreak.
> so far I could only find outdated versions on shady websites or cracked torrents, which I don't want. I'm trying to find an alternative mirror for their freeware version.
> any help?
> 
> edit: or an alternative program that could be used alongside ryzen calc. either way.





Direct link: http://www.softnology.biz/files/thphn140.zip

but if you cant download this with other browsers try with yoy phone (less than 1Mb) =)


----------



## parameshvara

ZeNch said:


> Direct link: http://www.softnology.biz/files/thphn140.zip
> 
> but if you cant download this with other browsers try with yoy phone (less than 1Mb) =)


still nope.
another timeout.
I already gave up trying to access that site.

by now I'm searching for other similar tools, ruled out a couple already. I think I can get by with either hwinfo or ramMon (passmark's) but the diverging nomenclatures are confusing me a bit.
thank you for the help, anyway.


----------



## parameshvara

resolved.
used the phone.
i-it's not like I never thought of using that method~


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Now i have 3500MHz 1T GD PD-Off
It is noticeably faster than before on 2T

Here:


----------



## Yvese

Is there anywhere that explains what the settings in the 'Power Supply System' tab does? I already know what LLC does since I used it on my 4770k but everything else is completely foreign.


----------



## 1usmus

Dekaohtoura said:


> Whatever I may try, I can't get my Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000CL15 (CMK16GX4M2B3000C15, Hynix, AFR) to run stable even at 2866CL16 on a Taichi X370 (latest BIOS) with a R1700.
> 
> Tried almost 20 different combos, tried 2866 with 3000 safe, tried upping Vsoc, DRAM volt, nothing works.
> 
> Really really frustrated...



Please publish the current settings (voltages + RTC)


----------



## Dekaohtoura

1usmus said:


> Please publish the current settings (voltages + RTC)


Managed to set it to 3000-16-17-17-35-1T, but I don't think that it's stable.

Please, have a look at these posts:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/27669304-post4327.html

https://www.overclock.net/forum/27669156-post4325.html

TY


----------



## damnson90

Can anyone tell me, what is meant by BGS, because I can not find that option on my Aorus X470 Gigabyte Gaming 7 Wifi? Also on the spreadsheet for configuring ryzen systems, there is a point called "Attempt to set alternative Memory Interleaving" What exactly is meant by that: Interleaving size, Memory Interleaving itself, Or Interleaving Hash? Which one of them should I change to get my Ram stable. I am currently on the F4J BIOS (F4, official), and compared to F4g, I can not get the Ram stable on 3333 Mhz fast preset anymore, no matter what I change (still can not change Spread Spectrum (is it on or off by default?) and VDDP on my Gigabyte board, dunno if this is the reason it won't go stable). 

The best I can do is 3200 on fast preset (did not test 3266, although I feel like not bothering, since the jump won't be significant enough). The thing is, that with F4g I could get 3333 fast preset running stable, but somehow it feels more sluggish, as if they changed more things under the hood. For example I get a latency of 61ns on F4 with 3200 fast, instead of 65ns on F4g with 3333 fast. And the boot times went from 16 seconds to 11 seconds (which has nothing to do with Ram I know, I just wanted to point out, another reason why I don't want to step back to F4.

Just for gaming: Which do I benefit more from: 3400 on safe, or 3200 with fast preset?


----------



## nick name

damnson90 said:


> Can anyone tell me, what is meant by BGS, because I can not find that option on my Aorus X470 Gigabyte Gaming 7 Wifi? Also on the spreadsheet for configuring ryzen systems, there is a point called "Attempt to set alternative Memory Interleaving" What exactly is meant by that: Interleaving size, Memory Interleaving itself, Or Interleaving Hash? Which one of them should I change to get my Ram stable. I am currently on the F4J BIOS (F4, official), and compared to F4g, I can not get the Ram stable on 3333 Mhz fast preset anymore, no matter what I change (still can not change Spread Spectrum (is it on or off by default?) and VDDP on my Gigabyte board, dunno if this is the reason it won't go stable).
> 
> The best I can do is 3200 on fast preset (did not test 3266, although I feel like not bothering, since the jump won't be significant enough). The thing is, that with F4g I could get 3333 fast preset running stable, but somehow it feels more sluggish, as if they changed more things under the hood. For example I get a latency of 61ns on F4 with 3200 fast, instead of 65ns on F4g with 3333 fast. And the boot times went from 16 seconds to 11 seconds (which has nothing to do with Ram I know, I just wanted to point out, another reason why I don't want to step back to F4.
> 
> Just for gaming: Which do I benefit more from: 3400 on safe, or 3200 with fast preset?


BGS is Bank Group Swap which they say can be better off for gaming.


----------



## GraveNoX

All I can get is 3200 fast on my [email protected], g.skill 3200c15 2x8 RAM, tried even 3333, 3400, 3466 all safe/fast/extreme, no post.
I get post on 3266 safe but BSOD after a while in windows.
3200 fast works but still having software crashing while light encoding (15% cpu usage) and I need to render file from start. It didn't crashed in the first day, but software (ffmpeg) crashed second day.
Also 3200 safe/fast gives about 20 less point in cinebench compared to 3333 safe (set to 3200) which is included in C6H Bios.
Only tested with CLD0_VDDP on 700, VDDP on 855, VPP on 2.5, PLL 1.81, recommended procodt, rtt and cad.


----------



## nick name

GraveNoX said:


> All I can get is 3200 fast on my [email protected], g.skill 3200c15 2x8 RAM, tried even 3333, 3400, 3466 all safe/fast/extreme, no post.
> I get post on 3266 safe but BSOD after a while in windows.
> 3200 fast works but still having software crashing while light encoding (15% cpu usage) and I need to render file from start. It didn't crashed in the first day, but software (ffmpeg) crashed second day.
> Also 3200 safe/fast gives about 20 less point in cinebench compared to 3333 safe (set to 3200) which is included in C6H Bios.
> Only tested with CLD0_VDDP on 700, VDDP on 855, VPP on 2.5, PLL 1.81, recommended procodt, rtt and cad.


How much voltage have your thrown at your RAM? And what is your SOC voltage?


----------



## GraveNoX

On 3200 fast I have vsoc 1.037 llc3, ram 1.37.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

GraveNoX said:


> On 3200 fast I have vsoc 1.037 llc3, ram 1.37.


Minimum You need is: SOC 1.150mV | RAM 1.45mV
I can have 3500MHz with SOC 1.09 & RAM 1.40mV But it's just not stable... 
But with 1.162mV & 1.46mV is Ful Stable LLT at 3500MHz CL14 -> ZEN needs FOOD


----------



## CJMitsuki

Ne01 OnnA said:


> GraveNoX said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3200 fast I have vsoc 1.037 llc3, ram 1.37.
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum You need is: SOC 1.150mV | RAM 1.45mV
> I can have 3500MHz with SOC 1.09 & RAM 1.40mV But it's just not stable...
> But with 1.162mV & 1.46mV is Ful Stable LLT at 3500MHz CL14 -> ZEN needs FOOD /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

The right SoC is determined by silicon quality and not frequencies. I can run pretty much everything from 3200-3600 with 1.1v before droop which is 1.068v once it hits the IMC. His SoC is probably low but he needs to slowly increase it then test and repeat until he finds the right voltage for SoC. I would increase Dram voltage to 1.425v to start as well and then start on the SoC testing. As you reach the right SoC voltage, errors will be less frequent then stop altogether as long as you have good timings. Increasing SoC to the maximum isn’t the answer to instability most of the time. There is a SoC voltage the IMC and Ram pairing likes and it will be fine at that voltage for most of the frequency range that can be attained right now. If you get errors when you have the SoC at the right voltage then the errors are from something else being sub optimal. Can you stabilize it by throwing more voltage at it? Probably, but that isn’t the best way and more performance can be gained through finding what the root problem is whether it be timings, a setting, DRAM voltage being too little or too much, etc. but there isn’t a minimum SoC he should use just by seeing the specs. He should test from around 1.05v-1.15v and see if he can find the right voltage. It will take a day or two of solid testing but will be worth it.


----------



## jclafi

For my 2600 the SoC voltage is one important factor to stabilyze the system. Right now CPU @ 4125Mhz and memory @ 3200 with fast timmings (tunned). 

For that i need 1.41v for CPU, about 1.44v to RAM and 1.2v Soc. Anything less is a no go under long stress test. I get crashes after hours of stressing.

I can use less voltage, the PC runs fine games and desktop for hours, no crash, but stress tests find the problem.

Since i do have great air flow in the case and VRM/CPU cooling it's all good. 

I must say that i'm very happy with Ryzen, solid, fast and responsive system !


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

jclafi said:


> For my 2600 the SoC voltage is one important factor to stabilyze the system. Right now CPU @ 4125Mhz and memory @ 3200 with fast timmings (tunned).
> 
> For that i need 1.41v for CPU, about 1.44v to RAM and 1.2v Soc. Anything less is a no go under long stress test. I get crashes after hours of stressing.
> 
> I can use less voltage, the PC runs fine games and desktop for hours, no crash, but stress tests find the problem.
> 
> Since i do have great air flow in the case and VRM/CPU cooling it's all good.
> 
> I must say that i'm very happy with Ryzen, solid, fast and responsive system !


Yup, like guy above said -> It needs fine Tune, and for that you will consume time.
I said -> Let it have it (V) -> boom Stable after 1-2h of testing, no crashes in BF1 Multi is a good indicator that system is Stable for gaming.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Now im testing this settings.
More VLLT, i know it will go even faster, but we need new BIOS for that to happend.

3500MHz CL14 1T GD in ZEN Gen1 is quite OK IMO 
tRC & TRAS can go notch faster but im loosing stability
Tested 14-15-15-14 29-50 and it's crashing in AIDA Stability test after 1min
Also lowered SOC from 1.16 to 1.13mV


----------



## CJMitsuki

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Now im testing this settings.
> More VLLT, i know it will go even faster, but we need new BIOS for that to happend.
> 
> 3500MHz CL14 1T GD in ZEN Gen1 is quite OK IMO /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> tRC & TRAS can go notch faster but im loosing stability
> Tested 14-15-15-14 29-50 and it's crashing in AIDA Stability test after 1min
> Also lowered SOC from 1.16 to 1.13mV


I’d be willing to bet you’d have better performance dropping a bit, maybe 3400mhz and tightening timings. They look inefficient for that speed and only thing you are accomplishing is more bandwidth at the cost of latency. Can you do 3400 @ 14-14-14-14-26-40-4-6-24-4-12-12-0-2-2-275?
Then below tRFC I’d try 14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-9. 
What is the model of your ram?
If you get those timings to run stable i bet you’ll see better performance. If you can’t then just increase to 14-14-14-14-28-42 but try to keep tRFC around 275-300 preferably lower.


----------



## dspx

Dekaohtoura said:


> Managed to set it to 3000-16-17-17-35-1T, but I don't think that it's stable.
> 
> Please, have a look at these posts:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27669304-post4327.html
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27669156-post4325.html
> 
> TY


Try different ProcODT values and find out which one is the most stable. Then proceed with the rest.


----------



## Aenra

Full disclaimer, it's too late and am too lazy to search right now 

Is the calculator able to work on 16GB sticks? If so, anyone here that can share their experience? Just basic stuff, not looking for details, will search for that eventually.
(don't have any 16gb sticks obviously, or i'd already have known)

Am kinda tempted to go that route with the 2700X, with what i use, anything above 3200 cycles is pointless in terms of benefits, whereas more bandwidth.. that i could use; but being a dual channel, well, hence the question above.
Am really loving this chip btw, for what i can do with it, for how easy it is to cool it, even at 4.2 all i need is an air cooler, for how much it cost me, etc. etc. Even the lanes aren't really an issue to be honest.. i don't "game", so i got the Vega on the second slot running at 8, and two NVMes on the first one running at a bifurcated 8/2. Sound card on the 2x1 with an extension cable (so as not to choke the GPU, being right after it) and everything's golden, lol


----------



## GraveNoX

Finally got it stable (i guess) at 3400 fast, at least 5 mins stable in aida with first 4 boxes checked, i never test for more time, i needed 1.445v ram, 1.125 soc. Well it didn't worked before with 1.375 ram and 1.05 vsoc. Tested also 3466 fast but aida stops after 10-30 seconds. No post with 3400 extreme/3466 extreme, even with 1.16vsoc and 1.49dram.

My 1700x is stable at 3.9Ghz on C6H in aida/cinebench when voltage drops to a minimum of 1.400 and that means 1.418 llc4 or 1.431 llc3, this means I got a dud ?
I keep it at 1.431 LLC3 almost since launch, really don't think it degraded but I think I got a dud. Also had it at 1.71v for 30 seconds and 1.56v for 5 minutes in BIOS. The bios on C6H is so broken, for example boot at 1.4v, then choose offset +0.05, next boot will be at 1.45v (it adds 0.05 on top of 1.4 and not the default 1.35).


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

CJMitsuki said:


> I'd be willing to bet you'd have better performance dropping a bit, maybe 3400mhz and tightening timings. They look inefficient for that speed and only thing you are accomplishing is more bandwidth at the cost of latency. Can you do 3400 @ 14-14-14-14-26-40-4-6-24-4-12-12-0-2-2-275?
> Then below tRFC I'd try 14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-9.
> What is the model of your ram?
> If you get those timings to run stable i bet you'll see better performance. If you can't then just increase to 14-14-14-14-28-42 but try to keep tRFC around 275-300 preferably lower.


Yo, Thanks Bro for advise.
PS. My RAM is in RIG Info 4133MHz CL19 1.35v B-Die

UPD.
Tried 3466 at Your VLLT -> booting, AIDA crash <30sec. = no Go
I will proceed with my endeavour, and i will take one Value at time - Test and so on 
Now im on tRFc 362 from hefty 433 
But i have lowest latency to date ~68-69ns

Also tWTLR & tWTRS at 23 & 13 and i can't make it work at lower Values -> If i can get 20/18 12/11 it will be great


----------



## Dekaohtoura

dspx said:


> Try different ProcODT values and find out which one is the most stable. Then proceed with the rest.


I will give it a try or two.

TY.

Btw, I hate your mem timings...on a B350!


----------



## dspx

Dekaohtoura said:


> I will give it a try or two.
> 
> TY.
> 
> Btw, I hate your mem timings...on a B350!


I used CL14 until a BIOS update screwed things up.

Which reminds me to update a link in my sig.


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Now im testing this settings.
> More VLLT, i know it will go even faster, but we need new BIOS for that to happend.
> 
> 3500MHz CL14 1T GD in ZEN Gen1 is quite OK IMO
> tRC & TRAS can go notch faster but im loosing stability
> Tested 14-15-15-14 29-50 and it's crashing in AIDA Stability test after 1min
> Also lowered SOC from 1.16 to 1.13mV


If it crashes in Aida64 afte only one minute you are pretty far from being stable dude. 

I can boot 3600 MHz RAM no problem but i can't maintain stability. Use proper memory stress test programs in order to be sure you are stable. 

I always use TestMem5or you can use this test: https://www.memtest86.com/


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Now im Stable on this:
Copy is now 48k 

Nahhh, The Division crashed with 30min Playtime
Reverted to Last Stable settings -> 2nd. Screen

===


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Now im Stable on this:
> Copy is now 48k
> 
> ===


lol, Aida64 Cash mem test is not an stress test but an benchmark.. 

chances are high that if you run memory stress test program you fail. Why do you need this stability? Well, if your RAM isn't stable you can corrupt your Windows installation or worse.


----------



## GameBoy

I'm really struggling to get 3200 stable on this b-die kit (Trident Z RGB CL14) using fast settings on the calculator. I keep failing Karhu within a few mins at around 200% coverage.

Soc is set to 1.05v in bios, I tried setting that up to 1.11v but it just made Karhu fail even faster, DRAM upto 1.45v does nothing either. Also tried lower values. Tried to slightly lossen some timings (TWR to 12, TRFC 266, 283, 312 and Auto which is like 600, tRAS/tRC to 30/44) makes no difference

This has just replaced a Corsair dual rank E-die kit that worked at 3200MHz with pretty good subtimings flawlessly, and even semi-stable at 3333MHz so I'm honestly pretty disappointed, I was looking forward to getting 3333 or 3466 stable.

Using a 1700x and MSI B450M Mortar with latest bios


----------



## waltercaorle

Hi everyone. I have a tridentz 3600c16 16gb kit and I keep it at 3466c15 @1.43v and vsoc 1.05v

now I'm testing a 4266c19 rgb kit. I was thinking of doing a "plug and play" thing, but the system does not boot, not even at 1.45v. can it be that the 3600 is luckier?


----------



## CJMitsuki

GameBoy said:


> I'm really struggling to get 3200 stable on this b-die kit (Trident Z RGB CL14) using fast settings on the calculator. I keep failing Karhu within a few mins at around 200% coverage.
> 
> Soc is set to 1.05v in bios, I tried setting that up to 1.11v but it just made Karhu fail even faster, DRAM upto 1.45v does nothing either. Also tried lower values. Tried to slightly lossen some timings (TWR to 12, TRFC 266, 283, 312 and Auto which is like 600, tRAS/tRC to 30/44) makes no difference
> 
> This has just replaced a Corsair dual rank E-die kit that worked at 3200MHz with pretty good subtimings flawlessly, and even semi-stable at 3333MHz so I'm honestly pretty disappointed, I was looking forward to getting 3333 or 3466 stable.
> 
> Using a 1700x and MSI B450M Mortar with latest bios


I do see one glaring problem in your timings that could be some of the cause. tRDRDSD you have set to 1 and it should be 5 so the tertiaries should be something like this 14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1. Then you need to set like 1.425v DRAM and start SoC voltage at around 1.05v and test every step of SoC voltage up to 1.15v so test one step and if it fails Memory test such as HCI or Ramtest then go back to bios and increase one or two steps depending how fast it failed. SoC voltage isn’t always going to be more stable the higher you go. The ram and IMC pairing will like a certain SoC voltage and that’s where you stay through the bulk of frequencies. You may increase a small amount from that value at higher frequencies but it’s not like most voltages where more voltage equals more stability. If you have the 3200c14 kit then that is a damn good one unless you have a defective kit. Mine is 2 years old and I’ve abused it and it runs very well. The timing problem I pointed out will probably help out quite a bit though. That timing being set to 1 instead of 5 is likely causing a quick fail in testing.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

hurricane28 said:


> lol, Aida64 Cash mem test is not an stress test but an benchmark..
> 
> chances are high that if you run memory stress test program you fail. Why do you need this stability? Well, if your RAM isn't stable you can corrupt your Windows installation or worse.


I know, and i Mean AIDA Stress Test -> Good first indicator (~8h Test) then i play my Games:
BF1 Multi is very sensitive for any instability 
Next is The Division DX12 -> also if you have unstable PC -> it will crash

===
For now im on Safer settings (i don't want to Give more V, now im on ~1.438v)

UPD. 
I have fan direct on RAM, Temps for RAM not exceeding 39->44deg. cels.
You have in my RIG pic. (Not uploaded new yet, current with Predator, but only RAM is switched )


----------



## CJMitsuki

waltercaorle said:


> Hi everyone. I have a tridentz 3600c16 16gb kit and I keep it at 3466c15 @1.43v and vsoc 1.05v
> 
> now I'm testing a 4266c19 rgb kit. I was thinking of doing a "plug and play" thing, but the system does not boot, not even at 1.45v. can it be that the 3600 is luckier?


So, what you are running that is shown on your screenshot, is that the same thing you are running on the kit that will not boot? If so, try to enable gear down mode but you cannot run at cas 15 as it will put the value to 16. Try 14-15-15-15 instead and see if it boots with gear down enabled. If so you can probably run that kit at cas 14 and start tweaking timings. even with gear down enabled the performance hit isnt much at all and you wouldnt notice it. In fact, at cas 14 vs 15 the performance would be much better assuming the same timings are usable which isnt far fetched to assume. Try that and see what happens and lemme know.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Ne01 OnnA said:


> I know, and i Mean AIDA Stress Test -> Good first indicator (~8h Test) then i play my Games:
> BF1 Multi is very sensitive for any instability
> Next is The Division DX12 -> also if you have unstable PC -> it will crash
> 
> ===
> For now im on Safer settings (i don't want to Give more V, now im on ~1.438v)


As far as i know, the Aida stress test is just going to stress the cache and not really so much the ram. HCI memtest, TM5, and RamTest are much better choices for doing that. RamTest has the choice to use the cache to speed up testing but its better to do it slowly without use of the cache to speed it up as it will cause everything to heat up and possibly lose stability. It generally a good idea to test memory slowly anyway so it is much more thorough and its less variables introduced that can cause the instability. Personally after I feel like a setup is ready to be used as i have tested it with TM5 and HCI memtest in the OS I will do a much longer 10 hour test outside of the OS with HCIs bootable test. Generally to 1000% which is roughly 10 hours testing 15.93gb of the ram. If that passes then its solid imo :thumb:

Edit: Games are also not a good test for memory stability as the game doesnt access that much of the memory to begin with. Thats why it is better to use to use programs designed to test all of the memory. A game may run 10 times without problems and there be errors the whole time but since the game is only accessinga small amount of the memory you never have a problem but meanwhile your critical files are usinig the bad memory and possibly becoming corrupt causing frustrating problems with your Operating System and more than likely leading to a clean install. I run the SFC and DISM commands to make sure at least my system files and update files are clean. Those commands wont check non system and non windows update files though so they cant catch everything. Usually aside from system files, the first thing to become corrupt is a display driver. The level of corruption can be anything from just screwing up overclock stability in the gpu to full on display not showing or BSOD on the nvidia drivers. Better not to chance the corruption using games and such and use something that will access most, if not all of the memory and give you peace of mind that it is stable.

@Ne01 OnnA you arent going to hurt your ram with voltage unless you are getting a lot of heat due to the voltage. They say up to 1.5v is "safe" but honestly you can run more. Its just not a good idea as you lose stability as temps rise. Its a good idea to have a fan blowing directly on the dimms to keep temps as low as possible. The cooler you get the dimms the tighter you can take the timings and reach higher freqs. You shouldnt need more than 1.475v though most of the time. I can run 3533c14 at 1.425v but not with super tight timings, I have to increase to 1.475v and take soc 1 step higher for that.


----------



## GameBoy

CJMitsuki said:


> I do see one glaring problem in your timings that could be some of the cause. tRDRDSD you have set to 1 and it should be 5 so the tertiaries should be something like this 14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1. Then you need to set like 1.425v DRAM and start SoC voltage at around 1.05v and test every step of SoC voltage up to 1.15v so test one step and if it fails Memory test such as HCI or Ramtest then go back to bios and increase one or two steps depending how fast it failed. SoC voltage isn’t always going to be more stable the higher you go. The ram and IMC pairing will like a certain SoC voltage and that’s where you stay through the bulk of frequencies. You may increase a small amount from that value at higher frequencies but it’s not like most voltages where more voltage equals more stability. If you have the 3200c14 kit then that is a damn good one unless you have a defective kit. Mine is 2 years old and I’ve abused it and it runs very well. The timing problem I pointed out will probably help out quite a bit though. That timing being set to 1 instead of 5 is likely causing a quick fail in testing.



Didn't realise I messed up tRDRDSD, anyway I put it to 5 and it still didn't make a difference. Tried again setting SoC upto 1.15v in increments and tried DRAM between 1.4 and 1.45v again in increments , still fails ram test at between 150-200% in the exact same way. Voltages seem to do nothing, so not sure what else to do.


----------



## CJMitsuki

GameBoy said:


> Didn't realise I messed up tRDRDSD, anyway I put it to 5 and it still didn't make a difference. Tried again setting SoC upto 1.15v in increments and tried DRAM between 1.4 and 1.45v again in increments , still fails ram test at between 150-200% in the exact same way. Voltages seem to do nothing, so not sure what else to do.


is it failing near the same exact percentage each time?

If thats the case, I had the same problem a few times and it was frustrating but It happened that it was a certain setting that the memory didnt like with the setup i was running. The tell tale sign was that changing the voltages and other things didnt change the time it took to fail the memory test. That told me that I just hadnt found the hard fault in the setup. So, its more than likely not timings being too tight but it could be a certain timing or a resistance causing it to do that such as proc odt or the DrvStr values or Rtt values. One time for me it was Proc Odt and oddly enough once it was that my ram wanted my tWRRD to be 4 when I had it set to 3. Never had a tertiary timing be that finicky but that particular timing has given me that problem before. I cant tell you what to try because its a matter of changing one thing at a time then testing...If it fails at the same point then change it back to what you had and go to the next memory setting and/or timing. Its going to become time consuming but it will teach you about your rams personality. Sounds crazy but ram sets are like that and have their own personalitities when it comes to these things. Some will want specific voltages or specific resistance values etc. I dont believe there is a problem with your ram and when you find the problem and correct it Im fairly certain youll have no problem OCing that set to 3466mhz with decent timings or possibly higher although first gen cpu may limit that. Rtt, ProcOdt, DrvStr, and Cad_Bus settings are a good place to start although it could be pretty much any setting that is tied directly to memory but those settings vary depending on frequencies and timings and have a lot to do with the stability if not the highest impact on stability besides primary timings. Personally its my first place to check when I dont have any indicators pointing me in a certain place.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

CJMitsuki said:


> A
> @Ne01 OnnA you arent going to hurt your ram with voltage unless you are getting a lot of heat due to the voltage. They say up to 1.5v is "safe" but honestly you can run more. Its just not a good idea as you lose stability as temps rise. Its a good idea to have a fan blowing directly on the dimms to keep temps as low as possible. The cooler you get the dimms the tighter you can take the timings and reach higher freqs. You shouldnt need more than 1.475v though most of the time. I can run 3533c14 at 1.425v but not with super tight timings, I have to increase to 1.475v and take soc 1 step higher for that.


Naah, It's OK 33-44deg cels. is max i've noticed (Those Predator is Cool like ICE)
Maby i will crank up to 1.5v -> But im happy for now with gain i have.
Besides i will Upgrade to ZEN2 and it will run 4000MHz CL18 for sure  
Zen 3700 is my safe bet (I want 65tW, and OC it to safe 4.2-4.4GHz)


----------



## CJMitsuki

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Naah, It's OK 33-44deg cels. is max i've noticed (Those Predator is Cool like ICE)
> Maby i will crank up to 1.5v -> But im happy for now with gain i have.
> Besides i will Upgrade to ZEN2 and it will run 4000MHz CL18 for sure
> Zen 3700 is my safe bet (I want 65tW, and OC it to safe 4.2-4.4GHz)


Well, you may be right with being able to hit 4000c18 but the performance is likely to be much worse than even 3200c14 as the cas latency is so high. The only way I see it beneficial is if you needed bandwidth and didnt care about anything else at all. That cuts gaming out as its more latency sensitive. If bandwidth was the case though youd be better off with 32gb kit at 3200c14 than 4000c18 not to mention 3400-3533c14 with even just normal timings is likely to wipe the floor with it. It wouldnt even be a contest with optimal timings. With Zen 2 Im hoping for 3733c14 with the same timings I have now or 3800 even better. More than likely if I cant run it at my timings now or really close to it then I wont use that frequency.

Now, at 4000mhz I would consider cas 15 if it gave me substantial headroom to either push into higher freqs or tighten timings very nicely but that would likely be ran at 2T and lots of testing would have to be done to see if its a performance gain over a lower freq with cas 14 using gear down enabled.


----------



## christoph

CJMitsuki said:


> Well, you may be right with being able to hit 4000c18 but the performance is likely to be much worse than even 3200c14 as the cas latency is so high. The only way I see it beneficial is if you needed bandwidth and didnt care about anything else at all. That cuts gaming out as its more latency sensitive. If bandwidth was the case though youd be better off with 32gb kit at 3200c14 than 4000c18 not to mention 3400-3533c14 with even just normal timings is likely to wipe the floor with it. It wouldnt even be a contest with optimal timings. With Zen 2 Im hoping for 3733c14 with the same timings I have now or 3800 even better. More than likely if I cant run it at my timings now or really close to it then I wont use that frequency.
> 
> Now, at 4000mhz I would consider cas 15 if it gave me substantial headroom to either push into higher freqs or tighten timings very nicely but that would likely be ran at 2T and lots of testing would have to be done to see if its a performance gain over a lower freq with cas 14 using gear down enabled.



have you ever seen 3800 MHz RAM with 14CL?


----------



## CJMitsuki

christoph said:


> have you ever seen 3800 MHz RAM with 14CL?


Yes, but right now I believe compatibilty may not be good enough to get the timings to an optimal state. If im not mistaken the Hynix CJR dies are the ones hitting the highest freqs on Ryzen. Thing is you dont want the highest possible freq at the cost of having to use garbage timings. Especially your Primaries, just increasing cas by 1 is a huge impact to the way the ram performs and usually you have to have much higher freq to warrant that kind of change being beneficial assuming subtimings will remain relatively similar.


----------



## nick name

waltercaorle said:


> Hi everyone. I have a tridentz 3600c16 16gb kit and I keep it at 3466c15 @1.43v and vsoc 1.05v
> 
> now I'm testing a 4266c19 rgb kit. I was thinking of doing a "plug and play" thing, but the system does not boot, not even at 1.45v. can it be that the 3600 is luckier?


It might be your motherboard holding you back. Have you given thought to upgrading that?


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> It might be your motherboard holding you back. Have you given thought to upgrading that?


Hes using a CH7, its not the best for memory OC but it wouldnt be the reason for that kit not booting while the 3600 kit does.

Edit: I was looking at your specs and not his 

His problem is likely just doing the plug and play thing, I shy away from kits that are so called "binned" I had a 4166c17 TridentZ IIRC and it was trash. Problem is that those kits are binned with Intel systems and confirmed to run at that freq so you cant be drawn in by those kits. Overly expensive imo when a 3200c14 kit will more than likely do just as well since they are the same die after all. To me its just a gimmick since potentially any B Die kit can do the same OC as any of those "binned" sets. Now if they were to check the silicon at the microscopic level and confirm the quality that way I might go for a kit but Im pretty sure the binning process isnt that intensive.


----------



## christoph

CJMitsuki said:


> Yes, but right now I believe compatibilty may not be good enough to get the timings to an optimal state. If im not mistaken the Hynix CJR dies are the ones hitting the highest freqs on Ryzen. Thing is you dont want the highest possible freq at the cost of having to use garbage timings. Especially your Primaries, just increasing cas by 1 is a huge impact to the way the ram performs and usually you have to have much higher freq to warrant that kind of change being beneficial assuming subtimings will remain relatively similar.



I'd love to see a link to that RAM


----------



## CJMitsuki

christoph said:


> I'd love to see a link to that RAM


Its the SniperX line from G.Skill pretty sure. You know, the ones that are invisible due to the camo pattern on the heatsinks.


----------



## UltraMega

I've noticed that the QVL lists for ryzen are not very fleshed out. If I were to get a ryzen CPU and mobo, could I expect the ram I have now to work? I have this ram: http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16q-16grk


----------



## CJMitsuki

christoph said:


> I'd love to see a link to that RAM


https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3400c16d-16gsxw



UltraMega said:


> I've noticed that the QVL lists for ryzen are not very fleshed out. If I were to get a ryzen CPU and mobo, could I expect the ram I have now to work? I have this ram: http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16q-16grk


It should but thats lower quality dies and im not sure what speeds youd be wanting to get. Also that is Quad channel memory which stresses the IMC a bit more. Its likely you wouldnt get high frequency from that kit but I cant say that for sure as that depends on many factors with the cpu quality being a big part of it.


----------



## UltraMega

CJMitsuki said:


> https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3400c16d-16gsxw
> 
> 
> 
> It should but thats lower quality dies and im not sure what speeds youd be wanting to get. Also that is Quad channel memory which stresses the IMC a bit more. Its likely you wouldnt get high frequency from that kit but I cant say that for sure as that depends on many factors with the cpu quality being a big part of it.




I just want to run at XMP without issues. I've read some GSKILL kits can be either hynix or samsung B-die and my kit might be onne of them.


----------



## UltraMega

Is there any ram out there that can run on pretty much any system at around 3200mhz? I've had so much trouble with DDR4 compared to DDR3 in makes me want to downgrade.


----------



## CJMitsuki

UltraMega said:


> I just want to run at XMP without issues. I've read some GSKILL kits can be either hynix or samsung B-die and my kit might be onne of them.


I want to say its LQ B die but I dont have thaiphoon on my work laptop so Im not positive. Im sure someone here has that kit and can comment better than me but if it isnt answered then when i get home I can find out. But in either case I wouldnt get my hopes too high about the XMP but again I cant speak on that with certainty. Its just going to be a hard kit to get to 3200+ as its Quad Channel and lower quality dies but im sure there are users that have gotten that kit to that speed. Its just going to come down to the cpu silicon quality and more than likely setting timings manually.


----------



## nick name

UltraMega said:


> I just want to run at XMP without issues. I've read some GSKILL kits can be either hynix or samsung B-die and my kit might be onne of them.


Really solid chance that is Samsung b-die. B-die is usually matching primary timings. 14-14-14, or 15-15-15, or 16-16-16. Hynix is often 16-18-18. Google b-die finder and there is a database fed by users that have verified which kits are b-die. 

https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/


----------



## UltraMega

CJMitsuki said:


> I want to say its LQ B die but I dont have thaiphoon on my work laptop so Im not positive. Im sure someone here has that kit and can comment better than me but if it isnt answered then when i get home I can find out. But in either case I wouldnt get my hopes too high about the XMP but again I cant speak on that with certainty. Its just going to be a hard kit to get to 3200+ as its Quad Channel and lower quality dies but im sure there are users that have gotten that kit to that speed. Its just going to come down to the cpu silicon quality and more than likely setting timings manually.


So I'd assume they're probably all Samsung if one of them is since its a quad kit. Also, wouldnt it just run in dual mode on Ryzen?


Edit: reason I'm asking is because I've been having a lot of issues with this PC that are hard to narrow down so I'd just like to get something different without having to replace the ram if possible, and the Ryzen 2600x is the best price value CPU out right now.


----------



## CJMitsuki

UltraMega said:


> Is there any ram out there that can run on pretty much any system at around 3200mhz? I've had so much trouble with DDR4 compared to DDR3 in makes me want to downgrade.


http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-16gtz I have had this for 2 years and it will go much higher than 3200. If i were to lossen timings I can do 3600 and possibly 3666 but it isnt worth it bc of the timings so i run it at 3521c14 and its fast. Its Ultra High Quality B Die


----------



## nick name

UltraMega said:


> So I'd assume they're probably all Samsung if one of them is since its a quad kit. Also, wouldnt it just run in dual mode on Ryzen?


Well that solves that. Samsung d-die.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> Well that solves that. Samsung d-die.


Yeah, i saw that. Ive heard some talking about that before but i havent seen it enough to comment with certainty. As far as the quad channel, yes it will run on dual channel but that isnt the reason it will stress the IMC rather the 4 dimms as opposed to 2 dimms. It is single rank though so it has that going for it. Best case would be to drop 2 of the dimms to be able to OC it better but then you are cutting half of the memory out so its a no win.


----------



## CJMitsuki

UltraMega said:


> So I'd assume they're probably all Samsung if one of them is since its a quad kit. Also, wouldnt it just run in dual mode on Ryzen?
> 
> 
> Edit: reason I'm asking is because I've been having a lot of issues with this PC that are hard to narrow down so I'd just like to get something different without having to replace the ram if possible, and the Ryzen 2600x is the best price value CPU out right now.


What sort of issues? Memory instability can cause many issues and none are nice.


----------



## UltraMega

CJMitsuki said:


> http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-16gtz I have had this for 2 years and it will go much higher than 3200. If i were to lossen timings I can do 3600 and possibly 3666 but it isnt worth it bc of the timings so i run it at 3521c14 and its fast. Its Ultra High Quality B Die


Does one have to spend that much to get DDR4 ram good enough to run on most systems without having to worry about QVL? Thats about double the price of the ram I have now, and I thought that was expensive when I bought it.

Is there not ant ram that is QVL for intel and AMD?


----------



## CJMitsuki

UltraMega said:


> Does one have to spend that much to get DDR4 ram good enough to run on most systems without having to worry about QVL? Thats about double the price of the ram I have now, and I thought that was expensive when I bought it.
> 
> Is there not ant ram that is QVL for intel and AMD?


You can check through these they run well on AMD and i assume the same for Intel. Im sure there is plenty of ram that will. Youd need to comb through postsin here and the 24/7 amd memory thread. There are many that run decent and Intel can run pretty much all memory so i wouldnt worry much on that side.


----------



## UltraMega

CJMitsuki said:


> What sort of issues? Memory instability can cause many issues and none are nice.


It's a pretty long story that I will try to sum up briefly...

Started with those damn youtube videos about getting great deals on older parts. Did it twice with some old xeon CPUs on DDR3 and it worked really well. Decided to try one on a DDR4 platform and make it my main rig, hence my PC now. I only bought used parts at first, but ended up buying new ram kits later on. I tried 2 other motherboards and 2 other ram kits (admittedly the first ram kit was not a quad kit and I didn't know it needed to be at the time, I learned after that) before finally getting quad channel XMP to work on the rig I have now... for a while. After a few months it crashed and I couldnt get XMP working after that, or even all 4 sticks to work at the same time though they all worked on their own so it was pretty weird. I replaced that ram kit with a new one that was identical and that is the ram I have now. With this kit I have been able to get all 4 working but not at XMP speeds. Right now I'm just running two sticks out of the 4 at XMP. 


Some of the symptoms I have are the mouse lags up for a second ever 30 seconds or so. I've noticed stuttering in ghost recon wildlands. Game runs better on my old 2500K rig than on my main rig, though I haven't noticed issues with other games. YouTube videos sometimes get stutter for a few seconds. 


Having the mouse lag for a second here and there is the worst of it because that basically means no FPS gaming. 


If I had to guess, I'd say its the motherboard that's holding everything back because 4 USB ports on it don't work, and that's been the case from day one for me on this board. I've read that its a somewhat common issue on this board so I didn't worry too much about it at the time. 


When I built that rig I thought it would be neat to build a quad channel 3200mhz system but it turned out to be more trouble than its worth so at this point I dont care about quad channel, as there are no real gains to any normal usage anyway. I think I could sell my CPU and mobo for about what a 2600x cpu and mobo would cost, so if I can do that without having to replace my ram and still get XMP speeds, I'd be happy.


----------



## UltraMega

CJMitsuki said:


> You can check through these they run well on AMD and i assume the same for Intel. Im sure there is plenty of ram that will. Youd need to comb through postsin here and the 24/7 amd memory thread. There are many that run decent and Intel can run pretty much all memory so i wouldnt worry much on that side.


I tried building an 8700K system with some new ram that was 4133mhz on a mobo that supported 4133mhz speeds. The ram was some tridenZ but not on the QVL for that motherboard though I figured it wouldnt be a big deal for dual channel. I couldn't even get that ram stable past 2400mhz. I ended up returning everything.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

CJMitsuki said:


> Well, you may be right with being able to hit 4000c18 but the performance is likely to be much worse than even 3200c14 as the cas latency is so high. The only way I see it beneficial is if you needed bandwidth and didnt care about anything else at all. That cuts gaming out as its more latency sensitive. If bandwidth was the case though youd be better off with 32gb kit at 3200c14 than 4000c18 not to mention 3400-3533c14 with even just normal timings is likely to wipe the floor with it. It wouldnt even be a contest with optimal timings. With Zen 2 Im hoping for 3733c14 with the same timings I have now or 3800 even better. More than likely if I cant run it at my timings now or really close to it then I wont use that frequency.
> 
> Now, at 4000mhz I would consider cas 15 if it gave me substantial headroom to either push into higher freqs or tighten timings very nicely but that would likely be ran at 2T and lots of testing would have to be done to see if its a performance gain over a lower freq with cas 14 using gear down enabled.


TestMEM 5 v0.12 w/1Usmus Mod
12 errors 
Tweaked and testing now.....

I will consider 3360MHz 13-14-14-14 soon (mainly for Gaming, so yeah i need latency ~59-65ns now ~69ns)
UPD.
Naah, CL13 is a no go for me now.... 

Now testing some other LLT in 3500MHz, but this TM5 always finding errors  ... for now.


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> TestMEM 5 v0.12 w/1Usmus Mod
> 12 errors
> Tweaked and testing now.....
> 
> I will consider 3360MHz 13-14-14-14 soon (mainly for Gaming, so yeah i need latency ~59-65ns now ~69ns)


See, i told you that you weren't stable. 

Although you didn't encounter any "issues" you sure lose a lot of performance if the RAM isn't stable. 

Keep in mind that DDR4 doesn't like too much voltage and temps need to be low if you want the best performance. It differs from each kit but my experience is that it doesn't like more than 1.4v that much and beyond that voltage temps rise rather quickly especially if you have no fan blowing on them. 

Good luck.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

hurricane28 said:


> See, i told you that you weren't stable.
> 
> Although you didn't encounter any "issues" you sure lose a lot of performance if the RAM isn't stable.
> 
> Keep in mind that DDR4 doesn't like too much voltage and temps need to be low if you want the best performance. It differs from each kit but my experience is that it doesn't like more than 1.4v that much and beyond that voltage temps rise rather quickly especially if you have no fan blowing on them.
> 
> Good luck.


THX, now only 2 errors (not much af adifference in performance -> uhh those benchmarks, i prefer Gaming  )

====
UPD.2
Ok it needs more tRFC from 340-350 to 364

==


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> THX, now only 2 errors (not much af adifference in performance -> uhh those benchmarks, i prefer Gaming  )


I hear ya, i don't like these stress testing app either man. I rather play a nice game like Tomb Raider or MotoGP or whatever instead of this but its necessary for stability. If you are not stable you will and get Windows errors or some other weird issues and you don't want to deal with them too so its better to stress to begin with to be sure you are stable. 

Good luck man.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Ne01 OnnA said:


> THX, now only 2 errors (not much af adifference in performance -> uhh those benchmarks, i prefer Gaming  )


benchmarks arent for stability testing though, only for performance comparisons. Hence the need to use specific software to find the errors. 12 errors is alot, you may want to check your system for corruption as that will cause persistent errors from the corrupted files. Also, Ive seen that reflashing the bios can sometimes clear up an intermittent error. Not sure why, maybe rarely the memory errors occur in the tiny amount of memory the bios uses.


----------



## christoph

CJMitsuki said:


> Its the SniperX line from G.Skill pretty sure. You know, the ones that are invisible due to the camo pattern on the heatsinks.


you got the wrong link those are 3400 at 16CL and not 3800 at 14CL


----------



## CJMitsuki

christoph said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the SniperX line from G.Skill pretty sure. You know, the ones that are invisible due to the camo pattern on the heatsinks.
> 
> 
> 
> you got the wrong link those are 3400 at 16CL and not 3800 at 14CL
Click to expand...

Lol no, that’s the correct link. The ram was overclocked to 3800c14


----------



## CJMitsuki

UltraMega said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can check through these they run well on AMD and i assume the same for Intel. Im sure there is plenty of ram that will. Youd need to comb through postsin here and the 24/7 amd memory thread. There are many that run decent and Intel can run pretty much all memory so i wouldnt worry much on that side.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried building an 8700K system with some new ram that was 4133mhz on a mobo that supported 4133mhz speeds. The ram was some tridenZ but not on the QVL for that motherboard though I figured it wouldnt be a big deal for dual channel. I couldn't even get that ram stable past 2400mhz. I ended up returning everything.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but you will probably have to drop 2 of the dimms to have a chance to get that ram up to 3200+ but only way to know 100% is to try it.


----------



## hurricane28

@ Mus1MUs can you help me here? 

It seems that testmem5 doesnt work properly on my system or i have severe problems with my board and i can't figure it out for the life or me. 

Yesterday i was stable for 30 tests on the Testmem5 program with your settings and all is well. This morning it also worked perfectly, now when i came home from the gym and tried it again it found 2 errors... 

None of your calculator settings works for me 3466, 3400 doesn't mater, NONE of them work and i am never 100% stable anymore and i had to use The Stilt settings or stock in order to pass the program again.. 

temps of the ram is always 35 c or lower so i think it cannot be temps. Do you have any idea what this erratic behavior is? Is it the board, RAM or the program itself perhaps? Idk anymore as i spend hours and hours and hours of testing with the same result every time.. Stable, not stable, stable, not stable it drives me nuts and there is no overclocking this way. 

Thnx in regard.


----------



## CJMitsuki

hurricane28 said:


> @ Mus1MUs can you help me here?
> 
> It seems that testmem5 doesnt work properly on my system or i have severe problems with my board and i can't figure it out for the life or me.
> 
> Yesterday i was stable for 30 tests on the Testmem5 program with your settings and all is well. This morning it also worked perfectly, now when i came home from the gym and tried it again it found 2 errors...
> 
> None of your calculator settings works for me 3466, 3400 doesn't mater, NONE of them work and i am never 100% stable anymore and i had to use The Stilt settings or stock in order to pass the program again..
> 
> temps of the ram is always 35 c or lower so i think it cannot be temps. Do you have any idea what this erratic behavior is? Is it the board, RAM or the program itself perhaps? Idk anymore as i spend hours and hours and hours of testing with the same result every time.. Stable, not stable, stable, not stable it drives me nuts and there is no overclocking this way.
> 
> Thnx in regard.


I had the same problem awhile back and found it to be that having a lot of settings on Auto was the problem. I started to manually set them to at least factory values and those variances didn’t occur. The bios doesn’t seem to always determine the settings correctly.


----------



## hurricane28

I noticed that too but i set every thing to manual and set the timings etc. manually instead of letting the board deal with it. 

I have to take another look at it later this day, its frustrating to say the least though.. One day stable in everything and the day after its not.. At least in the memory test program, other than that i am perfectly stable in anything i do and no weird things going. I am starting to think that the TM5 program isn't that stable as i heard from others that have the same issues.


----------



## christoph

hurricane28 said:


> I noticed that too but i set every thing to manual and set the timings etc. manually instead of letting the board deal with it.
> 
> I have to take another look at it later this day, its frustrating to say the least though.. One day stable in everything and the day after its not.. At least in the memory test program, other than that i am perfectly stable in anything i do and no weird things going. I am starting to think that the TM5 program isn't that stable as i heard from others that have the same issues.



and that is the thing here, TM5 is going to find errors and I mean "is going to" as to force to, can you see how much RAM does it take for the test? cuz a lot of times it does not leave room for the OS, it forces windows to be dump to the hard drive


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> I noticed that too but i set every thing to manual and set the timings etc. manually instead of letting the board deal with it.
> 
> I have to take another look at it later this day, its frustrating to say the least though.. One day stable in everything and the day after its not.. At least in the memory test program, other than that i am perfectly stable in anything i do and no weird things going. I am starting to think that the TM5 program isn't that stable as i heard from others that have the same issues.


There are probably settings that aren't shown that are set in the background. Different run/restart they maybe set differently? Maybe on the power side? Other appliances causing "bad power" that then might be the difference between stable and unstable when running?

A peculiarity I've noted through various testing was that the CPU-IMC would run differently depending on the time it had run. Made it difficult to find the right voltage for myself on mine Ryzen 1700 on the higher memory speeds.
On a cold boot it required less voltage and the more and more I stress tested the more and more voltage it would require to be stable until it found "equilibrium", the same could be said about the amount of load placed on it. More threads was harder for it to run without issues. 

For example I can start running 3666Mhz on 1.100+0.120V offset and it looks like it's good...at first.. but it wasn't... After a while I need to be atleast 1.100+0.144V or more offset for full stability. 
Issues came trough random faults or crashes until a hard-lock at some point when really stressing the IMC.

The same could be said about the Memory side... The colder they were the easier they produced errors until they got "run up to speed hot and nice" and then were fine... until a shutdown and cool-down. This caused me much issue... as I would test for several hours something I've been increasing/tighten over the day and finally call it "stable" of new heights of performance! NOT... next day it fails on a cold boot... can't get it stable no matter what when it was stable for hours the day before running stress tests the whole day.

Heat causes much mayhem and component "quality" change with use-time. Something might boot giving errors. but keep running until it's hot and it might run alright later "seemingly". (though I have had to go back to something that always works in the end, it's so random when things "seemingly" work but next try utter failure.)

Just some peculiarities I've explored.


----------



## CJMitsuki

christoph said:


> hurricane28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that too but i set every thing to manual and set the timings etc. manually instead of letting the board deal with it.
> 
> I have to take another look at it later this day, its frustrating to say the least though.. One day stable in everything and the day after its not.. At least in the memory test program, other than that i am perfectly stable in anything i do and no weird things going. I am starting to think that the TM5 program isn't that stable as i heard from others that have the same issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is the thing here, TM5 is going to find errors and I mean "is going to" as to force to, can you see how much RAM does it take for the test? cuz a lot of times it does not leave room for the OS, it forces windows to be dump to the hard drive
Click to expand...

First off I have thought there may be some problems with TM5 but I have had doubts about pretty much all memory testing sw. With that being said, you should always have a page file when memory testing, and it’s not a bad thing for the memory test to use that amount of resources and push the OS to virtual memory. That means you are getting even more coverage of the physical memory. You shouldn’t be doing any tasks during a memory test either. It’s just not a good idea. I boot into diagnostic mode and just after starting the memory test I end the explorer.exe task as well as Cortana if on W10 but disable Cortana after explorer. Then let the test do it’s thing. With this method I can test around 15.6gb of the 16gb I have. Idc that the page file is being used as I’m not doing anything at the time anyway. If that’s a problem just clean the page file after the test is over. The only problem I have with TM5 is how short it is. I just can’t trust a fast memory test completely so I run HCI right after it and then use the bootable HCI test to do the thorough, slower test for complete confirmation. It takes about 10 hours but I run it while at work so no big deal. Just remove the cpu OC and run it at the cpu base clock speed. After 1000% with that I could care less what another program tells me as I’ve never had a problem with confirming it this way. Been using it now for probably 1.5 years nearly in this manner.


----------



## 1usmus

Low temperature can also create errors. The perfect balance for DRAM is 40-45 degrees. Just do not forget that every reboot of the system entails a new memory training. And the more settings will be set manually, the higher the likelihood that the workouts will have identical results.

About CH7.Motherboard, I am not thrilled with the single power phase for the memory controller. Crosshair 8 will return a second phase.

The second nuance is procODT + RTT PARK, this is 70% success

The third nuance of VDDP. 855 or 900mv have you tried?

Fourth. I advise you to go through tFAW from 16 to 32.

_____________

When the new AGESA comes out, I will check the presets 3400-3533, since you think that the presets are not quite optimal.

_____________

TM5 is free from errors, but errors can occur due to the operating system . If you do not feel problems - do not test the system every day.


----------



## Dekaohtoura

@1usmus...any suggestions for my predicament?


----------



## hurricane28

Thnx all for the input. 

I will take a look at it tomorrow when i have more time, its getting later here already. 

I hear ya Mus, wil try to set everything to manual if not already. 

What do you mean? The CH7 has 2 power phases for the Dram. They are located right next to the dims actually. 

I was running 900 VDDP

I tried the new AGESA for the CH7 but it was not an succes to say the least.. Elmor released an unstable version without testing which resulted in audio and GPU issues because it changed some ID's of devices.
I hope they solve it soon as the new AGESA was better and i needed less llc for the CPU to be stable. RAM also was more stable on new AGESA. 

Thnx again, much obliged.


----------



## nick name

hurricane28 said:


> -snip-
> 
> Elmor released an unstable version without testing
> 
> -snip-


Man, you gotta stop saying stuff like this.


----------



## waltercaorle

nick name said:


> It might be your motherboard holding you back. Have you given thought to upgrading that?


I need a itx mb, and at the moment, it does not seem to me that the market offers something more than mine 



CJMitsuki said:


> Hes using a CH7, its not the best for memory OC but it wouldnt be the reason for that kit not booting while the 3600 kit does.
> 
> Edit: I was looking at your specs and not his
> 
> His problem is likely just doing the plug and play thing, I shy away from kits that are so called "binned" I had a 4166c17 TridentZ IIRC and it was trash. Problem is that those kits are binned with Intel systems and confirmed to run at that freq so you cant be drawn in by those kits. Overly expensive imo when a 3200c14 kit will more than likely do just as well since they are the same die after all. To me its just a gimmick since potentially any B Die kit can do the same OC as any of those "binned" sets. Now if they were to check the silicon at the microscopic level and confirm the quality that way I might go for a kit but Im pretty sure the binning process isnt that intensive.


I did some tests and at the end i asked for a refund. really disappointed by the 4266c19. there was no way to make a minimum of oc. I don't know, maybe they had some manufacturing problems.

I put the 3600c16 back, reloaded the old profile (the one in the screenshot) and everything works well...and for the moment i stay like this...


----------



## amorello

...ssoooo, when black friday hits I'll be building a new ryzen setup. 2x8 ram recommendations to keep an eye out for that won't gouge the wallet?


----------



## nick name

amorello said:


> ...ssoooo, when black friday hits I'll be building a new ryzen setup. 2x8 ram recommendations to keep an eye out for that won't gouge the wallet?


I think 3200CL14 and 3600CL15 kits. The 3600CL15 will cost more, but it may not be much better than the 3200CL14 from what I've seen other users report. I think the 3600CL15 kit I have is pretty solid though.


----------



## nick name

waltercaorle said:


> I need a itx mb, and at the moment, it does not seem to me that the market offers something more than mine
> 
> 
> 
> I did some tests and at the end i asked for a refund. really disappointed by the 4266c19. there was no way to make a minimum of oc. I don't know, maybe they had some manufacturing problems.
> 
> I put the 3600c16 back, reloaded the old profile (the one in the screenshot) and everything works well...and for the moment i stay like this...


Ahhh, got it. And it's too bad that kit didn't work out for you. The 3600CL15 kit I have looks to be cheaper on Newegg now if you wanna give it a look.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> amorello said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...ssoooo, when black friday hits I'll be building a new ryzen setup. 2x8 ram recommendations to keep an eye out for that won't gouge the wallet?
> 
> 
> 
> I think 3200CL14 and 3600CL15 kits. The 3600CL15 will cost more, but it may not be much better than the 3200CL14 from what I've seen other users report. I think the 3600CL15 kit I have is pretty solid though.
Click to expand...

Those kits are pretty much the same and probably close in price too but he said no gouging of the wallet and those kits are probably the most expensive but worth it. He may want to check the SniperX kits with the Hynix CJR die. The 3400c16 kit


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Those kits are pretty much the same and probably close in price too but he said no gouging of the wallet and those kits are probably the most expensive but worth it. He may want to check the SniperX kits with the Hynix CJR die. The 3400c16 kit


I know the 3200CL14 can be found under $210 sometimes and assumed he meant prices of those 4000MHz+ kits when he said wallet gouging.


----------



## Maracus

Well finally got my ram (F4-3600C16D-16GVk) 3400mhz stable on 2700x, x470 gaming 7 using fast presets. Turns out I was going the wrong way with the SOC voltage, have it set to 1.0v (0.984-.0996) and now all seems good.


----------



## christoph

Maracus said:


> Well finally got my ram (F4-3600C16D-16GVk) 3400mhz stable on 2700x, x470 gaming 7 using fast presets. Turns out I was going the wrong way with the SOC voltage, have it set to 1.0v (0.984-.0996) and now all seems good.


what do you mean wrong way? you had it lower?


----------



## Maracus

christoph said:


> what do you mean wrong way? you had it lower?


I started out at 1.03125v SOC and just went up from there to about 1.15v and was still getting errors so i just gave up for a while. Turns out 1.0v was what i needed to be stable.


----------



## 1usmus

@hurricane28

I have another idea. 








I did not just recommend increasing the frequency of the response of the phases, the smoother the supply of the transistor, the better the stability of the system. 
In addition, the memory controller receives additional voltage from the CPU Voltage. This is a very complex mechanism, many ignore this nuance (in the new version of the calculator, I recommend increasing the voltage for the processor after a certain frequency). Perhaps your threshold is much lower and you need to try to do it now. 
And most importantly, your processor should not overheat, because the more heat the more leakage currents and thermal resonance. I consider the optimal processor temperature to be in the range of 30 to 65 degrees.

Try increasing the VRM frequency for SOC, 400-450khz and check the Soc voltage from 0.98 to 1.03

About CH7 and CH8

I meant SOC doppler (CH6 2x IR3598 vs CH7 only IR3555). 
Resource https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f12/pga-am4-mainboard-vrm-liste-1155146.html

To reduce output voltage ripple in multiphase voltage regulators, all phases operate synchronously with a time shift relative to each other. If T is the switching period of the MOSFET transistors (the period of the PWM signal) and N phases are used, then the time shift for each phase will be T / N.








Due to the fact that all phases operate with a time shift relative to each other, the ripple of the output voltage and current in each phase will also be shifted along the time axis relative to each other. The total current passing through the load will be the sum of the currents in each phase, and the resulting current pulsations will be less than the current ripples in each phase.



Dekaohtoura said:


> @1usmus...any suggestions for my predicament?


I did not see in those messages DRAM voltages for 2866 and 3000


----------



## Dekaohtoura

1usmus said:


> I did not see in those messages DRAM voltages for 2866 and 3000


Ok, let me take it from the start.

Here are the def. mem specs, from Thaiphoon burner

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225642&thumb=1
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225640&thumb=1

Trying to enable these, resulted in training cycles and the "default" 2133 profile to be loaded by the motherboard.

I tried to set all the parameters manually, same result.

Upping Vsoc/RAM Voltage, turning Geardown off, didn't help either.

Tried the last version of the calculator, tried the "safe" preset, same result (even when I messed it up a little, upping Vsoc-1.1V, DDR-1.39V etc).

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225644&thumb=1

Tried the 3000 timings with 2933 and 2866, no go.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225646&thumb=1

Nothing worked with the 4.80 BIOS, save some random instances that training completed after one attempt, managed to get to Windows10, but upon restart/cold boot, got 3 failed training attempts and 2133 profile.

I ended up flashing 4.81 (BIOS), that at least enabled me to load the XMP3000 profile but automatically set tcas to 16, with a CR=2T

For the time being, I'm trying slight variances to this, to see if I'm stable.

My current profile, is shown below:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225648&thumb=1

When I turned the pc off last night, CR was 2T...upon reboot, the mobo set it at 1T automatically.

With those settings (CR2T), I managed to complete concurrent cycles of Cinebench, IBT-AVX at V.High, numerous system benches (mixed cpu/gpu), and played for almost 2 hours BF1 with no instability or any problem at all.

However, if I try to run TM5, I get instantly this message

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225650&thumb=1

Hope all of these help.

If you need some additional info, please be specific and I'll try to comply.

Thank you for your time and effort.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

1usmus said:


> Low temperature can also create errors. The perfect balance for DRAM is 40-45 degrees. Just do not forget that every reboot of the system entails a new memory training. And the more settings will be set manually, the higher the likelihood that the workouts will have identical results.
> 
> About CH7.Motherboard, I am not thrilled with the single power phase for the memory controller. Crosshair 8 will return a second phase.
> 
> The second nuance is procODT + RTT PARK, this is 70% success
> 
> The third nuance of VDDP. 855 or 900mv have you tried?
> 
> Fourth. I advise you to go through tFAW from 16 to 32.
> 
> _____________
> 
> When the new AGESA comes out, I will check the presets 3400-3533, since you think that the presets are not quite optimal.
> 
> _____________
> 
> TM5 is free from errors, but errors can occur due to the operating system . If you do not feel problems - do not test the system every day.


procODT + RTT PARK, this is 70% success -> I have this on AUTO
Checked 7/Off/5 4/Off/5 & Off/Off/60 -> still best is Auto for my CPU+Mobo+RAM combo

VDDP. 855 is set to my Last good (From 3100CL14) 855 and it's booting at 3200-|-|->3466 NP

Now im Stable no Errors so far with 3500MHz CL14-15-15-15 32 54 1T GD
prodODt is 53Ohm
Cad Bus: 24/24/24/24
RTT -> Auto/Off/Auto
SOC 1.125mV (showing - 1.090v) & RAM 1.475mV (showing - 1.417->1438v)

All it needed was tWTRS at 3 (from 2) and tRDRDSCL & tWRWRSCL at 3 (from 2)
From here i can adjust now rest of the timings to get more VLLT 

Here:
====


----------



## dspx

Dekaohtoura What about ProcODT, did you try different values?


----------



## willibj

Greetings fellow Ryzen overclockers,

I'm just looking for someone to validate my thinking here - using an older version of the Ryzen DRAM Calc (1.1.0 Beta 2) I was able to get my Team Group Dark Pro 8Pack 16gb Samsung Bdie to my current settings using the "Extreme" preset:

3200mhz 14-14-14-14-22-36-256-1t with fairly tight subs (see attached for more) with 1.39v DRAM and 1.1v SOC, 1600x at stock boost, auto volts, OC to 3.9ghz in Ryzen Master at 1.31v (C&Q working to downvolt/clock).

From memory this gave me about 65ns in AIDA64 Memory test. These are my 24/7 settings currently. 

I've not been able to get the frequency fully stable at anything higher, though 3333mhz with the fast preset (14-14-14-28) is almost stable on a little tweaking, and 3466 would boot with XMP settings but wasn't stable enough to begin refining due to voltage increases required. I've not been able to get the RAM to boot at lower than C14 regardless of volts, though I've only seen those scores on the DRAM Calc in the latest builds.

So my question is two fold: 

1) Has anyone else noticed that the "extreme" preset in the latest builds (1.4 at least, maybe 1.3 too) is significantly more "extreme" than previous ones? The current extreme preset suggests 3200mhz 12-13-13-13-22-36-232, while the old fast preset remains the same 14-14-14-28-42-272. Is there an in-between "fast" and "extreme" presets needed?

2) Do you think it's worth my trying to hit this for a 24/7 situation? It's asking 1.5v which is a significant jump, and I've got a pair of 140mm intake fans blowing towards the MB and the single 140mm fan in my NH-D14 pushed as low as possible to force air over the RAM and VRMs, plus the top 120mm fan right next to the RAM meaning there's surely some airflow, but I'm not convinced it's safe or worth it for 24/7.

I think I'm held back by my motherboard (and maybe CPU a little). I'll be getting Zen2 and an x570 motherboard next year and seeing what the RAM can really do by increasing frequency on a better platform, as from my testing so far, it seems like my kit is happier with higher clocks than much further tightening of the RAM. Any suggestions or comments welcome though.


----------



## Dekaohtoura

dspx said:


> Dekaohtoura What about ProcODT, did you try different values?


No, not yet.

I guess I'll start at something like 60 and then, up, or down?


----------



## Larus

Hi

Can you tell me what I do wrong with this calculator? I'd really like to be able to use this tool but I just can't enter any timings to the fields:

http://prntscr.com/l8auod

I'm using Polish locales if that matters.
TIA.


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Larus said:


> Hi
> 
> Can you tell me what I do wrong with this calculator? I'd really like to be able to use this tool but I just can't enter any timings to the fields:
> 
> http://prntscr.com/l8auod
> 
> I'm using Polish locales if that matters.
> TIA.


Instead of "V1", use "debug"


----------



## Larus

<facepalm> 

Thank you. Now I can enter manually into Profile column.


----------



## christoph

Maracus said:


> I started out at 1.03125v SOC and just went up from there to about 1.15v and was still getting errors so i just gave up for a while. Turns out 1.0v was what i needed to be stable.


oh ok, never tried to lower the soc voltage as I am stable right now, and now I wonder if I can get higher frequency lowering the soc voltage a little bit, I can boot at 3600 but is not stable


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Larus said:


> <facepalm>
> 
> Thank you. Now I can enter manually into Profile column.


You're welcome.

It's a quite common mishap.


----------



## dspx

Dekaohtoura said:


> No, not yet.
> 
> I guess I'll start at something like 60 and then, up, or down?


IMO, if you don't find a proper ProcODT nothing you do will matter.

Mine is at 48Ω, but every system is different so you will have to find it out for yourself and see which one is the most stable.


----------



## kazablanka

christoph said:


> oh ok, never tried to lower the soc voltage as I am stable right now, and now I wonder if I can get higher frequency lowering the soc voltage a little bit, I can boot at 3600 but is not stable


mobo? 
cpu?
ram?


----------



## christoph

kazablanka said:


> mobo?
> cpu?
> ram?



Ryzen 1700, Taichi x370 and 3600 cl7 RAM G.skill samsung E-die


----------



## CJMitsuki

dspx said:


> Dekaohtoura said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not yet.
> 
> I guess I'll start at something like 60 and then, up, or down?
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, if you don't find a proper ProcODT nothing you do will not matter.
> 
> Mine is at 48Ω, but every system is different so you will have to find it out for yourself and see which one is the most stable.
Click to expand...

It will either be 48, 53.3, or 60. I wouldn’t try anything beyond those 3 values


----------



## kazablanka

christoph said:


> Ryzen 1700, Taichi x370 and 3600 cl7 RAM G.skill samsung E-die


i dont think that you can run 3600mhz with low timings stable with this combination ,try 3533 or 3466


----------



## Dekaohtoura

CJMitsuki said:


> It will either be 48, 53.3, or 60. I wouldn’t try anything beyond those 3 values


Good to know, thanks.

At least it's a start.

edit: Auto was 60, now I've set it to 48...we'll see


----------



## christoph

kazablanka said:


> i dont think that you can run 3600mhz with low timings stable with this combination ,try 3533 or 3466


3466 is stable is what I got right now, with cpu at 4.0 Ghz with 1.38v


----------



## 1usmus

Dekaohtoura said:


> Ok, let me take it from the start.
> 
> Here are the def. mem specs, from Thaiphoon burner
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225642&thumb=1
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225640&thumb=1
> 
> Trying to enable these, resulted in training cycles and the "default" 2133 profile to be loaded by the motherboard.
> 
> I tried to set all the parameters manually, same result.
> 
> Upping Vsoc/RAM Voltage, turning Geardown off, didn't help either.
> 
> Tried the last version of the calculator, tried the "safe" preset, same result (even when I messed it up a little, upping Vsoc-1.1V, DDR-1.39V etc).
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225644&thumb=1
> 
> Tried the 3000 timings with 2933 and 2866, no go.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225646&thumb=1
> 
> Nothing worked with the 4.80 BIOS, save some random instances that training completed after one attempt, managed to get to Windows10, but upon restart/cold boot, got 3 failed training attempts and 2133 profile.
> 
> I ended up flashing 4.81 (BIOS), that at least enabled me to load the XMP3000 profile but automatically set tcas to 16, with a CR=2T
> 
> For the time being, I'm trying slight variances to this, to see if I'm stable.
> 
> My current profile, is shown below:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225648&thumb=1
> 
> When I turned the pc off last night, CR was 2T...upon reboot, the mobo set it at 1T automatically.
> 
> With those settings (CR2T), I managed to complete concurrent cycles of Cinebench, IBT-AVX at V.High, numerous system benches (mixed cpu/gpu), and played for almost 2 hours BF1 with no instability or any problem at all.
> 
> However, if I try to run TM5, I get instantly this message
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=225650&thumb=1
> 
> Hope all of these help.
> 
> If you need some additional info, please be specific and I'll try to comply.
> 
> Thank you for your time and effort.


1) asrock still has huge problems with bios
2) Your memory does not like low tRC and tRAS values.Have you tried the V2 profile? 
3) You can also try using MFR timings

I also advise you to leave procODT + RTT the ones that are now in the screenshot. You should check the timings from other profiles (MFR V1 V2).



willibj said:


> Greetings fellow Ryzen overclockers,
> 
> I'm just looking for someone to validate my thinking here - using an older version of the Ryzen DRAM Calc (1.1.0 Beta 2) I was able to get my Team Group Dark Pro 8Pack 16gb Samsung Bdie to my current settings using the "Extreme" preset:
> 
> 3200mhz 14-14-14-14-22-36-256-1t with fairly tight subs (see attached for more) with 1.39v DRAM and 1.1v SOC, 1600x at stock boost, auto volts, OC to 3.9ghz in Ryzen Master at 1.31v (C&Q working to downvolt/clock).
> 
> From memory this gave me about 65ns in AIDA64 Memory test. These are my 24/7 settings currently.
> 
> I've not been able to get the frequency fully stable at anything higher, though 3333mhz with the fast preset (14-14-14-28) is almost stable on a little tweaking, and 3466 would boot with XMP settings but wasn't stable enough to begin refining due to voltage increases required. I've not been able to get the RAM to boot at lower than C14 regardless of volts, though I've only seen those scores on the DRAM Calc in the latest builds.
> 
> So my question is two fold:
> 
> 1) Has anyone else noticed that the "extreme" preset in the latest builds (1.4 at least, maybe 1.3 too) is significantly more "extreme" than previous ones? The current extreme preset suggests 3200mhz 12-13-13-13-22-36-232, while the old fast preset remains the same 14-14-14-28-42-272. Is there an in-between "fast" and "extreme" presets needed?
> 
> 2) Do you think it's worth my trying to hit this for a 24/7 situation? It's asking 1.5v which is a significant jump, and I've got a pair of 140mm intake fans blowing towards the MB and the single 140mm fan in my NH-D14 pushed as low as possible to force air over the RAM and VRMs, plus the top 120mm fan right next to the RAM meaning there's surely some airflow, but I'm not convinced it's safe or worth it for 24/7.
> 
> I think I'm held back by my motherboard (and maybe CPU a little). I'll be getting Zen2 and an x570 motherboard next year and seeing what the RAM can really do by increasing frequency on a better platform, as from my testing so far, it seems like my kit is happier with higher clocks than much further tightening of the RAM. Any suggestions or comments welcome though.


There are unofficial statistics, the first generation of processors can get a stable 3466 in 30% of cases. At frequency 3333 there is a frequency hole, because at this frequency it is much more difficult to achieve stability than at 3466. You can bypass the frequency hole by moving the CLDO, but this is extremely long process and all individually.

There is no intermediate profile. If you have such questions, then I do not recommend you to use extreme. This profile is only for systems with individual, directional cooling of RAM. The case "in my case the fan probably blows for memory " is not normal.

Both the chipset and the memory controller are still a bottleneck. Of course, the Zen2 and 570 chipset will seriously affect the situation.


----------



## Dekaohtoura

1usmus said:


> 1) asrock still has huge problems with bios
> 2) Your memory does not like low tRC and tRAS values.Have you tried the V2 profile?
> 3) You can also try using MFR timings
> 
> I also advise you to leave procODT + RTT the ones that are now in the screenshot. You should check the timings from other profiles (MFR V1 V2).


Ok, I'll give all of these a try.

Thank you.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Maby this will help some of those that have HiQ B-Die DDR4

procODT -> Best 53.3 Ohm
RTT -> 4/OFF/Auto
CAD-bus -> 24/24/24/24

This is Best stable settings for -Trinity of Stablity- 

Im still on the Older BIOS 1403 (last year summer lol) -. 
on 6301 i will get better OC for sure, but...
... Im waiting for New AGESA and new BIOS for Hero VI -> Then i will Update and wait for 1Usmus MOD BIOS & stay until ZEN2 BIOS Hit us in Spring time.

Peace


----------



## CJMitsuki

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Maby this will help some of those that have HiQ B-Die DDR4
> 
> procODT -> Best 53.3 Ohm
> RTT -> 4/OFF/Auto
> CAD-bus -> 24/24/24/24
> 
> This is Best stable settings for -Trinity of Stablity- /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> Im still on the Older BIOS 1403 (last year summer lol) -.
> on 6301 i will get better OC for sure, but...
> ... Im waiting for New AGESA and new BIOS for Hero VI -> Then i will Update and wait for 1Usmus MOD BIOS & stay until ZEN2 BIOS Hit us in Spring time.
> 
> Peace /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


Those setting will vary but Cad Bus is either 24 or 20 most of the time and procodt will either be 48, 53.3, or 60 with 53.3 and 60 being 95% of the time. The Rtt resistances you mentioned can vary with frequency as well. I find that disabled - disabled - rzq/4 is best but there can be others like rzq/7 - disabled - rzq/4 or 5


----------



## ActualPlayer

Hello

For the past few days I've been trying to figure out how to get my RAM to its rated clock / timings.

I have the 2*16GB set of the G.SKILL TridentZ 3200CL14, the gigabyte x470 gaming 5 wifi motherboard, a 2700x with a 650W evga power supply.

I know my RAM is dual rank and this might give some issues, but I can only get a stable clock of 3000Mhz 14-14-14-30. Anything higher than that won't even boot (or boot like once and then not anymore).
I have attached my Ryzen DRAM calculator and Thaiphoon settings but as I said, these won't work. The built-in XMP profile is a no-go as well.

I'm fairly new to the world of overclocking so I mostly followed the instructions and tried some manual adjustments, but I can't seem to get it to work properly.

Can anyone here help on what I can try or what I should change?

Thanks in advance,
Player


----------



## Adiex

ActualPlayer said:


> Hello
> 
> For the past few days I've been trying to figure out how to get my RAM to its rated clock / timings.
> 
> I have the 2*16GB set of the G.SKILL TridentZ 3200CL14, the gigabyte x470 gaming 5 wifi motherboard, a 2700x with a 650W evga power supply.
> 
> I know my RAM is dual rank and this might give some issues, but I can only get a stable clock of 3000Mhz 14-14-14-30. Anything higher than that won't even boot (or boot like once and then not anymore).
> I have attached my Ryzen DRAM calculator and Thaiphoon settings but as I said, these won't work. The built-in XMP profile is a no-go as well.
> 
> I'm fairly new to the world of overclocking so I mostly followed the instructions and tried some manual adjustments, but I can't seem to get it to work properly.
> 
> Can anyone here help on what I can try or what I should change?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Player


I have almost the same memory kit as you G.skill trident.z 3200Mhz 32gb CL15. Have you tired changing the SOC and DRAM voltage? I run mine at DRAM voltage 1.42 and SOC 1.05 at 3266Mhz at CL14-14-14-28 fast preset. I have a 2700x and CH7.


----------



## ActualPlayer

Adiex said:


> I have almost the same memory kit as you G.skill trident.z 3200Mhz 32gb CL15. Have you tired changing the SOC and DRAM voltage? I run mine at DRAM voltage 1.42 and SOC 1.05 at 3266Mhz at CL14-14-14-28 fast preset. I have a 2700x and CH7.


Hmm I never put my DRAM voltage that high, highest I went was 1.37, it can do no harm? DRAM calculator recommended 1.35 so 1.37 was the highest I wanted to go. My MB's SOC is 1.1 by default, putting it lower can give more stability?


----------



## Adiex

ActualPlayer said:


> Hmm I never put my DRAM voltage that high, highest I went was 1.37, it can do no harm? DRAM calculator recommended 1.35 so 1.37 was the highest I wanted to go. My MB's SOC is 1.1 by default, putting it lower can give more stability?


From what info I have been able to gather 1.42 should be ok for B-die. If your SOC is 1.1 I dont think lowering it would help. Best bet is to read a lot of threads and see what others have gotten with that motherboard and Dual rank ram before.


----------



## nick name

ActualPlayer said:


> Hmm I never put my DRAM voltage that high, highest I went was 1.37, it can do no harm? DRAM calculator recommended 1.35 so 1.37 was the highest I wanted to go. My MB's SOC is 1.1 by default, putting it lower can give more stability?


You can safely run you DRAM voltage at 1.45V and higher. I use 1.5V daily.


----------



## ActualPlayer

I went as high as 1.5V on my DRAM voltage and no luck, 3200 14-14-14-30 won't boot... I'll look around some more and see if I can find something.


----------



## Dekaohtoura

1usmus said:


> 1) asrock still has huge problems with bios
> 2) Your memory does not like low tRC and tRAS values.Have you tried the V2 profile?
> 3) You can also try using MFR timings
> 
> I also advise you to leave procODT + RTT the ones that are now in the screenshot. You should check the timings from other profiles (MFR V1 V2).


1) That's an understatement.

2) V2 didn't work, gave a GSOD while trying IBT-AVX

3) Next time.


----------



## opethian2710

Hello, anyone here facing the problem that your overclocking RAM is stable for one certain time, and then another day all system suddenly collapses and stuck in boot looping, and I have to fall back to the default DOCP preset?
My rigs:
RAM: corsair vengeance RGB cmr16gx4m2c3000c15 @ 3400 16-19-19-19-40
Mainboard: Strix X470 F Gaming


----------



## GameBoy

CJMitsuki said:


> is it failing near the same exact percentage each time?
> 
> If thats the case, I had the same problem a few times and it was frustrating but It happened that it was a certain setting that the memory didnt like with the setup i was running. The tell tale sign was that changing the voltages and other things didnt change the time it took to fail the memory test. That told me that I just hadnt found the hard fault in the setup. So, its more than likely not timings being too tight but it could be a certain timing or a resistance causing it to do that such as proc odt or the DrvStr values or Rtt values. One time for me it was Proc Odt and oddly enough once it was that my ram wanted my tWRRD to be 4 when I had it set to 3. Never had a tertiary timing be that finicky but that particular timing has given me that problem before. I cant tell you what to try because its a matter of changing one thing at a time then testing...If it fails at the same point then change it back to what you had and go to the next memory setting and/or timing. Its going to become time consuming but it will teach you about your rams personality. Sounds crazy but ram sets are like that and have their own personalitities when it comes to these things. Some will want specific voltages or specific resistance values etc. I dont believe there is a problem with your ram and when you find the problem and correct it Im fairly certain youll have no problem OCing that set to 3466mhz with decent timings or possibly higher although first gen cpu may limit that. Rtt, ProcOdt, DrvStr, and Cad_Bus settings are a good place to start although it could be pretty much any setting that is tied directly to memory but those settings vary depending on frequencies and timings and have a lot to do with the stability if not the highest impact on stability besides primary timings. Personally its my first place to check when I dont have any indicators pointing me in a certain place.


Turns out that my RAM/CPU/Mobo combination for some reason can't run with GDM off. I tried literally everything else over the weekend and the only thing that makes tangible differences is loosening either primary timings or enabling GDM, so I opted to enable GDM and that runs Karhu on the 3200 fast setting without issues (only tested to around 3000% so far but it's much better than failing at 200%). Don't think I have ever seen anyone needing to enable GDM for 3200 on B-Die sticks :/


----------



## Zerotre

ActualPlayer said:


> Hello
> 
> For the past few days I've been trying to figure out how to get my RAM to its rated clock / timings.
> 
> I have the 2*16GB set of the G.SKILL TridentZ 3200CL14, the gigabyte x470 gaming 5 wifi motherboard, a 2700x with a 650W evga power supply.
> 
> I know my RAM is dual rank and this might give some issues, but I can only get a stable clock of 3000Mhz 14-14-14-30. Anything higher than that won't even boot (or boot like once and then not anymore).
> I have attached my Ryzen DRAM calculator and Thaiphoon settings but as I said, these won't work. The built-in XMP profile is a no-go as well.
> 
> I'm fairly new to the world of overclocking so I mostly followed the instructions and tried some manual adjustments, but I can't seem to get it to work properly.
> 
> Can anyone here help on what I can try or what I should change?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Player


Almost same config here (just the gaming 7)

attached you find my actual values, i'm at 3200cl14, 1.45 vdram and 1.1 soc 

Anyone can give some advice to go up with freq with 2x16gb kit?


----------



## Jay_b

Hi, Guys.

I just build a new rig. I was on a budget. Here's the config:

KINGSTON A400 240GB Internal SSD (SA400S37-240G)
WD Green 1TB HDD (7200 RPM)
G.SKILL F4-3000C15D-16GVRB Desktop Ram Ripjaws V Series 16GB (8GBx2) DDR4 3000MHz
ASUS GRAPHICS CARD PASCAL SERIES - GTX 1050 TI 4GB GDDR5 PHOENIX EDITION
ANTEC EARTHWATTS GOLD PRO 650W SMPS - 650 Watt 80 Plus Gold Certification Semi Modular PSU
AMD RYZEN 5 2600X 2nd Generation Desktop Processor With Wraith Spire Cooling Solution - (6 Core, Up To 4.2 GHz, AM4 Socket, 19MB Cache)
Cooler Master Hyper H410R
ASUS TUF B450-PLUS GAMING Motherboard (AMD Socket AM4/Ryzen 2nd Gen Series CPU/Max 64GB DDR4-3200MHz Memory)
Corsair Inbuild Case Fan + Circle & BBC 120 MM Case Fans (Total 5)

The G.Skills RAM are actually optimized for Intel as per the box description. I booted the system and I am running the RAM at 3200 MHz. I am not sure about RAM overclocking hence thought would check here. Not sure if it's a stable OC or not. Just used the VRAM calculator and OCed the RAM. Don't want to OC the CPU. Its a Hynix MFR Die on the RAMs.

Here's the SS of my Ryzern DRAM Calculator:











Can someone advise if everything is ok or I need to change something or is there a better option for timings which can be done? Also what kind of test's do I need to perform to check if this is working good? 

Thanks.


----------



## R71800XSS

*My setup with Gskill 3200C14 (Bdie)*



ActualPlayer said:


> Hello
> 
> For the past few days I've been trying to figure out how to get my RAM to its rated clock / timings.
> 
> I have the 2*16GB set of the G.SKILL TridentZ 3200CL14, the gigabyte x470 gaming 5 wifi motherboard, a 2700x with a 650W evga power supply.
> 
> I know my RAM is dual rank and this might give some issues, but I can only get a stable clock of 3000Mhz 14-14-14-30. Anything higher than that won't even boot (or boot like once and then not anymore).
> I have attached my Ryzen DRAM calculator and Thaiphoon settings but as I said, these won't work. The built-in XMP profile is a no-go as well.
> 
> I'm fairly new to the world of overclocking so I mostly followed the instructions and tried some manual adjustments, but I can't seem to get it to work properly.
> 
> Can anyone here help on what I can try or what I should change?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Player


------------------
This is my actual settings at 3200 (it's a "almost" stable) with BIOS 3502 and idem memory kit:


----------



## 1usmus

ActualPlayer said:


> Hello
> 
> For the past few days I've been trying to figure out how to get my RAM to its rated clock / timings.
> 
> I have the 2*16GB set of the G.SKILL TridentZ 3200CL14, the gigabyte x470 gaming 5 wifi motherboard, a 2700x with a 650W evga power supply.
> 
> I know my RAM is dual rank and this might give some issues, but I can only get a stable clock of 3000Mhz 14-14-14-30. Anything higher than that won't even boot (or boot like once and then not anymore).
> I have attached my Ryzen DRAM calculator and Thaiphoon settings but as I said, these won't work. The built-in XMP profile is a no-go as well.
> 
> I'm fairly new to the world of overclocking so I mostly followed the instructions and tried some manual adjustments, but I can't seem to get it to work properly.
> 
> Can anyone here help on what I can try or what I should change?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Player


You must set the timings, voltage and *procODT + RTT* that you get in the calculation. It's easy, find similar names and enter the desired settings in BIOS. 3200-3266 ideal frequency for your memory



Jay_b said:


> Hi, Guys.
> 
> I just build a new rig. I was on a budget. Here's the config:
> 
> KINGSTON A400 240GB Internal SSD (SA400S37-240G)
> WD Green 1TB HDD (7200 RPM)
> G.SKILL F4-3000C15D-16GVRB Desktop Ram Ripjaws V Series 16GB (8GBx2) DDR4 3000MHz
> ASUS GRAPHICS CARD PASCAL SERIES - GTX 1050 TI 4GB GDDR5 PHOENIX EDITION
> ANTEC EARTHWATTS GOLD PRO 650W SMPS - 650 Watt 80 Plus Gold Certification Semi Modular PSU
> AMD RYZEN 5 2600X 2nd Generation Desktop Processor With Wraith Spire Cooling Solution - (6 Core, Up To 4.2 GHz, AM4 Socket, 19MB Cache)
> Cooler Master Hyper H410R
> ASUS TUF B450-PLUS GAMING Motherboard (AMD Socket AM4/Ryzen 2nd Gen Series CPU/Max 64GB DDR4-3200MHz Memory)
> Corsair Inbuild Case Fan + Circle & BBC 120 MM Case Fans (Total 5)
> 
> The G.Skills RAM are actually optimized for Intel as per the box description. I booted the system and I am running the RAM at 3200 MHz. I am not sure about RAM overclocking hence thought would check here. Not sure if it's a stable OC or not. Just used the VRAM calculator and OCed the RAM. Don't want to OC the CPU. Its a Hynix MFR Die on the RAMs.
> 
> Here's the SS of my Ryzern DRAM Calculator:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone advise if everything is ok or I need to change something or is there a better option for timings which can be done? Also what kind of test's do I need to perform to check if this is working good?
> 
> Thanks.


TM5 0.12 (there is a link in my signature) or MemTest 2.5 Dang Wang Version - these programs for memory testing


----------



## chakku

ActualPlayer said:


> Hello
> 
> For the past few days I've been trying to figure out how to get my RAM to its rated clock / timings.
> 
> I have the 2*16GB set of the G.SKILL TridentZ 3200CL14, the gigabyte x470 gaming 5 wifi motherboard, a 2700x with a 650W evga power supply.
> 
> I know my RAM is dual rank and this might give some issues, but I can only get a stable clock of 3000Mhz 14-14-14-30. Anything higher than that won't even boot (or boot like once and then not anymore).
> I have attached my Ryzen DRAM calculator and Thaiphoon settings but as I said, these won't work. The built-in XMP profile is a no-go as well.
> 
> I'm fairly new to the world of overclocking so I mostly followed the instructions and tried some manual adjustments, but I can't seem to get it to work properly.
> 
> Can anyone here help on what I can try or what I should change?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Player


Here's my 3333 settings which are stable: (1.395V/68.6ohm ProcODT) I found the flowchart that comes with the calculator works best, but my settings are more or less in line with what the calculator calls for (except with ProcODT I went with the second option as the first wasn't stable).



Spoiler















Also make a note of the settings in the other tabs too not just the main one, I think 120% current capability on DRAM helps a lot.


----------



## Reous

1usmus said:


> TM5 0.12 (there is a link in my signature) or MemTest 2.5 Dang Wang Version - these programs for memory testing


I dont wanna start a discussion but TM5 doesnt work very well for me. 

For example TM5 vs Karhu.
Any idea why?


----------



## LillysTittchen

Reous said:


> I dont wanna start a discussion but TM5 doesnt work very well for me.
> 
> For example TM5 vs Karhu.
> Any idea why?


Pls, don't kill me for this unprofessional reply, just want to help... :S
but I would leave it like it is and do some real world stuff. I noticed for myself that playing games react on instability in a sensitive manner. But to be honest I don't know if its legit to have - lets say - 1 possible error although system is stable when doing real world stuff.
I remember some User wrote he uses TM5 to get on the right way and then going for HCL MemTest and I do it the same way. If u get errors at this point it might need just a slight adjustment, like increasing/decreasing SoC/DRAM voltage


----------



## LillysTittchen

Sorry for this off topic post but its just a short question:
What is the offical name of this "mainboard tray" in 1:45 min 




I can find some products when I search for "mainboard tray" but I'm not sure if this is the offical name for this.
And what is the most known manufacturer of those "trays"? I guess these products are not so common in germany :S

If someone knows the name of this specific tray in the video, that would be nice too. (the video is just an example )


----------



## nick name

LillysTittchen said:


> Sorry for this off topic post but its just a short question:
> What is the offical name of this "mainboard tray" in 1:45 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yemjq28eCE
> 
> I can find some products when I search for "mainboard tray" but I'm not sure if this is the offical name for this.
> And what is the most known manufacturer of those "trays"? I guess these products are not so common in germany :S
> 
> If someone knows the name of this specific tray in the video, that would be nice too. (the video is just an example )



What are you referring to at the 1:45 mark? I can't see what you mean. Are you talking about what that Gigabyte mainboard is installed on? Because that is a test bench case.


----------



## nick name

Reous said:


> I dont wanna start a discussion but TM5 doesnt work very well for me.
> 
> For example TM5 vs Karhu.
> Any idea why?


That happens to me too, which is why I test with both. Like you seem to do also.


----------



## parameshvara

I was trying to hunt for memory holes with a incorrect premisse: load the (ryzen calc) recommended settings trying to see if it posts.
Didn't work.
I believe I should've trained it on a smaller freq and go from there and that's what I'm asking, how to proceed (again, on this god forsaken mind numbing task).

My method was:
---->load safe defaults
|........|->reboot
|........|->apply new cldo_vddp/f10 reboot
|........|->shutdown within bios; flick psu off, hold start button 5 secs (unload caps), cold boot
|................|
|................|-->load OC profile with (full) settings
|................|->update new target cldo_vddp, save it to profile, reboot
|................|->success (ok) 
|................|->fail
|.....................|
|-----------------|

Now from the range of 700 up to 913 (1usmus had a post around the 20th page or so with all of them), no successful post in the entire freaking thing.
I'm pretty sure because I should've at least tried to apply it on a safer freq first, regardless of the timings, in order to train the memory (in other words, I should've added another step in that flow chart).
Apart that, any other hints before I embark on this again?

I was doing bclk 100, multi 34 (3.4ghz), cpu offset +0,05, perf boost off, smt enabled, the other settings all from default, except those from the Ryzen calc itself (pic below). The only thing I didn't follow strictly from what was recommended was to leave BGS on auto, as per earlier instructions on this thread for 4xdimm, and super i/o clock skew because I couldn't find it on the crosshair vii options (not sure if it's the same thing as sense MI skew, which I turned off anyways). Even though I felt like the timings were a bit aggressive from what I've experienced so far with this kit (best I got was 3266 cl15, 1.425v, and very loose secondary and tertiaries... which was hci safe for 500ish before I lost the damned profile overwriting it with some bull****); I also didn't try hunting higher voltages at each step exactly because I was trying to keep it all as close as possible to Ryzen's Calc values. I also have tried lots of stuff at 1.5v and vSoc 1.2 before...

I've been having trouble trying to find any stable and reasonable settings, that's why decided to look deeper into cldo_vddp voltages. Already did a full pass with optimized defaults in memtest86 to check it my kit was faulty; and it was ok. And the thing that I'm finding the most baffling is the gap between windows stable and postable settings, especially regarding the voltages. For instance, I can boot into bios with [email protected] (auto everything) just fine, or at the ceiling, [email protected] (auto, first try) not in the least stable, though, it also boots at 1.39v.
[email protected] and Vsoc 1.2 is a no go, I tested with higher cpu voltages before but I can't recall if I ever got it to post at that freq -- I don't think I did or tried hard enough. Anyways, my main goal was first to have kinda loose at 3400, or possibly 3466 (1st gen ryzen limits), which I reconsidered for a tighter 3200/3266.

This cldo hunt was performed with these settings (for 3466 because why would I bother with any less*):
(system: crosshair Vii Hero, 1700x, Vengeance lpx 32gb 3600cl18, psu corsair hx850i)
(I also applied the settings from the adavanced tab as well following every rec from the power supply system, LLC3, manual switching freq 400 on all the things)

maybe the advanced tab should be also featured...

I made a mnemonic, small circle to the left of the value is f5 opt defaults load after a fail; upper dot left is apply new cldo, bottom dot is cold boot, small circle to the right of the target value is load profile with settings, upper dot is reapply new cldo on those settings, bottom dot is to save it and reboot. I was kinda spacing out after the 5th value I simply had to make it.
(Notice how the green pen wasn't even open?)


maybe irrelevant, min and max postable freq/voltages.
[email protected]; min post 3466 (1.285, retry needed); min post [email protected]; max post freq [email protected] (1st try)
Not during the test, was just trying to figure out the min/maxes. bclk 100, multi 34, perf boost off, voltage offset +0.05, all else default/auto, including mem timings.


edit: lurker doesn't understand exactly how the formatting works. cleaning.
edit 2: clarification - I'm not having having trouble with booting/posting but finding stable and reasonable settings, I found the gap between bios bootable voltages and "windows ok" (not fully stable, just windows bootable) to be rather high.


----------



## bigfootnz

Hi @1usmus

I'm trying to OC my G.SKILL Trident Z RGB F4-3600C16D-16GTZR on 2700x and C6H. At the moment I'm not able to get 3466 stable 100%. I do not have errors with Karhu RAM test or GSAT but TM5 is finding single errors. My problem is that I run TM5 there is no errors, then I reboot PC and TM5 is picking up single errors. I'm using modified yours TM5 with 10 cycles. Now these errors usually happened after 6-7 cycle. I'm pushing my memory unnecessary with 10 runs as you config is 5 runs?
You have said that for single errors problem is temp (that is not my case as I've fan blowing on mem and temp are around 38-39C during testing) or secondary timings. Can you help me with what timing to adjust and how? Thanks


----------



## parameshvara

Caught up to the 66th page, gleaned a lot of hints throughout those posts. 
Not sure if I'll follow all the way up to the last page, But I'm intending to.

From the late teens up to 30ish cldo_vddp and memory holes were the hot topic, don't know if they'll come back later on, and I still don't know if the Agesa updates made away with that discussion entirely or just mitigated it somewhat. Which is why I decided to search a cldo voltage that could potentially help me with my stability issues, since, technically, I'm not plagued by a memory hole, I can boot just fine even with higher than desired target frequency but my thought process was: if the freq I'm trying used to be in a memory hole on an earlier agesa, even though I can post with it just fine now, then I might narrow it it down by running the full setings and timings -- other than someone with a real memory hole simply trying to boot with his target freq on auto generated timings. Really don't know if this a valid approach or absolutely futile, even after I rework my methodology.

Anyways, I forgot to post another kinda relevant pic before,
boot into windows, [email protected] -- I didn't even dare to run any tests but those whacky auto timings might actually have been just fine.

PS all of my posts were written under auto timings, optimized defaults. In an Overclockers' forum, more specifically in a memory overclocking thread. 2133mhz auto generated 16-22-23-53, at least it decided for 1T


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

@1usmus 
yo, Bratan'

I've managed to get 3639MHz RAM ! (not stable but still) 16-17-17-17 34-56 416 1T GD 1.48v
Now im Fully stable at this 15-15-15-15 1T GD (pic. below):
Is there a chnace i can get Better VLLT (Low Latency) on newer BIOS? like 6301? 
any suggestions 

==


----------



## Zerotre

Ne01 OnnA said:


> @1usmus
> yo, Bratan'
> 
> I've managed to get 3639MHz RAM ! (not stable but still) 16-17-17-17 34-56 416 1T GD 1.48v
> Now im Fully stable at this 15-15-15-15 1T GD (pic. below):
> Is there a chnace i can get Better VLLT (Low Latency) on newer BIOS? like 6301?
> any suggestions
> 
> ==


Nice result!


----------



## axipher

Just ran these on my Corsair Memory that was supposed to be Samsung B-Die's, but ended up actually being a later revision that is Micron instead, so that explains some random crashing and filed MemTest runs.

Using the results from your Ryzen Calc helped get me what "seems" to be stable so far, but I'm getting random slow-downs where the mouse seems to lag then eventually catch up, but no crashes like before.


I think I managed to find all the settings burried deep in the advanced menus on my AsRock X370 Killer SLI board.




@1usmus I would like to get some clarification on the LLC settings.


On Asrock boards, it looks like Level 1 is 100% voltage or a flat line, and Level 5 is the largest VDroop which seems to be opposite from Asus boards.


Could you update that portion of the program to not just shoe the recommended LLC Level, but also a little graphic of what you are actually recommending so that users can verify that against their own motherboard manual.




I have no idea if the Level 2/3 you are recommending is actually the same Level 2 and 3 that my board has, or would actually be 4 and 3 since AsRock seems to reverse the order of LLC Levels.


----------



## larrydavid

Anyone know what the VDDP voltage setting is called on Asrock boards? I can only find CLDO_VDDP. I'm running an X399 Taichi.

Thanks.


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> I dont wanna start a discussion but TM5 doesnt work very well for me.
> 
> For example TM5 vs Karhu.
> Any idea why?


I periodically observe problems with memory interleaving (2kb pages).
Don't blame the software or overclocking, we still have a third party - OS. This year is not very good for Microsoft, too much bugs.



parameshvara said:


> I was trying to hunt for memory holes with a incorrect premisse: load the (ryzen calc) recommended settings trying to see if it posts.
> Didn't work.
> I believe I should've trained it on a smaller freq and go from there and that's what I'm asking, how to proceed (again, on this god forsaken mind numbing task).
> 
> My method was:
> ---->load safe defaults
> |........|->reboot
> |........|->apply new cldo_vddp/f10 reboot
> |........|->shutdown within bios; flick psu off, hold start button 5 secs (unload caps), cold boot
> |................|
> |................|-->load OC profile with (full) settings
> |................|->update new target cldo_vddp, save it to profile, reboot
> |................|->success (ok)
> |................|->fail
> |.....................|
> |-----------------|
> 
> Now from the range of 700 up to 913 (1usmus had a post around the 20th page or so with all of them), no successful post in the entire freaking thing.
> I'm pretty sure because I should've at least tried to apply it on a safer freq first, regardless of the timings, in order to train the memory (in other words, I should've added another step in that flow chart).
> Apart that, any other hints before I embark on this again?
> 
> I was doing bclk 100, multi 34 (3.4ghz), cpu offset +0,05, perf boost off, smt enabled, the other settings all from default, except those from the Ryzen calc itself (pic below). The only thing I didn't follow strictly from what was recommended was to leave BGS on auto, as per earlier instructions on this thread for 4xdimm, and super i/o clock skew because I couldn't find it on the crosshair vii options (not sure if it's the same thing as sense MI skew, which I turned off anyways). Even though I felt like the timings were a bit aggressive from what I've experienced so far with this kit (best I got was 3266 cl15, 1.425v, and very loose secondary and tertiaries... which was hci safe for 500ish before I lost the damned profile overwriting it with some bull****); I also didn't try hunting higher voltages at each step exactly because I was trying to keep it all as close as possible to Ryzen's Calc values. I also have tried lots of stuff at 1.5v and vSoc 1.2 before...
> 
> I've been having trouble trying to find any stable and reasonable settings, that's why decided to look deeper into cldo_vddp voltages. Already did a full pass with optimized defaults in memtest86 to check it my kit was faulty; and it was ok. And the thing that I'm finding the most baffling is the gap between windows stable and postable settings, especially regarding the voltages. For instance, I can boot into bios with [email protected] (auto everything) just fine, or at the ceiling, [email protected] (auto, first try) not in the least stable, though, it also boots at 1.39v.
> [email protected] and Vsoc 1.2 is a no go, I tested with higher cpu voltages before but I can't recall if I ever got it to post at that freq -- I don't think I did or tried hard enough. Anyways, my main goal was first to have kinda loose at 3400, or possibly 3466 (1st gen ryzen limits), which I reconsidered for a tighter 3200/3266.
> 
> This cldo hunt was performed with these settings (for 3466 because why would I bother with any less*):
> (system: crosshair Vii Hero, 1700x, Vengeance lpx 32gb 3600cl18, psu corsair hx850i)
> (I also applied the settings from the adavanced tab as well following every rec from the power supply system, LLC3, manual switching freq 400 on all the things)
> 
> maybe the advanced tab should be also featured...
> 
> I made a mnemonic, small circle to the left of the value is f5 opt defaults load after a fail; upper dot left is apply new cldo, bottom dot is cold boot, small circle to the right of the target value is load profile with settings, upper dot is reapply new cldo on those settings, bottom dot is to save it and reboot. I was kinda spacing out after the 5th value I simply had to make it.
> (Notice how the green pen wasn't even open?)
> 
> 
> maybe irrelevant, min and max postable freq/voltages.
> [email protected]; min post 3466 (1.285, retry needed); min post [email protected]; max post freq [email protected] (1st try)
> Not during the test, was just trying to figure out the min/maxes. bclk 100, multi 34, perf boost off, voltage offset +0.05, all else default/auto, including mem timings.
> 
> 
> edit: lurker doesn't understand exactly how the formatting works. cleaning.
> edit 2: clarification - I'm not having having trouble with booting/posting but finding stable and reasonable settings, I found the gap between bios bootable voltages and "windows ok" (not fully stable, just windows bootable) to be rather high.


Never use profiles, they have hidden options for accelerated training when the profile is used. In your case, you change the settings, and some parameters for training remain unchanged. 
I am not 100% sure about this, but very often I encountered problems when I used a saved profile.

With an increase in the number of RAM modules, procODT decreases. You started your research from the middle, I do not think this is the right decision. Advise it to start with procODT.

According to my observations, the optimal voltage for RAM will be 0.01-0.02 volts higher than the minimum voltage at which the system is capable of being loaded into windows but falling into the BSOD at the slightest load (timings for this case are constant, which is the same for the minimum voltage and for the optimal).

You have a motherboard that has a chain topology, it is not suitable for systems with more than two modules installed. This type of topology is used in motherboards for super OC, such products as Apex. 3200-3266 most likely this is the limit (CH6 with T-topology limit 3466-3533 for 4 SR dimm).

And the last thing I want to tell you is that the availability of memory chip b-die does not give any guarantee of overclocking.
There are things that you can not see, namely the wiring and capacitors. From this very much depends.










This is an example of the fact that inside a PCB and changing the length of one of the conductors will drastically affect overclocking capabilities.



bigfootnz said:


> Hi @1usmus
> 
> I'm trying to OC my G.SKILL Trident Z RGB F4-3600C16D-16GTZR on 2700x and C6H. At the moment I'm not able to get 3466 stable 100%. I do not have errors with Karhu RAM test or GSAT but TM5 is finding single errors. My problem is that I run TM5 there is no errors, then I reboot PC and TM5 is picking up single errors. I'm using modified yours TM5 with 10 cycles. Now these errors usually happened after 6-7 cycle. I'm pushing my memory unnecessary with 10 runs as you config is 5 runs?
> You have said that for single errors problem is temp (that is not my case as I've fan blowing on mem and temp are around 38-39C during testing) or secondary timings. Can you help me with what timing to adjust and how? Thanks


In what tests does TM5 find an error?



Ne01 OnnA said:


> @1usmus
> yo, Bratan'
> 
> I've managed to get 3639MHz RAM ! (not stable but still) 16-17-17-17 34-56 416 1T GD 1.48v
> Now im Fully stable at this 15-15-15-15 1T GD (pic. below):
> Is there a chnace i can get Better VLLT (Low Latency) on newer BIOS? like 6301?
> any suggestions
> 
> ==


I believe that the limit for CH6 is 3533 and this is a very cool result. The signal quality with frequency suffers, the safety margin is limited.
The difference between 3533 and 3666 with identical timings of about 1ns, think about whether you need it 



larrydavid said:


> Anyone know what the VDDP voltage setting is called on Asrock boards? I can only find CLDO_VDDP. I'm running an X399 Taichi.
> 
> Thanks.


Maybe this setting is hidden



axipher said:


> Just ran these on my Corsair Memory that was supposed to be Samsung B-Die's, but ended up actually being a later revision that is Micron instead, so that explains some random crashing and filed MemTest runs.
> 
> Using the results from your Ryzen Calc helped get me what "seems" to be stable so far, but I'm getting random slow-downs where the mouse seems to lag then eventually catch up, but no crashes like before.
> 
> 
> I think I managed to find all the settings burried deep in the advanced menus on my AsRock X370 Killer SLI board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus I would like to get some clarification on the LLC settings.
> 
> 
> On Asrock boards, it looks like Level 1 is 100% voltage or a flat line, and Level 5 is the largest VDroop which seems to be opposite from Asus boards.
> 
> 
> Could you update that portion of the program to not just shoe the recommended LLC Level, but also a little graphic of what you are actually recommending so that users can verify that against their own motherboard manual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea if the Level 2/3 you are recommending is actually the same Level 2 and 3 that my board has, or would actually be 4 and 3 since AsRock seems to reverse the order of LLC Levels.


Level 1 - maximum compensation, level 2 and 3 will be optimal for all Asrock motherboards.


----------



## 8000cc

*Here is the new beta bios of MEG creation x399 .127*

http://www.mediafire.com/file/umco9eh5v86e7yd/E7B92AMS.127.rar/file


----------



## parameshvara

Thank you for the advice, senpai.
I'm reworking my entire approach, I was coming from an old school methodology: raise it all to the limits, work your primaries down till they don't post, work the voltages, tweak the secondaries; finalize with the stable and the reasonable according to your own premisses.

I already foun better results: verbatim from the calc's recommendations; pic below. 100% is already a win for me after seeing it fail so many times before I could even open the 4th instance - actually that's why I grew fond of it, it'll tell you almost immediatly when you're being plain stupid (and that's a good thing).

I also have two extra questions:
first, you still didn't invent the import profile button, neither the r-xmp (up to the the 66th page, december 2017). So i've been importing values from an html export from thaiphoon, should have I been using the r-xmp. I noticed that values it generates are quite tighter than the exported html and i'm not quite sure what they're showing me.
second, you had this (2nd pic) posted way back, which implies that undershooting vtt_ddr by a small margin is better for stability. I had a suspicion derived from my previous lame attempts that overshooting it (on the napkin formula ddr voltage divided by 2) gave slightly better stability - especially since the granularity for the crosshair vii on those settings is quite bad; 250mv steps, so you either lock yourself on multiples of 4 or you always end up over or undershooting it.

edit: bah it failed at 343% in one instance. gonna try it at the next voltage bump.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

5h of testing, Tested BIOS 6301 & 6101 -> Close but no cigar
Can't stabilize at 3500MHz CL15-15-15-15 1T GD (shows CL16) nowhere near the 1403 results !

My RAM 'likes' Low CL and +2 on other
4133 CL19-23-23-23 & 4000MHz CL19-21-21-21 (1.35v Kits so there is room for improvement)
For my setup Best is BIOS 1403 (It's magical )

Yo, Now im stable with this one (fresh pic ) @1usmus I know, now im trying to get Stable LLT at 3400 or 3500MHz (Hoping for some tighter secondary timings)

==


----------



## bigfootnz

1usmus said:


> In what tests does TM5 find an error?


It is usually between 1, 2 and 6 test.


----------



## parameshvara

you know when you're trying to get to the next milestone in your stable testing and then you start bumping this, that and at some point it starts spiraling down again and giving out errors at 10-50% again?
(or worse, immediatly)
yeah. to hell with that 3266 multiplier freq.
starting anew with 3200, presumably conservative settings. I just want a stable platform to start working on upwards, I'm tired of always going downwards.
got new cad_bus settings too, and bumped up the procODT to 60ohms.
I always have the twr to fall back to, raising it to 12. Also that sexy tRRDS of 4 (tFAW x6) could get bumped if I encounter another error.

edit: bye bye twr of 10, you were loved very dearly during all of your 247% :sadsmiley (please don't take my tRRDS and scl's)


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Yup, i've made it (droped FSB a little)
Now 104FSB, overall Bench showing little lower numbers than Cl16 3500MHz 
but it's waaaay faster i can tell -> LLT for sure 

I can see this RAM can deliver if tweaked right.

==


----------



## parameshvara

My first 400%
yeah, still 3 more instances to get there but I'm calling it a win -- I've been watching those numbers go up like a ...excited and very innocent small child.
And boy, was trying to read the thread and it was a bumpy ride, watching those errors pop through the browser.
I actually forgot I had Vsoc locked at 1.05, I must've read something here that made me lock it down. I can't remember a single thing from around the pages 70-80, took me 2 hours to go through them.

=(


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

ActualPlayer said:


> I went as high as 1.5V on my DRAM voltage and no luck, 3200 14-14-14-30 won't boot... I'll look around some more and see if I can find something.


Try SOC at 1.187v or 1.193v (when observed it shows 1.155v actual)


----------



## nick name

@1usmus I was hoping the latest revision would have an Extreme setting for 3600 b-die. Are there not enough reported successes beyond the Fast settings yet?


----------



## rdr09

Trying to go below 60 on this G.Skill 3200 FlareX. Any tips? Currently using 3466 Fast Preset. Tfaw 67 won't stick. It goes down to 54.


----------



## GraveNoX

First time noticing V1 / V2 option. I knew I don't have high quality RAM and I didn't change it, I thought it has to do with XMP version. I knew that 3200c14/3600c14 is HQ and 3200c15/c16 is medium quality RAM, I have 3200c15 b-die, so I choose 3333 fast V2 and I never been so stable. I even got 25mhz more on CPU. The gaming feels so smooth in every second, before I noticed some hiccups every 10-15 seconds.
3400 fast v2 is somewhat less stable, will experiment more later with 3400 and 3466.


----------



## Cliff100

Hey guys,
thanks @1usmus for the great calculator!

I'm using Crucial Ballistix Sport Memory Kit 2x8gb DR 2666Mhz 16-18-18-38-61 which uses Micron D-Die according to Thaiphoon. But experiencing problems using the Micron D-Die selection in your dram calculator. Program keeps giving me error message "input string was not in a correct form". I know the support for Micron D-Die is a just recently added feature, just so you're aware of that. Calculation of other Die-types works just fine.


So far I got my memory running stable @ 3200Mhz 16-19-19-36-61, 1,35V DRAM and 1,1V SoC-Voltage on a ASRock AB350 pro4 with Ryzen 1700X @3700Mhz 1,35625V Vcore via pStates, everything else left untouched. Wanted to start going in with secondary and tertiary timings but don't really know where to start since I'm lacking experience in that and was hoping your tool would give me a hint or first-start on that.


Thanks again for your great work!


----------



## zhbk

Hey everyone,

System config:

CPU - AMD Ryzen 1600X under NH D-14

M/B - Asus Crosshair VI Extreme

RAM - Crucial Ballistix Elite DDR4 3466 [email protected]

​

According to Thaiphoon Burner this kit uses samsung b-die.

However, I can't get it to run anything faster than 2800 CL 15 for the life of me, although I've been trying for a week now. I've read lots of stuff, including reddit, guides here on the forum and just googled a lot.

XMP profile just won't POST no matter what i try, as well as Stilt's presets included in C6E bios.

I did find some correlation between TRFC/2/4 and lowest CL this kit can run. Using DRAM Calculator 3200 safe settings (16-16-16-32-307-228-140) the kit doesn't POST. Nor does it post @16-18-18-42 at anything above 2666. If I use TRFC settings which are in SPD profile (560/418/256) it will occasionally boot at something like 3000 15-15-15-34 but far from being stable. Not even once have I managed to boot it at 3200 14-14-14-34.

I tried bumping SOC voltage up to 1.17v (with LLC on SOC up to level 5) and DRAM voltage up to 1.5V. Also, messed with ProcODT (40-80 ohm). Btw, if I set everything in BIOS to auto and just set the DRAM clock to 3200, it boots with timings 20-22-22-53 trfc 560 with 1.34V on DRAM and 1.14V on SOC, passes some tests but I didn't even bother to test stability on these settings properly. It seems to me that the only things I haven't touched are dram vref voltage and cldp_vddp, will those improve the situation drastically or are they used to fine tune stability?

I've tried BIOS 3508, 6201, and the latest 6301 none of them making any noticeable difference.

I would very much appreciate any help I can get, i'm getting desperate at this point.


----------



## zhbk

delete


----------



## zhbk

delete


----------



## Nighthog

Today I did a new try to get 3733Mhz working on my Micron E-die kit.

Took 6 hours and now I found my "first" stable settings that pass cycles in TestMem5. I was about trying all and everything and was narrowing down things that didn't work and other things that didn't work but were just a nudge away from working. A lot of back and forth testing various settings to find what was giving less errors than others.

It finally clicked together... then... cycle 2 fail... NO!... HEAT! for sure the memory was giving way to much heat at the voltage I was using, 1.490V. 
Added a fan on my memory and now it runs several cycles more.. Closed the side panel and it seems it failed after a while again.

It for sure is heat that is my issue here. 

Almost a success image attached. failed a second after the image was taken.

Doing a retry with open chassis.

I found out voltage works a little finicky. Every 2-3 straps is more stable than the rest giving less issues. Good voltages are 1.380 , 1.410 , 1.430 , 1.460 , *1.490*. Values in between are utter failure in stability. 1.490 was the "click" (going from less to more) but at the same moment that voltage causes too much heat running this speed. More voltage is fine @ 3600Mhz with other settings.


----------



## FJSAMA

Hey @1usmus and everyone.
Just reporting i could successfully oc my RAM F4-3200c14d-16gtzr using 3200 fast preset and its been stable for several days. (memtest 120%+ run and tm5 no errors plus everyday running without issues)

***EDIT: How can i change BGSalt to disable on my motherboard? I cant seem to find it (since calculator says to change to off for gaming)***

Anything else i can squeeze from my ryzen (running stock cooler atm) for gaming purposes?
Perhaps tuning llc for lower voltages and lower temps for better auto oc?
Any guide for cpu core setup you recommend like this one for ram? Thanks and great work!


----------



## Reous

@Nighthog
Very nice result . Also nice IMC and nice Ram. Going for DDR4-3800 now ?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Nighthog said:


> Today I did a new try to get 3733Mhz working on my Micron E-die kit.
> 
> Took 6 hours and now I found my "first" stable settings that pass cycles in TestMem5. I was about trying all and everything and was narrowing down things that didn't work and other things that didn't work but were just a nudge away from working. A lot of back and forth testing various settings to find what was giving less errors than others.
> 
> It finally clicked together... then... cycle 2 fail... NO!... HEAT! for sure the memory was giving way to much heat at the voltage I was using, 1.490V.
> Added a fan on my memory and now it runs several cycles more.. Closed the side panel and it seems it failed after a while again.
> 
> It for sure is heat that is my issue here.
> 
> Almost a success image attached. failed a second after the image was taken.
> 
> Doing a retry with open chassis.
> 
> I found out voltage works a little finicky. Every 2-3 straps is more stable than the rest giving less issues. Good voltages are 1.380 , 1.410 , 1.430 , 1.460 , *1.490*. Values in between are utter failure in stability. 1.490 was the "click" (going from less to more) but at the same moment that voltage causes too much heat running this speed. More voltage is fine @ 3600Mhz with other settings.


Grats, good effort.
Im trying to get >3500MHz now but with CPU @ 3.96GHz 
3639MHz RAM is doable on my RIG with 16-17-17-17 1T GD


----------



## rdr09

Can anyone beat this Mem Latency?


----------



## 1usmus

parameshvara said:


> Thank you for the advice, senpai.
> I'm reworking my entire approach, I was coming from an old school methodology: raise it all to the limits, work your primaries down till they don't post, work the voltages, tweak the secondaries; finalize with the stable and the reasonable according to your own premisses.
> 
> I already foun better results: verbatim from the calc's recommendations; pic below. 100% is already a win for me after seeing it fail so many times before I could even open the 4th instance - actually that's why I grew fond of it, it'll tell you almost immediatly when you're being plain stupid (and that's a good thing).
> 
> I also have two extra questions:
> first, you still didn't invent the import profile button, neither the r-xmp (up to the the 66th page, december 2017). So i've been importing values from an html export from thaiphoon, should have I been using the r-xmp. I noticed that values it generates are quite tighter than the exported html and i'm not quite sure what they're showing me.
> second, you had this (2nd pic) posted way back, which implies that undershooting vtt_ddr by a small margin is better for stability. I had a suspicion derived from my previous lame attempts that overshooting it (on the napkin formula ddr voltage divided by 2) gave slightly better stability - especially since the granularity for the crosshair vii on those settings is quite bad; 250mv steps, so you either lock yourself on multiples of 4 or you always end up over or undershooting it.
> 
> edit: bah it failed at 343% in one instance. gonna try it at the next voltage bump.


1) I think you should try to import an XMP profile at the very least, you shouldn't focus on it, it's not the best solution for Ryzen. Perhaps in the future I will add automatic imports (I have little time for such things, so if anyone wants to help with the implementation, I will be happy to talk).
2) This picture was relevant at the time of publication, with each microcode PMU / SMU has changes, maybe now everything is different. Your find is permissible and natural. Margin is in both directions 



Ne01 OnnA said:


> 5h of testing, Tested BIOS 6301 & 6101 -> Close but no cigar
> Can't stabilize at 3500MHz CL15-15-15-15 1T GD (shows CL16) nowhere near the 1403 results !
> 
> My RAM 'likes' Low CL and +2 on other
> 4133 CL19-23-23-23 & 4000MHz CL19-21-21-21 (1.35v Kits so there is room for improvement)
> For my setup Best is BIOS 1403 (It's magical )
> 
> Yo, Now im stable with this one (fresh pic )
> @1usmus I know, now im trying to get Stable LLT at 3400 or 3500MHz (Hoping for some tighter secondary timings)
> 
> ==


I disassembled the test bench with CH6, to be honest, I was very tired of the fact that the company Asus decided to deprive this product of support. The latest bios was the worst in history for this board (IMHO). But I like your diligence, maybe you can discover something new 



bigfootnz said:


> It is usually between 1, 2 and 6 test.


These tests are basic for a stable system. It is very strange that GSAT does not find errors.
Are there any errors in games and programs?



parameshvara said:


> you know when you're trying to get to the next milestone in your stable testing and then you start bumping this, that and at some point it starts spiraling down again and giving out errors at 10-50% again?
> (or worse, immediatly)
> yeah. to hell with that 3266 multiplier freq.
> starting anew with 3200, presumably conservative settings. I just want a stable platform to start working on upwards, I'm tired of always going downwards.
> got new cad_bus settings too, and bumped up the procODT to 60ohms.
> I always have the twr to fall back to, raising it to 12. Also that sexy tRRDS of 4 (tFAW x6) could get bumped if I encounter another error.
> 
> edit: bye bye twr of 10, you were loved very dearly during all of your 247% :sadsmiley (please don't take my tRRDS and scl's)


the problem is in the signals, here are the optimal settings for your system

procODT 48 / 53
RTT PARK 40 or 48

Soc 0.98 - 1.03 v , DIMM 1.36 v

sometimes you need to swap modules А2<->B2



Ne01 OnnA said:


> Try SOC at 1.187v or 1.193v (when observed it shows 1.155v actual)


your proposal is relevant only for very high frequencies + the higher the voltage for the SOC, the lower the probability of a stable system



rdr09 said:


> Trying to go below 60 on this G.Skill 3200 FlareX. Any tips? Currently using 3466 Fast Preset. Tfaw 67 won't stick. It goes down to 54.


You entered incorrect values, on the first page there is a video instruction 



GraveNoX said:


> First time noticing V1 / V2 option. I knew I don't have high quality RAM and I didn't change it, I thought it has to do with XMP version. I knew that 3200c14/3600c14 is HQ and 3200c15/c16 is medium quality RAM, I have 3200c15 b-die, so I choose 3333 fast V2 and I never been so stable. I even got 25mhz more on CPU. The gaming feels so smooth in every second, before I noticed some hiccups every 10-15 seconds.
> 3400 fast v2 is somewhat less stable, will experiment more later with 3400 and 3466.


I have 3000CL14 modules, they work fine with the V1 profile, I also have 3400CL16 and they also work perfectly with V1. V2 is in most cases great for the Patriot Corsair and so on.

+

https://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/empty-standby-memory-fix-game-stuttering-windows-10/



Cliff100 said:


> Hey guys,
> thanks @1usmus for the great calculator!
> 
> I'm using Crucial Ballistix Sport Memory Kit 2x8gb DR 2666Mhz 16-18-18-38-61 which uses Micron D-Die according to Thaiphoon. But experiencing problems using the Micron D-Die selection in your dram calculator. Program keeps giving me error message "input string was not in a correct form". I know the support for Micron D-Die is a just recently added feature, just so you're aware of that. Calculation of other Die-types works just fine.
> 
> So far I got my memory running stable @ 3200Mhz 16-19-19-36-61, 1,35V DRAM and 1,1V SoC-Voltage on a ASRock AB350 pro4 with Ryzen 1700X @3700Mhz 1,35625V Vcore via pStates, everything else left untouched. Wanted to start going in with secondary and tertiary timings but don't really know where to start since I'm lacking experience in that and was hoping your tool would give me a hint or first-start on that.
> 
> Thanks again for your great work!


Try to enter data manually. You have a good result of overclocking this memory. Show RTC and error please


----------



## Dize

No matter how low the frequency I set is, it just won't stabilize enough to run a stress test for 10 seconds. I'm new at this, can someone give me a light of what is going on? I'm following the steps included in the program but nothing has helped at all. I have no problems with temperatures, CPU is always between 30~60c and I can keep my CPU stable at 3.9GHz 1.37v and RAM 3000MHz 1.34MHz but with timings on auto.

Ryzen 1700X btw.


----------



## 1usmus

zhbk said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> System config:
> 
> CPU - AMD Ryzen 1600X under NH D-14
> 
> M/B - Asus Crosshair VI Extreme
> 
> RAM - Crucial Ballistix Elite DDR4 3466 [email protected]
> 
> ​
> 
> According to Thaiphoon Burner this kit uses samsung b-die.
> 
> However, I can't get it to run anything faster than 2800 CL 15 for the life of me, although I've been trying for a week now. I've read lots of stuff, including reddit, guides here on the forum and just googled a lot.
> 
> XMP profile just won't POST no matter what i try, as well as Stilt's presets included in C6E bios.
> 
> I did find some correlation between TRFC/2/4 and lowest CL this kit can run. Using DRAM Calculator 3200 safe settings (16-16-16-32-307-228-140) the kit doesn't POST. Nor does it post @16-18-18-42 at anything above 2666. If I use TRFC settings which are in SPD profile (560/418/256) it will occasionally boot at something like 3000 15-15-15-34 but far from being stable. Not even once have I managed to boot it at 3200 14-14-14-34.
> 
> I tried bumping SOC voltage up to 1.17v (with LLC on SOC up to level 5) and DRAM voltage up to 1.5V. Also, messed with ProcODT (40-80 ohm). Btw, if I set everything in BIOS to auto and just set the DRAM clock to 3200, it boots with timings 20-22-22-53 trfc 560 with 1.34V on DRAM and 1.14V on SOC, passes some tests but I didn't even bother to test stability on these settings properly. It seems to me that the only things I haven't touched are dram vref voltage and cldp_vddp, will those improve the situation drastically or are they used to fine tune stability?
> 
> I've tried BIOS 3508, 6201, and the latest 6301 none of them making any noticeable difference.
> 
> I would very much appreciate any help I can get, i'm getting desperate at this point.


You have problems with procODT + RTT, I am sure you need to try all the options offered by the calculator.

It is also possible your memory loves the CL16 and CWL16 





Nighthog said:


> Today I did a new try to get 3733Mhz working on my Micron E-die kit.
> 
> Took 6 hours and now I found my "first" stable settings that pass cycles in TestMem5. I was about trying all and everything and was narrowing down things that didn't work and other things that didn't work but were just a nudge away from working. A lot of back and forth testing various settings to find what was giving less errors than others.
> 
> It finally clicked together... then... cycle 2 fail... NO!... HEAT! for sure the memory was giving way to much heat at the voltage I was using, 1.490V.
> Added a fan on my memory and now it runs several cycles more.. Closed the side panel and it seems it failed after a while again.
> 
> It for sure is heat that is my issue here.
> 
> Almost a success image attached. failed a second after the image was taken.
> 
> Doing a retry with open chassis.
> 
> I found out voltage works a little finicky. Every 2-3 straps is more stable than the rest giving less issues. Good voltages are 1.380 , 1.410 , 1.430 , 1.460 , *1.490*. Values in between are utter failure in stability. 1.490 was the "click" (going from less to more) but at the same moment that voltage causes too much heat running this speed. More voltage is fine @ 3600Mhz with other settings.


Thanks for the information, at high frequencies I also noticed that there is a dead voltage gap in the RAM. And maybe it's the same for everyone.
Your voltages are currently the same as mine for high frequencies, 1.43, 1.46 and 1.49 :thinking:

LLC do not touch, automatic mode works well in most cases, and manual mode may require to achieve extreme results





FJSAMA said:


> Hey @1usmus and everyone.
> Just reporting i could successfully oc my RAM F4-3200c14d-16gtzr using 3200 fast preset and its been stable for several days. (memtest 120%+ run and tm5 no errors plus everyday running without issues)
> 
> ***EDIT: How can i change BGSalt to disable on my motherboard? I cant seem to find it (since calculator says to change to off for gaming)***
> 
> Anything else i can squeeze from my ryzen (running stock cooler atm) for gaming purposes?
> Perhaps tuning llc for lower voltages and lower temps for better auto oc?
> Any guide for cpu core setup you recommend like this one for ram? Thanks and great work!



try tWTRL 8 and tFAW 16, you may need to increase the RAM voltage by one step
BGS is off on screenshots 

in your case it is better not to touch LLC, MSI auto mode works well
, all fine


----------



## rdr09

Dize said:


> No matter how low the frequency I set is, it just won't stabilize enough to run a stress test for 10 seconds. I'm new at this, can someone give me a light of what is going on? I'm following the steps included in the program but nothing has helped at all. I have no problems with temperatures, CPU is always between 30~60c and I can keep my CPU stable at 3.9GHz 1.37v and RAM 3000MHz 1.34MHz but with timings on auto.
> 
> Ryzen 1700X btw.



You might want to try working on the RAM while CPU is at Stock. That and follow the video in the op, which what im about to do. You need to manually set all the data in the Calc. Avoiding as much Auto settings as posible. Make sure you save a profile of your 3.9GHz OC in BIOS before setting Optimized Default, then play with RAM.

@1usmus, thanks. I'll fix it.


----------



## CJMitsuki

rdr09 said:


> Can anyone beat this Mem Latency?


Sure, just let me start up Photoshop...


----------



## LicSqualo

*Stable ram settings*

Hi 1usmus, really happy to see you here.
Thank you for all your support. Your calculator is really an help tool for Ryzen.
Much appreciated.

For who is interested, I'm stable from the day one of the CH6 bios release 6301 (and no problems or fan issues). 
With this last releases finally I've reach a stable (near Rock solid) configuration with a little overclock of my usual (24/7) ram settings of 3466 Mhz with tight timings (sammy b-die RGB kit 3600c16). 101 Bck give me the "old" 3500 MHz for ram with the timings of 3466 MHz. Also with the Asus CB11.5 trick activated! 
This is a screen shot with some test done to compare.


----------



## SalazarArcturus

*Can not understand Step 4*

Cannot understand step 4 , what does it mean ? 

do i have match the readings from thaiphoon burner with Dram calculator ?
do i have to check if values on both software match ?


----------



## Nighthog

Reous said:


> @Nighthog
> Very nice result . Also nice IMC and nice Ram. Going for DDR4-3800 now ?


It can boot but it's so damn unstable better left to not try again.



Ne01 OnnA said:


> Grats, good effort.
> Im trying to get >3500MHz now but with CPU @ 3.96GHz
> 3639MHz RAM is doable on my RIG with 16-17-17-17 1T GD


thanks. though I was celebrating a little premature. 



1usmus said:


> Thanks for the information, at high frequencies I also noticed that there is a dead voltage gap in the RAM. And maybe it's the same for everyone.
> Your voltages are currently the same as mine for high frequencies, 1.43, 1.46 and 1.49 :thinking:


I have to add that I didn't get better than to cycle 4 at best before I tried to tighten my primary timings. I still would get fails around cycle 3-4 at best in random parts and had to look elsewhere as something else was not 100%. 

I went back to my secondary timings and adjusted tWTRS, tWTRL and it increased success rate to *pass all 5 cycles!*
Will need to try the primary timings again for tightening to see how far I can go.
tCL 14 needs 1.500++ volts so unlikely my cooling sufficient at the moment, will stick to tCL 16 for now.


----------



## rdr09

CJMitsuki said:


> Sure, just let me start up Photoshop...


Haha. Its a fluke. Did twice. Can't get any lower than 61. Prolly use 3533. But, even at stock 3200, the RAM temps gets close to 45 during gaming. Some parts of Africa can get really warm during summer. A/C struggles.


----------



## 1usmus

SalazarArcturus said:


> Cannot understand step 4 , what does it mean ?
> 
> do i have match the readings from thaiphoon burner with Dram calculator ?
> do i have to check if values on both software match ?


You must use the profile V1 or V2.

0) chose the type of memory, the frequency that we want to get
1) chose V1 or V2 profile
2) pressed the R-XMP
3) pressed "Safe" or "Fast"
4) done

In the debug profile, values are entered that are in Thaiphoon.
There is no need to compare anything, you just have to enter these numbers or make an import, as in the video instructions.


----------



## Orb

zhbk said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> System config:
> 
> CPU - AMD Ryzen 1600X under NH D-14
> 
> M/B - Asus Crosshair VI Extreme
> 
> RAM - Crucial Ballistix Elite DDR4 3466 [email protected]
> 
> ​
> 
> According to Thaiphoon Burner this kit uses samsung b-die.
> 
> However, I can't get it to run anything faster than 2800 CL 15 for the life of me, although I've been trying for a week now. I've read lots of stuff, including reddit, guides here on the forum and just googled a lot.
> 
> XMP profile just won't POST no matter what i try, as well as Stilt's presets included in C6E bios.
> 
> I did find some correlation between TRFC/2/4 and lowest CL this kit can run. Using DRAM Calculator 3200 safe settings (16-16-16-32-307-228-140) the kit doesn't POST. Nor does it post @16-18-18-42 at anything above 2666. If I use TRFC settings which are in SPD profile (560/418/256) it will occasionally boot at something like 3000 15-15-15-34 but far from being stable. Not even once have I managed to boot it at 3200 14-14-14-34.
> 
> I tried bumping SOC voltage up to 1.17v (with LLC on SOC up to level 5) and DRAM voltage up to 1.5V. Also, messed with ProcODT (40-80 ohm). Btw, if I set everything in BIOS to auto and just set the DRAM clock to 3200, it boots with timings 20-22-22-53 trfc 560 with 1.34V on DRAM and 1.14V on SOC, passes some tests but I didn't even bother to test stability on these settings properly. It seems to me that the only things I haven't touched are dram vref voltage and cldp_vddp, will those improve the situation drastically or are they used to fine tune stability?
> 
> I've tried BIOS 3508, 6201, and the latest 6301 none of them making any noticeable difference.
> 
> I would very much appreciate any help I can get, i'm getting desperate at this point.


I have the same memory, try these settings:
soc votlage 1.03125 LLC2
ddr voltage 1.365

I did a lot of testing with this memory and is a bit tricky to get stable, 
but these settings run 100 stable for me (tested with tm5 10 cycles, ram test 2400%, mem test pro 2400%, prime 2h blend)

important for me with these dimms:
- cl 16-16-16-16 crashes instantly, cl 16-17-16-16 works fine, but trCDWR has to be 17 even at 3200 mhz)
- cl 14 cant get stable at all
- cl15 2T geardown disabled also works, eg: cl 15-17-16-16
- TRDRDSCL 4 (cant do lower)
- TWRWRSCL 4 (cant do lower)
- Ram stability best at 1.365 -1.370, after that they get less stable.
- TRFC can go as low as ~ 255ns, im using (default for ram is 350ns)


----------



## chrisjames61

I want to thank 1usmus for his work. I got two sets of Hynix 16 Gigabyte kits stable using the DRAM Calculator. I tried everything on my own and basically got nowhere and gave up.


----------



## SalazarArcturus

Thank you 1usmus


----------



## bigfootnz

1usmus said:


> 1)
> These tests are basic for a stable system. It is very strange that GSAT does not find errors.
> Are there any errors in games and programs?


For my testing I've found GSAT not so great (or maybe is not sensitive for secondary timings), as so far I've never detected any errors with it, but TM5 or RAMtest did. Also y-cruncher and Realbench are both passing 2 hours test without errors. 

I do not have any problems with any programs and I do not any gaming on PC, crap VGA. 

At the moment I'm at stage that TM5 is passing 10 cycles and now RAMtest is failing between 3000-6000%. I'll change few more tweak today and tomorrow with tWRRD and tFAW. My problem, is that I need 2-4 hours for every change and it is quite time consuming.

One more finding with my b-die I've found that RTT works better with OFF(RZQ7)/OFF/RZQ5 and not OFF(RZQ7)/OFF/RZQ4 like your new calculator is saying. 

How do you modify CAD_BUS timings on C6H? As if I try to change in DRAM Timing Control from auto to 1 it will not change it, but if I go in CBS and there I change CAD timing it works. Also when I change to 1 as per calculator in RTC is now showing instead 0/1, is this correct? I'm asking this as I saw on some other RTC screen shots value like 1/31 or 1/32? Can you help with this? Thank you


----------



## Cliff100

> Try to enter data manually. You have a good result of overclocking this memory. Show RTC and error please


Thanks for your reply. Screenshot attached.

Full text from details:



> See the end of this message for details on invoking
> just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.
> 
> ************** Exception Text **************
> System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
> at System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._1._0.Form1.Current_Delay_Time()
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._1._0.Form1.metroTile4_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
> at MetroFramework.Controls.MetroTile.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
> 
> ************** Loaded Assemblies **************
> mscorlib
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3190.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0
> Assembly Version: 1.4.0.0
> Win32 Version: 1.4.0.1
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Dennis/Desktop/DRAM%20Calculator%20for%20Ryzen%E2%84%A2%201.4.0.1/DRAM%20Calculator%20for%20Ryzen%E2%84%A2%201.4.0.exe
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Windows.Forms
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3190.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Drawing
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> MetroFramework
> Assembly Version: 1.2.0.3
> Win32 Version: 1.2.0.3
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Dennis/Desktop/DRAM%20Calculator%20for%20Ryzen%E2%84%A2%201.4.0.1/MetroFramework.DLL
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Configuration
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Core
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3190.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Xml
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3056.0 built by: NET472REL1
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> ************** JIT Debugging **************
> To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this
> application or computer (machine.config) must have the
> jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section.
> The application must also be compiled with debugging
> enabled.
> 
> For example:
> 
> <configuration>
> <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
> </configuration>
> 
> When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception
> will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer
> rather than be handled by this dialog box.


Only way I got to put in the values manually was in "debug" profile under "profile", where the R-XMP would appear when pressing that button in V1. Do I have to enter factory timings which I'd need to calculate based on the latencies or my current values listed in RTC? Asking because the values inserted when hitting R-XMP in V1 neither match the factory settings (2666 Mhz 16-18-18-38 = 12,00ns - 13,50ns - 13,50ns - 28,51ns) nor my current values (3200Mhz 16-19-19-36 = 10ns - 11,875ns - 11,875ns - 22,5ns).


----------



## rdr09

Ok, redid the Calc as per 1usmus and its getting close to reaching below 60ns. Got 60.6 ns.


----------



## nick name

rdr09 said:


> Ok, redid the Calc as per 1usmus and its getting close to reaching below 60ns. Got 60.6 ns.


Can you increase your BCLK ever so slightly?


----------



## bigfootnz

1usmus said:


> These tests are basic for a stable system. It is very strange that GSAT does not find errors.
> Are there any errors in games and programs?


I've finally solved my problem, my CPU doesn't like CR 1T. As soon as I've switched to 2T (GD disabled) my system is rock stable no more errors Ramtest, TM5 or Prime95 blend. Now I've to see how much I can tighten all timings or try 3533 or even maybe 3600.


----------



## rdr09

nick name said:


> Can you increase your BCLK ever so slightly?


Unfortunately this cheap motherboard does not have BCLK tweak. Maybe Extreme setting will work. That and switch A2,B2. This set gets toasty real quick. Must be the ambient too high.

Using this bench, the Lat Mem in ns are as follows (all at Cl 14):


2400 MHz - 81ns

2933 MHz - 71ns

3200 Mhz - 66ns

3466 MHz - 61ns

2400MHz is a non issue in games if not aspiring for higher fps.


----------



## 1usmus

LicSqualo said:


> Hi 1usmus, really happy to see you here.
> Thank you for all your support. Your calculator is really an help tool for Ryzen.
> Much appreciated.
> 
> For who is interested, I'm stable from the day one of the CH6 bios release 6301 (and no problems or fan issues).
> With this last releases finally I've reach a stable (near Rock solid) configuration with a little overclock of my usual (24/7) ram settings of 3466 Mhz with tight timings (sammy b-die RGB kit 3600c16). 101 Bck give me the "old" 3500 MHz for ram with the timings of 3466 MHz. Also with the Asus CB11.5 trick activated!
> This is a screen shot with some test done to compare.


Hello! nice to see you too 
Thank you for sharing the information, what is the voltage of the RAM now?



Nighthog said:


> It can boot but it's so damn unstable better left to not try again.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks. though I was celebrating a little premature.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to add that I didn't get better than to cycle 4 at best before I tried to tighten my primary timings. I still would get fails around cycle 3-4 at best in random parts and had to look elsewhere as something else was not 100%.
> 
> I went back to my secondary timings and adjusted tWTRS, tWTRL and it increased success rate to *pass all 5 cycles!*
> Will need to try the primary timings again for tightening to see how far I can go.
> tCL 14 needs 1.500++ volts so unlikely my cooling sufficient at the moment, will stick to tCL 16 for now.


For your memory, 1.5 volts is a serious limit; the thinner the process technology, the less voltage will be required. Be careful 



Orb said:


> I have the same memory, try these settings:
> soc votlage 1.03125 LLC2
> ddr voltage 1.365
> 
> I did a lot of testing with this memory and is a bit tricky to get stable,
> but these settings run 100 stable for me (tested with tm5 10 cycles, ram test 2400%, mem test pro 2400%, prime 2h blend)
> 
> important for me with these dimms:
> - cl 16-16-16-16 crashes instantly, cl 16-17-16-16 works fine, but trCDWR has to be 17 even at 3200 mhz)
> - cl 14 cant get stable at all
> - cl15 2T geardown disabled also works, eg: cl 15-17-16-16
> - TRDRDSCL 4 (cant do lower)
> - TWRWRSCL 4 (cant do lower)
> - Ram stability best at 1.365 -1.370, after that they get less stable.
> - TRFC can go as low as ~ 255ns, im using (default for ram is 350ns)



Thank you very much for the feedback, I will make changes in the next version of the calculator!



bigfootnz said:


> For my testing I've found GSAT not so great (or maybe is not sensitive for secondary timings), as so far I've never detected any errors with it, but TM5 or RAMtest did. Also y-cruncher and Realbench are both passing 2 hours test without errors.
> 
> I do not have any problems with any programs and I do not any gaming on PC, crap VGA.
> 
> At the moment I'm at stage that TM5 is passing 10 cycles and now RAMtest is failing between 3000-6000%. I'll change few more tweak today and tomorrow with tWRRD and tFAW. My problem, is that I need 2-4 hours for every change and it is quite time consuming.
> 
> One more finding with my b-die I've found that RTT works better with OFF(RZQ7)/OFF/RZQ5 and not OFF(RZQ7)/OFF/RZQ4 like your new calculator is saying.
> 
> How do you modify CAD_BUS timings on C6H? As if I try to change in DRAM Timing Control from auto to 1 it will not change it, but if I go in CBS and there I change CAD timing it works. Also when I change to 1 as per calculator in RTC is now showing instead 0/1, is this correct? I'm asking this as I saw on some other RTC screen shots value like 1/31 or 1/32? Can you help with this? Thank you


RTT_PARK RZQ4 (60) for frequencies above 3466, in most cases it was optimal. If you are working with RZQ5 (48) it says that your memory has the potential for overclocking.

Also, some manufacturers make "visual fraud" to get the best results, which are close to the standard. I noticed this when comparing RTT_PARK AUTO and RTT_PARK RZQ5 for identical frequencies. RTC showed identical impedance, but the stability of the system was very different. Your board may demonstrate RZQ5, but in fact it may be RZQ4. It is difficult to look for the guilty here, but this is a warning to you that sometimes it is better to check neighboring RTTs and especially the automatic mode for RTT_PARK

About CAD_BUS timings: I met 2 situations when the default is 0 and when 1 is set. I think the minimum delay (0 0 0) of the transceiver will be ideal for the system. 0 1 1 or 0 2 2 or 1 1 1 may be required to stabilize high frequencies.


----------



## Iovan

Hi, I have this Patriot Viper Elite PVE48G280C6KRD 2x4GB Kit:
https://www.info.patriotmemory.com/viperelitedram
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/20c502_459df3e8a4ec4a1fba0d5eb18f743f51.pdf

It is rated XMP 2.0 2800 16-18-18-36.
Unfortunately in Thaiphoon it doesn't show what kind of die it has so I wonder if can be inferred from the other infos:










This is Thaiphoon html export: https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=228092&stc=1&d=1540903473










My CPU is Ryzen 5 2600X and motherboard Asrock AB350M Pro4 with latest Bios P5.10 AMD AGESA PinnaclePI 1.0.0.5










Just loading XMP 2.0 in Bios works at 2800 MHz out of the box:










I can bring it to 3000 MHz stable (TestMem5) with no other setting changed, just frequency. Didn't touch voltage or anything else, it's stil at 1.2 V.










At 3066 doesn't boot, it reverts to 2133 MHz.

My questions are:

1. What kind of die it might be? Comparing Thaiphoon readings with various DRAM Calculator safe settings it's closest match seem Samsung D/E die but I'm not sure. I would like to use Ryzen DRAM Calculator to get to 3200 but without knowing the type of memory is not gonna be good.

2. Are settings that show in Ryzen Timing Calculator OK? Should I change something? Those are put automatically by mobo bios but I see some empty boxes and I don't know what to make of that. My mobo is peculiar in that with AMD Ryzen Master utility doesn't show any memory settings, I have the same issue like this:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3790082/ryzen-master-showing-ram-information.html
or this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMDHelp/comments/7eoyrv/ryzen_master_not_detecting_ram/

3. What is "nominal" DDR4 voltage. My kit comes with a default of 1.2 V but I see everywhere 1.35 V being used, what's up with that? DRAM Calculator generally shows 1.33 V as a minimum. Is 1.33-1.35 vs 1.2 V considered safe or it still stressing/heating RAM modules. I would like to get to 3200 MHz but I wonder whether it's worth to heat up RAM for 6.7% increase in bandwith from 3000 MHz. My system is bottlenecked by GPU in most games anyway as I only have for now a GTX 1050 Ti. Also I am power consumption / heat / noise consciuous...

Many thanks in advance!


----------



## LicSqualo

1usmus said:


> Hello! nice to see you too
> Thank you for sharing the information, what is the voltage of the RAM now?


 I'd to raise my ram until 1,44V to maintain the stability at this speed.  (I suspect you know that)

Luckily the Soc is the same (1.08-1,09).

Now I'm sitting at 4,04 Ghz with 1,406V in Pstate (17). And LLC at level 3 give me 1,33V under AVX test load (as IBT)


----------



## nick name

1usmus said:


> -snip-
> 
> For your memory, 1.5 volts is a serious limit; the thinner the process technology, the less voltage will be required. Be careful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -snip-


Is 1.5V too high for daily use?


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> -snip-
> 
> For your memory, 1.5 volts is a serious limit; the thinner the process technology, the less voltage will be required. Be careful /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> -snip-
> 
> 
> 
> Is 1.5V too high for daily use?
Click to expand...

Ddr4 can handle much more voltage than 1.5v but you don’t want to run above that anyway as the added heat will ruin the overclocking capabilities of the ram. The hotter the sticks get the more potential for errors. You are better off strapping a fan to the memory blowing straight onto the dimms than raising voltage as you will likely only see an initial stability increase followed by ever increasing instability due to the extra heat. Advice- go get a case fan or 2 and use zip ties to attach them to the ram with the airflow directed at the dimms. You’ll get better Stability with little investment


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Ddr4 can handle much more voltage than 1.5v but you don’t want to run above that anyway as the added heat will ruin the overclocking capabilities of the ram. The hotter the sticks get the more potential for errors. You are better off strapping a fan to the memory blowing straight onto the dimms than raising voltage as you will likely only see an initial stability increase followed by ever increasing instability due to the extra heat. Advice- go get a case fan or 2 and use zip ties to attach them to the ram with the airflow directed at the dimms. You’ll get better Stability with little investment


I have a fan sitting on top of my GPU right in front of the RAM. I've had it like that for a while. The hottest it ever got was low 40*C during the summer.


----------



## Jericho941

Finally got this to work. I had a set of trident z d-die that could not run above 2933 even with the DRAM calculator, and then my new B-die ripjaws wouldn't run at 3200 with the auto xmp. The new version 1.4 seems to work great. It boosted my base firestrike score by about 150 combined with improvements to graphics and physics scores.


----------



## bigfootnz

1usmus said:


> RTT_PARK RZQ4 (60) for frequencies above 3466, in most cases it was optimal. If you are working with RZQ5 (48) it says that your memory has the potential for overclocking.
> 
> Also, some manufacturers make "visual fraud" to get the best results, which are close to the standard. I noticed this when comparing RTT_PARK AUTO and RTT_PARK RZQ5 for identical frequencies. RTC showed identical impedance, but the stability of the system was very different. Your board may demonstrate RZQ5, but in fact it may be RZQ4. It is difficult to look for the guilty here, but this is a warning to you that sometimes it is better to check neighboring RTTs and especially the automatic mode for RTT_PARK
> 
> About CAD_BUS timings: I met 2 situations when the default is 0 and when 1 is set. I think the minimum delay (0 0 0) of the transceiver will be ideal for the system. 0 1 1 or 0 2 2 or 1 1 1 may be required to stabilize high frequencies.


It looks like that I got really crappy IMC, as I had 3466 fast stable with TM5 10 cycles, RAMtest like 17000% and 2 hours of Prime95 blend, and all this was stable on few reboots. But than I've tried 3533, which has failed, and after going back to my 3466 stable profile both TM5 and RAMtest are failing. I've tried also load defaults than reload my profile but again it is not stable. 

I'll try few more tests with RTT_PARK with auto, RZQ6 and RZQ5. I'm starting to lose my patience with this CPU/IMC.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

ProODT 60 Ohm <- This is the One (was 53)
CAD Bus 30/30/40/60 <- This is new (before was 24/24/30/30)
RTT Off/Off/4 <- This gives me better stability (was 4/Off/4)

Same Timings at 3500MHz CL16-17-17-16 34 54 1T GD 1.5v (1.460-1.480 actual, Temps at 33-37deg.cels.)
All Good, now im even more Stable, so i will try to get better LLT (Low Latency Timings)


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> ProODT 60 Ohm <- This is the One (was 53)
> CAD Bus 30/30/40/60 <- This is new (before was 24/24/30/30)
> RTT Off/Off/4 <- This gives me better stability (was 4/Off/4)
> 
> Same Timings at 3500MHz CL16-17-17-16 34 54 1T GD 1.5v (1.460-1.480 actual, Temps at 33-37deg.cels.)
> All Good, now im even more Stable, so i will try to get better LLT (Low Latency Timings)


Looking good man, you use TM5 memory tester to determine stability?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

hurricane28 said:


> Looking good man, you use TM5 memory tester to determine stability?


And AIDA, but the best is BF1 Multi 

Im now Happy with the results, waiting for ZEN2


----------



## 1usmus

*ZEN 2 announcement 6th November*

* Improved IPC and reduced inter-core latency 

*3700X​*








*3990X*


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> And AIDA, but the best is BF1 Multi
> 
> Im now Happy with the results, waiting for ZEN2


BF1 multi? You mean battlefield 1 right? How is that an good stress tester? 

I am running 3466 MHz CL14 now and its stable as a rock. I am afraid of touching anything in BIOS and lose stability lol. 

Would you mind sharing your BIOS settings? Would be need if you could do that in a txt file. Thnx.


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> *ZEN 2 announcement 6th November*
> 
> * Improved IPC and reduced inter-core latency
> 
> *3700X​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3990X*


Looks nice, what about core speed? Or does it scale with ipc and if so, does it do a better job as on Ryzen+? Overclocking on Ryzen is in general rather disappointing and there is no need to go any higher than 4.2 GHz due to voltages needed.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

hurricane28 said:


> BF1 multi? You mean battlefield 1 right? How is that an good stress tester?
> 
> I am running 3466 MHz CL14 now and its stable as a rock. I am afraid of touching anything in BIOS and lose stability lol.
> 
> Would you mind sharing your BIOS settings? Would be need if you could do that in a txt file. Thnx.


I will, some day.
USB stick and save Settings?


----------



## 1usmus

*Advanced instructions : DRAM Calculator for Ryzen ™ 1.4.0 and newer versions*

*Advanced instructions : DRAM Calculator for Ryzen ™ 1.4.0 and newer versions.*

*Attention. This program is not a 100% tool - an assistant to optimize your memory. The results are fundamentally influenced by many factors: the quality of the memory controller in your processor, the memory you use and the motherboard. In any case, you will need attention and a little time.*

*Step 1.* In the picture in the red frame. We need to choose the type of memory and version of the profile. The profile version is the 2 preset V1 and V2 built into the calculator for each memory type, they store data on RAM delays for Ryzen systems. Do not confuse and compare with Intel XMP, memory controllers are different. In most cases, it is recommended to use the profile V1, this profile is “popular”, suitable for most users. Profile V2 is an alternative, it is designed for systems that are not approached profile V1 (no start of the system or a lot of errors). And press the "*R-XMP*" button.



Spoiler













The third profile has the name "debug", it exists for advanced users and for situations when the profile V1 and V2 did not fit at all. We must manually import the data for it from Thaiphoon. Video instruction here >> 



Spoiler











*Step 2.* In the picture in the red frame. We must choose the number of RAM modules that are installed in the motherboard, memory ranks. Select the frequency of the RAM you want to receive. Select BCLK (default is 100 MHz on all systems). Select the generation of the processor and the task for the system (synthetics or games).



Spoiler










​


*Step 3.* Click the Calculate SAFE or Calculate FAST button. The program will calculate.

*Step 4.* The picture is a green frame. We will have to enter the obtained data into the BIOS.



Spoiler













*Step 5.* We are testing the stability of our system. If everything is good - I congratulate you, if there is no stability - you will need the next step.

*Step 6.* Blue frame. The voltage limits for our SOC and DRAM are indicated, we have to check the neighboring voltages and check the system again for stability. Often this step will lead to success.
Pink frame. We may need to check the impedance settings + to check the SOC and DRAM voltages again to get stability.
Orange frames. Setting the quality of the bus signals that links the RAM and our processor (memory controller). Similarly to the previous points, we can check alternatives.



Spoiler













*Step 7.* For particularly difficult situations, there is this step and the "Advanced" tab. Black frames. We must enter into the BIOS these recommendations or alternatives that the program offers.



Spoiler













*Nuances to help you set up your system.*

* Do not use too high *voltages for SOC and DRAM*. The calculator will tell you in which framework you should look for a stable result. Always start debugging the system with these voltages.

* Always use *extra cooling for RAM*. The less heat, the more stable your system.

* A change to *procODT* or *RTT* is required when the system does not start, has a huge number of errors, or a BSOD occurs.

* Single and rare errors can be cured by manually sorting such timings: *tFAW* (from 16 to 36), by increasing *tRRDS* by 1 or 2, by changing *tRTP* (from 8 to 12).

* Single and rare errors can be cured by changing *tRDWR* (from 6 to 9) and *tWRRD* (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 tWRRD 1, and so on.

* Single and rare errors can be cured with the help of the *tRFC* change, the calculator offers you another *alternative tRFC*. You can also round the recommended number. *tRFC 2/4* is not necessary to configure.

* Improve system stability can *Geardown enabled*.

* Improve the stability of the system can *VDDP*, the recommended framework from 855mv to 950mv. Step 15mv.

* *Spread spectrum disabled* can improve the stability of the system.

* The source of errors can also be Windows, not necessarily a problem in overclocking.

* Regularly update the BIOS. It is recommended to update it with afuefix64, instructions can be found here >> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html or ask on the forum (there are special cases and in order to avoid problems it is better to ask).

* Increasing *tRCDRD* and *tRP* by 1 can improve stability and reduce memory voltage requirements .


----------



## lightsout

Thank you very much for your work here OP. I just fired up and tried to enter some values, I searched the thread forgive me if this is obvious, but according to your guide (the screenshots) I filled out all the values, but I keep getting an error when I select safe or fast that says "enter the values." I am including a screen shot.


----------



## 1usmus

lightsout said:


> Thank you very much for your work here OP. I just fired up and tried to enter some values, I searched the thread forgive me if this is obvious, but according to your guide (the screenshots) I filled out all the values, but I keep getting an error when I select safe or fast that says "enter the values." I am including a screen shot.


Step 1. Press R-XMP 




hurricane28 said:


> Looks nice, what about core speed? Or does it scale with ipc and if so, does it do a better job as on Ryzen+? Overclocking on Ryzen is in general rather disappointing and there is no need to go any higher than 4.2 GHz due to voltages needed.


if you compare Zen 2 and Zen + with identical frequencies of the processor and memory, the difference is about 13%, if you take into account overclocking, the difference will reach 20% and more


----------



## lightsout

1usmus said:


> Step 1. Press R-XMP


I knew it was something dumb thank you!


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *ZEN 2 announcement 6th November*
> 
> * Improved IPC and reduced inter-core latency
> 
> *3700X​*
> 
> 
> *3990X*
> 
> ​


This is not official. Here is the source: https://twitter.com/chiakokhua/status/1057166516548857856


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> This is not official. Here is the source: https://twitter.com/chiakokhua/status/1057166516548857856


I publish beta bios and information before announcements


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> I publish beta bios and information before announcements


Ok, but this is some engineer who made the sketches of how the dies should look like.


----------



## Iovan

Hi, I posted this yesterday but it was in moderation up until now (probably because it's my first post)


Iovan said:


> Hi, I have this Patriot Viper Elite PVE48G280C6KRD 2x4GB Kit:
> https://www.info.patriotmemory.com/viperelitedram
> https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/20c502_459df3e8a4ec4a1fba0d5eb18f743f51.pdf
> 
> It is rated XMP 2.0 2800 16-18-18-36.
> Unfortunately in Thaiphoon it doesn't show what kind of die it has so I wonder if can be inferred from the other infos:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Thaiphoon html export: https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=228092&stc=1&d=1540903473
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My CPU is Ryzen 5 2600X and motherboard Asrock AB350M Pro4 with latest Bios P5.10 AMD AGESA PinnaclePI 1.0.0.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just loading XMP 2.0 in Bios works at 2800 MHz out of the box:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can bring it to 3000 MHz stable (TestMem5) with no other setting changed, just frequency. Didn't touch voltage or anything else, it's stil at 1.2 V.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 3066 doesn't boot, it reverts to 2133 MHz.
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> 1. What kind of die it might be? Comparing Thaiphoon readings with various DRAM Calculator safe settings it's closest match seem Samsung D/E die but I'm not sure. I would like to use Ryzen DRAM Calculator to get to 3200 but without knowing the type of memory is not gonna be good.
> 
> 2. Are settings that show in Ryzen Timing Calculator OK? Should I change something? Those are put automatically by mobo bios but I see some empty boxes and I don't know what to make of that. My mobo is peculiar in that with AMD Ryzen Master utility doesn't show any memory settings, I have the same issue like this:
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-3790082/ryzen-master-showing-ram-information.html
> or this:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AMDHelp/comments/7eoyrv/ryzen_master_not_detecting_ram/
> 
> 3. What is "nominal" DDR4 voltage. My kit comes with a default of 1.2 V but I see everywhere 1.35 V being used, what's up with that? DRAM Calculator generally shows 1.33 V as a minimum. Is 1.33-1.35 vs 1.2 V considered safe or it still stressing/heating RAM modules. I would like to get to 3200 MHz but I wonder whether it's worth to heat up RAM for 6.7% increase in bandwith from 3000 MHz. My system is bottlenecked by GPU in most games anyway as I only have for now a GTX 1050 Ti. Also I am power consumption / heat / noise consciuous...
> 
> Many thanks in advance!


----------



## Diablix6

Hi OP!


Thank you very much for your great tool. It really helped me to set right settings, and I have learned that sometimes *less is more* (especially with DRAM Voltage ). I am very glad that I can use it to maximize potential from my new build rig. Unfortunately my system still isn't stable even after a week of tweaking it... but I see you've released*"Advanced instructions : DRAM Calculator for Ryzen ™ 1.4.0 and newer versions" *so I hope it will help me to finally make it stable. 

I have 2700X, X470 Taichi and G.Skill 3200C14DGTZ, so I would like to get that 3466 Fast setting stable. I can run about 16 instances of HCI Memtest for like 200-300% before I get my first error read. Before I tried many different settings, like 3466 Safe with 102 BCLK, 3333 Fast, 3600 Fast, 3466 Safe, but 3466 Fast seems to be even more doable than 3466 Safe, which seems to be pretty strange...


There is one thing that I would like to ask. My motherboard is giving me some pretty strange DRAM Voltage readings. At set 1.36V I can see at BIOS or HWiNFO about 1.4V, when I set to 1.37 I see about 1.424V. Even when I clear CMOS, I have set 1.2V but I can see 1.232V. I don't OC CPU. Should it be so different from what I set in BIOS? Is it something normal, or should I RMA it?


----------



## QuadJunkyx

@*1usmus* 


What is up with this tip? every time I change something and hit safe/fast/extreme this tip pops up?


----------



## ENTERPRISE

@*1usmus* 

Thanks for the tool, it is fantastic. However there are a couple of settings I need to apply that I am unable to location in my BIOS, I am using the MSI MEG Creation using your 129 Modded BIOS. 


I cannot find the following : 

*VTT DDR Voltage (Min/Max) 
**Boot DRAM Voltage 
**VDDP Voltage 
**VPP Voltage 
**PLL Voltage *

The only other settings I cannot location is with regards to the Memory Interleaving Tweaks, I cannot seem to find the following: 

*Super I/O Clock Skew 
**DRAM R1-R4 Tune *

I come from Asus and these were fairly obvious but I cannot find these on the MSI bios, I am either in the wrong section or they are named differently. 

Thanks in advance !


----------



## MNMadman

ENTERPRISE said:


> @*1usmus*
> 
> Thanks for the tool, it is fantastic. However there are a couple of settings I need to apply that I am unable to location in my BIOS, I am using the MSI MEG Creation using your 129 Modded BIOS.
> 
> 
> I cannot find the following :
> 
> *VTT DDR Voltage (Min/Max)
> **Boot DRAM Voltage
> **VDDP Voltage
> **VPP Voltage
> **PLL Voltage *
> 
> The only other settings I cannot location is with regards to the Memory Interleaving Tweaks, I cannot seem to find the following:
> 
> *Super I/O Clock Skew
> **DRAM R1-R4 Tune *
> 
> I come from Asus and these were fairly obvious but I cannot find these on the MSI bios, I am either in the wrong section or they are named differently.
> 
> Thanks in advance !


...or they aren't available at all. Asus has a lot of settings that simply aren't exposed by other manufacturers. I know my ASRock board didn't have the ones you listed either.


----------



## Krisztias

*Watercooling Memory Modules - Experiment Stage 1*

I searched the internet a lot in this topic and found an old post in the ROG forum ( only this one!), where somebody did that and documented it. The one, who did it years ago, with a solution from Koolance (if I remember corretly, and which is no longer available) had a good result with it. All other search results have meant that RAM should not be cooled ... We know it, that is not true ...  If we want to overclock the RAM, we need cooling to!
I like, if everything is reasonable, so tinker a 12cm ventillator on/over the RAM modules is too "DIY" for me, asthetics matters, so in january, i bought the Turbulence III from G.Skill. Was not bad, but was loud.
But then summer came and I could not achive higher frequencys, because the temperature of the modules was too high under full load with 1.425V DRAM Voltage (sometimes between 44-48°C, - I had this time the fans in push configuration, as intake). So I decided to buy the Monarch modules and the Monarch X4 waterblock along with additionally 2, 1.5mm thick thermal pads (because my memory is single rank) from EKWB and expanded my existing loop with it. Someone should finally do that, right? 

I have the EK-Kit P360, without any modification (until now). So you should definitely keep in mind that I only have one 38mm thick and 360mm long radiator with 3 Vardar fans, not many and larger radiators like many of you have... So there is a lot of headroom for me to make it better in the future. In the meantime, it was not so warm anymore and I swapped the Vardars in to pull configuration and reached with the Turbulence III with 1.4V DRAM Voltage a RAM temp of 39,5°C at 22°C ambient. It was much better, but I have already ordered the Monarch, so...  Btw. I have 2x 14cm fans in my case, one at the bottom and the other at the front. Both pulling air from the room in to the case.

At the beginning, I did not think about writing a little review, so I'm sorry, I did not create any photo documentation about it, only a before-after photo is all i have 
It was not easy to remove the factory heatspreaders, clean the modules, install the heatpads and assemble the Monarch module. One module took an hour to complete. I have heated the modules with hair dryer, then carefully with a plastic card dissolved from cm to cm. I have Flare X 3200C14 modules (SR), the IC side was just glued thin, but the other side was glued with some heatpad, which was very difficult to remove. But I did it without to hurt the module, so I was very proud of myself in the end  I cleaned the sticks with rubber alcohol gently, placed the heatpads on the chips, removed the film, then placed the 1.5mm heatpads on the other side and mounted the Monarch module together. I placed the modules in the dimm slots and mounted the waterblock. For the record, I used a thin layer of Hydronaut between the Monarch modules and the Monarch X4 waterblock.

Finally: with the 2700X and the small radiator, the D5 pump at 75%, with 1.4V DRAM voltage and silent fan profile I have now 36.3°C RAM temp in the end of a 10 cycle TM5 run (~ 43min).
Is it worth it? Hmm, for me yes. I get better temps then before, and I think it will be much better after the extension of my loop. But I admit, it is a lot more expensive then 1 fan or the ~15$ Turbulence III.


----------



## rdr09

Krisztias said:


> But then summer came and I could not achive higher frequencys, because the temperature of the modules was too high under full load with 1.425V DRAM Voltage (sometimes between 44-48°C, - I had this time the fans in push configuration, as intake). So I decided to buy the Monarch modules and the Monarch X4 waterblock along with additionally 2, 1.5mm thick thermal pads (because my memory is single rank) from EKWB and expanded my existing loop with it. Someone should finally do that, right?
> 
> Finally: with the 2700X and the small radiator, the D5 pump at 75%, with 1.4V DRAM voltage and silent fan profile I have now 36.3°C RAM temp in the end of a 10 cycle TM5 run (~ 43min).
> Is it worth it? Hmm, for me yes. I get better temps then before, and I think it will be much better after the extension of my loop. But I admit, it is a lot more expensive then 1 fan or the ~15$ Turbulence III.


That was a lot of work but it is very much worth it. Same here, my FlareX gets toasty even at manufacturer's spec of 3200 speed. Have to lower down to 3133 MHz to keep it under 45c at load for daily use. Higher speeds like 3466 Cl14 using 1usmus' Calc are just for benching. I plan to add a fan to blow over them soon. 

Nice build.


----------



## Krisztias

rdr09 said:


> That was a lot of work but it is very much worth it. Same here, my FlareX gets toasty even at manufacturer's spec of 3200 speed. Have to lower down to 3133 MHz to keep it under 45c at load for daily use. Higher speeds like 3466 Cl14 using 1usmus' Calc are just for benching. I plan to add a fan to blow over them soon.
> 
> Nice build.


Thank you!


----------



## ENTERPRISE

MNMadman said:


> ...or they aren't available at all. Asus has a lot of settings that simply aren't exposed by other manufacturers. I know my ASRock board didn't have the ones you listed either.



This could be the case, I just wanted to make sure I was not missing anything


----------



## hurricane28

Hi fellas, 

I found an odd thing happening on my PC recently. 

I discovered that even when i am stable in the TM5 memory test tool i get weird glitches like mouse movements out of order and some weird browser behavior. When i ran sfc /scannow in cmd i get corruptions which can be repaired but it keeps coming back. This week i repaired it twice already.. 

So, the memory isn't that stable after all, its a hit or a miss it appears with Ryzen and RAM overclocking, at least on my machine. Weird.


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> Hi fellas,
> 
> I found an odd thing happening on my PC recently.
> 
> I discovered that even when i am stable in the TM5 memory test tool i get weird glitches like mouse movements out of order and some weird browser behavior. When i ran sfc /scannow in cmd i get corruptions which can be repaired but it keeps coming back. This week i repaired it twice already..
> 
> So, the memory isn't that stable after all, its a hit or a miss it appears with Ryzen and RAM overclocking, at least on my machine. Weird.


TestMem5 is for memory errors. Maybe it's more cpu-side glitch? IMC? tried more voltage?

And as a side note... been testing 3800Mhz... ran out of workable SoC voltage my motherboard allows... Just needed a couple more increases for "stability". 
I can game and use computer normally but can't stress test memory fully, if I load too many 'threads' it locks up. Memtest can only do 6 instances compared to the necessary 16 ones used normally. and TM5 only works ~5min before freeze. Though it seems not to produce any visual errors yet.
I reckon the voltage droops really badly under load as all voltages does on this board under heavy stress. 

I was surprised to see much the same timings that I got stable for 3733Mhz works in 3800Mhz, I needed a different voltage, AddrCmdSetup change and DrvStr change to make it work. Though as said above can't be 100% sure but it feels ok and hasn't crashed anything in usage other than freeze when running too many threads on the IMC in the error search. 
Got hindered by my Board Bios voltage limit for what my CPU-IMC wants for this speed.

EDIT: VSOC voltage = *1.400*Volts on the Ryzen 1700...


----------



## nick name

If you have your GPU in the top slot then it's a great place to stand a fan to aim at your RAM. And you can place the fan extremely close to the RAM without the fan pushing itself over. At least I can say a 1700RPM Noctua 120mm doesn't blow itself over.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Quick question. I was making changes to my BIOS and RAM Settings for Overclocking which proved 100% Stable in the BIOS and upon system restarts. However upon a cold boot it seems to be a no go. What could be causing that, any recommended changes ?


----------



## ZeNch

with the calculator you download into rar file a image with very useful tips to know what is wrong


in my opinion ProcODT or voltage


----------



## MNMadman

ENTERPRISE said:


> Quick question. I was making changes to my BIOS and RAM Settings for Overclocking which proved 100% Stable in the BIOS and upon system restarts. However upon a cold boot it seems to be a no go. What could be causing that, any recommended changes ?


If you had boot voltage for RAM, I'd say to increase that.

You could try increasing the regular RAM voltage, but it's more likely that you'll need to down-clock to a speed that your system will cold boot at.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

ZeNch said:


> with the calculator you download into rar file a image with very useful tips to know what is wrong
> 
> 
> in my opinion ProcODT or voltage





MNMadman said:


> ENTERPRISE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question. I was making changes to my BIOS and RAM Settings for Overclocking which proved 100% Stable in the BIOS and upon system restarts. However upon a cold boot it seems to be a no go. What could be causing that, any recommended changes ?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had boot voltage for RAM, I'd say to increase that.
> 
> 
> You could try increasing the regular RAM voltage, but it's more likely that you'll need to down-clock to a speed that your system will cold boot at.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have chsnged the ProcODT values using the calculator to both the recommended and the alt settings to see, if it is that but apparently not. 

I think it is the DRAM Boot voltage as you say, but looks like I cannot access that unless it is renamed something bizzare by MSI. 

I have ordered some new RAM anyway. Gone for some Gskill Trident Z, Specifically the ones designed for the Ryzen/Tr platforms at 3200Mhz CL14. I think ill have more luck with those. I get the distinct feeling my current Corsair Vengeance is holding me back.


----------



## hurricane28

Nighthog said:


> TestMem5 is for memory errors. Maybe it's more cpu-side glitch? IMC? tried more voltage?
> 
> And as a side note... been testing 3800Mhz... ran out of workable SoC voltage my motherboard allows... Just needed a couple more increases for "stability".
> I can game and use computer normally but can't stress test memory fully, if I load too many 'threads' it locks up. Memtest can only do 6 instances compared to the necessary 16 ones used normally. and TM5 only works ~5min before freeze. Though it seems not to produce any visual errors yet.
> I reckon the voltage droops really badly under load as all voltages does on this board under heavy stress.
> 
> I was surprised to see much the same timings that I got stable for 3733Mhz works in 3800Mhz, I needed a different voltage, AddrCmdSetup change and DrvStr change to make it work. Though as said above can't be 100% sure but it feels ok and hasn't crashed anything in usage other than freeze when running too many threads on the IMC in the error search.
> Got hindered by my Board Bios voltage limit for what my CPU-IMC wants for this speed.
> 
> EDIT: VSOC voltage = *1.400*Volts on the Ryzen 1700...


I know and i raised the voltages a bit. Its not an instability issue but rather an Windows issue i think, i never had this issue before. I changed some settings too and now it works better, thnx for the input though. 

3800 MHz?! I am glad i can boot at 3600 MHz lol. plz share some settings of 3800 MHz if you can, curious if i can boot at the same timings etc.


----------



## CJMitsuki

ENTERPRISE said:


> Yeah I have chsnged the ProcODT values using the calculator to both the recommended and the alt settings to see, if it is that but apparently not.
> 
> I think it is the DRAM Boot voltage as you say, but looks like I cannot access that unless it is renamed something bizzare by MSI.
> 
> I have ordered some new RAM anyway. Gone for some Gskill Trident Z, Specifically the ones designed for the Ryzen/Tr platforms at 3200Mhz CL14. I think ill have more luck with those. I get the distinct feeling my current Corsair Vengeance is holding me back.


 Can you post a bios dump in txt format or something similar and the specific model# of your ram? If you can ill take a look at the settings. It can be a number of things but Im leaning towards cad_bus, ProcOdt, and other resistances and bus values. The ram you have is probably the biggest problem and that 3200c14 kit you ordered is really solid imo. Another thing that helped me get rid of that cold boot annoyance was applying SoC voltage through what was on the C7H as "SoC OC VID" You set you SoC to "Offset" with Auto as the offset value then in the advanced menu was the SoC OC VID with values enetered through a hex format. From what I have read, it applies SoC voltage at time of boot instead of just after, giving the ram overclock that initial stability it needs so that it doesnt go through memory training. Once I set that to 1.1v which was what my ram was stable with, I had no more cold boot memory training. If the MSI board has something like that then thats something to try. I have a list of the Hex values for it if you end up needing it.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

CJMitsuki said:


> Can you post a bios dump in txt format or something similar and the specific model# of your ram? If you can ill take a look at the settings. It can be a number of things but Im leaning towards cad_bus, ProcOdt, and other resistances and bus values. The ram you have is probably the biggest problem and that 3200c14 kit you ordered is really solid imo. Another thing that helped me get rid of that cold boot annoyance was applying SoC voltage through what was on the C7H as "SoC OC VID" You set you SoC to "Offset" with Auto as the offset value then in the advanced menu was the SoC OC VID with values enetered through a hex format. From what I have read, it applies SoC voltage at time of boot instead of just after, giving the ram overclock that initial stability it needs so that it doesnt go through memory training. Once I set that to 1.1v which was what my ram was stable with, I had no more cold boot memory training. If the MSI board has something like that then thats something to try. I have a list of the Hex values for it if you end up needing it.



Great info, will have to definitely look into that when I get my Gskill kit on Tuesday (Looking forward to it). I would love to give you a BIOS dump for you that is readable but MSI does not support that. You can export your BIOS settings but these sit in a .OCB file which thus far I have failed to open in standard editor programs to see if I can see the values in english lol. I have attached the file anyway just incase anyone else knows how to convert these into something readable ! 

My current Ram is : https://www.corsair.com/uk/en/Categ...M-3600MHz-C18-Memory-Kit/p/CMR32GX4M4C3600C18 

It is Samsung B-die, but its really meant for Intel systems to be honest and while it ''Works'' I think it is the cause of my headaches and constant memory re-training.


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> I know and i raised the voltages a bit. Its not an instability issue but rather an Windows issue i think, i never had this issue before. I changed some settings too and now it works better, thnx for the input though.
> 
> 3800 MHz?! I am glad i can boot at 3600 MHz lol. plz share some settings of 3800 MHz if you can, curious if i can boot at the same timings etc.


Basically the same settings as I used for 3733Mhz worked for 3800Mhz. I needed to make a adjustment on AddrCmdSetup from my 3733Mhz settings. 3800Mhz likes 0/4 or 0/5 better. (0/4 being in use right now, compared to 0/3 for 3733Mhz, all lower speeds can have basically any number between 1-->13 no difference, the high speeds need specific setting)
A slight voltage increase was needed. Though I'm unsettled on what is necessary in the long run, I might be hitting that heat wall again even with my fan on the ram running above 1.500volts. 

From a cold boot all passed 1 cycle and ~10min before errors appeared and then it froze. Afterwards it hasn't wanted to run that easily. Been changing settings back and forth but can't get the same stability as I had from cold boot with the settings that worked yesterday and now today in the morning. Seems stability is still restricted by the heat limit I reach and stuff doesn't want to work the same cold as when warmed up. 

DrvStr settings went from [3733]20.20.24.20 -> [3800]24.20.20.20 -> 24.20.24.20 now. 

I really would need that increase in SoC voltage, I suspect that's the problem. too little and it droops harder when computer is heated up compared to cold run.


----------



## CJMitsuki

ENTERPRISE said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post a bios dump in txt format or something similar and the specific model# of your ram? If you can ill take a look at the settings. It can be a number of things but Im leaning towards cad_bus, ProcOdt, and other resistances and bus values. The ram you have is probably the biggest problem and that 3200c14 kit you ordered is really solid imo. Another thing that helped me get rid of that cold boot annoyance was applying SoC voltage through what was on the C7H as "SoC OC VID" You set you SoC to "Offset" with Auto as the offset value then in the advanced menu was the SoC OC VID with values enetered through a hex format. From what I have read, it applies SoC voltage at time of boot instead of just after, giving the ram overclock that initial stability it needs so that it doesnt go through memory training. Once I set that to 1.1v which was what my ram was stable with, I had no more cold boot memory training. If the MSI board has something like that then thats something to try. I have a list of the Hex values for it if you end up needing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great info, will have to definitely look into that when I get my Gskill kit on Tuesday (Looking forward to it). I would love to give you a BIOS dump for you that is readable but MSI does not support that. You can export your BIOS settings but these sit in a .OCB file which thus far I have failed to open in standard editor programs to see if I can see the values in english lol. I have attached the file anyway just incase anyone else knows how to convert these into something readable !
> 
> My current Ram is : https://www.corsair.com/uk/en/Categ...M-3600MHz-C18-Memory-Kit/p/CMR32GX4M4C3600C18
> 
> It is Samsung B-die, but its really meant for Intel systems to be honest and while it ''Works'' I think it is the cause of my headaches and constant memory re-training.
Click to expand...

Well just from seeing the timings I can tell you that is not the high quality b die. There are several variations and it seems like you grabbed a lower quality set. None of the B Die is really meant for either tbh. I got my kit Right before first gen launched and it’s a 3200c14 tridentz kit and it says it’s meant for Intel but that’s only due to it having an XMP profile. Other than that it’s exactly the same as the kit you are buying. It’s one of the highest quality bdie you can get. I just got lucky picking it as I didn’t know bdie would be good at the time, especially not that particular kit. Never had a problem getting the rated speed and as new Agesa updates came the higher I could push. Hoping for 3733 with my same timings with agesa 1.0.0.6


----------



## ENTERPRISE

CJMitsuki said:


> ENTERPRISE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post a bios dump in txt format or something similar and the specific model# of your ram? If you can ill take a look at the settings. It can be a number of things but Im leaning towards cad_bus, ProcOdt, and other resistances and bus values. The ram you have is probably the biggest problem and that 3200c14 kit you ordered is really solid imo. Another thing that helped me get rid of that cold boot annoyance was applying SoC voltage through what was on the C7H as "SoC OC VID" You set you SoC to "Offset" with Auto as the offset value then in the advanced menu was the SoC OC VID with values enetered through a hex format. From what I have read, it applies SoC voltage at time of boot instead of just after, giving the ram overclock that initial stability it needs so that it doesnt go through memory training. Once I set that to 1.1v which was what my ram was stable with, I had no more cold boot memory training. If the MSI board has something like that then thats something to try. I have a list of the Hex values for it if you end up needing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great info, will have to definitely look into that when I get my Gskill kit on Tuesday (Looking forward to it). I would love to give you a BIOS dump for you that is readable but MSI does not support that. You can export your BIOS settings but these sit in a .OCB file which thus far I have failed to open in standard editor programs to see if I can see the values in english lol. I have attached the file anyway just incase anyone else knows how to convert these into something readable !
> 
> My current Ram is : https://www.corsair.com/uk/en/Categ...M-3600MHz-C18-Memory-Kit/p/CMR32GX4M4C3600C18
> 
> It is Samsung B-die, but its really meant for Intel systems to be honest and while it ''Works'' I think it is the cause of my headaches and constant memory re-training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well just from seeing the timings I can tell you that is not the high quality b die. There are several variations and it seems like you grabbed a lower quality set. None of the B Die is really meant for either tbh. I got my kit Right before first gen launched and it’s a 3200c14 tridentz kit and it says it’s meant for Intel but that’s only due to it having an XMP profile. Other than that it’s exactly the same as the kit you are buying. It’s one of the highest quality bdie you can get. I just got lucky picking it as I didn’t know bdie would be good at the time, especially not that particular kit. Never had a problem getting the rated speed and as new Agesa updates came the higher I could push. Hoping for 3733 with
> my same timings with agesa 1.0.0.6
Click to expand...

Yeah its not the highest quality kit and certainly not optimized for Ryzen systems, wish it was considering how much I paid for it lol. 

Hoping the Trident z solves my cold boot issues to some degree. May even just leave it at 3200, but may try for higher. I know with my current kit, 3333 was possible but failed OCCT in like 3 mins.

Once I get it I will try and shoot for higher. While I know 3200 is a good sweet spot, what is realistically achievable at the moment ?


----------



## CJMitsuki

ENTERPRISE said:


> Yeah its not the highest quality kit and certainly not optimized for Ryzen systems, wish it was considering how much I paid for it lol.
> 
> Hoping the Trident z solves my cold boot issues to some degree. May even just leave it at 3200, but may try for higher. I know with my current kit, 3333 was possible but failed OCCT in like 3 mins.
> 
> Once I get it I will try and shoot for higher. While I know 3200 is a good sweet spot, what is realistically achievable at the moment ?



Hmm, on a TR? Is it going to be a Single or Dual Rank kit? If you get a Single Rank and go with the 8gbx4 which seems like a waste for TR you may get 3466 if you have a decent IMC and work on the timings a bit but you may be better off with 3333 at cl14 with tighter timings although I have not had a chance to work with a TR. Im assuming it is fairly similar with respect to the IMC. 3466 is what I have seen a couple others get around the forums and that seemed to be the high end, but that was for first gen TR. If you are going with a 8gbx2 setup which is doubtful if you are using TR then you could expect a higher frequency and if you are running 16gbx4 you can expect a lower frequency than the 8gbx4. Im just going to assume you are getting a matching tridentZ kit to the one you have now though which is probably the best choice for 32gb setup. Id say with a good IMC youll see 3466+ max depending on IMC but 3333mhz with tight timings wouldnt be too shabby although it does support up to 3600mhz lol. If you have a god tier IMC you could, in theory run that speed but I have yet to see that or even 3533 a cl14 on TR. It will be interesting to see what it can do though. Im pretty sure @gupsterg was doing some in depth 8gbx4 stuff but idk if that was on TR or his 2700x.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

CJMitsuki said:


> Hmm, on a TR? Is it going to be a Single or Dual Rank kit? If you get a Single Rank and go with the 8gbx4 which seems like a waste for TR you may get 3466 if you have a decent IMC and work on the timings a bit but you may be better off with 3333 at cl14 with tighter timings although I have not had a chance to work with a TR. Im assuming it is fairly similar with respect to the IMC. 3466 is what I have seen a couple others get around the forums and that seemed to be the high end, but that was for first gen TR. If you are going with a 8gbx2 setup which is doubtful if you are using TR then you could expect a higher frequency and if you are running 16gbx4 you can expect a lower frequency than the 8gbx4. Im just going to assume you are getting a matching tridentZ kit to the one you have now though which is probably the best choice for 32gb setup. Id say with a good IMC youll see 3466+ max depending on IMC but 3333mhz with tight timings wouldnt be too shabby although it does support up to 3600mhz lol. If you have a god tier IMC you could, in theory run that speed but I have yet to see that or even 3533 a cl14 on TR. It will be interesting to see what it can do though. Im pretty sure @gupsterg was doing some in depth 8gbx4 stuff but idk if that was on TR or his 2700x.


Thanks for the insight. I always thought that 3200-3333 was the sweet spot on TR still 3466 was always so so, but then again I was tying to use my current RAM kit which is not friendly with Ryzen. The Trident Z Kit will be a 32GB Kti (4x8Gb Modules) Single Sided. I know double sided can still pose some issues. The Trident Kit I am going for is CL14, which is what I have been trying to push on my current kit but it is clear the chips are not high quality enough to sustain that.


----------



## Unoid

I went from 2x16gb b-die at xmp settings pc3200 @ 2933 14-14-14-14 1T and used the "safe" tweaked subtimings. nearly every subtiming went lower. My bandwidth went from 41GB/s to 45GB/s but inversely my latency went from 81ns to 87ns

Any idea that would be?


----------



## figarro

My guess is because you've enabled Power Down mode. Disabling it shaves a few nanoseconds from latency.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA




----------



## DDDSS

Hi, do any of you RAM savy guys have any advice on helping me getting the maximum out of my RAM? I made a thread for it here https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1712194-oc-ram-3466-help.html I have gotten plenty of FAST presets working using the RAM caculator but the EXTREME presets don't seem to boot for me as far as I have tried. The CPU debug LED just lights up and stays on, and none of the alternative settings I have tried haven't helped getting it to post.


----------



## Nighthog

DDDSS said:


> Hi, do any of you RAM savy guys have any advice on helping me getting the maximum out of my RAM? I made a thread for it here https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1712194-oc-ram-3466-help.html I have gotten plenty of FAST presets working using the RAM caculator but the EXTREME presets don't seem to boot for me as far as I have tried. The CPU debug LED just lights up and stays on, and none of the alternative settings I have tried haven't helped getting it to post.


Best suggestion I have is start with the settings that work and then try each "extreme" preset setting one at a time to see which ones work and then you probably will find the culprit that refuses to work. Then just use everything else but the thing that failed  or work with it to see how far it can go. Not all kits can do Extreme.


----------



## DDDSS

Nighthog said:


> Best suggestion I have is start with the settings that work and then try each "extreme" preset setting one at a time to see which ones work and then you probably will find the culprit that refuses to work. Then just use everything else but the thing that failed  or work with it to see how far it can go. Not all kits can do Extreme.


I am thinking that's my only option at this point. One question, should I set the RAM voltage to the recommended 1.46 before I start tightening the timings, or should I increase it from my current 1.42 only when I hit issues.


----------



## nick name

DDDSS said:


> Hi, do any of you RAM savy guys have any advice on helping me getting the maximum out of my RAM? I made a thread for it here https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1712194-oc-ram-3466-help.html I have gotten plenty of FAST presets working using the RAM caculator but the EXTREME presets don't seem to boot for me as far as I have tried. The CPU debug LED just lights up and stays on, and none of the alternative settings I have tried haven't helped getting it to post.


I haven't gotten any of the extreme presets to work either. I run a 3600CL15 b-die kit at 3600 14-15-14-14, but haven't had any success with the extreme presets for any of the lower speeds.


----------



## Unoid

Unoid said:


> I went from 2x16gb b-die at xmp settings pc3200 @ 2933 14-14-14-14 1T and used the "safe" tweaked subtimings. nearly every subtiming went lower. My bandwidth went from 41GB/s to 45GB/s but inversely my latency went from 81ns to 87ns
> 
> Any idea that would be?


I was able to figure out my issues. I am now running 2933 14-14-14-14 2x16GB with FAST preset of timings. 46GB/s and 79ns on latency.


----------



## haris013

Hello, just a quick question, first time oc, I downloaded the tool and used the settings of the safe profile. 

My ram is a single module of G.Skill Aegis 8GB DDR4-3000MHz (F4-3000C16S-8GISB)

And my m/b is asrock ab350 gaming k4 latest bios.

When I enter the values generated from tool I got blue screen after Windows login.

Am I just unlucky or I am doing something wrong?


----------



## seansplayin

Is it possible to use primary timings below 14,14,14,14 on C6H&C7H?
Also with memory speed of 3600 using safe timings from dram Calc (14,14,15,15,28,42,1T) took only 1.44v memory Voltage, but just to lower trcdrd from 15 to 14 (14,14,14,14,28,42,1T) took raising memory voltage to 1.49V and raising VDDP to 800mv, the thing is I can pass preliminary memory stability tests but then I experience weird issues with USB3 dropping out. Any ideas? On my C7H according to Asus’s AI Suite and Hwinfo my VDDP voltage is only like 200mv when set to auto even when cpu is under load however I believe on my C6H it’s closer to 800mv on auto.


----------



## LillysTittchen

I faced a behavior I'm not sure how to interpret it. I got TM5 to pass multiple times (10 cycles) without errors, also GSAT (stressapptest -W -s 10800 -M 14400) passed without errors running it for 3 hours. But HCI MemTest (16 instances à 900 MB) throws errors at random coverage. The longest run covered 700% but the results are really inconsequent...its fluctuating between 200% and 700%.

Also working and playing for hours is no problem...no bluescreen or similar. What do you think is going on here? Should I ignore TestMem?


----------



## nick name

LillysTittchen said:


> I faced a behavior I'm not sure how to interpret it. I got TM5 to pass multiple times (10 cycles) without errors, also GSAT (stressapptest -W -s 10800 -M 14400) passed without errors running it for 3 hours. But HCI MemTest (16 instances à 900 MB) throws errors at random coverage. The longest run covered 700% but the results are really inconsequent...its fluctuating between 200% and 700%.
> 
> Also working and playing for hours is no problem...no bluescreen or similar. What do you think is going on here? Should I ignore TestMem?


I'm not sure it would be wise to ignore the errors you're seeing, but it may indicate there is something outside the scope of normal use and testing that isn't stable. So is it stable in the most strict sense? No, but it may not be something you encounter causing problems outside of HCI MemTest.


----------



## 1usmus

Diablix6 said:


> Hi OP!
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for your great tool. It really helped me to set right settings, and I have learned that sometimes *less is more* (especially with DRAM Voltage ). I am very glad that I can use it to maximize potential from my new build rig. Unfortunately my system still isn't stable even after a week of tweaking it... but I see you've released*"Advanced instructions : DRAM Calculator for Ryzen ™ 1.4.0 and newer versions" *so I hope it will help me to finally make it stable.
> 
> I have 2700X, X470 Taichi and G.Skill 3200C14DGTZ, so I would like to get that 3466 Fast setting stable. I can run about 16 instances of HCI Memtest for like 200-300% before I get my first error read. Before I tried many different settings, like 3466 Safe with 102 BCLK, 3333 Fast, 3600 Fast, 3466 Safe, but 3466 Fast seems to be even more doable than 3466 Safe, which seems to be pretty strange...
> 
> 
> There is one thing that I would like to ask. My motherboard is giving me some pretty strange DRAM Voltage readings. At set 1.36V I can see at BIOS or HWiNFO about 1.4V, when I set to 1.37 I see about 1.424V. Even when I clear CMOS, I have set 1.2V but I can see 1.232V. I don't OC CPU. Should it be so different from what I set in BIOS? Is it something normal, or should I RMA it?


Hwinfo is not a precise instrument for measurements, I advise you to focus only on the values that you set in the BIOS.

*Next week I will receive 2 additional b-die sets and create additional presets for 3466*



QuadJunkyx said:


> @*1usmus*
> 
> 
> What is up with this tip? every time I change something and hit safe/fast/extreme this tip pops up?


This is help . In the future I will improve the tips (pop-up) in this tool.



ENTERPRISE said:


> @*1usmus*
> 
> Thanks for the tool, it is fantastic. However there are a couple of settings I need to apply that I am unable to location in my BIOS, I am using the MSI MEG Creation using your 129 Modded BIOS.
> 
> 
> I cannot find the following :
> 
> *VTT DDR Voltage (Min/Max)
> **Boot DRAM Voltage
> **VDDP Voltage
> **VPP Voltage
> **PLL Voltage *
> 
> The only other settings I cannot location is with regards to the Memory Interleaving Tweaks, I cannot seem to find the following:
> 
> *Super I/O Clock Skew
> **DRAM R1-R4 Tune *
> 
> I come from Asus and these were fairly obvious but I cannot find these on the MSI bios, I am either in the wrong section or they are named differently.
> 
> Thanks in advance !


I will unlock some voltages in future modifications, but most of the settings have only Asus motherboards



Krisztias said:


> I searched the internet a lot in this topic and found an old post in the ROG forum ( only this one!), where somebody did that and documented it. The one, who did it years ago, with a solution from Koolance (if I remember corretly, and which is no longer available) had a good result with it. All other search results have meant that RAM should not be cooled ... We know it, that is not true ...  If we want to overclock the RAM, we need cooling to!
> I like, if everything is reasonable, so tinker a 12cm ventillator on/over the RAM modules is too "DIY" for me, asthetics matters, so in january, i bought the Turbulence III from G.Skill. Was not bad, but was loud.
> But then summer came and I could not achive higher frequencys, because the temperature of the modules was too high under full load with 1.425V DRAM Voltage (sometimes between 44-48°C, - I had this time the fans in push configuration, as intake). So I decided to buy the Monarch modules and the Monarch X4 waterblock along with additionally 2, 1.5mm thick thermal pads (because my memory is single rank) from EKWB and expanded my existing loop with it. Someone should finally do that, right?
> 
> I have the EK-Kit P360, without any modification (until now). So you should definitely keep in mind that I only have one 38mm thick and 360mm long radiator with 3 Vardar fans, not many and larger radiators like many of you have... So there is a lot of headroom for me to make it better in the future. In the meantime, it was not so warm anymore and I swapped the Vardars in to pull configuration and reached with the Turbulence III with 1.4V DRAM Voltage a RAM temp of 39,5°C at 22°C ambient. It was much better, but I have already ordered the Monarch, so...  Btw. I have 2x 14cm fans in my case, one at the bottom and the other at the front. Both pulling air from the room in to the case.
> 
> At the beginning, I did not think about writing a little review, so I'm sorry, I did not create any photo documentation about it, only a before-after photo is all i have
> It was not easy to remove the factory heatspreaders, clean the modules, install the heatpads and assemble the Monarch module. One module took an hour to complete. I have heated the modules with hair dryer, then carefully with a plastic card dissolved from cm to cm. I have Flare X 3200C14 modules (SR), the IC side was just glued thin, but the other side was glued with some heatpad, which was very difficult to remove. But I did it without to hurt the module, so I was very proud of myself in the end  I cleaned the sticks with rubber alcohol gently, placed the heatpads on the chips, removed the film, then placed the 1.5mm heatpads on the other side and mounted the Monarch module together. I placed the modules in the dimm slots and mounted the waterblock. For the record, I used a thin layer of Hydronaut between the Monarch modules and the Monarch X4 waterblock.
> 
> Finally: with the 2700X and the small radiator, the D5 pump at 75%, with 1.4V DRAM voltage and silent fan profile I have now 36.3°C RAM temp in the end of a 10 cycle TM5 run (~ 43min).
> Is it worth it? Hmm, for me yes. I get better temps then before, and I think it will be much better after the extension of my loop. But I admit, it is a lot more expensive then 1 fan or the ~15$ Turbulence III.


Thanks for posting your experiment 

________________________________________________

I will write the rest of the answers later


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

@1usmus

Hey Bartan'
Here is my Thaiphoon HTML for my DDR4 4133 CL19
https://mega.nz/#!9MEkhYJZ!mEi-w5LVj_Z0LjVdy5K-9zmSjEe9c2YSAV9MxDgbxVY

If you can, just guide me in the right direction.
3500 CL16 1T GD 1.193v SOC 1.5v RAM
3333 105FSB
ProcODT 60
RTT= OFF/OFF/4




==


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Today was a good Day 

Tweaked DDR4 to 3360 CL14-15-15-14 30 45 1T GD
SOC now on 1.111v and DDR4 at 1.417v (Read-Out from BIOS & HWinfo)
Overal Latency is like always ~70-71ns
For real that RAM can go faster at lower V  

ProcODT 60
RTT= OFF/OFF/4
CAD 30/30/30/30

TM5 OK
AIDA Stress OK
40min Destiny 2 OK 
Games & System is more snapier that on 3500 CL16-17-17-17 
So -> 3360 VLLT is my new Daily 

@1usmus , what i can do to get more latency? 69-68ns
All 14 is a no go, 1T no-GD is a no go.

====
Here:


----------



## 1usmus

ENTERPRISE said:


> Quick question. I was making changes to my BIOS and RAM Settings for Overclocking which proved 100% Stable in the BIOS and upon system restarts. However upon a cold boot it seems to be a no go. What could be causing that, any recommended changes ?


AMD CBS -> Memory clear - disabled 

This setting can help make the system predictable after each reboot or shutdown 



DDDSS said:


> Hi, do any of you RAM savy guys have any advice on helping me getting the maximum out of my RAM? I made a thread for it here https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1712194-oc-ram-3466-help.html I have gotten plenty of FAST presets working using the RAM caculator but the EXTREME presets don't seem to boot for me as far as I have tried. The CPU debug LED just lights up and stays on, and none of the alternative settings I have tried haven't helped getting it to post.



Extreme preset in most cases may require 1.5V +. Please show me what you want to achieve.


----------



## specialedge

1usmus said:


> AMD CBS -> Memory clear - disabled
> 
> This setting can help make the system predictable after each reboot or shutdown


Now THAT is a useful insight! 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## DDDSS

1usmus said:


> Extreme preset in most cases may require 1.5V +. Please show me what you want to achieve.


I have posted some extra info on my problems in this thread https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1712194-oc-ram-3466-help.html
Mostly I followed recommended specs for voltages as the calculator showed. Picture posted is some of the Extreme presets I have tried to get to work.

I didn't go to 1.5V because the recommended max as you can see in those pictures is 1.49V that and I don't feel that brave yet.

Side question. My Ram runs at 42C under 10min of aida64 stress test at 1.42volts. And is around 27-28 at idle and around 32-34 when gaming. Based on this how would you rate my RAM cooling, sufficient to go to 1.5V? Or what would you guess the "safe/good" voltage max is for this setup.

Lastly a question to anybody really. I ran a 8 hour mem86 test and it had zero errors up to the 7th pass, at which point it gave me one error. Am I supposed to reach a perfect zero errors state no matter how long I run the test? I am asking because I still keep tweeking and testing, but getting rid of that last minor error is quite a time consuming challenge. (If anybody is interested it's usually either 7th test or 8th test. The left most bit is usually the wrong one, like Expected: A7E8FEA6, Actual: 87E8FEA6. I realize there is probably a multitude of variables responsible for it but if anybody has a guess as to why that first "bit" is usually the wrong one and what setting I should tweek to get rid of it, then your help and theories are appreciated)


----------



## LillysTittchen

nick name said:


> I'm not sure it would be wise to ignore the errors you're seeing, but it may indicate there is something outside the scope of normal use and testing that isn't stable. So is it stable in the most strict sense? No, but it may not be something you encounter causing problems outside of HCI MemTest.


Well I applied more aggressive timings just to ensure GSAT is trustworthy. I hoped it will throw errors but it didn't. This time it run for 4 hours without errors under Manjaro and then I reapeted GSAT under Windows with Ubuntu 18.04 for 2 hours and again no errors. Then I started MemTest for 7 hours (>1000%) without errors  (finally I got 5 errors while I was sleeping..the first one at 1200%)

Now after switching off the psu I restarted MemTest and it fails at 47% 

I know about the inconsistency but almost all Bios settings are set, exclude CPU V (Auto) and the most of CBS/PBS (unlocked by mod)

Could it be a Windows Problem? or should I have a closer look at unset bios settings?


----------



## steve2563

Got a really interesting question for you guys.
Recently bought the Patriot Viper 3200CL16 RGB black kit (https://www.amazon.com/Patriot-Viper-Gaming-DDR4-3200MHz/dp/B07CX2X83Y). Thaiphoon Burner says SK Hynix die (H5AN8G8N?FR-TFC). Poked Patriot on Facebook which die they used. Their reply was interesting: Samsung B-Die for 3200 and up. (screenshot attached). 

I am confused. Now what? [emoji848]



Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk


----------



## specialedge

steve2563 said:


> Got a really interesting question for you guys.
> Recently bought the Patriot Viper 3200CL16 RGB black kit (https://www.amazon.com/Patriot-Viper-Gaming-DDR4-3200MHz/dp/B07CX2X83Y). Thaiphoon Burner says SK Hynix die (H5AN8G8N?FR-TFC). Poked Patriot on Facebook which die they used. Their reply was interesting: Samsung B-Die for 3200 and up. (screenshot attached).
> 
> I am confused. Now what? [emoji848]
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk


I would trust the IC ROM identifier over the person responsible for Facebook messages 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## DDDSS

Been doing rigorous testing on my RAM at 3466 FAST preset. It's almost error free, almost. It passes the standard 4 passes of memtest86. But when I set it to test for 10 passes then usually by pass 5 to 8 one error sneaks in. I have been tinkering with it trying to get more stable but just can't seem to find he setting that would give me a complete 100% error free results for 10 memtest86 passes(aside from stock XMP profile)
Things I have tried:


> *Single and rare errors can be cured by manually sorting such timings: *tFAW* (from 16 to 36), by increasing *tRRDS* by 1 or 2, by changing *tRTP* (from 8 to 12).
> 
> * Single and rare errors can be cured by changing *tRDWR* (from 6 to 9) and *tWRRD* (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 tWRRD 1, and so on.
> 
> * Single and rare errors can be cured with the help of the *tRFC* change, the calculator offers you another *alternative tRFC*. You can also round the recommended number. *tRFC 2/4* is not necessary to configure.


With little success in getting rid if that pesky single error. Any further advise, aside from "trial and error for weeks until you get it to go away"?

Attached picture features the timings in use. Following are the voltages set in BIOS: CPU voltage is 1.3375V LCC4. DRAM voltage is 1.42V no LLC option. SOC voltage is 1.0250V LLC3.
The motherboard is MSI, the CPU is ryzen 2600, the RAM kits are G.Skill DDR4 RipJawsV Red 16GB (2x8GB) 3200MHz CL14, product code F4-3200C14D-16GVR.


----------



## bottlefedchaney

FJSAMA said:


> Hey @1usmus and everyone.
> Just reporting i could successfully oc my RAM F4-3200c14d-16gtzr using 3200 fast preset and its been stable for several days. (memtest 120%+ run and tm5 no errors plus everyday running without issues)
> 
> ***EDIT: How can i change BGSalt to disable on my motherboard? I cant seem to find it (since calculator says to change to off for gaming)***
> 
> Anything else i can squeeze from my ryzen (running stock cooler atm) for gaming purposes?
> Perhaps tuning llc for lower voltages and lower temps for better auto oc?
> Any guide for cpu core setup you recommend like this one for ram? Thanks and great work!


I don't know about your board but here is a link from a post I made in the CHVI thread on how to do it with references, you may be able to find the settings somewhere.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...vi-overclocking-thread-3878.html#post27671876


----------



## hsn

R3 1300x
team xtreem 16gb 4133 
gigabyte b350n gaming wifi

4ghz 1.275v
soc 1.0625v
ddr4 3666 cl16 1.43v 

it's stable for me,,but try to tight dram timing


----------



## Yviena

@1usmus Hmm you should maybe also add 30/30/30/30 as cadbus settings in the ryzen calcuator, it was more stable for me than 24/24/24/24 or 30/30/40/60


----------



## hsn

Yviena said:


> @1usmus Hmm you should maybe also add 30/30/30/30 as cadbus settings in the ryzen calcuator, it was more stable for me than 24/24/24/24 or 30/30/40/60


thanks, i'll try your suggest maybe more stable for tighter timing.


----------



## Yviena

Hmm seems TRCDRD at 15 and TRCWR at 14 is unstable, but swapped is stable.


----------



## Nighthog

When you try to run higher speeds and settings the memory gets a lot more finicky about what settings you can run.

I found changing timings around one at a time to produce various effects on stability. Basically you can set one specific timing and it likes some other specific timing to be something else and in conjunction two timings together works almost flawless when set in pairs to see which things they like the other to be and back and forth. 
This way I found values that are more stable tighter than either is more loose individually. 

There are gaps in values you can use as well. In particular I can share that I found out tFAW doesn't like every value in linear fashion. There are specific values that are stable while others are not and other timings can play a part in deciding if that particular value you are trying works or not.
I found out tFAW likes values 6,10,14,20 in my search for stability. Values 6,14,20 like tRTP to be 10 while tFAW 10 likes tRTP 12. These are 'stable' values and anything in-between is useless.

tRFC is a real problem as well... Running lower speeds I can push it down to 550 @3600 (~305ns), any values is ok down to the limit. But running 3733Mhz it basically is impossible to run any faster than 'stock' (350ns) and there are only specific points and values going lower that seem to work stable. Most values don't want to work at all. It's like a wave going trough the values that hit the spot and work at intervals. Though it's been a hassle thus far finding something lower than close to 'stock' work out in the long run. I thought various times that I found something stable but it made things crash in the end after a while running even though initially it looked to work and gave no memory errors, Though later it would error, going back up fixed the issue again.

Then maybe mentioned at times but not all times considered for all. Higher Infinity-Fabric speeds need higher CPU voltages to work in conjunction. Stock voltages usually are no good when pushing it. You need to increase core voltage as well the more you try to push it. Especially trying high core clocks with a high IF speed. A slight increase for every step. Particularly P-state OC needs consideration. You can not only increase the voltage for p-state 0... All the lower p-states need the higher voltage as well with the higher IF speed or you might get freezes or unstable behaviour in idle states!
I found a workaround to combine P-state OC and voltage setting with offset voltage on my Gigabyte board.
Set a desired P-state clock and voltage and then adjust the rest with offset voltage. For example HEX (A0) for 4.0Ghz and then HEX (10) for 1.450V (ryzen 1700) and the rest with offset, like 0.102V offset on top for 1.550V total. That high offset was necessary for me to stabilize the idle states to not give issues before. 
For a 3.9Ghz HEX (9C) I need only HEX (20) 1.350V and the rest with a offset ~0.108V. 

I'm finding I need more core voltage than I've been using thus far now trying this 3733Mhz than the old max 3600Mhz. My old "limits" on voltage need increases or I get threads dropping in Prime and such. Trying to find new voltages that work with this speed now. (usually more offset is increased)


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

My new Stable RAM OC 3360MHz FSB 105 (Pic below)
Now below 69.7ns 

Changed:
ProcODT from 60 to 53
CAD Bus from all 30 to all 20
RTT same OFF/OFF/4 (need to test 7/OFF/4)

Also changed:
DRAM Tune from 64 to Auto (all 4)
SOC at 1.162 (fluc. 1.090 - 1.112v)
DRAM at 1.45v (fluc. 1.395 - 1.439v)

Voltage Switch Freq. (was 350 all CPU/SOC/DRAM) now at 300KHz

==
For some it may be tooo much variables (don't give Up, ZEN wanna work with us )
Pic.


----------



## ZeNch

DDDSS said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extreme preset in most cases may require 1.5V +. Please show me what you want to achieve.
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted some extra info on my problems in this thread https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1712194-oc-ram-3466-help.html
> Mostly I followed recommended specs for voltages as the calculator showed. Picture posted is some of the Extreme presets I have tried to get to work.
> 
> I didn't go to 1.5V because the recommended max as you can see in those pictures is 1.49V that and I don't feel that brave yet.
> 
> Side question. My Ram runs at 42C under 10min of aida64 stress test at 1.42volts. And is around 27-28 at idle and around 32-34 when gaming. Based on this how would you rate my RAM cooling, sufficient to go to 1.5V? Or what would you guess the "safe/good" voltage max is for this setup.
> 
> Lastly a question to anybody really. I ran a 8 hour mem86 test and it had zero errors up to the 7th pass, at which point it gave me one error. Am I supposed to reach a perfect zero errors state no matter how long I run the test? I am asking because I still keep tweeking and testing, but getting rid of that last minor error is quite a time consuming challenge. (If anybody is interested it's usually either 7th test or 8th test. The left most bit is usually the wrong one, like Expected: A7E8FEA6, Actual: 87E8FEA6. I realize there is probably a multitude of variables responsible for it but if anybody has a guess as to why that first "bit" is usually the wrong one and what setting I should tweek to get rid of it, then your help and theories are appreciated)
Click to expand...

Commonly error in test 5 and 8 is ram voltage problem. (Need to set more).

Test 5 and 8 throw patterns (8 is more aggresive).

If you can pass all test (various passes) but not 5 or 8 i recommend you to set more voltage and only use test 5 and 8 (15 passes or similar). After this try to use other memory test.


----------



## DDDSS

ZeNch said:


> Commonly error in test 5 and 8 is ram voltage problem. (Need to set more).
> 
> Test 5 and 8 throw patterns (8 is more aggresive).
> 
> If you can pass all test (various passes) but not 5 or 8 i recommend you to set more voltage and only use test 5 and 8 (15 passes or similar). After this try to use other memory test.


 Haven't had errors in test 5, but test 7 is the big trouble child with sometimes test 8 also throwing a rare error. At my current settings 1.42V the 3466 CL 14-14-14-14 passes usually at least 4-5 passes before the test 7 or 8 gives me a single error. I made a post about it in this thread already on page 342 with additional info. I think I tried 1.43V but the single errors still persisted, so you recommend I go 1.44, 1.45V? Issue with that is It feels really wrong kinda dumb to add so much extra voltage to get rid of a single error?


----------



## lester007

Hello, I need a little help, I used the dram calculator for ryzen awesome app btw.
I tried 3200Mhz Fast and successfully passed the memory test.
I tried 3333 to 3600, safe and fast were throwing me memory errors. Oddly enough 3533Mhz safe was stable for me. I kinda want 3466 tight timings but I failed to do so.


----------



## Filters83

lester007 said:


> Hello, I need a little help, I used the dram calculator for ryzen awesome app btw.
> I tried 3200Mhz Fast and successfully passed the memory test.
> I tried 3333 to 3600, safe and fast were throwing me memory errors. Oddly enough 3533Mhz safe was stable for me. I kinda want 3466 tight timings but I failed to do so.


I have your exact memory but on a different board. I was able to do 3333 fast setting rock solid so far, 1.37,5 ram voltage in bios the rest of the setting in the image, hope can help !
For now im not stable on higher speed :\


----------



## lester007

Filters83 said:


> I have your exact memory but on a different board. I was able to do 3333 fast setting rock solid so far, 1.37,5 ram voltage in bios the rest of the setting in the image, hope can help !
> For now im not stable on higher speed :\


I appreciate your help, I tried your timings it didn't work on mine. It crashes 2mins in the test.


----------



## BeeSt

Hello everyone!
After mine conversation with the official page of Gigabyte and Gskill they sent me your link from this article. So I am glad to be here!
I am building my first AMD Zen micro-architecture and I am a little bit confused with my choice of the ram.
Yesterday I ordered TriedentZ 3200c14 but the kit of 64GB (4x16 2Rx8). The official answer of Gskill (today after a week) is that 
the only TridentZ at 32000Mhz is the GTZRX for AMD systems and only at 32GB. The link list with the rest supported mems by Gskill is the below.
https://www.gskill.com/en/configurator?manu=54&chip=2952&model=2960&fbclid=IwAR0esMNp-8Kw137bnIqUXFdzYOmgfXP8FuMsWuO4FJHdAWvrouk6-9WECRg 

From the other side Gigabyte sent me that the best choice is between these ones in the support list of ram which my choice is inside. 
I pick up 64s kit easy cause in my work I used to render with V-ray and Octane render and now with pro renderer and programs 
like 3ds max, rhino, blender after effects and others... My system set up is 1800X with Aorus AX370 K7 and dual GPU Vega 56 with EVGA 1300 G2 PSU.
But I still now feeling confused with my choice in memory. What do you think is the most stable with nice workflow choice. 

32 or 64GB?
3200c14 or 3600c16 (3600c17 or 3466C16 for 64GB)?
Or I can pick some higher frequency memory (like 3733,3866,4000) and under-clock them to 3466 or higher? 
Also if I saved money from a 32GB kit is better to change cpu with one 2700X? or to monoblock the M/B - CPU because of the hit of VRM?
Finally which BIOS is best choice AGESA 1.0.0.4 or the F22b version?

Thanks a lot all for your time!

P.S. @1usmus you and your tool is realy awesome! Well Done!!! You are our Master Yoda  
P.S.2 I still have some little bit time to canceled the order so I will appreciate all your answers!


----------



## lightsout

Hey guys I am late to the Ryzen party.

I have a 2600 w/ Strix B450-I. I just found a great deal on what I believe are B-Die Flares. F4-3200C14D-16GFX

What should I shoot for with gaming in mind? Higher speed or tighter timings? Or a combo of both, I know peoples opinions vary hear just curious where to start pushing.


----------



## MNMadman

lightsout said:


> Hey guys I am late to the Ryzen party.
> 
> I have a 2600 w/ Strix B450-I. I just found a great deal on what I believe are B-Die Flares. F4-3200C14D-16GFX
> 
> What should I shoot for with gaming in mind? Higher speed or tighter timings? Or a combo of both, I know peoples opinions vary hear just curious where to start pushing.


It depends on what resolution you game at.

1080p: Faster speed generally makes more of a difference. However, if you have to use primary timings higher than 16-16-16 the speed increase generally isn't worth it.

1440p and above: Neither faster speed nor lower timings will make a difference, as the GPU is the limiter. I have run my RAM at 2400-3466 and seen barely any difference at all in gaming performance at 1440p.


----------



## lightsout

MNMadman said:


> It depends on what resolution you game at.
> 
> 1080p: Faster speed generally makes more of a difference. However, if you have to use primary timings higher than 16-16-16 the speed increase generally isn't worth it.
> 
> 1440p and above: Neither faster speed nor lower timings will make a difference, as the GPU is the limiter. I have run my RAM at 2400-3466 and seen barely any difference at all in gaming performance at 1440p.


Lol well that stinks. I mean I figured it wouldn't be a major difference, but most of what we do around here isn't ha.

I am actually replacing my current 3200 c16 rgb tridentz with the Flarez. Not expecting some great difference, just needed some ram for a low budget build and saw a chance to get some b-die in my main rig.

Whats the go to bench to measure performance when OCing ram? AIDA64?
And what do most folks use to stress? Google stress?


----------



## Keith Myers

I like Geekbench4 for quick and dirty memory tests after changing timing parameters. A battery of different applications are used for single thread and multi-thread to give me a realistic view of actual application performance.


----------



## lightsout

Keith Myers said:


> I like Geekbench4 for quick and dirty memory tests after changing timing parameters. A battery of different applications are used for single thread and multi-thread to give me a realistic view of actual application performance.


Thanks man I'll check it out.


----------



## Keith Myers

Stressapptest is good for fast way to identify a valid target frequency for later heavier use testing. Prime95 will show up weaknesses in actual load testing.


----------



## lightsout

Keith Myers said:


> Stressapptest is good for fast way to identify a valid target frequency for later heavier use testing. Prime95 will show up weaknesses in actual load testing.


For ram and CPU are people still using blend with prime?


----------



## Keith Myers

Probably the most common. I like replicating my real workload with the custom settings of small FFT with large amounts of RAM on my normal amount of threads in use. Normally 11 threads. So if it runs Prime without errors, then it is a good case for running my real workload without generating errors.


----------



## lightsout

Keith Myers said:


> Probably the most common. I like replicating my real workload with the custom settings of small FFT with large amounts of RAM on my normal amount of threads in use. Normally 11 threads. So if it runs Prime without errors, then it is a good case for running my real workload without generating errors.


That makes sense. I'm mostly gaming or using my PC for school/study. Battlefield has always been a good stability test.


----------



## DevilDinosaur

i have two 8GB sticks of that samsung b die ripjaws z 3200 cl14 i got 2 years ago or something and it works on my ryzen 2700x @ 3666 MHz , its not stable, i go down the shop and buy some 3600 ram and it wont even post @ 3600


----------



## makatech

MNMadman said:


> It depends on what resolution you game at.
> 
> 1080p: Faster speed generally makes more of a difference. However, if you have to use primary timings higher than 16-16-16 the speed increase generally isn't worth it.
> 
> 1440p and above: Neither faster speed nor lower timings will make a difference, as the GPU is the limiter. I have run my RAM at 2400-3466 and seen barely any difference at all in gaming performance at 1440p.


Very interesting with faster RAM settings not making a difference on a 1440p setup, I didn't know that at all. :-( :-(

These days I wonder how many people buying an expensive 1440p, 144Hz monitor just to realize their GPU can't handle it getting stuck in an upgrade circle having to upgrade the entire GPU and maybe more parts as well. ;-)


----------



## BeeSt

Could anyone know if 64GB memory working at 3200Mhz. My motherboard is Aorus AX370 K7. I interested for TridentZ 3200C14Q-64GTZR 
but in the site of Gskill only shows these kits for my motherboard.
http://https://www.gskill.com/en/configurator?manu=54&chip=2952&model=2960&fbclid=IwAR0esMNp-8Kw137bnIqUXFdzYOmgfXP8FuMsWuO4FJHdAWvrouk6-9WECRg

With 64GB (4xDIMM 2Rx8) kit is only one kit at 2400Mhz and also one kit with 2xDIMM at 2933Mhz with 32GB. With the second one (2933) is aloud 4xDIMM set or are only for two mems set?
Which one will be work better?


----------



## lightsout

makatech said:


> Very interesting with faster RAM settings not making a difference on a 1440p setup, I didn't know that at all. :-( :-(
> 
> These days I wonder how many people buying an expensive 1440p, 144Hz monitor just to realize their GPU can't handle it getting stuck in an upgrade circle having to upgrade the entire GPU and maybe more parts as well. ;-)


Ha for real, I am thinking about getting one, but even with a 1080ti need to do some testing on my 1440p60 monitor to see if I can get frames in that high range.


----------



## Zerotre

Hi, 
I'm trying to setup my memory kit gskill 2x16gb 3200 C14 gtz to 3333, with a giga gaming 7, but I cannot reach windows, I just got 3 short beeps after bios settings saving then after some other beeps the system starts with defaults, i'm trying a lot of procodt and rtt settings with no results, only one time I've reached windows with this settings:
Procodt: 68.6
Rttnom: 7
Rttwr: 5 
Rttpark: 1
But after i've got a bsod quite soon

I'm stable at 3200 with:
Procodt: 60
Rttnom: 5
Rttwr: dis
Rttpark: dis

Anyone could please give me some help? Thanks a lot


----------



## Mahatma Gandhi

*Thanks @1usmus*

Man, thanks to your Calculator I got my FlareX on a Ryzen 1700(nonX) to these almost unbelievable results at very moderate 1.4V RAM and SOC[email protected]










Note that the Aida64 Bench was done in safe mode to get correct results and the image was pasted next to the results from RTC and the stability test.


----------



## Ricey20

lightsout said:


> Lol well that stinks. I mean I figured it wouldn't be a major difference, but most of what we do around here isn't ha.
> 
> I am actually replacing my current 3200 c16 rgb tridentz with the Flarez. Not expecting some great difference, just needed some ram for a low budget build and saw a chance to get some b-die in my main rig.
> 
> Whats the go to bench to measure performance when OCing ram? AIDA64?
> And what do most folks use to stress? Google stress?


I use AIDA to measure performance. 
For stress testing I run TM5 w/1usmus config like 10-15x, then I play some Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, Battlefield, etc. I used to use Prime95 but would still crash in system intensive games so now I just play games for a couple hours to test. Overwatch especially is incredibly anal about ram stability.


----------



## DDDSS

DDDSS said:


> Haven't had errors in test 5, but test 7 is the big trouble child with sometimes test 8 also throwing a rare error. At my current settings 1.42V the 3466 CL 14-14-14-14 passes usually at least 4-5 passes before the test 7 or 8 gives me a single error. I made a post about it in this thread already on page 342 with additional info. I think I tried 1.43V but the single errors still persisted, so you recommend I go 1.44, 1.45V? Issue with that is It feels really wrong kinda dumb to add so much extra voltage to get rid of a single error?


 Guys I have been trying to get rid of this single error for like a week now. Just can't get them to go away. I tried "SAFE" 3466 presets, but it really didn't help. More DRAM voltages doesn't make it more stable, looser timings don't seem to make it go away either. Bit more SOC voltage doesn't seem to help out either but I haven't gone though all of the possibilities yet. It's driving me nuts! Like it feels like it's one step from perfect stability yet I can't seem to pinpoint the problem setting. Ideas? Surely there is a better way than pure trial and error for a month?


----------



## Maracus

DDDSS said:


> Guys I have been trying to get rid of this single error for like a week now. Just can't get them to go away. I tried "SAFE" 3466 presets, but it really didn't help. More DRAM voltages doesn't make it more stable, looser timings don't seem to make it go away either. Bit more SOC voltage doesn't seem to help out either but I haven't gone though all of the possibilities yet. It's driving me nuts! Like it feels like it's one step from perfect stability yet I can't seem to pinpoint the problem setting. Ideas? Surely there is a better way than pure trial and error for a month?


Try this



1usmus said:


> * Single and rare errors can be cured by manually sorting such timings: *tFAW* (from 16 to 36), by increasing *tRRDS* by 1 or 2, by changing *tRTP* (from 8 to 12).
> 
> * Single and rare errors can be cured by changing *tRDWR* (from 6 to 9) and *tWRRD* (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 tWRRD 1, and so on.
> 
> * Single and rare errors can be cured with the help of the *tRFC* change, the calculator offers you another *alternative tRFC*. You can also round the recommended number. *tRFC 2/4* is not necessary to configure.
> 
> * Improve system stability can *Geardown enabled*.
> 
> * Improve the stability of the system can *VDDP*, the recommended framework from 855mv to 950mv. Step 15mv.
> 
> * *Spread spectrum disabled* can improve the stability of the system.
> 
> * The source of errors can also be Windows, not necessarily a problem in overclocking.
> 
> * Regularly update the BIOS. It is recommended to update it with afuefix64, instructions can be found here >> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html or ask on the forum (there are special cases and in order to avoid problems it is better to ask).
> 
> * Increasing *tRCDRD* and *tRP* by 1 can improve stability and reduce memory voltage requirements .


For me I changed the tRRDS and it helped me with stability.


----------



## DDDSS

Maracus said:


> Try this
> For me I changed the tRRDS and it helped me with stability.


Tryed all the timings except primaries. Geardowns, Spread spectrum. I don't know this for a fact, but playing around with the timings, doesn't seem to help.
Unless i go too tight, there is no downside, while going very loose doesn't get rid of the error. Leading me to believe it has most likely to do with voltage (CLDO_VDDP) and resistances (cad_bus block resistence, termination block resistence) and lastly CAD_bus timings. Through sheer trial and error, trying one setting, and another that's the only variables I can think of that are responsible for the said lone errors. 

I tried all of the DRAM calculator suggestions for those settings, both recommended and the alternative. Unless somebody has any suggestions, I feel I am doomed to go through more trial and error and going through the entire specturm of CLDO_VDDP voltages and the resistence settings. 

Lastly if anybody has any theory, info, useful information on the cad_bus block resistence, termination block resistence and lastly CAD_bus timings. I would be very welcome to read it before I start plugging in values in desperation.


----------



## Maracus

DDDSS said:


> Tryed all the timings except primaries. Geardowns, Spread spectrum. I don't know this for a fact, but playing around with the timings, doesn't seem to help.
> Unless i go too tight, there is no downside, while going very loose doesn't get rid of the error. Leading me to believe it has most likely to do with voltage (CLDO_VDDP) and resistances (cad_bus block resistence, termination block resistence) and lastly CAD_bus timings. Through sheer trial and error, trying one setting, and another that's the only variables I can think of that are responsible for the said lone errors.
> 
> I tried all of the DRAM calculator suggestions for those settings, both recommended and the alternative. Unless somebody has any suggestions, I feel I am doomed to go through more trial and error and going through the entire specturm of CLDO_VDDP voltages and the resistence settings.
> 
> Lastly if anybody has any theory, info, useful information on the cad_bus block resistence, termination block resistence and lastly CAD_bus timings. I would be very welcome to read it before I start plugging in values in desperation.


What CPU and have and SOC voltage? I became stable by lowering SOC voltage to about 1.008v (2700x, 3466mhz)


----------



## DDDSS

Maracus said:


> What CPU and have and SOC voltage? I became stable by lowering SOC voltage to about 1.008v (2700x, 3466mhz)


CPU 2600 ryzen , motherboard MSI B450I Gaming Plus AC, SOC in bios is 1.025V which combined with LLC3 gives 0.994 voltage in HWinfo64 both while idle and underload with no divergence in mins or max. (VRM switching frequency is auto)


----------



## ns2jz

I'd like to share my experience that using the information provided by this tool to tune Hynix AFR caused only crashes and a few annoying BIOS-resets. For me the better way is to slowly increase MHz and decrease timings from DOCP until freezes occur. Then restore back. The tool was no help at all and is way off. Thanks for trying though.


----------



## mtrai

ns2jz said:


> I'd like to share my experience that using the information provided by this tool to tune Hynix AFR caused only crashes and a few annoying BIOS-resets. For me the better way is to slowly increase MHz and decrease timings from DOCP until freezes occur. Then restore back. The tool was no help at all and is way off. Thanks for trying though.


Just really dude. Sorry you experience is not up to par...however I am just gonna say it...it is user error and not understanding how it all works together. This tool rocks...and has helped so many people...so once again I will say user error.


----------



## CJMitsuki

ns2jz said:


> I'd like to share my experience that using the information provided by this tool to tune Hynix AFR caused only crashes and a few annoying BIOS-resets. For me the better way is to slowly increase MHz and decrease timings from DOCP until freezes occur. Then restore back. The tool was no help at all and is way off. Thanks for trying though.


The calculator isn’t meant to give you the answer. It provides results from thousands of proven setups to help steer you in the right direction. It all depends on silicon quality of not only the memory ICs but your cpu IMC as well. The calculator can’t help that your memory ICs and CPU have the quality to match your garbage attitude. Thanks for trying though.


----------



## asefsef

Hi Guys,

If I just pluck numbers out of the Calculator for 3466, will it be better than the Stilt's profile in c7h? See image for stilt's numbers.


----------



## CJMitsuki

asefsef said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> If I just pluck numbers out of the Calculator for 3466, will it be better than the Stilt's profile in c7h? See image for stilt's numbers.


Everything past tCWL looks good but the Primaries all the way through to tRFC look pretty bad. I suppose it depends on your ram though but your ram would have to be pretty bad to have to run 3466 at cl15 especially with how loose those timings are. I’d say the calculator has better profiles for sure. I don’t use it anymore but when I did use it, it always had some nice profiles. I always had to tweak them a bit to get them optimal. Whether that was tightening or loosening certain timings or both. Your silicon will be like a fingerprint and will be unique to you so you may or may not be able to hit the extreme profile. I would be willing to wager that most dies will have a “safe” profile that will be better than those timings. Anything as cl14 is likely to be better. Even at 3333-3400 with decently tightened timings should wipe the floor with that setup.

What you want to shoot for on most profiles 3533 or lower should be these timings at the absolute tightest and the ram needs to be cool and it will still be a toss up if you can get it solid. 14-14-14-14-22-36-4-4-16-3-8-10-0-2-2-260-auto-auto-14-8-7-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1
Of course that depends on your setup and some things will more than likely need tweaking but those timings are pretty much the max I can go on most setups before performance degrades. At 3466 and 3533 with those timings is pretty good putting it mildly. Most of the time it can outperform ram 2 steps above in frequency


----------



## asefsef

Thanks CJMitsuki !
yea I did feel the Stilt Profile above seemed a bit loose. 
So for my flare X, what is the fastest frequency/timing you think I should realisticly aim for ?

My System:
Flare X F4-3200C14D-16GFX 1.40v
Ryzen 2600 (4.05ghz) 1.40v (I cannot go past 4.050ghz, any tips welcome!)
SoC: 1.1v
H115i 280mm AIO


----------



## CJMitsuki

asefsef said:


> Thanks CJMitsuki !
> yea I did feel the Stilt Profile above seemed a bit loose.
> So for my flare X, what is the fastest frequency/timing you think I should realisticly aim for ?
> 
> My System:
> Flare X F4-3200C14D-16GFX 1.40v
> Ryzen 2600 (4.05ghz) 1.40v (I cannot go past 4.050ghz, any tips welcome!)
> SoC: 1.1v
> H115i 280mm AIO


3466c14 should be attainable. Try 14-14-14-26-40-4-4-16-3-10-10-0-2-2-280-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1, gear down enabled, 1t, power down disabled, Rtt @ disabled, disabled, rzq/4 ; 53.3ohm ProOdt, cad bus at 0,0,0 but if unstable use 1,1,1 then either 20ohm or 24ohm. Use around 1.4v dram and around 1.1v SoC but the SoC will vary depending on your IMC so that’s the first thing to play with and see if it fixes any stability issues. Going up or down can fix issues as the IMC likes a particular voltage. I also use SoC differently than others. I put SoC voltage on Offset and then set the offset to Auto then under “AMD CBS” menu then “NBIO” there’s a setting called SoC Vid and it needs hex values set and I set it that way. Gives more stability at boot from what I’ve seen. The hex values can be found somewhere in the C7H thread or easier found in @gupsterg thread on the ROG forums. Also don’t forget the set the AMD CBS options for memory to Channel, 512, hash enable and mem clear disabled. Opcache enabled, Streaming Stores enabled, HW Prefetcher enabled, determinism set to Performance, under PStates menu got to the bottom where it says “Relaxed EDC throttling” and enable that. Enable CStates then if you run with XFR and Performance Enhancer you’re may want to try PE3 and start running that base clock up a bit. I recently found that PE3 at higher bclk gives higher single core boost at the cost of lower multi core boosts. I’ve been able to get mine to around 4.65ghz single core boost and that is around 4.4ghz multi core or so. PE4 is just for pure multicore setups. I have been doing a lot of testing and both have viabilities. My max at PE4 is around 4.56ghz all core at 104.8 base clock and PE3 is 4.65ghz at around 107 base clock but the voltages needs for either of those are pretty high. Generally +.1375 to +.15v to offset and that jumps up to 1.63v to 1.65v often so the heat output is tremendous and they are on the edge of stability for running benches. It’s about 50/50 with my machine at 10-15c ambient temps. Lol. For a more mild approach use PE3 and just start with something like a -.0375v offset and start pushing base clock and bumping voltage as you need it but try not to push past +.05v unless you have the capabilities to cool it and you may want to put LLC to about 4 on the cpu and 3 on the SoC and max the current out and about mid way on the switching freq. You freeze up and crash if the voltage drops below the stable point so LLC counteracts that so keep voltage up and running the LLC at a decent setting. Just monitor the voltages through HWINFO and see how much it drops. You can either go up on LLC or give it more voltage if cooling permits. Also, ram plays a part in cpu stability so get your ram tuning nicely first and foremost.


----------



## asefsef

Thanks CJMitsuki for the detailed guide, I'll try your ram suggestions.

As for your CPU advice, sorry I'm a little slow to follow. I have a MSI B450m Mortar (the C7H mentioend above was just where I pulled the Stilt timings from)

From what I think I understand of your advice, is that I should use PE3 and offset voltage To overclock CPU? (I don't think my msi b450m has that, what volt should I put?)


----------



## asefsef

So I just keyed in Dram Calculator's Cl4 timings for 3466mhz (safe). But it came out slower than Stilt's 3466 cl15 timings i had?

Firestrike dropped 100 points going from Stilts3466mhzcl15 to the calculator's safe 3466mhzCL14.

See images below. Thanks again for the help!


----------



## rdr09

asefsef said:


> So I just keyed in Dram Calculator's Cl4 timings for 3466mhz (safe). But it came out slower than Stilt's 3466 cl15 timings i had?
> 
> Firestrike dropped 100 points going from Stilts3466mhzcl15 to the calculator's safe 3466mhzCL14.
> 
> See images below. Thanks again for the help!



Have you tried 3466 Fast? 

But, first, Disable GDM and lower tRCDRD to 14 if it does not automatically do it.


It should score a 61.


----------



## CJMitsuki

asefsef said:


> So I just keyed in Dram Calculator's Cl4 timings for 3466mhz (safe). But it came out slower than Stilt's 3466 cl15 timings i had?
> 
> Firestrike dropped 100 points going from Stilts3466mhzcl15 to the calculator's safe 3466mhzCL14.
> 
> See images below. Thanks again for the help!



Which part of firestrike dropped the 100 points? Thats an important factor. Was it on the gfx or the cpu test? Also 100 points is within variance in 3dmark. Also, never use Aida to assess performance, its horribly bad at making someone think that higher numbers mean its better. I can load you up a horribly unstable 3800c14 setup that will look amazing in Aida64 but will BSOD within a few min. Point being that Aida is nothing more than some numbers.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

I would just like to share my latest problem with my overclock.
For many months now i have run this setup below , after installing the latest AMD chipset drivers i started having problems.
amd_chipset_drivers_18.10_1018

System interrupts was running wild, up to 30%. Seriously slowing pc then crashing. I had other problems as well but this was the worst of them all.
Internet said it was my Mem overclock so i tried lowering Mem clock, tRRDL 8 & tWTRL 8, as these were the timings i thought of compared to the calculator and it worked ok. But was not happy about it, after all why stop working ?

Eventually i reinstalled windows with amd_chipset_drivers_18.10_1018, and got the same thing. Grrrr
Reinstalled windows again but with amd-chipset-drivers_18.10_0830 and all is well with my pc again. YAY


----------



## asefsef

CJMitsuki said:


> Which part o... snip ...eing that Aida is nothing more than some numbers.


 @CJMitsuki . okok thanks. The drop was 10point on Graphics score and 120 on the physics score. (there wasn't a separate CPU score)

So despite firestrike and aida memory benchmark being lower. The ram is actually faster because it's doing CL14 timings (instead of Stilt's cl15) and I should stick to it?

What is a proper memory benchmark you recommend?
Also, what is a memory stress test you recommend? (apart from the 10euro mem test program.)


----------



## CJMitsuki

asefsef said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part o... snip ...eing that Aida is nothing more than some numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> @CJMitsuki . okok thanks. The drop was 10point on Graphics score and 120 on the physics score. (there wasn't a separate CPU score)
> 
> So despite firestrike and aida memory benchmark being lower. The ram is actually faster because it's doing CL14 timings (instead of Stilt's cl15) and I should stick to it?
> 
> What is a proper memory benchmark you recommend?
> Also, what is a memory stress test you recommend? (apart from the 10euro mem test program.)
Click to expand...

Physics is the CPU score and it’s the one that will be more memory sensitive but 100 points is within variance especially if we are talking about a 24000 score then 100 points is nothing and that can change easily with the same settings. Memtest tests for errors, I’m talking about a benchmark that tests the performance. The ones I use are in order from my most trusted to confirmation tests. I use Passmarks Performance Test, it has many subtests that do well imo, Then GeekBench is another good one, and just for a confirmation if needed I will use 3dStrike Physics tests.


----------



## asefsef

Understood. What's a good memory stress test apart from the $10 paid memtest program?


----------



## CJMitsuki

asefsef said:


> Understood. What's a good memory stress test apart from the $10 paid memtest program?


Memtest is also free, the paid version just has a few quality of life options enabled and it gives you the ability to test outside of the operating system. The core program is free and perfectly fine to use. TM5 with Usmus’ confit is also decent but I change the config to use 8 cores instead of 16 to reduce the chances of a cache error and run at least 10-15 cycles. From what I’ve seen, a fast cycle is around 3min 45sec and that’s using 900mb x16 or more of the memory. Or in the case of 8 cores being used then it will read 1.8gb x8.


----------



## mtrai

asefsef said:


> So I just keyed in Dram Calculator's Cl4 timings for 3466mhz (safe). But it came out slower than Stilt's 3466 cl15 timings i had?
> 
> Firestrike dropped 100 points going from Stilts3466mhzcl15 to the calculator's safe 3466mhzCL14.
> 
> See images below. Thanks again for the help!


Wow a 100 points is nothing...as you cannot control everything windows does at a particular moment.

As far are aida speeds testing...once again it will vary depending on what windows decides to do in testing.

Just a few seconds ago which varies a bit bit from me posting about 3800 on the 1.0.0.6 AGESA.


----------



## asefsef

thanks guys. I've now keyed in 3466 fast cl14 timings and in all tests it's slightly faster than the Stilt 3466cl15 profile.

i"m needing 1.425 Vdimm to get it stable. Is that a **safe voltage** for FlareX B-die 24/7?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

My new Stable 3360MHz (3200+105FSB):

Even at 4GHz !

==


----------



## DDDSS

Have been testing RAM settings so far I got this:
3200 FAST at 1.35V
3400 FAST at 1.4V
3446 FAST at 1.42V
3600 FAST at 1.47V
All of these are pretty stable at those volts for my kit with the preliminary testing I have done which is about an hour. Of course I never declare a setting stable unless I run the testing for at least 10 hours.

*Anyway what's what would you recommend I use here? I am mainly asking in terms of safe voltage for long term daily use. *
(Memory kit is F4-3200C14D-16GVR or G.Skill DDR4 RipJawsV Red 16GB (2x8GB) 3200MHz CL14)
(Ram temperatures are at 1.42volts:
---around 42C under 10min of aida64
---around 27C-28C at idle
---around 32C-34C when gaming)


Ram temperatures at 1.47volts:
---At idle 26.8C and 26.5C 
---10 min of aida64 stress test with CPU,FPU,Cache,RAM 40.3C and 40.8C 
---15 min of aida64 stress test with CPU,FPU,Cache,RAM 40.0C and 40.5C 
Removed CPU,FPU,Cache, from stress test to test only RAM and got the following temperature which should be the worst case scenario.
---10min of aida64 stress test RAM 42.3C and 43.5C (slightly higher temp because the fan that cools VRM also cools RAM and with lower VRM temps due to no stress, the fans spins slightly slower and thus cools the RAM slightly worse. Same can be said for CPU fan to some extent)
Your suggestions are appreciated


----------



## Korennya

What settings would specifically effect ram stability between slots?

I've had a stable 3333 ram profile for a good 6 months (periodically test with ibt avx and mem test 1600%+). But I noticed that if I move my sticks from slots 1/3 to 0/2 (move closer to CPU) it's not stable. I runs ibt avx just fine, all games fine, image rendering is fine. But mem test fails every time. Sometimes it goes 30% othertimes it's 8%. Always the same error. Copy error off by 8.

I only noticed that this was happening because I put 2 extra sticks in increasing to 32GB total. But my original sticks that are known good won't work in other slots either.

I tried adjustings soc voltage. anythign below .95 won't boot. Anythign over 1.1 gives more errors. Currently at 1.05. Tried ProcODT, all settings between 40 and 80 ohm. No change. Tried cad bus, between 20 and 40. No change. Dram voltage doesn't help. so it's at 1.35. I dropped to 3200 and it ran over night with all 4 sticks to 1200% with no errors. All settigns exactly the same as 3333 other than the frequency of course.

It's damn close to stable at 3333, but i'm missing something that needs tweaking and i'm at a lost for what it is.


----------



## DDDSS

Korennya said:


> What settings would specifically effect ram stability between slots?
> 
> I've had a stable 3333 ram profile for a good 6 months (periodically test with ibt avx and mem test 1600%+). But I noticed that if I move my sticks from slots 1/3 to 0/2 (move closer to CPU) it's not stable. I runs ibt avx just fine, all games fine, image rendering is fine. But mem test fails every time. Sometimes it goes 30% othertimes it's 8%. Always the same error. Copy error off by 8.
> 
> I only noticed that this was happening because I put 2 extra sticks in increasing to 32GB total. But my original sticks that are known good won't work in other slots either.
> 
> I tried adjustings soc voltage. anythign below .95 won't boot. Anythign over 1.1 gives more errors. Currently at 1.05. Tried ProcODT, all settings between 40 and 80 ohm. No change. Tried cad bus, between 20 and 40. No change. Dram voltage doesn't help. so it's at 1.35. I dropped to 3200 and it ran over night with all 4 sticks to 1200% with no errors. All settigns exactly the same as 3333 other than the frequency of course.
> 
> It's damn close to stable at 3333, but i'm missing something that needs tweaking and i'm at a lost for what it is.


This reminds me of a most traumatic experience of trying to stablize 3446 on FAST preset, literally weeks of ******* around with every possible varriable.


----------



## nick name

Does anyone here play CSGO? When my secondary timings are at their tightest (stable tightest) player models at a distance will "appear" out of nowhere. For example: on Dust 2 -- when I'm holding mid and watching top-mid a player model will appear and I won't see the player model enter the area. To phrase it differently: I don't see the player model run into my field-of-view, but instead "spontaneously" materialize. This goes away when I loosen secondary timings, but I'm not sure which ones seem to cause this and why it happens at all.


----------



## DDDSS

nick name said:


> Does anyone here play CSGO? When my secondary timings are at their tightest (stable tightest) player models at a distance will "appear" out of nowhere. For example: on Dust 2 -- when I'm holding mid and watching top-mid a player model will appear and I won't see the player model enter the area. To phrase it differently: I don't see the player model run into my field-of-view, but instead "spontaneously" materialize. This goes away when I loosen secondary timings, but I'm not sure which ones seem to cause this and why it happens at all.


Can I assume that you actually tested if your memory runs error free? For at least 10 hour before giving a final stamp of "Stable" ?


----------



## nick name

DDDSS said:


> Can I assume that you actually tested if your memory runs error free? For at least 10 hour before giving a final stamp of "Stable" ?


I did done said it was stable done didn't I.


----------



## DDDSS

nick name said:


> I did done said it was stable done didn't I.


And yet it's causing artifacts in your games. The most likely element is the human one, so I have to ask if you really made sure if it's stable or just did minimum testing and called it a day. It would certainly make sense why loosening the timings and making it more stable in the process would resolve the issue then. No offense meant, just pointing out the most logical reason to me.


----------



## nick name

DDDSS said:


> And yet it's causing artifacts in your games. The most likely element is the human one, so I have to ask if you really made sure if it's stable or just did minimum testing and called it a day. It would certainly make sense why loosening the timings and making it more stable in the process would resolve the issue then. No offense meant, just pointing out the most logical reason to me.


So you're assuming I'm not logical and brought up the issue without eliminating the most obvious problem first?

Also, I am not talking about artifacts. It's the appearance of player models spontaneously when those models are at further distances.


----------



## DDDSS

nick name said:


> So you're assuming I'm not logical and brought up the issue without eliminating the most obvious problem first?
> 
> Also, I am not talking about artifacts. It's the appearance of player models spontaneously when those models are at further distances.


No I just took the easiest explanation that needs to be eliminated first.

When I say artifacts, I refer to unnatural behavior of a system. Not visual artifacts like wrong colors and models per say.


----------



## CJMitsuki

asefsef said:


> thanks guys. I've now keyed in 3466 fast cl14 timings and in all tests it's slightly faster than the Stilt 3466cl15 profile.
> 
> i"m needing 1.425 Vdimm to get it stable. Is that a **safe voltage** for FlareX B-die 24/7?


You are perfectly fine at that voltage, its considered "safe" up to 1.5v but i have my own opinions on "safe" but I will leave it for another debate, another time. I ran 3466 for a long time, its very strong with the set up i had and could match 3600mhz in performance easily. The thing to remember is that even from 3200c14 to 3600c14 the performance uplift isnt vast at all. So, no one should feel down if they can only gett 3200-3333, the timings make the difference on Ryzen, not the frequency as much unless you compared 3200 to something like 4200 then im sure there would be many things to consider.


----------



## asefsef

Calling for help from the big guns! (Or small guns)

After 2 days of testing. Nothing is stable at 3466mhz IF I run Heaven Benchmark in the background while doing HCI Memtest.

System: R5 2600 (4.0ghz 1.4v) | B450m Mortar | Flare X 3200cl14 (Samsung B-Die) | gtx1080

Tested settings:
3466 Calculator Fast 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed at way under 10% coverage)
3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM disabled (failed at way under 10% coverage)
3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM enabled as per calc (failed at 95% coverage)
3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.025soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 11% thread, others were 110%)
3466 Stilt 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
3466 tilt 1.424vram 1.048soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.050soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 20% coverage)
3200 Calculator fast 1.4vram 1.025soc (Passed 200%)

Do I just stick with 3200mhz? OR dial up voltage to say 1.46 and keep trying?


----------



## 1usmus

@ENTERPRISE

thank you very much, bug with renaming fixed !:wubsmiley



Ne01 OnnA said:


> My new Stable 3360MHz (3200+105FSB):
> 
> Even at 4GHz !
> 
> ==


good result bro 

p.s. next week you will be teaching me how to customize undervolt for vega 56?


----------



## 1usmus

*My further plans:*

1) A lot of people ask to recycle the presets for *Hynix CJR*. I will fulfill your request, unfortunately the department of the G.skill marketing ignored my offer of cooperation, referring to the memory deficit, as a result I had to buy this memory myself. Next week I will start testing.

2) In the coming weeks, I will reprocess all the presets for *Samsung b-die*. The memory will be of two types, Sniper X 3400C16 (b-die) and Flare X 3200C14 (b-die). 
Next week I will receive the Flare X kits, which have been replaced by RMA. Thanks to technical support G. Skill.

3) In December, I will finally publish a review in which I will talk about the fine optimization of the *Threadripper 2990WX* processor.

4) A *new version of the calculator* will be released at the end of December. There will be no cardinal changes, only work on bugs and adding new presets. 

______________

We also have a small anniversary , 60k downloads , thank *YOU* for your trust and interest in this topic 




asefsef said:


> Calling for help from the big guns! (Or small guns)
> 
> After 2 days of testing. Nothing is stable at 3466mhz IF I run Heaven Benchmark in the background while doing HCI Memtest.
> 
> System: R5 2600 (4.0ghz 1.4v) | B450m Mortar | Flare X 3200cl14 (Samsung B-Die) | gtx1080
> 
> Tested settings:
> 3466 Calculator Fast 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed at way under 10% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM disabled (failed at way under 10% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM enabled as per calc (failed at 95% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.025soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 11% thread, others were 110%)
> 3466 Stilt 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
> 3466 tilt 1.424vram 1.048soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.050soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 20% coverage)
> 3200 Calculator fast 1.4vram 1.025soc (Passed 200%)
> 
> Do I just stick with 3200mhz? OR dial up voltage to say 1.46 and keep trying?


I advise you to try to test the neighboring DRAM voltages. Range from 1.4 to 1.45

Did you read tips on how to stabilize the system on the first page?


----------



## ENTERPRISE

1usmus said:


> @ENTERPRISE
> 
> thank you very much, bug with renaming fixed !:wubsmiley
> 
> 
> 
> good result bro
> 
> p.s. next week you will be teaching me how to customize undervolt for vega 56?


No problem bud, that fix was implemented yesterday as it happens...so good timing :thumb:



1usmus said:


> *My further plans:*
> 
> 1) A lot of people ask to recycle the presets for *Hynix CJR*. I will fulfill your request, unfortunately the department of the G.skill marketing ignored my offer of cooperation, referring to the memory deficit, as a result I had to buy this memory myself. Next week I will start testing.
> 
> 2) In the coming weeks, I will reprocess all the presets for *Samsung b-die*. The memory will be of two types, Sniper X 3400C16 (b-die) and Flare X 3200C14 (b-die).
> Next week I will receive the Flare X kits, which have been replaced by RMA. Thanks to technical support G. Skill.
> 
> 3) In December, I will finally publish a review in which I will talk about the fine optimization of the *Threadripper 2990WX* processor.
> 
> 4) A *new version of the calculator* will be released at the end of December. There will be no cardinal changes, only work on bugs and adding new presets.
> 
> ______________
> 
> We also have a small anniversary , 60k downloads , thank *YOU* for your trust and interest in this topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I advise you to try to test the neighboring DRAM voltages. Range from 1.4 to 1.45
> 
> Did you read tips on how to stabilize the system on the first page?


Looking forward to the notes you make on the 2990WX Optimisations


----------



## steve2563

I just want to say thank you 1usmus for your calculator.
Recently bought Patriot 3200C16 Viper RGB Black (Thaiphoon: H5AN8G8N?FR-TFC) and MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC.
Overclocked to 3466C16, 1.45V, GDM disabled with Hynix MFR from your calculator.
Rock solid stable > 8hr Prime95, with Stress Testing settings from Magetank's guide: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/773966-comprehensive-memory-overclocking-guide/

Little offtopic: MSI released the latest BIOS for the mentioned mobo (agesa 1.0.0.6), and they added BCLK settings, with options ranging from Auto, 100-103.


----------



## YatoBSlayin

I can't seem to find any settings that work with my current memory. Guessing it's just not compatible with the MSI Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard even though I had it running at 2933 at some point. Now it won't do anything above 2133.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

32GB 4x8GB Stable 100% ! (Actually it is faster now)

procODT 53
RTT Auto/Off/Auto
CAD bus 20/20/20/20

Here:

UPD. no2 
and Tweaked some more 
Now - New Stable

tWRWRSD/DD need to be at 6 for 32GB

Also is good to Set (for 4x8GB all banks)
DF Common options/ Location of private memory region -> as Distributed
=====


----------



## ajc9988

asefsef said:


> Calling for help from the big guns! (Or small guns)
> 
> After 2 days of testing. Nothing is stable at 3466mhz IF I run Heaven Benchmark in the background while doing HCI Memtest.
> 
> System: R5 2600 (4.0ghz 1.4v) | B450m Mortar | Flare X 3200cl14 (Samsung B-Die) | gtx1080
> 
> Tested settings:
> 3466 Calculator Fast 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed at way under 10% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM disabled (failed at way under 10% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM enabled as per calc (failed at 95% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.025soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 11% thread, others were 110%)
> 3466 Stilt 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
> 3466 tilt 1.424vram 1.048soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.050soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 20% coverage)
> 3200 Calculator fast 1.4vram 1.025soc (Passed 200%)
> 
> Do I just stick with 3200mhz? OR dial up voltage to say 1.46 and keep trying?


You do realize if HCI already allocated the empty memory of the system (assuming you opened enough instances to use all available ram), then you start another program, it causes the page file system to kick in, reading and writing to the hard drive, right?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## dspx

steve2563 said:


> I just want to say thank you 1usmus for your calculator.
> Recently bought Patriot 3200C16 Viper RGB Black (Thaiphoon: H5AN8G8N?FR-TFC) and MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC.
> Overclocked to 3466C16, 1.45V, GDM disabled with Hynix MFR from your calculator.
> Rock solid stable > 8hr Prime95, with Stress Testing settings from Magetank's guide: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/773966-comprehensive-memory-overclocking-guide/
> 
> Little offtopic: MSI released the latest BIOS for the mentioned mobo (agesa 1.0.0.6), and they added BCLK settings, with options ranging from Auto, 100-103.


Nice, I am planning on getting the exact same mobo.


----------



## CJMitsuki

asefsef said:


> Calling for help from the big guns! (Or small guns)
> 
> After 2 days of testing. Nothing is stable at 3466mhz IF I run Heaven Benchmark in the background while doing HCI Memtest.
> 
> System: R5 2600 (4.0ghz 1.4v) | B450m Mortar | Flare X 3200cl14 (Samsung B-Die) | gtx1080
> 
> Tested settings:
> 3466 Calculator Fast 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed at way under 10% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM disabled (failed at way under 10% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.4vram 1.025soc PDM GDM enabled as per calc (failed at 95% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.025soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 11% thread, others were 110%)
> 3466 Stilt 1.424vram 1.025soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
> 3466 tilt 1.424vram 1.048soc (failed on a 50% coverage)
> 3466 Calculator safe 1.424vram 1.050soc pdm gdm enabled as per calc (failed on a 20% coverage)
> 3200 Calculator fast 1.4vram 1.025soc (Passed 200%)
> 
> Do I just stick with 3200mhz? OR dial up voltage to say 1.46 and keep trying?





ajc9988 said:


> You do realize if HCI already allocated the empty memory of the system (assuming you opened enough instances to use all available ram), then you start another program, it causes the page file system to kick in, reading and writing to the hard drive, right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



AJC is right, you should never run another program when testing your memory. The way you test with HCI is you either take the number of cores or threads, in my case I have a 2700x so if I want less stress on the cpu to avoid possible cache errors then I open 8x instances of HCI memtest then I check the available memory with all programs closed (I run in diagnostic mode as well) and divide by 8 and I input that number into each memtest instance and start them up. If I want to tax the cpu as well as test memory faster I will open 16 instances and divide the free memory by 16 instead. I prefer 8 most of the time as to reduce the random cache error from the cpu hitting an unstable moment and throwing an error that is not related to the memory. I also created a batch file to auto open those instances an have the amount of ram input into the instances automatically but that is only possible with the pro version as it is the one that allows command line options.


----------



## DDDSS

1usmus said:


> We also have a small anniversary , 60k downloads , thank *YOU* for your trust and interest in this topic


Your calculator certainly is super helpful for newbie starters that want to be at least somewhat close to correct settings. Some presets work from the get go, some need fiddling, over all very helpful.

By the way, have you had a chance to work on F4-3200C14D-16GVR RAM kit from G.skill?
Also what do you consider safe voltages for long term daily use? I'm asking because I have heard plenty of conflicting info, where some say that 1.4V is safe others tell me 1.47V is safe...



DDDSS said:


> Have been testing RAM settings so far I got this:
> 3200 FAST at 1.35V
> 3400 FAST at 1.4V
> 3446 FAST at 1.42V
> 3600 FAST at 1.47V
> All of these are pretty stable at those volts for my kit with the preliminary testing I have done which is about an hour. Of course I never declare a setting stable unless I run the testing for at least 10 hours.
> 
> *Anyway what's what would you recommend I use here? I am mainly asking in terms of safe voltage for long term daily use. *
> (Memory kit is F4-3200C14D-16GVR or G.Skill DDR4 RipJawsV Red 16GB (2x8GB) 3200MHz CL14)
> (Ram temperatures are at 1.42volts:
> ---around 42C under 10min of aida64
> ---around 27C-28C at idle
> ---around 32C-34C when gaming)
> 
> 
> Ram temperatures at 1.47volts:
> ---At idle 26.8C and 26.5C
> ---10 min of aida64 stress test with CPU,FPU,Cache,RAM 40.3C and 40.8C
> ---15 min of aida64 stress test with CPU,FPU,Cache,RAM 40.0C and 40.5C
> Removed CPU,FPU,Cache, from stress test to test only RAM and got the following temperature which should be the worst case scenario.
> ---10min of aida64 stress test RAM 42.3C and 43.5C (slightly higher temp because the fan that cools VRM also cools RAM and with lower VRM temps due to no stress, the fans spins slightly slower and thus cools the RAM slightly worse. Same can be said for CPU fan to some extent)
> Your suggestions are appreciated


As you can see I have yet to decide just what setting to work with. Currently working on 3400Mhz FAST preset at 1.4V and manually tuning down timings as much as possible. I have a question about that, is there certain timings that need to be tuned in "pairs" I know tRDWR and tWRRD is one of those timings, is there any other timings like that? Or can I safely assume that I can individually find the limit of each timings through testing while keeping all other timings at their stable values?


----------



## gupsterg

DDDSS said:


> By the way, have you had a chance to work on F4-3200C14D-16GVR RAM kit from G.skill?
> Also what do you consider safe voltages for long term daily use? I'm asking because I have heard plenty of conflicting info, where some say that 1.4V is safe others tell me 1.47V is safe...


XMP certification allows for upto 1.5V on DDR4, link1, link 2.

From PDFs that Elmor supplies in C6H/C7H thread the limit is considered on IMC side of CPU, rather than DDR side. So you could find IMC does not like higher voltages.


----------



## DDDSS

gupsterg said:


> XMP certification allows for upto 1.5V on DDR4, link1, link 2.
> 
> From PDFs that Elmor supplies in C6H/C7H thread the limit is considered on IMC side of CPU, rather than DDR side. So you could find IMC does not like higher voltages.


How do I identify this? Or to put it another way, how do I know what is too much voltage for my IMC to run for long term use?
CPU is ryzen 2600 and motherboard is MSI b450I Gaming Plus AC if this is additional info that helps.


----------



## asefsef

ajc9988 said:


> You do realize if HCI already allocated the empty memory of the system (assuming you opened enough instances to use all available ram), then you start another program, it causes the page file system to kick in, reading and writing to the hard drive, right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Yes sir. I made sure I don't overspill anything into the disk and I monitor the disk activity.

The gpu is to stress a similar environment to playing games. I was getting crashes in games but not stress tests. (Gpu at stock)


Currently got a fan on the ram. The test passed 400%. Whereas it failed at 7% under the same 3466 fast settings at 1.42volts.

Maybe it's just a temperature thing? When program are you guys using to see ram temperatures?


----------



## asefsef

1usmus said:


> *My further plans:*
> 
> 
> I advise you to try to test the neighboring DRAM voltages. Range from 1.4 to 1.45
> 
> Did you read tips on how to stabilize the system on the first page?


I'll try 1.4-1.45 voltages.

By tips do you mean these?

Some interesting posts:
Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes" 
Effect of temperature and higher voltage on memory stability
Effect of the CPU frequency on the stability of the RAM


----------



## Silence Your Mind

@1usmus

Thank you once again for all the work you have done, you have helped me a lot!

I wanted your advise if I could reduce some timings, currently my ram is stable but I wanted to know if I could squeeze a little bit more of performance or if I should try slightly higher speeds:



Spoiler



- Report generated by Thaiphoon https://ufile.io/8frpy





Spoiler



- My current timings












I reached a point where I don't know if I could improve even if it's a little more performance, so I ask for your help, please.


----------



## redtopracer

OK so finally upgraded to some HQ b die and got me a 2x8gb 3200 15 gskill kit. Does pretty decent, not great. Trying to dial out the last little bit from it.


Setup is a 1600x on a gigabyte x370 gaming k7 bios f23 by ket. So far I have been able to run the stilts fast timings gdm on for 3200 and 3333. Also managed to get the 3466 timing from the stilt stable at 3400. Settled on safe timings for the calculator at 3400. Noticed some things about this setup that made me have some questions. 

The sticks like procodt 48 for stability reasons but boot like crap on it. 53 and 60 both boot every time on it but throw errors every few pass's.They also require 1.44v dram and 1.0625v soc to run stable and boot somewhat successfully, more or less voltage does not alleviate boot or errors issues. current best settings still f9 on mem training once or twice but rarely fail. Which is better than before where it might take a CMOS clear to get it running. Voltages are set as follows. 

4.1ghz pstate0

Vcore 1.38v llc high

Soc 1.0623v uncore llc high

Vddp .860v

Dram 1.44v

Dram termination .731v

Everything else is left to stock. 


Testing so far puts current setting's stable on karhus ramtest to 3000%. Heat related errors occur afterwards but with an additional fan pointed on the sticks its tested out to 5000% before I had to stop. 
RTT has been tested with NOM set rzq/7 and disabled. WR has been left disabled and I've tried park set to everything from 3-6. So far the only thing that's seemed to help is a small dram and soc voltage bump. Higher voltages up to 1.55v and 1.175v have not alleviated any booting issues. 


3466 tested stable on the stilts timings set to procodt 48. But failed to boot at all with separate attempts to retest. RTT and voltage settings listed above did not help in any further attempts to boot. Testing on procodt 53&60 booted fine but threw errors fast the higher the procodt got. 


I'm at my wits end with these sticks. The IMC on this chip was able to previously drive 3333 16,16,17,30 2t on hynix mfr IC's but any attempts to tighten at 3400 or run higher MHz result in errors. Is this the limit for these sticks or am I missing something?I've ran stock clocks with higher vcore to see if it was the CPU oc and it was not.


----------



## rdr09

asefsef said:


> Yes sir. I made sure I don't overspill anything into the disk and I monitor the disk activity.
> 
> The gpu is to stress a similar environment to playing games. I was getting crashes in games but not stress tests. (Gpu at stock)
> 
> 
> Currently got a fan on the ram. The test passed 400%. Whereas it failed at 7% under the same 3466 fast settings at 1.42volts.
> 
> Maybe it's just a temperature thing? When program are you guys using to see ram temperatures?



You can use HWINFO64 to monitor temps including those of RAM. In my observation, when temp gets close to 50c, errors occur. It is safe to keep them under 45c - IMO. My FlareX struggle even at manufacturer's spec of 3200 speed, so i downclock them to 3133. I have not put a dedicated fan over them. When i had the AMD stock cooler they were fine.


----------



## DDDSS

I have been tightening timings as far as possible on a 3400 FAST preset. The issue is that while performance goes up, it's not entirely stable peformance. I ran memtest86 for 8 hour and there wasn't a single error on any of the tests. However the maximum varience between the slowest and fastest latency also increases. I used Aida64 to get the following results. 


3200 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.36V Theoretical MAX:51.200 GB/s TT 10-run-Latency-Average:64.86Ns Max variance:0.2Ns
Read-50451 MB/s
Write-49469 MB/s
Copy-46927 MB/s
Latency-64.9 Ns lowest

additional voltage 0.4V Latency reduction:1.86Ns

3400 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.40V Theoretical MAX:54.400 GB/s TTT 10-run-Latency-Average:63Ns Max variance:0.5Ns
Read-53628 MB/s
Write-52713 MB/s
Copy-50286 MB/s
Latency-62.7 Ns lowest

additional voltage 0.7V Latency reduction:1.75Ns

3600 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.47V Theoretical MAX:57.600 GB/s 10-run-Latency-Average:61.25Ns Max variance:0.4Ns
Read-56582 MB/s
Write-55375 MB/s
Copy-53047 MB/s
Latency-61.1 Ns lowest


I can only assume that I have made the timings while error free, suboptimal, so it can't get the performance consistently. Am I right to assume this?


----------



## CJMitsuki

DDDSS said:


> I have been tightening timings as far as possible on a 3400 FAST preset. The issue is that while performance goes up, it's not entirely stable peformance. I ran memtest86 for 8 hour and there wasn't a single error on any of the tests. However the maximum varience between the slowest and fastest latency also increases. I used Aida64 to get the following results.
> 
> 
> 3200 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.36V Theoretical MAX:51.200 GB/s TT 10-run-Latency-Average:64.86Ns Max variance:0.2Ns
> Read-50451 MB/s
> Write-49469 MB/s
> Copy-46927 MB/s
> Latency-64.9 Ns lowest
> 
> additional voltage 0.4V Latency reduction:1.86Ns
> 
> 3400 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.40V Theoretical MAX:54.400 GB/s TTT 10-run-Latency-Average:63Ns Max variance:0.5Ns
> Read-53628 MB/s
> Write-52713 MB/s
> Copy-50286 MB/s
> Latency-62.7 Ns lowest
> 
> additional voltage 0.7V Latency reduction:1.75Ns
> 
> 3600 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.47V Theoretical MAX:57.600 GB/s 10-run-Latency-Average:61.25Ns Max variance:0.4Ns
> Read-56582 MB/s
> Write-55375 MB/s
> Copy-53047 MB/s
> Latency-61.1 Ns lowest
> 
> 
> I can only assume that I have made the timings while error free, suboptimal, so it can't get the performance consistently. Am I right to assume this?





You are talking about 100-200 points in 3dmark skydiver man. Thats well within variance, it will always fluctuate from time to time. No benchmark is going to give perfectly consistent scores 100% of the time. This is less than 1% of your score so you cant go bu that. if it were 500-1000 points then you may be onto something but 100-200 points is definitely within variance. More accurately would be to take the average of 10 runs on each setup and compare those numbers.


----------



## gupsterg

DDDSS said:


> How do I identify this?


No idea.



DDDSS said:


> Or to put it another way, how do I know what is too much voltage for my IMC to run for long term use?


No idea.

I don't think we really have any user/AMD provided statistics on how quickly these CPUs/IMCs degrade with increased voltages.


----------



## 1usmus

DDDSS said:


> How do I identify this? Or to put it another way, how do I know what is too much voltage for my IMC to run for long term use?
> CPU is ryzen 2600 and motherboard is MSI b450I Gaming Plus AC if this is additional info that helps.


Are you interested in the voltage to the memory controller or the derived voltage from the RAM (VTT DDR , Vref)?



DDDSS said:


> I have been tightening timings as far as possible on a 3400 FAST preset. The issue is that while performance goes up, it's not entirely stable peformance. I ran memtest86 for 8 hour and there wasn't a single error on any of the tests. However the maximum varience between the slowest and fastest latency also increases. I used Aida64 to get the following results.
> 
> 
> 3200 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.36V Theoretical MAX:51.200 GB/s TT 10-run-Latency-Average:64.86Ns Max variance:0.2Ns
> Read-50451 MB/s
> Write-49469 MB/s
> Copy-46927 MB/s
> Latency-64.9 Ns lowest
> 
> additional voltage 0.4V Latency reduction:1.86Ns
> 
> 3400 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.40V Theoretical MAX:54.400 GB/s TTT 10-run-Latency-Average:63Ns Max variance:0.5Ns
> Read-53628 MB/s
> Write-52713 MB/s
> Copy-50286 MB/s
> Latency-62.7 Ns lowest
> 
> additional voltage 0.7V Latency reduction:1.75Ns
> 
> 3600 14-14-14-28 CR1 1.47V Theoretical MAX:57.600 GB/s 10-run-Latency-Average:61.25Ns Max variance:0.4Ns
> Read-56582 MB/s
> Write-55375 MB/s
> Copy-53047 MB/s
> Latency-61.1 Ns lowest
> 
> 
> I can only assume that I have made the timings while error free, suboptimal, so it can't get the performance consistently. Am I right to assume this?


background programs affect the result, did you check you safe mode?



asefsef said:


> I'll try 1.4-1.45 voltages.
> 
> By tips do you mean these?
> 
> Some interesting posts:
> Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"
> Effect of temperature and higher voltage on memory stability
> Effect of the CPU frequency on the stability of the RAM


*Nuances to help you set up your system.* >> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27694284-post3363.html



redtopracer said:


> OK so finally upgraded to some HQ b die and got me a 2x8gb 3200 15 gskill kit. Does pretty decent, not great. Trying to dial out the last little bit from it.
> 
> 
> Setup is a 1600x on a gigabyte x370 gaming k7 bios f23 by ket. So far I have been able to run the stilts fast timings gdm on for 3200 and 3333. Also managed to get the 3466 timing from the stilt stable at 3400. Settled on safe timings for the calculator at 3400. Noticed some things about this setup that made me have some questions.
> 
> The sticks like procodt 48 for stability reasons but boot like crap on it. 53 and 60 both boot every time on it but throw errors every few pass's.They also require 1.44v dram and 1.0625v soc to run stable and boot somewhat successfully, more or less voltage does not alleviate boot or errors issues. current best settings still f9 on mem training once or twice but rarely fail. Which is better than before where it might take a CMOS clear to get it running. Voltages are set as follows.
> 
> 4.1ghz pstate0
> 
> Vcore 1.38v llc high
> 
> Soc 1.0623v uncore llc high
> 
> Vddp .860v
> 
> Dram 1.44v
> 
> Dram termination .731v
> 
> Everything else is left to stock.
> 
> 
> Testing so far puts current setting's stable on karhus ramtest to 3000%. Heat related errors occur afterwards but with an additional fan pointed on the sticks its tested out to 5000% before I had to stop.
> RTT has been tested with NOM set rzq/7 and disabled. WR has been left disabled and I've tried park set to everything from 3-6. So far the only thing that's seemed to help is a small dram and soc voltage bump. Higher voltages up to 1.55v and 1.175v have not alleviated any booting issues.
> 
> 
> 3466 tested stable on the stilts timings set to procodt 48. But failed to boot at all with separate attempts to retest. RTT and voltage settings listed above did not help in any further attempts to boot. Testing on procodt 53&60 booted fine but threw errors fast the higher the procodt got.
> 
> 
> I'm at my wits end with these sticks. The IMC on this chip was able to previously drive 3333 16,16,17,30 2t on hynix mfr IC's but any attempts to tighten at 3400 or run higher MHz result in errors. Is this the limit for these sticks or am I missing something?I've ran stock clocks with higher vcore to see if it was the CPU oc and it was not.


I like your approach,perhaps this can help you

0) procODT 48 + RTT_PARK 60 
1) procODT 48 + RTT_PARK 80 
2) procODT 53 + RTT_PARK 34
3) procODT 53 + RTT_PARK 40

I also advise you not to use compensation in High mode, the voltage on the Soc has rather low drawdowns even in stress tests

CAD_BUS 20 20 20 20 have you tried? RDWR WRRD 6/3 , 7/3 , 8/3 , 6/4 , 7/4? tFAW range from 24 to 35?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Here some new Stable settings (Im surprised that it can be done )
I mean Low V for SOC & DRAM !

Now is set: SOC 1.1v DRAM 1.4v

Note: Im close to 1T (no-GD) at similar LL timings 

OMG That DDR4 Kit can do miracles when Tweaked right.
But still i can't manage why Latency is so High? Should be ~68ns

RespecT to @1usmus !

Here:
==============


----------



## Saiger0

first thanks @1usmus for this awesome awesome tool 

I have a 16gb flare x (3200 cl14) kit running at 3400mhz at 1.4v with slightly thighter timings than the fast preset. 3466 at cl 14 spits out errors really fast so i will keep 3400 and try to tighten it as much as possible.

My question is which timings do I start to tighten first? Will I even "see" any "improvement" that is worth the hustle?

(running 2700x at 4.2ghz with 1.35v on a x470 gaming pro carbon. 1.0125 soc)


----------



## bihboy23

*ram overclcok*

Hello, I need some assistance on squeezing some more performance (or trying to) out of my G.Skill Ripjaws V 2666. (F4-2666C15-8GVR) (hynix m-die dual rank). I'm upgrading my graphics card to a 1070 Ti, and I'm gonna be gaming at 1080p, high framerates so I think it would be possible to get a bit better performance with my 1600x.

CPU: ryzen 5 1600x (no overclock yet)
Mobo: ASRock AB350M PRO4 (ram frequency goes up to 3200(OC))

i attached a thaiphoon screenshot of my ram (i have two sticks of 8GB) (hynix m-die dual rank)

Nothing I try using the dram calculator and several other forums have suggested timings have posted and shown in the BIOS past 2666, so i'm completely stumped as I think I have the worst ram possible for overclocking with this ryzen setup. Should I keep trying to overclock this ram or do I even need to to begin with as I'm only going to be gaming, and several of my games are CPU intensive and I've seen the benchmarks with different ram speeds, timings. Appreciate any help, thanks.


----------



## DDDSS

1usmus said:


> Are you interested in the voltage to the memory controller or the derived voltage from the RAM (VTT DDR , Vref)?


Memory controller, I think...



1usmus said:


> background programs affect the result, did you check you safe mode?


I didn't do it in safe mode, but I was sure to close all programs and services that weren't needed to minimize variance.

By the way, the "further tightened timings" look like this. Any suggestions on this? Which timings should I try to push further, or what timings are mismatched that increases the previously mentioned variance in latency between tests.


----------



## redtopracer

@1usmus

I'll give the higher RTT PARK settings a try as well as the timings a try. 


I've tried all the cad bus settings in the calculator to help stabilize 3466, but I can't get them to stop throwing errors. Best results are errors in first 10% lol. 



Ive been testing cldp0_vddp settings and I think the memory straps stop right after 3400. So far 866 and 913 have eased booting issues at 3400 but 3466 still refuses to stabilize at acceptable timings. 


I'm actually chasing down YouTube problems right now. YouTube flat out freezes in chrome even at stock. Mozilla does the same as well but only at the 3400 settings that tested stable. Games and movies do not crash it and CPU crypto mining doesn't either. 


In all honesty this just might be it for these sticks. Should have gotten the uhq b dies instead of cheaping out and getting the HQ ones.


----------



## CoUsT

Saiger0 said:


> first thanks @1usmus for this awesome awesome tool
> 
> I have a 16gb flare x (3200 cl14) kit running at 3400mhz at 1.4v with slightly thighter timings than the fast preset. 3466 at cl 14 spits out errors really fast so i will keep 3400 and try to tighten it as much as possible.
> 
> My question is which timings do I start to tighten first? Will I even "see" any "improvement" that is worth the hustle?
> 
> (running 2700x at 4.2ghz with 1.35v on a x470 gaming pro carbon. 1.0125 soc)


I have exactly similar situation. 2700x at 4.2 ghz with 1.406v, 0.95v soc, G.Skill Flare X 3200CL14 that won't work above 3400 at all. I managed to get them to work on 3400 MHz with 1.39V and timings listed below. Give them a try! I'm still hoping to get them on higher Hz or with even lower timings but I usually make small changes and let it run over night to hit 1500-2500% coverage to be 99.99% sure that there won't be any errors. If you manage to get better timings than me or to get higher frequency, lemme know!


----------



## Saiger0

CoUsT said:


> I have exactly similar situation. 2700x at 4.2 ghz with 1.406v, 0.95v soc, G.Skill Flare X 3200CL14 that won't work above 3400 at all. I managed to get them to work on 3400 MHz with 1.39V and timings listed below. Give them a try! I'm still hoping to get them on higher Hz or with even lower timings but I usually make small changes and let it run over night to hit 1500-2500% coverage to be 99.99% sure that there won't be any errors. If you manage to get better timings than me or to get higher frequency, lemme know!


Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately your timings are already too tight for me. I´d say you are already pretty good with them.


----------



## DDDSS

CoUsT said:


> I have exactly similar situation. 2700x at 4.2 ghz with 1.406v, 0.95v soc, G.Skill Flare X 3200CL14 that won't work above 3400 at all. I managed to get them to work on 3400 MHz with 1.39V and timings listed below. Give them a try! I'm still hoping to get them on higher Hz or with even lower timings but I usually make small changes and let it run over night to hit 1500-2500% coverage to be 99.99% sure that there won't be any errors. If you manage to get better timings than me or to get higher frequency, lemme know!


Tested your timings. Here are the results. Variance in latency increased but also produced lower minimum latency which made the average latency lower. I guess the search for a stable lower latency continues.


----------



## redtopracer

I give up. This is so much horse****. Retested stable settings after experiencing YouTube freezes and it threw an error at 175% when previous testing put THE EXACT SAME VOLTAGES AND TIMINGS up to 5000%. This is the second time this has happened. First time was at 3466 and now this ****. I give up till gigabyte releases f24 or whatever so I can get off this ****ed up f23 bios.


----------



## DDDSS

redtopracer said:


> I give up. This is so much horse****. Retested stable settings after experiencing YouTube freezes and it threw an error at 175% when previous testing put THE EXACT SAME VOLTAGES AND TIMINGS up to 5000%. This is the second time this has happened. First time was at 3466 and now this ****. I give up till gigabyte releases f24 or whatever so I can get off this ****ed up f23 bios.


Electron migration?


----------



## chakku

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Here some new Stable settings (Im surprised that it can be done )
> I mean Low V for SOC & DRAM !
> 
> Now is set: SOC 1.1v DRAM 1.4v
> 
> Note: Im close to 1T (no-GD) at similar LL timings
> 
> OMG That DDR4 Kit can do miracles when Tweaked right.
> But still i can't manage why Latency is so High? Should be ~68ns
> 
> RespecT to @1usmus !
> 
> Here:
> ==============


Are the timings higher due to stability issues with the BCLK OC? I was planning on tinkering with BCLK to get that illusive 4.45-4.5GHz Single Core Boost but found my timings don't work at all with any BCLK OC when adjusting the DRAM multiplier to be as close to (usually lower than) 3333MT/s.

I would imagine you'd have a better time with 2DPC-SR than 1DPC-DR especially on a C6H.

For reference my timings/AIDA:



Spoiler


----------



## Korennya

@1usmus Used your calculator and plugged in every detail i could figure out on every page. 3400 passed memtest86 on first try. Running on a c6h (6301 bios) and a 1st gen ryzen 1600x that's doing 4.0ghz at the same time. Pretty good for 1st gen if i'm not mistaken.

Anyway. I could use your thoughts. It's only stable in slots 2/4.. What can I do to get it stable in slots 1/3?

Is this where the DDR tune 1-4 might be useful? Ignore where it says 2DPC-SR. I had 4 sticks in there, but there's only 2 right now. I hasn't gone back to 1DPC-SR since i put the 2 extra in even though they're not in there currently. I figure if we can figure out why the first two slots aren't stable, then I might have a chance getting all 4 to run at 3400.


----------



## chakku

Korennya said:


> @1usmus Used your calculator and plugged in every detail i could figure out on every page. 3400 passed memtest86 on first try. Running on a c6h (6301 bios) and a 1st gen ryzen 1600x that's doing 4.0ghz at the same time. Pretty good for 1st gen if i'm not mistaken.
> 
> Anyway. I could use your thoughts. It's only stable in slots 2/4.. What can I do to get it stable in slots 1/3?
> 
> Is this where the DDR tune 1-4 might be useful? Ignore where it says 2DPC-SR. I had 4 sticks in there, but there's only 2 right now. I hasn't gone back to 1DPC-SR since i put the 2 extra in even though they're not in there currently. I figure if we can figure out why the first two slots aren't stable, then I might have a chance getting all 4 to run at 3400.


The sticks should be in slots 2/4 or A2/B2 for 1DPC configuration.


----------



## Korennya

chakku said:


> Korennya said:
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus Used your calculator and plugged in every detail i could figure out on every page. 3400 passed memtest86 on first try. Running on a c6h (6301 bios) and a 1st gen ryzen 1600x that's doing 4.0ghz at the same time. Pretty good for 1st gen if i'm not mistaken.
> 
> Anyway. I could use your thoughts. It's only stable in slots 2/4.. What can I do to get it stable in slots 1/3?
> 
> Is this where the DDR tune 1-4 might be useful? Ignore where it says 2DPC-SR. I had 4 sticks in there, but there's only 2 right now. I hasn't gone back to 1DPC-SR since i put the 2 extra in even though they're not in there currently. I figure if we can figure out why the first two slots aren't stable, then I might have a chance getting all 4 to run at 3400.
> 
> 
> 
> The sticks should be in slots 2/4 or A2/B2 for 1DPC configuration.
Click to expand...

I’m aware of that. I’m trying to get a1/b1 stable for the purposes of running all four slots.


----------



## 1usmus

Korennya said:


> @1usmus Used your calculator and plugged in every detail i could figure out on every page. 3400 passed memtest86 on first try. Running on a c6h (6301 bios) and a 1st gen ryzen 1600x that's doing 4.0ghz at the same time. Pretty good for 1st gen if i'm not mistaken.
> 
> Anyway. I could use your thoughts. It's only stable in slots 2/4.. What can I do to get it stable in slots 1/3?
> 
> Is this where the DDR tune 1-4 might be useful? Ignore where it says 2DPC-SR. I had 4 sticks in there, but there's only 2 right now. I hasn't gone back to 1DPC-SR since i put the 2 extra in even though they're not in there currently. I figure if we can figure out why the first two slots aren't stable, then I might have a chance getting all 4 to run at 3400.


CH6 uses the T-topology, for it there is no difference where memory is installed. But according to the laws of physics, the load must be installed at the end of the line, i.e. in slots 2 and 4

when you install all 4 modules in the system, the stability will increase, because the empty slots have electromagnetic interferences and there is no load



DDDSS said:


> Memory controller, I think...
> 
> 
> I didn't do it in safe mode, but I was sure to close all programs and services that weren't needed to minimize variance.
> 
> By the way, the "further tightened timings" look like this. Any suggestions on this? Which timings should I try to push further, or what timings are mismatched that increases the previously mentioned variance in latency between tests.


The operability of the memory controller is designed for 3 years using the maximum voltage of 1.2-1.25 volts. Within 3 years there will be a gradual degradation in the region of 0.01-0.03 volts

I do not like understated values for tRFC, tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD and tRDRDDD. Perhaps this is the reason for such results. 
There is a concept - the golden mean, I try to always stick to it. Too low values degrade performance similarly too high. 



Saiger0 said:


> first thanks @1usmus for this awesome awesome tool
> 
> I have a 16gb flare x (3200 cl14) kit running at 3400mhz at 1.4v with slightly thighter timings than the fast preset. 3466 at cl 14 spits out errors really fast so i will keep 3400 and try to tighten it as much as possible.
> 
> My question is which timings do I start to tighten first? Will I even "see" any "improvement" that is worth the hustle?
> 
> (running 2700x at 4.2ghz with 1.35v on a x470 gaming pro carbon. 1.0125 soc)


your result is gorgeous, I think you need to stay on it. In the near future I will update the presets, wait, it will be easier to configure the system 



redtopracer said:


> @1usmus
> 
> I'll give the higher RTT PARK settings a try as well as the timings a try.
> 
> 
> I've tried all the cad bus settings in the calculator to help stabilize 3466, but I can't get them to stop throwing errors. Best results are errors in first 10% lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Ive been testing cldp0_vddp settings and I think the memory straps stop right after 3400. So far 866 and 913 have eased booting issues at 3400 but 3466 still refuses to stabilize at acceptable timings.
> 
> 
> I'm actually chasing down YouTube problems right now. YouTube flat out freezes in chrome even at stock. Mozilla does the same as well but only at the 3400 settings that tested stable. Games and movies do not crash it and CPU crypto mining doesn't either.
> 
> 
> In all honesty this just might be it for these sticks. Should have gotten the uhq b dies instead of cheaping out and getting the HQ ones.


I received a notification that my Flare X 3200CL14 sets have already been delivered to my city, in the near future I will try to give an assessment of the quality of this memory. Perhaps it is not a UHQ, but most likely the problem of the architecture of the memory controller + motherboard topology


____________________________________

*Hynix CJR* i already have


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *Hynix CJR* i already have


Nice! I am looking at getting the same kit soon.


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> Nice! I am looking at getting the same kit soon.



I hope that he will meet our expectations


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

chakku said:


> Are the timings higher due to stability issues with the BCLK OC? I was planning on tinkering with BCLK to get that illusive 4.45-4.5GHz Single Core Boost but found my timings don't work at all with any BCLK OC when adjusting the DRAM multiplier to be as close to (usually lower than) 3333MT/s.
> 
> I would imagine you'd have a better time with 2DPC-SR than 1DPC-DR especially on a C6H.
> 
> For reference my timings/AIDA:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


IMO it's Not RAM/OC much related.
For my last Fury GPU i found that all i can do is 104FSB
Now for Vega it can be even at 107FSB ! (im using very Safe 104-105FSB)

You need to find sweet spot. AMD CPUs 'like' FSB (It will give nice boost to whole PC, Infinity Fabric OC)
Like always try & error....

Maby try RTT as Auto/Off/Auto ? (Ultra High B-die don't like too much resistance (Ohms) or Voltages)
Do not exceed SOC 1.162v & RAM 1.465v... those Values are for Extreme OC.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Here my next Step in OC !

3500MHz with Low V  (SOC 1.1v | DDR 1.42v)
Im not fully stable yet, hmm it seems that something is eludes me -> for now 

RTT Auto/Off/Auto (most stable for me)
Proc 53 Ohm
CAD Bus All at 20

Note:
It seems that theoretically i can achieve:
3500 CL14 or even 3600CL14 on my ZEN 1700 with Max DDR4 1.43v-1.45v | SOC 1.125v-1.150v
All in all it depends on Quality of the DDR4 Kit, You have 100% chance of getting VLLT with UHQ DDR e.g. 4000MHz CL18/19 or above (or even 3600 CL15/16)

====
Here:
====


----------



## 1usmus

*First stable safe preset for Hynix CJR 18nm (3600CL16)*

*Reous* presets are not working, unfortunately...minimum stable voltage 1.36 + mem training voltage 1.5


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> *First stable safe preset for Hynix CJR 18nm (3600CL16)*
> 
> *Reous* presets are not working, unfortunately...minimum stable voltage 1.36 + mem training voltage 1.5


But how does is perform compared to something like [email protected] or [email protected]?


----------



## 1usmus

CJMitsuki said:


> But how does is perform compared to something like [email protected] or [email protected]?


I have plans to do comparative testing ... unfortunately, this won't all work out right away, but I promise that i will make a comparison 
Most likely there will be parity, this memory can 3466CL14


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how does is perform compared to something like [email protected] or [email protected]?
> 
> 
> 
> I have plans to do comparative testing ... unfortunately, this won't all work out right away, but I promise that i will make a comparison
> Most likely there will be parity, this memory can 3466CL14 /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Yes, I’ve seen it do 3466c14 which is why I’m curious as it is much cheaper than uhq bdie 3200c14. I don’t see 3600c16 outperforming 3466c14. Maybe 3600c15 would be close to 3466c14 performance though with 3466c14 being able to do tighter timings. I have a few things I will post soon on a couple of 3533c14 setups I have been testing soon so you can use it with your calculator additions. Using 1.43v and running 14-15-14-14-24-38 and a couple of unusual timings such as tCWL 12 - tRTP 6 - tRDWR 9 - tWRRD 3 instead of the other setup running 14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1 this one was running 12-6-9-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1 as it was more stable than the first one but it had a change in performance to some workloads and gains in others. Trying to narrow it down. I think one will be better in Single threaded workloads with the other better for multicore


----------



## CJMitsuki

CJMitsuki said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how does is perform compared to something like [email protected] or [email protected]?
> 
> 
> 
> I have plans to do comparative testing ... unfortunately, this won't all work out right away, but I promise that i will make a comparison
> Most likely there will be parity, this memory can 3466CL14 /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I’ve seen it do 3466c14 which is why I’m curious as it is much cheaper than uhq bdie 3200c14. I don’t see 3600c16 outperforming 3466c14. Maybe 3600c15 would be close to 3466c14 performance though with 3466c14 being able to do tighter timings. I have a few things I will post soon on a couple of 3533c14 setups I have been testing soon so you can use it with your calculator additions. Using 1.43v and running 14-15-14-14-24-38 and a couple of unusual timings such as tCWL 12 - tRTP 6 - tRDWR 9 - tWRRD 3 instead of the other setup running 14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1 this one was running 12-6-9-3-1-6-6-1-4-4-1 as it was more stable than the first one but it had a change in performance to some workloads and gains in others. Trying to narrow it down. I think one will be better in Single threaded workloads with the other better for multicore
Click to expand...

I see many that disregard tertiaries thinking they don’t affect performance that much but I think they do quite a bit for performance for a very smalle change but they seem to have close relationships in groups of timings and that group as a whole can change the way the cpu acts toward certain workloads instead of changing overall performance.


----------



## 1usmus

@CJMitsuki

I heard you what you want to see, I will try


----------



## Derp

1usmus said:


> I have plans to do comparative testing ... unfortunately, this won't all work out right away, but I promise that i will make a comparison
> Most likely there will be parity, this memory can 3466CL14



That Gskill sniperx kit is $120 for the next 7 hours. Would you recommend spending the extra $60 on 3200 c14 b-die or just grabbing a set of these? Motherboard being used is the x370 crosshair VI extreme.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Derp said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have plans to do comparative testing ... unfortunately, this won't all work out right away, but I promise that i will make a comparison
> Most likely there will be parity, this memory can 3466CL14 /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Gskill sniperx kit is $120 for the next 7 hours. Would you recommend spending the extra $60 on 3200 c14 b-die or just grabbing a set of these? Motherboard being used is the x370 crosshair VI extreme.
Click to expand...

You should most definitely get the sniperX kit if it is the same kit he is talking about which is advertised as 3466c16 if I’m not mistaken. I’ve heard quite a few stories about Hynix CJR and how well they pair with Ryzen which they are slightly less powerful compared to the 3200c14 flareX/TridentZ but they are about 100$ cheaper assuming the price is as you quoted.


----------



## Derp

CJMitsuki said:


> You should most definitely get the sniperX kit if it is the same kit he is talking about which is advertised as 3466c16 if I’m not mistaken. I’ve heard quite a few stories about Hynix CJR and how well they pair with Ryzen which they are slightly less powerful compared to the 3200c14 flareX/TridentZ but they are about 100$ cheaper assuming the price is as you quoted.


Correct me if I'm wrong but the picture 1usmus posted seems to match this set at $120 (3600 @ 19-20-20-40): https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232742&Tpk=N82E16820232742

FlareX 3200 c14 is currently $180. Not sure if something cheaper is available : https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530&Tpk=N82E16820232530

So it's a $60 premium for what I would assume is a lot less of a headache with compatibility. Three hours left for me to decide.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Derp said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should most definitely get the sniperX kit if it is the same kit he is talking about which is advertised as 3466c16 if I’m not mistaken. I’ve heard quite a few stories about Hynix CJR and how well they pair with Ryzen which they are slightly less powerful compared to the 3200c14 flareX/TridentZ but they are about 100$ cheaper assuming the price is as you quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but the picture 1usmus posted seems to match this set at $120 (3600 @ 19-20-20-40): https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232742&Tpk=N82E16820232742
> 
> FlareX 3200 c14 is currently $180. Not sure if something cheaper is available : https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530&Tpk=N82E16820232530
> 
> So it's a $60 premium for what I would assume is a lot less of a headache with compatibility. Three hours left for me to decide.
Click to expand...

You’re right, the kit he was just showing is the kit you are linking but I was going by his sig which shows 3733c14 and the model number is showing 3400c16 kit. If he says the 3600c19 will do 3466c14 then it is worth 120$ for sure and it would be best to run it at 3466 rather than 3600c16 or c19 imo but that’s an assumption until there is data comparing the two. I’m very tempted to buy that kit you are linking as well. I have an unopened 1700x and a couple other x370 boards laying around so I can make a bench set for first gen testing.


----------



## xx1987

Hi, thank you for your excellent work. I am using a memory with Micron units, which memory type should I choose? @1usmus
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=234458&thumb=1


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Derp said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but the picture 1usmus posted seems to match this set at $120 (3600 @ 19-20-20-40): https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232742&Tpk=N82E16820232742
> 
> FlareX 3200 c14 is currently $180. Not sure if something cheaper is available : https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530&Tpk=N82E16820232530
> 
> So it's a $60 premium for what I would assume is a lot less of a headache with compatibility. Three hours left for me to decide.


Maybe pick Predator 3600-4133MHz -> B-die UHQ and price is very good.
4133MHz CL19 kit starting 219€ 

https://www.hyperxgaming.com/us/memory/predator-ddr4

-> https://geizhals.eu/?fs=Predator+ddr4&in=


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Tweaked Moar 
Just remeber that Copy is most important Value (and Latency -> should give me ~68ns)

========
Here:


----------



## lightsout

I recently got a set of flares at 3200c14. Ran fine by just setting DOCP, I upgraded my CPU from a 2600 to a 2600x ($20 BF couldn't pass it up) and my PC wouldn't boot with ram at rated speed. Did some clicking and resetting and then got the failed screen sent me back to bios.

Bumping voltage to 1.37 booted up fine no clicks or reboots. Should I assume the IMC is a little weaker on this chip or is this no big deal? I have done no stability testing yet.


----------



## LillysTittchen

Did someone ever get an error at 2100% coverage with HCI (duration: >12 hour) ^^. I'm considering to try the Karthu RAM Test. The site states the duration to test should be 1 hour and the coverage should be at 6400%. Does that mean it can cover 6400% in 1 hour with 16GB? What experience do you have with RAM Test vs HCI, is it faster, more efficient?


----------



## kaiserc

I have RamTest - totally saves you time, worth the money if you value your time.

How long should I test?
-> Error detection rates by test duration*:

Duration ≤ 1 min: 47,44 %
Duration ≤ 5 min: 74,41 %
Duration ≤ 10 min: 83,66 %
Duration ≤ 30 min: 95,67 %
Duration ≤ 60 min: 98,43 %
* RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error

How much coverage is enough?
-> Error detection rates by test coverage*:
Coverage ≤ 100 %: 64,57 %
Coverage ≤ 200 %: 75,79 %
Coverage ≤ 400 %: 82,68 %
Coverage ≤ 800 %: 91,34 %
Coverage ≤ 1600 %: 96,06 %
Coverage ≤ 3200 %: 98,03 %
Coverage ≤ 6400 %: 99,41 %
* RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error, normalized to 16384 MB test region size


----------



## LillysTittchen

kaiserc said:


> I have RamTest - totally saves you time, worth the money if you value your time.
> 
> How long should I test?
> -> Error detection rates by test duration*:
> 
> Duration ≤ 1 min: 47,44 %
> Duration ≤ 5 min: 74,41 %
> Duration ≤ 10 min: 83,66 %
> Duration ≤ 30 min: 95,67 %
> Duration ≤ 60 min: 98,43 %
> * RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error
> 
> How much coverage is enough?
> -> Error detection rates by test coverage*:
> Coverage ≤ 100 %: 64,57 %
> Coverage ≤ 200 %: 75,79 %
> Coverage ≤ 400 %: 82,68 %
> Coverage ≤ 800 %: 91,34 %
> Coverage ≤ 1600 %: 96,06 %
> Coverage ≤ 3200 %: 98,03 %
> Coverage ≤ 6400 %: 99,41 %
> * RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error, normalized to 16384 MB test region size


Thanks for your feedback! What settings do you use in the advanced tab to test? (CPU Cache, RNG, Stress FPU) What tool did you use before RAM Test. Thanks in advance!


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> kaiserc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have RamTest - totally saves you time, worth the money if you value your time.
> 
> How long should I test?
> -> Error detection rates by test duration*:
> 
> Duration ≤ 1 min: 47,44 %
> Duration ≤ 5 min: 74,41 %
> Duration ≤ 10 min: 83,66 %
> Duration ≤ 30 min: 95,67 %
> Duration ≤ 60 min: 98,43 %
> * RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error
> 
> How much coverage is enough?
> -> Error detection rates by test coverage*:
> Coverage ≤ 100 %: 64,57 %
> Coverage ≤ 200 %: 75,79 %
> Coverage ≤ 400 %: 82,68 %
> Coverage ≤ 800 %: 91,34 %
> Coverage ≤ 1600 %: 96,06 %
> Coverage ≤ 3200 %: 98,03 %
> Coverage ≤ 6400 %: 99,41 %
> * RAM Test 1.1.0.0, stop on error, normalized to 16384 MB test region size
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your feedback! What settings do you use in the advanced tab to test? (CPU Cache, RNG, Stress FPU) What tool did you use before RAM Test. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Using the cache to speed up the test can invite cache errors and can lead to falsely making you think it’s due to memory. Also, I have mixed feelings on RamTest. At times it can be wildly inconsistent and sometimes it’s fine. I stopped using it for a solid determining factor for stability due to the wild inconsistencies I saw occasionally. If you saw 1 error in 12 hours of MemTest I’d call that stable as you’d never see that error in normal day to day tasks unless you are running servers with that memory and that’s not the case as you’d have ECC memory so I’d say that 1200% memtest with 1 error is more than stable enough for 99% of users.


----------



## lightsout

lightsout said:


> I recently got a set of flares at 3200c14. Ran fine by just setting DOCP, I upgraded my CPU from a 2600 to a 2600x ($20 BF couldn't pass it up) and my PC wouldn't boot with ram at rated speed. Did some clicking and resetting and then got the failed screen sent me back to bios.
> 
> Bumping voltage to 1.37 booted up fine no clicks or reboots. Should I assume the IMC is a little weaker on this chip or is this no big deal? I have done no stability testing yet.


Now after some reboots it took 1.38v to get into windows, getting nervous now about this ram, but it worked fine with previous CPU.


----------



## CJMitsuki

lightsout said:


> lightsout said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently got a set of flares at 3200c14. Ran fine by just setting DOCP, I upgraded my CPU from a 2600 to a 2600x ($20 BF couldn't pass it up) and my PC wouldn't boot with ram at rated speed. Did some clicking and resetting and then got the failed screen sent me back to bios.
> 
> Bumping voltage to 1.37 booted up fine no clicks or reboots. Should I assume the IMC is a little weaker on this chip or is this no big deal? I have done no stability testing yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Now after some reboots it took 1.38v to get into windows, getting nervous now about this ram, but it worked fine with previous CPU.
Click to expand...

Then it isn’t the ram, it’s the CPU. What frequency are you booting into?


----------



## LillysTittchen

CJMitsuki said:


> Using the cache to speed up the test can invite cache errors and can lead to falsely making you think it’s due to memory. Also, I have mixed feelings on RamTest. At times it can be wildly inconsistent and sometimes it’s fine. I stopped using it for a solid determining factor for stability due to the wild inconsistencies I saw occasionally. If you saw 1 error in 12 hours of MemTest I’d call that stable as you’d never see that error in normal day to day tasks unless you are running servers with that memory and that’s not the case as you’d have ECC memory so I’d say that 1200% memtest with 1 error is more than stable enough for 99% of users.


Wow ok, I guess that answers all my questons  I would like to dig a bit deeper and ask a question I have for so long: Where is the edge between cpu cache and memory? I often read about that MemTest puts not only heavy load on memory but cpu cache too and thats the reason why its so famous and "reliable" in finding errors relative fast, am I right? But when I just overclock my memory, do I even want to test the cpu cache because it's just one more error source -> I guess I can answer this question by myself but I'm not sure -> isn't the cpu cache and the memory controller in realtionship so when I increase the RAM frequency some other factor increases too? Is it possible to say "thesebios optins are for cache stability and these for memory stability (like timings DRAM voltage etc.)" ? And is it possible that MemTest throw an error due to cache instability and that the memory is actually stabl?

So many questions... :wackosmil ^^


----------



## lightsout

CJMitsuki said:


> Then it isn’t the ram, it’s the CPU. What frequency are you booting into?


At level 2 set in the bios it runs at x40 on all cores.


----------



## CJMitsuki

LillysTittchen said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using the cache to speed up the test can invite cache errors and can lead to falsely making you think it’s due to memory. Also, I have mixed feelings on RamTest. At times it can be wildly inconsistent and sometimes it’s fine. I stopped using it for a solid determining factor for stability due to the wild inconsistencies I saw occasionally. If you saw 1 error in 12 hours of MemTest I’d call that stable as you’d never see that error in normal day to day tasks unless you are running servers with that memory and that’s not the case as you’d have ECC memory so I’d say that 1200% memtest with 1 error is more than stable enough for 99% of users.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ok, I guess that answers all my questons /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif I would like to dig a bit deeper and ask a question I have for so long: Where is the edge between cpu cache and memory? I often read about that MemTest puts not only heavy load on memory but cpu cache too and thats the reason why its so famous and "reliable" in finding errors relative fast, am I right? But when I just overclock my memory, do I even want to test the cpu cache because it's just one more error source -> I guess I can answer this question by myself but I'm not sure -> isn't the cpu cache and the memory controller in realtionship so when I increase the RAM frequency some other factor increases too? Is it possible to say "thesebios optins are for cache stability and these for memory stability (like timings DRAM voltage etc.)" ? And is it possible that MemTest throw an error due to cache instability and that the memory is actually stabl?
> 
> So many questions... /forum/images/smilies/wackosmiley.gif ^^
Click to expand...

With Memtest you stress the cpu when you open 1 instance per thread for your cpu. For example, 16 instances of memtest for my 2700x if I want to do it a bit slower and rule out the cache errors for the most part then so will only open up 8 instances on MemTest. With RamTest there are specific options to enable the cache and such but basically doing the same thing. Same deal with TM5 except the options are in the config file. @1usmus needs to give us details on the config file options 😂


----------



## DDDSS

1usmus said:


> The operability of the memory controller is designed for 3 years using the maximum voltage of 1.2-1.25 volts. Within 3 years there will be a gradual degradation in the region of 0.01-0.03 volts


Is that CPU voltage, DRAM voltage or SOC voltage, need to ask just to be sure.



1usmus said:


> I do not like understated values for tRFC, tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD and tRDRDDD. Perhaps this is the reason for such results.
> There is a concept - the golden mean, I try to always stick to it. Too low values degrade performance similarly too high.


Even if it doesn't show up as any errors after 10 hours of testing? It can still degrade performance? Damn, that makes things very complicated. 
Additionally, I found out that I can get 3600 CL14 running easy, but even 3200 CL13, specifically tCL going form 14 to 13, makes my system not post. I have tried different voltages for SOC and DRAM with not much luck. Any ideas?


----------



## CJMitsuki

lightsout said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it isn’t the ram, it’s the CPU. What frequency are you booting into?
> 
> 
> 
> At level 2 set in the bios it runs at x40 on all cores.
Click to expand...

Was that the same with the 2600 too? I know the “x” variants overclocking their self higher usually. Also, what freq on the memory?


----------



## lightsout

CJMitsuki said:


> Was that the same with the 2600 too? I know the “x” variants overclocking their self higher usually. Also, what freq on the memory?


The non x only hit 3.75. that's why I got rid of it. It could do a static OC of 4.0 but clocks and voltage stayed 24/7. 

I don't think I ran this ram with the static OC. So just pb to 3.75.

This ram is running at it's stock settings 3200c14


----------



## CJMitsuki

lightsout said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that the same with the 2600 too? I know the “x” variants overclocking their self higher usually. Also, what freq on the memory?
> 
> 
> 
> The non x only hit 3.75. that's why I got rid of it. It could do a static OC of 4.0 but clocks and voltage stayed 24/7.
> 
> I don't think I ran this ram with the static OC. So just pb to 3.75.
> 
> This ram is running at it's stock settings 3200c14
Click to expand...

That’s why it needed more voltage. It’s not necessarily the IMC, once you start overclocking the cpu and the ram is running at the borderline low frequency then you need to bump it up a bit. I’d just hit 1.4v and start pushing the ram. If it is 3200c14 it can more than likely do 3466c14 easily at 1.4 to 1.45v. I’d say 1.45v is a safe bet to get timings nice and tight.


----------



## CJMitsuki

DDDSS said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The operability of the memory controller is designed for 3 years using the maximum voltage of 1.2-1.25 volts. Within 3 years there will be a gradual degradation in the region of 0.01-0.03 volts
> 
> 
> 
> Is that CPU voltage, DRAM voltage or SOC voltage, need to ask just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not like understated values for tRFC, tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD and tRDRDDD. Perhaps this is the reason for such results.
> There is a concept - the golden mean, I try to always stick to it. Too low values degrade performance similarly too high. /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if it doesn't show up as any errors after 10 hours of testing? It can still degrade performance? Damn, that makes things very complicated.
> Additionally, I found out that I can get 3600 CL14 running easy, but even 3200 CL13, specifically tCL going form 14 to 13, makes my system not post. I have tried different voltages for SOC and DRAM with not much luck. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is why you should only change 1 thing at a time and test performance immediately upon deeming it stable. If the performance drops then revert back to last configuration. I always take notes so I always know what setup was stable and some basic performance testing and write it all down. Once you have a nice collection of notes you can look and find out which timings have a hard threshold (causing errors) and the ones that have a soft threshold (no errors, but worsened performance). Without notes you’ll likely run in circles which isn’t efficient use of time and memory OC already takes a ridiculous amount of time, No need to make it longer.


----------



## lightsout

CJMitsuki said:


> That’s why it needed more voltage. It’s not necessarily the IMC, once you start overclocking the cpu and the ram is running at the borderline low frequency then you need to bump it up a bit. I’d just hit 1.4v and start pushing the ram. If it is 3200c14 it can more than likely do 3466c14 easily at 1.4 to 1.45v. I’d say 1.45v is a safe bet to get timings nice and tight.


Ok I'll see how 1.4v does. I'm fine with 3200c14 for now. Trying to get the CPU overclock sorted out. But this is the wrong thread for that.

Thanks man.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

4133MHz CL19 on ZEN 2700X


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> 4133MHz CL19 on ZEN 2700X
> 
> https://youtu.be/kFQ4aCrDqus


Yeah, no.. I don't believe that for one bit to be honest.. I would like to see some CPU-Z screenshots and BIOS settings.


----------



## 1usmus

*Hynix CJR 3600CL16 Safe 1 and Safe 2 presets *

I created 2 completely different versions, with different (procODT + RTT)

Stability tests : AIDA memory stress test (1h) + LINX 5Gb * 10 (15min)

Safe 1 
GDM enabled
VDRAM 1.39
V boot DRAM 1.5
SOC 1.025
procODT 60 + RTT_PARK 40

Safe 2 
GDM disabled 
VDRAM 1.4
V boot DRAM 1.5
SOC 1.025
procODT 53.3 + RTT_PARK 48


----------



## 1usmus

Ne01 OnnA said:


> 4133MHz CL19 on ZEN 2700X
> 
> https://youtu.be/kFQ4aCrDqus


Fake


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

hurricane28 said:


> Yeah, no.. I don't believe that for one bit to be honest.. I would like to see some CPU-Z screenshots and BIOS settings.


I can bolieve that.
IMO It's very possible with some 4600-4800MHz Kit 
I have 4133MHz CL19 1.35v Kit -> and i will go past 3500MHz soon (waiting for BIOS)
@1usmus

Is there new Mod BIOS for Hero VI?


----------



## hurricane28

Nope, 3600-3733 MHz is the limit on Ryzen no matter how good your chip is. For only benching idk how high that depends but 100% stable 3600 LL is the limit man. 

3466 MHz is the sweet spot on my system with 4.2 GHz static overclock.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

hurricane28 said:


> Nope, 3600-3733 MHz is the limit on Ryzen no matter how good your chip is. For only benching idk how high that depends but 100% stable 3600 LL is the limit man.
> 
> 3466 MHz is the sweet spot on my system with 4.2 GHz static overclock.


You know when i see @1usmus 3700MHz CL14 -> this is also not possible 
Im now trying 3500MHz CL14 to get stable (no luck on LLT Yet)


----------



## Ikasamashi

Question: am I suppose to be entering these settings on the dram settings in oc tweaker? Or in umc/dram configuration? Or both?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Ikasamashi said:


> Question: am I suppose to be entering these settings on the dram settings in oc tweaker? Or in umc/dram configuration? Or both?


Best is to set all values in BIOS then test/Adjust 
-> check for errors, 

if OK ENJOY


----------



## Ikasamashi

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Best is to set all values in BIOS then test/Adjust
> -> check for errors,
> 
> if OK ENJOY


I'm in the BIOS. I'm talking about where in the BIOS. Theres two different places.

1) OC Tweaker/Dram settings

2) Advanced Settings/ UCM/ Dram Configuration.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

OC Tweaker/DRAM Configuration


----------



## unbang

Finally got my Ryzen 1700 system prepped to place my old Ivy. Its on an MSI X470 M7 mobo and just got the 
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 3600 Model F4-3600C19D-32GVRB https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232740 last week. It was decently cheap at $230 even with 3600C19. After a week of tweaking i'm trying to settle on 3400C16 and have it mostly stable on everything. Aida 64 1 hour, LinX 1 hour, Memtest64 2 hours, Testmem 5 pass, Google stressapp 1 hour in Mint, and even Prime 95 blend overnight. The only thing that throws errors is my old tried and true HCI Memtest 4 Pro. Overnight it showed 5 copy errors. Should I call it a day or tweak some more? I've adjusted all the timings manual with the calculator, only thing that i can't seem to touch is the Termination Block settings. Any changes in those would result in 3-4 loop boots and reverting to stock uefi settings. Thanks for any advice!


----------



## Yviena

Just upgraded to x470 f,

Any tips for rtt park/nom values if none of the reccomendations for 3466 works?


----------



## DDDSS

Welp, I got this working at DRAM 1.39V. The five hour tests so far show it's stable and error free. Going to do one 24 hour test to declare fully 100% stable.
Average(of 10) latency in AIDA64 is 62.77n/s With 0.6n/s variance. 







Yviena said:


> Just upgraded to x470 f,
> 
> Any tips for rtt park/nom values if none of the reccomendations for 3466 works?


Try 3400 presets, they tend to work with more ease than 3466.


----------



## Yviena

DDDSS said:


> Welp, I got this working at DRAM 1.39V. The five hour tests so far show it's stable and error free. Going to do one 24 hour test to declare fully 100% stable.
> Average(of 10) latency in AIDA64 is 62.77n/s With 0.6n/s variance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yviena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just upgraded to x470 f,
> 
> Any tips for rtt park/nom values if none of the reccomendations for 3466 works?
> 
> 
> 
> Try 3400 presets, they tend to work with more ease than 3466.
Click to expand...

Hmm I actually had a easier time getting my c6h close to stable at 3466c14 than this one


----------



## brenopapito

Thanks @1usmus !!

It's so much easier to tighten the timings using your tool as a starting point.

DRAM: 1.38v
LLC: LVL 1
SOC: 1.0313v


----------



## Dekaohtoura

After some time, I decided to try some settings that I've found in this thread .


https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=235590&thumb=1

Same mem, same cpu/chipset generation, yet better results than the best I've managed so far (16-17-17-17-35-52 at 3000).

So I went and set these values, and waited for the usual training failure...

Well, there was one failed attempt, but then everything worked and I logged on normally.

Managed to run some tests


https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=235592&thumb=1

but when I launched FFox the system froze and had to h/w reboot.

Funny thing is that it started loading win without any training at all, but I just rebooted and returned to my usual stable settings.

Any thoughts? Could this be tweaked a bit, to be stable?

This is the first time that I've managed to go >3000, regardless of timings, voltage etc that I've used.

TY.


----------



## Hk2018

*Micron E-die*

First thanks @1usmus for this great tool :thumb:.
I have a question about the 1.4.0.1 version.
In calculator version 1.3.1 I can select "micron-e die" as Memory type and then 
I selected 3200 and I obtained a very good profile, that work ok and with low voltage (from the calculator 1.22 V rec. ).
In calculator version 1.4.0.1 I can only select "micron e-H" as memory type, then I selected 3200 MT/s and obtained a profile with higher voltage (1.35 V rec. and max 1.36V) 
and slightly better subtiming.

I know that most memory chips are fine with 1.35V, but my modules, kingston HX429C17FB2K2/16 are rated only at 1.2V (they have a JEDEC profile at [email protected] and an equivalent XMP profile [email protected]).
I found that these modules have a micron e-die 16nm chip, while most of other memory chips are 20nm.

I fear that 1.35V is too high with 16nm chip for a 24/7 usage.

My question is if the new 1.35V voltage is correct specifically for micron-E die.

For the moment I keep the old profile that works flawless.


Thanks


----------



## 1usmus

*Hynix CJR 3933CL16 and 4000CL16 world record* :devil:

P.s. VDRAM less than 1.47


----------



## oile

1usmus said:


> *Hynix CJR 3933CL16 and 4000CL16 world record* [emoji317]
> 
> P.s. VDRAM less than 1.47


Wow. I didn't think it was even possible to see those latency and frequency on ryzen and its cache! 

Inviato dal mio SM-G950F utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Reous

More interesting for me is what is the highest stable clock you can get with CJR and your M7 board?


----------



## 1usmus

Reous said:


> More interesting for me is what is the highest stable clock you can get with CJR and your M7 board?


I also care about this question, I just started


----------



## Darkomax

Wow, it's quite impressing! how does it compare in gaming against B-die? I would guess B-die is still faster because of tighter timings?


----------



## 1usmus

DDDSS said:


> Is that CPU voltage, DRAM voltage or SOC voltage, need to ask just to be sure.
> 
> 
> Even if it doesn't show up as any errors after 10 hours of testing? It can still degrade performance? Damn, that makes things very complicated.
> Additionally, I found out that I can get 3600 CL14 running easy, but even 3200 CL13, specifically tCL going form 14 to 13, makes my system not post. I have tried different voltages for SOC and DRAM with not much luck. Any ideas?


ideas are here https://www.overclock.net/forum/27694284-post3363.html
It seems to me most of the problems of users due to incorrectly selected settings procODT + RTT_PARK



Yviena said:


> Just upgraded to x470 f,
> 
> Any tips for rtt park/nom values if none of the reccomendations for 3466 works?


new bios and installing it with afuefix



Darkomax said:


> Wow, it's quite impressing! how does it compare in gaming against B-die? I would guess B-die is still faster because of tighter timings?


I do not know yet, but this preset may be able to surpass b-die



Spoiler


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

@1usmus

I told YOU 
On new ZEN 3700X 4000MHz CL18 or lower will be piece of an cake


----------



## SamuelL421

@1usmus

Could you share current bios settings for your MEG Creation board? I stumbled on this thread after some headaches getting my 2950x / MEG Creation setup to run anything over system defaults for memory. I have a 4x 16gb set of Corsair Vengeance Pro 3466 (decent quality B die). I’m also using the MSI beta bios 129 currently, though I don’t know if that is contributing to the problems or not.

I have tried various combinations of safe settings from the dram calculator for hours - trying for 3466 but I never got a successful post (many repeated failures with F9 code, 3 beeps and reset to memory defaults). I have my system *almost* stable by using xmp @3200 and manual voltage settings but I suspect I have a lot incorrect in the bios. 

I’m going to grab my previous 3466 settings I had and post them here when I’m home tomorrow, many thanks for building this tool and any feedback you can offer this X399 noob


----------



## Ikasamashi

So I finally got this to work. Errr, I think I did. It didn't seem to improve anything within margin of error. That being said, I went from stock 3200 to safe 3200 to fast 3200.
The only thing I didnt change was trfc 2 and 4. Its greyed out and when I enter it in, it doesn't boot.
Is that correct? I believe I read in the beginning of the post that trfc 2/4 isn't used by Ryzen?


----------



## 1usmus

SamuelL421 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Could you share current bios settings for your MEG Creation board? I stumbled on this thread after some headaches getting my 2950x / MEG Creation setup to run anything over system defaults for memory. I have a 4x 16gb set of Corsair Vengeance Pro 3466 (decent quality B die). I’m also using the MSI beta bios 129 currently, though I don’t know if that is contributing to the problems or not.
> 
> I have tried various combinations of safe settings from the dram calculator for hours - trying for 3466 but I never got a successful post (many repeated failures with F9 code, 3 beeps and reset to memory defaults). I have my system *almost* stable by using xmp @3200 and manual voltage settings but I suspect I have a lot incorrect in the bios.
> 
> I’m going to grab my previous 3466 settings I had and post them here when I’m home tomorrow, many thanks for building this tool and any feedback you can offer this X399 noob


1) new bios is already available 120 newer than 129
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/MEG-X399-CREATION#down-bios

2) I strongly recommend that you use afuefix to install a new version of the BIOS.

3) we have different processors and completely different memory. Do not try to conquer 3466, start with 3200-3400



Ikasamashi said:


> So I finally got this to work. Errr, I think I did. It didn't seem to improve anything within margin of error. That being said, I went from stock 3200 to safe 3200 to fast 3200.
> The only thing I didnt change was trfc 2 and 4. Its greyed out and when I enter it in, it doesn't boot.
> Is that correct? I believe I read in the beginning of the post that trfc 2/4 isn't used by Ryzen?


yep, you must forget that exist trfc2 / 4



Ne01 OnnA said:


> @1usmus
> 
> I told YOU
> On new ZEN 3700X 4000MHz CL18 or lower is piece of an cake


hopefully


----------



## 1usmus

*Hynix CJR 3800CL16 - stable *



Spoiler























a few hours later an error may appear ... I can't get an ideal, the memory controller is at the limit


----------



## Reous

Kinda identical to my result. 4000 is bootable but only 3800 maybe 3866 is stable.
Do you really need that high Ram voltage? You dont have Karhu RAMTest?


----------



## SamuelL421

1usmus said:


> 1) new bios is already available 120 newer than 129
> https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/MEG-X399-CREATION#down-bios
> 
> 2) I strongly recommend that you use afuefix to install a new version of the BIOS.
> 
> 3) we have different processors and completely different memory. Do not try to conquer 3466, start with 3200-3400


Thank you, I was watching for new beta bios and had not realized 1.2 was available!

Any advice on where I can download the *Afuefix* tool/package? I've searched for "AfuEfix64.efi" can't find anything that looks legitimate and nothing from MSI specifically.
Ignore that question, I found it: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html - :thumb:


----------



## Ikasamashi

1usmus said:


> yep, you must forget that exist trfc2 / 4


Thanks, I'll fool around with it more later.


----------



## Ricey20

Thanks for your utility @1usmus. Quick question, what LLC is best for MSI X470 M7 for stability since they use mode 1-29?


----------



## Jspinks020

Well I'll be stuck at 3200mhz...was not a good ocing kit at all. They've solved most of it and xmp works and getting higher stuff stable.


----------



## chakku

Trying to get my 2x16 DR to 3400 now.. Anyone had any success? I can boot fine with these settings, but I have yet to find any DRAM/SoC voltages that help with memory errors in tests. I don't get a huge amount but they're common enough to say it's definitely nowhere near stable.



Spoiler


----------



## Zerotre

at least your pc starts....

for me it's impossible to go over 3200 with a 2x16gb (F4-3200C14D-32GTZ), beeps error on reboot after bios saving...


tested a lot of rtt combination without success....


----------



## Snurt

Thank you so much for this tool! 

This is what i managed to get stable with a G.Skill FlareX 3200mhz 4 x 8GB kit(b-die) @ 1.38vdim
tRCDWR and rRP is stable on 13 and tFAW is stable down to 16, but no gain was observed.
tRCDRD was not stable under 15 tho, and no other speed over 3200mhz was stable as i have found.
Edit: By stable i mean 1 hour+ of Karhu RAMtest and/or Memtest 400%.




Spoiler















Thank you again, this made dialing in settings so much faster!


----------



## lcbbcl

Finlay after 1.5 years i got my my F4-3200C14-32GVK(2x16) at 3333mhz stable.


----------



## lubmar

SOC Voltage - is it standard/normal value a "0.99" ? - my mobo shows only offset in settings ... so when i do it now for 1.025 from calculator i need to add +0.035 ? 

also i have a :
CAD Bus Setup Timing
-addrcmdsetup
-csodtsetup
-ckesetup 

what are those ? do i keep them on "auto"

thanks


----------



## snipernote

*a-data spektek ram oc*

i have this ram
MEMORY MODULE 
Manufacturer 
A-DATA Technology 
Series 
Not determined 
Part Number 
Undefined 
Serial Number 
00000000h 
JEDEC DIMM Label 
8GB 1Rx8 PC4-2133P-UA0-10 
Architecture 
DDR4 SDRAM UDIMM 
Speed Grade 
DDR4-2133P downbin 
Capacity 
8 GB (8 components) 
Organization 
1024M x64 (1 rank) 
Register Model 
N/A 
Manufacturing Date 
Week 21, 2017 
Manufacturing Location 
Taiwan 
Revision / Raw Card 
FF00h / A0 (8 layers) 
DRAM COMPONENTS 
Manufacturer 
SpecTek 
Part Number 
MT40A1G8??-093E:? 
Package 
Standard Monolithic 78-ball FBGA 
Die Density / Count 
8 Gb / 1 die 
Composition 
1024Mb x8 (64Mb x8 x 16 banks) 
Clock Frequency 
1067 MHz (0.938 ns) 
Minimum Timing Delays 
15-15-15-36-50 
Read Latencies Supported 
16T, 15T, 14T, 13T, 12T, 11T, 9T 
Supply Voltage 
1.20 V 
XMP Certified 
Not programmed 
XMP Extreme 
Not programmed 
SPD Revision 
1.0 / January 2014 
XMP Revision 
Undefined 
FREQUENCY CAS RCD RP RAS RC FAW RRDS RRDL CCDL 
1067 MHz 16 15 15 36 50 23 4 6 6 
1067 MHz 15 15 15 36 50 23 4 6 6 
933 MHz 14 13 13 31 44 20 4 5 5 
933 MHz 13 13 13 31 44 20 4 5 5 
800 MHz 12 11 11 27 38 17 3 5 5 
800 MHz 11 11 11 27 38 17 3 5 5 
667 MHz 9 9 9 22 31 14 3 4 4 

i cannot find it in the dram module for ryzen app ... how do i overclock my ram ?


----------



## Reous

@snipernote Try Micron E/H-die or Micron D-die.


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> *Hynix CJR 3600CL16 Safe 1 and Safe 2 presets *
> 
> I created 2 completely different versions, with different (procODT + RTT)
> 
> Stability tests : AIDA memory stress test (1h) + LINX 5Gb * 10 (15min)
> 
> Safe 1
> GDM enabled
> VDRAM 1.39
> V boot DRAM 1.5
> SOC 1.025
> procODT 60 + RTT_PARK 40
> 
> Safe 2
> GDM disabled
> VDRAM 1.4
> V boot DRAM 1.5
> SOC 1.025
> procODT 53.3 + RTT_PARK 48


Asus ROG Strix X470-F
BIOS 4204 AGESA 1.0.0.6
G.Skill F4-3600C19-8GSXWB with settings based on *Safe 2*
Lots of errors  Could it be spread spectrum? Stock BIOS has my BLCK bouncing everywhere.


----------



## CJMitsuki

-Grift- said:


> Asus ROG Strix X470-F
> BIOS 4204 AGESA 1.0.0.6
> G.Skill F4-3600C19-8GSXWB with settings based on *Safe 2*
> Lots of errors  Could it be spread spectrum? Stock BIOS has my BLCK bouncing everywhere.



Enable Gear Down Mode and also put base clock on 100 to lock it down


----------



## -Grift-

CJMitsuki said:


> Enable Gear Down Mode and also put base clock on 100 to lock it down


Will try GDM but BCLK is already at 100 (Stock) only 1usmus's custom BIOSes seem to fix the issue


----------



## CJMitsuki

-Grift- said:


> Will try GDM but BCLK is already at 100 (Stock) only 1usmus's custom BIOSes seem to fix the issue



Then why is it bouncing around? Sounds like a setting that lets the board auto adjust bclk dynamically like the TPU setting on my C7H.


----------



## CJMitsuki

@*1usmus* 
Worked for the past few days seeing what benefit 1.0.0.6 has given my C7H setup. It seems to have changed many behaviors of timings and while it didnt give me the ability to go to 3600 stable with timings I thought were good enough, I did find a setup that I believe is equivalent to 3800c15 in performance. Its ridiculously fast and runs beautifully with these timings which I believe are about as optimal as I can get them. Ive been palying with bios settings and going to write up a short bios optimization guide as some of the settings that are left on auto will increase performance and leaving anything on auto leaves too much chance for variance boot to boot if the bios decides it wants to change an auto setting and make a setup less stable or under perform. Just have to do more testing on the AMD CBS memory related settings then I should be good to go. Im very happy with 1.0.0.6 so far and cant wait for Zen 2.


Spoiler




































Also, in the C7H Bios under the "DRAM Timing Control After Training" in the "Extreme Tweaker" menu theres several timings that are not in the regular timings menu. Can you expound on any of these? Ive seen tREFI and know what it is and what is does but changing this setting results in no change in the value displayed in RTC under the tREF heading. Is there something im missing bc I would love to be able to change the tREFI value for more performance as it would increase/decrease the DRAM recharge cycle and that seems to be a pretty crucial value for performance.





Spoiler




View attachment 181206143100.BMP

View attachment 181206143124.BMP

View attachment 181206143135.BMP


----------



## J7SC

Hi there :wave2:

I just picked up a 2950x, MSI MEG X399 'Creation' mobo and 32 GB (4x8) of Trident Z RGB 3866 @ 18-19-19-39. The kit is labelled '*F4-3866C18Q-32GTZR*'. The system will be put together over the next few days.

While I have done a lot of Intel-IMC Ram setups and overclocking over the years, this is my first AMD / Threadripper attempt. I downloaded that nifty dram calculator utility (thanks for building it !) but one of the first questions there is 'Hynix, Samsung etc'...how can I find out what ICs the aforementioned RAM kit has, preferably without taking them apart ?

BTW, I realize that 3866 might not be attainable, and I have a few older DDR4 kits I can swap in (GSkill and Corsair Dominator Platinum) if all else fails though I really hope this one works, perhaps at a slightly reduced speed ...


Thanks for the help


----------



## CJMitsuki

J7SC said:


> Hi there /forum/images/smilies/wave2.gif
> 
> I just picked up a 2950x, MSI MEG X399 'Creation' mobo and 32 GB (4x8) of Trident Z RGB 3866 @ 18-19-19-39. The kit is labelled '*F4-3866C18Q-32GTZR*'. The system will be put together over the next few days.
> 
> While I have done a lot of Intel-IMC Ram setups and overclocking over the years, this is my first AMD / Threadripper attempt. I downloaded that nifty dram calculator utility (thanks for building it !) but one of the first questions there is 'Hynix, Samsung etc'...how can I find out what ICs the aforementioned RAM kit has, preferably without taking them apart ?
> 
> BTW, I realize that 3866 might not be attainable, and I have a few older DDR4 kits I can swap in (GSkill and Corsair Dominator Platinum) if all else fails though I really hope this one works, perhaps at a slightly reduced speed ...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


 It is Samsung B die, and I hope you aren’t disappointed in the fact that you will be lucky to get [email protected]+ as that is actually very good for Threadripper and Quad Channel with Single rank sticks x4. I’ve seen 3466 with dual channel on 2700x but that’s not the norm either. It will be harder with more cores. You may even have been better off to find a good 3200c14 kit for your setup. Never know though, you could get 3533 and surprise everyone. 

*Samsung B Die Finder*


----------



## J7SC

CJMitsuki said:


> It is Samsung B die, and I hope you aren’t disappointed in the fact that you will be lucky to get [email protected]+ as that is actually very good for Threadripper and Quad Channel with Single rank sticks x4. I’ve seen 3466 with dual channel on 2700x but that’s not the norm either. It will be harder with more cores. You may even have been better off to find a good 3200c14 kit for your setup. Never know though, you could get 3533 and surprise everyone.
> 
> *Samsung B Die Finder*



Thank you for the info and link !

I am quite prepared to see lower than XMP speeds - the 32 GB quad 3200 /14s are sold out here, and this 3866 kit could have other uses in other PCs I have.


----------



## CJMitsuki

J7SC said:


> Thank you for the info and link !
> 
> I am quite prepared to see lower than XMP speeds - the 32 GB quad 3200 /14s are sold out here, and this 3866 kit could have other uses in other PCs I have.



Im sure if you get the memory to 3200+ @cl14 youll be quite happy with the performance of that platform nonetheless.


----------



## J7SC

CJMitsuki said:


> Im sure if you get the memory to 3200+ @cl14 youll be quite happy with the performance of that platform nonetheless.


...yeah I'm really looking forward to this build, just waiting for the Heatkiller IV CPU block to arrive...I just have zero experience with AMD CPUs...my last non-Intel CPU was a Cyrix 100 way back in the day :lachen:


.


----------



## CJMitsuki

J7SC said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure if you get the memory to 3200+ @cl14 youll be quite happy with the performance of that platform nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...yeah I'm really looking forward to this build, just waiting for the Heatkiller IV CPU block to arrive...I just have zero experience with AMD CPUs...my last non-Intel CPU was a Cyrix 100 way back in the day /forum/images/smilies/lachen.gif
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

With that set of parts that cost nearly as much as your soul I’d say you’re gonna have one hell of a setup. AMD is surprisingly easy to OC on the CPU side, now if you want max performance it takes a lot of time and patience on the memory side. It’s fun and frustrating for me at times but a challenge is nice. Plus I like being able to learn an architecture as it grows from infancy.


----------



## -Grift-

CJMitsuki said:


> Then why is it bouncing around? Sounds like a setting that lets the board auto adjust bclk dynamically like the TPU setting on my C7H.


Nothing to indicate why as well... However GDM seems to have done the job so far! Stable 5 cycles and some gaming :thumb:


----------



## J7SC

CJMitsuki said:


> With that set of parts that cost nearly as much as your soul I’d say you’re gonna have one hell of a setup. AMD is surprisingly easy to OC on the CPU side, now if you want max performance it takes a lot of time and patience on the memory side. It’s fun and frustrating for me at times but a challenge is nice. Plus I like being able to learn an architecture as it grows from infancy.



...totally agree. On Intel, the most frustrating build I had was a Haswell-E...VCCIO really didn't like any DDR4 DRAM voltage above 1.35v (like 1.37v). But I learned more on that build than any other...

The MSI X399 mobo is also interesting re. potential Zen2/+ upgrades...it's got some nifty power stages. But before I even consider that, I better learn 2950x 'Threadripper'...really looking forward to it


----------



## CJMitsuki

-Grift- said:


> Nothing to indicate why as well... However GDM seems to have done the job so far! Stable 5 cycles and some gaming :thumb:


There ya go, thats all it needed. GDM is nice as it essentially sets the CMD rate to 1.5T and in a lot of cases it grants a massive amount of stability. Mine will not post with GDM disabled above 3200mhz but once it is enabled I have no problem getting tons more overclocking headroom. The performance difference is between disabled and enabled is negligible imo and is usually always worth enabling it for the added headroom on uhq b die.


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

CJMitsuki said:


> 3466c14 should be attainable. Try 14-14-14-26-40-4-4-16-3-10-10-0-2-2-280-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1, gear down enabled, 1t, power down disabled, Rtt @ disabled, disabled, rzq/4 ; 53.3ohm ProOdt, cad bus at 0,0,0 but if unstable use 1,1,1 then either 20ohm or 24ohm. Use around 1.4v dram and around 1.1v SoC but the SoC will vary depending on your IMC so that’s the first thing to play with and see if it fixes any stability issues. Going up or down can fix issues as the IMC likes a particular voltage. I also use SoC differently than others. I put SoC voltage on Offset and then set the offset to Auto then under “AMD CBS” menu then “NBIO” there’s a setting called SoC Vid and it needs hex values set and I set it that way. Gives more stability at boot from what I’ve seen. The hex values can be found somewhere in the C7H thread or easier found in @gupsterg thread on the ROG forums. Also don’t forget the set the AMD CBS options for memory to Channel, 512, hash enable and mem clear disabled. Opcache enabled, Streaming Stores enabled, HW Prefetcher enabled, determinism set to Performance, under PStates menu got to the bottom where it says “Relaxed EDC throttling” and enable that. Enable CStates then if you run with XFR and Performance Enhancer you’re may want to try PE3 and start running that base clock up a bit. I recently found that PE3 at higher bclk gives higher single core boost at the cost of lower multi core boosts. I’ve been able to get mine to around 4.65ghz single core boost and that is around 4.4ghz multi core or so. PE4 is just for pure multicore setups. I have been doing a lot of testing and both have viabilities. My max at PE4 is around 4.56ghz all core at 104.8 base clock and PE3 is 4.65ghz at around 107 base clock but the voltages needs for either of those are pretty high. Generally +.1375 to +.15v to offset and that jumps up to 1.63v to 1.65v often so the heat output is tremendous and they are on the edge of stability for running benches. It’s about 50/50 with my machine at 10-15c ambient temps. Lol. For a more mild approach use PE3 and just start with something like a -.0375v offset and start pushing base clock and bumping voltage as you need it but try not to push past +.05v unless you have the capabilities to cool it and you may want to put LLC to about 4 on the cpu and 3 on the SoC and max the current out and about mid way on the switching freq. You freeze up and crash if the voltage drops below the stable point so LLC counteracts that so keep voltage up and running the LLC at a decent setting. Just monitor the voltages through HWINFO and see how much it drops. You can either go up on LLC or give it more voltage if cooling permits. Also, ram plays a part in cpu stability so get your ram tuning nicely first and foremost.


Holy crap I pretty much copied this as I have a b-die trident z 3466 kit. I've got in and benched at these timings and it alone brought up my cb score 20+ points consistently and for the first time without a cpu clock change it raised my single thread score too, this is against my previous scores at 3466 cl16 lol. HOWEVER I'm getting a few sparse errors in memtest. I've gone through quite a few small increment SOC changes from 1.0 through 1.2v and dram voltage from 1.4 to 1.45v. I tried going from 20ohm to 24ohm which actually got worse. Changed cad 0,0,0 to 1,1,1 no effect. I've benched it back to back to back no lockups but I don't want to leave it like this I'm sure there's something I'm missing lol. 

Any ideas maybe sub timings I should just bump instead? Thanks again if I can get this stable at these timings I'll do a cartwheel! This thread is AWESOME!


----------



## CJMitsuki

MrWhiteRX7 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3466c14 should be attainable. Try 14-14-14-26-40-4-4-16-3-10-10-0-2-2-280-auto-auto-14-8-8-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1, gear down enabled, 1t, power down disabled, Rtt @ disabled, disabled, rzq/4 ; 53.3ohm ProOdt, cad bus at 0,0,0 but if unstable use 1,1,1 then either 20ohm or 24ohm. Use around 1.4v dram and around 1.1v SoC but the SoC will vary depending on your IMC so that’s the first thing to play with and see if it fixes any stability issues. Going up or down can fix issues as the IMC likes a particular voltage. I also use SoC differently than others. I put SoC voltage on Offset and then set the offset to Auto then under “AMD CBS” menu then “NBIO” there’s a setting called SoC Vid and it needs hex values set and I set it that way. Gives more stability at boot from what I’ve seen. The hex values can be found somewhere in the C7H thread or easier found in @gupsterg thread on the ROG forums. Also don’t forget the set the AMD CBS options for memory to Channel, 512, hash enable and mem clear disabled. Opcache enabled, Streaming Stores enabled, HW Prefetcher enabled, determinism set to Performance, under PStates menu got to the bottom where it says “Relaxed EDC throttling” and enable that. Enable CStates then if you run with XFR and Performance Enhancer you’re may want to try PE3 and start running that base clock up a bit. I recently found that PE3 at higher bclk gives higher single core boost at the cost of lower multi core boosts. I’ve been able to get mine to around 4.65ghz single core boost and that is around 4.4ghz multi core or so. PE4 is just for pure multicore setups. I have been doing a lot of testing and both have viabilities. My max at PE4 is around 4.56ghz all core at 104.8 base clock and PE3 is 4.65ghz at around 107 base clock but the voltages needs for either of those are pretty high. Generally +.1375 to +.15v to offset and that jumps up to 1.63v to 1.65v often so the heat output is tremendous and they are on the edge of stability for running benches. It’s about 50/50 with my machine at 10-15c ambient temps. Lol. For a more mild approach use PE3 and just start with something like a -.0375v offset and start pushing base clock and bumping voltage as you need it but try not to push past +.05v unless you have the capabilities to cool it and you may want to put LLC to about 4 on the cpu and 3 on the SoC and max the current out and about mid way on the switching freq. You freeze up and crash if the voltage drops below the stable point so LLC counteracts that so keep voltage up and running the LLC at a decent setting. Just monitor the voltages through HWINFO and see how much it drops. You can either go up on LLC or give it more voltage if cooling permits. Also, ram plays a part in cpu stability so get your ram tuning nicely first and foremost.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap I pretty much copied this as I have a b-die trident z 3466 kit. I've got in and benched at these timings and it alone brought up my cb score 20+ points consistently and for the first time without a cpu clock change it raised my single thread score too, this is against my previous scores at 3466 cl16 lol. HOWEVER I'm getting a few sparse errors in memtest. I've gone through quite a few small increment SOC changes from 1.0 through 1.2v and dram voltage from 1.4 to 1.45v. I tried going from 20ohm to 24ohm which actually got worse. Changed cad 0,0,0 to 1,1,1 no effect. I've benched it back to back to back no lockups but I don't want to leave it like this I'm sure there's something I'm missing lol.
> 
> Any ideas maybe sub timings I should just bump instead? Thanks again if I can get this stable at these timings I'll do a cartwheel! This thread is AWESOME!
Click to expand...

You could try to add rzq/7 to RttNOM and if that doesn’t help you can revert that change and try to change RttPark to RZQ/3 and if that doesn’t help then apply the rzq/7 to rttNom along with the rttpark change. If none of that changes a thing then go back to original Off, Off, RZQ/4 settings and loosen tRCDRD which is a primary timing and will have the most significant impact potentially to 15 and see what that does. Honestly if it is just a couple of intermittent errors one of these changes should do something to eliminate those errors. If not then reply to me again and I’ll give you some more things you can try. Only do one thing at a time though and test.


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

CJMitsuki said:


> You could try to add rzq/7 to RttNOM and if that doesn’t help you can revert that change and try to change RttPark to RZQ/3 and if that doesn’t help then apply the rzq/7 to rttNom along with the rttpark change. If none of that changes a thing then go back to original Off, Off, RZQ/4 settings and loosen tRCDRD which is a primary timing and will have the most significant impact potentially to 15 and see what that does. Honestly if it is just a couple of intermittent errors one of these changes should do something to eliminate those errors. If not then reply to me again and I’ll give you some more things you can try. Only do one thing at a time though and test.


Fantastic! Looks like bumping tRCDRD to 15 did the trick and now I'm at 1.1v soc and 1.4v on the ram. I just cleared 200% memtest... haven't tested CB or anything but hopefully that one click up doesn't really affect my latency and all. Still gotta be considereably faster than my dcop of 3466 - 16-18-18-18 lol 

Even the safe settings from the calculator wouldn't get me past 5% in mem test and they weren't as tight as this. 

Again thank you so much!


----------



## CJMitsuki

MrWhiteRX7 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could try to add rzq/7 to RttNOM and if that doesn’t help you can revert that change and try to change RttPark to RZQ/3 and if that doesn’t help then apply the rzq/7 to rttNom along with the rttpark change. If none of that changes a thing then go back to original Off, Off, RZQ/4 settings and loosen tRCDRD which is a primary timing and will have the most significant impact potentially to 15 and see what that does. Honestly if it is just a couple of intermittent errors one of these changes should do something to eliminate those errors. If not then reply to me again and I’ll give you some more things you can try. Only do one thing at a time though and test.
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic! Looks like bumping tRCDRD to 15 did the trick and now I'm at 1.1v soc and 1.4v on the ram. I just cleared 200% memtest... haven't tested CB or anything but hopefully that one click up doesn't really affect my latency and all. Still gotta be considereably faster than my dcop of 3466 - 16-18-18-18 lol /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Even the safe settings from the calculator wouldn't get me past 5% in mem test and they weren't as tight as this.
> 
> Again thank you so much!
Click to expand...

Np, and no matter what the CB score is compared to your other memory setup this one will be much more performant as the clock cycles are much faster at cl14 instead of cl16. CB isn’t too memory sensitive even though gains can be seen with memory changes. The memory setup you were running vs this one is quite dramatic in terms of speed. A crude way to assess potential performance is taking the frequency and dividing that by the Cas latency. In your case it was 3466/16 which =216.6 and the 3466c14 setup is 3466/14 which =247.6. While this isn’t 100% accurate, when the disparity is this far apart you can safely say that 3466c14 easily has the potential to walk all over 3466c16. Of course this comes down to timings but assuming timings were relatively the same on both setups aside from Cas then this would surely apply. For c16 to outperform c14 the timings would have to be really bad on the c14 setup and pretty decent on the c16 setup which isn’t the case here. So in all actions with your PC you should see at the very least a small uplift in performance. Some more than others.


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

CJMitsuki said:


> MrWhiteRX7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could try to add rzq/7 to RttNOM and if that doesn’t help you can revert that change and try to change RttPark to RZQ/3 and if that doesn’t help then apply the rzq/7 to rttNom along with the rttpark change. If none of that changes a thing then go back to original Off, Off, RZQ/4 settings and loosen tRCDRD which is a primary timing and will have the most significant impact potentially to 15 and see what that does. Honestly if it is just a couple of intermittent errors one of these changes should do something to eliminate those errors. If not then reply to me again and I’ll give you some more things you can try. Only do one thing at a time though and test.
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic! Looks like bumping tRCDRD to 15 did the trick and now I'm at 1.1v soc and 1.4v on the ram. I just cleared 200% memtest... haven't tested CB or anything but hopefully that one click up doesn't really affect my latency and all. Still gotta be considereably faster than my dcop of 3466 - 16-18-18-18 lol /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Even the safe settings from the calculator wouldn't get me past 5% in mem test and they weren't as tight as this.
> 
> Again thank you so much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Np, and no matter what the CB score is compared to your other memory setup this one will be much more performant as the clock cycles are much faster at cl14 instead of cl16. CB isn’t too memory sensitive even though gains can be seen with memory changes. The memory setup you were running vs this one is quite dramatic in terms of speed. A crude way to assess potential performance is taking the frequency and dividing that by the Cas latency. In your case it was 3466/16 which =216.6 and the 3466c14 setup is 3466/14 which =247.6. While this isn’t 100% accurate, when the disparity is this far apart you can safely say that 3466c14 easily has the potential to walk all over 3466c16. Of course this comes down to timings but assuming timings were relatively the same on both setups aside from Cas then this would surely apply. For c16 to outperform c14 the timings would have to be really bad on the c14 setup and pretty decent on the c16 setup which isn’t the case here. So in all actions with your PC you should see at the very least a small uplift in performance. Some more than others.
Click to expand...

Yeah the dcop had awful sub timings... Your settings are seriously half or considerably more in most cases! I had all but given up too until I saw your response about those settings a couple pages back. So stoked! Now if only I could get xfr / pbo to come up a little without messing with bclk 😂


----------



## CJMitsuki

MrWhiteRX7 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrWhiteRX7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could try to add rzq/7 to RttNOM and if that doesn’t help you can revert that change and try to change RttPark to RZQ/3 and if that doesn’t help then apply the rzq/7 to rttNom along with the rttpark change. If none of that changes a thing then go back to original Off, Off, RZQ/4 settings and loosen tRCDRD which is a primary timing and will have the most significant impact potentially to 15 and see what that does. Honestly if it is just a couple of intermittent errors one of these changes should do something to eliminate those errors. If not then reply to me again and I’ll give you some more things you can try. Only do one thing at a time though and test.
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic! Looks like bumping tRCDRD to 15 did the trick and now I'm at 1.1v soc and 1.4v on the ram. I just cleared 200% memtest... haven't tested CB or anything but hopefully that one click up doesn't really affect my latency and all. Still gotta be considereably faster than my dcop of 3466 - 16-18-18-18 lol /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Even the safe settings from the calculator wouldn't get me past 5% in mem test and they weren't as tight as this.
> 
> Again thank you so much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Np, and no matter what the CB score is compared to your other memory setup this one will be much more performant as the clock cycles are much faster at cl14 instead of cl16. CB isn’t too memory sensitive even though gains can be seen with memory changes. The memory setup you were running vs this one is quite dramatic in terms of speed. A crude way to assess potential performance is taking the frequency and dividing that by the Cas latency. In your case it was 3466/16 which =216.6 and the 3466c14 setup is 3466/14 which =247.6. While this isn’t 100% accurate, when the disparity is this far apart you can safely say that 3466c14 easily has the potential to walk all over 3466c16. Of course this comes down to timings but assuming timings were relatively the same on both setups aside from Cas then this would surely apply. For c16 to outperform c14 the timings would have to be really bad on the c14 setup and pretty decent on the c16 setup which isn’t the case here. So in all actions with your PC you should see at the very least a small uplift in performance. Some more than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the dcop had awful sub timings... Your settings are seriously half or considerably more in most cases! I had all but given up too until I saw your response about those settings a couple pages back. So stoked! Now if only I could get xfr / pbo to come up a little without messing with bclk 😂
Click to expand...

That responds to temperature headroom so the lower your temps the higher it will boost up to a maximum of 43.5x multiplier. So without bclk you can only go to 4.35ghz. If you do bclk then the best way to keep it from affecting your memory OC much is to bump it to 102mhz and then bump your memory OC down one step since 102mhz at 3400 is actually 3466 so every 2 MHz on bclk is one step in memory frequency.


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

CJMitsuki said:


> MrWhiteRX7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrWhiteRX7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could try to add rzq/7 to RttNOM and if that doesn’t help you can revert that change and try to change RttPark to RZQ/3 and if that doesn’t help then apply the rzq/7 to rttNom along with the rttpark change. If none of that changes a thing then go back to original Off, Off, RZQ/4 settings and loosen tRCDRD which is a primary timing and will have the most significant impact potentially to 15 and see what that does. Honestly if it is just a couple of intermittent errors one of these changes should do something to eliminate those errors. If not then reply to me again and I’ll give you some more things you can try. Only do one thing at a time though and test.
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic! Looks like bumping tRCDRD to 15 did the trick and now I'm at 1.1v soc and 1.4v on the ram. I just cleared 200% memtest... haven't tested CB or anything but hopefully that one click up doesn't really affect my latency and all. Still gotta be considereably faster than my dcop of 3466 - 16-18-18-18 lol /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Even the safe settings from the calculator wouldn't get me past 5% in mem test and they weren't as tight as this.
> 
> Again thank you so much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Np, and no matter what the CB score is compared to your other memory setup this one will be much more performant as the clock cycles are much faster at cl14 instead of cl16. CB isn’t too memory sensitive even though gains can be seen with memory changes. The memory setup you were running vs this one is quite dramatic in terms of speed. A crude way to assess potential performance is taking the frequency and dividing that by the Cas latency. In your case it was 3466/16 which =216.6 and the 3466c14 setup is 3466/14 which =247.6. While this isn’t 100% accurate, when the disparity is this far apart you can safely say that 3466c14 easily has the potential to walk all over 3466c16. Of course this comes down to timings but assuming timings were relatively the same on both setups aside from Cas then this would surely apply. For c16 to outperform c14 the timings would have to be really bad on the c14 setup and pretty decent on the c16 setup which isn’t the case here. So in all actions with your PC you should see at the very least a small uplift in performance. Some more than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the dcop had awful sub timings... Your settings are seriously half or considerably more in most cases! I had all but given up too until I saw your response about those settings a couple pages back. So stoked! Now if only I could get xfr / pbo to come up a little without messing with bclk 😂
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That responds to temperature headroom so the lower your temps the higher it will boost up to a maximum of 43.5x multiplier. So without bclk you can only go to 4.35ghz. If you do bclk then the best way to keep it from affecting your memory OC much is to bump it to 102mhz and then bump your memory OC down one step since 102mhz at 3400 is actually 3466 so every 2 MHz on bclk is one step in memory frequency.
Click to expand...

Good to know! Looks like I'm already hitting max then. My temps never go over 52c. All cores will hold 4150 consistently and single core taps out at 4350. I'd love to mess with bclk but i use nvme m.2 as my os drive and ive read that can get sketch.


----------



## CJMitsuki

MrWhiteRX7 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrWhiteRX7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrWhiteRX7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could try to add rzq/7 to RttNOM and if that doesn’t help you can revert that change and try to change RttPark to RZQ/3 and if that doesn’t help then apply the rzq/7 to rttNom along with the rttpark change. If none of that changes a thing then go back to original Off, Off, RZQ/4 settings and loosen tRCDRD which is a primary timing and will have the most significant impact potentially to 15 and see what that does. Honestly if it is just a couple of intermittent errors one of these changes should do something to eliminate those errors. If not then reply to me again and I’ll give you some more things you can try. Only do one thing at a time though and test.
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic! Looks like bumping tRCDRD to 15 did the trick and now I'm at 1.1v soc and 1.4v on the ram. I just cleared 200% memtest... haven't tested CB or anything but hopefully that one click up doesn't really affect my latency and all. Still gotta be considereably faster than my dcop of 3466 - 16-18-18-18 lol /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Even the safe settings from the calculator wouldn't get me past 5% in mem test and they weren't as tight as this.
> 
> Again thank you so much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Np, and no matter what the CB score is compared to your other memory setup this one will be much more performant as the clock cycles are much faster at cl14 instead of cl16. CB isn’t too memory sensitive even though gains can be seen with memory changes. The memory setup you were running vs this one is quite dramatic in terms of speed. A crude way to assess potential performance is taking the frequency and dividing that by the Cas latency. In your case it was 3466/16 which =216.6 and the 3466c14 setup is 3466/14 which =247.6. While this isn’t 100% accurate, when the disparity is this far apart you can safely say that 3466c14 easily has the potential to walk all over 3466c16. Of course this comes down to timings but assuming timings were relatively the same on both setups aside from Cas then this would surely apply. For c16 to outperform c14 the timings would have to be really bad on the c14 setup and pretty decent on the c16 setup which isn’t the case here. So in all actions with your PC you should see at the very least a small uplift in performance. Some more than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the dcop had awful sub timings... Your settings are seriously half or considerably more in most cases! I had all but given up too until I saw your response about those settings a couple pages back. So stoked! Now if only I could get xfr / pbo to come up a little without messing with bclk 😂
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That responds to temperature headroom so the lower your temps the higher it will boost up to a maximum of 43.5x multiplier. So without bclk you can only go to 4.35ghz. If you do bclk then the best way to keep it from affecting your memory OC much is to bump it to 102mhz and then bump your memory OC down one step since 102mhz at 3400 is actually 3466 so every 2 MHz on bclk is one step in memory frequency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to know! Looks like I'm already hitting max then. My temps never go over 52c. All cores will hold 4150 consistently and single core taps out at 4350. I'd love to mess with bclk but i use nvme m.2 as my os drive and ive read that can get sketch.
Click to expand...

Nah, NVME is fine. It’s M.2 sata ssd drives that mess up. I use a 960 pro NVME and I run 104.8mhz bclk daily and never have probs but when I got a m.2 sata 850 evo it wouldn’t boot and would get corrupted. So it’s something to do with m.2 sata ssds for some reason. Also, you aren’t maxed as the 43.5x multiplier is maxed once you can do 4.35ghz all core. At 102mhz you’d probably do 4437 single core and 4225 all core


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

CJMitsuki said:


> Nah, NVME is fine. It’s M.2 sata ssd drives that mess up. I use a 960 pro NVME and I run 104.8mhz bclk daily and never have probs but when I got a m.2 sata 850 evo it wouldn’t boot and would get corrupted. So it’s something to do with m.2 sata ssds for some reason. Also, you aren’t maxed as the 43.5x multiplier is maxed once you can do 4.35ghz all core. At 102mhz you’d probably do 4437 single core and 4225 all core


Wellllllll you just keep making this day better lol. Time to start bumping the bclk a tad. I'll give 102 a shot and knock my dram to 3400 to equal out. Honestly if that all works then I'm good to go, I'm not trying to get too greedy lol! This has already been such a huuuge jump over my 4930k setup I just switched from


----------



## CJMitsuki

MrWhiteRX7 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, NVME is fine. It’s M.2 sata ssd drives that mess up. I use a 960 pro NVME and I run 104.8mhz bclk daily and never have probs but when I got a m.2 sata 850 evo it wouldn’t boot and would get corrupted. So it’s something to do with m.2 sata ssds for some reason. Also, you aren’t maxed as the 43.5x multiplier is maxed once you can do 4.35ghz all core. At 102mhz you’d probably do 4437 single core and 4225 all core
> 
> 
> 
> Wellllllll you just keep making this day better lol. Time to start bumping the bclk a tad. I'll give 102 a shot and knock my dram to 3400 to equal out. Honestly if that all works then I'm good to go, I'm not trying to get too greedy lol! This has already been such a huuuge jump over my 4930k setup I just switched from /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

More than likely it will require a bump to your offset voltage.


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

CJMitsuki said:


> More than likely it will require a bump to your offset voltage.


Picked up essentially 100mhz running 102, but in game it's still the same as 100 bclk. It's like a hard lock at 4125 all cores :/ This asrock board has a glitch where I can't enabled precision boost overdrive either. I'll just set it back and rock out


----------



## CJMitsuki

MrWhiteRX7 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than likely it will require a bump to your offset voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> Picked up essentially 100mhz running 102, but in game it's still the same as 100 bclk. It's like a hard lock at 4125 all cores 😕 This asrock board has a glitch where I can't enabled precision boost overdrive either. I'll just set it back and rock out /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

Ah, well to be fair you wouldn’t have noticed any difference in games anyway. Your cpu won’t bottleneck any games at all.


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

CJMitsuki said:


> Ah, well to be fair you wouldn’t have noticed any difference in games anyway. Your cpu won’t bottleneck any games at all.


I agree completely! Getting this 2700x the goal was to focus on ram since that makes the most legit differences. OC would have just been an extra layer of icing on the cake  This setup is definitely crunching pixels like a beast, I'm very happy. 

Again, thank you for all your help!


----------



## Jspinks020

MrWhiteRX7 said:


> I agree completely! Getting this 2700x the goal was to focus on ram since that makes the most legit differences. OC would have just been an extra layer of icing on the cake  This setup is definitely crunching pixels like a beast, I'm very happy.
> 
> Again, thank you for all your help!


Not at all...that chip can run more GPU absolutely.


----------



## thrallbr

Thanks for great software


----------



## lubmar

so my mobo GA-AB350M-DS3H got new bios F24c with"AGESA 1.0.0.6" update … after the update my mobo didn't "play" nicely with the calculator setting that where working before (lock up - had to do the rest etc.) - 2200g cpu

but now (to my surprise) it does play "nice" with mem. XMP setting - just have to lower the speed to 2933 (G.Skill F4-3200C16-4GVRB) 

not sure if that means anything to the expert here , but just want to give a heads up to all newbees


----------



## redtopracer

ECC ram being a thing for a reason, whats an acceptable amount of errors after the gold standard is reached during stability testing?I can run my ram reliably out to 10000% on ram test, so I know its stable. But leaving it testing over night it ran out to 35000% and threw 5 errors lol. 



The ram is actively cooled with a 90mm fan, however during testing over night it did manage to creep up to 46c. So I actually suspect that's the actual culprit. But still....


Now the ram is stable enough for me except an occasional f9. But always post without having to clear the CMOS. And like I said it beats the the standard for stable very well. What's a normal rate of errors for stable ram caused by random bit flipping and such?


----------



## Jspinks020

Well I don't know if it would do a whole lot. And pretty Mediocre Latencies but yeah it will work. Just the good clock on that chip is what's not bad and Nice. Runs all that older stuff just Fine and really not that much Lag at all.


----------



## J7SC

CJMitsuki said:


> With that set of parts that cost nearly as much as your soul I’d say you’re gonna have one hell of a setup. AMD is surprisingly easy to OC on the CPU side, now if you want max performance it takes a lot of time and patience on the memory side. It’s fun and frustrating for me at times but a challenge is nice. Plus I like being able to learn an architecture as it grows from infancy.



Tx for your help yesterday...mounted a TR4 air cooler mod (while I wait for the water-block) and booted up for the first time...once I ran Cinebench a few times  I rebooted and got the 32GB of Ram up to 3466. Still, a looong way and steeep learning curve to go until its all optimized. I look forward to try to calculator.


----------



## CJMitsuki

J7SC said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> With that set of parts that cost nearly as much as your soul I’d say you’re gonna have one hell of a setup. AMD is surprisingly easy to OC on the CPU side, now if you want max performance it takes a lot of time and patience on the memory side. It’s fun and frustrating for me at times but a challenge is nice. Plus I like being able to learn an architecture as it grows from infancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tx for your help yesterday...mounted a TR4 air cooler mod (while I wait for the water-block) and booted up for the first time...once I ran Cinebench a few times /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif I rebooted and got the 32GB of Ram up to 3466. Still, a looong way and steeep learning curve to go until its all optimized. I look forward to try to calculator.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, 3466c14 that fast? Good deal for sure. You must have got a good kit and a good bin out of the IMC.


----------



## J7SC

CJMitsuki said:


> Oh wow, 3466c14 that fast? Good deal for sure. You must have got a good kit and a good bin out of the IMC.




...so far so good but still have to do a lot of testing ! :h34r-smi the headroom on the kit and the IMC seem to be there, though


----------



## thrallbr

What can happen if i increase my 2133mhz ram to 3200mhz?

I've overclocked and seems working fine

Which program i can test the stability? Only memtest64 or another one?

And about the temperature how i see what temperature im getting and the limit on which software?

Thanks!


----------



## CJMitsuki

thrallbr said:


> What can happen if i increase my 2133mhz ram to 3200mhz?
> 
> I've overclocked and seems working fine
> 
> Which program i can test the stability? Only memtest64 or another one?
> 
> And about the temperature how i see what temperature im getting and the limit on which software?
> 
> Thanks!


Many things can happen if it isn’t done correctly. Primarily it will cause memory errors which then can cause countless other problems. A memory error will cause data to be written incorrectly and that becomes an issue when the data that is written is a critical system file. Causing crashes, unwanted behaviors, and ultimately corruption to the point the operating system will have to be reinstalled cleanly costing you all of your data. I’ve corrupted my OS multiple times but I keep my operating systems backed up through Acronis so it only takes me a few min to get everything back to normal. Hwinfo64 or SIV are good for temps and other good info such as voltages and cooling. Memtest64, TM5, and RamTest are ok at testing memory with RamTest being my last choice and HCI Memtest being my first choice but TM5 is good for quick analysis of 99% stability. I’d suggest reading through this thread a bit and get some more knowledge as memory overclocking isn’t something to do blindly. The system can seem fine and a few days later be totally corrupted.


----------



## thrallbr

But which temp will be fine for me check if all is good?

For stability is good easy to check, but temps and voltages am very confused if all is ok



CJMitsuki said:


> Many things can happen if it isn’t done correctly. Primarily it will cause memory errors which then can cause countless other problems. A memory error will cause data to be written incorrectly and that becomes an issue when the data that is written is a critical system file. Causing crashes, unwanted behaviors, and ultimately corruption to the point the operating system will have to be reinstalled cleanly costing you all of your data. I’ve corrupted my OS multiple times but I keep my operating systems backed up through Acronis so it only takes me a few min to get everything back to normal. Hwinfo64 or SIV are good for temps and other good info such as voltages and cooling. Memtest64, TM5, and RamTest are ok at testing memory with RamTest being my last choice and HCI Memtest being my first choice but TM5 is good for quick analysis of 99% stability. I’d suggest reading through this thread a bit and get some more knowledge as memory overclocking isn’t something to do blindly. The system can seem fine and a few days later be totally corrupted.


----------



## CJMitsuki

thrallbr said:


> But which temp will be fine for me check if all is good?
> 
> For stability is good easy to check, but temps and voltages am very confused if all is ok
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many things can happen if it isn’t done correctly. Primarily it will cause memory errors which then can cause countless other problems. A memory error will cause data to be written incorrectly and that becomes an issue when the data that is written is a critical system file. Causing crashes, unwanted behaviors, and ultimately corruption to the point the operating system will have to be reinstalled cleanly costing you all of your data. I’ve corrupted my OS multiple times but I keep my operating systems backed up through Acronis so it only takes me a few min to get everything back to normal. Hwinfo64 or SIV are good for temps and other good info such as voltages and cooling. Memtest64, TM5, and RamTest are ok at testing memory with RamTest being my last choice and HCI Memtest being my first choice but TM5 is good for quick analysis of 99% stability. I’d suggest reading through this thread a bit and get some more knowledge as memory overclocking isn’t something to do blindly. The system can seem fine and a few days later be totally corrupted.
Click to expand...

For DRAM voltage is ok anywhere from 1.35v-1.5v and SOC is ok from 1v-1.2v. Temps you shouldn’t worry about as they will be fine on DRAM but the higher the temp goes then the less stable the ram becomes. Try to keep ram below 35c for best results. You need a small fan blowing directly on the ram.


----------



## 1usmus

*Hynix CJR single rank presets collection(beta 1)*

Memory : *G.skill Sniper X 3600C19*

These presets are rough, *they are Safe*, when compared to *Reous* presets https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f13/hynix-8gbit-ddr4-cjr-c-die-h5an8g8ncjr-1206340.html, in the near future I will try to improve performance.

Key features of this memory:
1) best procODT +RTT : 60 + 40 , 53 + 34 , 53 + 40 (thanks @Reous)
2) best SOC voltages 1.0125-1.025 for ZEN + and 1.025 , 1.1 for ZEN 1
3) best CAD_BUS 24 24 24 24 or 20 20 20 20
4) best DRAM training voltage 1.5v
5) best tRFC 262ns
6) best stable tRRDS tRRDL tFAW , 6 8 34
7) best preset in my opinion is 3600 and 3733
8) best fast tRAS tRC 28 42 (there are no jerks in games)

*3200CL14*


Spoiler















*3266CL14*


Spoiler















*3333CL14*


Spoiler















*3400CL14*


Spoiler















*3467CL14*
Attention! Safe voltage exceeded! Additional cooling required!


Spoiler















*3467CL16*


Spoiler















*3533CL16*


Spoiler



coming soon



*3600CL16*
DRAM Voltage 1.39-1.42


Spoiler















*3666CL16*
DRAM Voltage 1.44


Spoiler















*3733CL16*
DRAM Voltage 1.45-1.46


Spoiler















*3800CL16 1*
DRAM Voltage 1.42-1.44


Spoiler















*3800CL16 2*
DRAM Voltage 1.42-1.44


Spoiler















*3867CL16*
Not fully stable. Draft


Spoiler















Today, one of the memory modules refused to work on MSI M7, but it can work on MEG CREATION if you first set the settings on a working module and then install a faulty module in the system. Modules in a pair refuse to work. At the moment, I am waiting for clarification from G.skill


----------



## kaktus1907

1usmus said:


> Korennya said:
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus Used your calculator and plugged in every detail i could figure out on every page. 3400 passed memtest86 on first try. Running on a c6h (6301 bios) and a 1st gen ryzen 1600x that's doing 4.0ghz at the same time. Pretty good for 1st gen if i'm not mistaken.
> 
> Anyway. I could use your thoughts. It's only stable in slots 2/4.. What can I do to get it stable in slots 1/3?
> 
> Is this where the DDR tune 1-4 might be useful? Ignore where it says 2DPC-SR. I had 4 sticks in there, but there's only 2 right now. I hasn't gone back to 1DPC-SR since i put the 2 extra in even though they're not in there currently. I figure if we can figure out why the first two slots aren't stable, then I might have a chance getting all 4 to run at 3400.
> 
> 
> 
> CH6 uses the T-topology, for it there is no difference where memory is installed. But according to the laws of physics, the load must be installed at the end of the line, i.e. in slots 2 and 4
> 
> when you install all 4 modules in the system, the stability will increase, because the empty slots have electromagnetic interferences and there is no load
> 
> 
> 
> DDDSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Memory controller, I think...
> 
> 
> I didn't do it in safe mode, but I was sure to close all programs and services that weren't needed to minimize variance.
> 
> By the way, the "further tightened timings" look like this. Any suggestions on this? Which timings should I try to push further, or what timings are mismatched that increases the previously mentioned variance in latency between tests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The operability of the memory controller is designed for 3 years using the maximum voltage of 1.2-1.25 volts. Within 3 years there will be a gradual degradation in the region of 0.01-0.03 volts
> 
> I do not like understated values for tRFC, tWRWRSD, tWRWRDD, tRDRDSD and tRDRDDD. Perhaps this is the reason for such results.
> There is a concept - the golden mean, I try to always stick to it. Too low values degrade performance similarly too high. /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Saiger0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first thanks @1usmus for this awesome awesome tool /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> I have a 16gb flare x (3200 cl14) kit running at 3400mhz at 1.4v with slightly thighter timings than the fast preset. 3466 at cl 14 spits out errors really fast so i will keep 3400 and try to tighten it as much as possible.
> 
> My question is which timings do I start to tighten first? Will I even "see" any "improvement" that is worth the hustle?
> 
> (running 2700x at 4.2ghz with 1.35v on a x470 gaming pro carbon. 1.0125 soc)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your result is gorgeous, I think you need to stay on it. In the near future I will update the presets, wait, it will be easier to configure the system
> 
> 
> 
> redtopracer said:
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus
> 
> I'll give the higher RTT PARK settings a try as well as the timings a try.
> 
> 
> I've tried all the cad bus settings in the calculator to help stabilize 3466, but I can't get them to stop throwing errors. Best results are errors in first 10% lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Ive been testing cldp0_vddp settings and I think the memory straps stop right after 3400. So far 866 and 913 have eased booting issues at 3400 but 3466 still refuses to stabilize at acceptable timings.
> 
> 
> I'm actually chasing down YouTube problems right now. YouTube flat out freezes in chrome even at stock. Mozilla does the same as well but only at the 3400 settings that tested stable. Games and movies do not crash it and CPU crypto mining doesn't either.
> 
> 
> In all honesty this just might be it for these sticks. Should have gotten the uhq b dies instead of cheaping out and getting the HQ ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I received a notification that my Flare X 3200CL14 sets have already been delivered to my city, in the near future I will try to give an assessment of the quality of this memory. Perhaps it is not a UHQ, but most likely the problem of the architecture of the memory controller + motherboard topology
> 
> 
> ____________________________________
> 
> *Hynix CJR* i already have /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...


Looking forward to your Flare X testings. I'm currently running mine @ tighter than 3466MHz fast settings @ 1.41vdimm and 1.0v vsoc. 24/7 no hiccups yet. I can bench and game @ the same timings @ 3533MHz @1.15v vsoc and 1.45v vdimm but getting cold boot problems.










MSI X470 Gaming Plus, and 2700X


----------



## thrallbr

How do i know if this ram can work on my motherboard? (asus b350-plus)

Its not have on QVL.

Its 3333Mhz i found this with good price here F4-3333C16D-16GTZB

If i can run at least 3000Mhz will be fine for me on this board


----------



## dgoc18

Hi Guys,

I have G.skill Sniper X 3600C19 and ran Ryzen Timing Checker 1.05, There are some missing as N/A in it, I hope there will be new version coming.

D


----------



## BLUuuE

dgoc18 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have G.skill Sniper X 3600C19 and ran Ryzen Timing Checker 1.05, There are some missing as N/A in it, I hope there will be new version coming.
> 
> D


The Stilt doesn't plan on making any newer versions of RTC as AMD seem to be making it more difficult for him to do what he has to do.


----------



## cicero s

*tFAW and CPU temp*

I am quite new to the subtimings and currently testing a new ram kit. Anyway I found that tFAW value drastically increases the CPU temperature when you tighten the timing. Is this normal?


----------



## 1usmus

dgoc18 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have G.skill Sniper X 3600C19 and ran Ryzen Timing Checker 1.05, There are some missing as N/A in it, I hope there will be new version coming.
> 
> D


what is your bios version?


----------



## -Grift-

Same settings as mentioned before but this time with GDM which was stable like a day back  
@1usmus Errors on the new 3600 preset for CJR as well


----------



## 1usmus

-Grift- said:


> Same settings as mentioned before but this time with GDM which was stable like a day back
> @1usmus Errors on the new 3600 preset for CJR as well


Did you turn GDM on or off? Please show errors , RTC and voltages on in one picture


----------



## 1usmus

-Grift- said:


> Same settings as mentioned before but this time with GDM which was stable like a day back
> @1usmus Errors on the new 3600 preset for CJR as well





Spoiler














you have half the settings are very different from my

I can offer you another such preset



Spoiler


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> Did you turn GDM on or off? Please show errors , RTC and voltages on in one picture


Using latest recommended preset 

Voltages:
SOC 1.05V
DRAM 1.4V


----------



## 1usmus

-Grift- said:


> Using latest recommended preset
> 
> Voltages:
> SOC 1.05V
> DRAM 1.4V


on my pic GDM enabled , power down disabled , soc 1.025 , dram voltage 1.4 , xmp enabled


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> on my pic GDM enabled , power down disabled , soc 1.025 , dram voltage 1.4 , xmp enabled


10char


----------



## 1usmus

-Grift- said:


> 10char


and now you need to pick up the voltage for SOC and DRAM

for example:
SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.39 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.4 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.41 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.42 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.43 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.44
SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.39 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.4 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.41 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.42 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.43 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.44
and so on

or 

find the most stable Soc voltage, with a minimum number of errors, and then look for the perfect DRAM voltage


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> and now you need to pick up the voltage for SOC and DRAM
> 
> for example:
> SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.39 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.4 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.41 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.42 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.43 , SOC 1.0125 DRAM 1.44
> SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.39 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.4 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.41 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.42 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.43 , SOC 1.025 DRAM 1.44
> and so on
> 
> or
> 
> find the most stable Soc voltage, with a minimum number of errors, and then look for the perfect DRAM voltage


Very odd... I kept DRAM @ 1.4V while messing with SOC from 1.08V (Which at that time was the only thing that dint give errors) slowly moving my way down back to the original 1.05 and magically no more errors unlike the screenshot I posted before  
Wont be surprised if I wake up later and the same settings throw errors again
Edit: errors again


----------



## ajc9988

J7SC said:


> Hi there :wave2:
> 
> I just picked up a 2950x, MSI MEG X399 'Creation' mobo and 32 GB (4x8) of Trident Z RGB 3866 @ 18-19-19-39. The kit is labelled '*F4-3866C18Q-32GTZR*'. The system will be put together over the next few days.
> 
> While I have done a lot of Intel-IMC Ram setups and overclocking over the years, this is my first AMD / Threadripper attempt. I downloaded that nifty dram calculator utility (thanks for building it !) but one of the first questions there is 'Hynix, Samsung etc'...how can I find out what ICs the aforementioned RAM kit has, preferably without taking them apart ?
> 
> BTW, I realize that 3866 might not be attainable, and I have a few older DDR4 kits I can swap in (GSkill and Corsair Dominator Platinum) if all else fails though I really hope this one works, perhaps at a slightly reduced speed ...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help





CJMitsuki said:


> It is Samsung B die, and I hope you aren’t disappointed in the fact that you will be lucky to get [email protected]+ as that is actually very good for Threadripper and Quad Channel with Single rank sticks x4. I’ve seen 3466 with dual channel on 2700x but that’s not the norm either. It will be harder with more cores. You may even have been better off to find a good 3200c14 kit for your setup. Never know though, you could get 3533 and surprise everyone.
> 
> *Samsung B Die Finder*


I haven't been around for a little, so catching up. Which Agesa is on the MSI creation? I know going to 1.1.0.0 or higher made my 3600 unstable (I have a 1950x), but 3466 became stable at 14-15-14-14-28-42-6-9-24-4-8-12-2-2-288-14-10-7-4-1-6-6-1-4-4-1, procodt 53, gdm disabled, t1, 20 20 20 20, and cannot remember my RTT settings atm (3466 never was stable before that for me). This was with B-die from 2015 or 2016, 4133 CL19-21-21 sticks, 4x8GB. 

I am a rarity, as that always worked for me and that is really rare with first gen, so second gen should be more common. 

How is the MSI board anyways? I'm on asrock taichi x399. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Hey guys, 

Posts removed, lets please keep this thread on topic. 

E


----------



## Synoxia

CJMitsuki said:


> For DRAM voltage is ok anywhere from 1.35v-1.5v and SOC is ok from 1v-1.2v. Temps you shouldn’t worry about as they will be fine on DRAM but the higher the temp goes then the less stable the ram becomes. Try to keep ram below 35c for best results. You need a small fan blowing directly on the ram.


 @CJMitsuki
Need help with this kit https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3600c17d-16gtz

I need the best possible single core performance. I'm on CH7 bios 1103 with a 2700x. I am using 102.4 bus speed + performance enhancer level 2 with negative offset of 0.05000 (i am trying 102.6 but so far 102.8 gave me crashes even at -0.037, idk) with High performance power plan because Balanced causes stuttering in games. 
I am stable on 3200c12 but i've been reading from you that even if c12 was damn fast bandwith was just lacking... so i'm trying to push clocks further. 
To match the same ns (7,5) of 3200c12 i would have to reach 3733c14 but i highly doubt it would be stable with my kit... ueven cas is impossible on my board (3200c13-13-13-13 for example crashes, c12-13-13-13 is 100% stable, same thing with any frequency). 
What do you think i should push for? Some settings ive tried (3400 is 3481 because of bus 102,4. yes i know 3481 is not tight but previously i had problems with 3400 lol so i tried lose timings)

p.s i've seen you've also been telling people to use GDM enabled as gives better stability with negligible performance impact
https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings
looking at this chart seems like it isn't that negligible, maybe i'm wrong...


----------



## dgoc18

1usmus said:


> what is your bios version?


MSI Gaming Pro Carbon Bios 1.0.0.6.


----------



## J7SC

ajc9988 said:


> I haven't been around for a little, so catching up. Which Agesa is on the MSI creation? I know going to 1.1.0.0 or higher made my 3600 unstable (I have a 1950x), but 3466 became stable at 14-15-14-14-28-42-6-9-24-4-8-12-2-2-288-14-10-7-4-1-6-6-1-4-4-1, procodt 53, gdm disabled, t1, 20 20 20 20, and cannot remember my RTT settings atm (3466 never was stable before that for me). This was with B-die from 2015 or 2016, 4133 CL19-21-21 sticks, 4x8GB.
> 
> I am a rarity, as that always worked for me and that is really rare with first gen, so second gen should be more common.
> 
> How is the MSI board anyways? I'm on asrock taichi x399.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk




I am certainly not an expert on this combo (only day 3 with 2950X and MSI MEG Crt X399), but so far things seem to be working out very well. I am slowly starting to understand the Bios (coming over from Intel /Asus / Win7). 

-- pushed the 2950X to 4100 / 1.26v / all core as max for now (on air, waiting for water cooling parts / air cooler is modded with 2nd high-rpm fan, going deaf...). 3400, 3466, 3533 all booted last night. The aforementioned Trident Z 32 GB 3866 kit in my earlier post is Samsung B-die. 3400 memory stability tests now nearly finished, 3466 needs more (had one error with 3466 at stock 3200 settings per MemoryTry feature in Bios) and 3533 was touch and go even with some initial relaxed timings (15s instead of 14s). I am actually happy with 3400 Quad / 14.14.14.14.CR1 as I am pairing this w/ an Aorus 2080 Ti WB, and tighter timings are useful for GPU. 

-- all I have done so far is pick the 'Memory Try!' setting in the MSI 1.1.0 Bios, then change the DRAM speed, nothing else. Once water-cooled and further along the AMD Threadripper learning curve, I look forward to try the optimization software in OP and go for some higher DRAM speeds, such as 3600, as long as I can keep relatively tight timings at reasonable voltages (> cake, eating it too...) :h34r-smi

-- only initial concern was 'slow' latency (high 80s), but then I realized that I had the Bios feature set to 'CB 15'...once I corrected that, per below, the thing took off like a scolded cat, so to speak....also picked up over 1000 points in 3DMark FS and TS CPU physics-only test just with that change alone. Speaking of CB15 presets, single core CB15 at 180 right out of the box, multicore at 3590 at 4100 (hoping to go higher once under water).

So still early days, but I am really very much impressed with the Threadripper, the MSI board and Trident Z kit


----------



## ajc9988

J7SC said:


> I am certainly not an expert on this combo (only day 3 with 2950X and MSI MEG Crt X399), but so far things seem to be working out very well. I am slowly starting to understand the Bios (coming over from Intel /Asus / Win7).
> 
> -- pushed the 2950X to 4100 / 1.26v / all core as max for now (on air, waiting for water cooling parts / air cooler is modded with 2nd high-rpm fan, going deaf...). 3400, 3466, 3533 all booted last night. The aforementioned Trident Z 32 GB 3866 kit in my earlier post is Samsung B-die. 3400 memory stability tests now nearly finished, 3466 needs more (had one error with 3466 at stock 3200 settings per MemoryTry feature in Bios) and 3533 was touch and go even with some initial relaxed timings (15s instead of 14s). I am actually happy with 3400 Quad / 14.14.14.14.CR1 as I am pairing this w/ an Aorus 2080 Ti WB, and tighter timings are useful for GPU.
> 
> -- all I have done so far is pick the 'Memory Try!' setting in the MSI 1.1.0 Bios, then change the DRAM speed, nothing else. Once water-cooled and further along the AMD Threadripper learning curve, I look forward to try the optimization software in OP and go for some higher DRAM speeds, such as 3600, as long as I can keep relatively tight timings at reasonable voltages (> cake, eating it too...) :h34r-smi
> 
> -- only initial concern was 'slow' latency (high 80s), but then I realized that I had the Bios feature set to 'CB 15'...once I corrected that, per below, the thing took off like a scolded cat, so to speak....also picked up over 1000 points in 3DMark FS and TS CPU physics-only test just with that change alone. Speaking of CB15 presets, single core CB15 at 180 right out of the box, multicore at 3590 at 4100 (hoping to go higher once under water).
> 
> So still early days, but I am really very much impressed with the Threadripper, the MSI board and Trident Z kit


Looking good so far. Looking forward to see what you accomplish with some more work on the platform. This was my first AMD chip (aside from an HP laptop) since early 2000s if being honest and not disappointed. But it took time getting used to it (not too much, but there was a bit of adjustment). 

With that said, that is a nice speed as I currently run my [email protected]@1.2875V ([email protected]) and cooling is my limiting factor. I usually get 3540-3560 in CB at 4.05 (top score was [email protected] which I would get [email protected]). But I also tweak my OS, etc. To go for my best run. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## J7SC

ajc9988 said:


> Looking good so far. Looking forward to see what you accomplish with some more work on the platform. This was my first AMD chip (aside from an HP laptop) since early 2000s if being honest and not disappointed. But it took time getting used to it (not too much, but there was a bit of adjustment).
> 
> With that said, that is a nice speed as I currently run my [email protected]@1.2875V ([email protected]) and cooling is my limiting factor. I usually get 3540-3560 in CB at 4.05 (top score was [email protected] which I would get [email protected]). But I also tweak my OS, etc. To go for my best run.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



 yeah, having a lot of fun in this new environment...just need to figure out the new language. For example, I was looking for VCCSA and VCCIO to check stock settings as in an Intel X99 environment, I have seen some crazy 'stock / auto' settings in very early Bios with 32GB and high VRAM speed - crazy as in 1.34v+ (which of course I immediately dropped)....after Bios updates, that dropped to 1.08v in auto

I also like the fact that with the included daughter card on the mobo, I have seven M.2 slots >> no more SSD / HD cables...cool as I'm planning to run RAID and mount this thing on the bedroom wall next to the 4K TV (the fewer cables, the better...)

Finally, this dram kit behaves differently than an early (2015) Trident Z 3866 dual channel, which not only had slightly looser timings but also would not run 14Ts at 3200 MHz, though easily spooled up to 4200 MHz 1.37v on a Skylake dual-channel setup.


----------



## kaktus1907

Flare X


----------



## MrWhiteRX7

Anyone able to directly change the tREFI setting on a x470 taichi board? I can't find it lol


----------



## rdr09

kaktus1907 said:


> Flare X


Same OC but can't seem to get latency as low as yours. I get 61 and some weird readings in RTC.


----------



## Keith Myers

CJMitsuki said:


> It is Samsung B die, and I hope you aren’t disappointed in the fact that you will be lucky to get [email protected]+ as that is actually very good for Threadripper and Quad Channel with Single rank sticks x4. I’ve seen 3466 with dual channel on 2700x but that’s not the norm either. It will be harder with more cores. You may even have been better off to find a good 3200c14 kit for your setup. Never know though, you could get 3533 and surprise everyone.
> 
> *Samsung B Die Finder*


After running for a week on the Calculator's 3200 Fast timings on my 2920X and G. Skill F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSK with no issues, I pushed on to 3400 CL14 Fast timings and am having good luck again for the past week. I will soon try 3466 Fast. Mobo is the Asrock X399 Fatality Pro Gaming. Running 24/7 BOINC load. So I seem to have a good chip, good mobo and good RAM on Threadripper. Been keeping the cores running north of 4Ghz all the time. I'm very happy.


----------



## Keith Myers

*Correlation between Intel MLC app and AIDA64 reported latencies?*

Does anyone know the correlation between Intel MLC app and AIDA64 reported latencies? Since all the reported latencies in forum posts are from Windows OS and AIDA64 typically, I was wondering if anyone knows if the reported latencies of Intel Memory Latency Checker are accurate for Linux hosts. This is in respect to 2nd Gen Threadripper 2920X. Looking for what a TR system reports for AIDA64 latencies. I only have Intel MLC tool for checking. 

Intel MLC reports at 3466Mhz CL14 Fast timings on Ryzen+ 2700X, my memory latencies are: 
Memory node
Socket	0
0	60.3ns	

On the 2920X the memory latencies at 3400Mhz Fast timings are:
Memory node
Socket	0	1	
0	98.9ns	98.8ns	
1	98.9ns	98.8ns


Does this look representative of what AIDA64 would report?


----------



## Rapidian

*F4-3600C18D-8GTZRX stability on ASUS B450-I w/2700X*



zGunBLADEz said:


> 3600 HCI done.. going up the ladder cant complaint (i was in shock when i opened typhoon and saw Hynix i said oh crap lol) im kind of wow with this ram to be honest..
> 
> The gskill kit hologram says Aug 18 so pretty new stuff i supposed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://ibb.co/mGY89e
> https://ibb.co/jFix2z


Hi, I'm new here. Go easy on me.

I'm happy to find the posting above from @zGunBLADEz. Before researching more thoroughly, I bought this same exact kit (G.Skill kit F4-3600C18D-8GTZRX) because it was the highest speed MHz on the Mobo's QVL, thinking I would get great performance and maybe some OC headway. Well, 3 BIOS updates later and still I've had stability problems with this and my 2700X. I am using an ASUS B450-I Gaming mobo (BIOS 1103, now AGESA 1.0.0.6). Even using the XMP profile 18-22-22-42-64 CR1 timings just at Auto for the CPU (No Perf Enh, no XFR), I sporadically encounter odd game crashes, while I had run memtest cleanly. 

On a whim, I've blindly used his timings in this posting and this has given me better stability and slightly lower latency! Gee, thanks for posting these. My latency before was 69.5ns prior, but now with those zGunBladez timings giving 65.4ns. But, these are some strange timings (16-17-25-58 CR1). Thank you for posting these @zGunBLADEz. 

I do have some questions. 

1. How did you come up with these? What is your methodology? Hey, I said I am new. I've been reading all over the internet about how this is done, but these timings don't fit the rules which I've see that are more geared for Samsung B-dies. 

2. Normally, tRAS = tCL + tRCD + tRTP, but 16 + 17 + 12 = 45. Where did you get tRAS of 58? Trial/error?

3. Similarly, tRC = tRAS + tRP. 58 + 25 = 83. Where did the tRC of 50 come from?

4. Is there more to your story? How far were you able to push this kit?

Pardon my noob questions, but I really do want to know to get the most out of this kit and be stable. 

-Mike


----------



## 1usmus

Rapidian said:


> Hi, I'm new here. Go easy on me.
> 
> I'm happy to find the posting above from @zGunBLADEz. Before researching more thoroughly, I bought this same exact kit (G.Skill kit F4-3600C18D-8GTZRX) because it was the highest speed MHz on the Mobo's QVL, thinking I would get great performance and maybe some OC headway. Well, 3 BIOS updates later and still I've had stability problems with this and my 2700X. I am using an ASUS B450-I Gaming mobo (BIOS 1103, now AGESA 1.0.0.6). Even using the XMP profile 18-22-22-42-64 CR1 timings just at Auto for the CPU (No Perf Enh, no XFR), I sporadically encounter odd game crashes, while I had run memtest cleanly.
> 
> On a whim, I've blindly used his timings in this posting and this has given me better stability and slightly lower latency! Gee, thanks for posting these. My latency before was 69.5ns prior, but now with those zGunBladez timings giving 65.4ns. But, these are some strange timings (16-17-25-58 CR1). Thank you for posting these @zGunBLADEz.
> 
> I do have some questions.
> 
> 1. How did you come up with these? What is your methodology? Hey, I said I am new. I've been reading all over the internet about how this is done, but these timings don't fit the rules which I've see that are more geared for Samsung B-dies.
> 
> 2. Normally, tRAS = tCL + tRCD + tRTP, but 16 + 17 + 12 = 45. Where did you get tRAS of 58? Trial/error?
> 
> 3. Similarly, tRC = tRAS + tRP. 58 + 25 = 83. Where did the tRC of 50 come from?
> 
> 4. Is there more to your story? How far were you able to push this kit?
> 
> Pardon my noob questions, but I really do want to know to get the most out of this kit and be stable.
> 
> -Mike


Zen processor memory controller allows you to execute some commands in parallel (READ command + read data on the external data bus of the chip + close the line using the PRECHARGE command). 
To be precise, we have only a limit on the rate of precharge. It is also important to comply with tBL, otherwise there will be data loss. Memory on chips CJR and В-die perfectly copes with this task.
I advise you to forget about the formulas that you found on the Internet


----------



## Pimpmuckl

Not sure if anyone really cares, but for 1st gen Ryzen and Dual Rank Hynix AFR, the tCL of 40 suggested here: https://i.imgur.com/xDeWz6S.png seems to be an error/typo. The Safe preset has 40, the fast preset has 50 and default is 70. I assume the safe should have 60. Just tested and could not boot with 40, but with 60 everything was fine.

Edit: Hmm, okay just tried again and I am not entirely sure what I did wrong, but now the suggested value is 52.

Disregard!

@1usmus big thanks for the tool!

Edit2: Aha, had to re-read XMP after switching from V1 profile to the V2 one.


----------



## porschedrifter

NEW RAM WHO DIS


----------



## rdr09

@porschedrifter, from reading this thread and others I think GDM will only work disabled when using odd timings. For which one is better to use between 1T and 2T, from my test using Aida64, I did not see any difference. At 3466 Fast Preset, both got similar latency score of around 61.


----------



## Jspinks020

It's not gonna help...It's the awesome kit itself is what you need. The CL14 Cr1 kit about as optimal you can get. 
But I say the same thing just throw any old CL16 3200 kit in it...they should run most of them by now.


----------



## man from atlantis

Daily G.Skill Flare X @3466MHz 14-13-13-13-22T 1.41V vDIMM, 1.0V vSoC


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

@1usmus 
Hi Bratan' will You make BIOS Mod from 6401 AGESA 1.0.0.6?

==
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=238396&d=1544755580


----------



## LicSqualo

With the new AGESA (1.0.0.6) I had to lower my VSoc from 1.09V to 1.05V to have the ram stable at 3533 MHz on my CH6+1700 (zen 1st gen).   

WOW! was one of the last try I done to check stability. 

I used my saved profile with 101MHz base clock, so my ram is running at 3568 MHz with 14-28-42-256-1t and GDM Enabled.
Aida mem score give me good results compared to the 3466-3500 MHz reached with AGESA 1.0.0.2.
3600 MHz request more time to test and check stability.... perhaps later 
I'm really happy with this AGESA.


----------



## 1usmus

*Samsung b-die Dual Rank presets*

*3333CL14 Dual Rank 62.4ns (Samsung b-die)*
2h AIDA test
Dram Voltage 1.4 , Training Dram Voltage 1.4 , Power Down - disabled , RTT_NOM - disabled



Spoiler
















*3400CL14 Dual Rank 60.5ns (Samsung b-die)*
2h AIDA test
Dram Voltage 1.41 , Training Dram Voltage 1.41 , Power Down - disabled , RTT_NOM - RZQ/6 (40ohm)



Spoiler


----------



## 1usmus

man from atlantis said:


> Daily G.Skill Flare X @3466MHz 14-13-13-13-22T 1.41V vDIMM, 1.0V vSoC


try lowering tFAW to 16




LicSqualo said:


> With the new AGESA (1.0.0.6) I had to lower my VSoc from 1.09V to 1.05V to have the ram stable at 3533 MHz on my CH6+1700 (zen 1st gen).
> 
> WOW! was one of the last try I done to check stability.
> 
> I used my saved profile with 101MHz base clock, so my ram is running at 3568 MHz with 14-28-42-256-1t and GDM Enabled.
> Aida mem score give me good results compared to the 3466-3500 MHz reached with AGESA 1.0.0.2.
> 3600 MHz request more time to test and check stability.... perhaps later
> I'm really happy with this AGESA.


great news! can you post the whole list of settings?



Ne01 OnnA said:


> @1usmus
> Hi Bratan' will You make BIOS Mod from 6401 AGESA 1.0.0.6?
> 
> ==
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=238396&d=1544755580


Asus uses new packaging for BIOS, modifications are not possible. We need to wait for the update tools (UEFITool + AMIBCP).


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> I haven't been around for a little, so catching up. Which Agesa is on the MSI creation? I know going to 1.1.0.0 or higher made my 3600 unstable (I have a 1950x), but 3466 became stable at 14-15-14-14-28-42-6-9-24-4-8-12-2-2-288-14-10-7-4-1-6-6-1-4-4-1, procodt 53, gdm disabled, t1, 20 20 20 20, and cannot remember my RTT settings atm (3466 never was stable before that for me). This was with B-die from 2015 or 2016, 4133 CL19-21-21 sticks, 4x8GB.
> 
> I am a rarity, as that always worked for me and that is really rare with first gen, so second gen should be more common.
> 
> How is the MSI board anyways? I'm on asrock taichi x399.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The other day, I'll start experimenting with the X399, but during the pretest I was able to get only 3200...



ENTERPRISE said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Posts removed, lets please keep this thread on topic.
> 
> E


Thanks! 



MrWhiteRX7 said:


> Anyone able to directly change the tREFI setting on a x470 taichi board? I can't find it lol


Ryzen does not support setting this timing.


----------



## LicSqualo

1usmus said:


> great news! can you post the whole list of settings?


Yes, done!
Next step is lower the ram voltage if possible, I'm at 1,44V


----------



## Atomfix

Does anyone have any idea why this Calculator won't let me input my memory timing settings? Can't even paste them in any of the boxes.


----------



## blunden

Atomfix said:


> Does anyone have any idea why this Calculator won't let me input my memory timing settings? Can't even paste them in any of the boxes.


 You need to set the Debug profile if you want to input custom values there.


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> *3333CL14 Dual Rank 62.4ns (Samsung b-die)*
> 2h AIDA test
> Dram Voltage 1.4 , Training Dram Voltage 1.4 , Power Down - disabled , RTT_NOM - disabled
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3400CL14 Dual Rank 60.5ns (Samsung b-die)*
> 2h AIDA test
> Dram Voltage 1.41 , Training Dram Voltage 1.41 , Power Down - disabled , RTT_NOM - RZQ/6 (40ohm)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Do you think SCL timings at 2 are too tight for dual rank at 3333/3400? That could be why I'm not managing to find stability regardless of other timings/parameters. From what I remember The Stilt saying, SCL timings and tRFC have the biggest impacts on performance for subtimings, would be a shame to have to bump these up to 3 but I'm not sure of the performance difference between 2 and 3 for these subtimings.

Also do you have a manual OC on your 2700X to 4350MHz? I can never get the full single core speed to show when I run AIDA64 Cache/Memory benchmark, it always shows my max all-core turbo which is usually 41.25 or 41.5 multiplier depending on how XFR is behaving.

EDIT: Testing these timings and settings now, latency is around 62ns with my 41.25x multiplier on the AIDA64 test. Settings didn't boot at all with ProcODT at 60ohm but changing to 68.6 Ohm and leaving everything else the same helps it boot in and work well. Not sure if it's my board or CPU that really don't seem to like 60ohm.

EDIT2: Start getting errors on TM5 at Test 10, 3 in total. Unfortunately not as stable as my previous 3400 settings but I look forward to seeing how @1usmus goes with dual rank.


----------



## 1usmus

chakku said:


> Do you think SCL timings at 2 are too tight for dual rank at 3333/3400? That could be why I'm not managing to find stability regardless of other timings/parameters. From what I remember The Stilt saying, SCL timings and tRFC have the biggest impacts on performance for subtimings, would be a shame to have to bump these up to 3 but I'm not sure of the performance difference between 2 and 3 for these subtimings.
> 
> Also do you have a manual OC on your 2700X to 4350MHz? I can never get the full single core speed to show when I run AIDA64 Cache/Memory benchmark, it always shows my max all-core turbo which is usually 41.25 or 41.5 multiplier depending on how XFR is behaving.
> 
> EDIT: Testing these timings and settings now, latency is around 62ns with my 41.25x multiplier on the AIDA64 test. Settings didn't boot at all with ProcODT at 60ohm but changing to 68.6 Ohm and leaving everything else the same helps it boot in and work well. Not sure if it's my board or CPU that really don't seem to like 60ohm.
> 
> EDIT2: Start getting errors on TM5 at Test 10, 3 in total. Unfortunately not as stable as my previous 3400 settings but I look forward to seeing how @1usmus goes with dual rank.


There is no need to use SCL 2 at frequencies above 3333 MHz. Bottleneck tCL. In case you have tCL 12, then you will need SCL 2

My processor is cold, the temperature rarely exceeds 50 degrees, then the maximum boost is

AMD provided calculations to motherboard manufacturers, the line impedance should not be less than 43 ohms and not more than 60 ohms. That's why I used these settings. Perhaps my presets are relevant to the *Daisy Chain topology*. For the *T-topology*, an increase in procODT of 1 step is required.


----------



## Rizen1700

I am trying to access ''Spread spectrum'' in bios C6H/ 6401. Does anyone know where to access and ''enable'' it? Thx


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> There is no need to use SCL 2 at frequencies above 3333 MHz. Bottleneck tCL. In case you have tCL 12, then you will need SCL 2
> 
> My processor is cold, the temperature rarely exceeds 50 degrees, then the maximum boost is
> 
> AMD provided calculations to motherboard manufacturers, the line impedance should not be less than 43 ohms and not more than 60 ohms. That's why I used these settings. Perhaps my presets are relevant to the *Daisy Chain topology*. For the *T-topology*, an increase in procODT of 1 step is required.


I'm on the Crosshair VII which is daisy chain, I haven't tried anything lower than 60 ohm but it simply doesn't boot with 60 while it does with 68.6.

Also according to HWiNFO my 2700X is boosting to 4350MHz on one or two cores fine so I don't think it's a temperature thing? It always gives me the all core boost reading on AIDA64.


----------



## 1usmus

Rizen1700 said:


> I am trying to access ''Spread spectrum'' in bios C6H/ 6401. Does anyone know where to access and ''enable'' it? Thx


CPU Switching Frequency -> Manual (if I am not mistaken)



chakku said:


> I'm on the Crosshair VII which is daisy chain, I haven't tried anything lower than 60 ohm but it simply doesn't boot with 60 while it does with 68.6.
> 
> Also according to HWiNFO my 2700X is boosting to 4350MHz on one or two cores fine so I don't think it's a temperature thing? It always gives me the all core boost reading on AIDA64.


strange

What is the maximum your result (stable) for overclocking RAM on CH7?


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> CPU Switching Frequency -> Manual (if I am not mistaken)
> 
> 
> 
> strange
> 
> What is the maximum your result (stable) for overclocking RAM on CH7?


Best I've gotten 'stable' is the 3333C14 from this post:



chakku said:


> Here's my 3333 settings which are stable: (1.395V/68.6ohm ProcODT) I found the flowchart that comes with the calculator works best, but my settings are more or less in line with what the calculator calls for (except with ProcODT I went with the second option as the first wasn't stable).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also make a note of the settings in the other tabs too not just the main one, I think 120% current capability on DRAM helps a lot.


Though depending on temperatures I can get one error during 5 cycles.

I am currently running those same settings (SoC at 0.9875V, DRAM/Boot at 1.395V) but with tFAW at 16 and it seems to be fine for now.

Looking back now I think I had better stability with 0804 BIOS (1.0.0.2c) versus 1101 (1.0.0.6).


----------



## Atomfix

I have the G.Skill 3000MHz 2x8GB Kit, with the Hynix M die. I can boot with the 3000MHz safe settings, but with the fast preset it won't boot. I've also been trying 3200MHz with safe settings, but can only get as far as the boot screen a a BSOD. I've had the DRAM Voltage to 1.38V and the SOC voltage is already at 1.1V thanks to Gigabyte's unique automatic SOC Voltage 1.1V when RAM runs at more than 3000MHz.....

Latest BIOS + AGESA. CPU Also running at stock speed with boost enabled.

Is it just my motherboard? Gigabyte X370 Gaming K5....... It's a load of ****e tbh.


----------



## specialedge

Has anyone gotten good of their trident royals kit yet? I've got 2x8gb 4266cl19 1.4v kit in the mail yesterday and hope to get some good trials put of it this evening after work.

Would spd info be valuable to anyone on here? Want me to post it?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Atomfix

Using Stilt's memory settings for 3200MHz MFR, I can get that to boot into Windows no problem, I've just ran a few benchmarks and a 10 minute strees test and passed. "Running a longer test atm to confirm"

But any settings provided by the Calculator at 3200MHz is unbootable or highly unstable.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/26242714-post24134.html


----------



## thrallbr

Just to understand, before i go to "Orange Frame", i need test these 2 alternatives on Pink frame or just the first Alt then if not works good go to Orange frame?

Because what i see sometimes my games closes when im playing, have any idea to help to fix that?

I already increased the voltage and soc to max and tested the first Pink Frame.

Thanks




1usmus said:


> *Advanced instructions : DRAM Calculator for Ryzen ™ 1.4.0 and newer versions.*
> 
> *Attention. This program is not a 100% tool - an assistant to optimize your memory. The results are fundamentally influenced by many factors: the quality of the memory controller in your processor, the memory you use and the motherboard. In any case, you will need attention and a little time.*
> 
> *Step 1.* In the picture in the red frame. We need to choose the type of memory and version of the profile. The profile version is the 2 preset V1 and V2 built into the calculator for each memory type, they store data on RAM delays for Ryzen systems. Do not confuse and compare with Intel XMP, memory controllers are different. In most cases, it is recommended to use the profile V1, this profile is “popular”, suitable for most users. Profile V2 is an alternative, it is designed for systems that are not approached profile V1 (no start of the system or a lot of errors). And press the "*R-XMP*" button.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The third profile has the name "debug", it exists for advanced users and for situations when the profile V1 and V2 did not fit at all. We must manually import the data for it from Thaiphoon. Video instruction here >>
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWJD5P0x9Ow
> 
> 
> 
> *Step 2.* In the picture in the red frame. We must choose the number of RAM modules that are installed in the motherboard, memory ranks. Select the frequency of the RAM you want to receive. Select BCLK (default is 100 MHz on all systems). Select the generation of the processor and the task for the system (synthetics or games).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> *Step 3.* Click the Calculate SAFE or Calculate FAST button. The program will calculate.
> 
> *Step 4.* The picture is a green frame. We will have to enter the obtained data into the BIOS.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Step 5.* We are testing the stability of our system. If everything is good - I congratulate you, if there is no stability - you will need the next step.
> 
> *Step 6.* Blue frame. The voltage limits for our SOC and DRAM are indicated, we have to check the neighboring voltages and check the system again for stability. Often this step will lead to success.
> Pink frame. We may need to check the impedance settings + to check the SOC and DRAM voltages again to get stability.
> Orange frames. Setting the quality of the bus signals that links the RAM and our processor (memory controller). Similarly to the previous points, we can check alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Step 7.* For particularly difficult situations, there is this step and the "Advanced" tab. Black frames. We must enter into the BIOS these recommendations or alternatives that the program offers.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nuances to help you set up your system.*
> 
> * Do not use too high *voltages for SOC and DRAM*. The calculator will tell you in which framework you should look for a stable result. Always start debugging the system with these voltages.
> 
> * Always use *extra cooling for RAM*. The less heat, the more stable your system.
> 
> * A change to *procODT* or *RTT* is required when the system does not start, has a huge number of errors, or a BSOD occurs.
> 
> * Single and rare errors can be cured by manually sorting such timings: *tFAW* (from 16 to 36), by increasing *tRRDS* by 1 or 2, by changing *tRTP* (from 8 to 12).
> 
> * Single and rare errors can be cured by changing *tRDWR* (from 6 to 9) and *tWRRD* (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 tWRRD 1, and so on.
> 
> * Single and rare errors can be cured with the help of the *tRFC* change, the calculator offers you another *alternative tRFC*. You can also round the recommended number. *tRFC 2/4* is not necessary to configure.
> 
> * Improve system stability can *Geardown enabled*.
> 
> * Improve the stability of the system can *VDDP*, the recommended framework from 855mv to 950mv. Step 15mv.
> 
> * *Spread spectrum disabled* can improve the stability of the system.
> 
> * The source of errors can also be Windows, not necessarily a problem in overclocking.
> 
> * Regularly update the BIOS. It is recommended to update it with afuefix64, instructions can be found here >> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html or ask on the forum (there are special cases and in order to avoid problems it is better to ask).
> 
> * Increasing *tRCDRD* and *tRP* by 1 can improve stability and reduce memory voltage requirements .


----------



## Rossi87

I'm still unable to get 3200 stable on my F4-3200C14-16GTZKW Dual Rank on AX370 Gaming K7 1800x. Really frustrating. 
I can run 3000 12-13-13-13-22-36 with a 103 FSB DRAM 1.45v and it completed 35 passes of TestMem5 (@1usmus_v2 profile) and 8 Hours of Karhu RAM Test no errors.
I'm not sure if it is my Motherboard, Ram or CPU which is preventing me running 3200.

Here's my AIDA64 result, I think it's pretty close to a 3200 score. (Don't know why it says DIMM Config 1DPC-SR though)


----------



## Rapidian

Rossi87 said:


> Here's my AIDA64 result, I think it's pretty close to a 3200 score. (Don't know why it says DIMM Config 1DPC-SR though)


I was seeing the DIMM Config randomly getting a value when I was using the Asus Aura software. That was also slowing down my Cinebench R15 scores. I removed the Aura software and I always get 1DPC-SR now. This is correct for my mobo. I have 2 slots in the Asus B450-I. One is dual channel and the ram is single ranked. Asus Aura software is really buggy and i'd rather have performance than LED bling. I also bought the Fractal Design Nano S without a windowed side so no matter for me.


----------



## Darkomax

Rossi87 said:


> I'm still unable to get 3200 stable on my F4-3200C14-16GTZKW Dual Rank on AX370 Gaming K7 1800x. Really frustrating.
> I can run 3000 12-13-13-13-22-36 with a 103 FSB DRAM 1.45v and it completed 35 passes of TestMem5 (@1usmus_v2 profile) and 8 Hours of Karhu RAM Test no errors.
> I'm not sure if it is my Motherboard, Ram or CPU which is preventing me running 3200.
> 
> Here's my AIDA64 result, I think it's pretty close to a 3200 score. (Don't know why it says DIMM Config 1DPC-SR though)


Where did you get the info that your kit is dual rank? 2x8GB B-die kits are single rank. Personally, I could hit 3200 without even modifying advanced settings like RTT. (HoF 3200CL14 2x8GB B-die and x370 Gaming 5 which is the same board without the external clock gen). Even 3466 fast profile was a breeze ProcODT to 60Ohm, RTT set to 7/off/3, DRAM to 1.42V and SoC to 1.07V. I would suggest using an older BIOS for first gen, such as F10 or F9. Newer updates didn't do any good (like the unability to disable GDM, random settings disappearing or even worse bugs since F23).


----------



## Rossi87

Darkomax said:


> Where did you get the info that your kit is dual rank? 2x8GB B-die kits are single rank. Personally, I could hit 3200 without even modifying advanced settings like RTT. (HoF 3200CL14 2x8GB B-die and x370 Gaming 5 which is the same board without the external clock gen). Even 3466 fast profile was a breeze ProcODT to 60Ohm, RTT set to 7/off/3, DRAM to 1.42V and SoC to 1.07V. I would suggest using an older BIOS for first gen, such as F10 or F9. Newer updates didn't do any good (like the unability to disable GDM, random settings disappearing or even worse bugs since F23).


Prepared by Thaiphoon Burner Super Blaster
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORY MODULE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer : G.Skill
Series : Trident Z Black & White
Part Number : F4-3200C14-16GTZKW
Serial Number : 00000000h
JEDEC DIMM Label : 16GB 2Rx8 PC4-2133-UB1-10
Architecture : DDR4 SDRAM UDIMM
Speed Grade : DDR4-2133
Capacity : 16 GB (16 components)
Organization : 2048M x64 (2 ranks)
Register Manufacturer : N/A
Register Model : N/A
Manufacturing Date : Undefined
Manufacturing Location : Taipei, Taiwan
Revision / Raw Card : 0000h / B1 (8 layers)
-------------------------------------------------------------
DRAM COMPONENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer : Samsung
Part Number : K4A8G085WB-BCPB
Package : Standard Monolithic 78-ball FBGA
Die Density / Count : 8 Gb B-die (20 nm) / 1 die
Composition : 1024M x8 (64M x8 x 16 banks)
Clock Frequency : 1067 MHz (0.938 ns)
Minimum Timing Delays : 15-15-15-36-50
Read Latencies Supported : 16T, 15T, 14T, 13T, 12T, 11T, 10T
Supply Voltage : 1.20 V
XMP Certified : 1600 MHz / 14-14-14-34-48 / 1.35 V
XMP Extreme : Not programmed
SPD Revision : 1.0 / January 2014
XMP Revision : 2.0 / December 2013

I can't even boot with ProcODT to 60Ohm, I need 68Ohms. I wish I had bought 4x 8Gb instead of 2x16Gb.


----------



## Darkomax

My bad, I thought you had 2x8GB. You can forget what I said, it doesn't apply to you. 3090CL12 is pretty fast still. You could try disabling GDM and using 2T, don't know if it will work, but I found the performance to be better without GDM at all. Also, depending on the board, 4x8 sticks can actually be way worse than 2x16 so I would not be too sad.


----------



## thrallbr

Friends, anyone can help me? With 3200 my games are closing and crashing.

How i can fix this?

Im using recommended settings from Ryzen Calculator, already set the max voltage and soc recommended but still the problem


----------



## gerardfraser

thrallbr said:


> Friends, anyone can help me? With 3200 my games are closing and crashing.
> 
> How i can fix this?
> 
> Im using recommended settings from Ryzen Calculator, already set the max voltage and soc recommended but still the problem


Maybe it is just your 350 motherboard.
Put RAM speed to 2933Mhz this will not effect your gaming just yet,keep your same timings as 3300/3200 that you have now.Test it out.
When you have stability in games @2933 Mhz then it will be time to tighten your timings for best gaming results.
I can tell you I have tested from 2933Mhz thru 3600Mhz on Ram with tight timings and there was no real difference in gaming FPS,there is a difference though from CL16 to CL14 there is around 4% gain in FPS avg.


----------



## thrallbr

I already tested friend and have ALOT of difference, i gain like +20fps with 3200 instead 2933.

Thats why im trying to get 3200. 

Otherthing, with 2933 i get alot of drop fps also, not run good here.



gerardfraser said:


> Maybe it is just your 350 motherboard.
> Put RAM speed to 2933Mhz this will not effect your gaming just yet,keep your same timings as 3300/3200 that you have now.Test it out.
> When you have stability in games @2933 Mhz then it will be time to tighten your timings for best gaming results.
> I can tell you I have tested from 2933Mhz thru 3600Mhz on Ram with tight timings and there was no real difference in gaming FPS,there is a difference though from CL16 to CL14 there is around 4% gain in FPS avg.


----------



## gerardfraser

thrallbr said:


> I already tested friend and have ALOT of difference, i gain like +20fps with 3200 instead 2933.
> 
> Thats why im trying to get 3200.
> 
> Otherthing, with 2933 i get alot of drop fps also, not run good here.



Well I was not trying to trick you or anything and I can only try to help and convey my experience when testing DDR 4 Ram on My Ryzen System.
Well I did not test every game which would be impossible ,but I did test 10 games. 
From my testing when using my AMD 2600X machine at a gaming resolution of 2560 x 1440 Ultra Settings and DDR 4 Ram set at tight timings such as CL 14 14 13 13 from 2933Mhz thru 3600Mhz there is no real difference in Avgerage FPS.



Spoiler



♦ CPU - AMD 2600X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO 
♦ GPU - Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8) Timing 14-14-13-13
♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus
♦ SSD - M.2 2280 WD Blue 3D NAND 500GB 
♦ DSP - Dell S2417DG G-Sync 165 Hz Gaming Monitor 2560 x 1440 
♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W

► FPS Monitoring : MSI Afterburner/RTSS
► Gameplay Recorder : Nvidia Shadowplay
► Edit Videos :VSDC Free Video Editor


 You can check out the video below 2933Mhz Vs 3466Mhz,just showing video of one game Shadow Of The Tomb Raider.


----------



## 1usmus

gerardfraser said:


> Well I was not trying to trick you or anything and I can only try to help and convey my experience when testing DDR 4 Ram on My Ryzen System.
> Well I did not test every game which would be impossible ,but I did test 10 games.
> From my testing when using my AMD 2600X machine at a gaming resolution of 2560 x 1440 Ultra Settings and DDR 4 Ram set at tight timings such as CL 14 14 13 13 from 2933Mhz thru 3600Mhz there is no real difference in Avgerage FPS.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ CPU - AMD 2600X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO
> ♦ GPU - Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
> ♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8) Timing 14-14-13-13
> ♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus
> ♦ SSD - M.2 2280 WD Blue 3D NAND 500GB
> ♦ DSP - Dell S2417DG G-Sync 165 Hz Gaming Monitor 2560 x 1440
> ♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W
> 
> ► FPS Monitoring : MSI Afterburner/RTSS
> ► Gameplay Recorder : Nvidia Shadowplay
> ► Edit Videos :VSDC Free Video Editor
> 
> 
> You can check out the video below 2933Mhz Vs 3466Mhz,just showing video of one game Shadow Of The Tomb Raider.
> https://youtu.be/_5rQToMbNRs


no difference because the bottleneck is the video card


----------



## gerardfraser

1usmus said:


> no difference because the bottleneck is the video card


I am not trying to be mean here and yoU help so many people and I know what yoU are saying.
Well on my machine Ryzen 2600X there is no difference on Gsync 165 Hz 2560x1440 becaUse that is what I play games on.I do not play then at 1280 x 720.
So I can only share my experience as stated 
*Well I was not trying to trick you or anything and I can only try to help and convey my experience when testing DDR 4 Ram on My Ryzen System.*


----------



## xCrackedPlayer

*Help with Die*

I have a set of 2x8Gb Team Group Vulcan DDR4-3000 C16 ram and i want to try and overclock it.
i've looket at thaiphoon and HWinfo64 but i cannot find what exact die (e.g. Micron B-die or Hynix MFR) my set has.

Could somebody tell me what die this set (TLGD416G3000HC16CDC01) has? 
Thanks in advance!


----------



## thrallbr

Its just what i've tested. 

3200 runs much better than 2933 on my system.

I can't get lower timings, the SAFE works fine, but the FASTER on Ryzen Calculator the computer not works.



gerardfraser said:


> I am not trying to be mean here and yoU help so many people and I know what yoU are saying.
> Well on my machine Ryzen 2600X there is no difference on Gsync 165 Hz 2560x1440 becaUse that is what I play games on.I do not play then at 1280 x 720.
> So I can only share my experience as stated
> *Well I was not trying to trick you or anything and I can only try to help and convey my experience when testing DDR 4 Ram on My Ryzen System.*


----------



## Jspinks020

thrallbr said:


> Its just what i've tested.
> 
> 3200 runs much better than 2933 on my system.
> 
> I can't get lower timings, the SAFE works fine, but the FASTER on Ryzen Calculator the computer not works.


oh it's very small the difference, but yeah it likes faster stuff.


----------



## 1usmus

*Undervalued CAD_BUS*

*Undervalued CAD_BUS*

Preface: HCI , AIDA ,TM5 tests were not seen errors, but there were periodically crashes in games, so I was looking for a new way to find errors. And here he is, the good old *LinX*, who, with the volume of the task in 2Gb, finds an error in the first 26 seconds (I believe that 2 gigabytes is not enough, but I wanted to provide you with a new fast stress test).
At the same time, I decided to check whether it is possible to change the situation with the help of CAD_BUS without interfering with timings or voltages. Can. The dual ranks memory was chosen as pre-test rabbits, which can load the command bus much more seriously than the single ranks. I spent 2 days, made over 80 variants of CAD_BUS runs and this is the result. By the way, the good old 30 30 40 60 are still relevant.
Orange noted conditionally stable presets, greens are completely stable, which have been additionally tested in games.



Spoiler















I will not write that green is marked 100% medicine, but maybe it still can help you. And once again, 80% of the stability of your system depends on the impedance.
There are also 2 nuances. Motherboards with two memory slots allow for more gross errors in the system configuration. And the second caveat that the higher the frequency, the system will be more sensitive to CAD_BUS

You can find your own stable version very simple. You just have to go through the options that you see in the upper left picture (20-24) 

_________________________________________

P.s. *elesin38* (*datspike*) prepared a special latest version *LinX 2019* https://mega.nz/#!49wCiKIA!jPQMugbDlV1fIF7Z9MBNZYN84PkEXd4GrCYco4dkzc8

P.p.s. I am preparing a new version of the calculator, it will be released this year. Also, there is a preparation of new algorithms for quick system configuration.

*Merry christmas guys!*  :santa:


----------



## SexySale

Thank you @1usmus 
Merry Christmas too U


----------



## chakku

I see you are using 68.6 Ohm ProcODT for the DR now @1usmus, how are you finding the stability compared to 60 Ohm? Also looks like lower SoC voltage around what I was using (0.9875V). Was 1.43V on the DRAM necessary for your stability? I have found in my own testing there is a fine balance (more voltage = hotter = less stable but also needs more voltage to be stable) as I don't have additional dedicated cooling for my DRAM, though I use an air cooler not water cooling so they have better airflow from that. 

I am currently on holiday but will return in the new year and will definitely give these CAD bus timings a try to see if I can improve stability.


----------



## Chargeit

Hey guys.

I made that "Ryzen Dram Calculator" video.

Today I've received two messages from people saying "Thaiphoon Burner" is tagging as a virus under windows. I tested it just now and it's also tagging as a virus for me. Not sure what to make of it. I'm assuming it's pulling a false positive though I'm not sure. Anyone has any insight to this?

Thanks.


----------



## 1usmus

chakku said:


> I see you are using 68.6 Ohm ProcODT for the DR now @1usmus, how are you finding the stability compared to 60 Ohm? Also looks like lower SoC voltage around what I was using (0.9875V). Was 1.43V on the DRAM necessary for your stability? I have found in my own testing there is a fine balance (more voltage = hotter = less stable but also needs more voltage to be stable) as I don't have additional dedicated cooling for my DRAM, though I use an air cooler not water cooling so they have better airflow from that.
> 
> I am currently on holiday but will return in the new year and will definitely give these CAD bus timings a try to see if I can improve stability.


a week later I started to get a cold start (after turning off the backlight), so I decided to use the new settings 

stability at 68.6 is much worse + new bios constantly trains memory and the next day you need to change the settings again

Perhaps this is a bios failure

the only thing I really liked was low voltage for SOC, it made the system more stable



Chargeit said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> I made that "Ryzen Dram Calculator" video.
> 
> Today I've received two messages from people saying "Thaiphoon Burner" is tagging as a virus under windows. I tested it just now and it's also tagging as a virus for me. Not sure what to make of it. I'm assuming it's pulling a false positive though I'm not sure. Anyone has any insight to this?
> 
> Thanks.



I do not use antiviruses,but

most likely the antivirus sees the program's appeal to SM _BUS and regards it as a terrorist act


----------



## -Grift-

@1usmus

I have been trying the CJR presets on & off for a good 2 weeks now and every time I manage to fine a "Stable" combination based on your 3600 settings as before which I tested with 5 cycles TM5 and 10 runs LinX a cold boot or sometimes even a reboot later on the same exact settings it starts throwing errors even when it was tested stable before


----------



## rdr09

Testing 3533. Used to get same latency using same ram at 3466 Cl14 but with an Asus B350 F Strix.


----------



## thrallbr

What you recommend me to test for try to get my system stable?

I think my problem is my motherboard (asus b350-plus), i got 2933 stable, but 3200 im getting alot of crashes on games.

Try other settings on CAD BUS?




1usmus said:


> *Undervalued CAD_BUS*
> 
> Preface: HCI , AIDA ,TM5 tests were not seen errors, but there were periodically crashes in games, so I was looking for a new way to find errors. And here he is, the good old *LinX*, who, with the volume of the task in 2Gb, finds an error in the first 26 seconds (I believe that 2 gigabytes is not enough, but I wanted to provide you with a new fast stress test).
> At the same time, I decided to check whether it is possible to change the situation with the help of CAD_BUS without interfering with timings or voltages. Can. The dual ranks memory was chosen as pre-test rabbits, which can load the command bus much more seriously than the single ranks. I spent 2 days, made over 80 variants of CAD_BUS runs and this is the result. By the way, the good old 30 30 40 60 are still relevant.
> Orange noted conditionally stable presets, greens are completely stable, which have been additionally tested in games.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will not write that green is marked 100% medicine, but maybe it still can help you. And once again, 80% of the stability of your system depends on the impedance.
> There are also 2 nuances. Motherboards with two memory slots allow for more gross errors in the system configuration. And the second caveat that the higher the frequency, the system will be more sensitive to CAD_BUS
> 
> You can find your own stable version very simple. You just have to go through the options that you see in the upper left picture (20-24)
> 
> _________________________________________
> 
> P.s. *elesin38* (*datspike*) prepared a special latest version *LinX 2019* https://mega.nz/#!49wCiKIA!jPQMugbDlV1fIF7Z9MBNZYN84PkEXd4GrCYco4dkzc8
> 
> P.p.s. I am preparing a new version of the calculator, it will be released this year. Also, there is a preparation of new algorithms for quick system configuration.
> 
> *Merry christmas guys!*  :santa:


----------



## Chargeit

1usmus said:


> a week later I started to get a cold start (after turning off the backlight), so I decided to use the new settings
> 
> stability at 68.6 is much worse + new bios constantly trains memory and the next day you need to change the settings again
> 
> Perhaps this is a bios failure
> 
> the only thing I really liked was low voltage for SOC, it made the system more stable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not use antiviruses,but
> 
> most likely the antivirus sees the program's appeal to SM _BUS and regards it as a terrorist act


Thanks.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. Whatever the program does to read the ram must be tagged as being malicious. Thanks for the response!


----------



## MrPhilo

Finally got under 60ns, 3600cl14

30 cad seems to be working for me at the moment, currently trying to lower the voltages and see how it goes (RAM is at 1.475v atm)


----------



## PanZwu

good job on overlocking 3k ram ro 3,4k
meanwhile i'm stuck with my 3,2k GflaresX ram on 3066 on my ****ty asrock x370 gaming k4

i can easily boot at 3.2k but ramtest throws errors early on


----------



## Jspinks020

Well the overvolt is serious....3466 blue screened on me after about 24hrs....that was at either 1.41-1.42v...could try 1.43-1.45v....was not a great ocing kit...


----------



## Darkstalker420

Hi OC.net.

Flashed the latest 1.0.0.6 AGESA to my B350 Strix a day or so ago. This helped loads regarding stability. I can now run the B Die "fast" [email protected] 3200Mhz provided by the calculator now at 1.35v!! WITHOUT messing with LLC/V's/VDDP or anything. It passes the 1usmus TM5 test with no errors (though i have to leave tRFC at 307). One thing i noticed using the Intel latency tool is the fact that it has risen (latency) somewhat from if i remember 68.x to 74.9ns. Anyone have any ideas why or is that just something relaxed in the new AGESA to help??

Would recommend B350 Strix owners give it a go for sure. I have included a screenshot of settings. Not so fussed just curious if it's some "rogue" setting or something raising the latency. Powerdown is set to OFF in the BIOS for the DRAM. That used to raise it but isn't the problem this time.

Thanx.


----------



## Jackalito

Hey guys, I could use your help to get my RAM (G.Skill F4-3200C14-32GTZ - Sammy B-Die) stable again at 3200MHz. It was stable with my previous combo ASUS CH6 + 1700X, but I can't use the same settings to make it stable at 3200 with the new one, ASUS CH7 + 2700X:
So far I've only managed to get my memory stable at 3066MHz using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator as basis.

Here are the settings:












Ai Overclock Tuner: Default
Performance Enhancer: Auto
CPU Core Ratio: Auto
Performance Bias: None
Memory Frequency: 3066MHz
Core Performance Boost: Disabled
SMT Mode: Auto
TPU: Keep current settings

ProcODT: 60 ohm
Cmdt2T: 2T
Gear Down Mode: Disabled
Power Down Mode: Disabled

RttNom: RZQ/7
RttWr: RZQ/3
RttPark: RZQ/1

MemAddrCmdSetup: Auto
MemCsOdtSetup: Auto
MemCkeSetup: Auto

MemCadBusClkDrvStren: Auto
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren: Auto
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren: Auto
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren: Auto

VTTDDR Voltage: 0.67500
VPP_MEM Voltage: 2.50000
VDDP Voltage: 0.85500
CLDO VDDP voltage: 700

CPU Core Voltage: Auto
CPU SOC Voltage: 0.98750
DRAM Voltage: 1.350
1.8V PLL Voltage: 1.80000
1.05V SB Voltage: Auto
NO LLC


Fast Boot: Disabled
CSM: Disabled



I'm not overclocking my CPU yet, as I'm waiting to replace the out-of-the-box cooler with a Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4.


I would appreciate it if anyone, with the same or a similar Dual Rank memory kit, could give me some hints at what to tweak next.


Thanks in advance! :thumb:


----------



## Zerotre

Here my settings for 3266, same kit, vdram 1.45, gigabyte gaming 7, i think some i can lower some timing, the problem for me are the procodt and rtt, there are few value that works and permits system starting


----------



## CJMitsuki

Jackalito said:


> Hey guys, I could use your help to get my RAM (G.Skill F4-3200C14-32GTZ - Sammy B-Die) stable again at 3200MHz. It was stable with my previous combo ASUS CH6 + 1700X, but I can't use the same settings to make it stable at 3200 with the new one, ASUS CH7 + 2700X:
> So far I've only managed to get my memory stable at 3066MHz using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator as basis.
> 
> Here are the settings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner: Default
> Performance Enhancer: Auto
> CPU Core Ratio: Auto
> Performance Bias: None
> Memory Frequency: 3066MHz
> Core Performance Boost: Disabled
> SMT Mode: Auto
> TPU: Keep current settings
> 
> ProcODT: 60 ohm
> Cmdt2T: 2T
> Gear Down Mode: Disabled
> Power Down Mode: Disabled
> 
> RttNom: RZQ/7
> RttWr: RZQ/3
> RttPark: RZQ/1
> 
> MemAddrCmdSetup: Auto
> MemCsOdtSetup: Auto
> MemCkeSetup: Auto
> 
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren: Auto
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren: Auto
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren: Auto
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren: Auto
> 
> VTTDDR Voltage: 0.67500
> VPP_MEM Voltage: 2.50000
> VDDP Voltage: 0.85500
> CLDO VDDP voltage: 700
> 
> CPU Core Voltage: Auto
> CPU SOC Voltage: 0.98750
> DRAM Voltage: 1.350
> 1.8V PLL Voltage: 1.80000
> 1.05V SB Voltage: Auto
> NO LLC
> 
> 
> Fast Boot: Disabled
> CSM: Disabled
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not overclocking my CPU yet, as I'm waiting to replace the out-of-the-box cooler with a Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4.
> 
> 
> I would appreciate it if anyone, with the same or a similar Dual Rank memory kit, could give me some hints at what to tweak next.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance! /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif


First, enable gear down mode then if that doesn’t completely fix it you need to change up those Rtt values. They look a bit out of the ordinary. You could try Disabled, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Or RZQ/7, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Also the MemAddrCmdSetup and the other two in that group can be set to 0,0,0 but for more stability try 1,1,1 or 2,2,2. You can also push the DRam voltage a bit. Try 1.4v, it’s perfectly fine.


----------



## CJMitsuki

CJMitsuki said:


> Jackalito said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I could use your help to get my RAM (G.Skill F4-3200C14-32GTZ - Sammy B-Die) stable again at 3200MHz. It was stable with my previous combo ASUS CH6 + 1700X, but I can't use the same settings to make it stable at 3200 with the new one, ASUS CH7 + 2700X:
> So far I've only managed to get my memory stable at 3066MHz using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator as basis.
> 
> Here are the settings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner: Default
> Performance Enhancer: Auto
> CPU Core Ratio: Auto
> Performance Bias: None
> Memory Frequency: 3066MHz
> Core Performance Boost: Disabled
> SMT Mode: Auto
> TPU: Keep current settings
> 
> ProcODT: 60 ohm
> Cmdt2T: 2T
> Gear Down Mode: Disabled
> Power Down Mode: Disabled
> 
> RttNom: RZQ/7
> RttWr: RZQ/3
> RttPark: RZQ/1
> 
> MemAddrCmdSetup: Auto
> MemCsOdtSetup: Auto
> MemCkeSetup: Auto
> 
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren: Auto
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren: Auto
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren: Auto
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren: Auto
> 
> VTTDDR Voltage: 0.67500
> VPP_MEM Voltage: 2.50000
> VDDP Voltage: 0.85500
> CLDO VDDP voltage: 700
> 
> CPU Core Voltage: Auto
> CPU SOC Voltage: 0.98750
> DRAM Voltage: 1.350
> 1.8V PLL Voltage: 1.80000
> 1.05V SB Voltage: Auto
> NO LLC
> 
> 
> Fast Boot: Disabled
> CSM: Disabled
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not overclocking my CPU yet, as I'm waiting to replace the out-of-the-box cooler with a Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4.
> 
> 
> I would appreciate it if anyone, with the same or a similar Dual Rank memory kit, could give me some hints at what to tweak next.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance! /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> 
> 
> 
> First, enable gear down mode then if that doesn’t completely fix it you need to change up those Rtt values. They look a bit out of the ordinary. You could try Disabled, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Or RZQ/7, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Also the MemAddrCmdSetup and the other two in that group can be set to 0,0,0 but for more stability try 1,1,1 or 2,2,2. You can also push the DRam voltage a bit. Try 1.4v, it’s perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

Other AMD CBS settings to change for better performance are Opcache-enabled, Streaming Stores-enabled, Performance Bias-CB 11.5, HW Prefetcher both enabled, Determinism Slider-Performance.


----------



## Jspinks020

Slack the timmings more. You should be able to get 3466 at least pretty stable. Go a little higher on Trfc etc


----------



## jad_tv

After updating to the new 1201 bios for the X470-I, I'm finally able to go past 3200 (F4-3200C14D-16GFX). This gets 63.2 ns latency and 54.75K read in aida64.
Is there anything I should change to improve it more? It seems a bunch of people have lower latencies with the same set. Or is there not much benefit in going farther? Briefly tried 3600CL14 but didn't get it stable.


----------



## Jackalito

Zerotre said:


> Here my settings for 3266, same kit, vdram 1.45, gigabyte gaming 7, i think some i can lower some timing, the problem for me are the procodt and rtt, there are few value that works and permits system starting





CJMitsuki said:


> First, enable gear down mode then if that doesn’t completely fix it you need to change up those Rtt values. They look a bit out of the ordinary. You could try Disabled, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Or RZQ/7, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Also the MemAddrCmdSetup and the other two in that group can be set to 0,0,0 but for more stability try 1,1,1 or 2,2,2. You can also push the DRam voltage a bit. Try 1.4v, it’s perfectly fine.





CJMitsuki said:


> Other AMD CBS settings to change for better performance are Opcache-enabled, Streaming Stores-enabled, Performance Bias-CB 11.5, HW Prefetcher both enabled, Determinism Slider-Performance.



Thank you soooo much, guys. Will give it a go and report back on my findings! :thumb:


----------



## Jspinks020

There's nothing I can do that kit I tried trust me...it's just an unstable kit and should yeah avoid the Hynix....it's mostly xmp 3200 about it. But it was on sale. The Ripjaw's kit or that PNY Anarchy kit might OC better and do it. Both on sale too looks like. Find some 3200 kit that will do it...what happened to like how it use to be..kit's would oc a couple notches upppp no Problem. 

But like I said you're Probably fine anyways...People that still not even running 3200....

Tight CL15 timings might be about all you will get.


----------



## Myllox

Hi all 

its x-mas, im tired and cant think straight 

So after almost 11hrs of Karhu i think i got 3600 stable using 14-15-15-14-30-44 and the rest at Auto. Trying to dial down the rest of the timings and i get an error at about 5000% .. 

So i can chose to go back to the stable settings and dial down each setting step by step or i can try to tweak what i have (which fails at 5000%). 

Any suggestions on what to tweak first? i get a feeling its my tFAW messing with me or cad_bus 

vdimm @ 1.46 + screen shots


----------



## BLUuuE

Myllox said:


> Hi all
> 
> its x-mas, im tired and cant think straight
> 
> So after almost 11hrs of Karhu i think i got 3600 stable using 14-15-15-14-30-44 and the rest at Auto. Trying to dial down the rest of the timings and i get an error at about 5000% ..
> 
> So i can chose to go back to the stable settings and dial down each setting step by step or i can try to tweak what i have (which fails at 5000%).
> 
> Any suggestions on what to tweak first? i get a feeling its my tFAW messing with me or cad_bus
> 
> vdimm @ 1.46 + screen shots


I think tRFC might be a bit tight. The Stilt's B-die timings have them at ~160ns, so I'd try aiming for that. Should be 288 at 3600MHz.


----------



## deckert

Closest I've been so far to getting 3066 stable on my CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 E-Die RAM.


Currently running RAM at 1.36V, and CLDO_VDDP at 913, everything else as per Ryzen Timing Checker and DRAM Calculator in screenshots.
TestMem got 1 error in cycle 3 test 10, but decided to let it finish and only got 3 more errors, in cycle 5 (1 in test 10 and 2 in test 1). 

Previous attempts got multiple errors in the first cycle, usually within 1 minute.


EDIT: System details: Asus B350M-A with latest bios (4207) modified by 1usmus, R5 1600 @ stock, 16GB RAM
EDIT 2: Bumped DRAM voltage to 1.365V, and it passed TestMem with no errors

Also attached is thaiphoon burner report


----------



## Zerotre

Jackalito said:


> Thank you soooo much, guys. Will give it a go and report back on my findings! :thumb:


Hi Jackalito, please report your tests, i'm very interested if you do something better, i will post too, if i test them more.

Thanks!


----------



## inkforze

deckert said:


> Closest I've been so far to getting 3066 stable on my CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 E-Die RAM.
> 
> Currently running RAM at 1.36V, and CLDO_VDDP at 913, everything else as per Ryzen Timing Checker and DRAM Calculator in screenshots.
> TestMem got 1 error in cycle 3 test 10, but decided to let it finish and only got 3 more errors, in cycle 5 (1 in test 10 and 2 in test 1).
> 
> Previous attempts got multiple errors in the first cycle, usually within 1 minute.
> 
> EDIT: System details: Asus B350M-A with latest bios (4207) modified by 1usmus, R5 1600 @ stock, 16GB RAM
> EDIT 2: Bumped DRAM voltage to 1.365V, and it passed TestMem with no errors


u can try my profiles for same Patriot Viper 4 2x8Gb DR kit:
2933fast with some tweaks and stable 3067


----------



## Myllox

BLUuuE said:


> I think tRFC might be a bit tight. The Stilt's B-die timings have them at ~160ns, so I'd try aiming for that. Should be 288 at 3600MHz.


Well i ran into problems when i suddenly cant run RttPark 80 .. constant cold boot issues  .. it boots fine with as low as 1.38vdimm, but refuses to with anything higher than RttPark 48. as per screenshot, Karhu now fails at 5000% 

ProcODT @ 60, RttPark @ 80, vdimm @ 1.46 and SOC @ 1.1125 was running stable. i'll have a look @1usmus single/rare error list .. keep on hunting eh


----------



## deckert

inkforze said:


> u can try my profiles for same Patriot Viper 4 2x8Gb DR kit:
> 2933fast with some tweaks and stable 3067



Thanks, I'll take a look at them in a bit.


Left Prime95 Blend running overnight, DRAM @ 1.365V 



Code:


[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 106 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 106 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 106 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 107 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[Work thread Dec 27 08:33] Torture Test completed 105 tests in 8 hours, 31 minutes - 0 errors, 0 warnings.


----------



## Synoxia

@1usmus do you think GSAT is still reliable? under it my ram only reach 34-35c but while gaming on SOTTR it can go up to 44c... maybe i am unstable now?


----------



## -Grift-

Synoxia said:


> @1usmus do you think GSAT is still reliable? under it my ram only reach 34-35c but while gaming on SOTTR it can go up to 44c... maybe i am unstable now?


Well it can only be stable if you past all the different test both syntethic and gaming


----------



## deckert

Thought I had gotten 3066 fast timings from DRAM Calculator stable, with RAM voltage at 1.39V (up from 1.365V for safe timings) and a small bump to CPU and SOC voltages, it passed TestMem with no errors.


However I have just noticed an issue, the computer doesn't wake from sleep properly, the lights come on and the fans spin up, but there is no display and the keyboard and mouse don't turn on.


----------



## inkforze

deckert said:


> Thought I had gotten 3066 fast timings from DRAM Calculator stable, with RAM voltage at 1.39V (up from 1.365V for safe timings) and a small bump to CPU and SOC voltages, it passed TestMem with no errors.
> 
> 
> However I have just noticed an issue, the computer doesn't wake from sleep properly, the lights come on and the fans spin up, but there is no display and the keyboard and mouse don't turn on.


symptom is similar to disabling PSP in BIOS and recheck tRCDRD / tRCDWR order in calc and BIOS


----------



## deckert

inkforze said:


> recheck tRCDRD / tRCDWR order in calc and BIOS



These are opposite way around in bios compared to calculator, didn't notice before, since when i was doing safe timings they were the same value.


EDIT: swapped them around, now getting errors in TestMem 
EDIT 2: Changed the memory interleaving settings to those suggested in the calculator, TestMem ran with no errors, system also resumed from sleep fine after I got home from work. Now to try 3133


----------



## spyshagg

Any similar tool for Intel ? (z390 i9)


----------



## BLUuuE

spyshagg said:


> Any similar tool for Intel ? (z390 i9)


Trial and error.



> Seems nobody has passion for tweaking or learning new stuff any more. Everybody wants super easy OC these days or all settings explained without doing much research or self-study. This is just an observation of a growing trend. Fewer people have time for "tweaker OC" than a few years back. Maybe you guys are noticing the same thing.


~ Raja


----------



## Myllox

spyshagg said:


> Any similar tool for Intel ? (z390 i9)


What tool are you referring to? quite a few tools available if you search for it .. Asrock has a timings "checker" and Asus has the memtweakit thing .. not sure how updated they are but it should give you a hint 



BLUuuE said:


> Trial and error.
> 
> 
> ~ Raja


haha, so true unfortunately .. thank god things dont work out of the box eh


----------



## Myllox

I've said it before, but this time it feels much better  .. Finally !

It seems i go about this 3600 hunt the wrong way, i put more and more V into my poor b-die chips .. lol

As per the screenshots, including a few incremental benchmarks, i've reached a stable enough memory configuration @ 3600-14-15-14-14-28-42-1T .. vdimm quite high at 1.48v but with a lower SOC this time. The high vdimm was needed as i'm also running Asus PE lvl3 with a vCore @ 1.375 (atm). Without the PE lvl 3 i could run the same mem config but with a lower vdimm (1.42).

Why does it feel better this time? well i've done 5 runs of Karhu ramtest, the first two just over 2000%, the last three well over 5000% and inbetween i've done 
quite a few shutdowns and reboots as well as some gaming and video editing without issues .. "fingers crossed" .. it feels good  

I did primary first as always, then tRFC followed by tWTRS,tWTRL and tWR. Still have rRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW on auto (7,10,38) .. dont think there is much to gain from lowering them. I'll probably try some during the weekend 
with some of the other values that still are set to Auto.

Time to start up AIDA stress test and go to bed .. +8hrs of Aida will make it feel even better 

Edit: for some reason my upload isnt working 

Screenshots:
http://prntscr.com/m0u2do
http://prntscr.com/m0u2k1


----------



## ajc9988

BLUuuE said:


> Trial and error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~ Raja


Yeah, I honk there are lots of reasons on that.
1) few good sources for people to learn ram overclocking;
2) Intel fanboys becoming more ferocious against those that buy AMD in forums (and the rabid nature of AMD fanboys right back) creating a toxic environment where noobs get turned off.
2.a) this is due to AMD gaining market share, but AMD leaves very little room on the table to overclock, especially since the implementation of precision boost overdrive. With that, Intel went to solder and also left less room on the table.
2.b) Then Intel gave **** specs when the CPUs draw way over TDP, causing bad VRM designs, including the fake 8 phase on Asus boards which have the Asus tax which isn't really worth it this gen. But, the VRM issue goes back to the Intel x299 release and the motherboard manufacturers blowing off the AMD Ryzen release, then doing design ports to a degree for threadripper which limited the pcie lane designs that should have been better considering all the extra possibilities. So motherboard manufacturers deserve part of the blame for killing the hype when we finally reached a growth point in desktop sales.
3) people do want it easy. Those that really want it still work for it. Compared to early 2000s, overclocking had gotten way easier due to features on the hardware. But, due to the economy overall, people just wasn't it to work and to get more for their money (I at stop buying **** over proceed hardware, personally). But, without good info, and with those features, you go from simple CPU tuning and one click GPU tuning to advanced ram tuning. There is no easing into it and learning like a decade ago.
4) the OC scene became pay to play. You but binned chips, have to pay extraordinary pricing on CPUs and GPUs due to Intel and Nvidia bilking the market. You have people saying UEFI are acting like perpetual beta releases and options not working. At some point people just say scree it. About where I am with the OC community, on large (not meaning this forum). I'll still OC until I die, but I don't care about hwbot as much anymore, the marketing bull****, etc. 

But hat is my take, in part.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Jspinks020

They got a Ripjaws 3600 kit that's real affordable and it's B-Die...kinda want it. There's no question I know you could run more at 3466 at least.

Hugeee dram jump like 1.45-1.46v CL18 3466 OC this kit...Testing Stability. About the Highest I've Overvolted it...50kish reads in Aida like I said like X99 6850k....It looks like a real 6 core yes..


----------



## HatchetEgg

Hi guys,


What are your thoughts on this?


I did memtest86+ for 4hrs which found no errors and 2 passes.


----------



## Myllox

HatchetEgg said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> I did memtest86+ for 4hrs which found no errors and 2 passes.


Nice and tight  .. i'd run the test for a bit longer tho, leave it on over night or something


----------



## CJMitsuki

Myllox said:


> HatchetEgg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> I did memtest86+ for 4hrs which found no errors and 2 passes.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice and tight /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif .. i'd run the test for a bit longer tho, leave it on over night or something /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

It’s looks fine but you need an Aida64 key so I can see the Write and Copy lol. However I got a bit better results in read and latency with 14-15-14-14-22-36-4-4-16-3-8-10-0-4-4-280-12-6-9-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1 
Read was 55,900 Write was 54,800 Copy was 52,400 and latency was varying from 57.8ns to 58.2ns

Also I’ve seen a recent fascination with Memtest86 but I’ve seen inconsistencies with that as well as RamTest. Never seen those inconsistencies with HCIMemtest though. That’s what I trust for rock solid stability.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Myllox said:


> I've said it before, but this time it feels much better /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif .. Finally !
> 
> It seems i go about this 3600 hunt the wrong way, i put more and more V into my poor b-die chips .. lol
> 
> As per the screenshots, including a few incremental benchmarks, i've reached a stable enough memory configuration @ 3600-14-15-14-14-28-42-1T .. vdimm quite high at 1.48v but with a lower SOC this time. The high vdimm was needed as i'm also running Asus PE lvl3 with a vCore @ 1.375 (atm). Without the PE lvl 3 i could run the same mem config but with a lower vdimm (1.42).
> 
> Why does it feel better this time? well i've done 5 runs of Karhu ramtest, the first two just over 2000%, the last three well over 5000% and inbetween i've done
> quite a few shutdowns and reboots as well as some gaming and video editing without issues .. "fingers crossed" .. it feels good /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> I did primary first as always, then tRFC followed by tWTRS,tWTRL and tWR. Still have rRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW on auto (7,10,38) .. dont think there is much to gain from lowering them. I'll probably try some during the weekend
> with some of the other values that still are set to Auto.
> 
> Time to start up AIDA stress test and go to bed .. +8hrs of Aida will make it feel even better /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
> 
> Edit: for some reason my upload isnt working
> 
> Screenshots:
> http://prntscr.com/m0u2do
> http://prntscr.com/m0u2k1


Actually tFAW plays a huge role in performance and it’s actually one of the first timing sets that I tighten after the main primaries. 4, 4, 16 being what I’ve personally found to be the fastest. This shows in TM5 as well if you’ll notice the first 2 tests GB/s value as well as all tests but I use those speeds to determine a lot about to performance of the timings I’m setting. tFAW greatly affects those speeds from what I’ve seen and tested and it seems that the lower the value in TM5 the better the performance as it was reflected throughout every other benchmark. Don’t brush the tFAW set aside as a mediocre timing set. You’d be surprised at the gains from tightening those up. As for TM5 my values on the first (test6) is 26 s/GB and the second (test 12) is 27 IIRC. Once I’m home from work I’ll check and post some things from testing this past month.


----------



## CJMitsuki

> Seems nobody has passion for tweaking or learning new stuff any more. Everybody wants super easy OC these days or all settings explained without doing much research or self-study. This is just an observation of a growing trend. Fewer people have time for "tweaker OC" than a few years back. Maybe you guys are noticing the same thing.


~ Raja[/QUOTE]
While I agree partly with Raja’s statement I think that is mostly true for that particular forum. This tread alone is proof there are plenty that are willing to invest the time to learn the mysteries of tweaking RAM. There are few guides on it because to this day it’s not fully understood and tbh that’s what makes it fun. Thinking you have it all figured out only to find out you got scammed and are starting back at square one. I’ve been testing and tweaking my kit for nearly 2 years 4+ hours a day and while I can probably get any kit stable and performing decently within a day, I still feel the need to find out what timings to tighten to optimize performance in the best way possible and in 2 years I’m still finding ways to squeeze just a little more or fail trying and look for ways around the failure. It’s a drug that I can’t seem to put down...my precious...


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> While I agree partly with Raja’s statement I think that is mostly true for that particular forum. This tread alone is proof there are plenty that are willing to invest the time to learn the mysteries of tweaking RAM. There are few guides on it because to this day it’s not fully understood and tbh that’s what makes it fun. Thinking you have it all figured out only to find out you got scammed and are starting back at square one. I’ve been testing and tweaking my kit for nearly 2 years 4+ hours a day and while I can probably get any kit stable and performing decently within a day, I still feel the need to find out what timings to tighten to optimize performance in the best way possible and in 2 years I’m still finding ways to squeeze just a little more or fail trying and look for ways around the failure. It’s a drug that I can’t seem to put down...my precious...


Same here, Been a year and more trying to get the most out from my Memory OC tweaking and more. Can't never give up trying to get something to work even if it's just a single timing I want 1 click lower. HAHA!

I can agree on tFAW performance on your previous post. It does a a lot having it low. Though various other timings affect performance in combinations in different ways.


----------



## HatchetEgg

CJMitsuki said:


> It’s looks fine but you need an Aida64 key so I can see the Write and Copy lol. However I got a bit better results in read and latency with 14-15-14-14-22-36-4-4-16-3-8-10-0-4-4-280-12-6-9-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1
> Read was 55,900 Write was 54,800 Copy was 52,400 and latency was varying from 57.8ns to 58.2ns
> 
> Also, I’ve seen a recent fascination with Memtest86 but I’ve seen inconsistencies with that as well as RamTest. Never seen those inconsistencies with HCIMemtest though. That’s what I trust for rock solid stability.



Interesting, I did think about HCIMemtest but the only thing that put me off from using it was that it relies on windows to run. As I have experienced sometimes I am unable to boot into windows when changing RAM timings, due to corruption.


I did managed to get 3600 working but according to Passmark performance test it said it was slower than my 3533 speeds.


I would like to get a copy of AIDA64 but it sucks that it's not a one time perchase??


----------



## SiDDy

just wanna say thx with this proggie, it helped me so much!!

I finally got my corsair vengeance LPX (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) running @3200MHz 14-14-15-15-28 after not ever getting past 2933Mhz and having BSOD's just thinking about OCing them... 



just a small q though... i am blessed with hynix dies.., whats the difference between MFR, AFR and CJR memory types? 

Gz!!


----------



## BLUuuE

SiDDy said:


> just wanna say thx with this proggie, it helped me so much!!
> 
> I finally got my corsair vengeance LPX (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) running @3200MHz 14-14-15-15-28 after not ever getting past 2933Mhz and having BSOD's just thinking about OCing them...
> 
> 
> 
> just a small q though... i am blessed with hynix dies.., whats the difference between MFR, AFR and CJR memory types?
> 
> Gz!!


CJR > AFR > MFR


----------



## HatchetEgg

Is there any way I could reduce the RAM latency? Or any other improvements that could be made?


----------



## SexySale

SiDDy said:


> just wanna say thx with this proggie, it helped me so much!!
> 
> 
> 
> I finally got my corsair vengeance LPX (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) running @3200MHz 14-14-15-15-28 after not ever getting past 2933Mhz and having BSOD's just thinking about OCing them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just a small q though... i am blessed with hynix dies.., whats the difference between MFR, AFR and CJR memory types?
> 
> 
> 
> Gz!!


Great to hear this man 

I have same kit and I still have issue to go pass 3133. 
Can you please share your settings: RTC screenshot, DRAM voltage, CLDO_VDDP, etc...

I would be very grateful


----------



## spyshagg

BLUuuE said:


> Trial and error.
> 
> 
> ~ Raja


you are talking to a guy whos been doing this since 1999. But now I have been a full adult with an exhausting and time consuming job since the last 15 years. So, please save me your condescending attitude and either answer the fkng question or shut up.

Its not about having it easy. Its about how much of your free time budget allows for tweaking which in my case is null.


----------



## ajc9988

spyshagg said:


> you are talking to a guy whos been doing this since 1999. But now I have been a full adult with an exhausting and time consuming job since the last 15 years. So, please save me your condescending attitude and either answer the fkng question or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about having it easy. Its about how much of your free time budget allows for tweaking which in my case is null.


To answer the question, there are a couple excel calculator spreadsheets out there, but I haven't seen anything quite like this calculator for Intel chips.

Beyond that, maybe instead of attacking due to your schedule, you step back to realize Raja's statement was general, while adding your story as part of the problem: that the abuses of corporations have pushed many, as a percent of the population, into working such hours that hobbies like overclocking take back seat to the struggles to keep one's head above water, so to speak. Economics and time constraints are legitimate critiques to address the reason overclocking is dying, to a degree.

Further, you would think Intel would sponsor the development of such a tool or its users would have created such a tool considering it's market share. Yet we see that such a tool in this form doesn't exist. So, kind of funny overall, IMO. If you want to overclock your ram, then look to general advice given in many articles and forums over many years. The truth is out there.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## -Grift-

spyshagg said:


> you are talking to a guy whos been doing this since 1999. But now I have been a full adult with an exhausting and time consuming job since the last 15 years. So, please save me your condescending attitude and either answer the fkng question or shut up.
> 
> Its not about having it easy. Its about how much of your free time budget allows for tweaking which in my case is null.


Trail and error is inevitable for this as everyone has different hardware... Hell even if you have the same motherboard/RAM/CPU the difference in voltages alone will mess up any "presets". I have spent forever trying to get a "stable" tweak for my set of RAM even when OP has posted various profiles based on that exact set of memory as nothing provided would run stable on my setup. Countless days and nights tweaking individual values down one step at a time to find the perfect combination and many more after that running stress tests so that my games and OS don't just crash out right. IMO RAM tweaking is the most time consuming compared to CPU/GPU so unless you have already maxed out the other two and have lots of time to spend on this I would not recommend it.


----------



## SexySale

*3266MHz Fast preset on Hynix MFR - 80ns!?*

Hi guys,
I had a major breakthrough today!
After 2 years of struggling with Hynix MFR, I have finally made pass after 3133MHz with Corsair Vengeance LPX (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) - @3266MHz.

After reading Reddit post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ab4601/finally_got_my_hynix_mfr_based_2666_cl15_ram_to/ and post from @SiDDy, I tried another go today.
After 8h of trying during the day and adding additional fan over memory, I managed to get stable 3266 Fast preset on Asus B350 Plus board with Agesa 1.0.0.6 (which does miracles btw).

However, I still need to do more testing and fine-tuning, but I have a question:

Why I have 80ns latency on Fast preset?

It should be at least between 72-76ns. Any ideas?

@1usmus thank you again for your tool, it's wonderful! 

Edit 1: 
tRRDS - can't go beneath 7, 
tRRDL - can't go beneath 10, and 
tFAW - can't go beneath 32


----------



## BLUuuE

spyshagg said:


> you are talking to a guy whos been doing this since 1999. But now I have been a full adult with an exhausting and time consuming job since the last 15 years. So, please save me your condescending attitude and either answer the fkng question or shut up.
> 
> Its not about having it easy. Its about how much of your free time budget allows for tweaking which in my case is null.


Not my problem you have no free time to tweak RAM. Maybe you should think about your priorities.



Code:


new_timing = new_freq / old_freq * old_timing

old_freq = 3200
old_timing = 14
new_freq = 3600

new_timing = 3600 / 3200 * 14
new_timing = 15.75
new_timing = 16 (round up)

This is essentially what the DRAM calculator does.


----------



## 1usmus

*Guys, I want to wish you a Happy New Year!
Love, well-being your family, and I want to wish you stable systems. Thank you for being with me this year. I promise you that in the new year we will not stop at what has been achieved and we will see a lot of events.*

At the moment I have finished the article-manual "how to set up a system for a beginner" and am in search of the editor to prepare for publication.

From the good news: a new version of the calculator 1.4.1 is ready, which will be published soon and the beginning of preparation for the announcement of new AMD products. January 9th is a special day. A link to the live broadcast will be added soon.










Best regards , Yuri Bublii


----------



## 1usmus

SexySale said:


> Hi guys,
> I had a major breakthrough today!
> After 2 years of struggling with Hynix MFR, I have finally made pass after 3133MHz with Corsair Vengeance LPX (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) - @3266MHz.
> 
> After reading Reddit post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ab4601/finally_got_my_hynix_mfr_based_2666_cl15_ram_to/ and post from @SiDDy, I tried another go today.
> After 8h of trying during the day and adding additional fan over memory, I managed to get stable 3266 Fast preset on Asus B350 Plus board with Agesa 1.0.0.6 (which does miracles btw).
> 
> However, I still need to do more testing and fine-tuning, but I have a question:
> 
> Why I have 80ns latency on Fast preset?
> 
> It should be at least between 72-76ns. Any ideas?
> 
> @1usmus thank you again for your tool, it's wonderful!
> 
> Edit 1:
> tRRDS - can't go beneath 7,
> tRRDL - can't go beneath 10, and
> tFAW - can't go beneath 32


Great news, these changes will be in the new version of the calculator.

To reduce the delay, switch Power Down enable -> disable


----------



## kaiserc

@1usmus Happy New Year 
Thanks for your Work and continued efforts!


----------



## HatchetEgg

Well I made some adjustments to my timings. Also now have a full readout of info from AIDA64


----------



## strumf666

Is this a bug? The latest version gives much tighter timings compared to older version (import from xml). With timings from older version my ram was stable, with newest it doesn't even post.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

1usmus said:


> *Guys, I want to wish you a Happy New Year!
> Love, well-being your family, and I want to wish you stable systems. Thank you for being with me this year. I promise you that in the new year we will not stop at what has been achieved and we will see a lot of events.*
> 
> At the moment I have finished the article-manual "how to set up a system for a beginner" and am in search of the editor to prepare for publication.
> 
> From the good news: a new version of the calculator 1.4.1 is ready, which will be published soon and the beginning of preparation for the announcement of new AMD products. January 9th is a special day. A link to the live broadcast will be added soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards , Yuri Bublii


THX Bratan 
Keep up the great work.


----------



## Mike-EEE

kaiserc said:


> @1usmus Happy New Year
> Thanks for your Work and continued efforts!


+1 to this. I have had my nose in this cool application for the past several days, with a crash course in overclocking. Quite literally as my MB no longer seems to post, LOL. Doh.  Good news is that a new one is on the way and I now have a breather to take some time to read this thread and maybe get a little wiser. 

Or at least be able to approach this to the point where I do not feel like I am perpetually slamming my junk between two bricks. 

Anyways, I wanted to say hi and share my appreciation as a new member. FWIW, I have posted more details on my plight here, if interested:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/2-new-members/1717270-new-member-saying-hi.html#post27786468


----------



## 8000cc

1usmus said:


> *Guys, I want to wish you a Happy New Year!
> Love, well-being your family, and I want to wish you stable systems. Thank you for being with me this year. I promise you that in the new year we will not stop at what has been achieved and we will see a lot of events.*
> 
> At the moment I have finished the article-manual "how to set up a system for a beginner" and am in search of the editor to prepare for publication.
> 
> From the good news: a new version of the calculator 1.4.1 is ready, which will be published soon and the beginning of preparation for the announcement of new AMD products. January 9th is a special day. A link to the live broadcast will be added soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards , Yuri Bublii



Nice work! Thank you very much for help us(Ryzen user) a lot! And Thank you again!


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> *Guys, I want to wish you a Happy New Year!
> Love, well-being your family, and I want to wish you stable systems. Thank you for being with me this year. I promise you that in the new year we will not stop at what has been achieved and we will see a lot of events.*
> 
> At the moment I have finished the article-manual "how to set up a system for a beginner" and am in search of the editor to prepare for publication.
> 
> From the good news: a new version of the calculator 1.4.1 is ready, which will be published soon and the beginning of preparation for the announcement of new AMD products. January 9th is a special day. A link to the live broadcast will be added soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards , Yuri Bublii


Happy new year and the best wishes for 2019! Keep up the good work man!


----------



## Jackalito

CJMitsuki said:


> First, enable gear down mode then if that doesn’t completely fix it you need to change up those Rtt values. They look a bit out of the ordinary.  You could try Disabled, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Or RZQ/7, Disabled, RZQ/4 or 3. Also the MemAddrCmdSetup and the other two in that group can be set to 0,0,0 but for more stability try 1,1,1 or 2,2,2. You can also push the DRam voltage a bit. Try 1.4v, it’s perfectly fine.



Well, guess what? The only thing I really needed to do was enable Gear Down Mode in order to fix it. Now, I'm back to 3200 stable. So, thanks so much for the heads up, mate :thumb:
However, I had to stick with my current Rtt values of RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1. as well as ProcODT 60. Any other combination would not even boot up.





Zerotre said:


> Hi Jackalito, please report your tests, i'm very interested if you do something better, i will post too, if i test them more.
> Thanks!



So, with my current setup of mobo ASUS Crosshair VII Hero and Ryzen 2700X and my RAM kit being F4-3200C14D-32GTZ, this is my current config:











I'll update this post soon to include some voltages as well, but nothing out of the ordinary. DRAM Voltage is set at 1.35000 and Boot DRAM Voltage to Auto.


----------



## b1n4ryk1lla

so i cheaped out on my 2950x and got geil super luce over black friday they work fine but i wanted to see if i could push them anymore or at the least tighten them up unfortunately it seems the calculator does not support this ram? after importing it just stays blank on 1.4.0 



> MANUFACTURING DESCRIPTION
> Module Manufacturer:	GeIL
> Module Part Number:	CL16-16-16 D4-2400
> DRAM Manufacturer:	Micron Technology
> DRAM Components:	D9TGG (MT40A512M8RH-083E:B)
> Component Design ID:	Z90B
> DRAM Die Revision / Process Node:	B / 25 nm
> Module Manufacturing Date:	Week 36, 2017
> Module Manufacturing Location:	Taipei, Taiwan
> Module Serial Number:	00000000h
> Module PCB Revision:	00h
> PHYSICAL & LOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
> Fundamental Memory Class:	DDR4 SDRAM
> Module Speed Grade:	DDR4-2133P
> Base Module Type:	UDIMM (133.35 mm)
> Module Capacity:	4096 MB
> Reference Raw Card:	A0 (8 layers)
> Initial Raw Card Designer:	SK hynix
> Module Nominal Height:	31 < H <= 32 mm
> Module Thickness Maximum, Front:	1 < T <= 2 mm
> Module Thickness Maximum, Back:	1 < T <= 2 mm
> Number of DIMM Ranks:	1
> Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:	Standard
> DRAM Device Package:	Standard Monolithic
> DRAM Device Package Type:	78-ball FBGA
> DRAM Device Die Count:	Single die
> Signal Loading:	Not specified
> Number of Column Addresses:	10 bits
> Number of Row Addresses:	15 bits
> Number of Bank Addresses:	2 bits (4 banks)
> Bank Group Addressing:	2 bits (4 groups)
> DRAM Device Width:	8 bits
> Programmed DRAM Density:	4 Gb
> Calculated DRAM Density:	4 Gb
> Number of DRAM components:	8
> DRAM Page Size:	1 KB
> Primary Memory Bus Width:	64 bits
> Memory Bus Width Extension:	0 bits
> DRAM Post Package Repair:	Not supported
> Soft Post Package Repair:	Not supported
> DRAM TIMING PARAMETERS
> Fine Timebase:	0.001 ns
> Medium Timebase:	0.125 ns
> CAS Latencies Supported:	14T, 15T, 16T
> Minimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):	0.938 ns (1066.10 MHz)
> Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):	1.500 ns (666.67 MHz)
> CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):	14.062 ns
> RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):	14.061 ns
> Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):	14.062 ns
> Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):	33.000 ns
> Act to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):	47.061 ns
> Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):	260.000 ns
> 2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):	160.000 ns
> 4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):	110.000 ns
> Short Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):	3.700 ns
> Long Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):	5.300 ns
> Long CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):	5.250 ns
> Four Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):	21.000 ns
> Maximum Active Window (tMAW):	8192*tREFI
> Maximum Activate Count (MAC):	Untested MAC
> DRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:	Yes/Yes
> THERMAL PARAMETERS
> Module Thermal Sensor:	Incorporated
> SPD PROTOCOL
> SPD Revision:	1.0
> SPD Bytes Total:	512
> SPD Bytes Used:	512
> SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):	0532h (OK)
> SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):	58B6h (OK)
> PART NUMBER DETAILS
> JEDEC DIMM Label:	4GB 1Rx8 PC4-2133P-UA0-10
> FREQUENCY	CAS	RCD	RP	RAS	RC	RRDS	RRDL	CCDL	FAW
> 1067 MHz	16	15	15	36	51	4	6	6	23
> 1067 MHz	15	15	15	36	51	4	6	6	23
> 933 MHz	14	14	14	31	44	4	5	5	20
> INTEL EXTREME MEMORY PROFILES
> Profiles Revision: 2.0
> Profile 1 (Certified) Enables: Yes
> Profile 2 (Extreme) Enables: No
> Profile 1 Channel Config: 1 DIMM/channel
> XMP PARAMETER	PROFILE 1	PROFILE 2
> Speed Grade:	DDR4-2400	N/A
> DRAM Clock Frequency:	1200 MHz	N/A
> Module VDD Voltage Level:	1.20 V	N/A
> Minimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK):	0.833 ns	N/A
> CAS Latencies Supported:	16T	N/A
> CAS Latency Time (tAA):	13.321 ns	N/A
> RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD):	13.321 ns	N/A
> Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP):	13.321 ns	N/A
> Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS):	29.875 ns	N/A
> Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC):	45.321 ns	N/A
> Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW):	21.000 ns	N/A
> Short Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S):	3.299 ns	N/A
> Long Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L):	4.900 ns	N/A
> Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1):	260.000 ns	N/A
> 2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2):	160.000 ns	N/A
> 4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4):	110.000 ns	N/A


any ideas or help would be appreciated


----------



## DrwOOx

Jackalito said:


> Well, guess what? The only thing I really needed to do was enable Gear Down Mode in order to fix it. Now, I'm back to 3200 stable. So, thanks so much for the heads up, mate :thumb:
> However, I had to stick with my current Rtt values of RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1. as well as ProcODT 60. Any other combination would not even boot up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, with my current setup of mobo ASUS Crosshair VII Hero and Ryzen 2700X and my RAM kit being F4-3200C14D-32GTZ, this is my current config:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll update this post soon to include some voltages as well, but nothing out of the ordinary. DRAM Voltage is set at 1.35000 and Boot DRAM Voltage to Auto.


First, forgive me for my English.

I also have an Asus C6H, but with a Ryzen 1800x, and your same RAM.

For me, after much, fight me, with the new Agesa, the configuration that gives me better latency, and it is the I upload, try it.

The only thing that needs to be modified, which is not in the image, is the voltage of the RAM, 1.375v

Regards.


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> At the moment I have finished the article-manual "how to set up a system for a beginner" and am in search of the editor to prepare for publication.


When you say editor, do you mean copy editor? Or do you need a person coordinating or able to illustrate, etc? If you just need a copy editor to check grammar, sentence structure, etc., and correct it, I can help you there. I've done copy editing for some publications here in the U.S. If you would like, I can go through the manual and perform checks to get it ready to publish, but am limited to English (would need other contributors for other languages and I haven't used my Chinese since undergrad so would be useless for a professional copy editing in Mandarin at the moment).


----------



## Mike-EEE

A quick note here. Today I got my new motherboard replacement and have spent the past few hours setting it up. Luckily, all the fundamental parts were still intact, so I could continue my attempts here @ 3200 w/ 4x16 2-rank (I also have this one  but am leaning towards the RGB as it nerds me out ).

In the past 48 hours, I got through the first 50-ish pages of this thread, trying to get a good feel for things and ideas for my own board (MSI x470 Gaming Pro, which I am a really big fan of BTW).

One of the thoughts I had was after reading these posts here were, why not try to keep everything as "Auto" as possible and do the obvious assignments one group at a time to see if that works.

Well, long story short here, it worked! All I had to do was:

1) Set MHz to 3200
2) Set procODT to 60
3) BOOM... post without error or memory retry

Well, that last one is a little flaky, because sometimes it will post w/o retry only to cold boot and have it chirp up with a complaint or two.

Anyways, I think I have enough to go on from here. Now it seems to be a matter of stability which I hope will be done via voltages and CLDO_VDDP.

BTW, one thing I did notice was the attached. Please see PART NUMBER and notice the "?" in the value. Is this something I should be concerned about? Do I have bad memory, by chance? Or known issue, maybe?

Sorry if this has already been discussed in the thread here, but as I said I am only up to page 50-something. xD 

In any case, thanks again and for any assistance in advance.


----------



## Atomfix

SexySale said:


> Hi guys,
> I had a major breakthrough today!
> After 2 years of struggling with Hynix MFR, I have finally made pass after 3133MHz with Corsair Vengeance LPX (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) - @3266MHz.
> 
> After reading Reddit post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ab4601/finally_got_my_hynix_mfr_based_2666_cl15_ram_to/ and post from @SiDDy, I tried another go today.
> After 8h of trying during the day and adding additional fan over memory, I managed to get stable 3266 Fast preset on Asus B350 Plus board with Agesa 1.0.0.6 (which does miracles btw).
> 
> However, I still need to do more testing and fine-tuning, but I have a question:
> 
> Why I have 80ns latency on Fast preset?
> 
> It should be at least between 72-76ns. Any ideas?
> 
> @1usmus thank you again for your tool, it's wonderful!
> 
> Edit 1:
> tRRDS - can't go beneath 7,
> tRRDL - can't go beneath 10, and
> tFAW - can't go beneath 32


I have the Trident Z 3000MHz 16GB M-Die kit. I've tried your memory timings and speed with complete fail. For the life of me, I can't even get this RAM to run 1MHz over without BSOD's or stuck in memory training. I think it's this motherboard I'm using "Gigabyte X370 Gaming K5" Complete trash!!


----------



## Spectre73

Mike-EEE said:


> A quick note here. Today I got my new motherboard replacement and have spent the past few hours setting it up. Luckily, all the fundamental parts were still intact, so I could continue my attempts here @ 3200 w/ 4x16 2-rank (I also have this one  but am leaning towards the RGB as it nerds me out ).
> 
> In the past 48 hours, I got through the first 50-ish pages of this thread, trying to get a good feel for things and ideas for my own board (MSI x470 Gaming Pro, which I am a really big fan of BTW).
> 
> One of the thoughts I had was after reading these posts here were, why not try to keep everything as "Auto" as possible and do the obvious assignments one group at a time to see if that works.
> 
> Well, long story short here, it worked! All I had to do was:
> 
> 1) Set MHz to 3200
> 2) Set procODT to 60
> 3) BOOM... post without error or memory retry
> 
> Well, that last one is a little flaky, because sometimes it will post w/o retry only to cold boot and have it chirp up with a complaint or two.
> 
> Anyways, I think I have enough to go on from here. Now it seems to be a matter of stability which I hope will be done via voltages and CLDO_VDDP.
> 
> BTW, one thing I did notice was the attached. Please see PART NUMBER and notice the "?" in the value. Is this something I should be concerned about? Do I have bad memory, by chance? Or known issue, maybe?
> 
> Sorry if this has already been discussed in the thread here, but as I said I am only up to page 50-something. xD
> 
> In any case, thanks again and for any assistance in advance.


You probably only need to lower ProcODT 1 step to 53.3. The x470 boards are designed for lower ProcODT values (source: The Stilt). And the memory circiut layout seems to be optimzed for it. Of course, your memory configuration is out of the ordinary, but some other posters with that configuration even went to 48 or lower ProcODT.
So try this first with adequate DRAM voltage around 1.37 and up.


----------



## Mike-EEE

Spectre73 said:


> You probably only need to lower ProcODT 1 step to 53.3. The x470 boards are designed for lower ProcODT values (source: The Stilt). And the memory circiut layout seems to be optimzed for it. Of course, your memory configuration is out of the ordinary, but some other posters with that configuration even went to 48 or lower ProcODT.
> So try this first with adequate DRAM voltage around 1.37 and up.


Thanks for your input, @Spectre73, it is greatly appreciated. I did try 53.3 but it will not post with that or any value lower (approaching 0). The only other number that works is 68.3, but Windows isn't too happy with it at all. So, 60 seems to be the only number for this unit. Also, it seems ATM that the only juice that works (that is, with the exception of "Auto" which I describe below) is vCPU @ 1.37v and vDRAM @ 1.42.

That is, all of this was the case until my replacement board gave out *again* while changing values around CLDO_VDDP. *doh* I am so miffed right now as my impression from reading this thread and other threads/resources up to this point is that controls are placed in overclocking boards to prevent permanent harm to your board and components, unless you are doing extremely high voltages, and even then the motherboard gives you a warning with red letters/numbers etc. 

I was not doing that with any of my values and in fact was on "Auto" on every value with the exception of CLDO_VDDP and for procODT at the time, and the values I were using were provided by the calculator. In fact, I was getting full boot and manual restart on Windows with everything set to Auto (including voltages) with the exception of those two parameters which is what I was hashing out at the time.

My thought outside of frying the board via overclocking is that I might have zapped the board with static electricity when pressing the clear CMOS button, but doing research online it seems that there would be an audible *snap* as well as a sensation, which I did not experience.

So, maybe bad luck with these MSI boards? I think they are awesome except for the fact they cannot keep up with all my tweaking, lol. FWIW I did look at other MBs but this is the only one at this price range that has 2x M.2 slots. Although if I keep chewing through them I will probably have to examine my budgetary affinity to this item ($135 is a great price point IMO).

Anyways, I have 2 replacements on the way (1 for "just in case" -- I hope not to use it) and will continue to update here once I can resume again. I am lucky to encounter all this bad luck while it's still within Amazon's amazing grace period, so maybe not so unlucky, hehe.


----------



## Redwoodz

spyshagg said:


> Any similar tool for Intel ? (z390 i9)





spyshagg said:


> you are talking to a guy whos been doing this since 1999. But now I have been a full adult with an exhausting and time consuming job since the last 15 years. So, please save me your condescending attitude and either answer the fkng question or shut up.
> 
> Its not about having it easy. Its about how much of your free time budget allows for tweaking which in my case is null.


 http://www.softnology.biz/pdf/ddr4_for_dummies_2ed.pdf


----------



## Jackalito

DrwOOx said:


> First, forgive me for my English.
> 
> I also have an Asus C6H, but with a Ryzen 1800x, and your same RAM.
> 
> For me, after much, fight me, with the new Agesa, the configuration that gives me better latency, and it is the I upload, try it.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be modified, which is not in the image, is the voltage of the RAM, 1.375v
> 
> Regards.



Thanks, mate. I'll give it a try when I find some time to spare :thumb:


----------



## STaRDoGG

Just got AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.6 flashed on my ma-cheen. Maybe I can finally get this G.Skill overclocked to a respectable lvl, lol.


----------



## Bapt33

hi guys,

I really get struggle to get my 2x8GB FlareX F4-3200C14-8GFX B-die with ryzen 2600 on x370 asus prime mobo, set timing first with ryzen dram calculator in safe mode, i can boot but hci memtest always report error like 3 days after i set new timings, ive try proc ODT 48,53,60 dram voltage to 1.4v and soc voltage to 1.1v anyway i always get error. even with agessa 1.0.0.6 it dont work thats really frustrating.
DOCP and DOCP standard are broken too ....
So ive try 3133mhz with ryzen dram calculator, i import my ram profile from taiphoon in ryzen dram calculator, and by default, it set the profile on "debug", i dont know about this profile so ive set profile V1.
Do you know guys what is the difference between profile V1 , V2 and debug? if someone is on x370 asus prime maybe i can add some tips, but as i find on google, this mobo relly suck for RAM compatibility.

Thanks.

this is my setting, if you have any tips ...


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> When you say editor, do you mean copy editor? Or do you need a person coordinating or able to illustrate, etc? If you just need a copy editor to check grammar, sentence structure, etc., and correct it, I can help you there. I've done copy editing for some publications here in the U.S. If you would like, I can go through the manual and perform checks to get it ready to publish, but am limited to English (would need other contributors for other languages and I haven't used my Chinese since undergrad so would be useless for a professional copy editing in Mandarin at the moment).


Material and illustrations are. Just check the grammar, errors and, if possible, edit the text, so that it is easier to read for people who are far from overclocking


----------



## Rizen1700

Hi 1usmus, I've got years of technical writing and editing experience, if needed, I'm available to have a look. English only, pls.


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> Material and illustrations are. Just check the grammar, errors and, if possible, edit the text, so that it is easier to read for people who are far from overclocking


Fair enough. I am finishing up a couple checks on this caselaw reader I am working on and can get to it tomorrow or the next day.


Rizen1700 said:


> Hi 1usmus, I've got years of technical writing and editing experience, if needed, I'm available to have a look. English only, pls.


If you would like @1usmus, we could both review the document, then combine the information and changes into a single document, followed by sending it back to you, or it could be posted in a google docs, or however you would like to proceed. Even though I feel confident in my abilities, it never hurts to have more than one person reviewing the content. I ask that if you have citations, if possible, please make the source material available to ease cite checking, if required for the project. 

I do not know Rizen1700's experience, but mine comes from primarily legal scholarship work for the past six or so years. I'm just an overclocking/tech enthusiast. If his work involves editing texts related to computers or science materials, his experience may be quite apt for the project. 

Just let us know how you would like to proceed. Also, if you care to, feel free to DM me so that I can give my email address if you would prefer to continue the discussion there or provide non-public links.


----------



## Rapidian

Bapt33 said:


> I really get struggle to get my 2x8GB FlareX F4-3200C14-8GFX B-die with ryzen 2600 on x370 asus prime mobo, set timing first with ryzen dram calculator in safe mode, i can boot but hci memtest always report error like 3 days after i set new timings, ive try proc ODT 48,53,60 dram voltage to 1.4v and soc voltage to 1.1v anyway i always get error. even with agessa 1.0.0.6 it dont work thats really frustrating.
> DOCP and DOCP standard are broken too ....


I have the same kit on a 2700x. It works fine at 3200, but I had to change RTT_NOM to Disabled and not use the value from RTC. It even says so with an asterisk. Did you try that? I see you using a resistance value. I am using the Fast 3200 timing directly from the calculator and have checked with MemTest.


----------



## Bapt33

@Rapidian thanks for your reply, what do you mean by "not use value from RTC?" So ive just to try disable RTT_NOM?

EDIT: ah yes, i see what you mean, i had never see this asterisk in ryzen dram calculator! lets try this!

So this how iam right now:


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

@1usmus -> Fully stable

With good chips all You need is to input Ryzen DRAM Calculator Values into BIOS:

Now i need some time to adjust for even better LLT (now 69ns up to 70ns) 
But for Now im happy with this settings.
Cool & Quiet

-==-


----------



## Bigceeloc

Hey guys, I just enabled my XMP profile on my 4x8GB G.Skill Ripjaws 5 3000Mhz ram. It is actually 2 kits of 2x8GB with the same XMP profile. I updated to the latest BIOS version F4 on my Aorus X470 Ultra Gaming mobo, which supports AGESA 1.0.0.6. I loaded the XMP profile and saved and rebooted in bios, and after a moment of tense silence, it booted.  It's currently running the XMP profile, but how shall I test and see what this RAM likes? HWinfo says these chips are SKHynix chips, but I don't know which SKHynix to select in the drop down calculator menu, if it matters. I also select profile 1 and I believe that reads in the XMP profile from the RAM, correct? 

I will try to run the calculator again sometime this week and see what my results would be.


----------



## Bapt33

you can use thaiphoon to see the full specs of your ram


----------



## Mike-EEE

Rapidian said:


> I have the same kit on a 2700x. It works fine at 3200, but I had to change RTT_NOM to Disabled and not use the value from RTC. It even says so with an asterisk. Did you try that? I see you using a resistance value. I am using the Fast 3200 timing directly from the calculator and have checked with MemTest.


Wow I am glad you suggested that, @Rapidian. After reading this I did try disabling RTT_NOM, but it didn't fix my problems. However, I did notice that you can disable RTT_PARK and upon doing this, everything worked like magic! *Every *setting in my configuration is set to "Auto" with this exception of this one, which is obviously pretty ridiculous and I am hoping that MSI will fix this in a future BIOS. I will no doubt go back through MSI's forums and update them on my status (not to mention ask *** lol)

So now I have my new MB (the THIRD iteration in this ordeal) and I am easily able to boot in and out of Windows, finally, running my 2700x @ 4.2GHz and my memory @ 64gb x 3200MHz.

Now to (FINALLY) take the next step to see if I can get some faster timings on this and/or speed.

Thanks again to everyone for your assistance, intended or otherwise, LOL.


----------



## deckert

Nearly there with 3133MHz, after a week or so of testing I got to cycle 4 test 14 before an error.


Oddly, I had to lower the DRAM voltage from the 1.39V I needed to get 3066 stable to 1.38V to make it further than halfway through cycle 1 before encountering errors.
A little more fine tuning and I should be there 


EDIT: Split the difference, 1.385V, and it passed.


----------



## Bapt33

@deckert is that B-die memory? so change dram voltage from 1.39 to 1.385 make it stable? weird


----------



## 1usmus




----------



## 1usmus

@ajc9988 @Rizen1700

Thank you guys, but I need a few more days to finish this project + I am preparing another one (the effect of timings on performance, which timings can be reduced and which are not) 



deckert said:


> Nearly there with 3133MHz, after a week or so of testing I got to cycle 4 test 14 before an error.
> 
> 
> Oddly, I had to lower the DRAM voltage from the 1.39V I needed to get 3066 stable to 1.38V to make it further than halfway through cycle 1 before encountering errors.
> A little more fine tuning and I should be there
> 
> 
> EDIT: Split the difference, 1.385V, and it passed.


10 and 14 tests do not always work adequately, you can look at them through your fingers


----------



## deckert

Bapt33 said:


> @*deckert* is that B-die memory? so change dram voltage from 1.39 to 1.385 make it stable? weird



It's Samsung E-die, and if I lower it from 1.39V for my 3066MHz settings it becomes unstable, go figure.
Will make it interesting trying for 3200MHz next.


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> @ajc9988 @Rizen1700
> 
> Thank you guys, but I need a few more days to finish this project + I am preparing another one (the effect of timings on performance, which timings can be reduced and which are not)
> 
> 
> 
> 10 and 14 tests do not always work adequately, you can look at them through your fingers


No problem. Just let us know when you are ready!


----------



## Rapidian

Bapt33 said:


> @Rapidian thanks for your reply, what do you mean by "not use value from RTC?" So ive just to try disable RTT_NOM?
> 
> EDIT: ah yes, i see what you mean, i had never see this asterisk in ryzen dram calculator! lets try this!


Yes, you got it! I was able to use the fast presets for 3200 G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GFX (Flare-X) memory with by making hte RTT_NOM disabled. All of the rest of the values the same from RTC 1.4.0 from @1usmus. Thanks for this tool.

Here is where mine is parked.


----------



## Bapt33

Rapidian said:


> Yes, you got it! I was able to use the fast presets for 3200 G.Skill F4-3200C14D-16GFX (Flare-X) memory with by making hte RTT_NOM disabled. All of the rest of the values the same from RTC 1.4.0 from @1usmus. Thanks for this tool.
> 
> Here is where mine is parked.
> 
> View attachment 244992
> 
> 
> View attachment 244994


Wowww, 4.3 ghz on 2700X thats very nice ! you up to 50000 MB/s on read, thats nice too ! and 65ns ... good job !
and you are 14-14-14-28 i guess you use the fast preset, it confirm memory work so better on B450/X470 than X370 i will maybe try tight this timings later.


----------



## Rapidian

Bapt33 said:


> Wowww, 4.3 ghz on 2700X thats very nice ! you up to 50000 MB/s on read, thats nice too ! and 65ns ... good job !
> and you are 14-14-14-28 i guess you use the fast preset, it confirm memory work so better on B450/X470 than X370 i will maybe try tight this timings later.


Thanks, but I would not be surprised by 4.3Ghz on the 2700X. Running the memory and cache test test AID64 is just a single core load and the 2700X is supposed to boost up to 4.35Ghz by default. I've seen this value bounce around. It is good to know that the processor has enough cooling with my air cooler (Noctua NH-U12S-SE-AM4). I want my system as quiet as possible. I've never watercooled but you can achieve much lower temps and then more cores can boost at once.

I can get the Flare-X running at 3466 and safe timings but I don't think it is stable. I didn't run a memory test, but ran a quick Assassin's Creed Odessey and the game crashed. Typical sign of instability on a loaded system. I've run MemTest on the Fast preset of 3200 and it is stable.


----------



## Bapt33

Rapidian said:


> Thanks, but I would not be surprised by 4.3Ghz on the 2700X. Running the memory and cache test test AID64 is just a single core load and the 2700X is supposed to boost up to 4.35Ghz by default. I've seen this value bounce around. It is good to know that the processor has enough cooling with my air cooler (Noctua NH-U12S-SE-AM4). I want my system as quiet as possible. I've never watercooled but you can achieve much lower temps and then more cores can boost at once.
> 
> I can get the Flare-X running at 3466 and safe timings but I don't think it is stable. I didn't run a memory test, but ran a quick Assassin's Creed Odessey and the game crashed. Typical sign of instability on a loaded system. I've run MemTest on the Fast preset of 3200 and it is stable.


Oh yes, thats the famous XFR2, which disable core too boost on other, and since you are on 2700X, it must be very efficient . And yes game crash with no message is typic from unstable RAM, but you should reach the 3466, b-die are best memory ship of the market, maybe you need bump the voltage somewhere, but 3200mhz in fast preset is already very fine !

Edit: Since im on AIO (Nepton 280L) i can reach the 4.1ghz for 1.4v on ryzen 2600, with max temp of 55° in game, and 70° on prime95 on small FFT. thats really fine! thing i cant do with my old cooler bequiet pure rock (only 4ghz for 1.34375v) 4.1ghz was unstable anyway, proof temp affect OC stability on Ryzen and like on all cpu i think since more heat you have more current loss, lower temp = better rentability.


----------



## b1n4ryk1lla

bump



b1n4ryk1lla said:


> so i cheaped out on my 2950x and got geil super luce over black friday they work fine but i wanted to see if i could push them anymore or at the least tighten them up unfortunately it seems the calculator does not support this ram? after importing it just stays blank on 1.4.0
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> MANUFACTURING DESCRIPTION
> Module Manufacturer:	GeIL
> Module Part Number:	CL16-16-16 D4-2400
> DRAM Manufacturer:	Micron Technology
> DRAM Components:	D9TGG (MT40A512M8RH-083E:B)
> Component Design ID:	Z90B
> DRAM Die Revision / Process Node:	B / 25 nm
> Module Manufacturing Date:	Week 36, 2017
> Module Manufacturing Location:	Taipei, Taiwan
> Module Serial Number:	00000000h
> Module PCB Revision:	00h
> PHYSICAL & LOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
> Fundamental Memory Class:	DDR4 SDRAM
> Module Speed Grade:	DDR4-2133P
> Base Module Type:	UDIMM (133.35 mm)
> Module Capacity:	4096 MB
> Reference Raw Card:	A0 (8 layers)
> Initial Raw Card Designer:	SK hynix
> Module Nominal Height:	31 < H <= 32 mm
> Module Thickness Maximum, Front:	1 < T <= 2 mm
> Module Thickness Maximum, Back:	1 < T <= 2 mm
> Number of DIMM Ranks:	1
> Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:	Standard
> DRAM Device Package:	Standard Monolithic
> DRAM Device Package Type:	78-ball FBGA
> DRAM Device Die Count:	Single die
> Signal Loading:	Not specified
> Number of Column Addresses:	10 bits
> Number of Row Addresses:	15 bits
> Number of Bank Addresses:	2 bits (4 banks)
> Bank Group Addressing:	2 bits (4 groups)
> DRAM Device Width:	8 bits
> Programmed DRAM Density:	4 Gb
> Calculated DRAM Density:	4 Gb
> Number of DRAM components:	8
> DRAM Page Size:	1 KB
> Primary Memory Bus Width:	64 bits
> Memory Bus Width Extension:	0 bits
> DRAM Post Package Repair:	Not supported
> Soft Post Package Repair:	Not supported
> DRAM TIMING PARAMETERS
> Fine Timebase:	0.001 ns
> Medium Timebase:	0.125 ns
> CAS Latencies Supported:	14T, 15T, 16T
> Minimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):	0.938 ns (1066.10 MHz)
> Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):	1.500 ns (666.67 MHz)
> CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):	14.062 ns
> RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):	14.061 ns
> Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):	14.062 ns
> Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):	33.000 ns
> Act to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):	47.061 ns
> Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):	260.000 ns
> 2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):	160.000 ns
> 4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):	110.000 ns
> Short Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):	3.700 ns
> Long Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):	5.300 ns
> Long CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):	5.250 ns
> Four Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):	21.000 ns
> Maximum Active Window (tMAW):	8192*tREFI
> Maximum Activate Count (MAC):	Untested MAC
> DRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:	Yes/Yes
> THERMAL PARAMETERS
> Module Thermal Sensor:	Incorporated
> SPD PROTOCOL
> SPD Revision:	1.0
> SPD Bytes Total:	512
> SPD Bytes Used:	512
> SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):	0532h (OK)
> SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):	58B6h (OK)
> PART NUMBER DETAILS
> JEDEC DIMM Label:	4GB 1Rx8 PC4-2133P-UA0-10
> FREQUENCY	CAS	RCD	RP	RAS	RC	RRDS	RRDL	CCDL	FAW
> 1067 MHz	16	15	15	36	51	4	6	6	23
> 1067 MHz	15	15	15	36	51	4	6	6	23
> 933 MHz	14	14	14	31	44	4	5	5	20
> INTEL EXTREME MEMORY PROFILES
> Profiles Revision: 2.0
> Profile 1 (Certified) Enables: Yes
> Profile 2 (Extreme) Enables: No
> Profile 1 Channel Config: 1 DIMM/channel
> XMP PARAMETER	PROFILE 1	PROFILE 2
> Speed Grade:	DDR4-2400	N/A
> DRAM Clock Frequency:	1200 MHz	N/A
> Module VDD Voltage Level:	1.20 V	N/A
> Minimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK):	0.833 ns	N/A
> CAS Latencies Supported:	16T	N/A
> CAS Latency Time (tAA):	13.321 ns	N/A
> RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD):	13.321 ns	N/A
> Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP):	13.321 ns	N/A
> Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS):	29.875 ns	N/A
> Active to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC):	45.321 ns	N/A
> Four Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW):	21.000 ns	N/A
> Short Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S):	3.299 ns	N/A
> Long Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L):	4.900 ns	N/A
> Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1):	260.000 ns	N/A
> 2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2):	160.000 ns	N/A
> 4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4):	110.000 ns	N/A
> 
> any ideas or help would be appreciated


----------



## rab!dmonkey

I've been trying to figure out which memory type to put into the calculator without any success. Thaiphoon Burner says I have Spectek chips, which apparently rebrands Micron chips. Searching the chip partial part number (MT40A512M8??-093E:?) output by Thaiphoon Burner led me to the Micron site, but I could find no information as to which 'die' (A-die, B-die, D-die, E/H-die) of memory chips the part corresponded to. I contacted my RAM manufacturer and they told me my chips are 'Spectek rev. Z01A'. Does anyone know if they correspond to any of the Micron options in the calculator?


----------



## BUFUMAN

1usmus, mate i could not get any stable oc with our CH VI at latest uefi. Raj told me that there are some changes. Is the latest version updated to agesa 1.006?

My system did not boot with any little change on RAM clock. Back to old uefi i could pass 3400mhz.

Thanks for all what you do for us. And happy new year 

Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


----------



## deckert

rab!dmonkey said:


> I've been trying to figure out which memory type to put into the calculator without any success. Thaiphoon Burner says I have Spectek chips, which apparently rebrands Micron chips. Searching the chip partial part number (MT40A512M8??-093E:?) output by Thaiphoon Burner led me to the Micron site, but I could find no information as to which 'die' (A-die, B-die, D-die, E/H-die) of memory chips the part corresponded to. I contacted my RAM manufacturer and they told me my chips are 'Spectek rev. Z01A'. Does anyone know if they correspond to any of the Micron options in the calculator?



Was able to find this little snippet about them, at the start of the Micron section. From the looks of it, they are fairly low quality chips.
EDIT: Oops, might help if I include the link  https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/wiki/ram/ddr4


----------



## rab!dmonkey

deckert said:


> Was able to find this little snippet about them, at the start of the Micron section. From the looks of it, they are fairly low quality chips.
> EDIT: Oops, might help if I include the link  https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/wiki/ram/ddr4


Thanks for finding that. Their stock settings are 3000CL16, so it looks like I'm already a bit ahead of what can be expected from them. I'll select 'Micron A-die' in the calculator and see if I can squeeze anything at all out of them.


----------



## dado82rm

https://photos.app.goo.gl/iFpWeHGgJJYeLB6c8

First of all sorry for quality of picture. I thought i had finally find the perfect setup for the RAM patriot 4 8GB 3200 
I can get up to 5 cycle with no errors about 15 minutes of test. Then i decided to use aida for the benchmark. All seems to be perfect. Got the HTML report and all. but when i closed Aida i got a crash blue screen
I had to tweek the numbers starting from the imported profile of DRAM calculator the pre set Samsung e/die v1 is not working any suggestions on which parameter should i try to change more? If need more details please ask and i will add it , im using the phone is very hard to write properly


----------



## Bapt33

Mike-EEE said:


> Wow I am glad you suggested that, @Rapidian. After reading this I did try disabling RTT_NOM, but it didn't fix my problems. However, I did notice that you can disable RTT_PARK and upon doing this, everything worked like magic! *Every *setting in my configuration is set to "Auto" with this exception of this one, which is obviously pretty ridiculous and I am hoping that MSI will fix this in a future BIOS. I will no doubt go back through MSI's forums and update them on my status (not to mention ask *** lol)
> 
> So now I have my new MB (the THIRD iteration in this ordeal) and I am easily able to boot in and out of Windows, finally, running my 2700x @ 4.2GHz and my memory @ 64gb x 3200MHz.
> 
> Now to (FINALLY) take the next step to see if I can get some faster timings on this and/or speed.
> 
> Thanks again to everyone for your assistance, intended or otherwise, LOL.


 @Mike-EEE disable RTT_PARK for me result in no boot ... still get error with RTT_NOM disable, so im tryin now set RTT_PARK from RZQ/5 (48ohm) to RZQ/7 (34ohm), but im really not hoping get 3200mhz stable with Flare X bdie on this poor mobo Prime X370-PRO, come on ASUS!


----------



## Mike-EEE

Bapt33 said:


> @Mike-EEE disable RTT_PARK for me result in no boot ... still get error with RTT_NOM disable, so im tryin now set RTT_PARK from RZQ/5 (48ohm) to RZQ/7 (34ohm), but im really not hoping get 3200mhz stable with Flare X bdie on this poor mobo Prime X370-PRO, come on ASUS!



Oh man @Bapt33 I hope you can work it out. My revelation was totally by accident and I do not know where I would be if I didn't stumble upon it. Might be an MSI thing?

FWIW, I was able to set 3200+ on my MSI board w/ 1 and 2 chips. It's the four chipper that has made this such a delightful journey, lol.

FWIW x 2: I ended up having to move out of "Auto" camp and set explicit values when it came time to error check memory.

For the Termination Block, I landed on: 43.6, 34, 80, Disabled.

For CAD_BUS I am on 20, 20, 20, 20.

After I was able to boot, the timings from the Fast Preset worked exactly as prescribed the first time. I am now OC'd on my 2700x to 4.275 @ 3200 w/ 64GB. Cinebench score of 1935. Kryptonaut on the way to see if I can push 4.3 hehe.

Testing RAM now w/ TM5/MemTest (not to be confused ) to fish out these memory errors. Getting close! Only 1 per 100%.

Massive shout out to @1usmus and team for all the work here. I am in your debt good sir and peeps!


----------



## Bapt33

Mike-EEE said:


> Oh man @Bapt33 I hope you can work it out. My revelation was totally by accident and I do not know where I would be if I didn't stumble upon it. Might be an MSI thing?
> 
> FWIW, I was able to set 3200+ on my MSI board w/ 1 and 2 chips. It's the four chipper that has made this such a delightful journey, lol.
> 
> FWIW x 2: I ended up having to move out of "Auto" camp and set explicit values when it came time to error check memory.
> 
> For the Termination Block, I landed on: 43.6, 34, 80, Disabled.
> 
> For CAD_BUS I am on 20, 20, 20, 20.
> 
> After I was able to boot, the timings from the Fast Preset worked exactly as prescribed the first time. I am now OC'd on my 2700x to 4.275 @ 3200 w/ 64GB. Cinebench score of 1935. Kryptonaut on the way to see if I can push 4.3 hehe.
> 
> Testing RAM now w/ TM5/MemTest (not to be confused ) to fish out these memory errors. Getting close! Only 1 per 100%.
> 
> Massive shout out to @1usmus and team for all the work here. I am in your debt good sir and peeps!


 @Mike-EEE its like 6 month i try to get this 3200mhz stable, the frustrating thing is i can get 1000% on hci-memtest, and the day after i get error @ like 8% ... I never get crash in game so i must be so close! but something always get wrong ... im right in CAD BUS 20ohm, what you mean by Termination Block? i dont see this setting ... im right here like this, gonna tweak it again, but i need a way to go  may the force be with me 
PS: ive apply thermal paste : KRYONAUT from thermal grizzly, what a hell !! the thermal past just dont want grip on the chipset! its just sliding on it, i have to fight like 45min to apply it well, i think ive win 2 or 3° compared to my good old artic silver 5.


----------



## Mike-EEE

Bapt33 said:


> @Mike-EEE its like 6 month i try to get this 3200mhz stable, the frustrating thing is i can get 1000% on hci-memtest, and the day after i get error @ like 8% ... I never get crash in game so i must be so close! but something always get wrong ... im right in CAD BUS 20ohm, what you mean by Termination Block? i dont see this setting ... im right here like this, gonna tweak it again, but i need a way to go  may the force be with me
> PS: ive apply thermal paste : KRYONAUT from thermal grizzly, what a hell !! the thermal past just dont want grip on the chipset! its just sliding on it, i have to fight like 45min to apply it well, i think ive win 2 or 3° compared to my good old artic silver 5.
> 
> View attachment 245628


Ah! I am going off of the Calculator.  I will attach my settings. You will see which is what.

And yes.. I am so confused about memory errors. If there's an error, doesn't that mean there's a crash? Maybe there's some error correction going on in Windows, but I am not sure how an ERROR occurs and things still work. 

And I REALLY hope I am not at this 6 months from now! I am already antcy at 5 days.


----------



## Bapt33

@Mike-EEE thanks, but what did you call termination block?
For error i think it depend of the instruction, of the context, hci-memtest is designed to make error pop quick, in game its different i think its less heavy.
But i noticed error always occur 2 or 3 days everytime i change a setting, maybe an asus thing, or the stability decrease in the time but i cant explain why.
I say 6 month but for a long time i return to 3133mhz cause i was tired to try hard day after day lol, ive just try again since agesa 1.0.0.6 come out.


----------



## Mike-EEE

Bapt33 said:


> @Mike-EEE thanks, but what did you call termination block?
> For error i think it depend of the instruction, of the context, hci-memtest is designed to make error pop quick, in game its different i think its less heavy.
> But i noticed error always occur 2 or 3 days everytime i change a setting, maybe an asus thing, or the stability decrease in the time but i cant explain why.
> I say 6 month but for a long time i return to 3133mhz cause i was tired to try hard day after day lol, ive just try again since agesa 1.0.0.6 come out.


Ah @Bapt33... it's there on the right column, 3rd row down, "Termination Block (Ohm)" ... it's the proctODT/RTT. 

Yeah... as far as this testing. I feel like I am playing Battleship. Giving the computer coordinates and it telling me if I hit anything, lol. Sort of a reverse Battleship, actually. Yesterday I was close, but then I overclocked my CPU and now I have errors again. Going through the whole process now to see if I can fish out the usual suspects. HERE GOES NOTHING I HOPE I CAN FIX IT.


----------



## Bapt33

Mike-EEE said:


> Ah @Bapt33... it's there on the right column, 3rd row down, "Termination Block (Ohm)" ... it's the proctODT/RTT.
> 
> Yeah... as far as this testing. I feel like I am playing Battleship. Giving the computer coordinates and it telling me if I hit anything, lol. Sort of a reverse Battleship, actually. Yesterday I was close, but then I overclocked my CPU and now I have errors again. Going through the whole process now to see if I can fish out the usual suspects. HERE GOES NOTHING I HOPE I CAN FIX IT.


 @Mike-EEE oh yes my bad, i understand now ... i gonna play with that


----------



## 1usmus

*I want to present you the updated presets for frequency 3466CL14 (Samsung b-die)*

The last week of tests was not in vain, I created a table with the results of the effects of timings on the performance in games ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CvJDvg15JYNLu7XIMiwRG0_dk/edit#gid=1745229512 , this table is not a full version.). Some timings that we try to make very low negatively affect the minimum and average FPS.

These are 2 presets, as you can see, the time for which these 2 presets are passed is seriously different. The difference in the temperature of the modules and the voltage. Fast preset has a record low latency. What's the secret? in tRFC optimization, this timing is a multiple of tRC timing.


*SAFE*
Soc 1.025v
DRAM 1.39v
Power Down mode - disabled 
Gear Down mode - enabled 


Spoiler















*FAST*
Soc 1.025v
DRAM 1.43v
Power Down mode - disabled 
Gear Down mode - disabled


Spoiler















*Nuance:* RTT_NOM disabled on some systems may improve stability

p.s. your voltages may differ from mine, do not forget that two identical modules do not exist

p.p.s I decided in the new version of the calculator to rework some of the presets (samsung b-die , hynix cjr), these will also be included in the new collection


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *I want to present you the updated presets for frequency 3466CL14 (Samsung b-die)*
> 
> 
> 
> The last week of tests was not in vain, I created a table with the results of the effects of timings on the performance in games ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CvJDvg15JYNLu7XIMiwRG0_dk/edit#gid=1745229512 , this table is not a full version.). Some timings that we try to make very low negatively affect the minimum and average FPS.
> 
> 
> 
> These are 2 presets, as you can see, the time for which these 2 presets are passed is seriously different. The difference in the temperature of the modules and the voltage. Fast preset has a record low latency. What's the secret? in tRFC optimization, this timing is a multiple of tRC timing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SAFE*
> 
> Soc 1.025v
> 
> DRAM 1.39v
> 
> Power Down mode - disabled
> 
> Gear Down mode - enabled
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FAST*
> 
> Soc 1.025v
> 
> DRAM 1.43v
> 
> Power Down mode - disabled
> 
> Gear Down mode - disabled
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. your voltages may differ from mine, do not forget that two identical modules do not exist
> 
> 
> 
> p.p.s I decided in the new version of the calculator to rework some of the presets (samsung b-die , hynix cjr), these will also be included in the new collection


Nice. Thanks for all the work. Been playing with asrock's new bios 3.55 with agesa 1101 for x399 with spread spectrum disabled. Nearly for 3466 stable again, but that has to wait a couple days because of other work.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## marsel

The new version of "3466cl14 fast" isnt stable for me  
I get single errors, even with 1,47v on the ram. But im not surprised, everything above the current "3466cl14 fast" preset wasn't stable at all for me. At 3533 safe/fast i needed 1,48v+ on my ram. Even the current "3466cl14 fast" needs 1,45v on the ram.
I noticed that many people have issues with the combo CH7 + F4-3600C15D, at least if u wanna go above 3466mhz.
But thanks for the great DRAM Calculator, helped a lot. Would be a pain in the ass without it.

CH7 - 1201
F4-3600C15D


----------



## dado82rm

Hi overclockers in order to get the much appreciated help i decided indeed to do a proper post to try to get my ram working at least at rated speed
Here the spec:
MSI X470 GAMING PRO BIOS 
RYZEN 5 2600X
VIPER 16GB (2x8GB) Kit 3200MHz CL16 1.35V PV416G320C6K SKU Link
At the moment as per screenshot i am running at default bios (new agesa 1.0.0.6 december 2018 downloaded yesterday)
i have only selected xmp profile 1 that set the ram at 2933.
According to @1usmus in a previous post on the Dram Calculator i need to select: Ryzen + gen > Samsung D/E > V2 > rank 2 > 3200 > dim 2 > R-XMP > Calculate SAFE
the only way i can boot with that settings is only if i change the termination block to 53/48/off/disable. 

From the main page i can change all my settings on the bios

From the Advanced page memory interleaving and tweaks i can only find the option to enable/disable Spread Spectrum / Opcache all the others i do not have any option in the bios

I Can change the CLDO_VDDP / VTT /VPP

For what i understand after many many try it seems that the "voltage sections" in the BIOS are ok if left all "AUTO" i can see Dram 1.376v and VSOC 1.16v that seems to be ok for this MB
I am not getting a lot of errors using the TM5 i get like 5 to 10 errors and after i close TM5 after few seconds Blue Screen.
i cant remember what changes i tried but at one stage i did not have a single error until cycle 4 where i got one error and then i got 4/5 errors after the firs error.

I am sure that is all about setting the proper subtiming /writinh reading i guess but i dont know how to change it and see if i am going to the good direction
Any Help Please?

Davide


----------



## inkforze

dado82rm said:


> Hi overclockers in order to get the much appreciated help i decided indeed to do a proper post to try to get my ram working at least at rated speed
> Here the spec:
> MSI X470 GAMING PRO BIOS
> RYZEN 5 2600X
> VIPER 16GB (2x8GB) Kit 3200MHz CL16 1.35V PV416G320C6K SKU Link
> At the moment as per screenshot i am running at default bios (new agesa 1.0.0.6 december 2018 downloaded yesterday)
> i have only selected xmp profile 1 that set the ram at 2933.
> According to @1usmus in a previous post on the Dram Calculator i need to select: Ryzen + gen > Samsung D/E > V2 > rank 2 > 3200 > dim 2 > R-XMP > Calculate SAFE
> the only way i can boot with that settings is only if i change the termination block to 53/48/off/disable.
> 
> From the main page i can change all my settings on the bios
> 
> From the Advanced page memory interleaving and tweaks i can only find the option to enable/disable Spread Spectrum / Opcache all the others i do not have any option in the bios
> 
> I Can change the CLDO_VDDP / VTT /VPP
> 
> For what i understand after many many try it seems that the "voltage sections" in the BIOS are ok if left all "AUTO" i can see Dram 1.376v and VSOC 1.16v that seems to be ok for this MB
> I am not getting a lot of errors using the TM5 i get like 5 to 10 errors and after i close TM5 after few seconds Blue Screen.
> i cant remember what changes i tried but at one stage i did not have a single error until cycle 4 where i got one error and then i got 4/5 errors after the firs error.
> 
> I am sure that is all about setting the proper subtiming /writinh reading i guess but i dont know how to change it and see if i am going to the good direction
> Any Help Please?
> 
> Davide


Use "Debug" profile - and enter values in milliseconds from Taithoon and try Fast 2933 profile with:
tCL=14 & tCWL=14
ranks=2 & dimms=2
GDM=enable & PDM=disable
vSOC=1.025v (will show u ~1.016v in bios)
vDRAM=1.35v (will show u 1.360v in bios)
Termination and CAD_BAS = Alt1 variant ("Auto" give me the same)
u can find my screens of this profile on previous pages (or 3066 but timings bad)

for my r1600+b350m mortar its the best, 3200 not stable in any case


----------



## cicero s

Tried the new safe setting it seems working for me. I had to tone down tFAW value a little bit for lowering CPU temp though.



However, it is quite annoying that Battlefield V ALWAYS requires extra 0.02~0.03 voltage in order to stop it from crashing. The timing set has passed TM5 and memtest at 1.39V and is completely stable on the other applications and games except for the god damn Battlefield V.


----------



## Bapt33

@inkforze hi, you advice to use debug profile, do you know what is difference between V1, V2 and debug? do you know what profile should i use for B-die 3200 CL14 FlareX on ryzen 2600? with X370 mobo.
I always import my RAM xmp profile from thaiphoon to ryzen dram calculator.

Thanks.


----------



## inkforze

Bapt33 said:


> @inkforze hi, you advice to use debug profile, do you know what is difference between V1, V2 and debug? do you know what profile should i use for B-die 3200 CL14 FlareX on ryzen 2600? with X370 mobo.
> I always import my RAM xmp profile from thaiphoon to ryzen dram calculator.
> 
> Thanks.


1) Read 1st post and watch instruction:
1.1) V1/V2 - press R-XMP - will load predefined (V1/V2) profiles (in milliseconds) for selected memory types to fields on left-bottom corner (and they will be locked)
1.2) Selection the "Debug" profile will lead to unlock that fields so u can enter values in ms manually (from Thaiphoon or other sources)
1.3) When u import XMP from Taiphoon - it must change profile to "debug" automatically
2) There is no "should use" option - there is only "try and test" - lottery in cpu+ram+motherboard - calculator is only start point
3) Try use search in this thread by "FlareX" - may be u find someone's results - and can test them


----------



## paih85

marsel said:


> The new version of "3466cl14 fast" isnt stable for me
> I get single errors, even with 1,47v on the ram. But im not surprised, everything above the current "3466cl14 fast" preset wasn't stable at all for me. At 3533 safe/fast i needed 1,48v+ on my ram. Even the current "3466cl14 fast" needs 1,45v on the ram.
> I noticed that many people have issues with the combo CH7 + F4-3600C15D, at least if u wanna go above 3466mhz.
> But thanks for the great DRAM Calculator, helped a lot. Would be a pain in the ass without it.
> 
> CH7 - 1201
> F4-3600C15D


same here..

x470 gaming7 - f6 bios
f4-3200c14d-16gtzrx


----------



## Saiger0

I also have to use 1.47V Dram voltage for my Flare X kit to get the new 3466 fast preset to run somewhat stable.
Is 1.47V safe for 24/7 use? My ram temps are ~46c under load.

Not sure if I will ruin my ram with these settings/voltage.


----------



## MrPhilo

1usmus said:


> *I want to present you the updated presets for frequency 3466CL14 (Samsung b-die)*
> 
> The last week of tests was not in vain, I created a table with the results of the effects of timings on the performance in games ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CvJDvg15JYNLu7XIMiwRG0_dk/edit#gid=1745229512 , this table is not a full version.). Some timings that we try to make very low negatively affect the minimum and average FPS.
> 
> These are 2 presets, as you can see, the time for which these 2 presets are passed is seriously different. The difference in the temperature of the modules and the voltage. Fast preset has a record low latency. What's the secret? in tRFC optimization, this timing is a multiple of tRC timing.
> 
> 
> *SAFE*
> Soc 1.025v
> DRAM 1.39v
> Power Down mode - disabled
> Gear Down mode - enabled
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FAST*
> Soc 1.025v
> DRAM 1.43v
> Power Down mode - disabled
> Gear Down mode - disabled
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nuance:* RTT_NOM disabled on some systems may improve stability
> 
> p.s. your voltages may differ from mine, do not forget that two identical modules do not exist
> 
> p.p.s I decided in the new version of the calculator to rework some of the presets (samsung b-die , hynix cjr), these will also be included in the new collection


I can see you put your TWR at 10 instead of 12, how much does it effect stabilization, I'm currently at 12 on my 3533cl14, it's running at 1.415v using the new bios on VII (1201), which is pretty darn low voltage for that speed. But i'm always down to make it a tad faster , also anything else you would recommend on lowering with my timing atm?


----------



## Valka814

@1usmus Thank you for the new preset! I use it for 3400MHz with tRCDRD=15 @1.4V with my FlareX kit and C6H.


----------



## 8000cc

Hey guys ! There is the new Gigabyte 4000Mhz DIMM modules using CjR die. This is the good news that CjR die may be much powerful than we think.


----------



## dgoc18

AMD Ryzen 2600 6c/12t

MSI Gaming Pro Carbon Bios v2.50 newer recently.

G.Skill Sniper X 3600C19 19-20-20-40 2×8GB (CJR die)

Old bios v2.40, 3600 is not stable no matter what voltage, tweaks with dram calculator many times no success.

New bios v2.50, 3600 is now stable with all auto in bios nothing else.

I just set memory try it feature in bios, I select drop down to 3600 16-18-18-38 BAM!

I hope new version is coming soon for dram calculator, I will try go for CL15 or if possible CL14.

That is all.


----------



## boldenc

How accurate is TestMem5 ?
passing it is considered stable?


----------



## christoph

dgoc18 said:


> AMD Ryzen 2600 6c/12t
> 
> MSI Gaming Pro Carbon Bios v2.50 newer recently.
> 
> G.Skill Sniper X 3600C19 19-20-20-40 2×8GB (CJR die)
> 
> Old bios v2.40, 3600 is not stable no matter what voltage, tweaks with dram calculator many times no success.
> 
> New bios v2.50, 3600 is now stable with all auto in bios nothing else.
> 
> I just set memory try it feature in bios, I select drop down to 3600 16-18-18-38 BAM!
> 
> I hope new version is coming soon for dram calculator, I will try go for CL15 or if possible CL14.
> 
> That is all.



so the TRC at 85 is in AUTO?


----------



## dgoc18

@boldenc

I run TestMem5 2 times.

1. 2 errors.
2. 24 errrors.
3. I never use TestMem5 before, It's seem buggy and unreliable to me.

I run MemTest 1 times.

1. 4 MemTest running with 3072gb each no errors for 15 mins, I stop them.
2. I will let MemTest running overnight and see what happen.

I will try run some others benchmark.
@christoph

Yes, Trc 85 in Auto, What is problem ? is it too high ?


----------



## lpecac

*No luck*

Hello all 

So I own a kit of VENGEANCE® RGB 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 DRAM 3600MHz C18 (CMR32GX4M4C3600C18). I would like to overclock to 3466. I have tried using DRAM CALCULATOR SAFE settings with no success. I have tried the safe settings it gave me for 3400 and 3200 as well. I can get them to boot yet they are not stable. Anyone here have any suggestions?


----------



## CJMitsuki

dgoc18 said:


> AMD Ryzen 2600 6c/12t
> 
> MSI Gaming Pro Carbon Bios v2.50 newer recently.
> 
> G.Skill Sniper X 3600C19 19-20-20-40 2×8GB (CJR die)
> 
> Old bios v2.40, 3600 is not stable no matter what voltage, tweaks with dram calculator many times no success.
> 
> New bios v2.50, 3600 is now stable with all auto in bios nothing else.
> 
> I just set memory try it feature in bios, I select drop down to 3600 16-18-18-38 BAM!
> 
> I hope new version is coming soon for dram calculator, I will try go for CL15 or if possible CL14.
> 
> That is all.


If it were me, I’d ditch that 3600 setup and drop the frequency to 3400c14 as it will surely be faster by a decent margin with less latency than what you are showing. 3600 at really anything above Cas 14 won’t compare to 3466 or 3533 cl14 aside from some Aida64 numbers which don’t necessarily equal more performance. 


boldenc said:


> How accurate is TestMem5 ?
> passing it is considered stable?





dgoc18 said:


> @boldenc
> 
> I run TestMem5 2 times.
> 
> 1. 2 errors.
> 2. 24 errrors.
> 3. I never use TestMem5 before, It's seem buggy and unreliable to me.
> 
> I run MemTest 1 times.
> 
> 1. 4 MemTest running with 3072gb each no errors for 15 mins, I stop them.
> 2. I will let MemTest running overnight and see what happen.
> 
> I will try run some others benchmark.
> 
> @christoph
> 
> Yes, Trc 85 in Auto, What is problem ? is it too high ?


TM5 is accurate if you run with 1usmus config and of you are running 16gb then change the amount of cycles to 10 and 32gb keep cycles at 5. 1 error or 100 errors means the same thing...unstable. Also HCI memtest should be run to 1000% at least for stability. Initially 300-500% should be fine to get you through until you can overnight test. You should also run 1 instance of HCI per thread with ram divided evenly among the threads leaving around 500mb for the OS to have a buffer.


lpecac said:


> Hello all
> 
> So I own a kit of VENGEANCE®️ RGB 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 DRAM 3600MHz C18 (CMR32GX4M4C3600C18). I would like to overclock to 3466. I have tried using DRAM CALCULATOR SAFE settings with no success. I have tried the safe settings it gave me for 3400 and 3200 as well. I can get them to boot yet they are not stable. Anyone here have any suggestions?


You will likely have a rough time with that kit and 32gb if you want to get higher freqs.


----------



## dado82rm

So. I managed again to get to boot a 3200MHz but some time it read the RAM 1dpc-sr and only once i got it 2dpc-mr i have noticed that is the cldo settings i tried 915 but is not enough tried 920 and it bsod 
memory managment what can i try to let it read 2dpc-mr?


----------



## Mike-EEE

CJMitsuki said:


> TM5 is accurate if you run with 1usmus config and of you are running 16gb then change the amount of cycles to 10 and 32gb keep cycles at 5. 1 error or 100 errors means the same thing...unstable. Also HCI memtest should be run to 1000% at least for stability. Initially 300-500% should be fine to get you through until you can overnight test. You should also run 1 instance of HCI per thread with ram divided evenly among the threads leaving around 500mb for the OS to have a buffer.


FWIW I have seen memory errors occur when I run tests after running Cinebench. If I do a reboot and test from scratch I get 0 errors. Running Cinebench and then testing results in errors. Not sure if this is a known issue but that is my experience.

I could be doing something wrong, however. 

Speaking of which.  I was able to fix my errors by removing all inputs, setting everything to Auto with the exception of the primary timings. The motherboard I have (MSI Gaming Pro x470) is smart enough to do the calculations from there.

I was putting all calculations in and the board wasn't having it somewhere. Starting with the primary timings allowed it to calculate on its own and now I am running without error.

BTW, the timings were for 3200 on 4 modules: 14-16-14-17-22. This actually resulted in errors but in the instructions it recommends bumping RCDRD and RP by 1. I only had to up the RCDRD and now I am sitting at 14-17-14-17-22, which is pretty darn fast, IMO.

Thanks again to everyone here. Your efforts, feedback, and community engagement is very much appreciated!


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.1*

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.1*








*Changelog:
*
* Added a window with information about the minimum voltage for SOC
* Major updated presets for : samsung b-die , samsung d/e-die , hynix cjr , hynix mfr , hynix cjr (timings, voltages)
* Minor updated other presets (timings)
* Some corrections for debug profile 
* Other corrections/bug fixes

*Nuances:*

* In some presets *tRC a multiple of tRFC* (better stability and performance)
* Hynix MFR V2 profile has been deleted (many users had difficulty choosing the right profile)
* *tWR*'s basic recommendation is now 12 (this high timing timing adversely affects stability)
* *RTT_NOM* . Newer BIOS versions should not always have RZQ / 7 (34ohm), sometimes the RZQ/6(40ohm) or disabled has better stability
* CAD_BUS. *AddrCMDDrvStr* slightly increases with the frequency of the RAM, 24-30(ohm) are the optimal value.
* New bios allow a slight decrease in *SOC voltage* (that's why I created a window with information about the minimum voltage)

*Download:*

*TechPowerUP* >> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
*GURU3D* >> https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html

________________________________________

*Immediate plans (for the next 2 weeks):*

* Presets adjustments for Threadripper
* Refinement of presets for Hynix CJR ()
* Publishing an article (how to quickly set up DRAM)


----------



## Saiger0

Thanks for the update! 

----

Btw is it still recommended to disable Spread spectrum?


----------



## 1usmus

Saiger0 said:


> Thanks for the update!
> 
> ----
> 
> Btw is it still recommended to disable Spread spectrum?



I have not yet conducted a detailed study on the new microcode, I hope one of these days I will check the effect of this option on stability


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen[emoji769] 1.4.1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Changelog:
> 
> *
> 
> * Added a window with information about the minimum voltage for SOC
> 
> * Major updated presets for : samsung b-die , samsung d/e-die , hynix cjr , hynix mfr , hynix cjr (timings, voltages)
> 
> * Minor updated other presets (timings)
> 
> * Some corrections for debug profile
> 
> * Other corrections/bug fixes
> 
> 
> 
> *Nuances:*
> 
> 
> 
> * In some presets *tRC a multiple of tRFC* (better stability and performance)
> 
> * Hynix MFR V2 profile has been deleted (many users had difficulty choosing the right profile)
> 
> * *tWR*'s basic recommendation is now 12 (this high timing timing adversely affects stability)
> 
> * *RTT_NOM* . Newer BIOS versions should not always have RZQ / 7 (34ohm), sometimes the RZQ/6(40ohm) or disabled has better stability
> 
> * CAD_BUS. *AddrCMDDrvStr* slightly increases with the frequency of the RAM, 24-30(ohm) are the optimal value.
> 
> * New bios allow a slight decrease in *SOC voltage* (that's why I created a window with information about the minimum voltage)
> 
> 
> 
> *Download:*
> 
> 
> 
> *TechPowerUP* >> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
> 
> *GURU3D* >> https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> *Immediate plans (for the next 2 weeks):*
> 
> 
> 
> * Presets adjustments for Threadripper
> 
> * Refinement of presets for Hynix CJR ()
> 
> * Publishing an article (how to quickly set up DRAM)


Thank you @1usmus for this!
You are making our life easier [emoji3]

I noticed much loose timings for Hynix MFR in tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP and tRAS... I will test those [emoji3]

On other hand I see tighter tRFC, tRTP and tCKE in fast preset.

Keep up with great work!


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

THX Bratan'

For now im at 3500MHz CL14 1T GD -> and it is enough
Im waiting now for RyZEN 3000 Good deals w/Games bundle


----------



## SexySale

*3266MHz Fast preset on Hynix MFR*



SexySale said:


> Thank you @1usmus for this!
> You are making our life easier [emoji3]
> 
> I noticed much loose timings for Hynix MFR in tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP and tRAS... I will test those [emoji3]
> 
> On other hand I see tighter tRFC, tRTP and tCKE in fast preset.
> 
> Keep up with great work!


Hi @1usmus,
your new settings worked and fast preset is faster for me than the previous version  
Thank you very much for that 

My specs: Hynix MFR Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz 16GB (2x8GB) 1 rank (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16R), Ryzen 5 1600 and Asus B350 Prime Plus boar with your moded 4207 bios (AGESA 1.0.0.6).

Here is my latest test on 3266 MHz Fast preset, however, this test was with TestMem5 with 10 cycles and 1 hour (as screenshot shows) and my plan is to do more testing later.


I have put a red rectangle shape on differences between calculator and changed timings.
For my memory, I can't go beneath tRRDS : 7, tRRDL : 10 on higher speeds - tested numerous times.

Regarding tFAW, when I use 34 it drops errors after 25 minutes of testing and with 32 no errors!? Mindboggling!?
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=247204&thumb=1

However, these are currently the best results I have ever had on my machine since I bought it, so THANK YOU!

If you have any other advice on how to improve speeds I am all ears (3333, 3400), but for now this is most I needed.

Let me know if you need any information I can help you perfect your DRAM tool.

P.S. I have reduced DRAM voltage to the recommended max: 1.4V its stable 

Cheers Iurii


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.1*
> 
> *Changelog:
> *
> * Added a window with information about the minimum voltage for SOC
> * Major updated presets for : samsung b-die , samsung d/e-die , hynix cjr , hynix mfr , hynix cjr (timings, voltages)
> * Minor updated other presets (timings)
> * Some corrections for debug profile
> * Other corrections/bug fixes
> 
> *Nuances:*
> 
> * In some presets *tRC a multiple of tRFC* (better stability and performance)
> * Hynix MFR V2 profile has been deleted (many users had difficulty choosing the right profile)
> * *tWR*'s basic recommendation is now 12 (this high timing timing adversely affects stability)
> * *RTT_NOM* . Newer BIOS versions should not always have RZQ / 7 (34ohm), sometimes the RZQ/6(40ohm) or disabled has better stability
> * CAD_BUS. *AddrCMDDrvStr* slightly increases with the frequency of the RAM, 24-30(ohm) are the optimal value.
> * New bios allow a slight decrease in *SOC voltage* (that's why I created a window with information about the minimum voltage)
> 
> *Download:*
> 
> *TechPowerUP* >> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
> *GURU3D* >> https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> *Immediate plans (for the next 2 weeks):*
> 
> * Presets adjustments for Threadripper
> * Refinement of presets for Hynix CJR ()
> * Publishing an article (how to quickly set up DRAM)​




Gonna look at this a bit later today. Also, let me know for the article. Thank you for your work!​


----------



## dado82rm

Tried safe preset Samsung e die it boot up but still give me errors. What are the main changes that can help?
I have posted by mistake in how to flash BIOS thread my settings with 400% hci no error test but as soon as i have installed world of warcraft i got a chrash


----------



## christoph

dado82rm said:


> Tried safe preset Samsung e die it boot up but still give me errors. What are the main changes that can help?
> I have posted by mistake in how to flash BIOS thread my settings with 400% hci no error test but as soon as i have installed world of warcraft i got a chrash



Samsung E-die? what speed and timings? I got 3466 stable all day


----------



## dado82rm

christoph said:


> Samsung E-die? what speed and timings? I got 3466 stable all day


I posted here by mistake https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-amd-motherboards/1640394-ryzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly-106.html#post27809938


----------



## thomasck

Got a question. I've been using Dram Calc for a while, awesome tool! 

Version 1.4.1 gives me higher timings than 1.4.0.

With some more voltage I can tight the timings dropping 16171717 to 14151515, but, how can I calculate the sub-timings then? Any suggestions?


----------



## filippoukon

my personal best


----------



## christoph

dado82rm said:


> I posted here by mistake https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-amd-motherboards/1640394-ryzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly-106.html#post27809938



hmm the ram voltage is too low, try 1.4, and the timings are all over the place, try first with the voltage and even maybe try SOC up to 1.1, try to stabilize that and then I'll give you my timings to test


----------



## Abyssmal

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.1*
> 
> ................


Thank you for this wonderful tool, товариш .

I've been playing with the new rig on ram, since I am waiting for the last stuuf to build it (some filters and a heatsink).
Specs (will update sig ASAP):
R5 2600 (not OC'ing for now, since on box cooler, pathetic, lol)
Team Group DarkPro 8Pack Edition 3600 CL16 2x8GB <--- this is some nice stuff 
Asrock x470 Taichi

I am aiming at 104-106 bclk PBO with memory 3400+ for 24/7.

What I know already:
tRCDRD 14 above 3200MHz is a no-go at up to 1.5V DRAM and 1.18 VSoC
Above 3400MHz I need 1.0325+ VSoC

I got to 3400 1.400V real, 14-14-15-14-*26*-*40*-4-6-*20*-0-0-4-12-10-0-2-2-*256*-a-a-14-8-6-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1, tRFC 252 or tFAW 16 errors immediately (maybe up the volts, will try?)
TM5 12x1.2Gb x10 pass
HCI 12x1.2Gb 200% pass (no time for more) 
MemTest86 4x pass

I think I get lower Aida64 scores with 26 tRAS as opposed to 28, is this possible. Same with tRFC - lower on 256 as opposed to 272??? I can see the multiple of tRFC to TRC on the new changelog - is that it?

@1usmus, where should I go from now? How much impact on performance have tFAW, tRRDL, tRFC? Any dependencies on other timings? Also what impact on system procODT, RTT have? Lower = easy on the system or opposite?

What is the most consistent memory benchmark to use. I read here about PassMark, but it also gives scattered results?


----------



## Bruizer

Was stable with the previous 3333 Fast timings at 1.365 with my G.Skill Flare X 3200 b-die but after only changing the tRFC from 267 to 252 it wouldn't boot. May have to up the voltage but will see if I can manage changing any of the other timings that changed with this new revision first.

EDIT: Changing tRRDL and tFAW to the new timings seems fine but if I change tRFC in conjuncture the system fails. Probably just stick with the previous timings and keep the volts lower.


----------



## vrsbueno

I have the same board as you and I can not boot with any latencies at 3600, 3533 and 3466.

I have F4-3600C17D-16GTZR which are B-Die and have by XMP 3600-17-18-18-18. The motherboard is an X470-F with R7 2700X 4.2ghz @ 1.33v.

I tried straight to go to the 3400-CL14, using the SAFE V1 profile of the calculator, but to no avail. It gave BSOD just in the windows entry, but I got better using ProcODT in 53 and RTT_NOM off. Using various configurations of CAD_BUS, DDR Voltage 1.38 to 1.41v, SoC 1.0v to 1.05v, I also tried on 14-16-16-16-32-50 and nothing, I always get errors from 2min 30s in the TM5 test (1usmus test). I once ran until 7min and I already had 350 errors!

I know I have good DDR4 and motherboard but I do not know what else to do.

Anyone have any tips? The only thing left for me to try is to put the DDR voltage at 1.45v, remove the overclocking of the CPU to eliminate any interference and try something again. But reading several posts, it was not for me to have that much trouble.


----------



## Bruizer

vrsbueno said:


> I have the same board as you and I can not boot with any latencies at 3600, 3533 and 3466.
> 
> I have F4-3600C17D-16GTZR which are B-Die and have by XMP 3600-17-18-18-18. The motherboard is an X470-F with R7 2700X 4.2ghz @ 1.33v.
> 
> I tried straight to go to the 3400-CL14, using the SAFE V1 profile of the calculator, but to no avail. It gave BSOD just in the windows entry, but I got better using ProcODT in 53 and RTT_NOM off. Using various configurations of CAD_BUS, DDR Voltage 1.38 to 1.41v, SoC 1.0v to 1.05v, I also tried on 14-16-16-16-32-50 and nothing, I always get errors from 2min 30s in the TM5 test (1usmus test). I once ran until 7min and I already had 350 errors!
> 
> I know I have good DDR4 and motherboard but I do not know what else to do.
> 
> Anyone have any tips? The only thing left for me to try is to put the DDR voltage at 1.45v, remove the overclocking of the CPU to eliminate any interference and try something again. But reading several posts, it was not for me to have that much trouble.



Try upping the SOC voltage. I've got mine at 1.1v LLC 4 (keeps it rock solid at 1.1 with no flux).


----------



## umeng2002

Clear the CMOS. Let the memory train it self.

When you get into Windows, use the Ryzen Timing Checker and note the values of the Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω.

Now try the Ryzen Calc timings and voltages, BUT use the trained Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω if they are different than what the Calc recommends.

If that doesn't work, I'd back off the CPU OC or add more Vcore.

If you haven't changed the CLDO_VDDP Voltage, change that. Use the numbers in the Advanced page of the Ryzen Calc. Be sure to do a complete power cycle after making the change (as in turn off the PSU). You actually might want to try that first before messing around more with timings and voltage. You might have a "memory hole" which is adjusted with this voltage (ie. very low and very high speeds work, but middle speeds don't).


----------



## dspx

Just wanted to let you know that the new Hynix AFR 3200 safe preset wasn't stable for me, while the previous version is still working fine (1.4.0.1)


----------



## vrsbueno

Bruizer said:


> Try upping the SOC voltage. I've got mine at 1.1v LLC 4 (keeps it rock solid at 1.1 with no flux).


I remember trying also with some high SoC value, 1.15v thing. The LLC stands at 3, Current Capability at 120%, Frequency at 400 and Phase Control at Optimized.

But to no avail as well.



umeng2002 said:


> Clear the CMOS. Let the memory train it self.
> 
> When you get into Windows, use the Ryzen Timing Checker and note the values of the Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω.
> 
> Now try the Ryzen Calc timings and voltages, BUT use the trained Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω if they are different than what the Calc recommends.
> 
> If that doesn't work, I'd back off the CPU OC or add more Vcore.
> 
> If you haven't changed the CLDO_VDDP Voltage, change that. Use the numbers in the Advanced page of the Ryzen Calc. Be sure to do a complete power cycle after making the change (as in turn off the PSU). You actually might want to try that first before messing around more with timings and voltage. You might have a "memory hole" which is adjusted with this voltage (ie. very low and very high speeds work, but middle speeds don't).



Thank you for the tips. I had already tried the CLDO_VDDP Voltage at 700 (Rec.) And 913 (Alt. 1). But I had never let a complete cycle of energy. I'll try that.

Giving a clear CMOS, the memory will rise by 2133mhz standard. Should I then get the data at this frequency?


----------



## umeng2002

When I cleared the CMOS and it retrained, the Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω values were the same for the default speed and XMP speeds (obviously, the timing were different), so I would just use those values for any speed unless you're still not stable.

The only real difference between Auto and the Calc recommendation on my setup is the CAD_BUS Block Ω trains to 24Ω instead of the recommended 20Ω. I have been using the default, trained Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω values for any speed I select and I'm still stable. Right now at 3400 MT/s fast timings.

Other than the power cycle, did you try the recommended 866 mV CLDO_VDDP voltage?


----------



## dado82rm

Guys is very weird i think there are some drivers or something that corrupted windows i could not boot even at all default 2133 i had to reinstall dor the second time if i do not install drivers i get more stability and best performance even at 3200 fast


----------



## BUFUMAN

i cant input the values at the latest version. why?
ok R-XMP did it for me


----------



## chakku

Getting close to giving up on getting 3400 stable on 2x16GB dual rank now. 

- The various CAD_BUS settings @1usmus posted before didn't help in my case, I still have the best results with 20-20-20-20. 
- 60 ohm ProcODT will never boot while 68.6 works flawlessly. 
- 7/3/1 seem to be the best RZQ settings for me, others bring on more instability.
- CLDO value of 700 or 900 help a lot with stability, VDDP voltage doesn't help much. 
- 1.41V on DRAM and 1.0325V on SoC seem to also be the best so far with the new DRAM calc timings (252 on tRFC is the biggest change I can see).

Guess I'll be stuck on my 3333C14 for a while.


----------



## -Grift-

Hynix CJR 2x8GB [email protected]
2700X [email protected] (1.35~v Effective)
Asus X470-F Strix [email protected]
Power Down Mode *disabled*


----------



## vrsbueno

umeng2002 said:


> When I cleared the CMOS and it retrained, the Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω values were the same for the default speed and XMP speeds (obviously, the timing were different), so I would just use those values for any speed unless you're still not stable.
> 
> The only real difference between Auto and the Calc recommendation on my setup is the CAD_BUS Block Ω trains to 24Ω instead of the recommended 20Ω. I have been using the default, trained Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω values for any speed I select and I'm still stable. Right now at 3400 MT/s fast timings.
> 
> Other than the power cycle, did you try the recommended 866 mV CLDO_VDDP voltage?



No. The only LCDO I tried was the Auto, 700 and 913. The 866 is Alt. 2 and I was already unbelieving so I did not try that voltage. From what I see in your comments, then the CLDO, SOC, Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω are the keys?

Above have just posted 3400 CL16 with Hynix CJR. It's not possible. I must be doing something very wrong because my B-die are not stable at all. I have the goal of leaving 3400 CL14 and I think this is easy to do with a B-Die and X470-F, do you agree?


Just one more thing, I'm with the latest Asus bios original. I did not install the modified 1usmus bios. Can my DDR4 inconsistency be solved with this modified bios?


----------



## vrsbueno

-Grift- said:


> Hynix CJR 2x8GB [email protected]
> 2700X [email protected] (1.35~v Effective)
> Asus X470-F Strix [email protected]
> Power Down Mode *disabled*



What bios are you using?


----------



## -Grift-

vrsbueno said:


> What bios are you using?


4207 modded by 1usmus

edit: 
I only modified timings and *not* GDM PROCODT CADBUS RTTNOM etc etc. as from previous testing any modifications to those will result in all kinds of hell and throws errors everywhere. I have yet to fine tune those settings as im not sure if most will even affect performance much...

edit2:
3466 fails with the same settings and im too lazy to figure out what needs to be changed for now.


----------



## umeng2002

After doing some more testing, I got 3466 SAFE V1 1.4.1 preset stable on my system. I thought I had 3400 FAST stable, but no.

Tightening the timings to fast at 3400 or 3466 seems to be a bit impossible. Next step will be to test true 1T with GearDown off before I try to tighten beyond the safe preset.

My memory is B-die 3200 14-14-14-31 1.35v


----------



## Sptz

I just did my first Ryzen (2600x)build and got a pair of F4-3200C14D-16GFX (flare X). It boots and is stable at 3333mhz fast preset. My question is, regarding the other tabs in the calculator, are those for extra tweaking when having issues or do they help performance? I only applied everything in the first tab.

Thanks


----------



## 1usmus

Bruizer said:


> Was stable with the previous 3333 Fast timings at 1.365 with my G.Skill Flare X 3200 b-die but after only changing the tRFC from 267 to 252 it wouldn't boot. May have to up the voltage but will see if I can manage changing any of the other timings that changed with this new revision first.
> 
> EDIT: Changing tRRDL and tFAW to the new timings seems fine but if I change tRFC in conjuncture the system fails. Probably just stick with the previous timings and keep the volts lower.


low tRFC may require additional voltage increase



dspx said:


> Just wanted to let you know that the new Hynix AFR 3200 safe preset wasn't stable for me, while the previous version is still working fine (1.4.0.1)


tWR difference?

p.s. If I update the profile, then most likely, the voltage for RAM will also change



chakku said:


> Getting close to giving up on getting 3400 stable on 2x16GB dual rank now.
> 
> - The various CAD_BUS settings @1usmus posted before didn't help in my case, I still have the best results with 20-20-20-20.
> - 60 ohm ProcODT will never boot while 68.6 works flawlessly.
> - 7/3/1 seem to be the best RZQ settings for me, others bring on more instability.
> - CLDO value of 700 or 900 help a lot with stability, VDDP voltage doesn't help much.
> - 1.41V on DRAM and 1.0325V on SoC seem to also be the best so far with the new DRAM calc timings (252 on tRFC is the biggest change I can see).
> 
> Guess I'll be stuck on my 3333C14 for a while.


I spent 5 hours yesterday to get a stable 3400 ... *there are always single errors that are not related to timings but with signaling the line*

surely trfc 252 is a miracle when we use trc 42
I also checked these options

14 14 14 30 44 trfc 264 (6xtRC)
14 14 14 30 44 trfc 352 (8xtRC)
14 14 14 28 42 trfc 336 (8xtRC)

they showed identical results (several errors)

*the only chance is to find a suitable CAD_BUS...(range 20-24)*

Things you should know:

* spread spectrum does not affect the result that can be obtained at this frequency and the AM4 motherboard
* RTT_NOM , another stable option RZQ / 3
* RRDS 6 RRDL 8 FAW 34 did not affect the stability (+2kb page size)
* tWR < 12 data loss



-Grift- said:


> Hynix CJR 2x8GB [email protected]
> 2700X [email protected] (1.35~v Effective)
> Asus X470-F Strix [email protected]
> Power Down Mode *disabled*


in a few days I will receive a memory similar to yours (it has already returned after the RMA) and we will make better results 
this memory has huge potential


----------



## Nighthog

New Agesa 1.0.0.6 on my Gigabyte AB350 gaming 3 is working out well, better than all previous BIOS overall. 
Memory tweaking is much easier as many more settings work to boot without issues now compared to before. With that I could find some better setting to use to improve stability. 
New best RTT values are RZQ/7(34.3), disabled, RZQ/5(48) in contrast to still working but 2nd tier old settings of RZQ/7(34.3), RZQ/3(80), RZQ/1(240). You could not even try the new settings on old BIOS.

Getting 3733Mhz to work is was a lot easier now. Now I can test 3800 easier(not found stable settings) and even boot 3866Mhz(freezes on load).

EDIT: DrvStr values are a bit of unsettled on which are best. You can play around and different values are needed with different voltages it seems. 
30/24/24/24 gave issues just after the pass on the image changed to 20/24/24/24 and it's working again.


----------



## dado82rm

*PV416G320C6K*

Just found this review from russian site https://3dnews.ru/950757/page-2.html

i am confused now my taiphoon is different

-My picture
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=246296&d=1547421234

- Russian Site Picture


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> New Agesa 1.0.0.6 on my Gigabyte AB350 gaming 3 is working out well, better than all previous BIOS overall.
> Memory tweaking is much easier as many more settings work to boot without issues now compared to before. With that I could find some better setting to use to improve stability.
> New best RTT values are RZQ/7(34.3), disabled, RZQ/5(48) in contrast to still working but 2nd tier old settings of RZQ/7(34.3), RZQ/3(80), RZQ/1(240). You could not even try the new settings on old BIOS.
> 
> Getting 3733Mhz to work is was a lot easier now. Now I can test 3800 easier(not found stable settings) and even boot 3866Mhz(freezes on load).
> 
> EDIT: DrvStr values are a bit of unsettled on which are best. You can play around and different values are needed with different voltages it seems.
> 30/24/24/24 gave issues just after the pass on the image changed to 20/24/24/24 and it's working again.


thanks for the information 

i think for 3866 need increas procODT or RTT_PARK



dado82rm said:


> Just found this review from russian site https://3dnews.ru/950757/page-2.html
> 
> i am confused now my taiphoon is different
> 
> -My picture
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=246296&d=1547421234
> 
> - Russian Site Picture


or B-die (V2 profile) or hynix mfr (v1 profile)
i think its
in the first case, you can count on the frequency of 3400, in the second only on 3200


----------



## dado82rm

1usmus said:


> Or B-die (V2 profile) or hynix mfr (v1 profile)
> i think its
> in the first case, you can count on the frequency of 3400, in the second only on 3200


Interesting i did not try those Values 
maybe i will see the light at the end of the tunnel :thumb:


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> thanks for the information
> 
> i think for 3866 need increas procODT or RTT_PARK


Not good enough CPU sample. Ran out of voltage on 3866Mhz.

Here a pass on 20/24/24/24 attached.


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> low tRFC may require additional voltage increase
> 
> 
> 
> tWR difference?
> 
> p.s. If I update the profile, then most likely, the voltage for RAM will also change
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 5 hours yesterday to get a stable 3400 ... *there are always single errors that are not related to timings but with signaling the line*
> 
> surely trfc 252 is a miracle when we use trc 42
> I also checked these options
> 
> 14 14 14 30 44 trfc 264 (6xtRC)
> 14 14 14 30 44 trfc 352 (8xtRC)
> 14 14 14 28 42 trfc 336 (8xtRC)
> 
> they showed identical results (several errors)
> 
> *the only chance is to find a suitable CAD_BUS...(range 20-24)*
> 
> Things you should know:
> 
> * spread spectrum does not affect the result that can be obtained at this frequency and the AM4 motherboard
> * RTT_NOM , another stable option RZQ / 3
> * RRDS 6 RRDL 8 FAW 34 did not affect the stability (+2kb page size)
> * tWR < 12 data loss
> 
> 
> 
> in a few days I will receive a memory similar to yours (it has already returned after the RMA) and we will make better results
> this memory has huge potential


What happened to your set of sniper X? I was still using your CJR v1 timings as reference


----------



## Mike-EEE

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.1*


Quick note that 1.4.1 had different timings that seem to be aligned with my board and kit.

It turns out that while I was getting no errors in TM5 I was still getting errors in MemTest when only setting the primary settings.

1.4.1 fixes this. I had to set the primary settings (3200 @ 14-17-14-18-28) and then the "Sub-timing Configuration" in the OC section. The remaining "Turn Around Timing Configuration" was left to Auto and I was able to run MemTest with zero errors with the vDRAM set to 1.7.

(Posting images of these two sections in MSI BIOS configuration for those who are not aware of what values are in each of these sections and also to show what the Auto values are for the chips that I have)

Oh, and the RC was 42 and RFC was 419.2. 420 as suggested in 1.4.1 release notes seemed to do the trick.

However, I am still confused on something here after nearly two weeks of working with this board that isn't mentioned anywhere in the calculator or here on the forum that I can see.

The only way that I could get this board to POST was to set RTT_PARK to Disabled. Further, setting it to 43.3 was the best value to reduce errors that I could see.

I haven't seen anything regarding disabling RTT_PARK (only NOM) so I am wondering if there is something wrong with the board and/or if I should report it to MSI. I wanted to get confirmation here first before doing so.

My motivation for doing this is that these chips are QVL for the board and rated 3300 but I cannot get this board to POST over 3200 it seems no matter what I do. This also leads me to believe there might be an issue with the board to report to MSI to see what is up.

Thanks in advance for any assistance/context/clarification you can lend and again for all your great work here!


----------



## brenopapito

@1usmus

I read your comment about tWR<12 and I was wondering if I should increase any of my timings to reach more performance. Any advice here?


----------



## walkeer_cz

Does the 1.4.1 support latest AGESA 1.0.0.6 for ryzen 2xxx? I have MSI Tomahawk B450, Ryzen 2600 and KINGSTON 2x8GB HyperX Samsung-B chips 3600MHz. With the previous bios, which contained older agesa 1.0.0.4C, I was running 3400 CL14 FAST with no problems. Now, with the new BIOS (1.0.0.6), I cannot get it to run stable on 3400 CL14. 

Obviously, the latest BIOS changes something and now its actually less stable then before.


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> I spent 5 hours yesterday to get a stable 3400 ... *there are always single errors that are not related to timings but with signaling the line*
> 
> surely trfc 252 is a miracle when we use trc 42
> I also checked these options
> 
> 14 14 14 30 44 trfc 264 (6xtRC)
> 14 14 14 30 44 trfc 352 (8xtRC)
> 14 14 14 28 42 trfc 336 (8xtRC)
> 
> they showed identical results (several errors)
> 
> *the only chance is to find a suitable CAD_BUS...(range 20-24)*
> 
> Things you should know:
> 
> * spread spectrum does not affect the result that can be obtained at this frequency and the AM4 motherboard
> * RTT_NOM , another stable option RZQ / 3
> * RRDS 6 RRDL 8 FAW 34 did not affect the stability (+2kb page size)
> * tWR < 12 data loss


Yeah I spent most of yesterday messing around more trying to get something working. It's strange that our systems are not comparable where 60ohm ProcODT does not boot for me at all while it does for you, maybe our DR B-Die kits are very different in some way. My testing found that 24-24-20-20 CAD-BUS gave me the best results but I still get a lot of errors, usually around 4-5 errors once I get to test 9 & 13 in TM5.

I have been running my system with this for a day or so now and I haven't experienced any crashing but I am unsure of what the errors given in testing may be causing without my knowledge. I have also found that CLDO_VDDP at 866 may have helped a bit but setting any VDDP voltage manually makes me get errors like crazy so leaving at Auto was best for me (with BIOS 1201 AGESA 1.0.0.6 on C7H WIFI)

This runs test 13 gave the most errors. I will increase tWR to 12 but maybe this will not help testing, only potential data loss?


----------



## christoph

chakku said:


> Yeah I spent most of yesterday messing around more trying to get something working. It's strange that our systems are not comparable where 60ohm ProcODT does not boot for me at all while it does for you, maybe our DR B-Die kits are very different in some way. My testing found that 24-24-20-20 CAD-BUS gave me the best results but I still get a lot of errors, usually around 4-5 errors once I get to test 9 & 13 in TM5.
> 
> I have been running my system with this for a day or so now and I haven't experienced any crashing but I am unsure of what the errors given in testing may be causing without my knowledge. I have also found that CLDO_VDDP at 866 may have helped a bit but setting any VDDP voltage manually makes me get errors like crazy so leaving at Auto was best for me (with BIOS 1201 AGESA 1.0.0.6 on C7H WIFI)
> 
> This runs test 13 gave the most errors. I will increase tWR to 12 but maybe this will not help testing, only potential data loss?





what is your RAM voltage? and you should try with VDDCR_Soc between 1.05 to 1.1 volts


----------



## chakku

christoph said:


> what is your RAM voltage? and you should try with VDDCR_Soc between 1.05 to 1.1 volts


DRAM voltage is 1.41V, any higher or lower leads to more instability, likely due to the sticks heating up faster. SoC I haven't pushed above 1.0325V as that's the maximum recommended in the calculator, I use 0.9875V for 3333C14 and am a bit hesistant to push it higher, especially since it is currently summer here and gets very hot (35C in my room yesterday).


----------



## nick name

filippoukon said:


> my personal best


Which kit do you have? And what DRAM voltage are you using for that setup? Also, which mobo?


----------



## christoph

chakku said:


> DRAM voltage is 1.41V, any higher or lower leads to more instability, likely due to the sticks heating up faster. SoC I haven't pushed above 1.0325V as that's the maximum recommended in the calculator, I use 0.9875V for 3333C14 and am a bit hesistant to push it higher, especially since it is currently summer here and gets very hot (35C in my room yesterday).



yeah but the calculator does not even work for me, and for the asrock mobos with high speed ram they push 1.1v on the Soc as default


----------



## prastis

Hey all,


I have built a new brand pc with 2700x, ASUS Rogue Strix X470-I, Viper 4 DDR4 3400 16-18-18-36 and although I have managed to apply the XMP settings without any issues, I was unable to reduce timings by any margin. 



Actually I am not sure if I am doing the whole procedure properly. I have downloaded the calculator and although I have chosen Samsung D/E Dye for my memory (I know is not B type as the clocks aren't identical) all the settings i have put into my bios have caused my pc not boot to windows. 



I have tried fast settings for D/E types @3400 speed while increasing voltage but I was unable to boot on windows. Essentially, the PC would restart 2-3 times and then tell me memory failed and that it reseted and I had to press F1 to get to bios.


Does anyone know for certain what type of memory is Viper 4 DDR4 3400 ? Is it a D/E Type? Some people say its B which I guess its not. Is it Hynix?


Also from looking for some explanation videos, some people say leave everything on auto and just play with the 4 timing, essentially try and reduce 1st and 3rd value by 1, increase voltage by a bit and check stability. If it works, you lower 2nd value and check for stability etc and so forth until you get stability and reach a safe voltage value.


To be honest this not booting issue has caused me a bit of anxiety as I am not really familiar with memory overclocking but I would like to extract every little bit I can from my system as I know that my cpu benefits from fast memory.


Thank you in advance.


George


----------



## Leiker

Hi. My memorie type dont appear in dram calculador. Can you help me , please?.


----------



## GovHealthcare

Thank you for making such an easy to use and helpful tool. 
Unfortunately for me, changing the things prescribed by the program seem to only be good for removing any overclocking ability from my motherboard (RAM or CPU) and making my computer take 3x as long to post no matter what I roll-back or even reflashing BIOS. Fortunately, doing a complete fresh install of windows seemed to fix it the first time - I'm about to have to do my second fresh install of the day - I really don't want to have to do it a third time so I will be staying away from ram overclocking for the foreseeable future.
Good day, sir.


----------



## GovHealthcare

GovHealthcare said:


> Thank you for making such an easy to use and helpful tool.
> Unfortunately for me, changing the things prescribed by the program seem to only be good for removing any overclocking ability from my motherboard (RAM or CPU) and making my computer take 3x as long to post no matter what I roll-back or even reflashing BIOS. Fortunately, doing a complete fresh install of windows seemed to fix it the first time - I'm about to have to do my second fresh install of the day - I really don't want to have to do it a third time so I will be staying away from ram overclocking for the foreseeable future.
> Good day, sir.


Unfortunately it seems flashing bios, reinstalling windows, and reflashing again did not save me a second time. My BIOS time is ~30 seconds now while it was previously ~13 seconds. I also find myself unable to get it to post if I change my cpu from stock speeds whatsoever. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to un-gimp my computer.
Thank you for your time.


----------



## Abyssmal

A little update on this and call for suggestions.

Specs:
Ryzen 5 2600 (not OC'ing for now, since on box cooler, pathetic, lol)
Team Group DarkPro 8Pack Edition 3600 CL16 2x8GB <--- this is some nice stuff 
Asrock x470 Taichi

I am aiming at 104-106 bclk PBO with memory 3400+ for 24/7.

What I know already:
tRCDRD 14 above 3200MHz is a no-go at up to 1.5V DRAM and 1.18 VSoC
Above 3400MHz I need 1.0325+ VSoC

Stable 3400MHz, 1.0 VSoC L2, VDIMM 1.408-1.416V real (1.390 UEFI) - anything lower errors immediately, 14-14-15-14-*26*-*40*-4-6-*16*-0-0-4-12-10-0-2-2-*252*-a-a-14-8-6-3-1-7-7-1-5-5-1
TM5 12x1.2Gb x10 pass
HCI 12x1.2Gb 200% pass (no time for more) 
MemTest86 4x pass
Karhu test pass 8000% (testing atm)

I think I get *lower Aida64 scores with 26 tRAS as opposed to 28*, is this possible. Same with tRFC - *lower on 256 as opposed to 272*??? I can see the multiple of tRFC to TRC on the new changelog - is that it?

@1usmus, where should I go from now? How much impact on performance have tFAW, tRRDL, tRFC? Any dependencies on other timings? Also what impact on system procODT, RTT have? Lower = easy on the system or opposite?
Also in your post you say


> * tWR's basic recommendation is now 12 (this high timing timing adversely affects stability)


but calculator says tWR 12 and tWRL 12. Which is correct?

*What is the most consistent memory benchmark to use?* I read here about PassMark, but it also gives scattered results?[/quote]

Thank you all guys for the helpful posts in the thread.


----------



## vrsbueno

umeng2002 said:


> When I cleared the CMOS and it retrained, the Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω values were the same for the default speed and XMP speeds (obviously, the timing were different), so I would just use those values for any speed unless you're still not stable.
> 
> The only real difference between Auto and the Calc recommendation on my setup is the CAD_BUS Block Ω trains to 24Ω instead of the recommended 20Ω. I have been using the default, trained Termination Block Ω and CAD_BUS Block Ω values for any speed I select and I'm still stable. Right now at 3400 MT/s fast timings.
> 
> Other than the power cycle, did you try the recommended 866 mV CLDO_VDDP voltage?


Thanks for the help of the friends who helped and gave you tips. I achieved stability at 3400 14-14-15-14-30-44 in the SAFE profile. The key to stability was the DDR voltage (before it was at 1.41v, it went up to 1.42v) and CLDO_VDDP (it had tested 700 and 913, but what left stable was 866).

SoC 1.03125v, LLC 3, CC 130%
CPU [email protected], LLC 3, CC 140%

After this feat, I tried to use the FAST Profile 3400 14-14-14-14-28-42, but to no avail. Too many errors in the first few seconds of testing.

After a few attempts, I tried to climb to 3466 14-14-15-14-30-44 in the secure profile. At 1.42v, he did not even boot. With 1.43v windows has gone up but with errors. So I went straight to 1.45v and it was almost stable. Gave 3 errors with 15 minutes of TM5.


I'm just finding that my DDR4 voltage (BIOS) is a little higher than what it says on the calculator. But smaller than that does not stabilize.
What could I do to try to stabilize in 3466 SAFE profile or 3400 FAST profile?


----------



## jkid

Hi ! unfortunately I bought the ram HX432C16PB3K2 / 8 that are not compatible with my motherboard Aorus B450 M. The xmp profiles at 3200 has major problems and even the 3000 does not hold. I'm trying to set the ram by hand with this tool. but the memory modules detected are H5AN4G8NBFR-UHC and the BRF code does not exist in this tool. Can anyone help me?


----------



## Bartouille

GovHealthcare said:


> Thank you for making such an easy to use and helpful tool.
> Unfortunately for me, changing the things prescribed by the program seem to only be good for removing any overclocking ability from my motherboard (RAM or CPU) and making my computer take 3x as long to post no matter what I roll-back or even reflashing BIOS. Fortunately, doing a complete fresh install of windows seemed to fix it the first time - I'm about to have to do my second fresh install of the day - I really don't want to have to do it a third time so I will be staying away from ram overclocking for the foreseeable future.
> Good day, sir.


???

Just clear CMOS. That's literally all you need to do. Unless a very unstable memory OC corrupted your OS I don't see why you're reinstalling your OS, especially multiple times.


----------



## CommanderDante

Hi guys, does anyone has profile settings (just for example) for Asus Crosshair VII (photos from bios settings)? Since I have little problems with using data created by Ryzen calc (PC says nope to boot).


----------



## ua1x

*Issues with 3200 cl14*

MOBO: ASUS ROG ZENITH EXTREME 
CPU: 1950X Threadripper + Noctua cooler
RAM: F4-3200C14Q-64GTZ
PSU: EVGA 850W G1+ Gold
GPU: MSI 560ti (old but trusty plug)
OS: Windows 10
SSD: evo 970 nvme 


Hello friends. I have this PC that I'm assembling for my brother and I have issues with it. For the love of DRAM gods, I can't run this PC stable. Using DOCP profile on this asus motherboard, using preinstalled ram presets for safe 3200 cl that were already with the board, using DRAM calc for all subtimings, using different motherboard (MSI x399 sli plus board) with its own xmp settings for 3200 cl14... Nothing is stable. I'm testing using bunch of tools (HCI memtest, memtest86 8.1 free, 7.5 pro, prime95, AIDA stability test). I would be getting 10-15 errors on either HCI memtest or memtest86 after running it for 500% or 4 cycles. When using DRAM calc I have to switch to alternative numbers for it just to boot. I'm pretty sure I was able to get it to run at cl16 3200 for 6 hours without errors on hci memtest. 

Is this ram bad? Is my process flawed? Is there *DRAM* god? I don't want any crazy overclocks of any sort. Only thing I need is stable ram that works at 3200 cl14 without me spending over 100 hours on it. I just want to have this computer be able to give me stable processing power. I want to be able to drop 15 minutes of random 8k footage in to adobe software and know that it won't reboot because of some faulty ram. 

Please send help. I'm going crazy


----------



## level555

What are your voltages? I have the 2x16GB Version of that ram (with a 2700x on an MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon) and need 1,42V DRAM Voltage (Calculator suggests 1,355V-1,375V)


----------



## CommanderDante

And I have also one more question.
Currently I have 3533MHz at 14-14-15Cl @1.45v with all settings from DRAM Calculator except Gear mode on (off doesn't boot). If i set CPU OC to 4.2GHz it becomes unstable under stress. Also (in all scenarios) i cant reboot pc using restart since it gets stuck (q-code F9)... only clear boot starts... 

Tomorrow after work I'll make photos of all my settings, mby guys you'll be able to help me. Since I'm mentally drained after about 20-25hrs of fighting with that RAM after 2-3 months of tryharding.


----------



## ua1x

level555 said:


> What are your voltages? I have the 2x16GB Version of that ram (with a 2700x on an MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon) and need 1,42V DRAM Voltage (Calculator suggests 1,355V-1,375V)


I had voltages set at 1.35. I'm trying some 1.4v already, but still errors


----------



## inkforze

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.1*


just 3 minor bugs from begining:
1) Maximizing the window and returning can lead to bug1.png on 2 monitors setup (mb change window type to fixed-size)
2) The profile is saved correctly - but the "debug" profile fields remain locked until re-selection the profile
3) Pressing "Calculate ..." leads to changing preset name (above "about") and changing the "misc items" block even when the preset is not supported (or "coming soon")

edit:
4) Samsung OEM V2 profile empty (after R-XMP timings are from any previous calculation)


----------



## vrsbueno

vrsbueno said:


> Thanks for the help of the friends who helped and gave you tips. I achieved stability at 3400 14-14-15-14-30-44 in the SAFE profile. The key to stability was the DDR voltage (before it was at 1.41v, it went up to 1.42v) and CLDO_VDDP (it had tested 700 and 913, but what left stable was 866).
> 
> SoC 1.03125v, LLC 3, CC 130%
> CPU [email protected], LLC 3, CC 140%
> 
> After this feat, I tried to use the FAST Profile 3400 14-14-14-14-28-42, but to no avail. Too many errors in the first few seconds of testing.
> 
> After a few attempts, I tried to climb to 3466 14-14-15-14-30-44 in the secure profile. At 1.42v, he did not even boot. With 1.43v windows has gone up but with errors. So I went straight to 1.45v and it was almost stable. Gave 3 errors with 15 minutes of TM5.
> 
> 
> I'm just finding that my DDR4 voltage (BIOS) is a little higher than what it says on the calculator. But smaller than that does not stabilize.
> What could I do to try to stabilize in 3466 SAFE profile or 3400 FAST profile?


Complementing my previous post I still await comments from some charitable and knowledgeable soul of the subject, why does my system stay as 2DPC instead of 1DPC? Due to I being with 2x8GB it was not to be 1DPC? What does this influence on stability?



CommanderDante said:


> And I have also one more question.
> Currently I have 3533MHz at 14-14-15Cl @1.45v with all settings from DRAM Calculator except Gear mode on (off doesn't boot). If i set CPU OC to 4.2GHz it becomes unstable under stress. Also (in all scenarios) i cant reboot pc using restart since it gets stuck (q-code F9)... only clear boot starts...
> 
> Tomorrow after work I'll make photos of all my settings, mby guys you'll be able to help me. Since I'm mentally drained after about 20-25hrs of fighting with that RAM after 2-3 months of tryharding.


Have you tried increasing VCORE already?


----------



## CommanderDante

vrsbueno said:


> Have you tried increasing VCORE already?


In overall OC mode from 1.384v (stable) to even 1.425v... no result. 
It's not related with voltages.  More likely to clocks or other settings. :arrowhead


----------



## numlock66

People have you experienced this issue:

I could do 15h Karhu RAM test with no error, but if I reboot I got an early error. Also happen with TestMem5.

I tried, with no help, raise and lower Vcore, LLC, SOC, Vmem, also changed some timings with no better result. 

Could be motherboard, memory or CPU limit?


----------



## Darkomax

Managed to stabilize 3400MHz with an X370-I and 2x8GB 3200 from Galax (it passed 50 passes before). Doesn't seem to want to go further, though I didn't tweak too much. 3433 threw me a few errors. I should push vSoC higher because it seems to scale pretty well in my case.


----------



## Johnny212

*Bug?*

I'm not sure whether this is a bug or intended. But the tRFC's 2 & 4 box are always empty on that present.


----------



## nick name

Johnny212 said:


> I'm not sure whether this is a bug or intended. But the tRFC's 2 & 4 box are always empty on that present.


They should be left on Auto so I guess it's kind of a bug, but not one that should be worried about.


----------



## 1usmus

CommanderDante said:


> And I have also one more question.
> Currently I have 3533MHz at 14-14-15Cl @1.45v with all settings from DRAM Calculator except Gear mode on (off doesn't boot). If i set CPU OC to 4.2GHz it becomes unstable under stress. Also (in all scenarios) i cant reboot pc using restart since it gets stuck (q-code F9)... only clear boot starts...
> 
> Tomorrow after work I'll make photos of all my settings, mby guys you'll be able to help me. Since I'm mentally drained after about 20-25hrs of fighting with that RAM after 2-3 months of tryharding.


Imagine a swing, on one side overclocking the RAM, on the other side overclocking the processor. If we get an extreme overclocking of RAM, then you can forget about the serious overclocking of the processor. This is not always a hard rule. 

But judging by the description there are problems with microcode. In any case, send screenshots





level555 said:


> What are your voltages? I have the 2x16GB Version of that ram (with a 2700x on an MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon) and need 1,42V DRAM Voltage (Calculator suggests 1,355V-1,375V)


you incorrectly determined the type of memory or your memory may have low quality chips (voltage depends on the lottery silicon)



inkforze said:


> just 3 minor bugs from begining:
> 1) Maximizing the window and returning can lead to bug1.png on 2 monitors setup (mb change window type to fixed-size)
> 2) The profile is saved correctly - but the "debug" profile fields remain locked until re-selection the profile
> 3) Pressing "Calculate ..." leads to changing preset name (above "about") and changing the "misc items" block even when the preset is not supported (or "coming soon")
> 
> edit:
> 4) Samsung OEM V2 profile empty (after R-XMP timings are from any previous calculation)


thanks for the information 



Johnny212 said:


> I'm not sure whether this is a bug or intended. But the tRFC's 2 & 4 box are always empty on that present.


this is not a bug

Ryzen do not use these values, you can forget about these "windows" in bios


----------



## filippoukon

nick name said:


> Which kit do you have? And what DRAM voltage are you using for that setup? Also, which mobo?


tridentz 3600c15
x470 gaming m7
2700x
ram voltage 1.44


----------



## marcinowozniako

Hi everyone! My PC spec:
Ryzen 5 2600 OC 4.0 Ghz
MSI X470 Gaming Pro Bios modded by 1usmus
F4-3200C15D-16GVR 

This is B-die ram and without aby problem i have stable 3200 Fast present but nothing more. OK 3266 is also stable but no matter what i did 3400 is not stable. It boot, no bsod no crash but tm5 throws error. Today I even thinked that i finally stabilize 3400 but no, 10 cycle and 1 error. After restart PC error was after 1 min  . I try everything increase, decrease voltage all of kind CPU, ram etc change timmings and nothing. AC Origins in CPU Scenario is stable but tm5 and prime 95 gives error. Any idea what i could try to stabilize 3400 mhz cl14?


----------



## Yviena

Seems I'm more stable with only rttpark at rzq/3 with the other two disabled, cadbus at 20-30-24-24 procodt 48 is the most stable with 252trfc timing, I can probably be guaranteed stability if I use trfc 277 now with these tweaked values as higher trfc shouldn't change necessary cadbus values.


----------



## paih85

ram: 1.42v
soc: 1.037v
GDM: auto
pwr down mode: disable


----------



## Nighthog

marcinowozniako said:


> Hi everyone! My PC spec:
> Ryzen 5 2600 OC 4.0 Ghz
> MSI X470 Gaming Pro Bios modded by 1usmus
> F4-3200C15D-16GVR
> 
> This is B-die ram and without aby problem i have stable 3200 Fast present but nothing more. OK 3266 is also stable but no matter what i did 3400 is not stable. It boot, no bsod no crash but tm5 throws error. Today I even thinked that i finally stabilize 3400 but no, 10 cycle and 1 error. After restart PC error was after 1 min  . I try everything increase, decrease voltage all of kind CPU, ram etc change timmings and nothing. AC Origins in CPU Scenario is stable but tm5 and prime 95 gives error. Any idea what i could try to stabilize 3400 mhz cl14?


Tested trdwr @ 7?

Then also play around with the DrvStr values?

Other options are tWR higher @ 12 and tRTP @ 10. Such single errors are just a single change away from stability in my opinion. The issue is finding what is causing it.


----------



## marcinowozniako

Nighthog said:


> marcinowozniako said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone! My PC spec:
> Ryzen 5 2600 OC 4.0 Ghz
> MSI X470 Gaming Pro Bios modded by 1usmus
> F4-3200C15D-16GVR
> 
> This is B-die ram and without aby problem i have stable 3200 Fast present but nothing more. OK 3266 is also stable but no matter what i did 3400 is not stable. It boot, no bsod no crash but tm5 throws error. Today I even thinked that i finally stabilize 3400 but no, 10 cycle and 1 error. After restart PC error was after 1 min /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif . I try everything increase, decrease voltage all of kind CPU, ram etc change timmings and nothing. AC Origins in CPU Scenario is stable but tm5 and prime 95 gives error. Any idea what i could try to stabilize 3400 mhz cl14?
> 
> 
> 
> Tested trdwr @ 7?
> 
> Then also play around with the DrvStr values?
> 
> Other options are tWR higher @ 12 and tRTP @ 10. Such single errors are just a single change away from stability in my opinion. The issue is finding what is causing it.
Click to expand...

Yep i tested this settings also and no improvement. This single error was only once. After restart without any changes in bios tm5 throws error after 1 min. Btw tm5 seems very random throws errors, i cannot see any relation to settings. Someone write here that This doesnt matter error is error and ram is not stable but now i cant deduce whats settings are closest to stable. But this is not tm5 fault. Prime95 do the same. It seems like some settings in bios are changing after restart and some of them give more stability. But all ram settings i had set so...


----------



## -Grift-

marcinowozniako said:


> Yep i tested this settings also and no improvement. This single error was only once. After restart without any changes in bios tm5 throws error after 1 min. Btw tm5 seems very random throws errors, i cannot see any relation to settings. Someone write here that This doesnt matter error is error and ram is not stable but now i cant deduce whats settings are closest to stable. But this is not tm5 fault. Prime95 do the same. It seems like some settings in bios are changing after restart and some of them give more stability. But all ram settings i had set so...


Same thing occurred to me... Only way for true stability for me was to not touch any of the settings related to ProcODT, RTTNOM, RTTPARK, CAD_BUS or anything to do with resistance... If I tweaked any of them sometimes it will run for hours without errors but after a reboot or cold boot it will throw errors. Only thing I could think of is temperature of the DRAM modules causing instability??


----------



## Yviena

Hmm i got 1 error at 3900% hci memtest while running it overnight....


----------



## marcinowozniako

-Grift- said:


> marcinowozniako said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep i tested this settings also and no improvement. This single error was only once. After restart without any changes in bios tm5 throws error after 1 min. Btw tm5 seems very random throws errors, i cannot see any relation to settings. Someone write here that This doesnt matter error is error and ram is not stable but now i cant deduce whats settings are closest to stable. But this is not tm5 fault. Prime95 do the same. It seems like some settings in bios are changing after restart and some of them give more stability. But all ram settings i had set so...
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing occurred to me... Only way for true stability for me was to not touch any of the settings related to ProcODT, RTTNOM, RTTPARK, CAD_BUS or anything to do with resistance... If I tweaked any of them sometimes it will run for hours without errors but after a reboot or cold boot it will throw errors. Only thing I could think of is temperature of the DRAM modules causing instability??
Click to expand...

No chance for me. I have Max 40C at ram after long testing. Ok a will try to set auto to these settings.


----------



## MAL_AMEN

Hi all,

I'm new on this, I hope you can help me.
I have a Ryzen 2600, with a MSI B450 Tomahawk with the latest bios 7C02v14, and I have HyperX Predator 8GB (2x4GB) DDR4-3200MHz CL16 P/N: HX432C16PB3K2/8.
On the MSI website it says the Ram its compatible with this Board at 3200Mhz, but I can't put it working, the computer is always freezing, I'm using at 2933mhz and its stable 1.35v.
I tried the DRAM Calculator for RyzenT 1.4.1 (the latest version don't run...) using the settings of the option Calculate Safe, but the computer continues freezing.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## mirzet1976

MAL_AMEN said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm new on this, I hope you can help me.
> I have a Ryzen 2600, with a MSI B450 Tomahawk with the latest bios 7C02v14, and I have HyperX Predator 8GB (2x4GB) DDR4-3200MHz CL16 P/N: HX432C16PB3K2/8.
> On the MSI website it says the Ram its compatible with this Board at 3200Mhz, but I can't put it working, the computer is always freezing, I'm using at 2933mhz and its stable 1.35v.
> I tried the DRAM Calculator for RyzenT 1.4.1 (the latest version don't run...) using the settings of the option Calculate Safe, but the computer continues freezing.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Try to rise tRAS and tRC to me it worked this way. U can see my RAM is Hynix AFR 3000mhz 2x8gb 16-18-18-38-56 overclocked to 3200mhz.


----------



## dgoc18

marcinowozniako said:


> Hi everyone! My PC spec:
> Ryzen 5 2600 OC 4.0 Ghz
> MSI X470 Gaming Pro Bios modded by 1usmus
> F4-3200C15D-16GVR
> 
> This is B-die ram and without aby problem i have stable 3200 Fast present but nothing more. OK 3266 is also stable but no matter what i did 3400 is not stable. It boot, no bsod no crash but tm5 throws error. Today I even thinked that i finally stabilize 3400 but no, 10 cycle and 1 error. After restart PC error was after 1 min  . I try everything increase, decrease voltage all of kind CPU, ram etc change timmings and nothing. AC Origins in CPU Scenario is stable but tm5 and prime 95 gives error. Any idea what i could try to stabilize 3400 mhz cl14?


I see your Hwinfo screenshot that show me something.

I looked at CPU core voltage (SV12 TFN) 1.256 is too low voltage for running 4.0 Ghz and sound like you left auto in bios ?

If yes, so now go back to bios, look at CPU core voltage, change from auto to manual, try set 1.35V first and try again, if you got error again, add 1.38 and up till stable.

I have same issues, Auto is not well scale higher voltage when you set 4.0. and up.

My experiences on MSI in bios behavior about “Auto” voltage issues.

I set 4.0 Ghz with auto, I get tm5 errors many times, I blamed the memory ram, Wrong !

I set 4.0 Ghz with manual 1.38-1.4v, I get tm5 no errors.

I set 4.0 Ghz with auto again to make sure if i get tm5 stable, No dice.

gl


----------



## Mike-EEE

dgoc18 said:


> I see your Hwinfo screenshot that show me something.
> 
> I looked at CPU core voltage (SV12 TFN) 1.256 is too low voltage for running 4.0 Ghz and sound like you left auto in bios ?
> 
> If yes, so now go back to bios, look at CPU core voltage, change from auto to manual, try set 1.35V first and try again, if you got error again, add 1.38 and up till stable.
> 
> I have same issues, Auto is not well scale higher voltage when you set 4.0. and up.
> 
> My experiences on MSI in bios behavior about “Auto” voltage issues.
> 
> I set 4.0 Ghz with auto, I get tm5 errors many times, I blamed the memory ram, Wrong !
> 
> I set 4.0 Ghz with manual 1.38-1.4v, I get tm5 no errors.
> 
> I set 4.0 Ghz with auto again to make sure if i get tm5 stable, No dice.
> 
> gl


This is sort of close to what I am experiencing now.

1.376v appears to be the "sweet spot" for my DRAM on my MSI board. I can move it down to 1.36 but get intermittent memory errors in HCI MemTest.

I am a little confused here on why 1.376 works and 1.36 doesn't. I'd like to use 1.36 because it produces less heat (more stability), but that doesn't seem to be the case. It would seem that more heat causes more stability, which is contradictory to everything I am reading.

It would be great if someone could explain this a little further to this newb.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to add... I can actually drop the vDRAM to 1.32 and still run Cinebench, but when I run MemTest errors do occur.


----------



## marcinowozniako

dgoc18 said:


> I see your Hwinfo screenshot that show me something.
> 
> I looked at CPU core voltage (SV12 TFN) 1.256 is too low voltage for running 4.0 Ghz and sound like you left auto in bios ?
> 
> If yes, so now go back to bios, look at CPU core voltage, change from auto to manual, try set 1.35V first and try again, if you got error again, add 1.38 and up till stable.
> 
> I have same issues, Auto is not well scale higher voltage when you set 4.0. and up.
> 
> My experiences on MSI in bios behavior about “Auto” voltage issues.
> 
> I set 4.0 Ghz with auto, I get tm5 errors many times, I blamed the memory ram, Wrong !
> 
> I set 4.0 Ghz with manual 1.38-1.4v, I get tm5 no errors.
> 
> I set 4.0 Ghz with auto again to make sure if i get tm5 stable, No dice.
> 
> gl


I manually set 1.256V and this is stable value for my 2600 at 4.0. I increase this voltage to 1.26 but no effect after all. I increase voltage as you say and this is not this. A tested, 1.35V 1.37V and 1.39V and any of these value give me stability. This is what happened just few mintues ago. Run tm5 pass about 7 cycles and then throw error in 6 and 10 test.After restart PC error was about 1 min after run tm5. BTW its always this test sometimes 6, sometimes 10, sometimes 2 and sometimes 12 this is number of test in tm5 config by 1usmus. What can this tell me? I dont know but i dont think that 200mhz difference of ram(3200vs3400) can require additional 0.1V to CPU!!


----------



## 1usmus

I recently had problems with processor voltage
I will advise you to set the minimum value that is available to you

CPU Voltage Frequency
VDDSOC Switching Frequency


----------



## 1usmus

marcinowozniako said:


> Hi everyone! My PC spec:
> Ryzen 5 2600 OC 4.0 Ghz
> MSI X470 Gaming Pro Bios modded by 1usmus
> F4-3200C15D-16GVR
> 
> This is B-die ram and without aby problem i have stable 3200 Fast present but nothing more. OK 3266 is also stable but no matter what i did 3400 is not stable. It boot, no bsod no crash but tm5 throws error. Today I even thinked that i finally stabilize 3400 but no, 10 cycle and 1 error. After restart PC error was after 1 min  . I try everything increase, decrease voltage all of kind CPU, ram etc change timmings and nothing. AC Origins in CPU Scenario is stable but tm5 and prime 95 gives error. Any idea what i could try to stabilize 3400 mhz cl14?


do not use timings 22 36, for example


----------



## 1usmus

*What is a single error?*

There are 3 possible reasons:

1) *Signal to Noise Ratio*
The ratio of the strength of an electrical or other signal carrying information to that of interference, generally expressed in decibels.
Increasing PTT_PARK by 1 step can also help (RZQ/5(48ohm) -> RZQ/4(60ohm) , for example). Sometimes we need to check some values for RTT_NOM, in most cases the values Disabled , RZQ/7(34ohm) and RZQ/6(40ohm) are optimal. For procODT, the optimum value will be in the range of 43-60 ohms.

2) *Thermal resonance (Jitter)* 
You can treat with additional PCB + DRAM cooling or with more fine tuning of the impedance. The cad bus 20 20 20 20 recommendation allowed me to increase the temperature threshold before receiving the first error from 52 degrees to 58. I obtained identical results on three motherboards (ASUS CH6 , MSI M7 , Asrock Taichi x370). The optimum temperature for RAM is 35 to 48 degrees and the temperature of the environment inside the case (T ambient) is not higher than 35-40 degrees (these values ​​are not approximate, because each system is individual)

My old test 


Spoiler











3) *Chronic loss of voltage in the cell*
If the voltage in the cell falls below the minimum, we get data loss (pic. b). This error is very difficult to detect, it will not manifest itself after several rewriting cycles, this is exactly why the 1usmus v2 preset exists (5-10 cycles will be enough to detect this error).
You can heal by increasing the voltage on the RAM or changing the timings that are responsible for recharging (tRP, tRFC will have the greatest impact. Also have influence tWR and tRTP. I do not advise raising the values ​​for tWR above 12, this timing is the minimum time between the end of the write operation and the command to precharge (Precharge) the lines for one bank.)


----------



## marcinowozniako

1usmus said:


> do not use timings 22 36, for example


There is no difference between 28-42 and 22-36. Both settings are unstable for me. I will test today more settings and see what will happen.


----------



## Mike-EEE

1usmus said:


> *What is a single error?*
> 
> There are 3 possible reasons:
> 
> 1) *Signal to Noise Ratio*
> The ratio of the strength of an electrical or other signal carrying information to that of interference, generally expressed in decibels.
> Increasing PTT_PARK by 1 step can also help (RZQ/5(48ohm) -> RZQ/4(60ohm) , for example). Sometimes we need to check some values for RTT_NOM, in most cases the values Disabled , RZQ/7(34ohm) and RZQ/6(40ohm) are optimal. For procODT, the optimum value will be in the range of 43-60 ohms.


Thank you so much for taking the time to relay your information, @1usmus! It is very much appreciated and valued.

FWIW, I did have a little luck with setting RTT_NOM from 34 to 40 and enabling RTT_PARK from Disabled to 240 (default for my configuration). However, memory errors were incredibly multiple when testing.

I did try your suggestion of stepping RTT_PARK one step -- so 120 in my case -- but that did not help either.

In my case it seems that the magic termination block settings are 43.3 / 34 / 80 / Disabled for procODT / NOM/ WR / PARK respectively.

I have yet to see any explanation for PARK disabled but it's working in any case. 

Also, FWIW the CAD_Bus Block are set to the default recommended of 20/20/20/20. It also seems that SOC voltage is .95 @ LLC Mode 1.


----------



## marcinowozniako

After some more testing 3400 cl14 no chance for stability. No matter what I have done tm5 throws errors. This is strange because in calculator bassically 3200 and 3400 fast is the same profile and only V difference, and i have stable 3200 on fast:


----------



## makeiteasy

Hi, Thaiphoon reads my HyperX Kingston Memory 2400mhz CL15 as: "DRAM Components: NT5AD1024M8A3-GZ; DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: A / 20 nm". Which Memory Type should i put on DRAM Calculator?


----------



## nick name

filippoukon said:


> tridentz 3600c15
> x470 gaming m7
> 2700x
> ram voltage 1.44


I hate you. I have the same kit and can't get 14-14-14-14 stable let alone with those super tight subs. And at 1.44V -- I really really hate you.


----------



## inkforze

makeiteasy said:


> Hi, Thaiphoon reads my HyperX Kingston Memory 2400mhz CL15 as: "DRAM Components: NT5AD1024M8A3-GZ; DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: A / 20 nm". Which Memory Type should i put on DRAM Calculator?


It is rare "Nanya" chips. Its not presented in calculator. Same chips used in GoodRAM IRDM X (IR-XR3000D464L16S/16GDC) kits - with this XMP profile: https://st.overclockers.ru/images/lab/2018/06/07/1/113_big.png (from russian review)


----------



## Yviena

Finally Managed to stabilize 252 trfc, seems like all of my settings in bios was correct, what finally stabilized my ram was upping the cpu vcore +2 notches, any less voltage and i immediately got errors in tm5.

i ran 60 cycles tm5 so i can probably consider it stable.


----------



## makeiteasy

inkforze said:


> It is rare "Nanya" chips. Its not presented in calculator. Same chips used in GoodRAM IRDM X (IR-XR3000D464L16S/16GDC) kits - with this XMP profile: https://st.overclockers.ru/images/lab/2018/06/07/1/113_big.png (from russian review)


Thank you, i'm currently using Micron D-die for comparison and got 2933Mhz CL 16 1.3V stable.


----------



## NightAntilli

*Never mind*

I will post this in the memory stability thread instead, rather than this one. Sorry. Mods, feel free to delete this post.


----------



## filippoukon

nick name said:


> I hate you. I have the same kit and can't get 14-14-14-14 stable let alone with those super tight subs. And at 1.44V -- I really really hate you.



hahahaha. my next post will be 3533c13 13 with tighter subs...


----------



## 8000cc

I am using MSI X399 creation with 2990wx and G.SKILL TRIDENT Z RGB RYZEN SERIES 16GB (2 X 8GB) DDR4 3600MHZ C18 F4-3600C18D-16GTZRX x2 (Total 4 DIMM) CjR die
I only able to get 3200Mhz C16-18-18-18-33 stable. The calculator safe preset is not stable at all.


----------



## CJMitsuki

filippoukon said:


> nick name said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate you. I have the same kit and can't get 14-14-14-14 stable let alone with those super tight subs. And at 1.44V -- I really really hate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahahaha. my next post will be 3533c13 13 with tighter subs...
Click to expand...

What does that setup get in a memory benchmark such as Geekbench 3. I’m curious how it compares to what I’m running.


----------



## filippoukon

nick name said:


> I hate you. I have the same kit and can't get 14-14-14-14 stable let alone with those super tight subs. And at 1.44V -- I really really hate you.


as I promised


----------



## Saiger0

filippoukon said:


> as I promised


damn


----------



## nick name

filippoukon said:


> as I promised


Bravo.

Is there anything else you did to stabilize your 3600MHz 14-14-14-14 setup? Other voltages? VRM optimizations?


----------



## Xinoxide

Managed this on my D-Die setup. Calc gave me a good starting point to tweak a bit more.

This X470 gaming itx from Asrock leaves quite a bit to be desired in the way of tweaking but I managed.


----------



## nick name

Ayyyy I finally joined the 3600 14-14-14-14 club. Not as tight as @filippoukon, but it's a start.


----------



## begrie

hello.
Where can i download TestMem5 and 1usmus_v2 config?

Any guide for Hynix MFR? been doing it for a week still no luck to maximize the 3200 speed.
Using 2700x with Gigabyte x470 gaming 7 at the moment.

Thank you


----------



## nick name

begrie said:


> hello.
> Where can i download TestMem5 and 1usmus_v2 config?
> 
> Any guide for Hynix MFR? been doing it for a week still no luck to maximize the 3200 speed.
> Using 2700x with Gigabyte x470 gaming 7 at the moment.
> 
> Thank you


Are you using the correct RAM slots?


----------



## umeng2002

I hope you guys are using more than TestMem5. Faster RAM can show instability in your cores. I've passed TestMem5 many times to be unstable with IBT/ Linpack Xtreme (with 14GB+ usage).


----------



## filippoukon

nick name said:


> Ayyyy I finally joined the 3600 14-14-14-14 club. Not as tight as @filippoukon, but it's a start.


Well done my friend. Perfect timings.
a new one from me with 1.45V


----------



## nick name

filippoukon said:


> Well done my friend. Perfect timings.
> a new one from me with 1.45V


Damn you. 

Also, my setup wasn't stable after a reboot. Still trying to work it out.


----------



## Xinoxide

umeng2002 said:


> I hope you guys are using more than TestMem5. Faster RAM can show instability in your cores. I've passed TestMem5 many times to be unstable with IBT/ Linpack Xtreme (with 14GB+ usage).


I will admit, it does not pass linpack testing but IBT will last a good while before any errors. If this system were used for any kind of productivity I would further push for stability. Havent had a single game crash due to memory yet but when it happens I will adjust accordingly.


----------



## CJMitsuki

umeng2002 said:


> I hope you guys are using more than TestMem5. Faster RAM can show instability in your cores. I've passed TestMem5 many times to be unstable with IBT/ Linpack Xtreme (with 14GB+ usage).


The instability in IBT wasnt due to memory overclock if it passed memory testing unless DIMMS got heated. It was either due to the heating of the DIMMS causing an unstable state or just plain unstable cpu overclock. Faster memory isnt going to just make your cores unstable. I know IBT produces massive amounts of heat very quickly so the DIMMS getting heated is a very possible scenario. On the other hand, you should definitely use multiple memory testing programs. I use HCI and let it run for a couple hours to let the DIMMS heat up and see if errors pop up. Most of the time TM5 doesnt run long enough to allow for that to happen.



Xinoxide said:


> I will admit, it does not pass linpack testing but IBT will last a good while before any errors. If this system were used for any kind of productivity I would further push for stability. Havent had a single game crash due to memory yet but when it happens I will adjust accordingly.


Highly unlikely gaming will cause any problems as these tests push the memory far harder than any game ever will.


----------



## umeng2002

CJMitsuki said:


> The instability in IBT wasnt due to memory overclock if it passed memory testing unless DIMMS got heated. It was either due to the heating of the DIMMS causing an unstable state or just plain unstable cpu overclock. Faster memory isnt going to just make your cores unstable. I know IBT produces massive amounts of heat very quickly so the DIMMS getting heated is a very possible scenario. On the other hand, you should definitely use multiple memory testing programs. I use HCI and let it run for a couple hours to let the DIMMS heat up and see if errors pop up. Most of the time TM5 doesnt run long enough to allow for that to happen.


That's what I mean.

I can lower my cpu voltage and pass IBT with high RAM usage.

With said lower Vcore, I can pass all memory only test programs.

I can then increase my memory speed and pass all memory-only tests.

But then I can fail IBT with high RAM usage; yet I can pass IBT with low RAM usage.

I can then increase my Vcore and pass IBT with a lot RAM usage and the faster RAM speed.

Therefore, your cores become unstable with higher RAM speed. Is it heat or lack of Vcore? It happens though.

The point is that increasing RAM speed might make your system unstable when it does something other than just move data around like most memory testers just do.


----------



## Mike-EEE

CJMitsuki said:


> I use HCI and let it run for a couple hours to let the DIMMS heat up and see if errors pop up. Most of the time TM5 doesnt run long enough to allow for that to happen.


This has been my approach/preference as well. HCI gets CPU up to ~52-degrees whereas TM5 was in the 40s. Unfortunately, I do not have any DRAM sensors neither on the chips nor MB, so CPU is what I am going by. 

I prefer the extra heat/load as that provides a little more simulation towards a real-world application (I am thinking).

Of course, now the problem is trying to get HCI to 400% and I am getting errors in the 200-300% range, so hours at a time with those temperatures/load... Shouldn't be a problem but still, not a preference.


----------



## CJMitsuki

umeng2002 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The instability in IBT wasnt due to memory overclock if it passed memory testing unless DIMMS got heated. It was either due to the heating of the DIMMS causing an unstable state or just plain unstable cpu overclock. Faster memory isnt going to just make your cores unstable. I know IBT produces massive amounts of heat very quickly so the DIMMS getting heated is a very possible scenario. On the other hand, you should definitely use multiple memory testing programs. I use HCI and let it run for a couple hours to let the DIMMS heat up and see if errors pop up. Most of the time TM5 doesnt run long enough to allow for that to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I mean.
> 
> I can lower my cpu voltage and pass IBT with high RAM usage.
> 
> With said lower Vcore, I can pass all memory only test programs.
> 
> I can then increase my memory speed and pass all memory-only tests.
> 
> But then I can fail IBT with high RAM usage; yet I can pass IBT with low RAM usage.
> 
> I can then increase my Vcore and pass IBT with a lot RAM usage and the faster RAM speed.
> 
> Therefore, your cores become unstable with higher RAM speed. Is it heat or lack of Vcore? It happens though.
> 
> The point is that increasing RAM speed might make your system unstable when it does something other than just move data around like most memory testers just do.
Click to expand...

If you think about it both using more memory in IBT and increasing vCore will heat the DIMMs up. One is directly heating the DIMMs through high usage and the other is causing heat through the motherboard socket and radiant heat from the CPU itself. Also you should note that it’s possible to make the IMC unstable with the added heat from increased vCore if the silicon quality isn’t great. That would also cause memory problems. Only way to know for sure is to swap cpus out and see if the problem persists. If it does then likely the IMC is not to blame and heat from the socket is more likely the culprit. In either scenario hot DIMMs are easily dealt with through better airflow in the case or a fan/DRAM cooler directly blowing on the DIMMs. You’d be surprised how often that leads to the ability to achieve higher frequencies. I never let my RAM go above 35c but you also don’t want the DIMMs to drop below freezing as it could fail due to “cold bug”. I think 15-25c is perfect if possible.


Mike-EEE said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use HCI and let it run for a couple hours to let the DIMMS heat up and see if errors pop up. Most of the time TM5 doesnt run long enough to allow for that to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my approach/preference as well. HCI gets CPU up to ~52-degrees whereas TM5 was in the 40s. Unfortunately, I do not have any DRAM sensors neither on the chips nor MB, so CPU is what I am going by.
> 
> I prefer the extra heat/load as that provides a little more simulation towards a real-world application (I am thinking).
> 
> Of course, now the problem is trying to get HCI to 400% and I am getting errors in the 200-300% range, so hours at a time with those temperatures/load... Shouldn't be a problem but still, not a preference.
Click to expand...

Point a fan blowing directly on the DIMMs and you’ll be fine. The DDR4 can handle pretty high heat but that doesn’t mean they won’t lose some stability as heat rises.


----------



## vrsbueno

Do I have the IMC of my chip on the limit? Here my experience:

Had Hynix AFR memories and the calculator, it would need a maximum of 1,375v for 3333 @ CL16. I needed 1.42v for 3333 @ CL16 and it still was not stable.

So I bought B-die, TridentZ 3600C17. I was able to stabilize only at 3400 14-15-14-14-28 with GMD OFF at 1.43v, and the calculator says at most 1-41v for 3400 14-14-14-14-28 with GMD OFF.

For 3433 14-15-14-14-28 GMD ON even with 1.46v it reports errors in the TM5. With GMD OFF, neither with 1.47v the computer powers on. It gets infinite boot.

I realized that it is in the AFR or BDIE or in any frequency and CAS I *ALWAYS need more voltage* than the calculator says or that users here from the forum.
*Does it have a limit on the memory controller, since I have a motherboard and DDR4 capable of it?*


----------



## dspx

vrsbueno said:


> Do I have the IMC of my chip on the limit? Here my experience:
> 
> Had Hynix AFR memories and the calculator, it would need a maximum of 1,375v for 3333 @ CL16. I needed 1.42v for 3333 @ CL16 and it still was not stable.
> 
> So I bought B-die, TridentZ 3600C17. I was able to stabilize only at 3400 14-15-14-14-28 with GMD OFF at 1.43v, and the calculator says at most 1-41v for 3400 14-14-14-14-28 with GMD OFF.
> 
> For 3433 14-15-14-14-28 GMD ON even with 1.46v it reports errors in the TM5. With GMD OFF, neither with 1.47v the computer powers on. It gets infinite boot.
> 
> I realized that it is in the AFR or BDIE or in any frequency and CAS I *ALWAYS need more voltage* than the calculator says or that users here from the forum.
> *Does it have a limit on the memory controller, since I have a motherboard and DDR4 capable of it?*


Try lowering your CPU clock a bit and then test for errors. I think it could be connected as I have learned something similar on my own system.


----------



## Delphi

How new is Hynix CJR memory?

I built my system back in the winter of 2017 and finally just checked now to find out that my memory is the CJR variant. Just want to make sure there isn't a glitch with the program to pull the ram data.

Anyways I tried all the settings based off the calc for my 3200 Gskill kit on the CJR V1.

I couldn't get it to post at all on my Strix B350F with 3200 Safe settings. Right now I have 2933 stable and will be trying again tonight. Any tips on where I should be starting the trouble shooting?


----------



## vrsbueno

dspx said:


> Try lowering your CPU clock a bit and then test for errors. I think it could be connected as I have learned something similar on my own system.



I tried with the CPU in stock and also could not. CPU clock and voltage in auto.


----------



## SexySale

Hi guys,

Please if you have those kind of problems, first revert CPU OC and OC just memory!

If you find memory stable settings, THEN OC CPU. 

From my own case it was like this:
1. Find max stable CPU OC (don't touch XMP or memory OC)
2. Find max stable Memory OC (leave base clock of CPU, don't touch settings)

Then you can continue with combining those two.

Combine two OC with increasing ONLY CPU voltage by very small margin. If you find any more errors (1 or 2) THEN add 0.05 DRAM valtage

Last step is just trying to fine-tune it. 

I have now stable OC of Corsair 3200 Hynix MFR on B350 board to fast preset 3266MHz (1.41V) and Ryzen 1600 3.9GHz (1.385V) + fan over memory!

Good luck!


----------



## -Grift-

Delphi said:


> How new is Hynix CJR memory?
> 
> I build my system back in the winter of 2017 and finally just checked now to find out that my memory is the CJR variant. Just want to make sure there isn't a glitch with the program to pull the ram data.
> 
> Anyways I tried all the settings based off the calc for my 3200 Gskill kit on the CJR V1.
> 
> I couldn't get it to post at all on my Strix B350F with 3200 Safe settings. Right now I have 2933 stable and will be trying again tonight. Any tips on where I should be starting the trouble shooting?


Set timings for now, don’t mess with CADBUS PROCODT RTT etc etc
E.g my CJR 3600 does [email protected] 1.37v


----------



## CJMitsuki

vrsbueno said:


> Do I have the IMC of my chip on the limit? Here my experience:
> 
> Had Hynix AFR memories and the calculator, it would need a maximum of 1,375v for 3333 @ CL16. I needed 1.42v for 3333 @ CL16 and it still was not stable.
> 
> So I bought B-die, TridentZ 3600C17. I was able to stabilize only at 3400 14-15-14-14-28 with GMD OFF at 1.43v, and the calculator says at most 1-41v for 3400 14-14-14-14-28 with GMD OFF.
> 
> For 3433 14-15-14-14-28 GMD ON even with 1.46v it reports errors in the TM5. With GMD OFF, neither with 1.47v the computer powers on. It gets infinite boot.
> 
> I realized that it is in the AFR or BDIE or in any frequency and CAS I *ALWAYS need more voltage* than the calculator says or that users here from the forum.
> *Does it have a limit on the memory controller, since I have a motherboard and DDR4 capable of it?*


I would say that the limit is the menory itself. Hynix AFR is not great for Ryzen and you wont get good frequency and that 3600c17 kit is BDie but Low Quality BDie. The high quality BDie will be the 3200c14 or 3600c15 kits.


Delphi said:


> How new is Hynix CJR memory?
> 
> I built my system back in the winter of 2017 and finally just checked now to find out that my memory is the CJR variant. Just want to make sure there isn't a glitch with the program to pull the ram data.
> 
> Anyways I tried all the settings based off the calc for my 3200 Gskill kit on the CJR V1.
> 
> I couldn't get it to post at all on my Strix B350F with 3200 Safe settings. Right now I have 2933 stable and will be trying again tonight. Any tips on where I should be starting the trouble shooting?


That particular die is supposed to be really good. 1usmus got his kit to 3733c14 so I would say it should be no problem to hit 3533c14. Maybe you should tweak some timings/settings and test to find the stable configuration. The calculator is only meant to guide you toward ideal settings but it is impossible to know which settings and timings to use as it all depends on memory silicon quality, IMC quality, etc.


----------



## ObscureScience

Anyone had any luck tightening Corsair's CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 kit? It's Hynix AFR. I tried the calculator safe preset but my system wouldn't even post.


----------



## Kildar

marcinowozniako said:


> After some more testing 3400 cl14 no chance for stability. No matter what I have done tm5 throws errors. This is strange because in calculator bassically 3200 and 3400 fast is the same profile and only V difference, and i have stable 3200 on fast:


Try changing ProcODT to 60.


----------



## marcinowozniako

It doesn't help at all. I think that my b-die maybe is some lower quality b-die. I tried to set up 3400 in other setup with msi b450 tomahawk and r7 2700 with no succes.


----------



## dspx

ObscureScience said:


> Anyone had any luck tightening Corsair's CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 kit? It's Hynix AFR. I tried the calculator safe preset but my system wouldn't even post.


Take a look at my signature.


----------



## vrsbueno

CJMitsuki said:


> vrsbueno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have the IMC of my chip on the limit? Here my experience:
> 
> Had Hynix AFR memories and the calculator, it would need a maximum of 1,375v for 3333 @ CL16. I needed 1.42v for 3333 @ CL16 and it still was not stable.
> 
> So I bought B-die, TridentZ 3600C17. I was able to stabilize only at 3400 14-15-14-14-28 with GMD OFF at 1.43v, and the calculator says at most 1-41v for 3400 14-14-14-14-28 with GMD OFF.
> 
> For 3433 14-15-14-14-28 GMD ON even with 1.46v it reports errors in the TM5. With GMD OFF, neither with 1.47v the computer powers on. It gets infinite boot.
> 
> I realized that it is in the AFR or BDIE or in any frequency and CAS I *ALWAYS need more voltage* than the calculator says or that users here from the forum.
> *Does it have a limit on the memory controller, since I have a motherboard and DDR4 capable of it?*
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that the limit is the menory itself. Hynix AFR is not great for Ryzen and you wont get good frequency and that 3600c17 kit is BDie but Low Quality BDie. The high quality BDie will be the 3200c14 or 3600c15 kits.
> 
> 
> Delphi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How new is Hynix CJR memory?
> 
> I built my system back in the winter of 2017 and finally just checked now to find out that my memory is the CJR variant. Just want to make sure there isn't a glitch with the program to pull the ram data.
> 
> Anyways I tried all the settings based off the calc for my 3200 Gskill kit on the CJR V1.
> 
> I couldn't get it to post at all on my Strix B350F with 3200 Safe settings. Right now I have 2933 stable and will be trying again tonight. Any tips on where I should be starting the trouble shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That particular die is supposed to be really good. 1usmus got his kit to 3733c14 so I would say it should be no problem to hit 3533c14. Maybe you should tweak some timings/settings and test to find the stable configuration. The calculator is only meant to guide you toward ideal settings but it is impossible to know which settings and timings to use as it all depends on memory silicon quality, IMC quality, etc.
Click to expand...

Okay, but why can not I boot even in 3600 with the standard XMP timimgs? At least Bdie would be able to, right?


----------



## ObscureScience

dspx said:


> Take a look at my signature.


Nice. I'll give it a go. Are there any important settings not listed in the image?


----------



## Delphi

Spent 3 hours last night trying to get 3200. I just couldn't get it to post. Everything but SoC and ram voltages were set, cpu was at stock, started from scratch. Still nothing.

Right now I am working on getting tight 2933 timings. I think being a first gen ryzen and a B350 motherboard 3200 may be out of my reach.

Things I know it doesn't like. Tighter tRC, tRRDL, tRFC,2,4.

Yes my SoC is high right now. I haven't brought it down, I have just been playing with a known stable 2933 profile and dropping.


----------



## nick name

Delphi said:


> Spent 3 hours last night trying to get 3200. I just couldn't get it to post. Everything but SoC and ram voltages were set, cpu was at stock, started from scratch. Still nothing.
> 
> Right now I am working on getting tight 2933 timings. I think being a first gen ryzen and a B350 motherboard 3200 may be out of my reach.
> 
> Things I know it doesn't like. Tighter tRC, tRRDL, tRFC,2,4.
> 
> Yes my SoC is high right now. I haven't brought it down, I have just been playing with a known stable 2933 profile and dropping.


I don't know if this is your problem or not, but something to watch out for tRCDWR and tRCDRD can be in the opposite order in your BIOS than how it's displayed in the Calculator. Something I didn't notice for the longest time was the Calculator showed the timings in the order of 14-14-*15*-14, but the order it appears in my ASUS BIOS is 14-*15*-14-14. Once I realized this -- it changed the game.

Also, I don't really see anyone that benefits from an SOC higher than 1.1V and have seen many report that too high SOC can become unstable. 

And have you made sure that you've used the correct RAM slots?


----------



## Delphi

nick name said:


> I don't know if this is your problem or not, but something to watch out for tRCDWR and tRCDRD can be in the opposite order in your BIOS than how it's displayed in the Calculator. Something I didn't notice for the longest time was the Calculator showed the timings in the order of 14-14-*15*-14, but the order it appears in my ASUS BIOS is 14-*15*-14-14. Once I realized this -- it changed the game.
> 
> Also, I don't really see anyone that benefits from an SOC higher than 1.1V and have seen many report that too high SOC can become unstable.
> 
> And have you made sure that you've used the correct RAM slots?


Thanks,

I will double check that!


As far as the ram slots go, I have to put them in 2 and 4 to clear my cooler. I may be able to lift the fan to clear.

I am going to drop the SOC and go from there


----------



## inkforze

Delphi said:


> Spent 3 hours last night trying to get 3200. I just couldn't get it to post. Everything but SoC and ram voltages were set, cpu was at stock, started from scratch. Still nothing.


1) on your calculator screen timings in "profile" column are from AFRv1 - not from CJRv1 (press r-xmp after reselect memory profile - or use "debug" profile to manually change "profile" column)
2) show us Taiphoon Burner screenshots of your memory


----------



## Delphi

Progress. Asus indeed did put them backwards, so thank you Nick!

I just retried the XMP thing for CJR and still spat out the same numbers.

I made some progress. Managed to boot at 3066, havent tried the tRFC stuff yet since it has given me issues. But currently I wrote this post at these settings.


----------



## dgoc18

Delphi said:


> Progress. Asus indeed did put them backwards, so thank you Nick!
> 
> I just retried the XMP thing for CJR and still spat out the same numbers.
> 
> I made some progress. Managed to boot at 3066, havent tried the tRFC stuff yet since it has given me issues. But currently I wrote this post at these settings.


Sound like you didn't installed ram correctly ? 

I looked at your mobo manual below, That is A2 and B2 you suppose installed it.

Try it again and go back to bios, Either XMP or Manual to 3200.

Post the pic of your mobo and ram area here.


----------



## Delphi

Yea that is what I switched mine to. They were A1/B1. I doubt it makes that much of a difference but either way. I can't do 3200, and I cant do 3066,3000, or 2933 fast timing.


----------



## HatchetEgg

Hi guys,

I thought I post my findings,

I noticed the memtest86 program I had been using is inconsistent from run to run. So I thought I use v8 of memtest86 rather than the v5, I then noticed it is consistent on every run, not only that it is much faster.

However, even though I tested the fast preset for 3600 and was getting BSODS in windows. So I thought I bump up the SoC voltage and found it has become stable.

Now that I had reached that I thought I try 3666, and sure enough same story as 3600 I had to bump the SoC voltage to make it stable in windows. Despite the 4x0 errors in memtest v8.

So here are my results so far, but I am going to see when my RAM says please stop 

Next, stop 3733 and see what happens from there.


Of course, it is all thanks to @*1usmus* because without this helpful calculator I would probably never been able to get this far. Not only that but also the helpful tips such as the most recent one about single errors and what you can do about it.


----------



## 1usmus

Delphi said:


> Spent 3 hours last night trying to get 3200. I just couldn't get it to post. Everything but SoC and ram voltages were set, cpu was at stock, started from scratch. Still nothing.
> 
> Right now I am working on getting tight 2933 timings. I think being a first gen ryzen and a B350 motherboard 3200 may be out of my reach.
> 
> Things I know it doesn't like. Tighter tRC, tRRDL, tRFC,2,4.
> 
> Yes my SoC is high right now. I haven't brought it down, I have just been playing with a known stable 2933 profile and dropping.


you have good memory samples, if thaiphoon are not deceiving (otherwise you will have to choose MFR V1 profile)

I strongly recommend not to use high voltage for SOC, if you do not use memory frequency above 3600 MHz, you should not exceed 1.06 volts. The most optimal range is within 0.97-1.025 volts for all processors without exception. 

Try low voltage 



HatchetEgg said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I thought I post my findings,
> 
> I noticed the memtest86 program I had been using is inconsistent from run to run. So I thought I use v8 of memtest86 rather than the v5, I then noticed it is consistent on every run, not only that it is much faster.
> 
> However, even though I tested the fast preset for 3600 and was getting BSODS in windows. So I thought I bump up the SoC voltage and found it has become stable.
> 
> Now that I had reached that I thought I try 3666, and sure enough same story as 3600 I had to bump the SoC voltage to make it stable in windows. Despite the 4x0 errors in memtest v8.
> 
> So here are my results so far, but I am going to see when my RAM says please stop
> 
> Next, stop 3733 and see what happens from there.
> 
> 
> Of course, it is all thanks to @*1usmus* because without this helpful calculator I would probably never been able to get this far. Not only that but also the helpful tips such as the most recent one about single errors and what you can do about it.


thanks for publishing the result

In some situations, tRTP = 1/2 tWR may improve stability 

+

do not forget that tRC is a multiple of tRFC

I spent an incredibly long time in order to achieve stability on 2990 processors, this preset works perfectly at all frequencies
https://www.overclock.net/forum/27835628-post600.html

perhaps this will help you achieve new frequencies (you can set tRFC equal to tRC * 8, this will help avoid unnecessary voltage addition for RAM)


----------



## 1usmus

*100 000 + downloads from official resources ! *

I am pleased that my work can help you! 

And I really hope that AMD will not decide to get rid of my services (joke)


----------



## SexySale

1usmus said:


> *100 000 + downloads from official resources ! *
> 
> 
> 
> I am pleased that my work can help you!
> 
> 
> 
> And I really hope that AMD will not decide to get rid of my services (joke)


Thank you man for everything! 
Stay with us and keep up with good work


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> you have good memory samples, if thaiphoon are not deceiving (otherwise you will have to choose MFR V1 profile)
> 
> I strongly recommend not to use high voltage for SOC, if you do not use memory frequency above 3600 MHz, you should not exceed 1.06 volts. The most optimal range is within 0.97-1.025 volts for all processors without exception.
> 
> Try low voltage
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for publishing the result
> 
> In some situations, tRTP = 1/2 tWR may improve stability
> 
> +
> 
> do not forget that tRC is a multiple of tRFC
> 
> I spent an incredibly long time in order to achieve stability on 2990 processors, this preset works perfectly at all frequencies
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27835628-post600.html
> 
> perhaps this will help you achieve new frequencies (you can set tRFC equal to tRC * 8, this will help avoid unnecessary voltage addition for RAM)


Interested to see if CJR 8GB vs 16GB DIMMs differ in timings and optimizations


----------



## dspx

ObscureScience said:


> Nice. I'll give it a go. Are there any important settings not listed in the image?


I would suggest that you use the previous version of the calculator as the values in the new one are very different and not stable at all.

I can't think of any right now, but I will let you know if I do.

Btw, I decided to up the CPU frequency so my current memory overclock will have to suffer.


----------



## FJSAMA

*No chance at 3466 fast*

After using 3200 fast preset (stable for months first attempt since i dialed it in), i tried 3466 fast preset.
At first no boot (F9 post code). I only made it boot with procODT at 60Ohm (alt2 recommendation). Yet memtest 1usmus profile throws a lot of errors at first seconds, usually 1 or 2 errors test 6 and then it starts spitting errors non stop at test 12 and i stop it.
Already tried cad_bus block setting and adjusting memholes with CLDO_VDDP voltage but no chance.

Any recommendation? Or should i settle and give up? Could 3200 fast timings be further improved?

setup: G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR kit/ MSI x370 Titanium / R5 2600x

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a second setup im trying another kit of the same ram G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR
but on a x470 asus ch7 with a 1600x (1740 sus)
3200 fast preset passes without errors on tm5 with 1usmus 10 cycles profile and hci memtest 150% coverage. This time i used recommended settings for power supply tab on calculator in order to not throw errors. 

Yet on first cold boot, it always shutdown after 5s of powered up and reboots on its own successfully. Dunno whats causing this, its annoying. If i remove mem oc and use docp profile it doenst behave like this.


----------



## Delphi

@1usmus

Thank you for the post.


I started treating the memory like MFR and it is working better, still BSOD with 3200 safe MFR timings but it is the best so far that I have gotten. 

Currently I am on Safe 3000 MFR timings with the CPU at stock, SOC 1.000V and the ram at 1.37V, and I am still getting mem errors so I am going to go to 1.025v on SOC.

Edit:

So I went back to CJR Safe 2933. This seems to be the sweet spot for my proc. 

Here are my settings, still doesn't like lower than 420 tRFC. SOC is at 1.025, computer was stress testing in the picture so LLC bumped it a bit.


----------



## Mike-EEE

1usmus said:


> you have good memory samples, if thaiphoon are not deceiving (otherwise you will have to choose MFR V1 profile)
> 
> I strongly recommend not to use high voltage for SOC, if you do not use memory frequency above 3600 MHz, you should not exceed 1.06 volts. The most optimal range is within 0.97-1.025 volts for all processors without exception.
> 
> Try low voltage
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for publishing the result
> 
> In some situations, tRTP = 1/2 tWR may improve stability
> 
> +
> 
> do not forget that tRC is a multiple of tRFC
> 
> I spent an incredibly long time in order to achieve stability on 2990 processors, this preset works perfectly at all frequencies
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27835628-post600.html
> 
> perhaps this will help you achieve new frequencies (you can set tRFC equal to tRC * 8, this will help avoid unnecessary voltage addition for RAM)


Oh man... do you happen to have a gem like this for 2700x w/ CJR memory? 

Nonetheless I have been employing your hints and nuggets here and am really close to scoring 0 errors. In fact I am on the "single and rare" circuit now. Trying to figure out what is causing these localized disturbances, which I am assuming is related to timing.

Some notes:
1) After many weeks of fighting with RTT_PARK Disabled (and it being the only way to POST), I set my procODT + RTT to Auto and moved my MHz from 3200 to 3133, and it worked! I am not sure if it is due to the new BIOS from last month, but I cannot believe I didn't try this sooner. 3200 would be nice, but since I have been grappling with this for nearly two months now, I am OK to settle on 3133 if I can get the 0 errors.
2) By default, AUTO sets my RC to 72 (or 74), so I set it to 56, and set RFC to 56 * 8 (448) and that seems to have done the trick here.
3) For CKE, the default is 8, and the calculator is 1. This seems like a huge discrepancy, and one I will be looking at tweaking next.
4) FAW is 33 on AUTO, calculator suggests 34. Maybe this might be another source of errors?
5) On AUTO everything else lines up with the calculator, with the exception of: RDRDSCL/WRWRSCL (AUTO is 5/5 and calculator is 4/4), RDWR/WRRD (AUTO is 7/4 and calculator is 6/4) -- I am going to try 7/3 on this next per suggestion above.

I am first running a sanity check here to see if the XMP profile 1 (2933) with all AUTO works. I did do a check on default 2400 no XMP when I first got these and they went to 100 no problem, but I never checked the XMP to make sure they are OK and there is nothing weird going on with settings there. After I confirm these pass on that, then I will resume the above list. Getting close! (of course, I have been saying that for months now.  )


----------



## Delphi

So I think I have some low quality CJR memory.

I found Hynix's part number breakdown and it is DDR4-2133 15-15-15 JDEC rated. Not 3200-22-22-22.

It is also probably one of the first kits that came out based on release in July and I built it in August.


----------



## DDDSS

Quick question. I have two settings, one based on one of the users from here, the 3400 CL14-13-13-13 at 1.39V. The other is the fast preset from the new 1.4.1 timing calculator, which requires 1.39V.
Is there any reason why I would want to use the FAST preset over the other one? In theory it could be more stable but I have been using the CL14-13-13-13 at 1.39V for months now and had so far only 1 bluescreen. Performance priority is for games mainly.


----------



## nick name

Delphi said:


> So I think I have some low quality CJR memory.
> 
> I found Hynix's part number breakdown and it is DDR4-2133 15-15-15 JDEC rated. Not 3200-22-22-22.
> 
> It is also probably one of the first kits that came out based on release in July and I built it in August.


All DDR4 is rated for the JEDEC 2133 15-15-15-15 standard. Where are you seeing it?


----------



## Delphi

nick name said:


> All DDR4 is rated for the JEDEC 2133 15-15-15-15 standard. Where are you seeing it?



It is a lower binned module according to this from Hynix. Unless the chart works backwards.


----------



## 1usmus

-Grift- said:


> Interested to see if CJR 8GB vs 16GB DIMMs differ in timings and optimizations


Unfortunately, AMD did not provide me with such kits for testing, the maximum that I can check is 4*8 CJR and 4*8 b-die...



Delphi said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Thank you for the post.
> 
> 
> I started treating the memory like MFR and it is working better, still BSOD with 3200 safe MFR timings but it is the best so far that I have gotten.
> 
> Currently I am on Safe 3000 MFR timings with the CPU at stock, SOC 1.000V and the ram at 1.37V, and I am still getting mem errors so I am going to go to 1.025v on SOC.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> So I went back to CJR Safe 2933. This seems to be the sweet spot for my proc.
> 
> Here are my settings, still doesn't like lower than 420 tRFC. SOC is at 1.025, computer was stress testing in the picture so LLC bumped it a bit.


please check at what minimum voltage your memory works now (do not pay attention to the errors, I need to know the lower limit at which you are able to start the system)




DDDSS said:


> Quick question. I have two settings, one based on one of the users from here, the 3400 CL14-13-13-13 at 1.39V. The other is the fast preset from the new 1.4.1 timing calculator, which requires 1.39V.
> Is there any reason why I would want to use the FAST preset over the other one? In theory it could be more stable but I have been using the CL14-13-13-13 at 1.39V for months now and had so far only 1 bluescreen. Performance priority is for games mainly.


No need to compare presets in AIDA, speed and latency is a subjective indicator of performance.

I always use games with built-in performance tests, for example ROTTR



Mike-EEE said:


> Oh man... do you happen to have a gem like this for 2700x w/ CJR memory?
> 
> Nonetheless I have been employing your hints and nuggets here and am really close to scoring 0 errors. In fact I am on the "single and rare" circuit now. Trying to figure out what is causing these localized disturbances, which I am assuming is related to timing.
> 
> Some notes:
> 1) After many weeks of fighting with RTT_PARK Disabled (and it being the only way to POST), I set my procODT + RTT to Auto and moved my MHz from 3200 to 3133, and it worked! I am not sure if it is due to the new BIOS from last month, but I cannot believe I didn't try this sooner. 3200 would be nice, but since I have been grappling with this for nearly two months now, I am OK to settle on 3133 if I can get the 0 errors.
> 2) By default, AUTO sets my RC to 72 (or 74), so I set it to 56, and set RFC to 56 * 8 (448) and that seems to have done the trick here.
> 3) For CKE, the default is 8, and the calculator is 1. This seems like a huge discrepancy, and one I will be looking at tweaking next.
> 4) FAW is 33 on AUTO, calculator suggests 34. Maybe this might be another source of errors?
> 5) On AUTO everything else lines up with the calculator, with the exception of: RDRDSCL/WRWRSCL (AUTO is 5/5 and calculator is 4/4), RDWR/WRRD (AUTO is 7/4 and calculator is 6/4) -- I am going to try 7/3 on this next per suggestion above.
> 
> I am first running a sanity check here to see if the XMP profile 1 (2933) with all AUTO works. I did do a check on default 2400 no XMP when I first got these and they went to 100 no problem, but I never checked the XMP to make sure they are OK and there is nothing weird going on with settings there. After I confirm these pass on that, then I will resume the above list. Getting close! (of course, I have been saying that for months now.  )



I received these modules today, I will soon publish updated presets (next week), maybe I missed something in settings 



Spoiler


----------



## Delphi

Ill get you what I can tonight.

Would you recommend me trying your modded bios 4011 for my motherboard?


----------



## DDDSS

1usmus said:


> No need to compare presets in AIDA, speed and latency is a subjective indicator of performance.
> 
> I always use games with built-in performance tests, for example ROTTR


Will do that in a couple of days and will post results. Whats your testing method, average of 5-10 runs? Frame timegraphs?
Any other suggestions, things to keep in mind?


----------



## FJSAMA

Hi guys and @1usmus

Recently i found something odd with my system and i dont know whats cause, if any problem with it or just the RTC behaving strange.

Sometimes in rtc in dimm config box it apears 2DPC-SR, i even saw 1DPC-MR without touching anything in bios.
Restarting makes it return to 1DPC-SR. My mem kit is G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR and it is sitting at right mb slots (2nd and 4th left to right; dimm_a2 dimm_b2)

Also it happened recently my system locks down, monitor turns off, all completly forzen but pc still turned on with code 00 displayed.
Pressing power button for few seconds doesnt work, i have to switch of psu button. 

Any ideas whats the cause of it? Should i be worried?


----------



## filippoukon

with 1.46 DRAMVOLTAGE


----------



## filippoukon

And one with gdm disabled with the same dram voltage 1.46


----------



## nick name

filippoukon said:


> And one with gdm disabled with the same dram voltage 1.46


Do you use anything else to test after TM5? I've found errors after passing TM5 with Karhu's RAM Test.


----------



## filippoukon

nick name said:


> Do you use anything else to test after TM5? I've found errors after passing TM5 with Karhu's RAM Test.


hci memtest up to 2000% and ibt maximum.
I haven t tested yet with the new settings...


----------



## numlock66

filippoukon said:


> And one with gdm disabled with the same dram voltage 1.46


Hey man, there is option to set PBO Scalar, PPT, TDC, EDC on latest UEFI for Msi Χ470 Gaming M7 AC?


----------



## filippoukon

numlock66 said:


> Hey man, there is option to set PBO Scalar, PPT, TDC, EDC on latest UEFI for Msi Χ470 Gaming M7 AC?


With latest bios it has only option for pbo enabled which is the same as SCALARx10 and option for offset finaly available
options for PPT,TDC,EDC also available


----------



## Mike-EEE

1usmus said:


> I received these modules today, I will soon publish updated presets (next week), maybe I missed something in settings
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Great! Looking forward to it. FWIW it looks like my problem had to do with vCore. The other problem I am having to face is to keep vCore as low as possible to reap the benefits of PBO. I was using 1.37, but it seems that 1.38 (or 1.4 -- got sidetracked on the below) is the bare minimum.

I am attempting to get 3133 Fast working, but it's pretty grumpy with it. I may step back into Safe until the new release. Thanks again for your efforts. :thumb:


----------



## inkforze

FJSAMA said:


> Sometimes in rtc in dimm config box it apears 2DPC-SR, i even saw 1DPC-MR without touching anything in bios.


DIMM config and Soc voltage can be wrong when any other monitoring programs (hwinfo, aida or others) used on RTC starting


----------



## FJSAMA

inkforze said:


> FJSAMA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes in rtc in dimm config box it apears 2DPC-SR, i even saw 1DPC-MR without touching anything in bios.
> 
> 
> 
> DIMM config and Soc voltage can be wrong when any other monitoring programs (hwinfo, aida or others) used on RTC starting
Click to expand...

Thanks, good to know


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> Unfortunately, AMD did not provide me with such kits for testing, the maximum that I can check is 4*8 CJR and 4*8 b-die...


Oh I meant 2x8GB vs 2x16GB :specool:


----------



## Delphi

@1usmus

So my minimum ram voltage for CJR 3133mhz Safe timings for 1st Gen Ryzen was 1.29v. It would BSOD in about 5 seconds of being on the desktop. This was with an SOC of 1.025v


----------



## Yviena

Hmm i managed to get 3466 CL14 with trfc 252 stable on 3 computers now, all i had to do was disable RTT-NOM ,and set cad bus values to 20-30-30-30/20-24-24-24


----------



## ObscureScience

dspx said:


> I would suggest that you use the previous version of the calculator as the values in the new one are very different and not stable at all.
> 
> I can't think of any right now, but I will let you know if I do.
> 
> Btw, I decided to up the CPU frequency so my current memory overclock will have to suffer.


Hmm ok. Can you share the old version? I can only find suspect links to it. 

Edit:
Nevermind, just saw TechPowerUp has old versions.


----------



## FJSAMA

Yviena said:


> Hmm i managed to get 3466 CL14 with trfc 252 stable on 3 computers now, all i had to do was disable RTT-NOM ,and set cad bus values to 20-30-30-30/20-24-24-24


procODT and rttPatk as recommended or auto?
Im in a struggle to get it stable.
With some combinations in cadbus it boots ( procODT 60 mainly) but throw erros in seconds or bsods. 
Any recomendation?


----------



## DDDSS

Well I tested the timings using a game instead of a syntetic benchmark like Aida64, here is the results. I'm not sure what to make of this.


----------



## Yviena

FJSAMA said:


> Yviena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm i managed to get 3466 CL14 with trfc 252 stable on 3 computers now, all i had to do was disable RTT-NOM ,and set cad bus values to 20-30-30-30/20-24-24-24
> 
> 
> 
> procODT and rttPatk as recommended or auto?
> Im in a struggle to get it stable.
> With some combinations in cadbus it boots ( procODT 60 mainly) but throw erros in seconds or bsods.
> Any recomendation?
Click to expand...

 Rttpark is as recommended , but ProcODT is at 48ohm as that was the most stable for me.

Ram voltage is at 1.44v, i think i can lower it a little but i can't bother doing it as my ram cooler is keeping the ram at max 34c even at 1.46v

I would also recommend fiddling with the cpu vcore to find the lowest voltage where both ram, and cpu are stable.


----------



## neil_tohno

I found the DRAM Calculator not support the Hynix TFC Memory
H5AN8G8NAFR-TFC


----------



## steve2563

Because it's AFR. It's before the -TFC.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Delphi

TFC is binning part.


----------



## inkforze

Half of my Viper4 kit now dead (probably static or phisical dmg when check chips labels - think that chips was glued - it was not so ez ) so i buy cheapest ~3000c16 dram in local store:
2 x Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK8GX4M1D3000C16 - chips: D9TBH (MT40A1G8WE-083E:B) - micron B-die
- XMP work from box (and i can drop vDRAM to 1.32v, vSoc=1.025v)
- now run on this settings (vSoc=1.025v, vDram=1.35 - bootable with tWR=10, tWTR_S=3, tWTR_L=10, tRTP=10 - but need time to test):


----------



## mtrai

@1usmus and others interested. I just learned a few minutes ago of this. And then I found an additional hidden menu in the memory benchmark in AIDA. I will let y'all figure out what these different tests really mean and do. I have a new rescue dog that is pretty much taking up all my times these days so not much time left to devote to overclocking for the last two months.

TIL and thought I would share here and in the memory thread. AIDA should somehow make this bit more know somehow. But if you right click the start benchmark a hidden menu pops up. Credit to https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocki...y_psa_in_aida64_right_click_the_bench_button/

However I then tried right clicking in the results area and got an additional menu that allows you to change the bench mark order and weather it displays in MB/s or GB/s and there are 3 additional tests. I am not sure what all this really means for testing just yet...but there are changes from one test to another especially in latency.


----------



## Delphi

I am finally getting somewhere. Had to deviate a bit from the guideline but I am working on stability as I go. tRC and tRFC are still not happy to go lower. Ram voltage was 1.35.


----------



## -Grift-

Delphi said:


> I am finally getting somewhere. Had to deviate a bit from the guideline but I am working on stability as I go. tRC and tRFC are still not happy to go lower. Ram voltage was 1.35.


Can try lowering some of the sub timings with a slight voltage increase, mines at 1.37v


----------



## nick name

Delphi said:


> I am finally getting somewhere. Had to deviate a bit from the guideline but I am working on stability as I go. tRC and tRFC are still not happy to go lower. Ram voltage was 1.35.


Why not try and see what 1.4V or 1.45V will get you?


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> tWR difference?
> 
> p.s. If I update the profile, then most likely, the voltage for RAM will also change


I tried 24 for tWR and 480 tRFC but still got errors. Maybe up the tRRDS and tRRDL by one, as in 1.4.0?

I will be getting a 3600 CJR kit next week so we'll see how far I can get on a B350 and R5 1600.


----------



## Delphi

-Grift- said:


> Can try lowering some of the sub timings with a slight voltage increase, mines at 1.37v





nick name said:


> Why not try and see what 1.4V or 1.45V will get you?


Yeah I am going to mess with it more tonight.

It is nice having a good and stable setup though after all that messing around.

My memory controller doesn't like anything higher than 2933 though. I am stable now at 14-15-14-15-30, going to 14-14-14-14-30 results in BSOD even after taking ram to 1.4v though, and I cannot set tCL to 13, I'll set it and get into windows and the timing checker, hwinfo, and cpuz all say tCL is 14.


----------



## -Grift-

Delphi said:


> Yeah I am going to mess with it more tonight.
> 
> It is nice having a good and stable setup though after all that messing around.
> 
> My memory controller doesn't like anything higher than 2933 though. I am stable now at 14-15-14-15-30, going to 14-14-14-14-30 results in BSOD even after taking ram to 1.4v though, and I cannot set tCL to 13, I'll set it and get into windows and the timing checker, hwinfo, and cpuz all say tCL is 14.


GDM will always round up tCL to an even number


----------



## Mike-EEE

Delphi said:


> It is nice having a good and stable setup though after all that messing around.


+1. I have been at this for nearly two months now on and off. I have learned a lot! So I am grateful in that regard. However, I have also learned a lot of grief.  It is worth it, however, I believe for the next machine I purchase in 3-5 years. Hopefully, this pain and knowledge can carry over and the next experience won't be so challenging.

@1usmus, please consider going forward more attention to 4-stick configurations, as this appears to be the source of all my issues:

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/ryzen_7/2700x

4 of 4 double ranks for Ryzen 2700x appear to be very limited by top speed. I ended up using 3000mhz for my 3333mhz set using your Fast settings (14-16-14-17-28). Forgoing PBO for a manual @ 4.25. Scoring 1935-1940 in Cinebench @ 1.375 vCore / 1.05 vSoC / 1.36 vDRAM.

250% pass on MemTest Deluxe (only $14 and very worth it IMO).

FWIW, "Extreme" doesn't work, but would be interested in using it at some point.  But for now I finally have a super fast machine that I can use, and am someone familiar (comfortable, even?) with how its internals work.

Finally, @1usmus, please consider setting up a BTC/ETH address so those of us who want to show some appreciation can throw some your way from afar. Thanks again (and again!) for all your efforts and knowledge!

EDIT: CPU is 4.25 not 4.5, doh. Also, I did use .9 SoC but ended up with 1.05 SoC as this seems to handle the heat better.


----------



## filippoukon

First of all I would like to apologize for the bad use of the English language.
I m facing a problem with my ram kit and I would like to share it .
After a period of total stability at 3666c14, and 3600c14 (with tighter timings), I made the mistake and tried for 3733c14. Dram/Soc voltage was within the allowed limits, up to 1.47 for Ram and up to 1,125 for the soc. .. mostly, I tried changes that had to do with termination block and cad bus block. of course I failed to maintain stability through this settings and I remember my pc getting restarted a lot of times in order to ''accept'' the new settings.. My problem is from that time, I can't I find stability neither at 3533 or at xmp settings not even after increasing voltages(tm5,hci) , I reflashed the bios,i did clear cmos, I pulled out the sticks but nothing happened.. only 2133 stable till now.
anyone facing the same problem with me?


----------



## Bruizer

filippoukon said:


> First of all I would like to apologize for the bad use of the English language.
> I m facing a problem with my ram kit and I would like to share it .
> After a period of total stability at 3666c14, and 3600c14 (with tighter timings), I made the mistake and tried for 3733c14. Dram/Soc voltage was within the allowed limits, up to 1.47 for Ram and up to 1,125 for the soc. .. mostly, I tried changes that had to do with termination block and cad bus block. of course I failed to maintain stability through this settings and I remember my pc getting restarted a lot of times in order to ''accept'' the new settings.. My problem is from that time, I can't I find stability neither at 3533 or at xmp settings not even after increasing voltages(tm5,hci) , I reflashed the bios,i did clear cmos, I pulled out the sticks but nothing happened.. only 2133 stable till now.
> anyone facing the same problem with me?


Did you check to see if maybe you corrupted your operating system and either repair or reinstall? May be off base but that's the only thing I see you haven't done.


----------



## filippoukon

Bruizer said:


> Did you check to see if maybe you corrupted your operating system and either repair or reinstall? May be off base but that's the only thing I see you haven't done.



I doubt that this is the problem but as you mentioned there isn't anything else to try..
Finally I thing this is the nexti thing am gonna do.reinstall windows 10


----------



## nick name

filippoukon said:


> I doubt that this is the problem but as you mentioned there isn't anything else to try..
> Finally I thing this is the nexti thing am gonna do.reinstall windows 10


I run this occasionally to check my Windows install:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...er-tool-to-repair-missing-or-corrupted-system


----------



## CJMitsuki

filippoukon said:


> Bruizer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you check to see if maybe you corrupted your operating system and either repair or reinstall? May be off base but that's the only thing I see you haven't done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that this is the problem but as you mentioned there isn't anything else to try..
> Finally I thing this is the nexti thing am gonna do.reinstall windows 10
Click to expand...

When testig high frequencies and running into lots of errors you can and ultimately will corrupt your Os system files. Ive done it many times and sometimes it is obvious as with corrupt video drivers and sometimes it isnt obvious. Also the SFC commands only check system files so anything you have added to the system will not be checked. This can include the very software you use to teat the Ram. After loads of heavy memory OC and testing its always a good idea to Recover the system back to an earlier time or just do a clean install.


----------



## filippoukon

CJMitsuki said:


> When testig high frequencies and running into lots of errors you can and ultimately will corrupt your Os system files. Ive done it many times and sometimes it is obvious as with corrupt video drivers and sometimes it isnt obvious. Also the SFC commands only check system files so anything you have added to the system will not be checked. This can include the very software you use to teat the Ram. After loads of heavy memory OC and testing its always a good idea to Recover the system back to an earlier time or just do a clean install.


thanks a lot. I m gonna try to reinstall windows when I ll have free time and I ll inform you


----------



## nick name

filippoukon said:


> thanks a lot. I m gonna try to reinstall windows when I ll have free time and I ll inform you


Try this before you do:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...er-tool-to-repair-missing-or-corrupted-system


----------



## filippoukon

Everything is rock stable again. Reinstall os was the solution.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Whats worth looking into is getting your fresh OS to a "clean perfect" condition as in, install all needed drivers and programs and get it dialed in to what you like and buy a service like Acronis (what i use) and save that OS to the cloud and when you get corruption like you just experienced or just anytime you need a clean install you can use the bootable recovery usb that you download from their service and you reboot with the usb and it will reinstall that specific OS in like 5 min. This way you dont have to set up your OS ever again. Its very useful if you use multiple different OS as you can swap between them easily.


----------



## filippoukon

CJMitsuki said:


> Whats worth looking into is getting your fresh OS to a "clean perfect" condition as in, install all needed drivers and programs and get it dialed in to what you like and buy a service like Acronis (what i use) and save that OS to the cloud and when you get corruption like you just experienced or just anytime you need a clean install you can use the bootable recovery usb that you download from their service and you reboot with the usb and it will reinstall that specific OS in like 5 min. This way you dont have to set up your OS ever again. Its very useful if you use multiple different OS as you can swap between them easily.


nice idea I will check acronis! thank you a lot


----------



## dspx

filippoukon said:


> nice idea I will check acronis! thank you a lot


Check out Aomei, the basic version is free but is more than enough.


----------



## dBRaven

FJSAMA said:


> Hi guys and @1usmus
> 
> Recently i found something odd with my system and i dont know whats cause, if any problem with it or just the RTC behaving strange.
> 
> Sometimes in rtc in dimm config box it apears 2DPC-SR, i even saw 1DPC-MR without touching anything in bios.
> Restarting makes it return to 1DPC-SR. My mem kit is G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR and it is sitting at right mb slots (2nd and 4th left to right; dimm_a2 dimm_b2)
> 
> Also it happened recently my system locks down, monitor turns off, all completly forzen but pc still turned on with code 00 displayed.
> Pressing power button for few seconds doesnt work, i have to switch of psu button.
> 
> Any ideas whats the cause of it? Should i be worried?


Hi,

I have had the exact same problem.
It was caused by updated ASUS AI Suite tool. After disabling startup of this program, it now works without any problems.
Also, downgrading the AI Suite tool to the to previous version should fix the problem, but I did not try that.


----------



## CJMitsuki

dBRaven said:


> FJSAMA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys and @1usmus
> 
> Recently i found something odd with my system and i dont know whats cause, if any problem with it or just the RTC behaving strange.
> 
> Sometimes in rtc in dimm config box it apears 2DPC-SR, i even saw 1DPC-MR without touching anything in bios.
> Restarting makes it return to 1DPC-SR. My mem kit is G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR and it is sitting at right mb slots (2nd and 4th left to right; dimm_a2 dimm_b2)
> 
> Also it happened recently my system locks down, monitor turns off, all completly forzen but pc still turned on with code 00 displayed.
> Pressing power button for few seconds doesnt work, i have to switch of psu button.
> 
> Any ideas whats the cause of it? Should i be worried?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have had the exact same problem.
> It was caused by updated ASUS AI Suite tool. After disabling startup of this program, it now works without any problems.
> Also, downgrading the AI Suite tool to the to previous version should fix the problem, but I did not try that.
Click to expand...

Its because they are both trying to access hardware at the same time and causing a conflict. If you open RTC you need to make sure there are no hardware monitoring software running as it will likely conflict with RTC.


----------



## filippoukon

dspx said:


> Check out Aomei, the basic version is free but is more than enough.


even better.. I ll give it a try


----------



## JurajB

Hi, Im here to ask for some values that lot of peeople (esp with my motherboeard) with a passion would like to have this.
OK so mobo ASUS Crosshair VII Hero. DRAM Timing in there is cooperating with named values in Red DRAM Calculator.
But here comes the trouble: Tweakers Paradise is part of the mobo bios and there are values that you hopefully help me with.
- DRAM R1 (R2, R3, R4) Tune (auto)
- Clock amplitude - (high or normal)
- Sense MI Skew (auto)
- Sense MI Offset (auto)
- CLDO VDDP Volt (auto)
- VDDP Volt (auto)
- VTTDDR Volt (I have 0.75V @ 1.460 DRAM Volt)
- VPP_MEM (I have 2.95)
- CTRL Ref (ch A and ch B) (I have 0.48).
edit:
- MemAddrCmdSetup (auto)
- MemCsOdtSetup (auto)
- MemCkeSetup (auto)
- Promontory presence (auto)


Thats all folks! 
Thanx.


----------



## Zerotre

Hi there,


could someone please give me some advice about a good 2x8gb kit that can reach [email protected], (ryzen 2600x and x470) at a good price? Or the best choice perf/€

Thanks a lot


*sorry for the OT, but i think this is the best place to ask something like this


----------



## HatchetEgg

Zerotre said:


> Hi there,
> 
> 
> could someone please give me some advice about a good 2x8gb kit that can reach [email protected], (ryzen 2600x and x470) at a good price? Or the best choice perf/€
> 
> Thanks a lot
> 
> 
> *sorry for the OT, but i think this is the best place to ask something like this



These are pretty good, there is some room in the tank for these. If you have any intentions of OC the RAM.


https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/G-SKILL-...h=item2f093bbc0a:g:beoAAOSwL5pZieDV:rk:1:pf:0


----------



## nick name

Zerotre said:


> Hi there,
> 
> 
> could someone please give me some advice about a good 2x8gb kit that can reach [email protected], (ryzen 2600x and x470) at a good price? Or the best choice perf/€
> 
> Thanks a lot
> 
> 
> *sorry for the OT, but i think this is the best place to ask something like this


I'd imagine most folks would point you toward a 3200CL14 b-die kit. I'd point you at the 3600CL15 b-die kit. I believe the 4000CL17 kit from TridentZ might be better, but haven't seen anyone using it. That 4000CL17 kit costs now what I paid for my 3600CL15 kit a few months ago and that 3600CL kit is down to around $220 USD now.


----------



## CJMitsuki

nick name said:


> I'd imagine most folks would point you toward a 3200CL14 b-die kit. I'd point you at the 3600CL15 b-die kit. I believe the 4000CL17 kit from TridentZ might be better, but haven't seen anyone using it. That 4000CL17 kit costs now what I paid for my 3600CL15 kit a few months ago and that 3600CL kit is down to around $220 USD now.


Literally no difference in either kit. They say they are binned higher but I had the 4266mhz kit and my 3200c14 one OCs much higher so I sent the 4266 back. Id just get the 3200c14 kit and call it a day as you arent going to get a better set by buying the 3600c15 kit bc they are the exact same dies and the "binning" is done with Intel so you can throw that binning out the window when using them on Ryzen. My 3200c14 kit can easily run 3600 but the optimal Ive found is around 3550mhz with optimal timings using bclk at around 104.6-106.6mhz but thats just what ive found optimal for me. It ultimately will come down to IMC and DRAM IC quality which are both a lottery but as far as 3200c14 vs 3600c15 there is literally no difference besides the model numbers that G.Skill has given them.


----------



## nick name

CJMitsuki said:


> Literally no difference in either kit. They say they are binned higher but I had the 4266mhz kit and my 3200c14 one OCs much higher so I sent the 4266 back. Id just get the 3200c14 kit and call it a day as you arent going to get a better set by buying the 3600c15 kit bc they are the exact same dies and the "binning" is done with Intel so you can throw that binning out the window when using them on Ryzen. My 3200c14 kit can easily run 3600 but the optimal Ive found is around 3550mhz with optimal timings using bclk at around 104.6-106.6mhz but thats just what ive found optimal for me. It ultimately will come down to IMC and DRAM IC quality which are both a lottery but as far as 3200c14 vs 3600c15 there is literally no difference besides the model numbers that G.Skill has given them.


Yeah, in my mind I wasn't thinking performance for the binning, but the voltage needed. 

I'm also hoping Ryzen 3000 CPUs will have stronger IMCs so fingers crossed those 4000+ kits become more relevant.


----------



## Zerotre

Thanks for the answers!


----------



## dspx

A word of caution - *don't* use G.Skill SniperX 3600 on Asus Prime B350-Plus, it won't work. Currently looking to buy MSI X470 Gaming Plus, did anyone try SniperX 3600 on it?


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> A word of caution - *don't* use G.Skill SniperX 3600 on Asus Prime B350-Plus, it won't work. Currently looking to buy MSI X470 Gaming Plus, did anyone try SniperX 3600 on it?


may not work due to one timing, this memory likes accuracy...where are you staying?

I tested a new kit yesterday, here is the current stable result (3800cl16)

soc 1.1
dram 1.42



Spoiler


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> may not work due to one timing, this memory likes accuracy...where are you staying?


What do you mean by accuracy?

I cleared the CMOS but I get 3 beeps every time I try initializing and that's it.

Can not get into BIOS at all.


----------



## crazycrave

I am 100% stable at 3200Mhz at 16-18-18-18 1.35v with Ryzen 5 1600 which is G SKill Rip Jaw V Black 2 X 4Gb kit .


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> What do you mean by accuracy?
> 
> I cleared the CMOS but I get 3 beeps every time I try initializing and that's it.
> 
> Can not get into BIOS at all.


I thought you had a different kind of problem

try to start the system with 1 module in slot A2 
if there is success then
remove the module from slot A2 and place the module in B2, start the system and install the second module


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> I thought you had a different kind of problem
> 
> try to start the system with 1 module in slot A2
> if there is success then
> remove the module from slot A2 and place the module in B2, start the system and install the second module


One of the modules will not work in any slot. I don't know if it's a MB problem, or I have a faulty DRAM stick.

The other one works fine.


----------



## CJMitsuki

dspx said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you had a different kind of problem
> 
> try to start the system with 1 module in slot A2
> if there is success then
> remove the module from slot A2 and place the module in B2, start the system and install the second module
> 
> 
> 
> One of the modules will not work in any slot. I don't know if it's a MB problem, or I have a faulty DRAM stick.
> 
> The other one works fine.
Click to expand...

That is a memory problem. The stick that wont work in any slot is bad. Return the kit and get them to replace it.


----------



## dspx

CJMitsuki said:


> That is a memory problem. The stick that wont work in any slot is bad. Return the kit and get them to replace it.


Thanks. I will go to a service for a checkup first thing in the morning.

Btw, I managed to get a stable 3400, currently running 3466 but not tested it yet. (B350 board / Ryzen 1600)


----------



## pktmjp

Hi all,

Finally got my G Skill 3200CL16 stable at 3533CL16, but I feel like the subtimings I used are really killing my performance... especially latency (mind you, this is more imaginary benchmarks points driven over noticeable real world performance lag). I tried Stilt's 3200CL14 extreme timings and they always had one or two rogue errors that I could never iron out. The DRAM Calculator has always helped be a good starting point but also always ended up with one or two random errors.

Any tips or help would be greatly appreciated. Have really enjoyed reading through this forum and learning from everyone.

Thanks!!

To save time, Posting images of the current RAM timings and rig info.
The Timings image has a few things incorrect: (correct info below)

Hynix AFR

ProcODT: 48
RTT Park: RZQ/5(48)
CAD Bus Clk Drv - CkeDrv (DRAM Calc order): 30/30/40/60

VCORE SOC - 1.175V
CPU SOC SB Voltage - 1.05V
DRAM Voltage -1.44V


----------



## FJSAMA

I had to play with rtt settings to cure a single rogue error that appeared in 1000% HCI when 1usmus tm5 passed. Even following alt settings in calculator i had to increase rttNom to 60 ohms to resolve it.
Check 1usmus "what is a single error" post. There are a few tips there.

Take calculator as a starting point but then you will have to be prepared to spend some time messing with settings and testing all over. 
Im yet to find a stable combination of rtt/cad bus settings for my 3200c14 b die at 3466 fast settings. The only way it boots is with 60+ohm procODT but still throwing errors.


----------



## CJMitsuki

pktmjp said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Finally got my G Skill 3200CL16 stable at 3533CL16, but I feel like the subtimings I used are really killing my performance... especially latency (mind you, this is more imaginary benchmarks points driven over noticeable real world performance lag). I tried Stilt's 3200CL14 extreme timings and they always had one or two rogue errors that I could never iron out. The DRAM Calculator has always helped be a good starting point but also always ended up with one or two random errors.
> 
> Any tips or help would be greatly appreciated. Have really enjoyed reading through this forum and learning from everyone.
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> To save time, Posting images of the current RAM timings and rig info.
> The Timings image has a few things incorrect: (correct info below)
> 
> Hynix AFR
> 
> ProcODT: 48
> RTT Park: RZQ/5(48)
> CAD Bus Clk Drv - CkeDrv (DRAM Calc order): 30/30/40/60
> 
> VCORE SOC - 1.175V
> CPU SOC SB Voltage - 1.05V
> DRAM Voltage -1.44V


Honestly the only suggestion I can offer is save up for a better kit as you are probably lucky to be running Hynix AFR on TR with that frequency. You are right though but more so the Primaries are killing your performance but I would imagine that you have to loosen them up that far to be stable. Save up for a 3200c14 g.skill kit bc Hynix AFR are definitely not the best. Ive seen others complain about those dies more than any other.


----------



## riceroni

According to thaiphoon I have hynix but when I import the XMP into dram calculator, it shows up as samsung b-die? Should I leave it as is or change the memory type to hynix afr and profile to v1?


----------



## -Grift-

riceroni said:


> According to thaiphoon I have hynix but when I import the XMP into dram calculator, it shows up as samsung b-die? Should I leave it as is or change the memory type to hynix afr and profile to v1?


The calculator always defaults to BDie


----------



## dspx

riceroni said:


> According to thaiphoon I have hynix but when I import the XMP into dram calculator, it shows up as samsung b-die? Should I leave it as is or change the memory type to hynix afr and profile to v1?


Change it manually, then save settings.


----------



## Jeggu

Can't wait for the new version with refined CJR presets!


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> One of the modules will not work in any slot. I don't know if it's a MB problem, or I have a faulty DRAM stick.
> 
> The other one works fine.


faulty module, I was forced to return the last CJR - kit to the store due to a similar problem



riceroni said:


> According to thaiphoon I have hynix but when I import the XMP into dram calculator, it shows up as samsung b-die? Should I leave it as is or change the memory type to hynix afr and profile to v1?


you don't have to import anything

1) choose AFR (V1 or V2 , difference in quality of memory chips) 
2) click R-XMP
3) choose frequency what u want
4) click Calculate Safe or Calculate Fast



pktmjp said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Finally got my G Skill 3200CL16 stable at 3533CL16, but I feel like the subtimings I used are really killing my performance... especially latency (mind you, this is more imaginary benchmarks points driven over noticeable real world performance lag). I tried Stilt's 3200CL14 extreme timings and they always had one or two rogue errors that I could never iron out. The DRAM Calculator has always helped be a good starting point but also always ended up with one or two random errors.
> 
> Any tips or help would be greatly appreciated. Have really enjoyed reading through this forum and learning from everyone.
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> To save time, Posting images of the current RAM timings and rig info.
> The Timings image has a few things incorrect: (correct info below)
> 
> Hynix AFR
> 
> ProcODT: 48
> RTT Park: RZQ/5(48)
> CAD Bus Clk Drv - CkeDrv (DRAM Calc order): 30/30/40/60
> 
> VCORE SOC - 1.175V
> CPU SOC SB Voltage - 1.05V
> DRAM Voltage -1.44V


it's fantastic! :thumb:


----------



## 1usmus

*I want to show you something (a piece of my tests)* /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

The theoretical part of my article is 100% ready, now I am testing in some games to show you where the reasonable limit is and if we need a very high memory frequency (IF frequency). 
For me there was a great surprise that the 3800c16 has no advantages over the 3466c16 (22349 vs 22479 frames) + once again the multi-rank configuration has shown an additional increase in performance

I also made sure once again that the higher the processor frequency, the more unstable the overclocking of the RAM will be. On my processor (it has an average quality), the reasonable limit turned out to be 4100 MHz for the memory frequency above 3600 MHz. For this, we even had to change the cpu vrm switch frequency (auto -> 800khz)

Memory on CJR chips has a huge chance to become a new mass product, if Samsung does not release an update for b - die

*Config:*

2700X @4.1
MSI M7 AC
1080ti undervolted 0.850v @ 1800mhz (*AMD decided not to give me a Radeon 7. This is my answer to the public, why I do all the tests on green product*)

*Results:*

Hynix CJR 2133 default 4 DIMM


Spoiler















Hynix CJR 2133 default 2 DIMM


Spoiler















Hynix CJR 3200C14 2 DIMM


Spoiler















Hynix CJR 3200C14 4 DIMM


Spoiler















Hynix CJR 3466C16 2 DIMM


Spoiler















Hynix CJR 3800C16 2 DIMM


Spoiler















Samsung B-die 3200C14 Dual Rank 2 DIMM


Spoiler















Similarly, there will be a comparison of the multi-rank configuration with memory on Samsung chips (3200-3666c14). You will receive the most large-scale comparison, which is still not on the internet /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif

*I have a request to you if someone can give access to Assassin's Creed Odyssey. I would like to test on a new version (pirated versions have not been updated for a long time). I'll be very grateful.

I chose such settings in the game for a reason, even in this case, in most scenarios there is an emphasis on the video card and the most important thing that I wanted to tell you is that in order to load the 2700X you need at least 2 or 3 2080ti. Do not believe the reviews on the internet, at the moment there are a lot of low-quality content*


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> faulty module, I was forced to return the last CJR - kit to the store due to a similar problem


Yes, one of the modules was faulty, already sent it back and waiting for a new kit.


----------



## pktmjp

Thanks for the insights everyone. If I find any crazy major improvements, I'll be sure to share. I'm sure there are some other AFR owners out there who could use it.


----------



## chakku

Just need @1usmus to tell me that 2x16GB 3400C14 isn't any better than 3200C14 so I can stop trying to get it stable


----------



## Undervolter

Hello, yesterday i fiddled a bit with the program. Just a curiocity, since i find it tiring inputing all those values. Is there a downside if i only use the "main" timings? I mean, the ones that appear in CPU-Z too, leaving the rest on auto? I know that probably will result in performance loss, but other than that, is there a problem with the normal functioning of the RAM? I use Corsair 3000C15 (Hynix A die). The PC seems to work fine, i just wanted to doublecheck.


----------



## CJMitsuki

chakku said:


> Just need @1usmus to tell me that 2x16GB 3400C14 isn't any better than 3200C14 so I can stop trying to get it stable


In gaming there wont be any difference but in certain memory sensitive tasks there will be a difference but all of this depends on the timings. Frequency means far less than having good timings does. You can have a 3200 profile with the right timings match performance with 3533 just like you can have 3533 profile that can match 3800 profile in performance. I dont just mean lower timings bc that isnt always the best, you just have to test and tweak and test and so much of it that it will make you sick. If I were you I would drop back to 3200-3333 and find optimal timings rather than trying to find the absolute highest freq you can bc you will become disappointed once you do get it stable.


----------



## dspx

Undervolter said:


> Hello, yesterday i fiddled a bit with the program. Just a curiocity, since i find it tiring inputing all those values.


Click on "R-XMP" and you are good to go.


----------



## Undervolter

dspx said:


> Click on "R-XMP" and you are good to go.


Thanks, i watched the instructions video and so i did click on R-XMP and then on "Calculate safe". But the results from "calculate safe" are so many to put in the BIOS, so i just put 14-16-16-16-30-42 (for 2933Mhz) and left the rest to auto.


----------



## ORL

Decided I wanted to try playing with this tool to see if it offered a better base point than my old school ways... much to my surprise I cannot find the memory owned on any of the die lists. Close in nomenclature but not the same, closest ive gotten has an extra C in the name.


G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3200 16/18/18/38
F4320016D16GTZR

Anyone know which set this is? Talk about frustrating.


----------



## CJMitsuki

ORL said:


> Decided I wanted to try playing with this tool to see if it offered a better base point than my old school ways... much to my surprise I cannot find the memory owned on any of the die lists. Close in nomenclature but not the same, closest ive gotten has an extra C in the name.
> 
> 
> G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3200 16/18/18/38
> F4320016D16GTZR
> 
> Anyone know which set this is? Talk about frustrating.


Looks like either LQ b die but probably Hynix AFR

Edit: is this it?


----------



## pktmjp

CJMitsuki said:


> Looks like either LQ b die but probably Hynix AFR
> 
> Edit: is this it?


Can confirm this is Hynix AFR. This is the exact same kit I am using.


----------



## pktmjp

CJMitsuki said:


> In gaming there wont be any difference but in certain memory sensitive tasks there will be a difference but all of this depends on the timings. Frequency means far less than having good timings does. You can have a 3200 profile with the right timings match performance with 3533 just like you can have 3533 profile that can match 3800 profile in performance. I dont just mean lower timings bc that isnt always the best, you just have to test and tweak and test and so much of it that it will make you sick. If I were you I would drop back to 3200-3333 and find optimal timings rather than trying to find the absolute highest freq you can bc you will become disappointed once you do get it stable.


Also can confirm this. Got 3200CL14 stable (well 1 error in an hour of TestMem5 with 1usmus profile stable) and it scores the exact same cinebench score as when I had my kit at 3533cl16 (all else being equal).


----------



## ORL

pktmjp said:


> Also can confirm this. Got 3200CL14 stable (well 1 error in an hour of TestMem5 with 1usmus profile stable) and it scores the exact same cinebench score as when I had my kit at 3533cl16 (all else being equal).


Mind sharing your settings? I know all kits are different. Just want to gauge how the two compare after I tweak some.

Thanks everyone! I was getting frustrated trying to find this out, the extra C on the other models was throwing me some doubt. So far its pretty decent memory though it looks for being Hynix.


----------



## chroniclard

Any advice on tweaks for this, sometimes gets 1000%+ ramtest, sometimes 500%, just not sure what to tweak now. Running at 1.41v.

Its b-die teamgroup 4000 memory which I picked up fairly cheaply.


----------



## CJMitsuki

pktmjp said:


> Also can confirm this. Got 3200CL14 stable (well 1 error in an hour of TestMem5 with 1usmus profile stable) and it scores the exact same cinebench score as when I had my kit at 3533cl16 (all else being equal).


[email protected] and [email protected] are close even with the same timings. 3533c16 with same timings is will be almost same performance as [email protected] so that doesnt prove my point. I mean that with the right timings [email protected] can be comparable to 3533c14 with timings that are a bit more loose. Basically, if you are trying to run the fastest frequency but you have to loosen the timings then there is a decent chance you are taking a step back in performance compared to if you dropped a step in frequency and ran more optimal timings. Frequency isnt necessarily equivalent to more performance. It all depends on timings and it doesnt take much to negate any frequency gain and even drop performance. Never look at Aida64 numbers and use that to gauge performance. I can put together a wildly unstable 3800c14 profile and run Aida64 and it will look amazing to Aida64 but in reality it is garbage. Aida64 cache mem cannot show you performance at all. Geekbench 3 has a decent memory performance benchmark and I also like passmark performance tests memory benchmark but imo Geekbench 3 64 bit test is the most accurate to show changes in perfromance.


----------



## pktmjp

ORL said:


> Mind sharing your settings? I know all kits are different. Just want to gauge how the two compare after I tweak some.
> 
> Thanks everyone! I was getting frustrated trying to find this out, the extra C on the other models was throwing me some doubt. So far its pretty decent memory though it looks for being Hynix.


Here is the closest I have gotten 3200cl14 100% stable with that Hynix AFR kit. It is like A Stilt/DRAM Calc hybrid with some tweaking mized in. The 3533 settings are a couple pages back (403 ish).

DRAM Voltage: 1.415
SOC: 1.05
VCORE SOC: 1.175


----------



## ajc9988

CJMitsuki said:


> In gaming there wont be any difference but in certain memory sensitive tasks there will be a difference but all of this depends on the timings. Frequency means far less than having good timings does. You can have a 3200 profile with the right timings match performance with 3533 just like you can have 3533 profile that can match 3800 profile in performance. I dont just mean lower timings bc that isnt always the best, you just have to test and tweak and test and so much of it that it will make you sick. If I were you I would drop back to 3200-3333 and find optimal timings rather than trying to find the absolute highest freq you can bc you will become disappointed once you do get it stable.


To build on this, which memory timings are optimal can vary by task and program. For example, stable timings that help memory sensitive games may not be optimal timings for certain rendering programs, etc. Generally they will be close and fine enough, and people often will seek out just any stable settings at a given frequency, and the differences between the sets of timings often is only 1%, if that, give or take, so there isn't really a need for coming up with multiple timing profiles, but wanted to add this to build on your statement.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## TheHorse

So this tool was useless for my Micron memory but that's because Micron makes ****ty dies. Works great on my Samsung B-die

I have the absolute best benchmark of any RAM of this model on userbenchmark, it's way off the end of the "great" side of the scale. And this is just the safe setting. 

https://valid.x86.fr/pi0z6r


----------



## HardwareNumb3rs

Hey guys, 

yesterday I was testing the HyperX Predator HX432C16PB3K2/8 3200 C16 8GB kit, and I found something strange, I read it with Taiphoon and the ICs are *Hynix b-die*, or at least that's what in the report, did any of you heard of this? The kit clocks bad, the first profile (3200 C16) is not stable, the second (3000 C15) is, I tried to push it but without any luck. 

On the other hand, the Hyperx Predator 3000 C15 8gb kit (HX430C15PB3K2/8 Hynix a-die) clocks way better, I was able to get it stable to 3200 C14 easily.

I will post some screenshot later today, I just found it strange that Hynix had a b-die version.


----------



## Reous

@HardwareNumb3rs Can you upload the screen of Thaiphoon Burner here please?


----------



## dgoc18

@1usmus 

I wonder is there new version coming for Hynix CJR single rank presets ?

Thanks for your time.


----------



## dkarDaGobert

Hey
im currently overclocking my b-dies on my 2x8gb gskill 3200c14 kit. right now im 25k% karhu safe with the setting you can see in the file 
do you have any suggestions how i get the gear down mode disabled? 

if i disable it in the uefi it wont start. even with 1,47 vdimm, 1.1vsoc and no cpu overclocking and vcore on default. any ideas? 

also, which value do you think could be lower without increasing the voltages?


cheers
dagobert


----------



## HardwareNumb3rs

Reous said:


> @HardwareNumb3rs Can you upload the screen of Thaiphoon Burner here please?


Here it is, very weird to me, and I've test a lot of kits, never seen a Hynix b-die (and this is for sure one of the worse I've tested)





dkarDaGobert said:


> Hey
> im currently overclocking my b-dies on my 2x8gb gskill 3200c14 kit. right now im 25k% karhu safe with the setting you can see in the file
> do you have any suggestions how i get the gear down mode disabled?
> 
> if i disable it in the uefi it wont start. even with 1,47 vdimm, 1.1vsoc and no cpu overclocking and vcore on default. any ideas?
> 
> also, which value do you think could be lower without increasing the voltages?
> 
> 
> cheers
> dagobert


If you want to overclock b-die you need voltage, both on ram and soc, way more than 1.1 soc, for your reference, in the screenshot below I was at 1.2650 soc and 2.05 ram, if you want to lower your timings you may want to try 1.175 soc or something similar.


----------



## 1usmus

dgoc18 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> I wonder is there new version coming for Hynix CJR single rank presets ?
> 
> Thanks for your time.


Yes, there will be an update, but there will be no major changes



chakku said:


> Just need @1usmus to tell me that 2x16GB 3400C14 isn't any better than 3200C14 so I can stop trying to get it stable


productivity growth is observed (the difference between 3200 and 3400 is about 3-4%), but users unfortunately will not be able to get a stable frequency due to the peculiarities of the memory controller



dkarDaGobert said:


> Hey
> im currently overclocking my b-dies on my 2x8gb gskill 3200c14 kit. right now im 25k% karhu safe with the setting you can see in the file
> do you have any suggestions how i get the gear down mode disabled?
> 
> if i disable it in the uefi it wont start. even with 1,47 vdimm, 1.1vsoc and no cpu overclocking and vcore on default. any ideas?
> 
> also, which value do you think could be lower without increasing the voltages?
> 
> 
> cheers
> dagobert


I think this is a temporary BIOS problem


----------



## sngbird

TheHorse said:


> So this tool was useless for my Micron memory but that's because Micron makes ****ty dies. Works great on my Samsung B-die
> 
> I have the absolute best benchmark of any RAM of this model on userbenchmark, it's way off the end of the "great" side of the scale. And this is just the safe setting.
> 
> https://valid.x86.fr/pi0z6r



So, crucial memories are bad like this to oc? I have 2x BLS8G4D26BFSTK 8GB 2666MHz and I don't know how to set an overclock to 3200MHz, I was thinking if this DRAM Calculator could help me.


----------



## TheHorse

sngbird said:


> So, crucial memories are bad like this to oc? I have 2x BLS8G4D26BFSTK 8GB 2666MHz and I don't know how to set an overclock to 3200MHz, I was thinking if this DRAM Calculator could help me.


The only way to know is by trying it.


----------



## HardwareNumb3rs

So anyone have an idea about that Hynix b-die? Error or a lower binned ICs?


----------



## Yviena

Hmm seems like 3466 CL14 + 252 trfc requires 1.45v my 3600CL16 Ripjaws are probably just average-above average then.


----------



## Saiger0

Yviena said:


> Hmm seems like 3466 CL14 + 252 trfc requires 1.45v my 3600CL16 Ripjaws are probably just average-above average then.


Same for me. I can run 3400cl14 at 1.4V and 3466 barely with 1.45v.


----------



## Cubeycube

So my calculated timings are slower than my current profile, should I just leave the settings?

E.g, clicking on r-xmp gives me a current profile tCL(CAS) ns of 10.000, but the calculated one gives me a 10.503 ns


----------



## sngbird

TheHorse said:


> The only way to know is by trying it.


I understand. Do you have some tips about how to increase clock of my RAM? I'm using 2x8gb DDR4 2666MHz Crucial Sports AT and Gigabyte AX370 Gaming 3 mobo, sorry for asking but I'm nub in this area and I don't want to mess up with my board, so I'm looking for a safe oc only for my DDR4 sticks to increase some peformance in games.


----------



## snipernote

motherboard gigabyte aorus m b450
CPU Ryzen 7 1700X [email protected] , VSOC at 1.200v (+0.108 in bios as per suggested to me in discord overclockers channel)

ram corsair CMK32GX4M2B3200C16 Samsung B-Die dual rank red heatsink 16GBx2 Kit
Currently running at 2866 with very loose timings 18-20-20-20-58 because i cannot use XMP (3200 16-18-18-18-36) for them
Dram volt is 1.35v in windows and in bios it says 1.356v
i tired your app at first and input all data manually and i couldn't boot so far 

i need additional guidance and i just read your advanced tips , i already tried setting and doing some changes bbut i cannot make it stable enough
this is what i got so far from your app and i still cannot boot at 3200 mhz


----------



## snipernote

@1usmus
i tried again with debug mode and so far i cannot post/boot .... i have been trying to post with 3200 for over 2 weeks
the same problem is happenning on all alt or normal safe settings ... the pc cannot post and always cmos reset
this is the last try from today and i attach to you my memory taiphoon complete xml also


Currently running at 2800 XMP timings 16-18-18-18-54 and 1.35v dram , stock cpu with PBO enabled and Voltage is Auto
tried 2933 yesterday with xmp and i can boot but it will crash in windows
so far 2866 xmp off (xmp on will crash happened yesterday) and 2800 i am testing now 



system specs 

https://valid.x86.fr/fpcgd4


----------



## Nighthog

snipernote said:


> @1usmus
> i tried again with debug mode and so far i cannot post/boot .... i have been trying to post with 3200 for over 2 weeks
> the same problem is happenning on all alt or normal safe settings ... the pc cannot post and always cmos reset
> this is the last try from today and i attach to you my memory taiphoon complete xml also
> 
> 
> Currently running at 2800 XMP timings 16-18-18-18-54 and 1.35v dram , stock cpu with PBO enabled and Voltage is Auto
> tried 2933 yesterday with xmp and i can boot but it will crash in windows
> so far 2866 xmp off (xmp on will crash happened yesterday) and 2800 i am testing now
> 
> 
> 
> system specs
> 
> https://valid.x86.fr/fpcgd4


Which RTT values are you trying to use and which ProcODT?

I would try RZQ/7 . RZQ/3 RZQ/1 first then try RZQ/7 . disabled . RZQ/4 ... these values worked ok for me on the AB350-Gaming 3

ProcODT you will just have to try find the most stable one. Each kit/mobo seem to like it different. dual-rank kits usually like it higher than single-rank kits. try 60/68Ohm for example.


----------



## dgoc18

@snipernote

Did you put ram on right slots ? look at the pic below for your mobo from manual.

Try it again with correct slots and set XMP 3200 again without use Dram Calc.


----------



## snipernote

Nighthog said:


> Which RTT values are you trying to use and which ProcODT?
> 
> I would try RZQ/7 . RZQ/3 RZQ/1 first then try RZQ/7 . disabled . RZQ/4 ... these values worked ok for me on the AB350-Gaming 3
> 
> ProcODT you will just have to try find the most stable one. Each kit/mobo seem to like it different. dual-rank kits usually like it higher than single-rank kits. try 60/68Ohm for example.



thank you for your reply all 9 combinations did not boot , i tried proq odt ( 53 - 60 -63 ohms ) with the rzq or disabled values also i made many tries yesterday ... the one with disabled options ended up resetting cmos after 5 minutes and i had to reset and boot system 3 times by forcing a shutdown through the power button 3 times to make it go back to bios with a cmos reset error




dgoc18 said:


> @*snipernote*
> 
> Did you put ram on right slots ? look at the pic below for your mobo from manual.
> 
> Try it again with correct slots and set XMP 3200 again without use Dram Calc.




yes i did put them in the right slots since day 1 ... please find attached exact location in the motherboard


update: contacted the seller yesterday and they issued a replacement order immediatly ... lets hope it comes soon


----------



## NaiZ1337

snipernote said:


> thank you for your reply all 9 combinations did not boot , i tried proq odt ( 53 - 60 -63 ohms ) with the rzq or disabled values also i made many tries yesterday ... the one with disabled options ended up resetting cmos after 5 minutes and i had to reset and boot system 3 times by forcing a shutdown through the power button 3 times to make it go back to bios with a cmos reset error
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes i did put them in the right slots since day 1 ... please find attached exact location in the motherboard


Hey I had exactly the same problem with my bdie gskill 2x 16gb kit. After months of fiddling around with my settings I got it stable, but cl14 is just not possible for my kit.


----------



## DrwOOx

NaiZ1337 said:


> Hey I had exactly the same problem with my bdie gskill 2x 16gb kit. After months of fiddling around with my settings I got it stable, but cl14 is just not possible for my kit.


Hi.
I have 2x16Gb G Skill, BDie, with an Asus C6H and 3200 to 14cl with a 1800x, I put my configuration, just change what is marked in red. The rest of the parameters are in auto.


----------



## GratMaster

it's been a few revisions since I wanted to use this calculator but I have Samsung S-Die and the program keeps telling me coming soon...

Anyone could give me a few advices on tuning those S-Die chips ?

Ryzen 2600 @ 4.3
Crosshair VI Hero
Team Xtreem 2x4gb 3600 @ 3000 with loose timings

I wanted to tune the ram before buying another 2x8gb Team Xtreem B-Die kit and mixing them together, to know where the weakest kit stands.

Thanks


----------



## Rapidian

GratMaster said:


> it's been a few revisions since I wanted to use this calculator but I have Samsung S-Die and the program keeps telling me coming soon...


Have you tried the latest version (1.4.1)? On the Memory Type drop down it says Samsung S-die.


----------



## GratMaster

Rapidian said:


> Have you tried the latest version (1.4.1)? On the Memory Type drop down it says Samsung S-die.


it has been there since the first time I opened the ryzen calculator which was version 1.2.0 beta 1 and since then I can't use R - XMP.

I can use debug mode but I don't know what to write in all the ns boxes.


----------



## delboy67

I have an r5 [email protected] on an asrock b450 fatality k4, 16gb of corsair vengence lpx which are 3200mhz hynix (mfr iirc) and the memory wont post at all above 2666mhz, can anyone help or am I doomed to buy different ram? How do I know which is samsung b die, the cl14 above 3000mhz is really expensive here.
So far tried both sets of the timings in the calc, tweeked various settings and voltages from the guide in this thread and it just never posts, tried calc timimgs for 2933 and lower it cycles then boots @ 2133mhz unless 2666 or lower speed is selected.


----------



## x58haze

Heya guys i think i finally realized that my patriot rams are Samsung D-die
But it seems that 1usmus tool dram, is made for Pro ryzen motherboard, cause it seems my b350 fatality k4 gaming has not soc_voltage to modify :O among others options

I.E i tried this settings in DRAM calculator:
And them, when i boot into Windows 10 64 bits etc,etc and ran the program Ryzen-timmer, it seems not to get the same configuration by the Dram-calculator :O

And Aida-extreme 64 seems to fail at minute 1.24 or sometimes at minute 7:00
the way i ran the system stability in aida64 is by checking: (Stress Cpu, FPU, Cache, System memory) 

This is my taiphon burner just in case: Even if he has not chipset descript its a Samsung D-die i confirmed with a guy that buy the same pair of ram, but in his case it showing that is d-die.

Was wondering what profile can i used on 1usmus? also should i use the advance tab? Thanks in advance.


----------



## x58haze

Anyone willing to share a profile for Patriot Viper 4 2x4Gb PV48G320C6k?
This motherboard b350 fatality k4 gaming is kinda a nightmare because it has not soc-voltage it seems, and already did spent like 7-9 hours trying best ram settings and still kinda disappointed of myself :/ 

Pc specs:
Mobo: b350 fatality k4 gaming
Rams: Patriot Viper 4 2x4Gb PV48G320C6k
CPU: Ryzen 5 1600 (first generation)

Ty.


----------



## Dr.Dyzen

x58haze said:


> Anyone willing to share a profile for Patriot Viper 4 2x4Gb PV48G320C6k?
> This motherboard b350 fatality k4 gaming is kinda a nightmare because it has not soc-voltage it seems, and already did spent like 7-9 hours trying best ram settings and still kinda disappointed of myself :/
> 
> Pc specs:
> Mobo: b350 fatality k4 gaming
> Rams: Patriot Viper 4 2x4Gb PV48G320C6k
> CPU: Ryzen 5 1600 (first generation)
> 
> Ty.


Hey mate, did you fixed your mouse input lag?  HAHAHA GOTCHA!
Sorry for off topic.


----------



## nick name

Did anyone else know that with Samsung b-die you can drop tRCDWR to as low as 8 and maintain stability? I just learned that from a Buildzoid video.


----------



## chakku

nick name said:


> Did anyone else know that with Samsung b-die you can drop tRCDWR to as low as 8 and maintain stability? I just learned that from a Buildzoid video.


Saw that myself too, was planning on throwing it in assuming it actually improved performance somewhere. It's worth noting he did it with dual rank DIMMs as well. Plus his video made me comfortable with my stable 3200C14 timings and I feel less obliged to get 3333/3400 perfectly stable now. If only I had a GB3 license to compare memory scores with him to see where mine stack up as my timings looked tighter than his at 3200 (basically matching the calculator for all timings).


----------



## nick name

chakku said:


> Saw that myself too, was planning on throwing it in assuming it actually improved performance somewhere. It's worth noting he did it with dual rank DIMMs as well. Plus his video made me comfortable with my stable 3200C14 timings and I feel less obliged to get 3333/3400 perfectly stable now. If only I had a GB3 license to compare memory scores with him to see where mine stack up as my timings looked tighter than his at 3200 (basically matching the calculator for all timings).


You don't need a GB3 license. Just rename the Geekbench_x86_64 to Geekbench_x86_32 and then run the 32-bit bench.


----------



## nick name

When running TM5 to test an overclock I get a reboot. No errors -- just a reboot. I thought more voltage would cure it, but that doesn't seem to work. Does anyone know the answer?


----------



## Saiger0

I also lowered my trcdwr to 8 and its stable for me. Also saw some improvements on copy speeds in aida memory test.


----------



## 1usmus

snipernote said:


> @1usmus
> i tried again with debug mode and so far i cannot post/boot .... i have been trying to post with 3200 for over 2 weeks
> the same problem is happenning on all alt or normal safe settings ... the pc cannot post and always cmos reset
> this is the last try from today and i attach to you my memory taiphoon complete xml also
> 
> 
> Currently running at 2800 XMP timings 16-18-18-18-54 and 1.35v dram , stock cpu with PBO enabled and Voltage is Auto
> tried 2933 yesterday with xmp and i can boot but it will crash in windows
> so far 2866 xmp off (xmp on will crash happened yesterday) and 2800 i am testing now
> 
> 
> 
> system specs
> 
> https://valid.x86.fr/fpcgd4


This is a very low quality Samsung, for it the B-die V2 or Hynix MFR V1 profile



HardwareNumb3rs said:


> So anyone have an idea about that Hynix b-die? Error or a lower binned ICs?


this is a very old memory, besides my presets there should be memory support in microcode , otherwise 2133-2666 is the maximum


----------



## 1usmus

x58haze said:


> Heya guys i think i finally realized that my patriot rams are Samsung D-die
> But it seems that 1usmus tool dram, is made for Pro ryzen motherboard, cause it seems my b350 fatality k4 gaming has not soc_voltage to modify :O among others options
> 
> I.E i tried this settings in DRAM calculator:
> And them, when i boot into Windows 10 64 bits etc,etc and ran the program Ryzen-timmer, it seems not to get the same configuration by the Dram-calculator :O
> 
> And Aida-extreme 64 seems to fail at minute 1.24 or sometimes at minute 7:00
> the way i ran the system stability in aida64 is by checking: (Stress Cpu, FPU, Cache, System memory)
> 
> This is my taiphon burner just in case: Even if he has not chipset descript its a Samsung D-die i confirmed with a guy that buy the same pair of ram, but in his case it showing that is d-die.
> 
> Was wondering what profile can i used on 1usmus? also should i use the advance tab? Thanks in advance.


1) I can not say anything because you are using the old version RTC (1.05 latest)
2) tRTP 8 tWTRL 12 + manual voltage selection for RAM



nick name said:


> Did anyone else know that with Samsung b-die you can drop tRCDWR to as low as 8 and maintain stability? I just learned that from a Buildzoid video.


This person is not competent in such matters. To be honest, he has errors in calculating VRM capabilities in *all videos* (calculation error at least 2 times, none of datasheets parameters taken into account).

I have already once explained that such an *abnormally low timing* is, I repeat, each field has a protection system against "stupid values", but in some versions of the BIOS it is missing. 
BUT the memory controller will independently correct this value to the appropriate one.



nick name said:


> When running TM5 to test an overclock I get a reboot. No errors -- just a reboot. I thought more voltage would cure it, but that doesn't seem to work. Does anyone know the answer?


second option is low voltage for SOC



Saiger0 said:


> I also lowered my trcdwr to 8 and its stable for me. Also saw some improvements on copy speeds in aida memory test.


The RTC program reads the data in the shell. The memory controller in your case automatically corrects this value (14 in your case).


----------



## nick name

1usmus said:


> 1) I can not say anything because you are using the old version RTC (1.05 latest)
> 2) tRTP 8 tWTRL 12 + manual voltage selection for RAM
> 
> 
> 
> This person is not competent in such matters. To be honest, he has errors in calculating VRM capabilities in *all videos* (calculation error at least 2 times, none of datasheets parameters taken into account).
> 
> I have already once explained that such an *abnormally low timing* is, I repeat, each field has a protection system against "stupid values", but in some versions of the BIOS it is missing.
> BUT the memory controller will independently correct this value to the appropriate one.
> 
> 
> 
> second option is low voltage for SOC
> 
> 
> 
> The RTC program reads the data in the shell. The memory controller in your case automatically corrects this value (14 in your case).


Ahh, thanks. How about with tRP at 12? Is it actually lowering it or is it behaving the same as setting tRCDWR to 8?


----------



## Dr.Dyzen

http://prntscr.com/mt5ix6

These are settings That I should use, but in my X370 PRIME PRO the names are couple of them different. How to know the ones that are not the same on the mobo?


----------



## chakku

nick name said:


> You don't need a GB3 license. Just rename the Geekbench_x86_64 to Geekbench_x86_32 and then run the 32-bit bench.


Cheers for that, it did seem to improve my multicore score in memory from 7150 to 7350 or so changing the WR value from 14 to 8.


----------



## nick name

chakku said:


> Cheers for that, it did seem to improve my multicore score in memory from 7150 to 7350 or so changing the WR value from 14 to 8.


1usmus says it's not actually changing to 8 even though it's getting set in BIOS. He says the memory controller is gonna change it to something reasonable, but I'm not sure what it's changing it to. I can't really tell what's going on so right now I am trying tRCDWR at 12 instead of 8. And what 1usmus says makes sense as setting a value so low seems like it would cause instability at least so in the absence of the instability one could assume it isn't really being set that low.


----------



## nick name

Dr.Dyzen said:


> http://prntscr.com/mt5ix6
> 
> These are settings That I should use, but in my X370 PRIME PRO the names are couple of them different. How to know the ones that are not the same on the mobo?


On the ASUS boards I have seen tRCDWR and tRCDRD are switched. So from you screenshot your timings would be input into BIOS as 16 19 18 19 instead of 16 18 19 19 as it appears in the calculator.


----------



## x58haze

Dr.Dyzen said:


> Hey mate, did you fixed your mouse input lag?  HAHAHA GOTCHA!
> Sorry for off topic.


Hello Dr.Dyzen actually i found that my Motherboard had a PCI firmware issues + hpet bug confirmed with Asrock, but i still waiting for a RMA, cause here in Venezuela situation is difficult.
Second thing is the dirty electricity +rfi i measure and i have a tons of issues of dirty electricity, need grounding+a good power conditioner :/ sadly so expensive to do that in Venezuela.


----------



## chakku

nick name said:


> 1usmus says it's not actually changing to 8 even though it's getting set in BIOS. He says the memory controller is gonna change it to something reasonable, but I'm not sure what it's changing it to. I can't really tell what's going on so right now I am trying tRCDWR at 12 instead of 8. And what 1usmus says makes sense as setting a value so low seems like it would cause instability at least so in the absence of the instability one could assume it isn't really being set that low.


Don't know the details myself, my score went up is all. If it isn't hurting anything I don't see any reason not to do it.


----------



## Dr.Dyzen

x58haze said:


> Hello Dr.Dyzen actually i found that my Motherboard had a PCI firmware issues + hpet bug confirmed with Asrock, but i still waiting for a RMA, cause here in Venezuela situation is difficult.
> Second thing is the dirty electricity +rfi i measure and i have a tons of issues of dirty electricity, need grounding+a good power conditioner :/ sadly so expensive to do that in Venezuela.


Hey mate, I don't want to be off topic on this thread so I would like from you an explanation how it was confirmed that is pci firmware issue(hpet bug). Kinda having similar issues, and no software ever fixed my issue, and it is clearly it is hardware.

Edit: PM me.


----------



## gagi36

*Hi*

@1usmus and or to anyone that can help, thank you in advance.

RAM INFO: GSKILL TRIDENT Z ROYAL RAM - Hynix CJR 3600 Mhz 1.35v 2x8GB
Motherboard: X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI (rev. 1.1) with F8 BIOS - latest as of now
Processor: Ryzen 7 2700x

I used the calculator version 1.4.1 and I can boot using the 3600 speed SAFE calculation, however, I am always getting BSODs/system crashes randomly so I decided to back down.

What I did is to use the FAST calculation 3000 Mhz because any higher than that when you choose to turn off the Geardown mode it won't work. So if I want higher than 3000 RAM speed I am stuck with SAFE calculation which suggests Geardown mode enabled. Now I am at 3000 Mhz as the FAST calculation from the calculator all default, Powerdown mode, Geardown mode and BankGroupSwap all disabled and so far stable no BSODs/crashes. When it comes to voltage, I just followed the recommended volatage for the VCORE SOC and DRAM Voltage.

Hope you can give me guys any suggestions of what to do, I just don't have much knowledge of tinkering the RAM values or what to check/adjust to make it stable at 3600 Mhz.

I am good if at least we can make it work stable 3200 Mhz FAST/tight timings or if it is still possible at 3600 using SAFE or FAST calculation just with no crashes/BSODs. If you want screenshots or any additional info you need that can help, I'll reply as soon as I can.


----------



## iweed

Hey, Thanks for your work. 
This is my first AMD / Ryzen setup. 

my RAM is A die, so am i potentially wasting my time by overclocking ? 

i noticed the “profile” data that is automatically populated in the app was inaccurate so i went to “debug” and entered the data from Ryzen Timings Calculator. 

should I switch over to the V2 profile ? then press “ Safe” ? or press “ Calculate Safe” with the “debug profile still active ?

any feedback regarding the subsequent tabs (Advanced & additional Calculators” would be great 

system specs are :
Ryzen 7 2700x ( Ryzen + gen ) 
MSI X470 Gamimg Plus 
Corsair (Hynix AFR ) 3200 OC 16 GB


----------



## Tilmitt

I seem to have a weird issue where the GUI is a little messed up and I cannot type in anything. Has anybody seen this before?


----------



## LicSqualo

Tilmitt said:


> I seem to have a weird issue where the GUI is a little messed up and I cannot type in anything. Has anybody seen this before?


If you click on r-xmp button what happen?


----------



## iweed

Any pointers ? Anything more than 1 core makes my system lag and stall out .


----------



## nick name

iweed said:


> Any pointers ? Anything more than 1 core totally fuxks my system ;(


Could you describe your problem? I don't understand what your problem is.

Also, in Windows Accessories the is a Snipping Tool meant for screenshots and is very easy to use.


----------



## iweed

MSI just released this AMD BIOS update although its still in beta . curious if anyone has implemented it yet and if its worthwhile.


----------



## iweed

Do you have a Patreon Page ? or some way to donate ?


----------



## Tilmitt

LicSqualo said:


> If you click on r-xmp button what happen?


It shows as in the attached shot but I still can't edit any values. Very strange.


----------



## LicSqualo

Tilmitt said:


> It shows as in the attached shot but I still can't edit any values. Very strange.


Good! Now I'm sure, if you see the videos in the first page and read the post as to use this calculator you will found your answer!


----------



## MrPhilo

Which Hynix RAM are the best?

I was thinking of getting the HyperX Predator DDR4 RGB 3200 CL16 16GB (2x8) for £124. I sold my G Skill 4266 for £280, since the performance wasn't worth double the price in my opinion, even though I spent a lot of time getting 3533CL14 to work xD.

But I really lack experience in Hynix, I'm searched around but the thread has too many post and I can't find much relevant information.

My end goal would be atleast 3466 CL 16 if possible with decent sub timing - Has anyone achieved a decent OC with Hynix ranging from 3466 - 3600 in the CL16-18 Bracket


----------



## -Grift-

MrPhilo said:


> Which Hynix RAM are the best?
> 
> I was thinking of getting the HyperX Predator DDR4 RGB 3200 CL16 16GB (2x8) for £124. I sold my G Skill 4266 for £280, since the performance wasn't worth double the price in my opinion, even though I spent a lot of time getting 3533CL14 to work xD.
> 
> But I really lack experience in Hynix, I'm searched around but the thread has too many post and I can't find much relevant information.
> 
> My end goal would be atleast 3466 CL 16 if possible with decent sub timing - Has anyone achieved a decent OC with Hynix ranging from 3466 - 3600 in the CL16-18 Bracket


I think only CJR can do those speeds/timings although I’m personally running my 3600 CJR kit at 3200c14


----------



## BLUuuE

*2 x F4-3600C19-8GVRB - Hynix CJR*



MrPhilo said:


> Which Hynix RAM are the best?
> 
> I was thinking of getting the HyperX Predator DDR4 RGB 3200 CL16 16GB (2x8) for £124. I sold my G Skill 4266 for £280, since the performance wasn't worth double the price in my opinion, even though I spent a lot of time getting 3533CL14 to work xD.
> 
> But I really lack experience in Hynix, I'm searched around but the thread has too many post and I can't find much relevant information.
> 
> My end goal would be atleast 3466 CL 16 if possible with decent sub timing - Has anyone achieved a decent OC with Hynix ranging from 3466 - 3600 in the CL16-18 Bracket





Spoiler















1.45v DRAM
1.025v SOC


----------



## 1usmus

*I strongly advise against installing a new AGESA combo AM4 0.0.7.0 and 0.0.7.2*

There is a significant deterioration in *Inter-Core Latency* from 73.3 to 77.7 (5%), *Inter-Core Bandwidth* from 59.5 to 56.72 (4.9%) and *U0-U12 Data Latency* from 105 to 112.7ns (7%)

Test package - SiSoftware Sandra, the preset below


Spoiler















*Results*

*1.0.0.6*


Spoiler















*0.0.7.2*


Spoiler


----------



## dgoc18

@1usmus

I flashed beta bios 0.0.7.2 and I noticed new add "bank group swap alt" in the bios menu now.

Did you seen it ?


----------



## 1usmus

*And one good news, support of Matisse appeared in some bios, its CPUID 00870F00, stepping MTS-A0* 




dgoc18 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> I flashed beta bios 0.0.7.2 and I noticed new add "bank group swap alt" in the bios menu now.
> 
> Did you seen it ?


yes and it works  only the difference in games and synthetics I did not see



iweed said:


> Any pointers ? Anything more than 1 core makes my system lag and stall out .


incorrect overclocking of the processor? what settings?



gagi36 said:


> @1usmus and or to anyone that can help, thank you in advance.
> 
> RAM INFO: GSKILL TRIDENT Z ROYAL RAM - Hynix CJR 3600 Mhz 1.35v 2x8GB
> Motherboard: X470 AORUS GAMING 7 WIFI (rev. 1.1) with F8 BIOS - latest as of now
> Processor: Ryzen 7 2700x
> 
> I used the calculator version 1.4.1 and I can boot using the 3600 speed SAFE calculation, however, I am always getting BSODs/system crashes randomly so I decided to back down.
> 
> What I did is to use the FAST calculation 3000 Mhz because any higher than that when you choose to turn off the Geardown mode it won't work. So if I want higher than 3000 RAM speed I am stuck with SAFE calculation which suggests Geardown mode enabled. Now I am at 3000 Mhz as the FAST calculation from the calculator all default, Powerdown mode, Geardown mode and BankGroupSwap all disabled and so far stable no BSODs/crashes. When it comes to voltage, I just followed the recommended volatage for the VCORE SOC and DRAM Voltage.
> 
> Hope you can give me guys any suggestions of what to do, I just don't have much knowledge of tinkering the RAM values or what to check/adjust to make it stable at 3600 Mhz.
> 
> I am good if at least we can make it work stable 3200 Mhz FAST/tight timings or if it is still possible at 3600 using SAFE or FAST calculation just with no crashes/BSODs. If you want screenshots or any additional info you need that can help, I'll reply as soon as I can.


New cjr presets 3466 safe and 3400 fast. Try them 

*3466CL16*

SOC 1.025
DRAM 1.35
PowerDown - disabled


Spoiler















*3400CL14*

SOC 1.025
DRAM 1.45
PowerDown - disabled


Spoiler


----------



## 1usmus

I started to format tests in the guide article on DRAM overclocking, it has 27 tests (4 games and synthetics) for each of the *19 presets*. Testing took 5 full working days. The most ambitious that exists on the Internet. This week's article will be on *TechpowerUP* :devil:


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> I started to format tests in the guide article on DRAM overclocking, it has 27 tests (4 games and synthetics) for each of the *19 presets*. Testing took 5 full working days. The most ambitious that exists on the Internet. This week's article will be on *TechpowerUP* :devil:


Looking forward to it


----------



## BipBip

1usmus, can you share your G.Skill F4-3400C16-8GSXW @ 3733CL14 timings, with CLDO, Dram Voltage, VTT voltage, VDDP voltage and CAD BUS timings

I'm stuck @ 3666 Mhz with F4-4400C19D-16GTZSW. Thanks.


----------



## Saiger0

BipBip said:


> 1usmus, can you share your G.Skill F4-3400C16-8GSXW @ 3733CL14 timings, with CLDO, Dram Voltage, VTT voltage, VDDP voltage and CAD BUS timings
> 
> I'm stuck @ 3666 Mhz with F4-4400C19D-16GTZSW. Thanks.


https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...vi-overclocking-thread-3993.html#post27821552


----------



## BipBip

Thanks Saiger0.

Still, 1usmus can you share your CLDO, PLL, VPP and VDDP voltage @3733CL14? may help me to stabilize, i'm quite stable @3666-1.46v-CL15


----------



## nick name

Has anyone tried values similar?


----------



## 1usmus

nick name said:


> Has anyone tried values similar?


what for? these timings in games will give a terrible result
mistakenly believe that lower is better


----------



## Kildar

1usmus said:


> what for? these timings in games will give a terrible result
> mistakenly believe that lower is better


Please explain...


----------



## nick name

1usmus said:


> what for? these timings in games will give a terrible result
> mistakenly believe that lower is better


Oh, no I've found the same. I would ask for your opinion on what is too low. 

I've found that tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL at 2 and tWRWRSD/tWRWRDD at 5 with tRDRDSD/tRDRDDD at 3 cause weird issues in CS:GO specifically. Player models will just suddenly appear when viewed at distance. 

So I usually run 3,3 and 6,6 and 4,4.

What I tested earlier was just to test. 

If there are other timings I should be made aware of and kept above a specific value then I'd love to know so I don't go too low.


----------



## Szaby59

Hi! Anyone have experience with lower quality B-Dies ? Got a Kingston 3333 MHz/CL16 kit and it works fine on stock settings, but won't do much more. Even just bumping the frequency to 3400 [email protected] and using stock timings makes it unstable and crash sooner or later, even when I use 1.15V for SoC. Aida memory latency is 68ns so it's not that bad, but maybe could be better with some tweaks.


----------



## Darkomax

i'd aim for 3333 tight timings, you're leaving a lot of performance on the table with those timings. SoC voltage seems low too, for 3400+ I'd try between 1.0 to 1.05V (or 1.1V for 3500+). Safe preset should work with a voltage bump.


----------



## Szaby59

Unfortunately the calculator timings are not working for me. Tried 3200 MHz - V1, V2 the system will not post. 1usmus was kind enough to send me some custom timings, now the system boots and seems to be stable, but Testmem5 fails pretty early.

Increased SoC voltage to 1.05V and DDR to 1.4V but still.


----------



## Nighthog

nick name said:


> Oh, no I've found the same. I would ask for your opinion on what is too low.
> 
> I've found that tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL at 2 and tWRWRSD/tWRWRDD at 5 with tRDRDSD/tRDRDDD at 3 cause weird issues in CS:GO specifically. Player models will just suddenly appear when viewed at distance.
> 
> So I usually run 3,3 and 6,6 and 4,4.
> 
> What I tested earlier was just to test.
> 
> If there are other timings I should be made aware of and kept above a specific value then I'd love to know so I don't go too low.



I've found that SCL @ 2/2 can cause issues that aren't "memory" dependent, for me it usually is the graphics driver will crash and restart or I get "black screen" flashes after a while when I stress the system like with a memory error check tool. And it doesn't find errors when testing purely memory errors. Prime95 usually could detect the issue though.
3/3 is just unstable and errors at all times. 5/5 has similar issues as 3/3 as in causing errors in testing. The only ones working problem free are 4/4 or 6/6. 
Though I can note playing with some other settings may fix the issue with 2/2, but it required me running some odd DrvStr values that wasn't optimal for highest speeds obtained and increasing voltages used that otherwise seemed stable, that may or may not cause other problems that require their tweaks.


----------



## makeiteasy

Just want to say, I didn't think this was possible but i got my Kingston 2400 Cl15 (pretty common and crappy) up to 2933 (it wont go higher than this, I believe because of my 1st gen Ryzen 1700).
Got 2933 at 1.3V only, with timings 14-15-15-15-32-48 and TRFC 400. I've tested and it seems TRFC won't go down much more than this. I'm surprised, considering it's even a Nanya chip.


----------



## Saiger0

After 2 days of testing I finally managed to get 3466 stable. Should i bother trying to tweak my settings more (tFAW, tRFC GDM off...) even though I get decent aida speeds/ latencies?


----------



## christoph

Saiger0 said:


> After 2 days of testing I finally managed to get 3466 stable. Should i bother trying to tweak my settings more (tFAW, tRFC GDM off...) even though I get decent aida speeds/ latencies?


I think thats the best you can get there, don't bother trying anything else


----------



## Markz

Hello. I'm on Taichi x370. Bios 5.10 (agesa 1.0.0.6) and Ryzen 2700x. I' m Fully stable with this timings and settings. I tried to stabilize 3533 or 3600. But i have always some errors in TM5. I wasn't able to stabilize even with other bios editions. Some suggestion?
PS: CLDO VDDP on auto, Ram at 1.44v. and yes i tried to stabilize using more voltage, but it didn't work. And even with 15-15-15-35-50, nothing to do. The ram is F4-4133C19D-16GTZSWC Trident Z 4133 c19


----------



## nick name

Markz said:


> Hello. I'm on Taichi x370. Bios 5.10 (agesa 1.0.0.6) and Ryzen 2700x. I' m Fully stable with this timings and settings. I tried to stabilize 3533 or 3600. But i have always some errors in TM5. I wasn't able to stabilize even with other bios editions. Some suggestion?
> PS: CLDO VDDP on auto, Ram at 1.44v. and yes i tried to stabilize using more voltage, but it didn't work. And even with 15-15-15-35-50, nothing to do. The ram is F4-4133C19D-16GTZSWC Trident Z 4133 c19


If you're using the correct RAM slots then I would assume it's the board holding you back.


----------



## Nighthog

Markz said:


> Hello. I'm on Taichi x370. Bios 5.10 (agesa 1.0.0.6) and Ryzen 2700x. I' m Fully stable with this timings and settings. I tried to stabilize 3533 or 3600. But i have always some errors in TM5. I wasn't able to stabilize even with other bios editions. Some suggestion?
> PS: CLDO VDDP on auto, Ram at 1.44v. and yes i tried to stabilize using more voltage, but it didn't work. And even with 15-15-15-35-50, nothing to do. The ram is F4-4133C19D-16GTZSWC Trident Z 4133 c19



Have you tried to go higher on your sub-timings? 

For example: 
12 tWR
tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL 4/4 or 2/2 (I've found 3/3 5/5 are harder to deal with than the even numbers)
10/12 tRTP 
tRFC higher? each kit have a limit on how low (ns) they can go. You have 180ns for now stable? When you go higher speeds try to keep it there by adjusting your tRFC to make it so or just pick a random much higher value there to see if it's the issue.
then the tWRWRSD/tWRWRDD 7/7, tRDRDSD/tRDRDDD 5/5 (this is usually safe settings for 99% of the time, adjust these lower when you have something stable for the speed you want as a last adjustment basically) there is not much performance gains here but they have much to do with stability at times when on the edges of your system can do.

EDIT: I noticed you had "GearDownMode" set to disabled... I think this is main culprit if you can't gain higher speeds. (has a high tax on stability as it performs much better with 1T timings than anything else)
You can try to set it enabled to see if you can gain speed but your latency and performance will drop considerably compared to disabled with same settings. It's just to see if you can get so much more speed from your kit otherwise to compensate. (it's a trade-off deal and A/B testing thing to see which gets you more)


----------



## 1usmus

*It is time to tell you about the features that will appear in Ryzen 3000* 




Spoiler



*Valhalla Common Options:*
* Performance
* Core Watchdog:
1) Core Watchdog Timer Enable
2) Core Watchdog Timer Interval
3) Core Watchdog Timer Severity

Soc Miscellaneous Control:
* ABL Console Out Control

BIXBY Common Options

Local APIC Mode:
1) xAPIC
2) x2APIC
3) Auto

MCA error thresh enable
1) False
2) True

MCA error thresh count

SMU and PSP Debug Mode
1) Disabled
2) Enabled
3) Auto

Xtrig7 Workaround
1) Auto
2) No Workaround
3) Bronze Workaround
4) Silver Workaround

PPIN Opt-in
1) Disabled
2) Enabled
3)Auto

CCD/Core/Thread Enablement
* CCD Control:
1) Auto
2) 2 CCDs
3) 3 CCDs
4) 4 CCDs
5) 6 CCDs

or

* CCD Control:
1) Auto
2) 2 CCDs
3) 3 CCDs
4) 4 CCDs

or

* CCD Control:
1) Auto
2) 1 CCDs

Core control:
1) Auto
2) TWO (1 + 1)
3) FOUR (2 + 2)
4) SIX (3 + 3)

Link:
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control
CAKE CRC perf bounds
4-link xGMI max speed
3-link xGMI max speed

System probe filter

PSP error injection support

NUMA nodes per socket:
1) NPS0
2) NPS1
3) NPS2
4) NPS4
5) Auto

1TB remap:
1) Do not remap
2) Attempt
3) Auto

DRAM map inversion:
1) Disabled
2) Enabled
3) Auto

ACPI
*ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain
* ACPI SLIT Distance Control
* ACPI SLIT remote relative distance
* ACPI SLIT virtual distance
* ACPI SLIT same socket distance
* ACPI SLIT remote socket distance
* ACPI SLIT local SLink distance
* ACPI SLIT remote SLink distance
* ACPI SLIT local inter-SLink distance
* ACPI SLIT remote inter-SLink distance

Common RAS
* DRAM Post Package Repair
* RCD Parity
* DRAM Address Command Parity Retry
* Max Parity Error Replay
* Write CRC Enable
* DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit
* Max Write CRC Error Replay
* Disable Memory Error Injection

ECC Configuration
* DRAM UECC Retry

Security
* Chipselect Interleaving:
1) Disabled
2) Auto
Address Hash CS
Address Hash Rm

Memory MBIST
* MBIST Test Mode:
1) Interface Mode
2) Data Eye Mode
3) Both
4) Auto
* MBIST Per Bit Slave Die Reporting
1) Disabled
2) Enabled
3) Auto
* Pattern Select
1) PRBS
2) SSO
3) Both
* Pattern Length
* Aggressor Channel
* Aggressor Static Lane Control
* Aggressor Static Lane Select Upper 32 bits
* Aggressor Static Lane Select Lower 32 Bits
* Aggressor Static Lane Select ECC
* Aggressor Static Lane Value
* Target Static Lane Control
* Target Static Lane Select Upper 32 bit
* Target Static Lane Select Lower 32 Bits
* Static Lane Select ECC
* Target Static Lane Value
* Data Eye Type:
1) 1D Voltage Sweep
2) 1D Timing Sweep
3) 2D Full Data Eye
4) Worst Case Margin Only
* Worst Case Margin Granularity
* Read Voltage Sweep Step Size
* Read Timing Sweep Step Size
* Write Voltage Sweep Step Size
* Write Timing Sweep Step Size

XFR Enhancement:
1) FCLK Frequency
2) MEMCLK Frequency
3) UCLK DIV1 MODE:
a) Auto
b) UCLK==MEMCLK
c) UCLK==MEMCLK/2
+ precision boost override

SMU Common Options
* CLDO_VDDP Control
* EfficiencyModeEn
* Package Power Limit Control
* DF Cstates
* Fixed SOC Pstate
* CPPC

NTB Common Options
* Link Speed : Gen 4



*Translation into simple language. We have:*

1) New memory controller with partial error correction for nonECC memory
2) Desktop processor with two (2 CCD) chiplets on board, 32 threads maximum
3) New MBIST (Memory built-in self-test)
4) Core watchdog - is a fail/safe function used to reset a system in case the microprocessor gets lost due to address or data errors
5) XFR - at the moment I do not see anything special about it, the algorithm and limits have been updated. Scalar Controll come back with new processors.
6) Updated core control has a symmetric configuration of the active cores . In 2CCD configurations, each chiplet has its own RAM channel in order to minimize latency to memory access. 1 channel on 8 cores will be a bottleneck if you use the system in the default state. 

UPD: point number 6 is questionable, perhaps there will be a special long-range interface for connecting a chiplet with IO

This is not all information which I will gladden you in the near future


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> *It is time to tell you about the features that will appear in Ryzen 3000*


I have AGESA 0.0.7.2 on my Biostar Board with my Ryzen 7 1700 and I can access "SMU and PSP Debug Mode", "MBIST" from your list of updates. "Chipselect Interleaving" is available as well. 
Though unsure if any of the things actually work though, tried MBIST enabled/disabled but didn't notice any difference really.

Something you didn't mention is the "Trusted Computing Module" I found I could enable, (was default) and it showed a AMD vendor module installed (nothing external mounted so a integrated module in cpu/chipset) now available?


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> I have AGESA 0.0.7.2 on my Biostar Board with my Ryzen 7 1700 and I can access "SMU and PSP Debug Mode", "MBIST" from your list of updates. "Chipselect Interleaving" is available as well.
> Though unsure if any of the things actually work though, tried MBIST enabled/disabled but didn't notice any difference really.
> 
> Something you didn't mention is the "Trusted Computing Module" I found I could enable, (was default) and it showed a AMD vendor module installed (nothing external mounted so a integrated module in cpu/chipset) now available?


hmm...perhaps they forgot to include a restriction for these functions

I did not find any mention of "Trusted Computing Module"...i can not comment


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> hmm...perhaps they forgot to include a restriction for these functions
> 
> I did not find any mention of "Trusted Computing Module"...i can not comment


Some screen caps of BIOS features:


----------



## Markz

Nighthog said:


> Have you tried to go higher on your sub-timings?
> 
> For example:
> 12 tWR
> tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL 4/4 or 2/2 (I've found 3/3 5/5 are harder to deal with than the even numbers)
> 10/12 tRTP
> tRFC higher? each kit have a limit on how low (ns) they can go. You have 180ns for now stable? When you go higher speeds try to keep it there by adjusting your tRFC to make it so or just pick a random much higher value there to see if it's the issue.
> then the tWRWRSD/tWRWRDD 7/7, tRDRDSD/tRDRDDD 5/5 (this is usually safe settings for 99% of the time, adjust these lower when you have something stable for the speed you want as a last adjustment basically) there is not much performance gains here but they have much to do with stability at times when on the edges of your system can do.
> 
> EDIT: I noticed you had "GearDownMode" set to disabled... I think this is main culprit if you can't gain higher speeds. (has a high tax on stability as it performs much better with 1T timings than anything else)
> You can try to set it enabled to see if you can gain speed but your latency and performance will drop considerably compared to disabled with same settings. It's just to see if you can get so much more speed from your kit otherwise to compensate. (it's a trade-off deal and A/B testing thing to see which gets you more)


Yes i tried to set 7-7-5-5 instead of 6-6-4-4, but...no positive results. I tried also with geardown enbaled Just to see, but It didin't help, and obviously the performance was worse. I tried also to set an higher Trfc with 0 good results. I can try to set the SCL Valute to 4


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *It is time to tell you about the features that will appear in Ryzen 3000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *Valhalla Common Options:*
> * Performance
> * Core Watchdog:
> 1) Core Watchdog Timer Enable
> 2) Core Watchdog Timer Interval
> 3) Core Watchdog Timer Severity
> 
> Soc Miscellaneous Control:
> * ABL Console Out Control
> 
> BIXBY Common Options
> 
> Local APIC Mode:
> 1) xAPIC
> 2) x2APIC
> 3) Auto
> 
> MCA error thresh enable
> 1) False
> 2) True
> 
> MCA error thresh count
> 
> SMU and PSP Debug Mode
> 1) Disabled
> 2) Enabled
> 3) Auto
> 
> Xtrig7 Workaround
> 1) Auto
> 2) No Workaround
> 3) Bronze Workaround
> 4) Silver Workaround
> 
> PPIN Opt-in
> 1) Disabled
> 2) Enabled
> 3)Auto
> 
> CCD/Core/Thread Enablement
> * CCD Control:
> 1) Auto
> 2) 2 CCDs
> 3) 3 CCDs
> 4) 4 CCDs
> 5) 6 CCDs
> 
> or
> 
> * CCD Control:
> 1) Auto
> 2) 2 CCDs
> 3) 3 CCDs
> 4) 4 CCDs
> 
> or
> 
> * CCD Control:
> 1) Auto
> 2) 1 CCDs
> 
> Core control:
> 1) Auto
> 2) TWO (1 + 1)
> 3) FOUR (2 + 2)
> 4) SIX (3 + 3)
> 
> Link:
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control
> CAKE CRC perf bounds
> 4-link xGMI max speed
> 3-link xGMI max speed
> 
> System probe filter
> 
> PSP error injection support
> 
> NUMA nodes per socket:
> 1) NPS0
> 2) NPS1
> 3) NPS2
> 4) NPS4
> 5) Auto
> 
> 1TB remap:
> 1) Do not remap
> 2) Attempt
> 3) Auto
> 
> DRAM map inversion:
> 1) Disabled
> 2) Enabled
> 3) Auto
> 
> ACPI
> *ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain
> * ACPI SLIT Distance Control
> * ACPI SLIT remote relative distance
> * ACPI SLIT virtual distance
> * ACPI SLIT same socket distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote socket distance
> * ACPI SLIT local SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT local inter-SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote inter-SLink distance
> 
> Common RAS
> * DRAM Post Package Repair
> * RCD Parity
> * DRAM Address Command Parity Retry
> * Max Parity Error Replay
> * Write CRC Enable
> * DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit
> * Max Write CRC Error Replay
> * Disable Memory Error Injection
> 
> ECC Configuration
> * DRAM UECC Retry
> 
> Security
> * Chipselect Interleaving:
> 1) Disabled
> 2) Auto
> Address Hash CS
> Address Hash Rm
> 
> Memory MBIST
> * MBIST Test Mode:
> 1) Interface Mode
> 2) Data Eye Mode
> 3) Both
> 4) Auto
> * MBIST Per Bit Slave Die Reporting
> 1) Disabled
> 2) Enabled
> 3) Auto
> * Pattern Select
> 1) PRBS
> 2) SSO
> 3) Both
> * Pattern Length
> * Aggressor Channel
> * Aggressor Static Lane Control
> * Aggressor Static Lane Select Upper 32 bits
> * Aggressor Static Lane Select Lower 32 Bits
> * Aggressor Static Lane Select ECC
> * Aggressor Static Lane Value
> * Target Static Lane Control
> * Target Static Lane Select Upper 32 bit
> * Target Static Lane Select Lower 32 Bits
> * Static Lane Select ECC
> * Target Static Lane Value
> * Data Eye Type:
> 1) 1D Voltage Sweep
> 2) 1D Timing Sweep
> 3) 2D Full Data Eye
> 4) Worst Case Margin Only
> * Worst Case Margin Granularity
> * Read Voltage Sweep Step Size
> * Read Timing Sweep Step Size
> * Write Voltage Sweep Step Size
> * Write Timing Sweep Step Size
> 
> XFR Enhancement:
> 1) FCLK Frequency
> 2) MEMCLK Frequency
> 3) UCLK DIV1 MODE:
> a) Auto
> b) UCLK==MEMCLK
> c) UCLK==MEMCLK/2
> + precision boost override
> 
> SMU Common Options
> * CLDO_VDDP Control
> * EfficiencyModeEn
> * Package Power Limit Control
> * DF Cstates
> * Fixed SOC Pstate
> * CPPC
> 
> NTB Common Options
> * Link Speed : Gen 4
> 
> 
> 
> *Translation into simple language. We have:*
> 
> 1) New memory controller with partial error correction for nonECC memory
> 2) Desktop processor with two (2 CCD) chiplets on board, 32 threads maximum
> 3) New MBIST (Memory built-in self-test)
> 4) Core watchdog - is a fail/safe function used to reset a system in case the microprocessor gets lost due to address or data errors
> 5) XFR - at the moment I do not see anything special about it, the algorithm and limits have been updated. Scalar Controll come back with new processors.
> 6) Updated core control has a symmetric configuration of the active cores . In 2CCD configurations, each chiplet has its own RAM channel in order to minimize latency to memory access. 1 channel on 8 cores will be a bottleneck if you use the system in the default state.
> 
> This is not all information which I will gladden you in the near future


The XFR is actually quite impressive. If I read it right, they added FCLK, which we need to find out what that bus is doing. On Intel Skylake, Anand wrote the following:

The register in question is called the FCLK (or ‘f-clock’), which controls some of the cross-frequency compensation mechanisms between the ring interconnect of the CPU, the System Agent, and the PEG (PCI Express Graphics). Basically this means it is to do with data from the processor to the GPUs. So when data is handed from one end to another, this element of the processor manages the data buffers to allow that cross boundary migration in a lossless way. This is a ratio frequency setting which is tied directly to the base frequency of the processor (the BCLK, typically 100 MHz), and can be set at 4x, 8x or 10x for 400 MHz, 800 MHz or 1000 MHz respectively.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/9607/skylake-discrete-graphics-performance-pcie-optimizations


They also now allow for the clock set on the Infinity Fabric (UCLK) to select the divisor, which means we are looking at IF being clocked equal to the memory frequency at dual rate instead of single rate (like 3200MHz instead of 1600MHz), potentially. That has a lot of implications on performance if I'm reading that correctly! EXCITED!!!

Edit: Anyone better with limits in calculus, here is some data points from a pro Intel review company, PCPerspective (Ryan Shrout ran it and Shrout Research and regularly attacked AMD, but the latency of going off CCX was shown by them, although their memory timings were crap and I get lower latency than they ever achieved as a combination of core clock, memory speed and timings, etc.). 
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Core-i5/CCX-Latency-Testing-Pinging-between-t

Another way would be to test Zen or Zen+ with Sisoft Sandra's test for calculating the latency to see the latency at different memory speeds, then, after that, extrapolate out the expected drop in latency for a speed double the single rate, meaning where the limit is that the curve is approaching as latency is not dropping linearly with the speed increase of the memory controller and therefor the Infinity Fabric. This can show how the bandwidth is double for the upcoming infinity fabric changes due to doubling the speed of the fabric, while the latency improvement would be estimated through this calculation. (math is the reason I dropped from engineering/physics in undergrad; the only way to pass calc II is to have taken calc II (even though calc I can handle this math problem)).

With that information, we can estimate a lot about the upcoming performance increase related to reduced latency, as well as looking at whether there were bandwidth limitations on data related to the IF. Unfortunately, we cannot fully get the picture, but a data point is a data point.


----------



## jedidude75

Could you clarify what you mean by #6? If I understand you correctly then this means that there is a 2CCD mode which allows you to link one memory channel to one chiplet and the other to the second chiplet, and then another non-2CCD mode which simply acts like normal, with both chiplets having access to both RAM channels, is this what you mean? If so, is their any benefit to this, or why would they implement it?


----------



## 1usmus

jedidude75 said:


> Could you clarify what you mean by #6? If I understand you correctly then this means that there is a 2CCD mode which allows you to link one memory channel to one chiplet and the other to the second chiplet, and then another non-2CCD mode which simply acts like normal, with both chiplets having access to both RAM channels, is this what you mean? If so, is their any benefit to this, or why would they implement it?


This is inside information, not the fact that it is reliable.'
There are 2 scenarios:

1) Each chiplet will receive 2 Unified Memory Controllers, and in the case when there are 2 chiplets in the system, only one Unified Memory Controller will be active for each chiplet.
2) There is no UMC in the chiplet, communication with IO (two UMCs) will occur via the "long-range" link based on serialization (CAKE-> IFOP). That is, all the blocks and interfaces of the Zen architecture will remain but will have a slightly different lineup.



ajc9988 said:


> The XFR is actually quite impressive. If I read it right, they added FCLK, which we need to find out what that bus is doing. On Intel Skylake, Anand wrote the following:
> 
> The register in question is called the FCLK (or ‘f-clock’), which controls some of the cross-frequency compensation mechanisms between the ring interconnect of the CPU, the System Agent, and the PEG (PCI Express Graphics). Basically this means it is to do with data from the processor to the GPUs. So when data is handed from one end to another, this element of the processor manages the data buffers to allow that cross boundary migration in a lossless way. This is a ratio frequency setting which is tied directly to the base frequency of the processor (the BCLK, typically 100 MHz), and can be set at 4x, 8x or 10x for 400 MHz, 800 MHz or 1000 MHz respectively.
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/9607/skylake-discrete-graphics-performance-pcie-optimizations
> 
> 
> They also now allow for the clock set on the Infinity Fabric (UCLK) to select the divisor, which means we are looking at IF being clocked equal to the memory frequency at dual rate instead of single rate (like 3200MHz instead of 1600MHz), potentially. That has a lot of implications on performance if I'm reading that correctly! EXCITED!!!
> 
> Edit: Anyone better with limits in calculus, here is some data points from a pro Intel review company, PCPerspective (Ryan Shrout ran it and Shrout Research and regularly attacked AMD, but the latency of going off CCX was shown by them, although their memory timings were crap and I get lower latency than they ever achieved as a combination of core clock, memory speed and timings, etc.).
> https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Core-i5/CCX-Latency-Testing-Pinging-between-t
> 
> Another way would be to test Zen or Zen+ with Sisoft Sandra's test for calculating the latency to see the latency at different memory speeds, then, after that, extrapolate out the expected drop in latency for a speed double the single rate, meaning where the limit is that the curve is approaching as latency is not dropping linearly with the speed increase of the memory controller and therefor the Infinity Fabric. This can show how the bandwidth is double for the upcoming infinity fabric changes due to doubling the speed of the fabric, while the latency improvement would be estimated through this calculation. (math is the reason I dropped from engineering/physics in undergrad; the only way to pass calc II is to have taken calc II (even though calc I can handle this math problem)).
> 
> With that information, we can estimate a lot about the upcoming performance increase related to reduced latency, as well as looking at whether there were bandwidth limitations on data related to the IF. Unfortunately, we cannot fully get the picture, but a data point is a data point.


Pinnacle Ridge CPUs also support multiple reference clock inputs. Motherboards which support the feature will allow "Synchronous" (default) and "Asynchronous" operation. In synchronous-mode the CPU has a single reference clock input, just like Summit Ridge did. In this configuration increasing the BCLK frequency will increase CPU, MEMCLK and PCI-E frequencies.

In asynchronous-mode the CPU cores will have their own reference clock input. MEMCLK, FCLK and PCI-E input will always remain at 100.0MHz, while the CPU input becomes separately adjustable. This allows even finer grain CPU frequency control, than the already extremely low granularity "Fine Grain PStates" (with 25MHz intervals) do.

Despite some wild speculation, the asynchronous clocking capability makes no difference to the memory & data fabric (“IF”) frequency relations. These “two” frequencies are permanently tied together in every currently existing Zen design and changing the current topology would require a major overhaul to the foundations of the die.

If there is no UMC in the chiplet, then the delay will increase. Of course, this negative effect can be reduced by applying a new memory controller and new links.


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> Pinnacle Ridge CPUs also support multiple reference clock inputs. Motherboards which support the feature will allow "Synchronous" (default) and "Asynchronous" operation. In synchronous-mode the CPU has a single reference clock input, just like Summit Ridge did. In this configuration increasing the BCLK frequency will increase CPU, MEMCLK and PCI-E frequencies.
> 
> In asynchronous-mode the CPU cores will have their own reference clock input. MEMCLK, FCLK and PCI-E input will always remain at 100.0MHz, while the CPU input becomes separately adjustable. This allows even finer grain CPU frequency control, than the already extremely low granularity "Fine Grain PStates" (with 25MHz intervals) do.
> 
> Despite some wild speculation, the asynchronous clocking capability makes no difference to the memory & data fabric (“IF”) frequency relations. These “two” frequencies are permanently tied together in every currently existing Zen design and changing the current topology would require a major overhaul to the foundations of the die.
> 
> If there is no UMC in the chiplet, then the delay will increase. Of course, this negative effect can be reduced by applying a new memory controller and new links.


Did not realize that was added with Pinnacle Ridge, which is cool. I'm still on a first gen 1950X. But, that addressed the first point.

With UCLK, it still is tied between the MCLK and UCLK, the difference here is the selection of the divisor used. So separate from the sync and async capabilities, the UCLK setting deals specifically with just the divisor. 

When Summit Ridge was being worked on, the Stilt mentioned that in MB debug mode, they could change the ratio for MCLK and UCLK so that the uncore, which is the infinity fabric, would run 1:1. In the final product, which carried through to Pinnacle Ridge, the divisor or ratio of MCLK to UCLK was set 2:1. Many found it easier to refer to it as being clocked to what the RAM's single data rate would be, instead of using the double data rate frequency defined by the user. https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/post-38778725

AMD has already announced that IF, which acts like an uncore, will have double the bandwidth with Zen 2. Aside from other changes that may have occurred to IF, along with the UMC, etc., the easiest way to double bandwidth would be to double the clockspeed. If not adding an independent clock gen for that, and redesigning all of what you mentioned, you could leave them tied together and just change the divisor to what was even capable on first gen Zen in debug mode (obviously, there may have been stability issues with the first gen or two using a 1:1 divisor for the relationship between those components, which is why 2:1 was used in the final products, something that seems resolved with Zen 2). And I'm not saying it was trivial solving the issue, to be clear, rather that it is the most obvious way to approach the issue.

So, as you said, adding in IF between the I/O die housing the UMC and the core chiplets means latency will go up due to having to transverse the IF to get to the UMC. If you are leaving the UMC MCLK and UCLK tied, then changing the divisor would double the speed of the IF, but more importantly lower the latency with the increase in speed. It is like keeping the latency timing the same, but instead of using 1600MHz, you use 3200MHz, so that the real life latency in ns is reduced a fair amount. This is what I believe the setting for UCLK is referring to, the divisor that set IF to half the speed of the memory, which changing that divisor changes the ratio, thereby allowing for the increase in speed, which translates to bandwidth and lower latency. 

"XFR Enhancement:
1) FCLK Frequency
2) MEMCLK Frequency
3) UCLK DIV1 MODE:
a) Auto
b) UCLK==MEMCLK
c) UCLK==MEMCLK/2"

For this, I am relying specifically on the selection 3 under XFR enhancements, where (3)(b) would be 1:1 for UCLK to MEMCLK, and where (3)(c) would set it to a 1:2 ratio, which is what was used on Zen 1 and Zen+. This would leave them being tied together intact, instead just changing one factor in the relationship of how they are tied together.

As such, the UCLK would be defining the MEM/IF relationship separate from the sync and async related to core clock and other clocks that would be effected. Does that make more sense why I see the UCLK divisor as separate from your explanation of the sync and async relationship of clocks?

Edit: and this is for the community more than you Yuri-

While looking through a couple other forums, I've seen comments denigrating IF due to its speed being slower than the ringbus on Intel or Mesh on Intel chips. Frequency is NOT what matters, although it points to two factors that do matter: (1) bandwidth, and (2) latency. 

Bandwidth is what determines how much data can pass over the connection in a given period of time (where we get Gbps in relation to ethernet, etc.). Each fabric used has a different amount that it is able to transfer, so that speed will effect the bandwidth the fabric carries, but the bandwidth is what is important, not the speed. It doesn't matter what speed is run if the amount of data between the two is equal, which leads to latency then being what helps determine which is faster if the bandwidth is equal.

A good example of this principle is looking at HBM2 vs GDDR. GDDR uses a smaller bus interface, but clocks really fast. HBM2 has a very wide data bus, but runs at much slower speeds. This means that you can get the same amount of bandwidth from each tech, but the frequency each runs on is very different. Because of this, the impact of latency is then considered. Not going to dive in too deep there, but wanted to show that simplistically looking at frequency alone does not necessarily give an idea on how something functions.


----------



## OCmember

Subscribed


----------



## Markz

Ok i was able to tighten a little the timings. This timing is stable and rock solid with 1.42v. I tested with tm5 with configuration v2 and modified for 20 cycles. tested multiple times. Tested also on game very CPU bound, like BFV and is rock solid. The CPU is solid, with that voltage it is stable with 4.25 but for now i put 4.225 just for testing ram. By The Way is impossibile for me to go further. 3533 or 3600, or up, makes some errors.
I tried : 
-PROC ODT 48 to 60
-Tried Tfaw 24.
-Tried the SCL to 4 from 3
-Tried Different Trfc like 333, or 380, nothing.
-Tried also 14-14-14-30-44. And 15-15-15-15-32-48.
-Tried also Gear down Enable, and Tried to set up to 1.48v on Ram Voltage.
-Tried to set different RTT NOM , like disable and RZQ/7. Tried also some RTT PARK From /5 to /3(80).
-And yes.... tried also with CPU at Stock Freq.
All this attempt failed to stabilize anything over 3466. 
Any idea about enything else i can try?
Is possible that is the motherboard, Asrock Taichi, limit?


----------



## 1usmus

Markz said:


> Ok i was able to tighten a little the timings. This timing is stable and rock solid with 1.42v. I tested with tm5 with configuration v2 and modified for 20 cycles. tested multiple times. Tested also on game very CPU bound, like BFV and is rock solid. The CPU is solid, with that voltage it is stable with 4.25 but for now i put 4.225 just for testing ram. By The Way is impossibile for me to go further. 3533 or 3600, or up, makes some errors.
> I tried :
> -PROC ODT 48 to 60
> -Tried Tfaw 24.
> -Tried the SCL to 4 from 3
> -Tried Different Trfc like 333, or 380, nothing.
> -Tried also 14-14-14-30-44. And 15-15-15-15-32-48.
> -Tried also Gear down Enable, and Tried to set up to 1.48v on Ram Voltage.
> -Tried to set different RTT NOM , like disable and RZQ/7. Tried also some RTT PARK From /5 to /3(80).
> -And yes.... tried also with CPU at Stock Freq.
> All this attempt failed to stabilize anything over 3466.
> Any idea about enything else i can try?
> Is possible that is the motherboard, Asrock Taichi, limit?












If you reduce the processor frequency to 4000 MHz, you will get more overclocking of the RAM
But rather the problem is different, the T-topology of the motherboard always has a mediocre overclocking.
Most timings are far from mine recommendation. I don't know what to expect from your option.


----------



## Nighthog

Markz said:


> Ok i was able to tighten a little the timings. This timing is stable and rock solid with 1.42v. I tested with tm5 with configuration v2 and modified for 20 cycles. tested multiple times. Tested also on game very CPU bound, like BFV and is rock solid. The CPU is solid, with that voltage it is stable with 4.25 but for now i put 4.225 just for testing ram. By The Way is impossibile for me to go further. 3533 or 3600, or up, makes some errors.
> I tried :
> -PROC ODT 48 to 60
> -Tried Tfaw 24.
> -Tried the SCL to 4 from 3
> -Tried Different Trfc like 333, or 380, nothing.
> -Tried also 14-14-14-30-44. And 15-15-15-15-32-48.
> -Tried also Gear down Enable, and Tried to set up to 1.48v on Ram Voltage.
> -Tried to set different RTT NOM , like disable and RZQ/7. Tried also some RTT PARK From /5 to /3(80).
> -And yes.... tried also with CPU at Stock Freq.
> All this attempt failed to stabilize anything over 3466.
> Any idea about enything else i can try?
> Is possible that is the motherboard, Asrock Taichi, limit?


You need to first settle which RZQ values are "best" and the same with procODT. You find some stable settings and then push those up and down to see if it's better or worse for stability and note it down until you find the "perfect" combo. (RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1) <--- the most "universal" setting I've found stable 99% though there are alternatives to it depending on mobo/ram/cpu combos. It's easy enough to start with. 
ProcODT gets more sensitive the higher speed you want to push and tighter timings. SO if it's stable with a large assortment you aren't on the edge enough to judge which is the "best". If you go to low you get no boot or issues to boot. There aren't many values to try in the end but 3-4 in a range and settling on the best in the end. I found motherboard plays a part on which is best. My Gigabyte and Biostar needs this different (43.6 and 53.3 for comparison)

I didn't see if you had gen1 ryzen or gen 2 ryzen but above 3466Mhz on the Gigabyte I had with my gen1 Ryzen 7 1700 I had to start increasing SoC voltage quite significantly to gain better RAM speeds to stabilize/boot. These were not small increases but large and "over the limit" what is considered safe from if you ask anybody else here or elsewhere on the net. 
I fully know gen 2 2000 series doesn't need as much but I don't see people try to push voltage higher to eliminate that prospect. It's fine granularity changing. Not every step of voltage behaves the same and might need adjustments elsewhere to stabilize, and some voltage ranges aren't stable at all. 
I found it to be a game of perfectly matching frequency with the right voltage and settings. There were several settings that needed to be just right for speeds above 3600Mhz to work at all in length. 3600mhz and below was much easier from my own experience, there is was "easy" to "overkill" to try speeds above to work error free(though to get them to boot was easy enough(just increase SoC voltage)

This Biostar is impossible though in comparison with same cpu/ram. I'm missing all the settings I want to tweak to see if I can get it to work. (3200Mhz is max on it to even boot properly) Though it has better characteristics otherwise but so much more finicky with what it accepts. Boot process is really sensitive to any instabilities and will reset if so to any large degree. Gigabyte just pushed trough the instabilities and let me into Windows and corrupt stuff over and over until I fixed the correct settings to stabilize for stability. 

Memory timings are "trivial" as if you don't have them to low for your current speed and voltage it's nothing compared to try set the other settings correct for any combination of timings to work without errors.


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> Did not realize that was added with Pinnacle Ridge, which is cool. I'm still on a first gen 1950X. But, that addressed the first point.
> 
> With UCLK, it still is tied between the MCLK and UCLK, the difference here is the selection of the divisor used. So separate from the sync and async capabilities, the UCLK setting deals specifically with just the divisor.
> 
> When Summit Ridge was being worked on, the Stilt mentioned that in MB debug mode, they could change the ratio for MCLK and UCLK so that the uncore, which is the infinity fabric, would run 1:1. In the final product, which carried through to Pinnacle Ridge, the divisor or ratio of MCLK to UCLK was set 2:1. Many found it easier to refer to it as being clocked to what the RAM's single data rate would be, instead of using the double data rate frequency defined by the user. https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/post-38778725
> 
> AMD has already announced that IF, which acts like an uncore, will have double the bandwidth with Zen 2. Aside from other changes that may have occurred to IF, along with the UMC, etc., the easiest way to double bandwidth would be to double the clockspeed. If not adding an independent clock gen for that, and redesigning all of what you mentioned, you could leave them tied together and just change the divisor to what was even capable on first gen Zen in debug mode (obviously, there may have been stability issues with the first gen or two using a 1:1 divisor for the relationship between those components, which is why 2:1 was used in the final products, something that seems resolved with Zen 2). And I'm not saying it was trivial solving the issue, to be clear, rather that it is the most obvious way to approach the issue.
> 
> So, as you said, adding in IF between the I/O die housing the UMC and the core chiplets means latency will go up due to having to transverse the IF to get to the UMC. If you are leaving the UMC MCLK and UCLK tied, then changing the divisor would double the speed of the IF, but more importantly lower the latency with the increase in speed. It is like keeping the latency timing the same, but instead of using 1600MHz, you use 3200MHz, so that the real life latency in ns is reduced a fair amount. This is what I believe the setting for UCLK is referring to, the divisor that set IF to half the speed of the memory, which changing that divisor changes the ratio, thereby allowing for the increase in speed, which translates to bandwidth and lower latency.
> 
> "XFR Enhancement:
> 1) FCLK Frequency
> 2) MEMCLK Frequency
> 3) UCLK DIV1 MODE:
> a) Auto
> b) UCLK==MEMCLK
> c) UCLK==MEMCLK/2"
> 
> For this, I am relying specifically on the selection 3 under XFR enhancements, where (3)(b) would be 1:1 for UCLK to MEMCLK, and where (3)(c) would set it to a 1:2 ratio, which is what was used on Zen 1 and Zen+. This would leave them being tied together intact, instead just changing one factor in the relationship of how they are tied together.
> 
> As such, the UCLK would be defining the MEM/IF relationship separate from the sync and async related to core clock and other clocks that would be effected. Does that make more sense why I see the UCLK divisor as separate from your explanation of the sync and async relationship of clocks?
> 
> Edit: and this is for the community more than you Yuri-
> 
> While looking through a couple other forums, I've seen comments denigrating IF due to its speed being slower than the ringbus on Intel or Mesh on Intel chips. Frequency is NOT what matters, although it points to two factors that do matter: (1) bandwidth, and (2) latency.
> 
> Bandwidth is what determines how much data can pass over the connection in a given period of time (where we get Gbps in relation to ethernet, etc.). Each fabric used has a different amount that it is able to transfer, so that speed will effect the bandwidth the fabric carries, but the bandwidth is what is important, not the speed. It doesn't matter what speed is run if the amount of data between the two is equal, which leads to latency then being what helps determine which is faster if the bandwidth is equal.
> 
> A good example of this principle is looking at HBM2 vs GDDR. GDDR uses a smaller bus interface, but clocks really fast. HBM2 has a very wide data bus, but runs at much slower speeds. This means that you can get the same amount of bandwidth from each tech, but the frequency each runs on is very different. Because of this, the impact of latency is then considered. Not going to dive in too deep there, but wanted to show that simplistically looking at frequency alone does not necessarily give an idea on how something functions.


Why will not work 1: 1 (UCLK: MEMCLK) on current generations of processors:

1) UCLK is not able to work with adequate voltage at frequencies above 1900-2000 MHz, respectively, we can not overclock the RAM more then 1900-2000mhz, we lose bandwidth and improve data access delays

2) The internal interfaces are designed for specific frequencies and have certain signal / noise tolerances.

3) Separate components of the memory controller (buffers and caches) no overclocking options. They also have design limitations and they are bottlenecks. Confirmation of this high frequency memory, which do not bring use (over 3533)

At the moment, I'm afraid to predict something because the limiting IF frequency in UCLK mode == MEMCLK may limit the overclocking of RAM. Accordingly, we will lose memory bandwidth and delays will worsen. In this case, we will not have enough two memory channels even for a single-chip configuration.

About the new communications interface, the broader one you wrote about. This is true, they say about it :

* CAKE CRC perf bounds Control
* CAKE CRC perf bounds
* ACPI SLIT Distance Control
* ACPI SLIT remote relative distance
* ACPI SLIT virtual distance
* ACPI SLIT same socket distance
* ACPI SLIT remote socket distance
* ACPI SLIT local SLink distance
* ACPI SLIT remote SLink distance
* ACPI SLIT local inter-SLink distance
* ACPI SLIT remote inter-SLink distance

But the width of the interface, as you wrote above at identical frequencies, will not bring an improvement in the delays, because fine tuning timings will remain.
A confirmation of this will also be published on TechpowerUP


----------



## Redwoodz

1usmus said:


> If you reduce the processor frequency to 4000 MHz, you will get more overclocking of the RAM
> But rather the problem is different, the T-topology of the motherboard always has a mediocre overclocking.
> Most timings are far from mine recommendation. I don't know what to expect from your option.





Nighthog said:


> You need to first settle which RZQ values are "best" and the same with procODT. You find some stable settings and then push those up and down to see if it's better or worse for stability and note it down until you find the "perfect" combo. (RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1) <--- the most "universal" setting I've found stable 99% though there are alternatives to it depending on mobo/ram/cpu combos. It's easy enough to start with.
> ProcODT gets more sensitive the higher speed you want to push and tighter timings. SO if it's stable with a large assortment you aren't on the edge enough to judge which is the "best". If you go to low you get no boot or issues to boot. There aren't many values to try in the end but 3-4 in a range and settling on the best in the end. I found motherboard plays a part on which is best. My Gigabyte and Biostar needs this different (43.6 and 53.3 for comparison)
> 
> I didn't see if you had gen1 ryzen or gen 2 ryzen but above 3466Mhz on the Gigabyte I had with my gen1 Ryzen 7 1700 I had to start increasing SoC voltage quite significantly to gain better RAM speeds to stabilize/boot. These were not small increases but large and "over the limit" what is considered safe from if you ask anybody else here or elsewhere on the net.
> I fully know gen 2 2000 series doesn't need as much but I don't see people try to push voltage higher to eliminate that prospect. It's fine granularity changing. Not every step of voltage behaves the same and might need adjustments elsewhere to stabilize, and some voltage ranges aren't stable at all.
> I found it to be a game of perfectly matching frequency with the right voltage and settings. There were several settings that needed to be just right for speeds above 3600Mhz to work at all in length. 3600mhz and below was much easier from my own experience, there is was "easy" to "overkill" to try speeds above to work error free(though to get them to boot was easy enough(just increase SoC voltage)
> 
> This Biostar is impossible though in comparison with same cpu/ram. I'm missing all the settings I want to tweak to see if I can get it to work. (3200Mhz is max on it to even boot properly) Though it has better characteristics otherwise but so much more finicky with what it accepts. Boot process is really sensitive to any instabilities and will reset if so to any large degree. Gigabyte just pushed trough the instabilities and let me into Windows and corrupt stuff over and over until I fixed the correct settings to stabilize for stability.
> 
> Memory timings are "trivial" as if you don't have them to low for your current speed and voltage it's nothing compared to try set the other settings correct for any combination of timings to work without errors.





1usmus said:


> Why will not work 1: 1 (UCLK: MEMCLK) on current generations of processors:
> 
> 1) UCLK is not able to work with adequate voltage at frequencies above 1900-2000 MHz, respectively, we can not overclock the RAM more then 1900-2000mhz, we lose bandwidth and improve data access delays
> 
> 2) The internal interfaces are designed for specific frequencies and have certain signal / noise tolerances.
> 
> 3) Separate components of the memory controller (buffers and caches) no overclocking options. They also have design limitations and they are bottlenecks. Confirmation of this high frequency memory, which do not bring use (over 3533)
> 
> At the moment, I'm afraid to predict something because the limiting IF frequency in UCLK mode == MEMCLK may limit the overclocking of RAM. Accordingly, we will lose memory bandwidth and delays will worsen. In this case, we will not have enough two memory channels even for a single-chip configuration.
> 
> About the new communications interface, the broader one you wrote about. This is true, they say about it :
> 
> * CAKE CRC perf bounds Control
> * CAKE CRC perf bounds
> * ACPI SLIT Distance Control
> * ACPI SLIT remote relative distance
> * ACPI SLIT virtual distance
> * ACPI SLIT same socket distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote socket distance
> * ACPI SLIT local SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT local inter-SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote inter-SLink distance
> 
> But the width of the interface, as you wrote above at identical frequencies, will not bring an improvement in the delays, because fine tuning timings will remain.
> A confirmation of this will also be published on TechpowerUP



That really clears up what I have been finding with Zen. Bandwith and latency between CPU and RAM is really hard to pin point optimal settings.


----------



## Markz

1usmus said:


> If you reduce the processor frequency to 4000 MHz, you will get more overclocking of the RAM
> But rather the problem is different, the T-topology of the motherboard always has a mediocre overclocking.
> Most timings are far from mine recommendation. I don't know what to expect from your option.


Before to re-test with CPU overclocking, i always test the ram stability, with cpu at stock clock. Only when i passed some tm5, i apply the overclock on CPU. BTW what is very different in this timing from your raccomandation? 

For Nighthog in the attachment(Attached Thumbnails) in the post before, i putted in my best combination of timing and impedences


----------



## Nighthog

After looking at your result in attached image I can't really say too much more than mention the RZQ/RTT values you got working there are much different from what I could run with my setups.(barely bootable or many errors with both RttNom & RttWr disabled.) Completely not optimal for myself. (edit: though disabled/disabled/ RZQ/6 boots but not tested enough)

Did you play around with the DrvStr values at above speeds? I found often you could play with them a little at higher and "edge" settings for some extra stability. But you often needed diffrent DrvStr values for each voltage/other settings. 20/24 usually works most of the time but at times you could get better results with higher values. But I found this mostly apply to the earliest BIOS with older AGESA, new Agesa usually worked with close to stock/AUTO or 20/20/20/20, 24/24/24/24. New BIOS usually didn't need the 60/40Ohm combinations I used at the old AGESA versions. 
I can mention 20/20/20/20 usually wasn't optimal. 24/20/24/24 or 20/20/20/24 <-- was kinda what worked best last I tried. 
A observation I made was the higher values you used here the more issue you had using higher RAM voltage. I think it was heat related. (60 Ohm values)

There can be had stability with tweaking AddrCmdSetup, CsOdtSetup, CkeSetup. Those were what enabled me going above 3600Mhz and get stable results on my Gigabyte for 3733Mhz stock/auto worked up to 3600Mhz but after they needed tuning.


----------



## japemo

Hi!!!

Sorry if this message is not correctly write here. I have problems when DRAM Calculator.

I have this hard:
Case: Raijintek Ophion EVO
MB: Asus ROG Strix X470-I Gaming
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
GPU: KFA2 GeForce® RTX 2080 OC
STG: M.2 Samsung 950 PRO 500GB, SSD Samsung 750GB, HDD WD Green 3TB
RAM: Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB 16GB DDR4-3000 (x2) 32GB
PS: Corsair SF600
Keyboard: Logitech G710+
Mouse: Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum
Monitor: HP L2045W (Monitor temporal)
OS: W10 Pro
FANs: Corsair ML120PRO (x3)

And I use Thaiphoon Burner to see full spec of my RAM










After I write parameters in DRAM Calculator and do this error:










With this text in details:

_See the end of this message for details on invoking 
just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.

************** Exception Text **************
System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
at System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._1._0.Form1.Current_Delay_Time()
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._1._0.Form1.metroTile4_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
at MetroFramework.Controls.MetroTile.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)

************** Loaded Assemblies **************
mscorlib
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.7.3362.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll
----------------------------------------
Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0
Assembly Version: 1.4.0.0
Win32 Version: 1.4.0.1
CodeBase: file:///G:/Programas/Overclock-Tests%20PC/Configurar%20RAM%20en%20AMD/DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.4.1/DRAM%20Calculator%20for%20Ryzen%201.4.1.exe
----------------------------------------
System.Windows.Forms
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.7.3324.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
----------------------------------------
System
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.7.3362.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Drawing
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.7.3190.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
----------------------------------------
MetroFramework
Assembly Version: 1.2.0.3
Win32 Version: 1.2.0.3
CodeBase: file:///G:/Programas/Overclock-Tests%20PC/Configurar%20RAM%20en%20AMD/DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.4.1/MetroFramework.DLL
----------------------------------------
System.Configuration
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.7.3324.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Core
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.7.3362.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Xml
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.7.3190.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll
----------------------------------------

************** JIT Debugging **************
To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this
application or computer (machine.config) must have the
jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section.
The application must also be compiled with debugging
enabled.

For example:

<configuration>
<system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
</configuration>

When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception
will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer
rather than be handled by this dialog box._

Regards!!!


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> Why will not work 1: 1 (UCLK: MEMCLK) on current generations of processors:
> 
> 1) UCLK is not able to work with adequate voltage at frequencies above 1900-2000 MHz, respectively, we can not overclock the RAM more then 1900-2000mhz, we lose bandwidth and improve data access delays
> 
> 2) The internal interfaces are designed for specific frequencies and have certain signal / noise tolerances.
> 
> 3) Separate components of the memory controller (buffers and caches) no overclocking options. They also have design limitations and they are bottlenecks. Confirmation of this high frequency memory, which do not bring use (over 3533)
> 
> At the moment, I'm afraid to predict something because the limiting IF frequency in UCLK mode == MEMCLK may limit the overclocking of RAM. Accordingly, we will lose memory bandwidth and delays will worsen. In this case, we will not have enough two memory channels even for a single-chip configuration.
> 
> About the new communications interface, the broader one you wrote about. This is true, they say about it :
> 
> * CAKE CRC perf bounds Control
> * CAKE CRC perf bounds
> * ACPI SLIT Distance Control
> * ACPI SLIT remote relative distance
> * ACPI SLIT virtual distance
> * ACPI SLIT same socket distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote socket distance
> * ACPI SLIT local SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT local inter-SLink distance
> * ACPI SLIT remote inter-SLink distance
> 
> But the width of the interface, as you wrote above at identical frequencies, will not bring an improvement in the delays, because fine tuning timings will remain.
> A confirmation of this will also be published on TechpowerUP


Great explanation! 

What I am talking about in regards to Valhalla/Zen 2, though, is the changes that have been made. "One interesting detail AMD disclosed with their GPU announcement is that the infinity fabric now supports 100 GB/s (BiDir) per link. If we assume the Infinity Fabric 2 still uses 16 differential pairs as with first-generation IF, it would mean the IF 2 now operates at 25 GT/s, identical to NVLink 2.0 data rate. However, since AMD’s IF is twice as wide, it provides twice the bandwidth per link over Nvidia’s NVLink." https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1815/amd-discloses-initial-zen-2-details/

This suggests that there are non-trivial improvements to the Infinity Fabric for implementation, where the bandwidth supported doubled. Now, pointed out in this quote is that they assume the same number of differential pairs exist as compared to first generation for part of their calculations. 

So, moving forward, I'm using publicly available data for discussing what may come in the future generation, not current generation, chips. 

1) There is a voltage/power issue with infinity fabric. I cannot find the source at the moment, but someone did an analysis of power draw of the data fabric relative to package power and estimate core power to show that the data fabric is a large power hog. In addition to voltage and power, that also means that the data fabric will contribute to the heat on the chip and eat into the TDP, depending on how calculated, meaning keeping it cool is another issue that needs considered. In arguendo, that means that if they accomplished doubling the bandwidth by doubling the speed through changing the ratio so that IF2 can run at the same speed of the DDR, rather than using the divisor of 2, there are still questions on how the reduction of power was accomplished and the heat levels generated by the data fabric. This means they may have found a way around the effective cap that you mentioned. But the point on limiting memory overclock is still valid (more on that in a moment).

2) This is true, it is designed for certain frequencies and signal to noise ratios. In fact, in light of discussing point one, I mentioned that IF gen 1 was a power hog, which then translates into heat. Heat can effect the signal to noise ratios in specific scenarios, as thermal radiation can degrade and decay the signal integrity of the data. 

3) Great point. And this suggests to implement this with Zen 2, AMD would have had to address those areas in the design and testing phase to allow for a 1:1 setting, where current gen CPUs could not accomplish that, whether it be the cache or timings that were implemented for a 1:2 ratio to optimize that setting or the power requirements or the signal integrity. They may even have it so that when the divisor is changed, it automatically switches to a pre-determined set of timings and settings for the UMC to allow for it to work (like slightly loosening timings due to the speed being higher, which the lower timings would be too aggressive at the higher speed). 

As we both have mentioned in this discussion, if AMD were to achieve double the frequency and bandwidth with the IF gen 2, it would not be a trivial undertaking. There are many notable changes that would need made, and would be an impressive evolving of the data fabric.

Even if accomplished, your point is still valid that by using UCLK == MCLK could limit memory frequencies, thereby limiting the ram overclock which loses bandwidth and increases latency. Let's say that the rumor is true that the officially supported memory speed increases to 3200MHz, something rumored awhile ago, but that no new information or speculation on this front has been given for 3-5 months. If the IF2 has been tuned to support in 1:1 mode 3200MHz, then it may not allow too much speed beyond this. That could leave low 3000MHz speeds as necessary to use 1:1 mode, where higher frequencies would not be possible.

Now, AMD, by moving the memory controller to the I/O die, should be able to bin the performance of the memory controller and I/O die overall. That can help to achieve the higher official memory speed. But, that also means that, in certain scenarios, like mainstream chips with dual channel memory support which requires less bandwidth than potentially that of Threadripper or Epyc, it may be more beneficial to use 1:2 mode to allow the memory to hit high 3000 to 4000MHz on the binned I/O dies, as the benefits of using 1:1 may not scale, while also reducing the frequency selected, thereby effecting memory bandwidth and latency. It would also increase the power draw, causing more heat, etc. 

On the other hand, for Threadripper and Epyc users, with quad channel and octochannel memory configurations, achieving higher speeds is a bit more difficult, and they have more potential memory bandwidth than the mainstream CPUs. I would argue this is where the true benefit of a 1:1 setting would lie.

This has a couple implications:

A) the new divisor likely is not going to be backwards compatible with current generation offerings from AMD,

B) the new divisor may not be the best setup for mainstream CPUs on the new generation, depending on different factors, and

C) when overclocking with the new processors, if the above changes were made to allow lower power draw and higher frequencies, a person may want to explore the trade offs of using 1:1 vs 1:2 relative to the stable function of memory and IF, in the event that memory overclocking is able to achieve higher frequencies due to binning of I/O dies. 

So I must admit, I have numerous embedded assumptions about what would have had to have taken place for this to be achievable on Zen 2. It also shows why the function of data fabric is important, and why Intel and Nvidia are bidding for the purchase of Mellanox for their IP. 

Sorry if I missed something. Just waking up with my morning coffee, so forgive if my morning cloudiness effected some element of this discussion. If nothing else, this shows how much we still don't know about the upcoming platform. 

And I'm looking forward to seeing that article!


----------



## numlock66

Markz said:


> Ok i was able to tighten a little the timings. This timing is stable and rock solid with 1.42v. I tested with tm5 with configuration v2 and modified for 20 cycles. tested multiple times. Tested also on game very CPU bound, like BFV and is rock solid. The CPU is solid, with that voltage it is stable with 4.25 but for now i put 4.225 just for testing ram. By The Way is impossibile for me to go further. 3533 or 3600, or up, makes some errors.
> I tried :
> -PROC ODT 48 to 60
> -Tried Tfaw 24.
> -Tried the SCL to 4 from 3
> -Tried Different Trfc like 333, or 380, nothing.
> -Tried also 14-14-14-30-44. And 15-15-15-15-32-48.
> -Tried also Gear down Enable, and Tried to set up to 1.48v on Ram Voltage.
> -Tried to set different RTT NOM , like disable and RZQ/7. Tried also some RTT PARK From /5 to /3(80).
> -And yes.... tried also with CPU at Stock Freq.
> All this attempt failed to stabilize anything over 3466.
> Any idea about enything else i can try?
> Is possible that is the motherboard, Asrock Taichi, limit?


Try that
3533_XFR-disable+0.025offsetLLC5
SOC1.037vLLC5
MEM1.445v
VDDP-auto











1usmus said:


> If you reduce the processor frequency to 4000 MHz, you will get more overclocking of the RAM
> But rather the problem is different, the T-topology of the motherboard always has a mediocre overclocking.
> Most timings are far from mine recommendation. I don't know what to expect from your option.


 @1usmus, have you noticed different memory stable timings when using SATA and M.2 PCI-X SSD? I noticed that my old stable timings with SATA SSD were not stable when change to M.2 SSD, Needing to change some to get 3466mhz stable.


----------



## 1usmus

*AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/


Reading, great work!


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/


Great data points on the testing.


----------



## 8000cc

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/


Nice work!


----------



## Darkomax

Great work, you should be titled God of RAM


----------



## AlphaC

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/



So I guess B-die is still worth it for latency-sensitive things with 3400C14 Hynix CJR close to it in some instances.


----------



## umeng2002

+rep


----------



## Mikkinen

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/


Great work!


----------



## Sptz

Why does the new version doesn't calculate tRFC 2 and 4? Only does for ALT? 

Thanks


----------



## dspx

Sptz said:


> Why does the new version doesn't calculate tRFC 2 and 4? Only does for ALT?
> 
> Thanks


You should leave it at auto.


----------



## rdr09

Mikkinen said:


> Great work!


^this.


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> Great explanation!
> 
> What I am talking about in regards to Valhalla/Zen 2, though, is the changes that have been made. "One interesting detail AMD disclosed with their GPU announcement is that the infinity fabric now supports 100 GB/s (BiDir) per link. If we assume the Infinity Fabric 2 still uses 16 differential pairs as with first-generation IF, it would mean the IF 2 now operates at 25 GT/s, identical to NVLink 2.0 data rate. However, since AMD’s IF is twice as wide, it provides twice the bandwidth per link over Nvidia’s NVLink." https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1815/amd-discloses-initial-zen-2-details/
> 
> This suggests that there are non-trivial improvements to the Infinity Fabric for implementation, where the bandwidth supported doubled. Now, pointed out in this quote is that they assume the same number of differential pairs exist as compared to first generation for part of their calculations.
> 
> So, moving forward, I'm using publicly available data for discussing what may come in the future generation, not current generation, chips.
> 
> 1) There is a voltage/power issue with infinity fabric. I cannot find the source at the moment, but someone did an analysis of power draw of the data fabric relative to package power and estimate core power to show that the data fabric is a large power hog. In addition to voltage and power, that also means that the data fabric will contribute to the heat on the chip and eat into the TDP, depending on how calculated, meaning keeping it cool is another issue that needs considered. In arguendo, that means that if they accomplished doubling the bandwidth by doubling the speed through changing the ratio so that IF2 can run at the same speed of the DDR, rather than using the divisor of 2, there are still questions on how the reduction of power was accomplished and the heat levels generated by the data fabric. This means they may have found a way around the effective cap that you mentioned. But the point on limiting memory overclock is still valid (more on that in a moment).
> 
> 2) This is true, it is designed for certain frequencies and signal to noise ratios. In fact, in light of discussing point one, I mentioned that IF gen 1 was a power hog, which then translates into heat. Heat can effect the signal to noise ratios in specific scenarios, as thermal radiation can degrade and decay the signal integrity of the data.
> 
> 3) Great point. And this suggests to implement this with Zen 2, AMD would have had to address those areas in the design and testing phase to allow for a 1:1 setting, where current gen CPUs could not accomplish that, whether it be the cache or timings that were implemented for a 1:2 ratio to optimize that setting or the power requirements or the signal integrity. They may even have it so that when the divisor is changed, it automatically switches to a pre-determined set of timings and settings for the UMC to allow for it to work (like slightly loosening timings due to the speed being higher, which the lower timings would be too aggressive at the higher speed).
> 
> As we both have mentioned in this discussion, if AMD were to achieve double the frequency and bandwidth with the IF gen 2, it would not be a trivial undertaking. There are many notable changes that would need made, and would be an impressive evolving of the data fabric.
> 
> Even if accomplished, your point is still valid that by using UCLK == MCLK could limit memory frequencies, thereby limiting the ram overclock which loses bandwidth and increases latency. Let's say that the rumor is true that the officially supported memory speed increases to 3200MHz, something rumored awhile ago, but that no new information or speculation on this front has been given for 3-5 months. If the IF2 has been tuned to support in 1:1 mode 3200MHz, then it may not allow too much speed beyond this. That could leave low 3000MHz speeds as necessary to use 1:1 mode, where higher frequencies would not be possible.
> 
> Now, AMD, by moving the memory controller to the I/O die, should be able to bin the performance of the memory controller and I/O die overall. That can help to achieve the higher official memory speed. But, that also means that, in certain scenarios, like mainstream chips with dual channel memory support which requires less bandwidth than potentially that of Threadripper or Epyc, it may be more beneficial to use 1:2 mode to allow the memory to hit high 3000 to 4000MHz on the binned I/O dies, as the benefits of using 1:1 may not scale, while also reducing the frequency selected, thereby effecting memory bandwidth and latency. It would also increase the power draw, causing more heat, etc.
> 
> On the other hand, for Threadripper and Epyc users, with quad channel and octochannel memory configurations, achieving higher speeds is a bit more difficult, and they have more potential memory bandwidth than the mainstream CPUs. I would argue this is where the true benefit of a 1:1 setting would lie.
> 
> This has a couple implications:
> 
> A) the new divisor likely is not going to be backwards compatible with current generation offerings from AMD,
> 
> B) the new divisor may not be the best setup for mainstream CPUs on the new generation, depending on different factors, and
> 
> C) when overclocking with the new processors, if the above changes were made to allow lower power draw and higher frequencies, a person may want to explore the trade offs of using 1:1 vs 1:2 relative to the stable function of memory and IF, in the event that memory overclocking is able to achieve higher frequencies due to binning of I/O dies.
> 
> So I must admit, I have numerous embedded assumptions about what would have had to have taken place for this to be achievable on Zen 2. It also shows why the function of data fabric is important, and why Intel and Nvidia are bidding for the purchase of Mellanox for their IP.
> 
> Sorry if I missed something. Just waking up with my morning coffee, so forgive if my morning cloudiness effected some element of this discussion. If nothing else, this shows how much we still don't know about the upcoming platform.
> 
> And I'm looking forward to seeing that article!


I apologize, I made a mistake, the current generation of processors is working in the mode UCLK == MEMCLK (I confused the real and effective frequency, I need a dream so that this does not happen again :doh. 

A new generation of processors will receive a mode in which there will be no emphasis in the UCLK. In this mode, the IF frequency will be halved. For multi-core efficiency, this is a minus, but for overclocking the RAM, this is a big plus. 

As a result, we get the divider mode and twice the width of the tire. Accordingly, the heat pack should not get serious changes.


----------



## AmaKatsu

How's tCKE important ?
normally I used 7-9 but on Ryzen Calculator shown as 1 and I also changed to 1, it still stable with 
Linx 0.70 8GB 15 loops
Memtest5 10 cycles
GSAT 2 hours


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

AmaKatsu said:


> How's tCKE important ?
> normally I used 7-9 but on Ryzen Calculator shown as 1 and I also changed to 1, it still stable with
> Linx 0.70 8GB 15 loops
> Memtest5 10 cycles
> GSAT 2 hours
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



if Power Down Mode - Disabled , any tCKE value will be ignored


----------



## BUFUMAN

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/


Nice mate thank you! Reading it right now.


Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


----------



## AmaKatsu

1usmus said:


> if Power Down Mode - Disabled , any tCKE value will be ignored



Thank you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

*New 10nm Samsung memory ! *

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...stry’s-3rd-generation-10nm-Class-DRAM-Premium


----------



## freddy85

Hello, need some input.
I'm struggling with my memory speed and timings.
I bought some expensive Crucial Elite 16GB 3466mhz memory kit with timing 16-18-18-36
The issue that I have is that I get memory corruption at XMP profile, have to run it at a speed of 3333mhz to avoid this.
I have also tried the calculator and manually input the values, but the calculator gives way to tight timings also if lower the speed to say 3200mhz.. it won't even boot.
Any ideas are appreciated 

Thank you

edit: Crosshair VII and 2700x.


----------



## freddy85

i previosly tried these settings but the system wont even boot


----------



## christoph

freddy85 said:


> i previosly tried these settings but the system wont even boot



first try resetting the ram, take them out of the slot and put them back on, and then try


----------



## snipernote

snipernote said:


> thank you for your reply all 9 combinations did not boot , i tried proq odt ( 53 - 60 -63 ohms ) with the rzq or disabled values also i made many tries yesterday ... the one with disabled options ended up resetting cmos after 5 minutes and i had to reset and boot system 3 times by forcing a shutdown through the power button 3 times to make it go back to bios with a cmos reset error
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes i did put them in the right slots since day 1 ... please find attached exact location in the motherboard
> 
> 
> update: contacted the seller yesterday and they issued a replacement order immediatly ... lets hope it comes soon



special thanks for the seller support team they escalated my problem and sent me a fast replacement ... I received v5.32 which was hynix afr and it worked at 3200mhz from day one till now
Dram voltage was set to 1.37 (effective is 1.368 as i see it in the monitoring program) volts xmp on profile 1 and termination block parameters were manually input as following
procodt = 68.6 ohm
RTT Nom = RZQ/7
RTT_WR= RZQ/3
RTT_Park= RZQ/1

These are valid settings for F5 bios dated 25/01/2019 ( motherboard gigabyte aorus M b450 )

System now feels faster and more snappier than before 


i am posting this as a statement ! ... not all samsung b die ram are good and worth keeping as my current hynix ram is better and more compatible


----------



## freddy85

christoph said:


> first try resetting the ram, take them out of the slot and put them back on, and then try


Did not work.
I want to return them on warranty but the shop want almost 100usd + shipping cost if they check out fine during their own testing.


----------



## Nighthog

snipernote said:


> special thanks for the seller support team they escalated my problem and sent me a fast replacement ... I received v5.32 which was hynix afr and it worked at 3200mhz from day one till now
> Dram voltage was set to 1.37 (effective is 1.368 as i see it in the monitoring program) volts xmp on profile 1 and termination block parameters were manually input as following
> procodt = 68.6 ohm
> RTT Nom = RZQ/7
> RTT_WR= RZQ/3
> RTT_Park= RZQ/1
> 
> These are valid settings for F5 bios dated 25/01/2019 ( motherboard gigabyte aorus M b450 )
> 
> System now feels faster and more snappier than before
> 
> 
> i am posting this as a statement ! ... not all samsung b die ram are good and worth keeping as my current hynix ram is better and more compatible


It's good to know you have your system running to spec at least now. 
Must have been a faulty kit as they confirmed and exchanged your kit for another. (they could not get it to run spec either)

I had a faulty Corsair kit as well on my first ddr4 buy. Some 2666Mhz 2x8Gb kit. One of the sticks in the kit died shortly after. Got a warranty exchange from retailer for a new one. New kit worked out better I recall not used it much as of late though as I bought my Kingston. 

I recall often finding people needing to exchange kits with Corsair for some reason. too tight tolerances or to lax binning/verification?


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> I apologize, I made a mistake, the current generation of processors is working in the mode UCLK == MEMCLK (I confused the real and effective frequency, I need a dream so that this does not happen again :doh.
> 
> A new generation of processors will receive a mode in which there will be no emphasis in the UCLK. In this mode, the IF frequency will be halved. For multi-core efficiency, this is a minus, but for overclocking the RAM, this is a big plus.
> 
> As a result, we get the divider mode and twice the width of the tire. Accordingly, the heat pack should not get serious changes.


Def. I cannot wait for AMD to give an in-depth presentation on IF2! Or, really, just release the Zen 2 CPUs. 

Plus, talking the effective and real, etc., gets confusing as there are a couple ways of discussing it. 



1usmus said:


> *New 10nm Samsung memory ! *
> 
> https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...stry’s-3rd-generation-10nm-Class-DRAM-Premium


This is nice. Now to see if this will mean more 3200MT skus, etc. (meaning that as the base SPD timings, not XMP, where most ram is 2400MT, but there are some 2133 still being produced and some 2667MT memory modules). Either way, they mention this is preparing for DDR5, which servers should see in 2020, followed by mainstream in 2021 or 2022. Once the switch to DDR5 and PCIe 4.0 and 5.0 is complete, that should allow riding it out while the industry figures out the contact resistance and quantum tunneling issues precipitating the need for using cobalt for contacts (like Intel's Cobalt Over Active Gate and replacing copper contacts elsewhere), along with potential incorporation of ruthenium or III-V materials (Gallium Arsenide comes to mind, among others) that way to allow scaling to lower production nodes. And that is aside from incorporating EUV lithography as a replacement to DUV lithography. But I digress.


----------



## Maracus

freddy85 said:


> i previosly tried these settings but the system wont even boot


What are your DRAM/SoC voltage settings?


----------



## freddy85

Maracus said:


> What are your DRAM/SoC voltage settings?


These are my bios settings:


Spoiler



[2019/03/22 21:34:48]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
Performance Enhancer [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
Trc [44]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [6]
Tfaw [32]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [12]
Trcpage [0]
TrdrdScl [3]
TwrwrScl [3]
Trfc [307]
Trfc2 [228]
Trfc4 [140]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [8]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Enabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
DRAM Voltage [1.35000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Firmware TPM [Disable]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
When system is in working state [On]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [M4-CT128M4SSD2]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
SanDisk [Auto]
U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
U31G1_5 [Enabled]
U31G1_6 [Enabled]
U31G1_7 [Enabled]
U31G1_8 [Enabled]
U31G1_9 [Enabled]
U31G1_10 [Enabled]
USB11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
USB14 [Enabled]
USB15 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
AB Clock Gating [Auto]
PCIB Clock Run [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Boot Logo Display [Enabled]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
Load from Profile [2]
Profile Name [ustabil]
Save to Profile [2]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
RedirectForReturnDis [Auto]
L2 TLB Associativity [Auto]
Platform First Error Handling [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Enable IBS [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
Opcache Control [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
Custom Pstate1 [Auto]
Custom Pstate2 [Auto]
Custom Pstate3 [Auto]
Custom Pstate4 [Auto]
Custom Pstate5 [Auto]
Custom Pstate6 [Auto]
Custom Pstate7 [Auto]
Relaxed EDC throttling [Auto]
Downcore control [Auto]
SMTEN [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit [1]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
SMU and PSP Production Mode [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
Freeze DF module queues on error [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Location of private memory regions [Auto]
System probe filter [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
Channel interleaving hash [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
IOMMU [Auto]
Determinism Slider [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
Fan Control [Auto]
PSI [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
Enable AER Cap [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
CLDO_VDDP Control [Auto]
HD Audio Enable [Auto]
Block PCIe Loopback [Auto]
Force PCIe gen speed [Auto]
Processor temperature Control [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
Mode0 [Auto]
SATA Controller [Auto]
Sata RAS Support [Auto]
Sata Disabled AHCI Prefetch Function [Auto]
Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
XHCI controller enable [Auto]
XHCI Controller1 enable (Die1) [Auto]
XHCI2 enable (MCM1/Die0) [Auto]
XHCI3 enable (MCM1/Die1) [Auto]
SD Configuration Mode [Disabled]
Ac Loss Control [Always Off]
I2C 0 Enable [Auto]
I2C 1 Enable [Auto]
I2C 2 Enable [Auto]
I2C 3 Enable [Auto]
I2C 4 Enable [Auto]
I2C 5 Enable [Auto]
Uart 0 Enable [Auto]
Uart 1 Enable [Auto]
Uart 2 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
Uart 3 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
ESPI Enable [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 0 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 1 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 2 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 3 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 4 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 5 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 6 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 7 [Auto]
eMMC/SD Configure [Auto]
Driver Type [Auto]
D3 Cold Support [Auto]
eMMC Boot [Auto]



posts 3 times then memory error message


----------



## hotak

In your guide you state that ALL samsung B-die should be able to reach 3533mhz, but i cannot get over 3266 CL14, using the V1 profile for 3266mhz and safe settings, and changing:
TRCDRD 15, tFAW 36, tRTP 12, tRDWR 9, tWRRD 4, TRRDS 6 (basically increased everything you suggested for stability).



Managed to reach stable (but unstable at boot) 3400mhz CL16 using the debug preset for 3533, but i get 1418 at CB compared to the 1459 with 3266 CL14.
CPU is @default+PBO and with -0.075v offset for 3266 and -0.056 for 3466.



My memories are Teamgroup T-Force 2x8GB rated for 3600mhz CL18. I tried all the alt. settings but no way i can get any better than this, any suggestion? Or is my kit just plain bad?


----------



## ajc9988

hotak said:


> In your guide you state that ALL samsung B-die should be able to reach 3533mhz, but i cannot get over 3266 CL14, using the V1 profile for 3266mhz and safe settings, and changing:
> TRCDRD 15, tFAW 36, tRTP 12, tRDWR 9, tWRRD 4, TRRDS 6 (basically increased everything you suggested for stability).
> 
> 
> 
> Managed to reach stable (but unstable at boot) 3400mhz CL16 using the debug preset for 3533, but i get 1418 at CB compared to the 1459 with 3266 CL14.
> CPU is @default+PBO and with -0.075v offset for 3266 and -0.056 for 3466.
> 
> 
> 
> My memories are Teamgroup T-Force 2x8GB rated for 3600mhz CL18. I tried all the alt. settings but no way i can get any better than this, any suggestion? Or is my kit just plain bad?


Try version 2 (V2) for that memory. B-die varies in die quality, as all do, and so you have to take that into account. I have a set of 4133 CL19 B-die which was old, like 2015/16 time frame. It can do the calculator fine for lower speed settings (3466 and below), but when I got 3600 stable (before an AGESA update which allowed me to get 3466 tight stable, but not 3600), I had to play with the settings in depth to get it running. The point is, by the time you are playing anywhere around 3400+, you will have to do more tweaking to get it to run perfectly.

Have you read his article over at techpowerup? It would be worth it to sit down with that and try V2 while working through the workflow he gave in that guide for setting and testing the timings. 

Also, if V2 timings work for you and you find stable, you can work with that guide to tighten timings while testing performance to find the sweet spot for your specific DIMMs. Your modules may be somewhere between the two sets from V1 and V2. 

You could also do Custom/debug and enter the file from Thaiphoon Burner to see what numbers it generates.


----------



## hotak

ajc9988 said:


> Try version 2 (V2) for that memory. B-die varies in die quality, as all do, and so you have to take that into account. I have a set of 4133 CL19 B-die which was old, like 2015/16 time frame. It can do the calculator fine for lower speed settings (3466 and below), but when I got 3600 stable (before an AGESA update which allowed me to get 3466 tight stable, but not 3600), I had to play with the settings in depth to get it running. The point is, by the time you are playing anywhere around 3400+, you will have to do more tweaking to get it to run perfectly.
> 
> Have you read his article over at techpowerup? It would be worth it to sit down with that and try V2 while working through the workflow he gave in that guide for setting and testing the timings.
> 
> Also, if V2 timings work for you and you find stable, you can work with that guide to tighten timings while testing performance to find the sweet spot for your specific DIMMs. Your modules may be somewhere between the two sets from V1 and V2.
> 
> You could also do Custom/debug and enter the file from Thaiphoon Burner to see what numbers it generates.


The second screen is from the debug profile, wich was stable at 3400 but had trouble at boot and was getting me worse performances than 3266 with tighter timings (probably also because i had to increase CPU voltage, reducing PBO's range because of temperatures). I now managed to get 3333mhz with the same timings i used at 3266, but i cannot get any more out of it.
The V2 profile suggests me very high timings, so i didn't try it.
I've read the guide and tried most of the suggestions, but anything "faster" than what i managed is "don't even boot" unstable wathever voltages and RTT/procODT i set.
I was already satisfied from the OC i got with the old calculator, but the fact that in the guide he suggests that all b-die kits should be able to get to 3533 made me want to reach them 

EDIT: i forgot the motherboard, if it makes any difference, it's a taichi x370


----------



## ajc9988

hotak said:


> The second screen is from the debug profile, wich was stable at 3400 but had trouble at boot and was getting me worse performances than 3266 with tighter timings (probably also because i had to increase CPU voltage, reducing PBO's range because of temperatures). I now managed to get 3333mhz with the same timings i used at 3266, but i cannot get any more out of it.
> The V2 profile suggests me very high timings, so i didn't try it.
> I've read the guide and tried most of the suggestions, but anything "faster" than what i managed is "don't even boot" unstable wathever voltages and RTT/procODT i set.
> I was already satisfied from the OC i got with the old calculator, but the fact that in the guide he suggests that all b-die kits should be able to get to 3533 made me want to reach them
> 
> EDIT: i forgot the motherboard, if it makes any difference, it's a taichi x370


Even though the timings look worse, when you are trying to hit a higher frequency, the first thing you need to do is get it to boot. Doesn't matter if it is pretty or timings are tight. You can work on that after you get something that boots. You need the boot, though. 

Also, there is a chance you, during your tweaking and testing, will never get it tight enough at a higher frequency to match the performance you get from a lower frequency with tighter timings. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean don't try, because you will never know until you do.

So give them a try and see if you can get it to boot and have it relatively stable (at least low error count). From there, you can either try to find full stability, or tighten timings while looking for full stability, tweaking the settings as you go so that you find the right voltages, resistances, etc. You don't have to fully stick with the timings it gives, you can find working timings, then tighten from there. It may not be able to do V1, but it might do somewhere between V2 and V1. In that case, getting V2 working, then tightening the timings may be the way to go. 

Meanwhile, it could be the board or IMC in play as well. Or the voltages. Don't know if you played with any outside of those recommended by the calc (not just the alternatives, but understanding what is actually sent when set). Go to 3333, look at the voltages set in the BIOS, then see what is read in HWInfo64. This will give you an idea of variance between what you set and what is actually being sent to SoC and Vdimm (and don't forget to play with varying the LLC on the SoC, as sometimes going up one step on voltage and down a step on LLC can make it a bit more stable, or vice versa, or at least that is my experience on my x399 taichi). Then you have RTT and procODT to also check.


----------



## Maracus

freddy85 said:


> These are my bios settings:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2019/03/22 21:34:48]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
> Performance Enhancer [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
> Trc [44]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [32]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [0]
> TrdrdScl [3]
> TwrwrScl [3]
> Trfc [307]
> Trfc2 [228]
> Trfc4 [140]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [6]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [8]
> ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Enabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.02500]
> DRAM Voltage [1.35000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Firmware TPM [Disable]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
> PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
> When system is in working state [On]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [M4-CT128M4SSD2]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> SanDisk [Auto]
> U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
> U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
> U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> U31G1_5 [Enabled]
> U31G1_6 [Enabled]
> U31G1_7 [Enabled]
> U31G1_8 [Enabled]
> U31G1_9 [Enabled]
> U31G1_10 [Enabled]
> USB11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> USB14 [Enabled]
> USB15 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> AB Clock Gating [Auto]
> PCIB Clock Run [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Enabled]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
> Load from Profile [2]
> Profile Name [ustabil]
> Save to Profile [2]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> RedirectForReturnDis [Auto]
> L2 TLB Associativity [Auto]
> Platform First Error Handling [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Enable IBS [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> Opcache Control [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate1 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate2 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate3 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate4 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate5 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate6 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate7 [Auto]
> Relaxed EDC throttling [Auto]
> Downcore control [Auto]
> SMTEN [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit [1]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> SMU and PSP Production Mode [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> Freeze DF module queues on error [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Location of private memory regions [Auto]
> System probe filter [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> Channel interleaving hash [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Determinism Slider [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> Fan Control [Auto]
> PSI [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> Enable AER Cap [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> CLDO_VDDP Control [Auto]
> HD Audio Enable [Auto]
> Block PCIe Loopback [Auto]
> Force PCIe gen speed [Auto]
> Processor temperature Control [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> Mode0 [Auto]
> SATA Controller [Auto]
> Sata RAS Support [Auto]
> Sata Disabled AHCI Prefetch Function [Auto]
> Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
> Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
> XHCI controller enable [Auto]
> XHCI Controller1 enable (Die1) [Auto]
> XHCI2 enable (MCM1/Die0) [Auto]
> XHCI3 enable (MCM1/Die1) [Auto]
> SD Configuration Mode [Disabled]
> Ac Loss Control [Always Off]
> I2C 0 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 1 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 2 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 3 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 4 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 5 Enable [Auto]
> Uart 0 Enable [Auto]
> Uart 1 Enable [Auto]
> Uart 2 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
> Uart 3 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
> ESPI Enable [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 0 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 1 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 2 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 3 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 4 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 5 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 6 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 7 [Auto]
> eMMC/SD Configure [Auto]
> Driver Type [Auto]
> D3 Cold Support [Auto]
> eMMC Boot [Auto]
> 
> 
> 
> posts 3 times then memory error message


Try upping your DRAM voltage(1.4v) and lower the SOC voltage a touch(1.031), then try the "Fast" preset, make sure use Gen+ settings and see how you go.

Edit: 3200 Fast


----------



## freddy85

Maracus said:


> Try upping your DRAM voltage(1.4v) and lower the SOC voltage a touch(1.031), then try the "Fast" preset, make sure use Gen+ settings and see how you go.
> 
> Edit: 3200 Fast


Thank you, do you mean reset bios and try the stilt 3200 profile and change voltage? and im not sure what gen+ setting is.


----------



## -Grift-

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide* by me
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/


Looking at the article you wrote the settings you used for CJR Single Rank (3600Mhz CL19 Sniper X) contradicts some of the values you posted in this spreadsheet 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CvJDvg15JYNLu7XIMiwRG0_dk/edit#gid=1745229512

Values such as tRRDL tRTP tRTP tRDWR etc which I inferred from your spreadsheet that lower values != "better".
Been using this tuned 3200 for some time now and it seems better than my semi tuned 3400 even though latency is a bit higher :thumb:


----------



## Maracus

freddy85 said:


> Thank you, do you mean reset bios and try the stilt 3200 profile and change voltage? and im not sure what gen+ setting is.


Gen 1 is 1700x Gen 1+ is 2700x

3200 Fast Preset should be relatively easy. Try using those voltages I said and get back to me.(Used your image here as I'm at work and don't have the program)


----------



## dspx

One of the sticks in the Hynix CJR memory kit I sent back was indeed bad, so I bought a Ryzen 1700 instead of getting a new one. I intend to buy it later as prices are going down anyway.
@1usmus Here is my Corsair LPX Hynix AFR stable at 3133, and the safe settings which I combined from the last 2 versions of the Calculator that worked for me.
I am running the cpu at 1.25 V, DRAM is at 1.385 V


----------



## freddy85

Maracus said:


> Gen 1 is 1700x Gen 1+ is 2700x
> 
> 3200 Fast Preset should be relatively easy. Try using those voltages I said and get back to me.(Used your image here as I'm at work and don't have the program)


Same results unfortenly, it boot 3 times then the ram error message.

Don't know if I do something wrong ore its just my hardware:
Include my bios setting file. (also tried different SOC and RAM voltages, 1.4v was the maximum ram voltage I tried.
BTW also tried with default cpu speed.



Spoiler



[2019/03/23 18:36:23]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
eCLK Mode [Synchronous mode]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Performance Enhancer [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [42.00]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [0]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [252]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/5]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [0.98750]
DRAM Voltage [1.37500]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Firmware TPM [Disable]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
When system is in working state [On]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [M4-CT128M4SSD2]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
SanDisk [Auto]
Seagate Expansion+ Desk 9401 [Auto]
U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
U31G1_5 [Enabled]
U31G1_6 [Enabled]
U31G1_7 [Enabled]
U31G1_8 [Enabled]
U31G1_9 [Enabled]
U31G1_10 [Enabled]
USB11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
USB14 [Enabled]
USB15 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
AB Clock Gating [Auto]
PCIB Clock Run [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Boot Logo Display [Enabled]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name []
Save to Profile [1]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
RedirectForReturnDis [Auto]
L2 TLB Associativity [Auto]
Platform First Error Handling [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Enable IBS [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
Opcache Control [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
Custom Pstate1 [Auto]
Custom Pstate2 [Auto]
Custom Pstate3 [Auto]
Custom Pstate4 [Auto]
Custom Pstate5 [Auto]
Custom Pstate6 [Auto]
Custom Pstate7 [Auto]
Relaxed EDC throttling [Auto]
Downcore control [Auto]
SMTEN [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit [1]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
SMU and PSP Production Mode [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
Freeze DF module queues on error [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Location of private memory regions [Auto]
System probe filter [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
Channel interleaving hash [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
IOMMU [Auto]
Determinism Slider [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
Fan Control [Auto]
PSI [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
Enable AER Cap [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
CLDO_VDDP Control [Auto]
HD Audio Enable [Auto]
Block PCIe Loopback [Auto]
Force PCIe gen speed [Auto]
Processor temperature Control [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
Mode0 [Auto]
SATA Controller [Auto]
Sata RAS Support [Auto]
Sata Disabled AHCI Prefetch Function [Auto]
Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
XHCI controller enable [Auto]
XHCI Controller1 enable (Die1) [Auto]
XHCI2 enable (MCM1/Die0) [Auto]
XHCI3 enable (MCM1/Die1) [Auto]
SD Configuration Mode [Disabled]
Ac Loss Control [Always Off]
I2C 0 Enable [Auto]
I2C 1 Enable [Auto]
I2C 2 Enable [Auto]
I2C 3 Enable [Auto]
I2C 4 Enable [Auto]
I2C 5 Enable [Auto]
Uart 0 Enable [Auto]
Uart 1 Enable [Auto]
Uart 2 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
Uart 3 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
ESPI Enable [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 0 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 1 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 2 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 3 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 4 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 5 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 6 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 7 [Auto]
eMMC/SD Configure [Auto]
Driver Type [Auto]
D3 Cold Support [Auto]
eMMC Boot [Auto]


----------



## Saiger0

freddy85 said:


> Same results unfortenly, it boot 3 times then the ram error message.
> 
> Don't know if I do something wrong ore its just my hardware:
> Include my bios setting file. (also tried different SOC and RAM voltages, 1.4v was the maximum ram voltage I tried.
> BTW also tried with default cpu speed.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2019/03/23 18:36:23]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> eCLK Mode [Synchronous mode]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Performance Enhancer [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [42.00]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> TRC_EOM [Auto]
> TRTP_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
> TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_EOM [Auto]
> TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
> TWCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWR_EOM [Auto]
> TFAW_EOM [Auto]
> TRCT_EOM [Auto]
> TREFI_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
> TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
> TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [0]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [252]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [6]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
> RttPark [RZQ/5]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [0.98750]
> DRAM Voltage [1.37500]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Firmware TPM [Disable]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Enabled]
> Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
> PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
> When system is in working state [On]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [M4-CT128M4SSD2]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
> SanDisk [Auto]
> Seagate Expansion+ Desk 9401 [Auto]
> U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
> U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
> U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> U31G1_5 [Enabled]
> U31G1_6 [Enabled]
> U31G1_7 [Enabled]
> U31G1_8 [Enabled]
> U31G1_9 [Enabled]
> U31G1_10 [Enabled]
> USB11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> USB14 [Enabled]
> USB15 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> AB Clock Gating [Auto]
> PCIB Clock Run [Auto]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Memory Clock [Auto]
> Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
> Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Enabled]
> POST Delay Time [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Enabled]
> Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
> Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
> Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name []
> Save to Profile [1]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> RedirectForReturnDis [Auto]
> L2 TLB Associativity [Auto]
> Platform First Error Handling [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Enable IBS [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
> Opcache Control [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate1 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate2 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate3 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate4 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate5 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate6 [Auto]
> Custom Pstate7 [Auto]
> Relaxed EDC throttling [Auto]
> Downcore control [Auto]
> SMTEN [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit [1]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> SMU and PSP Production Mode [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> Freeze DF module queues on error [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Location of private memory regions [Auto]
> System probe filter [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> Channel interleaving hash [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Determinism Slider [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> Fan Control [Auto]
> PSI [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> Enable AER Cap [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> CLDO_VDDP Control [Auto]
> HD Audio Enable [Auto]
> Block PCIe Loopback [Auto]
> Force PCIe gen speed [Auto]
> Processor temperature Control [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> Mode0 [Auto]
> SATA Controller [Auto]
> Sata RAS Support [Auto]
> Sata Disabled AHCI Prefetch Function [Auto]
> Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
> Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
> XHCI controller enable [Auto]
> XHCI Controller1 enable (Die1) [Auto]
> XHCI2 enable (MCM1/Die0) [Auto]
> XHCI3 enable (MCM1/Die1) [Auto]
> SD Configuration Mode [Disabled]
> Ac Loss Control [Always Off]
> I2C 0 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 1 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 2 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 3 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 4 Enable [Auto]
> I2C 5 Enable [Auto]
> Uart 0 Enable [Auto]
> Uart 1 Enable [Auto]
> Uart 2 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
> Uart 3 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
> ESPI Enable [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 0 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 1 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 2 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 3 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 4 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 5 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 6 [Auto]
> AMD XGBE Controller 7 [Auto]
> eMMC/SD Configure [Auto]
> Driver Type [Auto]
> D3 Cold Support [Auto]
> eMMC Boot [Auto]


use different procODT and rttPark values if that diesnt help use higher tRFC
voltage wont do anything for you


----------



## freddy85

Saiger0 said:


> use different procODT and rttPark values if that diesnt help use higher tRFC
> voltage wont do anything for you


Hi,
Tried alternativ values on Terminal block Ω(both of them), no change - ram error message
Then i kept it at Alt. 2 and tried Alt. 1 and Alt 2 on CAD_BUS Block Ω.. No change ,ram error message

Then alt value on tRFC (256), nothing, then i just wrote like 350 nothing.. ram error message. then i put tRFC on auto same story


----------



## Saiger0

freddy85 said:


> Hi,
> Tried alternativ values on Terminal block Ω(both of them), no change - ram error message
> Then i kept it at Alt. 2 and tried Alt. 1 and Alt 2 on CAD_BUS Block Ω.. No change ,ram error message
> 
> Then alt value on tRFC (256), nothing, then i just wrote like 350 nothing.. ram error message. then i put tRFC on auto same story


try the safe preset, cad 24 24 24 24, procodt 60, rtt nom disabled, and different rtt park values. 
if you system doesnt boot its usually wrong proc odt and rtt park values. start with the suggestion above and try to find a combination that boots.


----------



## christoph

freddy85 said:


> Hi,
> Tried alternativ values on Terminal block Ω(both of them), no change - ram error message
> Then i kept it at Alt. 2 and tried Alt. 1 and Alt 2 on CAD_BUS Block Ω.. No change ,ram error message
> 
> Then alt value on tRFC (256), nothing, then i just wrote like 350 nothing.. ram error message. then i put tRFC on auto same story



could you reflash bios?


----------



## freddy85

Saiger0 said:


> try the safe preset, cad 24 24 24 24, procodt 60, rtt nom disabled, and different rtt park values.
> if you system doesnt boot its usually wrong proc odt and rtt park values. start with the suggestion above and try to find a combination that boots.


When trying what values should i use on tRFC, tRFC 2 and tRFC 4? 256, 190 and 117?


----------



## Saiger0

freddy85 said:


> When trying what values should i use on tRFC, tRFC 2 and tRFC 4? 256, 190 and 117?


leave it at something like 350 or higher for the start. and use dram voltage at 1.45 and soc 1.05 you can lower them later when you´ve found your procodt and rtt values.


----------



## freddy85

Saiger0 said:


> leave it at something like 350 or higher for the start. and use dram voltage at 1.45 and soc 1.05 you can lower them later when you´ve found your procodt and rtt values.


Yeah this time it wont even boot, i could leave it posting for 10min+ and still stuck. had to clear cmos.. q code 05 and orange light at the ram modules (did not check all of the time as its under my desk, so dont know if i got different error codes).

Tried all of the rtt park values but dident bother waiting 10+min all the time.



Spoiler



[2019/03/23 20:59:19]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
eCLK Mode [Synchronous mode]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Performance Enhancer [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3200MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
TRC_EOM [Auto]
TRTP_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_S_EOM [Auto]
TRRS_L_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_EOM [Auto]
TWTR_L_EOM [Auto]
TWCL_EOM [Auto]
TWR_EOM [Auto]
TFAW_EOM [Auto]
TRCT_EOM [Auto]
TREFI_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_DD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SD_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SC_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TRDRD_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_DD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SD_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SC_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
TWRWR_SCL_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_EOM [Auto]
TRDWR_EOM [Auto]
TWRRD_SCDLR_EOM [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [14]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
Trc [42]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [0]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [375]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [6]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [60 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Disabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Rtt_Nom Disable]
RttWr [Dynamic ODT Off]
RttPark [RZQ/4]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [Auto]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.05000]
DRAM Voltage [1.45000]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Firmware TPM [Disable]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Enabled]
Q-Code LED Function [Enabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [RAID]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
When system is in working state [On]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [On]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [M4-CT128M4SSD2]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
USB Mass Storage Driver Support [Enabled]
SanDisk [Auto]
Seagate Expansion+ Desk 9401 [Auto]
U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
U31G1_5 [Enabled]
U31G1_6 [Enabled]
U31G1_7 [Enabled]
U31G1_8 [Enabled]
U31G1_9 [Enabled]
U31G1_10 [Enabled]
USB11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
USB14 [Enabled]
USB15 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [Auto]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
HAMP Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
HAMP Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
HAMP Fan Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Extension Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Extension Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
AB Clock Gating [Auto]
PCIB Clock Run [Auto]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Memory Clock [Auto]
Bank Interleaving [Enabled]
Channel Interleaving [Enabled]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Boot Logo Display [Enabled]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
ASUS Grid Install Service [Enabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name []
Save to Profile [1]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
RedirectForReturnDis [Auto]
L2 TLB Associativity [Auto]
Platform First Error Handling [Auto]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Enable IBS [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
Power Supply Idle Control [Auto]
Opcache Control [Auto]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
Custom Pstate1 [Auto]
Custom Pstate2 [Auto]
Custom Pstate3 [Auto]
Custom Pstate4 [Auto]
Custom Pstate5 [Auto]
Custom Pstate6 [Auto]
Custom Pstate7 [Auto]
Relaxed EDC throttling [Auto]
Downcore control [Auto]
SMTEN [Auto]
SEV-ES ASID Space Limit [1]
Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
SMU and PSP Production Mode [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
Freeze DF module queues on error [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Location of private memory regions [Auto]
System probe filter [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
Channel interleaving hash [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
Overclock [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
IOMMU [Auto]
Determinism Slider [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
Fan Control [Auto]
PSI [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
Enable AER Cap [Auto]
PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
CLDO_VDDP Control [Auto]
HD Audio Enable [Auto]
Block PCIe Loopback [Auto]
Force PCIe gen speed [Auto]
Processor temperature Control [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
Mode0 [Auto]
SATA Controller [Auto]
Sata RAS Support [Auto]
Sata Disabled AHCI Prefetch Function [Auto]
Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 0 [Disabled]
Aggresive SATA Device Sleep Port 1 [Disabled]
XHCI controller enable [Auto]
XHCI Controller1 enable (Die1) [Auto]
XHCI2 enable (MCM1/Die0) [Auto]
XHCI3 enable (MCM1/Die1) [Auto]
SD Configuration Mode [Disabled]
Ac Loss Control [Always Off]
I2C 0 Enable [Auto]
I2C 1 Enable [Auto]
I2C 2 Enable [Auto]
I2C 3 Enable [Auto]
I2C 4 Enable [Auto]
I2C 5 Enable [Auto]
Uart 0 Enable [Auto]
Uart 1 Enable [Auto]
Uart 2 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
Uart 3 Enable (no HW FC) [Auto]
ESPI Enable [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 0 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 1 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 2 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 3 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 4 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 5 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 6 [Auto]
AMD XGBE Controller 7 [Auto]
eMMC/SD Configure [Auto]
Driver Type [Auto]
D3 Cold Support [Auto]
eMMC Boot [Auto]


----------



## Filters83

Guys do you think im able to fully use this kit ?
F4-3600C15D-16GTZ

Im on asus x370-f motherboard whit a Ryzen 5 2600X


----------



## nick name

Filters83 said:


> Guys do you think im able to fully use this kit ?
> F4-3600C15D-16GTZ
> 
> Im on asus x370-f motherboard whit a Ryzen 5 2600X


On the Crosshair VII it does DOCP no problem if you add a little more DRAM voltage. 1.35V didn't cut it and I had to bring it up to 1.37V or so. I didn't thoroughly test the DOCP settings though as I immediately began overclocking. 

I can't get my kit to run stable at 3600MHz 14-14-14-14 though others have reported they have. I run mine at 14-15-14-14 and 14-15-12-12 also runs stable with more voltage. Not sure how useful 14-15-12-12 is however. It will also run tight stable sub timings at 3600MHz 14-15-14-14.


----------



## Filters83

nick name said:


> On the Crosshair VII it does DOCP no problem if you add a little more DRAM voltage. 1.35V didn't cut it and I had to bring it up to 1.37V or so. I didn't thoroughly test the DOCP settings though as I immediately began overclocking.
> 
> I can't get my kit to run stable at 3600MHz 14-14-14-14 though others have reported they have. I run mine at 14-15-14-14 and 14-15-12-12 also runs stable with more voltage. Not sure how useful 14-15-12-12 is however. It will also run tight stable sub timings at 3600MHz 14-15-14-14.


Thx i will try to order, they are C15 not C14 but i think its ultra fine aswell 
I let you know tomorrow


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> Guys do you think im able to fully use this kit ?
> F4-3600C15D-16GTZ
> 
> Im on asus x370-f motherboard whit a Ryzen 5 2600X


Hello,

I am using the same kit, but 2 x 8gb DIMM, F4-3600C15-8GTZ. It's in an MSI B450 Tomawhawk.

I'm having a nightmare getting this kit stable at all, let alone near it's designated XMP specs (only used the recommended 1.35v thus far). Constant issues Windows crashing and things hanging. Number of times the computer has hard frozen etc... just really not great.

I have some kind of stability right now at 16-15-15-35 CR2. Trying to run CR1 results in worse stability and strangely, higher latencies (61ns CR2 vs 64ns CR1). *I'm not sure if anyone can explain this???*.

I'm contemplating running cas16 with GD mode enabled to see if it increases stability at all.


----------



## nick name

Filters83 said:


> Thx i will try to order, they are C15 not C14 but i think its ultra fine aswell
> I let you know tomorrow


Right, I have the kit that you are speaking about and I am sharing what the kit can do in my experience.


----------



## nick name

98uk said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am using the same kit, but 2 x 8gb DIMM, F4-3600C15-8GTZ. It's in an MSI B450 Tomawhawk.
> 
> I'm having a nightmare getting this kit stable at all, let alone near it's designated XMP specs (only used the recommended 1.35v thus far). Constant issues Windows crashing and things hanging. Number of times the computer has hard frozen etc... just really not great.
> 
> I have some kind of stability right now at 16-15-15-35 CR2. Trying to run CR1 results in worse stability and strangely, higher latencies (61ns CR2 vs 64ns CR1). *I'm not sure if anyone can explain this???*.
> 
> I'm contemplating running cas16 with GD mode enabled to see if it increases stability at all.


So the kit is a single 8GB stick? But running two separate kits together? If so then that might be the problem. Kits are tested as sets for their stability so if you are combining separate kits combined then that's not ideal. 

If I can point you back to my post then you'll see that I didn't have success running DOCP/XMP at 1.35V so I would recommend using at least 1.37V, but if you want to move faster for convenience then I would start at 1.4V at 15-15-15-15. 

Are you using the Calculator?


----------



## 98uk

nick name said:


> So the kit is a single 8GB stick? But running two separate kits together? If so then that might be the problem. Kits are tested as sets for their stability so if you are combining separate kits combined then that's not ideal.
> 
> If I can point you back to my post then you'll see that I didn't have success running DOCP/XMP at 1.35V so I would recommend using at least 1.37V, but if you want to move faster for convenience then I would start at 1.4V at 15-15-15-15.
> 
> Are you using the Calculator?


Hi,

It's 2 x 8gb. Came together as a single pack. I had assumed you had a 32gb pack, 2 x 16gb. I see now it's my mistake, each RAM stick is called "F4-3600C15D-8GTZ" whereas the actual pack is called "F4-3600C15D-16GTZ". Same thing as you then!

I looked back at your post and took the recommended action of increasing the voltage. The RAM is now running at 3466mhz for compatibility at cas15. At 1.38v it is now passing the Aida64 memory stability tests, whereas before it was failing after a few minutes (or just crashing at boot). 

I don't think i'll bother pursuing 3600mhz, it just wouldn't work, even at 1.4v. I suspect my motherboard/Ryzen may be the limitation here. In any case, i've seen improvement of RAM latency from 72ns on my Corsair 3000mhz kit, down to 64ns on this kit.


----------



## 98uk

Also, perhaps someone knows.

With Command Rate as 2T, I see a lower latency than 1T. 2T is 62.8ns and 1T 64ns. 

However, Command Rate 2T produces lower READ/WRITE throughput in benchmarks than 1T.

So, what is important, that the READ/WRITE are higher figures, or that the latency is lower?


----------



## Filters83

98uk said:


> Also, perhaps someone knows.
> 
> With Command Rate as 2T, I see a lower latency than 1T. 2T is 62.8ns and 1T 64ns.
> 
> However, Command Rate 2T produces lower READ/WRITE throughput in benchmarks than 1T.
> 
> So, what is important, that the READ/WRITE are higher figures, or that the latency is lower?


Its better 1T but more important what cpu did u get ? First or second genaration ?
Have you tried whit the calculator to fix timings and settings ?

Atm i got a kit of trident z 3200 Cl14 stable at 3333 cl14 tight timing, im also able to boot all the way to 3600mhz but not stable just playng whit calculator, im already prepared to donwclock the new kit in arrive to something like 3466 cl 14 hoping its stable ( not like the one i got now )


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> 98uk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, perhaps someone knows.
> 
> With Command Rate as 2T, I see a lower latency than 1T. 2T is 62.8ns and 1T 64ns.
> 
> However, Command Rate 2T produces lower READ/WRITE throughput in benchmarks than 1T.
> 
> So, what is important, that the READ/WRITE are higher figures, or that the latency is lower?
> 
> 
> 
> Its better 1T but more important what cpu did u get ? First or second genaration ?
> Have you tried whit the calculator to fix timings and settings ?
> 
> Atm i got a kit of trident z 3200 Cl14 stable at 3333 cl14 tight timing, im also able to boot all the way to 3600mhz but not stable just playng whit calculator, im already prepared to donwclock the new kit in arrive to something like 3466 cl 14 hoping its stable ( not like the one i got now )
Click to expand...

On 2700x mate. I've tried with the calculator, but any figures it gives me i cannot seem to run. The kit is just crap tbh. Keeps failing stress testing.

Right now I'm seeing if it'll even do 3333mhz @ cas15. Even if it does, I think I'm going to send it back. Not worth the money.

That said, there is a chance that the issue is with the motherboard, but I shan't replace that.


----------



## nick name

98uk said:


> On 2700x mate. I've tried with the calculator, but any figures it gives me i cannot seem to run. The kit is just crap tbh. Keeps failing stress testing.
> 
> Right now I'm seeing if it'll even do 3333mhz @ cas15. Even if it does, I think I'm going to send it back. Not worth the money.
> 
> That said, there is a chance that the issue is with the motherboard, but I shan't replace that.


Are you using the RAM slots the manual instructs to use?


----------



## 98uk

nick name said:


> 98uk said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2700x mate. I've tried with the calculator, but any figures it gives me i cannot seem to run. The kit is just crap tbh. Keeps failing stress testing.
> 
> Right now I'm seeing if it'll even do 3333mhz @ cas15. Even if it does, I think I'm going to send it back. Not worth the money.
> 
> That said, there is a chance that the issue is with the motherboard, but I shan't replace that.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you using the RAM slots the manual instructs to use?
Click to expand...

Yep, first thing I checked was the correct slots in the manual.

I just don't get it, it definitely fails less when the speeds are reduced and latencies increased... But it still fails none the less.

I had high hopes of being able to run 3600mhz, or at least 3466mhz, but I just can't get it stable whatever I do...

Not sure what else I can try really.


----------



## 98uk

Well, I seem to have gotten it relatively stable at 3466mhz cas15 CR 1T. Took 1.4v though...

Ran Aida64 stability test and it was fine for 20 minutes.

Probably just going to leave it there.


----------



## nick name

98uk said:


> Well, I seem to have gotten it relatively stable at 3466mhz cas15 CR 1T. Took 1.4v though...
> 
> Ran Aida64 stability test and it was fine for 20 minutes.
> 
> Probably just going to leave it there.


Ok show us a Ryzen Timing Checker screen please.

And maybe it's just not a good motherboard for RAM? Have you seen others with the same board reaching better speeds?


----------



## Fatmice

I would like some assistance with getting my system stable. I've been trying many settings with the calculator. I have an ASRock X399 Taichi with a Threadripper 2950X and 8 sticks of G.Skill F4-3200C15Q2-64GTZ. The ram was bought as a kit and each unit is single rank. They are Samsung B-die as reported by Thaiphoon Burner.

I've been unable to get the system to run 8 sticks of memory at rated speed of 3200-CL15-15-15-35 at 1.35v without any errors in Memtest86 v8.1(Free). I've splitted the set of 8 into two and tested both halves and each halves will run fine with very tight timings on 3200-CL15-15-15-35.

Now the system will POST with 8 at 3200-CL15-15-15-35 with just setting XMP Profile 1. It just won't run without errors in Memtest86.

I've tried to reach out to ASRock technical support but their turn around time is like snails' pace.

Anyways, some outstanding questions...

1/Where is the VDDP setting for ASRock X399 Taichi ? I've searched high and low and have never seen this setting anywhere in the BIOS...I would very much like to adjust this value...To my knowledge VDDP is not equivalent to CDLO_VDDP or is it?
2/What is VDDCR_SOC_S5? Does it have any relation to VDDP?
3/It appears that VDDCR_SOC be set through SOC OVERCLOCK VID. Should it be set through there or through the VDDCR_SOC Voltage under OC Tweaker with either FIXED or OFFSET Mode. The formula in the BIOS is 1.55V-Hex2Dec(VID)*0.00625. So presumably a VID of 5A should give a VDDR_SOC voltage of 0.9875? I've set this in the BIOS and it reported VDDR_SOC of 1.016 in the H/W Monitor with VDDR_SOC LLC of 2...This is okay? Increasing the VID to 5D gives a H/W Monitor VDDR_SOC voltage of 0.992 while 5E gives 0.984. The reason is OFFSET Mode only goes down to -0.1 Volt and even with that the H/W Monitor still reports VDDCR_SOC of 1.024. I'm under the impression that one should use OFFSET Mode instead of FIXED Mode. A FIXED Mode of 0.96875 is need to get 0.992 in H/W Monitor or similarly a FIXED Mode of 0.96250 for 0.984. Comparing this to what could be done through SOC OVERCLOCK VID it would appear they are accomplishing the same thing.
4/ What is Chipselect Interleaving? Disabling it appears to remove alot of errors during Memtest86
5/ There's no setting for Vref anywhere in this BIOS...did I miss it?


----------



## 98uk

nick name said:


> Ok show us a Ryzen Timing Checker screen please.
> 
> And maybe it's just not a good motherboard for RAM? Have you seen others with the same board reaching better speeds?


I didn't find so many other results on a B450 Tomahawk. 

Here is the Ryzen timing check output. Any suggestions?


----------



## Filters83

So ram finally arrived, after some attemps and resetting bios to default i was able to log in windows whit xmp setting not touching anything so far 
Now begin the fun ! Im at 1.35 voltage ram btw 
Soc voltage its a bit too high idk why

Not stable ofc @1usmus i need your help to stabilize when you got time  Im fine if i can stabilize at cl16 not forcing to much


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> So ram finally arrived, after some attemps and resetting bios to default i was able to log in windows whit xmp setting not touching anything so far
> Now begin the fun ! Im at 1.35 voltage ram btw
> Soc voltage its a bit too high idk why


Where did you purchase your RAM from?

Yours does the same thing as mine haha. For some reason the XMP profile reverts to 16-15-15-35. I think you need to disable gear down mode to have it run an odd number. 

Now see how long it'll run at that speed in Aida64 memory stress test!

This is my numbers @ 3466mhz... seems very close to you:


----------



## Filters83

98uk said:


> Where did you purchase your RAM from?
> 
> Yours does the same thing as mine haha. For some reason the XMP profile reverts to 16-15-15-35. I think you need to disable gear down mode to have it run an odd number.
> 
> Now see how long it'll run at that speed in Aida64 memory stress test!
> 
> This is my numbers @ 3466mhz... seems very close to you:


I tried whit gear down it wont post :\ so far if i touch something it will stop posting awell!
I purchased on amazon but im in italy
im gonna try to made a C16 profile using the 1usmus guide and see what happen


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> I tried whit gear down it wont post :\ so far if i touch something it will stop posting awell!
> I purchased on amazon but im in italy
> im gonna try to made a C16 profile using the 1usmus guide and see what happen


I could boot in at 3600mhz, but it just was not stable. If I changed anything, it would not boot, Windows would crash or just all round weird behaviour like apps crashing etc... 

I even had issues where the whole PC would not post, even after clearing CMOS. I had to put my old RAM back in to post it, then put the new RAM back in :thumbsdow

I'm fairly sure the issue is just Ryzen's compatibility with 3600mhz memory. Perhaps on a high end board it would work, but it just doesn't want to play ball. You should see whether you can match the speed/latencies I have, get it stable, then increase from there. 3466mhz is the max "supported" speed on Ryzen+ as far as i'm aware.

EDIT: Also, check for BIOS update. My motherboard had one available to upgrade AGESA to 1.0.0.6 which was listed as improving memory compatibility.


----------



## Filters83

98uk said:


> I could boot in at 3600mhz, but it just was not stable. If I changed anything, it would not boot, Windows would crash or just all round weird behaviour like apps crashing etc...
> 
> I even had issues where the whole PC would not post, even after clearing CMOS. I had to put my old RAM back in to post it, then put the new RAM back in :thumbsdow
> 
> I'm fairly sure the issue is just Ryzen's compatibility with 3600mhz memory. Perhaps on a high end board it would work, but it just doesn't want to play ball. You should see whether you can match the speed/latencies I have, get it stable, then increase from there. 3466mhz is the max "supported" speed on Ryzen+ as far as i'm aware.
> 
> EDIT: Also, check for BIOS update. My motherboard had one available to upgrade AGESA to 1.0.0.6 which was listed as improving memory compatibility.


Im already on latest bios the one support new Ryzen btw, atm trying to make stable 3466 cl14 to have a base. 

Anyway I'm impress I'm able to boot windows at xmp settings 3600mhz, it make me think maby whit another bios or better settings we can use it !
Another thing I have to use proc 60ohm otherwise I have million error even at 3466mhz


----------



## nick name

Filters83 said:


> So ram finally arrived, after some attemps and resetting bios to default i was able to log in windows whit xmp setting not touching anything so far
> Now begin the fun ! Im at 1.35 voltage ram btw
> Soc voltage its a bit too high idk why
> 
> Not stable ofc
> @1usmus i need your help to stabilize when you got time  Im fine if i can stabilize at cl16 not forcing to much


I found that you shouldn't need much help beyond the Calculator. The 3600 FAST settings should be a breeze to setup. If anything then maybe a little more DRAM voltage.


----------



## nick name

98uk said:


> I didn't find so many other results on a B450 Tomahawk.
> 
> Here is the Ryzen timing check output. Any suggestions?


You probably don't need more than 1.1V on SOC at 3600MHz. I can find stability between 1.0V and 1.05V depending on how tight my sub timings are. 

Using the Calculator's settings for 3600 FAST doesn't work for you? Even with a little more DRAM voltage?


----------



## Filters83

Ok im stable 3466 so far now im gonna try move up a bit
1.4v for now didnt tried to lower


----------



## 98uk

nick name said:


> You probably don't need more than 1.1V on SOC at 3600MHz. I can find stability between 1.0V and 1.05V depending on how tight my sub timings are.
> 
> Using the Calculator's settings for 3600 FAST doesn't work for you? Even with a little more DRAM voltage?


SOC is on automatic actually. I can change that.

3600mhz wouldn't even work with the standard cas timings, let alone the fast preset on the calculator! Not sure if that's due to the RAM itself, or limitations of the B450 board.


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> Ok im stable 3466 so far now im gonna try move up a bit
> 1.4v for now didnt tried to lower


I will try your numbers, see if that works for me. Your write figures are substantially better.

It boots, but I had to enable gear down mode. With it disabled, no post.

Going to stress test now. I'm also at 1.4v.


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> Ok im stable 3466 so far now im gonna try move up a bit
> 1.4v for now didnt tried to lower


Your figures worked nicely for me. 15 mins stable on Aida64, probably fine. Will test it more in real world stuff like games.


----------



## Filters83

Btw i have to reset cpu voltage to auto and other option related aswell ( I was using negative offset whit llc2 ) otherwise testmem trow error right away :/ so I lost some point in cinebench
And I make some other tweak cause after a reboot I was having error againg so now im again tweaking


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> Btw i have to reset cpu voltage to auto and other option related aswell ( I was using negative offset whit llc2 ) otherwise testmem trow error right away :/ so I lost some point in cinebench
> And I make some other tweak cause after a reboot I was having error againg so now im again tweaking


Ah, I have not touched anything CPU related. I run it stock with the standard "boost" thing.


----------



## Flexarius

nick name said:


> I found that you shouldn't need much help beyond the Calculator. The 3600 FAST settings should be a breeze to setup. If anything then maybe a little more DRAM voltage.


Hi nick name,

can you please post your setting (RTC), i run the same [email protected]+2700X. I have problems to stabilise the Calculators FAST/Safe 3600 MHz Settings.

THX


----------



## nick name

Flexarius said:


> Hi nick name,
> 
> can you please post your setting (RTC), i run the same [email protected]+2700X. I have problems to stabilise the Calculators FAST/Safe 3600 MHz Settings.
> 
> THX


Oh, well if you have problems with FAST then you won't run my settings. 

How much higher have you gone on DRAM voltage? 

Actually, is this your problem?


----------



## Flexarius

nick name said:


> Oh, well if you have problems with FAST then you won't run my settings.
> 
> How much higher have you gone on DRAM voltage?
> 
> Actually, is this your problem?


No, SAFE and FAST are instable with rec. Calculator-Settings 3533/3600. Karuh RAM Test shows Errors after short time and around 20-100%.


----------



## nick name

Flexarius said:


> No, SAFE and FAST are instable with rec. Calculato-Settings 3533/3600. Karuh RAM Test shows Errors after short time and around 20-100%.


Did you see the image I posted? 

When I first started using the Calculator I didn't realize that the order tRCDWR and tRCDRD appear in the Calculator are different than how they are listed in my BIOS. In the Calculator the values appear as 14-14-15-14, but in BIOS they are input in the order 14-15-14-14. For a while I was putting them into BIOS as they were ordered in the Calculator and that is what caused my instability. Once I realized the mistake everything worked. 

Sooooo check your BIOS and make sure you're putting the 15 into tRCDRD and not into tRCDWR.


----------



## Filters83

well sadly for me there is something wrong whit my kit, keep trowing error any restart now and cant be stable even at 3200mhz ... i will return to amazon and stick whit my old one for now


----------



## 98uk

Filters83 said:


> well sadly for me there is something wrong whit my kit, keep trowing error any restart now and cant be stable even at 3200mhz ... i will return to amazon and stick whit my old one for now


Try it at jedec and see if it's stable.

Been playing BF5 all night at 3466mhz @ 14-15-14-30. Seems stable


----------



## AmaKatsu

for a week that I messed up with 4 dimms, with continuous test GSAT 2 hrs + Memtest5 10 cycles + Linx0.70 8GB 15 rounds. It working fine

But after "Render Video" around 4 hours, it's BSOD. After that I retested, nope it not stable. Most instantly crash.

So, I downed the speed from 3466 to 3333 and run all 3 tests again, Passed

Yeah again, BSOD after rendering video.

Hummm, maybe 1.40v is too hot for dram? use a mini fan for ram?

That's work!!

I Just realize when I used the testing tool they didn't pressed VGA. So the RAM will not suffering heat from VGA but on Video Rendering it use almost 100% GPU usage.

I think if I test with RealBench may get in the point sooner 

PS. Heat is matter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Maracus

Managed to get 4x8GB stable. I should really be writing things down when I test because going off and changing the wrong setting can time consuming and confusing as hell. Had to lower the ProcODT tfrom 53 to 48ohms, going to try tighten a few other settings up maybe lower tRFC to 252.
Edit: Any changes to the CAD resulted in the system restarting during stability testing.


----------



## hotak

After many more hours of testing, i concluded that 3266 with tight timings is the best compromise for me, at least looking at cinebench: going any higher with frequency requires a min CPU offset of -0.075v, while with 3266 i can keep it down at -0.091, and with PBO, at least under my water cooling loop, this make the difference between a max of 1420 points @3333+ (the max i reached while playing with various settings) VS a minimum of 1435 @3266 with similar settings and a record of 1459 with tighter timings.

It might be that my 2600X has less bandwidth requirements than the 2700X and it's not worth sacrificing CPU speed for RAM/IF speed.


----------



## rdr09

hotak said:


> After many more hours of testing, i concluded that 3266 with tight timings is the best compromise for me, at least looking at cinebench: going any higher with frequency requires a min CPU offset of -0.075v, while with 3266 i can keep it down at -0.091, and with PBO, at least under my water cooling loop, this make the difference between a max of 1420 points @3333+ (the max i reached while playing with various settings) VS a minimum of 1435 @3266 with similar settings and a record of 1459 with tighter timings.
> 
> It might be that my 2600X has less bandwidth requirements than the 2700X and it's not worth sacrificing CPU speed for RAM/IF speed.


It could be that your 3333 setting was not stable.

My 2700 @ 4.1GHz, it scored 1870 using 3200 MHz and 1900 points with 3400 MHz. Using 3500 yield no add'l points and i concluded that my RAM was not stable at that speed. Needs a little more tweaking.


----------



## hotak

rdr09 said:


> It could be that your 3333 setting was not stable.
> 
> My 2700 @ 4.1GHz, it scored 1870 using 3200 MHz and 1900 points with 3400 MHz. Using 3500 yield no add'l points and i concluded that my RAM was not stable at that speed. Needs a little more tweaking.


The point is that you manually overclocked your CPU, so a difference on CPU voltage makes no difference in performances.
With my custom water loop the most i could manage with manual OC was 4.225Ghz, but with PBO it's able to mantain 4.275ghz all-core with a lower power consumption (110w with PBO VS IIRC 140w+ with manual OC according to hwinfo), so i opted for no manual OC, and it seems that this also means 3266mhz is my go-to RAM frequency


----------



## -Grift-

hotak said:


> The point is that you manually overclocked your CPU, so a difference on CPU voltage makes no difference in performances.
> With my custom water loop the most i could manage with manual OC was 4.225Ghz, but with PBO it's able to mantain 4.275ghz all-core with a lower power consumption (110w with PBO VS IIRC 140w+ with manual OC according to hwinfo), so i opted for no manual OC, and it seems that this also means 3266mhz is my go-to RAM frequency


Interesting my 2700x + Strix F hates PBO XFR and maxes out at 4.05Ghz with insane voltages vs manual 4.2Ghz with much lower temps voltages and power consumption...
3200Mhz tuned CJR + 2700x @ 4.2Ghz 1930+- Cinebench R15


----------



## Bruizer

-Grift- said:


> Interesting my 2700x + Strix F hates PBO XFR and maxes out at 4.05Ghz with insane voltages vs manual 4.2Ghz with much lower temps voltages and power consumption...
> 3200Mhz tuned CJR + 2700x @ 4.2Ghz 1930+- Cinebench R15


Are you running a negative voltage offest? I'm rocking the 2700X and Asus Strix X470-F and generally get a constant 4.2ghz with PBO/XFR and my vcore set with a -0.1 offset.


----------



## -Grift-

Bruizer said:


> Are you running a negative voltage offest? I'm rocking the 2700X and Asus Strix X470-F and generally get a constant 4.2ghz with PBO/XFR and my vcore set with a -0.1 offset.


What kind of LLC/PBO settings are you using? I’m using 4207 BIOS modded


----------



## Bruizer

-Grift- said:


> What kind of LLC/PBO settings are you using? I’m using 4207 BIOS modded


I am also running 4207. LLC still on auto. PBO enabled with Performance Enhancer at PE2 (HOWEVER, I have set it to default before (not auto) and it performed the same as PE2). I bring up the negative offset bc (my one critique of this board) is that it applies a stupid amount of voltage up to 1.55 at full load, so the -0.1 brings it down to 1.45 max which in turn cuts the heat/throttling allowing the chip to clock higher.


----------



## -Grift-

Bruizer said:


> I am also running 4207. LLC still on auto. PBO enabled with Performance Enhancer at PE2 (HOWEVER, I have set it to default before (not auto) and it performed the same as PE2). I bring up the negative offset bc (my one critique of this board) is that it applies a stupid amount of voltage up to 1.55 at full load, so the -0.1 brings it down to 1.45 max which in turn cuts the heat/throttling allowing the chip to clock higher.


Oof my 4.2Ghz manual clocks are running like 1.37v+- effective with ambient temps of 30c I don’t think PBOs gonna work out for me with 1.45v peaks


----------



## hotak

-Grift- said:


> Oof my 4.2Ghz manual clocks are running like 1.37v+- effective with ambient temps of 30c I don’t think PBOs gonna work out for me with 1.45v peaks


Even if it shows higher voltages, at least according to hwinfo, consumption and temperatures are lower when using PBO.
IDK how this applies to air cooling, but on my taichi x370 (no options beside cTDP - set to 250 - and PBO enable) i can get up to 4.2Ghz with lower voltages/higher consumption than PBO with manual OC, but then, even for 4.225Ghz it wants same or higher voltages than PBO (this with -0.091v offset). I think there's a lot of fine grain voltage/frequency tuning under the hood that's not visible on monitoring programs and that makes PBO stable but not too power-hungry considering the frequencies it could reach.


----------



## -Grift-

hotak said:


> Even if it shows higher voltages, at least according to hwinfo, consumption and temperatures are lower when using PBO.
> IDK how this applies to air cooling, but on my taichi x370 (no options beside cTDP - set to 250 - and PBO enable) i can get up to 4.2Ghz with lower voltages/higher consumption than PBO with manual OC, but then, even for 4.225Ghz it wants same or higher voltages than PBO (this with -0.091v offset). I think there's a lot of fine grain voltage/frequency tuning under the hood that's not visible on monitoring programs and that makes PBO stable but not too power-hungry considering the frequencies it could reach.


Even with a Cryorig R1 my higher than average ambient temperature leave me a lot less room to work with for thermals but I will definitely try it soon.


----------



## Bruizer

-Grift- said:


> Even with a Cryorig R1 my higher than average ambient temperature leave me a lot less room to work with for thermals but I will definitely try it soon.


Yeah, it's beginning to seem like your temps are why it would appear that you are not able to maximize PBO, as you aren't. Not so much the board and your cpu specifically. I will say, that with PBO, I get to run at much lower voltage when not in a use state or heavy load, as opposed to it always being a set voltage even when not in use or at load.


----------



## Myzrael

Maracus said:


> Managed to get 4x8GB stable. I should really be writing things down when I test because going off and changing the wrong setting can time consuming and confusing as hell. Had to lower the ProcODT tfrom 53 to 48ohms, going to try tighten a few other settings up maybe lower tRFC to 252.
> Edit: Any changes to the CAD resulted in the system restarting during stability testing.


Nice job indeed, can you share your bios version and ram voltage please? thank you


----------



## hotak

-Grift- said:


> Even with a Cryorig R1 my higher than average ambient temperature leave me a lot less room to work with for thermals but I will definitely try it soon.


With high temperatures PBO might not be worth: my CPU rarely goes above 50° during daily use, most of the time it stays in the 25-35° range, and if i compare the water temperature with the CB scores, even a 3° difference can make 10 points of difference.


----------



## -Grift-

hotak said:


> With high temperatures PBO might not be worth: my CPU rarely goes above 50° during daily use, most of the time it stays in the 25-35° range, and if i compare the water temperature with the CB scores, even a 3° difference can make 10 points of difference.


Tfw ambient is 30-31c all year round and idle minimums are 45-50c


----------



## Fatmice

So I've found that running my 8 sticks of G.Skill F4-3200C15Q2-64GTZ at 3000 using the following settings in BIOS (P3.50) that ran error free across 4 passes of Memtest86 v8.1(Free), which is about 4hours.

CPU is stock, not OC. Precision Boost Overdrive is on Auto
CPU Vcore Voltage:Auto (Motherboard H/W Monitor reports 1.408-1.424V)
CPU Load-line Calibration:Auto (Motherboard reports Level 5)
VDDCR_SOC Voltage:Auto (Motherboard H/W Monitor reports 1.12V)
VDDCR_SOC Load-line Calibration:Auto (Motherboard reports Level 5)
DRAM A/B and C/D Voltage: 1.35 (Motherboard H/W Monitor reports 1.352V)
VTT_DDR A/B and C/D Voltage: 0.680 (Motherboard H/W Monitor does not report this value)
VPPM A/B and C/D Voltage:Auto which sets them to 2.5V (Motherboard H/W Monitor does not report this value)
VDDCR_SOC_S5: Auto which set it to 0.9V (Motherboard H/W Monitor does not report this value. I also do not know what VDDCR_SOC_S5 means...is that the voltage for system-on-chip when it is in state 5? What does that mean and how does it affect memory overclocking?)
1.05V_PROM Voltage: Auto which sets it to 1.05 (Motherboard H/W Monitor reports 1.058V)
+1.8 and +1.8 SB Voltage: Auto which sets them to 1.8 (Motherboard H/W Monitor reports 1.840V)
2.50V_PROM Voltage: Auto which sets it to 2.5 (Motherboard H/W Monitor does not report this value)
VDDP Voltage: This setting is not available
PLL Voltage: This setting is not available? Or is it the +1.8/+1.8 SB Voltage?
CLDO_VDDP: Auto

DRAM Timings:
CL16-15-15-15-35 (The setting is 15 for CL but BIOS always report 16)
RC-50
RRDS/L-6,8
FAW-39
WRTS/L-4,12
WR-24
MAW,MAC-0
RDRScL-5
WRWScL-5
RFC-560
CWL-16
RTP-12
RDWR-6
WRRD-4
WRWRSc/Sd/Dd-1,6,7
RDRDSc/Sd/Dd-1,4,5
CKE-8
ProcODT-48 ohm
RTTNom/Wr/Park-RZQ/7,Dynamic ODT Off,RZQ/5
CR-1
GearDownMode-Auto
PowerDownMode-Auto
CAD Bus Timing User Control-Auto
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls-Manual
ClkDrvStren-24 ohm
AddrCmdDrvStren-24 ohm
CsOdtDrvStren-24 ohm
CkeDrvStren-24 ohm
Memory Interleaving-Channel
Memory Inerleaving Size-2KB
Channel Interleaving Hash-Enabled
Memory Clear-Disabled
BankGroupSwap-Disabled
BankGroupSwapAlt-Disabled
Chipselect Interleaving-Auto
Address Hash Bank-Auto
Address Hash CS-Auto

If I missed anything else please let me know. Where do I go from here? Is the problem my ram? Or is it my motherboard? I find it very odd that the motherboard will run 4 sticks but not 8 sticks at the "advertised" timings for the ram...

Thank you for your time.


----------



## dspx

I bought a new Ryzen 1700 recently which I run at 3.8 Ghz, so here is my Hynix AFR Vengeance LPX 3000 CL15 OC'ed to 3200 CL16 @ 1.39 V


EDIT: I had to revert to 3133 because Karhu RAM Tets gave me errors.


----------



## nick name

-Grift- said:


> Tfw ambient is 30-31c all year round and idle minimums are 45-50c


Goodness. What case do you have?


----------



## -Grift-

nick name said:


> Goodness. What case do you have?


Corsair Air 540 with a few NF-A14s


----------



## nick name

-Grift- said:


> Corsair Air 540 with a few NF-A14s


That seems a bit high for such a roomy case. My idle temps are just 1-2*C over ambient temps, but I don't have a closed case.


----------



## tekjunkie28

-Grift- said:


> Corsair Air 540 with a few NF-A14s


Are u running the windows balanced power plan? Is your case moving air from front to back? What heatsink do you have?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Keith Myers

Depends on how much crap you have stuffed in there. I have two Air 540 cases with 280mm AIO cpu cooler and 3 Hybrid gpus. I'm running 72-80° C. on the cpu with 11 threads engaged. 8 cpu tasks and a cpu thread driving each gpu task on the card. ML140 fan in the rear exhausting with the Hybrid radiators as input. I also have socket fans on the backside, a trick I still use from my FX cpu days.


----------



## Filters83

Finally ******* stable ! All the problem i was having was cad bus value ... 
so 1usmus after read your guide i realized 2 thing !
1 for my personal experience whit my board cad had to be 20/24/20/20 if i set to 24/24/24/24 i got error,
2 i noticed the calculator have at least 1 error, in your guide you told us tRFC had to be multiple of TRC but its not as you can see on the second image, same for TFAW that have to be tRRDS *4 or *6, fixing that value and fixing cad bus gived me finally stable test, 
i was thinking maby for the x370 motherboard its different cause of topology ?
Well anyway thats only my experience i leave the rest to you ^^

P.S.
Maby tomorrow i can try to lower timing aswell

P.P.S.
I forgot to say 1.4 volt and retest after reebot and a shut down, never worked before!


----------



## drkCrix

What kind of speeds are people seeing with 32GB kits? And would it be better to get 2x16 or 4x8?

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Spectre73

drkCrix said:


> What kind of speeds are people seeing with 32GB kits? And would it be better to get 2x16 or 4x8?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


I am barely getting 3200 CL 14 with 2x16 B-die and a 1600x. ZEN+ is probably better at it, but it took until AGESA 1.0.0.6 for my 1600x to be really stable at that frequency (finally!). But I am using strict testing procedures with Karhu RAM Test.

It is said that 2x16 is better than 4x8 but it depends a little bit on the memoy topology of the MB (T-topology vs. daisy-chain). I believe AHCO did a video about it. Generally, 2x16 is a little bit better than 4x8.


----------



## NightAntilli

drkCrix said:


> What kind of speeds are people seeing with 32GB kits? And would it be better to get 2x16 or 4x8?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


I recently got my memory kit stable with my R7 1700 at 3200 CL14 (2x16GB kit), which was the rated speed of the kit. Took me a lot of work though. I can't be bothered to try going higher at this point. I'm using the Asrock X470 Taichi.

Some motherboards will do equally as well with both 2x16GB or 4x8GB, but most of them will do better with 2x16GB. In other words, 2x16GB is the safer choice.


----------



## chakku

drkCrix said:


> What kind of speeds are people seeing with 32GB kits? And would it be better to get 2x16 or 4x8?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


I'm running 3200 with the calculator's timings fully stable, thought I had 3333 stable but it would still have a small hiccup once in a blue moon. Can use 3400 but it's not stable.

It appears that people are getting better results with 4 kits of single rank as I believe I've seen 3466 running on that setup, though not sure of stability. Depends on the topology of your motherboard. T-Topology (eg. C6H) works better for 4x8 while daisy chain (C7H) works better with 2x16.


----------



## Spectre73

drkCrix said:


> What kind of speeds are people seeing with 32GB kits? And would it be better to get 2x16 or 4x8?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


You should watch this video:


----------



## Amberion

Filters83 said:


> Finally ******* stable ! All the problem i was having was cad bus value ...
> so 1usmus after read your guide i realized 2 thing !
> 1 for my personal experience whit my board cad had to be 20/24/20/20 if i set to 24/24/24/24 i got error,
> 2 i noticed the calculator have at least 1 error, in your guide you told us tRFC had to be multiple of TRC but its not as you can see on the second image, same for TFAW that have to be tRRDS *4 or *6, fixing that value and fixing cad bus gived me finally stable test,
> i was thinking maby for the x370 motherboard its different cause of topology ?
> Well anyway thats only my experience i leave the rest to you ^^
> 
> P.S.
> Maby tomorrow i can try to lower timing aswell
> 
> P.P.S.
> I forgot to say 1.4 volt and retest after reebot and a shut down, never worked before!


Okay, well, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the value can be anything, really, but the calculation (tRFC=tRC*6 or *8) is a range, or a minimum. There's likely some variance down to memory trace layout and such, but these should be considered minimums the memory can run at from a logical point of view. Since x operation must be completed y times in order for z operation to be completed once, this is the minimum value that can be set, and trying to go lower is illogical and not efficient.


----------



## Filters83

Amberion said:


> Okay, well, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the value can be anything, really, but the calculation (tRFC=tRC*6 or *8) is a range, or a minimum. There's likely some variance down to memory trace layout and such, but these should be considered minimums the memory can run at from a logical point of view. Since x operation must be completed y times in order for z operation to be completed once, this is the minimum value that can be set, and trying to go lower is illogical and not efficient.


Idk thats why i was asking 
Anyway as i posted in another thread at the end of the day i discoveder that i was not stable again after couplpe of reboot and shut down, and after month of try i give up and ordered the x470 - f version, now magically all my problem are gone ... 3466mhz first try whit dram calculator no error after several reboot and shut down, and also im able to do negative offset to the cpu when on the other motherboard over 3333mhz was getting me error right at the start of the test

So im happy now ( after spent 200 Euros for the new motherboard ... ) and that video posted its the same as the guide of 1usmus, sadly i dont understand why all this brand knowing this problem and how much memory are important for ryzen have adopted this T topology as basic on first x370 motherboard


----------



## Saiger0

I´m trying to get 3466 to run stable. With these settings I can pass 10000% on Karhu and 15 cycles of tm5 but sometimes (rarely) these tests fail pretty much instantly spitting out errors in the first couple minutes. Does anyone knows what Im doing wrong?


----------



## rdr09

Saiger0 said:


> I´m trying to get 3466 to run stable. With these settings I can pass 10000% on Karhu and 15 cycles of tm5 but sometimes (rarely) these tests fail pretty much instantly spitting out errors in the first couple minutes. Does anyone knows what Im doing wrong?


Op, suggested CAD values of 24, 30, 24, 24 for 3466+ MHz. Also, make sure your VTT DDR is 1/2 of DRAM Voltage. 

Is your Use case really requires absolute stability? I mean, if your system is mainly for gaming and your games are not crashing to desktop, then i say - you are good.


----------



## Filters83

Saiger0 said:


> I´m trying to get 3466 to run stable. With these settings I can pass 10000% on Karhu and 15 cycles of tm5 but sometimes (rarely) these tests fail pretty much instantly spitting out errors in the first couple minutes. Does anyone knows what Im doing wrong?


Also try lower ram voltage to 1.40 / 1.41 whit the cad bus 24 24 24 24 or 24 30 24 24


----------



## Filters83

Btw guys my Ryzen Timing Cecker stop working, now he trow me a InitializeOis failed all the time and whit 1.04 or 1.05 version aswell
Any idea ?


----------



## Saiger0

Filters83 said:


> Also try lower ram voltage to 1.40 / 1.41 whit the cad bus 24 24 24 24 or 24 30 24 24





rdr09 said:


> Op, suggested CAD values of 24, 30, 24, 24 for 3466+ MHz. Also, make sure your VTT DDR is 1/2 of DRAM Voltage.
> 
> Is your Use case really requires absolute stability? I mean, if your system is mainly for gaming and your games are not crashing to desktop, then i say - you are good.


1.45 Vdimm is the lowest i can go in terms of voltage. I´ve also tried almost all cad combiantions and 20 24 24 20 and 24 24 24 24 work best for me.


----------



## BonesHogan

what memory type is this ? TDGED416G3000HC16CDC01. need it for the ryzen calc specs. thaiphoon burners not working for me.


----------



## AmaKatsu

*NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.1 (overclocking DRAM on AM4)*



Saiger0 said:


> I´m trying to get 3466 to run stable. With these settings I can pass 10000% on Karhu and 15 cycles of tm5 but sometimes (rarely) these tests fail pretty much instantly spitting out errors in the first couple minutes. Does anyone knows what Im doing wrong?



I think we're the same boat but for me it occurred only when 4 dimm. It kind a random. Passed all essentials test like hci memtest 2000%
gsat 2hrs
karhu 12000%
memtest5 20 cycles
After restart and retest those software got instantly error.
RAM 1.40 including powerful 6cm 5000rpm fan

for a month I kept ClearCMOS and re-applied the same setting at least every 2-3 day and retest to make sure it stable but won't help at all

Just a few day, I update lastest new bios. It seem to be worked. I have test with several restart and test at least 6400% for Karhu. Not a single error found (6400% 5 times in row, for 32GB take almost 4hr for coverage 7000%)

For my case I think it's bios problem but sadly we're not the same mobo, I think it not much help 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Saiger0

AmaKatsu said:


> I think we're the same boat but for me it occurred only when 4 dimm. It kind a random. Passed all essentials test like hci memtest 2000%
> gsat 2hrs
> karhu 12000%
> memtest5 20 cycles
> After restart and retest those software got instantly error.
> RAM 1.40 including powerful 6cm 5000rpm fan
> 
> for a month I kept ClearCMOS and re-applied the same setting at least every 2-3 day and retest to make sure it stable but won't help at all
> 
> Just a few day, I update lastest new bios. It seem to be worked. I have test with several restart and test at least 6400% for Karhu. Not a single error found (6400% 5 times in row, for 32GB take almost 4hr for coverage 7000%)
> 
> For my case I think it's bios problem but sadly we're not the same mobo, I think it not much help
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think thats a good point, I´m thinking about updating to agesa 0.0.7.2 which will most likely elimminate those random rare early errors. But as far as I know the tradeoff of having increased core latency isnt worth the jump from 3400 to 3466. Maybe if I could run 3533.


----------



## AmaKatsu

Saiger0 said:


> I think thats a good point, I´m thinking about updating to agesa 0.0.7.2 which will most likely elimminate those random rare early errors. But as far as I know the tradeoff of having increased core latency isnt worth the jump from 3400 to 3466. Maybe if I could run 3533.



With my daily routines, I have 2-3 hrs for spare time. So, the random instability that too annoy. Minor tradeoff would be worth  And Sat-Sunday should be a day for hangout with friends or family not RAM Tuning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Amberion

rdr09 said:


> Op, suggested CAD values of 24, 30, 24, 24 for 3466+ MHz. Also, make sure your VTT DDR is 1/2 of DRAM Voltage.
> 
> Is your Use case really requires absolute stability? I mean, if your system is mainly for gaming and your games are not crashing to desktop, then i say - you are good.


Just IMHO, you should never have memory errors. They can silently corrupt files on your computer and you'll never know until your computer unexpectedly starts crashing randomly.


----------



## rdr09

Amberion said:


> Just IMHO, you should never have memory errors. They can silently corrupt files on your computer and you'll never know until your computer unexpectedly starts crashing randomly.


I have two ryzen systems and i set their rams using docp (FlareX and Ripjaws). Been running both for over a year now without issues. The Ripjaws, though, are not b-die, so have to settle for 2933 Cl16. I do oc them to 3466 speeds for benching purposes. I find games quite sensitive to memory settings. However, you have a point. If you use your pc for any kind of work, then absolute stability is required.


----------



## dspx

AmaKatsu said:


> With my daily routines, I have 2-3 hrs for spare time. So, the random instability that too annoy. Minor tradeoff would be worth  And Sat-Sunday should be a day for hangout with friends or family not RAM Tuning.


Love your avatar


----------



## AmaKatsu

dspx said:


> Love your avatar


Ops!! you're got better one


----------



## 1usmus

Filters83 said:


> Btw guys my Ryzen Timing Cecker stop working, now he trow me a InitializeOis failed all the time and whit 1.04 or 1.05 version aswell
> Any idea ?


Sometimes the antivirus sees a virus in this program and partially blocks / eats it  Try to turn off the antivirus


----------



## 1usmus

Saiger0 said:


> I´m trying to get 3466 to run stable. With these settings I can pass 10000% on Karhu and 15 cycles of tm5 but sometimes (rarely) these tests fail pretty much instantly spitting out errors in the first couple minutes. Does anyone knows what Im doing wrong?


It seems to me that you should try other CAD and RTT_PARK settings

p.s. in most cases, CAD_BUS 24 24 24 24 withstands up to 3533-3666 MHz



BonesHogan said:


> what memory type is this ? TDGED416G3000HC16CDC01. need it for the ryzen calc specs. thaiphoon burners not working for me.


micron b-die or hynix mfr


----------



## KWSW

Anyone have any success with overclocking or even getting the Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x16GB kit (CMK32GX4M2B3000C15) stable at its rated speed of 3000?










I am currently using the Asus C6H with 1800x at stock and have been trying to get the rams stable at its rated speed before before overclocking.

Have tried using the DRAM Calculator but not getting it stable.










Suggestions/Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## shotround

try a higher procodt value.


----------



## zkzkzk

Hello, I've been trying to run my G.Skill F4-3200C16D-16GTZR kit at its rated speed on my Asus B350-F Strix for 1 year now (it got better with the BIOS updates, my PC wouldn't boot at 3200Mhz but now it does, but it gives me errors when I stability test it), here is the Taiphoon screenshot: 










But I was actually able to run this preset with 100% stability:










Should I keep craving for 3200Mhz CL16? Does it give me more performance compared to this 3000Mhz v2 Fast Preset? If it does, how can I reach stability with it? Thank you very much!


----------



## cicero s

I need some guidance to solve 'soft crashing' on certain games like Battlefield V or Apex Legends. Those games randomly crash into desktop without any error message, system freeze, or BSOD whenever I use 3466C14 safe preset from the calculator. The 3466C14 preset has proven quite solid with TM5 and HCI memtest for over 1000% multiple times though.



I found that using direct fan cooling on the ram kit decreases the crash rate but still happens while 3200C14 safe preset shows the perfect stability on both gaming and synthetic tests. 

timing:
https://imgur.com/a/uxP4nP1


system cooler setup:
-140mm X 2 fans on top, 120mm X 3 fans on front(with a cpu radiator), and one 120 mm fan on the rear
-80mm X 2 fans on ram kit 


what I tried : 

-increased DRAM voltage up to 1.42 ( I have been able to pass TM5/HCI memtest from 1.4)
-tried each step of SOC voltage from 1.0 to 1.1

-turning on/off PBO (with/without negative voltages, too)


thanks in advance. any advice would be really great.





*edited for adding more cooler setup info.


----------



## Filters83

1usmus said:


> Sometimes the antivirus sees a virus in this program and partially blocks / eats it  Try to turn off the antivirus


No effects :\ I dont understand why ! I neved had this problem before
I did a fresh install of windows 10 whit the new motherboard and after 1 day started do this .... ofc also tried to reinstall even a older version but nothing


----------



## nick name

Filters83 said:


> No effects :\ I dont understand why ! I neved had this problem before
> I did a fresh install of windows 10 whit the new motherboard and after 1 day started do this .... ofc also tried to reinstall even a older version but nothing


Is that the latest version of RTC? 

I can't remember what I did to cure that when it happened to me, but I believe it began working again after a BIOS re-flash.


----------



## Filters83

nick name said:


> Is that the latest version of RTC?
> 
> I can't remember what I did to cure that when it happened to me, but I believe it began working again after a BIOS re-flash.


Oh i will try tomorrow im on RTC version 1.5 and latest bios of my X470-F gaming the 0.7.2.


----------



## Markz

Hello guys! i'm looking for a mini itx for a configuration. My choice ended on Asus b450-i, x470-i or b350-i, x370-i.
I saw that the differences between old and new generation of thhis mobo is in MOSFET. The b350 and 370 uses BSG0812ND (50A) , the 450 and 470 uses IR3553 (40A). All on SOC use IR3555, so in this, the motherboards are the same. In terms of performance in general and on overclocking the RAM, witch is better? It seems that they are almost the same
N.B i can cansider also the b450i gaming plus from MSI. but i don't like it so much.


----------



## thagabe

Hello Y'all,

Finally got my replacement CPU and although I haven't played with XFR or OC the CPU it is extremely stable at 3.4 Ghz on my new ZEA. The enermax liqtech ii 360 is decent at this speed. Now that I know the CPU is stable I want to overclock the RAM, up to this point I've been using 2x F4-3200C14D-16GTZRX for a total of 32GB with quad channel support. Bought and ran karhu ram test (as suggested by @gupsterg ) on stock jdec speeds 2133 for a few hours and 0 errors were found so I did what any same human being would do and use DOCP Standard on ASUS Mobo to get 3200 speeds at 14-14-14-48 timings.... and seems stable (have been using this almost daily without paying much attention + on ZE) but when I go to run karhu ram test it gets to about 10 mins before finding a single error... checked with the website and karhu said 1 Error = BAD OC.... so back to the drawing board. DRAM Calculator input all the info and tried safe preset ran it and surprised that it got closed to 35 mins when it found an error....GRRRRR. As I am new to OC RAM how should I go about this? Should I work based on ASUS DOCP or using DRAM Calculator? Do Y'all use every timing preset it spits out? or do you leave some setting on auto? Open to all suggestions! Thanks


----------



## mongoled

Hi, I searched this forum from Google for information on Hynix BJR but I found absolutely no information

https://www.google.com/search?ei=Dt.....0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.EnkE2cq_kTM

Does anybody have any information on how to overclock these on a B450 ??

Stability disappears after 2400mhz ............

Cheers


----------



## BLUuuE

mongoled said:


> Hi, I searched this forum from Google for information on Hynix BJR but I found absolutely no information
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?ei=Dt.....0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.EnkE2cq_kTM
> 
> Does anybody have any information on how to overclock these on a B450 ??
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers


Trial and error.

Start off with 16-20-20-40 1.40-1.45v and see how high you can boot. Maybe also play around with ProcODT (48-60ohms) if you can't boot at achievable frequencies (3000 - 3466, assuming your kit can do it).
Then just work on lowering the timings and noting the characteristics.

For example, CJR needs really loose tRP. At 3466 1.45v, tRP needs to be 19, while tCL and tRCD can be at 14 and 17 respectively.


----------



## AmaKatsu

With new agesa 0.0.7.2 seem that Calculator working on 4 dimm

The previous aegesa 1.0.0.6 can go far as 16-22-22

----------------------------------------

All setting are pretty close as Calculator, except for tRFC, ProcODT (48), RAM Voltage (1.40). tWTRS 4 seem too tight, cause Read bandwidth drop to ~52,800MB. So tWTRS 5 got better

0.0.7.2 is worth it 

and thanks for Debug step from https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/5.html













compare to 1.0.0.6 with 16-22-22


----------



## 1usmus

Markz said:


> Hello guys! i'm looking for a mini itx for a configuration. My choice ended on Asus b450-i, x470-i or b350-i, x370-i.
> I saw that the differences between old and new generation of thhis mobo is in MOSFET. The b350 and 370 uses BSG0812ND (50A) , the 450 and 470 uses IR3553 (40A). All on SOC use IR3555, so in this, the motherboards are the same. In terms of performance in general and on overclocking the RAM, witch is better? It seems that they are almost the same
> N.B i can cansider also the b450i gaming plus from MSI. but i don't like it so much.


I really like the Asus b450-i, the board is really for enthusiasts



mongoled said:


> Hi, I searched this forum from Google for information on Hynix BJR but I found absolutely no information
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?ei=Dt.....0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.EnkE2cq_kTM
> 
> Does anybody have any information on how to overclock these on a B450 ??
> 
> Stability disappears after 2400mhz ............
> 
> Cheers


try using mfr v1 or v2 profile



thagabe said:


> Hello Y'all,
> 
> Finally got my replacement CPU and although I haven't played with XFR or OC the CPU it is extremely stable at 3.4 Ghz on my new ZEA. The enermax liqtech ii 360 is decent at this speed. Now that I know the CPU is stable I want to overclock the RAM, up to this point I've been using 2x F4-3200C14D-16GTZRX for a total of 32GB with quad channel support. Bought and ran karhu ram test (as suggested by @gupsterg ) on stock jdec speeds 2133 for a few hours and 0 errors were found so I did what any same human being would do and use DOCP Standard on ASUS Mobo to get 3200 speeds at 14-14-14-48 timings.... and seems stable (have been using this almost daily without paying much attention + on ZE) but when I go to run karhu ram test it gets to about 10 mins before finding a single error... checked with the website and karhu said 1 Error = BAD OC.... so back to the drawing board. DRAM Calculator input all the info and tried safe preset ran it and surprised that it got closed to 35 mins when it found an error....GRRRRR. As I am new to OC RAM how should I go about this? Should I work based on ASUS DOCP or using DRAM Calculator? Do Y'all use every timing preset it spits out? or do you leave some setting on auto? Open to all suggestions! Thanks


1) Timing tuning significantly affects the temperature of the memory modules
2) memory modules that are near the CPU VRM are heated by 3-5 degrees more
One of the possible problems is the temperature of the memory modules, you must monitor for half an hour (hwinfo will help). The second possible problem is incorrectly matched procODT + RTT


----------



## 1usmus

AmaKatsu said:


> With new agesa 0.0.7.2 seem that Calculator working on 4 dimm
> 
> The previous aegesa 1.0.0.6 can go far as 16-22-22
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> All setting are pretty close as Calculator, except for tRFC, ProcODT (48), RAM Voltage (1.40). tWTRS 4 seem too tight, cause Read bandwidth drop to ~52,800MB. So tWTRS 5 got better
> 
> 0.0.7.2 is worth it
> 
> and thanks for Debug step from https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/5.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compare to 1.0.0.6 with 16-22-22


Thank you for your feedback 
In the near future, a new version of the calculator will be published, it has significant changes regarding procODT, RTT and other parameters. Unfortunately, AMD does not allow me to relax and prepares new AGESA / PMU / SMU

tWTRS 5? Are you sure that 4 does not work?


----------



## AmaKatsu

1usmus said:


> Thank you for your feedback
> In the near future, a new version of the calculator will be published, it has significant changes regarding procODT, RTT and other parameters. Unfortunately, AMD does not allow me to relax and prepares new AGESA / PMU / SMU
> 
> tWTRS 5? Are you sure that 4 does not work?


tWTRS 4 or 5 still stable, but 4 only drop Read Bandwidth not effected to Write/Copy. 

Yes, I test multiple times. tWTRS 4 still around 527xx-528xx MB for Read. Unlike tWTRS 5 that get 532xx-534xx

So, I Choose 5 instead of 4 and not test on gaming. 

--------------------

Take your time out from work man, rest for a while don't overdo it. As current version still plenty to use.

Thank for your hard work


----------



## Velheibgnar

What temperature we consider stable? I can pretty much load from the calculator all I want with F4-3600C15D-16GTZ but the temps can go high 40-50, probably 50+ with long HCImemtest 3600 all 14 or better. 
I don't have a strong frown blow in the case. Also huge-ass noctua cooler is on top of mems (99% sure the airflow is not hitting anything else than cpu radiator, dem sexy fans tho)


----------



## AmaKatsu

Velheibgnar said:


> What temperature we consider stable? I can pretty much load from the calculator all I want with F4-3600C15D-16GTZ but the temps can go high 40-50, probably 50+ with long HCImemtest 3600 all 14 or better.
> 
> I don't have a strong frown blow in the case. Also huge-ass noctua cooler is on top of mems (99% sure the airflow is not hitting anything else than cpu radiator, dem sexy fans tho)



If you refer to noctua d15 / d15s. I think you may consider my chioce.

mini 6cm powerful fan 4500rpm (I bought from local shop 4 years ago, $3)

not even feel heat from ram when stress test (my room temperature is 30-32'C)





























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thagabe

@1usmus

Thank you for your input. I got another suggestion to try a memory preset that is built into my motherboard. Tried "Stilt's Safe [email protected]" ran karhu ram test on 32 threats for 1 hour with 0 errors while monitoring my memory temps (high airflow on my case but no direct fans) dimm [3] (the hottest) tapered off around 47.5 C. Memory are Trident Z "X" rated for [email protected] but when using Asus DOCP they fail the test within 35 mins. Now I'm stable @3200 but with higher voltage and looking to push up the frequency (should I? will my processor show any real benefit above 3200?)


----------



## mongoled

BLUuuE said:


> Trial and error.
> 
> Start off with 16-20-20-40 1.40-1.45v and see how high you can boot. Maybe also play around with ProcODT (48-60ohms) if you can't boot at achievable frequencies (3000 - 3466, assuming your kit can do it).
> Then just work on lowering the timings and noting the characteristics.
> 
> For example, CJR needs really loose tRP. At 3466 1.45v, tRP needs to be 19, while tCL and tRCD can be at 14 and 17 respectively.





1usmus said:


> try using mfr v1 or v2 profile


Hi, thanks for your suggestions.

Let me show you how 'tragic' the situation is

Here are the settings that are applied when I use a frequency of 2733 mhz and leave everything on 'Auto' except 'Geardown' mode that I disable.










With these settings I am able to make only 7 successful pass's when using Linpack Xtreme_x64

Below are the settings from 1usmus calculator (it does not allow me to use profile v2)










With these settings I am able to make only 2 successful pass's when using Linpack Xtreme_x64

These are brand new components bought from Amazon.de

FSP Hexa+ 400W PSU
MSI B450M Mortar Titanium Motherboard
AMD Ryzen™ 5 2400G Quad Core 3.9/3.6 Ghz
Kingston HyperX Predator HX432C16PB3K2

As the HyperX are validated to work on Intel platform at 3200mhz I didnt expect such poor frequency on AMD platform, hence the reason I asked if anybody had any validated information when clocking Hynix BJR mem modules.

Hope someone has some bright ideas on what else to try (of course I will be also trying other values to see if I can find something that improves drastically this poor performing memory....)


----------



## mongoled

OK, hopefully onto something with the BJR modules.

Setting ProcODT to 48 (all other values at 'Auto' except 'Gear Down' mode that is disabled) got me to 13 pass's using Linpack Xtreme x64.

Ive now set it to 40 and am currently testing, will report back soon!

This is at 2733 mhz...……….

** EDIT **

40 ohms got to 14 pass's before failing, now to try 34 ohms...…...

** EDIT2 **

34 ohms passed 20 loops!


----------



## Markz

1usmus said:


> I really like the Asus b450-i, the board is really for enthusiasts
> 
> 
> 
> try using mfr v1 or v2 profile
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Timing tuning significantly affects the temperature of the memory modules
> 2) memory modules that are near the CPU VRM are heated by 3-5 degrees more
> One of the possible problems is the temperature of the memory modules, you must monitor for half an hour (hwinfo will help). The second possible problem is incorrectly matched procODT + RTT


I like it so much too. But just to say, is there so much difference between the b350-i and b450-i ?? It seems to me that is almost the same. As i said before the b350-i has just a difference in mosfet for cpu BSG0812ND (50A) vs IR3553 (40A). For SOC they both have IR3555


----------



## Mansquatch

Hi  



Having a little difficulty with some ram. In THAIPHOON showing as Spectek. From what I've read, it's Micron(maybe?). Would it be a,b, e/h, or d die?


It's a 2x4GB kit G.Skill F4-2133C15D-8GVR. Any info would be a huge help. Thanks.


Also: Any suggestions to get it running at 2400 or even 2666mhz would be appreciated.


----------



## BLUuuE

Mansquatch said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> Having a little difficulty with some ram. In THAIPHOON showing as Spectek. From what I've read, it's Micron(maybe?). Would it be a,b, e/h, or d die?
> 
> 
> It's a 2x4GB kit G.Skill F4-2133C15D-8GVR. Any info would be a huge help. Thanks.
> 
> 
> Also: Any suggestions to get it running at 2400 or even 2666mhz would be appreciated.





> 4Gbit Rev.A (D9RB* and D9RG*)
> Thaiphoon burner seems to have issues reporting the revision on these, however they are identified by the first part of the part number coming out as "MT40A512M8??"
> 
> Characteristics: Pretty bad. Best case you might get 3000 at pretty loose (eg 18-18-18) timings -worst case you may be stuck at 2666. D9RG has part numbers ending in E which seems to indicate a slightly better JEDEC bin - D9RB may be a bit worse. Doesn't seem to like voltage.
> 
> Found on: Older Micron OEM and low-end Crucial 4GB single ranked (1Rx8) and 8GB dual ranked (2Rx8) sticks (check IC code). Corsair ver3.20. Presumably early Kingston 4GB sticks with M08 marking and 8GB with M16 marking. Most early, slow stuff has at least a chance of getting these.
> 
> Platform preferences: Seems to be equally bad on everything from X99 to AM4.
> 
> Recommended for: Disposal in fire. Probably fine for Bristol Ridge systems that are limited to DDR4-2400 anyway.


Source


----------



## Markz

Yo guys, today i was talking with some friends of mine about the upcoming Ryzen processors. Looking to the sample presented to CES, as we know, the new design is I/O produced by GloFlo 14nm, and zen 2 die in 7nm. This becouse the I/O doesn't scale well with die shrink, and is difficult to realize in 7nm, and obviously becouse it would waste a lot of money and it would impact irrimediably on price. 
BTW i'm asking myself if this choiche will not impact to latencies , and also on memory performance. I mean expecially for the double CCX, but also for single, this design could introduce some dangerous latency. Just to say, what do you think about guys?


----------



## Grin

I am expecting the similar or bit worser latency compared to zen+ and the same or bit better memory clocks, it is no room for big improvements here.


----------



## Kildar

OK I'm officially throwing in the towel. I'm done, no matter what I try I cannot overclock my G.Skill F4-3200C14 RAM on my CH6.

Nothing works it's just not doable without throwing a ton of V at it and then it gets to hot when gaming and fails.

I give up and just stick to 3200.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Kildar said:


> OK I'm officially throwing in the towel. I'm done, no matter what I try I cannot overclock my G.Skill F4-3200C14 RAM on my CH6.
> 
> Nothing works it's just not doable without throwing a ton of V at it and then it gets to hot when gaming and fails.
> 
> I give up and just stick to 3200.


Try new BIOS 6903
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO/HelpDesk_BIOS/


----------



## Kildar

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Try new BIOS 6903
> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO/HelpDesk_BIOS/


That's what I'm on now...


----------



## dspx

Kildar said:


> That's what I'm on now...


If you relax your CPU OC you will have better memory OC, the two are connected.


----------



## Mikkinen

Hi everyone, currently I managed to get a stable oc with blck @ 102.4, vsoc @ 1.012v and vcore offset -0.06250v then ram [email protected] with timings of 2666Mhz safe V1.
I spent many hours playing with the ram getting stable with timings 14-15-15-15 3340 / 3481Mhz but not satisfied with the results compared to 3276C14 and increased tension.
I managed to pass TM5 with maximum 3549mhz CL 18-18-18-18 ... but not taken into consideration.
So I tried to keep the timings unchanged (timings 2666 safe v1) and increase the ram frequency.
After passing TM5 @1usmus v2 with 3340mhz @ 1.36v and the same timings I tried to pass ibt without success by raising step by step vcore (up to -0.0250) and vsoc up to 1.1v.

Could this mean that it is the cpu that is at the limit and I should raise the timings?


----------



## cicero s

cicero s said:


> I need some guidance to solve 'soft crashing' on certain games like Battlefield V or Apex Legends. Those games randomly crash into desktop without any error message, system freeze, or BSOD whenever I use 3466C14 safe preset from the calculator. The 3466C14 preset has proven quite solid with TM5 and HCI memtest for over 1000% multiple times though.
> 
> 
> 
> I found that using direct fan cooling on the ram kit decreases the crash rate but still happens while 3200C14 safe preset shows the perfect stability on both gaming and synthetic tests.
> 
> timing:
> https://imgur.com/a/uxP4nP1
> 
> 
> system cooler setup:
> -140mm X 2 fans on top, 120mm X 3 fans on front(with a cpu radiator), and one 120 mm fan on the rear
> -80mm X 2 fans on ram kit
> 
> 
> what I tried :
> 
> -increased DRAM voltage up to 1.42 ( I have been able to pass TM5/HCI memtest from 1.4)
> -tried each step of SOC voltage from 1.0 to 1.1
> 
> -turning on/off PBO (with/without negative voltages, too)
> 
> 
> thanks in advance. any advice would be really great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *edited for adding more cooler setup info.


-----
well, it is answering my own answer. the best advice has already been in the 1usmus's memory overclocking guide; 



> One of the more interesting issues I encountered during testing was that the memory had a tendency to be unstable while the processor was running at 4200 MHz.


 Switching PBO from 'enabled' to 'AUTO' in BIOS (does this mean I am turning PBO off or toning it down a little bit, I am still confused though) has completely solved the random crashes. I guess being less aggressive on XFR curve has made the memory overclocking much more stable on gaming.


----------



## 1usmus

*Announcement DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.2 *








*Key features:*

* Motherboard *Topology*. Global reprocessing of procODT / RTT recommendations. Maximum accuracy is guaranteed only on AGESA versions 1.0.0.4c and newer.
* Global reprocessing presets (timings/voltages).
* Improved support for systems in which more than two memory modules.
* Improved algorithm for calculating *Debug* profiles.
* Improved support for *HEDT* systems.

*Date of the release* is difficult for me to predict, as I am currently negotiating with *AMD* about *CAD_BUS*. There is a dependence on how these settings change from frequency. And I have a great desire to share them with you.


----------



## Bubar37

Thx 1usmus need to test this new version !!!


----------



## Kildar

1usmus said:


> *Announcement DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.4.2 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Key features:*
> 
> * Motherboard *Topology*. Global reprocessing of procODT / RTT recommendations. Maximum accuracy is guaranteed only on AGESA versions 1.0.0.4c and newer.
> * Global reprocessing presets (timings/voltages).
> * Improved support for systems in which more than two memory modules.
> * Improved algorithm for calculating *Debug* profiles.
> * Improved support for *HEDT* systems.
> 
> *Date of the release* is difficult for me to predict, as I am currently negotiating with *AMD* about *CAD_BUS*. There is a dependence on how these settings change from frequency. And I have a great desire to share them with you.


Link?


----------



## Maikelses

Thanks 1usmus for all work. U are a Good man with Great knowledge. God Job.


----------



## FJSAMA

Biggest step in improvement in an already great tool! Im in need to try it! Maybe i can finally make stable my bdie RAM in my X370 board above 3200 fast settings. 
Im looking forward to it.


----------



## dspx

Hold your horses guys, this is only an anouncement


----------



## KWSW

Just picked up a set of new rams and while these work out of the box on my C6H and 1800x at 16-18-18-38-54, wonder if these are Hynix CJR rams for the purpose of using the DRAM Calculator as there are some ?? in the Part Number.










Anyone else come across similar ram type before?


----------



## Mikkinen

Mikkinen said:


> Hi everyone, currently I managed to get a stable oc with blck @ 102.4, vsoc @ 1.012v and vcore offset -0.06250v then ram [email protected] with timings of 2666Mhz safe V1.
> I spent many hours playing with the ram getting stable with timings 14-15-15-15 3340 / 3481Mhz but not satisfied with the results compared to 3276C14 and increased tension.
> I managed to pass TM5 with maximum 3549mhz CL 18-18-18-18 ... but not taken into consideration.
> So I tried to keep the timings unchanged (timings 2666 safe v1) and increase the ram frequency.
> After passing TM5 @1usmus v2 with 3340mhz @ 1.36v and the same timings I tried to pass ibt without success by raising step by step vcore (up to -0.0250) and vsoc up to 1.1v.
> 
> Could this mean that it is the cpu that is at the limit and I should raise the timings?


To be able to pass IBT I had to increase the ram voltage compared to what was required by tm5 (also a bit the vsoc) so the settings are with bclk at 102.4 vcore -0.0625v vsoc 1.037v (tm5 was 1.025v) with ram at 3340Mhz @ 1.40v (I try to lower it, for tm5 it was enough 1.36v).
Is it correct that it has proved necessary to increase the ram voltage?

ps: b-die


----------



## 1usmus

*TM5 0.12 v3 config*

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17u_88vsjraTDw5_wI6gJY05peEicbBsQ

after the first start of the program, delete the file *cfg.link* otherwise, v3 config will not work
p.s. you only need to delete this file once and only at the first launch



Spoiler















* fixed test crash , when a certain cycle there was a shortage of memory
* 2 new test added
* test number 14 was temporarily removed, because there were few situations in which an error was found there
* special config for HEDT with 4 channel mode


----------



## Saiger0

1usmus said:


> *TM5 0.12 v3 config*
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=17u_88vsjraTDw5_wI6gJY05peEicbBsQ
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * fixed test crash , when a certain cycle there was a shortage of memory
> * 2 new test added
> * test number 14 was temporarily removed, because there were few situations in which an error was found there
> * special config for HEDT with 4 channel mode


Thank you! 
Are 3 cycles sufficient for long term stability or should we increase it?


----------



## 1usmus

Saiger0 said:


> Thank you!
> Are 3 cycles sufficient for long term stability or should we increase it?


This is your wish, but I think that 6-9 cycles is the maximum for stability testing, the test demonstrates very high efficiency.


----------



## basriwizz

Hi. I'm looking at some 64GB memory. Does anyone know if these rams are Samsung B-die?

"HyperX Predator Black 64GB kit 3600MHz DDR4 CL17 DIMM XMP Desktop PC Memory (HX436C17PB3K4/64)"
"Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 64GB (4x16GB) DDR4 3600 (PC4-28800) C18 1.35V Desktop Memory"
"Corsair CMW64GX4M4K3600C18W Vengeance RGB Pro 64GB (4x16GB) DDR4 3600 (PC4-28800) C18 Desktop Memory White"


----------



## Ceadderman

basriwizz said:


> Hi. I'm looking at some 64GB memory. Does anyone know if these rams are Samsung B-die?
> 
> "HyperX Predator Black 64GB kit 3600MHz DDR4 CL17 DIMM XMP Desktop PC Memory (HX436C17PB3K4/64)"
> "Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 64GB (4x16GB) DDR4 3600 (PC4-28800) C18 1.35V Desktop Memory"
> "Corsair CMW64GX4M4K3600C18W Vengeance RGB Pro 64GB (4x16GB) DDR4 3600 (PC4-28800) C18 Desktop Memory White"


For best results check: https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/

~Ceadder :drink:


----------



## Bubar37

I'm sure 1usmus you are near perfection but in fact yeah recommended procodt with 1.4.1 are wrong for me but alt1 was smooth . Between 1.4.0 and 1.4.1 i can push my poor G.Skill F4-2400C15-8GNT from 2933 cas 16 to 3066 cas 16 !!! The worst in my case is that if i don't use your am4 dram calculator my rig isn't stable Oo got bsod bsod bsod at 2133 .... 

Thx a lotttttttttttttttttt


----------



## Krisztias

1usmus said:


> after the first start of the program, delete the file *cfg.link* otherwise, v3 config will not work


after every start it appears again


----------



## hazium233

Krisztias said:


> after every start it appears again


I just edited the file to correctly point to the MT.cfg file since it was originally pointing to the user's directory.


----------



## jcpq

I try to get 3600Mhz -Gskill FlareX 3200CL14, with 15-15-15-30.
I did not want to use very high voltages, currently 1.42v in ram
*I want to lower the latency a bit, any help?*


----------



## 1usmus

*Many of you really wanted to see 3 things in the calculator:*

1) comparison of current timings with recommendations
2) benchmark that will assess the quality of memory tunning
3) memory test for errors

All 3 points you will see in the new version, which will be published next week. Thank you for your patience and understanding :drum:


----------



## LicSqualo

THANK YOU!!! to your work. 
Much appreciated!


----------



## jcpq

I have very high latency.
What can be wrong?


----------



## thagabe

I am a wits end, I have tried presets from 3200 -> 3466 SAFE + FAST with no stability from kahru ram test. Did the ram timings, alt, procODT, alt, max+rec for voltages, used the recommended setting for best cpu+dram OC on the calc. Gave up, went back to the known good config of Stilt's 3200 1.4v preset on my mobo and low and behold 49 errors in 8 hours ( with errors showing up with in 30 mins). So far I am left dumbfounded as last time I checked this preset showed 0 errors in 2 hours of running. The only things I can possibly attribute this to is either the testing I've been doing with my ram (can the calculator timings/settings affect the ram? I haven't used much more than 1.42. once) or 2 my board allows 2xm.2 on a DIMM.2 riser card (asus zenith extreme alpha). Any suggestions? I'm on Threadripper 1950x with trident Z RGB 4x8gb made for ryzen samsung b-dies


----------



## nick name

thagabe said:


> I am a wits end, I have tried presets from 3200 -> 3466 SAFE + FAST with no stability from kahru ram test. Did the ram timings, alt, procODT, alt, max+rec for voltages, used the recommended setting for best cpu+dram OC on the calc. Gave up, went back to the known good config of Stilt's 3200 1.4v preset on my mobo and low and behold 49 errors in 8 hours ( with errors showing up with in 30 mins). So far I am left dumbfounded as last time I checked this preset showed 0 errors in 2 hours of running. The only things I can possibly attribute this to is either the testing I've been doing with my ram (can the calculator timings/settings affect the ram? I haven't used much more than 1.42. once) or 2 my board allows 2xm.2 on a DIMM.2 riser card (asus zenith extreme alpha). Any suggestions? I'm on Threadripper 1950x with trident Z RGB 4x8gb made for ryzen samsung b-dies


Maybe?


----------



## nick name

jcpq said:


> I have very high latency.
> What can be wrong?


If you're comparing against what people achieve with the 2700X then I wanna say when I see a 2600X they usually put up higher latencies. 

With that said -- are you running Aida with anything else open and/or running? Background tasks?


----------



## 1usmus

jcpq said:


> I have very high latency.
> What can be wrong?


if you have boost enabled, then most likely it uses the base frequency for testing



Krisztias said:


> after every start it appears again


you only need to delete this file once and only at the first launch


----------



## jcpq

1usmus said:


> if you have boost enabled, then most likely it uses the base frequency for testing


I think I found the latency ratio high.
I can only finish the testmem5 with power down enabled.
That's what made me have high latency.
How can I stabilize the ram with power down off?


----------



## thagabe

Ok, wiped bios and cleared all settings, completely started from scratch:
-1950x at base clock
- blck 100
- Trident Z F4-3200C14D-16GTZRX (MADE FOR RYZEN)
- DOCP 3200 14-14-14-14-34
- Stilt's 3200 SAFE 4xSamsung [email protected]
- Added Noctua 140mm fan right infront of ram + CPU on Zenith Extreme Alpha
- Karhu Ram Test on Samsung 970 pro onboard m.2 slot running on pceix4 lane
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Ran 30 mins 0 errors 

|---went to work---|

Come home to this (computer is set to not sleep) 


IMG


Now I'm dumbfounded as this is THE most stable OC (Even better than DOCP 3200 14-14-14-14-34 <- this generates errors) outside of JDEC 2133??? 

Time to RMA?? I did buy the sticks at two different times: first, 2x8gb kit and another exactly like it because they don't sell 4x8gb that are ryzen binned.


----------



## jcpq

1usmus said:


> if you have boost enabled, then most likely it uses the base frequency for testing


Solved!

I changed performance enhancer from level 2 to auto.


----------



## marsel

does anyone know the reason behind this ?


----------



## gooshpitz

marsel said:


> does anyone know the reason behind this ?


Same thing for me.


----------



## Amberion

That looks like an RZQ value(whatever that is, i'm a noob, don't hate on me). So wouldn't RZQ/18 be something like 13.33 and RZQ/13 be something like 18.46?


----------



## 1usmus

marsel said:


> does anyone know the reason behind this ?


This is a data reading error, do not pay attention, these settings should not interest you


----------



## gooshpitz

So I should set it to 0 in BIOS? 'cause right now I left it on auto.


----------



## Reous

If you haven't any problems leave it on auto. If you have stability problems set it to 1.


----------



## thagabe

I'm just waiting on the new revision of the calc to do some ram OC on my HEDT 1950x.


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

Eagerly waiting for the new update and thanks a lot 1usmus for the time you have been spending to make this. This question has been bugging me for a long time, is it safe to pump 1.45 (or more, I've seen max 1.5v with v1.4.1) volts into Hynix AFR? what are my chances of degrading my RAM chips?


----------



## deags

No real issues running 1.4-1.5v

From AMD.
https://youtu.be/vZgpHTaQ10k?t=360


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

thanks a lot for providing the link


----------



## rdr09

deags said:


> No real issues running 1.4-1.5v
> 
> From AMD.
> https://youtu.be/vZgpHTaQ10k?t=360



Good info. The guy needs a stick. How difficult is it to send them to an instructor training class? lol

EDIT: Wait, some might go overboard and go straight to 1.5v without trying any lower. I'd be cautious still.


----------



## crakej

DDR4 spec voltage is up to 1.5v, so with proper cooling, should be fine. Mega OCers push this up as far as 1.9v (and beyond probably) so staying at 1.5v or less is within spec.


----------



## rdr09

crakej said:


> DDR4 spec voltage is up to 1.5v, so with proper cooling, should be fine. Mega OCers push this up as far as 1.9v (and beyond probably) so staying at 1.5v or less is within spec.


I agree but i'm mostly referring to regular users who are trying to get designed speed or a little oc like 3466MHz from 2400 MHz. Some might unknowingly keep adding voltage thinking that that is a culprit of instability without checking temp. From my experience, 45C is when my FlareX starts showing errors. My ambient can change 5c at times and can affect system temps quite wildly. It is always recommended setting speeds or oc at a higher than normal ambient like during summer.


----------



## crakej

Good point 

My G.Skills need to be kept under 45 degrees as well - I had to put a cooler on the ram before I could get 3533 or 3600 really stable. This even though DDR4 spec says they can work up to 95 degrees - but they can't with Ryzen/OCing... certainly not at high speeds.


----------



## Filters83

I found my sweet spot 3466Mhz C14 fast setting at 1.4volt no error and i can also undervolt cpu, if i try to go higher i need more volt and i cant undervolt cpu anymore so ok very happy like this !


----------



## Ceadderman

I haven't tried to figure out the sweet spot for my RAM, but I did get my GSkill TridentZ 3200mhz F4-3200C14D-16GTZSK through POST @ 3200mhz with 14CSL settings.

I will fiddle with the speeds later but for now I am quite happy with this kit I am running.

Thank you @1usmus for all your fine work. I didn't need anything more than ThaiPhoon Burner to accomplish the task. :thumb:

*Edit: 28 Apr 2019* 

20 passes of MemTest64 v1 last night with zero fails with no apps open. 

Today it faulted at 18 but due to leaving apps open. So I say the increase is stable. May try to get more speed later, but for now 3200 is where it will stay. :thumb:

~Ceadder :drink:


----------



## Sildrag

1usmus said:


> All 3 points you will see in the new version, which will be published next week.


Next week is over. And half of one more next too.


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

Sildrag said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> All 3 points you will see in the new version, which will be published next week.
> 
> 
> 
> Next week is over. And half of one more next too.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he's refining v1.4.2 sure, we'd like for it to come sooner but at the same time we'd prefer a baked potato over a half baked one.


----------



## crakej

@1usmus (and anyone else!)...

I had to RMA my G.Skill 4266CL19s. Got credit note but wondering if I should stick with these and just order new ones, or I was thinking I could try out the Viper Steel 4400s. I note these use T2 to get their highest speeds of 4133 and 4400, but others seem to be using the with T1 up to about 4000MTs. They're also only 180gbp compared to G.Skill at 250gbp.

Any advice`would be great! Stick with G.Skills or not?


----------



## thagabe

Sildrag said:


> Next week is over. And half of one more next too.


Although I agree with your impatience, he does this for free...rerax bruh


----------



## Dekaohtoura

So, I just got myself a 2nd hand kit (tested and proven) of Crucial Elite blah blah, as shown in Thaiphoon.

XMP worked without any input from me, and just like that I got to 3200/16 (XMP is 3200/15, but with GDM on I get a 16, with GDM off the system won't even post...).

Started tweaking a bit, set VDDR to 1.38 and VSoC to 1.025 (to be "sure"), but whatever I might try, I can't get TM5/[email protected] etc to be stable/error free.

DRAM Tool's suggestions won't even post (safe preset, either on V2 or using Thaiphoon's export).

Funny thing is that I got to play BFV for 1+ hour without any incidents (usually a very good indicator of stability), but I'd like to be sure about my setup.

MoBo is the dreaded Taichi X370 on latest BIOS/AGESA (0072), along with a R1700.

Mem Specs:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=267744&thumb=1

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=267746&thumb=1

RTC is for "educational" purposes only, since on AGESA 0072 anything procODT/RTT related won't show or will show completely wrong (compared to BIOS settings).

As far as I can be sure, procODT 48 won't even post. 53 or 60 get me inside windows, but every test gives me multiple errors.

Different CAD_BUS settings, don't seem to make any difference.

Tried recommended voltages, tried 1.41+1.1...no difference at all.

This last image, is of an "extreme" profile that this mem kit was running (DRAM Voltage 1.43V, VTT 0.75V, VPPM 2.6V), on a Fatal1ty﻿ Gaming ﻿X

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=267752&thumb=1

Needless to say, it didn't work on my setup.

Waiting for the new tool version and for any suggestions you may have.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

1usmus said:


> *Many of you really wanted to see 3 things in the calculator:*
> 
> 1) comparison of current timings with recommendations
> 2) benchmark that will assess the quality of memory tunning
> 3) memory test for errors
> 
> All 3 points you will see in the new version, which will be published next week. Thank you for your patience and understanding :drum:


Thanks Bratan'


----------



## Ceadderman

Dekaohtoura said:


> So, I just got myself a 2nd hand kit (tested and proven) of Crucial Elite blah blah, as shown in Thaiphoon.
> 
> XMP worked without any input from me, and just like that I got to 3200/16 (XMP is 3200/15, but with GDM on I get a 16, with GDM off the system won't even post...).
> 
> Started tweaking a bit, set VDDR to 1.38 and VSoC to 1.025 (to be "sure"), but whatever I might try, I can't get TM5/[email protected] etc to be stable/error free.
> 
> DRAM Tool's suggestions won't even post (safe preset, either on V2 or using Thaiphoon's export).
> 
> Funny thing is that I got to play BFV for 1+ hour without any incidents (usually a very good indicator of stability), but I'd like to be sure about my setup.
> 
> MoBo is the dreaded Taichi X370 on latest BIOS/AGESA (0072), along with a R1700.
> 
> Mem Specs:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=267744&thumb=1
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=267746&thumb=1
> 
> RTC is for "educational" purposes only, since on AGESA 0072 anything procODT/RTT related won't show or will show completely wrong (compared to BIOS settings).
> 
> As far as I can be sure, procODT 48 won't even post. 53 or 60 get me inside windows, but every test gives me multiple errors.
> 
> Different CAD_BUS settings, don't seem to make any difference.
> 
> Tried recommended voltages, tried 1.41+1.1...no difference at all.
> 
> This last image, is of an "extreme" profile that this mem kit was running (DRAM Voltage 1.43V, VTT 0.75V, VPPM 2.6V), on a Fatal1ty﻿ Gaming ﻿X
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=267752&thumb=1
> 
> Needless to say, it didn't work on my setup.
> 
> Waiting for the new tool version and for any suggestions you may have.


In my experience with DRAM Calc for Ryzen... It's likely you've missed a setting or used a value that the system doesn't like and it reverts to a lower value.

I made the mistake of assuming that my "alt" settings were to be used concurrently with the Recommended values. So when I got to tRFC I set 307.2 That fails and goes to a value of 60. You cannot use a decimal in BIOS. So round up or down depending on +/- a .5 value. Typical Algebra valuating. 

The first attempt I had at this, I used the alt settings. But I backed out because I had to think the clockspeed manipulation through. But I figure that where I was going wrong was the decimal issue. This is my first DDR4 platform, so I had to retrain myself by making noobish mistakes. Also the only real issue I had was that Min/Rec/Max section flips around. So on the "Voltage Block(voltage range) the values from Left to Right are Min/Rec/Max. "Termination" is Rec/Alt 1/Alt 2 Probably would've been clearer if "Voltage Block" were setup to show Rec first instead of in the middle.

The other thing is that my sticks were in the A1 and B1 slots not the proper A2 and B2 slots. So it probably never would have POSTed or failed immediately when I use MemTest64 to bench my RAM. So I have to say after fixing my RTFM mistake, DRAM Calc nailed it right out of the park with the Rec'd settings. That's what I am running. Also I set my  CAD_BUS 30-30-40-60 iirc. I will perform a restart to check those values since it's not something I tend to remember offhand...

Edited

*My current settings:*



Spoiler



tCL - 14
tRCDWR - 14
tRCDRD - 14
tRP - 14
tRAS - 30
tRC - 44
tRRDS - 4
tRRDL - 6
tFAW - 32
tFAWDLR - Auto/0
tFAWSLR - Auto/0
tWTRS - 4
tWTRL - 12
tWR - 12
tRCPage - Alt/0
tRDRD SCL - 3
tWRWR SCL - 3
tRFC 307
trfc 2 - 228
tRFC 4 - 140
tCWL - 14
tRTP - 8
tRDWR - 6
tWRRD - 3
tWRWR SC - 1
tRDRD SD - 5
tRDRD DD - 5
tCKE - 8

Rec'd - v1.35
SOC - v1.03
PWR v - Enabled
Gear v Enabled
CMD Rate 1T
BGS and BGS alt - Disabled
Term Block
procODT 53.3 sinc ethat was the closest option for the Recommended setting of 53.
RTT_NOM* - RZQ 7
RTT_WR - OFF
RTT_PARK - RZQ 5(48)

CAD_BUS ClkDrv - 20
CAD_BUS AddrCmdDrv - 20
CAD_BUS CsOdtDrv - 20
CAD_BUS CkeDrv - 20

Use XMP to fill in your values to the next step. I started a the minimum option. "Safe".



Had I not nerfed it when I built Black Snow, I would likely have gotten it on the first attempt using Calc for Ryzen 1.4.1 

So honestly I think there is something you either did or haven't done. Either that or you're not using Samsung Bdie sticks. 

One thing of note, I trained my RAM using D.O.C.P for 3200mhz and used the first option available. So that MAY have had something to do with the success too. But I'm skeptical of that since I only used D.O.C.P for a day. In my experience with D.O.C.P it generally takes longer than a day to train your RAM. I won't speak to anybody else's experience but that's mine.

~Ceadder :drink:


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Ceadderman said:


> In my experience with DRAM Calc for Ryzen... It's likely you've missed a setting or used a value that the system doesn't like and it reverts to a lower value.
> 
> I made the mistake of assuming that my "alt" settings were to be used concurrently with the Recommended values. So when I got to tRFC I set 307.2 That fails and goes to a value of 60. You cannot use a decimal in BIOS. So round up or down depending on +/- a .5 value. Typical Algebra valuating.
> 
> The first attempt I had at this, I used the alt settings. But I backed out because I had to think the clockspeed manipulation through. But I figure that where I was going wrong was the decimal issue. This is my first DDR4 platform, so I had to retrain myself by making noobish mistakes. Also the only real issue I had was that Min/Rec/Max section flips around. So on the "Voltage Block(voltage range) the values from Left to Right are Min/Rec/Max. "Termination" is Rec/Alt 1/Alt 2 Probably would've been clearer if "Voltage Block" were setup to show Rec first instead of in the middle.
> 
> The other thing is that my sticks were in the A1 and B1 slots not the proper A2 and B2 slots. So it probably never would have POSTed or failed immediately when I use MemTest64 to bench my RAM. So I have to say after fixing my RTFM mistake, DRAM Calc nailed it right out of the park with the Rec'd settings. That's what I am running. Also I set my  CAD_BUS 30-30-40-60 iirc. I will perform a restart to check those values since it's not something I tend to remember offhand...
> 
> Edited
> 
> *My current settings:*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> tCL - 14
> tRCDWR - 14
> tRCDRD - 14
> tRP - 14
> tRAS - 30
> tRC - 44
> tRRDS - 4
> tRRDL - 6
> tFAW - 32
> tFAWDLR - Auto/0
> tFAWSLR - Auto/0
> tWTRS - 4
> tWTRL - 12
> tWR - 12
> tRCPage - Alt/0
> tRDRD SCL - 3
> tWRWR SCL - 3
> tRFC 307
> trfc 2 - 228
> tRFC 4 - 140
> tCWL - 14
> tRTP - 8
> tRDWR - 6
> tWRRD - 3
> tWRWR SC - 1
> tRDRD SD - 5
> tRDRD DD - 5
> tCKE - 8
> 
> Rec'd - v1.35
> SOC - v1.03
> PWR v - Enabled
> Gear v Enabled
> CMD Rate 1T
> BGS and BGS alt - Disabled
> Term Block
> procODT 53.3 sinc ethat was the closest option for the Recommended setting of 53.
> RTT_NOM* - RZQ 7
> RTT_WR - OFF
> RTT_PARK - RZQ 5(48)
> 
> CAD_BUS ClkDrv - 20
> CAD_BUS AddrCmdDrv - 20
> CAD_BUS CsOdtDrv - 20
> CAD_BUS CkeDrv - 20
> 
> Use XMP to fill in your values to the next step. I started a the minimum option. "Safe".
> 
> 
> 
> Had I not nerfed it when I built Black Snow, I would likely have gotten it on the first attempt using Calc for Ryzen 1.4.1
> 
> So honestly I think there is something you either did or haven't done. Either that or you're not using Samsung Bdie sticks.
> 
> One thing of note, I trained my RAM using D.O.C.P for 3200mhz and used the first option available. So that MAY have had something to do with the success too. But I'm skeptical of that since I only used D.O.C.P for a day. In my experience with D.O.C.P it generally takes longer than a day to train your RAM. I won't speak to anybody else's experience but that's mine.
> 
> ~Ceadder :drink:


Thank you for your input, but I'm sure that I've followed every bit of the tool's instructions.

Mem sticks are on the proper slots.

Thaiphoon reports that these are Samsung b-dies (downbin).

I'll check and recheck, to be sure, but to be franc, DRAM Calc never worked for my mobo+cpu combo, with 3 different mem kits.

Regarding your mobo, it's a completely different story.


----------



## ilmazzo

"tRFC 307
trfc 2 - 228
tRFC 4 - 140"

on my taichi x470 I have that values labels in the bios but in the calculation made by the tool in the suggested values I get only the usual 256 or something (fast preset) for the tRFC but empty for the other two (trfc 2 and 4) so I set the same values even for the others, but I see that these values reported above are different for each one, so which is the "rule" to determine the 2 and 4 values starting from a unique tRFC value? Hope I explained myself lol


----------



## 1usmus

I’m finally ready to announce the release date of the new version *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.5.0* - *7th may* 








*May 7* is the birthday of the new product, the benchmark of the memory subsystem. His name - *MEMbench*. This test package is absolutely free and has no limitations. More information I will publish on news portals on the day of publication


----------



## Zerotre

wow, great!


----------



## Orb

Dekaohtoura said:


> So, I just got myself a 2nd hand kit (tested and proven) of Crucial Elite blah blah, as shown in Thaiphoon.


I have Crucial Elite 3466mhz BLE8G4D34AEEAK.K8FB, and these dimms are also a bit weird.
Maybe these settings help

See optimal setting for me, these are with GDM on
2 dimms 3400 (dimm voltage 1.36)
4 dimms 3266 (dimm voltage 1.38)

3266 profile has the best tweaked setup for soc voltage, cad bus and termination block.
this profile was hardest to get stable, also needed 2 bumps extra for cpu voltage compared to 2 dimms

These settings are lowest possible
TRCDRD 17
tRDRD SCL 4 
tWRWR SCL 4


----------



## Maikelses

Great Job however 1usmus. Thanks.


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Orb said:


> I have Crucial Elite 3466mhz BLE8G4D34AEEAK.K8FB, and these dimms are also a bit weird.
> Maybe these settings help
> 
> See optimal setting for me, these are with GDM on
> 2 dimms 3400 (dimm voltage 1.36)
> 4 dimms 3266 (dimm voltage 1.38)
> 
> 3266 profile has the best tweaked setup for soc voltage, cad bus and termination block.
> this profile was hardest to get stable, also needed 2 bumps extra for cpu voltage compared to 2 dimms
> 
> These settings are lowest possible
> TRCDRD 17
> tRDRD SCL 4
> tWRWR SCL 4


Thank you, but you have different mobo (+2nd gen) and different cpu (1.5gen).


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

For 4x sticks

RttNOM = Dis. 
RttWR = OFF
RttPark = Auto

vStr = All at 20 O or 24 O

SOC at + 0.06250mV
RAM at Max 1.42v


----------



## Ceadderman

Dekaohtoura said:


> Thank you, but you have different mobo (+2nd gen) and different cpu (1.5gen).


You should honestly go to Rig Builder up in the OCN Header and enter your rig information and t hen go to Edit Signature and add your build to your signature so that we can see what you're running.

In all honesty however, the board shouldn't matter as you're simply taking the values from Ryzen DRAM Calculator and putting them in the correct areas in your Advanced DRAM categories. I think the problem you're running into is that all MB manufacturers use similar albeit different terminology. Like instead of a lower case t, my manufacturer uses upper case T. I understand that the language can be a little intimidating but there really is no difference. I didn't screenshot the app as many people recommend. Instead I have a writing notebook and wrote everything out by hand and used the notebook for reference while in UEFI mode. I wrote everything down including the alternate entries so that if I had a single error and double checking didn't determine that I gaffed anything, then I could simply move on to the next set of values. The Calculator gives 3 sets of final values for the CASLatency values it suggests you're able to do.

Now I realize that the following doesn't relate to you but for clarification and for those it may not have installed to the correct slots... When my sticks were in the incorrect slots, I ran through all values and the system would not POST. So I sorta gave up til later when I found the issue existed and in only one attempt at changing the values it not only went through POST, but it carried off 20 runs of MemTest64 with zero errors. and that was with my browser open. The following day, I had my browser with freshly pinned tabs, Steam and my Desktop open. Failed @ 18. Retried after closing Desktop, and that failed in 5. Closed everything and no failures. So I recommend that if you're gonna run MemTest64 that you close any application as those will surely cause faults in the testing as there may be something that your apps have bookmarked to the RAM for priority. MemTest64 will indeed find it and count it as a fault and if you set it like I do(end test with fault) then that's that. It will not keep running the benchmarks. Also if your CPU is running hot(say 50c), that will cause a fault.

Hopefully this helps. Cause I am relatively sure that these are your issues. The manufacture of the board doesn't matter as I have seen people in the Crosshair VII Hero overclock thread that run newer BIOS than the one that my board(1002) came with and they had no problems at all increasing the speed of their RAM. 

~Ceadder :drink:


----------



## thomasck

1usmus said:


> I’m finally ready to announce the release date of the new version *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.5.0* - *7th may*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May 7* is the birthday of the new product, the benchmark of the memory subsystem. His name - *MEMbench*. This test package is absolutely free and has no limitations. More information I will publish on news portals on the day of publication


That's great, thank you so much for the time and effort spent in this useful tool! 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Ceadderman said:


> You should honestly go to Rig Builder up in the OCN Header and enter your rig information and t hen go to Edit Signature and add your build to your signature so that we can see what you're running.
> 
> In all honesty however, the board shouldn't matter as you're simply taking the values from Ryzen DRAM Calculator and putting them in the correct areas in your Advanced DRAM categories. I think the problem you're running into is that all MB manufacturers use similar albeit different terminology. Like instead of a lower case t, my manufacturer uses upper case T. I understand that the language can be a little intimidating but there really is no difference. I didn't screenshot the app as many people recommend. Instead I have a writing notebook and wrote everything out by hand and used the notebook for reference while in UEFI mode. I wrote everything down including the alternate entries so that if I had a single error and double checking didn't determine that I gaffed anything, then I could simply move on to the next set of values. The Calculator gives 3 sets of final values for the CASLatency values it suggests you're able to do.
> 
> Now I realize that the following doesn't relate to you but for clarification and for those it may not have installed to the correct slots... When my sticks were in the incorrect slots, I ran through all values and the system would not POST. So I sorta gave up til later when I found the issue existed and in only one attempt at changing the values it not only went through POST, but it carried off 20 runs of MemTest64 with zero errors. and that was with my browser open. The following day, I had my browser with freshly pinned tabs, Steam and my Desktop open. Failed @ 18. Retried after closing Desktop, and that failed in 5. Closed everything and no failures. So I recommend that if you're gonna run MemTest64 that you close any application as those will surely cause faults in the testing as there may be something that your apps have bookmarked to the RAM for priority. MemTest64 will indeed find it and count it as a fault and if you set it like I do(end test with fault) then that's that. It will not keep running the benchmarks. Also if your CPU is running hot(say 50c), that will cause a fault.
> 
> Hopefully this helps. Cause I am relatively sure that these are your issues. The manufacture of the board doesn't matter as I have seen people in the Crosshair VII Hero overclock thread that run newer BIOS than the one that my board(1002) came with and they had no problems at all increasing the speed of their RAM.
> 
> ~Ceadder :drink:


The post that you quoted the first time, has every single piece of info that you may need in it (mobo, cpu, mem type and extended info, BIOS/AGESA etc).

Mem sticks are on the recommended slots (at least, recommended by the manufacturer).

Every memtest (HCI, TM5 etc) that I'm running, is with everything else force closed via task manager.

Regarding the proper value entries, unless I'm getting blind, everything that the tool suggests, have been entered in the correct spot time and again, double and triple checked.

I know that the tool works, I have seen a lot of other members here and on other tech forums that provide ample proof. It just won't work on my system, for reasons unknown.

Hopefully there will be a change on the next version...


----------



## davidm71

@1usmus

Was wondering if there might be an Intel Dram calculator in the works at all?

Thanks


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> I’m finally ready to announce the release date of the new version *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.5.0* - *7th may*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May 7* is the birthday of the new product, the benchmark of the memory subsystem. His name - *MEMbench*. This test package is absolutely free and has no limitations. More information I will publish on news portals on the day of publication


Nice! Can't wait.


----------



## CharlieWheelie

Hurrayyyy after months of failure to login, i finally get an Email from Overclock.net to authorize my login.

At least 6 months, well at least i'm back.
@1usmus
What Membench software are you basing the test on ?

Some excellent additions to the software, much needed in my opinion. They are suggestions i would of made,
if i had been able to login. LOL


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Orb said:


> I have Crucial Elite 3466mhz BLE8G4D34AEEAK.K8FB, and these dimms are also a bit weird.
> Maybe these settings help
> 
> See optimal setting for me, these are with GDM on
> 2 dimms 3400 (dimm voltage 1.36)
> 4 dimms 3266 (dimm voltage 1.38)
> 
> 3266 profile has the best tweaked setup for soc voltage, cad bus and termination block.
> this profile was hardest to get stable, also needed 2 bumps extra for cpu voltage compared to 2 dimms
> 
> These settings are lowest possible
> TRCDRD 17
> tRDRD SCL 4
> tWRWR SCL 4





Dekaohtoura said:


> Thank you, but you have different mobo (+2nd gen) and different cpu (1.5gen).


Having said that, I have to admit it worked...the 3266 profile, at least.

I used a bit higher VSoC (1.025), but everything else was exactly as you specified.

Passed TM5, passed BattlefieldV stability test (about 1h of continuous MP), so it's a win.

Unfortunately, latency wise it's a bit worse than my own [email protected] (76ns vs 74.8), but it's something I can work with.

Will try the 3400 profile, just for the fun of it.

Thank you!


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Dekaohtoura said:


> Having said that...
> 
> 
> Will try the 3400 profile, just for the fun of it.
> 
> Thank you!


F.ck my face with an aardvark, it works.

It really works...

I just gave it a bit higher VSoC (1.1, but I'll start lowering it a bit), and it passed TM5x10, BFV, passed everything I threw at it.

I'm honestly shocked!

Thank you very much for the profiles, for your help.


----------



## Spectre73

*Improved memory latency by changing interleaving settings*

So I - for the longest time - struggled with 2x16 GB Samsung b-die (3200 MHz) and 1st gen Ryzen.

I was never able to get it fully(!) stable at the rated speeds. Karhu RAM test threw errors every time and I did not considered it stable at all.

I do not get it how many people post success stories of dual rank RAM at 3200 MHz and 1st gen Ryzen. I do not believe all the success stories or no one really tests for stability.

But whatever. I was finally able to get it stable at 3200 with quite tight timings.

So I wanted to tweak it further and came upon the "memory interleaving" setting. DRAM calc suggests "channel" setting but I had it on Auto, disregarding the setting, especially since I was happy enough to run at 3200.

So I wanted the little extra edge and changed it from Auto to channel. To my surprise, I gained 3ns latency improvement. So now I am at 70ns with 32 GB dual rank RAM. I am extremely happy.

It is only a little thing, but I hope someone here is interested in even small improvements.


----------



## 8000cc

Wow, this is great


----------



## Spectre73

8000cc said:


> Wow, this is great


Thanks for your contribution. Much appreciated.


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

Just a couple of hours more, can't wait ????


----------



## thomasck

Quick doubt guys about calculation. Few months ago I finally managed to get a 3200MHz Corsair's RAM stable, MFR IC, following the DRAM Calc timings.
However, I'm also able to boot and run HCI over 1500% with tight timings, 14-15-15-15-28-56 against 16-18-18-18-36-58. 
I know there's a logic/maths behind the numbers, but, how can I calculate my own secondary timings based on the primary? Or, it does not work in that way?
Thanks for any idea of how to start this.


----------



## BLUuuE

thomasck said:


> Quick doubt guys about calculation. Few months ago I finally managed to get a 3200MHz Corsair's RAM stable, MFR IC, following the DRAM Calc timings.
> However, I'm also able to boot and run HCI over 1500% with tight timings, 14-15-15-15-28-56 against 16-18-18-18-36-58.
> I know there's a logic/maths behind the numbers, but, how can I calculate my own secondary timings based on the primary? Or, it does not work in that way?
> Thanks for any idea of how to start this.


Most secondary timings barely change across the frequency range.
Most ICs should be able to run the following secondary timings:

tRRDS/L tFAW: 6/6 24
tWR: 16
tRFC: 448 (280ns)

tRFC needs to be increased as you increase the frequency, which is why I have the absolute time in ns.
To calculate the tRFC for a given frequency:


Code:


tRFC = tRFC_ns * ddr_freq / 2000

. For 3466 this would be


Code:


280 * 3466 / 2000 = 485.24 (round up to 486)

You should also be able to run tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL at 4, which can help a fair bit with bandwidth.


----------



## thomasck

BLUuuE said:


> Most secondary timings barely change across the frequency range.
> 
> Most ICs should be able to run the following secondary timings:
> 
> 
> tRRDS/L tFAW: 6/6 24
> 
> tWR: 16
> 
> tRFC: 448 (280ns)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC needs to be increased as you increase the frequency, which is why I have the absolute time in ns.
> 
> To calculate the tRFC for a given frequency:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> tRFC = tRFC_ns * ddr_freq / 2000
> 
> . For 3466 this would be
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 280 * 3466 / 2000 = 485.24 (round up to 486)
> 
> 
> 
> You should also be able to run tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL at 4, which can help a fair bit with bandwidth.


Thanks! I'll give a go in this and see how the ram with behave. 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## thagabe

Oh boy! New DRAM Calculator AND Android Q beta 3? Is it my birthday? MA I've made it


----------



## hurricane28

I don't see a new calculator yet and its definitely the 7th


----------



## Darkomax

It's out! https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen v1.5.0 + MEMbench 0.6*

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen v1.5.0 + MEMbench 0.6*
























​
https://www.techpowerup.com/255229/...om/255229/announcing-dram-c…egrated-benchmark
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/download-dram-calculator-for-ryzen-updated-to-v1-4.html
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.p...0-fuer-ryzen-prozessoren-veroeffentlicht.html


special thanks to @slafniyfor helping to create a new product 

in the coming weeks there will be another update with large-scale modifications


----------



## Struzzin

Was super pumped to try this out but I cannot get this to run ?> 
What am I doing wrong ?
Edit: Also I disabled antivirus still no go


----------



## 1usmus

Struzzin said:


> Was super pumped to try this out but I cannot get this to run ?>
> What am I doing wrong ?
> Edit: Also I disabled antivirus still no go


The problem(calculator requests system information) may be due to the lack of the latest Windows updates. Do you have everything installed? 

___________________________________________________


Question: 
*how to use MEMbench?*

Answer: 
for benching and comparison of results between users there are 2 preset modes, Easy and Default. The difference is only in the load on the amount of RAM. No other settings need to be turned, the program itself chooses the number of streams and other settings. The result will be displayed in the upper right corner, seconds + column with a caption on the chart. Also on the graph for clarity displays the result-standard, which is to strive for when tuning the memory subsystem.


----------



## xlollomanx

1usmus said:


> The problem(calculator requests system information) may be due to the lack of the latest Windows updates. Do you have everything installed?
> 
> ___________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Question:
> *how to use MEMbench?*
> 
> Answer:
> for benching and comparison of results between users there are 2 preset modes, Easy and Default. The difference is only in the load on the amount of RAM. No other settings need to be turned, the program itself chooses the number of streams and other settings. The result will be displayed in the upper right corner, seconds + column with a caption on the chart. Also on the graph for clarity displays the result-standard, which is to strive for when tuning the memory subsystem.



I have the same problem: opened but it not run, I've even tried to excute it with admin privileges. Attached my windows version. After looking windows events it gives me two error:



Spoiler



Applicazione: Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.5.0.5.exe
Versione framework: v4.0.30319
Descrizione: il processo è stato terminato a causa di un'eccezione non gestita.
Informazioni sull'eccezione: System.NullReferenceException
in Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Sys_info()
in Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm..ctor()
in Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.Program.Main()





Spoiler



Nome dell'applicazione che ha generato l'errore: Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.5.0.5.exe, versione: 1.5.0.0, timestamp: 0x5cd1cd07
Nome del modulo che ha generato l'errore: unknown, versione: 0.0.0.0, timestamp: 0x00000000
Codice eccezione: 0xc0000005
Offset errore 0x00007fff75bd1282
ID processo che ha generato l'errore: 0x16f8
Ora di avvio dell'applicazione che ha generato l'errore: 0x01d5050aaa36d756
Percorso del modulo che ha generato l'errore: unknown
Nome completo pacchetto che ha generato l'errore: 
ID applicazione relativo al pacchetto che ha generato l'errore:




EDIT: Added windows logs


----------



## 1usmus

*Version for those who do not have the start of the program (the request for system information is disabled)*
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fmPIkMZ4GrJO8onEkUZGMHKgkD7D3osz

Are you sure your memory has 1 rank?


----------



## xlollomanx

1usmus said:


> *Version for those who do not have the start of the program (the request for system information is disabled)*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fmPIkMZ4GrJO8onEkUZGMHKgkD7D3osz


Now it works, thank you. Only one question: is normal now that with ryzen gen 1 and samsung e-die memory everytime I try to calculate the timings it gives me the attached error?


----------



## dspx

Thanks 1usmus, nice work.
I have a problem though, every time I save my settings I get this message:


----------



## LicSqualo

Hi 1usmus, good work!

THANK YOU! Really much appreciated, also the new membench tab. Great work! 

I'm trying to stabilize 3568 MHz, until now my best solid result is 3500 MHz c13. On C6H and 1700 with tridentZ 3600c16 16gb kit.

Just to be sure, possible that for Ryzen 1gen the BGSalt isn't enabled?

THANK YOU! For your time dedicated to us.

Lic


----------



## 1usmus

dspx said:


> Thanks 1usmus, nice work.
> I have a problem though, every time I save my settings I get this message:


hi!
are you using hotfix? 1.5.0.5 (https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/)


----------



## dspx

1usmus said:


> hi!
> are you using hotfix? 1.5.0.5 (https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/)


Thanks, it works fine now.


----------



## _vogonpoetry_

1usmus, 

Can you explain the new Topology option?

It seems like you are implying all B350/X370 chipsets use T-topology, is this true? 
I know not all B450/X470 boards use daisy-chain topology because we have boards like the X470 Taichi that are T-topology.


----------



## AmaKatsu

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen[emoji769] 1.5.0 (overclocking DRAM on AM4) + MEMbench 0.6 (DRAM bench)*

I can say this version really do great improvement on 4 dimm, especially on ProcODT, Rtt and Cad_Bus

Thank for your hard work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NightAntilli

I find it interesting. The timings with the previous version didn't work for me. After doing some tinkering, I got them stable. Now with this one, the timings are actually a lot closer to what I tweaked my memory to. I should try the benchmarks to determine which timings give me more performance. This new version is definitely a great update.


----------



## brenopapito

I can't run the Calculator. The program start to load and stop without opening.

*W10x64 with the latest updates and 1.5.05v from Techpowerup website


----------



## Struzzin

1usmus said:


> *Version for those who do not have the start of the program (the request for system information is disabled)*
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fmPIkMZ4GrJO8onEkUZGMHKgkD7D3osz
> 
> Are you sure your memory has 1 rank?





brenopapito said:


> I can't run the Calculator. The program start to load and stop without opening.
> 
> *W10x64 with the latest updates and 1.5.05v from Techpowerup website


Use this Version he posted it works. 

This M-Die Sucks but I got timings much better with 1.5.0.5

Thanks @1usmus


----------



## Struzzin

double post


----------



## Unknownm

Nice thread , just bought 2600X with my first DDR4 kit so couple questions!

Thaiphoon Burner reports: 8 Gb C-die (18 nm) / 1 die , assuming this means "Hynix CJR" in dram calculator?

When I click "Calculate Safe" a message box pops up saying "Warning Coming Soon!" and this happens Twice but after all the ram values get filled in. I'm guessing these values are incorrect?


----------



## AmaKatsu

Unknownm said:


> Nice thread , just bought 2600X with my first DDR4 kit so couple questions!
> 
> Thaiphoon Burner reports: 8 Gb C-die (18 nm) / 1 die , assuming this means "Hynix CJR" in dram calculator?
> 
> When I click "Calculate Safe" a message box pops up saying "Warning Coming Soon!" and this happens Twice but after all the ram values get filled in. I'm guessing these values are incorrect?


series 2000 is Zen+ so you have to select "Ryzen + gen" not "Ryzen 2 gen"


----------



## rdr09

I compared 3200 CL14 set in DOCP to 3200 CL14 set using the Calculator using the bench but not sure i did it right.

Last SS is the Ripjaw V 3200 CL16 (Hynix M-die), which showed errors using the calc at 3200 fast, so i went back to 3133 CL16 DOCP. Just as fast as my Flares.


----------



## sotheray

Hi @1usmus
May I ask the difference between MEMbench modes? (Easy, Default, Custom and Memtest)


----------



## brenopapito

Struzzin said:


> Use this Version he posted it works.
> 
> This M-Die Sucks but I got timings much better with 1.5.0.5
> 
> Thanks @1usmus


Now it's working! Thanks.


----------



## Unknownm

AmaKatsu said:


> series 2000 is Zen+ so you have to select "Ryzen + gen" not "Ryzen 2 gen"


My bad learning. Was the ram right? I don't see Cdie anywhere else

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## AmaKatsu

Unknownm said:


> My bad learning. Was the ram right? I don't see Cdie anywhere else
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


For your setting, I think it should be like this


----------



## Unknownm

AmaKatsu said:


> For your setting, I think it should be like this


Thank you for explaining this to amd noob

I will try these settings after work. Thanks!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Darkomax

The new update arrives just in time, I switched my 1600 for a 2600X for very cheap (30€). Seems like it can take 3533MHz, I might try 3600MHz (it boots but I didn't have time to test further, and DRAM voltage gets quite high) 1but I know I'm close to the pinnacle of Ryzen. I noticed Geardown mode is mandatory for this CPU, my previous 1600 was stable without it (but it could not go past 3400)


----------



## Nighthog

I still see bad values suggested for Micron E-die.

Some timings suggested as safe are impossible.

Here I provide a "FAST" preset 3200Mhz if you may and compare them to the safe values suggested. Safe tells me lower values are ok, they aren't. This my own "FAST" preset needs only 1.400V though the low tRC & tRAS needed a huge bump on VDDP voltage to function that low that I got them(still aren't great).

tRCDRD , tRAS, tRC, tRFC & tWRRD need values adjusted higher for "Calculate SAFE"

Alternative Termination block values can be suggested depending on Motherboard (the suggested works on Gigabyte but not Biostar) 
RCQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1 is kinda universal that works just as good on both boards. 
Some other values are being explored on the Biostar but uncertain if they are better yet than the "universal" combo.


----------



## 1usmus

*Guys, I found an anomaly, if you first press the RTC button, the performance in the test will deteriorate. Because I recommend to press the RTC button after you get the result *


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> I still see bad values suggested for Micron E-die.
> 
> Some timings suggested as safe are impossible.
> 
> Here I provide a "FAST" preset 3200Mhz if you may and compare them to the safe values suggested. Safe tells me lower values are ok, they aren't. This my own "FAST" preset needs only 1.400V though the low tRC & tRAS needed a huge bump on VDDP voltage to function that low that I got them(still aren't great).
> 
> tRCDRD , tRAS, tRC, tRFC & tWRRD need values adjusted higher for "Calculate SAFE"
> 
> Alternative Termination block values can be suggested depending on Motherboard (the suggested works on Gigabyte but not Biostar)
> RCQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1 is kinda universal that works just as good on both boards.
> Some other values are being explored on the Biostar but uncertain if they are better yet than the "universal" combo.


is it on the last bios?



rdr09 said:


> I compared 3200 CL14 set in DOCP to 3200 CL14 set using the Calculator using the bench but not sure i did it right.
> 
> Last SS is the Ripjaw V 3200 CL16 (Hynix M-die), which showed errors using the calc at 3200 fast, so i went back to 3133 CL16 DOCP. Just as fast as my Flares.


you did everything right, tomorrow I will publish the guide ... it looks like it needs


----------



## Rapidian

1usmus said:


> *Guys, I found an anomaly, if you first press the RTC button, the performance in the test will deteriorate. Because I recommend to press the RTC button after you get the result *


Does this mean the MEMbench_RTC button on the MEMBench tab? That's what mine says not just RTC. I saw in one of your earlier screen shots it did say RTC. Confused why mine was different... BTW, that button does nothing when I press it. Why?


----------



## Unknownm

Couple questions.

AMD CBS shares some options that also inside ram options like "Power Down" "Gear Down" "Command Rate" "odt" 'Addr" "cke" , does AMD CBS values also have to get set or just ram? (or both)

my bios gives me two options for CLDO VDDP and CLDO_VDDP.

CLDO_VDDP wont show unless CLDO_VDDP Control is set to manual.

CLDO VDDP @ Ai Tweaker\Tweakers Paradise
CLDO_VDDP + Control @ Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options

Do I only set CLDO_VDDP?

tRFC in ram options gives me timings named tRFC2 & tRFC4 while DRAM Calculator doesn't show this.. edit: tfpage also missing


Options: PLL Voltage , Boot DRAM Voltage , Spread Spectrum , Super I/O Clock Skew , DRAM R1-R4 Tune. Did not show up in my bios and using search shows up nothing,

So far I have been unable to POST with the DRAM Calculator.


----------



## brewfest_

Hey, I'm pretty newbie when it comes to overclocking, but I feel like I have a weird set of memory. I have an x370 taichi with bios 5.10, a 1700x (currently at stock clocks), Teamgroup Vulcan 3000 MHz memory. I started trying to overclock by googling what die type my memory was. Some quick searching yielded it was Hynix MFR. I put this into the calculator with everything else correct to my understanding and it spit out some timings. I entered them into my bios, saved it as a profile, then saved and exited. a couple unsuccessful boots later and I'm back in the bios. I increase the voltage a bit and put increase (or decrease for asrock) the llc level. still nothing. I go back into windows and select the v2 profile and try that with no success. I finally decide to install Thaiphoon to make sure I have everything right. When I scan my RAM with Thaiphoon, it reports I have B-die memory, which came as a surprise, especially since my RAm couldn't even hold MFR v2 timings. I try the timings anyways and unsurprisingly they don't work. I'm really not sure what I'm doing wrong or if there is something seriously wrong with my RAM. included is a picture of Thaiphoon and DRAM calculator with the automatic 3000 MHz times for xmp.


----------



## 1usmus

*MEMbench 0.6 README*

*MEMbench 0.6 README*









*RAMSize* - the amount of RAM that will be used during the benching or system test for the presence of errors in the RAM.

*MEMbench mode* - 4 mode MEMbench. "Easy" was created specifically for systems in which the volume of operative memory does not exceed 8 gigabytes. "Default" - for systems that have more than 8 gigabytes of RAM. "Custom" - a mode for your own experiments, information is displayed on the chart. "Memtest" - the mode of checking RAM for errors.
* Modes "Easy" and "Default" are fully automated modes, the program itself regulates the amount of RAM and the number of flow for benching.

*Number of threads* - the number of threads that will be set during the benching whether there is a test for RAM errors.

*Task scope* - the complexity of the task. The complexity of the task is determined by the set of patterns that will be used during the benchting or testing the system for errors. The greater the value, the longer the procedure.

*Stop on completion of the task* - if this option is active, the program will automatically press the Stop button when a certain Task scope value is reached.

*Stop on error* - stop the process of testing or benching, if an error is found in one of the threads.

*Run* - run a benchmark or memory test for errors.

*Stop* - emergency stop of benchmark or memory test.

*RTC (only for Ryzen)* - display timings that are set in the BIOS.

*Save result 1 * and *Save result 2 *- save the test / benching results for further comparison on the chart.

*Screenshot* - button for creating screenshots.

*Current result* - the time that was spent on benching or memory testing for errors.

*Best result* is the standard time to which the user should strive during memory optimization. Of course, your results can exceed this indicator.


*Features MEMbench 0.6:*


- If the *RTC button* (only for Ryzen) is pressed before the test / benching, the test / benchmark passing speed will decrease. Temporary flaw. I advise you first to bench / test, and then just press the RTC button (only for Ryzen).

- If you use the trial version of *memtest.exe* (comes with the program), the following functionality will be limited: automatic stop when an error is found in one of the threads, a limit of 32 threads, memory size for one thread is not more than 1999mb.

- *There is no start of the program.* The problem associated with the version of Windows updates, if after the Windows update the program does not work - here is a special version for you: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fmPIkMZ4GrJO8onEkUZGMHKgkD7D3osz/view

- Has the program stopped running? Delete all files that are located at: *C: \ Users \ username \ AppData \ Local \ username*


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> is it on the last bios?


Yeah latest available BIOS, The values you suggest have never been possible for the 3200Mhz "SAFE calculation" with any BIOS for Micron E-die. 

They aren't great on some of the settings but you can usually get them to higher speeds to compensate if you CPU/motherboard can handle it.


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> Yeah latest available BIOS, The values you suggest have never been possible for the 3200Mhz "SAFE calculation" with any BIOS for Micron E-die.
> 
> They aren't great on some of the settings but you can usually get them to higher speeds to compensate if you CPU/motherboard can handle it.


I am confused by timings that are too low (tRRDL, tFAW, tWTRS, tWTRL)
on 6 16 4 12 will have stability?


I have an example *HX426C16FR2K2/16*



Spoiler


----------



## thagabe

New Ryzen Calc has very similar numbers as Stilt's safe 3200 preset for 4x8gb Samsung b-dies. I'm gonna test some more. I passed easy mode but gave me an error on memtest after a few hours...I beginning to think this ram is bad tho [email protected] maybe my IO controller just cant handle it which would be sad....threadripper zen2 when shall you come!


----------



## thagabe

EDIT: assumptions were wrong... Memory JDEC 2133 ran for 10 hours on karhu memory test with 0 errors


----------



## Esenel

@1usmus
Congrats.

A whole article about you and your tool.
Great what you achieved compared to when I used it nearly 2 years ago already? :-D

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-05/dram-calculator-ryzen-ram-oc/


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> I am confused by timings that are too low (tRRDL, tFAW, tWTRS, tWTRL)
> on 6 16 4 12 will have stability?


They as I have them work and are stable on my end for 3200 on my Biostar & Gigabyte, I only need to adjust them higher at 3600Mhz+ speeds on the Gigabyte.
Your suggested values also work. Yours are more robust if you increase speed on the MEM 3600Mhz+ I get similar requirements to reach stability. 


1usmus said:


> I have an example *HX426C16FR2K2/16*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Well If that kit is also E-die then you got the better deal...

I have two *HX434C19FB2K2/16* kits for 4x8Gb and tRC 56 is the best I have gotten working, and I needed to juice VDDP voltage to 1.000V for it to work.
tRCDRD @ 19 for 3200Mhz is the best I got on Biostar board, My Gigabyte didn't like it below 21-23.(though you could run higher MEM speeds to compensate like 3600-3733)
tRFC works similar on both boards (you can't go under ~310ns for *tRFC (ns)* so about 500 tRFC for 3200Mhz.)

It might have to do with me running *4X8GB* and you *2X8GB*


----------



## _vogonpoetry_

@1usmus

Looks like the first Combo_PI 1.0.0.1 BIOS has been released. https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/B450 Steel Legend/index.asp#BIOS

Any positive changes from 0.0.7.2?


----------



## rdr09

Benched my Fast 3333 CL 14. A bit better than the 3200. Be working on my 3466 CL 14 next.


----------



## kawzir

Is the MEMbench good enough to test memory error like other software?? What settings should I use if I want to run for few hours?


----------



## thagabe

kawzir said:


> Is the MEMbench good enough to test memory error like other software?? What settings should I use if I want to run for few hours?


No, I pass membench 3 times but when I run karhu mem test I still get errors. To increase test time just increase Test scope (%)


----------



## thagabe

@1usmus

I'm trying to understand your guide. So set XMP (DOCP), edit timings to the ones given by calc, set Termination Block (omega), Misc items, and recommended Voltage Block. I'll get errors (maybe). Go back and try Alt. 1 for Termination Block (omega). less errors. Test out higher and lower SOC Voltage until I found the sweet spot. Test, less errors. Change DRAM Voltage first go low then go high. Errors. Where do I go next? Change timings?


----------



## rdr09

kawzir said:


> Is the MEMbench good enough to test memory error like other software?? What settings should I use if I want to run for few hours?


I don't think so. There is memtest. I use HCI and, of course, as a final test - games. I normally use DOCP setting.


----------



## crakej

@1usmus

Thanks for this great tool - it just gets better and better! I have a question and some information for you. I just got these Patriot Viper Steels 4400s and so far they seem to be pretty good, even if I cn't get timings as tight as I coiuld on my G.Skills.

Anyway, if you look in the pics below, you will see that these sticks have unusual timings for RRDS and RRDL - where most timings I see always have RRDL *lower* than RRDS, and the Calculator, up to 3666MTs gives timings like that, even though my sticks are the other way around!

On 3733MTs the calc suggests RRDS and RRDL of 3 and 2 (makes sense if you look at my ram info). If you try to enter those, the bios wont accept any entry <4 and changes them both to 4 - seemingly the lower limit for these timings? So it's impossible to enter these and I leave them on 4.

How come on speeds <3733 the calc will suggest say 4 and 9, even though my memory timings for RRDS and RRDL should be the other way around. I'm experimenting with my own timings there to see if it improves things for me.


----------



## basriwizz

@1usmus After clicking Calculate EXTREME, it says "For this mode, additional cooling of the Ram is mandatory!". Does this mean in addition to the Rams own heatsinks?


----------



## crakej

basriwizz said:


> @1usmus After clicking Calculate EXTREME, it says "For this mode, additional cooling of the Ram is mandatory!". Does this mean in addition to the Rams own heatsinks?


Yes - you'll need Ram fans like mine, or you can use another fan to get air running through the memory. Higher OCs are not reliable without this extra cooling.


----------



## AmaKatsu

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen[emoji769] 1.5.0 (overclocking DRAM on AM4) + MEMbench 0.6 (DRAM bench)*



crakej said:


> Yes - you'll need Ram fans like mine, or you can use another fan to get air running through the memory. Higher OCs are not reliable without this extra cooling.



My room temperature is about 35-40'C this month (currently in hot season). Without OCing, RAM can hit 40'C easily. Fan cooling will great help 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xlollomanx

@1usmus Can I ask you to check Samsung E/D Die memory in 1.5.0.5 version? I'm getting very weird result compared to previous version. Everytime I try to calculate timing for my r1600 and samsung e-die It gives me an error and some timings are missing. This not happend if I select other types of memory. Please look at the screenshot. Thank you


----------



## Amberion

@xlollomanx are you sure your memory is single rank? It looks like single rank E die isn't implemented in the calculator yet.


----------



## jcpq

Hi!
In membench tab, current timings, is empty.
What should I do?


----------



## ludespeedny

Thanks for this tool! I was finally able to boot at 3200! Only problem is that I have to leave tRFC options at auto. Is this normal?


----------



## Sody

Hello! Thanks for the tool and all information!

I have a problem with overclocking my ram - 2x8gb Apacer panther silver modules (xmp 2400) with Samsung b-die chips. Motherboard Asrock b450m pro4 and Ryzen 2200g cpu (was reset to stock for overclocking dram). 
This modules works only at 2666 with xmp timings. System boot at 3066 15-17-17-32 at 1.35v but testmem5 shows 100+ errors. I also tried 3200 safe preset (r-xmp) from calculator and the same preset with importing xmp - system doesn't boot. Also, calc shows chip quality = 62%. Is it bad? How this option works? How it defines chips quality?
I use A2 and B2 slots, agesa 1.0.0.6. My mb bios doesn't have SOC voltage setting, but i tried to configure it with setting explained in this video 




Previously, I had 1 module Kingston hyperx fury 2666 mhz (hynix afr) and it worked without errors at 3066 15-17-17-32 at 1.3v, then I bought first Apacer module and they worked together without errors at 3066, after this I bought second Apacer module and replaced kingston with it. Now two identical modules cannot work without errors at 3066 - madness 

Can someone help me with overclocking my dram?


----------



## crakej

jcpq said:


> Hi!
> In membench tab, current timings, is empty.
> What should I do?


Click on 'Compare Timings' next to the R-XMP button


----------



## xlollomanx

Amberion said:


> @xlollomanx are you sure your memory is single rank? It looks like single rank E die isn't implemented in the calculator yet.


I attached my ram info and in previous 1.4.1 the calculator is working fine as you can see in the screenshot. I don't think is rilevant but I'm running 4x4GB ram sticks (all same module)


----------



## Unknownm

ludespeedny said:


> Thanks for this tool! I was finally able to boot at 3200! Only problem is that I have to leave tRFC options at auto. Is this normal?


there's trfrc2 - 4. I posted in this thread asking what importance those 2 settings have on ram but no replies yet. POST

This kind user on AMD ryzen DDR4 thread replied me to about it. Hopefully I can dig through and find more info about "tRFRC2 - 4"


----------



## Saiger0

Unknownm said:


> there's trfrc2 - 4. I posted in this thread asking what importance those 2 settings have on ram but no replies yet. POST
> 
> This kind user on AMD ryzen DDR4 thread replied me to about it. Hopefully I can dig through and find more info about "tRFRC2 - 4"


trfc 2 and 4 will be calcualted automatically (e.g tRFC 2 = tRFC / 1.346). I tzhink there really is no point in changing those


----------



## Unknownm

Saiger0 said:


> trfc 2 and 4 will be calcualted automatically (e.g tRFC 2 = tRFC / 1.346). I tzhink there really is no point in changing those


I'm just wondering if auto will effect stability but I will watch out for that. I didn't have any luck posting with dram calculator yet trying to rule out any settings

Thanks!


----------



## arcDaniel

@1usmus

Thanks for that App, that will help a lot of Users.

I use Micron E-Die (Ballistix Sport LT 2x16gb, 3200mhz), an it is perhaps because there is not very much experience with the Ram, but for me, the result from the calculator are not good.

Only with set Clock to 3466mhz Timings to 16-18-18-18-37 (tRC 64 // tRFC 560) an the rest to auto (CR 1T, and Geardown Disable), I get better results that with the calculator.

The Problem is that the Save Settings are worse (even the XMP Profil runs faster) and the FAST Settings are not even faster but never stable, I get already under 1000% errors in the Karhu Ram Test.

As Mainboard I use a C6H with an 2700X.

With my post I will not blame you, not at all. It is only my experience whit it an my Micron Ram.

Because at the beginning from Ryzen, Samsung B-Die was the best choice and so, the most user bought this ram, more users more data.


----------



## arcDaniel

sorry double post


----------



## ObscureScience

So I finally gave this another try. Entered everything 1 by 1 to try and nail down what setting caused me not to boot last time. Turns out it's the Trc setting. The calculator recommends 42, leaving it on auto sets it 75. The lowest I could boot into bios with was 54, getting into windows required 60.
But I read this article on overclock3d that said the Trc setting don't really offer much in most scenarios. 

But either way, I gained 45 seconds in the built-in memtest compared to stock settings 
Saved result 2 is with Trc on auto.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nighthog said:


> I have two *HX434C19FB2K2/16* kits for 4x8Gb and tRC 56 is the best I have gotten working, and I needed to juice VDDP voltage to 1.000V for it to work.
> tRCDRD @ 19 for 3200Mhz is the best I got on Biostar board, My Gigabyte didn't like it below 21-23.(though you could run higher MEM speeds to compensate like 3600-3733)
> tRFC works similar on both boards (you can't go under ~310ns for *tRFC (ns)* so about 500 tRFC for 3200Mhz.)
> 
> It might have to do with me running *4X8GB* and you *2X8GB*


I have used Biostar boards and they are some of the worst boards for overclocking of any sort. Your problems could be a compound of many factors but the biggest would be you running 4x8gb, that is naturally going to put more stress on the IMC and if the trace layout on the board isnt T-Topology then you can assume that the farther away from the cpu the DIMMs are the more voltage they would require since the voltage has to travel farther. Also, have you tried enabling geardown mode instead of running 2T? And what voltages and DIMM temps are you getting? Try just 2 of the sticks of ram and see how much better the result is as well. Also, take the board and clean everything with alcohol well. Ive went as far as getting alcohol in a spray bottle and spraying my entire mobo, every crack and crevice and letting it air dry completely and getting better results afterwards. The tiniest dust bunny in a DIMM slot can cause lots of problems. 



kawzir said:


> Is the MEMbench good enough to test memory error like other software?? What settings should I use if I want to run for few hours?





rdr09 said:


> I don't think so. There is memtest. I use HCI and, of course, as a final test - games. I normally use DOCP setting.


Membench uses HCImemtest for its core so essentially it is perfectly fine to test memory with. I swapped the memtest.exe file with my PRO version exe file naming it memtest.exe to replace the trial and it works like a charm.


----------



## iNeri

_vogonpoetry_ said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Looks like the first Combo_PI 1.0.0.1 BIOS has been released. https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/B450 Steel Legend/index.asp#BIOS
> 
> Any positive changes from 0.0.7.2?


Interesting...May be theres some info in this bios for core count and frecuency of ryzen 3000??


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.5.1 + MEMbench 0.7*










Spoiler



*DRAM Calculator*

* Updated Micron E / H die presets (3533 max)
* Debug profile is available only for SAFE presets (in case if do not start the system when using V1 or V2).
* Minor adjustments to calculate Debug profiles.
* Small changes in presets for Samsung b-die.
* Reduced activation time for tooltips for the Main tab.
* Added hint for "Topology".
* Fix crash program due to incorrect saving of user settings.
* For OEM, the frequency limit has been increased to 3533.
* Cosmetic edits in the About tab.
* Added links to German and Ukrainian communities.

*MEMbench*

* Fixed a global error when the application refused to start due to an incorrect request for system information (System info).
* Fixed a bug when starting the RTC degraded the speed of MEMbench.
* Fixed a bug where empty Ram size or Task Scope fields caused system crashes.
* Improved accuracy of results + increase the speed of the benchmark.
* Added an alternative mode Stop at (task mode) - Total. Now he is recomended for benchmark. Of course, you can activate the old Single mode, but the results will be worse.
* Removed the output of information about the speed of the test. This parameter was used to debug MEMbech and is not valuable to users.
* Added pop-up hints for MEMbench.
* A slight change in the color scheme MEMbench. Color graphs vary depending on the mode used. Thanks to this, in the future it will be easier for you to recognize the mode in which the test was done.
* Added system time in System info. Validation time is a prerequisite.
* Added "Max RAM" button. Calculation of the maximum-free ammount of RAM. Ideal for Memtest mode.
* Fixed a bug where the application allowed Memtest to run when there was a shortage of RAM.
* Added button-link to MEMbench results page.




https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/
https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html
https://www.computerbase.de/downloads/systemtools/dram-calculator-ryzen/


----------



## xlollomanx

Not sure if something has been changed, but on Samsung E-die 1.5.1 still gives crazy result, even werdier than before.


----------



## Nighthog

CJMitsuki said:


> I have used Biostar boards and they are some of the worst boards for overclocking of any sort. Your problems could be a compound of many factors but the biggest would be you running 4x8gb, that is naturally going to put more stress on the IMC and if the trace layout on the board isnt T-Topology then you can assume that the farther away from the cpu the DIMMs are the more voltage they would require since the voltage has to travel farther. Also, have you tried enabling geardown mode instead of running 2T? And what voltages and DIMM temps are you getting? Try just 2 of the sticks of ram and see how much better the result is as well. Also, take the board and clean everything with alcohol well. Ive went as far as getting alcohol in a spray bottle and spraying my entire mobo, every crack and crevice and letting it air dry completely and getting better results afterwards. The tiniest dust bunny in a DIMM slot can cause lots of problems.


No idea what topology this board uses but I reckon my Gigabyte was T-topology. 4sticks or 2 sticks.. it took it like a champ.
I tried running only 2 sticks on the Biostar and you can that way boot 3333Mhz, but the board is not capable(errors) as is currently is with the BIOS implementation. Really some quirky behaviour for RAM. 
And many missing critical settings for tweaking. I suspect daisy-chain, but can't know. It's bad.

CPU side OC is easy and not a hassle at all though. You can even run 130.0Mhz BCLK if you want with boost functioning!(at 110BCLK for sure, gen 1 at least)


----------



## 1usmus

iNeri said:


> Interesting...May be theres some info in this bios for core count and frecuency of ryzen 3000??


unfortunately I did not have time to evaluate ...


----------



## ObscureScience

ObscureScience said:


> So I finally gave this another try. Entered everything 1 by 1 to try and nail down what setting caused me not to boot last time. Turns out it's the Trc setting. The calculator recommends 42, leaving it on auto sets it 75. The lowest I could boot into bios with was 54, getting into windows required 60.
> But I read this article on overclock3d that said the Trc setting don't really offer much in most scenarios.
> 
> But either way, I gained 45 seconds in the built-in memtest compared to stock settings
> Saved result 2 is with Trc on auto.


So I ran Testmem5 with 10 cycles and got 1 error with 1.36v. I tried again with 1.37v and now I got 90 errors before the test was half finished. I bump it to 1.375v and now no errors. Is this normal behavior?
I will run Memtest eventually when I get a hold of a usb stick.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Great work on the new tool ! Will have to give that a blast soon.


----------



## thagabe

Can someone give me some idea how to work on memory tuning? I read through 1usmus's guide but I guess I do not understand the procedure. My threadripper got 2866 stable with the calculator so I proved, at least to myself, that the drams are not faulty at all. Now the hard part, getting them to run at their advertised timings+frequency.

1950x on Asus Extreme Alpha
4x8gb samsung b-dies from g.skill (MADE FOR RYZEN "X")

I don't exactly know the known good for the calculator but 3200 with previous BIOS gave me 2 errors in 8 hours. Same setting with current BIOS gives me 120 errors in 4 hours. I am honestly dumbfounded and frustrated as even Safe profiles (calculator AND Asus's own Stilt's profile) lead to errors.

Mind you errors don't come from membench or the calculator's built in test (at least the problem doesn't show up with in the test) 3-4 runs. It does show up when running karhu's ram test which made me think maybe that program was wacko but when I ran JDEC 2133 10+ hours with no errors and then 2866 in 8+ hours with no errors I am leaning more toward the software is fine and the timing are not sustainable. 

What I've done so far is:

1) DOCP from the XMP profiles
2) Set calculator REC values
3) Test
4) try Alt 1 (Alt 2 usually doesn't even boot)
5) Test (which leads to fewer errors)
6) play with the range of SOC and DRAM suggested voltages (still fails)

Now what? Which values should i increase/decrease first? CL? RTC? 

Anyone could suggest safe values even if they are loose? I would like to at least start off with stable values before tightening the timings. Maybe use v2 profile from the calculator? I feel [email protected] is too much for my IMC.


----------



## CJMitsuki

thagabe said:


> Can someone give me some idea how to work on memory tuning? I read through 1usmus's guide but I guess I do not understand the procedure. My threadripper got 2866 stable with the calculator so I proved, at least to myself, that the drams are not faulty at all. Now the hard part, getting them to run at their advertised timings+frequency.
> 
> 1950x on Asus Extreme Alpha
> 4x8gb samsung b-dies from g.skill (MADE FOR RYZEN "X")
> 
> I don't exactly know the known good for the calculator but 3200 with previous BIOS gave me 2 errors in 8 hours. Same setting with current BIOS gives me 120 errors in 4 hours. I am honestly dumbfounded and frustrated as even Safe profiles (calculator AND Asus's own Stilt's profile) lead to errors.
> 
> Mind you errors don't come from membench or the calculator's built in test (at least the problem doesn't show up with in the test) 3-4 runs. It does show up when running karhu's ram test which made me think maybe that program was wacko but when I ran JDEC 2133 10+ hours with no errors and then 2866 in 8+ hours with no errors I am leaning more toward the software is fine and the timing are not sustainable.
> 
> What I've done so far is:
> 
> 1) DOCP from the XMP profiles
> 2) Set calculator REC values
> 3) Test
> 4) try Alt 1 (Alt 2 usually doesn't even boot)
> 5) Test (which leads to fewer errors)
> 6) play with the range of SOC and DRAM suggested voltages (still fails)
> 
> Now what? Which values should i increase/decrease first? CL? RTC?
> 
> Anyone could suggest safe values even if they are loose? I would like to at least start off with stable values before tightening the timings. Maybe use v2 profile from the calculator? I feel [email protected] is too much for my IMC.



Honestly Samsung BDie can handle much higher voltages than other dies without adversely affecting them. I have had my set for 2.5 years and I start at 1.45v DRAM voltage. Although, I usually go for max daily performance which generally needs 1.5v. Performance of the DRAM has never degraded and ive ran them at 1.5v+ daily for well over a year at this point. With that being said, 1.45v is plenty safe and above that you should have either a small fan blowing directly on the ram or an aftermarket ram cooler. Staying between 20-30c is my sweet spot but I maintain stability above those temps. I made my own Ram cooler from an old gtx660 set of gpu fans and fabbed up a crude but effective way to mount them using some sheetmetal left over from removing a hard drive cage from a case then coated it with plastidip and when gently pressed onto the "fins" of the tridentZ heatsink the rubberized mounts pinch and hold onto the fins. 



Note: One reason you get lower freqs is the combination of using a 4x8gb kit and a TR but try some higher dram voltages while monitoring the DIMM temps during a heavy memory test and if you dont exceed 35-40c you should be fine to run at 1.45v on BDie easily. Then you can just start testing soc voltages starting at 1v and moving up one increment everytime until you find the value that produces the least errors or you become stable. Then you can start optimizing timings and resistances.




Spoiler



Some timings to try: 14, 15, 14(15), 14(15), 30, 44, 4, 6, 24, 4, 8(10), 12, 0, 2(3), 2(3), 280(320), 14, 8, 7, 3, 1, 7, 7, 1, 5, 5, 1 

Other settings: *Proc_Odt* - 53ohm(48) 
*Rtt_nom, Rtt_wr, Rtt_park* - RZQ/7, off, RZQ/3
*CAD_BUS* *DRV *- 20(24)ohm, 20(24)ohm, 20(24)ohm, 20(24)ohm *CAD_BUS AddrCmd, CsOdt, Cke - *0(1), 0(1), 0(1)
G*ear Down Mode* - Enabled
*Power Down *- Disabled
*BGS *- Disabled
*BGS ALT - *Enabled


*Leave everything in Tweakers Paradise on AUTO except maybe CLDO_VDDP which you could try at 700*

*DRAM voltage - *1.45v depending on DIMM temps
*DRAM Boot Voltage *- same as DRAM voltage


*Interleaving* - Channel
*Interleaving Size* - 512kb
*Interleaving Hash* - Enabled
*Memory Clear* - Disabled
*HW Prefetche*r - Enabled
*Opcache* - Enabled
*Spread Spectrum* - Enabled (This will probably be found in the DIGI VRM menu when Switching frequency on the cpu is set to either AUTO or Manual IIRC)


*Start at 2933mhz and if stable then bump up until you find max freq then you can tweak timings etc*


----------



## Rapidian

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.5.1 + MEMbench 0.7*
> 
> @1usmus: The "Fast" Ryzen+, Samsung B-die value for tRFC has gone from 252 before (prev versions of the tool) to 264 now at 3200 MT/s. Do you expect this? That value is even above the alt number, which is 256. Isn't this strange? I was not expecting this change from v1.5.0 to v1.5.1.​


----------



## iNeri

1usmus said:


> unfortunately I did not have time to evaluate ...


Thanks anyway bro. You make more than we deserve 

Its only 2 weeks more anyway.


----------



## crakej

Unknownm said:


> I'm just wondering if auto will effect stability but I will watch out for that. I didn't have any luck posting with dram calculator yet trying to rule out any settings
> 
> Thanks!


Meant to answer the other day - tRFC2/4 aren't used by Ryzen - I've experimented and tried setting them to all kinds of values - it makes no difference. You can leave those 2 on auto and forget about them


----------



## thrallbr

Hello friends, my computer not booted with this new DRAM Ryzen Calculator 1.5.0.5

I've used the old calculator 1.4.1 and it worked perfectly. 

What changed in calculator which not works for me now?

Here is the screenshot from 1.4.1 which worked for me, the selected BLACK is what i've changed on the bios.









Here is the new screenshot from the 1.5.0.5 which my computer not booted.


----------



## ylpkm

Heads up y'all. SMT will lower your overclocking potential for the cpu at a given voltage, as well as ram overclocks. I could not get anything past 3200mhz stable until I disabled SMT hyperthreading. Rocking 3466mhz at cl 14 now. Days wasted, and I'm passing the savings onto you. You serious about ram OC'ing? Disable SMT. 

ryzen 1600, trident z, x370 sli plus mobo. 3.9ghz at 1.3750v, 3466mhz cl 14 at 1.5v. Could prob drop the voltage for the ram, but something was crashing my games til I bumped up my cpu voltage.


----------



## rdr09

ylpkm said:


> Heads up y'all. SMT will lower your overclocking potential for the cpu at a given voltage, as well as ram overclocks. I could not get anything past 3200mhz stable until I disabled SMT hyperthreading. Rocking 3466mhz at cl 14 now. Days wasted, and I'm passing the savings onto you. You serious about ram OC'ing? Disable SMT.
> 
> ryzen 1600, trident z, x370 sli plus mobo. 3.9ghz at 1.3750v, 3466mhz cl 14 at 1.5v. Could prob drop the voltage for the ram, but something was crashing my games til I bumped up my cpu voltage.


Did you play with SOC voltage with SMT off? I had no issue oc'ing my 1600 to 3.9 and the RAM to 3466 CL14 (FLareX, though) using the calculator. I will try your method with the Ripjaws. 

You play Witcher 3? How does the cpu handle multi-threaded games with SMT off?


----------



## dspx

Seems like this is an interesting piece of memory which easily overclocks - Micron E-die 16 nm. Did anyone have any experience with it?

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Ballistix/Sport_AT_3200_MHz/


----------



## rdr09

dspx said:


> Seems like this is an interesting piece of memory which easily overclocks - Micron E-die 16 nm. Did anyone have any experience with it?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Ballistix/Sport_AT_3200_MHz/


It's Read/Write/Copy performance is half of that of Ripjaws V 3200 CL16. Could be the the system used. Can't really compare latency cos they used an intel system.


----------



## Unknownm

Finally stable using dram calculator but what I like to call 3800mhz timings on 3533mhz boot.

I've been following the guide correctly from TPU.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/5.html

actually the ram wont boot 3266-3000-3333-3400 from dram calculator with rec, alt 1-3 including min to max volts. It does boot 3600 safe and debug but both fail prime95 after 4h. I decided to apply 3800mhz calculator onto 3600mhz but this failed prime95 overnight. Just woke up and found 3533 (w 3800 timings) passes 8h prime! The bandwidth on aida64 still much higher with loose 3533mhz ram than stock 3200mhz

Edit: also used tRFC calculator to get tRFC 2 & 4 values. 
Frequency / 2000 x tRFC timing = tRFC ns


----------



## dspx

rdr09 said:


> It's Read/Write/Copy performance is half of that of Ripjaws V 3200 CL16. Could be the the system used. Can't really compare latency cos they used an intel system.


That is because only a single module was tested, instead of a 2x8 GB kit.


----------



## thrallbr

Anyone?



thrallbr said:


> Hello friends, my computer not booted with this new DRAM Ryzen Calculator 1.5.0.5
> 
> I've used the old calculator 1.4.1 and it worked perfectly.
> 
> What changed in calculator which not works for me now?
> 
> Here is the screenshot from 1.4.1 which worked for me, the selected BLACK is what i've changed on the bios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the new screenshot from the 1.5.0.5 which my computer not booted.


----------



## rdr09

Unknownm said:


> Finally stable using dram calculator but what I like to call 3800mhz timings on 3533mhz boot.
> 
> I've been following the guide correctly from TPU.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/5.html
> 
> actually the ram wont boot 3266-3000-3333-3400 from dram calculator with rec, alt 1-3 including min to max volts. It does boot 3600 safe and debug but both fail prime95 after 4h. I decided to apply 3800mhz calculator onto 3600mhz but this failed prime95 overnight. Just woke up and found 3533 (w 3800 timings) passes 8h prime! The bandwidth on aida64 still much higher with loose 3533mhz ram than stock 3200mhz
> 
> Edit: also used tRFC calculator to get tRFC 2 & 4 values.
> Frequency / 2000 x tRFC timing = tRFC ns


Good job!



dspx said:


> That is because only a single module was tested, instead of a 2x8 GB kit.


Oh i see. Did not even look. So, its about as fast as the Ripjaw V 3200 CL16. Did they test the rest Single, too?


----------



## rdr09

thrallbr said:


> Anyone?


Why not just go with what works? Were they the same BIOS version.


----------



## Bubar37

Hi can someone can confirm that H5AN8G8N?FR-TFC is AFR ? Thx


----------



## crakej

Bubar37 said:


> Hi can someone can confirm that H5AN8G8N?FR-TFC is AFR ? Thx


Just run Thaiphoon - that will tell you everything.

Normally, there isn't a '?' - it would normally say MFR or AFR, but Thaiphoon will tell you.


----------



## Reous

It says ?FR if you have a new kit that Thaiphoon doesn't know yet. Later versions probably will recognize it as CJR, MFR or AFR.


----------



## crakej

Reous said:


> It says ?FR if you have a new kit that Thaiphoon doesn't know yet. Later versions probably will recognize it as CJR, MFR or AFR.


Thanks Reous - was wondering why it was there....


----------



## thagabe

CJMitsuki said:


> Honestly Samsung BDie can handle much higher voltages than other dies without adversely affecting them. I have had my set for 2.5 years and I start at 1.45v DRAM voltage. Although, I usually go for max daily performance which generally needs 1.5v. Performance of the DRAM has never degraded and ive ran them at 1.5v+ daily for well over a year at this point. With that being said, 1.45v is plenty safe and above that you should have either a small fan blowing directly on the ram or an aftermarket ram cooler. Staying between 20-30c is my sweet spot but I maintain stability above those temps. I made my own Ram cooler from an old gtx660 set of gpu fans and fabbed up a crude but effective way to mount them using some sheetmetal left over from removing a hard drive cage from a case then coated it with plastidip and when gently pressed onto the "fins" of the tridentZ heatsink the rubberized mounts pinch and hold onto the fins.
> 
> 
> 
> Note: One reason you get lower freqs is the combination of using a 4x8gb kit and a TR but try some higher dram voltages while monitoring the DIMM temps during a heavy memory test and if you dont exceed 35-40c you should be fine to run at 1.45v on BDie easily. Then you can just start testing soc voltages starting at 1v and moving up one increment everytime until you find the value that produces the least errors or you become stable. Then you can start optimizing timings and resistances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Some timings to try: 14, 15, 14(15), 14(15), 30, 44, 4, 6, 24, 4, 8(10), 12, 0, 2(3), 2(3), 280(320), 14, 8, 7, 3, 1, 7, 7, 1, 5, 5, 1
> 
> Other settings: *Proc_Odt* - 53ohm(48)
> *Rtt_nom, Rtt_wr, Rtt_park* - RZQ/7, off, RZQ/3
> *CAD_BUS* *DRV *- 20(24)ohm, 20(24)ohm, 20(24)ohm, 20(24)ohm *CAD_BUS AddrCmd, CsOdt, Cke - *0(1), 0(1), 0(1)
> G*ear Down Mode* - Enabled
> *Power Down *- Disabled
> *BGS *- Disabled
> *BGS ALT - *Enabled
> 
> 
> *Leave everything in Tweakers Paradise on AUTO except maybe CLDO_VDDP which you could try at 700*
> 
> *DRAM voltage - *1.45v depending on DIMM temps
> *DRAM Boot Voltage *- same as DRAM voltage
> 
> 
> *Interleaving* - Channel
> *Interleaving Size* - 512kb
> *Interleaving Hash* - Enabled
> *Memory Clear* - Disabled
> *HW Prefetche*r - Enabled
> *Opcache* - Enabled
> *Spread Spectrum* - Enabled (This will probably be found in the DIGI VRM menu when Switching frequency on the cpu is set to either AUTO or Manual IIRC)
> 
> 
> *Start at 2933mhz and if stable then bump up until you find max freq then you can tweak timings etc*


You blue astralian, mate. I started with the lose timings and 2933 last night at around 3 am. Woke up by 7 and it was 0 errors I will continue testing :thumb:


----------



## Ceadderman

Wrong thread. Apologies. :blushsmil

~Ceadder :drink:


----------



## rdr09

thagabe said:


> You blue astralian, mate. I started with the lose timings and 2933 last night at around 3 am. Woke up by 7 and it was 0 errors I will continue testing :thumb:


Have you tried 3133MHz?


----------



## dspx

rdr09 said:


> Oh i see. Did not even look. So, its about as fast as the Ripjaw V 3200 CL16. Did they test the rest Single, too?


It looks like it.


----------



## CJMitsuki

thagabe said:


> You blue astralian, mate. I started with the lose timings and 2933 last night at around 3 am. Woke up by 7 and it was 0 errors I will continue testing :thumb:


Good deal! Thats what thousands of hours of B Die overclocking netted me. I can usually get a set and have it stable in 10 min, providing the hardware is good. That set will do the tighter timings im betting. At least you have somewhere stable to start now.


----------



## spyder256

Why am I getting a "Not supported!" message when I put in the same settings as in your screenshot?


----------



## Unknownm

rdr09 said:


> Good job!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh i see. Did not even look. So, its about as fast as the Ripjaw V 3200 CL16. Did they test the rest Single, too?


Thank you. Any recommendations for hitting 3600?

Obviously the calculator wont get there but I wonder what timings can be applied to hit 3.6ghz

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## DeyEatDaPooPoo

@1usmus

Thank you so much for releasing and continuing to develop this tool. I have kinda crappy Hynix M-Die that was stuck at 2933MHz with loose timings for over a year on my system because the 3200MHz XMP profile didn't work with my CPU, I didn't know about the program and changing all the timings seemed very daunting so I loaded the XMP profile, lowered the frequency to 2933MHz, and called it a day. 

Unfortunately that left me with 16-18-18-38-56 timings which definitely wasn't ideal. Thanks to your program coupled with Thaipoon Burner I was able to increase my memory speed to 3066MHz while lowering my main timings to 14-16-16-36-54 and decreasing my sub-timings as well. The memory stability testing tool that's built in also helped me figure out that 3200MHz wasn't gonna be worth it in my case because I had to set the timings way too loose. Again thank you, you're a legend.


----------



## thrallbr

Because today i will receive my new motherboard, and i want to know what i've failed to use correct on it and overclock my rams better



rdr09 said:


> Why not just go with what works? Were they the same BIOS version.


----------



## Keith Myers

Did I miss the conversation I assume happened here about Samsung stopping B-die production with EOL 191Q? I wondered why I have had such a hard time finding what used to be common G. Skill 8GB B-die modules anywhere for sale.

I just learned about it now from here. Samsung Rings B-Die Memory Death Knell

So what is everybody going to use for equivalent speed and latency now that B-die is no more? Bad timing for the loss of B-dies and the advent of Ryzen 3000.


----------



## paih85

right now im on latest combo agesa 1.0.0.2. intercore latency improve a bit compare to agesa 0.0.7.0/0.0.7.2.

Mobo: Gigabyte x470 gaming7


----------



## rdr09

Keith Myers said:


> Did I miss the conversation I assume happened here about Samsung stopping B-die production with EOL 191Q? I wondered why I have had such a hard time finding what used to be common G. Skill 8GB B-die modules anywhere for sale.
> 
> I just learned about it now from here. Samsung Rings B-Die Memory Death Knell
> 
> So what is everybody going to use for equivalent speed and latency now that B-die is no more? Bad timing for the loss of B-dies and the advent of Ryzen 3000.


You can buy now.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...X&cm_re=G.Skill_FlareX-_-20-232-530-_-Product

It got cheaper. This i think is B-die as well.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...pjaws_V_DDR4_3200_CL14-_-20-232-217-_-Product


----------



## Keith Myers

rdr09 said:


> You can buy now.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...X&cm_re=G.Skill_FlareX-_-20-232-530-_-Product
> 
> It got cheaper. This i think is B-die as well.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...pjaws_V_DDR4_3200_CL14-_-20-232-217-_-Product


Thanks for the links. I have always bought Trident-Z. None of them to be found for a long time.


----------



## nick name

Keith Myers said:


> Thanks for the links. I have always bought Trident-Z. None of them to be found for a long time.


This is the kit I have and they are significantly cheaper than when I bought them. They've also dropped in price since I looked them up last month when they were a little over $200. 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...cm_re=G.Skill_tridentz-_-20-232-306-_-Product



And this kit is also cheaper than what I paid for my 3600CL15 kit a year ago. Might be worth looking out for when they return. 4000CL17

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...cm_re=G.Skill_tridentz-_-20-232-674-_-Product

But if you don't wanna wait you can pay a little more for the flashy Royals:

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232769


----------



## Keith Myers

nick name said:


> This is the kit I have and they are significantly cheaper than when I bought them. They've also dropped in price since I looked them up last month when they were a little over $200.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...cm_re=G.Skill_tridentz-_-20-232-306-_-Product
> 
> 
> 
> And this kit is also cheaper than what I paid for my 3600CL15 kit a year ago. Might be worth looking out for when they return. 4000CL17
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...cm_re=G.Skill_tridentz-_-20-232-674-_-Product
> 
> But if you don't wanna wait you can pay a little more for the flashy Royals:
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232769


I blame the RGB fad for the reduction in normal non-RGB product lines. I won't touch RGB with a ten foot pole. The price on that Trident Z kit is back to what I paid for mine originally back in 2017.


----------



## nick name

Keith Myers said:


> I blame the RGB fad for the reduction in normal non-RGB product lines. I won't touch RGB with a ten foot pole. The price on that Trident Z kit is back to what I paid for mine originally back in 2017.


I agree on the RGB front. What I wish G.Skill would do is sell those plastic trim pieces. They only sold the 3600CL15 kit with the red trim, but I'd much rather have black or white. And don't even get me started on those hideous Royal sets.


----------



## thagabe

CJMitsuki said:


> Good deal! Thats what thousands of hours of B Die overclocking netted me. I can usually get a set and have it stable in 10 min, providing the hardware is good. That set will do the tighter timings im betting. At least you have somewhere stable to start now.


Currently on [email protected]@1.45v Currently no error on an hour on karhu ram test! You truly are the best man! I dang nearly gave up on overclocking! :thumb:


----------



## thomasck

Just printed the label to send back a patriot viper 4000 cl19 kit paid a good price on it, shame.. I was hoping to use it around 3466 and higher later on with Zen 2, but it fails with hci at 3200, 3333, 3400 and 3466. TM5 passes but I don't consider that totally reliable to say it's stable. 

I'm gonna stick with my old hynix mfr which is stable at 3200 thanks to the calculator, but now running with tighter primary timings. 

1800x + taichi x370

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## crakej

thomasck said:


> Just printed the label to send back a patriot viper 4000 cl19 kit paid a good price on it, shame.. I was hoping to use it around 3466 and higher later on with Zen 2, but it fails with hci at 3200, 3333, 3400 and 3466. TM5 passes but I don't consider that totally reliable to say it's stable.
> 
> I'm gonna stick with my old hynix mfr which is stable at 3200 thanks to the calculator, but now running with tighter primary timings.
> 
> 1800x + taichi x370
> 
> Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


I've had really good experience with Patriot Viper Steel 4400C19s - less than half the price of my 4266 Trident Zs but perform better than them so far....


----------



## thomasck

crakej said:


> I've had really good experience with Patriot Viper Steel 4400C19s - less than half the price of my 4266 Trident Zs but perform better than them so far....


I can't share the same experience, sadly. The combo of the imc zen 1 + x370 caps us at 3400/3466. However I can't figure out why the vipers were not stable 3200-3466 neither with xmp/calc values and a high range of voltage, 1.35-1.55V. Maybe one of the sticks were faulty.

ATM these Mfr are running at 14 14 15 15 36 56, "I know" tRC (56) should be tRP (15) + tRAS (36) but if done like that gets unstable, I'm lowering bit by bit to see if I get some extra juice from it.

tFAW would be tRRDSx4 or x8 IIRC and so on. I'm researching to see where I can get these sticks, as 3333+ is just impossible for me.



Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## CJMitsuki

thagabe said:


> Currently on [email protected]@1.45v Currently no error on an hour on karhu ram test! You truly are the best man! I dang nearly gave up on overclocking! :thumb:


Ive been there many times wanting to just throw my ram but honestly its times such as those where you learn the most about your ram. The secret is to have a notebook and write every single change down and how it affected stability and performance. After about a thousand hours of watching the behaviors of a certain Die you start to see that the ram has a personality and while even B Die to B Die can be different there are some characteristics they will always share since they are family and all. Like B Die and voltage It loves voltage more than other Dies but it will have a negative effect if you overfeed it. B Die seems to have the smoothest feeling timings and by that I mean it doesnt use something crazy like 15-22-17-19 or some **** its almost always 14-14-14-14 or 14-15-14-14 and even in many cases 14-13-13-13 all of that depends on how tight you have the secondary and tertiaries of course. another thing Ive found with B Die is that setting tCWL to (Cas - 2) is optimal most of the time as well as tRRDS, tRRDL, and tFAW at 4-4-16. tFAW has a huge impact on actual performance and despite what many believe, higher number in AIDA64 do not equate to real performance. Its actually bad to use it to determine performance as you can have a nice AIDA64 result but have horribly optimized subtimings which will result on lower performance. Ill take 3400 with beautiful timings over 3733mhz with **** subtimings anyday.

In short, after you find the highest frequency you can get stable, drop back to the one below that and then tune the timings. Youll end up with a much better result in the end :thumb:


----------



## Nighthog

thomasck said:


> I can't share the same experience, sadly. The combo of the imc zen 1 + x370 caps us at 3400/3466. However I can't figure out why the vipers were not stable 3200-3466 neither with xmp/calc values and a high range of voltage, 1.35-1.55V. Maybe one of the sticks were faulty.
> 
> ATM these Mfr are running at 14 14 15 15 36 56, "I know" tRC (56) should be tRP (15) + tRAS (36) but if done like that gets unstable, I'm lowering bit by bit to see if I get some extra juice from it.
> 
> tFAW would be tRRDSx4 or x8 IIRC and so on. I'm researching to see where I can get these sticks, as 3333+ is just impossible for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


If you have voltage settings for VDDP try putting that higher, same for DDR VPP, it enabled me to lower my tRAS and tRC much easier when I put VDDP in the 0.990V range from stock 0.900V on my Biostar board and Micron E-die. DDR VPP with a positive +0.105-0.140V did help as well. 
Mostly it allowed the system to boot/post when earlier it refused with lower tRAS & tRC values and added stability.


----------



## thomasck

Nighthog said:


> If you have voltage settings for VDDP try putting that higher, same for DDR VPP, it enabled me to lower my tRAS and tRC much easier when I put VDDP in the 0.990V range from stock 0.900V on my Biostar board and Micron E-die. DDR VPP with a positive +0.105-0.140V did help as well.
> Mostly it allowed the system to boot/post when earlier it refused with lower tRAS & tRC values and added stability.


I will double check these values, IIRC I already bumped them, if not, I'll give a try. Thanks for you input, I'll report back!


----------



## nick name

I never knew you could set tWRWRSC/tWRWRSD and tRDRDSD/tRDRDDD to the same value. Everything I've seen always has them varied by 2. 7/7 5/5 or 6/6 4/4 or 5/5 3/3. But then I looked at the preset on the CH7 for 3466MHz and it's set up as 4/4 4/4.


----------



## dspx

Crucial Ballistix Sport LT Micron E-Die (19 nm) @ 3733 MHz CL16 1.4V

https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/bqnsll/micron_edie_3733mhz_cas16_14v/


----------



## dspx

F*ck it, I ordered a 3000 CL15 pair, should be here in approximately 10 days. Can't wait to test it.


----------



## Ceadderman

spyder256 said:


> Why am I getting a "Not supported!" message when I put in the same settings as in your screenshot?


Did you run Typhoon Burner prior to using 1.5?

I had the same happen to me, but once I added the values from TB, the issue rectified itself. I'm thinking maybe you didn't add in the values to 1.5? :thinking:

~Ceadder :drink:


----------



## zyxwvu4321

I'm having to redo the overclock on my system after accidentally overwriting the profile I had saved in my BIOS. So far, I've gotten my 2600 to run 4.2GHz at 1.3125v and have just gotten my RAM good with the 3400 Fast presets from the calculator. After getting a chance to read the article on TechPowerUp, should I be selecting B350/X370 for the Topology section since I have an X470 Taichi? I've been using the B450/X470 option thus far.


----------



## ilmazzo

zyxwvu4321 said:


> I'm having to redo the overclock on my system after accidentally overwriting the profile I had saved in my BIOS. So far, I've gotten my 2600 to run 4.2GHz at 1.3125v and have just gotten my RAM good with the 3400 Fast presets from the calculator. After getting a chance to read the article on TechPowerUp, should I be selecting B350/X370 for the Topology section since I have an X470 Taichi? I've been using the B450/X470 option thus far.


I'm interested too

I tried X470 obviously, the doubt is on the "dual slot" option (if I'm not wrong) what is intended for (Threadripper?)


----------



## Exostenza

Couple of questions:

Is there any use to using TM5 v3 config now that there is this new membench 0.7 with the dram calculator 1.5.1? What are the differences in these two tools? Also, why does 1.5.1 have looser trfc values than 1.4.1 when they work(ed) perfectly? What is the reasoning behind that new calculation? For example it now says to put it to 264 on the same configuration when it previously recommended 252 which works just great.

Thanks


----------



## ilmazzo

these are suggestions, if they work for your combo of cpu/mobo/ram kit stick to the old values


----------



## Exostenza

ilmazzo said:


> these are suggestions, if they work for your combo of cpu/mobo/ram kit stick to the old values


I understand they are suggestions. I was just wondering if something fundamental changed in the way 1usmus is now calculating for RAM timings and if so what that change is; curiosity about the underlying process as I like to know as much as possible.


----------



## Rapidian

Rapidian said:


> @1usmus: The "Fast" Ryzen+, Samsung B-die value for tRFC has gone from 252 before (prev versions of the tool) to 264 now at 3200 MT/s. Do you expect this? That value is even above the alt number, which is 256. Isn't this strange? I was not expecting this change from v1.5.0 to v1.5.1.





Exostenza said:


> Also, why does 1.5.1 have looser trfc values than 1.4.1 when they work(ed) perfectly? What is the reasoning behind that new calculation? For example it now says to put it to 264 on the same configuration when it previously recommended 252 which works just great.


Hey @Exostenza, I have the same question and asked it quite some time ago. I don't understand why the new calculator has loosened up the tRFC when the previous one was tighter. Even on the new AGESA that BIOSes have now, 252 works well. I have kept using the 1.4.1 timings for Fast 3200 of my Flare-X RAM. There are no memory errors and as things heat up still no problems. I'd like to understand the same thing.


----------



## Unknownm

What's a PC? Windows? Gaming? I'm not sure since buying my first AMD/DDR4 hardware I have not been able to benchmark or play games lol. There's so many frustrating moments setting memtest/prime95 overnight thinking "this is it" and waking up only to see Yellow light or 1-all cores failed.

but not today! almost feels like a dream, this can't be real, the punishment isn't over. What did I switch? 

TL : DR, weeks of testing

Inside the BIOS SPD viewer, XMP shows tRFC-2-4 values @ 560-416-256

Dram calculator: Hynix CJR - V1 - 3200 - 2 stixs - B450/X470 XMP shows tRFC 300ns, 3200Mhz & 300ns = 480-357-219

That doesn't seem right! so rebooted, enabled XMP and default memory options in BIOS, run Dram Calculator and start comparing timings of memory type to XMP settings. "Micron B-Die" was almost exact to mine and was "350ns". Applied Micron B-die "safe" timings and overnight prime95 reached 32768K no errors!. Just happy something is stable...






Spoiler



[Thu May 23 20:55:58 2019]
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:01:06 2019]
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:09:54 2019]
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 672K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:14:57 2019]
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 768K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:20:00 2019]
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 800K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
Self-test 896K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:27:28 2019]
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 960K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:32:45 2019]
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1024K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:38:18 2019]
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1120K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
Self-test 1152K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:44:53 2019]
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1280K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:50:43 2019]
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1344K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
[Thu May 23 21:55:53 2019]
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1440K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1536K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:01:03 2019]
Self-test 1536K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1600K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:06:07 2019]
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1680K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:11:19 2019]
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1792K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:17:12 2019]
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 1920K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:23:03 2019]
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2048K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:28:17 2019]
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2240K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
Self-test 2304K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:33:27 2019]
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2400K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:38:37 2019]
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2560K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:44:03 2019]
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2688K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:49:37 2019]
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 2800K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
[Thu May 23 22:55:14 2019]
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 2880K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:00:33 2019]
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3072K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:05:37 2019]
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3200K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:10:57 2019]
Self-test 3360K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 3584K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:16:32 2019]
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 3840K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:21:52 2019]
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4096K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:27:02 2019]
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4480K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:32:26 2019]
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 4608K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:38:07 2019]
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 4800K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:43:22 2019]
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:48:23 2019]
Self-test 5120K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:53:38 2019]
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5376K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
[Thu May 23 23:59:16 2019]
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 5600K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:04:56 2019]
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 5760K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:10:47 2019]
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 6144K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:16:17 2019]
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 6400K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:22:04 2019]
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 6720K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:27:45 2019]
Self-test 7168K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 7680K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:32:49 2019]
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 8000K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:37:50 2019]
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 8064K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:43:28 2019]
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 8192K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:48:41 2019]
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 8960K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:54:02 2019]
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 9216K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
[Fri May 24 00:59:17 2019]
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 9600K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 10240K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:04:48 2019]
Self-test 10240K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:09:51 2019]
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 10752K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:15:47 2019]
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 11200K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:20:52 2019]
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 11520K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:25:53 2019]
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 12288K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:31:06 2019]
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 12800K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:36:11 2019]
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 13440K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:41:35 2019]
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 13824K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:46:50 2019]
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 14336K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:52:31 2019]
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 15360K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
[Fri May 24 01:58:04 2019]
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 16000K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:03:26 2019]
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 16128K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:08:46 2019]
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 16384K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:14:11 2019]
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 17920K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:20:04 2019]
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 18432K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:25:31 2019]
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 19200K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:30:42 2019]
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 20480K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:36:20 2019]
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 21504K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:41:24 2019]
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 22400K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:47:11 2019]
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 23040K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:52:24 2019]
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 24576K passed!
[Fri May 24 02:57:49 2019]
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 25600K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
[Fri May 24 03:04:32 2019]
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 26880K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
[Fri May 24 03:10:11 2019]
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 30720K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 28672K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
[Fri May 24 03:15:13 2019]
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 32000K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!
Self-test 32768K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 640K passed!
Self-test 512K passed!
Self-test 560K passed!


----------



## ylpkm

rdr09 said:


> Did you play with SOC voltage with SMT off? I had no issue oc'ing my 1600 to 3.9 and the RAM to 3466 CL14 (FLareX, though) using the calculator. I will try your method with the Ripjaws.
> 
> You play Witcher 3? How does the cpu handle multi-threaded games with SMT off?


Initially I tried with SOC on auto, either it went to 1.22 volts, or stayed low like 1.1 v on my more aggressive memory oc. I didnt like it riding over 1.2, so I tried:
1.1v SOC, mem crashed or threw too many errors.
~1.12, same
said wth, just try 1.2v, 1.2v SOC has been stable. So I left there and haven't messed with it since. Some can argue its not smt, bla bla. I cannot get over 3200mhz ram OC with smt enabled... tried for days. granted 1st gen ryzen, prob the one with the segfault issue or whatever, and early x370 mobo, compatibility is not a selling point here. Ill just leave my data and testing opinion at this, If you have a partially stable memory oc and smt is enabled... try disabling smt and comparing memory errors... I bet smt off will be much more stable. Hopefully 1usmus has seen the pattern or has considered smt a limiting factor and can add input. I assume smt forces the cpu to allocate % of resources on the imc, higher imc usage/resource allocation=less stable overclock and limits oc potential. 

How does the cpu handle multithreaded games with smt off? I have basically been living in Overwatch, havent really played anything else, so heads up, and many argue OV is "memory-bound".
Well what I have noticed from testing is this:

SMT on: 
lower DPC latency averages.
loose but stable fps numbers. (In the sense I perceived a delay in game when it went from high utilization to low, or low to high. This delay is shorter with SMT off.)
("Were fps higher"? I can't say. Changing 1 Onboard Network Connection affects my fps anywhere from 10fps to 130fps, but if I HAD to form an opinion, SMT ON had higher fps averages OR smoother mouse response (not faster, smoother. I will try to confirm or edit post if I retest, I just might. Kinda wanna see Smt off with higher oc's vs smt on lower oc's and see which has higher fps and lower latency.)

SMT off:
DPC latency higher
System responsiveness higher (fps drop but drop absolutely. System either can either render the image at max fps, or it sinks like a rock to where it can be stable. Very short fps drop delay. I know it sounds contradictory, but HT has a delay when a workload shifts across cores/nodes.)

Edit:New beta bios for ryzen 3000 line flash to mobo, can now do 3466 cl 14 easy peasy with smt. But ive been testing latency of various pc factors and dont recall smt on vs off, i think smt on in general results in lower fps.


----------



## zyxwvu4321

This is what I've managed to get so far. CAD_BUS numbers in Ryzen Timing Checker obviously wrong. All 4 values are set at 24 ohms in the BIOS. Completed 12 instances of memtest to ~2800% with no errors (lost the windows when I ran MEMBench again). Right now I'm trying to get tRFC a little lower. Set it at 295 with all the other setting the same, and currently memtest is up to ~550% with no errors.

Voltage settings in BIOS: VCore = 1.3125v, LLC 2; VSoC = 1.025v, LLC 5; VDRAM = 1.43v


----------



## Exostenza

zyxwvu4321 said:


> This is what I've managed to get so far. CAD_BUS numbers in Ryzen Timing Checker obviously wrong. All 4 values are set at 24 ohms in the BIOS. Completed 12 instances of memtest to ~2800% with no errors (lost the windows when I ran MEMBench again). Right now I'm trying to get tRFC a little lower. Set it at 295 with all the other setting the same, and currently memtest is up to ~550% with no errors.
> 
> Voltage settings in BIOS: VCore = 1.3125v, LLC 2; VSoC = 1.025v, LLC 5; VDRAM = 1.43v


I have found that VSOC @ 1.1v and less DRAM voltage works much better. I think all motherboard just default to VSOC at 1.1v when you OC the RAM anyways and it is far from the 1.25v limit so you'll be fine in the long run. Just a thought for you. It also helps if you're OCing your CPU so it just can't hurt.


----------



## Ramad

Unknownm said:


> What's a PC? Windows? Gaming? I'm not sure since buying my first AMD/DDR4 hardware I have not been able to benchmark or play games lol. There's so many frustrating moments setting memtest/prime95 overnight thinking "this is it" and waking up only to see Yellow light or 1-all cores failed.
> 
> but not today! almost feels like a dream, this can't be real, the punishment isn't over. What did I switch?
> 
> TL : DR, weeks of testing
> 
> Inside the BIOS SPD viewer, XMP shows tRFC-2-4 values @ 560-416-256
> 
> Dram calculator: Hynix CJR - V1 - 3200 - 2 stixs - B450/X470 XMP shows tRFC 300ns, 3200Mhz & 300ns = 480-357-219
> 
> That doesn't seem right! so rebooted, enabled XMP and default memory options in BIOS, run Dram Calculator and start comparing timings of memory type to XMP settings. "Micron B-Die" was almost exact to mine and was "350ns". Applied Micron B-die "safe" timings and overnight prime95 reached 32768K no errors!. Just happy something is stable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [Thu May 23 20:55:58 2019]
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:01:06 2019]
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:09:54 2019]
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 672K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:14:57 2019]
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 768K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:20:00 2019]
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 800K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> Self-test 896K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:27:28 2019]
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 960K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:32:45 2019]
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1024K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:38:18 2019]
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1120K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> Self-test 1152K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:44:53 2019]
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1280K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:50:43 2019]
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1344K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> [Thu May 23 21:55:53 2019]
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1440K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:01:03 2019]
> Self-test 1536K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1600K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:06:07 2019]
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1680K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:11:19 2019]
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1792K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:17:12 2019]
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 1920K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:23:03 2019]
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2048K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:28:17 2019]
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2240K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> Self-test 2304K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:33:27 2019]
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2400K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:38:37 2019]
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2560K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:44:03 2019]
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2688K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:49:37 2019]
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 2800K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> [Thu May 23 22:55:14 2019]
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 2880K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:00:33 2019]
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3072K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:05:37 2019]
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3200K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:10:57 2019]
> Self-test 3360K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 3584K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:16:32 2019]
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 3840K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:21:52 2019]
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4096K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:27:02 2019]
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4480K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:32:26 2019]
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 4608K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:38:07 2019]
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 4800K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:43:22 2019]
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:48:23 2019]
> Self-test 5120K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:53:38 2019]
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5376K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> [Thu May 23 23:59:16 2019]
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 5600K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:04:56 2019]
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 5760K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:10:47 2019]
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 6144K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:16:17 2019]
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 6400K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:22:04 2019]
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 6720K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:27:45 2019]
> Self-test 7168K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 7680K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:32:49 2019]
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 8000K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:37:50 2019]
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 8064K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:43:28 2019]
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 8192K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:48:41 2019]
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 8960K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:54:02 2019]
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 9216K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> [Fri May 24 00:59:17 2019]
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 9600K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:04:48 2019]
> Self-test 10240K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:09:51 2019]
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 10752K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:15:47 2019]
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 11200K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:20:52 2019]
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 11520K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:25:53 2019]
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 12288K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:31:06 2019]
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 12800K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:36:11 2019]
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 13440K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:41:35 2019]
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 13824K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:46:50 2019]
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 14336K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:52:31 2019]
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 15360K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> [Fri May 24 01:58:04 2019]
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 16000K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:03:26 2019]
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 16128K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:08:46 2019]
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 16384K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:14:11 2019]
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 17920K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:20:04 2019]
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 18432K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:25:31 2019]
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 19200K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:30:42 2019]
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 20480K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:36:20 2019]
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 21504K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:41:24 2019]
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 22400K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:47:11 2019]
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 23040K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:52:24 2019]
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 24576K passed!
> [Fri May 24 02:57:49 2019]
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 25600K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> [Fri May 24 03:04:32 2019]
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 26880K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> [Fri May 24 03:10:11 2019]
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 30720K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 28672K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> [Fri May 24 03:15:13 2019]
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 32000K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!
> Self-test 32768K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 640K passed!
> Self-test 512K passed!
> Self-test 560K passed!


This is the perfect example for why I have been asking members for 1½ years now to use default tRFC timings but to no avail, more than that, to make it even worse a program have been introduced here for RAM testing that tests RAM stability in 15 min.-30 min., which is not enough time for the RAM to heat up and show hidden instabilities. 

tRFC is a refresh timing, an idle state (no read or write is allowed), a data integrity check interval where the RAM recharges the cells holding charge (means 1, opposite to cells with little to no charge = 0) that is about loose charge, means every cell that is holding a charge will be recharged, to make sure that it registers as 1 when the charge is released on a read operation. The question is: how many cells are not recharged and lost charge because tRFC interval has been cut down? 

RAM is heat sensitive because electron migration (electrons migrates from full cells (1) to empty cells (0)) does happen faster when there is a lot of energy, which is the case under heavy duty, and when tRFC is cut in half, say goodbye to stability when the RAM temperature hits 45C-50C.

tRFC intervals depends on heat and die density and are as follows (in every RAM die data sheet that no one reads):

- tRFC: 7.8us up to 85C (8Gbit-350ns, 4Gbit-260ns)
- tRFC-2: 7.8us/2 from 85C to 95C (8Gbit-260ns, 4Gbit-160ns
- tRFC-4: 7.8/4 above 95C (8Gbit-160ns, 4Gbit-110ns)

And Ryzen does use tRFC2 and tRFC4 when RAM hits 85C and above, simply proven by looking at the timings table in the BIOS, if tRFC2 and tRFC4 input feilds are there then they are supported (I think that this very simple to check out).


----------



## Unknownm

Ramad said:


> This is the perfect example for why I have been asking members for 1½ years now to use default tRFC timings but to no avail, more than that, to make it even worse a program have been introduced here for RAM testing that tests RAM stability in 15 min.-30 min., which is not enough time for the RAM to heat up and show hidden instabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC is a refresh timing, an idle state (no read or write is allowed), a data integrity check interval where the RAM recharges the cells holding charge (means 1, opposite to cells with little to no charge = 0) that is about loose charge, means every cell that is holding a charge will be recharged, to make sure that it registers as 1 when the charge is released on a read operation. The question is: how many cells are not recharged and lost charge because tRFC interval has been cut down?
> 
> 
> 
> RAM is heat sensitive because electron migration (electrons migrates from full cells (1) to empty cells (0)) does happen faster when there is a lot of energy, which is the case under heavy duty, and when tRFC is cut in half, say goodbye to stability when the RAM temperature hits 45C-50C.
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC intervals depends on heat and die density and are as follows (in every RAM die data sheet that no one reads):
> 
> 
> 
> - tRFC: 7.8us up to 85C (8Gbit-350ns, 4Gbit-260ns)
> 
> - tRFC-2: 7.8us/2 from 85C to 95C (8Gbit-260ns, 4Gbit-160ns
> 
> - tRFC-4: 7.8/4 above 95C (8Gbit-160ns, 4Gbit-110ns)
> 
> 
> 
> And Ryzen does use tRFC2 and tRFC4 when RAM hits 85C and above, simply proven by looking at the timings table in the BIOS, if tRFC2 and tRFC4 input feilds are there then they are supported (I think that this very simple to check out).


 I do agree, 15-30mins to determine if you are stable is incorrect least for me.

Good example is running "Hynix CJR" timings and prime95 always passed 1-2h but 3-4h would fail. It was consistent around 1k to 4k fma3 when 3-4h with ANY frequency/Voltage.

The recommended tRFC (2-4 also) are way to low. Even after switching "Hynix CJR" to "Micron B" timings (300ns vs 350ns) its recommended values did not fit 350ns. 560 = 350ns and dram calculator said 478 and lower for alt timing

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## BLUuuE

Exostenza said:


> I understand they are suggestions. I was just wondering if something fundamental changed in the way 1usmus is now calculating for RAM timings and if so what that change is; curiosity about the underlying process as I like to know as much as possible.


https://www.jetbrains.com/decompiler/


----------



## CJMitsuki

Exostenza said:


> I have found that VSOC @ 1.1v and less DRAM voltage works much better. I think all motherboard just default to VSOC at 1.1v when you OC the RAM anyways and it is far from the 1.25v limit so you'll be fine in the long run. Just a thought for you. It also helps if you're OCing your CPU so it just can't hurt.


All CPUs are unique and there will be no "set in stone" vSOC, the right SOC voltage is only found through testing a range of voltages and finding the most stable result. This can also change as frequency changes but is not always the case. SOC is always one of the first settings I dial in. Also some have a misconception that increasing the SOC will grant a more stable result and this is also not always the case. A CPU has a personality and it has a certain SOC voltage range it will favor and increasing it or decreasing it outside of that range will yield a less stable setup.



Ramad said:


> This is the perfect example for why I have been asking members for 1½ years now to use default tRFC timings but to no avail, more than that, to make it even worse a program have been introduced here for RAM testing that tests RAM stability in 15 min.-30 min., which is not enough time for the RAM to heat up and show hidden instabilities.
> 
> tRFC is a refresh timing, an idle state (no read or write is allowed), a data integrity check interval where the RAM recharges the cells holding charge (means 1, opposite to cells with little to no charge = 0) that is about loose charge, means every cell that is holding a charge will be recharged, to make sure that it registers as 1 when the charge is released on a read operation. The question is: how many cells are not recharged and lost charge because tRFC interval has been cut down?
> 
> RAM is heat sensitive because electron migration (electrons migrates from full cells (1) to empty cells (0)) does happen faster when there is a lot of energy, which is the case under heavy duty, and when tRFC is cut in half, say goodbye to stability when the RAM temperature hits 45C-50C.
> 
> tRFC intervals depends on heat and die density and are as follows (in every RAM die data sheet that no one reads):
> 
> - tRFC: 7.8us up to 85C (8Gbit-350ns, 4Gbit-260ns)
> - tRFC-2: 7.8us/2 from 85C to 95C (8Gbit-260ns, 4Gbit-160ns
> - tRFC-4: 7.8/4 above 95C (8Gbit-160ns, 4Gbit-110ns)
> 
> And Ryzen does use tRFC2 and tRFC4 when RAM hits 85C and above, simply proven by looking at the timings table in the BIOS, if tRFC2 and tRFC4 input feilds are there then they are supported (I think that this very simple to check out).


Just because the timing fields are shown in the bios doesnt mean they are supported by AMD. The motherboard manufacturer chooses what fields to include in the bios and what fields to hide. Perfect example is in the C7H bios where there are fields for tREFI and other timings that just arent supported. You can change them all you want but the tREFI value will not change. AMD likely has many timing fields that can be modified if they would allow the motherboard manufacturers to implement them. Maybe they dont think RYZEN in its current state is mature enough or perhaps they dont want to add another avenue for bugs to manifest when they are near release of the new CPUs, maybe we will be able to change some of those values in a later revision. Who knows? Even if tRFC2 and 4 were used at 85c+ then who is running their ram at those temps? Seems like they would have a more pertinent problem with stability due to not only the ram being that hot but the motherboard and components itself. RAM is usually one of the cooler components of a setup. Even benching and running my RAM at 1.7v it never got anywhere near temps like you are speaking of. You will lose stability at those temps that tRFC adjustments wont solve if you are already running tight timings.



Unknownm said:


> I do agree, 15-30mins to determine if you are stable is incorrect least for me.
> 
> Good example is running "Hynix CJR" timings and prime95 always passed 1-2h but 3-4h would fail. It was consistent around 1k to 4k fma3 when 3-4h with ANY frequency/Voltage.
> 
> The recommended tRFC (2-4 also) are way to low. Even after switching "Hynix CJR" to "Micron B" timings (300ns vs 350ns) its recommended values did not fit 350ns. 560 = 350ns and dram calculator said 478 and lower for alt timing
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


That depends on how you use your system. If you just game and you arent Encoding or stressing your system like Prime95 would then you would be stable as your system would never encounter situations like that and the likelihood of a detrimental error would be slim to none. Now, if you do use the system in such a manner then you would be correct, the system would need a more extensive stability test. For most, 30min to an hour in Prime95 is sufficient and Id even go as far as to say Prime95 isnt even needed for those that fall into that category. Couple hours with HCI is good enough, the CPU will never see much of a load at all in gaming scenarios. With that being said, do whatever gives you peace of mind in stability testing. Doesnt hurt to have more testing and more stability.


----------



## rdr09

Ramad said:


> This is the perfect example for why I have been asking members for 1½ years now to use default tRFC timings but to no avail, more than that, to make it even worse a program have been introduced here for RAM testing that tests RAM stability in 15 min.-30 min., which is not enough time for the RAM to heat up and show hidden instabilities.


For RAM stability, we can refer to this thread . . .

https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html

I'm not sure if the author of this program intended the test included as a replacement on the use of other app like TM. But i agree. Those who just came here for help might think that this is it. Thank you for pointing that out.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html


----------



## 1usmus

*Guys, I need help to complete the development 1.6.0*

*Required:*
Responsible user, knowledge of the languages "C" and "C #", 1-2 evening of free time


----------



## zyxwvu4321

Exostenza said:


> I have found that VSOC @ 1.1v and less DRAM voltage works much better. I think all motherboard just default to VSOC at 1.1v when you OC the RAM anyways and it is far from the 1.25v limit so you'll be fine in the long run. Just a thought for you. It also helps if you're OCing your CPU so it just can't hurt.


Thanks for the ideas! I'll definitely try to tinker some more as soon as I get a chance. I'm off this work this week, but will be spending a lot of that time moving. The tRFC = 295 did pass memtest >3000%, so that worked at least. Plus I'd like to try and push for 3533Mhz. Couldn't get that speed to even get through MEMbench without errors the first time I gave it a few shots.


----------



## Unknownm

Hynrix CJR @ Micron B timings @ 3466Mhz, stable!


----------



## BeetleatWar1977

Hynix CJR 3466 CL 16 DR Stable @1.35V


----------



## -Grift-

BeetleatWar1977 said:


> Hynix CJR 3466 CL 16 DR Stable @1.35V


With GDM off?! What kind of performance/latency are you getting? I have been running the 3200 fast preset albeit with some difference in CAD_BUS at 1.35v/1.0v SoC for a Long time now and getting 65.5ns on Aida with [email protected]
Interested to know if loosening the sub timings that much versus 3200 tight is worth it.


----------



## Ramad

Unknownm said:


> Hynrix CJR @ Micron B timings @ 3466Mhz, stable!


Nice results that are backed up by 6 hours of prime95. Well done.


----------



## BeetleatWar1977

-Grift- said:


> With GDM off?! What kind of performance/latency are you getting? I have been running the 3200 fast preset albeit with some difference in CAD_BUS at 1.35v/1.0v SoC for a Long time now and getting 65.5ns on Aida with [email protected]
> Interested to know if loosening the sub timings that much versus 3200 tight is worth it.


around 65


----------



## CJMitsuki

-Grift- said:


> With GDM off?! What kind of performance/latency are you getting? I have been running the 3200 fast preset albeit with some difference in CAD_BUS at 1.35v/1.0v SoC for a Long time now and getting 65.5ns on Aida with [email protected]
> Interested to know if loosening the sub timings that much versus 3200 tight is worth it.





BeetleatWar1977 said:


> around 65


From what Ive seen of the CJR dies, they can run cl14. That kind of latency on a 2700x is really not that great, sub 60ns is about where it should be. For comparison, my 1700x runs at 65ns while my 2700x ran at 57ns. IIRC @1usmus did quite a bit of testing with the Hynix CJR dies and was running above 3600mhz @cl14 and I believe it was on that same kit. Even with GDM enabled, achieving cl14 would be worlds better than cl16.

Edit: He was running the 3400c16 kit while you have the 3200c16 kit. He got that particular kit to [email protected] While your particular kit is binned just below the one he used Id say you could still get it to run [email protected] which would still be a massive increase over [email protected] If you sift through some of the older posts of this thread you should be able to dig up the timings and possibly the voltages he was using to get a baseline for the overclock and tweak from there. The latency decrease would grant much better performance than the bandwidth youd lose.


----------



## BeetleatWar1977

CJMitsuki said:


> From what Ive seen of the CJR dies, they can run cl14. That kind of latency on a 2700x is really not that great, sub 60ns is about where it should be. For comparison, my 1700x runs at 65ns while my 2700x ran at 57ns. IIRC @1usmus did quite a bit of testing with the Hynix CJR dies and was running above 3600mhz @cl14 and I believe it was on that same kit. Even with GDM enabled, achieving cl14 would be worlds better than cl16.
> 
> Edit: He was running the 3400c16 kit while you have the 3200c16 kit. He got that particular kit to [email protected] While your particular kit is binned just below the one he used Id say you could still get it to run [email protected] which would still be a massive increase over [email protected] If you sift through some of the older posts of this thread you should be able to dig up the timings and possibly the voltages he was using to get a baseline for the overclock and tweak from there. The latency decrease would grant much better performance than the bandwidth youd lose.


I will try that later, the Kit got an XMP 3600CL19, but i can boot @3600CL16 but havent found stable settings (could be the board or cpu aswell)


----------



## CJMitsuki

BeetleatWar1977 said:


> I will try that later, the Kit got an XMP 3600CL19, but i can boot @3600CL16 but havent found stable settings (could be the board or cpu aswell)


Id drop the cas latency and increase DRAM voltage. 1.35v is pretty mild to be fair, 1.4v-1.45v will give much more headroom. As long as the ram temps are sitting fine (optimally 40c or below for max OCheadroom) but ram can withstand much higher temps and maintain decent stability. After that just play with SOC voltages until you find the most stable voltage and then you can tweak timings starting with the Primaries, tFAW set, tRFC, and tCWL since they are most likely to yield the more significant portion of the gained performance. Then follow up with the rest and gg. Aside from BDie, CJR seems the be the next best die for Ryzen.


----------



## BeetleatWar1977

CJMitsuki said:


> Id drop the cas latency and increase DRAM voltage. 1.35v is pretty mild to be fair, 1.4v-1.45v will give much more headroom. As long as the ram temps are sitting fine (optimally 40c or below for max OCheadroom) but ram can withstand much higher temps and maintain decent stability. After that just play with SOC voltages until you find the most stable voltage and then you can tweak timings starting with the Primaries, tFAW set, tRFC, and tCWL since they are most likely to yield the more significant portion of the gained performance. Then follow up with the rest and gg. Aside from BDie, CJR seems the be the next best die for Ryzen.


3200 CL14 Fast preset with the calculatur is making the latency worse, i try to tight the timings further......


----------



## -Grift-

CJMitsuki said:


> Id drop the cas latency and increase DRAM voltage. 1.35v is pretty mild to be fair, 1.4v-1.45v will give much more headroom. As long as the ram temps are sitting fine (optimally 40c or below for max OCheadroom) but ram can withstand much higher temps and maintain decent stability. After that just play with SOC voltages until you find the most stable voltage and then you can tweak timings starting with the Primaries, tFAW set, tRFC, and tCWL since they are most likely to yield the more significant portion of the gained performance. Then follow up with the rest and gg. Aside from BDie, CJR seems the be the next best die for Ryzen.


Running the 3600cl19 kit as well and anything above 1.35v seems to mess up and throw errors really quickly. CJR seems sensitive to temperatures and 30c+ ambients don't help my case which is a small reason as to why I have been sticking to my rock solid 3200cl14 fast for a long while.


----------



## Unknownm

anything past 3466Mhz SAFE on "Micron-B" isn't supported in DRAM Calculator. Also my copy bandwidth is low in aida64...

Should I aim for tighter timings or higher frequency?


----------



## hazium233

I have a pair of Ballistix Sport AT 8gb 2666 16-18-18-38 1.2V sticks that I have been working on an overclock at 3200. I have an R5 1600 and Strix B350-F (bios 4207 - Pinnacle 1006). Bought it in March, and initially I just lazily set the speed to 3000 with the same primary timings, everything else on Auto, and vDIMM still at 1.2V. Lowered SOC to -0.1 over time (1.0 or ~0.987 on sensor after droop).

Sticks are Micron D-Die (D9TZV).


Spoiler















For 3200, I started with Debug in the calculator and have been working towards dropping timings closer to the V1 recommendations. They are fairly different, as the imported ns values for my sticks aren't fairly different from what is generated with R-XMP. I don't want to make this too drawn out, but I got to the following settings which passed 3 cycles of TM5 1usmus_v3 profile, and then I used GSAT for 1hr with >90% free memory.



Spoiler















However, I decided to then run TM5 again for 6 cycles and it had a single error (I accidentally closed it before looking at the test, and it isn't in the log).

Going with the debug for "rare or single errors" I thought tFAW was in a good spot, so tried to adjust tRRDS from 4 to 6. But this generated an error in Test 2 and another several in Test 10 during Cycle 4, at which point I aborted it and reverted.

I then increased tRTP from 10 to 12 and it passed 6 cycles.


Spoiler















I want to go further but I have a couple questions:

1. I have been using -0.075 for the SOC offset when I restarted 3200 CL16 testing with procODT at 48. This is nominally 1.025v, but in reality it is more like 1.012 drooping as far as 1.006 on sensors. The guide says to dial in SOC voltage early on, but other than setting it in the range (1.0 min, 1.025 rec, 1.05 max) I imagine it should potentially need to go up for tighter timings? In the spreadsheet linked from the calc I saw only two with D-Die and they listed 1.1v SOC, which is way higher than where I am at (but what the board would try to apply if left on Auto).

2. Originally I was testing 3200 with Auto procODT which selected 60 Ohm. I had read some people say not to bother to change it if it boots, but I wanted to try it out with the recommended value of 48. So far I can boot at 3200 with 60, 53.3 or 48. Are these more frequency related, or does it affect the possible timings as well?

3. V1 and Debug tRFC values are way different. V1 has 409 with 350 alternate, and debug is 572 or 480. I tested some looser settings with the 572 (360ns) and then dropped it to 560 (350ns - rated time). How much does mem controller affect how tight you can make this, or is it more ram quality?

4. Does TM5 heat the ram more than stressapptest by any chance? I have a Meshify C with 3x120mm fans (2 front, one rear) and the stock CPU cooler. In hwinfo I think CPU temp was very slightly higher in stressapptest than TM5, which might have run the front fans a hair faster. Or is stressapptest just less sensitive in general?

Thank you


----------



## Whatisthisfor

I hope with a Ryzen 3000 i can reach 4000+ Mem clocks with my Gigabyte x470 board, although it does not have a decent topology.


----------



## fcchin

@1usmus thanks for the write up in https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/8.html

and hi everyone, I don't understand this part, can someone help to explain, thanks !!!
**************
Single and rare errors can be fixed by changing tRDWR (from 6 to 9) and tWRRD (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 and tWRRD 1, and so on.
**************
the 4 given examples, I can't make out the logic.


----------



## herericc

fcchin said:


> @1usmus thanks for the write up in https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/8.html
> 
> and hi everyone, I don't understand this part, can someone help to explain, thanks !!!
> **************
> Single and rare errors can be fixed by changing tRDWR (from 6 to 9) and tWRRD (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 and tWRRD 1, and so on.
> **************
> the 4 given examples, I can't make out the logic.


I believe those are just random examples of the combinations of tRDWR and tWRRD within the limits he stated.
So any combination of tRDWR and tWRRD where:

6 <= tRDWR <= 9
1 <= tWRRD <= 4

For a total of 16 possible combinations. (4^2)

Hope that helps!


----------



## Amberion

fcchin said:


> @1usmus thanks for the write up in https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/8.html
> 
> and hi everyone, I don't understand this part, can someone help to explain, thanks !!!
> **************
> Single and rare errors can be fixed by changing tRDWR (from 6 to 9) and tWRRD (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 and tWRRD 1, and so on.
> **************
> the 4 given examples, I can't make out the logic.


tWRRD can go from 1 to 4. tRDWR can go from 6 to 9. If one is high, the other must be low. Exact numbers require testing. generally they should sum to minimum 7 and maximum 13. Lower is better. So if you want a super low tWRRD, like 1, you will probably have to settle for a higher tRDWR like 9.


----------



## dspx

I have finally received the Micron E-Die memory kit. Will report later on the speed and timings. Calculator does not support 3600 MHz for this kit, but I have seen people running it.


----------



## Arni90

I'm sure this question has been answered before, but I can't find it.

What does "Overclocking potential DRAM" actually tell me?
Is it the maximum frequency for the RAM, and if so, why is it capped at (in my case) 3674 CL14 specifically?
Why not 3800 CL16, or 4000 CL18?


----------



## fcchin

herericc said:


> I believe those are just random examples of the combinations of tRDWR and tWRRD within the limits he stated.
> So any combination of tRDWR and tWRRD where:
> 
> 6 <= tRDWR <= 9
> 1 <= tWRRD <= 4
> 
> For a total of 16 possible combinations. (4^2)
> 
> Hope that helps!





Amberion said:


> tWRRD can go from 1 to 4. tRDWR can go from 6 to 9. If one is high, the other must be low. Exact numbers require testing. generally they should sum to minimum 7 and maximum 13. Lower is better. So if you want a super low tWRRD, like 1, you will probably have to settle for a higher tRDWR like 9.


thank you @herericc, @Amberion, OIC now.....


----------



## umeng2002

Arni90 said:


> I'm sure this question has been answered before, but I can't find it.
> 
> What does "Overclocking potential DRAM" actually tell me?
> Is it the maximum frequency for the RAM, and if so, why is it capped at (in my case) 3674 CL14 specifically?
> Why not 3800 CL16, or 4000 CL18?


Good question, it says 3674 CL14 for me at 93 percent, too... but even 3466 isn't stable unless Gear Down Mode is on.


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

What do you guys think about this kit?

https://eu.crucial.com/eur/en/ble2k8g4d36beeak

would record https://mobile.twitter.com/MicronTech/status/1129059982060601345
(actually gskill got crown @5886)

Are we back to the Times when Micron released their high oc ram D9GMH?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


----------



## Krisztias

Wuest3nFuchs said:


> What do you guys think about this kit?
> 
> https://eu.crucial.com/eur/en/ble2k8g4d36beeak
> 
> would record https://mobile.twitter.com/MicronTech/status/1129059982060601345
> (actually gskill got crown @5886)
> 
> Are we back to the Times when Micron released their high oc ram D9GMH?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


I would buy some good binned b-die, or the Patriot Viper one what crakej has.


----------



## thomasck

Krisztias said:


> I would buy some good binned b-die, or the Patriot Viper one what crakej has.


Which on is that? 4000? 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## Krisztias

thomasck said:


> Which on is that? 4000?
> 
> Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


4000C17

http://gskill.com/en/product/f4-4000c17d-16gtzr

4133C17

http://gskill.com/en/product/f4-4133c17d-16gtzr

or the Patriot Viper Steel 4400C19 (if I remember corretly from crakej's post)

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/20c502_cfb6f743e26d4df19a3ec077cf417d46.pdf


----------



## crakej

Krisztias said:


> 4000C17
> 
> http://gskill.com/en/product/f4-4000c17d-16gtzr
> 
> 4133C17
> 
> http://gskill.com/en/product/f4-4133c17d-16gtzr
> 
> or the Patriot Viper Steel 4400C19 (if I remember corretly from crakej's post)
> 
> https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/20c502_cfb6f743e26d4df19a3ec077cf417d46.pdf


Good memory - that's exactly what I have. They OC so nice and easy!


----------



## thomasck

I've got the viper 4000 c19, but can't do much more than 3466mhz with a 1800X / taichi x370. 
@crakej would you mind sharing your experience with the viper, like setup, settings? 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## crakej

thomasck said:


> I've got the viper 4000 c19, but can't do much more than 3466mhz with a 1800X / taichi x370.
> @crakej would you mind sharing your experience with the viper, like setup, settings?
> 
> Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


I've not had them long, but working on a 3866MTs CL16 profile currently. Daily profile is 3600CL14 but might be able to get 3733 working at CL14 - just not enough time spent yet. I will share more when I have more 

I haven't needed to enable GearDown but maybe it will help you on that board.


----------



## thomasck

crakej said:


> I've not had them long, but working on a 3866MTs CL16 profile currently. Daily profile is 3600CL14 but might be able to get 3733 working at CL14 - just not enough time spent yet. I will share more when I have more
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't needed to enable GearDown but maybe it will help you on that board.


Wow! Nice numbers! This gives me some hope, you are running with a zen 1 as well, however with a x470 chipset. Mind sharing voltages cpu/mem-vdd-vpp as well? 

Many thanks!

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## crakej

thomasck said:


> Wow! Nice numbers! This gives me some hope, you are running with a zen 1 as well, however with a x470 chipset. Mind sharing voltages cpu/mem-vdd-vpp as well?
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


You can see the voltages for the 3866 profile. 1.49v for ram - so far can't find anything to help me lower that, though using GearDeon or T2 may help.

Ram voltage for 3600 is 1.42v, SoC 0.9875. CPU is doing 4.1GHz in both. at 3600 voltage is Offset -0.02500v and (currently) the 3866 profile wants a bit more +0.03750 (eek!) but this is still using tCKE at 1. I plan on reducing it to 6 which will enable me to lower CPU voltage a bit closer to that of my 3600 profile. Rest is on auto!


----------



## thomasck

crakej said:


> You can see the voltages for the 3866 profile. 1.49v for ram - so far can't find anything to help me lower that, though using GearDeon or T2 may help.
> 
> 
> 
> Ram voltage for 3600 is 1.42v, SoC 0.9875. CPU is doing 4.1GHz in both. at 3600 voltage is Offset -0.02500v and (currently) the 3866 profile wants a bit more +0.03750 (eek!) but this is still using tCKE at 1. I plan on reducing it to 6 which will enable me to lower CPU voltage a bit closer to that of my 3600 profile. Rest is on auto!


That's! I didn't pay attention in the Voltages of the app! I'll try these tomorrow! I know, different board, chipset, and yours imc is golden for sure. 

Thanks for you time!

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

Krisztias said:


> I would buy some good binned b-die, or the Patriot Viper one what crakej has.


thx and i'll looking into it.but atm the 4400kit seem out of stock (EU) .

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

I have G.skill 8gb x 2 (hynix AFR) before I was able to get use the Dram calc to overclock (had one dimm before) but now with two sticks other than xmp 3200 I can't get past the black screen even when using a plethora of profiles and timings which was achievable with just one dimm. *Both dimm are identical. Mobo B450 tomahawk


----------



## crakej

Wuest3nFuchs said:


> thx and i'll looking into it.but atm the 4400kit seem out of stock (EU) .
> 
> Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


I'll check where I got mine - they only had one pair before though....

Edit: They have some (at least one set) here in the UK https://computermonster.co.uk/pc-co...-x-8gb-4400mhz-kit-w-gunmetal-grey-heatshield

Only 127GBP! I'm tempted to get more but I don't really need it ....yet!


----------



## crakej

Xxxtra-mint said:


> I have G.skill 8gb x 2 (hynix AFR) before I was able to get use the Dram calc to overclock (had one dimm before) but now with two sticks other than xmp 3200 I can't get past the black screen even when using a plethora of profiles and timings which was achievable with just one dimm. *Both dimm are identical. Mobo B450 tomahawk


Can you post screen snip of the settings the calc is giving you, and let us know what you entered see if we can help you.


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

crakej said:


> Xxxtra-mint said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have G.skill 8gb x 2 (hynix AFR) before I was able to get use the Dram calc to overclock (had one dimm before) but now with two sticks other than xmp 3200 I can't get past the black screen even when using a plethora of profiles and timings which was achievable with just one dimm. *Both dimm are identical. Mobo B450 tomahawk
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post screen snip of the settings the calc is giving you, and let us know what you entered see if we can help you.
Click to expand...

I put the exact same setting I see in the calculator. I used 1.4.1 all the way to 1.5.1 the issue persists, I'm not new on how to use the calculator but xmp works just fine but as I was using 3400 safe which was relatively tight before (when I only had a single dimm) now I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth with dual channel, I am not getting any display after tweaking the ram so had to clear cmos Everytime. Memtest ed my ram(s) in xmp no errors were found so I am guessing ram is working just fine. I even tried upping the voltage on soc and dram, tried procodt 53.3 and 60 still no luck. Using December 2018 bios. Latest one is in beta combo pi 1.0.0.1 so I plan to update after latest stable release. I'm just confused at this point


----------



## crakej

Xxxtra-mint said:


> I put the exact same setting I see in the calculator. I used 1.4.1 all the way to 1.5.1 the issue persists, I'm not new on how to use the calculator but xmp works just fine but as I was using 3400 safe which was relatively tight before (when I only had a single dimm) now I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth with dual channel, I am not getting any display after tweaking the ram so had to clear cmos Everytime. Memtest ed my ram(s) in xmp no errors were found so I am guessing ram is working just fine. I even tried upping the voltage on soc and dram, tried procodt 53.3 and 60 still no luck. Using December 2018 bios. Latest one is in beta combo pi 1.0.0.1 so I plan to update after latest stable release. I'm just confused at this point


NP - just wanted to see if I could help


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

Update: after updating bios to 'combo am4 0.0.7.2' *date of release March 2019* dram calc v1.5.1 (any preset) 3400 was just not working for some reason and was giving me BSODs and a hell lot of errors, 3466 debug is working like a charm, might try v1 safe and fast presets later 😁


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

crakej said:


> Can you post screen snip of the settings the calc is giving you, and let us know what you entered see if we can help you.


thx crakej

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


----------



## _havran_

*Not working*

Hello, my specs

AMD ryzen 5 2600
MB Asrock B450 Pro4
RAM: Patriot Viper 4 Series DDR4 16GB
(2 x 8GB) 3000MHz Kit PV416G300C6K


When I start this program --- sysinfo not work and after load safe profile:

- System.FormatException: Vstupní řetězec nemá správný formát.
v System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
v Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_SAFE_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
v System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
v System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
v System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
v System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
v System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
v System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
v System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
v System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


----------



## Redwoodz

_havran_ said:


> Hello, my specs
> 
> AMD ryzen 5 2600
> MB Asrock B450 Pro4
> RAM: Patriot Viper 4 Series DDR4 16GB
> (2 x 8GB) 3000MHz Kit PV416G300C6K
> 
> 
> When I start this program --- sysinfo not work and after load safe profile:
> 
> - System.FormatException: Vstupní řetězec nemá správný formát.
> v System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
> v Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_SAFE_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
> v System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
> v System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


 make sure to run as adminastrator

I have same but Taichi and sys info fails to start but program loads. says I need windows update ...not.


----------



## Shenhua

Kk


----------



## Fissa

Amd boys need to be math wizards to oc their RAM?


----------



## LicSqualo

Yeah, we don't like simple and easy things.

From the other side, I have see people ask to 1usmus the same calculator for Intel. 

Sorry if Intel don't have this kind of Engineers and push you to write here like a troll...

And only for the correctness of information:
1) Zen is only 2 years old and is a NEW product
2) The ram features (timings) that were produced (until two years ago) were only for Intel CPUs
3) If you want to be treated like an INTEL boy (not a math wizard, but more like a kid), buy the specific ram for Ryzen (now they are present) or use the DRAM Calculator kindly offered by 1usmus and the Community.


----------



## NightAntilli

LicSqualo said:


> Yeah, we don't like simple and easy things.
> 
> From the other side, I have see people ask to 1usmus the same calculator for Intel.


Asrock has a timing calculator for Intel... It's supposed to work on all brands.


----------



## LicSqualo

Thx for the info. I will do a check to evaluate also this program.


----------



## nick name

NightAntilli said:


> Asrock has a timing calculator for Intel... It's supposed to work on all brands.


Do they have a similar timing calculator or are you speaking about the configurator that reads timings like RTC?


----------



## Pilotasso

Awsome work 1usmus. Downloaded and waiting for my 3900X


----------



## 1usmus

_havran_ said:


> Hello, my specs
> 
> AMD ryzen 5 2600
> MB Asrock B450 Pro4
> RAM: Patriot Viper 4 Series DDR4 16GB
> (2 x 8GB) 3000MHz Kit PV416G300C6K
> 
> 
> When I start this program --- sysinfo not work and after load safe profile:
> 
> - System.FormatException: Vstupní řetězec nemá správný formát.
> v System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
> v Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_SAFE_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
> v System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
> v System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
> v System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


it sometimes swears at commas that were received during import
just use integers


----------



## 1usmus

*I will not have a weekend in the next half a year  AMD will not allow *

probably I should make an *announcement*

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0*

* partial support ZEN 2 (samsung b-die hynix cjr for 1/2 IF mode + full support all memory for 1/1 mode)
* Сlear Standby Cache button 
* Built-in memory access latency test
* Automatically saving settings when closing the application
* Cad_bus timings calculations
* RTL/IOL calculator for Intel
* tREFI calculator

and many other things 

*Release date : early-mid July*


----------



## Darkomax

tREFI timing is enabled on zen 2? nice.


----------



## Mech0z

1usmus said:


> *I will not have a weekend in the next half a year  AMD will not allow *
> 
> probably I should make an *announcement*
> 
> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0*
> 
> * partial support ZEN 2 (samsung b-die hynix cjr for 1/2 IF mode + full support all memory for 1/1 mode)
> * Сlear Standby Cache button
> * Built-in memory access latency test
> * Automatically saving settings when closing the application
> * Cad_bus timings calculations
> * RTL/IOL calculator for Intel
> * tREFI calculator
> 
> and many other things
> 
> *Release date : early-mid July*


Sounds sweet! 
When you write "full support all memory for 1/1 mode" do that mean Micron Rev E 3200/3600/3733 settings?


----------



## 1usmus

Darkomax said:


> tREFI timing is enabled on zen 2? nice.


for Intel or Vega/Navi 



Mech0z said:


> Sounds sweet!
> When you write "full support all memory for 1/1 mode" do that mean Micron Rev E 3200/3600/3733 settings?


All current presets are compatible with 1:1 mode, with the exception of procODT + RTT on X570
in fact there will be a lot of difficulties, if in short, i need to create another calculator for 1:2 mode ... the amount of work is huge


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *I will not have a weekend in the next half a year  AMD will not allow *
> 
> probably I should make an *announcement*
> 
> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen[emoji769] 1.6.0*
> 
> * partial support ZEN 2 (samsung b-die hynix cjr for 1/2 IF mode + full support all memory for 1/1 mode)
> * Сlear Standby Cache button
> * Built-in memory access latency test
> * Automatically saving settings when closing the application
> * Cad_bus timings calculations
> * RTL/IOL calculator for Intel
> * tREFI calculator
> 
> and many other things
> 
> *Release date : early-mid July*





1usmus said:


> for Intel or Vega/Navi
> 
> 
> 
> All current presets are compatible with 1:1 mode, with the exception of procODT + RTT on X570
> in fact there will be a lot of difficulties, if in short, i need to create another calculator for 1:2 mode ... the amount of work is huge


Do you know if there is a manual override to attempt 1:1 above 3733? 

That is my main concern. We've seen people on Zen+ achieve higher memory speeds than that. So, I understand if they have an automatic switch above that speed. But a manual override to try to Max out the IF2 speed would be nice, considering 3733 is about 1867MHz on the IF, while 4000 at 2:1 drops the IF to 1000MHz (5000 on ram is 1250MHz on IF, which is slightly slower than the 1300MHz at 2600 on the ram).

It will be interesting to see the latency improvements on IF and where the reduction of memory latency versus speed and IF latency balancing points are moving forward.


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> Do you know if there is a manual override to attempt 1:1 above 3733?
> 
> That is my main concern. We've seen people on Zen+ achieve higher memory speeds than that. So, I understand if they have an automatic switch above that speed. But a manual override to try to Max out the IF2 speed would be nice, considering 3733 is about 1867MHz on the IF, while 4000 at 2:1 drops the IF to 1000MHz (5000 on ram is 1250MHz on IF, which is slightly slower than the 1300MHz at 2600 on the ram).
> 
> It will be interesting to see the latency improvements on IF and where the reduction of memory latency versus speed and IF latency balancing points are moving forward.


user chooses these modes himself, you can even take 4000 by stormon a 1:1 mode


----------



## nick name

1usmus said:


> user chooses these modes himself, you can even take 4000 by stormon a 1:1 mode


So there will be some 3000 CPUs that can run 4000MHz RAM at 1:1?


----------



## Redwoodz

1usmus said:


> user chooses these modes himself, you can even take 4000 by stormon a 1:1 mode


 Thanks so much for all your work man, we all owe you. Though I suspect your just rewards are coming! 

Can't wait for the upcoming battle for the crown! :boxing3:


----------



## 1usmus

nick name said:


> So there will be some 3000 CPUs that can run 4000MHz RAM at 1:1?


Yes
New motherboards have very serious changes in the PCB. I can safely say that this is not a refresh, but a new generation of Daisy chain topology


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> user chooses these modes himself, you can even take 4000 by stormon a 1:1 mode


Good to know. Now the waiting for TR gen 3!


nick name said:


> So there will be some 3000 CPUs that can run 4000MHz RAM at 1:1?


Should be able to. The IMC isn't the limiting factor. But I do wonder if there is a way to bin for IF control. But, since we've already seen some, like speed.fastest (I believe that is his hwbot handle) achieve over 4000 on ram for benching, I don't see went not unless doubling the pipe had unforseen effects on Max speed...


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> Good to know. Now the waiting for TR gen 3!Should be able to. The IMC isn't the limiting factor. But I do wonder if there is a way to bin for IF control. But, since we've already seen some, like speed.fastest (I believe that is his hwbot handle) achieve over 4000 on ram for benching, I don't see went not unless doubling the pipe had unforseen effects on Max speed...


 limit for the memory controller remains the same as the previous generation, 2000–2066 MHz


----------



## nick name

ajc9988 said:


> Good to know. Now the waiting for TR gen 3!Should be able to. The IMC isn't the limiting factor. But I do wonder if there is a way to bin for IF control. But, since we've already seen some, like speed.fastest (I believe that is his hwbot handle) achieve over 4000 on ram for benching, I don't see went not unless doubling the pipe had unforseen effects on Max speed...


I've heard that Ryzen CPUs that OC at higher speeds have a weaker IMC. I never knew if that was true or not. Was that ever proven or disproven?


----------



## herericc

Hello everybody.

I've been thinking about getting a 12c or 16c Ryzen 9 when they come out. I have a Crosshair VI Hero board and 2700x, and it currently runs my 2x8 sticks of Team Dark Pro C14 b-die at 3200MT with safe timings. I can run the CPU at -0.125V offset with PE2. 

I have been wondering - would I get better clock rates on my RAM with 4 sticks than 2 because of the CHVI's topology? The board effectively has stubs on the DRAM traces right now, so having another set of ram populated would at the very least allow for those stubs to be terminated! 

I can boot up to 3600MT but I can't seem to get them stable at those speeds. I haven't spent a full day tweaking subtimings to improve things since I knew I wanted to get a ryzen 3000 series cpu when they release. 

Team Dark Pro ram seems to be EOL with Samsung's recent announcement that they're cancelling their production of B-Dies. I was thinking that it's now or never to pick up 2 more matching sticks, so I wanted to know if it would help my ram speeds, or do nothing, or worsen them?

Thanks for any replies!

Hereric


----------



## Vins

*Vins*

Hi and many thanks to 1usmus for this great software! 

I was able to achieve a decent and superstable overclock with my kinda cheapish rig and i want to share it here. It wasn't easy task and took me many hours of tweaking so i hope it will be useful for other people too 

System specs (stock): (was purchased on October 2018)

MSI B450M PRO-M2 with latest bios v2.86
Ryzen 5 1600x 3.6 Ghz
Gigabyte GTX 1060 WINDFORCE OC 3GB
DeepCool Gammax 200T 120mm CPU Fan
Corsair VS550 (HEC) 80 PLUS (white) PSU
Thermaltake Versa H15
AOC G2460VQ6 24" FHD 75 hz


The DDR4 modules are: 

2x 8GB HyperX Predator 3000 H5AN8G8NCJR-UHC ( KHX3000C15D4/8GX ) so they are made by Kingston and have Hynix CJR memory.


Overclock results:

1) The first step was the CPU oc with the Ryzen pushed to 3.9 Ghz and 1.32v. Probably i could get more from it, but since im on air cooling and summers can be blazing hot here i will not go any further with it.

2) Then i pushed "a little" the 1060 with a 120 and 520 Mhz oc to Core and Memory respectively with MSI Afterburner.

3) After this i decided to venture on ddr4 overclock. This step was kinda frustrating, fun and tricky at the same time 

The dimms are rated for this XMP certified profile (from Thaiphoon Burner):

1502 Mhz 15-17-17-36 @1.35v

I tried to use xmp button at first from dram calculator to get latencies but they are different from the taiphoon ones, so i decided to go straight up with debug mode and get XMP latencies from there.

After a LOT of BSODs and failed posts i finally got a stable @3466 Mhz 16-19-19-38

Key timings and values for this result were: 

DRAM set to 1.43v
tRFC 523 (454 didnt work so used alt)
SOC set to 1.1
CLDO_VDDP 0.820 (apparently the "magic" 0.866 didnt work here)
tFAW set to 23 (from 32 suggested by calculator)
ProcODT 53.3, RttNOM 34, RttWr Dynamic ODT off, RttPark 48 ohms
CAD_BUS values -> all 20 ohms



I Got 400% error free results with Memtest HCI and several good runs with RealBench and AIDA64 stress tests. I got a random BSOD with RealBench once though and probably i will need to investigate FAN speed curves of CPU and case (CPU diode reached 80C° with RealBench and AIDA, guess im gonna remove OC settings on hottest days of this summer...).

Will update soon with some screenshots of bios and dram calculator. Can anyone explain me where are the VTT DDR settings on my motherboard? Also couldnt find VDDP, VPP and PLL ones


----------



## savagebunny

I know my tRAS are different (28 vs 30), Since the new BIOS update I can achieve finally 3333 Mhz. I remember at launch It was a struggle to get 2933. Had 3200 for the past year and gave 1.0.0.1 a swing.


----------



## ajc9988

savagebunny said:


> I know my tRAS are different (28 vs 30), Since the new BIOS update I can achieve finally 3333 Mhz. I remember at launch It was a struggle to get 2933. Had 3200 for the past year and gave 1.0.0.1 a swing.


Nice timings. Since you can now reach that, have you tried 3466 or 3600? Either way, happy for your improvement there!


----------



## savagebunny

ajc9988 said:


> Nice timings. Since you can now reach that, have you tried 3466 or 3600? Either way, happy for your improvement there!


Nope, haven't tried it yet. Comfortable at 3333 right now. 3400/3466 is my next goal if I feel like attempting it before getting a 3900x


----------



## ajc9988

savagebunny said:


> Nope, haven't tried it yet. Comfortable at 3333 right now. 3400/3466 is my next goal if I feel like attempting it before getting a 3900x


Fair enough. I have much longer to wait to upgrade my CPU than you do (1950X; jealous I don't get to play with zen 2 sooner).


----------



## 1usmus

Asmedia, extra pci, extra sata , extra usb , extra VRM


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> Asmedia, extra pci, extra sata , extra usb , extra VRM


What is this fresh madness?


----------



## 1usmus

*Good news for all users of Ryzen. AMD has listened to my comments and fixed problems with Inter-Core Latency , Inter-Core Bandwidth and U Data Latency. Look for BIOSes with AGESA 1.0.0.1 and newer.*


----------



## LicSqualo

1usmus said:


> *Good news for all users of Ryzen. AMD has listened to my comments and fixed problems with Inter-Core Latency , Inter-Core Bandwidth and U Data Latency. Look for BIOSes with AGESA 1.0.0.1 and newer.*


THANK YOU!


----------



## 1usmus

ajc9988 said:


> What is this fresh madness?


I think everything is fine


----------



## ajc9988

1usmus said:


> *Good news for all users of Ryzen. AMD has listened to my comments and fixed problems with Inter-Core Latency , Inter-Core Bandwidth and U Data Latency. Look for BIOSes with AGESA 1.0.0.1 and newer.*


That is good to hear!


1usmus said:


> I think everything is fine


I do too. Just a little worry on consumer confusion with how Intel has the Zx70 and Zx90.

Also, curious of them mentioning as media, which is a dual edged sword. On the one hand, likely less wattage, more experience with chipsets, etc. On the other, security concerns and known complaints about as media chipsets. 

Then again, I'm assuming they mean an asmedia chipset and not some other asmedia product. I'm also assuming this is a mainstream and not HEDT product, which may be incorrect.

No matter what, it's got my attention!


----------



## _vogonpoetry_

1usmus said:


> *Good news for all users of Ryzen. AMD has listened to my comments and fixed problems with Inter-Core Latency , Inter-Core Bandwidth and U Data Latency. Look for BIOSes with AGESA 1.0.0.1 and newer.*


Is this different than before? The first Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1 BIOS were released over a month ago. 

Or did you just get around to testing one?


----------



## Xxxtra-mint

using combo AM4 0.0.7.2 bios on my B450 tomahawk, I've set all my CAD BUS ohm to 24 (tried 20,30) but they all defaults to 120 after system boots should this be concerning? Agesa 1.0.0.1 still in beta for my board.

"Starting from AGESA version "Combo-AM4 0.0.7.2" the displayed values for APOB parsed values (ProcODT, AddrCmd/CsOdt/Cke -setup, Rtts and DriveStrengths) are broken.
At least for now, the issue cannot be fixed due to the total lack of documentation and support." - solved, i got worried over nothing.


----------



## gupsterg

1usmus said:


> *Good news for all users of Ryzen. AMD has listened to my comments and fixed problems with Inter-Core Latency , Inter-Core Bandwidth and U Data Latency. Look for BIOSes with AGESA 1.0.0.1 and newer.*


This issue has been fixed prior to AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1.

UEFI 1002 AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.2c



Spoiler






























UEFI 1103 AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.6



Spoiler






























UEFI 2304 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.2a



Spoiler






























I placed todays test data above.

Below is historic test from UEFI 2103 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.2



Spoiler






























The AGESA which has the latency issue is Combo-AM4 0.0.7.0.

*** edit ***

Looks like that is fine as well.

UEFI 2008 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.0



Spoiler






























Which UEFI is the issue :headscrat ...


----------



## Dbsjej56464

gupsterg said:


> This issue has been fixed prior to AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1.
> 
> UEFI 1002 AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.2c
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274422
> 
> 
> View attachment 274424
> 
> 
> View attachment 274426
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UEFI 1103 AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.6
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274428
> 
> 
> View attachment 274430
> 
> 
> View attachment 274432
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UEFI 2304 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.2a
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274434
> 
> 
> View attachment 274436
> 
> 
> View attachment 274438
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I placed todays test data above.
> 
> Below is historic test from UEFI 2103 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.2
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274440
> 
> 
> View attachment 274442
> 
> 
> View attachment 274444
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AGESA which has the latency issue is Combo-AM4 0.0.7.0.
> 
> *** edit ***
> 
> Looks like that is fine as well.
> 
> UEFI 2008 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.0
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274450
> 
> 
> View attachment 274452
> 
> 
> View attachment 274454
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which UEFI is the issue :headscrat ...


You need to use SiSoftware Sandra to find out the latency. 

I'm on Crosshair VI 7003 0.0.7.2 and can still see high intercore latency of 77ns which is over 10ns higher then 6401 bios.

Guess we will just have to wait till the next bios


----------



## gupsterg

Sideways2k said:


> You need to use SiSoftware Sandra to find out the latency.
> 
> I'm on Crosshair VI 7003 0.0.7.2 and can still see high intercore latency of 77ns which is over 10ns higher then 6401 bios.
> 
> Guess we will just have to wait till the next bios


Thanks  , will try that.

PMU FW is same between AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.4c to Combo-AM4 1.0.0.3.

CPU mCode has been changing, so will nice to run the test on modded UEFI to see if solves this  .


----------



## ilmazzo

I was out by some time.....

I'm still on 1.0.0.6 agesa on my x470 taichi, not upgrading any soon to zen 2 so... would you suggest me to move to newer agesa and bios versions or what? I know is a lame question, but you know...I don't have the time to test that these things deserve, anymore (2 children)...


----------



## gupsterg

Knew I should have got more than 1 run on UEFI 1002 / 2304.

UEFI 1002 AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.2c

MT: 71.4ns MC: 75.2ns



Spoiler






















UEFI 2304 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.2a

MT: 75.8ns MC: 79.3ns



Spoiler






















UEFI 2304 MOD mCode

MT: 71.7ns MC: 79.7ns



Spoiler






















Subsequent runs on modded UEFI.

MT



Spoiler






Spoiler

































MC


Spoiler






















Anyone one on AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1 or newer able to share results?


----------



## nick name

Has everyone seen these already? Am I getting all excited for nothing?

Geekbench 4 scores of a Ryzen 3600 BUT with 4266MHz RAM and another with 4400MHz.

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13512793

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13526365

Edit:

And another older one at 4266MHz:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13472133


----------



## savagebunny

ilmazzo said:


> I was out by some time.....
> 
> I'm still on 1.0.0.6 agesa on my x470 taichi, not upgrading any soon to zen 2 so... would you suggest me to move to newer agesa and bios versions or what? I know is a lame question, but you know...I don't have the time to test that these things deserve, anymore (2 children)...


I was running 1.0.0.4c while at 3200Mhz. Why did I upgrade to AGESA 1.0.0.1? A bit more stability sub timings on my Biostar GT7, I'm literally chasing such small numbers I don't even notice them in game. I have a ton of free time to burn and curiosity to fulfill. Only reason to update right now is if you're going to Zen2 which I am. You'll just gain a headache bro if you don't got the time to make with children & such. Just stick on 1.0.0.6.


----------



## 1usmus

_vogonpoetry_ said:


> Is this different than before? The first Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1 BIOS were released over a month ago.
> 
> Or did you just get around to testing one?


194 are only a few weeks



ilmazzo said:


> I was out by some time.....
> 
> I'm still on 1.0.0.6 agesa on my x470 taichi, not upgrading any soon to zen 2 so... would you suggest me to move to newer agesa and bios versions or what? I know is a lame question, but you know...I don't have the time to test that these things deserve, anymore (2 children)...


to avoid conflicts with the new windows scheduler (1903) you will have to use *AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1* or newer



gupsterg said:


> Knew I should have got more than 1 run on UEFI 1002 / 2304.
> 
> UEFI 1002 AGESA PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.2c
> 
> MT: 71.4ns MC: 75.2ns
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274490
> 
> 
> View attachment 274492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UEFI 2304 AGESA Combo-AM4 0.0.7.2a
> 
> MT: 75.8ns MC: 79.3ns
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274494
> 
> 
> View attachment 274496
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UEFI 2304 MOD mCode
> 
> MT: 71.7ns MC: 79.7ns
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274498
> 
> 
> View attachment 274500
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsequent runs on modded UEFI.
> 
> MT
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274502
> 
> 
> View attachment 274504
> 
> 
> View attachment 274506
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MC
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 274508
> 
> 
> View attachment 274510
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone one on AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1 or newer able to share results?


*AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1*



Spoiler























here are the results *AGESA PinnaclePI 1.0.0.4 *
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/10.html


----------



## nick name

Oof. Things are starting to get a little confusing.


----------



## dspx

Here is what I managed to do so far, not very impressive but at least is stable. I will be receiving an MSI B450 Pro Carbon AC in a few days, so I will see if I will be able to achieve a better OC. The weather is pretty hot right now, 35 deg C outside, I guess it's around 30 in my room.

The memory tested is *Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3000 CL15 (Micron E-Die 19 nm)*


----------



## nick name

Does anyone else run 3200 at 12-13-12-12? It doesn't seem to be as good as 3600 14-15-14-14.


----------



## Sentinela

Well, its being a long ride for me...samsung B-DIE, trying fast preset 3200mhz. Seems like my ram does not like voltages. If setting a voltage of 1.42v it gives me error on memtest. My 1800x SOC is set to 1.05v, anything higher causes error too. Crosshair VI Extreme seems not to be a great ram overclocker, as changing VDDP voltage does not apply. My questions are: how important for solving errors is VDDP voltage? PLL affects ram oc (using 1.8v)? What other RTT values should i try to oc this kit (TeamGroup Xtreem 4000mhz 2 x 8GB)? Can a higher voltage than needed to RAM causa instabilities and errors?


----------



## Keith Myers

nick name said:


> Has everyone seen these already? Am I getting all excited for nothing?
> 
> Geekbench 4 scores of a Ryzen 3600 BUT with 4266MHz RAM and another with 4400MHz.
> 
> http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13512793
> 
> http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13526365
> 
> Edit:
> 
> And another older one at 4266MHz:
> http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13472133


I'm not impressed. I beat most all those scores with my lowly 2700X and 3466Mhz CL14 RAM.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12627947


----------



## nick name

Keith Myers said:


> I'm not impressed. I beat most all those scores with my lowly 2700X and 3466Mhz CL14 RAM.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12627947


Ditto on the beating of scores. What excites me is the possibility of going lower on my 3600MHz kit's timings. Or the possibility of the same timings, but up to 3666 or 3733. That would be ideal.


----------



## Keith Myers

nick name said:


> Ditto on the beating of scores. What excites me is the possibility of going lower on my 3600MHz kit's timings. Or the possibility of the same timings, but up to 3666 or 3733. That would be ideal.


Yes, I have a G. Skill 3600 CL16 kit that I have never been able to get past 3466. It will be nice to actually achieve the rated XMP values. I'm fairly certain the optimized I/O die will do most of the work. Even on X470 boards that don't have the new X570 motherboard substrate and optimized RAM trace layout.


----------



## gupsterg

1usmus said:


> *AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here are the results *AGESA PinnaclePI 1.0.0.4 *
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/10.html


Thank you :thumb: .


----------



## Pilotasso

Keith Myers said:


> I'm not impressed. I beat most all those scores with my lowly 2700X and 3466Mhz CL14 RAM.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12627947




that 2700X was benchmarked on linux 4.3.2 and cannot be compared with 3600X on V 4.3.4 windows directly.

this is my 2700X on V 4.3.4 windows. 
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13550563
And then you start seeing a difference between 2700X and 3600X.


----------



## nick name

Pilotasso said:


> that 2700X was benchmarked on linux 4.3.2 and cannot be compared with 3600X on V 4.3.4 windows directly.
> 
> this is my 2700X on V 4.3.4 windows.
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13550563
> And then you start seeing a difference between 2700X and 3600X.


Here's mine. My multi-core is running at 4.3GHz and single at 4.35GHz. Windows 1903.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13554145

That 3600 is still putting up a higher score at its 4.2GHz single than I am at 4.35GHz so that's nice to see. I wish I knew what its multi-core speed was.

And looking at the 16 core score running at 4.3GHz single-core is about 500 points higher than my 4.35GHz. And that one was running 4133MHz RAM.


----------



## AlphaC

Pilotasso said:


> that 2700X was benchmarked on linux 4.3.2 and cannot be compared with 3600X on V 4.3.4 windows directly.
> 
> this is my 2700X on V 4.3.4 windows.
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13550563
> And then you start seeing a difference between 2700X and 3600X.


 Exactly.


I have tested my R7 1700X @3.9 with 3466C14 in Ubuntu 18.04LTS with Linux 5.0 backported and obtained 5150ish single core


----------



## Keith Myers

*The new Linux 5.0 kernel is FAST*

I have to keep reigning in my impulse to backport to the new Linux 5.0 kernel on my Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS main daily driver partition. I have that in Disco Dingo on my development partition and it is FAST.
I see I am going to have to see what the Geekbench 4 scores are for my daily driver on that partition.


----------



## hurricane28

1usmus said:


> 194 are only a few weeks
> 
> 
> 
> to avoid conflicts with the new windows scheduler (1903) you will have to use *AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1* or newer
> 
> 
> 
> *AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.1*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here are the results *AGESA PinnaclePI 1.0.0.4 *
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/10.html


Good job man, looks like a lot of work. 

Seems like 3466 MHz is the sweetspot for high CPU and RAM overclocks. Running this for months without problems. 

Thnx for your hard work and keep it up.


----------



## NightAntilli

Keith Myers said:


> I'm not impressed. I beat most all those scores with my lowly 2700X and 3466Mhz CL14 RAM.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12627947


Remember that the infinity fabric cuts its speed in half if the memory clock exceeds 3800 MHz.


----------



## rul3s

Hi guys!
I've found that HCI also encounters memory errors when vcore is so close to the edge of crashing, but not enought to chash, I explain.
Doing manual and fixed OC on my 2600x, I've found that [email protected] was stable on Realbench OCCT, but sometimes playing I've had some crashes, specially on PUBG.
My RAM config was [email protected] as Ryzen DRAM calculator says, with 1.40 on dram and 1.025 on vsoc. Well, so running HCI was giving me 1 or 2 errors on 400-500%.
Tried rising vdimm and also vsoc until 1.5 on vdimm and 1.20v on vsoc, but same experience, my only way to not hving errors was going down to [email protected]

After some research and test I finally tried to go rise vcore to 1,3125 and errors where solved, and now running [email protected] with vdimm on 1.38 and vsoc on 1.00v.

So, in my experience try to add a little bit more of vcore if experiencing very few errors on HCI.


----------



## herericc

rul3s said:


> Hi guys!
> I've found that HCI also encounters memory errors when vcore is so close to the edge of crashing, but not enought to chash, I explain.
> Doing manual and fixed OC on my 2600x, I've found that [email protected] was stable on Realbench OCCT, but sometimes playing I've had some crashes, specially on PUBG.
> My RAM config was [email protected] as Ryzen DRAM calculator says, with 1.40 on dram and 1.025 on vsoc. Well, so running HCI was giving me 1 or 2 errors on 400-500%.
> Tried rising vdimm and also vsoc until 1.5 on vdimm and 1.20v on vsoc, but same experience, my only way to not hving errors was going down to [email protected]
> 
> After some research and test I finally tried to go rise vcore to 1,3125 and errors where solved, and now running [email protected] with vdimm on 1.38 and vsoc on 1.00v.
> 
> So, in my experience try to add a little bit more of vcore if experiencing very few errors on HCI.


That's good to know - I've noticed that when I do get errors in DRAM BENCH from the calculator they tend to be a streak of errors on a certain thread. Could be that particular thread on the processor is a little bit unstable due to PBO + undervolt... I'll have to try getting stability on RAM with PBO on stock settings and then work my way back from there.


----------



## nick name

Does anyone know of any literature exploring DRAM temps and their impact on performance when the DRAM is not run within spec? Everything I find uses temps like 85*C and discusses RAM designed to run within that spec. I want to find something (other than anecdotal findings) that explores overclocked RAM and their temperature thresholds before errors.


----------



## Keith Myers

*Research on ECC bit flips vs temp*



nick name said:


> Does anyone know of any literature exploring DRAM temps and their impact on performance when the DRAM is not run within spec? Everything I find uses temps like 85*C and discusses RAM designed to run within that spec. I want to find something (other than anecdotal findings) that explores overclocked RAM and their temperature thresholds before errors.


I would do a search on ECC RAM bit flips vs temp. I would bet there are some research papers on that discussion which might show how data integrity changes with temperature.


----------



## nick name

Keith Myers said:


> I would do a search on ECC RAM bit flips vs temp. I would bet there are some research papers on that discussion which might show how data integrity changes with temperature.


I've found several resources that discuss it, but not in relation to overclocking of RAM. I'm will look into what you suggested though.


----------



## thomasck

rul3s said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> I've found that HCI also encounters memory errors when vcore is so close to the edge of crashing, but not enought to chash, I explain.
> 
> Doing manual and fixed OC on my 2600x, I've found that [email protected] was stable on Realbench OCCT, but sometimes playing I've had some crashes, specially on PUBG.
> 
> My RAM config was [email protected] as Ryzen DRAM calculator says, with 1.40 on dram and 1.025 on vsoc. Well, so running HCI was giving me 1 or 2 errors on 400-500%.
> 
> Tried rising vdimm and also vsoc until 1.5 on vdimm and 1.20v on vsoc, but same experience, my only way to not hving errors was going down to [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> After some research and test I finally tried to go rise vcore to 1,3125 and errors where solved, and now running [email protected] with vdimm on 1.38 and vsoc on 1.00v.
> 
> 
> 
> So, in my experience try to add a little bit more of vcore if experiencing very few errors on HCI.


That's pretty much normal as you increase ram speed normally you would increase vcore a bit to help the imc. Is good to point this out as some times can solve a problem. 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## Filters83

thomasck said:


> That's pretty much normal as you increase ram speed normally you would increase vcore a bit to help the imc. Is good to point this out as some times can solve a problem.
> 
> Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


Depedens im on same cpu 2600x unrdevolt -0.5 no pbo but whit ram oc 3466 fast settings at 1.4v and 1.025 on soc B die chip and i dont need more cpu voltage here, if i try to go up then i probably need, so i mean evry cpu its different maby for him the limit was 3400mhz on ram for no need on more cpu voltage aswell, and motherboard aswell cause im on a strix 450-f now and before on the x-370-f i wasnt able to clock ram like this in no way


----------



## ambersson

I haver the exact same problem with asrock b450 pro4, newest bios 3.31, r5 2600, ballistix sport lt 3000mhz cl15 micron rev e and windows 1903. 
"Sysinfo Not work!" when I try to start. calculating any settings ends up with error.



japemo said:


> Hi!!!
> 
> Sorry if this message is not correctly write here. I have problems when DRAM Calculator.
> 
> I have this hard:
> Case: Raijintek Ophion EVO
> MB: Asus ROG Strix X470-I Gaming
> CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
> GPU: KFA2 GeForce® RTX 2080 OC
> STG: M.2 Samsung 950 PRO 500GB, SSD Samsung 750GB, HDD WD Green 3TB
> RAM: Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB 16GB DDR4-3000 (x2) 32GB
> PS: Corsair SF600
> Keyboard: Logitech G710+
> Mouse: Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum
> Monitor: HP L2045W (Monitor temporal)
> OS: W10 Pro
> FANs: Corsair ML120PRO (x3)
> 
> And I use Thaiphoon Burner to see full spec of my RAM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I write parameters in DRAM Calculator and do this error:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this text in details:
> 
> _See the end of this message for details on invoking
> just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.
> 
> ************** Exception Text **************
> System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
> at System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._1._0.Form1.Current_Delay_Time()
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._1._0.Form1.metroTile4_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
> at MetroFramework.Controls.MetroTile.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
> 
> ************** Loaded Assemblies **************
> mscorlib
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3362.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.1.0
> Assembly Version: 1.4.0.0
> Win32 Version: 1.4.0.1
> CodeBase: file:///G:/Programas/Overclock-Tests%20PC/Configurar%20RAM%20en%20AMD/DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.4.1/DRAM%20Calculator%20for%20Ryzen%201.4.1.exe
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Windows.Forms
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3324.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3362.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Drawing
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3190.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> MetroFramework
> Assembly Version: 1.2.0.3
> Win32 Version: 1.2.0.3
> CodeBase: file:///G:/Programas/Overclock-Tests%20PC/Configurar%20RAM%20en%20AMD/DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.4.1/MetroFramework.DLL
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Configuration
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3324.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Core
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3362.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> System.Xml
> Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
> Win32 Version: 4.7.3190.0 built by: NET472REL1LAST_C
> CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> ************** JIT Debugging **************
> To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this
> application or computer (machine.config) must have the
> jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section.
> The application must also be compiled with debugging
> enabled.
> 
> For example:
> 
> <configuration>
> <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
> </configuration>
> 
> When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception
> will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer
> rather than be handled by this dialog box._
> 
> Regards!!!


----------



## BLUuuE

ambersson said:


> I haver the exact same problem with asrock b450 pro4, newest bios 3.31, r5 2600, ballistix sport lt 3000mhz cl15 micron rev e and windows 1903.
> "Sysinfo Not work!" when I try to start. calculating any settings ends up with error.


I think that's because of your locale as you have a comma as the decimal point when the calculator expects a period. 
It should be a simple fix for the developer tho.


----------



## SaccoSVD

I think the calculator is throwing weird stuff. I'm not sure but the timings seem off. The calculator gave different numbers for my kit in older versions.


----------



## crakej

SaccoSVD said:


> I think the calculator is throwing weird stuff. I'm not sure but the timings seem off. The calculator gave different numbers for my kit in older versions.


Your timings don't look right! I'd go with calc latest values - if they work, your ram will be a LOT faster. I've never seen secondary timings like that!


----------



## crakej

ambersson said:


> I haver the exact same problem with asrock b450 pro4, newest bios 3.31, r5 2600, ballistix sport lt 3000mhz cl15 micron rev e and windows 1903.
> "Sysinfo Not work!" when I try to start. calculating any settings ends up with error.


Make sure you're using the latest version 1.5.1


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

Hi all together!

On coming Monday my GSkill F4-3200C14D-16GFX will arrive and i will test them ,didn't had too much luck with Crucial Ballistix Elite BLE8G4D30AEEA.K16FE which has Samsung E-Die .

BTW love the tool, without it i couldn't managed to have the Crucial Ballistix Elite BLE8G4D30AEEA.K16FE from the get go working. *THX* *1usmus* 

Is Karhu Ramtester still recommended for Ryzen+?


----------



## ajc9988

Wuest3nFuchs said:


> Hi all together!
> 
> On coming Monday my GSkill F4-3200C14D-16GFX will arrive and i will test them ,didn't had too much luck with Crucial Ballistix Elite BLE8G4D30AEEA.K16FE which has Samsung E-Die .
> 
> BTW love the tool, without it i couldn't managed to have the Crucial Ballistix Elite BLE8G4D30AEEA.K16FE from the get go working. *THX* *1usmus*
> 
> Is Karhu Ramtester still recommended for Ryzen+?


Karhu, Testmem5 v0.12, and HCI memtest are all good, and I personally recommend to use two of the three when checking for memory stability. HCI is now also part of the calc, so you can have ease of use there (and if you own memtest deluxe or whatever, you copy those files into the folder with the calc and it won't have the pop-ups). 

Happy testing!


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

ajc9988 said:


> Karhu, Testmem5 v0.12, and HCI memtest are all good, and I personally recommend to use two of the three when checking for memory stability. HCI is now also part of the calc, so you can have ease of use there (and if you own memtest deluxe or whatever, you copy those files into the folder with the calc and it won't have the pop-ups).
> 
> Happy testing!


Thank you very much for the hints/tipps !


----------



## Unknownm

So the common problem I find with my setup is doesn't matter what speed timings voltage I set my ram it always fails between 2-4h prime95 fma3.

Stock xmp profile with cpu overclock it passed 8h just fine

I can't seem to find the solution. Raising the ohms to 60 on cad bus and proODT help prime95 last longer but fails.

The prime95 fail result is always the same, blank screen with Yellow DRAM light on motherboard.





Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## ObscureScience

So for the last few days, randomly, programs will close on me. No error message, just close down. There's no error in the system event viewer either. 
Could this be unstable memory?


----------



## SaccoSVD

crakej said:


> Your timings don't look right! I'd go with calc latest values - if they work, your ram will be a LOT faster. I've never seen secondary timings like that!


Those are the horrid timings that my X470 Taichi are using by default.


----------



## ajc9988

ObscureScience said:


> So for the last few days, randomly, programs will close on me. No error message, just close down. There's no error in the system event viewer either.
> Could this be unstable memory?


It still can be other things, but that is a candidate. Grab the free HCI memtest or Testmem5 and run them to see if you are getting errors. TM5 is a faster test, in some ways less thorough, but also is more separated than seeing potentially cache errors as mem errors. Karhu (paid program) allows you to switch on cache stressing or turn it off.

Also, have you ran "SFC /scannow" at command prompt run as admin?


----------



## hazium233

I have a question about the Micron profiles, specifically the relationship between the D and E presets.

I have D-die (specifically MT40A1G8WE-075E: D) from a 2666 16-18-18-38 1.2V set. I will post where I currently have them compared to the D-die preset at 3200 below:



Spoiler















I don't know if it has to do with the specific bin or production date (Oct, Nov 2018), but it seems like my sticks are liking something a lot closer to the E-Die preset.

Generally the "common knowledge" seems to be that D-die isn't that great and E-die might be one of the best. I wonder if anyone can comment on that. I mention this because the E preset looks a good deal looser than that for D die, should that be reversed?

I think I might be able to tighten up some things, I just got tired of stability testing after I got the above to 1000%/thread and did some LinX and Realbench with it. I might pick it up again though.

I saw Reous with a result on this IC at 3600 1.35v, but that was Zen+ on a good board. I have a 1600 on an Asus B350-F so I don't know how high I will be able to get them. I do know that it trains in one attempt at above settings, but set to 3333 (haven't tried to stress it yet though).

edit: ha the revision at the end of the part number was making a


----------



## crakej

SaccoSVD said:


> Those are the horrid timings that my X470 Taichi are using by default.


Wow! I'm sure it can do better than that lol!

Otherwise I'm glad I have my CH7!


----------



## nick name

crakej said:


> Wow! I'm sure it can do better than that lol!
> 
> Otherwise I'm glad I have my CH7!


What is your daily RAM setup now, crakej?


----------



## crakej

nick name said:


> What is your daily RAM setup now, crakej?


Currently on 3600CL14 for daily, but have 3733CL14 nearly stable.


----------



## usualvegetable

*Corsair CMK8GX4M2B3200C16*

hey all. Looking for a quick confirmation regarding the calculator v1.5.1 and the Corsair CMK8GX4M2B3200C16 e-die chips.

I'm getting a pretty self explanatory "*Only dual rank!*" error when hitting calculate. I thought I'd ask anyway since I can't find reference to it anywhere. I did find and then lost a post from this thread that mentioned E-die chips weren't but now are, supported? Or something along those lines at least.


The attached screenshots are from Thaiphoon and if you search for CMK8GX4M2B3200C16 in the SPD Browser, if needed. 

Thanks!


----------



## nick name

crakej said:


> Currently on 3600CL14 for daily, but have 3733CL14 nearly stable.


Is that 14-15-14-14 or 14-14-14-14?


----------



## crakej

nick name said:


> Is that 14-15-14-14 or 14-14-14-14?


14 15 14 14 28 42 - will be experimenting with 14 14 14 14 and 14 15 13 13 to try tighten things up a bit....


----------



## 1usmus

*By popular demand,I will publish a guide to overclocking Ryzen processors. This will be a special article and it will review Matisse. I have prepared for you a lot of information that you will not find in other reviews.????
*

I will try to have time by July 7

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=276140&thumb=1


----------



## Darkomax

Nice work 1usmus! can't wait for it.


----------



## 1TM1

topology (T vs Daisy-chain) only makes a difference with 4 DIMMs, says Sin0822 (2000+ Rep), link to Raja 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-intel-motherboards/1241807-asus-t-topology.html#post16950976

very good pictures of memory trace layouts, particularly slide 31 based on Michael Catrambone and Bill Munroe work 
https://www.cadence.com/content/dam...s/pcb-west-2016-47-rte-ddr4-interfaces-cp.pdf

helps explain why cheaper boards got less development effort and show lesser result


----------



## DennisHailey

*I have the same problem too,I believe they took it down.*

I have the same problem too,I believe they took it down.


----------



## hazium233

usualvegetable said:


> hey all. Looking for a quick confirmation regarding the calculator v1.5.1 and the Corsair CMK8GX4M2B3200C16 e-die chips.
> 
> I'm getting a pretty self explanatory "*Only dual rank!*" error when hitting calculate. I thought I'd ask anyway since I can't find reference to it anywhere. I did find and then lost a post from this thread that mentioned E-die chips weren't but now are, supported? Or something along those lines at least.
> 
> 
> The attached screenshots are from Thaiphoon and if you search for CMK8GX4M2B3200C16 in the SPD Browser, if needed.
> 
> Thanks!


Error is because it must assume 8GB sticks, which would be dual rank with 4Gbit E die.


----------



## J7SC

Quick question on quad channel (Threadripper) RAM. I have been running a 2950X w/4x8GB Samsung B-Die GTZR @ 3400 14-14-14-28 CR1 and Ryzen 1.5.1 fast timings' for a while (tfaw =16 etc). SoC = 1.032v DRAM = 1.37v. Per below, I tried out 3466 at the same voltages, and with some minor relaxing around Trct, Tfaw and its related vars, it's running great and passed extended memtest & co. 

Then just for the fun of it, I tried 3600 quad channel, albeit with arbitrarily relaxed timings but same voltages. To my surprise, it booted up just fine w/ 3600 CR1, though I am far from setting final timings before memtest & co. If I get 3600 stable w/o too much of a timings penalty, I might even try 3733 (though that could be dreaming in technicolor...). For those with quad-channel Threadripper, do you have any particular tips beyond Ryzen 1.5.1 for 3600 and up? This machine is used for both work and play, so I like to stay at SoC = 1.032v; and DRAM at 1.4v or less. 
Tx


----------



## nick name

J7SC said:


> Quick question on quad channel (Threadripper) RAM. I have been running a 2950X w/4x8GB Samsung B-Die GTZR @ 3400 14-14-14-28 CR1 and Ryzen 1.5.1 fast timings' for a while (tfaw =16 etc). SoC = 1.032v DRAM = 1.37v. Per below, I tried out 3466 at the same voltages, and with some minor relaxing around Trct, Tfaw and its related vars, it's running great and passed extended memtest & co.
> 
> Then just for the fun of it, I tried 3600 quad channel, albeit with arbitrarily relaxed timings but same voltages. To my surprise, it booted up just fine w/ 3600 CR1, though I am far from setting final timings before memtest & co. If I get 3600 stable w/o too much of a timings penalty, I might even try 3733 (though that could be dreaming in technicolor...). For those with quad-channel Threadripper, do you have any particular tips beyond Ryzen 1.5.1 for 3600 and up? This machine is used for both work and play, so I like to stay at SoC = 1.032v; and DRAM at 1.4v or less.
> Tx


Wow. So have you run any memory tests yet? Most folks can't get 3600 14-14-14-14 stable with a 2x8GB kit let alone at 1.4V. So my only suggestion would be to go to 14-15-14-14 (in your BIOS it may be 14-14-15-14) if you do find errors.


----------



## rdr09

Not sure its been covered. I just read that MSI expects 4266MHz as a sweet spot for X570. If that's the case @1usmus, what would be the ideal RAM sticks currently available to use and would there be a calculator to tune it? Thank you.


----------



## J7SC

nick name said:


> Wow. So have you run any memory tests yet? Most folks can't get 3600 14-14-14-14 stable with a 2x8GB kit let alone at 1.4V. So my only suggestion would be to go to 14-15-14-14 (in your BIOS it may be 14-14-15-14) if you do find errors.




...weekend for more extensive tests; still getting over the surprise that it booted and ran rudimentary mem tests at CR1 / 3600. It's going to be a hunt for the sweet spot between tight timings and bandwidth...




rdr09 said:


> Not sure its been covered. I just read that MSI expects 4266MHz as a sweet spot for X570. If that's the case @*1usmus* , what would be the ideal RAM sticks currently available to use and would there be a calculator to tune it? Thank you.


 
In addition, @*1usmus* can hopefully also shed some light on the 1/2 speed switch for InFin fabric past 3733MHz RAM...seems important re. RAM purchase for Ryzen3K/X570


----------



## rdr09

J7SC said:


> In addition, @*1usmus* can hopefully also shed some light on the 1/2 speed switch for InFin fabric past 3733MHz RAM...seems important re. RAM purchase for Ryzen3K/X570


And will that apply to all the 7nm cpus?

Found some G.Skill 4266 Cl19 16Gb for less than 200$. Could probably downclock it to 3733 with tighter timings if affected by the the 1/2 speed.


----------



## umeng2002

rdr09 said:


> Not sure its been covered. I just read that MSI expects 4266MHz as a sweet spot for X570. If that's the case @1usmus, what would be the ideal RAM sticks currently available to use and would there be a calculator to tune it? Thank you.


Where did you read that? AMD has said the lower 37xx MHz speed.

Maybe AMD was talking just about gaming and latency sensitive workloads while MSI is combining that with throughput tasks.


----------



## rdr09

umeng2002 said:


> Where did you read that? AMD has said the lower 37xx MHz speed.
> 
> Maybe AMD was talking just about gaming and latency sensitive workloads while MSI is combining that with throughput tasks.


Included somewhere in this news . . .

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-16-core-cpu-5-ghz-overclock-ddr4-5100-mhz-world-record/


----------



## umeng2002

rdr09 said:


> Included somewhere in this news . . .
> 
> https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-16-core-cpu-5-ghz-overclock-ddr4-5100-mhz-world-record/


"MSI managed to hit speeds of DDR4-5100 (CL18-21-21-56) on air and expect that 4266 MHz would be the sweet spot for most X570 motherboards lines."

I think that means the easy upper limit. Not the bandwidth, latency optimum point. 

We shall see soon.


----------



## J7SC

rdr09 said:


> And will that apply to all the 7nm cpus?
> 
> Found some G.Skill 4266 Cl19 16Gb for less than 200$. Could probably downclock it to 3733 with tighter timings if affected by the the 1/2 speed.



This is what I was referring to re. 1:1 vs 1:2 mode...then again, some of the 1:2 modes on X570 are running RAM 5.1 GHz plus, so it probably comes down to specific app re. latency vs bandwidth...btw, 3733 w/ tight timings and low latency is very nice in its own right :wubsmiley


----------



## umeng2002

I wonder if the IMC is heavily reworked from Ryzen 1... I would guess it is since it's on a separate die... 

It will be interesting to see if Zen 2 CPU performance scales as much with memory speeds as it did with the current Ryzens.


----------



## steve2563

ComboPI 1.0.0.3 looks good... Showing differences between 1.0.0.1 and 1.0.0.3.

New BETA bios from MSI:
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=320889.0


----------



## nick name

I wanna say I read somewhere that 3733MHz was the hard stop before speeds were de-coupled, but I also think @1usmus said there was hope some CPUs could perhaps push past that.


----------



## Unknownm

From the TPU guide it recommended downloading TM5 0.12 v3. I'm guessing there's a program I left out? :S

"memory manager #1 not started. Fatal error, programm stopped!" and it repeats 10 times 

than says "Process not running (11 of 12), state 2. Critical error, programm stopped!"


----------



## Keith Myers

J7SC said:


> Quick question on quad channel (Threadripper) RAM. I have been running a 2950X w/4x8GB Samsung B-Die GTZR @ 3400 14-14-14-28 CR1 and Ryzen 1.5.1 fast timings' for a while (tfaw =16 etc). SoC = 1.032v DRAM = 1.37v. Per below, I tried out 3466 at the same voltages, and with some minor relaxing around Trct, Tfaw and its related vars, it's running great and passed extended memtest & co.
> 
> Then just for the fun of it, I tried 3600 quad channel, albeit with arbitrarily relaxed timings but same voltages. To my surprise, it booted up just fine w/ 3600 CR1, though I am far from setting final timings before memtest & co. If I get 3600 stable w/o too much of a timings penalty, I might even try 3733 (though that could be dreaming in technicolor...). For those with quad-channel Threadripper, do you have any particular tips beyond Ryzen 1.5.1 for 3600 and up? This machine is used for both work and play, so I like to stay at SoC = 1.032v; and DRAM at 1.4v or less.
> Tx


Congratz. I have had to settle for [email protected] Fast timings 14-15-14-14-28 CR1 with 4x8GB Samsung B-Die GTZ for my TR 2920X I never could get 3466 stable even with relaxed timings. Relaxing them too far was less performance than just running 3400 tight. Since I couldn't make 3466 work, I never attempted 3533 or 3600.


----------



## hazium233

Unknownm said:


> From the TPU guide it recommended downloading TM5 0.12 v3. I'm guessing there's a program I left out? :S
> 
> "memory manager #1 not started. Fatal error, programm stopped!" and it repeats 10 times
> 
> than says "Process not running (11 of 12), state 2. Critical error, programm stopped!"


https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-7-dram-bench-432.html#post27937684

The v3 config file isn't loaded (MT.cfg), probably because the cfg.link file (in /bin) is pointing to a different folder. Try deleting it and restarting the program. You might need to use "Load Config and Exit" as well, I don't remember.


----------



## SaccoSVD

Got my 4dimm 64GB Hynix AFR kit running stable at 3200Mhz

All thanks to the RAM Calculator. My deepest respect!

https://www.reddit.com/r/ASRock/comments/c728il/x470_taichi_64gb_4dimm_hynix_afr_at_3200mhz/


----------



## dgoc18

@1usmus 

I just got new ram kit Ballistix Sports LT 3200 C16

I am running 3733 at 2t 20-22-22-22-44 (testing and semi-stable.)

I run Dram Calc and it’s error that profile Micron Die-E not supported.

Someone got 3733 stable with tight timings at https://old.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/bqnq0m/micron_edie_3733mhz_cas16_14v/ 

I have MSI X470 with memory try it feature, There are two choose 3733 profile.

18-20-20-20-36
20-22-22-22-39

Both above are not stable.

I put my own loose timing for this 20-22-22-22-44 seems do the trick.

Is there any beta or new version 1.5.2, 1.6.0 yet?

Thanks.


----------



## Unknownm

hazium233 said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-7-dram-bench-432.html#post27937684
> 
> The v3 config file isn't loaded (MT.cfg), probably because the cfg.link file (in /bin) is pointing to a different folder. Try deleting it and restarting the program. You might need to use "Load Config and Exit" as well, I don't remember.


I did what you recommended but I'm getting the same error

Deleting cfg.link -> open -> state 2 error
Load config & exit -> point to .cfg -> program closes -> open -> state 2 error

opening up cfg.link it looks like the location is correct


----------



## hazium233

Unknownm said:


> I did what you recommended but I'm getting the same error
> 
> Deleting cfg.link -> open -> state 2 error
> Load config & exit -> point to .cfg -> program closes -> open -> state 2 error
> 
> opening up cfg.link it looks like the location is correct


Try downloading it from the link in the post in this thread. That doesn't look like the right config file.


----------



## crakej

dgoc18 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Is there any beta or new version 1.5.2, 1.6.0 yet?
> 
> Thanks.


He did say he'll try to it for 7th July. When he's quiet he's usually working away!


----------



## Jollyriffic

bah, they took away the delete comment
don't want to have a discussion about this so deleted the content of the message


----------



## Unknownm

hazium233 said:


> Try downloading it from the link in the post in this thread. That doesn't look like the right config file.


I did that. It appears that the download link comes with v0.02 unless i'm missing something, this is my first time downloading TM5..

in 1usmus sig it says "DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.5.1 by me + TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v3 (memory test) "

I click on "TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v3 (memory test)" which brings me to this link 
[ https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html ]

Download link [ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17u_88vsjraTDw5_wI6gJY05peEicbBsQ ] with 2 zip folders. 

I select "TM5 0.12 v3 for desktop" [ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BJTTsxMUX1278b9pjI_eRe5qYnJ6SZcT ] and download TM5.zip

This is what .cfg file looks like...


----------



## hazium233

Unknownm said:


> I did that. It appears that the download link comes with v0.02 unless i'm missing something, this is my first time downloading TM5..
> 
> in 1usmus sig it says "DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.5.1 by me + TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v3 (memory test) "
> 
> I click on "TM 5 0.12 1usmus config v3 (memory test)" which brings me to this link
> [ https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html ]
> 
> Download link [ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17u_88vsjraTDw5_wI6gJY05peEicbBsQ ] with 2 zip folders.
> 
> I select "TM5 0.12 v3 for desktop" [ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BJTTsxMUX1278b9pjI_eRe5qYnJ6SZcT ] and download TM5.zip
> 
> This is what .cfg file looks like...


In the two screenshots you showed, the config is different. 

Look in [Main Section]. In your earlier post it said "Config Author=serj," in this newest post it says "Config Author=1usmus_v3." Number of tests is different. Test sequence is different.

I don't know if the error is specifically from this though, but the second picture config file is the one I have.


----------



## Unknownm

hazium233 said:


> In the two screenshots you showed, the config is different.
> 
> Look in [Main Section]. In your earlier post it said "Config Author=serj," in this newest post it says "Config Author=1usmus_v3." Number of tests is different. Test sequence is different.
> 
> I don't know if the error is specifically from this though, but the second picture config file is the one I have.


yes I see bad my part and good catch!

However it still doesn't run with v3 config so idk whats going on.


----------



## dspx

Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3000 CL15 Micron E-Die stable @ 3533 CL16 16-18-20-18-36-62


----------



## J7SC

Keith Myers said:


> Congratz. I have had to settle for [email protected] Fast timings 14-15-14-14-28 CR1 with 4x8GB Samsung B-Die GTZ for my TR 2920X I never could get 3466 stable even with relaxed timings. Relaxing them too far was less performance than just running 3400 tight. Since I couldn't make 3466 work, I never attempted 3533 or 3600.




Tx. Difference between 3400 'fast/tight' and 3466 'fast/tight' isn't really that pronounced in terms of benches and other apps. 3466 is locked in and tested (only had to relax Dram ref cycle by couple of points compared to 3400). Oddly enough on my system, 3600 is almost more stable than 3533 at similar timings (Bios?), albeit both with reduced tightness compared to 3400/3466. 

The Samsung B-Die kit is a nominal 3866 / 4x8 GB, so I should be able to keep voltages low. But unless I can get 3600 stable and error-free into the 16-16-..-...range w/o too much craziness, I probably stick with 'tight' 3466 for now...


----------



## nick name

I never looked at the screen grab on the Ryzen Timing Checker download page before today so please forgive me if this has been discussed -- does anyone know if the screen grab is from a stable overclock? Or is The Stilt having a little fun trolling us? Or in the event that it is a stable overclock -- any idea which kit was used or any other pertinent details? 

Screen grab posted below:


----------



## umeng2002

dspx said:


> Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3000 CL15 Micron E-Die stable @ 3533 CL16 16-18-20-18-36-62


I'd let Karhu run for an hour


----------



## BeetleatWar1977

nick name said:


> I never looked at the screen grab on the Ryzen Timing Checker download page before today so please forgive me if this has been discussed -- does anyone know if the screen grab is from a stable overclock? Or is The Stilt having a little fun trolling us? Or in the event that it is a stable overclock -- any idea which kit was used or any other pertinent details?
> 
> Screen grab posted below:


If i remember right this was only using 1 Stick of memory.


----------



## dspx

umeng2002 said:


> I'd let Karhu run for an hour


I agree, this was late night and I really needed to sleep, I will repeat the test and do a TM5 one too.


----------



## dante0518

*Advice*

Hey guys! I've downloaded this calculator, but it does not start on my PC. It shows up in task manager for 1-2 sec and then quits. Can you give me some advice to make it run? (ryzen 5 2600 with gigabyte aorus elite)


----------



## LicSqualo

Run as Administrator.


----------



## dante0518

LicSqualo said:


> Run as Administrator.


Same problem occurs. Changes nothing.


----------



## crakej

dante0518 said:


> Same problem occurs. Changes nothing.


If you've ever installed it before, then check the AppData/Local folder for any remnants of Dram Calculator ( folder Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_0 for example) and delete those folders. Let it re-create it.


----------



## dante0518

crakej said:


> If you've ever installed it before, then check the AppData/Local folder for any remnants of Dram Calculator ( folder Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_0 for example) and delete those folders. Let it re-create it.


That did the trick! Thanks


----------



## nick name

BeetleatWar1977 said:


> If i remember right this was only using 1 Stick of memory.


Ahhh, ok.


----------



## dspx

umeng2002 said:


> I'd let Karhu run for an hour


How about this?


----------



## Sentinela

Karhu is amazing. Bought it today. Seems to be the ultimate ram stability test. Im using only it for my testings from now on, and of course, gaming.


----------



## umeng2002

I've had errors Karhu found in 20 minutes that took HCI Mem Test 2.5 hours to find.


----------



## Sentinela

umeng2002 said:


> I've had errors Karhu found in 20 minutes that took HCI Mem Test 2.5 hours to find.


I found HCI not to be reliable. No matter what settings i test, it always return an error, no matter what. As Windows is well know for its issues and weird bugs, using such an old program as HCI (even thou it has been updated, still x86 codes), im not relying on it anymore to be honest. I'll use it as my main tes program, and if it passes Karhu, and dont give me errors in day to day usage, i'll consider this the way to go. I see Stilt helped developing Karhu Ram Test, so its a pretty good start.


----------



## hazium233

I decided to try and get my tRCDRD down on my previously posted Micron D timings at 3200. Just dropping it gave 2 errors in TM5 6 cycles. Then I tried playing with tRTP, which actually increased errors (4 errors at 10, 3 errors at 12). Interestingly, dropping ProcODT to 43 plus just the tRCDRD change gave 1.

I juggled a couple of the others (tRRDS and tRRDL; tRDWR and tWRRD). Also tried bumping SOC up a tad to -0.0625 (3 errors). RTT Nom from disabled to RZQ/7 (4 errors).

Instead of then messing with tFAW, I went back to retest the original primary timings with Auto on near everything else, but ProcODT 48. That passed 6 cycles, so I ended up dropping a few things and passed 6 again. I don't know if it is worth trying to reconcile the subtimings just for the sake of dropping tRCDRD at 3200. Subtimings are a bit different, and of course with tRC way different. tRRDS was lower (5 instead of 6).

The other day I did a boot test with SOC set to "1.05" (-0.05 offset actually), ProcODT to 53, 18-20/20-20-Auto, 1.35v just going up the speed bins. Booted up to 3600, although that speed did not entirely load the GUI for bios correctly.

Maybe I should focus on a higher speed bin instead of spending more time on 3200MT/s. Thoughts?


----------



## ajc9988

Sentinela said:


> I found HCI not to be reliable. No matter what settings i test, it always return an error, no matter what. As Windows is well know for its issues and weird bugs, using such an old program as HCI (even thou it has been updated, still x86 codes), im not relying on it anymore to be honest. I'll use it as my main tes program, and if it passes Karhu, and dont give me errors in day to day usage, i'll consider this the way to go. I see Stilt helped developing Karhu Ram Test, so its a pretty good start.


That is ABSURD!!! Stability cannot be confirmed with ANY ONE TEST! Each stresses in its own ways. Some also can show cache errors that pop up under the memory tests, which even Karhu has with and without cache selection.

What is a better way to do ram testing is FIRST uses the tests that take less time and catch the majority of errors, like TM5 and Karhu, then move to the HCI test.

Also, the x86 code is FINE! That does not make it obsolete! This is an ignorant statement. What matters is that it is updated to be able to test for newly discovered means by which ram can be attacked on a security basis (like rowhammer bit flips), etc. 

Now, HCI on thumb drive = useless. I did it there one time, passed completely, went into Windows and ran HCI there and it failed decently quickly. 

But, the point remains, you need more than one as each works in different ways. There is always the chance of false positives, but generally speaking, people have seen Karhu passed then watch errors pile up in other tests or in regular use. NO MEM TEST IS FULLY INFALLIBLE! 

That isn't to say Karhu is not a good program, it is. But the way you presented it is full of absurdity.


----------



## Sentinela

ajc9988 said:


> That is ABSURD!!! Stability cannot be confirmed with ANY ONE TEST! Each stresses in its own ways. Some also can show cache errors that pop up under the memory tests, which even Karhu has with and without cache selection.
> 
> What is a better way to do ram testing is FIRST uses the tests that take less time and catch the majority of errors, like TM5 and Karhu, then move to the HCI test.
> 
> Also, the x86 code is FINE! That does not make it obsolete! This is an ignorant statement. What matters is that it is updated to be able to test for newly discovered means by which ram can be attacked on a security basis (like rowhammer bit flips), etc.
> 
> Now, HCI on thumb drive = useless. I did it there one time, passed completely, went into Windows and ran HCI there and it failed decently quickly.
> 
> But, the point remains, you need more than one as each works in different ways. There is always the chance of false positives, but generally speaking, people have seen Karhu passed then watch errors pile up in other tests or in regular use. NO MEM TEST IS FULLY INFALLIBLE!
> 
> That isn't to say Karhu is not a good program, it is. But the way you presented it is full of absurdity.


Calm your a ss down my friend. You're taking this too personally. For me, Karhu and TM5 for fast testing, then gaming. I dont need'some smart as s yelling at me, just because i do things differently them him. Do as you please, i do it my way, and life goes on. Now, go have a cup of tea and get some puss y.


----------



## ajc9988

Sentinela said:


> Calm your a ss down my friend. You're taking this too personally. For me, Karhu and TM5 for fast testing, then gaming. I dont need'some smart as s yelling at me, just because i do things differently them him. Do as you please, i do it my way, and life goes on. Now, go have a cup of tea and get some puss y.


Do as you please, but stop trying to convince people to have a bad process for checking their ram!

Seriously, you didn't even mention TM5, rather saying you would only use Karhu. That's fine. You do you, boo. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't correct others on proper checking. Now, you say two programs and gaming. Personally, I think two different programs that are good at checking for errors is a minimum. Gaming, although it can find some stability, it doesn't always show when there is some instability. But two programs plus gaming isn't what you said in that other post, hence my response.

You don't have to do my test suite to find stability. But bad advice generally needs a response of better advice. It even got you to change your statement from one to two programs, even though you then acted like a petulant child.


----------



## Sentinela

ajc9988 said:


> Do as you please, but stop trying to convince people to have a bad process for checking their ram!
> 
> Seriously, you didn't even mention TM5, rather saying you would only use Karhu. That's fine. You do you, boo. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't correct others on proper checking. Now, you say two programs and gaming. Personally, I think two different programs that are good at checking for errors is a minimum. Gaming, although it can find some stability, it doesn't always show when there is some instability. But two programs plus gaming isn't what you said in that other post, hence my response.
> 
> You don't have to do my test suite to find stability. But bad advice generally needs a response of better advice. It even got you to change your statement from one to two programs, even though you then acted like a petulant child.


Where am i trying to CONVINCE anyone dude? You're delusional. Dont care for you, just expressed my opinion as everyone else, respectfully, contrary to you. Have a nice day.


----------



## Yviena

Why is geardownmode recommended on for 3466+, when it has higher latency than T2?


----------



## crakej

Yviena said:


> Why is geardownmode recommended on for 3466+, when it has higher latency than T2?


GearDown doesn't add any noticeable latency. It's a great way of getting more perf out of your ram.


----------



## miklkit

Just flashed the bios and have been resetting things. Found out that since it has been nearly a year since I last messed with it I've forgotten what little I used to know.


For instance, what are generally the best settings for Bankgroupswap and bankgroupswap alt? They are currently on AUTO.


----------



## crakej

miklkit said:


> Just flashed the bios and have been resetting things. Found out that since it has been nearly a year since I last messed with it I've forgotten what little I used to know.
> 
> 
> For instance, what are generally the best settings for Bankgroupswap and bankgroupswap alt? They are currently on AUTO.


The calculator will give you the best settings for your kit.


----------



## Yviena

crakej said:


> Yviena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is geardownmode recommended on for 3466+, when it has higher latency than T2?
> 
> 
> 
> GearDown doesn't add any noticeable latency. It's a great way of getting more perf out of your ram.
Click to expand...

Weird I consistently get 67.5-67.9ns with geardownmode on while with it off I get average 66.4-66.7ns

Bandwidth is around 500-700mbps higher with geardown though at the cost of 1ns.more latency


----------



## crakej

Yviena said:


> Weird I consistently get 67.5-67.9ns with geardownmode on while with it off I get average 66.4-66.7ns
> 
> Bandwidth is around 500-700mbps higher with geardown though at the cost of 1ns.more latency


The difference in latency is imperceivable....that's such a tiny difference. Also, the higher transfer rate you get with GearDown on tells me you need it for reliable decent performance. You will also find you can probably run the kit faster still than you could with GearDown off.


----------



## Yviena

crakej said:


> Yviena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird I consistently get 67.5-67.9ns with geardownmode on while with it off I get average 66.4-66.7ns
> 
> Bandwidth is around 500-700mbps higher with geardown though at the cost of 1ns.more latency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference in latency is imperceivable....that's such a tiny difference. Also, the higher transfer rate you get with GearDown on tells me you need it for reliable decent performance. You will also find you can probably run the kit faster still than you could with GearDown off.
Click to expand...


Was a typo in my previous post, average latency is 65.6 with GDM off GDM on is 67.

I don't.think I can run it faster with GDM on,. it's already stable at 3533 CL14 fast timings with 4x8 b die sticks, bandwidth is already at a decent 54Gb/s.


----------



## crakej

Yviena said:


> Was a typo in my previous post, average latency is 65.6 with GDM off GDM on is 67.
> 
> I don't.think I can run it faster with GDM on,. it's already stable at 3533 CL14 fast timings with 4x8 b die sticks, bandwidth is already at a decent 54Gb/s.


Thats' still really small diff. Seems your setup is good though


----------



## Vins

Can anyone please help me get decent speed / timings with my setup? I'm really struggling to get decent values (maybe cheap RAM?)

Configuration is:

Ryzen [email protected] Ghz (1.3250v override)
MSI B450M Pro-M2 (with latest bios from MSI website)

The DDR4s are a pair of single rank 8GB HyperX Predator rated with XMP 3000 Mhz 15-17-17-36. They work flawlessy and without errors at max rated XMP.

These timings seems rather disappointing and i think there is little room for improvement. I know that this RAM can boot even @3533 by my experience, even if max rated OC allowed by mb is 3466 (?) but obviously getting no errors is a whole other story. My goal would be even @3200 but at least with decent timings. Any hints? 


Ps: using R-XMP button gets wrong latency values so i can only use "import XMP" from taiphoon (and im stuck at "safe" values) 

Ps2: it seems that this motherboard doesnt support many useful advanced settings from dram calculator (VDDP?), maybe that is the reason for no stability ? Or maybe i'm dumb enough so i couldnt find them... 

hope @1usmus read this and give some advice 


EDIT BIG UPDATE!!!!

I think i take back that "little room for improvement" statement. I just tried @3533 Mhz and got no errors (!) with tm5 and the integrated memtest on calculator (150% and going strong, will test to 1000% to be sure). The key for success will be valid stress tests under load i guess... (spoiler alert. yes i failed... again).

Aaaanyway what i have done to get these results:

1) Pump RAM voltage (1.48) and soc (1.15) beyond recommended values (1.35 from calculator i think is WAY UNREALISTIC to achieve stability with this RAM)
2) Enable some (but not all) advanced things recommended on calculator (opcache and spread spectrum are the only available  )

I used these timing values below:










AIDA64 benchmark results:

read 52698 MB/s
write 51229 MB/s
copy 44218 MB/s
ns 73.5

Will also try some Resident Evil 7 to see if my new settings can survive zombies  (EDIT: they do! 1h without any crash and 1h of AIDA64 stability test... will try RealBench tomorrow... EDIT Realbench 1h stress test passed!)

EDIT 2:

It failed. Hard. As usual. After 250% of memtest HCI i got a single, rare non-repeatable error. It's an error. So everything doesn't work at all. Any thoughts? 

1) Tried lowering SoC voltage a little. Got many errors straight away. Bummer. :tiredsmil
2) Trying pumping again RAM voltage to 1.49. FAIL.
3) Now the very same settings of yesterday don't work anymore. I get many errors straight away from tm5. im DONE.


----------



## nick name

It's been a bit since I last ran it so it may have been before the latest Crosshair VII BIOS and the latest chipset drivers, but now my Ryzen Timing Checker no longer runs. No errors. No nothing.

Edit:
NVM it appears that Windows Security is going back to blocking it again. It's flagging it with Win32/Fuery.B!cl


----------



## brenopapito

I have a G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZR running 3400 C14, would you upgrade to F4-4266C19D-16GTZR? I'm planning to get the 3800X and X570 motherboard but I don't know if this upgrade worth it. Any recommendation?


----------



## Saiger0

brenopapito said:


> I have a G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZR running 3400 C14, would you upgrade to F4-4266C19D-16GTZR? I'm planning to get the 3800X and X570 motherboard but I don't know if this upgrade worth it. Any recommendation?


For now the only thing i´d upgrade if at all would be to a 3800x. The motherboard only if u need its features (e.g pci gen 4). Ram doesnt really matter since you already own b.


----------



## Keith Myers

Wait for reviews and see whether the higher memory clocks are actually achievable with the 3800X and a X570 motherboard before spending your money. Maybe some of the reviews will try to overclock the old gold standard Samsung B-Die 3200CL14 or 3600CL15 sticks to the higher memory clocks Zen 2 is supposed to achieve. You might not need to spend any money on new RAM at all.


----------



## nick name

Keith Myers said:


> Wait for reviews and see whether the higher memory clocks are actually achievable with the 3800X and a X570 motherboard before spending your money. Maybe some of the reviews will try to overclock the old gold standard Samsung B-Die 3200CL14 or 3600CL15 sticks to the higher memory clocks Zen 2 is supposed to achieve. You might not need to spend any money on new RAM at all.


Some of these results are with faster RAM (past 3600MHz). Ryzen 3600 on X470:
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=ryzen+3600+x470


----------



## Keith Myers

nick name said:


> Some of these results are with faster RAM (past 3600MHz). Ryzen 3600 on X470:
> http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=ryzen+3600+x470


I've looked at those before. Nobody ever edits their results to show what memory speeds they were running. I keep wondering why the latencies are so high if supposedly running the newer higher achievable memory clocks of Ryzen 3000. I get 62ns in GB4 when I bench my X470/2700X systems at 3466Mhz and CL14.


----------



## brenopapito

Saiger0 said:


> For now the only thing i´d upgrade if at all would be to a 3800x. The motherboard only if u need its features (e.g pci gen 4). Ram doesnt really matter since you already own b.





Keith Myers said:


> Wait for reviews and see whether the higher memory clocks are actually achievable with the 3800X and a X570 motherboard before spending your money. Maybe some of the reviews will try to overclock the old gold standard Samsung B-Die 3200CL14 or 3600CL15 sticks to the higher memory clocks Zen 2 is supposed to achieve. You might not need to spend any money on new RAM at all.


Thanks !!


----------



## nick name

Keith Myers said:


> I've looked at those before. Nobody ever edits their results to show what memory speeds they were running. I keep wondering why the latencies are so high if supposedly running the newer higher achievable memory clocks of Ryzen 3000. I get 62ns in GB4 when I bench my X470/2700X systems at 3466Mhz and CL14.


Yeah there are some with with no RAM speed, but many of the recent ones are at 3600MHz and one at 3866MHz. I didn't know you could edit your memory speed after the fact though. As far as latencies -- I'm assuming they aren't messing with timings and likely just setting speed and then leaving most timings on Auto. Leaving tRFC for the board to sort out usually leads to a bad time.


----------



## Keith Myers

No, you can't edit your memory speed. I gather if you use the Tryout version you can't edit your results to include notes about the current setup you are testing. I am using the paid version and can add my notes to my setup and change the name of the host system to something other than System manufacturer System Product Name which is all that ever gets detected for a Linux host it seems. It looks like the Windows version pulls things like motherboard vendor and model into the test result. I see some Windows tests that state 1800Mhz RAM in the host description, which is 3600Mhz of course. But still lousy latencies for 3600Mhz it seems.


----------



## nick name

Keith Myers said:


> No, you can't edit your memory speed. I gather if you use the Tryout version you can't edit your results to include notes about the current setup you are testing. I am using the paid version and can add my notes to my setup and change the name of the host system to something other than System manufacturer System Product Name which is all that ever gets detected for a Linux host it seems. It looks like the Windows version pulls things like motherboard vendor and model into the test result. I see some Windows tests that state 1800Mhz RAM in the host description, which is 3600Mhz of course. But still lousy latencies for 3600Mhz it seems.


Ahh, ok. Yeah, I'm running the trial versions.


----------



## Leftezog

Guys I have trouble stabilizing Hynix CJR on my second rig in my signature. Generally the situation is frustrating. I put safe values from the calculator as the picture I attach with vdimm 1.35v(tried 1.4v but also same problem appears , I will explain later), SOC at 1.1v, VDDP at 900(motherboard doesn't have lower value), CLDO VDDP at 797(I found that is a value that pass TM5, i will explain later) and the rest from advanced tab and power supply tab as the calculator shows. The frustrating situation is that I apply these values on bios and after I save them I shut down the computer and make a clean boot( remove the power cord, hit power button many times and after put power cord again and power on the computer) so the CLDO VDDP value I put will be surely enabled. I power on the computer, open TM5 with 1usmus V3 config and it passes right away with no errors. Afterwards I shutdown the computer but now I don't remove the power cord, I just shut it down and power it on again normally. Open TM5 memtest again and I always get errors. Then again I shut it down and make a clean boot(removing power cord etc...) and when I login again I pass TM5 with no errors. The situation is making me crazy!!! So I assume that something except CLDO VDDP is changing automatically from the motherboard when doing a simple shutdown so the next time I cold boot the pc I get errors. Anyone having an idea of what maybe this is?


----------



## 1usmus

Leftezog said:


> Guys I have trouble stabilizing Hynix CJR on my second rig in my signature. Generally the situation is frustrating. I put safe values from the calculator as the picture I attach with vdimm 1.35v(tried 1.4v but also same problem appears , I will explain later), SOC at 1.1v, VDDP at 900(motherboard doesn't have lower value), CLDO VDDP at 797(I found that is a value that pass TM5, i will explain later) and the rest from advanced tab and power supply tab as the calculator shows. The frustrating situation is that I apply these values on bios and after I save them I shut down the computer and make a clean boot( remove the power cord, hit power button many times and after put power cord again and power on the computer) so the CLDO VDDP value I put will be surely enabled. I power on the computer, open TM5 with 1usmus V3 config and it passes right away with no errors. Afterwards I shutdown the computer but now I don't remove the power cord, I just shut it down and power it on again normally. Open TM5 memtest again and I always get errors. Then again I shut it down and make a clean boot(removing power cord etc...) and when I login again I pass TM5 with no errors. The situation is making me crazy!!! So I assume that something except CLDO VDDP is changing automatically from the motherboard when doing a simple shutdown so the next time I cold boot the pc I get errors. Anyone having an idea of what maybe this is?


I advise you to manually install the *vdram boot voltage* (t should be equal *dram voltage*), this is the key to successful cyclical training


----------



## Leftezog

1usmus said:


> I advise you to manually install the *vdram boot voltage* (t should be equal *dram voltage*), this is the key to successful cyclical training


Thanks for your answer 1usmus but this motherboard doesn't have a dram boot voltage option. I'm in last bios. I'm thinking of going to one or two versions before to check if the option appears there. Also I saw that you have a custom bios option for my motherboard. Have you unlocked this option there for dram boot voltage?


----------



## Unknownm

does anyone know what these options do?










Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## nick name

Unknownm said:


> does anyone know what these options do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


I've never played with those, but I'm assuming they allow you to train with looser timings and then change after POST to tighter timings. Not sure how successful you'd be with them though which is why I never bothered. And what I mean by that is that I am assuming it isn't for stability but for overclocking runs where you just want the fastest you can get for short runs. I could be wrong though.


----------



## nick name

@1usmus Do you know when the new Ryzen Master is going to be released?

Edit:
I'm an idiot. It's out already.
https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/ryzen-master


----------



## dgoc18

nick name said:


> @1usmus Do you know when the new Ryzen Master is going to be released?
> 
> Edit:
> I'm an idiot. It's out already.
> https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/ryzen-master


I just installed it and there is no dram configuration to view for me.

Not sure it's only for X570 to show it ?


----------



## drkCrix

3900x on order, have 32gb of Teamgroup Ddr4 4000 CL18 waiting for it 🙂


----------



## JeyD02

drkCrix said:


> 3900x on order, have 32gb of Teamgroup Ddr4 4000 CL18 waiting for it ????


Where did you acquire the teamgroup ram? Can't seem to get it on USA 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## chakku

Seems like memory OC almost doesn't matter on new Ryzen?

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/5.html


----------



## JeyD02

chakku said:


> Seems like memory OC almost doesn't matter on new Ryzen?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/5.html


Looks to me that it does impact performance which is known on AMD infinity fabric. 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## chakku

JeyD02 said:


> Looks to me that it does impact performance which is known on AMD infinity fabric.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


"Overall, when looking at the application averages, there's barely a five percent performance gain to be had going from DDR4-2400 to DDR4-3600."

Off the top of my head with Ryzen 1000/2000 there was definitely more than a 5% gain going from 2400 to even 2933/3066 let alone 3600.


----------



## crakej

dgoc18 said:


> I just installed it and there is no dram configuration to view for me.
> 
> Not sure it's only for X570 to show it ?


Nothing new showing for Ryzen 1xxx CPUs.... thought we'd at least be able to see all timings.....


----------



## JeyD02

chakku said:


> "Overall, when looking at the application averages, there's barely a five percent performance gain to be had going from DDR4-2400 to DDR4-3600."
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head with Ryzen 1000/2000 there was definitely more than a 5% gain going from 2400 to even 2933/3066 let alone 3600.


I believe he/she is referring to the application test avg results, as in productivity apps, render, edit, media, etc. Of you look at the gaming avg results you'll see great improvements by using higher sweet spot Ram oc. 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## chakku

JeyD02 said:


> I believe he/she is referring to the application test avg results, as in productivity apps, render, edit, media, etc. Of you look at the gaming avg results you'll see great improvements by using higher sweet spot Ram oc.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Looking back at their memory testing for first gen Ryzen I'm starting to lose confidence in TPU's testing honestly. I think I'll wait for proper reviewers/memory overclockers to test the new platform and retract my earlier statement on memory overclocking looking less important on this generation.


----------



## nick name

chakku said:


> Seems like memory OC almost doesn't matter on new Ryzen?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-2-memory-performance-scaling-benchmark/5.html


Yeah I can't take that seriously when they are running 3600 17-19-19-39 2T. Like for real?


----------



## drkCrix

JeyD02 said:


> drkCrix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3900x on order, have 32gb of Teamgroup Ddr4 4000 CL18 waiting for it ????
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you acquire the teamgroup ram? Can't seem to get it on USA
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Got it from Newegg Canada, not in stock anymore sadly


----------



## jon666

Not going to lie, discovering this calculator kept me busy all day. Read most of this thread while constantly rebooting. Glad I read that post about dropping RAM voltage. At 1.35, rest of voltages should be on auto. I should probably double check that. Super Pi times went up while these times went down. I should probably test for stability. 1st Gen 1700x on the x370 Gaming Pro Carbon from MSI. Was using a very old bios until about a month ago. Getting the feeling this PC prefers cool ram to run fast.


----------



## Darkomax

I don't think TPU know how to test memory tbh.


----------



## Krisztias

Darkomax said:


> I don't think TPU know how to test memory tbh.




They should, because the article from 1usmus is on TPU 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/


----------



## chakku

Krisztias said:


> They should, because the article from 1usmus is on TPU
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/


Clearly the person doing the testing hasn't read the guide.


----------



## jon666

CPU Stock speed, voltage set to 1.36, RAM voltage I bumped to 1.4 for now. Might be able to drop that in the fall, but I know this is stable. For now. SOC voltage is on auto, I think it likes to hover around 1.1 from what I've seen in bios. Trying to drop that, or RAM voltage requires I pop the watch battery out while planning the next step towards my PCs doom. Managed to boot at 3600 with loose timings, probably not enough voltage for anything, and everything wigged out for about half an hour. At first I thought it was Ryzen being Ryzen, til the boot loops kept coming. Could probably drop some of those subtimings some more, but I might play around with CPU clock til I find something stable that is higher then stock. Only 26 seconds to shave away...

EDIT:
Command Rate was never at 1t for me I think. Finally opened up CPUZ, then went straight to bios. Also bumped cpu multiplier to 38 after playing with cpu options trying to figure out what controlled what. Ended up leaving most everything on auto, cpuz says core voltage jumps from 1.28~1.38 depending on whats running. Idles at 1.352 if it is to be believed. I should probably write down what bios reads out. I also remembered to switch the windows power plan to the superpower mode, forgot that was even a thing. Now at this point I am trying to figure out which thing I did had the biggest impact on cutting down time because I wasn't paying enough attention. Downloading other benchmarks for giggles may have distracted me as well.


----------



## hazium233

jon666 said:


> Now at this point I am trying to figure out which thing I did had the biggest impact on cutting down time because I wasn't paying enough attention. Downloading other benchmarks for giggles may have distracted me as well.


From the 259 to the result here, probably RRDS and FAW. edit: ok I thought RRDS was 4 in the newest. Your FAW can't be below 4*RRDS (it is Fifth Activate Window), so if RRDS is 6 it will really be 24, but that is lower.

RC, RFC, RDRDSCL, WRWRSCL and WR can have effects on bandwidth. But they mostly didn't change.

As to the RC change, the question is whether or not it and RAS are being substituted. For a test you can try RAS=40, RC=54, and RFC=324 to compare times.


----------



## Eastrider

Just dropped by... waiting for my 3900X and my X570 Gaming Plus to arrive.

So far, does it seem that Ryzen 3000 is less sensitive to RAM and latency than the predecesors? or is that TPU article completely bogus?

Has someone tested what's the effect of subtimings? As large, or smaller than with Zen+?


----------



## FJSAMA

Guys, i noticed a strange thing (to the extent of my knowledge at least). I rerun multiple times to verify and its definitely happening over and over (within the margin of error).

Is it normal for RAM latency to drop by changing just CPU OC? I mean, on the left image i was playing with fixed OC (4.1ratio fixed 1.3v llc3) and on the right side its OC with PBO (maxed PBO 1000A 1000W etc, offset - 0.750v, llc7)
Also, seems like the reverse happens to the cache values. ??? Im confused.
Is this normal? (Both RAM and Cache?)

Can some one shed some light on me? Thanks:cheers:

PS:i didnt touch ram settings


----------



## umeng2002

Eastrider said:


> Just dropped by... waiting for my 3900X and my X570 Gaming Plus to arrive.
> 
> So far, does it seem that Ryzen 3000 is less sensitive to RAM and latency than the predecesors? or is that TPU article completely bogus?
> 
> Has someone tested what's the effect of subtimings? As large, or smaller than with Zen+?


One quick review I saw on TechPowerUp, maybe; didn't show a big improvement in gaming from going to faster RAM like it did in Zen 1. Which is good imho.


----------



## CJMitsuki

umeng2002 said:


> Eastrider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just dropped by... waiting for my 3900X and my X570 Gaming Plus to arrive.
> 
> So far, does it seem that Ryzen 3000 is less sensitive to RAM and latency than the predecesors? or is that TPU article completely bogus?
> 
> Has someone tested what's the effect of subtimings? As large, or smaller than with Zen+?
> 
> 
> 
> One quick review I saw on TechPowerUp, maybe; didn't show a big improvement in gaming from going to faster RAM like it did in Zen 1. Which is good imho.
Click to expand...

If you guys are talking about that “memory scaling review” don't worry, that wasnt how you compare ram to show how memory scales. The 3600mhz and 4000mhz setup had some of the most awful timings. Both were much slower than the 3200 cl14 XMP setup he compared them against. Especially the 4000mhz cl20 setup. Its like comparing a couple of dumpsters full of trash to a new Corvette.


----------



## jon666

RAM Voltage set to 1.4, everything else is just about auto for voltage control. Even made sure the mobo protection stuff is on. Cool n quiet is off, cause it don't do anything anyways. I played within safe voltage ranges with every setting to arrive at this one. I'll have to let something run when I sleep. I'm glad you suggested I be a bit more methodical lol. Seems to be paying off.
https://valid.x86.fr/z99j2x


----------



## Steadly

Newbie here, just a quick question. 

@ https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370 Killer SLI/index.asp#BIOS it says

'User will not able to flash previous BIOS once upgrading to this BIOS version.'
Will i be able to using these instructions ?

https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html


----------



## SexySale

*DRAM Calculator updates updates for Zen 2 (3000 series/3rd gen.)?*

Hi @1usmus,

Can you give us any hints on new DRAM Calculator updates for Zen 2 (3000 series/3rd gen.), as processors are in the market?

Meanwhile, any hints on what calculations to use for new processors? (for example Zen+/2nd gen.)

Thank you for everything. 
Especially, for this tool and I am glad to see all attention it got over time from community and AMD


----------



## Bubar37

I'm waiting for my asus 570x tuf for my ryzen 1 1600 and 2*8 viper patriot 3733 cl 17 hynyx cjr . I'll give you some feedback as my rig should be a bit exotical . I hope to be more stable with my dram over 3466 (except if it's my 1600 that blocks me ) maybe better sub timings ...


----------



## ku4eto

Hey guys.

Got myself a R7 1700, with a X470 ASRock Gaming K4 and the following RAM:

https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categ...lpx-black/p/CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16#tab-tech-specs

I tried all of the settings below (alts including), but no POST.

Forgot to add, Taiphoon says, minimum timings are 15-15-15-30...


----------



## nick name

ku4eto said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Got myself a R7 1700, with a X470 ASRock Gaming K4 and the following RAM:
> 
> https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categ...lpx-black/p/CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16#tab-tech-specs
> 
> I tried all of the settings below (alts including), but no POST.
> 
> Forgot to add, Taiphoon says, minimum timings are 15-15-15-30...


Did you use the correct RAM slots? Should be A2 B2 or the 2nd and 4th slots counting away from the CPU.


----------



## ku4eto

nick name said:


> Did you use the correct RAM slots? Should be A2 B2 or the 2nd and 4th slots counting away from the CPU.


Yup, A2/B2. Otherwise, i couldnt even use the XMP profile.


----------



## hazium233

ku4eto said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Got myself a R7 1700, with a X470 ASRock Gaming K4 and the following RAM:
> 
> https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categ...lpx-black/p/CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16#tab-tech-specs
> 
> I tried all of the settings below (alts including), but no POST.
> 
> Forgot to add, Taiphoon says, minimum timings are 15-15-15-30...


Well if you want to post quickly, you can use V2 preset. 3200 C16 B-die is not the best bin.

Other than that, you may need more than 1.35V to drop timings. Maybe start with up to 1.4V

Assuming you set everything from the Termination Block (RTT Nom is either RZQ/7 or Disabled), you can try the alternative ProcODTs. Then perhaps alternate RTT Park.

Or if you want to try something a bit different:

Loosen to 14-15/15-15-37-52 with tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL 4, tRFC 312


----------



## xlollomanx

Bubar37 said:


> I'm waiting for my asus 570x tuf for my ryzen 1 1600 and 2*8 viper patriot 3733 cl 17 hynyx cjr . I'll give you some feedback as my rig should be a bit exotical . I hope to be more stable with my dram over 3466 (except if it's my 1600 that blocks me ) maybe better sub timings ...


I'm pretty sure first gen ryzen are not supported in latest x570 mobo. But I can be wrong, let us know if it's work. I'm very interested in this.


----------



## HatchetEgg

Hi guys,
Just upgraded to the 3600, but now I can't even run 3200mhz ram system only now runs at 2400mhz
Im using the latest bios for my Asus strix x370-f gaming

Any segestions?


----------



## Lexi is Dumb

HatchetEgg said:


> Hi guys,
> Just upgraded to the 3600, but now I can't even run 3200mhz ram system only now runs at 2400mhz
> Im using the latest bios for my Asus strix x370-f gaming
> 
> Any segestions?


Have the same issue with an R7 3700X and the same board. According to some here and some other posts ive read around that at least some or most of the previous gen asus boards are bugged with dram boot voltage being stuck at 1.2v, our board doesn't have a setting for changing dram boot voltage so you can try manually incrementally upping memory frequency. I got it to 2933 doing that but the sub timings were incredibly bad and at that point I just couldn't be bothered tweaking anymore.
It may get fixed with the next bios and AGESA 1.0.0.3, basically we made ourselves early beta testers/guinea pigs and now we just have to wait it out.

Also stock voltages even with PBO disabled are definitely too high on this board as far as I can tell. It's going up to 1.45v in heavy loads and over 1.5v on light load boosts, it never idles below 1v either. I've seen that voltages should be around 1.35v sustained and up to 1.47 is safe for the single core boosts.


----------



## HatchetEgg

Lexi is Dumb said:


> HatchetEgg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Just upgraded to the 3600, but now I can't even run 3200mhz ram system only now runs at 2400mhz
> 
> Im using the latest bios for my Asus strix x370-f gaming
> 
> 
> 
> Any segestions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have the same issue with an R7 3700X and the same board. According to some here and some other posts ive read around that at least some or most of the previous gen asus boards are bugged with dram boot voltage being stuck at 1.2v, our board doesn't have a setting for changing dram boot voltage so you can try manually incrementally upping memory frequency. I got it to 2933 doing that but the sub timings were incredibly bad and at that point I just couldn't be bothered tweaking anymore.
> It may get fixed with the next bios and AGESA 1.0.0.3, basically we made ourselves early beta testers/guinea pigs and now we just have to wait it out.
> 
> Also stock voltages even with PBO disabled are definitely too high on this board as far as I can tell. It's going up to 1.45v in heavy loads and over 1.5v on light load boosts, it never idles below 1v either. I've seen that voltages should be around 1.35v sustained and up to 1.47 is safe for the single core boosts.
Click to expand...

I see that's intresting, I had tired what you suggested, I found I can go up as far as 3733 on my system. Voltages seem fine on my end even with pbo enabled, but I do have the non x version.


I always wanted to be able to tweak the ram boot voltage, I really hope they include it in bios for us! As I think that's what is limiting some of my overclocks


----------



## ku4eto

HatchetEgg said:


> Hi guys,
> Just upgraded to the 3600, but now I can't even run 3200mhz ram system only now runs at 2400mhz
> Im using the latest bios for my Asus strix x370-f gaming
> 
> Any segestions?


Change the DIMM slots you are using. A1/B1 to A2/B2.


----------



## HatchetEgg

ku4eto said:


> Change the DIMM slots you are using. A1/B1 to A2/B2.



I have not moved the ram modules when upgrading the CPU, they had always been in a2 and b2 channels


----------



## ku4eto

HatchetEgg said:


> I have not moved the ram modules when upgrading the CPU, they had always been in a2 and b2 channels


Reset the BIOS, power cylce, try again. See if you need to up SoC voltage.


----------



## Saiger0

ku4eto said:


> Reset the BIOS, power cylce, try again. See if you need to up SoC voltage.


No need to reset or change anything. As the guy above already said its an agesa/bios bug. Upon boot the ram only has 1.2V which makes it impossible to go high speeds.


----------



## ku4eto

Saiger0 said:


> No need to reset or change anything. As the guy above already said its an agesa/bios bug. Upon boot the ram only has 1.2V which makes it impossible to go high speeds.


Ouch... totally missed that part. My bad


----------



## man from atlantis

Hi,

Can someone who has a 3200 CL16 memory and post his ryzen timing checker screen and quote me pls?


----------



## ku4eto

man from atlantis said:


> Hi,
> 
> Can someone who has a 3200 CL16 memory and post his ryzen timing checker screen and quote me pls?


I gave a screenshot in one of my previous comments, this or the previous 1-2 pages.


----------



## jon666

awwww yeah. Not gonna lie, started getting goofy with what I turned off. Onboard audio for mobo is off, use an amp/dac anyways even though this mobo has good audio. Opened up Task Manager, killed off the usual suspects (except cortana, minimum effort used to shut that down cause I'm tired of fighting it) punkbuster etc. CPU use by the Calc probably only increased by 1% and those steps can probably be ignored. Also disabled everything to run on startup. Voltage on RAM now at 1.41, hovers below that in bios, the two ML120 Fans I have sitting on GPU pointed at ~RAM running at max rpm probably helps too. GPU def loves it. The question is, do I test for stability proper, or just load up BF5 and try to beat all singleplayer modes so I don't become too bored.

I did finally disable BGS, and left BGS alt on auto in bios. Did not see much of anything happen from that.


----------



## biohaufen

Personally I found out that my Micron B-Dies (25nm - MT40A512M8RH-083E:B) seem to be really weird. I own them since Ryzen 1 Launch Day and they were never able to be stable above 3000. 2933 is fine however and they work with pretty tight timings. (at least compared to the XMP profile)
Perfomance doesn't seem to be that bad, however a higher clock speed would be nice of course.

Does anybody know what can be done to Micron B Dies to achieve higher clock speeds? Is there any trick to it?


Settings in UEFI is RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1 and procODT 60 ohm, which seems to run better than 68 ohm for me.


----------



## jon666

biohaufen that CPU multiplier is tripping me out, did you oc CPU to those speeds/voltages? My cpu at stock 3.5 idle, kits obviously different, but at least everything else is relatively the same. I should add that I am watercooled, cpu has yet to break 56 C today.
https://valid.x86.fr/gwlhaa


----------



## biohaufen

jon666 said:


> biohaufen that CPU multiplier is tripping me out, did you oc CPU to those speeds/voltages? My cpu at stock 3.5 idle https://valid.x86.fr/gwlhaa


Yep, it's running Prime 95 (8h large fft) stable at 3,825GHz @ 1,225V with LLC at Level 2.


----------



## jon666

biohaufen said:


> Yep, it's running Prime 95 (8h large fft) stable at 3,825GHz @ 1,225V with LLC at Level 2.


If it were me, I'd save current settings, then reset CPU oc to factory, set ram frequency to 3200, and everything auto so it all stays loose and hopefully stable. Not sure on ram voltages for that kit, but I have also become a believer in moar voltage/moar cooling for samsung b die. I've had the best luck only changing ram voltage before changing any other voltage from auto setting.

Edit: In an attempt to get cpu voltage to go down while idle, I flipped some switches in bios, and used Ryzen Master to increase cpu. Had to up voltage, probably won't keep settings...https://valid.x86.fr/n5nywg


----------



## OCmember

Does this DRAM Calculator make the motherboard QVL list irrelevant? Trying to choose between some ram kits for an X570 board I just bought,

Thanks


----------



## Bubar37

Amd say for x570 3733 cl17 good spot for 1/1 with infinity fabric (some cards ram can be 1/1 with 4000) fact is better cas (14 16 ? ) with good subtimings should be an improovment. Sure 1usmus is testing that


----------



## Bubar37

Another question got an x570 tuf asus that don't allow ryzen 1 cpu ... i'm waiting foe the 3950x but i 'm wondering if i can use a 470 tuf bios modded i'll try to compare both bios and try some tweak


----------



## Shenhua

Hwinfo64

CPU sensor
Soc voltage sv12 tfn 1.079v

Mobo sensor
CPU vcore soc 1.253v

Does this looks ok to you or wrong?

Conditions and hardware:
Running 12 instances of memtest

2600stock, ab350m gaming 3, trident z cl16 3600, running at 3333 cl14 safe preset. (I know the board it's ****, it is just a place holder).


Enviado desde mi Redmi Note 3 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Nighthog

biohaufen said:


> Personally I found out that my Micron B-Dies (25nm - MT40A512M8RH-083E:B) seem to be really weird. I own them since Ryzen 1 Launch Day and they were never able to be stable above 3000. 2933 is fine however and they work with pretty tight timings. (at least compared to the XMP profile)
> Perfomance doesn't seem to be that bad, however a higher clock speed would be nice of course.
> 
> Does anybody know what can be done to Micron B Dies to achieve higher clock speeds? Is there any trick to it?
> 
> 
> Settings in UEFI is RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1 and procODT 60 ohm, which seems to run better than 68 ohm for me.



What voltage are you running? I have a Micron B-die kit in another computer and tested the kit on 3 different motherboards, B350/X470/B450.
They require quite a lot of voltage to run 3200Mhz++ speeds. though only the b350 managed 3200Mhz stable but could boot 3333Mhz. 
The crappy X470 could only really do 2933Mhz and that was a struggle then B450 I have 3033Mhz running currently with some quick setup. 

They do have a heat issue and basically will overheat on their own at stock voltage, they require active cooling to run stable. 

around 1.450-1.500V is required for my kit to run 3200Mhz or CL14 2933-3200mhz.


----------



## kamil234

Hey guys. I suspect i already know the answer but ... 

I upgraded from intel platform to AMD, but didnt reinstall the OS. Whenever i hit calculate on DRAM calculator, it keeps saying 'coming soon' or 'intel not supported'. But the calculator gives me the right values, which i plugged in and works great otherwise. Will it cause any issues, or should i reinstall the OS? Im using AMD 3900x, X570 AORUS elite, 2x8 samsung bdie kit (Ripjaws)

Using windows 10 1903 Professional. I removed any previous chipset drivers, and installed the latest AMD ones for my motherboard.


----------



## OCmember

kamil234 said:


> Hey guys. I suspect i already know the answer but ...
> 
> I upgraded from intel platform to AMD, but didnt reinstall the OS. Whenever i hit calculate on DRAM calculator, it keeps saying 'coming soon' or 'intel not supported'. But the calculator gives me the right values, which i plugged in and works great otherwise. Will it cause any issues, or should i reinstall the OS? Im using AMD 3900x, X570 AORUS elite, 2x8 samsung bdie kit (Ripjaws)
> 
> Using windows 10 1903 Professional. I removed any previous chipset drivers, and installed the latest AMD ones for my motherboard.


Yes, and Yes, absolutely.


----------



## ku4eto

kamil234 said:


> Hey guys. I suspect i already know the answer but ...
> 
> I upgraded from intel platform to AMD, but didnt reinstall the OS. Whenever i hit calculate on DRAM calculator, it keeps saying 'coming soon' or 'intel not supported'. But the calculator gives me the right values, which i plugged in and works great otherwise. Will it cause any issues, or should i reinstall the OS? Im using AMD 3900x, X570 AORUS elite, 2x8 samsung bdie kit (Ripjaws)
> 
> Using windows 10 1903 Professional. I removed any previous chipset drivers, and installed the latest AMD ones for my motherboard.


I think, if you remove all unused (old) drivers and devices, it will get fixed.
Open Device Manager > View "Show unused/hidden" or something like that.

Everything that its greyed out, "Del" button and OK. When there is a tickbox to remove the device driver, tick it and do so.


----------



## upgraditus

kamil234 said:


> Hey guys. I suspect i already know the answer but ...
> 
> I upgraded from intel platform to AMD, but didnt reinstall the OS. Whenever i hit calculate on DRAM calculator, it keeps saying 'coming soon' or 'intel not supported'. But the calculator gives me the right values, which i plugged in and works great otherwise. Will it cause any issues, or should i reinstall the OS? Im using AMD 3900x, X570 AORUS elite, 2x8 samsung bdie kit (Ripjaws)
> 
> Using windows 10 1903 Professional. I removed any previous chipset drivers, and installed the latest AMD ones for my motherboard.



I think it's normal when selecting ryzen 2nd gen to see the "coming soon!" prompt, at least I have this too, just use the gen+ for now until the s/w is updated.

With regards to OS re-install, it shouldn't be needed since any drivers not required won't be loaded (you can check with cmd driverquery /V) but if you want you can do an in place re-install that keeps all your settings and programs by just plonking an ISO on your main disk (doesn't work from USB with 1903 for some reason) and running the setup.


----------



## man from atlantis

ku4eto said:


> I gave a screenshot in one of my previous comments, this or the previous 1-2 pages.


I dont see it.. All i want just a default 3200MHz CL16 XMP memory's Ryzen Timing Checker Screen (something like this https://abload.de/img/3200cl14xmpvtjjg.png)


----------



## YOGaKrite

Having trouble keeping this B-die ram setting stable. Ryzen R5 1600x @ 3.8Ghz 1.375V, Asrock AB350 Pro4. HCI failed around 500%. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## nick name

YOGaKrite said:


> Having trouble keeping this B-die ram setting stable. Ryzen R5 1600x @ 3.8Ghz 1.375V, Asrock AB350 Pro4. HCI failed around 500%. Any help is appreciated.


Change tRCDRD to 15. Be careful in BIOS though because it might be in a different order than what you see in the Calculator. In my BIOS tRCDRD and tRCDWR are switched so I have to enter 14-15-14 where in the Calculator it's listed as 14-14-15.

Or if you wanna try a little more voltage on DRAM and/or SOC first then that might work too.


----------



## ku4eto

Heh, even the V2 on the Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200Mhz did not work. Does not POST.

Anyone has 3466Mhz XMP profile timings? I may want to try to see if it will work with them


----------



## hazium233

biohaufen said:


> Personally I found out that my Micron B-Dies (25nm - MT40A512M8RH-083E:B) seem to be really weird. I own them since Ryzen 1 Launch Day and they were never able to be stable above 3000. 2933 is fine however and they work with pretty tight timings. (at least compared to the XMP profile)
> Perfomance doesn't seem to be that bad, however a higher clock speed would be nice of course.
> 
> Does anybody know what can be done to Micron B Dies to achieve higher clock speeds? Is there any trick to it?
> 
> 
> Settings in UEFI is RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1 and procODT 60 ohm, which seems to run better than 68 ohm for me.


One thing to consider. Micron has a Revision B for both 4Gbit and 8Gbit DDR4. Your part number is the 4Gbit Rev B. It is the "512M8" and "RH" that gives this away.

Might behave a little differently from 8Gbit. RFC should be lower for instance.


----------



## 1usmus

*review in progress* :thumb:


----------



## Wuest3nFuchs

1usmus said:


> *review in progress* :thumb:


nice one man how is the hero8 ,any good or better than CH7?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


----------



## CJMitsuki

1usmus said:


> *review in progress* /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif


Soon ill have timing setups done for 3600, 3666, 3733, and 3800 all at cl14 with 1:1:1 for Samsung BDie. I could do 3866 and 3933 at cl14 at 1:1:1 as well but there seems to be a bug in the bios that as soon as I set 1900mhz FCLK or 3800mhz DRAM freq i will get an immediate C5 error code. I got around this by setting DRAM freq to 3733mhz and FCLK to 1867mhz with BCLK at 101.8mhz letting me run @ 3800mhz with 1900mhz FCLK but I cannot go any higher on BCLK to push higher freqs. I have ridiculously low timings for 3733 and 3800 so I know I have headroom. The same error also occurs when I try to adjust tRDWR. No matter what I set it to it will always cause an immediate C5 error. I have to leave it in auto.


----------



## lordzed83

CJMitsuki said:


> Soon ill have timing setups done for 3600, 3666, 3733, and 3800 all at cl14 with 1:1:1 for Samsung BDie. I could do 3866 and 3933 at cl14 at 1:1:1 as well but there seems to be a bug in the bios that as soon as I set 1900mhz FCLK or 3800mhz DRAM freq i will get an immediate C5 error code. I got around this by setting DRAM freq to 3733mhz and FCLK to 1867mhz with BCLK at 101.8mhz letting me run @ 3800mhz with 1900mhz FCLK but I cannot go any higher on BCLK to push higher freqs. I have ridiculously low timings for 3733 and 3800 so I know I have headroom. The same error also occurs when I try to adjust tRDWR. No matter what I set it to it will always cause an immediate C5 error. I have to leave it in auto.


Im finishing work in 1 hour ill havea play with what You are testing out to see how it stacks up vs my timings hehe


----------



## Kitilan

1usmus said:


> *review in progress* :thumb:


to looking forward

Отправлено с моего SM-G930F через Tapatalk


----------



## viilutaja

Can somebody help with the memory timings for my FlareX 3200 CL14 kit.

Here is default setup:
https://imgur.com/30vpaVj

Here is 3466mhz cl14 setup done by Dram Calculator 1.51 
I used Safe timings, it booted up just fine, but after 1minute of Aida64 memory benchmark, it gives errors.

https://imgur.com/loh0cRH

What timings should I change to get it stable?
I am using Gigabyte Gaming 3 B350M motherboard with the latest F41.a. bios (the latest with AGESA 1.0.0.3.AB).

Also is this memory quality percent an actual "thing" and shows how good this chip is on my ram?
https://imgur.com/4aE2hAv

Also if anybody has a modified Gigabyte Gaming 3 B350M bios, with all the unlocked features- let me know!


----------



## ku4eto

viilutaja said:


> Can somebody help with the memory timings for my FlareX 3200 CL14 kit.
> 
> Here is default setup:
> https://imgur.com/30vpaVj
> 
> Here is 3466mhz cl14 setup done by Dram Calculator 1.51
> I used Safe timings, it booted up just fine, but after 1minute of Aida64 memory benchmark, it gives errors.
> 
> https://imgur.com/loh0cRH
> 
> What timings should I change to get it stable?
> I am using Gigabyte Gaming 3 B350M motherboard with the latest F41.a. bios (the latest with AGESA 1.0.0.3.AB).
> 
> Also is this memory quality percent an actual "thing" and shows how good this chip is on my ram?
> https://imgur.com/4aE2hAv
> 
> Also if anybody has a modified Gigabyte Gaming 3 B350M bios, with all the unlocked features- let me know!


CL14 at 3466 is really tight. My RAM is CL16 at 3200, and even at CL16 coudlnt do 3466 stable.


----------



## viilutaja

ku4eto said:


> CL14 at 3466 is really tight. My RAM is CL16 at 3200, and even at CL16 coudlnt do 3466 stable.


3200 CL14 is best Samsung can offer (b-die). So it should do atleast [email protected]+ imo. But that depends more on subtimings, i think.

But, I guess the limiting factor here is my zhitty motherboard.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...king-overclocking-guide/images/proc-odt-3.jpg


----------



## nick name

viilutaja said:


> 3200 CL14 is best Samsung can offer (b-die). So it should do atleast [email protected]+ imo. But that depends more on subtimings, i think.
> 
> But, I guess the limiting factor here is my zhitty motherboard.
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...king-overclocking-guide/images/proc-odt-3.jpg


I think you'll find others to say 3600CL15 to be their best and some others saying 4000CL17.


----------



## Martin778

Nah, the 4500+ XMP rated kits are the bestest of the best bins 

By the way, the 1usmus TestMem5 only allocates 43.6% of my RAM (2x16 Bdie) is this correct?
Nvm, in the next test it went to full usage.


----------



## christoph

nick name said:


> I think you'll find others to say 3600CL15 to be their best and some others saying 4000CL17.



I don't know, my 3600CL17 are doing 3466CL14 with no problems, now that I'll get the 3900x I think I can do 3866cl17 with no problems


----------



## CJMitsuki

christoph said:


> nick name said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find others to say 3600CL15 to be their best and some others saying 4000CL17.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, my 3600CL17 are doing 3466CL14 with no problems, now that I'll get the 3900x I think I can do 3866cl17 with no problems
Click to expand...

High Quality Samsung B Die single rank can do 3800cl14 or more at 1.45v


----------



## gerardfraser

CJMitsuki said:


> High Quality Samsung B Die single rank can do 3800cl14 or more at 1.45v


This is awesome.I can do CL14 3800 and Cl16 4200 @1.45v without problems on Ryzen 3600X and X470 board.


----------



## Shenhua

viilutaja said:


> Can somebody help with the memory timings for my FlareX 3200 CL14 kit.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is default setup:
> 
> https://imgur.com/30vpaVj
> 
> 
> 
> Here is 3466mhz cl14 setup done by Dram Calculator 1.51
> 
> I used Safe timings, it booted up just fine, but after 1minute of Aida64 memory benchmark, it gives errors.
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/loh0cRH
> 
> 
> 
> What timings should I change to get it stable?
> 
> I am using Gigabyte Gaming 3 B350M motherboard with the latest F41.a. bios (the latest with AGESA 1.0.0.3.AB).
> 
> 
> 
> Also is this memory quality percent an actual "thing" and shows how good this chip is on my ram?
> 
> https://imgur.com/4aE2hAv
> 
> 
> 
> Also if anybody has a modified Gigabyte Gaming 3 B350M bios, with all the unlocked features- let me know!


Idk what are you overclocking the RAM for, but if you doing it for gaming, 3200 safe preset works just fine. It's not ideal, but it gives you much better performance than the XMP profile.

If it's for gaming, as long as you are at 3200 or over it, speed doesn't really matter. Timings make a lot of difference.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/10.html

On the page before you have the subtimings of the presets.

By the way, i left mine on f20. You shouldn't update bios unless necessary. Just for kicks and giggles can **** up your stability.


----------



## CJMitsuki

gerardfraser said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> High Quality Samsung B Die single rank can do 3800cl14 or more at 1.45v
> 
> 
> 
> This is awesome.I can do CL14 3800 and Cl16 4200 @1.45v without problems on Ryzen 3600X and X470 board.
Click to expand...

@ 1:1:1? Bc im not sure if you are aware but unless you specify in the bios above 3600 the FCLK, UCLK, and MEMCLK detach and stop running at the same frequehats what makes the much higher frequencies possible such as 4000+. This drops performance a bit so you have to make sure ypu are going high enough frequency to negate that performance loss. But you can lock them in the bios. There is an option (forget the name) that has the choices something like “UCLK==MEMCLK” and “UCLK==MEMCLK/2”. The first ine is the one you want to go with and also on the Main page where CPU and SoC voltage is there should be a FCLK freq drop down. For 3600 MEMCLK the corresponding FCLK will be 1800mhz, and 4000 MEMCLK will be 2000mhz FCLK, etc.


----------



## thegr8anand

I bought Ballistix Elite 16gb DDR4-3600mhz 16-18-18-36 @1.35v since it was on sale on prime day deals @ $105. 16-16-16 were more than double. Is it a decent kit? 



https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ble2k8g4d36beeak


----------



## gerardfraser

CJMitsuki said:


> @ 1:1:1? Bc im not sure if you are aware but unless you specify in the bios above 3600 the FCLK, UCLK, and MEMCLK detach and stop running at the same frequehats what makes the much higher frequencies possible such as 4000+. This drops performance a bit so you have to make sure ypu are going high enough frequency to negate that performance loss. But you can lock them in the bios. There is an option (forget the name) that has the choices something like “UCLK==MEMCLK” and “UCLK==MEMCLK/2”. The first ine is the one you want to go with and also on the Main page where CPU and SoC voltage is there should be a FCLK freq drop down. For 3600 MEMCLK the corresponding FCLK will be 1800mhz, and 4000 MEMCLK will be 2000mhz FCLK, etc.


Yes thanks for the help.Too bad with the BIOS bug that FCLK gets cut to half speed after 1900+,should be fixed by now but it is not.


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> *review in progress* :thumb:


So what impressions You have so far ??


----------



## lordzed83

CJMitsuki said:


> @ 1:1:1? Bc im not sure if you are aware but unless you specify in the bios above 3600 the FCLK, UCLK, and MEMCLK detach and stop running at the same frequehats what makes the much higher frequencies possible such as 4000+. This drops performance a bit so you have to make sure ypu are going high enough frequency to negate that performance loss. But you can lock them in the bios. There is an option (forget the name) that has the choices something like “UCLK==MEMCLK” and “UCLK==MEMCLK/2”. The first ine is the one you want to go with and also on the Main page where CPU and SoC voltage is there should be a FCLK freq drop down. For 3600 MEMCLK the corresponding FCLK will be 1800mhz, and 4000 MEMCLK will be 2000mhz FCLK, etc.


You had time before work to finish testing of that tight 3733 ??

I came up with interesting settings to test. Latency seems low for CL16 63.7- 63.8ns and very nice numbers all around
Only had time for 450% pass on ramtest 
3800cl16/16/16/32/52 1.45v(volts deffo can be lower but not had time today yet)
RRDS 7
RRDL 10
TFAW 35
WTRS 4
WTRL 14
WTRL 14
RDRD SCL 3
WRWR SCL 3
RFC 367
CWL 16
RTP 10
RDWR 8
WRRD 4
WRWR SC 1
WRWR SD 8
WRWR DD 8
RDRD 1
RDRD 5
RDRD 5
CKE 1

From what I'w run on Cinebench trilogy its bit faster than 3733cl14 BUT requires less volts in general. So I think this could be nice profile for people with no fans over ram kits. Been running tests till 3am again. Them new toys are killing us of man  I'w cut sleep down to like 4-5 hours since gotten 3900x cause cant sleep if not stable You know that feel


----------



## CJMitsuki

lordzed83 said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ 1:1:1? Bc im not sure if you are aware but unless you specify in the bios above 3600 the FCLK, UCLK, and MEMCLK detach and stop running at the same frequehats what makes the much higher frequencies possible such as 4000+. This drops performance a bit so you have to make sure ypu are going high enough frequency to negate that performance loss. But you can lock them in the bios. There is an option (forget the name) that has the choices something like â€œUCLK==MEMCLKâ€ and â€œUCLK==MEMCLK/2â€. The first ine is the one you want to go with and also on the Main page where CPU and SoC voltage is there should be a FCLK freq drop down. For 3600 MEMCLK the corresponding FCLK will be 1800mhz, and 4000 MEMCLK will be 2000mhz FCLK, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> You had time before work to finish testing of that tight 3733 ??
Click to expand...

Not completely, now its at 3770mhz with 4.4ghz all core and 4.5ghz single to 4 cores. Single core is at 1.4-1.41v and all core runs around 1.35-1.37v with a -.0625v offset and 102.8mhz bclk. Right now im soldering the rest of these CherryMX keyswitches into my keyboard then Ill post some benchmarks and such in the CH7 thread. Been working 12+ hours a night and testing then sleeping in what little time is left.


----------



## nick name

Hey guys I'm sitting in 2nd place on the MaxxMem benchmark for DDR4. Do any of you ever use it?

http://maxxpi2.de/pages/results/top---rankings---ddr-4.php


----------



## lordzed83

CJMitsuki said:


> Not completely, now its at 3770mhz with 4.4ghz all core and 4.5ghz single to 4 cores. Single core is at 1.4-1.41v and all core runs around 1.35-1.37v with a -.0625v offset and 102.8mhz bclk. Right now im soldering the rest of these CherryMX keyswitches into my keyboard then Ill post some benchmarks and such in the CH7 thread. Been working 12+ hours a night and testing then sleeping in what little time is left.


Almost took few days from work to have more time to play myself still got 9 days to use up by end of September. Forgot to ask what POWER settings are You using with Zen2 ?? I'm on the LLC4 cpu 400khz very fast LLC3 soc 400 fast and 400khz on memories. Not looked in to tweekers section yet.


----------



## Arni90

nick name said:


> Hey guys I'm sitting in 2nd place on the MaxxMem benchmark for DDR4. Do any of you ever use it?
> 
> http://maxxpi2.de/pages/results/top---rankings---ddr-4.php


Never used it, tried it now and got this. I'm guessing it'll appear on the results page soon.
In any way, it looks like the program only uses a single core, judging by the low read and write speed, latency looks very weird as well to be honest.


----------



## LicSqualo

nick name said:


> Hey guys I'm sitting in 2nd place on the MaxxMem benchmark for DDR4. Do any of you ever use it?
> 
> http://maxxpi2.de/pages/results/top---rankings---ddr-4.php


Yes, but I'm not classified.


----------



## nick name

Arni90 said:


> Never used it, tried it now and got this. I'm guessing it'll appear on the results page soon.
> In any way, it looks like the program only uses a single core, judging by the low read and write speed, latency looks very weird as well to be honest.


You can uncheck the boxes and test Read, Write, and Copy separately. Do it on one until you think you've reached as high as you can for it then uncheck that box and repeat the process for the next ones. See how high you can get. You can also set core affinity in Task Manager to find your best core for each test. It's kinda fun to play with and see how high you can go. 

My bests are:
Read -- 33811
Write -- 32210
Copy -- 41339
Latency ~ 28ns


----------



## dgoc18

is my score good for maxxmem2 ?

[email protected] 18-20-20-20-38


----------



## jon666

Glad this got an update, now I just have to find maxxmem results from a few years ago to compare. I think I remember my first PC, i3 530 etc, getting around 8gb/s if my memory isn't failing me.


----------



## J7SC

Some results for TR 2950X with 32GB / quad-channel @ 3466. Only difference is performance pre-select in Bios. Memory is Sammy B-die and this setup has run 3600 / quad at stock RAM voltages, but at reduced timings (will try to run the updated MaxxMem2 bench on that later)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I'm guessing this is pretty normal for my ram.
Haven't bothered with any ram overclocking.


----------



## HatchetEgg

Hi, guys, I made some discoveries.

I thought I try an attempt to get my previous setting stable before upgrading to 3000 series.

The thing I tried differently this time was to leave geardown mode on auto, and sure enough, my previous ram OC is stable once more!

However, on my new 3600 It seems unstable with 4.2Ghz with 1.375v. I'm not sure how far I can push the voltage, or perhaps the BIOS is not matured enough to reach higher speeds?


----------



## 1usmus

lordzed83 said:


> So what impressions You have so far ??




The product is very interesting, but I believe that internal testing failed. To be honest, I have no words ... and I try to refrain from commenting :h34r-smi


____________________________________________________



*There are a few rules that zen 2 users should know*

1) FCLK should always be equal UCLK and MEMCLK , otherwise, domain synchronization reduces system performance.
2) VDDG <= SOC . Max limit 1.15 volts , which you may need.
3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage).
4) PB2 (+0 + 25 + 75 + 100 +200 mhz)not equal PBO. I advise you to use PB2, this algorithm does not depend on currents and thermal packets. The only limitation of this technology is processor temperature and FIT. Do not forget to turn off the PBO.
5) The optimal processor temperature for maximum boost is 60 degrees or less.
6) The maximum frequency of the memory controller (stable) in most cases is 1866-1900Mhz.


P.s. I have notified AMD of all existing problems, no need to worry.

P.p.s. Review. I have lost a lot of time due to thorough research of new products, but the review will already be published on all resources early next week.
Then I will engage in tight communication with the community (I hope the availability of processors will improve).

_______

BR, Yuri


----------



## Martin778

Oh well, none of the new Zen2's run below 60*C zo we're temperature constrained all the time it seems.


----------



## rjeftw

Oh man, this seems like it might be somewhat spicy. Looking forward to seeing your review along with the rest of those hidden opinions!



1usmus said:


> The product is very interesting, but I believe that internal testing failed. To be honest, I have no words ... and I try to refrain from commenting :h34r-smi
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> *There are a few rules that zen 2 users should know*
> 
> 1) FCLK should always be equal UCLK and MEMCLK , otherwise, domain synchronization reduces system performance.
> 2) VDDG <= SOC . Max limit 1.15 volts , which you may need.
> 3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage).
> 4) PB2 (+0 + 25 + 75 + 100 +200 mhz)not equal PBO. I advise you to use PB2, this algorithm does not depend on currents and thermal packets. The only limitation of this technology is processor temperature and FIT. Do not forget to turn off the PBO.
> 5) The optimal processor temperature for maximum boost is 60 degrees or less.
> 6) The maximum frequency of the memory controller (stable) in most cases is 1866-1900Mhz.
> 
> 
> P.s. I have notified AMD of all existing problems, no need to worry.
> 
> P.p.s. Review. I have lost a lot of time due to thorough research of new products, but the review will already be published on all resources early next week.
> Then I will engage in tight communication with the community (I hope the availability of processors will improve).
> 
> _______
> 
> BR, Yuri


----------



## thomasck

@1usmus firstly thanks for your work, I've been using the calc for ages, very useful. Regarding what you said about optimal procdt 20-40 in all mobos, it includes all chipsets? The only thing is bothering me is when 3466+ 1:1 sometimes after a reboot the system shuts down and comes back normally, or comes back without bios settings. I used to get this in ryzen1 when procdt was wrong. Using a Taichi x370. 

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> The product is very interesting, but I believe that internal testing failed. To be honest, I have no words ... and I try to refrain from commenting :h34r-smi
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> *There are a few rules that zen 2 users should know*
> 
> 1) FCLK should always be equal UCLK and MEMCLK , otherwise, domain synchronization reduces system performance.
> 2) VDDG <= SOC . Max limit 1.15 volts , which you may need.
> 3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage).
> 4) PB2 (+0 + 25 + 75 + 100 +200 mhz)not equal PBO. I advise you to use PB2, this algorithm does not depend on currents and thermal packets. The only limitation of this technology is processor temperature and FIT. Do not forget to turn off the PBO.
> 5) The optimal processor temperature for maximum boost is 60 degrees or less.
> 6) The maximum frequency of the memory controller (stable) in most cases is 1866-1900Mhz.
> 
> 
> P.s. I have notified AMD of all existing problems, no need to worry.
> 
> P.p.s. Review. I have lost a lot of time due to thorough research of new products, but the review will already be published on all resources early next week.
> Then I will engage in tight communication with the community (I hope the availability of processors will improve).
> 
> _______
> 
> BR, Yuri


Thanks for update ill try different than 53ohm see what happens  Reverted all other resuistances to auto left t1 and geardown see how that goes. And 34.3 lets see


----------



## Mech0z

Would there be any difference between a T-top vs daisy chain for subtimings or is it mostly max frequency that is affected? If all other parameters where equal of course

Just considering if x570 Taichi is a bad choice when I want 2x16GB sticks and don't want to upgrade to 4x16 later and I wont go above 1:1 so 3800Mhz anyway


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> *There are a few rules that zen 2 users should know*
> 
> 1) FCLK should always be equal UCLK and MEMCLK , otherwise, domain synchronization reduces system performance.
> *2) VDDG <= SOC . Max limit 1.15 volts , which you may need.*
> *3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm.* Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage).
> 4) PB2 (+0 + 25 + 75 + 100 +200 mhz)not equal PBO. I advise you to use PB2, this algorithm does not depend on currents and thermal packets. The only limitation of this technology is processor temperature and FIT. Do not forget to turn off the PBO.
> 5) The optimal processor temperature for maximum boost is 60 degrees or less.
> 6) The maximum frequency of the memory controller (stable) in most cases is 1866-1900Mhz.
> _______
> 
> BR, Yuri


About vSoC & VDDG? is it max 1.150V safe for both or only VDDG or vSOC? unclear on your definition here which it applies for.
I gather VDDG was for the memory controller? 

*procODT* I noticed I could run much lower values and boot this time around to previous gen 1 cpu I had. I figured it had changed somehow but I don't know which setting is most optimal for kits/combo's yet. You have any insight on what are good ranges to aim for? (4x8Gb E-die)
They are so different from previous it's quite a lot of testing to do if you aim blindly.

My gen 1 cpu liked best 43.6Ohm for this memory kit but it seems not apply any more on gen 3 Ryzen. Though allready having much easier with it. 53Ohm++ could not boot which wasn't the experience on older gen 1 and motherboards.


----------



## Arni90

1usmus said:


> 3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage).


I haven't really tried to do anthing with ProcODT, and I've still been able to boot 3866 (though I only managed to stabilize at 3733 before I realized tRAS on my B-dies needs to be a bit higher than 2x tCL at higher timings)
What is ProcODT supposed to do regarding memory clocks exactly?



Nighthog said:


> About vSoC & VDDG? is it max 1.150V safe for both or only VDDG or vSOC? unclear on your definition here which it applies for.
> I gather VDDG was for the memory controller?


Considering VDDG is a voltage derived from VSOC, it literally doesn't matter if you set it higher than 1.15V, it'll at maximum be VSOC minus 40 mV or something similar.


----------



## Nighthog

Arni90 said:


> I haven't really tried to do anthing with ProcODT, and I've still been able to boot 3866 (though I only managed to stabilize at 3733 before I realized tRAS on my B-dies needs to be a bit higher than 2x tCL at higher timings)
> What is ProcODT supposed to do regarding memory clocks exactly?



procODT is/was significant on gen 1 as having the right value had lots of importance on memory stability and very critical if you wanted higher memory speeds. You must at all times set it manually for better possibility of success. 
The difference was running between stock XMP 3466 -> 3600mhz and all the way to 3733-3800+ to be able to boot and then finding stable setting up there in tweaker hell where in the end you must find the MAGIC combo that only works in 1 possible combination no other.

Put simply, having it correct allows you the best possibility to run the highest speed you memory kit can do. But motherboard/CPU had a lot to do with which values you could in the end use.


----------



## Shenhua

Can any of u guys test RAM scaling in games with ryzen 3000? 2133 vs 3200 XMP vs 3600 cl14-16 or whatever you can get????


----------



## gerardfraser

Can run Ram @CL16 4200Mhz but there is no point really,these setting are great.


----------



## CJMitsuki

3800 CL14 stable at tight timings

Aida64


Spoiler














RamTest


Spoiler














Geekbench 3


Spoiler














Geekbench 4


Spoiler














MaxxMem (dunno why their latency is showing so low on their tests but a new version was released and said there were bug fixes implemented)


Spoiler


----------



## CJMitsuki

Martin778 said:


> Oh well, none of the new Zen2's run below 60*C zo we're temperature constrained all the time it seems.


Mine runs well below 60c and barely hits 60c during Ramtest with cache enabled :thinking:


----------



## PistolPete69

Shenhua said:


> Can any of u guys test RAM scaling in games with ryzen 3000? 2133 vs 3200 XMP vs 3600 cl14-16 or whatever you can get????


Did some testing the other night on PUBG. Comparing 3200cl16 and 3800cl16, on my Ryzen 3600 and 1080ti. Both are running 16-16-16-16-30-46-302-1T and old Ryzen DRAM calculator sub-timings. Which is slightly better than standard 3200CL16 timings I believe, and I also compared the 3800mhz while running Nvidia Shadowplay to record a run. I got a 3 run average from the same 2 minute benchmark running in a straight line in the same spot in the multiplayer training zone.

In game settings were 1440p, everything Very Low, except AA, Textures and View Distance on Ultra.

Additionally if anyone has any tips or recommendations about my Ram timings let me know, not really sure if that's how those AIDA64 numbers are supposed to look.


----------



## Kitilan

CJMitsuki said:


> 3800 CL14 stable at tight timings
> 
> 
> 
> Aida64
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281906
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RamTest
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281914
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geekbench 3
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281908
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281910
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxxMem (dunno why their latency is showing so low on their tests but a new version was released and said there were bug fixes implemented)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281912


What memory modules did you use?

Отправлено с моего SM-G930F через Tapatalk


----------



## CJMitsuki

Kitilan said:


> What memory modules did you use?
> 
> Отправлено с моего SM-G930F через Tapatalk


*THESE*


----------



## ajc9988

CJMitsuki said:


> 3800 CL14 stable at tight timings
> 
> Aida64
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281906
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RamTest
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281914
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geekbench 3
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281908
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geekbench 4
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281910
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxxMem (dunno why their latency is showing so low on their tests but a new version was released and said there were bug fixes implemented)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 281912


BTW, great scores on the Benchmate comp. I'm lagging with my 1950X because of the CB15 being a per core score and lagging on Superpi 32M. Enjoying the new gen chip?

Edit: Also, stop being a pedantic child on the reporting. There are NO rules setup for the Benchmate benchmarks yet and the benchmate itself PROVES that the bench was open and no trickery occurred.


----------



## nick name

ajc9988 said:


> -snip-
> 
> Edit: Also, stop being a pedantic child on the reporting. There are NO rules setup for the Benchmate benchmarks yet and the benchmate itself PROVES that the bench was open and no trickery occurred.


:jerry:


----------



## evilhf

When I was still with the R5 1600X I could not rise above 1533MHz stable.
My motherboard and MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon.
I thought my mother board was the limiting factor, because it was T-topology.
So now I bought the 3900x and my gskill royal 4000 cl17 memory and it funcinou first to its native xmp.
This proves that the motherboard is almost nothing as a limiting factor when it comes to frequency.
I got better results with 1: 1 IF 3733mhz.
Below are 2 screenshots with 3733mhz and 4000mhz.
I just tuned the primary latencies, I'm really looking forward to the 1usmus Dram Calculator tool.
He has done a great job.


----------



## Vins

What happens when i set subtimings to auto? Are they randomly set by motherboard each time or are they always set to specific values if my input is the same? Example: i have got stable settings with certain values manually set and others set to auto. Im at risk to lose my settings? (My bios atm doesnt support saving multiple oc profiles, thanks msi!)


----------



## crakej

Vins said:


> What happens when i set subtimings to auto? Are they randomly set by motherboard each time or are they always set to specific values if my input is the same? Example: i have got stable settings with certain values manually set and others set to auto. Im at risk to lose my settings? (My bios atm doesnt support saving multiple oc profiles, thanks msi!)


Your system will pick sub-timings.

Just tighten them up if you can.


----------



## Josu

You can overclock RAM in Ryzen Master?


----------



## LicSqualo

Of course, yes!


----------



## 1usmus

In the interval between breakfast and writing a special review Zen 2 I want to share one more profile with you

*4200C16
*

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=282462&thumb=1
__________________________________


*I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*


----------



## Nighthog

I'll bite with a interim result of stability & AIDA64 as I test various settings here and there. It was a little more trouble getting *GeardownMode:* "Disabled" working than I thought.
I haven't really begun lowering timings yet as I was nailing away the stability issue for GDM disabled.

I can agree on I found no use in increasing SoC voltage or the derived VDDG from it. Was causing more issues than helping.


----------



## Kitilan

1usmus said:


> In the interval between breakfast and writing a special review Zen 2 I want to share one more profile with you
> 
> 
> 
> *4200C16
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=282462&thumb=1
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*


It's result more productive relative to 3733cl14?

Отправлено с моего SM-G930F через Tapatalk


----------



## nolive721

just starting to play with RAM Ocing so found the software here quite helpful

But it seems I am hitting the wall with the sub timings tweaking I am doing to try to improve the RAM performance being speed or latency

is there something I am doing wrong or is it jst what my CORSAIR C16 3200Mhs kit is capable of? Its Hynix MFR so I know not really the best out there but I was hoping to see some benefit beyond 3066Mhz which doesnt seem materializing


----------



## nolive721

for some reason the 3066Mhz with tight timing didn't show up in my post, trying again


----------



## larrydavid

Nighthog said:


> I'll bite with a interim result of stability & AIDA64 as I test various settings here and there. It was a little more trouble getting *GeardownMode:* "Disabled" working than I thought.
> I haven't really begun lowering timings yet as I was nailing away the stability issue for GDM disabled.
> 
> I can agree on I found no use in increasing SoC voltage or the derived VDDG from it. Was causing more issues than helping.


You running 4x8GB? What was the key to getting GDM disabled and stable?


----------



## Nighthog

larrydavid said:


> You running 4x8GB? What was the key to getting GDM disabled and stable?


Yes 4x8Gb.

I think it was the combination of procODT & setting the CAD Bus Drive Strength correct. Mostly thanks to the CAD Bus Drive Strength.
I needed to have 60Ohm for ClkDrvStrength to stabilize the setting to not return errors. Geardownmode enable only need it [auto/24Ohm]

This is usually motherboard/memory specific so your mileage varies.


----------



## dgoc18

Guys,

I never seen IF clock show up on HWinfo64 before, Look like I set IF correctly it's show up on screen. 

See Ryzen Master and HWinfo64 match it. :thumb:

This ram C-die CJR at 16 19 19 19 36, I can't use currently dram calc 1.5.1 do not work for over 3600. 

I borrow main timings from the link at

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#s=403600&Z=16384002&sort=price&page=1


----------



## SaccoSVD

I'm ready to try a new DRAM calc with my 3900X 

So far my 64Gb Hynix A die that was working at 3200Mhz with my 1800X won't work with the new CPU in the same board. I'm sure is just a couple details but is hard to tell which one. Also we need to wait a bit for the BIOSes to mature some more.


----------



## Athyra

Also really looking forward to trying out the tool on my 3900x & x570!

The Gygabyte boards seem to have this hideous bug where if the fabric is running at 1800mhz there is a very high idle watts, like 50w, and below is 25w:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cd6vh9/ryzen_3000_high_cpu_power_behavior_at_3600mhz/
What's worse is this seems to also affect performance, if I run fabric+memory at 3733 my cinebench scores actually drop a few hundred points =/

So I'm downclocking my 3600 mem to 3533 (fabric 1766) but i have no clue what timings are best for that, would love to tighten them up with the calc!

Thanks for your hard work! It's really appreciated!


----------



## thegr8anand

Anyone with 3200C14 b-die ram got good overclocks with 3900x?


----------



## HatchetEgg

thegr8anand said:


> Anyone with 3200C14 b-die ram got good overclocks with 3900x?



I have 3200MhzCL14 B-die RAM but not a 3900x,


But I can assure you even I am able to get up to 3733MhzCL16 OC, however, it does not perform better than my 3600MhzCL14 OC.


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> *I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*


Good find there, dropped my VDDG to 0.9V and SOC to 1.05V with 1866 on the fabric and still just as stable as before. Also manually set ProcODT to 36.9 ohm over the 60 Auto value which did not change stability at all but may as well keep it like this.


----------



## ElectroGeek007

32GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro (CMW32GX4M2C3200C16), 16-18-18-36-54 stock. Used the Fast preset for Hynix AFR in the calculator to get 14-17-17-30-38 stable. :thumb: Not very good overclocking RAM but an improvement over stock speeds. I'll keep tweaking the timings, may pick up something better eventually. (ignore the vcore, obviously) *EDIT: Nevermind, not game stable. Will return for something better. *



Spoiler


----------



## MrPhilo

chakku said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I checked the VDDG voltage requirements for the entire frequency spectrum when using a processor with a poor memory controller. 0.9 volts is enough for any scenario.*
> 
> 
> 
> Good find there, dropped my VDDG to 0.9V and SOC to 1.05V with 1866 on the fabric and still just as stable as before. Also manually set ProcODT to 36.9 ohm over the 60 Auto value which did not change stability at all but may as well keep it like this.
Click to expand...

Also went down to 0.9v on VDDG from 1.0v, everything seems great. No error on my 3800cl16 and booted fine with 1900 FLCK and ULCK.

But when I went from 1.1v on SoC to 1.05v however I did see a decrease in performance. When I used Cinebench R15 for a quick check it was losing around 80-100 point. This was with everything closed down. Rebooted again and still same. Went back to bios with SoC at 1.1v and boom, back to normal.

Can you check if yours is similar as I can see we both went down pretty much the same voltage lol.


----------



## Nighthog

MrPhilo said:


> Also went down to 0.9v on VDDG from 1.0v, everything seems great. No error on my 3800cl16 and booted fine with 1900 FLCK and ULCK.
> 
> But when I went from 1.1v on SoC to 1.05v however I did see a decrease in performance. When I used Cinebench R15 for a quick check it was losing around 80-100 point. This was with everything closed down. Rebooted again and still same. Went back to bios with SoC at 1.1v and boom, back to normal.
> 
> Can you check if yours is similar as I can see we both went down pretty much the same voltage lol.


Probably behaves the same as with core voltage & CPU undervolting. It looks&stresses stable but you loose performance. I think it's a silicon/motherboard variance where the limit goes to that you loose performance. Staying stock seems most reassuring if you don't want to check for issues and be done with it.

I can seemingly run ~1.050vSOc but any lower and I get issues. VDDG can probably be even lower as 850mv was OK for me and currently checking 800mv.


----------



## gupsterg

MrPhilo said:


> Also went down to 0.9v on VDDG from 1.0v, everything seems great. No error on my 3800cl16 and booted fine with 1900 FLCK and ULCK.
> 
> But when I went from 1.1v on SoC to 1.05v however I did see a decrease in performance. When I used Cinebench R15 for a quick check it was losing around 80-100 point. This was with everything closed down. Rebooted again and still same. Went back to bios with SoC at 1.1v and boom, back to normal.
> 
> Can you check if yours is similar as I can see we both went down pretty much the same voltage lol.


I have the same occurrence. Stability was not compromised, but performance was.

I initially used SOC: 1.062 VDDG: 1.013 for 3800MHz C16 GDME, I then lowered to 1.037V / 0.986V and lost performance. I have not checked by increasing SOC and keeping VDDG lower.


----------



## MrPhilo

gupsterg said:


> I have the same occurrence. Stability was not compromised, but performance was.
> 
> I initially used SOC: 1.062 VDDG: 1.013 for 3800MHz C16 GDME, I then lowered to 1.037V / 0.986V and lost performance. I have not checked by increasing SOC and keeping VDDG lower.


I have done this test. Decreasing VDDG does not effect performance, only SoC.

Also I've noticed changing Interrupt Steering in the power plan option to Processor 1 nets me a better ns on Aida64. (I used Process Explorer to unhide it).

My 3800CL16 gets 67ns roughly with 'Default' Interrupt Steering while Processor 1 gets around 64ns. I have done this a few time on each setting with different reboot and it seems to improve it. Any chance you can test this to see if there is actually any benefit?

I came across this when improving the dpc latency and apparently doing this helped a lot. Which could be the reason why my ns is lower as well.


----------



## gupsterg

MrPhilo said:


> I have done this test. Decreasing VDDG does not effect performance, only SoC.
> 
> Also I've noticed changing Interrupt Steering in the power plan option to Processor 1 nets me a better ns on Aida64. (I used Process Explorer to unhide it).
> 
> My 3800CL16 gets 67ns roughly with 'Default' Interrupt Steering while Processor 1 gets around 64ns. I have done this a few time on each setting with different reboot and it seems to improve it. Any chance you can test this to see if there is actually any benefit?
> 
> I came across this when improving the dpc latency and apparently doing this helped a lot. Which could be the reason why my ns is lower as well.


Will try it also  . Nice to read another had seen this with their setup  .

I have not changed the power plan. Just use AMD Ryzen Balanced. My norm is ~64ns, link, ~67ns is when I decrease SOC/VDDG.


----------



## lordzed83

@gupsterg @crakej @majestynl @elmor this was tested in 28c in the room while mining on nicehash
@1usmus good I'w kept Every single version of calculator You released and tested timing each version gave me till i got the right one for my kit took forever.

Settings 
bclk 101.8 4301mhz all core
cpu 1.325 llc5 400khz
Soc 1.1 llc4 500khz
DDR/BOOT 1.4 300khz
VDDG 900mv



























I gotta say I'm leaving this as it is on memory.


----------



## MrPhilo

gupsterg said:


> MrPhilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have done this test. Decreasing VDDG does not effect performance, only SoC.
> 
> Also I've noticed changing Interrupt Steering in the power plan option to Processor 1 nets me a better ns on Aida64. (I used Process Explorer to unhide it).
> 
> My 3800CL16 gets 67ns roughly with 'Default' Interrupt Steering while Processor 1 gets around 64ns. I have done this a few time on each setting with different reboot and it seems to improve it. Any chance you can test this to see if there is actually any benefit?
> 
> I came across this when improving the dpc latency and apparently doing this helped a lot. Which could be the reason why my ns is lower as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Will try it also /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif . Nice to read another had seen this with their setup /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif .
> 
> I have not changed the power plan. Just use AMD Ryzen Balanced. My norm is ~64ns, link, ~67ns is when I decrease SOC/VDDG.
Click to expand...




gupsterg said:


> Will try it also 🙂 . Nice to read another had seen this with their setup 😉 .
> 
> I have not changed the power plan. Just use AMD Ryzen Balanced. My norm is ~64ns, link, ~67ns is when I decrease SOC/VDDG.


Hmmm, the only difference I can see is that mine is 16-17-16-16 and 333 TRFC. My Tfaw is 24 though, can them 2 timing effect ms that much? I've not changed anything in AMD CBS like 512kb, channel etc. Just left that at auto.

When I had 16-16-16-16 I got an error within 400% on memtest and I just changed it to 17 and it fixed it. 

Well it's passed 800% twice for 13gb ram with memtest. I'm on my third one which is at 600% and 0% error. Any other way to improve the ns?

Just FYI my ram are constantly around 50-52c during stress test. It's currently 32c in UK and I don't plan to get a fan to cool it haha, so I probably could get it lower if I can control the temp.


----------



## FloorPizza

thegr8anand said:


> Anyone with 3200C14 b-die ram got good overclocks with 3900x?


I'm waiting to do further tweaking until July 28. ; )

And my sticks are marketed as 3400C16 (not the 3200CL14 you requested), but I do have them stable at 3600 CL15 as of now. This is in an MSI X570 Ace with 3900x. RAM is 2x16 Samsung B-Die.


----------



## Vins

Why XMP profiles have only 6-7 timings? For example my HyperX Predator is rated 3000 15-17-17-36 and only 3-4 subtimings (tRC, tFAW, tRRDS and RRDL). If i manually set these and select "Auto" for the others i will get perfectly stable results? (with good agesa bios and such)


----------



## majestynl

lordzed83 said:


> @gupsterg @crakej @majestynl @elmor this was tested in 28c in the room while mining on nicehash
> @1usmus good I'w kept Every single version of calculator You released and tested timing each version gave me till i got the right one for my kit took forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Settings
> bclk 101.8 4301mhz all core
> cpu 1.325 llc5 400khz
> Soc 1.1 llc4 500khz
> DDR/BOOT 1.4 300khz
> VDDG 900mv
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say I'm leaving this as it is on memory.


Nice Dude! How about 1:1 ??? and cant see your RAM Temps. Can you share when testing ram after approx 30 min?
Below my last test on 3800mhz/1900mhz (1:1:1)! In the last screenie i passed that test way longer...
But again... i need to cool my sticks to be fully stable at this OC!


----------



## gupsterg

lordzed83 said:


> @gupsterg @crakej @majestynl @elmor this was tested in 28c in the room while mining on nicehash
> @1usmus good I'w kept Every single version of calculator You released and tested timing each version gave me till i got the right one for my kit took forever.
> 
> Settings
> bclk 101.8 4301mhz all core
> cpu 1.325 llc5 400khz
> Soc 1.1 llc4 500khz
> DDR/BOOT 1.4 300khz
> VDDG 900mv
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say I'm leaving this as it is on memory.


+rep, nice result :thumb: .



MrPhilo said:


> Hmmm, the only difference I can see is that mine is 16-17-16-16 and 333 TRFC. My Tfaw is 24 though, can them 2 timing effect ms that much? I've not changed anything in AMD CBS like 512kb, channel etc. Just left that at auto.
> 
> When I had 16-16-16-16 I got an error within 400% on memtest and I just changed it to 17 and it fixed it.
> 
> Well it's passed 800% twice for 13gb ram with memtest. I'm on my third one which is at 600% and 0% error. Any other way to improve the ns?
> 
> Just FYI my ram are constantly around 50-52c during stress test. It's currently 32c in UK and I don't plan to get a fan to cool it haha, so I probably could get it lower if I can control the temp.


I'm in the UK as well. I'm using a Thermaltake Core P5, I do have a Arctic Cooling F12 PWM pointing down at DIMMs, isn't really on high revs, just sorta wafts air at dimms.



Spoiler














Dunno the cause of difference.



majestynl said:


> Nice Dude! How about 1:1 ??? and cant see your RAM Temps. Can you share when testing ram after approx 30 min?
> Below my last test on 3800mhz/1900mhz (1:1:1)! In the last screenie i passed that test way longer...
> But again... i need to cool my sticks to be fully stable at this OC!


His is 1:1:1, RM is showing UEFI setting of MEMCLK/FCLK, as he has tweaked BCLK AIDA representing it as resulting MEMCLK.

Seems from Zeeds C16 and my own the C14 setup is not giving much for +100mV on VDIMM.



Spoiler
















Spoiler


----------



## lordzed83

@gupsterg Yup I just cant see how pumping extra 100mv to get cl14 error free is worth it. Looking at yours scores @Majestyni 1ns gain latency but loose read write(know its 50% on 1 chiplets) copy in exchange. I think Those are Settings that should work on weaker bdie DDR's that anyone could try out starting from 1.45 going down from that.
If it goes for temperatures 8pack's DDR's dpnt have temperature diode I got laser thermometer on way so i can check temperature of heat sinks my radiator and stuff with no sensors. Plus exhaust in car hehe.


----------



## MrPhilo

This is my 3800CL16 on the 3800x result, my fourth test making sure it is error free. It roughly around 50c the dimm, so it has done a good job tbh to get no error at that temperture.

No idea if I should get the new Trident Z Neo with 3600 CL14 or not


----------



## shenosuke

hello everyone , i have 2 ram sticks mixeds, 1x micron-bdie single rank and 1x Hynix MFR dual rank

should i enable or disable BGS (bankgroupswap) ? thx in advance


----------



## HatchetEgg

shenosuke said:


> hello everyone , i have 2 ram sticks mixeds, 1x micron-bdie single rank and 1x Hynix MFR dual rank
> 
> should i enable or disable BGS (bankgroupswap) ? thx in advance



If your having stability issues, it is recommended to switch it on, other wise leave it off.


----------



## HatchetEgg

Hi Guys,


So this is what I managed so far, out of my 3600 in 33C ambient temperature conditions, with ideal and minimal browsing conditions.


CPU: Ryzen 3600 OC 4.175 @ 1.375v


RAM:3,666Mhz CL14 @ 1.48v


----------



## wisepds

I can't get 3600 CL15-15-15-35-50 on my 32 GB DDR4 3600 (4x8GB) Gskill Samsung B-die Rams with Crosshair VIII hero Wifi and 3900X. I miss you Calculator.....


----------



## HatchetEgg

I had the same problem, I could not get my RAM stable at 3200CL14 g.skill b-die XMP profile. The system just would not boot.


Apparently it's to do with the DRAM boot voltage on the motherboard, fortunately, I think your MB has that??


For me I enabled GDM and switched between 2,400Mhz and 3,200Mhz, then my system would boot with the XMP profile!


Now tho I got 3,66Mhz stable with CL14 at 1.48v.


----------



## drkCrix

What are people seeing for 4x8GB sticks?

I just got my system up and running and am looking at a good starting point (currently at 2400mhz default)

Using Team Group DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) 18-20-20-44 (B-die according to Thaiphoon) on a Strix x470-f board with a 3900x

Cheers!

Chris


----------



## 1usmus

* July 29, I will introduce to the world new DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.0 *

You will receive full support for Zen 2, X570, updated presets, new features, training tips for x399, and of course the new version of MEMbench (Custom and Random latency tests).
Stay in touch


----------



## LicSqualo

YES! Thank you!


----------



## mdcobra

What can you do to improve fabric speed? Raise/lower certain voltages? Everything above 1600 gives me trouble with a 3900x @X570 Strix-E.


----------



## kazablanka

3800c16 @1.45v


----------



## kazablanka

1usmus said:


> * July 29, I will introduce to the world new DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.0 *
> 
> You will receive full support for Zen 2, X570, updated presets, new features, training tips for x399, and of course the new version of MEMbench (Custom and Random latency tests).
> Stay in touch


Hello Yuri, 3800C14 seems quite impossible until now on my kit (f4-4000c18d) ,with what kit did you test it?
Μaybe i have to set trcdrd to 17


----------



## kazablanka

3800c15 @1.48V
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14068131


----------



## lordzed83

kazablanka said:


> Hello Yuri, 3800C14 seems quite impossible until now on my kit (f4-4000c18d) ,with what kit did you test it?
> Μaybe i have to set trcdrd to 17


Same here i can do [email protected] but those are not working at 1.5 But this is for X570 not x470 ill wait till monday so i can get calculating  @1usmus will the calculator work with debug profile ??


----------



## drkCrix

Here are my tentative timings, haven't tweaked anything yet and with the announcement of Monday, I will wait till then to go with higher or tighter timings.

One thing I have noticed that if I set RTTpark to RZQ/5 in bios (Strix X470-f) it shows up as RZQ/1 in Ryzen master


----------



## Athyra

will this new version of the dram calculator be accurate for AGESA 1003AB, but subsequent versions might require another update?
or is it basically AGESA independent?

sorry if this is evident, this is my first ryzen cpu and am not familiar with the dram calculator


----------



## HatchetEgg

Athyra said:


> will this new version of the dram calculator be accurate for AGESA 1003AB, but subsequent versions might require another update?
> or is it basically AGESA independent?
> 
> sorry if this is evident, this is my first ryzen CPU and am not familiar with the dram calculator



The RAM timings themselves do not depend on BIOS updates (although BIOS updates can affect RAM stability in some cases), as the timings stay relatively the same. Normally the calculator gets updated to support the newer gen Ryzen CPUs or for bug fixes and improvements to the calculation for timings/functionality.


----------



## lordzed83

Athyra said:


> will this new version of the dram calculator be accurate for AGESA 1003AB, but subsequent versions might require another update?
> or is it basically AGESA independent?
> 
> sorry if this is evident, this is my first ryzen cpu and am not familiar with the dram calculator


Ias guy above said plus You gotta win on IMC and mem kit to ahve very tight and fast ram


----------



## drkCrix

3600c16 seems to be working alright, not sure if I should go for higher speeds or reduction in timings

Thoughts? Using 4x8GB sticks of B-Die


----------



## Eder

drkCrix said:


> 3600c16 seems to be working alright, not sure if I should go for higher speeds or reduction in timings
> 
> Thoughts? Using 4x8GB sticks of B-Die


What voltage is your dram on?

I'm having great results with some timings I found from another user for my flare-x b-die on 3733 using 1.4V. Great stability so far. I'll test 4 dimms tomorrow. 

Also improving Power Phase Control on my Asus X470-F 1.0.0.2 gives me decent improvement to all core boosts. IMO better then PBO at this moment.


----------



## drkCrix

Currently its running at 1.375v


----------



## JedixJarf

drkCrix said:


> 3600c16 seems to be working alright, not sure if I should go for higher speeds or reduction in timings
> 
> Thoughts? Using 4x8GB sticks of B-Die




Copied your settings, also running 4x8gb, on the arock x570 taichi though. Good enough till Jul 29 for me : )


----------



## Alpi

kazablanka said:


> Hello Yuri, 3800C14 seems quite impossible until now on my kit (f4-4000c18d) ,with what kit did you test it?
> Μaybe i have to set trcdrd to 17


Need mem ic's scaling to voltage and voltage, more voltage.  Ofc Imc is have to be able to do this but it seems they could handle mem clocks very easy.
I did 3800C12 even yesterday.  Imc was doing fabulous ! So solid performance could be seen ! It seems imc changed in a very good way in Zen2. So solid, sharp settings could be given. Didn't seen any random issues or instability. Same level as Intels imc. It will be good for manufacturers too I guess. They can do much easily xmp settings just we need Amd xmp profiles or simply Amd mem kits. This universal Intel / Amd xmp profile is perfect against performance...

https://hwbot.org/submission/4204489_


----------



## Burasx

My system won't boot with safe settings. I've tried changing several options without success.

I have B350-F Gaming ASUS board, and I can only change voltages by offset.


----------



## BeetleatWar1977

Burasx said:


> My system won't boot with safe settings. I've tried changing several options without success.
> 
> I have B350-F Gaming ASUS board, and I can only change voltages by offset.


Mine are needing a slightly higher rfc to run stable with the new Agesa....


----------



## Axaion

Alpi said:


> Need mem ic's scaling to voltage and voltage, more voltage.  Ofc Imc is have to be able to do this but it seems they could handle mem clocks very easy.
> I did 3800C12 even yesterday.  Imc was doing fabulous ! So solid performance could be seen ! It seems imc changed in a very good way in Zen2. So solid, sharp settings could be given. Didn't seen any random issues or instability. Same level as Intels imc. It will be good for manufacturers too I guess. They can do much easily xmp settings just we need Amd xmp profiles or simply Amd mem kits. This universal Intel / Amd xmp profile is perfect against performance...
> 
> https://hwbot.org/submission/4204489_


Sweet jesus that is an insane kit you got there


----------



## viilutaja

Alpi said:


> Need mem ic's scaling to voltage and voltage, more voltage.  Ofc Imc is have to be able to do this but it seems they could handle mem clocks very easy.
> I did 3800C12 even yesterday.  Imc was doing fabulous ! So solid performance could be seen ! It seems imc changed in a very good way in Zen2. So solid, sharp settings could be given. Didn't seen any random issues or instability. Same level as Intels imc. It will be good for manufacturers too I guess. They can do much easily xmp settings just we need Amd xmp profiles or simply Amd mem kits. This universal Intel / Amd xmp profile is perfect against performance...
> 
> https://hwbot.org/submission/4204489_


Amazing timings. That is your own custom bios for Asus ROG X370 Crosshair Hero VI ? 
Can you share it?

Edit: Nvm.  
Found it here. https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?112279-X370-X470-AGESA-1003AB-Bioses
Weird that this 7302 bios is not updated on Asus product page.


----------



## Syntractrix

I need the absolute best kit for 5 3600, b450 - 7 3700x, x570 any recommendations? 16gb pref


----------



## Alpi

Syntractrix said:


> I need the absolute best kit for 5 3600, b450 - 7 3700x, x570 any recommendations? 16gb pref


Maybe a A2 3200C14 G.skill 2x8 will do the trick (B-die chips onboard) ! Rgb ones are A2's. They are good to tight timings and able to reach high clocks even which could be useful for an 500 serie board.


----------



## Kildar

AMD-CBS menu for the Crosshair 6 has been nerfed in 7203 bios.

Anyway to re-enable it?


----------



## os2wiz

I hate to be a wet blanket here, but I have found the program to be next to useless. After filling in all the requested data, the "safe" values are most often NOT safe at all. They are way too aggressive. All it has done for me is cause boot hangs and numerous reset cmos button pushes. It has had one beneficial effect. I have tightened my tRFC setting by some 30%. Other than that wholly useless and annoying.


----------



## Jaju123

os2wiz said:


> I hate to be a wet blanket here, but I have found the program to be next to useless. After filling in all the requested data, the "safe" values are most often NOT safe at all. They are way too aggressive. All it has done for me is cause boot hangs and numerous reset cmos button pushes. It has had one beneficial effect. I have tightened my tRFC setting by some 30%. Other than that wholly useless and annoying.


It has helped me a lot with my Samsung 3600 cl15 b-die kit, mostly through informing me about the right settings for more obscure items like ProcODT, bus settings, and CLDO VDDP and other random voltages. Messing with these has helped me run tighter timings more stably. I am not sure about non-B-die settings, though, but if your kit is high quality, the calculator will make your life a lot easier.


----------



## FloorPizza

os2wiz said:


> I hate to be a wet blanket here, but I have found the program to be next to useless. After filling in all the requested data, the "safe" values are most often NOT safe at all. They are way too aggressive. All it has done for me is cause boot hangs and numerous reset cmos button pushes. It has had one beneficial effect. I have tightened my tRFC setting by some 30%. Other than that wholly useless and annoying.


I think you're kinda missing the whole point of the program. IMO, it's not supposed to be able to get you to the max overclock you can squeeze out of your system in five minutes. It's supposed to get you a close starting point, shaving off a lot of time needed in testing, testing, re-testing all the different settings, and give you a point in which to start your final tweaking. Five minutes and you're done? No. More like shaving many hours off, and getting you down to the final several hours.

The numbers produced are *suggestions* of where to start. Not the final answer; the user will *always* need to find that for themselves. And the "safe" settings are safe for probably 90% of the kits out there. You might very well have a kit that's in the unfortunate 10%. Every kit is different. It appears that "safe" settings for your kit should be considered "tight", and you need to back off from there.

When used in this manner, it's a very, very useful tool.


----------



## Mech0z

Alpi said:


> Need mem ic's scaling to voltage and voltage, more voltage.  Ofc Imc is have to be able to do this but it seems they could handle mem clocks very easy.
> I did 3800C12 even yesterday.  Imc was doing fabulous ! So solid performance could be seen ! It seems imc changed in a very good way in Zen2. So solid, sharp settings could be given. Didn't seen any random issues or instability. Same level as Intels imc. It will be good for manufacturers too I guess. They can do much easily xmp settings just we need Amd xmp profiles or simply Amd mem kits. This universal Intel / Amd xmp profile is perfect against performance...
> 
> https://hwbot.org/submission/4204489_


Can you post your memory timings?


----------



## lordzed83

its 90th in Ukraine @1usmus wheres the new toy hahaha. Joking Somehow I missed that FANTASTIC Article You wrote for Techpowerup and going by yer Science stuff maanged tog et some timings down while sticking to 1.4 volts passed 2 hours of ramtest no problem 

For others Yuris article
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/


----------



## Karagra

Any ideas what I should do here? I remember a tool a long time ago here for reflashing ram with the Trident Z RBG issue, I did that without a problem on some old ram but can't seem to find the tool anymore. I know Thaipoon Burner has one but money is tight and that little tool worked fine.
Then I have the issue of if I find the tool... Thaipoon does not have my ram in the database so which one is the bad one lol.


----------



## thegr8anand

lordzed83 said:


> its 90th in Ukraine @*1usmus* wheres the new toy hahaha. Joking Somehow I missed that FANTASTIC Article You wrote for Techpowerup and going by yer Science stuff maanged tog et some timings down while sticking to 1.4 volts passed 2 hours of ramtest no problem
> 
> For others Yuris article
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/



Excellent article on how to oc ram with the calculator. With the new calc coming, this will be perfect.


----------



## wisepds

Today is July 29!!!! OEEEEEE.... Came on @1usmus!!! We are waiting for your amazing tool!


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0*

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0 + MEMbench 0.8*



Spoiler

















*Download:* in the next half hour the archives will be added on all resources
Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
Сomputerbase.de​
*Changelog 1.6.0*:

• Added full support for *Zen 2* and *X570* motherboards.
• Added recommendations for *VDDG* and *FCLK* for Zen 2.
• Added recommendations for *Vref (CHA / CHB)*.
• The maximum frequency for 1:1 mode is now 3800 MHz, and for 2:1 mode - 4200.
• Updated presets for Samsung b-die, Hynix CJR and Micron e-die.
• Added backward compatibility of Zen 2 with previous generations of motherboards.
• Added *PMU Training* recommendations for all Ryzen platforms (AM4/TR4). Better training - a more stable system.
• Added autosave of the main tab settings when closing the program and automatically loading them when the program is started.
• Improved tWRRD prediction for Dual Rank.
• *Color notification* of voltage limits and FCLK. Black is the norm, red is the limit.
• Timing detection for Zen and Zen + generations. For the generation Zen 2 at the moment there is no possibility to add a definition of timings due to NDA. Unfortunately.
• Fixed a lack of presets for X399.
• Fixed a rare error in which it was impossible to calculate the timings.
• Added a button to access the *Internet overclocking statistics generation Zen 2*.
• For users of *Intel* systems in the “Additional Calculators” section, it is possible to calculate* tREFI* and *RTL IO-L*.
• Added *2 new latency tests for MEMbench*. *Custom latency* is a memory access test that the processor cannot predict (using a specific offset). *Random latency* - the average time is measured for random memory accesses in a buffer of a certain size. Partially affects the result of TLB. Both versions are release candidates, but I do not deny that there will be calibrations.
• Custom latency and Random latency are included in the Easy and Default packages. Please note that during testing the program will open / close the prompt itself (you do not need to deal with it).
• Added information about the size of the L3 cache processor. Also, the size of the test blocks for latency tests is controlled relative to it.
• Added button *Clear standby*. There is to clean the cached memory by the operating system. Didn't the test run? - Click Clear standby.
• Max RAM button better determines the amount of free memory available for testing. Useful for checking memory for errors.
• There are exceptions for many functions. Fault tolerance of the program increased.
• Graphic edits.

I want to thank *@slafniy* and *@A_z_z_y* for helping to create this version.

*BR, Yuri (@1usmus)*


----------



## Sin_Chase

Morning 1 @1usmus


Thanks for the update!


All the download links go to the old version however?


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> The product is very interesting, but I believe that internal testing failed. To be honest, I have no words ... and I try to refrain from commenting :h34r-smi
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> *There are a few rules that zen 2 users should know*
> 
> 1) FCLK should always be equal UCLK and MEMCLK , otherwise, domain synchronization reduces system performance.
> 2) VDDG <= SOC . Max limit 1.15 volts , which you may need.
> 3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage).
> 4) PB2 (+0 + 25 + 75 + 100 +200 mhz)not equal PBO. I advise you to use PB2, this algorithm does not depend on currents and thermal packets. The only limitation of this technology is processor temperature and FIT. Do not forget to turn off the PBO.
> 5) The optimal processor temperature for maximum boost is 60 degrees or less.
> 6) The maximum frequency of the memory controller (stable) in most cases is 1866-1900Mhz.
> 
> 
> P.s. I have notified AMD of all existing problems, no need to worry.
> 
> P.p.s. Review. I have lost a lot of time due to thorough research of new products, but the review will already be published on all resources early next week.
> Then I will engage in tight communication with the community (I hope the availability of processors will improve).
> 
> _______
> 
> BR, Yuri





1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0 + MEMbench 0.8*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Download:*
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de​
> *Changelog 1.6.0*:
> 
> • Added full support for *Zen 2* and *X570* motherboards.
> • Added recommendations for *VDDG* and *FCLK* for Zen 2.
> • Added recommendations for *Vref (CHA / CHB)*.
> • The maximum frequency for 1:1 mode is now 3800 MHz, and for 2:1 mode - 4200.
> • Updated presets for Samsung b-die, Hynix CJR and Micron e-die.
> • Added backward compatibility of Zen 2 with previous generations of motherboards.
> • Added *PMU Training* recommendations for all Ryzen platforms (AM4/TR4). Better training - a more stable system.
> • Added autosave of the main tab settings when closing the program and automatically loading them when the program is started.
> • Improved tWRRD prediction for Dual Rank.
> • *Color notification* of voltage limits and FCLK. Black is the norm, red is the limit.
> • Timing detection for Zen and Zen + generations. For the generation Zen 2 at the moment there is no possibility to add a definition of timings due to NDA. Unfortunately.
> • Fixed a lack of presets for X399.
> • Fixed a rare error in which it was impossible to calculate the timings.
> • Added a button to access the *Internet overclocking statistics generation Zen 2*.
> • For users of *Intel* systems in the “Additional Calculators” section, it is possible to calculate* tREFI* and *RTL IO-L*.
> • Added *2 new latency tests for MEMbench*. *Custom latency* is a memory access test that the processor cannot predict (using a specific offset). *Random latency* - the average time is measured for random memory accesses in a buffer of a certain size. Partially affects the result of TLB. Both versions are release candidates, but I do not deny that there will be calibrations.
> • Custom latency and Random latency are included in the Easy and Default packages. Please note that during testing the program will open / close the prompt itself (you do not need to deal with it).
> • Added information about the size of the L3 cache processor. Also, the size of the test blocks for latency tests is controlled relative to it.
> • Added button *Clear standby*. There is to clean the cached memory by the operating system. Didn't the test run? - Click Clear standby.
> • Max RAM button better determines the amount of free memory available for testing. Useful for checking memory for errors.
> • There are exceptions for many functions. Fault tolerance of the program increased.
> • Graphic edits.
> 
> I want to thank *@slafniy* and *@A_z_z_y* for helping to create this version.
> 
> *BR, Yuri (@1usmus)*



*+REP* :thumb:

Thank you so much, mate!
Looking forward to trying this new version out once I put together my new rig!


----------



## 1usmus

Sin_Chase said:


> Morning 1 @1usmus
> 
> 
> Thanks for the update!
> 
> 
> All the download links go to the old version however?


in the next half hour the archives will be added on all resources :thumb:


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0 + MEMbench 0.8*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Download:* in the next half hour the archives will be added on all resources
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de​
> *Changelog 1.6.0*:
> 
> • Added full support for *Zen 2* and *X570* motherboards.
> • Added recommendations for *VDDG* and *FCLK* for Zen 2.
> • Added recommendations for *Vref (CHA / CHB)*.
> • The maximum frequency for 1:1 mode is now 3800 MHz, and for 2:1 mode - 4200.
> • Updated presets for Samsung b-die, Hynix CJR and Micron e-die.
> • Added backward compatibility of Zen 2 with previous generations of motherboards.
> • Added *PMU Training* recommendations for all Ryzen platforms (AM4/TR4). Better training - a more stable system.
> • Added autosave of the main tab settings when closing the program and automatically loading them when the program is started.
> • Improved tWRRD prediction for Dual Rank.
> • *Color notification* of voltage limits and FCLK. Black is the norm, red is the limit.
> • Timing detection for Zen and Zen + generations. For the generation Zen 2 at the moment there is no possibility to add a definition of timings due to NDA. Unfortunately.
> • Fixed a lack of presets for X399.
> • Fixed a rare error in which it was impossible to calculate the timings.
> • Added a button to access the *Internet overclocking statistics generation Zen 2*.
> • For users of *Intel* systems in the “Additional Calculators” section, it is possible to calculate* tREFI* and *RTL IO-L*.
> • Added *2 new latency tests for MEMbench*. *Custom latency* is a memory access test that the processor cannot predict (using a specific offset). *Random latency* - the average time is measured for random memory accesses in a buffer of a certain size. Partially affects the result of TLB. Both versions are release candidates, but I do not deny that there will be calibrations.
> • Custom latency and Random latency are included in the Easy and Default packages. Please note that during testing the program will open / close the prompt itself (you do not need to deal with it).
> • Added information about the size of the L3 cache processor. Also, the size of the test blocks for latency tests is controlled relative to it.
> • Added button *Clear standby*. There is to clean the cached memory by the operating system. Didn't the test run? - Click Clear standby.
> • Max RAM button better determines the amount of free memory available for testing. Useful for checking memory for errors.
> • There are exceptions for many functions. Fault tolerance of the program increased.
> • Graphic edits.
> 
> I want to thank *@slafniy* and *@A_z_z_y* for helping to create this version.
> 
> *BR, Yuri (@1usmus)*


Ill test after work thanks Spreading the love


----------



## DeathAngel

TPU has the 1.6.0 version up for download now.  Gonna be fun! Thanks so much to 1usmus for the effort!


----------



## SexySale

Thank you @1usmus


----------



## dgoc18

This tool is not working for me


----------



## SaccoSVD

THANK YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wisepds

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0 + MEMbench 0.8*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Download:* in the next half hour the archives will be added on all resources
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de​
> *Changelog 1.6.0*:
> 
> • Added full support for *Zen 2* and *X570* motherboards.
> • Added recommendations for *VDDG* and *FCLK* for Zen 2.
> • Added recommendations for *Vref (CHA / CHB)*.
> • The maximum frequency for 1:1 mode is now 3800 MHz, and for 2:1 mode - 4200.
> • Updated presets for Samsung b-die, Hynix CJR and Micron e-die.
> • Added backward compatibility of Zen 2 with previous generations of motherboards.
> • Added *PMU Training* recommendations for all Ryzen platforms (AM4/TR4). Better training - a more stable system.
> • Added autosave of the main tab settings when closing the program and automatically loading them when the program is started.
> • Improved tWRRD prediction for Dual Rank.
> • *Color notification* of voltage limits and FCLK. Black is the norm, red is the limit.
> • Timing detection for Zen and Zen + generations. For the generation Zen 2 at the moment there is no possibility to add a definition of timings due to NDA. Unfortunately.
> • Fixed a lack of presets for X399.
> • Fixed a rare error in which it was impossible to calculate the timings.
> • Added a button to access the *Internet overclocking statistics generation Zen 2*.
> • For users of *Intel* systems in the “Additional Calculators” section, it is possible to calculate* tREFI* and *RTL IO-L*.
> • Added *2 new latency tests for MEMbench*. *Custom latency* is a memory access test that the processor cannot predict (using a specific offset). *Random latency* - the average time is measured for random memory accesses in a buffer of a certain size. Partially affects the result of TLB. Both versions are release candidates, but I do not deny that there will be calibrations.
> • Custom latency and Random latency are included in the Easy and Default packages. Please note that during testing the program will open / close the prompt itself (you do not need to deal with it).
> • Added information about the size of the L3 cache processor. Also, the size of the test blocks for latency tests is controlled relative to it.
> • Added button *Clear standby*. There is to clean the cached memory by the operating system. Didn't the test run? - Click Clear standby.
> • Max RAM button better determines the amount of free memory available for testing. Useful for checking memory for errors.
> • There are exceptions for many functions. Fault tolerance of the program increased.
> • Graphic edits.
> 
> I want to thank *@slafniy* and *@A_z_z_y* for helping to create this version.
> 
> *BR, Yuri (@1usmus)*


Thank you very much 1usmus. Your work is wonderful!


----------



## 1usmus

dgoc18 said:


> This tool is not working for me



This is a temporary limitation  I think tomorrow will be 1.6.0.1

*CJR presets*

3200 cdram 1.36
3466 vdram 1.35
3600 vdram 1.4
3733 vdram 1.42


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus installed on work pc to have a look whats new. Looks great. Was hoping for option to calculate Fast on V2 b die and Debug tho. Ill see if i can get the 3800 v1 profile working on my system and report. Question is. What Timings should we 'slow down' in case we get 1-2 errors on this V1 fast 3800 profile. Thanks again for this toy


----------



## crakej

1usmus said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.0 + MEMbench 0.8*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Download:* in the next half hour the archives will be added on all resources
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de​
> *Changelog 1.6.0*:
> 
> • Added full support for *Zen 2* and *X570* motherboards.
> • Added recommendations for *VDDG* and *FCLK* for Zen 2.
> • Added recommendations for *Vref (CHA / CHB)*.
> • The maximum frequency for 1:1 mode is now 3800 MHz, and for 2:1 mode - 4200.
> • Updated presets for Samsung b-die, Hynix CJR and Micron e-die.
> • Added backward compatibility of Zen 2 with previous generations of motherboards.
> • Added *PMU Training* recommendations for all Ryzen platforms (AM4/TR4). Better training - a more stable system.
> • Added autosave of the main tab settings when closing the program and automatically loading them when the program is started.
> • Improved tWRRD prediction for Dual Rank.
> • *Color notification* of voltage limits and FCLK. Black is the norm, red is the limit.
> • Timing detection for Zen and Zen + generations. For the generation Zen 2 at the moment there is no possibility to add a definition of timings due to NDA. Unfortunately.
> • Fixed a lack of presets for X399.
> • Fixed a rare error in which it was impossible to calculate the timings.
> • Added a button to access the *Internet overclocking statistics generation Zen 2*.
> • For users of *Intel* systems in the “Additional Calculators” section, it is possible to calculate* tREFI* and *RTL IO-L*.
> • Added *2 new latency tests for MEMbench*. *Custom latency* is a memory access test that the processor cannot predict (using a specific offset). *Random latency* - the average time is measured for random memory accesses in a buffer of a certain size. Partially affects the result of TLB. Both versions are release candidates, but I do not deny that there will be calibrations.
> • Custom latency and Random latency are included in the Easy and Default packages. Please note that during testing the program will open / close the prompt itself (you do not need to deal with it).
> • Added information about the size of the L3 cache processor. Also, the size of the test blocks for latency tests is controlled relative to it.
> • Added button *Clear standby*. There is to clean the cached memory by the operating system. Didn't the test run? - Click Clear standby.
> • Max RAM button better determines the amount of free memory available for testing. Useful for checking memory for errors.
> • There are exceptions for many functions. Fault tolerance of the program increased.
> • Graphic edits.
> 
> I want to thank *@slafniy* and *@A_z_z_y* for helping to create this version.
> 
> 
> 
> *BR, Yuri (@1usmus)*


Thanks for the update! I've sent you a PM about it.

Off to try out some new timings!


----------



## Sampza

Thanks you @1usmus


----------



## Nighthog

@1usmus

Just giving you a heads-up that not all Micron E-die can do the "calculate safe" timings as are suggested. Not all kits can do so tight *tRCDRD* & *tRC* as suggested by the calculator.

For example it suggests for my kit [18] tRCDRD & [56] tRC for 3800Mhz MEM speeds for X570/ZEN2. Can't do such a thing. *[23] tRCDRD & [66] tRC only works at best.* 

Got Kingston brand E-die 16nm. I know Crucial kits can do much better and I guess it's such a kit you have? Are they I suppose 19nm? I've noted from posted results on the net they are better for these timings.


----------



## Brko

How to know is it V1 or V2 B-Die RAM???

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## crakej

Brko said:


> How to know is it V1 or V2 B-Die RAM???
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


Use V1 - if that doesn't work, you can try V2.


----------



## Abyssmal

@1usmus
Great update!

Question:
What settings should we use with Gen+ on X470 board with AGESA 1.0.0.3AB? Taichi X470 with 3.50 bios AGESA Combo-AM4 1.0.0.3, and R5 2600 to be exact.

Also CAD_BUS has changed alot - is it because of the new AGESA?.

Thank you!


----------



## Brko

So far V1 was OK. That's why l asked, how can it be checked? I looked in Typhoon Burner, HWinfo...etc and did not find anything.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## Eder

My b-die is having trouble with geardown off on most timings (asus 470-F, 3700x). Changing the cad bus timings to 56 did make it boot but is giving me errors while testing.


----------



## neil_tohno

I found the bugs.

2950x + Rog Zenith Extreme


----------



## 1usmus

*1.6.0.1 with bug fix will be available after 10 minutes*


----------



## Sin_Chase

Testing V1 Fast 3533 with an alt tRFC of 282 on my 3600 B-Dies.


100s of errors on the recommended voltage of 1.43. Upped to 1.45 in the BIOS which gives me a MultiMeter readout of 1.468 which is a little over the Max of 1.440 but this gets rid of the instant and persistent errors. Still getting the odd error with SoC increased to 1.05v (1050mv on multi metre) usually on cycle 2.



Now trying 3533 V1 Safe Preset.


1.458v DRAM on the Multimeter (errors at the next voltage step down)

1.075v SOC
950mv VDDG
900mv VDDP


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

@1usmus

Thanks Bratan'


----------



## LicSqualo

Ne01 OnnA said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Thanks Bratan'


Me too 

(You're a really nice)
Both.


----------



## CapKrunch

Thanks author for your hard work with this program and keep it up!


----------



## CubanB

@1usmus

Thank you for this tool.

I'm about to build my first Ryzen system in the coming weeks with 3700X after years of being with Intel. In the past I've always just used XMP and forgot about it, but with Ryzen and this tool it seems like I can expect increased stability when using your calculator and doing manual timings compared to any stock profiles? I ended up choosing the Crucial Ballistix E die kit (4 sticks). Can I expect increased stability with using your calculator and manual timings vs stock profiles? In testing, I'll be trying to add a little bit of headroom for future 24/7 stability but will try to use the calculator (and any advise here) as a guide and starting point.

Either way, the timing of your release (and the improved IMC on the 3000 series) is perfect timing, and this tool is very helpful to everyone who isn't familiar with Ryzen or the specific RAM die quirks. And thanks for the quick response with bug fixes also.


----------



## Martin778

Dear @1usmus
I have question, why does "SAFE" preset show tighter primary timings than "FAST"?
Please take a look:


----------



## LilleTiffe

I cant import XMP? I exported it in ns values as html in thaiphoon but nothing really gets imported in the calculator. Cant set the values manually either. RIP.


----------



## Stalast

Is this normal? I can't enter this value into Ryzen Master.


----------



## HatchetEgg

@*1usmus
*


Thanks so much for your hard work on this,

I noticed some gains with the suggested values for my 3,666 profile.


I just would like to bring to your attention some of the presets do not seem to work, in this case for me 3,733 FAST preset, gives me this error.


See attached screenshot.


----------



## GuMossad

Hi guys! 

So I am not able to boot my PC  

This is my config:

Ryzen 3700X + Noctua D15
ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi)
2x F4-3200C14-16GTZSW (G.Skill Trident Z SS B-Die)

Tried these settings for 3600 (Fast Profile) on Recommended and Alt and Board doesn't boot at all... Always brings in Post saying to press F1 to boot to BIOS and change...

What can I do? Any ideas? Thanks!


----------



## lordzed83

Martin778 said:


> Dear @1usmus
> I have question, why does "SAFE" preset show tighter primary timings than "FAST"?
> Please take a look:


Fast looks faster to me on some timings. My cl16 3800 is faster than my cl14 3733. Look at tcke and trfc


----------



## xlollomanx

Hi @1usmus I still getting this error with latest 1.6.0 with my samsung e-die single rank. Last version which not gives me any error was 1.4.1. I attached the error and the report made with typhoon burner (simple renamed to txt otherwise I can't attach it here)

edit: forgot to mention, I'm on first gen ryzen and b350 mobo. I don't know if this matter.


----------



## gerardfraser

GuMossad said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> So I am not able to boot my PC
> 
> This is my config:
> 
> Ryzen 3700X + Noctua D15
> ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi)
> 2x F4-3200C14-16GTZSW (G.Skill Trident Z SS B-Die)
> 
> Tried these settings for 3600 (Fast Profile) on Recommended and Alt and Board doesn't boot at all... Always brings in Post saying to press F1 to boot to BIOS and change...
> 
> What can I do? Any ideas? Thanks!



@1usmus Thank you for a great tool.

@GuMossad This is a tool to give you some insight on how to set timing properly and get you close to stable timings.Change the first 4 numbers from and make sure you have enough voltage to boot ram try 1.45v.
14/14/16/15 to 
16/16/16/16


----------



## Jaju123

Stalast said:


> Is this normal? I can't enter this value into Ryzen Master.


I think it is 1 OR 3, not 1/3.


----------



## Athyra

Using the timings and settings in the screenshots (V1 safe, SOC 1.1v, DDR 1.43v) I am so close to stable, I get one error after about 50 mins if testing, which is like 24 threads all around 80%, sometimes longer.
A few times it seemed stable, but after like an hour it threw one error.

If you guys were experiencing this, what would you try to loosen to avoid the error?
I'm quite new to all this, so I get i need to raise some numbers, but really have no idea which to do.
If I use V2 it recommends timings that are looser than my stable xmp, so that's too loose.

Would like advice on which settings to fiddle with to try and get a little more stability.

edit: 
also, i forget the exact name, but my bios has a memory timing called something PAGE which couldn't find in the calculator, should i just be leaving it on auto?
the calculator also mentions some settings that I can't find in my bios, like the BGS one i should disable or Vref.


----------



## SaccoSVD

In my experience, when RAM gave a few errors here and there bumping one notch or two up the RAM and / or SOC fixed it.


----------



## Athyra

you mean their voltage?
yeah my soc is at 1.1 which is listed as max on that safe preset, and i did try with ram at 1.44 which drooped to 1.43, and i did get an error after nearly 1 hour


----------



## mongoled

@*1usmus* 


Thanks for the hard work you have put into this and are continually putting into this.


Much appreciated





Just something I noticed (have not had much success with your calculator).


I tried the 3800/safe, preset for b-die and Ryzen but Windows was very unstable, i did a quick AIDA64 memory latency test it was around 70ns, memclock and IF are synced.


I then tried all settings auto except 



16-15-15-15-35-89-666-1T at 1.45v


And have been running prime95 v29.8 build 5, for just over an hour, Large FFTs @ 3800/1900, with no errors. 



AIDA64 memory latency is at 64ns 



Both DDR sticks (b-die) DIMM temperatures peaking at 47-48C


Under my custom loop the CPU is pegged at 4200mhz all core overclock.


I found it very strange that these looser timings and everything on AUTO is very stable and lower latency


----------



## GuMossad

gerardfraser said:


> @1usmus Thank you for a great tool.
> 
> @GuMossad This is a tool to give you some insight on how to set timing properly and get you close to stable timings.Change the first 4 numbers from and make sure you have enough voltage to boot ram try 1.45v.
> 14/14/16/15 to
> 16/16/16/16



Thanks for helping out! Well tried with 16-16-16-16 and nothing... I am not understanding what's going on :| 

I was trying to find BOOT Dram Voltage on the bios to change, but no luck finding it on CH8 with latest BIOS.. 

My power supply is good and working well, Seasonic Prime Titanium 750W (my gfx is a 980Ti)


----------



## gerardfraser

GuMossad said:


> Thanks for helping out! Well tried with 16-16-16-16 and nothing... I am not understanding what's going on :|
> 
> I was trying to find BOOT Dram Voltage on the bios to change, but no luck finding it on CH8 with latest BIOS..
> 
> My power supply is good and working well, Seasonic Prime Titanium 750W (my gfx is a 980Ti)


OK best thing to do is start at 2133Mhz and train the Ram.Go in small steps.I do not have an ASUS board but the boot voltage should be under Tweaker section
2133/2400/2933/3200/3600 and use loose timing with adequate DRAM voltage.

It could also be you have a bad BIOS and need updated if so most you may get is 3200 on the ram for now.I read ASUS BIOS are messed up.


----------



## GuMossad

gerardfraser said:


> OK best thing to do is start at 2133Mhz and train the Ram.Go in small steps.I do not have an ASUS board but the boot voltage should be under Tweaker section
> 2133/2400/2933/3200/3600 and use loose timing with adequate DRAM voltage.
> 
> It could also be you have a bad BIOS and need updated if so most you may get is 3200 on the ram for now.I read ASUS BIOS are messed up.


Yeah I am on the latest BIOS 0702 or whatever on C8H... I am going to try 3200 Fast now. 

If i leave everything stock and just put 3600 / 1800 on the BIOS it will boot without any problem... when I start tweaking... jesus :| let me try 3200 Fast and Safe and see if it boots or gives me press F1 due to instability.


----------



## gerardfraser

Yeah sounds like crap BIOS,I can do CL 16 4200Mhz on my X470 Motherboard.


----------



## pagaiba

Hey 1usmus, looks like the voltages for the DRAM on the FAST setting aren't updating when you calculate them, it just keeps the last value it had on that field.

Just letting you guys know, in case it doesn't work for someone.


EDIT:

Also Windows just threw me this error, guessing some variable/path is still not correctly named/updated?


************** Exception Text **************
System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
at System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.VTTDDR()
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_FAST_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


----------



## IntelHouseFire

Am I supposed to select Ryzen 2 Gen here if I have a 3900X? It's confusing because I assume it's supposed to say Zen, not Ryzen?


----------



## pagaiba

IntelHouseFire said:


> Am I supposed to select Ryzen 2 Gen here if I have a 3900X? It's confusing because I assume it's supposed to say Zen, not Ryzen?


Yeah, just imagine instead of "Ryzen" it says "Zen" and you should be fine.


----------



## HatchetEgg

IntelHouseFire said:


> Am I supposed to select Ryzen 2 Gen here if I have a 3900X? It's confusing because I assume it's supposed to say Zen, not Ryzen?



Ryzen 1 gen is Ryzen 1000
Ryzen + gen is Ryzen 2000
Ryzen 2 Gen is Ryzen 3000


AMD had originally called them ZEN but they had to change the name because of US trademark law, that why it's known as RYZEN.


----------



## GuMossad

gerardfraser said:


> Yeah sounds like crap BIOS,I can do CL 16 4200Mhz on my X470 Motherboard.


Let's see if anyone else with similar config to mine has success doing it


----------



## 1usmus

pagaiba said:


> Hey 1usmus, looks like the voltages for the DRAM on the FAST setting aren't updating when you calculate them, it just keeps the last value it had on that field.
> 
> Just letting you guys know, in case it doesn't work for someone.
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Also Windows just threw me this error, guessing some variable/path is still not correctly named/updated?
> 
> 
> ************** Exception Text **************
> System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
> at System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.VTTDDR()
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_FAST_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


*1.6.0.1 fix on all sources
*


----------



## 1usmus

*I think that in the near future there will be an update, as AMD is preparing new bios*


----------



## 1usmus

Stalast said:


> Is this normal? I can't enter this value into Ryzen Master.


1 or 3


----------



## GuMossad

1usmus said:


> I think that in the near future there will be an update, as AMD is preparing new bios


1usmus but have you got any report of problems with Asus C8H and DRAM Timings? This is super odd.. tried 3200 Fast and Safe and even tweaked voltages, tried 3533 Safe and Fast nothing, and 3600 nothing. Only shows POST Screen to press F1 and re-config BIOS. Using Profile V1, Memory Rank 1, 2 Dimm Modules (sitting in A2 and B2)... 

If I leave everything default and just put 3600Mhz and 1800Mhz on Asus BIOS, it will boot without any problem at all... I can't understand... hopefully the new AGESA and bios from Asus will fix this?


----------



## Martin778

I'm running the 3733 FAST for dual rank setup, works flawlessly, passes the memtest. My MB is Gigabyte X570 Xtreme.


----------



## leetier

GuMossad said:


> 1usmus but have you got any report of problems with Asus C8H and DRAM Timings? This is super odd.. tried 3200 Fast and Safe and even tweaked voltages, tried 3533 Safe and Fast nothing, and 3600 nothing. Only shows POST Screen to press F1 and re-config BIOS. Using Profile V1, Memory Rank 1, 2 Dimm Modules (sitting in A2 and B2)...
> 
> If I leave everything default and just put 3600Mhz and 1800Mhz on Asus BIOS, it will boot without any problem at all... I can't understand... hopefully the new AGESA and bios from Asus will fix this?


My C8H works 3600 14-15-14-28 1T (fast settings).


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus well tried 3733 and 3800 slow and fast Errors in 1 second they pop out


----------



## SaccoSVD

So, is it better to OC your RAM from Ryzen Master or from the BIOS?


----------



## chakku

SaccoSVD said:


> So, is it better to OC your RAM from Ryzen Master or from the BIOS?


Always BIOS. Only thing you should be overclocking from your OS is your GPU.


----------



## 1usmus

lordzed83 said:


> @1usmus well tried 3733 and 3800 slow and fast Errors in 1 second they pop out


You must understand that it is impossible to guess the exact voltage on which memory will work for you. It is for this that I created a guide. 0.005 volts for RAM can solve all problems. For example.
Сalculator is only a compass for overclocking the RAM.

Did I also see a working preset, or was it not stable?

______________________________________________

*FOR ALL*


*I also want to note that the memory controller is no different with respect to zen + if you consider the maximum frequency of UCLK, in most cases 1800 MHz will be optimal and maximum. I'm not talking about 1866 or 1900 MHz, this is an exception to the rule, not even statistics.

My copy of the 3700X is not stable at 3733, within 15-20 minutes I get a system reboot, although no memory test sees an error. The UCLK / FCLK frequency of 1900 MHz is unreachable for my processor too.
Neither Godlike nor C8HW can work better than the memory controller.

I am writing this because some of you will get the result within half an hour, and some of you will not be able to get it. Try to objectively evaluate the capabilities of your RAM and processor. Silicone lottery exists everywhere.*

I put my presets, maybe they will help you

DualRank 3533C14 1:1 MODE - vDRAM 1.46V
SingleRank 3733C14 1:1 MODE - vDRAM 1.455V
SingleRank 4200C16 2:1 MODE - vDRAM 1.455V


----------



## kazama

Im on 3200 cl14 trident z rgb, what is the supposed 'best' memory oc for my ram for pure gamming on 3800x? did someone make some test about diferences gamming 3200cl, 3600 etc?


----------



## 1usmus

SaccoSVD said:


> So, is it better to OC your RAM from Ryzen Master or from the BIOS?


This is a very raw product. I will even say more, any product that manages settings from windows is the worst option for setting up the system. I use these programs only to show you the current settings.


----------



## chakku

Not sure if it's a bug or intentional, Fast timings for 3733 & 3800 on dual rank settings gives C16 timings while 'Safe' gives C14 timings, only tRFC is higher with C14. Also is it intentional that ProcODT is still 53 for dual rank? I have been running 34.6 with 3733C16 on my system (20000% Karhu stable) with no issues. Trying 3800/1900 FCLK is an instant C5 with all timings auto except for primary, I think that is out of reach for my chip.


----------



## 1usmus

mongoled said:


> @*1usmus*
> 
> 
> Thanks for the hard work you have put into this and are continually putting into this.
> 
> 
> Much appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just something I noticed (have not had much success with your calculator).
> 
> 
> I tried the 3800/safe, preset for b-die and Ryzen but Windows was very unstable, i did a quick AIDA64 memory latency test it was around 70ns, memclock and IF are synced.
> 
> 
> I then tried all settings auto except
> 
> 
> 
> 16-15-15-15-35-89-666-1T at 1.45v
> 
> 
> And have been running prime95 v29.8 build 5, for just over an hour, Large FFTs @ 3800/1900, with no errors.
> 
> 
> 
> AIDA64 memory latency is at 64ns
> 
> 
> 
> Both DDR sticks (b-die) DIMM temperatures peaking at 47-48C
> 
> 
> Under my custom loop the CPU is pegged at 4200mhz all core overclock.
> 
> 
> I found it very strange that these looser timings and everything on AUTO is very stable and lower latency


There is an anomaly when the system gets very tight timings. The memory controller starts working like a neutral-gear motor. I sent a request to AMD so that they commented. At the moment, unfortunately I have no information for you yet.
As an example, I want to show you 3466 and 3600 MHz, pay attention to the results, at 3600 MHz they are 25% worse




chakku said:


> Not sure if it's a bug or intentional, Fast timings for 3733 & 3800 on dual rank settings gives C16 timings while 'Safe' gives C14 timings, only tRFC is higher with C14. Also is it intentional that ProcODT is still 53 for dual rank? I have been running 34.6 with 3733C16 on my system (20000% Karhu stable) with no issues. Trying 3800/1900 FCLK is an instant C5 with all timings auto except for primary, I think that is out of reach for my chip.


at the moment we have different PMU and SMU modules, our settings may differ. Agesa 1002 and 1003 have a difference of 500 binary files, this is a third of all files.

Do you have pictures of 3733 / 3800DR?

thank


----------



## SaccoSVD

1usmus said:


> This is a very raw product. I will even say more, any product that manages settings from windows is the worst option for setting up the system. I use these programs only to show you the current settings.


Exactly! I heard at least twice of people OC'ing their RAM from RM and I thought "that cannot be good"...I think I even heard it from one of the popular youtubers.


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> at the moment we have different PMU and SMU modules, our settings may differ. Agesa 1002 and 1003 have a difference of 500 binary files, this is a third of all files.
> 
> Do you have pictures of 3733 / 3800DR?
> 
> thank



From the calc? I'm not currently at home but I did screenshot 3733/3800 'Safe' timings which were tighter than Fast to try out before I left.



Spoiler



3800 SAFE









3733 SAFE











Will need to get you a screenshot of my current stable 3733C16 timings (1:1:1 ratio) for dual rank but off the top of my head it was 16-16-16-34-50-288-1T-GDM Enabled, 1.4V. SoC 1.1V, VDDG 0.95V, VDDP 0.9V, most other timings were as per calc except tFAW at 34 and tWR at 10.


----------



## Pilotasso

@1usmus

Superb work! I am playing with it even though my 3900X has not arrived yet. :]


----------



## 1usmus

GuMossad said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> So I am not able to boot my PC
> 
> This is my config:
> 
> Ryzen 3700X + Noctua D15
> ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi)
> 2x F4-3200C14-16GTZSW (G.Skill Trident Z SS B-Die)
> 
> Tried these settings for 3600 (Fast Profile) on Recommended and Alt and Board doesn't boot at all... Always brings in Post saying to press F1 to boot to BIOS and change...
> 
> What can I do? Any ideas? Thanks!


I think you should try 3466, perhaps the memory controller cannot be played with 4 modules.



chakku said:


> From the calc? I'm not currently at home but I did screenshot 3733/3800 'Safe' timings which were tighter than Fast to try out before I left.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 3800 SAFE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3733 SAFE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will need to get you a screenshot of my current stable 3733C16 timings (1:1:1 ratio) for dual rank but off the top of my head it was 16-16-16-34-50-288-1T-GDM Enabled, 1.4V. SoC 1.1V, VDDG 0.95V, VDDP 0.9V, most other timings were as per calc except tFAW at 34 and tWR at 10.


I will be waiting for you pictures of your stable preset, I am very interested


----------



## FJSAMA

1usmus said:


> at the moment we have different PMU and SMU modules, our settings may differ. Agesa 1002 and 1003 have a difference of 500 binary files, this is a third of all files.


Is it any benefit for zen+ users (on 300/400 mbs) to update for newer agesas (combo-pi)? Is there any oc improvement in ram department? Or is it best to stay in last pinnacle-pi bios 1006 agesa?

Thanks @1usmus


----------



## SaccoSVD

Hmm...I think I'm gonna wait a little longer for better AGESA and updated Calc.


----------



## 1usmus

FJSAMA said:


> Is it any benefit for zen+ users (on 300/400 mbs) to update for newer agesas (combo-pi)? Is there any oc improvement in ram department? Or is it best to stay in last pinnacle-pi bios 1006 agesa?
> 
> Thanks @1usmus


For Zen and Zen +, I believe that the best is AGESA 1.0.0.4c. There is nothing in a combo that may be necessary for a user of past generation processors.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

1usmus said:


> *1.6.0.1 fix on all sources
> *


Would like to report to you that I'm experiencing same error while using 1.6.0.1 trying to choose fast preset on Hynix CJR memory @ 3600, single rank, x570, 2 dimms.

Thank you for the continued support of this program, safe preset on the CJR is showing stable after a few hours of testing.



> Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.6.0.1
> Assembly Version: 1.6.0.0
> Win32 Version: 1.6.0.0
> 
> ************** Exception Text **************
> System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
> at System.Number.ParseDouble(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt)
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.VTTDDR()
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_FAST_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


----------



## GTxFinish

Bug report: @1usmus

Ryzen 2 gen
Bdie
V1
2 rank
3600Mhz
2 modules
X570

Safe and Fast presets look swapped by mistake, at 3600,3666,3733,3800mhz.

"Safe" is tighter timings at higher voltage, and "Fast" is looser timings recommending lower voltage. That's opposite of normal behavior at recommendations for 3533 and lower. tRTP and tCKE tighten going from SAFE->FAST, but every other timing loosens.


----------



## Martin778

Up, can confirm the above, same setup. The fast preset actually has a few tighter secondary timings it seems but the SAFE has tighter primary timings.


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus ya know me i got to much spare time. Spent 3 hours trying to get 3733cl14 profile working tried ddr voltage from 1.4 to 1.6 in 50mw steps no go. Tried ODT from 32 to 40 noope not a clu why it does not like Teamgroup mem kit. And I got this 3800cl16/1900 29 000% pass at 1.4 volts no reboot ect. It's been like this in my case since calculator version 1.4 if i remember corectly. So far calculator 1.0.0 beta 3 calculated using XMP profile works best with teamgroup memory kit and its 3rd memory kit where I ahve same situation. so just reporting how it is.
Still love the new version cause of benchmark more !!! ITS GREAT cause can same 1 score reboot use new stuff run and compare it !!!
It would be sooo good if XMP profile could be calculated on fast preset on new version's of calculator


----------



## 1usmus

Serious_Don said:


> Would like to report to you that I'm experiencing same error while using 1.6.0.1 trying to choose fast preset on Hynix CJR memory @ 3600, single rank, x570, 2 dimms.
> 
> Thank you for the continued support of this program, safe preset on the CJR is showing stable after a few hours of testing.


Thanks for the feedback, I will post 1.6.0.3 tomorrow with all the edits 

too many lines of code, I can not keep track of everything, I apologize



GTxFinish said:


> Bug report: @1usmus
> 
> Ryzen 2 gen
> Bdie
> V1
> 2 rank
> 3600Mhz
> 2 modules
> X570
> 
> Safe and Fast presets look swapped by mistake, at 3600,3666,3733,3800mhz.
> 
> "Safe" is tighter timings at higher voltage, and "Fast" is looser timings recommending lower voltage. That's opposite of normal behavior at recommendations for 3533 and lower. tRTP and tCKE tighten going from SAFE->FAST, but every other timing loosens.


there is no mistake  a higher primary timing can allow to lower the secondary timings. Also, the DR memory heats up more and needs higher timings in order to have stability. Do not be surprised.

in fact, the difference between safe and fast presets is 1-3%
people from the very beginning got used to these names, therefore I decided not to change them



lordzed83 said:


> @1usmus ya know me i got to much spare time. Spent 3 hours trying to get 3733cl14 profile working tried ddr voltage from 1.4 to 1.6 in 50mw steps no go. Tried ODT from 32 to 40 noope not a clu why it does not like Teamgroup mem kit. And I got this 3800cl16/1900 29 000% pass at 1.4 volts no reboot ect. It's been like this in my case since calculator version 1.4 if i remember corectly. So far calculator 1.0.0 beta 3 calculated using XMP profile works best with teamgroup memory kit and its 3rd memory kit where I ahve same situation. so just reporting how it is.
> Still love the new version cause of benchmark more !!! ITS GREAT cause can same 1 score reboot use new stuff run and compare it !!!
> It would be sooo good if XMP profile could be calculated on fast preset on new version's of calculator


I unfortunately have no old versions on my new system.I will ask you to send me this version of the calculator in private messages. 
I like your idea, I implement it more effectively in Debug profile (mode)

*UPD:* I think the current profile looks good
There are a lot of blunders in the old...

*UPD 2* I found your profile you are talking about, edits will be made tomorrow


----------



## IntelHouseFire

If I know what kind of memory chip I have (b-die for example), and whether it's single or dual rank, is there any reason at all to use the typhoon burner program?


----------



## HatchetEgg

1usmus said:


> Thanks for the feedback, I will post 1.6.0.3 tomorrow with all the edits
> 
> too many lines of code, I can not keep track of everything, I apologize
> 
> 
> 
> there is no mistake  a higher primary timing can allow to lower the secondary timings. Also, the DR memory heats up more and needs higher timings in order to have stability. Do not be surprised.
> 
> in fact, the difference between safe and fast presets is 1-3%
> people from the very beginning got used to these names, therefore I decided not to change them
> 
> 
> 
> I unfortunately have no old versions on my new system.I will ask you to send me this version of the calculator in private messages.
> I like your idea, I implement it more effectively in Debug profile (mode)
> 
> *UPD:* I think the current profile looks good
> There are a lot of blunders in the old...
> 
> *UPD 2* I found your profile you are talking about, edits will be made tomorrow



Thought I let you know, I have some old versions of the calculator oldest one I have is 0.9.9, let me know which version if you are interested me sending you it?


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus Thats the one As I said I'w klept allc alculators You ever released and using bit of this bit of that and bit from yours article. Working testing performance stability ect to work out best i can have for myself.
With new calculator I managed to get some extra from my memories anyway i started day with 224score and i got profile for 205.

That photo of my starting day profile with 8 hours of ramtest while mining with gpu its 3800cl16 profile I'w been working on for a week more or less. And needs only 1.4 1.1soc 900-950vddg volts on my mem kit. Im adding thaipoon xmp dump so you can have a look.
This mem kit loads XMP and it runs 100% stable off that iw ran hci ramtest and testmem ofc slow when its 2:1

Was about to ask what mem kit have You tested them V1 and V2 bdie profiles with ?
@HatchetEgg iw not kept the pre v1 ones as they could not import xmp profiles.


----------



## lordzed83

Thats my calculators folder


----------



## Pandora's Box

Tweaked my timings a bit using the new version:


----------



## Coleh

Micron Rev.E profiles are way, way too optimistic. I'm unsure if you've actually had a chance to use the non elite bins of Micron Rev.E(3000CL15/3200CL16) but they hit a hard tRCRDR wall. tRCRDR for 3466 1.45v and below should be 17 lowest, and at 3600MHz and above 1.45v profiles MAY have tRCRDR scale down to 17 but it's much more likely it hits a complete wall at 19/20. I made a large post on reddit /r/Overclocking in April detailing how Micron Rev.E scales/overclocks in a post titled "My experience with Micron E-Die - 3600CL16 on Ryzen 1st Gen" which is the top Reddit result on google right now. You should adjust the profiles, beginning with removing those unnecesarily high voltages. 1.45v+ causes the ICs to actually get too hot which without minimal direct airflow(case mounted fan directly infront/above it, does not need full blast jerry-rigged fan setup) severely limits stability, making 1.35v profiles in minimal airflow scenarios perform much better. By the way, 1.35/stock voltage is MORE than enough for 3600MHz profiles and has stability tested overnight stable for me with HCI(2400% across alll 12 threads). Attached is my current 32GB 3200CL14 daily profile for my R5 1600, I hope using this and the reddit post can help adjust the profiles so others don't get confused as to why the profiles aren't working/posting.


----------



## Stalast

Coleh said:


> Micron Rev.E profiles are way, way too optimistic. I'm unsure if you've actually had a chance to use the non elite bins of Micron Rev.E(3000CL15/3200CL16) but they hit a hard tRCRDR wall. tRCRDR for 3466 1.45v and below should be 17 lowest, and at 3600MHz and above 1.45v profiles MAY have tRCRDR scale down to 17 but it's much more likely it hits a complete wall at 19/20. I made a large post on reddit /r/Overclocking in April detailing how Micron Rev.E scales/overclocks in a post titled "My experience with Micron E-Die - 3600CL16 on Ryzen 1st Gen" which is the top Reddit result on google right now. You should adjust the profiles, beginning with removing those unnecesarily high voltages. 1.45v+ causes the ICs to actually get too hot which without minimal direct airflow(case mounted fan directly infront/above it, does not need full blast jerry-rigged fan setup) severely limits stability, making 1.35v profiles in minimal airflow scenarios perform much better. By the way, 1.35/stock voltage is MORE than enough for 3600MHz profiles and has stability tested overnight stable for me with HCI(2400% across alll 12 threads). Attached is my current 32GB 3200CL14 daily profile for my R5 1600, I hope using this and the reddit post can help adjust the profiles so others don't get confused as to why the profiles aren't working/posting.


Thanks so much for shining light on this Coleh. I'm completely new to memory OCing and I've spent several hours over the course of the last couple of weeks researching/learning, trying to use 1.5.1 and now this 1.6.0 version of this software on my Ballistix Sport LT 2x8GB 3000CL15 kit with Ryzen 3600 & MSI B450M Mortar with very limited success. I also found that my stability was hindered every time I went over 1.35V so what I'm hearing from you gives me faith in my ability haha. The amount of problems using this software had me thinking that I lost the silicone lottery big time.


----------



## GuMossad

So in my C8H, little by little I was able to get to the values on the Picture for the timing and voltage (1.48V Dram, 1.125V SoC, 1.000 VDDG. 0.9V VDDP  ) . Minus two settings: procODT is Auto, and RTT_Park is Auto.

If I introduce RTT_Park Values on C8H Bios, system will not post at all. Any reason for this to happen? 

Got some improvements here so let's see what might this be!


----------



## GTxFinish

@1usmus,

You mentioned in a comment about Zen2 in general that there wasn't really much to be gained above 3533CL14. Why is that? In all your testing, what's your perceived sweet spot people should be targetting? What is max performance (highest bandwidth with lowest latency)?


----------



## chakku

1usmus said:


> I will be waiting for you pictures of your stable preset, I am very interested


Hi @1usmus here you go



Spoiler















I'm able to drop tRFC to 280 with no hit to stability however I see no performance gain from this so I leave it at 288. I originally intended to follow the calc and put 298 however I typed in 289 accidentally and it was still very stable, so I tested again at 288 for a cleaner number.

It appears there are some posters here with success at tighter timings on 2x16GB B-Die, however I have not been able to get the same level of stability with these as I get errors around 5000% when I change tRAS to 32 and tRC to 48.


----------



## dspx

Coleh said:


> Micron Rev.E profiles are way, way too optimistic. I'm unsure if you've actually had a chance to use the non elite bins of Micron Rev.E(3000CL15/3200CL16) but they hit a hard tRCRDR wall. tRCRDR for 3466 1.45v and below should be 17 lowest, and at 3600MHz and above 1.45v profiles MAY have tRCRDR scale down to 17 but it's much more likely it hits a complete wall at 19/20. I made a large post on reddit /r/Overclocking in April detailing how Micron Rev.E scales/overclocks in a post titled "My experience with Micron E-Die - 3600CL16 on Ryzen 1st Gen" which is the top Reddit result on google right now. You should adjust the profiles, beginning with removing those unnecesarily high voltages. 1.45v+ causes the ICs to actually get too hot which without minimal direct airflow(case mounted fan directly infront/above it, does not need full blast jerry-rigged fan setup) severely limits stability, making 1.35v profiles in minimal airflow scenarios perform much better. By the way, 1.35/stock voltage is MORE than enough for 3600MHz profiles and has stability tested overnight stable for me with HCI(2400% across alll 12 threads). Attached is my current 32GB 3200CL14 daily profile for my R5 1600, I hope using this and the reddit post can help adjust the profiles so others don't get confused as to why the profiles aren't working/posting.


I agree. I have managed to get 3533 16-16-19-16-36-56 stable at 1.41 V, 1.08 vSoC, all other timings at auto as I had no time to test them yet.


----------



## rul3s

Hello guys,
I'm triing to find the sweet spot of my RAM, those are B-Die (3700x + Asus x470 strix f).
With 1:1 3200Fast presset (14-14-14-28-42) 1.025 vSoc 1.35 vDimm is 1000% HCI Stable, OK.
With 1:1 3400Fast presset (14-14-14-28-42) 1.1 vSoc 1.40 vDimm is giving errors, 6 errors on 70% (40 min aprox) BUT gsat test is 100% ok with all ram and 1hour.

- This seems to be a IMC problem because HCI fails but GSAT is OK, but, not even with 1.15vSoc is working... is this normal?
- How could I be sure that is IMC and not a RAM problem? If I run HCI/GSAT with FCLK at 1:2 RAM, if any error found is 100% sure that it's RAM?
- Maybe could be a motherboard limit?

Thanks!


----------



## lordzed83

GuMossad said:


> So in my C8H, little by little I was able to get to the values on the Picture for the timing and voltage (1.48V Dram, 1.125V SoC, 1.000 VDDG. 0.9V VDDP  ) . Minus two settings: procODT is Auto, and RTT_Park is Auto.
> 
> If I introduce RTT_Park Values on C8H Bios, system will not post at all. Any reason for this to happen?
> 
> Got some improvements here so let's see what might this be!


try RTT_Park 4

@1usmus so was testing overnight the tightened up timings no errors ect passed 3 hours or so of ramtest and pc rebooted. So same situation as You mentioned. I need 2 check if they will be ok mining on nicehasch with no reboot. seems that at some point looses stability system reboots memory timings are fine.


----------



## wisepds

@1usmus I have a Crosshair VIII Wifi with a Ryzen 3900X and 32GB DDR4 3600 TridentZ Samsung B-DIE single rank 8Gb x 4.

I have tested ALL profiles and all possibilities of your Calculator and none is stable, not even at voltages of 1.5v. If i touch Procodt or the last 4 parameters (24,24,24,24) my system don't post and show F9 Error. If i don't touch that values and they are on auto, i can post, but fail Memtest 

Thank you for your tool, but for now i can't get a stable configuration. What can be the problem?


----------



## DeathAngel

wisepds said:


> I have tested ALL profiles and all possibilities of your Calculator and none is stable, not even at voltages of 1.5v. If i touch Procodt or the last 4 parameters (24,24,24,24) my system don't post and show F9 Error. If i don't touch that values and they are on auto, i can post, but fail Memtest
> 
> Thank you for your tool, but for now i can't get a stable configuration. What can be the problem?


First of all, with the Ryzen Master tool you can read what the BIOS sets as auto value for ProcODT and the CAD parameters and then set them manually to that and/or tweak them one by one up or down. 
As for the F9 error: do you set all the values at once and then try to boot? If that is the case then I'd suggest setting a few parameters every time and doing a reboot in between, so the motherboard can train the RAM. You don't even have to enter Windows again, just do BIOS reboot loops. 

For me, if I set the tertiary timings (tRDRDxx and tWRWRxx) all at the same time, it would not boot. If If did one set first, reboot and then another it would work. Similar to tFAW. If I set that to 24 from 36, it would not boot. But going 32 - 28 - 24 would work (maybe 30 - 24 would work as well, not checked).


----------



## wisepds

DeathAngel said:


> First of all, with the Ryzen Master tool you can read what the BIOS sets as auto value for ProcODT and the CAD parameters and then set them manually to that and/or tweak them one by one up or down.
> As for the F9 error: do you set all the values at once and then try to boot? If that is the case then I'd suggest setting a few parameters every time and doing a reboot in between, so the motherboard can train the RAM. You don't even have to enter Windows again, just do BIOS reboot loops.
> 
> For me, if I set the tertiary timings (tRDRDxx and tWRWRxx) all at the same time, it would not boot. If If did one set first, reboot and then another it would work. Similar to tFAW. If I set that to 24 from 36, it would not boot. But going 32 - 28 - 24 would work (maybe 30 - 24 would work as well, not checked).


Thank! I'll try step by step...


----------



## kazablanka

lordzed83 said:


> try RTT_Park 4
> 
> @1usmus so was testing overnight the tightened up timings no errors ect passed 3 hours or so of ramtest and pc rebooted. So same situation as You mentioned. I need 2 check if they will be ok mining on nicehasch with no reboot. seems that at some point looses stability system reboots memory timings are fine.


I had this problem with reboot too ,i raised the soc voltage from 1.075 to 1.1 and it never rebooted again. Do you have the cpu overclocked?


----------



## DeathAngel

Coleh said:


> I hope using this and the reddit post can help adjust the profiles so others don't get confused as to why the profiles aren't working/posting.


Thanks for the write up, definitely appreciated and helped me already. I bought a 2x16GB HyperX 3200C18 1.2V kit with Micron E-die and wanted to tweak it. Even with a 120mm fan blowing over it from the front of the case, voltages above 1.4V seem to be making things worse. I'm currently running 1.35V (which goes to 1.36V in my B450M Mortar) and I will adjust up or down with my testing. My tRCDRD can't be adjusted below 21 over 3400 MHz (20 boots but doesn't get into Windows). I've taken a lot of the secondary and tertiary timings from the calc and screenshots around, they are tighter than the default and once I've got a stable setup between 3400 and 3600 MHz that I'm mostly happy with, I think I'll post them and ask for some advice on which timings can be a bit tighter, still on broader testing now.

Now, with that out of the way, I wanted to ask why you are running 3200CL14 instead of a 3600CL16. All things being equal, latencies should be similar but more bandwith and infinity clock for the 3600 setting, no? Or is it a Ryzen 1k limitation since you have a R5 1600?


----------



## Coleh

Morning! I've dropped down to 3200CL14 due to my IMC yeah, it's cause i'm now 2DPC or 4x8GB of Rev.E. Just to clarifiy, where previous Micron ICs _do_ negatively scale with voltage, having an AIO with two fans at the front running bare minimum speeds and a top mounted fan as intake(with rear SC2 Hybrid 1080Ti push/pull config immediatly exhausting the air) running just barely 1K RPM is enough airflow for all the sticks to not get warm, and at 1.45v they perform impeccably. Whenever I get to actually upgrade to a 3700x or Ryzen 4xxx refresh i'll likely take the sticks back up to 3600 CL14-20-14-14-32 with near identical secondaries/tertiaries as the posted 3200CL14 profile. It's worth double checking whether or not your Micron sticks are .M8FE sticks/Micron Rev.E produced from this year 01/19 or 04/19 and onwards, as this appears to make up most if not all currently well performing Micron Rev.E. Attached is my prior 3600CL16 profile for easier reference, I've found most people either get this stable on HCI/Kahru/Memtest86 at stock straight away, or maybe need to go to 1.38v or 1.4v tops. Oh and another quirk of Micron Rev.E - tRDRWR and tRP can be run _lower_than TCL. It's actually worth mentioning I can have WR stable at 8 on my current profile. Any other Micron Rev.E questions please post them here or preferably in the aformentioned reddit post, unsure if i'm allowed to link it but it's easy to find.


----------



## Mech0z

Coleh said:


> Morning! I've dropped down to 3200CL14 due to my IMC yeah, it's cause i'm now 2DPC or 4x8GB of Rev.E. Just to clarifiy, where previous Micron ICs _do_ negatively scale with voltage, having an AIO with two fans at the front running bare minimum speeds and a top mounted fan as intake(with rear SC2 Hybrid 1080Ti push/pull config immediatly exhausting the air) running just barely 1K RPM is enough airflow for all the sticks to not get warm, and at 1.45v they perform impeccably. Whenever I get to actually upgrade to a 3700x or Ryzen 4xxx refresh i'll likely take the sticks back up to 3600 CL14-20-14-14-32 with near identical secondaries/tertiaries as the posted 3200CL14 profile. It's worth double checking whether or not your Micron sticks are .M8FE sticks/Micron Rev.E produced from this year 01/19 or 04/19 and onwards, as this appears to make up most if not all currently well performing Micron Rev.E. Attached is my prior 3600CL16 profile for easier reference, I've found most people either get this stable on HCI/Kahru/Memtest86 at stock straight away, or maybe need to go to 1.38v or 1.4v tops. Oh and another quirk of Micron Rev.E - tRDRWR and tRP can be run _lower_than TCL. It's actually worth mentioning I can have WR stable at 8 on my current profile. Any other Micron Rev.E questions please post them here or preferably in the aformentioned reddit post, unsure if i'm allowed to link it but it's easy to find.


Can you link to you /r/overclocking thread? I have a Define C with 2 Noctua intake fans, but with a D15 hanging over the ram they might not be cooled a lot, so maybe I should try 1.35 instead of 1.4-1.45.

But are you saying the Pre April sticks are better or post sticks?


----------



## Coleh

Just any sticks from late 2018 to early 2019 and onwards should be just fine, idk if there's very old Micron Rev.E(like late 2017 or something) that performs worse, just wanted to throw out what paticular dates my sticks are from. My reddit post:https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/bq4m52/my_experience_with_micron_edie_3600cl16_on_ryzen/.


If you have minimal airflow, 1.4v will still be fine. Air tower coolers pull air over the RAM anyway so you're good.


----------



## mongoled

1usmus said:


> There is an anomaly when the system gets very tight timings. The memory controller starts working like a neutral-gear motor. I sent a request to AMD so that they commented. At the moment, unfortunately I have no information for you yet.
> As an example, I want to show you 3466 and 3600 MHz, pay attention to the results, at 3600 MHz they are 25% worse



Hi!


thanks for letting me know about this, after more testing I came across other anomolies.


Looks like we should wait for BIOS updates (as suggested) before really pushing for more!


Also my b-die have different ns values to those in the calculator.


My b-die have the following (from Typhoon Burner)



tCL 8.174
tRCDWR 8.174
tRCDRD 8.174
tRP 8.174
tRAS 19.375
tRC 27,749
tRFC 350
tRRDS 3.5
tRRDL 5.0
tFAW 24


Currently running prime95 (29.8 build 5) blend at 3733/1866 14/15/14/14/28/50/307/1T, been running for almost an hour so far..........


----------



## Mech0z

Coleh said:


> Just any sticks from late 2018 to early 2019 and onwards should be just fine, idk if there's very old Micron Rev.E(like late 2017 or something) that performs worse, just wanted to throw out what paticular dates my sticks are from. My reddit post:https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/bq4m52/my_experience_with_micron_edie_3600cl16_on_ryzen/.
> 
> 
> If you have minimal airflow, 1.4v will still be fine. Air tower coolers pull air over the RAM anyway so you're good.


Mine are BLs16G4D32AESB.M16FE1 just wonder why I cant get more than 3466 with 1.4V, might be my C6H that have a bad AGESA/bios atm, from what I can read I should be using the correct dimslots (A2 and B2)


----------



## Nighthog

Coleh said:


> Just any sticks from late 2018 to early 2019 and onwards should be just fine, idk if there's very old Micron Rev.E(like late 2017 or something) that performs worse, just wanted to throw out what paticular dates my sticks are from. My reddit post:https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/bq4m52/my_experience_with_micron_edie_3600cl16_on_ryzen/.
> 
> 
> If you have minimal airflow, 1.4v will still be fine. Air tower coolers pull air over the RAM anyway so you're good.



I've got some Kingston Micron E-die manufactured early week 14/2018 4x8Gb. They can run their stock 19-23-23-42-80 XMP 1.200V @ 3933Mhz on mine 3800X/X570 Aorus Xtreme stable.
For tighter timings I'm working to stabilize it but finding some kink I can't identify @ 3800Mhz 1:1 FCLK. 15-23-17-32-66 580 1T GDM:disabled. Basically a issue with the sub-timings at the moment I've been struggling with.

I've mentioned the issue to 1usmus about tRCDRD a few times but it seems to be ignored/lost in all the posts in the thread. Took it up last year even, but no change made in the program. Seems he has tier1+ kit on his hands basing his values on.
I have to run [23] tRCDRD above 3600Mhz. Below [21] -> [19] Might work depending on target speed.


----------



## hazium233

Thank you for the work on this tool.

Have some questions, and comments regarding Micron Rev D.

It seems to give a "not supported" message when selecting 3533 or 3600. These profiles were available in 1.5 version of the calculator, where I remember the 3600 preset was similar to the 16-16/19-19-36-66 timings Reous posted a while back.

I have two 8GB sticks of Crucial BLS8G4D26BFSTK.8FD, IC part number is MT40A1G8WE-075E. On a Zen1. I have wasted too much time with them at 3200 limiting myself to 1.35v on the ram. Anyway on my sticks, RCDRD does not want to budge below 19 at 3200MT/s unless I run loose secondary and tertiary timings, in which case I can do 18 at this voltage.

I tested a new setup at 16-16/19-18-42-60 RFC 488 at 1.35V that has ended up remarkably similar to the Rev E 3200 safe profile from the 1.5.1 calculator. Lengthening RAS was helpful to me. I may be able to drop CAS to 14 with this setup, but it has only been tested to TM5 6 cycles x 2 different boots.

With my 1600 on B350-F, I have booted these dimms to all straps from 3333 to 3600MT/s at 1.35v, but was taking a vacation from testing higher speeds. I am not sure my 1600 will be up to the task of actually stabilizing them, especially on a mainstream Asus board with their flaky bios, but I can find out.

Will attach a few things


----------



## hazium233

Nighthog said:


> I've mentioned the issue to 1usmus about tRCDRD a few times but it seems to be ignored/lost in all the posts in the thread. Took it up last year even, but no change made in the program. Seems he has tier1+ kit on his hands basing his values on.
> I have to run [23] tRCDRD above 3600Mhz. Below [21] -> [19] Might work depending on target speed.


In 1.5.1, the Rev E 3200MT/s preset was 19 on RCDRD for 1.35v recommended. 

For 3466-3533, it went up to RCDRD 22 at ~1.39-1.41v.

The only reason I played with it a lot was because my Rev D seem to perform similar to the recommendations of Safe for Rev E in 1.5.1, which was looser than the Rev D sets at the same speed.


----------



## Mech0z

Nighthog said:


> I've got some Kingston Micron E-die manufactured early week 14/2018 4x8Gb. They can run their stock 19-23-23-42-80 XMP 1.200V @ 3933Mhz on mine 3800X/X570 Aorus Xtreme stable.
> For tighter timings I'm working to stabilize it but finding some kink I can't identify @ 3800Mhz 1:1 FCLK. 15-23-17-32-66 580 1T GDM:disabled. Basically a issue with the sub-timings at the moment I've been struggling with.
> 
> I've mentioned the issue to 1usmus about tRCDRD a few times but it seems to be ignored/lost in all the posts in the thread. Took it up last year even, but no change made in the program. Seems he has tier1+ kit on his hands basing his values on.
> I have to run [23] tRCDRD above 3600Mhz. Below [21] -> [19] Might work depending on target speed.


I didnt get my current profile from the calculator but from /r/overclocking discord, and he had these timings, but 3600 on MSI and Ryzen 1700, I cant pass memtest86 for long before I see errors with 3600, 3466 works fine though


----------



## lordzed83

kazablanka said:


> I had this problem with reboot too ,i raised the soc voltage from 1.075 to 1.1 and it never rebooted again. Do you have the cpu overclocked?


I'm running my 3900x on edge of stability but adding Soc could help when I think abbout it 1.1 after vdrop could be not enough to run 3800/1900 good point il add extra 50mv that should sort it out.
ATM im using my daily 4375 all core with 1.343v 1.1 soc onmy slower setting is 16 hours of 100% load stable. Survived the hardcore uk temperature test 8 hours of load 100c on Tdie :]
anyway It should be ok after bumping volts to 1.150 or something after all i run high cpu clock and high mem clock


----------



## lordzed83

wisepds said:


> @1usmus I have a Crosshair VIII Wifi with a Ryzen 3900X and 32GB DDR4 3600 TridentZ Samsung B-DIE single rank 8Gb x 4.
> 
> I have tested ALL profiles and all possibilities of your Calculator and none is stable, not even at voltages of 1.5v. If i touch Procodt or the last 4 parameters (24,24,24,24) my system don't post and show F9 Error. If i don't touch that values and they are on auto, i can post, but fail Memtest
> 
> Thank you for your tool, but for now i can't get a stable configuration. What can be the problem?


So same as me nothing works with my system on the 3733 or 3800 mem speed.


----------



## mongoled

Im pushing 3800/1900 and running the memtest component of the membench feature.


I have it set to 'Task scope' of 1500% using 12mb of RAM.


Now, it has not crashed, but several times during the testing period, both my monitors go black momentarily than come back on.


I have seen this same thing when using Linpack extreme and it had something to do with a timeout on the video driver.


That fix is still in place though.


I know that this x370 is plagued with WHEA warning messages.


Has anybody else been experiencing such blackouts that recover ??


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> Im pushing 3800/1900 and running the memtest component of the membench feature.
> 
> 
> I have it set to 'Task scope' of 1500% using 12mb of RAM.
> 
> 
> Now, it has not crashed, but several times during the testing period, both my monitors go black momentarily than come back on.
> 
> 
> I have seen this same thing when using Linpack extreme and it had something to do with a timeout on the video driver.
> 
> 
> That fix is still in place though.
> 
> 
> I know that this x370 is plagued with WHEA warning messages.
> 
> 
> Has anybody else been experiencing such blackouts that recover ??


tRDRD_SCL & tWRWR_SCL are too low or your voltage is too low for your picked values! adjust them! It's unstable. 
I notice this most often whit Graphics driver issues like you describe when IMC/MEM is under load and these are not set properly.


----------



## wisepds

lordzed83 said:


> So same as me nothing works with my system on the 3733 or 3800 mem speed.


I'm agree... i don't know why, but, nothing works...it's frustrating


----------



## kazablanka

lordzed83 said:


> I'm running my 3900x on edge of stability but adding Soc could help when I think abbout it 1.1 after vdrop could be not enough to run 3800/1900 good point il add extra 50mv that should sort it out.
> ATM im using my daily 4375 all core with 1.343v 1.1 soc onmy slower setting is 16 hours of 100% load stable. Survived the hardcore uk temperature test 8 hours of load 100c on Tdie :]
> anyway It should be ok after bumping volts to 1.150 or something after all i run high cpu clock and high mem clock


Maybe you have to lower your overclock or leave it at stock. I was testing hole day ,with cpu overclock at 4300Mhz ,pbo, and base speed. I was stable everywere with 1.0875v soc 3800c15 1.44v dram except from overclocked setting. I used prime95 large ffts and realbench for testing


----------



## 1usmus

mongoled said:


> Im pushing 3800/1900 and running the memtest component of the membench feature.
> 
> 
> I have it set to 'Task scope' of 1500% using 12mb of RAM.
> 
> 
> Now, it has not crashed, but several times during the testing period, both my monitors go black momentarily than come back on.
> 
> 
> I have seen this same thing when using Linpack extreme and it had something to do with a timeout on the video driver.
> 
> 
> That fix is still in place though.
> 
> 
> I know that this x370 is plagued with WHEA warning messages.
> 
> 
> Has anybody else been experiencing such blackouts that recover ??



when the screen goes out and turns on - it is a low SOC or memory controller is not able to work at this frequency stably





wisepds said:


> @1usmus I have a Crosshair VIII Wifi with a Ryzen 3900X and 32GB DDR4 3600 TridentZ Samsung B-DIE single rank 8Gb x 4.
> 
> I have tested ALL profiles and all possibilities of your Calculator and none is stable, not even at voltages of 1.5v. If i touch Procodt or the last 4 parameters (24,24,24,24) my system don't post and show F9 Error. If i don't touch that values and they are on auto, i can post, but fail Memtest
> 
> Thank you for your tool, but for now i can't get a stable configuration. What can be the problem?



There are many factors that do not depend on me ... remember the past and the years and time that AMD spent so that user's memory began to work normally. Let me remind you once again that for a memory controller, 1800-1867 MHz are already the limit when using two SR modules. If you use 4 this limit is even lower.

______________________________________

*1.6.0.3 I sent to all resources, in the morning will be available to all*


----------



## kazablanka

3800c15 with 1.44v dram now


----------



## GuMossad

1usmus said:


> when the screen goes out and turns on - it is a low SOC or memory controller is not able to work at this frequency stably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many factors that do not depend on me ... remember the past and the years and time that AMD spent so that user's memory began to work normally. Let me remind you once again that for a memory controller, 1800-1867 MHz are already the limit when using two SR modules. If you use 4 this limit is even lower.
> 
> ______________________________________
> 
> *1.6.0.3 I sent to all resources, in the morning will be available to all*





wisepds said:


> @1usmus I have a Crosshair VIII Wifi with a Ryzen 3900X and 32GB DDR4 3600 TridentZ Samsung B-DIE single rank 8Gb x 4.
> 
> I have tested ALL profiles and all possibilities of your Calculator and none is stable, not even at voltages of 1.5v. If i touch Procodt or the last 4 parameters (24,24,24,24) my system don't post and show F9 Error. If i don't touch that values and they are on auto, i can post, but fail Memtest
> 
> Thank you for your tool, but for now i can't get a stable configuration. What can be the problem?




I was able to find some sucess  Whatever you do on C8H don't change anything related to RTT settings. I'm on a C8H Wifi, 3700x, 32GB DDR4 3200 Trident Z SS B-Die 16GBx2. 

Leave SoC in Auto, cldo_VDDP (Tweakers paradise) in auto, my Memory is at 1.485V (1.48 real), and VDGG 1.045 with 3600 Fast Settings for DRAM Timings. Whatever you do... just don't change the RTT Settings. The rest you can put as DRAM Calculator tells you (Timings, CAD Bus, procODT only, C2DT (command Rate)).

I'm currently sitting at 3733, VDRAM 1.485, SoC Auto, VDDP Auto, VDDG 1.065, 3733 Fast Settings, Gear Down Auto, RTT Auto, CADBUS all Auto, and the rest same as what DRAM Tells you to put for 3733 Fast. 

Try this.


----------



## wisepds

1usmus said:


> when the screen goes out and turns on - it is a low SOC or memory controller is not able to work at this frequency stably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many factors that do not depend on me ... remember the past and the years and time that AMD spent so that user's memory began to work normally. Let me remind you once again that for a memory controller, 1800-1867 MHz are already the limit when using two SR modules. If you use 4 this limit is even lower.
> 
> ______________________________________
> 
> *1.6.0.3 I sent to all resources, in the morning will be available to all*


For now i'm on 3600 CL14-15-15-15 and all works well... that's my first configuration and still works!
Thank 1usmus for your Work.


----------



## wisepds

GuMossad said:


> I was able to find some sucess  Whatever you do on C8H don't change anything related to RTT settings. I'm on a C8H Wifi, 3700x, 32GB DDR4 3200 Trident Z SS B-Die 16GBx2.
> 
> Leave SoC in Auto, cldo_VDDP (Tweakers paradise) in auto, my Memory is at 1.485V (1.48 real), and VDGG 1.045 with 3600 Fast Settings for DRAM Timings. Whatever you do... just don't change the RTT Settings. The rest you can put as DRAM Calculator tells you (Timings, CAD Bus, procODT only, C2DT (command Rate)).
> 
> I'm currently sitting at 3733, VDRAM 1.485, SoC Auto, VDDP Auto, VDDG 1.065, 3733 Fast Settings, Gear Down Auto, RTT Auto, CADBUS all Auto, and the rest same as what DRAM Tells you to put for 3733 Fast.
> 
> Try this.


Ok, I'll try!
Thanks!


----------



## HatchetEgg

I reached the limit of what is technically worth overclocking to for 3rd gen Ryzen,


See screenshot below, Dram voltage is at 1.5V and ignore the core voltage in Ryzen master as it is set at 1.35v in BIOS and tested up to 6000% 



I don't usually use the mem bench program as I find it's better really to use pasmark86 because you don't have to worry about windows getting corrupted and it test near the full amount of memory in the process.


But in this case, I had run passmark86 before mem bench and passed four times.


----------



## lordzed83

kazablanka said:


> Maybe you have to lower your overclock or leave it at stock. I was testing hole day ,with cpu overclock at 4300Mhz ,pbo, and base speed. I was stable everywere with 1.0875v soc 3800c15 1.44v dram except from overclocked setting. I used prime95 large ffts and realbench for testing


Now where is fun in that?? Fun is to push it to the limits i dont even do anything on this pc atm besides benching mining and watching youtube. Well not tillwow classic came out. Anyhow reverted my settings and did 8.5 hour stable no reboot. Testing with small tweeks and more soc.

I got this cpu purely for overclocki g and mem testing nothing more lol.


----------



## lordzed83

Finally finished testing and tweeking this upgraded profile. 9 hours of 100% computer load +hci memtest ycruncher runs ibt rubns ect.

Now TRC down from 52 to 48 tRFC from 304 to 288 bumped ddr juice just in case leave overnight


got cold in uk thats how my water temp looks atm when doing notheing 
https://bpcprdstorageacc.blob.core....3b5577a144ce71269b026b64a68e673c060e07bc.jpeg


----------



## rul3s

Hello guys,
Anyone is experiencing problems with "safe" profiles? I can boot on 3200-3466 on fast profile (zen2, bdie, single rank, 2 modules) but if I set safe profile just wont boot, and anything faster than 3333Fast is giving me errors, so i wanted to try safe pressets.

Thanks!


----------



## PhillyB

Odd problem with x470 pro carbon bios (running a 3900x).

If I increase the SOC voltage above 1.1v in the bios as soon as I hit enter for the setting, it locks up the bios and I have to reboot. Not after a reboot, but just pressing enter in the bios after typing in the override value. Anyone else have that issue?


----------



## Ospis12

Hi, I'm new to this community, so I've got quick question. 
Were you post your successful Ram overclock results, so they go to spreadsheet?
Do you post them just into it?
Thank you for reply.


----------



## Saiger0

PhillyB said:


> Odd problem with x470 pro carbon bios (running a 3900x).
> 
> If I increase the SOC voltage above 1.1v in the bios as soon as I hit enter for the setting, it locks up the bios and I have to reboot. Not after a reboot, but just pressing enter in the bios after typing in the override value. Anyone else have that issue?


This is a bug in the earlier msi bios for zen2. Use the latest one instead which is more stable http://msi-ftp.de:8080/main.html?do...9057120540bbf52b24b&realfilename=7B78_290.zip


----------



## mongoled

1usmus said:


> when the screen goes out and turns on - it is a low SOC or memory controller is not able to work at this frequency stably


Hi!


thank you for that tidbit of information.


Increasing the SOC voltage to 1.15v (it was on default voltage before which was around 1.09v) seems to have resolved said issue (still testing), thanks!


----------



## mongoled

Nighthog said:


> tRDRD_SCL & tWRWR_SCL are too low or your voltage is too low for your picked values! adjust them! It's unstable.
> I notice this most often whit Graphics driver issues like you describe when IMC/MEM is under load and these are not set properly.


Hi, sorry didnt notice this message,


currently those values are both set at 5 I will play with those.


Increasing the SOC voltage helped until about 1000% usage on memtest, but after that I start getting black screens coming and going. This is with 1.15v SOC.


However, it could be a heat issue, RAM temp is around 48C so will need to get some active cooling on the modules to rule out it being a heat issue.


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> Finally finished testing and tweeking this upgraded profile. 9 hours of 100% computer load +hci memtest ycruncher runs ibt rubns ect.
> 
> Now TRC down from 52 to 48 tRFC from 304 to 288 bumped ddr juice just in case leave overnight
> 
> 
> got cold in uk thats how my water temp looks atm when doing notheing
> https://bpcprdstorageacc.blob.core....3b5577a144ce71269b026b64a68e673c060e07bc.jpeg


Hi!


Thats very low latency and huge throughput at the frequency/timings you are running.


Is X470 so much better than X370 with regards to that ?


My AIDA64 latency with very similar timings to yourself but a higher frequecy 3800/1900 is netting around 67ns.


Ugh, nvm, I spotted the reason.


You are able to set fsb higher than 100 , also gives you boost on your CPU clocks, unfortunately its not working on my MSI X370 yet.


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> Hi!
> 
> 
> Thats very low latency and huge throughput at the frequency/timings you are running.
> 
> 
> Is X470 so much better than X370 with regards to that ?
> 
> 
> My AIDA64 latency with very similar timings to yourself but a higher frequecy 3800/1900 is netting around 67ns.
> 
> 
> Ugh, nvm, I spotted the reason.
> 
> 
> You are able to set fsb higher than 100 , also gives you boost on your CPU clocks, unfortunately its not working on my MSI X370 yet.


yup im on 101.8 its just a bit faster than 100.

over 35 000% ramtest pass overnight


----------



## rul3s

Ok, got this guys, on a 3700x + Asus x470 Strix F + KFA2 DDR4 4000CL19:

3600CL14-16-15-30 1T (From Ryzen Dram Calculator Safe Presset) + GearDown Disabled + PowerDown Disabled:










And now the aida:


----------



## lordzed83

rul3s said:


> Ok, got this guys, on a 3700x + Asus x470 Strix F + KFA2 DDR4 4000CL19:
> 
> 3600CL14-16-15-30 1T (From Ryzen Dram Calculator Safe Presset) + GearDown Disabled + PowerDown Disabled:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now the aida:


Tahts nice deffo stable


----------



## thegr8anand

Do you guys change every single setting the calculator shows? I am unable to boot with 3600 safe preset putting in all the values in my C7H bios.


----------



## mongoled

thegr8anand said:


> Do you guys change every single setting the calculator shows? I am unable to boot with 3600 safe preset putting in all the values in my C7H bios.



I have to adjust tRDRW to 7 from 8 otherwise no post with F5 error, with my Samsung B-die


----------



## PhillyB

Saiger0 said:


> This is a bug in the earlier msi bios for zen2. Use the latest one instead which is more stable http://msi-ftp.de:8080/main.html?do...9057120540bbf52b24b&realfilename=7B78_290.zip


Thanks!

Played with the bios a few more times and could get everything running at 1867 FCLK, but could not get ride of ram errors. Gave up and returned to 1800 with the fast timings.

There was no notable improvement in performance in programs with other options beyond the memory benchmark, so defaulted back to 3600 fast at 1.41v. Its going to be left at these values for long term, so lower volts tends to be my default.

(for those that care, build info is Half Wood Giant)


----------



## mongoled

@*1usmus* 

There has been a change in the preset for

Ryzen 2 gen > Samsung B-die -> Debug/Manual > 1 > 3800

Is this by design ?? 

As the values that are outputted by the calculator between version 1.6.0 to 1.6.0.3 are very different

See images below

thanks


----------



## Athyra

is this version of the calc okay for the recently released 1.0.0.3ABB?
or should i wait for 1usmus update before going off of xmp?

also, is it not strange that the only difference between my 3600 and 3733 is a small tRFC change, even the voltage is the same?
this confuses me


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> @*1usmus*
> 
> There has been a change in the preset for
> 
> Ryzen 2 gen > Samsung B-die -> Debug/Manual > 1 > 3800
> 
> Is this by design ??
> 
> As the values that are outputted by the calculator between version 1.6.0 to 1.6.0.3 are very different
> 
> See images below
> 
> thanks


OFC they are cause as I and 2 other mentiones first version of presets was nto working stable on fast or safe on v1 or v2 and micron E die most ware lets say too aggressive.
And I tried it up to 1.6 volts with fan blowing on ddr's.


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> OFC they are cause as I and 2 other mentiones first version of presets was nto working stable on fast or safe on v1 or v2 and micron E die most ware lets say too aggressive.
> And I tried it up to 1.6 volts with fan blowing on ddr's.


Yes I saw those,


but I am specifically referencing B-die in my post and the newest version has more tight timings for the safe preset when using DEBUG/MANUAL mode.


If I choose the V1 or V2 presets then they are the same for both versions of the calculator.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I was able to do 3733 CL14 or so I thought. 

I passed 1 hour of RAM Test but failed Prime95 Large FFT

What would be the next steps? I tried both values of TRFC and that didn't work. Should I try the different ALT for ProcODT? RTT_PARK? or CAD_BUS? Or should I just throw in the towel and be happy with my 3600 Mhz CL14? 

Thank you for this fantastic tool by the way!


----------



## Eder

The new settings are working a lot better for my flarex b-die, thanks for all the work!


----------



## nick name

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I was able to do 3733 CL14 or so I thought.
> 
> I passed 1 hour of RAM Test but failed Prime95 Large FFT
> 
> What would be the next steps? I tried both values of TRFC and that didn't work. Should I try the different ALT for ProcODT? RTT_PARK? or CAD_BUS? Or should I just throw in the towel and be happy with my 3600 Mhz CL14?
> 
> Thank you for this fantastic tool by the way!


You could try 20 20 20 20 instead of 24 24 24 24. It was mentioned a while back that seems to due better if heat is what is causing your instability. 

And perhaps just a smidge more DRAM voltage.


----------



## brenopapito

Is it ok to run 1.45v for 24/7? What is the temperature limit to be safe?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

nick name said:


> You could try 20 20 20 20 instead of 24 24 24 24. It was mentioned a while back that seems to due better if heat is what is causing your instability.
> 
> And perhaps just a smidge more DRAM voltage.


Thanks for the response. I tried 1.48V and 1.5V with my previous settings. One of my RAM sticks was at 55C during 3 hours of Prime95 and then the system shut down. 

When I'm at 3600 CL14 with 1.46V, I'm able to run Prime95 for 8 hours straight and RAM Test for 4000% coverage. Temperature is 50C. 

Perhaps it's not temperature though, just stability from the settings. Do you really think 20 20 20 20 will help?


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> Yes I saw those,
> 
> 
> but I am specifically referencing B-die in my post and the newest version has more tight timings for the safe preset when using DEBUG/MANUAL mode.
> 
> 
> If I choose the V1 or V2 presets then they are the same for both versions of the calculator.


New calculator works LIKE A DREAM !!! @1usmus starting to test how those work in proper HCI test 











My timings 100% stable WITH GEARDOWN vs new calculator ones


----------



## lordzed83

brenopapito said:


> Is it ok to run 1.45v for 24/7? What is the temperature limit to be safe?


You can run 1.5 on 24/7 if yu got cooling fan

New gskill 3800 zen2 kit ruyns 1.5 OUT OF BOX !!!

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/me...vhE1Cpp33jVK4lgWFF8tZmv4ke5tOkwWaLO3JhOtAi-As


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> New calculator works LIKE A DREAM !!! @1usmus starting to test how those work in proper HCI test


Hi mate! 

Saw the manual timings your memory uses and was interested to know what RAM you are using. 

Thanks


----------



## wisepds

lordzed83 said:


> New calculator works LIKE A DREAM !!! @1usmus starting to test how those work in proper HCI test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My timings 100% stable WITH GEARDOWN vs new calculator ones


Where are you get 1.6.0.3 version???? I only get 1.6.0.1 and calculator only show 1.6.0. In your pic your calculator show 1.6.0.3...why?


----------



## Bubar37

1.6.0.3 available by guru3d not first link still in 1.6.0.1


----------



## Spectre73

lordzed83 said:


> New calculator works LIKE A DREAM !!! @1usmus starting to test how those work in proper HCI test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My timings 100% stable WITH GEARDOWN vs new calculator ones


So you are on manual mode. Do you use timings from typhoon burner, or what do you select?


----------



## nick name

Is anyone running RAM at 3733MHz 14-16-14-14 with tuned subs . . . or close to it? If so -- what DRAM voltage are you running?


----------



## lordzed83

Spectre73 said:


> So you are on manual mode. Do you use timings from typhoon burner, or what do you select?


Yup the good old xmp calculated values like from mentioned 1.0.0 beta 3 calculator that I sugested to add to new calculator and they are great


----------



## lordzed83

Bubar37 said:


> 1.6.0.3 available by guru3d not first link still in 1.6.0.1


Use german link they got correct version

https://www.computerbase.de/downloads/systemtools/dram-calculator-ryzen/


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> Hi mate!
> 
> Saw the manual timings your memory uses and was interested to know what RAM you are using.
> 
> Thanks


Teamgroup 413ecl18 8pack edition fantastic kit got it on promo for 154 pounds hehe

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...4133mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-099-tg.html

@1usmus tested Now this is calculator I was waiting for. Epic purely epic. Some bugs as You see on resistances styil showing old values not zen 2


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Does this make sense to anyone here before I even waste time trying it? 

I'm able to post with 3733 CL14 with 1.48V and 1.50V. I can run RAM Test for 1 hour. I cannot do more than 2 hours of Prime95 LargeFFT. My temperatures for one stick is at 55C.

Is 55C causing my instability? Or is it something else? Is it worth mounting a fan to keep the RAM cooler to see if it helps with stability? Or should I just throw in the towel and be happy with 3600 CL14? 

3600 CL14 has survived all stress test I have performed on it.


----------



## nick name

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Does this make sense to anyone here before I even waste time trying it?
> 
> I'm able to post with 3733 CL14 with 1.48V and 1.50V. I can run RAM Test for 1 hour. I cannot do more than 2 hours of Prime95 LargeFFT. My temperatures for one stick is at 55C.
> 
> Is 55C causing my instability? Or is it something else? Is it worth mounting a fan to keep the RAM cooler to see if it helps with stability? Or should I just throw in the towel and be happy with 3600 CL14?
> 
> 3600 CL14 has survived all stress test I have performed on it.


I wouldn't be the lease surprised if it's temps. Can you place a fan on top of your GPU directly in front of your RAM? It's what I do and you don't have to modify anything.


----------



## GTxFinish

How are people testing the infinity fabric limit for their chips? Just set FCLK asynchronously and run stability tests like prime, etc? I wonder what the likelyhood is for a 1900mhz stable FCLK.


----------



## lordzed83

GTxFinish said:


> How are people testing the infinity fabric limit for their chips? Just set FCLK asynchronously and run stability tests like prime, etc? I wonder what the likelyhood is for a 1900mhz stable FCLK.


Run Pi benchmark on ycruncher. Found that if IF is not stable Wont pass. The 0 - 1- 7 start sequence. Had multiple times situation when memory passed 10% cpu ran on low clock and stable but was getting error due to not enough juice going in to soc/if and getting incorrect values. Try that.

@KingEngineRevUp you calculator even says to use fan above 1.44v i cant remember what @1usmus tested but was it pas 40-44c when you get errors from temperature ??


----------



## Wickedtme

Was wondering what the name of these settings are on an Asrock X570 Taichi bios, for the life of me i cant find them or figure out whats close to it.
Ive figured out the bottom ones, just lost to find the others, still got my Flame x ram 3200mhz running at 15 15 15 16, 3600mhz, but i beleive they will run at cas14


----------



## Karagra

lordzed83 said:


> Teamgroup 413ecl18 8pack edition fantastic kit got it on promo for 154 pounds hehe


Are you using Teamgroup 413ecl18? I have the same kit with a 2700x do you by any chance have any stable setting from your old Zen+ saved I could use as a base to weak off?


----------



## Hequaqua

Wickedtme said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was wondering what the name of these settings are on an Asrock X570 Taichi bios, for the life of me i cant find them or figure out whats close to it.
> Ive figured out the bottom ones, just lost to find the others, still got my Flame x ram 3200mhz running at 15 15 15 16, 3600mhz, but i beleive they will run at cas14


SoC Voltage should be in where you main core voltages are. The VDDP and VDDG are listed under Peripherals(can't remember the actual name right off(AMD CBS)). Mine are listed in the overclocking section. You can see them w/Ryzen Master. You can actually change them in Ryzen Master(it will need to reboot), but I wouldn't change anything in Ryzen Master that I can change in the bios.

BGS and BGS Alt are for Bank Group Swap....Those are sometimes in the Peripherals. I know on my board(Gigabyte X470 with a 3700X those two settings seem to be gone).

Here are a couple of screen shots from my bios....might help:


Spoiler




























View attachment 190731202317.BMP


----------



## brenopapito

lordzed83 said:


> Teamgroup 413ecl18 8pack edition fantastic kit got it on promo for 154 pounds hehe
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...4133mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-099-tg.html
> 
> 
> @1usmus tested Now this is calculator I was waiting for. Epic purely epic. Some bugs as You see on resistances styil showing old values not zen 2


Can you share the RunMemtestPro 4.0 download link? I can't find here...


----------



## Karagra

Btw anyone have a speed dump for K4A8G085WB-BCPB (TEAMGROUP-UD4-4133) mine don't match and want to check to see if one is corrupted.


----------



## Wickedtme

Thanks for that, ill go and look.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

nick name said:


> I wouldn't be the lease surprised if it's temps. Can you place a fan on top of your GPU directly in front of your RAM? It's what I do and you don't have to modify anything.


I placed a fan on top of my GPU and it kept the VRAM at 45C or lower. Sadly, it didn't help with stability. I tried changing the procODT from 53 to 60, didn't help. BUS from 24 24 24 24 to 20 20 20 20 and that didn't help. 

I think I'll have to settle for 3600 Mhz CL14. It's only 1.5ns in latency from what I was getting with 3733 CL14.


----------



## MrPhilo

Which would be faster for timing below

16-17-16-16 tfaw 24

Or

16-16-16-16 tfaw 36

3800cl16 btw, I can get both stable and pass but can't have both together 😞


----------



## 1usmus

*HOW USE MEMTEST in MEMbench*

*HOW USE MEMTEST in MEMbench *

you do not need separate launchers, I have already done everything for you in one application

1) Press *Clear Standby* cache 
2) Press *Max RAM* (determination of the maximum available memory for the test)
3) Check *Memtest* mode
4) Input coverage value per thread, for example 200%
5) Check *Single* mode . Stop thread that reached the finish line (coverage value)
6) Stop the test automatically if an error was found (optional)
7) Press *RUN*


----------



## neil_tohno

1usmus said:


> why do you need it? I created MEMbench for you, it has a mode for checking memory for errors


Thanks.

I choose TM5 0.12 1usmus config v3.

Sometimes I pass TM5 test, but I can't pass the memTest.

Examples.


----------



## rul3s

1usmus said:


> *HOW USE MEMTEST in MEMbench *
> 
> you do not need separate launchers, I have already done everything for you in one application
> 
> 1) Press *Clear Standby* cache
> 2) Press *Max RAM* (determination of the maximum available memory for the test)
> 3) Check *Memtest* mode
> 4) Input coverage value per thread, for example 200%
> 5) Check *Single* mode . Stop thread that reached the finish line (coverage value)
> 6) Stop the test automatically if an error was found (optional)
> 7) Press *RUN*


One question, this memTest is the same / similar to HCI? I mean, does it test the IMC or the RAM?
Actually I'm doing TestMem5 + your config to test RAM and HCI_PRO (i bought it) to test IMC, I'm doing it well?

Thanks!


----------



## 1usmus

rul3s said:


> One question, this memTest is the same / similar to HCI? I mean, does it test the IMC or the RAM?
> Actually I'm doing TestMem5 + your config to test RAM and HCI_PRO (i bought it) to test IMC, I'm doing it well?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Thanks!


yes , i use hci
you can rename your professional version to memtest.exe and replace it in the folder with the calculator, the test with the professional version starts faster
no more differences, the quality of work is identical



neil_tohno said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I choose TM5 0.12 1usmus config v3.
> 
> Sometimes I pass TM5 test, but I can't pass the memTest.
> 
> Examples.
> View attachment 284984
> 
> View attachment 284986


Perhaps this is due to the different time of searching for errors
for example 35min vs 90min



lordzed83 said:


> New calculator works LIKE A DREAM !!! @1usmus starting to test how those work in proper HCI test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My timings 100% stable WITH GEARDOWN vs new calculator ones


This is great news, thanks for insisting that I make some changes :thumb:


----------



## 1usmus

*1.6.0.3 is available on all resources*

* Improved compatibility with older operating systems (.NET Framework 4.6.1 and Runtime Libraries are required).
* Improved support for low resolution monitors.
* Improved timing calculation when using the Manual profile (as it used to be called Debug).
* Due to numerous requests, the algorithm is partially used from version 1.0.0 beta 3 + significant improvements.
* Changed the frequency limit for Samsung b-die and Hynix CJR. Samsung b-die has no restrictions for the Manual profile.
* MEMbench сalibrations for 3900X and 3950X.
* Bugs fixed


----------



## rul3s

1usmus said:


> yes , i use hci
> you can rename your professional version to memtest.exe and replace it in the folder with the calculator, the test with the professional version starts faster
> no more differences, the quality of work is identical
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is due to the different time of searching for errors
> for example 35min vs 90min
> 
> 
> 
> This is great news, thanks for insisting that I make some changes :thumb:


Thank you so much for your work and effort, much apreciated!! I'm spreading it over some spanish forums


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> Teamgroup 413ecl18 8pack edition fantastic kit got it on promo for 154 pounds hehe
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...4133mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-099-tg.html


Cheers bud


----------



## lordzed83

brenopapito said:


> Can you share the RunMemtestPro 4.0 download link? I can't find here...







@1usmus i tested that setting over night with ramtest passed 35 000% while mining NO REBOOT ect. Changed other timings to what I had set um after days f testing and this is resould. Should be stable passed 100% quick test before work. This is still with 1.4 volts on ddr. I had to add 1 more tick to Soc and get VDDG up to 975mv to get pass on Ycruncher hehe.










I was about to ask about Cad bus timing calculator normally gives 57 xmp profile calculated gives 60 but it does not give correct ODT aka uses zen1/zen+ ones. I assume I shuld use 56 not 60 correct ?? Also another thing I wanted to ask . In Advanced there is this setting that You got Manual A or 10. What does it do ??

Thanks


----------



## mongoled

@lordzed83


Are those stick dual rank ?


I cant get anywhere near that bandwidth/latency with much tighter timings.


trying to work out why ive hit a brick wall, i.e. tightening timings brings no improvement in results ......


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> @lordzed83
> 
> 
> Are those stick dual rank ?
> 
> 
> I cant get anywhere near that bandwidth/latency with much tighter timings.
> 
> 
> trying to work out why ive hit a brick wall, i.e. tightening timings brings no improvement in results ......


Nope single rank sticks


----------



## vulcan4d

Quick question, isn't the idea of lowering timings to improve latency? 

My Ballistix Sport LT 32GB 3200mhz XMP Profile2 with 16-18-18-32 get 40.8GB on multi-core tests and latency of 68ns in userbench, with the Calculator 14-16-14-30 I get 42GB and latency of 75ns. That's not what I was expecting going to 14ns. Is there something funky going on?


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> Nope single rank sticks


What frequency is your IF running at?


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> What frequency is your IF running at?


im running max 3800:1900
@vulcan4d nope not always as I mentioned depends on ram kit


----------



## SexySale

*3800/1900 thanks to @lordzed83 and @1usmus*

Thank you @lordzed83 for suggesting 1.0.0 beta 3 calculations and @1usmus for implementing Manual (old Debug) version as that is just what I needed to make it perfect.

I have managed to OC to 3800:1900 and it's very stable. Even 3733, 3600, 3533 working excellent and excellent latency  

Here are my results:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=285080

So, thank you once again @lordzed83 as your post made me try it and works on 1.42V without hiccups 

However, for some reason, I can't make GDM - Disable on any memory setting working. Not even 3200Mhz... Just BSOD constantly.
PDM is working just fine on Disable or Enable
@1usmus, any idea why?

Thanks, guys.


----------



## thegr8anand

SexySale said:


> Thank you @*lordzed83* for suggesting 1.0.0 beta 3 calculations and @*1usmus* for implementing Manual (old Debug) version as that is just what I needed to make it perfect.
> 
> I have managed to OC to 3800:1900 and it's very stable. Even 3733, 3600, 3533 working excellent and excellent latency
> 
> Here are my results:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=285080
> 
> So, thank you once again @*lordzed83* as your post made me try it and works on 1.42V without hiccups
> 
> However, for some reason, I can't make GDM - Disable on any memory setting working. Not even 3200Mhz... Just BSOD constantly.
> PDM is working just fine on Disable or Enable
> @*1usmus* , any idea why?
> 
> Thanks, guys.



Wow enabling GDM was the answer for me too. Had been trying for hours now but didn't work. But enabling GDM and using values from manual mode it booted! Time for testing.


----------



## Karagra

I can't seem to get a answer from anyone -.- Does anyone have a free minute.. this is getting a bit frustrating at this point 
My ram may be corrupted but I am not 100% sure! Thaiphoon does not have my ram listed so I can't compare it to the database but it looks like both sticks are mismatched in the spd dump.

Ram is TEAMGROUP-UD4-4133 - (Maybe someone has this ram and can provide me with a spd dump to compare????


----------



## lordzed83

SexySale said:


> Thank you @lordzed83 for suggesting 1.0.0 beta 3 calculations and @1usmus for implementing Manual (old Debug) version as that is just what I needed to make it perfect.
> 
> I have managed to OC to 3800:1900 and it's very stable. Even 3733, 3600, 3533 working excellent and excellent latency
> 
> Here are my results:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=285080
> 
> So, thank you once again @lordzed83 as your post made me try it and works on 1.42V without hiccups
> 
> However, for some reason, I can't make GDM - Disable on any memory setting working. Not even 3200Mhz... Just BSOD constantly.
> PDM is working just fine on Disable or Enable
> @1usmus, any idea why?
> 
> Thanks, guys.


coo. thats god new. You boot but crash ye like bsods unstable ??
I was testing new drivers today and on my 3900x to get it stable'r Change VDDP to 1 volt. Sugested 855 900 does nto work in my situation with tight timings. Set coldo_vddp to 925. What Soc you running try 1.25 you can lower when you stabilise and try VDDG 1050. Check every one separate so you know what helps. If ya change all at once u still be in dark. Thats how i figured out my VDDP is not enough to ryn [email protected] geardown off


----------



## lordzed83

Karagra said:


> I can't seem to get a answer from anyone -.- Does anyone have a free minute.. this is getting a bit frustrating at this point
> My ram may be corrupted but I am not 100% sure! Thaiphoon does not have my ram listed so I can't compare it to the database but it looks like both sticks are mismatched in the spd dump.
> 
> Ram is TEAMGROUP-UD4-4133 - (Maybe someone has this ram and can provide me with a spd dump to compare????


i only got 8pack edition


----------



## Nighthog

lordzed83 said:


> coo. thats god new. You boot but crash ye like bsods unstable ??
> I was testing new drivers today and on my 3900x to get it stable'r Change VDDP to 1 volt. Sugested 855 900 does nto work in my situation with tight timings. Set coldo_vddp to 925. What Soc you running try 1.25 you can lower when you stabilise and try VDDG 1050. Check every one separate so you know what helps. If ya change all at once u still be in dark. Thats how i figured out my VDDP is not enough to ryn [email protected] geardown off


Was VDDP @ 1000mv needed for the IF speed @ 1900? 
I've found not much issue and been rolling it real low all the time but unable to get 100% stability 3800/1900 thus far. like 99% but get occasional errors in long runs.

Will test that next if it helps basically only thing left for me to try any more. 

I've got other experience with SoC voltage @ 1900FCLK. I can't raise is to ~1.150V... It goes unstable like hell. 1.200V refuses to post. Seems mine doesn't like the voltage here.


----------



## Alpi

Testing this set with 1,06 Vsoc and 900 Vddp. Seems pretty good.


----------



## lordzed83

Alpi said:


> Testing this set with 1,06 Vsoc and 900 Vddp. Seems pretty good.


Looks good  Taht benchmark option is fantastic init 
@Nighthog its first time I had to move this volteage to stabylise my ryzen. 855 always been enough on zen1 abnd zen 2.
Today i decided to give those new chipset drivers a go and i know i cant stress test stable so started looking where is the problem. 2 HOURS LATER i tested vcore VDDG CODO-VDDP SOC. Nothing could get me to pass ycruncher pi benchmark. Then First time in my live i upped VDDP to 10005 boom passing reboot after reboot after reboot. Even managed to get vcore down. Ran 20x IBT very high after no problem


----------



## thegr8anand

3733 runs perfectly. Thanks @*1usmus* .












My Ram is 
*Team T-FORCE NIGHT HAWK Legend RGB 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model TF7D416G3200HC14ADC01 *












Values were Manual 3733 Fast preset from 1.6.0.3 calculator, alt procodt and geardown enabled. Test was done at 1.48v. 1.45v didn't boot in windows. Entering values for 3800 and increasing to 1.52 at the same didn't post at all. Maybe 3733 is the best i can do.


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> Nope single rank sticks


Thanks, forgot that BCLK was decoupled from RAM, as im still trying to work out how comeyou have such high bandwidth and low latency at not so tight timings.....

Think i will give your settings a go with my RAM to see what happens, lol



SexySale said:


> snip.........However, for some reason, I can't make GDM - Disable on any memory setting working. Not even 3200Mhz... Just BSOD constantly.
> PDM is working just fine on Disable or Enable
> @*1usmus* , any idea why?





thegr8anand said:


> Wow enabling GDM was the answer for me too. Had been trying for hours now but didn't work. But enabling GDM and using values from manual mode it booted! Time for testing.


Guys I posted something in the IF thread here on overclock but there is a chance its related. 



mongoled said:


> Think ive found the culprit!
> 
> When I leave the command rate on "AUTO" in Ryzen master I see the following
> 
> Cmd2t:1T
> GearDownEn:Enabled
> 
> Everything is stable, once I run the PBO "Enhanced Level", something happens.
> 
> BIOS settings are ALL identical, but prime95/Memtest have instant crashes.
> 
> Now get this, putting PBO back to AUTO does not resolve the issue.
> 
> Here is how I resolve it, without having to reset bios, reinout settings etc etc.
> 
> I go into BIOS and set Cmd2t to 1T, reboot (if i went into Windows and ran stress tests it would be instant crashes).
> 
> Back into the BIOS I go and again go to Cmd2t and place it on AUTO.
> 
> Now back to Windows, stress tests are stable again !!
> 
> Ryzen is still showing
> 
> Cmd2t:1T
> GearDownEn:Enabled
> 
> And all other settings the same.
> 
> So it looks like something gets borked when using PBO enhanced levels which even resetting BIOS does not resolve!!


So it looks like the manner Gear Down Mode is working on different motherboards are causing anomalies that many of us are experiencing.

Forgot to say, at least on my motherboard, the Gear Down Mode is only accessible from the Command Rate submenu --> Auto / 1T / 2T / Gear Down Disable


----------



## sorance2000

Hi i just corrupted my ddr4 memory spd data with the thyphoon burner. I havent restarted my computer yet. Is my memory ram bricked after restarting my computer? Please respond to me. Thanks.


----------



## crakej

Karagra said:


> I can't seem to get a answer from anyone -.- Does anyone have a free minute.. this is getting a bit frustrating at this point
> My ram may be corrupted but I am not 100% sure! Thaiphoon does not have my ram listed so I can't compare it to the database but it looks like both sticks are mismatched in the spd dump.
> 
> Ram is TEAMGROUP-UD4-4133 - (Maybe someone has this ram and can provide me with a spd dump to compare????


Turn off aura or other lighting stuff, then run Thaiphoon. It sometimes makes it look like your ram is corrupt when it isn't.


----------



## sorance2000

Hi i just corrupted my ddr4 memory spd data with the thyphoon burner. I havent restarted my computer yet. Is my memory ram bricked after restarting my computer? Is something i could do? Please respond to me. Thanks.


----------



## rul3s

sorance2000 said:


> Hi i just corrupted my ddr4 memory spd data with the thyphoon burner. I havent restarted my computer yet. Is my memory ram bricked after restarting my computer? Is something i could do? Please respond to me. Thanks.


This user has answered you



crakej said:


> Turn off aura or other lighting stuff, then run Thaiphoon. It sometimes makes it look like your ram is corrupt when it isn't.


************************

Which cLDO VDDP / VDDG / VSOC are you using for 3733 1:1? My O.S is crashing when launching y-cruncher and I think is about IF voltage.


----------



## sorance2000

rul3s said:


> This user has answered you
> 
> 
> 
> ************************
> 
> Which cLDO VDDP / VDDG / VSOC are you using for 3733 1:1? My O.S is crashing when launching y-cruncher and I think is about IF voltage.


I have no aura. My memory ram is Kingmax Zeus 16 GB single stick with no rgb lighting. I just wanted to see what type die is my memory in typhoon burner for Dram Calculator. I'd had hwinfo opened when I started typhoon. It started once, then never. I read on the first page again and i saw the posibility to corrupt memory spd data. My memory spd data isn't showed in any program: cpu-z, hwinfo or aida64. There is no info about my memory.


----------



## rul3s

sorance2000 said:


> I have no aura. My memory ram is Kingmax Zeus 16 GB single stick with no rgb lighting. I just wanted to see what type die is my memory in typhoon burner for Dram Calculator. I'd had hwinfo opened when I started typhoon. It started once, then never. I read on the first page again and i saw the posibility to corrupt memory spd data. My memory spd data isn't showed in any program: cpu-z, hwinfo or aida64. There is no info about my memory.


I think it's just a problem of multiple software-readers at same time, spd are ROM and can't change, and if for some reason this happened, you can't repair it, so just reboot your computer as it's 99,99% posible that it's just an error.


----------



## rul3s

By the way, membench results how "accurate" are?

I'm getting 118s on [email protected] 1:1 and 119s on [email protected] is this OK? 

Aida is giving me much more thansfer and lower latency on 3733 config and no errors on TM5 neither HCI.


----------



## mongoled

@lordzed83

Here are my aida64 results from the 'manual' presets of the calculator

*First 1usmus 'Manual', 'Fast Preset' for 3800 mhz for my RAM*
























*Second 1usmus 'Manual', 'Fast Preset' for 3800 mhz for your (lordzed83) RAM*






















The MSI X370 Titanium is miles behind your results and I have yet to find anyone else on the Internet to have such high bandwidth and low latency (58824MB/s | 58203 MB/s | 56811 MB/s | 62.8 ns) on a X470 as yourself hence the curiosity.


I think the differences are quite substantial


----------



## sorance2000

rul3s said:


> I think it's just a problem of multiple software-readers at same time, spd are ROM and can't change, and if for some reason this happened, you can't repair it, so just reboot your computer as it's 99,99% posible that it's just an error.


I restarted my computer and it works!!! All spd data is there.


----------



## Lynx823743

Hey everyone, 

I was hoping you can help since I am a total noob...

I purchased this ram and I am wondering if I should return it or if it is fine in terms of being able to get maximum performance with my 3700x and Ultra board:

G.Skill DIMM 16 GB DDR4-3600 Kit 
(F4-3600C16D-16GVK)


Typ	SDRAM-DDR4
EAN	4719692008732
Hersteller-Nr.	F4-3600C16D-16GVK
Serie	Ripjaws V
Kapazität	16 GB (2 x 8.192 MB)
Anzahl	2 Stück
Bauform	DIMM
Anschluss	288-Pin
Spannung	1.35 Volt (von 1,2 bis 1,35 Volt)
Standard	DDR4-3600 (PC4-28800)
Physikalischer Takt	1800 MHz
Timings	CAS Latency (CL)	16
RAS-to-CAS-Delay (tRCD)	16
RAS-Precharge-Time (tRP)	16
Row-Active-Time (tRAS)	36
Feature	XMP 

What Settings would you recommend also what and how can I set the proper IF ? and should I go for 3766 mhz or rather try CL14? 
When i do a Userbenchmark I only get below average score on the ram 


Thanks for your advise


----------



## roskmeg

Anyone have any luck getting 4 sticks running 3800 and 1900 FCLK?


----------



## Spectre73

*Using manual mode*

Since before 1.6.x.x I did no longer use manual mode, because 1usmus invented the profiles (v1 and v2). With calc 1.4, if I remember correctly?

It seems, with Zen 2 we are back to manual profiles? Has anything changed regarding usage? Is it still only create a xmp dumb with taiphoon burner and import those settings into the calc?

Why is this a thing again now?


----------



## rul3s

Got this guys!










As Ryzen Master allows us to export profile, here it is:










Config: https://drive.google.com/open?id=17kVPkdDQDGAB7iiY_QbJnQvGzVjuYFWh


----------



## Hsmz

Hi everyone !

I’m still struggling to make my overclock stable. It’s driving me crazy.
I have an Aorus Master (F5K bios), 4x8 gb of F4-3600C15D, a 3900x and I am using DRAM 1.6.0.3.
The system is booting fine at 3600mhz/IF 1800mhz but can’t go higher.
The thing is, whatever I do, It still gets errors during tests whether it is the 3600 fast or safe preset. The more I test, the quickest the errors appear. Ram temperatures do not exceed 45 degrees so it is probably not the issue.
I tried different voltages (1.48v doesn’t change anything), IF frequencies, alternative values on VDDP, geardown/powerdown mode on or off, with different Cmd2T values.

Vanilla bios (without any subtimings) 3200mhz with IF at 1800mhz is stable, as is 3600mhz. DOCP « works » but it reboots the system quickly during tests.

These are the settings putting me closer to stability:

https://ibb.co/88cJg6h

Do you have any idea where the instability might come from ? It might be a power delivery issue or a subtiming issue but at this point, I have no clue…

Thank you in advance !!

Edit: strangely enough, RttPark is set at RZQ/5 in the bios, but displays RZQ/1 in ryzen master.


----------



## mongoled

Spectre73 said:


> Since before 1.6.x.x I did no longer use manual mode, because 1usmus invented the profiles (v1 and v2). With calc 1.4, if I remember correctly?
> 
> It seems, with Zen 2 we are back to manual profiles? Has anything changed regarding usage? Is it still only create a xmp dumb with taiphoon burner and import those settings into the calc?
> 
> Why is this a thing again now?


As you know, with Typhoon burner we can read the timings that the manufacturer has validated for their ram modules.

I think its just peoples preference whether to use V1, V2 or Manual.


----------



## Karagra

crakej said:


> Turn off aura or other lighting stuff, then run Thaiphoon. It sometimes makes it look like your ram is corrupt when it isn't.


Not running any software for lighting


----------



## lordzed83

@mongoled cause calculator is Good starting point. Then I combined MY timings with calculator and got what I got. I can do Tfaw16 and tRC48/trfc288 hehe I know them sticks quite well with amount of tweeking I'w done on them so far. Especially I upgraded from Teamgroup 3800 mem kit that was BEST they ware selling at the time. And I had that kit running 3533cl14 on zen+ with 1.425 volts for over a year.


----------



## ajc9988

sorance2000 said:


> Hi i just corrupted my ddr4 memory spd data with the thyphoon burner. I havent restarted my computer yet. Is my memory ram bricked after restarting my computer? Please respond to me. Thanks.





rul3s said:


> I think it's just a problem of multiple software-readers at same time, spd are ROM and can't change, and if for some reason this happened, you can't repair it, so just reboot your computer as it's 99,99% posible that it's just an error.





sorance2000 said:


> I restarted my computer and it works!!! All spd data is there.


Good news, but it seems people are confused here on a couple things.

At least I modified my SPD (not just the XMP profile of the SPD) when I was overclocking my DDR3 in my laptop so-dimms years back.

1) it is possible to corrupt them. Before you EVER try to modify the XMP profile or SPD values, ALWAYS do a ram SPD dump. You can reflash so long as the SPD is not locked (don't know if this has changed since DDR4, haven't tried that since I have all the timings I need in the BIOS to manually OC the DIMMs, so no reason to really play with that, I just got tired of manually entering the values for 2400MHz on my Kingston ram, the XMP profiles didn't save enough values to work properly, so I flashed it into the SPD instead and worked like a charm. DON'T TRY THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!).

2)If you have a dump of the SPD, and your mod did not work, you need a good set of ram to boot. You then have to try to do a memory hot plug (plug the DIMM in an empty slot while booted, which can cause issues). If you don't crash, then enter Thaiphoon burner, pull up the SPD for the corrupted stick and flash the original SPD dump onto it. If everything goes correctly, you just restored the stick to working order.

Notes- 
This only applies if the SPD is ACTUALLY corrupted or if you MODIFIED your SPD.

All roms have a limited read/write capacity, so don't go too crazy.

Some DIMMs come SPD locked. If it is locked, you will not be able to flash it. I don't even remember if you can flash new XMP profiles on some DDR4 DIMMs due to more security features. Haven't checked or tried.

Simply reading the SPD values is NOT likely to corrupt anything. Unless you are changing the hex values, you probably did nothing to it and something else is the issue.

So, generally rul3s was right, but there are ways to write SPD if the SPD is not locked down, at least for DDR3, not sure on DDR4.

Edit: Also didn't go into R/W Everything mods. Meanwhile, if you don't have the paid version of Thaiphoon Burner, you CANNOT write to SPD. http://www.softnology.biz/


----------



## Saiger0

rul3s said:


> Got this guys!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Ryzen Master allows us to export profile, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Config: https://drive.google.com/open?id=17kVPkdDQDGAB7iiY_QbJnQvGzVjuYFWh


B die right? what voltage?


----------



## Nighthog

Hsmz said:


> Hi everyone !
> 
> I’m still struggling to make my overclock stable. It’s driving me crazy.
> I have an Aorus Master (F5K bios), 4x8 gb of F4-3600C15D, a 3900x and I am using DRAM 1.6.0.3.
> The system is booting fine at 3600mhz/IF 1800mhz but can’t go higher.
> The thing is, whatever I do, It still gets errors during tests whether it is the 3600 fast or safe preset. The more I test, the quickest the errors appear. Ram temperatures do not exceed 45 degrees so it is probably not the issue.
> I tried different voltages (1.48v doesn’t change anything), IF frequencies, alternative values on VDDP, geardown/powerdown mode on or off, with different Cmd2T values.
> 
> Vanilla bios (without any subtimings) 3200mhz with IF at 1800mhz is stable, as is 3600mhz. DOCP « works » but it reboots the system quickly during tests.
> 
> These are the settings putting me closer to stability:
> 
> https://ibb.co/88cJg6h
> 
> Do you have any idea where the instability might come from ? It might be a power delivery issue or a subtiming issue but at this point, I have no clue…
> 
> Thank you in advance !!
> 
> Edit: strangely enough, RttPark is set at RZQ/5 in the bios, but displays RZQ/1 in ryzen master.


Try the RCQ/7 - RCQ/2 - RCQ/1 stock setting.
That is stock on my gigabyte motherboards and has ALWAYS worked. 
Had less luck with all other combos.


----------



## yzy

Hey guys, 

First post here! I've been lurking on the forums and especially this thread the past couple of days as I got into memory overclocking so I still have a lot to learn. I have a question regarding *latency*. I have a *b-die* kit here *(F4-3200C14D-16GTZR)* and started using the fast preset on DRAM Calculator for the 3200mhz preset. So basically I was running 14-14-14-28-1T with (fast preset) sub timings recommended by DRAM Calculator and with no issues (passed 1200% hci memtest). However, when I run Aida 64 Cache & Benchmarking I had a latency of 72,7ms. I was expecting under 70 and see a lot of people having under 70ms (even around 65-68ms) but I am nowhere close to that latency. Since Im new I thought maybe I'll get lower latency when I choose a higher memory speed. This is obviously not the case.

At the moment I'm running 3466mhz 14-14-14-30-1T (safe preset) @1.40v and in Aida64 im getting 71,9ms:









My settings in Ryzen Master is looking like this now:









Basically they are the settings that DRAM Ryzen Calculator recommended to me: https://i.imgur.com/xcrrnhC.png

So to sum it up: I'm getting 'high latency' with tight (sub)timings on my b-die kit. I tested 3200MHz fast preset and 3466MHz save preset and neither helped me lower my latency. What is causing this and what can I do to lower my latency?


----------



## lordzed83

@mongoled i just dumped my bioses txt file so you can have look whats up. Also stress tested it lets say today over 8 hours of mining with cpu+gpu. That putts quite alot of stress on IMC IF and cache. DDR voltage is 1.425 1.4 tests ok but extra 25mv wont hurt its my go to daily volteage since zen1.


----------



## Nighthog

I found out what was causing my instability issue. GeardownMode: disabled... Everything is OK GDM:enabled... have to figure out what is the issue with GDM:disabled specifically but I'm now just ramming voltage 1.57V too see if that does it... >_>;

EDIT: Nope... I seem to have to contend I'm not stable how much I even try with GDM:disabled...


----------



## Hsmz

Nighthog said:


> Try the RCQ/7 - RCQ/2 - RCQ/1 stock setting.
> That is stock on my gigabyte motherboards and has ALWAYS worked.
> Had less luck with all other combos.


Thank you for your answer. I tried every value RZQ/1/2/3 etc.... unfortunately, whatever I put, Ryzen master always shows RZQ/1.
The only thing that seems to change something is to disable it, the pc won't boot.
I also tried this with the F3 Bios (I just modified the RttPark), same results. I tried flashing the 2 bios but it did nothing. Could it be an hardware issue ?


----------



## Streetdragon

I think i found the limit for my ram. 3733/1866 1:1
SOC 1.125V
Vram 1.5V
(Yes stable^^)
With better subtimings you get a nice boost overall

Edit: 4 Dimms with termal paste between. So the middle Dimms wont get too hot :thumb:


----------



## dmsosno

Hello,

First time overclocking my Flare X 3200 c14 using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I have 3700x and Gigabyte x570 Aorus Pro Wifi motherboard. I'm aiming to achieve 3600 c14 as recommended by the calculator. However, the bios is a bit confusing.

1) There seems to be two places where I can manually enter the timings. I can go to the "Tweaker" tab in the bios and select "Advanced memory settings". Or I can go to "AMD overclocking" section and enter the timings from there. Do I only use either one and which one should I choose?

2) When trying to adjust cLDO VDDG and cLDO VDDP voltages the bios doesn't allow me to enter decimal values (can't type the dot). The values I need from the calculator are 0.950 and 0.900

3) Is SOC Voltage and VCORE SOC the same thing?

4) Do I need to have XMP disabled when I do manual adjustments from calculator?

Thanks for your help.


----------



## magnafides

I had previously done an O/C on my 2x8gb Ballistix Sport LT (e-die) using the "Safe" values from Calculator v1.5.1, which gave me 3600MHz but at some pretty loose timings (16-22-19-34). Earlier I downloaded v1.6.0.3 and tried the "Safe" values and they were wildly different (mostly tighter) and I was blue-screening all over the place in Windows. I even tried bumping the voltage up a little from 1.39V -> 1.4V, but it didn't make a difference. I guess my question is, why are the "Safe" timings so drastically different between the two versions? I'm a total novice so it's tough for me to pinpoint exactly where the instability is coming from with the new settings, but one thing that jumps out at me immediately is the drastically different procODT value -- the old version had it at 53 recommended, the new at 34.3.

I attached two screenshots showing "Safe" values in the two versions -- even though the "old" screenshot says 3433MHz but I'm currently running the same timings @ 3600MHz. Interestingly enough I'm getting a pretty respectable 69.5ns latency even with these awful timings.


----------



## magnafides

dmsosno said:


> Hello,
> 
> First time overclocking my Flare X 3200 c14 using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I have 3700x and Gigabyte x570 Aorus Pro Wifi motherboard. I'm aiming to achieve 3600 c14 as recommended by the calculator. However, the bios is a bit confusing.
> 
> 1) There seems to be two places where I can manually enter the timings. I can go to the "Tweaker" tab in the bios and select "Advanced memory settings". Or I can go to "AMD overclocking" section and enter the timings from there. Do I only use either one and which one should I choose?
> 
> 2) When trying to adjust cLDO VDDG and cLDO VDDP voltages the bios doesn't allow me to enter decimal values (can't type the dot). The values I need from the calculator are 0.950 and 0.900
> 
> 3) Is SOC Voltage and VCORE SOC the same thing?
> 
> 4) Do I need to have XMP disabled when I do manual adjustments from calculator?
> 
> Thanks for your help.


I have an X570 Aorus Elite, and I disabled XMP and did everything from the "Advanced" settings, NOT in AMD Overclocking. At least in the latest BIOS for the Elite it seems to be bugged so RAM timings have to be entered in hexadecimal in that section. Also if you use Ryzen Master to do any overclocking it would overwrite the values in that section.

As for VDDG and VDDP it was my understanding that those would be set automatically based on the DDR voltage, but perhaps someone else can weigh in on that. You may want to post in the X570 Aorus Owners Thread: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-amd-motherboards/1728360-gigabyte-x570-aorus-owners-thread.html


----------



## Karagra

lordzed83 said:


> i only got 8pack edition


You think you could send a speed dump so I can take a look a few things from you ram?


----------



## dmsosno

magnafides said:


> I have an X570 Aorus Elite, and I disabled XMP and did everything from the "Advanced" settings, NOT in AMD Overclocking. At least in the latest BIOS for the Elite it seems to be bugged so RAM timings have to be entered in hexadecimal in that section. Also if you use Ryzen Master to do any overclocking it would overwrite the values in that section.
> 
> As for VDDG and VDDP it was my understanding that those would be set automatically based on the DDR voltage, but perhaps someone else can weigh in on that. You may want to post in the X570 Aorus Owners Thread: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-amd-motherboards/1728360-gigabyte-x570-aorus-owners-thread.html


Thanks for your answer. Did you input the value for SOC Voltage provided by the calculator? On the Tweaker tab in bios there is no option for SOC Voltage.
I entered the value into VCORE SOC instead, but I'm not sure if it's the same thing.


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> Try the RCQ/7 - RCQ/2 - RCQ/1 stock setting.
> That is stock on my gigabyte motherboards and has ALWAYS worked.
> Had less luck with all other combos.


very strange values for the registers ... it seems to me that the gigabyte was mistaken in the name somewhere

:wth:



dmsosno said:


> Hello,
> 
> First time overclocking my Flare X 3200 c14 using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I have 3700x and Gigabyte x570 Aorus Pro Wifi motherboard. I'm aiming to achieve 3600 c14 as recommended by the calculator. However, the bios is a bit confusing.
> 
> 1) There seems to be two places where I can manually enter the timings. I can go to the "Tweaker" tab in the bios and select "Advanced memory settings". Or I can go to "AMD overclocking" section and enter the timings from there. Do I only use either one and which one should I choose?
> 
> 2) When trying to adjust cLDO VDDG and cLDO VDDP voltages the bios doesn't allow me to enter decimal values (can't type the dot). The values I need from the calculator are 0.950 and 0.900
> 
> 3) Is SOC Voltage and VCORE SOC the same thing?
> 
> 4) Do I need to have XMP disabled when I do manual adjustments from calculator?
> 
> Thanks for your help.


2) 950 and 900
3) yes
4) XMP disabled



magnafides said:


> I had previously done an O/C on my 2x8gb Ballistix Sport LT (e-die) using the "Safe" values from Calculator v1.5.1, which gave me 3600MHz but at some pretty loose timings (16-22-19-34). Earlier I downloaded v1.6.0.3 and tried the "Safe" values and they were wildly different (mostly tighter) and I was blue-screening all over the place in Windows. I even tried bumping the voltage up a little from 1.39V -> 1.4V, but it didn't make a difference. I guess my question is, why are the "Safe" timings so drastically different between the two versions? I'm a total novice so it's tough for me to pinpoint exactly where the instability is coming from with the new settings, but one thing that jumps out at me immediately is the drastically different procODT value -- the old version had it at 53 recommended, the new at 34.3.
> 
> I attached two screenshots showing "Safe" values in the two versions -- even though the "old" screenshot says 3433MHz but I'm currently running the same timings @ 3600MHz. Interestingly enough I'm getting a pretty respectable 69.5ns latency even with these awful timings.



not all chips are of the same quality, for example, Crucial memory with AES code has select chips, hard profiles are excellent for it
tRCDRD should be higher so that there are no blue screens
next week I will introduce an update with improvements


----------



## Dphotog

feeling pretty awful that everytime I enter stuff from Dram Calculator via bios I get nothing but bios resets and blue screen. The only success Ive had is upping voltage and speed to my ram and fclk. Even with Safe settings its just been a horrible experince and wondering what im doing wrong. Best results Ive gotten is keeping XMP default timings but upping to 3666mhz stable (Aida 64 memory stress tests). Ive been eyeing to aim for 3733mhz or 3800 but the voltage while keeping everything at XMP timings are pretty rough. I had 3733mhz at 1.51v but failed stress tests. Im wondering what I need to do to my setttings if I really want to hit that golden 3733mhz mark 14-15-14-14 or 14-15-15-15 default xmp settings 1.51v wasnt stable. im still new to this so any advice would really help. Just really saddened that my Dram calculator settings cause nothing but crashes and resets for me.

If its not able to run through Aida64 memory stress tests for an hour+ or hours its not stable.

Ram F4-3200C14D-32GTRS
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/2F...2-x-16-gb-ddr4-3200-memory-f4-3200c14d-32gtrs

Current stable is 3666mhz cl 14-14-14-34 at 1.48v Dram was saying 1.46 but with other timings but blue screened as soon as I entered those settings. so I resulted in default 3200xmp but upd to 3666

my 3733mhz 1.51v with xmp default settings meant for 3200 cause crashes in World of Warcraft eventually so clearly not stable. at 1.48


----------



## vulcan4d

Something curious about sub-timings. For the main timings lower = better however I did notice in the calculator that some of the sub-timings increase when going from Safe to Fast. Copying the exact settings sometimes does not work so how does one know what is the proper may of loosening the sub-timings to gain stability?


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> very strange values for the registers ... it seems to me that the gigabyte was mistaken in the name somewhere
> 
> :wth:


My old Gigabyte AB350-gaming 3 had RZQ/7 - RZQ/2 - RZQ/1 as stock... though usually RZQ/7 - RZQ/3 - RZQ/1 worked a little better. There was another combo I used for 3733Mhz on it but it was kinda specific with other settings needed to match. 
My Biostar X470GT8 I have no idea what stock was (no software could read) But RZQ/7 - RZQ/3 - RZQ/1 was really only thing that worked other than AUTO.
My Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme has RZQ/7 - RZQ/2 - RZQ/1 stock/AUTO. Works up-to 4000Mhz no issues 4x8GB Micron E-die.


----------



## lordzed83

Nighthog said:


> I found out what was causing my instability issue. GeardownMode: disabled... Everything is OK GDM:enabled... have to figure out what is the issue with GDM:disabled specifically but I'm now just ramming voltage 1.57V too see if that does it... >_>;
> 
> EDIT: Nope... I seem to have to contend I'm not stable how much I even try with GDM:disabled...


what stability problem you got ram errors or ??


----------



## lordzed83

@1usmus I noticed that everyone is pushing for 3800cl14 **** to run those timings you need some epic sticks or luck. Then I'w running this cl16 tight timings at 1.425 volt and still have better latency and speeds than people pushing stuff beyond limit it can actually run at. Have You considered making V3 profile for the WORSE kits cl16 one like I run i think every Bdie should be able to run those.


----------



## Nighthog

lordzed83 said:


> what stability problem you got ram errors or ??


Basically unstable with Prime95 giving trouble, y-cruncher would fail and HCIMemtest was the most unusual to see what the problem could be, had this weird issue where half the threads would run fine 1000% but the other half(SMT?) would fail in 8bit sequences. Basically when you got a error they happened in 8 errors in row per thread and they happened at random intervals between 500-1000% or even 100% 

All things I tried could not fix this issue. Had to enable GDM again to be able to pass everything with no issues at all.

In the pic you see what happened when having GDM:disabled.


----------



## lordzed83

Nighthog said:


> Basically unstable with Prime95 giving trouble, y-cruncher would fail and HCIMemtest was the most unusual to see what the problem could be, had this weird issue where half the threads would run fine 1000% but the other half(SMT?) would fail in 8bit sequences. Basically when you got a error they happened in 8 errors in row per thread and they happened at random intervals between 500-1000% or even 100%
> 
> All things I tried could not fix this issue. Had to enable GDM again to be able to pass everything with no issues at all.
> 
> In the pic you see what happened when having GDM:disabled.


reminds me my old mem kit you got few crappier chips on sticks. Tahts why errors always same swap modules around in slots should move errors around


----------



## Nighthog

lordzed83 said:


> reminds me my old mem kit you got few crappier chips on sticks. Tahts why errors always same swap modules around in slots should move errors around


The weird part was when I changed some settings they swapped over to the first 8 threads instead and the others were running ok, though I didn't test enough.
I usually changed things as soon as I saw they were giving errors as it was taking time to get any. 

I will let it be for now. I tried for a damn week to figure it out in-between things.


----------



## Alpi

lordzed83 said:


> @1usmus I noticed that everyone is pushing for 3800cl14 **** to run those timings you need some epic sticks or luck. Then I'w running this cl16 tight timings at 1.425 volt and still have better latency and speeds than people pushing stuff beyond limit it can actually run at. Have You considered making V3 profile for the WORSE kits cl16 one like I run i think every Bdie should be able to run those.


+1
Lovo 3800c14 settings not faster than c16 ones because of some subs what have to loose to reach higher mem clock without mentionable vdimm raise. 
As I see, Ryzen no need top kits of bdie. Between 3400 - 3800 99% of them should do the work. (fortunatelly) Performance with really high clocked sticks with new gen boards still a question. I guess a 3600/3800 mhz mem with 1:1 if is still gives the best 24/7 performance we can see till now.


----------



## lordzed83

Karagra said:


> I can't seem to get a answer from anyone -.- Does anyone have a free minute.. this is getting a bit frustrating at this point
> My ram may be corrupted but I am not 100% sure! Thaiphoon does not have my ram listed so I can't compare it to the database but it looks like both sticks are mismatched in the spd dump.
> 
> Ram is TEAMGROUP-UD4-4133 - (Maybe someone has this ram and can provide me with a spd dump to compare????


cant remember who wanted my spd dump


----------



## Unknownm

with the whole EX GF break up on my mind I TOTALLY FORGOT that flashing BIOS = delete profiles. I lost my 3466 ram OC profile so lesson learned everything is going on a USB drive... 

Starting from scratch, trying 3200 It will ONLY POST if secondary timings are higher than suggest from calculator and I'm not sure if this a voltage issue or quality of ram. 

Also still unclear what CLDO_VDDP and CLDO VDDP are in relation to dram calculator as both values are located in different parts on the BIOS and both require XXX mV input. 

Dram calculator:
"Advance -> Debug" CLDO VDDP = xxx mV input
"Main -> Voltage Block" VDDP = x.xxx V input. 

If I put 900mV on both CLDO VDDP & CLDO_VDDP my system starts having random BSOD and crashes while "AUTO" = stability. No where in calculator that show's value for CLDO_VDDP just only CLDO VDDP. I can only assume "Advance -> Debug" is CLDO_VDDP but it's recommended settings if it's correct still cause BSOD and glitchy ram so idk what's going on here.

I feel like removing "auto" from CLDO VDDP & CLDO_VDDP will help in ram overclock but not sure what values to set here as the guessing game is clearly wrong.


----------



## Streetdragon

lordzed83 said:


> @1usmus I noticed that everyone is pushing for 3800cl14 **** to run those timings you need some epic sticks or luck. Then I'w running this cl16 tight timings at 1.425 volt and still have better latency and speeds than people pushing stuff beyond limit it can actually run at. Have You considered making V3 profile for the WORSE kits cl16 one like I run i think every Bdie should be able to run those.


hmmmmm wut?

its late now but i got 3800/1900 stable wth SOC 1.125V LLC High and VDDG 1.070V :thumb:
Will do some crunching now. just to be sure


----------



## MrPhilo

Streetdragon said:


> lordzed83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> @1usmus I noticed that everyone is pushing for 3800cl14 **** to run those timings you need some epic sticks or luck. Then I'w running this cl16 tight timings at 1.425 volt and still have better latency and speeds than people pushing stuff beyond limit it can actually run at. Have You considered making V3 profile for the WORSE kits cl16 one like I run i think every Bdie should be able to run those.
> 
> 
> 
> hmmmmm wut?
> 
> its late now but i got 3800/1900 stable wth SOC 1.125V LLC High and VDDG 1.070V /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> Will do some crunching now. just to be sure
Click to expand...

That's a high VDDG voltage


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> @*mongoled* cause calculator is Good starting point. Then I combined MY timings with calculator and got what I got. I can do Tfaw16 and tRC48/trfc288 hehe I know them sticks quite well with amount of tweeking I'w done on them so far. Especially I upgraded from Teamgroup 3800 mem kit that was BEST they ware selling at the time. And I had that kit running 3533cl14 on zen+ with 1.425 volts for over a year.


 Hi!

Would you mind posting your full timings for this run

58824MB/s | 58203 MB/s | 56811 MB/s | 62.8 ns

If you dont want to thats fine, as you have given clues to what you have tightened.

Thanks


** Off topic **
Is anybody else getting double carriage for each press of "enter" between each paragraph ??


----------



## Hsmz

Streetdragon said:


> hmmmmm wut?
> 
> its late now but i got 3800/1900 stable wth SOC 1.125V LLC High and VDDG 1.070V :thumb:
> Will do some crunching now. just to be sure


Very nice results !
Did you set RttPark at RZQ/5 ? I've noticed Ryzen Master always reads RZQ/1 like on your photo, whatever value I put in the bios. We have the same motherboard. :h34r-smi


----------



## lordzed83

mongoled said:


> Hi!
> 
> Would you mind posting your full timings for this run
> 
> 58824MB/s | 58203 MB/s | 56811 MB/s | 62.8 ns
> 
> If you dont want to thats fine, as you have given clues to what you have tightened.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> ** Off topic **
> Is anybody else getting double carriage for each press of "enter" between each paragraph ??


thats my settings


----------



## mongoled

lordzed83 said:


> thats my settings


Thanks mate

Looking at those settings I must admit that it would be impossible on this x370 with current BIOS to achieve anywhere near that aida64 test you showed.

Will have to wait for new BIOS to see if anything changes.

The max memory read I have been able to achive is just over 57000 mb/s, lowest latency 64.2 ns

That was using trfc 288, tfaw 16


----------



## yzy

yzy said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> First post here! I've been lurking on the forums and especially this thread the past couple of days as I got into memory overclocking so I still have a lot to learn. I have a question regarding *latency*. I have a *b-die* kit here *(F4-3200C14D-16GTZR)* and started using the fast preset on DRAM Calculator for the 3200mhz preset. So basically I was running 14-14-14-28-1T with (fast preset) sub timings recommended by DRAM Calculator and with no issues (passed 1200% hci memtest). However, when I run Aida 64 Cache & Benchmarking I had a latency of 72,7ms. I was expecting under 70 and see a lot of people having under 70ms (even around 65-68ms) but I am nowhere close to that latency. Since Im new I thought maybe I'll get lower latency when I choose a higher memory speed. This is obviously not the case.
> 
> At the moment I'm running 3466mhz 14-14-14-30-1T (safe preset) @1.40v and in Aida64 im getting 71,9ms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My settings in Ryzen Master is looking like this now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically they are the settings that DRAM Ryzen Calculator recommended to me: https://i.imgur.com/xcrrnhC.png
> 
> So to sum it up: I'm getting 'high latency' with tight (sub)timings on my b-die kit. I tested 3200MHz fast preset and 3466MHz save preset and neither helped me lower my latency. What is causing this and what can I do to lower my latency?


My post got kinda lost between all the discussion so I'm quoting it again so maybe someone can help me with lowering my latency. I have an Asus X470-F Gaming motherboard. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Saiger0

@1usmus
can you tell me why 3800cl16 gives almost as good results as 3800cl14 in benchmarks?


----------



## Streetdragon

Hsmz said:


> Very nice results !
> Did you set RttPark at RZQ/5 ? I've noticed Ryzen Master always reads RZQ/1 like on your photo, whatever value I put in the bios. We have the same motherboard. :h34r-smi


dont know. didnt changed this settings^^


----------



## Skawr

[email protected] mac temp 48c


----------



## Unknownm

No one can answer my question?

Just want to know what CLDO_VDDP & CLDO VDDP are to dram calculator


----------



## Nighthog

Unknownm said:


> No one can answer my question?
> 
> Just want to know what CLDO_VDDP & CLDO VDDP are to dram calculator


Have to do with the Infinity Fabric & Memory Controller? FCLK & UCLK?

I've noted VDDP has to increase the higher memory speeds you want to run and VDDG increases as you want more Fabric speeds. These vary by CPU-sample & motherboards and paired with kit of MEM how much you need in the end. ~900mv-1000mv should be all you need for 3800/1900. Some noted they weren't stable untill with VDDG 1060mv etc with fabric. Varies as said, more speed more voltage.

I've noticed a conjunction with tFAW the lower the higher VDDG I needed to stabilize. Though this mostly only applies to extreme cases on the edge on high speeds.


----------



## Unknownm

Nighthog said:


> Have to do with the Infinity Fabric & Memory Controller? FCLK & UCLK?
> 
> I've noted VDDP has to increase the higher memory speeds you want to run and VDDG increases as you want more Fabric speeds. These vary by CPU-sample & motherboards and paired with kit of MEM how much you need in the end. ~900mv-1000mv should be all you need for 3800/1900. Some noted they weren't stable untill with VDDG 1060mv etc with fabric. Varies as said, more speed more voltage.
> 
> I've noticed a conjunction with tFAW the lower the higher VDDG I needed to stabilize. Though this mostly only applies to extreme cases on the edge on high speeds.


Thank you for a response. 

BIOS doesn't have VDDG options and these are the two settings i'm talking about. Motherboard is Asus ROG Strix B450-F Gaming

Ai Tweaker = CLDO VDDP Voltage
Advance -> AMD CBS = CLDO_VDDP Voltage

EDIT: Wondering what CLDO VDDP Voltage & CLDO_VDDP Voltage are relation to DRAM Calculator


----------



## sa1kcin

Can anyone clarify ProcODT and RTT for Ryzen 3000 on single/dual rank memory? There is a lot of difference in recommended settings for single and dual rank memory, and dual rank recommendation is out of recommended range for Ryzen 3000 (28-40 ohm).

Example of recommended SAFE in 1.6.0.3:
Samsung B-die single rank - 3600MHz profile v1 = ProcODT = 34,3 ohm (alt 36,9 ohm) --- RTT_NOM=OFF --- RTT_WR=OFF --- RTT_PARK=RZQ/5 (48 ohm)
Samsung B-die dual rank - 3600MHz profile v1 = ProcODT = 53 ohm (alt 60 ohm) --- RTT_NOM=OFF --- RTT_WR=RZQ/3 (80 ohm) --- RTT_PARK=RZQ/1 (240 ohm)

1usmus wrote on 1.6.0 release: "3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage)." Also he has a screenshot on twitter running single rank memory @ 3733MHz CL14 where ProcODT is 32ohm is used, so 28-40 ohm seems to be the valid operating range for ProcODT on Ryzen 3000.

So why is it 1.6.0.3's dual rank recommendations is out of the recommended range for Zen2. Is this because it's dual rank (and thereby okay) or a possible display error in 1.6.0.3? Comparing Zen+ single/dual rank the recommended setting for ProcODT on dual rank is indeed higher, but only 1 step above single rank - not almost double like on Ryzen 3000. 

---

I used the calculator to find settings for my system, and that was somewhat succesful. R7 3800X, X570, 2x16GB dual rank G.skill 3200CL14. I have been able to get 3666MHz CL14 stable at 1.45v, and 3733MHz CL14 boots to Windows, but throws errors in memtest. But in order to boot at 3600Mhz and above I need to set ProcODT to 68,6ohms - 60 ohms will not POST.
Is ProcODT at 68,6 ohms + RTT_PARK at 240ohm safe on dual rank memory and Ryzen 3000? Does it have a higher potential to break the hardware than at lower impedances and should it be used for 24/7 settings or not?


----------



## Nighthog

Unknownm said:


> EDIT: Wondering what CLDO VDDP Voltage & CLDO_VDDP Voltage are relation to DRAM Calculator


I would guess both are the same.

There are duplicate entries even on Gigabyte Motherboards for these values. Both in AMD_CBS & AMD_OVERCLOCKING. 
I don't know if necessary but I make sure to put the same values in both locations to make sure I get what I want. 

I've noticed the values in AMD_CBS can get overwritten at times if post/training fails for some reason.



--------------------------
On another note I've gotten 4x8GB working @ 4066Mhz MEM & FLCK 1900. Asynchronous. I'll look if I can increase speed more but had no luck in boot yet so might be the limit my Memory kits can do in 4x8GB configuration for now but might still be possible.


----------



## Unknownm

Nighthog said:


> I would guess both are the same.
> 
> There are duplicate entries even on Gigabyte Motherboards for these values. Both in AMD_CBS & AMD_OVERCLOCKING.
> I don't know if necessary but I make sure to put the same values in both locations to make sure I get what I want.
> 
> I've noticed the values in AMD_CBS can get overwritten at times if post/training fails for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------
> On another note I've gotten 4x8GB working @ 4066Mhz MEM & FLCK 1900. Asynchronous. I'll look if I can increase speed more but had no luck in boot yet so might be the limit my Memory kits can do in 4x8GB configuration for now but might still be possible.


It's just confusing because of the underscore "_" between the name makes me think it's a different setting. Unless someone shows me it's not the same I will treat them both the same for now.

Thanks :thumb: REP+


----------



## Duvar

I am running 3800CL16 @ 1.36V with tight subs. Think this is the sweetspot and 1.36V is not too much for the RAM^^
Of course i could use a faster profile with 3800CL14 and very tight timings, but its not worth it, will need 1.526V.


----------



## kazablanka

Skawr said:


> [email protected] mac temp 48c


try these if you want , much lower voltage 1.45v better scores


----------



## brenopapito

Any ideas on how to decrease latency?


----------



## Ghost13

Hey guys !

Thank you very much 1usmus for your tool, unfortunately I can't boot above 3500Mhz, I tried a lot of frequencies but nothing :'(

Currently I am running on this configuration, if you have any advice to optimize my timings do not hesitate.










Setup :
2600X
MSI Tomahawk B450
2x8GB Kingston HyperX Predator (HX433C16PB3K2/16) (Hynix CJR) @1V38


----------



## umeng2002

3500 is pretty fast for Zen+ even with loose timings. Remember that you're also overclocking the infinity fabric, not just the memory.


----------



## SexySale

@kazablanka @lordzed83 did you guys maybe experienced micro stuttering in games on 3800:1900 Mhz?

For some strange reason I have that issue but there are NO ERRORS in RamTest 20000%, TM5 1usmus_v3 (15 cycles), HCI, Prime 95 or in Y-cruncher.

There is no CPU OC (Stock + PBO). CPU temps in Blender or games don't go over 62°C, so no thermal throttle. 
RAM temp is 35°C in full load (fans over RAM).

One notice: There is no stuttering on 3733:1866 Mhz or lower.

Any idea guys? @1usmus ?


----------



## kazablanka

brenopapito said:


> Any ideas on how to decrease latency?



If you use calculators fast timings ,change these:
trcdwr 10
trdrd scl 2
twrwr scl 2
trfc 252


----------



## kazablanka

SexySale said:


> @kazablanka @lordzed83 did you guys maybe experienced micro stuttering in games on 3800:1900 Mhz?
> 
> For some strange reason I have that issue but there are NO ERRORS in RamTest 20000%, TM5 1usmus_v3 (15 cycles), HCI, Prime 95 or in Y-cruncher.
> 
> There is no CPU OC (Stock + PBO). CPU temps in Blender or games don't go over 62°C, so no thermal throttle.
> RAM temp is 35°C in full load (fans over RAM).
> 
> One notice: There is no stuttering on 3733:1866 Mhz or lower.
> 
> Any idea guys? @1usmus ?


No stutters for me , what is your soc voltage?


----------



## SexySale

kazablanka said:


> No stutters for me , what is your soc voltage?


Ok, good to have parameter that someone doesn't have same issue on 3800.

Here is my OC: https://imgur.com/a/ugSC9be

Answer to your question is: 1.1V.
Lower SoC should result in errors or BSOD, but I don't have those...


----------



## kazablanka

SexySale said:


> Ok, good to have parameter that someone doesn't have same issue on 3800.
> 
> Here is my OC: https://imgur.com/a/ugSC9be
> 
> Answer to your question is: 1.1V.
> Lower SoC should result in errors or BSOD, but I don't have those...


I have set soc voltage and vddg to auto. My board gives 1.1v for soc and 1.09v for vddg as you can see in the ss. Try to set soc voltage @ llc3 and 130% if you have an asus board ,and set the same vddg as mine
ps: your trrds @ 3 seems a llittle low try to set it at 5 or 4


----------



## SexySale

kazablanka said:


> I have set soc voltage and vddg to auto. My board gives 1.1v for soc and 1.09v for vddg as you can see in the ss. Try to set soc voltage @ llc3 and 130% if you have an asus board ,and set the same vddg as mine
> ps: your trrds @ 3 seems a llittle low try to set it at 5 or 4


Thank you @kazablanka for sharing your thoughts. I have used your setting for comparison btw 

Yes, I have Asus board (X470-F Strix) and my CPU LLC is 3 and 130% and SoC LLC is 2 and 120%. The only difference is VDDG, which if higher causing cold boot issues or blank screen and boot loop.

However, I will try TRRDS: 4 and try playing again with VDDG, but I am not still sure is micro stuttering related to that. Sure, I am thankful for any advice 

Here is my stable 3733:1867 Mhz *without any stuttering* for reference. (3733FP.JPG)

EDIT: Here is 3800:1900 with TRRDS: 6 *with stutters* also  (3800SP-FP-stabilnije.JPG)


----------



## kazablanka

SexySale said:


> Thank you @kazablanka for sharing your thoughts. I have used your setting for comparison btw
> 
> Yes, I have Asus board (X470-F Strix) and my CPU LLC is 3 and 130% and SoC LLC is 2 and 120%. The only difference is VDDG, which if higher causing cold boot issues or blank screen and boot loop.
> 
> However, I will try TRRDS: 4 and try playing again with VDDG, but I am not still sure is micro stuttering related to that. Sure, I am thankful for any advice
> 
> Here is my stable 3733:1867 Mhz *without any stuttering* for reference. (3733FP.JPG)
> 
> EDIT: Here is 3800:1900 with TRRDS: 6 *with stutters* also  (3800SP-FP-stabilnije.JPG)


Have you try newer agesa? I see that you are on 1.0.0.2
I think that shamino has share new agesa bios at asus forum. You can check if is something there for your board. I am sure that there is at least 1.0.0.3ab


----------



## SexySale

kazablanka said:


> Have you try newer agesa? I see that you are on 1.0.0.2
> 
> I think that shamino has share new agesa bios at asus forum. You can check if is something there for your board. I am sure that there is at least 1.0.0.3ab


I have researched forum thread for my board and there is degradation in performance regarding boost clock and memory oc, so no for now, thx.


----------



## MrPhilo

SexySale said:


> @kazablanka @lordzed83 did you guys maybe experienced micro stuttering in games on 3800:1900 Mhz?
> 
> For some strange reason I have that issue but there are NO ERRORS in RamTest 20000%, TM5 1usmus_v3 (15 cycles), HCI, Prime 95 or in Y-cruncher.
> 
> There is no CPU OC (Stock + PBO). CPU temps in Blender or games don't go over 62°C, so no thermal throttle.
> RAM temp is 35°C in full load (fans over RAM).
> 
> One notice: There is no stuttering on 3733:1866 Mhz or lower.
> 
> Any idea guys? @1usmus ?


I don't know if this counts as stutters, after a long period of time I do get a random 'freeze' on the screen and everything is back to normal.

I've increase VDDG or SoC before and still the same outcome. I just thought it might be a problem with the bios. Someone else also reported this on CH VII thread that was running 3800.

I have done multiple ram test and also had no errors. So no idea so far. It's only 1-2 freezes say per 6 hours etc, so not that bad for me.


----------



## lordzed83

Saiger0 said:


> @1usmus
> can you tell me why 3800cl16 gives almost as good results as 3800cl14 in benchmarks?


error corection kicking in heavy


----------



## Ojive

Hi

I'm running these timings on my G.Skill Trident Z 2x8GB 3600Mhz CL15 kit (F4-3600C15-8GTZ, B-die) and got an error at loop #85. DIMM temps were roughly 50-52C during this test. I'm trying to run them on 3733 CL14.

Where should I even start to try to correct this instability? What should I look at? 

Specs:
CPU: Ryzen 9 3900X (cooled by DeepCool Castle 360 RGB AIO)
MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus X570 Master
RAM: G.Skill Trident Z 2x8GB 3600Mhz CL15
PSU: Corsair RM850x


----------



## kazablanka

Ojive said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm running these timings on my G.Skill Trident Z 2x8GB 3600Mhz CL15 kit (F4-3600C15-8GTZ, B-die) and got an error at loop #85. DIMM temps were roughly 50-52C during this test. I'm trying to run them on 3733 CL14.
> 
> Where should I even start to try to correct this instability? What should I look at?
> 
> Specs:
> CPU: Ryzen 9 3900X (cooled by DeepCool Castle 360 RGB AIO)
> MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus X570 Master
> RAM: G.Skill Trident Z 2x8GB 3600Mhz CL15
> PSU: Corsair RM850x


Hello i should try:
1) setting gear down enabled 
2)setting procODT to 36.9 ohms
3)setting trdwr to 9 or 10
4) in your case i would try gear down disabled 3800mhz c15-17-10-15-30-45 ,trfc 270 ,trdwr 9 and all the other timings as it is now with 1.45v dram. I have better performance with lower voltage. Your kit sould do 15-16-10-15-30-45 and all the other timings i said with 1.42-1.43mhz as a friend of mine has the same kit

these are my settings ,on 3900x you would have better numbers


----------



## jearly410

MrPhilo said:


> I don't know if this counts as stutters, after a long period of time I do get a random 'freeze' on the screen and everything is back to normal.
> 
> I've increase VDDG or SoC before and still the same outcome. I just thought it might be a problem with the bios. Someone else also reported this on CH VII thread that was running 3800.
> 
> I have done multiple ram test and also had no errors. So no idea so far. It's only 1-2 freezes say per 6 hours etc, so not that bad for me.


I'll add my experience, but I'm not sure how well it applies...

I've only been playing Total War:3 Kingdoms and depending on my RAM overclock, the game will freeze (no audio glitching, or stuttering) and my Vega64 LC led lights will show no gpu usage (sometimes 50%) and after 15 sec the game will resume without any issues. The more unstable my overclock, the more often this happens. I've had games with zero freezes, and games with freezes every 5 minutes. 

It could be the game, it could be a combination. Hopefully someone else has the experience as well and can add another data point.


----------



## garych

Will there ever be lower than 2666 option for RAM speed for those who want to OC FCLK and have tighter timings on 2133 or 2400 kits?


----------



## MrPhilo

Took me a while, but I finally got a pretty decent 3800cl16 going on with quite a lot of tight subtiming. This was with the same 1.455v than before.

The first two screenshot was my previous timing and aida speed.

Next one is my tigher version, I did have to increase my VDDG to 1v from 0.9v to get it stable.

16-10-17-14

With some tight timing like tfaw at 16, trfc at 256. This is all with no FAN cooling my RAM at all, they are around 50c each stress run.

Spent 4 days with this, 62.8ns is the lowest I could get.


----------



## Ojive

kazablanka said:


> Hello i should try:
> 1) setting gear down enabled
> 2)setting procODT to 36.9 ohms
> 3)setting trdwr to 9 or 10
> 4) in your case i would try gear down disabled 3800mhz c15-17-10-15-30-45 ,trfc 270 ,trdwr 9 and all the other timings as it is now with 1.45v dram. I have better performance with lower voltage. Your kit sould do 15-16-10-15-30-45 and all the other timings i said with 1.42-1.43mhz as a friend of mine has the same kit
> 
> these are my settings ,on 3900x you would have better numbers


Thanks for the suggestions! I've given them a try, but it seems like it's only made it worse. Failed after loop 41 (basically it cut the time under test in half).

I've also noticed that DIMM voltage seems to overvolt a bit. When I set it to 1.450 in BIOS, BIOS shows 1.470. Still, RAMsticks temps are 52C max after hours of testing. 

Also: Reason why I went with 3777 was because I wanted to tie RAM to infinity fabric. Why should one go for 3800 CL15 instead (in my understanding it will run at a divider penalty, right?) ?


----------



## Dphotog

How am I doing?is this good?

Ram Sticks I am using 15-15-15-15 1.5v 3800mhz FCLK 1900mhz I did use Command 2T seems funky that I can never post with command 1T but also my ram is 2 rank and not 1 rank after seeing it in Thaipoon.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/2F...2-x-16-gb-ddr4-3200-memory-f4-3200c14d-32gtrs

Screenshots of aida64 stress test + benchmark.
https://imgur.com/a/9SYBVfv




















21min stress test with temps evened out at 53.8c for about 4 minutes


----------



## SaccoSVD

Guys, do I need to increase SOC voltage to get a higher IF clock? My 3900X can't do IF 1900, my SOC voltage is at 1.112V by default.

Any tricks for that? My plan is to tighten my 3000Mhz RAM kit a bit then raise the IF to 1900


----------



## MrPhilo

SaccoSVD said:


> Guys, do I need to increase SOC voltage to get a higher IF clock? My 3900X can't do IF 1900, my SOC voltage is at 1.112V by default.
> 
> Any tricks for that? My plan is to tighten my 3000Mhz RAM kit a bit then raise the IF to 1900


Need to increase VDDG for IF. Start with 0.9v


----------



## Veii

Idk how many Hynix MFR OC submissions you already have
But let's make it one more 

Kept me quite busy yesterday & today, finding out why it errors out on Burst Test (Error 1) after 30min exactly before the test ends but not 4 times before ^^#
Dropped under my favored 72ns too 
- but this would need some more work on tRRD(S/L) & lowering tRCDWR to something like 8-10

I indeed would need some explanation how exactly to calculate tRDWR & tWRRD 
(after 12h i think i notice a pattern but it's not perfectly clear to me on what it relies) 
In the future i'll work on decoupling tCWL from tCL & skipping tCKE aka GD Mode off 
- but on that i need some tips too


----------



## mongoled

Dphotog said:


> How am I doing?is this good?


Is that really a question ? 

If it is I can only assume your first language is not English and you were not able to ask the question as you intended.

I believe most people will know what I am taking about.


----------



## sorance2000

I have Kingmax Zeus 16 GB, the red one. On my MSI B450M Gaming Plus with Ryzen 3700x on I cannot put anything in manual mode, the computer never posting. It works just with: Auto, or A-XMP (two profiles). Nothing else.


----------



## rul3s

ajc9988 said:


> Good news, but it seems people are confused here on a couple things.
> 
> At least I modified my SPD (not just the XMP profile of the SPD) when I was overclocking my DDR3 in my laptop so-dimms years back.
> 
> 1) it is possible to corrupt them. Before you EVER try to modify the XMP profile or SPD values, ALWAYS do a ram SPD dump. You can reflash so long as the SPD is not locked (don't know if this has changed since DDR4, haven't tried that since I have all the timings I need in the BIOS to manually OC the DIMMs, so no reason to really play with that, I just got tired of manually entering the values for 2400MHz on my Kingston ram, the XMP profiles didn't save enough values to work properly, so I flashed it into the SPD instead and worked like a charm. DON'T TRY THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!).
> 
> 2)If you have a dump of the SPD, and your mod did not work, you need a good set of ram to boot. You then have to try to do a memory hot plug (plug the DIMM in an empty slot while booted, which can cause issues). If you don't crash, then enter Thaiphoon burner, pull up the SPD for the corrupted stick and flash the original SPD dump onto it. If everything goes correctly, you just restored the stick to working order.
> 
> Notes-
> This only applies if the SPD is ACTUALLY corrupted or if you MODIFIED your SPD.
> 
> All roms have a limited read/write capacity, so don't go too crazy.
> 
> Some DIMMs come SPD locked. If it is locked, you will not be able to flash it. I don't even remember if you can flash new XMP profiles on some DDR4 DIMMs due to more security features. Haven't checked or tried.
> 
> Simply reading the SPD values is NOT likely to corrupt anything. Unless you are changing the hex values, you probably did nothing to it and something else is the issue.
> 
> So, generally rul3s was right, but there are ways to write SPD if the SPD is not locked down, at least for DDR3, not sure on DDR4.
> 
> Edit: Also didn't go into R/W Everything mods. Meanwhile, if you don't have the paid version of Thaiphoon Burner, you CANNOT write to SPD. http://www.softnology.biz/


Wow thanks!
First time I read about XMP flashing, 



Saiger0 said:


> B die right? what voltage?


I was 1.45v just for testing (sure i could do it with less), then updated bios and no-more can boot with 1733 on IF 



dmsosno said:


> Hello,
> 
> First time overclocking my Flare X 3200 c14 using the Ryzen DRAM Calculator. I have 3700x and Gigabyte x570 Aorus Pro Wifi motherboard. I'm aiming to achieve 3600 c14 as recommended by the calculator. However, the bios is a bit confusing.
> 
> 1) There seems to be two places where I can manually enter the timings. I can go to the "Tweaker" tab in the bios and select "Advanced memory settings". Or I can go to "AMD overclocking" section and enter the timings from there. Do I only use either one and which one should I choose?
> 
> 2) When trying to adjust cLDO VDDG and cLDO VDDP voltages the bios doesn't allow me to enter decimal values (can't type the dot). The values I need from the calculator are 0.950 and 0.900
> 
> 3) Is SOC Voltage and VCORE SOC the same thing?
> 
> 4) Do I need to have XMP disabled when I do manual adjustments from calculator?
> 
> Thanks for your help.


1 - BIOS settings are transfered to AGESA (AMD Overclocking menu) settings when they're on AUTO, but, if theyre not, AGESA agesa settings will override bios settings.



lordzed83 said:


> error corection kicking in heavy


Is there anyway to know when and how many times error correction is going in? Would be so useful!


----------



## rul3s

sa1kcin said:


> Can anyone clarify ProcODT and RTT for Ryzen 3000 on single/dual rank memory? There is a lot of difference in recommended settings for single and dual rank memory, and dual rank recommendation is out of recommended range for Ryzen 3000 (28-40 ohm).
> 
> Example of recommended SAFE in 1.6.0.3:
> Samsung B-die single rank - 3600MHz profile v1 = ProcODT = 34,3 ohm (alt 36,9 ohm) --- RTT_NOM=OFF --- RTT_WR=OFF --- RTT_PARK=RZQ/5 (48 ohm)
> Samsung B-die dual rank - 3600MHz profile v1 = ProcODT = 53 ohm (alt 60 ohm) --- RTT_NOM=OFF --- RTT_WR=RZQ/3 (80 ohm) --- RTT_PARK=RZQ/1 (240 ohm)
> 
> 1usmus wrote on 1.6.0 release: "3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage)." Also he has a screenshot on twitter running single rank memory @ 3733MHz CL14 where ProcODT is 32ohm is used, so 28-40 ohm seems to be the valid operating range for ProcODT on Ryzen 3000.
> 
> So why is it 1.6.0.3's dual rank recommendations is out of the recommended range for Zen2. Is this because it's dual rank (and thereby okay) or a possible display error in 1.6.0.3? Comparing Zen+ single/dual rank the recommended setting for ProcODT on dual rank is indeed higher, but only 1 step above single rank - not almost double like on Ryzen 3000.
> 
> ---
> 
> I used the calculator to find settings for my system, and that was somewhat succesful. R7 3800X, X570, 2x16GB dual rank G.skill 3200CL14. I have been able to get 3666MHz CL14 stable at 1.45v, and 3733MHz CL14 boots to Windows, but throws errors in memtest. But in order to boot at 3600Mhz and above I need to set ProcODT to 68,6ohms - 60 ohms will not POST.
> Is ProcODT at 68,6 ohms + RTT_PARK at 240ohm safe on dual rank memory and Ryzen 3000? Does it have a higher potential to break the hardware than at lower impedances and should it be used for 24/7 settings or not?



Is this as described?
I'm actually on 3700x + x470 + [email protected] with procODT on 48ohms, just copiing it from another user, I should it lower this procODT to 34 or 36ohms with bdie single rank?

Thanks


----------



## Streetdragon

Soooo somehow i cant stop playing aroudn with the stupid IF........

Gave it 1.15V SOC with LLC high.
vddg 900mv
This time with looser Ram timings
so far its crunching the Y out of it. Hope its stable this time. A GTA5 season will show if its working. If not i will push even more SOC.

This whole VDDG SOC VDDP thing is more than complicated. I dont need it.. But i want it


----------



## Iwamotto Tetsuz

Still overclocking 
Using only the perfect mem timing Rule which I created.

First error poped up, but after that its arround 5 minutes still no errors.
Might losen the secondary timings a bit more, if the errors still exist 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/180...le-posting-resuts-using-rule-appreciated.html

Bare bone stock defualts, the mem dosen't run 3200. It crashes, to get stable I need the down colock to 3000mhz


----------



## kazablanka

Ojive said:


> Thanks for the suggestions! I've given them a try, but it seems like it's only made it worse. Failed after loop 41 (basically it cut the time under test in half).
> 
> I've also noticed that DIMM voltage seems to overvolt a bit. When I set it to 1.450 in BIOS, BIOS shows 1.470. Still, RAMsticks temps are 52C max after hours of testing.
> 
> Also: Reason why I went with 3777 was because I wanted to tie RAM to infinity fabric. Why should one go for 3800 CL15 instead (in my understanding it will run at a divider penalty, right?) ?


Νo penalty ,the penalty will be only if you exceed 3800mhz. Depends on the kit but my kit needs less voltage for 3800c15 than 3733c14( I don't even know if is stable with my kit)


----------



## Ojive

kazablanka said:


> Νo penalty ,the penalty will be only if you exceed 3800mhz. Depends on the kit but my kit needs less voltage for 3800c15 than 3733c14( I don't even know if is stable with my kit)


Interesting. Maybe I should try 3800C15 instead. I had to up voltage to 1.47 (+0.02) with my original timings suggested by Calculator and it's stable for 177 loops so far (a little over 4 hours). That's a big improvement from 80-something loops at -0.02v.

However, your suggestion of 3800C15 at lower voltage is much more preferable, since less voltage = less temp. I'm still at 52 and 50C on both sticks, as it was at last test I did.


----------



## sa1kcin

sa1kcin said:


> Can anyone clarify ProcODT and RTT for Ryzen 3000 on single/dual rank memory? There is a lot of difference in recommended settings for single and dual rank memory, and dual rank recommendation is out of recommended range for Ryzen 3000 (28-40 ohm).
> 
> Example of recommended SAFE in 1.6.0.3:
> Samsung B-die single rank - 3600MHz profile v1 = ProcODT = 34,3 ohm (alt 36,9 ohm) --- RTT_NOM=OFF --- RTT_WR=OFF --- RTT_PARK=RZQ/5 (48 ohm)
> Samsung B-die dual rank - 3600MHz profile v1 = ProcODT = 53 ohm (alt 60 ohm) --- RTT_NOM=OFF --- RTT_WR=RZQ/3 (80 ohm) --- RTT_PARK=RZQ/1 (240 ohm)
> 
> 1usmus wrote on 1.6.0 release: "3) procODT for all Zen 2 changed and the optimal range is as follows (for all motherboards) 28-40 Ohm. Settings from the previous generation of processors are not relevant (except for timings and voltage)." Also he has a screenshot on twitter running single rank memory @ 3733MHz CL14 where ProcODT is 32ohm is used, so 28-40 ohm seems to be the valid operating range for ProcODT on Ryzen 3000.
> 
> So why is it 1.6.0.3's dual rank recommendations is out of the recommended range for Zen2. Is this because it's dual rank (and thereby okay) or a possible display error in 1.6.0.3? Comparing Zen+ single/dual rank the recommended setting for ProcODT on dual rank is indeed higher, but only 1 step above single rank - not almost double like on Ryzen 3000.
> 
> ---
> 
> I used the calculator to find settings for my system, and that was somewhat succesful. R7 3800X, X570, 2x16GB dual rank G.skill 3200CL14. I have been able to get 3666MHz CL14 stable at 1.45v, and 3733MHz CL14 boots to Windows, but throws errors in memtest. But in order to boot at 3600Mhz and above I need to set ProcODT to 68,6ohms - 60 ohms will not POST.
> Is ProcODT at 68,6 ohms + RTT_PARK at 240ohm safe on dual rank memory and Ryzen 3000? Does it have a higher potential to break the hardware than at lower impedances and should it be used for 24/7 settings or not?



Just an update from my side.

I started over from scratch and now I am able to run my 32GB dual rank B-die @ 3600Mhz CL14 / ProcODT 32 ohm and haven't finished pushing yet. Don't know how to reproduce the behaviour of 60 ohm ProcODT not posting, and 68 ohm solving it, but I suspect it had something to do with XMP profile being set in bios, and using Ryzen Master to set memory timings when pushing somehow keeping bios and Ryzen Master out of sync on a few parameters. It is just a guess however.
After I cleared CMOS, set DRAM voltage and mem speed manually in bios instead of auto/XMP settings, and booted to Windows to use Ryzen master for pushing I had no problems running < 40ohm ProcODT.

Recommendations however for ProcODT in 1.6.0.3 DRAM calculator is still out of recommended range for dual rank memory. Now that I confirmed <40 ohm works fine with dual rank it should be assummed it's a bug?. 
Would be nice if someone could clarify ProcODT range for Ryzen 3000 and single/dual rank memory.


----------



## NikoZBK

Does anyone else have the kit CMK16GX4M2B3200C16(MFR)? I'd like to compare OC/timings. So far I've been able to OC to 3466 with some tweaked subtimings, any higher and I get BSODs.


----------



## rul3s

I just want to report that with my B-Die kits it's imposible to make work from 3400 and upper fast settings on calculator.

KFA2 HOF DDR4 4000 BDIE, SINGLE RANK, 2x8GB --> Suposed to be cherry picked bdie with very good pcb + heatsink...maybe not?

3400Fast V1: reporting errors on TM5, no matter what I change, procODT, more vram, alt's, etc... same behavior.
3466Fast V1: not even post/boot, even with 1.45v, tried procODT from 32 to 48ohms, same behaviour.


Actually working at [email protected] 15 15 15 28 42 GDM enabled from another user and all good even at 1.357v on ram


----------



## Duvar

Guys if you wanna see how imortant RAM is, check this out https://www.computerbase.de/forum/threads/amd-ryzen-ram-oc-community.1829356/page-644#post-22968580
I am faster with a [email protected] 3.4GHz (0.89V) + tuned /subs too) 3800CL16 @ 1,36V than a max oced 2700X with fast RAM or even a not perfectly tuned 3700X!


----------



## nick name

rul3s said:


> I just want to report that with my B-Die kits it's imposible to make work from 3400 and upper fast settings on calculator.
> 
> KFA2 HOF DDR4 4000 BDIE, SINGLE RANK, 2x8GB --> Suposed to be cherry picked bdie with very good pcb + heatsink...maybe not?
> 
> 3400Fast V1: reporting errors on TM5, no matter what I change, procODT, more vram, alt's, etc... same behavior.
> 3466Fast V1: not even post/boot, even with 1.45v, tried procODT from 32 to 48ohms, same behaviour.
> 
> 
> Actually working at [email protected] 15 15 15 28 42 GDM enabled from another user and all good even at 1.357v on ram


Did you install the RAM into slots A2 and B2.


----------



## Iwamotto Tetsuz

rul3s said:


> I just want to report that with my B-Die kits it's imposible to make work from 3400 and upper fast settings on calculator.
> 
> KFA2 HOF DDR4 4000 BDIE, SINGLE RANK, 2x8GB --> Suposed to be cherry picked bdie with very good pcb + heatsink...maybe not?
> 
> 3400Fast V1: reporting errors on TM5, no matter what I change, procODT, more vram, alt's, etc... same behavior.
> 3466Fast V1: not even post/boot, even with 1.45v, tried procODT from 32 to 48ohms, same behaviour.
> 
> 
> Actually working at [email protected] 15 15 15 28 42 GDM enabled from another user and all good even at 1.357v on ram


Try dropping the voltage 1.3 to 1.33V
The ram I had requires 1.33V for max stable
1.35V becomes unstable.

Still overclocking and gonna upload photos soon.


----------



## SaccoSVD

MrPhilo said:


> Need to increase VDDG for IF. Start with 0.9v


Thank you, that really helped me understand this a bit more.

Is it having IF at my max attainable so far of 1867 a good or a bad thing? The MOBO already has VDDG at 0.9502V and the DRAM calc says max should be 0.950V

My RAM is currently running at 3000Mhz 14/15/15/15/30

In other words, is 1900 a magic number that unlocks gains and I should pursue or is it 1867 also good?


----------



## SaccoSVD

Iwamotto Tetsuz said:


> Overcloking is about the passion, not about how much you clock
> Overclocking is not about the pefromance gains, it is about the passion
> Overclocking is about the Fun, Enjoyment and Passion


To me overclocking is all that but mostly about being able to run way more audio plugins at lower latency. Is been the number one reason for us in audio production since I started back in the 90s.


----------



## Zendal

SaccoSVD said:


> To me overclocking is all that but mostly about being able to run way more audio plugins at lower latency. Is been the number one reason for us in audio production since I started back in the 90s.


 I'm on the same page


----------



## SaccoSVD

So after much fiddling with the IF. I see no real benefit.

My AIDA64 memory benchmark numbers are the same within the margin of error when having the IF coupled at 1500 or decoupled at 1867...I guess it would make more sense if I could run the IF at some insane speed, but the relatively small clock difference seems to be cancelled by the extra bit of latency of having it decoupled.

At this point I think I just extracted as much as I could from my system. With 557 ST and 8800 MT in CPUz is still impressive.


----------



## SaccoSVD

Zendal said:


> I'm on the same page




We have a Ryzen thread in the FL Studio forums.

In a test, The 3900X can load around 40 more plugin instances than a 9900K


----------



## Streetdragon

Hope someone can help me here:
My Ram + IF overclock can run stresstests like ram test karhu and ycrunch all day, but when i play GTA5 a bit i get black screens and i have to manuell reboot my rig.
Could the ram still be unstable or something else?

I know that the GPUs are stable and the CPU is at stock(Auto)


----------



## rul3s

nick name said:


> Did you install the RAM into slots A2 and B2.


Yes!



Iwamotto Tetsuz said:


> Try dropping the voltage 1.3 to 1.33V
> The ram I had requires 1.33V for max stable
> 1.35V becomes unstable.
> 
> Still overclocking and gonna upload photos soon.


But there are some strange thing because with [email protected] (14-14-14-28-42) with normal 1.375 I have TM5 errors, but with 1.395 works perfectly, all tests passed.
But with [email protected], that it's exactly the same timming as 3333, I just cant make it stable, at 15-20 seconds from starting it throws errors.


Then, actually I'm going as fast as [email protected] with tight subtimmings (from another user) and only with 1.35v, there's some strange behaviour here that I can't see.




SaccoSVD said:


> We have a Ryzen thread in the FL Studio forums.
> 
> In a test, The 3900X can load around 40 more plugin instances than a 9900K


Wow! That's very nice to hear


----------



## rul3s

How y-cruncher works to test IF/vsoc? Does it shows error or it just reboots the computer on error? From the tests that I've done I never saw any error, just computer hanged and rebooted if not enought vSoc.... is this OK?


----------



## lordzed83

rul3s said:


> How y-cruncher works to test IF/vsoc? Does it shows error or it just reboots the computer on error? From the tests that I've done I never saw any error, just computer hanged and rebooted if not enought vSoc.... is this OK?


Yup. Hang/reboot is START then You move to getting Error than You move to get pass. Happy pumping extra volts to get pass


----------



## rul3s

lordzed83 said:


> Yup. Hang/reboot is START then You move to getting Error than You move to get pass. Happy pumping extra volts to get pass


So I'm doing anyhting wrong because I only get PASS or HANG, nothing else...the correct way is:
0 benchmark, 1 multithread, 7 11GB, start, yes?

What I get is a score going between 121 and 123 seconds....

Maybe Ryzen 3000 error correction doing something here?


----------



## Iwamotto Tetsuz

I suspect your ram timings aren't quite right.
I managed to stablize my ram by having everything perfect. 

I left two secondary settings on the auto and always errors.
I had to dig deep into every single pimary secondary setting and this made massive stabliilty diffrence. 
Having 90% of the secondary timings perfect but the 10% on AUTO dosen't work.

Now rock solid stable 
https://valid.x86.fr/ddcy96

Too late for me to post any more but I may get 3400 3600
Also I might talk about benchmarks results. 
Long story short for now


----------



## lordzed83

rul3s said:


> So I'm doing anyhting wrong because I only get PASS or HANG, nothing else...the correct way is:
> 0 benchmark, 1 multithread, 7 11GB, start, yes?
> 
> What I get is a score going between 121 and 123 seconds....
> 
> Maybe Ryzen 3000 error correction doing something here?


Interesting i never had HANG only instant reboot or error. But taht can be due to windows and motherboard. So i would not worry about it 
What motherboard are You on ?? Its how my system behves with Crosshair VII and blck oc.


----------



## lordzed83

Iwamotto Tetsuz said:


> I suspect your ram timings aren't quite right.
> I managed to stablize my ram by having everything perfect.
> 
> I left two secondary settings on the auto and always errors.
> I had to dig deep into every single pimary secondary setting and this made massive stabliilty diffrence.
> Having 90% of the secondary timings perfect but the 10% on AUTO dosen't work.
> 
> Now rock solid stable
> https://valid.x86.fr/ddcy96
> 
> Too late for me to post any more but I may get 3400 3600
> Also I might talk about benchmarks results.
> Long story short for now


From where do I know the wallpaper ??


----------



## KenjiS

So, I sadly had to dial down my ram from 3600 CL 16 to 3400 CL16.. I could not get my system to be really stable at 3600, even at 1.45v on the DRAM

Is it worth pulling my hair out on trying to push to 3600 with looser timings, or am i better off at 3400 with better timings


----------



## GTxFinish

If we have to add additional voltage to VDDG, doesn't that take away available power from cores as we're working within the limits of package power? Could that be why 1usmus made the offhand comment that "its not really worth going above 3533CL14"? I'd like to try and find some data around 1900FCLK and more VDDG vs 1867FCLK or 1800FCLK and lower / standard VDDG.

I would think with a large enough difference, IF would start consuming enough package power to reduce boost clocks on the cores a bit (probably 25mhz) with stock PPT.


----------



## Iwamotto Tetsuz

KenjiS said:


> So, I sadly had to dial down my ram from 3600 CL 16 to 3400 CL16.. I could not get my system to be really stable at 3600, even at 1.45v on the DRAM
> 
> Is it worth pulling my hair out on trying to push to 3600 with looser timings, or am i better off at 3400 with better timings


My benchmark results saw that, unless your ram is unstable.
Otherwise higher MHZ with loser timings have lower lattency and is faster.

I already spent 6-12hours trying to learn the full memory timings so I can clock higher. 
Not easy

Higher voltage is not always better can casue unstalbe, stick with 1.35V first, run mem test see how often the errors pop up.
Increace or decreace the vortage and observe the frequency of error pop up.

I might do acomparsioson to calculator specs 3266 to see if mine or the calculator is better 
But still overlcocking


----------



## seniorfallrisk

I'm not gonna lie, I've had the 1700 + C6H since not too long after Ryzen 1st gen release and started using this tool a little bit after my purchase, and never once have I gotten a semi-decent, clean, or stable overclock on any ram I've tried this on (Samsung E-die and Hynix AFR).. It's so depressing when damn near everyone else can OC even their AFR kits but my setup is probably the biggest dud on the planet. (1700 that can't go past 3.8ghz without going 1.4v+, crap AFR, horrible OC'ing Strix 56)


----------



## KenjiS

Iwamotto Tetsuz said:


> My benchmark results saw that, unless your ram is unstable.
> Otherwise higher MHZ with loser timings have lower lattency and is faster.
> 
> I already spent 6-12hours trying to learn the full memory timings so I can clock higher.
> Not easy
> 
> Higher voltage is not always better can casue unstalbe, stick with 1.35V first, run mem test see how often the errors pop up.
> Increace or decreace the vortage and observe the frequency of error pop up.
> 
> I might do acomparsioson to calculator specs 3266 to see if mine or the calculator is better
> But still overlcocking



Didnt even need to run memtest, 3600 wasnt stable when stressed in OCCT, I was having some oddball stability issues before then and just finally found OCCT would force it to crash nice and fast, So i kept on playing with it until i got OCCT to -not- crash. Started at 1.35, it wouldnt get into windows at 1.35, 1.375 was needed to get into windows, then i kept slowly raising voltage trying to bring stability till i hit 1.45 and called it because Im not comfortable going higher

I will try shooting for 3600 C17 at least over the weekend maybe. Im honestly not the best overclocker around


----------



## Dphotog

Quick question is VDDCR soc voltage part of the Ram? or is it bound to ram and cpu I wanted to increase mine since it probably is at auto stuck at 1.1. Ive had a couple of instances where my Bios resets even though my stress tests work out fine with my Ram. I dont know what else I can do to try and keep my bios from resetting so I dont have to keep loading the profile back to get back my 3800mhz 1:1. Im not sure if upping VDDCR would help solve this issue but its kind of getting annoying if I have to keep doing this every so often. I just want to keep my 3800 1:1 Lol


----------



## flyinion

Guys what the <insert string of foul language here> am I doing wrong with this thing? I tried entering values for my Trident Neo which seems to by Hynix MFR dual rank 2 dimms. First I got not supported on the v1 and v2 and then I exited and started it up again and now no matter what options I choose I get "enter the value" error and I've entered stuff in all the fields that will accept input.


----------



## rul3s

lordzed83 said:


> Interesting i never had HANG only instant reboot or error. But taht can be due to windows and motherboard. So i would not worry about it
> What motherboard are You on ?? Its how my system behves with Crosshair VII and blck oc.


Sorry, when I mean HANG i would say instant reboot yes jejeje. With Ryzen 3000 are you seeing errors? How do you pass y-cruncher? Benchmark 0-1-7? Or stability test?
My computer is the on on my signature,, 3700x + Asus x470 Strix F agesa 1.0.0.3ab



KenjiS said:


> So, I sadly had to dial down my ram from 3600 CL 16 to 3400 CL16.. I could not get my system to be really stable at 3600, even at 1.45v on the DRAM
> 
> Is it worth pulling my hair out on trying to push to 3600 with looser timings, or am i better off at 3400 with better timings


If you are on BDie try this profile (ryzen master config)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qdRQwV_9vHz1iVMKQ4FvM88G-Uy4xut5/view?usp=sharing


----------



## lordzed83

GTxFinish said:


> If we have to add additional voltage to VDDG, doesn't that take away available power from cores as we're working within the limits of package power? Could that be why 1usmus made the offhand comment that "its not really worth going above 3533CL14"? I'd like to try and find some data around 1900FCLK and more VDDG vs 1867FCLK or 1800FCLK and lower / standard VDDG.
> 
> I would think with a large enough difference, IF would start consuming enough package power to reduce boost clocks on the cores a bit (probably 25mhz) with stock PPT.


No cause that is powered from SOC VRM not cpu core VRM


----------



## lordzed83

Dphotog said:


> Quick question is VDDCR soc voltage part of the Ram? or is it bound to ram and cpu I wanted to increase mine since it probably is at auto stuck at 1.1. Ive had a couple of instances where my Bios resets even though my stress tests work out fine with my Ram. I dont know what else I can do to try and keep my bios from resetting so I dont have to keep loading the profile back to get back my 3800mhz 1:1. Im not sure if upping VDDCR would help solve this issue but its kind of getting annoying if I have to keep doing this every so often. I just want to keep my 3800 1:1 Lol


Not part of ram but volatage for IMC


----------



## Dphotog

Thanks I think upping to 1.51v may have fixed it. Will see. I do shutdown my computer alot when im not using it 
Trying to retain that 3800 1:1 62.8 ns  since i paid so much for b-die quality sticks



lordzed83 said:


> Not part of ram but volatage for IMC


----------



## xeizo

I've gone the other way with VDIMM, now 1.35V in bios 1.33V under full load(RDC Membench). Keeps temps down, does well without a extra fan for the RAM.

3800MHz - 1900 fclk - 1900 IF - 16-16-16-16-30-42-1T, trfc 298, ProcODT 36.9, 56GB/s R/C with Geardown enabled(adds stability), 64.5ns latency, 110 in RDC Membench benchmark using auto OC(pretty steady at 4270MHz during a run), in short, all good.

But I will put a fan for the mem, just have to figure how to do it nice, the vertical bar in my NZXT H700 could be useful using stripes.


----------



## chakku

xeizo said:


> I've gone the other way with VDIMM, now 1.35V in bios 1.33V under full load(RDC Membench). Keeps temps down, does well without a extra fan for the RAM.
> 
> 3800MHz - 1900 fclk - 1900 IF - 16-16-16-16-30-42-1T, trfc 298, ProcODT 36.9, 56GB/s R/C with Geardown enabled(adds stability), 64.5ns latency, 110 in RDC Membench benchmark using auto OC(pretty steady at 4270MHz during a run), in short, all good.
> 
> But I will put a fan for the mem, just have to figure how to do it nice, the vertical bar in my NZXT H700 could be useful using stripes.


Are you able to post a BIOS profile dump? Probably unlikely I'll be able to get the same timings working but may be worth a shot.. If this doesn't I think 100% my CPU can't do 1900 FCLK (or UCLK).


----------



## flyinion

flyinion said:


> Guys what the <insert string of foul language here> am I doing wrong with this thing? I tried entering values for my Trident Neo which seems to by Hynix MFR dual rank 2 dimms. First I got not supported on the v1 and v2 and then I exited and started it up again and now no matter what options I choose I get "enter the value" error and I've entered stuff in all the fields that will accept input.


Is there a "guide for morons" somewhere for this thing? Still can't get it to work. Followed the instructions on the guide page and it's still not working. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Spectre73

xeizo said:


> I've gone the other way with VDIMM, now 1.35V in bios 1.33V under full load(RDC Membench). Keeps temps down, does well without a extra fan for the RAM.
> 
> 3800MHz - 1900 fclk - 1900 IF - 16-16-16-16-30-42-1T, trfc 298, ProcODT 36.9, 56GB/s R/C with Geardown enabled(adds stability), 64.5ns latency, 110 in RDC Membench benchmark using auto OC(pretty steady at 4270MHz during a run), in short, all good.
> 
> But I will put a fan for the mem, just have to figure how to do it nice, the vertical bar in my NZXT H700 could be useful using stripes.


Impressive. Is ProcODT a large contributor to stability for you? Because DR sticks are not advertised for low ProcODT settings in Dram calc. Does it add stability where with higer values, it was unstable?


----------



## Boxman

Often I see great disparity between users in Write bandwidth. There seem to be two camps:

30.000'ish MB/s
50.000'ish MB/s

Where does this discrepancy come from? Is it related to single rank vs dual rank, or 2 dimms vs 4 dimms?


----------



## umeng2002

Boxman said:


> Often I see great disparity between users in Write bandwidth. There seem to be two camps:
> 
> 30.000'ish MB/s
> 50.000'ish MB/s
> 
> Where does this discrepancy come from? Is it related to single rank vs dual rank, or 2 dimms vs 4 dimms?


Zen 2 CPUs with only one chiplet have HALF the write bandwidth as two chiplet CPUs. So a 3800x and under.


----------



## Hequaqua

Boxman said:


> Often I see great disparity between users in Write bandwidth. There seem to be two camps:
> 
> 30.000'ish MB/s
> 50.000'ish MB/s
> 
> Where does this discrepancy come from? Is it related to single rank vs dual rank, or 2 dimms vs 4 dimms?


On the lower 3000 series the writes are lower due to the CCD's or something, can't remember off the top of my. There are only one on the lower series....the 3900X has two.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-3700x-low-ram-write-speed-conundrum.2567215/


----------



## Boxman

Thanks guys, I won't pretend I understand exactly why that is but 2x CCD -> more write sounds logical enough for me to accept. 

Edit// Just read the link, seems to be a design choice on the I/O for multichiplet cpu's. Thanks!


----------



## nick name

Boxman said:


> Thanks guys, I won't pretend I understand exactly why that is but 2x CCD -> more write sounds logical enough for me to accept.
> 
> Edit// Just read the link, seems to be a design choice on the I/O for multichiplet cpu's. Thanks!


The Read and Write used to both have 32 bit channels, but now it's only the Read with 32 bit and the Write is 16 bit. Those with 2 CCDs have two 16 bit channels which gets them back to the 32 bit that the Read is.


----------



## pktmjp

I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I have the 3200 fast timings exactly as the calculator states, but when I run the MemTest, I am 120 seconds off the "Best Time" for 3200? I am at a loss here. The only thing I can think of is that the Best Time score doesn't scale based on memory amount (I have 32gb in a 4x8 quad channel config). I am happy that it seems stable though.

TR 1920x - All Core at 4.0 @1.325v
Gskill Hynix AFR - F4-3200C16-8GTZR memory

Any ideas?


----------



## Duvar

Glory Power of tuned/undervolted RAM 
CPU TEMP<39°C GPU TEMP MAX 46°C with SILENT FANS @ 1440p Ultra!






Please read video description.


----------



## RaGran

Is there a reason the calculator recommends disabling bank group switching? I'm getting clearly better performance with having it enabled.


----------



## GTxFinish

Hey, so which is ultimately better? 3600cl14 or 3800cl16, both with tight timings?

The true latency of 3800c16 is slower than 3600c14, and yet AIDA shows that I have improved latency (64ns vs 66ns). 

I suppose this means running a 1900mhz FCLK is worth it. Just looking for confirmation.


----------



## Streetdragon

I would say yes^^

SOC 1.15V lLC high.
VDDG 0.9
VDDP auto
vdimm 1.45V

Im done for now

Last time i had problems was because of a failes windows 10. Now its running super smooth


----------



## xeizo

With B-die, RAM temp seems to be the most stabilizing factor. Above 40C Vdimm temp, it is not as stable at extreme memory settings. Above 45C it is really unstable.


----------



## alefim

Duvar said:


> Glory Power of tuned/undervolted RAM
> CPU TEMP<39°C GPU TEMP MAX 46°C with SILENT FANS @ 1440p Ultra!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIHhldg9a9Y
> 
> Please read video description.



How did you put Riva Turner in this game?


----------



## Saiger0

GTxFinish said:


> Hey, so which is ultimately better? 3600cl14 or 3800cl16, both with tight timings?
> 
> The true latency of 3800c16 is slower than 3600c14, and yet AIDA shows that I have improved latency (64ns vs 66ns).
> 
> I suppose this means running a 1900mhz FCLK is worth it. Just looking for confirmation.


For me 3600cl16 ist slightly better than 3600cl14 in games. I guess thats only because of the infinity fabric frequency jump.


----------



## Iwamotto Tetsuz

I'm very bussy with work, getting back to you guys when I have the time.


----------



## RossiOCUK

4 DIMM Ryzen 3000 series users, chime in! What voltages and settings are you using to push them? 

With my 4x8GB G.Skill F4-4000C18-8GTZSW I'm currently at:

3600MHz 1:1 FCLK
16,16,16,36,54,1T
2nd's all lightly tuned
Geardown mode enabled 

DRAM: 1.4v
DRAM Boot: 1.4v
SOC: 1.05v
VDDG: 0.985v
VDDP: 0.950v
ProcODT: 36.9
CAD Bus: 24,24,24,24

Any If I disable GDM or tighten primary's I get a boot failure, regardless of DRAM voltage.


----------



## lordzed83

RaGran said:


> Is there a reason the calculator recommends disabling bank group switching? I'm getting clearly better performance with having it enabled.


You checked only benchmarks or some games ??


----------



## MrPhilo

RaGran said:


> Is there a reason the calculator recommends disabling bank group switching? I'm getting clearly better performance with having it enabled.


During first Ryzen having it enabled you had better benchmark scores. But disabled you actually get better performance in games.. no idea if it's still the same for Zen 2.


----------



## wisepds

xeizo said:


> With B-die, RAM temp seems to be the most stabilizing factor. Above 40C Vdimm temp, it is not as stable at extreme memory settings. Above 45C it is really unstable.


Are you sure about this? Where do you extract that information? It's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## xeizo

wisepds said:


> Are you sure about this? Where do you extract that information? It's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.


My own testing, by keeping ram temp below 40C Membench in latest RDC can run virtually forever. Up to 45C there will be faults after several minutes up to an hour. Above 45C the faults starts after just a couple of minutes. 

That is at 3800 mem / 1900 IF 

I have dual rank 16GB sticks which looks to be a lot more hot than single rank sticks.


----------



## mongoled

xeizo said:


> My own testing, by keeping ram temp below 40C Membench in latest RDC can run virtually forever. Up to 45C there will be faults after several minutes up to an hour. Above 45C the faults starts after just a couple of minutes.
> 
> That is at 3800 mem / 1900 IF
> 
> I have dual rank 16GB sticks which looks to be a lot more hot than single rank sticks.


That sounds better, my modules (single sided) have no issues running at 48C - 50C.


----------



## buyology

Hi, i tried to set 3200 Fast with 1.42v option for my setup ( Hynix afr - 3700x - C6H ) but the result didn't change with my old dram settings which is [email protected]@1.315v


Did i something wrong?


----------



## lordzed83

wisepds said:


> Are you sure about this? Where do you extract that information? It's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.


Mate we found this back on Zen1 3 years ago. You think why all of us that use above 1.4 on DDR use FAN for ram and calculator on extreme preset says yo use fan ??  @1usmus can confirm as he did proper scientific testing of temperature of ddr impact on errors and stability. in general if i remember good You want sub 40c on the kit.


----------



## xeizo

lordzed83 said:


> Mate we found this back on Zen1 3 years ago. You think why all of us that use above 1.4 on DDR use FAN for ram and calculator on extreme preset says yo use fan ??
> @1usmus can confirm as he did proper scientific testing of temperature of ddr impact on errors and stability. in general if i remember good You want sub 40c on the kit.


I completely agreee! While 45-50C may be semi-stable like in Windows and most games it doesn't survive Membench for extended periods of time, at least not with agressive timings/subtimings. Keep the RAM cool and they just run and run 
If you're doing video editing or rendering, or large scientific calculations, this can be very important.


----------



## lordzed83

xeizo said:


> I completely agreee! While 45-50C may be semi-stable like in Windows and most games it doesn't survive Membench for extended periods of time, at least not with agressive timings/subtimings. Keep the RAM cool and they just run and run
> If you're doing video editing or rendering, or large scientific calculations, this can be very important.


It's not like 120mm quiet fan costs a fortune more like 10 maybe 15 bucks for nice RGB one


----------



## Hequaqua

lordzed83 said:


> It's not like 120mm quiet fan costs a fortune more like 10 maybe 15 bucks for nice RGB one


I have a little 60mm Noiseblocker fan on mine....keeps them nice and cool, and silent(not that fan noise bothers me)...lol


----------



## lordzed83

Hequaqua said:


> I have a little 60mm Noiseblocker fan on mine....keeps them nice and cool, and silent(not that fan noise bothers me)...lol


I was thinking about this 'premium' ram fan from aliexpress 
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/327...chweb0_0,searchweb201602_9,searchweb201603_52

Or Gskill one
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/G-Skill-...009705?hash=item257c9638e9:g:4bMAAOSw5dNWpzW-


----------



## MrPhilo

xeizo said:


> I completely agreee! While 45-50C may be semi-stable like in Windows and most games it doesn't survive Membench for extended periods of time, at least not with agressive timings/subtimings. Keep the RAM cool and they just run and run
> If you're doing video editing or rendering, or large scientific calculations, this can be very important.


When you say extended period of time, how long do you actually mean?

I've had no problem with mine running around 50c after at least 2-4 hours memtest pro. This was done on 4 different days, with 12gb getting stressed
I assume some ram can tolerate high tempertures.


----------



## lordzed83

MrPhilo said:


> When you say extended period of time, how long do you actually mean?
> 
> I've had no problem with mine running around 50c after at least 2-4 hours memtest pro. This was done on 4 different days, with 12gb getting stressed
> I assume some ram can tolerate high tempertures.


are You running 1.45 volts with cl14 timings ??


----------



## flyinion

flyinion said:


> Is there a "guide for morons" somewhere for this thing? Still can't get it to work. Followed the instructions on the guide page and it's still not working. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Eh guess I'm out of luck and maybe it needs some updates or just doesn't support Hynix modules or something. I managed to use manual mode and input what I think were all the correct values from Ryzen Master and instead of errors or "input the value" it just said "not supported". I give up.


----------



## MrPhilo

lordzed83 said:


> are You running 1.45 volts with cl14 timings ??


Nah, my subtimings are pretty tight, I have a few tight primary timing too. You can see in my signature for my timings.


----------



## Hequaqua

lordzed83 said:


> I was thinking about this 'premium' ram fan from aliexpress
> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/327...chweb0_0,searchweb201602_9,searchweb201603_52
> 
> Or Gskill one
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/G-Skill-...009705?hash=item257c9638e9:g:4bMAAOSw5dNWpzW-


I'm sure those would work....I just had my little one attached with some double side velco on top of my gpu....lol 

ATM, I'm not really needing it. I mounted my GT's as intake, moved my radiator to the front of my case. Those two GT's give me nice air movement across the ram and vrm on my board.


----------



## xeizo

MrPhilo said:


> I assume some ram can tolerate high tempertures.


Probably, the makers of RAM-sticks changes the actual chips inside like others are changing pants. For the same part number. Two different sets of the same type can definetely have different performance, that's why it's recommended buying matched sets.

I also have two different sets of Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000c15, exakt same part number but different revision number, one is single rank the other is dual and they are made on different nodes. Virtually totally different memory, but still same part number.


----------



## xeizo

Ghetto modded som rudimentary memory cooling by a extra 140mm, not too obstrusive looks- and soundwise.


----------



## Hequaqua

xeizo said:


> Ghetto modded som rudimentary memory cooling by a extra 140mm, not too obstrusive looks- and soundwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Gotta do what ya gotta do! :thumb:


----------



## lordzed83

@xeizo This looks good.


----------



## JesseKazam

Hey everyone! I am relatively new to Memory tweaking. I have Hynix CJR memory and in the DRAM calculator when I click calculate fast it just pops up an error and say "not supported" anyone know why? Thanks!


----------



## Filters83

MrPhilo said:


> When you say extended period of time, how long do you actually mean?
> 
> I've had no problem with mine running around 50c after at least 2-4 hours memtest pro. This was done on 4 different days, with 12gb getting stressed
> I assume some ram can tolerate high tempertures.


My gskill 3200cl14 run at 48/50 aswell under load no problem
Atm running 3533 cl 14 on my 2600x at 1.43 volt 

Just to be sure i ordered a noctua fan 40x10 to put close just cause i have 2 radiator inside my case and ofc did air movement but its hot


----------



## ajc9988

lordzed83 said:


> I was thinking about this 'premium' ram fan from aliexpress
> 
> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/327...chweb0_0,searchweb201602_9,searchweb201603_52
> 
> 
> 
> Or Gskill one
> 
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/G-Skill-...009705?hash=item257c9638e9:g:4bMAAOSw5dNWpzW-


Don't get that G.skill one. The CFM is low, like 8CFM.

I have two of the corsair dominator fans that push like 24CFM with my Threadripper.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Corsair-Do...254297255883?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10

This is a 21.2CFM fan. The versions I have are older, no silver coming up and across, and no RGB. You can search for the older model if you like. But each fan pushes like 10CFM and I like the build quality.

That AliExpress one looks interesting.


----------



## NicolasTMills

hi guys, i dont boot with memory 3800mhz and nb 1900, bios or ryzen master, nothing
my config 
b450i
ryzen 5 3600
memory corsair rgb pro 3200mhz hynix cjr 

Is there another program to manually place the nb?


----------



## flyinion

JesseKazam said:


> Hey everyone! I am relatively new to Memory tweaking. I have Hynix CJR memory and in the DRAM calculator when I click calculate fast it just pops up an error and say "not supported" anyone know why? Thanks!


Wish I could help, I'm having the same kinds of problems with some new Trident Z Neo that has Hynix MFR (think that's right, M something) and it's been crickets in here the couple times I asked for pointers. Maybe you'll have better luck. I gave up for now. Seems like the new version doesn't have all the data loaded in it yet.


----------



## GeneralHARM

*So Close*

I feel like i'm super close to having this stable, i can post bios, boot to windows, complete AIDA 64 bench, post this message without crashing, but when i run MEMbench in DRAM calc i get a few errors. Any tuning adjustments to get this error free would be AMAZING.


----------



## GeneralHARM

@NicolasTMills

i think getting 3800/1900 is pure silicon lottery, i've been trying to get that with my 3900x and Gigabyte X570 Ultra with the same results as you, cant even get back to bios and have to clear CMOS. I am atm posting this message on 3733/1866. but when i MEMbench i get errors.


----------



## NicolasTMills

now using 3733/ 1866 1.42v in hynix CJR.. for now is stable (thanks 1usmus, your post )  #4897


----------



## CaptnJones

Does anyone here have the Corsair LPX Vengeance 3600 c18 memory (CMK16GX4M2B3600C18)?
I tried all sorts of settings but it fails the membench and aida stability test every time. Tried both the safest and performance
Thaiphoon shows it's Samsung b-die - aren't these supposed to be really good?


----------



## LicSqualo

CaptnJones said:


> Does anyone here have the Corsair LPX Vengeance 3600 c18 memory (CMK16GX4M2B3600C18)?
> I tried all sorts of settings but it fails the membench and aida stability test every time. Tried both the safest and performance
> Thaiphoon shows it's Samsung b-die - aren't these supposed to be really good?


Looking to the CAS isn't a b-die "really good" but is a common b-die. 
You can try to use the V2 option (Profile Options) with more relaxed timings.

Just for your knowledge: 3600c15 or 3600c16 are the "really good" b-die chip.


----------



## CaptnJones

Also noticed my audio is crackling and im using an XMP profile


----------



## -Grift-

LicSqualo said:


> Looking to the CAS isn't a b-die "really good" but is a common b-die.
> You can try to use the V2 option (Profile Options) with more relaxed timings.
> 
> Just for your knowledge: 3600c15 or 3600c16 are the "really good" b-die chip.


Might be CJR as well


----------



## Spectre73

GeneralHARM said:


> I feel like i'm super close to having this stable, i can post bios, boot to windows, complete AIDA 64 bench, post this message without crashing, but when i run MEMbench in DRAM calc i get a few errors. Any tuning adjustments to get this error free would be AMAZING.


You are on very tight timings IMHO. So there are many things you could relax, obviously. 

I would start with enabling gear down mode. That could already fix it. Other than that, at these speeds, relaxing tRFC could also help.


----------



## aiphoenix

I'm getting a 32 GB set of Ballistix Sport LT, and I intend to overclock (Ryzen 3800X/X570). Is there a difference between 3000/CL15 and 3200/CL16? is there a recommended one that might be a little higher binned of the two?


----------



## Roboyto

*EVGA SC 2400 - What kind of Hynix RAM is this?*

EVGA SC 2400 2x8GB

Part Number	16G-D4-2400-MR
Manufacturer	Hynix
Part Number	H5AN8G8N??R-TFC
JEDEC DIMM Label	8GB 1Rx8 PC4-2133-UA1-11

Obviously this is Hynix and it is single rank, but that is about all I can decipher from the information given in RAMMon or Thaipoon.

Trying to use the DRAM Calculator to OC this stuff, but don't know which memory type to choose. 

RAM is obviously super cheap right now, but I would rather give a shot at free performance from this kit I bought back during the mining boom when it was crazy expensive. 

Screenshots of info from Thaipoon are attached.


----------



## Wickedtme

GeneralHARM said:


> @NicolasTMills
> 
> i think getting 3800/1900 is pure silicon lottery, i've been trying to get that with my 3900x and Gigabyte X570 Ultra with the same results as you, cant even get back to bios and have to clear CMOS. I am atm posting this message on 3733/1866. but when i MEMbench i get errors.


I started with the built in profiles for xmp on my Asrock Taichi X570, chose the gskill 4200mhz, then kept those timings and voltages, changed only 4200mhz to 3800 mhz and booted, all worked perfect, then i ran ryzen Dram calcullator for the same geskill ram at 4200mhz, but fast timings, used those numbers, tested again and all was perfect, now im here and very happy. I was able to get dram voltage down to 1.38









Hope that helps to get you started.


----------



## ku4eto

CaptnJones said:


> Does anyone here have the Corsair LPX Vengeance 3600 c18 memory (CMK16GX4M2B3600C18)?
> I tried all sorts of settings but it fails the membench and aida stability test every time. Tried both the safest and performance
> Thaiphoon shows it's Samsung b-die - aren't these supposed to be really good?


I am with the 3200Mhz kit.

They cant take any tighter timings, they are in fact already on their limit.

I couldnt do anything with both V1 and V2. I would suggest you to use SoC 1.1V and use just the XMP profile.


----------



## MrPhilo

Is this calculation still valid for *tRAS?* Only asking cos the DRAM Calc doesn't always follow it or has lower. I knew how to calc tRC but didn't know about tRAS



> Next are the primary timings (tCL, tRCD, tRP).
> 
> Start with tCL and drop that by 1 until you get instability.
> Do the same with tRCD and tRP.
> After the above timings are as tight as they can go, set *tRAS = tCL + tRCD(RD) + 2 * and tRC = tRP + tRAS.
> Setting tRAS lower than this can incur a performance penalty.
> tRC is only available on AMD and some Intel UEFIs.





> tRAS is the minimum time the row should be active. The row needs to be active for the entire duration it takes to perform tRCD, CAS and tRTP. Any lower and the chipset has to apply the minimum value arbitrarily - there may be an additional penalty for the collision as well.
> So while it may look nice in screenshots to set tRAS to some low value (below the min threshold) in reality it is not helping and may be worse than setting the correct minimum value instead on relying on the IMC to correct the timing issue.


----------



## lordzed83

I came up with a game  Sub 63ns latency aida trophy


----------



## MrPhilo

lordzed83 said:


> I came up with a game  Sub 63ns latency aida trophy


Welcome to the party


----------



## lordzed83

MrPhilo said:


> Welcome to the party


been in the club for 2 weeks. This is 4th retune look on my copy speed

One 4 you then


----------



## Wickedtme

lordzed83 said:


> been in the club for 2 weeks. This is 4th retune look on my copy speed
> 
> One 4 you then


How am i going to shave off 4.2 ns, dangit. Using gskill flare x [email protected]


----------



## Hequaqua

OK...guys, and gals if any are present....here is what I've gotten so far:









Now where do I go?

I can't change the IF speed...highest my bios shows is 1800mhz. 

I'm using the Fast timings from the calc(for 4000mhz)....everything else is on Auto(voltage/ProdOCT/etc). I did change the tRFC from like 360 to 312 in the bios, RM doesn't seem to show it...or I didn't actually set it. I know my numbers went up and latency down a hair though. This is all at 1.38v on the ram, haven't stressed to see if it's stable...but so far so good.

Update:
Of course the difference between my ram speed 4000(2000mhz) and the IF(1800mhz) caused massive errors when benching. I kept the same timings and lowered the ram to 1800(3600mhz), passed 5 cycles of TM5 and the quick MemTest in the calculator. I also tried changing the IF speed in RM. I tried 2000, no boot....tried 1833...no boot. I guess from here, it will be to trying to get the timings a bit tighter.


----------



## ddabble

*Hynix AFR Dual Rank 3200 CL16*

Hi, kinda my first post (i posted in the wrong thread and "deleted" it  )

First off, huge thanks to 1usmus for sharing his work/time with us, also thanks for introducing me to "Phon.o - ***ushima" 

Secondly, you guys are great for sharing all your results/knowledge here, its been helpful for a noob like me trying to get my head around this stuff. Especially some of Veii's posts too, i found the information to be useful

So here's a screenshot of what where I've managed to get so far (_with less than 2 errors_) 









I'm wandering if anyone has had success with getting their Hynix AFR DR kits on/or passed 3200mhz and stabilising them on 1st gen Ryzen. I can get 3200 on 16-18-18-18-36-54 but thats giving me around 2-6 errors.

The max i've managed to get out of these sticks is 3400, but i can't stabilise them to save my life... I'll post again later on tonight or tomorrow with some screenshots and a few questions.


----------



## VPII

@1usmus thank you for this great application. I just want to confirm something... The moment I run the bench it automatically select 18000mb and 360% for task scope.... why is that and is there a way to change this? Just to add a screenshot. I see the last run it selected 9000 memory.


----------



## Spectre73

ddabble said:


> Hi, kinda my first post (i posted in the wrong thread and "deleted" it  )
> 
> First off, huge thanks to 1usmus for sharing his work/time with us, also thanks for introducing me to "Phon.o - ***ushima"
> 
> Secondly, you guys are great for sharing all your results/knowledge here, its been helpful for a noob like me trying to get my head around this stuff. Especially some of Veii's posts too, i found the information to be useful
> 
> So here's a screenshot of what where I've managed to get so far (_with less than 2 errors_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wandering if anyone has had success with getting their Hynix AFR DR kits on/or passed 3200mhz and stabilising them on 1st gen Ryzen. I can get 3200 on 16-18-18-18-36-54 but thats giving me around 2-6 errors.
> 
> The max i've managed to get out of these sticks is 3400, but i can't stabilise them to save my life... I'll post again later on tonight or tomorrow with some screenshots and a few questions.


Ryzen 1st gen is incredibly picky and quite unstable with DR Ram at high frequencies.

I noticed that your SCL values (at 2) are probably a no go. Increase them first to aroud 5 and see, how it goes. tWR is also probably far to tight. Try 24.

ProcODT should probably lowered to at least 60, maybe 53.3 ohm. But that worked for my b-die. I have no experience with AFR.


----------



## lordzed83

Steve from Hardware Unboxed made very nice How 2 video


----------



## Jackalito

lordzed83 said:


> Steve from Hardware Unboxed made very nice How 2 video
> 
> https://youtu.be/KOqhyVNPhaM



Thanks for sharing, lordzed83! +rep! :thumb:


----------



## bmcsmartin77

Any idea why i get all the time error?
Details:
Ryzen gen
Micron D-die
V1
2
3000
100
2
B350

Errors:
See the end of this message for details on invoking 
just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.

************** Exception Text **************
System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
at System.Number.StringToNumber(String str, NumberStyles options, NumberBuffer& number, NumberFormatInfo info, Boolean parseDecimal)
at System.Number.ParseInt32(String s, NumberStyles style, NumberFormatInfo info)
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Advanced(Double kd1, Double kd2)
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_SAFE_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)

************** Loaded Assemblies **************
mscorlib
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3815.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework64/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll
----------------------------------------
Ryzen DRAM Calculator 1.6.0.3
Assembly Version: 1.6.0.2
Win32 Version: 1.6.0.0
CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Martin/Desktop/DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.6.0.3/Ryzen%20DRAM%20Calculator%201.6.0.3.exe
----------------------------------------
System.Windows.Forms
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3815.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
----------------------------------------
System
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3801.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_B
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Drawing
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3752.0 built by: NET48REL1
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
----------------------------------------
MetroFramework
Assembly Version: 1.2.0.3
Win32 Version: 1.2.0.3
CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Martin/Desktop/DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.6.0.3/MetroFramework.DLL
----------------------------------------
HCIMemTestController
Assembly Version: 1.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 1.0.0.0
CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Martin/Desktop/DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.6.0.3/HCIMemTestController.DLL
----------------------------------------
System.Windows.Forms.DataVisualization
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3815.0
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms.DataVisualization/v4.0_4.0.0.0__31bf3856ad364e35/System.Windows.Forms.DataVisualization.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Configuration
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3752.0 built by: NET48REL1
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Core
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3815.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Xml
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3752.0 built by: NET48REL1
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Management
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3752.0 built by: NET48REL1
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Management/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Management.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Data
Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0
Win32 Version: 4.8.3752.0 built by: NET48REL1
CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_64/System.Data/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Data.dll
----------------------------------------

************** JIT Debugging **************
To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this
application or computer (machine.config) must have the
jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section.
The application must also be compiled with debugging
enabled.

For example:

<configuration>
<system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
</configuration>

When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception
will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer
rather than be handled by this dialog box.


----------



## possessed

ddabble said:


> Hi, kinda my first post (i posted in the wrong thread and "deleted" it  )
> 
> 
> 
> First off, huge thanks to 1usmus for sharing his work/time with us, also thanks for introducing me to "Phon.o - ***ushima"
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you guys are great for sharing all your results/knowledge here, its been helpful for a noob like me trying to get my head around this stuff. Especially some of Veii's posts too, i found the information to be useful
> 
> 
> 
> So here's a screenshot of what where I've managed to get so far (_with less than 2 errors_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wandering if anyone has had success with getting their Hynix AFR DR kits on/or passed 3200mhz and stabilising them on 1st gen Ryzen. I can get 3200 on 16-18-18-18-36-54 but thats giving me around 2-6 errors.
> 
> 
> 
> The max i've managed to get out of these sticks is 3400, but i can't stabilise them to save my life... I'll post again later on tonight or tomorrow with some screenshots and a few questions.




I have a 2400g apu and some afr. It’s really been a pain because fast means better FPS but it’s been real hard to get that. Last week it seems that I finally managed to get it pretty stable, but still not rock solid since it still crashes in one or 2 3D applications, but at least I’m no longer getting image corruption on the desktop. 

So far I’m running them as 2866 with the setting from 3200 on the calculator, might try some more tweaking when I have the time.


----------



## upgraditus

Wickedtme said:


> How am i going to shave off 4.2 ns, dangit. Using gskill flare x [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Do you have Power Down Mode enabled? Something isn't right there, I get same latency with 3600 E-Die and subsequent loose timings.


----------



## aindriu80

Hi,

I'm trying the Hardware Unboxed video and overclocking my 2 X 8GB Corsair Vengeance 3200mhz (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) memory kit but I'm having a problem identifying the Memory Type in the DRAM calculator.


















What do I select in the Memory drop down list, Micron A-die or Hynix something?

I'm using an Gigabyte X370-Gaming K5 motherboard.

Thanks!


----------



## BillysManis

Hello guys!
I know i'm a little off-topic while ryzen 3000 series are hot nowadays, but i would like to know if 72,1ns latency is acceptable while using ryzen [email protected] and flarex b-dies @3333.
RAM is 1000% MEMtest stable and timings are copy-paste from DRAM Calculator.


----------



## Hequaqua

aindriu80 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying the Hardware Unboxed video and overclocking my 2 X 8GB Corsair Vengeance 3200mhz (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) memory kit but I'm having a problem identifying the Memory Type in the DRAM calculator.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do I select in the Memory drop down list, Micron A-die or Hynix something?
> 
> I'm using an Gigabyte X370-Gaming K5 motherboard.
> 
> Thanks!


That appears to be Hynix AFR to me....I could be wrong, I'm not a expert. :thumb:


----------



## deehoC

@1usmus Thanks to your wonderful Software I was able to achieve the following results.


One thing I've noticed is I can't seem to set tRDRD SCL and tWRWR SCL below 4 and I can't set Geardown Mode Disabled. Setting either of those results individually or together results in a failure to post. Pretty happy overall with the results but I'm curious if theres something I need to adjust for those previously mentioned settings to work.


----------



## aindriu80

Hequaqua said:


> That appears to be Hynix AFR to me....I could be wrong, I'm not a expert. :thumb:


I will try Hynix AFR, Thanks @Hequaqua:thumb:


----------



## usoldier

Hey guys iam running a 3800x + CH8 Mobo with a F4-3200C14D-16GTZR Kit , using this Dram awsome calculator i can run them easy at 3600, but now i want to upgrade to 32gb , do you guys think i should just buy another kit and if so will i be able to oc 4 sticks to 3600 ? Or will it be beter to buy a 2x 16gb Kit ? 

Thanks.


----------



## Ceremony64

I have a weird safe/fast recommendations with Ryzen+ gen, Samsung B-die, V1, 2-rank and 3600MT/s:
The "Safe" preset is CL14, while the Fast preset is CL16:










Also, you should really rename the processor options to Zen 1, Zen 1+, TR Zen 1, TR Zen 1+, TR 2970WX/2990WX and Zen 2.
Ryzen is not a generation step and may confuse people who bought APUs. Use the Zen name instead


----------



## chrisjames61

"User Benchmark". Do yourself a favor and watch the Gamers Nexus video on that trash.


----------



## dgoc18

Running 3800 15-15-15-36 and 65ns.


----------



## StangMan04

Anyone with the GSkill Trident F4-3600C15D-16GTZ kit able to do 3800CL14 or anything stress test stable at 3800/1900FCLK? I am waiting for my x570 gigabyte master to arrive (had to return my b450 due to PCI slot issue. I was getting 3800CL14 to boot fine but received an error when running memtest but never crashed. I was running high voltages around 1.48v, I am wondering if my kit wanted lower voltage or not. I am running a 3700x for reference.

I will test more when I get my build back but was looking for other folks with my kit for their results and settings.


----------



## nick name

StangMan04 said:


> Anyone with the GSkill Trident F4-3600C15D-16GTZ kit able to do 3800CL14 or anything stress test stable at 3800/1900FCLK? I am waiting for my x570 gigabyte master to arrive (had to return my b450 due to PCI slot issue. I was getting 3800CL14 to boot fine but received an error when running memtest but never crashed. I was running high voltages around 1.48v, I am wondering if my kit wanted lower voltage or not. I am running a 3700x for reference.
> 
> I will test more when I get my build back but was looking for other folks with my kit for their results and settings.


I wouldn't be surprised if you needed a hair more voltage. I can't compare my kit directly to yours, but I seem to need (on my 2700X system) 1.48V to run 3600CL14 tight timings. With my 3600CL15 kit.


----------



## flyinion

lordzed83 said:


> Steve from Hardware Unboxed made very nice How 2 video
> 
> https://youtu.be/KOqhyVNPhaM


Well that was a waste of 10 minutes. Just tried it, seemed very straightforward, still get "not supported". Screw it I give up.


----------



## plazing

ddabble said:


> Hi, kinda my first post (i posted in the wrong thread and "deleted" it  )
> 
> First off, huge thanks to 1usmus for sharing his work/time with us, also thanks for introducing me to "Phon.o - ***ushima"
> 
> Secondly, you guys are great for sharing all your results/knowledge here, its been helpful for a noob like me trying to get my head around this stuff. Especially some of Veii's posts too, i found the information to be useful
> 
> So here's a screenshot of what where I've managed to get so far (_with less than 2 errors_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wandering if anyone has had success with getting their Hynix AFR DR kits on/or passed 3200mhz and stabilising them on 1st gen Ryzen. I can get 3200 on 16-18-18-18-36-54 but thats giving me around 2-6 errors.
> 
> The max i've managed to get out of these sticks is 3400, but i can't stabilise them to save my life... I'll post again later on tonight or tomorrow with some screenshots and a few questions.


My previous Ryzen 5 1600 with G.Skill F4-3200C16D-32GTZRX (2R-AFR) got to the XMP timing (3200C16-18-18-38) @ 1.37v DRAM & 1.1v SOC and stable 1000% memtest. XMP voltage 1.35v spewed out error few seconds on the memtest.

Now with Ryzen 9 3900X I can get to 3466C16-19-19-40 @ 1.4v DRAM & 1.025v SOC (fast preset 2R-AFR). Not really confortable with voltage higher than that.


----------



## Hequaqua

I might be able to squeeze a tad more out of these, but for a 3466CL16 kit I'm pretty happy.

This is with the ram voltage at 1.38v. 



Spoiler




























Now for some long term testing I guess.


----------



## Sphex_

Hequaqua said:


> I might be able to squeeze a tad more out of these, but for a 3466CL16 kit I'm pretty happy.
> 
> This is with the ram voltage at 1.38v.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 288418
> 
> View attachment 288420
> 
> View attachment 288422
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now for some long term testing I guess.


I have a kit very similar to yours (F4-3466C16D-16GTZKW). You should be able to push that kit much, much further, at least in terms of frequency. I'm currently running my kit at 3600 MHz with similarly tight timings (15-16-16-16-32-48-1T), albeit at higher voltage. Helps cut down on latency a bit.


----------



## lordzed83

usoldier said:


> Hey guys iam running a 3800x + CH8 Mobo with a F4-3200C14D-16GTZR Kit , using this Dram awsome calculator i can run them easy at 3600, but now i want to upgrade to 32gb , do you guys think i should just buy another kit and if so will i be able to oc 4 sticks to 3600 ? Or will it be beter to buy a 2x 16gb Kit ?
> 
> Thanks.


Id get 2x16 myself for Crosshair VII motherboard. Depends on motherboard if it T od chain design for traces on pcb.


----------



## doggymad

I've managed to keep the XMP profile (14-14-14-34) on my GSkill TridentZ 3200C14 2x16GB but increased to 3733Mhz and IF OC'd to 1867Mhz. 1.45V. I'm pretty happy with that. I can't seem to get them to clock much higher without loosening timings quite a bit and it felt counter-productive as I couldn't get them high enough to compensate for the the looser timings.


----------



## Hequaqua

Sphex_ said:


> I have a kit very similar to yours (F4-3466C16D-16GTZKW). You should be able to push that kit much, much further, at least in terms of frequency. I'm currently running my kit at 3600 MHz with similarly tight timings (15-16-16-16-32-48-1T), albeit at higher voltage. Helps cut down on latency a bit.


I can boot with the ram set to 4000mhz with the XMP timings(If I adjust the IF speed, no boot). It seems anything above 1833 on it and I can't boot.

Just passed that RAM Test 1.0, 7000+%...no issues at all. 3666CL16 with 1.380v. SoC shows 1.031v in Windows, I think I have it set to 1.050v in the bios, maybe 1.075v. I can't remember right off. Everything else is on Auto. 

3666CL14 timings are great, until I run TM5, then it will fail about the 3rd cycle through on the same test...#10. I tried adjusting DRAM voltage and the SoC, but no luck so far. I also adjusted the procODT, if I do that...then it won't even boot with the CL14 timings. So I haven't gotten to really long test those settings. Temps are great <40°C, so it's not temps.

I might mess with it more later, atm, I'm pretty happy.


----------



## Krisztias

*Low values*

Hi Guys,

what do you think, why are the read and copy speeds so low? I dialed in everything from Calculator, seems stable too (RamTest 3x 3k), I didn't had the time to test it good. The speeds I get seems like 3200C14 read/copy speed not 3600C14... please help
Thank you.


----------



## Sphex_

Hequaqua said:


> I can boot with the ram set to 4000mhz with the XMP timings(If I adjust the IF speed, no boot). It seems anything above 1833 on it and I can't boot.
> 
> Just passed that RAM Test 1.0, 7000+%...no issues at all. 3666CL16 with 1.380v. SoC shows 1.031v in Windows, I think I have it set to 1.050v in the bios, maybe 1.075v. I can't remember right off. Everything else is on Auto.
> 
> 3666CL14 timings are great, until I run TM5, then it will fail about the 3rd cycle through on the same test...#10. I tried adjusting DRAM voltage and the SoC, but no luck so far. I also adjusted the procODT, if I do that...then it won't even boot with the CL14 timings. So I haven't gotten to really long test those settings. Temps are great <40°C, so it's not temps.
> 
> I might mess with it more later, atm, I'm pretty happy.


Very nice. You've had more luck than I. I can't even touch CL14 timings at any speed above 3200, error city. I was able to hit 15-16-16-16-32-48 timings at 3666 MHz but after updating to the latest BIOS for my board, which contained the AGESA 1003ABB update, I had to dial it back to 3600. Tried different VDDP, VDDG, and ProcODT values but to no avail. Your voltages are much better as well. I need DRAM voltage to be ~1.43V to get these speeds stable. Haven't tried toying with SOC voltage too much, just left it on Auto (1.1V). Have you found that to help at all? Seems like you may have just gotten a better set of B-Die.


----------



## Hequaqua

Sphex_ said:


> Very nice. You've had more luck than I. I can't even touch CL14 timings at any speed above 3200, error city. I was able to hit 15-16-16-16-32-48 timings at 3666 MHz but after updating to the latest BIOS for my board, which contained the AGESA 1003ABB update, I had to dial it back to 3600. Tried different VDDP, VDDG, and ProcODT values but to no avail. Your voltages are much better as well. I need DRAM voltage to be ~1.43V to get these speeds stable. Haven't tried toying with SOC voltage too much, just left it on Auto (1.1V). Have you found that to help at all? Seems like you may have just gotten a better set of B-Die.


CL14 at 3600 ran fine, but in my haste of trying to keep track of all the different settings in the bios, I erased the stable settings that I had saved. I think I saved a screen shot of them somewhere. lol

As for the SoC, at first I just started with it on Auto...then after I was sure it was stable I started dialing it back. I think it was showing 1.187v on auto. I believe I ended up with it set to 1.075v in the bios, that gave me like 1.031v in Windows.

I'm not sure what thread it was in, but I just followed what he did, then like him, I went backwards(down in speed/timings). For the most part, everything is on Auto except for the SoC and the IF speed if I run 3666.


----------



## flyinion

Any chance someone can please give me some idea of why I can't get this thing to work? I'm trying to use it with one of the new Trident Neo kits F4-3600C18D-32GTZN which Taiphoon says is Hynix MFR. When I put the values in, etc. I keep getting "not supported". I found a Reddit thread which claimed Hynix MFR can't do over 3200. Well, apparently that's not true, or Gskill put the wrong values in the SPD chip, because this kit has been running at DOCP profile at 3600 for a week now, and also passed a 4 pass Memtest86 overnight last night. Does the Calculator just need another update to add support for these new kits? I'd really like to dial in my memory stuff after seeing benchmark results in a few online reviews and how just tweaking the RAM added like 10FPS avg or more in many titles. I have no idea where to start though without having a working tool like this to guide me. The only other thing I can think to do is just start lowering the CAS timings and playing a guessing game.


----------



## Hequaqua

flyinion said:


> Any chance someone can please give me some idea of why I can't get this thing to work? I'm trying to use it with one of the new Trident Neo kits F4-3600C18D-32GTZN which Taiphoon says is Hynix MFR. When I put the values in, etc. I keep getting "not supported". I found a Reddit thread which claimed Hynix MFR can't do over 3200. Well, apparently that's not true, or Gskill put the wrong values in the SPD chip, because this kit has been running at DOCP profile at 3600 for a week now, and also passed a 4 pass Memtest86 overnight last night. Does the Calculator just need another update to add support for these new kits? I'd really like to dial in my memory stuff after seeing benchmark results in a few online reviews and how just tweaking the RAM added like 10FPS avg or more in many titles. I have no idea where to start though without having a working tool like this to guide me. The only other thing I can think to do is just start lowering the CAS timings and playing a guessing game.


I can try....

This is what I did...might work, might not:

With everything on Auto, try to boot into Windows with the highest speed that DOCP profile will allow
Take a screen shot of all the memory timings, save them to a USB or Phone(you might need to see them) 
Boot back into Windows, and with the DOCP profile still active, just change your Memory Speed, I started at 3600 so I didn't have to mess with the IF fabric settings
If it will reboot with those timings...then you can start trying to tighten them down a bit, I used a older version of the calculator to get tighter timings and didn't touch any voltages
Once I got to a good point(for me it was 3600CL14, then I started tuning the voltages a bit

The calc is just a starting point, and yea, I can understand your frustration with the "not supported", so it will be a bit of hit or miss while we wait for a newer version of the calculator.

Hope this helps....let us know how it goes...you can get there....just takes time and work. :thumb:

NOTE: Just thought about this...I am on the older Agesa code, and a X470 board. I use the built-in MemTest, then if it passes, I use TM5, 5 cycles. If that passes, then a full blown MemTest usually.

EDIT: I attached my timing's from Ryzen Master for both 3600/3666 if you want to maybe try these. My SoC on both are set to 1.075 in the bios. What is strange is at 3600 I have to change my DRAM voltage to 1.41v in the bios. For 3666, it's on Auto(I do change the IF to 1833mhz though). 



Spoiler


----------



## flyinion

Hequaqua said:


> I can try....
> 
> This is what I did...might work, might not:
> 
> With everything on Auto, try to boot into Windows with the highest speed that DOCP profile will allow
> Take a screen shot of all the memory timings, save them to a USB or Phone(you might need to see them)
> Boot back into Windows, and with the DOCP profile still active, just change your Memory Speed, I started at 3600 so I didn't have to mess with the IF fabric settings
> If it will reboot with those timings...then you can start trying to tighten them down a bit, I used a older version of the calculator to get tighter timings and didn't touch any voltages
> Once I got to a good point(for me it was 3600CL14, then I started tuning the voltages a bit
> 
> The calc is just a starting point, and yea, I can understand your frustration with the "not supported", so it will be a bit of hit or miss while we wait for a newer version of the calculator.
> 
> Hope this helps....let us know how it goes...you can get there....just takes time and work. :thumb:
> 
> NOTE: Just thought about this...I am on the older Agesa code, and a X470 board. I use the built-in MemTest, then if it passes, I use TM5, 5 cycles. If that passes, then a full blown MemTest usually.
> 
> EDIT: I attached my timing's from Ryzen Master for both 3600/3666 if you want to maybe try these. My SoC on both are set to 1.075 in the bios. What is strange is at 3600 I have to change my DRAM voltage to 1.41v in the bios. For 3666, it's on Auto(I do change the IF to 1833mhz though).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 288588
> View attachment 288590


thanks for the info. I'm not sure where you're saying to tighten the timing up? BIOS or through something like Ryzen Master? As I mentioned I'm already at 3600 on the DOCP profile and it's working great. Wasn't sure if I should start with timings like the main ones in the 18-22-22-42 list from the memory spec, or if I should try 3800 speed for example first to try and get a faster IF speed of like 1900. All those secondary timings I don't know anything about them or where to start. That's why I was hoping the calculator would function properly and I could get a starting point to then see what might work and figure out what I need to learn about. Sorry if that sounds overly noobish but as far as memory OC'ing I'm definitely new to it. Never tried it before only CPU OC'ing. Since Ryzen doesn't really respond as much to that any more vs the older Intel stuff I'm used to, I figure I need to learn how to do memory OC'ing now.


----------



## Hequaqua

flyinion said:


> thanks for the info. I'm not sure where you're saying to tighten the timing up? BIOS or through something like Ryzen Master? As I mentioned I'm already at 3600 on the DOCP profile and it's working great. Wasn't sure if I should start with timings like the main ones in the 18-22-22-42 list from the memory spec, or if I should try 3800 speed for example first to try and get a faster IF speed of like 1900. All those secondary timings I don't know anything about them or where to start. That's why I was hoping the calculator would function properly and I could get a starting point to then see what might work and figure out what I need to learn about. Sorry if that sounds overly noobish but as far as memory OC'ing I'm definitely new to it. Never tried it before only CPU OC'ing. Since Ryzen doesn't really respond as much to that any more vs the older Intel stuff I'm used to, I figure I need to learn how to do memory OC'ing now.


Yea, you have to set them manually in the bios. 

Your on the Asus board...that board is LOADED with options. You might fish around on that boards owner thread and see what you can find. IIRC Asus lets you save all your bios settings to a text file. So, you might be able to find better setting that way, or upload your saved settings and let someone look at them. I'm a bit of a newb too....but I share what I know...and hope to learn what I don't. lol

EDIT: You could try looking at the timings for say 3400(DOCP) in your bios, if the main timings are lower you could apply those, and just change your memory speed to 3600, and see what happens. It's a work in progress, even with the calculator, it might take some work.


----------



## flyinion

Hequaqua said:


> Yea, you have to set them manually in the bios.
> 
> Your on the Asus board...that board is LOADED with options. You might fish around on that boards owner thread and see what you can find. IIRC Asus lets you save all your bios settings to a text file. So, you might be able to find better setting that way, or upload your saved settings and let someone look at them. I'm a bit of a newb too....but I share what I know...and hope to learn what I don't. lol
> 
> EDIT: You could try looking at the timings for say 3400(DOCP) in your bios, if the main timings are lower you could apply those, and just change your memory speed to 3600, and see what happens. It's a work in progress, even with the calculator, it might take some work.


Awesome thanks for the advice. I'll give it a try and see how it goes  Yeah I know it will be some work etc., was just trying to find a starting point and had hoped the calculator would work for that.


----------



## Hequaqua

flyinion said:


> Awesome thanks for the advice. I'll give it a try and see how it goes  Yeah I know it will be some work etc., was just trying to find a starting point and had hoped the calculator would work for that.


No problem!

I know how frustrating it can be....I've been trying to get my 3466CL16 kit to run higher/tighter since the 2600X release. I knew it was the IMC holding me back, just needed a new cpu to find that out!...lol


----------



## cameronmc88

Hey guys I have X370 Taichi with my new 3700X and I can't seem the find a bunch of the DRAM Calc settings or some even were there back in an older BIOS and now removed, can you guys tell me if they are important for stability? like I'm missing out not having these or would be hindering my frame rate in gaming for example.


----------



## yzy

Managed to get my 3200CL14 kit running @ 3766CL14 tight timings (1.475v).


----------



## cameronmc88

yzy said:


> Managed to get my 3200CL14 kit running @ 3766CL14 tight timings (1.475v).


Good job, what ram kit and also what timings and voltages did you use? GearDown Mode on or off?


----------



## yzy

cameronmc88 said:


> Good job, what ram kit and also what timings and voltages did you use? GearDown Mode on or off?


G.Skill Trident Z RGB F4-3200C14D-16GTZR
1,475v
Geardown mode enabled
Screenshot timings (did them in BIOS)

Also did a simple memtest86 (4 tests) and it passed.


----------



## ddabble

Spectre73 said:


> Ryzen 1st gen is incredibly picky and quite unstable with DR Ram at high frequencies.
> 
> I noticed that your SCL values (at 2) are probably a no go. Increase them first to around 5 and see, how it goes. tWR is also probably far to tight. Try 24.
> 
> ProcODT should probably lowered to at least 60, maybe 53.3 ohm. But that worked for my b-die. I have no experience with AFR.


I noticed on auto it would bring my tWR up to 24, but after snooping around i saw a post where 1usmus said its not a good idea to go above 12. However when it comes to 3400 this value is way better (for me)

SCL 2-2 I was told would be better for my bandwidth as im running lower than 3200mhz and it's working fine @3066 14-16-16-17-30-38 1.41v (in the screen shot those timings were tighter than my sig, so maybe this could be part of the issue) 

I did notice a lot of B-Die users are able to get away with lower ProcODT compared to most other DR and SR kits running the same'ish mhz. On these I've never managed to get it to boot using anything lower than 60ProcODT. Theres like a weird relationship where it wont boot when im near the 1.4v with ProcODT, so thats why I'm on 68.6... That being said, dropping it on 3200 works better so thanks for the heads up, nearly most settings I've tried was on 68.6 so i kinda gave up with getting it lower, until recently 





possessed said:


> I have a 2400g apu and some afr. It’s really been a pain because fast means better FPS but it’s been real hard to get that. Last week it seems that I finally managed to get it pretty stable, but still not rock solid since it still crashes in one or 2 3D applications, but at least I’m no longer getting image corruption on the desktop.
> 
> So far I’m running them as 2866 with the setting from 3200 on the calculator, might try some more tweaking when I have the time.


Yeh I got these on a flash sale all i saw was 3200mhz 32gb, £110, free shipping. This was when RAM was costly, but it seems it's come down in price now  
Hopefully some of these setting will get you closer to stability, you can see where I've managed to get and it helps you out somehow. From my recent experience I've found that setting the SOC closer to what my CPU defaults too is working out better for me, especially in games where the GPU is being accessed a lot. Having it lower like the calc suggests wasn't stable, im guessing the higher bandwidth was causing issues for the IMC and it wasn't keeping up?? Your guess is as good as mine, good luck though :thumb: 




plazing said:


> My previous Ryzen 5 1600 with G.Skill F4-3200C16D-32GTZRX (2R-AFR) got to the XMP timing (3200C16-18-18-38) @ 1.37v DRAM & 1.1v SOC and stable 1000% memtest. XMP voltage 1.35v spewed out error few seconds on the memtest.
> 
> Now with Ryzen 9 3900X I can get to 3466C16-19-19-40 @ 1.4v DRAM & 1.025v SOC (fast preset 2R-AFR). Not really confortable with voltage higher than that.


Dude, if you didnt suggest those values I'd more than likely still be doing this over the next few days 
I thought i worked out a relationship between the SOC and vDIMM/VTTDDR but turns out the SOC was in the wrong place but now that the relationship is much tighter it's great, I was able to find a setting which was netting me much more consistent results. So from that point I then knew that adjusting my timings would be more noticeable.

Thank you all for your suggestions, it's shaved a lot of time off this process..


----------



## ddabble

*B350F 3200mhz DR Hynix AFR*

Hopefully if anyones had the same headache as me with this board these settings might get you closer to victory. I'm yet to do a overnight test, but for now playing high FPS games are fine and its not crashing or rebooting w/or without BSOD and the last few tests I've done have been clean. 










Little more info that isn't listed
CPU LLC - Med
SOC LLC - Regular

RCDWR 17 was giving errors so i used 18

Ryzen 5 1600 SOC Auto on this board is 1.0v. In these settings its set to 1.1v, dropping below is giving crashes in games where the GPU is being hit hard.

RDWR I noticed when i left it on auto from doing other tests CH_A was always 1 lower than CH_B, AFAIK its a T topology layout and the slots in use are A2 B2 (I know some of you like to leave some of these settings on auto just a heads up)

RFC 480 recommended by the calc was the culprit, that and 448 were not playing nice (this was after i found a voltage and SOC value that were giving me me reproducible results) i raised it by 10 on accident thinking that was "300ns" value from the XMP readout then BAM 4 successful runs in a row. After that i moved onto TM5 and that passed, then i played CS:GO and OW and non of them crashed after a few hours. So all is well... for now 

Spread spectrum AUTO? (I don't know, i dont have this option)


Next step is to try apply the logic from these results and my stable 3066 and try to work out what 3400 wants. I suspect theres gonna be a lot of messing about with CLDO_VDDP at some point because I had to move to 945 to get memtest going without BSOD straight away


----------



## Krisztias

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-528.html#post28085662

Anybody?


----------



## SalvorH

I'm a noob to this DDR4 overclocking game but after some reading around I ended up with this result on my Ballistix 3000CL15 Micron E-die: 3533 CL16 1.36V. It passes Memtest86 & the Calculator Membench (500% per thread 6000% total) with zero errors.

Any suggestions or observations are welcome. Wondering if and what I could push more or just leave it alone as is.


----------



## GTxFinish

Hey all, I have a weird phenomena. I'm able to reliably reach 26,000-28000% karhu, but right around there I suddenly get 20-30 errors very quickly. The ram is a stable 52c for a good 12-16 hours straight before these errors start popping up. Im running 3800mhz 1:1 with tight subtimings. I also get random BSODs with WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR citing my 1080ti (and I know that's a known issue with nvidia), but I only seem to get those BSODs running above 3600MHz.

I suppose I haven't confirmed that my IF can even run @1900mhz stable on my 3900X, could that cause this weird behavior? You'd think if I were getting 30-40 errors they'd show up before nearing 30,000%. I'd expect maybe 1-2 errors after having gone that long during ramtesting.

Current vSOC 1.1v and VDDG 1.05v. Should I bump VDDG up to 1.07 (1.1-0.4)?


----------



## umeng2002

That's an extremely long time for Karhu. Maybe it's an issue with the program. That's WELL over 99.5% detection rate.

Run the test multiple times and see if it throws errors at the same point.


----------



## Piotrucha

Krisztias said:


> why are the read and copy speeds so low? (...)The speeds I get seems like 3200C14 read/copy speed not 3600C14... please help Thank you.





Krisztias said:


> Anybody?


I'm in the same boat.
3600 with 14-15-14-14-21-35 (tCL-tRCDRD-tRCDWR-tRP-tRAS-tRC) and tight subtimings, like tFAW 16, tRFC 252 - please check below.
Latency is OK (66.4ns), but read bandwidth 49xxx MB/s only. What went wrong?
G.Skill b-die 2x16GB F4-3200C14D-32GTZ, MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon, 3700X
Any advice?


----------



## lordzed83

GTxFinish said:


> Hey all, I have a weird phenomena. I'm able to reliably reach 26,000-28000% karhu, but right around there I suddenly get 20-30 errors very quickly. The ram is a stable 52c for a good 12-16 hours straight before these errors start popping up. Im running 3800mhz 1:1 with tight subtimings. I also get random BSODs with WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR citing my 1080ti (and I know that's a known issue with nvidia), but I only seem to get those BSODs running above 3600MHz.
> 
> I suppose I haven't confirmed that my IF can even run @1900mhz stable on my 3900X, could that cause this weird behavior? You'd think if I were getting 30-40 errors they'd show up before nearing 30,000%. I'd expect maybe 1-2 errors after having gone that long during ramtesting.
> 
> Current vSOC 1.1v and VDDG 1.05v. Should I bump VDDG up to 1.07 (1.1-0.4)?


Maybe leave HCI memtest overnight ??


----------



## CJMitsuki

GTxFinish said:


> Hey all, I have a weird phenomena. I'm able to reliably reach 26,000-28000% karhu, but right around there I suddenly get 20-30 errors very quickly. The ram is a stable 52c for a good 12-16 hours straight before these errors start popping up. Im running 3800mhz 1:1 with tight subtimings. I also get random BSODs with WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR citing my 1080ti (and I know that's a known issue with nvidia), but I only seem to get those BSODs running above 3600MHz.
> 
> I suppose I haven't confirmed that my IF can even run @*1900* mhz stable on my 3900X, could that cause this weird behavior? You'd think if I were getting 30-40 errors they'd show up before nearing 30,000%. I'd expect maybe 1-2 errors after having gone that long during ramtesting.
> 
> Current vSOC 1.1v and VDDG 1.05v. Should I bump VDDG up to 1.07 (1.1-0.4)?


Sounds to me like possible corruption of display driver and/or system files. I have a 1080ti and I dont get any WHEA errors. Run DDU firstly and clear out every bit of the old display driver then restart and reinstall the display driver. After that then open a command prompt as administrator and run "*SFC /scannow*" and see if any error messages are displayed at the end. Then run these commands in this order and reboot (without quotes) *"Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /CheckHealth" "Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /ScanHealth" "DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth" *Most of the time those commands will repair corrupted system files that can result from the process of memory overclocking after booting into windows with tons of errors. Windows will be accessing the system files constantly and writing to them. You can get lucky and not get any corrupted files after spending an hour in the OS or you can get corruption immediately as the system writes a bad value to a file. Ive completely screwed an install in no time from this. Sometimes its hard to tell it has even happened for awhile until odd things start to happen.




Krisztias said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> what do you think, why are the read and copy speeds so low? I dialed in everything from Calculator, seems stable too (RamTest 3x 3k), I didn't had the time to test it good. The speeds I get seems like 3200C14 read/copy speed not 3600C14... please help
> Thank you.


What is the model of your ram sticks for starters. Also, you cant really expect to just dial in the numbers from the calculator and everything be perfect. Memory overclocking doesnt work that way, its dependent on tons of factors such as silicon quality of CPU, IC and PCB quality of the DRAM and Motherboard etc. The calculator is pretty much just a base and to get the optimal configuration is up to you. Memory OC is probably the most complicated part of configuring a computer as its not totally understood and there are no set timings to "plug in". Sure, you may get lucky and get the optimal timings from the calculator on the first try but I guarantee you that is a rarity. So, before knowing what may be causing your low bandwidth according to AIDA64 which is a good program but not for showing you if a change you have made to the timings gave more performance. Aida64 is horrible in that aspect as people will associate bigger numbers on the bandwidth and lower numbers on the latency as performance and its just not the case a great deal of the time. Sure, once you get dialed in correctly AIda64 will show higher numbers in that regard but performance must be tested with other benchmarks such as Geekbench or watching how fast memory testing will complete a certain percentage when nothing but memory configuration has changed. In my opinion, SiSoft Sandra, Geekbench, and Passmark Performance Test are the best. For something quick, Geekbench 3 and 4 are probably going to be the best bet. It will drop your memory score if you tighten timings too much or have errors or just plain, old bad timings. SiSoft is long and pretty taxing on the system but very in depth and Passmark is probably in between. The thing about SiSoft and Passmark Perf test is that they show the effective latency of the setup. Even though Ryzen 2nd gen has similar latency scores in Aida64 to Ryzen+ (2700x, etc) the effective latency is miles apart. 2700x best effective latency i saw was 48ns but on 3700x it is around 27ns with Intel floating around 13-15ns. Either way, using Aida64 to gauge performance is a bad habit to take up. Use Geekbench and youll be surprised at how youll begin to see the difference. 

Enough rambling, just post your model number of your DRAM or post a screen of CPUZ showing the SPD tab but make sure you select a slot that is occupied by a stick of ram and tag me and ill see whats going on with your setup.




Piotrucha said:


> I'm in the same boat.
> 3600 with 14-15-14-14-21-35 (tCL-tRCDRD-tRCDWR-tRP-tRAS-tRC) and tight subtimings, like tFAW 16, tRFC 252 - please check below.
> Latency is OK (66.4ns), but read bandwidth 49xxx MB/s only. What went wrong?
> G.Skill b-die 2x16GB F4-3200C14D-32GTZ, MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon, 3700X PBO enabled
> Any advice?



For one, you are probably over tightening your timings...there is a point where tightening further will hurt performance but still be stable...back the tRFC off to something like 280 and loosen to 22-36 on RAS and RC...Post your full timings too
This is what I run on the same kit as yours but a 2x8gb setup and at 1.5v DRAM so youll more than likely need to be loosened up much more than what im running on your 2x16gb kit.


Spoiler














Benchmark scores for reference


Spoiler



Geekbench 3
Geekbench 4


----------



## Krisztias

CJMitsuki said:


> What is the model of your ram sticks for starters. Also, you cant really expect to just dial in the numbers from the calculator and everything be perfect. Memory overclocking doesnt work that way, its dependent on tons of factors such as silicon quality of CPU, IC and PCB quality of the DRAM and Motherboard etc. The calculator is pretty much just a base and to get the optimal configuration is up to you. Memory OC is probably the most complicated part of configuring a computer as its not totally understood and there are no set timings to "plug in". Sure, you may get lucky and get the optimal timings from the calculator on the first try but I guarantee you that is a rarity. So, before knowing what may be causing your low bandwidth according to AIDA64 which is a good program but not for showing you if a change you have made to the timings gave more performance. Aida64 is horrible in that aspect as people will associate bigger numbers on the bandwidth and lower numbers on the latency as performance and its just not the case a great deal of the time. Sure, once you get dialed in correctly AIda64 will show higher numbers in that regard but performance must be tested with other benchmarks such as Geekbench or watching how fast memory testing will complete a certain percentage when nothing but memory configuration has changed. In my opinion, SiSoft Sandra, Geekbench, and Passmark Performance Test are the best. For something quick, Geekbench 3 and 4 are probably going to be the best bet. It will drop your memory score if you tighten timings too much or have errors or just plain, old bad timings. SiSoft is long and pretty taxing on the system but very in depth and Passmark is probably in between. The thing about SiSoft and Passmark Perf test is that they show the effective latency of the setup. Even though Ryzen 2nd gen has similar latency scores in Aida64 to Ryzen+ (2700x, etc) the effective latency is miles apart. 2700x best effective latency i saw was 48ns but on 3700x it is around 27ns with Intel floating around 13-15ns. Either way, using Aida64 to gauge performance is a bad habit to take up. Use Geekbench and youll be surprised at how youll begin to see the difference.
> 
> Enough rambling, just post your model number of your DRAM or post a screen of CPUZ showing the SPD tab but make sure you select a slot that is occupied by a stick of ram and tag me and ill see whats going on with your setup.


Thank you for your response!
I have the FlareX 3200C14 kit, with 3800x and C8H.

My settings:


----------



## RossiOCUK

Can SOC voltage help tighten timings or just affect frequency?


----------



## Piotrucha

CJMitsuki said:


> For one, you are probably over tightening your timings...there is a point where tightening further will hurt performance but still be stable...back the tRFC off to something like 280 and loosen to 22-36 on RAS and RC...Post your full timings too
> This is what I run on the same kit as yours but a 2x8gb setup and at 1.5v DRAM so youll more than likely need to be loosened up much more than what im running on your 2x16gb kit.


Thanks for tip, but not working.
I've been testing with loosened subtimings like 28-42-288 (tRAS-tRC-tRFC) or 30-44-298 but results are similar (48-49k read, 66.5ns +/- 0.4). Full settings in attachment.
Is it a problem with poor IMC (3733 is unstable at CL14 up to 1.5V DRAM voltage with any reasonable timings) or some secondary / tertiary subtimings? And which ones?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Piotrucha said:


> Thanks for tip, but not working.
> I've been testing with loosened subtimings like 28-42-288 (tRAS-tRC-tRFC) or 30-44-298 but results are similar (48-49k read, 66.5ns +/- 0.4). Full settings in attachment.
> Is it a problem with poor IMC (3733 is unstable at CL14 up to 1.5V DRAM voltage with any reasonable timings) or some secondary / tertiary subtimings? And which ones?



I doubt that you have a poor IMC...You arent likely to get 3733 @cl14 easily with a dual rank kit. The 2x16gb kit puts more stress on the memory controller which is the trade off for having more memory as opposed to the single rank 2x8gb kits. Im pretty sure the 4x8gb kits are even slightly less stressful on the memory controller than the 2x16gb. Have you tried 14-15-15-15? I cant run 3800 cl14 with anything but 14-15-15-15 if I tighten any of those primaries it will immediately throw lots of errors. Your bandwidth problem may be a bios setting though, post your bios dump txt file. There are several settings that will destroy Read and Copy bandwidth.


----------



## lordzed83

Krisztias said:


> Thank you for your response!
> I have the FlareX 3200C14 kit, with 3800x and C8H.
> 
> My settings:


I look and You are missing like 3gb/s on read so copy will take a hit but why ?? Windows install ?? Everything looks fine on the setup. Maybe try cmos clear and loar profile up and see if that helps ??


----------



## Piotrucha

CJMitsuki said:


> Have you tried 14-15-15-15? I cant run 3800 cl14 with anything but 14-15-15-15 if I tighten any of those primaries it will immediately throw lots of errors.


 I can run 14-15-15-15 (and 14-15-13-13 as well) with any subtimings, but read/latency is the same as 14-15-14-14.



CJMitsuki said:


> Your bandwidth problem may be a bios setting though, post your bios dump txt file. There are several settings that will destroy Read and Copy bandwidth.


Can I have a hint how to do this, please? I mean bios dump.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Piotrucha said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried 14-15-15-15? I cant run 3800 cl14 with anything but 14-15-15-15 if I tighten any of those primaries it will immediately throw lots of errors.
> 
> 
> 
> I can run 14-15-15-15 (and 14-15-13-13 as well) with any subtimings, but read/latency is the same as 14-15-14-14.
> 
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bandwidth problem may be a bios setting though, post your bios dump txt file. There are several settings that will destroy Read and Copy bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I have a hint how to do this, please? I mean bios dump.
Click to expand...

It depends on motherboard. For instance, my Crosshair VII has an option for me to save bios profiles to a USB stick and if I press CTRL + F2 it will save all of my bios options as a text file on the USB drive. So look for the hotkey that does it for your motherboard. Pretty sure they will all have a similar option but different hotkeys.


----------



## Krisztias

lordzed83 said:


> I look and You are missing like 3gb/s on read so copy will take a hit but why ?? Windows install ?? Everything looks fine on the setup. Maybe try cmos clear and loar profile up and see if that helps ??


Exactly this is my problem. I did fresh Windows install egy cleared CMOS already. I don't understand what can cause such a loose in bandwidth...
I had loosened my timings for 3800MHz and guess what? It doesn't help. Look:


----------



## Nwanko

Can anyone help me optimize(oc) my ram i have this one, and i'm a total noob when it comes to ryzen and memory oc. Just switched from intel to amd this month.
https://files.fm/thumb_show.php?i=e7fh52u3


----------



## Sphex_

Nwanko said:


> Can anyone help me optimize(oc) my ram i have this one, and i'm a total noob when it comes to ryzen and memory oc. Just switched from intel to amd this month.
> https://files.fm/thumb_show.php?i=e7fh52u3


Enabled the XMP/DOCP profile first, test and make sure it's stable. This will be a good starting point.
Download the DRAM Calculator on the first place and plug in the values (then click R-XMP twice). Calculate Safe Timings and see what you can get done.
Additionally, check out the *Community Overclocking Results sheet* to see what others have been able to accomplish with Micron E-Die (which is what you have according to your screenshot).


----------



## Piotrucha

CJMitsuki said:


> Your bandwidth problem may be a bios setting though, post your bios dump txt file. There are several settings that will destroy Read and Copy bandwidth.


OK here it is, manually edited. So where is the bottleneck, any ideas?


----------



## Krisztias

CJMitsuki said:


> There are several settings that will destroy Read and Copy bandwidth.


Which settings should I look at? With my C6H+2700X never had this kind of problem.
On C8H+3800x can't set the following: DRAM Vboot, Opcache, Memory interleaving, Channel interleaving hash. These are the settings what the Calculator suggests, but can't be set.
What I could set, and -sadly- have no idea what does: DFE Read Training and FFE Write Training. The rest on this field I have left on auto.

I have yesterday/today tested few frequencies: 3600C14, 3733C14, 3800C15 and 3800C16 -all looking stable, but the best bandwith and latency is with 3800C16 -this is what I testing right now thorougly.


----------



## Filters83

So far my best result i rly like this bios versione, im kinda scary to test the new ;P
Anyway thanks again for this spectacular software 1usmus ! ^^


----------



## Sphex_

Piotrucha said:


> OK here it is, manually edited. So where is the bottleneck, any ideas?


I don't see GearDown Mode in that text file. One of your previous posts has a screenshot of Ryzen Master where it's enabled. Disable GDM if you can, definitely good for a few ns of latency.


----------



## Nwanko

This isn't very good is it?


----------



## cameronmc88

Could anybody tell me if these features from DRAM Calculator that I cannot find or don't exist in my BIOS are hindering my memory overclock?

PS: Just the ones with lines or arrows pointing to them, the rest are there including VDDG and VDDP.


----------



## polkfan

Hi guys i was wondering when the extreme profiles will work i'm kind of a noob when it comes to doing this myself without guidance. 

Currently have this


----------



## CJMitsuki

Piotrucha said:


> OK here it is, manually edited. So where is the bottleneck, any ideas?



I have modified the text file to show you what to change. Its only 2 similar settings. Basically from what Ive found, Disabling both BGS and BGS ALT is a severe drop in performance. Enable one and disable the other then test and then swap them and test again and roll with the better results. Not sure why the calculator is recommending to disable both but its definitely a drop in performance for me and likely its your problem as well. hopefully this fixes the issue.


----------



## CJMitsuki

cameronmc88 said:


> Could anybody tell me if these features from DRAM Calculator that I cannot find or don't exist in my BIOS are hindering my memory overclock?
> 
> PS: Just the ones with lines or arrows pointing to them, the rest are there including VDDG and VDDP.





I mean, we dont really have enough info to determine your problem. Technically I suppose a few of those settings could help you gain a small amount of stability. Your mobo could be an issue, your memory dies could be as well, but I doubt the settings you are highlighting will lead to massive gains in stability if you had access to them. I found Rtune 1-4 useless personally, Opcache isnt gonna do much, if anything at all and not sure if 2nd gen even supports it. I leave the Vref on auto and the clock skew isnt gonna do much. The Interleaving options could help a bit on the performance side but again it wont grant you massive increases in stability. Post your actual setup with the DRAM being used, your timings, etc and then I might be able to spot a glaring issue. Of course theres always the chance the cpu silicon isnt the best and causing an issue but with no info its hard to give any kind of real answer.


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nwanko said:


> This isn't very good is it?



the latency isnt that great but I see a couple possible issues. Disable Power Down Mode and Enable BGS Alt and see if that does anything to help


----------



## CJMitsuki

Krisztias said:


> Which settings should I look at? With my C6H+2700X never had this kind of problem.
> On C8H+3800x can't set the following: DRAM Vboot, Opcache, Memory interleaving, Channel interleaving hash. These are the settings what the Calculator suggests, but can't be set.
> What I could set, and -sadly- have no idea what does: DFE Read Training and FFE Write Training. The rest on this field I have left on auto.
> 
> I have yesterday/today tested few frequencies: 3600C14, 3733C14, 3800C15 and 3800C16 -all looking stable, but the best bandwith and latency is with 3800C16 -this is what I testing right now thorougly.



Do you have BGS and BGS ALT both disabled? If so, then ENABLE BGS ALT and test again


----------



## CJMitsuki

Sphex_ said:


> I don't see GearDown Mode in that text file. One of your previous posts has a screenshot of Ryzen Master where it's enabled. Disable GDM if you can, definitely good for a few ns of latency.



His problem wasnt from GDM and he will likely be unable to boot if he disables GDM at that frequency. Once above 3200mhz the majority of kits have to keep GDM Enabled or they simply wont be able to go to higher frequencies @cl14


----------



## Nwanko

CJMitsuki said:


> the latency isnt that great but I see a couple possible issues. Disable Power Down Mode and Enable BGS Alt and see if that does anything to help


I dont see this BGS Alt option anywhere in my bios, i have a X570-Extreme4. Where should it be?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nwanko said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> the latency isnt that great but I see a couple possible issues. Disable Power Down Mode and Enable BGS Alt and see if that does anything to help
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see this BGS Alt option anywhere in my bios, i have a X570-Extreme4. Where should it be?
Click to expand...

Should be somewhere in the AMD CBS options but its going to possibly be different on other motherboards. I can only speak for my C7H

Edit-It will also be called Bank Group Swap Alt


----------



## RossiOCUK

CJMitsuki said:


> Should be somewhere in the AMD CBS options but its going to possibly be different on other motherboards. I can only speak for my C7H
> 
> Edit-It will also be called Bank Group Swap Alt


Didn't BGS get nerfed from the AMD menus?


----------



## Krisztias

CJMitsuki said:


> Do you have BGS and BGS ALT both disabled? If so, then ENABLE BGS ALT and test again


Thank you for the tipp!
Looks much better now (before/after)


----------



## CJMitsuki

Krisztias said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have BGS and BGS ALT both disabled? If so, then ENABLE BGS ALT and test again
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the tipp!
> Looks much better now (before/after)
Click to expand...

Np, I knew as soon as I saw it. Ive been testing the various option in the bios and recording how they change memory and cpu performance and the BGS thing was one of the bigger changes in my testing.


----------



## Saiger0

CJMitsuki said:


> I have modified the text file to show you what to change. Its only 2 similar settings. Basically from what Ive found, Disabling both BGS and BGS ALT is a severe drop in performance. Enable one and disable the other then test and then swap them and test again and roll with the better results. Not sure why the calculator is recommending to disable both but its definitely a drop in performance for me and likely its your problem as well. hopefully this fixes the issue.


Thanks for the tip with bgs and bgsalt. I was wondering why my aida results took such a huge hit with the latest bios but enabling bgsalt fixed it.
left both disabled and right withj bgsalt


----------



## Piotrucha

CJMitsuki said:


> His problem wasnt from GDM and he will likely be unable to boot if he disables GDM at that frequency. Once above 3200mhz the majority of kits have to keep GDM Enabled or they simply wont be able to go to higher frequencies @cl14


 Yep, with GDM off, it is unstable.


CJMitsuki said:


> I have modified the text file to show you what to change. Its only 2 similar settings. Basically from what Ive found, *Disabling both BGS and BGS ALT is a severe drop in performance.* Enable one and disable the other then test and then swap them and test again and roll with the better results. *Not sure why the calculator is recommending to disable both but its definitely a drop in performance* for me and likely its your problem as well. hopefully this fixes the issue.


Yes, it works now, thanks! All three combinations are fine for me - with en/en, en/dis, dis/en (BGS/BGS alt) read bandwith was increased from 49xxx MB/s to 56xxx MB/s. 
Great tip btw, you should let 1usmus know about these BGS settings 
I'm just testing 3800 timings, but even with this higher clock read transfer was cut by 10-12% with BGS both disabled. Thanks again for your help!


----------



## CJMitsuki

Piotrucha said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> His problem wasnt from GDM and he will likely be unable to boot if he disables GDM at that frequency. Once above 3200mhz the majority of kits have to keep GDM Enabled or they simply wont be able to go to higher frequencies @cl14
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, with GDM off, it is unstable.
> 
> 
> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have modified the text file to show you what to change. Its only 2 similar settings. Basically from what Ive found, *Disabling both BGS and BGS ALT is a severe drop in performance.* Enable one and disable the other then test and then swap them and test again and roll with the better results. *Not sure why the calculator is recommending to disable both but its definitely a drop in performance* for me and likely its your problem as well. hopefully this fixes the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it works now, thanks! All three combinations are fine for me - with en/en, en/dis, dis/en (BGS/BGS alt) read bandwith was increased from 49xxx MB/s to 56xxx MB/s.
> Great tip btw, you should let 1usmus know about these BGS settings /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> I'm just testing 3800 timings, but even with this higher clock read transfer was cut but 10-12% with BGS both disabled. Thanks again for your help!
Click to expand...

Np, im not sure why the DRAM calc is suggesting those BGS settings. Even the prior gen 2700x was similar behavior. @1usmus you may want to look into this. Also when membench is running the default setting every thread always hangs for about 8 seconds on 13.9% exactly and it looks to be throwing off the end result. Possibly a conflict with Memtest?


----------



## Piotrucha

BTW does tRFC2 and tRFC4 work for zen2 or is it just enough to set up tRFC?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Piotrucha said:


> BTW does tRFC2 and tRFC4 work for zen2 or is it just enough to set up tRFC?


Nope, just leave em Auto bc any value you enter wont matter besides tRFC


----------



## TJGun

I have a G.skill 3200MHz CL14 that I managed to get stable at 3733MHz CL16. 
The CPU idle temp is ~7 degrees Celsius higher now. Is it the overclocked infinty fabric that is causing the higher temps?


----------



## Nwanko

CJMitsuki said:


> Should be somewhere in the AMD CBS options but its going to possibly be different on other motherboards. I can only speak for my C7H
> 
> Edit-It will also be called Bank Group Swap Alt


Found it, tested every which way and it doesn't make a difference,it doesn't go below 77ns . . .


----------



## CJMitsuki

Nwanko said:


> CJMitsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should be somewhere in the AMD CBS options but its going to possibly be different on other motherboards. I can only speak for my C7H
> 
> Edit-It will also be called Bank Group Swap Alt
> 
> 
> 
> Found it, tested every which way and it doesn't make a difference,it doesn't go below 77ns . . .
Click to expand...

Youll still want it enabled as it will give better performance. If you want to improve latency and such you need to do like others and post all of your setup. The more info the better, all timings, all bios settings, etc. If i can see all of that then maybe I can spot something that would cause that much excess latency. Otherwise, we will not be making much headway.


----------



## cameronmc88

CJMitsuki said:


> I mean, we dont really have enough info to determine your problem. Technically I suppose a few of those settings could help you gain a small amount of stability. Your mobo could be an issue, your memory dies could be as well, but I doubt the settings you are highlighting will lead to massive gains in stability if you had access to them. I found Rtune 1-4 useless personally, Opcache isnt gonna do much, if anything at all and not sure if 2nd gen even supports it. I leave the Vref on auto and the clock skew isnt gonna do much. The Interleaving options could help a bit on the performance side but again it wont grant you massive increases in stability. Post your actual setup with the DRAM being used, your timings, etc and then I might be able to spot a glaring issue. Of course theres always the chance the cpu silicon isnt the best and causing an issue but with no info its hard to give any kind of real answer.


Thanks so much for your support/reply, I'm using GSkill Flare X 3200mhz CL14 B-Die memory at 3600Mhz Fast Profile on DRAM Calculator it passed 12 hours of Karhu Ramtest (https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/) with 0 errors.

That's without those settings Rtune, Opcache, I/O Clock Skew and Vref settings, below I provided an image of what interleaving options look like now in my BIOS they are completely different and most of the time only have "Auto or Disable" there is no enable option now.


----------



## CaptnJones

I can't seem to find BGS in the Aorus x570 bios?


----------



## NicolasTMills

same, i can't find bgs in aorus b450i


----------



## muzz

I'm thinking that UNLESS you are looking for Records, don't bother.


----------



## nick name

On ASUS boards people had to use the search function to find bankgroup swap. Has everyone looking tried that yet?


----------



## Filters83

what voltage are u using on 3600 mhz ram ?


----------



## StangMan04

I have the G.Skill 3600CL15 kit and I can only hit CL16 on higher speeds. I currently have the settings below (I had to use the V2 profile since V1 will not work). I crossed out the settings I left on auto. Wondering if there is anything I can tweak. I was able to run a easy memtest using 1.47v with no errors but it seemed my latency went from 63ns to 66ns. I have since switched back to 1.48v in BIOS but in windows(hwinfo) it always shows 1.5v. DRAM temperatures are around 30-36c when testing. Just curious is there was anything else I could tweak. I don't know much about subtimings or timings really in what they do to help certain overclocks that I rely solely on the calculator. I figured my kit would be good enough to get better or lower timings but it appears that is not the case.

https://imgur.com/MqLsNdQ


----------



## Filters83

StangMan04 said:


> I have the G.Skill 3600CL15 kit and I can only hit CL16 on higher speeds. I currently have the settings below (I had to use the V2 profile since V1 will not work). I crossed out the settings I left on auto. Wondering if there is anything I can tweak. I was able to run a easy memtest using 1.47v with no errors but it seemed my latency went from 63ns to 66ns. I have since switched back to 1.48v in BIOS but in windows(hwinfo) it always shows 1.5v. DRAM temperatures are around 30-36c when testing. Just curious is there was anything else I could tweak. I don't know much about subtimings or timings really in what they do to help certain overclocks that I rely solely on the calculator. I figured my kit would be good enough to get better or lower timings but it appears that is not the case.
> 
> https://imgur.com/MqLsNdQ


Thx but thx image its for 3800 Mhz not 3600 and 1.5volt daily isnt a bit too high ?


----------



## StangMan04

Filters83 said:


> Thx but thx image its for 3800 Mhz not 3600 and 1.5volt daily isnt a bit too high ?


I thought in the calculator you put the speed you are trying to achieve? I am trying to set 3800CL16...Am I wrong in how the calculator works? My XMP profile is 3600CL15 1.35v


----------



## Filters83

StangMan04 said:


> I thought in the calculator you put the speed you are trying to achieve? I am trying to set 3800CL16...Am I wrong in how the calculator works? My XMP profile is 3600CL15 1.35v


If u set 3600 in bios use 3600 in calculator


----------



## StangMan04

Filters83 said:


> If u set 3600 in bios use 3600 in calculator


Right, I am setting 3800 in BIOS, so my calculator is correct then.


----------



## Nwanko

This is set in my bios, everything else is defaults. didn't oc my cpu and nothing since i switched from intel to amd i'm a total noob when it comes to amd overclocking. BGS alt enabled, procodt 53 everything else set to auto or whatevery the bios sets it to.


----------



## lordzed83

Playing around with this new 2701 bios Boom This is at 1.4 volts on ram also passed 600% hci last night forgot grab screenshot  got quick 250+% one from today


----------



## StangMan04

lordzed83 said:


> Playing around with this new 2701 bios Boom This is at 1.4 volts on ram also passed 600% hci last night forgot grab screenshot  got quick 250+% one from today



Wow thanks so much. I used these same settings and passed the quick 240% test as well. I had been using a 1.48v but I think my issue was either a couple timings or my SOC voltage which I had on auto.


----------



## lordzed83

StangMan04 said:


> Wow thanks so much. I used these same settings and passed the quick 240% test as well. I had been using a 1.48v but I think my issue was either a couple timings or my SOC voltage which I had on auto.


So far 800% hci memtest pass. Ill leave it till tomorrow.

New Quentin movie just back from 11pm viewing 8/10


----------



## Filters83

Wow 1.4 volt ? What memory kit are you using? Im waiting for my ryzen 5 3600 this morning so i can get testing aswell 😜


----------



## lordzed83

Filters83 said:


> Wow 1.4 volt ? What memory kit are you using? Im waiting for my ryzen 5 3600 this morning so i can get testing aswell 😜


This mem kit
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...4133mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-099-tg.html

I'w ran ycruncher PI straight after stopping memtests and cb20 scored 20 points less than my best 7738.


----------



## Filters83

lordzed83 said:


> This mem kit
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...4133mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-099-tg.html
> 
> I'w ran ycruncher PI straight after stopping memtests and cb20 scored 20 points less than my best 7738.


Thx very very good !
I have a gskill 3200 C14 2x6gb kit i was thinking if it possibile to hit 3600C16 at like 1.4 instead of maby 3600C14 at 1.45


----------



## StangMan04

lordzed83 said:


> This mem kit
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team...4133mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-099-tg.html
> 
> I'w ran ycruncher PI straight after stopping memtests and cb20 scored 20 points less than my best 7738.


Curious it shows on Ryzen master your FCLK is 1867? Is that meant to be 1900? I am running the 3600CL15 kit and glad your settings worked for me. Brought my voltage down from 1.48v to 1.4v which is awesome. I am running everything the same in terms of settings with a 1900 fclk (I am assuming Ryzen master is showing the wrong fclk for you since 1867 would be a 1:1 for 3733 dram speed, the memory clock shows the same in ryzen master. Never used ryzen master yet so not sure if that is a bug or what).


----------



## dado82rm

Hi guys is it normal that my ryzwn timing checker is always not showing procodt and termination block even if I set it in bios?


----------



## umeng2002

Ryzen Timing Checker is deprecated with recent BIOS'.


----------



## Hequaqua

dado82rm said:


> Hi guys is it normal that my ryzwn timing checker is always not showing procodt and termination block even if I set it in bios?
> View attachment 289760


I want to say that can be fixed, you need to download one of the temp monitoring tools and those will show up. I can't remember which one is was though....I think is was OpenHardware.


----------



## nick name

dado82rm said:


> Hi guys is it normal that my ryzwn timing checker is always not showing procodt and termination block even if I set it in bios?
> View attachment 289760


I'd also try opening RTC without any other monitoring programs running.


----------



## lordzed83

StangMan04 said:


> Curious it shows on Ryzen master your FCLK is 1867? Is that meant to be 1900? I am running the 3600CL15 kit and glad your settings worked for me. Brought my voltage down from 1.48v to 1.4v which is awesome. I am running everything the same in terms of settings with a 1900 fclk (I am assuming Ryzen master is showing the wrong fclk for you since 1867 would be a 1:1 for 3733 dram speed, the memory clock shows the same in ryzen master. Never used ryzen master yet so not sure if that is a bug or what).


Yes its 3800:1900 cause im using 101.8bclk


----------



## StangMan04

lordzed83 said:


> Yes its 3800:1900 cause im using 101.8bclk


Ah missed that. I tested my latency, appears yours it better than mine. I am only getting 64ns, but I am happy.


----------



## Filters83

Finally got my 3600 installed today tried 3600 C14 fast setting work first try no error tested enough 
Latency its a bit high vs my old 2600x and cpu didnt go over 4100mhz but i believe its a bios problem for now


----------



## 8GIR8

Edit think I found a bug in Membench?

Using "Default" the benchmark does calculations off of the disk (page file?) I'm seeing 100% read utilization on my nvme raid 0 and asymmetrical CPU threads.

"Default" appears to miscalculate my RAM. I have 16 Gb, benchmark thinks I have 18Gb...Probably the extra 2 Gb are my disk and causing me problems. The 18 Gb that membench creates is unchangeable. 

Using "easy" does not utilize my nvme raid and all my CPU threads are mostly symmetrical.




-------

Hi all! I feel like I'm close to understanding the big picture with doing all this but I'm stuck.

AMD 3900x
Asus x470 ITX Gaming w/latest BIOS
2x8 GB GSkill 3200 Cas 14 B-Die OC'd to 3600 CAS 14 15 14
Corsair SF600 Watt PSU Gold +
1080 Ti Kingpin
Windows 10


Few questions while running membench on "default":

0) Why would my PC randomly restart during the test. But! -> No errors reported in membench or memtest86, no blue screen, no windows event errors. I ask this because I am wondering that might not be the RAM but maybe the 3900x or PSU...thoughts?

1) Why is my nvme RAID 0 array showing 100% Read during the test? 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=289804&thumb=1

2) Why are my 24 threads so uneven during the test? (The slower threads appear to be random each time tested)
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=289806&thumb=1

3) If the test completes it takes 300+ seconds? Seems really not great.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=289808&thumb=1



See above, "Default" test appears to be testing more RAM than I have and could be testing my virtual memory.


----------



## lordzed83

Here my full bios setting dump C7H with 2701 beta bios.


----------



## panni

1usmus said:


> not all chips are of the same quality, for example, Crucial memory with AES code has select chips, hard profiles are excellent for it
> tRCDRD should be higher so that there are no blue screens
> next week I will introduce an update with improvements


Any updates on this, or has this been resolved already?


----------



## Takla

8GIR8 said:


> Why would my PC randomly restart during the test. But! -> No errors reported in membench or memtest86, no blue screen, no windows event errors. I ask this because I am wondering that might not be the RAM but maybe the 3900x or PSU...thoughts?


Edit: Disable Power Down Mode in the DRAM settings in your MBs bios.


----------



## 8GIR8

Takla said:


> Edit: Disable Power Down Mode in the DRAM settings in your MBs bios.


Wish it was that. Already was disabled. It appears to be testing my virtual RAM. When I run the "Default" membench test, it's testing greater than my 16 Gb of RAM and running numbers off my nvme SSD.


----------



## Spank7

Hello

I have 2 kits of 16 gb each the exact model is Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-3200MHz (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) so i have 4 dimms , unfortunatelly there is no way to go higher than 2933 , when i set it at 3200 xmp and manual 1.35 the pc boot normaly but i cant enter windows and when i go lower ata 2933 there is no problem

I will try the dram calculator as a last solution but the strange thing is i saw than 1 kit is samsung and the other one is hynix ..... so that probably the problem because of different chips .... ?

Anyway i will try the calculator to try manual setting but at the type memory what should i select samsung 4 dimms or hynix 4 dimms ?

Motherboard : Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER

Thanks a lot


----------



## Nwanko

How do i pull out the bios settings txt file?


----------



## NicolasTMills

someone boot 3800MHZ 1900bclk in b450 motherboard?


----------



## nick name

Nwanko said:


> How do i pull out the bios settings txt file?


On an ASUS board you do it where you save the profile to USB and it gives the option to save the profile as a text file also.


----------



## Wickedtme

lordzed83 said:


> Here my full bios setting dump C7H with 2701 beta bios.


Thanks, i was waiting for this also, quietly in the wings, lol


----------



## Wickedtme

Spank7 said:


> Hello
> 
> I have 2 kits of 16 gb each the exact model is Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-3200MHz (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) so i have 4 dimms , unfortunatelly there is no way to go higher than 2933 , when i set it at 3200 xmp and manual 1.35 the pc boot normaly but i cant enter windows and when i go lower ata 2933 there is no problem
> 
> I will try the dram calculator as a last solution but the strange thing is i saw than 1 kit is samsung and the other one is hynix ..... so that probably the problem because of different chips .... ?
> 
> Anyway i will try the calculator to try manual setting but at the type memory what should i select samsung 4 dimms or hynix 4 dimms ?
> 
> Motherboard : Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER
> 
> Thanks a lot


Go with the slowest of the memory chips, you can also try V2, which is for ram that is not as good.


----------



## lasanchi

NicolasTMills said:


> someone boot 3800MHZ 1900bclk in b450 motherboard?


these are my settings with msi b450m gaming plus board and just bought the cheapest available ram (crucial ballistix sport 3200 cl16) turned out they are pretty good?

does anyone have tips for a first time ram overclocker?


----------



## Takla

8GIR8 said:


> Wish it was that. Already was disabled. It appears to be testing my virtual RAM. When I run the "Default" membench test, it's testing greater than my 16 Gb of RAM and running numbers off my nvme SSD.


Yeah. It benches part of your pagefile which runs off of your ssd. That is one quick way to drain the life expectancy of it. Use 14000 for 16gb of ram and 28000 for 32gb of ram.


----------



## 8GIR8

Takla said:


> Yeah. It benches part of your pagefile which runs off of your ssd. That is one quick way to drain the life expectancy of it. Use 14000 for 16gb of ram and 28000 for 32gb of ram.


Wish I could, but I can't seem to change it to < 16000. When I hit "run" it switches the number straight to 18000. v1603


----------



## Yviena

@1usmus what's the optimal interleaving size for 4 SR sticks, also is 4x SR equivalent to 2X DR performance?


----------



## 8GIR8

Me and another person here with a AMD 3900X have a similar performance gap. Is it the chip or is there something I can focus on?

What should I do to shrink the gap between my result and "best result" ? I think it's because I have Gear Down Enabled.

GearDown Disabled: what's usually the difficulty to getting it stable?

Currently 
3900X
3600 14-15-14-28
Read: 56587
Write: 55552
Copy: 58565
Latency: 67.1
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=289960&thumb=1


----------



## 1usmus

*I am preparing update 1.6.1 in the coming days.* Stay in touch


----------



## 1usmus

Spank7 said:


> Hello
> 
> I have 2 kits of 16 gb each the exact model is Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-3200MHz (CMK16GX4M2B3200C16) so i have 4 dimms , unfortunatelly there is no way to go higher than 2933 , when i set it at 3200 xmp and manual 1.35 the pc boot normaly but i cant enter windows and when i go lower ata 2933 there is no problem
> 
> I will try the dram calculator as a last solution but the strange thing is i saw than 1 kit is samsung and the other one is hynix ..... so that probably the problem because of different chips .... ?
> 
> Anyway i will try the calculator to try manual setting but at the type memory what should i select samsung 4 dimms or hynix 4 dimms ?
> 
> Motherboard : Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER
> 
> Thanks a lot


if you have different chips, you should forget about any overclocking



8GIR8 said:


> Me and another person here with a AMD 3900X have a similar performance gap. Is it the chip or is there something I can focus on?
> 
> What should I do to shrink the gap between my result and "best result" ? I think it's because I have Gear Down Enabled.
> 
> GearDown Disabled: what's usually the difficulty to getting it stable?
> 
> Currently
> 3900X
> 3600 14-15-14-28
> Read: 56587
> Write: 55552
> Copy: 58565
> Latency: 67.1
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=289960&thumb=1


in the new version (1.6.1) 3900X/3950Х got an improvement in the benchmark



8GIR8 said:


> Wish it was that. Already was disabled. It appears to be testing my virtual RAM. When I run the "Default" membench test, it's testing greater than my 16 Gb of RAM and running numbers off my nvme SSD.


my test is not able to use memory which is not DRAM



Yviena said:


> @1usmus what's the optimal interleaving size for 4 SR sticks, also is 4x SR equivalent to 2X DR performance?


no difference, memory interleaving works identically


----------



## dspx

Here is what I managed to improve with Micron E-Die & Ryzen 1700

Should I tighten or leave it as it is?

/EDIT
I got myself an IR gun for tracking the temps. The highest I could record while stress testing was 47.4 °C (28 °C ambient). I have a small Noctua cooler above the RAM.


----------



## flyinion

1usmus said:


> *I am preparing update 1.6.1 in the coming days.* Stay in touch


Awesome, any hint as to if the new version will support 3600 speed Hynix MFR modules like the new Trident Z Neo stuff? Would really love to be able to use this tool


----------



## thegr8anand

1usmus said:


> *I am preparing update 1.6.1 in the coming days.* Stay in touch



Nice. Any info what to expect for 1.6.1?


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> *I am preparing update 1.6.1 in the coming days.* Stay in touch


cool more stuff to test


----------



## Veii

I'm still quite a noob when it comes to forum searching, soo sorry for the doublepost
Could someone walk me through adjusting the TM5 v3 config to allocate 32GB instead of just 16GB ?


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> *I am preparing update 1.6.1 in the coming days.* Stay in touch



Awesome! Thanks @1usmus :specool:


----------



## cameronmc88

Can somebody please tell me which of these settings I need to change to match the DRAM Calculator suggested settings for the MEMORY INTERLEAVING TWEAKS


----------



## Filters83

apparently from the first test i did im able to run b die 3200C14 cip to 3600C14 fast settings at 1.43 volt instead of 1.45 ^^
Im still testing but maby this mean im able to raise frequency even more not going over 1.45 volt ?


----------



## Yuke

Hello everyone, 



first of all great job with the tool, made figuring out the timings much easier!


I managed to get 3800Mhz 16 16 16 36 52 "stable" (no Kahru or hci Mem errors over night) but i have sometimes an issue where my Mouse stops tracking for a split second (not in games but when the load on the memory controller ist heavier ... like starting a setup exe of a big program or doing Latency test in AIDA64.


Can anyone tell me what i have to adjust to fix this? I presume it has something to do with voltage....


Thanks for the reply...


Yuke


:edit:


forgot to write down some settings...


2x 16gb DR B-Die @ 1.46V


VDDP: 900mV


----------



## lordzed83

Wickedtme said:


> Thanks, i was waiting for this also, quietly in the wings, lol


Hope its usefull for ya


----------



## SaccoSVD

Hello 1usmus

Here are my current working settings on my Corsair Vengeance LED 3000Mhz. They are for the most part the XMP except for the primary timings. I hope that can help you with the calculator because so far nothing has worked with Zen2 (but I could have it at 3200 on Zen1)

This is Hynix AFR, Dual rank, 4dimm

Part: CMU64GX4M4C3000C15 Website


----------



## Solohuman

Quick question:

I run Thaipoon burner to get my SPD readings with my ram, it tells me I have Hynix chips but does not tell me what kind because DRAM calculator has 3 diff types of Hynix to pick from when calculating. So how does one know what type of Hynix it is?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## LicSqualo

Solohuman said:


> Quick question:
> 
> I run Thaipoon burner to get my SPD readings with my ram, it tells me I have Hynix chips but does not tell me what kind because DRAM calculator has 3 diff types of Hynix to pick from when calculating. So how does one know what type of Hynix it is?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 Post your Thaiphoon screenshot, please


----------



## Yuke

Hello all, 

i OC't my RAM recently and it runs Kahru RAM-Test overnight (16000%) without Errors. I have one problem tho...sometimes when i just go afk for 20-30min, i come back to find a rebooted system. Any idea what voltage (or whatever else) to tweak to get it Idle stable (lol)?


Any help is appreciated!





System:

3800x
Aorus Master
2x 16GB Samsung B-Die DR (16 16 16 36 3600Mhz -> OC to 3800Mhz with help of DRAM-Calculator)


----------



## SaccoSVD

Usually when is apparently stable but something fails I add one more notch voltage to the RAM.


----------



## Solohuman

LicSqualo said:


> Post your Thaiphoon screenshot, please


Here you go.


----------



## thomasck

@Solohuman it's cjr

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## LicSqualo

Solohuman said:


> Here you go.


Yes, now is possible! See the "Part Number" in "Dram Components" (2nd column) and you will found the "CJR" words...


----------



## herericc

Just put a 3900x in my Crosshair VI hero with 4 sticks of 8GB TeamGroup 3200MT C14 samsung ram.

V1 of DRAM calc's 3600MT settings don't work for me - they boot to windows but I can't get past 5 seconds of DRAM Mem checker without tens of errors. What's my next step? Try V2? then start bringing in timings one at a time?
?

I'm running the latest (official 7306) bios from the C6H support page. There's a newer one (7401) but it's unvalidated which is kinda sketchy - it's on a dropbox, not their official site.


----------



## Pilotasso

Don't forget to use the values for DRAM voltage, SOC, termination resistance etc. Get to the Powersuply system and use them as well.

My timings for fast 3600 didn't work at first either, but after upping the voltage from the rated 1.4V to 1.41V, and changed TRAS and TRC timings to safe (and only those) then I could get my 4 sticks to the 3600Mhz Speed I intended.

Also, be careful that the timings may not be in the same order as those shown in BIOS.


----------



## herericc

Pilotasso said:


> Don't forget to use the values for DRAM voltage, SOC, termination resistance etc. Get to the Powersuply system and use them as well.
> 
> My timings for fast 3600 didn't work at first either, but after upping the voltage from the rated 1.4V to 1.41V, and changed TRAS and TRC timings to safe (and only those) then I could get my 4 sticks to the 3600Mhz Speed I intended.
> 
> Also, be careful that the timings may not be in the same order as those shown in BIOS.


I have a C6H which seems to be mostly in the same order as the calc thankfully.

You only need 1.4 for 3600MT??? That seems low!

The values I'm most curious about are the CLDO VDDP and CLDO VDDG voltages - VDDP shows up in the tweaker's paradise menu, as does CLDO_VDDP. 1usmus gives values for both, but i'm not sure which is which lol.

Added images from the dram calc and highlighted the values i'm not certain of their locations / which entry to edit.

I think Vref is fine at auto since it's just meant to be 0.5x the full DRAM voltage.
CLDO VDDG is on the main "Extreme Tweaker" page right below the DRAM voltage.
I assume the CAD_BUS timings are entered directly above the cad bus block termination???


----------



## lordzed83

Yuke said:


> Hello all,
> 
> i OC't my RAM recently and it runs Kahru RAM-Test overnight (16000%) without Errors. I have one problem tho...sometimes when i just go afk for 20-30min, i come back to find a rebooted system. Any idea what voltage (or whatever else) to tweak to get it Idle stable (lol)?
> 
> 
> Any help is appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> System:
> 
> 3800x
> Aorus Master
> 2x 16GB Samsung B-Die DR (16 16 16 36 3600Mhz -> OC to 3800Mhz with help of DRAM-Calculator)


Not enough SoC voltage get it up or increse LLC of SoC


----------



## Solohuman

@LicSquato & thomasck

Thanks, I understand now, they should make that part clearer when reading Thaipoon burner readout imo.


----------



## Yuke

lordzed83 said:


> Not enough SoC voltage get it up or increse LLC of SoC



Hey,


SoC was on Auto but it seems to already be at 1.1V and not sure if i should push it further. I set VDDP to 950mV and VDDG to 1000mV after the random rebooting, not sure if that helps much tho. Worked for the rest of the evening but i wasnt afk that much to really test it.


----------



## Solohuman

So I ran Thaipoon burner again on my rig & it produces a '?' in the readout from part number section. That is it went like this > H5AN8G8N?FR-TFC.
But I still went with the option of CJR for my Hynix chips.
Entered the values for 3533MHz (board only supports up to 3466) rebooted & ran memtest86+ v8.2 for 3 passes & all successful!
Now doing windows memtesting.


----------



## cluster edge

Hello, guys!
Recently I've upgraded to 3800x on CHVii and managed to get [email protected] preset. But AIDA readings telling me that something is definitely wrong:

https://ibb.co/kJ8ZnLm
https://ibb.co/4N5MRGP
All settings are set from the latest version of Ryzen calculator (Great kudos to @1usmus!)

Earlier on 2700x CPU 3200CL14
https://ibb.co/74MSjpP

Any thoughts will be appreciated!

PS Images linking with preview doesn't works fine for me, so only links(


----------



## RossiOCUK

herericc said:


> I have a C6H which seems to be mostly in the same order as the calc thankfully.
> 
> You only need 1.4 for 3600MT??? That seems low!
> 
> The values I'm most curious about are the CLDO VDDP and CLDO VDDG voltages - VDDP shows up in the tweaker's paradise menu, as does CLDO_VDDP. 1usmus gives values for both, but i'm not sure which is which lol.
> 
> Added images from the dram calc and highlighted the values i'm not certain of their locations / which entry to edit.
> 
> I think Vref is fine at auto since it's just meant to be 0.5x the full DRAM voltage.
> CLDO VDDG is on the main "Extreme Tweaker" page right below the DRAM voltage.
> I assume the CAD_BUS timings are entered directly above the cad bus block termination???


4x8GB on C6H here. I couldn't get any combination of the calculator to work for 3600, ended up sort of tweaking a 3800 set of timings. 

Use the CLDO VDDP and CLDO VDDG voltages in the AMD Overclocking menu.


----------



## herericc

RossiOCUK said:


> 4x8GB on C6H here. I couldn't get any combination of the calculator to work for 3600, ended up sort of tweaking a 3866 set of timings.
> 
> Use the CLDO VDDP and CLDO VDDG voltages in the AMD Overclocking menu.


I know I'm asking a lot but could you possibly take a screenshot of your Ryzen Master / Ryzen Timing Checker / HWInfo64 / BIOS page to show timings / other settings? I'm very curious what your settings are for 4 sticks @ 3866. 

Nice clocks!


----------



## RossiOCUK

herericc said:


> I know I'm asking a lot but could you possibly take a screenshot of your Ryzen Master / Ryzen Timing Checker / HWInfo64 / BIOS page to show timings / other settings? I'm very curious what your settings are for 4 sticks @ 3866.
> 
> Nice clocks!


I think you've misinterpreted my post. I am running 3600MHz with the timings from the 3800MHz profile (not 3866MHz, that bit was my mistake) with some tweaks. 

Regardless, this is what i'm currently running, i've included my BIOS settings in the spoiler.



















BIOS dump:



Spoiler



[2019/08/17 19:06:18]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
Performance Enhancer [Auto]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [17]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [17]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [17]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
Trc [54]
TrrdS [6]
TrrdL [9]
Tfaw [36]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [14]
Twr [26]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [5]
TwrwrScl [5]
Trfc [358]
Trfc2 [Auto]
Trfc4 [Auto]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [10]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [3]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [8]
ProcODT [36.9 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [Auto]
RttWr [Auto]
RttPark [Auto]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.45000]
VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Auto]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Auto]
CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.45000]
CLDO VDDG voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Disabled]
Q-Code LED Function [Disabled after POST]
Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
PCIEX8_2：X4/X4 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
When system is in working state [Off]
In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [Off]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [Samsung SSD 850 EVO 1TB]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
Corsair Voyager SliderX2000A [Auto]
USB3.1_E1 [Enabled]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
USB3_5 [Enabled]
USB3_6 [Enabled]
USB3_7 [Enabled]
USB3_8 [Enabled]
USB3_9 [Enabled]
USB3_10 [Enabled]
USB2_11 [Enabled]
USB2_12 [Enabled]
USB2_13 [Enabled]
USB2_14 [Enabled]
USB_15 [Enabled]
USB_16 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [500 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Upper Temperature [75]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [50]
CPU Middle Temperature [25]
CPU Fan Middle. Duty Cycle (%) [25]
CPU Lower Temperature [20]
CPU Fan Min. Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [500 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
USB3_1 [Enabled]
USB3_2 [Enabled]
USB3_3 [Enabled]
USB3_4 [Enabled]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
NVMe Support [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Boot Logo Display [Enabled]
POST Delay Time [2 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [4]
Profile Name [3600_tuned]
Save to Profile [3]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
Platform First Error Handling [Enabled]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [Auto]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
Disable DF to external IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Disable]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Auto]
FFE Write Training [Auto]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Auto]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [3]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [Auto]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Auto]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Auto]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
BoostFmaxEn [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]


----------



## herericc

RossiOCUK said:


> I think you've misinterpreted my post. I am running 3600MHz with the timings from the 3800MHz profile (not 3866MHz, that bit was my mistake) with some tweaks.
> 
> Regardless, this is what i'm currently running, i've included my BIOS settings in the spoiler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS dump:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2019/08/17 19:06:18]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Default]
> Performance Enhancer [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [17]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [17]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [17]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
> Trc [54]
> TrrdS [6]
> TrrdL [9]
> Tfaw [36]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [14]
> Twr [26]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [5]
> TwrwrScl [5]
> Trfc [358]
> Trfc2 [Auto]
> Trfc4 [Auto]
> Tcwl [16]
> Trtp [10]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [3]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [8]
> ProcODT [36.9 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [Auto]
> RttWr [Auto]
> RttPark [Auto]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [Auto]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [Auto]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Auto]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [Auto]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Auto]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.45000]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> VDDP Standby Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
> - CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.01250]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.45000]
> CLDO VDDG voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Disabled]
> Q-Code LED Function [Disabled after POST]
> Hyper kit Mode [Disabled]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Super I/O Clock Skew [Auto]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> PCIEX4_3 Bandwidth [Auto]
> PCIEX8_2：X4/X4 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [GEN 3]
> PCIEX8_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2 Link Mode [GEN 3]
> SB Link Mode [GEN 3]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> When system is in working state [Off]
> In sleep, hibernate and soft off states [Off]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_E1 [Auto]
> USB Type C Power Switch for USB3.1_EC2 [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [Samsung SSD 850 EVO 1TB]
> Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> Corsair Voyager SliderX2000A [Auto]
> USB3.1_E1 [Enabled]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> USB3_5 [Enabled]
> USB3_6 [Enabled]
> USB3_7 [Enabled]
> USB3_8 [Enabled]
> USB3_9 [Enabled]
> USB3_10 [Enabled]
> USB2_11 [Enabled]
> USB2_12 [Enabled]
> USB2_13 [Enabled]
> USB2_14 [Enabled]
> USB_15 [Enabled]
> USB_16 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [500 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
> CPU Upper Temperature [75]
> CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [50]
> CPU Middle Temperature [25]
> CPU Fan Middle. Duty Cycle (%) [25]
> CPU Lower Temperature [20]
> CPU Fan Min. Duty Cycle (%) [20]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [500 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> USB3_1 [Enabled]
> USB3_2 [Enabled]
> USB3_3 [Enabled]
> USB3_4 [Enabled]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> NVMe Support [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Normal Boot]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Enabled]
> POST Delay Time [2 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [4]
> Profile Name [3600_tuned]
> Save to Profile [3]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Platform First Error Handling [Enabled]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> Disable DF to external IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Disable]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [3]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> BoostFmaxEn [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]


Wow thanks for the thorough reply! I definitely misinterpreted what you said about the speed but I get it now!

I'll be busy tonight trying out some of your settings for sure!


----------



## lordzed83

cluster edge said:


> Hello, guys!
> Recently I've upgraded to 3800x on CHVii and managed to get [email protected] preset. But AIDA readings telling me that something is definitely wrong:
> 
> https://ibb.co/kJ8ZnLm
> https://ibb.co/4N5MRGP
> All settings are set from the latest version of Ryzen calculator (Great kudos to @1usmus!)
> 
> Earlier on 2700x CPU 3200CL14
> https://ibb.co/74MSjpP
> 
> Any thoughts will be appreciated!
> 
> PS Images linking with preview doesn't works fine for me, so only links(


All looks fine to me.


----------



## herericc

lordzed83 said:


> All looks fine to me.


If it's the write speeds you're concerned about - that's just the reality of using a single CCD Ryzen CPU. They have half the write bandwidth to memory. If you want similar/better write bandwidth to your 2700X you'll need a 3900x or 3950x. The overall latency also went up with Ryzen 3000. You don't notice the increase in games though, since the amount of cache on the chip is INSANE so you don't need to actually access memory as frequently as before.


----------



## Hequaqua

cluster edge said:


> Hello, guys!
> Recently I've upgraded to 3800x on CHVii and managed to get [email protected] preset. But AIDA readings telling me that something is definitely wrong:
> 
> https://ibb.co/kJ8ZnLm
> https://ibb.co/4N5MRGP
> All settings are set from the latest version of Ryzen calculator (Great kudos to @1usmus!)
> 
> Earlier on 2700x CPU 3200CL14
> https://ibb.co/74MSjpP
> 
> Any thoughts will be appreciated!
> 
> PS Images linking with preview doesn't works fine for me, so only links(





lordzed83 said:


> All looks fine to me.


Looks a bit low compared to mine....my timings are a bit tighter though:









EDIT: Yea, writes speeds are about right though. Try tightening up your timings a bit more.


----------



## Krisztias

cluster edge said:


> Hello, guys!
> Recently I've upgraded to 3800x on CHVii and managed to get [email protected] preset. But AIDA readings telling me that something is definitely wrong:
> 
> https://ibb.co/kJ8ZnLm
> https://ibb.co/4N5MRGP
> All settings are set from the latest version of Ryzen calculator (Great kudos to @1usmus!)
> 
> Earlier on 2700x CPU 3200CL14
> https://ibb.co/74MSjpP
> 
> Any thoughts will be appreciated!
> 
> PS Images linking with preview doesn't works fine for me, so only links(


Enable BankGroupSwap alt. I you disable it, like the calculator suggest, you will get reduced read and copy speed.


----------



## GeneralHARM

*GeneralHARM*

Any suggestions for getting these timing stable, i can post and boot but i get errors in Memtest

https://imgur.com/a/42zqepI


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

@1usmus I think this will be useful for Zen 2 users. Perhaps you can add this to the first post. I collected a lot of information in regards to RAM scaling:

3900X RAM Scaling vs 9900K data collected from Hardware Unboxed https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uHdEavdBVH0c0LnWnwbUWDxC306YgnKir_W3ticgdYQ/edit#gid=0

Lab501 1080P results https://imgur.com/a/Tyv8v7N

Lab 501 1440P and 4K results https://imgur.com/a/91zCGfS

Linus Tech Videos https://imgur.com/a/Z78JYHg

Hardware Unboxed https://imgur.com/a/MB6TFBc


----------



## lordzed83

GeneralHARM said:


> Any suggestions for getting these timing stable, i can post and boot but i get errors in Memtest
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/42zqepI


Same situaton as me with CL14 I found no solution.


----------



## yzy

GeneralHARM said:


> Any suggestions for getting these timing stable, i can post and boot but i get errors in Memtest
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/42zqepI


try 1.475v

I have almost the same settings fully stable @ 1.475. Could try even a bit lower voltage but i didnt notice anything different in temps between 1.45v and 1.47v.

https://i.imgur.com/puqRbac.jpg


----------



## Yuke

Yuke said:


> Hey,
> 
> 
> SoC was on Auto but it seems to already be at 1.1V and not sure if i should push it further. I set VDDP to 950mV and VDDG to 1000mV after the random rebooting, not sure if that helps much tho. Worked for the rest of the evening but i wasnt afk that much to really test it.


I have to quote myself here sadly. Just rebooted out of nowhere while windows idling and not sure what else to do. SOC-V is 1125mV now, VDDP-V 1100mV and VDDG-V 1075mV and i still had the reboot. Thinking about SOC-LLC but i dont know what value to set it to.


----------



## Bubar37

SaccoSVD said:


> Hello 1usmus
> 
> Here are my current working settings on my Corsair Vengeance LED 3000Mhz. They are for the most part the XMP except for the primary timings. I hope that can help you with the calculator because so far nothing has worked with Zen2 (but I could have it at 3200 on Zen1)
> 
> This is Hynix AFR, Dual rank, 4dimm
> 
> Part: CMU64GX4M4C3000C15 Website



Same problem here was able with hynix cjr @3600cl16 with msi b350 and ryzen 1600. But with both 1600 and 3700x on asus x570 tuf i need to let everything in auto except for the primary timings(and ram voltage) or it just don't post at all ! I'm a bit lost


----------



## 1usmus

*Update 1.6.1 received 2 new features.*
First - is a graph of random access to caches and DRAM.
The second is *FreezKiller*, software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance. 
Automatic setup for *Memtest* mode (in one clicks) and of course global update presets for Zen2.

*August 25*


----------



## dgoc18

Guys,


I just flashed new beta bios 2B1 for MSI X470 GPC that allow me to run 3800 CL14 this time.

I noticed SOC voltage now 1.2v on auto and HWINFO64 show 1.162v avg.

I used Dram Calc and I accident set motherboard B350/X370 that works for me lol.

3800 CL 14-16-14-28-42-304 with 1.52v in bios that works, 1.45-1.50v won’t post.

HWINFO64 beta 6.11-3895 now show UCLK proper to appear on status.

It’s was FCLK before, Now changed to UCLK, You should find it.


----------



## 1usmus

KingEngineRevUp said:


> @1usmus I think this will be useful for Zen 2 users. Perhaps you can add this to the first post. I collected a lot of information in regards to RAM scaling:
> 
> 3900X RAM Scaling vs 9900K data collected from Hardware Unboxed https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uHdEavdBVH0c0LnWnwbUWDxC306YgnKir_W3ticgdYQ/edit#gid=0
> 
> Lab501 1080P results https://imgur.com/a/Tyv8v7N
> 
> Lab 501 1440P and 4K results https://imgur.com/a/91zCGfS
> 
> Linus Tech Videos https://imgur.com/a/Z78JYHg
> 
> Hardware Unboxed https://imgur.com/a/MB6TFBc



For the russian-speaking community, I have already released 2 reviews.

https://www.overclockers.ua/cpu/amd-zen-2-ryzen-7-3700x/
https://www.overclockers.ua/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/

TechpowerUP editors are currently busy editing the material. I hope you see him next week.


----------



## thegr8anand

1usmus said:


> *Update 1.6.1 received 2 new features.*
> First - is a graph of random access to caches and DRAM.
> The second is *FreezKiller*, software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance.
> Automatic setup for *Memtest* mode (in one clicks) and of course global update presets for Zen2.
> 
> *August 25*



Wow. FreezKiller will be interesting.


----------



## abso

Im looking for some advice with my new system and RAM OC. I got a 3700X and 2x8GB Crucial Ballistix 3000Mhz (E-Dies). I kept my Asus X370 Crosshair VI and everything works fine. I started to OC my RAM and tighten up the timings but it feels like my latency is to high considering the speed/timings I am running right now. I get 74ns in Aida64 and see other people get like mid 60s with similar settings. On my previous 1700X with 3000mhz Crosshair RAM (Samsung E-Die) I even achieved lower latency.

Any ideas if there is an issue here or how to improve?


----------



## reqq

So these new Gskill Neo3600mhz 14-15-15-35 are not b-die but rather Hynix CJR. You think these are topped out or anything left in the tank on normal voltage <1.5v?


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> *Update 1.6.1 received 2 new features.*
> First - is a graph of random access to caches and DRAM.
> The second is *FreezKiller*, software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance.
> Automatic setup for *Memtest* mode (in one clicks) and of course global update presets for Zen2.
> 
> *August 25*


25 damn wont have much than few hours to test this out cause WoW classic comes out and thats my time to play around with everything is gone


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

1usmus said:


> For the russian-speaking community, I have already released 2 reviews.
> 
> https://www.overclockers.ua/cpu/amd-zen-2-ryzen-7-3700x/
> https://www.overclockers.ua/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/
> 
> TechpowerUP editors are currently busy editing the material. I hope you see him next week.


Thanks. I just thought that data I posted earlier would be useful. I collected them in IMGUR galleries and also made the google sheet based off of hardware unboxed.


----------



## Bensam123

How much do you want to bet FreezeKiller just empties the standby list that so many people still don't know about or how to do? ISLC is a application that already does that.


----------



## owikh84

reqq said:


> So these new Gskill Neo3600mhz 14-15-15-35 are not b-die but rather Hynix CJR. You think these are topped out or anything left in the tank on normal voltage <1.5v?


It's B-die, look at the memory tab it says Samsung.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1728898-g-skill-amd-ryzen-3000s.html#post28033678


----------



## flankd

*Question about my Hardware OC potential*

Hello everyone,

I have the G. Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZN kit (trident z neo 4 dimm samsung b die), on the x570 Aorus Master, with a Seasonic 850W Titanium PSU and Ryzen 9 3900X.

DRAM Calculator 1.6.0.3 by 1usmus says my OC potential with 93% memory chip quality is only 3674 CL14.

I was hoping to achieve 3733 at CL14 1:1 Ratio... is this possible or unrealistic expectations? I think I have pretty good hardware, no?

Thanks for any help!

-Chris


----------



## Krisztias

flankd said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I have the G. Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZN kit (trident z neo 4 dimm samsung b die), on the x570 Aorus Master, with a Seasonic 850W Titanium PSU and Ryzen 9 3900X.
> 
> DRAM Calculator 1.6.0.3 by 1usmus says my OC potential with 93% memory chip quality is only 3674 CL14.
> 
> I was hoping to achieve 3733 at CL14 1:1 Ratio... is this possible or unrealistic expectations? I think I have pretty good hardware, no?
> 
> Thanks for any help!
> 
> -Chris


Test it, and you will find out  I have FlareX 3200C14 sticks and I am able to doo [email protected],5V and [email protected],465V.


----------



## rdr09

Krisztias said:


> Test it, and you will find out  I have FlareX 3200C14 sticks and I am able to doo [email protected],5V and [email protected],465V.


What did you get in Aida mem latency for the 3733 CL14? On my FlareX, at 3733 CL16 i get 66.


----------



## Krisztias

rdr09 said:


> What did you get in Aida mem latency for the 3733 CL14? On my FlareX, at 3733 CL16 i get 66.


It was 65.7. With 3800C16 I get 63.5.


----------



## rdr09

Krisztias said:


> It was 65.7. With 3800C16 I get 63.5.


Nice. That 3800 looks excellent. I have not used the calc. Just setting XMP for 3200 speed and making as few changes. I just read a calc version is due soon.


----------



## Wickedtme

rdr09 said:


> Nice. That 3800 looks excellent. I have not used the calc. Just setting XMP for 3200 speed and making as few changes. I just read a calc version is due soon.


I was able to get my flarex to 3800 also, just bought Royal silver 3600 16-16-16-16 32, running on fast settings. Im hoping to hit 3800, which should be fairly easy, just waiting for the new Dram Calc.


----------



## n3o611

Event of today? keep refreshing for 1.6.1 

Thanks for all your work @1usmus


----------



## Pandora's Box




----------



## FRAUSS 79

good evening for all ! i'm new for this community and for amd ryzen.

I own a tuf x570 rysen 3700x with gskills F4-3600C18D-16GTZRX The system is not stable with xmp , but is stable at 3333c18 22 22 22 or at 3200c16 19 19 19 38

I want use dram calculator for Fix the correct timings but the value if Too low especially the CAS. The RAMs are Hynix C-die,. is not possible that drop value more low of original xmp .

https://i.postimg.cc/pTv3RXj6/screenshot-49.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/MTZt9cVq/screenshot-50.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/3RQsdqCc/screenshot-43.jpg

What can I do to find better but stable timings?

Someone who has these RAM could send me an XML made with Thaiphoon Burner for a test?


Thanks !


----------



## spirch

hello, new member here


is importing from taiphoon still important? here is mine or read from xmp from the calculator good enough?



when playing around with the calculator, should i keep manual profile (it switch to that when i import xmp) or should i switch to v1 or even v2?


also, i read that when corsair use of b-die in 3200 cl16, it mean crap one. should i use v2 over v1 profile to be safer?


i don't want extreme overclocking from my ram, i just want "more" 



btw, thanks for the tool!


----------



## thegr8anand

37000% Karhu ramtest passed.


----------



## Saiger0

thegr8anand said:


> 37000% Karhu ramtest passed.


now play an hour bf5 to see if your system is reall stable


----------



## Bubar37

FRAUSS 79 said:


> good evening for all ! i'm new for this community and for amd ryzen.
> 
> I own a tuf x570 rysen 3700x with gskills F4-3600C18D-16GTZRX The system is not stable with xmp , but is stable at 3333c18 22 22 22 or at 3200c16 19 19 19 38
> 
> I want use dram calculator for Fix the correct timings but the value if Too low especially the CAS. The RAMs are Hynix C-die,. is not possible that drop value more low of original xmp .
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/pTv3RXj6/screenshot-49.jpg
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/MTZt9cVq/screenshot-50.jpg
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/3RQsdqCc/screenshot-43.jpg
> 
> What can I do to find better but stable timings?
> 
> Someone who has these RAM could send me an XML made with Thaiphoon Burner for a test?
> 
> 
> Thanks !



Got same chip hynix cjr on my patriot viper only difference is xmp @3733cl17 they are ok on msi b350 but on asus x570 tuf like you i got exactly the same limitation as you .
I think i's more a bios problem for now ...


----------



## SaccoSVD

Bensam123 said:


> How much do you want to bet FreezeKiller just empties the standby list that so many people still don't know about or how to do? ISLC is a application that already does that.


So this will clean the cached data in RAM?

I guess that is not "needed" for users with 32 or my case, 64GB?

How does this apps helps exactly? (I'm more of a curious and tinker oriented person)


----------



## spirch

it seem my ram can't handle v1 profile - safe, it cause error around 170% in the memtest


v2 seem to be ok to handle at least 500%, for now i went back to XMP since V2 vs xmp, the gain was minimal and i was getting a 3-4ns latency hit


so it seem if I want to go high than 3200, i need to keep following v2 (for now)


let see what 1.6.1 bring to the table!


----------



## Killajolt

3900x, x570 gigabyte xtreme, 32gig 4 sticks of 4000Mhz cas 17 (g.skillz trident z) BOIS ABB. 



I cannot get the memory to work on the most of the presets using dram cal. 3400 with tighten timings, no good, 3600+timings no good. Here is the weird part, 3533 is working on fast with timing tuned pretty good so far. Not sure why going to 3600 break it or even going lower. 



I am super green at memory OCing and using gigabyte boards. Anyone tell me what voltages i should be adjusting besides the dram voltage in the gigabyte bios? I am not even sure i am adjusting the proper SOC voltage for example.


----------



## Streetdragon

Saiger0 said:


> now play an hour bf5 to see if your system is reall stable


is bf5 really a good "test"? i can do aida and ramtest all day too


----------



## BS Zalman

Hi All

First time using DRAM Calculator, since this is my first ryzen build.

I've used TestMem5 with @1usmus_v2 config and MemTest86-USB (4 cycle 7 hours long), not a single error found. 
That is stable i think..?? Any opinion ??


----------



## dgoc18

I am going to stick with old 1.6.0.3 works for me, New one 1.61 seems downgrade, See the pix below.


----------



## paih85

dgoc18 said:


> I am going stick with old 1.6.0.3 works for me, New one 1.61 seems downgrade, See the pix below.


1.6.1 download link?


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> 1.6.1 download link?


Computerbase has it :thumb:


----------



## Yuke

Hello, 



how do i set CAD_BUS timings to 0? My BIOS settings go from 1 to 65? Is Auto = 0 ?


Thanks for the help.


----------



## SaccoSVD

Got it.

I see also the new FreezKiller tab.

I would like to have info about this


----------



## Bartholdi

Couldn't push samsung B-die 32Gb 3200MHz even 33 Mhz or one tick of timing even with more voltage...
So for the Corsair 32GB 3200MHz kit nothing would move. (With Ryzen 3600, MEG ace and AX860)


----------



## 1usmus

dgoc18 said:


> I am going stick with old 1.6.0.3 works for me, New one 1.61 seems downgrade, See the pix below.


It makes no sense to set too tight timings.


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.1*









*Changelog:*

* NEW. Graph of random access to caches and DRAM. Please note , that the testing process may take several minutes.
* NEW. FreezKiller - software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance. New iteration of cleaning Standby caches without jerking. Just click the "Start" button, minimize the application and launch your game.
* NEW. Samsung b-die , Hynix CJR and Micron E-die presets. Particular attention was paid to memory, which is based on Micron E-die chips.
* Updated Memtest mode, the application will automatically configure all the parameters individually for your system in 1 click (just select MEMbench mode -> Memtest).
* Improved support for 4 DIMM's.
* Overclocking potential DRAM received an update (tab "Advanced").
* Correction MEMbench algorithms. In some cases, you will get better results.
* Included libraries for improved compatibility with some versions of Windows.
* Bug fixes.

*Download:*
Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
Сomputerbase.de link
Techspot link


----------



## spirch

Bartholdi said:


> Couldn't push samsung B-die 32Gb 3200MHz even 33 Mhz or one tick of timing even with more voltage...
> So for the Corsair 32GB 3200MHz kit nothing would move. (With Ryzen 3600, MEG ace and AX860)



If you look at 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-544.html#post28102640


Does your taiphoon info match mine? If yes, i might be in the same boat as you


----------



## SaccoSVD

> * NEW. FreezKiller - software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance. New iteration of cleaning Standby caches without jerking. Just click the "Start" button, minimize the application and launch your game.


Thank you. 

Any use outside of games? Such as real time audio apps?

Does this app empties all cached data? For instance, if I open a project in an audio app with lots of waves, it takes longer the first time but afterwards the waves stay in RAM, the next time I open the project is much faster. Would FreezKiller wipe that data too? (I would prefer to keep it) I'm on a 64GB Kit BTW *EDIT: It did, this app is not for me.
*
Also, maybe now we need the Dram Calc to be able to minimize to tray if we are supposed to keep FreezKiller opened.


----------



## Nighthog

I still don't like the Micron E-die suggestions. They won't work with my kits.

There are different Micron E-die available.

For example older:
3466Mhz 19-23-23-42-80 1.200V
3200Mhz 18-21-21-XX-XX 1.200V

NEW:
3600Mhz 16-18-18-XX-XX 1.350V
3466Mhz 16-18-18-XX-XX 1.350V
3200Mhz 16-18-18-XX-XX 1.350V

The 1.350V kits probably does work with your application suggestions but the older 1.200V kits don't. You probably need to make a differentiation between them. 

As example my 3466 1.200V kit does 4x8Gb 4266Mhz 18-26-19-44-73 1.450V as MAX OC in 4x8GB.
2x8Gb can do 4600Mhz as I have mentioned in PM before. but tRCDRD is always much higher for the 1.200V kits, same with tRC.


----------



## ComansoRowlett

That overclocking "potential" though ????


----------



## dgoc18

1usmus said:


> It makes no sense to set too tight timings.


 @1usmus

How so ? Is 3800 CL14 no good ? Recommend to CL16 correct ?

See my best aida64 benchmark score below.:thumb:


----------



## herericc

Nice results, what type of ram are you running? What voltages?

I've managed to get stable at 3666 14-17-17-17 with the subtimings from the V2 profile of 3733 @ 1.45V on C6H. 4x8GB Samsung B-die on TeamGroup Team Dark Pro sticks.

Plan to tweak some more but putting the voltage on my ram above 1.45 seems a bit scary to me - i'd like to find whatever the best I can get at 1.45 is before I try for higher.


----------



## Axaion

So um, on the Memory Quality part, what constitutes a high quality, medium quality and so on for b-die in %?

Tried searcing but couldnt find anything


----------



## MikeS3000

I have a new Trident Z Neo memory kit as seen in this link: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...eoDDR4-3600MHz-CL16-19-19-39-1.35V16GB-(2x8GB)

It's coming up in Thaiphoon as Hynix MFR single rank memory. I'm using an x570 board with 3900x. The RAM runs fine at XMP settings. The last 2 versions of DRAM Calcultor say "Not Supported" when I try to calculate anything. What is odd is that if I step the frequency down to 3400 instead of my RAM's rating 3600 then I get the software to calculate values. Anyone have advice as this software looks awesome and I'd like to tighten up my timings from the default XMP of 16-19-19-39 if possible.


----------



## thegr8anand

dgoc18 said:


> I am going to stick with old 1.6.0.3 works for me, New one 1.61 seems downgrade, See the pix below.



Does your ram work at 3800 c14?


----------



## dspx

I tried to compare the timings. Is this a bug?


----------



## criminal

Saiger0 said:


> now play an hour bf5 to see if your system is reall stable



LOL... yep

I just knew my ram was stable after running a few tests the other night. Then I fired up BF5 just to have it completely crash after 5 minutes. :thumbsdow


----------



## dgoc18

thegr8anand said:


> Does your ram work at 3800 c14?


Yes I am running 3200 [email protected] 3800 CL14 without sweat balls.


----------



## lordzed83

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Changelog:*
> 
> * NEW. Graph of random access to caches and DRAM. Please note , that the testing process may take several minutes.
> * NEW. FreezKiller - software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance. New iteration of cleaning Standby caches without jerking. Just click the "Start" button, minimize the application and launch your game.
> * NEW. Samsung b-die , Hynix CJR and Micron E-die presets. Particular attention was paid to memory, which is based on Micron E-die chips.
> * Updated Memtest mode, the application will automatically configure all the parameters individually for your system in 1 click (just select MEMbench mode -> Memtest).
> * Improved support for 4 DIMM's.
> * Overclocking potential DRAM received an update (tab "Advanced").
> * Correction MEMbench algorithms. In some cases, you will get better results.
> * Included libraries for improved compatibility with some versions of Windows.
> * Bug fixes.
> 
> *Download:*
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> Techspot link


Cool spreading the good news. Ill test after I finish rendering vids from rave last night.


----------



## Saiger0

dgoc18 said:


> Yes I am running 3200 [email protected] 3800 CL14 without sweat balls.


Only very few kits can run 3800cl14 at a decent voltage. I need over 1.5v which is too much without active cooling imo. The difference between 3800cl14 and 16 is minimal while the latter is just way easier to get stable.
Just look at my results.


----------



## lordzed83

ComansoRowlett said:


> That overclocking "potential" though ????


DAmn You got some epic sticks  It's like you have free ram D:


----------



## Nwanko

The links don't work for, it shows me 1.6.0.3, all the links i click.


----------



## BeetleatWar1977

Nwanko said:


> The links don't work for, it shows me 1.6.0.3, all the links i click.


the guru3d one works


----------



## Filters83

Is this profile correct ? 1.40v ? i tried its not posting even 1.43


----------



## herericc

Filters83 said:


> Is this profile correct ? 1.40v ? i tried its not posting even 1.43


I'd try using more voltage - 1.4V for 1733 (regardless of timings) seems extremely optimistic.

I'm using 1.45 to get stable with my ram at 3666. Gotta try to tighten my timings but i'm basically using 3733 timings and C14.


----------



## Bubar37

I don't know what's happening with this f*** motherboard seems there is a wall after 3200 fclk 1600 asus x570 tuf gaming plus
After 50 try where my computer doesn't eveen post ... i tried to use dram calculator @3600 with 3200 fclk 1600 and it posts but anything else higer no post 

I used 40 ohm procdot tried from 36 to 60 ...
I hope it's due to bad bios 

I saw other people with same motherboard and ram chip if it can helps a bit :


----------



## kazama

Passed the membench without errors, only used the first values for safe 3733cl16, rest of values on auto, dram voltaje 1.45, is enough this membench for check stability?

I tested the full values on fast preset, but give me a blue screen.Will improve use the full values for the safe preset?

Im on 3200cl14 trident z rgb.


----------



## ComansoRowlett

kazama said:


> Passed the membench without errors, only used the first values for safe 3733cl16, rest of values on auto, dram voltaje 1.45, is enough this membench for check stability?
> 
> I tested the full values on fast preset, but give me a blue screen.Will improve use the full values for the safe preset?
> 
> Im on 3200cl14 trident z rgb.


Get your tRFC down that is insanely high. Try dropping it to 500 at least, I don't know what IC you have but b-die can usually go to around 300 or even below depending on the quality of the stick. You'll reduce your latency a truck load just by getting that down.


----------



## paih85

3800c16 @ 1.4v only. stable so far. TM5 no error. FH4 + dota2 tested no crash/bsod. thanks @1usmus


----------



## kazama

ComansoRowlett said:


> Get your tRFC down that is insanely high. Try dropping it to 500 at least, I don't know what IC you have but b-die can usually go to around 300 or even below depending on the quality of the stick. You'll reduce your latency a truck load just by getting that down.


Thanks, changed the tRFC for the safe value and got better latency also reduced the dram voltaje to 1.42, TM5 finished without errors.

I put all the values from safe preset 1.61 dram calculator, just simply wont boot.

Any other improvements over my timmings to improve latency?


----------



## buyology

Hi there, i got a G-Skill 32GB (16X2) 3000MHz CL16 ( Hynix AFR ) Ram kit, i'm not experienced on memory overclocking, i have question



I'm trying manual timings with fast 3200, everything is ok ( Boot, Memtest )


But timings are same with manual timings and auto timings, did i something wrong? I did everything ram calculator shows ( Cant find BGS options )


My latency always 75-76ms


----------



## spirch

weird result, look at the voltage block


1.41v at 3533
1.135v at 3600


??!!??!


----------



## ComansoRowlett

kazama said:


> Thanks, changed the tRFC for the safe value and got better latency also reduced the dram voltaje to 1.42, TM5 finished without errors.
> 
> I put all the values from safe preset 1.61 dram calculator, just simply wont boot.
> 
> Any other improvements over my timmings to improve latency?


Try tfaw to 35 and tRC to 48 (or a little higher it depends on your ram kit, but you can only go as low as your tRAS + TRP so 16+32).


----------



## kazama

Changed tRFC to 298 (fast preset), still stable but no changes in latency, changed the tfaw to 36 and trc to 48 (secure preset), i improve a bit more.

Thank your again ComansoRowlett. If someone know how to improve more i will try it, anyway im happy with the results.


----------



## ComansoRowlett

kazama said:


> Changed tRFC to 298 (fast preset), still stable but no changes in latency, changed the tfaw to 36 and trc to 48 (secure preset), i improve a bit more.
> 
> Thank your again ComansoRowlett. If someone know how to improve more i will try it, anyway im happy with the results.


tRRDS to 5 and TRRDL 7, should give you a bonus since tfaw is limited by those timings I'm pretty sure. e.g. 5x7 = tfaw limit. Could even try 4 S and L 6 for 24 tfaw.


----------



## l0rdraiden

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Changelog:*
> 
> * NEW. Graph of random access to caches and DRAM. Please note , that the testing process may take several minutes.
> * NEW. FreezKiller - software that will make your frame rate as smooth as possible without sacrificing performance. New iteration of cleaning Standby caches without jerking. Just click the "Start" button, minimize the application and launch your game.
> * NEW. Samsung b-die , Hynix CJR and Micron E-die presets. Particular attention was paid to memory, which is based on Micron E-die chips.
> * Updated Memtest mode, the application will automatically configure all the parameters individually for your system in 1 click (just select MEMbench mode -> Memtest).
> * Improved support for 4 DIMM's.
> * Overclocking potential DRAM received an update (tab "Advanced").
> * Correction MEMbench algorithms. In some cases, you will get better results.
> * Included libraries for improved compatibility with some versions of Windows.
> * Bug fixes.
> 
> *Download:*
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> Techspot link


Does freezkiller improve performace someone in pc general use? not games.

If it is so great can you make a standalone applicantion that autostart on boot and apply the settings automatically? so is always running.

Is this the same better or worse than freezkiller?


----------



## kazama

ComansoRowlett said:


> tRRDS to 5 and TRRDL 7, should give you a bonus since tfaw is limited by those timings I'm pretty sure. e.g. 5x7 = tfaw limit. Could even try 4 S and L 6 for 24 tfaw.


Getting better read , write and copy values but latency increased to 66.9, is better get better values or better latency for gamming? I tested tfaw 24 4 and 6, and 5 7 with tfaw 48, giving me same result +-


----------



## ComansoRowlett

kazama said:


> Getting better read , write and copy values but latency increased to 66.9, is better better values or better latency for gamming? I tested tfaw 24 4 and 6, and 5 7 with tfaw 48, giving me same result +-


Could just be a run to run variance. But how are you stress testing it? Usually takes a while to know you're 100% stable. Tbh I was expecting bigger decreases in latency, could be one of the values isn't stable. I'd suggest testing with HCI (memtest) https://hcidesign.com/memtest/


----------



## spirch

Question;


import xmp from taiphoon


OR


R - XMP from the calculator?


I'm getting different reading from both


----------



## flyinion

MikeS3000 said:


> I have a new Trident Z Neo memory kit as seen in this link: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...eoDDR4-3600MHz-CL16-19-19-39-1.35V16GB-(2x8GB)
> 
> 
> 
> It's coming up in Thaiphoon as Hynix MFR single rank memory. I'm using an x570 board with 3900x. The RAM runs fine at XMP settings. The last 2 versions of DRAM Calcultor say "Not Supported" when I try to calculate anything. What is odd is that if I step the frequency down to 3400 instead of my RAM's rating 3600 then I get the software to calculate values. Anyone have advice as this software looks awesome and I'd like to tighten up my timings from the default XMP of 16-19-19-39 if possible.




I have the same problem still with the CL18 kit as well. Thinking of just trying the values it gives for 3466 since they're lower than my current CAS settings


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## polygonhell

MikeS3000 said:


> I have a new Trident Z Neo memory kit as seen in this link: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...eoDDR4-3600MHz-CL16-19-19-39-1.35V16GB-(2x8GB)
> 
> It's coming up in Thaiphoon as Hynix MFR single rank memory. I'm using an x570 board with 3900x. The RAM runs fine at XMP settings. The last 2 versions of DRAM Calcultor say "Not Supported" when I try to calculate anything. What is odd is that if I step the frequency down to 3400 instead of my RAM's rating 3600 then I get the software to calculate values. Anyone have advice as this software looks awesome and I'd like to tighten up my timings from the default XMP of 16-19-19-39 if possible.


I have the 64GB version of the same kit.
The Hynix MFR settings the calculator provides are worse than the XMP profile even at lower clocks, so my guess is that these newer MFR chips are going to have to be added to the calculator.
FWIW I did some very basic overclocking experiments, and before I got bored I could get into Windows at 16-17-17-19-39 with a small voltage bump. I'd like to get the tRFC down, but I hate overclocking memory.


----------



## NicolasTMills

BS Zalman said:


> Hi All
> 
> First time using DRAM Calculator, since this is my first ryzen build.
> 
> I've used TestMem5 with @1usmus_v2 config and MemTest86-USB (4 cycle 7 hours long), not a single error found.
> That is stable i think..?? Any opinion ??



nice bench, what is your build? memory cjr? 
thanks


----------



## yzy

Hey @1usmus, surely this is a mistake?










1.135v sounds too low..


----------



## YpsiNine

Here's my current config, with the 1.6.1 version 3800 Fast preset (one difference: GDM off) with memory at 1,38V (these are dual rank b-die) with Infinity Fabric at 1900.
Currently 1000% in Karhu RAM test, but I will fire up a game now since my previous problems at 1900 were the crackling audio.
I've raised SOC slightly to see if it's fine now.


----------



## Dreams-Visions

Hey folks! I wanted to say thank you for the tool @1usmus. I was pulling my hair out trying to make the previous version (1.6.0.3) work with my Micron E-Die and finally got it stable tonight...only to discover 1.61 exists, and to see that the changes to values were almost exactly what I ended up settling on.

Adding images of my final figures along with a comparison of the old "Safe" preset vs the new "fast" preset to confirm just how big a difference there is in the values. 

Two quick questions:

1.) My RAM voltage is sitting at 1.41V. I tested it for 4 hours in Memtest86, no problems. Should I raise the voltage to the Recommended level of 1.44-1.45 anyway? Or am I good to go if all is stable?

2.) Something I've been wondering for the last few days: How much better would my performance be in gaming at high framerates (120+) at a high resolution (3440x1440) if I instead opted for a B-Die kit? In looking over some B-Die owner screen shots, latency in AIDA is 2-3ns lower, tRFC is much lower...but what kind of improvement do those translate to in real world performance (framerate)? If the difference is meaningful, I would consider returning my kit for a B-Die kit. Just looking for some perspective on that, since it's a new subject for me. 

Thanks for the great thread and tool! Oh, and if there are any further recommendations to improve latency, feel free to pass them along.


----------



## kenny0048

Micron E-die is like a stubborn father.
Setting example of Micron E-die
*Micron Ballistix sports LT DDR4-3200 etc...


----------



## Saiger0

kazama said:


> Getting better read , write and copy values but latency increased to 66.9, is better get better values or better latency for gamming? I tested tfaw 24 4 and 6, and 5 7 with tfaw 48, giving me same result +-


For better write and copy speeds enable BGS alt and disable BGS. That was the problem for me and I lost about 3000mb/s


----------



## Bartholdi

spirch said:


> If you look at
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-544.html#post28102640
> 
> 
> Does your taiphoon info match mine? If yes, i might be in the same boat as you


That's exactly it!


----------



## 1usmus

spirch said:


> weird result, look at the voltage block
> 
> 
> 1.41v at 3533
> 1.135v at 3600
> 
> 
> ??!!??!



1,35 - 1,4




l0rdraiden said:


> Does freezkiller improve performace someone in pc general use? not games.
> 
> If it is so great can you make a standalone applicantion that autostart on boot and apply the settings automatically? so is always running.
> 
> Is this the same better or worse than freezkiller?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=offcMVAabLI


Separate software is not planned because these are Windows problems that need to be resolved. This software is a rough patch.



kenny0048 said:


> Micron E-die is like a stubborn father.
> Setting example of Micron E-die
> *Micron Ballistix sports LT DDR4-3200 etc...


1) all users have different systems, it is extremely strange to offer people a special case
2) the clamped timings are meaningless:
a) the memory controller will ignore half of your timings
b) 3800c12 and 3800c16 does not make any difference ,because the memory controller cannot physically work better
c) compressed timings worsen gaming performance



kazama said:


> Changed tRFC to 298 (fast preset), still stable but no changes in latency, changed the tfaw to 36 and trc to 48 (secure preset), i improve a bit more.
> 
> Thank your again ComansoRowlett. If someone know how to improve more i will try it, anyway im happy with the results.


AIDA test does not display real performance. That is why I created MEMbench.


----------



## 1usmus

*For All* :teaching:



yzy said:


> Hey @1usmus, surely this is a mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.135v sounds too low..


yes it's a typo
should focus on the range of 1.35-1.4


----------



## 1usmus

spirch said:


> Question;
> 
> 
> import xmp from taiphoon
> 
> 
> OR
> 
> 
> R - XMP from the calculator?
> 
> 
> I'm getting different reading from both


on the first page there are manuals for overclocking RAM, I think it’s still worth using R - XMP in the first place




Dreams-Visions said:


> Hey folks! I wanted to say thank you for the tool @1usmus. I was pulling my hair out trying to make the previous version (1.6.0.3) work with my Micron E-Die and finally got it stable tonight...only to discover 1.61 exists, and to see that the changes to values were almost exactly what I ended up settling on.
> 
> Adding images of my final figures along with a comparison of the old "Safe" preset vs the new "fast" preset to confirm just how big a difference there is in the values.
> 
> Two quick questions:
> 
> 1.) My RAM voltage is sitting at 1.41V. I tested it for 4 hours in Memtest86, no problems. Should I raise the voltage to the Recommended level of 1.44-1.45 anyway? Or am I good to go if all is stable?
> 
> 2.) Something I've been wondering for the last few days: How much better would my performance be in gaming at high framerates (120+) at a high resolution (3440x1440) if I instead opted for a B-Die kit? In looking over some B-Die owner screen shots, latency in AIDA is 2-3ns lower, tRFC is much lower...but what kind of improvement do those translate to in real world performance (framerate)? If the difference is meaningful, I would consider returning my kit for a B-Die kit. Just looking for some perspective on that, since it's a new subject for me.
> 
> Thanks for the great thread and tool! Oh, and if there are any further recommendations to improve latency, feel free to pass them along.


In most cases, I try to indicate a certain margin of voltage, since there is a silicone lottery everywhere. You have an excellent sample of RAM and I see no reason to change it to Samsung. I think if you change the memory, you won’t see the difference, maybe only the minimum FPS and 1% of the event will change. And the difference that you get will not justify the time and money spent.

Micron E-die is the best performance / cost choice. For me, this memory takes first place.



polygonhell said:


> I have the 64GB version of the same kit.
> The Hynix MFR settings the calculator provides are worse than the XMP profile even at lower clocks, so my guess is that these newer MFR chips are going to have to be added to the calculator.
> FWIW I did some very basic overclocking experiments, and before I got bored I could get into Windows at 16-17-17-19-39 with a small voltage bump. I'd like to get the tRFC down, but I hate overclocking memory.


MFR has been discontinued for a long time, the chips that are in your memory - CJR


----------



## 1usmus

Nighthog said:


> I still don't like the Micron E-die suggestions. They won't work with my kits.
> 
> There are different Micron E-die available.
> 
> For example older:
> 3466Mhz 19-23-23-42-80 1.200V
> 3200Mhz 18-21-21-XX-XX 1.200V
> 
> NEW:
> 3600Mhz 16-18-18-XX-XX 1.350V
> 3466Mhz 16-18-18-XX-XX 1.350V
> 3200Mhz 16-18-18-XX-XX 1.350V
> 
> The 1.350V kits probably does work with your application suggestions but the older 1.200V kits don't. You probably need to make a differentiation between them.
> 
> As example my 3466 1.200V kit does 4x8Gb 4266Mhz 18-26-19-44-73 1.450V as MAX OC in 4x8GB.
> 2x8Gb can do 4600Mhz as I have mentioned in PM before. but tRCDRD is always much higher for the 1.200V kits, same with tRC.


You have three profiles at your disposal, two of which are designed for your system, try changing the "profile". V1 is a high quality, it is selected samples.
I have a request not to confuse people, you just need to pay attention on details.



Filters83 said:


> Is this profile correct ? 1.40v ? i tried its not posting even 1.43


or CWL 16 



dgoc18 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> How so ? Is 3800 CL14 no good ? Recommend to CL16 correct ?
> 
> See my best aida64 benchmark score below.:thumb:


The memory controller for Ryzen processors is very old, this architecture is almost 10 years old. He has exhausted his potential 5 years ago. You will be surprised, but the 3800c18 has very similar performance, a few percent difference.


----------



## Darkstalker420

Hi @1usmus

Thanks for the latest release. One issue i have noticed is compare timings doesn't work (just says "only for Zen 1 Zen+"). But i'm using a 1700. 

Thanx.


----------



## 1usmus

Darkstalker420 said:


> Hi @1usmus
> 
> Thanks for the latest release. One issue i have noticed is compare timings doesn't work (just says "only for Zen 1 Zen+"). But i'm using a 1700.
> 
> Thanx.



what version of bios?


----------



## Darkstalker420

@1usmus

Hi mate. the latest for the B350-F Strix 5204 (AGESA 1.0.0.3 Patch AB).

Thanx.


----------



## dspx

Hey @1usmus have you checked this one yet?


dspx said:


> I tried to compare the timings. Is this a bug?


----------



## Filters83

Darkstalker420 said:


> @1usmus
> 
> Hi mate. the latest for the B350-F Strix 5204 (AGESA 1.0.0.3 Patch AB).
> 
> Thanx.


Same problem same bios only different board X470 F rog, also mem benchmark cant read my timing.
And thx for the advice i will try later


----------



## Nighthog

1usmus said:


> You have three profiles at your disposal, two of which are designed for your system, try changing the "profile". V1 is a high quality, it is selected samples.
> I have a request not to confuse people, you just need to pay attention on details.


V2 profile gives timings that work for the 1.200V kits!

Great! Sorry for the lack of detail searching!


----------



## dgoc18

Great tips about "Use Thaiphoon to export/import your XMP profile into DRAM Calculator rather than clicking R-XMP button" from reddit at https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cw3cn0/psa_use_thaiphoon_to_exportimport_your_xmp/

Dram Calc and R-XMP no good.

Dram Calc and Import manual XMP from HTML saved good.


----------



## Wickedtme

dgoc18 said:


> Great tips about "Use Thaiphoon to export/import your XMP profile into DRAM Calculator rather than clicking R-XMP button" from reddit at https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cw3cn0/psa_use_thaiphoon_to_exportimport_your_xmp/
> 
> Dram Calc and R-XMP no good.
> 
> Dram Calc and Import manual XMP from HTML saved good.


Does this give better timmings? latency and transfer better or worse?

I will try both and test them out, ill let ya know.


----------



## Wickedtme

Wickedtme said:


> Does this give better timmings? latency and transfer better or worse?
> 
> I will try both and test them out, ill let ya know.


Here is what ive found out. I like the results from using R-XMP better then the results from Thaiphoon Burner :thumb:




























I have not tested stability of either, but both pass Testmem5. I am seeing higher numbers in aida64 with R-XMP, but this includes latency, one thing i did notice is cpu frequency difference in aida64 R-XMP at 4275 MHz,with the latter going up to 4400 MHz.
Is this just 3900X, or xmp settings?


----------



## flyinion

1usmus said:


> MFR has been discontinued for a long time, the chips that are in your memory - CJR


So is Taiphoon not reading the RAM correctly? When I run it on my 3600 CL18 kit https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232867 it shows MFR in the part name not CJR.


----------



## Bubar37

flyinion said:


> So is Taiphoon not reading the RAM correctly? When I run it on my 3600 CL18 kit https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232867 it shows MFR in the part name not CJR.


Can you post your typhoon 1.6.0 version not older please from tour dram please


----------



## Bubar37

As i can't go higher than 3200 for now i try to tweak at this frequency 

Asus x570 tuf gaming 2*8 patriot viper cjr

It's fast 1usmus calculator result so now i'll try to tweak subs to get better result 

got 70 ns for moment ....


So it's not the calculator that is wrong but asus bios with this agesa


----------



## polygonhell

Bubar37 said:


> Can you post your typhoon 1.6.0 version not older please from tour dram please


Here's mine from the same Kit


----------



## 1usmus

*I hope that i will provide an experimental version tomorrow*, it contains new recommendations for disabling GDM ( even for dual rank , example in spoiler ) + some small fixes



Spoiler















_______________________


*fix for RTC* - you must copy the contents of 1.6.1 to the folder 1.6.0.3 and confirm the replacement of files
this nuance will also be resolved tomorrow in the new version


----------



## Axaion

What % is considered high quality ram, medium quality ram and low quality ram on the advanced page?

It shows the %, but not what the % correlates to


----------



## Bubar37

polygonhell said:


> Here's mine from the same Kit
> 
> View attachment 291886


So it's cjr and not afr but anyway depend on your motherboard and bios . Try my settings at 3200 should be ok 

What i can't understand is that i can achieve [email protected] 64 ns on a msi b350 50 bucks with these sticks ans i can't go higher than 3200 on a x570 asus board .... pfff i tried high soc and ram voltage procodt range ans so on .. I thought after my try on msi asus was better but not so sure now


----------



## BS Zalman

NicolasTMills said:


> nice bench, what is your build? memory cjr?
> thanks


Thanks. Sorry for late reply, trying to get more timings. 
Here is my latest build


----------



## Nighthog

Bubar37 said:


> So it's cjr and not afr but anyway depend on your motherboard and bios . Try my settings at 3200 should be ok
> 
> What i can't understand is that i can achieve [email protected] 64 ns on a msi b350 50 bucks with these sticks ans i can't go higher than 3200 on a x570 asus board .... pfff i tried high soc and ram voltage procodt range ans so on .. I thought after my try on msi asus was better but not so sure now


Different manufacturers function differently on the BIOS level on how things are applied and function, and implementations differ physically meaning they might need different setting to function the same.

Some boards like higher procODT and others lower. Same with CAD BUS values, different board like different combination in one way or the other. You need to experiment on how they differ and which settings might need adjustment, not all boards configure your RAM the same and might need some more options to be set to function correctly.


----------



## Hequaqua

This looks like it might be the best I can do on my 3700X. I tried all morning to get 3666CL14/CL15 to no avail. I'm stable at 3466/3600CL14. 

I'm pretty happy with this result though:









All voltages except for SoC(seeing 1.069v in Windows) are Auto. Ram is set to Auto in the bios...I'm seeing 1.368-1.380v in Windows and under load.

Personally I find the Karhu test to be faster, and it seems to find errors more quickly than HCI. I've passed HCI only to find errors when running Karhu. The website says 6400% is 99.41% coverage, so have that covered. I also use SiSoft Sandra Memory test...it's helpful in seeing whether if any changes going from a lower speed/timings to higher/tighter are there. I guess the same could be said about Adia. SiSoft seems more consistent overall imo though.

EDIT: Added SiSoft and Aida


----------



## Wickedtme

Im selling my Gskill Flare x, and bought Gskill Royal Silver 3600 Mhz, 16 16 16 16 32, and ran the new calculator for 3800 Mhz fast.

This memory is crazy amazing, here's my results so far.




























Thoughts?

PS Thanks @1usmus


----------



## dgoc18

I just set trfc 256 in bios right now, best score 63.9 ns.


----------



## flyinion

Bubar37 said:


> Can you post your typhoon 1.6.0 version not older please from tour dram please





Bubar37 said:


> So it's cjr and not afr but anyway depend on your motherboard and bios . Try my settings at 3200 should be ok
> 
> What i can't understand is that i can achieve [email protected] 64 ns on a msi b350 50 bucks with these sticks ans i can't go higher than 3200 on a x570 asus board .... pfff i tried high soc and ram voltage procodt range ans so on .. I thought after my try on msi asus was better but not so sure now


So here's mine from the CL18 kit. I'm not sure where you get that it's CJR? I see MFR in the part number and a TFC in both our posts, but maybe I'm reading it wrong? I don't see anything that says CJR?


----------



## Hequaqua

Is there anyway to pinpoint a error in the TM5 testing. It seems I fail the same test. Sometimes it's the first run...sometimes the 3/4. Oh...it's test 10 btw. 

Grrrrrrrrrrr....lol


----------



## Bubar37

Sorry was tired yesterday . It's MFR right.


----------



## polygonhell

flyinion said:


> So here's mine from the CL18 kit. I'm not sure where you get that it's CJR? I see MFR in the part number and a TFC in both our posts, but maybe I'm reading it wrong? I don't see anything that says CJR?


For what it’s worth the CJR timings from DRAM Calculator did get me pretty close at 3600.
There is probably a little room for tweaking, I retained any values in the XMP profile that were lower that those in the calculator.
The only really big win over the XMP settings for CAS 16 set at least is the TRFC change.


----------



## Sptz

Compare Timings stopped working on this version, it states for Zen or Zen+ only... I have a 2600x, worked fine in the previous version... any idea why?


----------



## Veii

Wickedtme said:


> Im selling my Gskill Flare x, and bought Gskill Royal Silver 3600 Mhz, 16 16 16 16 32, and ran the new calculator for 3800 Mhz fast.
> 
> This memory is crazy amazing, here's my results so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> PS Thanks @1usmus


I am unsure if they are actually stable , be sure to use 1usmus's v3 config with at least 5+ loops on it
5 loops for 16GB do take about 32-35min in testing 
Personally determined that the old 3 loops wheren't enough 
- 4 was alright but at least 5 is a good measurement, anything above can be related to powerleakage by the board/psu or house installation 



Hequaqua said:


> Is there anyway to pinpoint a error in the TM5 testing. It seems I fail the same test. Sometimes it's the first run...sometimes the 3/4. Oh...it's test 10 btw.
> Grrrrrrrrrrr....lol


There is no documentation about them but after you play with it 30+ hours you start to make up some patterns, errors are one thing to consider time of appearance is another
6 at the start = DRAM/SOC voltage too low or CAD_BUS resistance too high
- come often together with Error 1
Error 7, 11 are burst tests
- it will error out if if CAD_BUS is not optimal
- will error out of tRFC is too low 
- mostly errors out only after time
Error 14 is an annoying one
- it can error after the 2nd or 3rd pass if something is off my some ns and just "got lost"
i often hit it after 31min when the test takes 32min - can be heat related but then it's main reason is micro timeout x_x
Error 10 mostly affects the first 5 main timings
- noticed it can be tRCDWR to RD, can be tRP too, but it also can be the last two tRDWR & tRDRD which don't play well with your main tRCDWR/RD

1usmus config so far is quite efficient (unsure what membench similarity testing settings are)
Soo if it errors out by heat it's mostly after cycle 3,4 / after 20 min - for my preview if they pass 3 cycles (15min) , it can only error out by heat or by some tiny misscalculation after time ^^


----------



## dspx

Darkstalker420 said:


> Hi @*1usmus*
> 
> Thanks for the latest release. One issue i have noticed is compare timings doesn't work (just says "only for Zen 1 Zen+"). But i'm using a 1700.
> 
> Thanx.


Same problem I already reported.


----------



## Wickedtme

Veii said:


> I am unsure if they are actually stable , be sure to use 1usmus's v3 config with at least 5+ loops on it
> 5 loops for 16GB do take about 32-35min in testing
> Personally determined that the old 3 loops wheren't enough
> - 4 was alright but at least 5 is a good measurement, anything above can be related to powerleakage by the board/psu or house installation




Thanks for this, will run it today after work and post results.


----------



## Ironcobra

I have a question about the Best cpu/dram stability section of the power supply system tab, are these settings something I should change to they are different than the left column.


----------



## makkara

I have ignored them and just using mobo auto settings. Seems to work fine for me.


----------



## Yviena

Changing processor interrupt steering to processor 1 decreased my latency from 65.1 to 64.3ns, you need to unhide it in windows power plan.


----------



## Hequaqua

Veii said:


> I am unsure if they are actually stable , be sure to use 1usmus's v3 config with at least 5+ loops on it
> 5 loops for 16GB do take about 32-35min in testing
> Personally determined that the old 3 loops wheren't enough
> - 4 was alright but at least 5 is a good measurement, anything above can be related to powerleakage by the board/psu or house installation
> 
> 
> 
> There is no documentation about them but after you play with it 30+ hours you start to make up some patterns, errors are one thing to consider time of appearance is another
> 6 at the start = DRAM/SOC voltage too low or CAD_BUS resistance too high
> - come often together with Error 1
> Error 7, 11 are burst tests
> - it will error out if if CAD_BUS is not optimal
> - will error out of tRFC is too low
> - mostly errors out only after time
> Error 14 is an annoying one
> - it can error after the 2nd or 3rd pass if something is off my some ns and just "got lost"
> i often hit it after 31min when the test takes 32min - can be heat related but then it's main reason is micro timeout x_x
> Error 10 mostly affects the first 5 main timings
> - noticed it can be tRCDWR to RD, can be tRP too, but it also can be the last two tRDWR & tRDRD which don't play well with your main tRCDWR/RD
> 
> 1usmus config so far is quite efficient (unsure what membench similarity testing settings are)
> Soo if it errors out by heat it's mostly after cycle 3,4 / after 20 min - for my preview if they pass 3 cycles (15min) , it can only error out by heat or by some tiny misscalculation after time ^^


Thanks for the info. I messed with it a bit more...still no go at 3666CL14/15. I really doubt that I would gain that much more...and running the [email protected] 1.38v on the ram is outstanding for a 3466CL16 kit imo.

I always say I'm done with messing with...then a few days will pass and I will try again. lol

I just ran 25 cycles of TM5, no issues at all. I've attached a couple of screen shots. One is the TM5/CPU-z results, the other are the stats on the ram during that test(speed, UCLK, temps, voltage). I'm sure I'll try to get it even better at some point....I just can't leave it alone...:devil-smi

TM5/Stats


Spoiler


----------



## kazama

What is enough for stable mem test 250% max mem on membench and 9 cycles on TM5 v3? or i need more task scope? @1usmus


----------



## Hequaqua

kazama said:


> What is enough for stable mem test 250% max mem on membench and 9 cycles on TM5 v3? or i need more task scope?


I use TM5....5-10 passes will usually show errors. I also use the Karhu mem test...they say around 6000%+ is standard. You can also use RealBench....if will find weaknesses pretty well too. There are many ways to check.....personally, I use TM5/Karhu.


----------



## mongoled

How do you guys run TM5 for several passes ??

When I run the application it automatically starts and then finshes after a few minutes.......

Thanks


----------



## kazama

Have to edit MT.cfg in the bin folder, change the cycles value.


----------



## mongoled

kazama said:


> Have to edit MT.cfg in the bin folder, change the cycles value.


Thanks!


----------



## Wickedtme

Wickedtme said:


> Thanks for this, will run it today after work and post results.





Veii said:


> I am unsure if they are actually stable , be sure to use 1usmus's v3 config with at least 5+ loops on it
> 5 loops for 16GB do take about 32-35min in testing
> Personally determined that the old 3 loops wheren't enough
> - 4 was alright but at least 5 is a good measurement, anything above can be related to powerleakage by the board/psu or house installation


So i found 1usmus's configV2, not sure were to get V3, and tested 3 runs of default membench, i will try again later today, i want to hook up a ram cooler, as my temps running V2 rose to around 49-48 on my ram, which seems very hot, will they get higher then that?
Is that a safe level for testing, and will this affect me in 24/7 overclock?




























Thanks again Veii


----------



## ComansoRowlett

lordzed83 said:


> DAmn You got some epic sticks  It's like you have free ram D:


I wish it was free! It cost a bomb to get this kit, somewhere in the region of 470 pounds. I didn't have anything else in my system to upgrade, and since samsung b-die is EOL I figured I wanted to get the best IC before they were much harder to get or the quality goes down.


----------



## kazama

Wickedtme said:


> So i found 1usmus's configV2, not sure were to get V3, and tested 3 runs of default membench, i will try again later today, i want to hook up a ram cooler, as my temps running V2 rose to around 49-48 on my ram, which seems very hot, will they get higher then that?
> Is that a safe level for testing, and will this affect me in 24/7 overclock?
> 
> Thanks again Veii


Im getting same temp on ram, with 9 cycles on TM5 v3, over 49-50, i read somewhere is safe under 60, not sure if true.Playing BFV im getting over 3 degrees less.


----------



## Wickedtme

kazama said:


> Im getting same temp on ram, with 9 cycles on TM5 v3, over 49-50, i read somewhere is safe under 60, not sure if true.Playing BFV im getting over 3 degrees less.


Thats what i figured too, its the mem testing that raise the temps so high, not a normal load.


----------



## Wickedtme

ComansoRowlett said:


> I wish it was free! It cost a bomb to get this kit, somewhere in the region of 470 pounds. I didn't have anything else in my system to upgrade, and since samsung b-die is EOL I figured I wanted to get the best IC before they were much harder to get or the quality goes down.


I got the royal silver 3600, and its crazy fast memory, really loving it, but it is expensive.


----------



## InfinityN

For some reason I am unable to use this tool on a setup with Ryzen 3900X, Asus Crosshair VIII Hero and a VENGEANCE LPX 2 x 16GB DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C16 kit.
Any idea?

The following happens when I click calculate safe.

https://i.imgur.com/Zpl0ZJw.png

Stack trace looks like this:
************** Exception Text **************
System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
at System.Number.StringToNumber(String str, NumberStyles options, NumberBuffer& number, NumberFormatInfo info, Boolean parseDecimal)
at System.Number.ParseInt32(String s, NumberStyles style, NumberFormatInfo info)
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Advanced(Double kd1, Double kd2)
at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_SAFE_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


----------



## Fussel3

1.6.3


----------



## ComansoRowlett

Just figured I'd post this here, new AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB allowed me to beat my previous 4533 to get 4666 CL16 in 2:1 at a mere 1.5v. 67.4ns is still quite a bit higher than my 1:1 but hey. If a new bios in the future allows me to get higher or when I receive my 3950X I may get luckier on the IMC I could possibly do 4800 and beat my 63.2ns latency at 3733.


----------



## Athyra

the only difference i get between 1603 and 161 is the rec and alt cad bus timings are swapped, now 0 is rec
i definitely know very little about ram oc, but isn't that a pretty big range? usually the alt and rec are 1 or 2 values apart lol

assuming it's not a bug, if my mobo doesn't allow 0, options go from auto to 1, is 1 basically close enough to 0 for this setting?

edit: 
and what's this business with freezkiller? it feels super sketchy


----------



## thegr8anand

ComansoRowlett said:


> Just figured I'd post this here, new AGESA 1.0.0.3ABB allowed me to beat my previous 4533 to get 4666 CL16 in 2:1 at a mere 1.5v. 67.4ns is still quite a bit higher than my 1:1 but hey. If a new bios in the future allows me to get higher or when I receive my 3950X I may get luckier on the IMC I could possibly do 4800 and beat my 63.2ns latency at 3733.



No point running above 3800 1:1 i think. Those aida numbers are poor when looking at the maximum theoretical bandwidth of 4666mhz.


----------



## kenny0048

1usmus said:


> *I hope that i will provide an experimental version tomorrow*, it contains new recommendations for disabling GDM ( even for dual rank , example in spoiler ) + some small fixes
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


The following memory modules tended to give better results when CAD_BUS was set to 120/24/24/120.
Perhaps these are like lotteries or individual differences.

Corsair VENGEANCE RGB Pro DDR4-3600 8GBx2 CL18-22-22-42 [CMW16GX4M2D3600C18] *Micron E-die
Crucial Ballistix Sport LT DDR4-3200 8GBx2 CL16-18-18 [W4U3200BMS-8G] *Micron E-die

CMD 1T(NoGDM) is ClkDrv=60-120ohm
tCKE 1 is CkeDrv=60-120ohm


----------



## LocutusH

Hi

Anyone has a good working 3600MT/s timings config, for the Micron E-Die 2x16GB Ballistix LT 3200 white kit?

Something, that doesnt require over 1.4V, for 24/7 usage.
Thanks


----------



## Saiger0

LocutusH said:


> Hi
> 
> Anyone has a good working 3600MT/s timings config, for the Micron E-Die 2x16GB Ballistix LT 3200 white kit?
> 
> Something, that doesnt require over 1.4V, for 24/7 usage.
> Thanks


Why? Anything under 1.45V (1.5 with active cooling) is perfectly fine 24/7. If you really want you would have to set tRFC and tRCDRD very high... The V2 profile should work for you


----------



## MikeS3000

So Trident Z Neo users who were having issues because Thaiphoon Burner was reading their memory as Hynix MFR, take a look at this screenshot using a more recent version of Thaiphoon (16.0.0.6 Build 0818). Now my memory is being read as CJR. Not only does DRAM Calculator have values all the way up to DDR 3800 but so far my tighter timings at 3600 passed 400% memtest and I am testing the DDR 3733 speed and timings right now!

Edit: 3733 speed on Safe settings passed 400% memtest as well. I think we're stable.


----------



## LocutusH

Saiger0 said:


> Why? Anything under 1.45V (1.5 with active cooling) is perfectly fine 24/7. If you really want you would have to set tRFC and tRCDRD very high... The V2 profile should work for you


Ok, until 1.45V, but that would be 1.46-1.48 
So where do we draw this line... I think i would just feel on the safe side with 1.4 for 24/7, no extra cooling


----------



## flyinion

MikeS3000 said:


> So Trident Z Neo users who were having issues because Thaiphoon Burner was reading their memory as Hynix MFR, take a look at this screenshot using a more recent version of Thaiphoon (16.0.0.6 Build 0818). Now my memory is being read as CJR. Not only does DRAM Calculator have values all the way up to DDR 3800 but so far my tighter timings at 3600 passed 400% memtest and I am testing the DDR 3733 speed and timings right now!


Nice find! Looks like I have CJR not MFR which matches with what I read about MFR not being able to do over like 3200


----------



## ComansoRowlett

thegr8anand said:


> No point running above 3800 1:1 i think. Those aida numbers are poor when looking at the maximum theoretical bandwidth of 4666mhz.


I'm very much aware of what is "worth" it. Just pointing out someone with a good IMC/sticks could actually overcome the 2:1 penalty even if it is a small majority. I haven't seen this sort of "thorough" testing done hence why I figured I'd post it. It is poor, but the bandwidth at least outscores anything I've done with 3733 (max my chip does) it's just the latency which is holding it back currently.


----------



## paih85

@1usmus what is max safe soc voltage (24/7) for ryzen 3000?


----------



## kazama

Fast preset for 3733 cl14 is
tRDRDSCL 4 SC SD and DD are 1 5 5 
tWRWRSCL 4 SC SD and DD are 1 7 7

im getting in auto and stable too
tRDRDSCL 5 SC SD and DD are 1 4 4 
tWRWRSCL 5 SC SD and DD are 1 6 6

Both are stable, but which is better?


----------



## makkara

This seems stable.



Spoiler


----------



## Bubar37

I read 2 other people got problem with asus x570 tuf gaming as me .... Got the answer shame on me .... I put my 2*8 dram on a1 b1 (sounds logical for me ...) 

After reading motherboard manual .... should be a2 b2 : now i can go higher than 3200 [email protected](v1 modified result) atm with H5AN8G8NCJR-TFC 



Got a question what is the difference beween v1 and manual ? Thx


----------



## Saiger0

kazama said:


> Fast preset for 3733 cl14 is
> tRDRDSCL 4 SC SD and DD are 1 5 5
> tWRWRSCL 4 SC SD and DD are 1 7 7
> 
> im getting in auto and stable too
> tRDRDSCL 5 SC SD and DD are 1 4 4
> tWRWRSCL 5 SC SD and DD are 1 6 6
> 
> Both are stable, but which is better?


SCL 4 is better


----------



## criznit

Finally! Got my memory to a nice comfy setting for now. I will put it thru a few more test to make sure it's stable, but I'm happy so far


----------



## Wickedtme

Veii said:


> I am unsure if they are actually stable , be sure to use 1usmus's v3 config with at least 5+ loops on it
> 5 loops for 16GB do take about 32-35min in testing
> Personally determined that the old 3 loops wheren't enough
> - 4 was alright but at least 5 is a good measurement, anything above can be related to powerleakage by the board/psu or house installation


Well, i finally found 1usmus's v3 config, ran it after setting it for 9 loops, and it started to fail around 8 loops at 3800.
Went back to 3600 and used the fast settings, and all went well, with some great results at lower heat.








[/url]


----------



## Bartholdi

InfinityN said:


> For some reason I am unable to use this tool on a setup with Ryzen 3900X, Asus Crosshair VIII Hero and a VENGEANCE LPX 2 x 16GB DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz C16 kit.
> Any idea?
> 
> The following happens when I click calculate safe.
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/Zpl0ZJw.png
> 
> Stack trace looks like this:
> ************** Exception Text **************
> System.FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.
> at System.Number.StringToNumber(String str, NumberStyles options, NumberBuffer& number, NumberFormatInfo info, Boolean parseDecimal)
> at System.Number.ParseInt32(String s, NumberStyles style, NumberFormatInfo info)
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Advanced(Double kd1, Double kd2)
> at Ryzen_DRAM_Calculator_1._5._0.MainForm.Calculate_SAFE_BTN(Object sender, EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
> at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


Been trying to get those ram above 3200 on the MEG ace x570, but to no avail. 3333 will throw errors in memtest. Even 3200 cl 15-18-18-18 will throw errors even with 1,5 DRAM voltage and active cooling.


----------



## astur_torque

1usmus said:


> *AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Tweaking_Overclocking_Guide/
> 
> *MEMbench 0.6 README*
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27960952-post4412.html
> 
> 
> *HOW USE MEMTEST in MEMbench *
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28069030-post5047.html
> 
> 
> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.6.1 + MEMbench 0.8*
> Last update : 26 August
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> *Download:*
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> Techspot link
> ​
> *Video instruction:*
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9bekQTRnzY&feature=youtu.be
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTekAB1Zzc
> 
> 
> 
> *Instruction + recommendations*
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27694284-post3363.html
> 
> 
> 
> *The results of a successful overclocking can be seen here:*
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...CX-49Auk-aRAcTs-8cVNL1caHo/edit#gid=725475388
> https://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/29140_20#post_26416693
> 
> *Some interesting posts:*
> *What is a single error?*
> *Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"*
> *Effect of temperature and higher voltage on memory stability*
> *Effect of the CPU frequency on the stability of the RAM*
> 
> Great gratitude *STaRDoGG* , *slafniy* , *ajc9988* and *A_z_z_y* for help !
> 
> This program is publicly available for publication in news resources and preparation of reviews. The copyright to the logic of the program and the product is present.​



Hi!


The calculator is not working well with "Micron D die" chips


----------



## Nwanko

Saiger0 said:


> Why? Anything under 1.45V (1.5 with active cooling) is perfectly fine 24/7. If you really want you would have to set tRFC and tRCDRD very high... The V2 profile should work for you


I'm also having issues with micron e-die, anything i set from the calculator is not stable or the latency is over 77ns, best i can get is 3600mhz(1800 fabric) 1.42v 16-17-16-36-56 everything else set to auto. and it still fails like first 3min of the TM5.


----------



## Oczoq5445

edit delete


----------



## plazing

Any advice an tighening 2R Hynix AFR, at 3600MT/s ? I started tighening from those Trident Z Neo 3600c18-22-22-42









Passed 5 cycles of usmus_v3 TM5 and 1000% memtest with VDRAM @ 1.4v and SoC at 1.05v -- Tertiaty is Auto on BIOS. TM5 error after few second if set 20 on trcd & trp


----------



## Saiger0

Nwanko said:


> I'm also having issues with micron e-die, anything i set from the calculator is not stable or the latency is over 77ns, best i can get is 3600mhz(1800 fabric) 1.42v 16-17-16-36-56 everything else set to auto. and it still fails like first 3min of the TM5.


Unfortunately E Die is not guranteed to run at 3600+. But before you try 3533 or below you should make shure that its the ram and not anything else. Run 3600 at absurdly high timings (20 20 20...) to see if even that works. Or check if its the infinity fabric by trying 1000mhz. Or voltage is too low.. try 16 19 20 19 38 66 with 1.45V.
The high latency is caused by powerdownmode. Disable it.


----------



## Wickedtme

Wickedtme said:


> Well, i finally found 1usmus's v3 config, ran it after setting it for 9 loops, and it started to fail around 8 loops at 3800.
> Went back to 3600 and used the fast settings, and all went well, with some great results at lower heat.


Still seeing high temps with testing, but im sure thats normal, 50c after 1 hr of Karhu.

[URL="          [/URL]


----------



## spirch

swapped / switched my ram to F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC


let see how these are vs CMK32GX4M2B3200C16 (these are gone)


----------



## begrie

Wickedtme said:


> Still seeing high temps with testing, but im sure thats normal, 50c after 1 hr of Karhu.
> 
> [URL="          [/URL]


Would you mind sharing you stable configuration for the ram... still trying to find the sweet spot for 3600 fast


----------



## Wickedtme

begrie said:


> Would you mind sharing you stable configuration for the ram... still trying to find the sweet spot for 3600 fast



Hope this helps.


----------



## gamervivek

How close are the latency readers from this compared to AIDA? Ran out of trial and don't wish to purchase a license.


----------



## Wickedtme

gamervivek said:


> How close are the latency readers from this compared to AIDA? Ran out of trial and don't wish to purchase a license.


Pretty much the same, within a +/- 0.5 approximately. If you run aida 10 times, you usually get different latency every time because of background activity i suppose, with membench stays pretty much the same.


----------



## R71800XSS

With Ryzen 1800X, Asus ROG VI Hero and Gskill (16x4 GB C14 B-die) compare timing doesn´t work (version 1.6.0.3 worked). Program doesn't read timing memory and this version don´t work for memory test. I think there is a bug.
BIOS is 7003.

Very Thanks for this app.


----------



## Nwanko

Getting somewhere here.

EDIT:


----------



## psychohawk

I recently purchased a couple of G.SKILL Ripjaws V F4-3600C16D-16GVKC (on the qvl for the ROG C8H but I'm using C6H). The ram works fine, speed and type doesn't show up in task manager but oh well. 

I was hoping to find out if this would be one being supported by the calculator at some point, being as it is high binned Hynix MFR. I'm including dump info from Typhoon burner

MEMORY MODULE
Manufacturer	G.Skill
Series	Ripjaws V Black
Part Number	F4-3600C16-8GVKC
Serial Number	xxxxxxxxxxx
JEDEC DIMM Label	8GB 1Rx8 PC4-2133-UA1-11
Architecture	DDR4 SDRAM UDIMM
Speed Grade	DDR4-2133
Capacity	8 GB (8 components)
Organization	1024M x64 (1 rank)
Register Manufacturer	N/A
Register Model	N/A
Manufacturing Date	Undefined
Manufacturing Location	Taipei, Taiwan
DRAM COMPONENTS
Revision / Raw Card	0000h / A1 (10 layers)
Manufacturer	Hynix
Part Number	H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC
Package	Standard Monolithic 78-ball FBGA
Die Density / Count	8 Gb M-die (Polaris / 25 nm) / 1 die
Composition	1024Mb x8 (64Mb x8 x 16 banks)
Clock Frequency	1067 MHz (0.938 ns)
Minimum Timing Delays	15-15-15-36-50
Read Latencies Supported	16T, 15T, 14T, 13T, 12T, 11T, 10T
Supply Voltage	1.20 V
XMP Certified	1802 MHz / 16-19-19-39-58 / 1.35 V
XMP Extreme	Not programmed
SPD Revision	1.1 / September 2015


----------



## Wickedtme

psychohawk said:


> I recently purchased a couple of G.SKILL Ripjaws V F4-3600C16D-16GVKC (on the qvl for the ROG C8H but I'm using C6H). The ram works fine, speed and type doesn't show up in task manager but oh well.
> 
> I was hoping to find out if this would be one being supported by the calculator at some point, being as it is high binned Hynix MFR. I'm including dump info from Typhoon burner
> 
> MEMORY MODULE
> Manufacturer	G.Skill
> Series	Ripjaws V Black
> Part Number	F4-3600C16-8GVKC
> Serial Number	xxxxxxxxxxx
> JEDEC DIMM Label	8GB 1Rx8 PC4-2133-UA1-11
> Architecture	DDR4 SDRAM UDIMM
> Speed Grade	DDR4-2133
> Capacity	8 GB (8 components)
> Organization	1024M x64 (1 rank)
> Register Manufacturer	N/A
> Register Model	N/A
> Manufacturing Date	Undefined
> Manufacturing Location	Taipei, Taiwan
> DRAM COMPONENTS
> Revision / Raw Card	0000h / A1 (10 layers)
> Manufacturer	Hynix
> Part Number	H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC
> Package	Standard Monolithic 78-ball FBGA
> Die Density / Count	8 Gb M-die (Polaris / 25 nm) / 1 die
> Composition	1024Mb x8 (64Mb x8 x 16 banks)
> Clock Frequency	1067 MHz (0.938 ns)
> Minimum Timing Delays	15-15-15-36-50
> Read Latencies Supported	16T, 15T, 14T, 13T, 12T, 11T, 10T
> Supply Voltage	1.20 V
> XMP Certified	1802 MHz / 16-19-19-39-58 / 1.35 V
> XMP Extreme	Not programmed
> SPD Revision	1.1 / September 2015


Its already supported, just click on drop down menu for ram type, and its there (version 1.6.1)


----------



## gamervivek

Wickedtme said:


> Pretty much the same, within a +/- 0.5 approximately. If you run aida 10 times, you usually get different latency every time because of background activity i suppose, with membench stays pretty much the same.


The custom latency measurement right? Because I'm seeing much lower value for random.


----------



## Wickedtme

gamervivek said:


> The custom latency measurement right? Because I'm seeing much lower value for random.



I usually get a higher number for random. Check my results posted above.


----------



## gamervivek

Yes, I saw that, my random latency is 60 while custom is 66-67


----------



## Sebi

Sptz said:


> Compare Timings stopped working on this version, it states for Zen or Zen+ only... I have a 2600x, worked fine in the previous version... any idea why?


 @1usmus I have the same problem too:


----------



## mongoled

Hi, can someone test this

When I run MEMbench --> Memtest --> Change scope to 5000% (have not tested with another number yet).

The test runs as per normal,

But it never stops, well at least when I saw it, it had run over 11555% and was still going.

I had to manually stop it.

Has anyone else experienced this ??

** EDIT **
It also does not stop when I leave the values at default


----------



## Axaion

Can this really be right?, my ram are G.Skill FlareX 3200CL14 2x8GB

Also, i know im a broken record, but i could find literally 0 information on what each % in memory quality % means, like.. is 70% high?, 90?, so on and on.. lol


Anyhow, seems a bit high?


----------



## crakej

Axaion said:


> Can this really be right?, my ram are G.Skill FlareX 3200CL14 2x8GB
> 
> Also, i know im a broken record, but i could find literally 0 information on what each % in memory quality % means, like.. is 70% high?, 90?, so on and on.. lol
> 
> 
> Anyhow, seems a bit high?


Higher is better! 90+% is good, mine says 94%, 4160CL16 for my Patriot Steel 4400CL19s - this means I can potentially oc at 4160MTs CL16 - my ram at default is CL19 for that speed with no OCing. I've got to 4466MTs CL18 currently and think I can go further!

@1usmus - i can't get timings and voltages for anything over >4200MTs - I either get that type mismatch error, or it just keeps displaying last results. My ram is specced up to 4400 and I want to go beyond please!

If I select a speed >4200 when I first run the calc, I get the mismatch error (sent you pic of it before) and no results.

Thanks for your continued hard work!


----------



## Bubar37

Not sure it is accurate see mine ...


----------



## upgraditus

Bought a Viper Steel (B-Die) kit to try and even 3600 safe settings was unstable... best I managed was 3200 fast preset, rubbish, it's going back...

Where should I go from here with this Crucial E-Die set? Calc reckons 101% quality 4117 cl16. It's stable with these settings but it's way off calc output. Also my IF isn't stable @ 1900 

Edit: now testing 3733 fast preset seems stable so far, some gains in read but barely any improvement in latency due to slacker timings.

Calc voltage is bugged? it wants 1.45v for 3600 fast but 1.42v for 3733 fast?


----------



## Bubar37

are you on a2 b2 ram slot on your asus ? I did the same mistake on my x570 asus tuf with a1 b1 i was blocked to 3200 with a2 b2 i'm now at @4000 fclk 1600 . Give a look at your motherboard manual


----------



## upgraditus

Bubar37 said:


> are you on a2 b2 ram slot on your asus ? I did the same mistake on my x570 asus tuf with a1 b1 i was blocked to 3200 with a2 b2 i'm now at @4000 fclk 1600 . Give a look at your motherboard manual


Yep x2 slots.

To be fair I noticed some strange stuff with those B-Die dimms installed, with the micron kit there's one timing (I forget which) that always differs by 1 from slot a to b, which I was told is simply due to trace length between dimm and CPU, so I leave it on auto and it's fine. The B-Die kit there were more than one timing that differed and some seemingly huge (tFAW was something like 40! difference between dimms).


----------



## makkara

@upgraditus
When u tried 1900 IF, did u try changing "procODT"? On my B-die 1900 wouldnt work on 34.3 or 36.9, but on 32 all works fine.


----------



## Streetdragon

so far so good
soc 1.15V


----------



## HatchetEgg

Does anyone know any tool that can monitor or show the current FLCK value?


----------



## crakej

upgraditus said:


> Bought a Viper Steel (B-Die) kit to try and even 3600 safe settings was unstable... best I managed was 3200 fast preset, rubbish, it's going back...
> 
> Where should I go from here with this Crucial E-Die set? Calc reckons 101% quality 4117 cl16. It's stable with these settings but it's way off calc output. Also my IF isn't stable @ 1900
> 
> Edit: now testing 3733 fast preset seems stable so far, some gains in read but barely any improvement in latency due to slacker timings.
> 
> Calc voltage is bugged? it wants 1.45v for 3600 fast but 1.42v for 3733 fast?


Which Viper Steels? Mine run up to 4600 on my CH7. Proc ODT 32Ohms, tFAW 16 on my current 4466 profile.


----------



## Synoxia

If only we could run 3800 c15... i don't think im going to get 3800 c14 stable under 1.50v. Should i fall back to 3733 c14 for gaming?


----------



## upgraditus

crakej said:


> Which Viper Steels? Mine run up to 4600 on my CH7. Proc ODT 32Ohms, tFAW 16 on my current 4466 profile.


4000cl19
@makkara 

Thanks I'd give it a try but already asked for return. Tuning ram is such a pita since the crashfree bios doesn't work so it's reset cmos each time it fails boot, already wasted hours on it. I expected B- Die to be somewhat easy to set up and that 3600 would be no issue for a kit rated 4000... I was wrong lol


----------



## Schussnik

Hi Gents,

I'm testing the 3200 fast preset for mt Gskill TridentZ (B-Die) with the tRFC set to 256. So far so good but I have no idea what values I should have used in the BIOS for tRFC2 and tRFC4 and so left the settings on Auto.

Surely having them now set automatically to respectively 1537 and 776 is wrong, right?


----------



## MehlstaubtheCat

tRFC2 and tRFC4 will set the Bios automatically they will calculate from trfc so no need to tipp it manually.


----------



## Schussnik

Ok on principle but as per my post on Auto the BIOS set them to 1537 and 776, I don't think that's right.


----------



## panni

HatchetEgg said:


> Does anyone know any tool that can monitor or show the current FLCK value?


Ryzen Master?


----------



## crakej

upgraditus said:


> 4000cl19
> 
> @makkara
> 
> Thanks I'd give it a try but already asked for return. Tuning ram is such a pita since the crashfree bios doesn't work so it's reset cmos each time it fails boot, already wasted hours on it. I expected B- Die to be somewhat easy to set up and that 3600 would be no issue for a kit rated 4000... I was wrong lol


Mine ran 3600 easily....

Maybe go back to a bios that has working safe mode? That's what I did until another one came along with working safe mode.


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> If only we could run 3800 c15... i don't think im going to get 3800 c14 stable under 1.50v. Should i fall back to 3733 c14 for gaming?


you should use 3800cl16. There is barely any difference to 3800cl14 since the IF is the limiting factor here.


----------



## upgraditus

crakej said:


> Mine ran 3600 easily....
> 
> Maybe go back to a bios that has working safe mode? That's what I did until another one came along with working safe mode.


No going back (at least not easily).


----------



## Synoxia

Saiger0 said:


> you should use 3800cl16. There is barely any difference to 3800cl14 since the IF is the limiting factor here.


I've just got 3800 c14-15-17-16 stable lol. Should i try more FCLK?


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> I've just got 3800 c14-15-17-16 stable lol. Should i try more FCLK?


as i said there is no real life difference between cl16 and cl14. So why put unnecessary stress on your system by running cl14 at 1.5V?


----------



## polar

Looking for imput on improvement. I have never messed with memory using Ryzens. I see some really good scores in this thread.

4x8 team Dark 3200 14-14-14-31


----------



## Keith Myers

Trying to help a github friend out with his memory. I suggested the calculator. He has this kit. http://www.gskill.com/specification/165/168/1536288991/F4-3600C16Q-32GTZKK-Specification

This is what the calculator is showing for 3600 Safe.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/310927/64307598-9b423f00-cf64-11e9-9347-5819ba1374a2.png


Definitely inadequate recommended voltages for the memory.


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.2*


*Changelog:*

* NEW. Memory status. Information about the available memory.
* NEW. CAD_BUS received very flexible settings. Thanks to these flexible settings, it is possible to disable GDM (1T mode) without losing stability for Zen 2. DR also got the opportunity to disable GDM at low frequencies (up to 3200 MHz inclusive). Compatibility with previous generations is required to be tested.
* Updated function to determine the maximum available memory for testing (Memtest mode). At the moment, the test should not go into drives or a swap file.
* tRDWR has been changed in most profiles, this is a bonus to the chance to get a stable system.
* Most presets received small changes, in particular Micron e-die .
* Improved support for 4 modules.
* Bug fixes.

*Download:*

Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
Сomputerbase.de link

P.S. *CAD_BUS 24 20 20 24 is experimental. I’ll ask you to treat the experimental proposal with understanding (no need panic  )*

*If you are a beginner, I advise you to watch these videos.*


----------



## Vins

I'm using a CJR Hynix ram (Kingston KHX3000C15D4-8GX - H5AN8G8NCJR-UHC) but the calculator will always display wrong latencies with r-xmp button, so i always need to use Taiphoon. Also, i find that i have better stability by using hynix MFR/AFR profiles, especially voltages. Can you please explain why @1usmus?

P.S
Another annoying thing that happens often is system instability after reboot or system shutdown. Why?


----------



## 1usmus

Vins said:


> I'm using a CJR Hynix ram (Kingston KHX3000C15D4-8GX - H5AN8G8NCJR-UHC) but the calculator will always display wrong latencies with r-xmp button, so i always need to use Taiphoon. Also, i find that i have better stability by using hynix MFR/AFR profiles, especially voltages. Can you please explain why @1usmus?
> 
> P.S
> Another annoying thing that happens often is system instability after reboot or system shutdown. Why?


ver 1.6.2 ?


----------



## Yuke

I must be ******** or something but i cant get the import XMP setting to work. I clicked on the "show delays in nanoseconds" link after i exported the html file from Typhoon and still cant load it into the calculator.


Any ideas?


----------



## Jackalito

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.2*
> 
> 
> *Changelog:*
> 
> * NEW. Memory status. Information about the available memory.
> * NEW. CAD_BUS received very flexible settings. Thanks to these flexible settings, it is possible to disable GDM (1T mode) without losing stability for Zen 2. DR also got the opportunity to disable GDM at low frequencies (up to 3200 MHz inclusive). Compatibility with previous generations is required to be tested.
> * Updated function to determine the maximum available memory for testing (Memtest mode). At the moment, the test should not go into drives or a swap file.
> * tRDWR has been changed in most profiles, this is a bonus to the chance to get a stable system.
> * Most presets received small changes, in particular Micron e-die .
> * Improved support for 4 modules.
> * Bug fixes.
> 
> *Download:*
> 
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> 
> I sent an archive for all resources, it will take some time.
> 
> P.S. *CAD_BUS 24 20 20 24 is experimental. I’ll ask you to treat the experimental proposal with understanding (no need panic  )*



+REP for your continuous work on this, mate! :thumb:
Cheers!


----------



## Vins

1usmus said:


> ver 1.6.2 ?


Yeah. i'm always using latest version. I don't know if the issue is due to poor memory quality or poor motherboard.
Specs and calculator settings:

Ryzen 1600x (ryzen 1 gen)
MSI b450m pro-m2 (dual slot and b450 settings no difference on calculator timings)
2x8gb ram
also take note i'm using latest (7B84v29) mobo bios from here https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/B450M-PRO-M2 that does support ComboPI 1.0.0.3ab


----------



## 1usmus

*Extreme preset for samsung b-die 3800C14 GDM OFF 1T 
*

CAD_BUS 24 20 20 24 :thumb:



Spoiler


----------



## 1usmus

Vins said:


> Yeah. i'm always using latest version. I don't know if the issue is due to poor memory quality or poor motherboard.
> Specs and calculator settings:
> 
> Ryzen 1600x (ryzen 1 gen)
> MSI b450m pro-m2 (dual slot and b450 settings no difference on calculator timings)
> 2x8gb ram
> also take note i'm using latest (7B84v29) mobo bios from here https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/B450M-PRO-M2 that does support ComboPI 1.0.0.3ab



You do not need to do profile import. The calculator already has 2 or 3 profiles. You should try them first.

We choose the type of memory and other settings
CLICK *R-XMP*
CLICK *Calculate SAFE*



Yuke said:


> I must be ******** or something but i cant get the import XMP setting to work. I clicked on the "show delays in nanoseconds" link after i exported the html file from Typhoon and still cant load it into the calculator.
> 
> 
> Any ideas?


"show delays in nanoseconds" *before export*
or use the video tutorial


----------



## mongoled

mongoled said:


> Hi, can someone test this
> 
> When I run MEMbench --> Memtest --> Change scope to 5000% (have not tested with another number yet).
> 
> The test runs as per normal,
> 
> But it never stops, well at least when I saw it, it had run over 11555% and was still going.
> 
> I had to manually stop it.
> 
> Has anyone else experienced this ??
> 
> ** EDIT **
> It also does not stop when I leave the values at default


 @*1usmus* ,

no one at this forum could answer this simple question.

Is this a bug?

Its still occurring on version 1.6.2, this was not happening on version before 1.6.1


----------



## 1usmus

mongoled said:


> @*1usmus* ,
> 
> no one at this forum could answer this simple question.
> 
> Is this a bug?
> 
> Its still occurring on version 1.6.2, this was not happening on version before 1.6.1


nope

*Stop at* mode

in the first mode, the stop will occur only when the worst thread reaches 5000% (each thread will have to reach 5000%)
in the second mode, percentages are *summed* up and stopping at 5000% will happen very quickly


----------



## kenny0048

I tried with PATRIOT [email protected]
That was a good result.

CPU: Ryzen 9 3900X
M/B: Gigabyte X570 AORUS ELITE (F4g)
MEM: Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-4133 8GBx2(16GB)
*Power Plan is High Performance

DDR4-3800 CL16-8-14-14-28-42-4-6-16-4-10-10-2-2-288-16-10-8-2-1-6-6-1-4-4-1.5T [34.3/20/20/20/20ohm] [0/0/48ohm] 1.46v 
Membench(0.8 beta3)-Easy: 98.54s/64.9ns/65.4ns *memtest86 passed 1.44v

DDR4-3800 CL15-8-14-14-28-42-4-6-16-4-10-10-2-2-288-14-8-8-1-1-6-6-1-4-4-1.0T [34.3/20/20/20/20ohm] [0/0/48ohm] 1.46v
Membench(0.8 beta4)-Easy: 97.74s/64.4ns/65.2ns


----------



## astur_torque

Isn't there anybody talking about micron D die?

I was able to get 3733 16 19 19 19 36 1.33v with corsair lpx 3.31 @3200

Enviado desde mi ONEPLUS A5000 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## 1usmus

astur_torque said:


> Isn't there anybody talking about micron D die?
> 
> I was able to get 3733 16 19 19 19 36 1.33v with corsair lpx 3.31 @3200
> 
> Enviado desde mi ONEPLUS A5000 mediante Tapatalk


Hi, show me what your current settings are 
are you sure that you have D-die?


----------



## astur_torque

1usmus said:


> Hi, show me what your current settings are
> 
> are you sure that you have D-die?


Yes, this is what typhoon showed to me... When i get home i'll post them with a lot of info

Enviado desde mi ONEPLUS A5000 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## mongoled

1usmus said:


> nope
> 
> *Stop at* mode
> 
> in the first mode, the stop will occur only when the worst thread reaches 5000% (each thread will have to reach 5000%)
> in the second mode, percentages are *summed* up and stopping at 5000% will happen very quickly


OK, so I can see that there is no problem,

but I should relay to you why I was confused.

In version 1.6.0.3 the default value is 'Total'

In version 1.6.1 & 1.6.2 the default value is 'Single'

I was not aware that there were two modes.

So when I was testing the new versions..................

I am sure you understand

Thanks


----------



## Cidious

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.2*
> 
> 
> *Changelog:*
> 
> * NEW. Memory status. Information about the available memory.
> * NEW. CAD_BUS received very flexible settings. Thanks to these flexible settings, it is possible to disable GDM (1T mode) without losing stability for Zen 2. DR also got the opportunity to disable GDM at low frequencies (up to 3200 MHz inclusive). Compatibility with previous generations is required to be tested.
> * Updated function to determine the maximum available memory for testing (Memtest mode). At the moment, the test should not go into drives or a swap file.
> * tRDWR has been changed in most profiles, this is a bonus to the chance to get a stable system.
> * Most presets received small changes, in particular Micron e-die .
> * Improved support for 4 modules.
> * Bug fixes.
> 
> *Download:*
> 
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> 
> P.S. *CAD_BUS 24 20 20 24 is experimental. I’ll ask you to treat the experimental proposal with understanding (no need panic  )*
> 
> *If you are a beginner, I advise you to watch these videos.*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w1EGPZUESU&feature=youtu.be
> https://youtu.be/KOqhyVNPhaM
> https://youtu.be/9IY_KlkQK1Q


Firstly thanks for all your hard work and dedication to the communities for freely making this app available to the public. It has been A HUGE help to me already in so many ways being completely new to the Ryzen platform and all.

In the previous versions all your fast presets worked out of the box like a charm with even lower dram voltage for 24/7 use from 3200 up to 3800. I've seen the changes in your last version and decided to give it a try. I had already experimented myself trying to disable Gear Down mode but in no way does it want to be disabled. Not even with the new CAD_Bus settings. I had already tried 20-20-20-20 myself. I'd recommend these settings to disable GearDown Mode to be highly experimental and also be presented like that. Since it's not stable. I can't get past my Windows login screen with geardown disabled. 

Ryzen R5 3600
MSI B450M Mortar
F4-3200C14D-16GRTZ

I think it might be because my motherboard or cpu limitation. So presenting these options in Safe or Fast might be a bit confusing to beginners since the settings worked like a charm before. Maybe add them in the Xtreme tab? 


Other than that. What is the benefit of having GearDown Mode disabled and what could help me getting it stable? If even possible with my motherboard and crippled 3600 memory controller.


----------



## upgraditus

For Micron E-Die in the new version CAD_BUS CLKDRV jumps from 24 to 120 when moving above 3533 Fast preset, is this right?

(RM is showing 1.6.1 set timings in background, some subtle changes)


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

I know a lot of people are chasing 3800 Mhz (CL16 and CL14 perform nearly identical), but is there really any point over 3600 Mhz CL14? What would be the benefit? 

From Linus Tech testing, 3600 Mhz CL14 performs on par with 3800 Mhz with 3800 Mhz.


----------



## astur_torque

1usmus said:


> Hi, show me what your current settings are
> are you sure that you have D-die?



Hello! As I promised...


PS: I'm not even an expert on overclocking, I'm more like a noob hehe



Here you are..


Where I bought them:


https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B072FLGN4V/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1



The label says they're *3.31* version



*Thaiphoon Burner:*




Code:


CMK32GX4M2D3200C16
8 Gb D-die (Z01B / 20 nm) / 1 die
1024Mb x8 (64Mb x8 x 16 banks)
Micron Technology D9TZV (MT40A1G8WE-075E:D)
2048M x64 (2 ranks)
















*CPU-Z*

















*HWInfo*























*Ryzen Master*























Do you need something more?


----------



## @n0nym0us

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.6.2*
> 
> 
> *Changelog:*
> 
> * NEW. Memory status. Information about the available memory.
> * NEW. CAD_BUS received very flexible settings. Thanks to these flexible settings, it is possible to disable GDM (1T mode) without losing stability for Zen 2. DR also got the opportunity to disable GDM at low frequencies (up to 3200 MHz inclusive). Compatibility with previous generations is required to be tested.
> * Updated function to determine the maximum available memory for testing (Memtest mode). At the moment, the test should not go into drives or a swap file.
> * tRDWR has been changed in most profiles, this is a bonus to the chance to get a stable system.
> * Most presets received small changes, in particular Micron e-die .
> * Improved support for 4 modules.
> * Bug fixes.
> 
> *Download:*
> 
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> 
> P.S. *CAD_BUS 24 20 20 24 is experimental. I’ll ask you to treat the experimental proposal with understanding (no need panic  )*
> 
> *If you are a beginner, I advise you to watch these videos.*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w1EGPZUESU&feature=youtu.be
> https://youtu.be/KOqhyVNPhaM
> https://youtu.be/9IY_KlkQK1Q


I've spotted two bugs.

Bug1, RTT_PARK recommended is not displaying the correctly value. RZQ/1 should be 240 instead of 48.
Bug2, When more than 2048Mb per thread is allocated for the memory test, the memory test wont work. It will display a huge amount of time without even starting memtest.


----------



## psychohawk

Wickedtme said:


> Its already supported, just click on drop down menu for ram type, and its there (version 1.6.1)


Sorta, M-Die Hynix is supported up to 3466, the kits I have are 3600 and can clock to 3800. The calculator treats it a CJR, when importing xmp but it is M-die......


----------



## 1usmus

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I know a lot of people are chasing 3800 Mhz (CL16 and CL14 perform nearly identical), but is there really any point over 3600 Mhz CL14? What would be the benefit?
> 
> From Linus Tech testing, 3600 Mhz CL14 performs on par with 3800 Mhz with 3800 Mhz.


In all the tests that you posted are not processor tests. Loading a video card should not exceed 70%, otherwise this is not a processor test. To run games in 1080p ultra (without emphasis in GPU) you need at least *two* video cards of the 2080TI level.



@n0nym0us said:


> I've spotted two bugs.
> 
> Bug1, RTT_PARK recommended is not displaying the correctly value. RZQ/1 should be 240 instead of 48.
> Bug2, When more than 2048Mb per thread is allocated for the memory test, the memory test wont work. It will display a huge amount of time without even starting memtest.


 these are not bugs
1) you confuse different generation of processors (Zen 1 and Zen 2)
2) you need to purchase a pro version of HCI, otherwise you are limited to 2GB per thread



upgraditus said:


> For Micron E-Die in the new version CAD_BUS CLKDRV jumps from 24 to 120 when moving above 3533 Fast preset, is this right?
> 
> (RM is showing 1.6.1 set timings in background, some subtle changes)


It is not joke. I warned all users that the new settings may surprise. Disabling GDM requires this settings.



mongoled said:


> OK, so I can see that there is no problem,
> 
> but I should relay to you why I was confused.
> 
> In version 1.6.0.3 the default value is 'Total'
> 
> In version 1.6.1 & 1.6.2 the default value is 'Single'
> 
> I was not aware that there were two modes.
> 
> So when I was testing the new versions..................
> 
> I am sure you understand
> 
> Thanks



because for the correct assessment of the stability of the system, you need to have more than 100% in each thread

in older versions it was necessary to do this manually, the instruction is on the first page and is highlighted in red
please read
https://www.overclock.net/forum/28069030-post5047.html

In the new version, the application does everything instead of you


----------



## upgraditus

1usmus said:


> It is not joke. I warned all users that the new settings may surprise. Disabling GDM requires this settings.


Thanks for confirming, but I'm unstable if GDM disabled (system hangs/restarts during memtest). Still, with GDM on results are good (~54k 29k 51k 66.5ns) so I'm happy for such a cheap kit.


----------



## 1usmus

upgraditus said:


> Thanks for confirming, but I'm unstable if GDM disabled (system hangs/restarts during memtest). Still, with GDM on results are good (~54k 29k 51k 66.5ns) so I'm happy for such a cheap kit.


60 20 20 24 or 40 20 20 24 
ClkDrv grows with frequency when GDM is disabled


----------



## @n0nym0us

1usmus said:


> these are not bugs
> 1) you confuse different generation of processors (Zen 1 and Zen 2)
> 2) you need to purchase a pro version of HCI, otherwise you are limited to 2GB per thread


You should check the definition of a software or computer bug. The reported issues are definitely bugs since it is unexpected behavior.

1) You are confused by including something which isn't related to the bug. The recommended RTT_PARK which is being displayed is *not* valid. 
Its either RZQ/1 (*240*) or RZQ/*5* (48). The combination of *RZQ/1 (48)* which the Ryzen DRAM Calculator shows at recommended RTT_PARK is invalid.

2) Currently this limitation is not catch at all and is displaying a huge amount of time has passed while it didn't happen. This is unexpected behavior you dont want to see.
Display a warning message and/or cap it at the amount of threads * 2GB when too much memory is tested with the free version would be a nice solution.


----------



## astur_torque

1usmus said:


> 60 20 20 24 or 40 20 20 24
> ClkDrv grows with frequency when GDM is disabled



Hi! I posted you the screenshots a few post ago about micron D chips, do you need any else information?


----------



## shmerl

I was experimenting with DRAM calculator, using presets for Samsung B-die, profile V1. Why are voltages for 3600 MHz lower than ones for 3400 MHz?

3400:









3600:


----------



## 21Dante

Because the timmings at 3400 are lower.


I have the Crucial Ballistix 3600.
With the 3733 fast preset V1 ,I can complete TM5 10 cycles with no error.
However prime95 large FTTs get errors at 5 mins.
I tried increasing ram voltage(from 1,40 to even 1,44) and soc voltage(from 1,1 to 1,125) but made no difference.
What else can I try?


----------



## shmerl

Also, what exactly does "SOC voltage" refer to?

I have these options:

VDD_SOC
CPU VDDCR_SOC
PREM VDDCR_SOC


----------



## baro55

i have Gskıll _Trıdent Z Rgb_ Led _Cl16_ 2x8gb Dual (16-18-18-38) 1.35v F4-3200c16d-16gtzr


what is the best options ?


----------



## shmerl

Also, my RAM config has these options:

tRFC
tRFC2
tRFC4

While calculator only shows:
tRFC
tRFC (alt)

Which ones does (alt) refer to, and what values should I use for the third?


----------



## MyndZero

Can anyone tell me why I can't use the Fast or Extreme buttons and only the safe one? Whenever I click onto fast it gives me an error " Manual Profile only for SAFE!", yet everyone else seems to be able to use this button so I'm not sure why I can't.

Edit: Nevermind. I'm just blind apparently.


----------



## astur_torque

shmerl said:


> Also, what exactly does "SOC voltage" refer to?
> 
> I have these options:
> 
> VDD_SOC
> CPU VDDCR_SOC
> PREM VDDCR_SOC



It's the memory controler of the processor, the big die in ryzen 3000


----------



## upgraditus

@baro55 you need to find out which ICs they use with Taiphoon burner, then you know where to start, the timings would suggest it is not using B-Die.
@shmerl SOC voltage is VDD_SOC, may need slightly more than rec to be stable under load because of vdroop, ymmv. tRFC2 and tRFC4 can be safely ignored, alt(ernate) is just if rec(ommended) isn't stable.


----------



## brenopapito

After a bios update (3.60 Taichi X470), I can't run any memtest without getting errors. I don't know if my mobo/cpu/memory could be degradated or if I have some bug with bios/chipset/Windows. I'm using the exact same timings as before, even with more voltage but it's hard to get the same results without errors. Any ideias?


----------



## mongoled

1usmus said:


> because for the correct assessment of the stability of the system, you need to have more than 100% in each thread
> 
> in older versions it was necessary to do this manually, the instruction is on the first page and is highlighted in red
> please read
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28069030-post5047.html
> 
> In the new version, the application does everything instead of you


Thanks for the clarification


----------



## thomasck

brenopapito said:


> After a bios update (3.60 Taichi X470), I can't run any memtest without getting errors. I don't know if my mobo/cpu/memory could be degradated or if I have some bug with bios/chipset/Windows. I'm using the exact same timings as before, even with more voltage but it's hard to get the same results without errors. Any ideias?


Try v2 profile.. or even load the exported xmp from thaiphoon into dram calc and check if you keep getting errors.

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk


----------



## shmerl

astur_torque said:


> It's the memory controler of the processor, the big die in ryzen 3000


That doesn't help me to set it  See my question above, I have 3 values in UEFI for Asrock X570 Taichi.



upgraditus said:


> @shmerl SOC voltage is VDD_SOC, may need slightly more than rec to be stable under load because of vdroop, ymmv. tRFC2 and tRFC4 can be safely ignored, alt(ernate) is just if rec(ommended) isn't stable.


Thanks! So I don't need to set PREM VDDR_SOC and CPU VDDCR_SOC? According to one comment here, it's important to set PREM VDDR_SOC.


----------



## Bubar37

Thx 1usmus for this 1.6.2 your new values for cjr chips are just near perfect ! 

But i have a question to power user with fast settings my pci express 4.0 score is lower for example my nvme ssd loosing 20 30% performance . How i can help my pci express ? soc voltage fclk ? vrm phase extreme ? or ? 

Thx


----------



## Pieter-Jan

Hi. I am stuck with the overclocking of my RAM. My system has an X570 Elite and a 3700X, I have Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK32GX4M2C33, officially binned as 3333 MT/s and CL=16, it is dual rank and it has Samsung B dies. I have set it at 3666 MT/s with the sharp timings from the DRAM calculator (IF of course at 1833 MHz), I copied everything except that I already had changed the CAD-bus timings to one of the alternates (24,24,24,24) and I ran it at 1.38V (I didn't try out 1.37V and 1.36V). I ran 2 times 4 passes of Mem86 and I had 0 errors. It seems 100% stable except that the motherboard does not seem to like rebooting for whatever reason, after rebooting it regularly happens that the casefans spin but the system does not start to powercycle (no ramping up and down from the fan on the CPU-cooler). 

I can't get 3733 MT/s to work. The Infinity Fabric could clock up to 1900 MHz when I had my RAM set at 3533 MT/s, I experimented to see what my IF can do. I assume that the IF is not the problem. After I copy the timings and voltage from the DRAM calculator the first time it boots but then when I reboot the system it gets stuck, it resets the BIOS, powercycles twice more and then shows the splash-screen from which I can load the BIOS and I get the message that the BIOS has been reset. For the ProcODT I tried any value in between 40 and 53 (I started with 53 and worked downwards), it looks like the moterhboard boots more consistently at lower ProcODT values. I tried any voltage in between 1.36 and 1.39V (the recommended voltage = 1.37V). I haven't tried any other values for the RTT's because 1usmus only gives 1 value in his DRAM calculator. When I manage to reboot and run Memtest86 test 8 (random sequences) gives the most errors but at a lower voltage (I tried 1.36V) even at test 1 I already got many errors. Does any of you have an idea what to try next? Is it possible that the BIOS and AGESA are insufficiently mature for the higher clock frequencies and that it will improve in the next few months? How do you know what the limit of your RAM is? What would be the best step forward given that the values of the DRAM calculator don't result in stable booting?


----------



## Bubar37

For your reboot probleme : have you changed cldo cddp voltage as recommended ? don't know your chip but in auto it is set to 0.700 and recommended to 0.900 .
In my case i got probleme with cold boot and sometime at reboot with low vddp .
For your probleme att 3666 fclk 1833 try to stick 1800 fclk first to see if stable.So you can see to up soc voltage or loadline calibration way 2/3(don't know on gigabyte)

For example i can achieve 4200 with 1800 fclk and i have cjr not as good as samsumg b dies


----------



## Bubar37

Pieter-Jan said:


> Hi. I am stuck with the overclocking of my RAM. My system has an X570 Elite and a 3700X, I have Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK32GX4M2C33, officially binned as 3333 MT/s and CL=16, it is dual rank and it has Samsung B dies. I have set it at 3666 MT/s with the sharp timings from the DRAM calculator (IF of course at 1833 MHz), I copied everything except that I already had changed the CAD-bus timings to one of the alternates (24,24,24,24) and I ran it at 1.38V (I didn't try out 1.37V and 1.36V). I ran 2 times 4 passes of Mem86 and I had 0 errors. It seems 100% stable except that the motherboard does not seem to like rebooting for whatever reason, after rebooting it regularly happens that the casefans spin but the system does not start to powercycle (no ramping up and down from the fan on the CPU-cooler).
> 
> I can't get 3733 MT/s to work. The Infinity Fabric could clock up to 1900 MHz when I had my RAM set at 3533 MT/s, I experimented to see what my IF can do. I assume that the IF is not the problem. After I copy the timings and voltage from the DRAM calculator the first time it boots but then when I reboot the system it gets stuck, it resets the BIOS, powercycles twice more and then shows the splash-screen from which I can load the BIOS and I get the message that the BIOS has been reset. For the ProcODT I tried any value in between 40 and 53 (I started with 53 and worked downwards), it looks like the moterhboard boots more consistently at lower ProcODT values. I tried any voltage in between 1.36 and 1.39V (the recommended voltage = 1.37V). I haven't tried any other values for the RTT's because 1usmus only gives 1 value in his DRAM calculator. When I manage to reboot and run Memtest86 test 8 (random sequences) gives the most errors but at a lower voltage (I tried 1.36V) even at test 1 I already got many errors. Does any of you have an idea what to try next? Is it possible that the BIOS and AGESA are insufficiently mature for the higher clock frequencies and that it will improve in the next few months? How do you know what the limit of your RAM is? What would be the best step forward given that the values of the DRAM calculator don't result in stable booting?


 And first thing sorry try 1.39 on dram it's safe don't stress .
Mine is 1.4350 i can let my finger on it ....


----------



## Bubar37

Pieter-Jan said:


> Hi. I am stuck with the overclocking of my RAM. My system has an X570 Elite and a 3700X, I have Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK32GX4M2C33, officially binned as 3333 MT/s and CL=16, it is dual rank and it has Samsung B dies. I have set it at 3666 MT/s with the sharp timings from the DRAM calculator (IF of course at 1833 MHz), I copied everything except that I already had changed the CAD-bus timings to one of the alternates (24,24,24,24) and I ran it at 1.38V (I didn't try out 1.37V and 1.36V). I ran 2 times 4 passes of Mem86 and I had 0 errors. It seems 100% stable except that the motherboard does not seem to like rebooting for whatever reason, after rebooting it regularly happens that the casefans spin but the system does not start to powercycle (no ramping up and down from the fan on the CPU-cooler).
> 
> I can't get 3733 MT/s to work. The Infinity Fabric could clock up to 1900 MHz when I had my RAM set at 3533 MT/s, I experimented to see what my IF can do. I assume that the IF is not the problem. After I copy the timings and voltage from the DRAM calculator the first time it boots but then when I reboot the system it gets stuck, it resets the BIOS, powercycles twice more and then shows the splash-screen from which I can load the BIOS and I get the message that the BIOS has been reset. For the ProcODT I tried any value in between 40 and 53 (I started with 53 and worked downwards), it looks like the moterhboard boots more consistently at lower ProcODT values. I tried any voltage in between 1.36 and 1.39V (the recommended voltage = 1.37V). I haven't tried any other values for the RTT's because 1usmus only gives 1 value in his DRAM calculator. When I manage to reboot and run Memtest86 test 8 (random sequences) gives the most errors but at a lower voltage (I tried 1.36V) even at test 1 I already got many errors. Does any of you have an idea what to try next? Is it possible that the BIOS and AGESA are insufficiently mature for the higher clock frequencies and that it will improve in the next few months? How do you know what the limit of your RAM is? What would be the best step forward given that the values of the DRAM calculator don't result in stable booting?


Post 1.6.2 results with your b dies maybe we can help without visual difficult


----------



## Bubar37

With 1.6.2 1usmus give me what i miss when tweaking higher clkdrv and gear down disabled . seems if need higher clkdrv .
Fact is 1900 fclk is nice spot but not all ryzen 2 and motherboard can achieve this stable 1usmus first said at start he got pb with that . 

Probleme is as you said bios are very young . I was very angry against msi with my b350 but with last agesa i can achieve 4ghz on my 1600 and 3600 on ram with the same kit i use on my asus x570 with 3700x now ... 

Now i can go 4200cl18 fclk 1800 without any tweaking was just a try i prefer a stable 3600 or 3800 ...


----------



## upgraditus

shmerl said:


> Thanks! So I don't need to set PREM VDDR_SOC and CPU VDDCR_SOC? According to one comment here, it's important to set PREM VDDR_SOC.


I guess it's different per bios/board. In my case VDD_SOC is only one that adjusts SOC voltage and don't even think the other two you mention exist.


----------



## Yuke

It seems i hit my 2x 16GB dual rank limit. Dont know where to go from here as there is no entry for 3800Mhz+ and i dont know if its even possible to get cl15 with GDM=off to work.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_RcgeRubyotTOzRHr3qWdqaOBvSdpudg

Also another strange thing that i experienced is that my Latency *deteriorated *since i installed all the programs i use on my system....not sure if this normal...? I started with latencies around 63ns and i hardly hit 64ns anymore now. Most of the times 65'ish.


----------



## joker927

I have been tweaking memory for 3 solid evenings now. I have spreadsheets of setting combinations and checklists and still no success. All I am trying to hit are Safe settings for 3200mhz, which my kit is rated at so I'm not asking for much. I switched from a Ryzen 2600 to a 3700x in hope that I could get my memory to run at its rated speeds. No luck yet. I could use some help.

3700x
Crosshair VI Hero
Corsair Vengeance RGB 4 x 8gb Hynix CJR Single Rank

I have tried every combination of recommended, alt1 and alt2 for every setting on the main page and every setting I have in my BIOS for the advanced page. I have applied all the settings in the Power Supply tab for maximum DRAM stability.

In *all* cases I get a memory error in less then 120 seconds of testing.

At 2933 mhz, I get no errors. If I put only 2 sticks in, I get no errors at 3200mhz. I also tested this with both sets of sticks so I know I dont have a bad stick. It also proves the sticks themselves can run at this speed. So it appears that the board (or SOC) is the problem and only with 4 sticks. But I'm at a loss as to what to do. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## Filters83

joker927 said:


> I have been tweaking memory for 3 solid evenings now. I have spreadsheets of setting combinations and checklists and still no success. All I am trying to hit are Safe settings for 3200mhz, which my kit is rated at so I'm not asking for much. I switched from a Ryzen 2600 to a 3700x in hope that I could get my memory to run at its rated speeds. No luck yet. I could use some help.
> 
> 3700x
> Crosshair VI Hero
> Corsair Vengeance RGB 4 x 8gb Hynix CJR Single Rank
> 
> I have tried every combination of recommended, alt1 and alt2 for every setting on the main page and every setting I have in my BIOS for the advanced page. I have applied all the settings in the Power Supply tab for maximum DRAM stability.
> 
> In *all* cases I get a memory error in less then 120 seconds of testing.
> 
> At 2933 mhz, I get no errors. If I put only 2 sticks in, I get no errors at 3200mhz. I also tested this with both sets of sticks so I know I dont have a bad stick. It also proves the sticks themselves can run at this speed. So it appears that the board (or SOC) is the problem and only with 4 sticks. But I'm at a loss as to what to do. Any help is appreciated.



Try do a quick test, set all manually except for PROC and RTT ( all of them ) and leave them auto, see what motherboard set for you cecking in ryzen master. 
In my case whit different ram i noticed Calculator suggest Proc like you but my mobo set 40 Ohm and weird its work better so far 
FOrgot to say ProcODT in ryzen master its calle CPU on die termination


----------



## FJSAMA

@1usmus found stability on 3600 safe GDM OFF just by changing CAD BUS to 60-20-20-24 like you mentioned some posts earlier.:specool:

Now, my question is, do this resistance(ohm) settings like CAD BUS, procODT, and RTT's affect performance/latency or we just tweak them to reach stability?

Should i try 40ohm on ClkDrvStren or the output performance/latency will be the same as 60? 

What about their effect on temperatures? does it change on different values? thanks for your tips!:thumb:


----------



## panni

Hey,

I'm trying to get my Ballistix 3200C16 (2*16GB DR) stable at 3766. They work perfectly at 3600C16 (default XMP timings) at 1.4V.
At 3766 (1.45V) they throw no immediate errors, but the system turns off after a couple of hours of memtest.

Any generic pointers here? Current settings: https://i.imgur.com/wqjqMmO.png

Is it time to play with the CAD Bus timings, or should I simply try the safe preset?


Thank you


----------



## criznit

Hey all,

I'm currently at 3733 CL16/1866 and loving it, but wanted to know some numbers from 3600 CL14/1800. Could anyone point me to some aida numbers for that configuration?


----------



## Streetdragon

panni said:


> Hey,
> 
> I'm trying to get my Ballistix 3200C16 (2*16GB DR) stable at 3766. They work perfectly at 3600C16 (default XMP timings) at 1.4V.
> At 3766 (1.45V) they throw no immediate errors, but the system turns off after a couple of hours of memtest.
> 
> Any generic pointers here? Current settings: https://i.imgur.com/wqjqMmO.png
> 
> Is it time to play with the CAD Bus timings, or should I simply try the safe preset?
> 
> 
> Thank you


Looks like the IF is not happy. SOC 1.15V and vddg 1050mV. VDDP the same. maybe this helps.

My 3900x wont go over 1833 on the IF unless i go crazy with the voltages


----------



## panni

Streetdragon said:


> Looks like the IF is not happy. SOC 1.15V and vddg 1050mV. VDDP the same. maybe this helps.
> 
> My 3900x wont go over 1833 on the IF unless i go crazy with the voltages


Thank you for the hints! I was able to stabilize 3733 by raising SOC to 1.125V, VDDG/P at 1.075V, vref 0.725V, CAD 24-30-24-24, and relaxing tRP and tRCDRD by 1 (now running 16-19-19-36-72-1T instead of 16-18-18-36-72-1T).
The RAM is at 1.46V.

Memory voltage is a little high for my taste and I'd like to get VDDG/P down a little. I think relaxing tRP an tRCDRD made a huge impact and might allow me to relax the voltages a bit.

Any pointers where to start?


----------



## criznit

panni said:


> Thank you for the hints! I was able to stabilize 3733 by raising SOC to 1.125V, VDDG/P at 1.075V, vref 0.725V, CAD 24-30-24-24, and relaxing tRP and tRCDRD by 1 (now running 16-19-19-36-72-1T instead of 16-18-18-36-72-1T).
> The RAM is at 1.46V.
> 
> Memory voltage is a little high for my taste and I'd like to get VDDG/P down a little. I think relaxing tRP an tRCDRD made a huge impact and might allow me to relax the voltages a bit.
> 
> Any pointers where to start?


Personally, I would drop back down to 3600 and try to tighten the timings. Unless you have a need to take memory that high AND run it at those specs for 24/7, that extra voltage isn't really needed.


----------



## Hynixclub

Made this account to ask here specifically, please re-direct me if it's the wrong place/thread.

Relevant *specs*:*Ryzen 1700* at 3.6 Ghz (_*1.188-1.2V*, negative dynamic offset to avoid the motherboard feeding it for no good reason_)
Gigabyte A*B350* Gaming 3 (*SOC 1.087V*)
Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 (_Vengeance LPX *3200* V 5.something iirc - *Hynix MFR*_,_*1.38V* mostly for testing purposes_)
​I've been running it at 2133 MT/s since I bought the system, because XMP wouldn't work any way I tried it. Now, after a couple of years I updated the BIOS and decided to try again. I figured it might've improved, so I looked around for info on voltage requirements, and saw that the SOC voltage was defaulted to 0.9V. I increased it, a dynamic offset of +0.0084 (_which somehow ends up being 1.087V_). I used the DRAM Calculator to get approximate timings, as well as various other sources to figure out what a reasonable range could be (_as well as a bit of testing with memtest86_ _inbetween to get something that didn't throw errors immediately_). The RAM will simply not run at 3200 with any sort of setting. But for 2933, it works with just XMP and voltage upped a bit.


*My problem:*
I arrived at these timings after a few days (_missing is CAD_BUS'es at 20 Ohms, RTT_NOM at RZQ/7(34), RTT_WR OFF, RTT_PARK RZQ/4(60) _), changing a setting, testing in memtest86 (_USB stick_). It passed a total of 8 passes today. It also passed 9 passes of TM5 with 1usmus's V3 config. I hadn't edited the file to run it 10x in one go, so I ran them back-to-back "manually". Then I ran the membench module of the DRAM Calculator in memtest mode, and it ran for something like 175%+ (_not sure exactly, but around there_) per thread (_~2800% total_), until the program dissapeared. Weird, well, task manager was still showing it as running (_as well as all of the membench instances_), so I let it keep running. It ran for a few more minutes, task manger working as usual, and then the screens went black, and the computer restarted. I set it back to a safe (_I hope_) 2933 just-XMP profile for now, as I want to let my software RAID re-sync before I attempt any more stress tests.


How do I proceed from here? I'm about to just give up, set it to XMP and leave it. I don't want to risk data corruption, or crashes, for a couple of fps in some game.


----------



## panni

criznit said:


> Personally, I would drop back down to 3600 and try to tighten the timings. Unless you have a need to take memory that high AND run it at those specs for 24/7, that extra voltage isn't really needed.


I was able to reduce VDDG/P to 1.050V and SOC back to 1.1V (default on my motherboard), as well as memory voltage to 1.44V. I'll try lowering those values over subsequent test runs.

Aren't the max values inside the DRAM Calculator meant to be long term, 24/7, non-degrading viable? I've tried playing around with safe/fast presets on 3600 before and didn't have any luck in a timeframe that's acceptable to me, before, so I stuck with the XMP defaults, 3600, and 1.40V. 
I'm simply trying to do the same with 3766 right now, or is that a bad idea?

Edit: 1.000V VDDG/P and 1.42V just passed - I think I'm getting into very safe territory here, aren't I?


----------



## criznit

panni said:


> I was able to reduce VDDG/P to 1.050V and SOC back to 1.1V (default on my motherboard), as well as memory voltage to 1.44V. I'll try lowering those values over subsequent test runs.
> 
> Aren't the max values inside the DRAM Calculator meant to be long term, 24/7, non-degrading viable? I've tried playing around with safe/fast presets on 3600 before and didn't have any luck in a timeframe that's acceptable to me, before, so I stuck with the XMP defaults, 3600, and 1.40V.
> I'm simply trying to do the same with 3766 right now, or is that a bad idea?
> 
> Edit: 1.000V VDDG/P and 1.42V just passed - I think I'm getting into very safe territory here, aren't I?


1.45V is safe, but going much above that for small gains isn't worth it.


----------



## Cidious

I did reach 1900/3800-16-17-16-32-48-1T GearDown Disabled @ 1.41V (1.44v measured) at 1.40 it would work perfectly with 8 hours of memtest and with gaming it could just freeze after half. Probably due to heat of the GPU. And like suggested here above GearDown does let itsefl be disabled when setting ClkDriveStren to 60ohm. I haven't tried lower yet. 

Trident Z RGB F4-320014CD-GTRZ 16GB (2x8GB)
MSI B450M Mortar (Bios 1A0, just released today)
AMD Ryzen R5 3600

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=294334&thumb=1


I don't think there is much more to tweak left for 24/7 use. Latency finally dropped under 65ns and from here it's just a struggle to get to 63 which would involve increasing voltage and doing other weird stuff for practically no benefit. I practically followed the calculator for this awesome result! 

@1usmus
Thank you so much!


*UPDATE:*
NOT STABLE  still can't get it stable with GearDown disabled. I turned it back on and everything is stable again.

Turning it back on almost gives me the same results within the margin of error. Why do we want to turn it off? What is the benefit?
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=294346&thumb=1


----------



## Yuke

Cidious said:


> *UPDATE:*
> NOT STABLE  still can't get it stable with GearDown disabled. I turned it back on and everything is stable again.
> 
> Turning it back on almost gives me the same results within the margin of error. Why do we want to turn it off? What is the benefit?
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=294346&thumb=1



Just forget about it...not worth the trouble. Everything is the same (within margin of error) when using GDM off/on. FPS and Benchmark-Scores. I too cant get GDM=off stable and i just gave up. Im at my Timings limit too...cant even go from tfrc 304 to 298 without Memtest error. 



After your system is full of bloat software you wont be able to hit 63ns in AIDA anymore anyway, i started out with consitent 63.x ns after a fresh win installation and now hardly hit 64ns anymore. AIDA is **** for that...use the built in from the Calculator...far more consistent in my experience


----------



## mkk

Recently bought four sticks of Kingston HyperX Predator KHX2666C13/16GX that apparently uses a not so common type of chip, *16Gbit Hynix H5AN8G8NJJR-TFC* (16Gbit JJR?).
I'm mostly curious if there are any known recommendations for such memory when it comes to DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™; If they are likely to be similar enough to an existing profile or if they might be worth adding as their own at some future date. With a humble R7-1700 I'm just happy to be running these *4x16GB* sticks at 1866/CL14 with no real tweaking. But eventually there'll be a new CPU to toy with.

Attaching picture with data from Taiphoon Burner as well as the HTML report just in case.


----------



## thagabe

Cidious said:


> I did reach 1900/3800-16-17-16-32-48-1T GearDown Disabled @ 1.41V (1.44v measured) at 1.40 it would work perfectly with 8 hours of memtest and with gaming it could just freeze after half. Probably due to heat of the GPU. And like suggested here above GearDown does let itsefl be disabled when setting ClkDriveStren to 60ohm. I haven't tried lower yet.


Could I have 1 pieces of information?
1) You Overclocking? PBO or manual? Thermal solution? - I'm currently running 3600x with the stock cooler (waiting on Dark Rock TF cooler today!) hopefully better noise/performance ratio

2) I have the Team Force Xcalibur 4000 memory @18-20-20-44 as XMP. I just let it be and The ICM decouples itself from the rest of the chipset but runs 4000mhz. Tho throughput is good latency is now 85ns rather than 69.2ns when using 3600mhz/1800(Infinity Fabric) also at 18-20-20-44. 

Could you please provide me with your settings to achieve this amazing performance increase?


----------



## Synoxia

thagabe said:


> Could I have 1 pieces of information?
> 1) You Overclocking? PBO or manual? Thermal solution? - I'm currently running 3600x with the stock cooler (waiting on Dark Rock TF cooler today!) hopefully better noise/performance ratio
> 
> 2) I have the Team Force Xcalibur 4000 memory @18-20-20-44 as XMP. I just let it be and The ICM decouples itself from the rest of the chipset but runs 4000mhz. Tho throughput is good latency is now 85ns rather than 69.2ns when using 3600mhz/1800(Infinity Fabric) also at 18-20-20-44.
> 
> Could you please provide me with your settings to achieve this amazing performance increase?


Simple. Don't run 4000mem unless you can also run 2000 fclk (infinity fabric clock). By using XMP, you are decupling the IFCLK from UCLK, instead they should run at the same speed. Even Standard 3600c14 coupled would give you better performance than your XMP.


----------



## deehoC

I tried to replicate 1usmus' 3800 CL14 settings shown here (https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1169591673749495808) for the fun of it to see if my system would post and so far so good. 

Oddly though my Read/Copy and Latency results are worse than expected for the given timings. The only things I can see different between his Ryzen Master screenshot and mine are the fact that he's running 102 BCLK with Geardown Mode Disabled and his MEM VDDIO and MEM VTT are set manually. I've kept my IF 1:1 at 3800/1900 since I'm not applying the 102 BCLK he is using but otherwise I thought I would see much closer numbers to his results.

I've definitely had better results in the past with looser timings as you can see from these other screenshots. My Rig Builder should be up to date but heres the RAM I'm using G.Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZR (Some Trident Z RGB, few years old)

If anyone has any clues as to whats going on here I'd be happy to learn what I'm doing wrong.


----------



## wesley8

Test with several memory sets,such as single ranks bdie and dual ranks bdie & CJR. Included: 3800c16 dual ranks bdie & CJR,3800c14 single ranks GDM ON & OFF, 4400c16 single ranks GDM ON & OFF.（All tests passed MT 300%)

Final decision to use dual ranks BDIE memory set, timings 3800c16-17-16-28-42 1T tRFC260 GDM ON 1.45v .


----------



## Yuke

wesley8 said:


> Test with several memory sets,such as single ranks bdie and dual ranks bdie & CJR. Included: 3800c16 dual ranks bdie & CJR,3800c14 single ranks GDM ON & OFF, 4400c16 single ranks GDM ON & OFF.（All tests passed MT 300%)
> 
> Final decision to use dual ranks BDIE memory set, timings 3800c16-17-16-28-42 1T tRFC260 GDM ON 1.45v .



Thats crazy ... care to share the whole timing set with us?


----------



## filippoukon

3700x auto
3800c15 1.43v


----------



## Hynixclub

I need some advice on how to proceed with these timings. Most are derived from the calculator, with some trial and error based on things I've read.

Relevant specs:Corsair *CMK16GX4M2B3200C16*
Vengeance LPX 8Gb *single rank* CL16, 3200 MT/s XMP rated, bought maybe two years ago. V5.39, *Hynix AFR* according to Thaiphoon, MFR according to "the internet"/previous searches I've done trying to read up on it. Unable to run at its XMP rating of 3200, instead runs fine/tested at 2933Mhz since a few weeks back (_yes, I ran 2133 for probably two years, early BIOSes were too shoddy to even bother with the B350_). 1.39V (actually *1.38V*), since the MB reports them getting 0.01V less than whatever you set.

*Ryzen 1700* at 3.6Ghz
Negative voltage offset to keep at around 1.888-1.2V (_MB reading, SVI2 TFN maybe +0.037V_ from that). *SoC ~1.087-1.094 SVI2 TFN*.

*Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3*
Only offers offsets for very basic voltages, and doesn't seem to respect them in the first place anyway. Default SoC voltage is 0.9V, setting SoC to +0 results in the previously mentioned 1.087-1.094V range. Adding up to +0.084V as I did to get up from 0.9V initially, seemingly changes nothing.
​Last I tested these timings, I had the voltage set to 1.38V, presumably resulting in 1.37V, regardless, they passed eight in a row + four prior full passes of memtest86 from a USB stick (_minus hammer test_), 9x TM5 with 1usmus' V3 test in a row (_I hadn't yet thought to set it to 10 rounds in a go at the time)_.

Running membench in the DRAM calculator, it then crashed on 175% per thread (_~2800%+ total_). I had run it for a bit over an hour when the DRAM calculator/progress window blinked out of existance. All instances of memtest still active in windows task manager, even the DRAM calculator, so I left it. It then crashed the system fully after an additional couple of minutes. This was a few days ago. An earlier crash had caused the corruption of a file, so I was slightly worried now too (_I think I fixed the offending variable, but still_). So I worry a little about potentially running "stable" timings that then accidentally flip (_"Whoops! Sorry boss.."_) a number somewhere and ruins a file I can't just restore through console commands.

Maybe a bit of an essay of redundancy, I'm mostly just asking:*(1) What could cause a memory kit to pass memtest86 8x in a row, TM5 1usmus V3 x9 in a row, but crash on 2800% (*_total, ~175% per thread_*) HCI memtest/built-in memtest of DRAM calculator?

** (2) Anything obviously wrong with my timings? *(_Not shown: CAD_BUS stuff 20, RttNom: RZQ/7, RttWR: Off. The last two might be misconfigured - I thought I had MFR when I initially set these: RttPark RZQ/4, should be 5, ProcODT: 60, should be 53, 48 or 60 - can these make a big enough difference?_)​


----------



## Ironcobra

Im really struggling to see where most of you guys really kill my tridentz in latency, I havent been able to get under 66ns with 3800. Should I be concerned here or am I chasing the dragon. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## mongoled

Ironcobra said:


> Im really struggling to see where most of you guys really kill my tridentz in latency, I havent been able to get under 66ns with 3800. Should I be concerned here or am I chasing the dragon. Any help would be appreciated.


Row Cycle Time is too low, try 42, 44

Tfaw is too high, try 16, 18, 20


----------



## Saiger0

Ironcobra said:


> Im really struggling to see where most of you guys really kill my tridentz in latency, I havent been able to get under 66ns with 3800. Should I be concerned here or am I chasing the dragon. Any help would be appreciated.


PDM enabled?


----------



## Ironcobra

Saiger0 said:


> PDM enabled?


power down disabled



mongoled said:


> Row Cycle Time is too low, try 42, 44
> 
> Tfaw is too high, try 16, 18, 20





Saiger0 said:


> PDM enabled?


Got these settings stable at 64.9 latency, I discovered 1usms ryzen overclocking guide and that was very helpful. Dont know how I missed that all this time.


----------



## mongoled

Ironcobra said:


> power down disabled
> 
> Got these settings stable at 64.9 latency, I discovered 1usms ryzen overclocking guide and that was very helpful. Dont know how I missed that all this time.


 Thats better


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> Test with several memory sets,such as single ranks bdie and dual ranks bdie & CJR. Included: 3800c16 dual ranks bdie & CJR,3800c14 single ranks GDM ON & OFF, 4400c16 single ranks GDM ON & OFF.（All tests passed MT 300%)
> 
> Final decision to use dual ranks BDIE memory set, timings 3800c16-17-16-28-42 1T tRFC260 GDM ON 1.45v .


Jesus christ. I run 3800 c15 and my latency isn't as low as this guy. Could 3900x vs 3700x be worth 3NS whole of latency? I have 65.5 with 3800 c15-16-17-16-30-45... might you share your settings?


----------



## ComansoRowlett

Synoxia said:


> Jesus christ. I run 3800 c15 and my latency isn't as low as this guy. Could 3900x vs 3700x be worth 3NS whole of latency? I have 65.5 with 3800 c15-16-17-16-30-45... might you share your settings?


He has a dual rank kit, you probably have a single rank kit. Can make a decent difference.


----------



## Synoxia

ComansoRowlett said:


> He has a dual rank kit, you probably have a single rank kit. Can make a decent difference.


Shouldn't 3800 c14 kit be single rank? That has still a latency of 62.7 :/


----------



## Acidstorm

Synoxia said:


> Jesus christ. I run 3800 c15 and my latency isn't as low as this guy. Could 3900x vs 3700x be worth 3NS whole of latency? I have 65.5 with 3800 c15-16-17-16-30-45... might you share your settings?


I run 2800 with CL14 and have run it with CL12, but takes more volts, on my RAM, and I used to get 60 NS latency, but even with those timings I've used forever, the only thing I changed was the BIOS, now I'm closer to 90 NS latency. I'm not happy with that at all. Those BIOS updates are effecting first gen Ryzen in a bad way, and I don't think it should be. But I've had the same CPU, Mobo, and RAM since I bought this gear back in 2017. I haven't even installed a new Windows install since then either. Maybe it could be MS with their ****ty updates of late, but I noticed this right after a BIOS update, and it hasn't gotten better with subsequent BIOS updates.


----------



## kenny0048

Synoxia said:


> Jesus christ. I run 3800 c15 and my latency isn't as low as this guy. Could 3900x vs 3700x be worth 3NS whole of latency? I have 65.5 with 3800 c15-16-17-16-30-45... might you share your settings?


I use 3900X + X570 Aorus Elite + PATRIOT Viper Steel 4133 8GBx2 @3733 CL16, but the latency is around 65ns.
Membench (latency test) is affected by the power plan, so you may want to set it to “High Performance”.
https://imgur.com/QY2VLXm.png


----------



## Acidstorm

kenny0048 said:


> I use 3900X + X570 Aorus Elite + PATRIOT Viper Steel 4133 8GBx2 @3733 CL16, but the latency is around 65ns.
> Membench (latency test) is affected by the power plan, so you may want to set it to “High Performance”.
> https://imgur.com/QY2VLXm.png


I unlocked the 'Ultimate Performance' setting, but doesn't seem any different than 'High Performance'. Think I'll run a couple benchmarks and see if there is any difference.


----------



## ComansoRowlett

Synoxia said:


> Shouldn't 3800 c14 kit be single rank? That has still a latency of 62.7 :/


Depends on your secondaries and tertiaries too. They make a huge difference other than just primaries. Zen 2 CPU's tend to cap out at around 63.2ish ns any lower is just a luck of the draw it doesn't matter what kit you have it'll be down to the memory system on the chip. Personally I get 3733 at 63.2 on a single rank kit. Just remember dual rank is just higher performing in general per clock but harder to run, since we're stuck with 1:1 dual rank tends to be the better option with Zen 2.

(Edit: Accidentally said 2:1)


----------



## Synoxia

ComansoRowlett said:


> Depends on your secondaries and tertiaries too. They make a huge difference other than just primaries. Zen 2 CPU's tend to cap out at around 63.2ish ns any lower is just a luck of the draw it doesn't matter what kit you have it'll be down to the memory system on the chip. Personally I get 3733 at 63.2 on a single rank kit. Just remember dual rank is just higher performing in general per clock but harder to run, since we're stuck with 1:1 dual rank tends to be the better option with Zen 2.
> 
> (Edit: Accidentally said 2:1)


I see TRFC seems to impact this, GDM impacts it and also SCSLs maybe?. 
I tried fiddling with some BCLK oc, seems that latency also depends heavily on clock speed (thus why 3900x/3800x/3600x have better latency than a 3700x/3600)
I've got this. Ryzen master says coupled 1900. Am i actually running fclk at 1926?


----------



## wesley8

Synoxia said:


> Jesus christ. I run 3800 c15 and my latency isn't as low as this guy. Could 3900x vs 3700x be worth 3NS whole of latency? I have 65.5 with 3800 c15-16-17-16-30-45... might you share your settings?


The latency of 3700x should be lower than 3900x, because just one CCD.


----------



## flyinion

Anyone have any pointers on which settings to start dialing back if I find instability? I'm totally new to RAM tweaking. I ran the calculator last night and input the recommended "Safe" settings. Booted fine, seemed stable, ran a pass of the built in memtest tool in the calculator and a few latency and benchmark tests. Ran Firestrike etc. last night even. Then some time this afternoon, like 12 hours later, it apparently blue screened and restarted randomly. I had that the other day but it was a bugcheck with a code no execute memory which is apparently just potentially a driver issue. I'm betting the recent Windows updates are the issue because the system has been running for a month with no issues. Today however with the RAM timing tightening the event log said the memory dump failed so I'm assuming that was an issue with the RAM timings.

I'm guessing I can probably start with some of the more relaxed "Alt" settings suggested by the calc or maybe I should put some of the stuff on the right side of the calculator (cad bus, rtt & procODT, etc) on Auto first to see if that helps? I'm attaching a screenshot of what the calculator recommended. The kit itself is GSkill Trident Z Neo and is a 3600 CL18 kit 2x16GB.


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> The latency of 3700x should be lower than 3900x, because just one CCD.


Idk, seems that 3900x is just stronger, has more 3000mbs read and 30000 write bandwith for free...

I can't get this stable... it's just 45mhz over 3800 which i've been running 15-16-17-15-30-45-294TRFC at 1.445 1000% HCI stable, i losened timings and bumped voltage to 1.46, it gave 2 errors at 420% of HCI memtest


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> The latency of 3700x should be lower than 3900x, because just one CCD.


Idk, seems that 3900x is just stronger, has more 3000mbs read and 30000 write bandwith for free...

I can't get this stable, idk why... it's just 45mhz over 3800 which i've been running 15-16-17-15-30-45-294TRFC at 1.445 1000% HCI stable, i losened timings and bumped voltage to 1.46, it gave 2 errors at 420% of HCI memtest


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> Idk, seems that 3900x is just stronger, has more 3000mbs read and 30000 write bandwith for free...


for free??? the 3900x is 170$ more than the 3700x no **** its stronger..


----------



## Streetdragon

Need help here. This settings are 98% out of the calculator.
Kahru over night stable
TM5 Musimus settings 15 Cycles stable
4 Days with GTA5 and other games of gaming and now i got a reboot while gaming

SOC 1.125V LLV High(Hwinfo reads 1.11V)

what else can i do to get that 100% stable?

63.8 Latency with around 60Gig speed.


----------



## 1usmus

*IMPORTANT!
*
I want to appeal the owners of Zen 2, who still for some reason have problems with the boost. Make it a rule to reinstall the driver chipset with each BIOS. CPPC2 technology is quite demanding on the coordination of Windows and BIOS. Due to the fact that the BIOS ecosystem is not able to adapt to Windows - this must be done manually by uninstalling the driver chipset and installing with each update SMU.


----------



## Synoxia

1usmus said:


> *IMPORTANT!
> *
> I want to appeal the owners of Zen 2, who still for some reason have problems with the boost. Make it a rule to reinstall the driver chipset with each BIOS. CPPC2 technology is quite demanding on the coordination of Windows and BIOS. Due to the fact that the BIOS ecosystem is not able to adapt to Windows - this must be done manually by uninstalling the driver chipset and installing with each update SMU.


I had some DPC latency with latest chipset. Does this still hold true for 1.07 chipset?


----------



## Chito

Do you recommend using AMDs latest chipset drivers or (the often out of date) drivers provided by the motherboard vendor?


----------



## Acidstorm

1usmus said:


> *IMPORTANT!
> *
> I want to appeal the owners of Zen 2, who still for some reason have problems with the boost. Make it a rule to reinstall the driver chipset with each BIOS. CPPC2 technology is quite demanding on the coordination of Windows and BIOS. Due to the fact that the BIOS ecosystem is not able to adapt to Windows - this must be done manually by uninstalling the driver chipset and installing with each update SMU.


I did that last month, but just updated my BIOS a few nights ago. I didn't realize that was something that could help. As I seem to be experiencing some instability with my sound since Windows update to 1903 or whatever that crap was. Maybe it's the BIOS and update, so I'll give that a go, thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Nighthog

Streetdragon said:


> Need help here. This settings are 98% out of the calculator.
> Kahru over night stable
> TM5 Musimus settings 15 Cycles stable
> 4 Days with GTA5 and other games of gaming and now i got a reboot while gaming
> 
> SOC 1.125V LLV High(Hwinfo reads 1.11V)
> 
> what else can i do to get that 100% stable?
> 
> 63.8 Latency with around 60Gig speed.


Do you absolutely need VDDP, VDDG & SoC to be what you have to be stable?

In my system 1.125vSoC causes issues with 1900FCLK. I get memory errors. The higher I go the more issues. Just around 1.100V is safest.
VDDP much above 1000mv causes issues, same VDDG to much above 1000mv causes issues. Values as high as 1050mv refuse to post at higher speed memory but might work at lower speeds.

I found reboots often related to VDDP when I had that too low as in 700-800mv range.


----------



## Ricey20

I need some help. It's weird I can do 101.5 blck for 1895 IF perfectly stable, but soon as I try 102 blck it won't post. Any ideas? Do I need to change CPU voltages? My cpu settings are on auto, and so are the LLC stuff. 

I've also tried just 3800/1900IF but if I can get it to boot it will randomly reboot pretty often. What voltages should I be trying? VDDG and SOC voltage doesn't seem to help much. I haven't touched VDDP just yet but I will try that next, any other ideas would be appreciated though.


----------



## Streetdragon

Nighthog said:


> Do you absolutely need VDDP, VDDG & SoC to be what you have to be stable?
> 
> In my system 1.125vSoC causes issues with 1900FCLK. I get memory errors. The higher I go the more issues. Just around 1.100V is safest.
> VDDP much above 1000mv causes issues, same VDDG to much above 1000mv causes issues. Values as high as 1050mv refuse to post at higher speed memory but might work at lower speeds.
> 
> I found reboots often related to VDDP when I had that too low as in 700-800mv range.


VDDG 1000mV = wont boot. Yes i need it that high xD
SOC the same.
VDDP is on auto. maybe i try to lower it a bit

Went for VDDG to 1075mV(Max in calculator). Will lower vddp to 1000mV tonight


----------



## Synoxia

Ram temp never went over 47.5c with 1.47 voltage. Im running a 102,4 BCLK so FCLK is at 1911.5 and ram is 3823. What to do? Raise volt, up TRFC?


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> Ram temp never went over 47.5c with 1.47 voltage. Im running a 102,4 BCLK so FCLK is at 1911.5 and ram is 3823. What to do? Raise volt, up TRFC?


enable GDM and you are set


----------



## Synoxia

Saiger0 said:


> enable GDM and you are set


And lose 1 ns latency? No thanks xD


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> And lose 1 ns latency? No thanks xD


sure then enjoy unstable ram and potential data corruption.... your trfc and especially voltage are already too high for bdie cl16...


----------



## ComansoRowlett

Saiger0 said:


> enable GDM and you are set


Not all kits necessarily require GDM. My A0 PCB 4600 CL19 kit I had previously didn't need GDM. But, he does have an error looking at his test anyway so his RAM isn't stable, over 45C you start to see a cliff of stability loss on B-die also so could also be why he did get an error.


----------



## ComansoRowlett

Synoxia said:


> Ram temp never went over 47.5c with 1.47 voltage. Im running a 102,4 BCLK so FCLK is at 1911.5 and ram is 3823. What to do? Raise volt, up TRFC?


If you've got b-die you should be able to do tRFC 300 or below (usually for b-die it's around the 260 mark). Looking at your test you got 1 error, and any error with memory is bad so not currently stable. You said 47.5C was what you saw which as I mentioned in the comment above you start to see a cliff of instability appear going over 45C-ish on b-die so perhaps if you cool down the sticks with a fan (or just increasing your airflow in general) you'd reclaim your stability back and maybe even be able to try 1.5v for CL14 in future, but not at those temps. Your trcdwr can basically go lower than the rest of your primaries anyway since write speed is usually bottlenecked by how many CCD's you have (e.g. some run 8 but I'd just put it to 14 if you do go to 1.5v since it shouldn't necessarily give you anything). tRCDRD is the one which is usually the heaviest of your primaries on the UMC and you'll probably find you have to leave that higher than the rest. E.g. 14-15-14-14-28-42


----------



## Synoxia

ComansoRowlett said:


> If you've got b-die you should be able to do tRFC 300 or below (usually for b-die it's around the 260 mark). Looking at your test you got 1 error, and any error with memory is bad so not currently stable. You said 47.5C was what you saw which as I mentioned in the comment above you start to see a cliff of instability appear going over 45C-ish on b-die so perhaps if you cool down the sticks with a fan (or just increasing your airflow in general) you'd reclaim your stability back and maybe even be able to try 1.5v for CL14 in future, but not at those temps. Your trcdwr can basically go lower than the rest of your primaries anyway since write speed is usually bottlenecked by how many CCD's you have (e.g. some run 8 but I'd just put it to 14 if you do go to 1.5v since it shouldn't necessarily give you anything). tRCDRD is the one which is usually the heaviest of your primaries on the UMC and you'll probably find you have to leave that higher than the rest. E.g. 14-15-14-14-28-42


I've already put a top intake fan and lowered temps... before i was reaching temps into 50s... the problem probably is that the D15 i am using does not offer enough clearance for the ram sticks to dissipate heat.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/246-air-cooling/1733192-overclocked-ram-gets-hot.html see this is my current config, maybe an idea would be to give up 2-3c on CPU and move the first fan on the top of the case to have another intake?


----------



## Ricey20

Synoxia said:


> I've already put a top intake fan and lowered temps... before i was reaching temps into 50s... the problem probably is that the D15 i am using does not offer enough clearance for the ram sticks to dissipate heat.
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/246-air-cooling/1733192-overclocked-ram-gets-hot.html see this is my current config, maybe an idea would be to give up 2-3c on CPU and move the first fan on the top of the case to have another intake?


Is your GPU installed horizontally? What I do is I sit a 120mm fan on my GPU (with backplate) pointed at my ram. I get about 42C max on my b-die at 1.5v. This cools my ram better than those ram slot coolers or my antec spotcool.


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Ram temp never went over 47.5c with 1.47 voltage. Im running a 102,4 BCLK so FCLK is at 1911.5 and ram is 3823. What to do? Raise volt, up TRFC?


What is your CAD_BUS Configuration ?
What is your current SOC ?

I see you put RTT_NOM to disabled 
At that high Voltage you need to tame it with resistance
try if pushing RTT_Park to RZQ/4 60 would resolve it without changing RTT_NOM
(i see where you got your values from, but you need to tame those high volts - going up to 1.5v is no problem if you tame it with CAD_BUS Resistence, and can keep them under 50c)

Afterwards try to Shift:
CLDO_VDDG to 1.0
CLDO_VDDP to 0.950
Recheck if you have access to AMD CBS - UMC - Memory Mapping and enable BGS Alt
If you can, force VDDP to 0.900 - boards by default use 950mV
Put tRFC to 336,250,154 
(when you push up to 3900MT/s your tRFC would be 343,255,157)

If nothing helps right now, include CAD_BUS Timings @ 61,61,61 
Oh before i forget, put 1.48v 
(if your board displays actual 1.48) 
with VTT_DDR 0.75
Good Luck :thumb:


----------



## wesley8

Synoxia said:


> Ram temp never went over 47.5c with 1.47 voltage. Im running a 102,4 BCLK so FCLK is at 1911.5 and ram is 3823. What to do? Raise volt, up TRFC?


run 100 BCLK and FCLK 1900

3800c16 can reach 62ns


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> What is your CAD_BUS Configuration ?
> What is your current SOC ?
> 
> I see you put RTT_NOM to disabled
> At that high Voltage you need to tame it with resistance
> try if pushing RTT_Park to RZQ/4 60 would resolve it without changing RTT_NOM
> (i see where you got your values from, but you need to tame those high volts - going up to 1.5v is no problem if you tame it with CAD_BUS Resistence, and can keep them under 50c)
> 
> Afterwards try to Shift:
> CLDO_VDDG to 1.0
> CLDO_VDDP to 0.950
> Recheck if you have access to AMD CBS - UMC - Memory Mapping and enable BGS Alt
> If you can, force VDDP to 0.900 - boards by default use 950mV
> Put tRFC to 336,250,154
> (when you push up to 3900MT/s your tRFC would be 343,255,157)
> 
> If nothing helps right now, include CAD_BUS Timings @ 61,61,61
> Oh before i forget, put 1.48v
> (if your board displays actual 1.48)
> with VTT_DDR 0.75
> Good Luck :thumb:


I am now trying with RZQ/4. CAD bus should be 24-20-20-24 as dram calc says


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> run 100 BCLK and FCLK 1900
> 
> 3800c16 can reach 62ns


On 3700x? Seems like the only way for me to pass 64ns barrier is bclk OC

EDIT: you edited you're on a 3900x :/


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> I am now trying with RZQ/4. CAD bus should be 24-20-20-24 as dram calc says


Alright ~ what's SOC on right now ?
I forgot to mention ~ it may be "dumb" , well "less efficient" to OC that high without pretested timings on 3800MT/s 
Are yours already 3800MT/s rockstable ?


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Alright ~ what's SOC on right now ?
> I forgot to mention ~ it may be "dumb" , well "less efficient" to OC that high without pretested timings on 3800MT/s
> Are yours already 3800MT/s rockstable ?


these were 1000% HCI membench, GSAT stable (but eventually i've found that gsat don't heat up ram enough)

VDDSOC is 1.09375


----------



## wesley8

Synoxia said:


> On 3700x? Seems like the only way for me to pass 64ns barrier is bclk OC


3700x even better，can reach 61.X ns


----------



## Veii

wesley8 said:


> run 100 BCLK and FCLK 1900
> 3800c16 can reach 62ns


^ what i would suggest too / staying on that and working the timings down
I wish you could post your Settings to help him out~

Stresstesting right now 3467C14-13-13-12-26 , so far so well~ 
@*Synoxia* - speed up testing a bit by using 1usmus config_V3 with 20 cycles on TM5 
(in his description) 
That should take you around 1hour of testing (up to CPU speed)
~ i need 1h28
* well and it's a bit more efficient at finding tRFC errors 
** my suggestion would also be, to actually calculate tRFC2 & tRFC4 and force CLD0_VDDP in CBS - NBIO
many boards don't have this option on the normal dram page, soo you have to fill it out with HEX in the CBS UMC options


----------



## Roboionator

what is real life performance hit from going to 16-16-16-36 to 16-19-19-39 
F4-3600C16D-32GTZN
vs
F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC
thx


----------



## wesley8

Roboionator said:


> what is real life performance hit from going to 16-16-16-36 to 16-19-19-39
> F4-3600C16D-32GTZN
> vs
> F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC
> thx


16-16-16-36 B-DIE

16-19-19-39 HY CJR

want best perfomance, choice B-DIE


----------



## wesley8

Veii said:


> ^ what i would suggest too / staying on that and working the timings down
> I wish you could post your Settings to help him out~
> 
> Stresstesting right now 3467C14-13-13-12-26 , so far so well~
> @*Synoxia* - speed up testing a bit by using 1usmus config_V3 with 20 cycles on TM5
> (in his description)
> That should take you around 1hour of testing (up to CPU speed)
> ~ i need 1h28
> * well and it's a bit more efficient at finding tRFC errors
> ** my suggestion would also be, to actually calculate tRFC2 & tRFC4 and force CLD0_VDDP in CBS - NBIO
> many boards don't have this option on the normal dram page, soo you have to fill it out with HEX in the CBS UMC options


I posted my settings already
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=295752&d=1568603715

Your advice good for him.


----------



## Veii

wesley8 said:


> I posted my settings already
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=295752&d=1568603715
> 
> Your advice good for him.


 ooo didn't see, i'm sorry
3 times tRFC 280 - that works out ? o _ O


----------



## Swissola

wesley8 said:


> I posted my settings already
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=295752&d=1568603715
> 
> Your advice good for him.


What about your voltages for those settings?


----------



## wesley8

Swissola said:


> What about your voltages for those settings?


DRAM 1.45v 
SOC 1.15v
VDDG 1.1v


----------



## wesley8

Veii said:


> ooo didn't see, i'm sorry
> 3 times tRFC 280 - that works out ? o _ O


Yes, even can lower to all tRFC 260


----------



## Swissola

wesley8 said:


> DRAM 1.45v
> SOC 1.15v
> VDDG 1.1v


VDDP?


----------



## wesley8

Swissola said:


> VDDP?


No need to change,I put it auto.


----------



## Korrektor

Guys, I'm having some hard times trying to stabilize G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR dual ranks... Board is X570 Aorus Elite, CPU 3700x
Initially I planned to try something like 3533c14 but it was really hard to work out and I don't have a lot of time to play with tweaking so decided to roll back on 3200c14 fast preset I used to run on my 1700x with x370 taichi.
The problem is that TM5 spits out very rare single errors (sometimes after 40 mins of running the test, e.g. on cycle №5, or even further). Increasing Trdwr from 6 to 7 had no impact, as well as changing the CAD_BUS settings from 24 24 24 24 to 24 20 20 24. 

Question is what should I try next? Increasing tFAW, tRFC or something else? 

Also few notable things:
1) I removed the front D15 fan so it doesn't obstruct the airflow to ram sticks, it resulted in less T difference between A2 and B2 (before it was about 2 degrees) but had no impact on errors. Disabling RGB leds with G.skill software had no impact either on temps or errors. 

2) Generating the timings from my exported XMP profile results in drastically different timings and some of them looks weird to me (like 14-13-14-13) but tRFC (alt) for instance is much higher, tFAW is higher, etc... 
Since current settings (first screenshot) are most stable as of yet I'd prefer not to hop between those presets and just apply few more tweaks to stabilize my current timings. Honestly its really exhausting to test 32gigs, especially considering that I see errors only after 40+ mins of testing

3) Aorus Elite outputs about ~0.02 more volts compared to BIOS setting.

4) I seen little to no difference between recommended SOC of 1.025 and VDDG 900 and current SOC 1.05 and 950 VDDG
I increased those values thinking that it can help somehow but seems like nope

5) In games and general temps are better overall (up to 45 in games and like 43 on desktop)


==========
*UPD: alright, feels like increasing tFAW from 16 to 20 made a change, passed TM5 5 cycles twice in a row, about 90 mins in total * I will still do more testing tho when I have time.
Anyone tried to run this or similar memory kits on higher frequencies? Maybe I should try 3466c14 or something like that, or it will have diminishing returns performance-wise?


----------



## eyecrave

Korrektor said:


> Guys, I'm having some hard times trying to stabilize G.Skill F4-3200C14-16GTZR dual ranks... Board is X570 Aorus Elite, CPU 3700x
> Initially I planned to try something like 3533c14 but it was really hard to work out and I don't have a lot of time to play with tweaking so decided to roll back on 3200c14 fast preset I used to run on my 1700x with x370 taichi.
> The problem is that TM5 spits out very rare single errors (sometimes after 40 mins of running the test, e.g. on cycle №5, or even further). Increasing Trdwr from 6 to 7 had no impact, as well as changing the CAD_BUS settings from 24 24 24 24 to 24 20 20 24.
> 
> Question is what should I try next? Increasing tFAW, tRFC or something else?
> 
> Also few notable things:
> 1) I removed the front D15 fan so it doesn't obstruct the airflow to ram sticks, it resulted in less T difference between A2 and B2 (before it was about 2 degrees) but had no impact on errors. Disabling RGB leds with G.skill software had no impact either on temps or errors.
> 
> 2) Generating the timings from my exported XMP profile results in drastically different timings and some of them looks weird to me (like 14-13-14-13) but tRFC (alt) for instance is much higher, tFAW is higher, etc...
> Since current settings (first screenshot) are most stable as of yet I'd prefer not to hop between those presets and just apply few more tweaks to stabilize my current timings. Honestly its really exhausting to test 32gigs, especially considering that I see errors only after 40+ mins of testing
> 
> 3) Aorus Elite outputs about ~0.02 more volts compared to BIOS setting.
> 
> 4) I seen little to no difference between recommended SOC of 1.025 and VDDG 900 and current SOC 1.05 and 950 VDDG
> I increased those values thinking that it can help somehow but seems like nope



When you import your settings make sure to change profile version to V1 for your b die and it should give you correct settings.


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> 3700x even better，can reach 61.X ns


How 


What now :/ seems like the increased voltage and TRFC helped a bit, this time i reached 800% before instability



wesley8 said:


> DRAM 1.45v
> SOC 1.15v
> VDDG 1.1v


Question, how does one actually test if the FCLK is stable? Put stupid high timings to a given frequency and run ram test?

EDIT: i get 64.4 with wesley settings


----------



## kazama

Im currently at 3733 cl14 with a bdie kit, i see some review in where 3733 cl16 is giving less latency than cl14, and 3800 cl16 too, is this true? what is the best spot for gamming? im so confused about that.


----------



## Synoxia

kazama said:


> Im currently at 3733 cl14 with a bdie kit, i see some review in where 3733 cl16 is giving less latency than cl14, and 3800 cl16 too, is this true? what is the best spot for gamming? im so confused about that.


Anything that gives you lower aida latency.


----------



## whicker

Did I do good?!
3900x with G.Skill 3200cl14-GTZR bdie single rank.

Honestly took me days of trying different settings and probably messed around with manual (instead of v1) for far too long. I cant boot with fclk at 1900 no matter what I try, even with xmp settings, so had to settle for 1867. This seems to be stable though, I ran membench(500%) and testmem 1Usmus profile with no errors and under 45c. Anything else I can try for stability testing?


----------



## wesley8

Synoxia said:


> How
> 
> 
> What now :/ seems like the increased voltage and TRFC helped a bit, this time i reached 800% before instability
> 
> 
> 
> Question, how does one actually test if the FCLK is stable? Put stupid high timings to a given frequency and run ram test?
> 
> EDIT: i get 64.4 with wesley settings



Your tRFC settings should be all 312 or lower to 280

P95 298B5 use LargeFFTs


----------



## wesley8

whicker said:


> Did I do good?!
> 3900x with G.Skill 3200cl14-GTZR bdie single rank.
> 
> Honestly took me days of trying different settings and probably messed around with manual (instead of v1) for far too long. I cant boot with fclk at 1900 no matter what I try, even with xmp settings, so had to settle for 1867. This seems to be stable though, I ran membench(500%) and testmem 1Usmus profile with no errors and under 45c. Anything else I can try for stability testing?


twrwrscl 4 or 3
trdrdrscl 4 or 3
trfc trfc2 trfc4 294 or lower to 280
tfaw 16 or 20


----------



## whicker

wesley8 said:


> twrwrscl 4 or 3
> trdrdrscl 4 or 3
> trfc trfc2 trfc4 294 or lower to 280
> tfaw 16 or 20


Thanks! I will try those this weekend. I think I will use my pc for a couple days after spending so much time tweaking and testing lol. What kind of gains should I expect?


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> Your tRFC settings should be all 312 or lower to 280
> 
> P95 298B5 use LargeFFTs


I tried your exact settings and couldn't get latency down from 64...


----------



## wesley8

Synoxia said:


> I tried your exact settings and couldn't get latency down from 64...


FCLK 1900 and vddg 1.1v
trfc trfc2 trfc4 312 or lower to 280


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> FCLK 1900 and vddg 1.1v
> trfc trfc2 trfc4 312 or lower to 280


My fclk is at 1911 with vddg 0.98, trfc is at 280. When i use 3800+1900 fclk max i can down ith your settings is 64.5


----------



## wesley8

Synoxia said:


> My fclk is at 1911 with vddg 0.98, trfc is at 280. When i use 3800+1900 fclk max i can down ith your settings is 64.5


I dont see you did the right trfc and vddg


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> I dont see you did the right trfc and vddg


Yes i did and latency was 63.8 with TRFC 280 at 1911 FCLK. Without bclk oc 64.5


----------



## Yuke

Synoxia said:


> Yes i did and latency was 63.8 with TRFC 280 at 1911 FCLK. Without bclk oc 64.5



Same, i think he has like a super good silicon for his CPUs that can boostclock very high, which decreases his latency?


Is VDDG 1.1V safe for every day use?


----------



## kenny0048

In the case of 3900X + DDR4-3733-3800 (Samsung B-die), latency is 63-65ns.
If you do not want to raise the SOC and VDDG voltages too much, 3733 is sufficient.


----------



## Synoxia

I've just... lost the RGB lottery. I swapped 3600c17-18 for a 3200c14 rgb one and im not able to run the same settings anymore. Previous kit was able to 3600c14 according to dram calc, this is capable of 4110 c16.
Still, can't even boot at what was 1200% stable...


----------



## wesley8

Yuke said:


> Same, i think he has like a super good silicon for his CPUs that can boostclock very high, which decreases his latency?
> 
> 
> Is VDDG 1.1V safe for every day use?


NO, I using sync all core.
TOPPC_LIN(MSI MB Engineer & NO1 RAM OCER) said: AMD suggest 1.175v for VDDG
https://hwbot.org/submission/4236372_


----------



## Synoxia

Still can't believe that i have a 3600c17 kit that outperforms a 3200c14 one... is this possible?


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Still can't believe that i have a 3600c17 kit that outperforms a 3200c14 one... is this possible?


Very simple basic math
MT/s / tRCD(RD) = random number , ranking
3200/14 = 228
3600/16 = 225
4000/19 = 211
3600/17 = 212
2666/18 = 148 (H-MFR max OC was 3333 @ 1.5v or 3400 at 1.62v)
you have to have a very bad binned b-die kit to hit low quality OCs
it happens, i had flare X who barely hit 3400C14-15, and flare X who hit 3800C14-14 for the same TR4 system


I think one part is , it just works different you need different RTT values then known, another is just very unlucky pick~
What was your max OC on that bad kit ?
Was that 17-17 or 17-19-19 ?


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Very simple basic math
> MT/s / tRCD(RD) = random number , ranking
> 3200/14 = 228
> 3600/16 = 225
> 4000/19 = 211
> 3600/17 = 212
> 2666/18 = 148 (H-MFR max OC was 3333 @ 1.5v or 3400 at 1.62v)
> you have to have a very bad binned b-die kit to hit low quality OCs
> it happens, i had flare X who barely hit 3400C14-15, and flare X who hit 3800C14-14 for the same TR4 system
> 
> 
> I think one part is , it just works different you need different RTT values then known, another is just very unlucky pick~
> What was your max OC on that bad kit ?
> Was that 17-17 or 17-19-19 ?


No wait you seem to misunderstand. 3200c14 kit is OUTPERFORMED by 3600 c17. 3600 c17 > 3200 c14. 3600c17 needed less voltage for the same OC. i need 1.48 with 3200c14 to even boot with the OC that was 100% stable 1.47v on 3600c17
Dram calc 1.6.2 tells 3600c17 can 3600c14, while this bdie 3200c14 kit can 4110 c16 but in fact 3800c16-17 is unstable at the same voltage i used on 3600c17 kit


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> No wait you seem to misunderstand. 3200c14 kit is OUTPERFORMED by 3600 c17. 3600 c17 > 3200 c14. 3600c17 needed less voltage for the same OC. i need 1.48 with 3200c14 to even boot with the OC that was 100% stable 1.47v on 3600c17
> Dram calc 1.6.2 tells 3600c17 can 3600c14, while this bdie 3200c14 kit can 4110 c16 but in fact 3800c16-17 is unstable at the same voltage i used on 3600c17 kit


I did indeed understand, you thought i missunderstand ^^

It's why i asked you at the end, what was the max this bad 3200C14 kit can do 
I wrote also that i had the same issue once with a flarex 3200C14 kit being soo bad , it's unbelievable 


EDIT: 
Ooh i see where the confusion comes from, the last two questions are for 2 different things
I was wondering and noticed later, that 3600C17 is rare, i haven't seen it - was that 17-17-17 or 17-19-19


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> No wait you seem to misunderstand. 3200c14 kit is OUTPERFORMED by 3600 c17. 3600 c17 > 3200 c14. 3600c17 needed less voltage for the same OC. i need 1.48 with 3200c14 to even boot with the OC that was 100% stable 1.47v on 3600c17
> Dram calc 1.6.2 tells 3600c17 can 3600c14, while this bdie 3200c14 kit can 4110 c16 but in fact 3800c16-17 is unstable at the same voltage i used on 3600c17 kit





Veii said:


> I did indeed understand, you thought i missunderstand ^^
> 
> It's why i asked you at the end, what was the max this bad 3200C14 kit can do
> I wrote also that i had the same issue once with a flarex 3200C14 kit being soo bad , it's unbelievable
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> Ooh i see where the confusion comes from, the last two questions are for 2 different things
> I was wondering and noticed later, that 3600C17 is rare, i haven't seen it - was that 17-17-17 or 17-19-19


You guys seem to forget that ryzen is "bottlenecked" by the IF. Higher ram frequencies outperform 3200cl14 because of the higher IF clock if you run it in 1:1 mode. Same reason why fclk 1900 with cl16 and above is optmial over settings like 3600cl14 which in theory should outperform 3733cl16+


----------



## Veii

Saiger0 said:


> You guys seem to forget that ryzen is "bottlenecked" by the IF. Higher ram frequencies outperform 3200cl14 because of the higher IF clock if you run it in 1:1 mode.


Eh, we where just chit chatting ? 
DRAM calculator is for every ryzen 
Gen 1/2 scales 1:1 with MCLK , this is not a 3rd gen only thread


----------



## Saiger0

Veii said:


> Eh, we where just chit chatting ?
> DRAM calculator is for every ryzen
> Gen 1/2 scales 1:1 with MCLK , this is not a 3rd gen only thread


im talking about 3000 gen ryzen...

Edit: 
I was regarding the question why some higher frequency + latency ram settings outperform combinations which should be faster in theory. As seen here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...QZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=1497029115 As i said the IF and all its derivates are one of the limiting factors when it comes to ryzen 3000.

Thats the same reason why I dont understand @Synoxia obsession with aida64 latency. Anything in the 63-65ns region is optimal for bdie. Chasing the 1ns difference for everyday use is nonsense IMO and doesnt yield ANY performace gain.


----------



## Synoxia

Ok ok once again. I have a 3600 c17-18 kit which OCs to 3823 16-17-16-16-32-48-336 GDM off 1.47v. Ok? Now this kit should be a lesser bin than the 3200c14 i am using, but this 3200c14 kit can't OC the same as 3600c17, need GDM on to even boot at 1.48v the same OC. Now you understand? Is not 3600c15 bdie, that's one of hgihest bins of B-die, it is 3200c14


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> Ok ok once again. I have a 3600 c17-18 kit which OCs to 3823 16-17-16-16-32-48-336 GDM off 1.47v. Ok? Now this kit should be a lesser bin than the 3200c14 i am using, but this 3200c14 kit can't OC the same as 3600c17, need GDM on to even boot at 1.48v the same OC. Now you understand? Is not 3600c15 bdie, that's one of hgihest bins of B-die, it is 3200c14


well i think we are talking at cross purposes at this point... Besides ram dies vary heavly in a great spectrum over timings, frequencies, resistance and so on. My kit for example doenst like high SCL values. There isnt THE best dbie bin... Some kits like voltage and gdm others dont..

edit: The point that im getting at is that you should just keep your kit (which is obviously the better bin) and find stable 3733+ cl16 settings. For everyday use it isnt worth the fuss over a couple ns. I would enable GDM and call it a day.


----------



## Veii

Saiger0 said:


> im talking about 3000 gen ryzen...
> Thats the same reason why I dont understand @*Synoxia* obsession with aida64 latency. Anything in the 63-65ns region is optimal for bdie. Chasing the 1ns difference for everyday use is nonsense IMO and doesnt yield ANY performace gain.


For me chasing 0.2ns latency is not nonsense if the whole set of the timings doesn't have a negative effect

Taking the 1700 for example, it's a bad example but i have it right here soo why not
Latency is crucial , L2 , L3 and memory latency 
Benchmarking these non stop makes sense - Aida64 may not be a good test but it's a fast one to see if something is at least NOT right 

Giving your best to lower inter-core latency as lowest as possible while having the highest possible troughput , does benefit IPC 
Of course 3rd gen users have the luxury, being able to instantly force IF on it's rated speeds not having to bother pushing memory speed to hit their perf goals
But i think 1usmus demonstrated it well enough that finetuning timings has an effect everywhere
Finetuning to best latency curve and highest Inter-core bandwith is something that is important 

"Changing the IF Speed, is enough" would only someone say who is done with OCing 
That's not aiming for 110% but it's just being happy with 100% 
Soo please, let us chase and break this latency walls everyone himselfs set and give our best to finetune nanosecond after nanosecond - making our ram as rapid as architecturally possible :heart:

I have for example measurable results, which aren't even low
Sitting before from barely reaching 1700cb in R15, to closing the 1800cb gap (3600 to nearly 4000cb R20) 
just by working on ram latency and lowest possible access time 
This difference is noticeable to me , but i can understand if you don't want to invest that much work for something that looks useless for you
Everyone on his own
Tho OCers chase for perfectionism ~ some at least, many are happy with just big jumps :specool:


----------



## Saiger0

Veii said:


> For me chasing 0.2ns latency is not nonsense if the whole set of the timings doesn't have a negative effect
> 
> 
> Taking the 1700 for example, it's a bad example but i have it right here soo why not
> Latency is crucial , L2 , L3 and memory latency
> Benchmarking these non stop makes sense - Aida64 may not be a good test but it's a fast one to see if something is at least NOT right
> 
> 
> Giving your best to lower inter-core latency as lowest as possible while having the highest possible troughput , does benefit IPC
> Of course 3rd gen users have the luxury, being able to instantly force IF on it's rated speeds not having to bother pushing memory speed to hit their perf goals
> But i think 1usmus demonstrated it well enough that finetuning timings has an effect everywhere
> Finetuning to best latency curve and highest Inter-core bandwith is something that is important
> 
> "Changing the IF Speed, is enough" would only someone say who is done with OCing
> That's not aiming for 110% but it's just being happy with 100%
> Soo please, let us chase and break this latency walls everyone himselfs set and give our best to finetune nanosecond after nanosecond - making our ram as rapid as architecturally possible :heart:
> 
> 
> 
> I have for example measurable results, which aren't even low
> Sitting before from barely reaching 1700cb in R15, to closing the 1800cb gap (3600 to nearly 4000cb R20)
> just by working on ram latency and lowest possible access time
> This difference is noticeable to me , but i can understand if you don't want to invest that much work for something that looks useless for you
> Everyone on his own
> Tho OCers chase for perfectionism ~ some at least, many are happy with just big jumps :specool:


Yes you are absolutely right. Thats why I recomenned to aim for 63-65ns. However lateny isnt everything in ryzen. To reach the lowest value possible you didnt just tune 1 value. You had to adjust many different settings wich all affect eachother. Sure I could dial in super low primary timings and trfc and leave some secondary and tertiary timings high which would get me insane latency, but it would perform really bad in reality. That high cb score of yous dindt come from low aida64 lateny it came from nicely optimised sub timings.
And chasing non-existent performace gains in favour of stability doenst help anybody.

Edit: On a side note I already invested mutliple days ti figure out the best settings for my kit


----------



## Veii

Saiger0 said:


> That high cb score of yous didn't come from low aida64 latency it came from nicely optimised sub timings.


Yes you are right~
But to lower main timings the remain subtimings must be fine
I have some 14-12-12-12-26-38 "stable" setup which has equal latency as the 14-14-14-14 one, it does absolutely nothing

It's not always one thing, and you nearly never can only lower the first 5 without changing at least one of the bottom ones
for example tRDWR & tWRRD need to change the same time your main 5 timings change
tRFC also needs to change if you change your main 4 

The max playroom you have is +/- 1 except for tCL, that is only changable if the absolute rest incl tRFC is perfect, else it trows the rest away
Overall what ever you want to change to achieve low latency , it has to follow with at least 2-3 more changes
Else it does nothing, nothing in the sense that it won't even show up in aida64 as lower random access time

But then again, we have the latency curve on the DRAM calculator, the random and current latency test, the siSanda multicore-efficiency test = inter-core bandwith
All these tests show when something has a negative effect , and that is also illustrated by that simple cinema4D render benchmark 
Hunting for latency does something, you can at least see that it has a negative or positive effect when you play around a lot 

How you described it was "Setting one thing , seeing latency is better - oh it has to be better"
I hope no OCer does that - everyone who posts at least 2-3 scores knows to not look for *only* the latency in this benchmark 
L2 & L3 for example scale too with ram performance, tho L3 is more clock based~


----------



## Synoxia

Saiger0 said:


> well i think we are talking at cross purposes at this point... Besides ram dies vary heavly in a great spectrum over timings, frequencies, resistance and so on. My kit for example doenst like high SCL values. There isnt THE best dbie bin... Some kits like voltage and gdm others dont..
> 
> edit: The point that im getting at is that you should just keep your kit (which is obviously the better bin) and find stable 3733+ cl16 settings. For everyday use it isnt worth the fuss over a couple ns. I would enable GDM and call it a day.


How can you tell that this is the better bin if it needs more voltage to achieve the same settings? That just makes no sense. About 3733 c16 and "overclock philosophy"... no words, why are you on overclock.net? Nowadays every overclock just add 5-10% perf gain at best. We do it because we like it not because we need it


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> How can you tell that this is the better bin if it needs more voltage to achieve the same settings? That just makes no sense. About 3733 c16 and "overclock philosophy"... no words, why are you on overclock.net? Nowadays every overclock just add 5-10% perf gain at best. We do it because we like it not because we need it


I think he missed the thread topic
This thread is about memory scores and screenshot 
About memory OC and personal settings sharing 
Every screenshot is important 

It's no thread to teach how to optimise ryzen XYZ gen, but how to get the best out of the current memory the user has ^^#


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> I think he missed the thread topic
> This thread is about memory scores and screenshot
> About memory OC and personal settings sharing
> Every screenshot is important
> 
> It's no thread to teach how to optimise ryzen XYZ gen, but how to get the best out of the current memory the user has ^^#


This. Anyway, back on topic. Do you think that i just lost silicon lottery with this kit or maybe needs some procodt or idk some tweaking?


----------



## Ricey20

Synoxia said:


> This. Anyway, back on topic. Do you think that i just lost silicon lottery with this kit or maybe needs some procodt or idk some tweaking?


I feel your pain. I had a Gskill 3600C15 kit that couldn't even do 3333cl14 stable. Bought a new kit lol.


----------



## Synoxia

Ricey20 said:


> I feel your pain. I had a Gskill 3600C15 kit that couldn't even do 3333cl14 stable. Bought a new kit lol.


***. That's just impossible, 3600c15 is much faster than 3333c14... that means that not even DOCP would work.


----------



## kazama

Im on gskill tridentz 3200cl14 rgb v1.35., Aida is giving me 1ns more than membench, getting 63.9-65 on membench and 65.9 or 66 on aida.

At 3800 fast preset with some tweaks from wesley settings.

Any other tweaks that help improve? GDM have to be enabled on my side, with it disabled pc crash.


----------



## wesley8

kazama said:


> Im on gskill tridentz 3200cl14 rgb v1.35., Aida is giving me 1ns more than membench, getting 63.9-65 on membench and 65.9 or 66 on aida.
> 
> At 3800 fast preset with some tweaks from wesley settings.
> 
> Any other tweaks that help improve? GDM have to be enabled on my side, with it disabled pc crash.


set vddg to 1.1v
twrwrscl 3
trdrdrscl 3
trdrdsd 4
trdrddd 4


----------



## kazama

Will check later, thanks wesley.


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> This. Anyway, back on topic. Do you think that i just lost silicon lottery with this kit or maybe needs some procodt or idk some tweaking?


I wish i could tell, but it depends on you 
You will notice a voltage wall before you notice a latency wall , only at the end you notice a "the other die is supperior because it barely taxes the IMC" wall 
"my dual ranked kits perform soo much better then my low latency ones"
^ this one something people start to notice with micron-e die and hynix-c die 

But i can't say anything as i haven't had any example to play with 
When i see that the worst 2667C16-18 kit can hit 3333C14-19-18
I think only the needed voltage for that die, is your bottleneck / the kit could be amazing at 1.5v or could be horrible
If you see absolutely no difference between 1.42 and (i can't even boot under 1.48v), then something in your setup is wrong, as a difference is clearly there between what you can get at 1.42v only and what you can get at 1.5v
If there rly was nothing , not a 2 ticks in MT/s higher (150-200mt/s) or 2 CL lower then common XMP, (running CL14 3600 instead of CL16 even at 1.5v) instead of the rated 1.35v 3600C14 kits

If you see rly no changes at all by using way more voltage then advertised - your config clearly was wrong and you messed something else up
DRAM calculator predicts the hard to guess RTT values quite right, but voltages change Proc and Cad_BUS, also not to forget the memory hole


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> I wish i could tell, but it depends on you
> You will notice a voltage wall before you notice a latency wall , only at the end you notice a "the other die is supperior because it barely taxes the IMC" wall
> "my dual ranked kits perform soo much better then my low latency ones"
> ^ this one something people start to notice with micron-e die and hynix-c die
> 
> But i can't say anything as i haven't had any example to play with
> When i see that the worst 2667C16-18 kit can hit 3333C14-19-18
> I think only the needed voltage for that die, is your bottleneck / the kit could be amazing at 1.5v or could be horrible
> If you see absolutely no difference between 1.42 and (i can't even boot under 1.48v), then something in your setup is wrong, as a difference is clearly there between what you can get at 1.42v only and what you can get at 1.5v
> If there rly was nothing , not a 2 ticks in MT/s higher (150-200mt/s) or 2 CL lower then common XMP, (running CL14 3600 instead of CL16 even at 1.5v) instead of the rated 1.35v 3600C14 kits
> 
> If you see rly no changes at all by using way more voltage then advertised - your config clearly was wrong and you messed something else up
> DRAM calculator predicts the hard to guess RTT values quite right, but voltages change Proc and Cad_BUS, also not to forget the memory hole


I am now 3830 c16 stable but with GDM on 1.48v, GDM off at 1.55v won't even post. Dram calc tell me the exact same values i was using for the previous setup :/ i tried with RZQ 1 and procodt 48 but it just wont post 
in the end i lost 0.7ns of latency and 0.1mv on voltage but gained 000.20 mhz on bclk 8mhz on ram, also now when i lose games on LoL and ragepunch the desk it won't reboot anymore XD


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> I am now 3830 c16 stable but with GDM on 1.48v, GDM off at 1.55v won't even post. Dram calc tell me the exact same values i was using for the previous setup 😕 i tried with RZQ 1 and procodt 48 but it just wont post /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
> in the end i lost 0.7ns of latency and 0.1mv on voltage but gained 000.20 mhz on bclk 8mhz on ram, also now when i lose games on LoL and ragepunch the desk it won't reboot anymore XD


Hahaha, hey positive result ^^"

Have you ever thought that even after slight case movement 
(I had that event on one client)
He just changed fans but it killed his RAM OC, barel could hold 3200 stable

Haven't you considered once just replugging the dimms when they are strangely aweful performing, for example swapping DIMM Positions

"Rage Vibration" could likely cause permanent reseat ^^
Do you want to share current timings again ?
Keep in mind, DIMM MT/s change means tRFC change
Only if you have a lot of headroom left, it can somehow let the board autocorrect it 
But tRFC change would also short the tiny overcharging headrom you have, and sometimes you have to change tRP , tRAS and the another one und er it (forgot the Name) 
~ to get it back in sync

Have you tried the same Method 1usmus shared 1-2 Weeks ago
Changing MCLK to 1867(3733MT/s) then with Blck OC pushing them to perfect 3800/1900
While forcing already UCLK to 1900 as that if i am not mistaken (i hope ?) doesnt change with blck OC

Yea 101.8mhz would be perfect 3800
No wait, spread spectrum is exactly a 0.2mhz variance , soo he has to have used 102mhz blck 

Try that~
Seems like it increased perf for him more then directly using 1900 IF/UCLK
Just keep in mind, tRFC has to be in sync


----------



## Gegi

Hello,

latency is 68.1ns Can I improve this? I'm using the fast preset of dram calculator.

My setup is:
AMD Ryzen 7 3800x
4x 8gb corsair dominator platinium rgb CMT32GX4M4C3600C18
asus x570 strix e


----------



## MehlstaubtheCat

RTT Nom disable, Zeitspanne des Zeilenzyclus try at 38 then 36 and look if the Power Down Mode is also disabled.


----------



## kazama

wesley8 said:


> set vddg to 1.1v
> twrwrscl 3
> trdrdrscl 3
> trdrdsd 4
> trdrddd 4


Same latency and reading (etc) speeds.

I improve more with all cas at 16.

Did some test all at 15?


----------



## MehlstaubtheCat

15 is not possible


----------



## reqq

Memory chip quality on second page.. anyone know statistics with b-die here? Whats common and whats rare?
I had 3200 cl14 ripjaws with 93% and then 4133 tridents with only 90%.


----------



## steve2563

*E-Die question*

Hey,
what you guys think 'bout this - Micron E-Die 3600C16?
1usmus TestMem_v3 15 cycle stable, and got an error in Karhu at around 13000%

Edit:

Processor: Ryzen 5 2600 @ 1,35 V / 4,1 GHz
DRAM: 1,40 V
SoC: 1.10 V
LLC: Mode 3 on MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

ProcODT: 53.3
RTTPark: 48

CLKDrv, AddrCmdDRV, CSOdtDRV, CKEDrv:
40 / 20 / 20 / 24

See attached pictures 

Thanks,
Steve


----------



## Chito

So I think I've found a stable setting point for my system (3800 FAST settings in calc using B-Die), it passed 1000% Membench. Read BW around 60GB/s, latency 63.5ish. Might be able to go faster with some better RAM cooling and more tweaking (it'll boot at 15-15-15, but has tons of errors) but I've been tweaking RAM for a week and am going to call it good I think at this point, at least til more final BIOSs are out.

However, this profile has trouble coming from a cold boot (as in PC is off for hours), it kicked me to my backup bios and then after things warmed up a bit from room temp I was able to boot to it just fine.

Any suggestions about what to tweak on a Gigabyte board (x570 Aorus Xtreme) for that issue? 3900x.

I'll post final settings at some point.

Thanks!

EDIT: It seems this is not related to temp maybe after all.

On any given reboot or shutdown, there seems to be a better than average chance the system will do the following:
Go back into a reboot loop (training), then fail that training, when I enter bios it says it has been reset. 
I reload my saved profile, f10.
The system then will fail to boot into primary bios at all, and come up into backup bios.
I then shut down, turn the power switch on the PC off, wait 15 seconds, turn it back on
It will reboot with primary bios with all my settings applied.

Any ideas? I'm pretty sure it's stable, the 1000% membench was the first complete run I'd achieved while tweaking settings, and I can run the system in power virus mode (prime95 small FFT + furmark) pulling over 650W from the wall indefinitely as far as I've seen.


----------



## Slow*Jim

Question... for 3400g should I choose + gen or 2gen? I know the CPU itself is not true 2nd gen but not sure which parameters this affects within the calculator


----------



## Serchio

I am looking for some help. Is there any way to make timings from attached ryzen master screenshot stable? I feel like I am missing just a bit to get stability but I do not have more ideas.


----------



## Veii

Slow*Jim said:


> Question... for 3400g should I choose + gen or 2gen? I know the CPU itself is not true 2nd gen but not sure which parameters this affects within the calculator


It's Picasso under Zen+ 12nm


----------



## Veii

@Serchio try tRFC 308,229,141 while increasing tRAS to 30 and tRC to 44 / but that will slow it down
First try changing proc a bit up to 36.9 , lower a tiny bit VDDG (like 20-50mv) and use tRFC 299,222,137


----------



## Bapt33

ive got 16gb gskill tridentz 3200 cl14 bdie with ryzen 2600, x370pro asus prime, and new timing from 1.6.2 version are worst than 1.6.0 version, in safe mode and by import xmp profile from taiphoon.
result in worst result in aida64 memory benchmark. so i stay to my old timings from 1.6.0, confirmed stable with hci-memtest. so why timing get losen in new version? previous from 1.6.0 was tighter and still stable


----------



## Veii

@Bapt33
If it is safemode, then likely because the amount of people who it didnt work in, was too high
after all the calculator shows a "has to work" preset, but not "this is the best your kit can do" preset
At least the safe Version

I find it a bit sad tho, that after 1.5.1 you have to use different Versions/comparing them, to get a good Baseline result
@1usmus It wouldnt be bad if we had more then just Profile A/B with Slow/Fast as options
But rather could look on a list sorted by the release age ~ in what was recommendet before 
Just so we have some preview how timings increase, which does affect which one 

^ Or no, even better
"Manual Edit" soo when we change one timing we know needs change, that the other needed ones change with it ~ in this case are calculated to match it 🙂


----------



## NicolasTMills

i dont boot with corsair rgb pro 3200 cl16 oc mem 1900mhz 1:1 mother b450i aorus
solution or normal?


----------



## Swissola

Chito said:


> So I think I've found a stable setting point for my system (3800 FAST settings in calc using B-Die), it passed 1000% Membench. Read BW around 60GB/s, latency 63.5ish. Might be able to go faster with some better RAM cooling and more tweaking (it'll boot at 15-15-15, but has tons of errors) but I've been tweaking RAM for a week and am going to call it good I think at this point, at least til more final BIOSs are out.
> 
> However, this profile has trouble coming from a cold boot (as in PC is off for hours), it kicked me to my backup bios and then after things warmed up a bit from room temp I was able to boot to it just fine.
> 
> Any suggestions about what to tweak on a Gigabyte board (x570 Aorus Xtreme) for that issue? 3900x.
> 
> I'll post final settings at some point.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> EDIT: It seems this is not related to temp maybe after all.
> 
> On any given reboot or shutdown, there seems to be a better than average chance the system will do the following:
> Go back into a reboot loop (training), then fail that training, when I enter bios it says it has been reset.
> I reload my saved profile, f10.
> The system then will fail to boot into primary bios at all, and come up into backup bios.
> I then shut down, turn the power switch on the PC off, wait 15 seconds, turn it back on
> It will reboot with primary bios with all my settings applied.
> 
> Any ideas? I'm pretty sure it's stable, the 1000% membench was the first complete run I'd achieved while tweaking settings, and I can run the system in power virus mode (prime95 small FFT + furmark) pulling over 650W from the wall indefinitely as far as I've seen.


I have problems from a cold boot depending on what my SOC is set to. It doesn't seem to like me changing it from its default of 1.1V


----------



## Synoxia

What these do?


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> What these do?


I can't fully explain where the delay is inserted , if it's resistance active time window before cut ~ of CAD_BUS

But i was using them for the MFRC14-19 stabilisation
The value on them changes between speeds and between dies
Its what you see as 1/26 for examle in RTC
Mostly you do have playroom in a range of +/- 2 
For example between 58-60 can be used to stabilise bad CAD_BUS values per MHz

It goes Hand in Hand with high voltage and high resistance needed
While early in 20-24-40-30 was used to stabilise stuff
~ well it still is, CAD_BUS timing are used on the same part | take my word with grain of Salt, as i have no paper explenation, but it's for what i used it ~ should behave to my knowledge very similar as tFAW ~ an active time window

Chipset interleaving is self explanatory ?
The size is an interesting debate
2kb is more a failsafe setting while 512 was recommendet by several latency curve and SiSandra Inter-Core latency graphs
It does have a big effect on smoothing out the latency curve, meaning even by different Instruction sizes, the access latency and process latency varries

For that to set perfect, as it does warry again with different rams 
I would grab sisanda and dram calculator
First sisanda but thats a bit annyoing to set up
The Multi-Core Efficiency test
Look there first for bandwith , then sort it so it makes a i think 8 points latency curve

Spikes there are not a bad thing unless it drowns down the remain avarage curve
The curve should smooth out at the end and not increase upwards (between 256 & 512kb)
Interleaving size changes this
I had szenarios with variable timings under 256 where just better
While for the timings many run 14-14-14 not 14-9-12-13 | 512 results in just a smoother curve

You have to test it after everything is stable
Obviously there is a difference between gen 1/2 & 3
Even more now between single CCX and dual 
Test it out 
Dual CCX zen(+) benefitted more from 512 and in some cases 256
2 was more failsafe~

DRAM L1-L4 is an asus BIOS thing
Opcache goes hand in hand with chipset interleaving and HW Prefetcher (a ryzen cache tuning, more then a DRAM thing)
Memory clear has a very similar Function to what Intel users focus on tREFI increasement 
Where you have better perf if you dont let the memory clear itself mid-cycle but only at the End of a full cycle 

Its a long topic to write short
Sorry if this wall results too big~


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> I can't fully explain where the delay is inserted , if it's resistance active time window before cut ~ of CAD_BUS
> 
> But i was using them for the MFRC14-19 stabilisation
> The value on them changes between speeds and between dies
> Its what you see as 1/26 for examle in RTC
> Mostly you do have playroom in a range of +/- 2
> For example between 58-60 can be used to stabilise bad CAD_BUS values per MHz
> 
> It goes Hand in Hand with high voltage and high resistance needed
> While early in 20-24-40-30 was used to stabilise stuff
> ~ well it still is, CAD_BUS timing are used on the same part | take my word with grain of Salt, as i have no paper explenation, but it's for what i used it ~ should behave to my knowledge very similar as tFAW ~ an active time window
> 
> Chipset interleaving is self explanatory ?
> The size is an interesting debate
> 2kb is more a failsafe setting while 512 was recommendet by several latency curve and SiSandra Inter-Core latency graphs
> It does have a big effect on smoothing out the latency curve, meaning even by different Instruction sizes, the access latency and process latency varries
> 
> For that to set perfect, as it does warry again with different rams
> I would grab sisanda and dram calculator
> First sisanda but thats a bit annyoing to set up
> The Multi-Core Efficiency test
> Look there first for bandwith , then sort it so it makes a i think 8 points latency curve
> 
> Spikes there are not a bad thing unless it drowns down the remain avarage curve
> The curve should smooth out at the end and not increase upwards (between 256 & 512kb)
> Interleaving size changes this
> I had szenarios with variable timings under 256 where just better
> While for the timings many run 14-14-14 not 14-9-12-13 | 512 results in just a smoother curve
> 
> You have to test it after everything is stable
> Obviously there is a difference between gen 1/2 & 3
> Even more now between single CCX and dual
> Test it out
> Dual CCX zen(+) benefitted more from 512 and in some cases 256
> 2 was more failsafe~
> 
> DRAM L1-L4 is an asus BIOS thing
> Opcache goes hand in hand with chipset interleaving and HW Prefetcher (a ryzen cache tuning, more then a DRAM thing)
> Memory clear has a very similar Function to what Intel users focus on tREFI increasement
> Where you have better perf if you dont let the memory clear itself mid-cycle but only at the End of a full cycle
> 
> Its a long topic to write short
> Sorry if this wall results too big~


I am still an ape with RAMs, but basically the only one that increase performance plug and play are memory clear and ram prefetch... right? Should not mess with size unless i want to bother with sisandra


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> I am still an ape with RAMs, but basically the only one that increase performance plug and play are memory clear and ram prefetch... right? Should not mess with size unless i want to bother with sisandra


 You shouldn't bother to find out custom settings and trow away two generations of ryzen research 
Just use what 1usmus recommends for good 
Unless you want to finetune it a bit more , then you can focus on own settings :thumb:


----------



## Amstellodamois

Is there a mod or something that removes the full labels in Ryzen Master and replace them with tCL, tRFC, etc. for the first few ones?











Alternatively, do you know if I can force Ryzen Master in English, rather than system language?


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> You shouldn't bother to find out custom settings and trow away two generations of ryzen research
> Just use what 1usmus recommends for good
> Unless you want to finetune it a bit more , then you can focus on own settings :thumb:


So you think i should just copy and paste everything and call it a deal?


----------



## RaGran

Hi, I installed an Alphacool X6 D-Ram water block and compatible Bykski memory covers on my Team Group Dark Pro 16GB b-die kit. Here are the tightest stable timings I could find.

Many of the settings are at the minimum number allowed by the bios (of my Asus Pro WS X570-ACE motherboard), including tRAS, tRC, WRCD and tFAW. 

Are these some sort of architectural limitations, or could they be set even lower if the bios was modded or updated?


----------



## Veii

RaGran said:


> Hi, I installed an Alphacool X6 D-Ram water block and compatible Bykski memory covers on my Team Group Dark Pro 16GB b-die kit. Here are the tightest stable timings I could find.
> 
> Many of the settings are at the minimum number allowed by the bios (of my Asus Pro WS X570-ACE motherboard), including tRAS, tRC, WRCD and tFAW.
> 
> Are these some sort of architectural limitations, or could they be set even lower if the bios was modded or updated?


i've used 1,1,1,1 ones for SD and DD on HynixMFR, but even tho they are the tighest - performance is not better
they only make sense if you put SCL to 2 - 4 would work here, but it's slower then 5,5,7,7 with tWRRD 3
tRFC to be a clean transition with tRC it would need to be 232,172,106
can you boot tRFC of 232 and can you boot with both SCLs to 2 ? 

else SD DD to 5,5,7,7 with that low tRFC would be faster
you maybe could go tRFC 236,175,108 too ~ if 232 is too low


----------



## Chito

Swissola said:


> I have problems from a cold boot depending on what my SOC is set to. It doesn't seem to like me changing it from its default of 1.1V


This issue has disappeared after several reboot cycles. It's been booting fine for the last 5 days or, no failures. Perhaps it finally found the right operating point.

I still think I can squeeze a bit more performance out of the memory, but for a 4x8 stick config I'm happy with the boost I got.

I'm waiting til F5 final for my mobo (Gigabyte x570 Xtreme) before screwing with things any more.


----------



## R71800XSS

*new configuration, same memory*

I bought a Ryzen 3900x to replace a Ryzen 1800x on Asus C6H (Bios 7501) with gskill b-die (16Gbx4 ) F4-3200c14-gtz dual rank, now i have a problem with DDR timings. By now only works with very high timings "22"... at 3200 mhz (very stable, anyway). However using Dram calculator, timings 14... doesn´t work and reset at 2133 default.

Any solutions?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## treetops422

I tried fast a few weeks ago, some of the dang settings seemed to be missing in my bios. Gonna give it another go at safe. Maybe I can use Ryzen master instead of the bios to test it out first. gonna give it a go!

Nvm Ryzen master is very limited for the 2600


----------



## Veii

R71800XSS said:


> I bought a Ryzen 3900x to replace a Ryzen 1800x on Asus C6H (Bios 7501) with gskill b-die (16Gbx4 ) F4-3200c14-gtz dual rank, now i have a problem with DDR timings. By now only works with very high timings "22"... at 3200 mhz (very stable, anyway). However using Dram calculator, timings 14... doesn´t work and reset at 2133 default.
> 
> Any solutions?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


You played around with procODT , and the remain AMD CBS chipset + PHY memory training settings ?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Always set Clock Amplitude (in Menu) from Auto to Normal.
It helps alot for peripherals (mouse, key etc.)


----------



## R71800XSS

Veii said:


> You played around with procODT , and the remain AMD CBS chipset + PHY memory training settings ?


I have tried with ProcODT 43,53,60,68. with 1800X was 68, but it was only stable at 3000 with Cas 14,14,14,28,42,T1 or T2.
Cad bus is 24,24,24,24 or auto. I think about that does not influence, at least with the previous processor (1800x).
For memory at 3200, by now. Memory hole unknown.

Into AMD CBS chipset, I haven't changed anything for now. I have not changed either cLDO VDDG and cLDO VDCP voltages.

I only have use Dram memory calculator with setings for my DDRAM. I changed timings (14,14,14,30,44, T1), ProcODT, RTT_, CAD BUS block and DDRAM voltage (1.35v) and FCLK at 1600. Boot Voltage in auto. Too CPU voltage at 1.25, y SOC at 1.025 .

I can´t find in BIOS BGS and BGS alt.

PHY ??

*  UPDATE  *
Thanks all for reply, I finally managed to modify some values ​​in the bios, so that the CPU with core bost enable mode looked for parameters that I did not know and I manually set procODT to 48 and timings to 14,14,14,34,48 T1 and TRfc = 307.
In addition I have deactivated ECC and activated Auto Oc within the parameters of the CPU in the bios 7501.
Everything seems to work perfect now, except that the corsair keyboard is not detected by the bios and I must use a different one.

Very much thanks. 
I will keep trying even with other speeds.

Thanks.


----------



## BakedPizza

Can somebody please help me identify my memory type? I've read and watched a couple tutorials, but none seem to match with the information Thaiphoon Burner gives me. The amount of information seems so minimal. No DRAM part number, nothing in the Die Density...


----------



## 1usmus

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Always set Clock Amplitude (in Menu) from Auto to Normal.
> It helps alot for peripherals (mouse, key etc.)


Okay, thanks 




BakedPizza said:


> Can somebody please help me identify my memory type? I've read and watched a couple tutorials, but none seem to match with the information Thaiphoon Burner gives me. The amount of information seems so minimal. No DRAM part number, nothing in the Die Density...


Samsung d-die or e-die 



R71800XSS said:


> I have tried with ProcODT 43,53,60,68. with 1800X was 68, but it was only stable at 3000 with Cas 14,14,14,28,42,T1 or T2.
> Cad bus is 24,24,24,24 or auto. I think about that does not influence, at least with the previous processor (1800x).
> For memory at 3200, by now. Memory hole unknown.
> 
> Into AMD CBS chipset, I haven't changed anything for now. I have not changed either cLDO VDDG and cLDO VDCP voltages.
> 
> I only have use Dram memory calculator with setings for my DDRAM. I changed timings (14,14,14,30,44, T1), ProcODT, RTT_, CAD BUS block and DDRAM voltage (1.35v) and FCLK at 1600. Boot Voltage in auto. Too CPU voltage at 1.25, y SOC at 1.025 .
> 
> I can´t find in BIOS BGS and BGS alt.
> 
> PHY ??
> 
> I will keep trying even with other speeds.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


BGS not very important setting. You can forget about her.



R71800XSS said:


> I bought a Ryzen 3900x to replace a Ryzen 1800x on Asus C6H (Bios 7501) with gskill b-die (16Gbx4 ) F4-3200c14-gtz dual rank, now i have a problem with DDR timings. By now only works with very high timings "22"... at 3200 mhz (very stable, anyway). However using Dram calculator, timings 14... doesn´t work and reset at 2133 default.
> 
> Any solutions?
> 
> Thanks in advance.





Spoiler

















Veii said:


> @Bapt33
> If it is safemode, then likely because the amount of people who it didnt work in, was too high
> after all the calculator shows a "has to work" preset, but not "this is the best your kit can do" preset
> At least the safe Version
> 
> I find it a bit sad tho, that after 1.5.1 you have to use different Versions/comparing them, to get a good Baseline result
> @1usmus It wouldnt be bad if we had more then just Profile A/B with Slow/Fast as options
> But rather could look on a list sorted by the release age ~ in what was recommendet before
> Just so we have some preview how timings increase, which does affect which one
> 
> ^ Or no, even better
> "Manual Edit" soo when we change one timing we know needs change, that the other needed ones change with it ~ in this case are calculated to match it 🙂


The skeleton is too late to change in the program, any newcomer will have difficulty choosing a profile. And this is normal, since overclocking is an activity that requires additional time for training/learning.


----------



## Veii

Veii said:


> @*1usmus* It wouldnt be bad if we had more then just Profile A/B with Slow/Fast as options
> But rather could look on a list sorted by the release age ~ in what was recommendet before
> Just so we have some preview how timings increase, which does affect which one
> 
> ^ Or no, even better
> "Manual Edit" soo when we change one timing we know needs change, that the other needed ones change with it ~ in this case are calculated to match it 🙂
> 
> 
> 
> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The skeleton is too late to change in the program, any newcomer will have difficulty choosing a profile. And this is normal, since overclocking is an activity that requires additional time for training/learning.
Click to expand...

Yes i was thinking, adding another dropdown menu under v1,v2, Debug 
For "Manual" Mode
Or like it was before as a "compare timings" method , a 2nd section next to the main timings
editable, so you can change 14-14-15-14 , that 15 to 14, which will recalculate the remain timings to make it fit
As an addition 

Is the foundation not changeable at all ?
Like just adding another menu or section inside it for "manual mode":thinking:
If you for example would also need to increase tRAS to +6 , that it would recalculate tRC & tRFC together 
Or if you change by hand tRFC, that it would show under it the time in ns , instead having to switch to the Advanced Calculation Menu 
Just quality of life changes to make stuff a bit a more automated and help people who seak for CL12 timings or XOC 
A calculator which "calculates" for you , not only shows presets which are known to work


----------



## Veii

R71800XSS said:


> I have tried with ProcODT 43,53,60,68. with 1800X was 68, but it was only stable at 3000 with Cas 14,14,14,28,42,T1 or T2.
> Cad bus is 24,24,24,24 or auto. I think about that does not influence, at least with the previous processor (1800x).
> For memory at 3200, by now. Memory hole unknown.
> 
> Into AMD CBS chipset, I haven't changed anything for now. I have not changed either cLDO VDDG and cLDO VDCP voltages.
> 
> I only have use Dram memory calculator with setings for my DDRAM. I changed timings (14,14,14,30,44, T1), ProcODT, RTT_, CAD BUS block and DDRAM voltage (1.35v) and FCLK at 1600. Boot Voltage in auto. Too CPU voltage at 1.25, y SOC at 1.025 .
> 
> I can´t find in BIOS BGS and BGS alt.
> 
> PHY ??
> 
> I will keep trying even with other speeds.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


BGS Alt is buggy on several 1.0.0.3 AGESA boards - you can check with DRAM calculator if it actually is enabled
(has to be enabled)
over 48 is waay to high for that 3rd gen 
You do have new standards for this 7nm chip , well actually that 12nm rebranded IMC
Tho you should go lower, like the calculator suggests 
39.6 and similar / rly up to kit and up to if SR or DR

CAD_BUS does affect it, but you are soo far away of even being it a problem, keeping it at 24-20-20-24 or 24-24-24-24/20-20-20-20 you shouldn't even notice it making a problem 
up to 3000 hmm, you should rly be able to run at least 3400 with close to every kit out there

Memory hole changes with corresponding MT/s , but up to 3200 there is barely to no difference at all
i don't think 3rd gen even suffers from the memory hole down in the up to 3800MT/s region | tho i'm not sure, it's not suggested at all

SOC required , you can pretty much use what worked on 2nd gen, but that is covered in the DRAM calculator too 
Maybe just start using higher DRAM volts, in the 1.42 to 1.46v VDIMM range 
SOC up to 1.05v for anything under 3600 is more then enough, cpu vcore ... that's up to your OC settings 
The only reason i can see you would have struggle booting is, if something is too high instead of too low 
VDDG and VDDP being buggy in bios in AMD Overclocking, or some of the voltages defaulting way to high , like 1.15+ SOC on stock


You shouldn't have problems at all, getting anything up to 3400 to boot , with nearly every kit out there under that 1.5v mark 
even hynix MFR can run 3400 with 1.5v on 1st gen, keep in mind 2nd and 3rd gen it's quite a bit easier


----------



## R71800XSS

Veii said:


> BGS Alt is buggy on several 1.0.0.3 AGESA boards - you can check with DRAM calculator if it actually is enabled
> (has to be enabled)
> over 48 is waay to high for that 3rd gen
> You do have new standards for this 7nm chip , well actually that 12nm rebranded IMC
> Tho you should go lower, like the calculator suggests
> 39.6 and similar / rly up to kit and up to if SR or DR
> 
> CAD_BUS does affect it, but you are soo far away of even being it a problem, keeping it at 24-20-20-24 or 24-24-24-24/20-20-20-20 you shouldn't even notice it making a problem
> up to 3000 hmm, you should rly be able to run at least 3400 with close to every kit out there
> 
> Memory hole changes with corresponding MT/s , but up to 3200 there is barely to no difference at all
> i don't think 3rd gen even suffers from the memory hole down in the up to 3800MT/s region | tho i'm not sure, it's not suggested at all
> 
> SOC required , you can pretty much use what worked on 2nd gen, but that is covered in the DRAM calculator too
> Maybe just start using higher DRAM volts, in the 1.42 to 1.46v VDIMM range
> SOC up to 1.05v for anything under 3600 is more then enough, cpu vcore ... that's up to your OC settings
> The only reason i can see you would have struggle booting is, if something is too high instead of too low
> VDDG and VDDP being buggy in bios in AMD Overclocking, or some of the voltages defaulting way to high , like 1.15+ SOC on stock
> 
> 
> You shouldn't have problems at all, getting anything up to 3400 to boot , with nearly every kit out there under that 1.5v mark
> even hynix MFR can run 3400 with 1.5v on 1st gen, keep in mind 2nd and 3rd gen it's quite a bit easier


-------------------------------------------
*  UPDATE  *
Thanks all for reply, I finally managed to modify some values ​​in the bios, so that the CPU with core bost enable mode looked for parameters that I did not know and I manually set procODT to 48 and timings to 14,14,14,34,48 T1 and TRfc = 307.
In addition I have deactivated ECC and activated Auto Oc within the parameters of the CPU in the bios 7501.
Everything seems to work perfect now, except that the corsair keyboard is not detected by the bios and I must use a different one.

Very much thanks. 
I will keep trying even with other speeds.

Thanks.


----------



## Veii

Veii said:


> Chipset interleaving is self explanatory ?
> The size is an interesting debate
> 2kb is more a failsafe setting while 512 was recommended by several latency curve and SiSandra Inter-Core latency graphs
> It does have a big effect on smoothing out the latency curve, meaning even by different Instruction sizes, the access latency and process latency varies
> 
> For that to set perfect, as it does wary again with different rams
> I would grab sisanda and dram calculator
> First sisanda but thats a bit annoying to set up
> The Multi-Core Efficiency test
> Look there first for bandwidth , then sort it so it makes a i think 12 points latency curve
> 
> 
> 
> Synoxia said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think i should just copy and paste everything and call it a deal?
Click to expand...

 Here you can see some examples of how Memory Interleaving Size varies:


Spoiler























Purple was the current 256 tested
While yellow was the older one - we can ignore yellow / yellow was without low latency Performance Bias enabled but still on 512
Green with 1KB looks quite reasonable for failsafe, bandwith is high but inter-core latency is quite big / soo 512 ends up the best
256, rly only works sometimes with some kits and variable timings ~ here it doesn't work at all 

Stock is 80ns Latency and about 48GB/s Bandwith


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Always set Clock Amplitude (in Menu) from Auto to Normal.
> It helps alot for peripherals (mouse, key etc.)


What does it do and how does it help the mouse etc.?


----------



## GeneralHARM

*B-Die?*

Hows it going guys, hoping some of you magnificent gentlemen can help me out. 
Thaiphoon Burner tells me i have Samsung B-Die but i'm not convinced. I am struggling to reach stability at anything above 3600mhz, I can get 3666, 3733, and even with the new Gigabyte beta bios i am now able to get 3800/1900 to post and boot into windows, but I always get errors in membench and fail or reboot with Kharu RAM test. I know this is kinda rambly but any tips or feedback would be tremendous.

These are my RAM sticks, the DRAM Components # K4A8G085WB-BCPB brings some interesting google results that suggests these are some lower quality B-Die sticks?









I also have a few questions about what voltage settings go where in my bios, I have Gigabyte x570 Ultra, I Think i've been putting the values in the proper places but I am hoping for some confirmation or correction.

























Do i need to change these voltage settings?









Where do i enter these, and what are the correct Load Line Calibration settings?


----------



## Veii

GeneralHARM said:


> Where do i enter these, and what are the correct Load Line Calibration settings?
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Correct Loadline is up to the board, it's hard to say the exact one
The Gigabyte thread would know better which board behaves how - it needs actual hardware messurement

CPU VDDP is at the center 
Boost DRAM is not always there, but nearly always identical to normal DRAM voltage
Vref is always half DRAM voltage, if it's not there, it will follow the rule by default


For loadline settings, you may want to select 1 under flat and lower 
aka lv 2 of 6 or 7 out of 8 (have to see how the board specifies loadline)
flat , lv 1 or 8 can have overshooting , soo 2nd or 3rd is always preferable ~ but then again every board is different and even from board to board there can be manufacturing variation , like there is sillion variation from chip to chip, which cpu likes what loadline


----------



## Veii

Thought i'd share my new results , looking for advice's how to get CL13(12)-12 to run
3500MT/s does run fine at the same 1.45(6)v 
tho 3600MT/s is very hard to run on 1st gen~
I need 1.175v SOC for that > . >


Spoiler













CPU LLC 2, SOC offset to 1.08 (1.07) with LLC 3 of 5
CLD0_VDDP 913
VDIMM 1.46v
tCKE is 1 (just readout bug)


 Looking so far for a healthy middle-point 
So far only needing 1.075 (1.07v) for up to 3500
tRFC is already quite low ~ i try to aim for 232, but it's a bit too low, 236 is no clean sync :thinking:
Maybe it just refuses to post , because remain timings are too high 
Any advises ? 

*SCL at 2 instead of 3 is no clean sync too , even tho it's stable, perf is bad / need to see what's the cause


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Long post incoming...bear with me please.

R1700, 1.25V, 3800MHz allcore. (at some point I'll just buy a 3900 and settle down for the next 5 years or so)
Taichi X370, 5.80 BIOS/1.0.0.3 AGESA (ABB, not ABBA).
2x8 Crucial BLE8G4D32BEEAK.K8FB (one dimm 2133, one 2400, both B-dies-downbins).

The processor's IMC is quite buggy, almost "sadistic". I have tried 4 different mem kits (AFRs, MFRs, B-dies, Downbins) and there were only some very specific settings that worked (almost never on XMP, never-not once on any DRAM calc version, whatever I may have tried).

Anyway, I've settled for a 3400 16-17-17-17-34-56-1T profile, that was stable at 1.38V/1.1soc (courtesy of another member here) for some time, made some (unsuccessful) attempts to tighten primaries/secondaries etc or even get to 3466 (almost worked), nothing was really stable.

Last week, I started tightening various subs, one each time (testing stability with 10xTM5 and 1.5 hour of BFV each time) and for the first time I had something good going. 

Performance-wise, I used SoTTR built-in bench (DX12, 1080), CBR15 (I know it's not that mem dependent but it has some value), userbench, AIDA (last two mainly for mem latency).

What was curious, was the fact that while on SoTTR there was a definite improvement in CPU game scores as I got to tighter settings, there was no clear gain in latency either on AIDA or on userbench. At some point, I even had way worse results (latency, +2/3ns), but continued to see better and better SoTTR results. CBR scores also went down a bit (nothing serious, about 20-30 points, but consistent).

Weird fact...most of the changes didn't even require mem training. BIOS->set->F10->test->repeat.

At some point, I tightened some of the secondaries/tertiaries to a point I thought it wasn't possible for my setup, but kept receiving the same mixed results.
Just for the "fun" of it, I reverted back to my base 3400 profile. SoTTR scores went noticeably down, got back almost all CBR points, lat went down to "normal" both on AIDA and user bench.

I really can't decide what to do, which profile I should keep, which result is a better overall marker for system performance.

I would really appreciate any input, even if it's only to make something of this mess.

So, some visual aids...

Base 3400 profile (along with AIDA and SoTTR scores):

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=299012&thumb=1

DrvStr are all set to 24 (I think...), ProcODT to 53.3, RTT park to 60 Nom and Wr are off. (same values for all the profiles, only got VDDR to 1.4V)

Fun fact: This AIDA score came up on the 4th consequent run...first 3 gave better read/write/copy, but lat around 73.3ns

I got to this:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=299014&thumb=1

On the left, a successful 3466 SoTTR run, for comparison.

To this:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=299018&thumb=1

Even to this:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=299020&thumb=1

which had a latency of around 74.8ns on AIDA, -30CBR points, but better SoTTR results than anything I've seen (i think it gave me one gpu fps on av. as well...it seems trivial but I had a constant 100fps with every "good" mem profile and lower than that with the "no so good", for months now (previous attempts...bench stable but not TM5 or BFV stable).

Sorry for the long post, sadly no potato...


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

My RAM would always fail memory test no matter what I did at 3733 CL14 (tight timings). Voltage is at 1.49V. I noticed a pattern, it would start to have errors in memory test when the memory got to 48C where it would usually max out at.

Today I decided to put a fan in front of my memory just to see what would happen. Memory averaged at 35C, max at 36C. Passed Memtest from dram calculator and 5,000% from Karhu RAM Test.


----------



## neurotix

KingEngineRevUp said:


> My RAM would always fail memory test no matter what I did at 3733 CL14 (tight timings). Voltage is at 1.49V. I noticed a pattern, it would start to have errors in memory test when the memory got to 48C where it would usually max out at.
> 
> Today I decided to put a fan in front of my memory just to see what would happen. Memory averaged at 35C, max at 36C. Passed Memtest from dram calculator and 5,000% from Karhu RAM Test.


Glad you figured it out and got settings you are satisfied with. You are not too far off from my speeds, at tighter timings.











I've not seen my memory exceed around 35C, despite it being clocked so high, even before I put a fan over the memory (check the photos in my build log via the second link in my signature). I'd suggest trying to find a similar clip-on memory cooler.

Were you able to find all the advanced settings in AMD CBS then? As well as set all recommended voltages? You should note that despite having far looser timings, my cache, memory write (most important bandwidth generally) bandwidth is higher, and latency is lower. These things together equate to better performance, especially in games, but if you are satisfied with the outcome, I understand.

EDIT: actually nix that, comparing the screenshots more thoroughly, they are essentially margin of error level differences, and could come down to software and configuration differences (i.e. Win10 config,background processes and services running, open applications etc. Any improvement by going higher in your case is going to be well under 1% by going from 3733 to 3800 making it not worth the hassle.)

I would recommend testing again with AIDA64, disconnect from internet, close literally every app minimized to the system tray (including AV and nvidia cp), and disable background services if possible, so aida is the only thing running. Rerun the benchmark over and over until you get the best score. I think 63.7ns on the RAM and below would be worthy of a screenshot. If you get a score that low or possibly better than mine, please post it and I may have to reevaluate my own speed and timings if 3733 cas14 with tighter timings is superior.
rep+

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uHdEavdBVH0c0LnWnwbUWDxC306YgnKir_W3ticgdYQ/htmlview#gid=0

(^ 3800MHz with manual tweaked timings (e.g. all settings entered from DRAM Calc correctly vs just setting frequency and primary timings) is the sweet spot for games and as you see there, if gaming is your primary use, it pulls ahead of the 9900k by a decent margin. Your current OC and timings comes very close to this but you are missing the cache speed improvement from 1866MHz fclk to 1900MHz fclk. That link above is why I encouraged you to try to get to 3800MHz/1900MHz regardless of timings. But I am happy if you are happy with it  )


----------



## spirch

what kind of success people had with the gskill neo 3600c16 2x16 32gig (2 rank)


I'm not looking at extreme OC or anything around that but general "ok gain" kind of thing



if it matter, see my pc below for whole specs


----------



## Sphex_

GeneralHARM said:


> Hows it going guys, hoping some of you magnificent gentlemen can help me out.
> Thaiphoon Burner tells me i have Samsung B-Die but i'm not convinced. I am struggling to reach stability at anything above 3600mhz, I can get 3666, 3733, and even with the new Gigabyte beta bios i am now able to get 3800/1900 to post and boot into windows, but I always get errors in membench and fail or reboot with Kharu RAM test. I know this is kinda rambly but any tips or feedback would be tremendous.
> 
> These are my RAM sticks, the DRAM Components # K4A8G085WB-BCPB brings some interesting google results that suggests these are some lower quality B-Die sticks?
> [PICTURE]
> 
> I also have a few questions about what voltage settings go where in my bios, I have Gigabyte x570 Ultra, I Think i've been putting the values in the proper places but I am hoping for some confirmation or correction.
> [PICTURE]
> 
> Do i need to change these voltage settings?
> [PICTURE]
> Where do i enter these, and what are the correct Load Line Calibration settings?


Can I have a link to the actual kit you bought? Looks like a 4000 MT/s kit, so it's a little weird that you can't get things past 3600 MHz stable. You definitely have a B-Die kit, as do I, but mine isn't of the best quality (3466 MHz CL16 kit). It's possible you have a lower quality kit but with such a high clock I'm skeptical. This more than likely comes down to IMC quality and other factors with your particular CPU. 

As for the voltage questions you have, I, personally, haven't touched DDRVPP and VRef, those are usually adjusted by the motherboard anyways based on DRAM Voltage that you set. For VDDP and VDDG, you've found the right spot. Oddly enough, I've had trouble getting my kit stable at 3600 MHz or higher without RAISING the VDDP voltage (I'm currently running mine at 1000mV. Any lower and errors occur). So you might want to explore that, as it controls the voltage for the DDR4 PHY for the SOC on Ryzen (so definitely related to memory stability). I've never touched VDDIO or VTT voltages, so I can't speak to how those effect memory stability.

LLC I haven't touched either, so others will have to help you with that, but I'm confident that with the right combination of VDDP and timings you'll be able to get your kit to pass memory stability tests at speeds higher than 3600 MHz. Hope this helps!


----------



## Veii

I see no one shares InterCore bandwith tests (multi-core efficiency) from SiSandra
There is stuff to optimize , which includes the usage of chipset interleaving settings and tRFC adjustment 
The calculator does a quite well job guessing pre tested settings ~ but bandwith and latency is not everything 

A combination of two yes, but yet not everything that makes up for perf
it's not the background services (only) that bother and show a difference


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

hurricane28 said:


> What does it do and how does it help the mouse etc.?


For me it does 
That's all i neeed to know, try and decide.


----------



## ribosome

Hey all, been lurking here for a few weeks but I've been trying to get my system stable at 1900 FCLK 1:1. I've used the manual profile in the DRAM calculator with the 3800 safe preset after importing my XMP profile from Thaiphoon Burner. I can pass memtest just fine, but randomly my PC will either just hard reset or the display driver will crash and reset itself. I've tried various combinations of Vdimm, Vsoc, CLDO_Vddg, CLDO_Vddp, and ProcODT settings, usually quite aggressively. Sometimes they seem to help a bit, sometimes they don't. But I feel like I'm just grasping at straws here. What should I be focusing on, or maybe should I be taking this as an indication that my CPU really can't do 1900 FCLK?

For reference:
CPU: Ryzen 9 3900X
RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 CL14 (Samsung B-Die)
Mainboard: Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi 1.1
GPU: RTX 2080 Ti
PSU: EVGA Supernova 750 G3


----------



## Veii

ribosome said:


> Hey all, been lurking here for a few weeks but I've been trying to get my system stable at 1900 FCLK 1:1. I've used the manual profile in the DRAM calculator with the 3800 safe preset after importing my XMP profile from Thaiphoon Burner. I can pass memtest just fine, but randomly my PC will either just hard reset or the display driver will crash and reset itself. I've tried various combinations of Vdimm, Vsoc, CLDO_Vddg, CLDO_Vddp, and ProcODT settings, usually quite aggressively. Sometimes they seem to help a bit, sometimes they don't. But I feel like I'm just grasping at straws here. What should I be focusing on, or maybe should I be taking this as an indication that my CPU really can't do 1900 FCLK?
> 
> For reference:
> CPU: Ryzen 9 3900X
> RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 CL14 (Samsung B-Die)
> Mainboard: Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi 1.1
> GPU: RTX 2080 Ti
> PSU: EVGA Supernova 750 G3


If you have "random" hardlocks - then it's not the CPU "can't" do it 
More a matter of , the settings are not right and it dies out 

Would you like to share the maximum voltage & settings you already tried 
~ to make recommendation easier knowing what you've already tried 
The only advice i could right now give, is random shutdowns are a lack of SOC voltage - random shutdowns after the 4-5th round from 20 rounds TM5 testing

Overall hard shutdowns are a lack of voltage or stacked errors, while errors an be variable cause


----------



## ribosome

Veii said:


> If you have "random" hardlocks - then it's not the CPU "can't" do it
> More a matter of , the settings are not right and it dies out
> 
> Would you like to share the maximum voltage & settings you already tried
> ~ to make recommendation easier knowing what you've already tried
> The only advice i could right now give, is random shutdowns are a lack of SOC voltage - random shutdowns after the 4-5th round from 20 rounds TM5 testing
> 
> Overall hard shutdowns are a lack of voltage or stacked errors, while errors an be variable cause


Voltages I remember trying
DRAM: 1.4, 1.42, 1.45, 1.46, 1.48, 1.5
SOC: 1.1, 1.1125, 1.125, 1.1375, 1.15, 1.1625, 1.175, 1.1875, 1.2 although I haven't tested as much above 1.15 as at 1.15 and below it.
VDDG: 1.05, 1.075, 1.1, 1.125 (board defaults to 1.05 it seems)
VDDP: .900, .910, .915, .920, .925, .940 
ProcODT: between 30 and 42.

All of these settings booted, but it's confusing as to which settings have actually helped stability and in which combinations, or how much. Sometimes my settings will cause display driver resets or they'll cause full system resets, usually one group of settings won't cause both. Or maybe I just haven't tested long enough once I start getting one error to see if I get the other.

Also tried GDM on and off, PDM on and off, neither seems to make any difference here.

I haven't tried changing any of the CAD_BUS block impedances or RTT settings, and most of the settings in the advanced tab are not exposed in BIOS.

Update: From everything I've read 1050 mV CLDO_VDDG is actually way too high. I'm starting to wonder if this is the cause of my issues. I had tried using 900 mV before but it didn't boot. I'm now doing an AIDA64 cache stress test at 1.1 V Vsoc, 1.4 V Vdimm, 985 mV CLDO_VDDG, and 912 mV CLDO_VDDP which I got from the overclocking guide linked here. I'm only 5 minutes in but it seems fine so far. EDIT: NOPE, I was actually at 1.2 V Vsoc, my motherboard sometimes rejects the voltage settings I give it...

I get the feeling that for the most part higher voltages don't make sense if I can POST and boot. I have SOC LLC set to the maximum this board allows, and I've read that auto settings is just one step below that anyway.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

neurotix said:


> KingEngineRevUp said:
> 
> 
> 
> My RAM would always fail memory test no matter what I did at 3733 CL14 (tight timings). Voltage is at 1.49V. I noticed a pattern, it would start to have errors in memory test when the memory got to 48C where it would usually max out at.
> 
> Today I decided to put a fan in front of my memory just to see what would happen. Memory averaged at 35C, max at 36C. Passed Memtest from dram calculator and 5,000% from Karhu RAM Test.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you figured it out and got settings you are satisfied with. You are not too far off from my speeds, at tighter timings.
> 
> 
> View attachment 299514
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen my memory exceed around 35C, despite it being clocked so high, even before I put a fan over the memory (check the photos in my build log via the second link in my signature). I'd suggest trying to find a similar clip-on memory cooler.
> 
> Were you able to find all the advanced settings in AMD CBS then? As well as set all recommended voltages? You should note that despite having far looser timings, my cache, memory write (most important bandwidth generally) bandwidth is higher, and latency is lower. These things together equate to better performance, especially in games, but if you are satisfied with the outcome, I understand.
> 
> EDIT: actually nix that, comparing the screenshots more thoroughly, they are essentially margin of error level differences, and could come down to software and configuration differences (i.e. Win10 config,background processes and services running, open applications etc. Any improvement by going higher in your case is going to be well under 1% by going from 3733 to 3800 making it not worth the hassle.)
> 
> I would recommend testing again with AIDA64, disconnect from internet, close literally every app minimized to the system tray (including AV and nvidia cp), and disable background services if possible, so aida is the only thing running. Rerun the benchmark over and over until you get the best score. I think 63.7ns on the RAM and below would be worthy of a screenshot. If you get a score that low or possibly better than mine, please post it and I may have to reevaluate my own speed and timings if 3733 cas14 with tighter timings is superior.
> rep+
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uHdEavdBVH0c0LnWnwbUWDxC306YgnKir_W3ticgdYQ/htmlview#gid=0
> 
> (^ 3800MHz with manual tweaked timings (e.g. all settings entered from DRAM Calc correctly vs just setting frequency and primary timings) is the sweet spot for games and as you see there, if gaming is your primary use, it pulls ahead of the 9900k by a decent margin. Your current OC and timings comes very close to this but you are missing the cache speed improvement from 1866MHz fclk to 1900MHz fclk. That link above is why I encouraged you to try to get to 3800MHz/1900MHz regardless of timings. But I am happy if you are happy with it /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif )
Click to expand...

I have two AIO. One on the gpu and one on the cpu. So no air was really circulating over the ram. If I had a traditional cpu air cooler it would have circulated air over or by the ram.

My pc is full of case fans also, just no air was passing over my ram.

Edit: BTW, that link you linked is actually my Google doc and my link. I created it. I'm well aware of it.

The 3800 Mhz there is CL14.


----------



## hurricane28

Ne01 OnnA said:


> For me it does
> That's all i neeed to know, try and decide.


Okay, i tested it but didn't feel any different to me.


----------



## Hynixclub

I've tried a bit more since last time, gotten nowhere. Since I was ignored last time for perhaps too long a post, I'll make this one more to the point:

Ryzen 1700 3.6 Ghz, Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3. RAM: 1.36 - 1.37V, CPU SoC: 1.087V (_"normal", can't go lower_), CPU VCORE: slight negative offset to keep it around 1.2v under load. RAM is Hynix AFR 3200CL16: Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 8+8Gb Single Rank. RAM is 3200 XMP, but set to 2933.

Attached are the suggested "manual" timings (_+ProcODT: 60, RZQ/7, RZQ/4, CAD: 20/20/20/20_) vs what I have.

It passed the tests: 8x memtest86, 20x TM5 1usmus V3, 400% per thread HCI Memtest. I was preparing to run Prime95 overnight at 512-4096 FTT, 12288 memory usage and 16 threads. After restarting a few times to change the fan settings (_because of the absolutely garbage VRM on this board - never again, Gigabyte_), I let it run at what I thought were the final fan settings. VRMs didn't climb too fast, it would make it. So I left, got back (10 minutes) and the screens were cycling through sources (no signal). PC was still running, but no alt+F4'ing helped. Pressing the power button didn't work. So I forced it to shut down by holding the button, which did work.

My software RAID will have a fun afternoon of thrashing itself re-syncing tomorrow. After that is finished, is there anything left to try? Thanks.


----------



## Dsrt

Im having issue with my B-die Samsung DDR4. Im unable to hit safe clocks of 3200Mhz calculated by DRAM calculator. Even going up to 1.4 volts the memory wont boot.
Ive imported the timing information from Thaiphoon Burner. No OC applied the the cpu while trying to tighten the timings. The XMP (DOCP) profile works fine @ specified 1.35v.

Memory: G-Skill TrindentZ RGB F4-3200C16D-16GTZR
Motherboard: Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Hero
CPU: 3900X

The question is that should I just accept that I cant tighten the timings at all or just go even higher with the voltage? Or is there something else that I should try to do


----------



## Sphex_

Dsrt said:


> Im having issue with my B-die Samsung DDR4. Im unable to hit safe clocks of 3200Mhz calculated by DRAM calculator. Even going up to 1.4 volts the memory wont boot.
> Ive imported the timing information from Thaiphoon Burner. No OC applied the the cpu while trying to tighten the timings. The XMP (DOCP) profile works fine @ specified 1.35v.
> 
> Memory: G-Skill TrindentZ RGB F4-3200C16D-16GTZR
> Motherboard: Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Hero
> CPU: 3900X
> 
> The question is that should I just accept that I cant tighten the timings at all or just go even higher with the voltage? Or is there something else that I should try to do


 It's B-Die, my friend. Don't be afraid to raise that voltage, you're good all the way up to 1.5V if you wanna get crazy. Judging by your kit, 3200 CL16 Kit, it's very similar to my 3466 CL16 kit. They're both B-Die, but most likely lower-binned B-Die. For example, I'm currently running my kit at 3666 CL16 timings. No matter the voltage, no matter what combination of settings, I absolutely cannot get it stable at any frequency 3466 or above, with timings tighter than 16-17-16-16-32-48 1T (GDM off) @1.43V. So you might have to accept the fact that you might not be able to tighten the primary timings too much. You can tighten down the secondary and tertiary timings a fair amount without fuss, though. So I'd aim for CL16 primary timings and tighten down the subtimings like tRFC, tFAW, etc. which have been shown to provide a boost in performance. Judging by the Community Overclocking Sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit?usp=sharing) you should be able to raise the memory clock a fair amount but you definitely need to pump more voltage in the kit for sure. I notice that you're using the "Manual" profile version. Try V2, which is for lower-binned kits. That should spit out some much more doable values.

So if your goal right now is to achieve stable "Safe" timings that the calculator spits out, don't be afraid to raise that voltage passed 1.4V. Try 1.45V perhaps and then if that's stable work your way down. Sometimes too much voltage can cause instability, so it's a bit of a trial and error deal. Stick with the XMP CL16 Primary timings, tighten down the subtimings that the calculator gives you (remember, profile set to V2), and raise that voltage. You should definitely be able to the "Safe" values stable.


----------



## Yuke

ribosome said:


> Voltages I remember trying
> DRAM: 1.4, 1.42, 1.45, 1.46, 1.48, 1.5
> SOC: 1.1, 1.1125, 1.125, 1.1375, 1.15, 1.1625, 1.175, 1.1875, 1.2 although I haven't tested as much above 1.15 as at 1.15 and below it.
> VDDG: 1.05, 1.075, 1.1, 1.125 (board defaults to 1.05 it seems)
> VDDP: .900, .910, .915, .920, .925, .940
> ProcODT: between 30 and 42.
> 
> All of these settings booted, but it's confusing as to which settings have actually helped stability and in which combinations, or how much. Sometimes my settings will cause display driver resets or they'll cause full system resets, usually one group of settings won't cause both. Or maybe I just haven't tested long enough once I start getting one error to see if I get the other.
> 
> Also tried GDM on and off, PDM on and off, neither seems to make any difference here.
> 
> I haven't tried changing any of the CAD_BUS block impedances or RTT settings, and most of the settings in the advanced tab are not exposed in BIOS.
> 
> Update: From everything I've read 1050 mV CLDO_VDDG is actually way too high. I'm starting to wonder if this is the cause of my issues. I had tried using 900 mV before but it didn't boot. I'm now doing an AIDA64 cache stress test at 1.1 V Vsoc, 1.4 V Vdimm, 985 mV CLDO_VDDG, and 912 mV CLDO_VDDP which I got from the overclocking guide linked here. I'm only 5 minutes in but it seems fine so far. EDIT: NOPE, I was actually at 1.2 V Vsoc, my motherboard sometimes rejects the voltage settings I give it...
> 
> I get the feeling that for the most part higher voltages don't make sense if I can POST and boot. I have SOC LLC set to the maximum this board allows, and I've read that auto settings is just one step below that anyway.



Try changing SOC-V over the main menu (not the dedicated OC menu). My voltage got ignored all the time when i tried to dial it in via the OC menu. 1.125V made my system stable (its around 1.110-1.116V in my readouts).


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

For those of you who have had trouble with stability test, can you try monitoring your temperatures of your DIMMs? 

I have had great success with stability by keeping my temperatures below 40C. This might be a big issue for those with AIOs on their CPU since air will not pass over your RAM. Therefore, your RAM has to rely purely on passive cooling.


----------



## starrbuck

KingEngineRevUp said:


> For those of you who have had trouble with stability test, can you try monitoring your temperatures of your DIMMs?
> 
> I have had great success with stability by keeping my temperatures below 40C. This might be a big issue for those with AIOs on their CPU since air will not pass over your RAM. Therefore, your RAM has to rely purely on passive cooling.


I second this advice! I added a fan over my RAM to cool it under 40C and now can hit and maintain 3733 reliably on my 3200 B-Die.


----------



## NHS2008

Hello! I've got Ryzen 3600x and G.skill Sniper X 3600 c19 running at 3733 c16. 

I want to know how can I add my benches to the Google docs sheet? And which Tim to consider in Memtest (Easy) "Time" or "Best Time"?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c3RTF_ZPjep-Zfimgoca2Ef1gSjZM0rSHVWLkknbfUI/edit?pli=1#gid=0


----------



## GeneralHARM

*GeneralHARM*

I have x570 Aorus Ultra with TEAMGROUP T-Force Xcalibur RAM, (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H2CG85V/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) Tahiphoon says they are B-Die, but no where in hwInfo64 do i see any temperature readings for my ram sticks, regardless i ordered a clip on RAM cooler, should be here Friday, hopefully that will get me to passing MEMbench and Kahru without errors at 3800/1900. I can post, boot windows, and sometimes pass an easy MEMbench test but i always error fail on Kahru.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Dsrt said:


> Im having issue with my B-die Samsung DDR4. Im unable to hit safe clocks of 3200Mhz calculated by DRAM calculator. Even going up to 1.4 volts the memory wont boot.
> Ive imported the timing information from Thaiphoon Burner. No OC applied the the cpu while trying to tighten the timings. The XMP (DOCP) profile works fine @ specified 1.35v.
> 
> Memory: G-Skill TrindentZ RGB F4-3200C16D-16GTZR
> Motherboard: Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Hero
> CPU: 3900X
> 
> The question is that should I just accept that I cant tighten the timings at all or just go even higher with the voltage? Or is there something else that I should try to do





Sphex_ said:


> It's B-Die, my friend. Don't be afraid to raise that voltage, you're good all the way up to 1.5V if you wanna get crazy. Judging by your kit, 3200 CL16 Kit, it's very similar to my 3466 CL16 kit. They're both B-Die, but most likely lower-binned B-Die. For example, I'm currently running my kit at 3666 CL16 timings. No matter the voltage, no matter what combination of settings, I absolutely cannot get it stable at any frequency 3466 or above, with timings tighter than 16-17-16-16-32-48 1T (GDM off) @1.43V. So you might have to accept the fact that you might not be able to tighten the primary timings too much. You can tighten down the secondary and tertiary timings a fair amount without fuss, though. So I'd aim for CL16 primary timings and tighten down the subtimings like tRFC, tFAW, etc. which have been shown to provide a boost in performance. Judging by the Community Overclocking Sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit?usp=sharing) you should be able to raise the memory clock a fair amount but you definitely need to pump more voltage in the kit for sure. I notice that you're using the "Manual" profile version. Try V2, which is for lower-binned kits. That should spit out some much more doable values.
> 
> So if your goal right now is to achieve stable "Safe" timings that the calculator spits out, don't be afraid to raise that voltage passed 1.4V. Try 1.45V perhaps and then if that's stable work your way down. Sometimes too much voltage can cause instability, so it's a bit of a trial and error deal. Stick with the XMP CL16 Primary timings, tighten down the subtimings that the calculator gives you (remember, profile set to V2), and raise that voltage. You should definitely be able to the "Safe" values stable.


I am using similar memory, F4-3200C14-8GTZR / F4-3200C14-8GTZRX (two different kits, but I'm almost certain the RAM is identical, with the "X" version serving only to signify explicitly the RAM's compatibility with Ryzen), but with a first-gen Ryzen 7 1700x on a Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7 motherboard (https://www.overclock.net/forum/28142898-post3601.html). I am able to boot using the "safe" timings for 3200MHz given by the DRAM Calculator, however, not from a *cold boot* or *system restart*. The only way my system will boot is once the power-on self-test routine runs, but unsuccessfully, my PC restarts itself (Code *F9* on the readout display right before power-down, which, according to my user manual indicates "Recovery capsule is not found", whatever that means) and I am greeted with a *Boot Failure* warning and presented with the option of either A) Entering the Bios, or B) Loading Optimized Default Settings and boot/rebooting. Upon choosing option A and entering the bios, I can simply save-and-exit and my system will proceed to boot into the operating system without an issue.

From there, I have determined through various memory stress testing (TM5 with 1usmus' config, MemTest64, Linx, OCCT Linpack) that the settings are stable (aside from the boot issue) with no errors when using a *procODT* value of either *43 ohm* or *53 ohm* (48 ohm value gives me errors), *DRAM: 1.35 V * , and *SOC: 1.020 V*.

I tried what Mr. Sphex suggested, increasing my DRAM voltage up to 1.5 V from 1.35 V, testing in 0.1 V increments, but the boot failure issue persists no matter what. At this point, I feel like I have exhausted all possible avenues and I don't know what else to try. The only other thing I haven't attempted is to update my bios to the latest version, but I'm not sure what that would gain me. I even tried lowering the RAM frequency one step to 3133 MT/s, but still no go. Should I try to loosen the timings, even if I'm getting no errors as it is? Really at a loss here.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

GeneralHARM said:


> I have x570 Aorus Ultra with TEAMGROUP T-Force Xcalibur RAM, (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H2CG85V/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) Tahiphoon says they are B-Die, but no where in hwInfo64 do i see any temperature readings for my ram sticks, regardless i ordered a clip on RAM cooler, should be here Friday, hopefully that will get me to passing MEMbench and Kahru without errors at 3800/1900. I can post, boot windows, and sometimes pass an easy MEMbench test but i always error fail on Kahru.


It shows up under _DIMM Temperature Sensor _in HWinfo for me.


----------



## GeneralHARM

That don't show up for me


----------



## Fishheadman

Thank you for this tool. I was originally not able to get it working the first time. Now months later I found a thread that explained how to load the profile from Thaiphoon burner. I did that and was able to get 3200mhz on my 3000mhz RAM first try. I tried for 3400 but stopped after that did not work.


----------



## Sphex_

ForTheRepublic said:


> I am using similar memory, F4-3200C14-8GTZR / F4-3200C14-8GTZRX (two different kits, but I'm almost certain the RAM is identical, with the "X" version serving only to signify explicitly the RAM's compatibility with Ryzen), but with a first-gen Ryzen 7 1700x on a Gigabyte AX370 Gaming K7 motherboard (https://www.overclock.net/forum/28142898-post3601.html). I am able to boot using the "safe" timings for 3200MHz given by the DRAM Calculator, however, not from a *cold boot* or *system restart*. The only way my system will boot is once the power-on self-test routine runs, but unsuccessfully, my PC restarts itself (Code *F9* on the readout display right before power-down, which, according to my user manual indicates "Recovery capsule is not found", whatever that means) and I am greeted with a *Boot Failure* warning and presented with the option of either A) Entering the Bios, or B) Loading Optimized Default Settings and boot/rebooting. Upon choosing option A and entering the bios, I can simply save-and-exit and my system will proceed to boot into the operating system without an issue.
> 
> From there, I have determined through various memory stress testing (TM5 with 1usmus' config, MemTest64, Linx, OCCT Linpack) that the settings are stable (aside from the boot issue) with no errors when using a *procODT* value of either *43 ohm* or *53 ohm* (48 ohm value gives me errors), *DRAM: 1.35 V * , and *SOC: 1.020 V*.
> 
> I tried what Mr. Sphex suggested, increasing my DRAM voltage up to 1.5 V from 1.35 V, testing in 0.1 V increments, but the boot failure issue persists no matter what. At this point, I feel like I have exhausted all possible avenues and I don't know what else to try. The only other thing I haven't attempted is to update my bios to the latest version, but I'm not sure what that would gain me. I even tried lowering the RAM frequency one step to 3133 MT/s, but still no go. Should I try to loosen the timings, even if I'm getting no errors as it is? Really at a loss here.


 Hmm. It's tough because you most likely have a better binned kit than I do (3200 CL14 are usually top-binned).Updating the BIOS most likely won't help because the latest BIOS updates are mainly AGESA microcode updates for Ryzen 3000 CPUs. I also have a Ryzen 3000 series CPU, which are much more tolerant of different kits and have a more robust memory controller. It's definitely tough to nail down memory settings, but I can recommend this approach:

Set DRAM voltage to like 1.4V. Keep the "Safe" timings and set the memory clock to 2133 MHz. Reboot into Windows, shut down. Then try a cold boot and see if the computer POSTs. If it begins to memory train and do the same crap it does when you're at 3200 MHz, then reset the timings as well. If the computer POSTs go back into the BIOS and bump the memory clock up one step (like 2400 MHz), rinse and repeat until you reach a frequency where it doesn't boot. From there, depending on how you got there, you can work on either loosening the timings up a bit (if you never had to reset them during this process) or start tuning values like Termination Block values and ProcODT, which are crucial. Ryzen and motherboards are picky about those settings in particular. It's a lot of work, I know, and it shouldn't be necessary but unfortunately with a first-gen CPU and motherboard, you're going to sometimes deal with stuff like this. 

Oh, also, one more quick thing. Make sure your RAM DIMMs are in the correct slots, as per the manual, otherwise it can cause problems like this. It did on my older X470 ASUS board.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> Oh, also, one more quick thing. Make sure your RAM DIMMs are in the correct slots, as per the manual, otherwise it can cause problems like this. It did on my older X470 ASUS board.


I'm using four memory modules, occupying all four of my board's slots, which my user manual states is compatible with both double-sided and single-sided memory modules; and since I am using two separate kits of 2 modules instead of a single kit of 4, I did make sure to pair the kits with one another on the two memory channels, A and B. I.e., 

Slot #4 (CH A): F4-3200C14-8GTZR 
Slot #2 (CH B): F4-3200C14-8GTZRX
Slot #3 (CH A): F4-3200C14-8GTZR
Slot #1 (CH B): F4-3200C14-8GTZRX

But yeah, if I have to try going down to two modules for some reason, the manual recommends using slots #1 and #2, so I'll keep that in mind.



Sphex_ said:


> Hmm. It's tough because you most likely have a better binned kit than I do (3200 CL14 are usually top-binned).Updating the BIOS most likely won't help because the latest BIOS updates are mainly AGESA microcode updates for Ryzen 3000 CPUs.


Hmm, yeah that's kind of what I had gathered from reading the bios update description on the Gigabyte support page. The bios version I'm currently using is pretty much the most up-to-date before the latest, 3rd gen Ryzen compatibility updates started rolling out.



Sphex_ said:


> I also have a Ryzen 3000 series CPU, which are much more tolerant of different kits and have a more robust memory controller. It's definitely tough to nail down memory settings, but I can recommend this approach:
> 
> Set DRAM voltage to like 1.4V. Keep the "Safe" timings and set the memory clock to 2133 MHz. Reboot into Windows, shut down. Then try a cold boot and see if the computer POSTs. If it begins to memory train and do the same crap it does when you're at 3200 MHz, then reset the timings as well. If the computer POSTs go back into the BIOS and bump the memory clock up one step (like 2400 MHz), rinse and repeat until you reach a frequency where it doesn't boot. From there, depending on how you got there, you can work on either loosening the timings up a bit (if you never had to reset them during this process) or start tuning values like Termination Block values and ProcODT, which are crucial. Ryzen and motherboards are picky about those settings in particular. It's a lot of work, I know, and it shouldn't be necessary but unfortunately with a first-gen CPU and motherboard, you're going to sometimes deal with stuff like this.


Sounds like a plan. So disappointing that I'm unable to lock in the 3200 MT/s rated speed though. There was one thing that I wanted to try, but was not able to because for whatever reason, the option does not exist in Gigabyte's bios for this board, and that is increasing not just the operating DRAM voltage to around 1.35 V, but the *Boot DRAM Voltage* as well. The boot failures due to unsuccessful ram training would make sense, at least from my understanding, if the motherboard was trying to boot from an insufficient 1.2 v default setting (I'm not sure if it does or not).

Update: I tried what you suggested and set the memory clock down to 2133 MHz but kept the DRAM Calc. safe timings. Reboot was successful with no failure during POST. At least that's something. Now it's just a matter of how close to 3200 MHz I can achieve, I suppose. Thanks for the advice.


----------



## octiceps

Hey guys, in the tRFC/tREFI calculator, what should I put for tRFC ns?

When I put in 260, which is the tRFC ns in the main window that was pulled from the XMP profile, the tRFC/tREFI calculator shows a tRFC of 416, which is much higher than the tRFC listed in the main window.


----------



## LicSqualo

octiceps said:


> Hey guys, in the tRFC/tREFI calculator, what should I put for tRFC ns?
> 
> When I put in 260, which is the tRFC ns in the main window that was pulled from the XMP profile, the tRFC/tREFI calculator shows a tRFC of 416, which is much higher than the tRFC listed in the main window.


As suggestion:
You have to check better the value of TRFC that are more than one (for me there are 3 values) on Taiphoon Burner and enter the highest value of the three provided.


----------



## octiceps

LicSqualo said:


> As suggestion:
> You have to check better the value of TRFC that are more than one (for me there are 3 values) on Taiphoon Burner and enter the highest value of the three provided.


Right, but that just gives me default SPD values for tRFC/tREFI in the XMP profile. I'm trying to figure out what my tREFI should be with the profile calculated in the main window, which does not show tREFI.


----------



## LicSqualo

octiceps said:


> Right, but that just gives me default SPD values for tRFC/tREFI in the XMP profile. I'm trying to figure out what my tREFI should be with the profile calculated in the main window, which does not show tREFI.


Always as example and only for my case, I've TRIED to decrease my tRFC so now (more than 1 year at today) I'm at 256ns with 3500MHz ram speed. I've tried also 254 and 252 but for my stability (24/7) 256 work better.


----------



## LicSqualo

octiceps said:


> Right, but that just gives me default SPD values for tRFC/tREFI in the XMP profile. I'm trying to figure out what my tREFI should be with the profile calculated in the main window, which does not show tREFI.


Always as example and only for my case, I've TRIED to decrease my tRFC so now (more than 1 year at today) I'm at 256ns with 3500MHz ram speed. I've tried also 254 and 252 but for my stability (24/7) 256 work better. 
For the Calculator my best is 264 (or 280).


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

starrbuck said:


> I second this advice! I added a fan over my RAM to cool it under 40C and now can hit and maintain 3733 reliably on my 3200 B-Die.


I'm glad this helped you! More proof that a RAM fan can increase stability on B-Die!


----------



## Streetdragon

i need a little hep here with 1900/3800 on a 3900x:

Memsettings are stable for 3733Mhz cl16 1.45V

Now i wanna get 3800 1900 stable. mem is no problem. just push a bit more volt like 1.46 and its ok BUT..
The IF isnt playing fine with me
SOC auto(1.1V 1.09 while running)
vddp 950

vddg:
1050 booting and.... a bit stable. like benching.nothing long
1000 not booting
950 not booting
900 booting but not stable
890 booting and short memtest stable

any tipps to get it stable? more soc, less soc wont really work.

can i push more vddg without problems? Watercooled the cpu. really want it, but without killing the chip in the next 3-4 years


----------



## Saiger0

Streetdragon said:


> i need a little hep here with 1900/3800 on a 3900x:
> 
> Memsettings are stable for 3733Mhz cl16 1.45V
> 
> Now i wanna get 3800 1900 stable. mem is no problem. just push a bit more volt like 1.46 and its ok BUT..
> The IF isnt playing fine with me
> SOC auto(1.1V 1.09 while running)
> vddp 950
> 
> vddg:
> 1050 booting and.... a bit stable. like benching.nothing long
> 1000 not booting
> 950 not booting
> 900 booting but not stable
> 890 booting and short memtest stable
> 
> any tipps to get it stable? more soc, less soc wont really work.
> 
> can i push more vddg without problems? Watercooled the cpu. really want it, but without killing the chip in the next 3-4 years


You can try up to 1.1vggd. But unfortunately it seems like your CPU simply isn't good enough for 1900. There's nothing you can do about that really except the 1.1v. If your are concerned with longevity I personally would leave it at 1833 and get the timings as tight as possible.


----------



## Streetdragon

what would be a good stresstest to check the IF for stability?


----------



## MehlstaubtheCat

https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/


----------



## Saiger0

MehlstaubtheCat said:


> https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/


No that doesn't stress the IF enough. Gaming or a big render would be better.


----------



## Diablo-D3

When trying to use above 3466 on Micron B-Die, the calculator says "not supported"; also, at any speed, only Safe seems to work, Fast and Extreme say coming soon.


----------



## mongoled

Hynixclub said:


> I've tried a bit more since last time, gotten nowhere. Since I was ignored last time for perhaps too long a post, I'll make this one more to the point:
> 
> Ryzen 1700 3.6 Ghz, Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3. RAM: 1.36 - 1.37V, CPU SoC: 1.087V (_"normal", can't go lower_), CPU VCORE: slight negative offset to keep it around 1.2v under load. RAM is Hynix AFR 3200CL16: Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 8+8Gb Single Rank. RAM is 3200 XMP, but set to 2933.
> 
> Attached are the suggested "manual" timings (_+ProcODT: 60, RZQ/7, RZQ/4, CAD: 20/20/20/20_) vs what I have.
> 
> It passed the tests: 8x memtest86, 20x TM5 1usmus V3, 400% per thread HCI Memtest. I was preparing to run Prime95 overnight at 512-4096 FTT, 12288 memory usage and 16 threads. After restarting a few times to change the fan settings (_because of the absolutely garbage VRM on this board - never again, Gigabyte_), I let it run at what I thought were the final fan settings. VRMs didn't climb too fast, it would make it. So I left, got back (10 minutes) and the screens were cycling through sources (no signal). PC was still running, but no alt+F4'ing helped. Pressing the power button didn't work. So I forced it to shut down by holding the button, which did work.
> 
> My software RAID will have a fun afternoon of thrashing itself re-syncing tomorrow. After that is finished, is there anything left to try? Thanks.


Mate,

sorry, but I went through your post three times but I didnt see a question in there ??

I am guessing you are asking if there is anything else you can do to get it stable ???

As you have mentioned the VRM, maybe all the stress testing has reduced the stability of the motherboard ..........


----------



## Sphex_

ForTheRepublic said:


> I'm using four memory modules...
> 
> ...Update: I tried what you suggested and set the memory clock down to 2133 MHz but kept the DRAM Calc. safe timings. Reboot was successful with no failure during POST. At least that's something. Now it's just a matter of how close to 3200 MHz I can achieve, I suppose. Thanks for the advice.


Didn't realize you were using four DIMMs. The first iteration of Ryzen really had a tough time running 4 DIMMs at their rated speed. Even Zen+ was a little sketchy. This is most likely why you can't boot at 3200 MHz. Perhaps a boot voltage option would help, but that feature will probably never been added to your board. We're not even sure if it would be necessary as I can't find any information on whether or not the board's default DRAM voltage during boot is different from what you set in the BIOS. Too many unknowns.


Anyways, I'm glad that you're able to boot at 2133 MHz with the Safe timings. Keep me updated as to the maximum frequency you're able to achieve. From there we could work on trying to get things stable.


----------



## starrbuck

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I'm glad this helped you! More proof that a RAM fan can increase stability on B-Die!


Absolutely true. After a long gaming session last night, my DIMMs got up to 40.5C and 39.5C and they were completely stable at 3733.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> Didn't realize you were using four DIMMs. The first iteration of Ryzen really had a tough time running 4 DIMMs at their rated speed. Even Zen+ was a little sketchy. This is most likely why you can't boot at 3200 MHz. Perhaps a boot voltage option would help, but that feature will probably never been added to your board. We're not even sure if it would be necessary as I can't find any information on whether or not the board's default DRAM voltage during boot is different from what you set in the BIOS. Too many unknowns.


Oh I see. This explains a lot. I'm really glad AMD is giving Intel some serious competition with their Ryzen platform, but good lord its inception seems to have been riddled with headaches and limitations that never got ironed out to this day; oh well, to be expected I suppose. I think I will stick with the 4 DIMM configuration since I already paid for the RAM and I'd rather lose a little bit of performance than let $200+ go to waste collecting dust haha . Not to mention, I just prefer the aesthetic of 4/4 DIMM slots occupied on the motherboard vs 2/4 if that makes any sense; and I know some people find it garish, but I really find the RGB modules to be quite the eye-candy. It does pain me to lose the extra performance, but there are just not enough pros vs cons to justify going down to 2 DIMMS in my opinion.




Sphex_ said:


> Anyways, I'm glad that you're able to boot at 2133 MHz with the Safe timings. Keep me updated as to the maximum frequency you're able to achieve. From there we could work on trying to get things stable.


 Thanks a bunch for the help!:thumb: I was able to go up to 2933 MHz without getting the boot failures [*Edit: never mind, my computer actually hates me and the boot failures are back!] that I was before (the next step up, 3000 MHz still gave a boot failure during POST); not bad I guess. However, something strange is that my bios did reset itself to default and erase all my saved profiles after a cold boot a few times, requiring me to clear the CMOS in order to get them back. I'm hoping it doesn't keep happening, and that this is just product of the RAM training taking place for the new settings, because even at 3200 MHz, I never once experienced this happening that I can recall (maybe one time when I was first attempting 3200 MHz); the boot failures I was getting at 3200 MHz, while annoying, at least weren't as tedious as having to perform a CMOS clear procedure. [*See Update below]


Well anyway, in the meantime while that aspect is yet to be determined, and since I am able to boot at 2933 MHz consistently (barring those few exceptions [Edit: Never mind. *See Update below]), I went ahead and plugged in the *"fast" preset* timings from the DRAM calculator and did some memory testing while I was at work today; the results seem promising.



TM5, 1usmus's configuration, 1.7 Gb x16, completed in 48 min: 0 errors found.
MEMbench, Memtest mode, 30 200 MB / 16 threads, ~16 000% / 11.5 hours : 0 errors found.
 I will run some more stress tests later with OCCT and/or LinX, but I'm pretty satisfied with this stability for now. [Edit:... ] 

Again, thanks so much for the helpful insights. I was getting extremely frustrated with getting nowhere in my attempts to boot at 3200 MHz.

*UPDATE:

**So, literally after I finished typing this post out, I decided to reboot the PC a few times as a test to determine if the bios-wipe / resetting issue had went away or if it would persist. Well, the good news is that I think I was correct in surmising that it was only an intermittent, temporary issue that would go away once the RAM training algorithm did its thing. However, now the dreaded boot failure error is back with 100% consistency. I even reverted back to the "safe" timings preset @2933 MHz, which initially posed no issue in booting (aside from aforementioned bios clears); however, to no avail; same for bumping up the DRAM voltage. So frustrating... Back to the drawing board. Ugh.*​















I do have one additional question that I'm curious about that maybe you or someone else could shed some light on, pertaining to the DRAM termination voltage (DDR VTT). From what I understand, this value is typically set to one-half of the DRAM voltage; now, my question is, as follows:

Do I want to set the termination voltage in the bios to one-half of what my DRAM voltage setting in bios is, or do I want to set it to one-half of what my *actual* DRAM voltage is according to sensor readout (via HWinfo64). For example, I have my DRAM voltage set to 1.34 V in bios and therefore my DDR VTT is set in the bios to (1.34 V / 2 ) = 0.670 V, but my actual voltage reading from HWinfo is about *1.356 V* on average, and my DDR VTT comes in at *0.660 V* (x 2 = 1.32 V); do I want to maybe bump up the DRAM Termination voltage in the bios so that my sensor reading DDR VTT is closer to the *0.678 V* that it should be based on my true *1.356 V* DRAM voltage?


----------



## Sphex_

ForTheRepublic said:


> Thanks a bunch for the help!:thumb: I was able to go up to 2933 MHz without getting the boot failures that I was before (the next step up, 3000 MHz still gave a boot failure during POST); not bad I guess. However, something strange is that my bios did reset itself to default and erase all my saved profiles after a cold boot a few times, requiring me to clear the CMOS in order to get them back. I'm hoping it doesn't keep happening, and that this is just product of the RAM training taking place for the new settings, because even at 3200 MHz, I never once experienced this happening that I can recall (maybe one time when I was first attempting 3200 MHz); the boot failures I was getting at 3200 MHz, while annoying, at least weren't as tedious as having to perform a CMOS clear procedure.
> 
> Well anyway, in the meantime while that aspect is yet to be determined, and since I am able to boot at 2933 MHz consistently (barring those few exceptions), I went ahead and plugged in the *"fast" preset* timings from the DRAM calculator and did some memory testing while I was at work today; the results seem promising.
> 
> 
> 
> TM5, 1usmus's configuration, 1.7 Gb x16, completed in 48 min: 0 errors found.
> MEMbench, Memtest mode, 30 200 MB / 16 threads, ~16 000% / 11.5 hours : 0 errors found.
> I do have one additional question that I'm curious about that maybe you or someone else could shed some light on, pertaining to the DRAM termination voltage (DDR VTT). From what I understand, this value is typically set to one-half of the DRAM voltage; now, my question is, as follows:
> 
> Do I want to set the termination voltage in the bios to one-half of what my DRAM voltage setting in bios is, or do I want to set it to one-half of what my *actual* DRAM voltage is according to sensor readout (via HWinfo64). For example, I have my DRAM voltage set to 1.34 V in bios and therefore my DDR VTT is set in the bios to (1.34 V / 2 ) = 0.670 V, but my actual voltage reading from HWinfo is about *1.356 V* on average, and my DDR VTT comes in at *0.660 V* (x 2 = 1.32 V); do I want to maybe bump up the DRAM Termination voltage in the bios so that my sensor reading DDR VTT is closer to the *0.678 V* that it should be based on my true *1.356 V* DRAM voltage?


2933 MHz is on par with what others are usually able to achieve on First Gen Ryzen with four DIMMs, so that might be your absolute limit. If you felt compelled, you can try 3000 MHz or 3133 MHz with the same "Fast" timings if those steps are available. If you're bored one day, I'd give it a shot just to see what happens. Glad that I could help with with the issue. I know it's frustrating to not have your RAM run at their rated speed but it's the nature of the beast with First Gen Ryzen.

Your motherboard has a Dual BIOS, so what you experienced with your settings being "wiped" and having to reset the CMOS was the board actually just booting to the backup BIOS for some weird reason. Hopefully this doesn't happen again, I can't imagine why it would, but it might be a good idea to save profile of your current settings (after you determine that your memory is stable) to a flash drive. This way if the board does boot to the backup BIOS again, you can connect the flash drive and load the profile and reboot. Afterwards, both the primary and secondary BIOS will have the same settings and it won't matter which one it boots from. 

As for DRAM VTT and voltage readings, the motherboard should be setting this automatically. You could always raise it a little if you'd like but I'd honestly leave it alone. The setting you have in the BIOS is most likely the correct and accurate voltage compared to HWinfo or other monitoring programs. Interestingly enough, this issue exists on other Gigabyte X570 boards where the voltage readout in HWinfo will be lower than what is set in the BIOS but when using a multimeter to physically measure the voltage for yourself, it will read out nearly identical to what's set in the BIOS (https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...570-aorus-owners-thread-230.html#post28130884). So the Super I/O chip that Gigabyte uses for a lot of their boards is pretty inaccurate when it comes to voltage reporting sometimes. This is acknowledged by people like Buildzoid (Actually Hardcore Overclocking). Tl;DR Leave termination voltage alone, the motherboard will do the work for you. The voltage readout by HWinfo is most likely inaccurate.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> 2933 MHz is on par with what others are usually able to achieve on First Gen Ryzen with four DIMMs, so that might be your absolute limit. If you felt compelled, you can try 3000 MHz or 3133 MHz with the same "Fast" timings if those steps are available. If you're bored one day, I'd give it a shot just to see what happens. Glad that I could help with with the issue. I know it's frustrating to not have your RAM run at their rated speed but it's the nature of the beast with First Gen Ryzen.


Unfortunately, it appears that 2933 MHz is giving me boot problems as well. I just made an edit to my post and then saw that you had replied to it. I thought I would be able to get the new information into that post before you saw it but you were too fast haha.



Sphex_ said:


> Your motherboard has a Dual BIOS, so what you experienced with your settings being "wiped" and having to reset the CMOS was the board actually just booting to the backup BIOS for some weird reason. Hopefully this doesn't happen again, I can't imagine why it would, but it might be a good idea to save profile of your current settings (after you determine that your memory is stable) to a flash drive. This way if the board does boot to the backup BIOS again, you can connect the flash drive and load the profile and reboot. Afterwards, both the primary and secondary BIOS will have the same settings and it won't matter which one it boots from.


Oh I see. I never would have thought it would boot into the second bios by itself; I thought the board had a toggle somewhere (never looked into it to be honest, but I do remember reading that it was a feature of the board) [Edit: indeed there is a toggle switch; two of them precisely: one switch toggles which bios to boot from, primary or secondary, and the other toggle switch either enables dual-bios mode or sets it to single-bios mode]. Strange. I will go ahead and save the profile to a USB in that case.



Sphex_ said:


> As for DRAM VTT and voltage readings, the motherboard should be setting this automatically. You could always raise it a little if you'd like but I'd honestly leave it alone. The setting you have in the BIOS is most likely the correct and accurate voltage compared to HWinfo or other monitoring programs. Interestingly enough, this issue exists on other Gigabyte X570 boards where the voltage readout in HWinfo will be lower than what is set in the BIOS but when using a multimeter to physically measure the voltage for yourself, it will read out nearly identical to what's set in the BIOS (https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...570-aorus-owners-thread-230.html#post28130884). So the Super I/O chip that Gigabyte uses for a lot of their boards is pretty inaccurate when it comes to voltage reporting sometimes. This is acknowledged by people like Buildzoid (Actually Hardcore Overclocking). Tl;DR Leave termination voltage alone, the motherboard will do the work for you. The voltage readout by HWinfo is most likely inaccurate.


Well then, that is concerning. I always thought that the lower voltage that I was observing in HWinfo (DRAM voltage is the only parameter that appears to be higher in HWinfo as opposed to lower compared to the bios setting) relative to my setting in the bios was a result of the Vdroop phenomenon, but can't really argue with a multi-meter measurement. If that's the case, I'm wondering now if I have my SOC voltage set too high, which might be contributing to my issues perhaps (not sure if it would affect the boot stability if set too high). I currently have it set at 1.04_something_ V [Edit: *1.04375 V*] with a *medium LLC* in the bios in order to achieve a HWinfo readout of 1.031 V. I'll go ahead and put the termination voltage back on auto for sure at least.

This Gigabyte motherboard is panning out to be an unfriendly choice for a novice at overclocking such as myself  .


----------



## ForTheRepublic

I just tried stepping down on the memory clock to 2866 MHz , "safe" timings preset, and now even that doesn't want to cooperate from cold boot either. I'm so confused. 2933 MHz was able to pass POST and boot to OS from system restart and cold boot multiple times yesterday, so I thought for sure I had found the upper limit. Secondly, after lowering my memory clock and rebooting, I once again experienced the secondary bios loading instead of the primary bios (presumably due to failure to boot / train the RAM), so I attempted loading my USB-saved profile from the primary bios and discovered that the secondary bios is a different version than the primary (makes sense considering I only ever flashed the primary bios and never touched the secondary), and therefore the profile will not load unless I update it to the matching version. I will go ahead and do that, but it's getting late and I don't want to attempt it while I'm sleepy in case I goof something, so I'll do it tomorrow .


----------



## Sphex_

ForTheRepublic said:


> Unfortunately, it appears that 2933 MHz is giving me boot problems as well. I just made an edit to my post and then saw that you had replied to it. I thought I would be able to get the new information into that post before you saw it but you were too fast haha.


Pretty disappointing that you're having these issues . I thought for sure we were onto something there.



ForTheRepublic said:


> Well then, that is concerning. I always thought that the lower voltage that I was observing in HWinfo (DRAM voltage is the only parameter that appears to be higher in HWinfo as opposed to lower compared to the bios setting) relative to my setting in the bios was a result of the Vdroop phenomenon, but can't really argue with a multi-meter measurement. If that's the case, I'm wondering now if I have my SOC voltage set too high, which might be contributing to my issues perhaps (not sure if it would affect the boot stability if set too high). I currently have it set at 1.04_something_ V [Edit: *1.04375 V*] with a *medium LLC* in the bios in order to achieve a HWinfo readout of 1.031 V. I'll go ahead and put the termination voltage back on auto for sure at least.
> This Gigabyte motherboard is panning out to be an unfriendly choice for a novice at overclocking such as myself  .


If you have your vSOC set to 1.04375 V it* IS* 1.04375 V. If anything your vSOC might be a little low. I'd try bumping that up to 1.1V or so. 1.2V is the maximum for First Gen Ryzen so you'll be fine. It definitely helps with memory overclocking, so perhaps this will aid in ensuring your kit boots reliably at 2933 MHz. It's possible that you've lost the silicon lottery here and the memory controller on your CPU is a little on the weak side. Either way, it's worth a shot. I promise you things smooth out as Ryzen matures (2nd, 3rd Gen CPUs and X470, X570 boards). I know that would require you to purchase new hardware, but this is part of being an "early adopter". :/



ForTheRepublic said:


> I just tried stepping down on the memory clock to 2866 MHz , "safe" timings preset, and now even that doesn't want to cooperate from cold boot either. I'm so confused. 2933 MHz was able to pass POST and boot to OS from system restart and cold boot multiple times yesterday, so I thought for sure I had found the upper limit. Secondly, after lowering my memory clock and rebooting, I once again experienced the secondary bios loading instead of the primary bios (presumably due to failure to boot / train the RAM), so I attempted loading my USB-saved profile from the primary bios and discovered that the secondary bios is a different version than the primary (makes sense considering I only ever flashed the primary bios and never touched the secondary), and therefore the profile will not load unless I update it to the matching version. I will go ahead and do that, but it's getting late and I don't want to attempt it while I'm sleepy in case I goof something, so I'll do it tomorrow .


Definitely either update both BIOSes to the same version (when you have time) or use that switch you mentioned earlier and set the motherboard to utilize only one BIOS for now. I'm starting to think that all of your trouble are because of the BIOS, and not necessarily the CPU but we need to try everything. What version of BIOS are you using? I beleive that F25 was the last one released before they started releasing BIOSes for Second Gen Ryzen.


----------



## Korrektor

Sphex_ said:


> 2933 MHz is on par with what others are usually able to achieve on First Gen Ryzen with four DIMMs


I'd like to insert my two cents here - recently upgraded to 3700x with x570 Aorus Elite and my 1700x + X370 taichi went to other PC. For that config I purchased 4x8 rev E. from Micron (Crucial Basllistix that is very popular nowadays). I had no time to mess around with the settings and tweak the timings too much (as that PC doesn't even have high-end GPU, only RX570) so I just copypasted 3466 safe settings (cl16) from the calc and 1.4 volts, and it worked without issues, passed 4+ hours of testing. I was quite shocked because I always was struggling to drive my 2x16 dual b-dies on that board higher than 3200 with fast timings and had a lot of stability issues until a very precise tweaking was done

I think its because of the T-topology that Taichi had. It also failed horribly to boot with this 2x16 kit and 3700x (this is why I basically upgraded the board ;\ ).
So in this case I tend to think it can be related to the topology (idk how that x370 gigabyte board is built) or there are some settings that guy is missing

And as for additional RAM cooling someone mentioned here recently - yep it definitely helps for stability, after *removing the front Noctua D15 fan* and disabling RGB's I got about 5-7 degrees reduction for RAM temps and now I never pass 40 degrees in daily usage (maybe up to 42 in stress-tests). Now running 3466c14 @ 1.43 fast preset for this duals, don't know if I should push them further. To run 3466c14 I made a few changes from the suggested calc values (tFaw 20 instead of 16 and something else)


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> Pretty disappointing that you're having these issues . I thought for sure we were onto something there.
> 
> 
> If you have your vSOC set to 1.04375 V it* IS* 1.04375 V. If anything your vSOC might be a little low. I'd try bumping that up to 1.1V or so. 1.2V is the maximum for First Gen Ryzen so you'll be fine. It definitely helps with memory overclocking, so perhaps this will aid in ensuring your kit boots reliably at 2933 MHz. It's possible that you've lost the silicon lottery here and the memory controller on your CPU is a little on the weak side. Either way, it's worth a shot.


Gotcha. Indeed, I did used to have my SOC set much higher, closer to the 1.2 V upper limit, initially starting of with 1.1 V according to the research that i did; that is, until I found the DRAM Calculator, which recommends 1.025 V and a max of 1.05 V for my particular RAM, and upon also learning that excessive voltage settings, while not "excessive" in the sense that they will cause hardware damage/failure/premature deterioration, may have a negative impact on system stability, and therefore I lowered it in an attempt to stay within the DRAM calculator's recommendation. I will attempt increasing back up 1.1 V if other avenues do not pan out, but I think you may be on to something about the bios being the source of the problem (more on that further on).



Sphex_ said:


> I promise you things smooth out as Ryzen matures (2nd, 3rd Gen CPUs and X470, X570 boards). I know that would require you to purchase new hardware, but this is part of being an "early adopter". :/


Yes, unfortunately I just ended up in an awkward time for building a new PC. My old one was long overdue for an upgrade and on its last legs to be quite honest, and I really wanted to go with an AMD build after hearing all the positive things about their new innovations with Ryzen, and the fact that Intel, having such market dominance for so long was frankly overpriced for the performance offered in my view. I would have liked to have waited until at least the second generation, but that was too long, so I settled for just waiting out the initial launch period of the Ryzen platform to allow time for motherboard manufacturers to address a lot of the issues at its inception.

Considering how much I invested into my current PC using the first gen Ryzen CPU, namely the fact that I'm using an EK monoblock for liquid cooling of the processor and MOSFET via a custom loop, which will be incompatible with subsequent newer chipset motherboards corresponding to the later generations of Ryzen, I want my current build to last quite a few years more until I consider an upgrade.

TL;DR: invested too much in my current build to consider upgrading so soon, but I will definitely stick with Ryzen in the future despite current troubles.




Sphex_ said:


> Definitely either update both BIOSes to the same version (when you have time) or use that switch you mentioned earlier and set the motherboard to utilize only one BIOS for now. I'm starting to think that all of your trouble are because of the BIOS, and not necessarily the CPU but we need to try everything. What version of BIOS are you using? I beleive that F25 was the last one released before they started releasing BIOSes for Second Gen Ryzen.


I think you may be right. I'm using version F30 (primary); secondary bios was all the way back at F4. 

However I noticed something that might be key when looking into this: The description notes for bios version F30 on Gigabyte's website specify that AMD chipset drivers should be updated to version *18.50.16.01 *or later prior to updating to that version of the bios. Now, I'm not 100% sure what my current chipset version is (apparently it can be found in the device manger under system devices, but I'm not finding it), but the chipset installer executable file that I have saved in my storage folder (presumably it's the one that I used) is version *18.50.0422 *which does not meet that criteria unless I am mistaken (a little bit confusing since they weren't consistent with how they numbered the versions xx.xx.xx.xx vs xx.xx.xxxx).

In any case, I went ahead and just downloaded the latest x370 chipset drivers directly from AMDs website instead of whatever Gigabyte has (when I last updated bios when I first built the PC, I probably just assumed that I had the latest version of chipset drivers based on whatever was available from Gigabyte's website and disregarded that notice :doh. So I'll go ahead and install those before I perform any more bios flashes.


----------



## mongoled

starrbuck said:


> Absolutely true. After a long gaming session last night, my DIMMs got up to 40.5C and 39.5C and they were completely stable at 3733.


Ive seen this stuff being posted more regularly,

if you need to cool you RAM down for it to be stable it means that you are on borderline stability



There is no doubt that cooling your RAM will help in such cases, as we know in general, cooling electronics helps with keeping things working within certain tolerances.

I am one of those that can run my B-die over 50C+ and do not have problems with stability, I only have problems if I am pushing on borderline stability.


----------



## mongoled

@ForTheRepublic

Have you tried to play with your RAM positioning ?

You have slots 1,2,3 & 4

You have RAM sticks, A,B,C & D

Putting

A into 1, B into 2, C into 3 & D into 4

has a strong possibility to give you different results/characteristics then putting

B into 1, A into 2, C into 3 & D into 4

etc etc

Case example,

with my RAM sticks I cant post with CL14 @ 3800mhz with my two RAM sticks in a certain order, if I switch the RAM stick around I can post with CL14 @ 3800mhz


----------



## 67091

And again thank you for this great software. Sorry to be rude but i was wondering if anyone could give me some help here.
Now to my problem I a 3700X on a MSI X570 ACE mobo with 2X G.Skill F4-3200C14-8GTZR Total 32Gb ram, lastest bios and all that jazz.
Can someone please tell me what this error means . I know i'm running 10 passes not the normal 4 but i only get this error after 6 or so passes.
Kind Regards


----------



## ForTheRepublic

mongoled said:


> @*ForTheRepublic*
> 
> Have you tried to play with your RAM positioning ?
> 
> You have slots 1,2,3 & 4
> 
> You have RAM sticks, A,B,C & D
> 
> Putting
> 
> A into 1, B into 2, C into 3 & D into 4
> 
> has a strong possibility to give you different results/characteristics then putting
> 
> B into 1, A into 2, C into 3 & D into 4
> 
> etc etc
> 
> Case example,
> 
> with my RAM sticks I cant post with CL14 @ 3800mhz with my two RAM sticks in a certain order, if I switch the RAM stick around I can post with CL14 @ 3800mhz


I have not tried this. But like I said in an earlier post, my 4 DIMMS consist of two separate kits of the same model/type, but one of the kits model ID has an "X" signifying that it's meant for Ryzen.

Slot #4 (CH A): F4-3200C14-8GTZR 
Slot #2 (CH B): F4-3200C14-8GTZRX
Slot #3 (CH A): F4-3200C14-8GTZR
Slot #1 (CH B): F4-3200C14-8GTZRX

I thought it best to keep the DIMMs that came as part of the same kit on the same memory channel with one another, so I guess I could swap which DIMM kit is in CH A with CH B. It's just strange that something as simple as that could produce a different outcome, so I didn't think to try it.

-------------------------

This is the update as to my troubleshooting procedures progress:

I went ahead and updated my AMD x370 chipset drivers to the latest version available (1.9.27.1033), restarted PC, loaded optimized default bios settings, and then proceeded to flash both my primary and secondary bios to version F30 (I couldn't sleep after all). From there, I re-created a profile from scratch (in case the one I had saved on USB was invalid for whatever reason), attempted 2933 MHz with safe-preset timings and the termination block resistance configuration that I determined to be stable through prior testing. Rebooting still either gives a boot failure warning or outright clears the CMOS and resets the bios back to default.

So from there, I tried the same thing, but I ramped up my VCORE SOC voltage, starting at 1.1 V up to just under 1.2 V in two step increments in between reboots, with my DRAM voltage set to 1.4 V. Same outcome: boot failures / CMOS clears for days. So, I guess I'll drop the memory clock all the way back down to default, but keep the safe timings again and see how high I can achieve before boot failures start to arise, as I did before. After that, I guess I'll try moving around DIMMs to different slots, or maybe just saying F*** it and ditch 2 of them to at least see where that can get me.


----------



## mongoled

ForTheRepublic said:


> snip..........I thought it best to keep the DIMMs that came as part of the same kit on the same memory channel with one another, so I guess I could swap which DIMM kit is in CH A with CH B. It's just strange that something as simple as that could produce a different outcome, so I didn't think to try it.............snip


Yes its extremely strange.

I went through 10+ hours troubleshooting with the new abba BIOS to think about trying that as I was tearing my hair about the loss in memory stability moving to abba 

Especially when the kit is a dual stick kit!

Just swapping round the modules also allowed the PC to post with 3800/1900, other than the CL14 issue, 

also with the RAM in the 'incorrect' order the highest CL14 post was 2933 mhz, compared to 3800 mhz !!

So you could play around to see, wont take you long to work it out

:thumb:


----------



## CoccoBill

For reference, I have 4x GSkill FlareX 3200C14 on an Asus Prime X370-Pro with a Ryzen 1600. The highest I've been able to get is 3000C14 with 1.45V, but that isn't 100% stable so I'm running them at 2400C14 1.35V. Lot's of wasted potential, but the only real fix seems to be a Zen2, and I'm currently deciding between a 3700X which I currently really don't need, or waiting for the Zen2+ next year.


----------



## SaccoSVD

Trident Z Neo 3600 CL16, 64GB, 4dimm kit.

Here's some out of the box info about my new kit, for those interested. If you have any thought and know how to OC it please let me know. So far I haven't been succesful trying to tighten the timings.

I also included the results the DRAM calc gives...in case 1usmus wants to review them and adjust the calc if he sees something wrong. (attached Thaiphoon burner HTML report)


----------



## TelaKeppi

So according to Taiphoon Burner my G.SKill Trident Z RGB 3600 CL17 32Gb kit is Hynix DJR. What memory type I should use? There's a template only for Hynix CJR.


----------



## Sphex_

ForTheRepublic said:


> TL;DR: invested too much in my current build to consider upgrading so soon, but I will definitely stick with Ryzen in the future despite current troubles.


Totally understand.




ForTheRepublic said:


> I think you may be right. I'm using version F30 (primary); secondary bios was all the way back at F4.
> 
> However I noticed something that might be key when looking into this: The description notes for bios version F30 on Gigabyte's website specify that AMD chipset drivers should be updated to version *18.50.16.01 *or later prior to updating to that version of the bios. Now, I'm not 100% sure what my current chipset version is (apparently it can be found in the device manger under system devices, but I'm not finding it), but the chipset installer executable file that I have saved in my storage folder (presumably it's the one that I used) is version *18.50.0422 *which does not meet that criteria unless I am mistaken (a little bit confusing since they weren't consistent with how they numbered the versions xx.xx.xx.xx vs xx.xx.xxxx).
> 
> In any case, I went ahead and just downloaded the latest x370 chipset drivers directly from AMDs website instead of whatever Gigabyte has (when I last updated bios when I first built the PC, I probably just assumed that I had the latest version of chipset drivers based on whatever was available from Gigabyte's website and disregarded that notice :doh. So I'll go ahead and install those before I perform any more bios flashes.


Chipset driver doesn't effect anything before the computer POSTs, only how the operating system interacts with the CPU and other elements of the chipset. But I'm glad you've made sure you're up-to-date on those. All of the motherboard vendors are behind on chipset driver releases usually and on top of that they name them weird names that don't coincide with AMD's naming scheme at all. ALWAYS download your chipset drivers directly from AMD. The latest version as of this post is 1.9.27.1033.

Now, back to trying to get your RAM stable on boot. When I had a Gigabyte B350 board, it was particularly sensitive to ProcODT. I've noticed that the settings that the calculator are spitting out when it comes to the Termination Block (ProcODT, and RTT_Park, NOM, WR) are quite different from what people have been able to get stable when it comes to X370 boards (Gigabyte and ASUS boards) with R7 1700 and R5 1600 CPUs. A lot of people, including myself, had to set ProcODT somewhere north of 53 Ohms. Check out this community First Gen Ryzen RAM Overclocking sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKPVfDcFO-aieAOXHFQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit?usp=sharing You can see from the sheet that it seems like the sweet spot is 60 Ohms +/- one step when delaing with Samsung B-Die. Meanwhile the calculator is recommending a ProcODT of 48. So lets try bumping that up to 60 Ohms and go from there. Additionally, notice where everyone's SOC voltages are, seems like a lot of people settled on 1.075 V. Now, when it comes to the rest of the termination block settings, the Calculator spits out settings that a lot of people use but I've noticed that others have had some luck with completely different settings when it comes to Samsung B-Die on X370 chipsets. 34 Ω / 80 Ω / 240 Ω (RTT_NOM, WR, PARK) respectively. Perhaps that might work better. On two boards I've owned since making the jump to Ryzen, setting the wrong ProcODT did one of two things. Either failed to boot and triggered a memory training boot loop or threw errors like crazy in MemTest (before even booting to Windows). 

To Summarize: 



ProcODT to 60 Ohms (+/- one step)
Raise SOC Voltage to ~1.075 V
RTT_NOM, RTT_WR, RTT_PARK to 34 Ω / 80 Ω / 240 Ω respectively.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> Now, back to trying to get your RAM stable on boot. When I had a Gigabyte B350 board, it was particularly sensitive to ProcODT. I've noticed that the settings that the calculator are spitting out when it comes to the Termination Block (ProcODT, and RTT_Park, NOM, WR) are quite different from what people have been able to get stable when it comes to X370 boards (Gigabyte and ASUS boards) with R7 1700 and R5 1600 CPUs. A lot of people, including myself, had to set ProcODT somewhere north of 53 Ohms. Check out this community First Gen Ryzen RAM Overclocking sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKPVfDcFO-aieAOXHFQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit?usp=sharing You can see from the sheet that it seems like the sweet spot is 60 Ohms +/- one step when delaing with Samsung B-Die. Meanwhile the calculator is recommending a ProcODT of 48. So lets try bumping that up to 60 Ohms and go from there. Additionally, notice where everyone's SOC voltages are, seems like a lot of people settled on 1.075 V. Now, when it comes to the rest of the termination block settings, the Calculator spits out settings that a lot of people use but I've noticed that others have had some luck with completely different settings when it comes to Samsung B-Die on X370 chipsets. 34 Ω / 80 Ω / 240 Ω (RTT_NOM, WR, PARK) respectively. Perhaps that might work better. On two boards I've owned since making the jump to Ryzen, setting the wrong ProcODT did one of two things. Either failed to boot and triggered a memory training boot loop or threw errors like crazy in MemTest (before even booting to Windows).
> 
> To Summarize:
> 
> 
> 
> ProcODT to 60 Ohms (+/- one step)
> Raise SOC Voltage to ~1.075 V
> RTT_NOM, RTT_WR, RTT_PARK to 34 Ω / 80 Ω / 240 Ω respectively.


Hmm, interesting. Everything I have tested thus far has been more or less within the bounds of the recommendations of the calculator, aside from the DRAM and SOC voltage increases you suggested. I only tried the three procODT values given by the calculator. The recommended 48 Ω gave me errors during testing, so I went to the 43 Ω alternative, which has been very stable as far as not producing errors; I haven't tested the third alternative 53 Ω procODT as extensively as 43 Ω, but it did not give me any errors based on the few hours of testing I did do; however, boot issues persisted regardless, so I've been sticking with 43 Ω up to now. Consequently, I'm hopefully optimistic that it's not a coincidence that not a single person on that Excel sheet using Samsung B-die on x370 boards used 43 Ω for procODT.

With my current settings, it appears that 2733 MHz is the upper limit of what I am able to boot with and not get the boot failure on system restart / cold boot. However even at that it seems like it's *really *struggling during POST / RAM training and takes forever to decide things are ok to initialize bootstrapping into the OS (maybe 10 or 15 seconds sometimes).

I will give those settings a try, and maybe 53 Ω again for ProcODT if the 60 (+/-) does not work out. One thing though, and you'll have to excuse my ignorance here, but my bios gives the RTT termination block settings as RZQ/[1,2,3...etc.] instead of in Ohms; and I only know RZQ/7 = 34 Ω, and RZQ/5 = 48 Ω from the DRAM calculator's outputs. To what do 80 Ω and 240 Ω correspond to in terms of the RZQ/[x] format; or more broadly, what is the relationship so that I can determine what RZQ/[x] to use for a given resistance value in Ohms Ω?

Edit: I just checked my bios and it should be noted that RTT_WR is restricted to the following settings: *RZQ/1*, *RZQ/2*, *RZQ/3*, "*Hi-Z*", and "*Dynamic WR off*", whereas RTT NOM and Park allow a broader range of RZQ/(1-7).


----------



## eBombzor

Could someone explain to me why the jump from 24 CAD BUS CLk DRV to 120 is needed when going from SAFE to FAST on 3733 e-die in the calculator? What are the consequences of running it so high, if any?

For reference, I am running [email protected] (FAST preset) w/ GDM on at 1.35v (e-die 3000/cl15 kit)
3600x w/ 1.05 SOCv
asus x470 prime pro


----------



## Sphex_

ForTheRepublic said:


> Hmm, interesting. Everything I have tested thus far has been more or less within the bounds of the recommendations of the calculator, aside from the DRAM and SOC voltage increases you suggested. I only tried the three procODT values given by the calculator. The recommended 48 Ω gave me errors during testing, so I went to the 43 Ω alternative, which has been very stable as far as not producing errors; I haven't tested the third alternative 53 Ω procODT as extensively as 43 Ω, but it did not give me any errors based on the few hours of testing I did do; however, boot issues persisted regardless, so I've been sticking with 43 Ω up to now. Consequently, I'm hopefully optimistic that it's not a coincidence that not a single person on that Excel sheet using Samsung B-die on x370 boards used 43 Ω for procODT.
> 
> With my current settings, it appears that 2733 MHz is the upper limit of what I am able to boot with and not get the boot failure on system restart / cold boot. However even at that it seems like it's *really *struggling during POST / RAM training and takes forever to decide things are ok to initialize bootstrapping into the OS (maybe 10 or 15 seconds sometimes).
> 
> I will give those settings a try, and maybe 53 Ω again for ProcODT if the 60 (+/-) does not work out. One thing though, and you'll have to excuse my ignorance here, but my bios gives the RTT termination block settings as RZQ/[1,2,3...etc.] instead of in Ohms; and I only know RZQ/7 = 34 Ω, and RZQ/5 = 48 Ω from the DRAM calculator's outputs. To what do 80 Ω and 240 Ω correspond to in terms of the RZQ/[x] format; or more broadly, what is the relationship so that I can determine what RZQ/[x] to use for a given resistance value in Ohms Ω?
> 
> Edit: I just checked my bios and it should be noted that RTT_WR is restricted to the following settings: *RZQ/1*, *RZQ/2*, *RZQ/3*, "*Hi-Z*", and "*Dynamic WR off*", whereas RTT NOM and Park allow a broader range of RZQ/(1-7).


 Ok, a few things. Perhaps you were looking at the wrong sheet, or maybe you weren't specific enough, but there are plenty of people on the "ZEN / ZEN+" sheet running X370 boards with B-Die. Not just the one that you reference with a ProcODT of 43. Give it another look over and you'll see that, for the most part, regardless of motherboard, first gen and even second gen Ryzen CPUs prefer higher ProcODT values. ProcODT, according to 1usmus (writer of the Ryzen DRAM Calc) explains that ProcODT is usually indicative of Motherboard topology and quality. The higher the value, the less optimal the motherboard might be. This does not mean you bought a ****ty motherboard, however. Just wanted to be clear. 

As for Termination Block settings, I apologize. I should've described the values in something other than Ohms. *RZQ == 240*. So when you see RZQ/2 for example, that equals 120 Ω (240 divided by 2). To achieve 34 Ω / 80 Ω / 240 Ω you'd want to input RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> Ok, a few things. Perhaps you were looking at the wrong sheet, or maybe you weren't specific enough, but there are plenty of people on the "ZEN / ZEN+" sheet running X370 boards with B-Die. Not just the one that you reference with a ProcODT of 43. Give it another look over and you'll see that, for the most part, regardless of motherboard, first gen and even second gen Ryzen CPUs prefer higher ProcODT values. ProcODT, according to 1usmus (writer of the Ryzen DRAM Calc) explains that ProcODT is usually indicative of Motherboard topology and quality. The higher the value, the less optimal the motherboard might be. This does not mean you bought a ****ty motherboard, however. Just wanted to be clear.


Yeah, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I could have worded it better; sorry. What I was trying to explain was that, despite the DRAM Calculator listing 43 Ω as one of the suggested values for the ProcODT with *Samsung B-Die *DIMM, *x370/B350* chipset, and *Ryzen Gen 1* as its inputs, I did not observe a single person on the spreadsheet with that particular hardware configuration who had also settled on 43 Ω as their ProcODT, and from this I inferred that my choice to use 43 Ω ProcODT for the most part up until now could very well be the source of my troubles, if not at the very least non-optimal. 

I didn't mean to imply that 43 Ω for ProcODT was common among other DIMM die, chipset, and processor generation combinations within Zen/Zen+ (indeed, the vast majority of the values we can observe are substantially higher, 53 Ω and 60 Ω, as you say); I only intended to note my observation that the handful of people on the sheet who were using 43 Ω, were also using non-B Die DIMMS. But my conclusion was a little off I take it, because as you say, that it's the motherboard topology and quality (I do remember reading that in 1usmus's RAM overclocking guide now that you mention it) more so than the die type (or perhaps the die type has nothing to do with it?) of the DIMM which determines ProcODT resistance parameter.



Sphex_ said:


> As for Termination Block settings, I apologize. I should've described the values in something other than Ohms. *RZQ == 240*. So when you see RZQ/2 for example, that equals 120 Ω (240 divided by 2). To achieve 34 Ω / 80 Ω / 240 Ω you'd want to input RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ/1.


Ah, that demystifies things immeasurably. Thanks!


----------



## ForTheRepublic

So, I set RTT NOM, RTT WR, and RTT Park to 34 Ω, 80 Ω, and 240 Ω, respectively, as suggested and started trying system reboots using ProcODT values of 60 Ω, 69 Ω, and 53 Ω, and stepping up the memory clock frequency by increments until I got a boot failure, testing each of the three ProcODT values in turn at each given frequency to find the upper limit. VCORE SOC: 1.075 V ; DRAM Voltage: 1.42 V

With ProcODT at 60 Ω, I was able to successfully boot from system restart at 2800 MHz, which is a small improvement from my previous 2733 MHz upper limit. When I tried stepping up the frequency once more to 2866 MHz, my Windows OS was corrupted and it sent me into Windows Diagnostic/Recovery Mode, so I'm scared to even try the other two procODT settings at this frequency now. 

So I'm not sure these settings are going to be stable or not, but I thought I'd share this update on my progress for now while I still can lol.

Edit: Errors found with TM5 (1usmus) @ 2800 MHz, ProcODT 60 Ω. Going to try a different ProcODT.


----------



## Sphex_

ForTheRepublic said:


> So, I set RTT NOM, RTT WR, and RTT Park to 34 Ω, 80 Ω, and 240 Ω, respectively, as suggested and started trying system reboots using ProcODT values of 60 Ω, 69 Ω, and 53 Ω, and stepping up the memory clock frequency by increments until I got a boot failure, testing each of the three ProcODT values in turn at each given frequency to find the upper limit. VCORE SOC: 1.075 V ; DRAM Voltage: 1.42 V
> 
> With ProcODT at 60 Ω, I was able to successfully boot from system restart at 2800 MHz, which is a small improvement from my previous 2733 MHz upper limit. When I tried stepping up the frequency once more to 2866 MHz, my Windows OS was corrupted and it sent me into Windows Diagnostic/Recovery Mode, so I'm scared to even try the other two procODT settings at this frequency now.
> 
> So I'm not sure these settings are going to be stable or not, but I thought I'd share this update on my progress for now while I still can lol.
> 
> Edit: Errors found with TM5 (1usmus) @ 2800 MHz, ProcODT 60 Ω. Going to try a different ProcODT.


Please, for the love of God, take a flash drive and install MemTest86 on it. Boot to that and run it for a full pass or two before booting into Windows. Anything more than ZERO errors is bad. This will save your Windows install from getting ****ed by unstable memory. Then boot to windows and run something like TM5. After you find something stable I suggest you run the following commands from command prompt with elevated privileges so you can ensure your Windows install isn't messed up:


Code:


DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth




Code:


sfc /scannow

Run these one after another without reboots in between. They work hand-in-hand, usually. 

And I'm confident we're onto something here with the ProcODT values.


----------



## The_Gamer294

ForTheRepublic said:


> So, I set RTT NOM, RTT WR, and RTT Park to 34 Ω, 80 Ω, and 240 Ω, respectively, as suggested and started trying system reboots using ProcODT values of 60 Ω, 69 Ω, and 53 Ω, and stepping up the memory clock frequency by increments until I got a boot failure, testing each of the three ProcODT values in turn at each given frequency to find the upper limit. VCORE SOC: 1.075 V ; DRAM Voltage: 1.42 V
> 
> With ProcODT at 60 Ω, I was able to successfully boot from system restart at 2800 MHz, which is a small improvement from my previous 2733 MHz upper limit. When I tried stepping up the frequency once more to 2866 MHz, my Windows OS was corrupted and it sent me into Windows Diagnostic/Recovery Mode, so I'm scared to even try the other two procODT settings at this frequency now.
> 
> So I'm not sure these settings are going to be stable or not, but I thought I'd share this update on my progress for now while I still can lol.
> 
> Edit: Errors found with TM5 (1usmus) @ 2800 MHz, ProcODT 60 Ω. Going to try a different ProcODT.



Hey I'm in pretty much the same boat as you. I have 4x F4-3600C15-8GTZ running on a C6H X370 with an 1800X trying to hit 3200MHz CL14. I've been fighting with it all day going through all the same things I just saw you post about haha. 

Here's a screenshot of where I'm at now. I'm sitting at 3000MHz thinking about what to try next. A lot of these are set to "Auto" so some of them might be kinda weird but it is stable and I can stop pulling my hair out tonight. DRAM voltage is probably 1.35V or 1.4V if I didn't leave it on auto, I think our battle is with the memory controller and the ram itself really isn't working too hard. My SOC voltage is set to auto and it reads 1.1375, I'm not sure if it actually needs that much but maybe you could try bumping that. I think the calculator assumes 2 DIMMs?


----------



## Hynixclub

mongoled said:


> [..] I am guessing you are asking if there is anything else you can do to get it stable ???
> 
> As you have mentioned the VRM, maybe all the stress testing has reduced the stability of the motherboard ..........


Yes: "[..]* is there anything left to try?*"

My previous post was this one. Most settings are the same as in that one, only I found out that my motherboard allowed Power Down Mode to be turned off (_hidden something like four levels deep in the "Peripherals" settings category_), which solved the crashing test issue I was having previously, making the questions in the post unimportant at the time of making the new post. Since disabling Power Down Mode, I successfully ran all of the mentioned tests: 8x Memtest86, 20x TM5 1usmus V3, then 400% per thread (x16) HCI Memtest. Lastly, I tried to run Prime95 with a specific setting (_512-4096 FFTs with 75% of avaliable RAM, resulting in a bit over 90%_), but that one made it crash after varying amounts of time, whereas none of the others did a single time.

The only difference between running Prime95 and the other tests, which I forgot to mention in the post, was that I ran HWiNFO at the same time to keep an eye on VRM temps. Reading of most of the values were disabled to reduce load, but maybe it's worth running it entirely without HWiNFO, to see if that's the problem? If HWiNFO _isn't_ the problem, then I have no idea what to do.

As for the VRMs causing problems, no idea. They reached maybe 80c during Prime95, which is toasty for a <100W load, but not dangerous for temporary testing. The hours of previous testing showed no instability or errors, so I really have no idea what could possibly be wrong.


----------



## TelaKeppi

Here's a Taiphoon screenshot from Hynix DJR kit.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> Please, for the love of God, take a flash drive and install MemTest86 on it. Boot to that and run it for a full pass or two before booting into Windows. Anything more than ZERO errors is bad. This will save your Windows install from getting ****ed by unstable memory. Then boot to windows and run something like TM5. After you find something stable I suggest you run the following commands from command prompt with elevated privileges so you can ensure your Windows install isn't messed up:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> sfc /scannow
> 
> Run these one after another without reboots in between. They work hand-in-hand, usually.
> 
> And I'm confident we're onto something here with the ProcODT values.


Ah. Well I do have Memtest on USB already; I guess it would have been a good idea to use it, but I got excited/impatient about the progress. Oops  . I definitely plan to run those commands once I find something stable. 69 Ω ProcODT seems promising. I'll keep testing and update later. Thanks .



The_Gamer294 said:


> Hey I'm in pretty much the same boat as you. I have 4x F4-3600C15-8GTZ running on a C6H X370 with an 1800X trying to hit 3200MHz CL14. I've been fighting with it all day going through all the same things I just saw you post about haha.
> 
> Here's a screenshot of where I'm at now. I'm sitting at 3000MHz thinking about what to try next. A lot of these are set to "Auto" so some of them might be kinda weird but it is stable and I can stop pulling my hair out tonight. DRAM voltage is probably 1.35V or 1.4V if I didn't leave it on auto, I think our battle is with the memory controller and the ram itself really isn't working too hard. My SOC voltage is set to auto and it reads 1.1375, I'm not sure if it actually needs that much but maybe you could try bumping that. I think the calculator assumes 2 DIMMs?


Hmm, yeah I was definitely quite surprised that DRAM calculator's recommendation for SOC voltage was so low, when most of the reading I've done has indicated to set it around 1.1 V. After I've gone as high in memory clock as I can with my current testing, I'll definitely bump it up some more to see if it makes a difference. I think you could be right about the memory controller being the culprit. It's said that the B-Die DIMM is the most well-suited for first gen Ryzen, but here we are struggling with it. AT this point, if I can get to at least 2933 MHz CL14 without errors and boot failures, I think I'll be happy; I'd be ecstatic if I could get 3200 MHz, but my hopes for that have dwindled. Ah oh well. Do let us know if you reach your goal @3200MHz.


----------



## SaccoSVD

Here is my 64GB 4Dimm TridentZ Neo 3600 CL16-19-19-19 running at 3733 CL16-19-19-19

The DRAM calc safe preset helped quite a lot, I could improve the timings a bit further from there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dh30dw/tridentz_neo_64gb_hynix_cjr_at_3733/


----------



## The_Gamer294

ForTheRepublic said:


> Ah. Well I do have Memtest on USB already; I guess it would have been a good idea to use it, but I got excited/impatient about the progress. Oops  . I definitely plan to run those commands once I find something stable. 69 Ω ProcODT seems promising. I'll keep testing and update later. Thanks .
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, yeah I was definitely quite surprised that DRAM calculator's recommendation for SOC voltage was so low, when most of the reading I've done has indicated to set it around 1.1 V. After I've gone as high in memory clock as I can with my current testing, I'll definitely bump it up some more to see if it makes a difference. I think you could be right about the memory controller being the culprit. It's said that the B-Die DIMM is the most well-suited for first gen Ryzen, but here we are struggling with it. AT this point, if I can get to at least 2933 MHz CL14 without errors and boot failures, I think I'll be happy; I'd be ecstatic if I could get 3200 MHz, but my hopes for that have dwindled. Ah oh well. Do let us know if you reach your goal @3200MHz.


I reached my goal and then some. ProcODT did need to go to 53.3. 1.4V DRAM 1.1V SOC and 1.0V-1.1V VDDP. 

What really got me moving is the VDDP bump and the power supply settings from the calculator. I copied them straight from the left side and they just worked. My motherboard minimum for the frequency was 300 I think but the rest are all at the minimums, like LLC 2, CC 110%. That made a HUGE difference. Hopefully you have those settings, I saw that you may not have a startup setting which may hurt you as well, mine is set at 1.4V, but you shouldn't need to be near that high at all unless you try to go 3400MHz+ CL14/15, I think you should play with the power settings.

Now I think I'm reaching a limit here, the calculator suggested fast settings are slightly unstable with no other changes. I think I can at least get a few more MHz but I'm kind of sick of crashing for the time being, maybe this weekend haha



SaccoSVD said:


> Here is my 64GB 4Dimm TridentZ Neo 3600 CL16-19-19-19 running at 3733 CL16-19-19-19
> 
> The DRAM calc safe preset helped quite a lot, I could improve the timings a bit further from there.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dh30dw/tridentz_neo_64gb_hynix_cjr_at_3733/


Ahh if I had just waited for gen 2 at least


----------



## Bartholdi

I'd love to hear from anyone who used the tool succesfully on Samsung B-die 3200MHz CL 16-18-18-36 on the newest agesa Bios x570 MB and Ryzen 3000.


----------



## Cidious

Guys I need Advice! Some serious considering.

I notice my system is running out of RAM while gaming. This is after a day of gaming (Anno 1800 is a ***** with hogging memory btw, BFV and SW:BFII crashed sometimes probably due to a memory leak)

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=300662&thumb=1


So I want to get a bit more ram into the system to future proof for upcoming games etc. But here's the thing. This is my setup:

MSI B450M Mortar
AMD Ryzen R5 3600
Trident Z 3200CL14 B-die @ 3800 CL16


Now I have 2 options within my Budget.

1. Add 2x 8GB B-die to match my current 16GB kit
2. Replace with 2x16GB Trident Z Neo CJR 3600-16-19-19-19


Both are about the same price but here's the thing. My Motherboard has Daisy Chain topology that is notoriously bad for 4 sticks memory OC. I'm not sure if I could get 3800 or even 3733 stable with good timings worthy of B-die and completely miss my goal with the expensive B-Die anyway.
CJR is slower and Doesn't have much headroom for OC and equally I'm not sure if it can go 3800 stable with reasonable timings without loosing too much performance on the 16GB kit. I intend to keep the kit a long time for an upgrade with the next Zen 3 upgrade. Final AM4 processor. At that time I'll probably upgrade motherboard too but not yet. 


Any advice guys?


----------



## ForTheRepublic

The_Gamer294 said:


> I reached my goal and then some. ProcODT did need to go to 53.3. 1.4V DRAM 1.1V SOC and 1.0V-1.1V VDDP.
> 
> What really got me moving is the VDDP bump and the power supply settings from the calculator. I copied them straight from the left side and they just worked. My motherboard minimum for the frequency was 300 I think but the rest are all at the minimums, like LLC 2, CC 110%. That made a HUGE difference. Hopefully you have those settings, I saw that you may not have a startup setting which may hurt you as well, mine is set at 1.4V, but you shouldn't need to be near that high at all unless you try to go 3400MHz+ CL14/15, I think you should play with the power settings.


Wow congrats:thumb:. One thing I have not tried tweaking is the CLDO VDDP voltage. The DRAM Calculator recommendation was 700 mV, which is what my board is set to by default to anyway, but I did notice in the advanced tab of the calculator, under _Debug Voltages_, 900 mV is recommended, so maybe it'd be worthwhile to try that. I have my DRAM voltage at 1.42 V, but I'll turn it down if I can once I find a stable upper limit on the memory frequency; and I did bump my SOC up to 1.1 V from 1.075.

As for the other power settings you said helped you a lot, the only settings my Gigabyte X370 seems to have are the _load-line-calibration _for VCORE and VSOC; and for those I'm already using *Turbo *and *Medium*, respectively. (I'm not sure what numbers those would correspond to on the level # scale; Gigabyte's naming scheme is weird; it goes : Auto, Standard, Low, Normal, Medium, High, Turbo, and then Extreme; so would "Low" be level 0 and "Extreme" be level 5?).

There are no options, at least that I could find, for *Current Capability*, *VRM Switching Frequency*, *Voltage Frequency*, *Power Duty Control*, *Power Phase Control*, or *Manual Adjustment*. I think it _may _have *Power Thermal Control* options, but it's called something else, and I don't think I need to touch that anyway.

Where I'm at right now with my tuning is that I've found ProcODT of 60 Ω, 69 Ω, and 53 Ω are all stable at 2800 MHz CL14 ("safe"-preset timings from the calculator for 3200 MHz), but only 53 Ω is stable (with Memtest86 and TM5-1usmus config so far at least [Edit #1: stable with no errors after 8 hours of MEMbench, 30200 GB / 16 threads.]) if I bump the memory clock frequency up one more level to 2866 MHz (60 and 69 Ω give a ton of errors immediately with memtest86). I was able to cold boot at 2866 MHz with ProcODT 53 Ω, but I don't want to call that "stable" just yet, considering my last experience with thinking I found something that would boot reliably, but turned out not to. [Edit#2: annnd turns out it is in fact another repeat of last time; cold booted PC today and, no boot failure during POST, but Windows went straight into BSOD ("memory management" error code), despite not changing any settings from yesterday, which gave *no errors* after 3 passes in Memtest86 (6 hours), 45 min run of TM5, and 8 hours of MEMbench; so now I'm back to 2800 MHz.]


----------



## The_Gamer294

ForTheRepublic said:


> Wow congrats:thumb:. One thing I have not tried tweaking is the CLDO VDDP voltage. The DRAM Calculator recommendation was 700 mV, which is what my board is set to by default to anyway, but I did notice in the advanced tab of the calculator, under _Debug Voltages_, 900 mV is recommended, so maybe it'd be worthwhile to try that. I have my DRAM voltage at 1.42 V, but I'll turn it down if I can once I find a stable upper limit on the memory frequency; and I did bump my SOC up to 1.1 V from 1.075.
> 
> As for the other power settings you said helped you a lot, the only settings my Gigabyte X370 seems to have are the _load-line-calibration _for VCORE and VSOC; and for those I'm already using *Turbo *and *Medium*, respectively. (I'm not sure what numbers those would correspond to on the level # scale; Gigabyte's naming scheme is weird; it goes : Auto, Standard, Low, Normal, Medium, High, Turbo, and then Extreme; so would "Low" be level 0 and "Extreme" be level 5?).
> 
> There are no options, at least that I could find, for *Current Capability*, *VRM Switching Frequency*, *Voltage Frequency*, *Power Duty Control*, *Power Phase Control*, or *Manual Adjustment*. I think it _may _have *Power Thermal Control* options, but it's called something else, and I don't think I need to touch that anyway.
> 
> Where I'm at right now with my tuning is that I've found ProcODT of 60 Ω, 69 Ω, and 53 Ω are all stable at 2800 MHz CL14 ("safe"-preset timings from the calculator for 3200 MHz), but only 53 Ω is stable (with Memtest86 and TM5-1usmus config so far at least [Edit #1: stable with no errors after 8 hours of MEMbench, 30200 GB / 16 threads.]) if I bump the memory clock frequency up one more level to 2866 MHz (60 and 69 Ω give a ton of errors immediately with memtest86). I was able to cold boot at 2866 MHz with ProcODT 53 Ω, but I don't want to call that "stable" just yet, considering my last experience with thinking I found something that would boot reliably, but turned out not to. [Edit#2: annnd turns out it is in fact another repeat of last time; cold booted PC today and, no boot failure during POST, but Windows went straight into BSOD ("memory management" error code), despite not changing any settings from yesterday, which gave *no errors* after 3 passes in Memtest86 (6 hours), 45 min run of TM5, and 8 hours of MEMbench; so now I'm back to 2800 MHz.]


So I did a quick google and I see a lot of complaints about vdroop with your board. Your ram itself should be more than capable of 3200 CL14 but you could try poking one kit at a time to see if you have a weakness there. I'd just set my timings and raise MHz til it crashes and increase only dram voltage, or even just set it straight to 1.4 and see if it'll boot each kit at 3200 and then 3400.

I think the problem is your board's power supply to the already finicky memory controller and you need to bump a voltage and/or LLC. 53ohm is probably your best bet since it booted a higher MHz. I got 400MHz just from throwing in power settings from the calculator, but I had all those settings in my bios and you don't so you have a little more leg work. Basically your voltage is drooping below a stable point and you have to find which one that is. Increasing the voltage should increase the low point of that droop and LLC tries to compensate for the amount of swing but I read can sometimes overshoot and spike past a safe maximum. I'm not an engineer nor do I have the tools to measure this type of thing so I can't say how far it can actually swing or how extreme the extreme LLC setting will be so you'll just have to try it unless someone else can comment. I just went for it but I'm also prepared to replace parts if I fry anything. It'll give me an excuse to get a better mem controller lol. You should have plenty of headroom voltage-wise though to hit 3200MHz. Maybe try voltages for 3400MHz with a more modest LLC?


----------



## ForTheRepublic

The_Gamer294 said:


> So I did a quick google and I see a lot of complaints about vdroop with your board. Your ram itself should be more than capable of 3200 CL14 but you could try poking one kit at a time to see if you have a weakness there. I'd just set my timings and raise MHz til it crashes and increase only dram voltage, or even just set it straight to 1.4 and see if it'll boot each kit at 3200 and then 3400.
> 
> I think the problem is your board's power supply to the already finicky memory controller and you need to bump a voltage and/or LLC. 53ohm is probably your best bet since it booted a higher MHz. I got 400MHz just from throwing in power settings from the calculator, but I had all those settings in my bios and you don't so you have a little more leg work. Basically your voltage is drooping below a stable point and you have to find which one that is. Increasing the voltage should increase the low point of that droop and LLC tries to compensate for the amount of swing but I read can sometimes overshoot and spike past a safe maximum. I'm not an engineer nor do I have the tools to measure this type of thing so I can't say how far it can actually swing or how extreme the extreme LLC setting will be so you'll just have to try it unless someone else can comment. I just went for it but I'm also prepared to replace parts if I fry anything. It'll give me an excuse to get a better mem controller lol. You should have plenty of headroom voltage-wise though to hit 3200MHz. Maybe try voltages for 3400MHz with a more modest LLC?


Hmm, yeah maybe the LLC for SOC could use adjusting. The calculator suggests level 2 or level 3, but like I said, I'm not really sure how that corresponds to Gigabyte's naming scheme, so I just set it to "Medium" which was my best estimation of what that might be. I think you're right that 53 Ω ProcODT seems like the best bet, and that was my hypothesis too, so I'll stick with that for now. I also increased my VDDP voltage up to 1.1 V (it was 0.8 V before I believe) and lowered my DRAM voltage to 1.4 V. If I still can't get anywhere with that, then I guess I'll have to start messing around with using one kit (2 DIMMs) instead of 2.  The SOC voltage I'm using, 1.1 V is already the suggested voltage from the calculator for 3400 MHz, but there's still headroom to increase it if I need to.


----------



## The_Gamer294

ForTheRepublic said:


> Hmm, yeah maybe the LLC for SOC could use adjusting. The calculator suggests level 2 or level 3, but like I said, I'm not really sure how that corresponds to Gigabyte's naming scheme, so I just set it to "Medium" which was my best estimation of what that might be. I think you're right that 53 Ω ProcODT seems like the best bet, and that was my hypothesis too, so I'll stick with that for now. I also increased my VDDP voltage up to 1.1 V (it was 0.8 V before I believe) and lowered my DRAM voltage to 1.4 V. If I still can't get anywhere with that, then I guess I'll have to start messing around with using one kit (2 DIMMs) instead of 2.  The SOC voltage I'm using, 1.1 V is already the suggested voltage from the calculator for 3400 MHz, but there's still headroom to increase it if I need to.


On second thought my C6H has 5 levels of LLC besides auto, I think you're right and that'd put you at about medium or so. I'd imagine too high or too low could cause issues. For some reason I thought I had only 3 settings...


----------



## Mungojerrie

I think here's the right place to ask:
I have an X570+Ryzen 5 3600 combo and using 2x8GB F4-3600C16D-16GTZR B-Die kit.
Thing is I want to upgrade memory capacity to 32GB. Kits I'm using are out of stock everywhere and 4 DIMMs for Ryzen are suboptimal anyway so I'm bound to get a new 2x16GB kit.

I'm torn between *Micron Rev. E* and *Hynix CJR* ICs. According to what I've read both are good and both work decently with Ryzen. They are also priced kind of the same(~$180-220). 2x16GB B-Die kits are too expensive, usually starting at $400+ mark.

My goal is 3600 MT/S with timings as tight as possible. Which should I go for?

There is also the $300 B-Die kit available - *F4-3000C14D-32GTZR*. What bothers me is I've read that 3000 MT/S B-Die bins are quite bad and not reliable overclockers. Is it true? Have you had any experience with them? Some people have gotten good results with them but I don't want to put too much faith in silicon lottery. Do you think this kit is worth paying $100 extra for low-bin b-die?

Thanks.


----------



## mikew25

Hi, I'm trying to OC my RAM but i'm hitting a few problems... I have the X570 Aorus Elite on bios F5b (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA) motherboard running a 3700X.

My RAM is specced for 3600MT (1800MHz) CL 18/22/22/42/64 but it won't boot into windows with that XMP profile, the "best" I can get it using Ryzen Master is 3600 CL 18/25/25/58/85 which is really poor.

Also the tool currently only gives nanoseconds and no clock cycles for me.

I'm getting a score of anywhere between 4800 - 5044 in Cinebench R20 and 4800 is basically the stock score, right? So i'm not quite sure why it's ranging so much.

I shouldn't be over heating as I have a Noctua NH-D15... But max core temp has hit 72*c looking at HWInfo


----------



## Sphex_

mikew25 said:


> Hi, I'm trying to OC my RAM but i'm hitting a few problems... I have the X570 Aorus Elite on bios F5b (AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA) motherboard running a 3700X.
> 
> My RAM is specced for 3600MT (1800MHz) CL 18/22/22/42/64 but it won't boot into windows with that XMP profile, the "best" I can get it using Ryzen Master is 3600 CL 18/25/25/58/85 which is really poor.
> 
> Also the tool currently only gives nanoseconds and no clock cycles for me.
> 
> I'm getting a score of anywhere between 4800 - 5044 in Cinebench R20 and 4800 is basically the stock score, right? So i'm not quite sure why it's ranging so much.
> 
> I shouldn't be over heating as I have a Noctua NH-D15... But max core temp has hit 72*c looking at HWInfo


What memory kit do you have? Did you download Taiphoon Burner and identify which memory ICs your kit has? Ryzen DRAM Calc should be able to read the kit's XMP values and plug it into the calculator for you. Then you add a bit of info and it should spit out values that should get you pointed in the right direction.


----------



## rastaviper

Probably not stable, but managed to get down to *63.0 Latency*!!
3600x @ 4.4Ghz
16-15-15


----------



## leoxtxt

G.Skill F4-3600C17D-32GTZR CL17-19-19-39 1.35V @ 16-16-16-32 1.37V (safe preset)


----------



## mikew25

Sphex_ said:


> What memory kit do you have? Did you download Taiphoon Burner and identify which memory ICs your kit has? Ryzen DRAM Calc should be able to read the kit's XMP values and plug it into the calculator for you. Then you add a bit of info and it should spit out values that should get you pointed in the right direction.


Hi, thanks for your reply.

I downloaded taiphoon and managed to get the die version, (E) and then the calculator started working.

Unfortunately it looks like my RAM really, really sucks. I tried using the recommended settings (using the SAFE profile) from the calculator into Ryzen Master, but it while restarting I just hit a boot loop.

Edit: I also tried the looser timings that the XMP profile specifies, but no luck with those either.


----------



## neurotix

ForTheRepublic said:


> Wow congrats:thumb:. One thing I have not tried tweaking is the CLDO VDDP voltage. The DRAM Calculator recommendation was 700 mV, which is what my board is set to by default to anyway, but I did notice in the advanced tab of the calculator, under _Debug Voltages_, 900 mV is recommended, so maybe it'd be worthwhile to try that. I have my DRAM voltage at 1.42 V, but I'll turn it down if I can once I find a stable upper limit on the memory frequency; and I did bump my SOC up to 1.1 V from 1.075.
> 
> As for the other power settings you said helped you a lot, the only settings my Gigabyte X370 seems to have are the _load-line-calibration _for VCORE and VSOC; and for those I'm already using *Turbo *and *Medium*, respectively. (I'm not sure what numbers those would correspond to on the level # scale; Gigabyte's naming scheme is weird; it goes : Auto, Standard, Low, Normal, Medium, High, Turbo, and then Extreme; so would "Low" be level 0 and "Extreme" be level 5?).
> 
> There are no options, at least that I could find, for *Current Capability*, *VRM Switching Frequency*, *Voltage Frequency*, *Power Duty Control*, *Power Phase Control*, or *Manual Adjustment*. I think it _may _have *Power Thermal Control* options, but it's called something else, and I don't think I need to touch that anyway.
> 
> Where I'm at right now with my tuning is that I've found ProcODT of 60 Ω, 69 Ω, and 53 Ω are all stable at 2800 MHz CL14 ("safe"-preset timings from the calculator for 3200 MHz), but only 53 Ω is stable (with Memtest86 and TM5-1usmus config so far at least [Edit #1: stable with no errors after 8 hours of MEMbench, 30200 GB / 16 threads.]) if I bump the memory clock frequency up one more level to 2866 MHz (60 and 69 Ω give a ton of errors immediately with memtest86). I was able to cold boot at 2866 MHz with ProcODT 53 Ω, but I don't want to call that "stable" just yet, considering my last experience with thinking I found something that would boot reliably, but turned out not to. [Edit#2: annnd turns out it is in fact another repeat of last time; cold booted PC today and, no boot failure during POST, but Windows went straight into BSOD ("memory management" error code), despite not changing any settings from yesterday, which gave *no errors* after 3 passes in Memtest86 (6 hours), 45 min run of TM5, and 8 hours of MEMbench; so now I'm back to 2800 MHz.]


*snip*

If no one said it yet:

"*Current Capability*, *VRM Switching Frequency*, *Voltage Frequency*, *Power Duty Control*, *Power Phase Control*, or *Manual Adjustment*..."

One of you has a Crosshair VII and the other has a Gigabyte board. Those settings for power are from ASUS ROG boards Digi+VRM power delivery

which is on *ASUS Republic of Gamers* motherboards only.

These settings DO help (or have the potential to) but the person suggesting this, please realize not everyone has most of these settings. They are for the power delivery/MOSFETs/Voltage regulators.

Other manufacturers boards will probably only have LLC.

I've used ROG boards in my builds since 2011, and they all have this VRM controller. Anyway, I thought I'd point this out. Don't bother trying to find those settings, they are not there except for on some ASUS boards.

Hope this helps.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

neurotix said:


> *snip*
> 
> If no one said it yet:
> 
> "*Current Capability*, *VRM Switching Frequency*, *Voltage Frequency*, *Power Duty Control*, *Power Phase Control*, or *Manual Adjustment*..."
> 
> One of you has a Crosshair VII and the other has a Gigabyte board. Those settings for power are from ASUS ROG boards Digi+VRM power delivery
> 
> which is on *ASUS Republic of Gamers* motherboards only.
> 
> These settings DO help (or have the potential to) but the person suggesting this, please realize not everyone has most of these settings. They are for the power delivery/MOSFETs/Voltage regulators.
> 
> Other manufacturers boards will probably only have LLC.
> 
> I've used ROG boards in my builds since 2011, and they all have this VRM controller. Anyway, I thought I'd point this out. Don't bother trying to find those settings, they are not there except for on some ASUS boards.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Yes, much appreciated clarifying that. Now I can put my mind at ease, knowing that I'm not missing a setting in my bios that could potentially have an impact on my success, so thanks!


-----------------------------------

By the way, here's the update on my progress. I think I'm finally getting somewhere thanks to the input from you guys! I'm currently up to 3000 MHz, still using 4 DIMMs, and things seem like they're stable (0 errors after 4 passes in memtest86 and 15000% / 12 hours in MEMbench) and not experiencing boot failures. As before, I don't want to celebrate _quite _yet in light of my last experiences, but it seems promising, or progress in the right direction at least. Anyway, I'm still using the termination block resistance settings that seemed most promising from my last conversation and a few minor tweaks to DRAM/SOC voltage:*ProcODT*: 53 Ω 
*RTT NOM*: RZQ/7 (34 Ω)
*RTT WR*: RZQ/3 (80 Ω)
*RTT PARK*: RZQ/1 (240 Ω)
*DRAM Voltage*: 1.4 V
*VCORE SOC Voltage*: ~1.1 V
*VDDP*: still 1.1V [ @*The_Gamer294* , you're right, this did make a big difference!]
​The other two tweaks I made were 1) to bump LLC for SOC up one level from *Medium *to *High*, and 2) I changed the CAD Bus Block resistance settings from *24 24 24 24* to *24 20 24 24* , which according to 1usmus' memory tweaking guide, can be useful for 4-module configurations.

Ryzen Timing Checker snapshot (although, not sure why the values such as RTT don't reflect my bios settings. Guessing the readouts are bugged?)








From here I guess I'll bump the memory clock up to 3200 MHz and run memtest86 over night, assuming it will boot.


----------



## Sphex_

mikew25 said:


> Hi, thanks for your reply.
> 
> I downloaded taiphoon and managed to get the die version, (E) and then the calculator started working.
> 
> Unfortunately it looks like my RAM really, really sucks. I tried using the recommended settings (using the SAFE profile) from the calculator into Ryzen Master, but it while restarting I just hit a boot loop.
> 
> Edit: I also tried the looser timings that the XMP profile specifies, but no luck with those either.


You're trying the suggested voltages and termination block settings as well, right? Those are very important. It may also be necessary to raise VDDP and/or VDDG as well. 

Many people have had great success with Micron E-Die (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit?usp=sharing) as evidenced by the linked Google Sheet, but you're most likely going to have to settle for some pretty loose timings. It seems you just can't tighten them up like you can with Samsung B-Die.



ForTheRepublic said:


> Yes, much appreciated clarifying that. Now I can put my mind at ease, knowing that I'm not missing a setting in my bios that could potentially have an impact on my success, so thanks!
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> By the way, here's the update on my progress. I think I'm finally getting somewhere thanks to the input from you guys! I'm currently up to 3000 MHz, still using 4 DIMMs, and things seem like they're stable (0 errors after 4 passes in memtest86 and 15000% / 12 hours in MEMbench) and not experiencing boot failures. As before, I don't want to celebrate _quite _yet in light of my last experiences, but it seems promising, or progress in the right direction at least. Anyway, I'm still using the termination block resistance settings that seemed most promising from my last conversation and a few minor tweaks to DRAM/SOC voltage...
> 
> ...From here I guess I'll bump the memory clock up to 3200 MHz and run memtest86 over night, assuming it will boot.


Glad you've got things up and running and you're making great progress. Please keep us updated! I'm curious to see if you can get your kit stable at 3200MHz!


----------



## ForTheRepublic

Sphex_ said:


> Glad you've got things up and running and you're making great progress. Please keep us updated! I'm curious to see if you can get your kit stable at 3200MHz!


For sure! I'm really hopeful now when it seemed like a lost cause only yesterday haha. I'd buy you a drink if I could because your feedback has gotten me this far. Cheers. :cheers:

On the bright side, I can now say I have a decent amount of tweaking experience under my belt, but at the same time, I *really* hope my next build isn't this troublesome! lol


----------



## TelaKeppi

leoxtxt said:


> G.Skill F4-3600C17D-32GTZR CL17-19-19-39 1.35V @ 16-16-16-32 1.37V (safe preset)


Is that really Samsung B-die? I have the same kit and Taiphoon reports mine as a Hynix D-die. Couldn't get the Samsung B-die safe preset working at all.


----------



## rastaviper

Hmm,
All other settings can stick,.but whenever I set the CAD and RTT proposals of this image, my Gigabyte Elite gives me the 3 beeps and restarts with safe settings.

How important are they and what do I miss if I just skip them?









Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## SaccoSVD

> *but whenever I set the CAD and RTT proposals of this image*


I do not trust those, Ryzen Master reports RTT settings are RZQ7, RZQ2, RZQ1 while the dram CALC suggests 7/3/1

AS for CAD, they're 24/20/24/24 in RM while the CALC says 24/20/20/24

Powerdown Enabled makes my system not to POST

ODT in the CALC suggests 40 while is always at 60 in RM

So...besides the timings, voltage, RAM speed and IF speed , I don't enter any of the extra things.


----------



## mikew25

Sphex_ said:


> You're trying the suggested voltages and termination block settings as well, right? Those are very important. It may also be necessary to raise VDDP and/or VDDG as well.
> 
> Many people have had great success with Micron E-Die (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit?usp=sharing) as evidenced by the linked Google Sheet, but you're most likely going to have to settle for some pretty loose timings. It seems you just can't tighten them up like you can with Samsung B-Die.


Hi, yes I set the voltages and the Misc items to the recommended settings.

Hopefully the bios after F5b will help to improve things...

I'm sure I had it running on 1800 previously from setting XMP Profile up in bios, but maybe it dropped it without me noticing, or maybe it used the worse timings without me realising.


----------



## leoxtxt

TelaKeppi said:


> Is that really Samsung B-die? I have the same kit and Taiphoon reports mine as a Hynix D-die. Couldn't get the Samsung B-die safe preset working at all.


It is B-Die kit according to the database: https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/


----------



## TelaKeppi

leoxtxt said:


> It is B-Die kit according to the database: https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/


Could you check with a Thaiphoon Burner? like I said, I have the same kit and the IC's are definitely Hynix D-die.


----------



## rastaviper

SaccoSVD said:


> I do not trust those, Ryzen Master reports RTT settings are RZQ7, RZQ2, RZQ1 while the dram CALC suggests 7/3/1
> 
> AS for CAD, they're 24/20/24/24 in RM while the CALC says 24/20/20/24
> 
> Powerdown Enabled makes my system not to POST
> 
> ODT in the CALC suggests 40 while is always at 60 in RM
> 
> So...besides the timings, voltage, RAM speed and IF speed , I don't enter any of the extra things.


I think you have a point.
For now I will skip all these extra settings of CAD and BUS and stick to the rest.




mikew25 said:


> Hi, yes I set the voltages and the Misc items to the recommended settings.
> 
> Hopefully the bios after F5b will help to improve things...
> 
> I'm sure I had it running on 1800 previously from setting XMP Profile up in bios, but maybe it dropped it without me noticing, or maybe it used the worse timings without me realising.


Maybe you should think the other way around.
Don't wait for the next BIOS, maybe try the previous versions.
Personally I get much more RAM stability with the F4J bios, then with the F5b.
Check my stats and previous messages, we have similar systems.


----------



## Cidious

Mungojerrie said:


> I think here's the right place to ask:
> I have an X570+Ryzen 5 3600 combo and using 2x8GB F4-3600C16D-16GTZR B-Die kit.
> Thing is I want to upgrade memory capacity to 32GB. Kits I'm using are out of stock everywhere and 4 DIMMs for Ryzen are suboptimal anyway so I'm bound to get a new 2x16GB kit.
> 
> I'm torn between *Micron Rev. E* and *Hynix CJR* ICs. According to what I've read both are good and both work decently with Ryzen. They are also priced kind of the same(~$180-220). 2x16GB B-Die kits are too expensive, usually starting at $400+ mark.
> 
> My goal is 3600 MT/S with timings as tight as possible. Which should I go for?
> 
> There is also the $300 B-Die kit available - *F4-3000C14D-32GTZR*. What bothers me is I've read that 3000 MT/S B-Die bins are quite bad and not reliable overclockers. Is it true? Have you had any experience with them? Some people have gotten good results with them but I don't want to put too much faith in silicon lottery. Do you think this kit is worth paying $100 extra for low-bin b-die?
> 
> Thanks.



I just replaced my 16GB (2x8) 3200C14 B-die kit with a 32GB (2x16) 3200C16 E-die kit. And BOY was I surprised! I was running my B-die at 3800C16 with slightly tuned DRAM Calculator Fast Preset values.

B-die @ 3800C16-1.41v

E-die @ 3800C16-1.40v


I had to slightly tweak the Fast Preset of 1usmus since it was giving me errors at the suggested values. But they were minor tweaks. 
1. ClkDrvStren from the suggested 24 value to 40
2. DRAM Voltage from suggested 1.44v to 1.40v (haven't tried lower might go lower)

As you can see both kits perform very similar to each other other than that the Latency did climb a bit on the Edie kit. I'd be looking into a few minor tweaks to get the latency down a little further but I can't expect too much from this kit that costs half the price of the B-die 32GB kit. If anyone has any tips to lower the latency a bit more to like 67ish that would be great.


----------



## SaccoSVD

I see the same numbers in all your AIDA screenshots. That cannot be right  Probably you uploaded the same screenshot for all the different RAM kits?


----------



## leoxtxt

TelaKeppi said:


> Could you check with a Thaiphoon Burner? like I said, I have the same kit and the IC's are definitely Hynix D-die.


I did check, it is a B-Die kit.


----------



## TelaKeppi

leoxtxt said:


> I did check, it is a B-Die kit.


Thanks! So it seems G.Skill is selling the same set with 2 different IC's. The kits are otherwise identical down to the timings. I may have to return mine...

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=300528&d=1570961287


----------



## Mungojerrie

Cidious said:


> I just replaced my 16GB (2x8) 3200C14 B-die kit with a 32GB (2x16) 3200C16 E-die kit. And BOY was I surprised! I was running my B-die at 3800C16 with slightly tuned DRAM Calculator Fast Preset values.


Thanks for sharing! Your results are certainly interesting. But it does seem that you've mixed up the AIDA screenshots a bit since they show identical results.


----------



## Cidious

Mungojerrie said:


> Thanks for sharing! Your results are certainly interesting. But it does seem that you've mixed up the AIDA screenshots a bit since they show identical results.



I'll have a look at it thanks!


----------



## Cidious

SaccoSVD said:


> I see the same numbers in all your AIDA screenshots. That cannot be right  Probably you uploaded the same screenshot for all the different RAM kits?


Seem like you're messing up between attached screenshots and the links? I'll remove the links so it's a little more clear.

It was showing right in my screen but then I removed one screenshot and suddenly they became identical. So I re-uploaded the results. Have a look.


----------



## Wickedtme

Updated the bios on my Taichi X570 to 2.1, and had to go in and set up bios, and thought, hmmmm maybe ill try 3733 on the ram at fast settings.
Lower latency and faster rates. Seems solid, ran Karhu Ramtest for an hour, no problems, but will run it longer to make sure its rock solid.
Very impressed with this Gskill Royal Silver ram. You can see the effects of the L3 Cache in action.









[/url]


----------



## rastaviper

I am quite stable with my G.skill 3200 B dies at 3733 16-15-15, so I have decided to check how is it going at 3800.
I got these settings from the Calc but the pc took 3 minutes only to boot to default settings.
Obviously something doesn't stick.
Any ideas?









Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wickedtme

rastaviper said:


> I am quite stable with my G.skill 3200 B dies at 3733 16-15-15, so I have decided to check how is it going at 3800.
> I got these settings from the Calc but the pc took 3 minutes only to boot to default settings.
> Obviously something doesn't stick.
> Any ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Did you import settings from Thaiphoon Burner for the xmp? Will make a big difference in timings.


----------



## rastaviper

Wickedtme said:


> Did you import settings from Thaiphoon Burner for the xmp? Will make a big difference in timings.


Yes I have prepared this normally.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wickedtme

rastaviper said:


> Yes I have prepared this normally.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I raised my dram voltage to 1.45 V which on this motherboard reverts to 1.446


----------



## Cidious

rastaviper said:


> I am quite stable with my G.skill 3200 B dies at 3733 16-15-15, so I have decided to check how is it going at 3800.
> I got these settings from the Calc but the pc took 3 minutes only to boot to default settings.
> Obviously something doesn't stick.
> Any ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



You do have lower binned B-die looking at your XMP profile. Try V1 first and then V2 for lower binned. Not manual. Manual is for debugging but I found it often doesn't even want to post for me also. 

Enable gear down (opposed to the preset settings where it says disabled. This doesn't work well at all even with higher CtlrDrv). and then it should stick but it's depending on your processors memory controller some Ryzen 3000s don't like 1900 IF clock. You can test this by unsyncing your memory with infinity fabric clock and setting infinity fabric to 1900 and memory to stock speeds. if it boots you'll know the processor can handle the infinity fabric.


----------



## gerardfraser

3800 Mhz CL16-16-11-16-36-52 1T @ 1.36v SOC 1.05 62ns Can run 3800Mhz CL14 but takes more DRAM voltage.

bb code image


----------



## rastaviper

Cidious said:


> You do have lower binned B-die looking at your XMP profile. Try V1 first and then V2 for lower binned. Not manual. Manual is for debugging but I found it often doesn't even want to post for me also.
> 
> 
> 
> Enable gear down (opposed to the preset settings where it says disabled. This doesn't work well at all even with higher CtlrDrv). and then it should stick but it's depending on your processors memory controller some Ryzen 3000s don't like 1900 IF clock. You can test this by unsyncing your memory with infinity fabric clock and setting infinity fabric to 1900 and memory to stock speeds. if it boots you'll know the processor can handle the infinity fabric.


Thanks.
I tried Gear down enabled, IFC 1900, memory 1700, 1.46v, 17-17-17 timings, still no go.

Checked the V1 profile and it's with more strict figures, so no reason to try them.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cidious

rastaviper said:


> Thanks.
> I tried Gear down enabled, IFC 1900, memory 1700, 1.46v, 17-17-17 timings, still no go.
> 
> Checked the V1 profile and it's with more strict figures, so no reason to try them.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Its not. Youre being stubborn. Why it doesnt want to post is probably because tRCDRD is too high. Can you please try as I suggested? If you want to solve your issues you need to be willing to try some of the suggestions. Youre clearly stuck and I have a clue why but I cant help you if youre not willing to try as I suggest. Manual is not a viable profile in this case. 

And I said use memory on stock speeds like XMP profile so you are sure that it will boot and THEN set infinity fabric to 1900. Youre trying all things at the same time which wont work. 

I hope you can please try as I suggest and Im sure we can figure out whats holding you back mate.

Try V2 first. You have Bdie but you dont have good bdie. Im sure it can boot with better settings but you need to do it step by step.

Use V1 profile as I said and if that doesnt boot raise tRCDRD. VSOC 1.050-1.1 (I ran 1.050 without issues) VDDP 0.900 VDDG 0.950 DRAM Voltage 1.44 should be more than enough to start at.

Report back after that. and remember to use ALL settings of the calculator profile 1. if that doesnt post then We can try a few other steps.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

My new Stable DRAM Timings (63ns)
Kingston Predator 4133MHz CL19 1.35v Kit (4x8GB)

3800MHz CL16-17-17-15 32 42 1T
1900FLCK and 100.200 FSB

Im not using PBO (tested & my OC is better for gaming)
4350MHz 4xC 1.36v
4300MHz All core at 1.35v

===


----------



## rastaviper

Cidious said:


> Its not. Youre being stubborn. Why it doesnt want to post is probably because tRCDRD is too high. Can you please try as I suggested? If you want to solve your issues you need to be willing to try some of the suggestions. Youre clearly stuck and I have a clue why but I cant help you if youre not willing to try as I suggest. Manual is not a viable profile in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> And I said use memory on stock speeds like XMP profile so you are sure that it will boot and THEN set infinity fabric to 1900. Youre trying all things at the same time which wont work.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you can please try as I suggest and Im sure we can figure out whats holding you back mate.
> 
> 
> 
> Try V2 first. You have Bdie but you dont have good bdie. Im sure it can boot with better settings but you need to do it step by step.
> 
> 
> 
> Use V1 profile as I said and if that doesnt boot raise tRCDRD. VSOC 1.050-1.1 (I ran 1.050 without issues) VDDP 0.900 VDDG 0.950 DRAM Voltage 1.44 should be more than enough to start at.
> 
> 
> 
> Report back after that. and remember to use ALL settings of the calculator profile 1. if that doesnt post then We can try a few other steps.


I am not stubborn as u can see, as I have already tried some of the suggestions.
Maybe it's not clear, so I will repeat the questions:
- i did what u have suggested. IFC at 1900 and memory near stock (like 1700). Now you are mentioning something about XMP. So should I change everything to XMP profile (3200mhz 15-15-15)? And for which reason? I thought we are testing the 3800 setup.
- Then about the V2. The calculator doesn't even work at Fast for V2. So, should I select the Safe, I guess. But with which settings? 3800 or something else?
- regarding all Vsoc, Vddp, Vddg, dram voltage everything is as you are mentioning
- About tRCDRD. First you say it is too high. Then later you say to raise it. What it got to be?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cidious

rastaviper said:


> I am not stubborn as u can see, as I have already tried some of the suggestions.
> Maybe it's not clear, so I will repeat the questions:
> - i did what u have suggested. IFC at 1900 and memory near stock (like 1700). Now you are mentioning something about XMP. So should I change everything to XMP profile (3200mhz 15-15-15)? And for which reason? I thought we are testing the 3800 setup.
> - Then about the V2. The calculator doesn't even work at Fast for V2. So, should I select the Safe, I guess. But with which settings? 3800 or something else?
> - regarding all Vsoc, Vddp, Vddg, dram voltage everything is as you are mentioning
> - About tRCDRD. First you say it is too high. Then later you say to raise it. What it got to be?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


my bad about that too high too low thingy. 

Yes you can try safe settings first. V1 and I meant it's too low and you should raise it 1. Also you can't use unequal numbers like 17 with Gear Down disabled. So keep that on. Like I said, your Bdie is low bin. It's not the same quality as most bdie out here so you might run into some issues but they can be smoothened out. You should still be able to reach 3800 with some minor tweaks. 

I don't have you XMP export file from Thaiphoon so I can't generate the right numbers for you. If you would post that file here I could help you out a bit more. I have higher binned Bdie myself, I know which values the bdie will complain about once you start pushing it. This should be similar with the lower binned bdie. I can give you suggestions which values to loosen. 

And might I ask which motherboard you are using?


----------



## Cidious

somewhere I read about memory jitter and I didn't think so much of it. But I felt my system was lagging here and there mostly on opening things. And this was using the standard DRAM calculator settings with only 2 tweaks of lower voltage and ClkDrvStren to 40 instead of 24. Then I started tinkering with some more tertiary timings changing them 1 by 1 and suddenly my lagging in windows was gone.

The timing that I think was responsible for removing the jitter was tRTP. I changed it from 12 to 10 and now when I boot up windows it's buttery smooth and responsive. But I also changed some other timings that might have an influence together: tWR 16 -> 14, tRDWR 9 -> 8, tRFC 580 -> 560.

I'll push a little further with the settings. So far it's error free and made my system buttery smooth. The attachments contain 2 screenshots with the slightly tuned differences. Latency went down only slightly and read bandwidth went up 700MB/s(ish).


Micron E-die for if you have missed my previoust post.


----------



## rastaviper

Cidious said:


> my bad about that too high too low thingy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can try safe settings first. V1 and I meant it's too low and you should raise it 1. Also you can't use unequal numbers like 17 with Gear Down disabled. So keep that on. Like I said, your Bdie is low bin. It's not the same quality as most bdie out here so you might run into some issues but they can be smoothened out. You should still be able to reach 3800 with some minor tweaks.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have you XMP export file from Thaiphoon so I can't generate the right numbers for you. If you would post that file here I could help you out a bit more. I have higher binned Bdie myself, I know which values the bdie will complain about once you start pushing it. This should be similar with the lower binned bdie. I can give you suggestions which values to loosen.
> 
> 
> 
> And might I ask which motherboard you are using?


I have the gigabyte Aorus Elite x570

Still is not clear what you want me to do with the IFC and memory figures. What should I put there?

And then, what should I raise by 1?

Typhoon file here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rfImCWYEIy_plGLzSIxzDReOLK3Aobxh/view?usp=sharing


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gegi

Hello!

I'm using the Corsair Dominator Platinium RGB (CMT32GX4M4C3600C18) 4x8gb on my asus x570-e mainboard with the ryzen 7 3800x. I used the fast preset of the dram calculator for 3600mhz and it works fine... but my latency isn't that good compared to the other people here... Is there a way to improve it? Or is it that bad because I'm using 4 sticks? 

Thank you in advance


----------



## Cidious

rastaviper said:


> I have the gigabyte Aorus Elite x570
> 
> Still is not clear what you want me to do with the IFC and memory figures. What should I put there?
> 
> And then, what should I raise by 1?
> 
> Typhoon file here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rfImCWYEIy_plGLzSIxzDReOLK3Aobxh/view?usp=sharing
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Alright Thanks for your profile. Tomorrow I'll check it myself and give some suggestions about it but for now what you can try is this:

Set you memory to XMP profile and stock settings (1600 from XMP profile for memory). unlock Infinity fabric clock and set it to 1900 and try to boot. If it doesn't want to boot then you know your processor doesn't like it. 3733 is the only option then. If it boots then you know it's your memory giving you a hard time. 

For memory use V1 profile Safe preset. use ALL values. power down disabled thought and definitely gear down enabled. 

If it boots with V1 safe move on to FAST. if it still doesn't want to boot on SAFE then raise tRCDRD to 18 and try again with the same SAFE V1 profile. see if that helped. 

Other options is to raise procODT in with the safe preset to 36.9 or one step higher that might also solve the issue to boot. Use the Safe preset as a starting point and step by step loosen things and see if it results in something. If not, set it back preferably unless you saw any kind of improvement.


----------



## warcraft

Hello community.
i have two different rams.
1-Crucial Ballistix Elite 8GB 3000MHz - Samsung E-Die
2-Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 3000MHz - Micron E-Die
and i got these timings for each one. 
my question is which timing should i set in BIOS to get best result?

















------------------------------------------------------------------
*these are my current timings which i have setted up (i did choose bigger number in each column) and its Stable so far - Can i set Lower timings ?

*


----------



## eBombzor

gerardfraser said:


> 3800 Mhz CL16-16-11-16-36-52 1T @ 1.36v SOC 1.05 62ns Can run 3800Mhz CL14 but takes more DRAM voltage.
> 
> bb code image


Wow you really won the lottery there. That OC at those voltages. Pretty insane. Did you offset the SoC voltage or did you manually set it to 1.05?


----------



## Cidious

So I know this is to talk about timings and the DRAM calculator but I'll share my experience with some custom cooling anyway

TLR

Since I own a kit of 2x8gb G.skill Bdie and a kit of Ballistix Sport 2x16gb Edie and the difference between the heavy solid heatsinks on the G.Skill and the flimsy ones on the Ballistix is enormous. So I thought I might be able to improve performance of my Edie kit a little more by putting some better heatsinks on it.

It came these black aluminium ones from Taobao. They cost just a few dollars and I ordered some 12 wmk thermal pads (1mm) with them but when trying to mount them I found that they are not well suited for use with dual rank modules as the next photo shows you. I tried thinning the thermal pads by rolling them but it would just not fit well. The only option would be shaving a bit of aluminium of the edge so they would be a bit thinner and use a thermal paste instead. Sadly I ran out of Kryonaut (only have conductonaut here atm) so I had to use some generic Chinese 2 wmk thermal paste which didn't work out so well.

After mounting the full kit with paste and booting up and running memtest I got errors after a while once they warmed up. I figured the thermal paste might be good enough but the biggest issue is that I found that the heatsinks are not anodized but painted in a thick layer of thermally isolating paint. When I pulled the sticks out straight after the memtest they were hot. Much more hot than with the standard heatsinks which tells me the heat gets trapped inside the paint. They are garbage. I tried to get the paint off but it's really tough. I used chemicals and sanding paper but the result is not very pretty.

I could sand both of them and zinc spray them instead of paint to get a cool look and still decent thermal radiation. But I decided not to go that way and get myself a kit of copper ones. Pretty much overkill but it will give me the option to test how much I can push them when heat is a non issue. 

In the mean time I used the 12 wmk pads to stick the original strips of aluminum to and put them back in to the system and 0 errors. 


What did I learn. Edie is very sensitive to heat. Maybe by cooling them better I can squeeze a bit more out of them. Who knows.


----------



## rastaviper

Anyone here with 3200 Ram on a Ryzen 3600x that managed to run them on 3800?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

eBombzor said:


> Wow you really won the lottery there. That OC at those voltages. Pretty insane. Did you offset the SoC voltage or did you manually set it to 1.05?


I can run the ram CL14 @3800Mhz CL16 4200Mhz no problem,Yes set the settings in the BIOS

BIOS Settings


Spoiler



islamic baby boy names unique



Prime95 29.8 Build 6 with AVX smallest FFT's


Spoiler



best free image host


----------



## bluechris

rastaviper said:


> Anyone here with 3200 Ram on a Ryzen 3600x that managed to run them on 3800?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Yes, i managed to run my 3200 cl14 at 3800 by putting everything calculator told me but i like lower latency than bandwidth so i am in 3600cl14 atm.


----------



## Filters83

bluechris said:


> Yes, i managed to run my 3200 cl14 at 3800 by putting everything calculator told me but i like lower latency than bandwidth so i am in 3600cl14 atm.


My 3600x not booting 3800 or better i have to tweak a lot so i stick 3733cl 16 @ 1.39v Bdie kit 68ns latency im happy whit that


----------



## Filters83

Cidious said:


> So I know this is to talk about timings and the DRAM calculator but I'll share my experience with some custom cooling anyway
> 
> TLR
> 
> Since I own a kit of 2x8gb G.skill Bdie and a kit of Ballistix Sport 2x16gb Edie and the difference between the heavy solid heatsinks on the G.Skill and the flimsy ones on the Ballistix is enormous. So I thought I might be able to improve performance of my Edie kit a little more by putting some better heatsinks on it.
> 
> It came these black aluminium ones from Taobao. They cost just a few dollars and I ordered some 12 wmk thermal pads (1mm) with them but when trying to mount them I found that they are not well suited for use with dual rank modules as the next photo shows you. I tried thinning the thermal pads by rolling them but it would just not fit well. The only option would be shaving a bit of aluminium of the edge so they would be a bit thinner and use a thermal paste instead. Sadly I ran out of Kryonaut (only have conductonaut here atm) so I had to use some generic Chinese 2 wmk thermal paste which didn't work out so well.
> 
> After mounting the full kit with paste and booting up and running memtest I got errors after a while once they warmed up. I figured the thermal paste might be good enough but the biggest issue is that I found that the heatsinks are not anodized but painted in a thick layer of thermally isolating paint. When I pulled the sticks out straight after the memtest they were hot. Much more hot than with the standard heatsinks which tells me the heat gets trapped inside the paint. They are garbage. I tried to get the paint off but it's really tough. I used chemicals and sanding paper but the result is not very pretty.
> 
> I could sand both of them and zinc spray them instead of paint to get a cool look and still decent thermal radiation. But I decided not to go that way and get myself a kit of copper ones. Pretty much overkill but it will give me the option to test how much I can push them when heat is a non issue.
> 
> In the mean time I used the 12 wmk pads to stick the original strips of aluminum to and put them back in to the system and 0 errors.
> 
> 
> What did I learn. Edie is very sensitive to heat. Maybe by cooling them better I can squeeze a bit more out of them. Who knows.


NIce i rly like experiment like this 
I was wonder to ceck my b die gskill if i can improve a bit but they run already ok so far


----------



## neurotix

eBombzor said:


> Wow you really won the lottery there. That OC at those voltages. Pretty insane. Did you offset the SoC voltage or did you manually set it to 1.05?


I am able to run these timings on my 3900x- I used 1.45v though

Here are the results:











Pretty awful and the latency is much higher, bandwidth is the same, I don't know if it's an MSI vs ASUS thing, different Windows configuration, the 3900x design or what. The settings from DRAM Calc produce this (Runs at 1T too- no GearDown):











Also, my L3 cache latency is 0.4ns slower.


Just thought you both would be interested.







Cidious said:


> So I know this is to talk about timings and the DRAM calculator but I'll share my experience with some custom cooling anyway
> 
> 
> TLR
> 
> Since I own a kit of 2x8gb G.skill Bdie and a kit of Ballistix Sport 2x16gb Edie and the difference between the heavy solid heatsinks on the G.Skill and the flimsy ones on the Ballistix is enormous. So I thought I might be able to improve performance of my Edie kit a little more by putting some better heatsinks on it.
> 
> It came these black aluminium ones from Taobao. They cost just a few dollars and I ordered some 12 wmk thermal pads (1mm) with them but when trying to mount them I found that they are not well suited for use with dual rank modules as the next photo shows you. I tried thinning the thermal pads by rolling them but it would just not fit well. The only option would be shaving a bit of aluminium of the edge so they would be a bit thinner and use a thermal paste instead. Sadly I ran out of Kryonaut (only have conductonaut here atm) so I had to use some generic Chinese 2 wmk thermal paste which didn't work out so well.
> 
> After mounting the full kit with paste and booting up and running memtest I got errors after a while once they warmed up. I figured the thermal paste might be good enough but the biggest issue is that I found that the heatsinks are not anodized but painted in a thick layer of thermally isolating paint. When I pulled the sticks out straight after the memtest they were hot. Much more hot than with the standard heatsinks which tells me the heat gets trapped inside the paint. They are garbage. I tried to get the paint off but it's really tough. I used chemicals and sanding paper but the result is not very pretty.
> 
> I could sand both of them and zinc spray them instead of paint to get a cool look and still decent thermal radiation. But I decided not to go that way and get myself a kit of copper ones. Pretty much overkill but it will give me the option to test how much I can push them when heat is a non issue.
> 
> In the mean time I used the 12 wmk pads to stick the original strips of aluminum to and put them back in to the system and 0 errors.
> 
> 
> What did I learn. Edie is very sensitive to heat. Maybe by cooling them better I can squeeze a bit more out of them. Who knows.





Be very careful doing this, and I would not advise any other members to attempt to remove the heatspreaders from their memory.


I ruined a very good G.skill DDR3-2400 cas10 kit by doing this, they use thermal glue to keep them on sometimes, and it literally pulled one of the ICs on the board off, which was stuck to the heatspreader, ruining the kit.




bluechris said:


> Yes, i managed to run my 3200 cl14 at 3800 by *putting everything calculator told me* but i like lower latency than bandwidth so i am in 3600cl14 atm.



Yep.


----------



## Cidious

neurotix said:


> Be very careful doing this, and I would not advise any other members to attempt to remove the heatspreaders from their memory.
> 
> 
> I ruined a very good G.skill DDR3-2400 cas10 kit by doing this, they use thermal glue to keep them on sometimes, and it literally pulled one of the ICs on the board off, which was stuck to the heatspreader, ruining the kit.



Indeed be careful but it's not as scary as that. You just need a bit of technical skills and take it easy. Not all kits are suitable for removal also. The Ballistix Sport is really easy just as most of the lower end kingston kits where the heatspreaders (rather than a proper heatsink) are just stuck on the chips with some adhesive tape. The way to remove them carefully is to use a blow dryer or industrial hot air gun to warm up the adhesive a little and then carefully pry them off with a plastic prying tool make sure you look in between to not hit some small resistors or capacitors, and take it easy step by step pry and wriggle the heatspreader loose gooing all around it. Not much more to it than that.

Most G.Skill kits are sufficiently cooled anyway.. no need to open them up at all. 

Anyway of course this is on your own risk.

My sticks are fine after removal, I've opened up some hardware in my life and I own all the proper tools and equipment to do it. That's kind of it, you mostly need the right equipment, patience and preferably a magnifying glass with light in it like you can see in one of my photos. Then most jobs are not that hard, including soldering SMT parts. I soldered an extra M.2 connector on my MSI GS60 6QE motherboard that originally just had one but another port was showing up in the bios and it just needed a connector. for a few dollars I got myself another NVME slot in the laptop now running 2 NVMEs.


----------



## rastaviper

Filters83 said:


> My 3600x not booting 3800 or better i have to tweak a lot so i stick 3733cl 16 @ 1.39v Bdie kit 68ns latency im happy whit that


What latency do u have at 3733 cl16?



bluechris said:


> Yes, i managed to run my 3200 cl14 at 3800 by putting everything calculator told me but i like lower latency than bandwidth so i am in 3600cl14 atm.


So you think that if I managed to set my Ram at 3800, the latency will be for sure worse than the *63ns* that I get now at 3733?


----------



## geronimo

hi all.

I need some help or direction because using values from the calc I can't get my RAM to work even at 3000mhz :-(.

It's G.Skill F4-3000C16-8GISB H5AN8G8NAFR-TFC x 2 

on 2800 (SAFE) I get it stable using values from calc but when I go over at 2933 (SAFE) I get blue screen in win10 after some minutes testing with memtest that is inside DRAM calc folder. I run 5 instances of the app with 3100mb.
should I try prime95/memtest+/TM5 or that's a waste of time is the one above crashes.

system is Asus x370 prime pro wth latest bios, R5 2600. latest drivers in w10.

regards.


----------



## Filters83

rastaviper said:


> What latency do u have at 3733 cl16?
> 
> 
> So you think that if I managed to set my Ram at 3800, the latency will be for sure worse than the *63ns* that I get now at 3733?


Nothing impressive but its ok i think considering i have power and geat down mode enable


----------



## rastaviper

Cidious said:


> Alright Thanks for your profile. Tomorrow I'll check it myself and give some suggestions about it but for now what you can try is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Set you memory to XMP profile and stock settings (1600 from XMP profile for memory). unlock Infinity fabric clock and set it to 1900 and try to boot. If it doesn't want to boot then you know your processor doesn't like it. 3733 is the only option then. If it boots then you know it's your memory giving you a hard time.
> 
> 
> 
> For memory use V1 profile Safe preset. use ALL values. power down disabled thought and definitely gear down enabled.
> 
> 
> 
> If it boots with V1 safe move on to FAST. if it still doesn't want to boot on SAFE then raise tRCDRD to 18 and try again with the same SAFE V1 profile. see if that helped.
> 
> 
> 
> Other options is to raise procODT in with the safe preset to 36.9 or one step higher that might also solve the issue to boot. Use the Safe preset as a starting point and step by step loosen things and see if it results in something. If not, set it back preferably unless you saw any kind of improvement.


Any news about the profile?
I think this is the limit of my system if no further settings can make my system boot at 3800.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## bluechris

rastaviper said:


> What latency do u have at 3733 cl16?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that if I managed to set my Ram at 3800, the latency will be for sure worse than the *63ns* that I get now at 3733?


At 3800 or 4000 i was forced to raise the CL to almost 19 and i lost latency but i haven't tested more to be true.


----------



## neurotix

rastaviper said:


> Any news about the profile?
> I think this is the limit of my system if no further settings can make my system boot at 3800.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


You have a R5 3600. Running Fclk at 1900MHz is asking a lot. Not even all 3900x can do 1900MHz fclk, but considering you can do 3733/1866 and thats just one divider lower, I wouldn't worry about it. It will be a loss of like 0.2fps, if that, in most games. You will probably be more stable too.

Also, you were right to be using the manual profile.




bluechris said:


> At 3800 or 4000 i was forced to raise the CL to almost 19 and i lost latency but i haven't tested more to be true.


There is an 8 to 12ns latency penalty at anything above 1900Mhz fclk (3800MHz RAM). I ran my kit at 4066/1866 fclk earlier today. These timings:










so 4066 CAS16. I didn't save any screenshots but Ill boot off the profile I saved and post AIDA if anyone wants to see.

Latency was ~73.5ns, Bandwidths were lower except copy was a bit better, and L3 cache was slower and had more latency (10ns even)

Thats compared to 63.5ns, higher bandwidth (60/59/62GBps), and 9.6ns l3 cache @ my usual 3800MHz/1900fclk in synchronous mode.

So I'd suggest not trying for anything higher. I knew this already but wanted to see for myself and see if my kit could do it (I think I won the Bdie lottery ..)

I still intend to test it more in Unigine Heaven on my rig (just got  8th place  the other day with this setup). I heard that latency doesn't actually matter at all for gaming on Ryzen 3000, and its bandwidth that matters (it was lowered at 4066). I'm going to test more tomorrow and find out. Heaven loves higher gpu memory clocks so I'll see if it performs better at 4066 despite ~10ns higher latency.


----------



## wesley8

finally get latency lower to 61.8ns,also stable!


----------



## kazablanka

wesley8 said:


> finally get latency lower to 61.8ns,also stable!


what ram kit is this?


----------



## Synoxia

Soon additional 16 gb 3200c14 B-DIE ram will arrive (single rank). What should i expect from OC potential (given both are same quality)? Increase strain on memory controller (need more vddsoc?)
What about bankgroup swap? My system will effectively become 4x8 = 32gb of ram


----------



## ForTheRepublic

*Boot Failures are Insurmountable*

Previous update: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-589.html#post28161838

@Sphex_

Well, my friend, it has been quite a few days since my last progress update. I'm sad to say, after extensive testing, that I was not able to attain a setting configuration to resolve the boot failures at a memory frequency higher than 2800 MHz; indeed it turned out that they were still persisting despite the fact that I was able to get a few clean cold boots at 3000 MHz, so I assume those must have just been flukes. 

I have tried so many different configurations of settings and countless hours of memory testing over these past several days since last I posted here, and it just seems like no matter what I do, the maximum frequency the memory controller will tolerate consistently is 2800 MHz, at least with 4-DIMM configuration (I have cold booted and system rebooted half a dozen times at this memory clock and no boot failure warnings or bios resets as of yet). As for all the tweaks that I tried, I'll give a summary.



Using the ProcODT and RTT settings which seemed most promising as last discussed (53 Ω ProcOdT, 34 Ω RTT NOM, 80 Ω RTT WR, 240 Ω RTT Park), I tried:
Increasing DRAM Voltage up to 1.5 V and SOC Voltage up to 1.2 V, incrementally [and fruitlessly].
Loosening my timings by increasing tRP and tRCDRD by 1, (i.e., from 14 to 15), concurrent with #1.
#1 and #2 tested both with XMP profile enabled and disabled, but keeping the manual timings from DRAM calculator (apparently the XMP profile can change some hidden parameters and/or sub-timings which the operator does not have access to depending on the bios, or so I gather from what I have researched).
 
After having failed all of the above, I again went back to the drawing board, testing out various configurations of the ProcODT and RTT parameters. More specifically, I tested at least 7 or 8 different permutations of RTT settings for the two ProcODT settings that seemed to yield the most stability from prior testing, 53 Ω and 60 Ω. From these tests, and in conjunction with tuning my CLDO VDDP voltage (I determined 840 mV to be the most stable, eliminating errors found when using 700 mV -the default, 900 mV, and 850 mV), I found a configuration that yielded similarly promising results to those specified above:
ProcODT 60 Ω, RTT NOM 40 Ω, RTT WR disabled, RTT Park 60 Ω. Nonetheless, the outcome was still less stable than those specified above in the first bullet, as in addition to the boot failures, sometimes the bios would outright reset itself / clear CMOS after a loop of failed boots. Once again, I did test this configuration with the sequence of tweaks #1, #2, and #3, listed above in the first bullet, but to no avail.
 
Thus, I'm now back to the original ProcODT/RTT settings that yielded the best stability (53 Ω ProcOdT, 34 Ω RTT NOM, 80 Ω RTT WR, 240 Ω RTT Park), 1.4 V DRAM Voltage, 1.1 V SOC with "high" LLC, 1.1 V VDDP, 840 mV CLDO VDDP, "safe" preset timings from DRAM calculator for 3200 MHz, but actual memory clock running at 2800 MHz. The best I can do from here, I suppose, is tighten up the timings; I'll test "safe" preset for 2800 MHz from the calculator, and then if that's stable, I'll try the "fast" preset. My other options are not very appealing to me 1) go down to 2 DIMMS and test some more, meaning $200+ goes to waste for a slight performance trade-off (not worth it imo) ; 2) Run a 3200 MHz memory clock anyway and just deal with the boot failure warning every time I turn PC on or system restart (this is a hassle, and I'm not sure it's a great idea anyway; perhaps it can have a negative impact on system stability long-term).

I'm all ears if you, or anyone else has any additional suggestions to achieve a higher memory clock, but I'm pretty worn out from these testing routines at this point, and, while 2800 MHz is significantly short of what I would have liked to achieve, it is still something, and I realize it _is_ still technically considered an "overclock" according to the design specifications of first-gen Ryzen. Despite disappointing results, I am still very grateful for all of the feedback and suggestions provided by yourself and others; at the very least I am gaining some knowledge and learning an effective approach to memory overclocking for any future endeavor, so for that, much appreciated! Overall, not a complete failure by any means, just a little disappointing. Oh well; it is what it is.

---------------------
TL;DR - Disappointingly, 3000 MHz still gave boot failures; 2800 MHz appears to be the maximum stable memory clock, as determined by exhaustive testing routines and tweaking. Open to more suggestions, but not overly concerned. 2800 Mhz is still something I suppose.


----------



## ForTheRepublic

geronimo said:


> hi all.
> 
> I need some help or direction because using values from the calc I can't get my RAM to work even at 3000mhz :-(.
> 
> It's G.Skill F4-3000C16-8GISB H5AN8G8NAFR-TFC x 2
> 
> on 2800 (SAFE) I get it stable using values from calc but when I go over at 2933 (SAFE) I get blue screen in win10 after some minutes testing with memtest that is inside DRAM calc folder. I run 5 instances of the app with 3100mb.
> should I try prime95/memtest+/TM5 or that's a waste of time is the one above crashes.
> 
> system is Asus x370 prime pro wth latest bios, R5 2600. latest drivers in w10.
> 
> regards.


A blue screen under any circumstance means you have instability that you need to address. Choosing a different means of stress test will not help you, since you've already determined you have instability. You can try increasing your DRAM and /or SOC voltage a little, or you might need to try changing the ProcODT / RTT settings.

This is a useful guide to reference https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/2.html . Take a look if you haven't already.


----------



## geronimo

thanks for the reply mate.
I have read alot, and will some more but this c*appy RAM obviously doesn't want to go over 2800 no matter what I do.
I keep it at FAST settings from Calculator and 1.35V, SOC at 1,0250, CPU V LLC at 3. CPU is at 4.1ghz at 1.33V. at this settings everything is rock solid in all the tests.
But anything above that is problematic. 
I still didn't touch SOC LLC (it's at default). should I?


----------



## wesley8

kazablanka said:


> what ram kit is this?


2017 4600c19 A0 PCB


----------



## Karagra

Hey everyone was wondering if I could pick someones brain here... I am having Issues with TCL and TCWL. TCL will not boot anything lower than 15 no matter what I change and TCWL will not boot under 16.. Running 3733 15-14-16-14-28 1.45v SOC 1.1v (also tried 1.25v) atm have tried many different timings.


----------



## Arni90

geronimo said:


> thanks for the reply mate.
> I have read alot, and will some more but this c*appy RAM obviously doesn't want to go over 2800 no matter what I do.
> I keep it at FAST settings from Calculator and 1.35V, SOC at 1,0250, CPU V LLC at 3. CPU is at 4.1ghz at 1.33V. at this settings everything is rock solid in all the tests.
> But anything above that is problematic.
> I still didn't touch SOC LLC (it's at default). should I?


What kind of memory IC is it?
Did you check with Thaiphoon burner?


----------



## ForTheRepublic

geronimo said:


> thanks for the reply mate.
> I have read alot, and will some more but this c*appy RAM obviously doesn't want to go over 2800 no matter what I do.
> I keep it at FAST settings from Calculator and 1.35V, SOC at 1,0250, CPU V LLC at 3. CPU is at 4.1ghz at 1.33V. at this settings everything is rock solid in all the tests.
> But anything above that is problematic.
> I still didn't touch SOC LLC (it's at default). should I?


It might not be your RAM to blame so much as it is the memory controller. I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, capped out at 2800 MHz memory clock, but I'm using higher bin B-die DIMMs; x370 doesn't seem to cooperate well with memory over-clocking, not to say plenty of people have not had success.

As for my suggestion, take these with a grain of salt, because I'm not extremely knowledgeable, and relatively new as far as over-clocking, but if I were you, I think I'd bump the SOC voltage up to around 1.075 - 1.1 V (this seems to be the optimal range for most people from what I've learned). And regarding LLC for the SOC, I think there are different schools of thought on it, with some who say leave it on auto, but I've also seen those who recommend it, including a few highly-knowledgeable individuals, so personally I'd say that you could probably benefit from applying a moderate LLC to the SOC (the DRAM Calculator has suggestions on the Power Supply tab), especially since your BSODs appear to be occurring under load during stresstest.


----------



## rastaviper

Karagra said:


> Hey everyone was wondering if I could pick someones brain here... I am having Issues with TCL and TCWL. TCL will not boot anything lower than 15 no matter what I change and TCWL will not boot under 16.. Running 3733 15-14-16-14-28 1.45v SOC 1.1v (also tried 1.25v) atm have tried many different timings.


Hmm comparing with my 3600x at the same cpu speed (4292mhz) and same Ram speed (3733) but at 16-15-14-32, all your figures are lower, except the Latency.
There I have everything lower (65.3-0.9-2.8-10.1)
That's weird


----------



## Cidious

This is kind of the Maximum I was able to achieve fine-tuning my E-die. tWR could not go lower than 14 or after quite of while of running memtest it would start generating errors. It was a B*tch to find that one. Other timings I kind of of the edge of what's possible or lowering won't give anymore benefit. Is there anyone that got better results? Caring to share more tweaks? I still feel latency can go to 67 or at least 68 just no idea how to proceed from here. I don't feel like raising the voltage much more than 1.45 it's stable on 1.40 now so that's quite the performance for the voltage. 

Ordered a 3800X to replace my 3600... praying IF can do 1900Mhz...


----------



## wesley8

Cidious said:


> This is kind of the Maximum I was able to achieve fine-tuning my E-die. tWR could not go lower than 14 or after quite of while of running memtest it would start generating errors. It was a B*tch to find that one. Other timings I kind of of the edge of what's possible or lowering won't give anymore benefit. Is there anyone that got better results? Caring to share more tweaks? I still feel latency can go to 67 or at least 68 just no idea how to proceed from here. I don't feel like raising the voltage much more than 1.45 it's stable on 1.40 now so that's quite the performance for the voltage.
> 
> Ordered a 3800X to replace my 3600... praying IF can do 1900Mhz...


TRY CL16 16 18 16, CAD BUS DRIVE 24 20 20 24


----------



## DomiksPL

Quick question.
Isn't Write Row-Column Delay too low? Does it might hurt stability or performance (TM5 and MEMbench Memtest shows no errors)?

Ryzen 3600 on B350
2x 8GB D-Die Dual Rank memory


----------



## Cidious

wesley8 said:


> TRY CL16 16 18 16, CAD BUS DRIVE 24 20 20 24


At what voltage? I tried tRCRDR at 18 before and it didn't want to become stable and also lowering CAD ClkDrvStren to 24 gave me errors. I actually had to raise it. I can't see the voltage haha. If you could share that, that would be helpful.


----------



## SaccoSVD

> HOW USE MEMTEST in MEMbench


Won't work with a 64GB Kit. Only up to 40000 MB


----------



## wesley8

Cidious said:


> At what voltage? I tried tRCRDR at 18 before and it didn't want to become stable and also lowering CAD ClkDrvStren to 24 gave me errors. I actually had to raise it. I can't see the voltage haha. If you could share that, that would be helpful.


1.45v at bios，aida64 shows 1.46v


----------



## Cidious

wesley8 said:


> 1.45v at bios，aida64 shows 1.46v


Yeah that doesn't fly with my kit. I got dual rank 2x16gb Edie and I tried 1.47v but tRCRDR won't go down @ 3800mhz. 

Thanks for the tip though.


----------



## Synoxia

Help, i can't overclock 32 gb....

Long story short. I've upgraded to 32gb, bought the same exact kit.
Warranty seal says this B-die kit is from 2018, while the 3000% 16gb HCI stable one is from 2019.
Resetted cmos, tried the same exact settings, F9 code. 
Ok, maybe this kit is a bit slower. Couldn't even POST 3733 with 1867 FCLK. Something is clearly wrong.
Upped vddsoc from 1.05 to 1.10. No result. 1.13, no result.
Then tried removing all dimm slot, and plugging ONLY the newest bought 3200c14 kit and it posted 3800c16 settings.
Now, could it be that some slots on my motherboard just overclock badly? If it was the memory controller upping vddsoc would suffice... no?


----------



## Krisztias

wesley8 said:


> TRY CL16 16 18 16, CAD BUS DRIVE 24 20 20 24


Hi!

Your latency seems a little high, compared to mine:


----------



## gerardfraser

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your latency seems a little high, compared to mine:



Your latency seems a little high, compared to mine:


----------



## wesley8

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> Your latency seems a little high, compared to mine:


U sure？Thats C9BJZ 16G DR,not bdie

MY BDIE:


----------



## Exostenza

Hey my AMD dudes! I know this is a Ryzen thread although I have an Intel related question. 

I recently changed over systems from running 2 consecutive Ryzen builds and this calculator has been invaluable in keeping my RAM running to peak performance. Now that I am on Intel I find that there is really no buzz around trying to get RAM optimized like there is on the Ryzen platform which is kind of a bummer. Does anyone know if this program would be useful for Intel systems or if there is a similar app/method of OCing and tightening up RAM on an Intel system? I loved how tight I could get my sub-timings with this calculator and it actually made a reasonable difference which leaves me longing to do the same on this new Intel system I am running. BTW, just for reference, I only switched over because a dear friend of mine died and he wanted me have his ridiculously expensive motherboard and cpu so in his memory I am running it and sold my Ryzen system. 

Sorry if this is not the place to ask but this thread has become so familiar to me that it was the first place I thought of when my mind went to getting this RAM sorted out on this new system. Thanks OCN!


----------



## Krisztias

wesley8 said:


> U sure？Thats C9BJZ 16G DR,not bdie
> 
> MY BDIE:


My fault, I looked only the timings in Aida, and it seemed like with CL16 a little high. It was with good will.
I need 1.5V for my 3200C14 Flare X memory's, to run at 3800C14, so I think I'm better with C16 on 1,465V.


----------



## sirsergy

*DDR4 RAM Overclocking - Improvement Suggestions*

Hello guys,

Sorry for bothering, just wanted to consult about my RAM overclocking config.

I have:
- Motherboard: Aorus X570 Elite, Bios version - F5f;
- CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X @4200MHz at ~1.3V (Manual fixed overclock);
- CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15S (1 Fan) with Coollaboratory Liquid PRO between cooler and CPU;
- RAM: G.Skill Flare X (for AMD) [F4-2933C14D-16GFX] at 1.35V;
- GPU: MSI AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT EVOKE OC.

I used Ryzen DRAM Calculator to find optimal safe RAM timings at 3600MHz. But for now the only stable timings that I have found are 17-17-17-17-34-51. With these parameters there are no issues in TestMem app with 1usmus config V3 and heavy config by anta777 and in LinX 0.7.0 app. Lowering main timings or increasing DRAM voltage did not give any improvements.

I have attached several screenshots to see all my current BIOS settings and DRAM Calculator recommendations.

Can please anyone have a look at the screenshots and maybe provide some improvement suggestions?

Thanks for information in advance.


----------



## wesley8

Krisztias said:


> My fault, I looked only the timings in Aida, and it seemed like with CL16 a little high. It was with good will.
> I need 1.5V for my 3200C14 Flare X memory's, to run at 3800C14, so I think I'm better with C16 on 1,465V.


but your latency still high。。。same timing at 16G dual ranks


----------



## Krisztias

wesley8 said:


> but your latency still high。。。same timing at 16G dual ranks


I'm not sure, but are DR memory's not faster? I have the timings from calculator, only trfc is little lower, 288. I think my timings are way looser than yours, and I run Aida in normal desktop mode, where some app's are running in the background.
What do you think, where should I thigten up the timings?


----------



## Ray666

Exostenza said:


> Hey my AMD dudes! I know this is a Ryzen thread although I have an Intel related question.
> 
> I recently changed over systems from running 2 consecutive Ryzen builds and this calculator has been invaluable in keeping my RAM running to peak performance. Now that I am on Intel I find that there is really no buzz around trying to get RAM optimized like there is on the Ryzen platform which is kind of a bummer. Does anyone know if this program would be useful for Intel systems or if there is a similar app/method of OCing and tightening up RAM on an Intel system? I loved how tight I could get my sub-timings with this calculator and it actually made a reasonable difference which leaves me longing to do the same on this new Intel system I am running. BTW, just for reference, I only switched over because a dear friend of mine died and he wanted me have his ridiculously expensive motherboard and cpu so in his memory I am running it and sold my Ryzen system.
> 
> Sorry if this is not the place to ask but this thread has become so familiar to me that it was the first place I thought of when my mind went to getting this RAM sorted out on this new system. Thanks OCN!


https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/intel-dram-calculator-or-similar.18841033/


----------



## Cidious

wesley8 said:


> but your latency still high。。。same timing at 16G dual ranks


Latency is dependent on CPU and its memory controller.. I moved from a 3600 to a 3800X and latency dropped 2ns. Didn't know this was such an influence.


----------



## Redwoodz

Cidious said:


> Latency is dependent on CPU and its memory controller.. I moved from a 3600 to a 3800X and latency dropped 2ns. Didn't know this was such an influence.


 Latency is limited by cpu, RAM is usually the bigger factor, unless you have tweeked the timings already.


----------



## Offler

Just checked out this tool. Not much CPU or RAM tweaking so far:

a) CPU is set to fixed frequency 4000MHz for all Cores, and fixed voltage of 1.26v
b) GDM mode is disabled and RAM is set to CR 1.

Actually i did not expected to land in anything close to high-performance in terms of latency, so i am surprised a bit.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

In the tool there is tRFC and tRFC(alt), but in my motherboard bios I have tRFC 1, 2 and 4. Which one is tRFC and which one is tRFC (alt)?

Tnx


----------



## Hequaqua

Ha-Nocri said:


> In the tool there is tRFC and tRFC(alt), but in my motherboard bios I have tRFC 1, 2 and 4. Which one is tRFC and which one is tRFC (alt)?
> 
> Tnx


tRFC listed is what you should use. The Alt are alternative timings that you could try. 

IIRC tRFC 2 and 4 aren't recognized by Zen. Someone can correct that if I'm wrong.

FWIW....I set all three to the same timing.


----------



## Cidious

Ha-Nocri said:


> In the tool there is tRFC and tRFC(alt), but in my motherboard bios I have tRFC 1, 2 and 4. Which one is tRFC and which one is tRFC (alt)?
> 
> Tnx


Just use one value and put it in tRFC 1 leave the rest on auto. That's what I do. Works like a charm every time on gigabyte x570 boards. I myself with my home kit on my Mortar and Tomahawk have an option to just use 1 tRFC. 


On another note. I decided to replace my Mortar for an Mortar MAX just to get better bios support along the way and because I do love the board for it's price. Hard to beat. 

And guess what, performance improvement on memory and processor just swapping boards with a different bios size and presumably the same core features. 


3800X + 32GB (2x16) E-die @ 3800CL16

Mortar -> Mortar MAX = (lowest measured after several runs) Latency 68.2ns -> 67.2ns + Cinebench Multi 4979 -> 5009

The increase is not world chaning but consitent throughout multiple tests. Not margin of error for Cinebench. Exact same bios settings and testing conditions. Controlled AC room etc etc etc etc etc. You get my point. Even boards that are practically the same can have different performance.

I went from R5 3600 Mortar -> R7 3800X Mortar MAX -> Latency dropped 70.2 -> 67.2

Now I'm on par with others E-die kits @3800CL16 1.42v (pay attention to ClkDrvStren 40 to make it stable. Also TWR can't be lowered to 14 or 12. It will eventually after an hour or so generate single errors. I think 1usmus found this before I did haha.) VSOC 1.05v VDDP 0.900v, VDDG 0.950v


----------



## rastaviper

Cidious said:


> Just use one value and put it in tRFC 1 leave the rest on auto. That's what I do. Works like a charm every time on gigabyte x570 boards. I myself with my home kit on my Mortar and Tomahawk have an option to just use 1 tRFC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On another note. I decided to replace my Mortar for an Mortar MAX just to get better bios support along the way and because I do love the board for it's price. Hard to beat.
> 
> 
> 
> And guess what, performance improvement on memory and processor just swapping boards with a different bios size and presumably the same core features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3800X + 32GB (2x16) E-die @ 3800CL16
> 
> 
> 
> Mortar -> Mortar MAX = (lowest measured after several runs) Latency 68.2ns -> 67.2ns + Cinebench Multi 4979 -> 5009
> 
> 
> 
> The increase is not world chaning but consitent throughout multiple tests. Not margin of error for Cinebench. Exact same bios settings and testing conditions. Controlled AC room etc etc etc etc etc. You get my point. Even boards that are practically the same can have different performance.
> 
> 
> 
> I went from R5 3600 Mortar -> R7 3800X Mortar MAX -> Latency dropped 70.2 -> 67.2
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm on par with others E-die kits @3800CL16 1.42v (pay attention to ClkDrvStren 40 to make it stable. Also TWR can't be lowered to 14 or 12. It will eventually after an hour or so generate single errors. I think 1usmus found this before I did haha.) VSOC 1.05v VDDP 0.900v, VDDG 0.950v


Just some good Bdie and 63ns latency is coming at 3733 even with a 3600x CPU.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ha-Nocri

rastaviper said:


> Just some good Bdie and 63ns latency is coming at 3733 even with a 3600x CPU.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Do you bench in safe mode, or regular windows? Because with 3800MHz CL16 the best I can get is 66-67ns. Didn't thinker too much with sub-timings tho.


----------



## Cidious

Read my post above. Latency is dependant on motherboard and processor too. Not just ram. Going from 3600+Mortar->3800X+Mortar MAX I lowered my latency by 3ns with the same settings while the Mortar and Mortar MAX are practically the same boards. With same bios core functionality. This is with E-die now.

My bdie also didn't go very low on the mortar nonMAX 66 ns on average. 64 ish if I'd push Max. I Recon if I'd stick my bdie in the MAX+3800X that I could do better a bit.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Fixed tRFC, same for 1, 2 and 4 and looks pretty good


----------



## Synoxia

I've got my x4 8gb 3200c14 kit to 3800c16 stable 1300% HCI. 
However sometimes it refuses to post, first it gives f9 code then becomes stuck with 15post code requires a CLR cmos (asus c7h hero motherboard) Procodt is at 40, raising dram vboot to 1.55 doesn't help, what to do?


----------



## rastaviper

Ha-Nocri said:


> Do you bench in safe mode, or regular windows? Because with 3800MHz CL16 the best I can get is 66-67ns. Didn't thinker too much with sub-timings tho.


Standard windows.
Check my previous posts for results. 16-15-15 help a lot I guess


----------



## neurotix

Synoxia said:


> I've got my x4 8gb 3200c14 kit to 3800c16 stable 1300% HCI.
> However sometimes it refuses to post, first it gives f9 code then becomes stuck with 15post code requires a CLR cmos (asus c7h hero motherboard) Procodt is at 40, raising dram vboot to 1.55 doesn't help, what to do?


You are running quite low tRFC and tFAW

Try raising tRFC to 304 and tFAW to 20 or 24.

The not posting thing = you are not fully stable.


----------



## Synoxia

neurotix said:


> You are running quite low tRFC and tFAW
> 
> Try raising tRFC to 304 and tFAW to 20 or 24.
> 
> The not posting thing = you are not fully stable.


Will try, about not posting = not stable i'm skeptical. 
I usually test ram for 2000%+ i leave it over night basically, if that it's stable USUALLY it is stable, it has never crashed me a rig in a year or so by doing this method.
Not being able to post sometimes i think is a different thing and it has to do with memory training... remember cold boot issues with ryzen 1st gen? 
Will you say that the 0d and 8d (asus postcodes) errors that sometimes happen and refuse to post with ryzen 3000 AT STOCK or just pbo means the system is not stable?


----------



## rdr09

Don't nail me to the cross. Just asking. Why this obsession to go so high? I prolly know the answer already cos this is ocn.

For Gen 1 and Gen 1 +, yes, the higher the better or the lesser the Latency the better. Gen 2's L3 Cache helps, so the need for speed is lessened.


----------



## wesley8

Synoxia said:


> I've got my x4 8gb 3200c14 kit to 3800c16 stable 1300% HCI.
> However sometimes it refuses to post, first it gives f9 code then becomes stuck with 15post code requires a CLR cmos (asus c7h hero motherboard) Procodt is at 40, raising dram vboot to 1.55 doesn't help, what to do?


you can try trfc 288 214 312 and set vddg to 1.1v


----------



## Redwoodz

rdr09 said:


> Don't nail me to the cross. Just asking. Why this obsession to go so high? I prolly know the answer already cos this is ocn.
> 
> For Gen 1 and Gen 1 +, yes, the higher the better or the lesser the Latency the better. Gen 2's L3 Cache helps, so the need for speed is lessened.



My R5 2600/RX570 gets better gaming scores with Dual Rank D die @3266MHz-72.ns over my Bdie SR kits @3466MHz-62ns


----------



## psybangas09

Joined the low latency memory Ryzen owner's club myself! Hopefully new Agesa 1.0.0.4 Patch B BIOS keeps this going. :specool:


----------



## Synoxia

wesley8 said:


> you can try trfc 288 214 312 and set vddg to 1.1v


I've raised 2.50 voltage to 2.51 (dont remember the name) and Cadbustimings to 60. This semeed to do the trick, however ram run considerably hot, in the 55s range. I am slowly lowering voltage to get it back to sane levels
Why lowering trfc tho?


----------



## rdr09

Redwoodz said:


> My R5 2600/RX570 gets better gaming scores with Dual Rank D die @3266MHz-72.ns over my Bdie SR kits @3466MHz-62ns


I only see the difference in various clock speed in Aida, Cinebench, and prolly CPUz. In gaming, i can set the RAM to optimized default of 2400MHz and not notice any change from 3333MHz. I just want to get my money's worth and then some so i oc to 3333MHz. Prolly cos i only have a mid-range gpu?


----------



## Yuke

Not sure where to go from here:











2x 16Gb dual rank 3800Mhz, 1.45V


Pretty sure i have to go into unhealthy territory for more...


----------



## Synoxia

I have x4 sticks of 8 GB ram (32gb). Does this mean i'm dual rank? Bankgroup swap enabled and bgs disabled right?
Also, i've found out that Cadbus timings setup 60 (not the ones at 24-20-20-24 in the first page, the ones in DRAM calculator advanced page, the three before cad bus drv strenght)
removes my boot issues completely and the OC is still stable. They add up considerably more temp tho, i've got them stable with 57c max on a stick... i am now dropping voltage. 
Like ***, i wasn't previously able to post consistently at 1.48v and now i've posted at 1.35v???


----------



## neurotix

Synoxia said:


> I have x4 sticks of 8 GB ram (32gb). Does this mean i'm dual rank? Bankgroup swap enabled and bgs disabled right?


No, your sticks are probably very unlikely to be dual rank. You have 8GB DIMMs. Generally, these are single rank, and 16GB individual DIMMs are dual rank. (Single rank versus dual rank means memory chips on one side of the DIMM module circuit board under the heat spreader for single rank, and on both sides of the DIMM module circuit board for dual rank.) If you had 64GB total in four 16GB DIMMs they would probably be dual rank, because to achieve that density they put the memory chips on both sides. Since you have 32GB total in four 8GB DIMMs it is highly likely they are single rank, especially if they are G.skill or B-Die. This is not always the case but you can verify rank by inspecting Thaiphoon Burner's report, (free) or using AIDA64 and checking around the memory section.

> Bankgroup swap enabled and bgs disabled right?

BankGroupSwap and BGS are the same thing, you probably made a typo. You want to set BankGroupSwap to disabled, and BankGroupSwap_Alt to enabled. In my case, this gives roughly 6GB/sec additional memory copy bandwidth at DDR-3800 with primaries/termination impedance/advanced settings from Ryzen DRAM Calculator and manually optimized secondary and tertiary subtimings.


----------------------------------------

On another note, I did this last week:











I tested it in Heaven 1080p because I read on a German hardware forums (that was in English) that some games/benchmarks benefit more from increased bandwidth and latency is irrelevant. I figured with Unigine Heaven being so old, and lower resolution, that any increase or decrease in average FPS would show values outside of margin of error, compared to something more recent and demanding that would achieve much lower FPS. Compared to 3800/1900MHz fclk (282.5 fps) I saw a slight decrease (279-ish fps). I doubt I'd see a difference at all in something like Unigine Valley at 5760x1080, Superposition, Fire Strike Ultra, etc. that is essentially wholly GPU-limited.

Anyway, I think it shows up incorrectly in the screenshot but my Fclk was actually 1866MHz. I haven't tried for higher at all and don't see a point, but if I could do 4266MHz at similar timings, I think the latency would decrease enough (71ns is pretty dang low) and bandwidth would increase enough to make it faster despite running in asynchronous mode.

For now, I will probably continue to run the kit at 3800/1900MHz (which I expected would still be better), and work further on optimizing settings and timings. However, it seems that no matter what timings I set, how many processes I kill or close, or how many devices I disconnect (so the system doesn't have to answer the interrupts), it is extremely difficult to get below 64ns with an R9 3900X, and I can't replicate the time I got latency to 63.5ns. I suspect this is because of the DRAM access being just a little bit slower on the 3900X due to the separate chiplets, cache design, etc. vs an 8-core or below Ryzen 3000 chip. If anyone has a 3900X and has gotten bandwidth at 3800MHz below 63ns, please let me know what you did- I think most of the tests I've seen showing 62ns latency or below were not done on a 3900X.

Anyway, 4066MHz is five dividers higher than 3800MHz and overall, thirteen (13!) dividers higher than what the kit is validated at. (3200MHz C14). I just did this for my own data and research, and to see if I could, and how it would end up. Given that my lowest latency was 63.5ns @ 3800 synchronous, getting 71ns @ 4066 is pretty amazing as I have significantly cut the 10ns penalty (from around 75ns). Despite running five dividers higher than 3800MHz, I was able to keep CAS latency at 16. Really glad I went with G.skill Flare X B-Die instead of TridentZ Neo  I've never had memory that overclocked much more than one divider higher, besides my Samsung Miracle RAM I sold (DDR3)


----------



## Axaion

And then theres me with flareX 3200 CL14 sticks too, that cant make it not freak out over 3400mhz with -any- timings lol.

even at up to 1.5v, either my mobo sucks, ram sucks, cpu sucks, or all 3!


By messing up, i mean the 
"Average Measured interrupt to DPC latency", goes from 0.65 to 1.8+ :|


----------



## Filters83

Gskill 3200C14 at 3800C16 1.4 volt gdm enable whit some app in beckground not bad for me ^^


----------



## Chrisch

Thanks for the calculator, tested one setting and its running well with my 3600 TridentZ (B-Dies)


----------



## 1usmus

*My dears, I have prepared my own power profile for Ryzen*, it will fix all problems with boost and also reduce the temperature in idle and loads where all the cores are not involved. 
On average, I get a difference of 200-250 MHz :clock: EDC 27 > 12% , TDC 20 > 12% , PPT 33 > 25% .

First of all, this applies to owners of 3900X and future owners of 3950X. I sent the appropriate recommendation to AMD, I really hope that in the near future it will be implemented at an official level.
MSI products have suffered the most, but changes are also present on other motherboards.

In any case, this profile affects all zen 2 processors.

Pictures with tests > https://twitter.com/1usmus

*ETA: 4 November*


----------



## eBombzor

Very nice. I'm just wondering, does it only increase the power limits you listed above or does it further tweak the frequency ramp up behavior?


----------



## Streetdragon

EDC 27 > 12% , TDC 20 > 12% , PPT 33 > 25%

This are the power limiting settings in the amd overclocking bios right?


----------



## Ufuk Özsaran

Hello everyone.

https://i.hizliresim.com/1po9EG.jpg

I did it using the settings in the photo. I just couldn't find BGS. system is never stable.


https://i.hizliresim.com/00ZP0V.jpg


image of this 3733 mhz.. the system is thus stable.



3800 MHz and the system is turned on when I make the settings in the photo.
keyboard mouse stops working.


I hope you can help..

Thank you everyone.

my system properties :

X570 Aorus Master
3900X
Gskill Trindent-Z Neo F4-3600C16D-32GTZN


----------



## 1usmus

eBombzor said:


> Very nice. I'm just wondering, does it only increase the power limits you listed above or does it further tweak the frequency ramp up behavior?





Streetdragon said:


> EDC 27 > 12% , TDC 20 > 12% , PPT 33 > 25%
> 
> This are the power limiting settings in the amd overclocking bios right?


No, *I don’t touch PBO or offset*, modification is only in the Ryzen power profile. The processor heats less and consumes less. Tonight it was possible to achieve a stable *4600 MHz*.


https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=304194&thumb=1


----------



## 1usmus

Ufuk Özsaran said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> https://i.hizliresim.com/1po9EG.jpg
> 
> I did it using the settings in the photo. I just couldn't find BGS. system is never stable.
> 
> 
> https://i.hizliresim.com/00ZP0V.jpg
> 
> 
> image of this 3733 mhz.. the system is thus stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 3800 MHz and the system is turned on when I make the settings in the photo.
> keyboard mouse stops working.
> 
> 
> I hope you can help..
> 
> Thank you everyone.
> 
> my system properties :
> 
> X570 Aorus Master
> 3900X
> Gskill Trindent-Z Neo F4-3600C16D-32GTZN


BGS is located in AMD_CBS. BGS is located in AMD_CBS. If you didn’t find it, it’s okay, I don’t think that its automatic mode works badly.

About "keyboard mouse stops working" , try SOC 1.15v , CLDO_VDDP 1.15v , CLDO_VDDG 1.15v


----------



## Hwgeek

1usmus- GJ!

Hope that you can reach few HW review sites that could add your profile for the upcoming 3950X reviews.
Also it's gonna be interesting if TR3000 could use your method for better boost clocks on its multi chiplet design.


----------



## Duvar

Need that for 3600^^
Do we have to wait for AMD to implement that?


----------



## Hwgeek

Intel: We got 9900KS!
AMD: we got @1usmus!


----------



## Duvar

Its a modification for single core usage if i am correct. Are there now two different power settings with different limits active?
F.e. much lower limits for single core usage and much higher for multi core, because in single core applications you can go much further down with the limits.
But there is a silicon quality difference, what if 1usmus limits will reduce the performance down with bad cpus?


----------



## dkarDaGobert

im really looking forward to get your powerplan and the 1.0.0.4 update for my asus crosshair vii 
finally managed to get my 4x8gb 3800C16-15-15-15-30-45 TRFC280 with 1,39V Setting stable again after my bios ****ed up some days ago


config is


Spoiler



[2019/11/03 14:56:41]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Performance Enhancer [Level 3 (OC)]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
SMT Mode [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [15]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [15]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
Trc [45]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [4]
TwtrL [12]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [4]
TwrwrScl [4]
Trfc [280]
Trfc2 [192]
Trfc4 [132]
Tcwl [16]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [4]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [7]
TwrwrDd [7]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [5]
TrdrdDd [5]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.39000]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.70000]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [0.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [0.50000]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Enabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Normal]
CLDO VDDP voltage [900]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.05000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
CLDO VDDG voltage [0.950]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Firmware TPM [Disable]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Disabled]
Onboard LED [Disabled]
Q-Code LED Function [Disabled after POST]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Enabled]
HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX8/X4_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
When system is in working state [Off]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Off]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Enable(S4+S5)]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [WDC WD80EFAX-68LHPN0]
Legacy USB Support [Disabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Disabled]
U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
U31G1_5 [Enabled]
U31G1_6 [Enabled]
U31G1_7 [Enabled]
U31G1_8 [Enabled]
U31G1_9 [Enabled]
U31G1_10 [Enabled]
USB11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
USB14 [Enabled]
USB15 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
POST Report [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Other OS]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
ASUS Grid Install Service [Disabled]
Load from Profile [1]
Profile Name [32.16.15/10k%]
Save to Profile [1]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
CCD Control [Auto]
Core control [Auto]
SMT Control [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
Platform First Error Handling [Enabled]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Auto]
DRAM ECC Enable [Disabled]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [512 Bytes]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
Disable DF to external IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Auto]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Disable]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Enable]
FFE Write Training [Enable]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Manual]
PMU Pattern Bits [a]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Enabled]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Disabled]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Disabled]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [3]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [UCLK==MEMCLK]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
LN2 Mode [Disabled]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [Auto]
DF Cstates [Auto]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
BoostFmaxEn [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]


if you have any ideas to boost my settings even more, leave me a message


----------



## bluechris

Guys it's better to stay with my bdies at 3600cl14 or 3800cl16? I tried it once and my CB scores went lower even though my bandwidth raised. I am with a 3600cpu and my fcbk is 1800, i don't think from what i read that i can raise the fcbk to 1900 with 1:1 because this will make problems of stability.


----------



## ccxmonster

is there a bug with this program ? when i check fast preset for 3600 MHz it gives 1.35 dram voltage value but when i go for lower 3400 MHz it gives 1.440 dram voltage
is this normal ?


----------



## gerardfraser

1usmus said:


> *My dears, I have prepared my own power profile for Ryzen*, it will fix all problems with boost and also reduce the temperature in idle and loads where all the cores are not involved.
> On average, I get a difference of 200-250 MHz :clock: EDC 27 > 12% , TDC 20 > 12% , PPT 33 > 25% .
> 
> First of all, this applies to owners of 3900X and future owners of 3950X. I sent the appropriate recommendation to AMD, I really hope that in the near future it will be implemented at an official level.
> MSI products have suffered the most, but changes are also present on other motherboards.
> 
> In any case, this profile affects all zen 2 processors.
> 
> Pictures with tests > https://twitter.com/1usmus
> 
> *ETA: 4 November*


This looks awesome ,thanks for sharing.


----------



## eBombzor

bluechris said:


> Guys it's better to stay with my bdies at 3600cl14 or 3800cl16? I tried it once and my CB scores went lower even though my bandwidth raised. I am with a 3600cpu and my fcbk is 1800, i don't think from what i read that i can raise the fcbk to 1900 with 1:1 because this will make problems of stability.


CB is not sensitive to IF/RAM speed. Use AIDA64's latency or a in-game benchmark. RS6 on ultra low is pretty good. 

If you can't achieve a 1:1 don't bother. Have you tried 3733 CL14? A fair number of CPUs can reach 1866 on the IF. Either way, 3600 CL14 is plenty good and I would focus on tightening subtimings instead of reaching for a higher frequency at that point.


1usmus said:


> No, *I don’t touch PBO or offset*, modification is only in the Ryzen power profile. The processor heats less and consumes less. Tonight it was possible to achieve a stable *4600 MHz*.
> 
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=304194&thumb=1


What's the voltage behavior on this new power plan? I'm assuming the sustained voltage must be higher to achieve the sustained 4.6 right? Is it safe for long term?


ccxmonster said:


> is there a bug with this program ? when i check fast preset for 3600 MHz it gives 1.35 dram voltage value but when i go for lower 3400 MHz it gives 1.440 dram voltage
> is this normal ?


What RAM sticks are you using? Show us a picture of your DRAM Calc settings. Are you doing FAST on 3400?


----------



## ccxmonster

eBombzor said:


> CB is not sensitive to IF/RAM speed. Use AIDA64's latency or a in-game benchmark. RS6 on ultra low is pretty good.
> 
> If you can't achieve a 1:1 don't bother. Have you tried 3733 CL14? A fair number of CPUs can reach 1866 on the IF. Either way, 3600 CL14 is plenty good and I would focus on tightening subtimings instead of reaching for a higher frequency at that point.
> 
> What's the voltage behavior on this new power plan? I'm assuming the sustained voltage must be higher to achieve the sustained 4.6 right? Is it safe for long term?
> 
> What RAM sticks are you using? Show us a picture of your DRAM Calc settings. Are you doing FAST on 3400?


hi there

my rams are 2x8 16gb SPECTRIX D60G DDR4 RGB Memory Module 3200MHz CL16

these are hynix cjr rams

here is 3400 MHz fast preset https://prnt.sc/ps4kyy

and here is 3600 MHz fast preset https://prnt.sc/ps4lak

should i change profile version from v1 to v2 and try ?? 

thanks again.

EDIT:in bios should i keep xmp setting on when increasing MHz of ram or should i pick "auto" instead of xmp profile 1(3200 MHz) ?


----------



## wesley8

dkarDaGobert said:


> im really looking forward to get your powerplan and the 1.0.0.4 update for my asus crosshair vii
> finally managed to get my 4x8gb 3800C16-15-15-15-30-45 TRFC280 with 1,39V Setting stable again after my bios ****ed up some days ago
> 
> 
> config is
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2019/11/03 14:56:41]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Performance Enhancer [Level 3 (OC)]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [2]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [15]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [15]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [30]
> Trc [45]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [4]
> TwrwrScl [4]
> Trfc [280]
> Trfc2 [192]
> Trfc4 [132]
> Tcwl [16]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [4]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [20.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Optimized]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.39000]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.70000]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [0.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [0.50000]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Enabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Normal]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [900]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
> - CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.05000]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.39000]
> CLDO VDDG voltage [0.950]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Firmware TPM [Disable]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> Onboard LED [Disabled]
> Q-Code LED Function [Disabled after POST]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Enabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Enabled]
> M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
> PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX8/X4_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
> When system is in working state [Off]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Off]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Enable(S4+S5)]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [WDC WD80EFAX-68LHPN0]
> Legacy USB Support [Disabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Disabled]
> U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
> U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
> U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> U31G1_5 [Enabled]
> U31G1_6 [Enabled]
> U31G1_7 [Enabled]
> U31G1_8 [Enabled]
> U31G1_9 [Enabled]
> U31G1_10 [Enabled]
> USB11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> USB14 [Enabled]
> USB15 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Silent]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Silent]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [2.6 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> POST Report [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> ASUS Grid Install Service [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [1]
> Profile Name [32.16.15/10k%]
> Save to Profile [1]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
> Platform First Error Handling [Enabled]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Disabled]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [512 Bytes]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> Disable DF to external IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Disable]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Enable]
> FFE Write Training [Enable]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Manual]
> PMU Pattern Bits [a]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Enabled]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Disabled]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [3]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [UCLK==MEMCLK]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Disabled]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Enabled]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
> BoostFmaxEn [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> 
> 
> if you have any ideas to boost my settings even more, leave me a message


U can try to set 3800c15-15 and Cmd2T [2T] Gear Down Mode [Disable]


----------



## Alexshunter

Hello Guys, how do you calculate cl14 timings for 3600MHz for Samsung B die? Ryzen dram calculator even in fast mod calculates only cl16.

I’m looking for the fastest settings for these modules, F4-3200C14D-16GFX for Ryzen 5 3600 and X470 motherboard.


----------



## bad_haze

Love this calc! Got my CL17 down to CL14


----------



## Chrisch

Alexshunter said:


> Hello Guys, how do you calculate cl14 timings for 3600MHz for Samsung B die? Ryzen dram calculator even in fast mod calculates only cl16.
> 
> I’m looking for the fastest settings for these modules, F4-3200C14D-16GFX for Ryzen 5 3600 and X470 motherboard.


idk what ur doing, but here it calculates c14 for 3600


----------



## dkarDaGobert

Chrisch said:


> idk what ur doing, but here it calculates c14 for 3600



without loading the ram template? gj


----------



## Ufuk Özsaran

1usmus said:


> BGS is located in AMD_CBS. BGS is located in AMD_CBS. If you didn’t find it, it’s okay, I don’t think that its automatic mode works badly.
> 
> About "keyboard mouse stops working" , try SOC 1.15v , CLDO_VDDP 1.15v , CLDO_VDDG 1.15v




hello to everyone again..

primarily the keyboard and mouse are now working properly.. but there are crackles in the sound. no matter what you listen to. crackling sound.. I did what was said on the old pages.but it did not improve..

things I've tried..

I even did the following to guarantee..

Vcore SOC : 1.2V

SOC Voltage : 1200

Dram Voltage 1.42

VDDG: 1000 ( system does not open at higher values)
VDDP: 1000 ( system does not open at higher values)


my settings built according to ryzen dram calculator..

https://imgur.com/a/Ckq025C

there is only distortion. I can't fix this.

I can't think of anything else. Where do I make a mistake?


----------



## Chrisch

dkarDaGobert said:


> without loading the ram template? gj


excuse me, my fault. but makes no different at the result (for me).


----------



## 1usmus

*1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


----------



## Streetdragon

still max boost at around 4,525Mhz with less score on cinbench.

Well you tried


----------



## eBombzor

ccxmonster said:


> hi there
> 
> my rams are 2x8 16gb SPECTRIX D60G DDR4 RGB Memory Module 3200MHz CL16
> 
> these are hynix cjr rams
> 
> here is 3400 MHz fast preset https://prnt.sc/ps4kyy
> 
> and here is 3600 MHz fast preset https://prnt.sc/ps4lak
> 
> should i change profile version from v1 to v2 and try ??
> 
> thanks again.
> 
> EDIT:in bios should i keep xmp setting on when increasing MHz of ram or should i pick "auto" instead of xmp profile 1(3200 MHz) ?


Can't say for certain but CJR's tCL timing scales with voltage, and since 3400 is only 200mhz from 3600, low tCL still requires a lot of voltage. Also GDM is set to disabled on the 3400 Fast. I believe enabling GDM would greatly increase stability among lower voltages so I would try that first.

And yea try V2 if V1 isn't stable. Though I would try enabling GDM for V1 first and see if that helps.

Most people here set it to auto over xmp but some people like myself have seen that it may help with stability or make no difference at all if you are changing every category anyway. I would try leaving it on the xmp profile first then try auto.


----------



## Pilotasso

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


Awsome work. I noticed this was out there because the internetz press has has already gotten the wind of this.

One question: Is this dependent on BIOS version?


----------



## djase45

*I need your help*

Hi,
I have 2x8 16gb G.Skill F4-3200C14-8GTZRX but none of the dram calculator timings works.
I've got bsod or errors.






Can anyone help me?
Cheers.


----------



## Yviena

Weird with 3733CL14 fast timings.i get 64ns.latency but 3800CL16 is 63.5ns, I would have expected 3733 with CL14 timings to have less latency.


----------



## Nijo

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/



Good job!
Is your power-plan bound to AGESA 1.0.0.4 or does it also work with 1.0.0.3 (ABBA)?


----------



## Filters83

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


Thx as usual for your work ! 
I read your guide and was already that option set or enable only miss
AMD Cool'n'Quiet = Enabled
PPC Adjustment = PState 0
but you say its ok

You can see the result in the image on a R5 3600X but it still not using the faster core, i already know i had some core reach 4.4 no problem but the in the test used the core 1 and during test reach 4350, according ryzen master is not one of the two faster core
What i can ceck to make profile work correctly?
THis is a clean install on windows 10 whit all latest driver and update installed ofc also latest amd driver
Thx in advance


----------



## Ha-Nocri

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


Is it possible to make a plan to be as efficient as 'Power save' plan on desktop, but when in games to work like yours?


----------



## rastaviper

1usmus said:


> *My dears, I have prepared my own power profile for Ryzen*, it will fix all problems with boost and also reduce the temperature in idle and loads where all the cores are not involved.
> 
> On average, I get a difference of 200-250 MHz :clock: EDC 27 > 12% , TDC 20 > 12% , PPT 33 > 25% .
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this applies to owners of 3900X and future owners of 3950X. I sent the appropriate recommendation to AMD, I really hope that in the near future it will be implemented at an official level.
> 
> MSI products have suffered the most, but changes are also present on other motherboards.
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, this profile affects all zen 2 processors.
> 
> 
> 
> Pictures with tests > https://twitter.com/1usmus
> 
> 
> 
> *ETA: 4 November*


Hey mate,

If u don't mind me asking, the benefit of such power plan is only when the cores are unlocked, right?
Because if -for example- I manually lock all my cores at a high frequency (like 4400) then any benchmark will have better results in comparison to have the cores freely go up and down.

Personally I don't see how this would benefit my 3600x when most of benchmarks can run with 4300mhz locked for all cores.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## rastaviper

Filters83 said:


> Gskill 3200C14 at 3800C16 1.4 volt gdm enable whit some app in beckground not bad for me ^^


U can get even better numbers if you could go 16-15-15
They do more like this at 3733 than your timings at 3800

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## djase45

djase45 said:


> Hi,
> I have 2x8 16gb G.Skill F4-3200C14-8GTZRX but none of the dram calculator timings works.
> I've got bsod or errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone help me?
> Cheers.


anyone?:h34r-smi


----------



## NightAntilli

djase45 said:


> anyone?:h34r-smi


Try the V1 timings rather than the imported XMP profile.
If not,
Try V2

If not, try what I did here;
https://www.overclock.net/forum/27935988-post2348.html


If that does not work, I can't help you.


----------



## Filters83

rastaviper said:


> U can get even better numbers if you could go 16-15-15
> They do more like this at 3733 than your timings at 3800
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Ye thx i did the day after beck to 3733 at 1.39 and lowered to 16 15 15 30 45 way more stable, i was experiencing reboot and have to raise vddc and soc voltage over 1.1 and i didnt liked


----------



## neurotix

*Ryzen 3000 RAM and cache speed versus previous AMD setups*










I made that for the heck of it, and for my own internal comparisons.

I thought I would share it with you all: it shows AIDA64 memory bandwidth and latency, as well as cache bandwidth and latency, across three generations of my AMD setups, with Intel Haswell included for good measure. I still had my screenshots saved from overclocking memory on all setups, going back to 2010. (Make backups!)

The comparisons are between the Phenom II x6 1090T, AMD FX-8350 Vishera (Bulldozer 2nd gen), Intel Haswell, and my current Ryzen 3900X.

Enjoy. Hope some of you find this as interesting as I do.


----------



## gerardfraser

Awesome 3d effect on the blue lettering,thanks for sharing.


----------



## Ufuk Özsaran

Ufuk Özsaran said:


> hello to everyone again..
> 
> primarily the keyboard and mouse are now working properly.. but there are crackles in the sound. no matter what you listen to. crackling sound.. I did what was said on the old pages.but it did not improve..
> 
> things I've tried..
> 
> I even did the following to guarantee..
> 
> Vcore SOC : 1.2V
> 
> SOC Voltage : 1200
> 
> Dram Voltage 1.42
> 
> VDDG: 1000 ( system does not open at higher values)
> VDDP: 1000 ( system does not open at higher values)
> 
> 
> my settings built according to ryzen dram calculator..
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/Ckq025C
> 
> there is only distortion. I can't fix this.
> 
> I can't think of anything else. Where do I make a mistake?





Do you have any ideas for cracking sound? :/


----------



## lily gfx

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


Thank you for the settings and power plan, it helped me a lot.
I do not reach 4600MHz but it reaches 4500MHz and I do get a much better Single-Core score in CB20 with CPU at stock settings.
(I use a Corsair H150i Pro that needs new fans:>)
Your settings also fixed a memory latency issue I been struggling with.

Still learning to adjust memory and your DRAM Calculator helped a lot so far.^^

My current PBO setting in bios on the X570 Godlike:
Precision Boost Overdrive --> Advanced (for some reason Precision Boost Overdrive set to Auto does not do same for me)
PBO Limits --> Manual
PPT TDC and EDC --> Auto
Scalar Control --> Auto


----------



## asefsef

*Gear Down Mode on vs off*

Upgraded my mobo from B450m Mortar to B450-i Strix

on B450m Mortar, I was stable on [email protected] 1.47v
on B450-i Strix, I have to run 3600mhz @ 1.47v with Gear Down Mode ON. =(

Been pulling my hair out trying to get it stable without GDM

Currently my options are:
Run 3600mhz fast with GDM off (but how to make it stable?)
or
Run 3600mhz fast with GDM on
or
Run 3466mhz fast with GDM off

Which should I pick? Is it worth the extra work to get GDM OFF? what is the real performance loss with GDM on vs Off?


ram FlareX3200c14 16gb
cpu Ryzen 3600
Mobo B450-i Strix / B450m Mortar
Cooler: Dark Rock Pro 4


----------



## garych

asefsef said:


> Upgraded my mobo from B450m Mortar to B450-i Strix
> 
> on B450m Mortar, I was stable on 3600mhz (fast) @ 1.47v
> on B450-i Strix, I have to run 3600mhz (fast) @ 1.47v on the B450-i strix with Gear Down Mode ON. =(
> 
> Been pulling my hair out trying to get it stable at previous settings.
> 
> My options are:
> Run 3600mhz fast with GDM off (keep try to figure this out)
> or
> Run 3600mhz fast with GDM on
> or
> Run 3466mhz fast with GDM off
> 
> Which should I pick? Is it worth the extra work to get GDM on? what is the real performance difference with GDM on vs Off?
> 
> 
> ram FlareX3200c14 16gb
> cpu Ryzen 3600
> Mobo B450-i Strix / B450m Mortar
> Cooler: Dark Rock Pro 4


Shouldn't GDM On be slower than Off by definition?


----------



## asefsef

garych said:


> Shouldn't GDM On be slower than Off by definition?


Yes sorry typo. I want GDM off. That's why I'm trying hard to get GDM off running on my new mobo


----------



## mestregroda

Is it a bug? Latest version 1.6.2 "coming soon" message, when hitting fastest button.
Using Corsair Vengeance LPX: CMK16GX4M2D3600C
Micron 8Gb B-Die (20 nm) / 1 die
1024M x64 (1 rank)

Using Gigabyte x570 Ultra
32gb (4 x 8Gb)


----------



## dspx

Ufuk Özsaran said:


> Do you have any ideas for cracking sound? :/


https://resplendence.com/latencymon


----------



## scullytj

1usmus said:


> *1usmus Custom Power Plan for Ryzen 3000 Zen 2 Processors*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-zen-2-processors/


Was finally able to achieve a 4591 on a 3900x preferred core with a ROG STRIX X570-E using 1403X modded BIOS and 1USMUS Power Plan testing with SiSoft Sandra Lite single processor benchmark. It absolutely needed the CPPC Preferred Cores = Enabled setting provided by the 1403X BIOS mod. Would have been 46xx if I had bothered to fix the BLCK at 100. Hope that ASUS adopts the strategy.


----------



## geronimo

guys is there anyone here with Asus x370 prime pro (bios 5220) + [email protected],1ghz (1,33v) + Aegis 3000 (2x8gb; G.Skill F4-3000C16-8GISB H5AN8G8NAFR-TFC)) and managed to achieve at least 3000mhz on the RAM?
can you post your settings please so I test cos I tried everything. many combinations from the calc and there is no way I can get it stable or even to boot above 2800mhz which is stable for me.

these are 2800 (fast, v1) stable settings (calc and bios):














these are 3000 (safe; v1) from calc that I just can't get to work:



I tried CPU at default speeds, raising RAM V, SOC, tried alt settings from calc... no idea where to go from here. I must be doing something wrong, I hope. 

thanks.


----------



## lagunary

*Micron 8 Gb J-die (Z21C / 17 nm) / 1 die*

Would you tell me when will be available the support for Micron 8 Gb J-die (Z21C / 17 nm) / 1 die or which type of RAM is equals with this type?
Thanks


----------



## Korrektor

Alright so after a while I managed to get my 2x16 dualranks to work on 3733c16 (could push to 3800 but I see little point and want more stability)
I tested them with TM5 with 1usmus config and 5 cycles few times, also passed LinX about 10-15 cycles, no errors

But when I test with HCI (with a launcher embedded in Ryzen Dram calc) after passing say first 50% system can lock up and reboot in a few seconds.
Any idea of what's going on? 

I thought that my SOC is too high (as it was 1.1 and high LLC, my mobo (x570 Aorus Elite) bumped it whole way to 1.16 or so under heavy loads), so I reduced it to 1.09 with weaker LLC - no change
VDDG is 1.000, SOC 1.084 (I believe) in bios and HWinfo64 readout is 1.092

DRAM voltage 1.41 in BIOS, 1.43 Hwinfo

p.s. I've been testing 28/32 gigs in all instances and watching youtube and doing some simple stuff while testing, maybe that's the problem?

upd: I purchased Karhu memtest since seen its being advertised as faster test. And with CPU Cache: Enabled it passed up to 3200+% without errors, but with CPU Cache: Default appears to induce the very same problem - freeze & reboot ;(

Don't understand what's going on.
Currently on 1.1 SOC and 1.0 VDDG again but closed all background programs - Karhu test running just fine. Could a background tasks be a culprit? Maybe RTSS or something


----------



## MikeS3000

Anyone find some good setting for Hynix DJR memory? I'm running this kit: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...eoDDR4-3600MHz-CL16-19-19-39-1.35V16GB-(2x8GB)

I can run 3800 and 1900 fclk no problem using the CJR Fast settings at 16-21-21-36 1T. I'm so far really impressed with this kit as it has 0 trouble when I throw any of the CJR settings at it. Hopefully DJR will be added to the DRAM calculator but for now has anyone tinkered with tighter timing at DDR 3800?


----------



## lily gfx

CCX0 order of cores and what cores monitoring is running on is the reason why some see sustained boost while others not?
Just trying to understand and maybe be helpful ^^
3900X
Best core 1* - Second best 2** - Other cores 3
CCX0 Good? --> 3 2** 1* / 3 1* 2**
CCX0 OK? --> 2** 3 1* / 2** 1* 3
CCX0 Bad? --> 1* 2** 3 / 1* 3 2**

Why some reach 4.6 Boost clock while others do not (very low temperature needed) EK Custom Normal ambient temp? / 360 AIO Low ambient Temp
Cinebench R20 Single-Core Test will try to use the best core with AGESA 1.0.0.4. If the best core is CCX 0 C01 like mine slightly lower temps are needed to boost to 4.6 I guess.

The second core has a lower Boost clock 4500 MHz (maybe 4550 MHz if cold enough).

Why some can do sustained boost on one core while others see a lot of core switching (order of CCX0 and things running in the background)
Ryzen Master and possibly other monitoring software running on the best core seems to cause a lot of core switching.
Background apps running on the best core seems to cause some rare core switching.
Background apps CCX0 C 01 mostly (Windows, Anti Virus (I use Norton Security) and so on)

Example one after some use --> Ryzen Master limited with affinity to C03 (Thread 4 - 5) --> 4560MHz
Example two early morning --> Ryzen Master limited with affinity to C09 (Thread 16 - 17) --> 4581MHz

Remember to restart Ryzen Master before doing anything else.


----------



## briank

I must be entering the calculator's numbers wrong into my Gigabyte X570 Aorus Ultra w/ 3600X. I have dual rank B-die sticks: G.Skill TridentZ 3200CL14 2x16GB.

Using the safe values for 3600 (CL16) my system wouldn't post. However if I select the XMP profile in BIOS (with the tight CL14 timings) @ 3200MHz and then up the speed to 3600MHz, up Vcore to 1.1125V and VDDR to 1.39V, I'm running at 3600CL14 no problem. It might even go higher, I haven't fully explored this yet.

Anyone experience something similar? Am I typing in wrong or is the memory calc off? I'm pleased with this because the timings are way tighter than what the mem calculator would have me put in.


----------



## rastaviper

briank said:


> I must be entering the calculator's numbers wrong into my Gigabyte X570 Aorus Ultra w/ 3600X. I have dual rank B-die sticks: G.Skill TridentZ 3200CL14 2x16GB.
> 
> 
> 
> Using the safe values for 3600 (CL16) my system wouldn't post. However if I select the XMP profile in BIOS (with the tight CL14 timings) @ 3200MHz and then up the speed to 3600MHz, up Vcore to 1.1125V and VDDR to 1.39V, I'm running at 3600CL14 no problem. It might even go higher, I haven't fully explored this yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone experience something similar? Am I typing in wrong or is the memory calc off? I'm pleased with this because the timings are way tighter than what the mem calculator would have me put in.


No worries about that. Make your own tests.
I have similar Bdie RAM (but 3200 Cl15), Aorus x570 Elite and same CPU.
My best setup is 3733 16-15-15 when the calculator was proposing 16-16-17

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Axaion

You coulda gotten a total lemon cpu/mobo

I cant go over 3400 on flareX, OR on Viper Steel 4400CL 19 kits.
but i CAN do 3400 CL 14-13-13 lol(not that, thats good in any way though..), so yeah.. seems theres a lot of variation.


----------



## Gegi

Hello,


I have always errors while running memtest. I'm using the fast preset of the dram calculator. I have 4x8gb 3600 and amd ryzen 7 3800x.
Anyone knows how to fix this?


thank you


----------



## bluechris

Gegi said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> I have always errors while running memtest. I'm using the fast preset of the dram calculator. I have 4x8gb 3600 and amd ryzen 7 3800x.
> Anyone knows how to fix this?
> 
> 
> thank you


From what i had read everywhere 4 sticks go much lower than 2 or 1 stick of memory.
I don't know why, something i think has to do with the memory topology? I don't know


----------



## gurusmi

Gegi said:


> ...Anyone knows how to fix this?...


As a german speaking person just try it there. Reous can help.


----------



## djase45

I give up, no one offers his help.
Goodbye.


----------



## Korrektor

Alright so I got a freeze during the gaming session. Need an advice on what to look for. I've got mine 2x16 duals from 3466c14 up to 3733c16 @ 1.43, TM5 5x2 cycles passed OK, LinX (linpack) - ok, Karhu memtest up to 3000+% - ok. But - I'm experiencing rare freezes during high loads.
I'm thinking that its caused either by low SOC or low VDDG. VDDG was at 1000mV, upped it to 1050 recently, SOC 1.1. Any suggestions?


----------



## Chedo

MikeS3000 said:


> Anyone find some good setting for Hynix DJR memory? I'm running this kit: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...eoDDR4-3600MHz-CL16-19-19-39-1.35V16GB-(2x8GB)
> 
> I can run 3800 and 1900 fclk no problem using the CJR Fast settings at 16-21-21-36 1T. I'm so far really impressed with this kit as it has 0 trouble when I throw any of the CJR settings at it. Hopefully DJR will be added to the DRAM calculator but for now has anyone tinkered with tighter timing at DDR 3800?


Hi there. I have same kit and it is Hynix CJR. I have 4x8GB and finally managed to stabilize my cl16 3800mhz overclock. I am using beta bios 2.46 for Taichi and I really think it helped. Memory latency has improved and at 65.2. My current timings below. SOC voltage 1.15, DRAM voltage 1.48, VDDP 0.950 and VDDG on Auto. It seems to me that having tRCDWR at 19 and tRFC at 495 helped a lot.


----------



## Dbsjej56464

Hi guys,

Was wondering which you guys think is better.

3200Mhz CL14 with Geardown off or 3600 CL16 GDM on? Both are using their respective fast timings. Just unsure which is better for games


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Sideways2k said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Was wondering which you guys think is better.
> 
> 3200Mhz CL14 with Geardown off or 3600 CL16 GDM on? Both are using their respective fast timings. Just unsure which is better for games


Pick 3600, cuz' of higher bandwidth.

Im @3800MHz CL16-17-17-15-31-40 1T (~63ns) a lot better than tighter 3733 IMhO.


----------



## Dbsjej56464

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Pick 3600, cuz' of higher bandwidth.
> 
> Im @3800MHz CL16-17-17-15-31-40 1T (~63ns) a lot better than tighter 3733 IMhO.


Makes sense! I might see if I can get higher. I'm gonna get a 3700X next month so may as well try to push this chip further!


----------



## rastaviper

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Pick 3600, cuz' of higher bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> Im @3800MHz CL16-17-17-15-31-40 1T (~63ns) a lot better than tighter 3733 IMhO.


Getting just great results and 63ns at 3733 16-15-15, so 3800 is not really important if u have some good ram chips.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

Sideways2k said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Was wondering which you guys think is better.
> 
> 3200Mhz CL14 with Geardown off or 3600 CL16 GDM on? Both are using their respective fast timings. Just unsure which is better for games


You have a GTX 1080Ti and a 2560x1440 monitor, any Ram will do with tight timings. So it does not matter unless you game at low resolutions.

Manual adjusted timings




Spoiler


















♦ 2133Mhz (16GB)CL10-10-10-10-21 
♦ 2400mhz (16GB)CL10-11-11-11-21 
♦ 2933mhz (16GB)CL12-14-13-13-26
♦ 3200mhz (16GB)CL14-14-14-14-28 
♦ 3733mhz (16GB)CL16-17-16-16-34
♦ 4000mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2000x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1000x2)
♦ 4200mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2100x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1050x2)


----------



## Ha-Nocri

I have to set SoC voltage to 1.165V after the latest BIOs update for IF at 1900MHz. With older BIOS I just left SoC at auto w/o problems. What do you guys with 1900 IF have SoC set at?


----------



## Streetdragon

1.125V llc high (under load 1.11V) and vddg 1075mV

Everything else is not stable


----------



## 9colai

I just bought a pair of Trident Z 16GB 3600C15 sticks for my 3800x setup hoping that it would be B-die sticks. It turned out to be Samsung D-die... I'm currently running them at 3733MHz C16 just bumped up the frequency and CAS from the XMP profile, still running with 1.35 volt and it's confirmed stable with memtest86. I really looked forward to apply the DRAM calculator for my system but it seems like D-die only is supported up to 3400MHz how come is that? Will higher clock frequencies be supported in the future?

It's Samsung D-die 17nm btw.

Best regards
Nicolai


----------



## Dbsjej56464

gerardfraser said:


> You have a GTX 1080Ti and a 2560x1440 monitor, any Ram will do with tight timings. So it does not matter unless you game at low resolutions.
> 
> Manual adjusted timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ 2133Mhz (16GB)CL10-10-10-10-21
> ♦ 2400mhz (16GB)CL10-11-11-11-21
> ♦ 2933mhz (16GB)CL12-14-13-13-26
> ♦ 3200mhz (16GB)CL14-14-14-14-28
> ♦ 3733mhz (16GB)CL16-17-16-16-34
> ♦ 4000mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2000x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1000x2)
> ♦ 4200mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2100x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1050x2)


That is fantastic and very informative. Thank you!


----------



## gerardfraser

9colai said:


> I just bought a pair of Trident Z 16GB 3600C15 sticks for my 3800x setup hoping that it would be B-die sticks. It turned out to be Samsung D-die... I'm currently running them at 3733MHz C16 just bumped up the frequency and CAS from the XMP profile, still running with 1.35 volt and it's confirmed stable with memtest86. I really looked forward to apply the DRAM calculator for my system but it seems like D-die only is supported up to 3400MHz how come is that? Will higher clock frequencies be supported in the future?
> 
> It's Samsung D-die 17nm btw.
> 
> Best regards
> Nicolai


Well the author of the calculator is only human,he has done an awesome job sharing his work.I doublt he could add every set of DDR4 RAM made,along with newer models being added all the time to the market.I remember when we had to walk to school ..... just messing with ya,but you get the idea.



Sideways2k said:


> That is fantastic and very informative. Thank you!


Good stuff.


----------



## 9colai

gerardfraser said:


> Well the author of the calculator is only human,he has done an awesome job sharing his work.I doublt he could add every set of DDR4 RAM made,along with newer models being added all the time to the market.I remember when we had to walk to school ..... just messing with ya,but you get the idea.


Yeah sure he has and i aknowledge that. I was just asking if he was working on the D-die part because it would be nice to know since I have a D-die... Just a simple question, not a request


----------



## gerardfraser

He might be,he seems to update the calculator often.I would bet he would appreciate a donation to help him with his time to add your particular set of RAM.


----------



## rastaviper

9colai said:


> I just bought a pair of Trident Z 16GB 3600C15 sticks for my 3800x setup hoping that it would be B-die sticks. It turned out to be Samsung D-die... I'm currently running them at 3733MHz C16 just bumped up the frequency and CAS from the XMP profile, still running with 1.35 volt and it's confirmed stable with memtest86. I really looked forward to apply the DRAM calculator for my system but it seems like D-die only is supported up to 3400MHz how come is that? Will higher clock frequencies be supported in the future?
> 
> 
> 
> It's Samsung D-die 17nm btw.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Nicolai


The question should be, how did you manage to buy other memory from what you wanted, since there is so much info out there for getting the bdie modules from all known RAM brands.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## BLUuuE

9colai said:


> I just bought a pair of Trident Z 16GB 3600C15 sticks for my 3800x setup hoping that it would be B-die sticks. It turned out to be Samsung D-die... I'm currently running them at 3733MHz C16 just bumped up the frequency and CAS from the XMP profile, still running with 1.35 volt and it's confirmed stable with memtest86. I really looked forward to apply the DRAM calculator for my system but it seems like D-die only is supported up to 3400MHz how come is that? Will higher clock frequencies be supported in the future?
> 
> It's Samsung D-die 17nm btw.
> 
> Best regards
> Nicolai


What does the 042 string say on the label on the sticks?

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/wiki/ram/ddr4#wiki_new_markings_-_.22042_code.22_table


----------



## Feimitsu

Hi guys, a bit late to the party but here I am! 

Ryzen [email protected]@1.1V, 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX [email protected]@1.35V, SOC 1.1v, Asrock B450 ITX

This is my best result so far. Passed over 1000% of HCI Memtest, 4h of Realbench, several 5 passes of TM5. Just a question, even by leaving all parameters on the right column on Auto, my system is stable. Do I gain any speed by setting them to the recommended values?

Thank you


----------



## 9colai

rastaviper said:


> The question should be, how did you manage to buy other memory from what you wanted, since there is so much info out there for getting the bdie modules from all known RAM brands.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Well, I looked up the modules on B-die finder and it confirmed 1 rank B-die, I guess that Gskill has started producing these specific modules in D-dies aswell. But that's why I was surprised when I saw that it was D-die in Thaiphoon burner.


----------



## 9colai

BLUuuE said:


> What does the 042 string say on the label on the sticks?
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/wiki/ram/ddr4#wiki_new_markings_-_.22042_code.22_table


I'll see if I can read it under my big air cooler when i get home. Thanks for sharing the link.


----------



## Roboionator

Hello i have g.skill NEO F4-3600C16D-32GTZN and when i juse calculator for 3733 or 3800mhz and setup in bios all what i find, no go,...if I just set 3733mhz first 5 numbers and XPM and voltage works but what i do wrong, some tips what numbers is important? 
Different numbers in calculator when click R-XPM or save from Thaiphoon and import XMP, what is right.

Thanks for suggestions

3900x and GA MASTER last bios


----------



## 9colai

BLUuuE said:


> What does the 042 string say on the label on the sticks?
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/wiki/ram/ddr4#wiki_new_markings_-_.22042_code.22_table


I couldn't see any labels on the sticks, but I think that the label was put on the package the sticks came in. Here is a picture of them:
https://ibb.co/9rNwHJ4

So the 042 string would be: 19404238441

Best regards
Nicolai


----------



## bluechris

Roboionator said:


> Hello i have g.skill NEO F4-3600C16D-32GTZN and when i juse calculator for 3733 or 3800mhz and setup in bios all what i find, no go,...if I just set 3733mhz first 5 numbers and XPM and voltage works but what i do wrong, some tips what numbers is important?
> 
> Different numbers in calculator when click R-XPM or save from Thaiphoon and import XMP, what is right.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for suggestions
> 
> 
> 
> 3900x and GA MASTER last bios


You have your FCBK at 1900? If yes lower it to 1800 to see if it starts at 3800


----------



## Feimitsu

1usmus said:


> The memory frequency of 3466+ is meaningless, CPU utilization and multi-core efficiency depend on the Infiniti fabrick. There comes a moment when growth stops because the core frequently reaches the limit.
> At the moment the memory frequency of 3466 corresponds to the processor frequency of 4100 MHz.


A bit necro but... what would be the optimal memory frequency for a 3500MHz CPU clock?


----------



## Roboionator

bluechris said:


> You have your FCBK at 1900? If yes lower it to 1800 to see if it starts at 3800


yes i have 1900, ok I'll try,..thx


----------



## 3200MHz

Recommended RTT_PARK (RZQ/1) makes the system not pass the POST, while the old good RZQ/5 (was recommended in the previous editions) works just fine.


----------



## MurderBurger

Just joined, wanted to post my streaming / gaming setup.. Usually maxing out this pc 14 hours a day :thumb:
3700x (4.3ghz 1.325v)
4133mhz T-Group (3733mhz cl16 1.4v)
Asrock Taichi x470


----------



## BLUuuE

9colai said:


> I couldn't see any labels on the sticks, but I think that the label was put on the package the sticks came in. Here is a picture of them:
> https://ibb.co/9rNwHJ4
> 
> So the 042 string would be: 19404238441
> 
> Best regards
> Nicolai


The label should be at the back of the sticks.

Jpmboy also has a 3600 15-15-15 kit that reads as D-die in Thaiphoon, but the 042 string indicates B-die.


----------



## gerardfraser

@1usmus
Thanks for sharing.
Windows 10 1903 Build 19013.1
Agesa 1.0.0.4b
1usmus Custom Power Plan with best performance enabled
3800X


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys, quick question about the RAM kit I'm running https://www.gskill.com/product/165/326/1562840525/F4-3600C18D-32GTZN GSkill Neo series 3600 18-22-22-42 with Hynix CJR. I ran a first pass of the calculator and having it running stable at the recommended "Safe" settings. This is my first time doing anything like this. Wondering whether I should jump to the Fast settings, or my other thought was trying to get it to run at 3800 with a 1900 FCLK on Safe settings. Should I try stepping up a bit at a time i.e 3600 Fast, 37xx Safe, etc.? Or just give it a shot and try 3800 straight out?


----------



## 9colai

BLUuuE said:


> The label should be at the back of the sticks.
> 
> Jpmboy also has a 3600 15-15-15 kit that reads as D-die in Thaiphoon, but the 042 string indicates B-die.


Okay that was actually what i hoped for, that Thaiphoon Burner was wrong. I think I can get one of the sticks out of the socket, if i remove the fan on my cooler. I'm just too lazy to demount the whole cooler, just to look at the label. Thanks for the help anyway, I'll try and look up jpmboy's posts.


----------



## rastaviper

flyinion said:


> Hi guys, quick question about the RAM kit I'm running https://www.gskill.com/product/165/326/1562840525/F4-3600C18D-32GTZN GSkill Neo series 3600 18-22-22-42 with Hynix CJR. I ran a first pass of the calculator and having it running stable at the recommended "Safe" settings. This is my first time doing anything like this. Wondering whether I should jump to the Fast settings, or my other thought was trying to get it to run at 3800 with a 1900 FCLK on Safe settings. Should I try stepping up a bit at a time i.e 3600 Fast, 37xx Safe, etc.? Or just give it a shot and try 3800 straight out?


More possible to try around 3700 first.
Most results are not stable or good enough at 3800mhz.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Offler

gerardfraser said:


> @1usmus
> Thanks for sharing.
> Windows 10 1903 Build 19013.1
> Agesa 1.0.0.4b
> 1usmus Custom Power Plan with best performance enabled
> 3800X


Wow 5200 score on 8 Core 3800x. Just for comparison Threadripper 1900x (8 cores) has score of 4000 - apparently 2 extra memory channels are not a big deal as I expected.


----------



## nangu

rastaviper said:


> More possible to try around 3700 first.
> Most results are not stable or good enough at 3800mhz.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I second this ^

I have a Gskill 3600 18-22-22-22 Hynix CJR too, but not the new NEO, the GTZRX before these. This kit at 3800/1900 I had to enable Geardown, 1.4v and it wasn't 100% stable, while at 3733/1866 I can run Geardown disabled 1T and 1.37v. 

Both configs get 65 ns latency in Aida, and the same Memtest benchmark score in the Dram calculator, so I didn't bother to further tweaking 3800 for stability and leave it at 3733.

Silicon quality is also a factor to get 1900 Infinity Fabric stable speed I think.


----------



## flyinion

rastaviper said:


> More possible to try around 3700 first.
> Most results are not stable or good enough at 3800mhz.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk





nangu said:


> I second this ^
> 
> I have a Gskill 3600 18-22-22-22 Hynix CJR too, but not the new NEO, the GTZRX before these. This kit at 3800/1900 I had to enable Geardown, 1.4v and it wasn't 100% stable, while at 3733/1866 I can run Geardown disabled 1T and 1.37v.
> 
> Both configs get 65 ns latency in Aida, and the same Memtest benchmark score in the Dram calculator, so I didn't bother to further tweaking 3800 for stability and leave it at 3733.
> 
> Silicon quality is also a factor to get 1900 Infinity Fabric stable speed I think.


Thanks guys I'll try the slower speed first then or maybe just try the fast timings at 3600 and see what happens. Hmm, I think I need to read more about that Geardown thing and what it affects. I went and looked at the settings from the calculator and it had me turn it on. Sounds like its something you want to keep off if possible?


----------



## korzychxp

Hi. I searched the entire internet and despite the fact that the we have yet 3rd series of Ryzens and we still do not know which timing are affecting memory latency. Ill test it in AIDA. At now i have 68ns with 3733Mhz CL16 memory.


On Ryzen 2700X i had on similar timings and 3600Mhz 63ns.


Check my timings here:










What i can do to lower it? My friends have 66ns on their Ryzen 3 CPUs. 2 ns is way to much loss of performance


My rams are crucial ballistic sport lt 3000mhz cl15 which have good overclocking potential (micron e-die)


----------



## 9colai

BLUuuE said:


> The label should be at the back of the sticks.
> 
> Jpmboy also has a 3600 15-15-15 kit that reads as D-die in Thaiphoon, but the 042 string indicates B-die.


Here's a picture of the label:
Label
I can see that the 042 code is the same as the B-die module: 2x8GB TridentZ RGB F4-4266C19D-16GTZR

I also tried the DRAM calculator tool with B-die settings, and i it worked really well! I'm currently on 3800C16 on the RAM and 1900 flck with stock SOC voltage. I used the fast preset on DRAM calculator but instead of 1,41 volts it's running on 1,39 volts now. I need to run a memtest86 before I know if it's stable, but I don't know if I can go even lower in voltage, I just stopped there. But if it's stable at this voltage, the modules might even be able to go down to 3800c14? I just don't know where to start, which timings to compensate with and how much.

Here's some pictures:
Cinebench R20
Dram Benchmark
Aida benchmark

Thanks 1usmus! For this awesome tool!


----------



## nangu

flyinion said:


> Thanks guys I'll try the slower speed first then or maybe just try the fast timings at 3600 and see what happens. Hmm, I think I need to read more about that Geardown thing and what it affects. I went and looked at the settings from the calculator and it had me turn it on. Sounds like its something you want to keep off if possible?


About Geardown, look at it as it's running your memory at 1.5T when GD is enabled and set 1T. When you disable Geardown, you can set true 1T, or 2T. Also, GD disabled allows you to set odd CAS timings.

The calculator gives you safe settings and timings. I used it as a baseline, and further tweak from it. I'm at work right now, when at home I'll post a screenshot of my ram timings so you can try if desired. I have these CJR at 3733 16-19-19, Geardown disabled 1T and Powerdown also disabled, and got a decent bump in latency and bandwith compared to stock 3600 XMP settings.


----------



## nangu

korzychxp said:


> Hi. I searched the entire internet and despite the fact that the we have yet 3rd series of Ryzens and we still do not know which timing are affecting memory latency. Ill test it in AIDA. At now i have 68ns with 3733Mhz CL16 memory.
> 
> 
> On Ryzen 2700X i had on similar timings and 3600Mhz 63ns.
> 
> 
> Check my timings here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What i can do to lower it? My friends have 66ns on their Ryzen 3 CPUs. 2 ns is way to much loss of performance
> 
> 
> My rams are crucial ballistic sport lt 3000mhz cl15 which have good overclocking potential (micron e-die)


Hi, I don't have Micron e-die ram, but from your screenshot I would try to disable Geardown, 1T, and lower TRFC values as a starting point to test.

Ryzen 3000 latency is higher than 2000 series due to the architectural changes in the IMC. I think you can find good timings for Micron e-die if you look at earlier posts on this thread.

Cheers,


----------



## korzychxp

570 is it the lowest stable TRFC for 3733mhz, geardown off is stable when i add it to maybe 600 and tfc 60.

I know that Ryzens 3 have higher latencies but as i said my friends have lower latencies on same Ryzens 3600. 

I checked 20 earlier pages in this topic and didn't see single micron e-die post


----------



## Feimitsu

Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000 (Hynix AFR)

tRTP 10 is recommended for almost every profile\frequency. But for me, even at [email protected], minimum stable setting is 12. tRTP at 10 forces me to clear CMOS, not even memory training is possible.
Moreover, V1 Fast Profile for 3533MHz is the only stable Fast profile for me (coincidentally, the only one with tRTP 12). And with that profile I can even set Geardown Mode to disabled and force CR1.

Anyone with a similar experience to mine?


----------



## flyinion

nangu said:


> About Geardown, look at it as it's running your memory at 1.5T when GD is enabled and set 1T. When you disable Geardown, you can set true 1T, or 2T. Also, GD disabled allows you to set odd CAS timings.
> 
> 
> 
> The calculator gives you safe settings and timings. I used it as a baseline, and further tweak from it. I'm at work right now, when at home I'll post a screenshot of my ram timings so you can try if desired. I have these CJR at 3733 16-19-19, Geardown disabled 1T and Powerdown also disabled, and got a decent bump in latency and bandwith compared to stock 3600 XMP settings.



Thanks, I'd appreciate seeing your settings for sure   I'm attaching a copy of what I'm running right now, although I'm running slightly less SOC, and VDDP is at .950 not .9 recommended by the calculator as that was working at stock DOCP settings after the latest AGESA update for my board did something to the Auto voltages for one of those and was causing it to hang on reboots with a POST code pointing to fabric errors.

edit: Before I get shamed for posting a pic of my screen, I was being lazy and just taking a quick pic before going into BIOS to actually set the settings vs screenshot/email to self/etc.












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BLUuuE

9colai said:


> Here's a picture of the label:
> Label
> I can see that the 042 code is the same as the B-die module: 2x8GB TridentZ RGB F4-4266C19D-16GTZR
> 
> I also tried the DRAM calculator tool with B-die settings, and i it worked really well! I'm currently on 3800C16 on the RAM and 1900 flck with stock SOC voltage. I used the fast preset on DRAM calculator but instead of 1,41 volts it's running on 1,39 volts now. I need to run a memtest86 before I know if it's stable, but I don't know if I can go even lower in voltage, I just stopped there. But if it's stable at this voltage, the modules might even be able to go down to 3800c14? I just don't know where to start, which timings to compensate with and how much.
> 
> Here's some pictures:
> Cinebench R20
> Dram Benchmark
> Aida benchmark
> 
> Thanks 1usmus! For this awesome tool!


Yep, that code indicates B-die, so the SPD must have been misprogrammed.


----------



## Bensam123

Hey 1u, would be nice if you could add Trident Z Neo to the calculator (F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC). They use Hynix C-Die. I've been using the Hynix CJR profile, but pretty sure they can be pushed a lot harder then that. Right now at 3800/1900fclk.


----------



## 1usmus

Feimitsu said:


> Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000 (Hynix AFR)
> 
> tRTP 10 is recommended for almost every profile\frequency. But for me, even at [email protected], minimum stable setting is 12. tRTP at 10 forces me to clear CMOS, not even memory training is possible.
> Moreover, V1 Fast Profile for 3533MHz is the only stable Fast profile for me (coincidentally, the only one with tRTP 12). And with that profile I can even set Geardown Mode to disabled and force CR1.
> 
> Anyone with a similar experience to mine?


You have one of the best AFR results. It is possible that you need to raise tRTP to 12 or even 14, if circumstances so require. This will not affect performance in any way.



gerardfraser said:


> @1usmus
> Thanks for sharing.
> Windows 10 1903 Build 19013.1
> Agesa 1.0.0.4b
> 1usmus Custom Power Plan with best performance enabled
> 3800X


looks amazing


----------



## nangu

flyinion said:


> Thanks, I'd appreciate seeing your settings for sure   I'm attaching a copy of what I'm running right now, although I'm running slightly less SOC, and VDDP is at .950 not .9 recommended by the calculator as that was working at stock DOCP settings after the latest AGESA update for my board did something to the Auto voltages for one of those and was causing it to hang on reboots with a POST code pointing to fabric errors.
> 
> edit: Before I get shamed for posting a pic of my screen, I was being lazy and just taking a quick pic before going into BIOS to actually set the settings vs screenshot/email to self/etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi, I'm sorry for the delayed response. Here are my memory settings:


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

I have 5200pts but with "only" 4300MHz all core 1.33v

Im close to stable ~4400MHz at 1.35v ! (4383MHz 4Cores)
4500+ is also possible but with 1.4v+ (then it gets hotter thus less stable).

UPD. some additional screens added.
==


----------



## rastaviper

Ne01 OnnA said:


> I have 5200pts but with "only" 4300MHz all core 1.33v
> 
> 
> 
> Im close to stable 4400MHz at 1.35v ! (4Cores)
> 
> 4500+ is also possible but with 1.4v+ (then it gets hotter thus less stable).
> 
> 
> 
> ==


Just a score photo without showing any other system details is just not useful.
And this 5200 score is "only" not normal for this CPU.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hequaqua

rastaviper said:


> Just a score photo without showing any other system details is just not useful.
> And this 5200 score is "only" not normal for this CPU.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


At 4.3 I score right around 5200 on the 3700X....seems about normal to me.


----------



## rastaviper

Hequaqua said:


> At 4.3 I score right around 5200 on the 3700X....seems about normal to me.


Oh really?
Thats why here only 4 people can rank globally over 5000?
https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cineben...Id=processor_5889&cores=8#start=0#interval=20

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hequaqua

rastaviper said:


> Oh really?
> Thats why here only 4 people can rank globally over 5000?
> https://hwbot.org/benchmark/cineben...Id=processor_5889&cores=8#start=0#interval=20
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Just to make you happy:









https://hwbot.org/submission/4282966_


----------



## Feimitsu

1usmus said:


> You have one of the best AFR results. It is possible that you need to raise tRTP to 12 or even 14, if circumstances so require. This will not affect performance in any way.


Thanks. I keep my CPU clock to 3.5GHz, what would be the most optimal Data Fabric clock at that speed?
I can reach CL14 at 3000MHz, but not at 3200Mhz.


----------



## hazium233

astur_torque said:


> Isn't there anybody talking about micron D die?
> 
> I was able to get 3733 16 19 19 19 36 1.33v with corsair lpx 3.31 @3200
> 
> Enviado desde mi ONEPLUS A5000 mediante Tapatalk


This is impressive. Especially the tRCDRD at <11ns with 1.33V. 

Way better than my single rank BLS 2666C16 pair which seem to need 1.37V for 11.25ns (18) at 3200MT/s (running them at 1.375V though).


----------



## MadSupra354

Feimitsu said:


> Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000 (Hynix AFR)
> 
> tRTP 10 is recommended for almost every profile\frequency. But for me, even at [email protected], minimum stable setting is 12. tRTP at 10 forces me to clear CMOS, not even memory training is possible.


That tRTP advice helped. I wasn't able to achieve memory training on my X370 board with the values the XML or safe results would give me (which would give me tRTP 12), Hynix MFR with LPX 2800MHz kit. However, it doesn't get me far - after POST, I'll get a sort of BSOD before Windows boots saying 'Your PC needs to be repaired' then after I hit escape to get into the UEFI, my board hangs and I have to clear CMOS again.

MFR and X370 I'm guessing are a recipe for time sinking to achieve little benefit, I've achieved 2933MHz stable but I'm wanting to try 3200MHz or 3000MHz. Does anyone know if a change to the termination block values is futile and that I should be looking to change timings instead? Or should I just call 2933MHz a win right now and wait until DDr5?


----------



## Feimitsu

MadSupra354 said:


> That tRTP advice helped. I wasn't able to achieve memory training on my X370 board with the values the XML or safe results would give me (which would give me tRTP 12), Hynix MFR with LPX 2800MHz kit. However, it doesn't get me far - after POST, I'll get a sort of BSOD before Windows boots saying 'Your PC needs to be repaired' then after I hit escape to get into the UEFI, my board hangs and I have to clear CMOS again.
> 
> MFR and X370 I'm guessing are a recipe for time sinking to achieve little benefit, I've achieved 2933MHz stable but I'm wanting to try 3200MHz or 3000MHz. Does anyone know if a change to the termination block values is futile and that I should be looking to change timings instead? Or should I just call 2933MHz a win right now and wait until DDr5?


Try to set every single timing to auto, except CL at 16, set 1.35v or 1.4v VDIMM and check what is the maximum frequency you're stable at.


----------



## Feimitsu

After a few disappointing failures in memtest on 3200 and 3400 presets, I've decided to follow this guide:

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md

Apparently, this works far better for my Hynix AFR modules. In particular, I could lower tFAW up to 16 (!) and performance greatly improved.

I'd recommend to everyone having some difficulties with the calculator to give it a try


----------



## geronimo

I'll give it a try. I have AFR as well and can't get it over 2800mhz with R5 2600.

what's your cpu/mb?


edit: btw can anyone explain to me how to update the fricking sig? I keep updating under my rigs but the sig is not updating. I remember I figured it out some time ago but can't remember how. thanks


----------



## Feimitsu

geronimo said:


> I'll give it a try. I have AFR as well and can't get it over 2800mhz with R5 2600.
> 
> what's your cpu/mb?
> 
> 
> edit: btw can anyone explain to me how to update the fricking sig? I keep updating under my rigs but the sig is not updating. I remember I figured it out some time ago but can't remember how. thanks


I have an Asrock B450 ITX and a Ryzen [email protected]
My DF clock maxes out at 3533/2 Mhz, 3600/2 is unstable even with 1.2V SOC and 1.45 VDIMM. I'm currently trying to find the sweet spot at 3400MHz.


----------



## flyinion

geronimo said:


> edit: btw can anyone explain to me how to update the fricking sig? I keep updating under my rigs but the sig is not updating. I remember I figured it out some time ago but can't remember how. thanks


Remove it from your sig and re-add it.


----------



## Feimitsu

I've ran a set of Geekbench tests to measure performance difference between various presets.

CPU: Ryzen [email protected]@1.075V, 1V SoC
RAM: 2X8 Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000 (AFR)
Motherboard: Asrock B450 ITX Fatal1ty

3000MHz V1 Fast preset: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/629832
3200MHz V1 Fast preset (CL16): https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/632571
3400MHz V2 Fast preset: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/632592
3400MHz V1 Safe preset: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/632625
3533MHz V1 Fast preset: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/632702

3400MHz custom timings as per this guide (https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md): https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/644691


----------



## Ha-Nocri

this seems crazy to me, that 3800 CL16 is so much faster than 3600 CL14

Altho timings for CL14 are mostly on auto, but still


----------



## bluechris

Ha-Nocri said:


> this seems crazy to me, that 3800 CL16 is so much faster than 3600 CL14
> 
> 
> 
> Altho timings for CL16 are mostly on auto, but still


1900FCBK doesn't push everything? I mean you don't need to raise vddp vddg voltages etc for it?

I compromised myself to avoid that with 3600cl14 and my speeds with the same cpu like you are almost the same.


----------



## Streetdragon

The IF clock gives the power!


----------



## Ha-Nocri

bluechris said:


> 1900FCBK doesn't push everything? I mean you don't need to raise vddp vddg voltages etc for it?
> 
> I compromised myself to avoid that with 3600cl14 and my speeds with the same cpu like you are almost the same.


I just leave all voltages on auto, except DRAM voltage ofc. Works fine.



Streetdragon said:


> The IF clock gives the power!


I guess so. Gonna try to improve all other timing for CL14 and see how much it will help.


----------



## Sil3nt33r

I have this die "Micron Technology" "4 Gb F-die (Z10B / 19 nm) / 1 die"
Which one do I choose in memory type?


----------



## Flawio

Hey folks! quick question here! although I'm setting the cad_bus block to whatever the calculator suggests which is 24ohms but on windows ryzen timing checker is showing otherwise.. Am i missing something? thanks in advance. screenshot follows.

aorus x470 gaming 7 rev 1 
latest bios f50
r7 2700 
16gb of g.skill flarex 3200cl14 F4-3200C14-8GFX 
custom water cooling solution


----------



## SaccoSVD

I have been running my TridentZ Neo 64GB 3600 CL16 kit at 3733 tight timings and IF 1867 Mt/s for a while, very stable.

SOC at 1.1V
CLDO_VDDP: 1V
CLDO_VDDP: 0.950

I tried to run IF at 1900Mhz but it doesn't take it. That is the only thing preventing me from achieving RAM at 3900 Mt/s

What could I try to make it work? Or is it pointless being already at 3773 / 1867?


----------



## Alexshunter

Hello guys, lets say I would not want Give higher voltage than 1.35V to my Samsung B die. Would it be possible calculate the best timings for 3600MHz?
X470, Ryzen 5 3600


----------



## bluechris

Alexshunter said:


> Hello guys, lets say I would not want Give higher voltage than 1.35V to my Samsung B die. Would it be possible calculate the best timings for 3600MHz?
> 
> X470, Ryzen 5 3600


I tried the same with my bdies and i wasn't successful. Only with 1.4 i achieved 3600cl14. With 1.35 you can go cl16.
1.4 for the bdies is perfectly fine for 24/7
The temp on them is 32c but i have at the right side a nf12 to sent air to them and to the mosfet heatsinks.

Aorus Pro x570 Ryzen 5 3600 Fcbk 1800


----------



## Yuke

SaccoSVD said:


> I have been running my TridentZ Neo 64GB 3600 CL16 kit at 3733 tight timings and IF 1867 Mt/s for a while, very stable.
> 
> SOC at 1.1V
> CLDO_VDDP: 1V
> CLDO_VDDP: 0.950
> 
> I tried to run IF at 1900Mhz but it doesn't take it. That is the only thing preventing me from achieving RAM at 3900 Mt/s
> 
> What could I try to make it work? Or is it pointless being already at 3773 / 1867?



Did you check the SOC voltage or just set it? I have to set mine at 1125mV to really have 1100-1106mV. Try setting it to 1125 in the main settings of bios and check the voltage under PC-Health.


Edit:


Also just saw your sig...if you have CPU overclock you gonna need way more voltage to make IF overclock even boot...dont ask me why...probably some internal power limits in place...i can do 1.35V 4.4Ghz all core OC with IF clock @1800Mhz but i need 1.45V when i try to also have IF clock @ 1900Mhz.


----------



## gerardfraser

Alexshunter said:


> Hello guys, lets say I would not want Give higher voltage than 1.35V to my Samsung B die. Would it be possible calculate the best timings for 3600MHz?
> X470, Ryzen 5 3600


Of course you can,if your Bdie are rated for that speed no problem.If your overclocking RAM from say a lower speed then you may need a bump in DRAM voltage.Bdie is fine @1.5v with some air directed at them.

My Bdie with 3600X/3800X worked fine with settings below
3800 Mhz CL16-16-11-16-36-52 1T @ 1.36v SOC 1.05 62ns


----------



## Roboionator

hi, i tried calculator fast or save with g.skill neo 3600mhz cl16 samsung...and no mather what i setup in bios no go, if i just leave XPM and rise to 3733mhz works but i want to less latency now i have 67,3 cl16 3733mhz 1,37v xpm, what you suggest... thx
some value can not be set in the BIOS because it can not find, hehe
which settings are importan?

cpu stock, GA 570x master.


----------



## SaccoSVD

Yuke said:


> Did you check the SOC voltage or just set it? I have to set mine at 1125mV to really have 1100-1106mV. Try setting it to 1125 in the main settings of bios and check the voltage under PC-Health.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> 
> Also just saw your sig...if you have CPU overclock you gonna need way more voltage to make IF overclock even boot...dont ask me why...probably some internal power limits in place...i can do 1.35V 4.4Ghz all core OC with IF clock @1800Mhz but i need 1.45V when i try to also have IF clock @ 1900Mhz.


All those values are set in BIOS. Although I don't fully trust either Ryzen Master or HWInfo.

For example, HWInfo reports SoC Voltage: 1.094V and VDDCR_SOC (motherboard) 1.104V and Ryzen Master 1.2V

CLDO_VDDP is set to 1 and Ryzen Master reports 0.9474V

CLDO VDDG is set to 0.950 and Ryzen Master reports 0.6996V


----------



## jcpq

[email protected]


----------



## Yuke

SaccoSVD said:


> All those values are set in BIOS. Although I don't fully trust either Ryzen Master or HWInfo.
> 
> For example, HWInfo reports SoC Voltage: 1.094V and VDDCR_SOC (motherboard) 1.104V and Ryzen Master 1.2V
> 
> CLDO_VDDP is set to 1 and Ryzen Master reports 0.9474V
> 
> CLDO VDDG is set to 0.950 and Ryzen Master reports 0.6996V



You can set SOC voltage in bios at three different places sadly...for me it only worked at the "main" page set to 1125mV ... this gave me ~1.11V and working 3800Mhz...if i set it under AMD OC or XMF (or whatever its called) it didnt apply the voltage. HWinfo reports 1.110 - 1.116 with my settings.


----------



## rastaviper

Ha-Nocri said:


> this seems crazy to me, that 3800 CL16 is so much faster than 3600 CL14
> 
> 
> 
> Altho timings for CL14 are mostly on auto, but still


Not always true.
Many times people see better results at 3733 with tighter timings, then at 3800.
Also many people can't even hit 3800, so it's not ideal in general.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## SaccoSVD

Question for experts, I guess 1usmus level guys.

With Zen2, what is more important: Throughput or Latency?

What do you strive them most for?

My latency is 66.7ns at 3733 CL16 TRFC 484 (TridentZ Neo 3600 CL16)

Should I try something like 3400 or 3600 with super tight timings? That also means a lower IF so I'm not sure.


----------



## Synoxia

gerardfraser said:


> @1usmus
> Thanks for sharing.
> Windows 10 1903 Build 19013.1
> Agesa 1.0.0.4b
> 1usmus Custom Power Plan with best performance enabled
> 3800X


 @1usmus or someone else are you able to tell me why on 1909, power plan/bios settings doesnt seem to work correctly? 
It's a 3700x but 3800x too is a 1ccd cpu. 
In his graph we see one core costantly pegged at 4510 while my 3700x never reaches costant utilization on a core & 4.4ghz...
Bios settings (Asus c7h 2901 bios
CPPC and CPPC preferred cores enabled
DF and C-states enabled
+200 autoOC
PBO PPT 395/TDC 105/EDC 0 (90, stock)
-0.00625 offset

Power plan 1usmus universal + Best performance

Thank you


----------



## gerardfraser

Synoxia said:


> @1usmus or someone else are you able to tell me why on 1909, power plan/bios settings doesnt seem to work correctly?
> It's a 3700x but 3800x too is a 1ccd cpu.
> In his graph we see one core costantly pegged at 4510 while my 3700x never reaches costant utilization on a core & 4.4ghz...
> Bios settings (Asus c7h 2901 bios
> CPPC and CPPC preferred cores enabled
> DF and C-states enabled
> +200 autoOC
> PBO PPT 395/TDC 105/EDC 0 (90, stock)
> -0.00625 offset
> 
> Power plan 1usmus universal + Best performance
> 
> Thank you


Well it is all in the Motherboard BIOS but really is more complicated than that.In the screenshot I have PBO off,all settings in BIOS for voltages at auto.Also Cinebench20 running in real time to get the straight flat line.
Your setting will not be able to achive this with the PBO and offset set,all though you could get close to the 4400Mhz.Now my motherboard I could set PBO and offset like you except I do not need to use EDC at 0 as I can set up to 4096 on all settings.
Your CPU is fine and you are not missing anything,you are not losing performance at all.It is all in your head,you do not need the bigger numbers for the same performance.

Anyway I did an manual overclock and you can to if you want bigger numbers.Recorded with Nvidia shadowplay on so probably lost some points.Also did not run Cinebench20 in realtime but in normal time to show how the actual line goes and fluctuates with 
Power plan 1usmus universal.
Windows 1909
3800X 4600Mhz Cinebench20 534
3800X 4650Mhz Cinebench20 540


----------



## Alastair

Figured this would be the best place to ask since I am getting a 3700x and I am trying to get the best RAM for it for my budget and I am using the DRAM calculator to work things out. But just a quickie. Does anyone know what IC's the Avexir Core 2 series of ram uses? Specifically the AVD4UZ332001608G-1C2B and AVD4UZ336001808G-1C2B? 



AVD4UZ332001608G-1C2B is 8GB X 2 @ 3200MHZ 16-18-18-38 @ 1.35V
AVD4UZ336001808G-1C2B is 8GB X 2 @ 3600MHz 18-20-20-40 @ 1.35V 



Would anyone be able to tell me what IC's these are using?


----------



## Veii

Alastair said:


> Figured this would be the best place to ask since I am getting a 3700x and I am trying to get the best RAM for it for my budget and I am using the DRAM calculator to work things out. But just a quickie. Does anyone know what IC's the Avexir Core 2 series of ram uses? Specifically the AVD4UZ332001608G-1C2B and AVD4UZ336001808G-1C2B?
> 
> AVD4UZ332001608G-1C2B is 8GB X 2 @ 3200MHZ 16-18-18-38 @ 1.35V
> AVD4UZ336001808G-1C2B is 8GB X 2 @ 3600MHz 18-20-20-40 @ 1.35V
> 
> Would anyone be able to tell me what IC's these are using?


Sorry but this is realistically not possible - as rams from the same model number still have different chip inside
It may be possible to guess opon timings and guess your luck oppon people with the same ram and Thaiphoon Burner reports
But the answer continues to be "not possible" 
C16-18 on the 3200 kit can be Hynix-AFR or high binned MFR (these come in under 3000MT/s kits)
18-20 can be Hynix AFR & CFR starting from 3600 and up , mostly 3733 kits are CFR

Some could be micron chips , but then there is a higher chance to get these on 2666 Balistix kits which all state "made with micron IC" - then on these kits which just use what's left ^^#

"best price" depends soo much on your region
It would be great to know where you're located (country/continent)
Here Patriot Viper Steel kits are extremely cheap 
3733 17-21-21-41 are Hynix CFR very likely (10 people confirmed this)
4000 19-19-19-39 are B-Dies (rocking these myself)
4400 19-19-19-39 are binned B-Dies
<3600 17-19-19-39 people reported Hynix AFR some where lucky with CFR 
it's about that for every kit under 3733 - could be hynix, could be micron , could be both 

Maybe check prices for these kits (paid 130 for b-dies / 90 for Hynix-CFR) , go for ballistix kits which are Micron-E dies or just hope you get lucky with the cheapest high speed kit you can afford
Anything over 3733 is luck based, unless it's known C14-14 b-dies


----------



## Synoxia

gerardfraser said:


> Well it is all in the Motherboard BIOS but really is more complicated than that.In the screenshot I have PBO off,all settings in BIOS for voltages at auto.Also Cinebench20 running in real time to get the straight flat line.
> Your setting will not be able to achive this with the PBO and offset set,all though you could get close to the 4400Mhz.Now my motherboard I could set PBO and offset like you except I do not need to use EDC at 0 as I can set up to 4096 on all settings.
> Your CPU is fine and you are not missing anything,you are not losing performance at all.It is all in your head,you do not need the bigger numbers for the same performance.
> 
> Anyway I did an manual overclock and you can to if you want bigger numbers.Recorded with Nvidia shadowplay on so probably lost some points.Also did not run Cinebench20 in realtime but in normal time to show how the actual line goes and fluctuates with
> Power plan 1usmus universal.
> Windows 1909
> 3800X 4600Mhz Cinebench20 534
> 3800X 4650Mhz Cinebench20 540
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJjNKE8Aqis


I actually think i am. Either your 3800x is golden chip or my motherboard is trash (probably both) your behaviour on normal priority still shows a very consistent line at 4650 while mine is 4360 mostly with some peaks to 4380 and very rare peaks to 4493.. lets see what 1.0.0.4b does


----------



## Alastair

Veii said:


> Sorry but this is realistically not possible - as rams from the same model number still have different chip inside
> It may be possible to guess opon timings and guess your luck oppon people with the same ram and Thaiphoon Burner reports
> But the answer continues to be "not possible"
> C16-18 on the 3200 kit can be Hynix-AFR or high binned MFR (these come in under 3000MT/s kits)
> 18-20 can be Hynix AFR & CFR starting from 3600 and up , mostly 3733 kits are CFR
> 
> Some could be micron chips , but then there is a higher chance to get these on 2666 Balistix kits which all state "made with micron IC" - then on these kits which just use what's left ^^#
> 
> "best price" depends soo much on your region
> It would be great to know where you're located (country/continent)
> Here Patriot Viper Steel kits are extremely cheap
> 3733 17-21-21-41 are Hynix CFR very likely (10 people confirmed this)
> 4000 19-19-19-39 are B-Dies (rocking these myself)
> 4400 19-19-19-39 are binned B-Dies
> <3600 17-19-19-39 people reported Hynix AFR some where lucky with CFR
> it's about that for every kit under 3733 - could be hynix, could be micron , could be both
> 
> Maybe check prices for these kits (paid 130 for b-dies / 90 for Hynix-CFR) , go for ballistix kits which are Micron-E dies or just hope you get lucky with the cheapest high speed kit you can afford
> Anything over 3733 is luck based, unless it's known C14-14 b-dies


I was hoping people that owned them Would be able to tell me. I was hoping there were people on OCN that had them. Cause these are the cheapest that I can find in terms of mhz/price. And I also really like the look of them as well


----------



## Veii

Alastair said:


> I was hoping people that owned them Would be able to tell me. I was hoping there were people on OCN that had them. Cause these are the cheapest that I can find in terms of mhz/price. And I also really like the look of them as well


Yes there likely are
But that was not the point i tried to tell 
on <3733 kits, they are mixed - it doesn't matter about the product number
Companies use what just is in stock and passes programmed XMP, if not they sort it down to slower ones
Unless Company X specifies they use the specific die, no one of them cares for budget sticks which one they put in

What i wrote above is a bit of varience that can happen from my own experience in which die with which timings maybe can appear
But the fact remains, that the lower you go in speed - the higher the chance is to get cheaper ICs 
As again, no one would care 
A model number says nothing rly~

EDIT:
<3000 can be - Micron D, Hynix MFR
<3200 can be - Hynix MFR/AFR, Samsung C/D, Micron E
<3600 can be - Hynix CFR, Micron E, Samsung A/S ~ early Samsung B-dies
<4000 can be - ^ same thing, except that it's either Samsung B,Hynix CFR, Micron E with a chance of Samsung C
>4400 - nearly always high binned B-dies or Micron E-dies

Overall it's the same mention as before
~ It's random in the low frequency area with expections of specific timings like 3200C14/3600C16/4400C19 (which are so far always Samsung B-dies)


----------



## leoxtxt

Is it safe to run a B-Die kit @ 1.45v 24/7 ?

F4-3600C17D-32GTZR CL17-19-19-39 1.35V @ CL14-16-16-32 1.45V

I noticed a small improvement in ST/MT (Cinebench R20), no idea if it is the tighter timings or the lower ambient affecting the CPU boost.


----------



## Ricey20

leoxtxt said:


> Is it safe to run a B-Die kit @ 1.45v 24/7 ?
> 
> F4-3600C17D-32GTZR CL17-19-19-39 1.35V @ CL14-16-16-32 1.45V
> 
> I noticed a small improvement in ST/MT (Cinebench R20), no idea if it is the tighter timings or the lower ambient affecting the CPU boost.


If you have adequate active cooling, 1.5v and below is fine.


----------



## newls1

What do I set DJR ram too? no option for this ram in drop down box... please help!


----------



## Alastair

Veii said:


> Yes there likely are
> But that was not the point i tried to tell
> on <3733 kits, they are mixed - it doesn't matter about the product number
> Companies use what just is in stock and passes programmed XMP, if not they sort it down to slower ones
> Unless Company X specifies they use the specific die, no one of them cares for budget sticks which one they put in
> 
> What i wrote above is a bit of varience that can happen from my own experience in which die with which timings maybe can appear
> But the fact remains, that the lower you go in speed - the higher the chance is to get cheaper ICs
> As again, no one would care
> A model number says nothing rly~
> 
> EDIT:
> <3000 can be - Micron D, Hynix MFR
> <3200 can be - Hynix MFR/AFR, Samsung C/D, Micron E
> <3600 can be - Hynix CFR, Micron E, Samsung A/S ~ early Samsung B-dies
> <4000 can be - ^ same thing, except that it's either Samsung B,Hynix CFR, Micron E with a chance of Samsung C
> >4400 - nearly always high binned B-dies or Micron E-dies
> 
> Overall it's the same mention as before
> ~ It's random in the low frequency area with expections of specific timings like 3200C14/3600C16/4400C19 (which are so far always Samsung B-dies)


Sheesh so 3600 is considered low frequency these days hey?


----------



## TelaKeppi

Ok so what am I doing wrong? I can hardly get under 80ns memory latency. This is with F4-3600C17D-32GTZR Hynix DJR kit. Gear Down mode is disabled.

edit. Nevermind... apparently BIOS detached the MEM:INF coupling. Coupling on with the same memory timings its 66.6ns.


----------



## BLUuuE

newls1 said:


> What do I set DJR ram too? no option for this ram in drop down box... please help!


You should be able to use the CJR presets, since DJR is just a higher clocking CJR.


----------



## 9colai

BLUuuE said:


> Yep, that code indicates B-die, so the SPD must have been misprogrammed.


BLUuuE 
just curious. Did someone tell you what these codes indicates? Or did you figure it out yourself based on specs from different modules?

I'm asking because I can't decide if I want to go further with my overclock since it probably would require 1.48-1.49 volts. It's currently on 3777c16 cr1t with Geardown mode enabled and it scores just below 56000 read 29000 write and 64.2 ns latency on Aida.

I can't get anything stable above 3200mhz if Geardown mode is disabled with 1T. Shouldn't a good binned B-die be able to do that?

It's setup with fast preset from the DRAM calculator, but with cl16 instead of cl14. I think I can get it down to cl14 but only with the volts I mentioned above. I'm just a little nervous about going higher than 1.45 volts for daily use, because Thaiphoon Burner shows something different than B-die. What if D-die 17nm just is something new that clocks well, but can't tolerate the high volts?

Thanks for your effort by the way, looks like you have invested some time in it.


----------



## bluechris

Guys i am with a aorus x570 pro and 2x16gb bdies at 3600cl14 1800fcbk and all is fine.
I found and ordered a 2nd kit to reach 64gb but i think i must forget 3600cl14 with 4 sticks correct?
There was someone here with the same memory with 4 sticks and i cannot find his posts.

Please mr 4 stick man reveal yourself and tell me the maximum you managed your ram


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

V fluctuations are normal thing IMhO.
CPU (or other Part) sometimes needs more and another time less due to workload.
Thus we have fluctuation...

For Cinebench 20 i need more power than for gaming or Web browsing, simple in my book.
I have LLC at Lev.3 & 4 and this is also calculated into bigger difference in readings.


----------



## Shenhua

I see you guys all struggling to squeeze the very last bit of performance and even changing kits trying to get higher bin.
How much, does that performance translate to the games/work????
I know the gains from first gen and second gen ryzen were insane, for gaming at least.... I'm using myself a 3200cl 14 fast preset with a 2600, and the gains are generally into the 30%, and about 15% over a 3200cl16 xmp.

How is it with the 3000 ryzen lineup???? Also,.... are the gains consistent from the 3600 to the 3950x or there is a loss or gain, because of the different cache size or other factors.
And how are they over the usual xmp (idk if the new ryzen is limited at 3200 or works with most 3600 xmp profiles).


Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

Alastair said:


> Sheesh so 3600 is considered low frequency these days hey?


I didnt say that 
But companies catched up in the "low" frequency range
Actually maybe it is "mid-range" 
If we want good dies, we have to hunt high speed kits
As lower speed ones are already filled with different die possibilities 

Early in, it was easier to hit b-dies in the 3600 range
Today they are discontinued and replaced
While today too, speed doesnt matter that much
Kits behave at different throughput between brands even at the same MT/s
And dual ranked die topology starts to be used more often, because they are just faster


----------



## TrainXIII

Anyone know why my DRAM frequency isn't running at 1:1? I entered my FSB as 1800 and Memory clock as 1800 as well in BIOS but I can't get it to run at 1:1.
I've attached my settings based on the calculator.


----------



## amdahl

Does anyone have an educated guess, or even experience, if I can use some of this with RDIMM on Epyc 1st gen? It's basically the same IMC (I think), so maybe some of the magic translates?
Background: I recently got my hands on a modded bios for my Supermicro H11DSi motherboard, which finally allows me to tweak memory timings. CPUs are retail Epyc 7551, memory is 16x Samsung RDIMM 32GB, DDR4-2666, CL19-19-19, reg ECC (M393A4K40CB2-CTD)


----------



## xcr89

Can someone help me reach higher frequency on ram my current settings are as below, i tried all stages on soc voltage, procodt, cldo vddg, vddp.

I am clueless of what i should change i error out directly on 3600 preset. Can someone point me in the right direction of what values i should change etc?

I'm 100% stable with 3200 fast preset shown in picture with marked settings.

i have F4-3200C14-8GFX ram sticks, B-die.


----------



## BLUuuE

9colai said:


> BLUuuE
> just curious. Did someone tell you what these codes indicates? Or did you figure it out yourself based on specs from different modules?
> 
> I'm asking because I can't decide if I want to go further with my overclock since it probably would require 1.48-1.49 volts. It's currently on 3777c16 cr1t with Geardown mode enabled and it scores just below 56000 read 29000 write and 64.2 ns latency on Aida.
> 
> I can't get anything stable above 3200mhz if Geardown mode is disabled with 1T. Shouldn't a good binned B-die be able to do that?
> 
> It's setup with fast preset from the DRAM calculator, but with cl16 instead of cl14. I think I can get it down to cl14 but only with the volts I mentioned above. I'm just a little nervous about going higher than 1.45 volts for daily use, because Thaiphoon Burner shows something different than B-die. What if D-die 17nm just is something new that clocks well, but can't tolerate the high volts?
> 
> Thanks for your effort by the way, looks like you have invested some time in it.


You can find a list of 042 codes here.

04213X8810B

The first 8 indicates density (8Gb)
The 10 indicates Samsung
B indicates B-die

If you want to be absolutely sure, you can take off the heatspreader and physically check the ICs.

I think GDM disabled and CR 1T has more to do with the IMC/motherboard than the RAM themselves.
It's pretty difficult to get GDM disabled CR 1T stable, so I'd just keep GDM enabled.


----------



## rastaviper

BLUuuE said:


> You can find a list of 042 codes here.
> 
> 
> 
> 04213X8810B
> 
> 
> The first 8 indicates density (8Gb)
> 
> The 10 indicates Samsung
> 
> B indicates B-die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to be absolutely sure, you can take off the heatspreader and physically check the ICs.
> 
> 
> 
> I think GDM disabled and CR 1T has more to do with the IMC/motherboard than the RAM themselves.
> 
> It's pretty difficult to get GDM disabled CR 1T stable, so I'd just keep GDM enabled.


If you have some good bdies there is no such problem.
I have GMD disabled, 1T and still getting 16-15-15 at 3733mhz with 1.42v

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## MadSupra354

BLUuuE said:


> I think GDM disabled and CR 1T has more to do with the IMC/motherboard than the RAM themselves.
> It's pretty difficult to get GDM disabled CR 1T stable, so I'd just keep GDM enabled.


For some reason I can't even disable GDM with a CR 2T.:h34r-smi


----------



## Veii

You likely all know anyways
But GDM enabled, does use the next higher timing when it comes to usage of odd timings
It's not only tCL with tCWL 

It can happen , that it trows the calculation off when it switches for example 15 to 16 , or 19 to 20 
Making GDM enabled even unstable


----------



## Shenhua

Shenhua said:


> I see you guys all struggling to squeeze the very last bit of performance and even changing kits trying to get higher bin.
> How much, does that performance translate to the games/work????
> I know the gains from first gen and second gen ryzen were insane, for gaming at least.... I'm using myself a 3200cl 14 fast preset with a 2600, and the gains are generally into the 30%, and about 15% over a 3200cl16 xmp.
> 
> How is it with the 3000 ryzen lineup???? Also,.... are the gains consistent from the 3600 to the 3950x or there is a loss or gain, because of the different cache size or other factors.
> And how are they over the usual xmp (idk if the new ryzen is limited at 3200 or works with most 3600 xmp profiles).
> 
> 
> Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk


Nobody?

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Yuke

Shenhua said:


> Nobody?
> 
> Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk



I can give you a small performance sample:


*Game:* Borderlands3


*CPU:* 3800x


*Ram:* 2x 16gb dual rank 3800Mhz 16 16 16 32 304


*GPU:* 2080ti at 1950Mhz


*Benchmark: *1080p / badass settings - *115fps ..... *1080p / ultra settings - *119fps*


There should be a couple of benchmarks out there you can compare it with.


----------



## gurusmi

Cinebench 20 Multicore: 

*CPU*: 3800x, OC at 4,3GHz Allcore, VCore at 1,33V
*RAM*: 4*8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600CL18 (OC at 3600CL14/1,35v)
*GPU*: Sapphire Pulse 5700XT @ PCIe 4.0X16 with Risercard

Result: >=5150Pts.


----------



## Cidious

gurusmi said:


> Cinebench 20 Multicore:
> 
> *CPU*: 3800x, OC at 4,3GHz Allcore, VCore at 1,33V
> *RAM*: 4*8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600CL18 (OC at 3600CL14/1,35v)
> *GPU*: Sapphire Pulse 5700XT @ PCIe 4.0X16 with Risercard
> 
> Result: >=5150Pts.


You don't need all core OC to reach 5200. Just good cooling, bios settings and PBO=OFF.


----------



## Veii

Shenhua said:


> Nobody?


Its a hard to answer this question with simple words
The difference is huge, and 1usmus demonstrated it already quite well across Benchmarks when it comes to 2nd gen
While first two generations even where bottlenecking by latency, making the result difference even bigger 

In 3rd gen, as the IO die is separated, distance may look higher and latency too, but the signal integrity is cleaner
The possible potential result is bigger 

Games, games are not a special workload ~ even tho its handled this days as such
IPC is changing, intercore bandwith and latency is changing
This is what changes performance
Games, FPS, unimportant ~ 0.1 & 1% low's show significant changes if your program benefits from CPU usage
But again, games are not always a benchmark illustrating performance differences
While it may not look like there is some change
Under the hood across threads , overall across CDDs 
The difference may be night and day 

TL;DR:
Many reviewers say they are bigger then ever now on 3rd gen
Overclockers would say, the potential difference is bigger too with 3rd gen and easier to clock
Yes, it does make a difference and its still quite significant
You may or may not notice it instantly, as its not architecturally a bottleneck on stock ~ like it was with both ryzen gens


----------



## Shenhua

Veii said:


> Its a hard to answer this question with simple words
> 
> The difference is huge, and 1usmus demonstrated it already quite well across Benchmarks when it comes to 2nd gen
> 
> While first two generations even where bottlenecking by latency, making the result difference even bigger
> 
> 
> 
> In 3rd gen, as the IO die is separated, distance is may look higher and latency too, but the signal integrity is cleaner
> 
> The possible potential result is bigger
> 
> Games, games are not a special workload ~ even tho its handled this days as such
> 
> IPC is changing, intercore bandwith and latency is changing
> 
> This is what changes performance
> 
> Games, FPS, unimportant ~ 0.1 & 1% low's show significant changes if your program benefits from CPU usage
> 
> But again, games are not always a benchmark illustrating performance differences
> 
> While it may not look like there is some change
> 
> Under the hood across threads , overall across CDDs
> 
> The difference may be night and day
> 
> 
> 
> TL;DR:
> 
> Many reviewers say they are bigger then ever now on 3rd gen
> 
> Overclockers would say, the potential difference is bigger too with 3rd gen and easier to clock
> 
> Yes, it does make a difference and its still quite significant
> 
> You may or may not notice it instantly, as its not architecturally a bottleneck on stock ~ like it was with both ryzen gens


Yes, i kind of simplified the question a lot. And I'm aware of what you said, and completely agree with it, however my interest is not so much on how high you can clock, or how high you can score in benchmarks....but rather in the practical benefit.

Question is ,if you were to get the performance boosts from most known games and make an average (I'm well aware that some may barely see anything) How much is the uplift? In my case I'm more interested in gaming.
Is it a 10%?, 15%? and how much is it over the typical hynix die Xmp profile?

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

Shenhua said:


> Also,.... are the gains consistent from the 3600 to the 3950x or there is a loss or gain, because of the different cache size or other factors.


A real upgrade from a 2700 would be the 3900
But this is my personal viewpoint
Single CCD does take a hit in potential perf
For AMD this cost saving measure was not a big difference of half the write bandwith, L1 R&W, L2 size and speed difference 

There is a difference, untested by me so far but its readable that there is one


> And how are they over the usual xmp (idk if the new ryzen is limited at 3200 or works with most 3600 xmp profiles).


The IMC is the same from the 2nd gen, with more fine control to it and with lower required procODT resistance = less stress = higher potential clocks
The platform on its own when it comes to XMP prediction, does work quite well for single ranked kits even up to 5000MT/s 
Same goes now to first gen too | well half of it
The BIOSes (PMU algorithms) are mature enough to predict the correct procODT and RTT values for it to boot
Board topology still plays a role ~ but what's holding us back is the repurposed IMC so far 
* counting from 2nd gen and up


----------



## Veii

Shenhua said:


> Yes, i kind of simplified the question a lot. And I'm aware of what you said, and completely agree with it, however my interest is not so much on how high you can clock, or how high you can score in benchmarks....but rather in the practical benefit.
> 
> Question is ,if you were to get the performance boosts from most known games and make an average (I'm well aware that some may barely see anything) How much is the uplift? In my case I'm more interested in gaming.
> Is it a 10%?, 15%? and how much is it over the typical hynix die Xmp profile?


Let me grab your values as an example 
I can't provide benchmarks, as i'm still in a "dead PSU" state ^^ 
Will grab one 3600 soon too, then SiSoftware Sandra record hunting continues

You provided 2 % numbers ~ let me use them for orientation
The uplift you saw in performance between 3200C14 and C16
(70ns = under 72ns & 76ns = over the bottlenecking range)
Your said 15% ? Was something that looks to be fixed on 3rd gen 
At least there are still not enough resources to confirm, if there is another bottlenecking latency wall on 3rd gen

When it comes to the mentioned 25-30% you've noticed between 3200 & 3600 = IMC bandwith
This same rules continue to apply 
Higher InterCore bandwith = higher IPC

Lower required latency doesn't look to be that important, as to higher fabric clock 
We need more testing on this part tho again 
If one CCD has a different latency wall, if it does even exist and by how much better is full memory bandwith vs the half write bandwith of one CCD 

To keep it short:
15% architecture latency bottleneck looks to be gone
The result should be smaller
The 30% you mention in the speed difference continue to be a thing
As we still speak about the same IMC 
But then again, the limits are higher, so the 30% should be more then just 30
And the reason why everyone tries to hit the 1900Mhz IMC wall


----------



## 9colai

BLUuuE said:


> You can find a list of 042 codes here.
> 
> 04213X8810B
> 
> The first 8 indicates density (8Gb)
> The 10 indicates Samsung
> B indicates B-die
> 
> If you want to be absolutely sure, you can take off the heatspreader and physically check the ICs.
> 
> I think GDM disabled and CR 1T has more to do with the IMC/motherboard than the RAM themselves.
> It's pretty difficult to get GDM disabled CR 1T stable, so I'd just keep GDM enabled.


Thanks for the elaboration. I'm also satisfied with having Geardown mode on, with the latency it scores anyway.

I'm wondering if I really have to increase the Dram voltage that much to get it stable at 3777c14 instead of 3777c16. At c16 it requires 1,38v and maybe even lower. It's a quite big jump to go all the way up to 1.48 for 3777c14. Maybe it could help increasing SOC and VDDP voltage? Anyone who have been experimenting with these voltages for stability at higher frequencies?


----------



## Shenhua

Veii said:


> Let me grab your values as an example
> 
> I can't provide benchmarks, as i'm still in a "dead PSU" state ^^
> 
> Will grab one 3600 soon too, then SiSoftware Sandra record hunting continues
> 
> 
> 
> You provided 2 % numbers ~ let me use them for orientation
> 
> The uplift you saw in performance between 3200C14 and C16
> 
> (70ns = under 72ns & 76ns = over the bottlenecking range)
> 
> Your said 15% ? Was something that looks to be fixed on 3rd gen
> 
> At least there are still not enough resources to confirm, if there is another bottlenecking latency wall on 3rd gen
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to the mentioned 25-30% you've noticed between 3200 & 3600 = IMC bandwith
> 
> This same rules continue to apply
> 
> Higher InterCore bandwith = higher IPC
> 
> 
> 
> Lower required latency doesn't look to be that important, as to higher fabric clock
> 
> We need more testing on this part tho again
> 
> If one CCD has a different latency wall, if it does even exist and by how much better is full memory bandwith vs the half write bandwith of one CCD
> 
> 
> 
> To keep it short:
> 
> 15% architecture latency bottleneck looks to be gone
> 
> The result should be smaller
> 
> The 30% you mention in the speed difference continue to be a thing
> 
> As we still speak about the same IMC
> 
> But then again, the limits are higher, so the 30% should be more then just 30
> 
> And the reason why everyone tries to hit the 1900Mhz IMC wall


Ok thanks for the clarification.

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## BLUuuE

9colai said:


> Thanks for the elaboration. I'm also satisfied with having Geardown mode on, with the latency it scores anyway.
> 
> I'm wondering if I really have to increase the Dram voltage that much to get it stable at 3777c14 instead of 3777c16. At c16 it requires 1,38v and maybe even lower. It's a quite big jump to go all the way up to 1.48 for 3777c14. Maybe it could help increasing SOC and VDDP voltage? Anyone who have been experimenting with these voltages for stability at higher frequencies?


B-die needs ~50mV per tCL drop, so that sounds about right.

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#voltage-scaling


----------



## gerardfraser

Shenhua said:


> Nobody?
> 
> Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk



Here you go,maybe a partial answer for you and I do not game at lower resolutions.Memory has no bearing on performance with resolution like in chart.



Manual adjusted timings


Spoiler


















♦ 2133Mhz (16GB)CL10-10-10-10-21 
♦ 2400mhz (16GB)CL10-11-11-11-21 
♦ 2933mhz (16GB)CL12-14-13-13-26
♦ 3200mhz (16GB)CL14-14-14-14-28 
♦ 3733mhz (16GB)CL16-17-16-16-34
♦ 4000mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2000x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1000x2)
♦ 4200mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2100x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1050x2)


----------



## 9colai

BLUuuE said:


> B-die needs ~50mV per tCL drop, so that sounds about right.
> 
> https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#voltage-scaling


BLUuuE you're awesome! Thanks for the help.
One last question . Is there anything wrong in having
tRCD and tRP lower than tCL? Like 3777-16-14-14-32 for instance.


----------



## gurusmi

Cidious said:


> You don't need all core OC to reach 5200. Just good cooling, bios settings and PBO=OFF.


I get Below 5000Pts. 
Cooling: Alphacool Eisbaer LT360


----------



## Yuke

gurusmi said:


> I get Below 5000Pts.
> Cooling: Alphacool Eisbaer LT360




Dont worry, 5200 is not the norm. Low 5000 is the usual score and if you get lucky 5100-5150 with decent PBO settings. He probably just has a good chiplet.


Try to benchmark without hwinfo active, should also give you better scores.


----------



## gurusmi

@Yuke:
I thought so. i record 5200 with an 4325GHz Alcore OC. But there i don't want to see the temps. W/o PBO i catch 4950pkt. With pbo activated it is about 4980pkt. PBO is/was an issue on Gigabyte boards. the limits arent/weren't read out correctly.


----------



## Yuke

gurusmi said:


> @*Yuke* :
> I thought so. i record 5200 with an 4325GHz Alcore OC. But there i don't want to see the temps. W/o PBO i catch 4950pkt. With pbo activated it is about 4980pkt. PBO is/was an issue on Gigabyte boards. the limits arent/weren't read out correctly.




PBO is not a On/Off issue sadly, at least in my case.


If i dial in values that are unrealistic everything is getting ignored and i keep getting trash results (worse than stock)...


I can get 4550Mhz boost clocks without PBO on 1-2 cores...max PBO that is not getting ignored in my case is +25-50Mhz.


I would start with something like 10x scalar / 25Mhz without power limits and go from there (check boost clocks) until i get results even worse than stock settings.


This is my best result so far:


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_tyjoDiJz5oB8gBMfw5u15mulB5JbNeQ


----------



## Veii

9colai said:


> Is there anything wrong in having
> tRCD and tRP lower than tCL? Like 3777-16-14-14-32 for instance.


Except desync of tRTP which likely happens as you are using 3777 
There is something wrong with it ^^
But it's barely visible under normal circumstances - only testable with SiSoftware Sandra 
If you check my signature you can see why i didn't use 14-12-14-12-26
tRAS would be different for you too if you are going the 16-14 path 
Well it depends, but you have to make a lot of SiSandra "Multi-Core effeciency" tests
To actually see differences
Because when it's actually in sync, the difference is big 

Could you share your current timings again please ?
* The HynixMFR ones, where some good example of "awkward" timings


----------



## gurusmi

Yuke said:


> PBO is not a On/Off issue sadly, at least in my case.
> If i dial in values that are unrealistic everything is getting ignored and i keep getting trash results (worse than stock)...
> I can get 4550Mhz boost clocks without PBO on 1-2 cores...max PBO that is not getting ignored in my case is +25-50Mhz.
> I would start with something like 10x scalar / 25Mhz without power limits and go from there (check boost clocks) until i get results even worse than stock settings.
> ...


The behavior when using PBO/AutoOC is quite strange. It starts at 4200MHz dropping quite fast to 4150MHz. then it keeps a longer time with toggling between 4125-4150MHz. One has to set EDC=0 to get the board limits read out.

So i switched off all the AutoOC/PBO stuff. I changed from XMP over to manual timing-entries. I did set values inside AMD-Overclocking - Performance to 4300MHz/1330mV. LLC is set to high now. Also i disabled and set the Clock to 100.00MHz. The Temps dropped when benchmarking in CB20 from >78°C to 72°C. Everything works stable. I do not play. I use my 3800x as a developers station. A lot of excel etc. So the Multicore is what counts to me. With my settings i reach 5150Pts in CB20 with all the background tasks running.


----------



## BLUuuE

9colai said:


> BLUuuE you're awesome! Thanks for the help.
> One last question . Is there anything wrong in having
> tRCD and tRP lower than tCL? Like 3777-16-14-14-32 for instance.


Nothing wrong with it if it's stable.

Usually tCL can go lower than tRCD/tRP, so it is a bit weird that you have tCL higher than tRCD/tRP.


----------



## Schussnik

Hi Guys,

I've just upgraded to a new kit of G.Skill F4-3600C18-16GTZN (2x16GB Trident Z Neo) and I was wondering what chips are those. I know they are Hynix based on what Thaiphoon reads but when it comes to DRAM Calculator I have no idea if I should select Hynix MFR, AFR or CJR?

I'm not looking at any aggressive overclocking, they are currenlt running fine at 3600Mhz 1.35V using the XMP profile but would like to see if I could tighten up a bit the timings (18-22-22-42-64).

Thanks in advance


----------



## BLUuuE

Schussnik said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I've just upgraded to a new kit of G.Skill F4-3600C18-16GTZN (2x16GB Trident Z Neo) and I was wondering what chips are those. I know they are Hynix based on what Thaiphoon reads but when it comes to DRAM Calculator I have no idea if I should select Hynix MFR, AFR or CJR?
> 
> I'm not looking at any aggressive overclocking, they are currenlt running fine at 3600Mhz 1.35V using the XMP profile but would like to see if I could tighten up a bit the timings (18-22-22-42-64).
> 
> Thanks in advance


They're probably CJR, but you can check with the part number in Thaiphoon.



Spoiler


----------



## Cidious

After many ideas. This is the simplest most effective cooling solution I came up with. A set of water-cooling modules. Iceman Barrow make the same I guess. And I let a local shop here (China, Hangzhou) make some alu heatsinks for me. Cut them to size. Sanded them. Drilled some holes where the holes of the supposed watercool block would have to go. I used 0.5mm 12.4wmk thermal pad for the IC. And just because I have it laying around I put a bit of kryonaut between the alu find and the bykski heatspreaders good optimal heat transfer. 

Corsair can keep it's overpriced Dominator Platinum super RGB Christmas lighting ram with **** ICs. 

Result is super cool Edie 32gb dual rank. Running at 3800 cl16 1.40 and I'm assuming I can push it a bit further to 1.50v now and cl14 but haven't tried yet.

Together it was about 85 RMB for 2 sticks which comes down to about 11 euros or 12 dollars.


----------



## flyinion

Schussnik said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> 
> I've just upgraded to a new kit of G.Skill F4-3600C18-16GTZN (2x16GB Trident Z Neo) and I was wondering what chips are those. I know they are Hynix based on what Thaiphoon reads but when it comes to DRAM Calculator I have no idea if I should select Hynix MFR, AFR or CJR?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not looking at any aggressive overclocking, they are currenlt running fine at 3600Mhz 1.35V using the XMP profile but would like to see if I could tighten up a bit the timings (18-22-22-42-64).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance




Unless they changed it should be CJR. I've been running that exact kit since August. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

@Cidious
May as well do some before and after ,that would be interesting.

I did this for fun and works fine,so much so I have not changed it out after a year.

Cool Your DDR 4 Ram With 80MM Fan Cabled Tied In Front Of DDR4 Ram
25 Minute StressTest On DDR4 Ram, Cooled Ram 10C+
3200Mhz 1.36v 48.3C Max No Fan
3200Mhz 1.36v 37.8C Max Cooling Fan
3466Mhz 1.40v 38.5C Max Cooling Fan


----------



## 9colai

Veii said:


> Except desync of tRTP which likely happens as you are using 3777
> There is something wrong with it ^^
> But it's barely visible under normal circumstances - only testable with SiSoftware Sandra
> If you check my signature you can see why i didn't use 14-12-14-12-26
> tRAS would be different for you too if you are going the 16-14 path
> Well it depends, but you have to make a lot of SiSandra "Multi-Core effeciency" tests
> To actually see differences
> Because when it's actually in sync, the difference is big
> 
> Could you share your current timings again please ?
> * The HynixMFR ones, where some good example of "awkward" timings


I ended up going back to 16-16-16-16 since there were some rare instabilities after longer stress tests. But i got a screen dump of the setting and a benchmark before i went back to 16-16-16-16.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=309230&stc=1&d=1575183452

It benchmarks almost the same as 16-16-16-16, but with approximately 650 MB/s higher read speed.


----------



## Cidious

gerardfraser said:


> @Cidious
> May as well do some before and after ,that would be interesting.
> 
> I did this for fun and works fine,so much so I have not changed it out after a year.
> 
> Cool Your DDR 4 Ram With 80MM Fan Cabled Tied In Front Of DDR4 Ram
> 25 Minute StressTest On DDR4 Ram, Cooled Ram 10C+
> 3200Mhz 1.36v 48.3C Max No Fan
> 3200Mhz 1.36v 37.8C Max Cooling Fan
> 3466Mhz 1.40v 38.5C Max Cooling Fan


Yeah I ripped my sensor cable that I used to measure memory thermals. Ballistic Edie is cheap and very good but doesn't come with internal temperature sensor. So I stuck one on next to the IC Under the heatspreaders but I ripped it. Waiting for a new one to arrive. I did take before measurements. 48 degrees while gaming. Pretty toasty.


----------



## Schussnik

I've just check the part number on Thaiphoon and they are indeed CJR chips, thanks guys.

Any particular recommendations timings wise? not looking for anything aggressive, just really for an easy way to improve the default timings.


----------



## flyinion

Schussnik said:


> I've just check the part number on Thaiphoon and they are indeed CJR chips, thanks guys.
> 
> 
> 
> Any particular recommendations timings wise? not looking for anything aggressive, just really for an easy way to improve the default timings.




The "safe" timings from the calculator worked for me with that same kit. I haven't tried the fast ones yet. So it's at 16-20-20-36 right now vs 18-22-22-4x


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Schussnik

Will give it a try, thanks


----------



## lightsout

I am having stability issues with a 2600x, B450-I Strix, and 16gb of 3200c14 Flares.

I updated the bios after not doing it for a long time. I have always ran this board at PBO level 2. All of a sudden I have some bsod's, but now I am dealing with the system hanging, the whole thing will just lock up while sitting idle or browsing the web.

I dropped to stock and still have the issue. Yesterday I did some testing and got what I thought was PBO level 2 stable with safe settings at 3200 c14 on my ram. Was able to run Prime blend for 10 hours.

This morning it locked up again so I ran the memtest option in the dram calculator, about half way through the system rebooted.

I recently swapped from nvidia to a RX 5700, thats when this all started, and why I updated my bios to alleviate some issues. Not sure if it is the culprit but it is gaming great ow with no issues (at first was getting lock ups in game).

Looking for any advice.


----------



## lightsout

Well this is a good sign, trying to find info about this test. Does this mean I can call my ram stable?


----------



## dreamcat4

Hey there, this is an amazing tool and perhaps this question has been asked many times before BUT I guess I shall ask anyway:

Why isn't there a sub option after or inside the 'motherboard type', to select the ram topology of the motherboard? For example: T-topology or Daisy-chain or 2-slot ?

Would not that help to better calculate the timings? Many thanks for this excellent tool. Kind regards.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

Hi,
Was playing with my second config (BLS8G4D30AESEK x2 edie + 2600x and Asus B450-i) got 3800cl16 on 1.45v


Spoiler


----------



## Turtle Rig

I don't have a Ryzen tho..


----------



## @purple

Turtle Rig said:


> I don't have a Ryzen tho..


Why would you even post this no sense then?


----------



## Axaion

Turtle Rig said:


> I don't have a Ryzen tho..


Are you having a stroke?


----------



## neurotix

Go home Turtle Rig. You're drunk


----------



## enzu4l

gurusmi said:


> Cinebench 20 Multicore:
> 
> 
> 
> *CPU*: 3800x, OC at 4,3GHz Allcore, VCore at 1,33V
> 
> *RAM*: 4*8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600CL18 (OC at 3600CL14/1,35v)
> 
> *GPU*: Sapphire Pulse 5700XT @ PCIe 4.0X16 with Risercard
> 
> 
> 
> Result: >=5150Pts.




Which Riser Card do you use? I tried it with a PCI-E 3.0 on and got reboots all the time.


----------



## gurusmi

Linkup Hochwertiges PCI-E 3.0 x16 Riser-Kabel, geschirmt [Schwarz], High Speed, Twinaxial, PCI Express, GPU-Kabel-Verlängerung
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07B9FKPYS

$65 + delivery. I paid around €85.


----------



## Rayleighzero

lightsout said:


> I am having stability issues with a 2600x, B450-I Strix, and 16gb of 3200c14 Flares.
> 
> I updated the bios after not doing it for a long time. I have always ran this board at PBO level 2. All of a sudden I have some bsod's, but now I am dealing with the system hanging, the whole thing will just lock up while sitting idle or browsing the web.
> 
> I dropped to stock and still have the issue. Yesterday I did some testing and got what I thought was PBO level 2 stable with safe settings at 3200 c14 on my ram. Was able to run Prime blend for 10 hours.
> 
> This morning it locked up again so I ran the memtest option in the dram calculator, about half way through the system rebooted.
> 
> I recently swapped from nvidia to a RX 5700, thats when this all started, and why I updated my bios to alleviate some issues. Not sure if it is the culprit but it is gaming great ow with no issues (at first was getting lock ups in game).
> 
> Looking for any advice.


which agesa u end up using m8 ?


----------



## Synoxia

Is this stable? I've found out that a 1000% hci stable setting didn't pick FCLK instability. Or either my FCLK degraded because i benched for 5 minutes at 1.0 vddg 1926 fclk? 
Who knows... I had it previously on 0.950 now on 0.960 and it doesn't give me random crashes for now.


----------



## fcchin

Feimitsu said:


> Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000 (Hynix AFR)
> 
> tRTP 10 is recommended for almost every profile\frequency. But for me, even at [email protected], minimum stable setting is 12. tRTP at 10 forces me to clear CMOS, not even memory training is possible.
> Moreover, V1 Fast Profile for 3533MHz is the only stable Fast profile for me (coincidentally, the only one with tRTP 12). And with that profile I can even set Geardown Mode to disabled and force CR1.
> 
> Anyone with a similar experience to mine?


Amazing, what voltage did you need to push to get 3533mhz ???

and what is the aida64 latency?

I have to use 1.55v and soc 1.2v to get 3266mhz for 2x16 stick CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 ASRock x370 taichi uefi 5.93, obviously this voltage cannot be daily.


----------



## Saiger0

Synoxia said:


> Is this stable? I've found out that a 1000% hci stable setting didn't pick FCLK instability. Or either my FCLK degraded because i benched for 5 minutes at 1.0 vddg 1926 fclk?
> Who knows... I had it previously on 0.950 now on 0.960 and it doesn't give me random crashes for now.


I hope you are not planning on using that cpu overclock 24/7 or else your gonna degrade it for real. Besides 1V vddg is a safe volage and not going to reduce any lifespan.


----------



## Synoxia

Saiger0 said:


> I hope you are not planning on using that cpu overclock 24/7 or else your gonna degrade it for real. Besides 1V vddg is a safe volage and not going to reduce any lifespan.


CPU is stock. Btw i've found out that i'm unstable on hci memtest.


----------



## Lexi is Dumb

So I can successfully either run 3200/cl14/1600fclk with fast timings at 1.37v and 3600/cl14/1800fclk fast timings at 1.47v. Is 1.47v acceptable for daily use or should I stick to the tuned 3200cl14.

Secondly, my aorus x570 pro wifi freezes the bios when I turn off power down mode and try to save it.. forcing me to hard power off.. turning it back on keeps all the other settings but reverts power down mode to auto. Is there a particular reason it was supposed to be off or can I just accept that my board won't let me and not worry about it?


----------



## rastaviper

Anyone with a G.skill 3200 Cl15 Trident Z GTZ ram who managed to run them at 3733 or 3800mhz at 15-14-14?

My current max setup is at 3733 with 1.42v and 16-15-15 and can't put the timings any lower

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alastair

Alastair said:


> Sheesh so 3600 is considered low frequency these days hey?


I found out that the 3600 18-20-20-40 kits are Spetec? Which is a micron subsidiary? Apparently from the seller the 3000/3200 kits are B-die


----------



## neurotix

Alastair said:


> I found out that the 3600 18-20-20-40 kits are Spetec? Which is a micron subsidiary? Apparently from the seller the 3000/3200 kits are B-die



Hey Alastair, long time no see, from the Vishera club

Yes, 3600 isn't slow now (3200 is), given that the max recommended DRAM speed for Ryzen 3k is 3800MHz (since the fclk needs to be synchronous and can't go beyond 1900MHz basically). Running faster than that incurs a 10ns penalty from running asynchronous. It's possible, and you will mostly see big gains in copy bandwidth, but it will bench far worse and play games far worse. You probably know these things though.

3600 18-20-20-40 is pretty terrible. I can do 3600 14-14-14-28 with mine

I'd recommend the kit I have, I got it off Amazon, if it is available in your country- guaranteed B-Die. G.skill Flare X 3200 c14-14-14-34. They overclock like monsters. They are cheap too and clock better than TridentZ Neo 3600 c16



























EDIT: That last screenshot of 4133MHz is wrong, my fclk/uclk was 1866, not 2066 or whatever it claims


Kit is F4-3200C14D-16GFX 

https://www.amazon.com/G-SKILL-Flare-288-Pin-Memory-F4-3200C14D-16GFX/dp/B06XFT7DF9/

Best price/performance and guaranteed Samsung B-die, TridentZ Neo 3600c16 can have Hynix


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Alastair said:


> I found out that the 3600 18-20-20-40 kits are Spetec? Which is a micron subsidiary? Apparently from the seller the 3000/3200 kits are B-die


Or pick Kingston Predator 4000 CL19, 4133 CL19 or better.
Those are one of the Best B-dies and comes cheaper than the rest


----------



## neurotix

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Or pick Kingston Predator 4000 CL19, 4133 CL19 or better.
> Those are one of the Best B-dies and comes cheaper than the rest


lol what? Did you even look at the kit I posted? Its $119

I couldn't even find either of those, but Kingston Predator DDR-4000 c17 was $212.

I also just posted screenshots of my G.skill 3200 c14 (better dies) doing 4133 c16, and again they were $119. Thats 14 memory dividers higher than what they are binned for and theyre half the price of the Kingstons (what is this, 1992? I see everyone buying Kingston, Corsair and Patriot "B-Dies" unable to overclock at all, let alone do XMP half the time, especially with Ryzen 3000.)

I also posted screens of 3800 c14, GDM off, 1T, optimized subtimings... why you would buy 4133 modules for over $200 when you can't run fclk in ratio on Ryzen 3000 with them and get a 10ns latency penalty..

What universe are you from? Did you even read my post or look at the screens? Kingston 4133 c19 are junk dies for twice as much money lol, theres a sucker born every minute :kookoo:


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Easy 

Look what i've got with 4x8GB Predator 4133MHz

I think is fine by all means.
3800MHz CL16 1.39v

If those kits are cheaper & also good is a win for customer in my book.
=


----------



## rastaviper

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Easy
> 
> 
> 
> Look what i've got with 4x8GB Predator 4133MHz
> 
> 
> 
> I think is fine by all means.
> 
> 3800MHz CL16 1.39v
> 
> 
> 
> If those kits are cheaper & also good is a win for customer in my book.
> 
> =


Fine, in what way?
You get 63.5 ns at 3800, when people can get 63ns or lower at 3733mhz.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## deepor

rastaviper said:


> Fine, in what way?
> You get 63.5 ns at 3800, when people can get 63ns or lower at 3733mhz.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I tried finding an example of that. I can't find anyone getting better than 63.7 on a 4x8GB setup.


----------



## Filters83

rastaviper said:


> Fine, in what way?
> You get 63.5 ns at 3800, when people can get 63ns or lower at 3733mhz.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Well i dont think its the end of the world 0.5 ns 
Even 1 its ok dont you think ? This new ryzen perform very well already ^^
Except for the temperature that i dont like


----------



## rastaviper

Filters83 said:


> Well i dont think its the end of the world 0.5 ns
> 
> Even 1 its ok dont you think ? This new ryzen perform very well already ^^
> 
> Except for the temperature that i dont like


0.5 ns and with lower frequency, so there are 2 different aspects.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## x58haze

Hello 1Usmus, was wondering why i'm getting (only dual rank) warning
wanted to try a good settings for my E-Die patriot 2x4 3200. 
My current latency is 75 ns and thats suck


----------



## lightsout

Rayleighzero said:


> which agesa u end up using m8 ?



I am using the most recent bios that is out for my board. I don't believe it has the most recent agesa.


----------



## neurotix

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Easy
> 
> Look what i've got with 4x8GB Predator 4133MHz
> 
> I think is fine by all means.
> 3800MHz CL16 1.39v
> 
> If those kits are cheaper & also good is a win for customer in my book.
> =



Oh, sorry then, I think I misunderstood you.

Yes, on Amazon US my kit (The G.skill Flare X 3200c14) was $119- guaranteed B-die. Mine do 3800 16-16-16-16-32-50 1T gdm off. As well as 3800 c14.

Definitely happy with the value.



rastaviper said:


> Fine, in what way?
> You get 63.5 ns at 3800, when people can get 63ns or lower at 3733mhz.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



The only time I get under 64ns at 3800mhz is with all background programs, tray programs closed, Ethernet, Audio and Mousepad unplugged (so those interrupts aren't used), etc. The best I've gotten is 63.5ns

3733 c14, the latency is roughly the same but the bandwidth is lower.

And how many months has it been that youve been asking for help here with RAM overclocking? Not sure youre qualified to make these statements



deepor said:


> I tried finding an example of that. I can't find anyone getting better than 63.7 on a 4x8GB setup.


I'd believe it.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Thanks Guys 

IMO 4x8GB at ~63-64ns is great.
(Yes it shows 64ns when using Web etc., 63ns when only Aida is launched -Mouse & keyboard is also pluged in-)

Performance in gaming is very good, im happy with the Tweaks & OC.
IMhO it can be fine tuned a little more (it will need more V, thus heat).

Predator B-die is not best but it's enough.
Don't forget we have 5000MHz DDR4 already 

More timings (maby it will help someone):
16-17-17-15 31-40 1T GD On
Trfc + next 334-170-160


----------



## glnn_23

deepor said:


> I tried finding an example of that. I can't find anyone getting better than 63.7 on a 4x8GB setup.


It is possible on a C7H

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=284142&d=1564315967


----------



## neurotix

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Thanks Guys
> 
> IMO 4x8GB at ~63-64ns is great.
> (Yes it shows 64ns when using Web etc., 63ns when only Aida is launched -Mouse & keyboard is also pluged in-)
> 
> Performance in gaming is very good, im happy with the Tweaks & OC.
> IMhO it can be fine tuned a little more (it will need more V, thus heat).
> 
> Predator B-die is not best but it's enough.
> Don't forget we have 5000MHz DDR4 already
> 
> More timings (maby it will help someone):
> 16-17-17-15 31-40 1T GD On
> Trfc + next 334-170-160



Is that voltage accurate?

These timings look odd to me, but I'm interested, can you post AIDA please?


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

neurotix said:


> Is that voltage accurate?
> 
> These timings look odd to me, but I'm interested, can you post AIDA please?


AIDA (My best is 63.2ns )

Tweaked some more.

Im using for gaming 4xC (1CCX) OC most of the time (first row at 4300MHz or more, up to 4375MHz at 1.375v, reading at ~1.35v)
Here i will give You my stable 4300MHz All Core OC at ~1.35v (second screen).


==


----------



## neurotix

Ne01 OnnA said:


> AIDA (My best is 63.2ns )
> 
> Tweaked some more.
> 
> Im using for gaming 4xC (1CCX) OC most of the time (first row at 4300MHz or more, up to 4375MHz at 1.375v, reading at ~1.35v)
> Here i will give You my stable 4300MHz All Core OC at ~1.35v (second screen).
> 
> 
> ==



Huh, interesting.

Latency is quite low, looks great, bandwidth seems low to me on read and copy for 3800mhz, but its on a 3700X, so maybe thats why









My full timings for 3800c14 if you feel like trying.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

^^ Nice one ^^

Thanks for sharing.
I will not try CL14 on my dimm (it will need 1.5v lol).
Read & Copy at ~56k, Write 30k is normal for 3700x/3800x at 3800MHz.

Do remeber that my V for dimm is at ~1.395v 
IM Happy with it BTW.


----------



## rastaviper

neurotix said:


> Oh, sorry then, I think I misunderstood you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, on Amazon US my kit (The G.skill Flare X 3200c14) was $119- guaranteed B-die. Mine do 3800 16-16-16-16-32-50 1T gdm off. As well as 3800 c14.
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely happy with the value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time I get under 64ns at 3800mhz is with all background programs, tray programs closed, Ethernet, Audio and Mousepad unplugged (so those interrupts aren't used), etc. The best I've gotten is 63.5ns
> 
> 
> 
> 3733 c14, the latency is roughly the same but the bandwidth is lower.
> 
> 
> 
> And how many months has it been that youve been asking for help here with RAM overclocking? Not sure youre qualified to make these statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd believe it.


For sure you are not someone who can define who is qualified or not for posting. And everybody has to ask before learning what to do or not. What's wrong with that?
I am just stating facts and I never brag that I have the best ram or something.

But sometimes a few things can work without too much hassle. In my case and without removing all the cables that you say or other tricks, I get 63.0ns at 3733. But the main reason I mention this is to show that such a result is not so difficult to get if you have a good pair of ram modules and that hitting 3800mhz is not really the important part, as many people seem to believe.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Saiger0

rastaviper said:


> For sure you are not someone who can define who is qualified or not for posting. And everybody has to ask before learning what to do or not. What's wrong with that?
> I am just stating facts and I never brag that I have the best ram or something.
> 
> But sometimes a few things can work without too much hassle. In my case and without removing all the cables that you say or other tricks, I get 63.0ns at 3733. But the main reason I mention this is to show that such a result is not so difficult to get if you have a good pair of ram modules and that hitting 3800mhz is not really the important part, as many people seem to believe.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


If you think aida64 latency is any indicator for performance on zen2 you are mistaken. It doesn´t even measure the effective latency... Use SiSoft Sandra or Passmark Performance Test instead. Anything under ~65ns is perfectly fine. Frequency IS important especially of the infinity fabric.


----------



## rastaviper

Saiger0 said:


> If you think aida64 latency is any indicator for performance on zen2 you are mistaken. It doesn´t even measure the effective latency... Use SiSoft Sandra or Passmark Performance Test instead. Anything under ~65ns is perfectly fine. Frequency IS important especially of the infinity fabric.


I can give you results from Superpi, Pifast and Parallel Pi if you are interested.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Saiger0

rastaviper said:


> I can give you results from Superpi, Pifast and Parallel Pi if you are interested.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


What for? I´m just talking about effective latency and how aida is not a good benchamrk for it.


----------



## LillysTittchen

Hey guys,
I'm considering to upgrade my RAM. Currently I have the CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 and you can see my current timings in attachment.

The current ram prices are low so I'm asking if an upgrade is justified..what do you think?


----------



## neurotix

rastaviper said:


> For sure you are not someone who can define who is qualified or not for posting. And everybody has to ask before learning what to do or not. What's wrong with that?
> I am just stating facts and I never brag that I have the best ram or something.
> 
> But sometimes a few things can work without too much hassle. In my case and without removing all the cables that you say or other tricks, I get 63.0ns at 3733. But the main reason I mention this is to show that such a result is not so difficult to get if you have a good pair of ram modules and that hitting 3800mhz is not really the important part, as many people seem to believe.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



LOL, what? I never said anything about removing cables to overclock your memory, what are you smoking?

I made a long video in another thread detailing for people who own my motherboard, and explained to you numerous times, to go through all of your boards menus and try setting all the Advanced options as per Ryzen DRAM Calculator tells you to. Which you still haven't done. And I have been helping you and very nice to you for like 4 months now, and you still haven't figured it out. (And have not paid me back by repping me at all) Way to show your gratitude!

Also, if I recall, you have a R5 3600, which works somewhat differently from anything better than it- anytime I've seen latency that low, it has basically always been on an R5 3600. But, your Read and Copy bandwidth is lower than is attainable, at the same frequency, as on a R7 3700X or up. Which will always have higher latency- likely due to a different cache arrangement, more cores, etc.

I don't tell anyone to overclock to 3800/1900 really, I tell them to go for that if they can basically, or otherwise go for the highest frequency and lowest timings possible based on what they tell me. Do you even understand why 3800/1900MHz is desirable, if possible? (The Infinity Fabric being overclocked higher lowers cache latency and increases bandwidth, and memory bandwidth improves too, it has been demonstrated over and over that the best gaming performance is at 3800/1900 with the lowest timings possible. This also linearly increases performance in Cinebench and other multithreaded workloads.)

I've helped you for months now, you never rep me, you won't look through your BIOS and find the advanced AMD CBS settings, or CCD/IOD settings, IF, UMC, DF, etc. 

Who has been helping who here? I've told you the same thing for 4 months. Perhaps you should find a different hobby. 

Added to IGNORE list, have a nice life




LillysTittchen said:


> Hey guys,
> I'm considering to upgrade my RAM. Currently I have the CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 and you can see my current timings in attachment.
> 
> The current ram prices are low so I'm asking if an upgrade is justified..what do you think?



Hello,

Those are your timings at DDR4-3000Mhz? Still with a 2700X?

How much are you willing to spend? Do you know what dies are on your current kit?

I can recommend a cheap kit with guaranteed G.skill B-die. You may be able to overclock it to 3466 cas16 or so on a 2700X- but it will take effort, and I am not sure what kind of gains you will see with a 2700X. Regards.


----------



## LillysTittchen

> Hello,
> 
> Those are your timings at DDR4-3000Mhz? Still with a 2700X?
> 
> How much are you willing to spend? Do you know what dies are on your current kit?
> 
> I can recommend a cheap kit with guaranteed G.skill B-die. You may be able to overclock it to 3466 cas16 or so on a 2700X- but it will take effort, and I am not sure what kind of gains you will see with a 2700X. Regards.


Thanks for your reply. Yes it took some time, especially since I don't know what I'm doing at all most of the time. I just know some basics about ram oc. My current Kit is a Hynix A-Die, SR, 2x8 GB. I was thinking about a 2x16 GB and my budget goes up to 200 $. It would be nice to reach 3600 with Cl 15 or 16. What do you think. Is a new one worth and are there any sticks in my price range?


----------



## fcchin

LillysTittchen said:


> Hey guys,
> I'm considering to upgrade my RAM. Currently I have the CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 and you can see my current timings in attachment.
> 
> The current ram prices are low so I'm asking if an upgrade is justified..what do you think?


Hi there, WoW you've got really good results there I think, from the perspective of getting 15.5%OC ..... 

What Dram voltage are you using? 

I would like to try your timing too, because we are may be similar chip??? mine is CMK32GX4M2B3000C15, but I'm still running 1700x, hence only manages 2933mhz @ default 1.35v

But need 1.55v in bios to get 3266mhz, A-tuning reads 1.584v.

74ns latency only, am still looking for ways to reduce it.


----------



## fcchin

neurotix said:


> Hello,
> 
> Those are your timings at DDR4-3000Mhz? Still with a 2700X?
> 
> How much are you willing to spend? Do you know what dies are on your current kit?
> 
> I can recommend a cheap kit with guaranteed G.skill B-die. You may be able to overclock it to 3466 cas16 or so on a 2700X- but it will take effort, and I am not sure what kind of gains you will see with a 2700X. Regards.


But he already achieved 3467mhz on CMK16GX4M2B300C15, 

see https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-622.html#post28231936


----------



## Rabit

At start My Micron E-DIE, have some issues When I try values from calculator I need reset BIOS because no boot.
But I find that Dram Calculator using a bit different description compared to setting in Asus BIOS but I manage find this value and set properly 


Ryzen 5 3600 KY7N41-MIE Kingston 8GB 1Rx8 PC4 2666V I Currently Cheeking stability on 3600 CL16-21-17 1.395V Asus A320M-K


----------



## neurotix

fcchin said:


> But he already achieved 3467mhz on CMK16GX4M2B300C15,
> 
> see https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-622.html#post28231936



I see it now. I thought that was a different value, labeled memclk, I dont use that particular timing checker (it does not work on Ryzen 3000)

So yes, 3466- you are correct

In that case, save your money. Isn't it really difficult to get anything above that on Ryzen 2000? 

I cant recommend anything, sorry.


----------



## x58haze

Does anybody here has b350 chipset? i have Asrock b350 fatality k4 gaming and the Spread-spectrum is locked (missing) and i'm using Ryzen 5 1600 *summit ridge* there are some bios like the 5.80 that came with spread-spectrum but is not fully compatible with summit ridge , and because of that my current FSB cpu is locked at 99.75 not moving
Also what can I do with my current build? I wanted to improve my ram latency, like decreasing it even more

My rams are E-die, 3200 Patriot single rank 2x4 gb (total 8gb) i tried 1usmus software, check for memory fail test, and indeed i have errors, while testing with the 3200 xmp (bios default) also i read that my asrock QVL ram for my rams are 2666mhz.... using 2666mz my latency is 86 (no errors) but running 3200 has errors and latency is 75, 
And 1usmus software only allow for Samsung D/E die dual rank configuration, the Single Rank throw errors like (warning message put v2 dual rank) and the PRoc0t is missing no value, also no RTT value 



At this point i'm quite disappointed, mostly because I live here in Venezuela and there is not Pc-shops or manufacturer shops to buy good pc stuff.


----------



## 1usmus

*Let's find the best CPU water block for Ryzen 3000!*

I propose to talk :thumb:

https://www.reddit.com/r/watercooli...find_the_best_cpu_water_block_for_ryzen_3000/


----------



## rastaviper

neurotix said:


> LOL, what? I never said anything about removing cables to overclock your memory, what are you smoking?
> 
> 
> 
> I made a long video in another thread detailing for people who own my motherboard, and explained to you numerous times, to go through all of your boards menus and try setting all the Advanced options as per Ryzen DRAM Calculator tells you to. Which you still haven't done. And I have been helping you and very nice to you for like 4 months now, and you still haven't figured it out. (And have not paid me back by repping me at all) Way to show your gratitude!
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if I recall, you have a R5 3600, which works somewhat differently from anything better than it- anytime I've seen latency that low, it has basically always been on an R5 3600. But, your Read and Copy bandwidth is lower than is attainable, at the same frequency, as on a R7 3700X or up. Which will always have higher latency- likely due to a different cache arrangement, more cores, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't tell anyone to overclock to 3800/1900 really, I tell them to go for that if they can basically, or otherwise go for the highest frequency and lowest timings possible based on what they tell me. Do you even understand why 3800/1900MHz is desirable, if possible? (The Infinity Fabric being overclocked higher lowers cache latency and increases bandwidth, and memory bandwidth improves too, it has been demonstrated over and over that the best gaming performance is at 3800/1900 with the lowest timings possible. This also linearly increases performance in Cinebench and other multithreaded workloads.)
> 
> 
> 
> I've helped you for months now, you never rep me, you won't look through your BIOS and find the advanced AMD CBS settings, or CCD/IOD settings, IF, UMC, DF, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Who has been helping who here? I've told you the same thing for 4 months. Perhaps you should find a different hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> Added to IGNORE list, have a nice life


Haha, you are funny.

You must be really upset and only caring for the Thanks votes, because u have mentioned twice that you were expecting to be repped.

Next time just start with that, whenever you provide some reply to anyone in this forum.
Then inform them, that you will keep a track for how long it was since you have provided your first reply to them.

U should know that XDA doesn't work like this and such members don't enjoy much appreciation with such approach.

Good luck Mr Rep taker [emoji23]


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rayleighzero

1usmus said:


> *Let's find the best CPU water block for Ryzen 3000!*
> 
> I propose to talk :thumb:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/watercooli...find_the_best_cpu_water_block_for_ryzen_3000/


Now this is very complex topic.. i mean how many good options we have out there


----------



## kenny0048

I tested Ballistix sports LT DDR4-3000 CL15-16-16 16GBx2 (Micron E-die)
Adjustment of RTT and CAD_BUS is important for Micron E-die.
If it is inappropriate, GDMoff will not boot even with 1.45v.
It was possible to UEFI boot with 1.33v if proper. (Stable at 1.37v)

3900X + Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite (F10d)

# GDM OFF
@DDR4-3800 CL16-20-12-16-32-58-580 1T (GDM=off)
DRAM:1.37v / SoC:1.10V / CLDO_VDDP:980mV / CLDO_VDDG:1080mv
FCLK:1900[1:1] / ProcODT:53ohm / RTT:/7/3/1 (34/80/240ohm) / CAD_BUS:30/20/20/30
Membench Easy (0.8b4): 104.73s, 65.7ns

# GDM ON
@DDR4-3800 CL16-19-10-16-32-58 1.5T (GDM=on)
DRAM:1.37v / SoC:1.10V / CLDO_VDDP:970mV / CLDO_VDDG:1080mv
FCLK:1900[1:1] / ProcODT:53ohm / RTT:/0/3/1 (0/80/240ohm) / CAD_BUS:60-120/20/20/120
Membench Easy: 107.81s

# SPD
Micron Technology
Ballistx Sport LT Gray
BLS16G4D30AESB.M16FE
D9VPP (MT40A1G8SA-075:E)
DIE: 8Gb E-die (Z11B / 19nm)
PCB: 0031h/B1 (8layers)


----------



## Filters83

Rayleighzero said:


> 1usmus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's find the best CPU water block for Ryzen 3000!*
> 
> I propose to talk /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/watercooli...find_the_best_cpu_water_block_for_ryzen_3000/
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very complex topic.. i mean how many good options we have out there
Click to expand...

I rly like TO have a decent post where cause on reddit i cant read 😂
Its also hard to find a proper and decent test con this ryzen 3000 on the net.

I can share my personal result when home. 3600X custom loop EK supremacy evo and liquid metal


----------



## Keith Myers

I have been referring A LOT back to https://www.xtremerigs.net/ roundup tests lately for radiators, AM4 and sTR4 block reviews. Though the latest tests are from 2018 and nothing newer so they don't have any tests on Ryzen 3000 cpus or the newer cooling solutions for those products. But I really like their test methodology and test equipment. Very professional and thorough.

I have to do my own benchmarking and testing because I am on the Linux platform so the typical test results from Windows are not applicable. I try and maintain the same test conditions when I change hardware to give me an accurate result of the thermal change. Since I run my hosts at full capacity all the time, they are always at equilibrium and any temp change is either due the hardware change or the ambient room temp. Since the crunchers are always spitting out tons of thermal energy, my room temps are always very consistent and elevated. No need to ever turn on the house heating with 6000 watts of computer waste energy constantly dumping into the house.

I think it is great that a new design house like Optimus has entered the marketplace with new fresh ideas. I posted a thread way back in the summer asking when will the established manufacturers come up with new designs to compensate for the offset die location of Zen 2.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/61-water-cooling/1730194-when-new-ryzen-3000-cpu-water-block-designs-coming-out.html


----------



## fit949

Memtest errors.
Appreciate any help. I attached a few screen shots. Strix x570-e 3600X
Can pass Aida memory benchmark, cinebench r20.
Sometimes the CLDO VDDG reads 1.0979 other times 1.5 as reflected in the screenshots.

Prepared by Thaiphoon Burner Super Blaster
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORY MODULE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer : Team Group
Series : Not determined
Part Number : TEAMGROUP-UD4-3200
Serial Number : 0302CDB6h
JEDEC DIMM Label : 8GB 1Rx8 PC4-2400R-UA2-11
Architecture : DDR4 SDRAM UDIMM
Speed Grade : DDR4-2400R
Capacity : 8 GB (8 components)
Organization : 1024M x64 (1 rank)
Register Manufacturer : N/A
Register Model : N/A
Manufacturing Date : August 26-30 / Week 35, 2019
Manufacturing Location : Taiwan
Revision / Raw Card : FF00h / A2 (8 layers)
-------------------------------------------------------------
DRAM COMPONENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer : Samsung
Part Number : K4A8G085WB-BCPB
Package : Standard Monolithic 78-ball FBGA
Die Density / Count : 8 Gb B-die (Boltzmann / 20 nm) / 1 die
Composition : 1024Mb x8 (64Mb x8 x 16 banks)
Clock Frequency : 1200 MHz (0.833 ns)
Minimum Timing Delays : 16-16-16-39-55
Read Latencies Supported : 18T, 17T, 16T, 15T, 14T, 13T, 12T...
Supply Voltage : 1.20 V
XMP Certified : 1600 MHz / 14-14-14-31-97 / 1.35 V
XMP Extreme : Not programmed
SPD Revision : 1.1 / September 2015
XMP Revision : 2.0 / December 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## rastaviper

fit949 said:


> Memtest errors.
> 
> Appreciate any help. I attached a few screen shots. Strix x570-e 3600X
> 
> Can pass Aida memory benchmark, cinebench r20.
> 
> Sometimes the CLDO VDDG reads 1.0979 other times 1.5 as reflected in the screenshots.
> 
> 
> 
> Prepared by Thaiphoon Burner Super Blaster
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> MEMORY MODULE
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Manufacturer : Team Group
> 
> Series : Not determined
> 
> Part Number : TEAMGROUP-UD4-3200
> 
> Serial Number : 0302CDB6h
> 
> JEDEC DIMM Label : 8GB 1Rx8 PC4-2400R-UA2-11
> 
> Architecture : DDR4 SDRAM UDIMM
> 
> Speed Grade : DDR4-2400R
> 
> Capacity : 8 GB (8 components)
> 
> Organization : 1024M x64 (1 rank)
> 
> Register Manufacturer : N/A
> 
> Register Model : N/A
> 
> Manufacturing Date : August 26-30 / Week 35, 2019
> 
> Manufacturing Location : Taiwan
> 
> Revision / Raw Card : FF00h / A2 (8 layers)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> DRAM COMPONENTS
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Manufacturer : Samsung
> 
> Part Number : K4A8G085WB-BCPB
> 
> Package : Standard Monolithic 78-ball FBGA
> 
> Die Density / Count : 8 Gb B-die (Boltzmann / 20 nm) / 1 die
> 
> Composition : 1024Mb x8 (64Mb x8 x 16 banks)
> 
> Clock Frequency : 1200 MHz (0.833 ns)
> 
> Minimum Timing Delays : 16-16-16-39-55
> 
> Read Latencies Supported : 18T, 17T, 16T, 15T, 14T, 13T, 12T...
> 
> Supply Voltage : 1.20 V
> 
> XMP Certified : 1600 MHz / 14-14-14-31-97 / 1.35 V
> 
> XMP Extreme : Not programmed
> 
> SPD Revision : 1.1 / September 2015
> 
> XMP Revision : 2.0 / December 2013
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------


So 
U should easily hit 3733-3800mhz .
What ram voltage are u using?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## fit949

Thanks for the reply rastaviper.
I am using these settings that I loaded into Bios and saved the profile.
It was able to boot into windows with rec Voltage SOC and DRAM.
I am not 100% sure about the CLDO VDDG.


----------



## Aristotelian

Subscribing to this for later - have a 3900X incoming with an Aorus Master and a F4-3600C16Q-32GTZNC kit. I think with XMP it already does fairly well but I'd like to see if I can tweak the timings and get more juice out of it


----------



## rastaviper

fit949 said:


> Thanks for the reply rastaviper.
> 
> I am using these settings that I loaded into Bios and saved the profile.
> 
> It was able to boot into windows with rec Voltage SOC and DRAM.
> 
> I am not 100% sure about the CLDO VDDG.


I have the feeling that you have faster Bdies from mine.
If I can do 3733 at 15-14-14, maybe you could do 3733 or 3800 at 14-14-14.
Your voltages from the calculator are exactly what I have too for my bdies and x570 gigabyte elite.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kainhander

Hi All,

I'm running into some small issues when trying to run the DRAM Calculator (v1.62) for my system. 
I bought a pairof G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C15-8GTZ memory and can't select everything as-is in the calculator. 
I'm using an Asus Prime X370 Pro motherboard with a Ryzen 2700 cpu.

Thaiphoon Burner Tells me that these use Samsung D dies, are single rank, and support 3600 speeds with 15-15-15-35 timings. 









When I enter those into the calculator and try to calculate I get a "Not Supported!" error:









If I reduce the speed to 3466 or less, I get a "Only Dual Rank" error: 









*Questions:*

*1.* Am I using this correctly by trying to select "Ryzen + gen", "Samsung D/E-die", single rank, 3600? 
Calculator Options tried originally:









*2.* What's with the "Only dual rank!" error? 

Thanks!


----------



## blitzkrieg666

Hi everyone.
Got meself a F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC. Thaiphoondek reads it as Hynix:
DRAM Components: H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC
DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: D / 17 nm

What should i choose for 'Memory Type' in the calculator? Any idea?


----------



## LicSqualo

Kainhander said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I'm running into some small issues when trying to run the DRAM Calculator (v1.62) for my system.
> I bought a pairof G.Skill Trident Z F4-3600C15-8GTZ memory and can't select everything as-is in the calculator.
> I'm using an Asus Prime X370 Pro motherboard with a Ryzen 2700 cpu.
> 
> Thaiphoon Burner Tells me that these use Samsung D dies, are single rank, and support 3600 speeds with 15-15-15-35 timings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I enter those into the calculator and try to calculate I get a "Not Supported!" error:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I reduce the speed to 3466 or less, I get a "Only Dual Rank" error:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Questions:*
> 
> *1.* Am I using this correctly by trying to select "Ryzen + gen", "Samsung D/E-die", single rank, 3600?
> Calculator Options tried originally:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* What's with the "Only dual rank!" error?
> 
> Thanks!


For this site https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/ your are b-die and not d-die.
Strange Taiphoon read as d-die, really strange. I will investigate if I'm in your situation.


----------



## LicSqualo

blitzkrieg666 said:


> Hi everyone.
> Got meself a F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC. Thaiphoondek reads it as Hynix:
> DRAM Components: H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC
> DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: D / 17 nm
> 
> What should i choose for 'Memory Type' in the calculator? Any idea?


I will try first as Hynix CJR, but I'm not sure (surely they are Hynix).


----------



## Kainhander

LicSqualo said:


> For this site https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/ your are b-die and not d-die.
> Strange Taiphoon read as d-die, really strange. I will investigate if I'm in your situation.


Interesting! That would make more sense as I've got the timings at the rated 15-15-15-35 instead of the higher numbers that the calculator suggested. Are there any other tools like thaiphoon burner to figure out the die type?


----------



## Alexshunter

My Gskill F4-3200C14D-16GFX Samsung B die, can do only the safe preset at 3600MHz by Dram calculator. And with these timings just barely better, than my previous Oloy Warhawk 3600MHz. Others seems to be able for cl14 timings, but to me even with 1.45V would not work. Am I have bad memory modules?


----------



## bluechris

Alexshunter said:


> My Gskill F4-3200C14D-16GFX Samsung B die, can do only the safe preset at 3600MHz by Dram calculator. And with these timings just barely better, than my previous Oloy Warhawk 3600MHz. Others seems to be able for cl14 timings, but to me even with 1.45V would not work. Am I have bad memory modules?


You passed everything according calculator? Including the crucial vddg and vddp voltages?


----------



## LicSqualo

Kainhander said:


> Interesting! That would make more sense as I've got the timings at the rated 15-15-15-35 instead of the higher numbers that the calculator suggested. Are there any other tools like thaiphoon burner to figure out the die type?


Yes, you can try (only to know the Manufacturer and not the die type) with AIDA64 or HWInfo or SIV (System Information Viewer, I use this last one).


----------



## Alexshunter

bluechris said:


> You passed everything according calculator? Including the crucial vddg and vddp voltages?


I did some of the changes from the right side, but not all, because i do not finding them in Asrock x470’s bios. Neither vddg nor vddp. But those changing was not necessary for my previous Oloy Warhawk to apply fast preset.


----------



## bluechris

Alexshunter said:


> I did some of the changes from the right side, but not all, because i do not finding them in Asrock x470’s bios. Neither vddg nor vddp. But those changing was not necessary for my previous Oloy Warhawk to apply fast preset.


That's why i asked because i wasn't also able to reach 3600cl14 or even higher with my bdies without raising this 2 options.
Its the cpu memory controller voltages if I'm not mistaken and thus are crucial


----------



## Alexshunter

bluechris said:


> That's why i asked because i wasn't also able to reach 3600cl14 or even higher with my bdies without raising this 2 options.
> Its the cpu memory controller voltages if I'm not mistaken and thus are crucial


Thx, i found those options. However it still won’t make cl14. I realized cl15 is the lowest setting for my modules, than the other numbers can be taken from Dram calculator.
Also if I write 288 to tRfc, than what am i gonna write to tRFC2 and to tRFC4?


----------



## geronimo

this is what I found out about trfc when digging around:

"-tRFC2 or tRFC4 are not used unless the refresh mode is 2x or 4x (which normally never happens).
-The other two are just ratios of the first trfc. The most stability is seen around where TRFC2 = TRFC / 1.34 and TRFC4= TRFC2 / 1.625
-tRFC2 and tRFC4 are timings for when the refresh mode hits 2x or 4x. This should only happen if your RAM is overheating, which is 85 degrees according to JEDEC"


----------



## Alexshunter

Thx, good to know those are nothing. So after a longer stress, seems the Ryzen Dram calculator fast presets are working at 1,4V, expect the CL14, instead I have to use CL15. Interesting Windows shows CL16, but in bios CL15 selected.


----------



## bluechris

Alexshunter said:


> Thx, good to know those are nothing. So after a longer stress, seems the Ryzen Dram calculator fast presets are working at 1,4V, expect the CL14, instead I have to use CL15. Interesting Windows shows CL16, but in bios CL15 selected.


Windows say it right, for some reason ryzen doesn't like even numbers and goes to above which is cl16 in your case.
There is a setting that prevent this but i don't remember it atm, gear down i think? Search the thread to find it.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

bluechris said:


> Windows say it right, for some reason ryzen doesn't like even numbers and goes to above which is cl16 in your case.
> There is a setting that prevent this but i don't remember it atm, gear down i think? Search the thread to find it.


2T  no GD


----------



## Iwamotto Tetsuz

Had left for months cause the bussy no time, but picking of where I left over last time for a quick recall.

The perfect mem timings did work but took a long time for me to re learn it again after leaving the OC for years and comming back, so for my ryzen2600 and Aorus B450 the board dislikes any higher than 3066MHZ though the cpu and mem is stable at 3200.

Kept the thing at 3000MHZ and tightend timings.

Still have full photos of timings used and also did comparison to Dram calculatior for RYZEN, calculation yeild very poor stablity and was inferior to perfect ram timing rules.

Also benchmark results. 

https://valid.x86.fr/pb4l53?fbclid=IwAR3lQwP_BXFBLm8aTQu6nZftR6eXp9Bb-0S7hZ61yJEpfjCvezoekvjdzBY

Still gonna be bussy but if any one is intrested on further results I will dig out photos and comment further and finish off my post in this thread where I left it months ago.


----------



## rastaviper

Alexshunter said:


> Thx, good to know those are nothing. So after a longer stress, seems the Ryzen Dram calculator fast presets are working at 1,4V, expect the CL14, instead I have to use CL15. Interesting Windows shows CL16, but in bios CL15 selected.





bluechris said:


> Windows say it right, for some reason ryzen doesn't like even numbers and goes to above which is cl16 in your case.
> There is a setting that prevent this but i don't remember it atm, gear down i think? Search the thread to find it.


The reason has been mentioned many times in the past in this forum.

It's about the GDM and PDM.
If you have them disabled, then you can have odd numbers (15/17) activated normally.


----------



## Alexshunter

rastaviper said:


> The reason has been mentioned many times in the past in this forum.
> 
> It's about the GDM and PDM.
> If you have them disabled, then you can have odd numbers (15/17) activated normally.


Thx, with these settings I have the CL15 and still at 1.4V. The benchmarks have improved slightly. I've figured CL14 also possible, but 1,45V is not enough and next step is 1,5V and there it was stable.


----------



## rastaviper

Alexshunter said:


> Thx, with these settings I have the CL15 and still at 1.4V. The benchmarks have improved slightly. I've figured CL14 also possible, but 1,45V is not enough and next step is 1,5V and there it was stable.


1.5v is not recommended for daily use though

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alexshunter

rastaviper said:


> 1.5v is not recommended for daily use though
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


It would have been nice, if asrock would offer smaller steps than 0.05V, like 0.01V.


----------



## lightsout

I got some cheap 3000c15 ram. Ran a check on it and it says b-die. Read somewhere that one brand was using low binned b-die. That wasn't that special ? These are Corsair vengance sticks. What do you guys think, did I score or no big deal?


----------



## BLUuuE

lightsout said:


> I got some cheap 3000c15 ram. Ran a check on it and it says b-die. Read somewhere that one brand was using low binned b-die. That wasn't that special ? These are Corsair vengance sticks. What do you guys think, did I score or no big deal?


I've seen many people with Corsair 3200 16-18-18 B-die which completely sucked at overclocking.
I wouldn't have high hopes for 3000 15-17-17 B-die, but you never know until you try.


----------



## Hequaqua

Well....here is what I'm working on at the moment:

I have a set of Flare-X 3200CL14(16gb) paired with a set of Trident Z 3466CL16(16gb) in there right now. 

I was able to boot at 3666CL16/1833 IF. Haven't tested anything yet, but really surprised it even let me boot into Windows....running 1.075vSoC(in HWiNFO shows 1.063v) with 1.4v DRAM(HWiNFO shows 1.416).









FYI, The Flare-X are in Slots 1/3 on the board, Trident Z Slots 2/4.


----------



## lightsout

BLUuuE said:


> I've seen many people with Corsair 3200 16-18-18 B-die which completely sucked at overclocking.
> I wouldn't have high hopes for 3000 15-17-17 B-die, but you never know until you try.


Thanks man thats what I thought I had seen as well. I don't even care to mess with it. My system has been freezing and my normal B-Die sticks have always been a bit finicky (flares) so I took them out to see if the problem would go away. So far so good.


----------



## Aristotelian

Aristotelian said:


> Subscribing to this for later - have a 3900X incoming with an Aorus Master and a F4-3600C16Q-32GTZNC kit. I think with XMP it already does fairly well but I'd like to see if I can tweak the timings and get more juice out of it


I think I should have read this thread before purchasing this kit. Why would GSkill have the 32GTZN as Samsung B-die but then the 32GTZNC not? This kit I purchased was 299 bucks and I thought I was getting some of the best out there but it seems that I did not.

The memory is still en route - if you folks were me, would you cancel the order and get back to the search for a 4x8 3600 kit? I don't mean to digress in this thread but I don't think this question warrants a new thread.


----------



## OCmember

tl:dr

Just ran the membench for the first time. I have no overclocking on the CPU, just the IF and RAM 1:1 1700/3400 and the calculations input from the calculator into the Mem settings. It passes 100% on memtest. At the end of the membench it crashed. Am I unstable?


----------



## fcchin

Aristotelian said:


> The memory is still en route - if you folks were me, would you cancel the order and get back to the search for a 4x8 3600 kit? I don't mean to digress in this thread but I don't think this question warrants a new thread.


Is there a 14 days satisfaction guaranteed to try?

Not all samsung b-die is good, as seen above Corsair's samsung b-die are crap.

hynix CJR was a surprisingly good turn on, https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/3.html 

As well as others....

and silicon lottery, may be the one of the way is your lottery ???

Never know if never try......


But if you feel will regret if you didn't return it now, then go ahead and return. I would return it now. Just don't rely on samsung b-die next time, just in case it turns out like corsair.

Edit I suspect corsair pays to buy the cheapest lousiest samsung b-die !!!


----------



## darkage

Samsung b.die is top, cant expect to buy cheap b.die kits and achieve what high end high binned kits can do, 3200c14 should be above average, if its not working return it to g.skill they have a great rma process unlike Corsair for example


----------



## Hequaqua

Well....couldn't get the mixed kit stable...so put up the Flare X kit for sale...here is the link if anyone is interested:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/146...-x-f4-3200cl14d-16gfx-2-8gb.html#post28241294


----------



## Ray666

Alexshunter said:


> It would have been nice, if asrock would offer smaller steps than 0.05V, like 0.01V.


The ISL95712 PWM Regulator of the Fatal1ty X470 Gaming-ITX/ac supports 6.25mV steps, so 0.01V are not achievable.
They probably choosed 8x6.25mV step size for easier user calculation... ;-)


----------



## Aristotelian

fcchin said:


> Never know if never try......


Thanks. I mean the kit is: F4-3600C16Q-32GTZNC

4x8GB
Timing 16-19-19-39
CAS Latency 16
Voltage 1.35V

I should get it tonight but the rest of the components for my build tomorrow. I'll run the kit through Thaiphoon Burner as I can't seem to find a comprehensive list which identifies all kits - just know that mine isn't B-die. 

I watched the guide on Gamers Nexus (Ryzen Memory Overclocking) and 3600 with tight timings looks quite nice. I'll give it a shot - never know if I never try.

Thanks everyone in this thread for all the valuable feedback etc. I'll post on the substance soon.


----------



## chevy350

Aristotelian said:


> Thanks. I mean the kit is: F4-3600C16Q-32GTZNC
> 
> 4x8GB
> Timing 16-19-19-39
> CAS Latency 16
> Voltage 1.35V
> 
> I should get it tonight but the rest of the components for my build tomorrow. I'll run the kit through Thaiphoon Burner as I can't seem to find a comprehensive list which identifies all kits - just know that mine isn't B-die.
> 
> I watched the guide on Gamers Nexus (Ryzen Memory Overclocking) and 3600 with tight timings looks quite nice. I'll give it a shot - never know if I never try.
> 
> Thanks everyone in this thread for all the valuable feedback etc. I'll post on the substance soon.


Currently have the same in a X470-F with 2700X and have yet to get 3600....3400 runs fine, but I'll be trying again this weekend. Also thaiphoon says it's Hynix M-die chips part number H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC


----------



## Kainhander

LicSqualo said:


> Yes, you can try (only to know the Manufacturer and not the die type) with AIDA64 or HWInfo or SIV (System Information Viewer, I use this last one).


Heard back from G.Skill support. They are in fact D-dies:



> Memory kits can vary with batch so what is shown in Thaiphoon Burner is correct.


The "Safe" settings for B-dies at 3266 seem to work well, so Samsung must have improved on D-dies since they ceased manufacturing B-dies.


----------



## hardwarelimits

Hey , what's up guys !
Been trying to run 1T with Geard Down Mode on Viper Steel 4400 at 3800mhz , 1900mhz Infinity Fabric. I have tryed to play wtih Prodtc and RTT with no luck, like instant erros on HCI mem test. Any help & tips appreciated 



Here's my current settings


----------



## Sphex_

hardwarelimits said:


> Hey , what's up guys !
> Been trying to run 1T with Geard Down Mode on Viper Steel 4400 at 3800mhz , 1900mhz Infinity Fabric. I have tryed to play wtih Prodtc and RTT with no luck, like instant erros on HCI mem test. Any help & tips appreciated


For Samsung B-Die ICs most of your settings look good. I'd really be careful, however, with constantly restarting and booting back into Windows with settings that throw errors instantly. Find an old flash drive and put MemTest on it, then boot to that flash drive when testing. If it gets through one or two passes without errors then you should be safe to boot into Windows. You don't want to be dealing with a corrupt OS while doing this.

Anyways, what voltage are you running the memory at? It strangely reads "0" in your screenshot. Also, have you tried raising VDDG or VDDP voltage at all? I had to raise the VDDP to 1000mV to get my B-Die stable at 3733.


----------



## gerardfraser

hardwarelimits said:


> Hey , what's up guys !
> Been trying to run 1T with Geard Down Mode on Viper Steel 4400 at 3800mhz , 1900mhz Infinity Fabric. I have tryed to play wtih Prodtc and RTT with no luck, like instant erros on HCI mem test. Any help & tips appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my current settings


Well you could try these setting,especially DRAM voltage
charizard smash


----------



## BarryEllin

I have an X570 Taichi and 4x16 G.Skill Ripjaws, and 3900x, Safe settings are not working for me at 3200mhz; the computer will either not post or go to 2133mhz. I only entered stuff in the main (first) page. Should I be entering stuff in the advanced (second) page too?


----------



## hardwarelimits

Thanks for your tips guys. My voltage is at 1.470 but goes to 1488. I have tried at 1.5 also but I felt was a bit high. About VDDP and VDDG I did increased it but got same results. 

I asked another user here thanks @The Pook he told me there's no magic setting to get 1T working other than lowering frequency.


So here we have our answer, I will lower it to see how is performance. Thanks cheers!


----------



## Rashkae

It still doesn't support Crucial Dominator RGB Platinum 3200 CL16 (Micron D die) on x570


----------



## Sphex_

hardwarelimits said:


> I asked another user here thanks @*The Pook* he told me there's no magic setting to get 1T working other than lowering frequency.
> So here we have our answer, I will lower it to see how is performance. Thanks cheers!


I've seen some people achieve great results at 3800 MHz but running a command rate of 2T. You could perhaps try running the same timings and voltages you had before, but at 2T and with GearDown Mode *Off*. In fact, some of the people I've seen enter their results on the community sheet have achieved memory latencies as low as 62.7ns and there appears to be no measurable impact on bandwidth.


----------



## dajez

Meh, I have Micron e die memory with 4000MHz docp witch is not supported apparently


----------



## darkage

hardwarelimits said:


> Hey , what's up guys !
> Been trying to run 1T with Geard Down Mode on Viper Steel 4400 at 3800mhz , 1900mhz Infinity Fabric. I have tryed to play wtih Prodtc and RTT with no luck, like instant erros on HCI mem test. Any help & tips appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my current settings


try gear down -on 
power down - disabled
works for me 3800/1900 1.39 ram 1.10 soc
team 8pack b.die


----------



## Aristotelian

chevy350 said:


> Currently have the same in a X470-F with 2700X and have yet to get 3600....3400 runs fine, but I'll be trying again this weekend. Also thaiphoon says it's Hynix M-die chips part number H5AN8G8NMFR-TFC


Well, I used Thaiphoon and exported the report in HTML with nanoseconds, I put that into the DRAM Calculator and selected Hynix M-die and got a 'not supported!' response. 

I'll try this manually and see what I get - I'm on an X570 with a 3900X.

EDIT: on the latest BIOS, XMP came to this kit with 1 click. I ran the easy mode test in MEMBench and got this:











Looks like I've got some work to do


----------



## xtend

Hi there! I have this problem: https://www.overclock.net/#/topics/1738892 so im totally newbie. Is there any easy description how to use this calculator who not a pro? Thx!


----------



## deepor

@xtend: Your link does not work. It leads to nothing when I click on it.


----------



## xtend

deepor said:


> @xtend: Your link does not work. It leads to nothing when I click on it.


?? Really? Its working for me. But i write here too my question maybe its better:
I have a new computer with Gigabyte B450M Gaming mobo and CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 rams and Ryzen 5 2600X.
The memory wrotes its working XMP with 16-18-18-36 on 3200 MHz and 1.35V. If I switch on XMP in BIOS then I can boot up but after a while Windows 10 crashes after 2 minutes of bootup and memtest is failed too.
Now its working stable with same timing @2666 Mhz and 1.2V.
I have the newest firmware on BIOS. The CPU is not overclocked working with auto settings.

What can I do to work the memory on 3200Mhz? I tested with the max 1.5V too, it seemed stable but freezing started after 10-15 mins.
I make something wrong or this mobo can handle only these settings? 

Thx for any advice!


----------



## deepor

It's normal that XMP doesn't work. You have to tweak things manually. That's the point of this calculator program here. 

I don't think I can give better instructions than what is in the first post of this thread.

Can you show a screenshot of what you are trying to do in the calculator? What are your settings like there?


----------



## athkatla

xtend said:


> ?? Really? Its working for me. But i write here too my question maybe its better:
> I have a new computer with Gigabyte B450M Gaming mobo and CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 rams and Ryzen 5 2600X.
> The memory wrotes its working XMP with 16-18-18-36 on 3200 MHz and 1.35V. If I switch on XMP in BIOS then I can boot up but after a while Windows 10 crashes after 2 minutes of bootup and memtest is failed too.
> Now its working stable with same timing @2666 Mhz and 1.2V.
> I have the newest firmware on BIOS. The CPU is not overclocked working with auto settings.
> 
> What can I do to work the memory on 3200Mhz? I tested with the max 1.5V too, it seemed stable but freezing started after 10-15 mins.
> I make something wrong or this mobo can handle only these settings?
> 
> Thx for any advice!


Read the sticker on the Dimms, if you have version 4.32 then use the following settings:

Voltage: auto or 1.35
Xmp profile 1
Manually change TRC timing to 55.
Gear down mode : enabled
Command rate :1T

Let me know if it works.

Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## xtend

athkatla said:


> Read the sticker on the Dimms, if you have version 4.32 then use the following settings:
> 
> Voltage: auto or 1.35
> Xmp profile 1
> Manually change TRC timing to 55.
> Gear down mode : enabled
> Command rate :1T
> 
> Let me know if it works.
> 
> Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk



It seems to work like charm! Memtest do not have problems too. Thx bro!

Edit: is that possible to OC up to 3600Mhz or i want too much from these rams?


----------



## bpw87

Hey 1usmus,

Thanks heaps for the software it's been great. Been playing with my timings and have made a bit of a mix of the 3600 safe and fast presets getting things as low as possible while still stable and using 1.4v. What's your thoughts on my timings and anything that stands out as a possibly issue? Only thing not really listed is the board which is an mITX ASUS B450 I Gaming. My time and latency seems good considering it's only CL16 3600mhz. 

There is a big voltage difference between the 3600 safe 1.35 and fast 1.45 and I think I might be able to hopefully get the voltage down to 1.37-1.38 area or trying to get it running at something like 15-16-16-30, trc 48, tcwl 15 and hopefully trfc a bit lower again. 

Would it be possible to add options to change to settings for in between settings maybe like choosing a preferred CL and then giving you an optimised settings for that CL.


----------



## athkatla

xtend said:


> It seems to work like charm! Memtest do not have problems too. Thx bro!
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: is that possible to OC up to 3600Mhz or i want too much from these rams?


Unfortunately, you cannot.

Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## xtend

athkatla said:


> xtend said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to work like charm! Memtest do not have problems too. Thx bro!
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: is that possible to OC up to 3600Mhz or i want too much from these rams?
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you cannot.
> 
> Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nevermind bro its enough and thx again


----------



## Bapt33

hi guys,

Im on r5 2600 with asus prime x370 pro, RAM flareX 3200CL14 (b-die)

Since new version 1.6.2, i get RAM error with memtest86, very random but still. i was 100% stable with previous bios, and older version of ryzen dram calculator give better timings on my setup.

I use taiphoon to export my html ram profile then import it in dram calculator, safe preset . Ram voltage is 1.3750v, powerdown mode enabled (gonna try disable it) BIOS 5220 AGESA 1.0.0.3 all was working fine for like 1 years, im sure its about new bios version and new dram calculator timings.

Hope someone can help cause i dont know what to do anymore.

Thanks


----------



## Darkomax

Hey, is there no way to read current timings with 3rd gen Ryzen?


----------



## Hequaqua

Darkomax said:


> Hey, is there no way to read current timings with 3rd gen Ryzen?


Ryzen Master is the only way that I know of.


----------



## Darkomax

Thanks, totally forgot about it.


----------



## Hequaqua

Darkomax said:


> Thanks, totally forgot about it.


No problem! :thumb:


----------



## fastturtle

*What version of Micron is this*

All I've got from my ram SPD using Passmark's SPD Monitor

Micron Technology Monolithic, 1 die, Single load stack

Looks like a reference
Raw Card B Rev. 17

It's an Off Brand (Team Group) Dual Rank that's been stable, now hoping to get the CPU over 3800 stable


----------



## makkara

Bapt33 said:


> hi guys,
> 
> Im on r5 2600 with asus prime x370 pro, RAM flareX 3200CL14 (b-die)
> 
> Since new version 1.6.2, i get RAM error with memtest86, very random but still. i was 100% stable with previous bios, and older version of ryzen dram calculator give better timings on my setup.
> 
> I use taiphoon to export my html ram profile then import it in dram calculator, safe preset . Ram voltage is 1.3750v, powerdown mode enabled (gonna try disable it) BIOS 5220 AGESA 1.0.0.3 all was working fine for like 1 years, im sure its about new bios version and new dram calculator timings.
> 
> Hope someone can help cause i dont know what to do anymore.
> 
> Thanks


Shouldnt tRFC be multiple of tRC? tRC 48*7 = tRFC 336

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html


----------



## Bapt33

makkara said:


> Shouldnt tRFC be multiple of tRC? tRC 48*7 = tRFC 336
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html


Ryzen dram calculator give me trfc (alt) 384, could maybe try that.


----------



## Miiksu

makkara said:


> Shouldnt tRFC be multiple of tRC? tRC 48*7 = tRFC 336
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html


This helped me with bad fps. Sometimes I had some weird performance issues. I used tRC*8.


----------



## fcchin

Bapt33 said:


> hi guys,
> 
> Im on r5 2600 with asus prime x370 pro, RAM flareX 3200CL14 (b-die)
> 
> Since new version 1.6.2, i get RAM error with memtest86, very random but still. i was 100% stable with previous bios, and older version of ryzen dram calculator give better timings on my setup.
> 
> I use taiphoon to export my html ram profile then import it in dram calculator, safe preset . Ram voltage is 1.3750v, powerdown mode enabled (gonna try disable it) BIOS 5220 AGESA 1.0.0.3 all was working fine for like 1 years, im sure its about new bios version and new dram calculator timings.
> 
> Hope someone can help cause i dont know what to do anymore.
> 
> Thanks


Unless 1usmus has the ram to test, else other rams are his best guess, hence consider the movie "Pirates of the Carribean's Parley = it's only a guide, not a dead fix rule".

and how to know this? for example mark the dram voltage from the calculator, 

2666 1.2v
2800 1.35v
2933 1.35v
3133 1.35v
3200 1.4v
3266 1.4v
3133 1.4v

same for timing, compare all timings and we might see a group of timings shared across multiple frequency.

See the voltages and timing does not scale linearly, means such ram might not be in his test hence not in the database/library and only serve as a guide, which require us to manage/tune by hand trial and error.

Also don't forget parts aging, ram life, CPU life degradation. What works yesterday does not mean still works 2 years later, especially for us who attempts to push to the limits.


----------



## Bapt33

fcchin said:


> Unless 1usmus has the ram to test, else other rams are his best guess, hence consider the movie "Pirates of the Carribean's Parley = it's only a guide, not a dead fix rule".
> 
> and how to know this? for example mark the dram voltage from the calculator,
> 
> 2666 1.2v
> 2800 1.35v
> 2933 1.35v
> 3133 1.35v
> 3200 1.4v
> 3266 1.4v
> 3133 1.4v
> 
> same for timing, compare all timings and we might see a group of timings shared across multiple frequency.
> 
> See the voltages and timing does not scale linearly, means such ram might not be in his test hence not in the database/library and only serve as a guide, which require us to manage/tune by hand trial and error.
> 
> Also don't forget parts aging, ram life, CPU life degradation. What works yesterday does not mean still works 2 years later, especially for us who attempts to push to the limits.


Thanks for this but the problem seems only be the Trfc, change it from 307 to 384 and i get better latencies (66ns vs 71ns before) and stable in hci memtest for an overnight, need time to confirm


----------



## Veii

makkara said:


> Shouldnt tRFC be multiple of tRC? tRC 48*7 = tRFC 336
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html


How you calculate tRFC is a devider of tRC, either a clean devider which depends on tCL/2 (-1 at lowest, +1 for stability) 
A devider can also be a point 5 value which 1usmus uses on his calculator - he uses the voltage stacking method, before the cells discharge / it's hard to explain, and even harder to calculate

Usually you turn tRC to ns , and tRFC to ns 
Then make that a clean devider which can be 6,7,8 
But this is the simple resolve
I've explained it here a bit better, just even that is a short explenation - it goes quite deep into the rabbit hole, across many pages ^^'
The baseline is still a multiplier of half tCL for tRC to get out clean sync tRFC - but you can also go for tCL/2-1 value for the multiplier


Bapt33 said:


> Thanks for this but the problem seems only be the Trfc, change it from 307 to 384 and i get better latencies (66ns vs 71ns before) and stable in hci memtest for an overnight, need time to confirm


tRFC alone is not the main thing that decides between sync and unsync - but one of the main ones you have to work with - together with tRC, then shift the rest around this two values, or around SCL
Boards too, add secretly latency if your timings aren't in sync, and 3rd gen does also error correct a bit - you will notice a better result only with SiSoftware Sandra, or on the calculator the memory latency curve


----------



## Bapt33

Veii said:


> The baseline is still a multiplier of half tCL for tRC to get out clean sync tRFC - but you can also go for tCL/2-1 value for the multiplier


allright so my trc is actually 48, TCL 14. so 7*7=49, my tRC is actually -1, and ive use the *8 multiplier for my tRFC: 8*48=384. If stable, gonna try with *7 so 7*48= 336.

Thanks for the tips


----------



## Veii

Bapt33 said:


> allright so my trc is actually 48, TCL 14. so 7*7=49, my tRC is actually -1, and ive use the *8 multiplier for my tRFC: 8*48=384. If stable, gonna try with *7 so 7*48= 336.
> 
> Thanks for the tips


Most important is the devider not a value lik 6.7979797997 
you can go 2 values down on tRC normaly 
But be sure tRFC (calculator) in nanosecounds is also not something like 171.1111ns 
Rather 170, 160ns and so on 
1usmus does use .5 values but it's hard to calculate it , for tCL14 you can use *6 too as lowest
In case you want to drop SCL further, which needs lower tRFC as you choke it and i may not post


----------



## Bapt33

Veii said:


> Most important is the devider not a value lik 6.7979797997
> you can go 2 values down on tRC normaly
> But be sure tRFC (calculator) in nanosecounds is also not something like 171.1111ns
> Rather 170, 160ns and so on
> 1usmus does use .5 values but it's hard to calculate it , for tCL14 you can use *6 too as lowest
> In case you want to drop SCL further, which needs lower tRFC as you choke it and i may not post


all right thanks again, according to ryzen timing checker, tRFC 384 give 240ns. gonna try with 48*6 = 288


----------



## 1usmus

*I want to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year* 

Good news, preparation of the new version of the calculator 1.7.0 is in full swing, and also in January you will see special material about the new Threadripper.

https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1209757282810105856


----------



## Bapt33

1usmus said:


> *I want to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year*
> 
> Good news, preparation of the new version of the calculator 1.7.0 is in full swing, and also in January you will see special material about the new Threadripper.
> 
> https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1209757282810105856


Merry christmas, i wish you tighten timings, low latencies and high frequency !


----------



## Veii

1usmus said:


> *I want to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year*


Merry Merry Christmas ! :santa:


> Good news, preparation of the new version of the calculator 1.7.0 is in full swing
> https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1209757282810105856


Great work as always :thumb:
Inter-Core|Thread|CCD latency is a great addition 
May i ask ~ did "Mr Robot" help with the timings readout method ?
Just curious nothing more :biggrinsm

It maybe be just me, but could we potencialy get the save results compare feature too with different drawn latency curves ?
I imagine it either with different colours or with -/+ values as comparison ~ similar to SiSandra


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

:santa: Happy HolyDays :santa:


----------



## Darkomax

Achieved 3733MHz on my b-die kit, cannot reduce RCDRD any lower unfortunately. Not bad for a mere 3500X.


----------



## Bapt33

*bapt33*



Veii said:


> Most important is the devider not a value lik 6.7979797997
> you can go 2 values down on tRC normaly
> But be sure tRFC (calculator) in nanosecounds is also not something like 171.1111ns
> Rather 170, 160ns and so on
> 1usmus does use .5 values but it's hard to calculate it , for tCL14 you can use *6 too as lowest
> In case you want to drop SCL further, which needs lower tRFC as you choke it and i may not post


Seems finnaly stable with 288 tRFC, 48 tRC. I get error with 1.375v dram, bump it to 1.4v and pass a 6 hour hci memtest bench.
But i know RAM can be vicious, can be stable for an overnight, and crash my games after 20min of playing.
Need time to be sure its stable, anyway thanks a lot for help !


----------



## kratosatlante

Hi, I have a problem with latency and performance, I have no idea why it is, someone who knows what the problem is, some clue
sometimes aida at the first run is ok, 6x ns depending on the speed of the ram 3200, 3600, 3733, but in run 2 or 3, a lot of latency 150-180, and the cpu bench, the middle falls performing in 1 core


----------



## dlbsyst

kratosatlante said:


> Hi, I have a problem with latency and performance, I have no idea why it is, someone who knows what the problem is, some clue
> sometimes aida at the first run is ok, 6x ns depending on the speed of the ram 3200, 3600, 3733, but in run 2 or 3, a lot of latency 150-180, and the cpu bench, the middle falls performing in 1 core


Did you get those timings from the calculator because they seem far too aggressive at 3733MHz. Also did you run stability tests to see if your ram is stable? For reference my 32GB (4 8GB sticks) is running at 14 tCL, 15 tRCDWR, 16 tRCDRD, 15 tRP, 32 tRAS, 50tRP, etc. This is at 3600MHz, GD disabled and it's totally stable.


----------



## Veii

kratosatlante said:


> Hi, I have a problem with latency and performance, I have no idea why it is, someone who knows what the problem is, some clue
> sometimes aida at the first run is ok, 6x ns depending on the speed of the ram 3200, 3600, 3733, but in run 2 or 3, a lot of latency 150-180, and the cpu bench, the middle falls performing in 1 core


This is a very awkward situation , can be a lot of things
But first thing to see is - SLC is way to high , it likely desyncs 
Tho i've never seen anything like this without instant crashes

Push it back to 4 instead of 5 
5 would be for the ~4000MT/s range
and force every voltage you can manual 
Be sure nothing is on auto, where prediction can mess up
CAD_BUS, RTT values, CLD0 voltages SOC voltages inlc in AMD Overclocking -> SOC Uncore OC enable

tWRWR SD DD 6 6
tRDRD SD DD 4 4
Are also quite harsh, it may need you to either go:
tRRDS / L 4 5 with current tFAW
or 5 6 - if kits can't run it that low on this frequency, with tFAW of 20

Start with SCL, if you can't run it (doubt) push both SD DD's back to 5 5 7 7
Your current tRFC is awkward, you can keep tRC of 42 for 273-203-125
Or you can make it cleaner and lower timings even more, tRC 40 with tRFC 280-208-128
288 doesn't fit anywhere and even for .5 digit devider, it's still wrong and would need SS DD 5 5 7 7 to work out
Idk where you got the timings, but they are a mixture of "very harsh & not in sync failsafe" 
Fix SCL -> (if not stable) fix SS DD -> if you still have the issue, use different tRC & tRFC setting to stay in sync


----------



## xtend

Hi all! Big thx to athkatla forum member who helped me works my ram in 3200Mhz. Now i checked better this calculator. See attached photo (sorry for ***** pic). If i use this values (safe) then boot failed bios reset itself safemode. So how can i push my rams better timings? Thx


----------



## Saiger0

xtend said:


> Hi all! Big thx to athkatla forum member who helped me works my ram in 3200Mhz. Now i checked better this calculator. See attached photo (sorry for ***** pic). If i use this values (safe) then boot failed bios reset itself safemode. So how can i push my rams better timings? Thx


Becaus you´ve selected the wrong processor generation. this completly messes up your termination block. 
zen 2 -> ryzen 3xxx
zen+ -> ryzen 2xxx

besides are you sure you have b die? i doubt it and even then it maybe just a really low bin.


----------



## xtend

Saiger0 said:


> xtend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all! Big thx to athkatla forum member who helped me works my ram in 3200Mhz. Now i checked better this calculator. See attached photo (sorry for ***** pic). If i use this values (safe) then boot failed bios reset itself safemode. So how can i push my rams better timings? Thx
> 
> 
> 
> Becaus youÂ´ve selected the wrong processor generation. this completly messes up your termination block.
> zen 2 -> ryzen 3xxx
> zen+ -> ryzen 2xxx
Click to expand...

Oh *****! Then im totally stupid 😄 thx i change the settings


----------



## rastaviper

kratosatlante said:


> Hi, I have a problem with latency and performance, I have no idea why it is, someone who knows what the problem is, some clue
> 
> sometimes aida at the first run is ok, 6x ns depending on the speed of the ram 3200, 3600, 3733, but in run 2 or 3, a lot of latency 150-180, and the cpu bench, the middle falls performing in 1 core


66ns for 3733 at 14-14-14 is really bad.
You should be closer to 63ns or lower then that.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Delphi

Whats the chances Hynix MFR ram get included in the new update to show 3600mhz+ Timings? Currently got a 3600mhz kit in my PC. When I import and put in the settings it says "Not Supported"


----------



## BLUuuE

Delphi said:


> Whats the chances Hynix MFR ram get included in the new update to show 3600mhz+ Timings? Currently got a 3600mhz kit in my PC. When I import and put in the settings it says "Not Supported"


Looks the SPD has been misprogrammed or Thaiphoon is misreading it.

That is most likely CJR/DJR.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Anyone have trouble with the Ryzen dram calculator program just not starting? My computer crashed while I was running membench from within dram calculator and since then it just wont start, I even downloaded it again.


----------



## Bapt33

2600ryzen said:


> Anyone have trouble with the Ryzen dram calculator program just not starting? My computer crashed while I was running membench from within dram calculator and since then it just wont start, I even downloaded it again.


Hmm, sounds like something is corrupted, completly delete dram calculator folder, perform a ccleaner scan (registry+data) reboot computer, download dram calculator and try again.
you can also try the command sfc /scannow in powershell/cmd as admin.


----------



## Delphi

BLUuuE said:


> Looks the SPD has been misprogrammed or Thaiphoon is misreading it.
> 
> That is most likely CJR/DJR.


Would you suggest treating it like CJR Dimms and seeing where that gets me? I have 4 8gb sticks and they all show MFR.


----------



## Hequaqua

I'm trying to dial this RAM kit in. It's just a cheap set....it's rated at 3600 18-20-20-40.

At the moment I have it 3666 16-20-21-36. I used the timings from the calculator for Hynix CJR(Fast). I'm not sure if that is correct or not since in the part number is has ??R. I've attached Typhoon burner showing the read info as well as my current timings.

Any help would be great.









EDIT: Some of those timings are from AUTO since I don't have access to them on this board.


----------



## poskqers

So Dram calculates parameters for rated speeds. My question is, what timings one should adjust if you want to overclock ram to higher frequency than what ram is rated for?


----------



## Delphi

Quick update,

Got the latest version and the ram is CJR. Happy noises!


----------



## Bapt33

Ive surely the most bad motherboard for RAM training, asus prime x370pro + r5 2600 with flareX 3200 CL14. I was stable for like 3 days with TRC 48 TRFC 288, pass 8 hour hci memtest without any error, the day after, error pop up after 2 minutes of bench. RAM is really vicious. ive change now TRFC from 288 to 336. and not even sure im stable, im for now, but very often error pop 3 days after i apply new RAM timings, thats weird.
This what i have actually : DRAM voltage : 1.4v SOC voltage : 1.019v


----------



## Veii

Delphi said:


> Whats the chances Hynix MFR ram get included in the new update to show 3600mhz+ Timings? Currently got a 3600mhz kit in my PC. When I import and put in the settings it says "Not Supported"
> 
> 
> 
> Would you suggest treating it like CJR Dimms and seeing where that gets me? I have 4 8gb sticks and they all show MFR.
> 
> 
> 
> Quick update,
> Got the latest version and the ram is CJR. Happy noises!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Glad it got sorted out
You would else have a very high binned MFR kit - which would be a 2-3% chance of even existing
MFR ones do love voltage but OC very bad unless you push over the limits >1.6v 
Around the 3600-3733 range it's mostly CFR if you are lucky or 3400-3600 AFR


poskqers said:


> So Dram calculates parameters for rated speeds. My question is, what timings one should adjust if you want to overclock ram to higher frequency than what ram is rated for?


You have a lot to read on that topic , as no timing comes alone
But this would be a short quote'd order:


Spoiler






Veii said:


> The order would be:
> Frequency -> tRFC
> tRFC -> tRC
> tRC -> tRP & tRAS
> Main 4 timings -> tRAS
> tRDWR / RD -> tRCD & tCL
> tRFC -> tRTP
> tRRDS/L -> tFAW
> Frequency & main 4 -> both SCLs
> tWTRS/L (have yet not found a connection for them)
> tCL -> tCWL (can be set -1 of tCL, if GDM is disabled)
> at the last end tWRWR/RDRD SD DD to our known 7 7 5 5 , or 6 6 4 4 ~ has yet also no fixed pattern
> 
> All of them come at least in a pair of two
> You never change only one
> But to answer the question simpler - changing frequency needs tRFC adjustment
> Then up to your range, it needs tRC adjustment - which changes main 4 timings , this then changes tRDWR/WRRD
> Next SCL 4 -> 5 would be in the 4000MT/s region, next one in the 4200-4300 range





For more accurate information visit
OCN part 1 & quoted above part 2
Information about each timing can be found here & a tiny crashcourse here
My personal method from above comes with the readable notes above (part 1 OCN)

But it was the way to get the baseline done for benchmarks / as boards do auto correct timings a bit
(SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency, Aida64, both cinebenches)
If you want to use the more linear method of Ram OC, this would be your way
Tho for both ways, keep your focus on tRFC as the most important part ~ later scale it down by the order quoted above 
Happy Overclocking :thumb:


----------



## bluechris

Anyone with 4 dualrank b-dies here was able to reach 3733mhz? I ask because im at 3600cl14 1T with 4x16gb and i want to know if its doable.


----------



## acechub

why is there not much difference between 3800mhz cl16 vs cl14 except for 1.35v vs 1.49v required?
no error correction determined with 1000% hci memtest pass.


----------



## kaiserc

Yes 3733 safe preset is actually easier to get than 3600 fast. I will try later fast preset 3733. Team group dark pro "8 pack" edition 14-14-14-31 3200.


----------



## rastaviper

acechub said:


> why is there not much difference between 3800mhz cl16 vs cl14 except for 1.35v vs 1.49v required?
> 
> no error correction determined with 1000% hci memtest pass.


Beautiful numbers, strange that your latency doesn't go near 63.0
My 3733 setup at 15-14-14 gets 62.8 ns with same CPU.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

acechub said:


> why is there not much difference between 3800mhz cl16 vs cl14 except for 1.35v vs 1.49v required?
> no error correction determined with 1000% hci memtest pass.


Because Aida64 is not a comparison benchmark 
it's a personal benchmark which lacks of important data
Inter-Core Bandwith and Latency 
Grab SiSoftware Sandra, Multi-Core efficiency test ~ and crosstest again


----------



## poskqers

Hey, thanks for nice summary. Is ram overclocking any different for apus (2400g in this case)?




1usmus said:


> Safe voltage for SOC up to 1.2 volts (APU up to 1.3)
> Safe voltage for DRAM up to 1.5
> 
> You do not have to worry about the system, everything is fine


 The quote above says that iGPU is being powered by SOC (~+0.1 more safe maximum). So do I still put recommended soc voltage suggested by dram calculator or add +0.1 to recommended soc voltage?


----------



## Bapt33

poskqers said:


> Hey, thanks for nice summary. Is ram overclocking any different for apus (2400g in this case)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote above says that iGPU is being powered by SOC (~+0.1 more safe maximum). So do I still put recommended soc voltage suggested by dram calculator or add +0.1 to recommended soc voltage?


In dram calculator, you only have the choice between ryzen 1 gen, ryzen + gen, ryzen 2 gen ...
So the calculator isnt able to define if you got igpu or not.
So yes, i would say apply +0.1v to final soc.


----------



## Veii

poskqers said:


> Hey, thanks for nice summary. Is ram overclocking any different for apus (2400g in this case)?
> The quote above says that iGPU is being powered by SOC (~+0.1 more safe maximum). So do I still put recommended soc voltage suggested by dram calculator or add +0.1 to recommended soc voltage?
> 
> 
> Bapt33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In dram calculator, you only have the choice between ryzen 1 gen, ryzen + gen, ryzen 2 gen ...
> So the calculator isnt able to define if you got igpu or not.
> So yes, i would say apply +0.1v to final soc.
Click to expand...

2400G is 14nm, architectures don't change 
the same voltage values for 14nm gen 1 apply - but you have two SOC's as mentioned, the APU ones add around 0.1v ontop of current SOC


----------



## bluechris

I managed to reach 3733mhz with my 64gb b-dies succsesfully with cl14.

In the Aorus thread i have screenshots


https://www.overclock.net/forum/28258012-post5318.html


----------



## ribosome

1usmus:

can you please, please, _please_ add a feature that logs my memtest progress to a file occasionally? Maybe something like every five minutes, log the number of errors along with the average percent completion.

The reason I ask is because I keep running into issues with my computer either crashing or restarting and I have no idea how far it got or if it completed successfully.


----------



## polkfan

Guys i would really like to lower my timings more but i have no idea how too as i'm already using the fast profile at 3800mhz and it works perfect on memtest with over 12 hours of testing at 2200% coverage on each core.

I tried lower settings but i must have broke something as my infinity fabric's bandwidth went down lol i tried 14-14-17-14-28-42 and it passed memtest for 12 hours but then Veil told me it looked broke or something and it was haha. 

I was like darn i just want to lower the timings more. 

Issue is i have to keep the 17 timings for TRCDRD as anything lower will result in errors around the 400% mark


----------



## kratosatlante

Veii said:


> This is a very awkward situation , can be a lot of things
> But first thing to see is - SLC is way to high , it likely desyncs
> Tho i've never seen anything like this without instant crashes
> 
> Push it back to 4 instead of 5
> 5 would be for the ~4000MT/s range
> and force every voltage you can manual
> Be sure nothing is on auto, where prediction can mess up
> CAD_BUS, RTT values, CLD0 voltages SOC voltages inlc in AMD Overclocking -> SOC Uncore OC enable
> 
> tWRWR SD DD 6 6
> tRDRD SD DD 4 4
> Are also quite harsh, it may need you to either go:
> tRRDS / L 4 5 with current tFAW
> or 5 6 - if kits can't run it that low on this frequency, with tFAW of 20
> 
> Start with SCL, if you can't run it (doubt) push both SD DD's back to 5 5 7 7
> Your current tRFC is awkward, you can keep tRC of 42 for 273-203-125
> Or you can make it cleaner and lower timings even more, tRC 40 with tRFC 280-208-128
> 288 doesn't fit anywhere and even for .5 digit devider, it's still wrong and would need SS DD 5 5 7 7 to work out
> Idk where you got the timings, but they are a mixture of "very harsh & not in sync failsafe"
> Fix SCL -> (if not stable) fix SS DD -> if you still have the issue, use different tRC & tRFC setting to stay in sync


thank you very much for the tips and tips, I tried almost all the manual calculator configurations, v1, v2, safe fast, but they all gave me desnc
maybe it's because some options that the calculator gives me I can't place for example TRRDS = 3 , in bios or ryzen master I can't only 4 as a minimum, in the spd profile of the aida64 memory shows Profiles with trrds 3, but it won't let me place, twrts=16, No, only 14 as maximum, and options of the Advanced tab of the calculator like opcache, or super i/o clock skew( I only saw it in the bios 2801 of CH7wifi) channel interleaving hash, it could be that.
. try by the steps, first scl from 5 to 4, boot charge windows, but I got bso, download SD DD to 5 5 7 7 remained unstable and undone, then tRC of 42 for 273-203-125, did not improve, elevate vram 1.45 to 1.48 and can do some tests

after many days of testing, I found that part of the problem is between 
TRC FAW and TRFC, TRFC2, TRFC4, multiplying trc for 8.6 or 6.6 to trfc, I have stability in the sincronia for the time being, I leave screenshots of the calculator and Thaiphoon

first image I run the calculator test first, then aida, again calculator, penalty latency, desync

Thaiphoon


Spoiler



[URL="







[/URL]


aida spd


Spoiler



[URL="







[/URL]


----------



## Bapt33

Guys does anyone as experimented 3200 CL14 bdie + r5 2600 on X370 platform?

I can pass a 10000% memtest, and get error the nextday, tha's really rare and cant figure out whats the problem is.
Dram voltage : 1.4v soc :1.019v
ive tried higher Trfc : 288/336/384 for Trc :48 (*6*7*8)
disable RTTnom, up RTTpark (RZQ5 to RZQ6), disable power down mode.
Ive follow all rules about timings but still get this very rare error.
Did this talk to you?

This is my config :


----------



## EddieZ

Bapt33 said:


> Guys does anyone as experimented 3200 CL14 bdie + r5 2600 on X370 platform?
> 
> I can pass a 10000% memtest, and get error the nextday, tha's really rare and cant figure out whats the problem is.
> Dram voltage : 1.4v soc :1.019v
> ive tried higher Trfc : 288/336/384 for Trc :48 (*6*7*8)
> disable RTTnom, up RTTpark (RZQ5 to RZQ6), disable power down mode.
> Ive follow all rules about timings but still get this very rare error.
> Did this talk to you?
> 
> This is my config :


You could try by upping tRFC to 480 or 520., don't know if that is better on Samsung die.

I run 3466 CL.16 on X470/2600X on CJR 3600C19 G.Skill Ripjaws V 1.35v

Update: tried 3600CL16 and running OK with somewhat higher tRFC (530)


----------



## BLUuuE

EddieZ said:


> You could try by upping tRFC to 480 or 520., don't know if that is better on Samsung die.
> 
> I run 3466 CL.16 on X470/2600X on CJR 3600C19 G.Skill Ripjaws V 1.35v


336 is already loose for B-die at 3200MHz. You could run that at 3800MHz even 4000MHz.


----------



## Gunderman456

I have the G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3600 16-19-19-39 CAS Latency 16 1.35V.

I downloaded DRAM Calculator for Ryzen v.1.6.2, Thaiphoon Burner 16.1.1.0 build 1116 Cumulative and MemTest86 v.8.3 in preparation for some RAM overclocking.

After entering the vital information from the Thaiphoon Burner into the DRAM Calculator I got the following recommendations.

RAM Calculator - Calculate Safe:










RAM Calculator - Calculate Fast:










I booted into my Asus Tuf x570 Bios and entered the info for the "Calculate Safe" numbers.

While the mobo had more settings, if they were not on the list I left them on Auto. However, in some instances for example when it came to the tRCDWR setting my mobo would not allow 20 (as suggested by the calculator) and the highest it would go was 19, so whenever I encountered this dilemma, I just left those ones on Auto as well. 

Also full disclosure, I kept DOCP and did not dial in recommended volts since Steve from Hardware Unboxed just left both of these things alone (other then DRAM Voltage).

I saved the new Bios config and the boot sequence hung on the RAM check. Since a $200 mobo does not come with a Start or a CMOS Reset button these days, I unplugged the PSU, removed the CMOS battery, powered down the power button and waited for a minute. Once I reinstalled the CMOS battery and powered on the mobo, it did it's thing and got me back into Bios. I put everything back to stock, enabled DOCP and Infinity Fabric at 1800MHz.

Now can anyone tell me where I went wrong?


----------



## serfinfall

Rayzon is good


----------



## gtz

Gunderman456 said:


> I have the G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3600 16-19-19-39 CAS Latency 16 1.35V.
> 
> I downloaded DRAM Calculator for Ryzen v.1.6.2, Thaiphoon Burner 16.1.1.0 build 1116 Cumulative and MemTest86 v.8.3 in preparation for some RAM overclocking.
> 
> After entering the vital information from the Thaiphoon Burner into the DRAM Calculator I got the following recommendations.
> 
> RAM Calculator - Calculate Safe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RAM Calculator - Calculate Fast:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I booted into my Asus Tuf x570 Bios and entered the info for the "Calculate Safe" numbers.
> 
> While the mobo had more settings, if they were not on the list I left them on Auto. However, in some instances for example when it came to the tRCDWR setting my mobo would not allow 20 (as suggested by the calculator) and the highest it would go was 19, so whenever I encountered this dilemma, I just left those ones on Auto as well.
> 
> Also full disclosure, I kept DOCP and did not dial in recommended volts since Steve from Hardware Unboxed just left both of these things alone (other then DRAM Voltage).
> 
> I saved the new Bios config and the boot sequence hung on the RAM check. Since a $200 mobo does not come with a Start or a CMOS Reset button these days, I unplugged the PSU, removed the CMOS battery, powered down the power button and waited for a minute. Once I reinstalled the CMOS battery and powered on the mobo, it did it's thing and got me back into Bios. I put everything back to stock, enabled DOCP and Infinity Fabric at 1800MHz.
> 
> Now can anyone tell me where I went wrong?


Latest BIOS? Maybe an agesa code is blocking the settings.

I have the exact ram kit and I am able to type in all the numbers (Gigabyte X570). This in my opinion is great ram for the money, extremely impressed.


----------



## Gunderman456

gtz said:


> Latest BIOS? Maybe an agesa code is blocking the settings.
> 
> I have the exact ram kit and I am able to type in all the numbers (Gigabyte X570). This in my opinion is great ram for the money, extremely impressed.


Yeah, latest Bios.


----------



## newls1

Trying to lower my primary timings on my DJR modules, can anyone give me an idea @ 3750mhz-ish what I can "MAYBE" achieve with safe voltages for primaries better then 16/19/19?? Any tips would be great, THANK YOU


----------



## polkfan

Ah i did it took me 3 days but i did it i read every single comment on this thread lol. 

Some things to mention 

You can't compare cache speed results from R9 to R7 as cache speeds are simply better on the R9. I also noticed that people are comparing setups with different clock speeds again a faster CPU will run cache speeds and therefor memory slightly faster i tested this with my own setup.

Last i think i'm going to run benchmarks with BGS enabled and off i wonder if off still provides benefits in games like with Zen1. 

I can't seem to break the 63ns club i seen only a few results from users with Zen2 who got 62-61 but i've been stuck at 63ns, i think the ones that broke that have higher clock speeds. 


Finally I haven't seen to many of you who run 3200mhz setups just enable the FCLK to 1900 or 1800 as bullzoid and linus made videos proving that you will get faster performance doing this unless you are already at 3466+.

I Highly recommend users who have 4 dimms to do this if they can't even break 3200mhz


----------



## Gunderman456

gtz said:


> Latest BIOS? Maybe an agesa code is blocking the settings.
> 
> I have the exact ram kit and I am able to type in all the numbers (Gigabyte X570). This in my opinion is great ram for the money, extremely impressed.





Gunderman456 said:


> Yeah, latest Bios.


I was looking at what I omitted and realized that other then FCLK and DRAM Voltage, I ignored that whole right side of the Calculator. Gulp, would that have made a difference?


----------



## bluechris

Gunderman456 said:


> I was looking at what I omitted and realized that other then FCLK and DRAM Voltage, I ignored that whole right side of the Calculator. Gulp, would that have made a difference?


Oh yeah


----------



## rastaviper

polkfan said:


> Ah i did it took me 3 days but i did it i read every single comment on this thread lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Some things to mention
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compare cache speed results from R9 to R7 as cache speeds are simply better on the R9. I also noticed that people are comparing setups with different clock speeds again a faster CPU will run cache speeds and therefor memory slightly faster i tested this with my own setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Last i think i'm going to run benchmarks with BGS enabled and off i wonder if off still provides benefits in games like with Zen1.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't seem to break the 63ns club i seen only a few results from users with Zen2 who got 62-61 but i've been stuck at 63ns, i think the ones that broke that have higher clock speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally I haven't seen to many of you who run 3200mhz setups just enable the FCLK to 1900 or 1800 as bullzoid and linus made videos proving that you will get faster performance doing this unless you are already at 3466+.
> 
> 
> 
> I Highly recommend users who have 4 dimms to do this if they can't even break 3200mhz


My 62.7 results are at 3733 with 15-14-14
So not really a higher clock speed.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## deepor

Gunderman456 said:


> I was looking at what I omitted and realized that other then FCLK and DRAM Voltage, I ignored that whole right side of the Calculator. Gulp, would that have made a difference?



The RTT_park value is the most important thing there. The suggestion you got for your 2x16GB setup is very different than what the BIOS default is. The default is zero (the smallest possible value for that setting), and the "RZQ/1 = 240 Ohm" suggestion you got is the max that's possible for it.


----------



## Bapt33

Hi guys,

First happy new year! i wish you low latencies !

I struggle to make my RAM (flareX 3200CL14 b-die) 100% stable with r5 2600 on asus prime x370pro. Error pop usually 3 day after i apply a new RAM setting/timing in bios. So close to stability but still not.
Ive used Dram calculator and tried many timings, voltage, but still...
Ive see in bios my RAM have XMP profile which suck for ryzen as we all know. 
But ive see too my RAM have DOCP and DOCP standard profile, i know its a asus thing and should work with ryzen, but i remember it wasnt even stable 6 month ago, the RAM package say "optimized for ryzen"
thats funny.
But with new bios upgrade, do you think DOCP profile coud work? i gonna give a try and look what are the timings, but ive got a bad feeling about this, really dont trust DOCP profile.
Does anyone have used DOCP profile?


----------



## basriwizz

Hi, what is the maximum ram speed for default 1:1 Fclk ratio, is it 3733 or 3800mhz?
Thank you.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

basriwizz said:


> Hi, what is the maximum ram speed for default 1:1 Fclk ratio, is it 3733 or 3800mhz?
> Thank you.


For me it's stable at 1900FLCK mem at 3800Mhz CL16

Best is to have:
3. 3600MHz @ 1800FLCK
2. 3733MHz @ 1866FLCK
1. 3800MHz @ 1900FLCK (Fastest)

Like this:


----------



## Gunderman456

Bapt33 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> First happy new year! i wish you low latencies !
> 
> I struggle to make my RAM (flareX 3200CL14 b-die) 100% stable with r5 2600 on asus prime x370pro. Error pop usually 3 day after i apply a new RAM setting/timing in bios. So close to stability but still not.
> Ive used Dram calculator and tried many timings, voltage, but still...
> Ive see in bios my RAM have XMP profile which suck for ryzen as we all know.
> But ive see too my RAM have DOCP and DOCP standard profile, i know its a asus thing and should work with ryzen, but i remember it wasnt even stable 6 month ago, the RAM package say "optimized for ryzen"
> thats funny.
> But with new bios upgrade, do you think DOCP profile coud work? i gonna give a try and look what are the timings, but ive got a bad feeling about this, really dont trust DOCP profile.
> Does anyone have used DOCP profile?


DOCP has worked fine for me. Update your Bios and use it.


----------



## jclafi

Well w/ AGESA 1.0.0.4b my bone stock Corsair Vengeance 3200 CL16 (1.44v) get 65ns. Before the BIOS update it was like 73ns, i really liked the result.

Are you using AGESA 1.0.0.4b ?

Good Luck !



polkfan said:


> Ah i did it took me 3 days but i did it i read every single comment on this thread lol.
> 
> Some things to mention
> 
> You can't compare cache speed results from R9 to R7 as cache speeds are simply better on the R9. I also noticed that people are comparing setups with different clock speeds again a faster CPU will run cache speeds and therefor memory slightly faster i tested this with my own setup.
> 
> Last i think i'm going to run benchmarks with BGS enabled and off i wonder if off still provides benefits in games like with Zen1.
> 
> I can't seem to break the 63ns club i seen only a few results from users with Zen2 who got 62-61 but i've been stuck at 63ns, i think the ones that broke that have higher clock speeds.
> 
> 
> Finally I haven't seen to many of you who run 3200mhz setups just enable the FCLK to 1900 or 1800 as bullzoid and linus made videos proving that you will get faster performance doing this unless you are already at 3466+.
> 
> I Highly recommend users who have 4 dimms to do this if they can't even break 3200mhz


----------



## Gunderman456

bluechris said:


> Oh yeah





deepor said:


> The RTT_park value is the most important thing there. The suggestion you got for your 2x16GB setup is very different than what the BIOS default is. The default is zero (the smallest possible value for that setting), and the "RZQ/1 = 240 Ohm" suggestion you got is the max that's possible for it.


Thanks, I think I will try again.

Just wondering if anyone here had success with an Asus Tuf x570 board?


----------



## xtend

Hi again!
So I read about a little bit about this calculator but still not 100% everything.
I use taiphoon and import to the calculator. Now I have this result (see pic).
I can set the bios like this or what I need to very watch or avoid?
And what I need to do with the right segment? Voltage is ok but others (misc,termination,cad_bus)?


----------



## Delphi

Well I couldn't get 3733 Safe settings to even post on my PC yet 3733 Fast worked fine and posted but after giving the SOC slightly more voltage it became 100% stable. It was odd, would pass memtest and Prime 95 blend for hours yet 10 min in into the division 2 it would hard crash.

So next step is seeing if my 3800x will do 1900 FLCK.


----------



## polkfan

rastaviper said:


> My 62.7 results are at 3733 with 15-14-14
> So not really a higher clock speed.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


However your processor is running at 4450 downclock it to 4200 and see what it does


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Here some additional Tests with RAM OC for Zen2
3800MHz & 4200MHz Included (Tested in Games).

here:

https://youtu.be/9IY_KlkQK1Q?t=10m30s


----------



## rastaviper

polkfan said:


> However your processor is running at 4450 downclock it to 4200 and see what it does


Why to try something like this?
I am never keeping my cores at 4200mhz anyway

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## mongoled

rastaviper said:


> Why to try something like this?
> I am never keeping my cores at 4200mhz anyway
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Because the higher clock speed effects the results and im assuming his CPU cannot clock to 4400 mhz hence the reason he has requested you run at 4200 mhz and show the results so he can make a relative comparison....


----------



## Cutbait

Just wanted to tighten my memory timings the best I could with voltage at or less than 1.36
Just bumping up from 3600 to 3733 with the fast settings did that very well for me. 

Using the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen has served me very well.

Props to the developer.


Using
(2 x 16GB) F4-3600C16D-32GTZR 
Asus Crosshair VIII Hero
3950X


----------



## rastaviper

Finally 62.5ns latency at Aida with my 3600x!!


----------



## brenopapito

rastaviper said:


> Finally 62.5ns latency at Aida with my 3600x!!


Can you share your timings?


----------



## rastaviper

brenopapito said:


> Can you share your times?


What do u mean?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Delphi

rastaviper said:


> What do u mean?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Share your ram timings from Ryzen Master?


----------



## wesley8

61.8ns latency with my new 3950x，nothing change from 3900x!


----------



## @purple

wesley8 said:


> 61.8ns latency with my new 3950x，nothing change from 3900x!


Why are you still on old bios?


----------



## eliwankenobi

wesley8 said:


> 61.8ns latency with my new 3950x，nothing change from 3900x!


Could you share your RAM timings from Ryzen Master as well? I am also running 3800 mhz with the same primary timings and latency is 65ns!!

Thanks in advance


----------



## newls1

@purple said:


> Why are you still on old bios?


did i miss something, 1201 is the latest for the ch8??


----------



## Rapidian

xtend said:


> Hi again!
> So I read about a little bit about this calculator but still not 100% everything.
> I use taiphoon and import to the calculator. Now I have this result (see pic).
> I can set the bios like this or what I need to very watch or avoid?
> And what I need to do with the right segment? Voltage is ok but others (misc,termination,cad_bus)?


You have the DRAM calculator mis-configured. That 16-18-18-38 ram is not a Samsung B-die. It is probably a Hynix CJR. Please look at the type of chips that Thaiphoon Burner says you have and then change this setting in the DRAM calculator. Feel free to post the picture of the burner output for us to review.


----------



## polkfan

wesley8 said:


> 61.8ns latency with my new 3950x，nothing change from 3900x!


BOY OH BOY 

That's amazing latency i think you have the lowest out of everyone here on the thread using Zen 2


----------



## rastaviper

brenopapito said:


> Can you share your timings?


Sure, here it is
[email protected]
Gskill Bdies [email protected] 15-14-14


----------



## @purple

newls1 said:


> did i miss something, 1201 is the latest for the ch8??


I'm really sorry but I have mixed up something. I thought you are on Strix mobo.


----------



## brenopapito

How to reduce latency? I tried to down all my timings until I couldn't boot and I still have 69ns. Is it possible that I have some issue with my memories, motherboard, processor or bios? What else should I try?

CPU: 3600
Mobo: X470 Taichi / Bios: 3.82
Memo: G.Skill 3600 C16 b-die (2x8gb)


----------



## polkfan

Does anyone know the date when the new Dram calculator comes out?


----------



## rastaviper

brenopapito said:


> How to reduce latency? I tried to down all my timings until I couldn't boot and I still have 69ns. Is it possible that I have some issue with my memories, motherboard, processor or bios? What else should I try?
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: 3600
> 
> Mobo: X470 Taichi / Bios: 3.82
> 
> Memo: G.Skill 3600 C16 b-die (2x8gb)


I posted a few screenshots just earlier.
It should be obvious to you what makes the latency go down.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## knightriot

i got [email protected] dual rank passed 300% memtest , thanks to 1usmus


----------



## Bapt33

knightriot said:


> i got [email protected] dual rank passed 300% memtest , thanks to 1usmus


300% memtest is like 15 minutes right? i remember pass 15 000% memtest and get error the next day, salty RAM.


----------



## Joseph Mills

(Cross posted)


As I was reading through different RAM overclocking guides, I stumbled upon a spreadsheet with different overclocking results. With only 107 entries on the Zen 2 list, I thought that not many people knew about it, so here it is. The data definitely proves to be useful.
Be careful to follow the formatting on the sheet!



DDR4 Ryzen overclocking log:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit#gid=1814864213


The document was linked from this article:
https://github.com/integralfx/MemTe...DR4 OC Guide.md#finding-the-maximum-frequency


----------



## brenopapito

rastaviper said:


> I posted a few screenshots just earlier.
> It should be obvious to you what makes the latency go down.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Are you saying that GearDown mode (Enable vs Disable) is responsible for more than 7ns? Sorry, this can't be true.

Any other suggestion?


----------



## enzu4l

brenopapito said:


> Are you saying that GearDown mode (Enable vs Disable) is responsible for more than 7ns? Sorry, this can't be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Any other suggestion?




It is.


----------



## xtend

Rapidian said:


> You have the DRAM calculator mis-configured. That 16-18-18-38 ram is not a Samsung B-die. It is probably a Hynix CJR. Please look at the type of chips that Thaiphoon Burner says you have and then change this setting in the DRAM calculator. Feel free to post the picture of the burner output for us to review.


Hi and thx!
I attachted the Taiphoon output and my cpu is ryzen 5 2600x and mobo gigabyte b450m gaming


----------



## rastaviper

brenopapito said:


> Are you saying that GearDown mode (Enable vs Disable) is responsible for more than 7ns? Sorry, this can't be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Any other suggestion?


Well if the only difference that you have noticed between the different images is the Geardown, then maybe check again.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bapt33

Hi guys,

Im back again, still cant make my RAM (FlareX 3200 CL14) 100% stable, on asus prime x370 pro with ryzen 2600.
Ive tried DOCP profile which use the most losen timing ive ever seen and i still get error. I never get BSOD or what, games just crash to desktop without any error message, and usually error pop in memtest after that.
DRAM voltage 1.4v SOC voltage 1.019v.
This is what i have and i dont know what can do the trick, if someone could help will be appreciated. Thanks


----------



## Delphi

Any tips to even get the machine to post when Gear Down Mode is disabled? Using 3733 Fast timings on Ryzen 2nd gen with CJR dimms.


----------



## lightsout

Bapt33 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> 
> Im back again, still cant make my RAM (FlareX 3200 CL14) 100% stable, on asus prime x370 pro with ryzen 2600.
> 
> Ive tried DOCP profile which use the most losen timing ive ever seen and i still get error. I never get BSOD or what, games just crash to desktop without any error message, and usually error pop in memtest after that.
> 
> DRAM voltage 1.4v SOC voltage 1.019v.
> 
> This is what i have and i dont know what can do the trick, if someone could help will be appreciated. Thanks




I have the same memory and chip on b450. I had troubles with it since I got it. Often struggled to run at stock. I kept messing with my CPU oc thinking it was that. Finally after over a year (and being the second owner) I rma'd the ram. It was painless and my problems are gone.


----------



## Bapt33

lightsout said:


> Bapt33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> 
> Im back again, still cant make my RAM (FlareX 3200 CL14) 100% stable, on asus prime x370 pro with ryzen 2600.
> 
> Ive tried DOCP profile which use the most losen timing ive ever seen and i still get error. I never get BSOD or what, games just crash to desktop without any error message, and usually error pop in memtest after that.
> 
> DRAM voltage 1.4v SOC voltage 1.019v.
> 
> This is what i have and i dont know what can do the trick, if someone could help will be appreciated. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the same memory and chip on b450. I had troubles with it since I got it. Often struggled to run at stock. I kept messing with my CPU oc thinking it was that. Finally after over a year (and being the second owner) I rma'd the ram. It was painless and my problems are gone.
Click to expand...

thanks for your feedback, the crazy thing is ive just pass a 21000% hci-memtest which is like 8 hour, and pretty sure tommorow i will get error... its like the RAM setting get fcked after 1 or 2 days this have no sense


----------



## wesley8

eliwankenobi said:


> Could you share your RAM timings from Ryzen Master as well? I am also running 3800 mhz with the same primary timings and latency is 65ns!!
> 
> Thanks in advance


U can try this one I had posted before.


----------



## wesley8

polkfan said:


> BOY OH BOY
> 
> That's amazing latency i think you have the lowest out of everyone here on the thread using Zen 2


I had posted that at october last year. Using 3900x

https://www.overclock.net/forum/28167288-post5937.html


----------



## eliwankenobi

wesley8 said:


> U can try this one I had posted before.


That is excellent! I am on the MSI x570 Unify, which should be good but maybe not as good as yours. Congrats on that.

What memory kit is that? Is it dual rank 32gb?


----------



## Rashkae

I'm on:

3950x
Gigabyte x570 Aorus Xtreme

and my RAM is Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200 CL16 using Micron D-Die (single rank). I have 4x8 modules. 

If I run at default XMP 3200 CL16 it's stable but occasionally blue screens. If I try to overclock to 3600 and up the voltage to 1.4v I get memory mamangement errors. 

The DRAM calculator doesn't support my config yet - has anyone experience with this RAM and how best to hit 3600 stable?


----------



## wesley8

eliwankenobi said:


> That is excellent! I am on the MSI x570 Unify, which should be good but maybe not as good as yours. Congrats on that.
> 
> What memory kit is that? Is it dual rank 32gb?


4266c19 kit for 3800c14，3200c14 dual rank kit for 3800c16


----------



## rastaviper

eliwankenobi said:


> That is excellent! I am on the MSI x570 Unify, which should be good but maybe not as good as yours. Congrats on that.
> 
> 
> 
> What memory kit is that? Is it dual rank 32gb?


3 things are needed for latency at 61-62 ns
High cpu clock+high mem clock+14 timings

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## c4sKeT

*DRAM Calculator not working with D-die Trident Z Neo 3600mhz CL14-15-15-35*

I get "Not supported" when trying "Safe Test". I've tried with/without importing profile from Taiphoon.

Anyone been able to get this working?


----------



## dkuster

c4sKeT said:


> I get "Not supported" when trying "Safe Test". I've tried with/without importing profile from Taiphoon.
> 
> Anyone been able to get this working?


I have Trident Z 3600MHz 15-15-15-35 2x8GB kit: F4-3600C15D-16GTZ

I've read from multiple sources that this is Samsung B-die. 

But I have the same problem in that Thaiphoon Burner reports my RAM is Samsung D-die. When I import the profile and try to calculate "safe" or "fast" I get the "Not supported" error. 

Actually, if I lower the frequency from 3600 to 3200 or lower it will calculate timings, but I want my target to be 3600.

Also, if I change the chip type from Samsung D-die to B-die it will calculate timings at 3600. I'm wondering if I should try that(???)


----------



## CJMitsuki

rastaviper said:


> 3 things are needed for latency at 61-62 ns
> High cpu clock+high mem clock+14 timings
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Thats not entirely accurate. I can also run @ cl14 but cl16 allows for more optimal timings. The timings are the key to low latency as long as you have the silicon quality to support it.


----------



## Axaion

CJMitsuki said:


> Thats not entirely accurate. I can also run @ cl14 but cl16 allows for more optimal timings. The timings are the key to low latency as long as you have the silicon quality to support it.


1.53v at 4.43 Ghz
rip little 3700x it was nice to meet you

Also, hes right, try clocking your cpu down to 4ghz and see your latency go up


----------



## CJMitsuki

Axaion said:


> 1.53v at 4.43 Ghz
> rip little 3700x it was nice to meet you
> 
> Also, hes right, try clocking your cpu down to 4ghz and see your latency go up


Your effective latency will increase by maybe 1-2ns. Aida64 and DRAM calculator do not measure the type of latency you want to really measure. If that was the case then you could say that Ryzen+ has better latency than 2nd Gen but youd be wrong if you said that since Ryzen+ had an effective latency of around 49ns and 2nd Gen is arounf 27-28ns. Aida64 is not a tool that you can use to show memory performance but rather, possible memory performance. Only 2 benchmark tools ive seen will test the correct latency and that is Passmark Performance test and SiSoft Sandra. Membench is good for using the elapsed time in the test to compare against another timing setup you have and see which is faster. 

Also, I dont set a static voltage on my CPU, what you see is Auto voltage and hits those 1.5v+ very briefly and is plenty safe for the life of the CPU. I will have upgraded it long before there is ever a note of degradation seen. It doesnt even hit 80c during stress testing. Ive been overclocking Ryzen CPUs and testing Memory since the architecture debuted. My 1700x is still running beautifully in my daughters computer and I overclocked that CPU to its limits for an entire year so Im pretty sure this "little 3700x" will be perfectly fine :thumb:


----------



## polkfan

dkuster said:


> I have Trident Z 3600MHz 15-15-15-35 2x8GB kit: F4-3600C15D-16GTZ
> 
> I've read from multiple sources that this is Samsung B-die.
> 
> But I have the same problem in that Thaiphoon Burner reports my RAM is Samsung D-die. When I import the profile and try to calculate "safe" or "fast" I get the "Not supported" error.
> 
> Actually, if I lower the frequency from 3600 to 3200 or lower it will calculate timings, but I want my target to be 3600.
> 
> Also, if I change the chip type from Samsung D-die to B-die it will calculate timings at 3600. I'm wondering if I should try that(???)


Yes own the same memory and it works perfect at the fast 3800mhz profile tested for 9 hours on memtest


----------



## dkuster

polkfan said:


> Yes own the same memory and it works perfect at the fast 3800mhz profile tested for 9 hours on memtest


Thanks, I will try the B-die fast 3600 profile!


----------



## CJMitsuki

dkuster said:


> Thanks, I will try the B-die fast 3600 profile!



That is a very high quality Samsung B Die bin. If you are running the current gen processor then 3600mhz is probably conservative. If it posts quite easily I would at least go to 3733 if not 3800mhz @cl 16. If you need some timings to try just tell me your voltage on the DRAM and ill give you some. Ive been running a 3600cl15 and 3200cl14 kit for a few years now and they run amazing. If you have a fan blowing on the DIMMs you can easily run the DRAM voltage at 1.475v. Trick is to keep the DIMMs below 40-45c for best overclock.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Hello All,

Just to report something that all you may know, but this noob is excited to find out. Rather than just click on R-XMP it is worth to export the Full HTML report in nanoseconds from Typhoon. Importing it into the DRAM CALC made a big difference into the suggestions for desired speeds. Not to mention that it actually shows the Memory Kit I have which I think is cool!

Still need to test this to find out how it goes


----------



## dkuster

CJMitsuki said:


> That is a very high quality Samsung B Die bin. If you are running the current gen processor then 3600mhz is probably conservative. If it posts quite easily I would at least go to 3733 if not 3800mhz @cl 16. If you need some timings to try just tell me your voltage on the DRAM and ill give you some. Ive been running a 3600cl15 and 3200cl14 kit for a few years now and they run amazing. If you have a fan blowing on the DIMMs you can easily run the DRAM voltage at 1.475v. Trick is to keep the DIMMs below 40-45c for best overclock.


Thanks for the info, and offer!

I thought for best performance I need to keep the 1:1 clock ratio. Doesn't that limit me to 3600MHz ?

All I've really tried so far is enable XMP, up the voltage to 1.420V, and change the primary timings to 14-14-14-35. It passed ~4 hours of memtest and boots into Windows fine.

In DRAM Calculator, should I use the "R-XMP" button or should I create a report in Thaiphoon Burner and import that? I tried both, and they must contain different data because the calculator gives me different timing numbers depending on which one I use. Since Thaiphoon Burner incorrectly identifies the DRAM as Samsung D-die, I'm thinking I should instead just let the calculator read the XMP?

BTW - this a 3950x on a Gigabyte Aorus X570 XTREME...


----------



## eliwankenobi

Quick question for the tWRRD value. Is it a fraction as in 1/3 = 0.33 or does it mean choose either 1 or 3 ??

I tried these settings and it fails to boot to Windows using max recommended voltages. Had to clear CMOS to recover.


----------



## deepor

It means try "3" or try "1". It's not a fraction.


----------



## steadly2004

So I have B-die 3600 cl16 mem. Running the 3600 fast with stability. However I tried 3733 fast and couldn’t get it to be stable. Tweaked settings again and again with alternate settings but no dice. Eventually had to reset bios. Should I try 3800 safe? Would 3800 safe be better than 3600 fast? Maybe not lower overall latency but if a faster IF gives better FPS in games, would this benefit me more in gaming specific situations?


----------



## Schmuckley

RAM on AMD is ass!

Set to 2800 and deal with it!


----------



## Schmuckley

steadly2004 said:


> So I have B-die 3600 cl16 mem. Running the 3600 fast with stability. However I tried 3733 fast and couldn’t get it to be stable. Tweaked settings again and again with alternate settings but no dice. Eventually had to reset bios. Should I try 3800 safe? Would 3800 safe be better than 3600 fast? Maybe not lower overall latency but if a faster IF gives better FPS in games, would this benefit me more in gaming specific situations?


I'd like to see the CPU-Z of that.


----------



## CJMitsuki

dkuster said:


> Thanks for the info, and offer!
> 
> I thought for best performance I need to keep the 1:1 clock ratio. Doesn't that limit me to 3600MHz ?
> 
> All I've really tried so far is enable XMP, up the voltage to 1.420V, and change the primary timings to 14-14-14-35. It passed ~4 hours of memtest and boots into Windows fine.
> 
> In DRAM Calculator, should I use the "R-XMP" button or should I create a report in Thaiphoon Burner and import that? I tried both, and they must contain different data because the calculator gives me different timing numbers depending on which one I use. Since Thaiphoon Burner incorrectly identifies the DRAM as Samsung D-die, I'm thinking I should instead just let the calculator read the XMP?
> 
> BTW - this a 3950x on a Gigabyte Aorus X570 XTREME...


No, you can force it to be 1:1 in bios depending on your motherboard of course. For instance, if you have a ROG CH8 Hero or another Asus board which has the supporting options youll find option to lock the FCLK to the same speed as the MCLK. If you were to just set 3800mhz on the DRAM without doing this then you would be running it Asynchronous which would kill your latency. If you are running a 3950x then I would wager you will have no problem hitting 3800mhz @ CL16 or 14 if you want to put in some work. FYI you can get CL16 to be quite comparable to CL14 performance if not surpassing it due to the extra headroom to lower timings to their optimal range. I have a 3700x with a 4 x 8gb setup of that same ram and I had no problem running 3800 CL14 with decent timings and @ CL16 with the tightest timings possible without crossing the threshold to loss of performance. The 3950x is manufactured with much higher quality silicon which means the I/O Die should be much better, giving you more forgiveness when it comes to memory overclocking.




Schmuckley said:


> RAM on AMD is ass!
> 
> Set to 2800 and deal with it!


You obviously have no clue what you are doing and this is why you make ignorant statements. Im sorry that you cant just press a magical button and everything does exactly what you wish. Some things in life must be achieved through a bit of work and determination.


----------



## zenuser

Hello everyone! 

I'm a bit of a n00b when it comes to DRAM OC/timing tweaking.

I got 4 DIMMs of these for a total of 64GB:

https://www.gskill.com/specification/165/169/1536043466/F4-3600C19D-32GSXKB-Specification

They're dual-rank Hynix CJR:










My motherboard is this one:

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X470-GAMING-PRO-MAX (not sure how many PCB layers, if "DDR4 Boost/Optimized traces and isolated memory circuitry" is anything to go by)

My CPU is Ryzen 5 3600 overclocked at 4250/4225 (CCX0/1) rock stable at 1.325V (LLC3) tested on Prime95.

Safe preset gives me errors within a minute at MemTest86 (UEFI USB stick):










I've even tried custom profile importing from Thaiphoon, same outcome.

Am I screwed due to having an unusual setup (4 high capacity, dual-rank DIMMs) or is there any hope for me?

I'd love it if I could drop below 70ns:










^ This is with the XMP profile, but for some reason my motherboard says it got CL20 instead of CL19 (BIOS bug?).

Thanks in advance!


----------



## rastaviper

CJMitsuki said:


> That is a very high quality Samsung B Die bin. If you are running the current gen processor then 3600mhz is probably conservative. If it posts quite easily I would at least go to 3733 if not 3800mhz @cl 16. If you need some timings to try just tell me your voltage on the DRAM and ill give you some. Ive been running a 3600cl15 and 3200cl14 kit for a few years now and they run amazing. If you have a fan blowing on the DIMMs you can easily run the DRAM voltage at 1.475v. Trick is to keep the DIMMs below 40-45c for best overclock.


If it's a high quality bdie it should easily do 3600 Cl14 and 3733 Cl15-14-14

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Delphi

zenuser said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I'm a bit of a n00b when it comes to DRAM OC/timing tweaking.
> 
> I got 4 DIMMs of these for a total of 64GB:
> 
> https://www.gskill.com/specification/165/169/1536043466/F4-3600C19D-32GSXKB-Specification
> 
> They're dual-rank Hynix CJR:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My motherboard is this one:
> 
> https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X470-GAMING-PRO-MAX (not sure how many PCB layers, if "DDR4 Boost/Optimized traces and isolated memory circuitry" is anything to go by)
> 
> My CPU is Ryzen 5 3600 overclocked at 4250/4225 (CCX0/1) rock stable at 1.325V (LLC3) tested on Prime95.
> 
> Safe preset gives me errors within a minute at MemTest86 (UEFI USB stick):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've even tried custom profile importing from Thaiphoon, same outcome.
> 
> Am I screwed due to having an unusual setup (4 high capacity, dual-rank DIMMs) or is there any hope for me?
> 
> I'd love it if I could drop below 70ns:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ This is with the XMP profile, but for some reason my motherboard says it got CL20 instead of CL19 (BIOS bug?).
> 
> Thanks in advance!


For craps and giggles try 3733 Fast.

I have very similar CJR dimms and they did not like 3600 Safe presets. Also I found with my Aorus Elite I needed LLC to Turbo for the SoC to stop instability during games and memtest errors because the SoC voltage would drop down during load testing.


----------



## zenuser

Delphi said:


> For craps and giggles try 3733 Fast.
> 
> I have very similar CJR dimms and they did not like 3600 Safe presets. Also I found with my Aorus Elite I needed LLC to Turbo for the SoC to stop instability during games and memtest errors because the SoC voltage would drop down during load testing.


Anything above 3600 doesn't work for me, it won't even boot, even with max voltages.

I've already set LLC3 for both the CPU and the SoC.


----------



## polkfan

Schmuckley said:


> RAM on AMD is ass!
> 
> Set to 2800 and deal with it!


Lol perhaps if you own a Ryzen 1000 series CPU with the first bios and you bought hynix dual-sided memory.


----------



## steadly2004

Schmuckley said:


> I'd like to see the CPU-Z of that.


Sure, here it is.


----------



## CJMitsuki

rastaviper said:


> If it's a high quality bdie it should easily do 3600 Cl14 and 3733 Cl15-14-14
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Which is why I suggested 3733 but it all depends on the persons experience, time to devote to testing, silicon quality, and more often than not you can get better performance out of 3800 @cl16 than 3733 @ CL15 due to the fact that youll have to run with GDM disabled losing a ton of headroom which will affect being able to get the secondaries as tight as they need to be for best performance. That is quite often more than worth losing a clock cycle on the Cas Latency to be able to push a higher frequency as well as tighten secondaries much further. I would say that will be the case 9/10 of the time.


----------



## Filters83

CJMitsuki said:


> Which is why I suggested 3733 but it all depends on the persons experience, time to devote to testing, silicon quality, and more often than not you can get better performance out of 3800 @cl16 than 3733 @ CL15 due to the fact that youll have to run with GDM disabled losing a ton of headroom which will affect being able to get the secondaries as tight as they need to be for best performance. That is quite often more than worth losing a clock cycle on the Cas Latency to be able to push a higher frequency as well as tighten secondaries much further. I would say that will be the case 9/10 of the time.


I agree whit you
My result 3733 cl 16 safe setting fixed at 1.39 volt
Samsung B die 3200CL14


----------



## rastaviper

Filters83 said:


> I agree whit you
> 
> My result 3733 cl 16 safe setting fixed at 1.39 volt
> 
> Samsung B die 3200CL14


U agree on what?
That 3733 Cl16 has better results then 3600Cl14/15?

Also, your score is quite bad. You should be around 63 ns.
I have 3600x and my latency is between 62.x and 63 ns.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## steadly2004

rastaviper said:


> U agree on what?
> That 3733 Cl16 has better results then 3600Cl14/15?
> 
> Also, your score is quite bad. You should be around 63 ns.
> I have 3600x and my latency is between 62.x and 63 ns.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Thats kinda harsh bud. 

I have 3600 cl14 and am getting around 66 67ns. Not everybody has the same result. 3600 b die with fast settings. With 3800 fast I'm getting low 63ns, but haven't been stable in game. Seems to pass memory test, but the HDMI audio cuts out after a while, I can only imagine it has sopething to do with the SOC. But I don't know. Anyway, being mean to someone who is getting good results on 3733 isn't productive.

you're literally splitting nanoseconds... lol


----------



## CJMitsuki

rastaviper said:


> U agree on what?
> That 3733 Cl16 has better results then 3600Cl14/15?
> 
> Also, your score is quite bad. You should be around 63 ns.
> I have 3600x and my latency is between 62.x and 63 ns.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Firstly Aida64 never has and never will be a measure of memory performance. They dont represent any kind of true performance as I can make a ridiculously unstable setup that will push out good numbers in Aida64. Also, his latency isnt bad at all even though the latency that is measured by Aida64 isnt the latency that you want to check for performance. If you rely on that as a measure of performance youd have to say that Ryzen+ had better latency than 2nd gen when in fact, it was nearly double the effective latency of 2nd gen. In Aida64 my 2700x was around 64ns but the true latency was 49-50ns and 2nd gen is sitting at 27-28ns. THis is the reason that you dont want to use the Aida64 Performance Bias on an Asus bios with 2nd gen. You wont be able to see it in Aida64 as it will show an improvement in latency but if you run SiSoft Sandra or Passmark Performance test it is actually terrible. Aida64 should NEVER be used to gauge memory performance at all, especially when it comes to latency.


----------



## Filters83

rastaviper said:


> Filters83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree whit you
> 
> My result 3733 cl 16 safe setting fixed at 1.39 volt
> 
> Samsung B die 3200CL14
> 
> 
> 
> U agree on what?
> That 3733 Cl16 has better results then 3600Cl14/15?
> 
> Also, your score is quite bad. You should be around 63 ns.
> I have 3600x and my latency is between 62.x and 63 ns.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wanted to say you dont need 3800mhz in ram to have decent result. Also i just tight the safe setting disabled gear down mode and Stick to 1.39 volt Is a very good thing. Also fully stable on memtest86 latest version plus other test etc. Soc 1.1 vddg o whatever Is called 1.0v. all safe voltage to dont worry about It. Ofc you can push more but i dont wanna destroy my system for now 😜


----------



## eliwankenobi

Is PassMark Performance test the same as PassMark MemTest? The USB stick


----------



## OCmember

Why would profile 3800 "Fast" calculate a lower Recommended DRAM voltage (1.42v) than 3733 "Fast" Rec. 1.45v ?


----------



## rastaviper

CJMitsuki said:


> Firstly Aida64 never has and never will be a measure of memory performance. They dont represent any kind of true performance as I can make a ridiculously unstable setup that will push out good numbers in Aida64. Also, his latency isnt bad at all even though the latency that is measured by Aida64 isnt the latency that you want to check for performance. If you rely on that as a measure of performance youd have to say that Ryzen+ had better latency than 2nd gen when in fact, it was nearly double the effective latency of 2nd gen. In Aida64 my 2700x was around 64ns but the true latency was 49-50ns and 2nd gen is sitting at 27-28ns. THis is the reason that you dont want to use the Aida64 Performance Bias on an Asus bios with 2nd gen. You wont be able to see it in Aida64 as it will show an improvement in latency but if you run SiSoft Sandra or Passmark Performance test it is actually terrible. Aida64 should NEVER be used to gauge memory performance at all, especially when it comes to latency.


Well everybody is using AIDA for comparison of memory results, so this is what we can talk about.

At the end, a benchmark is successful according to how many are using it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## dkuster

CJMitsuki said:


> No, you can force it to be 1:1 in bios depending on your motherboard of course. For instance, if you have a ROG CH8 Hero or another Asus board which has the supporting options youll find option to lock the FCLK to the same speed as the MCLK. If you were to just set 3800mhz on the DRAM without doing this then you would be running it Asynchronous which would kill your latency. If you are running a 3950x then I would wager you will have no problem hitting 3800mhz @ CL16 or 14 if you want to put in some work. FYI you can get CL16 to be quite comparable to CL14 performance if not surpassing it due to the extra headroom to lower timings to their optimal range. I have a 3700x with a 4 x 8gb setup of that same ram and I had no problem running 3800 CL14 with decent timings and @ CL16 with the tightest timings possible without crossing the threshold to loss of performance. The 3950x is manufactured with much higher quality silicon which means the I/O Die should be much better, giving you more forgiveness when it comes to memory overclocking.


CJMitsuki,
Could you please share tips and/or timing settings to get the best performance out of these modules? I'm having difficulty achieving stability. It seems if I tighten even one or two timings from the XMP profile (15-15-15-15-35 3800) I'll eventually get memtest errors. I'm trying not to be too aggressive. I haven't touched any voltages other than DRAM, and I haven't pushed that beyond 1.46V.

If I try for 3666 or 3733 memtest fails almost immediately, even with DRAM Calc "safe" settings. 

What settings most affect latency? Should gear down and power down modes always be disabled? Is 1T always better than 2T?

Since Aida64 doesn't accurately measure latency, is there a better tool for that?

Thanks for helping out a noob. Overclocking seemed a lot easier in Intel-land...


----------



## dkuster

dkuster said:


> CJMitsuki,
> Could you please share tips and/or timing settings to get the best performance out of these modules? I'm having difficulty achieving stability. It seems if I tighten even one or two timings from the XMP profile (15-15-15-15-35 3800) I'll eventually get memtest errors. I'm trying not to be too aggressive. I haven't touched any voltages other than DRAM, and I haven't pushed that beyond 1.46V.
> 
> If I try for 3666 or 3733 memtest fails almost immediately, even with DRAM Calc "safe" settings.
> 
> What settings most affect latency? Should gear down and power down modes always be disabled? Is 1T always better than 2T?
> 
> Since Aida64 doesn't accurately measure latency, is there a better tool for that?
> 
> Thanks for helping out a noob. Overclocking seemed a lot easier in Intel-land...


Oops, meant to say 15-15-15-15-35 3600 (not 3800...)


----------



## CJMitsuki

rastaviper said:


> Well everybody is using AIDA for comparison of memory results, so this is what we can talk about.
> 
> At the end, a benchmark is successful according to how many are using it.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


No, thats not correct. If a benchmark is wrong then it is wrong, no matter the amount using it :doh:



OCmember said:


> Why would profile 3800 "Fast" calculate a lower Recommended DRAM voltage (1.42v) than 3733 "Fast" Rec. 1.45v ?


Because as far as I know this calculator is just built from known working configurations and technically doesnt calculate the timings as that is impossible due to silicon variance. Each memory module and cpu is like a fingerprint and totally unique in what timings and voltage can be used etc. It is a good tool if used for what it is, it is to show you a starting point and get you in the general area for your ram and you must find the correct setup through a bit of hard work. For some it will be quick and easy but for the majority that want more will be much harder. I personally have mine setup great but that doesnt ever stop me from trying other setups and comparing performance everyday. I have been doing it for several years now. It has to be something you dont get easily frustrated with and you must have immense patience in many cases.



eliwankenobi said:


> Is PassMark Performance test the same as PassMark MemTest? The USB stick


*Passmark Performance Test* I would only take only the memory benchmark portion of it to heart and the other tests with a grain of salt as I do not know if they are accurate since I havent tried to validate them. The CPU test seems to be quite decent theough. I do know that the memory test is the only other that ive found that uses the same latency testing as *SiSoft Sandra*



dkuster said:


> CJMitsuki,
> Could you please share tips and/or timing settings to get the best performance out of these modules? I'm having difficulty achieving stability. It seems if I tighten even one or two timings from the XMP profile (15-15-15-15-35 3800) I'll eventually get memtest errors. I'm trying not to be too aggressive. I haven't touched any voltages other than DRAM, and I haven't pushed that beyond 1.46V.
> 
> If I try for 3666 or 3733 memtest fails almost immediately, even with DRAM Calc "safe" settings.
> 
> What settings most affect latency? Should gear down and power down modes always be disabled? Is 1T always better than 2T?
> 
> Since Aida64 doesn't accurately measure latency, is there a better tool for that?
> 
> Thanks for helping out a noob. Overclocking seemed a lot easier in Intel-land...


Firstly, you need to enable Gear Down Mode which will either make you change to tCL of 14 or 16 but you should get plenty of headroom to play with timings further. You can try 3733 @ tCL 14 if you wish but it may be easier to push up to 3800 at cas 16 as long as you are specifying your FCLK to be 1900mhz and lock it to 1:1 or 1866mhz in the case of 3733. Here is what im running at the moment although the timings are quite low so maybe loosen them a bit and go from there if you decide to use them as a reference point.


Spoiler













Also note that I am running 4 x 8gb modules, 2 x 8gb will be easier and 2 x 16gb would be harder to get to those timings. My DRAM voltage is set at 1.475v and VDDG is around 1.07v with SOC locked at 1.1v. Most of the other voltages having to do with memory I leave on AUTO. Once you try out some things and see if anything works I can try to help further. Goodluck


----------



## dkuster

CJMitsuki said:


> Firstly, you need to enable Gear Down Mode which will either make you change to tCL of 14 or 16 but you should get plenty of headroom to play with timings further. You can try 3733 @ tCL 14 if you wish but it may be easier to push up to 3800 at cas 16 as long as you are specifying your FCLK to be 1900mhz and lock it to 1:1 or 1866mhz in the case of 3733. Here is what im running at the moment although the timings are quite low so maybe loosen them a bit and go from there if you decide to use them as a reference point.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 318028
> 
> 
> 
> Also note that I am running 4 x 8gb modules, 2 x 8gb will be easier and 2 x 16gb would be harder to get to those timings. My DRAM voltage is set at 1.475v and VDDG is around 1.07v with SOC locked at 1.1v. Most of the other voltages having to do with memory I leave on AUTO. Once you try out some things and see if anything works I can try to help further. Goodluck


Thanks - I will experiment more based on your settings and see how far I get. I have 2x8gb modules so that might make it a bit easier.

I think part of my prior problem was always forcing gear down mode to be disabled...


----------



## polkfan

Amd really needs to step up their memory controller for gods sake and enable odd timings without geardown mode. 

The main issue i have with Sisoftware is that it doesn't matter what memory settings i use i ALWAYS get inconsistent memory bandwidth results for the multi core test. I even went down to 18-20-20-40 2133mhz settings!!! I pass at 3800mhz 14-17-10-14-28-42 timings just fine with memtest for over 9 hours but i always get 88-96GB of intercore bandwidth it really ranges like that and i have tried locking my frequency to 4.2Ghz all core and it helps but doesn't change the results is this normal???


----------



## rastaviper

dkuster said:


> Thanks - I will experiment more based on your settings and see how far I get. I have 2x8gb modules so that might make it a bit easier.
> 
> 
> 
> I think part of my prior problem was always forcing gear down mode to be disabled...


If u have a good pair of bdies, GDM should be disabled according to the Dram calculator and in order to get the lowest timings.
It never stopped me from getting 3733 16-15-15 or 3600 14-14-14.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## FranZe

CJMitsuki said:


> *Passmark Performance Test* I would only take only the memory benchmark portion of it to heart and the other tests with a grain of salt as I do not know if they are accurate since I havent tried to validate them. The CPU test seems to be quite decent theough. I do know that the memory test is the only other that ive found that uses the same latency testing as *SiSoft Sandra*


Okay, i dont understand the test. Is it the memory mark? If its i dont understand the numbers. Or did i run wrong test? Is my latency 28ns?


----------



## Saiger0

rastaviper said:


> If u have a good pair of bdies, GDM should be disabled according to the Dram calculator and in order to get the lowest timings.
> It never stopped me from getting 3733 16-15-15 or 3600 14-14-14.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


He was talking about low SUB-timings. Judging from the screenshot you posted earlier yours are pretty bad. For example having both twrwrscl and trdrdscl at 5 on 3733 is terrible for bdie.


----------



## rastaviper

Saiger0 said:


> He was talking about low SUB-timings. Judging from the screenshot you posted earlier yours are pretty bad. For example having both twrwrscl and trdrdscl at 5 on 3733 is terrible for bdie.


Hmm ok. Do u have an example with better subtimings and AIDA result for the same CPU?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Saiger0

rastaviper said:


> Hmm ok. Do u have an example with better subtimings and AIDA result for the same CPU?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Why are you so fixated on the aida benchmark? It doesn´t even meassure performance. Your weird subtimings are seriously hindering your real world performance.


----------



## rastaviper

Saiger0 said:


> Why are you so fixated on the aida benchmark? It doesn´t even meassure performance. Your weird subtimings are seriously hindering your real world performance.


Feel free to suggest any other benchmark you believe it's better.
I am just curious to see how different subtimings affect the performance.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Saiger0

rastaviper said:


> Feel free to suggest any other benchmark you believe it's better.
> I am just curious to see how different subtimings affect the performance.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


As stated before: Passmark performance test and SiSoft Sandra


----------



## Hequaqua

IMO SiSoftSandra is a good benchmark(memory) to show even minor changes in ram settings. I did two runs at the same clock(3666), but with different sub-timings and while it wasn't a huge difference, there were differences in bandwidth,latency, and overall score.

EDIT: Here are the results of 3666 CL16/CL14 The SiSoft results are attached, but I charted them.









*SiSoft Test Results(txt)*
View attachment 3666.txt


----------



## Gunderman456

Any free software that won't expire in a month that we can use to test RAM latency?


----------



## Hequaqua

Gunderman456 said:


> Any free software that won't expire in a month that we can use to test RAM latency?


SiSoft, just have to update it when they release a new build.

While many frown on UserBenchmark, it is decent for showing some small changes in settings.


----------



## Gunderman456

Hequaqua said:


> SiSoft, just have to update it when they release a new build.
> 
> While many frown on UserBenchmark, it is decent for showing some small changes in settings.


Which version - would it be the SiSoftware Sandra 20/20 (2020) Press Release?


----------



## dkuster

dkuster said:


> Thanks - I will experiment more based on your settings and see how far I get. I have 2x8gb modules so that might make it a bit easier.
> 
> I think part of my prior problem was always forcing gear down mode to be disabled...


Hmm, no luck with your tight 3800 timings. I get rolling reboots and then the BIOS resets.


----------



## Keith Myers

> Feel free to suggest any other benchmark you believe it's better.


Intel Memory Latency Checker
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intelr-memory-latency-checker


----------



## Hequaqua

Gunderman456 said:


> Which version - would it be the SiSoftware Sandra 20/20 (2020) Press Release?


SiSoft 20/20 Lite

https://www.sisoftware.co.uk/download-buy/


----------



## Diablix6

Can someone give me an advice?

I went from G.Skill B-die 3200C14 SR 2x8GB to DR 2x16GB, and I can't OC it at all.

SR (2x8GB) works on 3800MHz 1T GearDown-off Fast Preset V1 profile 1:1:1 with 1,45V DRAM, but DR barely works on 3600MHz GD-on Safe Preset. 3666MHz Safe Preset and higher, gives me errors in first 3-5% in build-in Memtest. 3800MHz Safe Preset doesn't even start. Fast preset also doesn't start. Tried different DRAM & SOC voltage, different procODT, RTT, CAD_BUS.
DRAM Calculator after importing XMP profile shows 93% memory chip quality, but Manual profiles doesn't even boot.

I knew my MB is T-topology and prefers 4xSR than 2xDR, but I didn't expect DR to behave *SO* *MUCH WORSE. *I didn't paid more than 2x for Samsung B-die to behave like regular DR. It even restarted twice on POST on XMP profile, the rest of BIOS stock.

I have to admit, I am very disappointed with this purchase, after I read how others manage with 16GB DR modules 3733MHz CL14:14:14:etc. with Micron E-die, and I can't even remotely approach such specs with, as far as I know, the one of the best B-dies, right after 3600C15 that I couldn't even find.

Is it possible that T-topology is causing the problem? Or did some dust/dirt get into RAM slots/modules? Do they use much worse / less binned B-die for DR modules? Can my modules be like World-recordly BAD? Should I just return them/ RMA them?

Any advice/help trully appreciated. My Specs: Asrock X470 Taichi T-topology P3.60, 3700X, the rest is in the signature.


----------



## Rashkae

Any tips for Micron D-die? I have this RAM:

https://www.newegg.com/global/sg-en/corsair-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820236495

On a 3950x and Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme x570. 

XMP 3200 is stable but pushing it to 3600 (even with 1.4v) results in memory error blue screens.


----------



## mongoled

@dkuster

Have the exact same memory as yourself (have had two sets, my sig show the timings of my old set that are now in hardware heaven.....).

The new set that I am currently dialing in are using these settings

vDIMM: 1.44 v
vSOC: 1.10 v (Auto)
vDDP: 1.0979 v (Auto)
vDDG	: 1.1481 v (Auto)
ProcODT: 36.9 ohms
PBO: Enabled
Scalar: 10x
CPU Overide: 75 mhz
CPU Offset: -0.0250
CPU LLC: Mode 5
DRAM Phase Control: Disabled

Memory Frequency: 3800 mhz
IF Frequency: 1900 mhz
Command Rate: 1 T
tCL: 15 T
tRCDRD: 15 T
tRCDWR: 15 T
tRP: 15 T
tRAS: 28 T

tRC: 42 T
tRFC: 288 T
tRFC2: 208 T
tRFC4: 108 T
tWR: 12 T
tWTR_S: 4 T
tWTR_L: 8 T
tRRD_S: 4 T
tRRD_L: 6 T
tRTP: 12 T
tFAW: 16 T
tCWL: 14 T
tCKE: 1 T

tRDRDSC_L: 4 T
tRDRD SC: 1 T
tRDRDSD: 5 T
tRDRDDD: 5 T
tWRWRSC_L: 4 T
tWRWRSC: 1 T
tWRWRSD: 7 T
tWRWRDD: 7 T
tRDWR: 10 T
tWRRD: 1 T

Power Down Mode: Disabled
Bank Group Swap: Enabled
Band Group Swap Alt: Disabled
Gear Down Mode: Disabled

Bear in mind this is on an MSI x370 motherboard.

Try the above settings but using 3600 mhz memory frequency and 1800 HT frequency and test for stability.

Once you have verified stability go a notch up with regards to frequency i.e. 3666/1833


----------



## dkuster

mongoled said:


> @dkuster
> 
> Have the exact same memory as yourself (have had two sets, my sig show the timings of my old set that are now in hardware heaven.....).
> 
> The new set that I am currently dialing in are using these settings
> 
> vDIMM: 1.44 v
> vSOC: 1.10 v (Auto)
> vDDP: 1.0979 v (Auto)
> vDDG	: 1.1481 v (Auto)
> ProcODT: 36.9 ohms
> PBO: Enabled
> Scalar: 10x
> CPU Overide: 75 mhz
> CPU Offset: -0.0250
> CPU LLC: Mode 5
> DRAM Phase Control: Disabled
> 
> Memory Frequency: 3800 mhz
> IF Frequency: 1900 mhz
> Command Rate: 1 T
> tCL: 15 T
> tRCDRD: 15 T
> tRCDWR: 15 T
> tRP: 15 T
> tRAS: 28 T
> 
> tRC: 42 T
> tRFC: 288 T
> tRFC2: 208 T
> tRFC4: 108 T
> tWR: 12 T
> tWTR_S: 4 T
> tWTR_L: 8 T
> tRRD_S: 4 T
> tRRD_L: 6 T
> tRTP: 12 T
> tFAW: 16 T
> tCWL: 14 T
> tCKE: 1 T
> 
> tRDRDSC_L: 4 T
> tRDRD SC: 1 T
> tRDRDSD: 5 T
> tRDRDDD: 5 T
> tWRWRSC_L: 4 T
> tWRWRSC: 1 T
> tWRWRSD: 7 T
> tWRWRDD: 7 T
> tRDWR: 10 T
> tWRRD: 1 T
> 
> Power Down Mode: Disabled
> Bank Group Swap: Enabled
> Band Group Swap Alt: Disabled
> Gear Down Mode: Disabled
> 
> Bear in mind this is on an MSI x370 motherboard.
> 
> Try the above settings but using 3600 mhz memory frequency and 1800 HT frequency and test for stability.
> 
> Once you have verified stability go a notch up with regards to frequency i.e. 3666/1833


Thanks so much, I will give these settings a try!

I'm on a Gigabyte X570 board. I don't think I've seen a "Bank (Band?) Group Swap" in the BIOS but I'll look again...


----------



## Roboionator

Hi,
Myabe someone have g.skill NEO F4-3600C16D-32GTZN? 
I like to get less latency, now i get 69...ns,..or more power from them, something 
I tried with ryzen calculator but with no success, 3600,3733,3800 safe or fast...
3950X stock
GA X570 Master
thx


----------



## neurotix

mongoled said:


> @dkuster
> 
> Have the exact same memory as yourself (have had two sets, my sig show the timings of my old set that are now in hardware heaven.....).
> 
> The new set that I am currently dialing in are using these settings
> 
> vDIMM: 1.44 v
> vSOC: 1.10 v (Auto)
> vDDP: 1.0979 v (Auto)
> vDDG	: 1.1481 v (Auto)
> ProcODT: 36.9 ohms
> PBO: Enabled
> Scalar: 10x
> CPU Overide: 75 mhz
> CPU Offset: -0.0250
> CPU LLC: Mode 5
> DRAM Phase Control: Disabled
> 
> Memory Frequency: 3800 mhz
> IF Frequency: 1900 mhz
> Command Rate: 1 T
> tCL: 15 T
> tRCDRD: 15 T
> tRCDWR: 15 T
> tRP: 15 T
> tRAS: 28 T
> 
> tRC: 42 T
> tRFC: 288 T
> tRFC2: 208 T
> tRFC4: 108 T
> tWR: 12 T
> tWTR_S: 4 T
> tWTR_L: 8 T
> tRRD_S: 4 T
> tRRD_L: 6 T
> tRTP: 12 T
> tFAW: 16 T
> tCWL: 14 T
> tCKE: 1 T
> 
> tRDRDSC_L: 4 T
> tRDRD SC: 1 T
> tRDRDSD: 5 T
> tRDRDDD: 5 T
> tWRWRSC_L: 4 T
> tWRWRSC: 1 T
> tWRWRSD: 7 T
> tWRWRDD: 7 T
> tRDWR: 10 T
> tWRRD: 1 T
> 
> Power Down Mode: Disabled
> Bank Group Swap: Enabled
> Band Group Swap Alt: Disabled
> Gear Down Mode: Disabled
> 
> Bear in mind this is on an MSI x370 motherboard.
> 
> Try the above settings but using 3600 mhz memory frequency and 1800 HT frequency and test for stability.
> 
> Once you have verified stability go a notch up with regards to frequency i.e. 3666/1833




These settings are *extremely* interesting. Thank you for posting. Repped.

I'm messing around with PBO OC, but also having some problems with L3 cache speed, so I'll give this a shot.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Keith Myers said:


> Intel Memory Latency Checker
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intelr-memory-latency-checker


So does this work well on Ryzen??


----------



## eliwankenobi

To all the gurus who have achieved 3800CL14 or CL15 tight,

I've had no luck in getting my memory to boot at 3800mhz with timings lower than CL16. Imported HTML report from Typhoon Burner into DRAM Calc and given the chip quality and all, it estimates I should be able to hit CL14 timings even with safe settings. I was just reminded of a video of a conference given by Robert Hallock for first gen Ryzen indicating that sometimes it may take up to 5 times before the system is able to boot as it retries training the memory. I'm using 4 sticks of Patriot Viper Steel 4400mhz CL19, single rank b-die. Motherboard is MSI x570 Unify and CPU is a 3800X.

Have you had your motherboard to retry memory settings more than twice to get the system to boot?


----------



## ylpkm

@eliwankenobi

I have 2 3200c14 tridentz sticks running at 3800mhz CL14-18-14-14-32-50-auto-300-14-4-12-4-6-8-16-14-1 3-1-5-5-3-7-7-9-1 @ 1T. To be able to get this stable, I have to modify certain things in bios in turn if coming from a clear cmos. Like turn off smt reboot, overclock cpu reboot, change dram speed to 3800mhz and fclk speed with auto settings reboot, enter in loose cl timings reboot, enter in tighter timings reboot. Entering it straight from a cmos clear would either not post or give errors.

But in the end I got it stable with 1.53v for the ram, vddp 1.1v, vddg 1.075v, vref .725v (changing this value will easily destabilize my overclocks on my board x370 sli), vpp 2.790v (2.790 worked better than 2.530 or 2.5 for me), cadbustimings 60,60,60, cadbusstr 24,20,20,24 (changing any one of these also destabilizes, may take a bit of testing to figure out), rttnom disabled, rttwr disabled, rttpark rzq/5, procodt 34.3 (changing this will also destabilize things fast). For my timings TrrdL had to be at least at 6 or it was unstable and Trdwr at 9, couldn't manage to get those lower. I also couldn't get the read timing lower than 18, unless doing cl16-16-16-16. But cl14-18-14-14 gave me better aida and si sandra scores. (Might just be my gpu overclock I've been messing with but I noticed lower .01% fps values with 14-18-14-14 than 16-16-16-16. Also, less than 1.53v for the ram destabilizes it, not sure if its my board or the sticks.

This was on msi x370 sli plus, bios 1.0.0.3 abba or 1.0.0.4b (both worked at just about same timings), with ryzen 3600 and 3900x.


----------



## Keith Myers

*Intel Memory Latency Checker V3.7*



eliwankenobi said:


> So does this work well on Ryzen??


Yes, quite well. This is the output from my [email protected] all-core cpu clock - [email protected] CL14.


Spoiler



[email protected]:/home/keith/Downloads/Utils/MLC# ./mlc
Intel(R) Memory Latency Checker - v3.7
Measuring idle latencies (in ns)...
Numa node
Numa node 0	
0 51.8	

Measuring Peak Injection Memory Bandwidths for the system
Bandwidths are in MB/sec (1 MB/sec = 1,000,000 Bytes/sec)
Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
Using traffic with the following read-write ratios
ALL Reads :	53917.3	
3:1 Reads-Writes :	49070.3	
2:1 Reads-Writes :	48534.4	
1:1 Reads-Writes :	47426.2	
Stream-triad like:	49452.2	

Measuring Memory Bandwidths between nodes within system 
Bandwidths are in MB/sec (1 MB/sec = 1,000,000 Bytes/sec)
Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
Using Read-only traffic type
Numa node
Numa node 0	
0	53765.0	

Measuring Loaded Latencies for the system
Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
Using Read-only traffic type
Inject	Latency	Bandwidth
Delay	(ns)	MB/sec
==========================
00000	248.59 53744.2
00002	241.05 53910.9
00008	259.30 53639.3
00015	257.60 53736.9
00050	248.98 53800.8
00100	245.87 53814.2
00200	222.23 53965.3
00300 76.33 49368.6
00400 64.78 38579.8
00500 62.91 31506.5
00700 60.02 23300.2
01000 57.25 16884.5
01300 55.94 13336.5
01700 54.96 10536.6
02500 53.45 7588.8
03500 54.12 5756.7
05000 61.01 4201.0
09000 53.74 2974.2
20000 53.75 1994.7

Measuring cache-to-cache transfer latency (in ns)...
Local Socket L2->L2 HIT latency	14.7
Local Socket L2->L2 HITM latency	24.1


----------



## eliwankenobi

ylpkm said:


> @eliwankenobi
> 
> I have 2 3200c14 tridentz sticks running at 3800mhz CL14-18-14-14-32-50-auto-300-14-4-12-4-6-8-16-14-1 3-1-5-5-3-7-7-9-1 @ 1T. To be able to get this stable, I have to modify certain things in bios in turn if coming from a clear cmos. Like turn off smt reboot, overclock cpu reboot, change dram speed to 3800mhz and fclk speed with auto settings reboot, enter in loose cl timings reboot, enter in tighter timings reboot. Entering it straight from a cmos clear would either not post or give errors.
> 
> But in the end I got it stable with 1.53v for the ram, vddp 1.1v, vddg 1.075v, vref .725v (changing this value will easily destabilize my overclocks on my board x370 sli), vpp 2.790v (2.790 worked better than 2.530 or 2.5 for me), cadbustimings 60,60,60, cadbusstr 24,20,20,24 (changing any one of these also destabilizes, may take a bit of testing to figure out), rttnom disabled, rttwr disabled, rttpark rzq/5, procodt 34.3 (changing this will also destabilize things fast). For my timings TrrdL had to be at least at 6 or it was unstable and Trdwr at 9, couldn't manage to get those lower. I also couldn't get the read timing lower than 18, unless doing cl16-16-16-16. But cl14-18-14-14 gave me better aida and si sandra scores. (Might just be my gpu overclock I've been messing with but I noticed lower .01% fps values with 14-18-14-14 than 16-16-16-16. Also, less than 1.53v for the ram destabilizes it, not sure if its my board or the sticks.
> 
> This was on msi x370 sli plus, bios 1.0.0.3 abba or 1.0.0.4b (both worked at just about same timings), with ryzen 3600 and 3900x.


Thank you for sharing! 

Thankfully because both our boards are MSI I assume I just go into advanced memory settings and I can go one value after the other in the same order. Good idea to go and change a block at a time. I already have a SAFE profile saved at 3800mhz FCLK1900 with CL18 timings. So change a block of numbers at time then and reboot in between. Does it work as well if I am coming from a stable CL16-16-16-32-48-1T OC? I am also running 4 sticks 

1.5V is quite high! Are you running this 24/7? Fan over dims?


----------



## eliwankenobi

Keith Myers said:


> Yes, quite well. This is the output from my [email protected]@CL14.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected]:/home/keith/Downloads/Utils/MLC# ./mlc
> Intel(R) Memory Latency Checker - v3.7
> Measuring idle latencies (in ns)...
> Numa node
> Numa node 0
> 0 51.8
> 
> Measuring Peak Injection Memory Bandwidths for the system
> Bandwidths are in MB/sec (1 MB/sec = 1,000,000 Bytes/sec)
> Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
> Using traffic with the following read-write ratios
> ALL Reads :	53917.3
> 3:1 Reads-Writes :	49070.3
> 2:1 Reads-Writes :	48534.4
> 1:1 Reads-Writes :	47426.2
> Stream-triad like:	49452.2
> 
> Measuring Memory Bandwidths between nodes within system
> Bandwidths are in MB/sec (1 MB/sec = 1,000,000 Bytes/sec)
> Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
> Using Read-only traffic type
> Numa node
> Numa node 0
> 0	53765.0
> 
> Measuring Loaded Latencies for the system
> Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
> Using Read-only traffic type
> Inject	Latency	Bandwidth
> Delay	(ns)	MB/sec
> ==========================
> 00000	248.59 53744.2
> 00002	241.05 53910.9
> 00008	259.30 53639.3
> 00015	257.60 53736.9
> 00050	248.98 53800.8
> 00100	245.87 53814.2
> 00200	222.23 53965.3
> 00300 76.33 49368.6
> 00400 64.78 38579.8
> 00500 62.91 31506.5
> 00700 60.02 23300.2
> 01000 57.25 16884.5
> 01300 55.94 13336.5
> 01700 54.96 10536.6
> 02500 53.45 7588.8
> 03500 54.12 5756.7
> 05000 61.01 4201.0
> 09000 53.74 2974.2
> 20000 53.75 1994.7
> 
> Measuring cache-to-cache transfer latency (in ns)...
> Local Socket L2->L2 HIT latency	14.7
> Local Socket L2->L2 HITM latency	24.1


Thanks! will download then


----------



## FranZe

Tried that Intel thing. 3900X 3733Mhz CL14. Tried also to create a spoiler here, lol. How do i do that?

Intel(R) Memory Latency Checker - v3.7
Measuring idle latencies (in ns)...
Numa node
Numa node 0	
0 49.7	

Measuring Peak Injection Memory Bandwidths for the system
Bandwidths are in MB/sec (1 MB/sec = 1,000,000 Bytes/sec)
Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
Using traffic with the following read-write ratios
ALL Reads :	57794.8	
3:1 Reads-Writes :	52318.4	
2:1 Reads-Writes :	51668.8	
1:1 Reads-Writes :	50391.7	
Stream-triad like:	52803.6	

Measuring Memory Bandwidths between nodes within system 
Bandwidths are in MB/sec (1 MB/sec = 1,000,000 Bytes/sec)
Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
Using Read-only traffic type
Numa node
Numa node 0	
0	57743.2	

Measuring Loaded Latencies for the system
Using all the threads from each core if Hyper-threading is enabled
Using Read-only traffic type
Inject	Latency	Bandwidth
Delay	(ns)	MB/sec
==========================
00000	230.24 57771.7
00002	231.20 57817.6
00008	228.87 57825.3
00015	228.34 57813.2
00050	217.17 57824.7
00100	220.02 57815.7
00200 67.02 51270.1
00300 58.50 36879.6
00400 55.38 28732.6
00500 53.41 23516.4
00700 51.69 17579.0
01000 50.69 12852.4
01300 50.30 10235.6
01700 49.99 8163.9
02500 49.66 5991.7
03500 49.50 4661.0
05000 49.35 3659.3
09000 49.24 2614.0
20000 49.18 1893.1

Measuring cache-to-cache transfer latency (in ns)...
Using small pages for allocating buffers
Local Socket L2->L2 HIT latency	13.1
Local Socket L2->L2 HITM latency	22.7


----------



## jfrob75

Roboionator said:


> Hi,
> Myabe someone have g.skill NEO F4-3600C16D-32GTZN?
> I like to get less latency, now i get 69...ns,..or more power from them, something
> I tried with ryzen calculator but with no success, 3600,3733,3800 safe or fast...
> 3950X stock
> GA X570 Master
> thx



I have the same memory modules. I have used them in a GB X570 Master and ASUS Crosshair VIII.



Your memory timings shown in RM is for the XMP settings, they can be improved.


Attached are the settings for 3733MHz that worked for me on both motherboards using a 3900X.




Spoiler


----------



## Roboionator

jfrob75 said:


> I have the same memory modules. I have used them in a GB X570 Master and ASUS Crosshair VIII.
> 
> 
> 
> Your memory timings shown in RM is for the XMP settings, they can be improved.
> 
> 
> Attached are the settings for 3733MHz that worked for me on both motherboards using a 3900X.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 318764
> 
> 
> View attachment 318766


thank you
TRFC ok, where TRFC(alt) to set trfc2 or trfc4


----------



## ylpkm

eliwankenobi said:


> Thank you for sharing!
> 
> Thankfully because both our boards are MSI I assume I just go into advanced memory settings and I can go one value after the other in the same order. Good idea to go and change a block at a time. I already have a SAFE profile saved at 3800mhz FCLK1900 with CL18 timings. So change a block of numbers at time then and reboot in between. Does it work as well if I am coming from a stable CL16-16-16-32-48-1T OC? I am also running 4 sticks
> 
> 1.5V is quite high! Are you running this 24/7? Fan over dims?


I have a fan over the dims, even without the fan I think I only saw one dimm get to 43C, but I'd rather keep em cool. If you're coming from a stable cl16, try to bring to tighten all or some, if it fails, maybe try only tightening a few, then tighten the rest.


----------



## eliwankenobi

ylpkm said:


> eliwankenobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing!
> 
> Thankfully because both our boards are MSI I assume I just go into advanced memory settings and I can go one value after the other in the same order. Good idea to go and change a block at a time. I already have a SAFE profile saved at 3800mhz FCLK1900 with CL18 timings. So change a block of numbers at time then and reboot in between. Does it work as well if I am coming from a stable CL16-16-16-32-48-1T OC? I am also running 4 sticks
> 
> 1.5V is quite high! Are you running this 24/7? Fan over dims?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a fan over the dims, even without the fan I think I only saw one dimm get to 43C, but I'd rather keep em cool. If you're coming from a stable cl16, try to bring to tighten all or some, if it fails, maybe try only tightening a few, then tighten the rest.
Click to expand...

That’s the thing, I tried to go straight from CL16 down to CL14 putting everything DRAM Calc showed at once and it failed to boot on its 2 tries.

What timings would you consider I should tighten first? 

These are the settings I have now and what DRAM calc wants me to do based on the HTML profile. 

Many thanks to you and anyone who wants to pitch in.


----------



## jfrob75

Roboionator said:


> thank you
> TRFC ok, where TRFC(alt) to set trfc2 or trfc4



Just leave TRFC2 and 4 on Auto. AFIK they are not important and I do not mess with them.


----------



## deafboy

This thread is amazingly helpful, haha, dang....

First AMD CPU rig I've ever messed around with and definitely the first time I've dealt with so many memory settings

Safe settings didn't work for me so looks like I have some reading and some playing around to do.


----------



## gerardfraser

Testing some FCLK overclock for stability.For anyone interested.Thought I would put it in this thread.

DDR4 CL16 3866Mhz Single Rank RAM
1933Mhz Fabric clock (FCLK) 
1933Mhz Memory Controller(UCLK=MEMCLK)

Best I seen on latency was 60.6ns/60.7ns but consistent readings was 61ns on latency.





Spoiler



♦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO 
♦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080 
♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8) 
♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b) 
♦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB 
♦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black 
♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W


----------



## 2600ryzen

Just change cl to 14 first and see if it's ok, if not raise voltage to 1.45v and go from there.
It's probably low voltage preventing post with a lower cas.


----------



## rastaviper

2600ryzen said:


> Just change cl to 14 first and see if it's ok, if not raise voltage to 1.45v and go from there.
> It's probably low voltage preventing post with a lower cas.


Do you know anyone going to Cl14 at 1933??

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

I think I've seen [email protected] plenty of times on forums. Some kits even have a [email protected] xmp profile.


----------



## rastaviper

2600ryzen said:


> I think I've seen [email protected] plenty of times on forums. Some kits even have a [email protected] xmp profile.


You were talking about 1933, not 1900.
So, have u seen many benchmarks from such setups?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

I know someone who can run CL14 3866Mhz


----------



## ylpkm

eliwankenobi said:


> That’s the thing, I tried to go straight from CL16 down to CL14 putting everything DRAM Calc showed at once and it failed to boot on its 2 tries.
> 
> What timings would you consider I should tighten first?
> 
> These are the settings I have now and what DRAM calc wants me to do based on the HTML profile.
> 
> Many thanks to you and anyone who wants to pitch in.


I had to use 1.53V minimum to get some form of CL14. So your dram voltage may be a factor. Up to you if you wanna try it, I tried all the way up to 1.57V and I didn't see any benefit, and temps were still reasonable.

What helped me get things situated is try going from your stable timings and 
1.CAS latency to 14 and change Twr and Tcwl to Cas latency. See if that's stable. 
2.If not increase readrow column delay to 18. (If you were already at pretty tight timings, TRC and TRas might still be fine, or you may need to add 2 to both. See if that's stable(If you haven't already tried 1.53v maybe try that if you have a fan on em.) 
3.If this is still unstable or not posting, is Trrdl 6? if lower, raise to 6. Can try raising Trtp to 10 or 12.

But for some performance boost on stable timings you can try to lower Trfc to 247 or 266. And the SCL (RDRDSCL WRWRSCL) values to 3 (2 was too aggressive for mine).


----------



## xenkw0n

I am trying to help a friend of mine overclock his memory using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite Wifi + 3900x build using 4 DIMMS of this memory;

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H2CG85V/

It's Samsung B-Die and I'm having trouble getting anything to boot past stock. I am aiming for 3600 CL16 but am thinking I might need to bump specific voltages up that I'm just not aware of yet because of running 4 DIMMs. What are the real important voltages to consider besides DRAM when trying to get up to 3600Mhz memory speed?

Any assistance would be really appreciated!


----------



## polkfan

xenkw0n said:


> I am trying to help a friend of mine overclock his memory using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite Wifi + 3900x build using 4 DIMMS of this memory;
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H2CG85V/
> 
> It's Samsung B-Die and I'm having trouble getting anything to boot past stock. I am aiming for 3600 CL16 but am thinking I might need to bump specific voltages up that I'm just not aware of yet because of running 4 DIMMs. What are the real important voltages to consider besides DRAM when trying to get up to 3600Mhz memory speed?
> 
> Any assistance would be really appreciated!


Dram Calculator should have the right voltages that you need in the program for starters i would try 1.45V for the ram,


----------



## eliwankenobi

ylpkm said:


> eliwankenobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thatâ€™️s the thing, I tried to go straight from CL16 down to CL14 putting everything DRAM Calc showed at once and it failed to boot on its 2 tries.
> 
> What timings would you consider I should tighten first?
> 
> These are the settings I have now and what DRAM calc wants me to do based on the HTML profile.
> 
> Many thanks to you and anyone who wants to pitch in.
> 
> 
> 
> I had to use 1.53V minimum to get some form of CL14. So your dram voltage may be a factor. Up to you if you wanna try it, I tried all the way up to 1.57V and I didn't see any benefit, and temps were still reasonable.
> 
> What helped me get things situated is try going from your stable timings and
> 1.CAS latency to 14 and change Twr and Tcwl to Cas latency. See if that's stable.
> 2.If not increase readrow column delay to 18. (If you were already at pretty tight timings, TRC and TRas might still be fine, or you may need to add 2 to both. See if that's stable(If you haven't already tried 1.53v maybe try that if you have a fan on em.)
> 3.If this is still unstable or not posting, is Trrdl 6? if lower, raise to 6. Can try raising Trtp to 10 or 12.
> 
> But for some performance boost on stable timings you can try to lower Trfc to 247 or 266. And the SCL (RDRDSCL WRWRSCL) values to 3 (2 was too aggressive for mine).
Click to expand...

Many thanks for your reply. This is the kind of feedback I was looking for. I will try this! But yeah, >= 1.5V makes me nervous and I already have an exhaust 92mm fan on top of the case over the RAM. 

I’ll try to reverse it so it’s pushing fresh air from the top of the case to the DIMMS. Was also considering creating sort of a wave guide out of cardboard to force air from the fan through the DIMMs, similar to how HP does with their high end Z840/G8 workstations. My Patriot RAM does not have temperature sensors so I don’t have a clue of whats the memory temperature!! 

Hopefully it will he alright for a quick test and see what I get! Thanks a bunch again!
I’ll post here about my adventures!


----------



## fcchin

1usmus said:


> *Influence of СLDO_VDDP on MEMCLK "holes"*
> 
> I also want to publish a list of CLDO_VDDP, which can help stabilize your memory
> 
> *CLDO_VDDP list (volts)* (Click to show)0.562
> 0.568
> 0.573
> 0.579
> 0.585
> 0.590
> 0.596
> 0.601
> 0.607
> 0.613
> 0.618
> 0.624
> 0.630
> 0.635
> 0.641
> 0.646
> 0.652
> 0.658
> 0.663
> 0.669
> 0.675
> 0.680
> 0.686
> 0.691
> 0.697
> 0.703
> 0.708
> 0.714
> 0.720
> 0.725
> 0.731
> 0.736
> 0.742
> 0.748
> 0.753
> 0.759
> 0.765
> 0.770
> 0.776
> 0.781
> 0.787
> 0.793
> 0.798
> 0.804
> 0.810
> 0.815
> 0.821
> 0.826
> 0.832
> 0.838
> 0.843
> 0.849
> 0.855
> 0.860
> 0.866
> 0.871
> 0.877
> 0.883
> 0.888
> 0.894
> 0.900
> 0.905
> 0.911
> 0.916
> 0.922
> 0.928
> 0.933
> 0.939
> 0.945
> 0.950
> 0.956
> 0.961
> 0.961
> 0.967
> 0.973
> 
> only the form is more oblate, in dozens of times


Thanks @1usmus for this table, I will use it to see if I can reduce my 3333mhz from 1.68v down to 1.5v or not.

Big mission for me, Chinese New Year holiday coming up have some spare time.

Previously test using game of MWO/BattleTech, below voltage is read by A-tuning.

For below voltage table the original XMP timing using all auto, just tCL+1, then just keep adding voltage, I was shocked and amazed.
mhz
2933 1.35v soc 1.025v
3000 1.36v soc 1.05v
3133 1.41v soc 1.125v procODT 68 was all it needed. stable
3200 1.55v soc 1.2v procODT 68 was all it needed. stable best aida64 latency 74ns
3266 1.58v soc 1.2v procODT 68 and cad bus 24242424 needed. Stable for 6 hours game non stop.
3333 1.62v soc 1.2v procODT 68/80 and cad bus 2424(30/40)(30/40) fiddling needed. POST OK windows OK, youtube web browse OK, light workload OK, but games crash, which I'm not complaining as not yet found matching settings. aida64 latency


----------



## rastaviper

xenkw0n said:


> I am trying to help a friend of mine overclock his memory using a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite Wifi + 3900x build using 4 DIMMS of this memory;
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H2CG85V/
> 
> 
> 
> It's Samsung B-Die and I'm having trouble getting anything to boot past stock. I am aiming for 3600 CL16 but am thinking I might need to bump specific voltages up that I'm just not aware of yet because of running 4 DIMMs. What are the real important voltages to consider besides DRAM when trying to get up to 3600Mhz memory speed?
> 
> 
> 
> Any assistance would be really appreciated!


Does he really need the 4 dimms?
For sure he would get better results with 2 dimms. Why don't u give it a try?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Schrotty45

I buy the Gskill Neo and this have D-Die but i can not use this on RAM Calculator. This have only CJR, AFR and MFR but i need DJR. Any update news for new ram?


----------



## 2600ryzen

rastaviper said:


> You were talking about 1933, not 1900.
> So, have u seen many benchmarks from such setups?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



Sorry I was replying to Eli.


----------



## mongoled

ylpkm said:


> @eliwankenobi
> 
> I have 2 3200c14 tridentz sticks running at 3800mhz CL14-18-14-14-32-50-auto-300-14-4-12-4-6-8-16-14-1 3-1-5-5-3-7-7-9-1 @ 1T. To be able to get this stable, I have to modify certain things in bios in turn if coming from a clear cmos. Like turn off smt reboot, overclock cpu reboot, change dram speed to 3800mhz and fclk speed with auto settings reboot, enter in loose cl timings reboot, enter in tighter timings reboot. Entering it straight from a cmos clear would either not post or give errors.
> 
> But in the end I got it stable with 1.53v for the ram, vddp 1.1v, vddg 1.075v, vref .725v (changing this value will easily destabilize my overclocks on my board x370 sli), vpp 2.790v (2.790 worked better than 2.530 or 2.5 for me), cadbustimings 60,60,60, cadbusstr 24,20,20,24 (changing any one of these also destabilizes, may take a bit of testing to figure out), rttnom disabled, rttwr disabled, rttpark rzq/5, procodt 34.3 (changing this will also destabilize things fast). For my timings TrrdL had to be at least at 6 or it was unstable and Trdwr at 9, couldn't manage to get those lower. I also couldn't get the read timing lower than 18, unless doing cl16-16-16-16. But cl14-18-14-14 gave me better aida and si sandra scores. (Might just be my gpu overclock I've been messing with but I noticed lower .01% fps values with 14-18-14-14 than 16-16-16-16. Also, less than 1.53v for the ram destabilizes it, not sure if its my board or the sticks.
> 
> This was on msi x370 sli plus, bios 1.0.0.3 abba or 1.0.0.4b (both worked at just about same timings), with ryzen 3600 and 3900x.


This is very good advice!

Sometimes when we are familiar with the tools at our disposal we forget those extra steps that are required to make something work!

I include myself as im also responsible for forgetting basic things that need testing.....


----------



## VPII

I'm sitting with a slight issue. I have two sets of 2 x 8gb G-Skill Flare X DDR4 3200 CL14, so yup Samsung B-di. Now I am able to do a single set running 3733 with 1866 IF, but I was also able to run it 3800 with 1900 IF with my previous 3900X and 3950X. Unfortunately the most I get out of both sets 4 x 8gb installed is 3600 with 1800 IF. 3733 is a no go, and 3666 worked only once but almost buggered up my Windows 10. No I basically do not touch any voltages except for CPU vcore and Vdimm for the memory. I tried to up the SOC from 1.08v which is what it usually run to 1.125v but still a no go.


----------



## marcelo19941

Hi guys I'm new to ryzen and I'm kind of lost with memory of on ryzen, on Intel I knew how to do it...need some help. I have a 3950x on a Impact Mobo I'm using a b-kit 2 sticks of 16 gb each rated for 3600 cl16. I would like to try 3800 but I'm having no success with the calculator.
Do you have some tips or guide?


----------



## marcelo19941

marcelo19941 said:


> Hi guys I'm new to ryzen and I'm kind of lost with memory of on ryzen, on Intel I knew how to do it...need some help. I have a 3950x on a Impact Mobo I'm using a b-kit 2 sticks of 16 gb each rated for 3600 cl16. I would like to try 3800 but I'm having no success with the calculator.
> Do you have some tips or guide?


Tried my other kit 2x8gb 3200 cl14 and tried 3800 14 14 14 30 at 1,46v and it's stable. I guess my other kit it's crap


----------



## ylpkm

For those who are able to run over 3800mhz and keep a 1:1:1 ratio, did you have any problems getting it up and running? How did you do it or what settings were required to achieve that?

I don't know if it's my board (Msi X370 sli) or the bios revision, or my ram sticks (Bdie), or motherboard settings, but I cannot post at 3866mhz or higher 1:1 or even 2:1. I kept soc around 1.1v and up to 1.15v and it wouldn't post. I'm running a 3900x.


----------



## eliwankenobi

marcelo19941 said:


> Tried my other kit 2x8gb 3200 cl14 and tried 3800 14 14 14 30 at 1,46v and it's stable. I guess my other kit it's crap


This is ridiculously good for a Ryzen build. Have you ran some benchmarks vs your old kit for comparison?


----------



## marcelo19941

eliwankenobi said:


> marcelo19941 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tried my other kit 2x8gb 3200 cl14 and tried 3800 14 14 14 30 at 1,46v and it's stable. I guess my other kit it's crap
> 
> 
> 
> This is ridiculously good for a Ryzen build. Have you ran some benchmarks vs your old kit for comparison?
Click to expand...

No but I'm tightening the timings right now, I knew this other kit was awesome,with my Intel build it could do 4233 cl16, but with ryzen everything is different and I'm trying to learn. I'm using that GitHub guide as reference


----------



## eliwankenobi

marcelo19941 said:


> No but I'm tightening the timings right now, I knew this other kit was awesome,with my Intel build it could do 4233 cl16, but with ryzen everything is different and I'm trying to learn. I'm using that GitHub guide as reference


Please do share the link..


----------



## rastaviper

ylpkm said:


> For those who are able to run over 3800mhz and keep a 1:1:1 ratio, did you have any problems getting it up and running? How did you do it or what settings were required to achieve that?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if it's my board (Msi X370 sli) or the bios revision, or my ram sticks (Bdie), or motherboard settings, but I cannot post at 3866mhz or higher 1:1 or even 2:1. I kept soc around 1.1v and up to 1.15v and it wouldn't post. I'm running a 3900x.


There is no point trying to pass the 3800mhz mark. For which reason?
All reviews are mentioning that the top performance is achieved around the 3733-3800, not higher where there are also examples of getting worse results.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## polkfan

rastaviper said:


> There is no point trying to pass the 3800mhz mark. For which reason?
> All reviews are mentioning that the top performance is achieved around the 3733-3800, not higher where there are also examples of getting worse results.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I think he means people that can run at 1933 FCLK which for the first time i saw on this thread. 

I guess with TSMC getting their node more mature we might see this slightly more often


----------



## 2600ryzen

eliwankenobi said:


> Please do share the link..



Probably means this one - https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md


----------



## Saiger0

rastaviper said:


> There is no point trying to pass the 3800mhz mark. For which reason?
> All reviews are mentioning that the top performance is achieved around the 3733-3800, not higher where there are also examples of getting worse results.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


This is not true. 
3800 is the so called "top performance" because 99% of cpus can´t go further than that while keeping the 1-1 mode. 1900 mhz IF seems to be the frequency limit for zen2. Thats why you wont find any benchmarks of it. 

Anyone with 1933 is truly lucky and can expect superior performance (even though they are still limited by the 32B/cycle link)


----------



## rastaviper

Saiger0 said:


> This is not true.
> 
> 3800 is the so called "top performance" because 99% of cpus can´t go further than that while keeping the 1-1 mode. 1900 mhz IF seems to be the frequency limit for zen2. Thats why you wont find any benchmarks of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with 1933 is truly lucky and can expect superior performance (even though they are still limited by the 32B/cycle link)


Still is will be interesting to see a comparison between 3733 at 14-14-14 and 3933 at any timings possible (probably 17-17-17).

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## eliwankenobi

2600ryzen said:


> Probably means this one - https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md


Nice! Thank you!


----------



## eliwankenobi

rastaviper said:


> Still is will be interesting to see a comparison between 3733 at 14-14-14 and 3933 at any timings possible (probably 17-17-17).
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I'll be waiting for those benchmarks too! 1933 IF could mean a lot of stress on the memory controller too, higher voltages, high temps too I would assume. 

But if you can get that stable at 3866mhz at CL16 or CL17 timings, golden sample right there! I would also try all core OC on that chip, see how high I go. Worth trying


----------



## gerardfraser

eliwankenobi said:


> I'll be waiting for those benchmarks too! 1933 IF could mean a lot of stress on the memory controller too, higher voltages, high temps too I would assume.
> 
> But if you can get that stable at 3866mhz at CL16 or CL17 timings, golden sample right there! I would also try all core OC on that chip, see how high I go. Worth trying


Not picking on you cause I quoted your post in particular.
I could run 1933FCLK on 2x3600X and 3800X ,there is no way in the world I got 3 golden samples on Ryzen and others are not getting any.Also I do not need higher voltages to run CL16 3866Mhz but you do need higher DRam voltage to run CL14 3866Mhz.

There is also no real difference between CL14 3866Mhz and CL16 3866Mhz in bandwidth or latency on single rank dimms with tight timings,I do not have dual rank dimms to test.
There is also no real FPS difference in PC gaming when not running CPU limited resolutions(above 1920x1080) with tight timings on Ram between CL16 3600Mhz-CL14 3866Mhz from my testing.

If you would like to see a couple test,I have time to mess around.Name a CPU clock/PBO and Ram timings and please do not ask for Cinebench and I have 3800X to do some test ,sold the 2x3600X.

So i can test Ram up to CL16 4200Mhz tight timings no problem.


----------



## zenuser

Does anyone here use 64GB DDR4 (4 dual-rank DIMMs) Hynix CJR on Zen 2 CPU/X470?

I'm having serious trouble to stabilize my setup. Sometimes when I reboot my PC, all settings are being reverted to JEDEC 2133 MHz.

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. I use DRAM calculator as a starting point (3600 CL16 preset) and I've even tried increasing the DRAM voltage (recommended is 1.35V).

I've tried 1.40V and I still got a BIOS JEDEC reset. Not I'm up to 1.44V, but I'm afraid degrade is inevitable.

I know my setup is not the most common one and I've been scouring the internet for similar setups since December to no avail.


----------



## polkfan

gerardfraser said:


> Not picking on you cause I quoted your post in particular.
> I could run 1933FCLK on 2x3600X and 3800X ,there is no way in the world I got 3 golden samples on Ryzen and others are not getting any.Also I do not need higher voltages to run CL16 3866Mhz but you do need higher DRam voltage to run CL14 3866Mhz.
> 
> There is also no real difference between CL14 3866Mhz and CL16 3866Mhz in bandwidth or latency on single rank dimms with tight timings,I do not have dual rank dimms to test.
> There is also no real FPS difference in PC gaming when not running CPU limited resolutions(above 1920x1080) with tight timings on Ram between CL16 3600Mhz-CL14 3866Mhz from my testing.
> 
> If you would like to see a couple test,I have time to mess around.Name a CPU clock/PBO and Ram timings and please do not ask for Cinebench and I have 3800X to do some test ,sold the 2x3600X.
> 
> So i can test Ram up to CL16 4200Mhz tight timings no problem.


I agree i tried 14 and 16 timings on my samsung B-die at 3800mhz i have a high-binned kit and it only changes the speeds in dram calc to 106 vs 111 and my latency goes to 63.1 from 63.5 or so with 16 timings but some people get like 62ns with 14 timings at 3800mhz. 

Bullzoid already showed that the infinity fabric scales more then timings do if you can get 3600mhz 14 cas or 3800mhz 16 cas PICK 3800mhz 16.

Looking forward to seeing the new dram calculator!


----------



## 2600ryzen

zenuser said:


> Does anyone here use 64GB DDR4 (4 dual-rank DIMMs) Hynix CJR on Zen 2 CPU/X470?
> 
> I'm having serious trouble to stabilize my setup. Sometimes when I reboot my PC, all settings are being reverted to JEDEC 2133 MHz.
> 
> I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. I use DRAM calculator as a starting point (3600 CL16 preset) and I've even tried increasing the DRAM voltage (recommended is 1.35V).
> 
> I've tried 1.40V and I still got a BIOS JEDEC reset. Not I'm up to 1.44V, but I'm afraid degrade is inevitable.
> 
> I know my setup is not the most common one and I've been scouring the internet for similar setups since December to no avail.



Maybe try changing procodt if you can't get it to boot, or reduce frequency from 3600mhz slightly to try booting first.


----------



## zenuser

2600ryzen said:


> Maybe try changing procodt if you can't get it to boot, or reduce frequency from 3600mhz slightly to try booting first.


I'm currently sitting at 48 procODT, 53 wouldn't boot.

Is it true that during the initial booting process the DRAM is being fed only 1.2V? I've read a forum post where someone was saying that's the culprit of boot issues.

2133 JEDEC boots every time fine and my motherboard doesn't have an option to set the DRAM boot/training voltage. :\


----------



## eliwankenobi

gerardfraser said:


> eliwankenobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be waiting for those benchmarks too! 1933 IF could mean a lot of stress on the memory controller too, higher voltages, high temps too I would assume.
> 
> But if you can get that stable at 3866mhz at CL16 or CL17 timings, golden sample right there! I would also try all core OC on that chip, see how high I go. Worth trying
> 
> 
> 
> Not picking on you cause I quoted your post in particular.
> I could run 1933FCLK on 2x3600X and 3800X ,there is no way in the world I got 3 golden samples on Ryzen and others are not getting any.Also I do not need higher voltages to run CL16 3866Mhz but you do need higher DRam voltage to run CL14 3866Mhz.
> 
> There is also no real difference between CL14 3866Mhz and CL16 3866Mhz in bandwidth or latency on single rank dimms with tight timings,I do not have dual rank dimms to test.
> There is also no real FPS difference in PC gaming when not running CPU limited resolutions(above 1920x1080) with tight timings on Ram between CL16 3600Mhz-CL14 3866Mhz from my testing.
> 
> If you would like to see a couple test,I have time to mess around.Name a CPU clock/PBO and Ram timings and please do not ask for Cinebench and I have 3800X to do some test ,sold the 2x3600X.
> 
> So i can test Ram up to CL16 4200Mhz tight timings no problem.
Click to expand...

No worries! But Oh dude that is excellent!

EDIT: forgot to add.. Please show some gaming benchmarks if it’s not much trouble. 

Here is where I first get wind of people being able to run IF at 1933. So stories of more people achieving higher IF speeds and on different skus is encouraging

1900mhz IF I thought was the extreme top out of all the stuff mentioned by AMD (telling us that running RAM at 3733 is TOP) and the different PC hardware YouTubers in their Memory OC recommendations and testing... I was happy I was able to run at 1900mhz no problem at all and the reason I bought 32gb worth of Patriot Viper Steel 4400mhz (Samsung B-Die).... 

So I know I’m starting to wonder 🤔


----------



## gerardfraser

eliwankenobi said:


> No worries! But Oh dude that is excellent!
> 
> EDIT: forgot to add.. Please show some gaming benchmarks if it’s not much trouble.
> 
> Here is where I first get wind of people being able to run IF at 1933. So stories of more people achieving higher IF speeds and on different skus is encouraging
> 
> 1900mhz IF I thought was the extreme top out of all the stuff mentioned by AMD (telling us that running RAM at 3733 is TOP) and the different PC hardware YouTubers in their Memory OC recommendations and testing... I was happy I was able to run at 1900mhz no problem at all and the reason I bought 32gb worth of Patriot Viper Steel 4400mhz (Samsung B-Die)....
> 
> So I know I’m starting to wonder 🤔


Well I just posted this in another thread,but if you want a particular benchmark just ask.

What you really want is to have your Ram timings at there best settings you can run stable. This would be the most important metric in say 98% of gaming and applications in non CPU limited situations/resolutions.

Then you should have the memory clock (mclk), the memory controller clock (uclk), and the infinity fabric clock (fclk) all equal so they are synced 1:1:1. If you do not have all synced 1:1:1 and are at 1:1:2 on memory controller your still fine.Check spoiler below.

What most people judge the ram by on AMD Ryzen 3xxx is that they go to youtube reviews with the best CPU and GPU and those reviews take a set of lets say DDR4 3200Mhz ram and use XMP Intel profile settings on AMD Ryzen CPU and then compare that to a tuned tight timings of DDR4 3800Mhz ram at a resolution of 1920x1080.

This gives the illusion that AMD Ryzen needs fast ram and more expensive ram to get the best performance.It is not true at all from my testing over normal middle of the road PC gaming setup.Off course everyone wants the best out of there gear but if they did realistic testing,then I bet they would discover that what they have is fine and normal and are not missing out on anything.

Of course I can give an example of exactly what I mean in gaming.Anyone can test for themselves.Testing with all timings and voltages in spoiler.Notice how there is no real difference in games tested.
♦ 2133Mhz (16GB)CL10-10-10-10-21-Lantency 93.8ns
♦ 2400mhz (16GB)CL10-11-11-11-21-Lantency 87.4ns
♦ 2933mhz (16GB)CL12-14-13-13-26-Lantency 75.3ns
♦ 3200mhz (16GB)CL14-14-14-14-28-Lantency 71.0ns
♦ 3733mhz (16GB)CL16-17-16-16-34-Lantency 64.9ns
♦ 4000mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2000x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1000x2)-Lantency 74.9ns
♦ 4200mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2100x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1050x2)-Lantency 73.1ns


Spoiler




2133

2400

2933

3200

3733

4000

4200




Of course I like the fast timings also for my gear 
DDR4 CL16 3866Mhz Single Rank RAM
1933Mhz Fabric clock (FCLK) 
1933Mhz Memory Controller(UCLK=MEMCLK)
Best I seen on latency was 60.6ns/60.7ns in screenshot but consistent readings was 61ns on latency.Voltages and timings


----------



## ylpkm

rastaviper said:


> There is no point trying to pass the 3800mhz mark. For which reason?
> All reviews are mentioning that the top performance is achieved around the 3733-3800, not higher where there are also examples of getting worse results.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Hold on now, there is a bandwidth difference, on top of lower latency (if you can tighten timings or maybe 3866mhz has lower latency loose).(Assuming 1:1:1). 

3800mhz max bandwidth: 1900X4X64/8=60,800MB/s
3866mhz max bandwidth: 1933X4X64/8=61,856MB/s 1GB/s more than 3800mhz / Room for almost 2% more than 3800mhz
3933mhz max bandwidth: 1966.5X4X64/8=62,928MB/s 2GB/s more than 3800mhz / Room for 3.5% more than 3800mhz

I understand there may be diminishing returns for most people, but lower latency with a higher bandwidth should (I say should because I can only presume based off of going from 3733mhz to 3800mhz) help those who game at extremely high fps 300+. It should help raise/smooth out .01% lows and result in less frametime variance and visible/perceptual stutter. If you have empirical data that says otherwise (with 1:1:1 ratio), please share, I'll admit I was wrong or I might challenge the testing method. (Yes, the gpu matters in this but I experience .01% drops here and there and going from 3733 to 3800 increased the floor of .01% fps drops. I may be extrapolating the wrong conclusion from my tests, but I wanna learn. 

I haven't done much testing with TimerBench, but I would guess higher ram speed, means more calls per second can occur, meaning more work can be done in a second. 

I had to switch back to my AB350 Pro4 mobo because I accidentally merged my attempted mod with someones elses bios file (that I was looking at for insight), instead of the manufacturers bios, and it bricked it. So maybe I'll try overclocking my mem on the ab350 pro 4, I also moved my pc to the garage (-5C outside, temp from pc components around 5C at idle.) maybe the lower temps will allow me to either tighten 3800mhz or this mobo might allow for 3866mhz. (or maybe I could break 4550mhz (all core, smt off) on the 3900x by raising voltage higher than 1.37v (drops to 1.325 after droop). Plus I'm waiting for my custom water cooling parts to arrive and all I can say is, I'm gonna learn the hard way about thermal paste at subzero temps. See? (attached photo) Cpu just bounces between 5C and ~27C.

(Sorry for derail.)


----------



## Saiger0

ylpkm said:


> Hold on now, there is a bandwidth difference, on top of lower latency (if you can tighten timings or maybe 3866mhz has lower latency loose).(Assuming 1:1:1).
> 
> 3800mhz max bandwidth: 1900X4X64/8=60,800MB/s
> 3866mhz max bandwidth: 1933X4X64/8=61,856MB/s 1GB/s more than 3800mhz / Room for almost 2% more than 3800mhz
> 3933mhz max bandwidth: 1966.5X4X64/8=62,928MB/s 2GB/s more than 3800mhz / Room for 3.5% more than 3800mhz
> 
> I understand there may be diminishing returns for most people, but lower latency with a higher bandwidth should (I say should because I can only presume based off of going from 3733mhz to 3800mhz) help those who game at extremely high fps 300+. It should help raise/smooth out .01% lows and result in less frametime variance and visible/perceptual stutter. If you have empirical data that says otherwise (with 1:1:1 ratio), please share, I'll admit I was wrong or I might challenge the testing method. (Yes, the gpu matters in this but I experience .01% drops here and there and going from 3733 to 3800 increased the floor of .01% fps drops. I may be extrapolating the wrong conclusion from my tests, but I wanna learn.
> 
> I haven't done much testing with TimerBench, but I would guess higher ram speed, means more calls per second can occur, meaning more work can be done in a second.
> 
> I had to switch back to my AB350 Pro4 mobo because I accidentally merged my attempted mod with someones elses bios file (that I was looking at for insight), instead of the manufacturers bios, and it bricked it. So maybe I'll try overclocking my mem on the ab350 pro 4, I also moved my pc to the garage (-5C outside, temp from pc components around 5C at idle.) maybe the lower temps will allow me to either tighten 3800mhz or this mobo might allow for 3866mhz. (or maybe I could break 4550mhz (all core, smt off) on the 3900x by raising voltage higher than 1.37v (drops to 1.325 after droop). Plus I'm waiting for my custom water cooling parts to arrive and all I can say is, I'm gonna learn the hard way about thermal paste at subzero temps. See? (attached photo) Cpu just bounces between 5C and ~27C.
> 
> (Sorry for derail.)


Can you help me clear something up related to this?

I thought the link between memory controller and the IF is 32B. Wouldn´t that limit the whole memory bandwith down to about 59,500 MB/s? Or is my thinking flawed?


----------



## ylpkm

Saiger0 said:


> Can you help me clear something up related to this?
> 
> I thought the link between memory controller and the IF is 32B. Wouldn´t that limit the whole memory bandwith down to about 59,500 MB/s? Or is my thinking flawed?


Aida64 reports 3800mhz effective clock with max bandwidth 60,800 MB/s. See attached photo. It matches up with formulas I found online elsewhere, so unless there is an bug in aida64, i could very well be wrong. I may also have bandwidth not well defined and we may be talking about 2 different values. But if that is so, then how did my last few aida benches average at 59720-60170? Because it appears stable.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/infinity_fabric


Update to ab350 pro 4 OC:
Not sure if I was able to reach these because of the temperature of just because my asrock board is better than msi's.
3900x 4575mhz all core (smt off) 1.375v
ram:14-16-14-14


----------



## Saiger0

ylpkm said:


> Aida64 reports 3800mhz effective clock with max bandwidth 60,800 MB/s. See attached photo. It matches up with formulas I found online elsewhere, so unless there is an bug in aida64, i could very well be wrong. I may also have bandwidth not well defined and we may be talking about 2 different values. But if that is so, then how did my last few aida benches average at 59720-60170? Because it appears stable.
> 
> https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/infinity_fabric
> 
> 
> Update to ab350 pro 4 OC:
> Not sure if I was able to reach these because of the temperature of just because my asrock board is better than msi's.
> 3900x 4575mhz all core (smt off) 1.375v
> ram:14-16-14-14


yea i think the aida benchmark is reporting inflated values sometimes. Look at this (not my system): Not sure about the 64800 there.









BTW are you sure you want to push your cpu with 1.375V? Or is this just for benchmarking? Edit: nvm i just saw your temps.


----------



## zenuser

ylpkm said:


> I had to switch back to my AB350 Pro4 mobo because I accidentally merged my attempted mod with someones elses bios file (that I was looking at for insight), instead of the manufacturers bios, and it bricked it. So maybe I'll try overclocking my mem on the ab350 pro 4, I also moved my pc to the garage (-5C outside, temp from pc components around 5C at idle.) maybe the lower temps will allow me to either tighten 3800mhz or this mobo might allow for 3866mhz. (or maybe I could break 4550mhz (all core, smt off) on the 3900x by raising voltage higher than 1.37v (drops to 1.325 after droop). Plus I'm waiting for my custom water cooling parts to arrive and all I can say is, I'm gonna learn the hard way about thermal paste at subzero temps. See? (attached photo) Cpu just bounces between 5C and ~27C.
> 
> (Sorry for derail.)


Uhm, what's up with the 204.9C temperature spike? Is that true or a sensor error/bug?

I've seen that once in my Ryzen 5 3600 rig. I hope it's a bug.


----------



## Bapt33

zenuser said:


> Uhm, what's up with the 204.9C temperature spike? Is that true or a sensor error/bug?
> 
> I've seen that once in my Ryzen 5 3600 rig. I hope it's a bug.


dude if your cpu hit 204° even one second he would instant fried, obviously a sensor bug


----------



## marcelo19941

Tightening timings! Any tips?


----------



## ylpkm

marcelo19941 said:


> Tightening timings! Any tips?


SCL's could be lowered by 1 for slight performance bump, maybe lower row cycle time and ras active time a bit. maybe ras active to 28-32 and row cycle time to 42-48.


----------



## kratosatlante

Put vddr soc manual, in auto its to high


----------



## kratosatlante

marcelo19941 said:


> Tightening timings! Any tips?


Put vddr soc manual, in auto its to high


----------



## kratosatlante

At last I was able to set the IF in 1900, with bclk at 99.8 (at 100 it gives me 07 code error) with 4 stiks of ram, it is stable, I tried to adjust more the timings, like trcdwr in 8 or trfc 252 or 240 but I don't improve the Latency, the minimum was 65.4, some advice to test GDM off, with 2 stiks at 3200 you need cpu on die 40, cad 120-20-20-24, with 4 to 3200 cant gdm off, any suggestion to lower latency

timings for 3800 its copy of ismus for 3733, the timings of calculator for 3800 got same latency


----------



## kifac

im stuck on what to do here...im familair with Dram calculator and it works fine when i use two sticks of RAM. I originally had 16GB of Gskill ripjaws and went out to buy another 2X8GB of the same ram at my local computer shop.


System boots perfectly fine with 32GB using DOCP at 3200mhz. No errors.


I went to use DRAM calculator and to my surprise in thaiphoon. Each set of RAM is a different die density??
My original set are hynix 8 Gb A-die (21 nm) / 1 die


and my second set are spektek 8 Gb B-die (20 nm) / 1 die


how is it that they have the same product number yet use 2 different die/chips??
Is it just my luck?


What do i do in this situation and how do i go about trying to overclock these sticks?


Do i use the Thaiphoon settings from the A die and use the timings of that from the calculator?


Thanks


----------



## Gunderman456

Probably use the A-die settings on both as the B-die would be more forgiving.


----------



## gene-z

Not much info out there about Micron D-Die and the calculator doesn't support it much, but this stuff is pretty insane. Not sure if I got lucky, but I got a 3200 cl16 kit running at 4333 cl18 at the stock 1.35v. Not bad for a $65 kit I got on sale, especially when 4333 cl19 sells for $270 

https://i.imgur.com/LPzYRwH.png
https://imgur.com/a/3X27pAQ

Didn't do much, just tweaked it from 16-18-18-18-32 to 18-23-10-18-30 and bumped up the frequency.

The kit is CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16.


----------



## eliwankenobi

gene-z said:


> Not much info out there about Micron D-Die and the calculator doesn't support it much, but this stuff is pretty insane. Not sure if I got lucky, but I got a 3200 cl16 kit running at 4333 cl18 at the stock 1.35v. Not bad for a $65 kit I got on sale, especially when 4333 cl19 sells for $270
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/LPzYRwH.png
> https://imgur.com/a/3X27pAQ
> 
> Didn't do much, just tweaked it from 16-18-18-18-32 to 18-23-10-18-30 and bumped up the frequency.
> 
> The kit is CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16.


Nice! But I see your Memory Clock, Fabric Clock and NorthBridge Clock are all out of sync. You may be having a big latency penalty. 

Try running a benchmark from a game or something. Then change the frequency and timings to 3600Mhz at CL16 or something and test again the same benchmark... You may see that you were actually loosing performance by running your memory at too high speed for Ryzen.


----------



## gene-z

eliwankenobi said:


> Nice! But I see your Memory Clock, Fabric Clock and NorthBridge Clock are all out of sync. You may be having a big latency penalty.
> 
> Try running a benchmark from a game or something. Then change the frequency and timings to 3600Mhz at CL16 or something and test again the same benchmark... You may see that you were actually loosing performance by running your memory at too high speed for Ryzen.


Thanks, you seem to be correct. 3600 run at 70ns compared to 76ns when at 4333. Also, the read/write speeds are slightly faster at 3600/cl16. 

So is all the extra headroom I have essentially useless? Or is it possible to sync the memory/fabric/nb clock and use higher frequencies?


----------



## rastaviper

gene-z said:


> Thanks, you seem to be correct. 3600 run at 70ns compared to 76ns when at 4333. Also, the read/write speeds are slightly faster at 3600/cl16.
> 
> 
> 
> So is all the extra headroom I have essentially useless? Or is it possible to sync the memory/fabric/nb clock and use higher frequencies?


It's all known for months. The gold spot for performance for Ryan is around 3733-3800mhz.
That's why low (14-14-14) timings at 3733 can get 62.5ns and your setup at 4333 is at 76ns!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

gene-z said:


> Thanks, you seem to be correct. 3600 run at 70ns compared to 76ns when at 4333. Also, the read/write speeds are slightly faster at 3600/cl16.
> 
> So is all the extra headroom I have essentially useless? Or is it possible to sync the memory/fabric/nb clock and use higher frequencies?


If you can get your infinity fabric to 1900mhz you can run the ram at 3800mhz and tighten the timings as much as possible.


----------



## Delphi

Any suggestions on where to go from here with my current memory settings?

I am struggling to disable gear down mode, Row precharge delay and read row column delay do not like being lowered to 18, either instability or no post.

Memory is CJR. I may be at the max of what they can do, adding voltage doesn't seem to help.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Delphi said:


> Any suggestions on where to go from here with my current memory settings?
> 
> I am struggling to disable gear down mode, Row precharge delay and read row column delay do not like being lowered to 18, either instability or no post.
> 
> Memory is CJR. I may be at the max of what they can do, adding voltage doesn't seem to help.


 tcwl could probably go to 14, and lowering the 2 scl settings as far as possible helps improve bandwidth a lot, you could probably get scl to 3 maybe 2.


----------



## DigAMD

Anybody have any advice on overclocking Hynix DJR ram? I have a set of 64gb (4 DIMMs) GSkill Trident Neo 16-19-19-39 3600 that I'm running with an X570 Master and 3950x.

Not a ton of information posted yet on these on how far people are able to push them. Looks like some people have bumped them up to 3800 w/ XMP timings without issue, but as far as pushing timings beyond that I haven't seen much posted. Looks like it's recommended to use CJR setting in DRC and go from there?


----------



## MrPenguin

Hi all, I am hoping for some assistance.

I have a x470 Taichi running the latest beta bios 3.82. I've tried 3.77 as well.

I had 2 x 8gb gSkill flare x 3200 c14 running happily and tuned to the fast preset. It was even at 3466mhz at one point. I purchased another 16gb last week taking me to 32gb total.

My issue is the PC will simply not boot with all 4 sticks populated. Even when pegged at 1866mhz it will not boot. At this point it would be great just to boot into Windows with all 4 dimms. I have changed the sticks around but no go.

When I remove one stick, leaving 3, it will boot at 3200mhz fine into Windows.

I have tried upping the voltage to 1.4, soc to 1.1, VDDP to 1.1. 

I am using the Safe preset as below. Any ideas?


----------



## Delphi

2600ryzen said:


> tcwl could probably go to 14, and lowering the 2 scl settings as far as possible helps improve bandwidth a lot, you could probably get scl to 3 maybe 2.


Okay I will see if I can push it. From what I gather this is also pretty good for 4 sticks of CJR Memory though so that is nice to know. I would really like to find a solution to turning off gear down mode, but it might just be out of reach with this setup.

I haven't see much CJR stuff posted lately in here so it is tough to gauge and see what other people are coming up with.


----------



## kifac

Gunderman456 said:


> Probably use the A-die settings on both as the B-die would be more forgiving.



Thank you for the reply!


Just one more question...does it matter which slot the RAM are in seeing as to how the two sets are different dies?


Thanks


----------



## DaNiJ3L

Hi,
I'm having issues running RAM at frequency higher than 2133.
Configuration is:
X399 Taichi
1950x
8 x 16 GB Flare X 2400MHz Cl15 (Hynix AFR dual-rank)

Stock after resetting CMOS board tries to boot with RAM at 2400 and fails if I have all DIMMs in or only detects 6 DIMMs. I can lower it to 2133 and all 128 GB is detected and used then without reseating CPU or RAM.
I have reseated CPU many times, same with RAM and also tried it on different board.
I have tried using Ryzen DRAM Calculator ... and it doesn't POST.
I have went through every procODT setting from 40-80.

I have attached screenshot from DRAM Calculator, RTC for settings I can boot, report from Typhoon Burner and AIDA64 RAM bench for ref.


I understand that anything over 1866 is overclock in this configuration and that there are no guarantees.
Does anyone have any pointers for this situation?

Please let me know if I have left out any info.

Any assistance is appreciated.


Regards,
Danij3l


----------



## Gunderman456

kifac said:


> Thank you for the reply!
> 
> 
> Just one more question...does it matter which slot the RAM are in seeing as to how the two sets are different dies?
> 
> 
> Thanks


Same speed and timing so probably not but it couldn't hurt to keep the dies separate, ie slots B2 and A2 for A-die and B1 and A1 for B-die. .


----------



## christoph

Gunderman456 said:


> Same speed and timing so probably not but it couldn't hurt to keep the dies separate, ie slots B2 and A2 for A-die and B1 and A1 for B-die. .


why slot A1 and B1 for B-die?


----------



## Gunderman456

christoph said:


> why slot A1 and B1 for B-die?


It keeps the same ram sticks in the same channel lanes.


----------



## kifac

Gunderman456 said:


> Same speed and timing so probably not but it couldn't hurt to keep the dies separate, ie slots B2 and A2 for A-die and B1 and A1 for B-die. .



Just what i was thinking!


Thank you again for your help


----------



## Delphi

Well I have made some great progress with the 4 sticks of CJR ram. Finally broken into the 66ns range and stable too. I can boot with TRCRDR at 18 but I cannot for the life of me make it stable. My best stable in AIDA is 66.9ns, my best is 66.7 unstable, im sure with actual stability it would drop a touch. First image is the stable settings, second is the unstable ones. Ram voltage didn't really help and it won't post at 1.48v with those settings to try and stabilize it. Thanks for all the input guys it is really helping.


----------



## fcchin

DaNiJ3L said:


> Hi,
> 8 x 16 GB Flare X 2400MHz Cl15 (Hynix AFR dual-rank)
> 
> Regards,
> Danij3l


8 sticks my friend, plus you very clearly said it, 2133 is OC from the 1866, hence try adding more voltage, both the Dram and SOCVDD, 

plus there was a note from 1usmus, the higher the speed, the higher the ohms for ProcODT, recently I re-searched my ram uses less voltage on 80ohms, which was in older 1usmus calculator, but not in 1.6.2.

I don't believe you have seating problem.


----------



## DaNiJ3L

fcchin said:


> 8 sticks my friend, plus you very clearly said it, 2133 is OC from the 1866, hence try adding more voltage, both the Dram and SOCVDD,
> 
> plus there was a note from 1usmus, the higher the speed, the higher the ohms for ProcODT, recently I re-searched my ram uses less voltage on 80ohms, which was in older 1usmus calculator, but not in 1.6.2.
> 
> I don't believe you have seating problem.


I've tried 1.15 SoC and 1.4 for RAM ... still no luck.
I'm seeing ppl do 2933 or more with B-Die, but I guess I will have to settle for 2133 since I have AFR.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Delphi said:


> Well I have made some great progress with the 4 sticks of CJR ram. Finally broken into the 66ns range and stable too. I can boot with TRCRDR at 18 but I cannot for the life of me make it stable. My best stable in AIDA is 66.9ns, my best is 66.7 unstable, im sure with actual stability it would drop a touch. First image is the stable settings, second is the unstable ones. Ram voltage didn't really help and it won't post at 1.48v with those settings to try and stabilize it. Thanks for all the input guys it is really helping.



gdm disabled and 2t reduces random latency on my ram slightly and custom latency stays the same, if it's stable.


Also TrrdS/TrrdL can maybe be tweaked as low as 4, then tfaw might be able to do 16. They can also help improve other timings apperently so maybe Trcdrd can be lowered after you lower those timings.


----------



## Delphi

2600ryzen said:


> gdm disabled and 2t reduces random latency on my ram slightly and custom latency stays the same, if it's stable.
> 
> 
> Also TrrdS/TrrdL can maybe be tweaked as low as 4, then tfaw might be able to do 16. They can also help improve other timings apperently so maybe Trcdrd can be lowered after you lower those timings.


Thank you for the help, these are the little nuances that are really hard to find through search so I really appreciate the advice. 

I will give it a shot tonight!


----------



## fcchin

DaNiJ3L said:


> I've tried 1.15 SoC and 1.4 for RAM ... still no luck.
> I'm seeing ppl do 2933 or more with B-Die, but I guess I will have to settle for 2133 since I have AFR.


Hi DaNiJ3L, 

I forgot to highlight a word yesterday "power usage/current needed more" since Dram is running constant voltage. 

8 sticks will for sure eat a lot of power and current causing voltage drops, not seen at start up, but when loaded, i.e. actually memory usage high throughput and the split of a nanoseconds voltage drop due current pull is not readable by monitoring hardware/software, hence one other way to compensate is higher voltages,

Since you've invested so much, then consider DDR4 sold default at 1.5v, i.e. 4000mhz+++ examples
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15002/royal-memory-gskills-32-gb-ddr4-4000-cl15-kit
https://thepcenthusiast.com/corsair-vengeance-lpx-ddr4-4600-memory-kit-released/

so, go figures..... that's why so many people says run 1.5v daily ok.

I've personally use 1.58v for a day or two, A-tuning reads 1.62v high, 3333mhz 
I'm back down to 1.39v now, A-tuning reads 1.41v, running 3133mhz C16-17-17-17-36 of dual rank, which is difficult. soc 1.125v needed, at soc 1v won't post at all. Default soc support for my case is 2400mhz, running 3133mhz or 3333mhz is way over spec, hence way over volts. https://www.techtesters.eu/pic/AMDRYZEN71800X/209.png

also, I've run soc as high as 1.3V before too. They won't die if it's just a day or two once every 3 months. 

but albeit, de javu or bad luck, I can't warranty you if damaged  wa ka ka ka ka ka. All OC is self risk.


----------



## fcchin

DaNiJ3L said:


> Hi,
> I have went through every procODT setting from 40-80.
> 
> Regards,
> Danij3l


Try procODT even higher and even lower, you in new teritory, not many people have 8 sticks, 

again procODT is resistance in ohms, which affects voltage and current.

Morrtoo morrtoo volta !!!  

be brave 1.5V Dram, 1.2v soc, some motivational info
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen,5011-2.html = up to 1.3v ambient cooling. 
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1029907-max-safe-cpu-nbsoc-voltage-for-ryzen/
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html




time 3:39 shows 1.35v, 

Motherboard makers won't provide this if it will kill the CPU instantly.


----------



## Schmuckley

If you want to find memory weaknesses, run Hyper-Pi 32m.

Get you some "Not Convergent in SQR" on the last loop.


----------



## 2600ryzen

DaNiJ3L said:


> Hi,
> I'm having issues running RAM at frequency higher than 2133.
> Configuration is:
> X399 Taichi
> 1950x
> 8 x 16 GB Flare X 2400MHz Cl15 (Hynix AFR dual-rank)



What if you get it to post at 2133mhz then change it to 2400-2666mhz? Try 1.45v, high voltage on its own isn't dangerous it needs high frequency too.


----------



## fcchin

DaNiJ3L said:


> Hi,
> 8 x 16 GB Flare X 2400MHz Cl15 (Hynix AFR dual-rank)
> 
> Stock after resetting CMOS board tries to boot with RAM at 2400 and fails if I have all DIMMs in or only detects 6 DIMMs. I can lower it to 2133 and all 128 GB is detected
> 
> Regards,
> Danij3l


This looks to me like not enough power to drive them at 2400, hence only 6 sticks detected. 

Anyway, I have some other tricks, don't use the calculator, don't use XMP, run all the secondaries AUTO, key in the primary manually, i.e. use the 2666 timing you had, 14,16,16,16,36, but run at 2400.

Must set procODT, cannot auto this. aaaaand high volts needed. no escape.

btw, found my 1.312v soc in post #4 http://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9058&PID=53419#top


----------



## marcelo19941

Thanks for the help guys, latency starting to get great.


----------



## eliwankenobi

marcelo19941 said:


> Thanks for the help guys, latency starting to get great.


What Memory kit is that?


----------



## marcelo19941

eliwankenobi said:


> What Memory kit is that?


Is a Trident Z neo 2x8Gb 3200mhz Cl14
F4-3200C14D-16GTZN


----------



## rastaviper

marcelo19941 said:


> Thanks for the help guys, latency starting to get great.


1900mhz memory, 14-14-14, at 4800mhz
And only 63.5 ns latency?

Something is wrong. It should have been less then 62ns

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Animeleptic

Thank you very much. Managed to get timing tight and stable.


----------



## Synoxia

gerardfraser said:


> Testing some FCLK overclock for stability.For anyone interested.Thought I would put it in this thread.
> 
> DDR4 CL16 3866Mhz Single Rank RAM
> 1933Mhz Fabric clock (FCLK)
> 1933Mhz Memory Controller(UCLK=MEMCLK)
> 
> Best I seen on latency was 60.6ns/60.7ns but consistent readings was 61ns on latency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO
> ♦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080
> ♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8)
> ♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b)
> ♦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB
> ♦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black
> ♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W


how 1933? share settincs?


----------



## eliwankenobi

And I would add, is it stable?


----------



## gerardfraser

Synoxia said:


> how 1933? share settincs?





eliwankenobi said:


> And I would add, is it stable?


Well ,why would it no be stable and there is no special settings for 1933Mhz FCLK and It worked on 3 different Ryzen CPU's at 1933Mhz FCLK. Let me know if you want more information.

Red Dead 2 Video played 1 hour average CPU clock 4525 Mhz-4550Mhz


Spoiler











Ram Timings in Ryzen Master 


Spoiler



Ram Time by gerard fraser, on Flickr



♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AAG-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b) BIOS settings ,Added CPU offset voltage for sustained boost.


Spoiler



PBO settings
CPUConfig by gerard fraser, on Flickr

Voltages
CPUConfig_00 by gerard fraser, on Flickr

CPU Features
CPUConfig_01 by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2 


Spoiler



Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2


Spoiler



Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr



BF5 4550Mhz 


Spoiler



Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr



Computer used


Spoiler



♦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO 
♦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080
♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8) 
♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b)
♦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB 
♦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black 
♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W


----------



## Synoxia

gerardfraser said:


> Well ,why would it no be stable and there is no special settings for 1933Mhz FCLK and It worked on 3 different Ryzen CPU's at 1933Mhz FCLK. Let me know if you want more information.
> 
> Red Dead 2 Video played 1 hour average CPU clock 4525 Mhz-4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4w5OWCgDqM
> 
> 
> 
> Ram Timings in Ryzen Master
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ram Time by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AAG-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b) BIOS settings ,Added CPU offset voltage for sustained boost.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> PBO settings
> CPUConfig by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> Voltages
> CPUConfig_00 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> CPU Features
> CPUConfig_01 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> BF5 4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Computer used
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO
> ♦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080
> ♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8)
> ♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b)
> ♦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB
> ♦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black
> ♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W


0.950v and you hit 1933... how... what else did you change O_O 3 different ryzen cpu???

as expected, i can only hit 1900 on my 3700x, 1926 if using bclk. Tried both setup with 1.10 vddg/vddp and 1.12 vddsoc with the usual 07 postcode with IF clock too high


----------



## Tamalero

Hey guys, any tips for 3960X TRX40?

Trying to run stock CPU + Samsung B die 8Gb/1rank x 4.

Currently running default XMP on my Corsair Dominator (3600 CL18)


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Synoxia said:


> gerardfraser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well ,why would it no be stable and there is no special settings for 1933Mhz FCLK and It worked on 3 different Ryzen CPU's at 1933Mhz FCLK. Let me know if you want more information.
> 
> Red Dead 2 Video played 1 hour average CPU clock 4525 Mhz-4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4w5OWCgDqM
> 
> 
> 
> Ram Timings in Ryzen Master
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ram Time by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> â™️¦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AAG-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b) BIOS settings ,Added CPU offset voltage for sustained boost.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> PBO settings
> CPUConfig by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> Voltages
> CPUConfig_00 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> CPU Features
> CPUConfig_01 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> BF5 4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Computer used
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> â™️¦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO
> â™️¦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080
> â™️¦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8)
> â™️¦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b)
> â™️¦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB
> â™️¦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black
> â™️¦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0.950v and you hit 1933... how... what else did you change O_O 3 different ryzen cpu???
> 
> as expected, i can only hit 1900 on my 3700x, 1926 if using bclk. Tried both setup with 1.10 vddg/vddp and 1.12 vddsoc with the usual 07 postcode with IF clock too high
Click to expand...

I get the 07 postcode when I first enter my 1900/3800 overclock but if I switch the power off to my pc from the power supply and restart it after about 30 seconds or so it boots fine for me. I can’t however get 1933 to the 07 error Code at all. I get a different error code altogether.


----------



## eliwankenobi

gerardfraser said:


> Synoxia said:
> 
> 
> 
> how 1933? share settincs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eliwankenobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would add, is it stable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well ,why would it no be stable and there is no special settings for 1933Mhz FCLK and It worked on 3 different Ryzen CPU's at 1933Mhz FCLK. Let me know if you want more information.
> 
> Red Dead 2 Video played 1 hour average CPU clock 4525 Mhz-4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ram Timings in Ryzen Master
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Ram Time by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> â™️¦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AAG-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b) BIOS settings ,Added CPU offset voltage for sustained boost.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> PBO settings
> CPUConfig by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> Voltages
> CPUConfig_00 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> CPU Features
> CPUConfig_01 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Light gaming loads all core boost up to 4625Mhz Outlast 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Outlast 2 Screenshot by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Normal to heavy gaming loads all core boost 4575Mhz Red Dead Redemption 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dead Redemption 2 by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> BF5 4550Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Battlefield V by gerard fraser, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> Computer used
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> â™️¦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO
> â™️¦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080
> â™️¦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8)
> â™️¦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.4b)
> â™️¦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB
> â™️¦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black
> â™️¦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W
Click to expand...

This is a long reply... sorry 😐 

I ask about stability because FCLK-1933 seems to be very rare, just like 1900 used to be rare, but now I see enough people achieving 1900 FCLK that I wouldn’t call it rare, but I wouldn’t normally call it totally normal. I had a lot of rare/weird instability on my system. 

Let me elaborate.. I have an X570 Unify also from MSI and 3800x too. Previously in this thread I shared that I have two kits of single rank Patriot Viper Steel 4400 mhz. I ended up returning them because I was never able to get them stable at 3800 or 3600 on safe timings from DRAM calc or even using the safer timings without the XMP report imported. I would always have sporadic memory errors here and there when testing different memory stress tests on Windows. Curiously Memtest86 with the bootable USB passed the whole 9hr stress test. But gaming different games like Apex Legends, Shadow of the Tom Raider, Battlefront II, Battlefield 1, Quake Champions, you name it, I could play for about 30 mins and then the game would crash. Tomb Raider log was useful, as it would tell that it crashed with Memory Address error blah blah blah.

The sticks were not on the Unify QVL either, the board is daisy chain topology and it favors 2 sticks over 4, the memory kit also didn’t have temperature sensors which I thought was odd too, I couldn’t really know what temperatures sticks were working at when I was pushing 1.45v and that was a concern because the heatsinks on those kits are notoriously loose. The thermal sticky pads are apparently not enough good quality and they fell on one of the kits. One Pro review online had that, and other users here have also experienced it too. One of the 2 kits I had to RMA too because at stock JDEC the system wouldn’t boot to BIOS, so after all that, I started feeling suspicious about the whole thing. The return window was closing so decided to return them and order 32gb dual rank Trident Z Neo kit 3600mhz CL 16-16-16-36. Hopefully I have better luck with these as they are advertised as Ryzen and x570 compatible all over the place (and paid for that marketing extra too.. sigh) and read good experiences with them, we’ll see...

I was hopeful that for speeds like 3600 and 3800 mhz with tight timings it shouldn’t be much of a problem with 2 kits of high bin B-die kits. Perhaps that was the problem? They were not binned together? I don’t know. I could have gone with a GSkill kit of 4 sticks too, but wasn’t feeling that adventurous. I’m sure others here have had good OCs on Ryzen using 4 sticks, guess it was not for me.

Thanks for sharing your settings! 

Was this on a new BIOS release?


----------



## eliwankenobi

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I get the 07 postcode when I first enter my 1900/3800 overclock but if I switch the power off to my pc from the power supply and restart it after about 30 seconds or so it boots fine for me. I can’t however get 1933 to the 07 error Code at all. I get a different error code altogether.


What mobo you have? Does it happen every time you boot from cold?

That sounds like a memory training thing. I changed a setting on mine from 2 retires to 5 retries as recommended by Robert Hallock in a Ryzen OC conference back when first gen was released.


----------



## zenuser

I guess we need 7nm I/O dies for higher FCLKs. Maybe with 5nm EUV chiplets next year...



eliwankenobi said:


> That sounds like a memory training thing. I changed a setting on mine from 2 retires to 5 retries as recommended by Robert Hallock in a Ryzen OC conference back when first gen was released.


Does this help?


----------



## gerardfraser

Synoxia said:


> 0.950v and you hit 1933... how... what else did you change O_O 3 different ryzen cpu???
> 
> as expected, i can only hit 1900 on my 3700x, 1926 if using bclk. Tried both setup with 1.10 vddg/vddp and 1.12 vddsoc with the usual 07 postcode with IF clock too high


I was all on the same motherboard.I just play games as a hobby,so nothing special.



eliwankenobi said:


> Was this on a new BIOS release?


I have had two different sets of Ram ,all ran well.The videos and screenshots were done on newest BIOS from Nov 2019.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

eliwankenobi said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the 07 postcode when I first enter my 1900/3800 overclock but if I switch the power off to my pc from the power supply and restart it after about 30 seconds or so it boots fine for me. I can’t however get 1933 to the 07 error Code at all. I get a different error code altogether.
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> What mobo you have? Does it happen every time you boot from cold?
> 
> That sounds like a memory training thing. I changed a setting on mine from 2 retires to 5 retries as recommended by Robert Hallock in a Ryzen OC conference back when first gen was released.
Click to expand...

I have a Asus crosshair hero viii Wifi. It only happens when I first enter the settings and save and exit bios after that it’s fine.


----------



## eliwankenobi

gerardfraser said:


> I was all on the same motherboard.I just play games as a hobby,so nothing special.
> 
> 
> I have had two different sets of Ram ,all ran well.The videos and screenshots were done on newest BIOS from Nov 2019.



Also, what are you cooling your CPU with? AIO? Open loop Water cooling? Cause all core 4.5ghz at around 65C is impressive!


----------



## Hequaqua

Just for fun...I decided to get a set of GSkill Trident Neo 3600(18-22-22-42). I had no clue as to what type of chips were on it. I got them at a decent price, so why not. 

I ran Thaiphoon, it appears these are Hynix MFR modules. Needless to say, if I touch ANYTHING other than XMP, it's a endless loop of "Windows Repair". I ran the calculator, chose Hynix MFR--"Not Supported". Dam! I have every release of the calculator, so I found a older version that at least showed some timings for MFR. Nope, none worked. 

At the moment, I have this set in my rig, along with a set of Trident Z 3466cl16(B-die). I'm just running the XMP timings but put everything in manually. Seems to run fine actually. I did some testing on both sets. The set of B die will run up to 3666cl16. 

Here are the results:

GSkill Trident Z/Trident Z Neo

Then I decided to to some benchmarking...each set by themselves and then combined. 

Memory Benchmarks

I just finished running the Karhu Ram [email protected], no problems. I let it run over 5 hours, I think the website says something like 6900% is 99%+coverage. 



Spoiler














Anyone else have this set of ram?


----------



## gerardfraser

eliwankenobi said:


> Also, what are you cooling your CPU with? AIO? Open loop Water cooling? Cause all core 4.5ghz at around 65C is impressive!


Well I do not always run all core overclock,only when doing stupid benchmarks and highest I have run was 4700Mhz.All core overclocks have no advantage over PBO Override for me PC gaming.
Cooling is the cheapest AIO I could find when I bought it.
MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO also as far as temperatures go I see over 70°C all the time when PC gaming and my 3800X is not special in any way.


----------



## zenuser

gerardfraser said:


> Well I do not always run all core overclock,only when doing stupid benchmarks and *highest I have run was 4700Mhz*.All core overclocks have no advantage over PBO Override for me PC gaming.
> Cooling is the cheapest AIO I could find when I bought it.
> MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO


4.7 GHz all-core manual OC is possible?!


----------



## gerardfraser

zenuser said:


> 4.7 GHz all-core manual OC is possible?!


For me it was and other people do it,now of course not Prime95 stable but I can game at 4700Mhz never went higher but I seen boost higher on CPU.

A Game at 4700Mhz


Spoiler











Three games at 4625Mhz with HWinfo64 check time stamps


Spoiler


----------



## eliwankenobi

gerardfraser said:


> Well I do not always run all core overclock,only when doing stupid benchmarks and highest I have run was 4700Mhz.All core overclocks have no advantage over PBO Override for me PC gaming.
> Cooling is the cheapest AIO I could find when I bought it.
> MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO also as far as temperatures go I see over 70°C all the time when PC gaming and my 3800X is not special in any way.


Thanks for the reply. I am running the NH-D15

Will have to try your settings from this previous post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-655.html#post28299732

My question is. Is this your daily 24/7 config?


----------



## gerardfraser

eliwankenobi said:


> Thanks for the reply. I am running the NH-D15
> 
> Will have to try your settings from this previous post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-655.html#post28299732
> 
> My question is. Is this your daily 24/7 config?


Short answer yes. 
Longer answer ,somewhat.
Thing is I change BIOS almost daily/weekly,testing different things.I must have flashed 50+ times since using Ryzen 3600X/3800X .
Just this week alone I installed 4 or 5 different Windows 10 versions.
I think I have the same Ram 3866Mhz and 1933FCLK speed for a few weeks or month but I usually just run CL16 3600MHZ and 1800FCLK as to there is no advantage playing PC games for me.

I will be keeping EDC 1A BIOS tweak for good as it works fine buest answer I can give because I am always messing around. For testing stability I do not use Prime95 ,I just play PC Games and usually stream games 2-4hrs for stability.I find PC games to be the best stability test.


----------



## eliwankenobi

gerardfraser said:


> Short answer yes.
> Longer answer ,somewhat.
> Thing is I change BIOS almost daily/weekly,testing different things.I must have flashed 50+ times since using Ryzen 3600X/3800X .
> Just this week alone I installed 4 or 5 different Windows 10 versions.
> I think I have the same Ram 3866Mhz and 1933FCLK speed for a few weeks or month but I usually just run CL16 3600MHZ and 1800FCLK as to there is no advantage playing PC games for me.
> 
> I will be keeping EDC 1A BIOS tweak for good as it works fine buest answer I can give because I am always messing around. For testing stability I do not use Prime95 ,I just play PC Games and usually stream games 2-4hrs for stability.I find PC games to be the best stability test.


Thank you. Must agree with this I've had memory settings pass memtest either from DRAM Calc or memtest86 and then 30hr into a game it crashes... doesn't happen at stock so that's how I confirm.


----------



## rastaviper

gerardfraser said:


> Short answer yes.
> 
> Longer answer ,somewhat.
> 
> Thing is I change BIOS almost daily/weekly,testing different things.I must have flashed 50+ times since using Ryzen 3600X/3800X .
> 
> Just this week alone I installed 4 or 5 different Windows 10 versions.
> 
> I think I have the same Ram 3866Mhz and 1933FCLK speed for a few weeks or month but I usually just run CL16 3600MHZ and 1800FCLK as to there is no advantage playing PC games for me.
> 
> 
> 
> I will be keeping EDC 1A BIOS tweak for good as it works fine buest answer I can give because I am always messing around. For testing stability I do not use Prime95 ,I just play PC Games and usually stream games 2-4hrs for stability.I find PC games to be the best stability test.


What's the reason windows flashing for 4 times in a week?
Is your system needing reinstalling of windows after fatal ocing?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## chevy350

Hequaqua said:


> Just for fun...I decided to get a set of GSkill Trident Neo 3600(18-22-22-42). I had no clue as to what type of chips were on it. I got them at a decent price, so why not.
> 
> I ran Thaiphoon, it appears these are Hynix MFR modules. Needless to say, if I touch ANYTHING other than XMP, it's a endless loop of "Windows Repair". I ran the calculator, chose Hynix MFR--"Not Supported". Dam! I have every release of the calculator, so I found a older version that at least showed some timings for MFR. Nope, none worked.
> 
> At the moment, I have this set in my rig, along with a set of Trident Z 3466cl16(B-die). I'm just running the XMP timings but put everything in manually. Seems to run fine actually. I did some testing on both sets. The set of B die will run up to 3666cl16.
> 
> Here are the results:
> 
> GSkill Trident Z/Trident Z Neo
> 
> Then I decided to to some benchmarking...each set by themselves and then combined.
> 
> Memory Benchmarks
> 
> I just finished running the Karhu Ram [email protected], no problems. I let it run over 5 hours, I think the website says something like 6900% is 99%+coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 321294
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else have this set of ram?


I've go the F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC with Hynix MFR...haven't gotten em to 3600 yet but 3400 runs easy. Might be easier to reach with 3600-3700X, that and ram calc only goes to 3466 lol


----------



## Hequaqua

chevy350 said:


> I've go the F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC with Hynix MFR...haven't gotten em to 3600 yet but 3400 runs easy. Might be easier to reach with 3600-3700X, that and ram calc only goes to 3466 lol


They'll run 3600 with the XMP timings.....but if I touch anything with them....they default back to 2133.


----------



## Unknownm

voltages must play a role because for months I wasn't able to PASS 100% in MEMTEST with the recommended settings from DRAM Calculator for 3600Mhz. 

This time I applied all recommend settings (with my own from before) and applied high voltages.

EDIT: Memtest was testing 15GB, i stopped the test and took a SS so it default back


----------



## zenuser

CPU: https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-3600
Mobo: https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X470-GAMING-PRO-MAX (latest BIOS/drivers/Win10)
RAM: https://www.gskill.com/specification/165/169/1536043466/F4-3600C19D-32GSXKB-Specification (4 DIMMs, dual-rank, Hynix CJR)

What's the max someone should realistically expect with the above setup?










3600 MHz safe profile from DRAM calculator seems to cause intermittent training errors while booting...


----------



## zenuser

I switched to 40 Ohm procODT and it seems to boot fine (no training issues)...

Is that normal? I thought 4 DIMMs at high speed needed higher procODT.


----------



## Nighthog

zenuser said:


> I switched to 40 Ohm procODT and it seems to boot fine (no training issues)...
> 
> Is that normal? I thought 4 DIMMs at high speed needed higher procODT.


It's the difference between Ryzen 1000 & 2000 versus 3000 series. The 3000 series likes values below 40Ohm while the older generations usually only worked with values higher than that.


----------



## zenuser

Nighthog said:


> It's the difference between Ryzen 1000 & 2000 versus 3000 series. The 3000 series likes values below 40Ohm while the older generations usually only worked with values higher than that.


Well, then I guess DRAM calculator needs to be updated, because there's no 40 Ohm suggestion...


----------



## zenuser

SaccoSVD said:


> Trident Z Neo 3600 CL16, 64GB, 4dimm kit.
> 
> Here's some out of the box info about my new kit, for those interested. If you have any thought and know how to OC it please let me know. So far I haven't been succesful trying to tighten the timings.
> 
> I also included the results the DRAM calc gives...in case 1usmus wants to review them and adjust the calc if he sees something wrong. (attached Thaiphoon burner HTML report)


This is the most similar setup compared to mine.

How come 3900X works fine with 60 Ohm ProcODT?


----------



## Animeleptic

zenuser said:


> Well, then I guess DRAM calculator needs to be updated, because there's no 40 Ohm suggestion...


That's your motherboard.


----------



## zenuser

Animeleptic said:


> That's your motherboard.


What do you mean it's my motherboard?



Nighthog said:


> It's the difference between Ryzen 1000 & 2000 versus 3000 series. *The 3000 series likes values below 40Ohm* while the older generations usually only worked with values higher than that.


^ Is this motherboard-related?


----------



## flyinion

Hequaqua said:


> Just for fun...I decided to get a set of GSkill Trident Neo 3600(18-22-22-42). I had no clue as to what type of chips were on it. I got them at a decent price, so why not.
> 
> 
> 
> I ran Thaiphoon, it appears these are Hynix MFR modules. Needless to say, if I touch ANYTHING other than XMP, it's a endless loop of "Windows Repair". I ran the calculator, chose Hynix MFR--"Not Supported". Dam! I have every release of the calculator, so I found a older version that at least showed some timings for MFR. Nope, none worked.
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment, I have this set in my rig, along with a set of Trident Z 3466cl16(B-die). I'm just running the XMP timings but put everything in manually. Seems to run fine actually. I did some testing on both sets. The set of B die will run up to 3666cl16.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the results:
> 
> 
> 
> GSkill Trident Z/Trident Z Neo
> 
> 
> 
> Then I decided to to some benchmarking...each set by themselves and then combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Memory Benchmarks
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished running the Karhu Ram [email protected], no problems. I let it run over 5 hours, I think the website says something like 6900% is 99%+coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 321294
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else have this set of ram?




When was the last time you updated taiphoon? I have that kit and at first it was listed as MFR until a few weeks later (August or early September) taiphoon got an update that correctly shows them as CJR


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Hequaqua

flyinion said:


> When was the last time you updated taiphoon? I have that kit and at first it was listed as MFR until a few weeks later (August or early September) taiphoon got an update that correctly shows them as CJR
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Hmmmm....good point, I'll update and report back. TBH it's been a while...Thanks.

EDIT: It does shows it as CJR. +Rep

EDIT II: Same results....if I change anything/everything with the timings, I end up in a endless boot cycle, or auto repair...


----------



## ylpkm

gerardfraser said:


> For me it was and other people do it,now of course not Prime95 stable but I can game at 4700Mhz never went higher but I seen boost higher on CPU.
> 
> A Game at 4700Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh3qUXyxwF4&t=0s
> 
> 
> 
> Three games at 4625Mhz with HWinfo64 check time stamps
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgC5_WlZPL0&t=0s


I'm getting similar results with a 3900x, can get 4675-4700mhz with smt off (12 core oc) stable in Overwatch (1.41-1.42v.) Haven't tried to bump voltage down, but cpu is kept cool in game below 40C.


----------



## Animeleptic

zenuser said:


> What do you mean it's my motherboard?
> 
> 
> ^ Is this motherboard-related?


I have 40 ohm selection, and have read many people that have that option in their mobo bios


----------



## zenuser

Animeleptic said:


> I have 40 ohm selection, and have read many people that have that option in their mobo bios


And is that a bad thing?

1usmus recommends 40 Ohm max for Zen 2 in this thread, but his DRAM tool doesn't reflect that.


----------



## chevy350

Hequaqua said:


> Hmmmm....good point, I'll update and report back. TBH it's been a while...Thanks.
> 
> EDIT: It does shows it as CJR. +Rep
> 
> EDIT II: Same results....if I change anything/everything with the timings, I end up in a endless boot cycle, or auto repair...


Correction as well, updated mine as well and turns out to be Hynix D-die


----------



## Nighthog

zenuser said:


> And is that a bad thing?
> 
> 1usmus recommends 40 Ohm max for Zen 2 in this thread, but his DRAM tool doesn't reflect that.


There is a selection for processor up in the left corner., you are supposed to pick correct things from the selections for proper suggestions. Though some suggestions can be wrong.


----------



## zenuser

Nighthog said:


> There is a selection for processor up in the left corner., you are supposed to pick correct things from the selections for proper suggestions. Though some suggestions can be wrong.


I guess you missed this screenshot:










There is no 40 Ohm suggestion as you can see, in which case you will experience POST issues. That was my point.


----------



## Hequaqua

chevy350 said:


> Correction as well, updated mine as well and turns out to be Hynix D-die


Cool....:thumb:

I was able to tighten the timings a bit. All I changed were the timings. I didn't touch any of the other settings(ProODT/CADBUS/ETC). A little bit better, but not much. For mismatched sets of ram though, I'm pretty happy.


----------



## Animeleptic

zenuser said:


> And is that a bad thing?
> 
> 1usmus recommends 40 Ohm max for Zen 2 in this thread, but his DRAM tool doesn't reflect that.


No. I was just stating the possible reason why you couldn't find it which has nothing to do with MEMbench or MEMbench needing to be updated ?


----------



## zenuser

Animeleptic said:


> No. I was just stating the possible reason why you couldn't find it which has nothing to do with MEMbench or MEMbench needing to be updated.


Uhm, where did I mention MEMbench? I was only talking about DRAM BIOS settings.


----------



## Animeleptic

zenuser said:


> Uhm, where did I mention MEMbench? I was only talking about DRAM BIOS settings.


Ah, I misspoke, I was referring to the DRAM calculator


----------



## chevy350

Here's what I've gotten so far with F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC, probably a little more room for improvement but overall satisfied for what I've gotten with the help of the calc


----------



## ambivalence_ru

hey, guys.

could you please tell me if it's okay to have 14-(15-14)-14-28 timings? I couldn't get my dual-ranked samsung b-die below the second 15 (tRCD RD), the others are completely fine. the thing is that as far as I know tRAS (mine 28) = tRCD + tCL (the first 14), but tRCD has two numbers: 15 for reading and the next after 14 for writing. so, is it okay to set 28 because most of numbers are 14 or should I leave it 29? I also haven't tried to push 14s to 13s – is there a point to do it, leaving the second number 15?

I found this discussion relatable, but the question remains what is the best tRAS setting taking into account that tRCD has two values one of each can go pretty low.


----------



## MrPenguin

MrPenguin said:


> Hi all, I am hoping for some assistance.
> 
> I have a x470 Taichi running the latest beta bios 3.82. I've tried 3.77 as well.
> 
> I had 2 x 8gb gSkill flare x 3200 c14 running happily and tuned to the fast preset. It was even at 3466mhz at one point. I purchased another 16gb last week taking me to 32gb total.
> 
> My issue is the PC will simply not boot with all 4 sticks populated. Even when pegged at 1866mhz it will not boot. At this point it would be great just to boot into Windows with all 4 dimms. I have changed the sticks around but no go.
> 
> When I remove one stick, leaving 3, it will boot at 3200mhz fine into Windows.
> 
> I have tried upping the voltage to 1.4, soc to 1.1, VDDP to 1.1.
> 
> I am using the Safe preset as below. Any ideas?


Hi again, anyone got any ideas? I have tried multiple bioses, 4 populated dimms simply will not boot, even at the lowest and loosest settings.

I have a MSI Tomahawk B450 with 4 dimms working fine in my server box, with slower memory. 

On the weekend I am going to try that 4 x 16gb from the Tomahawk in the Taichi and vice versa.

Overall not impressed with the Asrock, the bios leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## eliwankenobi

MrPenguin said:


> MrPenguin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all, I am hoping for some assistance.
> 
> I have a x470 Taichi running the latest beta bios 3.82. I've tried 3.77 as well.
> 
> I had 2 x 8gb gSkill flare x 3200 c14 running happily and tuned to the fast preset. It was even at 3466mhz at one point. I purchased another 16gb last week taking me to 32gb total.
> 
> My issue is the PC will simply not boot with all 4 sticks populated. Even when pegged at 1866mhz it will not boot. At this point it would be great just to boot into Windows with all 4 dimms. I have changed the sticks around but no go.
> 
> When I remove one stick, leaving 3, it will boot at 3200mhz fine into Windows.
> 
> I have tried upping the voltage to 1.4, soc to 1.1, VDDP to 1.1.
> 
> I am using the Safe preset as below. Any ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi again, anyone got any ideas? I have tried multiple bioses, 4 populated dimms simply will not boot, even at the lowest and loosest settings.
> 
> I have a MSI Tomahawk B450 with 4 dimms working fine in my server box, with slower memory.
> 
> On the weekend I am going to try that 4 x 16gb from the Tomahawk in the Taichi and vice versa.
> 
> Overall not impressed with the Asrock, the bios leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

I had the same issue when I bought two separate 16gb kits of Patriot Viper Steel memory. The same happened to me when I started with the 4 sticks. Turned out to be that one of the sticks was bad... Did you check the new kit with just one stick on the board at a time?


----------



## eliwankenobi

Can anybody suggest what block of timings to change at a time? Got my new Trident Z kit and don’t want to go change all settings at once? 

I think first is changing speed and voltages and then primary timings first?... but what about the other ones?


----------



## deepor

eliwankenobi said:


> Can anybody suggest what block of timings to change at a time? Got my new Trident Z kit and don’t want to go change all settings at once?
> 
> I think first is changing speed and voltages and then primary timings first?... but what about the other ones?



For working through all timings by yourself without the calculator, I liked this guide here:

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md

Depending on what your CPU and memory setup is, you might have to manually set ProcODT and RTT and CAD before you can use high memory speeds. This ProcODT and RTT stuff isn't described in that guide. You should try the suggestions from the calculator for those settings.


----------



## eliwankenobi

deepor said:


> eliwankenobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anybody suggest what block of timings to change at a time? Got my new Trident Z kit and donâ€™️t want to go change all settings at once?
> 
> I think first is changing speed and voltages and then primary timings first?... but what about the other ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For working through all timings by yourself without the calculator, I liked this guide here:
> 
> https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md
> 
> Depending on what your CPU and memory setup is, you might have to manually set ProcODT and RTT and CAD before you can use high memory speeds. This ProcODT and RTT stuff isn't described in that guide. You should try the suggestions from the calculator for those settings.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Bookmarked


----------



## Nighthog

Finally gotten GDM:disabled to work with 3800Mhz memory speeds. I was using too little SoC voltage in the end for it to be stable previously 98% done but missed this part. (several months ago)

Micron Rev.E 16nm [8CE77 D9VPP]

Settings:
3800Mhz, 1900FCLK, CL[13.23.17.30] 1T, 1.700V, [60.20.24.24], [RZQ/6,RZQ/3,RZQ/1], GDM:disabled, Power Down:disabled


----------



## eliwankenobi

Nighthog said:


> Finally gotten GDM:disabled to work with 3800Mhz memory speeds. I was using too little SoC voltage in the end for it to be stable previously 98% done but missed this part. (several months ago)
> 
> Micron Rev.E 16nm [8CE77 D9VPP]
> 
> Settings:
> 3800Mhz, 1900FCLK, CL[13.23.17.30] 1T, 1.700V, [60.20.24.24], [RZQ/6,RZQ/3,RZQ/1], GDM:disabled, Power Down:disabled


This your 24/7 config now? Or just for benchmarking?


----------



## Nighthog

eliwankenobi said:


> This your 24/7 config now? Or just for benchmarking?


24/7 drop back if I don't find anything better. It's rock solid as far as I know. I was trying CL12 but it required 1.900V and still was trouble. CL14 requires around 1.600V.

I can mention the same timings work for ~3900Mhz memory speed though FCLK can't match it though.

I really want to get my 4333Mhz working. Thus far it's a headache to boot and tweak. Change a setting retry 5x to get it to boot then see your change was bad... Retry. All below 4133Mhz is no issue to boot and tweak. Can't find the issue really why it's so troublesome at the higher speed than I'm trying too much.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Nighthog said:


> eliwankenobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This your 24/7 config now? Or just for benchmarking?
> 
> 
> 
> 24/7 drop back if I don't find anything better. It's rock solid as far as I know. I was trying CL12 but it required 1.900V and still was trouble. CL14 requires around 1.600V.
> 
> I can mention the same timings work for ~3900Mhz memory speed though FCLK can't match it though.
> 
> I really want to get my 4333Mhz working. Thus far it's a headache to boot and tweak. Change a setting retry 5x to get it to boot then see your change was bad... Retry. All below 4133Mhz is no issue to boot and tweak. Can't find the issue really why it's so troublesome at the higher speed than I'm trying too much.
Click to expand...

You might find this interesting 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15089/the-corsair-ddr4-5000-vengeance-lpx-memory-review


----------



## marcelo19941

eliwankenobi said:


> You might find this interesting
> 
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/15089/the-corsair-ddr4-5000-vengeance-lpx-memory-review


Those guys are downclocking a 5000 cl18 to 3200 without changing ANY of the timings and comparing then.
This review proves that they dont have pacience or know how to review RAM.


----------



## stimpy88

@marcelo19941

I have just built a new system, my first AMD for 12 years! I am having problems with my RAM clock speeds and timings. I noticed that you have the same memory as me, and a similar motherboard (I have the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero). I am having a terrible time getting more than the stock 3200MHz out of my memory. It runs Windows fine, but will not pass Prime95 memtest if I overclock it.

Would you please share your settings, as it would give me a base to work from, as the Calculators settings just are not right for my system.

I built another system, with a lesser motherboard, but the same memory, and that one also had the same issues with running faster than 3200MHz!

Your help would be much appreciated, and would hopefully stop me from pulling my hair out!


----------



## marcelo19941

stimpy88 said:


> @marcelo19941
> 
> I have just built a new system, my first AMD for 12 years! I am having problems with my RAM clock speeds and timings. I noticed that you have the same memory as me, and a similar motherboard (I have the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero). I am having a terrible time getting more than the stock 3200MHz out of my memory. It runs Windows fine, but will not pass Prime95 memtest if I overclock it.
> 
> Would you please share your settings, as it would give me a base to work from, as the Calculators settings just are not right for my system.
> 
> I built another system, with a lesser motherboard, but the same memory, and that one also had the same issues with running faster than 3200MHz!
> 
> Your help would be much appreciated, and would hopefully stop me from pulling my hair out!


I started using the base settings from the calculator configured to 3800mhz and started dialing the timings.
Are you using a single rank or dual rank?


----------



## stimpy88

marcelo19941 said:


> I started using the base settings from the calculator configured to 3800mhz and started dialing the timings.
> Are you using a single rank or dual rank?


I'm using single rank, and the memory is installed in slots B2 and A2. It's funny that I can run the calculators fast settings all day long, but only at 3200, if I go to 3400 it wont pass prime95. Also, my 3900X is running stock settings.


----------



## Synoxia

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I have a Asus crosshair hero viii Wifi. It only happens when I first enter the settings and save and exit bios after that it’s fine.


Have u been able to run 1933 fclk?


----------



## marcelo19941

Are you changing the voltages?
Have a look at my settings.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Synoxia said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Asus crosshair hero viii Wifi. It only happens when I first enter the settings and save and exit bios after that itâ€™️s fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Have u been able to run 1933 fclk?
Click to expand...

No unfortunately but to be honest I spent so long getting 1900 to work I couldn’t be bothered/ not had time to spend trying to see if I could get 1933 to work.


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.0*










Downloads will be available in the coming hours.

*Download:*
Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
Сomputerbase.de link
Techspot link

*Changelog:*
I believe that there should be a utility that provides the user with all important memory benchmarking tools, so this release was aimed exactly on that.
Updating the memory presets is planned in version 1.7.1.

* Added the functionality to read current memory timings for Zen 2 (AM4).
* Added a memory bandwidth test (Read and Write).
* Added an Inter-Core Latency test (AM4).
* Improved the accuracy of Random and Custom latency test.
* Some changes in the suggested CAD_BUS settings. This could offer a significant improvement in stability for configurations with 2 or more RAM modules.
* VDDG setting is now divided into 2 independent settings : VDDG IOD and VDDG CCD voltage (as in AGESA 1004B bioses).
* "Compare timings" now works for Zen 2 (AM4).
* Added support for 3000 series Threadripper cpu's (Castle Peak).
* Minor user experience GUI changes.
* Added support for Hynix DJR (a new CJR revision that has backward compatibility with classic CJR).
* Minor bug-fixes


----------



## gerardfraser

Awesome thanks for sharing


----------



## stimpy88

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.0*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Downloads will be available in the coming hours.
> 
> *Download:*
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> Techspot link
> 
> *Changelog:*
> I believe that there should be a utility that provides the user with all important memory benchmarking tools, so this release was aimed exactly on that.
> Updating the memory presets is planned in version 1.7.1.
> 
> * Added the functionality to read current memory timings for Zen 2 (AM4).
> * Added a memory bandwidth test (Read and Write).
> * Added an Inter-Core Latency test (AM4).
> * Improved the accuracy of Random and Custom latency test.
> * Some changes in the suggested CAD_BUS settings. This could offer a significant improvement in stability for configurations with 2 or more RAM modules.
> * VDDG setting is now divided into 2 independent settings : VDDG IOD and VDDG CCD voltage (as in AGESA 1004B bioses).
> * "Compare timings" now works for Zen 2 (AM4).
> * Added support for 3000 series Threadripper cpu's (Castle Peak).
> * Minor user experience GUI changes.
> * Added support for Hynix DJR (a new CJR revision that has backward compatibility with classic CJR).
> * Minor bug-fixes


Many thanks for your hard work 1usmus.

The file is now available over at the Computerbase.de link.


----------



## ambivalence_ru

hey there. listen, TM5 with this config leads to a rare error if I run the test two times in a row (so ram doesn't get a sufficient time to cool down). the setting is pretty extremish and I don't want to spent another couple of hours debugging it (already spent a lot. gosh, ddr overclocking is painful). is there a real app (not a synthetic test) that could heat ram that much? memtesting in DRAM Calculator runs fine up to 500% and more, the first TM5 lanuch passes easily too.


----------



## 2600ryzen

In my experience nothing heats ram up as much as stress testing, but heat related failures(these start at around 3-400% on hci memtest for me) can usually be fixed by going +0.005-0.01v. Maybe give your ram sticks some airflow during stress testing?
I'd say you're desktop/web browsing/gaming stable as is.


----------



## Dollar

Thanks for the new calc! One small bug report, the tCR is incorrect and shows 1t but I currently have it set to 2t GDM OFF. Ryzen master and hwinfo show the 2t as set in bios.


----------



## Sphex_

ambivalence_ru said:


> hey there. listen, TM5 with this config leads to a rare error if I run the test two times in a row (so ram doesn't get a sufficient time to cool down). the setting is pretty extremish and I don't want to spent another couple of hours debugging it (already spent a lot. gosh, ddr overclocking is painful). is there a real app (not a synthetic test) that could heat ram that much? memtesting in DRAM Calculator runs fine up to 500% and more, the first TM5 lanuch passes easily too.



You could try gaming for an extended period of time and see if the extra heat produced by the rest of the system gets the RAM to warm up near what it might reach in a stress test. Use a demanding game, The Division 2 or PUBG perhaps, where it's graphically demanding but also streaming things in and out of memory all the time. Unless you have a well ventilated case, the air in there should warm up quite a bit.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

THX


----------



## pagaiba

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.0*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Downloads will be available in the coming hours.
> 
> *Download:*
> Techpowerup link
> Guru3d link
> Сomputerbase.de link
> Techspot link
> 
> *Changelog:*
> I believe that there should be a utility that provides the user with all important memory benchmarking tools, so this release was aimed exactly on that.
> Updating the memory presets is planned in version 1.7.1.
> 
> * Added the functionality to read current memory timings for Zen 2 (AM4).
> * Added a memory bandwidth test (Read and Write).
> * Added an Inter-Core Latency test (AM4).
> * Improved the accuracy of Random and Custom latency test.
> * Some changes in the suggested CAD_BUS settings. This could offer a significant improvement in stability for configurations with 2 or more RAM modules.
> * VDDG setting is now divided into 2 independent settings : VDDG IOD and VDDG CCD voltage (as in AGESA 1004B bioses).
> * "Compare timings" now works for Zen 2 (AM4).
> * Added support for 3000 series Threadripper cpu's (Castle Peak).
> * Minor user experience GUI changes.
> * Added support for Hynix DJR (a new CJR revision that has backward compatibility with classic CJR).
> * Minor bug-fixes


Hey um, there are a couple of BUGs in here as of my few minutes of testing. 

1. The threads list on the membench keeps flashing white before updating the task scope, so it just looks like the list keeps flashing whenever a number is updated.
2. In Advanced, Overclocking Potential DRAM, where it before would have shown 96% and 3766 CL16, now it's giving me some out of boundaries numbers like "-2147483648" for the 96%.

I think too that the MEMBench gets like stuck when I try to do 2 tests in a row. Like first one goes fine, but the second after clicking the button it just doesnt do anything and I can still click around the app. I gotta test this further to be more specific or if it was just a random coincidence..

EDIT: Forget 2, it just got around to the correct numbers after a few minutes using the program? Not really sure why those weird numbers were out at first either. Relaunching the exe I couldn't get that thing to happen again, so not raelly sure what happened.

EDIT 2: Actually I'm pretty sure there is something wrong, since now the chip quality % and oc potential both changed after changing the type of ram module and recalculating safe values. It went to 114% and 4494 cl16


----------



## kenny0048

benchmark seems to be fine.

CPU:Ryzen 9 3900X
M/B:Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite (F10d)
MEM:Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3000 CL15 16GBx2(32GB) @3800 CL16-20-16-36-58 1T (GDM Disable) 1.38v FCLK1900
[53ohm] [Timing Setup=60/60/60] [RTT=RZQ/6/3/1] [DrvStren=30/24/24/30] 
*Micron E-die 19nm D9VPP (MT40A1G8SA-075:E)


----------



## 1usmus

pagaiba said:


> Hey um, there are a couple of BUGs in here as of my few minutes of testing.
> 
> 1. The threads list on the membench keeps flashing white before updating the task scope, so it just looks like the list keeps flashing whenever a number is updated.
> 2. In Advanced, Overclocking Potential DRAM, where it before would have shown 96% and 3766 CL16, now it's giving me some out of boundaries numbers like "-2147483648" for the 96%.
> 
> I think too that the MEMBench gets like stuck when I try to do 2 tests in a row. Like first one goes fine, but the second after clicking the button it just doesnt do anything and I can still click around the app. I gotta test this further to be more specific or if it was just a random coincidence..
> 
> EDIT: Forget 2, it just got around to the correct numbers after a few minutes using the program? Not really sure why those weird numbers were out at first either. Relaunching the exe I couldn't get that thing to happen again, so not raelly sure what happened.
> 
> EDIT 2: Actually I'm pretty sure there is something wrong, since now the chip quality % and oc potential both changed after changing the type of ram module and recalculating safe values. It went to 114% and 4494 cl16



The quality assessment is only for the XMP profile that you import . For built-in profiles V1 and V2, the quality assessment is not relevant. I will improve this function in 1.7.1.



Dollar said:


> Thanks for the new calc! One small bug report, the tCR is incorrect and shows 1t but I currently have it set to 2t GDM OFF. Ryzen master and hwinfo show the 2t as set in bios.



I'll check. Thank you.


----------



## madno

Thanks for the DRAM Calculator. Without it I might not try to OC my system.

But I need to ask for assistance:

Issue is that I can't clearly identify which voltage entries in the BIOS match the ones of Dram Calculator.

Board is a ASRock TRX40 Creator.

I made a sheet (xls attached as ZIP) where I put all entries I was able to match, but mainly the voltages remain a mistery.

Would appreciate if a kind soul can help me to fill in the missing parts. This might also help other users with the same question (I found several threads in several forums and often the answers were not clear or sometimes just wrong).


----------



## tekjunkie28

This location has been bugging me for awhile. I have Samsung b die and my timings from thaiphoon burner and dram calf are very different especially tRFC. Why is that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eliwankenobi

tekjunkie28 said:


> This location has been bugging me for awhile. I have Samsung b die and my timings from thaiphoon burner and dram calf are very different especially tRFC. Why is that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I understand using just V1 from the calc assumes a certain level of B-die quality based on their testing. Importing the typhoon report will give you numbers based on the report’s data which more closely represent what you could achieve.

Having said that... I ended up using the lowest numbers between my XMP report numbers and the default V1 numbers from calculator.


----------



## dkarDaGobert

was hoping for the "calculate extreme" button..
currently running 3800c14 with tight timings. 









thought the new calc might give me some ideas to improve the settings


----------



## 2600ryzen

Your timings look pretty maxed out as is, maybe try giving it more voltage and going to cas13? TWTRS/L and TCWL might be able to go lower too.


----------



## dkarDaGobert

cas 13 needs gdm off..


----------



## Schmuckley

From back in the day..lowering TCKE can actually add stability and increase performance.

That was on like..Broadwell, but whatever.


----------



## Unified Supreme

*Need Help To Configure my RAM kit on my system.*

hello guys, Need help over here, 

Of first of all let me give you my system specs: 

Windows Specs:
System Type: 64-bit
Edition: Windows 10 Pro
Version: 1909
OS Build: 18363.592

CPU: Ryzen 5 3600x 
RAM: G-Skill - Trident Z Neo - DDR4-3800 - F4-3800C14-8GTZN - CL14-16-16-36 - 16 gb of RAM 8*2 
Mobo: MSI MEG X570 UNIFY; Bios Version: 7C35vA2 (Release Date of Bios is: 2019-11-07)
GPU: Radeon RX 5700 GAMING OC 8G
PSU: Thermaltake: Toughpower Grand 850W TPG-850M (Model: TP-850AH3CSG)

Now i´ll give you my RAM Specs gathered from Thaiphoon (Version: 16.1.1.0 , Build: 1116): 

MANUFACTURING DESCRIPTION: 

Module Manufacturer:	G.Skill
Module Part Number:	F4-3800C14-8GTZN
Module Series:	Trident Z Neo
DRAM Manufacturer:	Samsung
DRAM Components:	K4A8G085WD-BCPB
DRAM Die Revision / Process Node:	D / 17 nm
Module Manufacturing Date:	Undefined
Module Manufacturing Location:	Taipei, Taiwan
Module Serial Number:	00000000h
Module PCB Revision:	00h

PHYSICAL & LOGICAL ATTRIBUTES

Fundamental Memory Class:	DDR4 SDRAM
Module Speed Grade:	DDR4-2133
Base Module Type:	UDIMM (133.35 mm)
Module Capacity:	8 GB
Reference Raw Card:	A1 (10 layers)
JEDEC Raw Card Designer:	SK hynix
Module Nominal Height:	31 < H <= 32 mm
Module Thickness Maximum, Front:	1 < T <= 2 mm
Module Thickness Maximum, Back:	1 < T <= 2 mm
Number of DIMM Ranks:	1
Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:	Standard
DRAM Device Package:	Standard Monolithic
DRAM Device Package Type:	78-ball FBGA
DRAM Device Die Count:	Single die
Signal Loading:	Not specified
Number of Column Addresses:	10 bits
Number of Row Addresses:	16 bits
Number of Bank Addresses:	2 bits (4 banks)
Bank Group Addressing:	2 bits (4 groups)
DRAM Device Width:	8 bits
Programmed DRAM Density:	8 Gb
Calculated DRAM Density:	8 Gb
Number of DRAM components:	8
DRAM Page Size:	1 KB
Primary Memory Bus Width:	64 bits
Memory Bus Width Extension:	0 bits
DRAM Post Package Repair:	Supported
Soft Post Package Repair:	Supported

DRAM TIMING PARAMETERS

Fine Timebase:	0.001 ns
Medium Timebase:	0.125 ns
CAS Latencies Supported:	10T, 11T, 12T, 13T,
14T, 15T, 16T
Minimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):	0.938 ns (1066.10 MHz)
Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):	1.600 ns (625.00 MHz)
CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):	13.750 ns
RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):	13.750 ns
Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):	13.750 ns
Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):	33.000 ns
Act to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):	46.750 ns
Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):	350.000 ns
2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):	260.000 ns
4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):	160.000 ns
Short Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):	3.700 ns
Long Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):	5.300 ns
Write Recovery Time (tWR min):	15.000 ns
Short Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_S min):	2.500 ns
Long Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_L min):	7.500 ns
Long CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):	5.625 ns
Four Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):	21.000 ns
Maximum Active Window (tMAW):	8192*tREFI
Maximum Activate Count (MAC):	Unlimited MAC
DRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:	Yes/Yes

INTEGRATED TEMPERATURE SENSOR

Manufacturer:	OnSemi
Model:	N34TS04
Revision:	30h
Temperature Monitor Status:	Active
Current Ambient Temperature:	31.938 °C
Sensor Resolution:	0.0625 °C (12-bit ADC)
Accuracy over the active range (75 °C to 95 °C):	±1 °C
Accuracy over the monitoring range (40 °C to 125 °C):	±2 °C
Open-drain Event Output:	Disabled
10V of VHV on A0 pin:	Supported
Negative Temperature Measurements:	Supported
Interrupt capabilities:	Supported
SMBus timeout period for TS access:	25 to 35 ms


SPD PROTOCOL

SPD Revision:	1.1
SPD Bytes Total:	512
SPD Bytes Used:	384
SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):	242Dh (OK)
SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):	A01Ch (OK)


Frequency	CAS	RCD	RP	RAS	RC	RRDS	RRDL	WR	WTRS	WTRL	FAW
1067 MHz	16	15	15	36	50 4 6 16 3 8 23
1067 MHz	15	15	15	36	50 4 6 16 3 8 23
933 MHz	14	13	13	31	44 4 5 14 3 7 20
933 MHz	13	13	13	31	44 4 5 14 3 7 20
800 MHz	12	11	11	27	38 3 5 12 2 6 17
800 MHz	11	11	11	27	38 3 5 12 2 6 17
667 MHz	10	10	10	22	32 3 4 10 2 5 14


Now here is the thing guys, 

When the famous Trident Z Neo were announced, they promised low-latency dedicated performance Kit (on which you can see here : https://www.gskill.com/community/15...Memory-Kit-for-AMD-Ryzen-3000-&-X570-Platform) (i know that you might say that those timings can only be reached on Motherboards such: ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Formula or MSI MEG X570 GODLIKE, but i have the hope that i can set them up on mine too), and they specified timings such CL14-16-16-36 with latencies of 66.3 ns, reaching a tested memory bandwidth of 58GB/s, 56GB/s, and 58GB/s for read, write, and copy, respectively, with CPUs like AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and AMD Ryzen 5 3600X so my doubt is how can i reach that desired latency guys, what do i have to do in order to set up my memory Kit and enjoy it at its 100% to reach that fabulous Infinity Fabric 1:1 ratio , i was wondering maybe some of you can help me to set them up on my bios, im definitely not an amateur user, but it would very good appreciated if someone can tell me step by step .. the how to .. 

Thank you a lot , Greetings From MEXICO !


----------



## gerardfraser

Unified Supreme said:


> hello guys, Need help over here,


DDR4 OC Guide
https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md


----------



## lDevilDriverl

My new personal record with 2600x + Micron Rev.: E 3933cl16 =)


----------



## eliwankenobi

Unified Supreme said:


> hello guys, Need help over here,
> 
> Of first of all let me give you my system specs:
> 
> Windows Specs:
> System Type: 64-bit
> Edition: Windows 10 Pro
> Version: 1909
> OS Build: 18363.592
> 
> CPU: Ryzen 5 3600x
> RAM: G-Skill - Trident Z Neo - DDR4-3800 - F4-3800C14-8GTZN - CL14-16-16-36 - 16 gb of RAM 8*2
> Mobo: MSI MEG X570 UNIFY; Bios Version: 7C35vA2 (Release Date of Bios is: 2019-11-07)
> GPU: Radeon RX 5700 GAMING OC 8G
> PSU: Thermaltake: Toughpower Grand 850W TPG-850M (Model: TP-850AH3CSG)
> 
> Now iÂ´ll give you my RAM Specs gathered from Thaiphoon (Version: 16.1.1.0 , Build: 1116):
> 
> MANUFACTURING DESCRIPTION:
> 
> Module Manufacturer:	G.Skill
> Module Part Number:	F4-3800C14-8GTZN
> Module Series:	Trident Z Neo
> DRAM Manufacturer:	Samsung
> DRAM Components:	K4A8G085WD-BCPB
> DRAM Die Revision / Process Node:	D / 17 nm
> Module Manufacturing Date:	Undefined
> Module Manufacturing Location:	Taipei, Taiwan
> Module Serial Number:	00000000h
> Module PCB Revision:	00h
> 
> PHYSICAL & LOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
> 
> Fundamental Memory Class:	DDR4 SDRAM
> Module Speed Grade:	DDR4-2133
> Base Module Type:	UDIMM (133.35 mm)
> Module Capacity:	8 GB
> Reference Raw Card:	A1 (10 layers)
> JEDEC Raw Card Designer:	SK hynix
> Module Nominal Height:	31 < H <= 32 mm
> Module Thickness Maximum, Front:	1 < T <= 2 mm
> Module Thickness Maximum, Back:	1 < T <= 2 mm
> Number of DIMM Ranks:	1
> Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:	Standard
> DRAM Device Package:	Standard Monolithic
> DRAM Device Package Type:	78-ball FBGA
> DRAM Device Die Count:	Single die
> Signal Loading:	Not specified
> Number of Column Addresses:	10 bits
> Number of Row Addresses:	16 bits
> Number of Bank Addresses:	2 bits (4 banks)
> Bank Group Addressing:	2 bits (4 groups)
> DRAM Device Width:	8 bits
> Programmed DRAM Density:	8 Gb
> Calculated DRAM Density:	8 Gb
> Number of DRAM components:	8
> DRAM Page Size:	1 KB
> Primary Memory Bus Width:	64 bits
> Memory Bus Width Extension:	0 bits
> DRAM Post Package Repair:	Supported
> Soft Post Package Repair:	Supported
> 
> DRAM TIMING PARAMETERS
> 
> Fine Timebase:	0.001 ns
> Medium Timebase:	0.125 ns
> CAS Latencies Supported:	10T, 11T, 12T, 13T,
> 14T, 15T, 16T
> Minimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):	0.938 ns (1066.10 MHz)
> Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):	1.600 ns (625.00 MHz)
> CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):	13.750 ns
> RAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):	13.750 ns
> Row Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):	13.750 ns
> Active to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):	33.000 ns
> Act to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):	46.750 ns
> Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):	350.000 ns
> 2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):	260.000 ns
> 4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):	160.000 ns
> Short Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):	3.700 ns
> Long Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):	5.300 ns
> Write Recovery Time (tWR min):	15.000 ns
> Short Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_S min):	2.500 ns
> Long Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_L min):	7.500 ns
> Long CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):	5.625 ns
> Four Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):	21.000 ns
> Maximum Active Window (tMAW):	8192*tREFI
> Maximum Activate Count (MAC):	Unlimited MAC
> DRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:	Yes/Yes
> 
> INTEGRATED TEMPERATURE SENSOR
> 
> Manufacturer:	OnSemi
> Model:	N34TS04
> Revision:	30h
> Temperature Monitor Status:	Active
> Current Ambient Temperature:	31.938 Â°C
> Sensor Resolution:	0.0625 Â°C (12-bit ADC)
> Accuracy over the active range (75 Â°C to 95 Â°C):	Â±1 Â°C
> Accuracy over the monitoring range (40 Â°C to 125 Â°C):	Â±2 Â°C
> Open-drain Event Output:	Disabled
> 10V of VHV on A0 pin:	Supported
> Negative Temperature Measurements:	Supported
> Interrupt capabilities:	Supported
> SMBus timeout period for TS access:	25 to 35 ms
> 
> 
> SPD PROTOCOL
> 
> SPD Revision:	1.1
> SPD Bytes Total:	512
> SPD Bytes Used:	384
> SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):	242Dh (OK)
> SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):	A01Ch (OK)
> 
> 
> Frequency	CAS	RCD	RP	RAS	RC	RRDS	RRDL	WR	WTRS	WTRL	FAW
> 1067 MHz	16	15	15	36	50 4 6 16 3 8 23
> 1067 MHz	15	15	15	36	50 4 6 16 3 8 23
> 933 MHz	14	13	13	31	44 4 5 14 3 7 20
> 933 MHz	13	13	13	31	44 4 5 14 3 7 20
> 800 MHz	12	11	11	27	38 3 5 12 2 6 17
> 800 MHz	11	11	11	27	38 3 5 12 2 6 17
> 667 MHz	10	10	10	22	32 3 4 10 2 5 14
> 
> 
> Now here is the thing guys,
> 
> When the famous Trident Z Neo were announced, they promised low-latency dedicated performance Kit (on which you can see here : https://www.gskill.com/community/15...Memory-Kit-for-AMD-Ryzen-3000-&-X570-Platform) (i know that you might say that those timings can only be reached on Motherboards such: ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII Formula or MSI MEG X570 GODLIKE, but i have the hope that i can set them up on mine too), and they specified timings such CL14-16-16-36 with latencies of 66.3 ns, reaching a tested memory bandwidth of 58GB/s, 56GB/s, and 58GB/s for read, write, and copy, respectively, with CPUs like AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and AMD Ryzen 5 3600X so my doubt is how can i reach that desired latency guys, what do i have to do in order to set up my memory Kit and enjoy it at its 100% to reach that fabulous Infinity Fabric 1:1 ratio , i was wondering maybe some of you can help me to set them up on my bios, im definitely not an amateur user, but it would very good appreciated if someone can tell me step by step .. the how to ..
> 
> Thank you a lot , Greetings From MEXICO !


Hola!

Ok, I have the same mobo as you! Your RAM is a top notch B-Die bin so congratulations on buying your way to the TOP!

I would first try just enabling XMP on the BIOS and see if you can boot to Windows. 

(You didn’t say that in your post so sorry for the silly question )

If you can boot to Windows, In Ryzen Master you can check what is your Infinity Fabric Speed. Confirm if it is 1900mhz. And that the timing parameters are as per the typhoon report for xmp numbers. Sometimes it does not set them as such but close.


----------



## neurotix

Here's mine with the new benchmark test

My Inter-CCX latency....can that be trusted? Guessing it's lower because I'm running synchronous 1:1 with the IMC. No idea if this is a good score for 3900X inter-CCX latency, maybe 1usmus can tell me. Also throwing up my CPU-Z with clocks + the CPU-Z bench.

















*~Omai single thread ya きもち* 

There's some variance in my bus clock but CCX 0 of CCD 0 is at 4550MHz..


----------



## Unified Supreme

Hi man, 

yeah it works with xmp, i can boot on windows, play videogames and all that, but i cant reach the Infinity Fabric Clock of 1900mhz and on the NB frequency i reach 950mhz, so what should i do next?

i´m adding the 3 attachments so you can see.

And let me tell you something curious about my RAM, as you mentioned "Your RAM is a top notch B-Die bin", they supposed to be "B-Die" but for some reason that i dont know.. they are this: 

Die Density / Count 
8 Gb D-die (Armstrong / 17 nm) / 1 die 

so now im confused.. i dont know if that specific type of die is better or worse or what.. if someone can explain.. i would appreciate it. 

so going back to reaching the infinity fabric clock thing, what can i do know ?, also someguy "gerardfraser" answered me to try the DDR4 OC Guide, but here is my main question regarding that, since i bought these ram kit, it doesn't supposed that i don´t need to mess with the whole thing of overclocking because the rams are already on the sweet spot (3800mhz; 1900mhz for Mem Clock and 1900mhz for Infinity clock, in a few words, the 1:1 ratio... the one that i´d like to reach.), and if i just need to know how to set them up instead of messing with anything that comes along with overclocking ... i know that i may need to change some values in order to set them up but not as if i would be doing OC.. or maybe yes.. i dont know guys... im confused.. let me know anything i really appreciate the help. 

Regards. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Hequaqua

neurotix said:


> Here's mine with the new benchmark test
> 
> My Inter-CCX latency....can that be trusted? Guessing it's lower because I'm running synchronous 1:1 with the IMC. No idea if this is a good score for 3900X inter-CCX latency, maybe 1usmus can tell me. Also throwing up my CPU-Z with clocks + the CPU-Z bench.
> 
> View attachment 323562
> 
> 
> View attachment 323564
> 
> 
> *~Omai single thread ya きもち*
> 
> There's some variance in my bus clock but CCX 0 of CCD 0 is at 4550MHz..


Could you share that wallpaper image? I love it! :drool:


----------



## deepor

Hequaqua said:


> Could you share that wallpaper image? I love it! :drool:



I've put the screenshot into Google Image Search, and that actually worked, it could find the source:

https://imgur.com/gallery/5ruRU7B


----------



## neurotix

Unified Supreme said:


> Hi man,
> 
> yeah it works with xmp, i can boot on windows, play videogames and all that, but i cant reach the Infinity Fabric Clock of 1900mhz and on the NB frequency i reach 950mhz, so what should i do next?
> 
> i´m adding the 3 attachments so you can see.
> 
> And let me tell you something curious about my RAM, as you mentioned "Your RAM is a top notch B-Die bin", they supposed to be "B-Die" but for some reason that i dont know.. they are this:
> 
> Die Density / Count
> 8 Gb D-die (Armstrong / 17 nm) / 1 die
> 
> so now im confused.. i dont know if that specific type of die is better or worse or what.. if someone can explain.. i would appreciate it.
> 
> so going back to reaching the infinity fabric clock thing, what can i do know ?, also someguy "gerardfraser" answered me to try the DDR4 OC Guide, but here is my main question regarding that, since i bought these ram kit, it doesn't supposed that i don´t need to mess with the whole thing of overclocking because the rams are already on the sweet spot (3800mhz; 1900mhz for Mem Clock and 1900mhz for Infinity clock, in a few words, the 1:1 ratio... the one that i´d like to reach.), and if i just need to know how to set them up instead of messing with anything that comes along with overclocking ... i know that i may need to change some values in order to set them up but not as if i would be doing OC.. or maybe yes.. i dont know guys... im confused.. let me know anything i really appreciate the help.
> 
> Regards. Thanks in advance.



Sounds like you got burned lol

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dsx1sg/how_to_setup_hynix_d_die_in_dram_calculator/

In your big Thaiphoon dump post on the last page I noticed it says the board manufacturer is Samsung but the module provider is SK Hynix and 17nm D Die requires the Hynix AFR profile. They are also 17nm as opposed to B-Die being 20nm. It is very common to get TridentZ Neos that are Hynix AFR, especially if buying a 32GB kit (dual rank). 

I took my 3200mhz c14 B-Die (Flare X) that cost $120 up to 3800mhz amd even 4266mhz. Really, there is no "set it and forget it" or "pay to win" with Ryzen memory OC :thumb: You really need to go through and set every timing and setting and voltage that Ryzen Dram Calculator gives you on the first two pages *including* all the stuff like impedances, BankGroupSwap_Alt, Memory Interleave Size etc etc and this is true even with high speed kits.

In your case you are probably having newls1's problem with your memory configuration being unable to run higher than 3733mhz in synchronous mode (Uclk:Fclk:Memclk or 1:1). Because of the strain on the IMC, it forced him to run 2:1 ratio at 3800/1900mhz Fclk and 1900 / 2 = 950Mhz. I think the same thing is happening in your case. He was running 4 sticks of 16GB memory and even manually forcing Uclk = Fclk in Advanced -> AMD Overclocking on our bios, CPU-Z and Aida still reported 950mhz Fabric Clock at 3800 until he removed 2 sticks, at which point it ran 3800/1900 in 1:1 (it fixed it). I didn't look closely at your details (e.g. Capacity, rank, number of modules) but it seems this might be happening to you too. I think newls1 has Hynix DJRs too which are similar to AFR/D-Die

Try asking globalthinker in this thread: https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1735436-hynix-17nm-djrs.html 

Who has similar memory running at 3800/1900 and aside from 3ns higher latency than me, has the same bandwidth. Try the timings they posted. I think that they are running in ratio (i.e. 1900mhz correctly) too. Or if you want a shortcut, if you are using 4 sticks try removing 2 and see if it fixes it. I can't really help you more than this though- *sorry*

The part in your Thaiphoon that caught my eye was
JEDEC Raw Card Designer: SK hynix

And obviously what you posted saying it is Hynix D-Die/AFR 17nm

The minimum reported timing for CAS etc. also says 13.750ns but my 3200 c14 B-Die gives 8.7ns for these values. 8.3ns is the ideal here according to The_Stilt in the MemTestHelper/DDR4 OC guide that was linked earlier by GerardFraser. My B-Die says 20nm and those minimum timing values for tRCD, CAS, etc all say 8.7ns but yours say 13.750ns

Also, try to go into Advanced or otherwise find the 'AMD Overclocking' section of your bios (dont know what board you have) and go through until you find something like "Uclk == Fclk Div" and set it to 1:1 manually. This is the setting you are asking about to force it.

You could also just try 3733/1866 (I'd suggest this for troubleshooting/determining whether or not it will run 1:1 this way...) with your current timings. 

Hope this gets you somewhere. Also my wifes family is Mexican so viva la Mexico, but I'll leave the political talk out  Be safe.

Hequaqua, I got the wallpaper off Reddit in r/AMD I think. It was upvoted a ton. I think I have the 3440x1440 version I'm using (21:9) and also a 16:9. I will put them up for you tomorrow, going back to watching anime atm, too lazy to upload now on my pc.

Hope this is helpful


----------



## Hequaqua

deepor said:


> I've put the screenshot into Google Image Search, and that actually worked, it could find the source:
> 
> https://imgur.com/gallery/5ruRU7B


Thanks! :thumb:


----------



## eliwankenobi

Ok so my current RAM kit is the GSkill Trident Z NEO F4-3600C16D-32GTZN. It's a 2*16GB dual rank kit.

I have a pretty good setup running at 3800mhz CL16. As per calculator, GDM is enabled. I want to disable GDM in hopes of shaving off those extra ns of latency.

Just disabling it it won't POST, or crashes when loading Windows. 

Any recommentations? Is upping voltage only thing that can be done?

Thanks in advance

EDIT: Added DRC Easy run for reference


----------



## FranZe

neurotix said:


> Here's mine with the new benchmark test
> 
> My Inter-CCX latency....can that be trusted? Guessing it's lower because I'm running synchronous 1:1 with the IMC. *No idea if this is a good score for 3900X inter-CCX latency*, maybe 1usmus can tell me. Also throwing up my CPU-Z with clocks + the CPU-Z bench.
> 
> View attachment 323562
> 
> 
> View attachment 323564
> 
> 
> *~Omai single thread ya きもち*
> 
> There's some variance in my bus clock but CCX 0 of CCD 0 is at 4550MHz..


I dont know, and i dont care so much anymore. Have been so much about the memory lately that numbers are'nt that important to me at the moment. Have lost some sparks here and there  Didnt see anyone else with 3900X post here so i did a run.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Hey

I'm almost questioning the results i am getting.. Seem to good to be true (?)

Running 4 memory sticks on a 3950x, so 3800/1900 speed are no bueno.

My setup wont even boot on 3600 "calculate safe" timings if i try to run with gear down mode disabled, but as long as i keep it enabled i can run pretty tight timings for a 4x8gigs memory setup.
Can these scores be legit ?


----------



## BLUuuE

Unified Supreme said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Hi man,
> 
> yeah it works with xmp, i can boot on windows, play videogames and all that, but i cant reach the Infinity Fabric Clock of 1900mhz and on the NB frequency i reach 950mhz, so what should i do next?
> 
> i´m adding the 3 attachments so you can see.
> 
> And let me tell you something curious about my RAM, as you mentioned "Your RAM is a top notch B-Die bin", they supposed to be "B-Die" but for some reason that i dont know.. they are this:
> 
> Die Density / Count
> 8 Gb D-die (Armstrong / 17 nm) / 1 die
> 
> so now im confused.. i dont know if that specific type of die is better or worse or what.. if someone can explain.. i would appreciate it.
> 
> so going back to reaching the infinity fabric clock thing, what can i do know ?, also someguy "gerardfraser" answered me to try the DDR4 OC Guide, but here is my main question regarding that, since i bought these ram kit, it doesn't supposed that i don´t need to mess with the whole thing of overclocking because the rams are already on the sweet spot (3800mhz; 1900mhz for Mem Clock and 1900mhz for Infinity clock, in a few words, the 1:1 ratio... the one that i´d like to reach.), and if i just need to know how to set them up instead of messing with anything that comes along with overclocking ... i know that i may need to change some values in order to set them up but not as if i would be doing OC.. or maybe yes.. i dont know guys... im confused.. let me know anything i really appreciate the help.
> 
> Regards. Thanks in advance.


The SPD is misprogrammed or Thaiphoon is misreading it. It's happened a few times on 3600 15-15-15 kits.

Check the 042 code on the label on the sticks. If it ends with 10B it's B-die.


----------



## marcelo19941

eliwankenobi said:


> Ok so my current RAM kit is the GSkill Trident Z NEO F4-3600C16D-32GTZN. It's a 2*16GB dual rank kit.
> 
> I have a pretty good setup running at 3800mhz CL16. As per calculator, GDM is enabled. I want to disable GDM in hopes of shaving off those extra ns of latency.
> 
> Just disabling it it won't POST, or crashes when loading Windows.
> 
> Any recommentations? Is upping voltage only thing that can be done?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> EDIT: Added DRC Easy run for reference


I have the same kit running at 3800 14 15 15 15 30


----------



## Dollar

domdtxdissar said:


> Hey
> 
> I'm almost questioning the results i am getting.. Seem to good to be true (?)
> 
> Running 4 memory sticks on a 3950x, so 3800/1900 speed are no bueno.
> 
> My setup wont even boot on 3600 "calculate safe" timings if i try to run with gear down mode disabled, but as long as i keep it enabled i can run pretty tight timings for a 4x8gigs memory setup.
> Can these scores be legit ?



I see you have BankGroupSwap disabled while running four sticks. The calculator and the Stilt recommended enabling it with four dimms. I'm not sure if this is still the recommendation though. My motherboard disables BGS if I leave it auto when running four sticks.



https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...vi-overclocking-thread-2069.html#post26178707


----------



## eliwankenobi

marcelo19941 said:


> I have the same kit running at 3800 14 15 15 15 30




Please do share your settings!!! What motherboard?


----------



## marcelo19941

eliwankenobi said:


> Please do share your settings!!! What motherboard?


Im using the Impact that should be a little better at mem oc than the other.


----------



## eliwankenobi

marcelo19941 said:


> Im using the Impact that should be a little better at mem oc than the other.




Ah the Impact. One of the best motherboards for memory OC. 

I have the MSI MEG Unify which has been awesome. But perhaps not as awesome as that beauty of a board! Will not stop me from trying your settings though! Enjoy dude!


----------



## Ha-Nocri

you are running 1.5V on the memory 
Is that safe?


----------



## eliwankenobi

I find that everyone that’s running 3800 at CL14 timings is doing so at 1.5V. Samsung B-Die scales CL with voltage.


----------



## Axaion

Ha-Nocri said:


> you are running 1.5V on the memory
> Is that safe?


If temps are under control thats fine for b-die

im more worried about the 1.362v to VDDCR SOC


----------



## mongoled

Hi!

KES detects the following

Event "Malicious object detected" has occurred on device xxx-PC in Windows domain xxx on Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:09:26 AM (GMT+00:00)
Result: Detected: Backdoor.Win32.Koma.a
User: xxx\xxxxx (Active user)
Object: C:\Program Files\DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.7.0\MemSpeed.exe
Reason: Expert analysis
Database release date: 04/02/2020 08:08:00
Hash: 2e71045bd826593c64509e7f572d163dfddc8f1f0bf79041b385f2da1c7809fd


----------



## marcelo19941

Axaion said:


> Ha-Nocri said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are running 1.5V on the memory /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif
> Is that safe?
> 
> 
> 
> If temps are under control thats fine for b-die
> 
> im more worried about the 1.362v to VDDCR SOC
Click to expand...

Os VDDRSOC the same as SOC? My SOC is set to 1.1V on bios


----------



## rastaviper

Unified Supreme said:


> Hi man,
> 
> yeah it works with xmp, i can boot on windows, play videogames and all that, but i cant reach the Infinity Fabric Clock of 1900mhz and on the NB frequency i reach 950mhz, so what should i do next?
> 
> i´m adding the 3 attachments so you can see.
> 
> And let me tell you something curious about my RAM, as you mentioned "Your RAM is a top notch B-Die bin", they supposed to be "B-Die" but for some reason that i dont know.. they are this:
> 
> Die Density / Count
> 8 Gb D-die (Armstrong / 17 nm) / 1 die
> 
> so now im confused.. i dont know if that specific type of die is better or worse or what.. if someone can explain.. i would appreciate it.
> 
> so going back to reaching the infinity fabric clock thing, what can i do know ?, also someguy "gerardfraser" answered me to try the DDR4 OC Guide, but here is my main question regarding that, since i bought these ram kit, it doesn't supposed that i don´t need to mess with the whole thing of overclocking because the rams are already on the sweet spot (3800mhz; 1900mhz for Mem Clock and 1900mhz for Infinity clock, in a few words, the 1:1 ratio... the one that i´d like to reach.), and if i just need to know how to set them up instead of messing with anything that comes along with overclocking ... i know that i may need to change some values in order to set them up but not as if i would be doing OC.. or maybe yes.. i dont know guys... im confused.. let me know anything i really appreciate the help.
> 
> Regards. Thanks in advance.


Only I noticed that at the photo of this poster, the NB Freq is at 9xx and not at 18xx that he claims for the 1:1 ratio?


----------



## eliwankenobi

rastaviper said:


> Only I noticed that at the photo of this poster, the NB Freq is at 9xx and not at 18xx that he claims for the 1:1 ratio?




He is not claiming to be running at 1:1 ratio with Mclk. The IMC could not boot at 1900 so it went to 1:2 ratio... so it’s running at half 1900mhz = 950mhz. It was suggested to set fclk manually to 1900 but we haven’t had any feedback yet


----------



## neurotix

mongoled said:


> Hi!
> 
> KES detects the following
> 
> Event "Malicious object detected" has occurred on device xxx-PC in Windows domain xxx on Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:09:26 AM (GMT+00:00)
> Result: Detected: Backdoor.Win32.Koma.a
> User: xxx\xxxxx (Active user)
> Object: C:\Program Files\DRAM-Calculator-for-Ryzen-1.7.0\MemSpeed.exe
> Reason: Expert analysis
> Database release date: 04/02/2020 08:08:00
> Hash: 2e71045bd826593c64509e7f572d163dfddc8f1f0bf79041b385f2da1c7809fd


This is a false positive.

Because of the way the Calculator works, and the programs with it (especially the WinRing0_x64.dll files, etc.) some AV may report a generic detection for something that isnt there.

Some people were getting these with their av and Thaiphoon as well.

If you really want to know, find a TrendMicro or Symantec removal guide or writeup on that supposed Trojan (they will call it something besides Win32.Koma) and look at the folders, registry keys etc. that the removal guide says to find. With either the Calc or Thaiphoon you will not find any of the files, folders, or keys in regedit, proving it is a false detection

The reason AV can flag it as such is because a lot of the things the programs do require running at a very low system level and are coded in ASM. Modern av tends to assume anything running in processor ring 0 is malicious.

Hope this helps


----------



## dkarDaGobert

ok this is how i get 3800 c14 20k% karhu stable at 1,47Vdimm


Spoiler



[2020/02/04 19:09:04]
Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
BCLK_Divider [Auto]
Performance Enhancer [Level 3 (OC)]
CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
Performance Bias [Auto]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
SMT Mode [Auto]
TPU [Keep Current Settings]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Enabled]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [10]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [22]
Trc [36]
TrrdS [4]
TrrdL [4]
Tfaw [16]
TwtrS [3]
TwtrL [8]
Twr [10]
Trcpage [Auto]
TrdrdScl [2]
TwrwrScl [2]
Trfc [247]
Trfc2 [192]
Trfc4 [132]
Tcwl [14]
Trtp [8]
Trdwr [8]
Twrrd [2]
TwrwrSc [1]
TwrwrSd [6]
TwrwrDd [6]
TrdrdSc [1]
TrdrdSd [4]
TrdrdDd [4]
Tcke [1]
ProcODT [40 ohm]
Cmd2T [1T]
Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
Power Down Enable [Disabled]
RttNom [RZQ/7]
RttWr [RZQ/3]
RttPark [RZQ/1]
MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
MemCkeSetup [Auto]
MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
CPU Current Capability [140%]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
Manual Adjustment [Fast]
DRAM Current Capability [130%]
DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.47000]
VTTDDR Voltage [0.73750]
VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [0.50000]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [0.50000]
VDDP Voltage [Auto]
1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
PLL reference voltage [Auto]
T Offset [Auto]
Sense MI Skew [Enabled]
Sense MI Offset [Auto]
Promontory presence [Auto]
Clock Amplitude [Normal]
CLDO VDDP voltage [900]
CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
- CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.05000]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
DRAM Voltage [1.47000]
CLDO VDDG voltage [0.970]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
Firmware TPM [Disable]
Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Disabled]
PSS Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
Onboard LED [Disabled]
Q-Code LED Function [Disabled after POST]
SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
SATA Mode [AHCI]
NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
Hot Plug [Disabled]
HD Audio Controller [Disabled]
M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX8/X4_2 Mode [Auto]
PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
SB Link Mode [Auto]
Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
When system is in working state [Off]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Off]
Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Enable(S4+S5)]
Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
Device [WDC WD80EFAX-68LHPN0]
Legacy USB Support [Disabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
U31G1_1 [Enabled]
U31G1_2 [Enabled]
U31G1_3 [Enabled]
U31G1_4 [Enabled]
U31G1_5 [Enabled]
U31G1_6 [Enabled]
U31G1_7 [Enabled]
U31G1_8 [Enabled]
U31G1_9 [Enabled]
U31G1_10 [Enabled]
USB11 [Enabled]
USB12 [Enabled]
USB13 [Enabled]
USB14 [Enabled]
USB15 [Enabled]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
PCH Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [3.8 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [5.1 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [5.1 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Silent]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [5.1 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
PSPP Policy [Auto]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
POST Report [3 sec]
Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
ASUS Grid Install Service [Disabled]
Load from Profile [5]
Profile Name [test]
Save to Profile [5]
CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
BCLK Frequency [Auto]
CPU Ratio [Auto]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
Core Performance Boost [Auto]
Global C-state Control [Enabled]
DRAM ECC Enable [Disabled]
DRAM scrub time [Auto]
Poison scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
Memory interleaving [Auto]
Memory interleaving size [512 Bytes]
1TB remap [Auto]
DRAM map inversion [Auto]
ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
GMI encryption control [Auto]
xGMI encryption control [Auto]
CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
Disable DF to external IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
Memory Clear [Disabled]
Overclock [Enabled]
Memory Clock Speed [1900MHz]
Tcl [Auto]
Trcdrd [Auto]
Trcdwr [Auto]
Trp [Auto]
Tras [Auto]
Trc Ctrl [Auto]
TrrdS [Auto]
TrrdL [Auto]
Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
TwtrS [Auto]
TwtrL [Auto]
Twr Ctrl [Auto]
Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
Tcwl [Auto]
Trtp [Auto]
Tcke [Auto]
Trdwr [Auto]
Twrrd [Auto]
TwrwrSc [Auto]
TwrwrSd [Auto]
TwrwrDd [Auto]
TrdrdSc [Auto]
TrdrdSd [Auto]
TrdrdDd [Auto]
ProcODT [Auto]
Power Down Enable [Auto]
Cmd2T [Auto]
Gear Down Mode [Auto]
CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
Data Poisoning [Auto]
DRAM Post Package Repair [Disable]
RCD Parity [Auto]
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
Write CRC Enable [Auto]
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
TSME [Auto]
Data Scramble [Auto]
DFE Read Training [Enable]
FFE Write Training [Enable]
PMU Pattern Bits Control [Manual]
PMU Pattern Bits [a]
MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
BankGroupSwap [Enabled]
BankGroupSwapAlt [Disabled]
Address Hash Bank [Auto]
Address Hash CS [Auto]
Address Hash Rm [Auto]
SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
MBIST Enable [Enabled]
MBIST Test Mode [Both]
MBIST Aggressors [Auto]
MBIST Per Bit Slave Die Reporting [Auto]
Pattern Select [PRBS]
Pattern Length [3]
Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
IOMMU [Disabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
UCLK DIV1 MODE [UCLK==MEMCLK]
VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled]
LN2 Mode [Disabled]
ACS Enable [Auto]
PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
Max Voltage Offset [Auto]
cTDP Control [Auto]
EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
APBDIS [1]
DF Cstates [Enabled]
Fixed SOC Pstate [P0]
CPPC [Enabled]
CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
BoostFmaxEn [Auto]
Early Link Speed [Auto]


any ideas what to change if i try to get GDM disabled working?
Tried to loose timings to CL16, TRFC300 and set Vdimm up to 1,54V but wont boot at all. does it need other procodt/CAD-values higher vddg or what settings are needed to be changed?
any tipps welcome


----------



## domdtxdissar

dkarDaGobert said:


> ok this is how i get 3800 c14 20k% karhu stable at 1,47Vdimm
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> [2020/02/04 19:09:04]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> BCLK_Divider [Auto]
> Performance Enhancer [Level 3 (OC)]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Enabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Enabled]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [Auto]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Read Delay [15]
> DRAM RAS# to CAS# Write Delay [10]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [22]
> Trc [36]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [4]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [3]
> TwtrL [8]
> Twr [10]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [2]
> TwrwrScl [2]
> Trfc [247]
> Trfc2 [192]
> Trfc4 [132]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [2]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [6]
> TwrwrDd [6]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [4]
> TrdrdDd [4]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [40 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Disabled]
> RttNom [RZQ/7]
> RttWr [RZQ/3]
> RttPark [RZQ/1]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> CPU Current Capability [140%]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> CPU Voltage Frequency [400]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Ultra Fast]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 3]
> VDDSOC Current Capability [140%]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed VDDSOC Switching Frequency(KHz) [500]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Power Phase Response]
> Manual Adjustment [Fast]
> DRAM Current Capability [130%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Manual]
> Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency(KHz) [400]
> DRAM VBoot Voltage [1.47000]
> VTTDDR Voltage [0.73750]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [2.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [0.50000]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [0.50000]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 2.5V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Enabled]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Normal]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [900]
> CPU Core Voltage [Offset mode]
> CPU Offset Mode Sign [-]
> - CPU Core Voltage Offset [0.05000]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual mode]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.47000]
> CLDO VDDG voltage [0.970]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 1.05V SB Voltage [Auto]
> Firmware TPM [Disable]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Disabled]
> PSS Support [Auto]
> SVM Mode [Enabled]
> Onboard LED [Disabled]
> Q-Code LED Function [Disabled after POST]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Enabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Disabled]
> M.2_2 PCIe Bandwidth Configuration [Auto]
> PCIEX16/X8_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX8/X4_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX4_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> Asmedia USB 3.1 Controller [Enabled]
> USB Type C Power Switch [Auto]
> When system is in working state [Off]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Off]
> Intel LAN Controller [Enabled]
> Intel LAN OPROM [Disabled]
> ErP Ready [Enable(S4+S5)]
> Restore On AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E/PCI [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [WDC WD80EFAX-68LHPN0]
> Legacy USB Support [Disabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> U31G2_EC3 [Enabled]
> U31G2_EA2 [Enabled]
> U31G2_E1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_1 [Enabled]
> U31G1_2 [Enabled]
> U31G1_3 [Enabled]
> U31G1_4 [Enabled]
> U31G1_5 [Enabled]
> U31G1_6 [Enabled]
> U31G1_7 [Enabled]
> U31G1_8 [Enabled]
> U31G1_9 [Enabled]
> U31G1_10 [Enabled]
> USB11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> USB14 [Enabled]
> USB15 [Enabled]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> PCH Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor1 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor2 Temperature [Monitor]
> EXT_Sensor3 Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> HAMP Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> AIO_PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Extension Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> W_FLOW Speed [Monitor]
> W_IN Temperature [Monitor]
> W_OUT Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> CPU Fan Smoothing Up/Down Time [3.8 sec]
> CPU Fan Speed Lower Limit [200 RPM]
> CPU Fan Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
> Chassis Fan 1 Smoothing Up/Down Time [5.1 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Silent]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Smoothing Up/Down Time [5.1 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Silent]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [MotherBoard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Smoothing Up/Down Time [5.1 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Silent]
> HAMP Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Extension Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Extension Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Extension Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO_PUMP/W_PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
> PSPP Policy [Auto]
> Fast Boot [Disabled]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Boot Logo Display [Disabled]
> POST Report [3 sec]
> Boot up NumLock State [Enabled]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Enabled]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> ASUS Grid Install Service [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [5]
> Profile Name [test]
> Save to Profile [5]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> VDDSOC Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> BCLK Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Ratio [Auto]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16/X8_1]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Enable]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Enabled]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Disabled]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [512 Bytes]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> Disable DF to external IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Disabled]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [1900MHz]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Disable]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Enable]
> FFE Write Training [Enable]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Manual]
> PMU Pattern Bits [a]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Enabled]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Disabled]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Enabled]
> MBIST Test Mode [Both]
> MBIST Aggressors [Auto]
> MBIST Per Bit Slave Die Reporting [Auto]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length [3]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Disabled]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [UCLK==MEMCLK]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Enabled]
> LN2 Mode [Disabled]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> Max Voltage Offset [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [1]
> DF Cstates [Enabled]
> Fixed SOC Pstate [P0]
> CPPC [Enabled]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Enabled]
> BoostFmaxEn [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> 
> 
> any ideas what to change if i try to get GDM disabled working?
> Tried to loose timings to CL16, TRFC300 and set Vdimm up to 1,54V but wont boot at all. does it need other procodt/CAD-values higher vddg or what settings are needed to be changed?
> any tipps welcome


Pretty close to mine settings in post #6638 and pretty much exactly the same question


----------



## Nighthog

dkarDaGobert said:


> ok this is how i get 3800 c14 20k% karhu stable at 1,47Vdimm
> 
> any ideas what to change if i try to get GDM disabled working?
> Tried to loose timings to CL16, TRFC300 and set Vdimm up to 1,54V but wont boot at all. does it need other procodt/CAD-values higher vddg or what settings are needed to be changed?
> any tipps welcome


CAD_BUS ClkDrv might need to be increased. 
SoC voltage might be needed to increase. Though between 1.100-1.150V.

VDDP & VDDG needs to be set manually for optimal values. ~900-1000V for 1900FCLK.

Micron Rev.E need 60-120Ohm ClkDrv, depends on motherboard & kits. 
SoC voltage needs to increase for the increased load. stock below 1.100V usually isn't enough. You increase it manually or use LLC, whatever you prefer. 

Just what I found my Rev.E needed different to normal operation for this to be stable.
ClkDrv needs to be 60Ohm to even boot GDM:disabled & SoC for stability.


----------



## Paps.pt

I have a MSI B450 Tomahawk Max, a Ryzen 3600 and 16gb Ddr4 3200 CL16 ballistix LT ram.
Is this really worth using? What I mean is: does the performance gain compensate the spent on this fine tuning? What kind of performance gain can one expect?
Cheers


----------



## Korennya

@1usmus The calculator 1.7.0 on the MEMbench page is always showing the BGS as disabled and BGS alt as enabled regardless of which why i have the setting set in the bios. Currently its set as enabled, yet showing disabled in the calc. Running bios 6301 and a 1600x on a C6H.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Nighthog said:


> CAD_BUS ClkDrv might need to be increased.
> SoC voltage might be needed to increase. Though between 1.100-1.150V.
> 
> VDDP & VDDG needs to be set manually for optimal values. ~900-1000V for 1900FCLK.
> 
> Micron Rev.E need 60-120Ohm ClkDrv, depends on motherboard & kits.
> SoC voltage needs to increase for the increased load. stock below 1.100V usually isn't enough. You increase it manually or use LLC, whatever you prefer.
> 
> Just what I found my Rev.E needed different to normal operation for this to be stable.
> ClkDrv needs to be 60Ohm to even boot GDM:disabled & SoC for stability.


Tried everything you suggested, but my 4x 8gig system just don't want to boot with GDM:disabled it seems.
Got further with ClkDrv 120 Ohm then ive ever been before in the boot-cycle, but still no sigar 

Cant even boot at 3400/1700 settings with gear down mode disabled, so i'm starting to wonder if there is somekind of a bug/problem in the newest bios for asus crosshair viii hero when you have 32 gigs of ram


----------



## Synoxia

Are we simply going to forget the fact that @gerardfraser claimed to be able to hit 1933 fclk on THREE different ryzen 3000 cpus? Anyone else experimented and succeded? I just can't. 07 postcode on asus board. With BCLK the highest i've posted is 1926.



Nighthog said:


> CAD_BUS ClkDrv might need to be increased.
> SoC voltage might be needed to increase. Though between 1.100-1.150V.
> 
> VDDP & VDDG needs to be set manually for optimal values. ~900-1000V for 1900FCLK.
> 
> Micron Rev.E need 60-120Ohm ClkDrv, depends on motherboard & kits.
> SoC voltage needs to increase for the increased load. stock below 1.100V usually isn't enough. You increase it manually or use LLC, whatever you prefer.
> 
> Just what I found my Rev.E needed different to normal operation for this to be stable.
> ClkDrv needs to be 60Ohm to even boot GDM:disabled & SoC for stability.


I am wondering how does one find to be stable on the FCLK. 

I can post 1926 with bclk as said before, but with 1900 i had some crashes when running AC odyssey + HCI memtest overnight... i dont know if im stable or not 
If i do HCI alone i am 2000%+ stable


----------



## gerardfraser

Synoxia said:


> Are we simply going to forget the fact that @gerardfraser claimed to be able to hit 1933 fclk on THREE different ryzen 3000 cpus? Anyone else experimented and succeded? I just can't. 07 postcode on asus board. With BCLK the highest i've posted is 1926.


I will be buying a fourth CPU a AMD Ryzen 3900X ,just waiting for a good price on a used one.Should be same results as all the others,I get why people want to have higher FCLK,not sure why people are fascinated with 1900Mhz/1933Mhz FCLK,in reality it does not make a difference in anything.


----------



## Synoxia

gerardfraser said:


> I will be buying a fourth CPU a AMD Ryzen 3900X ,just waiting for a good price on a used one.Should be same results as all the others,I get why people want to have higher FCLK,not sure why people are fascinated with 1900Mhz/1933Mhz FCLK,in reality it does not make a difference in anything.


Did you do it on the same motherboard or a different one? Difference between 1900 and 1800 is also small, but people are on overclock.net even for those 2% and 3% gains D:


----------



## gerardfraser

Well all the same MSI X470 Gaming Plus motherboard,I have yet to find any advantage with higher FCLK when you have tuned memory timings,there is no difference. I only play games and provided lots of test with FCLK 1467Mhz vs FCLK 1933Mhz with tuned memory timings even @ 1080p in games ,there is no difference and easy for people to test. If there is a difference ,it is probably margin of error ,just my opinion.


----------



## bluechris

eliwankenobi said:


> I find that everyone that’s running 3800 at CL14 timings is doing so at 1.5V. Samsung B-Die scales CL with voltage.


Im also at 1.5v with 4x16gb bdies at cl14 3733mhz with very low temps but i have a fan on the memories. I can reach 3800 with the 4 sticks but i need 1.53v at least.


----------



## weleh

Hey guys I need some help.

I have a kit of HyperX Predator, they are CJR but they are different than the one 1usmus' guide.
I used several presets namely the 3600CL16 and now 3467CL16 preset.

The 3600CL16 preset gives errors at around the 30min mark, I've tested 1.4 and 1.42V DRAM voltage. SoC VDDR was around 1.10v I think...
The 3467CL16 preset gave 1 error at around 30min mark, and then did two other cycles and no errors. Then I stopped and went to bed. Voltages were 1.4V on DRAM and 1.10 VDDR.
I'm now trying 3467CL16 with 1.41V DRAM and 1.05VDDR. 

All of this on mem5 extreme profile by anta777.

I can boot at 3733CL16 but if I can't make anything else stable no point trying this and also I'm assuming even 3600Mhz is already pushing the memory controller to it's limits on Ryzen.

CPU isn't OC'ed. 

Setup is R5 2600, Asus Prime mATX B450M-A, RX580 Nitro+

So I am here humbly asking for help to know what else I can do, I would love 3600CL16 at least because it's definitely the best profiles in terms of permorance and also why isn't there a 3500CL16?

Anyway, thanks for the help


----------



## eliwankenobi

bluechris said:


> Im also at 1.5v with 4x16gb bdies at cl14 3733mhz with very low temps but i have a fan on the memories. I can reach 3800 with the 4 sticks but i need 1.53v at least.




3733mhz at CL14 with 64gb is nuts! I think the motherboard sees that as a Quad Rank setup basically, which would be super hard on the IMC (at those speeds) but you should have good latency numbers. 
How are your subtimings?


----------



## ambivalence_ru

hey there 

how do you think is it worth selling 16x2 [email protected] dual-rank b-dies (got them working at [email protected] 1T+GearDown with 1.4v on 2700) to get that AES microns [email protected]? I heard that they overclocks well enough too + they should be cheaper. btw, I got them for 200 bucks and I don't know if it was good deal or not. if you think it's a good swap, what's the price I should ask for them? uploaded info from the thaiphoon export.

also the thing is that I don't really know how good my set would be on the 3000-series. I've read somewhere that 3400 is maximum for DR b-dies. is it relevant only for zen+?


----------



## Valka814

Hey guys!

I just switched from 2700 to 3700X and my RAM no longer stable. BSOD pretty fast...what settings should I look into? Sadly, the calculator settings dont help now.


----------



## marcelo19941

ambivalence_ru said:


> hey there
> 
> how do you think is it worth selling 16x2 [email protected] dual-rank b-dies (got them working at [email protected] 1T+GearDown with 1.4v on 2700) to get that AES microns [email protected]? I heard that they overclocks well enough too + they should be cheaper. btw, I got them for 200 bucks and I don't know if it was good deal or not. if you think it's a good swap, what's the price I should ask for them? uploaded info from the thaiphoon export.
> 
> also the thing is that I don't really know how good my set would be on the 3000-series. I've read somewhere that 3400 is maximum for DR b-dies. is it relevant only for zen+?


I can run my DR b-die at 3800 on my 3950x


----------



## zenuser

bluechris said:


> Im also at 1.5v with 4x16gb bdies at cl14 3733mhz with very low temps but i have a fan on the memories. I can reach 3800 with the 4 sticks but i need 1.53v at least.


Are those dual-rank sticks?


----------



## Nighthog

weleh said:


> Hey guys I need some help.
> 
> I have a kit of HyperX Predator, they are CJR but they are different than the one 1usmus' guide.
> I used several presets namely the 3600CL16 and now 3467CL16 preset.
> 
> The 3600CL16 preset gives errors at around the 30min mark, I've tested 1.4 and 1.42V DRAM voltage. SoC VDDR was around 1.10v I think...
> The 3467CL16 preset gave 1 error at around 30min mark, and then did two other cycles and no errors. Then I stopped and went to bed. Voltages were 1.4V on DRAM and 1.10 VDDR.
> I'm now trying 3467CL16 with 1.41V DRAM and 1.05VDDR.
> 
> All of this on mem5 extreme profile by anta777.
> 
> I can boot at 3733CL16 but if I can't make anything else stable no point trying this and also I'm assuming even 3600Mhz is already pushing the memory controller to it's limits on Ryzen.
> 
> CPU isn't OC'ed.
> 
> Setup is R5 2600, Asus Prime mATX B450M-A, RX580 Nitro+
> 
> So I am here humbly asking for help to know what else I can do, I would love 3600CL16 at least because it's definitely the best profiles in terms of permorance and also why isn't there a 3500CL16?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the help


I would guess you need more SoC voltage. 1.100V is low for these speeds on Ryzen 2000.


----------



## bluechris

eliwankenobi said:


> 3733mhz at CL14 with 64gb is nuts! I think the motherboard sees that as a Quad Rank setup basically, which would be super hard on the IMC (at those speeds) but you should have good latency numbers.
> How are your subtimings?


naah im at 64+ mostly... i need to try to tighten the timings but i didnt found the time yet
https://www.overclock.net/forum/28258012-post5318.html


----------



## 2600ryzen

weleh said:


> Hey guys I need some help.
> 
> I have a kit of HyperX Predator, they are CJR but they are different than the one 1usmus' guide.
> I used several presets namely the 3600CL16 and now 3467CL16 preset.
> 
> The 3600CL16 preset gives errors at around the 30min mark, I've tested 1.4 and 1.42V DRAM voltage. SoC VDDR was around 1.10v I think...
> The 3467CL16 preset gave 1 error at around 30min mark, and then did two other cycles and no errors. Then I stopped and went to bed. Voltages were 1.4V on DRAM and 1.10 VDDR.
> I'm now trying 3467CL16 with 1.41V DRAM and 1.05VDDR.
> 
> All of this on mem5 extreme profile by anta777.
> 
> I can boot at 3733CL16 but if I can't make anything else stable no point trying this and also I'm assuming even 3600Mhz is already pushing the memory controller to it's limits on Ryzen.
> 
> CPU isn't OC'ed.
> 
> Setup is R5 2600, Asus Prime mATX B450M-A, RX580 Nitro+
> 
> So I am here humbly asking for help to know what else I can do, I would love 3600CL16 at least because it's definitely the best profiles in terms of permorance and also why isn't there a 3500CL16?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the help



Probably your 2600 IMC limiting you here, I would just focus on getting 3466-3400mhz stable.


----------



## gerardfraser

weleh said:


> Anyway, thanks for the help


I am not saying stop trying to overclock your Ram but I am saying,no need to bother.Your setup will get the same performance from DDR4 3200Mhz or DDR4 3600Mhz 
Set your Ram to 3200Mhz and tune your timings.That is your best bet for the best performance with your setup.PC gaming and applications will have the same performance.
Especially with AMD 2600 and RX580.


----------



## Nighthog

Finally a AIDA64 score in full for my 3800Mhz results.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Nighthog said:


> Finally a AIDA64 score in full for my 3800Mhz results.


Very interesting 🧐 

Could you share other settings? Are you using that fixed frequency for CPU 4.575?


----------



## Nighthog

eliwankenobi said:


> Very interesting 🧐
> 
> Could you share other settings? Are you using that fixed frequency for CPU 4.575?


EDC = 1 bug utilized. It's the clock AIDA64 usually goes with my current settings running this benchmark. 
Works remarkably well on mine 3800X. Which is a bottom bin 3800X that otherwise does 1900FCLK. This sample needs lots of voltage to perform. 

The only worse samples around is one that can't do 1900FCLK basically. They would risk to be binned as 3700X otherwise. Nowhere close to a good sample.


----------



## gerardfraser

AMD 3800X with EDC Tweak
FCLK 1933Mhz 62.4ns by gerard fraser, on Flickr

AMD 3800X ALL Core 4500Mhz


----------



## weleh

At the moment this is my 3200CL14 stable configuration.
So you guys reckon not worth the hassle of finding something inbetween?


----------



## gerardfraser

@weleh
If you game on your PC with AMD 2600 and RX580 there will be no difference in PC gaming ,you have the best Ram you can put in there.Even by a miracle you could run DDR4 CL14 3800Mhz ram there still will be no difference ,other than margin of error .
Of course I could spam a bunch of 2600X/3600X/3800X benchmarks from 2133Mhz to 4000Mhz Ram that show no difference in PC gaming .If you have lets say [email protected] and a 2080Ti and play at 720p/1080p low/med/ settings then you you gain some FPS. 

EG: here 4 games with 2933Mhz vs 3866Mhz @ 1080p no difference.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...-clock-1933mhz-ddr4-3866mhz-couple-games.html


----------



## marcelo19941

Finally learning to tame this 32Gb kit! Damn harder than my 16Gb


----------



## eliwankenobi

marcelo19941 said:


> Finally learning to tame this 32Gb kit! Damn harder than my 16Gb




Congrats dude! Great results!


----------



## jcpq

Good Morning.
I upgraded to x570.
Using the same settings on the ram, I now have lower write values ​​on aida64.
it's normal?


----------



## Roboionator

Hi can someone help me overclock my RAM.. i tried to overclock with RAM calculator multiple times with no succes only thing that works is XMP. Some suggestions.
Ram F4-3600C16-16GTZN 32gb, MB X570 Master F12b, CPU 3950X Stock
Thank you


----------



## BakedPizza

I have difficulties determining the Memory type from Thaiphoon. It's an old Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200C16 (2x8GB) kit. 

Manufacturing description is mostly empty. But Micron Technology is mentioned for the _JEDEC Raw Card Designer_ property. Does this make it Micron? If so, what die type?


----------



## BLUuuE

BakedPizza said:


> I have difficulties determining the Memory type from Thaiphoon. It's an old Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200C16 (2x8GB) kit.
> 
> Manufacturing description is mostly empty. But Micron Technology is mentioned for the _JEDEC Raw Card Designer_ property. Does this make it Micron? If so, what die type?


What's the version number on the label on the sticks?


----------



## nyichiban

Can anyone let me know which one to choose for this memory? Which of the Hynix am I supposed to choose? These are the F4-3200C16Q-128GTZN kits. Thanks!


----------



## nyichiban

nyichiban said:


> Can anyone let me know which one to choose for this memory? Which of the Hynix am I supposed to choose? These are the F4-3200C16Q-128GTZN kits. Thanks!


NVM found the type from the part number. Sorry!


----------



## Hequaqua

nyichiban said:


> Can anyone let me know which one to choose for this memory? Which of the Hynix am I supposed to choose? These are the F4-3200C16Q-128GTZN kits. Thanks!


I believe that's CJR.


----------



## nyichiban

Hequaqua said:


> I believe that's CJR.


Yup it's CJR! Now lets see how high this can OC.


----------



## BakedPizza

BLUuuE said:


> What's the version number on the label on the sticks?


Version 4.24.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Roboionator said:


> Hi can someone help me overclock my RAM.. i tried to overclock with RAM calculator multiple times with no succes only thing that works is XMP. Some suggestions.
> 
> Ram F4-3600C16-16GTZN 32gb, MB X570 Master F12b, CPU 3950X Stock
> 
> Thank you




Hello, I have the same kit as you. Check that booting with XMP profile works OK and that You have stability with full pass of MemTest. Always try that first as XMP is overclocking and you want to make sure that’s fine first.

Check if you can boot with 1900mhz FCLK in 1:1:1 ratio with UCLK and MEMCLK. Change your RAM to 3800 mhz. Set the timings loose, like 19-19-19-38. Set DRAM voltage to 1.4 and SoC voltage to 1.1. Make sure FCLK, and UCLK are set to 1900mhz. The rest leave at AUTO. Confirm that it boots fine and you can get ti Windows etc..

Then enter numbers suggested to you by DRAM clac. They worked for me as is, I later tuned them further little by little. 

Instead of Fast, try the Safe numbers first. 
Try setting timings, DRAM voltage of 1.4 and NB SOC voltage of 1.1. as per the calculator. Leave everything else on AUTO. The motherboard should be able to set the rest automatically.

If it boots OK do the same with Fast setting. If it’s OK and stable, the change Those AUTO settings a section at a time and test if you get performance increases and still has stability.


----------



## BLUuuE

BakedPizza said:


> Version 4.24.


4.24 = Samsung 4Gb E-die


----------



## BakedPizza

BLUuuE said:


> 4.24 = Samsung 4Gb E-die


Thanks I assumed the same earlier but I'm unable to boot on safe settings. Bad luck I guess. XMP it is for this ram.


----------



## Animeleptic

New Best Time ?


----------



## overpower

First a quick question. Changing pafegile can change the benchmark? Which is better pagefile, 1st screenshot or 2nd? The only thing different between them is pagefile.

Now for the 2nd and 3rd screenshots. I increased mhz to 3133, I got better speed but more latency. Which is better of the two for gaming? 

Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3000C15


----------



## neurotix

Animeleptic said:


> New Best Time ?



lol?

Edit: Wait thats good for 3950x











overpower said:


> First a quick question. Changing pafegile can change the benchmark? Which is better pagefile, 1st screenshot or 2nd? The only thing different between them is pagefile.
> 
> Now for the 2nd and 3rd screenshots. I increased mhz to 3133, I got better speed but more latency. Which is better of the two for gaming?
> 
> Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3000C15



For 3133 did you set Fclk to half that (1566mhz?) ? It looks like you didn't... latency is so much higher because the memory is asynchronous with the bus This incurs a high latency penalty, similar to what the screenshot shows.

If you cant manually change it then yeah, 2nd is better for gaming.


----------



## gerardfraser

overpower said:


> First a quick question. Changing pafegile can change the benchmark? Which is better pagefile, 1st screenshot or 2nd? The only thing different between them is pagefile.
> 
> Now for the 2nd and 3rd screenshots. I increased mhz to 3133, I got better speed but more latency. Which is better of the two for gaming?
> 
> Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3000C15


The will be no difference in gaming really,set tight ram timings and you will be fine,also the is no FCLK to adjust on your CPU like neurotix suggested.


----------



## Roboionator

eliwankenobi said:


> Hello, I have the same kit as you. Check that booting with XMP profile works OK and that You have stability with full pass of MemTest. Always try that first as XMP is overclocking and you want to make sure that’s fine first.


thank you 
All ok after, 8hr,mem test..now next..


----------



## overpower

gerardfraser said:


> The will be no difference in gaming really,set tight ram timings and you will be fine,also the is no FCLK to adjust on your CPU like neurotix suggested.


So changing bclk wont work, right? Using crosshair 6 hero


----------



## gerardfraser

overpower said:


> So changing bclk wont work, right? Using crosshair 6 hero


Changing BCLK can give you higher CPU clock and higher Ram speed but still will not make a real difference in gaming. Tune your Ram timings for best results for gaming,especially with your setup.


BF5 and GTAV at 1920x1080 with Ram 2933Mhz vs Ram 3866Mhz


Spoiler











RDR2 and Sleeping dogs 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 with Ram 2933Mhz vs Ram 3866Mhz


Spoiler


----------



## Animeleptic

neurotix said:


> lol?
> 
> Edit: Wait thats good for 3950x
> 
> View attachment 326194


Arent you suppose to run *Default *instead of *Easy *in Membench if you have more than 8GB of RAM ?


----------



## overpower

gerardfraser said:


> Changing BCLK can give you higher CPU clock and higher Ram speed but still will not make a real difference in gaming. Tune your Ram timings for best results for gaming,especially with your setup.
> 
> 
> BF5 and GTAV at 1920x1080 with Ram 2933Mhz vs Ram 3866Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cav4_-g6nfI&t=0s
> 
> 
> 
> RDR2 and Sleeping dogs 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 with Ram 2933Mhz vs Ram 3866Mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt-ui15zAZ8&t=0s


I meant if bclk is the same a fclk since i cant find any option to tune it so it would be ram speed/2

And I;m not able to find something on google, even if it's not possible


----------



## gerardfraser

overpower said:


> I meant if bclk is the same a fclk since i cant find any option to tune it so it would be ram speed/2
> 
> And I;m not able to find something on google, even if it's not possible


You can not adjust FCLK on your Ryzen CPU from BIOS as I replied to you before. You can adjust memory speed which is 1:1 with FCLK speed but as I said if by a miracle you could run DDR4 3800Mhz then there still would not be any real difference. 
Bclk is not synced 1:1 to FCLK. Ram is /2 for FCLK
Your best results would be to tune Ram for gaming,so tighten ram setting from XMP profile.


----------



## Roboionator

eliwankenobi said:


> Check if you can boot with 1900mhz FCLK in 1:1:1 ratio with UCLK and MEMCLK. Change your RAM to 3800 mhz. Set the timings loose, like 19-19-19-38. Set DRAM voltage to 1.4 and SoC voltage to 1.1. Make sure FCLK, and UCLK are set to 1900mhz. The rest leave at AUTO. Confirm that it boots fine and you can get ti Windows etc..


huh no go every time set ram to stock, you mean SoC voltage to 1.1 is in bios PM1_VSOC?


----------



## FranZe

Animeleptic said:


> New Best Time ?



Dont know for the 3950X, but here's mine 3900X on a default run


----------



## xamphear

Roboionator said:


> Hi can someone help me overclock my RAM.. i tried to overclock with RAM calculator multiple times with no succes only thing that works is XMP. Some suggestions.
> Ram F4-3600C16-16GTZN 32gb, MB X570 Master F12b, CPU 3950X Stock
> Thank you


I have this same exact RAM and I couldn't get it to work on Safe or Fast either. (MSI X570 Unify board, 3950X chip) Works fine at stock or XMP, just like you. I wondered if maybe G.Skill binned the RAM so well that if it had been able to go higher, they'd have sold it as faster memory at a higher price. I gave up on it, but I'm still following this thread, so if you do manage to figure out timings that work, please post about your success.


----------



## marcelo19941

xamphear said:


> I have this same exact RAM and I couldn't get it to work on Safe or Fast either. (MSI X570 Unify board, 3950X chip) Works fine at stock or XMP, just like you. I wondered if maybe G.Skill binned the RAM so well that if it had been able to go higher, they'd have sold it as faster memory at a higher price. I gave up on it, but I'm still following this thread, so if you do manage to figure out timings that work, please post about your success.


I have the same kit and at the first time i tried it it was awful, but then i tried the calculator using typhoon burner and from the initial setup i tried chancing other timings and it got better


----------



## eliwankenobi

Roboionator said:


> huh no go every time set ram to stock, you mean SoC voltage to 1.1 is in bios PM1_VSOC?



Yes SoC voltage 1.1. PM1_VSOC leave at Auto as well as the rest of the subtimings and everything else other than the previously said settings. The motherboard should be able to set those values to something that would allow to boot and tweak from there. If you can’t boot at all, it may be that your chip can’t do 1900mhz FCLK. At which point 3733mhz would be next step, and you can then tweak for tight timings which should be little difficult to get something like cl14 timings. You have a good B-die kit

As @gerardfraiser has demonstrated, super tight timings are king when it comes to gaming performance.


----------



## eliwankenobi

xamphear said:


> I have this same exact RAM and I couldn't get it to work on Safe or Fast either. (MSI X570 Unify board, 3950X chip) Works fine at stock or XMP, just like you. I wondered if maybe G.Skill binned the RAM so well that if it had been able to go higher, they'd have sold it as faster memory at a higher price. I gave up on it, but I'm still following this thread, so if you do manage to figure out timings that work, please post about your success.




I also own a Unify. For MSI boards it’s easier. Use the Memory Try It feature. Select the 3800mhz cl18. It sets everything necessary for a successful boot and then tweak from there leaving the Memory Try It ON. That’s how I got down to 3800 CL16 timings going relatively easy. 

That B-Die bin is very good. DRC classifies it with over 90% potential to achieve over 4000 mhz. If you can’t boot with MEMORY TRY IT. Could be your chip can’t do 1900 fclk either. But try going down until you find one that works and tweak from there.


----------



## Animeleptic

FranZe said:


> Dont know for the 3950X, but here's mine 3900X on a default run


Thats very good. I notice your running GDM disabled so I am assuming your running only two sticks of RAM. Im running 4 sticks with GDM Enabled, can only run 3600 with GDM disabled with 4 sticks. GDM disabled will bench faster than GDM Enabled when stable, no errors.


----------



## Roboionator

eliwankenobi said:


> Yes SoC voltage 1.1. PM1_VSOC leave at Auto as well as the rest of the subtimings and everything else other than the previously said settings. The motherboard should be able to set those values to something that would allow to boot and tweak from there. If you can’t boot at all, it may be that your chip can’t do 1900mhz FCLK. At which point 3733mhz would be next step, and you can then tweak for tight timings which should be little difficult to get something like cl14 timings. You have a good B-die kit


Next step was 3733mhz but no go than last night overwrite bios still no go, I reset MB clear cmos and try oc with ryzen master just ram. RAM 1,41V, SOC 1,1V Memory clock 1900mhz and coupled mode ON and live timings auto all and pc boot, with high timings, ok,...then i test with aida64 memory benchmark - ok,....than i go with timings step by step to CL16 and work, but i think i need to set up timings from calculator to get better performance, I will tray tonight.

How influence high soc and other voltage o temp cpu, not cpu voltage, just wonder?


----------



## rastaviper

eliwankenobi said:


> I also own a Unify. For MSI boards it’s easier. Use the Memory Try It feature. Select the 3800mhz cl18. It sets everything necessary for a successful boot and then tweak from there leaving the Memory Try It ON. That’s how I got down to 3800 CL16 timings going relatively easy.
> 
> That B-Die bin is very good. DRC classifies it with over 90% potential to achieve over 4000 mhz. If you can’t boot with MEMORY TRY IT. Could be your chip can’t do 1900 fclk either. But try going down until you find one that works and tweak from there.


Why are u promoting 3800+ Cl16 speeds when it performs worse than 3733 CL14?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Roboionator

rastaviper said:


> Why are u promoting 3800+ Cl16 speeds when it performs worse than 3733 CL14?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


huh how difficult is to get cl14 on 3733mhz or 3600mhz


----------



## eliwankenobi

Roboionator said:


> Next step was 3733mhz but no go than last night overwrite bios still no go, I reset MB clear cmos and try oc with ryzen master just ram. RAM 1,41V, SOC 1,1V Memory clock 1900mhz and coupled mode ON and live timings auto all and pc boot, with high timings, ok,...then i test with aida64 memory benchmark - ok,....than i go with timings step by step to CL16 and work, but i think i need to set up timings from calculator to get better performance, I will tray tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> How influence high soc and other voltage o temp cpu, not cpu voltage, just wonder?



Oh good! So you are able to boot with 1900fclk in coupled mode with RAM! Great! Perhaps there was some other setting in your mobo that was affecting your memory oc

Yes, the calculator gives rather optimized timings for lowering the latency, making performance at the same speed even better. 
So you should see better numbers when punching in the calc numbers. Remember to test for memory stability in between entering changes from the calculator. Like maybe 4 at a time and run an Easy pass of Memtest on the calculator itself of 50 loops of Memtest64 or what have you, just to give you a base line of stability. If it fails quickly go back one step to find out which value it didn’t like. 

Once you get to all the numbers on the calculator, then do a looong pass. Like 200 loops of MemTest64. I’ve found that one to be rather effective. The new MemTest from the calculator is also good and it gives you bandwidth and latency numbers like AIDA. 

Speaking of testing... for the sake of consistency and ensuring you are seeing improvements in your Memory tuning not being affected by anything else, set clock speed to a fixed value. Nothing crazy, like maybe all core 4.0 or 4.1 ghz. If the cpu is doing it’s auto clock fluctuations all the time, your bandwidth and latency numbers will be different every time and you want your numbers to only be affected by your RAM settings. Also go to Task Manager and on Startup Tab, disable any unnecessary software, this is for the same reason. Once you have memory where you like it, or you are done for that day, then enable CPU Auto Clock or PBO or however you had it before, and the rest, enjoy and continue later

This is going to be consuming for sure.

Good luck


----------



## eliwankenobi

rastaviper said:


> Why are u promoting 3800+ Cl16 speeds when it performs worse than 3733 CL14?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



To be honest I haven’t tested 3733mhz CL14. Perhaps I should try and see for myself. But in my testing and from what I have seen around (not claiming here to be the absolute know it all) higher FCLK couple with MCLK and UCLK with tight timings at a given CPU speed will give higher bandwidth and lower latency. But it’s all a matter of finding a good sweet spot. I don’t want to take my system to the brink of collapse for absolute best numbers and have my system die two months later.

In gaming I’m sure it will not make a big difference meaning it will still be awesome. As has been proven before by Gerard Fraiser, tight timings at whatever memory speed is the more relevant than raw speed. And that is what matters if gaming is all you care about

This is with my current settings. 











My numbers are actually a bit lower than what DRAM calc recommends as I continue little by little making changes and testing things. I believe I can go even lower in the sub-timings. 

I don’t know about you but I find this to be pretty good. I have booted and ran tests at CL14 too and had numbers that are between the same to a little worse, but I need to tweak more the subtimings etc, also the 1.5v needed still make me a little nervous.

But yeah, well tuned CL16 timings can perform very very well. I am not going to outright call it best because I have seen some crazy numbers from other people here, but certainly a good place to be. Again, sweet spot. Perhaps 3733mhz CL14 can be a sweeter spot or that has been your experience. Again, I haven’t tested it.


----------



## eliwankenobi

*NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.0 (overclocking DRAM on AM4) + MEMbench 0.8 (DRAM bench)*



Roboionator said:


> huh how difficult is to get cl14 on 3733mhz or 3600mhz



It is the same process as everything else.. no magic solution here. you just have to try. Lower CL values also require higher voltages. You gotta test going lower and lower until you find instability and go back a few notches. I am meaning all the timings, not just the primaries.

Though for 3733, you may be able get there below 1.45v. Follow DRAM calc recommendations. Those are done based on a lot of testing and should work ok. I haven’t tested it myself as I was focused on getting the higher FCLK clocks and so far so good.


----------



## gerardfraser

@eliwankenobi
Your ram is perfectly fine the way it is.See below and AIDA64 should be used as a guide.Not taken literal ,JMO



rastaviper said:


> Why are u promoting 3800+ Cl16 speeds when it performs worse than 3733 CL14?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Dude your post are ..... 

I think this your best AIDA64 CL 15 3733Mhz 62.5ns


Spoiler







Here is a CL 16 3800Mhz 62ns


Spoiler


----------



## Roboionator

from calculator witch tRFC i set with or without alt?


----------



## FranZe

Animeleptic said:


> Thats very good. I notice your running GDM disabled so I am assuming your running only two sticks of RAM. Im running 4 sticks with GDM Enabled, can only run 3600 with GDM disabled with 4 sticks. GDM disabled will bench faster than GDM Enabled when stable, no errors.


Yeah, thats true. I only have 2 sticks  I only had the time in mind there. You have faster memory and tighter timings then me, and think that you maybe loose approx 2-3 sec compared to an "easy dual stick" setup. But both results is very good either way


----------



## Joseph Mills

Delete this post.


----------



## Joseph Mills

xamphear said:


> I have this same exact RAM and I couldn't get it to work on Safe or Fast either. (MSI X570 Unify board, 3950X chip) Works fine at stock or XMP, just like you. I wondered if maybe G.Skill binned the RAM so well that if it had been able to go higher, they'd have sold it as faster memory at a higher price. I gave up on it, but I'm still following this thread, so if you do manage to figure out timings that work, please post about your success.



I have a low-binned 3200mhz CL15 G.Skill TridentZ BDie kit, and for the longest time, I couldn't get it to even touch the advertised 3200mhz mark. I have a 3800X on a GB Aorus Elite X570. What I found is that if you set the maximum frequency in the DRAM Calc. (on the first page) and set it to V1 profile, and hit fast, set those timings at a lower frequency than what you've calculated, and try to boot (i.e. - 3800mhz timings set, but frequency set in bios at 3200mhz). Once I was able to boot my desired frequency with those loose timings, I was able to tighten things up. My next goal was to set my target frequency in the DRAM Calc. at 3200mhz, calculate for the Fast setting, and then slowly input those settings. This process worked for me, as opposed to inputting all the settings all at once. Seems that my memory needs to train for the frequency first before editing the timings.


Also, I'm running 4x16GB, so overclocking is far more difficult than running 2 Dimms.


----------



## deepor

Roboionator said:


> from calculator witch tRFC i set with or without alt?



You try the normal one first. If you have problems and things are not running stable, then you try the "alt" one. The "alt" means "alternative".


----------



## domdtxdissar

I'm a little confused over my tRas timings.

Currently running 14-14-14-21-35 @ 3666MT/s but how is it possible i can run so low tRAS ? All the memory guides i read say it should be tRCD + tCL = tRAS (?)

Do i lose memory performance with these settings and should change to 14-14-14-28-42 instead ?
If i try to set tRAS lower (20) in bios it still boots at 21 timing. 

Any help much appreciated


----------



## domdtxdissar

Seems both give me the same same result within the margin error :thinking:f


----------



## rastaviper

gerardfraser said:


> @eliwankenobi
> 
> Your ram is perfectly fine the way it is.See below and AIDA64 should be used as a guide.Not taken literal ,JMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude your post are .....
> 
> 
> 
> I think this your best AIDA64 CL 15 3733Mhz 62.5ns
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a CL 16 3800Mhz 62ns
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Did you want to write something useful?
Your post proves what?

That by having a faster CPU you got a lower latency than mine? Congrats. Run now the whole setup at 14-14-14 and see how the latency will get even lower.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

rastaviper said:


> Did you want to write something useful?
> Your post proves what?
> 
> That by having a faster CPU you got a lower latency than mine? Congrats. Run now the whole setup at 14-14-14 and see how the latency will get even lower.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



Wow your on the ball ,you win LOL.


----------



## marcelo19941

Guys really curious here....what is your ram cooling setup? Im using now 3 Noctua a40x20 kind of glued to the 2 ram sticks


----------



## gerardfraser

marcelo19941 said:


> Guys really curious here....what is your ram cooling setup? Im using now 3 Noctua a40x20 kind of glued to the 2 ram sticks


I am also ghetto,works awesome
Cool Your DDR 4 Ram With 80MM Fan Cabled Tied In Front Of DDR4 Ram 
25 Minute StressTest On DDR4 Ram Cooled Ram 10C+
3200Mhz 1.36v 48.3C Max No Fan 
3200Mhz 1.36v 37.8C Max Cooling Fan 
3466Mhz 1.40v 38.5C Max Cooling Fan


----------



## mongoled

domdtxdissar said:


> Seems both give me the same same result within the margin error :thinking:f


If my memory serves me correctly ive read that if you input a tras setting that the CPU cannot 'handle' than the CPU ignores that value and uses its own lowest tras default value.


----------



## 2600ryzen

domdtxdissar said:


> Seems both give me the same same result within the margin error :thinking:f



I don't think that is within margin of error the low setting wins every bench in your screenshot, I would keep the low setting.


----------



## xamphear

eliwankenobi said:


> I also own a Unify. For MSI boards it’s easier. Use the Memory Try It feature. Select the 3800mhz cl18. It sets everything necessary for a successful boot and then tweak from there leaving the Memory Try It ON. That’s how I got down to 3800 CL16 timings going relatively easy.
> 
> That B-Die bin is very good. DRC classifies it with over 90% potential to achieve over 4000 mhz. If you can’t boot with MEMORY TRY IT. Could be your chip can’t do 1900 fclk either. But try going down until you find one that works and tweak from there.


Thank you for telling me about Memory Try It. Using the presets in there, I've been able to get a bunch of different timings and speeds working, including 3800-16-16-16-36 at 1900 FCLK. It had no errors after a single pass of memtest86 and no stability issues in normal use (so far. fingers crossed.) so I'm going to start tweaking from here. I tested out a few of the presets and so far this one has given me best benchmarks and performance. I'm leaving the DRAM voltage at 1.45v for now, but so far even that hasn't given me RAM temps that seem bad.


----------



## domdtxdissar

2600ryzen said:


> I don't think that is within margin of error the low setting wins every bench in your screenshot, I would keep the low setting.


The higher tRas get a better time, 203.67 vs 204.16 :h34r-smi


----------



## hurricane28

Is my CPU degraded? 

Hi fellas, for the life of me i can't get 3466 MHz RAM stable again.. It was stable before but all of a sudden its not anymore without changing anything, i can't get RAM stable above 3400 MHz. 

I am on the latest BIOS of my Ch7 hero and CPU is not even overclocked. Everything is stock except the RAM. It looks like they did something in the BIOS that won't let me run higher than 3400 MHz and if i want higher i need to buy 3000 series CPU lol.


----------



## 2600ryzen

hurricane28 said:


> Is my CPU degraded?
> 
> Hi fellas, for the life of me i can't get 3466 MHz RAM stable again.. It was stable before but all of a sudden its not anymore without changing anything, i can't get RAM stable above 3400 MHz.
> 
> I am on the latest BIOS of my Ch7 hero and CPU is not even overclocked. Everything is stock except the RAM. It looks like they did something in the BIOS that won't let me run higher than 3400 MHz and if i want higher i need to buy 3000 series CPU lol.



I see you're using a zen+ cpu, it's possible your memory retrained when you reset/shutdown your computer which can cause instabilty on zen+ at high speed. You could try powering on with stock settings then loading your 3400mhz profile and see if that helps stability. 3400mhz+ is really pushing it on zen+


----------



## rastaviper

hurricane28 said:


> Is my CPU degraded?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi fellas, for the life of me i can't get 3466 MHz RAM stable again.. It was stable before but all of a sudden its not anymore without changing anything, i can't get RAM stable above 3400 MHz.
> 
> 
> 
> I am on the latest BIOS of my Ch7 hero and CPU is not even overclocked. Everything is stock except the RAM. It looks like they did something in the BIOS that won't let me run higher than 3400 MHz and if i want higher i need to buy 3000 series CPU lol.


I had the same situation after a bios upgrade at my gigabyte x570 elite.
Then I flashed back an older Bios version and my previous RAM settings were again easy to set and keep.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Undervolter

I just wanted to report that the version 1.7.0 apparently doesn't work with my Win7 Pro. The DRAM Calculator part works, but not Membench. If i launch Membench, i click ok and then nothing happens. In task manager there is ccxlatency.exe running, but if you click anywhere outside the program's GUI, you get DRAMCalculator doesn't respond (program hangs).

Ver 1.6.2 works fine, so i am back to it. Win7 is EOL now, so probably doesn't matter and quite frankly i can live with v1.6.2 just fine. I just thought to report this.


----------



## hurricane28

Well cut my legs of and call me shorty.. 

I tried lowering voltages and setting tighter timings and it worked lol.


----------



## FranZe

gerardfraser said:


> I am also ghetto,works awesome
> Cool Your DDR 4 Ram With 80MM Fan Cabled Tied In Front Of DDR4 Ram
> 25 Minute StressTest On DDR4 Ram Cooled Ram 10C+
> 3200Mhz 1.36v 48.3C Max No Fan
> 3200Mhz 1.36v 37.8C Max Cooling Fan
> 3466Mhz 1.40v 38.5C Max Cooling Fan


Okay, i did the same test. Aida64 with only the memory option for 25 minutes. Earlier i used the top middle fan for memory cooling (that fan not spinning and mounted as intake on top). Today i mounted nf-a6x25 flx. Look @ that ghetto style, but i dont care  Some dust here and there it is. Ambient temp 23.7 celisus. Memory @ 3733 cl14 @ 1.488v. A bit over 42 celsius. I must have a fan so i cant test without


----------



## gerardfraser

@FranZe
that is awesome and works and at 42°C you should be good. I use DRAM voltage up to 1.6v for extreme timings and the fan is a welcome blow job that I appreciate.


----------



## hurricane28

hurricane28 said:


> Well cut my legs of and call me shorty..
> 
> I tried lowering voltages and setting tighter timings and it worked lol.


Nope.. 3466 MHz was only stable in TM5 after playing BF5 for a couple of minutes the game crashed.. So TM5 is not remotely reliable it seems..


----------



## hardwarelimits

Yea , use memtest to test stability. Then play some games to confirm if it's stable. 

Been using a 120mm fan horizontal above the ram hold by zip ties.


----------



## domdtxdissar

This is my solution


----------



## marcelo19941

This is mine lol


----------



## zenuser

gerardfraser said:


> I am also ghetto,works awesome
> Cool Your DDR 4 Ram With 80MM Fan Cabled Tied In Front Of DDR4 Ram
> 25 Minute StressTest On DDR4 Ram Cooled Ram 10C+
> 3200Mhz 1.36v 48.3C Max No Fan
> 3200Mhz 1.36v 37.8C Max Cooling Fan
> 3466Mhz 1.40v 38.5C Max Cooling Fan
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3h5Pd9w8LU


Do you need a dedicated fan if your RAM (4 sticks CJR) is running at 3600 MHz CL16 1.4-1.42V? My case has 5 x 12cm and 1 x 20cm fans, so I reckon airflow is decent.

BIOS is set at 1.4V, but during stressing it goes to 1.42V automatically and there's no LLC option for the RAM.

Unfortunately there's no thermal sensor in my RAM. Touching it feels mildly warm.

I also did some tests at stock 2133 MHz JEDEC settings (1.2V) and power consumption is 6 watts less (1.5 watt per DIMM and each DIMM has 16 DRAM chips/dual-rank/64GB total capacity).


----------



## Animeleptic

Custom case build, motherboard and VC are in horizontal orientation. Second Rad intake air actively cooling RAM. 4 sticks 3800 CL14 FLCK 1:1


----------



## gerardfraser

zenuser said:


> Do you need a dedicated fan if your RAM (4 sticks CJR) is running at 3600 MHz CL16 1.4-1.42V? My case has 5 x 12cm and 1 x 20cm fans, so I reckon airflow is decent.
> 
> BIOS is set at 1.4V, but during stressing it goes to 1.42V automatically and there's no LLC option for the RAM.
> 
> Unfortunately there's no thermal sensor in my RAM. Touching it feels mildly warm.
> 
> I also did some tests at stock 2133 MHz JEDEC settings (1.2V) and power consumption is 6 watts less (1.5 watt per DIMM and each DIMM has 16 DRAM chips/dual-rank/64GB total capacity).


You do not need a fan if you do not want one.Fan for me on memory is to keep DRAM temperature down but is not needed.The hotter the DRAM gets of course depending on which DRAM there can be a chance of errors.I can pump DRAM Voltage 1.6v and not have problems on B-Die RAM


----------



## BeardedBaker

*High DPI Scaling*

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm not going back through 700 pages of people's questions about why their ram won't oc like it should, and nothing comes up in the thread search when I tried looking that way. So, sorry.


On to my question, does this program (along with certain others *cough*precision x1*cough*) not seem to respect system display scaling? So, my main monitor is a 55" 4K TV so I can couch compute and game on bigscreen, thus my display scaling in windows is set to 250-300% at 2560x1440. No matter what compatibility settings I change, I cannot get this program to display correctly. Depending on which scaling override I choose, either the window is too big and cuts off the row of buttons along the bottom, even when maximized, or the text is tiny and the window is still too big and cuts off the row of buttons. 


Here is how it looks normally, both windowed and maximized:




















And with DPI override set to application:












Nothing I've tried so far short of changing my display resolution every time I want to use the program seems to fix this issue. Any suggestions are welcome, thanks.


----------



## gerardfraser

Bots are getting smarter,soon to take over the world.


----------



## eliwankenobi

xamphear said:


> eliwankenobi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also own a Unify. For MSI boards itâ€™️s easier. Use the Memory Try It feature. Select the 3800mhz cl18. It sets everything necessary for a successful boot and then tweak from there leaving the Memory Try It ON. Thatâ€™️s how I got down to 3800 CL16 timings going relatively easy.
> 
> That B-Die bin is very good. DRC classifies it with over 90% potential to achieve over 4000 mhz. If you canâ€™️t boot with MEMORY TRY IT. Could be your chip canâ€™️t do 1900 fclk either. But try going down until you find one that works and tweak from there.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for telling me about Memory Try It. Using the presets in there, I've been able to get a bunch of different timings and speeds working, including 3800-16-16-16-36 at 1900 FCLK. It had no errors after a single pass of memtest86 and no stability issues in normal use (so far. fingers crossed.) so I'm going to start tweaking from here. I tested out a few of the presets and so far this one has given me best benchmarks and performance. I'm leaving the DRAM voltage at 1.45v for now, but so far even that hasn't given me RAM temps that seem bad.
Click to expand...

Glad to read you got it going. Enjoy


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> Nope.. 3466 MHz was only stable in TM5 after playing BF5 for a couple of minutes the game crashed.. So TM5 is not remotely reliable it seems..


You want to use MemTest with as many threads you have on your cpu. It will find issues more easily but takes longer time. TM5 is fast but it misses issues like voltages issues. SoC for example, it doesn't load the IMC the same way. 
You want other software to test SoC IMC stability.

I could suggest trying Y-cruncher but it also maximizes your cores and produces lots of heat. But it will test Memory to great extent and catch issues. Especially if voltages are bad.


----------



## neurotix

Nighthog said:


> You want to use MemTest with as many threads you have on your cpu. It will find issues more easily but takes longer time. TM5 is fast but it misses issues like voltages issues. SoC for example, it doesn't load the IMC the same way.
> You want other software to test SoC IMC stability.
> 
> I could suggest trying Y-cruncher but it also maximizes your cores and produces lots of heat. But it will test Memory to great extent and catch issues. Especially if voltages are bad.


Google GSAT on bare metal Linux. It may have to be built from source. Don't remember but quite a few of my programs required it. sudo make 

I passed this test 100% and its the hardest to pass. Make an Ubuntu or better yet, Linux Mint Mate edition live usb.

If you all want a write up on how to install and test I'll write one, or make a video


----------



## kiljoy723

*Cunfusion with HYNIX Memory Type For The DRAM Calc Software*

I just installed The DRAM Calculator for Ryzen and I am a bit confused. I have G.Skill Trident Z(2x8GB) memory and it tells me each stick is a 8 GB C-Die by Hynix but i cant find that option under the "Memory Type" Section in the DRAM Calculating software. Is it under one of the other Hynix options? thank you


----------



## gtz

kiljoy723 said:


> I just installed The DRAM Calculator for Ryzen and I am a bit confused. I have G.Skill Trident Z(2x8GB) memory and it tells me each stick is a 8 GB C-Die by Hynix but i cant find that option under the "Memory Type" Section in the DRAM Calculating software. Is it under one of the other Hynix options? thank you


You have hynix c die is CJR.


----------



## Hequaqua

kiljoy723 said:


> I just installed The DRAM Calculator for Ryzen and I am a bit confused. I have G.Skill Trident Z(2x8GB) memory and it tells me each stick is a 8 GB C-Die by Hynix but i cant find that option under the "Memory Type" Section in the DRAM Calculating software. Is it under one of the other Hynix options? thank you


You will have to get Thaiphoon Burner to determine what it is exactly. If it's the Trident Neo CL18 I think that's CJR. 

http://www.softnology.biz/index.html


----------



## Jayrock

Can someone give me a few links to some kits that are fun to OC on a x570 meg ace? I've been out of the game for a while.


----------



## rastaviper

Jayrock said:


> Can someone give me a few links to some kits that are fun to OC on a x570 meg ace? I've been out of the game for a while.


Any Gskill 3200 at Cl14-15 are good to play with.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hequaqua

Anyone have a clue as do what die this is?

I know it's Micron, but well, you see, Thaiphoon doesn't tell me what type of die. lol









So far I'm able to get it to 3466CL16 with stock voltage. Just playing to see what I can get out of it.


----------



## Korennya

I just bought new memory. Is it safe to assume that' the ram is good if it passes stability at a speed lower than it's rated? It's 3600 CL16 b-die, but due to being on a 1600x still, i can't get it stable past 3200 cl14. It's also a 16gbx4 kit so I'm under the impression that 64 gb of 3200 c14 on a first gen ryzen is pretty damn good?

My old sticks was able to get to run 3333 Cl14, but that was 2x8GB of b-die.

Anything over 3200 with these 4 sticks I just get a **** ton of errors. I can get 3400 to post and get into windows, but it throws errors instantly. Can't clear it up.

Just want to make sure this new kit is working correctly. IT was damn expensive stuff.


----------



## hardwarelimits

Korennya said:


> I just bought new memory. Is it safe to assume that' the ram is good if it passes stability at a speed lower than it's rated? It's 3600 CL16 b-die, but due to being on a 1600x still, i can't get it stable past 3200 cl14. It's also a 16gbx4 kit so I'm under the impression that 64 gb of 3200 c14 on a first gen ryzen is pretty damn good?
> 
> My old sticks was able to get to run 3333 Cl14, but that was 2x8GB of b-die.
> 
> Anything over 3200 with these 4 sticks I just get a **** ton of errors. I can get 3400 to post and get into windows, but it throws errors instantly. Can't clear it up.
> 
> Just want to make sure this new kit is working correctly. IT was damn expensive stuff.


Pretty good for that amount of ram. If you can post at 3400 maybe its a matter of tweaking some timings, open Dram calculator go to the help tab and check Ram oc Guide . It will take you to Techpowerup article that he wrote and check "Troubleshooting : tips % tricks "


----------



## Korennya

I’ve read that article on TPU. Interesting stuff. But it’s missing details. Like it says if bsod or heavily error change your proctodt or rtt. While there a small amount saying increase proc with increasing frequency there’s nothing about how rtt relates or what to do with it. 

But I did try adjusting just everything I can think of. Vddp, cldo, timings. 2t. Odd thing is that while I can’t get rid of errors. It’s better at cl14 3400 than cl16??? I can’t wrap my head around that.


----------



## FranZe

FranZe said:


> Okay, i did the same test. Aida64 with only the memory option for 25 minutes. Earlier i used the top middle fan for memory cooling (that fan not spinning and mounted as intake on top). Today i mounted nf-a6x25 flx. Look @ that ghetto style, but i dont care  Some dust here and there it is. Ambient temp 23.7 celisus. Memory @ 3733 cl14 @ 1.488v. A bit over 42 celsius. I must have a fan so i cant test without


Did the same test one more time. Now i added gpu in the mix. Gpu temp is just under 70c as you can see. I've switched tower to Fractal Design C, same ghetto style with the memory fan


----------



## hardwarelimits

Korennya said:


> I’ve read that article on TPU. Interesting stuff. But it’s missing details. Like it says if bsod or heavily error change your proctodt or rtt. While there a small amount saying increase proc with increasing frequency there’s nothing about how rtt relates or what to do with it.
> 
> But I did try adjusting just everything I can think of. Vddp, cldo, timings. 2t. Odd thing is that while I can’t get rid of errors. It’s better at cl14 3400 than cl16??? I can’t wrap my head around that.


I know right. It's trial and error. The cl14 3400 it's better than cl 16 but should be by a thin margin. If you already feel happy leave it like that and enjoy. Just some people love to smash the lemon for all the juice


----------



## 2600ryzen

Korennya said:


> I’ve read that article on TPU. Interesting stuff. But it’s missing details. Like it says if bsod or heavily error change your proctodt or rtt. While there a small amount saying increase proc with increasing frequency there’s nothing about how rtt relates or what to do with it.
> 
> But I did try adjusting just everything I can think of. Vddp, cldo, timings. 2t. Odd thing is that while I can’t get rid of errors. It’s better at cl14 3400 than cl16??? I can’t wrap my head around that.



Yeah I can't get my ram stable past 3133mhz on my zen+ cpu, and 3200mhz was more stable with cl14 vs cl 16 somehow. You still have great ram for a first gen cpu so I would just keep it the ram will most likely be able to run at full speed when you upgrade to a 2nd gen cpu.


----------



## Synoxia

??? wat does this mean


----------



## kyo2020

My setings 32 GB g. Skill flare x 3200 mhz cl 14 @ 3800 mhz cl 16


----------



## LicSqualo

Synoxia said:


> ??? wat does this mean


That you are using an old version. Please update to 1.7.0.


----------



## kyo2020

Profile G. skill flare x 3200 mhz cl14 for 3600 mhz cl 16


----------



## janice1234

I can boot into windows with FCLK 1900 and run cinebench in loop no crash, but the system get black screen or reboot when stress test with gsat, tm5, hci.

So i tried bump the voltages soc 1.125, vddg 1.050, vddp 0.900, dram 1.42, but the issue still persists. Not sure whether it is related to t topology of C6H, because i heard others mention the mobo is only good for memory 3600MHz and below.

Ryzen 3700X
Asus C6H
GSKILL Flare X 3200C14 8GB X 4 (4dimms)



kyo2020 said:


> Profile G. skill flare x 3200 mhz cl14 for 3600 mhz cl 16


I see you are using the same mobo and RAM as me, can you get the memory stable at 3800MHz/FCLK 1900?


----------



## kyo2020

janice1234 said:


> I can boot into windows with FCLK 1900 and run cinebench in loop no crash, but the system get black screen or reboot when stress test with gsat, tm5, hci.
> 
> So i tried bump the voltages soc 1.125, vddg 1.050, vddp 0.900, dram 1.42, but the issue still persists. Not sure whether it is related to t topology of C6H, because i heard others mention the mobo is only good for memory 3600MHz and below.
> 
> Ryzen 3700X
> Asus C6H
> GSKILL Flare X 3200C14 8GB X 4 (4dimms)
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are using the same mobo and RAM as me, can you get the memory stable at 3800MHz/FCLK 1900?



I use the last asus bios , and this profile


----------



## janice1234

kyo2020 said:


> I use the last asus bios , and this profile


Ok, thanks will try it. If still cannot, maybe i need to lower it down to 3733 / 3600MHz.


----------



## neurotix

kyo2020 said:


> Profile G. skill flare x 3200 mhz cl14 for 3600 mhz cl 16





kyo2020 said:


> I use the last asus bios , and this profile
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGSO-F4xgTg



Both of these are absolutely hilarious. (tFAW 34? lol) I have the same kit.

Try this:


























(set everything including all AMD CBS options)

Result:


----------



## kyo2020

neurotix said:


> Both of these are absolutely hilarious. (tFAW 34? lol) I have the same kit.
> 
> Try this:
> 
> View attachment 328622
> 
> 
> View attachment 328624
> 
> 
> View attachment 328626
> 
> 
> 
> (set everything including all AMD CBS options)
> 
> Result:





That profile is proven, the one that went up to 3800 mhz is completely stable. I'm going to try it anyway
I have an x370, it doesn't work exactly the same as the x570.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Hello everyone, I think I'm running into an issue with my new kit registering on the DRAM calculator at 3600mhz, I type in all of my settings and press the purple R-XMP and it autofills the additional data under what I just entered but I get the message 'not supported' when I press either speed preset. 
I got the new kit [G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) F4-3600C16-8GVKC Hynix MFR] running with xmp in bios I can see 3600mhz (included screenshots), It does the same thing when I run the stock bios at 2133mhz. My current build is Ryzen 5 3600x - Asus Rog CH7 - Bios 3004 - Windows 1909. 
I can get it to read when I set the speed to 3200mhz and the DRAM calculator will give me timings but I'm just a little stumped as to why it won't read at the 3600 speed. My previous build was a R5 2600x - Strix B450F and I used the calculator to get my old kit [HyperX Predator Black 16GB 3200MHz -HX432C16PB3K2/16 Hynix CJR] to overclock at 3400mhz fast preset with no issues. Should I swap kits from my current Gskill-3600mhz to my old HyperX-3200mhz which is also on the QVL for the CH7 motherboard? Maybe return this Gskill kit and try something else, I'm just a little stumped at the moment and about to call it a night for now.


----------



## flyinion

BIRDMANv84 said:


> Hello everyone, I think I'm running into an issue with my new kit registering on the DRAM calculator at 3600mhz, I type in all of my settings and press the purple R-XMP and it autofills the additional data under what I just entered but I get the message 'not supported' when I press either speed preset.
> 
> I got the new kit [G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) F4-3600C16-8GVKC Hynix MFR] running with xmp in bios I can see 3600mhz (included screenshots), It does the same thing when I run the stock bios at 2133mhz. My current build is Ryzen 5 3600x - Asus Rog CH7 - Bios 3004 - Windows 1909.
> 
> I can get it to read when I set the speed to 3200mhz and the DRAM calculator will give me timings but I'm just a little stumped as to why it won't read at the 3600 speed. My previous build was a R5 2600x - Strix B450F and I used the calculator to get my old kit [HyperX Predator Black 16GB 3200MHz -HX432C16PB3K2/16 Hynix CJR] to overclock at 3400mhz fast preset with no issues. Should I swap kits from my current Gskill-3600mhz to my old HyperX-3200mhz which is also on the QVL for the CH7 motherboard? Maybe return this Gskill kit and try something else, I'm just a little stumped at the moment and about to call it a night for now.




Are you sure it's MFR? My Neo kit originally read as MFR until I upgraded taiphoon burner and then it said it was CJR. I thought MFR wasn't supposed to actually be able to hit 3600. Either way my understanding is the calculator doesn't currently support MFR at those speeds. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I will give it another go tonight with a fresh set of eyes and update anything that out of date


----------



## BIRDMANv84

flyinion said:


> Are you sure it's MFR? My Neo kit originally read as MFR until I upgraded taiphoon burner and then it said it was CJR. I thought MFR wasn't supposed to actually be able to hit 3600. Either way my understanding is the calculator doesn't currently support MFR at those speeds.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thank you so much, I deleted Taiphoon burner and reinstalled, now its showing my memory as DJR instead of MFR. Now the calculator is working as it should, thank you again. Now I get to go tinker


----------



## flyinion

BIRDMANv84 said:


> Thank you so much, I deleted Taiphoon burner and reinstalled, now its showing my memory as DJR instead of MFR. Now the calculator is working as it should, thank you again. Now I get to go tinker


Oh nice, glad I could help!


----------



## kyo2020

My profiles


----------



## BIRDMANv84

So after a few days of messing around and almost giving up the other night(thanks flyinion for helping me), me and Jack Daniels decided to order a new kit of RAM and return my old Gskill kit. Patriot Viper Steel Series arrived today. I downloaded a fresh copy of Thaipoon and DRAM calculator, what do you guys think of the suggested settings? My goal was to achieve 3600mhz with tight timings., I will probably start messing with it over the weekend when I have an extra few hours to set the memory up and stress test it. My system is a Ryzen 5 3600x, Asus CH7 - Bios 3004, Windows 1909.


----------



## Bartholdi

Absolutely love this tool and this tread.
However, I can't get near the timings in the calculater. Can anyone help?
I get better Cinebench results with loose timings and higher Mhz on the ram.

Thank you guys!


----------



## rastaviper

BIRDMANv84 said:


> So after a few days of messing around and almost giving up the other night(thanks flyinion for helping me), me and Jack Daniels decided to order a new kit of RAM and return my old Gskill kit. Patriot Viper Steel Series arrived today, installed it just set the xmp to 4000mhz C19 for now. I downloaded a fresh copy of Thaipoon and DRAM calculator, what do you guys think of the suggested settings? My goal was to achieve 3600mhz with tight timings., I will probably start messing with it over the weekend when I have an extra few hours to set the memory up and stress test it. My system is a Ryzen 5 3600x, Asus CH7 - Bios 3004, Windows 1909.


Well if the calc is giving you these settings u should go after them and try to put them all in BIOS.
Hopefully the system would be booting normally and then u can start finetuning.
Personally I had to leave many settings out of the BIOS, as my system wouldn't boot with all of them. But the good news was that I managed to push even more low timings for some of them.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Sweet I got the numbers put it, left all the llc stuff on auto, seems good and booted fine. It’s currently running memtestpro for a few hours while I’m at work and hopefully I get home with 0 errors.


----------



## Shenhua

Hi guys. I can't find this kit specs BL2K8G36C16U4R anywhere.....

Is it b-die? What are the other timings, other than cl16? In the product description it's sold as 3600 cl16.


----------



## Roboionator

Shenhua said:


> Hi guys. I can't find this kit specs BL2K8G36C16U4R anywhere.....
> 
> Is it b-die? What are the other timings, other than cl16? In the product description it's sold as 3600 cl16.


thaiphoon burner


----------



## Shenhua

Roboionator said:


> thaiphoon burner


I don't exactly have them, i wanna buy them.


----------



## brenopapito

Shenhua said:


> I don't exactly have them, i wanna buy them.


You can download the free version


----------



## LicSqualo

Doesn't look to me like he still has Ram. So Taiphoon Burner couldn't give the answer he's looking for (unless he already has Ram and I'm wrong).
As for if the Ram is b-die samsung, you'd better take a look at "b-die finder" first, here: https://benzhaomin.github.io/bdiefinder/


----------



## BUFUMAN

I have Micron E-Die what is a good value for ProcOdt??
Here:
https://www.amazon.de/gp/aw/d/B07MR1HWXT/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Some say 32 Ohm some say 40 Ohm and the Calculator tells me 48-52 Ohm. What is right or almost right value for Crosshair VI?

Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


----------



## gerardfraser

BUFUMAN said:


> I have Micron E-Die what is a good value for ProcOdt??
> 
> Some say 32 Ohm some say 40 Ohm and the Calculator tells me 48-52 Ohm what is right or almost right value for Crosshair VI?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk


Depends on what rank ram and how many sticks of ram.If you got single rank and two sticks 30-40 .


----------



## GhostHunter

*G skill NEOF4-3600C16D-32GTZN CL16-16-16-36 1.35V overclocking problem!*

People I have a major problem while trying to overclock my G skill memory. As I can understand the kit consists of Samsung (dual rank) B dies (xmp CL16-16-16-36 1.35V) but every attempt to overclock the KIT last night even in frequency 3600 MHz (clock 1800) lead to blue screen after blue screen while trying to load windows. I used the DRAM calculator 1.7.0 version entered every value as suggested but the result was the same. I think this KIT is able of doing at least 3800 Mhz cl 16 (1 to 1 clock ratio) or even tighter timings but I cannot find proper directions how to make it work myself. I think maybe because the kit consists of 2 sticks 16GB each is very big for the calculator to suggest correct timings. I even used directions from you tube on memory manual overclocking to increase voltages to help with stability but to no avail. If any of you can help me I will be grateful!



GhostHunter


----------



## deepor

@GhostHunter:

Did you configure RTT_PARK, RTT_WR, RTT_NOM and ProcODT in the BIOS? The defaults for those are only good for single rank memory sticks but you have dual rank.

Did you try leaving all the timings on mostly Auto besides manually setting something loose for the main timings? I mean something like 18-20-20-40 for tCL, tRCD, tRP, tRAS and for the rest Auto and DRAM voltage to perhaps 1.4V. If that works, you then have to do things yourself and use the calculator just for inspiration.


----------



## Korennya

Any thoughts on why this won't run at all on my system? I understand that's a very broad question. I downloaded it a few times.. different directories. When I attempt to run it, I get the UAC message, hit yes. Mouse does the hour glass thing for a brief second and then nothing. If i watch task manager, it pops up in the program list for a short second and then poof gone.
@1usmus Is there any kind of error log or anything I can send you to figure out why it won't run? I ran okay with my 1600x. I tried messing with the programs internal memtest stuff, and it would do some funky funky stuff.. now it won't run at all. Switched to 3950x and still doesn't work (not that I really expected a cpu change to fix that).

I'm running win 10 1903, c6h with 7704 bios. mostly default 3950x (mem at 3600). Not sure what else might be relevant to fixing this.


----------



## shadowsofthesun

Korennya said:


> When I attempt to run it, I get the UAC message, hit yes. Mouse does the hour glass thing for a brief second and then nothing. If i watch task manager, it pops up in the program list for a short second and then poof gone.


Try moving it from the place where you downloaded it to another folder, or rename the folder. I had similar issues and it solved them for me. No idea why. Good luck.


----------



## Tmansdc

*I didn't mess anything up did I?*

I can't accidentally mess up the memory settings or timings strictly from the dram calculator can i? Because I ran a latency test through the calculator and thought it froze, killed it twice and then finally let it run. Any calculations or calculating safe/fast/r-xmp/etc. in this program will not actually change ram settings or timings will it?


----------



## Korennya

Tmansdc said:


> I can't accidentally mess up the memory settings or timings strictly from the dram calculator can i? Because I ran a latency test through the calculator and thought it froze, killed it twice and then finally let it run. Any calculations or calculating safe/fast/r-xmp/etc. in this program will not actually change ram settings or timings will it?


No.. it doesn't change anything for you. I only gives your recommendations on what you should change. You have to do it manually yourself in the bios or use a program that can alter them like Ryzen master. Though I'd suggest doing it manual in bios.


----------



## Veii

BIRDMANv84 said:


> So after a few days of messing around and almost giving up the other night(thanks flyinion for helping me), me and Jack Daniels decided to order a new kit of RAM and return my old Gskill kit. Patriot Viper Steel Series arrived today, installed it just set the xmp to 4000mhz C19 for now. I downloaded a fresh copy of Thaipoon and DRAM calculator, what do you guys think of the suggested settings? My goal was to achieve 3600mhz with tight timings., I will probably start messing with it over the weekend when I have an extra few hours to set the memory up and stress test it. My system is a Ryzen 5 3600x, Asus CH7 - Bios 3004, Windows 1909.


Can you please re-do the thaiphoon burner screenshot
it misses crucial information = PCB Layout  (bottom left)
for 3600, i'd focus on both SCLs of 3 with tRFC 270-201-123 (you should be able to get tRCDRD 15 away with A1 kits later on)
tRC 45, tRTP 6, tRDWR 7, tWR 14 (later 12, up to kit ~ lowest is 10 for this set)

CLDO_VDDG 950mV
CLDO_VDDP 900mV
vSOC 1025mV
vDIMM 1460mV
VDDG CCD 1000mV
VDDG IOD 950mV
^ voltages depend if on 1004B or 1003ABBA and is only for 1800MCLK and single CCD ryzen (it's for 1004B)
same depends for procODT (up to agesa)
start with 32Ω procODT (should work on both for 1800FCLK), 
else up to 34.3Ω for 1003ABBA and down to 28Ω for 1004B (less Ω = better signal integrity)

CAD_BUS 30-20-20-24 (CH7 should do this, else 40-20-20-24 for SR kits) <~ up to AGESA again 
And fix PHY Memory Training under AMD CBS -> UMC or DF common Options -> Phy Memory Training








^ especially on 1004B, as it has memory training issues for B-Dies

Before you try these out tho, grab these 4 tools:

SiSoftware Sandra -> Multi Core Efficiency Test (make an account in-app) ~ the only useful benchmark in showing IF OC Progress
SuperPi 1.5 XS ~ useful for short stress-testing memory timings without waiting >1h for TM5, HCI to finish / 32Million Digits
Zen Timings ~ and fully wipe away that Ryzen Master Bloatware  it breaks CPPC boosting behavior
Attached TM5 1usmus_V3 preset, with 20 cycles configured [1h for 16GB], can also grab it directly and modify the config if you don't trust user Uploads

If Layout A1, please try my 3467MT/s timings from the signature
for binning check under 1.45 vDIMM voltage / possibly down to 1.42v at lowest (ignore visible vSOC)


Spoiler














If A2 layout, still binning check them, but SLC 2 with low tRFC might not boot - GDM, BGS disabled

Soo steps

Grab the softwares, fix memory training in AMD CBS (reboot)
use Yuri's timings from the calculator (boot test)
change voltages down (boot test - can be too low up to current AGESA, 1003ABBA use Calculator voltage, with 1.42vDIMM & procODT 34.3Ω)
run SuperPI 32Mil (8min waiting time - pass ?, move on)
try attached timings for binning test (post ?)
try suggested timings, make SiSandra bench and post Detailed results (Inter-Core Latency big value, and Bandwith)
test stability with TM5, and bench with SuperPI (if you have a good bin, we'll work the tRCDRD 15 away down to SCL 2 timings)


----------



## Uns33n

Got my T-Force XTREEM 4300 kit yesterday, downclocked to 3800Mhz/1900 1:1 FCLK (CL15,16,16),, MEMTEST 12hrs passed.

3800 (CL14,15,14) as of now I could not get it stable enough to pass memtest for few hours. I really didn't try hard enough, next time.

I know these kits can get tighter...anyone here have them with success?


----------



## Roboionator

Uns33n said:


> Got my T-Force XTREEM 4300 kit yesterday, downclocked to 3800Mhz/1900 1:1 FCLK (CL15,16,16),, MEMTEST 12hrs passed.
> 
> 3800 (CL14,15,14) as of now I could not get it stable enough to pass memtest for few hours. I really didn't try hard enough, next time.
> 
> I know these kits can get tighter...anyone here have them with success?


nice


----------



## Shenhua

Uns33n said:


> Got my T-Force XTREEM 4300 kit yesterday, downclocked to 3800Mhz/1900 1:1 FCLK (CL15,16,16),, MEMTEST 12hrs passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 3800 (CL14,15,14) as of now I could not get it stable enough to pass memtest for few hours. I really didn't try hard enough, next time.
> 
> 
> 
> I know these kits can get tighter...anyone here have them with success?


Voltage? Can't see picture...
.


----------



## Uns33n

Shenhua said:


> Voltage? Can't see picture...
> .


[email protected], I switched back to c16 @ 1.42 (Much better results on membench and higher scores 3dmark)

Looks like I am getting better results on aida64 benchmark with my c15 timings, but much faster results with my c16 timings settings on ryzen calculator membench easy mode(155 seconds @ 1.45v c15,16,16 compared to 114 seconds @ 1.42v c16,16,17). c16 also getting better results on 3dmark benchmarks...

Very weird...

Also noticed my write speed is pretty low compared to others on here with higher timings, which timings directly affect this?










Quick Stability test 7 hours


----------



## Veii

Uns33n said:


> Looks like I am getting better results on aida64 benchmark with my c15 timings, but much faster results with my c16 timings settings on ryzen calculator membench easy mode(155 seconds @ 1.45v c15,16,16 compared to 114 seconds @ 1.42v c16,16,17). c16 also getting better results on 3dmark benchmarks...
> 
> Very weird...


It's not that C16 is slower or C15 performs bad
But that C15 likely is not in sync, and C16 being in sync
Grab SiSoftware Sandra - Multi Core efficiency Test
And check there your infinity fabric bandwith and inter-core latency (under detailed result)

Use that to finetune subtimings


Uns33n said:


> Also noticed my write speed is pretty low compared to others on here with higher timings, which timings directly affect this?


1CCD unit's write speed can be at absolute max half of max MT/s Bandwith
ddr_freq * num_channels * 64 / 8
3800*2*64/8= 60800 / 2 = 30400MB/s for 1CCD units - which you perfectly hit on your screenshot
Nothing to do more

But what does influence overall performance:
tRTP = Clean Multiple of tRCD
both SCLs 
tWR = tRAS - tRCD but can be up to 2 steps lower
tRDWR = half of tRCD (if -1, then tWRRD needs to be 3 instead of 1 ~ if +1 for stability, tWRRD is 1)
tFAW= 4* tRRDS, 5* for stability 

Changes you can do:
tRTP down to 7 or 6
tRDWR to 8 / potentially 7,3 or 7,4 
tFAW 20 or on A1 PCB ~ tRRDS to 4 & tRRDL 5 with tFAW 16
up to PCB might be able to lower tRC -2 steps and recalculate tRFC 276-205-126 (this includes tRTP 6)


----------



## Uns33n

Veii said:


> It's not that C16 is slower or C15 performs bad
> But that C15 likely is not in sync, and C16 being in sync
> Grab SiSoftware Sandra - Multi Core efficiency Test
> And check there your infinity fabric bandwith and inter-core latency (under detailed result)
> 
> Use that to finetune subtimings
> 
> 1CCD unit's write speed can be at absolute max half of max MT/s Bandwith
> ddr_freq * num_channels * 64 / 8
> 3800*2*64/8= 60800 / 2 = 30400MB/s for 1CCD units - which you perfectly hit on your screenshot
> Nothing to do more
> 
> But what does influence overall performance:
> tRTP = Clean Multiple of tRCD
> both SCLs
> tWR = tRAS - tRCD but can be up to 2 steps lower
> tRDWR = half of tRCD (if -1, then tWRRD needs to be 3 instead of 1 ~ if +1 for stability, tWRRD is 1)
> tFAW= 4* tRRDS, 5* for stability
> 
> Changes you can do:
> tRTP down to 7 or 6
> tRDWR to 8 / potentially 7,3 or 7,4
> tFAW 20 or on A1 PCB ~ tRRDS to 4 & tRRDL 5 with tFAW 16
> up to PCB might be able to lower tRC -2 steps and recalculate tRFC 276-205-126 (this includes tRTP 6)


Youre right, c16 came from ryzen calculator so its definitely synced, c15 was just me trying to lower everything down on my own.
Thank you so much! Looks like my ryzen calculator spitting c14 for 3733, going to try this today, I have a feeling it will be faster.


----------



## EddieZ

Just installed a NZXT X63, which keeps the system quite cool (max 51 degrees ). To my surprise my memory Ripjaws V 3600C3600-19 now clocks much higher at a lower RAM voltage (1,30): 3600 16 without any manual settings (everything except RAM voltage on Auto). Only setting that is extreme on Auto is 640 for tRFC. 

Weird, I'll try to lowering that one...see what happens. Will a lower tRFC have substantial impact?


----------



## Veii

EddieZ said:


> Weird, I'll try to lowering that one...see what happens. Will a lower tRFC have substantial impact?


You can see tRFC exactly as maximum refresh cycle timing
Lower tRFCs consequences are only failed Post
tRFC runs in ns ~ unlike intel, here a more tight tRFC does perform better

BUT, tRFC is one of the most important timings to get correct as it is chained with other ones
tRFC comes from frequency and from tRC - also both SCLs have a direct connection with it
and tRTP has a connection with it (tWR write recovery does play inside tRFCs range, but is no direct connection)

Meaning, lowering tRFC too much makes no difference
But a low tRFC like 140-160ns (b-dies) will help lowering both SCLs, and so lowering also tRTP
these two timings do indeed influence performence
But only tRFC does nothing - it's just a "timed range, like an open signal range to play with before it's cut"
Optimally you sync it 
(the calculator does use half and 1/8th values to trigger refresh before the time-scale ends ~ but that's an advanced technique which i haven't mastered yet ~ all of Yuri's values on current Calculator are 0.5 or 0.125 dividers not full digit ones ~ which does boost perf)
* just again, if you lower it too much, it will cut before the remain timings finish, making it error out nearly instantly
If you have it too high - refresh cycles will stack and overwrite, making memory behave slower
^ all this is noticeable via SiSoftware Sandra or via DRAM Calculators "Draw Latency Curve"


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Veii said:


> Can you please re-do the thaiphoon burner screenshot
> it misses crucial information = PCB Layout  (bottom left)
> for 3600, i'd focus on both SCLs of 3 with tRFC 270-201-123 (you should be able to get tRCDRD 15 away with A1 kits later on)
> tRC 45, tRTP 6, tRDWR 7, tWR 14 (later 12, up to kit ~ lowest is 10 for this set)
> 
> CLDO_VDDG 950mV
> CLDO_VDDP 900mV
> vSOC 1025mV
> vDIMM 1460mV
> VDDG CCD 1000mV
> VDDG IOD 950mV
> ^ voltages depend if on 1004B or 1003ABBA and is only for 1800MCLK and single CCD ryzen (it's for 1004B)
> same depends for procODT (up to agesa)
> start with 32Ω procODT (should work on both for 1800FCLK),
> else up to 34.3Ω for 1003ABBA and down to 28Ω for 1004B (less Ω = better signal integrity)
> 
> CAD_BUS 30-20-20-24 (CH7 should do this, else 40-20-20-24 for SR kits) <~ up to AGESA again
> And fix PHY Memory Training under AMD CBS -> UMC or DF common Options -> Phy Memory Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ especially on 1004B, as it has memory training issues for B-Dies
> 
> Before you try these out tho, grab these 4 tools:
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra -> Multi Core Efficiency Test (make an account in-app) ~ the only useful benchmark in showing IF OC Progress
> SuperPi 1.5 XS ~ useful for short stress-testing memory timings without waiting >1h for TM5, HCI to finish / 32Million Digits
> Zen Timings ~ and fully wipe away that Ryzen Master Bloatware  it breaks CPPC boosting behavior
> Attached TM5 1usmus_V3 preset, with 20 cycles configured [1h for 16GB], can also grab it directly and modify the config if you don't trust user Uploads
> 
> If Layout A1, please try my 3467MT/s timings from the signature
> for binning check under 1.45 vDIMM voltage / possibly down to 1.42v at lowest (ignore visible vSOC)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If A2 layout, still binning check them, but SLC 2 with low tRFC might not boot - GDM, BGS disabled
> 
> Soo steps
> 
> Grab the softwares, fix memory training in AMD CBS (reboot)
> use Yuri's timings from the calculator (boot test)
> change voltages down (boot test - can be too low up to current AGESA, 1003ABBA use Calculator voltage, with 1.42vDIMM & procODT 34.3Ω)
> run SuperPI 32Mil (8min waiting time - pass ?, move on)
> try attached timings for binning test (post ?)
> try suggested timings, make SiSandra bench and post Detailed results (Inter-Core Latency big value, and Bandwith)
> test stability with TM5, and bench with SuperPI (if you have a good bin, we'll work the tRCDRD 15 away down to SCL 2 timings)


Hello sorry Veii for not seeing this sooner and I greatly appreciate your input (mainly because Im a noob at this; I got the building a PC part down, now just learning how to fine tune I guess), I have attached a copy of the thaiphoon burner screenshot you requested and also downloaded the 4 tools to help bench these modules when I get to that point.


----------



## Veii

BIRDMANv84 said:


> Hello sorry Veii for not seeing this sooner and I greatly appreciate your input (mainly because Im a noob at this; I got the building a PC part down, now just learning how to fine tune I guess), I have attached a copy of the thaiphoon burner screenshot you requested and also downloaded the 4 tools to help bench these modules when I get to that point.


Thank you, 
A0 PCB is a bit unlucky 
You won't be able to run tight timings , likely SCL 3 would be your bottom line
But as they are 4000 XMP ready, at least the ICs might be high binned to compensate for the bad PCB
Don't exceed 1.46v for now when you use the whole memory ICs - else you can maxmem windows limit it to 1x 4gb chip and go with 1.72v for CL12 binning testing (although only use with care)

well let's see, you might be lucky and are able to run these timings - but your pcb doesn't like high voltage


----------



## xamphear

Hello DRAM friends, I've made excellent progress with my RAM OC, but I've hit a bit of a wall and would love to know if I have reached the most I can get or if there is any room for improvement. Here's where I'm at right now, running at 3800 with a 1900 FCLK in 1:1. I've thrown every test at it that I've found in this thread, and I've been using it daily for the past couple weeks without any stability problems.


















If I drop tRFC by much, I get POST failures. Dropping tRC also gives me problems. The random latency seems like it could be improved? 70 feels high compared to other results I've seen. Any advice would be appreciated.


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> Thank you,
> A0 PCB is a bit unlucky



Buildzoid has shown his 4400 Patriot Viper Steel kit as being A2 PCB though. Is Thaiphoon incorrect here or is it more likely that Patriot is using different PCB layouts for their 4000/4133/4400 bins?


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Buildzoid has shown his 4400 Patriot Viper Steel kit as being A2 PCB though. Is Thaiphoon incorrect here or is it more likely that Patriot is using different PCB layouts for their 4000/4133/4400 bins?
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HOIzoeehoo&feature=youtu.be&t=217


There is a big difference between 4400C19, and 4000C19 

On 4000C19 you are dependent on PCB Layout
I have A1 for example, while A2 is focused on higher speeds instead tighter timings 
Apparantly he can rock SCL 2 at 3733 too, which is wonderful kit - but it's random 
4000C19 is technically a lower bin than 3600C16, but as the ICs are focused on higher speed - the chance to get a decent PCB is high
* 4400C19 is a quite high bin similar to 3600C15

A1 and A2 over 4000 are a win - as A1's strong points are tight timings with negative effect on max speed
A2 on the other hand as a short trace layout, is not compatible with every board, is limited in tighter timings but can run very high speeds

A0 is just a lower PCB bin, but as his? kits are 4K rated, they likely have to be good ICs with just a lower-end PCB
Memory continues to be luck dependent  
When you put away the IC being the limiting factor, only the PCB remains to decide between a great OCer and a mediocre OCer


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> There is a big difference between 4400C19, and 4000C19
> 
> On 4000C19 you are dependent on PCB Layout
> I have A1 for example, while A2 is focused on higher speeds instead tighter timings
> Apparantly he can rock SCL 2 at 3733 too, which is wonderful kit - but it's random
> 4000C19 is technically a lower bin than 3600C16, but as the ICs are focused on higher speed - the chance to get a decent PCB is high
> * 4400C19 is a quite high bin similar to 3600C15
> 
> A1 and A2 over 4000 are a win - as A1's strong points are tight timings with negative effect on max speed
> A2 on the other hand as a short trace layout, is not compatible with every board, is limited in tighter timings but can run very high speeds
> 
> A0 is just a lower PCB bin, but as his? kits are 4K rated, they likely have to be good ICs with just a lower-end PCB
> Memory continues to be luck dependent
> When you put away the IC being the limiting factor, only the PCB remains to decide between a great OCer and a mediocre OCer



I suspect Thaiphoon is just wrong here. Overclockers also shows a Thaiphoon result showing A0 on a 4400 bin when Buildzoids clearly isn't. 4133 and 4000 c19 bins are 1.35v btw, the 4400 is better but remember it's juiced to 1.45 to get that boost.


https://www.overclockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ViperSteel4400_TB-404x640.jpg



Your theory is that PCB layout randomly changes depending on what they have around the factory for the same memory lineups AND bins?


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> I suspect Thaiphoon is just wrong here. Overclockers also shows a Thaiphoon result showing A0 on a 4400 bin when Buildzoids clearly isn't. 4133 and 4000 c19 bins are 1.35v btw, the 4400 is better but remember it's juiced to 1.45 to get that boost.
> 
> 
> https://www.overclockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ViperSteel4400_TB-404x640.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Your theory is that PCB layout randomly changes depending on what they have around the factory for the same memory lineups AND bins?


I mean you can easily notice the difference between A1 and A2 at the bottom of the dimm
















Forwarded from HWBot








A0 can happen, i have another set of viper 4000 which are A0 saddly
But it's yet under WIP how well the ICs rly are
My personal ones are A1 :ninja:
Also A2 ones have compatibility issues with low end boards 

The 4133 ones to what i saw locally are 19-21-21 , which are not b-die 
Only 4000 & 4400 where B-Dies 
0.1v more for 6 steps with the sametimings is not thaat bad, it's still a higher bin
What BZs A2 kit can do, mine can't but i got mine for 70 bucks while he paid around 130ish ~ before prices started to bump
To me all looks normal :thinking:

Same as for 3200C14 and 4000C19 , PCB layout wouldn't matter
Both are high timings for B-dies
except that we know these are b-dies - it's common practice for ram manufactures to just pick what is lying around
They don't focus on which IC to put into their dimms, barely would even consider thinking which PCB to select
Nor are we able to track layer density of these 
I think only HOF took care what kind of PCB they use, i mean they repaint it and actually do Aida64 tests on it 
Likely also Team Group binned 8Pack kits (sold out) did take care what kind of PCB they pick
But it remains lottery


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> The 4133 ones to what i saw locally are 19-21-21 , which are not b-die
> Only 4000 & 4400 where B-Dies



The 4133 kit is also b-die.


Thank you for the info.


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> The 4133 kit is also b-die.
> 
> Thank you for the info.


This is interesting, thank you !
Their 2nd profile is the same as the 4000 kit
While i remember seeing them cheaper than 4K ones
I still think the 4400C19 is a higher bin, but BZ has confirmed A2 PCB 
It likely is just randomness across these
3733 ones are for sure CJR tho


----------



## zarere

lDevilDriverl said:


> My new personal record with 2600x + Micron Rev.: E 3933cl16 =)


What is the dram voltage that you use to get this result since I do not see it in the screens that you posted here?Also CLDO_VDDP/VDDG.Thanks in advance.


----------



## Veii

lDevilDriverl said:


> My new personal record with 2600x + Micron Rev.: E 3933cl16 =)


This score is top notch 
But please from now in change TM5s config to 20 rounds as minimum for stability
After 7 rounds you do notice main timing desync and after 19 rounds aka 50min, you will notice tRFC desync
Before 20 rounds as minimum, any score can not be verified as stable ~ simply next to thermal issues, tRFC doesnt desync before and boards do autocorrect timings a bit hidden 

If stability is there, you can grab SiSandra and get that 2600 #1 :thumb:


----------



## gerardfraser

I would be interested on anyone thought's on this RAM and should I double it up.
Ram 4000 by gerard fraser, on Flickr


----------



## zarere

Veii said:


> This score is top notch
> 
> But please from now in change TM5s config to 20 rounds as minimum for stability
> 
> After 7 rounds you do notice main timing desync and after 19 rounds aka 50min, you will notice tRFC desync
> 
> Before 20 rounds as minimum, any score can not be verified as stable ~ simply next to thermal issues, tRFC doesnt desync before and boards do autocorrect timings a bit hidden
> 
> 
> 
> If stability is there, you can grab SiSandra and get that 2600 #1 :thumb:


I usually test with Karhu memtest for at least 10K %


----------



## Veii

gerardfraser said:


> I would be interested on anyone thought's on this RAM and should I double it up.
> Ram 4000 by gerard fraser, on Flickr


A1 PCB 4000CL18 
This kit should be able to run the 3800CL14 timings of 1usmus with ease :thumb:
Keep us up to date with what you get out of it 
May IC lottery be with you too


----------



## Veii

zarere said:


> I usually test with Karhu memtest for at least 10K %


mm yes 
HCI, Karhu, Memtest, Googles one
Every community has own standards for stability 
But if you use 1usmus's TM5 preset, at least 20 rounds which equal to around 1h for 16gb


----------



## zarere

Veii said:


> mm yes
> 
> HCI, Karhu, Memtest, Googles one
> 
> Every community has own standards for stability
> 
> But if you use 1usmus's TM5 preset, at least 20 rounds which equal to around 1h for 16gb


Good to know thanks for the tip.


----------



## gerardfraser

Veii said:


> A1 PCB 4000CL18
> This kit should be able to run the 3800CL14 timings of 1usmus with ease :thumb:
> Keep us up to date with what you get out of it
> May IC lottery be with you too


Great thanks for the tip and reply.


----------



## xcr89

gerardfraser said:


> Great thanks for the tip and reply.


or just go G.Skill F4-3800C14-8GTZN

I used the docp and just disabled power down, gear down, bgs and bgs alt enabled.

all other dram timings and settings auto.

i havent tighten the timings yet, this kit is solid aswell.

Been to lazy to try new timings.


----------



## domdtxdissar

xcr89 said:


> or just go G.Skill F4-3800C14-8GTZN
> 
> I used the docp and just disabled power down, gear down, bgs and bgs alt enabled.
> 
> all other dram timings and settings auto.
> 
> i havent tighten the timings yet, this kit is solid aswell.
> 
> Been to lazy to try new timings.


I don't want to rain on your parade, but the numbers in your screenshots could be improved alot.
You should try to match or beat the "best time" in dram calculator.
Your aida numbers also leave a lot to be desired.

If i were to guess, your scores would improve alot by tightening the tRC and tRFC timings alone (i'm running 240 tRFC compared to your 666)
I would suggest something like start at tRC = 50 and tRFC = 300 and work your way down

All your other timings also need tightening, but you have to start one place 

These are my dram numbers, but i'm running at a slower memory/fabric speed since my 32gigs+3950x don't want to pass memtest 1000% at anything higher then 3633 MT/s


----------



## MeerMusik

Hello. Any News about Hynix JJR (J-Die)? The Internet is as usual full of different opinions: "JJR = worse than CJR", "JJR = better than CJR", "JJR is CJR but just rebranded". Has anyone found any Documents yet with Infos about JJR? All I know so far: Trying CJR timings with my JJR RAM (in a quick test) did not work at all. Thanks!


----------



## xcr89

domdtxdissar said:


> I don't want to rain on your parade, but the numbers in your screenshots could be improved alot.
> You should try to match or beat the "best time" in dram calculator.
> Your aida numbers also leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> If i were to guess, your scores would improve alot by tightening the tRC and tRFC timings alone (i'm running 240 tRFC compared to your 666)
> I would suggest something like start at tRC = 50 and tRFC = 300 and work your way down
> 
> All your other timings also need tightening, but you have to start one place
> 
> These are my dram numbers, but i'm running at a slower memory/fabric speed since my 32gigs+3950x don't want to pass memtest 1000% at anything higher then 3633 MT/s


Here you go (update) i just tested this.

Want me to test your timings?

Also doesnt GDM add penalty in latency? How is your custom and random latency so close to each other is it all becouse of your cpu?


----------



## Saiger0

xcr89 said:


> Here you go (update) i just tested this.
> 
> Want me to test your timings?
> 
> Also doesnt GDM add penalty in latency? How is your custom and random latency so close to each other is it all becouse of your cpu?


GDM does indeed add a small latency penalty. However it helps alot in terms of stability which greatly outweigh the performance hit. I would leave it enabled unless you plan on spending alot of time figuring your timings out.


----------



## gerardfraser

xcr89 said:


> or just go G.Skill F4-3800C14-8GTZN
> 
> I used the docp and just disabled power down, gear down, bgs and bgs alt enabled.
> 
> all other dram timings and settings auto.
> 
> i havent tighten the timings yet, this kit is solid aswell.
> 
> Been to lazy to try new timings.


Well how about CL16 3866Mhz ,I did not even try yet either 
Memory


----------



## herericc

gerardfraser said:


> Well how about CL16 3800Mhz ,I did not even try yet either
> [!url=https://flic.kr/p/2izJLzg][!img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49608546617_506df1a677_k.jpg[/img][/url]Memory


those are INCREDIBLE numbers man, you must have really won the silicon lottery there!


----------



## gerardfraser

herericc said:


> those are INCREDIBLE numbers man, you must have really won the silicon lottery there!


No not really ,it is B-Die 4000Ram and it runs CL14 3866Mhz synced 1:1:1 ,just takes more Dram voltage for CL14


----------



## xcr89

gerardfraser said:


> No not really ,it is B-Die 4000Ram and it runs CL14 3866Mhz synced 1:1:1 ,just takes more Dram voltage for CL14


is this your other setup or you just took some timings for me to test?

cpu and motherboard is different.

nvm i was looking at domdtxdissar settings and thought you posted 2 different setups my bad.


----------



## gerardfraser

xcr89 said:


> is this your other setup or you just took some timings for me to test?
> 
> cpu and motherboard is different.


OK you quoted me saying I could just get G.Skill F4-3800C14-8GTZN.My response is I am good ,look at my E-peen.
I guess yes my computer is different than yours and you could try the settings I showed,just copy them and see how it goes and you do not have to be too lazy to try new timings.

computer used
♦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO 
♦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080
♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8) 
♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.3)
♦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB 
♦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black 
♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W


----------



## Uns33n

delete


----------



## xcr89

gerardfraser said:


> OK you quoted me saying I could just get G.Skill F4-3800C14-8GTZN.My response is I am good ,look at my E-peen.
> I guess yes my computer is different than yours and you could try the settings I showed,just copy them and see how it goes and you do not have to be too lazy to try new timings.
> 
> computer used
> ♦ CPU - AMD 3800X With MasterLiquid Lite ML240L RGB AIO
> ♦ GPU - Nvidia RTX 2080
> ♦ RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 16GB DDR4(F4-4000C18D-16GTZ) (2x8)
> ♦ Mobo - MSI X470 - Gaming Plus(E7B79AMS.AA0-AMD ComboPI1.0.0.3)
> ♦ SSD - NVME SSD Intel 512GB
> ♦ DSP - LG 27" 4K UHD 5ms GTG IPS LED FreeSync Gaming Monitor (27UD59P-B.AUS) - Black
> ♦ PSU - Antec High Current Pro 1200W


sorry i edited my previous post i thought you double posted 2 different setups-

I tried your settings with all from lowest procodt all the way to 80 ohm, and different cad bus block's 40-20-20-24, 40-20-24-24, 24-20-24-24, 24-20-20-24, 24-24-24-24, literally nothing would allow me the get post it gets stuck at RAM training but doesnt reboot to retrain again at 1866 , 1933 fclk.

i had to lower it to 3800 ram speed and fclk 1900 with your settings for it to be able to post. tell me if i missed something here, soc is 1.1, dram 1.5 yes i got a ram cooler blowing on them the red one from gskill.

also your on agesa 1.0.0.4 i am still on 1.0.0.3, 1001 bios idk if that could be the culprit here.

i also tested gdm enabled and disabled, is it supposed to be such a little difference between thoese values in terms of latency?

as you can see in the first image the memory latency was down to 65.1 with enabled and here it shows worse with disabled so that got my clueless.

same here in membench default you can see the small difference where it is barely none is this correct or is something wrong?


Notice the names of the pictures when you look.

(edit) included ryzen master aswell

the only difference is see here is my MEM VDDIO 0 yours is 1.38, my MEM VTT 0 yours is 0.69, CLDO VDDP and CLDO VDDG is same for you and my values differs.


----------



## Uns33n

gerardfraser said:


> Well how about CL16 3866Mhz ,I did not even try yet either
> [ul=rl]


Whats are your voltages?


----------



## gerardfraser

@xcr89
Your results are fine and not much different than mine and does not make a real difference in anything performance wise. 
I still have same results on any BIOS or at least the last time I checked.
MEM VDDIO=DRAM voltage is 1.38
MEM VTT=Is auto set by BIOS which should be 0.7v for my settings
I used Ultimate Power plan with Interrupt steering setting route on Processor 1
All core overclock of 4500Mhz,since it was all core overclock latency will be lower.

@Uns33n
Which voltages are you asking about.The screen shot was months ago and all core overclock ,so I do not remember exactly,my current BIOS voltages are


Spoiler



CPUConfig_00


----------



## rastaviper

xcr89 said:


> sorry i edited my previous post i thought you double posted 2 different setups-
> 
> 
> 
> I tried your settings with all from lowest procodt all the way to 80 ohm, and different cad bus block's 40-20-20-24, 40-20-24-24, 24-20-24-24, 24-20-20-24, 24-24-24-24, literally nothing would allow me the get post it gets stuck at RAM training but doesnt reboot to retrain again at 1866 , 1933 fclk.
> 
> 
> 
> i had to lower it to 3800 ram speed and fclk 1900 with your settings for it to be able to post. tell me if i missed something here, soc is 1.1, dram 1.5 yes i got a ram cooler blowing on them the red one from gskill.
> 
> 
> 
> also your on agesa 1.0.0.4 i am still on 1.0.0.3, 1001 bios idk if that could be the culprit here.
> 
> 
> 
> i also tested gdm enabled and disabled, is it supposed to be such a little difference between thoese values in terms of latency?
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see in the first image the memory latency was down to 65.1 with enabled and here it shows worse with disabled so that got my clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> same here in membench default you can see the small difference where it is barely none is this correct or is something wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the names of the pictures when you look.
> 
> 
> 
> (edit) included ryzen master aswell
> 
> 
> 
> the only difference is see here is my MEM VDDIO 0 yours is 1.38, my MEM VTT 0 yours is 0.69, CLDO VDDP and CLDO VDDG is same for you and my values differs.


U won't go under 63 ns if you don't increase your.CPU clock at around 4.4-4.5Ghz and drop your timings at 14-14-14.

I could get my 3600x at 62.5 ns only in that way.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## nick name

xamphear said:


> Hello DRAM friends, I've made excellent progress with my RAM OC, but I've hit a bit of a wall and would love to know if I have reached the most I can get or if there is any room for improvement. Here's where I'm at right now, running at 3800 with a 1900 FCLK in 1:1. I've thrown every test at it that I've found in this thread, and I've been using it daily for the past couple weeks without any stability problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I drop tRFC by much, I get POST failures. Dropping tRC also gives me problems. The random latency seems like it could be improved? 70 feels high compared to other results I've seen. Any advice would be appreciated.


What is that timing checker you're using?


----------



## nick name

I wanna say that I read there were some secondary/sub timings that could be run a little lower on Ryzen 2000 than on Ryzen 3000, but I can't remember what they were. Does that sound familiar to anyone?


----------



## PJVol

rastaviper said:


> U won't go under 63 ns if you don't increase your.CPU clock at around 4.4-4.5Ghz and drop your timings at 14-14-14.
> I could get my 3600x at 62.5 ns only in that way.


 hmm...


----------



## Krisztias

Hi Folks!

My friend bought a X570-I Aorus Pro Wi-Fi motherboard, 3800X and G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC memory. I flashed the new F12e bios.
The RAM can't run on the advertised speed, BSOD on boot or BSOD when we run memtes from DRAM Calculator. Enabling xmp/manually entering just the primaries/manually entering everything from calc. is a no go. On BIOS defaults, at 2133 the RAM is stable.

Please help!


----------



## gerardfraser

Krisztias said:


> Hi Folks!
> 
> My friend bought a X570-I Aorus Pro Wi-Fi motherboard, 3800X and G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC memory. I flashed the new F12e bios.
> The RAM can't run on the advertised speed, BSOD on boot or BSOD when we run memtes from DRAM Calculator. Enabling xmp/manually entering just the primaries/manually entering everything from calc. is a no go. On BIOS defaults, at 2133 the RAM is stable.
> 
> Please help!


Enter manual settings from the calculator and put DRAM voltage at 1.40v.


----------



## nick name

So now that I'm back to overclocking RAM with a new CPU I've been going into UEFI/BIOS constantly and was curious if Window's ability to reboot into the UEFI could be turned into a shortcut. IT CAN BE!!! And here's how. 

(I don't know how to order images on here so please forgive when they are out of order. They are titled sequentially, however, so hover over to find which step the image is.)

Step 1: Right click on the desktop New > Shortcut
Step 2: Input *shutdown.exe /r /fw /t 2* into the field.
Step 3: Name your shortcut
Step 4: Right click your shortcut and go to properties 
Step 5: Click Advanced
Step 6: Check the box to Run As Administrator and hit OK
Step 7: Click Change Icon and disregard the prompt that pops up
Step 8: Select the icon you'd like to use and press OK
Step 9: Someone has a new shortcut to reboot into the UEFI/BIOS! 

In the command we are using the /t 2 sets the amount of seconds before the system reboots. If you don't use /t (value in seconds) then the system will take about 30 seconds before it reboots.

You now no longer have to mash DEL or F2 at boot.

Where I got it from:
https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials...boot-uefi-firmware-settings-windows-10-a.html

Solution for UAC interruptions:
https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials...shortcut-without-uac-prompt-windows-10-a.html


----------



## shotround

nick name said:


> So now that I'm back to overclocking RAM with a new CPU I've been going into UEFI/BIOS constantly and was curious if Window's ability to reboot into the UEFI could be turned into a shortcut. IT CAN BE!!! And here's how.
> 
> You now no longer have to mash DEL or F2 at boot.


awesome. how do you get around the uac? I might just leave it as a 'cancel' of sorts.


----------



## nick name

shotround said:


> awesome. how do you get around the uac? I might just leave it as a 'cancel' of sorts.


Oh, I don't run UAC. But this might help.

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials...shortcut-without-uac-prompt-windows-10-a.html

And this is where I got the how-to on how to create the shortcut. I typed up my own directions to add the /t 2 because it wasn't in their write-up and the /t solution was a few pages into the comments. 

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials...boot-uefi-firmware-settings-windows-10-a.html


----------



## dthack6

*Can't Access Lower Buttons*

I can't even get past the "read XMP" step because the window wants to snap to the top of the monitor no matter how much I drag it. The bottom row of buttons are below the bottom of my screen. So incredibly frustrating. Any help is appreciated.


----------



## Mikkinen

I have a question, I don't know if it's trivial.
Is the RAM voltage needed to reach a certain frequency also affected by the CPU or does it depend only on RAM?
For example, we have two cpu and two identical ram modules, to reach a certain frequency and timings (e.g. 3200 CL14), one is sufficient 1.35v, another one needs 1.40v, this depends more on the ram or the cpu?


----------



## PJVol

As long as cpu has memory controller inside, the thing may not be so trvial, as it seems at the first glance, but that do not neglect memory chip binning, so i think its a sum of factors. For example my ddr4 modules failed to boot on anything over 3466 on ryzen 1600, but they easily take a 3800 barrier over on my 3600x, i even run them at 4000, but due to async nature of IF-MC in this case, i put them back to 3800.
PS: Had to admit, its very siplified POV at the matter from myself.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Mikkinen said:


> I have a question, I don't know if it's trivial.
> Is the RAM voltage needed to reach a certain frequency also affected by the CPU or does it depend only on RAM?
> For example, we have two cpu and two identical ram modules, to reach a certain frequency and timings (e.g. 3200 CL14), one is sufficient 1.35v, another one needs 1.40v, this depends more on the ram or the cpu?





Cpu shouldn't need to be altered, soc will need more voltage for higher frequencies which can cause more heat. In that case your overclock might need a little more vcore to remain stable.


----------



## happyluckbox

How well will this work for my 3970x and 256gb of ram (tridentz neo)?


----------



## yrelbirb

Hi people, im happy to be a part of your community.

i recently switched from intel to amd systems and bought a ryzen 2700x and a gigabyte b450 gaming x (i know, not a top board board but i got it for very good price) using my cpu at +0.126 offset vcore and at 4.1 ghz (tried 30 min small fft and no crashes/errors and games seem fine) temps and vrm temps seem fine (vrm temps topped at 90 degrees which seemed a little bit worrying but gaming wise its a different story  )

I had two sets of Micron B-Die Corsair LPX RAMs.. (CMK8GX4M1D3000C16) ---D9TBH (MT40A1G8WE-083E:B---

I've been trying to overclock my rams alittle bit to gain some extra edge. I first tried 1usmus dram calculator values for 3466 and 3400 mhz and got a crash on prime95 smallftt at 5 min mark. i also tried some already succesful micron b-die experiments but sadly almost all of them crashed at small fft test prime95 about 3-5 min)

Finally, i tried 1.42v 3200 mhz 14-20-8-14-21 1T timings and 15 min small fft stable.

But is there any rooms for improvements or is it possible to get 3400 or 3400+ mhz with these kits?

Thx in advance! I can provide more info if u need

tayfoon burner,

https://prnt.sc/rgu9k8


UPDATE!

https://prnt.sc/rh4a6q

Final situation is like this.  It passed 8 hours of memtest86 and 1 hours of Prime95 Small FFTs. I will try gaming as well.

Here's my other timings which was set on AUTO. Any improvements can be done_?

https://prnt.sc/rh4aur


----------



## hardwarelimits

yrelbirb said:


> Hi people, im happy to be a part of your community.
> 
> i recently switched from intel to amd systems and bought a ryzen 2700x and a gigabyte b450 gaming x (i know, not a top board board but i got it for very good price) using my cpu at +0.126 offset vcore and at 4.1 ghz (tried 30 min small fft and no crashes/errors and games seem fine) temps and vrm temps seem fine (vrm temps topped at 90 degrees which seemed a little bit worrying but gaming wise its a different story  )
> 
> I had two sets of Micron B-Die Corsair LPX RAMs.. (CMK8GX4M1D3000C16) ---D9TBH (MT40A1G8WE-083E:B---
> 
> I've been trying to overclock my rams alittle bit to gain some extra edge. I first tried 1usmus dram calculator values for 3466 and 3400 mhz and got a crash on prime95 smallftt at 5 min mark. i also tried some already succesful micron b-die experiments but sadly almost all of them crashed at small fft test prime95 about 3-5 min)
> 
> Finally, i tried 1.42v 3200 mhz 14-20-8-14-21 1T timings and 15 min small fft stable.
> 
> But is there any rooms for improvements or is it possible to get 3400 or 3400+ mhz with these kits?
> 
> Thx in advance! I can provide more info if u need
> 
> tayfoon burner,
> 
> https://prnt.sc/rgu9k8
> 
> 
> UPDATE!
> 
> https://prnt.sc/rh4a6q
> 
> Final situation is like this.  It passed 8 hours of memtest86 and 1 hours of Prime95 Small FFTs. I will try gaming as well.
> 
> Here's my other timings which was set on AUTO. Any improvements can be done_?
> 
> https://prnt.sc/rh4aur


Try TRC 41 

TRRDS 4 

TFAW 16
TWR 16 



Use the memtest included on Dram calculator to test stability


----------



## yrelbirb

hardwarelimits said:


> Try TRC 41
> 
> TRRDS 4
> 
> TFAW 16
> TWR 16
> 
> 
> 
> Use the memtest included on Dram calculator to test stability


my computer failed to boot, had to cmos reset


----------



## hardwarelimits

yrelbirb said:


> my computer failed to boot, had to cmos reset


Ok maybe was a bit agressive,
TRC 50
TRRDS 6
TFAW 24
Leave TWR 26 for now


----------



## Kildar

Doesn't work for me nothing happens with /fw. works otherwise.


----------



## Alex0401

please tell me, did anyone manage to overclock this memory Trident Z Neo F4-3600C16D-16GTZN? 

CPU: ryzen 3700x, 
MB: x570 Aorus Master


----------



## gerardfraser

Alex0401 said:


> please tell me, did anyone manage to overclock this memory Trident Z Neo F4-3600C16D-16GTZN?
> 
> CPU: ryzen 3700x,
> MB: x570 Aorus Master


Of course they did,also you do not need to overclock that Ram ,just tune the timings.You could even run that Ram at 2933Mhz with tuned timing and still get the same FPS while PC gaming.Your Ram is good enough


----------



## Alex0401

gerardfraser said:


> Of course they did,also you do not need to overclock that Ram ,just tune the timings.You could even run that Ram at 2933Mhz with tuned timing and still get the same FPS while PC gaming.Your Ram is good enough


I tried to configure but failed. so I wanted to know if someone was able to configure this RAM?
I would like to tune to 3200MHz with good timings.


----------



## KedarWolf

Alex0401 said:


> please tell me, did anyone manage to overclock this memory Trident Z Neo F4-3600C16D-16GTZN?
> 
> CPU: ryzen 3700x,
> MB: x570 Aorus Master


BIOS settings in Spoiler, but your RAM is single rank, might be able to have Gear Down Mode disabled which is better. 



Spoiler
























































































Yes, I have that but 2x16GB kit. getting really good clocks on it, brb, I'm going to post my BIOS settings. HCI MemTest stable as well.


----------



## gerardfraser

Alex0401 said:


> I tried to configure but failed. so I wanted to know if someone was able to configure this RAM?
> I would like to tune to 3200MHz with good timings.


That Ram would run CL14 3200Mhz all day long.You just need DRAM voltage for stability.


----------



## Alex0401

gerardfraser said:


> That Ram would run CL14 3200Mhz all day long.You just need DRAM voltage for stability.


if anyone could lay out the correct voltage and BIOS settings for this RAM it would be very good. and I would like to know if there will be a big difference if I leave the XMP profile in BIOS and the settings for C14 3200Mhz?


----------



## gerardfraser

Alex0401 said:


> if anyone could lay out the correct voltage and BIOS settings for this RAM it would be very good. and I would like to know if there will be a big difference if I leave the XMP profile in BIOS and the settings for C14 3200Mhz?


Not sure if you are messing around,on the page KedarWolf post is running neo Ram,with every setting from his BIOS posted including RAM settings.Copy the ram and voltages settings,pick the ram speed you want,put the settings in your BIOS.
Test the settings to see if they work,than change the settings and test again. Like I said you can do CL14 3200Mhz no problem,if that is what you want.


----------



## KedarWolf

Alex0401 said:


> if anyone could lay out the correct voltage and BIOS settings for this RAM it would be very good. and I would like to know if there will be a big difference if I leave the XMP profile in BIOS and the settings for C14 3200Mhz?


Click on the Spoiler in the below post, you'll find BIOS screenshots. 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-686.html#post28378822


----------



## dawidezzo

*please help and advice *

Hello, how can I get more performance out of my memory? 

Patriot Viper [email protected] CJR

Ryzen Calculator Fast Preset, I only changed alt tRFC from 445 to 442 (tRFC2=328, tRFC4=202)

procODT 53, RTT_NOM 34, RTT_WR off, RTT_Park 48, CadBus 4x24

Soc 1.025v LLC1, DRAM voltage 1.43v (aida64 and hwinfo64 show 1.456v) 

Ryzen [email protected]

THX!


----------



## gerardfraser

@dawidezzo
Now I am not saying do not try to get better or higher score.Do whatever you like.Even if you had Ryzen 3XXX CPU with the highest settings would not make a real difference in performance.
Your Ram is fine and will make no difference in playing PC games or applications.Tight timings like you have already is the best for performance.I made a couple video's in this post,if you wanna see.

AMD Ryzen Fabric Clock 1467Mhz (DDR4 2933Mhz) vs Fabric Clock 1933Mhz (DDR4 3866Mhz) Battlefield 5 and Grand Theft Auto V and Red Dead Redemption 2 and Sleeping [email protected]
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...000-series-owner-s-club-125.html#post28378726


----------



## Kildar

I have an Asus Crosshair VI Hero with a 3900x and this memory: GSkill F4-320014D-16GTZR.

I cannot get it over 3200. I've tried everything and others seem to be able to get it to 3600 or higher.

I'm beginning to think it's the motherboard at this point as it was one of the first AM4 MB's produced.


----------



## rares495

Kildar said:


> I have an Asus Crosshair VI Hero with a 3900x and this memory: GSkill F4-320014D-16GTZR.
> 
> I cannot get it over 3200. I've tried everything and others seem to be able to get it to 3600 or higher.
> 
> I'm beginning to think it's the motherboard at this point as it was one of the first AM4 MB's produced.


Lose that joke of a CPU overclock because you will damage your 3900X at that voltage.


----------



## Serchio

Kildar said:


> I have an Asus Crosshair VI Hero with a 3900x and this memory: GSkill F4-320014D-16GTZR.
> 
> I cannot get it over 3200. I've tried everything and others seem to be able to get it to 3600 or higher.
> 
> I'm beginning to think it's the motherboard at this point as it was one of the first AM4 MB's produced.



I have had exactly the same hardware as yours and I was able to push these mems to 3733MHz.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## thesebastian

Which SoC voltage do you recommend for infinity fabric at 1866Mhz (for Micron E at 3733Mhz )

1.030V or 1.1V? 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## rares495

thesebastian said:


> Which SoC voltage do you recommend for infinity fabric at 1866Mhz (for Micron E at 3733Mhz )
> 
> 1.030V or 1.1V?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


There isn't a definitive SOC voltage for a certain FCLK or MEMCLK. It's different for every CPU/RAM kit. You could try 1.050V at first then go to 1.1V but also change VDDP to 0.900V and both VDDGs to 0.950V

Over 1.15V SOC can cause instability at high MEM/FCLK. 1.2V is the max you can go up to without the risk of damaging the IMC. Some CPUs and DIMMs do need 1.2V SOC but mine were pretty unstable so I went back to 1.1V or close to that.


----------



## thesebastian

rares495 said:


> There isn't a definitive SOC voltage for a certain FCLK or MEMCLK. It's different for every CPU/RAM kit. You could try 1.050V at first then go to 1.1V but also change VDDP to 0.900V and both VDDGs to 0.950V
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1.15V SOC can cause instability at high MEM/FCLK. 1.2V is the max you can go up to without the risk of damaging the IMC. Some CPUs and DIMMs do need 1.2V SOC but mine were pretty unstable so I went back to 1.1V or close to that.


Ok thanks! I didn't know that. i think my motherboard (ASrock B450 ITX) when is set to AUTO automatically uses 1.1V


When I tried 3733Mhz I had the ram at 1.45V and the SoC at 1.030V but after a few hours of gaming got a memory violation error.

So now I wanted to try the same config with a higher SoC voltage like 1.1V (it could be the ram that needs more voltage...but also the SOC voltage was maybe a bit low for 3733Mhz)


The other two voltages VDDP and VDDG I don't know if my motherboard let me change them
I tried but I think they were not changing...so I'm just adjusting SoC voltage and ram voltage


Edit: I'm trying 3733 at worse latencies (18 20 20 20 ) which is basically Manual profile 3733Mhz.

I set 1.1V SoC / 1.45V RAM

CLD0 VDDP = Auto and it shows as 1.0979
CLD0 VDDG = Auto and it shows as 0.6996

But I think I tried changing these and they always show like this in Ryzen Master. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kildar

rares495 said:


> Lose that joke of a CPU overclock because you will damage your 3900X at that voltage.


Please elaborate?


----------



## rares495

Kildar said:


> Please elaborate?


1.325 is a safe voltage for 50% of chips. 1.395 is just asking for degradation.

Plus that static overclock makes no sense. 4.3ghz on a 4.7ghz chip. You're losing way too much single thread performance and gaining what exactly? 24 threads at 4ghz were too slow for you so you added 300mhz and now the performance is great? That makes no sense.


----------



## deepor

Kildar said:


> Please elaborate?



Here's more about that 1.325V number being safe or unsafe:

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ejd5c9/1325v_is_not_safe_for_zen_2/

You need to keep in mind that the safe voltage is unique for each CPU. You shouldn't use a number from someone else. You can try to find out your CPU's limit by testing what voltage it tries to use by itself when it's under full stress.


----------



## Kildar

rares495 said:


> 1.325 is a safe voltage for 50% of chips. 1.395 is just asking for degradation.
> 
> Plus that static overclock makes no sense. 4.3ghz on a 4.7ghz chip. You're losing way too much single thread performance and gaining what exactly? 24 threads at 4ghz were too slow for you so you added 300mhz and now the performance is great? That makes no sense.


That's not static that's at max while testing....

Also, I'm actually running a negative offset on cpu voltage.


----------



## kyo2020

rares495 said:


> 1.325 is a safe voltage for 50% of chips. 1.395 is just asking for degradation.
> 
> Plus that static overclock makes no sense. 4.3ghz on a 4.7ghz chip. You're losing way too much single thread performance and gaining what exactly? 24 threads at 4ghz were too slow for you so you added 300mhz and now the performance is great? That makes no sense.






This is a myth, I mistakenly started the r5 3600 at 1.62v with the NH-D15, set the voltage to hwinfo, restart and put the stock voltage. It works great. I add I degraded a microprocessor and it happened without reaching windows in a few seconds for using a lot of voltage. Basically when it happens you can't use the microprocessor at stock frequency with stock voltage. You have to turn up the voltage for it to work.


----------



## rares495

kyo2020 said:


> This is a myth, I mistakenly started the r5 3600 at 1.62v with the NH-D15, set the voltage to hwinfo, restart and put the stock voltage. It works great. I add I degraded a microprocessor and it happened without reaching windows in a few seconds for using a lot of voltage. Basically when it happens you can't use the microprocessor at stock frequency with stock voltage. You have to turn up the voltage for it to work.


There's fast degradation and slow degradation over time. You need 2V to kill the chip fast, but 1.4 will do for a nice slow degradation over a couple of months.


----------



## kyo2020

rares495 said:


> There's fast degradation and slow degradation over time. You need 2V to kill the chip fast, but 1.4 will do for a nice slow degradation over a couple of months.



If that were true my r5 3600 would already be dead stock works with a voltage of 1.42v to 1.48v, I bought it as soon as it went on sale ...


----------



## rares495

kyo2020 said:


> If that were true my r5 3600 would already be dead stock works with a voltage of 1.42v to 1.48v, I bought it as soon as it went on sale ...


It does 1.48V during low current loads (single thread - up to around 20-25A). In high current loads(50+ A) it goes down to 1.2ish. Try performing a cinebench run then a cinebench single core.

We were talking about a static overclock, not auto settings.


----------



## kyo2020

rares495 said:


> It does 1.48V during low current loads (single thread - up to around 20-25A). In high current loads(50+ A) it goes down to 1.2ish. Try performing a cinebench run then a cinebench single core.
> 
> We were talking about a static overclock, not auto settings.



But you can manually overclock Ryzen using PBO, it's better.


----------



## rastaviper

kyo2020 said:


> But you can manually overclock Ryzen using PBO, it's better.


Better than a static OC?
Of course not.
You can check it by doing a simple test.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

kyo2020 said:


> But you can manually overclock Ryzen using PBO, it's better.
> 
> 
> 
> rastaviper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better than a static OC?
> Of course not.
> You can check it by doing a simple test
Click to expand...

PBO on this agesa is a waste
same as the EDC bug is a waste 
It shows virtual numbers, it might look like it boosts higher but it doesn't help in relative performance
PBO can be used to limit powerdraw on multi-core intensive tests and help SC be higher
forwarding you to this guide 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e8nne7/play_with_pbo_settings_dont_just_set_them_all_to/
PBO can be used to finding out FIT rated voltage for each CCX and maximum allcore under X load
But that's it - so far PBO is useless , same as AutoOC is a mess 
Only up till X5 multiplier makes sense, anything over does mess up boosting and has negative effects
X4 is optimal, sometimes lower

Be sure CPPC is enabled and RyzenMaster is gone 
without sleeping cores boost is far lower


----------



## amine4ever

Hey guys. What do you think about my OC. Do you have any suggestions?


----------



## guanin2999

Good day all. Recently got a new ram and want to try and overclock to get more value from these 2 sticks. They're Micron Rev E, BLS2K16G4D30AESC. On Gigabyte's X470 Aorus Gaming 7 motherboards' UEFI, you can change RAM timings on either the MIT tab or Chipset tab (see picture for reference). If you wanted to overclock your RAM where do you actually change the timings? I noticed that there are values specified by Dram Calculator that is not in MIT and can only be found under Chipset. However I run into issues if I try to set values under both tabs.

How do I overclock my RAM properly with this motherboard?


----------



## gerardfraser

Veii said:


> PBO on this agesa is a waste
> same as the EDC bug is a waste
> It shows virtual numbers, it might look like it boosts higher but it doesn't help in relative performance
> PBO can be used to limit powerdraw on multi-core intensive tests and help SC be higher
> forwarding you to this guide
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e8nne7/play_with_pbo_settings_dont_just_set_them_all_to/
> PBO can be used to finding out FIT rated voltage for each CCX and maximum allcore under X load
> But that's it - so far PBO is useless , same as AutoOC is a mess
> Only up till X5 multiplier makes sense, anything over does mess up boosting and has negative effects
> X4 is optimal, sometimes lower
> 
> Be sure CPPC is enabled and RyzenMaster is gone
> without sleeping cores boost is far lower


If I missed the point of what I quoted ,I apologize in advance because I did not read who thread and got triggered by waste and useless remarks. 

I know your trying to help out but I disagree about the useless part,I say is it the Motherboard Manufacture along with AMD to get PBO working correctly or as intended,so I would not say useless.Then that depends of what one would call useless.Is getting free FPS in a PC Game useless when running PBO Override or BIOS Tweak.I think that is why everyoe who messes with there CPU/Ram is going for more performance.

PBO has always worked well for me on my MSI Motherboard over 4 Ryzen CPU's.I can say I have never got 200Mhz over Max Boost written on the box As Per AMD Robert Hallock video but always at least 125Mhz over Max Boost written on the box and that to me is not useless.

Some spam video's examples of PBO Override and Tweak Bug:All are better than default settings.

3600X PBO Override on Boost up to 4500Mhz Cinbench and 4525Mhz PC Gaming 


Spoiler



3600X Hitting 4500Mhz Cinebench 20





3600X Max Over Boost 4525Mhz Pc Gaming








EG:3800X PBO Override on Boost up to 4650Mhz PC Gaming 


Spoiler



3800X 4650Mhz Boost Outlast 2





AI PC Game Boost









EDC bug is not useless and I love using it.Gives Extra 100+Mhz 

3800X Cinbench20 
Single Thread-530 score
Multi Thread -5260 score
Idle temperature CPU-28°C
Max temperature CPU-71°C


Spoiler



Cinebench20 AMD Ryzen 3800X Tweak








3800X BF5 Default vs BIOS tweak for free FPS PC gaming.


Spoiler








AMD Ryzen Default and BIOS Tweak Test CPU Speed at 60FPS 120FPS

Default BIOS setting @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4350Mhz - 4425Mhz - Avg 4400Mhz
BIOS boost EDC set to 1A @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4475Mhz - 4550Mhz - Avg 4525Mhz
BIOS boost EDC set to 10A @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4500Mhz - 4575Mhz - Avg 4525Mhz
BIOS boost EDC set to 1A @120 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4450Mhz - 4525Mhz - Avg 4475Mhz


----------



## Veii

gerardfraser said:


> If I missed the point of what I quoted ,I apologize in advance because I did not read who thread and got triggered by waste and useless remarks.
> 
> I know your trying to help out but I disagree about the useless part,I say is it the Motherboard Manufacture along with AMD to get PBO working correctly or as intended,so I would not say useless.Then that depends of what one would call useless.Is getting free FPS in a PC Game useless when running PBO Override or BIOS Tweak.I think that is why everyoe who messes with there CPU/Ram is going for more performance.
> 
> PBO has always worked well for me on my MSI Motherboard over 4 Ryzen CPU's.I can say I have never got 200Mhz over Max Boost written on the box As Per AMD Robert Hallock video but always at least 125Mhz over Max Boost written on the box and that to me is not useless.
> 
> Some spam video's examples of PBO Override and Tweak Bug:All are better than default settings.


The useless wording wasn't ment because it's not working - i'm sorry for the bad wording
It was ment because 3 factors exist which people don't keep in mind:
- Ryzen 3rd gen can boost as high as much voltage you give it
- It's maximum boost does vary on 3 sectors (applied by AMD Wattage limits, Applied by SMU Throttle temp, and tDie temp)
same as silicon fitness which is read out in nearly realtime 
- core stretching does remain to be active

The reason PBO works to show higher clocks is, because on one hand you do lift part of the thermal limit which allows the cpu to boost higher and not throttle after 50c it's maximum boost or after 85c it's voltage too
On the other hand, PBO does from the start supply a higher voltage offset
This higher voltage offset is the reason why people got far better results with negative offset matching 1.48v peaks as max

The reason why this method worked was, on one hand the 85c throttle temp can be modified and pushed further away within the PBO menu
And on the other hand again, "optimal voltage curve shifted" which lets the cpu ultimately use higher voltage, and so boosting higher because FIT think's it's now alright with higher voltage to apply X frequency while keeping it stable

Another reason we don't always see (i've watched the videos but the maker often didn't list applied current)
Is that clock stretching exists up to bios date 
If you push an offset the cpu will boost higher - that's normal and you can read it out via ACPI CPPC % rating via windows own perf monitor tool
But ultimately you cause clock stretching that way, and these ghz numbers are just fake 
Buildzoid should've reviewed that part a bit after he was asked about his opinion on the EDC bug

I can see that far higher supplied voltage might even help hitting higher stable FLCK
But it remains that you do overvolt your ryzen for virtual numbers
Because clock stretching is still active and several artificial Infinity Fabric limits are active
Soon you should get a new agesa which does update several modules, including FIT's behavior and the voltage range (SMU for example)
Afterwards you can use an offset to meet higher boost clock without degrading the chip slowly
The maximum range will continue to be 1.5v and "opening PBO" will not be needed


Spoiler














So far, people's tries either result in clock stretching or overvolting which results logically in higher boosting range 
(IF, you remove couple of thermal limits ~ which you can do)
but you can not influence SMU directly , the bug does work on some bioses but only looks like it's working because you bug out FIT
This is the reason i mean it's "useless" so far
It can be used to determine your sillicon safe allcore voltage, as on 1004B it still does shift it's voltage range
But FIT is still active and does autocorrect, so you aren't purposely degrading your chip
With the EDC bug it doesn't, only the thermal boosting behavior remains but that's nothing you should focus about
Higher voltages, with an allcore boosting bug without FIT's silicon control

My advice is just to focus on PBO either limiting current - which does result in better boost and better effective peformance
As you work with CPPC together here
Or on 1004B - if you use PBO for above written method, use a negative offset

You are limited elsewhere to benefit from PBO
So far it's only virtual numbers without the effective perf they should deliver, under higher voltage 
In short:
PBO under an offset, with fixed throttle temp at 85c is effectively the best option right now
And multiplier of 1x-4x, 5x already results in clock stretching
Or you use PBO just to fiddle your voltages around for per CCX OC (see 1usmus threadripper guide on per CCX OC)


----------



## seansplayin

gerardfraser said:


> If I missed the point of what I quoted ,I apologize in advance because I did not read who thread and got triggered by waste and useless remarks.
> 
> I know your trying to help out but I disagree about the useless part,I say is it the Motherboard Manufacture along with AMD to get PBO working correctly or as intended,so I would not say useless.Then that depends of what one would call useless.Is getting free FPS in a PC Game useless when running PBO Override or BIOS Tweak.I think that is why everyoe who messes with there CPU/Ram is going for more performance.
> 
> PBO has always worked well for me on my MSI Motherboard over 4 Ryzen CPU's.I can say I have never got 200Mhz over Max Boost written on the box As Per AMD Robert Hallock video but always at least 125Mhz over Max Boost written on the box and that to me is not useless.
> 
> Some spam video's examples of PBO Override and Tweak Bug:All are better than default settings.
> 
> 3600X PBO Override on Boost up to 4500Mhz Cinbench and 4525Mhz PC Gaming
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 3600X Hitting 4500Mhz Cinebench 20
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHQ1GwPkrt0
> 
> 3600X Max Over Boost 4525Mhz Pc Gaming
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzp456BNG70
> 
> 
> 
> EG:3800X PBO Override on Boost up to 4650Mhz PC Gaming
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 3800X 4650Mhz Boost Outlast 2
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60wWpCGPks
> 
> AI PC Game Boost
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi8zYkMcWVg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDC bug is not useless and I love using it.Gives Extra 100+Mhz
> 
> 3800X Cinbench20
> Single Thread-530 score
> Multi Thread -5260 score
> Idle temperature CPU-28°C
> Max temperature CPU-71°C
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Cinebench20 AMD Ryzen 3800X Tweak
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0VjJ7nfdOw&t=7s
> 
> 
> 
> 3800X BF5 Default vs BIOS tweak for free FPS PC gaming.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPt_pLZg8j4
> 
> AMD Ryzen Default and BIOS Tweak Test CPU Speed at 60FPS 120FPS
> 
> Default BIOS setting @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4350Mhz - 4425Mhz - Avg 4400Mhz
> BIOS boost EDC set to 1A @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4475Mhz - 4550Mhz - Avg 4525Mhz
> BIOS boost EDC set to 10A @60 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4500Mhz - 4575Mhz - Avg 4525Mhz
> BIOS boost EDC set to 1A @120 FPS Cap- CPU Frequency Range 4450Mhz - 4525Mhz - Avg 4475Mhz
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EIHD3OBrdY


I'll start by saying I'm a 20 year fan of AMD and I have built five Ryzen 7 systems since February 2017. I'm sorry but I do not share your views, in my opinion there is almost no point in having a high opportunistic boost clock that will only occur when the CPU is lightly loaded and is within the temperature and power budget of the boost algorithm. If the CPU is lightly loaded what's the point of boosting? As for PBO using my 3800x with the Asus Crosshair 8 Hero motherboard on a chilled loop @ -25c Glycol temperature on Bios 1002 gave single thread opportunistic boost clocks of 4650mhz and only 4575 on Cinebench R20 After switching to bios 1003 ABBA sadly there was a reduction of 25mhz which is also true for bios 1004 as well. Lowering the CPU's temperature will however provide better all core frequency up to 4475mhz when running Cinebench R20 but for single threaded frequency it's almost completely useless. Best case scenario with ridiculous chilled loop cooling PBO will get you to the rated speed of your cpu (4.5ghz/3800x) when running Cinebench R20. Using all core overclock of 4.6ghz requires 1.289 vcore and 4.9ghz requires 1.56vcore. Now that i've spewed Hate at AMD I will say I freaking love this system, the massive IPC gain coupled with 32GB Trident Z memory with tuned timings is just impressive.


----------



## gerardfraser

Thanks for the great replies,of course I believe my testing over anything.
I also believe you guys waste your time trying to get the best memory speeds when in reality,just does not matter on Ryzen CPU's.

1920x1080 2933Mhz(FCLK 1467 Mhz) Vs 3866Mhz (FCLK 1933 Mhz) AMD Ryzen 3800X Guess what same results.





I guess I could run my Ryzen @4650Mhz All core





I guess I could run my Ryzen @4625Mhz All core





I guess I could run my Ryzen @4500Mhz All core


----------



## amine4ever

@gerardfraser not true. Here is my cinebench scores. At stock CPU clocks and with ram OC only i got better score. 
As you can see the more i push the ram the better result i get.


----------



## gerardfraser

amine4ever said:


> @gerardfraser not true. Here is my cinebench scores. At stock CPU clocks and with ram OC only i got better score.
> As you can see the more i push the ram the better result i get.


Are you people just blind and do not know how to test and interpet results.

You have no clue what you are saying.It is like the internet is full of negative people that have there own agenda,without facts.
OK I realize your a Bot and if you are not,then you have problems.Cause your a id01t
2600X at 4350Mhz
My 2600 is 1501 yours is 33%less,what the hell are your on


----------



## amine4ever

@gerardfraser I don't understand what you are talking about. You have a 2600x while i got 2600 non-x. And your cpu is at 4.35Ghz while mine is at 3.40Ghz so obviously you have a better score. -_-
Also i don't get why you said i'm negative while you are the one that is saying that "it's useless to OC the Ram" and i just showed you that by OCing the ram alone (without even touching the Ryzen CPU) you get better performance. Are you drunk?


----------



## rares495

amine4ever said:


> @gerardfraser I don't understand what you are talking about. You have a 2600x while i got 2600 non-x. And your cpu is at 4.35Ghz while mine is at 3.40Ghz so obviously you have a better score. -_-
> Also i don't get why you said i'm negative while you are the one that is saying that "it's useless to OC the Ram" and i just showed you that by OCing the ram alone (without even touching the Ryzen CPU) you get better performance. Are you drunk?


You don't get better performance on Ryzen 1000/2000. You might get 100 more points in CB but that's useless in real applications unless you do memory-intensive tasks which you probably don't.

It does make a huge difference on Ryzen 3000, though, even in games. I gained 15-20 fps by going from 3000 CL15 to 3800 CL14.


----------



## seansplayin

@gerardfraser you make a claim that memory tuning is a waste of time and them post a video showing 2933 memory overlocked via tightened timings using CL 12 and trp 13 vs a 3800 memory kit with common timings. In all examples of that video the 3800 memory kit produced higher average, 1% and 0.1% lows, additionally you can see the cpu pulls more power and the gpu has higher utilization. 
if your point was that tightening memory timings on a slower memory kit makes it perform close to a faster memory kit, um yeah, duh!
It's also true that not every game will see significant gains for memory tuning and if you're not somewhat cpu bound there will be no difference at all.
Here's a Hardware Unboxed video





Also this video pretty much craps all over your opinion that memory overclocking just doesn't matter for Ryzen CPU's and shows the 3950x gains almost double what the 9900ks gains from faster memory and tuned timings in the 18 games tested.





how ironic you call other users "bot", "id10t" and "blind" as well as make statements like "internet is full of negative people that have there own agenda,without facts" 

I'm not sure what was the point of posting a video of your cpu running at 4650mhz all the while running a capped 60fps frame rate and rocking 50% gpu usage, maybe trying to show your cpu is faster than mine? 
hopefully you can post your corona and Vray scores at 4650 mhz.
here are mine at 4.7ghz, I think I'll go update my scores at 4.9ghz even though I'm still in first place for the last 4 months.
https://benchmark.chaosgroup.com/next/cpu/details?hw=AMD+Ryzen+7+3800X+8-Core+Processor+x16&id=12598 
https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/results/cpu/3800x
https://app.photobucket.com/u/seansplayin/a/c8d8ad12-1bb6-41cd-b508-854500234f13


----------



## amine4ever

@seansplayin I can't agree more. XD


----------



## amine4ever

amine4ever said:


> Hey guys. What do you think about my OC. Do you have any suggestions?



Help me see how much the Ryzen 2 series are sensitive to Ram.


----------



## amine4ever

amine4ever said:


> Hey guys. What do you think about my OC. Do you have any suggestions?


These are the results so far.


----------



## xwyxw

*HELP! Unable to boot after updating DRAM :-(*

I am using the latest DRAM Calculator 1.7.0 to calculate the optimal DRAM timings in my system
* ASUS X570-I
* Ryzen 5 3600
* Corsair Vengance LPX 3200Mhz

I attached the the snapshot showing my current values vs the ones provided by DRAM Calculator (Fast)

Not sure why the system does not boot, and I had to revert all the changes.

What do you recommend? Is DRAM Calculator missing something to calculate the right values?


----------



## rares495

xwyxw said:


> I am using the latest DRAM Calculator 1.7.0 to calculate the optimal DRAM timings in my system
> * ASUS X570-I
> * Ryzen 5 3600
> * Corsair Vengance LPX 3200Mhz
> 
> I attached the the snapshot showing my current values vs the ones provided by DRAM Calculator (Fast)
> 
> Not sure why the system does not boot, and I had to revert all the changes.
> 
> What do you recommend? Is DRAM Calculator missing something to calculate the right values?


Wow, Samsung B-die on these cheap Corsair DIMMs. Amazing.


----------



## xwyxw

rares495 said:


> Wow, Samsung B-die on these cheap Corsair DIMMs. Amazing.


Very good deal


----------



## rastaviper

seansplayin said:


> @gerardfraser you make a claim that memory tuning is a waste of time and them post a video showing 2933 memory overlocked via tightened timings using CL 12 and trp 13 vs a 3800 memory kit with common timings. In all examples of that video the 3800 memory kit produced higher average, 1% and 0.1% lows, additionally you can see the cpu pulls more power and the gpu has higher utilization.
> 
> if your point was that tightening memory timings on a slower memory kit makes it perform close to a faster memory kit, um yeah, duh!
> 
> It's also true that not every game will see significant gains for memory tuning and if you're not somewhat cpu bound there will be no difference at all.
> 
> Here's a Hardware Unboxed video
> 
> https://youtu.be/iH3qq_mSxTM
> 
> 
> 
> Also this video pretty much craps all over your opinion that memory overclocking just doesn't matter for Ryzen CPU's and shows the 3950x gains almost double what the 9900ks gains from faster memory and tuned timings in the 18 games tested.
> 
> https://youtu.be/-5AWio1gBnc
> 
> 
> 
> how ironic you call other users "bot", "id10t" and "blind" as well as make statements like "internet is full of negative people that have there own agenda,without facts"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what was the point of posting a video of your cpu running at 4650mhz all the while running a capped 60fps frame rate and rocking 50% gpu usage, maybe trying to show your cpu is faster than mine?
> 
> hopefully you can post your corona and Vray scores at 4650 mhz.
> 
> here are mine at 4.7ghz, I think I'll go update my scores at 4.9ghz even though I'm still in first place for the last 4 months.
> 
> https://benchmark.chaosgroup.com/next/cpu/details?hw=AMD+Ryzen+7+3800X+8-Core+Processor+x16&id=12598
> 
> https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/results/cpu/3800x
> 
> https://app.photobucket.com/u/seansplayin/a/c8d8ad12-1bb6-41cd-b508-854500234f13


Good point.
Not the first time that he talks like this to other forum members.
He does this in different topics.
Maybe if he sees more people that don't like his attitude he will decide to change this behavior 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## seansplayin

amine4ever said:


> Help me see how much the Ryzen 2 series are sensitive to Ram.


Y-cruncher is a good program. 
Using the same timings I ran it at 2933 and 3600MT/s memory speeds. the 3600 speed performed the calculations in 91.56% of what it took at 2933 speed.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ad280/seansplayin/0/y-cruncher_3600(1).JPG
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ad280/seansplayin/0/y-cruncher_2933(1).JPG


----------



## yrelbirb

i think thisd is the wrong place to ask, sorry


----------



## dawidezzo

In what program do you see the difference?


----------



## yrelbirb

dawidezzo said:


> Where you feel the difference in level 2-3ns?


isn't the whole point of all these calculators, these discussions and such is to maximize ryzen performance?

there are people that would pay extra premium money to get from 65 ns to 62 ns or something like that. the whole "die" debacle is for mere nanoseconds, simply. so why would I not go after maximum performance? 

ryzen relies on performance and even a 1 ns can difffer alot for hereos of storm for example (a cpu bound game). 

maybe im wrong but i think you would be very wrong to criticise me in this regard, especially in such a discussion (where a tool is specially made and hundres of posts are being shared just to get 2-3 ns more)


----------



## dawidezzo

I understand your point of view, however, I think that if you don't see real profits then you shouldn't bother with it 

Good luck anyway


----------



## Mikkinen

guanin2999 said:


> Good day all. Recently got a new ram and want to try and overclock to get more value from these 2 sticks. They're Micron Rev E, BLS2K16G4D30AESC. On Gigabyte's X470 Aorus Gaming 7 motherboards' UEFI, you can change RAM timings on either the MIT tab or Chipset tab (see picture for reference). If you wanted to overclock your RAM where do you actually change the timings? I noticed that there are values specified by Dram Calculator that is not in MIT and can only be found under Chipset. However I run into issues if I try to set values under both tabs.
> 
> How do I overclock my RAM properly with this motherboard?


I have your same ram and motherboard with 2700X.
Try setting the xmp profile, setting 1T while all the timings in auto, with these settings I arrived at 3481 Mhz CL16 1.35v (I use the bclk at 102.4) and I got a latency of 64ns (I only lowered trc and trfc compared to timings of the xmp profile).
Otherwise with 1.35v I got 3200mhz CL14, using a voltage of 1.45v I got 3481 CL14 and 3549 CL 16, the imc of my cpu is not lucky.
If you are interested I'll post the settings I found.


----------



## rares495

Mikkinen said:


> Otherwise with 1.35v I got 3200mhz CL14, using a voltage of 1.45v I got 3481 CL14 and 3549 CL 16, the imc of my cpu is not lucky.
> If you are interested I'll post the settings I found.


You're not lucky. You're extremely lucky. 3549 CL16 is quite good for Ryzen 2000.


----------



## Veii

it's likely just setup issues, 2nd gen can run 3600XMP kits on decent boards
3733is about the max you should realistically seek for 

But as it seems still unknown
0.1ns or 0.2ns in Aida64 don't matter
But what matters is inter-ccx latency you can read out either with DRAM calculator or even better with SiSandra 
To check not how "it looks" in latency, but how internally it behaves between cores in the furthest CCX
there comes the performance - even tho higher infinity bandwidth with lower translate to higher IPC

Push SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core efficiency reports,
Then you can check how well your CAD_BUS , procODT and tertiary timings behave


----------



## 2600ryzen

xwyxw said:


> I am using the latest DRAM Calculator 1.7.0 to calculate the optimal DRAM timings in my system
> * ASUS X570-I
> * Ryzen 5 3600
> * Corsair Vengance LPX 3200Mhz
> 
> I attached the the snapshot showing my current values vs the ones provided by DRAM Calculator (Fast)
> 
> Not sure why the system does not boot, and I had to revert all the changes.
> 
> What do you recommend? Is DRAM Calculator missing something to calculate the right values?



Have you tried upping the voltage to 1.45v? I would try to get 3600mhz stable your ram should be able to do that easy.


----------



## xwyxw

I tried using wherever values the calculator provides. Is this calculator more like try and error or pick a number and good luck?

what steps do you recommend?. I used the min values 1.355v


2600ryzen said:


> Have you tried upping the voltage to 1.45v? I would try to get 3600mhz stable your ram should be able to do that easy.


----------



## christoph

xwyxw said:


> I tried using wherever values the calculator provides. Is this calculator more like try and error or pick a number and good luck?
> 
> what steps do you recommend?. I used the min values 1.355v



try 1.4, 1.42, and then 1.45v is you don't get more stability, I'd set my ram to 1.45 ever since I bought this setup and that gave me stability...


----------



## xwyxw

rares495 said:


> Wow, Samsung B-die on these cheap Corsair DIMMs. Amazing.





christoph said:


> try 1.4, 1.42, and then 1.45v is you don't get more stability, I'd set my ram to 1.45 ever since I bought this setup and that gave me stability...


Isn't the lower the better? What profile version are you using? (1 or 2)? Is it the only thing that I shall change (voltage) or shall I play with the other values?

According to the DRAM Calculator 1.375V (DRAM Voltage) is the max voltage. Is it safe to go up to 1.45v?


----------



## rares495

xwyxw said:


> Isn't the lower the better? What profile version are you using? (1 or 2)? Is it the only thing that I shall change (voltage) or shall I play with the other values?
> 
> According to the DRAM Calculator 1.375V (DRAM Voltage) is the max voltage. Is it safe to go up to 1.45v?


You can go up to 1.5V safely if you have decent airflow in your case.


----------



## christoph

xwyxw said:


> Isn't the lower the better? What profile version are you using? (1 or 2)? Is it the only thing that I shall change (voltage) or shall I play with the other values?
> 
> According to the DRAM Calculator 1.375V (DRAM Voltage) is the max voltage. Is it safe to go up to 1.45v?



as our mate here said, you can go up to 1.5v with good airflow, but personally I won't go beyond 1.45v, you can try 1.45v straight up to check stability and then try to lower timings, but for a lets say a safer way, try 1.4v maybe 1.42v with loose timings and check stability and then try lowering some of the timings, check stability and lower some others timings, what are the timings you trying?


----------



## 2600ryzen

xwyxw said:


> Isn't the lower the better? What profile version are you using? (1 or 2)? Is it the only thing that I shall change (voltage) or shall I play with the other values?
> 
> According to the DRAM Calculator 1.375V (DRAM Voltage) is the max voltage. Is it safe to go up to 1.45v?



Lower is better but setting it to 1.45v is one less thing to worry about. Once you've finished stabilizing your overclock you can start reducing that voltage, I'd recommend +0.02v over the minimum 'stable' voltage.


----------



## xwyxw

2600ryzen said:


> Lower is better but setting it to 1.45v is one less thing to worry about. Once you've finished stabilizing your overclock you can start reducing that voltage, I'd recommend +0.02v over the minimum 'stable' voltage.


What is the max voltage that this module can take?.Could not find any info about it


----------



## 2600ryzen

At least 1.5v, maybe 1.6v if you have active cooling. I've heard people go up to 2v for benchmarking.


----------



## Mikkinen

With BLS2K16G4D30AESC this is what I got with 3481 CL16 @1.35v:

This with 3481 CL14 @1.45v:

This with 3208 CL14 @1.35v:

and this 3549 CL16 @1.45:


----------



## dawidezzo

Veii said:


> Push SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core efficiency reports,
> Then you can check how well your CAD_BUS , procODT and tertiary timings behave



It is very interesting 
Could you be more specific please and show it with some example?
Which chart from Sandra is "wrong" and which is "correct"?


Greetings!


----------



## christoph

Mikkinen;
and this 3549 CL16 @1.45:
[url=https://postimg.cc/WtbvP4vd said:


> [/url]



isn't this one stable? what OC is your cpu at?


----------



## amine4ever

seansplayin said:


> Y-cruncher is a good program.
> Using the same timings I ran it at 2933 and 3600MT/s memory speeds. the 3600 speed performed the calculations in 91.56% of what it took at 2933 speed.
> https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ad280/seansplayin/0/y-cruncher_3600(1).JPG
> https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ad280/seansplayin/0/y-cruncher_2933(1).JPG


In gaming i have like 5 fps difference between xmp and ram oc in the cpu intesive game assassin's creed origins. And i think that i still have some room for improvement. i went only from xmp 3000mhz cl16 to 3200mhz cl14.


----------



## Dollar

@Veii


Earlier in this thread you were explaining how to identify the PCB without removing the heat spreaders. I pulled a stick out today to provide a picture. Is this is A0 PCB?


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> @Veii
> 
> Earlier in this thread you were explaining how to identify the PCB without removing the heat spreaders. I pulled a stick out today to provide a picture. Is this is A0 PCB?


You would need a bit of better lightning to check traces at the bottom, it's either A0 or A1 
Capacitors and Transistors are identically placed between A0 & A1
Only if you remove the headspreader you'll notice on the PCB if it's A0 or A1 / A2 then has a big difference to A1
















Far easier is to use Thaiphoon Burner and trust it 
At least on PCB detection it's quite accurate 
Sadly 4000&4133 kits can be either A0 or A1 - it's random
This two are A0:


Spoiler












^ credit HWBot Sparks.nl








^ credit Konkaru Twitch


A2 would be blank at the Center and have nothing over the notch








If someone has 4400C19-19 Vipers, it would help to showcase the difference


----------



## rares495

Tried to get my latency lower than 60ns. Mission failed.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Tried to get my latency lower than 60ns. Mission failed.


i don't know if it failed 
You are #1 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383

It's an architectural limit 
But push SiSandra reports out pls 
Aida64 rly means nothing, but the results are nearly perfect :thumb:
Would like to check U1-U16 core to core latency - if it makes even sense to push more or you are bios/AGESA limited right now


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> i don't know if it failed
> You are global #1
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383
> 
> It's an architectural limit
> But push SiSandra reports out pls
> Aida64 rly means nothing, but the results are nearly perfect :thumb:
> Want to check U1-U16 core to core latency - if it makes even sense to push more or you are bios/AGESA limited right now


So why am I not on the list then? 

I hate SiSandra's GUI tbh. It's really bad. I'll try to export a result somehow, but I'm really having trouble finding the right buttons.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> So why am I not on the list then?
> 
> I hate SiSandra's GUI tbh. It's really bad. I'll try to export a result somehow, but I'm really having trouble finding the right buttons.


Because you've never wrote your result down :^)
But it's common sense to include a stability screenshot - proof of pass
TM5 1usmus_v3 counts, but HCI or Karhu too 
You can add two screenshots, one that shows results like here - maybe on this one window you can include a SiSandra Detailed result view with all the other users disabled (local filtering)
and on the 2nd screenshot you can take the old one that shows "ZenTimings & the Memtest with % Coverage"

It should be updated each 48h at worst, but we can work on the timings even more if you feel bored 
Tho you need to work with SiSandra now, no way around that - going under the typical calculation ruleset, can lead to auto-corrected timings with worse perf

EDIT:
Take a look at how Reous, cm87 or Veii submit their screenshots 
(i'm only on the zen page, no 3rd get to play with) :worriedsm
On SiSandra, just copy paste the text into a docs file like polkfan did with an included screenshot of the Detailed result:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TpNlZrcsUxaVlaQ2_pJhoYzyCSPDWzdqrt2r9hinjNQ/edit


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Because you've never wrote your result down :^)
> But it's common sense to include a stability screenshot - proof of pass
> TM5 1usmus_v3 counts, but HCI or Karhu too
> You can add two screenshots, one that shows results like here - maybe on this one window you can include a SiSandra Detailed result view with all the other users disabled (local filtering)
> and on the 2nd screenshot you can take the old one that shows "ZenTimings & the Memtest with % Coverage"
> 
> It should be updated each 48h at worst, but we can work on the timings even more if you feel bored
> Tho you need to work with SiSandra now, no way around that - going under the typical calculation ruleset, can lead to auto-corrected timings with worse perf
> 
> EDIT:
> Take a look at how Reous, cm87 or Veii submit their screenshots
> (i'm only on the zen page, no 3rd get to play with) :worriedsm
> On SiSandra, just copy paste the text into a docs file like polkfan did with an included screenshot of the Detailed result:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TpNlZrcsUxaVlaQ2_pJhoYzyCSPDWzdqrt2r9hinjNQ/edit


Hmm...


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Hmm...


Yes use this one 
on some cores it's 64.8ns on some 64ns, on some up to 65ns
Performance per Thread 5.64GB/s is absolutely solid ~ that's some strong IPC 
Default 1900/3800 without finetuning ends up near 4.12GB/s , polkfans result was around 5.1GB/s
He is just about 1ns higher than you on inter CCX bandwith

But there is a bit of playroom left on your side
If you compare:
U2-U13 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 65.3ns

Most of them are in the 64ns range some still peak over 65
You can get that away , although SiSandra is very sensitive to anything running
Speaking of running - be sure to make yourself now an account for score submission 
We want to see your name after all on the SiSandra leaderboard 
~ it should update and recognize your older tries and give your points for them too, after you make an account


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Yes use this one
> on some cores it's 64.8ns on some 64ns, on some up to 65ns
> Performance per Thread 5.64GB/s is absolutely solid ~ that's some strong IPC
> Default 1900/3800 without finetuning ends up near 4.12GB/s , polkfans result was around 5.1GB/s
> He is just about 1ns higher than you on inter CCX bandwith
> 
> But there is a bit of playroom left on your side
> If you compare:
> U2-U13 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U4-U12 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> 
> Most of them are in the 64ns range some still peak over 65
> You can get that away , although SiSandra is very sensitive to anything running
> Speaking of running - be sure to make yourself now an account for score submission
> We want to see your name after all on the SiSandra leaderboard
> ~ it should update and recognize your older tries and give your points for them too, after you make an account


Where the fk do I even create that account? Jesus, man, this app's interface physically hurts me.


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> Tried to get my latency lower than 60ns. Mission failed.


What if you add some voltage and go for lower tcl/tcwl?


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Where the fk do I even create that account? Jesus, man, this app's interface physically hurts me.


It was annoying ^^'
On the main menu somewhere inside the app - you can't on the website
It will ask you for an email account and password plus which team you want to join
Unless you are sponsored and represent someone, stay on "world" 
I forgot where exactly it was, just remember that even login in was annoying


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> What if you add some voltage and go for lower tcl/tcwl?


Yeah, I saw scaling even at 1.65V. I could almost do 13-13-13-26-39-200 at that voltage, but I'm not comfortable leaving it like that 24/7.



Veii said:


> It was annoying ^^'
> On the main menu somewhere inside the app - you can't on the website
> It will ask you for an email account and password plus which team you want to join
> Unless you are sponsored and represent someone, stay on "world"
> I forgot where exactly it was, just remember that even login in was annoying


FFS. Let me try to find it.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> It was annoying ^^'
> On the main menu somewhere inside the app - you can't on the website
> It will ask you for an email account and password plus which team you want to join
> Unless you are sponsored and represent someone, stay on "world"
> I forgot where exactly it was, just remember that even login in was annoying


https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d6e2d5eddef88ab786a0c5a09dad8bf8c5f5

We need to find another benchmark for latency. This app is just REEEEtarded.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d6e2d5eddef88ab786a0c5a09dad8bf8c5f5
> 
> We need to find another benchmark for latency. This app is just REEEEtarded.


DRAM Calculator does similar work but you aren't seeing a perfectly detailed result like here 
Seems like we have a lot of work to do
You are far of global #1








But hey, better than the ComputerBase and Hardwareluxx community at least 
be sure to fill out the remain google sheet values - just down bellow


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> DRAM Calculator does similar work but you aren't seeing a perfectly detailed result like here
> Seems like we have a lot of work to do
> You are far of global #1
> 
> But hey, better than the ComputerBase and Hardwareluxx community at least
> be sure to fill out the remain google sheet values - just down bellow



Done


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Done


Thank you 
Alright, let's see what we can do ~ now we have baseline results to compare
Oh grab SuperPi 1.5 SX too for a tiny 10min benchmark, before you'll run looong long Karhu sessions
Hopefully you have TM5 1usmus_v3 preset too (20 rounds config), for quick comparisons 
SuperPi should take you between 7-8min to complete 32mil iterations

Step by step:
Can you boot tRDWR 7, 3 or 7,4 ?

If no, can you boot tRC 38 ?
Yes? Can you boot tWR 12 with it ?
Yes? Try tRFC 228-169-104
No ? then we need to lower main 4 timings in order for it to accept tRDWR 7 with something tWRRD - first
Don't increase voltage more than you already have, you shouldn't need that much


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Thank you
> Alright, let's see what we can do ~ now we have baseline results to compare
> Oh grab SuperPi 1.5 SX too for a tiny 10min benchmark, before you'll run looong long Karhu sessions
> Hopefully you have TM5 1usmus_v3 preset too (20 rounds config), for quick comparisons
> SuperPi should take you between 7-8min to complete 32mil iterations
> 
> Step by step:
> Can you boot tRDWR 7, 3 or 7,4 ?
> 
> If no, can you boot tRC 38 ?
> Yes? Can you boot tWR 12 with it ?
> Yes? Try tRFC 228-169-104
> No ? then we need to lower main 4 timings in order for it to accept tRDWR 7 with something tWRRD - first
> Don't increase voltage more than you already have, you shouldn't need that much


Ok, thanks again for the tips. I have to leave for work now but will try these tonight when I get home.


----------



## Veii

dawidezzo said:


> It is very interesting
> Could you be more specific please and show it with some example?
> Which chart from Sandra is "wrong" and which is "correct"?
> Greetings!


You can check out post:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-693.html#post28392886
And better showcased between auto predicted by AMD and finetuned by us:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-736.html#post28381784
also
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-736.html#post28381860
There are many posts already that showcase it
But from page 736 till the next 4 pages might have interesting information for you 


rares495 said:


> Ok, thanks again for the tips. I have to leave for work now but will try these tonight when I get home.


Thank you again for listening 
i remember when everyone was skeptical about tRFC
I mean they still are  but like we can see, this rules work out ~ although tRFC calculator is still a bit flawed 
Enjoy work and stay safe ! :thumb:


----------



## Mikkinen

christoph said:


> isn't this one stable? what OC is your cpu at?


It is stable, but between 3481 CL14 / CL16 and 3549CL16 the best result seems to be 3481 CL1[email protected], however (including 3208 CL14) there is practically no difference using the PC for gaming.
These results are for everyone with BCLK 102.4, offset -0.750mv, vsoc 1.0125v / 1.025v, except for the ram at 3549 the vsoc is 1.125v.


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> You would need a bit of better lightning to check traces at the bottom, it's either A0 or A1
> Capacitors and Transistors are identically placed between A0 & A1
> Only if you remove the headspreader you'll notice on the PCB if it's A0 or A1 / A2 then has a big difference to A1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far easier is to use Thaiphoon Burner and trust it
> At least on PCB detection it's quite accurate
> Sadly 4000&4133 kits can be either A0 or A1 - it's random
> This two are A0:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ credit HWBot Sparks.nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ credit Konkaru Twitch
> 
> 
> A2 would be blank at the Center and have nothing over the notch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has 4400C19-19 Vipers, it would help to showcase the difference



Thaiphoon shows A0 so it's most likely accurate. Thank you for lending your expertise yet again.


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Thaiphoon shows A0 so it's most likely accurate. Thank you for lending your expertise yet again.


Glad to be helpful 
Oh one thing that makes everything even easier ~ i forgot to mention
A0 kits will have the thermal pads barely visible even with strong light shining onto it
While A1 kits their thermal pads will be nearly hitting the corner of the headspreader - soo noticable without opening it up 

If you compare both Trace-Layouts, on A1 and A2 for short trace layout, the ICs are far closer to the edge of the headspreader than A0 kits which's thermal pads are barely visible by bare eye :thumb:


----------



## christoph

Mikkinen said:


> It is stable, but between 3481 CL14 / CL16 and 3549CL16 the best result seems to be 3481 [email protected], however (including 3208 CL14) there is practically no difference using the PC for gaming.
> These results are for everyone with BCLK 102.4, offset -0.750mv, vsoc 1.0125v / 1.025v, except for the ram at 3549 the vsoc is 1.125v.



at that speed you won't see that much of difference in games, so if your system is for most of the part gaming then the lower the Voltage the better so you don't over stress or overheat unnecessarily the system, just look for a complete stable system and you're set; and in that case look for the highest CPU overclock


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Step by step:



Can you boot tRDWR 7, 3 or 7,4 ? *NO*

If no, can you boot tRC 38 ? *YES*
Yes? Can you boot tWR 12 with it ? *YES*
Yes? Try tRFC 228-169-104 *NO*
No ? then we need to lower main 4 timings in order for it to accept tRDWR 7 with something tWRRD - first *IDK about that.*


----------



## rares495

Can't get that stupid RCDRD lower than 15 or Karhu gives errors in the first few seconds.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Can't get that stupid RCDRD lower than 15 or Karhu gives errors in the first few seconds.


Yea as you have to touch tRDWR with it 
Hmmm we need to get this 12nm 228tRFC to work somehow 
Your voltage is far more than enough 
tRCDRD 14 is causing issues ?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Yea as you have to touch tRDWR with it
> Hmmm we need to get this 12nm 228tRFC to work somehow
> Your voltage is far more than enough
> tRCDRD 14 is causing issues ?


Instant errors in Karhu. Very unstable.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Instant errors in Karhu. Very unstable.


What if you adjust the rest around it
tRAS 28 , tRC 40 , tRFC 240-178-110 (just to doublecheck tRFC2/4)
still with tCDRD 14


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> What if you adjust the rest around it
> tRAS 28 , tRC 40 , tRFC 240-178-110 (just to doublecheck tRFC2/4)
> still with tCDRD 14


EDIT: Hmm. I did it and also left RDWR and WRRD on auto. The board set them to 8-2. A single error at 400%.

EDIT2: clkdrvstren 40 did not help. Trying 60 now.

EDIT3: Nothing works.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> EDIT: Hmm. I did it and also left RDWR and WRRD on auto. The board set them to 8-2. A single error at 400%.
> 
> EDIT2: clkdrvstren 40 did not help. Trying 60 now.
> 
> EDIT3: Nothing works.


It doesn't error instantly, oke progress
What i don't like about Karhu or HCI, they don't give messages nor logs 
You dont know what's up with it - on TM5 at least you have a pretty good idea what it can be
try CAD_BUS 40-20-24-24 
What's your RTT values, the same still ? 
Would this error get away if you use RDRD & WRWR back to all 1,1,1 1,1,1


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> It doesn't error instantly, oke progress
> What i don't like about Karhu or HCI, they don't give messages nor logs
> You dont know what's up with it - on TM5 at least you have a pretty good idea what it can be
> try CAD_BUS 40-20-24-24
> What's your RTT values, the same still ?
> Would this error get away if you use RDRD & WRWR back to all 1,1,1 1,1,1


They are back to 1,1,1 1,1,1.

I'll try with 40-20-24-24 but already tried something similar and it didn't work.

EDIT: This didn't work either.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> They are back to 1,1,1 1,1,1.
> 
> I'll try with 40-20-24-24 but already tried something similar and it didn't work.
> 
> EDIT: This didn't work either.


I'll let you figure this out yourself 
Been up for too long ~ you know the testing drill and rules by now
Can go back to old results and see if you can stabilize tRFC further down in steps by 4 
Sadly i haven't implemented a way to scale it down but the math is:
(tRFC'ns*MT/s)/2000
soo 126.316ns*3800 , result / 2000 gives you tRFC
tRFC1 ns divided by 1.346 = tRFC2
tRFC1 ns divided by 2.1875= tRFC4

I can't think much right now too tired, but you can reverse the formula how to get tRFC ns out of it,
or someone can help
That way you can just turn random tRFC by frequency down to ns and calculate tRFC2 and 4
Although this method has a +/-1 flawed result because you use only 3 decimals
But the result is actually near 8 decimals 
Accurate enough tho


----------



## Mikkinen

christoph said:


> at that speed you won't see that much of difference in games, so if your system is for most of the part gaming then the lower the Voltage the better so you don't over stress or overheat unnecessarily the system, just look for a complete stable system and you're set; and in that case look for the highest CPU overclock


Yes, for the daily I will use the minimum voltages, I will probably keep the 3481 [email protected], it seems to me the right compromise.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> I'll let you figure this out yourself
> Been up for too long ~ you know the testing drill and rules by now
> Can go back to old results and see if you can stabilize tRFC further down in steps by 4
> Sadly i haven't implemented a way to scale it down but the math is:
> (tRFC'ns*MT/s)/2000
> soo 126.316ns*3800 , result / 2000 gives you tRFC
> tRFC1 ns divided by 1.346 = tRFC2
> tRFC1 ns divided by 2.1875= tRFC4
> 
> I can't think much right now too tired, but you can reverse the formula how to get tRFC ns out of it,
> or someone can help
> That way you can just turn random tRFC by frequency down to ns and calculate tRFC2 and 4
> Although this method has a +/-1 flawed result because you use only 3 decimals
> But the result is actually near 8 decimals
> Accurate enough tho


Nothing works. I've tried pretty much everything. Even auto secondaries and tertiaries. This kit cannot do <15 RCDRD.

EDIT: Cannot do tRFC 234 stable even with higher tWTR and tRTP.

EDIT2: Tried higher VDDP for RCDRD 14 = BSOD in Karhu.

EDIT3: Tried 24 tRAS + 37 tRC. Stable in Karhu 1000% but needs tRFC 222-165-101 which does not post even with higher voltages.


----------



## rastaviper

Veii said:


> i don't know if it failed
> 
> You are #1 [emoji14]
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383
> 
> 
> 
> It's an architectural limit
> 
> But push SiSandra reports out pls
> 
> Aida64 rly means nothing, but the results are nearly perfect :thumb:
> 
> Would like to check U1-U16 core to core latency - if it makes even sense to push more or you are bios/AGESA limited right now


What is the goal exactly of this document and how the ranking system works?
Also why no CPU clocks are mentioned at the Zen+ tab?

Btw here is my Sandra result with 83.21GB/s
https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d6e2dbefd8fe8cb181a7c2a79aaa8cffc2f2

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Nothing works. I've tried pretty much everything. Even auto secondaries and tertiaries. This kit cannot do <15 RCDRD.
> 
> EDIT: Cannot do tRFC 234 stable even with higher tWTR and tRTP.
> 
> EDIT2: Tried higher VDDP for RCDRD 14 = BSOD in Karhu.
> 
> EDIT3: Tried 24 tRAS + 37 tRC. Stable in Karhu 1000% but needs tRFC 222-165-101 which does not post even with higher voltages.


Unless SiSandra reports a higher score - you can compare them visually
Don't use it 
But it's good to know
My old 14-12 timings performed far worse than the 14 flat ones, that's where you use SiSandra to crosstest actual performance
Not the latency that Aida reports

228 are perfect 120ns tRFC 
If it works then this would likely be the minimum 
What about tCL 13 ?


rastaviper said:


> What is the goal exactly of this document and how the ranking system works?
> Also why no CPU clocks are mentioned at the Zen+ tab?
> 
> Btw here is my Sandra result with 83.21GB/s
> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d6e2dbefd8fe8cb181a7c2a79aaa8cffc2f2


The goal for this google sheet 
To provide people a collection of stable and working without any competition
CPU frequency doesn't matter there
Same for SiSandra - it does make a tiny bit of difference but if you compare this results:


Spoiler














their 4ghz allcore doesn't matter that much 
Multi-Core efficiency tests latency between each cores and Inter-Core Bandwidth, which translates to Infinity Fabric Bandwidth
A bit of a difference is there but it's not much to consider being worried and having to run 4.5ghz unstable OCs just to get #1
Memory timing efficiency matters far more
#8, you aren't far of rastaviper


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> 228 are perfect 120ns tRFC
> If it works then this would likely be the minimum
> What about tCL 13 ?


No post with tCL 13.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> No post with tCL 13.





Veii said:


> Offtopic Sidethought:
> i wonder if we push tRP and lower tRCD far lower than tCL
> Like 14-12-12-16-26-42/40
> instead of
> 14-12-16-12-30-42/40 :thinking:
> In theory that could work as what only causes errors is cells not recharging in time which is tRP's work
> On higher frequency they should discharge fast enough to cover this 12 timings.
> Only recharge delay was an issue and needed always 1.6v or higher to cover it :thinking:
> Might anyone want to test this ?
> If it works how i think it should, we would have far lower tRAS & tRC :wubsmiley


Do you want to try if this could work ?
Swapping tRCDRD latency bump with tRP +1 bump
Something like this








Later maybe 14-12-12-16-26-42 (or 40 as lowest)


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Do you want to try if this could work ?
> Swapping tRCDRD latency bump with tRP +1 bump
> Something like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later maybe 14-12-12-16-26-42 (or 40 as lowest)


Yeah, I could try this. Will be back with results.

EDIT: Got an error in Karhu within 1 minute.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Yeah, I could try this. Will be back with results.
> 
> EDIT: Got an error in Karhu within 1 minute.


And if you lower tRCDRD to 12 instead 14 with this set - you can't post right ?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> And if you lower tRCDRD to 12 instead 14 with this set - you can't post right ?


Decided to increase VDDP to 0.950V and test again with tRCDRD 14. Managed to get to around 350% but then got an error+BSOD. I don't think VDDP helped, it was just a random error as before.

Will test with 12 RCDRD.

EDIT: No post.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Decided to increase VDDP to 0.950V and test again with tRCDRD 14. Managed to get to around 350% but then got an error+BSOD. I don't think VDDP helped, it was just a random error as before.
> 
> Will test with 12 RCDRD.


1025 VDDP could maaybe work , but to remind you again ~ the ruleset
VDDP + 50mV = VDDG
VDDG + 50mV = VSOC 
i saw no difference why you'd need to push VDDP at all, but pushing vSOC can help
Tho it has negative effects over 1.1


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> 1025 VDDP could maaybe work , but to remind you again ~ the ruleset
> VDDP + 50mV = VDDG
> VDDG + 50mV = VSOC
> i saw no difference why you'd need to push VDDP at all, but pushing vSOC can help
> Tho it has negative effects over 1.1


I will try it. vSOC is already at 1.1V though.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I will try it. vSOC is already at 1.1V though.


Yep that's why it's not worth it trying to increase VDDP over 900mV
It makes sense to do it by going decoupled mode, but till 3800 not needed
1000-1050-1100
VDDP-VDDG-VSOC 
normal stepping is 75mV,but 50mV makes non issues and is the bare minimum between VDDG and vSOC


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Yep that's why it's not worth it trying to increase VDDP over 900mV
> It makes sense to do it by going decoupled mode, but till 3800 not needed
> 1000-1050-1100
> VDDP-VDDG-VSOC
> normal stepping is 75mV,but 50mV makes non issues and is the bare minimum between VDDG and vSOC


14-14-12-16 + 1000-1050-1100 = BSOD

14-14-12-16 + 1025-1075-1125 = BSOD


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> 14-14-12-16 + 1000-1050-1100 = BSOD
> 
> 14-14-12-16 + 1025-1075-1125 = BSOD


14-12 no boot on anything ?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> 14-12 no boot on anything ?


Nope.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Nope.


I don't know what we could optimise more 
have a suspicion that your timings are even too low to have performance benefits








what voltage did you use for these 
Can you post your current rocking ones again ?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> I don't know what we could optimise more
> have a suspicion that your timings are even too low to have performance benefits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what voltage did you use for these
> Can you post your current rocking ones again ?


I always use 1.52V. Anything lower = BSOD. Have tried 1.55, 1.6, 1.65 for tighter timings but no benefit. Real scaling begins after 1.7V (13-13-13 and such)

Here are my current timings as per the google sheet. Karhu w/ cache 20K stable.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I always use 1.52V. Anything lower = BSOD. Have tried 1.55, 1.6, 1.65 for tighter timings but no benefit. Real scaling begins after 1.7V (13-13-13 and such)
> 
> Here are my current timings as per the google sheet. Karhu w/ cache 20K stable.


We can play only with RCDWR and RP after all
lower tRAS than this could maybe work - actually keep it at 28
try tRP 10 if it posts at all


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> I always use 1.52V. Anything lower = BSOD. Have tried 1.55, 1.6, 1.65 for tighter timings but no benefit. Real scaling begins after 1.7V (13-13-13 and such)
> 
> Here are my current timings as per the google sheet. Karhu w/ cache 20K stable.





Tried lower tcwl and trcdwr?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> We can play only with RCDWR and RP after all
> lower tRAS than this could maybe work - actually keep it at 28
> try tRP 10 if it posts at all


Lowest stable was 24-37. Passed 1000% Karhu but not using that because of tRFC limitation. Optimal would be 222, which I cannot do at all. Using a higher tier of tRFC would mean 258-x-x which I think is worse than 27-40-240-x-x

Trying 10 tRP.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Lowest stable was 24-37. Passed 1000% Karhu but not using that because of tRFC limitation. Optimal would be 222, which I cannot do at all. Using a higher tier of tRFC would mean 258-x-x which I think is worse than 27-40-240-x-x
> 
> Trying 10 tRP.


You can go lower than tRFC calculator but need to consider SiSandra results 
the calculator is only there to assist with having a clean sync - lowering it under is what DRAM calculator does use and can work but only on tested set of timings
Abusing precharged cells method, is yet not calculable without trail and error 
You can most of the times lower it by 8, sometimes only by 4 - soo 1/8th of a cycle

up to tRC 36 should work without changing 240tRFC away 
Also too much tRFC doesn't bother, only slows down efficiency and memory waits for refresh cycle to complete
Just you need to get down to that 36 , only changing tRC alone wouldn't work 
tRAS 27 is a bit low on it's own - 28 would fit with tBL 4
tCL+tWR+4

tRC can be lowered here with low tRP, as tRAS is hitting the lowest point possible already


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> Tried lower tcwl and trcdwr?


tCWL can go to 11-12 but then tRDWR is back to 10 so no thanks. tRDWR cannot go lower than 8 no matter what settings. tRCDWR can go to 8 but then tRDWR is back to 10 also.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> We can play only with RCDWR and RP after all
> lower tRAS than this could maybe work - actually keep it at 28
> try tRP 10 if it posts at all


tRP 10 = no post.

tRP 11 = boot.

Sidenote: I now realize that my main OC profile's name could have a different meaning entirely. Oopsie.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> tRP 10 = no post.
> 
> tRP 11 = boot.
> 
> Sidenote: I now realize that my main OC profile's name could have a different meaning entirely. Oopsie.


use tRP 12 then
tRAS 28
test SiSandra result between that result and the old (detailed visual view with text view for latency)


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> use tRP 12 then
> tRAS 28
> test SiSandra result between that result and the old (detailed visual view with text view for latency)


12-28-40 = 95GB/s , 83GB/s without CPU OC and PBO disabled so the OC makes a huge difference. 

13-27-40 = 94GB/s


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> 12-28-40 = 95GB/s , 83GB/s without CPU OC and PBO disabled so the OC makes a huge difference.
> 
> 13-27-40 = 94GB/s


Seems like now it does :thinking:
Maybe because the cpu is too variable - interesting, good to know 
Can you recheck once again the 28-40
Inter-Core Latency is higher, which is a worse result 
1GB/s is sweet, but only after 2-3GB/s difference it makes it noticeable on other benchmarks and games
Wonder if testing variance or tRAS -1 has a big effect on inter-core latency


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Seems like now it does :thinking:
> Maybe because the cpu is too variable - interesting, good to know
> Can you recheck once again the 28-40
> Inter-Core Latency is higher, which is a worse result
> 1GB/s is sweet, but only after 2-3GB/s difference it makes it noticeable on other benchmarks and games
> Wonder if testing variance or tRAS -1 has a big effect on inter-core latency


Done. Same settings on CPU but now the bandwidth is much higher. Very weird.

I'm world #9 now. 

https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e2d5eddef88ab786a0c5a09da88efdc0f0&l=en


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Done. Same settings on CPU but now the bandwidth is much higher. Very weird.


Inter-Core latency is still 45.7 instead of 45.2 
alright that's consistent and actually an issue , hmm 
Can you see if you can pass y-cruncher first 3 tests, should take 2 min each 
these focus on IMC testing and will generate a lot of heat
~ just to factor out IMC destabilization


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Inter-Core latency is still 45.7 instead of 45.2
> alright that's consistent and actually an issue , hmm
> Can you see if you can pass y-cruncher first 3 tests, should take 2 min each
> these focus on IMC testing and will generate a lot of heat
> ~ just to factor out IMC destabilization


I forgot to set the tRC. The redo was done with 40 instead of 36.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I forgot to set the tRC. The redo was done with 40 instead of 36.


i am blind too 
soo first was 45.9 with tRC 36 (too low or unstable)
2nd was 45.7 with tRC 40 (either more stable or testing variance)
best result was the old one 45.2ns


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> i am blind too
> soo first was 45.9 with tRC 36 (too low or unstable)
> 2nd was 45.7 with tRC 40 (either more stable or testing variance)
> best result was the old one 45.2ns



The guy on #8 did the test with 3200MHz RAM and a lower CPU clock and somehow got the same bandwidth as me. I don't understand.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> The guy on #8 did the test with 3200MHz RAM and a lower CPU clock and somehow got the same bandwidth as me. I don't understand.


if he uses an asus board (i haven't checked) then performance Bias does help a lot 
Idk how far asus engineers are with getting PB to work on 3rd gen, but it does boost it 
But it could also be stock clock and OCd on windows under LN2 - you never know~


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> if he uses an asus board (i haven't checked) then performance Bias does help a lot
> Idk how far asus engineers are with getting PB to work on 3rd gen, but it does boost it
> But it could also be stock clock and OCd on windows under LN2 - you never know~


Ok, I'm done for today. It was very interesting, thanks!


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Ok, I'm done for today. It was very interesting, thanks!


alright, can let tRAS 26 , tWR 12, tRC 36 be checked for stability 
and push a SiSandra test with these if anything improved and you find the time
Enjoy your night/day


----------



## Dollar

rares495 said:


> The guy on #8 did the test with 3200MHz RAM and a lower CPU clock and somehow got the same bandwidth as me. I don't understand.



I don't think sandra bandwidth numbers can be trusted. The latency lowers as you would expect it but the bandwidth is just very weird. I get 97.872 with optimized defaults... that means stock 3700x no PBO and 2133 memory 2t auto timings with the FCLK running at 1200. I can't score that high with normal memory speeds.


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> I don't think sandra bandwidth numbers can be trusted. The latency lowers as you would expect it but the bandwidth is just very weird. I get 97.872 with optimized defaults... that means stock 3700x no PBO and 2133 memory 2t auto timings with the FCLK running at 2400. I can't score that high with normal memory speeds.


This is not SiSandras fault 
This is AMD artificially limiting performance on this AGESA 
Some of the limits where already lifted on Pre-1005/1004C 
this is how it looks on threadripper - source 1usmus


Spoiler














It's one part of the reason i once said "pbo is useless right now" and "voltage+resistance values depend on the bios"
You can notice that especially on the report inside the first two results 
U2-U14 latency for example some hit 62ns, some can't get lower than 77ns from furthest core inside one CCX to furthest core inside other CCD furthest CCX


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> This is not SiSandras fault
> This is AMD artificially limiting performance on this AGESA
> Some of the limits where already lifted on Pre-1005/1004C
> this is how it looks on threadripper - source 1usmus
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's one part of the reason i once said "pbo is useless right now" and "voltage+resistance values depend on the bios"
> You can notice that especially on the report inside the first two results
> U2-U14 latency for example some hit 62ns, some can't get lower than 77ns from furthest core inside one CCX to furthest core inside other CCD furthest CCX



Very interesting, do you know why AMD has done this?




Changing subjects; I know you have made a tRFC calculator but have you considered making your own complete DDR4 calculator? I see you helping people here with timings almost every day.


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Very interesting, do you know why AMD has done this?
> 
> Changing subjects; I know you have made a tRFC calculator but have you considered making your own complete DDR4 calculator? I see you helping people here with timings almost every day.


tRFC calculator was taken from it - because in it's current state it was working well
I do 
Not as replacement but as addition to Yuri's big project
It needs a lot more weeks of work and i can't show more


Spoiler














The reason for it's existence was that we couldn't modify the timings on the DRAM calculator
And going the manual path needs first calculation of everything down to ns
That's a lot of work
A sheet is usable for everyone, a program needs programming knowledge ~ which i don't have

Without 1usmus's project, i wouldn't even consider going that path nor learning anything about it
Soo it never has to replace his tool 
The goal is to assist people who don't want to spend too much time in learning timings how each of them work, just be able to know X connects with Y and Z time needs to be hold else you overshoot delay and your setup errors (automating his trial 'n error testing methodology)

tRFC calculator was released, so i get a bit more freetime 
Yet Yuri's presets are tested opon dozzens of hours with several kits to verify
I can't calculate the low tRFC he finetuned by many many trial & error tests, to trigger faster recharge before cells are empty
This exists only to calculate baseline values soo the board nor the cpu do autocorrect in hidden 

About AMD :thinking:
Taking into consideration Precision Boost was borrowed from 4th gen, as that part of the team was done with their research
Knowing AMD loves to Jebait and needs time to fix several other issues before allowing users to go n*ts with it
Having to limit users overvolting their ryzen with functional PBO 
(which it does anyways, overvolting ~ but that's beside the point)
It's just to keep themself secure, in case something dangerous is released 
EDIT:
Also somehow the "fine whine" meme has to hold up 
1st gen improved too by quite some chunk after time


----------



## Dollar

I didn't realize it was already being worked on, that's excellent news. I look forward to having both 1usmus and Veii calculators to play with in the future :thumb:


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> I didn't realize it was already being worked on, that's excellent news. I look forward to having both 1usmus and Veii calculators to play with in the future :thumb:


Right now i struggle a bit to get the exact moving steps between each timings
In order to be able to chain timings together and calculate absolute lowest tRFC
so far it's only an ETA by main clock cycle tCL and using Row Cycle Time as predictor








Estimating when a full refresh cycle needs to be done

If any person could list me step by step behavior, i should be able to calculate delay better and fully automate
Only when everything is automated except the first 3 timings, and i am done with timings to efficiency chart - aka expected bandwidth to efficiency calculation 
Then i will publish it as usable ~ so far you need to know what you have to change
= it's useless in the current state 
In plan is better voltage discharge prediction, and most importantly efficiency to relative perf chart
Sometimes 3200CL12 is just better than 3600CL14


----------



## rastaviper

Veii said:


> Same for SiSandra - it does make a tiny bit of difference but if you compare this results:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their 4ghz allcore doesn't matter that much
> 
> Multi-Core efficiency tests latency between each cores and Inter-Core Bandwidth, which translates to Infinity Fabric Bandwidth
> 
> A bit of a difference is there but it's not much to consider being worried and having to run 4.5ghz unstable OCs just to get #1
> 
> Memory timing efficiency matters far more
> 
> #8, you aren't far of rastaviper


I didn't get your last point. What do you mean I am not far from myself?

Also, I can see that the majority of the people with better rankings have indeed a bit smaller cpu clock, around 4.3ghz.
So this means that they have better RAM. Is there any specific ram setup that favors the scores here?
Maybe low timings are favored or higher IF? Any idea?

Also I tried on Win7 and the results were almost the same or maybe a bit lower.
My CPU seems good enough to run at 4.450-4500mhz but I hit 90 degrees and I get a reboot.

As a reminder, this is my current setup.
Do you have any specific suggestions about what can I improve?
Thanks in advance


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> alright, can let tRAS 26 , tWR 12, tRC 36 be checked for stability
> and push a SiSandra test with these if anything improved and you find the time
> Enjoy your night/day


tRP 13, tRAS 26, tRC36, tWR 12 = BSOD in Karhu

tRP 12, tRAS 26, tRC36, tWR 12 = BSOD in Karhu

I suspect it's too low tRC.

EDIT: Tried the timings in the screenshot for fun. I only got a single error and no BSOD.



Dollar said:


> I don't think sandra bandwidth numbers can be trusted. The latency lowers as you would expect it but the bandwidth is just very weird. I get 97.872 with optimized defaults... that means stock 3700x no PBO and 2133 memory 2t auto timings with the FCLK running at 1200. I can't score that high with normal memory speeds.


Thanks for your input. Really interesting.


----------



## rastaviper

Boom* Nr.1 for 3600x* in sisoft sandra with 85.15GB/s!! :thumb:
https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d6e2dbefd8fe8cb181a7c2a79aaa8cffc2f2


----------



## 1usmus

Hello, everybody!

*I hope you're doing well.*

I want to share the news with you. At the moment I am busy with a global retest of Samsung b-die and Micron e-die (over 20 kits in total). I hope the update comes out in 10 to 14 days.
It is also possible that the parameter "PCB revision" will be entered in the calculator, it has too big a role.


----------



## 1usmus

Veii said:


> tRFC calculator was taken from it - because in it's current state it was working well
> I do
> Not as replacement but as addition to Yuri's big project
> It needs a lot more weeks of work and i can't show more
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for it's existence was that we couldn't modify the timings on the DRAM calculator
> And going the manual path needs first calculation of everything down to ns
> That's a lot of work
> A sheet is usable for everyone, a program needs programming knowledge ~ which i don't have
> 
> Without 1usmus's project, i wouldn't even consider going that path nor learning anything about it
> Soo it never has to replace his tool
> The goal is to assist people who don't want to spend too much time in learning timings how each of them work, just be able to know X connects with Y and Z time needs to be hold else you overshoot delay and your setup errors (automating his trial 'n error testing methodology)
> 
> tRFC calculator was released, so i get a bit more freetime
> Yet Yuri's presets are tested opon dozzens of hours with several kits to verify
> I can't calculate the low tRFC he finetuned by many many trial & error tests, to trigger faster recharge before cells are empty
> This exists only to calculate baseline values soo the board nor the cpu do autocorrect in hidden
> 
> About AMD :thinking:
> Taking into consideration Precision Boost was borrowed from 4th gen, as that part of the team was done with their research
> Knowing AMD loves to Jebait and needs time to fix several other issues before allowing users to go n*ts with it
> Having to limit users overvolting their ryzen with functional PBO
> (which it does anyways, overvolting ~ but that's beside the point)
> It's just to keep themself secure, in case something dangerous is released
> EDIT:
> Also somehow the "fine whine" meme has to hold up
> 1st gen improved too by quite some chunk after time


I wonder what you came up with  
I'll share some information with you. There is another parameter that must be taken into account in tRFC calculation - tSTAG. 
Each PCB has a different number of layers and has a different total capacitance of capacitors.

On this week i tested 13 b-die kits with different PCB revisions, all modules are 160ns or tRC*6 / tRC*7 / tRC*8 compatible without exception.

_______

If you don't mind, send me links to posts I should read out. I think I missed a lot when I was out of the forum.


----------



## rares495

1usmus said:


> Hello, everybody!
> 
> *I hope you're doing well.*
> 
> I want to share the news with you. At the moment I am busy with a global retest of Samsung b-die and Micron e-die (over 20 kits in total). I hope the update comes out in 10 to 14 days.
> It is also possible that the parameter "PCB revision" will be entered in the calculator, it has too big a role.


Our God has spoken!!!

I'll use this opportunity to thank you for all of your hard work. Very useful!

Do you own a kit like mine by any chance? The Trident Z 3600C15 8/10 layers.


----------



## 1usmus

rares495 said:


> Our God has spoken!!!
> 
> I'll use this opportunity to thank you for all of your hard work. Very useful!
> 
> Do you own a kit like mine by any chance? The Trident Z 3600C15 8/10 layers.



Yes, such a kit is present. Are you interested in something specific?


----------



## rares495

1usmus said:


> Yes, such a kit is present. Are you interested in something specific?


I'd like to see if you could get tRDWR lower than 8 at 3800 CL14. And tRCDRD lower than 15. I'm having trouble with those. Oh, and tRFC lower than 238/234 for "ideal sync" with 34/36/38 tRC.

I've yet to see Proc_ODT and cad_bus values help me. They don't seem to make a difference no matter what I do. Does this mean that I'm limited by something else?

Maybe if you could point out the differences in timings between a 10 layer kit and an 8 layer. I mean, is there a set of specific timings that will usually be limited on an 8 layer PCB?

EDIT: Also, is there a way to read tSTAG? (Other than hacking The Stilt's PC and stealing the Matisse Timing Checker alpha version)


----------



## Joseph Mills

@1usmus - Thanks for all your hard work!


----------



## nick name

Veii said:


> Right now i struggle a bit to get the exact moving steps between each timings
> In order to be able to chain timings together and calculate absolute lowest tRFC
> so far it's only an ETA by main clock cycle tCL and using Row Cycle Time as predictor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estimating when a full refresh cycle needs to be done
> 
> If any person could list me step by step behavior, i should be able to calculate delay better and fully automate
> Only when everything is automated except the first 3 timings, and i am done with timings to efficiency chart - aka expected bandwidth to efficiency calculation
> Then i will publish it as usable ~ so far you need to know what you have to change
> = it's useless in the current state
> In plan is better voltage discharge prediction, and most importantly efficiency to relative perf chart
> Sometimes 3200CL12 is just better than 3600CL14


If it helps I read in a paper you linked that for every 10*C in temp increase -- charge is lost at nearly double the rate.


----------



## swddeluxx

1usmus said:


> ….There is another parameter that must be taken into account in tRFC calculation - *tSTAG*.
> Each PCB has a different number of layers and has a different total capacitance of capacitors.
> ….



That's right *1usmus* ! :cheers:


*tSTAG* - Subrefresh Staggering Delay 

tRFC_1x = (N −1)×tSTAG + tRC_Refresh, where N represents the number of subgroups. 
tRFC_2x = ((N/2)−1)×tSTAG + tRC_Refresh 
tRFC_4x = ((N/4)−1)×tSTAG + tRC_Refresh


----------



## Veii

1usmus said:


> Hello, everybody!
> 
> *I hope you're doing well.*
> 
> I want to share the news with you. At the moment I am busy with a global retest of Samsung b-die and Micron e-die (over 20 kits in total). I hope the update comes out in 10 to 14 days.
> It is also possible that the parameter "PCB revision" will be entered in the calculator, it has too big a role.


Welcome home ! :grouphug:


1usmus said:


> I'll share some information with you. There is another parameter that must be taken into account in tRFC calculation - tSTAG.
> Each PCB has a different number of layers and has a different total capacitance of capacitors.
> 
> On this week i tested 13 b-die kits with different PCB revisions, all modules are 160ns or tRC*6 / tRC*7 / tRC*8 compatible without exception.


Yes tSTAG - i considered it, but i haven't pushed a V3 of this tiny tool because i need more focus on tMRD & tSTAG correlation
This thing was the reason i still go with tRFC2/4 - because on bad HynixMFR kits (1st gen early on) with GDM it clearly was influencing tCKE behavior and bad tRFC2/4 values made issues without being actively used
Also as tSTAG is used on tRFC1 - like you mentioned, i needed more research time how pcb layer influences voltage drop

Still trying to get around my head for your used tRFC values 
How do you perfectly calculate precharge stacking methods so you can use lower than *6 tRC without choking 
To what i could find between versions was it being always -12 , which 1/4th (8) + 1/8th (4) cycle lower than recommended tRFC 

Yea haha, it was just to make peoples live easier
As not only is MT/s a stupid uneven value with 8 digit decimals, that also did mess up virtual timing to ns value - if you aren't doing all the calculation in ns
But result in ns for tRFC same as tRFC2/4 are not clear dividers
(1.346 & 2.1875 make issues)
Always resulting in +/- 1 accurate value or up to +/- 2 if you use whole ns values without decimals
This made sync errors after time, which is an issue if you want to abuse voltage/precharge stacking or want to calculate timings 



> I wonder what you came up with
> If you don't mind, send me links to posts I should read out. I think I missed a lot when I was out of the forum.


Oh, there is still a lot of work to push into it
I want to automate everything like once requested about "manual mode" 
People can see that timings help in going higher with MT/s
But without spending a lot of time with also limited resources to find - they give up in going lower with timings
Even more often, when there is no clear idea what scales with what
~ this is my focus to pass / automating as much as possible where only a few factors are enterable by the user 
kinda what you focus too, but going more the manual mode instead of the preset mode 

Let's say user has X set of baseline timings (where users still struggle to run many DRAM Calculator presets on exotic kits)
Owner doesn't know where to start, and ryzen + board autocorrecting timings doesn't help 
Soo the first focus is giving users a baseline and letting them learn how to work by themself in manual mode
Not having everything gifted ~ even tho your method is very helpful for every ryzen owner !

Not much to share so far, i'm sorry
But i could need a pointing direction on couple of parts 
Still having to learn and debug from start to end of a cycle what timing order is used
To be able to have a "world clock/world delay ns value" with current set of timings
Making overshoot prevention easier to calculate and tRFC more accurate to calculate


----------



## Veii

nick name said:


> If it helps I read in a paper you linked that for every 10*C in temp increase -- charge is lost at nearly double the rate.


Yes charge loss is still calculated in an ETA formula
Soo in order to go far lower than 6*tRC, you need an accurate timing display
factoring in used voltage and delay for precharge
temps aren't much of an issue - hard to explain for me


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> Our God has spoken!!!
> 
> I'll use this opportunity to thank you for all of your hard work. Very useful!
> 
> Do you own a kit like mine by any chance? The Trident Z 3600C15 *8/10 layers*.


How does one find out how many layers their kit has?


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Our God has spoken!!!
> 
> I'll use this opportunity to thank you for all of your hard work. Very useful!
> 
> Do you own a kit like mine by any chance? The Trident Z 3600C15 8/10 layers.


I hate when peeps compare @1usmus to God, I mean he's good, but he isn't 1usmus.


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> How does one find out how many layers their kit has?


Apparently not by using Thaiphoon Burner. That tool is trash.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> I hate when peeps compare @1usmus to God, I mean he's good, but he isn't 1usmus.


Ok boomer


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Ok boomer


Did you even understand the joke? Reread it, it's not rocket surgery.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Did you even understand the joke? Reread it, it's not rocket surgery.


Ok dad.

2008 called...they want their "jokes" back.

How's your RAM these days?


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Ok dad.
> 
> 2008 called...they want their "jokes" back.
> 
> How's your RAM these days?


Haven't been doing much. My AX1500i PSU died, was using a crappy 500W one until I could RMA it. They sent me an AX1600i, I get it, it's factory refurbished. 

I'm not very happy about that.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Haven't been doing much. My AX1500i PSU died, was using a crappy 500W one until I could RMA it. They sent me an AX1600i, I get it, it's factory refurbished.
> 
> I'm not very happy about that.


Yeah. Imagine getting an AX1600i...the horror...


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Yeah. Imagine getting an AX1600i...the horror...


They usually replace their stuff with brand new in box. I RMA'd a Corsair PSU in the past.


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> Apparently not by using Thaiphoon Burner. That tool is trash.


Sick sarcasm bro. Didn't think that type of information would be in there, but it is. Must've missed it when I checked. So, thanks I guess?


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> Sick sarcasm bro. Didn't think that type of information would be in there, but it is. Must've missed it when I checked. So, thanks I guess?


Wasn't being sarcastic. Thaiphoon Burner reads my A0 kit as A1 and fk knows if the 10 layers thing is accurate.


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> Wasn't being sarcastic. Thaiphoon Burner reads my A0 kit as A1 and fk knows if the 10 layers thing is accurate.


Oh. Apologies. Yeah, Taiphoon reads my kit as 10 layers as well. I'll have to pull one of the DIMMs tomorrow and and compare all the info on the sticker and make sure everything lines up.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Yeah. Imagine getting an AX1600i...the horror...


The refurbished AX1600i died after two days. Only one of the two green self-test light comes on, PC tries to boot, turns off. 

I tried unattaching every cable to the PSU and motherboard and reattaching them. The power supply is screwed. 

My spare crap PSU works just fine. 

And the Corsair RMA website messed up, won't let me log in, not sending me a reset password either, not sending reset emails. 

I just emailed support instead. :h34r-smi


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> The refurbished AX1600i died after two days. Only one of the two green self-test light comes on, PC tries to boot, turns off.
> 
> I tried unattaching every cable to the PSU and motherboard and reattaching them. The power supply is screwed.
> 
> My spare crap PSU works just fine.
> 
> And the Corsair RMA website messed up, won't let me log in, not sending me a reset password either, not sending reset emails.
> 
> I just emailed support instead. :h34r-smi


Ok. You were right to be pissed. Maybe try a real PSU manufacturer instead. Corsair just puts labels on stuff.

On another note, I still cannot get this damn tRCDRD lower than 15. It's really annoying.


----------



## amin12345

Does it make a difference if I set the latency on the ram to 16-15-13-13-28-48 or keep them all equal to 15 15 15 15 for instance?


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

rares495 said:


> Ok. You were right to be pissed. Maybe try a real PSU manufacturer instead. Corsair just puts labels on stuff.
> 
> On another note, I still cannot get this damn tRCDRD lower than 15. It's really annoying.


Its funny your Primaries are the EXACT same as mine. Only difference I can see is im only running 1.50V. Cant drop TRCD below 15 either without dropping to 3600 MHz or so when im running CL13. Im sure if i was comfortable running my ram at higher than 1.5V as a daily voltage I could get there as well.


----------



## 1usmus

rares495 said:


> I'd like to see if you could get tRDWR lower than 8 at 3800 CL14. And tRCDRD lower than 15. I'm having trouble with those. Oh, and tRFC lower than 238/234 for "ideal sync" with 34/36/38 tRC.
> 
> I've yet to see Proc_ODT and cad_bus values help me. They don't seem to make a difference no matter what I do. Does this mean that I'm limited by something else?
> 
> Maybe if you could point out the differences in timings between a 10 layer kit and an 8 layer. I mean, is there a set of specific timings that will usually be limited on an 8 layer PCB?
> 
> EDIT: Also, is there a way to read tSTAG? (Other than hacking The Stilt's PC and stealing the Matisse Timing Checker alpha version)


1) latency and bandwidth results in the Aida are partially fake, as this test package uses an "ideal" prefetch created by hand. In my future materials, I will give up Aida completely.

2) At the moment, the 160ns value for tRFC is almost useless. That's why I don't see any sense in extreme values for this parameter. I have prepared a new article about RAM and it will be published next week.

3) I have stopped using low tRAS and tRC because the memory controller corrects these values itself if they are abnormally low. It is possible that in Zen 3 we will not be artificially restricted.

4) The only kit I have that works perfectly with 3800c14 and GDM off is the Corsair 4133 LPX. This kit uses a 10 layer PCB. There is also a G.skill Royal 3600c16, the results are similar. In all cases I use CAD BUS between 24 20 24 24 and 60 20 24 24.

5) Memory modules that have an XMP profile with a voltage of 1.35v often react negatively to voltages above 1.42, due to their architectural features.

6) 10 layers of PCB is not granite low timings, chip quality is also a very important nuance.

7) tSTAG you may find in ASUS Memtweak



amin12345 said:


> Does it make a difference if I set the latency on the ram to 16-15-13-13-28-48 or keep them all equal to 15 15 15 15 for instance?


Use the built-in benchmark in the calculator. Time is the speed at which operations are performed and is the only parameter that can predict the behavior of the preset in games and working applications.


----------



## nick name

KedarWolf said:


> The refurbished AX1600i died after two days. Only one of the two green self-test light comes on, PC tries to boot, turns off.
> 
> I tried unattaching every cable to the PSU and motherboard and reattaching them. The power supply is screwed.
> 
> My spare crap PSU works just fine.
> 
> And the Corsair RMA website messed up, won't let me log in, not sending me a reset password either, not sending reset emails.
> 
> I just emailed support instead. :h34r-smi


You're not mixing any PSU cables from different units are you? That can kill components.


----------



## thomasck

Little feedback here,

Based on this, https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...g-deep-dive-asus-rog-zenith-ii-extreme/6.html

I went to the bellow described, as the 3900x would behave similarly to the TR?

managed to get 3733 15-14-15-14-28 CR1 (w/ @Veii help) once I reduced procodt from 34.3 to 32 and increased cadbus clkdvr to 40, the follwing are 20-20-24. I haven't tested cad bus block of 30-20-20-24.
30ohms 60-20-20-24, is also stable with cr1 gdm off pwrdwn off. 
Setting 28ohms 40-20-20-24 gives me 1 error after 1 hour+ at memtest/kahru. 


I was never able to get cr1 w/ gdm off w/o errors before changing procodt n cadbus clkdrv, not sure which one of these two resulted in stability, probably both helped.
Ram is a hyperx 4000mhz cl19 bdie ic, 3900x in a taichi x370. vram 1.465, vddg/iod 0950, vddp 0900, soc 1050.
These same voltages, same timings but with the old procodt of 34.3, and cad bus block of 24-20-20-24 were never doing CR1, only cr2 gdm off pwrdwn off.

Here follows the timings



Spoiler















funny side effect after setting 30ohms 60-20-20-24 is my keyboard was not recognized by w10. After rebooting it came back - I've seen this behaviour before.


----------



## rares495

Mylittlepwny2 said:


> Its funny your Primaries are the EXACT same as mine. Only difference I can see is im only running 1.50V. Cant drop TRCD below 15 either without dropping to 3600 MHz or so when im running CL13. Im sure if i was comfortable running my ram at higher than 1.5V as a daily voltage I could get there as well.


Which memory kit are you using?


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

*Ram*



rares495 said:


> Which memory kit are you using?


Gskill F4-3800C14Q-32GTZN. With 2 sticks this kit is stable past 10000%+ in Karhu. When using 4 sticks to remain stable i seem to need to enable Geardown mode.


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

1usmus said:


> 1) latency and bandwidth results in the Aida are partially fake, as this test package uses an "ideal" prefetch created by hand. In my future materials, I will give up Aida completely.
> 
> 2) At the moment, the 160ns value for tRFC is almost useless. That's why I don't see any sense in extreme values for this parameter. I have prepared a new article about RAM and it will be published next week.
> 
> 3) I have stopped using low tRAS and tRC because the memory controller corrects these values itself if they are abnormally low. It is possible that in Zen 3 we will not be artificially restricted.
> 
> 4) The only kit I have that works perfectly with 3800c14 and GDM off is the Corsair 4133 LPX. This kit uses a 10 layer PCB. There is also a G.skill Royal 3600c16, the results are similar. In all cases I use CAD BUS between 24 20 24 24 and 60 20 24 24.
> 
> 5) Memory modules that have an XMP profile with a voltage of 1.35v often react negatively to voltages above 1.42, due to their architectural features.
> 
> 6) 10 layers of PCB is not granite low timings, chip quality is also a very important nuance.
> 
> 7) tSTAG you may find in ASUS Memtweak
> 
> 
> Use the built-in benchmark in the calculator. Time is the speed at which operations are performed and is the only parameter that can predict the behavior of the preset in games and working applications.


I think the Trident Z Neo kits have 10 layer PCBs. Atleast Mine seems to have it.


----------



## rares495

1usmus said:


> 1) latency and bandwidth results in the Aida are partially fake, as this test package uses an "ideal" prefetch created by hand. In my future materials, I will give up Aida completely.
> 
> 2) At the moment, the 160ns value for tRFC is almost useless. That's why I don't see any sense in extreme values for this parameter. I have prepared a new article about RAM and it will be published next week.
> 
> 3) I have stopped using low tRAS and tRC because the memory controller corrects these values itself if they are abnormally low. It is possible that in Zen 3 we will not be artificially restricted.
> 
> 4) The only kit I have that works perfectly with 3800c14 and GDM off is the Corsair 4133 LPX. This kit uses a 10 layer PCB. There is also a G.skill Royal 3600c16, the results are similar. In all cases I use CAD BUS between 24 20 24 24 and 60 20 24 24.
> 
> 5) Memory modules that have an XMP profile with a voltage of 1.35v often react negatively to voltages above 1.42, due to their architectural features.
> 
> 6) 10 layers of PCB is not granite low timings, chip quality is also a very important nuance.
> 
> 7) tSTAG you may find in ASUS Memtweak


Thanks! How does tSTAG work? Mem Tweakit reports tSTAG 222. I currently have no idea what that means.


----------



## KedarWolf

nick name said:


> You're not mixing any PSU cables from different units are you? That can kill components.


No, it was all the cables that came with it and it worked for two days. I know my old AX1500i has a different pin layout on the 24 pin and I never used it. 

Edit: I couldn't have used the AX1500i cables if I wanted to, they made me return them with the original RMA unit. :h34r-smi


----------



## rastaviper

1usmus said:


> 1) latency and bandwidth results in the Aida are partially fake, as this test package uses an "ideal" prefetch created by hand. In my future materials, I will give up Aida completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) At the moment, the 160ns value for tRFC is almost useless. That's why I don't see any sense in extreme values for this parameter. I have prepared a new article about RAM and it will be published next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I have stopped using low tRAS and tRC because the memory controller corrects these values itself if they are abnormally low. It is possible that in Zen 3 we will not be artificially restricted.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) The only kit I have that works perfectly with 3800c14 and GDM off is the Corsair 4133 LPX. This kit uses a 10 layer PCB. There is also a G.skill Royal 3600c16, the results are similar. In all cases I use CAD BUS between 24 20 24 24 and 60 20 24 24.
> 
> 
> 
> 5) Memory modules that have an XMP profile with a voltage of 1.35v often react negatively to voltages above 1.42, due to their architectural features.
> 
> 
> 
> 6) 10 layers of PCB is not granite low timings, chip quality is also a very important nuance.
> 
> 
> 
> 7) tSTAG you may find in ASUS Memtweak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use the built-in benchmark in the calculator. Time is the speed at which operations are performed and is the only parameter that can predict the behavior of the preset in games and working applications.


Regarding 4) and 5) I have a Gskill 3200 CL15 TRIDENT GTZ that had 1.35 at XMP but perform fine at 1.45-1.46v.
Also, whenever I set your proposed CAD and RTT values at my x570 Gigabyte Elite, my system doesn't boot. So I have to keep them at AUTO. Where exactly do these settings help? Performance or stability?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## yrelbirb

Hello people; my timings as of now @3200 MHz Micron B-Die

https://prnt.sc/rwjwaz

im now aiming to hit CL12 but it doesnt boot (with auto or tweaked timings)

i used dram calculator's ohm values 24 24 24 24 and 53.3 and rzq/7 - odt disable - rzq/5

which values would get me more stability on cl12? would you say i've reached kit's potential and stop or keep going for cl12 ;


----------



## 2600ryzen

yrelbirb said:


> Hello people; my timings as of now @3200 MHz Micron B-Die
> 
> https://prnt.sc/rwjwaz
> 
> im now aiming to hit CL12 but it doesnt boot (with auto or tweaked timings)
> 
> i used dram calculator's ohm values 24 24 24 24 and 53.3 and rzq/7 - odt disable - rzq/5
> 
> which values would get me more stability on cl12? would you say i've reached kit's potential and stop or keep going for cl12 ;





What voltage are you using? Usually need a big voltage bump to decrease tcl.


----------



## yrelbirb

2600ryzen said:


> What voltage are you using? Usually need a big voltage bump to decrease tcl.


hmm so far ive tried 1.42, 1.45 and 1.5  SoC @1.1


----------



## bluechris

rastaviper said:


> Regarding 4) and 5) I have a Gskill 3100 CL15 TRIDENT GTZ that had 1.35 at XMP but perform fine at 1.45-1.46v.
> Also, whenever I set your proposed CAD and RTT values at my x570 Gigabyte Elite, my system doesn't boot. So I have to keep them at AUTO. Where exactly do these settings help? Performance or stability?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


My Gskill 3200cl14 gtz also have 1.35v at XMP but seems to work fine till 3800cl14 1.5v (4x16gb).

He must saw something so we better wait for the new software from him.


----------



## yrelbirb

i can honestly say, for my micron b die voltage makes things worse

at 1.38v, i get stable 3200 cl14-20-14-36 no problem

when i try 1.40 and 1.45v with same timings ; cpu errors out in TM5 1usmusv3 preset (about 5-6 min later)

i always, always get errors beyond 1.4v with my kit. but that might be something special about b die or may be a thermal issue

this kit has these corsair vengeance lpx heat spreaders but i think they fail to dissipate heat and create thermal issues? my in case temps are usually fine, cpu gpu and vrm wise so i dont think im choking my rams but yet


----------



## 2600ryzen

Maybe try to get higher frequency instead like [email protected]


----------



## Veii

1usmus said:


> 4) The only kit I have that works perfectly with 3800c14 and GDM off is the Corsair 4133 LPX. This kit uses a 10 layer PCB. There is also a G.skill Royal 3600c16, the results are similar. In all cases I use CAD BUS between 24 20 24 24 and 60 20 24 24.


Do you have any in-depth information about CsOdtDrvStr of 24Ω vs before 20Ω
(Any board relation or VDDG IOD relation ?)
To what i can only find, is that too high will negatively affect post issues 
I can't seem to find anything positive why to increase it - but remembering in the old days it was 40Ω and 20-24-40-30 still works well as debug preset for hynix or spectek kits

The same goes for RTT_NOM, 
I know it's beneficial to lower it, but i can't seem to find direct explanation what increasing helps with 


yrelbirb said:


> this kit has these corsair vengeance lpx heat spreaders but i think they fail to dissipate heat and create thermal issues? my in case temps are usually fine, cpu gpu and vrm wise so i dont think im choking my rams but yet


Your thinking is correct
They can cool 1.42v passively but over it requires a fan or some kind of focused airflow
But they are not that horrible by design - can run 1.62v (not your kit), without trapping heat
Just a bit inefficient compared to other heatsink designs


----------



## Veii

thomasck said:


> Little feedback here,
> 
> Based on this, https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...g-deep-dive-asus-rog-zenith-ii-extreme/6.html
> 
> I went to the bellow described, as the 3900x would behave similarly to the TR?
> 
> managed to get 3733 15-14-15-14-28 CR1 (w/ @Veii help) once I reduced procodt from 34.3 to 32 and increased cadbus clkdvr to 40, the follwing are 20-20-24. I haven't tested cad bus block of 30-20-20-24.
> 30ohms 60-20-20-24, is also stable with cr1 gdm off pwrdwn off.
> Setting 28ohms 40-20-20-24 gives me 1 error after 1 hour+ at memtest/kahru.
> 
> 
> I was never able to get cr1 w/ gdm off w/o errors before changing procodt n cadbus clkdrv, not sure which one of these two resulted in stability, probably both helped.
> Ram is a hyperx 4000mhz cl19 bdie ic, 3900x in a taichi x370. vram 1.465, vddg/iod 0950, vddp 0900, soc 1050.
> These same voltages, same timings but with the old procodt of 34.3, and cad bus block of 24-20-20-24 were never doing CR1, only cr2 gdm off pwrdwn off.
> 
> Here follows the timings
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny side effect after setting 30ohms 60-20-20-24 is my keyboard was not recognized by w10. After rebooting it came back - I've seen this behaviour before.


Usually decreasing CLKDrvStr does help with low procODT 
But increasing it, is more helpful than having to increase procODT 
Yes, likely a combination of both 
Please use from now on ZenTimings to showcase timings
A bit easier than RM missordered overview

Timings,
Why is your tWR that low, while tRTP still on 8 and not 6 (when you started lowering tWR anyways) 
There is no need to go that low with tWR, and it's surely not needed when you aren't going very low with tRAS
tWR 12 works here well , optimally even with tRTP 6
What you can try to change is lower tRDWR to 7
And increase OnDieTermination Drive Strengh (3rd CAD_BUS one) to 24, if it helps 
30Ω procODT is awkward , 28Ω doesn't work with 40-20-24-24Ω ?

Actually, tRAS might need to be 29 here if you're going tWR 12
Crosstest both options - 28 with tWR 12 and 29 with tWR 12 (i think there's not enough delay)
I think tCL 15 will mess you up on tRAS 28 - try it at the last end after you try if tRDWR 7 can run and before all that, play with CAD_BUS and procODT


----------



## nick name

rares495 said:


> Thanks! How does tSTAG work? Mem Tweakit reports tSTAG 222. I currently have no idea what that means.


What version of Mem Tweakit are you running and where did you get it?


----------



## rares495

nick name said:


> What version of Mem Tweakit are you running and where did you get it?


I got it from the Crosshair VIII overclocking thread. Guides, testing & utilities section.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...hair-viii-overclocking-discussion-thread.html


----------



## nick name

rares495 said:


> I got it from the Crosshair VIII overclocking thread. Guides, testing & utilities section.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...hair-viii-overclocking-discussion-thread.html


Hmmm, I'm not seeing it.

NVM. Found it through the HWbot link.


----------



## thomasck

Veii said:


> Timings,
> Why is your tWR that low, while tRTP still on 8 and not 6 (when you started lowering tWR anyways)
> There is no need to go that low with tWR, and it's surely not needed when you aren't going very low with tRAS
> tWR 12 works here well , optimally even with tRTP 6
> What you can try to change is lower tRDWR to 7
> And increase OnDieTermination Drive Strengh (3rd CAD_BUS one) to 24, if it helps
> 30Ω procODT is awkward , 28Ω doesn't work with 40-20-24-24Ω ?
> 
> Actually, tRAS might need to be 29 here if you're going tWR 12
> Crosstest both options - 28 with tWR 12 and 29 with tWR 12 (i think there's not enough delay)
> I think tCL 15 will mess you up on tRAS 28 - try it at the last end after you try if tRDWR 7 can run and before all that, play with CAD_BUS and procODT


Thanks for the zentimings link, I've looked for it but did not find a time ago, RM order is really messed up 
Couple of months ago we changed this timings, the reason was 3733 safe was too lose and 3733 fast (CL14) was giving me errors then you came up with this new whole set CL15, probably you won't remember as you are all over the forum , that's why I'm using those values. 

I've set tWR to 12, tRTP to 6, and tRAS to 29, but tRDWR can not go lower than 8 in any situation or clock (like before), no boot. - edit on this one here, what changing these flags do is going from 63.6ns to 64.1ns, and in dram calc easy run goes from 101.7s to 103.4s.
How are they related to gaming for example? Something asynchronous that would cause some little short lag/stuttering here and there? 


Spoiler














32Ohms 40-20-20-24 seems really stable, 9 hours or karhu no error. 
30Ohms 40-20-20-24 with 2 hours or karhu and 01 error found. - chaging to 40-20-24-24 might help, gonna try
28ohms *30|40|60*-20-*20|24*-24 just does not work in any of this cadbus block. Erros within 10-20 min of karhu.
But I'll keep 32Ohms 40-20-20-24 for now until I can fully test 30Ohms 40-20-20-24.


----------



## Skantler

Been spending days and hours trying to overclock my ram and feel like cant do better than this.


Pretty much everything in the calculator caused my bios not to post. How are my timings now? trash probably . Cant complain with 2600 -> 3200 I guess



Any advice for my current setup? Or why I can't get better clocks? I ended up setting everything to auto except the primary clocks as I was having no luck



Heres my current(note my tcl should be 13(set in bios to 13) but it seems to be 14 regardless


----------



## yrelbirb

here's hoping.... might be a good start 


1.39v at bios and 1.41v at windows

https://prnt.sc/rww8de

a good start i guess, i hope it can finish this test without error...


----------



## 2600ryzen

yrelbirb said:


> here's hoping.... might be a good start
> 
> 
> 1.39v at bios and 1.41v at windows
> 
> https://prnt.sc/rww8de
> 
> a good start i guess, i hope it can finish this test without error...



Trtp at 13 is weird, it should be able to do 8 so 2 x Trtp = TWR of 16. My kit is 350ns Trfc but I can do 9 x Trc stable, which would be Trfc of 522 on your kit. If 9 x Trc wont work maybe 10 x Trc of 580 would be better so it syncs up with Trc. Tcwl can usually go 1-2 lower than Tcl so 12-13.


----------



## Joseph Mills

rastaviper said:


> Regarding 4) and 5) I have a Gskill 3200 CL15 TRIDENT GTZ that had 1.35 at XMP but perform fine at 1.45-1.46v.
> Also, whenever I set your proposed CAD and RTT values at my x570 Gigabyte Elite, my system doesn't boot. So I have to keep them at AUTO. Where exactly do these settings help? Performance or stability?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



Hey @*rastaviper* !
I have the same memory kit and mobo as you, and have found some new settings to get my board to boot at higher speeds. I'm currently running a stable 3466mhz CL16 4x16gb.


RttNom: 7
RttWr: 2 <- this is what made the biggest difference for me
RttPark: 1

ProcODT: 40ohm (if all settings don't work, try one click higher or lower on it)


CADBus: 24-20-24-24


Ram Voltage is set to 1.38v in bios

HWinfo shows 1.404V


Hope this helps. :thumb:


----------



## yrelbirb

hey goood friend; i completely left all other timings on auto to first stabilize 3333 cl14

but sadly ; as i tested with hci memtest it gave error on %300 so i will have to tweak something else i guess..


----------



## rastaviper

Joseph Mills said:


> Hey @*rastaviper* !
> I have the same memory kit and mobo as you, and have found some new settings to get my board to boot at higher speeds. I'm currently running a stable 3466mhz CL16 4x16gb.
> 
> 
> RttNom: 7
> RttWr: 2 <- this is what made the biggest difference for me
> RttPark: 1
> 
> ProcODT: 40ohm (if all settings don't work, try one click higher or lower on it)
> 
> 
> CADBus: 24-20-24-24
> 
> 
> Ram Voltage is set to 1.38v in bios
> 
> HWinfo shows 1.404V
> 
> 
> Hope this helps. :thumb:


Thank you buddy, but probably you have missed my previous posts.
My 16gb RAM is running fine since the beginning at 3733 15-14-14 for most benchmarks and the only thing missing is hitting 3800, which looks impossible with any timings I have tried.

About the cad, I just wanted to mention that they don't take the timings according to the Dram calculator.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## ToguroSR

Hey guys,

Currently having some weird issues after using the calculator. I have Ryzen 3600 on a Crosshair VII Hero with kit of 16GB Samsung B-die 3200 CL14.

Soooo...I used the calculator to set the fast timings for 3600 Mhz on the memory and it worked, even thou i get 2-3 cold boots every time i start the pc once it passes that it works flawlessly and passes every test. Now, the issue appears if try to revert back to stock xmp profile or any other set of settings for the memory. The system will not completely boot. It will want to reach the bios screen but as soon as it reaches that point it restarts and the only way to get out of it is to either clear cmos or shut down the system to trigger the oc fail message. So right now i am stuck with a motherboard that will only boot with the fast preset at 3600 or with everything on auto and so the memory will be at 2133. 

I have tried everything i can think of, reflash to an older bios, clear c-mos and remove the battery, tried with a different kit of ram ...and the same happens even thou it is completely different and not b-die. I am out if ideas...did anyone experience such a thing ?


----------



## Joseph Mills

rastaviper said:


> Joseph Mills said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey @*rastaviper* !
> I have the same memory kit and mobo as you, and have found some new settings to get my board to boot at higher speeds. I'm currently running a stable 3466mhz CL16 4x16gb.
> 
> 
> 
> RttNom: 7
> RttWr: 2 <- this is what made the biggest difference for me
> RttPark: 1
> 
> ProcODT: 40ohm (if all settings don't work, try one click higher or lower on it)
> 
> 
> CADBus: 24-20-24-24
> 
> 
> Ram Voltage is set to 1.38v in bios
> 
> HWinfo shows 1.404V
> 
> 
> Hope this helps. /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you buddy, but probably you have missed my previous posts.
> My 16gb RAM is running fine since the beginning at 3733 15-14-14 for most benchmarks and the only thing missing is hitting 3800, which looks impossible with any timings I have tried.
> 
> About the cad, I just wanted to mention that they don't take the timings according to the Dram calculator.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Before seeing this reply, I stumbled onto your older posts where you talked about having higher clocks. Oops! Thanks for the kind reply regardless. 

Would you mind sharing your current timings and voltages? I can't get my kit any higher than 3533 cl16 (no errors, but bsod's after a while). Granted, it could be capped because of 4x16gb setup


----------



## Veii

Joseph Mills said:


> Before seeing this reply, I stumbled onto your older posts where you talked about having higher clocks. Oops! Thanks for the kind reply regardless.
> 
> Would you mind sharing your current timings and voltages? I can't get my kit any higher than 3533 cl16 (no errors, but bsod's after a while). Granted, it could be capped because of 4x16gb setup


Can you share your current voltage settings too
3600 would be something you can without problems reach
Maybe it could need higher VDDP here, if you have already fixed CAD_BUS
Or just higher VDDG IOD


----------



## Joseph Mills

Veii said:


> Can you share your current voltage settings too
> 3600 would be something you can without problems reach
> Maybe it could need higher VDDP here, if you have already fixed CAD_BUS
> Or just higher VDDG IOD



Hello @Veii!


Here's my current settings...


----------



## Veii

Joseph Mills said:


> Hello @Veii!
> 
> 
> Here's my current settings...


All looks very alright except your tRFC2 is messed up 
I wonder why it does happen that often 
Push 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS
Maybe even be able to go to 80-20-24-24/80-20-20-24 because of the high density 
This is AGESA 1004B ?
If yes, push VDDG IOD to 975 and fix your vSOC at 1.075 - if it is on auto
VDDG CCD can stay at 950 - if you don't plan to do any kind of perCCX OC 
VDDG you can put at 1025mV if you have the thermal headroom
not much to judge, except you need to recalculate tRFC again for 3766MT/s or 3800 if your cpu can run 1900FCLK


----------



## Joseph Mills

Veii said:


> All looks very alright except your tRFC2 is messed up
> I wonder why it does happen that often
> Push 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS
> Maybe even be able to go to 80-20-24-24/80-20-20-24 because of the high density
> This is AGESA 1004B ?
> If yes, push VDDG IOD to 975 and fix your vSOC at 1.075 - if it is on auto
> VDDG CCD can stay at 950 - if you don't plan to do any kind of perCCX OC
> VDDG you can put at 1025mV if you have the thermal headroom
> not much to judge, except you need to recalculate tRFC again for 3766MT/s or 3800 if your cpu can run 1900FCLK



That's very helpful. Thanks for the quick reply @Veii! I'll report back with the results. :thumb:


----------



## Kildar

I currently have this RAM F4-3200C14D-16GTZR and have it stable at 3800.

I would like to get a 32 Gig set that is close to this in performance. Any Recommendations.

Should I get 2 16 Dimms or 4 8 Gig DIMMs?

Could I just get another 16 just like it and use those?

TIA


----------



## rastaviper

Joseph Mills said:


> Before seeing this reply, I stumbled onto your older posts where you talked about having higher clocks. Oops! Thanks for the kind reply regardless.
> 
> Would you mind sharing your current timings and voltages? I can't get my kit any higher than 3533 cl16 (no errors, but bsod's after a while). Granted, it could be capped because of 4x16gb setup


Check here:
https://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?p=28385004

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Joseph Mills

rastaviper said:


> Check here:
> https://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?p=28385004
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Thanks @rastaviper!
Could you tell me what your RTT, CAD, and ProcOCT is at?
Also, is 1.46v your actual voltage in windows, or what's set in bios?




Veii said:


> All looks very alright except your tRFC2 is messed up
> I wonder why it does happen that often
> Push 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS
> Maybe even be able to go to 80-20-24-24/80-20-20-24 because of the high density
> This is AGESA 1004B ?
> If yes, push VDDG IOD to 975 and fix your vSOC at 1.075 - if it is on auto
> VDDG CCD can stay at 950 - if you don't plan to do any kind of perCCX OC
> VDDG you can put at 1025mV if you have the thermal headroom
> not much to judge, except you need to recalculate tRFC again for 3766MT/s or 3800 if your cpu can run 1900FCLK



My Aorus Elite x570 board won't let me do 80 on CAD_BUS. I have an option for 60 and 120 towards the top end. I tried 60, but no dice on the boot. I'll keep working at it! I'm comparing notes with @rastaviper to dial in my settings.


----------



## Antwerp

*F4-3600C17D-32GTZR*



TelaKeppi said:


> Thanks! So it seems G.Skill is selling the same set with 2 different IC's. The kits are otherwise identical down to the timings. I may have to return mine...
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=300528&d=1570961287


Did you use the same version of Thaiphoon Burner? Apparently on certain versions It has been known to spit out incorrect readings for particular kits. Try downloading the same version (16.0.1.0 Build 1014). Ive seen other builds report B-die for this kit but always version 16.0.1.0 so that might be saying something.


----------



## rastaviper

Joseph Mills said:


> Thanks @rastaviper!
> Could you tell me what your RTT, CAD, and ProcOCT is at?
> Also, is 1.46v your actual voltage in windows, or what's set in bios?


My mobo doesn't like any settings at RTT, CAD etc, so all these are at AUTO.

1.46v is my bios voltage


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Antwerp

TelaKeppi said:


> Thanks! So it seems G.Skill is selling the same set with 2 different IC's. The kits are otherwise identical down to the timings. I may have to return mine...
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=300528&d=1570961287


Also mate, Hynix D-die (DJR) are pretty good IC's for OC despite not being B-die. If you use an older version of Dram Calculator u just need to apply the Hynix CJR settings but newer versions put them both in together. You'll notice the fast settings it recommends are quite respectable, about the same as Microm E-die but without needing so much voltage which means they won't generate as much heat into the system. As long as your CPU and motherboard are up to the task, u shouldn't have any difficulty applying the fast setting at 3600mhz and then u can always tweak the sub-timings a little further. If your using a ryzen system, leaving the ram at 3600mhz is probs your best bet anyway.


----------



## nick name

Antwerp said:


> Also mate, Hynix D-die (DJR) are pretty good IC's for OC despite not being B-die. If you use an older version of Dram Calculator u just need to apply the Hynix CJR settings but newer versions put them both in together. You'll notice the fast settings it recommends are quite respectable, about the same as Microm E-die but without needing so much voltage which means they won't generate as much heat into the system. As long as your CPU and motherboard are up to the task, u shouldn't have any difficulty applying the fast setting at 3600mhz and then u can always tweak the sub-timings a little further. If your using a ryzen system, leaving the ram at 3600mhz is probs your best bet anyway.


I have a G.Skill RipJaws 3600C16 kit with Hynix DJR and it wouldn't run XMP without throwing errors in TM5. The CPU is a 2700X that can run 3600 b-die no problem. The mobo is a ASUS Tuf X570 board.


----------



## Veii

nick name said:


> I have a G.Skill RipJaws 3600C16 kit with Hynix DJR and it wouldn't run XMP without throwing errors in TM5. The CPU is a 2700X that can run 3600 b-die no problem. The mobo is a ASUS Tuf X570 board.


CLD0_VDDP of 913mV can be tried for 2nd gen and hynix 3600MT/s kits
At worst using CAD_BUS Timing from dram calculator (3 values) works too to add stability by the cost of a tiny bit of latency


----------



## Antwerp

nick name said:


> I have a G.Skill RipJaws 3600C16 kit with Hynix DJR and it wouldn't run XMP without throwing errors in TM5. The CPU is a 2700X that can run 3600 b-die no problem. The mobo is a ASUS Tuf X570 board.


That's disappointing, I wouldn't be surprised though if you coupled the same ram with a Zen 2 processor that it would yield much better results. I have a 3700x and a 2700x, i've tested the same kit in both using the same motherboard (b450) and as expected the 3700x achieves much better OC as well as much tighter timings. Admittedly the ram i tested was AFR not DJR but I believe the effect would be even more pronounced with DJR which is reportedly more receptive to an OC. The 2700x is an awesome cpu but it's not as ram compatible as a the current generation, i imagine this is particularly true with newer IC's like DJR. I notice your system specs indicate you've got a 3900X so you've probably experienced similar improvements.

Man i wish this site would ease up on the ads...with the constant spawning they should call it a "slow reply"


----------



## amdahl

I have a little challenge for you all: help me optimize timings on Epyc Naples. Here is the catch: voltage adjustments are forbidden.

Board: Supermicro H11DS1 rev. 1, bios 1.3 with unlocked CBS menu
CPUs: 2x AMD Epyc 7551 (retail)
Memory: 16x32GB Samsung DDR4-2666 reg ECC CL19 (M393A4K40CB2-CTD) | Thaiphoon Burner reports them as Samsung C-die

For now, DDR4-2666 seems to be the maximum transfer speed I can set. But due to the server nature of the board (and being from Supermicro, sigh) no voltage adjustments to the memory subsystem are possible. So 1.2V on the DIMMs, although IPMI reports around 1.24V.

First problem: Which values to enter in DRAM calculator. The closest to my setup seems to be TR 1st gen, Samsung OEM memory, X399 board, dual-rank DIMM, one DIMM per channel, manual mode.
How to get proper values for latency? I can copy the latency values manually from Thaiphoon burner (obviously, no XMP)
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=338964&thumb=1
When I do that and click on the "Calculate safe" button, I get the Error: not supported popup.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=338966&thumb=1
When I use V1 or V2 profile instead, I can click on the "R-XMP" button and get some latency values auto-filled. Wherever these came from...
This lets me generate a set of safe timings:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=338968&thumb=1

But these timing values seem to be calculated based on higher voltages than I can set. As a result, these timings are waaaay too tight to be stable on my hardware.
Any chance to enter voltages as an input for the calculation, not an output?
Or really any hint what to do in order to get reasonable recommendations for timing on my hardware, given the limitations?

Btw, if you ever thought the UEFI of your motherboard was crappy:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=338972&thumb=1


----------



## LicSqualo

I see Micron and not Samsung. As you can see in your Thaiphoon Burn image posted. But you don't have posted the initial screenshot of TB so is really difficult to know what kind of Micron you have.
Perhaps you can also generate the ram profile with Taiphoon, please follow the steps in the first page of this thread.


----------



## amdahl

Micron is not the manufacturer of my memory modules. It's Samsung, the part number I listed is correct: M393A4K40CB2-CTD. But the exact memory I have is besides the point anyway, let's please not get caught up in these details.
I can generate a memory profile (complete HTML) with Thaiphoon burner, but it can not be loaded successfully into DRAM calculator. If I leave the Memory type as Samsung OEM, I get the popup "OEM memory does not contain XMP profile". If I change the memory type to something else Samsung, DRAM calculator gets confused and copies the whole text of the profile into every timing field. Which results in an unhandled exception when trying to calculate latencies.


----------



## nick name

Antwerp said:


> That's disappointing, I wouldn't be surprised though if you coupled the same ram with a Zen 2 processor that it would yield much better results. I have a 3700x and a 2700x, i've tested the same kit in both using the same motherboard (b450) and as expected the 3700x achieves much better OC as well as much tighter timings. Admittedly the ram i tested was AFR not DJR but I believe the effect would be even more pronounced with DJR which is reportedly more receptive to an OC. The 2700x is an awesome cpu but it's not as ram compatible as a the current generation, i imagine this is particularly true with newer IC's like DJR. I notice your system specs indicate you've got a 3900X so you've probably experienced similar improvements.
> 
> Man i wish this site would ease up on the ads...with the constant spawning they should call it a "slow reply"


Yeah, it is my old 2700X that I was running on a CH7 with Samsung b-die RAM at 3600 14-15-14-14 so I know the IMC can run 3600MHz no problem. There's something I'm not familiar with on that Hynix DJR kit (or maybe the ASUS Tuf X570) I didn't have the time to properly devote to. It's all in a PC I put together for someone that needed it to work from home and therefore couldn't endlessly sit and troubleshoot. 

On my new 3900X this b-die kit can easily boot up at 4400MHz, but the stable timings are much looser than at 3800MHz so I gave up on playing with 4400MHz.


----------



## amdahl

All right, let's try two more straightforward questions:

1) Is there a way to fix voltages in Ryzen DRAM calculator, and not have them as a result of the calculation? Because I can't adjust voltages with my board.

2) What to do when the values I entered in the left column for latency values result in the "Error: not supported" popup message? Values taken straight from the readout of Thaiphoon Burner.


----------



## 2600ryzen

amdahl said:


> All right, let's try two more straightforward questions:
> 
> 1) Is there a way to fix voltages in Ryzen DRAM calculator, and not have them as a result of the calculation? Because I can't adjust voltages with my board.
> 
> 2) What to do when the values I entered in the left column for latency values result in the "Error: not supported" popup message? Values taken straight from the readout of Thaiphoon Burner.



You'd probably be better off just manually tuning your RAM and ignoring the calculator, most of the settings depend on running ram higher than 1.2v. They look like Micron RAM with 350ns Trfc, maybe Samsung just rebadged them. Most likely they can do between 14-14-14-28-42 and 16-18-18-36-56, then you could copy the rest of the secondaries from the Dram calculator.


----------



## amdahl

I find it a bit hard to imagine that Samsung would buy DRAM chips from one of their two competitors. Other memory brands have to do it because there are only three DRAM manufacturers left in the game. But Samsung is one of them.


----------



## 2600ryzen

The calculator recommends 13-14-14-30-46 at 1.30v. Because you're stuck at 1.20-1.24v you might not be able to do Tcl 13 but you can probably do Tcl 14, the rest of the secondaries should work if you can get that to work.
The memory also needs an XMP profile to be able to import its profile into Dram calculator does yours have one?


----------



## amdahl

No, there are no XMP profiles on these DIMMs.


----------



## deepor

@amdahl:

I use Samsung unbuffered ECC DIMMs here. It's 2x16GB CL17 2400MHz. The chips are B-die. The sticks have no heatspreader so I can just check by looking at the actual chips.

The DRAM calculator is pretty much totally useless for these Samsung OEM sticks I have here. I tried using the suggestions the calculator has for B-die and OEM at different speeds (like set the calculator to 3200 and then use those numbers at a 3000 speed). If I copy all its suggestions blindly, it doesn't boot at all. Especially tRFC is showing that the calculator is totally off. My sticks here are B-die, but they are very different than the B-die that's sold by G.Skill etc., my B-die here is super bad in comparison.

About the ECC memory feature, on my AM4 board here, the ECC corrections show up as "WHEA-Logger" events in the Windows Event Viewer. That's what to look out for when tweaking the timings. There will be no errors in programs like MemTest or TestMem5, it will all show up as WHEA events.

The WHEA events only show up for corrected single-bit errors. For errors that are multi-bit and can't be corrected, you'll get a BSOD and Windows will crash.

HWINFO has an entry about WHEA warnings/errors in its sensor window. That's one way to track things while running stress tests.


----------



## 2600ryzen

deepor said:


> @*amdahl* :
> 
> I use Samsung unbuffered ECC DIMMs here. It's 2x16GB CL17 2400MHz. The chips are B-die. The sticks have no heatspreader so I can just check by looking at the actual chips.
> 
> The DRAM calculator is pretty much totally useless for these Samsung OEM sticks I have here. I tried using the suggestions the calculator has for B-die and OEM at different speeds (like set the calculator to 3200 and then use those numbers at a 3000 speed). If I copy all its suggestions blindly, it doesn't boot at all. Especially tRFC is showing that the calculator is totally off. My sticks here are B-die, but they are very different than the B-die that's sold by G.Skill etc., my B-die here is super bad in comparison.
> 
> About the ECC memory feature, on my AM4 board here, the ECC corrections show up as "WHEA-Logger" events in the Windows Event Viewer. That's what to look out for when tweaking the timings. There will be no errors in programs like MemTest or TestMem5, it will all show up as WHEA events.
> 
> The WHEA events only show up for corrected single-bit errors. For errors that are multi-bit and can't be corrected, you'll get a BSOD and Windows will crash.
> 
> HWINFO has an entry about WHEA warnings/errors in its sensor window. That's one way to track things while running stress tests.





Did you try the timings for SamsungOEM preset? They have a Trfc of 350ns like the profile says.


----------



## deepor

2600ryzen said:


> Did you try the timings for SamsungOEM preset? They have a Trfc of 350ns like the profile says.


Yeah, I was exaggerating, that tRFC value works fine. The "tRFC alt" suggestion in the B-die profile is also slow enough for my RAM. It's just that when I try to remember what was going on, the tRFC suggestions in the B-die profiles are the ones I remember noticing first as a problem. In any case, I ended using the default BIOS values as my starting point instead of the calculator, and just tweaking things slowly over a few weeks.

What's neat about ECC memory is that you don't have to test a lot if you don't want to. You can just start using the PC like normal and look out for the ECC feature fixing errors secretly in the background. The Windows Event Viewer can start a program when a certain event happens, and there's a guide somewhere about how to use that to open a message window on the desktop when a WHEA warning/error shows up. You'll then notice immediately that a memory error happened.

The way I ended up doing things is to test with MemTest86 outside of the Windows/Linux, using its test #8 for ten minutes or so. Then when that ran fine I booted into Windows/Linux and just watched out for WHEA events.

*EDIT:*

I ended up with these settings here:



Spoiler



CPU is a 2700X, memory sticks are two dual-rank 16GB modules, so 32GB total.

1.400V DRAM voltage, 3133MHz speed

Resistances:
ProcODT 68 Ohm
RTT 0/3/1
CAD 20-40-40-40

Timings:


Code:


    tCL       14
    tRCDWR    14
    tRCDRD    17
    tRP       15
    tRAS      31
    tRC       50
    tRRDS     4
    tRRDL     4
    tFAW      16
    tWTRS     4
    tWTRL     10
    tWR       10
    tRDRDSCL  2
    tWRWRSCL  2
    tRFC      400
    tCWL      14
    tRTP      8
    tRDWR     6
    tWRRD     2
    tWRWRSC   1
    tWRWRSD   6
    tWRWRDD   6
    tRDRDSC   1
    tRDRDSD   4
    tRDRDDD   4
    tCKE      1


----------



## amdahl

Took some pictures of my memory modules:
https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/ddr4/K4A8G045WC-BCTD/


----------



## 2600ryzen

Try copying the settings from deepor, they're for [email protected] so running them at only 2666mhz will need much less voltage 1.2v might be enough.


----------



## Antwerp

amdahl said:


> Took some pictures of my memory modules:
> https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/ddr4/K4A8G045WC-BCTD/


I think those markings indicate Samsung C-die
edit: oops I'm guessing u already knew that...after my previous statement, i went ahead and downloaded the data sheet from that samsung link u posted and c-die is plastered all over it


----------



## Joseph Mills

@Veii & @rastaviper :


I was able to boot to 3600Mhz CL16, but not without issues. 

I found in the bios that the DRAM Termination wasn't setting correctly. I would almost always get a single boot loop, then boot, or an eternal boot loop and back to bios. DRAM Termination is supposed to be half of DRAM Voltage. My issue is, the actual DRAM Voltage in BIOS fluctuates .1v, so you can't just set your DRAM Voltage and Termination, and go on your way. The Bios ram voltage is almost always higher (for me) than what I set. When I can guess the "in between" DRAM Voltage, and put in the DRAM Termination it boots without the cold boot or loop. My board seems to adjust the DRAM Termination automatically, even if it's manually set - but it seldom sets it correctly.



TL;DR -
is there a way to stabilize the actual DRAM Voltage on an Aorus Elite x570?
Is the voltage fluctuation just one of the quirks of high voltage on an 8-layer dimm (@1usmus mentioned it in an earlier thread)?


My specs:
GB Aorus Elite x570 (non wifi) - F12f Bios - 1.0.0.4 
AMD 3800X
G.Skill TridentZ F4-3200C15D-32GTZ (4x16 Dual Rank)


----------



## rastaviper

Joseph Mills said:


> @Veii & @rastaviper :
> 
> 
> I was able to boot to 3600Mhz CL16, but not without issues.
> 
> I found in the bios that the DRAM Termination wasn't setting correctly. I would almost always get a single boot loop, then boot, or an eternal boot loop and back to bios. DRAM Termination is supposed to be half of DRAM Voltage. My issue is, the actual DRAM Voltage in BIOS fluctuates .1v, so you can't just set your DRAM Voltage and Termination, and go on your way. The Bios ram voltage is almost always higher (for me) than what I set. When I can guess the "in between" DRAM Voltage, and put in the DRAM Termination it boots without the cold boot or loop. My board seems to adjust the DRAM Termination automatically, even if it's manually set - but it seldom sets it correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> TL;DR -
> is there a way to stabilize the actual DRAM Voltage on an Aorus Elite x570?
> Is the voltage fluctuation just one of the quirks of high voltage on an 8-layer dimm (@1usmus mentioned it in an earlier thread)?
> 
> 
> My specs:
> GB Aorus Elite x570 (non wifi) - F12f Bios - 1.0.0.4
> AMD 3800X
> G.Skill TridentZ F4-3200C15D-32GTZ (4x16 Dual Rank)


I don't know why it's so big deal for you.
I just put 1.46 for Dram voltage and 0.73 for termination and just forget it.

I haven't noticed any special behavior while adjusting it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dollar

Has anyone messed with interleaving size much? The calculator recommends 2KB but I see a noticeable performance increase with pretty much any other setting. 512B seems to be the best performing on my 4x8GB system. 256B showed the best latency but it was inconsistent. To test this i put in some loose "failsafe" timings so there was less error correcting happening. 

Is this expected? This cursed system also performs better with BGS_ALT even with four sticks.


2KB followed by 512B:


----------



## Alpharevx

Hello everyone, it seems like my 4x8gb Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3600mhz cl 18 micron e-die kit isn't completely stable at 3800mhz cl16 IF 1900 1.42v, memtest86 threw some errors after like 70% pass1
these are my settings i copied everything from DRAM Calculator
I have an MSI B450 Carbon Pro AC paired with a 3700X

Currently running safe preset 3600mhz cl16 1.40v with improved subtimings

I can't get 3800mhz to be stable, tho i can game for hours without any issue but memtest keep throwing errors, also my motherboard seems to boost voltage a bit, for example i put 1.42v it reads it as 1.456v

Im new to Ryzen here, i have no idea how to tweak PocODT n stuff to make 3800/1900 stable! help is appreciated


----------



## pmachado

Alpharevx said:


> Hello everyone, it seems like my 4x8gb Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3600mhz cl 18 micron e-die kit isn't completely stable at 3800mhz cl16 IF 1900 1.42v, memtest86 threw some errors after like 70% pass1
> these are my settings i copied everything from DRAM Calculator
> I have an MSI B450 Carbon Pro AC paired with a 3700X
> 
> Currently running safe preset 3600mhz cl16 1.40v with improved subtimings
> 
> I can't get 3800mhz to be stable, tho i can game for hours without any issue but memtest keep throwing errors, also my motherboard seems to boost voltage a bit, for example i put 1.42v it reads it as 1.456v
> 
> Im new to Ryzen here, i have no idea how to tweak PocODT n stuff to make 3800/1900 stable! help is appreciated


Not every chip can go 1900Mhz Fclk so it could be your IMC. I have a 3900x and am trying to get 1900Mhz Fclk stable but can't seem to. You can for testing purposes see if it's the high Fclk that's giving you the errors by using a lower memory frequency and see if it still gives you errors. This would be for testing purposes only as you want to run Fclk in sync with your memory speed.


----------



## fcchin

Antwerp said:


> Man i wish this site would ease up on the ads...with the constant spawning they should call it a "slow reply"


use brave browser to cut off all ads


----------



## the-ephus

Hello - I'm hoping someone can help me out with what is probably user error when importing the Thaiphoon burner report. I've attached an image showing how the report imports into the DRAM Calculator (manufacturer heading in timings).


I've used both programs in the past and had no issue. The one difference I've noticed from the last time I did it is that I don't see a button in Thaiphoon to make sure the full HTML shows timings in ns, but it looks like it's already doing so?


I'm using a pair of 2x4 GB SO-DIMM (F4-2400C16-4GRS), which should be Hynix AFR. Let me know if more information is needed. Thanks!


----------



## negativefusion

Hello Uber Overclockers,

I am completely new to Ryzen (and AMD cpus), I have spent over 8 hours reading stuff and watching BuildZoid videos and GamesNexus, Linus, Hardware unboxed to view their analysis and thoughts.

I own a kit of 2x16GB Micron D-Die (attached), I grabbed the calculator and am having some trouble understanding what exactly I am supposed to do and I feel like I am missing something.

Specs: Ryzen9 3950x, Motherboard: Asus WS Pro x570 ACE, Dark Rock 4 PRO Cooler

So far, I have enabled PBO using the 4 numbers Buildzoid gave (PPT @ 300, two others at 230, and PBO multiplier at x4).
Aside from that, I enabled DOCP (XMP) which puts my kit at 3000, and ran 3 hours of Prime95 on Various tests each, and of course a 7 hour memtest86 - everything passed.

I then grabbed the DRAM Calculator, typed everything I understood (organization 2 since its dual rank, x570 mobo, d-die micro).
Clicked the XMP button, then SAFE button -- got these settings.

I tried to type them in the bios just to tighten my stock XMP 3000 timings, one of them I couldn't figure out (highlighted in red circle) -- my mobo was only accepting 700-900 nothing else, and so instead of .9 (as shown in DRAM calc) I used 900 - and it resulted in no post/crash and had to fully clear my CMOS and reset. 

So I said screw it for now, and just manually changed the Memory speed in bios to XMP 3000 and then to 3200, with everything else (except PBO as above) @ stock -- reran 8-9 hours of stress tests as above, and everything was stable.

Attached pic: Currently at 3200 stable... without using anything from DRAM Calculator.

Additionally when I click calculate FAST at 3000, it just says COMING SOON?? I click Calculate extreme it says UNDER CONSTRUCTION...

I am trying to get to 3600mhz, so I changed the Speed in DRAM CALC to 3600 and clicked XMP and then Calclulate SAFE (even though 3000 safe didnt work because of the setting forcing me to use 900 rather than 0.9) -- and when I click Calculate SAFE, it says: "NOT SUPPORTED" -- I did repeat it with 3400mhz, and it does spit out numbers, but I am VERY VERY relunctant to try, because even the "safe" 3000 numbers didn't boot (again, probably due to the 0.9 vs 900? I don't know)

(example of error posted in pic too)

Can anyone please shed some light on where to go from here?

ALSO, I noticed the FCLK (infinity fabric) number is always BOLDED in Dram Calc, I am not sure if this is a visual hint for me to do something with it??

Thanks a lot. Appreciate help

Essentially I am trying to squeeze the most power / performance as stable as I can, WITHOUT going nuts and dumping tons of voltages into the rig...

Like a... balance want something better than stock, but not too too crazy


----------



## 2600ryzen

Just leave the voltage settings like VDDP/VDDG on auto and see if it works then. Try DRAM voltage of 1.4v.


----------



## Dan CARBONE

negativefusion said:


> Hello Uber Overclockers,
> 
> I am completely new to Ryzen (and AMD cpus), I have spent over 8 hours reading stuff and watching BuildZoid videos and GamesNexus, Linus, Hardware unboxed to view their analysis and thoughts.
> 
> I own a kit of 2x16GB Micron D-Die (attached), I grabbed the calculator and am having some trouble understanding what exactly I am supposed to do and I feel like I am missing something.
> 
> Specs: Ryzen9 3950x, Motherboard: Asus WS Pro x570 ACE, Dark Rock 4 PRO Cooler
> 
> So far, I have enabled PBO using the 4 numbers Buildzoid gave (PPT @ 300, two others at 230, and PBO multiplier at x4).
> Aside from that, I enabled DOCP (XMP) which puts my kit at 3000, and ran 3 hours of Prime95 on Various tests each, and of course a 7 hour memtest86 - everything passed.
> 
> I then grabbed the DRAM Calculator, typed everything I understood (organization 2 since its dual rank, x570 mobo, d-die micro).
> Clicked the XMP button, then SAFE button -- got these settings.
> 
> I tried to type them in the bios just to tighten my stock XMP 3000 timings, one of them I couldn't figure out (highlighted in red circle) -- my mobo was only accepting 700-900 nothing else, and so instead of .9 (as shown in DRAM calc) I used 900 - and it resulted in no post/crash and had to fully clear my CMOS and reset.
> 
> So I said screw it for now, and just manually changed the Memory speed in bios to XMP 3000 and then to 3200, with everything else (except PBO as above) @ stock -- reran 8-9 hours of stress tests as above, and everything was stable.
> 
> Attached pic: Currently at 3200 stable... without using anything from DRAM Calculator.
> 
> Additionally when I click calculate FAST at 3000, it just says COMING SOON?? I click Calculate extreme it says UNDER CONSTRUCTION...
> 
> I am trying to get to 3600mhz, so I changed the Speed in DRAM CALC to 3600 and clicked XMP and then Calclulate SAFE (even though 3000 safe didnt work because of the setting forcing me to use 900 rather than 0.9) -- and when I click Calculate SAFE, it says: "NOT SUPPORTED" -- I did repeat it with 3400mhz, and it does spit out numbers, but I am VERY VERY relunctant to try, because even the "safe" 3000 numbers didn't boot (again, probably due to the 0.9 vs 900? I don't know)
> 
> (example of error posted in pic too)
> 
> Can anyone please shed some light on where to go from here?
> 
> ALSO, I noticed the FCLK (infinity fabric) number is always BOLDED in Dram Calc, I am not sure if this is a visual hint for me to do something with it??
> 
> Thanks a lot. Appreciate help
> 
> Essentially I am trying to squeeze the most power / performance as stable as I can, WITHOUT going nuts and dumping tons of voltages into the rig...
> 
> Like a... balance want something better than stock, but not too too crazy


Hi!

I've got since 2 months a new R7-3800x and I'm also an owner of a pair of Corsair (Micron D-die) @3200MHz 16-20-20-38.

This is the best place I've found to have many informations about Micron d-die.

First of all, thanx of 1usmus software, I can achieve @3200MHz) better timings setting the correct values. But my system stucks.

After search, the newer tRDWR was the glitch so I reverted back to 8. (I can't remember for now if all recommended voltages were well changed in my BIOS at that time)

I have executed Memtest for just(certainly not enough) one hour and results were OK. (I have reached 3733 after many many tests with few errors in Memtest but Windows seems ok and I didn't go back to my trials for the moment)


----------



## rares495

Dan CARBONE said:


> Hi!
> 
> I've got since 2 months a new R7-3800x and I'm also an owner of a pair of Corsair (Micron D-die) @3200MHz 16-20-20-38.
> 
> This is the best place I've found to have many informations about Micron d-die.
> 
> First of all, thanx of 1usmus software, I can achieve @3200MHz) better timings setting the correct values


You have to export from Thaiphoon burner as complete HTML report (remember to click on report, scroll down to the bottom and click on "show delays in nanoseconds" before the export) and then import that HTML file into DRAM calculator for more accurate timings for your particular kit.


----------



## negativefusion

rares495 said:


> You have to export from Thaiphoon burner as complete HTML report (remember to click on report, scroll down to the bottom and click on "show delays in nanoseconds" before the export) and then import that HTML file into DRAM calculator for more accurate timings for your particular kit.


Should this step be done at stock settings, XMP default settings, or any settings (custom modification included - doesnt matter) ?


----------



## Dan CARBONE

negativefusion said:


> Should this step be done at stock settings, XMP default settings, or any settings (custom modification included - doesnt matter) ?


It seems it's only XMP delays showed in nanoseconds (and not at any settings) that was written in EEPROM (and should be done at any settings)


----------



## rares495

negativefusion said:


> Should this step be done at stock settings, XMP default settings, or any settings (custom modification included - doesnt matter) ?


It doesn't matter.


----------



## ObscureScience

Anyone got any experience with the Ballistix White BL2K8G36C16U4W ? It's among the cheapest 3600 cl16 I can find along with red and black options.
Supposed to be Micron e die.


----------



## Alexshunter

I d like to bring out the most of Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K RAM with Asrock X470 ITX and Ryzen 5 3600X. My FCLK can do 3800MHz, should I find there the lowest timing? My RAM actually can do better what Ryzen calculator suggests, how to find the fastest setting than?. And also I am fine even with 1.5V because the house is well ventillated.


----------



## AGREST

Why MEMbench use only 3, 4 or 5 threads in Easy and Default mode ?

If work 4 or 5 threads, time = time in Custom mode with Easy settings and 12 threads. 3 threads work slower.

Screenshots under the spoiler.
No errors in membench and testmem5.
R5 3600, Asus B450-f, 2x8 Crucial BLS8G4D30AESBK.



Spoiler


----------



## BIRDMANv84

So I stumbled upon the Patriot Viper Steel PVS416G440C9K 4400C19 for the same price as the 4000C19 kit and purchased it hoping I would get the better PCB layout, I previously had the 4000C19 kit PVS416G400C9K (with A0 PCB)and didn't get so lucky and it would get errors in TM5 1usmusV3 benchmark at 3600C14, I eventually settled at 3400C14 at 1.45v with that kit. Now with this new 4400C19 kit I've been playing with the past 2 weeks I think I'm happy where it currently is (it's also A0 PCB like my old 4000 kit- no luck for me), I didn't want to run high voltage thru the A0 PCB for longevity as recommended by Veii. I'm also still learning the SiSandra software as I haven't been able to mess around with it as much but I'm getting around to it. Here are the screenshots of the Patriot Viper Steel PVS416G440C9K-4400C19 I have running at 3600C16 with no errors. I have settled here at 3600C16 @ 1.35v, other profiles like 3600Fast (C14 at 1.45v) would give me errors in TM5 and when I imported the complete html file from taiphoon to the calculator those values would not even boot the bios for me, I also don't think my IF likes anything over 1800 wouldn't even boot for me at 3733 or 3800 using values from the DramCalculator. Like I said I think I'm happy here but any recommendations to this profile would be appreciated.


----------



## KedarWolf

Just got this with the Fast 3800 settings, much better than my tighter timings, but I wasn't fully stable with them.

Rank #84 in SisSoft Sandra.



















Full results in Spoiler.



Spoiler



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 198.76GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 53.6ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.21GB/s
No. Threads : 32
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 60.10W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3386.51MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 8.92ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 1235.27kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 45.74MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U0-U16 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U0-U18 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U0-U20 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U0-U22 Data Latency : 61.7ns
U0-U24 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U0-U26 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U0-U28 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U0-U30 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U0-U17 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U0-U19 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U0-U21 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U0-U23 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U0-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U0-U27 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U0-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U0-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U2-U16 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U2-U18 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U2-U20 Data Latency : 61.2ns
U2-U22 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U2-U24 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U2-U26 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U2-U28 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U2-U30 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U2-U17 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U2-U19 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U2-U21 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U2-U23 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U2-U25 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U2-U27 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U2-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U2-U31 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U4-U16 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U4-U18 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U4-U20 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U4-U22 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U4-U24 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U4-U26 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U4-U28 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U4-U30 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U4-U17 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U4-U19 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U4-U21 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U23 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U4-U25 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U4-U27 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U4-U29 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U4-U31 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U6-U16 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U18 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U6-U20 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U6-U22 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U6-U24 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U26 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U6-U28 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U30 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U6-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U6-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U21 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U6-U23 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U6-U25 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U6-U27 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U6-U29 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U6-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U8-U16 Data Latency : 49.5ns
U8-U18 Data Latency : 62.2ns
U8-U20 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U8-U22 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U8-U24 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U8-U26 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U8-U28 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U8-U30 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U8-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U8-U19 Data Latency : 49.2ns
U8-U21 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U8-U23 Data Latency : 61.6ns
U8-U25 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U8-U27 Data Latency : 60.6ns
U8-U29 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U8-U31 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U10-U16 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U10-U18 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U10-U20 Data Latency : 62.0ns
U10-U22 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U10-U24 Data Latency : 62.0ns
U10-U26 Data Latency : 61.6ns
U10-U28 Data Latency : 60.3ns
U10-U30 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U10-U17 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U10-U19 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U10-U21 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U10-U23 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U10-U25 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U10-U27 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U10-U29 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U10-U31 Data Latency : 61.1ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U12-U16 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U12-U18 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U12-U20 Data Latency : 61.2ns
U12-U22 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U12-U24 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U12-U26 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U12-U28 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U12-U30 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U12-U17 Data Latency : 60.3ns
U12-U19 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U12-U21 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U12-U23 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U12-U25 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U12-U27 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U12-U29 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U12-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U14-U16 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U14-U18 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U14-U20 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U14-U22 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U14-U24 Data Latency : 61.5ns
U14-U26 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U14-U28 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U14-U30 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 67.6ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 60.2ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U14-U17 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U14-U19 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U14-U21 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U14-U23 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U14-U25 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U14-U27 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U14-U29 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U14-U31 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U16-U18 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U16-U20 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U16-U22 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U16-U24 Data Latency : 59.5ns
U16-U26 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U16-U28 Data Latency : 59.7ns
U16-U30 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U16-U1 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U16-U3 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U16-U5 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U16-U7 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U16-U9 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U16-U11 Data Latency : 61.0ns
U16-U13 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U16-U15 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U16-U19 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U16-U21 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U16-U23 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U16-U25 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U16-U27 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U16-U29 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U16-U31 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U18-U20 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U18-U22 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U18-U24 Data Latency : 61.5ns
U18-U26 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U18-U28 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U18-U30 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U18-U1 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U18-U3 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U18-U5 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U18-U7 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U18-U9 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U18-U11 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U18-U13 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U18-U15 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U18-U17 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U18-U21 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U18-U23 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U18-U25 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U18-U27 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U18-U29 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U18-U31 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U20-U22 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U20-U24 Data Latency : 61.6ns
U20-U26 Data Latency : 61.1ns
U20-U28 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U20-U30 Data Latency : 61.4ns
U20-U1 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U20-U3 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U20-U5 Data Latency : 60.7ns
U20-U7 Data Latency : 61.5ns
U20-U9 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U20-U11 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U20-U13 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U20-U15 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U20-U17 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U20-U19 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U20-U23 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U20-U25 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U20-U27 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U20-U29 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U20-U31 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U22-U24 Data Latency : 60.0ns
U22-U26 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U22-U28 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U22-U30 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U22-U1 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U22-U3 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U22-U5 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U22-U7 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U22-U9 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U22-U11 Data Latency : 61.5ns
U22-U13 Data Latency : 60.0ns
U22-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U22-U17 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U22-U19 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U22-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U22-U25 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U22-U27 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U22-U29 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U22-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U24-U26 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U24-U1 Data Latency : 59.9ns
U24-U3 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U24-U5 Data Latency : 47.7ns
U24-U7 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U24-U9 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U24-U11 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U24-U13 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U24-U15 Data Latency : 50.0ns
U24-U17 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U24-U19 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U24-U21 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U24-U23 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U24-U27 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U26-U28 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U26-U30 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U26-U1 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U26-U3 Data Latency : 49.5ns
U26-U5 Data Latency : 59.9ns
U26-U7 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U26-U9 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U26-U11 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U26-U13 Data Latency : 51.7ns
U26-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U26-U17 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U26-U19 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U26-U21 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U26-U23 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U26-U25 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U26-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U28-U30 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U28-U1 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U28-U3 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U28-U5 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U28-U7 Data Latency : 61.7ns
U28-U9 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U28-U11 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U28-U13 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U28-U15 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U28-U17 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U28-U19 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U28-U21 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U28-U23 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U28-U27 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U30-U1 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U30-U3 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U30-U5 Data Latency : 48.7ns
U30-U7 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U30-U9 Data Latency : 61.9ns
U30-U11 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U30-U13 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U30-U15 Data Latency : 50.4ns
U30-U17 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U30-U19 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U30-U21 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U30-U23 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U30-U25 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U30-U27 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U30-U31 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U1-U17 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U1-U19 Data Latency : 48.5ns
U1-U21 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U1-U23 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U1-U25 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U1-U27 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U1-U29 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U1-U31 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 61.6ns
U3-U17 Data Latency : 61.0ns
U3-U19 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U3-U21 Data Latency : 47.5ns
U3-U23 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U3-U25 Data Latency : 48.3ns
U3-U27 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U3-U29 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U3-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U5-U17 Data Latency : 48.4ns
U5-U19 Data Latency : 52.8ns
U5-U21 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U5-U23 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U5-U25 Data Latency : 59.7ns
U5-U27 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U5-U29 Data Latency : 61.9ns
U5-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 62.2ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U7-U17 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U7-U19 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U7-U21 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U7-U23 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U7-U25 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U7-U27 Data Latency : 60.8ns
U7-U29 Data Latency : 52.4ns
U7-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U9-U17 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U9-U19 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U9-U21 Data Latency : 47.6ns
U9-U23 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U9-U25 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U9-U27 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U9-U29 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U9-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U11-U17 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U11-U19 Data Latency : 48.6ns
U11-U21 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U11-U23 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U11-U25 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U11-U27 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U11-U29 Data Latency : 62.3ns
U11-U31 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U13-U17 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U13-U19 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U13-U21 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U13-U23 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U13-U25 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U13-U27 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U13-U29 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U13-U31 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U15-U17 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U15-U19 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U15-U21 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U15-U23 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U15-U25 Data Latency : 60.3ns
U15-U27 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U15-U29 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U15-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U17-U19 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U17-U21 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U17-U23 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U17-U25 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U17-U27 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U17-U29 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U17-U31 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U19-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U19-U23 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U19-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U19-U27 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U19-U29 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U19-U31 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U21-U23 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U21-U25 Data Latency : 60.4ns
U21-U27 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U21-U29 Data Latency : 61.2ns
U21-U31 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U23-U25 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U23-U27 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U23-U29 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U23-U31 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U25-U27 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U25-U29 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U27-U29 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U27-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U29-U31 Data Latency : 27.5ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.84GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 42.83GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 158.89GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 463.31GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 710.55GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 647.71GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 761.37GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 679.56GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 620.52GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 600.84GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 30.53GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 17.9GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.45GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710021
Computer : MSI MS-7C35 (MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (MS-7C35))
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 32
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Speed : 4.45GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.45GHz
Maximum Power : 60.10W - 129.95W
Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710021
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

BIRDMANv84 said:


> So I stumbled upon the Patriot Viper Steel PVS416G440C9K 4400C19 for the same price as the 4000C19 kit and purchased it hoping I would get the better PCB layout, I previously had the 4000C19 kit PVS416G400C9K (with A0 PCB)and didn't get so lucky and it would get errors in TM5 1usmusV3 benchmark at 3600C14, I eventually settled at 3400C14 at 1.45v with that kit. Now with this new 4400C19 kit I've been playing with the past 2 weeks I think I'm happy where it currently is (it's also A0 PCB like my old 4000 kit- no luck for me), I didn't want to run high voltage thru the A0 PCB for longevity as recommended by Veii. I'm also still learning the SiSandra software as I haven't been able to mess around with it as much but I'm getting around to it. Here are the screenshots of the Patriot Viper Steel PVS416G440C9K-4400C19 I have running at 3600C16 with no errors. I have settled here at 3600C16 @ 1.35v, other profiles like 3600Fast (C14 at 1.45v) would give me errors in TM5 and when I imported the complete html file from taiphoon to the calculator those values would not even boot the bios for me, I also don't think my IF likes anything over 1800 wouldn't even boot for me at 3733 or 3800 using values from the DramCalculator. Like I said I think I'm happy here but any recommendations to this profile would be appreciated.


Yeah I bought that same 4400 C19 kit as its the cheapest quality bin of Bdie after a reccomendation by buildzoid. I got it as I wanted a nice kit to play with for overclocking and not having to care if it dies from overvoltage. I can get it to run 3800 C14 @1.5V in my garage for hours on end stable but the second i bring it inside it starts to have errors. I can delay the onset of those errors by running a big fan over the sticks but eventually they must get too hot and will slowly grow unstable. The heatspreaders on them are junk. Im tempted to remove them and just see if the ICs with a fan might run cooler but I havent had the time to do it.


----------



## Veii

@BIRDMANv84 please take one dimm out and make couple of pictures
One from the side to see where the ICs really are
A0 they would be near the top of the headspreader - A1 or A2 would be at the bottom
Thaiphoon Burner recent version is a bit buggy recently when it comes to b-die PCB prediction accuracy 

Also make one dead center from the side of the dimm which has the ICs on it
At best with good lightning soo we can inspect the traces
4400 should be A2 close to all of them 
I don't know how an A0 kit would stay stable on anything over 4000MT/s
Pushing high voltage on A1 kits is not an issue, same as A2 - but A2 board compatibility will remain small

Recently found out the old hynixMFR cr*p i had, where actually A1
No wonder they loved 1.6v  
Else for increasing FCLK ~ i can forward you to this page with voltages:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814

Stay on 900mV VDDP as often as you can
Lower procODT down to 28ohm if possible else at max 32.2ohm 
and try to work more with CAD_BUS and RTT values 
Full no post would mean predictions are messed up 
haven't heard of one 3rd gen, that can't run 1800FCLK so far 
Likely just prediction missmatch or timings missmatch

Your goal is to lower every voltage as low as possible, and every resistance/impedance as low as possible 
In order to improve signal integrity ~ else you can forget high FCLK 
We know:
VDDP 900mV
VDDG 950mV
vSOC 1050mV can run 1900FCLK on a dual CCD unit / 1v vSOC could work on a single CCD unit


----------



## BIRDMANv84

@Veii here are the photos I just took sorry if they are not that great, I took the pictures on my kitchen stove because I couldn't be bothered to go out to the garage workbench. I also peeled off the heat spreaders (hopefully the correct side)on both kits to get a better look. Let me know if you need more info, I wonder now since I can now see the PCBs are different (why I didn't think of checking this beforehand is beyond me) if thaiphoon software gave me incorrect information again. Last time I had to reinstall thaiphoon when I thought I had issues OCing a Gskill kit a few weeks back.


----------



## Veii

BIRDMANv84 said:


> @Veii here are the photos I just took sorry if they are not that great, I took the pictures on my kitchen stove because I couldn't be bothered to go out to the garage workbench. I also peeled off the heat spreaders (hopefully the correct side)on both kits to get a better look. Let me know if you need more info, I wonder now since I can now see the PCBs are different (why I didn't think of checking this beforehand is beyond me) if thaiphoon software gave me incorrect information again. Last time I had to reinstall thaiphoon when I thought I had issues OCing a Gskill kit a few weeks back.


I strongly hope you peeled it off with big caution, not to damage the soldered ICs 
Here for reference, you have A0 and A2 as kits:
















A2 noticeable at the tiny notch at the top of the short-trace layout 

Keep the other side of the heatspreader on , or try to find some thermal pad to put on
They aren't thaat bad, and the aluminum does far better work than for examples corsair's design 
But if you can revere airflow in your case ~ be it back as intake or top as intake (dust issue likely)
Keep the front Heatspreader off with direct focused airflow 

You did it correct, congrats :thumb:
I just hope you did it cautiously, as normally they use strong thermal pads with double-sided glue 
Which will rip off ICs
Soo i only wanted a picture from the bottom , to see IC location and bottom traces
You did far more than necessary  

You can torture your A2 kits a bit more, near 1.54ish V
And you can consider upping CCD voltage a bit more if needed - as they are a big strain for normal boards
Else, procODT 28 is what you can run on short trace layouts - signal integrity plays a big role here

EDIT:
Reviewers are correct
Your A2 layout is a custom PCB
A1 has a tiny resistor at the bottom center , where the biggest difference is the top of the traces 








Soo Viper indeed uses a custom A2 layout ~ interesting :thinking:


----------



## BIRDMANv84

The 4400 Dimms were just out of the machine lol, still warm when I pulled the one apart very slowly. The 4000 kit did take a bit longer so that one came apart easy with a hairdryer. I actually cleaned all of modules with 91%iso and stuck them back together. I will try to do something next week as I have ordered a bigger case, more fans and also going to go AIO instead of my current D15 sitting right on top of the dimms. Hopefully Ill be moving more air thru the new case. On the custom PCB I wouldn't know anything about it this is all new info to me aswell, that might explain the thaiphoon report maybe


----------



## Struzzin

I just got a Patriot 4400 kit it is really nice I like it. 
I have many different kits I have tried on my Ryzen 3700X.
I got a G.Skill GVKB kit with Hynix CJR that is pretty nice. 
This Patriot kit is worth it to me so snappy. 
I am getting best on 3800 with V1 Safe anything else having issues.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I still have boot issues when trying to run at 3800 with that same kit, would you post a screenshot of your safe V1 profile so I can see the difference in mine, I do have a different board and cpu but im just curious.


----------



## Veii

@BIRDMANv84 yes  
I like them a lot too, they are cheap and quality 
Wonder if your 4000 kit rly is a dud or it just needed a bit more juice 
Discovered them before Buildzoid found them , and still am happy with them
Wish i could play a bit more with them but i'm awaiting right now a new cpu ~ something tiny something 12nm just soo my GPU can be powered again

You can try to push vSOC with the voltage formulas explained before 
That should give it a bit more juice to have enough for everything - including the memory controller
vSOC is the main voltage to the chip after all, later it splits apart in different sections for different usecases

Post issues should be resolved with that and with different CAD_BUS settings:
30-20-*24*-24 for example will work, although 24-20-24-24 is preferred for 28Ω procODT 
pushing*↑* ~ would help with cold,warm boot issues


----------



## Struzzin

BIRDMANv84 said:


> I still have boot issues when trying to run at 3800 with that same kit, would you post a screenshot of your safe V1 profile so I can see the difference in mine, I do have a different board and cpu but im just curious.


Hey here is what I did:
I used settings for B-Die 3600 on V1 for X370 and Zen 2;
So changed to 3800
Voltage is 1.40
My ProcODT is one lower then what Calc says.
Using the ALT CAD BUS timings 60 60 60

Try those and see but your right you have different MB and CPU.


----------



## Struzzin

Veii said:


> @BIRDMANv84
> Post issues should be resolved with that and with different CAD_BUS settings:
> 30-20-*24*-24 for example will work, although 24-20-24-24 is preferred for 28Ω procODT
> pushing*↑* ~ would help with cold,warm boot issues


Yes I am using what he just said  
3800
24-20-24-24 
28Ω procODT
Voltage is 1.40
Using the ALT CAD BUS timings 60 60 60


----------



## Veii

ALT CAD_BUS Timings will add a delay 
It's only needed if nothing else helps hitting stability, and if you want to push stupid timings
60 might not work for everyone and is not only frequency but also pcb dependent 

It's an easy resolve, but maximum 60 is not always the best option
sometimes between 54-60 helps, which depend on the current running state
I would use it only at the very very end if nothing else helps
As delay will bother you, any kind of delay


----------



## Struzzin

Haha well I dont want delay so I should have it on 0 0 0 

Just restarted and changed it works fine with 0 0 0

Thanks Veii


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I tried a few minutes ago to mess with 3800 profile again, wouldn't boot either configuration SAFE or FAST, also the lowest procODT my board will allow is 30ohm. Below are the 3 profiles I tried to load but would not boot, even tried to modify them starting with the alternative procODT values 36.9, 32 and the lowest my board will allow 30, along with the cad_bus alternative numbers but no luck on booting up either 3 profiles. As far as the vSOC goes Im still doing my learning and ill try to play around more with those values the next time I have another coffee with my bios. If it helps the last ASUS QR code I see before it shuts down while trying to boot is 08


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> Just got this with the Fast 3800 settings, much better than my tighter timings, but I wasn't fully stable with them.
> 
> Rank #84 in SisSoft Sandra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full results in Spoiler.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 198.76GB/s
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Latency : 53.6ns
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.21GB/s
> No. Threads : 32
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Processor(s) Power : 60.10W
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3386.51MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 8.92ns/W
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Total Cache Size : 1235.27kB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 45.74MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Detailed Results
> Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31
> U0-U2 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U0-U4 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U0-U8 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U0-U10 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U0-U12 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U0-U14 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U0-U16 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U0-U18 Data Latency : 53.7ns
> U0-U20 Data Latency : 57.3ns
> U0-U22 Data Latency : 61.7ns
> U0-U24 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U0-U26 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U0-U28 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U0-U30 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.1ns
> U0-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U0-U7 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U0-U9 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U0-U11 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U0-U13 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U0-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U0-U17 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U0-U19 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U0-U21 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U0-U23 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U0-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U0-U27 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U0-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U0-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U2-U4 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U2-U6 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U2-U8 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U2-U10 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U2-U12 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U2-U14 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U2-U16 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U2-U18 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U2-U20 Data Latency : 61.2ns
> U2-U22 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U2-U24 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U2-U26 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U2-U28 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U2-U30 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U2-U1 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U2-U3 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U2-U9 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U2-U13 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U2-U15 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U2-U17 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U2-U19 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U2-U21 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U2-U23 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U2-U25 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U2-U27 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U2-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U2-U31 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U4-U6 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U4-U8 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U4-U10 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U4-U12 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U4-U14 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U4-U16 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U4-U18 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U4-U20 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U4-U22 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U4-U24 Data Latency : 59.8ns
> U4-U26 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U4-U28 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U4-U30 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U4-U5 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U4-U7 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U4-U9 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U4-U11 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U4-U13 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U4-U15 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U4-U17 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U4-U19 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U4-U21 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U4-U23 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U4-U25 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U4-U27 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U4-U29 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U4-U31 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U6-U8 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U6-U10 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U6-U12 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U6-U14 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U6-U16 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U6-U18 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U6-U20 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U6-U22 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U6-U24 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U6-U26 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U6-U28 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U6-U30 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U6-U5 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U6-U9 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U6-U11 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U6-U13 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U6-U15 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U6-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U6-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U6-U21 Data Latency : 51.3ns
> U6-U23 Data Latency : 60.1ns
> U6-U25 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U6-U27 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U6-U29 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U6-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U8-U10 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U8-U12 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U8-U16 Data Latency : 49.5ns
> U8-U18 Data Latency : 62.2ns
> U8-U20 Data Latency : 57.1ns
> U8-U22 Data Latency : 52.5ns
> U8-U24 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U8-U26 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U8-U28 Data Latency : 59.2ns
> U8-U30 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U8-U1 Data Latency : 57.3ns
> U8-U3 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U8-U5 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U8-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U8-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U8-U19 Data Latency : 49.2ns
> U8-U21 Data Latency : 60.1ns
> U8-U23 Data Latency : 61.6ns
> U8-U25 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U8-U27 Data Latency : 60.6ns
> U8-U29 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U8-U31 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U10-U12 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U10-U16 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U10-U18 Data Latency : 57.0ns
> U10-U20 Data Latency : 62.0ns
> U10-U22 Data Latency : 58.5ns
> U10-U24 Data Latency : 62.0ns
> U10-U26 Data Latency : 61.6ns
> U10-U28 Data Latency : 60.3ns
> U10-U30 Data Latency : 59.6ns
> U10-U1 Data Latency : 58.6ns
> U10-U3 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U10-U5 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U10-U7 Data Latency : 60.5ns
> U10-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U10-U11 Data Latency : 11.3ns
> U10-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U10-U15 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U10-U17 Data Latency : 50.6ns
> U10-U19 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U10-U21 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U10-U23 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U10-U25 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U10-U27 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U10-U29 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U10-U31 Data Latency : 61.1ns
> U12-U14 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U12-U16 Data Latency : 56.5ns
> U12-U18 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U12-U20 Data Latency : 61.2ns
> U12-U22 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U12-U24 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U12-U26 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U12-U28 Data Latency : 58.9ns
> U12-U30 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U12-U1 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U12-U3 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U12-U5 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U12-U7 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U12-U9 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U12-U11 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U12-U13 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U12-U15 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U12-U17 Data Latency : 60.3ns
> U12-U19 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U12-U21 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U12-U23 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U12-U25 Data Latency : 57.7ns
> U12-U27 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U12-U29 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U12-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U14-U16 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U14-U18 Data Latency : 54.0ns
> U14-U20 Data Latency : 58.4ns
> U14-U22 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U14-U24 Data Latency : 61.5ns
> U14-U26 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U14-U28 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U14-U30 Data Latency : 58.4ns
> U14-U1 Data Latency : 67.6ns
> U14-U3 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U14-U5 Data Latency : 58.9ns
> U14-U7 Data Latency : 60.2ns
> U14-U9 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U14-U11 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U14-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U14-U15 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U14-U17 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U14-U19 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U14-U21 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U14-U23 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U14-U25 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U14-U27 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U14-U29 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U14-U31 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U16-U18 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U16-U20 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U16-U22 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U16-U24 Data Latency : 59.5ns
> U16-U26 Data Latency : 57.6ns
> U16-U28 Data Latency : 59.7ns
> U16-U30 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U16-U1 Data Latency : 57.0ns
> U16-U3 Data Latency : 58.2ns
> U16-U5 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U16-U7 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U16-U9 Data Latency : 51.0ns
> U16-U11 Data Latency : 61.0ns
> U16-U13 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U16-U15 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.3ns
> U16-U19 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U16-U21 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U16-U23 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U16-U25 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U16-U27 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U16-U29 Data Latency : 58.2ns
> U16-U31 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U18-U20 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U18-U22 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U18-U24 Data Latency : 61.5ns
> U18-U26 Data Latency : 58.9ns
> U18-U28 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U18-U30 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U18-U1 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U18-U3 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U18-U5 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U18-U7 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U18-U9 Data Latency : 59.6ns
> U18-U11 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U18-U13 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U18-U15 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U18-U17 Data Latency : 25.7ns
> U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U18-U21 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U18-U23 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U18-U25 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U18-U27 Data Latency : 67.7ns
> U18-U29 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U18-U31 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U20-U22 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U20-U24 Data Latency : 61.6ns
> U20-U26 Data Latency : 61.1ns
> U20-U28 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U20-U30 Data Latency : 61.4ns
> U20-U1 Data Latency : 60.1ns
> U20-U3 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U20-U5 Data Latency : 60.7ns
> U20-U7 Data Latency : 61.5ns
> U20-U9 Data Latency : 57.9ns
> U20-U11 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U20-U13 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U20-U15 Data Latency : 52.7ns
> U20-U17 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U20-U19 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U20-U23 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U20-U25 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U20-U27 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U20-U29 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U20-U31 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U22-U24 Data Latency : 60.0ns
> U22-U26 Data Latency : 58.6ns
> U22-U28 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U22-U30 Data Latency : 59.4ns
> U22-U1 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U22-U3 Data Latency : 51.4ns
> U22-U5 Data Latency : 53.6ns
> U22-U7 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U22-U9 Data Latency : 52.9ns
> U22-U11 Data Latency : 61.5ns
> U22-U13 Data Latency : 60.0ns
> U22-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U22-U17 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U22-U19 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U22-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.3ns
> U22-U25 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U22-U27 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U22-U29 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U22-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U24-U26 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U24-U1 Data Latency : 59.9ns
> U24-U3 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U24-U5 Data Latency : 47.7ns
> U24-U7 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U24-U9 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U24-U11 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U24-U13 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U24-U15 Data Latency : 50.0ns
> U24-U17 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U24-U19 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U24-U21 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U24-U23 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.5ns
> U24-U27 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U26-U28 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U26-U30 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U26-U1 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U26-U3 Data Latency : 49.5ns
> U26-U5 Data Latency : 59.9ns
> U26-U7 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U26-U9 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U26-U11 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U26-U13 Data Latency : 51.7ns
> U26-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U26-U17 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U26-U19 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U26-U21 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U26-U23 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U26-U25 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.5ns
> U26-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U28-U30 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U28-U1 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U28-U3 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U28-U5 Data Latency : 56.7ns
> U28-U7 Data Latency : 61.7ns
> U28-U9 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U28-U11 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U28-U13 Data Latency : 53.1ns
> U28-U15 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U28-U17 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U28-U19 Data Latency : 55.8ns
> U28-U21 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U28-U23 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U28-U27 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.5ns
> U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U30-U1 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U30-U3 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U30-U5 Data Latency : 48.7ns
> U30-U7 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U30-U9 Data Latency : 61.9ns
> U30-U11 Data Latency : 56.7ns
> U30-U13 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U30-U15 Data Latency : 50.4ns
> U30-U17 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U30-U19 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U30-U21 Data Latency : 67.3ns
> U30-U23 Data Latency : 67.4ns
> U30-U25 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U30-U27 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U30-U31 Data Latency : 11.5ns
> U1-U3 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U1-U9 Data Latency : 59.2ns
> U1-U11 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U1-U13 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U1-U15 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U1-U17 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U1-U19 Data Latency : 48.5ns
> U1-U21 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U1-U23 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U1-U25 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U1-U27 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U1-U29 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U1-U31 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U3-U9 Data Latency : 56.5ns
> U3-U11 Data Latency : 56.8ns
> U3-U13 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U3-U15 Data Latency : 61.6ns
> U3-U17 Data Latency : 61.0ns
> U3-U19 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U3-U21 Data Latency : 47.5ns
> U3-U23 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U3-U25 Data Latency : 48.3ns
> U3-U27 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U3-U29 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U3-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U5-U9 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U5-U11 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U5-U13 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U5-U15 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U5-U17 Data Latency : 48.4ns
> U5-U19 Data Latency : 52.8ns
> U5-U21 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U5-U23 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U5-U25 Data Latency : 59.7ns
> U5-U27 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U5-U29 Data Latency : 61.9ns
> U5-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U7-U9 Data Latency : 62.2ns
> U7-U11 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U7-U13 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U7-U15 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U7-U17 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U7-U19 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U7-U21 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U7-U23 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U7-U25 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U7-U27 Data Latency : 60.8ns
> U7-U29 Data Latency : 52.4ns
> U7-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U9-U11 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U9-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U9-U17 Data Latency : 52.2ns
> U9-U19 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U9-U21 Data Latency : 47.6ns
> U9-U23 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U9-U25 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U9-U27 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U9-U29 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U9-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U11-U13 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U11-U17 Data Latency : 57.7ns
> U11-U19 Data Latency : 48.6ns
> U11-U21 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U11-U23 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U11-U25 Data Latency : 52.6ns
> U11-U27 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U11-U29 Data Latency : 62.3ns
> U11-U31 Data Latency : 58.8ns
> U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U13-U17 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U13-U19 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U13-U21 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U13-U23 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U13-U25 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U13-U27 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U13-U29 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U13-U31 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U15-U17 Data Latency : 56.7ns
> U15-U19 Data Latency : 52.2ns
> U15-U21 Data Latency : 52.7ns
> U15-U23 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U15-U25 Data Latency : 60.3ns
> U15-U27 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U15-U29 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U15-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U17-U19 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U17-U21 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U17-U23 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U17-U25 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U17-U27 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U17-U29 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U17-U31 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U19-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U19-U23 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U19-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U19-U27 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U19-U29 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U19-U31 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U21-U23 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U21-U25 Data Latency : 60.4ns
> U21-U27 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U21-U29 Data Latency : 61.2ns
> U21-U31 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U23-U25 Data Latency : 56.2ns
> U23-U27 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U23-U29 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U23-U31 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U25-U27 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U25-U29 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U27-U29 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U27-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U29-U31 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.84GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 42.83GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 158.89GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 463.31GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 710.55GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 647.71GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 761.37GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 679.56GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 620.52GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 600.84GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 30.53GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 17.9GB/s
> 
> Benchmark Status
> Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.45GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> Computer : MSI MS-7C35 (MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (MS-7C35))
> Platform Compliance : x64
> Buffering Used : No
> No. Threads : 32
> System Timer : 10MHz
> Page Size : 2MB
> 
> Processor
> Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
> Speed : 4.45GHz
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.45GHz
> Maximum Power : 60.10W - 129.95W
> Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
> Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
> Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
> Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)
> 
> Memory Controller
> Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz
> 
> Performance Enhancing Tips
> Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
> Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


I get significantly better SisSoft Sandra results with CL16 over CL14, even better latency.

The lower score is CL14.


----------



## gerardfraser

Amazing


----------



## rastaviper

BIRDMANv84 said:


> So I stumbled upon the Patriot Viper Steel PVS416G440C9K 4400C19 for the same price as the 4000C19 kit and purchased it hoping I would get the better PCB layout, I previously had the 4000C19 kit PVS416G400C9K (with A0 PCB)and didn't get so lucky and it would get errors in TM5 1usmusV3 benchmark at 3600C14, I eventually settled at 3400C14 at 1.45v with that kit. Now with this new 4400C19 kit I've been playing with the past 2 weeks I think I'm happy where it currently is (it's also A0 PCB like my old 4000 kit- no luck for me), I didn't want to run high voltage thru the A0 PCB for longevity as recommended by Veii. I'm also still learning the SiSandra software as I haven't been able to mess around with it as much but I'm getting around to it. Here are the screenshots of the Patriot Viper Steel PVS416G440C9K-4400C19 I have running at 3600C16 with no errors. I have settled here at 3600C16 @ 1.35v, other profiles like 3600Fast (C14 at 1.45v) would give me errors in TM5 and when I imported the complete html file from taiphoon to the calculator those values would not even boot the bios for me, I also don't think my IF likes anything over 1800 wouldn't even boot for me at 3733 or 3800 using values from the DramCalculator. Like I said I think I'm happy here but any recommendations to this profile would be appreciated.


Buddy your memory needs a lot of work.
U should be happy when your latency reaches 63ns and your read memory increases to 55-56k.
U don't get the best performance currently.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Karagra

rastaviper said:


> Buddy your memory needs a lot of work.
> U should be happy when your latency reaches 63ns and your read memory increases to 55-56k.
> U don't get the best performance currently.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I managed to hit 63.1ns 58k Read, 56k Write, and 58k Copy. With 0 errors after a full run


----------



## BIRDMANv84

rastaviper said:


> Buddy your memory needs a lot of work.
> U should be happy when your latency reaches 63ns and your read memory increases to 55-56k.
> U don't get the best performance currently.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



Sorry it isn’t up to your standards but I’m still working on these memory kits. I’ve never looked to be the best performer on here, I just want to be stable 24/7 and that’s why I’m happy. If I wanted the best I’ll just go and spend $200-300+ for a kit that’s almost plug and play. There would also be no challenge for me there. I use my machines everyday and won’t/don’t have to change between settings just to do some simple benching or take pictures of bloated “real-time task manager” CB20 scores. I can game, stream, work ect.. it can also run p95small ftt, aida64, TM5 overnight right without switching out profiles or settings. It’s almost perfect for what I need it to do for me and my needs. Only problem lately is for some reason I cannot get my CPU stable overnight higher than 1833FCLK, maybe it’s seen better days or it got upset that I put a 3900x on my Amazon shopping list. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

BIRDMANv84 said:


> Sorry it isn’t up to your standards but I’m still working on these memory kits. I’ve never looked to be the best performer on here, I just want to be stable 24/7 and that’s why I’m happy. If I wanted the best I’ll just go and spend $200-300+ for a kit that’s almost plug and play. There would also be no challenge for me there. I use my machines everyday and won’t/don’t have to change between settings just to do some simple benching or take pictures of bloated “real-time task manager” CB20 scores. I can game, stream, work ect.. it can also run p95small ftt, aida64, TM5 overnight right without switching out profiles or settings. It’s almost perfect for what I need it to do for me and my needs. Only problem lately is for some reason I cannot get my CPU stable overnight higher than 1833FCLK, maybe it’s seen better days or it got upset that I put a 3900x on my Amazon shopping list.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Tried SOC 1.1v and VDDG/VDDP at 1.05v-1.075v to get above 1833mhz?


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I have tried a few different variations of this method, I have not tried VDDP above 950mv. Last night I tried SOC 1.1v VDDG at 1025 and VDDP at 975 still no go. Most of my testing has been at .900 VDDP and playing around with the VDDG and SOC. It normally boot cycles and just shuts off. I was able to get past the bios at 1833FCLK but I got a BSOD when it tried to load windows. 1800FCLK seems to be the sweet spot for me. Also found out that there is another bios down the pipeline for my board. I’ll be busy for the next week or 2 catching up with work and getting this race sim cockpit all set up in my pc room plus rebuilding my PC into a bigger case plus getting my nephews PC built when the parts get here. Then hopefully I’ll back to working on these timings or try a different memory kit/cpu to play with. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rastaviper

BIRDMANv84 said:


> Sorry it isn’t up to your standards but I’m still working on these memory kits. I’ve never looked to be the best performer on here, I just want to be stable 24/7 and that’s why I’m happy. If I wanted the best I’ll just go and spend $200-300+ for a kit that’s almost plug and play. There would also be no challenge for me there. I use my machines everyday and won’t/don’t have to change between settings just to do some simple benching or take pictures of bloated “real-time task manager” CB20 scores. I can game, stream, work ect.. it can also run p95small ftt, aida64, TM5 overnight right without switching out profiles or settings. It’s almost perfect for what I need it to do for me and my needs. Only problem lately is for some reason I cannot get my CPU stable overnight higher than 1833FCLK, maybe it’s seen better days or it got upset that I put a 3900x on my Amazon shopping list.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Haha, who said that you need to pay 200$ to get 63ns latency? And my comment it was about giving you a direction on what is supposed to be a "good" range of figures, which was looking that you were asking for since you have been posting your results.
If you can't handle the comments, then just skip them.
But either you learn from the comments like the rest of us and try for better results and performance or you can just be happy with what you have and don't ask for advice or how to get better performance.

Also you made another wrong assumption. Who told you that the system with the bloated CB20 scores can't kick ass on daily tasks, HD gaming, rendering or other tasks?
The improved performance is everywhere, not just at the figures, which you may find funny, but the whole forum here uses them for reference of an improved system.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## BIRDMANv84

rastaviper said:


> Haha, who said that you need to pay 200$ to get 63ns latency? And my comment it was about giving you a direction on what is supposed to be a "good" range of figures, which was looking that you were asking for since you have been posting your results.
> If you can't handle the comments, then just skip them.
> But either you learn from the comments like the rest of us and try for better results and performance or you can just be happy with what you have and don't ask for advice or how to get better performance.
> 
> Also you made another wrong assumption. Who told you that the system with the bloated CB20 scores can't kick ass on daily tasks, HD gaming, rendering or other tasks?
> The improved performance is everywhere, not just at the figures, which you may find funny, but the whole forum here uses them for reference of an improved system.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I just dont see where you came from in the 1st place, Ive been on these forums a very short time but I constantly see you posting with short snobby replies to other members, hardly ever provide useful information to help anyone. This kit is very hard to work with for me and my current motherboard so Ive been having some issues, don't beat me down when Im asking for a little help is all I ask from you. Ive been working on this new profile for the past day since I found out its a custom PCB and the whole kit is just weird, I just cant get that profile 100% stable yet or post at 1900FCLK. Anyone can post a fast screenshot, but is it stable for daily or 24/7 use? Anyways I don't want to waste anymore of our times, but if it helps you then here you go buddy. Its my stable profile modified a little at 1800FCLK that still needs work


----------



## KedarWolf

BIRDMANv84 said:


> I just dont see where you came from in the 1st place, Ive been on these forums a very short time but I constantly see you posting with short snobby replies to other members, hardly ever provide useful information to help anyone. This kit is very hard to work with for me and my current motherboard so Ive been having some issues, don't beat me down when Im asking for a little help is all I ask from you. Ive been working on this new profile for the past day since I found out its a custom PCB and the whole kit is just weird, I just cant get that profile 100% stable yet or post at 1900FCLK. Anyone can post a fast screenshot, but is it stable for daily or 24/7 use? Anyways I don't want to waste anymore of our times, but if it helps you then here you go buddy. Its my stable profile modified a little at 1800FCLK that still needs work


\

Here is my 3800MHz BIOS settings TM5 CFG v3 stable.

*Edit: Don't try the SOC Offset I think, different boards and BIOS's set it differently, keep it on Manual voltage, could be way too high or low. *


----------



## glnn_23

Here’s some settings I’ve got to so far running 4x8Gb. 3800c16

F4-4266C19D-16GTZA

Bios voltage 

Vdimm. 1.41v
Soc. 1.025
VDDG CCD .950
VDDG IOD .900
VDDP 900


----------



## Veii

You guys have all good timings, but please change TM5 config to 20 rounds instead of 5 for the future
Else Karhu does work too ~ just to mention

@KendarWolf your chip always was unique
You can run 1900FCLK with just 855?mV VDDP before
And now can run 1900FCLK with only 0.9375mV vSOC o . O ?
alone scaling makes non sense when VDDG is 950mV for you 
vSOC should be as absolute minimum 1000mV with this VDDG :thinking:

But 1.1v current with 0.1625v negative offset = 0.9375v 
Soo something is off for sure 

@glnn_23 your timings look alright except that tRFC2 is a pure mess 
If you use 300 tRFC either clone it to tRFC 2 and 4
Or go manual mode and calculate tRFC2/4 by turning tRFC into ns
a helping tool for finding baseline stable tRFC is this one:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/
It's for the baseline
Lower tRFC depends on tSTAG and so PCB layer - the tool yet needs an update on that part
But the DRAM Calculator keeps this already in mind 
I mean 1umus mentioned 30/31th as release, soo in 3 days the new version should come out to assist you with presets 

@BIRDMANv84 try with your known to work preset to push CAD_BUS Timings (the 3 values)
And try to push CAD_BUS 60-20-24-24 on them 
CAD_BUS timings depend on frequency, but you can just jump between presets on the dram calculator to find the values 
Between 54-60 work , you can start with 58-58-58 and see if this helps

Might even push cLDO_VDDG IOD for your usecase higher than CCD
can forward you again to this page for voltage presets and how they scale:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814
Try the split ones to push higher voltage and up CAD_BUS resistance 
procODT shouldn't be needed to be pushed that high on A2 kits
Maybe even try to lower RTT_NOM one step to increase impedance , like RZQ/6 instead /7

EDIT2:
Example for your usecase
VDDP 900mV
VDDG CCD 950mV
VDDG IOD 1000mV
vSOC 1100mV 

or maybe even
VDDP 900mV
vDDG CCD 975mV
VDDG IOD 1050mV
VSOC 1125mV
as absolute max


----------



## rastaviper

BIRDMANv84 said:


> I just dont see where you came from in the 1st place, Ive been on these forums a very short time but I constantly see you posting with short snobby replies to other members, hardly ever provide useful information to help anyone. This kit is very hard to work with for me and my current motherboard so Ive been having some issues, don't beat me down when Im asking for a little help is all I ask from you. Ive been working on this new profile for the past day since I found out its a custom PCB and the whole kit is just weird, I just cant get that profile 100% stable yet or post at 1900FCLK. Anyone can post a fast screenshot, but is it stable for daily or 24/7 use? Anyways I don't want to waste anymore of our times, but if it helps you then here you go buddy. Its my stable profile modified a little at 1800FCLK that still needs work


Here are my timings for your reference for a 63 ns.
And probably u haven't looked much, but regarding the 3600x there are many of my posts around with tips to other members. 
Your motherboard and different ram probably is affecting the results, but for me the daily setup has the stock auto boost or with the PBO reaching 4.317-4.367mhz with offset max 1.32v for all cores.

For benching I have different setup with fixed all cores 4.4-4.5ghz at 1.46v

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
View attachment 341776


----------



## Dash8Q4

Just started tinkering with my ram using this tool and this is what I got. This is my kit, got them on sale for 149.99+tax
https://www.newegg.ca/team-16gb-288...cm_re=t-force_dark_pro-_-20-313-712-_-Product

Settings pic attached. How safe is it to run this on a daily basis? I also ran a SAFE 3600Mhz C16 and got the bench below too. In order to test stability, what is recommended? The imbeded tests or a USB with memtest86?

Thanks for looking


----------



## rares495

Dash8Q4 said:


> Just started tinkering with my ram using this tool and this is what I got. This is my kit, got them on sale for 149.99+tax
> https://www.newegg.ca/team-16gb-288...cm_re=t-force_dark_pro-_-20-313-712-_-Product
> 
> Settings pic attached. How safe is it to run this on a daily basis? I also ran a SAFE 3600Mhz C16 and got the bench below too. In order to test stability, what is recommended? The imbeded tests or a USB with memtest86?
> 
> Thanks for looking


TM5 1usmus V3.

Just extract and run it as administrator.


----------



## Dash8Q4

rares495 said:


> TM5 1usmus V3.
> 
> Just extract and run it as administrator.


Running now thanks.

What about the question regarding running such settings on the daily?
Ram degradation? Warranty void? Or just giv’ er and don’t worry about a thing...


----------



## rares495

Dash8Q4 said:


> Running now thanks.
> 
> What about the question regarding running such settings on the daily?
> Ram degradation? Warranty void? Or just giv’ er and don’t worry about a thing...


Those are ok settings, decent, nothing extreme. You're fine.

I assume voltage is <1.5V, yes?


----------



## Dash8Q4

rares495 said:


> Those are ok settings, decent, nothing extreme. You're fine.
> 
> I assume voltage is <1.5V, yes?


1.42V as per the calculator yes.

I wonder now if I’ll be able to squeeze more on the timings considering .....1.5V is the max safe??


----------



## rares495

Dash8Q4 said:


> 1.42V as per the calculator yes.
> 
> I wonder now if I’ll be able to squeeze more on the timings considering .....1.5V is the max safe??



Yeah but lower is obviously better.


----------



## rastaviper

Dash8Q4 said:


> Running now thanks.
> 
> What about the question regarding running such settings on the daily?
> Ram degradation? Warranty void? Or just giv’ er and don’t worry about a thing...


Ram can run fine till 1.5v, no worries


----------



## Dash8Q4

Veii said:


> You guys have all good timings, but please change TM5 config to 20 rounds instead of 5 for the future


How is this done?


----------



## rares495

Dash8Q4 said:


> How is this done?


The one you got from me is already set to 20 cycles.


----------



## Dash8Q4

rares495 said:


> The one you got from me is already set to 20 cycles.


Check. Cheers


----------



## Dollar

From twitter:





> About DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.1 Due to the release of AGESA 1.0.0.5, I have to spend time on additional testing of preset compatibility. Estimated release date - the end of next week.


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> You guys have all good timings, but please change TM5 config to 20 rounds instead of 5 for the future
> Else Karhu does work too ~ just to mention
> 
> @KendarWolf your chip always was unique
> You can run 1900FCLK with just 855?mV VDDP before
> And now can run 1900FCLK with only 0.9375mV vSOC o . O ?
> alone scaling makes non sense when VDDG is 950mV for you
> vSOC should be as absolute minimum 1000mV with this VDDG :thinking:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> But 1.1v current with 0.1625v negative offset = 0.9375v
> Soo something is off for sure
> 
> @glnn_23 your timings look alright except that tRFC2 is a pure mess
> If you use 300 tRFC either clone it to tRFC 2 and 4
> Or go manual mode and calculate tRFC2/4 by turning tRFC into ns
> a helping tool for finding baseline stable tRFC is this one:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/
> It's for the baseline
> Lower tRFC depends on tSTAG and so PCB layer - the tool yet needs an update on that part
> But the DRAM Calculator keeps this already in mind
> I mean 1umus mentioned 30/31th as release, soo in 3 days the new version should come out to assist you with presets
> 
> @BIRDMANv84 try with your known to work preset to push CAD_BUS Timings (the 3 values)
> And try to push CAD_BUS 60-20-24-24 on them
> CAD_BUS timings depend on frequency, but you can just jump between presets on the dram calculator to find the values
> Between 54-60 work , you can start with 58-58-58 and see if this helps
> 
> Might even push cLDO_VDDG IOD for your usecase higher than CCD
> can forward you again to this page for voltage presets and how they scale:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814
> Try the split ones to push higher voltage and up CAD_BUS resistance
> procODT shouldn't be needed to be pushed that high on A2 kits
> Maybe even try to lower RTT_NOM one step to increase impedance , like RZQ/6 instead /7
> 
> EDIT2:
> Example for your usecase
> VDDP 900mV
> VDDG CCD 950mV
> VDDG IOD 1000mV
> vSOC 1100mV
> 
> or maybe even
> VDDP 900mV
> vDDG CCD 975mV
> VDDG IOD 1050mV
> VSOC 1125mV
> as absolute max


My SOC with the Offset is .1.11v in BIOS and this is HWInfo.


----------



## glnn_23

Veii thanks for the advice ,I'll give it a try.


----------



## Veii

For 1005 AGESA users, on some bioses the lowest procODT would be now 30Ω
You might not need 24-20-24-24 anymore but 24-20-20-24 should work , same as 30-20-20-24 
else on sleep issues,still use ^ instead of 20Ω

Some boards still have 28.2Ω as an option, but keep it in mind 
Voltage rulesets remain active, where lowest remains to be better
FCLK on many boards will default to decouple mode, soo be sure it's fixed by hand 
And the upper limit of FCLK increased ~ soo also retest your >1900 settings please

X570 ASROCk
X570 & B450 MSI 
Got 1005 updates, remain boards should get it soon


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Thank you Veii for the info, I currently have another 2 builds I’m working on for family then I’ll be back to messing with this 4400C19 kit. I might even put it on an intel build I have laying around. Just ordered Gskill F4-3600C16D-16GTRG today for my CH7, with hopefully a 3800x in next month or 2. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dollar

AMD provided a change log for AGESA 1005:




> Change log for AGESA 1005
> 
> 
> Rollup of 1004a, ab, abb, abba patches into a single release
> Fixed a PCIe® lane configuration issue on the AMD Ryzen™ 3 PRO 2100GE
> Resolved an intermittent virtual memory error with Realtek onboard LAN
> Improved POST with select Micron DDR4-3200 memory ICs
> Optimized PCIe® firmware to improve stability and interoperability


----------



## allangray00

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/

1usmus had problems above 3600mhz if you look at the motherboard choices section of the above link also he had someproblems with cpus overclocked above 4.2mhz you could possibly try reducing overclock to 4.2mhz but it would possibly give you less gains than the ram speed increase i hope this helps.


----------



## KedarWolf

I reflashed my BIOS testing something.

Now the below passes TM5 CFG v3.

I know, I know, tRDWR is at 10 but won't boot with tCWL 12 and it at 8. 

Will if I put tCWL at 14 though. 

I have the tRFC at the x2 settings, with tCWL at 12 and tRC at 43 it's a ridiculously low 210 or something and won't boot. 

I might try tRAS at 27 and lower tRFC.


----------



## opethdisciple

Veii said:


> For 1005 AGESA users, on some bioses the lowest procODT would be now 30Ω
> You might not need 24-20-24-24 anymore but 24-20-20-24 should work , same as 30-20-20-24
> else on sleep issues,still use ^ instead of 20Ω
> 
> Some boards still have 28.2Ω as an option, but keep it in mind
> Voltage rulesets remain active, where lowest remains to be better
> FCLK on many boards will default to decouple mode, soo be sure it's fixed by hand
> And the upper limit of FCLK increased ~ soo also retest your >1900 settings please
> 
> X570 ASROCk
> X570 & B450 MSI
> Got 1005 updates, remain boards should get it soon



How do you know upper limits for FCLK have increased?


----------



## opethdisciple

How do you guys test how high your FCLKs can go?

Because I've realised I never increase VDDG voltage before I test it.

I test it with stock voltages, find it cant go higher than 1800MHz and then tune my ram for 3600MHz.

Perhaps with the next BIOS I will try upping the VDDG voltages before I see how high my FCLK can go.

Is that the only voltage I need to play with for FCLK?

And is this something you guys have to do as well, or does it just 'work' at stock volts for the FCLK for you?


----------



## glnn_23

A little more testing with 3900x, C8H and 2 x TridentZ 4266c19 kits

Lowered tRCDRD from 17 to 16
I think I’ve tidied up tRFC2 thanks to Veii
Vdimm down to 1.35v


----------



## KedarWolf

I wasn't fully RAM stable until I flashed the BIOS I'm running from within M-FLASH.

Flashing with BIOS Flashback I had all kinds of issues which is weird, I know on ASUS BIOS Flashback the best way to flash a BIOS. 

See Spoiler for BIOS settings. 



Spoiler


----------



## Veii

glnn_23 said:


> A little more testing with 3900x, C8H and 2 x TridentZ 4266c19 kits
> 
> Lowered tRCDRD from 17 to 16
> I think I’ve tied up tRFC2 thanks to Veii
> Vdimm down to 1.35v


Try this 








Two things are kits dependent, tRTP either 8 or 6 
(unless you have GDM disabled, would pick 7 then)
tRDWR might need 10-1 instead of 9-1 , although this should work 
SCL keep at 4 first, if you can post lower to 3 with vDIMM bump to 1.42v

EDIT:
Also use this for Timings readout
https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases
and one more thing, decide if you go 50mhz stepping or 75mhz stepping
Don't mix both
Either:
VDDP 900
VDDG 950
VSOC 1050 (1000 would work but be too low for 1900FCLK, fine for 1800FCLK tho)
or
VDDP 900
VDDG 975
VSOC 1025 / 1100 (pick one, nothing in between)

Alternatives:


Spoiler



VDDP 900
VDDG IOD 950
VDDG CCD 1000
VSOC 1050
or
VDDP 900
VDDG IOD 975
VDDG CCD 1025
VSOC 1100
It is possible to reverse CCD & IOD if you want to fix one issue
For example rock A2 kits on a low end board incl high density taxing kits (B2 kits)
- or have a high per CCX Manual OC





KedarWolf said:


>


Your tRFC is extremely low 
You have to SiSandra test if tCWL is worth it to keep that low, instead of pushing tRDWR down
You'd see more benefits lowering tRAS and tRC instead of for example pushing tWR that low

Currently you run 14-8-16-14-28-44 / soo please enforce that
Don't forget GDM is on 
Your odd timings down to tRC won't do anything and be pushed up
Also for TM5, keep 20 rounds as stability check
tRFC 240 likely would fail after the 19th round as it's low - but the remain timings look alright
Focus your work on SiSandra too see actual differences from now on
Can't confirm that tCWL has less of a benefit than tRDWR, but tCWL does influence it
You should be able to go lower, at least 9-4 
This shouldn't be rounded up 

Later you can also try:
tRAS 28
tRC 42
tRRDL 5
tWR 12
and up tRFC 252-187-115 (for now)
put your tCWL 14 for now till you know the timings are fine
tCWL should be lowered at the absolute end, as perf bump

Used formula for tRAS:
tRCD+tWR+tBL
tRCD used as average delay between RD & WR = 12, instead of maximum tRCD WR delay = 16
Used formular for tWR:
tRAS - tRCD (WR)

EDIT 2:
Eventually you can lower everything one step further
tRAS 26 and tWR 10, with a new set of timings - but i think tBL would be too low as 2
You can also lower things a bit more if you get tRCD RD to 6 and/or tRCD WR to 14 down
tRC still has playroom to be lowered, right now it has excessive delay to keep things stable
Soo your 240 tRFC would for sure cause issues on longer stresstests - as your current used tRC 44 still is no clean transition with tRP & tRAS (it's still +2 too high)


----------



## 2600ryzen

My VDDG seems to go all the way down to 0.7v stable @3533mhz.


----------



## Veii

2600ryzen said:


> My VDDG seems to go all the way down to 0.7v stable @3533mhz.


Define Stable ?
VDDG = VDDP+50mV as absolute lowest
soo you'd need something something similar to this
VDDG 750mV
VDDP 700mV

Although i think, because vSOC is high it does cover it oor the board does autocorrect :thinking:
Do you have UncoreOC enabled under AMD Overclocking ?
Else it will autocorrect


----------



## KedarWolf

Spoiler






Veii said:


> Try this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things are kits dependent, tRTP either 8 or 6
> (unless you have GDM disabled, would pick 7 then)
> tRDWR might need 10-1 instead of 9-1 , although this should work
> SCL keep at 4 first, if you can post lower to 3 with vDIMM bump to 1.42v
> 
> EDIT:
> Also use this for Timings readout
> https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases
> and one more thing, decide if you go 50mhz stepping or 75mhz stepping
> Don't mix both
> Either:
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 950
> VSOC 1050 (1000 would work but be too low for 1900FCLK, fine for 1800FCLK tho)
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 975
> VSOC 1025 / 1100 (pick one, nothing in between)
> 
> Alternatives:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 950
> VDDG CCD 1000
> VSOC 1050
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 975
> VDDG CCD 1025
> VSOC 1100
> It is possible to reverse CCD & IOD if you want to fix one issue
> For example rock A2 kits on a low end board incl high density taxing kits (B2 kits)
> - or have a high per CCX Manual OC








Veii said:


> Your tRFC is extremely low
> You have to SiSandra test if tCWL is worth it to keep that low, instead of pushing tRDWR down
> You'd see more benefits lowering tRAS and tRC instead of for example pushing tWR that low
> 
> Currently you run 14-8-16-14-28-44 / soo please enforce that
> Don't forget GDM is on
> Your odd timings down to tRC won't do anything and be pushed up
> Also for TM5, keep 20 rounds as stability check
> tRFC 240 likely would fail after the 19th round as it's low - but the remain timings look alright
> Focus your work on SiSandra too see actual differences from now on
> Can't confirm that tCWL has less of a benefit than tRDWR, but tCWL does influence it
> You should be able to go lower, at least 9-4
> This shouldn't be rounded up
> 
> Later you can also try:
> tRAS 28
> tRC 42
> tRRDL 5
> tWR 12
> and up tRFC 252-187-115 (for now)
> put your tCWL 14 for now till you know the timings are fine
> tCWL should be lowered at the absolute end, as perf bump
> 
> Used formula for tRAS:
> tRCD+tWR+tBL
> tRCD used as average delay between RD & WR = 12, instead of maximum tRCD WR delay = 16
> Used formular for tWR:
> tRAS - tRCD (WR)
> 
> EDIT 2:
> Eventually you can lower everything one step further
> tRAS 26 and tWR 10, with a new set of timings - but i think tBL would be too low as 2
> You can also lower things a bit more if you get tRCD RD to 6 and/or tRCD WR to 14 down
> tRC still has playroom to be lowered, right now it has excessive delay to keep things stable
> Soo your 240 tRFC would for sure cause issues on longer stresstests - as your current used tRC 44 still is no clean transition with tRP & tRAS (it's still +2 too high)


I couldn't get that TM5 stable, I gave up.

I'm running this however at 1.42v RAM, .900v VDDP, 950 VDDG's and 1.1v SOC, TM5 Anta777 Extreme cfg 20 rounds stable. Takes something like 180 minutes to complete all rounds. 

And suggestions on final tweaks, @Veii I can never figure out the math right to calculate everything myself, and I'm honestly good at math, it just confuses me though, so many equations. 

brb, going to post a few BIOS screenshots as well.

That VOC Offset gives me 1.1v in BIOS reading and 1.102v in HWInfo. I'm on a beta BIOS though, with fully updated microcodes to the most recent.


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Try this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things are kits dependent, tRTP either 8 or 6
> (unless you have GDM disabled, would pick 7 then)
> tRDWR might need 10-1 instead of 9-1 , although this should work
> SCL keep at 4 first, if you can post lower to 3 with vDIMM bump to 1.42v
> 
> EDIT:
> Also use this for Timings readout
> https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases
> and one more thing, decide if you go 50mhz stepping or 75mhz stepping
> Don't mix both
> Either:
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 950
> VSOC 1050 (1000 would work but be too low for 1900FCLK, fine for 1800FCLK tho)
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 975
> VSOC 1025 / 1100 (pick one, nothing in between)
> 
> Alternatives:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 950
> VDDG CCD 1000
> VSOC 1050
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 975
> VDDG CCD 1025
> VSOC 1100
> It is possible to reverse CCD & IOD if you want to fix one issue
> For example rock A2 kits on a low end board incl high density taxing kits (B2 kits)
> - or have a high per CCX Manual OC
> 
> 
> 
> Your tRFC is extremely low
> You have to SiSandra test if tCWL is worth it to keep that low, instead of pushing tRDWR down
> You'd see more benefits lowering tRAS and tRC instead of for example pushing tWR that low
> 
> Currently you run 14-8-16-14-28-44 / soo please enforce that
> Don't forget GDM is on
> Your odd timings down to tRC won't do anything and be pushed up
> Also for TM5, keep 20 rounds as stability check
> tRFC 240 likely would fail after the 19th round as it's low - but the remain timings look alright
> Focus your work on SiSandra too see actual differences from now on
> Can't confirm that tCWL has less of a benefit than tRDWR, but tCWL does influence it
> You should be able to go lower, at least 9-4
> This shouldn't be rounded up
> 
> Later you can also try:
> tRAS 28
> tRC 42
> tRRDL 5
> tWR 12
> and up tRFC 252-187-115 (for now)
> put your tCWL 14 for now till you know the timings are fine
> tCWL should be lowered at the absolute end, as perf bump
> 
> Used formula for tRAS:
> tRCD+tWR+tBL
> tRCD used as average delay between RD & WR = 12, instead of maximum tRCD WR delay = 16
> Used formular for tWR:
> tRAS - tRCD (WR)
> 
> EDIT 2:
> Eventually you can lower everything one step further
> tRAS 26 and tWR 10, with a new set of timings - but i think tBL would be too low as 2
> You can also lower things a bit more if you get tRCD RD to 6 and/or tRCD WR to 14 down
> tRC still has playroom to be lowered, right now it has excessive delay to keep things stable
> Soo your 240 tRFC would for sure cause issues on longer stresstests - as your current used tRC 44 still is no clean transition with tRP & tRAS (it's still +2 too high)


Hello man, normally i try not to bother people with things like "give me settings" or similiar, but at this point i admit my defeat, i just lack knowledge and math ability to do a proper ram overclocking: my ram knowledge goes up to TRC/TRAS/TRFC correlation and that you can usually do a lower TRCDWR, that's it. 

What the dram calculator gave me it's either unstable or once 1000%+ HCI it produces weird behaviour like tiny microstuttering in games or a random crash after 1 week... it might be because i have 4 dimms, not common configuration and dram calc fails to give a stable setup? 

I dont know, i just noticed right now that 3733 with same timings as 3800 performs the same in aida latency which should not be the case (i think?)...

so:

Are you able to give a suggestion for timings, even a bit loose that are 100% rock solid? I just want 1:1 1900 or 1867 FCLK with somewhat usable timings but 100% stable and call it a deal.

I am done with weeks of HCI testing just to have a random crash/lose performance/weird game behaviour

I think my 3700x can do 1900 FCLK fine, been running that for months and i can post up to 1926 fclk with bclk oc and even run stresstests... pretty sure the problem lies in ram config.

If you do not wish to help just say it, there's nothing wrong. Thank you anyway.

P.S as a start i fixed up my voltages config, did not know of the correlation between them.
VDDP 900
VDDG IOD 975
VDDG CCD 1025
VSOC 1100

went for this since i just run a light PBO setting (3600x values on a 3700x)


----------



## Veii

KedarWolf said:


> I couldn't get that TM5 stable, I gave up.
> 
> I'm running this however at 1.42v RAM, .900v VDDP, 950 VDDG's and 1.1v SOC, TM5 Anta777 Extreme cfg 20 rounds stable. Takes something like 180 minutes to complete all rounds.
> 
> And suggestions on final tweaks, @Veii I can never figure out the math right to calculate everything myself, and I'm honestly good at math, it just confuses me though, so many equations.


Don't give up just because something tiny errors out 
You could post that, soo it's already big progress 
But you didn't invest time to check on what it errors out and why 

Stuff is intertwined a lot 
If you want to learn, this page helped me a lot 
https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters Cheatsheet 
And back to the basics:
https://www.systemverilog.io/ddr4-basics

Rulesets come from the community, but you have to keep in mind 
- this timing values are all just placeholders for long decimal ns digits
Math works as alright ETA, but values still remain an estimation
tWR and tRAS go hand in hand
Like tRC and tRFC go hand in hand

The only unique and variable timings are the first 3/4
tCL, tRCD, tRP
The rest all belongs to math

tRRDS/L and tWTRS/L belong to the module layout and density = bank groups and bank rows + channel amount
This should explain it well
https://www.synopsys.com/designware-ip/technical-bulletin/ddr4-bank-groups.html








Till 2000 we had a pure Data Prefetch and group refresh
But the core interface couldn't keep up with with the frequency and in order to increase it, we had to use "prefetchers"
Reading whole columns and "rows" at the same time while dividing this N time at half, in order for the interface to match a clean sync
Soo like we do now with FLCK/2 - or how GearDownMode works, it waits and reads it as half cycle

A prefetcher of 2 would control access of two memory arrays (either one or the other) controlled by MUX layer, while a prefetcher of 4 would control arrays at the same time again accessing one of these only
DDR4 then got what we call Bank Groups
Which accesses two of these Groups of MUX layers at the same time, in order to mitigate the added delay of using prefetchers (which where used because again the main interface couldn't increase in I/O speed)
















Reading that page will make it more logical, than i can explain in short terms

tCCD_S/L is still used on our current bios in the hidden in order to get the bank and rows amount accurately
I will focus in order to expose it after i get a ryzen unit to work with
Soo we should be able to push performance a bit more and i'll try to lower tWR & tRTP limits a bit lower than the failsafe JEDEC specs AMD used








We should be able to get some more performance out of it ~ because tCCDL remains an estimation by default
But it would require users to actually get PCB layers & layout correct
Plus specify die size and group amounts 

I personally think 1usmus can factor that on 1.7.2 then, which should bump up our potential OC capabilities a bit more
There are couple of more items usually our Bioses Miss, but only tCCD_S/L seem to be factored by default for XMP
While remain lack of options (tBL / tAL, tREFI, tMRD & tMOD + tSTAG readout) 
All miss on our bioses
~ i think i saw tREFI somewhere exposed but i think it was inside PMU firmware only :thinking:

Anyways, this post is getting huge again
There is still a lot of stuff we can control and i would wish AMD would implement access to it on 1005B/1006
While tCCD_S/L exists since a long time and moders just have to unhide it 
(make a menu point, shouldn't be hard)


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Try this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things are kits dependent, tRTP either 8 or 6
> (unless you have GDM disabled, would pick 7 then)
> tRDWR might need 10-1 instead of 9-1 , although this should work
> SCL keep at 4 first, if you can post lower to 3 with vDIMM bump to 1.42v
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> Also use this for Timings readout
> https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases
> and one more thing, decide if you go 50mhz stepping or 75mhz stepping
> Don't mix both
> Either:
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 950
> VSOC 1050 (1000 would work but be too low for 1900FCLK, fine for 1800FCLK tho)
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 975
> VSOC 1025 / 1100 (pick one, nothing in between)
> 
> Alternatives:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 950
> VDDG CCD 1000
> VSOC 1050
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 975
> VDDG CCD 1025
> VSOC 1100
> It is possible to reverse CCD & IOD if you want to fix one issue
> For example rock A2 kits on a low end board incl high density taxing kits (B2 kits)
> - or have a high per CCX Manual OC
> 
> 
> 
> Your tRFC is extremely low
> You have to SiSandra test if tCWL is worth it to keep that low, instead of pushing tRDWR down
> You'd see more benefits lowering tRAS and tRC instead of for example pushing tWR that low
> 
> Currently you run 14-8-16-14-28-44 / soo please enforce that
> Don't forget GDM is on
> Your odd timings down to tRC won't do anything and be pushed up
> Also for TM5, keep 20 rounds as stability check
> tRFC 240 likely would fail after the 19th round as it's low - but the remain timings look alright
> Focus your work on SiSandra too see actual differences from now on
> Can't confirm that tCWL has less of a benefit than tRDWR, but tCWL does influence it
> You should be able to go lower, at least 9-4
> This shouldn't be rounded up
> 
> Later you can also try:
> tRAS 28
> tRC 42
> tRRDL 5
> tWR 12
> and up tRFC 252-187-115 (for now)
> put your tCWL 14 for now till you know the timings are fine
> tCWL should be lowered at the absolute end, as perf bump
> 
> Used formula for tRAS:
> tRCD+tWR+tBL
> tRCD used as average delay between RD & WR = 12, instead of maximum tRCD WR delay = 16
> Used formular for tWR:
> tRAS - tRCD (WR)
> 
> EDIT 2:
> Eventually you can lower everything one step further
> tRAS 26 and tWR 10, with a new set of timings - but i think tBL would be too low as 2
> You can also lower things a bit more if you get tRCD RD to 6 and/or tRCD WR to 14 down
> tRC still has playroom to be lowered, right now it has excessive delay to keep things stable
> Soo your 240 tRFC would for sure cause issues on longer stresstests - as your current used tRC 44 still is no clean transition with tRP & tRAS (it's still +2 too high)


Where do I get that interface in the 'Try this' picture?

This below.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Where do I get that interface in the 'Try this' picture?
> 
> This below.



That must be his full timing calculator. So sexy! :wubsmiley


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> That must be his full timing calculator. So sexy! :wubsmiley


The 15% done calculator :ninja: literally a shame which is halfway automated only
I need to figure out the exact delay steps between each command how memory works
It's not only these timings that control memory operation delays
Until i haven't figured how it works perfectly - "calculator" is just my personal handy tool to share timings and doublecheck rulesets
something i can not share, an ashaming project 

It needs to include what 1umsus calculator will include soon
PCB Layer awareness - soo likely i'll wait till he is done with the research to copy it over
Because i have not even close to the resources he has for testing memory kits

Yes, after i can perfectly calculate how memory works between each command, then i can finish up this project
So far it's not usable at all


----------



## fcchin

Veii said:


> PCB Layer awareness -


WoW, nice fancy marketing term !!!


----------



## rares495

fcchin said:


> WoW, nice fancy marketing term !!!



It really isn't.


----------



## Veii

fcchin said:


> WoW, nice fancy marketing term !!!


Haha 
You know what i ment
A0,1,2 & B0,1,2 settings

Current issue is, we can't track:
- tREFI
- tAL
- tCCD_S/L
- tDQSCK & CK_t/c
- tQSH/L (Data Strobe 
- tDQSQ & tQH
- tWPST
- tWPRE
- tMRD
- tMOD & tSTAG 
- tMAW
The only advanced one we got is tRRD_S/L & tWTR_S/L controlling active time to bank groups & Wr to Rd delay between bank groups
tDQ and tQS stuff refers to the pulse width of the memory, better explained on the links last post, which is not thaat important and done automatically but actually important for GDM timings
But without tREFI, tAL, tMxx stuff - it's close to impossible to automate it 
I need this values


----------



## Bartholdi

Do I have to redo all the timings if updating to 7C37vH83(Beta version)?


----------



## 2600ryzen

Veii said:


> Define Stable ?
> VDDG = VDDP+50mV as absolute lowest
> soo you'd need something something similar to this
> VDDG 750mV
> VDDP 700mV
> 
> Although i think, because vSOC is high it does cover it oor the board does autocorrect :thinking:
> Do you have UncoreOC enabled under AMD Overclocking ?
> Else it will autocorrect



I don't have UncoreOC enabled, VSOC was really 1.00v in that screenshot Ryzen master doesn't show VSOC voltage correct when I apply a negative offset to it. I tried VDDP below 0.8v but it wouldn't post. My bios hasn't been updated since last October I'm on AGESA 1.0.0.3. The 0.7v setting seemed to reduce power by 2w both at load and idle.
I was also testing at 3733mhz before and I did need the 75mv offset to get soft/hard reboot to work properly. There I did VSOC=1.075v VDDG=0.975v and VDDP=0.9v.


----------



## Veii

Bartholdi said:


> Do I have to redo all the timings if updating to 7C37vH83(Beta version)?


You ask for AGESA 1005 ?
ProcODT 30Ω with CAD_BUS 30-20-24-24 is a good entry point for B-dies
Depends on your early settings and Dimms, but the answer is yes - unlike you got 1004AB*B* and did use 28Ω before


2600ryzen said:


> I don't have UncoreOC enabled, VSOC was really 1.00v in that screenshot Ryzen master doesn't show VSOC voltage correct when I apply a negative offset to it. I tried VDDP below 0.8v but it wouldn't post. My bios hasn't been updated since last October I'm on AGESA 1.0.0.3. The 0.7v setting seemed to reduce power by 2w both at load and idle.
> I was also testing at 3733mhz before and I did need the 75mv offset to get soft/hard reboot to work properly. There I did VSOC=1.075v VDDG=0.975v and VDDP=0.9v.


Screenshot reads one thing, board autocorrects to another thing  
Enable UncoreOC to enforce set voltage differences - as AMDs algorithm is defaulting to 50mV stepping 
No split stepping i showed for 1004ABB
1003ABBA also has different CAD_BUS values as default, usually 24-24-24-24 with 32.2Ω to prevent coldboot issues

For 1003ABBA you can still try double stepping of 150mV
VDDP 700
VDDG 850
VSOC 1000
But procODT and CAS_BUS optimals are different 
24-20-20-24 doesn't work that well on it, unless you use something like 30Ω with 30-20-20-24 CAD_BUS
Usually vSOC needs to be just high enough to cover both
But optimals are a different hing


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Haha
> You know what i ment
> A0,1,2 & B0,1,2 settings
> 
> Current issue is, we can't track:
> - tREFI
> - tAL
> - tCCD_S/L
> - tDQSCK & CK_t/c
> - tQSH/L (Data Strobe
> - tDQSQ & tQH
> - tWPST
> - tWPRE
> - tMRD
> - tMOD & tSTAG
> - tMAW
> The only advanced one we got is tRRD_S/L & tWTR_S/L controlling active time to bank groups & Wr to Rd delay between bank groups
> tDQ and tQS stuff refers to the pulse width of the memory, better explained on the links last post, which is not thaat important and done automatically but actually important for GDM timings
> But without tREFI, tAL, tMxx stuff - it's close to impossible to automate it
> I need this values



Asus Mem TweakIT seems to show some of these.


----------



## Synoxia

Synoxia said:


> Hello man, normally i try not to bother people with things like "give me settings" or similiar, but at this point i admit my defeat, i just lack knowledge and math ability to do a proper ram overclocking: my ram knowledge goes up to TRC/TRAS/TRFC correlation and that you can usually do a lower TRCDWR, that's it.
> 
> What the dram calculator gave me it's either unstable or once 1000%+ HCI it produces weird behaviour like tiny microstuttering in games or a random crash after 1 week... it might be because i have 4 dimms, not common configuration and dram calc fails to give a stable setup?
> 
> I dont know, i just noticed right now that 3733 with same timings as 3800 performs the same in aida latency which should not be the case (i think?)...
> 
> so:
> 
> Are you able to give a suggestion for timings, even a bit loose that are 100% rock solid? I just want 1:1 1900 or 1867 FCLK with somewhat usable timings but 100% stable and call it a deal.
> 
> I am done with weeks of HCI testing just to have a random crash/lose performance/weird game behaviour
> 
> I think my 3700x can do 1900 FCLK fine, been running that for months and i can post up to 1926 fclk with bclk oc and even run stresstests... pretty sure the problem lies in ram config.
> 
> If you do not wish to help just say it, there's nothing wrong. Thank you anyway.
> 
> P.S as a start i fixed up my voltages config, did not know of the correlation between them.
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 975
> VDDG CCD 1025
> VSOC 1100
> 
> went for this since i just run a light PBO setting (3600x values on a 3700x)



Does somebody own the same DIMM kit in a 4 dimm config and has a thoroughly tested rock solid (2+ weeks) timings at 3800/3733?
I am just exhausted since i cannot find true stability and dram calc doesn't help me for some reason.


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Hello man, normally i try not to bother people with things like "give me settings" or similiar, but at this point i admit my defeat, i just lack knowledge and math ability to do a proper ram overclocking: my ram knowledge goes up to TRC/TRAS/TRFC correlation and that you can usually do a lower TRCDWR, that's it.
> 
> Are you able to give a suggestion for timings, even a bit loose that are 100% rock solid? I just want 1:1 1900 or 1867 FCLK with somewhat usable timings but 100% stable and call it a deal.
> 
> I think my 3700x can do 1900 FCLK fine, been running that for months and i can post up to 1926 fclk with bclk oc and even run stresstests... pretty sure the problem lies in ram config.
> 
> If you do not wish to help just say it, there's nothing wrong. Thank you anyway.


I usually don't like doing all the work for people, at all
because if you want pretested done presets - the Calculator has you covered 

But if you can spare the time of more testing, i'll at least try to teach you what i know~
Either in 15-16h or after Tuesday CET when i get my new 12nm toy to actually test timings myself, and not only follow old book theory
A bit too tired today, i'm sorry 

In the meantime, go down to timings you know work, be sure to use RTT_PARK 240Ω and for b-dies RTT_NOM 34Ω
Also be sure that BGS Alt is disabled and normal BGS is enabled (on 4 dimms)
Start with 34Ω procODT and push up to 40Ω if needed

Get that together and then focus on testing with Y-cruncher (all the tests, under stresstest)
Your fabric, and cpu voltage = loadline vdroop
Be sure that's stable, before we try to go around unstable memory testing
You can also try decouple FCLK and push that to 1900/1933 till you know what voltages are required and where stability ends


----------



## Dash8Q4

Hi guys/gals...
I gotta ask this to get it out of my system. I currently have these settings on my kit but my motherboard doesn't have a tRFC (alt) slot. Instead it has tRFC 2 and 4. So, is there any way to find what these settings should be? Or just leave them auto?


----------



## Veii

Dash8Q4 said:


> Hi guys/gals...
> I gotta ask this to get it out of my system. I currently have these settings on my kit but my motherboard doesn't have a tRFC (alt) slot. Instead it has tRFC 2 and 4. So, is there any way to find what these settings should be? Or just leave them auto?


ALT means alternative tRFC, if the lower one doesn't work
Same goes for CAD_BUS stuff
if you use this tRFC , put it on tRFC2/4 as the same value (enforce it)
else try to guess the delay as decimal value on the advanced calculator tab and fill in the generated tRFC2/4 from it


----------



## Dash8Q4

Veii said:


> else try to guess the delay as decimal value on the advanced calculator tab and fill in the generated tRFC2/4 from it


Ah, no idea how to execute this task! haha

I'll just leave it for now as it seems to run fine at stock voltages too. I tried a 3800Mhz FAST preset but that requires 1.42volts for the ram which I'm not comfortable to run 24/7 right now.


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> I usually don't like doing all the work for people, at all
> because if you want pretested done presets - the Calculator has you covered
> 
> But if you can spare the time of more testing, i'll at least try to teach you what i know~
> Either in 15-16h or after Tuesday CET when i get my new 12nm toy to actually test timings myself, and not only follow old book theory
> A bit too tired today, i'm sorry
> 
> In the meantime, go down to timings you know work, be sure to use RTT_PARK 240Ω and for b-dies RTT_NOM 34Ω
> Also be sure that BGS Alt is disabled and normal BGS is enabled (on 4 dimms)
> Start with 34Ω procODT and push up to 40Ω if needed
> 
> Get that together and then focus on testing with Y-cruncher (all the tests, under stresstest)
> Your fabric, and cpu voltage = loadline vdroop
> Be sure that's stable, before we try to go around unstable memory testing
> You can also try decouple FCLK and push that to 1900/1933 till you know what voltages are required and where stability ends


Thank you for your answer. I was indeed not expecting "all the work" but rather if you knew the specific DIMM i am using and if you could suggest a very loose preset with very minimal effort.
The calculator does not serve me well apparently as i said for some reason (i am correctly importing the preset into taiphoon burner).

I am running the cpu at bare stock so infinity fabric should be the one to test... i recall doing some ycruncher in the past and i've been through that cmd tool that's been around OCN net that specifically tested IF... left that over night for 1900fclk and it didn't crash either.

I cannot push 1933 sadly, always gives me 07 error at boot which is the same error i get when i try to BCLK my way over 1926, will test later again in decoupled for sure but i don't expect anything different.

Your fabric, and cpu voltage = loadline vdroop wdym with this? I run at stock now besides a small offset (0.00625) because asus overvolts ryzen 3k, so i thought it was a good idea not to use LLC.

These are the timings i am going to try at 3800


----------



## glnn_23

Veii said:


> Try this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things are kits dependent, tRTP either 8 or 6
> (unless you have GDM disabled, would pick 7 then)
> tRDWR might need 10-1 instead of 9-1 , although this should work
> SCL keep at 4 first, if you can post lower to 3 with vDIMM bump to 1.42v
> 
> EDIT:
> Also use this for Timings readout
> https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases
> and one more thing, decide if you go 50mhz stepping or 75mhz stepping
> Don't mix both
> Either:
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 950
> VSOC 1050 (1000 would work but be too low for 1900FCLK, fine for 1800FCLK tho)
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG 975
> VSOC 1025 / 1100 (pick one, nothing in between)
> 
> Alternatives:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 950
> VDDG CCD 1000
> VSOC 1050
> or
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 975
> VDDG CCD 1025
> VSOC 1100





Spoiler



Veii thanks for your help and all the info you have put in the forums.

I ran these settings except I had to set tWRRD to 3 as setting at 1 was difficult for me to get working.

In Bios 
Vdimm. 1.4
Soc. 1.05
VDDG CCD .950
VDDG IOD .950
VDDP 900


----------



## KedarWolf

Is there any reason why Dram Calculator and Zen Timings seeing my tCWL as 14, not the 16 I have it set at?

I get a HUGE increase in SisSoft Sandra at tCWL 16, like 198GB/sec over 165GB/sec at tCWL 14 and my latency is lower too, 53.2 vs 55.6. 

You peeps need to test tCWL 16 over 14, not sure why it drastically changes things.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Has anyone had to raise vddp to 1.100 to get there 1900 fclk stable I kept getting random reboots until I increased this. Is there any other reason why this voltage would have to be so high not to get reboots? Event viewer says it kernal-power 41 Task category 63


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Is there any reason why Dram Calculator and Zen Timings seeing my tCWL as 14, not the 16 I have it set at?
> 
> I get a HUGE increase in SisSoft Sandra at tCWL 16, like 198GB/sec over 165GB/sec at tCWL 14 and my latency is lower too, 53.2 vs 55.6.
> 
> You peeps need to test tCWL 16 over 14, not sure why it drastically changes things.


The reason why you see such an increase is probably better sync. Plus SiSandra is ******3d sometimes.


----------



## KedarWolf

tCWL at 16 though in BIOS.

RAM at 1.45v, VDDP at .900, VDDGs at .950, VOC at 1.128v.

If I put VOC any lower, PC reboots when running Sisoft Sandra.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> tCWL at 16 though in BIOS.
> 
> RAM at 1.45v, VDDP at .900, VDDGs at .950, VOC at 1.128v.
> 
> If I put VOC any lower, PC reboots when running Sisoft Sandra.


Why did you go back to CL15?


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Why did you go back to CL15?


I got it stable at CL15 at the same voltage as CL16 and that is with GDM disabled as well. With GDM enabled may as well do CL16 with the way GDM works, same with the 13-27 with GDM enabled is essentially 14-28.

I get better bandwidth and latency with GDM disabled in Sisoft Sandra.


----------



## 2600ryzen

TCWL has to be equal or less than TCL, your bios is probably autocorrecting it down. When I have TCWL 2 less than TCL TRDWR/TWRRD are set to 11-1, when it's equal TRDWR/TWRRD is set to 9-2. That probably explains the different performance.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> TCWL has to be equal or less than TCL, your bios is probably autocorrecting it down. When I have TCWL 2 less than TCL TRDWR/TWRRD are set to 11-1, when it's equal TRDWR/TWRRD is set to 9-2. That probably explains the different performance.


Yeah, my guess is that tRDWR matters more than tCWL.


----------



## Sphex_

Didn't think I'd ever be here posting for help but, here I am. If someone could take a quick glance at my memory settings and nudge me in the right direction, I'd be extremely grateful.


Memory Kit: G.Skill F4-3466C16-16GTZKW (2x G.Skill F4-3466C16-8GTZKW)
Die Type: Samsung B-Die (Probably lower binned)
Memory Clock: 3733 MHz (IF @ 1866MHz)
Motherboard: In Signature
BIOS: F10c (AGESA 1004)
Timings: https://imgur.com/sqIDxZf
Command Rate: 1T
Voltage: 1.45V
VDDP: 900mV or 1000mV
VDDG: 950mV
CAD_BUS Stuff: 24-20-20-24
ProcODT: 36.9

System seems stable with these settings, no issues, no blue screens. But when running MemTest86 or Karhu RAM Test over extended periods of time an error will eventually show up. In terms of MemTest86, I'll get through two passes and then, like clockwork, it'll throw an error on Test #7. I'm not sure if it's heat related, or just a rare error that can be fixed with a simple tweak, but I'm at a loss, frankly.

I've tried adjusting the VDDP voltage, it effects when the error occurs, but never mitigates it completely. Adjusting ProcODT just causes more errors, 36.9 is where it's most stable. CAD_Bus settings seem to have no effect. Lowering the voltage creates more errors. I'd prefer not to raise the voltage so... Are my timings simply too aggressive for this kit?


----------



## 2600ryzen

I had this issue on testmem5, it would throw a single error every 30cycle run. Raising Trtp/Twr to 8/16 fixed it. If you can run Trtp/Twr at 7/14 try that or 8/16.


----------



## KedarWolf

Sphex_ said:


> Didn't think I'd ever be here posting for help but, here I am. If someone could take a quick glance at my memory settings and nudge me in the right direction, I'd be extremely grateful.
> 
> 
> Memory Kit: G.Skill F4-3466C16-16GTZKW (2x G.Skill F4-3466C16-8GTZKW)
> Die Type: Samsung B-Die (Probably lower binned)
> Memory Clock: 3733 MHz (IF @ 1866MHz)
> Motherboard: In Signature
> BIOS: F10c (AGESA 1004)
> Timings: https://imgur.com/sqIDxZf
> Command Rate: 1T
> Voltage: 1.45V
> VDDP: 900mV or 1000mV
> VDDG: 950mV
> CAD_BUS Stuff: 24-20-20-24
> ProcODT: 36.9
> 
> System seems stable with these settings, no issues, no blue screens. But when running MemTest86 or Karhu RAM Test over extended periods of time an error will eventually show up. In terms of MemTest86, I'll get through two passes and then, like clockwork, it'll throw an error on Test #7. I'm not sure if it's heat related, or just a rare error that can be fixed with a simple tweak, but I'm at a loss, frankly.
> 
> I've tried adjusting the VDDP voltage, it effects when the error occurs, but never mitigates it completely. Adjusting ProcODT just causes more errors, 36.9 is where it's most stable. CAD_Bus settings seem to have no effect. Lowering the voltage creates more errors. I'd prefer not to raise the voltage so... Are my timings simply too aggressive for this kit?


Might have to go 2T, not 1T, or 1T GDM Enabled, Choose 1T in the Advanced settings menu though, can't with GDM Enabled from the main DRAM menu.


----------



## Sphex_

2600ryzen said:


> I had this issue on testmem5, it would throw a single error every 30cycle run. Raising Trtp/Twr to 8/16 fixed it. If you can run Trtp/Twr at 7/14 try that or 8/16.


Thanks I'll give that a shot!




KedarWolf said:


> Might have to go 2T, not 1T, or 1T GDM Enabled, Choose 1T in the Advanced settings menu though, can't with GDM Enabled from the main DRAM menu.


I was actually able to get to 3800 MHz and slightly tighter timings with GDM on and 1T (also had to raise VDDP to 1050mV to prevent errors), but after unplugging my PC for cleaning, the next boot turned into a bootloop and BIOS reset. Afterwards, applying my saved profile resulted in the same thing, so I just dialed it back to the settings in my last post. 

Perhaps I'll give it another shot at 3733 MHz, 1T, GDM Enabled, and try to tighten up the primary timings a little, but this kit, for whatever reason, will absolutely not do any primary timings set to 14. Instant memory training bootloop. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I just think it's pushing this CL16 kit too far.


----------



## rastaviper

Sphex_ said:


> Thanks I'll give that a shot!
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually able to get to 3800 MHz and slightly tighter timings with GDM on and 1T (also had to raise VDDP to 1050mV to prevent errors), but after unplugging my PC for cleaning, the next boot turned into a bootloop and BIOS reset. Afterwards, applying my saved profile resulted in the same thing, so I just dialed it back to the settings in my last post.
> 
> Perhaps I'll give it another shot at 3733 MHz, 1T, GDM Enabled, and try to tighten up the primary timings a little, but this kit, for whatever reason, will absolutely not do any primary timings set to 14. Instant memory training bootloop. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I just think it's pushing this CL16 kit too far.


Even my Cl15 Bdie kit has troubles hitting 3800, not everyone can go there.









Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

Sphex_ said:


> Thanks I'll give that a shot!
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually able to get to 3800 MHz and slightly tighter timings with GDM on and 1T (also had to raise VDDP to 1050mV to prevent errors), but after unplugging my PC for cleaning, the next boot turned into a bootloop and BIOS reset. Afterwards, applying my saved profile resulted in the same thing, so I just dialed it back to the settings in my last post.
> 
> Perhaps I'll give it another shot at 3733 MHz, 1T, GDM Enabled, and try to tighten up the primary timings a little, but this kit, for whatever reason, will absolutely not do any primary timings set to 14. Instant memory training bootloop. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I just think it's pushing this CL16 kit too far.


Brb, getting my BIOS settings for memory but I have 2x16GB, got 3800 though with them, decent timings. But GDM Enabled might be better for most than mine.

Try ProODT at 40 or 43.6 though and ClkDrvStren at 24 if my settings don't work. Also used fixed voltages, not my offset for SoC voltage, my board is weird, an offset like mine and you'll likely have a way too low SoC voltage. But it's at 1.128v in HWInfoo, so try 1.1v.

And try tWRD at 8, but it might have to be 10 to boot.


----------



## Veii

Dash8Q4 said:


> Ah, no idea how to execute this task! haha
> 
> I'll just leave it for now as it seems to run fine at stock voltages too. I tried a 3800Mhz FAST preset but that requires 1.42volts for the ram which I'm not comfortable to run 24/7 right now.


Memory up to IC and PCB can run between 1.46-1.53v comfortably
With big architectural node examples such as HynixMFR which is 25nm (if you're lucky on A1 PCB) up to 1.62v
B-dies 20nm have an architectural issue when exceeding 1.55v where they get unstable - unless you use maxmem of 4048mb, which means only a tiny bank of dimms
Exceeding 1.7v on two dimms requires down to 2024mb each dimm to keep stability up
They, as example can be run fine near 1.9-1.92v, and up to PCB on some even near 2v

1.5v for many Dimms is no issue, if you can cool it
Typical Heatspreaders like Corsair Vengeance ones can passively cool near 1.42v without any fan
But the heatsink looks at least like some thicker piece of metal - which should be around the same
Alluminium Heatspreaders (Viper Steels), although even not with perfect contact can dissipate near 1.45-1.46v without issues
Trident Z Neo RGBs, because the RGBs are actually a source of heat - you have to consider they might need active airflow, but the same range should count

Some memories feel only comfortable near 1.46v, some only get better after 1.48v
It strongly depends on nm size again  and the maximum range a bit on the PCB Revision and Layers
For B-dies, you can run 1.46v without hassle - or at least near the 1.44 range
After all, higher IntelXMP rated kits - default between 1.4-1.45v

Just guess the ns delay 
(guess was 191.5ns by trial and error)
Or use math to be more accurate:
 tRFC「ns」=(x * MT/s) / 2000=y 
(x) tRFC=	(y / MT/s) * 2000=x
soo:
tRFC「ns」=(345*3600)/2000=191,6666666666667ns








actually i've just included a crossconvert field in the mini tRFC calculator, to make things easier :ninja:
Either include 345 tRFC on all 3 parts tRFC,tRFC 2,tRFC 4=345 
Or split it up how they should be for tRFC 2 and tRFC 4 「visible on the picture」

^ at least i could restore this part of the response


Synoxia said:


> Thank you for your answer. I was indeed not expecting "all the work" but rather if you knew the specific DIMM i am using and if you could suggest a very loose preset with very minimal effort.
> These are the timings i am going to try at 3800


Ugh the moment when your whole huge message gets wiped on the next day because the token expired and you quoted someone more, resulting in a fullwipe >_>
This is a fraction of what i wanted to teach you, but everything got wiped soo i'll have to rewrite it 
(screenshot was a complicated mess to begin with anyways) :ninja:


Spoiler














Please just use this link to learn about how DDR4 operates, the pure basics
https://www.systemverilog.io/ddr4-basics.html
Later this 
https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters
I was going to rewrite it with some resources from other documents, but well - you can not take more than a day to write a response as it seems 
What will help you is also this huge collection of timing explanations:
https://reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2/demystifying_memory_overclocking_on_ryzen_oc/
it doesn't cover everything and there are exceptions, like a pattern to use was written here:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-705.html#post28246564
although even this post as short as it was back then, is a mess 
All these links should cover what you want to know, sorted periodically to learn stuff 
The Reddit Link is more of a cheat-sheet to lookup when you forgot what timing does what, and the last thread link is a tiny cheatsheet although with many many exceptions 

After all this, if you still have questions let me know
Someday, i'll finish a good guide :ninja: but for now, this resources should be helpful enough
Important is to understand what rows, banks, prefetcher mean 
~ as it will get only more and more complex with DDR5 having Bank Groups of 4 instead of two with the same prefetcher of 8 
tRCPage patent of google is especially quite interesting ~ might focus research on this one now more :thinking:


> Your fabric, and cpu voltage = loadline vdroop wdym with this? I run at stock now besides a small offset (0.00625) because asus overvolts ryzen 3k, so i thought it was a good idea not to use LLC.


I ment that you first test the cpu in decoupled mode, to know 1900FCLK runs and fix your voltages down
Example visible here:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814
Loadline will always mess stuff up, actually the whole bios is still a mess if you let stuff on auto
procODT defaults to 60ohm if you enable XMP and vSOC goes up to 1.2 sometimes even 1.3v 
ProcODT can't default further down, because CAD_BUS prediction is a mess - soo kinda everything is a mess once you exceed 1800FCLK but let it still on auto 
Fix this voltages, be sure it passes y-cruncher (just all the tests) under stresstest mode (stop it manually after the 3rd round)
Just so you can be sure, your cpu actually can handle 1900FLCK - before you dive into memory overclocking more 
The same voltage part goes if you have perCCX OC enabled or plan to do so, then it needs split VDDG IOD and CCD voltages
soo no way around fixing first this core thing before you consider memory OC

Overall, learn it 
If you want "no-hassle" methods, everyone here posts their results, trial & error your way through
But i would prefer to teach you, not gift samples where you learn nothing at the end 


Sphex_ said:


> Didn't think I'd ever be here posting for help but, here I am. If someone could take a quick glance at my memory settings and nudge me in the right direction, I'd be extremely grateful.
> BIOS: F10c (AGESA 1004)
> Timings: https://imgur.com/sqIDxZf
> Command Rate: 1T
> Voltage: 1.45V
> VDDP: 900mV or 1000mV
> VDDG: 950mV
> CAD_BUS Stuff: 24-20-20-24
> ProcODT: 36.9
> 
> System seems stable with these settings, no issues, no blue screens. But when running MemTest86 or Karhu RAM Test over extended periods of time an error will eventually show up.


Boards and now especially ryzen Matisse too, do autocorrect 
You should use TM5 and Karhu with Cache to test things, MemTest i don't trust that much
Your voltages are awkward tho, either one or the other - don't just put 1000mV cLDO_VDDP with 950mV cLDO_VDDG


> I've tried adjusting the VDDP voltage, it effects when the error occurs, but never mitigates it completely. Adjusting ProcODT just causes more errors, 36.9 is where it's most stable. CAD_Bus settings seem to have no effect. Lowering the voltage creates more errors. I'd prefer not to raise the voltage so... Are my timings simply too aggressive for this kit?


Bad procODT would cause only full post issues, cold boot and warm boot issues belong to CAD_BUS
Either procODT is fine or it cant post 
Too much will only limit maximum potential FCLK and worsen up Signal Integrity 
Start with CAD_BUS 30-20-20-24 till you hit cold boot issues, then up it to 30-20-24-24

Timings wise:
if you try tRRD_S of 5, at least up tRRD_L a bit
Illustration:


Spoiler














You will only see benefits from increasing tRRDS, if high tFAW is needed to be used
tFAW goes as forth ACTIVATE Timing window or sometimes "fith active time window"
although it will only let 4x tRRD_S "back to back" writes through and lock down the 5th one till tFAW passes
tFAW is a fixed time window delay
and tRRD_ stuff are cutters, how long each row should be activate and cut to pass data though
_S is from one bank group to another bank group
while
_L is inside the same bank group , a row-to-row "activate" time before it's cut
Optimally like illustrated you want tFAW to perfectly cut after 4 back<->back active commands of tRRD


Spoiler














else you'll have to wait till tFAW elapses = use always a clean multiplier - *4 or *5 on slow speeds and slow transfer time

The same behavior goes for tWTR_S/L (write time recovery)
Keep it at 4-12 till you actually see chokes on burst transfers
Sadly Karhu doesn't show on what test method it errors, while TM5 does show errors under X test 
Another note, 
if you need to use something like tRRD_ 5-9, with tFAW 20 / also use tWTR_ 5-18 
As for example:
tRRD_ 6-6 with tWTR_ 6-12
tWTR_L can be the same as tRRD_L but it's better for now to be a perfect double, till we get more practice on that 
(well or till get more practice after Wednesday, as i can't teach you better at this time than known formulas)
Overall, hold the formula till you know why you should break it 
Explained here:
https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters#activate
Oh also test if tWRRD 4 won't run better than tWRRD 2, it either works and posts or won't work and won't post


----------



## Veii

KedarWolf said:


> Also used fixed voltages, not my offset for SoC voltage, my board is weird, an offset like mine and you'll likely have a way too low SoC voltage. But it's at 1.128v in HWInfoo, so try 1.1v.


Your board is not weird 
You got both LN2 flags enabled , you have to put such strong offset in it - as it pushes already huge voltages through it
Unsure if it will lead to better results overall keeping them enabled, but at least you can control the voltage so far
Maybe higher FCLK could be possible with less board limits or maybe PBO behaves different now
But eh, LN2 mode is your issue - only your ram is awkward, the board is perfectly fine 

Speaking of tCWL16 from your last post
tCWL = tCL while running GDM
Going lower most of the times has worse effects
But you can now if tCWL 15 would give you better results
After all tCWL is:


> CWL is the delay, in clock cycles, between the internal WRITE command and the availability of the first bit of input data. It is defined in Mode Register MR2.


It's just a write access delay, soo optimally it's identical to tCL but if you have delay somewhere increasing this one might help

Lower tCWL only increases performance if people abuse a forced refresh cycle before the 2nd one has elapsed, to stack voltage and soo have cells faster accessible
It won't directly cause errors if it is too low, as commands will be just "ignored and skipped"
But it can have positive effects - only benchmarks will tell


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Memory up to IC and PCB can run between 1.46-1.53v comfortably
> With big architectural node examples such as HynixMFR which is 25nm (if you're lucky on A1 PCB) up to 1.62v
> B-dies 20nm have an architectural issue when exceeding 1.55v where they get unstable - unless you use maxmem of 4048mb, which means only a tiny bank of dimms
> Exceeding 1.7v on two dimms requires down to 2024mb each dimm to keep stability up
> They, as example can be run fine near 1.9-1.92v, and up to PCB on some even near 2v
> 
> 1.5v for many Dimms is no issue, if you can cool it
> Typical Heatspreaders like Corsair Vengeance ones can passively cool near 1.42v without any fan
> But the heatsink looks at least like some thicker piece of metal - which should be around the same
> Alluminium Heatspreaders (Viper Steels), although even not with perfect contact can dissipate near 1.45-1.46v without issues
> Trident Z Neo RGBs, because the RGBs are actually a source of heat - you have to consider they might need active airflow, but the same range should count
> 
> Some memories feel only comfortable near 1.46v, some only get better after 1.48v
> It strongly depends on nm size again  and the maximum range a bit on the PCB Revision and Layers
> For B-dies, you can run 1.46v without hassle - or at least near the 1.44 range
> After all, higher IntelXMP rated kits - default between 1.4-1.45v
> 
> Just guess the ns delay
> (guess was 191.5ns by trial and error)
> Or use math to be more accurate:
> tRFC「ns」=(x * MT/s) / 2000=y
> (x) tRFC=	(y / MT/s) * 2000=x
> soo:
> tRFC「ns」=(345*3600)/2000=191,6666666666667ns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually i've just included a crossconvert field in the mini tRFC calculator, to make things easier :ninja:
> Either include 345 tRFC on all 3 parts tRFC,tRFC 2,tRFC 4=345
> Or split it up how they should be for tRFC 2 and tRFC 4 「visible on the picture」
> 
> ^ at least i could restore this part of the response
> 
> Ugh the moment when your whole huge message gets wiped on the next day because the token expired and you quoted someone more, resulting in a fullwipe >_>
> This is a fraction of what i wanted to teach you, but everything got wiped soo i'll have to rewrite it
> (screenshot was a complicated mess to begin with anyways) :ninja:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please just use this link to learn about how DDR4 operates, the pure basics
> https://www.systemverilog.io/ddr4-basics.html
> Later this
> https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters
> I was going to rewrite it with some resources from other documents, but well - you can not take more than a day to write a response as it seems
> What will help you is also this huge collection of timing explanations:
> https://reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2/demystifying_memory_overclocking_on_ryzen_oc/
> it doesn't cover everything and there are exceptions, like a pattern to use was written here:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-705.html#post28246564
> although even this post as short as it was back then, is a mess
> All these links should cover what you want to know, sorted periodically to learn stuff
> The Reddit Link is more of a cheat-sheet to lookup when you forgot what timing does what, and the last thread link is a tiny cheatsheet although with many many exceptions
> 
> After all this, if you still have questions let me know
> Someday, i'll finish a good guide :ninja: but for now, this resources should be helpful enough
> Important is to understand what rows, banks, prefetcher mean
> ~ as it will get only more and more complex with DDR5 having Bank Groups of 4 instead of two with the same prefetcher of 8
> tRCPage patent of google is especially quite interesting ~ might focus research on this one now more :thinking:
> 
> I ment that you first test the cpu in decoupled mode, to know 1900FCLK runs and fix your voltages down
> Example visible here:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814
> Loadline will always mess stuff up, actually the whole bios is still a mess if you let stuff on auto
> procODT defaults to 60ohm if you enable XMP and vSOC goes up to 1.2 sometimes even 1.3v
> ProcODT can't default further down, because CAD_BUS prediction is a mess - soo kinda everything is a mess once you exceed 1800FCLK but let it still on auto
> Fix this voltages, be sure it passes y-cruncher (just all the tests) under stresstest mode (stop it manually after the 3rd round)
> Just so you can be sure, your cpu actually can handle 1900FLCK - before you dive into memory overclocking more
> The same voltage part goes if you have perCCX OC enabled or plan to do so, then it needs split VDDG IOD and CCD voltages
> soo no way around fixing first this core thing before you consider memory OC
> 
> Overall, learn it
> If you want "no-hassle" methods, everyone here posts their results, trial & error your way through
> But i would prefer to teach you, not gift samples where you learn nothing at the end
> 
> Boards and now especially ryzen Matisse too, do autocorrect
> You should use TM5 and Karhu with Cache to test things, MemTest i don't trust that much
> Your voltages are awkward tho, either one or the other - don't just put 1000mV cLDO_VDDP with 950mV cLDO_VDDG
> 
> Bad procODT would cause only full post issues, cold boot and warm boot issues belong to CAD_BUS
> Either procODT is fine or it cant post
> Too much will only limit maximum potential FCLK and worsen up Signal Integrity
> Start with CAD_BUS 30-20-20-24 till you hit cold boot issues, then up it to 30-20-24-24
> 
> Timings wise:
> if you try tRRD_S of 5, at least up tRRD_L a bit
> Illustration:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will only see benefits from increasing tRRDS, if high tFAW is needed to be used
> tFAW goes as forth ACTIVATE Timing window or sometimes "fith active time window"
> although it will only let 4x tRRD_S "back to back" writes through and lock down the 5th one till tFAW passes
> tFAW is a fixed time window delay
> and tRRD_ stuff are cutters, how long each row should be activate and cut to pass data though
> _S is from one bank group to another bank group
> while
> _L is inside the same bank group , a row-to-row "activate" time before it's cut
> Optimally like illustrated you want tFAW to perfectly cut after 4 back<->back active commands of tRRD
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> else you'll have to wait till tFAW elapses = use always a clean multiplier - *4 or *5 on slow speeds and slow transfer time
> 
> The same behavior goes for tWTR_S/L (write time recovery)
> Keep it at 4-12 till you actually see chokes on burst transfers
> Sadly Karhu doesn't show on what test method it errors, while TM5 does show errors under X test
> Another note,
> if you need to use something like tRRD_ 5-9, with tFAW 20 / also use tWTR_ 5-18
> As for example:
> tRRD_ 6-6 with tWTR_ 6-12
> tWTR_L can be the same as tRRD_L but it's better for now to be a perfect double, till we get more practice on that
> (well or till get more practice after Wednesday, as i can't teach you better at this time than known formulas)
> Overall, hold the formula till you know why you should break it
> Explained here:
> https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters#activate
> Oh also test if tWRRD 4 won't run better than tWRRD 2, it either works and posts or won't work and won't post


So, i tried to study a bit both posts, and tried to make a config for cleanest sync possible to see how it goes, according to what you wrote seems like dram calculator is not clean... but i am still going to use it as baseline for now till i understand more

I went for 3733mts, all 16 primary timings, tras 32, trc 48 (even tho i noticed i usually have better stability with 17 trcdrd, i will try even numbers for now)

I set TRFC 384 which is x8 TRC (48) (i know it's high for B-die but i want to try very clean sync to see how it goes)
I changed TRDWR to 8 from 7 to be a perfect half of tcl
both SCL s are 4 now

I fail to understand how TRRD_ values work... so i used dram calc and ensured TRRDs is multipler of tfaw so 6, 9 and 36.

VDDG is 1000 for both
VSOC is 1.05 
VDDP 900

RTT nom is 7 and RTT park is 240. I left RTT_WR as auto because i dont know what to do. I lowered procodt from 40 to 36 because you said that either it posts or it doesn't, and too much could cause FCLK instability, correct?

Also left cad bus untouched because i don't know what do use with 4 dimms and 1004b.

EDIT: i completely forgot the FCLK testing part... could have done it overnight, i am stupid.

But being able to post 1926 isn't already a proof that i can use 1900? I used 3733 as failsafe, really.

As for the reason i am going for a cleanest sync: i just want to see if the micromicrohitches i am seeing in open world games at fast speed, are because of ram instability or not simply because there's not enough bandwith.


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> So, i tried to study a bit both posts, and tried to make a config for cleanest sync possible to see how it goes, according to what you wrote seems like dram calculator is not clean... but i am still going to use it as baseline for now till i understand more
> 
> I went for 3733mts, all 16 primary timings, tras 32, trc 48 (even tho i noticed i usually have better stability with 17 trcdrd, i will try even numbers for now)
> 
> I set TRFC 384 which is x8 TRC (48) (i know it's high for B-die but i want to try very clean sync to see how it goes)
> I changed TRDWR to 8 from 7 to be a perfect half of tcl
> both SCL s are 4 now
> 
> I fail to understand how TRRD_ values work... so i used dram calc and ensured TRRDs is multipler of tfaw so 6, 9 and 36.
> 
> VDDG is 1000 for both
> VSOC is 1.05
> VDDP 900
> 
> RTT nom is 7 and RTT park is 240. I left RTT_WR as auto because i dont know what to do. I lowered procodt from 40 to 36 because you said that either it posts or it doesn't, and too much could cause FCLK instability, correct?
> 
> Also left cad bus untouched because i don't know what do use with 4 dimms and 1004b.
> 
> EDIT: i completely forgot the FCLK testing part... could have done it overnight, i am stupid.
> 
> But being able to post 1926 isn't already a proof that i can use 1900? I used 3733 as failsafe, really.
> 
> As for the reason i am going for a cleanest sync: i just want to see if the micromicrohitches i am seeing in open world games at fast speed, are because of ram instability or not simply because there's not enough bandwidth.


DRAM Calculator their A-XMP presets work well, but i feel like a badly programmed kit will also lead to awkward bad "calculated" results
Which yours are more than awkward to begin with 
The normal presets of Yuri are tested, and should work fine - but Thaiphoon->DRAM Calculator is a bit buggy 

tRCD is what barely scales between kits and one that pretty much judges kits quality 
I wanted you to test it under low voltages, and low procODT as that will help you reach higher FCLK at the end - where ever your sample limit is 
The blue values look alright, tWR and tFAW are very high - but if the calculator says it should work, so be it 
Both tRFCs would work 
tRRD_ & tWRT_ are still a bit complicated as both are according JEDEC specs still an estimate - which depends on one hand to the bank amount = density
But on the other hand be shorter than 6
You can freely use what DRAM Calculator suggests on the premade templates 
I don't know about tWTR_S 5 tho, but you got to test if this is stable
tRTP is a perfect half which is correct - tRDWR could be -1 at the lowest , but you likely have to lower first the rest 
I am strongly unsure about that low tRFC, but both suggested work and either it posts or it doesn't  

SCL you can lower individually without any connection to it 
Keep us up to date about progress, you have to test things as memory remains to be unique


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> DRAM Calculator their A-XMP presets work well, but i feel like a badly programmed kit will also lead to awkward bad "calculated" results
> Which yours are more than awkward to begin with
> The normal presets of Yuri are tested, and should work fine - but Thaiphoon->DRAM Calculator is a bit buggy
> 
> tRCD is what barely scales between kits and one that pretty much judges kits quality
> I wanted you to test it under low voltages, and low procODT as that will help you reach higher FCLK at the end - where ever your sample limit is
> The blue values look alright, tWR and tFAW are very high - but if the calculator says it should work, so be it
> Both tRFCs would work
> tRRD_ & tWRT_ are still a bit complicated as both are according JEDEC specs still an estimate - which depends on one hand to the bank amount = density
> But on the other hand be shorter than 6
> You can freely use what DRAM Calculator suggests on the premade templates
> I don't know about tWTR_S 5 tho, but you got to test if this is stable
> tRTP is a perfect half which is correct - tRDWR could be -1 at the lowest , but you likely have to lower first the rest
> I am strongly unsure about that low tRFC, but both suggested work and either it posts or it doesn't
> 
> SCL you can lower individually without any connection to it
> Keep us up to date about progress, you have to test things as memory remains to be unique


Maybe it's like you say in my case, import XML from taiphoon burner to dram calc is a bit buggy? Should i just do R xmp and then calc?
I am using 1.42v with 0.7125 for vtddr for ram voltages and 36 procodt, is it low enough?
Mine are trash B-die quality for sure since i used to need 1.40v+ to get 3800 stable and not with rcdrd at 16... for 3800, always 17. 
Didn't test my current 3733 yet with TM5 anta extreme config, will do it overnight i hope i can trcdrd 16 at 3733... or do u suggest HCI? HCI usually spots error that no other test do but usually after 3000% it's still unstable for me, (maybe because i didn't do a clean calculated sync in the past? IDK)
So you think 384 is not enough, should go higher than that? I used x8 multipler as instructed o.o

P.S i was getting 64.5ns before in aida64 with both 3800 and 3733, with all c16 (trcdr 17) tras 40 and trc 56, scl 4, trtp8 and 336 trfc all auto (copied this from gupsterg), now 65.4, is it a bad sign?

P.P.s i can't even post dram calc cl14 3733 at 1.42v... xD


----------



## KedarWolf

I couldn't figure out why I was getting errors in TM5 with the same setup I had no errors before.

Welp, I broke my RAM fan, tore a wire on it, and it's really hot in my place and my sticks of RAM getting well over 50C when stress testing which explains the errors.

I need to get my A/C setup and my new RAM fan coming from China, really slow.


----------



## Sphex_

2600ryzen said:


> I had this issue on testmem5, it would throw a single error every 30cycle run. Raising Trtp/Twr to 8/16 fixed it. If you can run Trtp/Twr at 7/14 try that or 8/16.


Son of a *****, this actually worked lol. Thanks again dude!


----------



## negativefusion

Specs: Ryzen 3950x, Asus WS x570 PRO ACE, 32GB Crucial ( BL2K16G36C16U4R ) ram, Bequiet Dark Pro 4



Long story short, I have spent over 40 hours, 12 of which were probably just watching the "highly recommended" videos from "BuildZoid" including him "going shopping for ram" to get where I am today... finding this whole exercise to be something where I am quite literally making ZERO progress considering I have probably reset my CMOS over a 100 times during this progress. 



I made this post 12 days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocki...n_9_3950x_asus_ws_pro_x570_ace_and_a_3000c16/ and didn't get anywhere (copy here in this thread), so ended up buying a 3600C16 Rev-E kit that "BuildZoid" recommended on his videos as the previous post didn't get my 3000 D-Die Micron kit stable past 3200, and wanted 3600 to squeeze out more a balanced performance on my Ryzen 3950x




Well, today the new kit arrived.



So I loaded up Taiphoon, Read the SPD, Displayed Timings in Nanoseconds, and Saved the Complete Report in HTML.



Then Typed the info into Dram Calculator, "Imported my XMP" profile, which shows my "Memory Chip Quality" as 114% and "Overclocking Potential 4723Mhz C16" https://imgur.com/a/4Vbcc9F (yeah right! When I try to pick anything above 3866, in DRAM Calc, it just says "NOT SUPPORTED") - Anyways: I tweaked all the timings, DRAM, SOC voltage, etc as shown on the "Main" page of the DRAM Calc -- see screenshot with Compare Timings ON: https://imgur.com/a/hAgC9NY -- Did a Prime95 run of "LARGE FFT" to test memory stability -- crashes in under 5 minutes with errors.



So I repeated it, this time using the "Default: R-XMP" (purple button) to generate timings, which showed my kit at "96% Memory Chip Quality" (quite a stark difference from the above Imported HTML showing 114% -- what gives??) -- anyways, went with the "FAST" profile to get it down to CL 14: https://imgur.com/a/CRm6qS5 -- (look got everything matching) same thing, boots, and then with Prime95 LARGE FFT to test memory - crashes in under 5 minutes with errors...

I also tried simply stock XMP, but, tried to increase the FCLK to 1833 and manually changing the memory from 3600 to 3666 (untouched stock timings) - and the thing didn't even boot. I know my cpu can do 1833FCLK because with the older D-Die Micron kit, when I decoupled the FCLK from MCLK I was able to get in Windows at 1833MCLK - and this kit doesn't even post to 3666 .... with 1833FCLK, when I know it did 1833FCLK before on the old 3000 Kit!

I am so frustrated, this is my FIRST AMD build in over 25 years, and I have never, ever, had to spend so much time to get "Optimal" performance (i.e. low speed ram = baaaaaad cpu performance, not tight timings = baaaaaaad cpu performance) - and on top of that I bought this new kit, that doesn't seem to be stable, at all even at the "Safe" settings considering my chip is 114% of the quality???

Am I missing something really obvious here...?

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Hueristic

negativefusion said:


> Specs: Ryzen 3950x, Asus WS x570 PRO ACE, 32GB Crucial ( BL2K16G36C16U4R ) ram, Bequiet Dark Pro 4
> 
> 
> 
> I am so frustrated, this is my FIRST AMD build in over 25 years, and I have never, ever, had to spend so much time to get "Optimal" performance (i.e. low speed ram = baaaaaad cpu performance, not tight timings = baaaaaaad cpu performance) - and on top of that I bought this new kit, that doesn't seem to be stable, at all even at the "Safe" settings considering my chip is 114% of the quality???
> 
> Am I missing something really obvious here...?
> 
> Thanks for your help!


Really? From your post history it looks like all you do is have mem issues.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/search.php?searchid=11994176


----------



## KedarWolf

I just got the Rank #1 bandwidth for a 3950x in SiSoftware Sandra in the Multi-core Efficiency test., #79 overall. 












Spoiler



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 200.22GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 55.5ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.26GB/s
No. Threads : 32
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 60.10W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3411.40MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 9.23ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 1235.27kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 46.07MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U0-U16 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U0-U18 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U0-U20 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U0-U22 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U0-U24 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U0-U26 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U0-U28 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U0-U30 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U0-U17 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U0-U19 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U0-U21 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U0-U23 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U0-U25 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U0-U27 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U0-U29 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U0-U31 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U2-U16 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U2-U18 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U2-U20 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U2-U22 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U2-U24 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U2-U26 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U2-U28 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U2-U30 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U2-U17 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U2-U19 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U2-U21 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U2-U23 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U2-U25 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U2-U27 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U2-U29 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U2-U31 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U4-U16 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U4-U18 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U4-U20 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U4-U22 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U24 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U4-U26 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U4-U28 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U4-U30 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U4-U17 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U4-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U4-U21 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U4-U23 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U4-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U4-U27 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U4-U31 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U6-U16 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U6-U18 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U6-U20 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U6-U22 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U6-U24 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U6-U26 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U6-U28 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U6-U30 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U6-U17 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U6-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U21 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U6-U23 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U6-U25 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U6-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U6-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U8-U16 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U8-U18 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U8-U20 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U8-U22 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U8-U24 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U8-U26 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U8-U28 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U8-U30 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U8-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U8-U19 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U8-U21 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U8-U23 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U8-U25 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U8-U27 Data Latency : 62.3ns
U8-U29 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U8-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U10-U16 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U10-U18 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U10-U20 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U10-U22 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U10-U24 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U10-U26 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U10-U28 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U10-U30 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U10-U17 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U10-U19 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U10-U21 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U10-U23 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U10-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U10-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U10-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U10-U31 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U12-U16 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U18 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U12-U20 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U12-U22 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U12-U24 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U12-U26 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U12-U28 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U12-U30 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U12-U17 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U12-U19 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U12-U21 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U12-U23 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U12-U25 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U12-U27 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U12-U29 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U14-U16 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U14-U18 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U14-U20 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U14-U22 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U14-U24 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U14-U26 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U14-U28 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U14-U30 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U14-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U14-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U14-U21 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U14-U23 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U14-U25 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U14-U27 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U14-U29 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U14-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U16-U18 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U16-U20 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U16-U22 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U16-U24 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U16-U26 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U16-U28 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U16-U30 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U16-U1 Data Latency : 61.3ns
U16-U3 Data Latency : 61.7ns
U16-U5 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U16-U7 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U16-U9 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U16-U11 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U16-U13 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U16-U15 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U16-U19 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U16-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U16-U23 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U16-U25 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U16-U27 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U16-U29 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U16-U31 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U18-U20 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U18-U22 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U18-U24 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U18-U26 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U18-U28 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U18-U30 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U18-U1 Data Latency : 61.8ns
U18-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U18-U5 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U18-U7 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U18-U9 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U18-U11 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U18-U13 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U18-U15 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U18-U17 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U18-U21 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U18-U23 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U18-U25 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U18-U27 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U18-U29 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U18-U31 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U20-U22 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U20-U24 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U20-U26 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U20-U28 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U20-U30 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U20-U1 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U20-U3 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U20-U5 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U20-U7 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U20-U9 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U20-U11 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U20-U13 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U20-U15 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U20-U17 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U20-U19 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U20-U23 Data Latency : 28.5ns
U20-U25 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U20-U27 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U20-U29 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U20-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U22-U24 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U22-U26 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U22-U28 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U22-U30 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U22-U1 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U22-U3 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U22-U5 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U22-U7 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U22-U9 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U22-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U22-U13 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U22-U15 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U22-U17 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U22-U19 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U22-U21 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.6ns
U22-U25 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U22-U27 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U22-U29 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U22-U31 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U24-U26 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U24-U1 Data Latency : 61.2ns
U24-U3 Data Latency : 61.8ns
U24-U5 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U24-U7 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U24-U9 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U24-U11 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U24-U13 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U24-U15 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U24-U17 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U24-U19 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U24-U21 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U24-U23 Data Latency : 67.8ns
U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U24-U27 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U26-U28 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U26-U30 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U26-U1 Data Latency : 62.3ns
U26-U3 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U26-U5 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U26-U7 Data Latency : 62.3ns
U26-U9 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U26-U11 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U26-U13 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U26-U15 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U26-U17 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U26-U19 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U26-U21 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U26-U23 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U26-U25 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U26-U29 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U28-U30 Data Latency : 28.2ns
U28-U1 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U28-U3 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U28-U5 Data Latency : 61.9ns
U28-U7 Data Latency : 61.2ns
U28-U9 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U28-U11 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U28-U13 Data Latency : 61.5ns
U28-U15 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U28-U17 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U28-U19 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U28-U21 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U28-U23 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U27 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U28-U31 Data Latency : 28.1ns
U30-U1 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U30-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U30-U5 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U30-U7 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U30-U9 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U30-U11 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U30-U13 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U30-U15 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U30-U17 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U30-U19 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U30-U21 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U30-U23 Data Latency : 68.3ns
U30-U25 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U30-U27 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U30-U29 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U30-U31 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U1-U17 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U1-U19 Data Latency : 61.7ns
U1-U21 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U1-U23 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U1-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U1-U27 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U1-U29 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U1-U31 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U3-U17 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U3-U19 Data Latency : 62.0ns
U3-U21 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U3-U23 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U3-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U3-U27 Data Latency : 62.3ns
U3-U29 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U3-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U5-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U5-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U21 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U5-U23 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U5-U25 Data Latency : 61.9ns
U5-U27 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U5-U29 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U5-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U7-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U7-U19 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U7-U21 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U7-U23 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U7-U25 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U7-U27 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U7-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U7-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U9-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U9-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U9-U21 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U9-U23 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U9-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U9-U27 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U9-U29 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U9-U31 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U11-U17 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U11-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U11-U21 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U11-U23 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U11-U25 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U11-U27 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U11-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U11-U31 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U13-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U13-U19 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U13-U21 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U13-U23 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U13-U25 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U13-U27 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U13-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U13-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U15-U17 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U15-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U15-U21 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U15-U23 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U15-U25 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U15-U27 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U15-U29 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U15-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U17-U19 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U17-U21 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U17-U23 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U17-U25 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U17-U27 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U17-U29 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U17-U31 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U19-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U19-U23 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U19-U25 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U19-U27 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U19-U29 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U19-U31 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U21-U23 Data Latency : 28.3ns
U21-U25 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U21-U27 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U21-U29 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U21-U31 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U23-U25 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U23-U27 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U23-U29 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U23-U31 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U25-U27 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U25-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U27-U29 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U27-U31 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U29-U31 Data Latency : 28.2ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 41.9GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 156.33GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 453GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 701.87GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 665.4GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 751.62GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 665.47GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 611.83GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 579.71GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 43.13GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 16.3GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.45GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710021
Computer : MSI MS-7C35 (MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (MS-7C35))
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 32
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Speed : 4.45GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.45GHz
Maximum Power : 60.10W - 129.95W
Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710021
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## Veii

KedarWolf said:


> I just got the Rank #1 bandwidth for a 3950x in SiSoftware Sandra in the Multi-core Efficiency test., #79 overall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 200.22GB/s
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Latency : 55.5ns
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.26GB/s
> No. Threads : 32
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Processor(s) Power : 60.10W
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3411.40MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 9.23ns/W
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Total Cache Size : 1235.27kB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 46.07MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Detailed Results
> Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31
> U0-U2 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U0-U4 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U0-U8 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U0-U10 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U0-U12 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U0-U14 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U0-U16 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U0-U18 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U0-U20 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U0-U22 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U0-U24 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U0-U26 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U0-U28 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U0-U30 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.1ns
> U0-U3 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U0-U5 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U0-U7 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U0-U9 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U0-U11 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U0-U13 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U0-U15 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U0-U17 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U0-U19 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U0-U21 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U0-U23 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U0-U25 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U0-U27 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U0-U29 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U0-U31 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U2-U4 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U2-U6 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U2-U8 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U2-U10 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U2-U12 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U2-U14 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U2-U16 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U2-U18 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U2-U20 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U2-U22 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U2-U24 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U2-U26 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U2-U28 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U2-U30 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U2-U1 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U2-U3 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U2-U9 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U2-U13 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U2-U15 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U2-U17 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U2-U19 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U2-U21 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U2-U23 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U2-U25 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U2-U27 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U2-U29 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U2-U31 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U4-U6 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U4-U8 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U4-U10 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U4-U12 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U4-U14 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U4-U16 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U4-U18 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U4-U20 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U4-U22 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U4-U24 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U4-U26 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U4-U28 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U4-U30 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U4-U5 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U4-U7 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U4-U9 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U4-U11 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U4-U13 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U4-U15 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U4-U17 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U4-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U4-U21 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U4-U23 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U4-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U4-U27 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U4-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U4-U31 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U6-U8 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U6-U10 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U6-U12 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U6-U14 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U6-U16 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U6-U18 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U6-U20 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U6-U22 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U6-U24 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U6-U26 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U6-U28 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U6-U30 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U6-U5 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U6-U9 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U6-U11 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U6-U13 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U6-U15 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U6-U17 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U6-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U6-U21 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U6-U23 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U6-U25 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U6-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U6-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U6-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U8-U10 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U8-U12 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U8-U16 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U8-U18 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U8-U20 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U8-U22 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U8-U24 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U8-U26 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U8-U28 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U8-U30 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U8-U1 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U8-U3 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U8-U5 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 11.3ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U8-U13 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U8-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U8-U19 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U8-U21 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U8-U23 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U8-U25 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U8-U27 Data Latency : 62.3ns
> U8-U29 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U8-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U10-U16 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U10-U18 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U10-U20 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U10-U22 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U10-U24 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U10-U26 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U10-U28 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U10-U30 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U10-U1 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U10-U3 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U10-U5 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U10-U7 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U10-U9 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U10-U11 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U10-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U10-U17 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U10-U19 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U10-U21 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U10-U23 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U10-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U10-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U10-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U10-U31 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U12-U14 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U12-U16 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U12-U18 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U12-U20 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U12-U22 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U12-U24 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U12-U26 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U12-U28 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U12-U30 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U12-U1 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U12-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U12-U5 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U12-U7 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U12-U9 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U12-U11 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U12-U13 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U12-U15 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U12-U17 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U12-U19 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U12-U21 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U12-U23 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U12-U25 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U12-U27 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U12-U29 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U12-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U14-U16 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U14-U18 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U14-U20 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U14-U22 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U14-U24 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U14-U26 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U14-U28 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U14-U30 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U14-U1 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U14-U3 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U14-U5 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U14-U7 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U14-U11 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U14-U13 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U14-U15 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U14-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U14-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U14-U21 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U14-U23 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U14-U25 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U14-U27 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U14-U29 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U14-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U16-U18 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U16-U20 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U16-U22 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U16-U24 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U16-U26 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U16-U28 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U16-U30 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U16-U1 Data Latency : 61.3ns
> U16-U3 Data Latency : 61.7ns
> U16-U5 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U16-U7 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U16-U9 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U16-U11 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U16-U13 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U16-U15 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U16-U19 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U16-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U16-U23 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U16-U25 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U16-U27 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U16-U29 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U16-U31 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U18-U20 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U18-U22 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U18-U24 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U18-U26 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U18-U28 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U18-U30 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U18-U1 Data Latency : 61.8ns
> U18-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U18-U5 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U18-U7 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U18-U9 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U18-U11 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U18-U13 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U18-U15 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U18-U17 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U18-U21 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U18-U23 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U18-U25 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U18-U27 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U18-U29 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U18-U31 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U20-U22 Data Latency : 28.0ns
> U20-U24 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U20-U26 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U20-U28 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U20-U30 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U20-U1 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U20-U3 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U20-U5 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U20-U7 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U20-U9 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U20-U11 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U20-U13 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U20-U15 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U20-U17 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U20-U19 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U20-U23 Data Latency : 28.5ns
> U20-U25 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U20-U27 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U20-U29 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U20-U31 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U22-U24 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U22-U26 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U22-U28 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U22-U30 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U22-U1 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U22-U3 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U22-U5 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U22-U7 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U22-U9 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U22-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U22-U13 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U22-U15 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U22-U17 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U22-U19 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U22-U21 Data Latency : 28.0ns
> U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.6ns
> U22-U25 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U22-U27 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U22-U29 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U22-U31 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U24-U26 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U24-U1 Data Latency : 61.2ns
> U24-U3 Data Latency : 61.8ns
> U24-U5 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U24-U7 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U24-U9 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U24-U11 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U24-U13 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U24-U15 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U24-U17 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U24-U19 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U24-U21 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U24-U23 Data Latency : 67.8ns
> U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.5ns
> U24-U27 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U26-U28 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U26-U30 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U26-U1 Data Latency : 62.3ns
> U26-U3 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U26-U5 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U26-U7 Data Latency : 62.3ns
> U26-U9 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U26-U11 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U26-U13 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U26-U15 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U26-U17 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U26-U19 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U26-U21 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U26-U23 Data Latency : 67.7ns
> U26-U25 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.5ns
> U26-U29 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U28-U30 Data Latency : 28.2ns
> U28-U1 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U28-U3 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U28-U5 Data Latency : 61.9ns
> U28-U7 Data Latency : 61.2ns
> U28-U9 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U28-U11 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U28-U13 Data Latency : 61.5ns
> U28-U15 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U28-U17 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U28-U19 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U28-U21 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U28-U23 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U28-U27 Data Latency : 27.4ns
> U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U28-U31 Data Latency : 28.1ns
> U30-U1 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U30-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U30-U5 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U30-U7 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U30-U9 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U30-U11 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U30-U13 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U30-U15 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U30-U17 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U30-U19 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U30-U21 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U30-U23 Data Latency : 68.3ns
> U30-U25 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U30-U27 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U30-U29 Data Latency : 28.0ns
> U30-U31 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U1-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U1-U9 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U1-U11 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U1-U13 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U1-U15 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U1-U17 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U1-U19 Data Latency : 61.7ns
> U1-U21 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U1-U23 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U1-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U1-U27 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U1-U29 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U1-U31 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U3-U9 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U3-U11 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U3-U13 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U3-U15 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U3-U17 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U3-U19 Data Latency : 62.0ns
> U3-U21 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U3-U23 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U3-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U3-U27 Data Latency : 62.3ns
> U3-U29 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U3-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U5-U7 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U5-U9 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U5-U11 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U5-U13 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U5-U15 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U5-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U5-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U5-U21 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U5-U23 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U5-U25 Data Latency : 61.9ns
> U5-U27 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U5-U29 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U5-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U7-U9 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U7-U11 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U7-U13 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U7-U15 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U7-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U7-U19 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U7-U21 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U7-U23 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U7-U25 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U7-U27 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U7-U29 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U7-U31 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U9-U11 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U9-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U9-U15 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U9-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U9-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U9-U21 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U9-U23 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U9-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U9-U27 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U9-U29 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U9-U31 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U11-U17 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U11-U19 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U11-U21 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U11-U23 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U11-U25 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U11-U27 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U11-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U11-U31 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U13-U15 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U13-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U13-U19 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U13-U21 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U13-U23 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U13-U25 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U13-U27 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U13-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U13-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U15-U17 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U15-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U15-U21 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U15-U23 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U15-U25 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U15-U27 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U15-U29 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U15-U31 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U17-U19 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U17-U21 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U17-U23 Data Latency : 27.5ns
> U17-U25 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U17-U27 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U17-U29 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U17-U31 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U19-U21 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U19-U23 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U19-U25 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U19-U27 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U19-U29 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U19-U31 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U21-U23 Data Latency : 28.3ns
> U21-U25 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U21-U27 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U21-U29 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U21-U31 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U23-U25 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U23-U27 Data Latency : 67.3ns
> U23-U29 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U23-U31 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U25-U27 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U25-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U27-U29 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U27-U31 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U29-U31 Data Latency : 28.2ns
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 41.9GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 156.33GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 453GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 701.87GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 665.4GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 751.62GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 665.47GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 611.83GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 579.71GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 43.13GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 16.3GB/s
> 
> Benchmark Status
> Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.45GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> Computer : MSI MS-7C35 (MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (MS-7C35))
> Platform Compliance : x64
> Buffering Used : No
> No. Threads : 32
> System Timer : 10MHz
> Page Size : 2MB
> 
> Processor
> Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
> Speed : 4.45GHz
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.45GHz
> Maximum Power : 60.10W - 129.95W
> Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
> Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
> Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
> Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)
> 
> Memory Controller
> Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz
> 
> Performance Enhancing Tips
> Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
> Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


Good Job :thumb:
I see some inter-core latency still of 67ns 
This result can be even better 
Down to 64ns as max


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Good Job :thumb:
> I see some inter-core latency still of 67ns
> This result can be even better
> Down to 64ns as max


Nice!

Meanwhile i am here, chasing 1000% rock solid performance with stupid loose timings.
TM5 is ok, what do you suggest next? I don't think tm5 is enough to test stability... and i'd chase 1900 fclk to be honest <


----------



## rares495

Synoxia said:


> Nice!
> 
> Meanwhile i am here, chasing 1000% rock solid performance with stupid loose timings.
> TM5 is ok, what do you suggest next? I don't think tm5 is enough to test stability... and i'd chase 1900 fclk to be honest <



3 cycles is not enough. You need to run the 1usmus v3 config with 20 cycles.


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Nice!
> 
> Meanwhile i am here, chasing 1000% rock solid performance with stupid loose timings.
> TM5 is ok, what do you suggest next? I don't think tm5 is enough to test stability... and i'd chase 1900 fclk to be honest <
> 
> 
> rares495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 cycles is not enough. You need to run the 1usmus v3 config with 20 cycles.
Click to expand...

Both anta and 1usmus config behave similar 
I think 1usmus one finds faster tRFC desync (although only after test 19)
It finds nearly instantly voltage issues from/to the infinity fabric 
cLDO_VDDP and VSOC issues

Both work but at the end you still should test something like y-cruncher or linpack Xtreme, in order to verify stability 
Even when memory timings are fine


----------



## Bartholdi

Veii said:


> You ask for AGESA 1005 ?
> ProcODT 30Ω with CAD_BUS 30-20-24-24 is a good entry point for B-dies
> Depends on your early settings and Dimms, but the answer is yes - unlike you got 1004AB*B* and did use 28Ω before


Yes, 1.0.0.4ABB vs 1.0.0.5.

All timings/subtimings tigthned manually, even went from CL16 to CL15 even though the Calculator said CL16.

You suggest changing only ProcODT and CAD_BUS if updated?


----------



## Veii

Bartholdi said:


> All timings/subtimings tigthned manually, even went from CL16 to CL15 even though the Calculator said CL16.
> 
> You suggest changing only ProcODT and CAD_BUS if updated?


1005 changes a bit the inter-core communication - inside the CCX/CCD
But the suggested lower voltages should still be fine
procODT i noticed on some bioses default now to 28 while some can't even go lower than 30
It depends on the manufactures mood what you get 
But 1003ABBA has a bit different CAD_BUS values than 1004B

Lower procODT always works better,
tho 1003ABBA couldn't most of the times run anything under 34.4Ω
1004B prefers between 28-32Ω for procODT
The lower the better, but some memory ICs and dual rank kits need in the 48Ω range to remain stable
~ which limits your potential max FCLK range


----------



## SpecChum

Veii said:


> 1005 changes a bit the inter-core communication - inside the CCX/CCD
> But the suggested lower voltages should still be fine
> procODT i noticed on some bioses default now to 28 while some can't even go lower than 30
> It depends on the manufactures mood what you get
> But 1003ABBA has a bit different CAD_BUS values than 1004B
> 
> Lower procODT always works better,
> tho 1003ABBA couldn't most of the times run anything under 34.4Ω
> 1004B prefers between 28-32Ω for procODT
> The lower the better, but some memory ICs and dual rank kits need in the 48Ω range to remain stable
> ~ which limits your potential max FCLK range


I do love your posts, so enthusiastic and always willing to help, you're a true credit to the forum 

In other news, I test my RAM more thoroughly overnight, and I'm pleased to inform it got to almost 2000% with no errors by the time I turned it off this morning to work from home.

I'm using the timing below from this calc, along with the RttNom changes you suggested, working well, so thanks 

I do still get > 73ns latency, but, as I put on my other post, it fluctuates a bit, so I think I need to work on getting everything turned off so no idle tasks are running - but I'm currently "at work" on my PC, so can't try anything till later.

Thanks again tho


----------



## Veii

SpecChum said:


> I do love your posts, so enthusiastic and always willing to help, you're a true credit to the forum
> 
> In other news, I test my RAM more thoroughly overnight, and I'm pleased to inform it got to almost 2000% with no errors by the time I turned it off this morning to work from home.
> 
> I'm using the timing below from this calc, along with the RttNom changes you suggested, working well, so thanks
> 
> I do still get > 73ns latency, but, as I put on my other post, it fluctuates a bit, so I think I need to work on getting everything turned off so no idle tasks are running - but I'm currently "at work" on my PC, so can't try anything till later.
> 
> Thanks again tho


Thank you :teaching:
There is not much to say about that set - 3 things you can fix on 3 testing sessions
- you currently run 14-14-14-14 it's being auto corrected upwards
- later you can try with the same set to run SCL 2
- after that is stable you can push tRDWR to 6 / tWRRD 3
this should push you near the 70.5-71ns range 
(need to verify later with SiSandra Multi-Core efficiency / if inter-core latency remains under 60ns) 
And if it still isn't , you can do some tiny tRAS trick and lower tRP even further
Going near CL12-10 range with GDM enabled , or 2T mode 

But i'd suggest first to push for 3400 and 3467MT/s before you lower timings more
cLDO_VDDP for 3333is 860mV
for 3400 it's 866mV
for 3467 it's either 700mV again like for 3200 or up to 913mV
^ to mitigate hitting the memory hole, explained by 1usmus here
which means, always fix cLDO_VDDP at least find it - or you can pretty much forget passing 3200 on 1st gen


----------



## SpecChum

3400 would be epic lol

I actually thought cLDO_VDDP was a characteristic individual to each mobo/CPU combo - interesting - I have much to learn.

I've certainly gone down the rabbit hole on this one lol

EDIT: I've just checked actually, I'm still on 0.950 cLDO_VDDP, whoops - I did change it 0.700, but obviously didn't save it to the profile which I reverted back to yesterday after testing some slightly tweaked timings


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> 3400 would be epic lol
> 
> I actually thought cLDO_VDDP was a characteristic individual to each mobo/CPU combo - interesting - I have much to learn.
> 
> I've certainly gone down the rabbit hole on this one lol


By the looks of it, your RAM is B-die. Almost certain it is your cpu that is holding you back. Well, it could be the motherboard, too, cos my MSI A320M is easier to work with RAM using DOCP compared to my Asus motherboards. Check this out, only difference is the CPUs.


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> By the looks of it, your RAM is B-die. Almost certain it is your cpu that is holding you back. Well, it could be the motherboard, too, cos my MSI A320M is easier to work with RAM using DOCP compared to my Asus motherboards. Check this out, only difference is the CPUs.


It is b-die, yeah, G-Skill 3200C14.

I too am certain the RAM is chilling away, kinda bored, and the CPU is limiting it, yep.


----------



## Veii

rdr09 said:


> By the looks of it, your RAM is B-die. Almost certain it is your cpu that is holding you back. Well, it could be the motherboard, too, cos my MSI A320M is easier to work with RAM using DOCP compared to my Asus motherboards. Check this out, only difference is the CPUs.


I wish you would have the 1600 to use a low latency fix on it - as the 2700 got into the firmware fixed 
This 10.7ns L3 looks like Cinebench R15 performance Bias profile - or was it actually CB Gentle back then ?


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> It is b-die, yeah, G-Skill 3200C14.
> 
> I too am certain the RAM is chilling away, kinda bored, and the CPU is limiting it, yep.


Here is a difference between using Calculator and DOCP. I use the latter.



Veii said:


> I wish you would have the 1600 to use a low latency fix on it - as the 2700 got into the firmware fixed
> This 10.7ns L3 looks like Cinebench R15 performance Bias profile - or was it actually CB Gentle back then ?


Yah, always use the BIAS. There is that placebo effect it helps in games.


----------



## Veii

rdr09 said:


> Here is a difference between using Calculator and DOCP.
> Yah, always use the BIAS. There is that placebo effect it helps in games.


There are 3 , but as it has positive it also has negative effects when it bugs out
This gallery here 
https://imgur.com/gallery/d2KWrBM
Cinebench R15/R20 one does lower L3 cache latency and pushes bandwidth a bit - but pushes 4ns higher memory latency
CB gentle does lower L3 cache and does lower L3 latency - which results in about 50cb R15 more
but when it bugs out you lose 200CB 

It's a very awkward thing, but if it works how it should - it has to lower memory latency too
If it bugs out , you'll also notice 
But PB is something to use after everything is set as it will destabilize things :thumb:

Edit:
I need to look tomorrow after my pc is restored, if i can find the actual benchmarks for my better timings
This one here was kinda g*rbage 








used high SCL and tWR which cost useless perf


----------



## rdr09

Veii said:


> There are 3 , but as it has positive it also has negative effects when it bugs out
> This gallery here
> https://imgur.com/gallery/d2KWrBM
> Cinebench R15/R20 one does lower L3 cache latency and pushes bandwidth a bit - but pushes 4ns higher memory latency
> CB gentle does lower L3 cache and does lower L3 latency - which results in about 50cb R15 more
> but when it bugs out you lose 200CB
> 
> It's a very awkward thing, but if it works how it should - it has to lower memory latency too
> If it bugs out , you'll also notice
> But PB is something to use after everything is set as it will destabilize things :thumb:
> 
> Edit:
> I need to look tomorrow after my pc is restored, if i can find the actual benchmarks for my better timings
> This one here was kinda g*rbage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> used high SCL and tWR which cost useless perf


Like SpecChum, if you have a Gen 1+ cpu that ns will be lower by 5 points.


----------



## Veii

rdr09 said:


> Like SpecChum, if you have a Gen 1+ cpu that ns will be lower by 5 points.


Yes, on 2nd gen it's a bit better
But such stuff is hard to compare, because back then CB Gentle didn't exist and the 3 PB that where there where a double-sided sword
They help but then also not
Current PB is a bit different and results are not perfectly comparable

I'll check how much different the 1200AF really is
If it's only one CCX , cache bandwidth might not be comparable :thinking:


----------



## rdr09

Veii said:


> Yes, on 2nd gen it's a bit better
> But such stuff is hard to compare, because back then CB Gentle didn't exist and the 3 PB that where there where a double-sided sword
> They help but then also not
> Current PB is a bit different and results are not perfectly comparable
> 
> I'll check how much different the 1200AF really is
> If it's only one CCX , cache bandwidth might not be comparable :thinking:


That would be neat to test. Those runs both used C15 Bias. The gentle just came out recently. Now, check this 70$ Ripjaws. I love it. It works well with all gens.


----------



## Veii

*3100 & 3300X Spotted Results*



rdr09 said:


> That would be neat to test. Those runs both used C15 Bias. The gentle just came out recently. Now, check this 70$ Ripjaws. I love it. It works well with all gens.


Hehe 

Spotted something
Ryzen 3 3300X 21GB/s 24ns intercore latency :thinking:
3200MT/s @ 4.4 (boost?)
https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e1d8edddfb89b484a2c7a29faf89fac7f7&l=en
Ryzen 3 3100 47GB/s, intercore-latency 53,3ns 
3200MT/s @ 3.9 stock ?
https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e1d9efdef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4fc&l=en


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> 24ns intercore latency :thinking:



OH MY GOD 24ns


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> OH MY GOD 24ns


This is extremely interesting, because on a dual CCX design it should be far higher than on one
Unless it boosts itself on "dual channel" like HBM2 does :thinking:
On such low latency only memory speed would matter and timings wouldn't be that harmful 
This is really interesting :thinking:


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> Like SpecChum, if you have a Gen 1+ cpu that ns will be lower by 5 points.


I'll be getting a 3900x at some point I think, I was just waiting on Zen 3 so 3900 prices, hopefully, drop.

I'll probably keep the C6H tho.

This 1700 has done me proud for 3 years (I was a day 1 buyer), but it's time to retire it once Zen 3 arrives, I think.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> This is extremely interesting, because on a dual CCX design it should be far higher than on one
> Unless it boosts itself on "dual channel" like HBM2 does :thinking:
> On such low latency only memory speed would matter and timings wouldn't be that harmful
> This is really interesting :thinking:



And SiSandra says "Average performance :|"


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> And SiSandra says "Average performance :|"


Makes me question now even more what is better :thinking:
Dual CCX design will spread heat better and can use variable CCX allcore at the exchange of latency penalty for games
(which here is clearly not the case o . O)
Single CCX design 3100 will Overclock higher and higher chance for sillicon lottery, with condensed heat and harder to cool

I wonder if the bencher used purposely CL20 timings to slow the first result down, soo people wouldn't only buy the 3300X
Or if AMD did some magic *** and improved per CCX communication down to 8-10ns each :thinking:
If the 2nd's the case, then Matisse users could get even a bigger improvement - once these cpus aren't restricted
Pre 1005 Bios pushed max furthest core to furthest core latency already down to 62ns, with intercore latency near the 42ish mark

under 20 is far beyond what intel chips are capable of, but at the big exchange of bandwidth
Soo 3300X users HAVE TO focus on high speed dimms
Interesting indeed~
wonder why they even decided to go that route, releasing two identical but completely different cpus 
~ maybe testing time was not enough and we should do this before 4th gen launch :thinking:


----------



## rdr09

Veii said:


> Hehe
> 
> Spotted something
> Ryzen 3 3300X 21GB/s 24ns intercore latency :thinking:
> 3200MT/s @ 4.4 (boost?)
> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e1d8edddfb89b484a2c7a29faf89fac7f7&l=en
> Ryzen 3 3100 47GB/s, intercore-latency 53,3ns
> 3200MT/s @ 3.9 stock ?
> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e1d9efdef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4fc&l=en


Nice. Also saw the 3100 oc'ed to 4.6GHz.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Makes me question now even more what is better :thinking:
> Dual CCX design will spread heat better and can use variable CCX allcore at the exchange of latency penalty for games
> (which here is clearly not the case o . O)
> Single CCX design 3100 will Overclock higher and higher chance for sillicon lottery, with condensed heat and harder to cool
> 
> I wonder if the bencher used purposely CL20 timings to slow the first result down, soo people wouldn't only buy the 3300X
> Or if AMD did some magic *** and improved per CCX communication down to 8-10ns each :thinking:
> If the 2nd's the case, then Matisse users could get even a bigger improvement - once these cpus aren't restricted
> Pre 1005 Bios pushed max furthest core to furthest core latency already down to 62ns, with intercore latency near the 42ish mark
> 
> under 20 is far beyond what intel chips are capable of, but at the big exchange of bandwidth
> Soo 3300X users HAVE TO focus on high speed dimms
> Interesting indeed~
> wonder why they even decided to go that route, releasing two identical but completely different cpus
> ~ maybe testing time was not enough and we should do this before 4th gen launch :thinking:



I'm really looking forward to Zen 3. I might snag a 4600X for "research purposes".


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I'm really looking forward to Zen 3. I might snag a 4600X for "research purposes".


Sure if you want to take over memory research on it 
Dmn AMD tempting me to snag a 3300X - even tho i was looking for a >6c Navi APU 
Really unsure still what is better between both , a 3100 would overclock higher and have more voltage headroom
But with a 3300X and this low inter-core latency, you can go without issues decoupled mode adding 4ns and run for 5000MT/s :ninja:








^ credits for spotting to 188号
225W will be fun to cool on these tiny chiplets :clock:


> NVDIMM-P specifications will be released by JEDEC in 1H2020. It will enable computer main memory to be persistent, using Persistent memory technology and can share the DDR4 or DDR5 DIMM interconnect with DRAM DIMMs.


----------



## negativefusion

Hueristic said:


> Really? From your post history it looks like all you do is have mem issues.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/search.php?searchid=11994176


Link goes to a dead link? "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. "


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Sure if you want to take over memory research on it
> Dmn AMD tempting me to snag a 3300X - even tho i was looking for a >6c Navi APU
> Really unsure still what is better between both , a 3100 would overclock higher and have more voltage headroom
> But with a 3300X and this low inter-core latency, you can go without issues decoupled mode adding 4ns and run for 5000MT/s :ninja:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ credits for spotting to 188号
> 225W will be fun to cool on these tiny chiplets :clock:


I wonder if watercooling will make sense again for Ryzen. That would require actual OC potential on Zen 3.


----------



## Veii

Veii said:


> Spotted something
> Ryzen 3 3300X 21GB/s 24ns intercore latency :thinking:
> 3200MT/s @ 4.4 (boost?)
> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e1d8edddfb89b484a2c7a29faf89fac7f7&l=en
> Ryzen 3 3100 47GB/s, intercore-latency 53,3ns
> 3200MT/s @ 3.9 stock ?
> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e1d9efdef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4fc&l=en
> 
> 
> Veii said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me question now even more what is better :thinking:
> Dual CCX design will spread heat better and can use variable CCX allcore at the exchange of latency penalty for games
> (which here is clearly not the case o . O)
> Single CCX design 3100 will Overclock higher and higher chance for sillicon lottery, with condensed heat and harder to cool
Click to expand...

Tiny stupid mistake 
3100 = Dual CCX design, visible at the latency and far higher bandwidth, yet cheaper, boosts to 3.9
3300X = Single CCX design, far lower inter-core latency, lower IPC (likely) , good for decoupled mode , boosts to 4.3, likely result was allcore tested 

Preferring 3300X for OCer who want to pass the 4000MT/s mark and have good cooling setups
3100 idk yet what to do with it, has to be strongly cheaper to consider it :thinking:


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Tiny stupid mistake
> 3100 = Dual CCX design, visible at the latency and far higher bandwidth, yet cheaper, boosts to 3.9
> 3300X = Single CCX design, far lower inter-core latency, lower IPC (likely) , good for decoupled mode , boosts to 4.3, likely result was allcore tested
> 
> Preferring 3300X for OCer who want to pass the 4000MT/s mark and have good cooling setups
> 3100 idk yet what to do with it, has to be strongly cheaper to consider it :thinking:


Good to know that Gods make mistakes too. :thinking:


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> I'll be getting a 3900x at some point I think, I was just waiting on Zen 3 so 3900 prices, hopefully, drop.
> 
> I'll probably keep the C6H tho.
> 
> This 1700 has done me proud for 3 years (I was a day 1 buyer), but it's time to retire it once Zen 3 arrives, I think.


I plan to get one, too, when it goes down to 300$ (in my dreams). It seems easier to oc ram with Gen 2 but to match Gen 1+ in latency it has to go 3800 speed with really tight timing. Not that Gen 1+ is faster. The good thing about Gen 2 is it has twice the amount of L3 cache.


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> I plan to get one, too, when it goes down to 300$ (in my dreams). It seems easier to oc ram with Gen 2 but to match Gen 1+ in latency it has to go 3800 speed with really tight timing. Not that Gen 1+ is faster. The good thing about Gen 2 is it has twice the amount of L3 cache.


Yeah, I might get one sooner rather than later actually, like this week or next - Zen 3 not due till end of year, thought it was sooner for some reason.

Still no idea what this RAM is capable of, I've "tuned" it to 14-13-13-13 only for GDM to laugh in my face and set them all back to 14 lol

Gonna try 2T later, see what results that gets - but least I know it's stable on these timings with GDM on, as I ran HCI all night to 2000%, so it's better than the DOCP settings I've been running forever.


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> Yeah, I might get one sooner rather than later actually, like this week or next - Zen 3 not due till end of year, thought it was sooner for some reason.
> 
> Still no idea what this RAM is capable of, I've "tuned" it to 14-13-13-13 only for GDM to laugh in my face and set them all back to 14 lol
> 
> Gonna try 2T later, see what results that gets - but least I know it's stable on these timings with GDM on, as I ran HCI all night to 2000%, so it's better than the DOCP settings I've been running forever.


If you're getting a 3950, then reserve that b-die for it. It should do at least 3733MHz with the new cpu.


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> If you're getting a 3950, then reserve that b-die for it. It should do at least 3733MHz with the new cpu.


I was thinking 3900x - not as much potential on that one, then?


----------



## Alexshunter

These Patriot 4400MHz modules are so weak generally, they cannot manage what DRAM Calculator writes for 3733MHz fast preset. Only two of them able to start with 1.45V, one does not even load bios, the second almost booted into Windows. At least with 1.5V these two sets are stable, but still not happy. The Gskill also weak, that what I was upgrading for higher bin B die Patriot.


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> These Patriot 4400MHz modules are so weak generally, they cannot manage what DRAM Calculator writes for 3733MHz fast preset. Only two of them able to start with 1.45V, one does not even load bios, the second almost booted into Windows. At least with 1.5V these two sets are stable, but still not happy. The Gskill also weak, that what I was upgrading for higher bin B die Patriot.


The A2 PCB prevents them from going really really low but they should still be able to do 3800 14-14-15 with very tight timings.


----------



## Veii

Alexshunter said:


> These Patriot 4400MHz modules are so weak generally, they cannot manage what DRAM Calculator writes for 3733MHz fast preset. Only two of them able to start with 1.45V, one does not even load bios, the second almost booted into Windows. At least with 1.5V these two sets are stable, but still not happy. The Gskill also weak, that what I was upgrading for higher bin B die Patriot.


They are on custom A2 PCB
You have to check if your board is T-Topology or Daisy Chain
A2 pushes a huge stress on them and 3rd gen defaults to stupid voltages by default
If you have issues with them, which you likely will because they are A2 - push VDDG IOD higher
Push CAD_BUS CmdDrvStrengh far higher, example 40-20-20-24
And push voltage higher for them

They are a better bin than 3600CL16 units , but the PCB is not easy on the boards
Short trace layouts need more impedance and so more voltage 
Also procODT needs to be low for clean signal integrity


----------



## Sphex_

Veii said:


> Boards and now especially ryzen Matisse too, do autocorrect
> You should use TM5 and Karhu with Cache to test things, MemTest i don't trust that much
> Your voltages are awkward tho, either one or the other - don't just put 1000mV cLDO_VDDP with 950mV cLDO_VDDG
> 
> Bad procODT would cause only full post issues, cold boot and warm boot issues belong to CAD_BUS
> Either procODT is fine or it cant post
> Too much will only limit maximum potential FCLK and worsen up Signal Integrity
> Start with CAD_BUS 30-20-20-24 till you hit cold boot issues, then up it to 30-20-24-24
> 
> Timings wise:
> if you try tRRD_S of 5, at least up tRRD_L a bit
> Illustration:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will only see benefits from increasing tRRDS, if high tFAW is needed to be used
> tFAW goes as forth ACTIVATE Timing window or sometimes "fith active time window"
> although it will only let 4x tRRD_S "back to back" writes through and lock down the 5th one till tFAW passes
> tFAW is a fixed time window delay
> and tRRD_ stuff are cutters, how long each row should be activate and cut to pass data though
> _S is from one bank group to another bank group
> while
> _L is inside the same bank group , a row-to-row "activate" time before it's cut
> Optimally like illustrated you want tFAW to perfectly cut after 4 back<->back active commands of tRRD
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> else you'll have to wait till tFAW elapses = use always a clean multiplier - *4 or *5 on slow speeds and slow transfer time
> 
> The same behavior goes for tWTR_S/L (write time recovery)
> Keep it at 4-12 till you actually see chokes on burst transfers
> Sadly Karhu doesn't show on what test method it errors, while TM5 does show errors under X test
> Another note,
> if you need to use something like tRRD_ 5-9, with tFAW 20 / also use tWTR_ 5-18
> As for example:
> tRRD_ 6-6 with tWTR_ 6-12
> tWTR_L can be the same as tRRD_L but it's better for now to be a perfect double, till we get more practice on that
> (well or till get more practice after Wednesday, as i can't teach you better at this time than known formulas)
> Overall, hold the formula till you know why you should break it
> Explained here:
> https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters#activate
> Oh also test if tWRRD 4 won't run better than tWRRD 2, it either works and posts or won't work and won't post


Looks like changing tWR from 12 to 16 and setting VDDG to 1000mV did the trick. Passed 30 Rounds of TM5 without a single error. Memory temperatures reached about 45°C during the test. Thanks for the solid advice and information. Extremely helpful!


----------



## Hueristic

negativefusion said:


> Link goes to a dead link? "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. "



https://www.overclock.net/forum/search.php?searchid=11997630

Apparently the board is broken.



Code:


https://www.overclock.net/forum/search.php?searchid=11997630


----------



## negativefusion

Hueristic said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/search.php?searchid=11997630
> 
> Apparently the board is broken.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/search.php?searchid=11997630



The links all go to dead links... I am not sure what you are trying to link to... thanks anyways for your attempt at helping, only one so far in 12 days here...


----------



## Hueristic

negativefusion said:


> The links all go to dead links... I am not sure what you are trying to link to... thanks anyways for your attempt at helping, only one so far in 12 days here...


I cannot for the life of me fathom what could possibly be the reason.


----------



## negativefusion

Hueristic said:


> I cannot for the life of me fathom what could possibly be the reason.


Let's see - 3 categories of people imo:

1) Elitist people not receptive to actually helping out people needing help with their troubleshooting and only focused on posting their own benchmarks daily. After all, less successful overclockers = MORE exclusivity to the elite club, and less competition for those charts right? I mean isn't it great to be top 100, when the bottom 10,000 don't have a clue what they are doing? lol

2) The other people that are capable of helping, and do help, just tired from helping noobs like me all day - so their efforts are stretched thin

3) The final group of people (people like me) who don't actually know what they are doing (thinking they do), offering advice that doesn't make any sense... like in my thread: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...-had-no-progress-plzhelp-ryzen-3950x-ram.html -- some guy replied trying to help how he overclocked his (b-die) kit (by copying something someone pasted) and recommended to copy the same thing #facepalm ...

Did I miss anything you think?


----------



## rares495

negativefusion said:


> Let's see - 3 categories of people imo:
> 
> 1) Elitist people not receptive to actually helping out people needing help with their troubleshooting and only focused on posting their own benchmarks daily. After all, less successful overclockers = MORE exclusivity to the elite club, and less competition for those charts right? I mean isn't it great to be top 100, when the bottom 10,000 don't have a clue what they are doing? lol



Don't worry. You cannot find "the elite" on OCN anymore. They've all fled to warmer climates.


----------



## KedarWolf

negativefusion said:


> Let's see - 3 categories of people imo:
> 
> 1) Elitist people not receptive to actually helping out people needing help with their troubleshooting and only focused on posting their own benchmarks daily. After all, less successful overclockers = MORE exclusivity to the elite club, and less competition for those charts right? I mean isn't it great to be top 100, when the bottom 10,000 don't have a clue what they are doing? lol
> 
> 2) The other people that are capable of helping, and do help, just tired from helping noobs like me all day - so their efforts are stretched thin
> 
> 3) The final group of people (people like me) who don't actually know what they are doing (thinking they do), offering advice that doesn't make any sense... like in my thread: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...-had-no-progress-plzhelp-ryzen-3950x-ram.html -- some guy replied trying to help how he overclocked his (b-die) kit (by copying something someone pasted) and recommended to copy the same thing #facepalm ...
> 
> Did I miss anything you think?


I've posted my working BIOS settings multiple times, have modded BIOS's for peeps with the latest microcodes etc. Been helping here since day one.

I might not be an elite here, but I have over 4500 separate posts on this forum.


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Both anta and 1usmus config behave similar
> I think 1usmus one finds faster tRFC desync (although only after test 19)
> It finds nearly instantly voltage issues from/to the infinity fabric
> cLDO_VDDP and VSOC issues
> 
> Both work but at the end you still should test something like y-cruncher or linpack Xtreme, in order to verify stability
> Even when memory timings are fine


How do you set up for 20 cycles? I don't know how to use such programs

P.S it's still not clear to me how PROCODT works... can i just, like lower it until it doesn't post anymore? And when it posts, then it's good?


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> I was thinking 3900x - not as much potential on that one, then?


From readings in this thread and another, they are quite similar. If that 3900 hits 350$, then i'll snag one.


----------



## rares495

Synoxia said:


> How do you set up for 20 cycles? I don't know how to use such programs
> 
> P.S it's still not clear to me how PROCODT works... can i just, like lower it until it doesn't post anymore? And when it posts, then it's good?


Use this. Run it as administrator and watch it go.


----------



## Synoxia

rares495 said:


> Use this. Run it as administrator and watch it go.


Thank you. I see 5 only, it's normal? How long does it usually take?


----------



## rares495

Synoxia said:


> Thank you. I see 5 only, it's normal? How long does it usually take?



You're not using the correct TM5 config. Extract my .zip somewhere else and run it as administrator.


----------



## Synoxia

rares495 said:


> You're not using the correct TM5 config. Extract my .zip somewhere else and run it as administrator.


gud? 15 only tho... i guess this one is like HCI, only to be left overnight. Anta already took 2 hours to complete


----------



## rares495

Synoxia said:


> gud? 15 only tho... i guess this one is like HCI, only to be left overnight. Anta already took 2 hours to complete



Should take 2-3h. It depends on your memory. It's going to be faster on tight B-die than on trash kits, just like HCI or Karhu.


EDIT: Yeah, that's for 16GB. Yours are 32GB so it should take more than 3h.


----------



## Synoxia

rares495 said:


> Should take 2-3h. It depends on your memory. It's going to be faster on tight B-die than on trash kits.


B die yeah but trash b-die (rgb 3200 cl14) set to 3733 c16 so a lot probably. I posted at 32 procodt, does this mean it's fine to use or should i test stability?


----------



## rares495

Synoxia said:


> B die yeah but trash b-die (rgb 3200 cl14) set to 3733 c16 so a lot probably. I posted at 32 procodt, does this mean it's fine to use or should i test stability?



You should always test the stability when overclocking. TM5 is quite good for that, even better than HCI or Karhu.


----------



## Synoxia

rares495 said:


> You should always test the stability when overclocking. TM5 is quite good for that, even better than HCI or Karhu.


Okay. Nice. HCI often only took a lot of time (3000%+, imagine how much) only to get random crashes in games.

I just tried to lower procodt randomly based on this quote from @Veii

"Bad procODT would cause only full post issues, cold boot and warm boot issues belong to CAD_BUS"
*Either procODT is fine or it cant post*
Would have been very nice if i could lower procodt without stability issues... maybe i can post higher FCLK this way 
I dont know if 1900 is stable but i know that i can post 1926, posting 1933 would be bragging rights at it's finest


----------



## Synoxia

rares495 said:


> You should always test the stability when overclocking. TM5 is quite good for that, even better than HCI or Karhu.


Okay. Nice. HCI often only took a lot of time (3000%+, imagine how much) only to get random crashes in games.

I just tried to lower procodt randomly based on this quote from @Veii

"Bad procODT would cause only full post issues, cold boot and warm boot issues belong to CAD_BUS"
*Either procODT is fine or it cant post*

Would have been very nice if i could lower procodt without stability issues... maybe i can post higher FCLK this way 
I dont know if 1900 is stable but i know that i can post 1926 with bclk, posting 1933 would be bragging at it's finest ahah


----------



## rares495

Synoxia said:


> Okay. Nice. HCI often only took a lot of time (3000%+, imagine how much) only to get random crashes in games.
> 
> I just tried to lower procodt randomly based on this quote from @*Veii*
> 
> "Bad procODT would cause only full post issues, cold boot and warm boot issues belong to CAD_BUS"
> *Either procODT is fine or it cant post*
> 
> Would have been very nice if i could lower procodt without stability issues... maybe i can post higher FCLK this way
> I dont know if 1900 is stable but i know that i can post 1926 with bclk, posting 1933 would be bragging at it's finest ahah



Lower procODT is better for higher FCLK, as far as I know, but I could be wrong.


----------



## negativefusion

KedarWolf said:


> I've posted my working BIOS settings multiple times, have modded BIOS's for peeps with the latest microcodes etc. Been helping here since day one.
> 
> I might not be an elite here, but I have over 4500 separate posts on this forum.


That's precisely my point, I am sure there are tons of people like you who help tons of others... but your time is finite and limited, and I am sure others are appreciative but that doesn't actually help my current situation/frustration with my first AMD build lol

As I've mentioned, I posted my plea for help, twice, over 12 days as I have made ZERO progress, spent $300, and wasted 40 hours - and i've gotten zero help/guidance/assistance that's meaningful to help me progress from my current 

3800/1900fclk c18 to something more reasonable like c16...
Or (what I think better yet) to a c14 at a lower fclk/mclk build

:|


----------



## SpecChum

negativefusion said:


> That's precisely my point, I am sure there are tons of people like you who help tons of others... but your time is finite and limited, and I am sure others are appreciative but that doesn't actually help my current situation/frustration with my first AMD build lol
> 
> As I've mentioned, I posted my plea for help, twice, over 12 days as I have made ZERO progress, spent $300, and wasted 40 hours - and i've gotten zero help/guidance/assistance that's meaningful to help me progress from my current
> 
> 3800/1900fclk c18 to something more reasonable like c16...
> Or (what I think better yet) to a c14 at a lower fclk/mclk build
> 
> :|


You do have to bear in mind, tho, "officially" your 3950x only supports up to 3200MHz DDR4, anything above that is "overclocking" and is in no way guaranteed.

Just because someone else had a great result with the identical CPU and RAM doesn't mean anyone else will - there is a lot of luck in this little hobby of ours, and sadly some of us don't get the best of it sometimes.

Now, I'm not saying your goals are impossible, I'm just saying nothing is set in stone - you may have just been unlucky.


----------



## Eder

For people running Agesa 1.0.0.5; my 4-dimm b-die setup boots with ProcODT 32 now. Overnight ram test was fine with 30-20-20-24 CAD-BUS settings.


----------



## sonic2911

Hi guys, I don't know why my memory is not stable with games (warzone) but fine with membench, memtest.
It's stable everything @3466c14 but @3600c14 it passes tests but crash games. I did follow the calculator like I did with 3466 preset. Mine is B-die samsung.


----------



## KedarWolf

I have an interesting problem.

I have two 1080 Ti's in SLI on a X570 MSI Unify, 2 M.2's Gen 4.

When I have both video cards in, I get memory errors in TM5 no matter what timings or voltages I use.

One video card, errors go away.

I'm trying running the two Gen 4 M.2's in the bottom two M.2 slots instead of the top slots so they run on the chipset PCI-e lanes instead of the CPU PCI-e lanes and letting 20 cycles of TM5 V3 run while I'm at work.

I might have to run only one video card to keep my memory fully stable.


----------



## Keith Myers

Do you HAVE to run the cards in SLI? I thought that had gone out of favor since Turing and very few games support it anymore.

I run 3 Nvidia 2080's with no problem on my 3950X and don't have memory problems.


----------



## KedarWolf

Keith Myers said:


> Do you HAVE to run the cards in SLI? I thought that had gone out of favor since Turing and very few games support it anymore.
> 
> I run 3 Nvidia 2080's with no problem on my 3950X and don't have memory problems.


Even with SLI disabled in Nvidia Control Panel having trouble. 

Have you run TM5 or Karhu RamTest?


----------



## Keith Myers

No I don't run Windows so no access to those tests. All I have is GSAT, Prime95 and y-cruncher and my normal BOINC workloads.

I suspect the M.2 drives are causing the issue with memory contention or PCIe lane latencies.


----------



## KedarWolf

Keith Myers said:


> No I don't run Windows so no access to those tests. All I have is GSAT, Prime95 and y-cruncher and my normal BOINC workloads.
> 
> I suspect the M.2 drives are causing the issue with memory contention or PCIe lane latencies.


Yeah, why I'm trying moving the one off the CPU PCI-e lanes.


----------



## KedarWolf

Keith Myers said:


> No I don't run Windows so no access to those tests. All I have is GSAT, Prime95 and y-cruncher and my normal BOINC workloads.
> 
> I suspect the M.2 drives are causing the issue with memory contention or PCIe lane latencies.


Oh, moving the M.2 off the CPU PCI-e lanes fixed it!


----------



## Keith Myers

Great to hear. I run one M.2 drive that is fed by the chipset and paired with 4X slot speed for the bottom gpu. So it has little impact anyway. I only run one project where PCI bus speed impacts task times and I can live with one card of three being slightly hamstrung.


----------



## masteratarms

I've got a 3900x, Gigabyte Aorus Elite + Corsair Vengence Pro RGB 3600M2ZC18. I've got some results from using Thaipoon Burner and DRAM calculator. I want to double check my settings before I try for 3800MT/s again (@3733Mhz atm). I made a gallery on imgur with my settings and my queries https://imgur.com/a/2uxhgym.


For the main I've got pictures of my bios in the order they come up. I think my setting for VDDP is just pulled out of thin air as its +0.2v and DRAM calculator recommends 0.9v and the reported voltage is 1.116v.

Also on screenshot 01 & 01b I don't know where VDDIO is in the DRAM calculator but I think its DDR4 related, need to check bios for clues again.

Jayz2cents recommends setting Vcore to 1.3v, its currently maxing out @ 1.5v on F12f bios (latest). Set it to 1.352v hits 1.37v.

I'm getting 6298 in cinebench R20 without any CPU tweaks, unless you count giving more SoC voltage for IF stability.


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

Working on a rock solid stable daily high performance profile on my ram. Started at around 106 seconds this morning and worked on all the secondary and tertiary timings. I wonder if I can get sub 100 seconds. 🤔


----------



## rares495

masteratarms said:


> I've got a 3900x, Gigabyte Aorus Elite + Corsair Vengence Pro RGB 3600M2ZC18. I've got some results from using Thaipoon Burner and DRAM calculator. I want to double check my settings before I try for 3800MT/s again (@3733Mhz atm). I made a gallery on imgur with my settings and my queries https://imgur.com/a/2uxhgym.
> 
> 
> For the main I've got pictures of my bios in the order they come up. I think my setting for VDDP is just pulled out of thin air as its +0.2v and DRAM calculator recommends 0.9v and the reported voltage is 1.116v.
> 
> Also on screenshot 01 & 01b I don't know where VDDIO is in the DRAM calculator but I think its DDR4 related, need to check bios for clues again.
> 
> Jayz2cents recommends setting Vcore to 1.3v, its currently maxing out @ 1.5v on F12f bios (latest). Set it to 1.352v hits 1.37v.
> 
> I'm getting 6298 in cinebench R20 without any CPU tweaks, unless you count giving more SoC voltage for IF stability.


It's normal for the Vcore to reach 1.5V in idle. It will fall down to 1.2V when there's some load on the CPU. Set it back to auto.

The way it works is:

Low current load (0-20A) => High voltage and high boost frequency

High current load (60+ A) => Low voltage and max allcore frequency


----------



## rares495

Mylittlepwny2 said:


> Working on a rock solid stable daily high performance profile on my ram. Started at around 106 seconds this morning and worked on all the secondary and tertiary timings. I wonder if I can get sub 100 seconds. 🤔


Not bad. Which memory kit is that?


----------



## 2600ryzen

sonic2911 said:


> Hi guys, I don't know why my memory is not stable with games (warzone) but fine with membench, memtest.
> It's stable everything @3466c14 but @3600c14 it passes tests but crash games. I did follow the calculator like I did with 3466 preset. Mine is B-die samsung.



Tried adding SOC voltage? I would set it to 1.1v at least, or maybe try 3533mhz.


----------



## Dash8Q4

Ok peeps so I swapped my X570 TUF Gaming Plus to a X470 Crosshair VII Hero since I don't need PCIE4.0 and needed more USB ports/FAN headers. Now I had set up a 3800MHZ Fast preset as per the calc and the results with the new mobo are slower in some parts. What am I missing? I did find that in the new Asus bios I couldn't find the VDDG CCD Voltage/VDDG IOD Voltage/cLDO VDDP Voltage in the new BIOS whereas in the old one(asus as well) they were present right in the AI Tweaker section. I noticed in the DRAM calculator pretty much all the settings are the same.

Anyhow, how are these results compared to the previous mobo? Thoughts welcomed! 
Cheers


----------



## BIRDMANv84

*NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.0 (overclocking DRAM on AM4) + MEMbench 0.8 (DRAM bench)*

For the voltages you want to enter are under Advanced/AMD Overclocking. Set the SoC/Uncore OC mode to enabled. It should apply the voltages for VDDP/VDDG










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

It was a kit I bought from Gskill. I'm almost out of headroom. I'm at the point now where I'm tweaking each timing individually by 1 and having to run karhu for a couple hours to see if its actually stable. Its tedious as hell now and most of my timings seem to be maxed out. And performance gains are minimal... if they even exist at all at this point. I'm currently running a karhu test and am at 2100% currently. If this passes 10000% then ill post my timings. Otherwise its back to testing again.

I honestly think I might be insane. I think I've spent more time overclocking and stability testing than I have doing anything else on my rig... 

But when I look at how much performance has improved I think its worth it! I complete this ram test in like half the time I used to when I just used a default XMP profile. Insane to me how big of an improvement it has made.


----------



## Antwerp

*Replying to fcchin*

[Quote by *fcchin*: use brave browser to cut off all ads]

Thanks for the tip! I'll give it a try:thumb:


----------



## Valka814

Hey guys! I'm looking to improve my memory OC, where should I look for improvements? Its 2*16GB Micron E-Die (Ballistix Sport LT). Thank you!


----------



## 2600ryzen

Valka814 said:


> Hey guys! I'm looking to improve my memory OC, where should I look for improvements? Its 2*16GB Micron E-Die (Ballistix Sport LT). Thank you!



Looks pretty good, maybe Trfc could be lowered to 580-560, that would help bandwidth and latency.
Trtp/Twr can probably go to 10/20, trdrdscl and twrwrscl might be able to go lower too.


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

Well this is about as good as its gonna get on all the secondaries and tertiaries. If i go any tighter I start to get errors. I couldnt break 100. Maybe if i ran the test a bunch of times id get it with some run to run variance.

Does anyone here Know if I did this correctly? Or are my timings all out of whack? Looking for help if anyone wants to look it over! Perhaps I over tightened some things?!


----------



## 2600ryzen

Mylittlepwny2 said:


> Well this is about as good as its gonna get on all the secondaries and tertiaries. If i go any tighter I start to get errors. I couldnt break 100. Maybe if i ran the test a bunch of times id get it with some run to run variance.
> 
> Does anyone here Know if I did this correctly? Or are my timings all out of whack? Looking for help if anyone wants to look it over! Perhaps I over tightened some things?!



Trfc go lower to 230? Try 240 instead if it doesn't go to 230. You could also do a manual overclock of your cpu, that will reduce latency and increase bandwidth to the infinity fabric and therefore RAM. If that's not enough do a manual overclock with SMT disabled as well that will give you another 100mhz cpu speed. What DRAM voltage are you running? You might also be aboe to increase voltage and lower tcl to 13.


----------



## rares495

Mylittlepwny2 said:


> Well this is about as good as its gonna get on all the secondaries and tertiaries. If i go any tighter I start to get errors. I couldnt break 100. Maybe if i ran the test a bunch of times id get it with some run to run variance.
> 
> Does anyone here Know if I did this correctly? Or are my timings all out of whack? Looking for help if anyone wants to look it over! Perhaps I over tightened some things?!



No way the memory is stable with those timings. You need to try to pass TM5 1usmus v3 20 cycles.


----------



## SpecChum

How does everyone keep their AIDA64 scores consistent?

I refreshed Windows 2 nights ago, as it'd been 3 years since I last did it. I had files and configs in places I didn't even know I had places, so a spring clean was overdue.

I ran AIDA64 pretty much after the first reboot, so OS was clean and got ~71ns, which is great, and was repeatable. However 2 days later I'm back up to ~73ns, and it's slightly up and down with each run.

I turn off all the background apps and services I can think of that I know I've installed since, but it's still same.


----------



## rares495

SpecChum said:


> How does everyone keep their AIDA64 scores consistent?
> 
> I refreshed Windows 2 nights ago, as it'd been 3 years since I last did it. I had files and configs in places I didn't even know I had places, so a spring clean was overdue.
> 
> I ran AIDA64 pretty much after the first reboot, so OS was clean and got ~71ns, which is great, and was repeatable. However 2 days later I'm back up to ~73ns, and it's slightly up and down with each run.
> 
> I turn off all the background apps and services I can think of that I know I've installed since, but it's still same.



You need to set a manual CPU frequency in order for the scores to be consistent, otherwise PB2 and PBO will mess with things.


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

*Thanks for the tips but ive exhausted all those options lol*



2600ryzen said:


> Trfc go lower to 230? Try 240 instead if it doesn't go to 230. You could also do a manual overclock of your cpu, that will reduce latency and increase bandwidth to the infinity fabric and therefore RAM. If that's not enough do a manual overclock with SMT disabled as well that will give you another 100mhz cpu speed. What DRAM voltage are you running? You might also be aboe to increase voltage and lower tcl to 13.


I cant drop TRFC any lower without getting errors in Karhu. I spent most of the day getting it to this point and I know at 235 I cant get it to pass Karhu. Maybe another day ill try 236 or 237 but for today im done.

My chip is manually overclocked. 4.6/4.5 GHz CCD overclock SMT enabled. Perhaps ill try with SMT disabled but it doesnt seem like clock speed seems to affect this test nearly as much as AIDA 64. Currently running 1.55V. I seem to get errors in Karhu if I use more than this. Im not sure TCL 13 is doable without going too high on the voltage to not cause errors. Ive never tried TCL 13. I know to get TCL 12 to post at 3800 MHz I need 1.68V. Perhaps 13 would be slightly easier but im not sure Its doable with 1.55V or less.


----------



## SpecChum

rares495 said:


> You need to set a manual CPU frequency in order for the scores to be consistent, otherwise PB2 and PBO will mess with things.


Ah, i do use ZenStates to do the overclock to 3.8GHz on my 1700, that's a P-State overclock so PBO should be disabled; it does allow the CPU to clock down, tho, with the Ryzen Power Plan I'm also using.

However, setting the Power Plan to high, which locks it to 3.8GHz according to HWiNFO, produces same result.


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

rares495 said:


> No way the memory is stable with those timings. You need to try to pass TM5 1usmus v3 20 cycles.


I use Karhu to test stability. Ive run this thing out to over 2000% as a minimum measure of stability. This profile is running 1.55V on the memory which is why my TRFC is as low as it is. If i drop to 1.5V i have to raise TRFC to 244. Im going to try tightening my primaries further as i might be able to drop tRP a bit further we shall see.


----------



## SpecChum

Mylittlepwny2 said:


> I use Karhu to test stability. Ive run this thing out to over 2000% as a minimum measure of stability. This profile is running 1.55V on the memory which is why my TRFC is as low as it is. If i drop to 1.5V i have to raise TRFC to 244. Im going to try tightening my primaries further as i might be able to drop tRP a bit further we shall see.


And then there's me, can't even get 2T 3200C14 working lol

Nice job on your timings


----------



## rares495

Mylittlepwny2 said:


> I use Karhu to test stability. Ive run this thing out to over 2000% as a minimum measure of stability. This profile is running 1.55V on the memory which is why my TRFC is as low as it is. If i drop to 1.5V i have to raise TRFC to 244. Im going to try tightening my primaries further as i might be able to drop tRP a bit further we shall see.



Karhu is pretty good but TM5 is better. I passed 22000% in Karhu but could not pass 10 cycles of TM5.


----------



## Mylittlepwny2

rares495 said:


> Karhu is pretty good but TM5 is better. I passed 22000% in Karhu but could not pass 10 cycles of TM5.


At this point I'm done lol. Its good enough for me. I'm gonna go back to my 1.5V profile with slightly elevated levels of TRFC (244) and call it a day lol. I'll try trp 12 tomorrow but I'm not expecting that to change the results much assuming its even stable. 

Anyways it was fun to try and chase the goal. Originay I just wanted to beat the best time on the benchmarks and once I beat that I wanted to break 100. I didn't reach my goal but I still learned alot about the limitations of my kit and my chip.


----------



## deepor

Mylittlepwny2 said:


> Well this is about as good as its gonna get on all the secondaries and tertiaries. If i go any tighter I start to get errors. I couldnt break 100. Maybe if i ran the test a bunch of times id get it with some run to run variance.
> 
> Does anyone here Know if I did this correctly? Or are my timings all out of whack? Looking for help if anyone wants to look it over! Perhaps I over tightened some things?!



I did the same as you and just tightened everything as much as possible. For me here, the only setting I found that made things slower was tRDRDSCL. On my RAM it's faster in benchmarks with tRDRDSCL = "4" instead of "3" or "2". Read speeds get worse with "3" and "2".

While I was tightening everything, Benchmark results improved with every change besides that tRDRDSCL thing I mentioned. Things getting slower was only for tRDRDSCL, and the tWRWRSCL setting was different. tWRWRSCL improved benchmarks when set to "2". This took me forever to find out because for the longest time I was testing both at the same time and test results were confusing (read going bad, while write improved, and latency behaving funny). I took forever before I got the idea to test a combination like RDRDSCL = "4", WRWRSCL = "3".

The benchmarks I used to test were Intel MLC = "memory latency checker" and y-cruncher. I don't know if those programs are good choices. I booted from a USB drive with Linux for testing so that's why I used those programs.

Note that I have crappy RAM and Zen+ CPU here and can only do 3133MHz, so my experience is just about that. It's 32GB (2x16GB) of cheap server/workstation memory Samsung B-die. It's "binned" for 2400MHz CL17.

Something else: I've seen people say you should try to have tRFC and tRC "in sync". I understood that to mean you should try to make tRFC divide cleanly by tRC, meaning try "240" instead of your current "238" because you then have "240 = 40 * 6".


----------



## rares495

@Veii Sad news. 

It looks like I will have to buy an X570 Unify/Tomahawk after all.


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> @*Veii* Sad news.
> 
> It looks like I will have to buy an X570 Unify/Tomahawk after all.


Woah, this goes for all MSI X470 motherboards? Or just the "Gaming" line? Otherwise my friend with an X470 Pro Carbon is going to be pretty upset.


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> Woah, this goes for all MSI X470 motherboards? Or just the "Gaming" line? Otherwise my friend with an X470 Pro Carbon is going to be pretty upset.


I'm not sure. It looks like it. Checked both the B450 Tomahawk and the X470 Gaming Pro Carbon and there is no new BIOS.


----------



## SpecChum

rares495 said:


> @Veii Sad news.
> 
> It looks like I will have to buy an X570 Unify/Tomahawk after all.


:O

I wonder if ASUS will take same route.

I was going to buy a 3900x to put in this C6H as it seemed to be fairly well updated with new stuff, but I might have to rethink.


----------



## 2600ryzen

deepor said:


> I did the same as you and just tightened everything as much as possible. For me here, the only setting I found that made things slower was tRDRDSCL. On my RAM it's faster in benchmarks with tRDRDSCL = "4" instead of "3" or "2". Read speeds get worse with "3" and "2".
> 
> While I was tightening everything, Benchmark results improved with every change besides that tRDRDSCL thing I mentioned. Things getting slower was only for tRDRDSCL, and the tWRWRSCL setting was different. tWRWRSCL improved benchmarks when set to "2". This took me forever to find out because for the longest time I was testing both at the same time and test results were confusing (read going bad, while write improved, and latency behaving funny). I took forever before I got the idea to test a combination like RDRDSCL = "4", WRWRSCL = "3".
> 
> The benchmarks I used to test were Intel MLC = "memory latency checker" and y-cruncher. I don't know if those programs are good choices. I booted from a USB drive with Linux for testing so that's why I used those programs.
> 
> Note that I have crappy RAM and Zen+ CPU here and can only do 3133MHz, so my experience is just about that. It's 32GB (2x16GB) of cheap server/workstation memory Samsung B-die. It's "binned" for 2400MHz CL17.
> 
> Something else: I've seen people say you should try to have tRFC and tRC "in sync". I understood that to mean you should try to make tRFC divide cleanly by tRC, meaning try "240" instead of your current "238" because you then have "240 = 40 * 6".



1 2nd this I can run SCL at 4 error free but 5 is much faster, you might be hurting your bandwidth with SCL at 2.


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> 1 2nd this I can run SCL at 4 error free but 5 is much faster, you might be hurting your bandwidth with SCL at 2.


Interesting, I'm on 3 - saying that I'm also on GDM, so I wonder if that's one of the timings that's rounded up.

How much is "much" faster?


----------



## 2600ryzen

SpecChum said:


> Interesting, I'm on 3 - saying that I'm also on GDM, so I wonder if that's one of the timings that's rounded up.
> 
> How much is "much" faster?



It doesn't get rounded up, 5 is over 4Gb/s faster for me than 6. I think 4 was about 1Gb/s slower than 5, been a while since I tried.


----------



## Hequaqua

Which SiSoft Sandra test do we want to run to see if memory increases/decreases with timing changes? I can't remember....lol Happens when you got old....


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> It doesn't get rounded up, 5 is over 4Gb/s faster for me than 6. I think 4 was about 1Gb/s slower than 5, been a while since I tried.


I meant when GDM mode is on; unless you mean you run GDM as well?


----------



## 2600ryzen

Yes I run with GDM.


----------



## SpecChum

Ah nice, might try at some point.

I'm happy enough at the minute to be fair, and I work from home on my PC, so I can't afford too much downtime.

Saying that, I'm off tomorrow, so we'll see


----------



## rares495

Hequaqua said:


> Which SiSoft Sandra test do we want to run to see if memory increases/decreases with timing changes? I can't remember....lol Happens when you got old....


It's the multi-core efficiency test.


----------



## Hequaqua

rares495 said:


> It's the multi-core efficiency test.


OK...thanks! :thumb:

EDIT:

Here's what I've gotten so far. I'm not sure what I'm really looking at in SiSoft. I can see the increase in Inter-Core Bandwidth. I guess that's what we are all looking for...lol

Here are the SiSoft results:

3466 XMP
View attachment 3466 XMP.txt


3466 
View attachment 3466 M.txt


3666
View attachment 3666.txt


Timings


Spoiler














These were all ran with a static [email protected] on the CPU. All ram voltages were the same as well 1.380v. SoC was set to 1.050v, HWiNFO shows 1.031-1.037 in Windows. All tests were done after a restart with same background services/programs running. I have tried to get 1900 on the IF, but it won't stick, and it takes me several restarts to get things back together. I don't really want to add voltage, so I'm pretty happy with this 3466 kit running 3666. 

I always say I'm done messing with the ram, then I get bored and try again.


----------



## Dash8Q4

Anything I can try tightening here to improve my scores and MEMbench time?
For some reason yesterday I had a A64 bench run which yielded 55623 MB/s Read--33754 MB/s Write--53553 MB/s Copy-- 64.3ns Latency but I haven't been able to replicate it. I felt the dimms while testing with MT5 and they don't even get warm to the touch.
Cheers


----------



## deepor

Sphex_ said:


> Woah, this goes for all MSI X470 motherboards? Or just the "Gaming" line? Otherwise my friend with an X470 Pro Carbon is going to be pretty upset.





SpecChum said:


> :O
> 
> I wonder if ASUS will take same route.
> 
> I was going to buy a 3900x to put in this C6H as it seemed to be fairly well updated with new stuff, but I might have to rethink.





rares495 said:


> @Veii Sad news.
> 
> It looks like I will have to buy an X570 Unify/Tomahawk after all.



Before you guys panic about missing out on AGESA 1.0.0.5: I've seen the "JZ" guy from jzelectronic.de share an interesting mail from ASRock about 1.0.0.5. They are thinking of skipping 1.0.0.5 because they think it's not interesting, and they will instead look into the AGESA versions that follow. They talked with AMD people about what's up with 1.0.0.5, and they got told it's about combining fixes from 1.0.0.3 ABB and ABBA. They think that 1.0.0.4 B is just as good. For the problems that they still try to fix on their boards, the 1.0.0.5 version has nothing to help.

Maybe they are right and 1.0.0.5 is no big deal and boring.


----------



## KedarWolf

Dash8Q4 said:


> Anything I can try tightening here to improve my scores and MEMbench time?
> For some reason yesterday I had a A64 bench run which yielded 55623 MB/s Read--33754 MB/s Write--53553 MB/s Copy-- 64.3ns Latency but I haven't been able to replicate it. I felt the dimms while testing with MT5 and they don't even get warm to the touch.
> Cheers


Here is TM5 1usmus_v3 in a .zip file set to 20 cycles.

It can take up to three hours to run but often errors not found until the 19th cycle.


----------



## rares495

deepor said:


> Before you guys panic about missing out on AGESA 1.0.0.5: I've seen the "JZ" guy from jzelectronic.de share an interesting mail from ASRock about 1.0.0.5. They are thinking of skipping 1.0.0.5 because they think it's not interesting, and they will instead look into the AGESA versions that follow. They talked with AMD people about what's up with 1.0.0.5, and they got told it's about combining fixes from 1.0.0.3 ABB and ABBA. They think that 1.0.0.4 B is just as good. For the problems that they still try to fix on their boards, the 1.0.0.5 version has nothing to help.
> 
> Maybe they are right and 1.0.0.5 is no big deal and boring.


Still I would like to test that myself. I don't appreciate any kind of limitations.


----------



## SpecChum

KedarWolf said:


> Here is TM5 1usmus_v3 in a .zip file set to 20 cycles.
> 
> It can take up to three hours to run but often errors not found until the 19th cycle.


Just make the 19th cycle run first!

You're welcome


----------



## SpecChum

Woohoo - all I did was reboot.

And it's repeatable, "jumps" from 70.1 to 70.3ns between runs, task manager doesn't seem to affect it either.

I'm not going to test it after I open every app, but I might try again later and see if it goes back up to 73ns


----------



## Sphex_

Dash8Q4 said:


> Anything I can try tightening here to improve my scores and MEMbench time?
> For some reason yesterday I had a A64 bench run which yielded 55623 MB/s Read--33754 MB/s Write--53553 MB/s Copy-- 64.3ns Latency but I haven't been able to replicate it. I felt the dimms while testing with MT5 and they don't even get warm to the touch.
> Cheers


As others have suggested, make sure you're absolutely stable first. Otherwise, your subtimings are pretty solid. I'd try to push your primary timings even further if there's voltage headroom. Are you watching your DIMM temps with a monitoring program? What DRAM voltage are you running? The 1.42V suggested by the calculator?


----------



## Dash8Q4

Sphex_ said:


> As others have suggested, make sure you're absolutely stable first. Otherwise, your subtimings are pretty solid. I'd try to push your primary timings even further if there's voltage headroom. Are you watching your DIMM temps with a monitoring program? What DRAM voltage are you running? The 1.42V suggested by the calculator?


Ok so I ran the TM5 20 cycle and no errors.
Which timing do you suggest I start tightening first? As for DIMM temps I did not have a monitoring program going. I'll look into that later but during the testing at around cycle 16 I opened the side panel and touched the heat spreader, they were warm but not hot for me to take my hand away.
1.42V as per the calculator yes.


----------



## Sphex_

Dash8Q4 said:


> Ok so I ran the TM5 20 cycle and no errors.
> Which timing do you suggest I start tightening first? As for DIMM temps I did not have a monitoring program going. I'll look into that later but during the testing at around cycle 16 I opened the side panel and touched the heat spreader, they were warm but not hot for me to take my hand away.
> 1.42V as per the calculator yes.


You've got a fair amount of voltage headroom, if you're comfortable. It may be necessary to raise the DRAM voltage if you want to tighten up those primary timings. Someone might want to chime in with more sound advice, but I usually just wing it. Maybe 15-15-17-15-32-48 and see how that goes.


----------



## KedarWolf

Dash8Q4 said:


> Ok so I ran the TM5 20 cycle and no errors.
> Which timing do you suggest I start tightening first? As for DIMM temps I did not have a monitoring program going. I'll look into that later but during the testing at around cycle 16 I opened the side panel and touched the heat spreader, they were warm but not hot for me to take my hand away.
> 1.42V as per the calculator yes.


Here are my 3800 GDM disabled settings. I'll boot into BIOS, include my voltages in a minute. But they are pretty low.










See my BIOS settings and voltages in the Spoiler, but try a fixed voltage, my Offsets will not work for you likely. 

You can see the fixed voltage to the left of the Offset. I need to keep SoC a bit high to stop random reboots in [email protected] etc.

And my CPU voltage is so low because I run a low fixed CPU ratio and want to keep temps low with [email protected] using 30 cores.



Spoiler


----------



## KedarWolf

Eder said:


> For people running Agesa 1.0.0.5; my 4-dimm b-die setup boots with ProcODT 32 now. Overnight ram test was fine with 30-20-20-24 CAD-BUS settings.


I tried ProcODT at 32, 5 errors in TM5 20 cycle run. 

ProcODT ar 48, 0 errors, everything else the same. But I have 2x16GB Dual Rank RAM might be why. :h34r-smi

And TM5 the go-to RAM test now. Better than Karhu, even HCI MemTest. 

Here is TM5 1usmus_v3 set to 20 cycles in a .zip file. :bruce:

It can take up to three hours to run 20 cycles though.


----------



## nexxusty

KedarWolf said:


> I tried ProcODT at 32, 5 errors in TM5 20 cycle run.
> 
> ProcODT ar 48, 0 errors, everything else the same. But I have 2x16GB Dual Rank RAM might be why. :h34r-smi
> 
> And TM5 the go-to RAM test now. Better than Karhu, even HCI MemTest.
> 
> Here is TM5 1usmus_v3 set to 20 cycles in a .zip file. :bruce:
> 
> It can take up to three hours to run 20 cycles though.


Really, TM5 is being considered the golden standard now hmm?

Alright, I'll give it a go. 3 hours, 20 cycles is what I should be doing? No more, no less?

The way you worded your post though.... As if HCI MemTest is best. That's the way it comes off anyway.
This test being better than HCI doesn't really mean anything anymore, being better than Karhu's RAM Test is saying something though.

We're on the same page though, yeah? I was just reading that incorrectly?


----------



## KedarWolf

nexxusty said:


> Really, TM5 is being considered the golden standard now hmm?
> 
> Alright, I'll give it a go. 3 hours, 20 cycles is what I should be doing? No more, no less?
> 
> The way you worded your post though.... As if HCI MemTest is best. That's the way it comes off anyway.
> This test being better than HCI doesn't really mean anything anymore, being better than Karhu's RAM Test is saying something though.
> 
> We're on the same page though, yeah? I was just reading that incorrectly?


Yeah, I meant TM5 the best now.


----------



## rastaviper

Dash8Q4 said:


> Anything I can try tightening here to improve my scores and MEMbench time?
> 
> For some reason yesterday I had a A64 bench run which yielded 55623 MB/s Read--33754 MB/s Write--53553 MB/s Copy-- 64.3ns Latency but I haven't been able to replicate it. I felt the dimms while testing with MT5 and they don't even get warm to the touch.
> 
> Cheers


I would always prefer 3733 15-14-14, then 3800 16-16-16

Maybe u should try a different approach.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Synoxia

Ok i've passed 20 cycles
========= TestMem5 Log File =========
Customize: Default @1usmus_v3
Start testing at 3:50, 1.8Gb x16
Testing completed in 2:55.02,
no errors.

Seems like i cannot do less than 17 TRCDRD on this kit, both 3733 and 3800


----------



## SpecChum

Synoxia said:


> Ok i've passed 20 cycles
> ========= TestMem5 Log File =========
> Customize: Default @1usmus_v3
> Start testing at 3:50, 1.8Gb x16
> Testing completed in 2:55.02,
> no errors.
> 
> Seems like i cannot do less than 17 TRCDRD on this kit, both 3733 and 3800


You might not be able to do 17 either 

You've got GDM on. From what I gather that'll be setting TRCDRD to 18 as it rounds it up as it'll do 2 * ceil(TRCDRD / 2)


----------



## masteratarms

rares495 said:


> @Veii Sad news.
> 
> It looks like I will have to buy an X570 Unify/Tomahawk after all.


Don't give up hope, if they are updating only the MAX varients then I'm sure someone will be able to mod the bios for the new agesa 1.0.0.5. I've seen bios modders on xtremesystems.org and https://www.win-raid.com/f54-BIOS-Modding-Requests.html, you can even make a request. My old P5Q-deluxe ran a modded bios with memory tables copied from a higher end board's bios + updated ich support.


----------



## masteratarms

KedarWolf said:


> I tried ProcODT at 32, 5 errors in TM5 20 cycle run.
> 
> ProcODT ar 48, 0 errors, everything else the same. But I have 2x16GB Dual Rank RAM might be why. :h34r-smi


I'd just like to point out that with values in Ohms (greek letter Omega https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ω), this is not a lower is better number just whatever works for stability. In transmission line theory (which I did many moons ago) there is such an occurance of reflection of a signal at the end of a wire which is classed as noise. Crosstalk which is more commonly known is another source of noise which happens between conductors (or traces), due to EMF, a magnetic force which can produce an electrical current in an adjacent wire. It's got to be the same science that makes wireless phone charging possible.


----------



## Dash8Q4

KedarWolf said:


> Here are my 3800 GDM disabled settings. I'll boot into BIOS, include my voltages in a minute. But they are pretty low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my BIOS settings and voltages in the Spoiler, but try a fixed voltage, my Offsets will not work for you likely.
> 
> You can see the fixed voltage to the left of the Offset. I need to keep SoC a bit high to stop random reboots in [email protected] etc.
> 
> And my CPU voltage is so low because I run a low fixed CPU ratio and want to keep temps low with [email protected] using 30 cores.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I tried those settings last night with no luck during the testing. It also didn't yield better results on the Aida64 cache and memory benchmark. I'll keep tweaking timings one at a time and see whats what. If not stay with my current settings.
Cheersd


----------



## yrelbirb

So, 1usmus v3 TM5 test can be considered very good ram stability test?

how to make it run 20 cycles? when i run it it only runs 1 time


----------



## Hequaqua

yrelbirb said:


> So, 1usmus v3 TM5 test can be considered very good ram stability test?
> 
> how to make it run 20 cycles? when i run it it only runs 1 time


Look back in this thread a little....the config with 20 runs is posted...just download it and run it as Admin...should be fine.


----------



## nexxusty

SpecChum said:


> Synoxia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok i've passed 20 cycles
> ========= TestMem5 Log File =========
> Customize: Default @1usmus_v3
> Start testing at 3:50, 1.8Gb x16
> Testing completed in 2:55.02,
> no errors.
> 
> Seems like i cannot do less than 17 TRCDRD on this kit, both 3733 and 3800 >/forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
> 
> 
> 
> You might not be able to do 17 either /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
> 
> You've got GDM on. From what I gather that'll be setting TRCDRD to 18 as it rounds it up as it'll do 2 * ceil(TRCDRD / 2)
Click to expand...

I was under the exact same impression, until I tried GDM on my CH6 with BIOS/UEFI 7704.

I am running with GDM enabled right now with RAM @ 3800MHz 16-16-16-17-32-1T, I was sure within the primary timings the 17 would have been rounded up to 18, however it is not. 17 is set and 17 is what it posts and functions with.

GDM is definitely enabled and functional. There's no way I am doing true 1T @ 3800MHz CL16. LOL.

I believe the true function of GDM (Allowing for 1.5T timing) has been fixed/enabled properly. Rounding up EVERY odd timing, be it primary, secondary, or tertiary.... Would be IMO ridiculous and a rather useless, not to mention detrimental setting.

I am firmly under the impression that if GDM used to round up every odd timing, aside from the one it's supposed to round up, that was a bug.

I mean think about it....


----------



## Dollar

https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1258804034556833792


> DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.1 Tomorrow 18:00 (GMT +2)


----------



## SpecChum

nexxusty said:


> I was under the exact same impression, until I tried GDM on my CH6 with BIOS/UEFI 7704.
> 
> I am running with GDM enabled right now with RAM @ 3800MHz 16-16-16-17-32-1T, I was sure within the primary timings the 17 would have been rounded up to 18, however it is not. 17 is set and 17 is what it posts and functions with.
> 
> GDM is definitely enabled and functional. There's no way I am doing true 1T @ 3800MHz CL16. LOL.
> 
> I believe the true function of GDM (Allowing for 1.5T timing) has been fixed/enabled properly. Rounding up EVERY odd timing, be it primary, secondary, or tertiary.... Would be IMO ridiculous and a rather useless, not to mention detrimental setting.
> 
> I am firmly under the impression that if GDM used to round up every odd timing, aside from the one it's supposed to round up, that was a bug.
> 
> I mean think about it....


No it does, to my understanding, anyway.

It runs at half the rate on the command pins, so 3200CL14 would be 1600CL7 (well, 800CL7 actually, as it's DDR already), but if you had 3200C17 it halves the 17, giving you 8.5, but you can't have .5 so it rounds it up to 9 and 9 * 2 is 18 ie. 2(ceiling(CL/2)), however all the software monitors and the BIOS still report 17.

What I'm not clear on, and it doesn't look like anyone is 100% certain, are what values are affected - some say all odd values, some say only a few, but it's usually a given the primaries are.


----------



## 2600ryzen

nexxusty said:


> I was under the exact same impression, until I tried GDM on my CH6 with BIOS/UEFI 7704.
> 
> I am running with GDM enabled right now with RAM @ 3800MHz 16-16-16-17-32-1T, I was sure within the primary timings the 17 would have been rounded up to 18, however it is not. 17 is set and 17 is what it posts and functions with.
> 
> GDM is definitely enabled and functional. There's no way I am doing true 1T @ 3800MHz CL16. LOL.
> 
> I believe the true function of GDM (Allowing for 1.5T timing) has been fixed/enabled properly. Rounding up EVERY odd timing, be it primary, secondary, or tertiary.... Would be IMO ridiculous and a rather useless, not to mention detrimental setting.
> 
> I am firmly under the impression that if GDM used to round up every odd timing, aside from the one it's supposed to round up, that was a bug.
> 
> I mean think about it....



Yeah I think it only rounds up Trtp-Twr-Tcwl-Tcl(maybe I missed one). All my benchmarks indicate odd works fine for the other timings.


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> Yeah I think it only rounds up Trtp-Twr-Tcwl-Tcl(maybe I missed one). All my benchmarks indicate odd works fine for the other timings.


That does match this excerpt from a reddit post from our very own gupsterg ( at least, I assume it's him  )



> I read a Micron 4Gb DDR4 white paper (even a 396 page 8Gb PDF has same info, page 105) and found at end of page 93/top page 94:-
> 
> When operating in 2N gear-down mode, the following MR settings apply:
> 
> • CAS latency (MR0[6:4,2]): Even number of clocks
> • Write recovery and read to precharge (MR0[11:9]): Even number of clocks
> • Additive latency (MR1[4:3]): CL - 2
> • CAS WRITE latency (MR2 A[5:3]): Even number of clocks
> • CS to command/address latency mode (MR4[8:6]): Even number of clocks
> • CA parity latency mode (MR5[2:0]): Even number of clocks
> 
> So with GDME below must be even:-
> • tCL
> • tWR
> • tCWL
> • tRTP


----------



## Dash8Q4

KedarWolf said:


> Here are my 3800 GDM disabled settings. I'll boot into BIOS, include my voltages in a minute. But they are pretty low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my BIOS settings and voltages in the Spoiler, but try a fixed voltage, my Offsets will not work for you likely.
> 
> You can see the fixed voltage to the left of the Offset. I need to keep SoC a bit high to stop random reboots in [email protected] etc.
> 
> And my CPU voltage is so low because I run a low fixed CPU ratio and want to keep temps low with [email protected] using 30 cores.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Whatever I did yesterday for some reason I can't stay TM5 stable with the previous settings I ran it with. I don't know what's causing the errors but it definitely isn't the same as when I ran those 20cycles TM5. I punched in 3800MHz Safe preset settings and so far it was stable when I ran it earlier today, took 1:55 to finish


----------



## KedarWolf

Dash8Q4 said:


> Whatever I did yesterday for some reason I can't stay TM5 stable with the previous settings I ran it with. I don't know what's causing the errors but it definitely isn't the same as when I ran those 20cycles TM5. I punched in 3800MHz Safe preset settings and so far it was stable when I ran it earlier today, took 1:55 to finish


Try adjusting On-Die Termination and CAD Bus Timing Configuration, CAD Bus Drive Strength Configuration, and Phy Configuration settings. Try my settings below.

Edit: But you might want to try 24-20-20-24, 24-20-24-24, or 24-24-24-24. I read the last one is the safest.


----------



## yrelbirb

am i good to go? /(thx for 20 cycle program f)


----------



## Synoxia

yrelbirb said:


> am i good to go? /(thx for 20 cycle program f)


20 cycles aswell for me at 3800mt.

@Veii i had some random crashes in Cemu after TM5 20 cycles with 3733, so i bumped VDDSOC to 1.10 and those seemed to disappear. my voltages are now: 900vddp and cld0_vddp, 1000vddg and 1.10 vsoc.
This should be 50mhz stepping so correct, right? P.S don't forget those are 4 dimms.


----------



## Dash8Q4

Quick question. I noticed on my motherboard's BIOS the settings are in this order
CAS# Latency
RAS to CAS Read Delay
RAS to CAS Write Delay
RAS PRE Time........
and so on
now in the calculator they are 
tCL.....tRCDWR....tRCDRD....tRP and so on.
So I just want to make sure that the order is not aligned with the RAS to CAS delays, in the calculator the write is first whereas in the bios the read is first?

Can someone clarify?thx
Are the highlighted lines in the pics the same?


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.1 Release*

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.1
*










* New presets adapted to latest AGESA 
* DRAM PCB revision - presets became more "flexible"
* New features (overclocking assist) and etc.
* Reading timings for all Ryzen's (even Zen3)

*Guide (DE)* >> https://www.computerbase.de/2020-05/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1.7.1/
*Guide (EN)* >> https://wccftech.com/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1-7-1-download/

*Download:*

Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
WCCFTECH link
Сomputerbase.de link
Techspot link


----------



## yrelbirb

https://prnt.sc/sdr6bq

I tried these settings; no boot


----------



## 1usmus

yrelbirb said:


> https://prnt.sc/sdr6bq
> 
> I tried these settings; no boot


Try tRDWR 8 or 9


----------



## yrelbirb

1usmus said:


> Try tRDWR 8 or 9


this time booted but it got stuck while booting (stuck at motherboard logo)=


----------



## Tobiman

New dram calculator 1.7.1 is tripping my antivirus.


----------



## yrelbirb

no issue on my end (malwarebytes)

malwarebytes is very trippy when it comes to detections actually (maybe the most paranoid one)

i had too many false positives with it (even a government website). thankfully their developerers are quick to act and fix false positives quickly. i think it has something to do with heuristic detections

i cant even deploy thaiphoon burner with MB on. i contacted developers and they insisted it was virusful so dont know i took the risk anyways


----------



## Hale59

@1usmus @Veii @rares495

What PCB is this?
According to Thaiphoon this is A1.

What RAM PCB revision should I select on the new DRAM Calculator? A2, A0, Bad bin or Manual?


----------



## rares495

Hale59 said:


> @1usmus
> @Veii
> @rares495
> 
> What PCB is this?
> According to Thaiphoon this is A1.
> 
> What RAM PCB revision should I select on the new DRAM Calculator? A2, A0, Bad bin or Manual?


Looks like A0.

You should export from Thaiphoon Burner and then import that into the new DRAM Calculator. It will then automagically switch to the "Manual" PCB revision AND give you the best timings for your particular kit.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Thanks
@1usmus

Much appreciated!! 🙏


----------



## Hale59

rares495 said:


> Looks like A0.
> 
> You should export from Thaiphoon Burner and then import that into the new DRAM Calculator. It will then automagically switch to the "Manual" PCB revision AND give you the best timings for your particular kit.


Thanks. Going to try those timings with import.


----------



## Joseph Mills

New Ryzen Calc settings proved to be unstable. Used Thaiphoon Burner import, and tried the other settings. Still trying to figure out VDDP/VDDG voltage with my current settings (however, it DOES run on Auto)


----------



## MikeS3000

Very nice result on a pair of 8 gb Hynix DJR G.skill Trident Z Neo sticks. I run them at 3800 mhz and when I used the "fast" preset on 1.7.0 vs. 1.7.1 I shave off 8 seconds on the Easy membench test. Went from 120 seconds down to 112. This a repeatable 7% improvement. Great job!


----------



## Dollar

The recommended termination values with four dimms changed a lot. From 7/3/1 (same as auto) to the new 7/OFF/5.


----------



## SpecChum

Not bad for 1.4v on the DRAM, I don't think? Thought I'd have to increase it, but seems OK.

Calc gave me 12 on tWR, but that errored in minutes, but increasing that to 14 seems to have done the trick.

Might try for 14-14-14-14, but I'm not overly confident.


----------



## RaXelliX

No luck on Hynix JJR. Selecting CJR/DJR profile still gives WAY too agressive timings. People say JJR is better. From what im seeing it's worse than CJR.
For example on 3733 Fast preset it suggests tRCDWR as 16. That is lower than on stock 3200 XMP settings. Very unrealistic. Then it suggests tRCRD as 19 despite BGS being enabled. What's the point in suggesting 19 if BGS is going to switch to 20 anyway? Same for tRP at 21

My main problem seems to be tRFC tho. The suggested 489 is super agressive. Best i can boot with is 515 and closest that is stable is 525. tRFC (alt) suggested 522 is much more realistic.


----------



## KedarWolf

*I think it's a great result at these voltages.*


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> The refurbished AX1600i died after two days. Only one of the two green self-test light comes on, PC tries to boot, turns off.
> 
> I tried unattaching every cable to the PSU and motherboard and reattaching them. The power supply is screwed.
> 
> My spare crap PSU works just fine.
> 
> And the Corsair RMA website messed up, won't let me log in, not sending me a reset password either, not sending reset emails.
> 
> I just emailed support instead. :h34r-smi


They told me they were going to send me another refurbished AX1600i to replace the faulty RMA. A month later due to COVID and because they lost the PSU I sent back to them at their warehouse, I get the replacement unit, and it's brand new in box!!

Well worth the wait.


----------



## Awsan

What would you recommend as a quick test to eliminate aggressive timings?

some will boot but are not stable at all So I want to go one timing at a time but its very hard to run each for several mins before knowing.


----------



## KedarWolf

Awsan said:


> What would you recommend as a quick test to eliminate aggressive timings?
> 
> some will boot but are not stable at all So I want to go one timing at a time but its very hard to run each for several mins before knowing.


Karhu RamTest finds errors quite quickly. 

Get it from here, 9.99 euros / lifetime license:

https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/


----------



## Awsan

KedarWolf said:


> Karhu RamTest finds errors quite quickly.
> 
> Get it from here, 9.99 euros / lifetime license:
> 
> https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/


Thanks a lot.


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> Thanks a lot.


Karhu is great for finding quick errors (1-15 min) but TM5 1usmus v3 is capable of finding errors that Karhu doesn't.


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> Karhu is great for finding quick errors (1-15 min) but TM5 1usmus v3 is capable of finding errors that Karhu doesn't.


Will start with Karhu then run a couple of other tests, the main thing is am trying to aggressively tighten everything, run into windows test for 5 mins (rinse and repeat), I am free and have been fantasizing about it for the past month  .


I just wish I can find a couple of 16-19 neos around, to see what people already achieved but looks like I will need to go (Semi solo) as there are other DJR models around. + can anyone tell me what PCB layout they have as it says B1.


----------



## rares495

So I tred the fast preset for my kit in hopes to reduce the daily 1.52V I've been using and finally being able to pass 20 cycles of TM5.

Unfortunately there was no way to use these timings with 1.41, 1.42 or 1.45V like the calc recommended. Eh, 1.45V could boot but needed 53 ohm procODT which is quite high and was not stable; needed some weird cad_bus values that I couldn't find, so I went straight to 1.5V and 36,9 ohm procODT. Left TM5 running over night and managed to pass 20 cycles but got some errors. This is a huge improvement over my very tight timings w/ 1.52V which couldn't even make it to cycle 4.

I'm happy to finally see procODT and cad_bus actually do something. They were useless to me before.


----------



## masteratarms

Where can I download ZenTimings 1.0.4 please?


----------



## rares495

@masteratarms Right here.

Or from the official Github: https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases


----------



## masteratarms

@rares495 tyvm


----------



## Alexshunter

Veii said:


> They are on custom A2 PCB
> You have to check if your board is T-Topology or Daisy Chain
> A2 pushes a huge stress on them and 3rd gen defaults to stupid voltages by default
> If you have issues with them, which you likely will because they are A2 - push VDDG IOD higher
> Push CAD_BUS CmdDrvStrengh far higher, example 40-20-20-24
> And push voltage higher for them
> 
> They are a better bin than 3600CL16 units , but the PCB is not easy on the boards
> Short trace layouts need more impedance and so more voltage
> Also procODT needs to be low for clean signal integrity



Thanks for advice, I'm stable with 1.5V. However I am not satisfied with my AIDA scores, I'd like memory reading close to 60000. Is there something I can do?


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> Thanks for advice, I'm stable with 1.5V. However I am not satisfied with my AIDA scores, I'd like memory reading close to 60000. Is there something I can do?


60000 is only achievable with a 3900X.

A 3600X with tight timings @3800MHz will do around 58000 max. And by tight I mean 14-14-13 kind of stuff which your kit cannot do.


----------



## Alexshunter

rares495 said:


> 60000 is only achievable with a 3900X.
> 
> A 3600X with tight timings @3800MHz will do around 58000 max. And by tight I mean 14-14-13 kind of stuff which your kit cannot do.


To what part should I give extra V, if not willing to start at 3800Mhz with infinity fabrick? Without infinity it starts, so not the RAM is the limit.


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> To what part should I give extra V, if not willing to start at 3800Mhz with infinity fabrick? Without infinity it starts, so not the RAM is the limit.


Try Vsoc 1.1V, VDDG 1.05V, VDDP 0.900V

If that doesn't work then you can probably just give up on 3800.


----------



## AKDragonPC

Anyone know why after importing my xmp profile I'm getting this error when pressing calculate safe?:


----------



## rdr09

AKDragonPC said:


> Anyone know why after importing my xmp profile I'm getting this error when pressing calculate safe?:


Try setting DRAM PCB to A0 mode.

EDIT: I did not use import but went straight to Safe.


----------



## AKDragonPC

rdr09 said:


> Try setting DRAM PCB to A0 mode.
> 
> EDIT: I did not use import but went straight to Safe.


Yeah that works but does that not ignore the imported XMP profile?


----------



## rares495

AKDragonPC said:


> Yeah that works but does that not ignore the imported XMP profile?


PCB Revision only works for Samsung B-die kits at the moment. Yours is Hynix CJR.


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> Not bad for 1.4v on the DRAM, I don't think? Thought I'd have to increase it, but seems OK.
> 
> Calc gave me 12 on tWR, but that errored in minutes, but increasing that to 14 seems to have done the trick.
> 
> Might try for 14-14-14-14, but I'm not overly confident.


I followed the with those timing here.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/9.html

Have not tested it but looks like it helped. Still getting errors might need a bit more juice. Got it at 1.38v atm.


----------



## yrelbirb

RaXelliX said:


> No luck on Hynix JJR. Selecting CJR/DJR profile still gives WAY too agressive timings. People say JJR is better. From what im seeing it's worse than CJR.
> For example on 3733 Fast preset it suggests tRCDWR as 16. That is lower than on stock 3200 XMP settings. Very unrealistic. Then it suggests tRCRD as 19 despite BGS being enabled. What's the point in suggesting 19 if BGS is going to switch to 20 anyway? Same for tRP at 21
> 
> My main problem seems to be tRFC tho. The suggested 489 is super agressive. Best i can boot with is 515 and closest that is stable is 525. tRFC (alt) suggested 522 is much more realistic.


same problem on my end, calc gives trcd 19 for geardown enabled, which effectively makes it 20

or its not, dont know

if i set odd number of tCL, like tCL15; i can actually see its becoming 16 (in windows). not the case for tRP or tRCDRD.

maybe its false that tRCDRD is being affected by GDM? is it not possible, no ,idea. whenever i set trcd 19 , it still shows as 19 in windows, opposed to tCL


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> I followed the with those timing here.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/9.html
> 
> Have not tested it but looks like it helped. Still getting errors might need a bit more juice. Got it at 1.38v atm.


Nice, but they seem a bit tighter than what I'm on now, so I might struggle.

I want to limit to 1.4v (1.42v actually, this board seems to over-volt) as I'm water cooled and every intake fan is through a radiator, so air flow inside the case isn't the best and even at 1.4v the RAM reaches 48 to 49C.


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> Nice, but they seem a bit tighter than what I'm on now, so I might struggle.
> 
> I want to limit to 1.4v (1.42v actually, this board seems to over-volt) as I'm water cooled and every intake fan is through a radiator, so air flow inside the case isn't the best and even at 1.4v the RAM reaches 48 to 49C.


No go. Had to lower speed to 3400 at 1.39v. Same issue with temp here. This FlareX's heat sink isn't the best or the pad that was used. Maybe a fan will help. More test to come but meanwhile - it's time to game.


----------



## RaXelliX

Some results using 4x8GB Hynix JJR with 3800X on X570 Aorus Master. The timings are actually from older 1.6.x release as the new one gives some strabge recommendations that error out almost instantly in memtest.
Still quite happy with the current latency results.


----------



## SpecChum

RaXelliX said:


> Some results using 4x8GB Hynix JJR with 3800X on X570 Aorus Master. The timings are actually from older 1.6.x release as the new one gives some strabge recommendations that error out almost instantly in memtest.
> Still quite happy with the current latency results.


Nice. Might be worth dropping back to 3600 and see if you can tighten the timings a little.

At 3466 my read speed is 54514 and latency is 67.5ns, so it might reap a bit of reward for you too?

I am only SR b-die tho, but I fear those timings at 3733 might be holding you back a little.

Edit: sorry meant 3600 RAM for an 1800 fclk - had my 3466 on the mind when I typed


----------



## LicSqualo

Nice results SpecChum!
Similar to mine.


----------



## KedarWolf

RaXelliX said:


> Some results using 4x8GB Hynix JJR with 3800X on X570 Aorus Master. The timings are actually from older 1.6.x release as the new one gives some strabge recommendations that error out almost instantly in memtest.
> Still quite happy with the current latency results.


Here is mine.


----------



## SpecChum

LicSqualo said:


> Nice results SpecChum!
> Similar to mine.


Very nice - I got a bit lucky to be fair, all those values, bar 1 which I changed, are straight from this calc, so it was almost "plug and play", and at 1.4 VDIMM too, so I'm quite happy.

I gave up on 4GHz a long time ago, my 1700 does it, and it's error free, but going from 3.9GHz to 4.0Ghz needed an extra 0.15v (1.319 vs 1.468), so just wasn't worth it. EDIT, wait no, that's wrong, 1.468 was the BIOS voltage ( I don't use LLC ) so actual SVI2 would have been 1.41 ish)

I settled on 3.8GHz in the end, so I was well under 1.3 for daily use.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Here is mine.


Manual OC for Aida?


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Manual OC for Aida?


CCX overclock on CPU, GDM disabled on memory.

44.50/44.25/43.75/43.25GHz on CPU.


----------



## LicSqualo

SpecChum said:


> Very nice - I got a bit lucky to be fair, all those values, bar 1 which I changed, are straight from this calc, so it was almost "plug and play", and at 1.4 VDIMM too, so I'm quite happy.
> 
> I gave up on 4GHz a long time ago, my 1700 does it, and it's error free, but going from 3.9GHz to 4.0Ghz needed an extra 0.15v (1.319 vs 1.468), so just wasn't worth it. EDIT, wait no, that's wrong, 1.468 was the BIOS voltage ( I don't use LLC ) so actual SVI2 would have been 1.41 ish)
> 
> I settled on 3.8GHz in the end, so I was well under 1.3 for daily use.


I've mine 1700 set at 1,40V with pstate (drop to 1,36 during stress test like IBT AVX version) for 4040MHz during summer (like now) with LLC at level3, I love the 101 base clock. Is the third year now. In winter I can run easily 4090 MHz at 1,412 happily. 4140MHz want 1,425V and I'm not so happy with this voltage. I've a alphacool 480UT60 in push/pull configuration out of my window  so hot air isn't a issue for me (and the window is north oriented, no sun so far).


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> CCX overclock on CPU, GDM disabled on memory.
> 
> 44.50/44.25/43.75/43.25GHz on CPU.


Not bad. 62.2 is very respectable.

You'd do well to test with TM5 1usmus v3 20 cycles. It's better than the others.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Not bad. 62.2 is very respectable.
> 
> You'd do well to test with TM5 1usmus v3 20 cycles. It's better than the others.


I passed 1usmus_v3 20 cycles last night. Also passed anta777 Extreme1 as well in TM5.

Edit: My BIOS settings in Spoiler if it helps anyone. :h34r-smi



Spoiler


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> I passed 1usmus_v3 20 cycles last night. Also passed anta777 Extreme1 as well in TM5.


Great! I'm trying to pass 20 cycles without errors myself.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Great! I'm trying to pass 20 cycles without errors myself.


Posted my BIOS settings above, might help you. 

Edit: Don't try the Offsets on voltages, likely won't work right for you, try manual at the voltages to the right of the Offsets.


----------



## Awsan

So any tips on what should I start with?


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> So any tips on what should I start with?


tRP is rather high. Should probably be around 17-18 but this is DJR so perhaps can't go that low.

tWRRD could maybe go down to 1.

tRFC should go down a bit towards 420-430-440.


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> tRP is rather high. Should probably be around 17-18 but this is DJR so perhaps can't go that low.
> 
> tWRRD could maybe go down to 1.
> 
> tRFC should go down a bit towards 420-430-440.


I think tRFC will be the tricky one but will give it a go, was thinking if I disable GDM first and see if it will boot and then trying another settings.

What do you think?


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> I think tRFC will be the tricky one but will give it a go, was thinking if I disable GDM first and see if it will boot and then trying another settings.
> 
> What do you think?


Looks pretty disabled to me looking at Zen Timings.


----------



## SpecChum

rares495 said:


> Looks pretty disabled to me looking at Zen Timings.


 lol


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> Looks pretty disabled to me looking at Zen Timings.





SpecChum said:


> lol


I was pretty sure it was on before leaving the BIOS , oh well its pretty stable I guess


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> I was pretty sure it was on before leaving the BIOS , oh well its pretty stable I guess


Nothing's stable until you've passed TM5 1usmus v3 20 cycles without a single error.


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> Nothing's stable until you've passed TM5 1usmus v3 20 cycles without a single error.


boot stable  , but yea will see how it goes from here


----------



## Illined

Where can I find MT5 with the V3 test?


----------



## rares495

Here. Just run it as Administrator and watch it go.


----------



## paih85

headache to get free error with 20 cycle TM5 1usmus v3. below my test summary @3600c14 & 3600c15.

tm5 1usmus (20 cycle):

1. GDM ON + 1T = no error
2. GDM OFF + 2T = no error
3. GDM OFF + 1T = random single error @ 16th/17th/19th cycle.

karhu

1. all stable no error up to 6000%


----------



## SpecChum

paih85 said:


> headache to get free error with 20 cycle TM5 1usmus v3.
> 
> 3. GDM OFF + 1T = random single error @ 16th/17th/19th cycle.


I hear that, I'd rather it errored in seconds, save much time 



paih85 said:


> 1. all stable no error up to 6000%


Hence why the guru's here recommend TM5


----------



## rares495

paih85 said:


> headache to get free error with 20 cycle TM5 1usmus v3. below my test summary @3600c14 & 3600c15.
> 
> tm5 1usmus (20 cycle):
> 
> 1. GDM ON + 1T = no error
> 2. GDM OFF + 2T = no error
> 3. GDM OFF + 1T = random single error @ 16th/17th/19th cycle.
> 
> karhu
> 
> 1. all stable no error up to 6000%


Single error is probably voltage related.


----------



## Samuris

Hi guys, the new ryzen dram calculator version can't calculate over 3800mhz ? i'm actually running ddr4 at 4000mhz stable with timing of the 1.7.0 version.


----------



## rares495

Samuris said:


> Hi guys, the new ryzen dram calculator version can't calculate over 3800mhz ? i'm actually running ddr4 at 4000mhz stable with timing of the 1.7.0 version.


Frequency over 3800/3866 is not recommended because you lose the 1:1 ratio with the FCLK and the result is worse performance due to higher latency.


----------



## Alexshunter

Is the Extreme button should not be left with the previous version’s timings?


----------



## SpecChum

Well, didn't see that coming - it boots with 3533, not stable - insta-reboot when starting memtest, but it booted and I could use Windows.

I like my little 1700, it's got heart, bless it


----------



## rdr09

rares495 said:


> Here. Just run it as Administrator and watch it go.


Noob? How do you make it run up to 20 cycles?


----------



## opethdisciple

I got a question about FCLK.


Without any voltage tweaks I can go as high as 1800MHz with my 3700x on the FCLK.


If I want to go higher do you think I will have much luck applying voltages to VDDG etc which the dram calc gives me for higher FCLKs?


Are people who are running an FCLK higher than 1800MHz able to do so at stock or are you applying voltage to achieve this?


----------



## RaXelliX

opethdisciple said:


> I got a question about FCLK.
> 
> 
> Without any voltage tweaks I can go as high as 1800MHz with my 3700x on the FCLK.
> 
> 
> If I want to go higher do you think I will have much luck applying voltages to VDDG etc which the dram calc gives me for higher FCLKs?
> 
> 
> Are people who are running an FCLK higher than 1800MHz able to do so at stock or are you applying voltage to achieve this?


1867Mhz here with 3800X. Adding more voltage does not get me 1900Mhz so im guessing if you can get 1800Mhz at stock that's your CPU's limit.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> Not bad. 62.2 is very respectable.
> 
> You'd do well to test with TM5 1usmus v3 20 cycles. It's better than the others.


----------



## MyUsername

opethdisciple said:


> I got a question about FCLK.
> 
> 
> Without any voltage tweaks I can go as high as 1800MHz with my 3700x on the FCLK.
> 
> 
> If I want to go higher do you think I will have much luck applying voltages to VDDG etc which the dram calc gives me for higher FCLKs?
> 
> 
> Are people who are running an FCLK higher than 1800MHz able to do so at stock or are you applying voltage to achieve this?


Your cpu should do 1800MHz FCLK without touching anything. The soc voltage may automatically get a bumped to 1.1v, vddp and vddg can stay at default. Even at 1900MHz FCLK you might not have to increase voltages.

What I found is raising vddg too high can make it unstable and causes other problems which leads you away from whats causing the problem. Myself vddp/vddg 900/1000 soc at 1.1v, 1.094v in Windows for 1900 FCLK.


----------



## 2600ryzen

paih85 said:


> headache to get free error with 20 cycle TM5 1usmus v3. below my test summary @3600c14 & 3600c15.
> 
> tm5 1usmus (20 cycle):
> 
> 1. GDM ON + 1T = no error
> 2. GDM OFF + 2T = no error
> 3. GDM OFF + 1T = random single error @ 16th/17th/19th cycle.
> 
> karhu
> 
> 1. all stable no error up to 6000%



single error can be a sync issue between Trtp/Twr/Trfc.


----------



## rares495

rdr09 said:


> Noob? How do you make it run up to 20 cycles?


You just use the config file from my zip. Or extract the zip in a different location.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> You just use the config file from my zip. Or extract the zip in a different location.


I had to delete the Cfg.link from your .zip to get it to work right and on test 9 it never did anything, all my memory was available, I don't know why. Not sure what happened after that, I quit. 

That's why I posted a version with just the Cycles set to 20 and no CFG.link included so it makes it's own when you start it. 

Edit: Here it is again.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> I had to delete the Cfg.link from your .zip to get it to work right and on test 9 it never did anything, all my memory was available, I don't know why. Not sure what happened after that, I quit.
> 
> That's why I posted a version with just the Cycles set to 20 and no CFG.link included so it makes it's own when you start it.
> 
> Edit: Here it is again.


Well, it must be because of my 16GB vs your 32GB. I don't know.


----------



## rdr09

rares495 said:


> You just use the config file from my zip. Or extract the zip in a different location.





KedarWolf said:


> I had to delete the Cfg.link from your .zip to get it to work right and on test 9 it never did anything, all my memory was available, I don't know why. Not sure what happened after that, I quit.
> 
> That's why I posted a version with just the Cycles set to 20 and no CFG.link included so it makes it's own when you start it.
> 
> Edit: Here it is again.


Thank you both.


----------



## rares495

rdr09 said:


> Thank you both.



You're welcome.


----------



## Bartholdi

Great thread, thanks contributors.

Anyone measured thermal impact of applying the tightned timings? (Thinking whole-system-wise)


----------



## Molitro

Well I think this is the right balance between voltage and performance for my system. At 1.05v SoC it kinda seems 3666 is as far as my 3800X wants to go, although with the high temperatures of last week I decided to go to a 4.2GHz manual setup in order to bring temps down (a good 5-6º, by the way), and it seems like the system is more stable than on auto, since I had been having trouble to get 3666 properly stable for the last month, always going back to 3600.

Don't know if it'd be worth it to try to get any timings lower than this, seems like a good latency result for 3666, very comfortable 1.39v on the memory, and everything finally feels rock solid stable (it's happened to me before that I'd pass a 20 cycle TM5 test to then find the SoC wasn't stable with a blue screen or straight up reboot playing a game for example).


----------



## rares495

Molitro said:


> Well I think this is the right balance between voltage and performance for my system. At 1.05v SoC it kinda seems 3666 is as far as my 3800X wants to go, although with the high temperatures of last week I decided to go to a 4.2GHz manual setup in order to bring temps down (a good 5-6º, by the way), and it seems like the system is more stable than on auto, since I had been having trouble to get 3666 properly stable for the last month, always going back to 3600.
> 
> Don't know if it'd be worth it to try to get any timings lower than this, seems like a good latency result for 3666, very comfortable 1.39v on the memory, and everything finally feels rock solid stable (it's happened to me before that I'd pass a 20 cycle TM5 test to then find the SoC wasn't stable with a blue screen or straight up reboot playing a game for example).


You could try to increase VDDG up to 1.05V with 1.1V soc and 0.900V VDDP in order to push for higher FCLK. 3800Xs are some of the better binned chips and should do at least 1866 FCLK no problem.


----------



## rdr09

Got 20. Wish the timing is a bit more tighter.


----------



## 2600ryzen

I needed to run 1.15v SOC to get 3733mhz to start/boot reliably, with VDDG/VDDP running -50/-75mv offset. The VDDG/VDDP offset didn't really seem to help only increasing SOC voltage did, strangely when 1.05vSOC did boot it was perfectly stable.


----------



## rares495

rdr09 said:


> Got 20. Wish the timing is a bit more tighter.


Hey, that's not bad at all for a 2700! Congrats!

Could you please post a screenshot of Ryzen Timing Checker?


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> I needed to run 1.15v SOC to get 3733mhz to start/boot reliably, with VDDG/VDDP running -50/-75mv offset. The VDDG/VDDP offset didn't really seem to help only increasing SOC voltage did, strangely when 1.05vSOC did boot it was perfectly stable.


Yes, there are a few things one can try but the theory is that Vsoc over 1.1V has negative effects on memory. But hey, if that worked for you then great!


----------



## rdr09

rares495 said:


> Hey, that's not bad at all for a 2700! Congrats!


Thank you. I can oc the 2700 higher but currently using the stock cooler. BTW, had to lower the DRAM voltage from 1.41 to 1.4v to get rid of errors the first time.


----------



## rares495

rdr09 said:


> Thank you. I can oc the 2700 higher but currently using the stock cooler. BTW, had to lower the DRAM voltage from 1.41 to 1.4v to get rid of errors the first time.


That's weird.

Screenshot of Ryzen Timing Checker please?


----------



## rdr09

rares495 said:


> That's weird.
> 
> Screenshot of Ryzen Timing Checker please?


I know. Read some in the past of a member who did just that.


----------



## rares495

rdr09 said:


> I know. Read some in the past of a member who did just that.


Yeah, those timings are very respectable. Might "borrow" them to try at 3733/3800. My goal at the moment is passing 20 cycles without any errors.


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> I know. Read some in the past of a member who did just that.


Hey, your timings are almost identical to mine 

I had to increase tWR to 14 to resolve an almost immediate TM5 error, and my tRFC is very slightly lower at 277, but apart from that, we're identical I think 

I'm on 1.4v too, although this C6H does seem to overvolt a little, so it shows 1.42v on HWiNFO.


----------



## 1usmus

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.2 Now Available*

*DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.2 Now Available*

* Support OC assist for Micron E-die (A2) and CJR/DJR (A0 and A2) 
* Some correction for OC assist (Samsung B-die) 
* Additional presets for Hynix CJR / DJR (now A0 and A2) 
* Error fix : "Parse data" 
* Minor fix : voltage for Samsung B-die 
* Minor fix : some timings for Micron E-die 
* Minor fix : tWRRD for 4 DIMM configuration 
* Other bug fixes

*Download:*
Techpowerup link
Guru3d link
WCCFTECH link
Сomputerbase.de link
Techspot link


----------



## rares495

1usmus said:


> *DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.2 Now Available*
> 
> * Support OC assist for Micron E-die (A2) and CJR/DJR (A0 and A2)
> * Some correction for OC assist (Samsung B-die)
> * Additional presets for Hynix CJR / DJR (now A0 and A2)
> * Error fix : "Parse data"
> * Minor fix : voltage for Samsung B-die
> * Minor fix : some timings for Micron E-die
> * Minor fix : tWRRD for 4 DIMM configuration
> * Other bug fixes


Woah, that was fast! Thanks!


----------



## rdr09

rares495 said:


> Yeah, those timings are very respectable. Might "borrow" them to try at 3733/3800. My goal at the moment is passing 20 cycles without any errors.


Hope it helps.



SpecChum said:


> Hey, your timings are almost identical to mine
> 
> I had to increase tWR to 14 to resolve an almost immediate TM5 error, and my tRFC is very slightly lower at 277, but apart from that, we're identical I think
> 
> I'm on 1.4v too, although this C6H does seem to overvolt a little, so it shows 1.42v on HWiNFO.



Almost. Might as well apply some of the values. Like your SOC might need a tiny bump.


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> Like your SOC might need a tiny bump.


Maybe yeah, tWR at 14 seems fine, passes TM5 and no issues since I set it up.

It's actually 1.075v in BIOS, but I have LLC on auto, which is off, so it drops a little as per the value in my screenshot, so it might be worth me trying SoC LLC, I don't use it on CPU tho.


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> Maybe yeah, tWR at 14 seems fine, passes TM5 and no issues since I set it up.
> 
> It's actually 1.075v in BIOS, but I have LLC on auto, which is off, so it drops a little as per the value in my screenshot, so it might be worth me trying SoC LLC, I don't use it on CPU tho.


My SOC is set to offset (-) 0.01 (0.0125 or something in BIOS). All LLC are in Auto except for the CPU voltage. Oh, nvm, you got 20. Just lv it as is. Congrats!

Check this out.

https://abload.de/img/1jdz5x.png






Thanks @1usmus.


----------



## Molitro

rares495 said:


> You could try to increase VDDG up to 1.05V with 1.1V soc and 0.900V VDDP in order to push for higher FCLK. 3800Xs are some of the better binned chips and should do at least 1866 FCLK no problem.


Oh mine is able to do 1900 if I push the the SoC to around 1.13/15vc or thereabouts, it's just that I want a nice balance with lowish RAM and general system voltage. I don't need the most performance I can get after all, and the system starts to get finicky at those clocks, although of course that's a matter of fine tuning the voltages I'm sure.

I was talking more in terms of secondary and terciary timings, but I think that's about as far as my RAM will go without asking for significantly more voltage or starting to misbehave. tcke for example doens't seem to like to be at 1, things like that.


----------



## eliwankenobi

rares495 said:


> So I tred the fast preset for my kit in hopes to reduce the daily 1.52V I've been using and finally being able to pass 20 cycles of TM5.
> 
> Unfortunately there was no way to use these timings with 1.41, 1.42 or 1.45V like the calc recommended. Eh, 1.45V could boot but needed 53 ohm procODT which is quite high and was not stable; needed some weird cad_bus values that I couldn't find, so I went straight to 1.5V and 36,9 ohm procODT. Left TM5 running over night and managed to pass 20 cycles but got some errors. This is a huge improvement over my very tight timings w/ 1.52V which couldn't even make it to cycle 4.
> 
> I'm happy to finally see procODT and cad_bus actually do something. They were useless to me before.



From what I have seen before, Everyone running tCL14 timings at 3800mhz with B-Die has to use 1.5v. At that voltage though, you better have a fan blowing air to those DIMMs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rares495

eliwankenobi said:


> From what I have seen before, Everyone running tCL14 timings at 3800mhz with B-Die has to use 1.5v. At that voltage though, you better have a fan blowing air to those DIMMs
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yeah, I'm trying to to better understand what's going on before I decide what to use as daily. It's all very confusing so far with mixed results.


----------



## rastaviper

Alexshunter said:


> Thanks for advice, I'm stable with 1.5V. However I am not satisfied with my AIDA scores, I'd like memory reading close to 60000. Is there something I can do?


At exactlt same CPU freq I have similar numbers, so NO 60k is way too far for our CPU. Maybe if u manage to OC it at 4.6Ghz 

But what u can do is push for lower freq.
Mine is around 62.5ns, so u should be able to reach a similar number.


----------



## rastaviper

Also, no way to even boot at 3800 with my Bdies and these recommended settings.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Streetdragon

rastaviper said:


> Also, no way to even boot at 3800 with my Bdies and these recommended settings.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Thats because this tool is garbage 

Just a database that shows some results from other users ramsettings. It "Calculats" nothing

for settings like 3200 or even 3600 ok. ut everything higher need work/finetuning from the user


----------



## 2600ryzen

Not every chip can do 1900mhz fclk, at least not at reasonable voltages.


----------



## eliwankenobi

rastaviper said:


> Also, no way to even boot at 3800 with my Bdies and these recommended settings.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Those are not bad values, IME I've been able to do boot with those timings and then go tighter a bit. Probably the IF can't do 1900?


----------



## eliwankenobi

ok, unrelated but also related because it is on the DRC software. What is this FreezKiller thing? Does it work? Where can I get more info on it?


----------



## athkatla

Vdimm 1.40 in bios, 1.428 in hwinfo
Bdie A0 Fast settings, I'll try A2 fast preset later.









Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## rastaviper

eliwankenobi said:


> Those are not bad values, IME I've been able to do boot with those timings and then go tighter a bit. Probably the IF can't do 1900?


It can do 3733 at 15-14-13

Why it's not possible for 3800 16-17-17?
Even at 1.5v Dram voltage..


----------



## MyUsername

eliwankenobi said:


> ok, unrelated but also related because it is on the DRC software. What is this FreezKiller thing? Does it work? Where can I get more info on it?


What this thing is supposed to do is clear "standby memory". Now they reckon by clearing this part of the memory cache helps with stuttering and other anomaly's. I've preferred not to use these software's to help performance. 

Quote from windowsreport

Standby memory

Standby Memory is a special type of random-access memory (RAM) management on Windows 10 that often causes the computer to slow down, especially 64bit versions. This is often due to bugs affecting the operating system. Programs and services running on Windows 10 use part of the RAM as cache.


----------



## eliwankenobi

*NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen[emoji769] 1.7.2 (overclocking DRAM on AM4) + MEMbench 0.8 (DRAM bench)*



rastaviper said:


> It can do 3733 at 15-14-13
> 
> Why it's not possible for 3800 16-17-17?
> Even at 1.5v Dram voltage..



I mean that perhaps your CPU cannot boot with infinity fabric running at 1900mhz with Memory at 3800mhz. 

Not all Ryzen 3000 CPUs can. I know people with 3900x that can’t boot with 3800mhz memory and 1900mhz IF either. They are stuck at 3733 mhz which is still very good.


----------



## MyUsername

eliwankenobi said:


> I mean that perhaps your CPU cannot boot with infinity fabric running at 1900mhz with Memory at 3800mhz.
> 
> Not all Ryzen 3000 CPUs can. I know people with 3900x that can’t boot with 3800mhz memory and 1900mhz IF either. They are stuck at 3733 mhz which is still very good.


I thought I was the same a couple of weeks ago, pushing 1.15v in to the soc high vddg 1100-1150, couldn't make sense of vddp working then change something minor and vddp causing memory training errors, proodt not working at any value. But 100% stable at 3733.

Then something sprinkled fairly dust on my pc and this worked, I scared to even touch the bios in case I break it LOL

DRAM calculator is not working for me


----------



## eliwankenobi

Wait 1.7.2 already? New revision after a weekend?


----------



## rares495

Streetdragon said:


> Thats because this tool is garbage
> 
> Just a database that shows some results from other users ramsettings. It "Calculats" nothing
> 
> for settings like 3200 or even 3600 ok. ut everything higher need work/finetuning from the user


You're garbage. This tool is great for beginners.


----------



## MyUsername

eliwankenobi said:


> Wait 1.7.2 already? New revision after a weekend?


Same values as 1.7.1


----------



## rares495

rastaviper said:


> Also, no way to even boot at 3800 with my Bdies and these recommended settings.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Those are general timings for 3800 B-die. You need to import the .html file from thaiphoon burner for the tool to give you specific timings for your kit.


----------



## athkatla

eliwankenobi said:


> Wait 1.7.2 already? New revision after a weekend?


1.7.3 will released on Wednesday
Bug fixes and additional profiles for micron e-die

Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## masteratarms

I have run that 20 pass TM5 program + memtest86 test 7 + Ryzen dram calculator's stability test @ 3800MT/s. I've played some games but not run any CPU stress tests. I have followed Buildzoid's PBO settings + I undervolted with a negative dynamic offset of 0.066v (on a recommendation not through testing).

The thing that is bugging me is that after I did a freefilesync transfer of about a 1TB of games files the program disappeared just as it was coming to the result window. I compared the directories with freefilesync and there were no differences. Also I think an explorer window disappeared too on opening it while I was running 20 pass TM5. 

I want to get 3800 rock solid before I switch to my Patriot Viper Steel 4 x 8GB. I'm using settings for 3666MT/s safe @ 3800MT/s from Ryzen DRAM calculator 1.7.0. 

Although I have 1.42v on DRAM voltage I have only got 1.075 on SoC voltage (from my screenshots its +0.012 dynamic offset) which differs from what the calculator says @ 1.1v. I have SoC locked to max speed otherwise I get 3 second lags. I do have 1025mV on VDDG CCD & VDDG IOC as per DRAM calculator.

So I think I narrowed it down to either the vcore offset which I never tested and not done any CPU stability tests, and the slightly conservative setting for SoC voltage.

Here is my screenshot log + my specs:
https://imgur.com/a/2uxhgym


----------



## rares495

masteratarms said:


> I have run that 20 pass TM5 program + memtest86 test 7 + Ryzen dram calculator's stability test @ 3800MT/s. I've played some games but not run any CPU stress tests. I have followed Buildzoid's PBO settings + I undervolted with a negative dynamic offset of 0.066v (on a recommendation not through testing).
> 
> The thing that is bugging me is that after I did a freefilesync transfer of about a 1TB of games files the program disappeared just as it was coming to the result window. I compared the directories with freefilesync and there were no differences. Also I think an explorer window disappeared too on opening it while I was running 20 pass TM5.
> 
> I want to get 3800 rock solid before I switch to my Patriot Viper Steel 4 x 8GB. I'm using settings for 3666MT/s safe @ 3800MT/s from Ryzen DRAM calculator 1.7.0.
> 
> Although I have 1.42v on DRAM voltage I have only got 1.075 on SoC voltage (from my screenshots its +0.012 dynamic offset) which differs from what the calculator says @ 1.1v. I have SoC locked to max speed otherwise I get 3 second lags. I do have 1025mV on VDDG CCD & VDDG IOC as per DRAM calculator.
> 
> So I think I narrowed it down to either the vcore offset which I never tested and not done any CPU stability tests, and the slightly conservative setting for SoC voltage.
> 
> Here is my screenshot log + my specs:
> https://imgur.com/a/2uxhgym


4x8 is a bad idea.


----------



## Nighthog

masteratarms said:


> I have run that 20 pass TM5 program + memtest86 test 7 + Ryzen dram calculator's stability test @ 3800MT/s. I've played some games but not run any CPU stress tests. I have followed Buildzoid's PBO settings + I undervolted with a negative dynamic offset of 0.066v (on a recommendation not through testing).
> 
> The thing that is bugging me is that after I did a freefilesync transfer of about a 1TB of games files the program disappeared just as it was coming to the result window. I compared the directories with freefilesync and there were no differences. Also I think an explorer window disappeared too on opening it while I was running 20 pass TM5.
> 
> I want to get 3800 rock solid before I switch to my Patriot Viper Steel 4 x 8GB. I'm using settings for 3666MT/s safe @ 3800MT/s from Ryzen DRAM calculator 1.7.0.
> 
> Although I have 1.42v on DRAM voltage I have only got 1.075 on SoC voltage (from my screenshots its +0.012 dynamic offset) which differs from what the calculator says @ 1.1v. I have SoC locked to max speed otherwise I get 3 second lags. I do have 1025mV on VDDG CCD & VDDG IOC as per DRAM calculator.
> 
> So I think I narrowed it down to either the vcore offset which I never tested and not done any CPU stability tests, and the slightly conservative setting for SoC voltage.
> 
> Here is my screenshot log + my specs:
> https://imgur.com/a/2uxhgym


VDDG CCD can have issues with 1900FCLK above 1000mv. I recommend you keep it in the 900-1000mv range. 1025mv is problematic for myself, causes issues. Below 900mv you might get problems with AVX loads as it's too little voltage for those but be fine otherwise.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I’ve never had any luck hitting 1900fclk on my 3600x with any RAM kit that I’ve owned so far. I might go for another CPU in a few weeks but for now I’ve gotten 3600mhz and 3666mhz dialed in in 2T with no TM5v3 errors, I tried a few settings for 3600 and 3666 from the calculator 1.7.0 and 1.7.1 over the weekend and just got bsod after posting trying to load into Windows. If I enter all the numbers from the calculator and only change 1T to 2T everything seems to work fine in my case 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yrelbirb

How can i contribute to the program's micron b-die preset?

my samples are doing 3200 cl14 trcd 20 trcdwr 14 trp 14 tras 34 and so on

these vengeance lpx 3.31 kits are being sold alot in turkey, and almost %90 of them turns out to be micron b-die d9tbh

almost all of them shows the same behaviour, no boot beneath trcd 20, even if it boots with some tweaks, it quickly errors out in programs or memtests 

maybe a preset with relaxed tRCD and tightened tCL could help micron b-die presets in the dram calculator

so far i tried my settings on 4 of my friends who bought this kit, all of them passed 1usmusv3 20 cycles so thats my take on the subject

i also helped 3 people on various locations (2 reddit, 1 youtube) with same kits. they had troubles with tool, i told them to relax the tRCD to 19-20, and all of them thanked me and they sait their overclock suddenly became succesful

i think the micron b-die preset the tool gives is for a quality bin or something, no idealar honestly

its just that, almost all the micron b dies i come accross doesnt like trcd below 20

but tool insists on giving tRCD 17 even for 3200 mhz which means auto fail for lots of micron b die friends out there


----------



## rares495

I think some memory is better to be burned/buried/used on shintel. Normally I'd say everything other than Samsung B-die but Micron Rev. E kits are so much fun as well.


----------



## Dollar

*



Version 1.7.2 change-log

Click to expand...

*


> Support OC assist for Micron E-die (A2) and CJR/DJR (A0 and A2)
> Some correction for OC assist (Samsung B-die)
> Additional presets for Hynix CJR / DJR (now A0 and A2)
> Error fix: "Parse data"
> Minor fix: voltage for Samsung B-die
> Minor fix: some timings for Micron E-die
> Minor fix: tWRRD for 4 DIMM configuration
> Other bug fixes



I can't seem to find any of the changes for B-die mentioned in this change log for 1.7.2 compared to 1.7.1


@*1usmus* Are the termination values of RTT_NOM = 7, RTT_WR = OFF, RTT_PARK= 5 with four dimms a mistake or intended? I got a bluescreen after testing and this seemed to be the culprit. Going back to the old 7/3/1 and I was stable again.


Thanks for the hard work btw


----------



## rastaviper

rares495 said:


> Those are general timings for 3800 B-die. You need to import the .html file from thaiphoon burner for the tool to give you specific timings for your kit.


Don't u see the ns loaded on the program?
I have been for many months around this forum to know how to use this program u know.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## rares495

rastaviper said:


> Don't u see the ns loaded on the program?
> I have been for many months around this forum to know how to use this program u know.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Sorry. Didn't see the kit's part nr. in the top right corner so I thought you didn't.


----------



## Dash8Q4

So I settled on the Asus TUF X570 because of future opportunity to upgrade to 4000 series CPU. Now yesterday I was trying to overclock to 3600C14 and it wouldn't even post. I realized that the timings were different this time around because I had used the import function of the calculator. Whereas by making manual selections to the left pane and then the R-XMP button, the timings were a little more loose and these were the timings I was able to overclock even to 3800Mhz initially. Now I'm curious as to why this is happening if the import function should be more accurate? I'd love someone with more expertise to chime in on this.
More to come...
Thank you to the devs for their awesome work.


----------



## 2600ryzen

yrelbirb said:


> How can i contribute to the program's micron b-die preset?
> 
> my samples are doing 3200 cl14 trcd 20 trcdwr 14 trp 14 tras 34 and so on
> 
> these vengeance lpx 3.31 kits are being sold alot in turkey, and almost %90 of them turns out to be micron b-die d9tbh
> 
> almost all of them shows the same behaviour, no boot beneath trcd 20, even if it boots with some tweaks, it quickly errors out in programs or memtests
> 
> maybe a preset with relaxed tRCD and tightened tCL could help micron b-die presets in the dram calculator
> 
> so far i tried my settings on 4 of my friends who bought this kit, all of them passed 1usmusv3 20 cycles so thats my take on the subject
> 
> i also helped 3 people on various locations (2 reddit, 1 youtube) with same kits. they had troubles with tool, i told them to relax the tRCD to 19-20, and all of them thanked me and they sait their overclock suddenly became succesful
> 
> i think the micron b-die preset the tool gives is for a quality bin or something, no idealar honestly
> 
> its just that, almost all the micron b dies i come accross doesnt like trcd below 20
> 
> but tool insists on giving tRCD 17 even for 3200 mhz which means auto fail for lots of micron b die friends out there



Do any of your friends have a zen2 cpu? Were they sold as [email protected]? trcd of 20 seems really high for 3200mhz maybe that's just on zen+?


----------



## ryouiki

Dollar said:


> I can't seem to find any of the changes for B-die mentioned in this change log for 1.7.2 compared to 1.7.1
> 
> 
> @*1usmus* Are the termination values of RTT_NOM = 7, RTT_WR = OFF, RTT_PARK= 5 with four dimms a mistake or intended? I got a bluescreen after testing and this seemed to be the culprit. Going back to the old 7/3/1 and I was stable again.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the hard work btw


I tried the new termination values as well, Aorus X570 Master w/ GSkill 3200CL14 @ 3733CL16 did not like this at all... I was under the impression those values might be for TRX40, and X570 should stick to 7/3/1.

Also not seeing any changes for TWRRD w/ 4 sticks between 1.7.1 and 1.7.2?


----------



## Badgerslayer7

Isn’t this ryzen calculator based on the agesa 1.0.0.5 bios which are not really available bar about one or two manufacturers?


----------



## kazama

Hi, not checked calculator since version 1.70, have gskill 3200cl14 trindet z rgb 2x8 (b-die).

The changes from 1.70 are in cad_bus and procodt, im using the Rec values. 
Will improve change the new values? new changes are for more stability?


----------



## sonic2911

I have ss B-die kits, and timing of 1.7.0 is tighter than the new version 1.7.2, stability of 1.7.0 is good too



Spoiler



1.7.0:









1.7.2:









Comparison:


----------



## glnn_23

Dropped from 4x8Gb to 2x8Gb to see what timings I could get 3800Mhz running with.

Vdimm 1.455
Soc 1.05
Vddg ccd .950
Vddg iod .950
Vddp 900


----------



## yrelbirb

2600ryzen said:


> Do any of your friends have a zen2 cpu? Were they sold as [email protected]? trcd of 20 seems really high for 3200mhz maybe that's just on zen+?


hello friend, these kits are being sold as 3000 mhz 16-20-20-38 timings. 3200 14-20-14 thing is my own setup (what is stable for me, %2200 hci memtest + 20 cycle of TM5 1usmusv3 and 24 hours of prime95 blend)

---

yup, there is two ryzen 2 friends. they're actually more lucky or rather, less imc limited 

one with a asus tuf plus b450 and ryzen 3600, managed to hit 3600 mhz cl16-22-22. tRCD @20 didnt boot for him. he uses @1.45v

another is with a 3700x again with my board (gigabyte b450 gaming x), he's a little bit lucky, he bought his kits from brand callled "mushkin", and got "d9tbh". managed to hit 3800 mhz @tRCD 20 at @1.45v. we tried 3200 cl18 with him but weirdly, didnt boot. his rams are 2400T while other samples are usually 2133P.

https://www.technopat.net/sosyal/konu/mushkin-16-gb-2x8-gb-2133mhz-ram-overclock-sonuclari.852141/


---

for me, i managed to hit 3333 cl14 stable @1.41 with some relaxed subtimings. 3400 cl14 is a dream though. 3400 cl16 is manageble @1.45 for me but i did lots of benchmarks and 3200 cl14 was more favorable for me. besides that, i cannot get 3600 mhz to boot with despite what voltage or cad or proocdt i give. either its my luck, or its my IMC constrained. 3533 boots but quickly errors out. i have a 2700x

---

either way, to those who said that they should be burned etc. part of the fun is the struggle. yes, these kits you may see as trash, but i get 68.4 ns latency out of them, from stock 76 ns. and with subtiming tweaks (thanks to veii), i saw an increase about %5-8 in some games. its just that, we're living in a 3rd world country (turkey), and none of the importers are getting samsung b-dies here. yes, that's the harsh truth, sadly. even if they did, it would cost huge money for us, like, real huge. differences might be smaller in "dollars", but when you convert it with a 7x multiplier (1 dollar being 7 turkish liras ATM), prices goes UP.

there are some kits that I managed to certify that are being "micron e die." and i do my UPMOST best to suggest them to my ryzen friends. but they're a new sensation. about 1 year or so back, i dont remember any micron e-die being so much popular. so everyone here kinda bought whatever cheap 3000 mhz they could find, a.k.a, corsair vengeance lpx 3000 16-20-20-38. it might the most sold kit in turkey actually xd

there are still sadly some people buy cheaper ram over micron e-dies, because price difference can be up to %30-35 again.

--

what i mean by my whole writing is, yup, you'Re right, it might feel wrong to use these rams with ryzen sistems. but you also have to sadly accept with what u got. i m happy with what i got. when i compare identical benchmarks with gamersnexus benchmarks (3200 trident z 3200 14-14-14-14-34), i can actually see i surpass his 2700x results, and got close to this 3600 results, thanks to the tweaks of subtimings and adjustment to 3200 - 14.

i got these kits for very cheap 1.5 years ago, about 50 dollar for two of them. sorry but i cant complain. i'm a bit of broke person and have to chase sales, very cheap prices etc. to make my budget possible for what it is 

i think if it wouldnt be worth it, 1usmus wouldnt touch it in the first place. if the program will be all about micron e die, samsung b die, it might as well not exist because there is maybe thousands of thousands presets you can try out for these kits. i just think that real fun lies behind the mystery of these kits XD


----------



## ryouiki

So 4x GSkill F4-3200C14-8GFX @3733 on Aorus X750 Master:

1.7.1 and 1.7.2 timings from A0 @ 3733 are pretty much identical to what ended up landed on with many days of manual tuning previously. However the changes to Termination values in .1 and .2 are not usable for me, to get stability I had to revert to RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ1 and 30, 20, 24, 24 CAD_BUS.

I also was getting rare single errors with the new TWRRD recommendation of 3, raising this value back to 4 has passed 14,000% coverage with Karhu.


----------



## rares495

ryouiki said:


> So 4x GSkill F4-3200C14-8GFX @3733 on Aorus X750 Master:
> 
> 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 timings from A0 @ 3733 are pretty much identical to what ended up landed on with many days of manual tuning previously. However the changes to Termination values in .1 and .2 are not usable for me, to get stability I had to revert to RZQ/7, RZQ/3, RZQ1 and 30, 20, 24, 24 CAD_BUS.
> 
> I also was getting rare single errors with the new TWRRD recommendation of 3, raising this value back to 4 has passed 14,000% coverage with Karhu.


Karhu is great but TM5 1usmus v3 is better.


----------



## Awsan

Awsan said:


> So any tips on what should I start with?


After running TM5 for some hours I was greeted with 15 errors + when I run it as an admin I get something like AWE (Don't remember right now as its not showing that error again)

What should I start with? GDM?

EDIT: timings in the quoted post.


----------



## 2600ryzen

yrelbirb said:


> hello friend, these kits are being sold as 3000 mhz 16-20-20-38 timings. 3200 14-20-14 thing is my own setup (what is stable for me, %2200 hci memtest + 20 cycle of TM5 1usmusv3 and 24 hours of prime95 blend)
> 
> ---
> 
> yup, there is two ryzen 2 friends. they're actually more lucky or rather, less imc limited
> 
> one with a asus tuf plus b450 and ryzen 3600, managed to hit 3600 mhz cl16-22-22. tRCD @20 didnt boot for him. he uses @1.45v
> 
> another is with a 3700x again with my board (gigabyte b450 gaming x), he's a little bit lucky, he bought his kits from brand callled "mushkin", and got "d9tbh". managed to hit 3800 mhz @tRCD 20 at @1.45v. we tried 3200 cl18 with him but weirdly, didnt boot. his rams are 2400T while other samples are usually 2133P.
> 
> https://www.technopat.net/sosyal/konu/mushkin-16-gb-2x8-gb-2133mhz-ram-overclock-sonuclari.852141/
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> for me, i managed to hit 3333 cl14 stable @1.41 with some relaxed subtimings. 3400 cl14 is a dream though. 3400 cl16 is manageble @1.45 for me but i did lots of benchmarks and 3200 cl14 was more favorable for me. besides that, i cannot get 3600 mhz to boot with despite what voltage or cad or proocdt i give. either its my luck, or its my IMC constrained. 3533 boots but quickly errors out. i have a 2700x
> 
> ---
> 
> either way, to those who said that they should be burned etc. part of the fun is the struggle. yes, these kits you may see as trash, but i get 68.4 ns latency out of them, from stock 76 ns. and with subtiming tweaks (thanks to veii), i saw an increase about %5-8 in some games. its just that, we're living in a 3rd world country (turkey), and none of the importers are getting samsung b-dies here. yes, that's the harsh truth, sadly. even if they did, it would cost huge money for us, like, real huge. differences might be smaller in "dollars", but when you convert it with a 7x multiplier (1 dollar being 7 turkish liras ATM), prices goes UP.
> 
> there are some kits that I managed to certify that are being "micron e die." and i do my UPMOST best to suggest them to my ryzen friends. but they're a new sensation. about 1 year or so back, i dont remember any micron e-die being so much popular. so everyone here kinda bought whatever cheap 3000 mhz they could find, a.k.a, corsair vengeance lpx 3000 16-20-20-38. it might the most sold kit in turkey actually xd
> 
> there are still sadly some people buy cheaper ram over micron e-dies, because price difference can be up to %30-35 again.
> 
> --
> 
> what i mean by my whole writing is, yup, you'Re right, it might feel wrong to use these rams with ryzen sistems. but you also have to sadly accept with what u got. i m happy with what i got. when i compare identical benchmarks with gamersnexus benchmarks (3200 trident z 3200 14-14-14-14-34), i can actually see i surpass his 2700x results, and got close to this 3600 results, thanks to the tweaks of subtimings and adjustment to 3200 - 14.
> 
> i got these kits for very cheap 1.5 years ago, about 50 dollar for two of them. sorry but i cant complain. i'm a bit of broke person and have to chase sales, very cheap prices etc. to make my budget possible for what it is
> 
> i think if it wouldnt be worth it, 1usmus wouldnt touch it in the first place. if the program will be all about micron e die, samsung b die, it might as well not exist because there is maybe thousands of thousands presets you can try out for these kits. i just think that real fun lies behind the mystery of these kits XD



They sound similar to the Micron a die 32gb kit I have, very cheap. But at least they can do high frequency which is most important I think. I'm running mine at [email protected], I can do [email protected]+ but it's too much voltage to feel comfortable everyday with. I wish mine did low trp like yours though.


----------



## Nikhil g18

Ryzen 3800x 
3800mhz ram cl14 and super tight timings at 1.52v


----------



## rares495

Nikhil g18 said:


> Ryzen 3800x
> 3800mhz ram cl14 and super tight timings at 1.52v



How tight? Post a screenshot of ZenTimings.


----------



## Nikhil g18

Oops forgot to add zen timings


----------



## rares495

Nikhil g18 said:


> Oops forgot to add zen timings



Fantastic. What motherboard is that?


Also, can you post a screenshot of Thaiphoon Burner please?


----------



## ribosome

Is there anything different that needs to be done for T-topology motherboards? I'm running 4 DIMMs.


----------



## Nikhil g18

It's asus prime x470 pro it was a pain to overclock the ram because of no easy CMOS reset and debugging sound and features I will post an image of burner in some time


----------



## Nikhil g18

I still need to try going lower on trcdwr,trp,tras and trc maybe I can go lower and trcdrd is a dead end


----------



## rares495

Nikhil g18 said:


> I still need to try going lower on trcdwr,trp,tras and trc maybe I can go lower and trcdrd is a dead end



Some timings are too low already. I suggest you leave it as is.


By the way, can I ask you to post a screenshot of ryzen master as well? So I can see the voltages and resistance values. Thanks.


----------



## Streetdragon

rares495 said:


> You're garbage. This tool is great for beginners.


You must be so smart xD

3200-3600 is beginner stuff. And for everything above that ITS GARBAGE LIKE YOU 

So dont get personal if you know nothing about OC or this stolen Ramsetting-Collection


----------



## rares495

Streetdragon said:


> You must be so smart xD
> 
> 3200-3600 is beginner stuff. And for everything above that ITS GARBAGE LIKE YOU
> 
> So dont get personal if you know nothing about OC or this stolen Ramsetting-Collection



Post some OC results if you're such a great memory overclocker or just shut the fk up otherwise. The tool is great but as usual there has to be at least one moron who complains about everything.


You must be really smart. "gameing". Yes, yes. :lachen:


----------



## Nikhil g18

rares495 said:


> Nikhil g18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still need to try going lower on trcdwr,trp,tras and trc maybe I can go lower and trcdrd is a dead end
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some timings are too low already. I suggest you leave it as is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, can I ask you to post a screenshot of ryzen master as well? So I can see the voltages and resistance values. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Here is the ryzen master and thaiphoon burner screen shots


----------



## rares495

Nikhil g18 said:


> Here is the ryzen master and thaiphoon burner screen shots



Wait, 1.36V soc voltage? Am I reading that right?


Or is that the other thing which you can set on Asus boards? Hmm...


----------



## Nikhil g18

rares495 said:


> Nikhil g18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the ryzen master and thaiphoon burner screen shots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, 1.36V soc voltage? Am I reading that right?
Click to expand...

It's 1.081 l don't kno why ryzen master is showing that it's even set on auto in bios


----------



## rares495

Oh, ok. You're fine then.


----------



## 2600ryzen

That voltage will kill the SOC if it's real, the hwinfo64 SS indicates that's the cpu vcore and the SOC is 1.1v. But that seems wrong too because VID goes well over 1.4v.


----------



## Nikhil g18

2600ryzen said:


> That voltage will kill the SOC if it's real, the hwinfo64 SS indicates that's the cpu vcore and the SOC is 1.1v. But that seems wrong too because VID goes well over 1.4v.


Can you show me your ryzen master thanks


----------



## 2600ryzen

SOC voltage is wrong on my RM too(I'm running [email protected] fclk), I'm also using an asus board. I think you're really running 1.1v SOC which is fine, the SOC power usage figures are consistent with 1.1v under load(I guess you were running testmem5 in the background when you took the screenshot).


----------



## Nikhil g18

2600ryzen said:


> That voltage will kill the SOC if it's real, the hwinfo64 SS indicates that's the cpu vcore and the SOC is 1.1v. But that seems wrong too because VID goes well over 1.4v.


I have undervolted my cpu by 0.11875 offset


----------



## Nikhil g18

2600ryzen said:


> SOC voltage is wrong on my RM too(I'm running [email protected] fclk), I'm also using an asus board. I think you're really running 1.1v SOC which is fine, the SOC power usage figures are consistent with 1.1v under load(I guess you were running testmem5 in the background when you took the screenshot).


I think I will set SoC manually to be on safer side what value do you recommend


----------



## 2600ryzen

In the ASUS menu in bios just leave it on auto and in the AMD overclocking menu set SOC to 1100mv. Then hwinfo64 and RM will both show the correct voltage. You can also set VDDG/VDDP under the amd overclocking too(VDDG1050 and VDDP 1000) and then the correct values will show in RM, my RM shows VDDG at 1.15v too for some reason when I leave it on auto even though it's not possible to be higher than SOC.


----------



## Cidious

I consider this fairly stable but the 1 error bothers me. I have been playing with the new DRAM Calc preset raising ClkDrv and lowering voltage. Which let me go from 1.40v to 1.37v on 3800CL16 Micron E.


----------



## rdr09

Cidious said:


> I consider this fairly stable but the 1 error bothers me. I have been playing with the new DRAM Calc preset raising ClkDrv and lowering voltage. Which let me go from 1.40v to 1.37v on 3800CL16 Micron E.


KedarWolf in page 740 attached a TM5 set at 20 cycles if you care to run it longer. But i agree, your set is stable at amount of % run. Post 7400.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...ing-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench-740.html


----------



## Cidious

rdr09 said:


> KedarWolf in page 740 attached a TM5 set at 20 cycles if you care to run it longer. But i agree, your set is stable at amount of % run. Post 7400.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...ing-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench-740.html


Aye. Thanks bud. 6400% is considered stable for 16GB. I guess double that for 32GB should be 12800% which I was shy of making but ey. Should be pretty good to go. If I don't get any weird crash to desktop stuff while gaming or reboots or lockups of stuff. I will try the other profile for TestMem overnight also.


----------



## Nikhil g18

2600ryzen said:


> In the ASUS menu in bios just leave it on auto and in the AMD overclocking menu set SOC to 1100mv. Then hwinfo64 and RM will both show the correct voltage. You can also set VDDG/VDDP under the amd overclocking too(VDDG1050 and VDDP 1000) and then the correct values will show in RM, my RM shows VDDG at 1.15v too for some reason when I leave it on auto even though it's not possible to be higher than SOC.


You were right when I set 1.1 in amd overclocking menu it shows 1.1 in ryzen master but in my board and overclcoking menu values are just place holder


----------



## 2600ryzen

Cidious said:


> Aye. Thanks bud. 6400% is considered stable for 16GB. I guess double that for 32GB should be 12800% which I was shy of making but ey. Should be pretty good to go. If I don't get any weird crash to desktop stuff while gaming or reboots or lockups of stuff. I will try the other profile for TestMem overnight also.



Setting Trfc to 560 or 544 would mean Trfc/Trtp/Twr are all synced, that can help rare errors.


----------



## Farih

Seems my Samsung B-die aren't the greatest.

Attached pictures of Dram calculator safe settings (imported) and what I have adjusted in Ryzen Master to make it stable (Ryzen master picture taken while running memtest)


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> Setting Trfc to 560 or 544 would mean Trfc/Trtp/Twr are all synced, that can help rare errors.


I was thinking about this yesterday actually, my tRFC is 277, as per the calc, but my tWR is 14 (was 12, but I got an early error when testing) and my tRTP is 8.

Might be better for me to set tRFC to 280, so they're a clean multiple.

Quick edit: saying that, 277 doesn't divide into 12 either (or the 8 for tRTP for that matter), which was the default amount.


----------



## Nighthog

Running this with my EDC=11 settings.

Micron Rev.E requires lots of voltage to do CL13. Had to tweak tRCDRD to 24 for some stability issues encountered with running 23 for GDM:disabled if doing the EDC bug. Unusually it's OK in GDM:enabled & stock CPU settings but not with EDC=10 tweak had to relax it to remove some issues I was having.


----------



## rares495

Nighthog said:


> Running this with my EDC=11 settings.
> 
> Micron Rev.E requires lots of voltage to do CL13. Had to tweak tRCDRD to 24 for some stability issues encountered with running 23 for GDM:disabled if doing the EDC bug. Unusually it's OK in GDM:enabled & stock CPU settings but not with EDC=10 tweak had to relax it to remove some issues I was having.


Amazing for 4x8.


----------



## 2600ryzen

SpecChum said:


> I was thinking about this yesterday actually, my tRFC is 277, as per the calc, but my tWR is 14 (was 12, but I got an early error when testing) and my tRTP is 8.
> 
> Might be better for me to set tRFC to 280, so they're a clean multiple.
> 
> Quick edit: saying that, 277 doesn't divide into 12 either (or the 8 for tRTP for that matter), which was the default amount.



Yeah 280 would be fine it's barely 1% higher than 277. A clean sync has fixed random single errors for me and a lot of other people.


----------



## Streetdragon

rares495 said:


> Post some OC results if you're such a great memory overclocker or just shut the fk up otherwise. The tool is great but as usual there has to be at least one moron who complains about everything.
> 
> 
> You must be really smart. "gameing". Yes, yes. :lachen:


https://media.discordapp.net/attach...474409091132/unknown.png?width=857&height=917
There you have you tard. NOTHING that this garbage-DB poops out will even boot.
I know that you are a blind fanboy like any blind apple-user.

Pls go home and think about it: Its IMPOSSIBLE to calculate ANYTHING to get ramsettings.
Its false "advertising" to call it Calculator. He/she/it should rename it to "Ramsetting Databse"

But hey: worship it and wonder why the settings wont work. And that you only get personally and cant substantiate this tool says everything about you


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> Yeah 280 would be fine it's barely 1% higher than 277. A clean sync has fixed random single errors for me and a lot of other people.


It seems fine for now, passed TM5 20 cycles when I did it, and I was stressing the system last night with RealBench stress test as I was playing with fan curves, no issues there either.

If anything does happen that'll be the first thing I'll try.


----------



## rares495

Streetdragon said:


> https://media.discordapp.net/attach...474409091132/unknown.png?width=857&height=917
> There you have you tard. NOTHING that this garbage-DB poops out will even boot.
> I know that you are a blind fanboy like any blind apple-user.
> 
> Pls go home and think about it: Its IMPOSSIBLE to calculate ANYTHING to get ramsettings.
> Its false "advertising" to call it Calculator. He/she/it should rename it to "Ramsetting Databse"
> 
> But hey: worship it and wonder why the settings wont work. And that you only get personally and cant substantiate this tool says everything about you


That's the best you could do? Ok. Almost average. Some timings are too low but I really don't like you so no advice from me, you arrogant fool. 

Do you know the formulas to calculate timings like tRFC in nanoseconds and the relationships between different timings? Because 1usmus (creator of this tool) does. So saying that it's not a calculator just makes you look dumb.


----------



## ThrashZone

Streetdragon said:


> https://media.discordapp.net/attach...474409091132/unknown.png?width=857&height=917
> There you have you tard. NOTHING that this garbage-DB poops out will even boot.
> I know that you are a blind fanboy like any blind apple-user.
> 
> Pls go home and think about it: Its IMPOSSIBLE to calculate ANYTHING to get ramsettings.
> Its false "advertising" to call it Calculator. He/she/it should rename it to "Ramsetting Databse"
> 
> But hey: worship it and wonder why the settings wont work. And that you only get personally and cant substantiate this tool says everything about you


Hi,
Best advise from mods is not to feed the trolls.


----------



## alxns

Hi 1usmus, awesome tool! Just got my system and started playing around with it.
Something to point out though, when going from 3533 to 3600 in the settings using the SAFE button, DRAM voltage goes from 1.41 to 1.35. That can't be right can it? The FAST DRAM voltage does go up though.


----------



## Awsan

Awsan said:


> After running TM5 for some hours I was greeted with 15 errors + when I run it as an admin I get something like AWE (Don't remember right now as its not showing that error again)
> 
> What should I start with? GDM?
> 
> EDIT: timings in the quoted post.


So GDM, did the trick for now ran 20 cycles with no errors so I will try running it more to make sure its 100% stable.


----------



## SpecChum

Awsan said:


> So GDM, did the trick for now ran 20 cycles with no errors so I will try running it more to make sure its 100% stable.


I envy you lot being able to screenshot that window - the amount of times I've auto-clicked OK without thinking and it all vanishes is embarrassing


----------



## 2600ryzen

I get the AWE error when I run testmem5 for the 1st time on a fresh OS install then it goes away after I reboot.


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> I get the AWE error when I run testmem5 for the 1st time on a fresh OS install then it goes away after I reboot.


What's an AWE error?

AWE to me is a soundcard


----------



## 2600ryzen

Don't know what it is really, I guess something to do with how testmem5 allocates RAM.


----------



## Awsan

SpecChum said:


> I envy you lot being able to screenshot that window - the amount of times I've auto-clicked OK without thinking and it all vanishes is embarrassing


Don't tell anyone the truth, This is actually from "Geforce Instant replay" footage  .

I press Ok every time like a baboon  .


----------



## paih85

2600ryzen said:


> Setting Trfc to 560 or 544 would mean Trfc/Trtp/Twr are all synced, that can help rare errors.


sorry..what u mean sync Trfc/Trtp/Twr? can u share a sample or formula?


----------



## 2600ryzen

paih85 said:


> sorry..what u mean sync Trfc/Trtp/Twr? can u share a sample or formula?



Trfc/Twr= a whole number = synced.


My Trfc is 528 and my Twr is 16, 528/16=33. I also like to set Trtp 1/2 of Twr so my Trtp is 8 and Trfc/8=66.


----------



## SpecChum

Awsan said:


> Don't tell anyone the truth, This is actually from "Geforce Instant replay" footage  .
> 
> I press Ok every time like a baboon  .


Hah, epic solution.


----------



## paih85

2600ryzen said:


> Trfc/Twr= a whole number = synced.
> 
> 
> My Trfc is 528 and my Twr is 16, 528/16=33. I also like to set Trtp 1/2 of Twr so my Trtp is 8 and Trfc/8=66.


nice info. thanks bro.


----------



## alxns

Has anyone got problems launching 1.7.2? While tweaking I got a whole lot of errors with the memtest mode, rebooted to change BIOS settings, and now the window doesn't show up no matter what I do (re-unzipped the files, re-downloaded...) Maybe I corrupted some windows files although 1.7.1 is fine. Does it store settings somehow?


----------



## rares495

Having a bit of fun tonight. New calc opened up a few more avenues for this kit.


----------



## seven777sense

G.Skill Flare X 2x8gb F4-3200C14D-16GFX

Any advice on how to improve my latency please, also is there any of my timing seems odd/out of place and can be improved? Much appericated


----------



## ribosome

alxns said:


> Has anyone got problems launching 1.7.2? While tweaking I got a whole lot of errors with the memtest mode, rebooted to change BIOS settings, and now the window doesn't show up no matter what I do (re-unzipped the files, re-downloaded...) Maybe I corrupted some windows files although 1.7.1 is fine. Does it store settings somehow?


Try deleting the 1usmus folder in AppData\Local


----------



## SpecChum

seven777sense said:


> G.Skill Flare X 2x8gb F4-3200C14D-16GFX
> 
> Any advice on how to improve my latency please, also is there any of my timing seems odd/out of place and can be improved? Much appericated


tRFC has biggest effect on latency, so you could maybe try tRFC to 252, so it's a full multiple of tWR - maybe even try 240, but you're already at 140ns, which is pretty good.

I'd advise caution tho, I've heard stories about tRFC being a silent killer, in that it passes all tests but slowly corrupts files if slightly too low - all anecdotal, however.


----------



## Hueristic

MyUsername said:


> What this thing is supposed to do is clear "standby memory". Now they reckon by clearing this part of the memory cache helps with stuttering and other anomaly's. I've preferred not to use these software's to help performance.
> 
> Quote from windowsreport
> 
> Standby memory
> 
> Standby Memory is a special type of random-access memory (RAM) management on Windows 10 that often causes the computer to slow down, especially 64bit versions. This is often due to bugs affecting the operating system. Programs and services running on Windows 10 use part of the RAM as cache.


Services that poll IO devices repeatedly have a higher rate of non-responsivness, win10 is full of those.


----------



## masteratarms

I'm using DRAM calculator 1.7.0 preset 3800 Fast Samsung b-die single rank 4 dimms. I've run memtest86 test #7 before starting TM5 [email protected]_v3. I have 1 error. I'm using 4 x 8GB Patriot Viper Steel. I tried 1.7.2 manual timing but it would not post, I selected 2 ranks & 4 dimms (as I was told I needed 2 ranks for 4 dimms), but now using 1 rank 4 dimms 1.7.0 fast preset.


----------



## Cidious

Small update:

After messing with the new DRAM Calc settings for Micron E dual rank. I found the settings to be spot on. I tried 1.37v but that wasn't stable. 1.38v is for 3800CL16. That's just amazing. just 0.03v more than XMP voltage.


----------



## masteratarms

2600ryzen said:


> Trfc/Twr= a whole number = synced.
> 
> 
> My Trfc is 528 and my Twr is 16, 528/16=33. I also like to set Trtp 1/2 of Twr so my Trtp is 8 and Trfc/8=66.


My tRFC = 336 alt from 1.7.0 or 294(from 1.7.0) or 400 (1.7.2). If I take 294/ 14 = 21 Set my tWR = 14 (up from 12) and Trtp = 7?

Or set tWR = 14 x 21 = 392tRFC and tRTP = 7? (tRTP should be 8 according to 1.7.0 & 1.7.2)
Or set tWR = 16 x 28 = 448tRFC and tRTP = 8?
Or set tWR = 16 x 21 = 336tRFC and tRTP = 8?
Or set tWR = 16 x 25 = 400tRFC and tRTP = 8?

I kinda like the last one since it matches 1.7.2 for tRFC & tRTP.

Edit: Currently testing 13 x 26 = 338 and tRTP = 8, I could not get 16 to post with 400 tRFC. 338 is only 2 away from the 336 which I was posting with but got 1 error.


----------



## Farih

Could anyone point out to me what readings are the Dram voltage and MEM VTT voltage in HWinfo64.
Dram voltage is set to 1.4V in the BIOS but i cant see it anywhere. (Asus X570 Tuf board)

If I disable auto in Ryzen master it says 1.076V MEM VDDIO and 0.54V MEM VTT, I do see voltages around that in HWinfo64 but I wont believe the RAM is running 3800mhz 16-16-16-16-36 that low lol.


----------



## GoldCartGamer

I've run a few tests since building this PC last year and been happy with my performance, but wonder if there are tools or tests I am missing to further squeeze out performance from my 3900x and RAM timings before I drop in a 3950x and start all over lol. Just found out about ZenTimings and TestMem5 tonight in this thread. First time AMD build and first time really pushing my PC setup. Learned a bit from Buildzoid as well. I have run MemTest previously with zero errors. 


3900x
B-Die 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) 3200 CL14 - TDPGD416G3200HC14ADC01
Running 1usmus Ryzen Universal power plan with suggested settings in bios
Latest bios (F12e - AGESA 1.0.0.4 B) with latest chipset drivers from AMD
Bios settings:
VCORE SOC - 1.2v
DRAM - 1.5v
DRAM Termination - .750v
FCLK - 1900
SOC VID - 48
UCLK MODE - UCLK==MEMCLK
VDDP - 1000
VDDG - 1050
PBO enabled 4x scaler
PPT - 300
TDC - 230
EDC - 230


----------



## masteratarms

4 x 8GB Patriot Viper Steel 4400. @40min of stress test cycle 6 so far error free.
edit: Pass in over 2hours (32GB).


----------



## rastaviper

seven777sense said:


> G.Skill Flare X 2x8gb F4-3200C14D-16GFX
> 
> 
> 
> Any advice on how to improve my latency please, also is there any of my timing seems odd/out of place and can be improved? Much appericated


Sure.
I have 3600x and can get around 62.9 ns at 4.4ghz with my gskill 3200 at 1867 Ram, 15-14-13

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## EddieZ

Running new version, one issue:
- Not every field is filled, only shows '0' (see pic)


----------



## masteratarms

EddieZ said:


> Running new version, one issue:
> - Not every field is filled, only shows '0' (see pic)


It doesn't look like you imported your timings from Thaipoon Burner, only then u you get the nanosecond timings. After u import you will be set to manual & with manual you can only choose safe with latest DRAM calculator.


----------



## seven777sense

rastaviper said:


> Sure.
> I have 3600x and can get around 62.9 ns at 4.4ghz with my gskill 3200 at 1867 Ram, 15-14-13
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


my 3600x seems not to like 1867 fclk , my ram can pass hci memtest 400% and TM5 20 cycles @1733 , but on ocassion it would randomly restart or choke when watching a youtube video. i have tried vddg up to 1.06 and soc 1.15 and still have these issues.


----------



## kratosatlante

masteratarms said:


> I'm using DRAM calculator 1.7.0 preset 3800 Fast Samsung b-die single rank 4 dimms. I've run memtest86 test #7 before starting TM5 [email protected]_v3. I have 1 error. I'm using 4 x 8GB Patriot Viper Steel. I tried 1.7.2 manual timing but it would not post, I selected 2 ranks & 4 dimms (as I was told I needed 2 ranks for 4 dimms), but now using 1 rank 4 dimms 1.7.0 fast preset.


same ram 4 dims , for 3800 cpu die 40 or 43, and 24-20-24-24 or 30-20-24-24 , 40-20-24-24

first image 1.482 (1.51 in bios) last 1.45v


----------



## rastaviper

seven777sense said:


> my 3600x seems not to like 1867 fclk , my ram can pass hci memtest 400% and TM5 20 cycles @1733 , but on ocassion it would randomly restart or choke when watching a youtube video. i have tried vddg up to 1.06 and soc 1.15 and still have these issues.


How much voltage do u push at your RAM?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Deathtech00

For whatever reason, I cannot get this version to work. 1.7.0 is fine, but the software shows no values in the latest revision.


When selecting "A2" and setting all my values, hitting "safe" gives me an error that says "Not Supported, Only FAST with A2 Profile"


But when selecting "A2" and hitting "FAST" it just says "Not Supported"


1.7.0 does not exhibit these behaviors.


----------



## rdr09

sonic2911 said:


> I have ss B-die kits, and timing of 1.7.0 is tighter than the new version 1.7.2, stability of 1.7.0 is good too
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7.0:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.7.2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparison:


I copied your timings but it failed the TM5 test at around 9th cycle. Needs a bit of work.


----------



## seven777sense

rastaviper said:


> How much voltage do u push at your RAM?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


1.48. can you share your timming and RM screen ? let me give it ago with your setting.


----------



## KedarWolf

rdr09 said:


> I copied your timings but it failed the TM5 test at around 9th cycle. Needs a bit of work.


Every CPU is different. What is stable for one person may not work for another person. 

The IMC can be quite different as to what works and what doesn't between different CPUs.


----------



## rdr09

KedarWolf said:


> Every CPU is different. What is stable for one person may not work for another person.
> 
> The IMC can be quite different as to what works and what doesn't between different CPUs.


True dat but i just noticed, sonic used an older version of the calculator, which gave tighter timings. It only shaved off 1ns from my current timings, so i think i'll stick with what i have. Thanks.


----------



## sonic2911

rdr09 said:


> True dat but i just noticed, sonic used an older version of the calculator, which gave tighter timings. It only shaved off 1ns from my current timings, so i think i'll stick with what i have. Thanks.


I found out that A2 value of the new version is almost same latency with the older one. Better than manual

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## BIRDMANv84

seven777sense said:


> my 3600x seems not to like 1867 fclk , my ram can pass hci memtest 400% and TM5 20 cycles @1733 , but on ocassion it would randomly restart or choke when watching a youtube video. i have tried vddg up to 1.06 and soc 1.15 and still have these issues.



When I get home from work I’ll also post my stable settings for 1867fclk. It had to run the CMD at 2T (auto in bios) for it to work 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

seven777sense said:


> my 3600x seems not to like 1867 fclk , my ram can pass hci memtest 400% and TM5 20 cycles @1733 , but on ocassion it would randomly restart or choke when watching a youtube video. i have tried vddg up to 1.06 and soc 1.15 and still have these issues.


Having tRFC too low can cause random reboots I've found.


----------



## ryouiki

rares495 said:


> Karhu is great but TM5 1usmus v3 is better.


TM5 passed 20 cycles, so along with Karhu @ 14,000% I think the settings are probably pretty stable. Not exactly a tight overclock/timings anyway, [email protected] 16-16-16-34-50-300... these sticks are definitely capable of better timings, but the voltage required jumps significantly and they already are touching 45C+ at load.

Sadly my 3900X can't do 1900 FCLK reliably so I'll probably call it good enough at this point.


----------



## alxns

ribosome said:


> Try deleting the 1usmus folder in AppData\Local


Ah yes that's probably it, thanks!


----------



## rdr09

sonic2911 said:


> I found out that A2 value of the new version is almost same latency with the older one. Better than manual
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


May try A2 on the C-dies. Thanks.


----------



## Bubar37

Hi how to know a2 or a0 settings ? Is the Memory chip quality % is accurate ? And what is good over 100% 90% ?? 

Thx


----------



## Farih

These B-die's don't seem to be that great or maybe i am doing things wrong.
I get problems in Windows when lowering TRFC alot, had to re-install Windows once to because file's became corrupt.

Am i just unlucky or are there things I could change and/or doing wrong?

3800/1900 atm with Dram voltage at 1.41V, SOC at 1.125V, VDDP at 1.0V and VDDG at 1.06V (all stable)


----------



## SpecChum

Farih said:


> These B-die's don't seem to be that great or maybe i am doing things wrong.
> I get problems in Windows when lowering TRFC alot, had to re-install Windows once to because file's became corrupt.
> 
> Am i just unlucky or are there things I could change and/or doing wrong?
> 
> 3800/1900 atm with Dram voltage at 1.41V, SOC at 1.125V, VDDP at 1.0V and VDDG at 1.06V (all stable)


Could maybe try lowing SoC a little to 1.1v, higher isn't always better, but I suspect you've hit the limit of the RAM, not the IMC here.

That does seem a high limit tho, even 180ns tRFC, which most b-die should do, is 342.


----------



## Farih

SpecChum said:


> Could maybe try lowing SoC a little to 1.1v, higher isn't always better, but I suspect you've hit the limit of the RAM, not the IMC here.
> 
> That does seem a high limit tho, even 180ns tRFC, which most b-die should do, is 342.


I tried the 370 and 400 options from Dram calc. before, in memtest and testmem its stable but I get odd windows behaviour and even corrupt files once.
Stock its 630 or so.

Ill try lowering SoC and VDDG as a least resort, maybe do TRFC 512 first and see from there.

If it wont do ill go back to what I have it at now, still better then stock 3600 16-16-16-36.

Ty.


----------



## 2600ryzen

I think memtest86 has a test that tests trfc stability, test 10 or 11 I can't remember. It writes a bunch of data to ram then tries to read it back 5min later.


----------



## SpecChum

Farih said:


> I tried the 370 and 400 options from Dram calc. before, in memtest and testmem its stable but I get odd windows behaviour and even corrupt files once.
> Stock its 630 or so.
> 
> Ill try lowering SoC and VDDG as a least resort, maybe do TRFC 512 first and see from there.
> 
> If it wont do ill go back to what I have it at now, still better then stock 3600 16-16-16-36.
> 
> Ty.


Probably a daft question, but you're sure you're 100% stable on the CPU?


----------



## rdr09

If TM5 stops without any sign of error does that mean the same thing? The clocks continue to run but the test itself halts at a cycle.


----------



## Farih

SpecChum said:


> Probably a daft question, but you're sure you're 100% stable on the CPU?


Not a 100% sure yet, only done 1hour P95 small fft's with AVX and 1 hour OCCT without AVX.
CPU is not really overclocked though, only PBO is on.

Memtest passed over 400% and Testmem5 passed 20 cycles.


----------



## Dollar

1.7.3 download is up


----------



## Nighthog

Farih said:


> Not a 100% sure yet, only done 1hour P95 small fft's with AVX and 1 hour OCCT without AVX.
> CPU is not really overclocked though, only PBO is on.
> 
> Memtest passed over 400% and Testmem5 passed 20 cycles.


You should try Prime95 AVX for memory loads.

Meaning make a custom run with 384K and all higher values and a good chunk of your memory to be tested.

It loads the processor different than smallFFT & TM5. 
I use it to test stabilty for memory settings & IMC. 

You often find you need more VDDP & VDDG than you think doing these tests.
You also find that marginal memory timings can show their instability here when they pass TM5.


----------



## KedarWolf

Dollar said:


> 1.7.3 download is up


1.7.3 here.

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/download-ryzen-dram-calculator.html


----------



## Farih

Nighthog said:


> You should try Prime95 AVX for memory loads.
> 
> Meaning make a custom run with 384K and all higher values and a good chunk of your memory to be tested.
> 
> It loads the processor different than smallFFT & TM5.
> I use it to test stabilty for memory settings & IMC.
> 
> You often find you need more VDDP & VDDG than you think doing these tests.
> You also find that marginal memory timings can show their instability here when they pass TM5.


Thanks, ill give that a try


----------



## Dekaohtoura

1.7.1-1.7.2-1.7.3 all refuse to read the Thaiphoon xmls for my mem sticks.

Trying the presets, only the "bad" seems to work for me, although "safe" and "fast" are too loose.

On the other hand, A0 even at "safe" is completely out of my IMC+mem sticks range.

Sigh...


----------



## KedarWolf

Dekaohtoura said:


> 1.7.1-1.7.2-1.7.3 all refuse to read the Thaiphoon xmls for my mem sticks.
> 
> Trying the presets, only the "bad" seems to work for me, although "safe" and "fast" are too loose.
> 
> On the other hand, A0 even at "safe" is completely out of my IMC+mem sticks range.
> 
> Sigh...


Did you enable the ns option and export it as full HTML?

https://i.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cw3cn0/psa_use_thaiphoon_to_exportimport_your_xmp/


----------



## Dekaohtoura

KedarWolf said:


> Did you enable the ns option and export it as full HTML?
> 
> https://i.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cw3cn0/psa_use_thaiphoon_to_exportimport_your_xmp/


I think so...it's been over a year (maybe even more) that I've bought these sticks.

Previous tool versions didn't have any such problems.

I'll re-export the readings, just in case.


----------



## negativefusion

delete


----------



## rdr09

Using version 1.7.1 this Hynix CJR was able to go 3666MHz using 1.4v. Since TM5 would just stop without errors i decided to game for three hours or so yesterday without a single crash. This morning i used HCI and stopped at around 400-500%.

Op in his guide used a similar kit and he was able to oc the same to 4000MHz using Gen 1+. It is a C-die. I can prolly go higher but i chose to stop at 1.4v.

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820231941


----------



## Dekaohtoura

Dekaohtoura said:


> I'll re-export the readings, just in case.


Did that, nothing changed.

Oh, well..


----------



## rastaviper

seven777sense said:


> 1.48. can you share your timming and RM screen ? let me give it ago with your setting.


You can see my timings here.
They are on the right side.


----------



## eliwankenobi

rastaviper said:


> You can see my timings here.
> They are on the right side.



What RAM kit is that? Dual Rank 32gb? What voltage?


----------



## rastaviper

eliwankenobi said:


> What RAM kit is that? Dual Rank 32gb? What voltage?


Gskill 3200 C15 GTZ, 16gb
1.46v

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

What about tWR at 13 with GDM disabled? 12 doesn't pass TM5 but 13 or 14 does.

Are there problems with it at odd numbers?


----------



## SpecChum

KedarWolf said:


> What about tWR at 13 with GDM disabled? 12 doesn't pass TM5 but 13 or 14 does.
> 
> Are there problems with it at odd numbers?


Even values "should be more stable" apparently, although I'm not sure why.

I went from 12 to 14, but I have GDM on, and tWR is one of the values that gets rounded up anyway, I believe.

It errors out on 12, but 14 is fine.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I've been using this 3666 (in the screenshot below) for the past few days no issues, ran another Aida test after I was done gaming. The second screenshot is the 2nd Aida run, might be it found a better core on my CPU to use for that run.


----------



## KedarWolf

I found a 4000RPM RAM fan last night, I had broken the original one I had.

This at 15-16-8-13-27 2T with 1.45v RAM. RAM temps stay under 40C now when running TM5. 

I can post all my BIOS settings including my ProcODT etc. if anyone wants. :drum:


----------



## PJVol

rastaviper said:


> You can see my timings here.
> They are on the right side.


Are you sure you need those odd values with gdm on?


----------



## rastaviper

PJVol said:


> Are you sure you need those odd values with gdm on?


Meaning?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

rastaviper said:


> Meaning?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Some of the odd values, GDM rounds them off to the higher even one. 

So like 13 rounds off to 14.


----------



## rastaviper

KedarWolf said:


> Some of the odd values, GDM rounds them off to the higher even one.
> 
> 
> 
> So like 13 rounds off to 14.


But I don't have such restrictions.
I have 13,15, 5 etc at my timings

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

rastaviper said:


> But I don't have such restrictions.
> I have 13,15, 5 etc at my timings
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Yeah, but with GDM on, it rounds them off to 14, 16, 6, doesn't stay at the odd numbers.


----------



## Dollar

@*1usmus* 

After another night of testing I can confirm the new RTT suggestions of 7/OFF/5 are not stable on my system. Reverting to 7/3/1 is 100% stable for 20 passes with your profile in TM5. Just bringing this up because 7/3/1 isn't listed as an alternative set. If I leave RTT values on auto it also gives 7/3/1.


3700x default boost, PBO disabled.
4x8GB Patriot Viper Steel Samsung b-die. Single rank. a0 PCB.
Asus Crosshair VI 7704 bios (1.0.0.4)


----------



## rastaviper

KedarWolf said:


> Yeah, but with GDM on, it rounds them off to 14, 16, 6, doesn't stay at the odd numbers.


What are u talking about?
The timings on the right side are my actual timings.

Do u know how the Dram Calculator works?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

rastaviper said:


> What are u talking about?
> The timings on the right side are my actual timings.
> 
> Do u know how the Dram Calculator works?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


The timings shown in DRAM Calculator and are NOT the actual timings with GDM on. It shows the timings they are set at which is incorrect, but the actual timings are different.

With GDM enabled, even though the timings in DRAM Calculator show 13-15-5 etc. it still rounds off the timings and the actual REAL timings are 14-16-6.

Search this thread, even @Veii who is one of the most knowledgable persons that posts on this thread have said it rounds off. 

I think even @1usmus who created the DRAM calculator has said this as well.

With GDM enabled the timings shown in DRAM Calculator are NOT the actual timings that the motherboard is setting them at. They round off to a higher even number.

With GDM disabled they stay at the odd numbers.

I can't explain it any better and I'm not going to explain it any further, it should be clear by now. :h34r-smi


----------



## rdr09

KedarWolf said:


> The timings shown in DRAM Calculator and are NOT the actual timings with GDM on. It shows the timings they are set at which is incorrect, but the actual timings are different.
> 
> With GDM enabled, even though the timings in DRAM Calculator show 13-15-5 etc. it still rounds off the timings and the actual REAL timings are 14-16-6.
> 
> Search this thread, even @Veii who is one of the most knowledgable persons that posts on this thread have said it rounds off.
> 
> I think even @1usmus who created the DRAM calculator has said this as well.
> 
> With GDM enabled the timings shown in DRAM Calculator are NOT the actual timings that the motherboard is setting them at. They round off to a higher even number.
> 
> With GDM disabled they stay at the odd numbers.
> 
> I can't explain it any better and I'm not going to explain it any further, it should be clear by now. :h34r-smi


Yah, i read the OP mentioned that. If you want the primaries at even numbers, then GDM should be enabled.


----------



## Marius A

guys i am the only one who can no longer run memtest test option on dram calculator for ryzen since version 1.6.1, when i go to version 1.7.3 (1.7.1 , 17.2 act the same) and i hit clear standby then , hit max mem and then it says not enough memory or choose easy mode, if i change the quantity of ram for example 28gb or 27gb or anything nothing starts


----------



## KedarWolf

Marius A said:


> guys i am the only one who can no longer run memtest test option on dram calculator for ryzen since version 1.6.1, when i go to version 1.7.3 (1.7.1 , 17.2 act the same) and i hit clear standby then , hit max mem and then it says not enough memory or choose easy mode, if i change the quantity of ram for example 28gb or 27gb or anything nothing starts


TM5 the way to go for memory testing now. :drum:

I attached a .zip with it set for 20 cycles. It'll find errors even when other memory tests like HCI MemTest, Karhu etc. pass. 

You need to unzip it, run it as Admin, you'll get an AWE error, reboot your PC once after running it, the error will be gone. :thumb:

It takes up to three hours for all 20 cycles to finish though, so might want to start it before you go to bed for the night. :h34r-smi

Oh, and turn Sleep and Hibernate modes off in Control Panel, Power Options before you run it or probably won't complete.


----------



## rastaviper

KedarWolf said:


> The timings shown in DRAM Calculator and are NOT the actual timings with GDM on. It shows the timings they are set at which is incorrect, but the actual timings are different.
> 
> 
> 
> With GDM enabled, even though the timings in DRAM Calculator show 13-15-5 etc. it still rounds off the timings and the actual REAL timings are 14-16-6.
> 
> 
> 
> Search this thread, even @Veii who is one of the most knowledgable persons that posts on this thread have said it rounds off.
> 
> 
> 
> I think even @1usmus who created the DRAM calculator has said this as well.
> 
> 
> 
> With GDM enabled the timings shown in DRAM Calculator are NOT the actual timings that the motherboard is setting them at. They round off to a higher even number.
> 
> 
> 
> With GDM disabled they stay at the odd numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't explain it any better and I'm not going to explain it any further, it should be clear by now. :h34r-smi


Anyway maybe this looks better to you.









Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## paih85

rastaviper said:


> Anyway maybe this looks better to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


your procodt/cad_bus/vdim?


----------



## PJVol

rastaviper said:


> Anyway maybe this looks better


So, “GDM on” on screenshot was just a DRAM calculator's suggestion, not what was actually set? BTW did you manage to run CPU with fclk 1900 ?


----------



## Eder

Dollar said:


> @*1usmus*
> 
> After another night of testing I can confirm the new RTT suggestions of 7/OFF/5 are not stable on my system. Reverting to 7/3/1 is 100% stable for 20 passes with your profile in TM5. Just bringing this up because 7/3/1 isn't listed as an alternative set. If I leave RTT values on auto it also gives 7/3/1.
> 
> 
> 3700x default boost, PBO disabled.
> 4x8GB Patriot Viper Steel Samsung b-die. Single rank. a0 PCB.
> Asus Crosshair VI 7704 bios (1.0.0.4)


The new version of the calculator has some changes for 1.0.0.5. so you might want to use the old calculator.

On the new Agesa these settings work for me.


----------



## rastaviper

paih85 said:


> your procodt/cad_bus/vdim?


What is Vdim?
The other are Auto


PJVol said:


> So, “GDM on” on screenshot was just a DRAM calculator's suggestion, not what was actually set? BTW did you manage to run CPU with fclk 1900 ?


I guess this is what happened with the Calc.

And no luck with 1900.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Marius A

KedarWolf said:


> TM5 the way to go for memory testing now. :drum:
> 
> I attached a .zip with it set for 20 cycles. It'll find errors even when other memory tests like HCI MemTest, Karhu etc. pass.
> 
> You need to unzip it, run it as Admin, you'll get an AWE error, reboot your PC once after running it, the error will be gone. :thumb:
> 
> It takes up to three hours for all 20 cycles to finish though, so might want to start it before you go to bed for the night. :h34r-smi
> 
> Oh, and turn Sleep and Hibernate modes off in Control Panel, Power Options before you run it or probably won't complete.





thanks mate


----------



## 2600ryzen

Depends on how much RAM you have when running 20cycles, 16Gb should only take 1.5hrs.


----------



## SpecChum

3900x up and running, just having a play 

What's VDDCR SOC in Ryzen Master? Mine's showing as 1.363

I assumed it was SOC and my C6H was just overvolting, so I was going to lower it, but HWiNFO is saying my SoC Voltage is 1.090, which is much more reasonable.


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> 3900x up and running, just having a play
> 
> What's VDDCR SOC in Ryzen Master? Mine's showing as 1.363
> 
> I assumed it was SOC and my C6H was just overvolting, so I was going to lower it, but HWiNFO is saying my SoC Voltage is 1.090, which is much more reasonable.


Congrats! Don't have an answer to the question but i have a question myself. Your ram oc setting for the old cpu works for the new one?

I guess not. Fron Gen1 to Gen2. lol.

Heck i just swapped my cpu cooler and my raam oc settings do not work anymore. Will have to input them manually again.


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> Congrats! Don't have an answer to the question but i have a question myself. Your ram oc setting for the old cpu works for the new one?


Not tried yet, just did DOCP and left it for now, might play later, but getting a bit late here in UK.

I know all my profiles now say "invalid" in the BIOS, so I'd need to do them all again anyway.

In other news, I'm now lost in the BIOS, I didn't expect everything to change as much as it did by changing CPU lol


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> Not tried yet, just did DOCP and left it for now, might play later, but getting a bit late here in UK.
> 
> I know all my profiles now say "invalid" in the BIOS, so I'd need to do them all again anyway.
> 
> In other news, I'm now lost in the BIOS, I didn't expect everything to change as much as it did by changing CPU lol



Haha. Have fun.


----------



## SpecChum

Quick update on my own question, it does seem to be SoC voltage after a further google search, but it's a bit weird how it's showing far too high in Ryzen Master and fine in HWiNFO - in both places, CPU and ASUS WMI, both show between 1.080 and 1.090.


----------



## Tobiman

Is a dram pcb revision of B1= bad bin?


----------



## Dollar

SpecChum said:


> Quick update on my own question, it does seem to be SoC voltage after a further google search, but it's a bit weird how it's showing far too high in Ryzen Master and fine in HWiNFO - in both places, CPU and ASUS WMI, both show between 1.080 and 1.090.


Do you have XMP/DOCP enabled? If I remember right it might be what causes ryzen master to show that on Asus boards.

Someone else showed this happening here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...ing-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench-748.html


@*2600ryzen* gives some tips on the last post.




Eder said:


> The new version of the calculator has some changes for 1.0.0.5. so you might want to use the old calculator.
> 
> On the new Agesa these settings work for me.




Maybe, but 1.0.0.5 isn't out for most boards right? Just MSI? I doubt this old X370 will see it.


----------



## SpecChum

Dollar said:


> Do you have XMP/DOCP enabled? If I remember right it might be what causes ryzen master to show that on Asus boards.
> 
> Someone else showed this happening here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...ing-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench-748.html
> 
> 
> @*2600ryzen* gives some tips on the last post.


Ah, that explains it, thanks 

Yes I am on ASUS, and yes I set DOCP. That's literally all I've changed, everything else is on auto.


----------



## ribosome

SpecChum said:


> Quick update on my own question, it does seem to be SoC voltage after a further google search, but it's a bit weird how it's showing far too high in Ryzen Master and fine in HWiNFO - in both places, CPU and ASUS WMI, both show between 1.080 and 1.090.


I believe what Ryzen Master shows for that value is a VID rather than an actual voltage. HWiNFO is right, pay attention to that one.


----------



## SpecChum

ribosome said:


> I believe what Ryzen Master shows for that value is a VID rather than an actual voltage. HWiNFO is right, pay attention to that one.


I already was to be fair, I'd have been into the BIOS faster than light if I thought for 1 second it was set at 1.362v


----------



## ribosome

SpecChum said:


> I already was to be fair, I'd have been into the BIOS faster than light if I thought for 1 second it was set at 1.362v


 I accidentally set vSOC to 1.5 once! It was a few minutes before I noticed. I had meant to set it to 1.15. You better believe I shut it down fast as soon as I saw that number in HWiNFO, lmao.


This was several months ago, fortunately it doesn't seem to have caused any damage as far as I can tell. But I sure wouldn't dare trying that again.


----------



## gerardfraser

ribosome said:


> I accidentally set vSOC to 1.5 once! It was a few minutes before I noticed. I had meant to set it to 1.15. You better believe I shut it down fast as soon as I saw that number in HWiNFO, lmao.
> 
> 
> This was several months ago, fortunately it doesn't seem to have caused any damage as far as I can tell. But I sure wouldn't dare trying that again.


I do not even think it is possible to set that higher than SOC 1.3v,how and the hell you set it to 1.5. Serious question.


----------



## KedarWolf

This 4000RPM RAM fan is amazing, at 1.5V my RAM doesn't go over 40C.

But likely the biggest improvement is I reset my 3950x in the socket when I changed the thermal paste (well, it actually pulled out of the socket trying to get the waterblock off it, lucky I never wrecked anything) and since then my RAM is performing much better. 










*My BIOS settings are in the Spoiler.*



Spoiler


----------



## Awsan

KedarWolf said:


> This 4000RPM RAM fan is amazing, at 1.5V my RAM doesn't go over 40C.
> 
> But likely the biggest improvement is I reset my 3950x in the socket when I changed the thermal paste (well, it actually pulled out of the socket trying to get the waterblock off it, lucky I never wrecked anything) and since then my RAM is performing much better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be back in a bit, going to share my BIOS settings. :h34r-smi


How the hell is it acting better after a re-sit xD , I guess bugs keep coming around


----------



## KedarWolf

Awsan said:


> How the hell is it acting better after a re-sit xD , I guess bugs keep coming around


Maybe a bit of dust in the socket causing a pin to not fully connect or something, but I could never get CL14 stable before even at higher tRFC.

I mean if you look at the timings, they are pretty amazing, tRFC at 246 I think it is.

The only thing I'm missing out on is TM5 will NOT pass without errors with the SCL's lower than 4, pretty much the only way I could get any better timings, but I don't want to go over 1.5v RAM. 

Edit: I have something I can try to get SCL at 2.


----------



## rastaviper

KedarWolf said:


> Maybe a bit of dust in the socket causing a pin to not fully connect or something, but I could never get CL14 stable before even at higher tRFC.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean if you look at the timings, they are pretty amazing, tRFC at 246 I think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I'm missing out on is TM5 will NOT pass without errors with the SCL's lower than 4, pretty much the only way I could get any better timings, but I don't want to go over 1.5v RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I have something I can try to get SCL at 2.


Aida score?

Is it really worth to keep the 2T?

The performance is much worse then 1T

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

Can't get 1T with GDM disabled. Can with GDM Enabled which is basically 1.5T by then my Primaries round off to even numbers.


----------



## yrelbirb

is this a b-die worth getting for?

my friend bough them very cheaply and found out its samsung b die?

https://www.teamgroupinc.com/en/product/vulcan-tuf-ddr4

https://www.incehesap.com/team-t-fo...gb-ddr4-3600mhz-cl19-gaming-ram-fiyati-45519/


3600 19-19-19 kinda made me suspicious but he got good timings stable as well (3733 cl15)

do you think i should buy them and sell my micron b dies?


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Good Job :thumb:
> I see some inter-core latency still of 67ns
> This result can be even better
> Down to 64ns as max


61.9ns Highest latency.





















Spoiler



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 196.8GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 46.6ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.15GB/s
No. Threads : 32
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 60.10W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3353.21MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 7.75ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 1235.27kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 45.29MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.10ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 24.5ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 52.0ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 52.4ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U0-U16 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U0-U18 Data Latency : 47.9ns
U0-U20 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U0-U22 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U0-U24 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U0-U26 Data Latency : 61.9ns
U0-U28 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U0-U30 Data Latency : 46.6ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 24.1ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 48.7ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U0-U17 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U0-U19 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U0-U21 Data Latency : 50.8ns
U0-U23 Data Latency : 50.8ns
U0-U25 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U0-U27 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U0-U29 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U0-U31 Data Latency : 46.8ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 51.5ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 52.3ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U2-U16 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U2-U18 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U2-U20 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U2-U22 Data Latency : 50.8ns
U2-U24 Data Latency : 50.2ns
U2-U26 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U2-U28 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U2-U30 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 52.8ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 50.8ns
U2-U17 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U2-U19 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U2-U21 Data Latency : 52.3ns
U2-U23 Data Latency : 46.8ns
U2-U25 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U2-U27 Data Latency : 46.2ns
U2-U29 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U2-U31 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 51.7ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 50.0ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U4-U16 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U4-U18 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U4-U20 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U4-U22 Data Latency : 48.8ns
U4-U24 Data Latency : 50.1ns
U4-U26 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U4-U28 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U4-U30 Data Latency : 51.6ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 51.5ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U4-U17 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U4-U19 Data Latency : 51.2ns
U4-U21 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U4-U23 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U4-U25 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U4-U27 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U4-U29 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U4-U31 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U6-U16 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U6-U18 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U6-U20 Data Latency : 49.4ns
U6-U22 Data Latency : 52.0ns
U6-U24 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U6-U26 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U6-U28 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U6-U30 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U6-U17 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U6-U19 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U6-U21 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U6-U23 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U6-U25 Data Latency : 46.1ns
U6-U27 Data Latency : 51.5ns
U6-U29 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U6-U31 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U8-U16 Data Latency : 45.4ns
U8-U18 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U8-U20 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U8-U22 Data Latency : 50.9ns
U8-U24 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U8-U26 Data Latency : 46.7ns
U8-U28 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U8-U30 Data Latency : 46.0ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 49.3ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 51.8ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U8-U17 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U8-U19 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U8-U21 Data Latency : 48.3ns
U8-U23 Data Latency : 51.7ns
U8-U25 Data Latency : 46.1ns
U8-U27 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U8-U29 Data Latency : 46.3ns
U8-U31 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U10-U16 Data Latency : 46.3ns
U10-U18 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U10-U20 Data Latency : 52.4ns
U10-U22 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U10-U24 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U10-U26 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U10-U28 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U10-U30 Data Latency : 51.6ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 49.8ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U10-U17 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U10-U19 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U10-U21 Data Latency : 45.4ns
U10-U23 Data Latency : 51.7ns
U10-U25 Data Latency : 51.9ns
U10-U27 Data Latency : 51.6ns
U10-U29 Data Latency : 52.0ns
U10-U31 Data Latency : 51.9ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U12-U16 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U12-U18 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U12-U20 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U12-U22 Data Latency : 52.3ns
U12-U24 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U12-U26 Data Latency : 51.9ns
U12-U28 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U12-U30 Data Latency : 48.6ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 52.4ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U12-U17 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U12-U19 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U12-U21 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U12-U23 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U12-U25 Data Latency : 46.6ns
U12-U27 Data Latency : 51.8ns
U12-U29 Data Latency : 47.1ns
U12-U31 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U14-U16 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U14-U18 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U14-U20 Data Latency : 51.8ns
U14-U22 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U14-U24 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U14-U26 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U14-U28 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U14-U30 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 46.7ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U14-U17 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U14-U19 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U14-U21 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U14-U23 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U14-U25 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U14-U27 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U14-U29 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U14-U31 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U16-U18 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U16-U20 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U16-U22 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U16-U24 Data Latency : 52.8ns
U16-U26 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U16-U28 Data Latency : 46.8ns
U16-U30 Data Latency : 52.4ns
U16-U1 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U16-U3 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U16-U5 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U16-U7 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U16-U9 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U16-U11 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U16-U13 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U16-U15 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U16-U19 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U16-U21 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U16-U23 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U16-U25 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U16-U27 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U16-U29 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U16-U31 Data Latency : 48.2ns
U18-U20 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U18-U22 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U18-U24 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U18-U26 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U18-U28 Data Latency : 51.6ns
U18-U30 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U18-U1 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U18-U3 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U18-U5 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U18-U7 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U18-U9 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U18-U11 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U18-U13 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U18-U15 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U18-U17 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U18-U21 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U18-U23 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U18-U25 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U18-U27 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U18-U29 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U18-U31 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U20-U22 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U20-U24 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U20-U26 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U20-U28 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U20-U30 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U20-U1 Data Latency : 51.8ns
U20-U3 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U20-U5 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U20-U7 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U20-U9 Data Latency : 52.0ns
U20-U11 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U20-U13 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U20-U15 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U20-U17 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U20-U19 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U20-U23 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U20-U25 Data Latency : 52.0ns
U20-U27 Data Latency : 50.7ns
U20-U29 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U20-U31 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U22-U24 Data Latency : 46.6ns
U22-U26 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U22-U28 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U22-U30 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U22-U1 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U22-U3 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U22-U5 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U22-U7 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U22-U9 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U22-U11 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U22-U13 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U22-U15 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U22-U17 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U22-U19 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U22-U21 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U22-U25 Data Latency : 46.2ns
U22-U27 Data Latency : 46.5ns
U22-U29 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U22-U31 Data Latency : 49.6ns
U24-U26 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U24-U28 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U24-U30 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U24-U1 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U24-U3 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U24-U5 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U24-U7 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U24-U9 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U24-U11 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U24-U13 Data Latency : 48.0ns
U24-U15 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U24-U17 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U24-U19 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U24-U21 Data Latency : 50.9ns
U24-U23 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U24-U27 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U24-U29 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U24-U31 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U26-U28 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U26-U30 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U26-U1 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U26-U3 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U26-U5 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U26-U7 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U26-U9 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U26-U11 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U26-U13 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U26-U15 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U26-U17 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U26-U19 Data Latency : 50.1ns
U26-U21 Data Latency : 46.9ns
U26-U23 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U26-U25 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U26-U29 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U26-U31 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U28-U30 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U28-U1 Data Latency : 51.7ns
U28-U3 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U28-U5 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U28-U7 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U28-U9 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U28-U11 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U28-U13 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U28-U15 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U28-U17 Data Latency : 48.1ns
U28-U19 Data Latency : 51.6ns
U28-U21 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U28-U23 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U28-U25 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U28-U27 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U30-U1 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U30-U3 Data Latency : 48.6ns
U30-U5 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U30-U7 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U30-U9 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U30-U11 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U30-U13 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U30-U15 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U30-U17 Data Latency : 46.7ns
U30-U19 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U30-U21 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U30-U23 Data Latency : 50.9ns
U30-U25 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U30-U27 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U30-U31 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U1-U17 Data Latency : 46.5ns
U1-U19 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U1-U21 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U1-U23 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U1-U25 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U1-U27 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U1-U29 Data Latency : 51.7ns
U1-U31 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 51.6ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U3-U17 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U3-U19 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U3-U21 Data Latency : 47.3ns
U3-U23 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U3-U25 Data Latency : 52.8ns
U3-U27 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U3-U29 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U3-U31 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U5-U17 Data Latency : 46.5ns
U5-U19 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U5-U21 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U5-U23 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U5-U25 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U5-U27 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U5-U29 Data Latency : 47.2ns
U5-U31 Data Latency : 49.1ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 52.8ns
U7-U17 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U7-U19 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U7-U21 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U7-U23 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U7-U25 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U7-U27 Data Latency : 52.3ns
U7-U29 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U7-U31 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U9-U17 Data Latency : 45.4ns
U9-U19 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U9-U21 Data Latency : 48.8ns
U9-U23 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U9-U25 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U9-U27 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U9-U29 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U9-U31 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U11-U17 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U11-U19 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U11-U21 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U11-U23 Data Latency : 46.5ns
U11-U25 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U11-U27 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U11-U29 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U11-U31 Data Latency : 46.8ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U13-U17 Data Latency : 51.6ns
U13-U19 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U13-U21 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U13-U23 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U13-U25 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U13-U27 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U13-U29 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U13-U31 Data Latency : 52.3ns
U15-U17 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U15-U19 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U15-U21 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U15-U23 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U15-U25 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U15-U27 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U15-U29 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U15-U31 Data Latency : 46.5ns
U17-U19 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U17-U21 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U17-U23 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U17-U25 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U17-U27 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U17-U29 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U17-U31 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U19-U21 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U19-U23 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U19-U25 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U19-U27 Data Latency : 61.8ns
U19-U29 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U19-U31 Data Latency : 48.4ns
U21-U23 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U21-U25 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U21-U27 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U21-U29 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U21-U31 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U23-U25 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U23-U27 Data Latency : 52.8ns
U23-U29 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U23-U31 Data Latency : 61.0ns
U25-U27 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U25-U29 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U25-U31 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U27-U29 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U27-U31 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U29-U31 Data Latency : 26.9ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.32GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 40.38GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 157GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 463.48GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 711.37GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 665.57GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 761.6GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 677.62GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 619.82GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 602.5GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 29.47GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 17.56GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.45GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710021
Computer : MSI MS-7C35 (MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (MS-7C35))
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 32
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Speed : 4.45GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.45GHz
Maximum Power : 60.10W - 129.95W
Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710021
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## SpecChum

KedarWolf said:


> This 4000RPM RAM fan is amazing, at 1.5V my RAM doesn't go over 40C.
> 
> But likely the biggest improvement is I reset my 3950x in the socket when I changed the thermal paste (well, it actually pulled out of the socket trying to get the waterblock off it, lucky I never wrecked anything) and since then my RAM is performing much better.
> [/SPOILER]


My guess is the first mount had a tiny air pocket right on the IMC part of the die, so it was getting a little hotter than what it does now and the re-paste resolved it.


----------



## d0mini

Hey! I asked this question over in the gigabyte mobo thread but I thought I'd ask here too as I noticed this while overclocking the RAM. I have the gigabyte X570 xtreme board.

With 4 x 8GB B-Die sticks I'm getting a fluctuating bus clock no matter the BIOS settings I try. Anywhere from 98.5 to 99.5, on a blue moon it's 100MHz. This is without any overclocking and XMP enabled (3200MHz). I didn't use to have this problem with just two sticks - is this literally just what happens when you use 4 sticks of RAM?

Is it detrimental to stability to have the bus clock vary so much from boot to boot? Appreciate any and all feedback on this!


----------



## ribosome

gerardfraser said:


> I do not even think it is possible to set that higher than SOC 1.3v,how and the hell you set it to 1.5. Serious question.


I'm sure it depends on the board. Mine was quite happy to let me set that voltage. I just entered 1.5 V and rebooted.


----------



## SpecChum

Dunno if it's the RAM or the CPU, but I can't boot at 3600 

0d error, which I think is RAM itself, usually.

My old 3466 error free settings (from my 1700) getting early errors too lol

Will keep playing.

EDIT: Saying that, I've just remembered I'm using 1T GDM off with these, was GDM on with my 1700 - could be the RAM doesn't like GDM off at 3200 or above.

EDIT2: Boots with GDM on at 3600, obviously put the CL 15 to 16, but will bench and test


----------



## SpecChum

New post as this is interesting, to me anyway lol

Although probably known, with GDM off my RAM is overvolted to 1.44v, but with GDM off it's at 1.417v, both with 1.4v set in BIOS.


----------



## LicSqualo

SpecChum said:


> New post as this is interesting, to me anyway lol
> 
> Although probably known, with GDM off my RAM is overvolted to 1.44v, but with GDM off it's at 1.417v, both with 1.4v set in BIOS.


Perhaps for 3600MHz you need extra voltage


----------



## SpecChum

LicSqualo said:


> Perhaps for 3600MHz you need extra voltage


That was at 3466, I couldn't boot at all with 3600 and GDM off.

Going OK at 3600 with GDM on, it is at CAS 16 tho, so might have to have a play. 25 minutes into TM5 and no errors so far.

I should probably lower the DRAM Voltage if I can, tho, I'm at 50C already.


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> is this a b-die worth getting for?
> 
> my friend bough them very cheaply and found out its samsung b die?
> 
> https://www.teamgroupinc.com/en/product/vulcan-tuf-ddr4
> 
> https://www.incehesap.com/team-t-fo...gb-ddr4-3600mhz-cl19-gaming-ram-fiyati-45519/
> 
> 
> 3600 19-19-19 kinda made me suspicious but he got good timings stable as well (3733 cl15)
> 
> do you think i should buy them and sell my micron b dies?


Team Group is known to work well with Ryzen and that is B-die indeed. Although it is not listed in the B-Die finder, the JEDEC DIMM LABEL and Part Number under DRAM Components are same as that of FlareX.


----------



## SpecChum

Cool, 3600 passed - not the greatest timings at 16-15-15-15-30, but something to start with.


----------



## SpecChum

Reasonable results, better then what I had with 3466 anyway:


----------



## KedarWolf

rastaviper said:


> Aida score?
> 
> Is it really worth to keep the 2T?
> 
> The performance is much worse then 1T
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


AIDA64 better with GDM enabled, same latency.


----------



## Dash8Q4

My 3600 safe settings using generic selection are well received by the system and TM5 20cycles stable. However when I import the report generated by Thaipoon burner, the safe settings timings are tighter and these are not liked by the system. The PC doesn't POST or boot at all, I get the yellow DRAM led post light and it just gets stuck in there. Any advice on what I can change to try getting the boot?
I've attached both generic and custom settings below. The generic settings work perfectly and that's what I have on a daily basis.
Thanks for looking.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Dash8Q4 said:


> My 3600 safe settings using generic selection are well received by the system and TM5 20cycles stable. However when I import the report generated by Thaipoon burner, the safe settings timings are tighter and these are not liked by the system. The PC doesn't POST or boot at all, I get the yellow DRAM led post light and it just gets stuck in there. Any advice on what I can change to try getting the boot?
> I've attached both generic and custom settings below. The generic settings work perfectly and that's what I have on a daily basis.
> Thanks for looking.



Bump your voltage to 1.4v 

Also, look in the advanced tab. There are settings in there to put in the BIOS too..


----------



## Dash8Q4

eliwankenobi said:


> Bump your voltage to 1.4v
> 
> Also, look in the advanced tab. There are settings in there to put in the BIOS too..


1.4v didn’t do much. And my bios doesn’t have any of the settings on the advanced tab.
Back to square one on this one. It doesnt seem to like any timing lower than 16 when running at 3600 or above.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Dash8Q4 said:


> 1.4v didn’t do much. And my bios doesn’t have any of the settings on the advanced tab.
> Back to square one on this one. It doesnt seem to like any timing lower than 16 when running at 3600 or above.



Sorry dude, I hope you get it figured out


----------



## rastaviper

Dash8Q4 said:


> 1.4v didn’t do much. And my bios doesn’t have any of the settings on the advanced tab.
> 
> Back to square one on this one. It doesnt seem to like any timing lower than 16 when running at 3600 or above.


Try 1.45v maybe? Then if things start to work, u can slowly reduce it.
I have mine at 1.42v for everyday use and sometimes at 1.46v for benchmarks with tighter timings.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## eliwankenobi

Sorry for the silly question, but how do you setup TM5 for the 20 cycles? I ran it and said it was using the 1usmus_v3 profile and all.. but only did 3 cycles..


----------



## yrelbirb

what appears to be the issue? my friend tries to tweak his rams

at cycle 18, these errors popped


----------



## Synoxia

@Veii so far i think i am pretty stable now. 20 cycles passed and no crashes so far... i use 1.05 VDDG, 900 vddp and 1.10 vsoc as calculator suggests. Do you think is too much? remember 4 dimms


----------



## KedarWolf

Can someone share the .zip file of DRAM Calculator 1.7.2 for me? I lost it on a Windows format, and I get better MemBench results with it.

I Googled it, can find it anywhere.


----------



## KedarWolf

eliwankenobi said:


> Sorry for the silly question, but how do you setup TM5 for the 20 cycles? I ran it and said it was using the 1usmus_v3 profile and all.. but only did 3 cycles..


I attached a .zip file of it set to 20 cycles.


----------



## eliwankenobi

KedarWolf said:


> I attached a .zip file of it set to 20 cycles.



Oh thank you very much!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdr09

KedarWolf said:


> Can someone share the .zip file of DRAM Calculator 1.7.2 for me? I lost it on a Windows format, and I get better MemBench results with it.
> 
> I Googled it, can find it anywhere.


Click show more versions.

https://www.techpowerup.com/download/ryzen-dram-calculator/


----------



## KedarWolf

Here is my MemBench result.

KedarWolf 14-16-15-13-28 1T GDM Enabled DRAM Calculator 1.7.2. MemBench Score 98.70 - Cinebench Score 10428

Edit: I'm not sure how to submit my results, can someone let me know?

*Second edit: My BIOS settings are NOT unstable benching settings, but 100% TM5 stable settings I use 24/7. *


----------



## thomasck

Are you guys really able to run the timings and get the ram stable with the recommended voltage? I was never able to since I started dram calc, since 1.4.x. Always with at least 0.05v more.

I've been running 15 14 15 14 28 32 280, 40-20-24-24 32ohms since a while cause until 1.7.0 fast was cl14 and safe was cl16. Cl14 was not possible and cl16 was too loose. So I headed to the custom timings above, ok. At that time the voltages were 1.465v , VDDG/iod 0950 vddp 0900 and soc 1050, and still are working fine. Predator 4000cl19.

When 1.7.2-3 were released fast profile suggests cl15, but is pretty much unrealistic to achieve that with 1.40v as max suggested. And timings a bit loose, flat 15 30 46 298.

So am I missing something or will dram voltage be compensated by vddp+SOC? 



Sent from Tapatalk


----------



## opethdisciple

I've struggled to get fast timings to work and never been successful. But with the 1.7.1 update which changed the profiles the fast profile now works for me so I a super happy and want to say thanks to @*1usmus* for the awesome tool.

It recommends 1.45v but I have needed 1.47v to get it to be stable.

Not able to enable GDM however. As soon as I enable that nothing I change voltage wise helps with stability.

But over all I am happy with a latency of 66ns. I have never had it so low.

One thing I have 3700x and using the fast timings at 3600MHz so base timings are 14 15 15 15 30. My latency is 66ns but my score when I run membench at default preset is 245-250 which I have been told is pretty rubbish.

Any ideas why? Games etc seem to run great.


----------



## opethdisciple

thomasck said:


> Are you guys really able to run the timings and get the ram stable with the recommended voltage? I was never able to since I started dram calc, since 1.4.x. Always with at least 0.05v more.
> 
> I've been running 15 14 15 14 28 32 280, 40-20-24-24 32ohms since a while cause until 1.7.0 fast was cl14 and safe was cl16. Cl14 was not possible and cl16 was too loose. So I headed to the custom timings above, ok. At that time the voltages were 1.465v , VDDG/iod 0950 vddp 0900 and soc 1050, and still are working fine. Predator 4000cl19.
> 
> When 1.7.2-3 were released fast profile suggests cl15, but is pretty much unrealistic to achieve that with 1.40v as max suggested. And timings a bit loose, flat 15 30 46 298.
> 
> So am I missing something or will dram voltage be compensated by vddp+SOC?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Tapatalk



No. It recommends me 1.45v but I have ended up at 1.47v. Just keep adding 0.01v until you are stable.


----------



## opethdisciple

Dash8Q4 said:


> 1.4v didn’t do much. And my bios doesn’t have any of the settings on the advanced tab.
> Back to square one on this one. It doesnt seem to like any timing lower than 16 when running at 3600 or above.



I am using those exact timings you have in your screen shot, but he fast variety. I am at 1.47v dram.


You probably just don't have enough dram voltage set for it to boot.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

Hello,

Trying to know what's may be wrong here :

This is 2 kit of F4-3200C14-16GTRS (4*8GB) with a 3900X and Gigabyte X570 Xtreme with F12E bios.

This 3900X is garbage (cpu fab in july 2019) but I will receive a new one this week. (using the cpu without overclock/pbo and i had some random hard reboot without any bsod when FCLK is at 3600mhz or over (even with 3600mhz XMP RAM), needed to keep increasing VSOC over the weeks to "avoid" the reboot, 1.100 then 1.112 until 1.125V for now ...)

Currently the ram is at [email protected] but I had 1 error on MEMbench after 827min : 









Tested on Karhu RAM Test for 3h32 and no error : 









Passed 20 cycles of TM5 without error.

Temp on ram never exceeded 44° with an ambient temp of 25° (2 fans on ram).

Settings : 









In bios : 1.125V on SOC (llc high), VDDP : 1000, VDDG CCD : 950, VDDG IOD : 1050, [email protected] (1.500V) (currently, this is the best VSOC/VDDP/VDDG settings i have found to avoid random hard reboot since 72h+)

I'm using safe profile with imported XMP with fast "tRFC", "tRTP" and "tWR". (I know that my ram can do 16-16-8-14-24-40-288 (tCL-tRCDRD-tRCDWR-tRP-tRAS-tRC-tRFC) @3800mhz with 1.48V on another motherboard/cpu, tested for 48h+ few days ago)










What settings can i try to eliminate the very rare error ? : p (I tested 43.6 procODT + RZQ/7--OFF--RZQ/5 but i had errors, 60 procODT (auto) not booting with ram at 3800mhz, 53.3 seems the minimum)

With VDDP on auto (900mV) and every other same settings, i had 1 error after "only" 280min on MEMBench. (do i need (can i ?) to increage VDDP again ?


----------



## SpecChum

GoforceReloaded said:


> Hello,
> 
> Trying to know what's may be wrong here...


I'd be tempted to call it a day to be honest, I don't even run tests for that long so I'd have slapped a "STABLE!" sticker on that a long time ago lol

Just use the PC as normal and if you get any issues then maybe look at it again, but I'd consider that stable enough.

I know otherwise would disagree, but just my 2c 

EDIT: There is one thing, actually, try increasing your tRFC to 308 so it's a multiple of tWR - I've read that can minimise rare errors (or even lowering it to 294)


----------



## KedarWolf

GoforceReloaded said:


> Hello,
> 
> Trying to know what's may be wrong here :
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> This is 2 kit of F4-3200C14-16GTRS (4*8GB) with a 3900X and Gigabyte X570 Xtreme with F12E bios.
> 
> This 3900X is garbage (cpu fab in july 2019) but I will receive a new one this week. (using the cpu without overclock/pbo and i had some random hard reboot without any bsod when FCLK is at 3600mhz or over (even with 3600mhz XMP RAM), needed to keep increasing VSOC over the weeks to "avoid" the reboot, 1.100 then 1.112 until 1.125V for now ...)
> 
> Currently the ram is at [email protected] but I had 1 error on MEMbench after 827min :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested on Karhu RAM Test for 3h32 and no error :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Passed 20 cycles of TM5 without error.
> 
> Temp on ram never exceeded 44° with an ambient temp of 25° (2 fans on ram).
> 
> Settings :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In bios : 1.125V on SOC (llc high), VDDP : 1000, VDDG CCD : 950, VDDG IOD : 1050, [email protected] (1.500V) (currently, this is the best VSOC/VDDP/VDDG settings i have found to avoid random hard reboot since 72h+)
> 
> I'm using safe profile with imported XMP with fast "tRFC", "tRTP" and "tWR". (I know that my ram can do 16-16-8-14-24-40-288 (tCL-tRCDRD-tRCDWR-tRP-tRAS-tRC-tRFC) @3800mhz with 1.48V on another motherboard/cpu, tested for 48h+ few days ago)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What settings can i try to eliminate the very rare error ? : p (I tested 43.6 procODT + RZQ/7--OFF--RZQ/5 but i had errors, 60 procODT (auto) not booting with ram at 3800mhz, 53.3 seems the minimum)
> 
> With VDDP on auto (900mV) and every other same settings, i had 1 error after "only" 280min on MEMBench. (do i need (can i ?) to increage VDDP again ?


It's likely your RAM is getting too hot and throwing an error.

I attached TM5 as a .zip file. Unzip it, run it as Admin, you'll get an AWE error. Reboot your PC, run it as Admin again, error will be gone.

It can take up to three hours to run all 20 cycles. While it's running, open HWInfo, 'Sensors Only', and check your RAM temps. If getting maybe 47-48C or higher your RAM will likely throw errors.

See this about RAM fans. They help a ton!! 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1747300-memory-cooling-2.html#post28455886


----------



## 2600ryzen

GoforceReloaded said:


> Hello,
> 
> Trying to know what's may be wrong here :
> 
> This is 2 kit of F4-3200C14-16GTRS (4*8GB) with a 3900X and Gigabyte X570 Xtreme with F12E bios.
> 
> This 3900X is garbage (cpu fab in july 2019) but I will receive a new one this week. (using the cpu without overclock/pbo and i had some random hard reboot without any bsod when FCLK is at 3600mhz or over (even with 3600mhz XMP RAM), needed to keep increasing VSOC over the weeks to "avoid" the reboot, 1.100 then 1.112 until 1.125V for now ...)
> 
> Currently the ram is at [email protected] but I had 1 error on MEMbench after 827min :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested on Karhu RAM Test for 3h32 and no error :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Passed 20 cycles of TM5 without error.
> 
> Temp on ram never exceeded 44° with an ambient temp of 25° (2 fans on ram).
> 
> Settings :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In bios : 1.125V on SOC (llc high), VDDP : 1000, VDDG CCD : 950, VDDG IOD : 1050, [email protected] (1.500V) (currently, this is the best VSOC/VDDP/VDDG settings i have found to avoid random hard reboot since 72h+)
> 
> I'm using safe profile with imported XMP with fast "tRFC", "tRTP" and "tWR". (I know that my ram can do 16-16-8-14-24-40-288 (tCL-tRCDRD-tRCDWR-tRP-tRAS-tRC-tRFC) @3800mhz with 1.48V on another motherboard/cpu, tested for 48h+ few days ago)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What settings can i try to eliminate the very rare error ? : p (I tested 43.6 procODT + RZQ/7--OFF--RZQ/5 but i had errors, 60 procODT (auto) not booting with ram at 3800mhz, 53.3 seems the minimum)
> 
> With VDDP on auto (900mV) and every other same settings, i had 1 error after "only" 280min on MEMBench. (do i need (can i ?) to increage VDDP again ?





Try Twr 16 and Trfc of 304/288(whatever's stable), then Twr/Trtp/Trfc will all be in sync. My 3600 can't do 3733mhz unless I use 1.15v SOC so I just stick with 3600mhz, you might find more stability running at 3666mhz or lower.


----------



## SpecChum

Speaking of SOC voltage, I accidentally lowered mine to 1.025v last night (1.006v under load) and it's been on all night without issue, this is at 1800 FLCK too.

I say accidentally as it was set at 1.050v and I swore I had it at 1.025v before (didn't take droop into account!) so I assumed I'd just not saved the profile when I set it to 1.025v and just saved and restarted.

Only this morning did I notice it's actually now 1.006v. Whoops.

Seems OK tho.

EDIT: Suppose I best test it lol It actually drops to 1.000v during the test.


----------



## 2600ryzen

I run my soc voltage at [email protected] fclock, perfectly stable. VDDP is 0.925v and VDDG is 0.85v.


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> I run my soc voltage at [email protected] fclock, perfectly stable. VDDP is 0.925v and VDDG is 0.85v.


So you can do 1800 at 1v but 1866 needs 1.15v?

Just shows how sensitive these things are :wheee:


----------



## SpecChum

Test passed, cool 

Might try and lower VDIMM later, still hitting 49.3C at 1.41v - not an issue in itself, it's passed, but I have my GPU radiator as front intake so playing games makes the case warmer, that might impact the RAM stability - not noticed anything yet tho.


----------



## EddieZ

Hi all,
Having used the calculator to sharpen the timings, I am getting 30 or so Membench errors.

Using below scheme/setting. Which timings should I adjust to cope with the memory copy errors?


----------



## SpecChum

EddieZ said:


> Hi all,
> Having used the calculator to sharpen the timings, I am getting 30 or so Membench errors.
> 
> Using below scheme/setting. Which timings should I adjust to cope with the memory copy errors?


30 odd errors implies it's really not happy, I'd suspect the CL14 being difficult for it at that frequency, but if you've got GDM on you'll have to go 16 now.

First tho, try increasing the tRC up to 48 like it's recommending.

You tRFC is already fairly loose at 195ns, but it could be that as well.

EDIT: saying that, not sure what voltage you're on, could try bumping that a little, up to 1.45v should be OK for most


----------



## 2600ryzen

SpecChum said:


> So you can do 1800 at 1v but 1866 needs 1.15v?
> 
> Just shows how sensitive these things are :wheee:



Yeah I'm definitely at the start of the voltage/frequency wall at 3600mhz. 1.075v can pass memtest86 at 3733mhz easily but as soon as I boot into windows it's just non stop errors in testmem5 unless I use 1.15v. I don't think it's my infinity fabric or memory controller failing I think it's something to do with the pci-e bus on the SOC(mouse cuts in and out).


----------



## EddieZ

SpecChum said:


> 30 odd errors implies it's really not happy, I'd suspect the CL14 being difficult for it at that frequency, but if you've got GDM on you'll have to go 16 now.
> 
> First tho, try increasing the tRC up to 48 like it's recommending.
> 
> You tRFC is already fairly loose at 195ns, but it could be that as well.
> 
> EDIT: saying that, not sure what voltage you're on, could try bumping that a little, up to 1.45v should be OK for most


Thanks, will bump up from 1.41 to 1.45 (always a bit reluctant, my previous CJR memory absolutely disliked everything over 1.35) and change the tRC.
Let's see, I think it was stated somewhere that SS B-die 3200 could easily do 3533 10/10 times. So just tried it, 3466 is without memory errors.


----------



## hurricane28

Hi guys,

I sold my R5 2600x and got myself an R5 3600 and i must say that i am not disappointed.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

SpecChum said:


> I'd be tempted to call it a day to be honest, I don't even run tests for that long so I'd have slapped a "STABLE!" sticker on that a long time ago lol
> 
> Just use the PC as normal and if you get any issues then maybe look at it again, but I'd consider that stable enough.
> 
> I know otherwise would disagree, but just my 2c
> 
> EDIT: There is one thing, actually, try increasing your tRFC to 308 so it's a multiple of tWR - I've read that can minimise rare errors (or even lowering it to 294)


This PC/ram will need to be 100% stable in the future so if memtest failling before 24h, this is not right for me : p

Currently it seems to be ~99.99% stable.

I will try to sync tWR with tRFC and even tRTP like 2600ryzen said below.




KedarWolf said:


> It's likely your RAM is getting too hot and throwing an error.
> 
> I attached TM5 as a .zip file. Unzip it, run it as Admin, you'll get an AWE error. Reboot your PC, run it as Admin again, error will be gone.
> 
> It can take up to three hours to run all 20 cycles. While it's running, open HWInfo, 'Sensors Only', and check your RAM temps. If getting maybe 47-48C or higher your RAM will likely throw errors.
> 
> See this about RAM fans. They help a ton!!
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1747300-memory-cooling-2.html#post28455886


I alreasy passed TM5 20 cycles with 1usmus V3, I also know for a fact that my 4 ram are fully stable @[email protected] until ~53°. (tested with an hair dryer)
If yours is another version, i can try it. (I will launch another TM5)
I'm using the Corsair Dominator Airflow Platinum RGB for my ram  (@75% for 24/7 use or @100% for testing)
Since my ram did not exceeded 44° with my 827min membench, the error don't come from the temp :/

I know that overclocked B die can throw errors when temp are ~50°+
Also, the RGB on my ram are OFF since i gain ~2-3°.

Before i read your message, i launched TM5 with OCCT GPU (to heat up my 2080 TI so the ram will be hotter) : so far so good with 46-48° on ram :











2600ryzen said:


> Try Twr 16 and Trfc of 304/288(whatever's stable), then Twr/Trtp/Trfc will all be in sync. My 3600 can't do 3733mhz unless I use 1.15v SOC so I just stick with 3600mhz, you might find more stability running at 3666mhz or lower.


I will try this, I know a lot of things but i did not know that tWR / tRFC and even tRP could improve stability if they are all in sync.


Thanks to everyone, currently i'm testing with procODT 43.6 (down from 48), RttNom RZQ/7, RttWr RZQ/2 and RttPark RZQ/5 (up from RZQ/1), RttWr on OFF suggested by dram calc is not working, when i launch a memtest before windows, the pc will not reboot when I exit it, so I keep RttWr RZQ/2 which is a default value on my X570 Xtreme.


----------



## KedarWolf

GoforceReloaded said:


> This PC/ram will need to be 100% stable in the future so if memtest failling before 24h, this is not right for me : p
> 
> Currently it seems to be ~99.99% stable.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I will try to sync tWR with tRFC and even tRTP like 2600ryzen said below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I alreasy passed TM5 20 cycles with 1usmus V3, I also know for a fact that my 4 ram are fully stable @[email protected] until ~53°. (tested with an hair dryer)
> If yours is another version, i can try it. (I will launch another TM5)
> I'm using the Corsair Dominator Airflow Platinum RGB for my ram  (@75% for 24/7 use or @100% for testing)
> Since my ram did not exceeded 44° with my 827min membench, the error don't come from the temp :/
> 
> I know that overclocked B die can throw errors when temp are ~50°+
> Also, the RGB on my ram are OFF since i gain ~2-3°.
> 
> Before i read your message, i launched TM5 with OCCT GPU (to heat up my 2080 TI so the ram will be hotter) : so far so good with 46-48° on ram :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this, I know a lot of things but i did not know that tWR / tRFC and even tRP could improve stability if they are all in sync.
> 
> 
> Thanks to everyone, currently i'm testing with procODT 43.6 (down from 48), RttNom RZQ/7, RttWr RZQ/2 and RttPark RZQ/5 (up from RZQ/1), RttWr on OFF suggested by dram calc is not working, when i launch a memtest before windows, the pc will not reboot when I exit it, so I keep RttWr RZQ/2 which is a default value on my X570 Xtreme.


I get RTT_NOM OFF, RTT_WR 3 and RTT-PARK 1 as my settings with my b-die and took me a bit to figure out they are in a different order than in the DRAM Calculator in my BIOS.


----------



## rastaviper

hurricane28 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> 
> I sold my R5 2600x and got myself an R5 3600 and i must say that i am not disappointed.


Wow, great to see a 3200 G.skill running at 3800.
Is it stable there?

My 3200 C15 GTZ can't even boot at 3800.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## SpecChum

rastaviper said:


> Wow, great to see a 3200 G.skill running at 3800.
> Is it stable there?
> 
> My 3200 C15 GTZ can't even boot at 3800.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


I'm pretty sure you've probably tried, but my G-Skill 3200C14 can't even POST at 3600 with GDM off, but it's stable at 3600 with it on.

Your image shows GDM off that's all, so just making sure you've tried with it on.

EDIT: Saying that, I wouldn't bother to be honest, you'd have to move to CL16 so I doubt you'd gain much, if anything.


----------



## @purple

Guys, am I doing something wrong? It doesn't want to read 3600 and up.


----------



## Alexshunter

Hello, Which one to buy for AMD Ryzen 5 3300X ?

-Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 4000 PVS416G400C9K
or
-Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K

I d like the tightest possible CAS timing at 3800MHz FCLK


----------



## SpecChum

Alexshunter said:


> Hello, Which one to buy for AMD Ryzen 5 3300X ?
> 
> -Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 4000 PVS416G400C9K
> or
> -Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K
> 
> I d like the tightest possible CAS timing at 3800MHz FCLK


Bottom one for sure, if it's the kit I'm thinking it's one of the best around.

Buildzoid nearly had an orgasm when he used it


----------



## SpecChum

Should do 3800C15 with 1.45v I would have thought.

I've got some in my amazon basket, but I'm happy enough with my 3200C14 to be honest...but I am tempted...


----------



## Hequaqua

Do either of those kits report ram temps?


----------



## rares495

@purple said:


> Guys, am I doing something wrong? It doesn't want to read 3600 and up.


Hynix MFR cannot do 3600.


----------



## Martin778

SpecChum said:


> I'm pretty sure you've probably tried, but my G-Skill 3200C14 can't even POST at 3600 with GDM off, but it's stable at 3600 with it on.
> 
> Your image shows GDM off that's all, so just making sure you've tried with it on.
> 
> EDIT: Saying that, I wouldn't bother to be honest, you'd have to move to CL16 so I doubt you'd gain much, if anything.


Ah, so I'm not the only one getting mad trying to boot 3600 C15 "FAST" preset on my TRX40 Xtreme / 3960X.....
3600 SAFE runs fine but it's rubbish in terms of latency, 4ns worse than 3200 CL14 XMP.


----------



## @purple

rares495 said:


> Hynix MFR cannot do 3600.


What can I do now? Can't use a calculator then?


----------



## SpecChum

Martin778 said:


> Ah, so I'm not the only one getting mad trying to boot 3600 C15 "FAST" preset on my TRX40 Xtreme / 3960X.....
> 3600 SAFE runs fine but it's rubbish in terms of latency, 4ns worse than 3200 CL14 XMP.


I've got a mix of safe and fast - try the fast tRFC, that's a main contribution to latency reduction.

Here's what I've got currently, they're not as tight as some as I have airflow issues, so ram already hits 49.3c at 1.4v (1.38 in BIOS). I get well over >56.5k read and 66ns latency.


----------



## Martin778

Yeah, but it turns out GDM is key. Without GDM it won't even go past memory training.
This is like a mix of primaries of the old B-Die revision from the calculator but with the secondaries from the later rev. 
Lowering the CL and other primary timings is a no go - crashes at Windows logo, GDM expect an even number so it's either CL14 or 16 but 14 won't boot.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Hequaqua said:


> Do either of those kits report ram temps?



I have both of the Patriot Viper 4000 and 4400 kits and they do not report temperatures 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hequaqua

BIRDMANv84 said:


> I have both of the Patriot Viper 4000 and 4400 kits and they do not report temperatures
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR....lmao

Thanks though!:thumb:


----------



## rares495

@purple said:


> What can I do now? Can't use a calculator then?


You can buy a better RAM kit.


----------



## eliwankenobi

I returned my 4400CL19 in part because it didn’t have Temp Sensors.. haha

But mainly because of weird behavior of one of the kits and the other came with a bad DIMM.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I’m going to keep mine around to play around when I upgrade to a 3900x


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thomasck

Martin778 said:


> Yeah, but it turns out GDM is key. Without GDM it won't even go past memory training.
> This is like a mix of primaries of the old B-Die revision from the calculator but with the secondaries from the later rev.
> Lowering the CL and other primary timings is a no go - crashes at Windows logo, GDM expect an even number so it's either CL14 or 16 but 14 won't boot.


What ram voltage are you using?


----------



## felipejfc

*Help pls!*

Hi guys, I've been trying to optimize my RAM timers but I can't get the system to boot, I don't even get past system initialization actually, when it doesn't happen that I only get a black screen then I need to reset CMOS to even enter Bios again, the system will turn off twice then boot a third time resetting the clock settings.

I have 2x8GB of Geil Evo X II (3200Mhz), my motherboard is a b450 msi tomahawk and I have a ryzen 5 3600 using PBO

typhoon info:









https://i.imgur.com/***ym2l.png

DRAM calculator recomendation vs current values (SAFE):










I try those values and the moment I save the config in bios, the system power up and shutdown by itself 2 times and in the third it resets the default stock values, I don't know where to start trying to find the problem...

Any help?

Thanks!


----------



## rastaviper

felipejfc said:


> Hi guys, I've been trying to optimize my RAM timers but I can't get the system to boot, I don't even get past system initialization actually, when it doesn't happen that I only get a black screen then I need to reset CMOS to even enter Bios again, the system will turn off twice then boot a third time resetting the clock settings.
> 
> 
> 
> I have 2x8GB of Geil Evo X II (3200Mhz), my motherboard is a b450 msi tomahawk and I have a ryzen 5 3600 using PBO
> 
> 
> 
> typhoon info:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/***ym2l.png
> 
> 
> 
> DRAM calculator recomendation vs current values (SAFE):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try those values and the moment I save the config in bios, the system power up and shutdown by itself 2 times and in the third it resets the default stock values, I don't know where to start trying to find the problem...
> 
> 
> 
> Any help?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Are u sure that they are Bdie?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## RaXelliX

Try selecting DRAM PCB Revision: Bad bin
3200 CL16-18-18-18-36 is nothing great when it comes to B-Die.


----------



## hurricane28

rastaviper said:


> Wow, great to see a 3200 G.skill running at 3800.
> Is it stable there?
> 
> My 3200 C15 GTZ can't even boot at 3800.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Yes it is. Its not the RAM that can't do it i think but more of the CPU or motherboard. Voltage is set to 1.425 also for the RAM. Decoupling fclk can also help and set it manually.


----------



## rastaviper

hurricane28 said:


> Yes it is. Its not the RAM that can't do it i think but more of the CPU or motherboard. Voltage is set to 1.425 also for the RAM. Decoupling fclk can also help and set it manually.


Hmm I wouldn't like to decouple anything as I am pretty sure will increase my 62.9 ns
I believe the best option for me is to tight the timings further at 3733'

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## 1nterceptor

Hi guys! This is a copy/paste from another thread because i didn't get any answers...

I am having problems with my setup (R5 1600x + C6H) and Hynix CJR (2x8Gb Ripjaws V F4 C15D-3000). Tryed playing with Dram Calc but no success. I can't seem to get it to work at more than 3000Mhz @CL15 (even that is not fully stable). Tryed almost everything, but it's a bit too early to say - got it from RMA yesterday morning (as a supstitute for my old Ripjaws which had Samsung E-dies - they ran at 3200MHz CL16 + tight subs). If i didn't know better i would say my IMC is crap but the funny thing is, my friend's Micron E-die (Ballistix Sport LT 3000 CL15) works great on my cpu. I had it running on 3466Mhz CL16 @ 1.38v with good sub-timings fully stable... So, i guess CJR is simply not very compatible with first gen Ryzen or it really requires some heavy tweaking... Anyway, i'll try to play with it again throughout these couple of days, if unsuccessfull i think i'll simply swap with my friend, he has R5 3600 + MSI B450 Tomahawk Max (CJR should work just fine on this)... I'm not sure if a newer Bios could help? I'm asking because i'm on an older version of Bios (6401 with Agesa 1.0.0.6) because it should be best for first gen Ryzen...

Edit: I managed to get 3200 CL16 with a Bios update (newest official bios -> 7704 + Agesa Combo 1.0.0.4), all ODT settings on auto, primary timings are manual...
It's interesting to see that Auto setting prefers ProcODT @60 and RttNom/RttWr Disabled - where Dram Calc points to completely different values,
i guess it needs more tuning with CJR/DJR... @1usmus i hope you're working on this m8 


















This is where i am at right now, i won't give up so easily but would apriciate any help/input. Thank you!


----------



## SpecChum

1nterceptor said:


> Hi guys! This is a copy/paste from another thread because i didn't get any answers...
> 
> I am having problems with my setup (R5 1600x + C6H) and Hynix CJR (2x8Gb Ripjaws V F4 C15D-3000). Tryed playing with Dram Calc but no success. I can't seem to get it to work at more than 3000Mhz @CL15 (even that is not fully stable). Tryed almost everything, but it's a bit too early to say - got it from RMA yesterday morning (as a supstitute for my old Ripjaws which had Samsung E-dies - they ran at 3200MHz CL16 + tight subs). If i didn't know better i would say my IMC is crap but the funny thing is, my friend's Micron E-die (Ballistix Sport LT 3000 CL15) works great on my cpu. I had it running on 3466Mhz CL16 @ 1.38v with good sub-timings fully stable... So, i guess CJR is simply not very compatible with first gen Ryzen or it really requires some heavy tweaking... Anyway, i'll try to play with it again throughout these couple of days, if unsuccessfull i think i'll simply swap with my friend, he has R5 3600 + MSI B450 Tomahawk Max (CJR should work just fine on this)... I'm not sure if a newer Bios could help? I'm asking because i'm on an older version of Bios (6401 with Agesa 1.0.0.6) because it should be best for first gen Ryzen...
> 
> Edit: I managed to get 3200 CL16 with a Bios update (newest official bios -> 7704 + Agesa Combo 1.0.0.4), all ODT settings on auto, primary timings are manual...
> It's interesting to see that Auto setting prefers ProcODT @60 and RttNom/RttWr Disabled - where Dram Calc points to completely different values,
> i guess it needs more tuning with CJR/DJR... @1usmus i hope you're working on this m8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where i am at right now, i won't give up so easily but would apriciate any help/input. Thank you!


Not really sure what to suggest as those timings (DOCP default?) are loose already, so if that doesn't work you might be SOL.

Could try adding another 0.1v to VDIMM I guess? What voltage you at now?

Also, 7704 BIOS got my 1700 up to 3477 at CL14, and same BIOS is currently running 3600 with same RAM now on my new 3900x - so that's definitely worth a go.


----------



## rdr09

1nterceptor said:


> Hi guys! This is a copy/paste from another thread because i didn't get any answers...
> 
> I am having problems with my setup (R5 1600x + C6H) and Hynix CJR (2x8Gb Ripjaws V F4 C15D-3000). Tryed playing with Dram Calc but no success. I can't seem to get it to work at more than 3000Mhz @CL15 (even that is not fully stable). Tryed almost everything, but it's a bit too early to say - got it from RMA yesterday morning (as a supstitute for my old Ripjaws which had Samsung E-dies - they ran at 3200MHz CL16 + tight subs). If i didn't know better i would say my IMC is crap but the funny thing is, my friend's Micron E-die (Ballistix Sport LT 3000 CL15) works great on my cpu. I had it running on 3466Mhz CL16 @ 1.38v with good sub-timings fully stable... So, i guess CJR is simply not very compatible with first gen Ryzen or it really requires some heavy tweaking... Anyway, i'll try to play with it again throughout these couple of days, if unsuccessfull i think i'll simply swap with my friend, he has R5 3600 + MSI B450 Tomahawk Max (CJR should work just fine on this)... I'm not sure if a newer Bios could help? I'm asking because i'm on an older version of Bios (6401 with Agesa 1.0.0.6) because it should be best for first gen Ryzen...
> 
> Edit: I managed to get 3200 CL16 with a Bios update (newest official bios -> 7704 + Agesa Combo 1.0.0.4), all ODT settings on auto, primary timings are manual...
> It's interesting to see that Auto setting prefers ProcODT @60 and RttNom/RttWr Disabled - where Dram Calc points to completely different values,
> i guess it needs more tuning with CJR/DJR... @1usmus i hope you're working on this m8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where i am at right now, i won't give up so easily but would apriciate any help/input. Thank you!


Looking good. If you test it with Aida's memory latency, it should get close to 70 ns. My Hynix CJR 3200 CL16 did 3200 DOCP with the R5 1600 using Agesa 1006. Did 3466 CL16 with the R7 2700 and is currently set at 3666 CL16 with the R5 3600.


----------



## 1nterceptor

@SpecChum

I was at 1.37v when i took that ss, but it turned out to be unstable. Now i'm at 1.38v and i have to see if it helps stability... I guess when you count in the first gen Ryzen + C6H which has T-topology and a fairly new RAM IC's you get what i am experiencing right now...

@rdr09

Latencies are not looking so good, about 74-75ns...
Guess it's all about the CPU and IMC.


----------



## rdr09

1nterceptor said:


> I was at 1.37v when i took that ss, but it turned out to be unstable. Now i'm at 1.38v and i have to see if it helps stability... I guess when you count in the first gen Ryzen + C6H which has T-topology and a fairly new RAM IC's you get what i am experiencing right now...


That is a normal reaction is to raise dram voltage. But it could be SOC needs adjustment from 1.05 to 1.08v or something.

That latency is still better than stock, which could be anywhere from 80 to 90ns. Additional 10-15 fps in games.


----------



## Martin778

thomasck said:


> What ram voltage are you using?


~1.39V. Increasing to 1.45V made no difference.


----------



## Tobiman

Just a fyi. 3200MHZ 16-18-18-38 RAM is most likely Hynix CJR not B-die.


----------



## kratosatlante

rastaviper said:


> Hmm I wouldn't like to decouple anything as I am pretty sure will increase my 62.9 ns
> I believe the best option for me is to tight the timings further at 3733'
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


try blck 99.2 and boot, then 99.4 and repeat to find the limit


----------



## rastaviper

kratosatlante said:


> try blck 99.2 and boot, then 99.4 and repeat to find the limit


My Aorus x570 Elite has 100 as the minimum setting.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## eliwankenobi

Tobiman said:


> Just a fyi. 3200MHZ 16-18-18-38 RAM is most likely Hynix CJR not B-die.



3200 CL16 is Lootbox RAM, it can be ANYTHING


----------



## dspx

@1usmus I have a Micron E revision A1

I have included the attachments. Do you need anything else?


----------



## hazium233

dspx said:


> @1usmus I have a Micron E revision A1
> 
> I have included the attachments. Do you need anything else?


How far apart are the chips spaced on the PCB? I thought the 3000 / 3200 Sport bins were on A2 (regardless of what thaiphoon might say). Mine (Sport LT 3200) look like A2 just from looking up through the bottom anyway.

My 2666 Sport AT sticks (Rev D) look like A1 though. I have a picture of them I can attach.


----------



## Martin778

eliwankenobi said:


> 3200 CL16 is Lootbox RAM, it can be ANYTHING


This, the 3000/3200 C15/16 can be everything. AFAIK 3000 CL15 can sometims be a lower bin B-Die but it's mostly Hynix AFR/MFR, E-Die, D-Die and other crapola.
If you're in the market for a G.Skill kit, make sure it doesn't have "C" in the name as that's guaranteed Hynix C-Die. G.Skill has made the naming scheme darn confusing lately, they added the "B" suffix to some new B-Die kits, for example GTZNB but some kits without any B/C suffix can be B-Die too.


----------



## rdr09

Martin778 said:


> This, the 3000/3200 C15/16 can be everything. AFAIK 3000 CL15 can sometims be a lower bin B-Die but it's mostly Hynix AFR/MFR, E-Die, D-Die and other crapola.
> If you're in the market for a G.Skill kit, make sure it doesn't have "C" in the name as that's guaranteed Hynix C-Die. G.Skill has made the naming scheme darn confusing lately, they added the "B" suffix to some new B-Die kits, for example GTZNB but some kits without any B/C suffix can be B-Die too.


Got a C-Die kit and is not that bad. Even op's guide have an example of C-Die oc'ed to 4000MHz.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/3.html


----------



## eliwankenobi

Martin778 said:


> This, the 3000/3200 C15/16 can be everything. AFAIK 3000 CL15 can sometims be a lower bin B-Die but it's mostly Hynix AFR/MFR, E-Die, D-Die and other crapola.
> If you're in the market for a G.Skill kit, make sure it doesn't have "C" in the name as that's guaranteed Hynix C-Die. G.Skill has made the naming scheme darn confusing lately, they added the "B" suffix to some new B-Die kits, for example GTZNB but some kits without any B/C suffix can be B-Die too.



I became very aware of this and specially with Gskill kits, before I ordered my GTZN kit.


----------



## Region2rex

is it okay that i tightened up the timings a little bit on my Corsair Micron B kit if all is stable... Twrrd can't go any lower than 3 and I am not to sure if changing the other timings will hinder performance. Im running the ram @ 3000 MHz, not 2666 like the app says. Also Latency seems sub-par no matter what i've done so far. I am scoring around 89-90 ns.


----------



## masteratarms

I've swapped out micron-e for b-die patriot viper steel 4400. I had the M2Z3600c18 @ 3800 (I posted before in this thread). I got the 4 dimms of b-die in and found a setting of tWR = 13 which my system liked and posted with. The temperature has gone up 8'c here in last 48 hours and my memory failed to post and gave errors @ 3733. I was using 1.44vDDR (1.46v reported) so I set 3666, 1.4vDDR and kept my tWR13 setting and now I run 299 tRFC because 299 is a multiple of 13. 

I did have the 20 pass test done but it was tricky to get it to post sometimes. I feel like I need a fan on my RAM, and I'm out of PWM to molex fan adapters (to set pwm fan to 12v), I do have a spare silent fan. My priority was to have at least something stable and I even tried cl15 GDM disabled but got some really wobbly responces from the motherboard. I've not tried lowering tFAW which is 16. My SoC is overkill even for 3800MT/s as I have gameplay of it running 1069 & 1088mV (that's AMD's reading, gigabyte's is 1.116v).

As expected I've dropped some score in the membench: 196.96 > 203.69 on default.


----------



## Martin778

The thing with Micron E and Hynix C is that the secondary timings like tRFC are loose as hell, tight 3600 B-Die should trounce a 4000+ E-Die kit with ease on everything but raw throughput.
Now testing this. TRX40 seems not to bother too much with IF at 3733MHz, SOC is still low at barely 1.1V.


















For comparison's sake, the latency looked like this:
- Stock 3200 CL14 XMP ~80.9ns
- 3600 C16 "SAFE" preset ~84ns
- 2133 CL15 JEDEC preset ~111ns 

Further testing will be difficult as the temperatures already reached 23*C outside, making me die PC already inside as my room then easily heats up to good 30*C+. 
Man I absolutely despise summer and any 20*C+ ambient temp. Cave troll not happy.


----------



## SpecChum

Just tested these timings with a purposely over-volted GPU so the case interior gets hotter than it ever will with gaming, and I'm pleased to say it passed, even tho 1 DIMM did get over 56C :blinksmil

Could maybe lower a couple? tRC should drop down 2, tCWL might too.

Might have a play tomorrow, but I'm happy with these for now, but anything obvious, please let me know 

EDIT: Forgot to say, I've tried CL14 and get F9 error and I don't really want to go higher VDIMM as they're hot enough already


----------



## masteratarms

@SpecChum, I have version 1.7.0, 1.71, 1.72, & 1.73 open and the all four versions recommeded tCWL = 14. I'm also on 16 just I haven't adjusted that since I dropped my clocks and voltage back (I need a fan since 8'c higher temperatures and high vDDR making temperature errors).


----------



## Hequaqua

Patriot Viper [email protected]@1.38v(1.404~HWiNFO64)

Ryzen Master w/Zen Timings



Spoiler














TM5 20cycles



Spoiler














*Thaiphoon Burner*

Pretty happy with it so far. Just ran Ryzen Dram Calc for 3733 Fast...plugged it all in and it works. Woot!:thumb:


----------



## Veii

ribosome said:


> Is there anything different that needs to be done for T-topology motherboards? I'm running 4 DIMMs.


T-Topology you can imagine spreads the signal as 50% to each set, while Daisy Chain does 75% & 25%
Overall you'd need more VDDG IOD and likely higher procODT impedance and higher RTT Ω for them, overall just stronger drive strengh
Maybe even more ClkDrvStrengh (first CAD_BUS value)
Logically this explains why 4 dimms on daisy chain are a very bad idea, and why T-Topology clocks a bit lower by default on 2 dimm setups


Nikhil g18 said:


> Here is the ryzen master and thaiphoon burner screen shots
> 
> 
> rares495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, 1.36V soc voltage? Am I reading that right?
> 
> 
> SpecChum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3900x up and running, just having a play
> What's VDDCR SOC in Ryzen Master? Mine's showing as 1.363
> 
> I assumed it was SOC and my C6H was just overvolting, so I was going to lower it, but HWiNFO is saying my SoC Voltage is 1.090, which is much more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sadly yes,
as VGGD 1.15ish was used, the only vSOC that can be accepted is 1.2v and higher
Even if you force it lower, as long as VDDG is that high, nothing under +50mV over it will be accepted as vSOC
Inside AMD Overclocking, there is a menu called UNCORE OC , enabling that will disable boards autocorrection on voltage
But i suggest you to hold on these voltage patterns - the 2nd half of the message:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814




KedarWolf said:


> The timings shown in DRAM Calculator and are NOT the actual timings with GDM on. It shows the timings they are set at which is incorrect, but the actual timings are different.
> 
> With GDM enabled, even though the timings in DRAM Calculator show 13-15-5 etc. it still rounds off the timings and the actual REAL timings are 14-16-6.
> 
> Search this thread, even Veii who is one of the most knowledgeable persons that posts on this thread have said it rounds off.
> I think even 1usmus who created the DRAM calculator has said this as well.
> With GDM enabled the timings shown in DRAM Calculator are NOT the actual timings that the motherboard is setting them at. They round off to a higher even number.
> With GDM disabled they stay at the odd numbers.
> I can't explain it any better and I'm not going to explain it any further, it should be clear by now. :h34r-smi


The DRAM Calculator can be buggy sometimes on imported calculation
The only way to prove it different is with SiSandra, tho i noticed they are autocorrected in the hidden
tCL is autocorrected directly on boot with GDM on @rastaviper that is readable
But the rest is autocorrected in the hidden - the same goes for tRFC which can be autocorrected in realtime just indicating bad perf if it's too low
Only way to proof it is by a SiSandra report or a long membench delay / maybe even SuperPi 1.5 SX should show a difference 
You can adapt tho, tRP often can be lowered with voltage and tRC has wiggle room of -2 under tRAS+tRP in case you want to adjust tRFC better
There is not much of an issue to use only even timings - but it's a reason why i prefer 2T over GDM to use odd timings 
They end up just faster, even tho 2T is about as slow to 1T as decoupled mode
The odd timings benefits win at the end :thumb:
Sadly some bad chips require Half clock GDM mode 


Tobiman said:


> Is a dram pcb revision of B1= bad bin?


B1 is like A1, short trace design - it's a good thing, it can run very tight timings but more sensitive to bad signal integrity
Easier to run tight timings than B2/A2, tho only good till 4000MT/s - later it fails against A2/B2
Both are very sensitive to low end boards, but A1/B1 are easier to run than A2/B2



KedarWolf said:


> This 4000RPM RAM fan is amazing, at 1.5V my RAM doesn't go over 40C.
> 
> But likely the biggest improvement is I reset my 3950x in the socket when I changed the thermal paste (well, it actually pulled out of the socket trying to get the waterblock off it, lucky I never wrecked anything) and since then my RAM is performing much better.


Want to try something stupid ? 
Do you think you could lower tRCD WR a bit ?
i imagine down to 10-12ish, at lowest half of tRCD RD could make sense

Else here is something "stupid" 








if tWR 10 is too low, put it back to 12 with tRAS 28
At best you'd then want to push tRP 12, but i am a bit conflicting if current voltage would be enough for tRP 12
If it still fails, just put tRCD WR 10, then you can use tRAS 28 and everything will look fine with this low tRTF of 140ns
^ if you use tRCD WR 10 also put back tWR 12 to match up everything - but idealy this "stupid" try would work with tWR 10 :ninja:
* something aside, would you prefer tRDWR & tWRRD stuff above just aside tRCD and tCL, like tRTP is next to tWR ?
** that would move tRFC set down bellow, of course still with the debug mini tRFC sample/design we all got used to 
*** the placeholder is when we unhide another timing inside the bios :ninja:



yrelbirb said:


> what appears to be the issue? my friend tries to tweak his rams
> at cycle 18, these errors popped


Both of these errors are mirror move errors, it's a delay that comes from moving data between different dimms and different banks
Its not MirrorMove128, soo it's likely just 1 value off the correct one 
Can be tRP cell pre/re-charge being too slow, tRDWR/WRRD values being off, tRFC being a bit unsync, tWRT_ & tRRD_ values being too tight
Something micro chokes
Can also be tWR making issues
MirrorMove is data cloning between banks - you'll figure it out , just read the mt.cfg to know what error is for what


Synoxia said:


> @Veii so far i think i am pretty stable now. 20 cycles passed and no crashes so far... i use 1.05 VDDG, 900 vddp and 1.10 vsoc as calculator suggests. Do you think is too much? remember 4 dimms


Happy Testing 








Logically red requires orange values unless stated otherwise~


GoforceReloaded said:


> Hello,
> Trying to know what's may be wrong here :
> What settings can i try to eliminate the very rare error ? : p (I tested 43.6 procODT + RZQ/7--OFF--RZQ/5 but i had errors, 60 procODT (auto) not booting with ram at 3800mhz, 53.3 seems the minimum)
> 
> With VDDP on auto (900mV) and every other same settings, i had 1 error after "only" 280min on MEMBench. (do i need (can i ?) to increase VDDP again ?


The only thing that looked wrong was tWRRD at 3, should be 4 as you are on 16, not 17 on the tRCDs 
or you lower tRCD WR down 2 then tWRRD 3 is fine
cLDO_VDDP over 900mV is only needed when you seak for 1950-2000FCLK or higher than 2000MCLK
900mV here is more than enough for <1900FLCK


Alexshunter said:


> Hello, Which one to buy for AMD Ryzen 5 3300X ?
> -Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 4000 PVS416G400C9K
> or
> -Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 4400 PVS416G440C9K
> I d like the tightest possible CAS timing at 3800MHz FCLK


Hard question, you want high speed, decouple mode shouldn't bother the 3300X that much at all
4000 ones are A0 PCB - easier to run and you have kinda a low end board, tho if i googled correctly and this is only with 2 slots and hopefully daisy chain layout
A2 PCB would work 

4400 are A2 pcb , a custom A1 variance just as A2 for speeds above 4000MT/s
Grab the A2s if this is board is daisy chain, else stay on A0 if this is t-topology, else you'd need to use quite strong impedance to push T-Topology with A2 kits
well both are fine, your goal tho is above 4400MT/s with this ryzen, even above 4600
For low timings couples mode A0 is better as it's easier to run, and maybe you get lucky and get an A1 pcb which is extremely rare on the 4K ones


rares495 said:


> Hynix MFR cannot do 3600.
> 
> 
> @purple said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can I do now? Can't use a calculator then?
> 
> 
> rares495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can buy a better RAM kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Kinda +1
You learn the best on the most horrible kits out there xD
HynixMFR to your luck, loves voltage near the 1.55-1.62v 
In my signature there are two sets for HynixMFR near 3334MT/s 
3400 has such a high stress, only way to hit 3600 is with 3rd gen and stupid voltages (1.62 and above)
3200 is your end goal, 3333 is already pushing the limits - it's MFRs limits
Tho both of my signature are stable but boards do autocorrect as i didn't know at that time the full effects of GDM enabled


SpecChum said:


> Just tested these timings with a purposely over-volted GPU so the case interior gets hotter than it ever will with gaming, and I'm pleased to say it passed, even tho 1 DIMM did get over 56C :blinksmil
> 
> Could maybe lower a couple? tRC should drop down 2, tCWL might too.
> Might have a play tomorrow, but I'm happy with these for now, but anything obvious, please let me know
> EDIT: Forgot to say, I've tried CL14 and get F9 error and I don't really want to go higher VDIMM as they're hot enough already


You can't drop tCWL under tCL when you have GDM enabled
You could do more if these set of timings run under 2T well enough instead 








Green is optimal baseline with GDM enabled
Orange Requires 1.42-1.46v
Red around 1.46-1.48v VDIMM
all depends on PCB Revision (A0,A1,A2)
Black would be dropping SCL to 2 , but that's not possible on low end b-dies


----------



## Dollar

Don't leave us again Veii


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Don't leave us again Veii


Twitter~
I can't guarantee 
Still in a harsh situation, but it got a bit more comfortable
Will see, zen 3 i should be back in action 
So far just helping here and there some people who need help @yrelbirb Speaking of random micron kits 
Part 1:


Spoiler














And seems like CL14 works cutting away 5ns memory latency tho still bottlenecking that guys 1st gen ryzen 


Spoiler














L3 latency was higher without the perf bias tweak 
Interesting to me is how inter-core latency dropped 10ns more, while on default it's over 110ns 

Still in the search which IC these Crucial ver3.22 2133CL13-15-15 kits have
Suspicious about Micron B-die but could be also rev e
Interesting is, 1.48v works wonderfully, 1.5v makes it unstable, 1.52v already has big negative effects
3400 and 3466 is WIP 
CL12 needs 1.7v, too dangerous when i have no idea which nm size these mysterious micron kits really are


----------



## rdr09

Hequaqua said:


> Patriot Viper [email protected]@1.38v(1.404~HWiNFO64)
> 
> Ryzen Master w/Zen Timings
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 348054
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM5 20cycles
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 348056
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thaiphoon Burner*
> 
> Pretty happy with it so far. Just ran Ryzen Dram Calc for 3733 Fast...plugged it all in and it works. Woot!:thumb:


Nice. There are times it only takes an hour or even less it is almost boring. Other times it takes days. You gonna try going 3800?


----------



## Veii

nvm


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> Twitter~
> I can't guarantee
> Still in a harsh situation, but it got a bit more comfortable
> Will see, zen 3 i should be back in action
> So far just helping here and there some people who need help
> @yrelbirb Speaking of random micron kits
> Part 1:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And seems like CL14 works cutting away 5ns memory latency tho still bottlenecking that guys 1st gen ryzen
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L3 latency was higher without the perf bias tweak
> Interesting to me is how inter-core latency dropped 10ns more, while on default it's over 110ns
> 
> Still in the search which IC these Crucial ver3.22 2133CL13-15-15 kits have
> Suspicious about Micron B-die but could be also rev e
> Interesting is, 1.48v works wonderfully, 1.5v makes it unstable, 1.52v already has big negative effects
> 3400 and 3466 is WIP
> CL12 needs 1.7v, too dangerous when i have no idea which nm size these mysterious micron kits really are


This looks suspiciously close to what My Micron B-die 25nm did around when I was using my B350-Gaming 3 with Ryzen 1700.
They are 4Gb dual-rank.
I got my Rev.E afterwards and did 3733Mhz on the same combo.

I no longer have the B350 board but have the memory in another system. I was actually more happy with the Micron B-die on the Ryzen 1700 system than the Rev.E. Rev.E could not stretch it legs on frequency on that system. The Ryzen 1700 IMC could not match.
Never tested the Micron B-die 25nm 4Gb-density on my Ryzen 3000 & X570 board.

I looked at the kits they are ver3.21 2666 16-18-18 1.200V


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> This looks suspiciously close to what My Micron B-die 25nm did around when I was using my B350-Gaming 3 with Ryzen 1700.
> They are 4Gb dual-rank.
> I got my Rev.E afterwards and did 3733Mhz on the same combo.
> 
> I no longer have the B350 board but have the memory in another system. I was actually more happy with the Micron B-die on the Ryzen 1700 system than the Rev.E. Rev.E could not stretch it legs on frequency on that system. The Ryzen 1700 IMC could not match.
> Never tested the Micron B-die 25nm 4Gb-density on my Ryzen 3000 & X570 board.


They indeed do - the model number pretty much is identical
With the only difference that these kit lays on A2 PCBs and is single rank 4gb 
I thought that too, low tRFC and behavior matched micron B-die , but i didn't know nm size
25nm makes me happy 
Meaning i can freely go over 1.55v near 1.6v on them :clock:
Tho they do scale negative at 1.52v , hmm let's see 

Thank you for the screenshots 
i wish you would have these kits still to test their potential limits out ,and check on what PCB yours where
Sounds like A1
CL13-17 is really not bad either
Was trying CL12 but it didn't post on 1.6v - i suspect they need 1.65-1.7v which is eeh , uncomfortable 
But now it's a bit more, 25nm and A2 pcb - i can surely push over 1.52v without worry, thanks again :thumb:


----------



## EddieZ

SpecChum said:


> 30 odd errors implies it's really not happy, I'd suspect the CL14 being difficult for it at that frequency, but if you've got GDM on you'll have to go 16 now.
> 
> First tho, try increasing the tRC up to 48 like it's recommending.
> 
> You tRFC is already fairly loose at 195ns, but it could be that as well.
> 
> EDIT: saying that, not sure what voltage you're on, could try bumping that a little, up to 1.45v should be OK for most


Increased the voltage to 1.45 and changed AddrCmdDrvStr to 20 Ohm + cranked up VDDP to 1050. So far nothing is locking up randomly anymore. Not tested yet with MemTest, want to enjoy the sense of victory first before MemTest can mess that up.

Thanks for the pointers.


----------



## SpecChum

@Veii

Thanks 

This RAM is quite old now, over 3 years in fact, TB says they're A1, but I'm not certain.

They seem to be OK tho, seem to cope OK with whatever I throw at them.

Those timing above are working at 1.38v in BIOS (rises to 1.395v in HWiNFO), but as I say I'm a bit reluctant to go higher as they reach 56C already when the GPU is at full tilt for an hour or so.


----------



## Veii

SpecChum said:


> @Veii
> 
> Thanks
> 
> This RAM is quite old now, over 3 years in fact, TB says they're A1, but I'm not certain.
> 
> They seem to be OK tho, seem to cope OK with whatever I throw at them.
> 
> Those timing above are working at 1.38v in BIOS (rises to 1.395v in HWiNFO), but as I say I'm a bit reluctant to go higher as they reach 56C already when the GPU is at full tilt for an hour or so.


You can still try the sets
but fix your timings with the green one 
Because with GDM, the board does autocorrect 
And autocorrection uses useless added latency - fixing that most of the times still leads to better results
You can then experiment, if you can disable GDM and run 2T at the start
It's suggested to increase clkdrvstrengh the first CAD_BUS value, to 40-60ohm range if you want to disable GDM and have issues 

Sets should be fine, you just need to test what works for you
maybe can spare the time to finetune airflow a bit too~
EDIT:
keep using correct tRFC,tRFC2,tRFC4 and you shouldnt have much issues with thermals 
Memory gets unstable after 42c but some work up till 60c without issues - depends on the harshness of the timings


----------



## SpecChum

Veii said:


> maybe can spare the time to finetune airflow a bit too~


Not much I can do for airflow without redoing my whole water cooling as pretty much every fan is going through a radiator, I've only got a 140mm exhaust that's unimpeded lol

They seem to cope OK at 56C at those timings tho, will check out those green timings mentioned before, although wouldn't the altered timings show up in RM or timing checker? I know CL and a couple others do, for example I've actually got tCL and tCWL as 15 in BIOS, but they both show as 16 as I've got GDM on and it's auto-corrected.


----------



## Veii

SpecChum said:


> Not much I can do for airflow without redoing my whole water cooling as pretty much every fan is going through a radiator, I've only got a 140mm exhaust that's unimpeded lol
> 
> They seem to cope OK at 56C at those timings tho, will check out those green timings mentioned before, although wouldn't the altered timings show up in RM or timing checker? I know CL and a couple others do, for example I've actually got tCL and tCWL as 15 in BIOS, but they both show as 16 as I've got GDM on and it's auto-corrected.


Yep active correction vs hidden correction
Ryzen Timing Checker could show a bit of difference on the remain timings
But it doesn't show everything - timings still are auto corrected in the hidden, like too low tRAS 
It won't show it being different but it clearly will influence the result
For example the SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core efficiency result 
^ meaning, it is autocorrected in the hidden 

tCKE, tCR, tCL, tCWL are auto corrected automatically as module/option when you run GDM before post
But others like tRAS, tRFC, tRFC2/4 are corrected in real time while you are in windows
Actually tRRD_ and tRTP should be actively corrected too, but i haven't notice anything on them
tMRD does control that, and depends up to memory state, the memory on itself does in realtime change functionality
Timings after all are just placeholders, in the hidden far more stuff happens 
You'll notice it only on benchmarks 
You can compare people's timings where most of them, even tho higher perform just better - the rest is actively corrected and has added latency
EDIT:
Soo i can't stress enough, "use SiSandra to check your timings" 
Less doesn't mean better 
EDIT2:
Less Aida64 latency is already an indication of a change, but real result you only get with SiSoftware Sandra or the Calculator - DRAM benchmark :ninja:
* i wish it would've an thread to thread inner-core latency benchmark with a visual representation


----------



## Hequaqua

rdr09 said:


> Nice. There are times it only takes an hour or even less it is almost boring. Other times it takes days. You gonna try going 3800?


I haven't had 20 cycles at less than a hour....lol

Not sure on 3800, my chip doesn't like 1900IF clocks....at all.....


----------



## rdr09

Hequaqua said:


> I haven't had 20 cycles at less than a hour....lol
> 
> Not sure on 3800, my chip doesn't like 1900IF clocks....at all.....



Oh noes. Not even on 16GB of ram. Getting the right settings for the ram using the calc, though, may vary much. So close to 3800 but 3766 is already a challenge for some.

Yah, for 16GB takes about 1hr and 20 minutes testing with TM5.


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> Yah, for 16GB takes about 1hr and 20 minutes testing with TM5.


Depends on the CPU too.

My 1700 took about 1hr 33mins to complete 16GB IIRC, but this 3900X does it in just over an hour. 1hr 3mins I think it was, so seems to scale as expected.


----------



## rdr09

SpecChum said:


> Depends on the CPU too.
> 
> My 1700 took about 1hr 33mins to complete 16GB IIRC, but this 3900X does it in just over an hour. 1hr 3mins I think it was, so seems to scale as expected.


That's a big difference. It could be the speed of the ram and not the cpu?


----------



## SpecChum

rdr09 said:


> That's a big difference. It could be the speed of the ram and not the cpu?


RAM only went from 3466 to 3600 at actually looser timings, (CL14 vs CL16) so i don't think it's that.

This 3900X runs TM5 at ~4.2GHz, whereas my 1700 was 3.8GHz, plus the 3900X has a 4 core advantage.


----------



## @purple

Veii said:


> Kinda +1
> You learn the best on the most horrible kits out there xD
> HynixMFR to your luck, loves voltage near the 1.55-1.62v
> In my signature there are two sets for HynixMFR near 3334MT/s
> 3400 has such a high stress, only way to hit 3600 is with 3rd gen and stupid voltages (1.62 and above)
> 3200 is your end goal, 3333 is already pushing the limits - it's MFRs limits
> Tho both of my signature are stable but boards do autocorrect as i didn't know at that time the full effects of GDM enabled


I already run it at 3600 but wanted to do more on with this tool.


----------



## Hequaqua

rdr09 said:


> Oh noes. Not even on 16GB of ram. Getting the right settings for the ram using the calc, though, may vary much. So close to 3800 but 3766 is already a challenge for some.
> 
> Yah, for 16GB takes about 1hr and 20 minutes testing with TM5.


I just ran Karhu for 2hrs.....no problems.









I restarted, saved my profile...then the computer went nuts. Fans blasted to 100%, saw the bios logo, then tried to go into Automatic Repair. Never made it there....just kept going back to the bios logo, then black screen, back to the bios logo.....very odd. So, I cleared CMOS, loaded up my 3666mhz profile(since I run a static core clock, I usually have to restart, go into the bios and load the profile again for it to take the memory timings), went to the Automatic Repair, made it that time, restarted from there....back on the desktop at 4.2 and 3666. 

I'm not sure what's going on......:headscrat

I've looked on the web for some info on the 3.3v rail on the psu, can't seem to find much about it for current systems. My 3.3v rail voltage is really low....it never hits the 3.3v. Right now it's setting at 3.186v. I've seen it lower than that. I have a RMA coming.....could that low voltage affect RAM?


----------



## yrelbirb

well... samsung b die was not my luck

instead i got these,

what am I potentially looking at?


----------



## rdr09

Hequaqua said:


> I just ran Karhu for 2hrs.....no problems.
> 
> View attachment 348168
> 
> 
> I restarted, saved my profile...then the computer went nuts. Fans blasted to 100%, saw the bios logo, then tried to go into Automatic Repair. Never made it there....just kept going back to the bios logo, then black screen, back to the bios logo.....very odd. So, I cleared CMOS, loaded up my 3666mhz profile(since I run a static core clock, I usually have to restart, go into the bios and load the profile again for it to take the memory timings), went to the Automatic Repair, made it that time, restarted from there....back on the desktop at 4.2 and 3666.
> 
> I'm not sure what's going on......:headscrat
> 
> I've looked on the web for some info on the 3.3v rail on the psu, can't seem to find much about it for current systems. My 3.3v rail voltage is really low....it never hits the 3.3v. Right now it's setting at 3.186v. I've seen it lower than that. I have a RMA coming.....could that low voltage affect RAM?


Could be. Limits are +/-5%, so minimum is around 3.13v but yours pretty close if read using software.


yrelbirb said:


> well... samsung b die was not my luck
> 
> instead i got these,
> 
> what am I potentially looking at?


I got a 3200 CL16 C-die with an R5 3600 running at 3666 CL16. Use cal to fine tune 3600, the go from there.


----------



## 2600ryzen

yrelbirb said:


> well... samsung b die was not my luck
> 
> instead i got these,
> 
> what am I potentially looking at?





Hynix cjr in dram calculator. Timings look OK I wouldn't go too high on voltage though maybe max 1.45v.


----------



## yrelbirb

2600ryzen said:


> Hynix cjr in dram calculator. Timings look OK I wouldn't go too high on voltage though maybe max 1.45v.


welp

xmp doesnt even work for my 2700x

even 3400 16-20-20-20-38 doesn't work

what appears to be issue?


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> welp
> 
> xmp doesnt even work for my 2700x
> 
> even 3400 16-20-20-20-38 doesn't work
> 
> what appears to be issue?


Not using the calc I simply set Auto instead of DOCP/XMP, raised the speed to 3400 (from stock of 3200) and added voltage like 1.35 to 1.4v when I had it paired with R7 2700.

Add a bit of voltage.


----------



## yrelbirb

rdr09 said:


> Not using the calc I simply set Auto instead of DOCP/XMP, raised the speed to 3400 (from stock of 3200) and added voltage like 1.35 to 1.4v when I had it paired with R7 2700.
> 
> Add a bit of voltage.


welp

there's even a bigger issue

kit refuse to boot at

3000 mhz and all timings auto @1.35v

kit seems to refuse boot at anything over 2400 mhz...

anyone can pinpoint the issue_?

surely it can do 3000 mhz 19-19-19-38, no? it even doesnt work

xmp doesn't even work, 

xmp + 3000 mhz, xmp + 3200... not one of them work 

i'm so sad right now. even what my micron b die does, doesn't work for some reason

maybe i got unlucky and the ram is not fully compatabile with mobo, who knows


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> welp
> 
> there's even a bigger issue
> 
> kit refuse to boot at
> 
> 3000 mhz and all timings auto @1.35v
> 
> kit seems to refuse boot at anything over 2400 mhz...
> 
> anyone can pinpoint the issue_?
> 
> surely it can do 3000 mhz 19-19-19-38, no? it even doesnt work
> 
> xmp doesn't even work,
> 
> xmp + 3000 mhz, xmp + 3200... not one of them work
> 
> i'm so sad right now. even what my micron b die does, doesn't work for some reason
> 
> maybe i got unlucky and the ram is not fully compatabile with mobo, who knows


Oo, are you using slots A2, B2?


----------



## yrelbirb

rdr09 said:


> Oo, are you using slots A2, B2?


yup :Snorkle:


----------



## Hequaqua

rdr09 said:


> Could be. Limits are +/-5%, so minimum is around 3.13v but yours pretty close if read using software.
> 
> 
> I got a 3200 CL16 C-die with an R5 3600 running at 3666 CL16. Use cal to fine tune 3600, the go from there.


I tried enabling GDM(even added a little voltage to the ram), same results.....looped and looped at a black screen...never even saw the bios logo. Odd thing is keyboard was lit up the whole time. I finally got back to the 3666....after 15mins of messing with it. 

Now, my 3.3v is showing 3.107(yea 3.135v is with spec, barely). Max I've seen so far, HWiNFO is 3.127, low 3.047, avg 3.109. Like I said, RMA is supposed ship....doing a cross-ship, so hopefully it will be here Monday/Tues. That's if they ship it today. 

Now I guess I need to test these ram sticks at 3666....lol


----------



## 2600ryzen

Zen+ struggles to go above 2933mhz on some mobo/ram combos. Might have to play with the drivestrength/termination resistance. Maybe veil knows how to get it working.


edit: I couldn't get my rev a kit to boot above 2933mhz with cl above 16, maybe your timings are too loose at the lower speeds?


----------



## yrelbirb

2600ryzen said:


> Zen+ struggles to go above 2933mhz on some mobo/ram combos. Might have to play with the drivestrength/termination resistance. Maybe veil knows how to get it working.


well.. i've been using my micron b-dies @3200 mhz 14-20-14-34 for about 2.5 months, zero issues, no crashes no nothing

how can it be? no ideas

i already started refunding process, pretty unlucky i guess

but kits will stay with me for 4 more days so... i'm open to suggestions

even 2666 mhz 22-22-22 didn't boot. there's a misfit but i dont know what iti s


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> yup :Snorkle:


Test each ram using A2 slot or one closer to cpu. Maybe just need reseat or swap slots. But test each stick.



Hequaqua said:


> I tried enabling GDM(even added a little voltage to the ram), same results.....looped and looped at a black screen...never even saw the bios logo. Odd thing is keyboard was lit up the whole time. I finally got back to the 3666....after 15mins of messing with it.
> 
> Now, my 3.3v is showing 3.107(yea 3.135v is with spec, barely). Max I've seen so far, HWiNFO is 3.127, low 3.047, avg 3.109. Like I said, RMA is supposed ship....doing a cross-ship, so hopefully it will be here Monday/Tues. That's if they ship it today.
> 
> Now I guess I need to test these ram sticks at 3666....lol


That is bad.


----------



## 2600ryzen

yrelbirb said:


> well.. i've been using my micron b-dies @3200 mhz 14-20-14-34 for about 2.5 months, zero issues, no crashes no nothing
> 
> how can it be? no ideas
> 
> i already started refunding process, pretty unlucky i guess
> 
> but kits will stay with me for 4 more days so... i'm open to suggestions
> 
> even 2666 mhz 22-22-22 didn't boot. there's a misfit but i dont know what iti s



Try 16-18-18-18 your timings might be too loose at lower speed, I had that problem on zen+.


----------



## Hequaqua

rdr09 said:


> Test each ram using A2 slot or one closer to cpu. Maybe just need reseat or swap slots. But test each stick.
> 
> 
> 
> That is bad.


IKR.:thumbsdow

Hopefully EVGA ships out the replacement today. Their RMA service is OK, took a week to get the right ticket # just to start the RMA. I had to go through with a Support ticket first....and it's normally 2 days before you get a response after you have responded. This PSU isn't even that old, but it does have a 12yr warranty on it. Better than most, but worse than others.


----------



## yrelbirb

2600ryzen said:


> Try 16-18-18-18 your timings might be too loose at lower speed, I had that problem on zen+.


i tried these timings at 2666, 2800, 3000

none of them work

machine tries to boot, then closes. tries boot again, then closes. and finally it opens to windows like this,


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> i tried these timings at 2666, 2800, 3000
> 
> none of them work
> 
> machine tries to boot, then closes. tries boot again, then closes. and finally it opens to windows like this,


If i'm as desperate as you i'll try everything including the values in the red box. Like i said, reseat the ram if you can. No need to pull it out all the way. Just unclip the end pull a bit and seat it back down.

Set the the RAM in Auto, raise the speed to 3600MHz, up the voltage to 1.37v, and input those values. Worth a try.


----------



## yrelbirb

rdr09 said:


> If i'm as desperate as you i'll try everything including the values in the red box. Like i said, reseat the ram if you can. No need to pull it out all the way. Just unclip the end pull a bit and seat it back down.
> 
> Set the the RAM in Auto, raise the speed to 3600MHz, up the voltage to 1.37v, and input those values. Worth a try.


yeah, sadly; i tried that as a resort too

3000-3200 and 3400, all tested at 19-19-19-39-58

it refuses to boot for some reason 

i tried disabling gear down, tried enabling it, tried 2T, tried 1 T, tried alot of combinations

i've been tweaking cadbus and rtt nom values. tried every combination and every recommendation from the tool (alt1 alt2 rec etc.)

tried 48, 53.3 60 procOCDT, tried to mix it with other recommended settings,

tried default

tried default occt+ cadbus

tried default cadbus + procodt

damn I think I simply got unlucky.

,,

according to TEAMForce vulkan ram QVL, these ram are compatible with "Gigabyte B450M S3h, gigabyte b450 aorus elite, pro". my gigabyte b450 gaming x shares the completely same design, vrm and soc wise. even their BIOS is same. maybe elite might have a bit better vrm, not sure.

but if its really my mobo... don't know what can I do on that..

but in the same time, my micron b-die lpx kits were not on QVL list either. but they worked perfectly, even allowing lots of overclock.

this seems weird.

could be a hynix issue?


----------



## 2600ryzen

Maybe hynix issue, I never had trouble posting below 2933mhz zen+ with a few crappy micron kits.


----------



## yrelbirb

2600ryzen said:


> Maybe hynix issue, I never had trouble posting below 2933mhz zen+ with a few crappy micron kits.


sad though. as i said, i managed to fixate my micron b die kits at 3400 mhz cl16 with a voltage of 1.45v  and it passed 20 cylces of 1usmus even. so... i dont think i can be imc or board limited

will keep trying combos. sadly, due to the quarantine (until wednesday), these kits will stay with me. after that i will send them back via cargo. until then though, gotta keep trying... maybe there's a quirk that i m not aware of that can fix the issue

let's see what veii or 1usmus will tell about this. i hope they do see this problem/message  maybe their experience can solve this matter , no idea though

i also would like to add; no overclok on cpu of course.  , oh and i even tried disabling core boost XD

(oh and of course, i've tried all kinds of voltages with these hynix kits. 1.4, 1.45v even tried 1.5v.. i tried low voltages too, like 1.30-1.132-1.35 and such. 

i tried all of these for 3000 19-19-19-39-58 and it still didn't work.

i also tried upping the tRC to 75 for some reason, yet again, same.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Maybe swap the ram for a zen2 cpu like the 3300x. That should let you run your micron b die much faster anyway. I couldn't run my current kit above 3133mhz on zen+ now it does up to 3733mhz and I think it's SOC limited and could go higher.


----------



## yrelbirb

2600ryzen said:


> Maybe swap the ram for a zen2 cpu like the 3300x. That should let you run your micron b die much faster anyway. I couldn't run my current kit above 3133mhz on zen+ now it does up to 3733mhz and I think it's SOC limited and could go higher.



meh  i'm happy with my 2700x though.  great gaming performance for me, especially in rainbow six siege and bf5. 3300x is really good value cpu but ... 

i bouugh these kits just for fun btw; i still have my micron b die kits on my shelf. i'll put them back to my pc and keep gaming after my experiments are over 

my friend bough these teamforce kits and he got samsung b dies. i figured i could try my luck as well. well; it backfired hard on me. i hope retailer acccepts them back or I'm screwed  just joking; they are not that expensive; i mean i wont die but... again , i dont know who can I sell these kits to.


----------



## Nighthog

@yrelbirb probably is the secondary and other timings not training right for the kit. You would probably have to manually set them and see if you find which is the issue. The board is setting something wrong in regard to your kit of Hynix. Or the kit is bad period.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Yeah I think it's definitely something auto training wrong(the jedec profile works fine), hard to figure out what though..


----------



## yrelbirb

back at my "crappy" micron b-die kits at 3200 mhz cl14...

thank the gods it booted fine.. i got really trippy with the constant amount of boot loops haha 


god bless Micron I guess. at least their kits are working appopriately...


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> back at my "crappy" micron b-die kits at 3200 mhz cl14...
> 
> thank the gods it booted fine.. i got really trippy with the constant amount of boot loops haha
> 
> 
> god bless Micron I guess. at least their kits are working appopriately...


Definitely something wrong with the kit. Good thing you have a working one.


----------



## Tobiman

New dual rank kit. My CPU won't post above 1800 FCLK even with loose timings. The chip needs almost 1.46volts to reach 4.150ghz. Absolutely garbage chip. I need to get a better R5-3600 but it's a lottery. Or maybe it's my motherboard. Auros B450i. Hopefully, the new B550 boards will be showing up soon.


----------



## Hequaqua

Well 3666 with the timings from my GSkill set working fine......maybe my IF just doesn't like anything above 3666. 

Anyway.....did the 20 runs of TM5, and two hours of Karhu....no errors found. So, I decided to throw in the GSkill set with the Viper(32gb of fun!) I haven't ran TM5/Karhu on 32gb yet, but I did pump out a few benchmarks. I keep spreadsheets for just about everything. I also have a set of GSKill Neo that I've tested. I think that set is in my sons rig atm.

Here is a link if anyone is interested in taking a look. Three different ram set, different speeds, timings. All were done with the same CPU settings, [email protected] Voltages are listed(I think).

*Trident Z/Neo/Viper Memory Testing*


----------



## Martin778

Then I must be lucky, my DIMMS on the TR 3960X rig run 3733MHz 16-16-16-32 1T with 1:1 IF at 1.38V DIMM. Passed 2000% HCI memtest overnight.


Spoiler


----------



## Hequaqua

I guess that makes sense since TR is HEDT......maybe.....

On a different note...does having PageFile set make a difference when it comes to these tests, HCI/Karhu/TM5 ect? Mine is set to whatever Windows sets it to by default.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Tobiman said:


> New dual rank kit. My CPU won't post above 1800 FCLK even with loose timings. The chip needs almost 1.46volts to reach 4.150ghz. Absolutely garbage chip. I need to get a better R5-3600 but it's a lottery. Or maybe it's my motherboard. Auros B450i. Hopefully, the new B550 boards will be showing up soon.



My chip is about the same, 1.45v and it cant do 4.1 all core, on a CH7 Hero so mine is just as horrible. I will have a 12core baby soon so I will recommission this 3600x to a little server build, going to run it at 3.8ghz 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys, not sure if I've missed something. Just tried to "upgrade" from 1.7 to 1.7.3 and noticed the R-XMP button is gone, and also if I try to import a Taiphoon export that works in 1.7, 1.7.3 doesn't populate any values. Am I missing something? Not sure how to use it right now because of this.


----------



## flyinion

Nevermind, I was noobing it up and used the wrong export options in Taiphoon. I don't use it much and just had a few things wrong.


----------



## Veii

Hequaqua said:


> On a different note...does having PageFile set make a difference when it comes to these tests, HCI/Karhu/TM5 ect? Mine is set to whatever Windows sets it to by default.


The tests do warn when the pagefile is locked, too small or disabled
Difference in testing time yes, in results i am not sure
They request their size, windows just adapts 


yrelbirb said:


> sad though. as i said, i managed to fixate my micron b die kits at 3400 mhz cl16 with a voltage of 1.45v  and it passed 20 cylces of 1usmus even. so... i dont think i can be imc or board limited
> 
> will keep trying combos. sadly, due to the quarantine (until wednesday), these kits will stay with me. after that i will send them back via cargo. until then though, gotta keep trying... maybe there's a quirk that i m not aware of that can fix the issue
> 
> let's see what veii or 1usmus will tell about this. i hope they do see this problem/message  maybe their experience can solve this matter , no idea though
> 
> i also would like to add; no overclock on cpu of course.  , oh and i even tried disabling core boost XD
> (oh and of course, i've tried all kinds of voltages with these hynix kits. 1.4, 1.45v even tried 1.5v.. i tried low voltages too, like 1.30-1.132-1.35 and such.
> 
> i tried all of these for 3000 19-19-19-39-58 and it still didn't work.
> i also tried upping the tRC to 75 for some reason, yet again, same.
> 
> 
> 2600ryzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe swap the ram for a zen2 cpu like the 3300x. That should let you run your micron b die much faster anyway. I couldn't run my current kit above 3133mhz on zen+ now it does up to 3733mhz and I think it's SOC limited and could go higher.
> 
> 
> yrelbirb said:
> 
> 
> 
> back at my "crappy" micron b-die kits at 3200 mhz cl14...
> thank the gods it booted fine.. i got really trippy with the constant amount of boot loops haha
> 
> god bless Micron I guess. at least their kits are working appopriately...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The 2700X isn't anywhere near close to it's IMC limits
It only would approach bad signal integrity, if procODT is pushing over 53.3Ω up to set of memory
It has to be rather user error, while i think it's more dust related at this point
3200 has to boot up without issues on 2nd gen
Even with bad predicted settings hitting memory hole, 3200 has to run
The only reason why it wouldn't run is:
- Kit requires too high procODT over 60
- kit requires own set of RTT values, not being able to be predicted
- GDM rounding does trow off IntelXMP profile on it, or board is too stupid to predict correct tRFC and tRDWR values, refusing it to boot
- kit has dust and usage marks on the contacts and need some cleaning
- or kit is just DOA  

yrelbirb, can you show a thaiphoon burner report or read out your micron b-dies - corsair version on the sticker
Just for personal comparison sake, i'm curious about them 
Your HynixCJR was 18nm or 16nm :thinking: 
I saw they where A2 pcb, soo you will for sure have issues with bad signal integrity and need higher drive impedance 
(higher CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh ~ first value, near 40-60ohm, if not exceeding 100ohm up to IC)


----------



## 2600ryzen

I remember now yes I couldn't get my micron rev D to post properly because of wrong auto TRDWR/TWRRD values like veii says.


----------



## Veii

2600ryzen said:


> I remember now yes I couldn't get my micron rev D to post properly because of wrong auto TRDWR/TWRRD values like veii says.


Back then many people had issues with 1st gen , not being able to post anything over 2933 - because the default cLDO_VDDP was 850mV
850mV covers about 2933-3066MT/s
If it was just 10 more, 860 - it would cover the 3200-3333MT/s region and people would be happy 
Same actually for 2nd gen, i think once it defaulted to even 900mV, which is either 2800ish or near 3600~ , nothing in between ^^'
Sadly not many people are aware of this, and a huge thanks goes to 1usmus for figuring out scaling

3266-3333MT/s on first gen was a pain, while it looked just as a logical stepup from 3200
Well, easy was the last thing, this stepup was without modifying cLDO_VDDP not possible
But nah, 3600 can run even with procODT 60Ω on 12nm 
For 3733 you'd need 53.3Ω as absolute max, if not even 48Ω for good signal integrity


----------



## Hequaqua

Thanks for the info Veii.:thumb:

Well just finished the TM5 20 cycles....no issues....woot!

Not bad for a couple pair of mismatched sets of ram. I'm guess the Zen Timings tool reads the first occupied slot on the board since that's where the GSkill was installed. They are in slots 1-3, the Patriot in 2-4. 

Maybe it's me, but I'm amazed at these speeds/timings with a SoC of 1.037v and Dram voltage of 1.380v. 









I forgot to mention....the Patriot doesn't report temps, but I'm guessing they should probably be within a few degrees of what the GSkill were. Max on Slot 1 42.3°C, Slot 2 44.8°C. I would say that's pretty good......I guess...lol


----------



## Veii

Hequaqua said:


> Thanks for the info Veii.:thumb:
> 
> Well just finished the TM5 20 cycles....no issues....woot!
> 
> Not bad for a couple pair of mismatched sets of ram. I'm guess the Zen Timings tool reads the first occupied slot on the board since that's where the GSkill was installed. They are in slots 1-3, the Patriot in 2-4.
> 
> Maybe it's me, but I'm amazed at these speeds/timings with a SoC of 1.037v and Dram voltage of 1.380v.
> 
> View attachment 348314
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention....the Patriot doesn't report temps, but I'm guessing they should probably be within a few degrees of what the GSkill were. Max on Slot 1 42.3°C, Slot 2 44.8°C. I would say that's pretty good......I guess...lol


Change your timings up a tiny bit if possible 
tRCD WR 14 
tRCD RD 18
tRAS 32
tRC 44
tRFC 308-229-141
tWR 14
tCWL 16

you have GDM on, it will round up - and added latency performs far lower than you fixing it by hand 
Which kits are you chaining together exactly
Is this board T-Topology ?
Would be interesting to know which memory PCB you chain together - as you might get some significant perf out of it, by putting better kits as the main
While worse ones as slave 1s,3rd slot 
I'd also suggest to enable BGS with 4 kits when you want them to work together a bit better 

In the future you might also be able to run
tRDWR 9, tWRRD 3 - to give it a bit more bandwidth boost
SCL under 4 i can't imagine sadly here 
Rest looks good :thumb:
Just consider sideeffects of GDM


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> T-Topology you can imagine spreads the signal as 50% to each set, while Daisy Chain does 75% & 25%
> Overall you'd need more VDDG IOD and likely higher procODT impedance and higher RTT Ω for them, overall just stronger drive strengh
> Maybe even more ClkDrvStrengh (first CAD_BUS value)
> Logically this explains why 4 dimms on daisy chain are a very bad idea, and why T-Topology clocks a bit lower by default on 2 dimm setups
> 
> Sadly yes,
> as VGGD 1.15ish was used, the only vSOC that can be accepted is 1.2v and higher
> Even if you force it lower, as long as VDDG is that high, nothing under +50mV over it will be accepted as vSOC
> Inside AMD Overclocking, there is a menu called UNCORE OC , enabling that will disable boards autocorrection on voltage
> But i suggest you to hold on these voltage patterns - the 2nd half of the message:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814
> 
> 
> 
> The DRAM Calculator can be buggy sometimes on imported calculation
> The only way to prove it different is with SiSandra, tho i noticed they are autocorrected in the hidden
> tCL is autocorrected directly on boot with GDM on @rastaviper that is readable
> But the rest is autocorrected in the hidden - the same goes for tRFC which can be autocorrected in realtime just indicating bad perf if it's too low
> Only way to proof it is by a SiSandra report or a long membench delay / maybe even SuperPi 1.5 SX should show a difference
> You can adapt tho, tRP often can be lowered with voltage and tRC has wiggle room of -2 under tRAS+tRP in case you want to adjust tRFC better
> There is not much of an issue to use only even timings - but it's a reason why i prefer 2T over GDM to use odd timings
> They end up just faster, even tho 2T is about as slow to 1T as decoupled mode
> The odd timings benefits win at the end :thumb:
> Sadly some bad chips require Half clock GDM mode
> 
> B1 is like A1, short trace design - it's a good thing, it can run very tight timings but more sensitive to bad signal integrity
> Easier to run tight timings than B2/A2, tho only good till 4000MT/s - later it fails against A2/B2
> Both are very sensitive to low end boards, but A1/B1 are easier to run than A2/B2
> 
> 
> Want to try something stupid ?
> Do you think you could lower tRCD WR a bit ?
> i imagine down to 10-12ish, at lowest half of tRCD RD could make sense
> 
> Else here is something "stupid"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if tWR 10 is too low, put it back to 12 with tRAS 28
> At best you'd then want to push tRP 12, but i am a bit conflicting if current voltage would be enough for tRP 12
> If it still fails, just put tRCD WR 10, then you can use tRAS 28 and everything will look fine with this low tRTF of 140ns
> ^ if you use tRCD WR 10 also put back tWR 12 to match up everything - but idealy this "stupid" try would work with tWR 10 :ninja:
> * something aside, would you prefer tRDWR & tWRRD stuff above just aside tRCD and tCL, like tRTP is next to tWR ?
> ** that would move tRFC set down bellow, of course still with the debug mini tRFC sample/design we all got used to
> *** the placeholder is when we unhide another timing inside the bios :ninja:
> 
> 
> Both of these errors are mirror move errors, it's a delay that comes from moving data between different dimms and different banks
> Its not MirrorMove128, soo it's likely just 1 value off the correct one
> Can be tRP cell pre/re-charge being too slow, tRDWR/WRRD values being off, tRFC being a bit unsync, tWRT_ & tRRD_ values being too tight
> Something micro chokes
> Can also be tWR making issues
> MirrorMove is data cloning between banks - you'll figure it out , just read the mt.cfg to know what error is for what
> 
> Happy Testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logically red requires orange values unless stated otherwise~
> 
> The only thing that looked wrong was tWRRD at 3, should be 4 as you are on 16, not 17 on the tRCDs
> or you lower tRCD WR down 2 then tWRRD 3 is fine
> cLDO_VDDP over 900mV is only needed when you seak for 1950-2000FCLK or higher than 2000MCLK
> 900mV here is more than enough for <1900FLCK
> 
> Hard question, you want high speed, decouple mode shouldn't bother the 3300X that much at all
> 4000 ones are A0 PCB - easier to run and you have kinda a low end board, tho if i googled correctly and this is only with 2 slots and hopefully daisy chain layout
> A2 PCB would work
> 
> 4400 are A2 pcb , a custom A1 variance just as A2 for speeds above 4000MT/s
> Grab the A2s if this is board is daisy chain, else stay on A0 if this is t-topology, else you'd need to use quite strong impedance to push T-Topology with A2 kits
> well both are fine, your goal tho is above 4400MT/s with this ryzen, even above 4600
> For low timings couples mode A0 is better as it's easier to run, and maybe you get lucky and get an A1 pcb which is extremely rare on the 4K ones
> 
> Kinda +1
> You learn the best on the most horrible kits out there xD
> HynixMFR to your luck, loves voltage near the 1.55-1.62v
> In my signature there are two sets for HynixMFR near 3334MT/s
> 3400 has such a high stress, only way to hit 3600 is with 3rd gen and stupid voltages (1.62 and above)
> 3200 is your end goal, 3333 is already pushing the limits - it's MFRs limits
> Tho both of my signature are stable but boards do autocorrect as i didn't know at that time the full effects of GDM enabled
> 
> You can't drop tCWL under tCL when you have GDM enabled
> You could do more if these set of timings run under 2T well enough instead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green is optimal baseline with GDM enabled
> Orange Requires 1.42-1.46v
> Red around 1.46-1.48v VDIMM
> all depends on PCB Revision (A0,A1,A2)
> Black would be dropping SCL to 2 , but that's not possible on low end b-dies


Hi @Veii,

i have test your suggestion timing 3800mhz @ gdm on. so far so good. anything else i can do to make it tighter? now at 1.4v vdimm & 1.05 vddg. for your info my best stable gdm off is 3600c15 as below.


----------



## yrelbirb

Veii said:


> The tests do warn when the pagefile is locked, too small or disabled
> Difference in testing time yes, in results i am not sure
> They request their size, windows just adapts
> 
> 
> The 2700X isn't anywhere near close to it's IMC limits
> It only would approach bad signal integrity, if procODT is pushing over 53.3Ω up to set of memory
> It has to be rather user error, while i think it's more dust related at this point
> 3200 has to boot up without issues on 2nd gen
> Even with bad predicted settings hitting memory hole, 3200 has to run
> The only reason why it wouldn't run is:
> - Kit requires too high procODT over 60
> - kit requires own set of RTT values, not being able to be predicted
> - GDM rounding does trow off IntelXMP profile on it, or board is too stupid to predict correct tRFC and tRDWR values, refusing it to boot
> - kit has dust and usage marks on the contacts and need some cleaning
> - or kit is just DOA
> 
> yrelbirb, can you show a thaiphoon burner report or read out your micron b-dies - corsair version on the sticker
> Just for personal comparison sake, i'm curious about them
> Your HynixCJR was 18nm or 16nm :thinking:
> I saw they where A2 pcb, soo you will for sure have issues with bad signal integrity and need higher drive impedance
> (higher CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh ~ first value, near 40-60ohm, if not exceeding 100ohm up to IC)



-
here you are 

i tried tons of different combos all day, no luck. i also tried to put tRFC and tWRRD manually (tried 1usmus timings, tried some of my own timings, tried 75 tRC and according tRFC from your calculator (trfc calculator)). 

kits are brand new, no dust on them 

it is probably doa, or mobo can't get to know it no idealar though


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> Hi @Veii,
> 
> i have test your suggestion timing 3800mhz @ gdm on. so far so good. anything else i can do to make it tighter? now at 1.4v vdimm & 1.05 vddg. for your info my best stable gdm off is 3600c15 as below.


You know what i find interesting, 
Even tho we have SCL difference, and 200MT/s difference
~ the TM5 time was quite close between this two sets

I wonder if it's worth for you to run GDM disabled at lower speed
How much voltage did that GDM off result require ?

You can get away GDM and stay on 2T with odd timings, if you want
Or stay on GDM but CL14 will take some voltage, CL15 would be easier under 2T @ 3800

It would be great to compare SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency Results between these two sets
IF Bandwidth shouldn't be much difference, when the tests take very similar time to complete
But i wonder about inter-core latency :thinking:
Overall i'm happy that the different tRAS calculation method works well 

We can tighten it further the GDM on result, but the jumps are big








I don't know if you can run tRCD RD 16 and how much voltage that would require
But we can try later, interesting is for now if you'd be fine with low tRFC

@yrelbirb did you try fixing cLDO_VDDP down to 700mV or up to 913mV for typical 3200MT/s results
I remember how bugged Gigabyte old bioses where
Dynamic vSOC is not tracked via SVI2 sensor and has it's own brain
Can you force fixed vSOC and modify any kind of loadlines ?
Do you have the AMD CBS menu, and so in it either inside DF or NBIO an SOC VID field to enter there SOC maybe ?

I'd have to check if there where bios mods for your specific boards, but know atm how bugged B350 Gigabyte Gaming 3 behaves
Even with an "everything unlocked" mod
Also, on what AGESA are you atm ?


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> You know what i find interesting,
> Even tho we have SCL difference, and 200MT/s difference
> ~ the TM5 time was quite close between this two sets
> 
> I wonder if it's worth for you to run GDM disabled at lower speed
> How much voltage did that GDM off result require ?
> 
> You can get away GDM and stay on 2T with odd timings, if you want
> Or stay on GDM but CL14 will take some voltage, CL15 would be easier under 2T @ 3800
> 
> It would be great to compare SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency Results between these two sets
> IF Bandwidth shouldn't be much difference, when the tests take very similar time to complete
> But i wonder about inter-core latency :thinking:
> Overall i'm happy that the different tRAS calculation method works well
> 
> We can tighten it further the GDM on result, but the jumps are big
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you can run tRCD RD 16 and how much voltage that would require
> But we can try later, interesting is for now if you'd be fine with low tRFC
> 
> @yrelbirb did you try fixing cLDO_VDDP down to 700mV or up to 913mV for typical 3200MT/s results
> I remember how bugged Gigabyte old bioses where
> Dynamic vSOC is not tracked via SVI2 sensor and has it's own brain
> Can you force fixed vSOC and modify any kind of loadlines ?
> Do you have the AMD CBS menu, and so in it either inside DF or NBIO an SOC VID field to enter there SOC maybe ?
> 
> I'd have to check if there where bios mods for your specific boards, but know atm how bugged B350 Gigabyte Gaming 3 behaves
> Even with an "everything unlocked" mod
> Also, on what AGESA are you atm ?




both my 3600c15 & 3800c16 (gdm on) is at 1.4v vdimm. yes im more interested gdm off but always got error @3733/3800mhz gdm off 1T. let me try this tight 3800 gdm 1st. then we go next gdm off 2t. anyway thanks bro.


----------



## yrelbirb

Veii said:


> You know what i find interesting,
> Even tho we have SCL difference, and 200MT/s difference
> ~ the TM5 time was quite close between this two sets
> 
> I wonder if it's worth for you to run GDM disabled at lower speed
> How much voltage did that GDM off result require ?
> 
> You can get away GDM and stay on 2T with odd timings, if you want
> Or stay on GDM but CL14 will take some voltage, CL15 would be easier under 2T @ 3800
> 
> It would be great to compare SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency Results between these two sets
> IF Bandwidth shouldn't be much difference, when the tests take very similar time to complete
> But i wonder about inter-core latency :thinking:
> Overall i'm happy that the different tRAS calculation method works well
> 
> We can tighten it further the GDM on result, but the jumps are big
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you can run tRCD RD 16 and how much voltage that would require
> But we can try later, interesting is for now if you'd be fine with low tRFC
> 
> @yrelbirb did you try fixing cLDO_VDDP down to 700mV or up to 913mV for typical 3200MT/s results
> I remember how bugged Gigabyte old bioses where
> Dynamic vSOC is not tracked via SVI2 sensor and has it's own brain
> Can you force fixed vSOC and modify any kind of loadlines ?
> Do you have the AMD CBS menu, and so in it either inside DF or NBIO an SOC VID field to enter there SOC maybe ?
> 
> I'd have to check if there where bios mods for your specific boards, but know atm how bugged B350 Gigabyte Gaming 3 behaves
> Even with an "everything unlocked" mod
> Also, on what AGESA are you atm ?



im on F50 bios 1.0.0.4 b

i just would like to add, kit doesn't even boot at combos like;

2666 22-22-22
2666 19-19-19 and so on. it's not a high speed issue actually. it's just that kit refuses to boot for anything higher than >2400 mt/s

--

yes, i have fixated soc voltage on my setup. i usually set it to 1.025. 

i tried auto (0), tried 1.05, tried 1.1, tried 1.0 and tried 1.0125, no boots 

--

vor vddp, yup. tried .700 tried all the vddp values 1usmus suggested (he had a list of values, i dont know i tried all of them)

--

i seriosuly started fear that I will brick the board with so many failed boots xdd


----------



## Hequaqua

Veii said:


> Change your timings up a tiny bit if possible
> tRCD WR 14
> tRCD RD 18
> tRAS 32
> tRC 44
> tRFC 308-229-141
> tWR 14
> tCWL 16


I've tried numerous settings...some from you before, some from the calc...and these are what I know are stable. I've been running them since last Aug/Sept.



Veii said:


> you have GDM on, it will round up - and added latency performs far lower than you fixing it by hand
> Which kits are you chaining together exactly


GSkill Trident Z F4-3466C16D-16GTZR
Patriot Viper Steel PVS416G400C9K



Veii said:


> Is this board T-Topology ?


I believe so....Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi




Veii said:


> Would be interesting to know which memory PCB you chain together - as you might get some significant perf out of it, by putting better kits as the main
> While worse ones as slave 1s,3rd slot
> I'd also suggest to enable BGS with 4 kits when you want them to work together a bit better


Here are the Thaiphoon Reading for each if that helps:
















Veii said:


> In the future you might also be able to run
> tRDWR 9, tWRRD 3 - to give it a bit more bandwidth boost
> SCL under 4 i can't imagine sadly here
> Rest looks good :thumb:
> Just consider sideeffects of GDM


I'll see what else I can do with them. Thanks for help and info.


----------



## Dollar

Even after reading Veii's guide I still can't grasp how to calculate trdwr and twrrd.... :wackosmil



For example Hequaua's G.Skill xmp timings posted above of 16-18-18-18 what is the correct trdwr/twrrd here with four single rank sticks and SCL at 4?


----------



## Hequaqua

Dollar said:


> Even after reading Veii's guide I still can't grasp how to calculate trdwr and twrrd.... :wackosmil
> 
> For example Hequaua's G.Skill xmp timings posted above of 16-18-18-18 what is the correct trdwr/twrrd here with four single rank sticks and SCL at 4?


Don't feel bad.....I'm almost as clueless.....lol

Here are a couple of interesting reads that might help:

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTe...R4 OC Guide.md#frequency-and-timings-relation

As for the timings in your question...this post is a link for the AMD portion that you are asking about:

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2/demystifying_memory_overclocking_on_ryzen_oc/
_________________________________________________

@Veii;

I got the first set of timings changed...all the odd to even, disabled GDM. While I didn't get to "test", the computer did reboot. 

Then came the headache.....I changed tWR 14>12 tCWL16>14 tRDWR 9>10 tWRRD 3>1.....got stuck in a loop where I never got a bios logo, just black screen with the computer ramping up and down along with the fans and water pump. I finally killed the power....cleared the CMOS several times.....FINALLY got back into the bios. 

ATM I'm back on my 3666 timings. It's late here....I'll maybe mess with it some more tomorrow. Oh, on the BGS, I know it was in a earlier bios...but I can't find it now. I look again tomorrow. 

Thanks!:thumb:


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Even after reading Veii's guide I still can't grasp how to calculate trdwr and twrrd.... :wackosmil
> For example Hequaua's G.Skill xmp timings posted above of 16-18-18-18 what is the correct trdwr/twrrd here with four single rank sticks and SCL at 4?


There are tiny exceptions on that 
Dual rank is one of them, but dimm amount isn't 
tRCD 18 would be tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 1
but because both tRCDs are 18 , the other option is tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 4 
if tRCD WR would be 20 (which is dumb but who knows) - then it would be 9 / 5 

If you have SCL of let's say 6 instead of 4, then you can do two things
either give it a higher tRDWR in this case of 10/1 - or you use 9/3 , because 4*6 SCL would be too high 
It has many exceptions, i see why it's complicated

You only push tWRRD if you put tRDWR too low, to give it a bit of latency
Or you also have to push tWRRD if tRDWR is less than a perfect half of tRCD WR 
Example:
16-12-24-18-34-52
You can use here tRDWR 13/1 (it can be more) and often 12/1 works too (this is perfect half)
You can use tRDWR 11/4 too 
logically 12 would be tWRRD 3 which can work and technically to the ruleset is correcT
but 4 is the one to use because of an exception which i haven't told 

the reason tRAS here is not 16+24=40 / tCL+tRCD (biggest) is a tiny exception in scaling
Look at tRCD WR 12 (which goes down to maximum half of tRCD RD) 
the middle-value between these two (10 & 24) is 18, soo technically real wait delay is virtual value 18
tCL 16+ tRCD delay 18 = 34 tRAS 
Because tRCD value is 18, and 4x something for tWRRD works with 4x4=16 , you use tWRRD 4 here
Where 3 would work too but 4 will be better 

tWRRD added delay has just to be as close as possible to tRCD WR, there is no need to be a perfect half
But it has to be close, and it should not overshoot it 
Well unless you use this tRAS calculation exception, but still it's not overshooting
tWRRD of 5 = 4*5=20 would be then too much , soo 4 or 3 should be used
Ooor you just don't use it at all and keep tRDWR no less than perfect half, or higher to compensate with added latency for harsh timings

Another doublecheck on tRAS ruleset you can then do with tRAS-tRCD to get out optimal tWR
And minimum tWR with tRRD_S+tWTR_S (as absolute lowest, when we can go under value 10 somedayTM)

Exception Dual Rank:
Dual rank seems to need exactly +2 on tRDWR 
The math remains the same
if this would've been dual rank kits, the optimal for 16-18-18 would be tRDWR 11/1 or with used exception, down to tRDWR 10/4

Boards are today intelligent enough to calculate tWRRD need, but they don't know the exception method to lower it one step futher
The exception method won't work if you use tCWL smaller than tCL=tCWL
Somehow it messes it up, while normally you can go down to -2 of tCL=tCWL 
Well tested perf shows, lower tRDWR still has better perf than lower tCWL


----------



## Veii

Hequaqua said:


> @Veii;
> I got the first set of timings changed...all the odd to even, disabled GDM. While I didn't get to "test", the computer did reboot.
> 
> Then came the headache.....I changed tWR 14>12 tCWL16>14 tRDWR 9>10 tWRRD 3>1.....got stuck in a loop where I never got a bios logo, just black screen with the computer ramping up and down along with the fans and water pump. I finally killed the power....cleared the CMOS several times.....FINALLY got back into the bios.
> 
> ATM I'm back on my 3666 timings. It's late here....I'll maybe mess with it some more tomorrow. Oh, on the BGS, I know it was in a earlier bios...but I can't find it now. I look again tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks!:thumb:


The only thing i see that will cause no post is CWL to 14 when tCL is 16
GDM does round that always up and uses tCKE if you have GDM active
Soo you would never notice anything strange except just higher memory latency and a bit less performance
tCWL lower than tCL won't work if you lower tRDWR less than half of tRCD ~ aka use the exception method
half tRCD works nearly always perfectly, and +1 is added for stability (well or when tRFC is lower calculated)
+1 tRDWR is also added when you want to push tCWL lower and +2 is added for dual rank kits on it's current state

Did you reverse the arrows by accident or ?
You shouldn't run tCWL lower than tCL unless you clearly know why you want to lower that one
the -1 method for lowering tRDWR only works when there is no wasted latency anywhere else
Aka tRAS is a clean transition, tRC is a clean transition 
You have to try - it always works unless something else is odd , it's not b-die exclusive and works even for hynixMFR

The trick does scale a bit with frequency i noticed, but i haven't had issues with it
You only notice that it's wrong when two events happen:
- TM5 errors with MirrorMove test errors, that's a clear indication
- You can't post at all 

Low or wrong tWR will cause errors after errors and mostly error on 6&12 for TM5
Sometimes also error on SimpleTest size 8mb = burst tests
But it has a pattern when it's clearly wrong and doesn't just plain "not post"  
more tRDWR shouldn't error at all, as it's just added latency and not really a "timing"
Here the old guide on tRDWR & tWRRD again
~ color-coded should be understandable, no ?
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-328.html#post28385690


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> There are tiny exceptions on that
> Dual rank is one of them, but dimm amount isn't
> tRCD 18 would be tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 1
> but because both tRCDs are 18 , the other option is tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 4



Thank you for the extensive explanation. 



I just put those timings on my system to hopefully learn something and I was wondering why tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 1 won't even post but tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 4 is stable? 4x8 GB single rank viper steel samsung b-die a0 PCB on T-Topology x370 crosshair VI. I read through your post three times, 9/1 should work on this setup right? What am I not understanding? be gentle.


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> You know what i find interesting,
> Even tho we have SCL difference, and 200MT/s difference
> ~ the TM5 time was quite close between this two sets
> 
> I wonder if it's worth for you to run GDM disabled at lower speed
> How much voltage did that GDM off result require ?
> 
> You can get away GDM and stay on 2T with odd timings, if you want
> Or stay on GDM but CL14 will take some voltage, CL15 would be easier under 2T @ 3800
> 
> It would be great to compare SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency Results between these two sets
> IF Bandwidth shouldn't be much difference, when the tests take very similar time to complete
> But i wonder about inter-core latency :thinking:
> Overall i'm happy that the different tRAS calculation method works well
> 
> We can tighten it further the GDM on result, but the jumps are big
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you can run tRCD RD 16 and how much voltage that would require
> But we can try later, interesting is for now if you'd be fine with low tRFC
> 
> @yrelbirb did you try fixing cLDO_VDDP down to 700mV or up to 913mV for typical 3200MT/s results
> I remember how bugged Gigabyte old bioses where
> Dynamic vSOC is not tracked via SVI2 sensor and has it's own brain
> Can you force fixed vSOC and modify any kind of loadlines ?
> Do you have the AMD CBS menu, and so in it either inside DF or NBIO an SOC VID field to enter there SOC maybe ?
> 
> I'd have to check if there where bios mods for your specific boards, but know atm how bugged B350 Gigabyte Gaming 3 behaves
> Even with an "everything unlocked" mod
> Also, on what AGESA are you atm ?



done test..tm5 no error @ trdwr/twrrd=8/3 
trdwr/twrrd=8/1 no error found yet but had random crash/reboot. 

jump to gdm off or tweak this as best as possible.


----------



## glnn_23

Running at 3800c14 now 4x8Gb 3900x C8H
Haven't been able to use 1T though with GDM disabled.

Bios settings
Vdimm 1.47 
Soc 1.125 (1.11 dmm)
Vddg ccd .95
Vddg iod 1.05
Vddp 900


----------



## SpecChum

glnn_23 said:


> Running at 3800c14 now 4x8Gb 3900x C8H
> Haven't been able to use 1T though with GDM disabled.
> 
> Bios settings
> Vdimm 1.47
> Soc 1.125 (1.11 dmm)
> Vddg ccd .95
> Vddg iod 1.05
> Vddp 900


That background colour reminds me of playing Solitaire on Windows 3.1


----------



## dspx

hazium233 said:


> How far apart are the chips spaced on the PCB? I thought the 3000 / 3200 Sport bins were on A2 (regardless of what thaiphoon might say). Mine (Sport LT 3200) look like A2 just from looking up through the bottom anyway.
> 
> My 2666 Sport AT sticks (Rev D) look like A1 though. I have a picture of them I can attach.


I hope you can see what you're looking for from my photo.

What are the differences between A1 and A2?


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Thank you for the extensive explanation.
> 
> I just put those timings on my system to hopefully learn something and I was wondering why tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 1 won't even post but tRDWR 9 / tWRRD 4 is stable? 4x8 GB single rank viper steel samsung b-die a0 PCB on T-Topology x370 crosshair VI. I read through your post three times, 9/1 should work on this setup right? What am I not understanding? be gentle.


It makes sense 
you can't run that low tRDWR, soo you need added latency 
9/4 is fine too , else 10/1 would be what will work on your side
you have to test
likely 8/4 could work if you lower your timings 
tWR is not needed to be that high
Rulesets for it are
tRRDS + tWTRS
tCL + tRTP
tRAS - tRCD
All 3 are correct
when tRTP is a clean divider of tRFC, then tWR can be double or tCL+tRTP 

There are many options, there isn't one right one
It depends on the IC and remain set of timings what will fit
But low tRDWR either works or won't post if the remain timings are high, soo tRCD/2 is a good template for it
i get for tWR between 12-18, 24 idk if you need it thaat high
Can you try if this would even post ?











paih85 said:


> done test..tm5 no error @ trdwr/twrrd=8/3
> trdwr/twrrd=8/1 no error found yet but had random crash/reboot.
> 
> jump to gdm off or tweak this as best as possible.


How do you TM5 test ?
1usmus_V3 20 rounds - because that one should trigger on bad tWRRD
Maybe 3rd gen does a well enough job in timings auto correction 
There isn't much you can do except get away that tRCD RD 18 down to 16 
How about:








But this could need a voltage bump, because tRP is lower 
well first try it and then at worst check how much voltage that would need to post 
~ please report back 


dspx said:


> I hope you can see what you're looking for from my photo.
> 
> What are the differences between A1 and A2?


There are many differences, but yours are A2 or B2 if it's dual rank
















A2 has nothing over the notch 
And A2 because the ICs are at the bottom


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> How do you TM5 test ?
> 1usmus_V3 20 rounds - because that one should trigger on bad tWRRD
> Maybe 3rd gen does a well enough job in timings auto correction
> There isn't much you can do except get away that tRCD RD 18 down to 16
> How about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this could need a voltage bump, because tRP is lower
> well first try it and then at worst check how much voltage that would need to post
> ~ please report back


opss..

1.4v vdimm = bsod while booting
1.42v/1.43v vdimm = success boot. tm5 multiple error 1st cycle then i stop. huhu

do i need up voltage to 1.45v? coz @1.42v temp up to 45c while running tm5.


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> opss..
> 
> 1.4v vdimm = bsod while booting
> 1.42v/1.43v vdimm = success boot. tm5 multiple error 1st cycle then i stop. huhu
> 
> do i need up voltage to 1.45v? coz @1.42v temp up to 45c while running tm5.


I wish i knew which errors these are and when they appear
If you read the Mt.cfg, you kinda get an idea on what it errors 
Multiple error 6 are voltage related - most of the times IMC related
The rest are specific ones

mm, this set might've been too low
But how does your remain rest look
RTT and CAD_BUS stuff, including procODT


----------



## SpecChum

paih85 said:


> do i need up voltage to 1.45v? coz @1.42v temp up to 45c while running tm5.


I suspect it might be chip dependant, but my b-die gets to 56C while running TM5 if I've got Gfx Card running full blast too, and it still passes.

I tested it a couple of days ago, and even over-volted the GPU on purpose so it generated more heat than it would usually, to be 110% sure.


----------



## dspx

Veii said:


> There are many differences, but yours are A2 or B2 if it's dual rank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A2 has nothing over the notch
> And A2 because the ICs are at the bottom


Mine is single rank: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-384.html#post28462256


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> opss..
> 
> 1.4v vdimm = bsod while booting
> 1.42v/1.43v vdimm = success boot. tm5 multiple error 1st cycle then i stop. huhu
> 
> do i need up voltage to 1.45v? coz @1.42v temp up to 45c while running tm5.
> 
> 
> Veii said:
> 
> 
> 
> mm, this set might've been too low
> But how does your remain rest look
> RTT and CAD_BUS stuff, including procODT
Click to expand...

You could have a lot of errors because tRCD 16 is low
Try if this will work for you








Later we can lower it with the early way 
Can be just an IC thing, that tRCD RD 16 is just too low for it 
It mostly doesn't scale with voltage, while tRP and tCL do


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> I wish i knew which errors these are and when they appear
> If you read the Mt.cfg, you kinda get an idea on what it errors
> Multiple error 6 are voltage related - most of the times IMC related
> The rest are specific ones
> 
> mm, this set might've been too low
> But how does your remain rest look
> RTT and CAD_BUS stuff, including procODT


here my full timing/cadbus/procodt. this time i re-run test with 1.45v vdimm. error start appear @ 3rd cycle.


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> here my full timing/cadbus/procodt. this time i re-run test with 1.45v vdimm. error start appear @ 3rd cycle.


Error 0, Initialization error "refresh stable"
Error 10, Burst test error "SimpleTest8mb"

It times out and is too slow, initialization times out 
Try if tRDWR 9/1 fixes it 
A fix can be smaller tRRDL delay too - like 4/6 on it 

Start by boosting ClkDrvStrengh to 30ohm and fix tRRDL to 6
If it still doesn't work , try to increase tRDWR to 9

EDIT:
Burst test error are mostly tWR related but can be fixed just with a voltage bump or added latency somewhere, like higher tRP
Can also be fixed with an own added CAD_BUS Timing delay / if you are at peak stability , but this will lower perf
It can also be fixed by using 1-1-1-1-1-1 on the tRDRD and tWRWR SD DD values 
But this will cut performance by a lot, soo let this part as the absolute last resolve :thumb:


----------



## CJMitsuki

Veii said:


> It makes sense
> you can't run that low tRDWR, soo you need added latency
> 9/4 is fine too , else 10/1 would be what will work on your side
> you have to test
> likely 8/4 could work if you lower your timings
> tWR is not needed to be that high
> Rulesets for it are
> tRRDS + tWTRS
> tCL + tRTP
> tRAS - tRCD
> All 3 are correct
> when tRTP is a clean divider of tRFC, then tWR can be double or tCL+tRTP
> 
> There are many options, there isn't one right one
> It depends on the IC and remain set of timings what will fit
> But low tRDWR either works or won't post if the remain timings are high, soo tRCD/2 is a good template for it
> i get for tWR between 12-18, 24 idk if you need it thaat high
> Can you try if this would even post ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you TM5 test ?
> 1usmus_V3 20 rounds - because that one should trigger on bad tWRRD
> Maybe 3rd gen does a well enough job in timings auto correction
> There isn't much you can do except get away that tRCD RD 18 down to 16
> How about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this could need a voltage bump, because tRP is lower
> well first try it and then at worst check how much voltage that would need to post
> ~ please report back
> 
> There are many differences, but yours are A2 or B2 if it's dual rank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A2 has nothing over the notch
> And A2 because the ICs are at the bottom


An A1 PCB will ALWAYS have a tiny capacitor directly over the notch. Neither the A2 or A0 will. A2 has one to the left and A0 has one askew a bit to the left but not directly over the notch.


----------



## Veii

CJMitsuki said:


> An A1 PCB will ALWAYS have a tiny capacitor directly over the notch. Neither the A2 or A0 will. A2 has one to the left and A0 has one askew a bit to the left but not directly over the notch.


Exactly 
On A0 the ICs are further up too and the traces are a bit different at the bottom


Spoiler






















What is better between A1 and A2 under 4000MT/s remains till this day a debate 
A2 are harder to drive and more sentive
Only Viper Steel 4400 use a custom A2 PCB which is very similar to A1 with a tiny capacitor over the notch
While traces belong to the A2 PCB layout

I think GALAX HOF Extreme 4000 ones had a unique A2 PCB design too, but the older GALAX HOF Extreme 3600 where on A1 PCB
Both where white :wubsmiley


----------



## Martin778

I wonder what 3800C14 G.Skills are using, that's pretty much the tightest B-Die kit available.....well 'available' as they are mythical, not to be found in any shop in the world. They run very high volts though, 1.50V DIMM.
The Galax kit has very mediocre timings of 19-25-25 1.4V out of the box for being cherry picked IC's.


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> You could have a lot of errors because tRCD 16 is low
> Try if this will work for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later we can lower it with the early way
> Can be just an IC thing, that tRCD RD 16 is just too low for it
> It mostly doesn't scale with voltage, while tRP and tCL do


complete no error 



Veii said:


> Error 0, Initialization error "refresh stable"
> Error 10, Burst test error "SimpleTest8mb"
> 
> It times out and is too slow, initialization times out
> Try if tRDWR 9/1 fixes it
> A fix can be smaller tRRDL delay too - like 4/6 on it
> 
> Start by boosting ClkDrvStrengh to 30ohm and fix tRRDL to 6
> If it still doesn't work , try to increase tRDWR to 9
> 
> EDIT:
> Burst test error are mostly tWR related but can be fixed just with a voltage bump or added latency somewhere, like higher tRP
> Can also be fixed with an own added CAD_BUS Timing delay / if you are at peak stability , but this will lower perf
> It can also be fixed by using 1-1-1-1-1-1 on the tRDRD and tWRWR SD DD values
> But this will cut performance by a lot, soo let this part as the absolute last resolve :thumb:


already tried trdwr/twrrd up to 9/1..still get error.


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> complete no error
> 
> already tried trdwr/twrrd up to 9/1..still get error.


Hmm i do wonder if tRFC is too low
Try please 
276-205-126 on the 16-16-16-16 set
same tWR 12
Try to up 1.46v VDIMM


----------



## 1nterceptor

@Veii good day sir, i see you obviously know what you are talking about so i was wondering if you can give me some insight how to get this Ram to clock any faster (if possible at all)?
I described my problem in post #7663. This is where i am now, can't get it to work any faster or with lower latencies AFAIK...
I tryed pretty much everything i know, raising voltage on Ram and/or SoC, playing with different primary/secondary (practically all) latencies,
played a bit with VTT/CLDO voltages and i always end up with an unstable system. Sometimes it manages to boot (like with 3333Mhz) but crashes imediatelly upon loading windows...
Do i simply need to make peace with the fact my cpu won't play well with this ram and should i hold on to it until i upgrade to zen2 or zen3? Thanks




Edit: Dram voltage: 1,38v
SoC: 1,05v


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> Hmm i do wonder if tRFC is too low
> Try please
> 276-205-126 on the 16-16-16-16 set
> same tWR 12
> Try to up 1.46v VDIMM


superb!!! clean error. 

let me dry run 2-3 days first to make sure no more random reboot. anyway thanks @Veii for your help.

vdimm: 1.45v
vsoc: 1.1v
vddp: 900mv
vddg: 1050mv
procodt: 40ohm
cadbus: 24-20-24-24


----------



## KedarWolf

Here is my 24/7 daily driver.

Only maybe 500k less read, write and copy than my 14-16-15-13-27 41 2T settings at 1.5v with 246 tRFC, 62.2ns vs 62ns in latency.

And I'm only using 1.45v. 

Edit: It's TM5 stable as well.


----------



## Martin778

I've managed to snag that mythical 4x8GB 3800MHz CL14 G.Skill Neo B-Die kit. Should arrive in a week or two. 
Don't even start me on the price, Jesus Christ Almighty...


----------



## Awsan

Martin778 said:


> I've managed to snag that mythical 4x8GB 3800MHz CL14 G.Skill Neo B-Die kit. Should arrive in a week or two.
> Don't even start me on the price, Jesus Christ Almighty...


Holly , I can smell how much it cost you.


----------



## Hequaqua

@Veii

It was either tWR or tCWL that kept me from booting. I made the other changes without issue(sorta). 

It seems when I disable GDM it swaps over to a 2T command rate. I haven't done any performance testing yet. I also forgot to change tRAS to 32 from 30. How much of a difference would that make?

Also, with the [email protected] and [email protected], I didn't see much of a difference anywhere that I tested(just did a quick run of Aida64 and Performance Test 10 Memory only). 

I haven't done the TM5 20 cycles yet. I did run Karhu w/CPU Cache enabled though(1T command rate). I ran it for 4hrs, got to over 8600%, using 28000mb of ram. 









This is still with stock voltage and [email protected] No changes made in the Termination Block, or CAD_BUS Block. Also, I looked through my bios, not able to find anything for BGS settings at all. Gigabyte removed those from the bios for whatever reason. I guess because BGS Alt enabled by default on T-Topolgy was all this board needed maybe?

Anyway....back to the grindstone. lol

Again, thanks for all the help...to not only myself, but to the community as a whole. :thumb:


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> It makes sense
> you can't run that low tRDWR, soo you need added latency
> 9/4 is fine too , else 10/1 would be what will work on your side
> you have to test
> likely 8/4 could work if you lower your timings
> tWR is not needed to be that high
> Rulesets for it are
> tRRDS + tWTRS
> tCL + tRTP
> tRAS - tRCD
> All 3 are correct
> when tRTP is a clean divider of tRFC, then tWR can be double or tCL+tRTP
> 
> There are many options, there isn't one right one
> It depends on the IC and remain set of timings what will fit
> But low tRDWR either works or won't post if the remain timings are high, soo tRCD/2 is a good template for it
> i get for tWR between 12-18, 24 idk if you need it thaat high
> Can you try if this would even post ?



I wasn't trying to use that set of timings or improve them. I just quickly put them in the bios to attempt understanding tRDWR and tWRRD relation. Sorry for being confusing, thank you again for the knowledge bombs.


----------



## masteratarms

KedarWolf said:


> I found a 4000RPM RAM fan last night


I found a PWM to molex connector. The fan I have spare is not a good choice for ram cooling its a Silencia FP120 with really weak airflow. I have got this in my basket: Noctua NF-P12 redux-1700 PWM, 4-Pin, High Performance Cooling Fan with 1700RPM 120mm. I won't need anti-vibration mount brackets I'll just hang it from the PSU cord and brace elsewhere. I think that fan is going to be virtually silent compared to the rest of my fans @ 12v. 

Also while rummaging around I used my multimeter and checked the resistance of a fan mod I made many years ago with 2 resistors in parallel. The resitance was 23.8 Ohms and they sell LNA (low noise adapters with 50+ Ohms giving ~8v, whereas my homemade one gives 10v according to online calculator (you have to plug in the fan power and current max rating to find its resistance and then use that to calculate a volt drop. http://www.ohmslawcalculator.com/ohms-law-calculator It helps I studied electronics, so with that calculator I could check if it was worth buying a NLA.

I also found a nice price for some of the 3000 RPM (NF-F12?) industrial fans. Might pick them up for my X72, they have 900 RPM ontop of what stock fans do (although I read the stock fans are not too shabby).

I don't have temp sensors on my Patriot Viper Steel 4400 but I did buy a small digital thermometer to keep an eye on ambient temps. The temps went up 8 degrees c and my 1.46v overclock wasn't stable (1.44v is just what I started (1.46 reported) which and never changed except when my OC became unstable. I'm totally stable with 1.4v DDR 3666 299 tRFC (tested in hotter weather), maybe it doesn't even need that much.


----------



## masteratarms

KedarWolf said:


> I found a 4000RPM RAM fan last night, I had broken the original one I had.
> 
> This at 15-16-8-13-27 2T with 1.45v RAM. RAM temps stay under 40C now when running TM5.
> 
> I can post all my BIOS settings including my ProcODT etc. if anyone wants. :drum:
> 
> 
> Spoiler


If you are stable @3800 1:1 with only ~1v SoC voltage maybe you have a golden sample CPU which can clock higher assuming the RAM isn't the limiting factor. I needed to up the SoC voltage for 3800 1:1 the minimum I have gameplay replay of is @ 1069mV up to 1088mV. At least in that range I found no problems.


----------



## KedarWolf

masteratarms said:


> [/spoiler]
> If you are stable @3800 1:1 with only ~1v SoC voltage maybe you have a golden sample CPU which can clock higher assuming the RAM isn't the limiting factor. I needed to up the SoC voltage for 3800 1:1 the minimum I have gameplay replay of is @ 1069mV up to 1088mV. At least in that range I found no problems.


NB/SoC is at 1.114v with me.

It's the Chipset SoC that's at 1v.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Says he's using 1.11v SOC?


----------



## hazium233

dspx said:


> I hope you can see what you're looking for from my photo.
> 
> What are the differences between A1 and A2?


A2, like Veii said.

It doesn't show up well in my pic, but another thing is that on my 2666 sticks, I can see where there are pads for an ECC chip (since A1 is related to ECC D1), and also the SPD chip is visible on the same side as the chips. There are also no components on the back.

My 3200AES sticks have components on the back, besides the little bit tighter spacing of the ICs.


----------



## hazium233

Veii said:


> I saw they where A2 pcb, soo you will for sure have issues with bad signal integrity and need higher drive impedance
> (higher CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh ~ first value, near 40-60ohm, if not exceeding 100ohm up to IC)


What about A1 PCB on T-topology? Is there any link between CAD and usable VDIMM?

I spent some time this past week trying to work on 3533 with my 2666 Micron 8Gb Rev D sticks. They were getting fairly finicky here. I had been using 20-20-20-20 for 3200 and 3466, but went up to 24-24-24-24 here. It also seemed like I needed RTT Park to 60.

The issue I have had is that they seemed to prefer ~1.37V for best timings, but the subtimings did not want to tighten. This was sort of like when 1.410V could work for my primaries at 3466, but only with looser secondaries.

I actually pulled them since I had to test my new Rev E (A2 PCB) sticks for function, and I needed a break from them anyway.


----------



## glnn_23

Have been reading a lot of the great information from Veii and hopefully these settings for 4x8Gb 3800c14 are fine.

Vdimm 1.47 
Soc 1.125 (1.11 dmm)
Vddg ccd 1.0
Vddg iod 1.05
Vddp 900


----------



## GoforceReloaded

Veii said:


> The only thing that looked wrong was tWRRD at 3, should be 4 as you are on 16, not 17 on the tRCDs
> or you lower tRCD WR down 2 then tWRRD 3 is fine
> cLDO_VDDP over 900mV is only needed when you seak for 1950-2000FCLK or higher than 2000MCLK
> 900mV here is more than enough for <1900FLCK


Hi, thanks for your help !

I got a new 3900X (very good one, tested oc quickly and he is stable at 4150mhz all core at 1.25V with LLC on auto on prime95 and OCCT with AVX2 enabled ..., my older 3900X can only do 4000mhz at 1.25V xD) but the very rare errors was still there. (also, no more reboot with the new CPU !)
So i changed a few things after i read your post and currently i'm 100% stable, no more rare error, passed TM5 20 cycles multiples times in ~2h13 (tested 28800mb) and Karhu RAMTEST of 34131% (15h45)n did also some prime95 and OCCT test, got ~64.5ns on aida64 :










I launched again an irealistic bench loop to eat up my 2080 TI like crazy and slowed down all fans on the system, when the Karhu RAMTEST was running, temp on 4 rams reached 47.5°/49.3°/49.3°/47.5° and not a single error with an ambient temp up to ~29° (i know that my 4 ram are fully stable until ~52-53° normally)

Here's my current settings :

















This is 2 "differents" kit of F4-3200C14D-16GTRS.

*In bios, i'm using 1.500V on ram, AUTO voltage on SOC (with high LLC), VDDP and VDDG (~1.0875V, 0.9002V and 1.0477V).* - (tried lower soc/vddg but my AE-9 soundcard is bugged when the voltage of soc or vddg are not right, known bug by creative and AMD, dropout of audio with interrupts and DPCs process using 4-5% of CPU, this bug is not present with the audio from motherboard). (normally it's fully stable at 3800mhz with 1.45V, i will retry this voltage later, needed to bump the voltage to eat up the ram faster)









CAD values are all on AUTO.

Things that i changed, increased only 3 values with the mhz/fclk : (already changed ram voltage, procODT and RTT before doing the latest tests and got rare error too)

I saw your screenshot at 3800mhz with values in green/orange/red so i used few of them in red/orange 

3733mhz/1866FCLK to 3800mhz/1900FCLK (got the same rare error in 3733 or 3800 so it's a goof things that I tested directly 3800)
tRCDWR from 16 to 12
tRCDRD from 16 to 18
tRP from 16 to 14
tRAS from 32 to 30
tRC from 50 ro 42
tFAW from 16 to 20
tWTRL from 14 to 12
tWTR from 14 to 12
tRFC from 298 to 312 (normally the 4 ram can do tRFC 288 at [email protected], see below)
tRFC2 from 298 to AUTO (495 ?)
tRFC4 from 298 to AUTO (305 ?)
tWRRD from 3 to 4

I don't know if i can leave tRFC2 and 4 on auto or put the same value than tRFC.

So maybe it was tRCDRD/tFAW (don't think so, see below) or tWRRD like you said causing the rare error. (tried to sync tRFC/tWTR/tRTP before so it's not that)
Few months ago I tested these timings on another motherboard, the MSI X570 Prestige Creation, same ram at 3800mhz with 1900FCLK (empty columns had automatic values) :









Few questions too  :
*tRAS can be lower than "tCL + tRCDRD" ?* (normally it's "tRAS = tCL + tRCDRD + 2" or at least "tCL + tRCDRD" no ?), *I read that setting tRAS lower than this can cause a performance penalty, is that true ?*

What's your calculation for tWRRD and tRFC/tRFC2/tRFC4 ?

It's better if tRFC can be in sync with tWR and tRTP ?

Since i lowered tRCDWR to 12, don't know if need to change tWRRD again since it's 100% stable with it at 4. (what value tWRRD need to be with tRCDWR at 8 or 12 ?) -- (I just tested tRDWR and tWRRD on auto, my X570 Xtreme put them on 8 and 4, so no change, maybe the motherboard can calculate these 2 correctly ?)


Now that i know my settings are 100% stable again, I can try to lower some values : p

Tried GDM OFF with the same value on screenshots but there's many errors on memtest86 (before to start windows)

Maybe i can retry the latest values on my last screenshot to begin with. (I know that i can't do CL14 with my kits, not at 1T, even at 3733mhz)


I wrote all the details so maybe that can help others 

Also, thanks again to everyone !

EDIT : 

Maybe my X570 Xtreme don't change tRDWR/tWRRD automatically (or maybe these values are right ?) : 

I just changed few timings ([email protected]) :








tRDWR/tWRRD has not changed and are 8/4. (i left these on auto in bios to test)
After 2h got 1 error in test 8. Maybe tRDWR/tWRRD not right again ?


----------



## hurricane28

rastaviper said:


> Hmm I wouldn't like to decouple anything as I am pretty sure will increase my 62.9 ns
> I believe the best option for me is to tight the timings further at 3733'
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


yes that is true, havent tested this extra latency though but im 100% stable now at 3800 MHz so im very happy. I can tighten it little more maybe but its fine like this tool.


----------



## Nighthog

2600ryzen said:


> I remember now yes I couldn't get my micron rev D to post properly because of wrong auto TRDWR/TWRRD values like veii says.


I had the same problem with my Corsair 2x8Gb dual-rank 4Gb Micron B-die 25nm ones. Ver3.21. I needed to use manual setting for tRDWR/tWRRD to be able to get error free usage out of the kits on my Ryzen 1000 series processors. 
Had the problem on a Gigabyte AB350-Gaming 3/Ryzen 1700 combo & another Asus Prime B450-Plus/Ryzen 1600x combo I migrated the memory kit into later. 
Though a BIOS update came to help with compatibility when Agesa 1.0.0.3 came to the ASUS board, whence I no longer needed to set it manually to work.


----------



## Nighthog

@Veii Thanks for all the DDR talk and suggestions on the last few pages. Had some invaluable information I had missed around here in regard to memory timings overall.

In particular the tRDWR/tWRRD link here: How to calculate tRDWR & tWRRD - Single Ranked way:

I had missed this link between these values and tRCDWR & tRCDRD totally, was always just testing stuff to see what worked until now but finally I can "calculate" the values one should use.

I had been trying to lower my tRCDWR on my setup but could not really get it to work error free from my earlier base values but with these suggestions I finally found something that actually is "correct". 
Had been trying voltages and everything else but a simple change on tWRRD was all I needed. 

*Having tRCDWR lower I found gives better "inputlag" and latency for your mouse movements.* Feels so much snappier than having it high, why I wanted to get it working, had been trying for the past week to get it to work.


----------



## eliwankenobi

masteratarms said:


> I've swapped out micron-e for b-die patriot viper steel 4400. I had the M2Z3600c18 @ 3800 (I posted before in this thread). I got the 4 dimms of b-die in and found a setting of tWR = 13 which my system liked and posted with. The temperature has gone up 8'c here in last 48 hours and my memory failed to post and gave errors @ 3733. I was using 1.44vDDR (1.46v reported) so I set 3666, 1.4vDDR and kept my tWR13 setting and now I run 299 tRFC because 299 is a multiple of 13.
> 
> I did have the 20 pass test done but it was tricky to get it to post sometimes. I feel like I need a fan on my RAM, and I'm out of PWM to molex fan adapters (to set pwm fan to 12v), I do have a spare silent fan. My priority was to have at least something stable and I even tried cl15 GDM disabled but got some really wobbly responces from the motherboard. I've not tried lowering tFAW which is 16. My SoC is overkill even for 3800MT/s as I have gameplay of it running 1069 & 1088mV (that's AMD's reading, gigabyte's is 1.116v).
> 
> As expected I've dropped some score in the membench: 196.96 > 203.69 on default.



You seriously running your CPU at 4.8 ghz??? 

I feel pushing the cpu OC there is affecting you memory OC


----------



## eliwankenobi

Hequaqua said:


> Patriot Viper [email protected]@1.38v(1.404~HWiNFO64)
> 
> Ryzen Master w/Zen Timings
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 348054
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM5 20cycles
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 348056
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thaiphoon Burner*
> 
> Pretty happy with it so far. Just ran Ryzen Dram Calc for 3733 Fast...plugged it all in and it works. Woot!:thumb:



With a Fan on top of them, you should be able to hit CL14 timings no problem 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zektbach

Hey guys, I swear I did input everything but I still keep getting memory overclocking fail..
PC Specs:
MSI MPG x570 Gaming Plus
Ryzen 7 3700X (Stock Speed)
MSI RTX 2080 Super Gaming Trio (Stock Speed)
G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB 3200Mhz CL16
ADATA XPG6000 1TB m.2
Seasonic Focus 750w Gold Modular


----------



## paih85

my latest stable gdm off, 1t timing for 3733mhz.


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Error 0, Initialization error "refresh stable"
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Error 10, Burst test error "SimpleTest8mb"
> 
> It times out and is too slow, initialization times out
> Try if tRDWR 9/1 fixes it
> A fix can be smaller tRRDL delay too - like 4/6 on it
> 
> Start by boosting ClkDrvStrengh to 30ohm and fix tRRDL to 6
> If it still doesn't work , try to increase tRDWR to 9
> 
> EDIT:
> Burst test error are mostly tWR related but can be fixed just with a voltage bump or added latency somewhere, like higher tRP
> Can also be fixed with an own added CAD_BUS Timing delay / if you are at peak stability , but this will lower perf
> It can also be fixed by using 1-1-1-1-1-1 on the tRDRD and tWRWR SD DD values
> But this will cut performance by a lot, soo let this part as the absolute last resolve
> 
> 
> :thumb:


Would you be comfortable running these SoC and VDDP etc. voltages 24/7?










I can run the below TM5 stable if I do, and the best AIDA64 bandwidth I've gotten.










*And with these timings, I get almost 1k better bandwidth with GDM enabled that with it disabled. 

At my 1.45v timings it's much better with GDM disabled.*


----------



## Ender666666

Hey everyone!

I'm a longtime PC Builder and was an overclocker in the past.

Having just built a new PC, I want to start tuning, and think based on what I have read, that RAM is the first thing I should try to optimize.

The problem is that everything I have tried so far has basically failed to POST. So, I was wondering if there's anyone here who would be willing to hold my hand through the process so to speak?

I promise, I'm not dumb, just out of practice and unfamiliar with the current process. I do intend to take whatever I learn and pass it on, so if you feel like doing a good deed, know that it will eventually help more than just me... Or so I hope.

Thanks!

-Ender


----------



## Ender666666

Ender666666 said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I'm a longtime PC Builder and was an overclocker in the past.
> 
> Having just built a new PC, I want to start tuning, and think based on what I have read, that RAM is the first thing I should try to optimize.


To elaborate,

I built the following specs:

Ryzen 7 3700X CPU with Deepcool Assassin III 280W Heatsink and Fans
MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus Mobo
64GB Corsair Vengence LPX 3600 RAM CL18 (4x16GB)
MSI RX580 Armor with 8GB VRAM


----------



## opethdisciple

Here is a screen shot of my memory overclock. It is stable. I have tested it and played games on it over the last 10 days. 

Dram voltage @ 1.47v. AIDA64 says my latency is 66ns. 

My only question is is the score I get in the default benchmark of 245 an indication of something not being right? 

I've been told this is quite a rubbish score. It should be much lower.

The only things form the calc I haven't applied voltage wise are the VDDG and VDDP voltages. I haven't had a need to change them as everything seems stable.

What do you think?


----------



## eliwankenobi

Ender666666 said:


> To elaborate,
> 
> I built the following specs:
> 
> Ryzen 7 3700X CPU with Deepcool Assassin III 280W Heatsink and Fans
> MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus Mobo
> 64GB Corsair Vengence LPX 3600 RAM CL18 (4x16GB)
> MSI RX580 Armor with 8GB VRAM



4x16GB could be hard to run given that double ranking memory dimms that are already dual ranked. Good for latency in a way, but harder to OC.

There are several tutorials that show how to use Typhoon Burner to get the SPC report in HTML format. I believe the very first page here has a tutoria on how to do this


You use this report to import it into DRAM Calc and it will more accurately give you recommendations that should work. Most of us run 4x8gb, 2x8gb or 2x16gb. So I would start with the SAFE recommendations first. Also put in the values in the Advanced tab as well.

Good luck.


----------



## eliwankenobi

I would also start with tuning at the rated 3200mhz before attempting higher speeds


----------



## Ender666666

eliwankenobi said:


> 4x16GB could be hard to run given that double ranking memory dimms that are already dual ranked. Good for latency in a way, but harder to OC.
> 
> There are several tutorials that show how to use Typhoon Burner to get the SPC report in HTML format. I believe the very first page here has a tutoria on how to do this
> 
> 
> You use this report to import it into DRAM Calc and it will more accurately give you recommendations that should work. Most of us run 4x8gb, 2x8gb or 2x16gb. So I would start with the SAFE recommendations first. Also put in the values in the Advanced tab as well.
> 
> Good luck.


Thanks!

I have used Thaiphoon to get the correct HTML file, and have input it into 1usmus' calculator. I'm not sure what you mean by "4x16GB could be hard to run given that double ranking memory dimms that are already dual ranked. Good for latency in a way, but harder to OC." I thought my DIMMs were single ranked. How do I tell?


----------



## Ender666666

Here's what Thaiphoon says about my RAM


----------



## deepor

@Ender666666: I'm guessing your sticks are single-rank. I looked up that "MT40A2G8VA-062E:B" part number for the chips that are used on your sticks, and they are 16 gigabit sized chips. This means the manufacturer of the RAM kit can get to 16 gigabyte by using 8 chips. The sticks are then probably set up single-rank.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Zektbach said:


> Hey guys, I swear I did input everything but I still keep getting memory overclocking fail..
> PC Specs:
> MSI MPG x570 Gaming Plus
> Ryzen 7 3700X (Stock Speed)
> MSI RTX 2080 Super Gaming Trio (Stock Speed)
> G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB 3200Mhz CL16
> ADATA XPG6000 1TB m.2
> Seasonic Focus 750w Gold Modular


I believe you have to change you memory type to SK Hynix MFR, can you post a screenshot of taiphoon burner to make sure


----------



## Zektbach

BIRDMANv84 said:


> I believe you have to change you memory type to SK Hynix MFR, can you post a screenshot of taiphoon burner to make sure


here..
https://files.fm/thumb_show.php?i=nquz4q3h


----------



## eliwankenobi

Ender666666 said:


> Here's what Thaiphoon says about my RAM



JDEC DIMM LA EL 16GB 1Rx8... single rank I believe then. Dual rank would be 2R


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

@Ender666666 Yes these seem Single Ranked - interesting
Alone visible by the A0 pcb made by SK.Hynix, although it's Micron Rev.B 17nm
If they would be dual ranked (which was the case for 99% till now) they'd be on B0 or B1/B2 PCB

Speaking of - might remove that one dimm and give it for a bit of fotoshooting ?
We can't fully trust Thaiphoon Burner on PCB prediction - even more with brand new unknown kits 
Expected pictures visible like here:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28423902
#2 and #3rd picture especially 
From the sides, to see where the ICs are (top or bottom) and dead center on the side where the ICs are to see the traces 
~ the other side of the PCB has just a foam placeholder and nothing interesting, soo figure first out on which side the ICs are


KedarWolf said:


> Would you be comfortable running these SoC and VDDP etc. voltages 24/7?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can run the below TM5 stable if I do, and the best AIDA64 bandwidth I've gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And with these timings, I get almost 1k better bandwidth with GDM enabled that with it disabled.
> At my 1.45v timings it's much better with GDM disabled.*


VDDG IOD is a tad high
VDDP 950
VDDG CCD 1000
VDDG IOD 1050
VSOC 1150 
fits, 
All depends on what stepping you use, as 50mV has to be the minimum used between these 
Usually VDDP 900, CCD 950, IOD 1000, vSOC 1100 would fit well
But maybe CCD one will be too low for your perCCX OC 
you could use 75mV stepping too
VDDP 900, CCD 975, IOD 1025, VSOC 1100 
vSOC doesn't have to be double stepping - but these 4 voltages have to follow some kind of pattern and never be under 50mV appart
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814 described at the 2nd half of the post

This tRP 13 is an eyesore tho 
Doesn't tRP 12 run with your voltage ?
Else tRP 14 would be better - unless tested otherwise
Remember tRC can be down to -2 of tRAS+tRP 
You have wiggle room in order to match low requested tRFC 
if tRC 40 would not run (doubt), you can try tRC 42 and first be sure 252-187-115 is stable 
Or directly try tRC 40 with 240-178-110 

Oor you can try it step by step, lowering tRFC by -4 down to 3x = -12 down of calculated baseline
optimally you'd know tSTAG with tRC 42 and tRFC 252 , but you can do it manually to and lower it always by -4 jumps, which is 1/8th cycle
tRFC scales in 
32 full cycle
16 half
8 1/4th
4 1/8th
2 1/16th

2 stepping i've never seen used, but -4 and -8 is commonly used to lower tRFC beyond what the tiny tRFC calculator spills out
well it depends on tSTAG (ASRock timings checker from intel should show it or some asus tool ~ i forgot)
But you can work blind here too, by just using -4 stepping and checking after when SiSandra lowers perf or TM5 will spill out errors
Tho as the boards do autocorrect, only benchmarks will show when autocorrection takes over and lowers performance
Overall test your settings, Aida64 is not always the best option, just a fast option to compare results


----------



## SpecChum

@Veii

These settings you suggested were worse, sadly (Green ones).

+0.2ns more latency in AIDA64 and 109.11 vs 109.89 in DRAM Calc test vs previous.

Thanks tho, was worth a shot 

I did keep tRC at 44 tho.


----------



## SpecChum

1usmus saying the new XT "refresh" processors reaching 2000MHz FLCK :drool:

https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1264803081667174400?s=19


----------



## Awsan

SpecChum said:


> 1usmus saying the new XT "refresh" processors reaching 2000MHz FLCK :drool:
> 
> https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1264803081667174400?s=19


My prediction is coming full circle


----------



## Ender666666

eliwankenobi said:


> JDEC DIMM LA EL 16GB 1Rx8... single rank I believe then. Dual rank would be 2R
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming!


----------



## Ender666666

Veii said:


> @Ender666666 Yes these seem Single Ranked - interesting
> Alone visible by the A0 pcb made by SK.Hynix, although it's Micron Rev.B 17nm
> If they would be dual ranked (which was the case for 99% till now) they'd be on B0 or B1/B2 PCB
> 
> Speaking of - might remove that one dimm and give it for a bit of fotoshooting ?
> We can't fully trust Thaiphoon Burner on PCB prediction - even more with brand new unknown kits
> Expected pictures visible like here:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28423902
> #2 and #3rd picture especially
> From the sides, to see where the ICs are (top or bottom) and dead center on the side where the ICs are to see the traces
> ~ the other side of the PCB has just a foam placeholder and nothing interesting, soo figure first out on which side the ICs are


I'd be happy to take a DIMM out and give it a photoshoot. Is there a safe way to actually remove and then reseat the stock heatspreader? Or is that a one-way trip to having naked DIMMs?


----------



## Awsan

Ender666666 said:


> I'd be happy to take a DIMM out and give it a photoshoot. Is there a safe way to actually remove and then reseat the stock heatspreader? Or is that a one-way trip to having naked DIMMs?


You can just take a photo from under showing the memory modules and from the sides which is more than enough to show the layout.


----------



## Alexshunter

Alexshunter said:


> To what part should I give extra V, if not willing to start at 3800Mhz with infinity fabrick? Without infinity it starts, so not the RAM is the limit.


Well, I had to upgrade to Ryzen 3 3300X and now I can run my fclk at 1900Mhz. However my timings just a bit unstable, memtest gives a few error. What timings should I adjust here, anybody can advise?


----------



## Veii

@SpecChum they where worse by intention 
0.2ns is margin of error testing 
tRFC was far more, it should be 2ns difference if they where worse
they where actually better but just slower as timings where higher

it was there to have a baseline that is known to work, so you can work on disabling GDM 
Work on CAD_BUS values till it's fine without errors
High by intention really 
Lower voltages and fix cad bus with them till you get GDM away, then we can talk about lowering the rest


Alexshunter said:


> Well, I had to upgrade to Ryzen 3 3300X and now I can run my fclk at 1900Mhz. However my timings just a bit unstable, memtest gives a few error. What timings should I adjust here, anybody can advise?


tWR 16 or tRTP 6 
pick one
preferring tWR 16 for stability , till you change tRFC

Do we have a confirmation that your CPU can run 1900FCLK ?


----------



## Alexshunter

Veii said:


> tWR 16 or tRTP 6
> pick one
> preferring tWR 16 for stability , till you change tRFC
> 
> Do we have a confirmation that your CPU can run 1900FCLK ?


Yes, I tested at 3800MHz without adjusting timing. It looks neither tWR 16 nor tRTP 6 helps avoid memtest error. tRFC to what value?


----------



## Veii

Alexshunter said:


> Yes, I tested at 3800MHz without adjusting timing. It looks neither tWR 16 nor tRTP 6 helps avoid memtest error. tRFC to what value?


The issue is, your timings look correct
Voltage can be an issue
VDIMM, VDDP, VDDG ,VSOC, procODT, RTT, CAD_BUS all of them can cause issues before even timings start to matter
The 2nd issue is, memtest on DRAM Calculator doesn't tell anything when it errors
TM5 1usmus_v3 is a bit trackable and can predict the issue

Karhu with cache can fail when the cpu isn't stable in the first place
Soo back to the question:
"Can you confirm, your cpu can even run 1900FCLK" 

A timings screenshot alone, i'm sorry but can't give you help
Unless your timings where messed up
these aren't ~ if your kits can run that
I don't except anything less than great A1 or good binned kits on A2 with at least 1.48-1.52v VDIMM to run that set
4400C19 are A2 vipers or similar , i hope at least they are 19-19 kits and not 19-21 

Really, there is more to it than just basic timings
tRFC 294-219-134 
tWR 12, tRTP 6 
if something else still bothers, it's not timings related


----------



## Alexshunter

Yes, it is the 19-19 Patriot 4400. I think if i could rise Voltage to RAM, it would solve the problem. But by Asrock 1.5V is the max. The CPU can handle 1900fclk, i tested with memtest, before tight memory timings and were no memory errorrs. I think than it will be long story to find my stable timings.

Update,
I switched to CL15 and is more stable, just 2 errorrs. I m running now the mentioned TestMem5 v0.12. However I would be more happy for Cl14. Maybe my mems just cannot handle.

Update 2
This is the one place in bios, where i am unsure what to write,


----------



## SpecChum

Veii said:


> @SpecChum they where worse by intention
> 0.2ns is margin of error testing
> tRFC was far more, it should be 2ns difference if they where worse
> they where actually better but just slower as timings where higher


Oh lol, did I put 0.2ns? I meant from 66.1 to 68 ish, so 2ns. Not sure why I put 0.2ns, sorry. I know that's margin of error.

Both AIDA64 and DRAM Calc tests were run multiple times to check.

I'm done now I think, it's stable, it's far faster than stock. I'm happy.

Thanks for all your help tho


----------



## yrelbirb

first and foremost, I want to thanks @Veii. and @1usmus and ALL other friends HERE for providing much needed insight, tools and calculators for this job.

I present this performance subtiming comparison video for the sake of them.






Thanks to their insight and tightened timings, performance uplift can be openly observed on this benchmark.

Have a good day!

special remark: volumetric clouds are left on low because it's a hugely gpu bound setting and i have gtx 1080 in my hands so 

----

extra note: both of them had some random stutters even though i tried lots of times. it seems like my 5400 RPM harddisk cant cope with this game... it stutters randomly. so, don't take stutters for granted


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> first and foremost, I want to thanks @Veii. and @1usmus for providing much needed insight, tools and calculators for this job.
> 
> I present this performance subtiming comparison video for the sake of them.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xSSroPSgu0
> 
> Thanks to their insight and tightened timings, performance uplift can be openly observed on this benchmark.
> 
> Have a good day!
> 
> special remark: volumetric clouds are left on low because it's a hugely gpu bound setting and i have gtx 1080 in my hands so


Nicely done. +rep.


----------



## Gokhan Karaman

Greetings to all. First of all I want to thank you. Thanks to the shared successful results, Rams 2933 Mhz is working now. My system information:

ASUS ROG STRIX F-Gaming X370 motherboard (5406 BIOS)
HyperX Predator DDR4 3000MHz CL15 1.35V XMP RAM (HX430C15PB2K4/16) 4x4 kit
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 cpu


----------



## opethdisciple

The last good version of this tool was 1.7.0. 1.7.3 gives me noticeable worse timings and membench score.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

I'm currently "stable" with this :

I did 2 TM5 with 20 cycles, i bumped CAD_BUS ClkDrv to 40 ohm and lowered the voltage to 1.48V.










I tried GDM off 1T, with CAD_BUS ClkDrv 24, gave me lots of errors on memtest86, then bumped to 30, 40 and even 60. (i had less errors with each steps but still had errors with it at 60, did not try 120)

I did not run kahru ramtest for 10h+ yet. (passed 1h with 28800mb)

I don't think my ram can do CL14 at 3800mhz, even at 1.500V, tested few times with a lot of errors.


----------



## 1nterceptor

yrelbirb said:


> first and foremost, I want to thanks @Veii. and @1usmus and ALL other friends HERE for providing much needed insight, tools and calculators for this job.
> 
> I present this performance subtiming comparison video for the sake of them.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xSSroPSgu0
> 
> Thanks to their insight and tightened timings, performance uplift can be openly observed on this benchmark.
> 
> Have a good day!
> 
> special remark: volumetric clouds are left on low because it's a hugely gpu bound setting and i have gtx 1080 in my hands so



The jerkiness/stuttering is clearly visible on the left side inspite of higher fps... Just FYI.


----------



## yrelbirb

1nterceptor said:


> The jerkiness/stuttering is clearly visible on the left side inspite of higher fps... Just FYI.


i found the problem

after a restart, when the game is run for the first time, game stutters randomly (both in game, and in the benchmark)

after completing a run, the second run does not stutter

i remembered messing up the video recording in the first run for non tweaked timings, actually two times... after running the benchmark for two times, it seems game created shader caches so it didnt stutter in following benchs

but for tweaked timings, i managed to do it on the first try, hence the stutters (silly me  )

i replicated the phenomenon and restarted my pc to re-run the benchmark and weirdly, it really did stutter like in the video (i couldnt see it weirdly)

after running it again, it ran smoothly, just like the non tweaked one;

i better update the video i guess...






and extra; 1st run with non tweaked timings, visible stutters just like the original video is present, due to shader caches are being compiled again, probably (having some problems on that end with nvidia for last drivers  )






i hope this clears the confusion

however i will make an updated video where both of them is clear and fully shader-compiled


----------



## OmarAj

I tried @Veii try settings and got best latency so far for me thanks for all the help and explanation.

20 cycle TM5 no error 
Im getting latency 62.6 when per ccx overclock
Do you think I can tighten it a bit more?

Also tried this in both of my x570 mobo Gigabyte Elite crackling windows sound if Vddg less than 1050, Msi Unify Vddg 975 works great.
The x570 Elite cant do Gdm off with no Error for me, need to use ClkDrvStren 60 but getting stutter when gaming(not 100% sure if its widows or the board)
Just wanted to share my experience


----------



## Hequaqua

Well think I'm done until I upgrade....lol

Here are my current timings(Patriot Viper only) with Karhu and TM5 results(1usmus 20 cycles and I changed the Extreme1 anta777 from 3 cycles to 4)



Spoiler














*HCI 800%*



Spoiler














*Ryzen Master*



Spoiler














Here is where I've been logging my results.....32gb testing with the Trident Z and Viper Kits. Some 16gb as well. The Trident numbers were from a while back, I may retest those. After several timing changes I then tested the current timings across 4 tests three times then averaged and rounded.

Here is the link for those interested:
Trident Z/Patriot Viper Mem Testing

I could maybe squeeze a bit more out, but I don't want to touch voltages on the ram....I'm odd that way.....lol I'm not sure what I'll do with the Trident Z Kit atm. I have a back-up rig that I could put them in....but it runs fine with the cheap set that's in there.

Anyway, thanks to those who've helped, especially 1usmus and Veii. :thumb:


----------



## d0mini

Hey,

Thanks to those of you who helped me with working out why my BCLK was so low - crazy that enabling virtualisation stealth-enables spread spectrum but oh well.

I've done a fair bit of overclocking and testing, and I've attached a screenshot of a passed 20 cycle TM5 run along with an AIDA latency test.

One thing I noticed after the benchmark was that my system was incredibly sluggish. It took forever for paint to save the screenshot for instance. Then, the next day I got a full system lockup after three rounds playing the game Valorant - had to reboot.

I tried upping the DRAM voltage from 1.45 to 1.47V but the same sluggishness occurred after/during the stress test. Is there some other voltage I should be raising? SOC voltage?


----------



## DEZ_

I have set my VTTDDR Voltage to 0.675 at BIOS and in there it always shows its set value.
But mobo's software shows its value at 0.600 whenever i start the system.

mobo: ASUS TUF B450M-PLUS GAMING mATX

Does it lie, or doest it resets the value? Should I correct it in the utility after windows startup?

I have the latest BIOS btw.


----------



## opethdisciple

Can we address the fact that the dram calc 1.7.3 is producing timings that are inferior to previous versions?

Last known good configuration for me was 1.7.0. That gave me some nice fast timings. The same sticks with the 1.7.3 version and I am about 30points slower in the default membench.

My membench score using fast on 1.7.3 is 245-250, using 1.7.0 I get a score of 221.

Am I the only one to find the latest version is a step back?


----------



## ibb27

opethdisciple said:


> Can we address the fact that the dram calc 1.7.3 is producing timings that are inferior to previous versions?
> ....
> Am I the only one to find the latest version is a step back?


Yeah, imported XMP settings from Tiphoon Burner were much inferior to mine, but standard settings for my Samsung b-die kit are good. And for me 1.7.3 is a small improvement in subtimings, but I've played more with the new version and I somehow set stable 1900 IF and 3800MT/s settings on my 3800X, and I'm really grateful to the author of the app, cause I'll never played with the DRAM timings before.


----------



## d0mini

opethdisciple said:


> Can we address the fact that the dram calc 1.7.3 is producing timings that are inferior to previous versions?
> 
> Last known good configuration for me was 1.7.0. That gave me some nice fast timings. The same sticks with the 1.7.3 version and I am about 30points slower in the default membench.
> 
> My membench score using fast on 1.7.3 is 245-250, using 1.7.0 I get a score of 221.
> 
> Am I the only one to find the latest version is a step back?


Not at all. I used 1.7.0 to get the results I have now. I could get them more or less stable where everything from 1.7.2/1.7.3 failed.


----------



## CJMitsuki

opethdisciple said:


> Can we address the fact that the dram calc 1.7.3 is producing timings that are inferior to previous versions?
> 
> Last known good configuration for me was 1.7.0. That gave me some nice fast timings. The same sticks with the 1.7.3 version and I am about 30points slower in the default membench.
> 
> My membench score using fast on 1.7.3 is 245-250, using 1.7.0 I get a score of 221.
> 
> Am I the only one to find the latest version is a step back?


Sure, as long as we can discuss why the DRAM calculator is nothing more than a starting point for an overclock as silicon is as unique as a fingerprint and one example could never be enough to satisfy the variances you will experience even from multiple sets of the same exact model of ram. 
Also, we would then need to discuss how Aida64 is not a measure of performance and never will be. If you overclock your ram by Aida64 numbers you are doing yourself a disservice. Use a real benchmark for memory like Sisoft Sandra or Passmark Performance Test or Geekbench 3/4. Aida64 has thrown out pretty numbers but they dont really mean much. If you can throw out a wildly unstable overclock and still get a good score on a benchmark then it isnt that great of a benchmark and shouldnt be used to calculate any type of performance when it comes to memory overclocking.


----------



## Scoty

So with my Hynix DJR even the 1.7.3 is still hard to recognize because of Ram. For example, if I set the tWRRD from 4 to 1 as suggested, the PC won't start anymore. Otherwise my values are a bit better than those of Calculator.


----------



## RaXelliX

Scoty said:


> So with my Hynix DJR even the 1.7.3 is still hard to recognize because of Ram. For example, if I set the tWRRD from 4 to 1 as suggested, the PC won't start anymore. Otherwise my values are a bit better than those of Calculator.


Yep the calculator is not very good with Hynix RAM. My Hynix JJR is not even supported and DJR values are way too agressive for JJR.


----------



## Scoty

I see other User get with the same Ram 3800 with cl15 or 3600 with cl14 but how??


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Scoty said:


> I see other User get with the same Ram 3800 with cl15 or 3600 with cl14 but how??


Every memory IC and module is different, we can have the same module in the same batch and get very different results.
With this G.Skill module, the same I have, you can achieve CL15 only setting almost everything else crazy high. Not worth it.

I think your problem is the tRFC too tight, you have to keep it higher than 490 to tight the other timings.
It works down till 465 for me but due to the other timings forced to be higher overall it's not faster, it's slower.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

d0mini said:


> Hey,
> 
> Thanks to those of you who helped me with working out why my BCLK was so low - crazy that enabling virtualisation stealth-enables spread spectrum but oh well.
> 
> I've done a fair bit of overclocking and testing, and I've attached a screenshot of a passed 20 cycle TM5 run along with an AIDA latency test.
> 
> One thing I noticed after the benchmark was that my system was incredibly sluggish. It took forever for paint to save the screenshot for instance. Then, the next day I got a full system lockup after three rounds playing the game Valorant - had to reboot.
> 
> I tried upping the DRAM voltage from 1.45 to 1.47V but the same sluggishness occurred after/during the stress test. Is there some other voltage I should be raising? SOC voltage?


I had this kind of weird random behavior playing with different VDDP/VDDG settings.
For me works reliably only 900/950.
But in general I had this crazy stuff while attempting more than 50mv between the 2 settings.
You are at 900/1025 which is 125 delta, try to put them closer.


----------



## rdr09

CJMitsuki said:


> Sure, as long as we can discuss why the DRAM calculator is nothing more than a starting point for an overclock as silicon is as unique as a fingerprint and one example could never be enough to satisfy the variances you will experience even from multiple sets of the same exact model of ram.
> Also, we would then need to discuss how Aida64 is not a measure of performance and never will be. If you overclock your ram by Aida64 numbers you are doing yourself a disservice. Use a real benchmark for memory like Sisoft Sandra or Passmark Performance Test or Geekbench 3/4. Aida64 has thrown out pretty numbers but they dont really mean much. If you can throw out a wildly unstable overclock and still get a good score on a benchmark then it isnt that great of a benchmark and shouldnt be used to calculate any type of performance when it comes to memory overclocking.


Is S. Sandra free version enuf to test RAM or do we need to buy? Cos there are other ways aside from Cinebench to test if raam oc makes a difference like games we play.


----------



## d0mini

ManniX-ITA said:


> I had this kind of weird random behavior playing with different VDDP/VDDG settings.
> For me works reliably only 900/950.
> But in general I had this crazy stuff while attempting more than 50mv between the 2 settings.
> You are at 900/1025 which is 125 delta, try to put them closer.


Thanks man, I’ll give that a go if I still have problems! I tried upping the SOC voltage by 25mv in the hopes that would change something... we’ll see.


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Happy Testing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logically red requires orange values unless stated otherwise~
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for just providing values, you're awesome
> I raise TRCDRD to 18 to begin with. All good.
> VDDG 1.05 and vsoc 1.10 is fine then, correct?
> 
> Do i have to match colors if i want to use green or orange values? If i want to use 336 trcdr then i use all oranges?
> I didn't understand
Click to expand...


----------



## OCmember

Did the last few windows update lower your R20 single thread scores? I was getting a 514, and I just re-ran it and I'm getting a 508, that seems to be too large of a difference for it to be 'margin of error'

3800X stock, IF 1700/3400 cl14.14.14


----------



## Azazel-

Hey guys i recently bought a Crucial Ballistix White RGB 3600 CL 16 32GB DDR4 Kit and have a problem.

The partnumber of a memory module is L16G36C16U4WL.M16FE instead of BL16G36C16U4WL.M16FE

the partnumber of the DRAM component of one stick starts with MT (MT40A1G8SA-062E:E) and the other with CT (CT40A1G8SA-55M:E) 


In Thaiphoon Burner I get a CRC error on both sticks

With both sticks I get a SPD protocol error :
SPD checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh): 7B40h (OK) 
SPD checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh): 27DEh (Error) 

SPD checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh): 7B40h (OK) 
SPD checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh): FFDEh (Error) 

I have tested the RAM with Stock and DOCP and get errors, even with higher DRAM /SOC Voltage 

I Have tried all the slots individually, all of them does the Same

I attach screenshots and marked them

Stick with BL16G36C16U4WL.M16FE as partnumber
https://imgur.com/a/GbC4JYo

Stick with L16G36C16U4WL.M16FE as partnumber
https://imgur.com/a/m8HcVa7

what is that CRC Error?

My System 

Asus PRIME X470-PRO Motherboard with latest Bios ( Complete Stock / No OC ) and a Ryzen 7 2700X CPU
Crucial Says its 100% Compatible 
https://www.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g36c16u4wl/CT17027594


----------



## LicSqualo

Azazel- said:


> Hey guys i recently bought a Crucial Ballistix White RGB 3600 CL 16 32GB DDR4 Kit and have a problem.
> 
> The partnumber of a memory module is L16G36C16U4WL.M16FE instead of BL16G36C16U4WL.M16FE
> 
> the partnumber of the DRAM component of one stick starts with MT (MT40A1G8SA-062E:E) and the other with CT (CT40A1G8SA-55M:E)
> 
> 
> In Thaiphoon Burner I get a CRC error on both sticks
> 
> With both sticks I get a SPD protocol error :
> SPD checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh): 7B40h (OK)
> SPD checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh): 27DEh (Error)
> 
> SPD checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh): 7B40h (OK)
> SPD checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh): FFDEh (Error)
> 
> I have tested the RAM with Stock and DOCP and get errors, even with higher DRAM /SOC Voltage
> 
> I Have tried all the slots individually, all of them does the Same
> 
> I attach screenshots and marked them
> 
> Stick with BL16G36C16U4WL.M16FE as partnumber
> https://imgur.com/a/GbC4JYo
> 
> Stick with L16G36C16U4WL.M16FE as partnumber
> https://imgur.com/a/m8HcVa7
> 
> what is that CRC Error?
> 
> My System
> Asus PRIME X470-PRO Motherboard with latest Bios and the Ryzen 7 2700X CPU
> Crucial Says its 100% Compatible
> https://www.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g36c16u4wl/CT17027594


Do your Ram have rgb leds? Did you use programs that control the lights on the ram? No good! (As personal experience in the past)
1) The CRC is the Cyclic Redundancy Check. If you have problems and mistakes with this kit you should try to return it. Is the best option.
2) Even if possible correct this problem (with a program that load and write the eeprom chip inside the ram, Elmor provide one to the C6H thread), you have two ram stick that are made different and this is a big problem.
The causes that could determine this situation are different and you did not provide more details. So assuming that you bought them new and recently the best advice is to return them to the dealer and ask for a new and flawless kit.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> Did the last few windows update lower your R20 single thread scores? I was getting a 514, and I just re-ran it and I'm getting a 508, that seems to be too large of a difference for it to be 'margin of error'
> 
> 3800X stock, IF 1700/3400 cl14.14.14


I'll check but it doesn't seem really a large delta to me. It's barely more than 1%.


----------



## Azazel-

LicSqualo said:


> Do your Ram have rgb leds? Did you use programs that control the lights on the ram? No good! (As personal experience in the past)
> 1) The CRC is the Cyclic Redundancy Check. If you have problems and mistakes with this kit you should try to return it. Is the best option.
> 2) Even if possible correct this problem (with a program that load and write the eeprom chip inside the ram, Elmor provide one to the C6H thread), you have two ram stick that are made different and this is a big problem.
> The causes that could determine this situation are different and you did not provide more details. So assuming that you bought them new and recently the best advice is to return them to the dealer and ask for a new and flawless kit.


Yes they have Rgb Leds, i only used Crucials Own Program to check Temps and the Lights , https://www.crucial.com/products/memory/ballistix-mod-utility-ddr4 
I bought them Monday and will return the Kit ,the reseller told me i should contact the Manufactor for return :thumbsdow
Currenty i wait for an Email from the Crucial Support , they wanted some Pics of the Modules

Thx for the help


----------



## LicSqualo

Azazel- said:


> Yes they have Rgb Leds, i only used Crucials Own Program to check Temps and the Lights , https://www.crucial.com/products/memory/ballistix-mod-utility-ddr4
> I bought them Monday and will return the Kit ,the reseller told me i should contact the Manufactor for return :thumbsdow
> Currenty i wait for an Email from the Crucial Support , they wanted some Pics of the Modules
> 
> Thx for the help


Sorry for the reseller answer. I hope for a quick Manufactor return.
There is a problem with the programs to control the ram rgb lights and some programs (like Taiphoon burner or similar, even HwInfo64) due "collision" to read a specific address with both programs. So if you plan to retake the same kit, be aware and not launch the "own" programs to control the lights together with other informations programs. I suggest one for time and you will be safe for a long time. This was my case


----------



## rastaviper

rdr09 said:


> Is S. Sandra free version enuf to test RAM or do we need to buy? Cos there are other ways aside from Cinebench to test if raam oc makes a difference like games we play.


Yes it's free for all benchmarks.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zektbach

Can I have a help in choosing DRAM PCB Version? I'm confused..


----------



## SpecChum

Zektbach said:


> Can I have a help in choosing DRAM PCB Version? I'm confused..


That's the wrong section.

Click on "Report" and look at "Reference Raw Card".


----------



## Zektbach

SpecChum said:


> That's the wrong section.
> 
> Click on "Report" and look at "Reference Raw Card".


Oh okay it says A1. 
Also, can you check if this is good? I have manage to change the timings to these settings. 
I can't change tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL to 3 because my computer wont post. Also to tRFC, I only set tRFC1 to 448 and leave tRFC2 and tRFC4 at auto and it wont post.


----------



## Ender666666

*Glamour Shots*



Veii said:


> @Ender666666 Yes these seem Single Ranked - interesting
> Alone visible by the A0 pcb made by SK.Hynix, although it's Micron Rev.B 17nm
> If they would be dual ranked (which was the case for 99% till now) they'd be on B0 or B1/B2 PCB
> 
> Speaking of - might remove that one dimm and give it for a bit of fotoshooting ?
> We can't fully trust Thaiphoon Burner on PCB prediction - even more with brand new unknown kits
> Expected pictures visible like here:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28423902
> #2 and #3rd picture especially
> From the sides, to see where the ICs are (top or bottom) and dead center on the side where the ICs are to see the traces
> ~ the other side of the PCB has just a foam placeholder and nothing interesting, soo figure first out on which side the ICs are


 @Veii I did a Photoshoot. Here are my pics


----------



## Ender666666

Hey can anyone explain how to enable the stats I have attached in this post?


----------



## LicSqualo

Ender666666 said:


> Hey can anyone explain how to enable the stats I have attached in this post?


 You have to go in "Rigbuilder" and create your own and modify the components.


----------



## TechnoPeasant

Looking for a little help with my memory OC. I've plugged in all of the suggestions from DRAM calc, but I can't POST. I've tried all 3 suggested procODT settings to no avail. I suspect it may not want to boot due to the higher FCLK, but I wasn't sure. Any suggestions as to how I can get this to boot?

Attached are the details around my memory, and DRAM calc suggestions.

Thanks!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> Did the last few windows update lower your R20 single thread scores? I was getting a 514, and I just re-ran it and I'm getting a 508, that seems to be too large of a difference for it to be 'margin of error'
> 
> 3800X stock, IF 1700/3400 cl14.14.14


No, I still get the same 526/527 after the last patch. Didn't get any adverse effects.


----------



## _vogonpoetry_

Zektbach said:


> Can I have a help in choosing DRAM PCB Version? I'm confused..





Zektbach said:


> Oh okay it says A1.
> Also, can you check if this is good? I have manage to change the timings to these settings.
> I can't change tRDRDSCL and tWRWRSCL to 3 because my computer wont post. Also to tRFC, I only set tRFC1 to 448 and leave tRFC2 and tRFC4 at auto and it wont post.


Check the last 3 digits of your "042" code on your RAM stickers. If its "10C" then its C-die. 

G.Skill usually uses Samsung C-die in their 3200 CL16 kits rather than B-die. Thaiphoon misreports it. 

DRAM Calculator does not support C-die.... but hopefully it will eventually. C-die is very very common now in 3000/3200/3600 kits from Corsair and G.Skill.


----------



## _vogonpoetry_

TechnoPeasant said:


> Looking for a little help with my memory OC. I've plugged in all of the suggestions from DRAM calc, but I can't POST. I've tried all 3 suggested procODT settings to no avail. I suspect it may not want to boot due to the higher FCLK, but I wasn't sure. Any suggestions as to how I can get this to boot?
> 
> Attached are the details around my memory, and DRAM calc suggestions.
> 
> Thanks!


Well the easiest way to check is to just lower FCLK to 1800 and see if it boots.


----------



## OCmember

ManniX-ITA said:


> No, I still get the same 526/527 after the last patch. Didn't get any adverse effects.


Thanks for the effort. How long ago has the same ST scores been coming up? I think my 514 score was around Dec 2019. It's been consistently 508/509 the past few days and I can't remember changing anything in the bios.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> Thanks for the effort. How long ago has the same ST scores been coming up? I think my 514 score was around Dec 2019. It's been consistently 508/509 the past few days and I can't remember changing anything in the bios.


The oldest screenshot I have is a 525 from 27th of January.
Are you sure there wasn't a sensible change in ambient temperature in these past few days?
Even a 1c delta can make a big difference.


----------



## OCmember

ManniX-ITA said:


> The oldest screenshot I have is a 525 from 27th of January.
> Are you sure there wasn't a sensible change in ambient temperature in these past few days?
> Even a 1c delta can make a big difference.


That could be it. It's the end of May and my ambient room temps are ~ 83*F vs the Dec ambient temps which were probably around 70*F

EDIT: Maybe I'll try a run after the A/C has been on for a while and the ambient temps have dropped.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> That could be it. It's the end of May and my ambient room temps are ~ 83*F vs the Dec ambient temps which were probably around 70*F
> 
> EDIT: Maybe I'll try a run after the A/C has been on for a while and the ambient temps have dropped.


Yes it's a good idea, stabilize the ambient temp before testing: PC in idle for 1 hour or shut off at least for 30 mins.
If you are using PBO it's even more susceptible to temperatures.


----------



## OCmember

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes it's a good idea, stabilize the ambient temp before testing: PC in idle for 1 hour or shut off at least for 30 mins.
> If you are using PBO it's even more susceptible to temperatures.


AH! OMG, smh. I had my Heat Sink fan speed set to the lowest speed. I just did a run with them at the fastest speed (more noisy) and I just logged a 515. Good lord how stupid, lol


----------



## TechnoPeasant

_vogonpoetry_ said:


> Well the easiest way to check is to just lower FCLK to 1800 and see if it boots.


Thanks for the suggestion, seems obvious now that I think about it. Lowering the FCLK to 1800 did nothing, so I stepped down both the mem and FCLK, and was only able to get 3666/1833 to boot. 

Any idea what I’d need to do to achieve higher clocks? I’m guessing adding more voltage to the RAM might help, but I’m currently at 1.4 and not sure I want to go much higher. I’m looking for a RAM OC that I can run daily. Is it even worth trying to push the clocks higher with more voltage on a daily setup?


----------



## TechnoPeasant

I experimented some more with the DRAM calc 3666/1833 timings, but they were too much as well. I had to use 1.4 volt just to boot, but even then Windows would crash immediately.

I'm wondering if maybe my RAM isn't b-die, or I've got some other setting wrong in DRAM calc.


----------



## _vogonpoetry_

TechnoPeasant said:


> I experimented some more with the DRAM calc 3666/1833 timings, but they were too much as well. I had to use 1.4 volt just to boot, but even then Windows would crash immediately.
> 
> I'm wondering if maybe my RAM isn't b-die, or I've got some other setting wrong in DRAM calc.


3600 15-15-15 kits are definitely B-die.

I wouldnt be too afraid to go past 1.4V with B-die, it can handle a lot of voltage. 

Try keeping Gear Down Mode on. DRAM Calc suggest it kept off at 3666 CL14, but keeping it on helps with stability a lot.


----------



## Martin778

There are 1.5V XMP kits around, the only problem would be memory temperatures.


----------



## Veii

Ender666666 said:


> @Veii I did a Photoshoot. Here are my pics


Unfortunately on non of these you can see the traces
All where cut off, except this one


Spoiler






















Which "fortunately" is recognizable as A2 layout  
Lucky if you go for maximum speed & OC potential 
Unlucky because they are very sensitive to bad Signal Integrity on low end boards, and require far higher drive impedance and higher input voltage
The same goes for CAD_BUS and VDDG IOD
Focus on pushing both a bit higher 

CAD_BUS pretty much start with 30-20-24-24 , if not even go up to 80/90-20-24-24 on them 
how high the jump has to be, depends on the micron b-dies, but you can pretty much go harsh on them 
Except stay with the voltage low - 17nm shouldn't exceed over 1.48v (should work on A1/A2), although 1.46v might behave better (test it) 
focus on always pushing tRCD RD on them higher, even if you have to run timings like 14-14-22-18-36-54 
If you use less voltage, keep tRP high ~ optimally with low voltage identical to tRCD RD
That will increase tRAS and tRC by quite some chunk - but you can lower tRAS by using lower tRCD WR 
And then use the difference between them as the "main tRCD latency" 
Example:
14-12-24-20-32-52
tRCD WR is 12
tRCD RD is 24
middle ground is 18, between 12 and 24
tRAS is then tCL plus tRCD (in this case absolute minimum would be 18) = 32
tRC can still always go down to -2 = either 52 or 50, oor +2 for stability if tRP and so VDIMM are both low
You can use this "main tRCD latency" now also for tWRRD calculation, 
going with 3 because of tRCDWR 12 might be too low, going with 4 because of tRCDWR <18 would work better 
And logically tRDWR 12 because of tRCD RD 24, or down to 11 with tWRRD 4
^ you might even be lucky to allow it -2 and not only -1 = here tRDWR 10 instead of half tRCDRD = 12
Of course simple timings like: 16-18-20-20 are far easier to manage than 16-12-24-18


----------



## Bakerman

Anyone with 3800C14Q-32GTZN ? I bought it few days ago and I'm not that impressed.


----------



## Bakerman

Martin778 said:


> There are 1.5V XMP kits around, the only problem would be memory temperatures.


Nah. I moved from 1.35v to 1.5v and see less than 5C while stressing.


----------



## yrelbirb

Veii said:


> Unfortunately on non of these you can see the traces
> All where cut off, except this one
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which "fortunately" is recognizable as A2 layout
> Lucky if you go for maximum speed & OC potential
> Unlucky because they are very sensitive to bad Signal Integrity on low end boards, and require far higher drive impedance and higher input voltage
> The same goes for CAD_BUS and VDDG IOD
> Focus on pushing both a bit higher
> 
> CAD_BUS pretty much start with 30-20-24-24 , if not even go up to 80/90-20-24-24 on them
> how high the jump has to be, depends on the micron b-dies, but you can pretty much go harsh on them
> Except stay with the voltage low - 17nm shouldn't exceed over 1.48v (should work on A1/A2), although 1.46v might behave better (test it)
> focus on always pushing tRCD RD on them higher, even if you have to run timings like 14-14-22-18-36-54
> If you use less voltage, keep tRP high ~ optimally with low voltage identical to tRCD RD
> That will increase tRAS and tRC by quite some chunk - but you can lower tRAS by using lower tRCD WR
> And then use the difference between them as the "main tRCD latency"
> Example:
> 14-12-24-20-32-52
> tRCD WR is 12
> tRCD RD is 24
> middle ground is 18, between 12 and 24
> tRAS is then tCL plus tRCD (in this case absolute minimum would be 18) = 32
> tRC can still always go down to -2 = either 52 or 50, oor +2 for stability if tRP and so VDIMM are both low
> You can use this "main tRCD latency" now also for tWRRD calculation,
> going with 3 because of tRCDWR 12 might be too low, going with 4 because of tRCDWR <18 would work better
> And logically tRDWR 12 because of tRCD RD 24, or down to 11 with tWRRD 4
> ^ you might even be lucky to allow it -2 and not only -1 = here tRDWR 10 instead of half tRCDRD = 12
> Of course simple timings like: 16-18-20-20 are far easier to manage than 16-12-24-18



dear veii, what is this main tRCD thing actually? :O how does it work, i heard it first time 

so now i have 14-20(rd)-14(wr)-14-34 as my timings

would i better at 14-20-8-14-34?

would my "main tRCD" be counted as 14? 

my kits can be stable at tRCDWR 8 but it felt weird to leave at that so i returned to 14 but dont know the exact math behind it. i also thought setting tRCDWR to too low would cause mobo to use its own made up value instead of what we see in windosw

my kits are also micron b-die btw  (not like his though)


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> dear veii, what is this main tRCD thing actually? :O how does it work, i heard it first time
> 
> so now i have 14-20(rd)-14(wr)-14-34 as my timings
> 
> would i better at 14-20-8-14-34?
> 
> would my "main tRCD" be counted as 14?
> 
> my kits can be stable at tRCDWR 8 but it felt weird to leave at that so i returned to 14 but dont know the exact math behind it. i also thought setting tRCDWR to too low would cause mobo to use its own made up value instead of what we see in windosw
> 
> my kits are also micron b-die btw  (not like his though)


Boards do autocorrect the whole time
It's a matter of doing less work, and trying to get things as accurate as possible ~ because it will autocorrect the whole time in real time 
Only way to see a difference is to test with tools like SiSandra, because Aida64 only shows the perfect testing scenario
Same goes to DRAM Calculator Memtest/bench mode and similar compute tests like SuperPi 1.5 SX which show a difference
Although i prefer SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency Test for tiny adjustments and checking sync 

It's rather a new "formula/math" pattern i've discovered recently
You can nearly always go down to exact half of tRCD RD on tRCD WR
~ on intel we have only 1 tRCD and a similar method is done via RTLs
Getting "average" tRCD that low, allows for further adjustments on:
tRAS,tRC,tRFC,tRDWR ~ which result overall in better perf, without the board acting against them
(at least to the couple of results i've gathered on this thread + rares's timings which now make sense why they work that awkward) 
tRCD is the only timing which barely scales with voltage at all and is an indicator of IC binning 
tCL is not one, even tho many people still use it for binning check, tCL scales with voltage on every IC i've tested
Correct one for binning test is rather (MTs / tRCD) = binning virtual value

For your timings (GDM on ?):
14-20-10-16-30-46, tRFC XYZ, tRDWR 10/4 ~ would work well, but it's not thaat clean
14-18-10-14-28-42, tRDWR 9/3 would be better ~ if your kit can run tRCD 18 although even that is not optimal 
Going under half tRCD RD is, complicated ^^' 
i haven't seen a confirmed result that autocorrection doesn't take over even further down, but up to half does work well
The math remains working if it's less than half too, for more i really don't know at this current time 
* on both sets tRP could be too low, then add the difference between RD & WR ontop of tCL, that should cover precharge delay but will increase overall delay although tRAS can stay low
If you use this method, keep tRRD_L and tWTR_L low and keep tWR low ~ too high tWR will result in tRAS autocorrection
After all [tCL+tWR+tBL] math remains active and a thing to consider as "absolute lows" for tRAS

EDIT:
Else yes you are correct, it would be 14 - and tRP likes to be the exact same delay as tRCD
I can't find the diagram links of tRCD, posted it a while back couple pages (10ish)
The complicated part is, sometimes up to burst and size it either is tRAS+tRP for one cycle (tRC), and sometimes it's tCL+tRCD 
Memory remains to change operation in realtime, you can't "enforce" only one operation and check latency that way
(my struggle in making a model simulation for calculation) :ninja:


----------



## yrelbirb

Veii said:


> Boards do autocorrect the whole time
> It's a matter of doing less work, and trying to get things as accurate as possible ~ because it will autocorrect the whole time in real time
> Only way to see a difference is to test with tools like SiSandra, because Aida64 only shows the perfect testing scenario
> Same goes to DRAM Calculator Memtest/bench mode and similar compute tests like SuperPi 1.5 SX which show a difference
> Although i prefer SiSoftware Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency Test for tiny adjustments and checking sync
> 
> It's rather a new "formula/math" pattern i've discovered recently
> You can nearly always go down to exact half of tRCD RD on tRCD WR
> ~ on intel we have only 1 tRCD and a similar method is done via RTLs
> Getting "average" tRCD that low, allows for further adjustments on:
> tRAS,tRC,tRFC,tRDWR ~ which result overall in better perf, without the board acting against them
> (at least to the couple of results i've gathered on this thread + rares's timings which now make sense why they work that awkward)
> tRCD is the only timing which barely scales with voltage at all and is an indicator of IC binning
> tCL is not one, even tho many people still use it for binning check, tCL scales with voltage on every IC i've tested
> Correct one for binning test is rather (MTs / tRCD) = binning virtual value
> 
> For your timings (GDM on ?):
> 14-20-10-16-30-46, tRFC XYZ, tRDWR 10/4 ~ would work well, but it's not thaat clean
> 14-18-10-14-28-42, tRDWR 9/3 would be better ~ if your kit can run tRCD 18 although even that is not optimal
> Going under half tRCD RD is, complicated ^^'
> i haven't seen a confirmed result that autocorrection doesn't take over even further down, but up to half does work well
> The math remains working if it's less than half too, for more i really don't know at this current time
> * on both sets tRP could be too low, then add the difference between RD & WR ontop of tCL, that should cover precharge delay but will increase overall delay although tRAS can stay low
> If you use this method, keep tRRD_L and tWTR_L low and keep tWR low ~ too high tWR will result in tRAS autocorrection
> After all [tCL+tWR+tBL] math remains active and a thing to consider as "absolute lows" for tRAS
> 
> EDIT:
> Else yes you are correct, it would be 14 - and tRP likes to be the exact same delay as tRCD
> I can't find the diagram links of tRCD, posted it a while back couple pages (10ish)
> The complicated part is, sometimes up to burst and size it either is tRAS+tRP for one cycle (tRC), and sometimes it's tCL+tRCD
> Memory remains to change operation in realtime, you can't "enforce" only one operation and check latency that way
> (my struggle in making a model simulation for calculation) :ninja:



ok i will try tRCDWR a bit and see if its better or not that way

sadly, i cannot go down from tRCDRD 20 and tRC 56

for both them, values less than those either are unstable or refuses to boot :h34r-smi

my problem with sisandra is, results vary everytime i bench even in the same config.


----------



## Tobiman

Bakerman said:


> Anyone with 3800C14Q-32GTZN ? I bought it few days ago and I'm not that impressed.


Yeah, I would have bought two of the 4400mhz C19 viper steel kits and saved over $100. I don't have your particular kit though just stating what I would have done instead.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Bakerman said:


> Anyone with 3800C14Q-32GTZN ? I bought it few days ago and I'm not that impressed.



What recommendations the calculator give you?

Also, the XMP profile doesn’t dictate all the RAM timings, leaving it to the motherboard to figure it out. 

That kit is already very close to what people can do maxing out fclk on Ryzen 3000. With Zen 3/Ryzen 4000, they will surely hit 2000+ fclk and then it might be easier for you to get tight timings that other people


----------



## RaXelliX

Bakerman said:


> Anyone with 3800C14Q-32GTZN ? I bought it few days ago and I'm not that impressed.


I've been thinking of buying it. Why are you not impressed? If it does XMP at these settings then 3800 CL14 would be pretty great.


----------



## Awsan

Yea I figured that the neos are just profile tweaked and pretty much barely clock better.


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> ok i will try tRCDWR a bit and see if its better or not that way
> sadly, i cannot go down from tRCDRD 20 and tRC 56
> 
> for both them, values less than those either are unstable or refuses to boot :h34r-smi
> my problem with sisandra is, results vary everytime i bench even in the same config.


Hmm, only on 3rd gen it does vary a lot because of the boost system ~ 2nd gen even with PBO was quite consistent on my side
Only Windows spyware and instability could make it vary that much, but the difference should be at best 0.02GB/s-0.04GB/s 
At the absolute worst, 0.1GB/s difference ~ while that one would already indicate random running processes
Minor tRFC difference (2,4,8 stepping) should already show a 0.05GB/s difference ~ it's normally quite accurate unless timings are being autocorrected:thinking:


Tobiman said:


> Yeah, I would have bought two of the 4400mhz C19 viper steel kits and saved over $100. I don't have your particular kit though just stating what I would have done instead.
> 
> 
> Awsan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I figured that the neos are just profile tweaked and pretty much barely clock better.
Click to expand...

Tobi, you shouldn't have much issues on 4x A2 kits on a T-Topology board , is yours even one ?
But 4x A2 on Daisy Chain is absolutely not a good idea 
Maybe 4x A0, the Viper 4000 ones would be a cheap and effective option , although 4 dimms on daisy chain is just a bad idea to begin with ^^'

Awsan, wheren't current neos all dual rank ?
From the compatibility side of things, technically 2 dual rank b-dies would be a better resolve
I think they even where B1 layout and not B2 which makes them "more compatible on/designed for" ryzen :thinking:


Synoxia said:


> Thank you for just providing values, you're awesome
> I raise TRCDRD to 18 to begin with. All good.
> VDDG 1.05 and vsoc 1.10 is fine then, correct?
> 
> Do i have to match colors if i want to use green or orange values? If i want to use 336 trcdr then i use all oranges?
> I didn't understand


Ah yes yes,
If you want the orange values, use only the orange unless nothing was written
if you want the red ones, use only the red ones unless nothing was filled ~ then you fall back to the older ones
Mix & matching both would result in a bad time, as everything works together after the primary 3 timings (tCL,tRCD,tRP)
Only these three have "their own brain" and are unique between ICs and setup
Voltages are fine, as long as you hold a constant stepping - you won't have voltage issues = the same voltage jumps across them
(it doesn't matter if you use 50mV jump and 100mV , but it does matter if you use 50mV and then 125mV jumps
and it does matter if there isn't at least 50mV difference across them ~ except for VDDG which can be either the same high one or manually split)


----------



## expor

<Sorry something went wrong>


----------



## expor

Hi, I'm newly registered but I hope you guys can point me in the right direction.

I spent the whole week reading multiple recommended sources (1usmus guide, DDR4 OC guide on github, Ryzen OC guide on reddit), on DDR4 overclocking but the more I read, the more I get confused. One source contradicts the other. One says RCDRW and RCDRD should be kept the same, while others say just lower either as far as you can. Similar for TRAS, TRP and many other parameters. Meanwhile some guides say lowering any parameter too far can cause negative performance impact. So here I am, hoping your expertise can help me figure out which of the achieved timings can maybe be improved further.

After a lot of manual tinkering and tweaking (Managed to get 3600-16-10-19-8) I used the DRAM Calculator to OC my stock Ballistix BLS8G4D32AESBK 3200 (2x8GB) kit to 3600-15-15-19-16-36 at 1.38V (details below). Basically I took all the recommended settings for the 'Fast Preset' for my Micron E-Die and everything seems fine! It passed 10 cycles of TM5 (1usmus v3 config) and 7707% Karhu without any errors. Cinebench R20 score went from ~3710 to ~3750 (going from auto XMP 3200 to OC 3600). AIDA64 reports ~52741gb/s avg with ~67.5ns avg latency (based on 5 runs).

I'm running a 3600X (stock settings) on an MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX board.

SiSoft Sandra results: https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc8ffd9b8d9e4d2e5d2e3dafc8eb383a5c0a598a88efdc0f0

So my questions

Do my achieved results make sense related to reported performance?
General remarks on what I could change to improve latency and / or bandwith?
Should I try to lower tRCDRW as far as possible? I already know tRCDRD doesn't like anything lower than 19 at this frequence. I also noticed when going from tRCDRW 16 to 15, my reported write speed in DRAM Calculator on average has dropped from ~30gbs to ~27.5gbs, although Cinebench R20 scores improved.
Should I try to lower tRP as far as possible? Of course adapting tRAS / tRC accordingly.
After achieving above (stable tested) results yesterday, I lowered tWR to 12 and tRFC to 507. I did a few 'Easy' test in DRAM Calculator and it seemed fine, but this wasn't very extensive of course. This morning on coldboot the PC wouldn't POST. I had to reset CMOS and load my stable tested settings again for it to boot (I didn't try booting with lowered tWR and tRFC immediately which would've been more conclusive). Could this be because of the additionally lowered the tWR / tRFC, or does this have to be in my base (stable tested) settings? Tips to prevent this if it occurs again?
I tried the Safe and Fast 3800 (CL16) presets as well. The PC would boot but my keyboard and mouse kept dis/re-connecting (they have RGB LED so it was obvious). DRAM Calculator meanwhile continued to run, so it seemed USB specific. Any idea what I could do to get that fixed? I'm perfectly fine with my current 3600 OC, but curious nevertheless. I also saw my latency dropped to ~65ns, rather than the ~67.5ns I'm getting at 3600 which I found odd, since 3800 @ CL16 should be slower than CL15 @ 3600.


----------



## Awsan

Veii said:


> Awsan, wheren't current neos all dual rank ?
> From the compatibility side of things, technically 2 dual rank b-dies would be a better resolve
> I think they even where B1 layout and not B2 which makes them "more compatible on/designed for" ryzen :thinking:



It's like they were able to make them run only with those XMP settings and nothing else its weird.

And the main problem with those 3800cl14 is the lack of info/reports about them, considering they are B-Die dual ranks with b2 layout arent they supposed to be really good clockers? or am I misunderstanding it all.


----------



## ibb27

expor said:


> ... I also saw my latency dropped to ~65ns, rather than the ~67.5ns I'm getting at 3600 which I found odd, since 3800 @ CL16 should be slower than CL15 @ 3600.


Did you change IF to 1900MHz? Higher IF frequency = lower latency.


----------



## expor

Yes I did, I thought the calculation was CL/IF, so (3800/IF 1900) 16/1,9 = 8,42 vs. (3600/IF 1800) 15/1,8 = 8,33, hence my conclusion I expected [email protected](IF 1800) to have lower latency.

Either way I had USB issues (probably memory stability tests would've shown errors as well) so for now it's not a viable setting.


----------



## Veii

Awsan said:


> It's like they were able to make them run only with those XMP settings and nothing else its weird.
> 
> And the main problem with those 3800cl14 is the lack of info/reports about them, considering they are B-Die dual ranks with b2 layout arent they supposed to be really good clockers? or am I misunderstanding it all.


A2 and B2 aresimilar
they only shine above 4000MT/s but are very sensitive to EMI
A1 and B1 are also short trace layout and share the same tight timings benefits 
But A2/B2 are far more taxing , and require more impedance to get them even to work

Hmm i can only compare it to audio gear for illustrative purpose ~ i hope that is fine 
A2 PCB behaves very similar to low impedance IEMs (in ear monitors) 
Imagining 12-18Ω, it sounds like they are easy to drive 
Technically they are more efficient,but low impedance devices and speakers need a lot of current to even start doing something
And you can imagine, when you put a quite strong signal on them - logically it is far more affected by 3rd party noise situations
Soo even tho it needs "more current" to even start doing something , it remains very sensitive 

A1/B1 are easier on that part, but they only have the upperhand till 3800MT/s 
After 4000, their design starts to show and A2/B2 kits take over with higher speeds
Mostly you notice a wall near 4133-4200MT/s with A1/A2 layout
The same goes for A0
Where A0 is easier to drive, but the max cap is near 4K on them

EDIT:
You can compare A1/B1 kits to high impedance headphones
They still need a stronger signal but because they rated for example 120-300Ω, you wouldn't hear much current-noisefloor at all on them
So they aren't affected much by a stronger signal, which helps in the memory world of scheme to use tighter lower timings
Yet still will fail near the 4133 mark in "maximum capable speed" even tho their design appears superior

A0/B0 ones, make logically more sense
they are simpler , but X1 and X2 layout stil have a big beneficial over X0 kits 
It's not easy to explain for me, i don't know where the exact issue is between X1 and X2 layout to make such a big difference in maximum speed
Can be just Internal clock difference - not quite sure so far
But i can say for sure, X2 kits are far more sensitive and you need much more current to make them start to shine 
Now on Daisy Chain where the signal is split in 75/25% instead of T-Topology which is 50/50% 
i hope you can see the issue there, why 4x A2 on Daisy Chain is just asking for trouble 

EDIT 2:
Please try to lookup why 16Ω Speakers are way harder to drive
Than let's say 300Ω rated active speakers - even tho on the simple looks, 300Ω ones will require more current and appear harder to drive
Reality tho is, they are not - sensitive 16Ω Speakers or IEMs are harsher to the AMPs
~ the explanation online, should give you a good idea why A2/B2 ones are harder to drive than A1/B1 ones :thumb:


----------



## Awsan

Veii said:


> A2 and B2 aresimilar
> they only shine above 4000MT/s but are very sensitive to EMI
> A1 and B1 are also short trace layout and share the same tight timings benefits
> But A2/B2 are far more taxing , and require more impedance to get them even to work
> 
> Hmm i can only compare it to audio gear for illustrative purpose ~ i hope that is fine
> A2 PCB behaves very similar to low impedance IEMs (in ear monitors)
> Imagining 12-18Ω, it sounds like they are easy to drive
> Technically they are more efficient,but low impedance devices and speakers need a lot of current to even start doing something
> And you can imagine, when you put a quite strong signal on them - logically it is far more affected by 3rd party noise situations
> Soo even tho it needs "more current" to even start doing something , it remains very sensitive
> 
> A1/B1 are easier on that part, but they only have the upperhand till 3800MT/s
> After 4000, their design starts to show and A2/B2 kits take over with higher speeds
> Mostly you notice a wall near 4133-4200MT/s with A1/A2 layout
> The same goes for A0
> Where A0 is easier to drive, but the max cap is near 4K on them
> 
> EDIT:
> You can compare A1/B1 kits to high impedance headphones
> They still need a stronger signal but because they rated for example 120-300Ω, you wouldn't hear much current-noisefloor at all on them
> So they aren't affected much by a stronger signal, which helps in the memory world of scheme to use tighter lower timings
> Yet still will fail near the 4133 mark in "maximum capable speed" even tho their design appears superior
> 
> A0/B0 ones, make logically more sense
> they are simpler , but X1 and X2 layout stil have a big beneficial over X0 kits
> It's not easy to explain for me, i don't know where the exact issue is between X1 and X2 layout to make such a big difference in maximum speed
> Can be just Internal clock difference - not quite sure so far
> But i can say for sure, X2 kits are far more sensitive and you need much more current to make them start to shine
> Now on Daisy Chain where the signal is split in 75/25% instead of T-Topology which is 50/50%
> i hope you can see the issue there, why 4x A2 on Daisy Chain is just asking for trouble
> 
> EDIT 2:
> Please try to lookup why 16Ω Speakers are way harder to drive
> Than let's say 300Ω rated active speakers - even tho on the simple looks, 300Ω ones will require more current and appear harder to drive
> Reality tho is, they are not - sensitive 16Ω Speakers or IEMs are harsher to the AMPs
> ~ the explanation online, should give you a good idea why A2/B2 ones are harder to drive than A1/B1 ones :thumb:


Thanks a lot for the explanation, the audio explanation drove it home .

Makes sense now.


----------



## Bakerman

eliwankenobi said:


> What recommendations the calculator give you?
> 
> Also, the XMP profile doesn’t dictate all the RAM timings, leaving it to the motherboard to figure it out.
> 
> That kit is already very close to what people can do maxing out fclk on Ryzen 3000. With Zen 3/Ryzen 4000, they will surely hit 2000+ fclk and then it might be easier for you to get tight timings that other people


It doesn't matter what timings (suggested by the calculator) I set manually I can't get lower latency than 70.7ns
Basically I got 1ns improvement going from my old memory @3733 16-16-16-30-46 to 14-15-15-30-46. Not worth it IMO, unless it scales better on standard Ryzen processors.


----------



## Awsan

Bakerman said:


> It doesn't matter what timings (suggested by the calculator) I set manually I can't get lower latency than 70.7ns
> Basically I got 1ns improvement going from my old memory @3733 16-16-16-30-46 to 14-15-15-30-46. Not worth it IMO, unless it scales better on standard Ryzen processors.


Man seeing those read and writes never get old  , but I remember reading that 70ish is like the usual TR4 latency. + Aidas latency test is stupid, it will lower the latency with higher CPU clocks.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Bakerman said:


> It doesn't matter what timings (suggested by the calculator) I set manually I can't get lower latency than 70.7ns
> Basically I got 1ns improvement going from my old memory @3733 16-16-16-30-46 to 14-15-15-30-46. Not worth it IMO, unless it scales better on standard Ryzen processors.



Dude, you are on a 32 core CPU! Those are good numbers for that CPU! Latency on Threadripper is higher than AM4 Ryzen3000 because the I/O die interfaces with 4 CCDs instead of two. 

Threadripper 3000 is a different beast.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bakerman said:


> It doesn't matter what timings (suggested by the calculator) I set manually I can't get lower latency than 70.7ns
> Basically I got 1ns improvement going from my old memory @3733 16-16-16-30-46 to 14-15-15-30-46. Not worth it IMO, unless it scales better on standard Ryzen processors.


Did you check 1usmus recommendations?

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...g-deep-dive-asus-rog-zenith-ii-extreme/6.html

Indeed, better to use Sandra MC Efficiency test to verify how they really goes.


----------



## eliwankenobi

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you check 1usmus recommendations?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...g-deep-dive-asus-rog-zenith-ii-extreme/6.html
> 
> Indeed, better to use Sandra MC Efficiency test to verify how they really goes.



Yes, this is a good read.


----------



## Bakerman

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you check 1usmus recommendations?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...g-deep-dive-asus-rog-zenith-ii-extreme/6.html
> 
> Indeed, better to use Sandra MC Efficiency test to verify how they really goes.



I've read that, good stuff. I'll try Sandra MC. Thanks


----------



## Yoizhik

I've tried dram calculator multiple times but never succeed, every time bios gave F9 error and windows started with 2133mhz ram speed. So i give up. I'm just changing first 5-6 entry in my bios (15-15-15-30-48) and letting rest the auto but when i check the values in windows it's 16-15-15. Why it's changing 15 to 16 by itself?
Asus CH7, Trident Z 3600C15


----------



## RaXelliX

Yoizhik said:


> I've tried dram calculator multiple times but never succeed, every time bios gave F9 error and windows started with 2133mhz ram speed. So i give up. I'm just changing first 5-6 entry in my bios (15-15-15-30-48) and letting rest the auto but when i check the values in windows it's 16-15-15. Why it's changing 15 to 16 by itself?
> Asus CH7, Trident Z 3600C15


That's because of GDM. (Gear Down Mode). It forces even timings: 14, 16 etc. But it also adds a lot of stability.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Yoizhik said:


> I've tried dram calculator multiple times but never succeed, every time bios gave F9 error and windows started with 2133mhz ram speed. So i give up. I'm just changing first 5-6 entry in my bios (15-15-15-30-48) and letting rest the auto but when i check the values in windows it's 16-15-15. Why it's changing 15 to 16 by itself?
> Asus CH7, Trident Z 3600C15



Can you share what the calculator recommends? What is your goal? Boot at XMP? Try 3800mhz?

Also, If you want tCL 15 check that Gear Down Mode is OFF. AMD doesn’t like GDM and odd tCL numbers


----------



## Yoizhik

RaXelliX said:


> That's because of GDM. (Gear Down Mode). It forces even timings: 14, 16 etc. But it also adds a lot of stability.


hmm, i'm gonna try to disable it later, thanks for info.


----------



## Yoizhik

eliwankenobi said:


> Can you share what the calculator recommends? What is your goal? Boot at XMP? Try 3800mhz?
> 
> Also, If you want tCL 15 check that Gear Down Mode is OFF. AMD doesn’t like GDM and odd tCL numbers


xmp off, i was trying safe calculations for 3800MHz, after that i want to tighten timings a little bit but i gave up, auto is working fine. If i could fix that 15 to 16 thing with GDM disabled that will be enough, i'll try later it's too late in here rn (03:22am)


----------



## TK421

Any ideas on how I can tighten this memory settings further?


I think I left memory termination (ohms) on auto


----------



## mongoled

Can anything be done with Samsung C-Die ?

Anyone attempted to overclock these.

I have a set of Corsair 3200 16-18-18-18-5-36-54-560 and any attempts ive made to overclock them manually has failed abysmally.

I will attempt again today, hoping I can fall on some magic parameter that will free them



At the moment even slightly deviating from defaults leads to a non posting system that needs CMOS reset....


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> Can anything be done with Samsung C-Die ?
> Anyone attempted to overclock these.
> I have a set of Corsair 3200 16-18-18-18-5-36-54-560 and any attempts ive made to overclock them manually has failed abysmally.
> 
> I will attempt again today, hoping I can fall on some magic parameter that will free them
> At the moment even slightly deviating from defaults leads to a non posting system that needs CMOS reset....


Post lacks crucial information 
- Thaiphoon Burner Report, 
- ZenTimings screenshot what the board auto predicts, 
- eventually ryzen master screenshot if you haven't fixed voltages
- information about what you've tried, as without RTT,CAD_BUS,procODT changes there is no success 

Boards to this date still are dumb with their prediction 
And loading XMP on AGESA 1004B does push procODT to 60 ohm, which is .... dumb and limits maximum FCLK
It should detect the dimm amount and IC to decide, not always just push 60 ohms 

C-Dies i think they where 16?18nm ?, love voltage like b-dies
There is no yet known voltage=size problem above 1.56v on them, but over 1.6 for XOC ... uncomfortable on a smaller node
All depends on your PCB you have
Use this post as example how to make traces and IC location pictures
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28423902
and the bottom half of the 2nd post, to learn how voltage scaling works on zen 2 

On C-dies tCL doesn't scale like on B-dies 
They seem according to hardwareLUXX also to dislike voltage - although there was no report of negative results after 1.56v and to what i could see some time ago, they still love voltage near 1.48-1.54v
Else lower is better
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...c-ergebnisse-im-startbeitrag-updated.1198323/
^ use google translate if you want 

Paste a Zentimings screenshot, and people might try to work with them and figure out a pattern


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Post lacks crucial information
> - Thaiphoon Burner Report,
> - ZenTimings screenshot what the board auto predicts,
> - eventually ryzen master screenshot if you haven't fixed voltages
> - information about what you've tried, as without RTT,CAD_BUS,procODT changes there is no success
> 
> Boards to this date still are dumb with their prediction
> And loading XMP on AGESA 1004B does push procODT to 60 ohm, which is .... dumb and limits maximum FCLK
> It should detect the dimm amount and IC to decide, not always just push 60 ohms
> 
> C-Dies i think they where 16?18nm ?, love voltage like b-dies
> There is no yet known voltage=size problem above 1.56v on them, but over 1.6 for XOC ... uncomfortable on a smaller node
> All depends on your PCB you have
> Use this post as example how to make traces and IC location pictures
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28423902
> and the bottom half of the 2nd post, to learn how voltage scaling works on zen 2
> 
> On C-dies tCL doesn't scale like on B-dies
> They seem according to hardwareLUXX also to dislike voltage - although there was no report of negative results after 1.56v
> https://www.hardwareluxx.de/communi...c-ergebnisse-im-startbeitrag-updated.1198323/
> ^ use google translate if you want
> 
> Paste a Zentimings screenshot, and people might try to work with them and figure out a pattern


Hi!

Thaiphoon burner is not detecting the correct memory modules. It is reporting back that the modules are K4A8G085WB-BCPB but the revision of the PCB indicates (from what I read on reddit) that these are Samsung c-die.

Ryzen master posted below (ignore the graphic anomoly im logged in remotely and thats what occurs with RM...).

This is on the latest BIOS for a MSI X470 Gaming Plus MAX.

I will look at those resources you have posted.

Thanks


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> Can anything be done with Samsung C-Die ?
> 
> Anyone attempted to overclock these.
> 
> I have a set of Corsair 3200 16-18-18-18-5-36-54-560 and any attempts ive made to overclock them manually has failed abysmally.
> 
> I will attempt again today, hoping I can fall on some magic parameter that will free them
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment even slightly deviating from defaults leads to a non posting system that needs CMOS reset....


Got a similar kit but from G.Skill. Highest so far i've oc'ed was 3733 CL16 and have similar results but not as stable as 3666 CL16. Needs more tweaking. Corsair, just my observation, are harder to work with with Ryzen. Not sure why.


----------



## KedarWolf

TK421 said:


> Any ideas on how I can tighten this memory settings further?
> 
> 
> I think I left memory termination (ohms) on auto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Here is mine. 2x16GB Neo RAM.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Any suggestions to improve this profile?

I'm using PBO with EDC=1 so the behavior is a bit different than a static OC and the latency higher.

I can't lower tCL, tRP, tRCDRD, doesn't POST or goes slower.
tRFC below 492 is unstable, tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL at 4 & other timings lowered I get SATA corruption issues.











Spoiler




















View attachment 200531101354.BMP


View attachment 200531101401.BMP


View attachment 200531101408.BMP


View attachment 200531101413.BMP


----------



## mongoled

rdr09 said:


> Got a similar kit but from G.Skill. Highest so far i've oc'ed was 3733 CL16 and have similar results but not as stable as 3666 CL16. Needs more tweaking. Corsair, just my observation, are harder to work with with Ryzen. Not sure why.


Cheers bud,

most likely the tracing and PCB....

:thumb:


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Any suggestions to improve this profile?
> 
> I'm using PBO with EDC=1 so the behavior is a bit different than a static OC and the latency higher.
> 
> I can't lower tCL, tRP, tRCDRD, doesn't POST or goes slower.
> tRFC below 492 is unstable, tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL at 4 & other timings lowered I get SATA corruption issues.
> 
> View attachment 350732
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 350748
> 
> 
> View attachment 350746
> 
> 
> View attachment 350734
> 
> 
> View attachment 350736
> 
> 
> View attachment 350738
> 
> 
> View attachment 350740


tFAW is too low. It should be 4x tRRDS for best sync.

tWR is too low for 10 tRTP. You should use 16-10 or 14-8 or 12-8/12-6 but low values only work on B-die. For DJR I think even 24-16 or 24-12 would be fine.

SCL 5 is fine. This is limited by your PCB anyway. Plus going really low here is a B-die thing.

tRAS you could try tCL + tRP +2/+4 => either 37 or 39.

tRC could maybe go down to 56 or 58.

Dividing tRFC to tRC should be a natural number for best sync. Try 504/522 with tRC 56/58.

With tRCDRD 19, you should be able to use tRDWR 9/tWRRD 1/2/3. Try it.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> tFAW is too low. It should be 4x tRRDS for best sync.
> 
> tWR is too low for 10 tRTP. You should use 16-10 or 14-8 or 12-8/12-6 but low values only work on B-die. For DJR I think even 24-16 or 24-12 would be fine.
> 
> SCL 5 is fine.
> 
> tRAS you could try tCL + tRP +2/+4 => either 37 or 39.
> 
> tRC could maybe go down to 56 or 58.
> 
> Dividing tRFC to tRC should be a natural number for best sync. Try 504/522 with tRC 56/58.
> 
> With tRCDRD 19, you should be able to use tRDWR 9/tWRRD 1/2/3. Try it.


Thanks, I'll check.

tFAW was higher (24 or more) but somehow, probably auto-timing, it goes considerably better at 16.
I'll have to check again once the other timings are adjusted.

tRAS and tRC can go down to 37/58 for sure. It doesn't change anything on bandwidth but I get much worse latency.

Didn't really find any improvement dividing tRFC to tRC; it just goes a bit better going down till it's unstable.
I'll try again anyway, maybe it needs to be in sync already to see some improvement with a correct divider.

Will check tWRRD, don't think I ever went below 4.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> Thanks, I'll check.
> 
> tFAW was higher (24 or more) but somehow, probably auto-timing, it goes considerably better at 16.
> I'll have to check again once the other timings are adjusted.
> 
> tRAS and tRC can go down to 37/58 for sure. It doesn't change anything on bandwidth but I get much worse latency.
> 
> Didn't really find any improvement dividing tRFC to tRC; it just goes a bit better going down till it's unstable.
> I'll try again anyway, maybe it needs to be in sync already to see some improvement with a correct divider.
> 
> Will check tWRRD, don't think I ever went below 4.


You can probably do tFAW 16 if you set tRRDS 4 and tRRDL 5. Might not work on DJR though.

tRFC/tRC sync can lower the ccx latencies.


----------



## Handrox

Thank you very much, it helped me a lot and made it much easier to reach 3800MHz CL16 in my RAM.

-MSi B450M Mortar Max
-R7 [email protected]
-2x8GB GSkill Trident Z 3600MHz [email protected] CL16 1.36v [email protected] 1:1


----------



## MikeS3000

ManniX-ITA said:


> Any suggestions to improve this profile?
> 
> I'm using PBO with EDC=1 so the behavior is a bit different than a static OC and the latency higher.
> 
> I can't lower tCL, tRP, tRCDRD, doesn't POST or goes slower.
> tRFC below 492 is unstable, tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL at 4 & other timings lowered I get SATA corruption issues.
> 
> View attachment 350732
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 350748
> 
> 
> View attachment 350746
> 
> 
> View attachment 350734
> 
> 
> View attachment 350736
> 
> 
> View attachment 350738
> 
> 
> View attachment 350740


I have the same RAM, just a lower capacity. I'm running 2 x 8gb. These are my timings straight from DRAM Calc 1.7.3 You can see where they are similar to yours. I was able to turn off GDM and still have complete stability with better performance. Have you tried these settings?


----------



## eliwankenobi

Yoizhik said:


> xmp off, i was trying safe calculations for 3800MHz, after that i want to tighten timings a little bit but i gave up, auto is working fine. If i could fix that 15 to 16 thing with GDM disabled that will be enough, i'll try later it's too late in here rn (03:22am)



Try running those numbers with tCL at 16 instead of 14 or 15 with GDM ON. Also change all the other values presented by the calculator. It should be able to boot fine if not be just stable


----------



## TK421

KedarWolf said:


> Here is mine. 2x16GB Neo RAM.



I can't do 3800C14 :|


I'm at 1.39v memory w/ vrm settings maxed out (phase count, response, current, etc).


----------



## rares495

TK421 said:


> I can't do 3800C14 :|
> 
> 
> I'm at 1.39v memory w/ vrm settings maxed out (phase count, response, current, etc).


1.39V is quite low. No chance of CL14 with such low voltage. Even the 3800 14-15-15-15 and 4000 15-16-16-16 G.Skill XMP profiles are set to 1.5V


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> You can probably do tFAW 16 if you set tRRDS 4 and tRRDL 5. Might not work on DJR though.
> 
> tRFC/tRC sync can lower the ccx latencies.


I forgot there was an error I keep rolling back on that profile, tRRDS/tRRDL should have been 4/6.

Ended up with this:









But no matter what the actual results from Sandra or AIDA doesn't change much.
I can put back the DRAM Calc settings or raise tRC/tRAS, tFAW, tRW/tRTP but more or less is the same.
A bit of bandwidth more with a lower tRFC and that's all. But that too still varies a lot.

I'm now doing 5-10 Sandra runs each time cause the variance is really big and some assumptions I made were wrong.
The 2 Sandra runs below are just consecutive one after each other.

I'd love to try something with GDM disabled but I don't get a POST at 36/38 no matter what.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> I forgot there was an error I keep rolling back on that profile, tRRDS/tRRDL should have been 4/6.
> 
> Ended up with this:
> 
> View attachment 350786
> 
> 
> But no matter what the actual results from Sandra or AIDA doesn't change much.
> I can put back the DRAM Calc settings or raise tRC/tRAS, tFAW, tRW/tRTP but more or less is the same.
> A bit of bandwidth more with a lower tRFC and that's all. But that too still varies a lot.
> 
> I'm now doing 5-10 Sandra runs each time cause the variance is really big and some assumptions I made were wrong.
> The 2 Sandra runs below are just consecutive one after each other.
> 
> I'd love to try something with GDM disabled but I don't get a POST at 36/38 no matter what.


I think you should start testing for stability. You're not going to get much more than this on DJR. You're at the point where the little gains of tightening a bit more are not worth the amount of time you'd have to invest in the tuning.

GDM disabled will probably not work because your kit is dual rank.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> I think you should start testing for stability. You're not going to get much more than this on DJR. You're at the point where the little gains of tightening a bit more are not worth the amount of time you'd have to invest in the tuning.


I have this impression too, can't probably get much more out of it, but I think it's linked to PBO.
Have to try with a fixed OC what's the difference.
I've already tested 4000% with Kahru and seems stable on the main install.


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have this impression too, can't probably get much more out of it, but I think it's linked to PBO.
> Have to try with a fixed OC what's the difference.
> I've already tested 4000% with Kahru and seems stable on the main install.


Manual OC will only decrease latency and increase bandwidth a bit. It's useful to max out your memory for benchmarks but it's not a realistic scenario unless we're talking about a Ryzen 3600/X where a manual OC is actually usable for 24/7 operation.

You can try some DJR timings from the RAM Overclocking spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKPVfDcFO-aieAOXHFQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rares495 said:


> Manual OC will only decrease latency and increase bandwidth a bit. It's useful to max out your memory for benchmarks but it's not a realistic scenario unless we're talking about a Ryzen 3600/X where a manual OC is actually usable for 24/7 operation.
> 
> You can try some DJR timings from the RAM Overclocking spreadsheet.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKPVfDcFO-aieAOXHFQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM


There's not much in the spreadsheet, I did check already.
The only noticeably better results I've seen are using a 3900x/3950x.


----------



## Zektbach

Sorry for this stupid question but is this fine?

Turn off XMP > Manually overclock timings (Some are on auto like tRFC and tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL since my computer won't post when I adjust this according to DRAM)
After setting all the timings, should I turn back XMP or just keep it off?


----------



## 1TM1

error


----------



## TK421

rares495 said:


> 1.39V is quite low. No chance of CL14 with such low voltage. Even the 3800 14-15-15-15 and 4000 15-16-16-16 G.Skill XMP profiles are set to 1.5V


Would degradation happen with Samsung b-die over 1.4v?


----------



## Veii

TK421 said:


> Would degradation happen with Samsung b-die over 1.4v?


Voltage degradation depends on heat,frequency,nodesize,and workamount

20nm B-Dies have following features and flaws:
- scale well @ 1.42v up to 1.46v
- can go up to 2.1v up to capacity and PCB
- tCL and tRP do scale with voltage
- can run very low tRFC with short tREFI
- internal chip is old but quite mature, not being forced to run GDM

Negative flaws:
- they either scale well near 1.28-1.32v or start to scale only after 1.46v / the wall between them is quite big
- they will start to dropout and lose charge=choke at 1.56v where you have to limit size capacity to go beyond 1.58v (maxmem 4096/2048)

2nd flaw is an architectural thing, while tCL keeps scalling up till 1.92v
While after 1.7v you need to drop it down to 3072mb or even 2048mb per dimm

Degradation starts to happen only after 1.92v, while instability and full crashes after 1.55v above 42c
Normal users can run them between 1.46-1.52v , up to PCB 
1.46v is a quite nice range for them , as near 1.43~ is the voltage wall
B-dies will get unstable with more than 1.46v over 44-46c Celsius
A0 PCBs can push between 1.46-1.5v 
A1 PCBs near 1.46-1.52/1.53v
A2 near 1.48-1.54v 

A0 range is big as the IC also plays a role if it likes 1.46v or has to accept 1.48v for nice scaling
some b-dies older nodes for example 3200C16-18 ones = V2 profiles on DRAM Calculator, only like till 1.46v and scale negative higher

For comparison, HynixMFR 25nm can run 24/7 on an A1 PCB with 1.62v and feel most comfortable near 1.55v
Their wall is between 1.4-1.5v , inside this range nothing happens except negative results
Only above 1.54-1.55v they start to shine but yet are strongly frequency limited
HynixMFR doesn't have architecture flaws like b-dies and can run 1.6v day and night


----------



## TK421

Veii said:


> Voltage degradation depends on heat,frequency,nodesize,and workamount
> 
> 20nm B-Dies have following features and flaws:
> - scale well @ 1.42v up to 1.46v
> - can go up to 2.1v up to capacity and PCB
> - tCL and tRP do scale with voltage
> - can run very low tRFC with short tREFI
> - internal chip is old but quite mature, not being forced to run GDM
> 
> Negative flaws:
> - they either scale well near 1.28-1.32v or start to scale only after 1.46v / the wall between them is quite big
> - they will start to dropout and lose charge=choke at 1.56v where you have to limit size capacity to go beyond 1.58v (maxmem 4096/2048)
> 
> 2nd flaw is an architectural thing, while tCL keeps scalling up till 1.92v
> While after 1.7v you need to drop it down to 3072mb or even 2048mb per dimm
> 
> Degradation starts to happen only after 1.92v, while instability and full crashes after 1.55v~
> Normal users can run them between 1.46-1.52v , up to PCB
> 1.46v is a quite nice range for them , as near 1.43~ is the voltage wall
> B-dies will get unstable with more than 1.46v over 44-46c Celsius
> A0 PCBs can push between 1.46-1.5v
> A1 PCBs near 1.46-1.52/1.53v
> A2 near 1.48-1.54v
> 
> A0 range is big as the IC also plays a role if it likes 1.46v or has to accept 1.48v for nice scaling
> some b-dies older nodes for example 3200C16-18 ones = V2 profiles on DRAM Calculator, only like till 1.46v and scale negative higher
> 
> For comparison, HynixMFR 25nm can run 24/7 on an A1 PCB with 1.62v and feel most comfortable near 1.55v
> Their wall is between 1.4-1.5v , inside this range nothing happens except negative results
> Only above 1.54-1.55v they start to shine but yet are strongly frequency limited
> HynixMFR doesn't have architecture flaws like b-dies and can run 1.6v day and night



So is MFR better than b-die in terms of performance due to the voltage scaling?


----------



## RaXelliX

TK421 said:


> So is MFR better than b-die in terms of performance due to the voltage scaling?


Nope. B-Die is still king because it can run very tight timings.

@ Veii any info on Hynix JJR?


----------



## Veii

TK421 said:


> So is MFR better than b-die in terms of performance due to the voltage scaling?


Fully not 
HynixMFR is the worst IC out there, alone by the age
But as its on the biggest nodesize - they seem to scale wonderfully above 1.6v
B-dies remain still the best choice when it comes to timing efficiency
= Maximum hit speed at X rated frequency 

Memory runs in tiny 8+ decimal digit nanosecond values
It's true that some ICs perform better than others as the same frequency, same as dual rank technically is faster @ the same MT/s
But the biggest advantage of b-dies is their fast refresh cycle (tREFI) and low accepting tRFC (refresh pulses, explained stupidly)
Also their advantage is low PCB stress = less impedance required to drive them 
Ultimately their scaling depends also on the PCB they are on
I think i just got extremely lucky to hit A1 pcb on the worst existing 266C16-18 HynixMFR kit out there ^^'
Yet it loved voltage 

But you can't compare kits which require tRCD above 18-22 to function normally 
Compared to B-dies which move in the range of 14-16
Technically speaking, Micron Rev.E kits are superior when it comes to pcb stress and so higher max frequency
But they hate voltage above 1.46v and so their tRCD and tRP are often very high, resulting in high delay timings
Even tho they appear faster , reality shows b-dies still win 

Samsung released C-Dies near 2018~
as replacement for the already EOL B-dies which should be gone near Q1 2019
Around the time where Dram prices for good b-die kits peaked near 210$
A-die looks to be our new one, but yet B-die where scaling the best likely because of the node size
New A-die 17?nm doesn't like voltage that much, although the size flaw seems to have been fixed
~ soo it's not fully clear if they are better or not, the same goes for C-Die 

If you want to check binning for a B-die kit for example, calculate frequency/tRCD=virtual value
Still you remain on the PCB luck, but at least you can try to measure a "dud" kit


----------



## Veii

RaXelliX said:


> Nope. B-Die is still king because it can run very tight timings.
> @Veii any info on Hynix JJR?


I'm sorry, barely 
There seems to be a new Hynix kit out there which scales up to 5000MT/s with acceptable timings
Still with their Hynix like patterns 17-22-22
But i haven't had much chance to play with random kits recently
Sadly without a pc since 7-8 months ~ i'm focusing to get back on 4th gen ryzen

EDIT:
Patterns may change, but the rulesets remain the same on DDR4
You have to see when it crashes, and limit memsize if you want to go beyond 1.55v on any kit
Just to keep up stability
ICs don't degrade that much, they are not sillicon 
Either the Capacitors can keep up the charge, or they choke and lose charge
You can pump too much into them and nothing except crashes should happen, unless you really go stupid on them
stupid=1.9v on 16nm 
stupid= 2v on 18nm
stupid= 2.1v on 19nm and so on

EDIT 2
Just keep in mind on Hynix kits that even when they love voltage 
nodesize matters and thermals do too~ @RaXelliX
You should be able to test this when they do start to fully BSOD on windows boot 
But only b-dies should have this size issue
don't go too harsh on them unless you have another set to experiment, but 1.55-1.6v isn't thaat much for them
Only heat will be a concern and if you hit A0 PCB it might not like anything above 1.48v at all
You have to figure out their latency wall, for example on lower speeds like 3000MT/s or even 2667MT/s how big of a jump you need between tCLs
For example CL16, CL14, CL12 and down to 10 on 2667MT/s

HynixCJR kit i've tested near 3600MT/s needed 1.72v for CL12 
And at least 1.58v for CL14 
Which was a bit much on 19nm 24/7 
Testing is no issue, unless you full load them - only then voltage starts to matter and you should go down either in limiting size or voltage 
Again, all depends on the nodesize and PCB you have this things on + full load, or just tiny amount :thumb:


----------



## RaXelliX

Much appreciated Veii. I will add Thaiphoon Burner screenshot later but it's a 18nm and im running it at 1.5v at the moment. 3200Mhz CL16 XMP @ 3733 CL16 tightened 16-20-20-36 and 1:1 with IF clock (1867Mhz).I have not tested voltage scaling tho.


----------



## TK421

Veii said:


> Fully not
> HynixMFR is the worst IC out there, alone by the age
> But as its on the biggest nodesize - they seem to scale wonderfully above 1.6v
> B-dies remain still the best choice when it comes to timing efficiency
> = Maximum hit speed at X rated frequency
> 
> Memory runs in tiny 8+ decimal digit nanosecond values
> It's true that some ICs perform better than others as the same frequency, same as dual rank technically is faster @ the same MT/s
> But the biggest advantage of b-dies is their fast refresh cycle (tREFI) and low accepting tRFC (refresh pulses, explained stupidly)
> Also their advantage is low PCB stress = less impedance required to drive them
> Ultimately their scaling depends also on the PCB they are on
> I think i just got extremely lucky to hit A1 pcb on the worst existing 266C16-18 HynixMFR kit out there ^^'
> Yet it loved voltage
> 
> But you can't compare kits which require tRCD above 18-22 to function normally
> Compared to B-dies which move in the range of 14-16
> Technically speaking, Micron Rev.E kits are superior when it comes to pcb stress and so higher max frequency
> But they hate voltage above 1.46v and so their tRCD and tRP are often very high, resulting in high delay timings
> Even tho they appear faster , reality shows b-dies still win
> 
> Samsung released C-Dies near 2018~
> as replacement for the already EOL B-dies which should be gone near Q1 2019
> Around the time where Dram prices for good b-die kits peaked near 210$
> A-die looks to be our new one, but yet B-die where scaling the best likely because of the node size
> New A-die 17?nm doesn't like voltage that much, although the size flaw seems to have been fixed
> ~ soo it's not fully clear if they are better or not, the same goes for C-Die
> 
> If you want to check binning for a B-die kit for example, calculate frequency/tRCD=virtual value
> Still you remain on the PCB luck, but at least you can try to measure a "dud" kit



Ok


The kit I have is 3600C16 2x16gb


So is running 1.45v daily safe? Assuming temp is below 42c


----------



## Veii

TK421 said:


> Ok
> The kit I have is 3600C16 2x16gb
> So is running 1.45v daily safe? Assuming temp is below 42c


You can go between 1.42-1.46v without worrying about negative effects
You have to check how scaling behaves. Your kit might like 1.48v , or it might behave negative where only 1.46v is the sweetspot
1.42v wouldn't destabilize even at 50c, but memory is sensitive to temperature
At least 1.42v you can push, for more it depends on your cooling resolve and airflow + IC and PCB lottery luck 

Higher than 1.48v depends afterwards on your PCB, tho B-dies have no stability issues with running 1.5v 
Scaling is vague, depends on many things ~ try to find out yourself when they will destabilize 
Dual rank likes less voltage and higher ClkDrvStrengh under CAD_BUS 
@RaXelliX please check the PCB infront of you,
TB is accurate on the IC but it is not on the PCB revision 
At best you could drop to 1.48v as 18nm isn't that big, but up to PCB ~ up to 1.52v shouldn't make issues for you, depends if A0 or X1/X2


----------



## bigfootnz

Veii said:


> VDDG IOD is a tad high
> VDDP 950
> VDDG CCD 1000
> VDDG IOD 1050
> VSOC 1150
> fits,
> All depends on what stepping you use, as 50mV has to be the minimum used between these
> Usually VDDP 900, CCD 950, IOD 1000, vSOC 1100 would fit well
> But maybe CCD one will be too low for your perCCX OC
> you could use 75mV stepping too
> VDDP 900, CCD 975, IOD 1025, VSOC 1100
> vSOC doesn't have to be double stepping - but these 4 voltages have to follow some kind of pattern and never be under 50mV appart
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814 described at the 2nd half of the post


Hi Veii, can you please explain why you are recommending to have 50mV difference between CCD and IOD? As by any version of ryzen calculator is setting them equally just like by default on my MSI ACE board? Thanks


----------



## rush2049

Anyone have suggestions regarding the subtimings? I am trying to get the latency to be better. I've followed the recommended voltages (middle column) on the dram calculator, but I don't have any qualms about going higher. (water cooled ram).


----------



## Veii

bigfootnz said:


> Hi Veii, can you please explain why you are recommending to have 50mV difference between CCD and IOD? As by any version of ryzen calculator is setting them equally just like by default on my MSI ACE board? Thanks


The calculator does include that offset already 
Early on the voltage inside the calculator where factoring in only one VDDG control voltage
I do split them now, but they have playroom 
Usually you did:
VDDP + 50 to 100 / or 75 to 150mV stepping 
* the key is to be at least 50mV , but the issue lies that vSOC at 1000mV won't be enough
** yet the ruleset remains VDDG+50mV for vSOC 

Soo double stepping has to be used 
What you use doesn't play a big role, while it does play a tiny one ~ more to it later
Because nearly always double stepping is used from VDDP to VDDG, it always was factored in the split covering IOD and CCD
I split it, just for accuracy sake and because we focus on fixing or pushing specific parts ~ giving it more voltage
Fixing IOD on bad boards to cover up for bad PCBs and so pushing memory OC
Or pushing CCD higher to help with per CCX OC on quality boards without decreasing Signal integrity by pushing more voltage for IOD (in this case even lowering it a bit)

It's just tiny optimization parts , something small yet with important effect for better signal integrity
Lower voltage always is key for higher FCLK and MCLK, because better signal integrity is important 
But picking random voltages has issues - because the ryzen already does have a stepping ruleset
Breaking that is allowed by enabling UncoreOC mode inside AMD OVERCLOCKING
But why not just hold to their research and play with AMDs rulesets 
You have to have at least 46-48mV headroom over VDDP->VDDG and the same goes for VDDG->VSOC 
Just pushing VDDP to cover up for too low VSOC is stupid , we need less VDDP not more 


> What you use doesn't play a big role, while it does play a tiny one ~ more to it later


This is now important 
If you've followed 1usmus's iOC guide, per CCX/CCD OC guide 
You might find some oddness in the frequency scaling
It actually does scale a bit between per CCX
I am not fully sure why - but i've noticed something odd across the whole 3rd gen lineup

Taking for example a 3600
The sample i've played with was pretty much maxed out on sillicon boost , it couldn't sustain more than 4.1 allcore or 4.2 boost
While the "golden cores" where wrong on RM and also wrong on HWInfo, even tho CPPC was functional after the RM wipe
The only thing that allowed it to be pushed higher without changing boosting behavior was by using a specific frequency difference
I've tried 40,42 / 40,43 / 41.5,42
It always crashed on AVX2 renders
Couple of samples already showed that it had to use a pattern, also for frequency
a difference between CCX with a frequency of 50mhz was not stable, same as a difference of 125mhz was not stable
A difference between CCX with a frequency of 75mhz was perfectly stable and we where able to push it even up to 100mhz difference between them

Anything higher or lower than 100mhz was pretty much a worse result
While 75mhz later sadly crashing under more heavy workload


Spoiler














The result i think was quite bad, as TV was running too and a thread ACPI/CPPC analytic tool

Usually an iOC guide from 1usmus a rewrite was in plan
But i needed to collect couple of more data with dual CCD units, soo i didn't talk about it much
Tho there are some scaling patterns - soo i try to work with AMDs ruleset and split it
Else it will do it itself, and when i tell people to enable UncoreOC mode ~ it's good for it to be split as you can't rely on the board to split it afterwards
You will waste current and lower signal integrity, as this current has to go somewhere - when you push more than it's needed :thumb:


----------



## Veii

rush2049 said:


> Anyone have suggestions regarding the subtimings? I am trying to get the latency to be better. I've followed the recommended voltages (middle column) on the dram calculator, but I don't have any qualms about going higher. (water cooled ram).


You've pretty much maxed out your possibilities without some big changes
These timings are actually very well made :thumb:
Did you use CAD_BUS 24-20-24-24 or 40-20-24-24 ?
Asking because of Signal Integrity

Oh on sTR4 you can go decoupled mode without negative effects
it does scale up til 4200MT/s 
Only thing that stands out is 6x tFAW - sixth activate time window, while DDR4 doesn't allow more than 4x tRRDS to pass through the activate time window. it does timebreak and refuse to accept any other cell-activate tries 
Wonder why 6 where used :thinking: even when you try to stack and try to hit faster refresh, it shouldn't work with a fixed limit :thinking: i hope it's just a calculator bug, as this looks awkward
Maybe it's just higher soo cells recharge in time, but tRP is high to begin with - making no sense to waste delay there 

Are you actually sure that you have X0 PCB ?
The 3600C15 ones usually are A1 :thinking:
Now it's a bit stupid with a block on them to check PCB revision 

Try that:


----------



## rush2049

Four of my sticks are the first image.

Four of my other sticks are the second image.

Not ideal I know, but I ordered the exact same part number and got what I got. I would love to have all A0... but I wasn't willing to buy them over and over to return them.
I will try your suggestions.


----------



## Veii

rush2049 said:


> Four of my sticks are the first image.
> 
> Four of my other sticks are the second image.
> 
> Not ideal I know, but I ordered the exact same part number and got what I got. I would love to have all A0... but I wasn't willing to buy them over and over to return them.
> I will try your suggestions.


Ooh this is interesting
But why did you pick Dual Rank then ?
8x8 = 64gb
Top ones are A0 bottom ones are A2
Push for sure 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS 
And put the 4xA2 dimms as the main ones
Is your board daisy chain or T-topology :thinking:

EDIT:
I don't know if the board allows you
But push 20mV more on the A2 kits, if not even 30mV
Instead 1.46v on A0 for example 1.48v on A2


----------



## rush2049

Veii said:


> Ooh this is interesting
> But why did you pick Dual Rank then ?
> 8x8 = 64gb
> Top ones are A0 bottom ones are A2
> Push for sure 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS
> And put the 4xA2 dimms as the main ones
> Is your board daisy chain or T-topology :thinking:
> 
> EDIT:
> I don't know if the board allows you
> But push 20mV more on the A2 kits, if not even 30mV
> Instead 1.46v on A0 for example 1.48v on A2


I actually had CAD_BUS on auto..... which was doing 24-20-24-24 according to ryzen master.
And my ram was running at 1.35v


To apply your suggested changes I upped the voltage to 1.38v
Slight improvement....

So what would the next jump be?


----------



## Veii

rush2049 said:


> I actually had CAD_BUS on auto..... which was doing 24-20-24-24 according to ryzen master.
> And my ram was running at 1.35v
> 
> To apply your suggested changes I upped the voltage to 1.38v
> Slight improvement....
> 
> So what would the next jump be?


Test stability 
TM5 1usmus_v3 20 configured cycles~
You still can have flaws on the setup or the timings can be bad
Aida64 means normally nothing, it only is a comparison for you to see any change
Although SiSoftwareSandra Multi-Core Efficiency test, is a better result showcase tool
But Sisandra same as other tools will react with/against voltage like the boost behavior does too 
Soo DRAM Calculator benchmarks and SiSandra will be variable , tho at least it will show any kind of improvements

EDIT:
Actually try before that, SCL both at 4 and up tWRRD to 3


----------



## Scoty

How can I reduce the latency even more? It would also be nice if I could have the timing a little sharper.


----------



## RaXelliX

Veii said:


> @RaXelliX please check the PCB infront of you,
> TB is accurate on the IC but it is not on the PCB revision
> At best you could drop to 1.48v as 18nm isn't that big, but up to PCB ~ up to 1.52v shouldn't make issues for you, depends if A0 or X1/X2


Based on Manual, Internet and visual inspection it appears to be A2 (4 dies, two groups). I have two of these kits: https://geizhals.eu/kingston-hyperx-predator-rgb-dimm-kit-16gb-hx432c16pb3ak2-16-a1871590.html


----------



## rush2049

Veii said:


> Test stability
> TM5 1usmus_v3 20 configured cycles~
> You still can have flaws on the setup or the timings can be bad
> Aida64 means normally nothing, it only is a comparison for you to see any change
> Although SiSoftwareSandra Multi-Core Efficiency test, is a better result showcase tool
> But Sisandra same as other tools will react with/against voltage like the boost behavior does too
> Soo DRAM Calculator benchmarks and SiSandra will be variable , tho at least it will show any kind of improvements
> 
> EDIT:
> Actually try before that, SCL both at 4 and up tWRRD to 3


I use prime95 with AVX to test stability. Select the Large FFT profile, but then I tweak it to use only 60 threads, and only 56GB of memory. Which allows me to monitor it's progress and watch dram temperature sensors.
That is the hardest memory stress test I can find, it will show rounding errors within 6 minutes if you are even a little bit unstable. Then I let it run for hours once I think I am done.
That is how I found out my particular dimms fail when they reach 52C. I just put them under water blocks to solve that issue.

I have to fiddle with some of the timings you gave me, something isn't happy. (errors in P95 almost immediately)


----------



## Veii

RaXelliX said:


> Based on Manual, Internet and visual inspection it appears to be A2 (4 dies, two groups). I have two of these kits: https://geizhals.eu/kingston-hyperx-predator-rgb-dimm-kit-16gb-hx432c16pb3ak2-16-a1871590.html


Check in person 
Good research, Thaiphoon Burner lies on that part
Same as companies pick whatever they have left randomly 
The highest chance of accuracy is a teardown of that kit - and yet PCBs same as many ICs are picked random out of their binns
On their picture it could be A1  
It can be everything tbh, can even be A3

Edit:
Visual Inpection = in person ?
Or comparison to teardowns online ?


----------



## bigfootnz

Veii said:


> The calculator does include that offset already
> Early on the voltage inside the calculator where factoring in only one VDDG control voltage
> I do split them now, but they have playroom
> Usually you did:
> VDDP + 50 to 100 / or 75 to 150mV stepping
> * the key is to be at least 50mV , but the issue lies that vSOC at 1000mV won't be enough
> ** yet the ruleset remains VDDG+50mV for vSOC


Thank you for detailed explanation. But I'm not sure I can see that offset anywhere in calculator. As per screen shot from calculator, you can see that VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD are the same and there is no any offset. I understand offset between VDDP>VDDG>vSOC, but I'm confused with VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD? Or this play role only on lower quality boards? 

At the moment I'm stable with VDDP 950mV, VDDG CCD/IOD 1.075V and vSOC 1.125V. Would you recommend different voltage offset? Thanks


----------



## Veii

rush2049 said:


> I use prime95 with AVX to test stability. Select the Large FFT profile, but then I tweak it to use only 60 threads, and only 56GB of memory. Which allows me to monitor it's progress and watch dram temperature sensors.
> That is the hardest memory stress test I can find, it will show rounding errors within 6 minutes if you are even a little bit unstable. Then I let it run for hours once I think I am done.
> That is how I found out my particular dimms fail when they reach 52C. I just put them under water blocks to solve that issue.
> 
> I have to fiddle with some of the timings you gave me, something isn't happy. (errors in P95 almost immediately)


Ooh i see , good to know that this method works too ~ thank you 
Hmmm, 3 things could make issues
VDIMM not being enough for low tRP
tWR being too harsh for 4 dimms (just double it)
tWRRD on 2 feeling strange - put in SCL 4 and tWRRD 3

Last two options usually result in fully no post if they are wrong
Soo i haven't given up the hope on low tWR yet , same would go for SCL 4 if you can boot it up
But push voltage higher if you can - and remain at least on 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS 

The last thing i think it could make issues is just the huge tFAW headroom and the tRRDS values being very low
Tho i think it can work out - you can try tFAW 20 if it even boots it up
Because when it posts, it has a chance to work - usually all these timings refuse to boot up at all if they are too low or just plain wrong


bigfootnz said:


> Thank you for detailed explanation. But I'm not sure I can see that offset anywhere in calculator. As per screen shot from calculator, you can see that VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD are the same and there is no any offset. I understand offset between VDDP>VDDG>vSOC, but I'm confused with VDDG CCD and VDDG IOD? Or this play role only on lower quality boards?
> 
> At the moment I'm stable with VDDP 950mV, VDDG CCD/IOD 1.075V and vSOC 1.125V. Would you recommend different voltage offset? Thanks


VDDG CCD & IOD share the voltage across them, soo it has a stepup offset from VDDP although no fixed one they where variable
Tho it makes me question the "maximum" result on the calculator, where VDDP is higher than VDDG 
You shouldn't do that at all 
Try 
900mv VDDP 
1050 VDDG
1125 vSOC
scaling used: 75mV
* you can then pick where to invest these 75mV either CCD or IOD 
if you have voltage issues on VDDG and really need the bump:
950mV VDDP
1075mV VDDG
1150mv VSOC 
tho that would be for 1930-1950FLCK and XOC territory, normally you just use 50mV stepping

** boards do always autocorrect neverless what you put in
They only don't if you enable the UncoreOC flag


----------



## Veii

Scoty said:


> How can I reduce the latency even more? It would also be nice if I could have the timing a little sharper.


Just purely out of curiosity sake
How much voltage do you need to boot this set








Try between 1.42v-1.6v , but not higher 
Just testboot it with the lowest voltage you can run 
Curious how DJR behaves on the tRP side of things, as tRDWR was surprisingly low 
Your 8/4 shouldn't be stable at all, it should require 10/4 for dual rank :thinking:
Could be a DJR thing, soo when you can spare the time - it would be helpful if you can figure out if this awkward set can boot up till 1.6v

tRTP to 10 if it doesn't let you run 9
tWR back to 12, tRP 6 - if you have awkward BSOD post issues


----------



## Scoty

Veii said:


> Just purely out of curiosity sake
> How much voltage do you need to boot this set
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try between 1.42v-1.6v , but not higher
> Just testboot it with the lowest voltage you can run
> Curious how DJR behaves on the tRP side of things, as tRDWR was surprisingly low
> Your 8/4 shouldn't be stable at all, it should require 10/4 for dual rank :thinking:
> Could be a DJR thing, soo when you can spare the time - it would be helpful if you can figure out if this awkward set can boot up till 1.6v
> 
> tRTP to 10 if it doesn't let you run 9
> tWR back to 12, tRP 6 - if you have awkward BSOD post issues


OK thx i Test later.


----------



## Veii

Scoty said:


> OK thx i Test later.


If this works, we can lower it at least 1-2ns more
But why won't you rather go up near 3734MT/s or even 3800MT/s ? :thinking:
That should eat away latency, as your current result isn't bad at all
Would be good to know know under what VDIMM that thing run


----------



## bigfootnz

Veii said:


> VDDG CCD & IOD share the voltage across them, soo it has a stepup offset from VDDP although no fixed one they where variable
> Tho it makes me question the "maximum" result on the calculator, where VDDP is higher than VDDG
> You shouldn't do that at all
> Try
> 900mv VDDP
> 1050 VDDG
> 1125 vSOC
> scaling used: 75mV
> * you can then pick where to invest these 75mV either CCD or IOD
> if you have voltage issues on VDDG and really need the bump:
> 950mV VDDP
> 1075mV VDDG
> 1150mv VSOC
> tho that would be for 1930-1950FLCK and XOC territory, normally you just use 50mV stepping
> 
> ** boards do always autocorrect neverless what you put in
> They only don't if you enable the UncoreOC flag


Should setup IOD bigger than CCD or it doesn't matter?


----------



## Veii

bigfootnz said:


> Should setup IOD bigger than CCD or it doesn't matter?


on 4 dimm, for a daisy chain board push IOD 
Or for A2/B2 kits
Else there is no need to do it on an X570 board 
Just when you really need this stronger signal for something, push IOD
Else prioritize CCD with splitting
VDDP to VDDG we used a double stepping - soo you can split it without issues


----------



## Scoty

Veii said:


> If this works, we can lower it at least 1-2ns more
> But why won't you rather go up near 3734MT/s or even 3800MT/s ? :thinking:
> That should eat away latency, as your current result isn't bad at all
> Would be good to know know under what VDIMM that thing run


I use 1.36v. I have test my Settings with 3800 but not work.


----------



## rdr09

Hi @Veii, can you take a look at this and suggest changes. Thank you.

No change from 3733 setting.


----------



## Scoty

Veii said:


> Just purely out of curiosity sake
> How much voltage do you need to boot this set
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try between 1.42v-1.6v , but not higher
> Just testboot it with the lowest voltage you can run
> Curious how DJR behaves on the tRP side of things, as tRDWR was surprisingly low
> Your 8/4 shouldn't be stable at all, it should require 10/4 for dual rank :thinking:
> Could be a DJR thing, soo when you can spare the time - it would be helpful if you can figure out if this awkward set can boot up till 1.6v
> 
> tRTP to 10 if it doesn't let you run 9
> tWR back to 12, tRP 6 - if you have awkward BSOD post issues


Have test but not boot up. Get Error Code 22. Have test with 1.410v.


----------



## rush2049

Well I managed to get this completely stable.

@Veii
The setting that wasn't stable was the tWTRL at 8. Had to raise that to 10 for stability.

I lowered tFAW to the x4 ratio and it is fine, SCL values at 4 are good, I lowered tRTP and tRDWR by one. 
tRDRDSD and tRDRDDD & tWRWRSD and tWRWRDD lowered by one as well.

Anything else you would recommend for me to try and lower?


----------



## TechnoPeasant

TechnoPeasant said:


> Looking for a little help with my memory OC. I've plugged in all of the suggestions from DRAM calc, but I can't POST. I've tried all 3 suggested procODT settings to no avail. I suspect it may not want to boot due to the higher FCLK, but I wasn't sure. Any suggestions as to how I can get this to boot?
> 
> Attached are the details around my memory, and DRAM calc suggestions.
> 
> Thanks!


So I managed to OC my mem using XMP timings, GDM off, mem voltage at 1.4, and mem and fclk at 3800/1900, respectively.

One thing I'd like to do is have GDM on, just to give the mem a break when running at low loads. I tried lowering tcl to 14, and leaving the rest at stock timings, but it won't boot. Any suggestions as to what I should change to boot at tcl 14? Should I bump the mem voltage? See my quoted post for RAM specs in the attachments.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-786.html#post28473444


----------



## mongoled

rdr09 said:


> Got a similar kit but from G.Skill. Highest so far i've oc'ed was 3733 CL16 and have similar results but not as stable as 3666 CL16. Needs more tweaking. Corsair, just my observation, are harder to work with with Ryzen. Not sure why.


Just a follow up,

these c-die sure act different to b-die modules.

Something to chew on....

Im currently doing a TM5 @ 3733/1866 mhz, 

the main timings are @ 18-16-22-22 (tCL | tRCDRW | tRCDRD | tRP)

Could even get the RAM to run @ 3800/1900 mhz, but the fabric is not stable at all, started getting blue screens referencing video errors etc.

Funny thing is when I had the nvme drive in the bottom slot (not running from the CPU lanes) I can run 3800/1900 mhz with alot more stability but nvme performance is crippled.

As the rig is not mine, im going to attempt to dial in the 3733/1866 mhz with secondary/tertiary timings providing the TM5 I am currently running passes 24 loops.

Quite impressive for RAM that cost 80€



Using your timings I could not get anything stable in TM5, even when running @ 3466/1733 mhz and more loose tRFC (560), tRC, tRAS and many of the other secondary timings.

The looser timings have helped without too much loss in performance, I was expecting a bigger loss.

Will post more detailed info once ive got something more valid


----------



## Martin778

Guys, what PCB revision does the new B-Die based TridentZ Neo sticks have?


----------



## man from atlantis

I just grabbed another Flare-X kit. It seems to be on A2 pcb, unlike my older flare-x which was A0. But thaiphoon still says A1 weird. Anyway i'm stuck at 3000CL14 4*8GB with 2700X. 

current settings









anyhelp for 3400CL14 or lower but CL12 settings would be appreciated.


----------



## Martin778

I think Thaiphoon is wrong saying both are A1, bottom one looks A2...I wonder if mine are A2 too? Sept 2019: https://i.imgur.com/DyZikmG.jpg


----------



## TheGlow

I hate to be that guy, but I am LOST.
my last 2 builds were intel, i5-2500k and i5-6600k. I just set mem to XMP, add a little to the clock multiplier, and done.
So now Im on a Ryzen 3600, and have some Gskill, F4-3600C16-8GVKC 16-19-19-39 1.35v, Hynix D-Die. I set xmp, and it posts fine. I bumped to 3733, FCLK 1866 and it posts fine, no need to touch anything, auto settings fine. I tried to go to 3800/1900 but it looks like that wont fly. I bumped the voltages as DRAM Calc suggested, no dice. So then I tried the DRAM calc suggestions for 3733, and it wont post. Then I dropped back to 3600 and tried DRAM Calcs settings for that, no post.
So I guess I need to know, where do I go from here? 3733/1866 and then what? Also I have the cpu stock as Im not sure how we should OC that. I see people say theyve oc'd to 4.2Ghz, but Im a little confused as when I run a stress test, the cores all show having hit 4.2ghz max and often show being at 4.2gh, so I'm not sure what that means vs an oc/all core oc.
From what I read it seems leaving the cpu alone might be best/safest since stuff throttles and thinking just messing with the memory would be sufficient. 
This is mostly for gaming, paired with a gtx1070, 1440p/144Hz monitors, with intent for a 3070/3080rtx when they come out. 
also by that point I would expect to see Ryzen 4000 come out and see how that is and move on to that as well. So 3600 is more to get my feet wet because I havent used AMD since I remember I had an Nforce board. How far we have come.


----------



## Tobiman

TheGlow said:


> I hate to be that guy, but I am LOST.
> my last 2 builds were intel, i5-2500k and i5-6600k. I just set mem to XMP, add a little to the clock multiplier, and done.
> So now Im on a Ryzen 3600, and have some Gskill, F4-3600C16-8GVKC 16-19-19-39 1.35v, Hynix D-Die. I set xmp, and it posts fine. I bumped to 3733, FCLK 1866 and it posts fine, no need to touch anything, auto settings fine. I tried to go to 3800/1900 but it looks like that wont fly. I bumped the voltages as DRAM Calc suggested, no dice. So then I tried the DRAM calc suggestions for 3733, and it wont post. Then I dropped back to 3600 and tried DRAM Calcs settings for that, no post.
> So I guess I need to know, where do I go from here? 3733/1866 and then what? Also I have the cpu stock as Im not sure how we should OC that. I see people say theyve oc'd to 4.2Ghz, but Im a little confused as when I run a stress test, the cores all show having hit 4.2ghz max and often show being at 4.2gh, so I'm not sure what that means vs an oc/all core oc.
> From what I read it seems leaving the cpu alone might be best/safest since stuff throttles and thinking just messing with the memory would be sufficient.
> This is mostly for gaming, paired with a gtx1070, 1440p/144Hz monitors, with intent for a 3070/3080rtx when they come out.
> also by that point I would expect to see Ryzen 4000 come out and see how that is and move on to that as well. So 3600 is more to get my feet wet because I havent used AMD since I remember I had an Nforce board. How far we have come.



Don't beat yourself up. I was in the same situation. I came from 4670k to 3600. For now, memory overclocking will get you more performance than CPU OC unless you have one of the newer chips that can hit 4.5 - 4.7 ghz. Also, DRAM calc offers suggestions, they aren't set in stone, so you might need to fiddle with a few extra settings to get desired results. To start, I would post your DRAM calc recommended settings and what timings you are currently running. To do this, click compare timings (green button) then click SAFE or FAST preset, whichever you are trying to use.


----------



## Tobiman

Example.


----------



## TheGlow

Tobiman said:


> Don't beat yourself up. I was in the same situation. I came from 4670k to 3600. For now, memory overclocking will get you more performance than CPU OC unless you have one of the newer chips that can hit 4.5 - 4.7 ghz. Also, DRAM calc offers suggestions, they aren't set in stone, so you might need to fiddle with a few extra settings to get desired results. To start, I would post your DRAM calc recommended settings and what timings you are currently running. To do this, click compare timings (green button) then click SAFE or FAST preset, whichever you are trying to use.


Thanks, it should be attached. I learn quick, so I'm sure I'll get the hang of it eventually, its just confusing. So I understand to really get it in there will be stuff like change one, save, quick stress, repeat, and it will be time consuming. I dont mind it much as currently working from home so I have work pc on 1 screen, my pc on another and its perfect for kicking stuff off and coming back, etc. Are we expected to dump all of these in at once? I know some are categorized like primary, secondary, etc. So 1 batch at a time? Then what if 1 setting was valid, will a change later on break that?


----------



## bigfootnz

Veii said:


> on 4 dimm, for a daisy chain board push IOD
> Or for A2/B2 kits
> Else there is no need to do it on an X570 board
> Just when you really need this stronger signal for something, push IOD
> Else prioritize CCD with splitting
> VDDP to VDDG we used a double stepping - soo you can split it without issues


I've A2 kits then I'll try with higher IOD, thanks.

I'm stable with 30-20-24-24 CAD_BUS, I've saw that you are also saying for A2/B2 kits to use higher then 30 drive strength. Will I gain anything if I increase drive strength, like less dram voltage?


----------



## deepor

TheGlow said:


> Thanks, it should be attached. I learn quick, so I'm sure I'll get the hang of it eventually, its just confusing. So I understand to really get it in there will be stuff like change one, save, quick stress, repeat, and it will be time consuming. I dont mind it much as currently working from home so I have work pc on 1 screen, my pc on another and its perfect for kicking stuff off and coming back, etc. Are we expected to dump all of these in at once? I know some are categorized like primary, secondary, etc. So 1 batch at a time? Then what if 1 setting was valid, will a change later on break that?



My RAM here is terrible and that meant I had to do things manually, the DRAM calculator didn't work at all.

I liked this guide here, it's nicely organized and made it easy to get into DDR4 memory overclocking:

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md

Make sure you write down everything you try so that you know how to backtrack when you find issues. Write down how much time you've tested each setup.

You can tighten things too much. You should do rough benchmarks like a read/write/latency memory benchmark so that you don't end up reducing speeds.

Related to this "you can tighten things too much" idea, after you've found the very end of what's possible on your RAM with regards to timings, come back here and show your results. See what people suggest then, there's weird relationships like it supposedly being good if tRC can divide tRFC cleanly, people might have suggestions of what slight tweaks you should do.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

Thaiphoon has given incorrect PCB information for all 4 ram kits I've used so far even my for current kit that's in my signature below, in taiphoon shows A1 but its clearly A2 from looking at it. I've been grateful to learn from a lot of people on here especially Veii on how to check things like this or just looking over screenshots which sometimes will make huge differences.


----------



## garyd9

TheGlow said:


> Thanks, it should be attached.


 That looks exactly like my first experience with DRAM Calculator (about 5 hours ago.) In fact, your RAM is probably the same kit I have (the model number is the same at least.) Don't import the XML from Thaiphoon. It results in completely unrealistic numbers. Your kit won't do CL14 at 3600 (or probably any other speed.) 

Run DRAM calculator, and set the following:

processor: ZEN 2 AM4/xTRX4.
Memory type: Hynix CJR/DJR // taken from the "DJR" in the DRAM Components string "H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC"
DRAM PCB rev: A0
Memory Rank: 2
Freq: 3600
BCLK: 100
DIMM Modules: 2
Motherboard: (depends on which m/b, but if a new build, it's probably a X570)

Then calculate safe. Take a picture and put those values into your BIOS. It should boot fine. Then do the same thing, but calculate FAST and try those settings. Still working? Then try to change the DRAM PCB to A3/A2/B2, calculate FAST, and try those new settings. (That's where I am now myself.) From there... I have no idea. (Trying to find out next steps was the reason I was reading this thread and found your post.)


----------



## ManniX-ITA

garyd9 said:


> That looks exactly like my first experience with DRAM Calculator (about 5 hours ago.) In fact, your RAM is probably the same kit I have (the model number is the same at least.) Don't import the XML from Thaiphoon. It results in completely unrealistic numbers. Your kit won't do CL14 at 3600 (or probably any other speed.)
> 
> Run DRAM calculator, and set the following:
> 
> processor: ZEN 2 AM4/xTRX4.
> Memory type: Hynix CJR/DJR // taken from the "DJR" in the DRAM Components string "H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC"
> DRAM PCB rev: A0
> Memory Rank: 2
> Freq: 3600
> BCLK: 100
> DIMM Modules: 2
> Motherboard: (depends on which m/b, but if a new build, it's probably a X570)
> 
> Then calculate safe. Take a picture and put those values into your BIOS. It should boot fine. Then do the same thing, but calculate FAST and try those settings. Still working? Then try to change the DRAM PCB to A3/A2/B2, calculate FAST, and try those new settings. (That's where I am now myself.) From there... I have no idea. (Trying to find out next steps was the reason I was reading this thread and found your post.)


I'd recommend to check first the actual PCB version.
You can take a picture and post it here.


----------



## rdr09

man from atlantis said:


> I just grabbed another Flare-X kit. It seems to be on A2 pcb, unlike my older flare-x which was A0. But thaiphoon still says A1 weird. Anyway i'm stuck at 3000CL14 4*8GB with 2700X.
> 
> current settings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyhelp for 3400CL14 or lower but CL12 settings would be appreciated.


Here is info on my Flares. I think i used 1.7.2 Calc. DRAMVolt is set at 1.4v and VSOC at 1.08v.


----------



## man from atlantis

rdr09 said:


> Here is info on my Flares. I think i used 1.7.2 Calc. Voltage is set at 1.4v.


Thanks rdr, but i'm looking for 4*Single Rank or 2*Dual Rank on Ryzen 2000s tight timings, preferably 4 sticks. 

Quick update I improved the timings as it's stabelish (half an hour TestMem5 and half an hour Prime95 blender) 3000MHz CL12 at 1.42V vDIMM and 1.012V vSoC atm. If i somehow can manage to get 3200 CL12 with 4 sticks on a daisy chain mobo, I think I can beat my 3600CL14 2*SR settings. 3000MHz CL12 4*SR is already faster than 3200MHz CL12 2*SR according to my prelimary gaming benchmarks, which is around 5% slower than my 3600CL14 2*SR setting.

World War Z 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/gpc2v3/2700x_memory_scaling_world_war_z/


----------



## rdr09

man from atlantis said:


> Thanks rdr, but i'm looking for 4*Single Rank or 2*Dual Rank on Ryzen 2000s tight timings, preferably 4 sticks.
> 
> Quick update I improved the timings as it's stabelish (half an hour TestMem5 and half an hour Prime95 blender) 3000MHz CL12 at 1.42V vDIMM and 1.012V vSoC atm. If i somehow can manage to get 3200 CL12 with 4 sticks on a daisy chain mobo, I think I can beat my 3600CL14 2*SR settings. 3000MHz CL12 4*SR is already faster than 3200MHz CL12 2*SR according to my prelimary gaming benchmarks, which is at most 5% slower than my 3600CL14 2*SR setting.


My bad. I may have to try that 3000 CL12, though. A test was made on lower oc but tight timings.

+Rep on the doing these tests.


----------



## garyd9

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd recommend to check first the actual PCB version.
> You can take a picture and post it here.


I'm not challenging your advice, but I'm curious: Why bother checking the PCB version physically? If the A2 PCB timings work with the RAM, does it matter what the reality of the PCB is? 

When I was playing with it, I found that the suggested settings differences between the A0 fast and A2 fast for the hynix JFR are very similar, so I just decided to plug in the tighter numbers just to see what would happen. They worked, passed an overnight memtest86, etc. I still haven't bothered to pull the RAM back out of the machine to physically examine it.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

garyd9 said:


> I'm not challenging your advice, but I'm curious: Why bother checking the PCB version physically? If the A2 PCB timings work with the RAM, does it matter what the reality of the PCB is?
> 
> When I was playing with it, I found that the suggested settings differences between the A0 fast and A2 fast for the hynix JFR are very similar, so I just decided to plug in the tighter numbers just to see what would happen. They worked, passed an overnight memtest86, etc. I still haven't bothered to pull the RAM back out of the machine to physically examine it.


No problem 
Cause it's better to know for sure; it's not only about the timings but also the BUS/ProcODT settings.
The layout will determine what you need to set and if you don't know (like me) and ask then a different PCB will require a different answer.
Timings too; going down it's not necessarily better. You need the right timings and the PCB layout is a key factor.
Same module, same ICs but with a different layout could need or perform better with lower/higher timings.

If you are interested in the topic read the last 30-40 pages of this thread (thought this was another  ).


----------



## yrelbirb

my friends 1usmus test gets stuck like this;

any reason why would it do it?


----------



## Zektbach

Hey guys is this any good?

Also I was playing warzone and streaming and I got blue screen error: faulty corrupted hardware page
G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 MHz CL16-4-3200C16D-16GVKB 

There's a page that says its Hynix-B die but Thaiphoon burner says Samsung B die.


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> my friends 1usmus test gets stuck like this;
> 
> any reason why would it do it?


Same thing happened to mine and decided to just use HCI test.


----------



## yrelbirb

scams xd happened in turkey because of a retailer

hear me out: a retailer called teknolojipazari.com listed these rams for very good price;

and color us surprised, they were said to be samsung b-die...

well... 6 people in our local technology forum bough this kit hoping that it is B-die.

turns out it was a scam, the retailer send "JDC01" instead of "EDC01". which meant hynix afr and mixed hynix CJRs XD

had a great laugh, just wanted to share..

i hope they can refund it

im also having troubles refunding my teamforce rams myself...


----------



## Tsk_Force

Hello guys
I have these RAMs, I used DRAM calculator 1.7.3 to calculate the various timings. As motherboard I have an aorus master x570 and ryzen 7 3700x processor, I entered the parameters and some times the pc does not start, it remains in bootloop until the BIOS settings are automatically reset. now i am going with the xmp profile and it seems that everything is fine without problems. can you suggest me some changes? I don't really know where to start

I wanted to get a frequency around 3800 for RAM and infinity fabric at 1900 (if it holds) with good timings, or if you have anything better to suggest I listen to you

PS.
for I'm only focusing on RAM, the CPU is stock, I haven't even installed AMD overdrive


----------



## mongoled

yrelbirb said:


> my friends 1usmus test gets stuck like this;
> 
> any reason why would it do it?


For me this happens when you are not completely stable, instead of it erroring out it just stops using resources but the timer ticks away, so it is a bug that is instigated from non stable overclock


----------



## Tobiman

Tsk_Force said:


> Hello guys
> I have these RAMs, I used DRAM calculator 1.7.3 to calculate the various timings. As motherboard I have an aorus master x570 and ryzen 7 3700x processor, I entered the parameters and some times the pc does not start, it remains in bootloop until the BIOS settings are automatically reset. now i am going with the xmp profile and it seems that everything is fine without problems. can you suggest me some changes? I don't really know where to start
> 
> I wanted to get a frequency around 3800 for RAM and infinity fabric at 1900 (if it holds) with good timings, or if you have anything better to suggest I listen to you
> 
> PS.
> for I'm only focusing on RAM, the CPU is stock, I haven't even installed AMD overdrive


Change DRAM PCB revision to A0/B0, try the values there and also pay attention to the voltage values given in the advanced tab.


----------



## Martin778

The voltages from the calculator tend to be incorrect. Not sure about the ODT and Clk settings as my TR rig didn't work with the values from the calculator but it works when left on auto (and it chooses differente values then).


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> For me this happens when you are not completely stable, instead of it erroring out it just stops using resources but the timer ticks away, so it is a bug that is instigated from non stable overclock


My 3666 speed did that. I thought it was the app, so i switched to HCI and passed for 1.5 hrs run. Been using it for about a week now. Actually, using same settings i just raised it the speed to 3733MHz two days ago and been gaming on it. Went higher to 3800 but see no difference in performance just a high 1.45 voltage.


----------



## Hale59

This was my old GOC2017 @3733MHz (IMC couldn't do more), with imported XMP. Passed TM5 (20 cycles). No tweaking. Not bad at all.


----------



## rdr09

Hale59 said:


> This was my old GOC2017 @3733MHz (IMC couldn't do more), with imported XMP. Passed TM5 (20 cicles). No tweaking. Not bad at all.


Hell yah that is nice.


----------



## Dollar

While pushing for a stable 1900 FCLK I ran into one corrected WHEA error.

"EventID 19 

A corrected hardware error has occurred.

Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Unknown Error Source
Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
Processor APIC ID: 0"

I noticed it in HWinfo after a 100 minute run of TM5 *1usmus*_v3 config that never showed any errors.


3700x
Asus Crosshair VI x370
4x8GB single rank samsung b-die a0 pcb
soc = 1.1v (no LLC so this droops to 1.081 during TM5)
cldo_vddg = 0.950
cldo_vddp = 0.900

Too low CLDO_VDDG? CLDO_VDDP? SOC? I can start the trial and error process but it would save a lot of time if someone has already gone through this.


----------



## highdude702

I have a question regarding the number of sticks and number of ranks. 

I understand that if I have 2 sticks of single rank memory the settings need to be 2 sticks 1 rank in RTC. 
However if I have 4 sticks of single rank memory I also know that if I'm on a dual channel setup I end up with a dual rank setup.
So in this instance would I set RTC as 4 sticks 2 ranks as I have been doing. Or would it be 4 sticks 1 rank? since theoretically if I had 4 sticks of 2 rank memory it would be quad rank. If someone that knows more than me about this could help me out that would be awesome! Thank you guys for the help and thank you 1usmus for making an awesome tool for the community!


----------



## KedarWolf

highdude702 said:


> I have a question regarding the number of sticks and number of ranks.
> 
> I understand that if I have 2 sticks of single rank memory the settings need to be 2 sticks 1 rank in RTC.
> However if I have 4 sticks of single rank memory I also know that if I'm on a dual channel setup I end up with a dual rank setup.
> So in this instance would I set RTC as 4 sticks 2 ranks as I have been doing. Or would it be 4 sticks 1 rank? since theoretically if I had 4 sticks of 2 rank memory it would be quad rank. If someone that knows more than me about this could help me out that would be awesome! Thank you guys for the help and thank you 1usmus for making an awesome tool for the community!


I'm sure the DRAM Calculator you choose 4 sticks 1 rank as all four sticks are single rank.


----------



## highdude702

KedarWolf said:


> I'm sure the DRAM Calculator you choose 4 sticks 1 rank as all four sticks are single rank.


So even know in reality its dual rank, I should select single rank in the program? The main reason I ask is because it really changes nothing but termination resistance settings.


----------



## KedarWolf

highdude702 said:


> So even know in reality its dual rank, I should select single rank in the program? The main reason I ask is because it really changes nothing but termination resistance settings.


Yes, choose single rank.


----------



## KedarWolf

highdude702 said:


> So even know in reality its dual rank, I should select single rank in the program? The main reason I ask is because it really changes nothing but termination resistance settings.




Rtt settings
What should be considered with the Rtt settings:
Rtt settings (RttNom, RttWr, RttPark) are very important for stability.
The ideal Rtt combination should be determined anew for each cycle level.
Always determine the optimal Rtt values ​​first and only then explore the CAD values.
Changing the Rtt values ​​also requires a new determination of the CAD values.
Major changes to the main timings (eg: 14-14-14 to 16-16-16) may also require a new determination of the Rtt values.
There are several known setting options for single and dual rank.
The optimal Rtt values ​​can change with a bios update, especially with an AGESA update.

*With full assembly (4x8GB SR), Dual Rank Rtt values ​​can also be used.*

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/threads/ryzen-ram-oc-thread-mögliche-limitierungen.1216557/


----------



## sonic2911

Is the new version 1.7.3 still the best for B-die samsung?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mongoled

rdr09 said:


> My 3666 speed did that. I thought it was the app, so i switched to HCI and passed for 1.5 hrs run. Been using it for about a week now. Actually, using same settings i just raised it the speed to 3733MHz two days ago and been gaming on it. Went higher to 3800 but see no difference in performance just a high 1.45 voltage.


Ive done similar, I switched to the memtest in dram calc and that ran it for 500% coverage which is around the same amount of time that 24 TM5 cycles take and it passed without error. I than loaded Realbench stress test and ran that and it failed.

So from 3733/1866, i have dropped it to 3666/1833 and am testing again.

Played around with RAM for a couple of days and cant get them completely stable at 3733/1866, voltage over 1.37v makes it worse, tiatiary timings dont seem have an effect on stability, the secondary timings although they effect stability they dont seem to be effecting the performance in AIDA mem/cache benchmark.

My main cycle for testing mem/fclk is Crystal Disk Mark 10 cycles, TM5 24 cycles, Realbench 4hrs stress test, DRAM Calc memtest 1000% in that order and than after that I may run a few hours of y-cruncher, prime95 blend (if adequate cooling is available) until finally moving onto some gaming.


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> Ive done similar, I switched to the memtest in dram calc and that ran it for 500% coverage which is around the same amount of time that 24 TM5 cycles take and it passed without error. I than loaded Realbench stress test and ran that and it failed.
> 
> So from 3733/1866, i have dropped it to 3666/1833 and am testing again.
> 
> Played around with RAM for a couple of days and cant get them completely stable at 3733/1866, voltage over 1.37v makes it worse, tiatiary timings dont seem have an effect on stability, the secondary timings although they effect stability they dont seem to be effecting the performance in AIDA mem/cache benchmark.
> 
> My main cycle for testing mem/fclk is Crystal Disk Mark 10 cycles, TM5 24 cycles, Realbench 4hrs stress test, DRAM Calc memtest 1000% in that order and than after that I may run a few hours of y-cruncher, prime95 blend (if adequate cooling is available) until finally moving onto some gaming.


I think we finally drove @Veii away. What are we to do now?! lol. We are dead!

Man, that's a lot of tests. Before the use of the calc two weeks ago my C-die at 3400 CL16 based on XMP and the B-die at 3200 CL14 XMP worked for more than a year of use zero issues. Finally used the calc and got a stable B-die at 3466 CL14 and C-die at 3666 CL16.

Tried the C-die at 3800/1900 and it was good the whole day norml use and gaming for hours. Put the machine to sleep, tried to wake it up and it did but with no vid signal. Power button won't work and had to use the psu switch. Set it back down to 3666.

I read about a voltage for start up that i need to find in the BIOS.


----------



## mongoled

rdr09 said:


> I think we finally drove @Veii away. What are we to do now?! lol. We are dead!
> 
> Man, that's a lot of tests. Before the use of the calc two weeks ago my C-die at 3400 CL16 based on XMP and the B-die at 3200 CL14 XMP worked for more than a year of use zero issues. Finally used the calc and got a stable B-die at 3466 CL14 and C-die at 3666 CL16.
> 
> Tried the C-die at 3800/1900 and it was good the whole day norml use and gaming for hours. Put the machine to sleep, tried to wake it up and it did but with no vid signal. Power button won't work and had to use the psu switch. Set it back down to 3666.
> 
> I read about a voltage for start up that i need to find in the BIOS.


Im sure the man needs a little rest from time to time and the wealth of information he has shared along with the time he has invested here is admirable.

Unfortunately as a species, many of us forget (and some choose not to care or are oblivious) the human side of whats opposite the screen they are typing on, so it can become a bit of a thankless task having to keep regurgitating the same or similar information to people who come here and post "help me" without having even attempted to do some research for themselves first.

A great fable is that of the horse and cart (https://fablesofaesop.com/hercules-and-the-wagoner.html) 

Not saying that @Veii wont be back and I am not saying that my above analysis is related to @Veii in any way, but thats my own personal experience.

What you have described are "hidden" issues of not truly running a stable system.

Thats why many of us advocate that you need thorough testing across numerous applications to really have a true idea if the settings you have tuned in are really "stable" and I put stable in apostrophes as its up to the end user to define for themselves what parameters define "stable".

For me "stable" is when I know I can throw any sort of circumstance at my rig and it will not fall on my, be it hibernating, power up, gaming, transferring large files, virtualization etc etc it need to be able to perform all these tasks with reliability.

And with the software element also an issue, we need to do out best to find out what really is "stable" so we know when to draw a line on hardware or software issues....


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> Im sure the man needs a little rest from time to time and the wealth of information he has shared along with the time he has invested here is admirable.
> 
> Unfortunately as a species, many of us forget (and some choose not to care or are oblivious) the human side of whats opposite the screen they are typing on, so it can become a bit of a thankless task having to keep regurgitating the same or similar information to people who come here and post "help me" without having even attempted to do some research for themselves first.
> 
> A great fable is that of the horse and cart (https://fablesofaesop.com/hercules-and-the-wagoner.html)
> 
> Not saying that @Veii wont be back and I am not saying that my above analysis is related to @Veii in any way, but thats my own personal experience.
> 
> What you have described are "hidden" issues of not truly running a stable system.
> 
> Thats why many of us advocate that you need thorough testing across numerous applications to really have a true idea if the settings you have tuned in are really "stable" and I put stable in apostrophes as its up to the end user to define for themselves what parameters define "stable".
> 
> For me "stable" is when I know I can throw any sort of circumstance at my rig and it will not fall on my, be it hibernating, power up, gaming, transferring large files, virtualization etc etc it need to be able to perform all these tasks with reliability.
> 
> And with the software element also an issue, we need to do out best to find out what really is "stable" so we know when to draw a line on hardware or software issues....


You're right. Thanks for the link. Me gonna go back and collect as much info from his past posts and might be able to mine some needed info. 

One rig is used for work, so that really needs to be stable at all cost. As for the C-die, can't settle for 3666. It haas to be at least 3733.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

*Spread spectrum, BCLK, and Asus B450M*



d0mini said:


> Thanks to those of you who helped me with working out why my BCLK was so low - crazy that enabling virtualisation stealth-enables spread spectrum but oh well.


Can you or anyone provide more info? I'm beginning my internet hunt to better understand how I can fix this, but I have an Asus TUF B450M-PRO Gaming. (a step up from Plus Gaming).

I see my BCLK at 99.8. I want 100, and I want this lame Spread Spectrum turned off. I don't even have virtualization on. I came across a thread for Bios Mods, but has anyone handled this one way or another for the Tuf B450M-Pro or -Plus?
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly-168.html

Asus is trying to force us to take Spread Spectrum enabled. I get it, they want to meet a Declaration of Conformity stating compliance with Part 15 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules, but unlike other mobo manufacturers they are not giving us the option to disable -- it's BS.  Or am I just missing this in my Agesa 1.0.0.4 BIOS version 2006?


----------



## rdr09

LuckyBahstard said:


> Can you or anyone provide more info? I'm beginning my internet hunt to better understand how I can fix this, but I have an Asus TUF B450M-PRO Gaming. (a step up from Plus Gaming).
> 
> I see my BCLK at 99.8. I want 100, and I want this lame Spread Spectrum turned off. I don't even have virtualization on. I came across a thread for Bios Mods, but has anyone handled this one way or another for the Tuf B450M-Pro or -Plus?
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly-168.html
> 
> Asus is trying to force us to take Spread Spectrum enabled. I get it, they want to meet a Declaration of Conformity stating compliance with Part 15 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules, but unlike other mobo manufacturers they are not giving us the option to disable -- it's BS.  Or am I just missing this in my Agesa 1.0.0.4 BIOS version 2006?


What cpu are you using?

On my X470 with a GEN1+ cpu, i have to set the CPU Core Ratio to Manual from Auto to get 100. On my B350 with Gen2, I have to set an all-core oc in manual to get 100. Both Asus.


----------



## Veii

Zektbach said:


> There's a page that says its Hynix-B die but Thaiphoon burner says Samsung B die.


You can find it out the harsh way if you want
B-dies will crash at 1.56v-1.58v instantly
Hynix kits will survive that and keep stability up
If you want to bother 

Another method is lowering tRFC to 6* tRC
Hynix Kits won't be able to run it

A 3rd method is just heating the PCB with a hairdryer to loosen the doublesided "glued" Thermal Pad, and checking yourself
Also confirming PCB Layout that way
Although we can pretty much guess it at this point by looking from the sides and the center of the PCB


highdude702 said:


> I have a question regarding the number of sticks and number of ranks.
> 
> I understand that if I have 2 sticks of single rank memory the settings need to be 2 sticks 1 rank in RTC.
> However if I have 4 sticks of single rank memory I also know that if I'm on a dual channel setup I end up with a dual rank setup.
> 
> Thank you guys for the help and thank you 1usmus for making an awesome tool for the community!


You mistake channel with ram density
Ranks you can see similar to topology
If ICs are used on both sides of the PCB, it's dual rank
Some kits like G.Skill's Trident Z DC, (double capacity)
Remain single rank, even tho they litteraly put 2 m-controllers and two sets of Single Rank setup ICs on one dimm on both sides

Channel is what you get from the CPU
In this case, two simultaneous links from the CPU to the main Dimm Slots
Which up to topology either is split 50/50% (T-Topology) or split 75/25% (Daisy Chain)

Here you hopefully can imagine why Topology would matter for dimm OC and amount
Same as why RTT values are very important to begin with and why they change between the amount of dimms you put in
4x Dimm OC depends a lot on the Topology and the PCB they are on
As you can imagine, A2/B2 layout kits are very sensitive and will suffer from flickery low signals
While increasing them makes them affected by EMI
Which is memories biggest troublemaker 
~ also known as signal integrity to some 


rdr09 said:


> I think we finally drove @Veii away. What are we to do now?! lol. We are dead!
> 
> Tried the C-die at 3800/1900 and it was good the whole day norml use and gaming for hours. Put the machine to sleep, tried to wake it up and it did but with no vid signal. Power button won't work and had to use the psu switch. Set it back down to 3666.
> 
> I read about a voltage for start up that i need to find in the BIOS.


Don't you dare assume i'd be gone out of nothing 
The option you look in your bios for cold/warm boot problems is the 3rd CAD_BUS value
Higher helps resolve it, while you can also fix that by using a higher VTT_MEM value 
^ if your bios allows to set it
You have to keep in mind, higher VDIMM will require higher CAD_BUS settings to begin with
Same as high vSOC will require high procODT 
High procODt on the otherhand likes less ClkDrvStrengh

Either you push ClkDrvStrengh to help lowering procODT , helping to use lower voltages and so improving signal integrity overall
+ maximum OC range
Or you go the opposite way and bruteforce it with voltage and stronger impedance
of course at the exchange of more heat, flickering stability and more sensitive to 3rd party influences including nearby strong routers
Well everything that emits a strong EMI Radiance 

Soo start with lower=better 


mongoled said:


> Im sure the man needs a little rest from time to time and the wealth of information he has shared along with the time he has invested here is admirable.
> 
> Unfortunately as a species, many of us forget (and some choose not to care or are oblivious) the human side of whats opposite the screen they are typing on, so it can become a bit of a thankless task having to keep regurgitating the same or similar information to people who come here and post "help me" without having even attempted to do some research for themselves first.
> 
> A great fable is that of the horse and cart (https://fablesofaesop.com/hercules-and-the-wagoner.html)
> 
> Not saying that @Veii wont be back and I am not saying that my above analysis is related to @Veii in any way, but thats my own personal experience.


Hahaha,
Thank you for thinking about me :wubsmiley
Am a bit busy in RL, starting from 0 and getting back on my feet 
(Phone, House, Work, Documents ~ you know the drill)  @rdr09 not my thread to maintain, here and there when there's something interesting i'll respond
Or when there are simple or unique questions 
So far i'm mostly lurking whenever i find the time~
Still a bit of time till 4th gen launch, 
the refreshes don't seem thaat interesting so far :ninja:


----------



## rdr09

Veii said:


> Don't you dare assume i'd be gone out of nothing
> The option you look in your bios for cold/warm boot problems is the 3rd CAD_BUS value
> Higher helps resolve it, while you can also fix that by using a higher VTT_MEM value
> ^ if your bios allows to set it
> You have to keep in mind, higher VDIMM will require higher CAD_BUS settings to begin with
> Same as high vSOC will require high procODT
> High procODt on the otherhand likes less ClkDrvStrengh
> 
> Either you push ClkDrvStrengh to help lowering procODT , helping to use lower voltages and so improving signal integrity overall
> + maximum OC range
> Or you go the opposite way and bruteforce it with voltage and stronger impedance
> of course at the exchange of more heat, flickering stability and more sensitive to 3rd party influences including nearby strong routers
> Well everything that emits a strong EMI Radiance


Thanks Veii. Got all that and I'll work on it. Might get 3800 not just 3733!


----------



## mongoled

rdr09 said:


> You're right. Thanks for the link. Me gonna go back and collect as much info from his past posts and might be able to mine some needed info.
> 
> One rig is used for work, so that really needs to be stable at all cost. As for the C-die, can't settle for 3666. It haas to be at least 3733.


So I got a pass for 24 cycles of TM5 @3666/1833 18-22-16-22-36-85-652 @ 1.35v (auto, showing as 1.37 in HWInfo64), going to run a 2hr Realbench now and will follow up with a 500% DRAM Calc, shortening the duration periods as I want to get a baseline mem/fclk overclock sorted by the end of the day and if I have enough time can play around with the timings later (friend wants the rig by Friday).

Glad to see @Veii is back, dont be embarrassed, you should be proud


----------



## d0mini

LuckyBahstard said:


> Can you or anyone provide more info? I'm beginning my internet hunt to better understand how I can fix this, but I have an Asus TUF B450M-PRO Gaming. (a step up from Plus Gaming).
> 
> I see my BCLK at 99.8. I want 100, and I want this lame Spread Spectrum turned off. I don't even have virtualization on. I came across a thread for Bios Mods, but has anyone handled this one way or another for the Tuf B450M-Pro or -Plus?
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly-168.html
> 
> Asus is trying to force us to take Spread Spectrum enabled. I get it, they want to meet a Declaration of Conformity stating compliance with Part 15 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules, but unlike other mobo manufacturers they are not giving us the option to disable -- it's BS.  Or am I just missing this in my Agesa 1.0.0.4 BIOS version 2006?


As others have said, try setting your BCLK manually to 100MHz and see what happens... that really should disable spread spectrum. Also, just really make sure that whatever setting virtualisation is under, you turn that off  I don't know if Asus BIOSes have thjat enabled by default or not. Gigabyte's didn't, but ASUS may be different!


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> Can you or anyone provide more info? I'm beginning my internet hunt to better understand how I can fix this, but I have an Asus TUF B450M-PRO Gaming. (a step up from Plus Gaming).
> 
> I see my BCLK at 99.8. I want 100, and I want this lame Spread Spectrum turned off. I don't even have virtualization on. I came across a thread for Bios Mods, but has anyone handled this one way or another for the Tuf B450M-Pro or -Plus?
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly-168.html
> 
> Asus is trying to force us to take Spread Spectrum enabled. I get it, they want to meet a Declaration of Conformity stating compliance with Part 15 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules, but unlike other mobo manufacturers they are not giving us the option to disable -- it's BS.  Or am I just missing this in my Agesa 1.0.0.4 BIOS version 2006?


Spread Spectrum is actually a good thing to combat EMI 
It just has to function on a correct frequency for it to have a positive effect
The bios lacks of the setting, but i'm pretty sure ASUS engineers should've learned by now from 1usmus's research
~ including everyone else who helped, which's names i don't have in mind

I've uploaded you a SpSpec disabled version with couple of little tweaks:
Turned visible:

SB Spread Specturm
EPU Powersaving Mode
Performance Bias
PBO just in case
Bank & Channel Interleaving -> Cpu Configuration
Should have access to USB and PCIe Redrivers (hackintosh required, guess why not)
Both EHCI / XHCI Handoffs 
Visible Memory Readouts

tMOD
tMRD
tSTAG
tRDRD BAN
tRFC 1/2/4 ~ in case they put 2&4 together or where not visible
Modified:

procODT failsafe to 60ohm, bypassing XMP Bug
Enforced Performance Bias , defaults to CBR15 Gentle for 1st & 2nd gen / no effect on 3rd gen
Failsafe CLDO_VDDP 900mV for memory training issues
M-Training failcount increased, to work against 1004ABBA fast training bug (might increase boottime)
AMD CBS on it's own both inside Module
A5E369C8-ABF9-4B43-B212-FF1BFD35666D
and 
3E7788CA-2BFC-4FCE-8122-5176CA492D9F

I'll leave to professional modders to unhide that one
IFR layout is different, and i don't have the board to give any kind of confirmation 
Maybe if you ask Reous nicely, he could assist you unlocking that one too 

Flashing tutorial use:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...yzen-bios-mods-how-update-bios-correctly.html
Afugan (mod.cap) ontop of AFUEFI (official 2006)

You will lose warranty by flashing with afugan and with flashrom 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...04-agesa-fw-stack-patched-bioses-3rd-gen.html
So whatever method you pick, be sure to actually make a shadowcopy/backup of your romchip with flashrom
~ unless you've lost warranty already anyways


Spoiler



Usually i don't have to include this, and i did my best. But as for every modded bios, the corresponding user is responsible for the success of his/her attempt. 


EDIT:
If you still have 99.8Mhz BusClock, it's a readout error
Although Hyper-V inside windows and VT-D AMD Virtualization will also enable Spread Spectrum
EDIT 2:
I forgot to double-mention, flashrom has a 8 digit character limit
Rename that file to something short 5 digit. 3 digit extension
Else you can't type it out, because TAB doesn't work under MS-DOS
* if you choose to use flashrom, tho i rec afugan on asus boards


----------



## Savlaka

So I had one of my old sticks of ram start to fail on me, so I figured it was time for a replacement and have just put in a full new set of ram and I've been working on tuning it in. This Dram calc has been great! 
But I'm definitely much farther into the weeds with this OC than any of my previous ones. I'm looking for some suggestions as to where I should be going to tighten up my timings (and subtimings) more...

I'm running the rig at 3466 presently - fast preset from xmp import (attached) using Manual OC mode in bios, setting things by hand. I needed to use alt 2 for the ODT and RTT values, recommended for cad bus (24) And have needed the voltage set between the recommended and max for most of the combinations I've tried. 

I have tested 3533 on safe preset, and it worked fine, passed membench over 1000%
Prime95 blend for over an hour.
But performance was actually the same or slightly worse in various memory benchmarks (passmark performance test, SiSandra 20/20), figured I'm probably approaching HW limits for my first gen HW.
3600 will post, and boot, but is not stable.


Appreciate any suggestions since I'm to the point I'm getting out of my depth for this one. I've Just not come to the point of understanding the relationship between the various subtimings and termination systems yet. - I do have a background in electronics but mostly Military and audio stuff, so I'll get there... Eventually...

My rig:
Asus crosshair VI hero - bios 7704
Ryzen 7 1800x - 4.00Ghz @ 1.417V (as reported by HWMonitor) - my original tested max OC was 4.375Ghz @1.52v with the original bios.
T-force Dark pro (3200-14-14-14-14-31 b-die kit) 4 sticks for 32Gb total currently set at 3466-14-15-14-14-30 @ 1.425v (HWm reads 1.437) soc @ 1.1v
1080ti -bla bla OC.
6805 raid card, 8 drives raid 10, hybrid (4x ssd + 4x 15kSAS)
960EVO 1Tb game drive.

Posted from phone, while on break at work, if you need some specific info, it might have to wait till this evening.


----------



## man from atlantis

Currently 2 sticks of Flare-X A0 is on master DIMMs and 2 sticks of Flare-X A2 is on slave DIMMs of my daisy chain mobo. I'm going to try the opposite if it willl be stable on higher clocks. In an ideal world which one should be in better DIMMs and vice versa?


----------



## Schmuckley

I think the perfect thing to figure is what's not going to corrupt your OS.


----------



## Veii

man from atlantis said:


> Currently 2 sticks of Flare-X A0 is on master DIMMs and 2 sticks of Flare-X A2 is on slave DIMMs of my daisy chain mobo. I'm going to try the opposite if it willl be stable on higher clocks. In an ideal world which one should be in better DIMMs and vice versa?


Exactly the opposite 
A2 needs the strong signal and loves voltage
A0 ist perfect for daisy chain slave , as it doesn't mind it

Daisy chain is 75/25%


----------



## Veii

Savlaka said:


> I'm running the rig at 3466
> I have tested 3533 on safe preset, and it worked fine, passed membench over 1000%
> Prime95 blend for over an hour.
> But performance was actually the same or slightly worse in various memory benchmarks (passmark performance test, SiSandra 20/20), figured I'm probably approaching HW limits for my first gen HW.
> 3600 will post, and boot, but is not stable.
> 
> My rig:
> Asus crosshair VI hero - bios 7704
> Ryzen 7 1800x - 4.00Ghz @ 1.417V (as reported by HWMonitor) - my original tested max OC was 4.375Ghz @1.52v with the original bios.
> T-force Dark pro (3200-14-14-14-14-31 b-die kit) 4 sticks for 32Gb total currently set at 3466-14-15-14-14-30 @ 1.425v (HWm reads 1.437) soc @ 1.1v
> 1080ti -bla bla OC.
> 6805 raid card, 8 drives raid 10, hybrid (4x ssd + 4x 15kSAS)
> 960EVO 1Tb game drive.
> 
> Posted from phone, while on break at work, if you need some specific info, it might have to wait till this evening.


Not much specific info
But you can use my presets from my signature for 1st Gen
The 14-14-14-14 one 
14-12-14-12 was performing worse sadly 
How much sisandra score do you hit ? Can you beat my 3.8 ?
VCore I wouldn't go above 1.48v 
But you have also negative effects with high clock
3600MT/s memory would need vSOC of 1.175v 
Which is far to much to cool 
As the 3.8 at 1.375vcore and high LLC, 1.075vSoC draws 210W already 

3533, 3600 will boot but they can't be stable 
IMCs hardware limit is 3467MT/s 
24-20-20-24 CAD_BUS works well on first gen, if you aren't overdoing vSOC 
1.1 already does show negative effects 
1.175v can work but that would be bruteforcing it ~ and thermals likely will peak at 300W 
As around 0.05v results in near 40-50W more heat


----------



## LuckyBahstard

rdr09 said:


> What cpu are you using?
> 
> On my X470 with a GEN1+ cpu, i have to set the CPU Core Ratio to Manual from Auto to get 100. On my B350 with Gen2, I have to set an all-core oc in manual to get 100. Both Asus.


Good question, I forgot to mention. I have the Ryzen 3600 on my B450M-PRO Gaming. it seems to be an Asus BIOS limitation -- people on reddit got a response from Asus Germany, saying they allow BCLK frequency and Spread Spectrum option only on "higher" end motherboards, and he had an X570 "on the lower end of that chipset class of mobos).


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Oh hey, overclocking friends... I also have excitement!

_Forgive me that I opened up my silence / lurking here by posting my frustrations first (Asus... still, if anyone knows how I can disable Spread Spectrum...). I have those concerns because I'm excited with and addicted to overclocking my Samsung B-die_   .

Short summary: I just crossed the boundary into a stable 3733 CL16 with my Patriot Viper Steel 4400 2x8 sticks!

Down to 65.9ns latency and 55300MB/s read on Aida64 -- and it's not tightened yet. I've tightened 3400CL14, 3533CL14, and 3600CL14. I need to try 3800 also. I'll have a complete journal of all of my tests in Excel. I wish more people did this so new memory-overclockers would see how others have approached it and failed and succeeded along the way. I'll be sharing complete details soon.


----------



## r3vo

Hey all, I'm having issues with the DRAM calculator. I import the XMP profile from taiphoon and everything looks good, however when I click on Calculate SAFE I get: "Not supported, Only FAST with A2/B2 profile!". If I click Calculate FAST, I get: "Not supported!". Any suggestions?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

d0mini said:


> As others have said, try setting your BCLK manually to 100MHz and see what happens... that really should disable spread spectrum. Also, just really make sure that whatever setting virtualisation is under, you turn that off  I don't know if Asus BIOSes have thjat enabled by default or not. Gigabyte's didn't, but ASUS may be different!


Sadly, I don't have a BCLK Frequency option either.  Unless possibly I turn on OC Tuner or AMD OC sections -- but I haven't yet because I assume it's going to try and do other things I don't want, and to impact my manual OC settings.

They hide both BCLK Freq and Spread Spectrum in my BIOS. I love this motherboard, but they made this one thing difficult.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

r3vo said:


> Hey all, I'm having issues with the DRAM calculator. I import the XMP profile from taiphoon and everything looks good, however when I click on Calculate SAFE I get: "Not supported, Only FAST with A2/B2 profile!". If I click Calculate FAST, I get: "Not supported!". Any suggestions?


Hi r3vo, is this the order of actions?
1) You import from Thaiphoon's html
2) This causes PCB Revision to switch to Manual
3) You select the PCB revision back to something else
4) You click SAFE button
5) You get an error

If you're doing #3 there, you need to leave it on Manual if you've imported from Thaiphoon Burner. The details from Thaiphoon's html export override your PCB revision selection and it needs to be left on Manual. If it's not this, then nevermind me.  If it is this, then what happens if you leave PCB Revision alone and don't touch it? Or what happens if you don't import and then choose your PCB Revision yourself?

Note that importing from Thaiphoon Burner may give you more aggressive timings or settings and that may not be a good thing. It wasn't for me with my B-Die. I got some numbers that I later realized were very aggressive on specific timings and that not good for my sticks. The more aggressive the numbers you take -- because of Thaiphoon import or because of clicking FAST, or both -- the less likely it will work and you'll want to use those numbers as a guide to help you think about your own manually tightened timings.


----------



## d0mini

LuckyBahstard said:


> Sadly, I don't have a BCLK Frequency option either.  Unless possibly I turn on OC Tuner or AMD OC sections -- but I haven't yet because I assume it's going to try and do other things I don't want, and to impact my manual OC settings.
> 
> They hide both BCLK Freq and Spread Spectrum in my BIOS. I love this motherboard, but they made this one thing difficult.


Oh, you're manually overclocking? That is probably why then! I seem to remember base clock/spread spectrum disappearing in my gigabyte bios when manually overclocking, but I could easily be misremembering as it's been a long time since I've messed with manual CPU overclocks.

It would be worth saving your profile and then seeing what the BIOS looks like with default settings. You can always load your old profile back up after.


----------



## r3vo

LuckyBahstard said:


> Hi r3vo, is this the order of actions?
> 1) You import from Thaiphoon's html
> 2) This causes PCB Revision to switch to Manual
> 3) You select the PCB revision back to something else
> 4) You click SAFE button
> 5) You get an error
> 
> If you're doing #3 there, you need to leave it on Manual if you've imported from Thaiphoon Burner. The details from Thaiphoon's html export override your PCB revision selection and it needs to be left on Manual. If it's not this, then nevermind me.  If it is this, then what happens if you leave PCB Revision alone and don't touch it? Or what happens if you don't import and then choose your PCB Revision yourself?
> 
> Note that importing from Thaiphoon Burner may give you more aggressive timings or settings and that may not be a good thing. It wasn't for me with my B-Die. I got some numbers that I later realized were very aggressive on specific timings and that not good for my sticks. The more aggressive the numbers you take -- because of Thaiphoon import or because of clicking FAST, or both -- the less likely it will work and you'll want to use those numbers as a guide to help you think about your own manually tightened timings.


I'm doing everything but #3. Import, click SAFE and get the error. My steps:

1) Open Taiphoon and reading the memory
2) going to report and clicking show delays in nanoseconds
3) exporting complete HTML
4) Open DRAM calc, Import XMP
5) click SAFE

And I get the error.


----------



## Savlaka

Veii said:


> Not much specific info
> But you can use my presets from my signature for 1st Gen
> The 14-14-14-14 one
> 14-12-14-12 was performing worse sadly
> How much sisandra score do you hit ? Can you beat my 3.8 ?
> VCore I wouldn't go above 1.48v
> But you have also negative effects with high clock
> 3600MT/s memory would need vSOC of 1.175v
> Which is far to much to cool
> As the 3.8 at 1.375vcore and high LLC, 1.075vSoC draws 210W already /forum/images/smilies/redface.gif
> 
> 3533, 3600 will boot but they can't be stable
> IMCs hardware limit is 3467MT/s
> 24-20-20-24 CAD_BUS works well on first gen, if you aren't overdoing vSOC
> 1.1 already does show negative effects
> 1.175v can work but that would be bruteforcing it ~ and thermals likely will peak at 300W
> As around 0.05v results in near 40-50W more heat


Thanks, 'preciate the info Veii.

@ CPU vcore, yeah that 1.52v was in 16/17 when I first built the rig, and there wasn't much published as for limits... So I went trying to find them... this setting was the only time my CPU passed 70c under load. That was just too hot for me to run at, and it only got ran like this for a few test runs.
I've been actually running at 1.417v (offset +.05675) @4.0Ghz the whole time since then... Max CPU temp is 64c at full CPU load (system is water cooled, custom loop).

@ SiSandra - I'll have to get the scores this evening. But IIRC the total mem score was like 6.99k 

@ cad bus - I'll give those settings a try, and see if I can get to a lower ram and soc voltage, right now in the bios my ram is set to 1.425 (1.438 in HWm) if I drop to 1.42 (1.417 in HWm) it starts to show errors. It actually worked at 1.090 soc, but I was setting things by the table in the calc and testing before going back to tweak. @Brute forcing things... Yeah my old sticks were beat with the voltage hammer to work at all. Some Corsair dominator plat 3200-14-16-16-16, would not work at XMP settings and took .05v over stock to be stable at 2133... I had them working at 3200 16-18-18-18 but only with 1.48v and soc of 1.18v, after almost 4 years like this they finally started dieing.

@ 3533 I didn't find any errors running basic tests, but I also only did the one battery of tests. also didn't see any improvement over 3466 that's why I'm concentrating on 3400-3466 with tight timings now.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

d0mini said:


> Oh, you're manually overclocking? That is probably why then! I seem to remember base clock/spread spectrum disappearing in my gigabyte bios when manually overclocking, but I could easily be misremembering as it's been a long time since I've messed with manual CPU overclocks.
> 
> It would be worth saving your profile and then seeing what the BIOS looks like with default settings. You can always load your old profile back up after.


Good idea. I already keep all my stable (and test) profiles saved, so I can easily load defaults and see if anything opens up to me. 

The only changes I've made are some memory-pertinent voltages and DRAM timings, I haven't played with OCing my 3600 yet.  Let's see what happens though when I load defaults!


----------



## TheGlow

GSkill F4-3600C16-8GVKC Hynix D-Die, 16-19-19-39, Ryzen 3600.
Im trying to manually overclock my memory since the DRAM calculator seems to be giving me values that wont post.
Long story short, I'm following this guide , https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#memory-testing-software , and have been making progress.
I had my latency down yesterday to 68.5 at 16-19-19-19-39 and just playing around with the secondaries, tRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW, tWR, 4-6-16-12. Most tweaks still in the 68.5 to 69.4ns range.
So I start again this morning with a minor change to twr to 10. The latency shot up to 78.4ns. Ok no good, roll it back, still 78.4. I walk back all my tests that were 68.5 to 69.4 and all of them are now giving me 77.4 to 80ns.
I triple checked the frequency is 3733 and fclk is 1866.
Ive reset the cmos and just left it pretty bare and still high up around 80. I know benching has a variance but for all to be up about 10 ns than before, I'm clueless.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

r3vo said:


> I'm doing everything but #3. Import, click SAFE and get the error. My steps:
> 
> 1) Open Taiphoon and reading the memory
> 2) going to report and clicking show delays in nanoseconds
> 3) exporting complete HTML
> 4) Open DRAM calc, Import XMP
> 5) click SAFE
> 
> And I get the error.


Well, since I got my nose in here and failed to help, let me do my best to gather info for you since I otherwise don't know.  I'd have to see 1usmus' source code otherwise to know for sure.

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/cmg497/why_is_ryzen_dram_calculator_saying_its_not/
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocki...calculator_for_ryzen_172_error_not_supported/

The suggestion in the comments in link #1 is that 1usmus has not defined the profile for the inputted combination of settings (including memclock)
One user bumped into this possibly with his RAM reporting the wrong SPD settings about the type of RAM, and so naturally it wasn't a profile combo that the app expected to see
Link #2 seems to confirm the other thread, you may need to just avoid importing from Thaiphoon, set the drop-downs to what you want, hopefully it has a profile or algorithm to give an output for your settings there
Even so, like they say, you may have to change the PCB revision to find a supported set of app inputs and to receive some outputted values, and then you can go from there and do some manual tightening of timings with your own testing, if you need.

Let us know how it goes? Perhaps Yuri could chime in but I bet with more googling you'd find an answer directly from him.


----------



## man from atlantis

Veii said:


> Exactly the opposite
> A2 needs the strong signal and loves voltage
> A0 ist perfect for daisy chain slave , as it doesn't mind it
> 
> Daisy chain is 75/25%


You know your stuff respect . Just flipped the sticks i reached from 3066 to 3133 CL12 61.7ns (4*8GB). A2 on master, A0 on slave DIMMs. VSOC 1.025V, VDIMM 1.54V.

At 3200 CL12 with same timings, I get 1 or 2 errors in 10mins TestMem5, VSOC 1.037V and VDIMM 1.58V.

CL12 scaling horrendeus, 
3000CL12 @1.42V
3066CL12 @1.45V
3133CL12 @1.55V
3200CL12 @1.58V errors


----------



## Hale59

Veii said:


> You can find it out the harsh way if you want
> B-dies will crash at 1.56v-1.58v instantly...


Correction: B-dies will crash at that voltage, on air.
I have a memory waterblock, I can safely push them around 1.72v

Edit:
And on DDR3 B-dies I pushed them 1.8v on air with no problems.


----------



## Hale59

r3vo said:


> Hey all, I'm having issues with the DRAM calculator. I import the XMP profile from taiphoon and everything looks good, however when I click on Calculate SAFE I get: "Not supported, Only FAST with A2/B2 profile!". If I click Calculate FAST, I get: "Not supported!". Any suggestions?


Which version of the calculator?
If you peruse back a couple of my posts, were I posted my GOC2017 timings, aida latency, it is the version 1.7.1 if am not mistaken.
There I did import and all went smooth.
And before you press safe or fast, make sure you correctly complete the other info.


----------



## Bakerman

What else should I try to shave here for a better latency?
Right now on 1.48V


----------



## Hale59

Bakerman said:


> What else should I try to shave here for a better latency?
> Right now on 1.48V


What is the out of the box (xmp) voltage for those? I think they are 1.5v?


----------



## Bakerman

Hale59 said:


> What is the out of the box (xmp) voltage for those? I think they are 1.5v?


That's correct. 1.5V @ 14-16-16-36


----------



## Hale59

Bakerman said:


> That's correct. 1.5V @ 14-16-16-36


So why are you using 1.48v? Just because you are running at 3733?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Bakerman said:


> What else should I try to shave here for a better latency?
> Right now on 1.48V


I googled and these are B-Die, right?

It's pretty tight, but you could try tRAS to 28, which would cascade and allow tRC to 42.
You possibly could try tRRDL at 6? or tWTR_L at 12?

Your tFAW is super low. Is it really hitting that 8-timing or is GDM helping (and hiding it from your sensor apps) by making it something higher as a true minimum? Usually tFAW only should go as low as 4*tRRD_S, per AMD themselves.

Possibly tWR could be cranked down as low as 12, why is that still up at 26? Perhaps try it at 24.

But these are great results. I can imagine the fun you're having with 32C/64T


----------



## Veii

Hale59 said:


> Correction: B-dies will crash at that voltage, on air.
> I have a memory waterblock, I can safely push them around 1.72v
> 
> Edit:
> And on DDR3 B-dies I pushed them 1.8v on air with no problems.


You are right , but I'm not wrong either
B-Dies have an architectural issue which crash on too high voltage
20nm B-Dies

There is a reason why XOC use maxmem above 1.6v
Mostly, it's 1.56-1.58v as a range 
Do you have single rank 4gb dimms , or do we speak about the same B-Dies ?
1.72 without a hardlock on a full-size dimm is really great
But it's rather something unique
Heat does influence capacitor discharge, but the crash is rather architectural
And only on 20nm B-Dies

Would love to gather more information on your setup 
How it doesn't crash at all at that voltage
Could it be pcb related, could you rather run a different batch of B-Dies 
I'm curious, as your sample is far from normal behavior 

Under load they do crash instantly 
While till 1.7v (still is less than your mentioned one) they can boot, but about there 1.68-1.72v is the hardlock range where you have to use maxmem 
Curious :ninja:


----------



## 1usmus

r3vo said:


> Hey all, I'm having issues with the DRAM calculator. I import the XMP profile from taiphoon and everything looks good, however when I click on Calculate SAFE I get: "Not supported, Only FAST with A2/B2 profile!". If I click Calculate FAST, I get: "Not supported!". Any suggestions?


Not supported = I didn't have time to make this section. It doesn't exist, it's not a bug or a mistake.
The project continues to develop and will primarily respond to numerous requests from users. At the moment I am very fond of SAFE + A0/B0 mode. They are universal :thumb:



Bakerman said:


> What else should I try to shave here for a better latency?
> Right now on 1.48V


I have a similar system with 3960X and for her it's a great result. 
sTRX platform has a small latency penalty and RAM bandwidth.


----------



## Bakerman

Hale59 said:


> So why are you using 1.48v? Just because you are running at 3733?


Yes, as it's completely stable.


----------



## 1usmus

TheGlow said:


> GSkill F4-3600C16-8GVKC Hynix D-Die, 16-19-19-39, Ryzen 3600.
> Im trying to manually overclock my memory since the DRAM calculator seems to be giving me values that wont post.
> Long story short, I'm following this guide , https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#memory-testing-software , and have been making progress.
> I had my latency down yesterday to 68.5 at 16-19-19-19-39 and just playing around with the secondaries, tRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW, tWR, 4-6-16-12. Most tweaks still in the 68.5 to 69.4ns range.
> So I start again this morning with a minor change to twr to 10. The latency shot up to 78.4ns. Ok no good, roll it back, still 78.4. I walk back all my tests that were 68.5 to 69.4 and all of them are now giving me 77.4 to 80ns.
> I triple checked the frequency is 3733 and fclk is 1866.
> Ive reset the cmos and just left it pretty bare and still high up around 80. I know benching has a variance but for all to be up about 10 ns than before, I'm clueless.



You use typical FAST mode timings for CJR. Also note that some motherboards have an error in microcode, latency can "fail". This is not an error in timings, this is a problem with Power Down mode.



Dollar said:


> While pushing for a stable 1900 FCLK I ran into one corrected WHEA error.
> 
> "EventID 19
> 
> A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Unknown Error Source
> Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Processor APIC ID: 0"
> 
> I noticed it in HWinfo after a 100 minute run of TM5 *1usmus*_v3 config that never showed any errors.
> 
> 
> 3700x
> Asus Crosshair VI x370
> 4x8GB single rank samsung b-die a0 pcb
> soc = 1.1v (no LLC so this droops to 1.081 during TM5)
> cldo_vddg = 0.950
> cldo_vddp = 0.900
> 
> Too low CLDO_VDDG? CLDO_VDDP? SOC? I can start the trial and error process but it would save a lot of time if someone has already gone through this.


I think it'll help you
VDDG 1.05

I also want to say that the presence of this error may not affect the system stability. Unfortunately, C6H still has MBEC and some BIOS modules conflicts, so you should expect such situations. In my practice there is a situation when Zen2 refused to work stable on this board but was absolutely stable on X570. If you have the option, I recommend changing the motherboard to B550.


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> Your tFAW is super low. Is it really hitting that 8-timing or is GDM helping (and hiding it from your sensor apps) by making it something higher as a true minimum? Usually tFAW only should go as low as 4*tRRD_S, per AMD themselves.


tFAW = Forth or Fith ACTIVATE Time window
tFAW has to be 4*, 5* or 6* tRRDS
The issue is, the active time window will only allow 4x tRRDS before timebreak
It won't allow 5, of them soo anything other than 4,5,6,8
Some use it as fifth activate time window or double it to 8* in order to cover for tRP recharge time together with tRFC

As you're quite new here:
You might find that tool useful for your ram experiments 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw
Keep in mind, under SiSoftware Sandra you're looking for the Multi-Core Efficiency Test


----------



## Keith Myers

Martin778 said:


> The voltages from the calculator tend to be incorrect. Not sure about the ODT and Clk settings as my TR rig didn't work with the values from the calculator but it works when left on auto (and it chooses differente values then).


I was wondering the same. I just downloaded the 1.7.3 Calculator and saw that it severely drops the recommended voltages compared to the previous 1.7.0 and 1.7.1 Calculators. I doubt that you can run anywhere near 1.35V for B-dies on the higher speeds like 1.7.3 suggests.


----------



## icehotshot

Thought I'd join in and post my 3900x results so far. Having trouble with booting at 1900 fclk but 1867 seems to be working nicely. Still looking for more tweaks if anyone sees anything that could be tighter timing wise. Using 4 dimms of the gskill flare x 3200 cl14 @ 1.5v set in bios. 1000% memtest stable.


----------



## TheGlow

Ok, I am thoroughly confused. Long story short, user-error when I tried inputting DRAM Calculators settings in. I went down my mobo inputting values and hadn't noticed that trcdwr and trcdrd were swapped.
So this let me to following the guide at https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#memory-testing-software
Using only DRAM Calc's voltage suggestions, power down disabled, gear down enabled and command rate 1T, and the primary timings default on the package, 16-19-19-39. Its rated 3600 but I have it 3733 and FCLK at 1866.
So I was only messing with the secondary timings, tRRDS 4, tRRDL 6, tFAW 16, tWR 12 and was able to get aida64 latency bench down to 68.5. Took a break and decided to start up again this morning. I only changed twr to 10 and latency jumped up to 78.4. I dialed it back, still 78+ns. I cleared cmos, everything, and input all the values I had, still 78+. In triple checking is when I realized my bios list is different from DRAM calc, so I tried those values. When I import XMP it defaults to PCB Revision manual and a tcl of 14 which I couldnt get to post at all. if I change pcb to A0 then I get some timings that look good, however they are very different from the timings I was working on today.
So even though I couldnt get back under 70ns, I figured Id continue to try tightening timings, so now I dont know what the hell to do.
ive attached a few screen shots with the comparisons. Manual shows the manual dram calc suggestions and leaves the speed timings in the left, compared to what I was able to tighten on my own. However tcl 14 doesnt fly, so moving along I have 37330sub70 which is a screen shot of the timings that USED to get me sub 70. 3733-a0 is a comparison of how dram calc suggests when I select a0 pcb revision, yet this blanks out the speed timings and I need to import again to see them.
Any suggestions? The lowest latency ive seen now is 77.2, and cinebench r20 scores have dropped about 320 points.
Edit: I had it set to the safe suggestions for A0 and I just played FF14 for about 20 minutes and crashed causing a reset. I see this will be a long hard road.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> As you're quite new here:


:wave2:


Veii said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw
> Keep in mind, under SiSoftware Sandra you're looking for the Multi-Core Efficiency Test


Thanks for the notes on tFAW and that's a handy sheet for tRFC.  I cheat my way same values as in that sheet, using trfc2=trfc/1.346 and trfc4=trfc2/1.625. So, in your reply and regarding tFAW-- were you agreeing that it's weird to see him setting a tFAW much lower than tRRD_S * 4? I assume that since he's stable, that GDM is quietly raising that to the appropriate minimum?

And yeah, I haven't run SiSoft' Sandra yet, but intend to. And I'll need to go back and run that against my previous stable settings as another check. I'll be sure to use the multi-core efficiency test as you mentioned.

Oh and, thx much Veii -- I see how much you help people here, and I love the passion and enthusiasm. A few of your past comments helped me ramp up faster, even though you didn't know it. It's great stuff!


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> :wave2:
> 
> 
> Thanks for the notes on tFAW and that's a handy sheet for tRFC.  I cheat my way same values as in that sheet, using trfc2=trfc/1.346 and trfc4=trfc2/1.625. So, in your reply and regarding tFAW-- were you agreeing that it's weird to see him setting a tFAW much lower than tRRD_S * 4? I assume that since he's stable, that GDM is quietly raising that to the appropriate minimum?
> 
> And yeah, I haven't run SiSoft' Sandra yet, but intend to. And I'll need to go back and run that against my previous stable settings as another check. I'll be sure to use the multi-core efficiency test as you mentioned.
> 
> Oh and, thx much Veii -- I see how much you help people here, and I love the passion and enthusiasm. A few of your past comments helped me ramp up faster, even though you didn't know it. It's great stuff!


Did you miss the post with the bios mod or maybe wait for later ?
Wish i could do unlock it fully, but you have to understand 
That layout is foreign to me, i dont want to mess something up 
Soo only did half work on it ~ tho it would be very helpful to know what you see and if anything of memory timing section is visible and readable now
For example tSTAG and/or if tRDRD BAN is changable now or just a placeholder :thinking:
Same goes how much of the loadline and VRM settings you can see inside Digi+
Would be valuable information for the future, how much access we have onto memory and what is still autocorrected

Tho you are right, stuff is being autocorrected in the hidden
Too low tRAS and the board adds it up
Too high tRC and you remain in an wait-for-action loop till tRC time passes, literally wasting latency for nothing

too high tFAW, or more clearly aside from the exact multiplied time
Will just force memory to timebreak the latency, overall slowing it down 
Every autocorrection performs slower than the user fixing it manually
The same goes for GDM stuff
Soo i remain to my trusty baseline values and baseline math, before considering to tighten things down further and abusing some of the tricks for lower latency

There are too many rabbit holes to fall into while working with memory
And yet i've only seen TM5 give usable error message as to when what crashed - to have any kind of routing
else you're shooting blind when there is stuff to debug, and we only see half of the values and processing behind memory activity and timing
Some are realtime changing and some are fixed delays 
~ tho all numbers are placeholders often up to 8-14 digit ns decimal values, which have to be rounded 
^ this makes math errors, same goes for tRFC / soo that's why this little doc exists - a rounding error of 1 value is already too much to prevent precharge stacking working effectively

EDIT:
For the question as short answer,
It's better to at maximum use "fifth activate time window"
even tho it will timebreak after 4* tRRDS
than going an strange tFAW value

Either push directly 8* tRRDS soo it will timebreak at a clean constant time 
Or just increase tRRDS and so tRRDL, if tFAW of 4* is too low for the specific kit or used voltage
More than 4* tRRDS won't be allowed to pass anyways


----------



## Dollar

1usmus said:


> I think it'll help you
> VDDG 1.05
> 
> I also want to say that the presence of this error may not affect the system stability. Unfortunately, C6H still has MBEC and some BIOS modules conflicts, so you should expect such situations. In my practice there is a situation when Zen2 refused to work stable on this board but was absolutely stable on X570. If you have the option, I recommend changing the motherboard to B550.



Before seeing your post I had already changed some voltages:


cldo_vddp 900 - > 950
cldo_vddg 950 - > 1025


Still saw this one WHEA error pop up. Again, TM5 still doesn't report any errors and nothing is crashing or anything. I don't think I have seen this error when using 3600 memory speeds and below. I can't imagine buying a new motherboard already... it hasn't even been a year since I bought it new. I make very stupid purchasing decisions sometimes :doh:


I will test with 1050vddg later and post the results. Thanks for the advice and suggestions.


----------



## Hequaqua

Dollar said:


> Before seeing your post I had already changed some voltages:
> 
> 
> cldo_vddp 900 - > 950
> cldo_vddg 950 - > 1025
> 
> 
> Still saw this one WHEA error pop up. Again, TM5 still doesn't report any errors and nothing is crashing or anything. I don't think I have seen this error when using 3600 memory speeds and below. I can't imagine buying a new motherboard already... it hasn't even been a year since I bought it new. I make very stupid purchasing decisions sometimes :doh:
> 
> 
> I will test with 1050vddg later and post the results. Thanks for the advice and suggestions.


I've seen the WHEA error pop up...as have a few others after the update to Windows 2004. One said he lowered his memory speed and they went away. I had a few until I re-seated my 24-pin connector on my MB....haven't had them since. IIRC there were several of them that popped up when Zen2 first released....not as specific as these are though. I believe those were across all boards, at least the X470 that I'm aware of(I want to say those were related to PCIE/Grahpic cards). I think they were taken care of with a bios update that had newer AGESA code. 

Like you, I had no crashing, no errors mem testing, just would pop up, but only after updating to Win 2004.


----------



## KedarWolf

With the latest version of Blender rendering Classroom at my 24/7 TM5 stable settings with a mild BCLK overclock I get this.

I'm very pleased with it, any sub-four minutes is really great, but I've outdone myself. If your overclock is the least bit unstable, you'll get random reboots running Blender. :band:


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Did you miss the post with the bios mod or maybe wait for later ?
> Wish i could do unlock it fully, but you have to understand
> That layout is foreign to me, i dont want to mess something up
> Soo only did half work on it ~ tho it would be very helpful to know what you see and if anything of memory timing section is visible and readable now
> For example tSTAG and/or if tRDRD BAN is changable now or just a placeholder :thinking:
> Same goes how much of the loadline and VRM settings you can see inside Digi+
> Would be valuable information for the future, how much access we have onto memory and what is still autocorrected


Ooops, I'm a bad person, you made effort to help there and yes I missed it. 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-800.html#post28481206

It's interesting, I've read that the concern with EMI was more a regulatory issue and less a functional issue. I stand corrected, thank you.  Also, I didn't realize VT-D AMD Virtualization would enable Spread Spectrum. I'll check that out.

I do have Performance Bias already visible, and PBO as well. I was curious why those memory timings or readouts were missing (tmod, mrd, stag, rdrd ban). I do see readouts for trfc 1/2/4 I believe, right next to the settings. I have to double check that they show.

I didn't know about the procODT/xmp bug. My board and/or RAM definitely prefers 60ohm resistance for signal termination.

My brain is now fried and I still have late night work (it never ends unless I just close the laptop lid haha). So I've downloaded your custom firmware. I'll look into details of using Afugan, and I might conceive a question or two for ya but I'll msg you directly if so.  Thanks very much, again.


----------



## rdr09

yrelbirb said:


> my friends 1usmus test gets stuck like this;
> 
> any reason why would it do it?


 @yrelbirb,

I think i figured out the issue - bad file. I deleted the old extracted file and re-extracted, then ran the test again.


----------



## Nighthog

I made a new RAM kit purchase and expect delivery tomorrow if all goes alright with the order.

Got kinda bored messing with my Rev.E 19nm [D9VPP] kits. Needed something new to test.

Taking a little leap with a unknown kit in general, I expect Micron Rev.J but it's unverified if these kits really have those. Will have to see tomorrow.

Bought 2x HX436C17FB3K2/16 for 4x8GB total again. Relatively cheap kits 3600Mhz 17-21-21 1.35V. 
I know many of these HyperX have Hynix but this non-RGB version was rumoured to have Micron.


----------



## TheGlow

Ok, So Initially I tried dram calc and when I import xmp it sets the pcb revision to manual and opens up with a tcl of 14 which I can't get to post, so I manually tried bringing them down myself. Later I tried dram calc again but selected A0 pcb revision and got numbers that would post. But as compared to where I got to manually, the numbers have some variance to them.
So i stuck with the dram calc settings and had a game crash on me. so I need to proceed with more testing, but any ideas where to go from here? Confirmed Dram calc's safe is good with more stressing, and then tighten those?
For instance calc says trcrd 20 and trp21, but I had both at 19 and preliminary 1 hour testmem5 was good. Calcs twr is double mine 24 vs 12, trfc says 503 but I had testing 480 and seemed ok, etc.

And when comparing why are some numbers red and some green? Red I would assume means its bad but some of those values that are red are the same as what the calculator suggests. It is its a cascading effect where 1 other setting will jack up others down the road?


----------



## Veii

TheGlow said:


> Ok, So Initially I tried dram calc and when I import xmp it sets the pcb revision to manual and opens up with a tcl of 14 which I can't get to post, so I manually tried bringing them down myself. Later I tried dram calc again but selected A0 pcb revision and got numbers that would post. But as compared to where I got to manually, the numbers have some variance to them.
> So i stuck with the dram calc settings and had a game crash on me. so I need to proceed with more testing, but any ideas where to go from here? Confirmed Dram calc's safe is good with more stressing, and then tighten those?
> For instance calc says trcrd 20 and trp21, but I had both at 19 and preliminary 1 hour testmem5 was good. Calcs twr is double mine 24 vs 12, trfc says 503 but I had testing 480 and seemed ok, etc.
> 
> And when comparing why are some numbers red and some green? Red I would assume means its bad but some of those values that are red are the same as what the calculator suggests. It is its a cascading effect where 1 other setting will jack up others down the road?


Darker color means more "extreme"
blue is light, green is harsher, orange, then red 
Your tRDWR is huge , you don't need that much 
No wonder the values are stable, as you add a lot of unnecessary delay with tRDWR on it
Why did you pick 1-6-6-1-4-4 on SD DD values instead of the 5-5 7-7 ?
Lower here is not always better at all
Try for tWTRL to be 2 or 3* tRRDS 
tWR shouldn't be under tRTP 

Try:
tRFC 448-333-205 tRTP 7 tWR 14
tWTRL 12
tRDWR 10
tWRRD 1

if you have issues with mirror move errors (TM5)
push tRRDL to 7, and tWTRL 14

Remain tho on
tWRWR SD,DD 7
tRDRD SD,DD 5 
for anything you do on 16gb and only change it at the bare end when you can't finetune anything plus test with SiSoftware Sandra

Pushing low tRDWR will cut added latency and show if anything else makes issues
So far it's not low at all, suggested isn't low either
Don't like your odd primaries at all, but we'll work with what you have atm


----------



## TheGlow

Veii said:


> Darker color means more "extreme"
> blue is light, green is harsher, orange, then red
> Your tRDWR is huge , you don't need that much
> No wonder the values are stable, as you add a lot of unnecessary delay with tRDWR on it
> Why did you pick 1-6-6-1-4-4 on SD DD values instead of the 5-5 7-7 ?
> Lower here is not always better at all
> Try for tWTRL to be 2 or 3* tRRDS
> tWR shouldn't be under tRTP
> 
> Try:
> tRFC 448-333-205 tRTP 7 tWR 14
> tWTRL 12
> tRDWR 10
> tWRRD 1
> 
> if you have issues with mirror move errors (TM5)
> push tRRDL to 7, and tWTRL 14
> 
> Remain tho on
> tWRWR SD,DD 7
> tRDRD SD,DD 5
> for anything you do on 16gb and only change it at the bare end when you can't finetune anything plus test with SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Pushing low tRDWR will cut added latency and show if anything else makes issues
> So far it's not low at all, suggested isn't low either
> Don't like your odd primaries at all, but we'll work with what you have atm


I'll do anything you say at this point. Those weird SD DD are all the auto's from the bios. 
As I mentioned, I initially tried Dram calc's default Manual pcb provided settings and tcl at 14 didnt work at all so I figured Dram Calc was a bust. Then followed a guide and my primary for packaging is 3600mhz 16-19-19-39 and initially was only working on 3733Mhz, fclk 1866 and playing with tRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW, tWR. guide suggested 6,6,24,16 I had latency to 6934ns in aida, everything else on board was auto accept geardown disabled and command 1T. I then tried 4,6,16,12 and got 68.5 in aida. Took a break for the day.
When I came back the next day I only changed twr to 10 and aida jumped to 78.4ns. I dailed it back, still 77+. 
I went back to dram calc and saw if i set pcb to a0 the tcl was 16, so tried those settings and they post. I did have a game crash on me 45 minutes in so I dont know if it was from the dram's safe settings.

At this point I'm baffled why my latency shot up 9ns on average. I was documenting all changes in excel, however I was not documenting what auto settings there were. In reading up since it seems failed post attempts may have been tweaking auto values so there may have been a "good" setting that has since been lost.

So let me know where you suggest I start off at. I dont really mind the time this takes as I find it interesting, and since I'm "working from home" I can kick off a stress, check on it, make a change, repeat. 
Most guides seem to say lower a primary, test, etc. Meanwhile Dram calc is suggesting tRCDRD, tRP higher than packagings 19, which I assume is from the freq adjustment, but again, totally clueless for memory oc's and would love to learn more.
If Ryzen works out as well as it seems I may get another when XT comes out to replace this 3600 maybe, upgrade one of my kids to this 3600, and then when 4000/zen3 comes get another one of those, and pass down the xt to someone else, so I expect to need to learn to OC for 1 more, maybe 2 more systems.

As for testmem5, is there a preference on test? I have the one from 1usmus v3, which seems to be finite, and then an anta777 extreme i found somewhere which seems to loop for a bit.
For reference this is ryzen 3600, Asus X570 Tuf Gaming, and I can provide the thaiphoon html if needed.
Also this is one of the newer 3600's, got it last week, that I believe can oc/all core better. Just as a test I set to 4.4Ghz 1.3v and it posted fine and ran cinebench, but I dropped it back to stock since I didnt want to open that can of worms yet while working on memory. Plus im on air cooling with a cooler master rgb crap, so rather not push my luck with that yet.


----------



## alefim

Hi Guys,

Which version of the PCB is this memory?


----------



## Veii

alefim said:


> Hi Guys,
> Which version of the PCB is this memory?


A2 

@TheGlow we have to check, the only setting that is hidden and pretty much automated with such a big effect, is memory interleaving and channel interleaving hash (size)
Usually you can find it inside AMD CBS -> DF, sometimes it was inside NBIO
Inside CBS -> Zen Common options (first menu) you should find HW prefetcher 
Don't forget to enable that for L1 and L2 cache too
Well pretty much what the calculator recommends here
Opcache shouldn't make such a big difference

But maybe windows update ?
Keeps installing itself after 3-4 loops
Nothing except instability can cause a difference over 3ns 
SCL +/- 1 is near 2ns, and BGS Alt eats about 0.5ns , but still not 8+

Just be sure to keep UncoreOC mode enabled inside AMD Overclocking
And enforce PMU Pattern Bits to 10=A (hex value)
That should increase memory training time and fix one of the 1004B bugs
Idk what 1005 has for bugs, but increase that one - as from 1003ABBA to 1004B AMD shorted memory training delay to speed up the boot process
Well that was a bad change and broke pretty much memory training on everything that's not micron rev. E

tRCD RD you usually push higher on micron and hynix kits, to cover for stability
They just need a bit more tRCD delay there
While lowering tRCD WR can help here
Else it was a common thing to keep tRCD both together, although guides might not know this "newer way" 
Same for b-dies for example instead 14-15-15-15-30 you rather push 14-14-15-14-28

We'll see, first get a set that works well for you
Oh on TM5 also 20 rounds 1usmus_v3 test, 6 won't detect tRFC issues and they are too short to detect heat instability
MT.cfg inside BIN, just change the cycle amount to 20


----------



## Badgerslayer7

alefim said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Which version of the PCB is this memory?


I have the 32gb version of that kit. Thaiphoon burner reports it as being A1. It looks like A2 though but didn’t want to take heatspreaders off mine.


----------



## alefim

Veii said:


> A2


Is better for overclock? In Thaippon show how A1 PCB.


----------



## alefim

Badgerslayer7 said:


> I have the 32gb version of that kit. Thaiphoon burner reports it as being A1. It looks like A2 though but didn’t want to take heatspreaders off mine.


Here explains a little, I just don't know yet which is better for overclocking or higher voltages.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1-7-1-–-what-is-new,1.html


----------



## Veii

alefim said:


> Is better for overclock? In Thaippon show how A1 PCB.


On that part thaiphoon is Stupid ^^
A1 are good till 4000MT/s, both X1 and X2 are short trace layouts

That ECC chip on X1, it doesn't bother ~ at least for now
but it could be the reason why after 4134MT/s they start to fail

X2 is designed for speeds over 4000MT/s and barely ever found on kits under that
They are superior to X1 after 4000MT/s but under X1 kits can run far lower timings
The downside of X2 is, they are way more sensitive to EMI and harder to work with

Have to find the old post where it was, but if you understand audio
X1 kits are high impedance gear, while X2 are low impedance (near 12-16Ω) which are very sensitive and yet hard to drive
If you can spare the time, look up why low impedance aktive speakers are hard to drive
Then you should understand why A2 are harder to drive and more sensitive although both X1 & X2 love voltage

To this date it's not clear what is superior as X1 outmatches X2 till 4000MT/s by low timings
While X2 shine above 4000MT/s, while still are quite taxing to the board
4x A2 on dual channel is asking for problems - soo keep in mind, your kits are sensitive to bad signal integrity but love stronger impedance
higher cad_bus clkdrvstrengh, higher voltages, higher VDDG IOD 
But overall lower voltages everywhere else to decrease EMI as much as possible


----------



## TheGlow

Veii said:


> Stuff


Ok, thanks. So many bios options these days. All of those are pretty much stock except Bias was disabled and unsure about sb clock spread spectrum. That was auto when I had sub 70ns, but since ive disabled it but seems to not make a difference.
So I see amd cbs\memory interleaving on auto. We want that disabled? Sadly I cant seem to find anything for channel interleaving hash/size or hw prefetcher.
Quick search says should be in CBS, but in CBS I dont see sub directories and just Core performance boost, global c-state control, power supply idle control, cppc, memory interleaving, dram dcc enable, iommu, pcie ari support and pcie ten bit tag support.
I see soc/uncore oc mode is disabled, so I'll set that to enabled. I cant seem to find anything for PMU either.
So I see under amd overclocking there are dram settings however I was making my changes under AI Tweaker/dram timing control. That shouldnt make a difference, should it?
I've set to dram calcs settings, will stress a bit, and then try your suggestions.
I tried some of your suggestions, trfc448 wont post, but it seems 480 works which is what I previously got to work. I had initially tried a bunch and 469 didnt post, so I dont know if thats impacted by other settings, or thats a general setting meaning I guess my zone is between 470 and 480. 
I ran it twice for an hour, only difference was the dram calc trfc 503 and then me trying 480.


----------



## Badgerslayer7

alefim said:


> Badgerslayer7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the 32gb version of that kit. Thaiphoon burner reports it as being A1. It looks like A2 though but didnâ€™️t want to take heatspreaders off mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Here explains a little, I just don't know yet which is better for overclocking or higher voltages.
> 
> https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1-7-1-–-what-is-new,1.html
Click to expand...

Im using fast manual 3800 settings from 1.7.0 calculator as the new 1.7.3 settings don’t work with my ram. GDM disabled I can’t get to work at any voltage. Always get f9 upon boot.


----------



## NightAntilli

This is the first version where I set the safe calculation, copy it exactly, and it's completely stable without any hassle. Awesome. 

FYI I have an X470 Taichi with an R7 1700, and G-Skill 3200CL14


----------



## bigfootnz

@Veii can you please respond on question below? Thanks


bigfootnz said:


> I've A2 kits then I'll try with higher IOD, thanks.
> 
> I'm stable with 30-20-24-24 CAD_BUS, I've saw that you are also saying for A2/B2 kits to use higher then 30 drive strength. Will I gain anything if I increase drive strength, like less dram voltage?


----------



## Martin778

Don't bother looking at PCB revision in Thaiphoon, got my hands on the 3.8k CL14 kit and it still shows A1 while it clearly is not (A2). 

Also, the 3.8k C14 kit drops IF to 1:2 on my TR rig so don't even bother with it unless you have a crazy strong CPU, maybe the XT could do 3800 IF. My launch date 3960X clealry can't.
That said, it does try to run IF 1:1 and when it failed, it automatically adjusted to 1:2.


----------



## KedarWolf

Martin778 said:


> Don't bother looking at PCB revision in Thaiphoon, got my hands on the 3.8k CL14 kit and it still shows A1 while it clearly is not (A2).
> 
> Also, the 3.8k C14 kit drops IF to 1:2 on my TR rig so don't even bother with it unless you have a crazy strong CPU, maybe the XT could do 3800 IF. My launch date 3960X clealry can't.
> That said, it does try to run IF 1:1 and when it failed, it automatically adjusted to 1:2.


It shows B2 for me, is clearly B2.


----------



## Martin778

Maybe it's platform dependant, on my TR it was wrong on all B-Die kits I tested. 
The 38C14 Neo kit do one thing the 32C14 Royals can't.....they run CL14 at 3733MHz with tight subs while the other one won't budge below C16.


----------



## garyd9

*It works! now what?*

I've been using intel processors for the last 15 years or so, so I'm really clueless on the extensive memory tweaking people in this thread are doing. (It really wasn't worth the effort with intel.) Now I find myself with a x570 mb (C8H), a ryzen 3900x, and some fairly inexpensive RAM sticks (G.Skill Ripjaws (2 x 16GB) F4-3600C16D-32GVKC) with mediocre timings on the label (16-19-19-39.) I found the DRAM calculator and quickly learned that importing data from Thaiphoon didn't work well (but at least it told me that my chips were Hynix H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC.) Using that info, I set up the DRAM calculator as seen in the attached image. 

Everything works, and the timings did improve a few benchmarks, but I kind of miss the old trick of using a pencil to cross two traces on an AMD chip to unlock the multiplier, slapping on a custom ordered waterblock and running tubing to a re-purposed car heater core with a 120mm fan taped on it.

So, what do I do now? I really am clueless on tweaking memory, and there's a lot of variables in there that I really don't understand (and I'm not sure I really want to understand them.) I kind of like the DRAM calculator approach of "here, try this set of numbers, and if you pass memtest86 running overnight you're probably good."

Should I spend the countless hours trying to tighten the timings? Would it be better (considering the level of effort) to just plug "3733" as the target frequency in the DRAM calculator and try to get those resulting numbers working? (it would move tRFC from 471 to 489, raise the DRAM and SOC voltages, and no other changes in the calculator.)

Thank you
Gary


----------



## rdr09

garyd9 said:


> I've been using intel processors for the last 15 years or so, so I'm really clueless on the extensive memory tweaking people in this thread are doing. (It really wasn't worth the effort with intel.) Now I find myself with a x570 mb (C8H), a ryzen 3900x, and some fairly inexpensive RAM sticks (G.Skill Ripjaws (2 x 16GB) F4-3600C16D-32GVKC) with mediocre timings on the label (16-19-19-39.) I found the DRAM calculator and quickly learned that importing data from Thaiphoon didn't work well (but at least it told me that my chips were Hynix H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC.) Using that info, I set up the DRAM calculator as seen in the attached image.
> 
> Everything works, and the timings did improve a few benchmarks, but I kind of miss the old trick of using a pencil to cross two traces on an AMD chip to unlock the multiplier, slapping on a custom ordered waterblock and running tubing to a re-purposed car heater core with a 120mm fan taped on it.
> 
> So, what do I do now? I really am clueless on tweaking memory, and there's a lot of variables in there that I really don't understand (and I'm not sure I really want to understand them.) I kind of like the DRAM calculator approach of "here, try this set of numbers, and if you pass memtest86 running overnight you're probably good."
> 
> Should I spend the countless hours trying to tighten the timings? Would it be better (considering the level of effort) to just plug "3733" as the target frequency in the DRAM calculator and try to get those resulting numbers working? (it would move tRFC from 471 to 489, raise the DRAM and SOC voltages, and no other changes in the calculator.)
> 
> Thank you
> Gary


Go up slowly. Try 3666 next using same timings. Might even work using same DRAM and SOC voltages.

Do not forget to adjust FCLK,


----------



## Veii

@garyd9 Forwarding you to this tiny post
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232
Should explain all, if you still need more information on voltage scaling:
Bottom half of this post
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814

Lower is better, where your work is decreasing EMI as much as possible in order to be able to sustain 1900FCLK on these chips
= Ryzen requires clean signal integrity in order to increase Fabric clock , which exponentially increases raw IPC perf 
You have at least 50+ hours to invent into memory OC if you dive deep into that rabbit hole
Use SiSoftware Sandra (Multi core efficiency-test) for testing raw improvements 
It will be variable as the cpu boosts too fast,, but not thaat variable if you keep consistent testing without windows interference
Another good benchmark of raw perf is SuperPi 1.5 SX, and the mem benchmark inside the DRAM Calculator 
Also a good one is y-cruncher tho it's more of a stability tester than anything else - yet it has a pi number crunching benchmark


----------



## Veii

bigfootnz said:


> @Veii can you please respond on question below? Thanks
> 
> 
> bigfootnz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've A2 kits then I'll try with higher IOD, thanks.
> 
> I'm stable with 30-20-24-24 CAD_BUS, I've saw that you are also saying for A2/B2 kits to use higher then 30 drive strength. Will I gain anything if I increase drive strength, like less dram voltage?
Click to expand...

It was just 3 posts above yours, at the bottom 


Veii said:


> To this date it's not clear what is superior as X1 outmatches X2 till 4000MT/s by low timings
> While X2 shine above 4000MT/s, while still are quite taxing to the board
> 4x A2 on dual channel is asking for problems - soo keep in mind, your kits are sensitive to bad signal integrity but love stronger impedance
> higher cad_bus clkdrvstrengh, higher voltages, higher VDDG IOD
> But overall lower voltages everywhere else to decrease EMI as much as possible


Many i think still missed 1usmus's good writeup
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...g-deep-dive-asus-rog-zenith-ii-extreme/6.html
Explains RTT, CAD_BUS changes, Voltage ranges
It's been there since 4 months


----------



## Silent Scone

4x8GB (F4-4266C17Q-32GTZR)

3733 1:1 C14-15-14-361T 1.45v

3950X 44/44/43/43 1.32v


----------



## Martin778

My best run so far. 3733 at 14-15-15-30 CR1.
SOC 1.1V
VDDG IOD/CCD both 1V
1.45VDIMM

Now trying 14-14-14-28, that also runs but haven't memtested it yet. The 38c14 Neo is some insanely good bin indeed.


----------



## Yuke

Hey, am i the only one who suddenly has problems to get error free Karhu runs since the whole EDC = 1 / PBO fix thing took place?

I was running 10000% Karhu without any errors before but now with 100Mhz more on the cores thanks to the PBO fix i cant get an error free run anymore.

I am running the maximum settings suggested for 3800Mhz dual rank samsung b-die.


----------



## Nighthog

Nighthog said:


> I made a new RAM kit purchase and expect delivery tomorrow if all goes alright with the order.
> 
> Got kinda bored messing with my Rev.E 19nm [D9VPP] kits. Needed something new to test.
> 
> Taking a little leap with a unknown kit in general, I expect Micron Rev.J but it's unverified if these kits really have those. Will have to see tomorrow.
> 
> Bought 2x HX436C17FB3K2/16 for 4x8GB total again. Relatively cheap kits 3600Mhz 17-21-21 1.35V.
> I know many of these HyperX have Hynix but this non-RGB version was rumoured to have Micron.


I received my memory and sadly the kit wasn't what I expected. Was what I wanted least of the alternatives really.

I got Hynix DJR 17nm in the open-box kit I bought. 
I have another kit with slightly different serial numbers but I expect it to be the same. [EDIT: Nope, the other kit was Micron Rev.J 17nm]

The kit seems to work & JEDEC & XMP profiles though, I wonder why it was a open kit, returned. 
Now to experiment with this a little.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Hey, am i the only one who suddenly has problems to get error free Karhu runs since the whole EDC = 1 / PBO fix thing took place?
> 
> I was running 10000% Karhu without any errors before but now with 100Mhz more on the cores thanks to the PBO fix i cant get an error free run anymore.
> 
> I am running the maximum settings suggested for 3800Mhz dual rank samsung b-die.


I have no problems with EDC at 1 and Karhu.
Last time run it til 14000% without errors; there's something wrong in your settings.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have no problems with EDC at 1 and Karhu.
> Last time run it til 14000% without errors; there's something wrong in your settings.


Maybe i was "on edge" before with my settings. I increased SOC voltage by one step and i am at 4000% coverage rightnow...lets see if that fixed it.


----------



## Yuke

Yuke said:


> Maybe i was "on edge" before with my settings. I increased SOC voltage by one step and i am at 4000% coverage rightnow...lets see if that fixed it.


Apropos SOC voltage...anyone know which sensor has the best reading for it...?

My two show anything between 1.116 and 1.128...


----------



## rdr09

Yuke said:


> Apropos SOC voltage...anyone know which sensor has the best reading for it...?
> 
> My two show anything between 1.116 and 1.128...


Using HWINFO64, it is usually one below the CPU Core Voltage. Labeled SOC Voltage (SVI TFN). Should not be jumping, though, got to be steady.


----------



## Yuke

rdr09 said:


> Using HWINFO64, it is usually one below the CPU Core Voltage. Labeled SOC Voltage (SVI TFN). Should not be jumping, though, got to be steady.


Ok, thanks. So its the one that shows a lower value. The ITE IT8688E sensor shows much higher values (also for VCORE)...


----------



## rdr09

Yuke said:


> Ok, thanks. So its the one that shows a lower value. The ITE IT8688E sensor shows much higher values (also for VCORE)...


Not sure exactly what you are looking at. In BIOS (Asus) mine is set at 1.0817v. In HWINFO it shows from 1.081 0 1.075v. So, it does fluctuate. My bad.


----------



## Yuke

rdr09 said:


> Not sure exactly what you are looking at. In BIOS (Asus) mine is set at 1.0817v. In HWINFO it shows from 1.081 0 1.075v. So, it does fluctuate. My bad.


I have the one you listed (CPU name yadda yadda)

and one listed under my Motherboard name (ITE IT8688E)

The one listed under the CPU shows 1.116 max and the one listed under Motherboard shows 1.128 max.


----------



## rdr09

Yuke said:


> I have the one you listed (CPU name yadda yadda)
> 
> and one listed under my Motherboard name (ITE IT8688E)
> 
> The one listed under the CPU shows 1.116 max and the one listed under Motherboard shows 1.128 max.


I'd go with the one under the CPU.


----------



## KedarWolf

These timings are great considering the voltages. But my b-die doesn't like higher voltages. I tried these settings at 1.45v and higher, get errors within three cycles. As a result, I don't think I'll ever get CL14 stable.


----------



## Yoizhik

Is 1.45V safe for daily usage? My current latency is around 65ns (3800x, 4.2GHz) , should i push limits for 62-63ns? How much it makes difference on fps?


----------



## KedarWolf

Sisoft Sandra 61.6 highest latency. 












Spoiler



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 191.41GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 46.8ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6GB/s
No. Threads : 32
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 60.10W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3261.35MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 7.79ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 1235.27kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 43.96MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.10ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 51.9ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 49.6ns
U0-U16 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U0-U18 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U0-U20 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U0-U22 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U0-U24 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U0-U26 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U0-U28 Data Latency : 50.4ns
U0-U30 Data Latency : 49.8ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U0-U17 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U0-U19 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U0-U21 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U0-U23 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U0-U25 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U0-U27 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U0-U29 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U0-U31 Data Latency : 45.9ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 49.0ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 51.2ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 50.9ns
U2-U16 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U2-U18 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U2-U20 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U2-U22 Data Latency : 50.4ns
U2-U24 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U2-U26 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U2-U28 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U2-U30 Data Latency : 50.0ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.0ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U2-U17 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U2-U19 Data Latency : 50.9ns
U2-U21 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U2-U23 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U2-U25 Data Latency : 50.1ns
U2-U27 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U2-U29 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U2-U31 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U4-U16 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U4-U18 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U4-U20 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U4-U22 Data Latency : 50.0ns
U4-U24 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U4-U26 Data Latency : 52.4ns
U4-U28 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U4-U30 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.9ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U4-U17 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U4-U19 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U4-U21 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U4-U23 Data Latency : 49.6ns
U4-U25 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U4-U27 Data Latency : 50.5ns
U4-U29 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U4-U31 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 51.2ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U6-U16 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U6-U18 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U6-U20 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U6-U22 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U6-U24 Data Latency : 50.9ns
U6-U26 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U6-U28 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U6-U30 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U6-U17 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U6-U19 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U6-U21 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U6-U23 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U6-U25 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U6-U27 Data Latency : 50.2ns
U6-U29 Data Latency : 50.5ns
U6-U31 Data Latency : 49.5ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U8-U16 Data Latency : 45.2ns
U8-U18 Data Latency : 45.4ns
U8-U20 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U8-U22 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U8-U24 Data Latency : 45.2ns
U8-U26 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U8-U28 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U8-U30 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U8-U17 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U8-U19 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U8-U21 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U8-U23 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U8-U25 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U8-U27 Data Latency : 50.4ns
U8-U29 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U8-U31 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U10-U16 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U10-U18 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U10-U20 Data Latency : 50.2ns
U10-U22 Data Latency : 50.8ns
U10-U24 Data Latency : 50.0ns
U10-U26 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U10-U28 Data Latency : 47.5ns
U10-U30 Data Latency : 49.3ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U10-U17 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U10-U19 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U10-U21 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U10-U23 Data Latency : 48.9ns
U10-U25 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U10-U27 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U10-U29 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U10-U31 Data Latency : 47.2ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U12-U16 Data Latency : 48.5ns
U12-U18 Data Latency : 51.5ns
U12-U20 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U12-U22 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U12-U24 Data Latency : 50.2ns
U12-U26 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U12-U28 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U12-U30 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U12-U17 Data Latency : 47.4ns
U12-U19 Data Latency : 49.8ns
U12-U21 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U12-U23 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U12-U25 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U12-U27 Data Latency : 49.5ns
U12-U29 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U12-U31 Data Latency : 60.8ns
U14-U16 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U14-U18 Data Latency : 51.5ns
U14-U20 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U14-U22 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U14-U24 Data Latency : 45.7ns
U14-U26 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U14-U28 Data Latency : 51.2ns
U14-U30 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 50.8ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 51.2ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 11.0ns
U14-U17 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U14-U19 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U14-U21 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U14-U23 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U14-U25 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U14-U27 Data Latency : 48.5ns
U14-U29 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U14-U31 Data Latency : 48.0ns
U16-U18 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U16-U20 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U16-U22 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U16-U24 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U16-U26 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U16-U28 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U16-U30 Data Latency : 48.2ns
U16-U1 Data Latency : 48.4ns
U16-U3 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U16-U5 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U16-U7 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U16-U9 Data Latency : 53.9ns
U16-U11 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U16-U13 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U16-U15 Data Latency : 51.0ns
U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U16-U19 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U16-U21 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U16-U23 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U16-U25 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U16-U27 Data Latency : 51.8ns
U16-U29 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U16-U31 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U18-U20 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U18-U22 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U18-U24 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U18-U26 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U18-U28 Data Latency : 50.2ns
U18-U30 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U18-U1 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U18-U3 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U18-U5 Data Latency : 51.2ns
U18-U7 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U18-U9 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U18-U11 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U18-U13 Data Latency : 50.5ns
U18-U15 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U18-U17 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U18-U21 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U18-U23 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U18-U25 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U18-U27 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U18-U29 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U18-U31 Data Latency : 49.2ns
U20-U22 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U20-U24 Data Latency : 48.2ns
U20-U26 Data Latency : 49.3ns
U20-U28 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U20-U30 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U20-U1 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U20-U3 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U20-U5 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U20-U7 Data Latency : 48.5ns
U20-U9 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U20-U11 Data Latency : 59.3ns
U20-U13 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U20-U15 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U20-U17 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U20-U19 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U20-U23 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U20-U25 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U20-U27 Data Latency : 50.2ns
U20-U29 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U20-U31 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U22-U24 Data Latency : 49.0ns
U22-U26 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U22-U28 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U22-U30 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U22-U1 Data Latency : 50.6ns
U22-U3 Data Latency : 51.1ns
U22-U5 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U22-U7 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U22-U9 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U22-U11 Data Latency : 50.1ns
U22-U13 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U22-U15 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U22-U17 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U22-U19 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U22-U21 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U22-U25 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U22-U27 Data Latency : 49.5ns
U22-U29 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U22-U31 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U24-U26 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U24-U28 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U24-U30 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U24-U1 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U24-U3 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U24-U5 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U24-U7 Data Latency : 51.7ns
U24-U9 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U24-U11 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U24-U13 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U24-U15 Data Latency : 54.0ns
U24-U17 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U24-U19 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U24-U21 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U24-U23 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U24-U27 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U24-U29 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U24-U31 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U26-U28 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U26-U30 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U26-U1 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U26-U3 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U26-U5 Data Latency : 50.1ns
U26-U7 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U26-U9 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U26-U11 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U26-U13 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U26-U15 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U26-U17 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U26-U19 Data Latency : 52.1ns
U26-U21 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U26-U23 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U26-U25 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U26-U29 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U26-U31 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U28-U30 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U28-U1 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U28-U3 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U28-U5 Data Latency : 49.4ns
U28-U7 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U28-U9 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U28-U11 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U28-U13 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U28-U15 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U28-U17 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U28-U19 Data Latency : 53.2ns
U28-U21 Data Latency : 54.4ns
U28-U23 Data Latency : 52.6ns
U28-U25 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U28-U27 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U30-U1 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U30-U3 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U30-U5 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U30-U7 Data Latency : 50.1ns
U30-U9 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U30-U11 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U30-U13 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U30-U15 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U30-U17 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U30-U19 Data Latency : 51.3ns
U30-U21 Data Latency : 53.7ns
U30-U23 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U30-U25 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U30-U27 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U30-U31 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U1-U17 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U1-U19 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U1-U21 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U1-U23 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U1-U25 Data Latency : 49.5ns
U1-U27 Data Latency : 52.8ns
U1-U29 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U1-U31 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 53.1ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U3-U17 Data Latency : 49.9ns
U3-U19 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U3-U21 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U3-U23 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U3-U25 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U3-U27 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U3-U29 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U3-U31 Data Latency : 46.4ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U5-U17 Data Latency : 49.1ns
U5-U19 Data Latency : 52.9ns
U5-U21 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U5-U23 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U5-U25 Data Latency : 49.2ns
U5-U27 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U5-U29 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U5-U31 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U7-U17 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U7-U19 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U7-U21 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U7-U23 Data Latency : 49.9ns
U7-U25 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U7-U27 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U7-U29 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U7-U31 Data Latency : 53.0ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U9-U17 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U9-U19 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U9-U21 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U9-U23 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U9-U25 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U9-U27 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U9-U29 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U9-U31 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U11-U17 Data Latency : 49.7ns
U11-U19 Data Latency : 49.6ns
U11-U21 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U11-U23 Data Latency : 52.5ns
U11-U25 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U11-U27 Data Latency : 50.2ns
U11-U29 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U11-U31 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U13-U17 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U13-U19 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U13-U21 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U13-U23 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U13-U25 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U13-U27 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U13-U29 Data Latency : 61.6ns
U13-U31 Data Latency : 52.2ns
U15-U17 Data Latency : 47.5ns
U15-U19 Data Latency : 46.1ns
U15-U21 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U15-U23 Data Latency : 51.5ns
U15-U25 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U15-U27 Data Latency : 50.3ns
U15-U29 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U15-U31 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U17-U19 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U17-U21 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U17-U23 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U17-U25 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U17-U27 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U17-U29 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U17-U31 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U19-U21 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U19-U23 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U19-U25 Data Latency : 51.5ns
U19-U27 Data Latency : 52.0ns
U19-U29 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U19-U31 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U21-U23 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U21-U25 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U21-U27 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U21-U29 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U21-U31 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U23-U25 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U23-U27 Data Latency : 59.9ns
U23-U29 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U23-U31 Data Latency : 47.7ns
U25-U27 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U25-U29 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U25-U31 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U27-U29 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U27-U31 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U29-U31 Data Latency : 26.9ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 41.68GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 157.83GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 465.68GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 708.91GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 661.7GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 759GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 673GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 615.34GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 594.87GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 22.12GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 17GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.46GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710021
Computer : MSI MS-7C34 (MSI MEG X570 GODLIKE (MS-7C34))
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 32
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Speed : 4.46GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.45GHz
Maximum Power : 60.10W - 129.95W
Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710021
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## rdr09

Got 1 error. Manual says 100% is very thorough test but 400 to catch the most intermittent. Not gonna sweat it. I just game on this machine.


----------



## TheGlow

@Veii Hoping you can give a little more direction from this point. I still cant get the latency down like I used to have it From your other suggestions, 

Do I want sb clock spread spectrum disabled? That was auto when I had sub 70ns, but since ive disabled it but seems to not make a difference.
So I see amd cbs\memory interleaving on auto. We want that disabled? Sadly I cant seem to find anything for channel interleaving hash/size or hw prefetcher.
Quick search says should be in CBS, but in CBS I dont see sub directories and just Core performance boost, global c-state control, power supply idle control, cppc, memory interleaving, dram dcc enable, iommu, pcie ari support and pcie ten bit tag support.
I see soc/uncore oc mode is disabled, so I set that to enabled. I cant seem to find anything for PMU either.

I tried some of your suggestions, trfc448 wont post, but it seems 480 works which is what I previously got to work. I had initially tried a bunch and 469 didnt post, so I dont know if thats impacted by other settings, or thats a general setting meaning I guess my zone is between 470 and 480.
I ran it twice for an hour, only difference was the dram calc trfc 503 and then me trying 480.
I've included one of those I had as a sanity check. Sadly I wasn't documenting Auto settings so maybe one of those was the big factor here, so I'm still clueless.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

KedarWolf said:


> Sisoft Sandra 61.6 highest latency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 191.41GB/s
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Latency : 46.8ns
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6GB/s
> No. Threads : 32
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Processor(s) Power : 60.10W
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3261.35MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 7.79ns/W
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Total Cache Size : 1235.27kB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 43.96MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 0.10ns/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Detailed Results
> Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31
> U0-U2 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U0-U4 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U0-U6 Data Latency : 25.8ns
> U0-U8 Data Latency : 51.9ns
> U0-U10 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U0-U12 Data Latency : 55.4ns
> U0-U14 Data Latency : 49.6ns
> U0-U16 Data Latency : 53.6ns
> U0-U18 Data Latency : 53.6ns
> U0-U20 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U0-U22 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U0-U24 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U0-U26 Data Latency : 54.0ns
> U0-U28 Data Latency : 50.4ns
> U0-U30 Data Latency : 49.8ns
> U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.1ns
> U0-U3 Data Latency : 24.9ns
> U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U0-U7 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U0-U9 Data Latency : 51.3ns
> U0-U11 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U0-U13 Data Latency : 53.3ns
> U0-U15 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U0-U17 Data Latency : 49.7ns
> U0-U19 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U0-U21 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U0-U23 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U0-U25 Data Latency : 52.2ns
> U0-U27 Data Latency : 53.7ns
> U0-U29 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U0-U31 Data Latency : 45.9ns
> U2-U4 Data Latency : 25.7ns
> U2-U6 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U2-U8 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U2-U10 Data Latency : 49.0ns
> U2-U12 Data Latency : 51.2ns
> U2-U14 Data Latency : 50.9ns
> U2-U16 Data Latency : 51.3ns
> U2-U18 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U2-U20 Data Latency : 53.3ns
> U2-U22 Data Latency : 50.4ns
> U2-U24 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U2-U26 Data Latency : 53.7ns
> U2-U28 Data Latency : 54.0ns
> U2-U30 Data Latency : 50.0ns
> U2-U1 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.0ns
> U2-U5 Data Latency : 25.8ns
> U2-U7 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U2-U9 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U2-U11 Data Latency : 53.9ns
> U2-U13 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U2-U15 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U2-U17 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U2-U19 Data Latency : 50.9ns
> U2-U21 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U2-U23 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U2-U25 Data Latency : 50.1ns
> U2-U27 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U2-U29 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U2-U31 Data Latency : 54.5ns
> U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U4-U8 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U4-U10 Data Latency : 57.9ns
> U4-U12 Data Latency : 57.8ns
> U4-U14 Data Latency : 52.9ns
> U4-U16 Data Latency : 51.4ns
> U4-U18 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U4-U20 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U4-U22 Data Latency : 50.0ns
> U4-U24 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U4-U26 Data Latency : 52.4ns
> U4-U28 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U4-U30 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U4-U1 Data Latency : 25.6ns
> U4-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.9ns
> U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U4-U9 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U4-U11 Data Latency : 56.8ns
> U4-U13 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U4-U15 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U4-U17 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U4-U19 Data Latency : 53.2ns
> U4-U21 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U4-U23 Data Latency : 49.6ns
> U4-U25 Data Latency : 49.7ns
> U4-U27 Data Latency : 50.5ns
> U4-U29 Data Latency : 53.1ns
> U4-U31 Data Latency : 52.6ns
> U6-U8 Data Latency : 55.4ns
> U6-U10 Data Latency : 51.2ns
> U6-U12 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U6-U14 Data Latency : 56.7ns
> U6-U16 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U6-U18 Data Latency : 52.2ns
> U6-U20 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U6-U22 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U6-U24 Data Latency : 50.9ns
> U6-U26 Data Latency : 51.1ns
> U6-U28 Data Latency : 50.6ns
> U6-U30 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U6-U1 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U6-U3 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U6-U9 Data Latency : 49.7ns
> U6-U11 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U6-U13 Data Latency : 53.1ns
> U6-U15 Data Latency : 54.5ns
> U6-U17 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U6-U19 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U6-U21 Data Latency : 51.4ns
> U6-U23 Data Latency : 54.0ns
> U6-U25 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U6-U27 Data Latency : 50.2ns
> U6-U29 Data Latency : 50.5ns
> U6-U31 Data Latency : 49.5ns
> U8-U10 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U8-U12 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U8-U16 Data Latency : 45.2ns
> U8-U18 Data Latency : 45.4ns
> U8-U20 Data Latency : 55.8ns
> U8-U22 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U8-U24 Data Latency : 45.2ns
> U8-U26 Data Latency : 53.9ns
> U8-U28 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U8-U30 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U8-U1 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U8-U3 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U8-U5 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.3ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U8-U13 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U8-U17 Data Latency : 49.7ns
> U8-U19 Data Latency : 50.6ns
> U8-U21 Data Latency : 53.2ns
> U8-U23 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U8-U25 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U8-U27 Data Latency : 50.4ns
> U8-U29 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U8-U31 Data Latency : 55.4ns
> U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U10-U14 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U10-U16 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U10-U18 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U10-U20 Data Latency : 50.2ns
> U10-U22 Data Latency : 50.8ns
> U10-U24 Data Latency : 50.0ns
> U10-U26 Data Latency : 54.5ns
> U10-U28 Data Latency : 47.5ns
> U10-U30 Data Latency : 49.3ns
> U10-U1 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U10-U3 Data Latency : 55.8ns
> U10-U5 Data Latency : 53.9ns
> U10-U7 Data Latency : 57.1ns
> U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U10-U11 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U10-U15 Data Latency : 25.8ns
> U10-U17 Data Latency : 53.2ns
> U10-U19 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U10-U21 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U10-U23 Data Latency : 48.9ns
> U10-U25 Data Latency : 53.6ns
> U10-U27 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U10-U29 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U10-U31 Data Latency : 47.2ns
> U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U12-U16 Data Latency : 48.5ns
> U12-U18 Data Latency : 51.5ns
> U12-U20 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U12-U22 Data Latency : 55.4ns
> U12-U24 Data Latency : 50.2ns
> U12-U26 Data Latency : 55.7ns
> U12-U28 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U12-U30 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U12-U1 Data Latency : 56.8ns
> U12-U3 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U12-U5 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U12-U7 Data Latency : 54.6ns
> U12-U9 Data Latency : 25.8ns
> U12-U11 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U12-U13 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U12-U17 Data Latency : 47.4ns
> U12-U19 Data Latency : 49.8ns
> U12-U21 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U12-U23 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U12-U25 Data Latency : 54.6ns
> U12-U27 Data Latency : 49.5ns
> U12-U29 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U12-U31 Data Latency : 60.8ns
> U14-U16 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U14-U18 Data Latency : 51.5ns
> U14-U20 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U14-U22 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U14-U24 Data Latency : 45.7ns
> U14-U26 Data Latency : 51.3ns
> U14-U28 Data Latency : 51.2ns
> U14-U30 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U14-U1 Data Latency : 50.8ns
> U14-U3 Data Latency : 51.2ns
> U14-U5 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U14-U7 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U14-U11 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U14-U15 Data Latency : 11.0ns
> U14-U17 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U14-U19 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U14-U21 Data Latency : 53.7ns
> U14-U23 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U14-U25 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U14-U27 Data Latency : 48.5ns
> U14-U29 Data Latency : 53.2ns
> U14-U31 Data Latency : 48.0ns
> U16-U18 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U16-U20 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U16-U22 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U16-U24 Data Latency : 52.6ns
> U16-U26 Data Latency : 57.8ns
> U16-U28 Data Latency : 53.7ns
> U16-U30 Data Latency : 48.2ns
> U16-U1 Data Latency : 48.4ns
> U16-U3 Data Latency : 54.6ns
> U16-U5 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U16-U7 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U16-U9 Data Latency : 53.9ns
> U16-U11 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U16-U13 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U16-U15 Data Latency : 51.0ns
> U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U16-U19 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U16-U21 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U16-U23 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U16-U25 Data Latency : 52.6ns
> U16-U27 Data Latency : 51.8ns
> U16-U29 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U16-U31 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U18-U20 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U18-U22 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U18-U24 Data Latency : 57.2ns
> U18-U26 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U18-U28 Data Latency : 50.2ns
> U18-U30 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U18-U1 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U18-U3 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U18-U5 Data Latency : 51.2ns
> U18-U7 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U18-U9 Data Latency : 53.2ns
> U18-U11 Data Latency : 54.0ns
> U18-U13 Data Latency : 50.5ns
> U18-U15 Data Latency : 51.3ns
> U18-U17 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.2ns
> U18-U21 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U18-U23 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U18-U25 Data Latency : 52.9ns
> U18-U27 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U18-U29 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U18-U31 Data Latency : 49.2ns
> U20-U22 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U20-U24 Data Latency : 48.2ns
> U20-U26 Data Latency : 49.3ns
> U20-U28 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U20-U30 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U20-U1 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U20-U3 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U20-U5 Data Latency : 49.7ns
> U20-U7 Data Latency : 48.5ns
> U20-U9 Data Latency : 50.6ns
> U20-U11 Data Latency : 59.3ns
> U20-U13 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U20-U15 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U20-U17 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U20-U19 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.3ns
> U20-U23 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U20-U25 Data Latency : 53.1ns
> U20-U27 Data Latency : 50.2ns
> U20-U29 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U20-U31 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U22-U24 Data Latency : 49.0ns
> U22-U26 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U22-U28 Data Latency : 57.7ns
> U22-U30 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U22-U1 Data Latency : 50.6ns
> U22-U3 Data Latency : 51.1ns
> U22-U5 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U22-U7 Data Latency : 55.7ns
> U22-U9 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U22-U11 Data Latency : 50.1ns
> U22-U13 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U22-U15 Data Latency : 56.5ns
> U22-U17 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U22-U19 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U22-U21 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U22-U25 Data Latency : 51.4ns
> U22-U27 Data Latency : 49.5ns
> U22-U29 Data Latency : 55.7ns
> U22-U31 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U24-U26 Data Latency : 25.4ns
> U24-U28 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U24-U30 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U24-U1 Data Latency : 53.2ns
> U24-U3 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U24-U5 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U24-U7 Data Latency : 51.7ns
> U24-U9 Data Latency : 54.6ns
> U24-U11 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U24-U13 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U24-U15 Data Latency : 54.0ns
> U24-U17 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U24-U19 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U24-U21 Data Latency : 52.5ns
> U24-U23 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U24-U27 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U24-U29 Data Latency : 25.7ns
> U24-U31 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U26-U28 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U26-U30 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U26-U1 Data Latency : 56.5ns
> U26-U3 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U26-U5 Data Latency : 50.1ns
> U26-U7 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U26-U9 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U26-U11 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U26-U13 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U26-U15 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U26-U17 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U26-U19 Data Latency : 52.1ns
> U26-U21 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U26-U23 Data Latency : 53.1ns
> U26-U25 Data Latency : 25.4ns
> U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U26-U29 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U26-U31 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U28-U30 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> U28-U1 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U28-U3 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U28-U5 Data Latency : 49.4ns
> U28-U7 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U28-U9 Data Latency : 55.7ns
> U28-U11 Data Latency : 55.8ns
> U28-U13 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U28-U15 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U28-U17 Data Latency : 53.1ns
> U28-U19 Data Latency : 53.2ns
> U28-U21 Data Latency : 54.4ns
> U28-U23 Data Latency : 52.6ns
> U28-U25 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U28-U27 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U30-U1 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U30-U3 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U30-U5 Data Latency : 55.7ns
> U30-U7 Data Latency : 50.1ns
> U30-U9 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U30-U11 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U30-U13 Data Latency : 56.8ns
> U30-U15 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U30-U17 Data Latency : 52.9ns
> U30-U19 Data Latency : 51.3ns
> U30-U21 Data Latency : 53.7ns
> U30-U23 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U30-U25 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U30-U27 Data Latency : 25.8ns
> U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U30-U31 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U1-U3 Data Latency : 24.8ns
> U1-U5 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U1-U9 Data Latency : 57.2ns
> U1-U11 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U1-U13 Data Latency : 56.2ns
> U1-U15 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U1-U17 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U1-U19 Data Latency : 52.7ns
> U1-U21 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U1-U23 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U1-U25 Data Latency : 49.5ns
> U1-U27 Data Latency : 52.8ns
> U1-U29 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U1-U31 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U3-U5 Data Latency : 25.7ns
> U3-U7 Data Latency : 25.6ns
> U3-U9 Data Latency : 51.4ns
> U3-U11 Data Latency : 53.1ns
> U3-U13 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U3-U15 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U3-U17 Data Latency : 49.9ns
> U3-U19 Data Latency : 54.5ns
> U3-U21 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U3-U23 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U3-U25 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U3-U27 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U3-U29 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U3-U31 Data Latency : 46.4ns
> U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U5-U9 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U5-U11 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U5-U13 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U5-U15 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U5-U17 Data Latency : 49.1ns
> U5-U19 Data Latency : 52.9ns
> U5-U21 Data Latency : 55.6ns
> U5-U23 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U5-U25 Data Latency : 49.2ns
> U5-U27 Data Latency : 55.7ns
> U5-U29 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U5-U31 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U7-U9 Data Latency : 57.6ns
> U7-U11 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U7-U13 Data Latency : 58.0ns
> U7-U15 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U7-U17 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U7-U19 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U7-U21 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U7-U23 Data Latency : 49.9ns
> U7-U25 Data Latency : 49.7ns
> U7-U27 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U7-U29 Data Latency : 54.5ns
> U7-U31 Data Latency : 53.0ns
> U9-U11 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U9-U17 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U9-U19 Data Latency : 54.5ns
> U9-U21 Data Latency : 53.3ns
> U9-U23 Data Latency : 54.5ns
> U9-U25 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U9-U27 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U9-U29 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U9-U31 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U11-U15 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U11-U17 Data Latency : 49.7ns
> U11-U19 Data Latency : 49.6ns
> U11-U21 Data Latency : 53.3ns
> U11-U23 Data Latency : 52.5ns
> U11-U25 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U11-U27 Data Latency : 50.2ns
> U11-U29 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U11-U31 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U13-U17 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U13-U19 Data Latency : 54.6ns
> U13-U21 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U13-U23 Data Latency : 53.3ns
> U13-U25 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U13-U27 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U13-U29 Data Latency : 61.6ns
> U13-U31 Data Latency : 52.2ns
> U15-U17 Data Latency : 47.5ns
> U15-U19 Data Latency : 46.1ns
> U15-U21 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U15-U23 Data Latency : 51.5ns
> U15-U25 Data Latency : 55.4ns
> U15-U27 Data Latency : 50.3ns
> U15-U29 Data Latency : 55.8ns
> U15-U31 Data Latency : 55.4ns
> U17-U19 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U17-U21 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U17-U23 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U17-U25 Data Latency : 57.7ns
> U17-U27 Data Latency : 52.7ns
> U17-U29 Data Latency : 57.1ns
> U17-U31 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U19-U21 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U19-U23 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U19-U25 Data Latency : 51.5ns
> U19-U27 Data Latency : 52.0ns
> U19-U29 Data Latency : 57.5ns
> U19-U31 Data Latency : 54.6ns
> U21-U23 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U21-U25 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U21-U27 Data Latency : 58.5ns
> U21-U29 Data Latency : 58.7ns
> U21-U31 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U23-U25 Data Latency : 58.4ns
> U23-U27 Data Latency : 59.9ns
> U23-U29 Data Latency : 59.6ns
> U23-U31 Data Latency : 47.7ns
> U25-U27 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U25-U29 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U25-U31 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U27-U29 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U27-U31 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U29-U31 Data Latency : 26.9ns
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 41.68GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 157.83GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 465.68GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 708.91GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 661.7GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 759GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 673GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 615.34GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 594.87GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 22.12GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 17GB/s
> 
> Benchmark Status
> Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.46GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> Computer : MSI MS-7C34 (MSI MEG X570 GODLIKE (MS-7C34))
> Platform Compliance : x64
> Buffering Used : No
> No. Threads : 32
> System Timer : 10MHz
> Page Size : 2MB
> 
> Processor
> Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
> Speed : 4.46GHz
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.45GHz
> Maximum Power : 60.10W - 129.95W
> Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
> Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
> Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
> Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)
> 
> Memory Controller
> Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz
> 
> Performance Enhancing Tips
> Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
> Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.



I still don’t understand 100% what to look for(when looking at the graph compared to other CPUs) when I run the multi core efficiency test. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

BIRDMANv84 said:


> I still don’t understand 100% what to look for(when looking at the graph compared to other CPUs) when I run the multi core efficiency test.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Click the copy to clipboard icon in SisSoft Sandra, paste to a text file, find the highest latency in your test, 50-60-70+ latencies usually.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> Click the copy to clipboard icon in SisSoft Sandra, paste to a text file, find the highest latency in your test, 50-60-70+ latencies usually.


I think it can be seen also in the aggregated view, lower graph between brackets there's min-max:


----------



## rdr09

Veii said:


> @garyd9 Forwarding you to this tiny post
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232
> Should explain all, if you still need more information on voltage scaling:
> Bottom half of this post
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814
> 
> Lower is better, where your work is decreasing EMI as much as possible in order to be able to sustain 1900FCLK on these chips
> = Ryzen requires clean signal integrity in order to increase Fabric clock , which exponentially increases raw IPC perf
> You have at least 50+ hours to invent into memory OC if you dive deep into that rabbit hole
> Use SiSoftware Sandra (Multi core efficiency-test) for testing raw improvements
> It will be variable as the cpu boosts too fast,, but not thaat variable if you keep consistent testing without windows interference
> Another good benchmark of raw perf is SuperPi 1.5 SX, and the mem benchmark inside the DRAM Calculator
> Also a good one is y-cruncher tho it's more of a stability tester than anything else - yet it has a pi number crunching benchmark


 @Veii, i hope you don't mind i copied your B-die settings. I had exact same settings in the past using an older version of the DRAM Calc and i lost it when i switched the system to C-die. Now, it is back - one in the right. Thanks.

Gonna run some tests.


----------



## algida79

Hello folks.

Trying to tune my new 2x16GB Dual Rank Crucial Ballistix kit (rest of the specs in signature):









Started with the calculator's Safe preset for Micron revE 3533MHz, which successfully passed 40 cycles of TM5 1usmus_v3:









Fast preset won't POST, probably because of too low tRFC (verified that the PC can POST once tRFC is set to anything equal to or higher than 536):









I thought to use the Safe preset as a baseline and gradually tighten timings to reach Fast preset settings and beyond if possible (except tRFC obviously). As you can see in the screenshots, so far I lowered tRRDS, tRRDL, tFAW to Fast preset values. With these settings, also passed 40 cycles of TM5 1usmus_v3. For the next step, I am thinking of trying tighter tRCDRD. *My question is*, what else needs to change at the same time as tRCDRD? Should I go for:

tRCDRD 18
tRDWR 9
tWRRD 1

After lots of forum lurking, I tried to create a rule set (still work in progress) but am not sure if I should start following it since there is conflicting or unclear information about the calculations:


View attachment ram-timings-tightening-tips-rev01.txt



Thanks!


----------



## Veii

BIRDMANv84 said:


> I still don’t understand 100% what to look for(when looking at the graph compared to other CPUs) when I run the multi core efficiency test.


Filter out the other cpus, they are not important 
You should only compeet with yourself 
It's a comparison tool, at least that's what you should use it for 
People's systems are variable
You can only hunt for score at the end , but your goal is to beat yourself 
After all ryzens boost individualy , soo your only rival is you yourself 
Be sure to test it with 2:1 mode , to check if you're still aritificaly limited on this bios
Aren't there already AGESA 1005 Bioses out for x570 people ?


rdr09 said:


> @Veii, i hope you don't mind i copied your B-die settings. I had exact same settings in the past using an older version of the DRAM Calc and i lost it when i switched the system to C-die. Now, it is back - one in the right. Thanks.
> Gonna run some tests.


 is this cb score now down with 3467 MT/s ?
They are a bit different than The Stilts and 1usmus 
Really liked them, wish back then I had more time to fine-tune the 14-12-14-12 version
So far it behaved far worse then the flat tRCD 14 one
Guess you never stop learning 

Did you use the SCL 2 set or the online submitted SCL 3 results
The one with 62ns latency on the public docs where far worse than the new SiSandra ones @ 64GB/s score
Sadly I couldn't make more tests to submit, soo it wasn't enough to get the first place on the ram database docs
No idea how low latency gets with them sadly, although on SiSandra a difference of 5gb/s is a quite big one 


TheGlow said:


> @Veii Hoping you can give a little more direction from this point. I still cant get the latency down like I used to have it From your other suggestions,
> 
> Do I want sb clock spread spectrum disabled? That was auto when I had sub 70ns, but since ive disabled it but seems to not make a difference.
> So I see amd cbs\memory interleaving on auto. We want that disabled? Sadly I cant seem to find anything for channel interleaving hash/size or hw prefetcher.
> Quick search says should be in CBS, but in CBS I dont see sub directories and just Core performance boost, global c-state control, power supply idle control, cppc, memory interleaving, dram dcc enable, iommu, pcie ari support and pcie ten bit tag support.
> I see soc/uncore oc mode is disabled, so I set that to enabled. I cant seem to find anything for PMU either.


Cppc enabled after wiping ryzens master, as rm does reset that feature 
CPPC you want to use with newer powerplants either computerbase's or 1usmus his
Soo core scaling does work better, unused ones sleep and good ones can boost higher
CPPC should normally default to enable, except for AGESA 1003ABBA
no idea what this 1004 one is you got, but the phy memory training menu is needed, as 1004B has a memory training bug
It trains too fast 
Check if ther are newer versions or ask some Asus modder if he can unlock the full CBS menu for you
Well or maybe downgrade
I'll take a look tonight how this CBS looks like, maybe something can be done if the layout isn't again strange 
Else the modders on the Asus page or the biosmod thread might be able to help you

Everything that only has a "disabled" option, is always active on auto
You miss crucial options but guess Asus is to blame for locking them on an high end x570 board
Guess they forget that this is not B450/B550 to limit even tho TUF is their lower end range of boards 
No controll on crucial options doesn't make it stand in a good light, tho I've seen a lot of people getting the x570 TUF
Maybe ask on their thread for a biosmod or beg Reous for help ~ if he finds time 
At first check for a bios update, this version looks more locked down than 1003ABBA with worse memory training and other 1004B bugs 



TheGlow said:


> I tried some of your suggestions, trfc448 wont post, but it seems 480 works which is what I previously got to work. I had initially tried a bunch and 469 didnt post, so I dont know if thats impacted by other settings, or thats a general setting meaning I guess my zone is between 470 and 480.
> I ran it twice for an hour, only difference was the dram calc trfc 503 and then me trying 480.
> I've included one of those I had as a sanity check. Sadly I wasn't documenting Auto settings so maybe one of those was the big factor here, so I'm still clueless.


It depends on the timings, you are right
Never only change one thing at the time
tRFC is not a fixed value, often it uses it to indicate a clean refresh cycle and "ACTIVATE" the rows in time before they lose charge
But memory is capable to timebreak and ignore any ruleset 
tRFC is one of these, it can manually trigger it on time or automatically bypass it and trigger when it needs it
Lower tRFC or what I call "not in sync" can lead to only worse perf 
Same as higher can be too high
It either is perfectly calculated or it's wrong :')

1usmus's his from the calculator is accurate, it does follow different rulesets and includes tSTAG
I haven't gotten the time to update the mini calculator factoring that one in
Soo my values are higher to begin with, but still we both are correct
tRFC cycle works as:
32 ~ whole cycle
16 ~ half
8 ~ 1/4th 
4 ~ 1/8th
2 ~ 1/16th cycle

Don't forget, every value we use are virtual values
Timings are logarithmic values and only half of them we have access to enforce one specific time
The rest works in the hidden by itself, so as boards do to round up and work with these long 8 decimal ns values


----------



## KedarWolf

Some testing, timings at 15-10-16-13-27 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:56+ in Blender Classroom.

Timings at 15-10-16-14-28 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:55+.

Timings synced, tRP+tRAS=tRC at 15-10-16-14-30 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:54.04 These three with tRFC at 264.

I'm going to try one more test, 15-10-14-28 2T with tRC at 42 tRFC at 264.


----------



## Veii

@algida79 quite good txt file
Some informations are old, and some are from Intel systems only
Let me correct some:
Point 3.2,
Optional tRP value is average tRCD delay
Intel systems have one tRCD soo optimal value is tRCD RD
Maximum value = tRCD RD
Minimum Value can be down to half of tRCD avg value, same as =tRCD WR
Has a connection with tRFC as it covers the ACTIVATE part of the memory
Realistic minimum=AVG delay between tRCD WR and RD

4.2
tRAS has no wiggle room
It's either:
tRCD AVG delay + tRP
Or
tCL+tWR+tBL
Both are correct and optimal value is = both formulas
Memory does change itself what it uses when it uses it up to datasize 
Memory is capable to timebreak and ignore fixed delays

6. tRC
Has wiggle room, but is logarithmic
+2, +4, +8 for stability
-2 for lowering tRFC without sideeffects 
-4 will mess up tCWL range
-8 will likely autocorrect unless tSTAG is factored into tRFC calculation
Anything under -2 does break the formulas and needs excessive testing
You are only able to cover lack of latency with added latency into tCWL or tRDWR/tWRRD 
Has so far result in always worse perf, soo not recommendable at all
Not as ruleset and not as possible option, because it does more harm than good and board will autocorrect making it appear as "working"

7. tFAW
Will always only allow 4x tRRDS
There are no exceptions
Memory will timebreak a 5th ACTIVATE cycle after 4x tRRDS pass *
* It will do it only if it can do it, else it will wait out till tFAW pass putting memoring in a wait-for-action loop
This same goes for tRAS and tRC, till they pass nothing will happen, or they are autocorrected if is able to while Activate time is still active
User is able to use 8x tRRDS to cover for low current and slow cell precharge
But it's better to just increade tRRDS and adapt the rest
There is no 3rd activate time window, and no 5th activate time window
It's only 4x, unless you abuse the timebreak mechanic
But there is no 5th 

8.1 tWR:
8ns value is wrong, this is an Intel ruleset
Memory is logarithmic, ns delay scales by frequency
Any calculation has to happen in integer's = multiples
Using a fixed value logically can't work when first,4th and 8th word of tCAS scale by frequency
A good failsafe rule, but a bad rule because it will fail as you can't relay on a fixed delay value, unless you add delay 
While adding fixed delay value again so logarithmic 
It's good to be a tRFC divider but its better to just be 2x tRTP
It has to be an even value
AMD boards allow it down to 10 but it can go down to 6 at least

9.1 tRFC
x.1 is correct, cell discharge scales with voltage and heat
x.2 is a good ruleset, but perfect multiple of tRC(ns) = tRFC(ns) = tRFC | this ruleset is a prediction of ETA discharge , down to 6x it works, lower is unique per voltage,ic,heat
x.2.1 optimal ~ tRC[ns]*X=tRFCns=tRFC | x = tCL/2 
x.2.2 failsafe= tRC[ns] * (tCL/1.5) | o̶r̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶1̶0̶*̶ ̶t̶R̶C̶[̶n̶s̶]̶ *EDIT:* correct failsafe is ((tCL[ns] * 32) * MT/s) / 2000 = or just tCL*32
x.3.1 minimum tRFC includes tSTAG factored in (ask 1usmus)
x.3.2 minimum optimal tRFC is higher than 6* tRC[ns] 
x.4 extreme tRFC as absolute lowest would be 5* tRC[ns]
x.4.1 extreme tRFC will be nearly impossible as 5* is directly after recharge, in theory (5*tRC[ns] + tSTAG) , optionally + 1/8th cycle of tRFC = value 4
x.5 low tRFC does nothing, and can be timebreak ignored, it does define tREFI and works together with tMRD in the hidden, it's dynamic and tRFC trigger is variable and time-break'able by the memory
x.6 key is to get it clean, not to get it as low as possible, as it will be triggered dynamic and ignored or autocorrected if needed
x.7 tRFC desync shows in TM5 cycle 19 is correct but after about 1:20h, 1 test before the 20 rounds end. Fast CPUs might need more than 20 cycles, as it can be a thermal heatup issue
(Forgot the word for "equalized thermals")

10.1 tRTP
optimal=clean divider of tRFC
More optimal is tWR/2, but it has a connection to tRFC
Can be higher than tWR/2, never lower

11.3 tRDWR & tWRRD
x.4 Dual Rank need +2 value , same ruleset
x.5 (tRCD WR/2)-1 ruleset will fail, if tCWL≠tCL
x.5.1 -1 ruleset will also fail, if excessive wait-for-action delay exists somewhere else, for example no clean transition for tRAS
tRC can be pushed up in 2,4,8 scaling to cover XOC scenario or bad kits, also to cover for lack for voltage = adding excessive delay
x.5.2 keeping tRDWR low has the biggest effect on timing efficiency and bandwidth. A bit higher effect than lowering SCL

12. tCWL
x.1 keeping it tCWL=tCL results in the best perf.
x.2 lowering tCWL needs increase in tRDWR in 1:1 scaling
x.3 to current results, lowering tRDWR has a stronger positive effect than for example using tCWL 6 | tRDWR 16
x.4 tCWL can be as low as [tCL / (1/4th=tCL)]
___________________________________
tRFC ns, no decimal value was old research, it's irrelevant now 
It's easier to work with a whole value ns ruleset
But it doesn't matter as cell discharge for tRC is only an ETA math
Current integer way of calculation makes more sense and uses ns values it virtual
It's more accurate but yet flawed
Flawed because tRFC calculator mini doesn't include tSTAG yet
And some rounding still happens
Need to fix it and not use MT/s as source for calculation
Because that one is variable and also wrong between boards
MCLK is not a fixed value and variable = real delay, real first word delay is wrong too, down to 0.001ns wrong because of rounding
= tRFC2/4 can be wrong and tRFC could be potentially ignored if not perfect 

I saw rounding errors on dram calculator and mini tRFC calculator
Mini one should be +/- 1 value more accurate on tRFC2/4 because MT/s for example correct one for 3466 is 3466.6666667
Using 3467 is wrong but using 3466 is more wrong :')

This mini guide should be redone, old information got replaced and reason for rulesets fixed
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232
Post in the middle


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> Some testing, timings at 15-10-16-13-27 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:56+ in Blender Classroom.
> 
> Timings at 15-10-16-14-28 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:55+.
> 
> Timings synced, tRP+tRAS=tRC at 15-10-16-14-30 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:54.04 These three with tRFC at 264.
> 
> I'm going to try one more test, 15-10-14-28 2T with tRC at 42 tRFC at 264.


Okay, more testing, lower tRFC is NOT always better.

*I get 3.54.04 at 15-16-10-14-30 2T tRC at 44, tRFC at 264.
*
But I tested 15-16-10-14-28 2T tRC at 42, tRFC at 252 I get 3:55+

Same with 15-16-10-14-29 43 256.

*
BUT with 15-16-10-14-31 45 tRFC at 270 I got 3:53.75
*

I find Blender the way to go for testing. It scales with memory speeds and timings and you get consistently almost exactly the same results every run.

Plus if your overclock is the least bit unstable you'll get a random reboot when it runs.


----------



## masteratarms

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...md-ryzen-new-developments.261243/post-4283013


----------



## Veii

KedarWolf said:


> Okay, more testing, lower tRFC is NOT always better.


:thumb:


KedarWolf said:


> *I get 3.54.04 at 15-16-10-14-30 2T tRC at 44, tRFC at 264.
> *
> But I tested 15-16-10-14-28 2T tRC at 42, tRFC at 252 I get 3:55+
> Same with 15-16-10-14-29 43 256.
> 
> *
> BUT with 15-16-10-14-31 45 tRFC at 270 I got 3:53.75
> *
> 
> I find Blender the way to go for testing. It scales with memory speeds and timings and you get consistently almost exactly the same results every run.
> 
> Plus if your overclock is the least bit unstable you'll get a random reboot when it runs.


Good testing 
tRCD avg value = 13, between both RW and RD 
tRAS 31 is correct because 15+12+4 (tBL is 4 for you)
tCL+tWR+tBL

Something has to drop on your primaries to make prfectly sense
Either tRCD WR to 9, or tRCD RD to 15, tWRRD 3 ~ AVG delay 12, tRP 12 (then tWR 12 makes sense)
or
tCL 14, tRCD RD 17, tWR 14, tWRRD 3
That should allow to be fine with tRP 14, as AVG delay between RCD would be again 14

First way might be easier, but both rulesets don't overlap for tRAS soo between test results will be different
the tBL math should be used as exploit for lower latency, but tRAS normally doesn't look correctly calculated
Well let's say it can be better 
Please try one of the first two 
tCWL 14 and tRDWR 9 helps you ? Is tCWL 15, tRDWR 8 not faster ?

Can you for the timings above, or next time you crosstest them 
Submit the timings with them ?
Only lowering tRAS, tRC, tRFC won't be enough
Changing tRFC needs adjustments everywhere else too :wubsmiley


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> :thumb:
> 
> Good testing
> tRCD avg value = 13, between both RW and RD
> tRAS 31 is correct because 15+12+4 (tBL is 4 for you)
> tCL+tWR+tBL
> 
> Something has to drop on your primaries to make prfectly sense
> Either tRCD WR to 9, or tRCD RD to 15, tWRRD 3 ~ AVG delay 12, tRP 12 (then tWR 12 makes sense)
> or
> tCL 14, tRCD RD 17, tWR 14, tWRRD 3
> That should allow to be fine with tRP 14, as AVG delay between RCD would be again 14
> 
> First way might be easier, but both rulesets don't overlap for tRAS soo between test results will be different
> the tBL math should be used as exploit for lower latency, but tRAS normally doesn't look correctly calculated
> Well let's say it can be better
> Please try one of the first two
> tCWL 14 and tRDWR 9 helps you ? Is tCWL 15, tRDWR 8 not faster ?
> 
> Can you for the timings above, or next time you crosstest them
> Submit the timings with them ?
> Only lowering tRAS, tRC, tRFC won't be enough
> Changing tRFC needs adjustments everywhere else too :wubsmiley


I can't do tRDWR 8 with tCL 15, won't boot. 9-4 is faster than 9-3 or 9-2, tCWL will only set at 14 or 16, 15 autocorrects to 16. 

I can do tRCDWR to 9. I'll try that.

Can't do tCL 14, my RAM gets errors at voltages above 1.45v and I need 1.5v for tCL 14, but like I said, I get errors in TM5.


----------



## Veii

KedarWolf said:


> I can't do tRDWR 8 with tCL 15, won't boot. 9-4 is faster than 9-3 or 9-2, tCWL will only set at 14 or 16, 15 autocorrects to 16.
> 
> I can do tRCDWR to 9. I'll try that.
> 
> Can't do tCL 14, my RAM gets errors at voltages above 1.45v and I need 1.5v for tCL 14, but like I said, I get errors in TM5.


mm~
try tRCD WR 9, with tRP 12 then 
tRAS should be fine, tRC won't mind if it has a bit delay on it
Memory will wait anyways till tRC has passed 
tWRRD 4 is a bit high, hmm
We will see later, you'd notice when the board starts to autocorrect and perf drops


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Anyone had much luck using the DRAM Calculator on Samsung b-die K4A8G085WB-BCPB i did manage to overclock them from 3200 to 3600 but tighting any timings seems like a pain. What would be best ones to try to tweak to bring latency down ?

https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/ddr4/K4A8G085WB-BCPB/


----------



## Veii

Bal3Wolf said:


> Anyone had much luck using the DRAM Calculator on Samsung b-die K4A8G085WB-BCPB i did manage to overclock them from 3200 to 3600 but tighting any timings seems like a pain. What would be best ones to try to tweak to bring latency down ?
> 
> https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/ddr4/K4A8G085WB-BCPB/


Wheren't these known as B-Die V2, mostly found on Corsair 3200CL16-18-18 kits, when the buyer had luck ?
What guide did you follow ? Did you follow any or just pushed the first 4-6 timings up ?

3600 on "low end b-dies" is not bad at all
But what did you try, what's your current timings ?
https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases 
Which voltages ? 
Cloning timings, i mean you have the DRAM calculator for that ~ but more important is what YOU have tried


----------



## Bal3Wolf

still playing with it to be honest but heres as far as i made it so far without errors or pc not posting. I been doing 3-4 timings doing some testing a few more saving at each step and testing to see how it reacts, ram is a 32gig kit of F4-3200C16-8GTZKW.


----------



## Dollar

1usmus said:


> I think it'll help you
> VDDG 1.05
> 
> I also want to say that the presence of this error may not affect the system stability. Unfortunately, C6H still has MBEC and some BIOS modules conflicts, so you should expect such situations. In my practice there is a situation when Zen2 refused to work stable on this board but was absolutely stable on X570. If you have the option, I recommend changing the motherboard to B550.


I have had time to test FCLK stability so I wanted to continue this discussion. The above post was about running into a WHEA error 19 bus/interconnect error correction at 1900/3800 speeds. I have found prime95 large FFT to be slightly faster than TM5 1usmus_v3 config at producing this WHEA error so I used that for most of my testing along with linpack xtreme and other benchmarks (cinebench r20, linpack gflops, photoworxx, dram calc bench) to make sure performance wasn't decreasing even though no errors were being reported. The results:

3700x
Asus Crosshair VI x370
4x8GB single rank samsung b-die a0 pcb

1900/3800 @1.050 VDDG, 1.100 SOC, 0.950 VDDP = Appears stable, it can keep running TM5 or large FFT error free for over an hour but will produce WHEA after only ten minutes.

1866/3733 @1.000 VDDG, 1.100 SOC, 0.950 VDDP = Fully stable in TM5, prime95 large FFT, Linpack xtreme. If I drop VDDG to 0.950 the WHEA comes back at the 1 hour mark of large FFT.

1800/3600 @0.850 VDDG, 0.975 SOC, 0.800 VDDP = Fully stable in TM5, prime95 large FFT, Linpack xtreme. These low values are not typos. No WHEA or errors and benchmarks are not lowering.


Is it normal to see such a severe voltage wall from 1800/3600 to 1900/3800? 0.850 VDDG stable to 1.050 VDDG and still not stable seems crazy. Does this maybe indicate the board holding me back here or just unlucky 3700x?


----------



## Veii

Bal3Wolf said:


> still playing with it to be honest but heres as far as i made it so far without errors or pc not posting. I been doing 3-4 timings doing some testing a few more saving at each step and testing to see how it reacts, ram is a 32gig kit of F4-3200C16-8GTZKW.


Please try this:








Except for SCL, transitions should be as clean as possible
Hopefully not hard to run :asleepysm


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> 1866/3733 @1.000 VDDG, 1.100 SOC, 0.950 VDDP = Fully stable in TM5, prime95 large FFT, Linpack xtreme. If I drop VDDG to 0.950 the WHEA comes back at the 1 hour mark of large FFT.
> 
> 1800/3600 @0.850 VDDG, 0.975 SOC, 0.800 VDDP = Fully stable in TM5, prime95 large FFT, Linpack xtreme. These low values are not typos. No WHEA or errors and benchmarks are not lowering.
> 
> Is it normal to see such a severe voltage wall from 1800/3600 to 1900/3800? 0.850 VDDG stable to 1.050 VDDG and still not stable seems crazy. Does this maybe indicate the board holding me back here or just unlucky 3700x?


Can you try for 1867/3734:
VDDP 900
VDDG CCD 925
VDDG IOD 975
VSOC 1100 (nearly no loadline drop here, as low drop as possible)

Then reverse them too if you keep erroring 
and for 1800/3600:
VDDP 866
VDDG CCD 916
VDDG IOD 966
VSOC 1075 (with finetuned loadline to drop to >1066, or around 1068mV)
for science please


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> Can you try for 1867/3734:
> VDDP 900
> VDDG CCD 925
> VDDG IOD 975
> VSOC 1100 (nearly no loadline drop here, as low drop as possible)
> 
> Then reverse them too if you keep erroring
> and for 1800/3600:
> VDDP 866
> VDDG CCD 916
> VDDG IOD 966
> VSOC 1075 (with finetuned loadline to drop to >1066, or around 1068mV)
> for science please


Yes of course I will try those and post the results when I can, thank you for the suggestions. I haven't been using any LLC so I will need to test and find which level to use. This was the droop seen on auto as reported in hwinfo SVI2 TFN:

SOC = 1.100 = 1.094 idle = 1.081 load
SOC = 1.025 = 1.019 idle = 1.012 load
SOC = 1.000 = 0.994 idle = 0.987 load
SOC = 0.975 = 0.969 idle = 0.962 load

On the 1900/3800 set I forgot to mention it will also boot and run TM5 for over an hour without showing any errors or crashing even with lower values of 900VDDP and 950VDDG but that WHEA is there.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Veii said:


> Please try this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for SCL, transitions should be as clean as possible
> Hopefully not hard to run :asleepysm


no post with those settings this ram is very picky it seems.


----------



## bp7178

Does such a calculator exist for Intel?


----------



## Veii

Bal3Wolf said:


> no post with those settings this ram is very picky it seems.


Can be my mistake try SCL 5 with tWRRD 3
What voltage did you use ?


----------



## FranZe

My memory tweaking is finish and history (i think), although I could have wished for a little lower volts 

Did some testing here, the SOTTR benchmark in 1440p. I run a pair of Ripjaws 3600Mhz 16-16-16 (F4-3600C16D-16GVK) on GB Aorus Master. Stock cpu.


Out of the box performance, just using the XMP profile i got this:











When i run this profile 











I got this results











This is a nice boost in min fps. Actually 27% better  When tests out there only shows avg fps it doesnt show the whole picture.


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> Can you try for 1867/3734:
> VDDP 900
> VDDG CCD 925
> VDDG IOD 975
> VSOC 1100 (nearly no loadline drop here, as low drop as possible)
> 
> Then reverse them too if you keep erroring
> and for 1800/3600:
> VDDP 866
> VDDG CCD 916
> VDDG IOD 966
> VSOC 1075 (with finetuned loadline to drop to >1066, or around 1068mV)
> for science please


Your comment about keeping load voltage around a specific number makes me think you're interested in actual running voltages seen by the operating system and not what's entered into the bios. But what about vddp and vddg? Cause what you enter in the bios and what you get after boot aren't the same thing. For example this is what you get in Windows when you enter vddp 900 and vddg 950 in the bios:










Plus there's a bunch of random values that get completely ignored on this cursed Asus board. The VDDG values below were set in the AMD overclocking section because that's the only place you can find the separated VDDG voltages. The VDDP voltage below was set in the main Asus menu.

vddg iod set 964 = 0.9622
vddg iod set 965 = 0.9622
vddg iod set 966 = 0.9651
vddg iod set 967 = 0.9651
vddg iod set 968 = 0.9651
vddg iod set 969 = 0.9681
vddg iod set 970 = 0.9681
vddg iod set 971 = 0.9681
vddg iod set 972 = 0.9710


vddp set 864 = 0.8619
vddp set 865 = 0.8648
vddp set 866 = 0.8648
vddp set 867 = 0.8648
vddp set 868 = 0.8648
vddp set 869 = 0.8678
vddp set 870 = 0.8678
vddp set 871 = 0.8707
vddp set 872 = 0.8707


----------



## RaXelliX

Hynix JJR @ X570 Aorus Master
4x8GB 1.5v

Any suggestions?
I doubt i can go lower on primaries or tRFC. Both would cause no boot situation.
Latency looks good but read bandwith seems to be lacking a bit. Write bandwith seems right on mark with my 1CCD 3800X.


----------



## Nighthog

RaXelliX said:


> Hynix JJR @ X570 Aorus Master
> 4x8GB 1.5v
> 
> Any suggestions?
> I doubt i can go lower on primaries or tRFC. Both would cause no boot situation.
> Latency looks good but read bandwith seems to be lacking a bit. Write bandwith seems right on mark with my 1CCD 3800X.


You could try GDM:disabled with tCL 15?
I just got a Hynix DJR kit and it was kinda easy and only 1.500V was necessary. 

You might need increase clkDrvStr a little for stability though.


----------



## RaXelliX

I doubt GDM disabled would help me get tCL 15 as even 16 is not stable with GDM disabled. In my case GDM does add a lot of stability. I could play around with clkDrvStr tho...


----------



## rdr09

FranZe said:


> My memory tweaking is finish and history (i think), although I could have wished for a little lower volts
> 
> Did some testing here, the SOTTR benchmark in 1440p. I run a pair of Ripjaws 3600Mhz 16-16-16 (F4-3600C16D-16GVK) on GB Aorus Master. Stock cpu.
> 
> 
> Out of the box performance, just using the XMP profile i got this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When i run this profile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice boost in min fps. Actually 27% better  When tests out there only shows avg fps it doesnt show the whole picture.


Would please do a similar test using Cinebench 20 multi thread test? Thank you.


----------



## mongoled

So I have been playing with my GSkill to familiarize myself as the two new kits (Viper Series 4400mhz) I bought will be arriving next week.

Now I am running the below settings with DRAM set @ 1.45v in BIOS.

ProcODT is at 34ohm

CAD bus is 24-20-20-24

Even going up to 1.50v in BIOS is not assisting in gaining stability when testing with TM5.

I have played with different combinations of TRFC/TRC, tRTP, tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL and all the other relationships between the timings but I cannot find something that can bring the memory to be stable under heavy testing.

Max temp of modules I 44C as I have a fan blowing over them.

Its no biggie as I have already dialled these RAM to the max I can get 24/7 (settings in sig), as I said I am just playing.

If anything sticks out would be nice to know



The only way I can get them stable is to increase tRCDRD to 15


----------



## Krisztias

Dollar said:


> Plus there's a bunch of random values that get completely ignored on this cursed Asus board.


Hi!

Because you have the erratic IT chip on your board (C6H, C7H...) with +/- 22mV accuracy (Info from Elmor), not the good Nuvoton one (like C8H).


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Veii said:


> Can be my mistake try SCL 5 with tWRRD 3
> What voltage did you use ?


1.375 is what i been using it dont like much higher.


----------



## KedarWolf

FranZe said:


> My memory tweaking is finish and history (i think), although I could have wished for a little lower volts
> 
> Did some testing here, the SOTTR benchmark in 1440p. I run a pair of Ripjaws 3600Mhz 16-16-16 (F4-3600C16D-16GVK) on GB Aorus Master. Stock cpu.
> 
> 
> Out of the box performance, just using the XMP profile i got this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When i run this profile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice boost in min fps. Actually 27% better  When tests out there only shows avg fps it doesnt show the whole picture.


This is my PC with two 1080 Ti's, HDR on, 3840x1080 graphics settings maxed out except no ray tracing and TAA.

Shadow of The Tomb Raider in DirectX 12 uses M-GPU (both GPUs).


----------



## Alpharevx

Hello everyone, i recently switched to Ryzen from and i tweaked my memory from XMP and i got some nice results, i have a Micron E-Die 4x8Gb Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3600 CL18-22-22-22 1.35v paired with a 3700X
i managed to tweak the timings down to 16-19-16-16 1.4v (BIOS reading is 1.421v same for HWiNfo) and i got like 4.1ns reduction from 73.9ns down to 69.8ns with a read speed increase from 45915 MB/s to 51656 MB/s in Aida64.

Settings are :

SoC = 1.025v
VDDG/CCD/IOD = 0.95v
VDDP = 0.90v
ProcODT = 40ohm
CAD = 24-20-24-24

everything is stable with these settings, also pushing FCLK to 1900/3800mhz isn't quite stable with soc 1.1v vddg 1v vddp 0.95 dram 1.45v

@Veii i've seen your replies lately and seems u have a good knowledge in Ryzen's, what helps me maintain a stable 3800/1900fclk? because it boots fine and i play games fine just throwing errors in memtest for around 900% coverage all core sometimes 500/400%


----------



## KedarWolf

Alpharevx said:


> Hello everyone, i recently switched to Ryzen from and i tweaked my memory from XMP and i got some nice results, i have a Micron E-Die 4x8Gb Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3600 CL18-22-22-22 1.35v paired with a 3700X
> i managed to tweak the timings down to 16-19-16-16 1.4v (BIOS reading is 1.421v same for HWiNfo) and i got like 4.1ns reduction from 73.9ns down to 69.8ns with a read speed increase from 45915 MB/s to 51656 MB/s in Aida64.
> 
> Settings are :
> 
> SoC = 1.025v
> VDDG/CCD/IOD = 0.95v
> VDDP = 0.90v
> ProcODT = 40ohm
> CAD = 24-20-24-24
> 
> everything is stable with these settings, also pushing FCLK to 1900/3800mhz isn't quite stable with soc 1.1v vddg 1v vddp 0.95 dram 1.45v
> 
> @Veii i've seen your replies lately and seems u have a good knowledge in Ryzen's, what helps me maintain a stable 3800/1900fclk? because it boots fine and i play games fine just throwing errors in memtest for around 900% coverage all core sometimes 500/400%


I found on my RAM 1.45v gave me errors, they went away when I dropped to 1.42v, some RAM doesn't scale well with voltage. 

Here's what I'm at, but you might want to try higher looser timings, I have a really great IMC on my 3950x.


----------



## Alpharevx

If i drop my RAM voltage i'll have random reboots and let's say i put 1.42v bios reads it at 1.456v
so 1.45v bios reads it at 1.48v is that normal? or its just sensor not picking the right voltages?

Motherboard : MSI B450 Carbon Pro AC


----------



## FranZe

rdr09 said:


> Would please do a similar test using Cinebench 20 multi thread test? Thank you.


I already done it. It's an old result but it doesnt matter. This site is pita to upload pictures to, or maybe its just me. But to make it easy for me i just put out links  

https://imgur.com/OGC674y

https://imgur.com/BifWspb


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Your comment about keeping load voltage around a specific number makes me think you're interested in actual running voltages seen by the operating system and not what's entered into the bios. But what about vddp and vddg? Cause what you enter in the bios and what you get after boot aren't the same thing. For example this is what you get in Windows when you enter vddp 900 and vddg 950 in the bios:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Plus there's a bunch of random values that get completely ignored on this cursed Asus board. The VDDG values below were set in the AMD overclocking section because that's the only place you can find the separated VDDG voltages. The VDDP voltage below was set in the main Asus menu.
> 
> vddg iod set 964 = 0.9622
> vddg iod set 965 = 0.9622
> vddg iod set 966 = 0.9651
> vddg iod set 967 = 0.9651
> vddg iod set 968 = 0.9651
> vddg iod set 969 = 0.9681
> vddg iod set 970 = 0.9681
> vddg iod set 971 = 0.9681
> vddg iod set 972 = 0.9710
> 
> 
> vddp set 864 = 0.8619
> vddp set 865 = 0.8648
> vddp set 866 = 0.8648
> vddp set 867 = 0.8648
> vddp set 868 = 0.8648
> vddp set 869 = 0.8678
> vddp set 870 = 0.8678
> vddp set 871 = 0.8707
> vddp set 872 = 0.8707


I actually am, at least when it comes to loadline checking for VSOC 
(vSOC has no upper limit on that range, it can be +200 if needed and still safe)
Tho for that all you should enable UncoreOC mode under AMD Overclocking, else the board does autocorrect voltages
But it's not soo important, as the sensors do lie a bit
i've seen scenarios, where putting 900mV VDDP resulted in 912 ~ it was because of the PSU 

The only important thing is, that you keep a voltage distance between them
Dropping under that will result in instability, to even choking reboot effects
It wouldn't matter what the OS reads out, but it's good to know soo you can adjust Loadline on VSOC
For the rest, the Loadline doesn't do anything = it doesn't matter what the OS reads-out


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FranZe said:


> My memory tweaking is finish and history (i think), although I could have wished for a little lower volts
> 
> Did some testing here, the SOTTR benchmark in 1440p. I run a pair of Ripjaws 3600Mhz 16-16-16 (F4-3600C16D-16GVK) on GB Aorus Master. Stock cpu.
> ...
> 
> This is a nice boost in min fps. Actually 27% better  When tests out there only shows avg fps it doesnt show the whole picture.


Thanks for sharing.  And I saw your Cinebench R20 results also.

I have a request,
because I'm hovering around the same numbers but with my Viper Steel 4400 kit (and 3600 chip, B450M board). Different parts than you, but I'm curious what voltages you are running here.

Also, because the suggestions are to keep tWR, tRTP, and tRC perfect divisors of tRFC...
Instead of 298, what if you tried tRFC=336 (with tRFC2=250, tRFC4=154)?
This keeps those 3 other timings as perfect divisors.

But, tREFI (related) is the average interval between refresh commands, and it may skip (push out) refreshes and then pull in multiple refresh cycles later to hit its average. So there are smart shenanigans played here with refresh timing anyway, and the IMC can make up for your choices (or possibly hide what it does and do whatever the heck it wants). I don't know the algorithms and others here may (cough Veii cough) be much better informed.  But I'm curious what happens if you loosen tRFC to hit those perfect-divisor guidelines.

"For science. " <-- @*Veii* you cracked me up with this one buddy, hehe.
Thanks *FranZe*.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> So I have been playing with my GSkill to familiarize myself as the two new kits (Viper Series 4400mhz) I bought will be arriving next week.
> 
> Now I am running the below settings with DRAM set @ 1.45v in BIOS.
> ProcODT is at 34ohm
> CAD bus is 24-20-20-24
> Even going up to 1.50v in BIOS is not assisting in gaining stability when testing with TM5.
> 
> I have played with different combinations of TRFC/TRC, tRTP, tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL and all the other relationships between the timings but I cannot find something that can bring the memory to be stable under heavy testing.
> Max temp of modules I 44C as I have a fan blowing over them.
> Its no biggie as I have already dialled these RAM to the max I can get 24/7 (settings in sig), as I said I am just playing.
> 
> If anything sticks out would be nice to know
> 
> The only way I can get them stable is to increase tRCDRD to 15


I can't wait to see what you achieve with your Viper Steel 4400's 

So from your image, you probably could keep with tRCD_RD at 15 and bump tRAS=30.

But then what if you take down tFAW from 36 to 16 (exactly tRRD_S * 4)?
And can you make tRDWR=8 (biggest tRCD value / 2, rounded up = ceiling[15/2] )?

If you wanted to keep 14's across tRCD, then do that, and leaving tRC loose at 48...
What if you moved tRFC? 288 is a good tRFC value, but what if you loosed that to 336, would that help stability in TM5? 336 is still an even multiplier of your tRC, tWR, and tRTP. I'm interested in this for the same reason as my reply to FranZe above.

Just playing sounds like reason enough to tweak things. Gotta have fun.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

*My turn - how do I improve 3733? Or get to 3800?*

Summaries, then details below. I have Viper Steel 4400 B-die (PVS416G440C9K).

*I'm stable at 3733/1867 CL16* w/ TM5; I can't yet do CL14 without TM5 errors on tests 6 and 10, and/or WHEA errors.
*I'm also stable at 3600 CL14*
*I can't POST at 3800/1900*, I got no display output, fans (cpu/cha/gpu) all ran but nothing happened, and I had to clear CMOS

*Goal*: I want to tighten 3733 to CL14. Ideas? See below my image for what I tried 
_Bonus if anyone gives me pointers to 3800 but I think my cpu/mobo rejects it._

Here are my Voltages from my stable 3733/1867 CL16, followed by Ryzen Master image for timings:


*DRAM* 1.5V / *SOC* 1.1V / *VDDG* (ccd, iod) .950V / *cldo VDDP* .950V/ *PDM* disabled, *GDM* enabled (CR 1T)










For CL14 I tried changing:

tCL=14, tCWL=14 (changed from 16)
tRCD=14 (both, from 16)
tRP=14 (changed from 18)
tRAS=28 (changed from 32)
tRC=42 (changed from 50)
tRFC=384 (changed from 400)
tRDWR=7 (changed from 8 to satisfy tRCD/2)

Some Ideas:

I can move tRCD RD and WR back to 16 but I know I'll lose my intended performance gains from that (I tried it  with ras 30 rc 48)
I can drop VDDP back down to 900mV. I just happened to bump it when I bumped VDDG to get 3733 to work.
I could try GDM=disabled with 3733 CL16, then aim for CL15 instead of CL14? So far no luck disabling GDM at lesser freq's.
Votes? Thoughts on what else to loosen? tRC to 44? tRFC to 396? tRDWR back to 8?

Extra question: Is tTRP=6 too aggressive? It would be half of tWR=12.

Setup (parts):

CPU: Ryzen 3600 (_no OC besides PBO enabled, and LLC still on auto_)
Cooler: Wraith Max (_better than Prism but still Air_) @ 38C idle, 76C max under stress test
Mobo: Asus TUF B450M-PRO Gaming (_VRMs slightly stepped up from Plus Gaming, but budget nonetheless_)
RAM: Patriot Viper Steel 4400 16GB (_2x8, single rank_) (PVS416G440C9K)
PSU: Thermaltake TPG-850M ToughPower Grand 850W 80+ Gold Semi Modular (TP-850AH3CSG / LTT Tier B)
Fans: 2 Front intake, 1 top intake directly over RAM, 1 rear exhaust, positive pressure


----------



## Veii

Flat CL14 will be hard, but you can try to hit 3600CL12 maybe  @LuckyBahstard
Viper 4400 are A2 PCB - you need to give them current, while lowering everything else to preserve signal integrity 
I'd tbh start with fixing the 3600 for now at 1.275v @ 4ghz allcore - just for now till you get your memory done
We'd do this to be sure you can use low voltages and preserve signal integrity - for now as A2 layout is very EMI sensitive and pushing high current makes it even more sensitive to background magnetic interference 

Start with this preset:








Then slowly scale up to 3600
you shouldn't need to change anything except VDIMM and maybe a bit around the CPU and procODT

Start with procODT 28.8ohm, VDDP 900, VDDG IOD 1000, VDDG CCD 950, VSOC 1050
Scale that up till 3600MT/s 
Later after 3600 put in VSOC 1.1 and see if you need to increase procODT

Start with 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS while you remain on procODT 28 and move till 1.5vDIMM
(1.42v was needed for 3467, but 1.46 works well too)
later push to 60-20-24-24 after you pass 3600MT/s and you start to push higher voltages
We might need to change scaling when IOD is not enough anymore (only for low end boards)

The preset should be a good IC quality check, as not many can run this 
You should not need over 1.46vDIMM to run that , i needed 1.42v


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Flat CL14 will be hard, but you can try to hit 3600CL12 maybe /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif @LuckyBahstard
> Viper 4400 are A2 PCB - you need to give them current, while lowering everything else to preserve signal integrity
> I'd tbh start with fixing the 3600 for now at 1.275v @ 4ghz allcore - just for now till you get your memory done
> We'd do this to be sure you can use low voltages and preserve signal integrity - for now as A2 layout is very EMI sensitive and pushing high current makes it even more sensitive to background magnetic interference
> 
> Start with this preset:
> _<image removed for quote>_
> Then slowly scale up to 3600
> you shouldn't need to change anything except VDIMM and maybe a bit around the CPU and procODT
> 
> Start with procODT 28.8ohm, VDDP 900, VDDG IOD 1000, VDDG CCD 950, VSOC 1050
> Scale that up till 3600MT/s
> Later after 3600 put in VSOC 1.1 and see if you need to increase procODT
> 
> Start with 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS while you remain on procODT 28 and move till 1.5vDIMM
> (1.42v was needed for 3467, but 1.46 works well too)
> later push to 60-20-24-24 after you pass 3600MT/s and you start to push higher voltages
> We might need to change scaling when IOD is not enough anymore (only for low end boards)
> 
> The preset should be a good IC quality check, as not many can run this /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> You should not need over 1.46vDIMM to run that , i needed 1.42v


I need to double check my vipers. They reported as A0 PCB in Thaiphoon -- and I've seen some show A2 screenshots, and some like me with A0. I didn't peek under the spreaders to confirm either way. And yes, I can disable PBO and fix my CPU frequency to 4.0Ghz. I see why you want to do that, we'll limit one variable at a time. Then I can deal with PBO, droop, etc, later.

procODT ... I don't think 28 is going to work but let me revisit it. I could push higher currents with less voltage and resistances if my sticks weren't seemingly in love with 60ohms.

That was the default procODT (and RTT PARK rzq/5(48)) with JEDEC. And in earlier tests I found it just didn't like lower resistances 48, 53, etc.
Let's see though, I'll take another crack at this setting. And I'll aim for changes to CAD_BUS. 
_I could have had something else working against me earlier on, and didn't realize it. I know I was also fighting a losing battle against VDDG=1.0V._

Regarding your preset image... My DDR4-3600 was stable around those settings. I didn't push tRFC so low (260), instead low 300s. I had 14's, ras=28, rc=42, trrd=4 and 6... SCLs I had at 4 but can do 3.
I had tRDWR and tWRRD at 8 and 1. I could have tried 7 for tRDWR based on tRCD though, but didn't try it there. I wouldn't be surprised if I could get to CL12.

Let me try your preset out tomorrow, and see how it goes. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif Btw, any thoughts on VDDG not playing nice at 1.0V? I thought higher clock frequencies and pushing past 3600 often leads to people raising ioc and ccd voltages?


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> I need to double check my vipers. They reported as A0 PCB in Thaiphoon -- and I've seen some show A2 screenshots, and some like me with A0. I didn't peek under the spreaders to confirm either way. And yes, I can disable PBO and fix my CPU frequency to 4.0Ghz. I see why you want to do that, we'll limit one variable at a time. Then I can deal with PBO, droop, etc, later.
> 
> Let me try your preset out tomorrow, and see how it goes.  Btw, any thoughts on VDDG not playing nice at 1.0V? I thought higher clock frequencies and pushing past 36000 often leads to people raising ioc and ccd voltages?


I'd want fixed frequency from you, even tho technically you just need around 1.05v VCORE for 4ghz on 7nm
But let's have some headroom there
Low fixed frequency, till you learn how to work with your A2 kits and so we get benchmark result consistency (SiSoftware Sandra)
A2 on a "low end" board is not easy at all 
These PCBs are sensitive - but yes we are sure 4400 are A2 , A0 can't run these speeds , not at this voltage and it would yield a high RMA rate if they are on A0 PCB
Only 4000 vipers are on A0 and very rarely on A1
Thaiphoon burner lies here 

Although viper A2s are custom PCBs , they are finetuned A1 PCBs
I pushed you these sets as i know how they scale have tested them long enough to be pretty much perfect
Had a 14-12 set but they performed at least 10% worse than this set 
Although it's hard to run  

procODT 60ohm defaults if you ever push beyond 3600MT/s on AGESA 1004B
It's a bug
procODT scales with vSOC and so does CAD_BUS
High procODT needs high cad_BUS needs high VSOC 
low procODT needs low voltages logically 
~ soo let's start low first

vSOC till 1.05 should be plently for 3600MT/s, you can use 2700X IMC research here 
They scale identical
VDDP, VDDG ,VSOC have to have a fixed scaling of at least 50mV between them
Vsoc has to be 50mV higher than VDDG as absolute minimum and so has VDDG to be 50mV higher than VDDP

they can have a bigger jump, but pushing VDDP over 900 is most of the times not needed
It might for some to hit 1900FCLK , but it's not - we aren't going for 1950-2000FCLK 
I've seen people on a 3950X run just 800mV VDDP with 950mV VDDG
IOD is only interesting for you , as this is what covers IODie->MemoryDimms 
And logically a lower end board, will require more to be stable - then in comparison a good 8 layer X570 PCB
Just higher voltage = bad signal integrity


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> Can you try for 1867/3734:
> VDDP 900
> VDDG CCD 925
> VDDG IOD 975
> VSOC 1100 (nearly no loadline drop here, as low drop as possible)
> 
> Then reverse them too if you keep erroring
> and for 1800/3600:
> VDDP 866
> VDDG CCD 916
> VDDG IOD 966
> VSOC 1075 (with finetuned loadline to drop to >1066, or around 1068mV)
> for science please


 Okay both sets of those voltages are stable for their intended speeds for at least two hours of large FFT without erroring or a WHEA popping up. 

After that I attempted using the lower 1800/3600 voltage set at 1867/3734 speeds. If I use the voltages unchanged then I see a WHEA error at the 1 hour 20 minutes mark in largeFFT. If I swap the VDDG voltages around (VDDG-CCD 966 and VDDG-IOD 916) the WHEA occurred much sooner at the 20 minute mark.

Once again, TM5 and prime95 aren't reporting any errors even at 1900/3800. Programs aren't crashing, no cold boot issues whatsoever, just the WHEA showing up. Maybe I have misconfigured something else? I'm sure I ruled out memory stability when trying for 3800 by using 1.42V DRAM with super loose 18-20-20-44 timings and I still WHEA errored around the same time. Plus I would assume TM5 would actually show an error if it was memory related.

Maybe one of these are sabotaging me?

procODT: 40 (auto puts 36.9 here)
RTT NOM/WR/PARK = 7/3/1 (manually entered but this is the same as auto)
CAD_BUS = 24-20-24-24 (manually entered but this is the same as auto)


EDIT: might as well add system info again, with so many people asking for your help we can't expect you to remember everyone's setup

3700x - no PBO. Using stock cooler.
4x8GB Patriot viper steel 4133 bin a0 pcb samsung b-die. 
Asus crosshair VI x370 with the latest bios 1.0.0.4 agesa


----------



## EightDee8D

Any suggestions ? its stable so far.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=352618&thumb=1

I can boot 2933 with same timings but can't get it stable, even with lose timings.


Edit : its samsung D die, K4A4G085WD-BCPB rev A0. 3200c16.


----------



## Veii

EightDee8D said:


> Any suggestions ? its stable so far.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=352618&thumb=1
> 
> I can boot 2933 with same timings but can't get it stable, even with lose timings.
> Edit : its samsung D die, K4A4G085WD-BCPB rev A0. 3200c16.


Which nm nodesize is it ?
22? 18?








Try this then scale up in frequency 
Around 3200 you might want to use SCL 3
tRFC is 3 way 
I think you misstook tRCD RD and WR because RD should be higher not WR 
Some are low, some don't make sense (like splitting SCL)
Linking you to the center of this post for some short guide
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232


Dollar said:


> Okay both sets of those voltages are stable for their intended speeds for at least two hours of large FFT without erroring or a WHEA popping up.
> 
> After that I attempted using the lower 1800/3600 voltage set at 1867/3734 speeds. If I use the voltages unchanged then I see a WHEA error at the 1 hour 20 minutes mark in largeFFT. If I swap the VDDG voltages around (VDDG-CCD 966 and VDDG-IOD 916) the WHEA occurred much sooner at the 20 minute mark.
> 
> Once again, TM5 and prime95 aren't reporting any errors even at 1900/3800. Programs aren't crashing, no cold boot issues whatsoever, just the WHEA showing up. Maybe I have misconfigured something else? I'm sure I ruled out memory stability when trying for 3800 by using 1.42V DRAM with super loose 18-20-20-44 timings and I still WHEA errored around the same time. Plus I would assume TM5 would actually show an error if it was memory related.
> 
> Maybe one of these are sabotaging me?
> 
> procODT: 40 (auto puts 36.9 here)
> RTT NOM/WR/PARK = 7/3/1 (manually entered but this is the same as auto)
> CAD_BUS = 24-20-24-24 (manually entered but this is the same as auto)
> 
> EDIT: might as well add system info again, with so many people asking for your help we can't expect you to remember everyone's setup
> 
> 3700x - no PBO. Using stock cooler.
> 4x8GB Patriot viper steel 4133 bin a0 pcb samsung b-die.
> Asus crosshair VI x370 with the latest bios 1.0.0.4 agesa


Beautiful :wubsmiley
Science experiment scales exactly as expected, ty~
The only thing we need to figure out still, is how procODT and VSOC work together, 
at which vSOC procODT 28 breaks and the opposite, what's minimum procODT to cover high vSOC near 1.1 range 

Soo, scalling matters now that you could confirm it
Consistent scaling matters and minimum scaling of 50mV matters :specool:
I think DRAM calculator needs a revision on that part, unless yuri found an exception to use lower vSOC than scaling indicates

VDDP scales how it's expected too, we'd need one or two more 2h tests tho to confirm if memory hole really is gone or Yuri's testing just had excessive voltage not affecting it
Low VDDP is a good thing tho

For you, focus on IOD you seem to need it
i used double scaling between VDDP <-> VDDG so we can split it 
And then again double scaling between VDDG and VSOC just to cover minimum vSOC for the IMC to function at >3600MT/s

Hmmm, for 1900FCLK on X370 would be:
VDDP 925
VDDG CCD 950
VDDG IOD 1000
VSOC 1150

or what could maybe work is:
VDDP 920
VDDG CCD 945
VDDG IOD 970
VSOC 1170

last one i'm not 100% certain it would be good to keep 
first pattern looks better ~ test it please after you know on decoupled mode, that your 3800MT/s timings work for sure
Might even try to get a 3900MT/s set ready if we want to try 1950FCLK at 962-966 VDDP (need to figure that one out)


----------



## EightDee8D

Veii said:


> Which nm nodesize is it ?
> 22? 18?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try this then scale up in frequency
> Around 3200 you might want to use SCL 3
> tRFC is 3 way
> I think you misstook tRCD RD and WR because RD should be higher not WR
> Some are low, some don't make sense (like splitting SCL)
> Linking you to the center of this post for some short guide
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232


according to typhoon 

DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: D / 25 nm
Module PCB Revision:01h
Reference Raw Card: B0)

thanks i'll try those timings now.


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> So I have been playing with my GSkill to familiarize myself as the two new kits (Viper Series 4400mhz) I bought will be arriving next week.
> 
> Now I am running the below settings with DRAM set @ 1.45v in BIOS.
> 
> ProcODT is at 34ohm
> 
> CAD bus is 24-20-20-24
> 
> Even going up to 1.50v in BIOS is not assisting in gaining stability when testing with TM5.
> 
> I have played with different combinations of TRFC/TRC, tRTP, tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL and all the other relationships between the timings but I cannot find something that can bring the memory to be stable under heavy testing.
> 
> Max temp of modules I 44C as I have a fan blowing over them.
> 
> Its no biggie as I have already dialled these RAM to the max I can get 24/7 (settings in sig), as I said I am just playing.
> 
> If anything sticks out would be nice to know
> 
> 
> 
> The only way I can get them stable is to increase tRCDRD to 15


Based on the comments of @Veii, try to raise your CAD BUS CLKDRV to like 40 to match a very low ProODT. That's what i had to do for 3733 CL16 setting C-die.



FranZe said:


> I already done it. It's an old result but it doesnt matter. This site is pita to upload pictures to, or maybe its just me. But to make it easy for me i just put out links
> 
> https://imgur.com/OGC674y
> 
> https://imgur.com/BifWspb


Thank you. Gonna run a similar test to compare.


----------



## Veii

EightDee8D said:


> according to typhoon
> 
> DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: D / 25 nm
> Module PCB Revision:01h
> Reference Raw Card: B0)
> 
> thanks i'll try those timings now.


Alright, don't fear to move around 1.48v-1.55v on them  
Not that you'd need that much, but you can because the NodeSize is big :thumb:
* after 1.46v, it's adviced to use some kind of direct airflow on the dimms


----------



## EightDee8D

Veii said:


> Alright, don't fear to move around 1.48v-1.55v on them
> Not that you'd need that much, but you can because the NodeSize is big :thumb:
> * after 1.46v, it's adviced to use some kind of direct airflow on the dimms


That's good to know, although i already have top 120mm fan blowing air on them.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> I can't wait to see what you achieve with your Viper Steel 4400's
> 
> So from your image, you probably could keep with tRCD_RD at 15 and bump tRAS=30.
> 
> But then what if you take down tFAW from 36 to 16 (exactly tRRD_S * 4)?
> And can you make tRDWR=8 (biggest tRCD value / 2, rounded up = ceiling[15/2] )?


Yup, I had already gone this route (though with my improved knowledge needs some tweaks)

My current 24/7 settings are below

*BCLK 100.625 | 3760/1880 mhz* | vDIMM 1.50v | vSOC 1.1v | vDDP 0.850v | vDDG CCD/IOD 1.080v
ProcODT 34.3ohm | Rttwr Off | RttNom Off | RttPark 48ohm
24 20 20 24












These were tested with 25 cycles TM5, 4 hrs Realbench, 500% DRAM calc Memtest, 4 hrs Y-cruncher and several hours Prime95 blend, CrystalDiskMark 10 iterations along with a few hours of gaming with no errors/ anomolies



LuckyBahstard said:


> If you wanted to keep 14's across tRCD, then do that, and leaving tRC loose at 48...
> What if you moved tRFC? 288 is a good tRFC value, but what if you loosed that to 336, would that help stability in TM5? 336 is still an even multiplier of your tRC, tWR, and tRTP. I'm interested in this for the same reason as my reply to FranZe above.
> 
> Just playing sounds like reason enough to tweak things. Gotta have fun.


Yes, these are the exact things I played with. 

Difficulty for me is not havng the baseline knowledge to judge the error tests that TM5 is throwing.

Knowledge I have gathered for these tests so far (from Internet resources, I believe credit is either 1usmus of veii...)



Code:


6 at the start = DRAM/SOC voltage too low or CAD_BUS resistance too high
- come often together with Error 1

Error 7, 11 are burst tests
- it will error out if if CAD_BUS is not optimal
- will error out of tRFC is too low
- mostly errors out only after time

Error 14 is an annoying one
- it can error after the 2nd or 3rd pass if something is off my some ns and just "got lost"
i often hit it after 31min when the test takes 32min - can be heat related but then it's main reason is micro timeout x_x

Error 10 mostly affects the first 5 main timings
- noticed it can be tRCDWR to RD, can be tRP too, but it also can be the last two tRDWR & tRDRD which don't play well with your main tRCDWR/RD

But the errors i was seeing in TM5 were not these error codes and they were appearing after the test had been running for a duration of time.

Would be great for those more knowlegable tham myself to present more findings on what the other error codes could alure to ....



Dollar said:


> Okay both sets of those voltages are stable for their intended speeds for at least two hours of large FFT without erroring or a WHEA popping up.
> 
> After that I attempted using the lower 1800/3600 voltage set at 1867/3734 speeds. If I use the voltages unchanged then I see a WHEA error at the 1 hour 20 minutes mark in largeFFT. If I swap the VDDG voltages around (VDDG-CCD 966 and VDDG-IOD 916) ............snip


From my previous testing of 1900 FCLK, have you tried running tests that simply saturate your PCIe bus ??

For example running multiple loops of CrystalDiskMark ??

I am asking because you could rule out any issues with the stabilty of the PCI bus in this way. This is assuming you are using a nvme drive that is on the same bus that the CPU is using ....



Veii said:


> Hmmm, for 1900FCLK on X370 would be:
> VDDP 925
> VDDG CCD 950
> VDDG IOD 1000
> VSOC 1150
> 
> or what could maybe work is:
> VDDP 920
> VDDG CCD 945
> VDDG IOD 970
> VSOC 1170


I will give these a go for my own trouble shooting / tinkering as I am also still on X370

Just a side not,

On release BIOS for my motherboard I had 3800/1900 24/7 settings stable rock stable, rock stable meaning

Realbench-8hrs, TM5-25-cycles, YCruncher-11hrs, Prime95-8hrs
3800-1900-tCL15-tRCDRD15-tRCDWR10-tRP15-tRAS28-tRC46-tRFC266-tFAW16-tWR10

But after the release of the Agesa that fixed the whea errors I could never reach this mem/fclk combination ......



rdr09 said:


> Based on the comments of @Veii, try to raise your CAD BUS CLKDRV to like 40 to match a very low ProODT. That's what i had to do for 3733 CL16 setting C-die.


Cheers,will also play with this


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> Hmmm, for 1900FCLK on X370 would be:
> VDDP 925
> VDDG CCD 950
> VDDG IOD 1000
> VSOC 1150


1900/3800 with this set of voltages resulted in immediate rounding errors in prime95 and a bluescreen. I think I should just give up on 3800 at this point :aaskull:


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> Yup, I had already gone this route (though with my improved knowledge needs some tweaks)
> 
> My current 24/7 settings are below
> 
> *BCLK 100.625 | 3760/1880 mhz* | vDIMM 1.50v | vSOC 1.1v | vDDP 0.850v | vDDG CCD/IOD 1.080v
> ProcODT 34.3ohm | Rttwr Off | RttNom Off | RttPark 48ohm
> 24 20 20 24
> 
> On release BIOS for my motherboard I had 3800/1900 24/7 settings stable rock stable, rock stable meaning
> Realbench-8hrs, TM5-25-cycles, YCruncher-11hrs, Prime95-8hrs
> 3800-1900-tCL15-tRCDRD15-tRCDWR10-tRP15-tRAS28-tRC46-tRFC266-tFAW16-tWR10
> But after the release of the Agesa that fixed the whea errors I could never reach this mem/fclk combination ......


Was that from 1003ABBA to 1004B ?
Or from 1004B to 1004BB maybe even 1005 ?
1004B breaked memory training, and later 1004B(patch b) lowered inter-core latency, some got it as pre-agesa 1005
Some got it as release 1005

Maybe that fixed the WHEA error
But uncoreOC mode was enforced on 1004B
Meaning it will autocorrect VDDP,VDDG,VSOC if it doesn't follow AMDs stepping ruleset
You need to enable UncoreOC in the AMD Overclocking menu, for it to accept custom voltages and not autocorrect
Likely the autocorrection fixed the WHEA error, as this presets above do follow amd's ruleset 

Did you re-use the tRFC mini, after changing frequency yourself ?
Maybe optimal value is now different for 3760MT/s


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> 1900/3800 with this set of voltages resulted in immediate rounding errors in prime95 and a bluescreen. I think I should just give up on 3800 at this point :aaskull:


It was just testing 
What about:
VDDP 950
VDDG CCD 1000
VDDG IOD 1050
VSOC 1150 
I'm unsure about VDDP 950 being fine for 1900FLCK, appears a bit too high for my taste
But you need low procODT to hit 1900 - so also good signal integrity

Test this one, but likely you need procODT lower and so lower vSOC for it to work 
You can finetune 3734MT/s to use less procODT with the tested voltage for 1867 FCLK


----------



## EightDee8D

Veii said:


> Alright, don't fear to move around 1.48v-1.55v on them
> Not that you'd need that much, but you can because the NodeSize is big :thumb:
> * after 1.46v, it's adviced to use some kind of direct airflow on the dimms


It bootsup @ 2866mhz ram with your suggested timings, but nothing above 2866. tried 1.45v. previously it used to boot 2933 but wasn't stable.


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Was that from 1003ABBA to 1004B ?
> Or from 1004B to 1004BB maybe even 1005 ?
> 1004B breaked memory training, and later 1004B(patch b) lowered inter-core latency, some got it as pre-agesa 1005
> Some got it as release 1005
> 
> Maybe that fixed the WHEA error
> But uncoreOC mode was enforced on 1004B
> Meaning it will autocorrect VDDP,VDDG,VSOC if it doesn't follow AMDs stepping ruleset
> You need to enable UncoreOC in the AMD Overclocking menu, for it to accept custom voltages and not autocorrect
> Likely the autocorrection fixed the WHEA error, as this presets above do follow amd's ruleset
> 
> Did you re-use the tRFC mini, after changing frequency yourself ?
> Maybe optimal value is now different for 3760MT/s


Looking at my past posts it was moving *to* ABBA that i lost the stability of 3800/1900.

So pre ABBA I was rock stable 3800/1900.

And yes, I have flashed back to pre ABBA BIOS and the stability at 3800/1900 still is OK.

Will see if anything changes with the new 3600 arriving on Wed/Thurs along with the 2 x Viper Steel 4400mhz kits I purchased.



> UncoreOC in the AMD Overclocking menu


dont think ive ever seen this in my x370 BIOS, will check once I go back to the office ....


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> Looking at my past posts it was moving *to* ABBA that i lost the stability of 3800/1900.
> 
> So pre ABBA I was rock stable 3800/1900.
> 
> And yes, I have flashed back to pre ABBA BIOS and the stability at 3800/1900 still is OK.
> 
> Will see if anything changes with the new 3600 arriving on Wed/Thurs along with the 2 x Viper Steel 4400mhz kits I purchased.
> 
> 
> dont think ive ever seen this in my x370 BIOS, will check once I go back to the office ....


It seems that updating the chipset may affect stability of oc as well not just BIOS update. So, it is wise to keep a good working BIOS unless it is really necessary to update. 
After you play with the ProODT and CAD, you might be able to lower your DRAM Vcore.

Anyway, my B-Die works very well using DOCP on my Asus X470 motherboard. Gets about 64 ns in lat mem, while my 3466 CL14 using the cal gets about 61. Not much difference really when all other things equal.


----------



## mongoled

rdr09 said:


> It seems that updating the chipset may affect stability of oc as well not just BIOS update. So, it is wise to keep a good working BIOS unless it is really necessary to update.
> After you play with the ProODT and CAD, you might be able to lower your DRAM Vcore.
> 
> Anyway, my B-Die works very well using DOCP on my Asus X470 motherboard. Gets about 64 ns in lat mem, while my 3466 CL14 using the cal gets about 61. Not much difference really when all other things equal.


Yes this is true, but with the move to ABBA, it is a struggle to even post at 3800/1900.

On one of the release BIOS after ABBA I thought I had managed to tweak that particular BIOS up to 3800/1900 and it was stable in almost every stress test, that was until I stressed the PCIs bus by running CrystalDiskMark, which resulted in blue screens.

Also PCIe bus instability also detected at 3800/1900 by listening to audio, the sound was being distorted, so its very important to test with other things than the CPU/MEM tests most people use to test stability when pushing to 1900 fclk...


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> It was just testing
> What about:
> VDDP 950
> VDDG CCD 1000
> VDDG IOD 1050
> VSOC 1150
> I'm unsure about VDDP 950 being fine for 1900FLCK, appears a bit too high for my taste
> But you need low procODT to hit 1900 - so also good signal integrity
> 
> Test this one, but likely you need procODT lower and so lower vSOC for it to work
> You can finetune 3734MT/s to use less procODT with the tested voltage for 1867 FCLK


 Okay after further testing it appears that my setup experiences negative scaling as soon as I set SOC any higher than around 1.13. I can nudge vddg and soc up slowly and see prime95 last longer before WHEA after each bump but after I go past a specific point stability goes down the drain and I get rounding errors and bluescreens immediately after starting prime95 which never happened at the lower voltages which allowed it to reach a little over 20 minutes before WHEA showed with no errors in prime or bsod.

After searching for this strange behavior I found a very old post from The Stilt mentioning this during his 2700x testing: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-72#post-39391302



> "There are clear differences in how the memory controller behaves on the different CPU specimens. The majority of the CPUs will do 3466MHz or higher at 1.050V SoC voltage, however the difference lies in how the different specimens react to the voltage. Some of the specimens seem scale with the increased SoC voltage, while the others simply refuse to scale at all or in some cases even illustrate negative scaling. All of the tested samples illustrated negative scaling (i.e. more errors or failures to train) when higher than 1.150V SoC was used. In all cases the maximum memory frequency was achieved at =< 1.100V SoC voltage."


I appreciate all of the help but it looks like 3800 is just out of reach for me. I probably nuked my week old windows install testing this :lachen:


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> My current 24/7 settings are below
> 
> *BCLK 100.625 | 3760/1880 mhz* | vDIMM 1.50v | vSOC 1.1v | vDDP 0.850v | vDDG CCD/IOD 1.080v
> ProcODT 34.3ohm | Rttwr Off | RttNom Off | RttPark 48ohm
> 24 20 20 24


 Nice timings (image removed in reply here). Btw, I think @Veii mentioned it later on -- I'm catching up here -- but one thing I noticed was your VDDG is within 50mV of vSOC. Not sure what that will imply, if it gets corrected for you implicitly, or if it just runs that way.



mongoled said:


> Difficulty for me is not havng the baseline knowledge to judge the error tests that TM5 is throwing.
> 
> Knowledge I have gathered for these tests so far (from Internet resources, I believe credit is either 1usmus of veii...)


This is nice. In fact, I'd reaaaaally like more info on the test cases and error causes, * @Veii or @1usmus*! Chances are someone has replied already and I just need to scroll the latest posts, and catch up.



mongoled said:


> From my previous testing of 1900 FCLK, have you tried running tests that simply saturate your PCIe bus ??
> For example running multiple loops of CrystalDiskMark ??
> 
> I am asking because you could rule out any issues with the stabilty of the PCI bus in this way. This is assuming you are using a nvme drive that is on the same bus that the CPU is using ....


I haven't tried CrystalDiskMark, nope. And I do have a 1TB SN750 nvme drive in my first slot, using the pci bus.




mongoled said:


> On release BIOS for my motherboard I had 3800/1900 24/7 settings stable rock stable
> 
> But after the release of the Agesa that fixed the whea errors I could never reach this mem/fclk combination ......


That's annoying.  Oh well.

Cheers to you too, thanks for the kind and lengthy reply!


----------



## FranZe

LuckyBahstard said:


> Thanks for sharing.  And I saw your Cinebench R20 results also.
> 
> I have a request,
> because I'm hovering around the same numbers but with my Viper Steel 4400 kit (and 3600 chip, B450M board). Different parts than you, but I'm curious what voltages you are running here.
> 
> Also, because the suggestions are to keep tWR, tRTP, and tRC perfect divisors of tRFC...
> Instead of 298, what if you tried tRFC=336 (with tRFC2=250, tRFC4=154)?
> This keeps those 3 other timings as perfect divisors.
> 
> But, tREFI (related) is the average interval between refresh commands, and it may skip (push out) refreshes and then pull in multiple refresh cycles later to hit its average. So there are smart shenanigans played here with refresh timing anyway, and the IMC can make up for your choices (or possibly hide what it does and do whatever the heck it wants). I don't know the algorithms and others here may (cough Veii cough) be much better informed.  But I'm curious what happens if you loosen tRFC to hit those perfect-divisor guidelines.
> 
> "For science. " <-- @*Veii* you cracked me up with this one buddy, hehe.
> Thanks *FranZe*.


Sorry, i did miss this one  

Are you saying that there is something wrong with my settings? I've only copied the numbers right in from the ryzencalc. I've no clue of what i doing if i change somthing  

Voltages:

Mem 1.47v, SOC 1.15 with LLC on low, vddg 950 and vddp 900

Should i change something? Change tRFC to 336? Does this impact other settings?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> procODT 60ohm defaults if you ever push beyond 3600MT/s on AGESA 1004B
> It's a bug


I've tried looking up details on that bug btw, find people complaining but there are various symptoms they point to. Anyway, I saw procODT=60 when on JEDEC 2133 speeds before doing anything. So, after I did early OC tests with lower resistance values and had issues, that's why I manually began setting 60. I'm not sure if I actually hit this bug or not since I haven't been Auto on procODT on anything but stock jedec speeds.

And, you were answering mongoled here... and I have questions:


Veii said:


> 1004B breaked memory training, and later 1004B(patch b) lowered inter-core latency, some got it as pre-agesa 1005


Btw, you saw my BIOS rev, as Asus build 2006 / agesa 1.0.0.4 patch B. Is this different from 1.0.0.4B or 1.0.0.4B(patchB)? 



Veii said:


> But uncoreOC mode was enforced on 1004B
> Meaning it will autocorrect VDDP,VDDG,VSOC if it doesn't follow AMDs stepping ruleset
> You need to enable UncoreOC in the AMD Overclocking menu, for it to accept custom voltages and not autocorrect


I haven't done this myself yet. I see it in my Advanced > AMD Overclocking section, even on my not-yet-modded bios version. I hadn't played in here yet because I was uncertain if making any changes in the AMD OC section would cause its over values to override some of the intended changes I made outside, in the asus-specific AI Tweaker menu.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Also PCIe bus instability also detected at 3800/1900 by listening to audio, the sound was being distorted, so its very important to test with other things than the CPU/MEM tests most people use to test stability when pushing to 1900 fclk...


Did you have BCLK tweaked? I've never gone off of 100Mhz BCLK (now or in past on Haswell) but I'm wondering whether that could have an effect on your audio or pcie peripherals.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FranZe said:


> Are you saying that there is something wrong with my settings?


Nope, only wondering what would happen if you increased tRFC to 336. It makes the other timings clean divisors. e.g. your tRTP, tWR, tRC all divide evenly into tRFC without a remainder. Veii and others suggested this is optimal, so for science, I want to see if it manifests as better benchmarks or stability in your testing.



FranZe said:


> I've only copied the numbers right in from the ryzencalc. I've no clue of what i doing if i change somthing
> Voltages:
> Mem 1.47v, SOC 1.15 with LLC on low, vddg 950 and vddp 900


Thanks. I wondered about your voltages because I know mine aren't ideal (with vddg and vddp both 950mV). But for curiosity, I asked, and we both have the same b die kit (while everything else is different lol, so it's not the best comparison with me on a cheaper mobo..).  But hey, I'm interested in any results with any combo of parts, for the Viper Steel kits.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Nice timings (image removed in reply here). Btw, I think @Veii mentioned it later on -- I'm catching up here -- but one thing I noticed was your VDDG is within 50mV of vSOC. Not sure what that will imply, if it gets corrected for you implicitly, or if it just runs that way.


Just ran an updated test with "fixed" memory timings and new voltages. The info Veii has kindly shared was not common knowledge when I optimised my 24/7 settings (they were manually inputed by me).

Now ammended vDDP 0.905v, vDDG IOD 1.05v and vDDG CCD 0.955v while vSOC is @ 1.1v

Screen shot below



LuckyBahstard said:


> This is nice. In fact, I'd reaaaaally like more info on the test cases and error causes, [b @Veii or @1usmus[/b]! Chances are someone has replied already and I just need to scroll the latest posts, and catch up.


Nope, that info re TM5 errors is golden, hopefully some of the genius can spill more info

 



LuckyBahstard said:


> I haven't tried CrystalDiskMark, nope. And I do have a 1TB SN750 nvme drive in my first slot, using the pci bus.
> 
> That's annoying.  Oh well.
> 
> Cheers to you too, thanks for the kind and lengthy reply!


I be honest with you, after I went through a monster session of testing 3800/1900 and it crashed once I loaded CrrystalDiskMark, I now run CrystalDiskMark first, whenever im pushing FCLK as I wasted so many hours putting the rig through all those tests for nothing !!

Your welcome





LuckyBahstard said:


> Did you have BCLK tweaked? I've never gone off of 100Mhz BCLK (now or in past on Haswell) but I'm wondering whether that could have an effect on your audio or pcie peripherals.


When running the 3800/1900 BCLK was on auto, spread spectrum disabled.

Pushing the BCLK can effect those things, the screen shot I posted ive got it set @ 100.625 so not alot really, but helps with my PBO settings to get an increased boost


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Just ran an updated test with "fixed" memory timings and new voltages.
> ...
> Nope, that info re TM5 errors is golden, hopefully some of the genius can spill more info
> ...
> I now run CrystalDiskMark first, whenever im pushing FCLK as I wasted so many hours putting the rig through all those tests for nothing !!
> ...
> Your welcome


Awesome, congrats on the updated test! And  and  on your other notes.


----------



## TheGlow

Ok, so I'm a little unsure where I should go from here. When I was blindly changing mem timings I managed to get down to 69.2ns in Aida. Then it just randomly jumped uped to 77+ns. I changed everything back to how I had it, no dice. 
I'm now following the DRAM calc and the same thing, lowest is 77. So I dont know how to get back down to lower latency. But in the meantime what else should I do? It doesnt seem crazy oc'd or anything, testmem5 run multiple times, an hour at a time and no problems.
However during gaming I've had 2 random crashes so not 100% sure its memory or just general issues with being on a new motherboard/cpu.
I did reuse the same OS install so I plan to install fresh since Ive been on this install since August, so it might be worth cleaning it up a bit.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

TheGlow said:


> Ok, so I'm a little unsure where I should go from here. When I was blindly changing mem timings I managed to get down to 69.2ns in Aida. Then it just randomly jumped uped to 77+ns. I changed everything back to how I had it, no dice.


I'm not sure , however I see in your two AIDA screen caps that you had different CPU multipliers and Northbridge clocks. So did you get _everything_ back to how it was, for sure?

Edit: in your final image, with AIDA in the lower left, it has yet a 3rd different Northbridge clock. (are these just small variances with the voltage depending on load? or did a setting get left behind, causing the variance?)


----------



## Martin778

I've seen it happen before also on my TR rig. What I always do is saving the BIOS profile before tinkering further, recovering the setting would bring the scores back to normal.


----------



## FranZe

LuckyBahstard said:


> Nope, only wondering what would happen if you increased tRFC to 336. It makes the other timings clean divisors. e.g. your tRTP, tWR, tRC all divide evenly into tRFC without a remainder. Veii and others suggested this is optimal, so for science, I want to see if it manifests as better benchmarks or stability in your testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I wondered about your voltages because I know mine aren't ideal (with vddg and vddp both 950mV). But for curiosity, I asked, and we both have the same b die kit (while everything else is different lol, so it's not the best comparison with me on a cheaper mobo..).  But hey, I'm interested in any results with any combo of parts, for the Viper Steel kits.


Here it goes, this time without pictures  I got the same result on SOTTR benchmark. A little lower score in CB multi, if i compare when i had better cooling so that results dont count. In Membench i lost a second (time: 195 vs 194) in default mode, again compared to old results. So pretty much the same


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FranZe said:


> Here it goes, this time without pictures  I got the same result on SOTTR benchmark. A little lower score in CB multi, if i compare when i had better cooling so that results dont count. In Membench i lost a second (time: 195 vs 194) in default mode, again compared to old results. So pretty much the same


Thanks!  So to me, (anecdotally off of a single test sample) it basically confirms that lining up all those timing values to divide cleanly is only most helpful for stability. Else, slightly lower is still slightly better perf-wise. This seems to be my finding too with my test runs.


----------



## Gadfly

Hey all,

I have a few questions, maybe some of you can shed light on something I am trying to wrap my head around. 

I have had really good luck with my 2x16GB G.skill 3200C14 kit, (3800C16, tight subs, 1900mhz fclk 1:1) but with an upcoming build I went ahead and picked up a 4x8GB g.skill Neo 3800C14 kit. I had been beating my head against the wall for hours just trying to get the memory to train and boot reliably. The DRAM calc (1.7.3) was recommending a procODT of 43.6ohm, I found that dropping that to 40ohm seemed to help, dropping it to 30ohm finally got me to a point where I could train and boot cold or warm without multiple retried. 

I currently am running a pretty loose profile of 16-16-16-16-32-48 @ 1.45v (modified fast pre-set, way higher voltage than it needs to be IMHO), I was picking up some errors running TM5 with the CAD Bus set 24,20,20,24, but Changing the Cad bus to 24,20,24,24 seemed to have helped stability and I passed TM5 (1usmus, 5 cycles). 

Then I set RTT_NOM, RTT_wr and RTT_Park to the recommended calculator values and I start picking up memory errors again.

My current voltages:

3950X, C8H, 1302 bios, G.skill 3800C14-32GB 4x8GB memory
Dram: 1.45v
Soc: 1.05v
VDDG: 0.945v (both)
CLDO_vddp: 0.900v
Proc_ODT: 30Ohm
VDDP: 0.96v
PLL 1.8v

Everything else set to auto.

(Before anyone asks, the soc and vddg voltages have been stable 1900mhz fclk for months with the other memory kit. I did play with moving them up but it doesn't seem to make any diffrence.)


So my questions:

VDDP: What is the expected behavior in VDDP voltage scaling? What is the Auto value? My logic behind setting VDDP to 950 was that it will help run a lower ProcODT and thus help keep SOC and VDDG down. Do I have that all wrong? Suggestions?

RTT's: does anyone know what the stock NOM/Wr/Park values? Any thoughts on why setting Nom to RZQ7, WR to off, and Park to RZQ/5 would start generating errors? Suggestions?


----------



## Martin778

What about leaving the ODT/RTT/ODT on auto? My TR 3960X won't run the ones recommended by the calculator either.


----------



## Dollar

Gadfly said:


> RTT's: does anyone know what the stock NOM/Wr/Park values? Any thoughts on why setting Nom to RZQ7, WR to off, and Park to RZQ/5 would start generating errors? Suggestions?


Auto on my old x370 asus crosshair with 4x8gb is 7/3/1. This is the same as the old DRAM calc recommendation with four single rank sticks and is still the recommendation with dual rank sticks in the current calc. The new recommendation of 7/OFF/5 with four single rank sticks produces errors for me while 7/3/1 is fine.


----------



## Gadfly

I can make it work, I just don't understand why. Without knowing what the stock ODT values are I can't figure out why settings that should work, are not working. 

My guess is that this has something to do with the ODT pins being driven high in the quad rank setup; I wonder if it is better to leave both Nom, and WR enabled with park.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Gadfly said:


> RTT's: does anyone know what the stock NOM/Wr/Park values? Any thoughts on why setting Nom to RZQ7, WR to off, and Park to RZQ/5 would start generating errors? Suggestions?


This is going to be different per kit. You're best off googling, or finding your kit on Amazon and seeing if customer reviews posted any pictures of their values from Auto (and you may have to assume it was from auto). You yourself can boot without XMP and without custom settings, and see what it shows you in Ryzen Master.

Example of how different kits (or mobos) behave on Auto...
For my RTT_NOM and RTT_WR were Off by default when I booted up with JEDEC 2133 (non XMP, non custom). And as I left them on Auto on higher clocks they stayed that way. Viper Steel 4400 b-die kit. My RTT_PARK defaulted to RZQ/5(48). But once I went to 3733 I had to bump it to RZQ/4(60). Part of this might be due to my high voltages, which thanks to @Veii I'm trying to dial in a bit.


----------



## TheGlow

LuckyBahstard said:


> I'm not sure , however I see in your two AIDA screen caps that you had different CPU multipliers and Northbridge clocks. So did you get _everything_ back to how it was, for sure?
> 
> Edit: in your final image, with AIDA in the lower left, it has yet a 3rd different Northbridge clock. (are these just small variances with the voltage depending on load? or did a setting get left behind, causing the variance?)


Yea, it doesnt make sense. Those are settings I never touched, so just auto jumping around I guess. 
I only happened 2 have 2 screenshots when it was sub 77, and I havent touched the settings in 2 days and ran another bench and now its back down finally to 67.6. I'm stumped. Here are the 2 comparisons, they seem the same to me.
The only difference oddly being this isnt run within 30 mins of restarting. Hell, I have a bunch of apps and stuff open.
So on that note, do I look to tighten anymore? If so, how? Or do I look into lowering the voltages? I have the recommended settings from dram calc.


----------



## Dollar

Gadfly said:


> The DRAM calc (1.7.3) was recommending a procODT of 43.6ohm, I found that dropping that to 40ohm seemed to help, dropping it to 30ohm finally got me to a point where I could train and boot cold or warm without multiple retried.


Also, please test with prime95 largeFFT when minimizing procODT to make sure you're actually stable and not just TM5/memory test stable. I was able to run through many passes of TM5 at 32 but largeFFT gave me an error instantly. Going back up to the default 36.9 allows prime95 to run error free for hours. Of course it's system dependent and mine is probably worse case scenario.


----------



## Gadfly

Dollar said:


> [
> 
> Also, please test with prime95 largeFFT when minimizing procODT to make sure you're actually stable and not just TM5/memory test stable. I was able to run through many passes of TM5 at 32 but largeFFT gave me an error instantly. Going back up to the default 36.9 allows prime95 to run error free for hours. Of course it's system dependent and mine is probably worse case scenario.


Thanks, I will do so, I just have not got that far yet. I literally spent most of the day watching F9>0d codes.

Where I am at now is i got a single error on auto RTT. I tuned down vddp to .900, and set the RTT's to 7/3/1, if it can pass 10 runs i will move on to getting the timings cleaned up and start stress testing.

Either the dram calc is way off, or my kit is way off on the dram voltage. The calc is saying 3800 15-15-15-15-30 GDD, at 1.37v - 1.41v, I am getting errors at 16-16-16-16-32 GDE at 1.45v. 

So I am not there yet.

Also, another good test is AIDA64's stress test. Check memory and cache and let it rip. It will feed out fclk/ODT errors as well.


----------



## KedarWolf

Gadfly said:


> Thanks, I will do so, I just have not got that far yet. I literally spent most of the day watching F9>0d codes.
> 
> Where I am at now is i got a single error on auto RTT. I tuned down vddp to .900, and set the RTT's to 7/3/1, if it can pass 10 runs i will move on to getting the timings cleaned up and start stress testing.
> 
> Either the dram calc is way off, or my kit is way off on the dram voltage. The calc is saying 3800 15-15-15-15-30 GDD, at 1.37v - 1.41v, I am getting errors at 16-16-16-16-32 GDE at 1.45v.
> 
> So I am not there yet.
> 
> Also, another good test is AIDA64's stress test. Check memory and cache and let it rip. It will feed out fclk/ODT errors as well.


About your comment about tRFC in the other thread, I trust the peeps that advice how to adjust tRC in this thread much more than you saying what it's set at doesn't matter.

And I did extensive testing with Blender Classroom, tRFC synced properly with RC, tRP and tRAS shaves nearly two seconds off my benchmark runs which is repeatable in multiple runs of the benchmark. Plus I found even though I can stress test stable with lower tRFC stable, my benchmarks slow considerably.

I'm well under 3:54 in Blender Classroom with the below settings. Lower tRFC does worse. Not synced does worse as well.


----------



## thomasck

Gadfly said:


> Thanks, I will do so, I just have not got that far yet. I literally spent most of the day watching F9>0d codes.
> 
> Where I am at now is i got a single error on auto RTT. I tuned down vddp to .900, and set the RTT's to 7/3/1, if it can pass 10 runs i will move on to getting the timings cleaned up and start stress testing.
> 
> Either the dram calc is way off, or my kit is way off on the dram voltage. The calc is saying 3800 15-15-15-15-30 GDD, at 1.37v - 1.41v, I am getting errors at 16-16-16-16-32 GDE at 1.45v.
> 
> So I am not there yet.
> 
> Also, another good test is AIDA64's stress test. Check memory and cache and let it rip. It will feed out fclk/ODT errors as well.


Dram voltages never worked for me since version 1.4.X., I always needed some extra +-0.07v at least. With 1.7.3 it recommends 1.41v but I'm stable only at 1.465v. At the same time I see many people stable with recommended voltages and similar rigs than mine. 

Sent from Tapatalk


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Start with this preset:
> _<image removed in quote>_
> Start with procODT 28.8ohm, VDDP 900, VDDG IOD 1000, VDDG CCD 950, VSOC 1050
> Start with 40-20-24-24 CAD_BUS while you remain on procODT 28 and move till 1.5vDIMM
> The preset should be a good IC quality check, as not many can run this /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> You should not need over 1.46vDIMM to run that , i needed 1.42v


Mixed results with your presets at 3466 CL14. And, thanks, @Veii /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Ryzen Master after booting your presets: https://imgur.com/tqNpcAu

The GOOD:
I was truly stable initially with small adjustments to your timings. SCLs at 3 instead of 2, and tRFC at 336 instead of 260. GDM Enabled.
(_edit:I just retested this and still stable on this_)

I did try SCLs at 2 and tRFC 294, but I only went 6 cycles in TM5 before exiting early -- so it doesn't count yet.

Then I tested your exact presets. Didn't test TM5 until after setting GDM disabled. So I skipped a test with Enabled.

The BAD:
A subsequent test with these AND with GDM Disabled meant 6 errors in TM5 in 12 cycles. So, I need to walk back a little and try to disable GDM I guess. I've never been stable with it off, that makes me sad. Or I could move forward and live with GDM. Thoughts?
(_Edit: I think I'll test to understand the failure point.. if it's SCL 2, or GDM disabled, since neither previously have worked for me._)

Back to some positive notes... but I wonder if GDM is silently fixing anything...

Happy to be at procODT 28.2ohms!
And lowered vdimm back to 1.4V! I didn't bother going lower since I'll probably bump up at higher speeds later anyway
I also kept both VDDG's at .950V, didn't yet push IOD to 1V
I chose tRDWR 8 / tWRRD 1 instead of your 6/3, because per your previous suggestions said single-rank b-die can and should do 8-1, and these are what Yuri's DRAM Calc suggests and what my JEDEC 2133 defaults were as well -- any other reason to do 6/3?

Sandra Results from my stable SCLs=3 and tRFC=336 -- it's not too exciting due to 3466, but it's ok:
Multi-core efficiency test gave me a max latency of 72.50ns, intercore bandwidth 77.2GB/s, intercore latency 49.8ns


----------



## LuckyBahstard

KedarWolf said:


> I did extensive testing with Blender Classroom, tRFC synced properly with RC, tRP and tRAS shaves nearly two seconds off my benchmark runs which is repeatable in multiple runs of the benchmark. Plus I found even though I can stress test stable with lower tRFC stable, my benchmarks slow considerably.


Ooh, nice info. Ok that makes me more interested in playing with this even more. Especially since I just failed with GDM off and tRFC not well synced at 260. Time for staying with tRFC 336 with my tRC 42 and seeing if I do better in TM5. 🙂

Edit: If anyone in the States wants the 16GB (2x8) Viper Steel 4400 kit, it just hit its tasty, lowest price again. PM me if you need help finding it.


----------



## Gadfly

KedarWolf said:


> Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I will do so, I just have not got that far yet. I literally spent most of the day watching F9>0d codes.
> 
> Where I am at now is i got a single error on auto RTT. I tuned down vddp to .900, and set the RTT's to 7/3/1, if it can pass 10 runs i will move on to getting the timings cleaned up and start stress testing.
> 
> Either the dram calc is way off, or my kit is way off on the dram voltage. The calc is saying 3800 15-15-15-15-30 GDD, at 1.37v - 1.41v, I am getting errors at 16-16-16-16-32 GDE at 1.45v.
> 
> So I am not there yet.
> 
> Also, another good test is AIDA64's stress test. Check memory and cache and let it rip. It will feed out fclk/ODT errors as well.
> 
> 
> 
> About your comment about tRFC in the other thread, I trust the peeps that advice how to adjust tRC in this thread much more than you saying what it's set at doesn't matter.
> 
> And I did extensive testing with Blender Classroom, tRFC synced properly with RC, tRP and tRAS shaves nearly two seconds off my benchmark runs which is repeatable in multiple runs of the benchmark. Plus I found even though I can stress test stable with lower tRFC stable, my benchmarks slow considerably.
> 
> I'm well under 3:54 in Blender Classroom with the below settings. Lower tRFC does worse. Not synced does worse as well.
Click to expand...


It isn't a matter of trust, thst is what trfc is, it is fact. It has no dependency on any other timing.

It is an arbitrary value. The correct number is as low as your memory will tolerate without lower performance. There is no benefit to syncing with any other timing. If it appears that way to you, it is purely coincidental. 

You want to refresh the row as quickly as possible, if you try to sync it too rapidly you will get data corruption on the row. This will lower overall performance, even before you see memory errors reported in a stress test. Going higher values, performance is expected to decrease, going too low performance is expected to decrease.

Syncing has nothing to do with it, if what you are suggesting is true, you are the only person to ever inbthe history of DDR to have a performance increase due to syncing trfc with un-related timings.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Gadfly said:


> It isn't a matter of trust, thst is what trfc is, it is fact. It has no dependency on any other timing.
> 
> It is an arbitrary value. The correct number is as low as your memory will tolerate without lower performance. There is no benefit to syncing with any other timing. If it appears that way to you, it is purely coincidental.
> 
> You want to refresh the row as quickly as possible, if you try to sync it too rapidly you will get data corruption on the row. This will lower overall performance, even before you see memory errors reported in a stress test. Going higher values, performance is expected to decrease, going too low performance is expected to decrease.
> 
> Syncing has nothing to do with it, if what you are suggesting is true, you are the only person to ever inbthe history of DDR to have a performance increase due to syncing trfc with un-related timings.


What would be the unrelated timings?
Do you mean there's no benefit in syncing tRFC with other timings but do the opposite, sync others with tRFC?

From my understanding of tRFC calculator:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/edit#gid=0

It should be synced with tCL and tRC, hence influencing also tRAS/tRP choice.
I think as suggested by @Veii tRTP should be a tRFC's divisor for better syncing.
Did I got it wrong?


----------



## UnLuckyBahstard

What option use to Nanya Chip A-Die?


----------



## Yuke

Yuke said:


> Maybe i was "on edge" before with my settings. I increased SOC voltage by one step and i am at 4000% coverage rightnow...lets see if that fixed it.


Well, it was as always...keep calm and increase voltage...

18000% Karhu pass with 1.119 SOC voltage (windows) and LLC to High...


----------



## rdr09

I suspect my C-die at 3800 MHz using 1.45v is getting too hot during stress test thus throwing errors, so i decided to tilt the top fan blowing directly to the RAM. Zip ties can't be seen then door is closed while the tubings (watercooling) does not look bad at all.


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> Nope, only wondering what would happen if you increased tRFC to 336. It makes the other timings clean divisors. e.g. your tRTP, tWR, tRC all divide evenly into tRFC without a remainder. Veii and others suggested this is optimal, so for science, I want to see if it manifests as better benchmarks or stability in your testing.
> 
> 
> FranZe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it goes, this time without pictures  I got the same result on SOTTR benchmark. A little lower score in CB multi, if i compare when i had better cooling so that results dont count. In Membench i lost a second (time: 195 vs 194) in default mode, again compared to old results. So pretty much the same
Click to expand...

1usmus's values if we crosscompare both with identical timings, are indeed lower than my suggested baseline
But we both seek for the same goal
Just his ones have tSTAG included and pretested to be lower 
My *6 suggested ones remain an ETA while his have tSTAG included

The reason why we get different results is, i focus on a calculated baseline - while he abuses precharge stacking to get it lower
Its also the reason why our two tRDWR values vary while the rest is pretty much identical 
Sadly lowering them that far down needs excessive testing and tSTAG readout
Something i can not calculate ~yet~ 

I on the other hand focus on calculating ~everything~ , which still needs time to get it down perfectly 
Soo we both are correct and both seek the same goal
His ones remain a tiny bit faster, but you need a baseline after all - so i hope that little tool can help a bit
And tRFC plays a big role in timing stability, well more to it later 
* oh if it wasn't seen on another sheet next to it, we have another issue with accuracy where boards MT/s is wrong too
** lurk over to sheet 3, if you want to grab accurate frequency for calculation ~ remain are WIP
example, 3800MT/s = 3800.02375014844 MT/s :handlebar if you want accurate ns calculation :ninja:
it's actually one more decimal but i can not go beyond 11 



Gadfly said:


> It isn't a matter of trust, thst is what trfc is, it is fact. It has no dependency on any other timing.
> 
> It is an arbitrary value. The correct number is as low as your memory will tolerate without lower performance. There is no benefit to syncing with any other timing. If it appears that way to you, it is purely coincidental.
> 
> You want to refresh the row as quickly as possible, if you try to sync it too rapidly you will get data corruption on the row. This will lower overall performance, even before you see memory errors reported in a stress test. Going higher values, performance is expected to decrease, going too low performance is expected to decrease.
> 
> Syncing has nothing to do with it, if what you are suggesting is true, you are the only person to ever inbthe history of DDR to have a performance increase due to syncing trfc with un-related timings.


I'm sorry but the fact was confirmed by personal base
Memory is variable, half of the timings are fixed, half of them are variable in real-time
But all of them behave logarithmic

Starting by the not accurate represented frequency, down to ryzen 3rd gen autocorrection, next to board decimal autocorrection
Memory is not in a constant state to predict a fixed "lower" tRFC 
This is not how it works
Data corruption doesn't happen out of nothing, and corrupted data will indeed appear in correct memory stresstests which keep in mind memory behavior

tRFC is an arbitrary value, it's a fixed delay value which is used modularly and yet being logarithmic value which scales by applied frequency
tRFC on it's own is used to generate tREFI, while tRFC2 and tRFC4 are used together with tCKE and tMRD to generate tRFC
tMRD & tMOD are factored in with tCKE for that
Quoting couple of documents as it's too much text


Spoiler






Code:


For a normal activation-precharge operation, the minimum row cycle time is denoted as tRC cycles, and determines the minimum time between accesses to different rows; 
but for refresh operations, the cycle time is longer than tRC, as each sub-refresh operation activates more than one page and generates more sensing noise. We denote this as tRC_Refresh. 

When the subrefresh staggering delay tSTAG is added, the time to complete one refresh operation in 1x mode can
be expressed as tRFC_1x = (N − 1) × tSTAG + tRC_Refresh, 
where N represents the number of subgroups.
For the 2x or 4x modes, there are N/2 or N/4 subgroups, respectively. 
Thus, the time to complete one refresh operations in 2x mode is tRFC_2x = ((N/2) − 1) × tSTAG + tRC_Refresh,
and similarlyfor 4x mode.

Note that tRFC_2x is longer than half of tRFC_1x, 
and that tRFC_4x is also longer than half of tRFC_2x, both due to the term tRC_Refresh.

In other words, 
for each subrefresh operation, there is a startup and completion overhead time tRC_Refresh which must be amortized.
For the 2x and 4x modes, this is amortized over a smaller number of refreshes, so the total time spent doing refreshes in 2x and 4x mode grows, as this initiation cost is paid 2x and 4x more frequently.

This introduces a tradeoff: total DRAM stall time due to refresh
is minimized when long-latency (many-row) 1x mode is used, 
but the average stall time should be smallest when shorter refresh operations are used, allowing




And another one


Spoiler






Code:


In order to ensure data stored in the SDRAM is not lost, the memory controller has to issue a REFRESH command at an average interval of tREFI.
But before a REFRESH can be applied, all banks of the SDRAM have to be Precharged and idle for a minimum time of tRP(min).
Once a REFRESH command is issued, there has to be a delay of tRFC(min) before the next valid command is issued (except DES command).

Notice how I mentioned that tREFI is the "average" interval between REFRESH commands. 
This is because you can push-out (or pull-in) a certain number of refresh commands and make up for it later. 
This mode was added to DDR4 to overcome the performance penalty due to refresh lockout at the higher densities.
The number of refresh commands that can be postponed depends upon the Refresh Mode (1x, 2x or 4x) which can be set in the SDRAM's Mode Register MR2.




















Memory is variable, don't forget that please 
Because of it's variability and elasticity there is far more under the hood happening than only half of the "fixed" delays we can see
tRFC like seen on the 2nd picture be postponed and varied inside the tREFi timing range
It's important for it to align with several factors soo it doesn't interfere with read or write timings
That one is done by the memory itself quoted here:


Spoiler






Code:


Elastic Refresh 
– JEDEC specifications allow some flexibility in issuing refresh commands:
[U]up to eight refresh commands can be postponed or issued in advance[/U].
Stuecheli et al. [17] propose Elastic Refresh, a technique that effectively exploits the flexible dynamic range allowed in the JEDEC refresh specification, by being less aggressive in issuing refresh commands. 

The primary idea behind elastic refresh is to use predictive mechanisms that decrease the probability of a read or a write operation from colliding with a refresh operation. 
Earlier techniques make use of the flexibility in issuing refresh operations by scheduling them any time the bus or the rank queues are idle. 
The elastic refresh algorithm extends this concept by waiting an additional period after the rank becomes idle before it issues the refresh operation. 
This additional idle delay not only reduces the priority of the refresh command, but also exploits bursty behavior in applications.

Although Elastic Refresh lowers the priority of refresh commands and tries to reduce collisions with reads and writes, as DRAM scales, the increase in tRFC effectively reduces the probability of avoiding such collisions. 
In this sense, our Adaptive Refresh mechanism is better suited for adapting to bursty behavior in systems and avoiding collisions by moving between DDR4 DRAM’s 1x and 4x modes.




And here some little screenshot of my notes, from another big document:


Spoiler














On both of our values and research (1usmus and mine) tRFC is an important value, same as from my view of point tRFC2/4 accuracy is also important, as it is used for reference with other values especially for tMOD inside tMRS (which adapt in realtime)
Non of these provided values are random, 
and a too low value although stability exists ~ will result in higher chance or timebreak an postponed commands
Same as a too low tRAS or too high tRC value will result in an wait-for-action loop, or at best being autocorrected by the board to keep stability up

Goal of us OCers is, to work with variable memory 
= focusing on getting transitions as clean as possible with as less autocorrection as possible
As we don't have access to at least double the values needed to control it ~ this is what we can do
But please, research a bit more before you make simple assumptions of any timings 
The only timings that have nothing to with the other are the first 3 (tCAS,tRCD,tRP) while they are used for reference, they go on their own
The rest depends on many factors and works with remain ones together

Documents used for quoting reference:
https://www.systemverilog.io/ddr4-basics
https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters#refresh
https://www.csl.cornell.edu/~martinez/doc/isca13-mukundan.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ahsbrw/xpost_from_roverclocking_demystifying_ryzen/
Tiny bit of my little sheet i can not share yet
And the attached PDF for working with burst operations and abusing DDR Heterogeneity for lower timings (explains tRAS better)


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> 1usmus's values if we crosscompare both with identical timings, are indeed lower than my suggested baseline
> But we both seek for the same goal
> Just his ones have tSTAG included and pretested to be lower
> My *6 suggested ones remain an ETA while his have tSTAG included
> 
> The reason why we get different results is, i focus on a calculated baseline - while he abuses precharge stacking to get it lower
> Its also the reason why our two tRDWR values vary while the rest is pretty much identical
> Sadly lowering them that far down needs excessive testing and tSTAG readout
> Something i can not calculate ~yet~
> 
> I on the other hand focus on calculating ~everything~ , which still needs time to get it down perfectly
> Soo we both are correct and both seek the same goal
> His ones remain a tiny bit faster, but you need a baseline after all - so i hope that little tool can help a bit
> And tRFC plays a big role in timing stability, well more to it later
> * oh if it wasn't seen on another sheet next to it, we have another issue with accuracy where boards MT/s is wrong too
> ** lurk over to sheet 3, if you want to grab accurate frequency for calculation ~ remain are WIP
> example, 3800MT/s = 3800.02375014844 MT/s :handlebar if you want accurate ns calculation :ninja:
> it's actually one more decimal but i can not go beyond 11
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but the fact was confirmed by personal base
> Memory is variable, half of the timings are fixed, half of them are variable in real-time
> But all of them behave logarithmic
> 
> Starting by the not accurate represented frequency, down to ryzen 3rd gen autocorrection, next to board decimal autocorrection
> Memory is not in a constant state to predict a fixed "lower" tRFC
> This is not how it works
> Data corruption doesn't happen out of nothing, and corrupted data will indeed appear in correct memory stresstests which keep in mind memory behavior
> 
> tRFC is an arbitrary value, it's a fixed delay value which is used modularly and yet being logarithmic value which scales by applied frequency
> tRFC on it's own is used to generate tREFI, while tRFC2 and tRFC4 are used together with tCKE and tMRD to generate tRFC
> tMRD & tMOD are factored in with tCKE for that
> Quoting couple of documents as it's too much text
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> For a normal activation-precharge operation, the minimum row cycle time is denoted as tRC cycles, and determines the minimum time between accesses to different rows;
> but for refresh operations, the cycle time is longer than tRC, as each sub-refresh operation activates more than one page and generates more sensing noise. We denote this as tRC_Refresh.
> 
> When the subrefresh staggering delay tSTAG is added, the time to complete one refresh operation in 1x mode can
> be expressed as tRFC_1x = (N − 1) × tSTAG + tRC_Refresh,
> where N represents the number of subgroups.
> For the 2x or 4x modes, there are N/2 or N/4 subgroups, respectively.
> Thus, the time to complete one refresh operations in 2x mode is tRFC_2x = ((N/2) − 1) × tSTAG + tRC_Refresh,
> and similarlyfor 4x mode.
> 
> Note that tRFC_2x is longer than half of tRFC_1x,
> and that tRFC_4x is also longer than half of tRFC_2x, both due to the term tRC_Refresh.
> 
> In other words,
> for each subrefresh operation, there is a startup and completion overhead time tRC_Refresh which must be amortized.
> For the 2x and 4x modes, this is amortized over a smaller number of refreshes, so the total time spent doing refreshes in 2x and 4x mode grows, as this initiation cost is paid 2x and 4x more frequently.
> 
> This introduces a tradeoff: total DRAM stall time due to refresh
> is minimized when long-latency (many-row) 1x mode is used,
> but the average stall time should be smallest when shorter refresh operations are used, allowing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another one
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> In order to ensure data stored in the SDRAM is not lost, the memory controller has to issue a REFRESH command at an average interval of tREFI.
> But before a REFRESH can be applied, all banks of the SDRAM have to be Precharged and idle for a minimum time of tRP(min).
> Once a REFRESH command is issued, there has to be a delay of tRFC(min) before the next valid command is issued (except DES command).
> 
> Notice how I mentioned that tREFI is the "average" interval between REFRESH commands.
> This is because you can push-out (or pull-in) a certain number of refresh commands and make up for it later.
> This mode was added to DDR4 to overcome the performance penalty due to refresh lockout at the higher densities.
> The number of refresh commands that can be postponed depends upon the Refresh Mode (1x, 2x or 4x) which can be set in the SDRAM's Mode Register MR2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Memory is variable, don't forget that please
> Because of it's variability and elasticity there is far more under the hood happening than only half of the "fixed" delays we can see
> tRFC like seen on the 2nd picture be postponed and varied inside the tREFi timing range
> It's important for it to align with several factors soo it doesn't interfere with read or write timings
> That one is done by the memory itself quoted here:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Elastic Refresh
> – JEDEC specifications allow some flexibility in issuing refresh commands:
> [U]up to eight refresh commands can be postponed or issued in advance[/U].
> Stuecheli et al. [17] propose Elastic Refresh, a technique that effectively exploits the flexible dynamic range allowed in the JEDEC refresh specification, by being less aggressive in issuing refresh commands.
> 
> The primary idea behind elastic refresh is to use predictive mechanisms that decrease the probability of a read or a write operation from colliding with a refresh operation.
> Earlier techniques make use of the flexibility in issuing refresh operations by scheduling them any time the bus or the rank queues are idle.
> The elastic refresh algorithm extends this concept by waiting an additional period after the rank becomes idle before it issues the refresh operation.
> This additional idle delay not only reduces the priority of the refresh command, but also exploits bursty behavior in applications.
> 
> Although Elastic Refresh lowers the priority of refresh commands and tries to reduce collisions with reads and writes, as DRAM scales, the increase in tRFC effectively reduces the probability of avoiding such collisions.
> In this sense, our Adaptive Refresh mechanism is better suited for adapting to bursty behavior in systems and avoiding collisions by moving between DDR4 DRAM’s 1x and 4x modes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here some little screenshot of my notes, from another big document:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On both of our values and research (1usmus and mine) tRFC is an important value, same as from my view of point tRFC2/4 accuracy is also important, as it is used for reference with other values especially for tMOD inside tMRS (which adapt in realtime)
> Non of these provided values are random,
> and a too low value although stability exists ~ will result in higher chance or timebreak an postponed commands
> Same as a too low tRAS or too high tRC value will result in an wait-for-action loop, or at best being autocorrected by the board to keep stability up
> 
> Goal of us OCers is, to work with variable memory
> = focusing on getting transitions as clean as possible with as less autocorrection as possible
> As we don't have access to at least double the values needed to control it ~ this is what we can do
> But please, research a bit more before you make simple assumptions of any timings
> The only timings that have nothing to with the other are the first 3 (tCAS,tRCD,tRP) while they are used for reference, they go on their own
> The rest depends on many factors and works with remain ones together
> 
> Documents used for quoting reference:
> https://www.systemverilog.io/ddr4-basics
> https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters#refresh
> https://www.csl.cornell.edu/~martinez/doc/isca13-mukundan.pdf
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ahsbrw/xpost_from_roverclocking_demystifying_ryzen/
> Tiny bit of my little sheet i can not share yet
> And the attached PDF for working with burst operations and abusing DDR Heterogeneity for lower timings (explains tRAS better)


I understand that, and that is exactly my point. tRFC is not a multiple of other timings, it makes no difference if it is divisible by another. tRFC is is physical property of the memory. It simply is how quickly a row can refresh before the rows become corrupted and/or there is no longer any benefit of shorter refresh interval. The best way to set tRFC is start at a stable value, and decrease it until either a) Performance stops increasing and start increasing or b) You develop memory errors. If you want to lower the value further increase memory voltage to shorten the "charge" period. 

There is no performance benefit in keeping trfc divisible by tRC, tFAW etc. There is simply a point where the refresh cannot occur any faster due to a number of factors. 

So like I said. tRFC is not a calculated value.


----------



## Gadfly

KedarWolf said:


> I'm well under 3:54 in Blender Classroom with the below settings. Lower tRFC does worse. Not synced does worse as well.


Can you link your blender result? I looked on the opendata portal but I couldn't find it. 

Here is my last run with the base profile (236.94s):

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/8b0afd47-d17c-452f-8bff-04603be2dfe9/


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Gadfly said:


> I understand that, and that is exactly my point. tRFC is not a multiple of other timings, it makes no difference if it is divisible by another. tRFC is is physical property of the memory. It simply is how quickly a row can refresh before the rows become corrupted and/or there is no longer any benefit of shorter refresh interval. The best way to set tRFC is start at a stable value, and decrease it until either a) Performance stops increasing and start increasing or b) You develop memory errors. If you want to lower the value further increase memory voltage to shorten the "charge" period.
> 
> There is no performance benefit in keeping trfc divisible by tRC, tFAW etc. There is simply a point where the refresh cannot occur any faster due to a number of factors.
> 
> So like I said. tRFC is not a calculated value.


Sorry, I really don't follow your reasoning... tRFC isn't a physical property of the memory. 
Maybe you mean the lowest configurable value at a set speed depends on the IC physical properties?

From what I see from the literature above seems there's clearly an advantage in configuring it in sync with other timings; to avoid collisions with Read and Write operations:

_Although Elastic Refresh lowers the priority of refresh commands and tries to reduce collisions with reads and writes, as DRAM scales, *the increase in tRFC effectively reduces the probability of avoiding such collisions*. 
In this sense, our Adaptive Refresh mechanism is better suited for adapting to bursty behavior in systems and avoiding collisions by moving between DDR4 DRAM’s 1x and 4x modes._

My understanding is that if Read/Write operations ends as close as possible to the timebreak then the refresh will be issued without delays and less queuing will occur.
But maybe I got it wrong


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> I understand that, and that is exactly my point. tRFC is not a multiple of other timings, it makes no difference if it is divisible by another. tRFC is is physical property of the memory. It simply is how quickly a row can refresh before the rows become corrupted and/or there is no longer any benefit of shorter refresh interval. The best way to set tRFC is start at a stable value, and decrease it until either a) Performance stops increasing and start increasing or b) You develop memory errors. If you want to lower the value further increase memory voltage to shorten the "charge" period.
> 
> There is no performance benefit in keeping trfc divisible by tRC, tFAW etc. There is simply a point where the refresh cannot occur any faster due to a number of factors.
> 
> So like I said. tRFC is not a calculated value.


You don't 
You can calculate everything,
You can calculate voltage drop and charge loss by factoring in row active delay and factoring CAS
Also if you can read out tSTAG, you can factor that one in

If you would understand it, you'd see the logic why you want to suspend and increase it to happen on time 
Else it will be postponed or even autocorrected 
A time break is a bad thing, not something that happens constantly
But what happens constantly is the delay how long tRFC has to be

Putting it lower does help, putting it too low under the calculated baseline does harm
And putting it too high, even with a +2 value, can cost you stability
You may haven't encountered it to understand why too much is bad, except that its far slower, as that timing has to pass

But there is a reason why we speak of cycles
32 being a full cycle
16 a half
8
4
And down to 2 for tRFC

You can "technically" speak the same for tRC
Memory will put itself Into a wait-for-action time till that fixed delay passes 
Actually the same goes for tRAS too 

There is still to calculate, believe it or not 
And less does lower performance as it can be too early 
If by "depend" you mean a link that it does modify others
Yes it does still,but not the visible ones
But if you mean that its minimum and maximum size depends on something other
Kinda (because again it can't happen too early and vdimm plays a role too) , no actually it does matter on both parts
Its dependent on other timings, and other timings depend from it 
I can't see what is to argue when it set to X does modify A,b,c and maybe even D 

Soo on both parts, its an important per MT/s scalable value
With a difference once by timings, by voltage, by PCB design and also by IC indirectly which are just primaries
You can calculate an optimal baseline, but in order to calculate it better, you need to know tSTAG ~ in order to follow 1usmus's research

Well there are people which question his, 
But I can't provide you more acurrate information
All you have to know is written onton between dozzens of the documents


----------



## KedarWolf

Gadfly said:


> Can you link your blender result? I looked on the opendata portal but I couldn't find it.
> 
> Here is my last run with the base profile (236.94s):
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/8b0afd47-d17c-452f-8bff-04603be2dfe9/


Some testing, timings at 15-10-16-13-27 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:56+ in Blender Classroom.

Timings at 15-10-16-14-28 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:55+.

Timings synced, tRP+tRAS=tRC at 15-10-16-14-30 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:54.04 These three with tRFC at 264.

I'm going to try one more test, 15-10-14-28 2T with tRC at 42 tRFC at 264.
Okay, more testing, lower tRFC is NOT always better.

I get 3.54.04 at 15-16-10-14-30 2T tRC at 44, tRFC at 264.

But I tested 15-16-10-14-28 2T tRC at 42, tRFC at 252 I get 3:55+

Same with 15-16-10-14-29 43 256.


BUT with 15-16-10-14-31 45 tRFC at 270 I got 3:53.75


I find Blender the way to go for testing. It scales with memory speeds and timings and you get consistently almost exactly the same results every run.

Plus if your overclock is the least bit unstable you'll get a random reboot when it runs.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> tRFC is an arbitrary value, it's a fixed delay value which is used modularly and yet being logarithmic value which scales by applied frequency
> tRFC on it's own is used to generate tREFI, while tRFC2 and tRFC4 are used together with tCKE and tMRD to generate tRFC
> tMRD & tMOD are factored in with tCKE for that


Those systemverilog.io references are great. I walked through their pages a week or two ago and I recommend everyone take their time and read through it. I enjoyed it because I'm an engineer... gimme all the command and truth tables, timing charts, etc...  When I read through the behavior of tREFI, and elastic refreshes, I was impressed.

It's pretty cool how we've engineered predictive algorithms into the IMC and RAM. Whether the ability to adjust refreshes to react to bursty loads, or to reorder commands to capitalize on data living in the sense amplifiers... those decisions have to be efficient to not cost time or to not impact transactions and stability. 

I need to check out your additional references, there were details about refreshing that I didn't come across. I've also lazily waited on reading more about tSTAG's, tMOD's, and tMRS' roles. I love it when you dive into details and share, thanks again. I'll finally close some of my gaps.


----------



## Awsan

Veii said:


> 1usmus's values if we crosscompare both with identical timings, are indeed lower than my suggested baseline
> But we both seek for the same goal
> Just his ones have tSTAG included and pretested to be lower
> My *6 suggested ones remain an ETA while his have tSTAG included
> 
> The reason why we get different results is, i focus on a calculated baseline - while he abuses precharge stacking to get it lower
> Its also the reason why our two tRDWR values vary while the rest is pretty much identical
> Sadly lowering them that far down needs excessive testing and tSTAG readout
> Something i can not calculate ~yet~
> 
> I on the other hand focus on calculating ~everything~ , which still needs time to get it down perfectly
> Soo we both are correct and both seek the same goal
> His ones remain a tiny bit faster, but you need a baseline after all - so i hope that little tool can help a bit
> And tRFC plays a big role in timing stability, well more to it later
> * oh if it wasn't seen on another sheet next to it, we have another issue with accuracy where boards MT/s is wrong too
> ** lurk over to sheet 3, if you want to grab accurate frequency for calculation ~ remain are WIP
> example, 3800MT/s = 3800.02375014844 MT/s :handlebar if you want accurate ns calculation :ninja:
> it's actually one more decimal but i can not go beyond 11
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but the fact was confirmed by personal base
> Memory is variable, half of the timings are fixed, half of them are variable in real-time
> But all of them behave logarithmic
> 
> Starting by the not accurate represented frequency, down to ryzen 3rd gen autocorrection, next to board decimal autocorrection
> Memory is not in a constant state to predict a fixed "lower" tRFC
> This is not how it works
> Data corruption doesn't happen out of nothing, and corrupted data will indeed appear in correct memory stresstests which keep in mind memory behavior
> 
> tRFC is an arbitrary value, it's a fixed delay value which is used modularly and yet being logarithmic value which scales by applied frequency
> tRFC on it's own is used to generate tREFI, while tRFC2 and tRFC4 are used together with tCKE and tMRD to generate tRFC
> tMRD & tMOD are factored in with tCKE for that
> Quoting couple of documents as it's too much text
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> For a normal activation-precharge operation, the minimum row cycle time is denoted as tRC cycles, and determines the minimum time between accesses to different rows;
> but for refresh operations, the cycle time is longer than tRC, as each sub-refresh operation activates more than one page and generates more sensing noise. We denote this as tRC_Refresh.
> 
> When the subrefresh staggering delay tSTAG is added, the time to complete one refresh operation in 1x mode can
> be expressed as tRFC_1x = (N − 1) × tSTAG + tRC_Refresh,
> where N represents the number of subgroups.
> For the 2x or 4x modes, there are N/2 or N/4 subgroups, respectively.
> Thus, the time to complete one refresh operations in 2x mode is tRFC_2x = ((N/2) − 1) × tSTAG + tRC_Refresh,
> and similarlyfor 4x mode.
> 
> Note that tRFC_2x is longer than half of tRFC_1x,
> and that tRFC_4x is also longer than half of tRFC_2x, both due to the term tRC_Refresh.
> 
> In other words,
> for each subrefresh operation, there is a startup and completion overhead time tRC_Refresh which must be amortized.
> For the 2x and 4x modes, this is amortized over a smaller number of refreshes, so the total time spent doing refreshes in 2x and 4x mode grows, as this initiation cost is paid 2x and 4x more frequently.
> 
> This introduces a tradeoff: total DRAM stall time due to refresh
> is minimized when long-latency (many-row) 1x mode is used,
> but the average stall time should be smallest when shorter refresh operations are used, allowing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another one
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> In order to ensure data stored in the SDRAM is not lost, the memory controller has to issue a REFRESH command at an average interval of tREFI.
> But before a REFRESH can be applied, all banks of the SDRAM have to be Precharged and idle for a minimum time of tRP(min).
> Once a REFRESH command is issued, there has to be a delay of tRFC(min) before the next valid command is issued (except DES command).
> 
> Notice how I mentioned that tREFI is the "average" interval between REFRESH commands.
> This is because you can push-out (or pull-in) a certain number of refresh commands and make up for it later.
> This mode was added to DDR4 to overcome the performance penalty due to refresh lockout at the higher densities.
> The number of refresh commands that can be postponed depends upon the Refresh Mode (1x, 2x or 4x) which can be set in the SDRAM's Mode Register MR2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Memory is variable, don't forget that please
> Because of it's variability and elasticity there is far more under the hood happening than only half of the "fixed" delays we can see
> tRFC like seen on the 2nd picture be postponed and varied inside the tREFi timing range
> It's important for it to align with several factors soo it doesn't interfere with read or write timings
> That one is done by the memory itself quoted here:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Elastic Refresh
> – JEDEC specifications allow some flexibility in issuing refresh commands:
> [U]up to eight refresh commands can be postponed or issued in advance[/U].
> Stuecheli et al. [17] propose Elastic Refresh, a technique that effectively exploits the flexible dynamic range allowed in the JEDEC refresh specification, by being less aggressive in issuing refresh commands.
> 
> The primary idea behind elastic refresh is to use predictive mechanisms that decrease the probability of a read or a write operation from colliding with a refresh operation.
> Earlier techniques make use of the flexibility in issuing refresh operations by scheduling them any time the bus or the rank queues are idle.
> The elastic refresh algorithm extends this concept by waiting an additional period after the rank becomes idle before it issues the refresh operation.
> This additional idle delay not only reduces the priority of the refresh command, but also exploits bursty behavior in applications.
> 
> Although Elastic Refresh lowers the priority of refresh commands and tries to reduce collisions with reads and writes, as DRAM scales, the increase in tRFC effectively reduces the probability of avoiding such collisions.
> In this sense, our Adaptive Refresh mechanism is better suited for adapting to bursty behavior in systems and avoiding collisions by moving between DDR4 DRAM’s 1x and 4x modes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here some little screenshot of my notes, from another big document:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On both of our values and research (1usmus and mine) tRFC is an important value, same as from my view of point tRFC2/4 accuracy is also important, as it is used for reference with other values especially for tMOD inside tMRS (which adapt in realtime)
> Non of these provided values are random,
> and a too low value although stability exists ~ will result in higher chance or timebreak an postponed commands
> Same as a too low tRAS or too high tRC value will result in an wait-for-action loop, or at best being autocorrected by the board to keep stability up
> 
> Goal of us OCers is, to work with variable memory
> = focusing on getting transitions as clean as possible with as less autocorrection as possible
> As we don't have access to at least double the values needed to control it ~ this is what we can do
> But please, research a bit more before you make simple assumptions of any timings
> The only timings that have nothing to with the other are the first 3 (tCAS,tRCD,tRP) while they are used for reference, they go on their own
> The rest depends on many factors and works with remain ones together
> 
> Documents used for quoting reference:
> https://www.systemverilog.io/ddr4-basics
> https://www.systemverilog.io/understanding-ddr4-timing-parameters#refresh
> https://www.csl.cornell.edu/~martinez/doc/isca13-mukundan.pdf
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ahsbrw/xpost_from_roverclocking_demystifying_ryzen/
> Tiny bit of my little sheet i can not share yet
> And the attached PDF for working with burst operations and abusing DDR Heterogeneity for lower timings (explains tRAS better)


This should be pinned @ the top of every ram thread.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

KedarWolf said:


> Some testing
> timings at 15-10-16-13-27 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:56+ in Blender Classroom.
> Timings at 15-10-16-14-28 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:55+.
> Timings synced, tRP+tRAS=tRC at 15-10-16-14-30 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:54.04 These three with tRFC at 264.
> I'm going to try one more test, *15-10-14-28* 2T with tRC at 42 tRFC at 264.
> 
> Okay, more testing, lower tRFC is NOT always better.
> I get 3.54.04 at 15-16-10-14-30 2T tRC at 44, tRFC at 264.
> But I tested 15-16-10-14-28 2T tRC at 42, tRFC at 252 I get 3:55+
> Same with 15-16-10-14-29 43 256.
> BUT with 15-16-10-14-31 45 tRFC at 270 I got 3:53.75


Thanks for sharing again, KW. I turned your results above into bulleted lists but I didn't mess with them I promise. 

Questions:
1. I bolded your comment above where I think you're missing a timing.. What were you aiming for?
2. Are your 15-10-x-x-x timings saying that your tRCD_WR=10? I assume so but being sure.

If yes to #2, then that might be too low and the IMC is hiding some corrections on it, possibly? I'd be curious if you retested one of those test cases with tRCD_WR=12 instead, to see whether it gets the same result. If it does, then you're probably being corrected implicitly, regardless if 12 is valid or is also being corrected.

1usmus had spoken about this and openly criticized buildzoid for running with tRCD_WR=8; he said it will be corrected. Yuri's a dev, (_by his own admission on profile notes_), whether professionally or not, he's a very technical person. Whereas buildzoid ... well, I don't know; but I'm an engineer, and can say I don't imagine working with someone with BZ's poor technical articulations. No offense to BZ if he's reading this, but I'll trust 1usmus every time over him.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Awesome, congrats on the updated test! And  and  on your other notes.


Cheers bud 

Been looking at your timings more closely as my Vipers should be here soon (from the Amazon tracking im guessing Wed), I saw you asked regards tRTP, did you try increasing that to 12 14 (yes there will be a performance hit) just to see the TM5 errors cease?



KedarWolf said:


> I find Blender the way to go for testing. It scales with memory speeds and timings and you get consistently almost exactly the same results every run.


Will have to give blender a go to see the difference in action!

Boohoo, I cant run it remotely via RDP, any tricks to get it to run ?



LuckyBahstard said:


> Those systemverilog.io references are great. I walked through their pages a week or two ago and I recommend everyone take their time and read through it. I enjoyed it because I'm an engineer... gimme all the command and truth tables, timing charts, etc...  When I read through the behavior of tREFI, and elastic refreshes, I was impressed.
> 
> It's pretty cool how we've engineered predictive algorithms into the IMC and RAM. Whether the ability to adjust refreshes to react to bursty loads, or to reorder commands to capitalize on data living in the sense amplifiers... those decisions have to be efficient to not cost time or to not impact transactions and stability.
> 
> I need to check out your additional references, there were details about refreshing that I didn't come across. I've also lazily waited on reading more about tSTAG's, tMOD's, and tMRS' roles. I love it when you dive into details and share, thanks again. I'll finally close some of my gaps.


Man it takes my brain too long to process such information, short term memory overload is an issue for me

 

I would need to regurgitate that info several times over the course of a few weeks, after that it will be than stored in long term memory and all is well and good



@Veii



veii said:


> procODT scales with vSOC and so does CAD_BUS
> High procODT needs high cad_BUS needs high VSOC
> low procODT needs low voltages logically


Thanks for making this clear, is this information from empirical data sets ?


----------



## Veii

Awsan said:


> This should be pinned @ the top of every ram thread.


I don't think 
It used resources of many documents but yet its flawed
What I can do so far is kinda accurately predict it
Yet it remains a prediction

We start with the flaw that board frequency is wrongly displayed
Fully displayed wrongly, which makes an issue in prediction and math
No wonder "Intel" boards appear to overclock better for a long time
At least each manufacture tried to follow jedec spec
But the displayed frequency is wrong :/
And so the prediction will be wrong 

The reddit thread with the short timings explained is already pinned 
This message was about 1-2% of memory behaviour
The linked documents are between 50 & 200 pages of information 
Problem is also, we can't see everything
15+ timings are processed in the hidden
And some are used with PMU for XMP prediction, yet nothing is displayed to the consumer 

The person to blame is AMD
We can't improve OCing when 1 we don't see the timings, and 2nd they don't expose them 
Only Asus boards do show them, yet they are not modifiable

No wonder not accurate information spreads, because we don't see anything
The Stilt 's ryzen timing checker , is under NDA 
Clock stretching is under NDA 
All this prevents research , soon the best result need static analysis like dozens of benchmarks where you work blind

Memory is soo variable, the only thing we can focus on again is going as baseline as possible
To prevent auto correction as much as possible


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Been looking at your timings more closely as my Vipers should be here soon (from the Amazon tracking im guessing Wed), I saw you asked regards tRTP, did you try increasing that to 12 14 (yes there will be a performance hit) just to see the TM5 errors cease?


Thanks for the feedback my friend.  I have not tried that. I may need to.

I've found stability at every clock up to 3733 with it stuck on 8, but I'm really pushing 3466cl14 tightly here and that could be related. I'll probably first double-check my voltages since I failed on a first-cycle of TM5. Else maybe the ClkDrv cad-bus value of 40, since I changed that from any past testing (has always been 24). Or the SCLs at 3 are suspect because I have only tried that once before (and worked but with GDM enabled). I'll now add tRTP to my list of things to look at.  Thanks again.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Thanks for the feedback my friend.  I have not tried that. I may need to.
> 
> I've found stability at every clock up to 3733 with it stuck on 8, but I'm really pushing 3466cl14 tightly here and that could be related. I'll probably first double-check my voltages since I failed on a first-cycle of TM5. Else maybe the ClkDrv cad-bus value of 40, since I changed that from any past testing (has always been 24). Or the SCLs at 3 are suspect because I have only tried that once before (and worked but with GDM enabled). I'll now add tRTP to my list of things to look at.  Thanks again.


Can you post a Ryzen timings screen shot of what you are currently running for 3733mhz. On my last run with 3760mhz- CAS14, I have SCLs at 5 !

I did try 3 but did not see any performance gains (only tested in AIDA me bad) and stability was effected so stuck with 5s


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> You don't
> You can calculate everything,
> You can calculate voltage drop and charge loss by factoring in row active delay and factoring CAS
> Also if you can read out tSTAG, you can factor that one in
> 
> If you would understand it, you'd see the logic why you want to suspend and increase it to happen on time
> Else it will be postponed or even autocorrected
> A time break is a bad thing, not something that happens constantly
> But what happens constantly is the delay how long tRFC has to be
> 
> Putting it lower does help, putting it too low under the calculated baseline does harm
> And putting it too high, even with a +2 value, can cost you stability
> You may haven't encountered it to understand why too much is bad, except that its far slower, as that timing has to pass
> 
> But there is a reason why we speak of cycles
> 32 being a full cycle
> 16 a half
> 8
> 4
> And down to 2 for tRFC
> 
> You can "technically" speak the same for tRC
> Memory will put itself Into a wait-for-action time till that fixed delay passes
> Actually the same goes for tRAS too
> 
> There is still to calculate, believe it or not
> And less does lower performance as it can be too early
> If by "depend" you mean a link that it does modify others
> Yes it does still,but not the visible ones
> But if you mean that its minimum and maximum size depends on something other
> Kinda (because again it can't happen too early and vdimm plays a role too) , no actually it does matter on both parts
> Its dependent on other timings, and other timings depend from it
> I can't see what is to argue when it set to X does modify A,b,c and maybe even D
> 
> Soo on both parts, its an important per MT/s scalable value
> With a difference once by timings, by voltage, by PCB design and also by IC indirectly which are just primaries
> You can calculate an optimal baseline, but in order to calculate it better, you need to know tSTAG ~ in order to follow 1usmus's research
> 
> Well there are people which question his,
> But I can't provide you more acurrate information
> All you have to know is written onton between dozzens of the documents


I am going to guess that English isn't your first language because I am having a hard time following what you are saying here; my apologies in advance if I am mis-understanding you. 

Yes, you can calculate voltage droop, make an estimate, and then test it; However there is no benefit in doing so. You will still end up doing the exact same trial and error testing, you will just have closer starting point. You can also invent simple calculations to get an approximate starting point, such as tRFC = 6 x tRC etc. but you are just inventing a calculation to come to an arbitrary value that has no right or wrong. If your memory will tolerate tRFC = 5.4 x tRC then it will offer better performance than 6x tRC. 


"And less does lower performance as it can be too early "

No, this is flat out false. There is no such thing as too early and tRFC. The less delay between refreshes, the less waiting, the better the performance. If your memory can tolerate 228ns of minimum delay between REFRESH commands, without corruption, that will offer greater performance than 232ns of delay. tRFC is simply the delay between refreshes, tREFI is the average time between refresh commands. REFRESH commands are NEVER issues at a fixed interval. 

"putting it too low under the calculated baseline does harm"

Only if your "calculated baseline" is at the limits of the memory's ability to operate without corruption. Refreshing a row more rapidly is always better for performance; lowering tRFC reduces the delay between REFRESH commands. 

"Soo on both parts, its an important per MT/s scalable value"

The value scales with MT/s as the timing itself is always in ns.... like all timings.... 

"With a difference once by timings, by voltage, by PCB design and also by IC indirectly"

Yes; all of those affect how low you can run tRFC, hence "As low as your memory will tolerate".

Here is the bottom line:

The memory controller has to issue a REFRESH command at an average interval of tREFI, But before a REFRESH can be applied all banks of the SDRAM have to be Pre-charged and idle for a minimum time of tRP (Which controls the banks recharge delay. More voltage = shorter time for pre-charge = faster memory performance) before the next valid command is issued. 

Refreshes will occur at varying intervals that will change between every REFRESH command. Period. Those commands will run at an average interval of tREFI. Again, and this is key to understand, tREFI is an AVERAGE. tRFC is ONLY the minimum delay that must occur between REFRESH commands. There is absolutely no point trying to "sync" tRFC between other timings because REFRESH commands will not be issues at a constant interval, and tRFC is only the minimum delay between those commands. Key point here >> Each REFRESH command will NOT occur at a fixed interval <<. It is literally impossible to "sync" tRFC with any other timing, as it is just a delay between REFREASH commands that are issued at a variable rate. Make sense? It is impossible to "Sync" REFRESH commands (and thus tRFC), which again is just the minimum delay between REFRESH commands to any other timing because it ALWAYS runs at a variable interval, but will always average tREFI. 

If your memory could tolerate 0ns of tRFC that would be ideal as it would mean that the controller could run REFRESH at will without any commands postponed waiting for tRFC. 


Make sense? I attached some diagrams below to help visualize what I am explaining.


----------



## Veii

> @Veii
> Thanks for making this clear, is this information from empirical data sets ?


Empirical you mean sheets of data ?
It was by personal research while literally stalking people's result
Can only give you ETAs so far
Had a year to play and research on my ryzen and a long time with threadripper 
But a lot of the data belongs to 1usmus and The Stilt
Same as the whole community on here 
No one has everything ^^' its a collection between many testings

Sadly everyone of us needs units to test and the time to test 
RL also is an issue, soo testers are in need of sponsorship to earn for their time spend and exchange the time with value
Not a common thing yet


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Empirical you mean sheets of data ?
> It was by personal research while literally stalking people's result
> Can only give you ETAs so far
> Had a year to play and research on my ryzen and a long time with threadripper
> But a lot of the data belongs to 1usmus and The Stilt
> Same as the whole community on here
> No one has everything ^^' its a collection between many testings
> 
> Sadly everyone of us needs units to test and the time to test
> RL also is an issue, soo testers are in need of sponsorship to earn for their time spend and exchange the time with value
> Not a common thing yet


"Emperical"
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

So yes, as you have explained it is from user data, thats great


----------



## Gadfly

ManniX-ITA said:


> Sorry, I really don't follow your reasoning... tRFC isn't a physical property of the memory.
> Maybe you mean the lowest configurable value at a set speed depends on the IC physical properties?
> 
> From what I see from the literature above seems there's clearly an advantage in configuring it in sync with other timings; to avoid collisions with Read and Write operations:
> 
> _Although Elastic Refresh lowers the priority of refresh commands and tries to reduce collisions with reads and writes, as DRAM scales, *the increase in tRFC effectively reduces the probability of avoiding such collisions*.
> In this sense, our Adaptive Refresh mechanism is better suited for adapting to bursty behavior in systems and avoiding collisions by moving between DDR4 DRAM’s 1x and 4x modes._
> 
> My understanding is that if Read/Write operations ends as close as possible to the timebreak then the refresh will be issued without delays and less queuing will occur.
> But maybe I got it wrong


trfc is limited only by the physical properties of the memory. 

That is not what they are talking about, have a look at the post I made above I added some diagrams. The adaptive refresh mechanism is already doing it's best to avoid collisions, tRFC has no impact on those collisions. The adaptive refresh is bound by tREFI, which is the "average" interval between REFRESH commands. This is because you can push-out (or pull-in) a certain number of refresh commands and make up for it later (to avoid collisions). This mode was added to DDR4 to overcome the performance penalty due to refresh lockout at the higher densities. The number of refresh commands that can be postponed depends upon the Refresh Mode (1x, 2x or 4x) which can be set in the SDRAM's Mode Register MR2.

tRFC is a only the minimum delay between REFRESH commands. REFRESH command always run at a varying interval. Thus it is impossible to "sync" REFRESH commands with any other timing as they are adaptive, and actively looking to move out of the way or reads and writes. it is just the minimum delay interval. The lower tRFC the better. If your memory could tolerate 0ns tRFC that would be ideal, But that is impossible as the banks need to be charged and idle. So you need to set a minimum delay; during that delay period REFRESH commands will be postponed.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Can you post a Ryzen timings screen shot of what you are currently running for 3733mhz. On my last run with 3760mhz- CAS14, I have SCLs at 5 !
> 
> I did try 3 but did not see any performance gains (only tested in AIDA me bad) and stability was effected so stuck with 5s


This is my 3733 CL16 stable. But note, it has GDM enabled. And my voltages are questionably set (aka setting vddp=both vddg's). But, it's worked under 20 cycles on TM5 and it is my normal profile while my son games, I transcode/stream with plex, and he records gameplay and does video renders.

https://imgur.com/juqyqhn 
DRAM=1.500V, SOC=1.100V, VDDG both=.950V, VDDP=950mV
I had to raise my RTT_PARK to 60ohms (rzq/4) finally to get stable, but perhaps I could have had lower resistances combined with lower and better voltages here

I drove my 3733 CL14 tightly before realizing I wasn't stable. Re-testing on TM5 showed me. I walked it back and saw that none of my CL14 settings were perfectly stable. This is my exercise now (and thanks Veii again for inputs), stepping back again to 3466 and running my way back to 3733. Seeing what I can learn, and if I can keep voltages and resistance values lower.


----------



## Gadfly

KedarWolf said:


> Some testing, timings at 15-10-16-13-27 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:56+ in Blender Classroom.
> 
> Timings at 15-10-16-14-28 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:55+.
> 
> Timings synced, tRP+tRAS=tRC at 15-10-16-14-30 2T tRC at 44 I get 3:54.04 These three with tRFC at 264.
> 
> I'm going to try one more test, 15-10-14-28 2T with tRC at 42 tRFC at 264.
> Okay, more testing, lower tRFC is NOT always better.
> 
> I get 3.54.04 at 15-16-10-14-30 2T tRC at 44, tRFC at 264.
> 
> But I tested 15-16-10-14-28 2T tRC at 42, tRFC at 252 I get 3:55+
> 
> Same with 15-16-10-14-29 43 256.
> 
> 
> BUT with 15-16-10-14-31 45 tRFC at 270 I got 3:53.75
> 
> 
> I find Blender the way to go for testing. It scales with memory speeds and timings and you get consistently almost exactly the same results every run.
> 
> Plus if your overclock is the least bit unstable you'll get a random reboot when it runs.



Your timings are all over the place.

Set 15-16-10-14-31-45. Set tRFC to 300, then 271, then 265. 

Run a few tests of a few different benches and look at the results. It is literally impossible to sync trfc with other timings, so my posts above to explain why.

Also, can you link your classroom result?


----------



## TheGlow

@Veii
I havent touched the settings in 2 days and ran another bench and now its back down finally to 67.6. I'm stumped. Here are the 2 comparisons, they seem the same to me.
The only difference oddly being this isnt run within 30 mins of restarting. Hell, I have a bunch of apps and stuff open.
So on that note, do I look to tighten anymore? If so, how? Or do I look into lowering the voltages? I have the recommended settings from dram calc for the voltages and resistances.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> This is my 3733 CL16 stable. But note, it has GDM enabled. And my voltages are questionably set (aka setting vddp=both vddg's). But, it's worked under 20 cycles on TM5 and it is my normal profile while my son games, I transcode/stream with plex, and he records gameplay and does video renders.
> 
> https://imgur.com/juqyqhn
> DRAM=1.500V, SOC=1.100V, VDDG both=.950V, VDDP=950mV
> I had to raise my RTT_PARK to 60ohms (rzq/4) finally to get stable, but perhaps I could have had lower resistances combined with lower and better voltages here
> 
> I drove my 3733 CL14 tightly before realizing I wasn't stable. Re-testing on TM5 showed me. I walked it back and saw that none of my CL14 settings were perfectly stable. This is my exercise now (and thanks Veii again for inputs), stepping back again to 3466 and running my way back to 3733. Seeing what I can learn, and if I can keep voltages and resistance values lower.


As you are already using even numbers for your main timings GDM is not going to have any sort of effect.

When using GDM all timing parameters are rounded up to an even number of clock cycles

GDM will only come in to effect if for example you are attempting to push say CAS 13 but CAS 13 is a bit too tight, using GDM instead of having to use CAS 14 to get stabilty CAS 13 will be "pushed" to CAS "13.5"

Thats my primitive understanding ....

Hopefully will be able to run the Vipers at similar settings to my GSkillls!


----------



## Veii

@Gadfly let me answer you quote by quote later when I get home 
We can predict voltage dropout when we factor in timings 
tRC has a fixed calculation pattern and follows rules
tRP is included in these rules
tCL can be used as a baseline by following jedec spec 

The last picture I shared in the spoiler not the documented visualisations, show the voltage dropout/fallout by tRC
Also a calculated value tho an estimation 
Just you can indeed calculate it by working accurately in the first place

If we only use a random tRC timing with a lot of wasted delay
Well it still works as tRC has to pass neverless if the wasted delay is used or is just wasted delay putting memory in an wait-for-action state

tREFI is generates by tRFC 
Whenever tRFC is issues can be on time, but it can be moves 
Its activate delay can expire = being too low 
But still its predictable
All for the written values work , and follow a pattern
They are not random values 

So far I haven't seen values that "don't work" 
It can be lower than that , but that would be at a point where it becomes user testing 
Using tRC only as baseline to ETA is not perfect
But what makes it work is calculating a no decimal delay of tRFC 
Helping that way fixing the remain timings 

Early on we used a whole value non decimal tRFC and fine tuned RC to be a clean divider of it
While working with ns only
That helped, but it was a bit flawed, staring from MT/s being wrongly displayed ~ hurting accuracy
And when you plug in tSTAG the value is a mess, as you started with a mess

Low tRFC can help in abusing dram heterogeneity, linked doc at the bottom
The same way as low tRFC, a cycle stacking method 
But this needs excessive testing before its calculatable
What you want to tell me, is that 1usmus tested timings are also estimates and not finetuned sets 
As he his tRFC might look random to some

But it's not random
I really don't know how to explain it to you
They can be predicted and accuracy of it matters 
tRFC on its own doesn't matter that much 
But what tRFC scales with does matter 

You can still adjust a random value to trigger on time 
It will trigger at a different time if it wasn't on time
But first it will trigger on time , before its postponed to a later state or adjusted when it can now trigger on time
Just it will try to trigger on time first 
And the average delay of tREFI is calculated by tRFC
Going non decimal was first guaranteeing cleanness, but even decimal delays can be accurate as to research "part two" let's call 

It does make a difference, its not about data corruption only
Its more about how much is needed to be auto corrected


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> As you are already using even numbers for your main timings GDM is not going to have any sort of effect.
> 
> When using GDM all timing parameters are rounded up to an even number of clock cycles


Except, that's the only variable change between tests, so it does do something more. 



mongoled said:


> Hopefully will be able to run the Vipers at similar settings to my GSkillls!


I'm cheering you on! I hope you beat my settings.


----------



## Gadfly

mongoled said:


> As you are already using even numbers for your main timings GDM is not going to have any sort of effect.
> 
> When using GDM all timing parameters are rounded up to an even number of clock cycles
> 
> GDM will only come in to effect if for example you are attempting to push say CAS 13 but CAS 13 is a bit too tight, using GDM instead of having to use CAS 14 to get stabilty CAS 13 will be "pushed" to CAS "13.5"
> 
> Thats my primitive understanding ....
> 
> Hopefully will be able to run the Vipers at similar settings to my GSkillls!


GDM mode runs the data pins at full speed and the command pins at half speed. Because the command pins are running at .5 of the data pins tCL must be dividable by 2. So GDM mode forces tCL to be even. You can run everything else at an odd value. If you set tCL of 13 with GDM enabled, it will force tCL of 14 (not 13.5 that is not possible everything must be in whole clocks). so if your primaries are set as 13-13-13-13-26 in the bios, and boot with GDM enabled it will boot with timings at 14-13-13-13-26


----------



## KedarWolf

Gadfly said:


> Your timings are all over the place.
> 
> Set 15-16-10-14-31-45. Set tRFC to 300, then 271, then 265.
> 
> Run a few tests of a few different benches and look at the results. It is literally impossible to sync trfc with other timings, so my posts above to explain why.
> 
> Also, can you link your classroom result?


The Classroom result is in the screenshot picture. The CPU-Z etc. are opened in the Classroom window.


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> @Gadfly let me answer you quote by quote later when I get home


 @Veii I look forward to it. I'd like to understand what you are using to try to calculate this, and your logic behind your calculation so I can try it. 



Veii said:


> What you want to tell me, is that 1usmus tested timings are also estimates and not finetuned sets
> As he his tRFC might look random to some


Correct. They are an estimated starting point, to include tRFC.


----------



## Gadfly

KedarWolf said:


> The Classroom result is in the screenshot picture. The CPU-Z etc. are opened in the Classroom window.


Can you run the benchmark and submit it?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Gadfly said:


> trfc is limited only by the physical properties of the memory.
> 
> That is not what they are talking about, have a look at the post I made above I added some diagrams. The adaptive refresh mechanism is already doing it's best to avoid collisions, tRFC has no impact on those collisions. The adaptive refresh is bound by tREFI, which is the "average" interval between REFRESH commands. This is because you can push-out (or pull-in) a certain number of refresh commands and make up for it later (to avoid collisions). This mode was added to DDR4 to overcome the performance penalty due to refresh lockout at the higher densities. The number of refresh commands that can be postponed depends upon the Refresh Mode (1x, 2x or 4x) which can be set in the SDRAM's Mode Register MR2.
> 
> tRFC is a only the minimum delay between REFRESH commands. REFRESH command always run at a varying interval. Thus it is impossible to "sync" REFRESH commands with any other timing as they are adaptive, and actively looking to move out of the way or reads and writes. it is just the minimum delay interval. The lower tRFC the better. If your memory could tolerate 0ns tRFC that would be ideal, But that is impossible as the banks need to be charged and idle. So you need to set a minimum delay; during that delay period REFRESH commands will be postponed.


Sorry still can't follow you...
You say tRFC is the minimum delay between REFRESH commands but I read:

*tRFC Delay between the REFRESH command and the next valid command, except DES*

The next valid command is not necessarily a REFRESH, can be READ, WRITE, ACTIVATE, etc

As I understood the minimum delay between two REFRESH commands is 1 x tREFI:

*tREFI The device requires REFRESH commands at an average interval of tREFI*

Which is what I see in the diagrams below:









While the maximum delay is 9 x tREFI:









Yes it's adaptive but from the diagram above it looks that if the timebreak occurs just after the last command, which is not necessarily a REFRESH, less delay is wasted.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Gadfly said:


> GDM mode runs the data pins at full speed and the command pins at half speed. Because the command pins are running at .5 of the data pins tCL must be dividable by 2. So GDM mode forces tCL to be even. You can run everything else at an odd value. If you set tCL of 13 with GDM enabled, it will force tCL of 14 (not 13.5 that is not possible everything must be in whole clocks). so if your primaries are set as 13-13-13-13-26 in the bios, and boot with GDM enabled it will boot with timings at 14-13-13-13-26


Actually, it's the spaced timing of commands on the every-other clock edge that is probably alone enough to provide additional stability, There must be cascading effects. I wish I could just run capture debug off the nanosecond-level transactions and troubleshoot backwards from when errors occur.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

LuckyBahstard said:


> Actually, it's the spaced timing of commands on the every-other clock edge that is probably alone enough to provide additional stability, There must be cascading effects. I wish I could just run capture debug off the nanosecond-level transactions and troubleshoot backwards from when errors occur.


It does force even also tCWL but this is only what you see, and can set, in the BIOS.
There are many other timings which are rounded in background:

*Some little nuances come to light when a system is operating in gear-down mode. One of them is that the timing between transactions has changed. All timing parameters are rounded up to an even number of clock cycles. This would also include all the protocol check parameters as they must also be rounded up to an even number also.*

https://www.futureplus.com/what-is-ddr4-memory-gear-down-mode/


----------



## Gadfly

ManniX-ITA said:


> Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> trfc is limited only by the physical properties of the memory.
> 
> That is not what they are talking about, have a look at the post I made above I added some diagrams. The adaptive refresh mechanism is already doing it's best to avoid collisions, tRFC has no impact on those collisions. The adaptive refresh is bound by tREFI, which is the "average" interval between REFRESH commands. This is because you can push-out (or pull-in) a certain number of refresh commands and make up for it later (to avoid collisions). This mode was added to DDR4 to overcome the performance penalty due to refresh lockout at the higher densities. The number of refresh commands that can be postponed depends upon the Refresh Mode (1x, 2x or 4x) which can be set in the SDRAM's Mode Register MR2.
> 
> tRFC is a only the minimum delay between REFRESH commands. REFRESH command always run at a varying interval. Thus it is impossible to "sync" REFRESH commands with any other timing as they are adaptive, and actively looking to move out of the way or reads and writes. it is just the minimum delay interval. The lower tRFC the better. If your memory could tolerate 0ns tRFC that would be ideal, But that is impossible as the banks need to be charged and idle. So you need to set a minimum delay; during that delay period REFRESH commands will be postponed.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry still can't follow you...
> You say tRFC is the minimum delay between REFRESH commands but I read:
> 
> *tRFC Delay between the REFRESH command and the next valid command, except DES*
> 
> The next valid command is not necessarily a REFRESH, can be READ, WRITE, ACTIVATE, etc
> 
> As I understood the minimum delay between two REFRESH commands is 1 x tREFI:
> 
> *tREFI The device requires REFRESH commands at an average interval of tREFI*
> 
> Which is what I see in the diagrams below:
> 
> View attachment 352928
> 
> 
> While the maximum delay is 9 x tREFI:
> 
> View attachment 352930
> 
> 
> Yes it's adaptive but from the diagram above it looks that if the timebreak occurs just after the last command, which is not necessarily a REFRESH, less delay is wasted.
Click to expand...

Trfc is only the minimum delay between refresh commands, read and writes don't wait for trfc


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> @Veii I look forward to it. I'd like to understand what you are using to try to calculate this, and your logic behind your calculation so I can try it.


Yes please look forward and help the community with your knowledge 
I hope I can learn a lot from you too
My methods look counterproductive and controversial, but so far the success rate of this "predictions" are quite high, I estimate it in the 85-88% success rate of what looks to you bad unlogical "prediction" 

I just hope in the future, that we can learn a lot from you too
Every researcher on this complicated but yet valuable topic=memory OC 
Pushes industry forward and helps people consider working with their memory 
Which was a big bottleneck since back before bank group prefetching was introduced
OCing DDR5 will be even more fun, when everything is auto corrected every bank and row 



ManniX-ITA said:


> It does force even also tCWL but this is only what you see, and can set, in the BIOS.
> There are many other timings which are rounded in background:
> 
> *Some little nuances come to light when a system is operating in gear-down mode. One of them is that the timing between transactions has changed. All timing parameters are rounded up to an even number of clock cycles. This would also include all the protocol check parameters as they must also be rounded up to an even number also.*
> 
> https://www.futureplus.com/what-is-ddr4-memory-gear-down-mode/


Yes, it does far more in the background
Jedec spec says only tCL is rounded up
But JEDEC varries and there is more done to it
Well even "even" timings in reality are uneven up to 14decimals 
Jedec is not always following jedec 
Like brands are not always following intels defaults

But here its more of what we "don't see"
GMD does auto correct down to tRC 
First 5 primaries 
I haven't noticed that anything else is autocorrect and tREFI doesn't seem to round
But up to tRC looks to be auto corrected 
It can be also just the board and not the memory where timings are adjusted when it drops to half mode

But 2T with odd timings remain faster than GDM with auto corrected
Even when 1.5T appear faster


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> Yes please look forward and help the community with your knowledge
> I hope I can learn a lot from you too
> My methods look counterproductive and controversial, but so far the success rate of this "predictions" are quite high, I estimate it in the 85-88% success rate of what looks to you bad unlogical "prediction"


 @Veii Alight man, let's see what you got  

Settings attached

Blender Bench (Classroom):

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/d3bca621-d041-405f-a291-f944181f3634/

What do you want me to change?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Gadfly said:


> Trfc is only the minimum delay between refresh commands, read and writes don't wait for trfc


Maybe I'm not up to speed and I'm missing something...

Refresh cycle times, tRFC = amount of time each refresh command takes 
Refresh intervals, tREFI = how frequently refresh commands must be issued

I keep reading anywhere tRFC is the amount on time a REFRESH command takes and it seems logical during this time READ and WRITE commands are stalled.
Otherwise why being adaptive and queuing for up to 9 x tREFI to avoid collisions? 
There wouldn't be any collision to handle if they don't have to wait for it.

Also in the Samsung DDR4 Device Operation guide:

https://www.samsung.com/semiconduct.../11/DDR4_Device_Operations_Rev11_Oct_14-0.pdf

Same description:

*A delay between the Refresh Command and the next valid command, except DES, must be greater than or equal to the minimum Refresh cycle time tRFC(min)

Only DES commands allowed after Refresh command registered untill tRFC(min) expires.*

I can't find anything that suggest R/W operations don't have to wait.
It seems a very strict DDR4 dogma that nothing happens during tRFC.


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> @Veii Alight man, let's see what you got
> 
> Settings attached
> Blender Bench (Classroom):
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/d3bca621-d041-405f-a291-f944181f3634/
> 
> What do you want me to change?


tRDWR looks pretty much perfect 
(tRCD RD / 2-1 as the lowest, then +2 because its dual rank)

tRP 12 really is low, what voltage does that require , 1.48 ? Or already over 1.52?

There are two things we can try
First one is lower tRCD WR 11, soo avg delay between WR and RD is 12 not 13 
Then tRP 12 would be perfect for it
Same as 4* tWRRD 3 = perfect 12 

That should help
For this tRFC ~ which I hope you used tRFC2 and 4 too
They aren't directly uses, but realtime changing tMRD is based on them for accuracy sake
tRTP 6 looks to be better

These are dual 16gb dimms right ?
tRRDS looks a bit too low, are these on A1 kits ? (PCB)
tWTRL looks pretty much perfect, at best it would 3-5 for tRRDs but boards don't allow it 
Lower than 4 twtrs makes issues when we can't lower trrds

Yes only thing is using tWR 12 and tRTP 6 and then abusing dram heterogeneity so using formula 
tCL+tWR+tBL for lower tRAS
that makes tRC lower and I am pretty sure lower tRFC will work then too

Will edit this message in 1h, Google sheet is unusable on the phone
I'm tempted to make a portable app for such thing
Later factoring in also couple of formulas till the main calculator sheet is done
(Which needs full simulation or memory transfer delay , to work well
Aka weeks or week more work needed) 

In the meantime please grab SiSoftware Sandra
Multi-Core Efficiency Test
Filter by local results only and make at least 2 benchmarks for accuracy sake ~ so we have a baseline to compare 
Blender is good, but this is statistically more accurate 
Until later o/


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Veii Alight man, let's see what you got /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Settings attached
> Blender Bench (Classroom):
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/d3bca621-d041-405f-a291-f944181f3634/
> 
> What do you want me to change?
> 
> 
> 
> tRDWR looks pretty much perfect
> (tRCD RD / 2-1 as the lowest, then +2 because its dual rank)
> 
> tRP 12 really is low, what voltage does that require , 1.48 ? Or already over 1.52?
> 
> There are two things we can try
> First one is lower tRCD WR 11, soo avg delay between WR and RD is 12 not 13
> Then tRP 12 would be perfect for it
> Same as 4* tWRRD 3 = perfect 12
> 
> That should help
> For this tRFC ~ which I hope you used tRFC2 and 4 too
> They aren't directly uses, but realtime changing tMRD is based on them for accuracy sake
> tRTP 6 looks to be better
> 
> These are dual 16gb dimms right ?
> tRRDS looks a bit too low, are these on A1 kits ? (PCB)
> tWTRL looks pretty much perfect, at best it would 3-5 for tRRDs but boards don't allow it
> Lower than 4 twtrs makes issues when we can't lower trrds
> 
> Yes only thing is using tWR 12 and tRTP 6 and then abusing dram heterogeneity so using formula
> tCL+tWR+tBL for lower tRAS
> that makes tRC lower and I am pretty sure lower tRFC will work then too
> 
> Will edit this message in 1h, Google sheet is unusable on the phone
> I'm tempted to make a portable app for such thing
> Later factoring in also couple of formulas till the main calculator sheet is done
> (Which needs full simulation or memory transfer delay , to work well
> Aka weeks or week more work needed)
> 
> In the meantime please grab SiSoftware Sandra
> Multi-Core Efficiency Test
> Filter by local results only and make at least 2 benchmarks for accuracy sake ~ so we have a baseline to compare
> Blender is good, but this is statistically more accurate
> Until later o/
Click to expand...

4x 8gb single rank, 1.47v, a1 (g.skill neo).

I will grab SiSoftware and run the benches after dinner

EDIT: Did two runs, one at 199.189 and one at 200.825. Let me know exactly what timing you want changed and to what values and I will make the changes and repeat all the tests. 

Details of the lowest Sandra run pasted below:


SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 199.19GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 53.9ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.22GB/s
No. Threads : 32
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 86.39W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 2361.04MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 6.24ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 859.36kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 45.33MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 59.7ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U0-U16 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U0-U18 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U0-U20 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U0-U22 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U0-U24 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U0-U26 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U0-U28 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U0-U30 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U0-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U0-U19 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U0-U21 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U0-U23 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U0-U25 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U0-U27 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U0-U29 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U0-U31 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U2-U16 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U2-U18 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U2-U20 Data Latency : 60.6ns
U2-U22 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U2-U24 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U2-U26 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U2-U28 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U2-U30 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.5ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 61.9ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U2-U17 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U2-U19 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U2-U21 Data Latency : 62.3ns
U2-U23 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U2-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U2-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U2-U29 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U2-U31 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U4-U16 Data Latency : 61.8ns
U4-U18 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U4-U20 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U4-U22 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U4-U24 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U4-U26 Data Latency : 53.4ns
U4-U28 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U4-U30 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.5ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 52.3ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 61.0ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U4-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U4-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U4-U21 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U4-U23 Data Latency : 53.3ns
U4-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U4-U27 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U4-U29 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U4-U31 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 59.1ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U6-U16 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U6-U18 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U6-U20 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U6-U22 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U6-U24 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U6-U26 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U6-U28 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U6-U30 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U6-U17 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U6-U19 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U6-U21 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U6-U23 Data Latency : 61.0ns
U6-U25 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U6-U27 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U6-U29 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U6-U31 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U8-U16 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U8-U18 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U8-U20 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U8-U22 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U8-U24 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U8-U26 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U8-U28 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U8-U30 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 9.4ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U8-U19 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U8-U21 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U8-U23 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U8-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U8-U27 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U8-U29 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U8-U31 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U10-U16 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U10-U18 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U10-U20 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U10-U22 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U10-U24 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U10-U26 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U10-U28 Data Latency : 50.8ns
U10-U30 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.7ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U10-U17 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U10-U19 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U10-U21 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U10-U23 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U10-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U10-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U10-U29 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U10-U31 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U12-U16 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U12-U18 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U12-U20 Data Latency : 61.0ns
U12-U22 Data Latency : 62.0ns
U12-U24 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U12-U26 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U12-U28 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U30 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 53.8ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 10.0ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U12-U17 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U19 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U12-U21 Data Latency : 53.5ns
U12-U23 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U12-U25 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U12-U27 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U12-U29 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U12-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U14-U16 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U14-U18 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U14-U20 Data Latency : 60.0ns
U14-U22 Data Latency : 60.4ns
U14-U24 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U14-U26 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U14-U28 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U14-U30 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 54.9ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 55.5ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 10.2ns
U14-U17 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U14-U19 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U14-U21 Data Latency : 54.3ns
U14-U23 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U14-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U14-U27 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U14-U29 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U14-U31 Data Latency : 52.3ns
U16-U18 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U16-U20 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U16-U22 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U16-U24 Data Latency : 67.6ns
U16-U26 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U16-U28 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U16-U30 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U16-U1 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U16-U3 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U16-U5 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U16-U7 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U16-U9 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U16-U11 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U16-U13 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U16-U15 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U16-U17 Data Latency : 10.6ns
U16-U19 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U16-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U16-U23 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U16-U25 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U16-U27 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U16-U29 Data Latency : 65.3ns
U16-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U18-U20 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U18-U22 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U18-U24 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U18-U26 Data Latency : 67.5ns
U18-U28 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U18-U30 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U18-U1 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U18-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U18-U5 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U18-U7 Data Latency : 59.5ns
U18-U9 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U18-U11 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U18-U13 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U18-U15 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U18-U17 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U18-U21 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U18-U23 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U18-U25 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U18-U27 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U18-U29 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U18-U31 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U20-U22 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U20-U24 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U20-U26 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U20-U28 Data Latency : 67.6ns
U20-U30 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U20-U1 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U20-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U20-U5 Data Latency : 52.1ns
U20-U7 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U20-U9 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U20-U11 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U20-U13 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U20-U15 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U20-U17 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U20-U19 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U20-U21 Data Latency : 10.1ns
U20-U23 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U20-U25 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U20-U27 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U20-U29 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U20-U31 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U22-U24 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U22-U26 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U22-U28 Data Latency : 67.8ns
U22-U30 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U22-U1 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U22-U3 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U22-U5 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U22-U7 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U22-U9 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U22-U11 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U22-U13 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U22-U15 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U22-U17 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U22-U19 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U22-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U22-U23 Data Latency : 10.7ns
U22-U25 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U22-U27 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U22-U29 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U22-U31 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U24-U26 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U24-U1 Data Latency : 54.7ns
U24-U3 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U24-U5 Data Latency : 61.1ns
U24-U7 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U24-U9 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U24-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U24-U13 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U24-U15 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U24-U17 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U24-U19 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U24-U21 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U24-U23 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U24-U25 Data Latency : 10.9ns
U24-U27 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U26-U28 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U26-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U26-U1 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U26-U3 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U26-U5 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U26-U7 Data Latency : 61.5ns
U26-U9 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U26-U11 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U26-U13 Data Latency : 54.8ns
U26-U15 Data Latency : 61.2ns
U26-U17 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U26-U19 Data Latency : 67.5ns
U26-U21 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U26-U23 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U26-U25 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U26-U27 Data Latency : 10.5ns
U26-U29 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U28-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U1 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U28-U3 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U28-U5 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U28-U7 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U28-U9 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U28-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U28-U13 Data Latency : 54.1ns
U28-U15 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U28-U17 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U28-U19 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U28-U21 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U28-U23 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U27 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U29 Data Latency : 10.4ns
U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U30-U1 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U30-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U30-U5 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U30-U7 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U30-U9 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U30-U11 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U30-U13 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U30-U15 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U30-U17 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U30-U19 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U30-U21 Data Latency : 67.8ns
U30-U23 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U30-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U30-U27 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U30-U31 Data Latency : 10.9ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U1-U17 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U1-U19 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U1-U21 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U1-U23 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U1-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U1-U27 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U1-U29 Data Latency : 61.7ns
U1-U31 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U3-U17 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U3-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U3-U21 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U3-U23 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U3-U25 Data Latency : 59.1ns
U3-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U3-U29 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U3-U31 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 55.1ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 54.2ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U5-U17 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U5-U19 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U5-U21 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U5-U23 Data Latency : 61.5ns
U5-U25 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U5-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U29 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U5-U31 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U7-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U7-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U7-U21 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U7-U23 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U7-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U7-U27 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U7-U29 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U7-U31 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U9-U17 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U9-U19 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U9-U21 Data Latency : 50.7ns
U9-U23 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U9-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U9-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U9-U29 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U9-U31 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U11-U17 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U11-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U11-U21 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U11-U23 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U11-U25 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U11-U27 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U11-U29 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U11-U31 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U13-U17 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U13-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U13-U21 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U13-U23 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U13-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U13-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U13-U29 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U13-U31 Data Latency : 51.4ns
U15-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U15-U19 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U15-U21 Data Latency : 52.7ns
U15-U23 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U15-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U15-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U15-U29 Data Latency : 59.9ns
U15-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U17-U19 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U17-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U17-U23 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U17-U25 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U17-U27 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U17-U29 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U17-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U19-U21 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U19-U23 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U19-U25 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U19-U27 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U19-U29 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U19-U31 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U21-U23 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U21-U25 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U21-U27 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U21-U29 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U21-U31 Data Latency : 67.6ns
U23-U25 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U23-U27 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U23-U29 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U23-U31 Data Latency : 67.5ns
U25-U27 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U25-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U27-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U27-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U29-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.49GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 43.23GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 157.46GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 467.57GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 713.77GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 670.52GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 766.24GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 682.12GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 620.85GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 600GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 29.6GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 18.14GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.5GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710013
Computer : ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 32
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Speed : 4.5GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.5GHz
Maximum Power : 86.39W - 132.89W
Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710013
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> 4x 8gb single rank, 1.47v, a1 (g.skill neo).
> 
> I will grab SiSoftware and run the benches after dinner
> 
> EDIT: Did two runs, one at 199.189 and one at 200.825. Let me know exactly what timing you want changed and to what values and I will make the changes and repeat all the tests.
> 
> Details of the lowest Sandra run pasted below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 199.19GB/s
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Latency : 53.9ns
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.22GB/s
> No. Threads : 32
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Processor(s) Power : 86.39W
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 2361.04MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 6.24ns/W
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Total Cache Size : 859.36kB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 45.33MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Detailed Results
> Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31
> U0-U2 Data Latency : 25.7ns
> U0-U4 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U0-U8 Data Latency : 59.7ns
> U0-U10 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U0-U12 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U0-U14 Data Latency : 60.5ns
> U0-U16 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U0-U18 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U0-U20 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U0-U22 Data Latency : 53.6ns
> U0-U24 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U0-U26 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U0-U28 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U0-U30 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U0-U3 Data Latency : 25.4ns
> U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U0-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U0-U9 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U0-U11 Data Latency : 59.6ns
> U0-U13 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U0-U15 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U0-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U0-U19 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U0-U21 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U0-U23 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U0-U25 Data Latency : 58.4ns
> U0-U27 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U0-U29 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U0-U31 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U2-U4 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U2-U6 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U2-U8 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U2-U10 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U2-U12 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U2-U14 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U2-U16 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U2-U18 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U2-U20 Data Latency : 60.6ns
> U2-U22 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U2-U24 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U2-U26 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U2-U28 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U2-U30 Data Latency : 58.2ns
> U2-U1 Data Latency : 25.0ns
> U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.5ns
> U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U2-U9 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U2-U13 Data Latency : 61.9ns
> U2-U15 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U2-U17 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U2-U19 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U2-U21 Data Latency : 62.3ns
> U2-U23 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U2-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U2-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U2-U29 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U2-U31 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U4-U8 Data Latency : 56.7ns
> U4-U10 Data Latency : 58.8ns
> U4-U12 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U4-U14 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U4-U16 Data Latency : 61.8ns
> U4-U18 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U4-U20 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U4-U22 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U4-U24 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U4-U26 Data Latency : 53.4ns
> U4-U28 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U4-U30 Data Latency : 58.6ns
> U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.5ns
> U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U4-U9 Data Latency : 52.3ns
> U4-U11 Data Latency : 61.0ns
> U4-U13 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U4-U15 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U4-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U4-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U4-U21 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U4-U23 Data Latency : 53.3ns
> U4-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U4-U27 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U4-U29 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U4-U31 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U6-U8 Data Latency : 59.1ns
> U6-U10 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U6-U12 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U6-U14 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U6-U16 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U6-U18 Data Latency : 56.1ns
> U6-U20 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U6-U22 Data Latency : 57.6ns
> U6-U24 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U6-U26 Data Latency : 60.5ns
> U6-U28 Data Latency : 56.5ns
> U6-U30 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U6-U7 Data Latency : 11.1ns
> U6-U9 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U6-U11 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U6-U13 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U6-U15 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U6-U17 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U6-U19 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U6-U21 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U6-U23 Data Latency : 61.0ns
> U6-U25 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U6-U27 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U6-U29 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U6-U31 Data Latency : 56.8ns
> U8-U10 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U8-U12 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U8-U16 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U8-U18 Data Latency : 58.5ns
> U8-U20 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U8-U22 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U8-U24 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U8-U26 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U8-U28 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U8-U30 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U8-U1 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U8-U3 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U8-U5 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 9.4ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 25.8ns
> U8-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U8-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U8-U19 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U8-U21 Data Latency : 56.7ns
> U8-U23 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U8-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U8-U27 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U8-U29 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U8-U31 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U10-U16 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U10-U18 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U10-U20 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U10-U22 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U10-U24 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U10-U26 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U10-U28 Data Latency : 50.8ns
> U10-U30 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U10-U1 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U10-U3 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U10-U5 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U10-U7 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.7ns
> U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U10-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U10-U17 Data Latency : 58.6ns
> U10-U19 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U10-U21 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U10-U23 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U10-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U10-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U10-U29 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U10-U31 Data Latency : 53.6ns
> U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U12-U16 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U12-U18 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U12-U20 Data Latency : 61.0ns
> U12-U22 Data Latency : 62.0ns
> U12-U24 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U12-U26 Data Latency : 59.4ns
> U12-U28 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U12-U30 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U12-U1 Data Latency : 53.8ns
> U12-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U12-U5 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U12-U7 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U12-U9 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U12-U11 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U12-U13 Data Latency : 10.0ns
> U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U12-U17 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U12-U19 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U12-U21 Data Latency : 53.5ns
> U12-U23 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U12-U25 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U12-U27 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U12-U29 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U12-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U14-U16 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U14-U18 Data Latency : 58.5ns
> U14-U20 Data Latency : 60.0ns
> U14-U22 Data Latency : 60.4ns
> U14-U24 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U14-U26 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U14-U28 Data Latency : 58.5ns
> U14-U30 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U14-U1 Data Latency : 54.9ns
> U14-U3 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U14-U5 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U14-U7 Data Latency : 55.5ns
> U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U14-U11 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U14-U15 Data Latency : 10.2ns
> U14-U17 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U14-U19 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U14-U21 Data Latency : 54.3ns
> U14-U23 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U14-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U14-U27 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U14-U29 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U14-U31 Data Latency : 52.3ns
> U16-U18 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U16-U20 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U16-U22 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U16-U24 Data Latency : 67.6ns
> U16-U26 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U16-U28 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U16-U30 Data Latency : 65.8ns
> U16-U1 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U16-U3 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U16-U5 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U16-U7 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U16-U9 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U16-U11 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U16-U13 Data Latency : 57.6ns
> U16-U15 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U16-U17 Data Latency : 10.6ns
> U16-U19 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U16-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U16-U23 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U16-U25 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U16-U27 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U16-U29 Data Latency : 65.3ns
> U16-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U18-U20 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U18-U22 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U18-U24 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U18-U26 Data Latency : 67.5ns
> U18-U28 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U18-U30 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U18-U1 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U18-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U18-U5 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U18-U7 Data Latency : 59.5ns
> U18-U9 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U18-U11 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U18-U13 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U18-U15 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U18-U17 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.1ns
> U18-U21 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U18-U23 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U18-U25 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U18-U27 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U18-U29 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U18-U31 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U20-U22 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U20-U24 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U20-U26 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U20-U28 Data Latency : 67.6ns
> U20-U30 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U20-U1 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U20-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U20-U5 Data Latency : 52.1ns
> U20-U7 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U20-U9 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U20-U11 Data Latency : 57.8ns
> U20-U13 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U20-U15 Data Latency : 56.8ns
> U20-U17 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U20-U19 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U20-U21 Data Latency : 10.1ns
> U20-U23 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U20-U25 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U20-U27 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U20-U29 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U20-U31 Data Latency : 67.7ns
> U22-U24 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U22-U26 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U22-U28 Data Latency : 67.8ns
> U22-U30 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U22-U1 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U22-U3 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U22-U5 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U22-U7 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U22-U9 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U22-U11 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U22-U13 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U22-U15 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U22-U17 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U22-U19 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U22-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U22-U23 Data Latency : 10.7ns
> U22-U25 Data Latency : 67.4ns
> U22-U27 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U22-U29 Data Latency : 67.4ns
> U22-U31 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U24-U26 Data Latency : 27.3ns
> U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U24-U1 Data Latency : 54.7ns
> U24-U3 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U24-U5 Data Latency : 61.1ns
> U24-U7 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U24-U9 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U24-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U24-U13 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U24-U15 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U24-U17 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U24-U19 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U24-U21 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U24-U23 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U24-U25 Data Latency : 10.9ns
> U24-U27 Data Latency : 27.0ns
> U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U26-U28 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U26-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U26-U1 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U26-U3 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U26-U5 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U26-U7 Data Latency : 61.5ns
> U26-U9 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U26-U11 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U26-U13 Data Latency : 54.8ns
> U26-U15 Data Latency : 61.2ns
> U26-U17 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U26-U19 Data Latency : 67.5ns
> U26-U21 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U26-U23 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U26-U25 Data Latency : 27.2ns
> U26-U27 Data Latency : 10.5ns
> U26-U29 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U28-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U28-U1 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U28-U3 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U28-U5 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U28-U7 Data Latency : 58.2ns
> U28-U9 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U28-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U28-U13 Data Latency : 54.1ns
> U28-U15 Data Latency : 58.8ns
> U28-U17 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U28-U19 Data Latency : 67.7ns
> U28-U21 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U28-U23 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U28-U27 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U28-U29 Data Latency : 10.4ns
> U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U30-U1 Data Latency : 55.2ns
> U30-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U30-U5 Data Latency : 55.9ns
> U30-U7 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U30-U9 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U30-U11 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U30-U13 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U30-U15 Data Latency : 56.8ns
> U30-U17 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U30-U19 Data Latency : 66.8ns
> U30-U21 Data Latency : 67.8ns
> U30-U23 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U30-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U30-U27 Data Latency : 27.8ns
> U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U30-U31 Data Latency : 10.9ns
> U1-U3 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U1-U9 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U1-U11 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U1-U13 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U1-U15 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U1-U17 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U1-U19 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U1-U21 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U1-U23 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U1-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U1-U27 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U1-U29 Data Latency : 61.7ns
> U1-U31 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U3-U9 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U3-U11 Data Latency : 58.4ns
> U3-U13 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U3-U15 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U3-U17 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U3-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U3-U21 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U3-U23 Data Latency : 63.0ns
> U3-U25 Data Latency : 59.1ns
> U3-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U3-U29 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U3-U31 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U5-U9 Data Latency : 55.1ns
> U5-U11 Data Latency : 64.9ns
> U5-U13 Data Latency : 54.2ns
> U5-U15 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U5-U17 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U5-U19 Data Latency : 56.3ns
> U5-U21 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U5-U23 Data Latency : 61.5ns
> U5-U25 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U5-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U5-U29 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U5-U31 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U7-U9 Data Latency : 52.7ns
> U7-U11 Data Latency : 60.5ns
> U7-U13 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U7-U15 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U7-U17 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U7-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U7-U21 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U7-U23 Data Latency : 56.2ns
> U7-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U7-U27 Data Latency : 64.3ns
> U7-U29 Data Latency : 54.6ns
> U7-U31 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U9-U11 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U9-U17 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U9-U19 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U9-U21 Data Latency : 50.7ns
> U9-U23 Data Latency : 59.0ns
> U9-U25 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U9-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U9-U29 Data Latency : 62.7ns
> U9-U31 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U11-U17 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U11-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U11-U21 Data Latency : 57.5ns
> U11-U23 Data Latency : 62.9ns
> U11-U25 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U11-U27 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U11-U29 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U11-U31 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> U13-U17 Data Latency : 55.8ns
> U13-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U13-U21 Data Latency : 57.2ns
> U13-U23 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U13-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U13-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U13-U29 Data Latency : 64.0ns
> U13-U31 Data Latency : 51.4ns
> U15-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
> U15-U19 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U15-U21 Data Latency : 52.7ns
> U15-U23 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U15-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U15-U27 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U15-U29 Data Latency : 59.9ns
> U15-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U17-U19 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U17-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U17-U23 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U17-U25 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U17-U27 Data Latency : 67.3ns
> U17-U29 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U17-U31 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U19-U21 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U19-U23 Data Latency : 27.9ns
> U19-U25 Data Latency : 67.3ns
> U19-U27 Data Latency : 67.3ns
> U19-U29 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U19-U31 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U21-U23 Data Latency : 28.0ns
> U21-U25 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U21-U27 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U21-U29 Data Latency : 67.3ns
> U21-U31 Data Latency : 67.6ns
> U23-U25 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U23-U27 Data Latency : 65.1ns
> U23-U29 Data Latency : 67.3ns
> U23-U31 Data Latency : 67.5ns
> U25-U27 Data Latency : 27.1ns
> U25-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U27-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U27-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
> U29-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.49GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 43.23GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 157.46GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 467.57GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 713.77GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 670.52GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 766.24GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 682.12GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 620.85GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 600GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 29.6GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 18.14GB/s


I wonder where you got that 252-187-115 tRFC from 
It randomly appears to be pretty much the same value mini tRFC calculator does result as result 

Oke tho single rank changes the whole story
You had no problem with tWTRS 4 is quite solid performance
Even more when we consider that board is daisy chain and only 25% of the signal go to the 2nd batch of dimms 

Soo what you can drop is tRDWR -1 for sure 
I am uncertain if we have playroom on tRC to go -2 down, BUT
we do have playroom on tRAS
SCL should be able to go down to 3 with some push, 2 on 4 dimms will be hard, but 3 would work 

Likely tWTRL 12 you'd be better off, unless you make it that SCL can run at 2 (doubt)
yes let's start that way, what would the result be with:








I've seen 1-4-4-1-6-6 run better on 4 dimms, while 1-5-5-1-7-7 was better for two dimms
My question remains, can you post with SCL 3 :thinking:
And one step further down









EDIT: i made twice the same stupid mistake
tRCD WR should be 9 not 11 
or you get tRCD RD 14 to run, then tRCD WR 10 works , but 11 is wrong - sorry


----------



## rares495

Gadfly said:


> @Veii Alight man, let's see what you got
> 
> Settings attached
> 
> Blender Bench (Classroom):
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/d3bca621-d041-405f-a291-f944181f3634/
> 
> What do you want me to change?


Not bad but not great . Those Neo sticks of yours could probably work with tRCDRD 14. Perhaps you could try that with a single 2x8 kit.


----------



## TheGlow

What the best ways to test the stability? I have the cores on stock, the memory is 3600 oc'd to 3733 and appears stable. I run testmem5 a few hours at a time and its fine. I tried Asus RealBench a couple hours, no problem.
Yet Ive had 2-3 occasions when playing a game, its just crashed. And its old Street Fighter 4, no where near taxing.
Suggestions on what to touch next/test?


----------



## Veii

TheGlow said:


> What the best ways to test the stability? I have the cores on stock, the memory is 3600 oc'd to 3733 and appears stable. I run testmem5 a few hours at a time and its fine. I tried Asus RealBench a couple hours, no problem.
> Yet Ive had 2-3 occasions when playing a game, its just crashed. And its old Street Fighter 4, no where near taxing.
> Suggestions on what to touch next/test?











Increase voltage if you can't post
put ClkDrvStr to 30ohm , later try if 48ohm procODT will work 

Tm5 1usmus_v3 20 cycles, and p95 large FFT 2hours
also considerable are all tests of y-cruncher (2min per test, about 8 of them) while it will fail on the first 3 if the memory controller dies out
TM5 be sure it's 1usmus v3 or anta extreme preset (3 cycles anta) both take 1:30h for 16gb 
DRAM calculator memtest is a good tool, but it doesn't show clear errors
Same as karhu with cache doesn't show clear errors
As karhu replacement, p95 large fft and y-cruncher are solid to stress the cache and IMC
TM5 will tell you fast if the timings are messed up, but not if the rest is messed up


----------



## fcchin

TheGlow said:


> its just crashed. And its old Street Fighter 4


Oh man............... this is perfect .......... nothing beats good old Street Fighter, ohhhh what a youth memory it brings back.....

I always use game as final pass or fail. Windows boot up time and windows login screen picture, etc as indicator of good timing settings or bad, i.e. tRFC too low, no crash, but windows load slow, game load slow, etc. 

I always think about default voltages, especially SOC 1.2V, we managed to use 1.05v or 1.1v etc, but silicon lottery I think, not everyone can... so may be 1.1125v or 1.125v would not hurt at all, we are already so low under default. Sames goes for VDDP, VDDG etc etc etc.

Oh not forgetting AGING issues, new chips from birth probably run ultra low voltages say SOC 1v, but very short moment, then enter child-growth need more nutrition and vitamins means tiny bit more voltage 1.01v, but very short days, then youth-growth probably 1.03v last 6 months, then youngman 1.05v another 6 months, then adulthood 1.065v lasting the longest 2 years or more, then old age 1.1v, finally retirement back down 1.0v and slow MHz. The voltage is not forever.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

fcchin said:


> ...then adulthood 1.065v lasting the longest 2 years or more, then old age 1.1v, finally retirement back down 1.0v and slow MHz. The voltage is not forever.


Man... so I've been chugging a LOT of coffee this year. I'm really pushing the voltage but I have some distance still before I retire... I might be pushing too much caffeine too early. I swear that work some days make me feel completely delidded.


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> I wonder where you got that 252-187-115 tRFC from
> It randomly appears to be pretty much the same value mini tRFC calculator does result as result


That is where I got it from, I was trying it out earlier when I posted that profile. 



Veii said:


> yes let's start that way, what would the result be with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen 1-4-4-1-6-6 run better on 4 dimms, while 1-5-5-1-7-7 was better for two dimms
> My question remains, can you post with SCL 3 :thinking:


Quick update. This wouldn't post at all, SCL of 3 is..... aggressive. I decided I would come back these later, as I want to mess with 1-4-4-1-6-6; see what they does. I have never messed with those timings much. 



Veii said:


> And one step further down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: i made twice the same stupid mistake
> tRCD WR should be 9 not 11
> or you get tRCD RD 14 to run, then tRCD WR 10 works , but 11 is wrong - sorry


Ok, I got this to post and boot; but I had to put tWRRD back to 3, it wouldn't post at 1. 

I was able to run Aida (attached), and get though the SiSoft run, but it crashed and rebooted during blender benchmark. 

Sandra:


Spoiler



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 197.57GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 55.2ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.17GB/s
No. Threads : 32
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 86.39W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 2341.89MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 6.39ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 859.36kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 44.96MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U0-U16 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U0-U18 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U0-U20 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U0-U22 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U0-U24 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U0-U26 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U0-U28 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U0-U30 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U0-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U0-U19 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U0-U21 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U0-U23 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U0-U25 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U0-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U0-U29 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U0-U31 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U2-U16 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U2-U18 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U2-U20 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U2-U22 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U2-U24 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U2-U26 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U2-U28 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U2-U30 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.6ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 65.1ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U2-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U2-U19 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U2-U21 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U2-U23 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U2-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U2-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U2-U29 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U2-U31 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U16 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U4-U18 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U4-U20 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U4-U22 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U4-U24 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U4-U26 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U4-U28 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U4-U30 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U4-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U4-U19 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U4-U21 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U4-U23 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U4-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U4-U27 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U4-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U4-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U6-U16 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U6-U18 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U6-U20 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U6-U22 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U24 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U26 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U6-U28 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U30 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U6-U17 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U6-U19 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U21 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U6-U23 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U25 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U6-U27 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U6-U29 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U31 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U16 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U8-U18 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U8-U20 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U8-U22 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U8-U24 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U8-U26 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U8-U28 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U8-U30 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.4ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U17 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U8-U19 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U8-U21 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U8-U23 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U8-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U8-U27 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U8-U29 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U8-U31 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U10-U16 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U10-U18 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U10-U20 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U10-U22 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U10-U24 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U10-U26 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U10-U28 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U10-U30 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.5ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U10-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U10-U19 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U10-U21 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U10-U23 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U10-U25 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U10-U27 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U10-U29 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U10-U31 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U12-U16 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U18 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U12-U20 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U12-U22 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U12-U24 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U12-U26 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U12-U28 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U12-U30 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 10.6ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U12-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U12-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U12-U21 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U12-U23 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U12-U25 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U12-U27 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U12-U29 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U12-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U14-U16 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U14-U18 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U14-U20 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U14-U22 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U14-U24 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U14-U26 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U14-U28 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U14-U30 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U14-U17 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U14-U19 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U14-U21 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U14-U23 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U14-U25 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U14-U27 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U14-U29 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U14-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U16-U18 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U16-U20 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U16-U22 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U16-U24 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U16-U26 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U16-U28 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U16-U30 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U16-U1 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U16-U3 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U16-U5 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U16-U7 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U16-U9 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U16-U11 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U16-U13 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U16-U15 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U16-U17 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U16-U19 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U16-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U16-U23 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U16-U25 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U16-U27 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U16-U29 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U16-U31 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U18-U20 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U18-U22 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U18-U24 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U18-U26 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U18-U28 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U18-U30 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U18-U1 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U18-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U18-U5 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U18-U7 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U18-U9 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U18-U11 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U18-U13 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U18-U15 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U18-U17 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U18-U19 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U18-U21 Data Latency : 28.3ns
U18-U23 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U18-U25 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U18-U27 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U18-U29 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U18-U31 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U20-U22 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U20-U24 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U20-U26 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U20-U28 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U20-U30 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U20-U1 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U20-U3 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U20-U5 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U20-U7 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U20-U9 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U20-U11 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U20-U13 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U20-U15 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U20-U17 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U20-U19 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U20-U21 Data Latency : 11.0ns
U20-U23 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U20-U25 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U20-U27 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U20-U29 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U20-U31 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U22-U24 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U22-U26 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U22-U28 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U22-U30 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U22-U1 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U22-U3 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U22-U5 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U22-U7 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U22-U9 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U22-U11 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U22-U13 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U22-U15 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U22-U17 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U22-U19 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U22-U21 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U22-U23 Data Latency : 11.3ns
U22-U25 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U22-U27 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U22-U29 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U22-U31 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U24-U26 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U24-U1 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U24-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U24-U5 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U24-U7 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U24-U9 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U24-U11 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U24-U13 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U24-U15 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U24-U17 Data Latency : 67.6ns
U24-U19 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U24-U21 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U24-U23 Data Latency : 65.8ns
U24-U25 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U24-U27 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U26-U28 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U26-U30 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U26-U1 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U26-U3 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U26-U5 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U26-U7 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U26-U9 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U26-U11 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U26-U13 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U26-U15 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U26-U17 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U26-U19 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U26-U21 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U26-U23 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U26-U25 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U26-U27 Data Latency : 11.1ns
U26-U29 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U28-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U1 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U28-U3 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U28-U5 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U28-U7 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U28-U9 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U28-U11 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U28-U13 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U28-U15 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U28-U17 Data Latency : 68.1ns
U28-U19 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U28-U21 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U28-U23 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U28-U27 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U29 Data Latency : 11.2ns
U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U30-U1 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U30-U3 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U30-U5 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U30-U7 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U30-U9 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U30-U11 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U30-U13 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U30-U15 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U30-U17 Data Latency : 67.3ns
U30-U19 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U30-U21 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U30-U23 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U30-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U30-U27 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U30-U31 Data Latency : 10.8ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U1-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U1-U19 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U1-U21 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U1-U23 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U1-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U1-U27 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U1-U29 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U1-U31 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 62.9ns
U3-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U3-U19 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U3-U21 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U3-U23 Data Latency : 62.7ns
U3-U25 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U3-U27 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U3-U29 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U3-U31 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U5-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U5-U21 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U23 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U5-U25 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U27 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U5-U29 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U5-U31 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U7-U17 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U7-U19 Data Latency : 64.3ns
U7-U21 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U7-U23 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U7-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U7-U27 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U7-U29 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U7-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U9-U17 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U9-U19 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U9-U21 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U9-U23 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U9-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U9-U27 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U9-U29 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U9-U31 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U11-U17 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U11-U19 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U11-U21 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U11-U23 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U11-U25 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U11-U27 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U11-U29 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U11-U31 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U13-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U13-U19 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U13-U21 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U13-U23 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U13-U25 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U13-U27 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U13-U29 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U13-U31 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U15-U17 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U15-U19 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U15-U21 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U15-U23 Data Latency : 63.5ns
U15-U25 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U15-U27 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U15-U29 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U15-U31 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U17-U19 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U17-U21 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U17-U23 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U17-U25 Data Latency : 67.6ns
U17-U27 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U17-U29 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U17-U31 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U19-U21 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U19-U23 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U19-U25 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U19-U27 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U19-U29 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U19-U31 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U21-U23 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U21-U25 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U21-U27 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U21-U29 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U21-U31 Data Latency : 66.8ns
U23-U25 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U23-U27 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U23-U29 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U23-U31 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U25-U27 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U25-U29 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U27-U29 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U27-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U29-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.25GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 42.64GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 156.64GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 469.11GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 711.57GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 682.8GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 762.92GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 681.65GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 620.56GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 601.81GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 27.71GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 17.8GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 4.5GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 16x 512kB L2, 4x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710013
Computer : ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 32
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core Processor
Speed : 4.5GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.5GHz - 4.5GHz
Maximum Power : 86.39W - 132.89W
Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710013
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 4x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.



I will try blender one more time as soon as I hit submit on this post.

EDIT: It completed, https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/8f475472-be24-4579-b2a5-a16e853b0777/

Safe to say this isn't stable. I'll run a quick TM5.


----------



## Gadfly

rares495 said:


> Not bad but not great /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif. Those Neo sticks of yours could probably work with tRCDRD 14. Perhaps you could try that with a single 2x8 kit.


Nice result. Your latency is really good. I am not sure if I will get 4x8 down into the low 61's. I seem to be pretty hard locked at 62.2-62.5ns

But the quad ranks does give a nice speed boot to read and copy.


----------



## fcchin

rdr09 said:


> I suspect my C-die at 3800 MHz using 1.45v is getting too hot during stress test thus throwing errors, so i decided to tilt the top fan blowing directly to the RAM. Zip ties can't be seen then door is closed while the tubings (watercooling) does not look bad at all.


Good job !!!


----------



## Muqeshem

Gadfly said:


> Can you run the benchmark and submit it?


Yes like he said.
Do this https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/68e6de7a-bce2-4190-b712-2d1eb4f14644/ 
3:30 sub minutes on arch linux.
YOLO.


----------



## Veii

@Gadfly good morning 
Yep that's not stable, the result is far slower (2GB/s on SiSandra is already a noticeable jump, but it should rather be +3 or +4 with that set)
Hmm tRCD WR 9 is not thaat extreme,
But the good thing is 240 tRFC works for you and doesn't fail to post even with SCL that high

I really would love to know why it isn't stable, what TM5 does error on ~ or doesn't error
Try to use Prime95 if TM5 doesn't error , as it might not be memory at this point

There is no way for you with the same set that runs unstable now , to switch down to tRCD WR 10, tRCD RD 14 ?
RCD down to 14 would help it immense, but maybe you really can't :thinking:
tRAS 28 is fine as lowest, when we can sustain tWR that low then it can be used
But optimally really is tRCD RD 14 with that set :thinking:

When you have time, please run TM5 and if you error 6 or 12, try to tiny bit increase the voltage
If you have still a bit of headroom, +10mV , +20mV max 
But if TM5 passes, the issue is the IMC and the voltage fed to it
Memory doesn't crash and restart, it does BSOD or don't train at all
A hardcrash is mostly depending on the IMC and remain voltages around it


----------



## TheGlow

Veii said:


> Increase voltage if you can't post
> put ClkDrvStr to 30ohm , later try if 48ohm procODT will work
> 
> Tm5 1usmus_v3 20 cycles, and p95 large FFT 2hours
> also considerable are all tests of y-cruncher (2min per test, about 8 of them) while it will fail on the first 3 if the memory controller dies out
> TM5 be sure it's 1usmus v3 or anta extreme preset (3 cycles anta) both take 1:30h for 16gb
> DRAM calculator memtest is a good tool, but it doesn't show clear errors
> Same as karhu with cache doesn't show clear errors
> As karhu replacement, p95 large fft and y-cruncher are solid to stress the cache and IMC
> TM5 will tell you fast if the timings are messed up, but not if the rest is messed up


Thanks, I'll try some p95. I'd hate to think its the gpu, but the cpu/mobo is the most recently changed piece, and messing with memory I hope thats it. Otherwise I might dial it back to stock 3600 and see from there. how drastic is 3600mhz vs 3733 for memory?
Also I bounce between a work pc and my personal, so while I bench I use the other. It seems when you host from 0x0 it's blocked at work but I dont get a notification, so i only notice since I was looking at your post from both sites. I hate to think how many other things I might have missed due to their wonky web filtering.



fcchin said:


> Oh man............... this is perfect .......... nothing beats good old Street Fighter, ohhhh what a youth memory it brings back.....
> 
> I always use game as final pass or fail. Windows boot up time and windows login screen picture, etc as indicator of good timing settings or bad, i.e. tRFC too low, no crash, but windows load slow, game load slow, etc.
> 
> I always think about default voltages, especially SOC 1.2V, we managed to use 1.05v or 1.1v etc, but silicon lottery I think, not everyone can... so may be 1.1125v or 1.125v would not hurt at all, we are already so low under default. Sames goes for VDDP, VDDG etc etc etc.
> 
> Oh not forgetting AGING issues, new chips from birth probably run ultra low voltages say SOC 1v, but very short moment, then enter child-growth need more nutrition and vitamins means tiny bit more voltage 1.01v, but very short days, then youth-growth probably 1.03v last 6 months, then youngman 1.05v another 6 months, then adulthood 1.065v lasting the longest 2 years or more, then old age 1.1v, finally retirement back down 1.0v and slow MHz. The voltage is not forever.


Yea, I have a friend that refuses to take street fighter 5 seriously. he has it, will play an hour complaining how A. Everyone is trash and game is too easy. B. loses constantly and complains the game is garbage. So he always goes back to sf4. 
As for voltage, is that really a thing? Needing more over time? Since I upgraded to the 3600, I gave my 6600k to my daughter to retire the i5-2500k she was using. that builds has been in use for about 9 years, overclocked, same old cm hyper 212. I never had to touch voltage.


----------



## mongoled

Will get back to those who answered my previous posts, but something just landed ..............


----------



## Veii

TheGlow said:


> Thanks, I'll try some p95. I'd hate to think its the gpu, but the cpu/mobo is the most recently changed piece, and messing with memory I hope thats it. Otherwise I might dial it back to stock 3600 and see from there. how drastic is 3600mhz vs 3733 for memory?
> Also I bounce between a work pc and my personal, so while I bench I use the other. It seems when you host from 0x0 it's blocked at work but I dont get a notification, so i only notice since I was looking at your post from both sites. I hate to think how many other things I might have missed due to their wonky web filtering.


Hmm i can start to push them for you directly to OCN, normally i've only seen germany have an issue with the host
Although only half of germany, which is connected to the main node in Frankfurt instead the rest of central europe ~ which have a direct connection to the main Node in Amsterdam 
Strange :thinking: the host shouldn't have any location filtering at all

The jump between 3600 -> 3734 are 3 steps 
3667, 3700, 3734 - about each 2 step you push primary 3 timings +1 ~ according to user tests to keep the first word latency, the same
it's a bit of a jump, if we talk 1st and 2nd gen , between 3600 (cLDO_VDDP 866) and 3734 (cLDO_VDDP 913) the jump is quite big
In comparison for one bump = 3334MT/s (cLDO_VDDP 840) -> 3400MT/s (cLDO_VDDP 860) you have still a big jump
While another comparison = 3200MT/s (cLDO_VDDP 700) which are 3 jumps, is about 120mV difference 

it doesn't scale as nicely as i wanted for the presentation
But 3 step'ups is a big difference, between 3734 and 3800 are 2 (3734 -> 3768 -> 3800)
cLDO_VDDP doesn't matter thaat much on 3rd gen, but it remains an important scaleable value 
Where lower and lower procODT pretty much define maximum FCLK


mongoled said:


> Will get back to those who answered my previous posts, but something just landed ..............


:wheee:
I strongly hope your board is T-Topology ~ else you will have soo much trouble with 4x A2 kits 
I can't seem to find anything indicating it's different from the X370 M7, but also nothing indicating it's actually T-Topology and not Daisy Chain
Having used that one with 1usmus's bios, i remember how bad their Bios was for the board (the official on)
while the board was actually a quite good OCer, quite sad it having horrible support mid 2018
VRMs should hold near 160A while staying efficient, peak should be 210W, soo a 3950X on stock works but not much more
Or a per CCD OCd 3900X as max

Does it let you adjust loadline on the current Titanium bios ? 
Happy testing :thumb:








RIP i guess  
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FnsZYZiW1pfiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/edit#gid=2112472504
well it will be a challenge, but i can't see anything beyond 3600MT/s as realistically achievable
In this case A0 would've made your life easier - but let's see, we might be able to fix that with high impedance

EDIT:
i actually found something valuable directly from Viper Taiwan 
https://iqmore.tw/2019-patriot-overclocking-ram-and-motherboard-layout
Use yandex translate, or a better one than google's 
Hard limit from their point of view on both Daisy Chain and T-Topology is 3800MT/s 
I don't think you can put both with the same hard-limit, tho considering their PCB is a custom A1 unit with the benefits of a A2 PCB
We maaybe can get 3734 to work 
For more depends on your control in the Bios 
I'd love if you for example had different voltage control on both channels 
Exmp: 1.48v on the main B1 B2 slot (2,4) ~ and 1.56v on the A1 , A2 slot (1,3) 
this would already drastically help with the loss from the Daisy Chain layout


----------



## Awsan

mongoled said:


> Will get back to those who answered my previous posts, but something just landed ..............


Oooo, I am kinda jealous  .


----------



## Gadfly

@Veii


Worked on this last night, below is the latest. 

- tRCDRD: 15 appears to be my hard floor running 4x8GB. Even with 1.5v 14 just instantly streams errors. 
- tWRRD: value of 1 wouldn't post so I put it back to 3
- SCL: 3 works no problem booted right up and is stable. 
- "1-4-4-1-6-6-1" also booted up without issue. 

The stability issue in blender was my tired ass not turning LLC back on when I switched to the per-CCX OC. I most likely will be able to reduce voltage on the DRAM later. 

Blender:

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/40c2c6f6-9391-4b02-993f-7900bb20170b/

FYI, Sandra score was 201.040 GB/ps with 55.1ns latency


----------



## mongoled

Just real quick (as have customers devices here that are waiting to go out) so far I simply pulled the Gskills and inserted the Vipers.

BIOS detected memory was changed, I F1, than just left all setting the same as they were for the Gskils.

Currently am into 22 minutes of TM5 without a fan blowing over the modules (1.48v in bios reading as 1.5v in HWInfo64).

Was hoping there was thermal sensors on these but HWInfo64 is not detecting anything.

Re running 4 x 8GB, it wasn't my intention, just wanted to future proof with B-dies for newer Ryzen CPU/Motherboard combo, but of course we will test to see how they get in when all plugged in.

So far TM5 is happy, lets see how long this last, and this is without a fan blowing over them!


----------



## mongoled

Awsan said:


> Oooo, I am kinda jealous  .


Ooooh, that's just natural


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> @Veii
> Worked on this last night, below is the latest.
> 
> - tRCDRD: 15 appears to be my hard floor running 4x8GB. Even with 1.5v 14 just instantly streams errors.
> - tWRRD: value of 1 wouldn't post so I put it back to 3
> - SCL: 3 works no problem booted right up and is stable.
> - "1-4-4-1-6-6-1" also booted up without issue.
> 
> The stability issue in blender was my tired ass not turning LLC back on when I switched to the per-CCX OC. I most likely will be able to reduce voltage on the DRAM later.
> 
> Blender:
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/40c2c6f6-9391-4b02-993f-7900bb20170b/


Ohh beautiful :thumb:
I was worried for a moment, as everything looked correct 
Now we just have to babystep stresstest to see which combination on the SD DDs works best for 4 dimms
Ashamedly i have no idea here ~ i remember how they scale, but we have to focus on SiSandra now for actual tiny differences
Which means, strict testing and controlling where nothing "new" runs in the background 
The only little thing that bothers me, is tRDWR not going down to 7 , but we might get there 
That one depends on the primary 2 (CAS,tRCD) and also depends on "wasted delay" anywhere else inside the chain 
with tRDWR you add delay, and use only tWRRD delay ontop of it to stabilize things - where 1 is no added delay after WRs 

On SiSandra, can you focus on the Detailed Result, instead of the aggregated
The tiny dataset curve and overall always the Inter-Core & inner-core latency is for us interesting
Your goal is to lower the maximum delay between the furthest thread inside one CCX to the furthest thread inside the other CCD 

Test please both 1-4-4-1-6-6 and 1-5-5-1-7-7 
Also on 1-4-4-1-6-6 compare BGS enabled (benefits 4 dimms but BGS Alt disabled) vs no BGS enabled 
Only results that interest us are now SiSandra


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> Will get back to those who answered my previous posts, but something just landed ..............


Lol, good one.

I just checked price & availability for those miracle sticks here and they are 2x8Gb the same I paid for my 4x8GB HyperX I'm currently playing with. Only 1 store sells them. And it's one you don't want to deal with returns/service if you can.

EDIT:
Got suggestions for my trouble? @Veii


----------



## TheGlow

Veii said:


> Hmm i can start to push them for you directly to OCN, normally i've only seen germany have an issue with the host
> Although only half of germany, which is connected to the main node in Frankfurt instead the rest of central europe ~ which have a direct connection to the main Node in Amsterdam
> Strange :thinking: the host shouldn't have any location filtering at all
> 
> The jump between 3600 -> 3734 are 3 steps
> 3667, 3700, 3734 - about each 2 step you push primary 3 timings +1 ~ according to user tests to keep the first word latency, the same
> it's a bit of a jump, if we talk 1st and 2nd gen , between 3600 (cLDO_VDDP 866) and 3734 (cLDO_VDDP 913) the jump is quite big
> In comparison for one bump = 3334MT/s (cLDO_VDDP 840) -> 3400MT/s (cLDO_VDDP 860) you have still a big jump
> While another comparison = 3200MT/s (cLDO_VDDP 700) which are 3 jumps, is about 120mV difference
> 
> it doesn't scale as nicely as i wanted for the presentation
> But 3 step'ups is a big difference, between 3734 and 3800 are 2 (3734 -> 3768 -> 3800)
> cLDO_VDDP doesn't matter thaat much on 3rd gen, but it remains an important scaleable value
> Where lower and lower procODT pretty much define maximum FCLK


Thanks. I guess my perspective is skewed coming from intel and just raw jumping 3+ steps without issue. It seems amd's are already pretty close to max in many cases. 
I definitely need to learn more about these other settings and how they intertwine.
I just had prime95 large fft go fine for 3 hours. I have 1usmus v3 starting up now.
Only following dram calc, I set the voltages as said, so no idea really how they come into play. I see I dont want to lower the core voltage too much or it cant really boost as often/hard. I have that at 1.3 yet it seems ryzen master is showing 1.37
Currently: vddcr cpu 1.3
Soc 1.1
dram 1.37
vddg ccd 1.05
vddg iod 1.05
cld0 vddp 950.
As for the image blocking, my job is a bit funky. The last few months I was using a loophole through a backup vpn server that wasn't applying filters properly
Sadly I was chosen to "test" a new profile thats fixed all of that.


----------



## FranZe

mongoled said:


> Currently am into 22 minutes of TM5 without a fan blowing over the modules (1.48v in bios reading as 1.5v in HWInfo64).


How do you do this? TM5 here only runs 3 cycles (with 1usmus v3)


----------



## Nighthog

FranZe said:


> How do you do this? TM5 here only runs 3 cycles (with 1usmus v3)


When you download it and start it first time delete [cfg.link]? file in the folder. should load the proper profile after.


----------



## FranZe

Nighthog said:


> When you download it and start it first time delete [cfg.link]? file in the folder. should load the proper profile after.


Thanks


----------



## mongoled

Nighthog said:


> Lol, good one.
> 
> I just checked price & availability for those miracle sticks here and they are 2x8Gb the same I paid for my 4x8GB HyperX I'm currently playing with. Only 1 store sells them. And it's one you don't want to deal with returns/service if you can.


Are these your modules ??

https://www.amazon.de/HX436C17PB4K2-16-HyperX-Predator-DDR4/dp/B07QYQ753P

Or did you snag a lower spec kit which are sporting the same die shown in your CPU-Z ?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Will get back to those who answered my previous posts, but something just landed ..............


WHOO HOO! Vipers!


----------



## mongoled

FranZe said:


> How do you do this? TM5 here only runs 3 cycles (with 1usmus v3)


I had to edit the MT.cfg file with notepad and increase the cycles to 25 than make sure to save it with the correct file format


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> WHOO HOO! Vipers!


Dude im on Cycle 17 (1:07) and no errors so far, had to put a fan over them as they were getting hot


----------



## Gadfly

@Veii

Will do. 

Can you help me understand how this test relates to memory? I understand what it is doing, testing inter-core latency and bandwidth, but does core to core traffic really traverse the memory? Doesn't it just use the internal data fabric and cache? I noticed that running Sandra multiple times seems to generate a pretty large variance is results. Running 5 times back to back I got bandwidth scores ranging from 195-201GB/ps and latencies between 54.0-55.3ns.

Keep in mind this desktop image is clean; there are no extra services running, no search indexer, no auto-update, and all windows defender / AV services are disabled etc. There are no other background applications running or installed other than the Nvidia control panel. So the background workload was consistent between runs, but the variance is large enough that it masks any small gains or losses?

Is this really a good indicator of memory performance?


----------



## Gadfly

mongoled said:


> Dude im on Cycle 17 (1:07) and no errors so far, had to put a fan over them as they were getting hot



Which Vipers did you get?


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> Are these your modules ??
> 
> https://www.amazon.de/HX436C17PB4K2-16-HyperX-Predator-DDR4/dp/B07QYQ753P
> 
> Or did you snag a lower spec kit which are sporting the same die shown in your CPU-Z ?


HX436C17FB3K2/16 *HyperX Fury* version. 
They do chip lottery, one kit was Hynix DJR seen in the screen, the other was Micron Rev.J. 

The Rev.J does 4800Mhz...
DJR does good tRFC but I could not OC them for frequency yet properly stable, probably settings not right. But they work well @ 3800/3866.


----------



## mongoled

Gadfly said:


> Which Vipers did you get?


PVS416G440C9K

Im only running the 2 sticks for the time being to see if they are stable at the settings below


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FranZe said:


> How do you do this? TM5 here only runs 3 cycles (with 1usmus v3)


 @Nighthog was correct. Also, you can double-check that Cycles=20 in the [Main Section] of the cfg file, and that it specifies it's the 1usmus v3 version, in that same config section. Make sure you Run as Administrator if you haven't been doing that (but it'll warn you so I'm sure you're good here).


----------



## mongoled

Nighthog said:


> HX436C17FB3K2/16 *HyperX Fury* version.
> They do chip lottery, one kit was Hynix DJR seen in the screen, the other was Micron Rev.J.
> 
> The Rev.J does 4800Mhz...
> DJR does good tRFC but I could not OC them for frequency yet properly stable, probably settings not right. But they work well @ 3800/3866.


Ahh, I didn't want to play the memory lottery, hence plucking for the Vipers. Though looking at current prices of the HyperX fury and considering I didn't pay the VAT it made sense for me to buy the Vipers.

Great results on those modules btw!

** EDIT **
Passed TM5, now I will populate all the dimm slots, and according to what veii has said I will need to knock the mem frequency back, but for kicks I will try without adjusting anything


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> Ahh, I didn't want to play the memory lottery, hence plucking for the Vipers. Though looking at current prices of the HyperX fury and considering I didn't pay the VAT it made sense for me to buy the Vipers.
> 
> Great results on those modules btw!
> 
> ** EDIT **
> Passed TM5, now I will populate all the dimm slots, and according to what veii has said I will need to knock the mem frequency back, but for kicks I will try without adjusting anything


I don't see the need to kick frequency back for 4x8GB?
All my kits have done XMP @ 4000Mhz. Micron Rev.E, Rev.J & Hynix DJR. Only well above 4000Mhz does one encounter issues with dasiy-chain I've noted. While the 2x8Gb Rev.J did 4800Mhz the Rev.E kits 4x8GB does 4266Mhz (4200Mhz*). *for easy runs 4200Mhz is max

3800Mhz is a non-issue I've noted on this board.

EDIT: The horror... 1 error on cycle 19. for my 3866/1933 Hynix DJR.


----------



## Veii

TheGlow said:


> Thanks. I guess my perspective is skewed coming from intel and just raw jumping 3+ steps without issue. It seems amd's are already pretty close to max in many cases.
> I definitely need to learn more about these other settings and how they intertwine.
> I just had prime95 large fft go fine for 3 hours. I have 1usmus v3 starting up now.
> Only following dram calc, I set the voltages as said, so no idea really how they come into play. I see I dont want to lower the core voltage too much or it cant really boost as often/hard. I have that at 1.3 yet it seems ryzen master is showing 1.37
> Currently: vddcr cpu 1.3
> Soc 1.1
> dram 1.37
> vddg ccd 1.05
> vddg iod 1.05
> cld0 vddp 950.
> As for the image blocking, my job is a bit funky. The last few months I was using a loophole through a backup vpn server that wasn't applying filters properly
> Sadly I was chosen to "test" a new profile thats fixed all of that.


https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814 
At the center of this post you will see voltage presets and how they scale
you did it correctly tho, not that you would need 950VDDP for anything that's not 3800MT/s or higher but still it's correct
You could with your set decide if you want to give CCD a bit more juice and lower IOD to have better signal integrity or increase IOD and lower CCD one 
Soo it's + 50mV scaling 
Else double scaling works without issues, it just should never be under 50mV difference between each of them ~ VDDP, VDDG, VSOC
and at best it remains the same scaling, not 50mV at the start 75mV later - keeping it identical helps or keeping it double scaling
Yours again is correct 



mongoled said:


> Ahh, I didn't want to play the memory lottery, hence plucking for the Vipers. Though looking at current prices of the HyperX fury and considering I didn't pay the VAT it made sense for me to buy the Vipers.
> 
> Great results on those modules btw!
> ** EDIT **
> Passed TM5, now I will populate all the dimm slots, and according to what veii has said I will need to knock the mem frequency back, but for kicks I will try without adjusting anything


1-5-5-1-7-7 on SD DD is better for two dimms
if 1-4-4-1-6-6 on 4 dimms makes you an issue , try 1-6-6-1-8-8 for them

what is also recommended is:
tRC 44 with 308-229-141 , tWR 14
later you can try to lower it down to tRFC 264-196-121 with either tRTP 6 or 8 (6 needs a long test if it will remain stable on 4 dimms) 
Give the vipers tho juice , at least 1.48v if not 1.52v when you use 4 of them
it will offset anyways a bit as it's a daisy chain layout 
can go up to 1.54 if you have the cooling 

but change the timings a bit as tRC 42 , aka what you used as -2 value likely will make you issues on 4 dimms 
That's only for 2 dimms to abuse 
@Gadfly yes it's a downside of 3rd gen
Did you have 4.5ghz boost or per CCX OC 4.5 ?
It is sadly not well optimised for the high variability of 3rd gen 
on a per CCX OCd Ryzen it should be quite accurate, with less than 0.2GB/s deviation 
Mostly the latency curve won't change 

Hmm how does it work, 
Usually very similar to aida64, but it doesn't fix itself to an ideal datasize unlike aida64
Core frequency will change cache access time which directly change instruction sets
Early on Freq alone didn't make a difference on SiSandra 
As it's scaling depends on access latency and throughput efficiency ~ at least on that test

It was a great indicator of IPC bump, as higher IF frequency will result in higher IPC 
~ at least looking from the users-testing side without any freq change
It was also a good indicator the memory latency bottleneck on 1st & 2nd gen which on aida64 was 72nm, on SiSandra around 65ns inter-core latency

On ryzen if you push frequency, you change L3 bandwidth, it's access time and a tiny bit of Copy bandwidth of L2
Of course design changes, but the key one remains the same
After a specific frequency, memory won't be able to handle the requests in time, which depends purely on memory latency
As FCLK latency is tied to it (up to architecture with tiny * exceptions) 
Fixing inter-core and inner-core latency, is what gives the biggest perf boost ~ because this part remains the biggest bottleneck of the architecture still
using Dual CCD designs increases Cache Bandwidth exponentially (very similar behavior to HBM2 stacking), 
With about 90% bandwidth doubling but 60% heat doubling ~ behavior of infinity fabric
You can imagine why the 3950X got only dual channel and not quad channel support 
it would instead of near 180A take about 340A ~ literally destroying it's purpose as powersaving chip
Or why threadripper remains on quad channel and not octa channel like EPIC ~ you can't cool 500W TDP  

It's a very long topic, but frequency scales with memory latency 
And memory access delay scales with IPC on ryzen 
Soo you can see that higher clocked units might deliver lower latency
Unless they get bottlenecked where frequency doesn't matter till you break that latency wall 
(Example, 72ns aida64 latency on first gen ~ you can run 3.8 or 4.1ghz , without going under that latency wall, your core freq won't matter at all)


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Nighthog said:


> 3800Mhz is a non-issue I've noted on this board.


Wait, what board is that? X370 Taichi?



Nighthog said:


> EDIT: The horror... 1 error on cycle 19. for my 3866/1933 Hynix DJR.


Nooooooo! Based on previous feedback I've read regarding TM5, could this indicate tRFC?


----------



## TheGlow

Veii said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28424814
> At the center of this post you will see voltage presets and how they scale
> you did it correctly tho, not that you would need 950VDDP for anything that's not 3800MT/s or higher but still it's correct
> You could with your set decide if you want to give CCD a bit more juice and lower IOD to have better signal integrity or increase IOD and lower CCD one
> Soo it's + 50mV scaling
> Else double scaling works without issues, it just should never be under 50mV difference between each of them ~ VDDP, VDDG, VSOC
> and at best it remains the same scaling, not 50mV at the start 75mV later - keeping it identical helps or keeping it double scaling
> Yours again is correct


Thanks again. Well, p95 large fft 3 hours no problems, 20cycles of 1usmus v3 no errors. So i guess I need to move on to cpu and gpu stresses since the memory appears to be good. Also after I ran these tests, and they were completed I noticed my desktop was sluggish. it took a minute for it to respond to me closing windows, 30 secs to open task manager, etc. In process of restarting Windows and even that it just spinning on the Restarting logo, took about a minute vs the usual 5-10 seconds. FWIW I just reinstalled Win10 yesterday so its fairly clean.


----------



## mongoled

Unfortunately things were going toooooo well.

One of the sets has one stick that is DOA

:sad-smile

PC will not boot with that stick in any of the dimm slots and with bios defaults.


----------



## Awsan

mongoled said:


> Unfortunately things were going toooooo well.
> 
> One of the sets has one stick that is DOA
> 
> :sad-smile
> 
> PC will not boot with that stick in any of the dimm slots and with bios defaults.


Oh  I am really sorry about that.

RIP

F


----------



## FranZe

mongoled said:


> I had to edit the MT.cfg file with notepad and increase the cycles to 25 than make sure to save it with the correct file format


Yes, thank you  Did this and it worked  Did only try 5 first.

EDIT: did get error but i think its because of the heat, that was on the high side..


----------



## Nighthog

LuckyBahstard said:


> Wait, what board is that? X370 Taichi?


Sorry no, used X570 AORUS XTREME.




LuckyBahstard said:


> Nooooooo! Based on previous feedback I've read regarding TM5, could this indicate tRFC?


Might be FCLK voltage issue. I'm getting some static on Audio running 1933FCLK. Testing various voltage levels to work it out. Prime95 & Y-cruncher was stable but caused Audio static when playing youtube at same time. So not completely proper it seems.

Tested VDDP 900, 925, 950 & 1000mv but didn't fix it at any level, only 1000mv was closest to good but would cause "loud spikes" rather than low level constant static with 925mv.
VDDG_CCD 975 changed to 1000mv did best to fix it but still happens on occasion. I know 950mv won't boot @ 1933FCLK. Haven't had good results trying higher before...
VDDG_IOD has been a usually higher the better for stability.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Gadfly said:


> @Veii
> 
> Will do.
> 
> Can you help me understand how this test relates to memory? I understand what it is doing, testing inter-core latency and bandwidth, but does core to core traffic really traverse the memory? Doesn't it just use the internal data fabric and cache? I noticed that running Sandra multiple times seems to generate a pretty large variance is results. Running 5 times back to back I got bandwidth scores ranging from 195-201GB/ps and latencies between 54.0-55.3ns.
> 
> Keep in mind this desktop image is clean; there are no extra services running, no search indexer, no auto-update, and all windows defender / AV services are disabled etc. There are no other background applications running or installed other than the Nvidia control panel. So the background workload was consistent between runs, but the variance is large enough that it masks any small gains or losses?
> 
> Is this really a good indicator of memory performance?


Did you update tRFC2/4 from the tRFC calculator?

Because I've just found out that was the reason I got so unusual variance testing different tRFC values. Hours wasted.
I've read multiple times with Ryzen 3000 that tRFC2/4 are not used/relevant but it's simply not true... 
Plugged in the correct values from the calculator and got immediately back the normal consistency in Sandra MT, including better CB20 results and stable throughput in CPU-z bench.


----------



## mongoled

@Awsan
I know it happens but its not something I have experienced before. OK ive had sticks that dont run at their rated frequencies before but to be completely frazzled out of the box its a first for me with regards to RAM.	

@FranZe
Well you know what to do just to make sure its defo heat, get a fan blowing on those dimms



@Nighthog
Have you tried running CrystalDiskMark up to 10 iterations, that was a sure fire way for me to get a bluescreen when fclk is too high and yup audio distortion is a clear indicator.....

@LuckyBahstard
FYI, setting BIOS to defaults and booting with the Vipers the ProcODT on my motherboard also defaults to 60 ohms, but no issue running the two sticks at 34 ohms.

These sticks also have better performance than the GSkills at the same timings, higher throuhput which can be seen in lower times for TM5 completon and AIDA benchmarks.

@everyone who has purchased Viper kits, did your boxes have any sort of seals on them?

Both of the boxes I received did not so was just wondering if thats how they are sold as mine were bought from Amazon which we all know receives alot of returns that are than sold as new ........


----------



## LuckyBahstard

So, * @Veii *, I replied to you in PM. But for all, I am trying to tighten 3466cl14 all over again, but with GearDownMode disabled.

tl;dr I was so close. I (thought) I was stable after yielding and upping dram to 1.5V again. But I can't trust that test anymore, because it was 11 cycles TM5. After messing with a few tweaks here and there, and failing on TM5 early-cycles with 1.47V, I finally ran with tRDWR at 7 (half of tRCDRD) and it got to the *20th freakin' cycle* and failed test #2.

So annoying. I've failed cycle 19 before. But 20?! UGHGHGHGHGH.   :thumbsdow .

I'm at 1.47V. I'm tempted to keep going but try stepping dram +.01V each time, or to step my SOC to 1.1V from 1.05. Or maybe it's a tRFC thing with refresh timing issues late-surfacing. I dunno. My goal was to lower voltage though-- and related, I already lowered procODT resistance to 28.2 from 60, hoping that'd help me keep lower Vs.

I quoted my last post in the spoiler below.


Spoiler



Mixed results with your presets at 3466 CL14.

The GOOD:
I was truly stable initially with small adjustments to your timings. SCLs at 3 instead of 2, and tRFC at 336 instead of 260. GDM Enabled.
(_edit:I just retested this and still stable on this_)

I did try SCLs at 2 and tRFC 294, but I only went 6 cycles in TM5 before exiting early -- so it doesn't count yet.

Then I tested your exact presets. Didn't test TM5 until after setting GDM disabled. So I skipped a test with Enabled.

The BAD:
A subsequent test with these AND with GDM Disabled meant 6 errors in TM5 in 12 cycles. So, I need to walk back a little and try to disable GDM I guess. I've never been stable with it off, that makes me sad. Or I could move forward and live with GDM. Thoughts?
(_Edit: I think I'll test to understand the failure point.. if it's SCL 2, or GDM disabled, since neither previously have worked for me._)

Back to some positive notes... but I wonder if GDM is silently fixing anything...

Happy to be at procODT 28.2ohms!
And lowered vdimm back to 1.4V! I didn't bother going lower since I'll probably bump up at higher speeds later anyway
I also kept both VDDG's at .950V, didn't yet push IOD to 1V
I chose tRDWR 8 / tWRRD 1 instead of your 6/3, because per your previous suggestions said single-rank b-die can and should do 8-1, and these are what Yuri's DRAM Calc suggests and what] my JEDEC 2133 defaults were as well -- any other reason to do 6/3?

Sandra Results from my stable SCLs=3 and tRFC=336 -- it's not too exciting due to 3466, but it's ok:
Multi-core efficiency test gave me a max latency of 72.50ns, intercore bandwidth 77.2GB/s, intercore latency 49.8ns


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> @LuckyBahstard
> FYI, setting BIOS to defaults and booting with the Vipers the ProcODT on my motherboard also defaults to 60 ohms, but no issue running the two sticks at 34 ohms.
> 
> These sticks also have better performance than the GSkills at the same timings, higher throuhput which can be seen in lower times for TM5 completon and AIDA benchmarks.
> 
> @everyone who has purchased Viper kits, did your boxes have any sort of seals on them?
> 
> Both of the boxes I received did not so was just wondering if thats how they are sold as mine were bought from Amazon which we all know receives alot of returns that are than sold as new ........


Thanks for the info. Was it significant bandwidth difference? If you have boosts on then perhaps small differences are non-significant / margin of error, that's why I ask. Interesting to see you on 34ohms.

And my boxes were not sealed, both of them.  I had to RMA my first set, because they were crushed in shipping and Newegg customer service sucks so I made them take them back instead of trying and hoping they wouldn't fail eventually -- at which point NewEgg would be even more difficult.


----------



## FranZe

mongoled said:


> @FranZe
> Well you know what to do just to make sure its defo heat, get a fan blowing on those dimms


i dont know, i thought i had good enough cooling but i was wrong there.

Edit: Downloaded the Ryzen cala 1.7.3 and its a new option there, dram PCB revision.. I've G.Skill F4-3600C16-8GVK. What is that? A0/B0?


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> @Nighthog
> Have you tried running CrystalDiskMark up to 10 iterations, that was a sure fire way for me to get a bluescreen when fclk is too high and yup audio distortion is a clear indicator.....


Well found the fix... VDDP. Needed minimum 1050mv for the audio issues to go away. But Y-cruncher failed now instead on one test [VST - Vector transform AVX2 float]. So back to test some more. But getting closer for full stability.


----------



## mongoled

Gadfly said:


> GDM mode runs the data pins at full speed and the command pins at half speed. Because the command pins are running at .5 of the data pins tCL must be dividable by 2. So GDM mode forces tCL to be even. You can run everything else at an odd value. If you set tCL of 13 with GDM enabled, it will force tCL of 14 (not 13.5 that is not possible everything must be in whole clocks). so if your primaries are set as 13-13-13-13-26 in the bios, and boot with GDM enabled it will boot with timings at 14-13-13-13-26


Thanks for the correction, was only going what I rememberd was being mentioned back when I first read about GDM on Ryzen 1600X. One of the reasons I put 13.5 in apostophes because something in the back of my mind was saying "half"





Veii said:


> snip....But 2T with odd timings remain faster than GDM with auto corrected
> Even when 1.5T appear faster


There we go again, 1.5T, I knew the .5 was somewhere

hahahahah 



Veii said:


> :wheee:
> I strongly hope your board is T-Topology ~ else you will have soo much trouble with 4x A2 kits
> I can't seem to find anything indicating it's different from the X370 M7, but also nothing indicating it's actually T-Topology and not Daisy Chain
> Having used that one with 1usmus's bios, i remember how bad their Bios was for the board (the official on)
> while the board was actually a quite good OCer, quite sad it having horrible support mid 2018
> VRMs should hold near 160A while staying efficient, peak should be 210W, soo a 3950X on stock works but not much more
> Or a per CCD OCd 3900X as max
> 
> Does it let you adjust loadline on the current Titanium bios ?
> Happy testing :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RIP i guess
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FnsZYZiW1pfiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/edit#gid=2112472504
> well it will be a challenge, but i can't see anything beyond 3600MT/s as realistically achievable
> In this case A0 would've made your life easier - but let's see, we might be able to fix that with high impedance
> 
> EDIT:
> i actually found something valuable directly from Viper Taiwan
> https://iqmore.tw/2019-patriot-overclocking-ram-and-motherboard-layout
> Use yandex translate, or a better one than google's
> Hard limit from their point of view on both Daisy Chain and T-Topology is 3800MT/s
> I don't think you can put both with the same hard-limit, tho considering their PCB is a custom A1 unit with the benefits of a A2 PCB
> We maaybe can get 3734 to work
> For more depends on your control in the Bios
> I'd love if you for example had different voltage control on both channels
> Exmp: 1.48v on the main B1 B2 slot (2,4) ~ and 1.56v on the A1 , A2 slot (1,3)
> this would already drastically help with the loss from the Daisy Chain layout


Thanks for all that info, will come n handy, but as you know one set of Vipers are no go ...

When you say "loadline" are you talking about LLC? And if so which LLC are you refering to ?

The Titanium has LLC for the vCore/vSOC and has settngs for changing the switching frequency for CPU/SOC and DRAM.

Also have voltage settings for 

DRAM CH_A VREF Voltage
DRAM CH_B VREF Voltage

But I never worked out how to use those.....



ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you update tRFC2/4 from the tRFC calculator?
> 
> Because I've just found out that was the reason I got so unusual variance testing different tRFC values. Hours wasted.
> I've read multiple times with Ryzen 3000 that tRFC2/4 are not used/relevant but it's simply not true...
> Plugged in the correct values from the calculator and got immediately back the normal consistency in Sandra MT, including better CB20 results and stable throughput in CPU-z bench.


Good info, will investigate that at some point


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Thanks for the info. Was it significant bandwidth difference? If you have boosts on then perhaps small differences are non-significant / margin of error, that's why I ask. Interesting to see you on 34ohms.
> 
> And my boxes were not sealed, both of them.  I had to RMA my first set, because they were crushed in shipping and Newegg customer service sucks so I made them take them back instead of trying and hoping they wouldn't fail eventually -- at which point NewEgg would be even more difficult.


LOLz, cant get the responses in fast enough

hahahahhaha

Well ive never seen over 57000 mb/s on AIDA Reads running at 3760/1880 on my setup. Seems to be between 200-300 mb/s uplift.

Thanks for the clarification re boxes, such a bummer that im going to have to delay testing 4 dimms together, now that the iron is hot!

I did stick in 4 dimms, the two gskills with the two vipers, but the quick test i did couldnt post with all 4 dimms at 3466 mhz using AUTO settings for eveything else except the main timings i.e. I had set 1T-14-15-15-15, not going to waste my time tuning two different sets....



Nighthog said:


> Well found the fix... VDDP. Needed minimum 1050mv for the audio issues to go away. But Y-cruncher failed now instead on one test [VST - Vector transform AVX2 float]. So back to test some more. But getting closer for full stability.


Hope you can hit the nail on the head, though its going be difficult to get stabilty across all applications/stress tests ..


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> yes it's a downside of 3rd gen
> Did you have 4.5ghz boost or per CCX OC 4.5 ?
> It is sadly not well optimised for the high variability of 3rd gen
> on a per CCX OCd Ryzen it should be quite accurate, with less than 0.2GB/s deviation
> Mostly the latency curve won't change


I don't think this goes though the memory subsystem. While it is running there is no activity on the memory bus. This appears to only be touching the "infinity fabric" on package; which makes sense right? It is measuring Core to Core bandwidth which has nothing to do with memory bandwidth (which is why core to core bandwidth is ~3.5x max theoretical of the memory bandwidth.); so essentially we are just testing fclk?

This is a per CCX fixed OC, and it deviates all over the place. It does the same on my wife's 3800X, which also has a per CCX OC. 



Veii said:


> Hmm how does it work,
> Usually very similar to aida64, but it doesn't fix itself to an ideal datasize unlike aida64
> Core frequency will change cache access time which directly change instruction sets
> Early on Freq alone didn't make a difference on SiSandra
> As it's scaling depends on access latency and throughput efficiency ~ at least on that test


Ok, but what is running on the memory? Cache hits don't cross the memory bus and go thought the IM, just the databus? 



Veii said:


> It was a great indicator of IPC bump, as higher IF frequency will result in higher IPC
> ~ at least looking from the users-testing side without any freq change
> It was also a good indicator the memory latency bottleneck on 1st & 2nd gen which on aida64 was 72nm, on SiSandra around 65ns inter-core latency


IF frequency does not alter IPC. Right, 1st and 2nd gen Memory latency was limited by the fact that each channel had it's own IMC and each IMC was embedded in the CCX. So you had to cross the CCX to CCX data fabric, which ran at 1/2 memclock. 



Veii said:


> On ryzen if you push frequency, you change L3 bandwidth, it's access time and a tiny bit of Copy bandwidth of L2
> Of course design changes, but the key one remains the same
> After a specific frequency, memory won't be able to handle the requests in time, which depends purely on memory latency
> As FCLK latency is tied to it (up to architecture with tiny * exceptions)
> Fixing inter-core and inner-core latency, is what gives the biggest perf boost ~ because this part remains the biggest bottleneck of the architecture still


Ok, slow down, memory what be able to handle what requests? 



Veii said:


> Fixing inter-core and inner-core latency, is what gives the biggest perf boost ~ because this part remains the biggest bottleneck of the architecture still


Yes but is that really isn't tied to memory bus performance / IC timings? Isn't that really just dependent on fclk; which even at 1900mhz we are already maxing out the IF bandwidth and are limited purely by it's latency?



Veii said:


> you can't cool 500W TDP


Oh I can ... 



Veii said:


> It's a very long topic, but frequency scales with memory latency
> And memory access delay scales with IPC on ryzen
> Soo you can see that higher clocked units might deliver lower latency
> Unless they get bottlenecked where frequency doesn't matter till you break that latency wall
> (Example, 72ns aida64 latency on first gen ~ you can run 3.8 or 4.1ghz , without going under that latency wall, your core freq won't matter at all)



The first gen memory latency wall was due to the limitations of the datafabric, and we are seeing the exact same thing here with fclk. but the only way to increase inter-core bandwidth is to run a quicker fclk. What I am saying is that I don't think this Sandra benchmark is a good test of memory performance, and it doesn't seem to be reliable enough to really get a good gauge on if what you are changing is really making any difference. 

Maybe MaxMem2 would be a better benchmark? Got me. 
@Veii


----------



## KedarWolf

Gadfly said:


> I don't think this goes though the memory subsystem. While it is running there is no activity on the memory bus. This appears to only be touching the "infinity fabric" on package; which makes sense right? It is measuring Core to Core bandwidth which has nothing to do with memory bandwidth (which is why core to core bandwidth is ~3.5x max theoretical of the memory bandwidth.); so essentially we are just testing fclk?
> 
> This is a per CCX fixed OC, and it deviates all over the place. It does the same on my wife's 3800X, which also has a per CCX OC.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what is running on the memory? Cache hits don't cross the memory bus and go thought the IM, just the databus?
> 
> 
> 
> IF frequency does not alter IPC. Right, 1st and 2nd gen Memory latency was limited by the fact that each channel had it's own IMC and each IMC was embedded in the CCX. So you had to cross the CCX to CCX data fabric, which ran at 1/2 memclock.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, slow down, memory what be able to handle what requests?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but is that really isn't tied to memory bus performance / IC timings? Isn't that really just dependent on fclk; which even at 1900mhz we are already maxing out the IF bandwidth and are limited purely by it's latency?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I can ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first gen memory latency wall was due to the limitations of the datafabric, and we are seeing the exact same thing here with fclk. but the only way to increase inter-core bandwidth is to run a quicker fclk. What I am saying is that I don't think this Sandra benchmark is a good test of memory performance, and it doesn't seem to be reliable enough to really get a good gauge on if what you are changing is really making any difference.
> 
> Maybe MaxMem2 would be a better benchmark? Got me.
> 
> @Veii


I find Blender Classroom the way to go for benchmarking memory. It's very sensitive to timings changes and you get consistently almost the exact same time in the benchmarks run after run. :h34r-smi


If your timings are not optimized or you change them, the time in the benchmark with increase or decrease accordingly, and the results are repeatable.


----------



## Gadfly

LuckyBahstard said:


> So, * @Veii *, I replied to you in PM. But for all, I am trying to tighten 3466cl14 all over again, but with GearDownMode disabled.
> 
> tl;dr I was so close. I (thought) I was stable after yielding and upping dram to 1.5V again. But I can't trust that test anymore, because it was 11 cycles TM5. After messing with a few tweaks here and there, and failing on TM5 early-cycles with 1.47V, I finally ran with tRDWR at 7 (half of tRCDRD) and it got to the *20th freakin' cycle* and failed test #2.
> 
> So annoying. I've failed cycle 19 before. But 20?! UGHGHGHGHGH. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif /forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif /forum/images/smilies/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif .
> 
> I'm at 1.47V. I'm tempted to keep going but try stepping dram +.01V each time, or to step my SOC to 1.1V from 1.05. Or maybe it's a tRFC thing with refresh timing issues late-surfacing. I dunno. My goal was to lower voltage though-- and related, I already lowered procODT resistance to 28.2 from 60, hoping that'd help me keep lower Vs.
> 
> I quoted my last post in the spoiler below.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Mixed results with your presets at 3466 CL14.
> 
> The GOOD:
> I was truly stable initially with small adjustments to your timings. SCLs at 3 instead of 2, and tRFC at 336 instead of 260. GDM Enabled.
> (_edit:I just retested this and still stable on this_)
> 
> I did try SCLs at 2 and tRFC 294, but I only went 6 cycles in TM5 before exiting early -- so it doesn't count yet.
> 
> Then I tested your exact presets. Didn't test TM5 until after setting GDM disabled. So I skipped a test with Enabled.
> 
> The BAD:
> A subsequent test with these AND with GDM Disabled meant 6 errors in TM5 in 12 cycles. So, I need to walk back a little and try to disable GDM I guess. I've never been stable with it off, that makes me sad. Or I could move forward and live with GDM. Thoughts?
> (_Edit: I think I'll test to understand the failure point.. if it's SCL 2, or GDM disabled, since neither previously have worked for me._)
> 
> Back to some positive notes... but I wonder if GDM is silently fixing anything...
> 
> Happy to be at procODT 28.2ohms!
> And lowered vdimm back to 1.4V! I didn't bother going lower since I'll probably bump up at higher speeds later anyway
> I also kept both VDDG's at .950V, didn't yet push IOD to 1V
> I chose tRDWR 8 / tWRRD 1 instead of your 6/3, because per your previous suggestions said single-rank b-die can and should do 8-1, and these are what Yuri's DRAM Calc suggests and what] my JEDEC 2133 defaults were as well -- any other reason to do 6/3?
> 
> Sandra Results from my stable SCLs=3 and tRFC=336 -- it's not too exciting due to 3466, but it's ok:
> Multi-core efficiency test gave me a max latency of 72.50ns, intercore bandwidth 77.2GB/s, intercore latency 49.8ns


1.05v soc is pretty low; for zen and zen+ it scales well to 1.1v. Zen 2 to at least 1.15v at the extremes.

Try 1.07v


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Gadfly said:


> 1.05v soc is pretty low; for zen and zen+ it scales well to 1.1v. Zen 2 to at least 1.15v at the extremes.
> 
> Try 1.07v


Yep it is lower, but I'm aiming to shave voltage and heat with my drop to 3466 tests.

I did have to go to 1.1V SOC for my 3733 stable settings, from 3600 where I was 1.05V.

But here I've kept to 1.05V so far. Still, I'm pushing semi-tight values here, and I'm holding out stubbornly  but this is on my list to try 1.10V SOC if I can't get stability with other timings tweaks.

I'm trying my best to treat the late-error symptom as a tRFC timing issue lol. I proved to myself that tRTP=6 (half of tWR=12) was just too aggressive, as I got quick errors with that. So I'm trying tRFC=294 (7*tRC), even though it's a tightening from tRFC=336. I'm also stubbornly holding my ground on flat 14's at 3466 so I'm thinking it means I may have to loosen elsewhere, including tRC and/or tRFC? Am I barking up the wrong tree?


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> @everyone who has purchased Viper kits, did your boxes have any sort of seals on them?
> 
> Both of the boxes I received did not so was just wondering if thats how they are sold as mine were bought from Amazon which we all know receives alot of returns that are than sold as new ........


Pretty sure mine where sealed with a "lifetime warranty" document inside 
But it was a long time ago,
Will need to check in 2 weeks 
But likely some reviewers could show them :thinking:
Wouldn't make me wonder when these 4400 sets had a high RMA quote, when the people don't know how to get A2 kits to run



Nighthog said:


> Well found the fix... VDDP. Needed minimum 1050mv for the audio issues to go away. But Y-cruncher failed now instead on one test [VST - Vector transform AVX2 float]. So back to test some more. But getting closer for full stability.


Keep up the 50mV scaling, VDDG 1100, vSOC 1150
Higher than 1.2 would be ... Less optimal


Gadfly said:


> I don't think this goes though the memory subsystem. While it is running there is no activity on the memory bus. This appears to only be touching the "infinity fabric" on package; which makes sense right? It is measuring Core to Core bandwidth which has nothing to do with memory bandwidth (which is why core to core bandwidth is ~3.5x max theoretical of the memory bandwidth.); so essentially we are just testing fclk?
> 
> This is a per CCX fixed OC, and it deviates all over the place. It does the same on my wife's 3800X, which also has a per CCX OC.


 this has to be either an replicatable issue 
Never had such problems on a boosting 2700X, measurements where quite accurate
But the latency curve is the interesting part
It does touch memory access latency and transfer time for each data size 
This is what we have to test




> Ok, but what is running on the memory? Cache hits don't cross the memory bus and go thought the IM, just the databus?


Cache bandwidth to memory to cache , measured transfer delay and so efficiency
There is activity on memory, you just don't see it because windows hangs up while this test runs
Well the "realtime" type of hangup


> IF frequency does not alter IPC. Right, 1st and 2nd gen Memory latency was limited by the fact that each channel had it's own IMC and each IMC was embedded in the CCX. So you had to cross the CCX to CCX data fabric, which ran at 1/2 memclock.


3rd gen borrows the K17 IMC from 2nd gen
The issues remain identical
For a more technical explanation, elmor and The Stilt have a breakdown
FCLK does modify instruction set processing speed and transfer time
Substrate layout and the position of it does define transfer and access efficiency inside the mesh (intercore, innercore latency)
Memory does define prefetching and caching of cache , which is used as a "buffer" to extend internal cache and used as "faster link" than going around the whole intercore latency loop

1st, 2nd gen had a huge bottleneck wall which was purely access time latency bound
Freq of fclk did help lowering that
While 2nd gen had "software" well high level hardware tweaks , but 1st gen could copy that
I don't know if I really want to explain the Biography of zen development since 2017 atm
There are better threads for that, than my little knowledge 


> Yes but is that really isn't tied to memory bus performance / IC timings? Isn't that really just dependent on fclk; which even at 1900mhz we are already maxing out the IF bandwidth and are limited purely by it's latency?


The test including the same one inside the dram calculator
The draw latency curve one, does vary by the timings
Many timings are stable, memory is flexible
Sisandra shows to my testing sessions accurately positive and negative effects of the timings
The latency curve and so the corresponding result from different memory behaviour is the result we are looking for

Unlike on Intel's design, memory access time and up to data size processing delay, matters for ryzen
We do test that and work on that
We don't care right now how fast memory can be
But how well it does with that platforn

Sisandra might have proper memory tests, but that's not the goal
Stability of memory is the only thing we care about externally
And IF bandwidth plus timing efficiency on all the datasizes is what we care
Only exceptions be scientific usecases where its being optimised for specific transfer size



> the only way to increase inter-core bandwidth is to run a quicker fclk. What I am saying is that I don't think this Sandra benchmark is a good test of memory performance, and it doesn't seem to be reliable enough to really get a good gauge on if what you are changing is really making any difference.


I strongly disagree
Bandwidth is not only speed depending 
And we don't only care about bandwidth
Bandwidth result is maybe shown on the log, but the score is not bandwidth focused


> Maybe MaxMem2 would be a better benchmark? Got me.


Maybe if we look for plain memory benchmarks, there are other tests
But we aren't , at least I am not 
Memory speed is not my focus , it sounds contra productive
Aida64 is a good memory benchmark, but is a bad ryzen optimising benchmark
Memory can run on many different states and ways while being stable
A better memory looking benchmark still will result in worse perf, than a dataset optimised benchmark 

I wouldn't on sisandra even compare to others to begin with
Unless we took the crown (which will show on good timings) 
But it's an efficiency test, which's result matters 
Just not on the memory side of things 
We optimise the memory for the ryzen, not optimise the memory for their specific dataset benchmark 

Oh actually, is this Sokrates on your profile Picture?
A "benchmark" to quote Yuri's works is inside his calculator
The calculator has also intercore, innercore results plus a draw latency curve
Maybe a better optimised one
Tho on sisandra I know what to look for and what to compare 
Both including Aida remain personal benchmarks for the sake of finetuning

SuperPi 1.5 SX is a "real benchmark" and actually infinity fabric +timing stresstest
But it doesn't five me latency information and efficiency information
Crucial one I am looking for 
Which will result in IPC boost if you finetune exactly that part 
The efficiency, and delay
A bit less the maximum bandwidth


----------



## FranZe

When ambient temp went down...


----------



## Nighthog

I think it's stable now... needed more voltage than I thought.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FranZe said:


> When ambient temp went down...


Wait, were you failing due to high ambient temps today? My weather hit 36C today and is normally 25-27C at this time of year. 10C spike! My Ryzen idle temps have been around 44C instead of 38C


----------



## FranZe

LuckyBahstard said:


> Wait, were you failing due to high ambient temps today? My weather hit 36C today and is normally 25-27C at this time of year. 10C spike! My Ryzen idle temps have been around 44C instead of 38C


Yeah  My memory need to be under 45°C  And now in the middle of the night the temp was in the right place to run TM5


----------



## 2600ryzen

Nighthog said:


> I think it's stable now... needed more voltage than I thought.


That's an impressive infinity fabric overclock, are you using bclk overclocking?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FranZe said:


> Yeah  My memory need to be under 45°C  And now in the middle of the night the temp was in the right place to run TM5


Hmm. I wonder if this is affecting my testing today as well. Still though, I'd want to be stable. But it's rarely this hot.

My test this morning that went to cycle 20...
I reran the near-exact same test 8 hours (and +10C) later, my only change was +0.01V to 1.48 on dram, and I failed on cycle 8.

I've had a lot of errors with Test 2 along the way here. I still haven't tried bumping up SOC voltage and will later.
But what is the meaning of Test 2 failures?

NOTES on TM5 errors, per @Veii :


Spoiler



https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-553.html#post28106022

There is no documentation about them but after you play with it 30+ hours you start to make up some patterns, errors are one thing to consider time of appearance is another
6 at the start = DRAM/SOC voltage too low or CAD_BUS resistance too high
- come often together with Error 1
Error 7, 11 are burst tests
- it will error out if if CAD_BUS is not optimal
- will error out of tRFC is too low
- mostly errors out only after time
Error 14 is an annoying one
- it can error after the 2nd or 3rd pass if something is off my some ns and just "got lost"
i often hit it after 31min when the test takes 32min - can be heat related but then it's main reason is micro timeout x_x
Error 10 mostly affects the first 5 main timings
- noticed it can be tRCDWR to RD, can be tRP too, but it also can be the last two tRDWR & tRDRD which don't play well with your main tRCDWR/RD

1usmus config so far is quite efficient (unsure what membench similarity testing settings are)
Soo if it errors out by heat it's mostly after cycle 3,4 / after 20 min - for my preview if they pass 3 cycles (15min) , it can only error out by heat or by some tiny misscalculation after time ^^



Could it just be heat? I do have a fan right on top of my ram sticks though.
Test 1: failed Test 2 Cycle 20
Test 2: failed Test 6 Cycle 2, I had changed tRFC=294 (from 336), tRTP=6 (from 8)
Test 3: failed Test 10 Cycle 11, I had changed tRTP back to 8 so tRFC was my only effective change
Test 4: failed Test 2 Cycle 9, I had changed tRC to 44 (from 42), tRFC to 352 (from 294)
Test 5: failed Test 2 Cycle 8, I had reverted to Test 1 but Dram V to 1.48V (from 1.47)


----------



## KedarWolf

Gadfly said:


> Can you run the benchmark and submit it?


Forces you to use Blender 2.82 and is slower than 2.83. 236.42.

Tonight I got 3:43.47 in 2.83

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/97a4d3cb-dc68-4dc2-abea-7a64f18b826c/


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Nighthog said:


> I think it's stable now... needed more voltage than I thought.


Wow. Big clocks, man! Loose timings but big clocks! I didn't find your Dram voltage in the hwinfo64's (maybe overlooking), what is it? I see SOC is about 1.17V.

edit: I shouldn't say loose timings, but bigger timings, I'm sure these are tight as they go  But you know what I mean. hehe.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> Forces you to use Blender 2.82 and is slower than 2.83. 236.42.
> 
> Tonight I got 3:43.47 in 2.83 :h34r-smi
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/97a4d3cb-dc68-4dc2-abea-7a64f18b826c/


With 2.81 I get 2:34.49

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/433f982d-6c7f-45a5-85cc-758dbe935d32/


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> Yep it is lower, but I'm aiming to shave voltage and heat with my drop to 3466 tests.
> 
> I did have to go to 1.1V SOC for my 3733 stable settings, from 3600 where I was 1.05V.
> 
> But here I've kept to 1.05V so far. Still, I'm pushing semi-tight values here, and I'm holding out stubbornly  but this is on my list to try 1.10V SOC if I can't get stability with other timings tweaks.
> 
> I'm trying my best to treat the late-error symptom as a tRFC timing issue lol. I proved to myself that tRTP=6 (half of tWR=12) was just too aggressive, as I got quick errors with that. So I'm trying tRFC=294 (7*tRC), even though it's a tightening from tRFC=336. I'm also stubbornly holding my ground on flat 14's at 3466 so I'm thinking it means I may have to loosen elsewhere, including tRC and/or tRFC? Am I barking up the wrong tree?


The timings you saw are stable 100% sure - they do work 
The issue is , why can't you run them 
Here something more lightweight, but 10% slower


Spoiler














If even that one fails, i would be worried that something clearly is messed up
Well i'd be worried already if you can't even run the harsh 3467 ones 
Try to get that to work, before you dive too deep into the debugging rabbit hole and try to find out of 20 settings something that works 

I guess a combination of voltage, RTT and CAD_BUS is your issue
well about vSOC:
We shouldn't compare 14nm zen IMC voltage scaling, with 12nm zen+ & so also 3rd gen voltage scaling 

14nm:
2934MT/s =1.0125-1.025vSOC
3200MT/s = 1.0325-1.0475vSOC
3300MT/s = 1.05-1.065vSOC
3400MT/s = 1.072-1.089vSOC
3467MT/s = 1.075-1.1vSOC 
3600MT/s = >1.175vSOC
anything above 1.1 had negative scalling, 20mV vSOC = 25-30W TDP bump
* maximum frequency 3467MT/s hittable only <53.3Ω procODT
12nm:
2933-3200MT/s = 0.098-1.0125vSOC
3334-3400MT/s = 1.025-1.0325vSOC
3467-3600MT/s = 1.042-1.055vSOC
3667-3734MT/s = 1.068-1.089vSOC 
3800MT/s = >1.15vSOC 
anything above 1.125 had negative scaling, 50mV = 35-40W TDP bump 
* maximum frequency 3734MT/s hittable only <48Ω procODT

** both use 8 core for TDP bump comparison
3rd gen is pretty much identical in scaling
* maximum frequency 3800MT/s hittable only < 36.9Ω procODT, rarely 40Ω

Less remains more, on every voltage and resistance you apply :handlebar
Look up the DRAM OC leaderboard for rare's result, about what the minimum is for 3rd gen
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383
Although his vSOC is high ~ likely his CCX OC needed it, and he used 50mV instead of 75mV scaling


----------



## Muqeshem

KedarWolf said:


> With 2.81 I get 2:34.49
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/433f982d-6c7f-45a5-85cc-758dbe935d32/


Hit the road jack and don't come back no more no more no more no more.

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/68e6de7a-bce2-4190-b712-2d1eb4f14644/

:thumb:


----------



## fcchin

Veii said:


> As for voltage, is that really a thing? Needing more over time?


Yes, I first notice ram life aging and record in this thread = https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-821.html#post28489844

It also happens to SOC both my zen-1 and now zen-2. i.e. SOC 1.05v pass TM5 3 cycles only and 1usmus easy, (didn't want to waste electricity bills), game is my ultimate pass/fail. Anyway, managed to game for one week or 10 days may be and game crash return for a couple of days continuous then change timing change this and change that, ultimately up the SOC 1.0625v and all OK return to 3600 fast no more crash. New chip 1.5 months baby just entered childhood still growing. 

Yes, my older AMD Phenom II didn't experience grow like this, only Zen I think......


----------



## KedarWolf

Muqeshem said:


> Hit the road jack and don't come back no more no more no more no more.
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/68e6de7a-bce2-4190-b712-2d1eb4f14644/
> 
> :thumb:


Run it in Windows, then compare.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Here something more lightweight, but 10% slower...If even that one fails, i would be worried that something clearly is messed up.
> Well i'd be worried already if you can't even run the harsh 3467 ones
> I guess a combination of voltage, RTT and CAD_BUS is your issue


Yes, and so this is a rabbit hole. My stable 3733cl16 ran 60ohms on both procODT and RTT_Park. But I'm trying to not increase resistances again since it feels like that would worsen my voltage requirements? Tho, I'm already high on DRAM voltage now again.

Thanks for the vSOC info.  And note that 3800 is generally procODT < 40ohms.

*Question*: Please teach me the importance of tRDWR/tWRRD at 6/3 vs 7/1 or 8/1? You previously mentioned SR B-Dies can commonly do 8/1. And 7/1 for CL14 naturally. And you mentioned 6/3. The engineer in me wants to understand the technical "_why_".

Also behind that same link, you mentioned an imagined timing for SR B-dies of 14-14-14-14-28-32. did you mean 42? Or really imply to shave tRC down that much, to 32?



Veii said:


> Look up the DRAM OC leaderboard for rare's result, about what the minimum is for 3rd gen[/COLOR]


The bottom of this spreadsheet has me looking at only three results at 3200 and 3533 combined. Only one (Reous) did 14 at primary timings -- but still not flat. And his tRC was loosened significantly to 46 and tRFC to 416. Charts don't expose subtimings which I'd like so I can more easily deduce what I need to find stability.

I really want to know what tiny little difference is making Test 2 fail. 

I'll test tRDWR/tWRRD at 6/3 (update: can't post with these), in case that's a looser timing from 7/1. And then I'll try your new preset. The new has me changing:

tighter tRRDL (to 4)
looser tWR (to 16)
tighter SCLs (to 3, which was there in the other preset but I stayed at 4 based on testing)
tCKE to 16 (wow, really?)
procODT looser to 53.3 (that's a huge jump back)
24/20/20/24 aka ClkDrvStr back to 24 (from 40) and CsOdtDrvStr to 20 (never tried this, always been at 24)
Setting RTT_NOM to RZQ/7(34) which I've never set before (always off)
That's quite a few things changing. Why the changes to RTT, and tCKE, in particular?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

@Veii - so, about tRDWR and tWRRD... I found 6/3 won't let me post. It has to be 8/1 or 7/1.


----------



## Muqeshem

KedarWolf said:


> Run it in Windows, then compare.


We have ready discussed this and you said you used another linux distro and did not achieve lower results. If I can do as close as a theardripper 3000 series in blender using arch linux which is a much better system than Windows. Then, no.


----------



## yrelbirb

Hi @Veii, i ditched my micron b dies for a brand new shiny crucial ballistix kits ^^

a little help i would appreciate a lot ^^

can you detect what is the PCB of my kits?

what is the error 12 is usually related to? 

which timings should i concentrate on what basis should I follow? my friend told me to try 1.42v 3533 cl14-18-14-34-56 and it seems to work outright albeit errors on test 12

(my mobo is a gigabyte b450 gaming x with 4 dimm slots and my cpu is 2700x, to remind)

i also checked the ram's heat spreader with my hand, it is relatively stays cooler compared to my old vengeance lpx kits at this voltage, just a fyi

my friend also says setting CADBUS addrCMd/csodt/cke to 55-55-55 would let me turn off GDM with stability. is it true? is it safe? i dont nothing about those three and i never meddled with them so i wondered 

---

oh and for an update: i got a refund on crap cjr kits... :specool:


----------



## Nighthog

yrelbirb said:


> Hi @Veii, i ditched my micron b dies for a brand new shiny crucial ballistix kits ^^
> 
> a little help i would appreciate a lot ^^
> 
> can you detect what is the PCB of my kits?
> 
> what is the error 12 is usually related to?
> 
> which timings should i concentrate on what basis should I follow? my friend told me to try 1.42v 3533 cl14-18-14-34-56 and it seems to work outright albeit errors on test 12
> 
> (my mobo is a gigabyte b450 gaming x with 4 dimm slots and my cpu is 2700x, to remind)
> 
> i also checked the ram's heat spreader with my hand, it is relatively stays cooler compared to my old vengeance lpx kits at this voltage, just a fyi
> 
> my friend also says setting CADBUS addrCMd/csodt/cke to 55-55-55 would let me turn off GDM with stability. is it true? is it safe? i dont nothing about those three and i never meddled with them so i wondered
> 
> ---
> 
> oh and for an update: i got a refund on crap cjr kits... :specool:


My Micron Rev.E [D9VPP] liked procODT 36.9Ohm setting, GDM:disabled [60-20-20-20/60-20-24-24] CAD_BUS on X570 & Ryzen 3000. [4x8GB CL13 3800Mhz]
My Ryzen 1700 B350 board needed 43.6Ohm procODT with same kit of memory.[4x8GB 3733Mhz]

[RZQ/7][RZQ/3][RZQ/1] should be ok.


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> Hi @Veii, i ditched my micron b dies for a brand new shiny crucial ballistix kits ^^
> a little help i would appreciate a lot ^^


Hello ^^ 
try to drop procODT one step down to 48Ω
tRP would feel better at 16
Match tWR inside that range








Don't have to follow 1 rule, but should try to be inside all of them
higher than rec, near or lower than Alt.1 , at least > Alt.2 


> can you detect what is the PCB of my kits?


Sadly no, ICs are on the other side
We need a closeup from the side or the bottom and a center shot 
Single Rank has them placed on one side, Dual rank on both
Height of the ICs and center of the PCB is important
For reference:


Spoiler




















~ by Guizan33





> what is the error 12 is usually related to?


Comes together with error 6 at the start = Impedance error, procODT and/or CAD_BUS
Error 12 after time, is heat vdroop on vSOC line or VDDP droop while testing (cpu vddp)
Error 6 belongs to voltage/IMC Limit ~ CAD_BUS and cLDO_VDDP


> which timings should i concentrate on what basis should I follow? my friend told me to try 1.42v 3533 cl14-18-14-34-56 and it seems to work outright albeit errors on test 12
> (my mobo is a gigabyte b450 gaming x with 4 dimm slots and my cpu is 2700x, to remind)


It's been some time 
Try this tiny writeup
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232
Don't drop tRC -2 on 4 dimms
Add tRDWR +1 not -1 as "lowest" else tRCD RD/2 +1 for stability without the need for tWRRD (1)
tRCD RD/2 = tRDWR on 4 dimms needs usage of tWRRD, no -1 possible 
~ although micron Rev E have exceptions here 
Lower tRDWR remains better, but either it works or it's too low



> my friend also says setting CADBUS addrCMd/csodt/cke to 55-55-55 would let me turn off GDM with stability. is it true? is it safe? i dont nothing about those three and i never meddled with them so i wondered


Used them on my old HynixMFR


Spoiler














I think it was 52-52-52, Use that one only as last resort
It adds latency and scales by used frequency
between 50-58 is what you look for, but use it only as the last option after setting everything incl voltages
It's a bit recommended for higher vDIMM, although i doubt you would exceed 1.5v at all


> oh and for an update: i got a refund on crap cjr kits... :specool:


Congrats :thumb:
Sad that yours where cr*p, CJR aren't thaat bad just require a bit more work
Anyways, happy that you have a new toy
Push ClkDrStrngh on Micron kits like Nighthog suggested 
40ish should be fine, they aren't dual rank after all
How about:


Spoiler














Will that work out ?


----------



## yrelbirb

i will try all your suggestions, thank you alot

my SOC temp is quite cool relatively, its maximum 50 degrees. same for the test im using it right now

so i guess the "vddp" droops then? is there anyway to mitigate it or is it simply board sucks at that?

my vddp is fixed to 0.700 by your suggestions till the ancient times 

in some of the tries, i also got mixed error 6 and error 12 as you said, but usually only error 12


i also provided my voltages and temps

--

update

i've settled on 3466 cl14 as my basis and i will continue to move on from here

i tried turning gdm off with auto cadbusses, no boot 

i tried 55-55-55 and voila, im in desktop now

is these 55-55-55 are harmful in anyway , do they increase heat or what are they exactly? is 55-55-55 a safe value for them? 

should i use gdm off 55-55-55 or gdm on auto-auto-auto?

---

second update,

https://prnt.sc/sxampk

here is what i'm trying now.

i think my tWR is not coherent to your ruleset. will fix it later


----------



## Gadfly

ManniX-ITA said:


> Did you update tRFC2/4 from the tRFC calculator?
> 
> Because I've just found out that was the reason I got so unusual variance testing different tRFC values. Hours wasted.
> I've read multiple times with Ryzen 3000 that tRFC2/4 are not used/relevant but it's simply not true...
> Plugged in the correct values from the calculator and got immediately back the normal consistency in Sandra MT, including better CB20 results and stable throughput in CPU-z bench.


Yep.


----------



## Gadfly

Muqeshem said:


> We have ready discussed this and you said you used another linux distro and did not achieve lower results. If I can do as close as a theardripper 3000 series in blender using arch linux which is a much better system than Windows. Then, no.


Linux is not a much better OS, it is just a different OS. it does somethings better than Windows, and somethings not as well as Windows.

Blender does really well in Linux, and not so well on Mac and Windows. With Blender, you can't really compare benches between OS's because of how the application is written.


----------



## Gadfly

@Veii

Made a little progress yesterday. 

I tired 1-5-5-1-7-7-1, but I will have to try again today as I can't tell if I really had a better result or a worse result. I was able to get SCL running at 2 without any issue. In the screenshot with the HCI memtests there is an open text file with all the profiles settings.

Can you (or anyone) explain how VDDP voltage may help lower timings?

My panned next steps are to try to push tRP down, then tune tRFC

Edit: Forgot to add the blender bench. 235.32s blender classroom. https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/0d463923-9266-4fef-8efb-0e7f202aa8ea/ ; which officially takes the #1 spot on for a Windows 3950X CPU Classroom run. Gotcha @KedarWolf 

https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...dows&benchmark=classroom&blender_version=2.82


----------



## KedarWolf

Gadfly said:


> @Veii
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Made a little progress yesterday.
> 
> I tired 1-5-5-1-7-7-1, but I will have to try again today as I can't tell if I really had a better result or a worse result. I was able to get SCL running at 2 without any issue. In the screenshot with the HCI memtests there is an open text file with all the profiles settings.
> 
> Can you (or anyone) explain how VDDP voltage may help lower timings?
> 
> My panned next steps are to try to push tRP down, then tune tRFC
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Forgot to add the blender bench. 235.32s blender classroom. https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/0d463923-9266-4fef-8efb-0e7f202aa8ea/ ; which officially takes the #1 spot on for a Windows 3950X CPU Classroom run. Gotcha @KedarWolf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...dows&benchmark=classroom&blender_version=2.82


With 2.81 I got 2:34.49

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/433f982d-6c7f-45a5-85cc-758dbe935d32/ 

Edit: Never mind, I never sorted it right.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

How do you guys handle vdroop with LLC? I have both CPU and SOC LLC's set to High, I can go to Extreme or back on Auto?

During TM5 testing:
I'm seeing CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) average 1.267V but I requested 1.275V (_for fixed 4.0Ghz, no boosts, during mem testing_).
And I see SoC Voltage (SVI2 TFN) average 1.043V but I requested 1.05V

I'm wondering if this is pinching me off during TM5 tests. I'm repeatedly failing Test 2 after a handful of cycles (or many cycles) when it's not something related to immediate failures. I'm fairly confident in my tRFC as I've primarily tested with a multiple of tRC, tRTP, tWR.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> How do you guys handle vdroop with LLC? I have both CPU and SOC LLC's set to High, I can go to Extreme or back on Auto?
> 
> During TM5 testing:
> I'm seeing CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) average 1.267V but I requested 1.275V (_for fixed 4.0Ghz, no boosts, during mem testing_).
> And I see SoC Voltage (SVI2 TFN) average 1.043V but I requested 1.05V
> 
> I'm wondering if this is pinching me off during TM5 tests. I'm repeatedly failing Test 2 after a handful of cycles (or many cycles) when it's not something related to immediate failures. I'm fairly confident in my tRFC as I've primarily tested with a multiple of tRC, tRTP, tWR.


I see no mention of testing with a different tRP than 8



Regards LLC, as long as the voltage after droop is where you want it to be it should not be the reason for your issues.

Having no droop is probably less desirable, I have my LLC at 3, from a scale of 1 to 8 with 1 being no droop and 8 being a lot of it 



Do you have any options for changing the switching frequency for SOC/DIMM/CPU ?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> I see no mention of testing with a different tRP than 8
> 
> Regards LLC, as long as the voltage after droop is where you want it to be it should not be the reason for your issues.
> 
> Having no droop is probably less desirable, I have my LLC at 3, from a scale of 1 to 8 with 1 being no droop and 8 being a lot of it
> 
> Do you have any options for changing the switching frequency for SOC/DIMM/CPU ?


I believe you typo'd but mean tRTP, and yeah I've tried 6, as half of tWR. But it got me to errors fast (in cycle 2, Test 6). And thanks for your fast reply.

I don't know what LLC 3 means for your board. I'll assume some level of moderate vdroop correction (voltage increase) I assume. My last asrock board (z87) had numbers. So, on mine, I can choose Auto, Regular, Medium, High, Extreme.

So the question remains, do I push Extreme and do my best to prevent any droop? Or correct it with slightly altered voltages (+.1V each?) across the board? Is it a non issue?

And, forgive me - what do you mean "the switching frequency"?


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> I believe you typo'd but mean tRTP, and yeah I've tried 6, as half of tWR. But it got me to errors fast (in cycle 2, Test 6). And thanks for your fast reply.
> 
> I don't know what LLC 3 means for your board. I'll assume some level of moderate vdroop correction (voltage increase) I assume. My last asrock board (z87) had numbers. So, on mine, I can choose Auto, Regular, Medium, High, Extreme.
> 
> So the question remains, do I push Extreme and do my best to prevent any droop? Or correct it with slightly altered voltages (+.1V each?) across the board? Is it a non issue?
> 
> And, forgive me - what do you mean "the switching frequency"?


You need to go up not down



Sorry, you didn't understand my LLC scaling explanation

LLC 1 is no droop, LLC 8 is a lot of droop

I keep mine on 3 as I want some droop, but not a lot (image below shows my LLC when I was using PBO, I wanted more droop as it assisted single core clocks ...)

Hope that is clearer …

See image for "switching frequency"


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> You need to go up not down
> Sorry, you didn't understand my LLC scaling explanation
> LLC 1 is no droop, LLC 8 is a lot of droop
> 
> I keep mine on 3 as I want some droop, but not a lot
> ...
> 
> See image for "switching frequency"


Ok you have 8 levels, not 5. And 3 is probably equivalent to my "High". I may just try extreme soon, if need be.

I have to double-check its value in the BIOS, I assume I left CPU switching frequency on Auto so I'll see what it's getting set to (if it'll tell me).


----------



## Veii

@Gadfly 
Whatever this green result was - i think 2 tests ago


Spoiler














Try to replicate it 
This is what we're looking or, even when "average inter-core bandwidth" looks to be variable, which i fully trust you
I think Sisandra has a problem with the refreshrate of these ryzens
But the Latency curve staid pretty solid 
Focus on pushing that one up 
If you can see, IF bandwidth is up to datasize variable - and so is memory too, variable up to datasize
~ this is the part where we do the tiny optimizations, as it's pretty high margin of error testing it only with "memory exclusive benchmarks"
these wouldn't show the potential of the timings on different datasizes and so different real world usages 
Games are often also a good benchmark, but SiSandra was always far more accurate on subtle nuances and changes 

About VDDP, pretty sure Elmor had a huge guide on the 2700X
1usmus wrote two on techpowerup for Zen and Zen+ 
and posting here 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/26457559-post292.html

although memory "hole" is not to be seen anymore, lower voltages overall do help with higher potential FCLK


----------



## yrelbirb

is 1usmus 20 cycle in general a good surefire to test stability, especially tRFC wise?

i heard that tRFC can corrupt even if it doesnt give any errors. how can make sure my tRFC is safe for my computer  

also does the corruption happen in every file that came into contact with ram? or is it just the windows itself?

i'm at tRFC 520 and 3466 mhz which means 300ns and about a -50ns reduction from stock 350ns so i wondered if i'm going to have any problems with it? 

this e-die i guess can be expected to 300ns. right?


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> is 1usmus 20 cycle in general a good surefire to test stability, especially tRFC wise?
> 
> i heard that tRFC can corrupt even if it doesnt give any errors. how can make sure my tRFC is safe for my computer
> also does the corruption happen in every file that came into contact with ram? or is it just the windows itself?
> 
> i'm at tRFC 520 and 3466 mhz which means 300ns and about a -50ns reduction from stock 350ns so i wondered if i'm going to have any problems with it?
> 
> this e-die i guess can be expected to 300ns. right?


Corruption only happens on anything that had contact with the memory
Although it will not corrupt everything it touches

I often had TM5.exe be f** after some time  
Sometimes explorer.exe starts to crash 
but usually they repair themself - and memory is big, IF something could corrupt *
then it will be only with a very little chance to happen, and it could be something tiny you'll never notice
Although binary files do like to corrupt, exe files - dll's barely, pictures i also haven't seen corrupted
Zip files don't at all , folders here and there
After a long time just to re-extract your TM5 on another location of the drive and wipe the old folder is recommendable 
Once a month , after 5 sessions or after 40-50h of testing which are about 8-10 bluescreens

* Datacorruption won't happen out of nothing
Even when windows crash, or games shut down - or you lose power
On such events it won't happen
But it will happen if you BSOD while you have load on something
This load, whatever was last open before it BSODs can corrupt
In this case the first attendant would be TM5.exe to just corrupt 

Don't worry too much about it
tRFC either runs, runs well, or doesn't post at all 
You can have instability if it's a tiny bit off - i've seen that often enough and why tRFC calculator exists
But as long as you aren't starting to add +1 +2 values and always keep in mind a whole tRFC cycle is 32 virtual value
If you even stay in the scaling of 2, you won't have issues
Even better if you stay in the scaling of 8 or 16 (dividable by) 

TM5 20 cycles will detect tRFC errors on cycle 19 or short before it ends 
It will mostly die out by heat, near cycle 6
6 rounds default are usually enough, but 20 are to be 100% sure it's fine 
Can't count how often after waiting 1:23h it crashes 1 test before it ends on cycle 19 :clock: 
TM5 tho won't show cpu instability on tests that use AVX2 instruction sets 
for that is Y-cruncher one of the best options , and p95 large FFT seems to be very successful too
I trusted OCCT avx2 to finetune loadline droop

But the VDDP droop , you can readout via hwinfo ~ its not preventable, i guess it has something to do with heat
It's normal that it does droop on such kind of tests and you have 2 VDDPs 
Never needed to touch it - it just awkwardly drooped down to 200mV here and there 
Can be loss of charge i am not sure, but it's nothing "new" or "unexpected" , just "awkward"


----------



## yrelbirb

Veii said:


> Corruption only happens on anything that had contact with the memory
> Although it will not corrupt everything it touches
> 
> I often had TM5.exe be f** after some time
> Sometimes explorer.exe starts to crash
> but usually they repair themself - and memory is big, IF something could corrupt *
> then it will be only with a very little chance to happen, and it could be something tiny you'll never notice
> Although binary files do like to corrupt, exe files - dll's barely, pictures i also haven't seen corrupted
> Zip files don't at all , folders here and there
> After a long time just to re-extract your TM5 on another location of the drive and wipe the old folder is recommendable
> Once a month , after 5 sessions or after 40-50h of testing which are about 8-10 bluescreens
> 
> * Datacorruption won't happen out of nothing
> Even when windows crash, or games shut down - or you lose power
> On such events it won't happen
> But it will happen if you BSOD while you have load on something
> This load, whatever was last open before it BSODs can corrupt
> In this case the first attendant would be TM5.exe to just corrupt
> 
> Don't worry too much about it
> tRFC either runs, runs well, or doesn't post at all
> You can have instability if it's a tiny bit off - i've seen that often enough and why tRFC calculator exists
> But as long as you aren't starting to add +1 +2 values and always keep in mind a whole tRFC cycle is 32 virtual value
> If you even stay in the scaling of 2, you won't have issues
> Even better if you stay in the scaling of 8 or 16 (dividable by)
> 
> TM5 20 cycles will detect tRFC errors on cycle 19 or short before it ends
> It will mostly die out by heat, near cycle 6
> 6 rounds default are usually enough, but 20 are to be 100% sure it's fine
> Can't count how often after waiting 1:23h it crashes 1 test before it ends on cycle 19 :clock:
> TM5 tho won't show cpu instability on tests that use AVX2 instruction sets
> for that is Y-cruncher one of the best options , and p95 large FFT seems to be very successful too
> I trusted OCCT avx2 to finetune loadline droop
> 
> But the VDDP droop , you can readout via hwinfo ~ its not preventable, i guess it has something to do with heat
> It's normal that it does droop on such kind of tests and you have 2 VDDPs
> Never needed to touch it - it just awkwardly drooped down to 200mV here and there
> Can be loss of charge i am not sure, but it's nothing "new" or "unexpected" , just "awkward"



thank you

my 20 cycle tm5 test seems to be randomly stop working, no crash but just stops

i wondered if it has something to do with the unstability of my kits maybe?

also the question about 55-55-55 still st ands. do you think i should use 55+55+55 + gdm off or auto auto auto + gdm on? i dont know what 55 55 55 does so , unknonw things scares me a bitt 

current situation;

i think tRC 52 is a no go 

but as i said, the random "shut downs" of tm5 made me a bit raged 

you can also see my vddp in hwinfo report, it droops randomly but dont know if its much or not. sadly no way to set it up in my bios


----------



## mongoled

FranZe said:


> When ambient temp went down...


So borderline stabilty seems to be at around 45C, my GSkills were stable at 47C, but they were probably on the edge.

The Vipers I recently purchased are better though, wish they has a temp sensor

:/



Nighthog said:


> I think it's stable now... needed more voltage than I thought.


With the new 3600 ive got (gem of a CPU) ive been able to post reliably with 3800/1900, but im on the deja vu merry go round

 

Quite frustrating, system is rock stable using BCLK of 100.625 so giving me 3760/1880 but those etc 20 mhz on the FCLK that I am attempting to push onto and TM5 is erroring out after a couple of minutes left right and center.

Tomorrow I will play with cad resistances to see if I can find something that helps as voltages dont seem to be making any sort of difference with my setup.

I may just be that this motherboard is at its limit, as this will now be a 3600/3600X CPU, and two different kits of memory, but stable 3800/1900 looks to be out of reach!


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> thank you
> 
> my 20 cycle tm5 test seems to be randomly stop working, no crash but just stops
> 
> i wondered if it has something to do with the unstability of my kits maybe?
> 
> also the question about 55-55-55 still st ands. do you think i should use 55+55+55 + gdm off or auto auto auto + gdm on? i dont know what 55 55 55 does so , unknonw things scares me a bitt
> 
> current situation;
> 
> i think tRC 52 is a no go
> 
> but as i said, the random "shut downs" of tm5 made me a bit raged
> 
> you can also see my vddp in hwinfo report, it droops randomly but dont know if its much or not. sadly no way to set it up in my bios


tRDWR is a bit too low atm 
CAD_BUS Timing is just signal cutting time, which pretty much is delay responsive 
You can use it, but stability comes from something else - it should be used only as the last resort

Random shutdowns are voltage chokes , 1.025 now is a bit on the low side - you have to factor in your vdroop to
Try +1 step there
put at least tRDWR 8 and see if you error on something else
Error 1=simple Test 16mb size, can be everything but it's rather a primaries issue
Your tRP remains low
It's more like you didn't even consider the attached set i gave you


----------



## yrelbirb

Veii said:


> tRDWR is a bit too low atm
> CAD_BUS Timing is just signal cutting time, which pretty much is delay responsive
> You can use it, but stability comes from something else - it should be used only as the last resort
> 
> Random shutdowns are voltage chokes , 1.025 now is a bit on the low side - you have to factor in your vdroop to
> Try +1 step there
> put at least tRDWR 8 and see if you error on something else
> Error 1=simple Test 16mb size, can be everything but it's rather a primaries issue
> Your tRP remains low
> It's more like you didn't even consider the attached set i gave you


no, i tried them for 3533 mhz but same errors happened, i even tried giving 1.47v but it seems im maybe imc limited, or mobo limited maybe

since i m down to 3466 mhz i thought they wouldnt count for 3466

how can i get gdm off to boot without 55-55-55, what should i try? :Snorkle:

i kinda gave up on the 3533


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> no, i tried them for 3533 mhz but same errors happened, i even tried giving 1.47v but it seems im maybe imc limited, or mobo limited maybe
> 
> since i m down to 3466 mhz i thought they wouldnt count for 3466
> 
> how can i get gdm off to boot without 55-55-55, what should i try? :Snorkle:
> 
> i kinda gave up on the 3533


Your imc still has a range till 3734MT/s 
but you have to consider cLDO_VDDP on 2nd gen 
the scaling of it 
ClkDrvStrengh, push that up and well i guess you have to work with RTT values to remove GDM
but what if you just use 2T instead of GDM
then on 2T go odd values 
Keep in mind if 55-55-55 worked for 3534MT/s , 3467 will be different

3467 cLDO_VDDP is 700 or 913mV , but 3534 looks to be near 850 ish , +/- 4mV
1mV difference on cLDO_VDDP will make a stability difference already
3600MT/s would be 866mV


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Hi @Veii (and all). TL;DR *I did get stable at 3466 with GDM Disabled*, but it was painful and not as good as GDM Enabled gives me.

My previous thoughts:


Spoiler



Your new preset has me changing:

tighter tRRDL (to 4)
looser tWR (to 16)
tighter SCLs (to 3, which was there in the other preset but I stayed at 4 based on testing)
tCKE to 16 (wow, really?)
procODT looser to 53.3 (that's a huge jump back)
24/20/20/24 aka ClkDrvStr back to 24 (from 40) and CsOdtDrvStr to 20 (never tried this, always been at 24)
Setting RTT_NOM to RZQ/7(34) which I've never set before (always off)
That's quite a few things changing. Why the changes to RTT, and tCKE, in particular?



I tested most but not all of your individual presets. Slightly looser, I settled on tRRDL=6, SCLs=4, tRFC=336. SCLs=3 failed me, but tried once only.

Here's what I think I learned:

I needed a little bit more voltage (or need to try extreme LLC). With any reasonable settings I would last between 4 to 19 cycles then eventually hit a failure with Test 2.
I tried many singular changes that danced around your preset, _exploring tRFC, tRC, tRTP, SCLs, and finally loosened completely with tRCD=16 and tRP=16 while letting other values shake out_
Also, procODT=53.3 choked on its high resistance (cycle 8 test 12)
And tried 75mV stepping for a higher vSOC -- 925mV VDDP, 1.0V VDDGs, 1.075 vSOC

I didn't try your RTT_NOM value, it's still off. I can possibly re-tighten my tRRDS/L values to 4/4, my SCLs to 3, and tighten tRFC. But with everything I've done, and with me nearly passing TM5 multiple times but failing no matter how I adjusted. I think SOC voltage truly just needed 1.1V, I think that's really it. 

Someone else suggested I bump vSOC to 1.07V, and that's when I did my 75mV stepping, using 1.075V. I listened, but forgot who said "1.07" lol. I didn't ignore your request though.

Sadly, with GDM Enabled, that baseline test was notably higher bandwidth and lower latency. My baseline was slightly looser on subtimings, also. I'm saddened that Disabling it didn't really keep me close. :sad-smile

*Here are my results, from achieving GDM Disabled @ 3466*.


Spoiler



TIMINGS/SETTINGS:









SiSoftware Sandra Multi-core Efficiency (intercore latency peak: 72.2ns, avg: 52.2ns):









AIDA64 cache and memory:


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> Hi @Veii (and all). TL;DR *I did get stable at 3466 with GDM Disabled*, but it was painful and not as good as GDM Enabled gives me.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra Multi-core Efficiency (intercore latency peak: 72.2ns, avg: 52.2ns):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AIDA64 cache and memory:


You lose a lot of performance if you increase tRDWR or SCL 
And other timings are important 

I don't know how to write it in nice words, but changing something of the first preset will make the set a mess * :ninja: 
I think the SCL 3 one had scaling freedom, it wasn't that closely tested
But the SCL2 one, well that one was for sure - lowering 1 thing there will result in worse perf unless you change again everything 

That's why i only recommended to try to get it to work, neverless of what voltage you use around and what RTT values your board and memory dimms like 
A2 won't scale the same as A0 or A1 , at least not the RTT values
But the timings have to work for you  
How you get them stable is another thing , we just want to get you a baseline done
After that one is stable - at least what remains is only timings work
But . . . you have to get it to work  
Can't be that a 1700X with a horrible IMC can run that and you cant ~ nor do i think my b-dies where golden at all for 90 bucks
* we can work later on timings finetuning, but it would put you only deeper into the rabbit hole of debugging when even this set can't run "somewhy" 

A2 kits are a struggle at the start, but something is not correct for them not to work well
Else they are far superior to A0s


----------



## yrelbirb

Veii said:


> Your imc still has a range till 3734MT/s
> but you have to consider cLDO_VDDP on 2nd gen
> the scaling of it
> ClkDrvStrengh, push that up and well i guess you have to work with RTT values to remove GDM
> but what if you just use 2T instead of GDM
> then on 2T go odd values
> Keep in mind if 55-55-55 worked for 3534MT/s , 3467 will be different
> 
> 3467 cLDO_VDDP is 700 or 913mV , but 3534 looks to be near 850 ish , +/- 4mV
> 1mV difference on cLDO_VDDP will make a stability difference already
> 3600MT/s would be 866mV


tried these couldnt boot

2t would be better?


----------



## yrelbirb

ooh.. 55-55-55 adds latency?

i got 63.5-63.8 latency before with 520 trfc 

and now 63.1;


----------



## Valka814

Not a big issue, but during restarts, the PC cant post on first try and very rarely boots straight to bios. Whats settings should I look for it fix it?


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> ooh.. 55-55-55 adds latency?
> 
> i got 63.5-63.8 latency before with 520 trfc
> and now 63.1;


it does ~ again "last resort" option
2T is slower than GDM, but ends up faster when you finetune your timings


Valka814 said:


> Not a big issue, but during restarts, the PC cant post on first try and very rarely boots straight to bios. Whats settings should I look for it fix it?


CsOdtCmdDrvStrengh up to 24 will fix it 
What are these remain values of 120, auto predicted ? 
should be commonly 30-20-24-24 or 40-20-24-24 , down to 24-20-20-24 works too but can lead to memory training issues on cold boots

Also inside AMD CBS -> DDR4 common options, PHY controller options
Increasing PMU pattern bits will allow memory to be trained longer and so mitigate issues 1004B introduced with sped up memory training


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> You lose a lot of performance if you increase tRDWR or SCL
> And other timings are important
> I don't know how to write it in nice words, but changing something of the first preset will make the set a mess * :ninja:


Haha, yeah I know. 

@Veii (and you other experts!): Questions, then comments afterwards:

1) Do I continue to ignore RTT_NOM and _WR, leaving disabled? If I need to introduce values, then I would like help finding the information I need to set those properly.

2) If I set SCLs=3, that's an odd number -- does that complicate other timings? Asking this another way, do I have to worry about loosening something else if I try 3, to keep everything in proper balance? If so, what?​
Comments (ignore this if you want):

I knew SCLs=4 would limit me but I thought that was the lever to pull (to loosen) rather than other timings in your preset. I tried holding the line on the presets and on low voltages. And I wanted to be somewhat systematic ("scientific approach" and all). ​


Veii said:


> A2 won't scale the same as A0 or A1 , at least not the RTT values


I asked above, but I don't know why I would introduce RTT_NOM values if it defaults to off with JEDEC settings.


Spoiler



I even started digging out DRAM vendor's hardware specs to try and look at how they implemented RTT in hardware designs.  They specify their recommended ranges and equations for timings as well.

I used to fully understand resistors, transistors, capacitors... I could design electrical circuits. But I focused on software instead of hardware so that skill area quickly died hahaha.





Veii said:


> Can't be that a 1700X with a horrible IMC can run that and you cant ~ nor do i think my b-dies where golden at all for 90 bucks


Yeah, well, we both know I have a budget mobo. So I'm playing with awesome RAM on lesser VRMs and components. But I didn't expect the voltage struggle to hit me at 3466. Thank you for the information and feedback, and for the cheering.  I worry about how tight I can go if I'm already pushing near 1.5V Dram and have 1.1V SOC. I don't intend to raise that to 1.15V again until I go back to 3733 tests.

I guess I'll try to tighten and hope I remain stable. A couple timings couple be easy jumps but I'll start with SCLs=3, then 2.

It's not sweater weather...


Spoiler



Honestly the heat (weather) this week isn't helping me. Yesterday my mobo was around 44C. That means the sticks are too, in spite of direct air over them. Today... high 30s. Last weekend, my mobo reported only 34C!


----------



## Valka814

Veii said:


> it does ~ again "last resort" option
> 2T is slower than GDM, but ends up faster when you finetune your timings
> 
> CsOdtCmdDrvStrengh up to 24 will fix it
> What are these remain values of 120, auto predicted ?
> should be commonly 30-20-24-24 or 40-20-24-24 , down to 24-20-20-24 works too but can lead to memory training issues on cold boots
> 
> Also inside AMD CBS -> DDR4 common options, PHY controller options
> Increasing PMU pattern bits will allow memory to be trained longer and so mitigate issues 1004B introduced with sped up memory training


Yep, it looks fixed now with your recommendation (CsOdtCmdDrvStrengh at 24). No double start after 2 cold boot and 2 restart with 120/20/24/24.
ClkDrvStren at 120 allowed me to stabilize the memory with GDM off.
CkeDrvStren at 120 shifted the double starts from cold boot to restart.

Boot time was never good in this motherboard, 18-20 sec until bios. Can the PMU training speed up the boot time or should I leave it on auto?

Thank you very much!


----------



## TheGlow

Veii said:


> Increase voltage if you can't post
> put ClkDrvStr to 30ohm , later try if 48ohm procODT will work
> 
> Tm5 1usmus_v3 20 cycles, and p95 large FFT 2hours
> also considerable are all tests of y-cruncher (2min per test, about 8 of them) while it will fail on the first 3 if the memory controller dies out
> TM5 be sure it's 1usmus v3 or anta extreme preset (3 cycles anta) both take 1:30h for 16gb
> DRAM calculator memtest is a good tool, but it doesn't show clear errors
> Same as karhu with cache doesn't show clear errors
> As karhu replacement, p95 large fft and y-cruncher are solid to stress the cache and IMC
> TM5 will tell you fast if the timings are messed up, but not if the rest is messed up


I initially just tried changing the trp to 20 and it wouldnt post. I upped ram v to 1.4, I changed the clkdrvstr, procodt, no luck. Then just did the whole set out of curiosity and it posts. 20 cycles of 1usmus v3, so I'll do more testing later, but I like this.
I take it not much more in lowering timings, so what next? check of clkdrvstr would still work at 24? procODT back to 53.3? Then lower voltages a step at a time? Or is it best to just save as is and leave it alone?
And what oc'ing the cpu itself? Any tips on that? I tried just setting multiplier to 4.4 and ran cinebench. PC froze up but then finished the test, but open hardware monitor said 105c so Im not sure if thats accurate, but thats damn hot and I'd rather not keep playing around with that. Voltage was on auto so I've seen set to 1.25 since I hear its better to manually set something since auto can go wild.


----------



## Veii

Valka814 said:


> Yep, it looks fixed now with your recommendation (CsOdtCmdDrvStrengh at 24). No double start after 2 cold boot and 2 restart with 120/20/24/24.
> ClkDrvStren at 120 allowed me to stabilize the memory with GDM off.
> CkeDrvStren at 120 shifted the double starts from cold boot to restart.
> 
> Boot time was never good in this motherboard, 18-20 sec until bios. Can the PMU training speed up the boot time or should I leave it on auto?
> 
> Thank you very much!


They tried to fix and speed it up to 3-4 cycles, it's good it to be at least on 10 cycles 
10 or A as hex - whatever it accepts
Increasing ClkDrvStrengh, pushes you to lower procODT 
They go together , either one or the other 
But 120 Cke was a lot  too much will cause other type of random issues


----------



## yrelbirb

i think not utilizing the computer did the trick

i tried lots of rtt nom combos, and tried different cadbus timings but none of them works like 54-54-54 did (1usmus 1.7.0 second reccomendation)

if i utilize the pc while testing, it usually tends to hung up

--

my soc voltage "svi2 tfn" seems to be more stable than the mobo "vcore soc" reading. which one should I trust? 

vddp seems to average out @914mv (you said 913 would be good for 3467 mt/s, i think mobo sets up a setting that is similar to that?) but it sometimes bottoms out at 900 and peaks at 948 although , it seems like it didn't affect the test itself? could be erratic readings maybe, like the SOC one


----------



## LuckyBahstard

TheGlow said:


> I take it not much more in lowering timings, so what next? check of clkdrvstr would still work at 24? procODT back to 53.3? Then lower voltages a step at a time? Or is it best to just save as is and leave it alone?


I'll take a stab at answers, and will channel some teachings from Veii and others here.

It looks like you might be able to tighten a bit more, even with 3733. Particularly because you have GDM on, it might help you remain stable with a couple of smaller changes.

You said it was previously hard to tune tRP to 20, but now it works. You might be able to dial that a little tighter, if we've gotten past a bottleneck. But not likely to get much farther.

tRC looks like you could dial it instantly to 56, if you want to give that a shot. That means you could also lower tRFC to 448, trfc2=333, trfc4=205. This still leaves tRFC as a multiple of tRC, tRTP, and tWR.


----------



## yrelbirb

hello again @Veii

which timings i can finetune to increase performance @2T as you recommended?

this is what i take basis for now

oh and dram voltage is 1.4v in bios (reflects as 1.41v-1.415v in windows by the reports of hwinfo)


...veii, youwre right

setting soc to 1.0625 seemed to alleviate the issue

it droops to 1.056 min and it seems to not give error 12 anymore

can error 12 be related to ram temp itself btw?


----------



## Yuke

Is there any hope of getting rid of geardown mode for 24/7 usage when i am already sitting on:

1.45V-1.46V DRAM
1.025V VDDG
1.050V VDDP
1.119V VSOC

to get my Dual Rank 3800Mhz/Cl16 stable? 

Temps are around 51°C full load.


----------



## hazium233

yrelbirb said:


> can you detect what is the PCB of my kits?


Those are the single rank 8GB right? They are on an A2 PCB, just like the Crucial Ballistix Sport "AES" sticks. I have a pair of Sport LT and new Ballistix Black. Thaiphoon reads A1 for me, but they are A2. My older 2666 Rev D Ballistix Sport AT sticks were on A1, although from pics it looked like even their 2666 speed went to A2 in 2019 at some point.

Also, thaiphoon will probably read D9VPP, but I think they are more likely to be C9BJZ.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Yuke said:


> Is there any hope of getting rid of geardown mode for 24/7 usage when i am already sitting on:
> 
> 1.45V-1.46V DRAM
> 1.025V VDDG
> 1.050V VDDP
> 1.119V VSOC
> 
> to get my Dual Rank 3800Mhz/Cl16 stable?
> 
> Temps are around 51°C full load.


Separate question -- why is VDDP higher than VDDG?

I thought that was a mistake, but then I looked here at this spreadsheet of others' results. I downloaded it locally (to avoid writing changes publicly), sorted by VDDP largest-to-smallest, then filtered by 3800MT/s (and hid rows with Auto or blanks).

A lot of people ended up cranking VDDP higher. Was it required to post successfully?

The list is in the spoiler so you guys don't have to do the filtering.
I added a column to show the difference of VDDG and VDDP.
And I color coded yellows and red text where the difference was not at least 50mV apart.


Spoiler



See columns N, P, Q: https://i.imgur.com/95v2Dg2.png


----------



## Sphex_

LuckyBahstard said:


> Separate question -- why is VDDP higher than VDDG?
> 
> I thought that was a mistake, but then I looked here at this spreadsheet of others' results. I downloaded it locally (to avoid writing changes publicly), sorted by VDDP largest-to-smallest, then filtered by 3800MT/s (and hid rows with Auto or blanks).
> 
> A lot of people ended up cranking VDDP higher. Was it required to post successfully?
> 
> The list is in the spoiler so you guys don't have to do the filtering.
> I added a column to show the difference of VDDG and VDDP.
> And I color coded yellows and red text where the difference was not at least 50mV apart.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> See columns N, P, Q: https://i.imgur.com/95v2Dg2.png



I can't speak directly for him but I actually had to raise VDDP to 1000mV to prevent errors when overclocking my 3466 CL16 kit to 3733. I left VDDG at 950mV and everything was gravy.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Hey guys. I got error 11 but only after reaching cycle 13. Have you dealt with this?

@Veii said test 11 can occur if CAD_BUS not optimal (_I'm at 40/20/24/24_) or tRFC too low (_I was 336/250/154, a perfect multiple of tRC, tRTP, and tWR_), and only after some time.

More details:


Spoiler



Here are my new test settings, just about to start. I previously failed with test 11 after I had lowered tRRD_L to 4 (from 6), SCLs to 3 (from 4), and tRTP to 6 (from 8). I just went for it,  after becoming stable before that.

My new test has tRFC loosened to 378 (from 336), which makes it a multiple of tRC and tRTP but no longer tWR. And also, slightly nudging DRAM voltage 1.5V (from 1.48) and SOC voltage 1.125V (from 1.1V) since I have droop and maybe this will help? I'm not doing anything with CAD_BUS though...












Thoughts? Sorry for being excessively chatty today


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> @Veii (and you other experts!): Questions, then comments afterwards:
> 
> 1) Do I continue to ignore RTT_NOM and _WR, leaving disabled? If I need to introduce values, then I would like help finding the information I need to set those properly.
> 
> 2) If I set SCLs=3, that's an odd number -- does that complicate other timings? Asking this another way, do I have to worry about loosening something else if I try 3, to keep everything in proper balance? If so, what?​
> Comments (ignore this if you want):
> I knew SCLs=4 would limit me but I thought that was the lever to pull (to loosen) rather than other timings in your preset. I tried holding the line on the presets and on low voltages. And I wanted to be somewhat systematic ("scientific approach" and all). ​
> I asked above, but I don't know why I would introduce RTT_NOM values if it defaults to off with JEDEC settings.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I even started digging out DRAM vendor's hardware specs to try and look at how they implemented RTT in hardware designs.  They specify their recommended ranges and equations for timings as well.
> 
> I used to fully understand resistors, transistors, capacitors... I could design electrical circuits. But I focused on software instead of hardware so that skill area quickly died hahaha.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, we both know I have a budget mobo. So I'm playing with awesome RAM on lesser VRMs and components. But I didn't expect the voltage struggle to hit me at 3466. Thank you for the information and feedback, and for the cheering.  I worry about how tight I can go if I'm already pushing near 1.5V Dram and have 1.1V SOC. I don't intend to raise that to 1.15V again until I go back to 3733 tests.
> 
> I guess I'll try to tighten and hope I remain stable. A couple timings couple be easy jumps but I'll start with SCLs=3, then 2.
> 
> It's not sweater weather...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly the heat (weather) this week isn't helping me. Yesterday my mobo was around 44C. That means the sticks are too, in spite of direct air over them. Today... high 30s. Last weekend, my mobo reported only 34C!


SCL is yet unclear on my side, pattern wise 
It does interfere with tWRRD - which is just an added delay
But i only have speculation data, i don't have clear always functional patterns
because tWRRD is not always *4, i've seen value*SCL also work out ~ but it remains unclear so far
Could have a connection to tRRD & and tWTR too, well unclear
Sure is only that it's PCB dependent and IC + frequency, we have fixed scales but we don't have exact reasoning why it scales

Borrowing the picture from Reous ~ Hardwareluxx








Source https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/threads/ryzen-ram-oc-thread-mögliche-limitierungen.1216557/
Section: RAM OC 
Use a website translator or follow 1usmus's research on techpowerup 
Zen+ and Zen 2 behave the same with RTT 
Every frequency bump can need a new RTT value 
Adding, doesn't mean it's worse, as it can help positive 
But it's up to brand different
4x8gb dimms can use dual rank values too


TheGlow said:


> I initially just tried changing the trp to 20 and it wouldnt post. I upped ram v to 1.4, I changed the clkdrvstr, procodt, no luck. Then just did the whole set out of curiosity and it posts. 20 cycles of 1usmus v3, so I'll do more testing later, but I like this.
> I take it not much more in lowering timings, so what next? check of clkdrvstr would still work at 24? procODT back to 53.3? Then lower voltages a step at a time? Or is it best to just save as is and leave it alone?
> And what oc'ing the cpu itself? Any tips on that? I tried just setting multiplier to 4.4 and ran cinebench. PC froze up but then finished the test, but open hardware monitor said 105c so Im not sure if thats accurate, but thats damn hot and I'd rather not keep playing around with that. Voltage was on auto so I've seen set to 1.25 since I hear its better to manually set something since auto can go wild.


Well 
Idk, i can only repeat myself over and over
Timings go together, never only change 1 thing 
Tho only tRP should've worked - well maybe memory training was a mess still soo it needed two tries to predict tRDWR correct
Anyways, glad it worked  

ClkDrvStr doesn't have to be low, it will help keeping the whole CAD_BUS range as low as possible, but what helps more is keeping procODT as low as possible
then it will allow you also to lower the remain voltages and stay stable

Unsure what cooler you have, but 4.4 allcore is quite a bit under a low voltage
Would only touch the cpu after memory is done, and then again retest memory after cpuOC is done
They go together


----------



## mongoled

So the Vipers can do 14-14-14-14-28-42-252-16 @ 1.5v (1.520v in HWInfo64) where as the GSkill TridentZ F4-3600C15D-16GTZ could not.

Image below is for reference


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> So the Vipers can do 14-14-14-14-28-42-252-16 @ 1.5v (1.520v in HWInfo64) where as the GSkill TridentZ F4-3600C15D-16GTZ could not.
> 
> Image below is for reference


Drop SCL at least down to 3, if not even 2 at this voltage
tRDWR can go -1 but use tWRRD of 3 or 4
and use 1-5-5-1-7-7 SD DD for 2 dimms only 
GDM off works for you with 24 ohm ClkDrvStrengh , good daisy chain ^^'
4 of them, will be "Fun" 
Still good batch :thumb:
Putting 30-20-24-24 CAD_BUS might even allow them to run at 1.48v VDIMM 
Putting 40 ClkDrvStrengh, might allow you to lower procODT down to 32.2ohm


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Drop SCL at least down to 3, if not even 2 at this voltage
> tRDWR can go -1 but use tWRRD of 3 or 4
> and use 1-5-5-1-7-7 SD DD for 2 dimms only
> GDM off works for you with 24 ohm ClkDrvStrengh , good daisy chain ^^'
> 4 of them, will be "Fun"
> Still good batch :thumb:
> Putting 30-20-24-24 CAD_BUS might even allow them to run at 1.48v VDIMM
> Putting 40 ClkDrvStrengh, might allow you to lower procODT down to 32.2ohm


Thanks for the advice, though I will play with 3800/1900 first as this is the holy grail

 

Just need to fall upon the combination that will bring stability, in my mind it is not possible to be rock stable at 3760/1880 but to have no stability at 3800/1900 !


----------



## Valka814

Veii said:


> They tried to fix and speed it up to 3-4 cycles, it's good it to be at least on 10 cycles
> 10 or A as hex - whatever it accepts
> Increasing ClkDrvStrengh, pushes you to lower procODT
> They go together , either one or the other
> But 120 Cke was a lot  too much will cause other type of random issues


Thank you! I'm gona give it a shot.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> So the Vipers can do 14-14-14-14-28-42-252-16 @ 1.5v (1.520v in HWInfo64) where as the GSkill TridentZ F4-3600C15D-16GTZ could not.
> 
> Image below is for reference
> 
> /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


Seriously. It went that smoothly for you? Lol. What mobo and cpu do you have again? (If it's in your siggy, apologies, can't see it on my mobile, closed my laptop lid).

I had an error yesterday on this config (but procODT pushing high at 60). Happened in video encoding/rendering. Even though I passed TM5. So annoying hahaha.

Thanks for this data point btw..this is awesome.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Seriously. It went that smoothly for you? Lol. What mobo and cpu do you have again? (If it's in your siggy, apologies, can't see it on my mobile, closed my laptop lid).
> 
> I had an error yesterday on this config (but procODT pushing high at 60). Happened in video encoding/rendering. Even though I passed TM5. So annoying hahaha.
> 
> Thanks for this data point btw..this is awesome.


MSI X370 XPOWER Gaming Titanium, was one of the "premium" motherboards at the time but its reputation was knocked because of the "cost cutting" measures MSI implemented on this mobo (according to various review/analysis).

But it seem to be holding up well for a daisy chain motherboard according to Veii, so there is hope yet


----------



## rdr09

All you using this member's app should at least give a rep.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1740690-zentimings.html


----------



## Yuke

LuckyBahstard said:


> Separate question -- why is VDDP higher than VDDG?
> 
> I thought that was a mistake, but then I looked here at this spreadsheet of others' results. I downloaded it locally (to avoid writing changes publicly), sorted by VDDP largest-to-smallest, then filtered by 3800MT/s (and hid rows with Auto or blanks).
> 
> A lot of people ended up cranking VDDP higher. Was it required to post successfully?
> 
> The list is in the spoiler so you guys don't have to do the filtering.
> I added a column to show the difference of VDDG and VDDP.
> And I color coded yellows and red text where the difference was not at least 50mV apart.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> See columns N, P, Q: https://i.imgur.com/95v2Dg2.png


I had to do it to prevent USB related hickups if i recall correctly


----------



## TheGlow

So how does this memory training work? Sometimes I make a tweak and it wont post, but behavior is different. Sometimes it starts up, and I see it power down and try again. It may do this 3-4 times and then typically takes me back to Bios saying there was an error. Yesterday with the tweaking it did a bunch of resets like this and at 1 point partially posted, got the logo, and then windows didnt load.
Other times it powers up but doesnt post nor shutdown, it just stays on. Ive left it like that 5+ mins and nothing. These need to be manually shut down. Power on is usually the same needing me to clear cmos via jumper.
So there are settings that may not take initially and need the pc to reboot a few times? I would guess if settings were on Auto it might be trying other things, but thats where I get confused if I start filling everything in manually, whats left for auto?



Veii said:


> Well
> Idk, i can only repeat myself over and over
> Timings go together, never only change 1 thing
> Tho only tRP should've worked - well maybe memory training was a mess still soo it needed two tries to predict tRDWR correct
> Anyways, glad it worked
> 
> ClkDrvStr doesn't have to be low, it will help keeping the whole CAD_BUS range as low as possible, but what helps more is keeping procODT as low as possible
> then it will allow you also to lower the remain voltages and stay stable


I hear you, about timings. Until I know how they impact each other, its very difficult going in blind. other guides would mention lower by 1, test. and that didnt work and is misleading. Then you say yea pop em all in, and it worked. I would much rather try many at once, but had it not posted, it would be hard to narrow down which was the culprit leading one to think one at a time would make sense..
Also I have these other settings in DRAM that I havent seen mentioned, 
MemAddrCmdSetup
MemCsOdtSetup
MemCkeSetup which are next to but seperate from the MemCadBus ClkDrvStren,AddrCmdDrvStren, CsOdtDrvStren and CkeDrvStrn. 
And last is Mem Over Clock Fail Count. Might this be like enforce PMU Pattern Bits you mentioned?


----------



## dynarush333

When running 4 single rank dimms is it better to use Bankgroup swap or BGS Alt? Is there any more settings that improves things with 4 dimms? 

Thanks


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> Borrowing the picture from Reous ~ Hardwareluxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/threads/ryzen-ram-oc-thread-mögliche-limitierungen.1216557/
> Section: RAM OC


I've found different Memory IC's like these different for optimal performance, motherboards play a role on what they like as well.

X570 Aorus Xtreme:
Micron Rev.E 4x8GB [RZQ/6][RZQ/3][RZQ/1] was best (4266Mhz)
Micron Rev.J 2x8GB [RZQ/7][RZQ/3][RZQ/1] was best (4800Mhz)
Hynix DJR 2x8GB [RZQ/7][RZQ/3][disabled] was best* 
*though I should experiment more as I did not get stable results @ 4666-4733Mhz, but reduced error rates


----------



## yrelbirb

how to proceed_?

procODT 53.3
24-24-24-24
gdm off 2t
nom rzq/7
park off
wr rzq/5

as i said, sadly, i cant set vddp voltage 

should i give up on 3466 as well since i cant get a stable vddp?


----------



## NewEnglandNole

*tRFC2 and tRFC4*

How does one calculate the value to use for tRFC2 and tRFC4? I currently have tRFC set to the suggested value (486), but the other two are set to auto. I know there is a calculator tool in the app, but I'm not sure what value to put in for the tRFC ns.


----------



## Awsan

Hey everyone and @Veii

I am going to change my ram but due to my situation this will be a one time thing 

When I read what people are saying I see that the Viper steels are the best clockers but when I check the AMD spreadsheet usually the best clockers are the F4-3600C15D-16GTZ.

If I were to get 4x8Gb of either which one would you recommend? (I know we already discussed this and the A2/A0 will be a big gamble) but in this case will getting these B-die Neos be a better option? and how will these time in your opinion? https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232860


Or do you recommend any other good B-dies that are 2x16gb?

Thanks


----------



## ManniX-ITA

NewEnglandNole said:


> How does one calculate the value to use for tRFC2 and tRFC4? I currently have tRFC set to the suggested value (486), but the other two are set to auto. I know there is a calculator tool in the app, but I'm not sure what value to put in for the tRFC ns.


There's a Google spreadsheet, I think this is the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/

In pre-release sheet you can input your tRFC on the right either in ns or tCK and get the correct tRFC2/4 values.


----------



## Farih

NewEnglandNole said:


> How does one calculate the value to use for tRFC2 and tRFC4? I currently have tRFC set to the suggested value (486), but the other two are set to auto. I know there is a calculator tool in the app, but I'm not sure what value to put in for the tRFC ns.


tRFC 2 = tRFC / 1.346
tRFC 4 = tRFC 2 / 1.625

Thats how i done mine, seems to work ok.

Atm at tRFC 370, tRFC2 274, tRFC4 168


----------



## Miiksu

ManniX-ITA said:


> There's a Google spreadsheet, I think this is the link:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/
> 
> In pre-release sheet you can input your tRFC on the right either in ns or tCK and get the correct tRFC2/4 values.


When I set those correct values I lost performance. The best is so far on my system with four single rank b-die sticks is tCK * 4 = tRFC2 and tCK * 5 = tRFC4

or tCK *6 = tRFC2 and tCK * 5 = tRFC4 (This got R/W/C 0.3GB/s lower scores at Aida64)

PS. I havent tested stability yet.


----------



## Nighthog

Miiksu said:


> When I set those correct values I lost performance. The best is so far on my system with four single rank b-die sticks is tCK * 4 = tRFC2 and tCK * 5 = tRFC4
> 
> or tCK *6 = tRFC2 and tCK * 5 = tRFC4 (This got R/W/C 0.3GB/s lower scores at Aida64)
> 
> PS. I havent tested stability yet.


What do you mean by tCK? Iv'e not seen that value normally and isn't something you set in BIOS for AMD? Do you read it from elsewhere?


----------



## Dollar

rdr09 said:


> All you using this member's app should at least give a rep.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1740690-zentimings.html


REP given. On that note:

"I spent time putting a benchmark mode and a working timing readout in my calculator but you share your aida scores and use zentimings instead. Am I a joke to you?" 

-1usmus, probably


----------



## mongoled

Awsan said:


> Hey everyone and @Veii
> 
> I am going to change my ram but due to my situation this will be a one time thing
> 
> When I read what people are saying I see that the Viper steels are the best clockers but when I check the AMD spreadsheet usually the best clockers are the F4-3600C15D-16GTZ.
> 
> If I were to get 4x8Gb of either which one would you recommend? (I know we already discussed this and the A2/A0 will be a big gamble) but in this case will getting these B-die Neos be a better option? and how will these time in your opinion? https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232860
> 
> 
> Or do you recommend any other good B-dies that are 2x16gb?
> 
> Thanks


I am sure it is motherboard dependant and of course dimm dependant, but in my case I have have used two sets of F4-3600C15D-16GTZ, both sets clocked equally as well.

Though the first kit of Vipers has outperformed the GSkills.

Keep in mind the info I am supplying is based on only having run 2 x 8GB


----------



## mongoled

Dollar said:


> REP given. On that note:
> 
> "I spent time putting a benchmark mode and a working timing readout in my calculator but you share your aida scores and use zentimings instead. Am I a joke to you?"
> 
> -1usmus, probably


That's not fair, really.

Is it meant to be a joke/sarcasm ?

If so it did not come across that way ...


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> MSI X370 XPOWER Gaming Titanium, was one of the "premium" motherboards at the time but its reputation was knocked because of the "cost cutting" measures MSI implemented on this mobo (according to various review/analysis).
> 
> But it seem to be holding up well for a daisy chain motherboard according to Veii, so there is hope yet


Ahh, Daisy Chain. I've looked and can't find data on my mobo (asus tuf b450m-pro gaming), but I'm assuming it's t-topology. I can't quite stretch out as well as you daisy chainers.  But I have good data to report in a minute...



Yuke said:


> I had to do it to prevent USB related hickups if i recall correctly


Ok that's interesting. Good to note, thanks.


----------



## Dollar

mongoled said:


> That's not fair, really.
> 
> Is it meant to be a joke/sarcasm ?
> 
> If so it did not come across that way ...



Just a joke of course, no malice towards either dev or anyone else. I just think most people don't realize dram calc has all of these other things built into a single program.


----------



## mongoled

Dollar said:


> Just a joke of course, no malice towards either dev or anyone else. I just think most people don't realize dram calc has all of these other things built into a single program.


Ok dude


----------



## LuckyBahstard

*Good results with tightened 3466 and GDM Disabled!*



Veii said:


> SCL is yet unclear on my side, pattern wise
> It does interfere with tWRRD - which is just an added delay
> But i only have speculation data, i don't have clear always functional patterns
> because tWRRD is not always *4, i've seen value*SCL also work out ~ but it remains unclear so far
> Could have a connection to tRRD & and tWTR too, well unclear


First,
Thanks for the table and info, @Veii . I don't understand your explanations of tWRRD or SCL and *4, or *1, etc. I'll revisit that with you, I'll go back and quote your old post(s) and mention what confused me.

Second,
I tightened my GDM Disabled settings on 3466! TM5 20 cycles stable. So I have a solid baseline for ramping it back up to 3733 (and hopefully 3800). _GDM Enabled makes things so much easier...sigh_

TL;DR Got voltages right, tightened timings including SCLs to 3, tRTP to 6. Could go more on tRFC, maybe try SCLs at 2.. but later.

Sandra: Max latency down to *65.30ns*, Average down to *45.55ns* (_was 72.50 and 49.80 when I started loosely with GDM off at 3466_)
AIDA64: Read @ 54.512 MB/s, Write @ 27729 MB/s, Latency 68.9ns (_was 52404 read_)
Thanks again @Veii . :cheers:

Full timings in the spoiler:



Spoiler


----------



## NewEnglandNole

ManniX-ITA said:


> There's a Google spreadsheet, I think this is the link:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/
> 
> In pre-release sheet you can input your tRFC on the right either in ns or tCK and get the correct tRFC2/4 values.





Farih said:


> tRFC 2 = tRFC / 1.346
> tRFC 4 = tRFC 2 / 1.625
> 
> Thats how i done mine, seems to work ok.
> 
> Atm at tRFC 370, tRFC2 274, tRFC4 168


Interesting. According to the sheet, with a tRFC of 486 I should use 361 for tRFC2 and 222 for tRFC4. On auto settings, the BIOS sets them to 468 for tRFC2 and 288 for tRFC4. That's a pretty wide gap for tRFC2. Also, running with the calculated values seem to cause Division 2 to crash.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

NewEnglandNole said:


> Interesting. According to the sheet, with a tRFC of 486 I should use 361 for tRFC2 and 222 for tRFC4. On auto settings, the BIOS sets them to 468 for tRFC2 and 288 for tRFC4. That's a pretty wide gap for tRFC2. Also, running with the calculated values seem to cause Division 2 to crash.


Unlikely the crash is from the tRFC2/4 setting... are you really sure?
Maybe it's not a Ryzen 3000? Worst I got is great swings in latency.

Anyway 486 to 468 can't be correct; where do you see how it is set? 
If it's in the BIOS is what you would get from the 2133 or XMP, not your current settings.

Cannot guarantee the calculator is correct but seems widely accepted.
Samsung DDR4 specs for 8Gb density is tRFC/2/4 @ 360/260/160.
As you can see that 468 is too close to 1 x tRFC to be right in any case.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> First,
> Thanks for the table and info, @Veii . I don't understand your explanations of tWRRD or SCL and *4, or *1, etc. I'll revisit that with you, I'll go back and quote your old post(s) and mention what confused me.
> 
> Second,
> I tightened my GDM Disabled settings on 3466! TM5 20 cycles stable. So I have a solid baseline for ramping it back up to 3733 (and hopefully 3800). _GDM Enabled makes things so much easier...sigh_
> 
> TL;DR Got voltages right, tightened timings including SCLs to 3, tRTP to 6. Could go more on tRFC, maybe try SCLs at 2.. but later.
> 
> Sandra: Max latency down to *65.30ns*, Average down to *45.55ns* (_was 72.50 and 49.80 when I started loosely with GDM off at 3466_)
> AIDA64: Read @ 54.512 MB/s, Write @ 27729 MB/s, Latency 68.9ns (_was 52404 read_)
> Thanks again @Veii . :cheers:
> 
> Full timings in the spoiler:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Well done dude, youve been fighting this battle for a number of days

 

Any particular reason why you have tRRDS/L set to the same value ?


----------



## rdr09

Dollar said:


> Just a joke of course, no malice towards either dev or anyone else. I just think most people don't realize dram calc has all of these other things built into a single program.


Just virtually met today the author of the app wildly used around here, so i think you are right to rep. Never saw her/him pitch about it here and am sure 1usmus does not mind. Thank you.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Well done dude, youve been fighting this battle for a number of days


:cheers: Noticing the amount of droop and average voltage being lower than I'd like for SOC and dram, while VDDG and VDDP held pretty close, it seemed off. Plus, I probably did just need that little boost of juice. I also loosened tRFC slightly and got tRTP down to 6 as half-tWR, that was possibly helpful too.

Sadly, I tried to hold my 3466 settings for 3533, with some subtimings loosened but tRCD held tight... no worky. I may have to loosen to 14-15-15-15-30 (or *gulp* 14-16-..) and then tighten it back. 



mongoled said:


> Any particular reason why you have tRRDS/L set to the same value ?


Yes. I saw Veii recommend it. I saw multiple others doing it. (nighthog, wolf, rares, reous, can't remember who). I wondered, but then thought well, maybe this B-die can handle just as short of delay between row activations on the same bank group as it can between different bank groups. I guess so. You'd naturally assume that on the same bank group it has to be slower.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

TheGlow said:


> So how does this memory training work? Sometimes I make a tweak and it wont post, but behavior is different. Sometimes it starts up, and I see it power down and try again.


Your boot issues are probably voltage or resistance issues. And you're dancing on the edge if it's inconsistent. It's just unstable. If training failed or had bugs, then you could also have issues here.



TheGlow said:


> I get confused if I start filling everything in manually, whats left for auto?


You may know this but I'll (re)share for others. It's not just the timings. But even if you fill everything in, there are timings corrections made. Training is particularly focused on a few important areas:

getting the cheap Resistors on the DRAM aligned to a common 240ohms
getting the delays figured out on each of the data lines
aligning clocks

The parts and trace lengths are inconsistent. A 240 ohm precision resistor is used to train the cheaper resistors used on the data lines. They aren't precision, but can be tuned at startup from the reference precision resistor. Then the lengths of the data lines are different because the DRAM chips are located at different distances on the PCB. This skews the timings so the controller has to learn the differences on each line so it can properly manage the skew and ensure data is read/written simulataneously across all data lines.

These physical fundamentals allow the RAM do operate consistently according to our timings settings (or auto-defined, or corrected settings). It learns to physically achieve the timings we ask, and sticks the timings into its registers for real-time operation.



TheGlow said:


> Other times it powers up but doesnt post nor shutdown, it just stays on...needing me to clear cmos via jumper.


Can't do much about that. When you're stuck, you clear CMOS.  I did it 3 times yesterday.
Us -> :heyyou: <- PC


----------



## NewEnglandNole

ManniX-ITA said:


> Unlikely the crash is from the tRFC2/4 setting... are you really sure?
> Maybe it's not a Ryzen 3000? Worst I got is great swings in latency.
> 
> Anyway 486 to 468 can't be correct; where do you see how it is set?
> If it's in the BIOS is what you would get from the 2133 or XMP, not your current settings.
> 
> Cannot guarantee the calculator is correct but seems widely accepted.
> Samsung DDR4 specs for 8Gb density is tRFC/2/4 @ 360/260/160.
> As you can see that 468 is too close to 1 x tRFC to be right in any case.


It is definitely a Ryzen 3600X on an ASUS TUF X570 motherboard. I am using Ryzen Master to see the values for tRFC2/4. I'm not aware of any other tool that shows these values. I set the tRFC2/4 values back to Auto and rebooted. The BIOS reads 486/192/132 and Ryzen Master is still reporting 486/468/288. So it looks like Ryzen Master is just reporting the D.O.C.P. (aka X.M.P) values for tRFC2/4 when set to Auto. Not sure why the BIOS is deciding to use 192/132.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

NewEnglandNole said:


> It is definitely a Ryzen 3600X on an ASUS TUF X570 motherboard. I am using Ryzen Master to see the values for tRFC2/4. I'm not aware of any other tool that shows these values. I set the tRFC2/4 values back to Auto and rebooted. The BIOS reads 486/192/132 and Ryzen Master is still reporting 486/468/288. So it looks like Ryzen Master is just reporting the D.O.C.P. (aka X.M.P) values for tRFC2/4 when set to Auto. Not sure why the BIOS is deciding to use 192/132.


Not sure why happens, sorry 
In Ryzen Master I see the values configured manually with the x570 AORUS Master.


----------



## NewEnglandNole

ManniX-ITA said:


> Not sure why happens, sorry
> In Ryzen Master I see the values configured manually with the x570 AORUS Master.


Yes, I can confirm that if you set manual values, Ryzen Master reports the correct numbers.


----------



## Synoxia

I am on beta 3101 bios and i can't run my previous 3800 config stable anymore. @Veii did any values change with a 1.0.0.6?


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Ok guys. I'm struggling at 3533. It feels silly when I know B-die can do 3533 @ 14-14-14-14-28-42 easily. I have a bunch of voltage here, carried from my 3466. GDM Disabled, still.

I tried loosening as far as 14-15-15-16-30-46. My SCLs loosened to 4. I keep getting Test 2 errors, or sometimes another one. Within the first cycle, else the second cycle. I tried raising procODT to 30, from 28.2. I once tried cad-bus 40/24/24/24 (instead of 40/20/24/24).

I'm now trying procODT=32, with flat 14s again, but SCLs at 4 still. Maybe this will work. I got past cycle 2 on TM5 now. Guess I'll see what happens.

Edit: Errored on Test 7 cycle 3. Then next try on cycle 1, test 2. Ugh, lol. 
*Any thoughts guys*? 

_Edit2: I'm trying procODT 34.3 right now, failed Test 2 cycle 3. Tried again, Test 2 cycle 1.
Then rtt_park rzq/5 -> rzq/4, and this failed twice on cycle 1._


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> Just a joke of course, no malice towards either dev or anyone else. I just think most people don't realize dram calc has all of these other things built into a single program.


Other programms are used or made when something is missing
tRFC mini was published just for ease of use on calculation, because "something was missing"
ZenTimings guess was published because at first timings readout on DRAM Calculator where not working well
And the readout of the values where not complete
TM5 remains still to be very useful for accurate debugging - internal memtest be it very good, doesn't show when or why it fails 
Same for karhu, great tool but not useful for this kind of thing 

When something misses, people just work to fix that current issue ~ nothing bad against or about DRAM calculator
It has several usecases already, but it's not easy to cover every league of need 


NewEnglandNole said:


> Interesting. According to the sheet, with a tRFC of 486 I should use 361 for tRFC2 and 222 for tRFC4. On auto settings, the BIOS sets them to 468 for tRFC2 and 288 for tRFC4. That's a pretty wide gap for tRFC2. Also, running with the calculated values seem to cause Division 2 to crash.
> 
> 
> NewEnglandNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is definitely a Ryzen 3600X on an ASUS TUF X570 motherboard. I am using Ryzen Master to see the values for tRFC2/4. I'm not aware of any other tool that shows these values. I set the tRFC2/4 values back to Auto and rebooted. The BIOS reads 486/192/132 and Ryzen Master is still reporting 486/468/288. So it looks like Ryzen Master is just reporting the D.O.C.P. (aka X.M.P) values for tRFC2/4 when set to Auto. Not sure why the BIOS is deciding to use 192/132.
Click to expand...

Your issue has to be a different one
tRFC mini exists exactly because a lot of things are unclear
tRFC2/4 is buggy calculated
DRAM Calculator accuracy is correct, but on it's core it has a rounding issue

I've worked exactly on that issue, the math used to calculate tRFC2 and 4 is wrong , the divider one
- first you will get rounding issues by continuing to use the virtual values
- 2nd the divider is not correct that is spread around
- 3rd, some issue since DDR4 existence ~ the MTs speed that is shown, is wrong plain wrong ~ everything is rounded 
sometimes rounded up, sometimes rounded down ~ and these issues stack
I've focused on making it "so far" as accurate as possible ~ although keep in mind MT/s is wrong and so the value you get out might be wrong too with +1/-1 deviation (which is crucial to my eyes)

The manual mode on the 2nd experimental doc is accurate, not 100% perfect as MT/s on it's own is fundamentally flawed
But it's as accurate as possible - rather trust that value 
Else take the exact ns value and put it into the DRAM calculator
DRAM calculator has a rounding issue sadly, but that's because math was done differently on my side
Faced the same issue as Yuri at the start ~ overall don't trust MT/s readout 


LuckyBahstard said:


> First,
> Thanks for the table and info, @Veii . I don't understand your explanations of tWRRD or SCL and *4, or *1, etc. I'll revisit that with you, I'll go back and quote your old post(s) and mention what confused me.


https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-328.html#post28385690


LuckyBahstard said:


> Second,
> I tightened my GDM Disabled settings on 3466! TM5 20 cycles stable. So I have a solid baseline for ramping it back up to 3733 (and hopefully 3800). _GDM Enabled makes things so much easier...sigh_
> 
> TL;DR Got voltages right, tightened timings including SCLs to 3, tRTP to 6. Could go more on tRFC, maybe try SCLs at 2.. but later.
> 
> Sandra: Max latency down to *65.30ns*, Average down to *45.55ns* (_was 72.50 and 49.80 when I started loosely with GDM off at 3466_)
> AIDA64: Read @ 54.512 MB/s, Write @ 27729 MB/s, Latency 68.9ns (_was 52404 read_)
> Thanks again @Veii . :cheers:
> 
> Full timings in the spoiler:
> 
> 
> Spoiler


On SiSandra the latency curve (detailed) is interesting, and the furthest CCX-> furthest CCX delay U1-U24 or similar
Bandwidth will vary once timing efficiency is higher = higher memory bandwidth results, but latency does help more 
What you really are interesting is only the latency curve compared to your old timings 
Freq might show as "worse" result, while in reality it's still better because the peak bandwidth is higher on avarage



Synoxia said:


> I am on beta 3101 bios and i can't run my previous 3800 config stable anymore. @Veii did any values change with a 1.0.0.6?


~investigating~ 
Looking at the new 00860F00 & F01 microcodes, which cover 4800H and 4x00G series
per ccx acclaimed changelog on the asus threads is a good marketing move - we had control over it on 1003ABBA SMU mod or 1004B official 
SMU Access since 1003ABBA

Will see what is new, i still wait for the variable VSOC and PBO VSOC throttle "mode" that randomly appeared on 1005 yet no one ever found it to actually work with PBO together
Same goes for the "new" PBO enhancing presets ~ no information mentioned anywhere
Only big change, but even that's rebranded marketing ~ is the fixed PCIe routing mechanism making UAD PCIe cards to run finally on AMD / which again was a 1005 change and not a 1006 
Sounds to me like 1006 was a rename of the small spreading 1005 or pre 1005 called 1004B patch B 
~investigating~ 

In short, sounds just like a version number name change with typical 1005 changes 
Maybe SMU has a new temp-limit ~ unclear yet / need to see what irusanovbg can find if he has the time to dive into it
For now my eyes are focused on tCK as mentioned couple of pages back 
using tRC was an accurate "failsafe" range to do ETA discharge prediction - but using tCK as indicator can be very useful 
Will look into it tonight

Overall tRFC 2 and 4 listed there are very accurate
use the tool 
If you do by hand calculation, be sure that MT/s is flawed and use MCLK as base for calculation 
To be more clear, use first word for calculation and get tRFC 2 and 4 every time from tRFC[ns] 
Skip every arbitrary value as possible to prevent rounding errors 
Digits if calculation is made correct will be with 1 decimal for tRFC2 and 4 or no decimals on tRFC,
~ if calculation is wrong it will have 11 decimals :ninja:

A good advice is to check tRCns = 4* tCAS first word in ns 
if ns values match up and =(tCASns / (1000 / MT/s)) spills out a whole value with a factor of 4 
Then calculation is also correct
24-28-32-36-40 and so on
not 29.99999999997 
* more information, check hopefully visible 3rd sheet with crosscheck experiments


Spoiler















Also good way to check self made tRFC is keeping it inside a factor of 16 value or factor of 8 as lowest
tRFC full cycle is value 32 
it goes down to value 2 as 1/16th of a cycle = it's never an odd value
even when ns don't show up as whole value 200,210,350,400.00ns ~ as long as it's an integer of 32, it's a whole cycle
ns will look messy with 11 decimals, only if the MT/s or MCLK source of calculation is wrong to begin with
Accurate results will never go beyond 3 decimals as ns

EDIT:
Forgot to mention, tRFC/2 is always more than half of tRFC1 , even when mode x2 looks be just half
Bioses still are dumb to this day


----------



## yrelbirb

nvm


----------



## fcchin

s


yrelbirb said:


> nvm




Hello yrelbirb, I managed to read GPU hot spread to ram cause crash, and I am in full agreement with you, hence I would like to suggest adding partitions inside the case to enforce air flow don't let GPU air mix with CPU air.

1) I used a office plastic filing sheet and cut to fit from the GPU to bottom of casing as chamber 1 and force air to go out front casing with suction fans.
2) remove all rear slots cover to allow cold air in to GPU.
3) bottom case grille covered off, don't let air come in or out.
results air flow in bottom case purely for GPU, rear in front out.

then on the CPU + ram + VRM side, 
A) fresh air come in from rear fan
B) blows hot air out top
C) blows hot air out front 
not mix to GPU.


----------



## phreeradikill

Has anyone had issues with MEMbench not working correctly? From what I can tell its acting like the license is expired on MEMTEST.
It just started acting weird last couple of days not sure if was from installing new insider build or some thing else?

UPDATE: WindowFX6 by Stardock was causing my issue. So if MEMbench starts acting funny and you are running WindowsFX6 thats
the problem...


----------



## yrelbirb

fcchin said:


> s
> 
> 
> 
> Hello yrelbirb, I managed to read GPU hot spread to ram cause crash, and I am in full agreement with you, hence I would like to suggest adding partitions inside the case to enforce air flow don't let GPU air mix with CPU air.
> 
> 1) I used a office plastic filing sheet and cut to fit from the GPU to bottom of casing as chamber 1 and force air to go out front casing with suction fans.
> 2) remove all rear slots cover to allow cold air in to GPU.
> 3) bottom case grille covered off, don't let air come in or out.
> results air flow in bottom case purely for GPU, rear in front out.
> 
> then on the CPU + ram + VRM side,
> A) fresh air come in from rear fan
> B) blows hot air out top
> C) blows hot air out front
> not mix to GPU.


oh sorry for the bother, i was planning to open a subject at the air cooler section and deleted my message in the intent of not cluttering the dram discussions 

but thanks for your suggestions, sadly, i couldn't imagine what you meant with plastic sheets and covering the bottom of the case. the case i have doesn't have a grille in its bottom btw

,,

for those who missed the context, to simply put, my rams are stable at stress tests but in gaming, due to the excessive gpu heat they get hotter and lose stability

i tried top exhaust again, but the air that coming out of the fan is not even hot. i dont get it.. is the air stuck especially in the area near the rams?,

temporarly solved the issue by relaxing tRFC back to 350 ns ... but still worried about rams temps and their lifetime :thumbsdow


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> I am on beta 3101 bios and i can't run my previous 3800 config stable anymore. @Veii did any values change with a 1.0.0.6?


Actually one change was there for sure
Uncore OC mode is enforced 
Can be now that "strange voltages" will cause even more issues and not being autocorrected anymore
Tho people reported on the CH thread instability with the beta 1006 bioses 



LuckyBahstard said:


> Ok guys. I'm struggling at 3533.
> 
> I keep getting Test 2 errors, or sometimes another one. Within the first cycle, else the second cycle. I tried raising procODT to 30, from 28.2. I once tried cad-bus 40/24/24/24 (instead of 40/20/24/24).
> 
> Edit: Errored on Test 7 cycle 3. Then next try on cycle 1, test 2. Ugh, lol.
> *Any thoughts guys*?
> 
> _Edit2: I'm trying procODT 34.3 right now, failed Test 2 cycle 3. Tried again, Test 2 cycle 1.
> Then rtt_park rzq/5 -> rzq/4, and this failed twice on cycle 1._


Error 7 are burst error 2mb tests, mostly too high voltage related or too high resistance, oor awkward tRFC ~ just an instability thing
Error 2 are primaries fault , simple transfer test 32mb in size

Big chunks, soo mostly something is just plain wrong
it's not timing out , it's choking and cutting the transfer mid-time
Rather being too short, but as 32mb is a big datasize - it's not 1-2 values too short
But just plain wrong 
Can be tRRD or tWTR mistake - tho keep in mind the "big data transfer" 
Else it would error on simple test 16mb , instead 32 if it was something little


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Ok guys. I'm struggling at 3533. It feels silly when I know B-die can do 3533 @ 14-14-14-14-28-42 easily. I have a bunch of voltage here, carried from my 3466. GDM Disabled, still.
> 
> I tried loosening as far as 14-15-15-16-30-46. My SCLs loosened to 4. I keep getting Test 2 errors, or sometimes another one. Within the first cycle, else the second cycle. I tried raising procODT to 30, from 28.2. I once tried cad-bus 40/24/24/24 (instead of 40/20/24/24).
> 
> I'm now trying procODT=32, with flat 14s again, but SCLs at 4 still. Maybe this will work. I got past cycle 2 on TM5 now. Guess I'll see what happens.
> 
> Edit: Errored on Test 7 cycle 3. Then next try on cycle 1, test 2. Ugh, lol.
> *Any thoughts guys*?
> 
> _Edit2: I'm trying procODT 34.3 right now, failed Test 2 cycle 3. Tried again, Test 2 cycle 1.
> Then rtt_park rzq/5 -> rzq/4, and this failed twice on cycle 1._


Touché!

Now we have the same fault but at different frequencies

 

Error 2 appears around the 2nd, 3rd cycle, along with error 11. It will than skip a few cycles and reappear ..



Veii said:


> snip..........Error 7 are burst error 2mb tests, mostly too high voltage related or too high resistance, oor awkward tRFC ~ just an instability thing
> 
> Error 2 are primaries fault , simple transfer test 32mb in size
> 
> Big chunks, soo mostly something is just plain wrong
> it's not timing out , it's choking and cutting the transfer mid-time
> Rather being too short, but as 32mb is a big datasize - it's not 1-2 values too short
> But just plain wrong
> Can be tRRD or tWTR mistake - tho keep in mind the "big data transfer"
> Else it would error on simple test 16mb , instead 32 if it was something little


Thanks again!

Willl test the possible error 2 correction paramaters in the next couple of hours


----------



## LuckyBahstard

*tRDWR and tWRRD guide*



Veii said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-328.html#post28385690


That was the one I planned to quote you on. 

edit: and here's another recent one where you added notes and exceptions:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-836.html#post28493892



> tRDWR needs a *2 multiplier and *can overshoot*, *or be equal* to tRCD WR
> tWRRD (if used) needs to focus either on **4* multiplier or work SCL to add latency. It should be as close to tRCD RD as possible


I understood this much before:
tRDWR*2 should ideally, perfectly = tRCD_RD.
Or it can be > tRCD_RD, but not < tRCD_RD.​
I had figured this out because elsewhere you had written _tRDWR=(tRCD_RD/2)._ 
During my tests on 3466, and CL14, with my tRCD_RD=14, I therefore set tRDWR=7.

I now understand all the rules you shared, and I wrote it out a little bit more detailed. But it is still long (or longer), so I hid it inside the spoiler below. This will probably look best on a PC, not as good on mobile.

The tRDWR and tWRRD Rules:


Spoiler



Rules:

Rule 1: Ideally *tRDWR = (tRCD_RD/2)* (optional rule)
Rule 2: If tRDWR*2 >= tRCD_RD, *then tWRRD=1*
else, Rule 3a: If tRDWR*2 < tRCD_RD, *then (tRCD_RD - (tRDWR*2)) = missing latency*
and, Rule 3b: *tWRRD's value needs to be at least that missing latency*, and there are more calculations to do, below.

Continuing Rule 3: to figure out tWRRD, we later use SCL to help:
...
First, Identify potential tWRRD value matches:

reminder: your potential tWRRD options are any values >= the missing latency
Calculate: Multiply 4 * potential tWRRD values (integers between 2 and 6), e.g. 4*2=8, 4*3=12, etc.
Calculate: Multiply 2 * potential tWRRD values (integers between 2 and 6), e.g. 2*2=4, 2*3=6, etc.
Rule 3c: *Viable results of these calculations must be equal to or less than tRCD_WR*: select the closest one or two matches when multiplying by 4 as viable tWRRD options, and the closest matches when multiplying by 2 are also viable tWRRD options

Beginning an Example: tRCD_RD=14, tRCD_WR=14, SCL = 3, you decide to try tRDWR=6.

Rule (3a) states (14-(6*2)) = 2 is your missing latency. Therefore, tWRRD >= 2.

Multiply potential tWRRD values *4 and *2:
4*2=8, 4*3=12, 4*4=16, 4*5=20, 4*6=24
2*2=4, 2*3=6, 2*4=8, 2*5=10, 2*6=12​The results closest to tRCD_WR(14) but not going over come from these tWRRD options: 3 (from 4*3=12), 5 (from 2*5=10), 6 (from 2*6=12) and 7 (from 2*7=14)

Our viable tWRRD options are 3, 5, 6, and 7! This answers Rule 3c.

Steps to determine the best tWRRD:

Rule 3d: Either tRDWR or tWRRD need to be notably bigger than the other (can't be equal); we focus on tRDWR being the bigger one, therefore tWRRD will be the smaller one and practically, *tWRRD must be at least 2 less than tRDWR*
Calculate: Multiply SCL * viable tWRRD options, and the result must be <= tRCD_WR

Finishing our example: _tWRRD has to be >= 2, from above, and we learned our tWRRD options are 3, 5, 6, and 7._
3*3=9 .. tWRRD=3 is an option
3*5=15 .. tWRRD=5 is too big per Rule 3c, and so are 6, and 7.​But if we chose to use SCL=2 instead, then:
2*3=6 .. this is an option still
2*5=10 .. this would be an option, but it breaks Rule 3d, and same for 6 and 7 again.​
So, with tRCD_RD and tRCD_WR=14, and we chose tRDWR=6
we have two answers to our example:

SCL=3 with tWRRD=3, or
SCL=2 with tWRRD=3

In actual implementation, testing might show neither work well.  Or maybe they do. Test to find out.

We normally would want to choose tRDWR=7, because it's exactly half of tRCD_RD after all. Then from Rule 2a, we set tWRRD=1. Or we could loosen a little and choose tRDWR=8 and tWRRD=1. But either of these obvious answers wouldn't have helped us explain Rule 3. 



Some Exceptions (or additional thoughts) to the Rules:


Spoiler



Now we understand the rules. Let's look at clarifications.

Minimum tRDWR = ((tRCD_RD/2) -1) for 2 dimms.
Or just (tRCD_RD/2) for 4 dimms, and requires extra tWRRD latency.
For Dual Rank kits, add +2 to tRDWR.​
Going "flat" without added tWRRD latency:

2 dimms Single Rank: tRDWR= (tRCD_RD/2)
4 dimms Single Rank: (tRCD_RD/2+1)
2 dimms Dual Rank: (tRCD_RD/2 +2)
4 dimms Dual Rank: (tRCD_RD/2 +3 or +4)

If (tCL != tCWL) then something has to be adjusted:

if tCWL is 1 greater than tCL (but why?), then subtract 1 from tRDWR
if tCWL is 1 less than tCL, then add 1 to tRDWR
There are additional thoughts about an even lower tCWL but you shouldn't deviate tCWL so much.

If you add too much tRDWR latency (e.g. set it too high) then you might mask other timing mistakes. For example, 8/1 can be more stable than 7/1. But it may be better to lower tRDWR by 1 while also adding slight latency to tWRRD, instead of continuing to increase tRDWR.



Thank you so much for your time and effort, @Veii! I hope I helped others too, if they were still a little confused. :thumb:


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Error 7 are burst error 2mb tests, mostly too high voltage related or too high resistance, oor awkward tRFC ~ just an instability thing
> Error 2 are primaries fault , simple transfer test 32mb in size
> 
> Big chunks, soo mostly something is just plain wrong
> it's not timing out , it's choking and cutting the transfer mid-time
> Rather being too short, but as 32mb is a big datasize - it's not 1-2 values too short
> But just plain wrong
> Can be tRRD or tWTR mistake - tho keep in mind the "big data transfer"
> Else it would error on simple test 16mb , instead 32 if it was something little


Thanks, @Veii.  So error 7 happened once. I saw another random one, but I'm basically getting Test 2. At 3466, by nudging voltage up, I fixed Test 2. Here at 3533, I don't think I need voltages to go higher though. I sure hope not. I'm at 1.5V dram, and 1.125V SOC, though they average a tick below what I'm setting, plus then droop also happens a little bit.

I'm pretty sure I'm doing fine with my tRFC values at this point.

This is talking out loud, not arguing against anyone... but I'm talking out my thoughts here...

I have my mind (or heart) set on the belief that flat 14's should be manageable at 3533. It worked for me with GDM Enabled -- which yes that has it's crutches. But, it also has worked for other B-Die owners, even with GDM off.

I do have a budget board that's probably T-topology so no 75/25 signal quality gain from daisy chain for a single pair of sticks. But I also tried loosening timings a little. I tested 14-15-15-16-30-46 which loosened a little and still got Test 2 errors. This is a bit worrisome to me. I'll try a 14-16-16-16-32-48 test. But if that fixes my errors, I'll be very sad that I had to loosen so much due to GDM off.​


mongoled said:


> Touché!
> Now we have the same fault but at different frequencies
> Error 2 appears around the 2nd, 3rd cycle, along with error 11. It will than skip a few cycles and reappear ..


Shucks. Oh well.  I hope you find the right thing to loosen or adjust quickly enough.


----------



## Krisztias

Hi!

I would like to stabilize the new 3800 B-Die preset from the calculator, but I get errors in TM5 very quickly. 3800C16 got stable for months.

Rig in my sig. Taiphoon say's the PCB is A1.
I need for what I have is:

VSOC 1.1
VDDG IOD 1.0
VDDG CCD 0.95
Vdimm1.465V
VDDP 0.9
CLDO_VDDP 0.9
off/off/ rzq5
GDM off, power down off, 1T
24/24/24/24
0/0/0
Proc ODT 34.3
and the other options from "Advanced" tab 1.7.0 are set (not all can be set on C8H)

I tried Vdimm up to 1.515, VDDG IOD up to 1.05, changed cad bus to suggested and proc ODT up to 36, but nothing helps momentarly, 10s in TM5 and 10 errors instantly.

If somebody can give me a tipp where to start debugging this...
Thank you in advance, have a nice day!


----------



## 2600ryzen

Try 1.15v SOC, I needed 1.125v SOC to get rid of errors at 3733mhz.


----------



## Veii

@LuckyBahstard you pretty much nailed the above +1 :thumb:
but i found a stupid mistake i made - guess i couldn't foresee it by going awkward WR to RD values

The rules are correct, the quote was stupid from me tho , maybe a typo
tRDWR - is delay after read to write ~ i use tRCD RD as main for that one, but it can be the biggest one
tWRRD is the opposite, it should be focused on tRCD WR ~ i am not sure why i reversed them before on the quote  
need to fix this
But the examples where correctly color coded where you got the rule down, just the text was nonsense :h34r-smi

How much SCL has a play with it, is yet not 100% clear, but it's a *4 value for tWRRD for sure
tRCD RD /2 = tRDWR remains correct on every IC so far
I see micron kits going further down which break this rule somewhy ~ but i havent seen enough examples of clean timings without wasted latency
The rest you pretty much nailed, guess you ignored the error and got it correct after all 

There are couple of more exceptions to it you can add:
- Dual Rank use +2 on tRDWR , same ruleset remains
- 4 dimms single rank's lowest point is not ((tRCD RD /2) -1) but flat tRCD RD/2 and so need to add tWRRD latency to it to cover for lower tWRRD

if you go flat without added tWRRD latency its:
2x SR (tRCD RD/2)
4x SR (tRCD RD/2 +1)
2x DR (tRCD RD +2)
4x DR (tRCD RD +4) ~ i think here +3 & used tWRRD can work out as lowest

Another exception you can add is 1:1 scaling with tCWL:
if tCLW ≠ tCL then something can drop or has to increase
tCWL<->tCL = tRCD RD/2 ruleset above
tCWL +1 = tRDWR -1 (unsure about beneficial performance bump)
tCWL -1= tRDWR +1
tCWL -2 = tRDWR +1 & tWRRD 
tCWL -3 = tRDWR +2 
lowering tCWL under tCL remains with worse performance, than tightening down tRDWR 

it remains still better to lower tRDWR with a bit tWRRD latency, than to go the tWRRD 1 path
7/1 , 8/1 remains always working, but tRDWR -1 under it is an exception can works even with tRC -2 down without causing issues
* if you add too much tRDWR latency, you can mask other timing mistakes and lower them beyond common sense, but i haven't noticed anything positive except lying to yourself that you can run low timings

Another last exception i noticed recently with the new tRCD WR,RD Avg delay method for tRP
you can use instead of tRCD WR for tWRRD - the average delay or just plain and simply match it to tRP which should be considering tRCD delay, to precharge in time



LuckyBahstard said:


> Thanks, @Veii.  So error 7 happened once. I saw another random one, but I'm basically getting Test 2. At 3466, by nudging voltage up, I fixed Test 2. Here at 3533, I don't think I need voltages to go higher though. I sure hope not. I'm at 1.5V dram, and 1.125V SOC, though they average a tick below what I'm setting, plus then droop also happens a little bit.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm doing fine with my tRFC values at this point.
> This is talking out loud, not arguing against anyone... but I'm talking out my thoughts here...
> 
> I have my mind (or heart) set on the belief that flat 14's should be manageable at 3533. It worked for me with GDM Enabled -- which yes that has it's crutches. But, it also has worked for other B-Die owners, even with GDM off.​




You can try to just bump tRCD RD to 15
14-14-15-14 won't break anything
if you want to be extra sure , use +1 tRP here and adapt the rest to cover for higher RD delay
if i can tonight, i'll post the 3600 CL14-14-15 results from another guy with not that optimal B-dies
Might help you, but t-topology i actually see better to OC on as you can work around 50/50% ~ while on Daisy Chain you can't deal with such a big difference between them​


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Shucks. Oh well.  I hope you find the right thing to loosen or adjust quickly enough.


If I keep investing time into this than for sure will get somewhere





Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> I would like to stabilize the new 3800 B-Die preset from the calculator, but I get errors in TM5 very quickly. 3800C16 got stable for months.
> 
> Rig in my sig.
> I need for what I have is:
> 
> VSOC 1.1
> VDDG IOD 1.0
> VDDG CCD 0.95
> Vdimm1.465V
> VDDP 0.9
> CLDO_VDDP 0.9
> off/off/ rzq5
> GDM off, power down off, 1T
> 24/24/24/24
> Proc ODT 34.3
> 
> I tried Vdimm up to 1.515, VDDG IOD up to 1.05, changed cad bus to suggested and proc ODT up to 36, but nothing helps momentarly, 10s in TM5 and 10 errors instantly.
> 
> If somebody can give me a tipp where to start debugging this...
> Thank you in advance, have a nice day!


Im looking into this right now,

My strategy is to set the tCL, tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP, tRAS, tRC, tRFC1/2/3 to the "correct values" and make sure GDM is off and its at 1T.

Everything else on AUTO, im using voltages that have been tested stable up to 3760/1880 @ vDIMM 1.5v, vSOC 1.050v, vDDP 0.955v, vDDG CCD 1.005v vDDG IOD 0.955v.

Once booted I take note on what all other values AUTO settings are set to.

Currently running TM5 im on the 4th cycle no errors so far …..

Once ive got a completed stable run I will start to adjust the other variable based on the wealth of knowledge provided by those who have invested so much time into getting us this far



Hope this helps, its just my way of doing things ….


----------



## mongoled

Do other peeps motherboard Bdie RAM combo do the following.

I have tCL set at 15 and tCWL is set on AUTO, the AUTO setting stays at 14 not 15.

In the past when I have attempted to set tCWL to 15, it will result in having to do a CMOS reset ….


----------



## Veii

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> I tried Vdimm up to 1.515, VDDG IOD up to 1.05, changed cad bus to suggested and proc ODT up to 36, but nothing helps momentarly, 10s in TM5 and 10 errors instantly.
> 
> If somebody can give me a tipp where to start debugging this...
> Thank you in advance, have a nice day!


10 errors on TM5 will be a lost cause to debug, but once you get down to 2-3 please share screenshots or check the MT.cfg in order to understand what test does what
Then it's easier to help
Hard to say what changed as a lot of things changed between 1.7 and 1.7.3 
Keep in mind, high vSOC needs high procODT 
Low procODT requires low voltages everywhere except VDIMM which is sepperated

Have you ever confirmed 3800MT/s on your old set was cpu stable or just Memory timings stable ?
TM5 should pass as it checks timings - but still you can have issues when the cpu can't handle FCLK 1900
Low voltages and low procODT are the goal to it not high voltages


----------



## Krisztias

Veii said:


> 10 errors on TM5 will be a lost cause to debug, but once you get down to 2-3 please share screenshots or check the MT.cfg in order to understand what test does what
> Then it's easier to help
> Hard to say what changed as a lot of things changed between 1.7 and 1.7.3
> Keep in mind, high vSOC needs high procODT
> Low procODT requires low voltages everywhere except VDIMM which is sepperated
> 
> Have you ever confirmed 3800MT/s on your old set was cpu stable or just Memory timings stable ?
> TM5 should pass as it checks timings - but still you can have issues when the cpu can't handle FCLK 1900
> Low voltages and low procODT are the goal to it not high voltages


Yes, it is stable, I running it from september. I can pass every TM5, HCI 1200+, RAM Test 30000%+, y-cruncher, Time Spy stress, Firestrike stress, Realbench and my games, without 1 single problem/whea/BSOD in the last 8-9 months.
That's why I'm so positive, that it can be done, but I'm not a pro, so I need help in wich way to go


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> Do other peeps motherboard Bdie RAM combo do the following.
> 
> I have tCL set at 15 and tCWL is set on AUTO, the AUTO setting stays at 14 not 15.
> 
> In the past when I have attempted to set tCWL to 15, it will result in having to do a CMOS reset ….


Odd numbers for tCWL just don't work. So you need to set even numbers. Auto rule is to use -1 to make it work when using 15, 17, 19 etc.
I've not tested +1 but I reckon it doesn't work either. 

Equal or a even number lower it must be.


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> @LuckyBahstard you pretty much nailed the above +1 :thumb:
> but i found a stupid mistake i made - guess i couldn't foresee it by going awkward WR to RD values
> 
> The rules are correct, the quote was stupid from me tho , maybe a typo
> tRDWR - is delay after read to write ~ i use tRCD RD as main for that one, but it can be the biggest one
> tWRRD is the opposite, it should be focused on tRCD WR ~ i am not sure why i reversed them before on the quote
> need to fix this
> But the examples where correctly color coded where you got the rule down, just the text was nonsense :h34r-smi
> 
> How much SCL has a play with it, is yet not 100% clear, but it's a *4 value for tWRRD for sure
> tRCD RD /2 = tRDWR remains correct on every IC so far
> I see micron kits going further down which break this rule somewhy ~ but i havent seen enough examples of clean timings without wasted latency
> The rest you pretty much nailed, guess you ignored the error and got it correct after all
> 
> There are couple of more exceptions to it you can add:
> - Dual Rank use +2 on tRDWR , same ruleset remains
> - 4 dimms single rank's lowest point is not ((tRCD RD /2) -1) but flat tRCD RD/2 and so need to add tWRRD latency to it to cover for lower tWRRD
> 
> if you go flat without added tWRRD latency its:
> 2x SR (tRCD RD/2)
> 4x SR (tRCD RD/2 +1)
> 2x DR (tRCD RD +2)
> 4x DR (tRCD RD +4) ~ i think here +3 & used tWRRD can work out as lowest
> 
> Another exception you can add is 1:1 scaling with tCWL:
> if tCLW ≠ tCL then something can drop or has to increase
> tCWL<->tCL = tRCD RD/2 ruleset above
> tCWL +1 = tRDWR -1 (unsure about beneficial performance bump)
> tCWL -1= tRDWR +1
> tCWL -2 = tRDWR +1 & tWRRD
> tCWL -3 = tRDWR +2
> lowering tCWL under tCL remains with worse performance, than tightening down tRDWR
> 
> it remains still better to lower tRDWR with a bit tWRRD latency, than to go the tWRRD 1 path
> 7/1 , 8/1 remains always working, but tRDWR -1 under it is an exception can works even with tRC -2 down without causing issues
> * if you add too much tRDWR latency, you can mask other timing mistakes and lower them beyond common sense, but i haven't noticed anything positive except lying to yourself that you can run low timings
> 
> Another last exception i noticed recently with the new tRCD WR,RD Avg delay method for tRP
> you can use instead of tRCD WR for tWRRD - the average delay or just plain and simply match it to tRP which should be considering tRCD delay, to precharge in time
> 
> You can try to just bump tRCD RD to 15
> 14-14-15-14 won't break anything
> if you want to be extra sure , use +1 tRP here and adapt the rest to cover for higher RD delay
> if i can tonight, i'll post the 3600 CL14-14-15 results from another guy with not that optimal B-dies
> Might help you, but t-topology i actually see better to OC on as you can work around 50/50% ~ while on Daisy Chain you can't deal with such a big difference between them


I reckon I'm one of those who break the rules consistently. I read your stuff before but your "typo" made it unreadable. I caught you probably mismatched the intended values to calculate.
Well "I tried" to make use of it... but I ended using tRDWR = tRCDWR when doing it. It had worked before so I kept using it like that.

I usually never followed any "calculations" I just tested and tested everything that would work and not give errors. Why many "odd values" was often presented.

So for my example I use tRCDWR = 8, and tRCDRD 21... But I use tRDWR = 8, tWRRD = 1.
I should really be using tRDWR = 11? then which value for tWRRD should it be?


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> I reckon I'm one of those who break the rules consistently. I read your stuff before but your "typo" made it unreadable. I caught you probably mismatched the intended values to calculate.
> Well "I tried" to make use of it... but I ended using tRDWR = tRCDWR when doing it. It had worked before so I kept using it like that.
> 
> I usually never followed any "calculations" I just tested and tested everything that would work and not give errors. Why many "odd values" was often presented.
> 
> So for my example I use tRCDWR = 8, and tRCDRD 21... But I use tRDWR = 8, tWRRD = 1.
> I should really be using tRDWR = 11? then which value for tWRRD should it be?


You can only use it that low because you wasted latency between tRAS to tRC 
tRAS works because avg tRCD delay is 17 - technically tRP should be able to go that low too
(tCL+17=32, but minimum tRAS delay is 27 for you because tWR is low)

You also have less delay on SD DDs than what 1usmus recommends - i wonder really if lower is better here
So far SiSandra has shown a bandwidth decrease 
But yes tRC is very high for you 

EDIT:
There is no way for you to lower tFAW to 4* ?
maybe tRRDS 4 is just too low, how about 4* 5 tRRDS ?
or even 4*6 tRRDS 
to keep tFAW as forth activate timing without time breaks


----------



## Dollar

mongoled said:


> Do other peeps motherboard Bdie RAM combo do the following.
> 
> I have tCL set at 15 and tCWL is set on AUTO, the AUTO setting stays at 14 not 15.
> 
> In the past when I have attempted to set tCWL to 15, it will result in having to do a CMOS reset ….



Yes, I learned this the hard way too. If cas was 15 then tcwl at 15 wouldn't even post. 14 was 100% stable though just like Nighthog mentions and auto attempts to predict.


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> You can only use it that low because you wasted latency between tRAS to tRC
> tRAS works because avg tRCD delay is 17 - technically tRP should be able to go that low too
> (tCL+17=32, but minimum tRAS delay is 27 for you because tWR is low)
> 
> You also have less delay on SD DDs than what 1usmus recommends - i wonder really if lower is better here
> So far SiSandra has shown a bandwidth decrease
> But yes tRC is very high for you


Wasted delay 17? where you get the number from? Which calculation? 

Never had success on the DJR to go low on tRP. Just was worse than the micron. would refuse, too many errors. 
Same tRC, none of these kits have wanted to go lower on it. 56 refuses to boot, 58 gives errors right away in TestMem5, first cycle several [error 6]. Voltage wasn't helping.

The thing with SD & DD's, was just testing if it would work. 



Veii said:


> EDIT:
> There is no way for you to lower tFAW to 4* ?
> maybe tRRDS 4 is just too low, how about 4* 5 tRRDS ?
> or even 4*6 tRRDS
> to keep tFAW as forth activate timing without time breaks


I had tried tFAW below 32 at most times but it would error... I finally found a solution... CAD_BUS: 60-20-20-20.
Now I'm running tFAW 16 and tRRDS 4. (cycle ~15 no errors)
Seems Hynix DJR likes 60 clkDrvStr like the Rev.E does in GDM:disabled. I could even lower my DRAM voltage in the same try. The kit is much more stable now.


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> Wasted delay 17? where you get the number from? Which calculation?


actually it's 15, well 14.5 , avg delay between 21 and 8 
I'm sleep deprived, can't do basic math :mellowsmi


Nighthog said:


> Never had success on the DJR to go low on tRP. Just was worse than the micron. would refuse, too many errors.
> Same tRC, none of these kits have wanted to go lower on it. 56 refuses to boot, 58 gives errors right away in TestMem5, first cycle several [error 6]. Voltage wasn't helping.


Hmm error 6 is an initialization error
Could it be just too much stress to the memory controller or plain strange RTT values ? 
wasted delay here is 8, its stability wasted delay but still wasted

What happens if you try that:








with tRFC 480-357-219
and later your old 448-333-205
I think in order tRCD WR 7 to work, it needs tCL at least 14 - but we can still try



Nighthog said:


> I had tried tFAW below 32 at most times but it would error... I finally found a solution... CAD_BUS: 60-20-20-20.
> Now I'm running tFAW 16 and tRRDS 4. (cycle ~8 no errors)
> Seems Hynix DJR likes 60 clkDrvStr like the Rev.E does in GDM:disabled. I could even lower my DRAM voltage in the same try. The kit is much more stable now.


That's great to hear 
60-20-24-20 doesn't work ? 
Not that you get now cold boot issues
can you lower procODT -1 step on that high CAD_BUS 
Might help against cold boot issues later on


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> actually it's 15, well 14.5 , avg delay between 21 and 8
> I'm sleep deprived, can't do basic math :mellowsmi
> 
> Hmm error 6 is an initialization error
> Could it be just too much stress to the memory controller or plain strange RTT values ?
> wasted delay here is 8, its stability wasted delay but still wasted
> 
> What happens if you try that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with tRFC 480-357-219
> and later your old 448-333-205
> I think in order tRCD WR 7 to work, it needs tCL at least 14 - but we can still try
> 
> 
> That's great to hear
> 60-20-24-20 doesn't work ?
> Not that you get now cold boot issues
> can you lower procODT -1 step on that high CAD_BUS
> Might help against cold boot issues later on


Thanks for suggestions, more than I had asked for! Sadly tRCDWR 8 is lowest available, you can't choose 7... (too limited bios)

tCL 14... I think I need ~1.700V for that. 1.650V wasn't enough but would start to train... less than that instant fail. DJR need more voltage than Micron for low tCL. 

Maybe if I use 11-3 for tRDWR/tWWRD I can use the lower tRP/tRAS/tRC. I'll try now. *EDIT: No, would get stuck on post*

EDIT2: tCL14 .... Needs more than 1.750V @ 3866Mhz... will still error. Would not even get to be able to test without bluescreen before 1.750V. 
I think I will stay 15 tCL on DJR, can stay below 1.590V.


----------



## Dollar

Some interesting CAD_BUS interactions I found today while trying to get stable at the lowest procODT my c6H board allows of 30. 

3700x running 4x8GB samsung b-die (a0 pcb) at 1867/3734 for this test.

Testing with prime95 largeFFT
24-20-24-24 = rounding error at five minute mark. (this is the default auto setting)
40-20-24-24 = rounding error at one minute. 
40-20-20-24 = rounding error instantly.
24-24-24-24 = rounding error at ten second mark. 

At this point I was about to give up until...

24-20-20-24 = Stable. I stopped it after three hours and 42 minutes. Long enough to cycle through all of the large FFT sizes. No errors or WHEA and I verified the procODT and CAD_BUS settings were set properly by checking the readings in ryzen master because I thought I made a mistake or something. If you have a T-topology board and you're using four dimms then maybe give this one a test to see if it increases your stability


----------



## Gadfly

Dollar said:


> Some interesting CAD_BUS interactions I found today while trying to get stable at the lowest procODT my c6H board allows of 30. I was running 1867/3734 memory during this.
> 
> Testing with prime95 largeFFT
> 24-20-24-24 = rounding error at five minute mark. (this is the default auto setting)
> 40-20-24-24 = rounding error at one minute.
> 40-20-20-24 = rounding error instantly.
> 24-24-24-24 = rounding error at ten second mark.
> 
> At this point I was about to give up until...
> 
> 24-20-20-24 = Stable. I stopped it after three hours and 42 minutes. Long enough to cycle through all of the large FFT sizes. No errors or WHEA and I verified the procODT and CAD_BUS settings were set properly by checking the readings in ryzen master because I thought I made a mistake or something. If you have a T-topology board and you're using four dimms then maybe give this one a test to see if it increases your stability


What CPU / Memory? 

With my c6H and 4 dimms I had the best luck with 20-20-20-20 , but that was an 1800X


----------



## Gadfly

@Veii

Ok... made some progress. I backed trfc down a bit and performance went up. It lowered the core to core latency all the way down to 53ns


----------



## Veii

@Gadfly i am not sure if this won't be too low but first increase tRDWR to 9, tWRRD 1 
then try tRAS 26, tRC 36
with tRFC 252-187-115 

Later if that works try if tRDWR 8, tWRRD 3 would still post 

EDIT: i don't think it will work, as tBL is already 4
Unless tRDWR can cover , unlikely tho
We need tWR down to 8 or even 6 = bios mods


----------



## Dollar

Gadfly said:


> What CPU / Memory?


 3700x running 4x8GB samsung b-die (a0 pcb) at 1867/3734 for this test.


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> That's great to hear
> 60-20-24-20 doesn't work ?
> Not that you get now cold boot issues
> can you lower procODT -1 step on that high CAD_BUS
> Might help against cold boot issues later on


I've not had cold boot issues generally at all, at these speeds only well above 4000Mhz I've started to find such problems, but then I've most often more than not mitigated that after a little trial and error.

Hynix DJR would not boot 4733Mhz without 20-20-20-20 values. I might try my new 60-20-20-20 but I saw it didn't like 30 & 40 clkDrvStr at higher speeds. But as I learned those "were wrong" even @ 3800/3866Mhz. Needed 60 clkDrvStr for proper tFAW stability. 
I'm even now testing tFAW @ 8 for fun to see if there is any "improvement". Looks stable now. (6-cycles OK already)
60-20-24-20 I haven't tested yet, but 40-20-24-20, 30-20-24-20 have been and they where more issues to boot. But generally X-X-24-X gave a little extra stability when tested. 

Sadly the lower tRAS & tRC won't work. 30, 58 values was even throwing 20+ errors in a minute. tRC 54 doesn't boot.
EDIT: I'm going to try get this kit working @ 4733/4666Mhz again. Can't leave that alone when I've got 3866Mhz working so well.


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> I'm even now testing tFAW @ 8 for fun to see if there is any "improvement". Looks stable now. (6-cycles OK already)
> 
> Sadly the lower tRAS & tRC won't work. 30, 58 values was even throwing 20+ errors in a minute. tRC 54 doesn't boot.
> EDIT: I'm going to try get this kit working @ 4733/4666Mhz again. Can't leave that alone when I've got 3866Mhz working so well.


Grab yourself SiSoftware Sandra too  
Usually it shouldn't make a difference if it expires on 2 * or allows only 4* 
But it's good to test 

You can try to increase tWR , so increase tRAS and get tRC to a clean result (clean in the sense of tRP+RAS, no +, - values)
tRC will need to pass anyways before anything else can happen - but it's just a bit high ^^'


----------



## TheGlow

LuckyBahstard said:


> Your boot issues are probably voltage or resistance issues. And you're dancing on the edge if it's inconsistent. It's just unstable. If training failed or had bugs, then you could also have issues here.
> 
> 
> 
> You may know this but I'll (re)share for others. It's not just the timings. But even if you fill everything in, there are timings corrections made. Training is particularly focused on a few important areas:
> 
> getting the cheap Resistors on the DRAM aligned to a common 240ohms
> getting the delays figured out on each of the data lines
> aligning clocks
> 
> The parts and trace lengths are inconsistent. A 240 ohm precision resistor is used to train the cheaper resistors used on the data lines. They aren't precision, but can be tuned at startup from the reference precision resistor. Then the lengths of the data lines are different because the DRAM chips are located at different distances on the PCB. This skews the timings so the controller has to learn the differences on each line so it can properly manage the skew and ensure data is read/written simulataneously across all data lines.
> 
> These physical fundamentals allow the RAM do operate consistently according to our timings settings (or auto-defined, or corrected settings). It learns to physically achieve the timings we ask, and sticks the timings into its registers for real-time operation.
> 
> 
> Can't do much about that. When you're stuck, you clear CMOS.  I did it 3 times yesterday.
> Us -> :heyyou: <- PC


ok, thats exactly what I thought. I followed a suggestion and put my reset button on the cmos jumpers to save time.
as for pcb lengths, etc, I can relate. i used to do an xbox360 mod and now that I think about it, very similar to this. it could takes days to get it to work well. Something like the modchip sends a spam command to the cpu at boot and tries to corrupt it to run the hacked code. It tries for like 2 seconds and if not successful, does a quick barely perceptible reset and tries again. Worst case it could go for 10+ minutes. So you have to try different resistor values, even length of the wire, wire gauge, the path physically you lay and route the wire, etc. I got 1 down to 5 seconds, but another I couldnt get it to budge under 30. I do not want to do that again.


----------



## Nighthog

Ok... I think this kit of Hynix DJR just can't do 4733Mhz within reason. I needed more than 1.750V to be able to boot & for consistency ~1.800V was needed to not have errors on Memtest86+ but that wasn't enough for TestMem5. When I tried 1.810V Windows got funky so I decided to shutdown and try 4666Mhz instead... something weird happened on a reboot and my BIOS saved profiles got wiped.

What a hassle. I think it's better not to try Hynix DJR at such high speeds, doesn't seem to want to do it at all.
I'll leave it at that these Hynix kits just won't do such high frequency and leave such endeavours to the Micron. 

4600Mhz might be the limit unless you want to use more than 1.700V on Hynix DJR. The Micron Rev.J was happy to do 4800mhz with such voltage range. They manage lower timings overall as well.
tRFC & GDM:disabled is DJR strength otherwise Micron is better behaved.

I'll just leave this at XMP for now and check they didn't get worse by trying so high voltage.


----------



## mongoled

Nighthog said:


> Odd numbers for tCWL just don't work. So you need to set even numbers. Auto rule is to use -1 to make it work when using 15, 17, 19 etc.
> I've not tested +1 but I reckon it doesn't work either.
> 
> Equal or a even number lower it must be.





Dollar said:


> Yes, I learned this the hard way too. If cas was 15 then tcwl at 15 wouldn't even post. 14 was 100% stable though just like Nighthog mentions and auto attempts to predict.


Thanks for the confirmation guys, had been something I was curious about for a long long time.

Now I have another peculiarity, and I think I have seen this mentioned by others, basically its like this.

Using 

3733/1866 and 14-14-14-14-28-42-252-16, 1T & GDM disabled, TM5 using 25 cycles takes around 1h 39min to 1hr 42min to complete a full cycle without errors, write bandwidth is around 56700 while latency is at 62-63 ns

Now...

3800/1900 and 15-15-15-15-30-46-299-32, 1T & GDM disabled TM5 using 25 cycles takes around 2h to 2hr 4min to complete a full cycle without errors, write bandwidth is around 57500 while latency is at 62-63 ns

That is a huge disparity in time between the two results and if I am remembering correctly, using 16-16-16-16 instead of 15-15-15-15 will alleviate this anomaly.

Has anybody else noticed something similar when using 15-15-15-15 ?


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> Thanks for the confirmation guys, had been something I was curious about for a long long time.
> 
> Now I have another peculiarity, and I think I have seen this mentioned by others, basically its like this.
> 
> Using
> 
> 3733/1866 and 14-14-14-14-28-42-252-16, 1T & GDM disabled, TM5 using 25 cycles takes around 1h 39min to 1hr 42min to complete a full cycle without errors, write bandwidth is around 56700 while latency is at 62-63 ns
> 
> Now...
> 
> 3800/1900 and 15-15-15-15-30-46-299-32, 1T & GDM disabled TM5 using 25 cycles takes around 2h to 2hr 4min to complete a full cycle without errors, write bandwidth is around 57500 while latency is at 62-63 ns
> 
> That is a huge disparity in time between the two results and if I am remembering correctly, using 16-16-16-16 instead of 15-15-15-15 will alleviate this anomaly.
> 
> Has anybody else noticed something similar when using 15-15-15-15 ?


Try increasing SoC voltage if your time will speed up.

I noticed this thing when trying 1933FCLK... too little SoC voltage and it's ~SLOW~... Your 1900FCLK might need more voltage. 
It's throttling when not getting enough. But nothing says it's throttling, you just notice it's slow & benchmarks might be slow overall as well.


----------



## mongoled

Nighthog said:


> Try increasing SoC voltage if your time will speed up.
> 
> I noticed this thing when trying 1933FCLK... too little SoC voltage and it's ~SLOW~... Your 1900FCLK might need more voltage.
> It's throttling when not getting enough. But nothing says it's throttling, you just notice it's slow & benchmarks might be slow overall as well.


Cheers, that should be an easy test, currently running 1.05v will up it to 1.1v


----------



## Gadfly

mongoled said:


> Cheers, that should be an easy test, currently running 1.05v will up it to 1.1v


Smaller bumps! More SoC is not all good. SoC too high will lower your max Fclk; I know it is strange. You want your Proc_ODT as low as possible, and only as much SoC as you need. Bump it just 0.01v at a time.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Krisztias said:


> Hi!
> 
> I would like to stabilize the new 3800 B-Die preset from the calculator, but I get errors in TM5 very quickly. 3800C16 got stable for months.
> ...
> VSOC 1.1
> ...





2600ryzen said:


> Try 1.15v SOC, I needed 1.125v SOC to get rid of errors at 3733mhz.


I second this suggestion from @2600ryzen -- you probably already tried it now, @Krisztias. But I had to go to 1.15V at 3733 (and 1.125V probably could have sufficed).


----------



## ManniX-ITA

These kits are looking sweet:

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/g...ory-kits-with-high-capacity-16gb-modules.html


----------



## rares495

ManniX-ITA said:


> These kits are looking sweet:
> 
> https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/g...ory-kits-with-high-capacity-16gb-modules.html


Cute.


----------



## Krisztias

LuckyBahstard said:


> I second this suggestion from @2600ryzen -- you probably already tried it now, @Krisztias. But I had to go to 1.15V at 3733 (and 1.125V probably could have sufficed).


Thank you for the tipp, I will try it out.
I read somewhere, that on Ryzen 3000 series is no benefit to go over 1.1 with SOC, this is why I didn't do that, but I will.
What annoying is, that the old C14 3733MHz preset from the Calculator is stable by me, but the new one with C15 timings is not. What?! I don't get it.


----------



## FlyByU

Hi guys! I'm a total newbie on this I actually need some help.
I have 2xF4-3600C17-8GTZR (F4-3600C17D-16GTZR) + ASUS PRIME X470 PRO. It's b-die.
@LuckyBahstard has been helping me for a little while now, and we got to tighten my kits; but we'd like to get some help from you guys.
Here's a document with the tests we've run so far. He managed to tighten it to 16-18-16-16-32 and it was stable, so that's our starting point. @Veii

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptWuoF8ZcKfFQal-dqgMF5BpGnReznxo/view?usp=sharing


----------



## garyd9

FlyByU said:


> Hi guys! I'm a total newbie on this I actually need some help.
> I have 2xF4-3600C17-8GTZR (F4-3600C17D-16GTZR) + ASUS PRIME X470 PRO. It's b-die.
> @LuckyBahstard has been helping me for a little while now, and we got to tighten my kits; but we'd like to get some help from you guys.
> Here's a document with the tests we've run so far. He managed to tighten it to 16-18-16-16-32 and it was stable, so that's our starting point. @Veii
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptWuoF8ZcKfFQal-dqgMF5BpGnReznxo/view?usp=sharing


Drive file is locked.. no one else can see it. I don't know much about RAM chips, but the timings on the label seem pretty poor for good samsung b-die. (Perhaps from a lesser bin?)


----------



## FlyByU

Ohh shot! thanks for letting me know. I have already set it to public (edited the link). Any help would be appreciated


----------



## Veii

NewEnglandNole said:


> It is definitely a Ryzen 3600X on an ASUS TUF X570 motherboard. I am using Ryzen Master to see the values for tRFC2/4. I'm not aware of any other tool that shows these values. I set the tRFC2/4 values back to Auto and rebooted. The BIOS reads 486/192/132 and Ryzen Master is still reporting 486/468/288. So it looks like Ryzen Master is just reporting the D.O.C.P. (aka X.M.P) values for tRFC2/4 when set to Auto. Not sure why the BIOS is deciding to use 192/132.


Ryzen master reports what is currently able to read - can be at this point just a bios issue
it never uses XMP
What is more likely to happen, is autocorrection ~ but i think it's just a buggy bios 
When you change them , they have to apply 

The bios will under-predict it, and make a mistake, as tRFC2 has to be bigger than half of tRFC1 
or all of them being equal not only 1 & 2

I'd consider to start looking for bios updates, or try to reflash this bios via AFUGAN 
Or - use flashrom to backup the bios, and transfer serial number to a new one
Anyways, i'd suspect the bios here being the issue
Would be good if you update, or reflash it clean, as you're the only person i've heard from which has big differences between bios and applied values
And on whom these tRFC2 and 4 values are not applied, even tho you put them in 


FlyByU said:


> Hi guys! I'm a total newbie on this I actually need some help.
> I have 2xF4-3600C17-8GTZR (F4-3600C17D-16GTZR) + ASUS PRIME X470 PRO. It's b-die.
> @LuckyBahstard has been helping me for a little while now, and we got to tighten my kits; but we'd like to get some help from you guys.
> Here's a document with the tests we've run so far. He managed to tighten it to 16-18-16-16-32 and it was stable, so that's our starting point. @Veii
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptWuoF8ZcKfFQal-dqgMF5BpGnReznxo/view?usp=sharing


Hmm B-dies needing tRCD RD 18 :thinking:
This is high
These aren't micron b-dies by any chance instead of samsung b-dies ? 
tRRDS of 6 is already high, it's for 4 dimms or dual rank territory 

I can't see anything used on VDDG IOD and CCD
you've enabled control of them - and hopefully UncoreOC mode inside AMD Overclocking is enabled
But it misses information, at what voltage it runs 
procODT and RTT, same for cad_bus sadly you trust here on magical preditions 
Boards still aren't that mature when it comes to getting these values right ~ but it got better on AGESA 1005/6

Soo what are these kits actually ?
4x 4gb dimms, somehow dual rank 2x8gb dimms ?
You can keep tRCD RD so far on 18
still run tRC 48 instead of 50 as that was correct
and put tCKE down to 1 again 

It would be good if you double check that these kits are actually single and not dual ranked B-dies
And Samsung instead of Micron B-dies


----------



## yrelbirb

i placed a fan directly on top of the rams (with a zip tie) and finally, i dont get errors quickly, actually they run very cold now and so far... so good

vrm temps also seemed to improved overal ^^


i have to find a more proper cooling solution though... 

i will use msi kombustor along with memtest from now on... because stability on memtest alone doesn't mean anything it seems like

i hope i can get to %2000 at least ^^ i think that will be okay for me...


----------



## FlyByU

Veii said:


> Hmm B-dies needing tRCD RD 18 :thinking:
> This is high
> These aren't micron b-dies by any chance instead of samsung b-dies ?
> tRRDS of 6 is already high, it's for 4 dimms or dual rank territory
> 
> I can't see anything used on VDDG IOD and CCD
> you've enabled control of them - and hopefully UncoreOC mode inside AMD Overclocking is enabled
> But it misses information, at what voltage it runs
> procODT and RTT, same for cad_bus sadly you trust here on magical preditions
> Boards still aren't that mature when it comes to getting these values right ~ but it got better on AGESA 1005/6
> 
> Soo what are these kits actually ?
> 4x 4gb dimms, somehow dual rank 2x8gb dimms ?
> You can keep tRCD RD so far on 18
> still run tRC 48 instead of 50 as that was correct
> and put tCKE down to 1 again
> 
> It would be good if you double check that these kits are actually single and not dual ranked B-dies
> And Samsung instead of Micron B-dies


Well, here's an screenshot of Thaiphoon's info.

We made a change:
ProcODT=34.3
rtt_Park=RZQ/4(60)
CLDO VDDP=900mV
DRAM Voltage=1.4v
and it made it to reach cycle 8 without any errors. The Excel file is updated if needed. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptWuoF8ZcKfFQal-dqgMF5BpGnReznxo/view


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> Cute.


Good numbers for desync mode. Can you run the fclock at 1800mhz with the ram at 4400mhz? Running it at 1066mhz probably gimps performance in a lot of ways.


----------



## KedarWolf

24 cycles of TM5.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> @LuckyBahstard you pretty much nailed the above +1 :thumb: tWRRD is the opposite, it should be focused on tRCD WR. The rest you pretty much nailed, guess you ignored the error and got it correct after all


Ok, fixed that one on my write up now. Thanks for the correction.  I did wonder about tRCD_WR's role in this, but I ignored it so you could catch it and let me know hehehe.



Veii said:


> How much SCL has a play with it, is yet not 100% clear, but it's a *4 value for tWRRD for sure


So I should remove the part about trying *2 (meaning, 2*tWRRD <= tRCD_WR) in the rule 3 calculations?
Only *4?



Veii said:


> There are couple of more exceptions to it you can add:


I added these too, into a second spoiler.

Can you confirm I made no mistakes in my edits?
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-836.html#post28493816

I easily could google and find your earlier notes. And hopefully this will pop up in results also, and give people all your good tRDWR and tWRRD information in one combined place.  Combining your original notes, and additional exceptions. :thumb:


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> You can try to just bump tRCD RD to 15
> 14-14-15-14 won't break anything
> if you want to be extra sure , use +1 tRP here and adapt the rest to cover for higher RD delay
> if i can tonight, i'll post the 3600 CL14-14-15 results from another guy with not that optimal B-dies
> Might help you, but t-topology i actually see better to OC on as you can work around 50/50% ~ while on Daisy Chain you can't deal with such a big difference between them


It's true, I didn't try only tRCD_RD=15.

I tried loosening multiple things to not just dance around it, to see if looser could work. I had tried 14-15-15-16(tRP)-30-46, and tRFC=368. But I also loosened everything... SCLs to 4, tRTP to 8, tRDWR to 8.

I'm still not caught up on messages, so everything from your quoted message above.. I haven't read yet. I'll keep reading and I'll see if you had additional replies or info.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FlyByU said:


> Well, here's an screenshot of Thaiphoon's info.
> 
> We made a change:
> ProcODT=34.3
> rtt_Park=RZQ/4(60)
> CLDO VDDP=900mV
> DRAM Voltage=1.4v
> and it made it to reach cycle 8 without any errors. The Excel file is updated if needed.


Basically, we're trying to get tRCD_RD down to 16 stably. 

16-18-16-16-32-50 with tRFC 350 was stable, @ 1.35V dram, 1.1V soc, 1.0V vddg, and 950mV cddp.

And we tested to ensure we could increase dram to 1.4V, and lower cddp to 900mV.
We also lowered procODT from 36.9 to 34.3, are happy with RTT_PARK @ RZQ/4(60), and CAD_BUS 24/24/24/24.

Trying to get tRCD_RD to 16 with no other changes proved to fail.
We get early errors (like error 6, or 2).
Moving CAD_BUS a little lower didn't help (e.g. 24/20/20/24).
In a prior test we know that 1.45V dram voltage doesn't provide us with tRCD_RD=16 stability either.
Loosening tRFC to 384 didn't help.
We considered a test of tRDWR/tWRRD with 7/4 in case 8/3 needed a tweaking, but that didn't help. We didn't try 7/3.

Right now, we're tightening just a few things to show continued stability, but leaving tRCD_RD=18. It's not helping with the core issue but rules out other things, showing that the sticks have some flexibility to move in other areas. Specifically, we are testing tRRD values at 4/6 instead of 6/8, then tFAW=16 instead of 24, and tCKE=1 instead of 9.

Note: We've seen others get to 3733 or 3800, so these bdie's stretch out it seems.

So, question is, why is TRCD_RD not wanting to nudge down to 16? tRDWR/tWRRD needs to change with it? Try 9/1? 8/2?


----------



## mongoled

So whats the best way to deal with tRDWR when tRCDRD is an odd number ?

tRCDRD = 15

15%2 = 7.5

We should round up ?

Oh and the tRCDRD sticks that default to 18..... 

I had played wiith a set of Corsair (for a friends gaming rig) that had tRCDRD 18, thaiphoon burner said they were b-dies, but they were in-fact c-dies.

The fact you can use tRFC of 350 scews this, as the Corsair could not get anywhere near that, but this could be the PCB layout used and compatability with the MSI x470 motherboard I was using....


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> Good numbers for desync mode. Can you run the fclock at 1800mhz with the ram at 4400mhz? Running it at 1066mhz probably gimps performance in a lot of ways.


I sold my CPU + mobo a while ago. Will buy a 3600 in ~10 days or so and I'll test then but ~65ns is about as low as you can go for 4000+. Terrible compared to 3800.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> I sold my CPU + mobo a while ago. Will buy a 3600 in ~10 days or so and I'll test then but ~65ns is about as low as you can go for 4000+. Terrible compared to 3800.


3800 not that much better, I only get maybe 62ns..


----------



## DeusM

Hi,


LuckyBahstard put me onto this treasure trove of information, i do admit most of it goes over my head as i have only gotten into overclocking a few weeks ago and there is a lot to digest and remeber.


I came to post up some results and find some information about pushing it further.


CPU: 3800x
MOBO:MSI x570 Gaming edge wifi
RAM: f4-3600c17q-32gtzr


I have managed to get it to 3733 16-17-16-32 stable with the help of the Dram Calculator with 25 cycle on TestMem5 v3 ccfg.
I have not changed VDDG, SOC, VDDP - they are on AUTO









As soon as i try 3800 with timings from the DRAM calculator i get errors in testMem5 - i have had ERROR NO. 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 popped up once. Is there a page or link that explains what each error means?



SS of 3800 settings and timings:
https://imgur.com/a/Qh8ObPJ


MY question would be is it possible to get it stable at 3800 with improved performance and is it worth it or should i try to tighten primary timings on 3733.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> 3800 not that much better, I only get maybe 62ns..


That's a lot better. Imagine +6-8ns of inter-ccx latency


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> That's a lot better. Imagine +6-8ns of inter-ccx latency


How does this compare to say Z390 that gets as low as 40ns latency?

I mean it's a totally different platform, but is Z390 and Z490 better because of that?


----------



## mongoled

Gadfly said:


> Smaller bumps! More SoC is not all good. SoC too high will lower your max Fclk; I know it is strange. You want your Proc_ODT as low as possible, and only as much SoC as you need. Bump it just 0.01v at a time.


Thanks will keep that in mind and add this to playing "tools"



Started having a look at Sandra and the multicore efficiency test.

After running it I can see in the "Certification" section

"Variable Result: Large Deviation (within Tertiary 99.7% Confid)"

Is this a sign of instability ?

The results are as follows

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 85GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 43.7ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 7.08GB/s
No. Threads : 12
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 109.63W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 794.09MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 3.99ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 328.67kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 19.79MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.10ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 60.4ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 10.6ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 64.0ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 60.0ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 61.1ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 61.2ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 61.1ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 62.0ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 10.4ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 64.9ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 59.1ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 63.0ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.2ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 53.6ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 26.4ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 9.17GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 16.21GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 59.76GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 174.25GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 268.45GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 258.73GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 286.61GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 261GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 258.75GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 255.15GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 17.59GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.26GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor (6C 12T 4.4GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 6x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710013
Computer : MSI MS-7A31 (MSI X370 XPOWER GAMING TITANIUM (MS-7A31))
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 12
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor
Speed : 4.4GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 4.4GHz
Maximum Power : 109.63W
Cores per Processor : 6 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710013
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 6x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 6x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 6x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> How does this compare to say Z390 that gets as low as 40ns latency?
> 
> I mean it's a totally different platform, but is Z390 and Z490 better because of that?


Yes, they are. Memory performance is so so much better.


----------



## yrelbirb

yeyy im so happy to wake to this


----------



## FranZe

My 3733Mhz cl14 never passed TM5. It could pass sometimes, so i did increase the runs on TM5 and it did fail. So i took it down to 3733Mhz cl16 and went badass with TM5, so this one pass. I'm sure its something wrong with tRFC here again?


----------



## mongoled

FranZe said:


> My 3733Mhz cl14 never passed TM5. It could pass sometimes, so i did increase the runs on TM5 and it did fail. So i took it down to 3733Mhz cl16 and went badass with TM5, so this one pass. I'm sure its something wrong with tRFC here again?


My friend, that is hardcore!



Are you using your PC for critical applications ?

100 cycles is alot, IMHO you would be better off run up to 25 cycles and than test with other programs to "weed out" other possible instabilities.

For example, that my be stable in TM5, but if you run prime95 using large FFTs, it may fail after a few minutes, so you waisted 6 hrs stressing the system for "nothing"

:1eyed2


----------



## Martin778

3733 CL14 is top end B-Die bin catergory though...don't expect to get it from any 3200C14 etc. kit.


----------



## thomasck

FranZe said:


> My 3733Mhz cl14 never passed TM5. It could pass sometimes, so i did increase the runs on TM5 and it did fail. So i took it down to 3733Mhz cl16 and went badass with TM5, so this one pass. I'm sure its something wrong with tRFC here again?


What's the voltage? tRFC looks fine. I've used 280 with similar timings like yours, but I upped to 294 as I was getting some weird lines time to time on the screen. 

Sent from Tapatalk


----------



## Gadfly

While tweaking and tuning memory over the past few years I have come up with a good method in benching and tracking performance increases, or decreases in memory performance and I'd like to share it all with you. 

First, while Aida64's cache and memory benchmark is ok, anyone that has used it knows that if you run the test 4 times in a row you will get 4 completely separate results all with a fairly large variance; which make tracking the impact of changing timings very difficult. It is fun, but not very useful in tracking performance changes. 


Here is what I use:

1.) Geekbench 4

You can use the free version and still have access to all of the test and results. This suite tests memory performance directly, and indirectly via a series of various tasks such as image processing and compression. The memory performance tests produce accurate and repeatable results. 

Get it here: https://www.geekbench.com/geekbench4/

2.) MaxxMem² 

MaxxMem² is a memory performance test. It is free, and as a bonus you can submit your results to HWbot. It produces reliable results and makes tracking memory performance changes simple. 

Get it Here: http://maxxpi2.de/pages/downloads/maxxmemsup2---download.php

3.) MaxxPi² Multi 

This is a good old fashioned Divide Pi benchmark, only this one is multi-threaded and can make use of all of your CPU cores. Memory performance has a significant impact on the run times; I'd recommend using the 1Mb and 32Mb tests to track your performance improvements. (There is also a category on HWbot for this test). 

Get it Here: http://maxxpi2.de/pages/downloads/maxxpimulti---download.php

3.) Blender Benchmark

This is an easy to use benchmarking tool that will render pre-configured scenes. The "Classroom" scene is popular in this thread. This is useful as real world CPU performance benchmark, and the changes in memory timings make to performance. The results are submitted to an online portal where you can see where your time compares to others with the same CPU. 

Get it here: https://opendata.blender.org/


----------



## FranZe

mongoled said:


> My friend, that is hardcore!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you using your PC for critical applications ?
> 
> 100 cycles is alot, IMHO you would be better off run up to 25 cycles and than test with other programs to "weed out" other possible instabilities.
> 
> For example, that my be stable in TM5, but if you run prime95 using large FFTs, it may fail after a few minutes, so you waisted 6 hrs stressing the system for "nothing"
> 
> :1eyed2


Yes, 100 is alot, but when i know it doesnt pass then i can do something about it. Leaving the test when i know it will fail isnt my goal  But i understand what you mean. At least i can say i do pass longer tests in Memtest86, Karhu and TM5, instead of know it will failing after a while  

I have to sleep sometimes to, you know, so i didnt loose any time there  No, i dont use my computer for any critical applications. I even dont need tweaked memory right now.

But i couldn't let the 3733Mhz 14-16-14 profile be a disaster either. I was sure it was the temperature that were the reason it failed. But i added 0.01V and it seems that it will pass now. 53 cycles passed and still going strong. But maybe i'll stop this one before 100


----------



## Farih

FranZe said:


> My 3733Mhz cl14 never passed TM5. It could pass sometimes, so i did increase the runs on TM5 and it did fail. So i took it down to 3733Mhz cl16 and went badass with TM5, so this one pass. I'm sure its something wrong with tRFC here again?


I got a Ripjaws set 3600-cl16 and i cant really get below 350 tRFC with lots of screwing around.
My set also doesnt seem to like tight TWR and tRTP settings, it can do it but i need ALOT of extra voltages to do so to get it stable.

TWR 14 and tRTP 8 i need 1.42V Dram, 1.125V SoC, 1.05V VDDG and 1.0V VDDP. (other subtimings tight to)

TWR 26 and tRTP 12 i only need 1.4V Dram, 1.1V SoC, 0.95V VDDG and 0.9V VDDP (same other tight subtimings)

This is al at 3800/1900mhz btw.


----------



## FranZe

thomasck said:


> What's the voltage? tRFC looks fine. I've used 280 with similar timings like yours, but I upped to 294 as I was getting some weird lines time to time on the screen.
> 
> Sent from Tapatalk


3733Mhz cl16 @ 1.45v in bios and c14 1.47v (<--now 1.48v) in bios





Farih said:


> I got a Ripjaws set 3600-cl16 and i cant really get below 350 tRFC with lots of screwing around.
> My set also doesnt seem to like tight TWR and tRTP settings, it can do it but i need ALOT of extra voltages to do so to get it stable.
> 
> TWR 14 and tRTP 8 i need 1.42V Dram, 1.125V SoC, 1.05V VDDG and 1.0V VDDP. (other subtimings tight to)
> 
> TWR 26 and tRTP 12 i only need 1.4V Dram, 1.1V SoC, 0.95V VDDG and 0.9V VDDP (same other tight subtimings)
> 
> This is al at 3800/1900mhz btw.


I dont think i can do 3800/1900, tried before but did get crackling audio and i just gave up


----------



## Veii

Farih said:


> I got a Ripjaws set 3600-cl16 and i cant really get below 350 tRFC with lots of screwing around.
> My set also doesnt seem to like tight TWR and tRTP settings, it can do it but i need ALOT of extra voltages to do so to get it stable.
> 
> TWR 14 and tRTP 8 i need 1.42V Dram, 1.125V SoC, 1.05V VDDG and 1.0V VDDP. (other subtimings tight to)
> 
> TWR 26 and tRTP 12 i only need 1.4V Dram, 1.1V SoC, 0.95V VDDG and 0.9V VDDP (same other tight subtimings)
> 
> This is al at 3800/1900mhz btw.


Farih, what's your remain set of timings
You don't have to, push tWR that low if you can't
lower tRFC is not purely voltage dependent, it's not the whole part of the story 

What is your tRP atm running at, same for tRCD 
These ripjaws , can they run SCL under 4 @ 3800MT/s ? 
3 would work on A2 PCBs, 2 works on vipers and multi layer A1 PCBs 
Sometimes on A0 if you push a lot of voltage through it 

I mentioned tWR, because tRAS remains to be tCL+tWR+tBL as another pattern to get stable burst access time
tRCD can be used for tRAS calculation which is the more "constant" method, but you can abuse bugs
I'm mentioning this formula, because as it has positive effects to be abused ~ it will have negative effects
People on the Intel Stability thread abuse this 
if tWR is thaat high which can be a positive thing too - you have to adapt tRAS 
This formula does give maximim and minimum values, while the old tRCD+tCL is variable ~ because tRCD is variable on AMD

At best tRAS follows both with the same value, but it can follow the long one while not following tRCD one without breaking stability
Tho it can follow tCL+tRCD and then break tCL+tWR+tBL 
Exceeding it is not that much of an issue as tRAS hangs in a wait-for-action loop till it passes
but tWR doesn't do that, soo if it exceeds it because of tWR, tune down tWR 
If it falls bellow tCL+tWR+BL you will get choke issues where at best memory autocorrects


----------



## LuckyBahstard

DeusM said:


> Hi,
> 
> LuckyBahstard put me onto this treasure trove of information, i do admit most of it goes over my head as i have only gotten into overclocking a few weeks ago and there is a lot to digest and remeber.


Hey! Welcome in.  Those are nice 3733 numbers, glad you ran stable now on TM5 and took a step back briefly from 3800. That's a good baseline now. :thumb:



DeusM said:


> I have managed to get it to 3733 16-17-16-32 stable with the help of the Dram Calculator with 25 cycle on TestMem5 v3 ccfg.
> I have not changed VDDG, SOC, VDDP - they are on AUTO
> 
> MY question would be is it possible to get it stable at 3800 with improved performance and is it worth it or should i try to tighten primary timings on 3733.


I do suggest being careful about auto voltages. Better to first start with taming voltages manually, I'd think. Others, you might have an opinion. I see VDDG .5V _higher_ than SOC here.


----------



## Gadfly

FranZe said:


> 3733Mhz cl16 @ 1.45v in bios and c14 1.47v (<--now 1.48v) in bios
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think i can do 3800/1900, tried before but did get crackling audio and i just gave up


I know how to fix that if your want to give it another go.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Auto vddg voltage shows 1.15v vddg in ryzen master for some reason. I don't think it's a real reading though I don't think it's possible for vddp/vddg to be higher than SOC voltage.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Hmm B-dies needing tRCD RD 18 :thinking:
> This is high
> These aren't micron b-dies by any chance instead of samsung b-dies ?
> tRRDS of 6 is already high, it's for 4 dimms or dual rank territory
> 
> I can't see anything used on VDDG IOD and CCD
> you've enabled control of them - and hopefully UncoreOC mode inside AMD Overclocking is enabled
> But it misses information, at what voltage it runs
> procODT and RTT, same for cad_bus sadly you trust here on magical preditions
> Boards still aren't that mature when it comes to getting these values right ~ but it got better on AGESA 1005/6
> 
> Soo what are these kits actually ?
> 4x 4gb dimms, somehow dual rank 2x8gb dimms ?
> You can keep tRCD RD so far on 18
> still run tRC 48 instead of 50 as that was correct
> and put tCKE down to 1 again
> 
> It would be good if you double check that these kits are actually single and not dual ranked B-dies
> And Samsung instead of Micron B-dies


Hey @Veii , @FlyByU was starting with conservative OC #s that just slightly moved tighter from the XMP setting. These are the same B-dies that @DeusM is using, and he's at 3733. Fly is at 2x8, and Deus is 4x8 I believe. (I was giving them feedback in reddit, so we moved our party here lol).

Another user in this list also had succeeded pushing 3800 on these.

Roughly row 161: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c3RTF_ZPjep-Zfimgoca2Ef1gSjZM0rSHVWLkknbfUI/edit#gid=0
and that user's proof and timings: https://i.imgur.com/t6Cjvme.jpg

B-die finder page shows F4-3600C17D-16GTZR is indeed B-die, so Thaiphoon isn't being tricky this time. 

Fly uses the ASUS PRIME x470 PRO and 3600 chip.
And I admit, just like my own issues, I'm struggling to help him get his tRCD down when it looks like it should play nicer.

He updated our latest testing together from last night, here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptWuoF8ZcKfFQal-dqgMF5BpGnReznxo/view

And we had indeed pushed tRRD to 4/6. Other timings are happily getting tighter, but the tRCD_RD is being stubborn. Perhaps it's a magical resistance change. We've left tRC slightly loose btw, I know it's a couple ticks higher than needed. Was trying to not change too many variables.


----------



## FranZe

Gadfly said:


> I know how to fix that if your want to give it another go.


Yes, i'll take that  But i think i deleted the 3800 profile i had, so i have some work to do first


----------



## Farih

Veii said:


> Farih, what's your remain set of timings
> You don't have to, push tWR that low if you can't
> lower tRFC is not purely voltage dependent, it's not the whole part of the story
> 
> What is your tRP atm running at, same for tRCD
> These ripjaws , can they run SCL under 4 @ 3800MT/s ?
> 3 would work on A2 PCBs, 2 works on vipers and multi layer A1 PCBs
> Sometimes on A0 if you push a lot of voltage through it
> 
> I mentioned tWR, because tRAS remains to be tCL+tWR+tBL as another pattern to get stable burst access time
> tRCD can be used for tRAS calculation which is the more "constant" method, but you can abuse bugs
> I'm mentioning this formula, because as it has positive effects to be abused ~ it will have negative effects
> People on the Intel Stability thread abuse this
> if tWR is thaat high which can be a positive thing too - you have to adapt tRAS
> This formula does give maximim and minimum values, while the old tRCD+tCL is variable ~ because tRCD is variable on AMD
> 
> At best tRAS follows both with the same value, but it can follow the long one while not following tRCD one without breaking stability
> Tho it can follow tCL+tRCD and then break tCL+tWR+tBL
> Exceeding it is not that much of an issue as tRAS hangs in a wait-for-action loop till it passes
> but tWR doesn't do that, soo if it exceeds it because of tWR, tune down tWR
> If it falls bellow tCL+tWR+BL you will get choke issues where at best memory autocorrects


Got this so far.
Its not great but least voltages are kinda low.
SoC is 1.1V in BIOS. Since last chipset drivers it doesnt show in RM anymore.

When i lower tRFC i get odd windows behaviour.
When i lower Twr and Trtp i need alot more votage.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> Auto vddg voltage shows 1.15v vddg in ryzen master for some reason. I don't think it's a real reading though I don't think it's possible for vddp/vddg to be higher than SOC voltage.


Yup. Ryzen Master is drunk sometimes.


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> Hey @Veii , @FlyByU was starting with conservative OC #s that just slightly moved tighter from the XMP setting.
> Fly uses the ASUS PRIME x470 PRO and 3600 chip.
> And I admit, just like my own issues, I'm struggling to help him get his tRCD down when it looks like it should play nicer.
> 
> He updated our latest testing together from last night, here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptWuoF8ZcKfFQal-dqgMF5BpGnReznxo/view
> 
> And we had indeed pushed tRRD to 4/6. Other timings are happily getting tighter, but the tRCD_RD is being stubborn. Perhaps it's a magical resistance change. We've left tRC slightly loose btw, I know it's a couple ticks higher than needed. Was trying to not change too many variables.


The issue is, tRCD RD 18 is a micron thing or a very bad batch of b-dies
Tho even then, it should be rather 16 with CL 14 or 15
You can try 









B-dies can run this, we can work even with tRCD 20 , but it's an eyesore and bothers with tightening timings
What's VDDG at , i'd need to know as he has to push IOD a bit
and 24-24-24-24 doesn't work what well anymore 
24-20-20-24 works better although can make cold boot issues for some


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> You can try to just bump tRCD RD to 15
> 14-14-15-14 won't break anything
> if you want to be extra sure , use +1 tRP here and adapt the rest to cover for higher RD delay
> if i can tonight, i'll post the 3600 CL14-14-15 results from another guy with not that optimal B-dies
> Might help you, but t-topology i actually see better to OC on as you can work around 50/50% ~ while on Daisy Chain you can't deal with such a big difference between them


*tRCD_15 still failed:*
I started testing again, and I did bump tRCD_RD to 15, but forgot to loosen tRP by one. Though I think my setup needed an extra push with CAD_BUS. I kept getting test 12 issues.

I also tried going CL16, flat 16s, and still had errors lol.

*Previously you and/or others had remarks like this:*


> "Error 12 after time, is heat vdroop on vSOC line or VDDP droop while testing (cpu vddp)
> - Error on test 12 is blocksize 32mb error
> - Very often just resistance choke, either by too low vSOC or too high procODT/CAD_BUS"



*I played with my currents:*
So, I tried to unchoke my current, and nudged vSOC to 1.15 (from 1.125, and yes this seems way too high for 3533), and simultaneously reduced CAD_BUS ClkDrv resistance to 30/20/24/24 from 40/20/24/24. It failed even harder   Test 12 then Test 2 lit up multiple times like a christmas tree, all in cycle 1.

So I decided to reverse the thinking. I put vSOC back to 1.125V. Then I made CAD_BUS even higher, at 60/20/24/24. I mean, procODT can't be too high, it was already 28.2. This right now, is looking stable. I have work to do in my yard, and son is dying to play games, so with TM5 successful after 6 cycles, I'll pause and come back to it for a 20 cycle test later. 

I'll update and let folks know. But it might show that Test 12 is CAD_BUS sensitive not only for too high, but could be too low as well. If 60/20/24/24 works, I'll take suggestions on lowering voltage or tweaking procODT, if you would think I don't want to already be moving into 60 for ClkDrv. That seems pretty high for SR 2-dimm?


----------



## FlyByU

Veii said:


> The issue is, tRCD RD 18 is a micron thing or a very bad batch of b-dies
> Tho even then, it should be rather 16 with CL 14 or 15
> You can try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B-dies can run this, we can work even with tRCD 20 , but it's an eyesore and bothers with tightening timings
> What's VDDG at , i'd need to know as he has to push IOD a bit
> and 24-24-24-24 doesn't work what well anymore
> 24-20-20-24 works better although can make cold boot issues for some


Both my VGGD CCD and IOD are at 1.0v.
Right now we're running a test to lower both SCL from 4 to 3 and it's at cycle 13 with no errors yet.

EDIT: it finished with no errors (20 cycles). I'll now try what you suggested above...


----------



## Awsan

Awsan said:


> Hey everyone and @Veii
> 
> I am going to change my ram but due to my situation this will be a one time thing
> 
> When I read what people are saying I see that the Viper steels are the best clockers but when I check the AMD spreadsheet usually the best clockers are the F4-3600C15D-16GTZ.
> 
> If I were to get 4x8Gb of either which one would you recommend? (I know we already discussed this and the A2/A0 will be a big gamble) but in this case will getting these B-die Neos be a better option? and how will these time in your opinion? https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232860
> 
> 
> Or do you recommend any other good B-dies that are 2x16gb?
> 
> Thanks


Anyone? I know you are busy @Veii but your insight is highly appreciated.


----------



## Veii

FlyByU said:


> Both my VGGD CCD and IOD are at 1.0v.
> Right now we're running a test to lower both SCL from 4 to 3 and it's at cycle 13 with no errors yet.


Then later try 
cLDO_VDDP 900mV
VDDG IOD 975
VDDG CCD 950
VSOC 1125

if it's too low, try with 
VDDP 900
IOD 1000
CCD 950
vSOC 1100

which frequency are we talking about ?
3600MT/s could just pass with 1050 vSOC on both presets above


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> Anyone? I know you are busy @Veii but your insight is highly appreciated.


Don't get 4x8. Problem solved.


----------



## Veii

Awsan said:


> Anyone? I know you are busy @Veii but your insight is highly appreciated.


The Neos are dual rank to what i remember, and the non CL16-16 ones , the 16-19 are hynix CFR

To be honnest, i don't know at the moment
Maybe wait it out, if you can 
New micron and Hynix kits will release, ranging near 4500-5000MT/s
Overall new ICs will come out

B-Dies are EOL already, i am not sure if you can find full fledged decent dual rank kits when they are gone since quite some time
The new Teamgroup ARGB ones seem to scale alright too
https://twitter.com/cm8718/status/1269892542469939205 ~ cm87 @ computerbase
While the CL12 run at 1.8v seems to be a suicide run


Spoiler














Mostly confirmed by the high latency he hits there for CL12 
For the good news i don't see maxmem used anywhere, soo these at least don't have issues over 1.56v

32gb, idk 2x 16gb will make your life more easy 
While 4x8 will give some higher bandwidth at the exchange of latency
Even with a good board like the unify, you will still suffer from the Daisy Chain layout
And i haven't seen good B2 kits 
4x A2 vipers on daisy chain is annoying, really annoying 
4x A0 vipers might work well , it will be cheap for you - but you have to praise for IC luck on the 4000 Vipers 

3600C15 are praised because they run on an A1 PCB
till 4000MT/s they just are better
Vipers only are good after 3800MT/s but 4 of them are an issue on Daisy Chain
I really don't know 
Dual Rank B2 kits , might the answer 
A3/B3 seems to exist but i haven't seen it ~ maybe just wait for the new hynix and micron kits 
So at least you have something "new" to play with

EDIT:
ViperTW, pushed some 32GB So-Dimms up to 3600MT/s recently
We should hopefully see soon something for the desktop side @ 3600MT/s rating


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> 3600C15 are praised because they run on an A1 PCB
> till 4000MT/s they just are better
> Vipers only are good after 3800MT/s but 4 of them are an issue on Daisy Chain
> I really don't know
> Dual Rank B2 kits , might the answer
> A3/B3 seems to exist but i haven't seen it ~ maybe just wait for the new hynix and micron kits
> So at least you have something "new" to play with


Not A1. Mine came with A0 PCBs.


----------



## FranZe

Gadfly said:


> I know how to fix that if your want to give it another go.


I think i actually have to say pass on this one. I think i'm spot on where i'm now. The gain up to 3800 cl16-16(17)-16 aren't there? or is to small. I've never had an issue with this one and has served me well.

But I appreciate that you would help me


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Not A1. Mine came with A0 PCBs.


I see  
Good ICs you have


----------



## Awsan

Veii said:


> The Neos are dual rank to what i remember, and the non CL16-16 ones , the 16-19 are hynix CFR
> 
> To be honnest, i don't know at the moment
> Maybe wait it out, if you can
> New micron and Hynix kits will release, ranging near 4500-5000MT/s
> Overall new ICs will come out
> 
> B-Dies are EOL already, i am not sure if you can find full fledged decent dual rank kits when they are gone since quite some time
> The new Teamgroup ARGB ones seem to scale alright too
> https://twitter.com/cm8718/status/1269892542469939205 ~ cm87 @ computerbase
> While the CL12 run at 1.8v seems to be a suicide run
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly confirmed by the high latency he hits there for CL12
> For the good news i don't see maxmem used anywhere, soo these at least don't have issues over 1.56v
> 
> 32gb, idk 2x 16gb will make your life more easy
> While 4x8 will give some higher bandwidth at the exchange of latency
> Even with a good board like the unify, you will still suffer from the Daisy Chain layout
> And i haven't seen good B2 kits
> 4x A2 vipers on daisy chain is annoying, really annoying
> 4x A0 vipers might work well , it will be cheap for you - but you have to praise for IC luck on the 4000 Vipers
> 
> 3600C15 are praised because they run on an A1 PCB
> till 4000MT/s they just are better
> Vipers only are good after 3800MT/s but 4 of them are an issue on Daisy Chain
> I really don't know
> Dual Rank B2 kits , might the answer
> A3/B3 seems to exist but i haven't seen it ~ maybe just wait for the new hynix and micron kits
> So at least you have something "new" to play with
> 
> EDIT:
> ViperTW, pushed some 32GB So-Dimms up to 3600MT/s recently
> We should hopefully see soon something for the desktop side @ 3600MT/s rating



Thanks a lot my friend, I can't wait due to the shipping situation so I will throw a dice and go with what ever it lands on.


----------



## Gadfly

rares495 said:


> Veii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3600C15 are praised because they run on an A1 PCB
> till 4000MT/s they just are better
> Vipers only are good after 3800MT/s but 4 of them are an issue on Daisy Chain
> I really don't know
> Dual Rank B2 kits , might the answer
> A3/B3 seems to exist but i haven't seen it ~ maybe just wait for the new hynix and micron kits
> So at least you have something "new" to play with
> 
> 
> 
> Not A1. Mine came with A0 PCBs.
Click to expand...

Same here, I have 3 3600C15 kits. All are A0's.


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> Same here, I have 3 3600C15 kits. All are A0's.


You confirmed that by yourself, or just via thaiphoon burner ?
Thaiphoon loves to lie on that part


----------



## nick name

Veii said:


> You confirmed that by yourself, or just via thaiphoon burner ?
> Thaiphoon loves to lie on that part


How do you confirm by eye?


----------



## Farih

Oh ffs!

Been running my RAM 3800/1900mhz stable for few weeks.

Now i get audio crackling 

All started since i put in a 5700XT.

As soon as i put it in it made my screen flicker in BIOS and when running without a driver.
Now audio crackles.

Went back to DOCP and it still crackles.
Went back to full BIOS defaults and still crackles!

Does it through USB and optical.

Have to try with a different graphics card.

RAM still test fully stable at 3800/1900 and DOCP


----------



## Veii

nick name said:


> How do you confirm by eye?


You provide pictures like this
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28423902
(center where the ICs are & the side)
























And you check* where* the ICs are and on the *sides of them* if there is *anything over the cutout*


----------



## FlyByU

Veii said:


> Then later try
> cLDO_VDDP 900mV
> VDDG IOD 975
> VDDG CCD 950
> VSOC 1125
> 
> if it's too low, try with
> VDDP 900
> IOD 1000
> CCD 950
> vSOC 1100
> 
> which frequency are we talking about ?
> 3600MT/s could just pass with 1050 vSOC on both presets above


We ran the test with those values and we're stable that way. Any suggestions to lower tRCD_RD from 18 to 16?
Excel document has been updated: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptWuoF8ZcKfFQal-dqgMF5BpGnReznxo/view


----------



## Tobiman

Was able to push a little bit more, here and there, while keeping it stable.


----------



## Veii

Tobiman said:


> Was able to push a little bit more, here and there, while keeping it stable.


tWTRL you'd want at 12, either 2* or 3* tRRDS 
unsure if tFAW 12 is not too low, you can't go tRRDS 3 , can you ?
Please grab SiSandra and test multi-core efficiency , detailed result 
To see if the changes are positive or not
1-4-4-1-6-6 is what you'd want for dual rank, but sometimes 1-3-3-1-5-5 can run 
Got to test it with SiSandra 

Which CAD_BUS, which procODT 
no headroom for 3733 ?
252-187-115 would be perfect 135ns @ 3734MT/s

@FlyByU i'd say, keep it at these timings so far
Try to push 3734MT/s 
Up memory voltage to 1.46vDIMM 
And still grab SiSandra to crosscheck results
Also use CAD_BUS 24-20-24-24


----------



## rares495

nick name said:


> How do you confirm by eye?



If side components are not in a straight line => A0

If side components in a straight line and there is nothing over the cutout => A1

If ICs are really far down, close to the pins and there are things over the cutout => A2


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> I see
> Good ICs you have


They're alright. 3.6GHz. Not great, not terrible.


----------



## Nighthog

Farih said:


> Oh ffs!
> 
> Been running my RAM 3800/1900mhz stable for few weeks.
> 
> Now i get audio crackling
> 
> All started since i put in a 5700XT.
> 
> As soon as i put it in it made my screen flicker in BIOS and when running without a driver.
> Now audio crackles.
> 
> Went back to DOCP and it still crackles.
> Went back to full BIOS defaults and still crackles!
> 
> Does it through USB and optical.
> 
> Have to try with a different graphics card.
> 
> RAM still test fully stable at 3800/1900 and DOCP


What are your vSoC, VDDP, VDDG_IOD, VDDG_CCD voltages?
Your FCLK doesn't seem to like your current voltage choices when running that gen4 PCIE card. 

I know I had to increase mine more for stable 1933FCLK than I would have considered. 
vSOC 1.1875V (any less than this you get invisible throttling from your IMC, it retains stability by working slower) 
VDDP 1100mV (though 1025-1050 ~works~, more is better, less noise usually, not always though. it's a balance game)
VDDG 1100mV (AMD_CBS)
VDDG_CCD: 1050mV (AMD_OVERCLOCKING) 
VDDG_IOD: 1100mV (AMD_OVERCLOCKING) 

VDDG_CCD & VDDP with vSOC have best effect on any Audio crackle. 
I know VDDG_CCD needs more than 1000mv. 950mv won't boot @ 1933 and 975mv caused lots of noise. 1000mv was ~ok~ but I noticed in Manual OC mode WHEA errors, 1050mv fixed those. But I can't use more than that, more noise after.
VDDP 900-1000mv was just causing lots of Audio noise and crackle period. 

The voltages needed are more often than not sample variable but you might need more voltage to stop the noise if you have them below 1000mv.
Some CPU's just need more than others.


----------



## DeusM

OK so i ran the tm5 test again at 25 cycles. No errors thrown in which makes me happy.



I manually set the 

VSOC
VDDP
IOD
CCD


----------



## LuckyBahstard

LuckyBahstard said:


> ...Then I made CAD_BUS even higher, at 60/20/24/24.
> 
> I'll update and let folks know. But it might show that Test 12 is CAD_BUS sensitive not only for too high, but could be too low as well. If 60/20/24/24 works, I'll take suggestions on lowering voltage or tweaking procODT, if you would think I don't want to already be moving into 60 for ClkDrv. That seems pretty high for SR 2-dimm?


Anyone with thoughts on the above? Because increasing my CAD_BUS ClkDrv to 60 (for 60/20/24/24) made me stable at 3533 with GDM off. I'm not reasonably going to keep increasing this as I push up frequencies so I don't know if I'll need another tact later.

But yay, back to stable. 3600 tomorrow with GDM still disabled.


----------



## Nighthog

LuckyBahstard said:


> Anyone with thoughts on the above? Because increasing my CAD_BUS ClkDrv to 60 (for 60/20/24/24) made me stable at 3533 with GDM off. I'm not reasonably going to keep increasing this as I push up frequencies so I don't know if I'll need another tact later.
> 
> But yay, back to stable. 3600 tomorrow with GDM still disabled.


MY A2 pcb Micron Rev. E love 60ohm clkDrvStr.
My A2 pcb Hynix DJR love 60Ohm clkDrvStr.

They get the best stability & results like that, with GDM:disabled.


----------



## Veii

*IOD also helps with X570 [Daisy Chain] Boards*

Thought you guys might be interested
From attached error, which did freeze on 4x16gb Dual Rank ~ MSI X570 Gaming Plus [Daisy Chain]


Spoiler






















VDDP 900
VDDG CCD 975
VDDG IOD 975
VSOC 1125

To same 3600MT/s 
VDDP 900
VDDG IOD 1025
VDDG CCD 975
VSOC 1100
^ sample that works for him

He constantly had freezes after the 7th cycle (2h in) on test 15
Mirror Move 128 = One group of dimms died mid mirror-transfer
~ tho Y-Cruncher revealed that it was purely because IOD was not enough 


Spoiler















Y-Cruncher ~ BKT, BBP, SFT are IMC related and will fail the same way karhu+cache will fail
N64 AVX2 test will show VDDG vdroop instability as it's bound to memory
Hope you don't mind publishing these screenshots for documentation and help purposes @Ender666666 :ninja:
Higher vSOC remains to have negative effects

I'd consider pushing IOD higher if you have issues with sound crackling on onboard Audio 
Up to PCB layer (mainboard) needed voltage might still differ
While too much VDDG IOD remains to have negative issues towards signal integrity 
vSOC doesn't do much, even when you overprovide current
Will see later how much 4 x B2 Dual Rank PCBs need to remain stable and if 3800MT/s is even hittable on a daisy chain board


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeusM said:


> OK so i ran the tm5 test again at 25 cycles. No errors thrown in which makes me happy.
> 
> 
> 
> I manually set the
> 
> VSOC
> VDDP
> IOD
> CCD


You should set also

tRFC2: 218 
tRFC4: 134


----------



## LuckyBahstard

DeusM said:


> OK so i ran the tm5 test again at 25 cycles. No errors thrown in which makes me happy.
> 
> I manually set the
> 
> VSOC
> VDDP
> IOD
> CCD


This is great! And interesting.. .hey @FlyByU check out his settings at 3733.
@DeusM, how did you settle on the values for RTT? And I find it interesting that 24/20/24/24 works for you.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Nighthog said:


> MY A2 pcb Micron Rev. E love 60ohm clkDrvStr.
> My A2 pcb Hynix DJR love 60Ohm clkDrvStr.
> 
> They get the best stability & results like that, with GDM:disabled.


Nowwww you tell me.   (and thanks, that's good confirmation).


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Thought you guys might be interested
> ...
> He constantly had freezes after the 7th cycle (2h in) on test 15
> Mirror Move 128 = One group of dimms died mid mirror-transfer
> ~ tho Y-Cruncher revealed that it was purely because IOD was not enough
> 
> N64 AVX2 test will show VDDG vdroop instability as it's bound to memory...
> Higher vSOC remains to have negative effects
> 
> I'd consider pushing IOD higher if you have issues with sound crackling on onboard Audio
> Up to PCB layer (mainboard) needed voltage might still differ
> While too much VDDG IOD remains to have negative issues towards signal integrity
> vSOC doesn't do much, even when you overprovide current


So, more VDDG IOD helps with mirror-transfer, and offsets VDDG vdroop.

But then you said IOD helps strengthen on-board audio while hurting signal integrity -- these seem counter to each other, mutually exclusive statements. I don't understand it.

Too much vSOC pushes more current and yet doesn't give benefits, can be negative. (I assume for power draw from the board that maybe causes vdroop in other places to accommodate the demand in current for RAM)? I'm talking out loud while trying to understand your thought process and conclusions.


----------



## DeusM

Veii said:


> Thought you guys might be interested
> From attached error, which did freeze on 4x16gb Dual Rank ~ MSI X570 Gaming Plus [Daisy Chain]
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VDDP 900
> VDDG CCD 975
> VDDG IOD 975
> VSOC 1125
> 
> To same 3600MT/s
> VDDP 900
> VDDG IOD 1025
> VDDG CCD 975
> VSOC 1100
> ^ sample that works for him
> 
> He constantly had freezes after the 7th cycle (2h in) on test 15
> Mirror Move 128 = One group of dimms died mid mirror-transfer
> ~ tho Y-Cruncher revealed that it was purely because IOD was not enough
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y-Cruncher ~ BKT, BBP, SFT are IMC related and will fail the same way karhu+cache will fail
> N64 AVX2 test will show VDDG vdroop instability as it's bound to memory
> Hope you don't mind publishing these screenshots for documentation and help purposes @Ender666666 :ninja:
> Higher vSOC remains to have negative effects
> 
> I'd consider pushing IOD higher if you have issues with sound crackling on onboard Audio
> Up to PCB layer (mainboard) needed voltage might still differ
> While too much VDDG IOD remains to have negative issues towards signal integrity
> vSOC doesn't do much, even when you overprovide current
> Will see later how much 4 x B2 Dual Rank PCBs need to remain stable and if 3800MT/s is even hittable on a daisy chain board



Hi @*Veii* ,


I have the msi x570 Gaming plus WIFI board and i can hit 3800mhz, i did have a lot of errors on TM5 NO 2,3,4 and 11 and trouble on cold startup. i will attach timings that i used aswell.




LuckyBahstard said:


> This is great! And interesting.. .hey @*FlyByU* check out his settings at 3733.
> 
> @*DeusM* , how did you settle on the values for RTT? And I find it interesting that 24/20/24/24 works for you.


 @LuckyBahstard
what is RTT? The only things i have changed is DRAMCalculator has told me and a earlier post by Veii in regards to Voltages that was meant for somebody else.


----------



## Nighthog

LuckyBahstard said:


> So, more VDDG IOD helps with mirror-transfer, and offsets VDDG vdroop.
> 
> But then you said IOD helps strengthen on-board audio while hurting signal integrity -- these seem counter to each other, mutually exclusive statements. I don't understand it.
> 
> Too much vSOC pushes more current and yet doesn't give benefits, can be negative. (I assume for power draw from the board that maybe causes vdroop in other places to accommodate the demand in current for RAM)? I'm talking out loud while trying to understand your thought process and conclusions.


Basically you are trying to pinpoint your voltage in-between too little and too much. Too much and you get more noise and too little and you have instability. 

I can mention my Audio crackle elimination process @ 1933FCLK.

VDDG_CCD... 950mV no boot. 1000mV was quite alright, but got WHEA errors in Manual OC. Increased to 1050mv, instability was gone but got more Audio noise. 
Anything above 1050mV causes lots of noise.
Right now trying to find the balance. it's somewhere between 1025-1050mV. 1035mV seems to be almost right, but not. It's too little it seems like.
1040mv worked best yet. VDDP can have a little benefit to fix but I've noted VDDG_CCD had largest effect on the Audio noise. There seems to be a combination effect with these.


----------



## KedarWolf

Nighthog said:


> Basically you are trying to pinpoint your voltage in-between too little and too much. Too much and you get more noise and too little and you have instability.
> 
> I can mention my Audio crackle elimination process @ 1933FCLK.
> 
> VDDG_CCD... 950mV no boot. 1000mV was quite alright, but got WHEA errors in Manual OC. Increased to 1050mv, instability was gone but got more Audio noise.
> Anything above 1050mV causes lots of noise.
> Right now trying to find the balance. it's somewhere between 1025-1050mV. 1035mV seems to be almost right, but not. It's too little it seems like.
> 1040mv worked best yet. VDDP can have a little benefit to fix but I've noted VDDG_CCD had largest effect on the Audio noise. There seems to be a combination effect with these.


Can you post your timings at 1933 and can you link a Ryzen Master screenshot so I can see your ProcODT and RttPark settings etc.?

And are you synced?


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> So, more VDDG IOD helps with mirror-transfer, and offsets VDDG vdroop.
> 
> But then you said IOD helps strengthen on-board audio while hurting signal integrity -- these seem counter to each other, mutually exclusive statements. I don't understand it.
> 
> Too much vSOC pushes more current and yet doesn't give benefits, can be negative. (I assume for power draw from the board that maybe causes vdroop in other places to accommodate the demand in current for RAM)? I'm talking out loud while trying to understand your thought process and conclusions.


I look on it from the AMDs viewpoint when setting up the voltages

vSOC is the main rail
It has to cover, IMC voltage, cLDO_VDDP voltage, it has to cover for fabric internal voltage drop, factor in VRM vdroop, and the connection from the IF to the CPU + from the IF -> IMC -> to the board -> to CPU bound IO (thunderbolt, nvme, Wifi) 

By AMDs specification the absolute minimum is 48mV difference between VDDP and VDDG, same as between VDDG to VSOC
VDDG as we know is internally, it's the fabric 
Logically VDDG has to be more than 48mV , i use double stepping for a good reason here, but it can run with single stepping too
Stepping = AMDs specified auto supplied voltage correcting offset

Now, even when the IMC gets enough through cLDO_VDDP and the CCDs get enough just to be alive from cLDO_VDDG CCD
You still need to keep in mind IOD and then ontop of that later add all together for VSOC
As this difference between VDDG -> vSOC has to cover all the IO

If you have too much voltage, it has to go somewhere
The more voltage you give, the more resistance has to be applied
The higher the frequency of the fabric, the more sensitive it becomes to higher impedance
Well higher impedance happens, when you increase frequency and decrease resistance
But you have to decrease resistance in order for higher frequency to remotely be able to run (procODT)

Energy isn't wasted, it goes somewhere
And devices will increase resistance to lower and tame voltage 
Imagine memory, where you have to increase resistance if you push far to high voltage through it to prevent it crashing by bad signal integrity

Bad signal integrity happens, when you increase current and even worse signal integrity happens when you have wasted current - overcurrent
Higher current is more affected by 3rd party degradation, be it higher thermal capacitor leakage, be it EMI 
Soo lower current = higher signal integrity simply as it is harder for it to be affected by noise ~ with the downside of shorter traveltime
Inside memory it's exactly the same, and somewhere half-accurately the explanation why cLDO_VDDP is called "Memory Hole" control voltage 

VTT_MEM behaves very similar, although is another topic
Keep in mind, i am not an electrician nor a physicist ~ this is speaking out of logic 

Sound cracking mostly on DACs or headphone noise happens on impedance missmatch
Cracking on it's own is bad signal integrity, or just "noise" that passes through 
If you have sensitive IEMs, you can pretty much hear CPU & GPU processing noise on every USB soundcard ~ unless the unit does filter it away by lowering operational voltage with higher resistance in between 

In more easy to explain steps:
If you want to run low vSOC
You need low impedance, you need low resistance too
Need to find a combination where the signal strengh in mV is strong enough to pass through the trace distance
Only afterwards start to look for the point when this signal starts to get affected by either A (dropping too low by the increase of frequency and so resistance) or B (amplifying too strongly by the frequency) ~ well at the end the same thing

If you have too high procODT , you need a lot of vSOC to tame that cutting point and still pass a tiny bit of signal through
Logic would say, high resistance makes it "more secure against EMI", 
but logic also does lead to ~ high overdriven current is far more affective to tiny noise issues, than the resistance tries to protect it against in the first place

This post is getting long again 
Audio gear is far more easy to explain than CPUs , but just look at their nodesize
If you want to drive higher maximum frequency, you have to lower input current 
You can pretty much see frequency as multiplier of potential noise, and input current as filter of noise 
Where the higher the input current, the lower the resistance and the easier it is affected by noise 

Back to Ryzens
What you want to do, is keep either procODT as low as possible, soo you have low impedance and current doesn't "multiply" and react faster to outside noise
Or procODT impedance high, tho you have to give it a lot of current and then try to tame a "high ripple signal" with as much resistance as possible ~ to filter out bad noise
^ example, very high vCore to try hitting high frequency and bruteforcing your way through always increasing resistance by the increased frequency 

Well overall, less is more 
Cleaner signal input (low ripple) and lower to drive VRMs (lower temps + lower Ampere load = better ripple and current efficiency)
Will help less amplified noisefloor by increased impedance
On Ryzens and on memory which both are very sensitive to single frequency EMI (spread spectrum helps a lot)
low impedance is better = as the node already is tiny and so the resistance is kept to a minimum in order for low voltage to work well
If you push impedance too high, you cause more damage, than you try to prevent

Pushing ClkDrvStrengh on Memory does increase impedance, it acts similar to PCIe redrivers
But if you start clean, with low clean current with low impedance - then you have room to amply it
But if you amplify already an amplified high current signal, you'll make it twice and tripple as bad 
^ which is the reason why low CAD_BUS seems to work better, at least on early research

7nm has the benefit of using very tiny amounts of voltage with already very low resistance
It does help it push very high frequency although the IMC is 12nm on the non XT ryzens 
Bad design but cheap and working powersaving generation ~ soo really not a bad design to begin with
Ryzen 3xxx has a big benefit of absurd low required current
4-4.1ghz can run with 0.89-1.0v only and vSOC as low as 600mV (which is variable on 4xxx series btw) 

Memory acts similar, but i'm already at the limit of the attention span 
Soo that's for another topic 
TL;DR:
- Boards are forced to be a lot of layers, some just need a bit more IOD 
- You can push more IOD and lower CCD voltage, seems to be beneficial to the testing at this current state
- Seems like double stepping for VSOC from VDDG is no problem, pretty much a requirement for 12nm IMC - 1.05v for 3800MT/s is not enough, 1.068v (1.075 bios) is for 3734MT/s tho 
- Everything that's high amount of layers is more resistant to noise & vdroop, soo should be able to transfer low current at longer distances = use low voltage
- remain with keeping procODT low, you can push high RTT to the dimms without having much sideeffects to the IMC, they are far away
- consider that IOD might need to be higher when you have high RTT, and consider IOD to be for more than IMC -> Dimmslots


----------



## Veii

@DeusM forwarding you to this Post
There is an issue on board prediction atm
VDDP over 1050mV IS damaging, VDDG over 1.2v IS damaging
Drop that 1.1 cLDO_VDDP as soon as possible 

The cpu should autocorrect it ~ i hope it does
But this voltages are horrible , let's ignore the peak limit VDDG, but VDDP over 1050mV is just too much
Already near the 1000mV range is too much, when it makes big effects on 12nm by just moving it +2 / - 2 for shifting memory hole
Memory "hole" might not exist anymore by VDDG design, BUT IMC didn't change, and so did not cLDO_VDDP range
over 1050 is too much, far to much 
I think 1150 would even instantly fry it, if not 1.2 for sure will ~ and you peak already 1.1 , it's also too much for LN2 
VSOC is pushed under LN2 and IOD + CCD , but not cLDO_VDDP 

If it doesn't accept toning it down, you need to enable UncoreOC - inside AMD OVERCLOCKING  
But please change it, it's too high
VDDG is borderline at 1.2v but VDDP is dangerously peaking (well it passed the "dangerous" point already)

This pretty much sums it up ~ by The Stilt:


Spoiler






> Matisse introduced a new voltage adjustment, called cLDO_VDDG. VDDG is the fabric voltage.
> At default it is 0.950V however, some motherboards might increase above the default level even at stock settings.
> 
> cLDO means the voltage uses a drop-out (LDO = low drop-out) regulator.
> Most cLDO voltages are regulated from the two main power rails of the CPU. In case of cLDO_VDDG and cLDO_VDDP, they are regulated from the VDDCR_SoC plane.
> Because of this, there are couple rules. For example, if you set the VDDG to 1.100V, while your actual SoC voltage under load is 1.05V the VDDG will stay roughly at 1.01V max.
> Likewise if you have VDDG set to 1.100V and start increasing the SoC voltage, your VDDG will raise as well. I don't have the exact figure, but you can assume that the minimum drop-out voltage (Vin-Vout) is around 40mV.
> Meaning you ACTUAL SoC voltage has to be at least by this much higher, than the requested VDDG for it to take effect as it is requested.
> 
> Adjusting the SoC voltage alone, unlike on previous gen. parts doesn't do much if anything at all.
> The default value is fixed 1.100V and AMD recommends keeping it at that level. Increasing the VDDG helps with the fabric overclocking in certain scenarios, but not always.
> 1800MHz FCLK should be doable at the default 0.9500V value and for pushing the limits it might be beneficial to increase it to =< 1.05V (1.100 - 1.125V SoC, depending on the load-line).


----------



## Awsan

After a long night of thinking, Looks like I will just wait out the ram change with either an XT sidegrade or a 4th gen upgrade.

Gonna try tune it more and see where it takes me.

System is rock solid for now but where is the fun in that  where will you start with either the ram or voltages.


----------



## DeusM

Veii said:


> @*DeusM* forwarding you to this Post
> There is an issue on board prediction atm
> VDDP over 1050mV IS damaging, VDDG over 1.2v IS damaging
> Drop that 1.1 cLDO_VDDP as soon as possible
> 
> The cpu should autocorrect it ~ i hope it does
> But this voltages are horrible , let's ignore the peak limit VDDG, but VDDP over 1050mV is just too much
> Already near the 1000mV range is too much, when it makes big effects on 12nm by just moving it +2 / - 2 for shifting memory hole
> Memory "hole" might not exist anymore by VDDG design, BUT IMC didn't change, and so did not cLDO_VDDP range
> over 1050 is too much, far to much
> I think 1150 would even instantly fry it, if not 1.2 for sure will ~ and you peak already 1.1 , it's also too much for LN2
> VSOC is pushed under LN2 and IOD + CCD , but not cLDO_VDDP
> 
> If it doesn't accept toning it down, you need to enable UncoreOC - inside AMD OVERCLOCKING
> But please change it, it's too high
> VDDG is borderline at 1.2v but VDDP is dangerously peaking (well it passed the "dangerous" point already)
> 
> This pretty much sums it up ~ by The Stilt:



They were automatic settings by my Motherboard. i have manually set them to:


SOC: 1.1v


VDDP: 0.95v


VDDG: 1.025


I will lower VDDG down to 1 now




these are my current settings: if there is anything i can improve on let me know.


It is stable from 25 cycle tm5 - 0 errors


----------



## Farih

Nighthog said:


> What are your vSoC, VDDP, VDDG_IOD, VDDG_CCD voltages?
> Your FCLK doesn't seem to like your current voltage choices when running that gen4 PCIE card.
> 
> I know I had to increase mine more for stable 1933FCLK than I would have considered.
> vSOC 1.1875V (any less than this you get invisible throttling from your IMC, it retains stability by working slower)
> VDDP 1100mV (though 1025-1050 ~works~, more is better, less noise usually, not always though. it's a balance game)
> VDDG 1100mV (AMD_CBS)
> VDDG_CCD: 1050mV (AMD_OVERCLOCKING)
> VDDG_IOD: 1100mV (AMD_OVERCLOCKING)
> 
> VDDG_CCD & VDDP with vSOC have best effect on any Audio crackle.
> I know VDDG_CCD needs more than 1000mv. 950mv won't boot @ 1933 and 975mv caused lots of noise. 1000mv was ~ok~ but I noticed in Manual OC mode WHEA errors, 1050mv fixed those. But I can't use more than that, more noise after.
> VDDP 900-1000mv was just causing lots of Audio noise and crackle period.
> 
> The voltages needed are more often than not sample variable but you might need more voltage to stop the noise if you have them below 1000mv.
> Some CPU's just need more than others.


I have tryed SoC up to 1.125V, VDDG up to 1.05V and VDDP up to 1.0V (Dram up to 1.42V)
Before the 5700XT it was ok at SoC 1.1V, VDDG 1.0V and VDDP 0.900V

It still benches stable just have this annoying audio crackle.

Ill try some higher voltages, thanks

Edit:
Just woke up while writing this, tested audio again and no more crackles.........
This is weird lol, i spent hours last night trying to make it go away.


----------



## Nighthog

Farih said:


> I have tryed SoC up to 1.125V, VDDG up to 1.05V and VDDP up to 1.0V (Dram up to 1.42V)
> Before the 5700XT it was ok at SoC 1.1V, VDDG 1.0V and VDDP 0.900V
> 
> It still benches stable just have this annoying audio crackle.
> 
> Ill try some higher voltages, thanks
> 
> Edit:
> Just woke up while writing this, tested audio again and no more crackles.........
> This is weird lol, i spent hours last night trying to make it go away.


I only get Audio crackle at the moment if I stress the IMC... by example running Prime95 LargeFFT or Y-cruncher stress test. 
But having some combinations of voltage will cause crackle at all times, you can if not eliminate it lessen the area of problems at least with the proper combination.
I mostly just start a 4k YouTube as it's more easy to trigger it with those somehow.


----------



## Farih

Nighthog said:


> I only get Audio crackle at the moment if I stress the IMC... by example running Prime95 LargeFFT or Y-cruncher stress test.
> But having some combinations of voltage will cause crackle at all times, you can if not eliminate it lessen the area of problems at least with the proper combination.
> I mostly just start a 4k YouTube as it's more easy to trigger it with those somehow.


Meh, its slowly coming back 
Little amount of crackling now.

Edit:
Upped SoC to 1.1375V, VDDG_CCD to 1.0V, VDDG_IOD to 1.05V and VDDP to 0.975V.

Crackling audio gone again, lets see how long it lasts


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> Basically you are trying to pinpoint your voltage in-between too little and too much. Too much and you get more noise and too little and you have instability.
> 
> I can mention my Audio crackle elimination process @ 1933FCLK.
> 
> VDDG_CCD... 950mV no boot. 1000mV was quite alright, but got WHEA errors in Manual OC. Increased to 1050mv, instability was gone but got more Audio noise.
> Anything above 1050mV causes lots of noise.
> Right now trying to find the balance. it's somewhere between 1025-1050mV. 1035mV seems to be almost right, but not. It's too little it seems like.
> 1040mv worked best yet. VDDP can have a little benefit to fix but I've noted VDDG_CCD had largest effect on the Audio noise. There seems to be a combination effect with these.


It's really a big problem to find stable settings.
Every change in memory timings can bring back audio crackling.
But it's not just related to VDDP/VDDG voltages, you need to adjust vCore and SOC LLC at the same time.
I'm trying now with higher voltages but I had to lower LLC to get rid of crackling.
Have now to check the impact on benchmarks but if there's an IPC degradation the only solution is to loose the timings.


----------



## Farih

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's really a big problem to find stable settings.
> Every change in memory timings can bring back audio crackling.
> But it's not just related to VDDP/VDDG voltages, you need to adjust vCore and SOC LLC at the same time.
> I'm trying now with higher voltages but I had to lower LLC to get rid of crackling.
> Have now to check the impact on benchmarks but if there's an IPC degradation the only solution is to loose the timings.


I only got it since i got a 5700XT.

I tryed SoC between 1.1 and 1.15V
VDDG CCD between 0.95V and 1.05V
VDDG IOC between 0.95V and 1.075V
VDDP between 0.9V and 1.0V

Tryed on 3800/1900mhz, 3733mhz/1866mhz and 3600/1800mhz

Spread Spectrum on/of
Different levels of LLC and Auto

Always crackling.
On Auto DOCP it crackles.
Even on BIOS defaults it crackles (2133mhz)

Nothing memory wise seem to affect any of this.
Latency(mon) is also very low.
No hard fluctuations on the 12V line either.

Really start to think its just the GPU causing it.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Farih said:


> I only got it since i got a 5700XT.
> 
> I tryed SoC between 1.1 and 1.15V
> VDDG CCD between 0.95V and 1.05V
> VDDG IOC between 0.95V and 1.075V
> VDDP between 0.9V and 1.0V
> 
> Tryed on 3800/1900mhz, 3733mhz/1866mhz and 3600/1800mhz
> 
> Spread Spectrum on/of
> Different levels of LLC and Auto
> 
> Always crackling.
> On Auto DOCP it crackles.
> Even on BIOS defaults it crackles (2133mhz)
> 
> Nothing memory wise seem to affect any of this.
> Latency(mon) is also very low.
> No hard fluctuations on the 12V line either.
> 
> Really start to think its just the GPU causing it.


Yeah, yours seems a very specific issue.
I was talking about changes in memory/if settings which will bring it back.
There are an awful lot of things that can influence it, especially at IF 1800 and above.

I remember someone with the AORUS had fixed this issue with the AMD GPU switching PCI-e from 4.0 to 3.0; did you try already?


----------



## Farih

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yeah, yours seems a very specific issue.
> I was talking about changes in memory/if settings which will bring it back.
> There are an awful lot of things that can influence it, especially at IF 1800 and above.
> 
> I remember someone with the AORUS had fixed this issue with the AMD GPU switching PCI-e from 4.0 to 3.0; did you try already?


I now know why.....

It is my DAC thats causing it 
My poor 1000$ DAC.

All this time spend on memory but it was the DAC lol
Just so weird it happened when i put in a 5700XT.


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's really a big problem to find stable settings.
> Every change in memory timings can bring back audio crackling.
> But it's not just related to VDDP/VDDG voltages, you need to adjust vCore and SOC LLC at the same time.
> I'm trying now with higher voltages but I had to lower LLC to get rid of crackling.
> Have now to check the impact on benchmarks but if there's an IPC degradation the only solution is to loose the timings.


I'm not changing the timings around as it's already working as well as it can, I was just noticing some little pops & crackle when I did my stress testing, found VDDG played most part to change the character of it for worse or better.
Any adjustment can have small or large impact. There are voltages they like and don't. Unfortunately I had less issues with lower VDDG but as I mentioned I have WHEA errors at those voltages and the voltages that are stable give crackle more or less, which is a nuisance for one wanting no issues what so ever.

It's pure trial and error to try a combination that works.
I know VDDG_IOD over ~1120mV is worse, 1200mV doesn't boot. VDDG_CCD above ~1050mv just caused major noise issues and need to stay below, but 1000mV got WHEA issues but had no noise issues I recall. 
Been trying various combinations but nothing seems to click to fix it proper. 
SoC played a little part in it but when I put enough voltage it had no effect. 
VDDP is kinda random how it plays with it. Depends on the other voltages.


----------



## rares495

Farih said:


> I now know why.....
> 
> It is my DAC thats causing it
> My poor 1000$ DAC.
> 
> All this time spend on memory but it was the DAC lol
> Just so weird it happened when i put in a 5700XT.


Hah. Ditch that Navi trash and buy an Nvidia card. Problem solved.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Farih said:


> I now know why.....
> 
> It is my DAC thats causing it
> My poor 1000$ DAC.
> 
> All this time spend on memory but it was the DAC lol
> Just so weird it happened when i put in a 5700XT.


Ouch, bad news.
Thought it was about the onboard audio.
It's probably the GPU VRM section.
Lots of 5700XT and most nVidia 2000 have these issues.
Maybe try some DIY shielding around the DAC?



Nighthog said:


> I'm not changing the timings around as it's already working as well as it can, I was just noticing some little pops & crackle when I did my stress testing, found VDDG played most part to change the character of it for worse or better.
> Any adjustment can have small or large impact. There are voltages they like and don't. Unfortunately I had less issues with lower VDDG but as I mentioned I have WHEA errors at those voltages and the voltages that are stable give crackle more or less, which is a nuisance for one wanting no issues what so ever.
> 
> It's pure trial and error to try a combination that works.
> I know VDDG_IOD over ~1120mV is worse, 1200mV doesn't boot. VDDG_CCD above ~1050mv just caused major noise issues and need to stay below, but 1000mV got WHEA issues but had no noise issues I recall.
> Been trying various combinations but nothing seems to click to fix it proper.
> SoC played a little part in it but when I put enough voltage it had no effect.
> VDDP is kinda random how it plays with it. Depends on the other voltages.


Yes I never noticed much influence from adjusting VDDP, it's mainly VDDG.
But LLC plays a secondary role. Problem is all the ripple effects adjusting it.
I'm having much more luck spotting crackling issues while watching movies with Prime video in Chrome than under load.
Or listening to music with Foobar. But video on Chrome is the best.


----------



## Farih

rares495 said:


> Hah. Ditch that Navi trash and buy an Nvidia card. Problem solved.


An Nvidia GPU will fix my DAC?




ManniX-ITA said:


> Ouch, bad news.
> Thought it was about the onboard audio.
> It's probably the GPU VRM section.
> Lots of 5700XT and most nVidia 2000 have these issues.
> Maybe try some DIY shielding around the DAC?


I think its just the DAC itself.
When i connect an external source to it it still crackles.
When i connect onboard audio to headphone amp no crackles.

Cables connected to DAC are al very high quality and its not close to my PC either.
It crackles on USB, Optical and external line in (no PC connected)
Sadly must just be the DAC itself that died. 

Only 1 other thing left is the cable between DAC and AMP, here's hoping its just that


----------



## Nighthog

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes I never noticed much influence from adjusting VDDP, it's mainly VDDG.
> But LLC plays a secondary role. Problem is all the ripple effects adjusting it.
> I'm having much more luck spotting crackling issues while watching movies with Prime video in Chrome than under load.
> Or listening to music with Foobar. But video on Chrome is the best.


I actually watch Youtube 4k Video while running Prime95 largeFFT... I often get glitches when the workers change FFT size. Otherwise it might crackle the whole time if I pick some bad settings.

Might have found a trouble free combination: (99.5% ok, just a hint at moments)
VDDG_CCD 1020mV
VDDG_IOD 1120mV
VDDP 1100mV
vSoC 1.200V


----------



## rares495

Farih said:


> An Nvidia GPU will fix my DAC?


Yes. Once you get rid of the Navi, all of your problems will automagically solve themselves. Can confirm.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Nighthog said:


> I actually watch Youtube 4k Video while running Prime95 largeFFT... I often get glitches when the workers change FFT size. Otherwise it might crackle the whole time if I pick some bad settings.
> 
> Might have found a trouble free combination: (99.5% ok, just a hint at moments)
> VDDG_CCD 1020mV
> VDDG_IOD 1120mV
> VDDP 1100mV
> vSoC 1.200V


No I meant without load.
Crackling is very evident when the VID voltage spikes from very low to very high.
If it's always under load, almost constant VID, rarely happens; that's why you can catch it when the workers are briefly idling.
Chrome with a huge amount of tabs open is perfect to generate a big amount of background spikes.


----------



## Farih

rares495 said:


> Yes. Once you get rid of the Navi, all of your problems will automagically solve themselves. Can confirm.


According to your Sig you are still running an 5700XT


----------



## rares495

Farih said:


> According to your Sig you are still running an 5700XT


Sold it a while back. Best decision of 2020 so far. I had nothing but issues with that card.


----------



## Melan

I get audio crackling even on stock ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Even worse if I'm running realbench, audio cuts out sometimes. Or if I'm downloading a game on steam, then entire system gets jumpy. Wasn't a thing on old Z77 platform.

Checked with latencymon, ntoskrnl jumps to 800us. Used to be almost 2000us before 6/3/2020 release of chipset drivers.


----------



## Farih

rares495 said:


> Sold it a while back. Best decision of 2020 so far. I had nothing but issues with that card.


So far so good here 
Thought the audio crackles was because i put this card in but it turned out to be the DAC 

It gets a bit hot (junction temp) but NV doesn't even show you these. 
Bet NV's junction temp is just as hot.

Did read alot about bugs etc, maybe i am just lucky..... or they still have to occur.


----------



## yrelbirb

hi a guy in our local forums claims these,

"high dram voltage is dangerous for ryzen 1000 and 2000 cpus because memory controller is inside the cpu die. you can freely give voltage in 3000 series because memory controller is out of the cpu die"

is this nonsense? or is there any truth to it?

as long as cpu is under 60 degree, everything should be ok, no?

he means "1.45 1.5v" as high voltages
@Veii to the rescue 

not that i wont refrain from giving 1.42v to my dimms but still, this guy is "influencing" the whole forum so... i need some good refutations against him

or not at all, if he's really right

by high voltage he means 1.45-1.5v...


----------



## KedarWolf

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/9c7f474f-d53c-466d-97e7-4a2a4fa41dda/

Manjaro Linux: 209.045

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/9c7f474f-d53c-466d-97e7-4a2a4fa41dda/


----------



## 2600ryzen

IMC is on the SOC in zen2 and on the cpu die in Zen+. Don't know if high dram voltage is dangerous though.


----------



## Nighthog

2600ryzen said:


> IMC is on the SOC in zen2 and on the cpu die in Zen+. Don't know if high dram voltage is dangerous though.


Been running 1.700V for DRAM for some time, no issue in a few months time noted, everything still works as new. Though if I push higher there is noticeable problems at every time I've tried, don't know if it's board specific or the IMC or memory. It just doesn't like it.
But 1.700V no issues provided you can cool your RAM properly. Above 1.450-1.500V cooling can become problematic depending on your configuration & solution.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

I haven't heard of any ryzen CPUs frying at or below 1.5v dram. It's pretty much generally accepted around here that 1.45v given adequate cooling and airflow over the memory is perfectly fine for 24/7 hard use. That's for people looking for a near guarantee of no degradation...

1.5v is a gray area but with proper cooling I'm sure it'll be fine... Maybe in a large sample size a bit of the CPUs useful life would be taken away on average, but as always you'll likely have moved on to a new computer long before any issues start.

I see lots of people running well beyond 1.5v with no issues in the short term (1-2 years)


----------



## mongoled

Just posted another for reference


----------



## FlyByU

LuckyBahstard said:


> This is great! And interesting.. .hey @FlyByU check out his settings at 3733.
> 
> @DeusM, how did you settle on the values for RTT? And I find it interesting that 24/20/24/24 works for you.


I tried it on my kits and I thought it was gonna be stable with @DeusM values. I got an error at cycle 14, test#5. I included this test on my Spreadsheet with all the tests we've ran so far.

Any suggestion would be appreciated...


----------



## Tobiman

@Veii I didn't think i could do anything above 3600mhz because It failed to post before regardless of what I did but it's somehow working now. I think my timings are generally much better thanks to you. Ok, so I followed most of what you noted but I couldn't get Trrd_s to 2 or 3. The board defaults to AUTO whenever I tried to change the value so I left it at 4 for now. Changing T_faw from 12 to 14 improved stability. I initially tried loose timings for my first attempt at 3733mhz and failed 5 cycles of TM5 with 3 errors. When I changed T_faw to 14 and even reduced main timings from 16 to 15 to 14, I'm able to pass TM5. ProcOdt is 43.6 ohm. CAD_BUS is 24-20-24-24. DRAM voltage is 1.5 (but i can probably get away with 1.45) while soc is 1.15v. Sisandra is within margin of error but IMC isn't throttling like before and i'm getting scores within expected margin for each cache in AIDA64.

SiSandra data below


Spoiler



Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 78.1GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 49.9ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.51GB/s
No. Threads : 12
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 61.82W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1293.63MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 8.07ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 582.85kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 23.99MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.15ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 28.5ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 29.7ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 67.5ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 69.5ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 12.2ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 29.0ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 29.4ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 68.3ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 29.1ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 67.1ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 67.7ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 28.3ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 12.6ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 29.3ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 72.9ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 72.6ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 73.3ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 71.9ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 73.4ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 29.9ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 29.6ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 12.9ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 73.1ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 73.1ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 73.8ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 29.5ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 30.8ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 72.3ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 72.1ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 73.3ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 13.0ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 29.5ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 30.8ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 30.4ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 72.4ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 72.2ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 73.0ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 29.3ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 12.5ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 29.3ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 69.3ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 68.9ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 69.2ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 29.3ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 29.1ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 12.1ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 29.2ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 29.0ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 65.0ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 69.2ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 29.0ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 69.5ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 69.5ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 68.3ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 69.3ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 69.4ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 68.8ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 29.4ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 29.5ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 29.3ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 8.37GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 13.9GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 55.44GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 156.53GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 218.83GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 220GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 249.61GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 234.52GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 232.1GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 227.19GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 22.13GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.5GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor (6C 12T 3.33GHz/4.12GHz, 1.87GHz IMC, 6x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710013
Computer : GigaByte B450 I AORUS PRO WIFI Default string (GigaByte B450 I AORUS PRO WIFI-CF)
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 12
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor
Speed : 3.33GHz (80%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.6GHz - 4.12GHz
Maximum Power : 61.82W - 111.67W
Cores per Processor : 6 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710013
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 6x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 6x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 6x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.87GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 933MHz - 1.87GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## KedarWolf

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/56050414-28d3-4079-a0eb-6b471bf2f629/

#1 Blender Classroom for a 3950x. 

Edit, on Windows.

Sort by Median Render Time.

https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...dows&benchmark=classroom&blender_version=2.83


----------



## masteratarms

There is a new Gigabyte bios for Aorus Elite X570: F12h (improved memory compatability). My settings copied over from F12f failed to start a usb memtest executable. This time instead of going with the full settings of dram calculator. I went by the guide writen by usmus1 on techpowerup! and I started with just proODT. This was 53.8 by default and I changed it to 40 and this got rid of 11 errors in TM5. The guide recommends setting xmp but defining your frequencies (my RAM has no hope to post with 4400 xmp on Ryzen). So I did a little bit of mishmash from the calculator, some settings I found by buildzoid (I bought my RAM on his recommendation); some previous knowledge gained here about setting tRFC as a multiple of tWR (tRTP = 8); some guesswork on the relationship between tRFC and tRFC2 tRFC4 based on how many times they divided into 8. I didn't have any more instability problems after that initial proODT. I did knock tRC down 2 to 46. I stopped tweaking before I got to the section on adjusting things like vtt (it was for stability only and I had no instability). I've tried GDM disabled but the mobo doesn't like it, have not tried cl14 yet, but I'm only at 1.35v set vddio (1.38v reported by HWiNFO: IT8886).

I will try a similar approach for 3800 (my goal). I've run it before with Corsair Vengence Pro RGB M2Z3600C18 but I have Patriot Viper Steel 4400 b-die now (4x8GB). It was always a bit jankie with reluctance to post at those speeds sometimes but this time, hopefully if I start at the beggining with procODT it will fall into place.

Have I got any timings conflicting with GDM enabled? Re this post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-770.html#post28463746

I've tested my current settings with TM5 v3 (2h18min) + 68mins of h264 encoding (this found instability with my undervolt and PBO settings before).

I have SoC set to 1092 in AMD overclocking section, and it shows 1063mV in HWiNFO under CPU from a max of 1069mV. Should I enable some light SoC LLC when I go for higher frequency? My bios in the AMD CBS section has auto set VDDP to 1000 (needs to be less than vdimm) and VDDG to 1050 (needs to be less than vSoC).


----------



## Dollar

I see many people here are using a very low tRCDWR but I thought this wasn't actually being set? Was 1usmus mistaken in this old post?



1usmus said:


> I have already once explained that such an *abnormally low timing* is, I repeat, each field has a protection system against "stupid values", but in some versions of the BIOS it is missing.
> BUT the memory controller will independently correct this value to the appropriate one.
> 
> The RTC program reads the data in the shell. The memory controller in your case automatically corrects this value (14 in your case).



This was in response to someone running 14-8-14-14


----------



## sonic2911

I try to tight the latency from 15 to 14 but always get error..is there any ways to do that?


----------



## masteratarms

nick name said:


> On the ASUS boards I have seen tRCDWR and tRCDRD are switched. So from you screenshot your timings would be input into BIOS as 16 19 18 19 instead of 16 18 19 19 as it appears in the calculator.


Its the same for Gigabyte.


----------



## FlyByU

@Veii we got it stable at 3733 MHz. We copied @DeusM values but it gave us an error at cycle 14, test #5. Se we decided to lower ProcODT to 34.3 and it finished cycle 20 without any error.
Here are the voltages we used:

CLDO VDDP: 950mV
SOC V.:
DRAM: 1.4
VDDG CCD: 1.025v
VDDG IOD: 1.025v

and here's the updated spreadsheet. Any thoughts to tighten it?


----------



## KedarWolf

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/56050414-28d3-4079-a0eb-6b471bf2f629/

#1 Blender Classroom for a 3950x. 

Edit, on Windows.

Sort by Median Render Time.

https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...dows&benchmark=classroom&blender_version=2.83

*Edit: Already had the classroom, now #1 3950x in every other OpenData Blender benchmark.

This is with my 24/7 stress tested stable CPU and RAM settings and voltages.* :drum:

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/2e74fefe-89a7-4cb9-90e0-c5d0aea1b923/


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/56050414-28d3-4079-a0eb-6b471bf2f629/
> 
> #1 Blender Classroom for a 3950x.
> 
> Edit, on Windows.
> 
> Sort by Median Render Time.
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...dows&benchmark=classroom&blender_version=2.83


*Edit: Already had the classroom, now #1 3950x in every other OpenData Blender benchmark.

This is with my 24/7 stress tested stable CPU and RAM settings and voltages.* :drum:

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/2e74fefe-89a7-4cb9-90e0-c5d0aea1b923/


----------



## Veii

Nighthog said:


> I actually watch Youtube 4k Video while running Prime95 largeFFT... I often get glitches when the workers change FFT size. Otherwise it might crackle the whole time if I pick some bad settings.
> 
> Might have found a trouble free combination: (99.5% ok, just a hint at moments)
> VDDG_CCD 1020mV
> VDDG_IOD 1120mV
> VDDP 1100mV
> vSoC 1.200V


You are pushing it pretty hard at this point
cLDO_VDDP over 1050 is already pushing it too much, already in dangerous category
VDDG over 1100 is peaking , same as vSOC over 1.2 is peaking

You'd know your way, and i don't want to question it 
But at least when you push that high voltage through it, increase procODT in the 60s region to tame it
At least far more than usual, as cLDO_VDDP >1050mV is dangerously high, far more dangerous than VDDG over 1100
VDDG avg mV is anyways near 1070mV but keep an eye on it not to do any permanent IMC degradation on full load 

Maybe you can try to give a bit more headroom between VDDP and VDDG , it doesn't have to be the exact difference if you still have crackle
vSOC near 1.2 remains borderline, but cLDO_VDDP doesn't have to be thaat high
High vSOC will find it's way to the IMC without allowing over 1050mV to pass
While with 1050-1100 you'd be looking at 2000FCLK already, and we know 12nm IMC can't handle that


----------



## Veii

yrelbirb said:


> hi a guy in our local forums claims these,
> 
> "high dram voltage is dangerous for ryzen 1000 and 2000 cpus because memory controller is inside the cpu die. you can freely give voltage in 3000 series because memory controller is out of the cpu die"
> 
> is this nonsense? or is there any truth to it?
> as long as cpu is under 60 degree, everything should be ok, no?
> he means "1.45 1.5v" as high voltages
> 
> @Veii to the rescue
> 
> not that i wont refrain from giving 1.42v to my dimms but still, this guy is "influencing" the whole forum so... i need some good refutations against him
> or not at all, if he's really right
> 
> by high voltage he means 1.45-1.5v...
> 
> 
> Serious_Don said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard of any ryzen CPUs frying at or below 1.5v dram. It's pretty much generally accepted around here that 1.45v given adequate cooling and airflow over the memory is perfectly fine for 24/7 hard use. That's for people looking for a near guarantee of no degradation...
> 
> 1.5v is a gray area but with proper cooling I'm sure it'll be fine... Maybe in a large sample size a bit of the CPUs useful life would be taken away on average, but as always you'll likely have moved on to a new computer long before any issues start.
> 
> I see lots of people running well beyond 1.5v with no issues in the short term (1-2 years)
Click to expand...

I was running up to 1.62v on HynixMFR for 1st gen ryzen for a long time - with several night passing full throttle loads on TM5, OCCT and LinX

We have cLDO_VDDP and VDDP to tame it
I'm not legitimate enough to answer this, knowing my ryzen might be (unclear still) dead since 10 months
But i know what died was by overcurrent thanks to the surge protection system ~ as i've lost 4 devices that way on the old home
Soo clearly not creditable enough to give an answer
Can only say, it didn't matter on my side
Most B350B-450 boards can't even supply constant current above 1.5vDIMM
They vary too much, under 1.5 you have awkward vdroop, over 1.52 you have awkward positive v"droop" voltage-overcurrent 
The old boards aren't really made for that much vdimm, well the bad VRM setups at least 

But it didn't matter on my side and didn't matter on a 2700X sample which also OCd well with 4.55 boost and 4.3 constant AC
Nothing dead there, no dimm degradation either 
Tho we take here 25 & 20nm dimms as example ~ also not to forget i had to use CAD_BUS Timing values which might have smoothen out the unstable high vDIMM beyond 1.5v on these boards

that variable unstable current will likely be an issue on smaller nodesize dimms
But the IMC, i don't think i can relate to making it issues
After all you can account for that and lower VDDP ~ these units can work under 700mV without issues 
It doesn't have to be 913mV and beyond for both cLDO_VDDP and VDDP ~ lower it, play with CAD_BUS timings (adjust it lower) and you should be fine 
Haven't seen any damage coming from that "issue" specific ~ soo i can't relate to other people's experiences



Dollar said:


> I see many people here are using a very low tRCDWR but I thought this wasn't actually being set? Was 1usmus mistaken in this old post?
> This was in response to someone running 14-8-14-14


Yuri is not wrong, and we spoke at this time about Zen+, and early Zen 2 agesa
On zen 1 i can relate with him
My 14-12-14-12 values where 10% slower than the C14 flat ones, the difference was noticable and quite big
59GB/s Intercore bandwidth -> 64GB/s intercore bandwidth
I wondered what it is, and pushed it to bad sync as they still where stable ~ likely it was bad sync at the end even with autocorrection

Tho today, at this current date - i can not relate
We drop it soo low, that if it was autocorrected - it would mess up the whole rest of the timings
There would be no way how they can remain stable , alone looking at the low tRDWR & tWRRD we push
If it was a little bit of, what i call "wasted latency somewhere" it just wouldn't work 
Also as the latency lower by at least 1.2-2ns, it does work 
Cycle stacking might push it low and low tRFC will push it lower, but that would've been around a 0.4-0.6ns difference and at the end SiSandra would show it anyways on the latency curve

Pushing tRP low, adjusting tRAS and tRC + tRFC , well the whole package will lead to improvements
But whatever the reason might be for it to mess up, on our results it works
If anyone wants to spare the time in comparing it - we can
At least at this point of time, i know how to work with it
Can be that we hit perfect prediction even when it's autocorrected - but i doubt it is at this point
as +2 values up would cause instability and autocorrection would show on the scores
After all that's what we want to bypass and not trigger 

We'll see, thanks for the mention again ~ so far i haven't seen that big of a degradation by using this method
Whatever is or isn't autocorrected
Tho it would be great to take a closer look and compare


----------



## Veii

Tobiman said:


> @Veii I didn't think i could do anything above 3600mhz because It failed to post before regardless of what I did but it's somehow working now. I think my timings are generally much better thanks to you. Ok, so I followed most of what you noted but I couldn't get Trrd_s to 2 or 3. The board defaults to AUTO whenever I tried to change the value so I left it at 4 for now. Changing T_faw from 12 to 14 improved stability. I initially tried loose timings for my first attempt at 3733mhz and failed 5 cycles of TM5 with 3 errors. When I changed T_faw to 14 and even reduced main timings from 16 to 15 to 14, I'm able to pass TM5. ProcOdt is 43.6 ohm. CAD_BUS is 24-20-24-24. DRAM voltage is 1.5 (but i can probably get away with 1.45) while soc is 1.15v. Sisandra is within margin of error but IMC isn't throttling like before and i'm getting scores within expected margin for each cache in AIDA64.
> 
> SiSandra data below
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 78.1GB/s
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Latency : 49.9ns
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.51GB/s
> No. Threads : 12
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Processor(s) Power : 61.82W
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1293.63MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 8.07ns/W
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Total Cache Size : 582.85kB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 23.99MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 0.15ns/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Detailed Results
> Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11
> U0-U2 Data Latency : 28.5ns
> U0-U4 Data Latency : 29.7ns
> U0-U6 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U0-U8 Data Latency : 67.5ns
> U0-U10 Data Latency : 69.5ns
> U0-U1 Data Latency : 12.2ns
> U0-U3 Data Latency : 29.0ns
> U0-U5 Data Latency : 29.4ns
> U0-U7 Data Latency : 67.7ns
> U0-U9 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U0-U11 Data Latency : 68.3ns
> U2-U4 Data Latency : 29.1ns
> U2-U6 Data Latency : 67.1ns
> U2-U8 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U2-U10 Data Latency : 67.7ns
> U2-U1 Data Latency : 28.3ns
> U2-U3 Data Latency : 12.6ns
> U2-U5 Data Latency : 29.3ns
> U2-U7 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U2-U9 Data Latency : 72.9ns
> U2-U11 Data Latency : 72.6ns
> U4-U6 Data Latency : 73.3ns
> U4-U8 Data Latency : 71.9ns
> U4-U10 Data Latency : 73.4ns
> U4-U1 Data Latency : 29.9ns
> U4-U3 Data Latency : 29.6ns
> U4-U5 Data Latency : 12.9ns
> U4-U7 Data Latency : 73.1ns
> U4-U9 Data Latency : 73.1ns
> U4-U11 Data Latency : 73.8ns
> U6-U8 Data Latency : 29.5ns
> U6-U10 Data Latency : 30.8ns
> U6-U1 Data Latency : 72.3ns
> U6-U3 Data Latency : 72.1ns
> U6-U5 Data Latency : 73.3ns
> U6-U7 Data Latency : 13.0ns
> U6-U9 Data Latency : 29.5ns
> U6-U11 Data Latency : 30.8ns
> U8-U10 Data Latency : 30.4ns
> U8-U1 Data Latency : 72.4ns
> U8-U3 Data Latency : 72.2ns
> U8-U5 Data Latency : 73.0ns
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 29.3ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 12.5ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 29.3ns
> U10-U1 Data Latency : 69.3ns
> U10-U3 Data Latency : 68.9ns
> U10-U5 Data Latency : 69.2ns
> U10-U7 Data Latency : 29.3ns
> U10-U9 Data Latency : 29.1ns
> U10-U11 Data Latency : 12.1ns
> U1-U3 Data Latency : 29.2ns
> U1-U5 Data Latency : 29.0ns
> U1-U7 Data Latency : 65.0ns
> U1-U9 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U1-U11 Data Latency : 69.2ns
> U3-U5 Data Latency : 29.0ns
> U3-U7 Data Latency : 69.5ns
> U3-U9 Data Latency : 69.5ns
> U3-U11 Data Latency : 68.3ns
> U5-U7 Data Latency : 69.3ns
> U5-U9 Data Latency : 69.4ns
> U5-U11 Data Latency : 68.8ns
> U7-U9 Data Latency : 29.4ns
> U7-U11 Data Latency : 29.5ns
> U9-U11 Data Latency : 29.3ns
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 8.37GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 13.9GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 55.44GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 156.53GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 218.83GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 220GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 249.61GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 234.52GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 232.1GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 227.19GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 22.13GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.5GB/s
> 
> Benchmark Status
> Result ID : AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor (6C 12T 3.33GHz/4.12GHz, 1.87GHz IMC, 6x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
> Microcode : MU8F710013
> Computer : GigaByte B450 I AORUS PRO WIFI Default string (GigaByte B450 I AORUS PRO WIFI-CF)
> Platform Compliance : x64
> Buffering Used : No
> No. Threads : 12
> System Timer : 10MHz
> Page Size : 2MB
> 
> Processor
> Model : AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor
> Speed : 3.33GHz (80%)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.6GHz - 4.12GHz
> Maximum Power : 61.82W - 111.67W
> Cores per Processor : 6 Unit(s)
> Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
> Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
> Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
> Microcode : MU8F710013
> L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 6x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 6x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 6x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)
> 
> Memory Controller
> Speed : 1.87GHz (100%)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 933MHz - 1.87GHz
> 
> Performance Enhancing Tips
> Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
> Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


Do you remember what the old blue result was ?
SiSandra Inter-Core Bandwidth "Score" the average value might be "margin of error"
but the latency curve is* not* margin of error 
That's already a big chunk of difference on 2 parts of the curve 
Whatever the old setting was, it was better than the current one

For testing please use TM5 1usmus_v3 preset
and 20 cycles of it at least, to show tRFC issues on cycle 19
Likely more cycles could be better, but after cycle 6 you show temp instability and short before cycle 20 starts it does show tRFC issues
Attached it for you, just wipe your old TM5 folder by this one 
overall this result is not a good one
We don't atm need the log, only when you adjust boosting behavior and make tiny +2/- 2 tRFC adjustments it's useful to watch Thread to Thread delay and keep in mind "thermal -> boosting efficiency" 

"Changing tFAW from 12 to 14 improved stability"
That's the issue, it's not stability 
tfAW an only accept *4x *tRRD_S before it will timebreak additional existing delay 
Higher does nothing except require more processing time to adjust for delay issues 
The only "higher" value that might work is double that amount of time = 8x tRRDS
But logic would say, it's dumb as it still will timebreak twice that unused tFAW delay
It makes more sense to just increase tRRDS active time and put tFAW at 4x how it has to be
EDIT: 4*4 tRRDS = 16 tFAW 

No idea at this date if 3x tRRDS would be beneficial in the long run - but over 4x it's nonsense, you just give the memory more work to autocorrect and timebreak useless latency in the loop 
"Stability you also get by using 2T or wasting delay on tRC" but that doesn't make it really "more stable" but you rather "waste latency" to go around an issue, you didn't solve in the first place


----------



## Veii

sonic2911 said:


> I try to tight the latency from 15 to 14 but always get error..is there any ways to do that?


Have you:
- adjusted cLDO_VDDP to 700mV
- fixed SOC to 1 under flat LLC
- disabled by hand PBO in the first place till you get your memory results together ?

Your board is trying to adjust CAD_BUS Timing cutoff time by hand
Put all the 3 CAD_BUS Timing values to 1-1-1 
Then up to running AGESA, it's recommend to use 24-20-20-24 CAD_BUS (have confirmed it works on 2nd gen too)
Then also try to push tRFC 286-212-131 for now ~ later you can go down to 252-187-115 
Please report back with a TM5 run to see what it can be ~ might also be voltage related
Because Error 10, burst error 8mb ~ is mostly a voltage issues somewhere (vSOC or vDIMM, but vsoc looks enough)


FlyByU said:


> @Veii we got it stable at 3733 MHz. We copied @DeusM values but it gave us an error at cycle 14, test #5. Se we decided to lower ProcODT to 34.3 and it finished cycle 20 without any error.
> Here are the voltages we used:
> 
> CLDO VDDP: 950mV
> SOC V.:
> DRAM: 1.4
> VDDG CCD: 1.025v
> VDDG IOD: 1.025v
> 
> and here's the updated spreadsheet. Any thoughts to tighten it?


Might be better to lower CCD a bit further
You have an X470 board, should be T-Topology to what i remember
You'd want to still push ClkDrvStrengh a tiny bit, try the same set with 60ohm 
What works well on such boards is input impedance to be higher, while output impedance to be lower
Let's try to set procODT as output impedance ~ might be the opposite :thinking:
But you want to have a tiny bit more IOD than the rest of the boards, even more when you are T-Topology 

Get that down and at the same time try to use 2T instead of GDM ~ for now
Tho if you want extra work - start to use SiSandra to test your latency curve results before doing big changes 
Would be good to include a tiny screenshot section only for that 
(SiSoftware Sandra , the Multi-Core Efficiency Test ~ detailed result / filter to local results only)


----------



## sonic2911

Veii said:


> Have you:
> 
> - adjusted cLDO_VDDP to 700mV
> 
> - fixed SOC to 1 under flat LLC
> 
> - disabled by hand PBO in the first place till you get your memory results together ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your board is trying to adjust CAD_BUS Timing cutoff time by hand
> 
> Put all the 3 CAD_BUS Timing values to 1-1-1
> 
> Then up to running AGESA, it's recommend to use 24-20-20-24 CAD_BUS (have confirmed it works on 2nd gen too)
> 
> Then also try to push tRFC 286-212-131 for now ~ later you can go down to 252-187-115
> 
> Please report back with a TM5 run to see what it can be ~ might also be voltage related
> 
> Because Error 10, burst error 8mb ~ is mostly a voltage issues somewhere (vSOC or vDIMM, but vsoc looks enough)
> 
> 
> 
> Might be better to lower CCD a bit further
> 
> You have an X470 board, should be T-Topology to what i remember
> 
> You'd want to still push ClkDrvStrengh a tiny bit, try the same set with 60ohm
> 
> What works well on such boards is input impedance to be higher, while output impedance to be lower
> 
> Let's try to set procODT as output impedance ~ might be the opposite :thinking:
> 
> But you want to have a tiny bit more IOD than the rest of the boards, even more when you are T-Topology
> 
> 
> 
> Get that down and at the same time try to use 2T instead of GDM ~ for now
> 
> Tho if you want extra work - start to use SiSandra to test your latency curve results before doing big changes
> 
> Would be good to include a tiny screenshot section only for that
> 
> (SiSoftware Sandra , the Multi-Core Efficiency Test ~ detailed result / filter to local results only)


Vdimm is 1.43v

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mongoled

So nobody has seen this error before in Sandra ???????????

"Variable Result: Large Deviation (within Tertiary 99.7% Confid)"



mongoled said:


> Started having a look at Sandra and the multicore efficiency test.
> 
> After running it I can see in the "Certification" section
> 
> "Variable Result: Large Deviation (within Tertiary 99.7% Confid)"
> 
> Is this a sign of instability ?


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> So nobody has seen this error before in Sandra ???????????
> 
> "Variable Result: Large Deviation (within Tertiary 99.7% Confid)"


https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d7e7d0e0d9ff8db080a6c3a69bab8dfec3f3&l=en 
It's alright, as long as the result is accepted it's alright
But it can be invalid, because that would show instability - mostly visible as what you mentioned
Compared to that https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e4d3e4dcfa88b585a3c6a39eae88fbc6f6&l=en
(bad result) ^^'

If we speak about 3rd gen, that's instability
If we speak about 1st and 2nd gen, that's the low latency Performance Enhancer tweaks


----------



## mongoled

TM5 25 cycles pass, realbench 4 hours pass, 9 cycles crystaldiskmark pass, opening MS edge while no stress test running, windows locks up, reboots with bug check.....

New thing to work out as to where the instability lies while literaly idling....


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d7e7d0e0d9ff8db080a6c3a69bab8dfec3f3&l=en
> It's alright, as long as the result is accepted it's alright
> But it can be invalid, because that would show instability - mostly visible as what you mentioned
> Compared to that https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/sho...d2e3d6e4d3e4dcfa88b585a3c6a39eae88fbc6f6&l=en
> (bad result) ^^'
> 
> If we speak about 3rd gen, that's instability
> If we speak about 1st and 2nd gen, that's the low latency Performance Enhancer tweaks


Sounds strange to me... never had any 3600/3800 MHz test valid for Sandra.
My guess is they use a baseline, which seems based only on bandwidth, on 2133 MHz.
The good results from higher frequencies seems they are considered "too good" to be right.
(You see in their graph they consider above 100 GB/s an outlier)

Maybe has an issue with PBO enabled?



Spoiler



Don't see anything wrong in my results, they are just much much better than the slower IF speed:

























SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 103.33GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 43.2ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.46GB/s
No. Threads : 16
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 66.97W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1580.04MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 6.45ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 554.28kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 22.93MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.09ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 24.4ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 64.6ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 10.1ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 24.2ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 65.4ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 24.0ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.1ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.2ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 55.8ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.1ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 64.7ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.8ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 64.1ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.6ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 63.7ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 55.0ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 9.7ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 63.1ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 63.4ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 10.9ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 24.0ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 63.2ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 63.9ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 62.1ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 61.1ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 64.5ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 63.6ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 25.6ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 12.36GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 21.89GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 78.9GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 231.48GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 347.48GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 326.61GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 375.46GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 331.67GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 305.56GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 292.12GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 16.15GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 14.73GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.61GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710013
Computer : GigaByte X570 AORUS MASTER Default string
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 16
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor
Speed : 4.61GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.9GHz - 4.53GHz
Maximum Power : 66.97W - 134.37W
Cores per Processor : 8 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710013
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 8x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> TM5 25 cycles pass, realbench 4 hours pass, 9 cycles crystaldiskmark pass, opening MS edge while no stress test running, windows locks up, reboots with bug check.....
> 
> New thing to work out as to where the instability lies while literaly idling....


Does it happen if the cpu is at stock? Could be the cpu.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

mongoled said:


> TM5 25 cycles pass, realbench 4 hours pass, 9 cycles crystaldiskmark pass, opening MS edge while no stress test running, windows locks up, reboots with bug check.....
> 
> New thing to work out as to where the instability lies while literaly idling....


It's probably a VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltages & LLC settings issue.
When the voltages goes from very low to very high, there's a huge vdroop somewhere.
Problem is exacerbated if you are using PBO.


----------



## mongoled

ManniX-ITA said:


> Sounds strange to me... never had any 3600/3800 MHz test valid for Sandra.
> My guess is they use a baseline, which seems based only on bandwidth, on 2133 MHz.
> The good results from higher frequencies seems they are considered "too good" to be right.
> (You see in their graph they consider above 100 GB/s an outlier)
> 
> Maybe has an issue with PBO enabled?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Don't see anything wrong in my results, they are just much much better than the slower IF speed:
> 
> View attachment 354272
> 
> 
> View attachment 354274
> 
> 
> View attachment 354276
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 103.33GB/s
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Latency : 43.2ns
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.46GB/s
> No. Threads : 16
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Processor(s) Power : 66.97W
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1580.04MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 6.45ns/W
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Total Cache Size : 554.28kB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 22.93MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 0.09ns/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Detailed Results
> Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15
> U0-U2 Data Latency : 24.4ns
> U0-U4 Data Latency : 25.0ns
> U0-U6 Data Latency : 24.9ns
> U0-U8 Data Latency : 64.6ns
> U0-U10 Data Latency : 57.8ns
> U0-U12 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U0-U14 Data Latency : 58.4ns
> U0-U1 Data Latency : 10.1ns
> U0-U3 Data Latency : 24.2ns
> U0-U5 Data Latency : 25.0ns
> U0-U7 Data Latency : 24.9ns
> U0-U9 Data Latency : 57.8ns
> U0-U11 Data Latency : 65.4ns
> U0-U13 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U0-U15 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U2-U4 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U2-U6 Data Latency : 24.8ns
> U2-U8 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U2-U10 Data Latency : 59.4ns
> U2-U12 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U2-U14 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U2-U1 Data Latency : 24.0ns
> U2-U3 Data Latency : 10.1ns
> U2-U5 Data Latency : 24.9ns
> U2-U7 Data Latency : 24.8ns
> U2-U9 Data Latency : 57.6ns
> U2-U11 Data Latency : 64.2ns
> U2-U13 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U2-U15 Data Latency : 55.8ns
> U4-U6 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U4-U8 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U4-U10 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U4-U12 Data Latency : 60.1ns
> U4-U14 Data Latency : 57.2ns
> U4-U1 Data Latency : 24.8ns
> U4-U3 Data Latency : 24.9ns
> U4-U5 Data Latency : 10.1ns
> U4-U7 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U4-U9 Data Latency : 58.7ns
> U4-U11 Data Latency : 64.7ns
> U4-U13 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U4-U15 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U6-U8 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U6-U10 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U6-U12 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U6-U14 Data Latency : 58.1ns
> U6-U1 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U6-U3 Data Latency : 24.8ns
> U6-U5 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U6-U7 Data Latency : 10.3ns
> U6-U9 Data Latency : 58.7ns
> U6-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U6-U13 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U6-U15 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U8-U10 Data Latency : 24.3ns
> U8-U12 Data Latency : 25.4ns
> U8-U14 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U8-U1 Data Latency : 57.4ns
> U8-U3 Data Latency : 56.2ns
> U8-U5 Data Latency : 58.9ns
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.8ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 24.3ns
> U8-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U8-U15 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U10-U12 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U10-U14 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U10-U1 Data Latency : 57.3ns
> U10-U3 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U10-U5 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U10-U7 Data Latency : 64.1ns
> U10-U9 Data Latency : 24.3ns
> U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.6ns
> U10-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U10-U15 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U12-U14 Data Latency : 25.5ns
> U12-U1 Data Latency : 58.5ns
> U12-U3 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U12-U5 Data Latency : 63.7ns
> U12-U7 Data Latency : 55.0ns
> U12-U9 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U12-U11 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U12-U13 Data Latency : 9.7ns
> U12-U15 Data Latency : 25.6ns
> U14-U1 Data Latency : 57.5ns
> U14-U3 Data Latency : 63.1ns
> U14-U5 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U14-U7 Data Latency : 63.4ns
> U14-U9 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U14-U11 Data Latency : 25.2ns
> U14-U13 Data Latency : 25.6ns
> U14-U15 Data Latency : 10.9ns
> U1-U3 Data Latency : 24.0ns
> U1-U5 Data Latency : 24.8ns
> U1-U7 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U1-U9 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U1-U11 Data Latency : 56.6ns
> U1-U13 Data Latency : 63.2ns
> U1-U15 Data Latency : 63.9ns
> U3-U5 Data Latency : 24.7ns
> U3-U7 Data Latency : 24.8ns
> U3-U9 Data Latency : 57.0ns
> U3-U11 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U3-U13 Data Latency : 62.1ns
> U3-U15 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U5-U7 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U5-U9 Data Latency : 61.1ns
> U5-U11 Data Latency : 64.5ns
> U5-U13 Data Latency : 56.0ns
> U5-U15 Data Latency : 55.3ns
> U7-U9 Data Latency : 58.2ns
> U7-U11 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U7-U13 Data Latency : 63.6ns
> U7-U15 Data Latency : 55.7ns
> U9-U11 Data Latency : 24.3ns
> U9-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U9-U15 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U11-U13 Data Latency : 25.1ns
> U11-U15 Data Latency : 25.4ns
> U13-U15 Data Latency : 25.6ns
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 12.36GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 21.89GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 78.9GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 231.48GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 347.48GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 326.61GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 375.46GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 331.67GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 305.56GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 292.12GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 16.15GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 14.73GB/s
> 
> Benchmark Status
> Result ID : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.61GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
> Microcode : MU8F710013
> Computer : GigaByte X570 AORUS MASTER Default string
> Platform Compliance : x64
> Buffering Used : No
> No. Threads : 16
> System Timer : 14.32MHz
> Page Size : 2MB
> 
> Processor
> Model : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor
> Speed : 4.61GHz
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.9GHz - 4.53GHz
> Maximum Power : 66.97W - 134.37W
> Cores per Processor : 8 Unit(s)
> Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
> Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
> Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
> Microcode : MU8F710013
> L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 8x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)
> 
> Memory Controller
> Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz
> 
> Performance Enhancing Tips
> Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
> Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


Sounds about right, I never tried clicking on the link to the result, when I do that the result shows as valid

https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d5e4dcecdbfd8fb282a4c1a499a98ffcc1f1



rdr09 said:


> Does it happen if the cpu is at stock? Could be the cpu.


Have never run the CPU @ stock

 



ManniX-ITA said:


> It's probably a VDDP/VDDG/SOC voltages & LLC settings issue.
> When the voltages goes from very low to very high, there's a huge vdroop somewhere.
> Problem is exacerbated if you are using PBO.


I am leaning towards this, just wanted to hear some other opinions before I start troubleshooting …

:thumb:


----------



## rdr09

mongoled said:


> Sounds about right, I never tried clicking on the link to the result, when I do that the result shows as valid
> 
> https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d5e4dcecdbfd8fb282a4c1a499a98ffcc1f1
> 
> 
> 
> Have never run the CPU @ stock


It could be the cpu.
@Veii, can you suggest any changes to tighten the timings a bit? This takes 1.45v while the 3733 only needs 1.42v.


----------



## FranZe

In SissoftSandra, is it overall memory score i should run?


----------



## Melan

I managed to fix my audio stutters :wheee:
Had to reset bios, punched in primary timings, dram and soc voltage and no more stutters in heavy multitasking benchmark.
I guess I shouldn't have written in all of them from calculator. Patriot Viper 4 Blackout 3600 is now working as intended.

Now to screw it up all again, time for 3800


----------



## FlyByU

Veii said:


> Might be better to lower CCD a bit further
> You have an X470 board, should be T-Topology to what i remember
> You'd want to still push ClkDrvStrengh a tiny bit, try the same set with 60ohm
> What works well on such boards is input impedance to be higher, while output impedance to be lower
> Let's try to set procODT as output impedance ~ might be the opposite /forum/images/smilies/thinking.gif
> But you want to have a tiny bit more IOD than the rest of the boards, even more when you are T-Topology
> 
> Get that down and at the same time try to use 2T instead of GDM ~ for now
> Tho if you want extra work - start to use SiSandra to test your latency curve results before doing big changes
> Would be good to include a tiny screenshot section only for that
> (SiSoftware Sandra , the Multi-Core Efficiency Test ~ detailed result / filter to local results only)


Ok, I will start to use SiSandra from now on. AIDA64 says we've got a big jump in latency; see here. Also, I was bored yesterday and left TM5 for 100 cycles with our last stable test (which was based on 20 cycles)... I got only one error at cycle 23 (if I'm not mistaken) on test#11 (image below). EDIT: I lowered Dram voltage from 1.4 to 1.39 and it passed cycle 39 with no error

According to TechPowerUp my MB is actually Daisy Chain. Here's the article. Should I still apply those settings?


----------



## Dollar

Melan said:


> I managed to fix my audio stutters :wheee:
> Had to reset bios, punched in primary timings, dram and soc voltage and no more stutters in heavy multitasking benchmark.
> I guess I shouldn't have written in all of them from calculator. Patriot Viper 4 Blackout 3600 is now working as intended.
> 
> Now to screw it up all again, time for 3800



So leaving cldo vddp and cldo vddg voltages on auto fixed it? What does Ryzen Master show them running at?


----------



## Melan

I wouldn't say that's what fixed it. It is definitely the other 19 timings beside 7 I've set were misbehaving.


Edit: I forgot I had on-die termination set to 53 ohms. I've set it to auto (60ohms) and CLDO VDDG auto is now 1.1v instead of 0.950.
Double edit: Set 53 ohms again. CLDO VDDG auto is still 1.1????
Triple edit: Set 53 ohms and CLDO VDDG to 1v. CLDO VDDP is auto on 0.9. No stutters.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

FranZe said:


> In SissoftSandra, is it overall memory score i should run?


It's the Processor Multi-Core Efficiency benchmark


----------



## Hequaqua

How do I register to upload my results to SiSoft Sandra? I've never seen a more confusing set of instructions. I followed them, from the Help file....and get the same error every time.

EDIT: Guess I should say the worst instructions that don't appear to work...lol


----------



## mongoled

Not bad for x370



Time for sig update


----------



## FlyByU

FranZe said:


> In SissoftSandra, is it overall memory score i should run?





Veii said:


> (SiSoftware Sandra , the Multi-Core Efficiency Test ~ detailed result / filter to local results only)


Once you're on Multi-Core Efficiency click the refresh button


----------



## Nighthog

Veii said:


> You are pushing it pretty hard at this point
> cLDO_VDDP over 1050 is already pushing it too much, already in dangerous category
> VDDG over 1100 is peaking , same as vSOC over 1.2 is peaking
> 
> You'd know your way, and i don't want to question it
> But at least when you push that high voltage through it, increase procODT in the 60s region to tame it
> At least far more than usual, as cLDO_VDDP >1050mV is dangerously high, far more dangerous than VDDG over 1100
> VDDG avg mV is anyways near 1070mV but keep an eye on it not to do any permanent IMC degradation on full load
> 
> Maybe you can try to give a bit more headroom between VDDP and VDDG , it doesn't have to be the exact difference if you still have crackle
> vSOC near 1.2 remains borderline, but cLDO_VDDP doesn't have to be thaat high
> High vSOC will find it's way to the IMC without allowing over 1050mV to pass
> While with 1050-1100 you'd be looking at 2000FCLK already, and we know 12nm IMC can't handle that


I put in both HX436C17FB3K2/16 for 4x8GB mixed Hynix DJR, Micron Rev.J.
Works in GDM:enabled mode but gives errors if trying GDM:disabled. They want different settings and won't play together that easily with disabled.

Easy enough in GDM:enabled mode.

Anyway I tried my already working values but kept getting WHEA errors. So I tried something else... less VDDG_CCD.
There is a 1000mv-1030mv range where it gives WHEA errors and above more Audio noise... But works quite alright at 980mv... no audio crackle or WHEA trouble yet that is obvious.

Might just been too much VDDG_CDD overall in the end.
I had at most times noted it didn't like 1000mv or higher VDDG_CCD. I can finally say it doesn't want it that high. Just causes issues.
I need to stay below 1000mv VDDG_CCD

With VDDG_CCD 980mv I have less issues with VDDP & VDDG_IOD. I can keep these lower without causing Audio crackle or noise. It was VDDG_CCD all along that was the issue, it being too high drives all the other voltages needing to be higher to "correct" the issues.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Not bad for x370
> 
> Time for sig update


Nice. Is that stable with 20-25 cycles TM5?

And how did you end up at 34.3 procODT and then 24/20/24/24 cad_bus? I'm curious about the mini-journey that led you to these settings. Also I see you moved to 8/2 trdwr/twrrd.

I found myself staying at 28.2 procODT but had to push up to 60/20/24/24. Right now I'm on 3600 and getting the annoying Test 2 errors after a few cycles (which, when at 3533, I fixed with ClkDrv from 40 -> 60). I think I'll try pushing procODT higher.

EDIT: upping procODT didn't help... 30, 32, 34.3, nope. I will try later with tRCD_RD loosened to 15, but *any thoughts with voltage changes?* I'm currently at dram 1.5, soc 1.125, vddg ccd .950V & iod 1.0V, and vddp 900mV

I really don't think I should need to yield from flat 14s at 3600, so I want to find out what else is causing my Test 2 failures.


----------



## algida79

Nighthog said:


> Odd numbers for tCWL just don't work. So you need to set even numbers. Auto rule is to use -1 to make it work when using 15, 17, 19 etc.
> I've not tested +1 but I reckon it doesn't work either.
> 
> Equal or a even number lower it must be.


+Rep, this was driving me crazy with my Rev E. Many thanks!


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> Not bad for x370
> 
> 
> 
> Time for sig update


Not bad indeed. Congrats.


----------



## Melan

Can't even post with 1900 flck


----------



## FranZe

FlyByU said:


> Once you're on Multi-Core Efficiency click the refresh button


Thanks to both of you  

https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffc9ef8eefd2e3d5e7d7e3d4f280bd8dabceab96a680f3cefe

Not that great but thats okay


----------



## Gadfly

Melan said:


> Can't even post with 1900 flck


Which is common. Most CPU's don't run 1900 fclk out of the box. 

There are a lot of factors that come into play. VDDP, Proc_ODT, SoC voltage, VDDG voltage, SB 1.0V voltage, etc. etc.


----------



## Melan

3733 does post and boot into windows. Crazy unstable though. Enough to run aida but not much else.


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Nice. Is that stable with 20-25 cycles TM5?
> 
> And how did you end up at 34.3 procODT and then 24/20/24/24 cad_bus? I'm curious about the mini-journey that led you to these settings. Also I see you moved to 8/2 trdwr/twrrd.
> 
> I found myself staying at 28.2 procODT but had to push up to 60/20/24/24. Right now I'm on 3600 and getting the annoying Test 2 errors after a few cycles (which, when at 3533, I fixed with ClkDrv from 40 -> 60). I think I'll try pushing procODT higher.
> 
> EDIT: upping procODT didn't help... 30, 32, 34.3, nope. I will try later with tRCD_RD loosened to 15, but *any thoughts with voltage changes?* I'm currently at dram 1.5, soc 1.125, vddg ccd .950V & iod 1.0V, and vddp 900mV
> 
> I really don't think I should need to yield from flat 14s at 3600, so I want to find out what else is causing my Test 2 failures.


Yes, TM5 25 cycles, 4 hours RealBench, 2 hours Y-cruncher and have moved to some 3D benchmark tools.

Though there is a little "trickery" with the AIDA scores, basically I disabled AMD Cool 'n Quiet and C-states (I have these enabled unless im going for higher scores....) which gives a little boost in throughput (between 200-300 mbytes/s.

I ended up at these settings through trial and error and many hours of experience with the board (seeing ive been using it since 1st Gen Ryzens) so ive got a feeling on what it can and has run in the past.

It may be your board that is limiting you, as we know the sticks are capable and the CPU is also capable, ive never tweaked a T-Topology board so not really in a position to advise further, but do agree that 3600 CL14 should not be an issue...





rares495 said:


> Not bad indeed. Congrats.


Thanks bud

:thumb:


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> It may be your board that is limiting you, as we know the sticks are capable and the CPU is also capable, ive never tweaked a T-Topology board so not really in a position to advise further, but do agree that 3600 CL14 should not be an issue...


I can do flat 14s no problem with GDM enabled, so I'm trying to unlock the magic of GDM disabled here. I know my timings aren't crazy.

With GDM enabled I had lower VDDG also. But I used 60 procODT and 24/24/24/24 cad_bus. I don't want to push ODT high again, and I already have ClkDrv high in lieu of that.

So, I'm trying to work out what combos to try with advice and bridges-previously-crossed rather than (more) sizable trial and error. 

EDIT: I meant to put a thread that I accidentally left over there, into *this* thread over here. Lol. Asking about GDM off and 2T. Anyone?


----------



## sonic2911

Finally it's over 3466  but I'm not sure that my 2700x can handle 3600 or not


----------



## rdr09

sonic2911 said:


> Finally it's over 3466  but I'm not sure that my 2700x can handle 3600 or not


Nice! Very few manage below 60. You should be able to get it stable.


----------



## Veii

sonic2911 said:


> Finally it's over 3466  but I'm not sure that my 2700x can handle 3600 or not


Down with that procODT 
Down to 53.3 or even 48ohm
If it doesn't want to work, start with 24-20-20-24 and adjust RTT values 
RTT ones might need to be adjusted for every frequency change

60ohm limits you to even remotely reach 3734MT/s 
As 3334MT/s requires cLDO_VDDP 860 
3400 around 863
3600 866mV
Try about 864mV for 3533 or just directly go to 3600MT/s
Its far away of IMC limits but keep that procODT low
You shouldn't need more than 48ohm to begin with
At worst 53.3

60 instead of 48 is only for dual 16 dimms (dual rank)
Edit: to fix your instability on 3533, you need a bit of tWRRD delay 3 for example
Else tRDWR 8/1, 7-1 is low as tRCD RD is 15 already not 14


----------



## sonic2911

Veii said:


> Down with that procODT
> 
> Down to 53.3 or even 48ohm
> 
> If it doesn't want to work, start with 24-20-20-24 and adjust RTT values
> 
> RTT ones might need to be adjusted for every frequency change
> 
> 
> 
> 60ohm limits you to even remotely reach 3734MT/s
> 
> As 3334MT/s requires cLDO_VDDP 860
> 
> 3400 around 863
> 
> 3600 866mV
> 
> Try about 864mV for 3533 or just directly go to 3600MT/s
> 
> Its far away of IMC limits but keep that procODT low
> 
> You shouldn't need more than 48ohm to begin with
> 
> At worst 53.3
> 
> 
> 
> 60 instead of 48 is only for dual 16 dimms (dual rank)
> 
> Edit: to fix your instability on 3533, you need a bit of tWRRD delay 3 for example
> 
> Else tRDWR 8/1, 7-1 is low as tRCD RD is 15 already not 14


3533 is stable so far, procOCT is 53.3 now. Cldo_vddp is 700 now too

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> *Edit: Already had the classroom, now #1 3950x in every other OpenData Blender benchmark.
> 
> This is with my 24/7 stress tested stable CPU and RAM settings and voltages.* :drum:
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/2e74fefe-89a7-4cb9-90e0-c5d0aea1b923/


*Just beat my own records. 

All six #1's for a 3950x. *

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/e9fb139c-ff2b-4680-921a-ac9bd94c93c0/

Choose the benchmark and sort it by the median time.

https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...=Windows&benchmark=bmw27&blender_version=2.83


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> *Edit: Already had the classroom, now #1 3950x in every other OpenData Blender benchmark.
> 
> This is with my 24/7 stress tested stable CPU and RAM settings and voltages.* :drum:
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/2e74fefe-89a7-4cb9-90e0-c5d0aea1b923/


*Just beat my own records. 

All six #1's for a 3950x. *

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/e9fb139c-ff2b-4680-921a-ac9bd94c93c0/

Choose the benchmark and sort it by the median time. :h34r-smi

https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...=Windows&benchmark=bmw27&blender_version=2.83


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> *Edit: Already had the classroom, now #1 3950x in every other OpenData Blender benchmark.
> 
> This is with my 24/7 stress tested stable CPU and RAM settings and voltages.* :drum:
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/2e74fefe-89a7-4cb9-90e0-c5d0aea1b923/


*Just beat my own records. 

All six #1's for a 3950x. *

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/e9fb139c-ff2b-4680-921a-ac9bd94c93c0/

Choose the benchmark and sort it by the median time. :thumb:

https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...=Windows&benchmark=bmw27&blender_version=2.83


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> *Edit: Already had the classroom, now #1 3950x in every other OpenData Blender benchmark.
> 
> This is with my 24/7 stress tested stable CPU and RAM settings and voltages.* :drum:
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/2e74fefe-89a7-4cb9-90e0-c5d0aea1b923/


*Just beat my own records. 

All six #1's for a 3950x. *

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/e9fb139c-ff2b-4680-921a-ac9bd94c93c0/

Choose the benchmark and sort it by the median time. :drum:

https://opendata.blender.org/benchm...=Windows&benchmark=bmw27&blender_version=2.83


----------



## KedarWolf

deleted


----------



## sonic2911

Veii said:


> Down with that procODT
> Down to 53.3 or even 48ohm
> If it doesn't want to work, start with 24-20-20-24 and adjust RTT values
> RTT ones might need to be adjusted for every frequency change
> 
> 60ohm limits you to even remotely reach 3734MT/s
> As 3334MT/s requires cLDO_VDDP 860
> 3400 around 863
> 3600 866mV
> Try about 864mV for 3533 or just directly go to 3600MT/s
> Its far away of IMC limits but keep that procODT low
> You shouldn't need more than 48ohm to begin with
> At worst 53.3
> 
> 60 instead of 48 is only for dual 16 dimms (dual rank)
> Edit: to fix your instability on 3533, you need a bit of tWRRD delay 3 for example
> Else tRDWR 8/1, 7-1 is low as tRCD RD is 15 already not 14


Here is my 3533 and 3600 settings, I'm going to try 3600, but is that voltage high?


----------



## alefim

Hi guys,
@Veii

Reading the forum here, I arrived in this configuration, but I don't know if it is perfect.

Ryzen 2600 4.2
Mobo MSI X470 M7 AC
Mem G.Skill F4-3600C16D-16GTZR Rev. A2
Vcore 1.3875
VSOC 1,025
Vdimm 1.47V
CLDO VDDP 0.915

CAD BUS and ProcODT, RTT (NOM, WR, PARK) is in the picture


----------



## speed_88

My first result working 3733 cl16 at 1.35v and Soc 1.1, but latency doesn't drop in cl15 or cl14 stay in 65-65.1 ns


----------



## LuckyBahstard

KedarWolf said:


> *Just beat my own records.
> 
> All six #1's for a 3950x. *


:cheers:

Nice!!!!


----------



## LuckyBahstard

speed_88 said:


> My first result working 3733 cl16 at 1.35v and Soc 1.1, but latency doesn't drop in cl15 or cl14 stay in 65-65.1 ns


Congrats, make sure you run for 20-25 cycles to test stability in TM5 though. 3 cycles don't tickle it much.  The worst is getting to the end of 20 cycles and seeing sync issues popping up.


----------



## sonic2911

oops..It's stable yesterday but today 2 errors..


----------



## Alpharevx

Hello @Veii hope you doing okay!

These are my tuned settings for my kit Micron E-Die 4x8gb Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3600mhz CL18, currently rock stable
i need suggestions i wanna push 3800mhz cl16, but throws errors in hci memtest and memtest86, TM5 v3 runs just 3 cycles.

also my bios seems to push DRAM voltage +0.023v above the flat voltage.

mobo : b450 carbon pro ac + 3700x


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi Guys,

I seek for help to iron out a problem on my side.
Setup:
Asus C8H 1302 bios X570
AMD 3900X with water cooling custom loop
4x8GB G.Skill Trident ram (3600MHz CL16-16-16-16), Samsung b-die
Windows 10 2004 may build
Latest AMD chipset drivers

Ram runs at 3733MHz / 1866MHz.
Ram parameters according to Ryzen Dram calculator 1.7.3 with Typhoon burner data read out - see pics.

Recently I started to get WHEA errors. Every boot up once or every return from sleep once.
Whea error says:
Event ID 19
Machine Check Error
Bus/Interconnect Error
APIC ID: 0

If I switch back to 3666 MHz / 1833MHz and change nothing in bios expect these two parameters, Whea error goes away.

I'm not sure my voltage settings are ok, I have adjusted them recently and I'm confused. I did not have Whea warnings in the past at all.

Can you please suggest how to setup these:
CPU SOC voltage: offset mode minus 0.01250v -> HWinfo reads 1.088v idle, 1.072v under CB20 multi core load
VDDG CCD: 960
VDDG IOD: 960
CLDO VDDP: 900

Many thanks!


----------



## Nighthog

zsoltmol said:


> Recently I started to get WHEA errors. Every boot up once or every return from sleep once.
> Whea error says:
> Event ID 19
> Machine Check Error
> Bus/Interconnect Error
> APIC ID: 0
> 
> If I switch back to 3666 MHz / 1833MHz and change nothing in bios expect these two parameters, Whea error goes away.
> 
> I'm not sure my voltage settings are ok, I have adjusted them recently and I'm confused. I did not have Whea warnings in the past at all.
> 
> Can you please suggest how to setup these:
> CPU SOC voltage: offset mode minus 0.01250v -> HWinfo reads 1.088v idle, 1.072v under CB20 multi core load
> VDDG CCD: 960
> VDDG IOD: 960
> CLDO VDDP: 900
> 
> Many thanks!


Change your VDDG_CCD voltage around, it's related to FCLK. Your processor struggles to do 1866FCLK. Had the same issue when I was doing 1933FCLK.
It shifts the problem around to other parts depending what you have it set to. Lower or higher, it might go away or present itself in another manner depending on the voltage choice.
You have to experiment on which is acceptable. 
I hope you find a setting that gives no issues, I was struggling to find one @ 1933FCLK. But generally lower was better in most cases but there where a few voltage intervals that where more trouble than others.


----------



## speed_88

LuckyBahstard said:


> Congrats, make sure you run for 20-25 cycles to test stability in TM5 though. 3 cycles don't tickle it much.  The worst is getting to the end of 20 cycles and seeing sync issues popping up.


20 cycles working

Ryzen 5 3600
Asus Rog Strix X470-F 
XPG Spectrix D60G 4133mhz 
SOC 1.1v

3733mhz 1.35v
procODT 40
RTT_NOM off
RTT_WR off
RTT_PARK RQZ/5(48)
CAD 40-20-24-24 

Latency doesn't drop in cl15 or cl14 any tips?


----------



## rares495

speed_88 said:


> 20 cycles working
> 
> Ryzen 5 3600
> Asus Rog Strix X470-F
> XPG Spectrix D60G 4133mhz
> SOC 1.1v
> 
> 3733mhz 1.35v
> procODT 40
> RTT_NOM off
> RTT_WR off
> RTT_PARK RQZ/5(48)
> CAD 40-20-24-24
> 
> Latency doesn't drop in cl15 or cl14 any tips?


The best pro tip is: stop here. Save that profile. Enjoy your overclock. Your kit will not do 3733 CL 14/15.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

@Veii JFYI latest AGESA ComboV2 1.0.0.2 fixes ProcODT always at 60 with XMP profile


----------



## GrGhRocket

Hello people, greetings to all. I need someone to guide me through this madness ... I got a stable overclock at 3800Mhz / 1900FLCK

16-16-16-32
DramVolt: 1.39
SocVoltage: 1.025
ProcODT 34.3
Rtt_NOM: Off
Rtt_WR: Off
RttPark. RZQ/5
CAD: 40-20-20-24
GearDownMode: Anabled
VDDG and VDDP: Auto

the problem is in wanting to desactivate GearDownMode ... the pc becomes unstable, any suggestion?


----------



## icehotshot

Melan said:


> Can't even post with 1900 flck


Have you tried enabling LN2 mode, assuming your board has something like that.

I had to enable LN2 mode on my board to boot 1900 fclk and it was surprisingly stable. Not sure what it does since all my voltages look to be the same as before.


----------



## Melan

I have MSI B450M Mortar Max, and yes there's the LN2 mode. Thanks, I will try it later, but I don't see myself going beyond 3600 16-16-19-21-58 anytime soon. Bending down to get into the case to short the cmos reset pins got old really quick.


----------



## FlyByU

Hey guys can you try to help me tightening my timings?
Here are the voltages used for the screenshot:

CLDO VDDP: 950mV
VDDCR SOC: 1.1v
DRAM Voltage: 1.39v
VDDG CCD: 1.025v
VDDG IOD: 1.025v

and here I have an spreadsheet with all timings I've run.


----------



## DeusM

FlyByU said:


> Hey guys can you try to help me tightening my timings?
> Here are the voltages used for the screenshot:
> 
> CLDO VDDP: 950mV
> VDDCR SOC: 1.1v
> DRAM Voltage: 1.39v
> VDDG CCD: 1.025v
> VDDG IOD: 1.025v
> 
> and here I have an spreadsheet with all timings I've run.




Same kit and timings as mine. I tried to do cl14 from the ryzen dram calculator but it would not even boot! Might try cl15 tomorrow ill post up results for you. 

Trying for ages to get 3800 cl16 stable but for the life of me it just threw errors at me.


----------



## FlyByU

DeusM said:


> Same kit and timings as mine. I tried to do cl14 from the ryzen dram calculator but it would not even boot! Might try cl15 tomorrow ill post up results for you.
> 
> Trying for ages to get 3800 cl16 stable but for the life of me it just threw errors at me.


My timings were actually copied from you. I tagged you before haha. Let me know what you accomplish tomorrow man, thank you so much!


----------



## Tobiman

Is it best to tun TM5 in safemode?


----------



## KedarWolf

Tobiman said:


> Is it best to tun TM5 in safemode?


No, you want every loaded in Windows when you stress test so it is a real simulation when you actually use your PC.


----------



## paih85

almost 2 weeks using this setting/timing. so far no more crackling sound, random reboot n etc.

vdimm: 1.42v
vddp: 900mv
vddg iod/ccd: 975mv/950mv


----------



## Veii

@sonic2911 both errors are transfer errors - size 16 an 32 
It's a delay issue in this case
try if just adding tWRRD 3 will fix it 

"TM5 v3 runs just 3 cycles." ~ @Alpharevx
You need to change it to 20 cycles inside the MT.cfg, inside /bin 
Then if you have a config.link ~ you'd need to erase that one, so it initializes the MT.cfg
You run 1.025vSOC , that's about the absolute minimum you can run for 3600MT/s

Try 80/90-20-24-24 CAD_BUS for your dimms
and push a bit more VDDG IOD for the B450 boards 
procODT you can keep the same 
Push tRCD RD to 20, tRP 18, tRAS 34, tRC 56, tRFC 512-380-234, tWR 16, tRTP ? try if 8 will be fine
Keep the rest 
Voltages:
cLDO_VDDP 900
cLDO_VDDG IOD 975
cLDO_VDDG CCD 925
vSOC 1075
please try if that would be enough
but you should've tested if 1900FCLK runs in decoupled mode with the voltages above ~ first

@zsoltmol WHEA errors are voltage errors
Try to press 1x - voltage on the offset , somewhere near 0.011975ish negative offset, or adjust vSOC loadline to drop a bit less
Might be fine if you drop cLDO_VDDG CCD to 940 and push IOD to 970, but i think you won't need to 

@ManniX-ITA known bug since AGESA 1004B patch B
Happens when you load XMP beyond 3600, might be now even more broken 

@GrGhRocket CAD_BUS should be at least 40-20-24-24 to prevent cold boot issues 
You are stable at 1.025vSOC ? did you enable UncoreOC mode before putting that one in ?
Are you on AGESA 1005/1006 ?
Either AMD did some microcode magic on 1006 or your vSOC is autocorrected 
If you have ryzen master, doublecheck - but keep in mind it will break CPPC after you open it ~ so you need to re'enable it after wiping ryzen master
GDM off will need a lot more VDIMM 
Also on your timings set, tRRDL should be 5 not 4 and tRTP 6 instead of 8
Your SD & DDs as 1-1-1-1-1-1 will cut performance, it should only be used as the last resort to make unstable kits stable 
Pretty sure you lose at least 0.5ns here 

@paih85 good job 
Might want to try pushing SD , DD's to 1-5-5-1-7-7 , 1-4-4-1-6-6 should be used for dual rank or 4 dimms
then if you at the same time push tWRRD to 4, you might even be able to drop SLC to 4 and get a bit more perf out ofit


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> @[SPOILER]sonic2911 both errors are transfer errors - size 16 an 32
> It's a delay issue in this case
> try if just adding tWRRD 3 will fix it
> 
> "TM5 v3 runs just 3 cycles." ~ @Alpharevx
> You need to change it to 20 cycles inside the MT.cfg, inside /bin
> Then if you have a config.link ~ you'd need to erase that one, so it initializes the MT.cfg
> You run 1.025vSOC , that's about the absolute minimum you can run for 3600MT/s
> 
> Try 80/90-20-24-24 CAD_BUS for your dimms
> and push a bit more VDDG IOD for the B450 boards
> procODT you can keep the same
> Push tRCD RD to 20, tRP 18, tRAS 34, tRC 56, tRFC 512-380-234, tWR 16, tRTP ? try if 8 will be fine
> Keep the rest
> Voltages:
> cLDO_VDDP 900
> cLDO_VDDG IOD 975
> cLDO_VDDG CCD 925
> vSOC 1075
> please try if that would be enough
> but you should've tested if 1900FCLK runs in decoupled mode with the voltages above ~ first
> 
> @zsoltmol WHEA errors are voltage errors
> Try to press 1x - voltage on the offset , somewhere near 0.011975ish negative offset, or adjust vSOC loadline to drop a bit less
> Might be fine if you drop cLDO_VDDG CCD to 940 and push IOD to 970, but i think you won't need to
> [/SPOILER]
> @ManniX-ITA known bug since AGESA 1004B patch B
> Happens when you load XMP beyond 3600, might be now even more broken
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> @GrGhRocket CAD_BUS should be at least 40-20-24-24 to prevent cold boot issues
> You are stable at 1.025vSOC ? did you enable UncoreOC mode before putting that one in ?
> Are you on AGESA 1005/1006 ?
> Either AMD did some microcode magic on 1006 or your vSOC is autocorrected
> If you have ryzen master, doublecheck - but keep in mind it will break CPPC after you open it ~ so you need to re'enable it after wiping ryzen master
> GDM off will need a lot more VDIMM
> Also on your timings set, tRRDL should be 5 not 4 and tRTP 6 instead of 8
> Your SD & DDs as 1-1-1-1-1-1 will cut performance, it should only be used as the last resort to make unstable kits stable
> Pretty sure you lose at least 0.5ns here
> 
> @paih85 good job
> Might want to try pushing SD , DD's to 1-5-5-1-7-7 , 1-4-4-1-6-6 should be used for dual rank or 4 dimms
> then if you at the same time push tWRRD to 4, you might even be able to drop SLC to 4 and get a bit more perf out ofit


Sorry maybe I was too cryptic 
Gigabyte released the BIOSes for the XT processor with the new AGESA and it's fixing it.
With my memory in Auto with XMP profile now ProcODT is set at 48, not 60.


----------



## Veii

ManniX-ITA said:


> Sorry maybe I was too cryptic
> Gigabyte released the BIOSes for the XT processor with the new AGESA and it's fixing it.
> With my memory in Auto with XMP profile now ProcODT is set at 48, not 60.


I think it still lacks IC prediction :thinking:
On some boards i see it finally set to 36.9Ω which is kinda alright, but also not really accurate 
Are you using 2x dual rank or 4 dimms ?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> I think it still lacks IC prediction :thinking:
> On some boards i see it finally set to 36.9Ω which is kinda alright, but also not really accurate
> Are you using 2x dual rank or 4 dimms ?


2x Dual Rank


----------



## Veii

ManniX-ITA said:


> 2x Dual Rank


Ah then it's correct  
Maybe 40 would be better, but it's fine


----------



## sonic2911

@Veii Okay, with a tighter timing set, I pass TM5v3 20cy 2 times. So far I will blend stress P95 for a day to see what will happen.


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> @sonic2911 both errors are transfer errors - size 16 an 32
> It's a delay issue in this case
> try if just adding tWRRD 3 will fix it
> 
> "TM5 v3 runs just 3 cycles." ~ @Alpharevx
> You need to change it to 20 cycles inside the MT.cfg, inside /bin
> Then if you have a config.link ~ you'd need to erase that one, so it initializes the MT.cfg
> You run 1.025vSOC , that's about the absolute minimum you can run for 3600MT/s
> 
> Try 80/90-20-24-24 CAD_BUS for your dimms
> and push a bit more VDDG IOD for the B450 boards
> procODT you can keep the same
> Push tRCD RD to 20, tRP 18, tRAS 34, tRC 56, tRFC 512-380-234, tWR 16, tRTP ? try if 8 will be fine
> Keep the rest
> Voltages:
> cLDO_VDDP 900
> cLDO_VDDG IOD 975
> cLDO_VDDG CCD 925
> vSOC 1075
> please try if that would be enough
> but you should've tested if 1900FCLK runs in decoupled mode with the voltages above ~ first
> 
> @zsoltmol WHEA errors are voltage errors
> Try to press 1x - voltage on the offset , somewhere near 0.011975ish negative offset, or adjust vSOC loadline to drop a bit less
> Might be fine if you drop cLDO_VDDG CCD to 940 and push IOD to 970, but i think you won't need to
> 
> @ManniX-ITA known bug since AGESA 1004B patch B
> Happens when you load XMP beyond 3600, might be now even more broken
> 
> @GrGhRocket CAD_BUS should be at least 40-20-24-24 to prevent cold boot issues
> You are stable at 1.025vSOC ? did you enable UncoreOC mode before putting that one in ?
> Are you on AGESA 1005/1006 ?
> Either AMD did some microcode magic on 1006 or your vSOC is autocorrected
> If you have ryzen master, doublecheck - but keep in mind it will break CPPC after you open it ~ so you need to re'enable it after wiping ryzen master
> GDM off will need a lot more VDIMM
> Also on your timings set, tRRDL should be 5 not 4 and tRTP 6 instead of 8
> Your SD & DDs as 1-1-1-1-1-1 will cut performance, it should only be used as the last resort to make unstable kits stable
> Pretty sure you lose at least 0.5ns here
> 
> @paih85 good job
> Might want to try pushing SD , DD's to 1-5-5-1-7-7 , 1-4-4-1-6-6 should be used for dual rank or 4 dimms
> then if you at the same time push tWRRD to 4, you might even be able to drop SLC to 4 and get a bit more perf out ofit


done..read & copy improve a bit. thanks @Veii


----------



## algida79

Hello folks. Anyone successfully running 2x16GB DR Micron Rev.E on Zen+ with GDM off, willing to share their ProcODT and CAD BUS settings?

I want to try 3466CL14 starting from the calculator's safe preset as baseline but I've seen mentioned that these kits are notoriously hard to run with GDM off.

Thanks!


----------



## Tobiman

KedarWolf said:


> No, you want every loaded in Windows when you stress test so it is a real simulation when you actually use your PC.


I have 32 GB of memory and the program uses 28 GB of that to run the tests. I've noticed the 10th test is very memory hungry as it tries to use the majority of the 28 GB allocation and is my main source of errors so far. My concern is that some of the background programs might run out of memory and interfere with the test causing errors.


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> done..read & copy improve a bit. thanks @Veii


This is pretty much pushing it, but try 








I'm a bit unsure about tRDWR , as tCWL bothers me and ive read that some boards hate CWL 15 
If that posts with tCWL 16, you can try if tRDWR 7 & tWRRD 3 will post  

Might need up to 1.48->1.52vDIMM for that ~ if we speak about B-dies
Maybe it works with your current voltage too, but tRP is low soo i guess it will need a voltage bump


----------



## sleepwithechoes

I'm quite happy with this Patriot Viper Steel 4000C19 kit. My current settings for 3800C16 are VDIMM 1.42, VSOC 1.1V, CLDO_VDDP 0.95, CLDO_VDDG 1.025, procODT 40, CAD_BUS 24/20/24/24.
Is it true that these kits don't go well with GDM disabled and Cmd2T=1T? What would it require? I'm open to any other recommendations. I want to try 3733C14 or 3800C15


----------



## Veii

sleepwithechoes said:


> I'm quite happy with this Patriot Viper Steel 4000C19 kit. My current settings for 3800C16 are VDIMM 1.42, VSOC 1.1V, CLDO_VDDP 0.95, CLDO_VDDG 1.025, procODT 40, CAD_BUS 24/20/24/24.
> Is it true that these kits don't go well with GDM disabled and Cmd2T=1T? What would it require? I'm open to any other recommendations. I want to try 3733C14 or 3800C15


Drop tRDWR to 8, tWRRD 4 and SCL 3
A0 PCB Vipers (4000C19-19) one can run SCL 2, but you have to try if this speed works
A0 vipers liked 1.46vDIMM at best, 1.48 was a bit to much for my sample
Drop procODT down , near 34ohm range and increase CAD_BUS to 30-20-24-24 
The rest should be just timings and voltage
I see 75mV stepping here, that's fine 

If you in have issues with that low procODT
you can try to adjust VDDG IOD a bit less and give more VDDG CCD (only if you have issues with procODT being low)
Would still suggest to lower it for now 
The A0 Vipers are quite balanced, and easy on the board - there is no need to use such high procODT impedance 
And it might help you to go beyond 1900FCLK 
Set looks alright for now
Focus on lowering SCL and a bit tRDWR in the future 
Maybe getting that tRCD RD 17 away to 16 at least


----------



## sleepwithechoes

@Veii thank you for the help!! Btw, I tried to eyeball the PCB without removing the heatsinks and they seemed to be A2 PCB, although I'm not sure. That's why I'm thinking they might not like Cmd=1T as I read that A2 b-die likes high frequency but at 2T. Thoughts?


----------



## kratosatlante

sleepwithechoes said:


> I'm quite happy with this Patriot Viper Steel 4000C19 kit. My current settings for 3800C16 are VDIMM 1.42, VSOC 1.1V, CLDO_VDDP 0.95, CLDO_VDDG 1.025, procODT 40, CAD_BUS 24/20/24/24.
> Is it true that these kits don't go well with GDM disabled and Cmd2T=1T? What would it require? I'm open to any other recommendations. I want to try 3733C14 or 3800C15


Try this VDIMM 1.515 bios ram power100% (1.482 hwinfo), VSOC 1.0625 V, CLDO_VDDP 0.927, CLDO_VDDG 0.977, procODT 40 or 43, CAD_BUS 24/20/24/24. I use EDC bug in general latency 64.3 to 64.7 in rare test get less, cant do work gdmoff in 3600mhz or more dont try much, only work easy in 3200hz with CAD_BUS 120/20/24/24.
for 3800 flck REAL(i use blck 99.8, get 3792) low procODT 36 with 60/20/24/24 can boot and rare cases enter windows, dont know what need for stability .


What is your config OC CPU to get 4400mhz?





















this work same


----------



## zsoltmol

Based on your suggestions I have tried to play with cLDO_VDDP, cLDO_VDDG IOD, cLDO_VDDG CCD.

I'm using this 3900X cpu since 2019 june, I was an early adopter. No real overclock since. Left most of settings on Auto.

However recently I have started to see some issues. Same settings before did work, does not work anymore. Either instability is there or slower cpu clocks. Still using same bios and same settings, same cooling.

Did experiments, clear CMOS, then bios flashback, then clear CMOS, then entering bios load defaults.

Motherboard default at all stock settings:
CLDO VDDP: 0.900
CLDO VDDG: 0.950

*Motherboard default, enabling XMP profile 3600MHz / 1800 FCLK:
CLDO VDDP: 0.900 
CLDO VDDG: 1.0979 ????????? same in Ryzen Master*

Motherboard manual voltage setting, with enabled XMP profile 3600MHz / 1800 FCLK:
CLDO VDDP: 0.8973 (in bios it is set at 0.900)
CLDO VDDG: 0.9297 (in bios it is set at 0.930)

*Motherboard default, enabling XMP profile 3733MHz / 1866 FCLK:
CLDO VDDP: 0.990 ???
CLDO VDDG: 1.1481 ????????? same in Ryzen Master
*

Motherboard manual voltage setting, with enabled XMP profile 3733MHz / 1866 FCLK:
CLDO VDDP: 0.8973 (in bios it is set at 0.900)
CLDO VDDG: 0.9297 (in bios it is set at 0.930)

My Asus board while using its *auto settings* has driven CLDO VDDG between 1.0979 volt (3600MHz with XMP) and 1.1481 volt (3733MHz with XMP) *for months*. 

*Is this a concern? These voltages are above suggested values here, i think. * 

*My cpu is not that rock solid recently with same settings and same bios *as it was 2-3 months ago. I have tried multiple BIOS reset/flashback since, then manually entering same settings. It has started to give correctable WHEA warnings (Event 19), not returning from computer sleep, occasionally freezing/then restarting while browsing internet. Sometimes return from sleep is a black screen and thats it.


----------



## sonic2911

@Veii Now it's unstable again. It was crashed and restarted with p95 blend stress then can't POST, bootloop qcode F9 (memory related). I have no idea now.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## alefim

Hi @Veii, Is there any timming to be improved?


----------



## Gadfly

sleepwithechoes said:


> I'm quite happy with this Patriot Viper Steel 4000C19 kit. My current settings for 3800C16 are VDIMM 1.42, VSOC 1.1V, CLDO_VDDP 0.95, CLDO_VDDG 1.025, procODT 40, CAD_BUS 24/20/24/24.
> Is it true that these kits don't go well with GDM disabled and Cmd2T=1T? What would it require? I'm open to any other recommendations. I want to try 3733C14 or 3800C15


Can you run MaxxMem instead of AIDA? it gives much more accurate and repeatable results.


----------



## sleepwithechoes

@*Veii* I incorporated your recommendations and things seem quite good. Thank you once again


@*kratosatlante* your memory tune is looking mighty fine. That's very impressive stuff for 4 DIMMS! As for my CPU, I had been using a 3600X for quite some time but it wasn't really much of an overclocker. 4,2 GHz at 1.22V was my optimized 24/7 OC. It also could do "only" 1866 IF. I read comments about newer 3600's overclocking like crazy so I decided to buy one to test my luck.. and oh boy, this one's a keeper. It's going strong at 4,4 GHz at ~1.162V and 1900 IF :cheers:
@Gadfly of course 


edit: and yes, AIDA memory tests do have some variance and CPU clock speed matters. My memory latency isn't directly comparable to a Ryzen 3600 at 4,2GHz


----------



## DeusM

@Veii


Hi i tried to lower my settings from cl16 to cl15 3733 but i kept getting worse scores on AIDA64


i think this is due to the 2T and i dont know why it did it??


The only this i changed was main timings and i disabled Geardownmode and PowerdownMode.



@FlyByU


My ram wont even boot at any iteration of CL14 i dont know if you have tried that yet from the dram calculator.


----------



## FlyByU

DeusM said:


> @Veii
> 
> 
> Hi i tried to lower my settings from cl16 to cl15 3733 but i kept getting worse scores on AIDA64
> 
> 
> i think this is due to the 2T and i dont know why it did it??
> 
> 
> The only this i changed was main timings and i disabled Geardownmode and PowerdownMode.
> 
> 
> 
> @FlyByU
> 
> 
> My ram wont even boot at any iteration of CL14 i dont know if you have tried that yet from the dram calculator.


I haven't tried cl14. I took a chance on those timings on the picture of yours but got too many errors quickly. I'm also stuck in here...


----------



## Ronski

*Tips to get 1900Mhz IF please?*

I just built my first proper AMD rig in what must be around 15 years, having switched to Intel after that, and now back to AMD. I only ever overclock a new system and then use that for quite a number of years, so don't get much practice, and then generally forget.

Being a cheapskate (a tight oldish git saving for retirement) I bought the cheapest CL16 3600Mhz memory I could buy, then learned how crucial it was to get good quality memory. I was having lots of issues to get the system stable at XMP settings, not coming out of sleep, crashes etc, it is a steep learning curve. Discovered that the motherboard auto voltages was too high for SOC and VDDP etc, changed these and at least then it would boot at the stock XMP settings, but still wasn't stable, then I read on this thread I think that the memory could be running too hot. Guess what my cheap (well not that cheap!) memory doesn't have a temperature sensor, so got my IR gun out and they were 50 degree's C (40 - 50 degrees can cause errors), one 120mm fan pointed at them and problem solved - I do have a proper memory cooler, but the GPU is too close to the slots. Anyway now the memory temperature is sorted things became a lot more stable.

I've got it to the point where I can run RAM Test for 13 hours/23501% without errors, this is at 3734Mhz memory and 1867Mhz IF, with the memory at stock XMP timings and 1.37v, the memory is also stable at the same settings at 3800Mhz, the memory will even boot into Windows at 4000Mhz with the same XMP settings at 1.4v, but is not stable although I can bench mark it.

I've tried the DRAM calculator for Ryzen fast preset at 3734/1867, but although initially I got it stable, for some reason it lost stability, and as it didn't appear to offer any noticeable performance improvements I stuck with the XMP timings. I also haven't changed any of the items on the advanced tab, or power supply tab.


I've also managed to get it to boot and run Aida with the IF at 1900Mhz, but alas it's not stable, so has anyone got any pointers for getting IF stable at 1900Mhz please? Note, the memory is stable at 3800Mhz.

One other thing I've noticed is that Cinebench R20 gave it's highest score of 7237 with the memory at 2666Mhz and IF at 1333, but at 3734/1867 I get around 7175 points, is that just because the CPU is running a bit warmer and thus not boosting quite so high, and of course Cinebench is not memory intensive?


----------



## GrGhRocket

Veii said:


> @sonic2911 both errors are transfer errors - size 16 an 32
> It's a delay issue in this case
> try if just adding tWRRD 3 will fix it
> 
> "TM5 v3 runs just 3 cycles." ~ @Alpharevx
> You need to change it to 20 cycles inside the MT.cfg, inside /bin
> Then if you have a config.link ~ you'd need to erase that one, so it initializes the MT.cfg
> You run 1.025vSOC , that's about the absolute minimum you can run for 3600MT/s
> 
> Try 80/90-20-24-24 CAD_BUS for your dimms
> and push a bit more VDDG IOD for the B450 boards
> procODT you can keep the same
> Push tRCD RD to 20, tRP 18, tRAS 34, tRC 56, tRFC 512-380-234, tWR 16, tRTP ? try if 8 will be fine
> Keep the rest
> Voltages:
> cLDO_VDDP 900
> cLDO_VDDG IOD 975
> cLDO_VDDG CCD 925
> vSOC 1075
> please try if that would be enough
> but you should've tested if 1900FCLK runs in decoupled mode with the voltages above ~ first
> 
> @zsoltmol WHEA errors are voltage errors
> Try to press 1x - voltage on the offset , somewhere near 0.011975ish negative offset, or adjust vSOC loadline to drop a bit less
> Might be fine if you drop cLDO_VDDG CCD to 940 and push IOD to 970, but i think you won't need to
> 
> @ManniX-ITA known bug since AGESA 1004B patch B
> Happens when you load XMP beyond 3600, might be now even more broken
> 
> @GrGhRocket CAD_BUS should be at least 40-20-24-24 to prevent cold boot issues
> You are stable at 1.025vSOC ? did you enable UncoreOC mode before putting that one in ?
> Are you on AGESA 1005/1006 ?
> Either AMD did some microcode magic on 1006 or your vSOC is autocorrected
> If you have ryzen master, doublecheck - but keep in mind it will break CPPC after you open it ~ so you need to re'enable it after wiping ryzen master
> GDM off will need a lot more VDIMM
> Also on your timings set, tRRDL should be 5 not 4 and tRTP 6 instead of 8
> Your SD & DDs as 1-1-1-1-1-1 will cut performance, it should only be used as the last resort to make unstable kits stable
> Pretty sure you lose at least 0.5ns here
> 
> @paih85 good job
> Might want to try pushing SD , DD's to 1-5-5-1-7-7 , 1-4-4-1-6-6 should be used for dual rank or 4 dimms
> then if you at the same time push tWRRD to 4, you might even be able to drop SLC to 4 and get a bit more perf out ofit



mmmm mode nightmare:

What happens to my latency?


agesa 1.0.0.4B
disabled UncoreOC
14-14-14-28
DramVolt: 1.555
SocVoltage: 1.025
ProcODT 34.3
Rtt_NOM: Off
Rtt_WR: Off
RttPark. RZQ/5
CAD: 60-20-20-24
GearDownMode: OFF
PowerDownMode: OFF
VDDG and VDDP: Auto
x42.75
vCORE 1.41


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> One other thing I've noticed is that Cinebench R20 gave it's highest score of 7237 with the memory at 2666Mhz and IF at 1333, but at 3734/1867 I get around 7175 points, is that just because the CPU is running a bit warmer and thus not boosting quite so high, and of course Cinebench is not memory intensive?



Yeah that's because the 2666mhz run uses much less power for the SOC/fclk so the cores can boost slightly higher. If you were manually overclocking the faster ram speed would be faster, I wouldn't worry faster fclk is better than 25-50mhz cpu clock even if that particular benchmark doesn't show it.
I think I just purchased a 32gb of the same RAM you have so it will be interesting to see what you can do with it(I got the RGB version because it was 20$ cheaper somehow, hopefully I can disable the unicorn lasers).


----------



## Farih

Think i'm done.

3800-cl16, cl15 GDM off not stable, CL14 GDM on doesnt even boot.

Just gonna try lower voltages now unless someone has a great tip to improve latency for me.

Voltages:
Dram 1.42V
SoC 1.1V (1.087V - 1.081V in HWI64)
VDDG both 1.025V
VDDP 0.95V

ProcODT 40
Cadbus 24-20-24-24


----------



## Ronski

@2600ryzen Thanks for the confirmation with reference to Cinebench, it will also be interesting to see what you can do with the ram, I'm pretty clueless at the moment, but trying to squeeze the last bit out of it can become a bit of an obsession it would seem. Although I very impressed what a 3900X can do with my Ripbot encode's when couple with my 4.5Ghz i7-5820, bluray encode in 32 minute in H265, before it would have be an hour longer or more with my 5820k and i5-750 (3.8Ghz).


----------



## HatchetEgg

Hi guys,


It has been sometime since I made a post here, thought I share with you my latest score in AIDA64 with accompanying ram timings. Ram is set to 1.51V.


----------



## Veii

HatchetEgg said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> 
> It has been sometime since I made a post here, thought I share with you my latest score in AIDA64 with accompanying ram timings. Ram is set to 1.51V.


This set is awkward, tRAS is far to low and autocorrected
Minimum tRAS for you is tCL+tWR+tBL - as lowest lowest ~ else it's tCL + tRCD
tRCD WR is strange too, push it up to 9 at least, soo avg tRCD is 14 and not 13 (easier to work with)
tRFC is strange too but that's something you have to benchmark and figure out 
overall your timings are awkward in the sense of "broken awkward"
please grab SiSoftware Sandra - Multi Core efficiency , test

And compare your timings with:









Same for @alefim
tRAS is far to low, it has no wiggle room ~ this is 100% autocorrected
only tRC has wiggle room with a negative effect that affects maximum tCWL and tRDWR range

Focus on tRDWR and SCL keeping low
That's where performance comes from 
tRP is mostly only affected by supplied VDIMM
but dropping tRAS under tCL+tWR+tBL is not a good option, it will be autocorrected 
soo use SiSandra as benchmark for such subtle changes
Same goes for SuperPi 1.5 SX (32M) ~ it will show tiny performance differences


----------



## HatchetEgg

Veii said:


> This set is awkward, tRAS is far to low and autocorrected
> Minimum tRAS for you is tCL+tWR+tBL - as lowest lowest ~ else it's tCL + tRCD
> tRCD WR is strange too, push it up to 9 at least, soo avg tRCD is 14 and not 13 (easier to work with)
> tRFC is strange too but that's something you have to benchmark and figure out
> overall your timings are awkward in the sense of "broken awkward"
> please grab SiSoftware Sandra - Multi Core efficiency , test





I agree my timings seem unconventional, I mainly lowered TRAS below what it should be to see if there was any benefit.


The TRCD WR value was set to 8, buildzoid mentioned in one of his videos you can lower it that far. So I thought I experiment with it.


I had tried lowering the SCL values but system becomes pretty unstable.


I have completed the multi core efficiency test you mentioned, you are welcome to see the scores that are attached.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

Someone know why TM5 stop working after a while ? :










Currently testing these timing with 1.45V and :








Every others voltage on auto. (vddp 900, vddg 1050, vsoc 1.0813)

No errors so far but TM5 stopped working, i had this bug a few times with completely different timings/frequency.


----------



## rares495

GoforceReloaded said:


> Someone know why TM5 stop working after a while ? :
> 
> Currently testing these timing with 1.45V and :
> Every others voltage on auto. (vddp 900, vddg 1050, vsoc 1.0813)
> 
> No errors so far but TM5 stopped working, i had this bug a few times with completely different timings/frequency.


Not sure why it does that but you only need to let it run for 20 cycles. If it passes that and 10000% Karhu RAM Test with cache/1000% HCI memtest then you're golden.


----------



## algida79

GoforceReloaded said:


> Someone know why TM5 stop working after a while ? :





I have encountered this several times, last time it was also at the end of cycle 25. Not sure if it's a bug but worrying nonetheless because iirc at the start of each new cycle there is a very quick step that cleans up all the allocated memory (fill with zeroes probably).


----------



## Nighthog

algida79 said:


> I also encountered this several times, last time it was also at the end of cycle 25. Not sure if it's a bug but worrying nonetheless because iirc at the start of each new cycle there is a very quick step that cleans up all the allocated memory (fill with zeroes probably).


It's unstable a voltage probably needs adjustment in relations to SoC & IMC. You might only need a small adjustment to fix it. I've seen it before, more often than not a voltage issue. The longer these cpu's run the more important proper voltage settings become. 
I've noted often after several hours testing stuff the SoC and it's parts has a tendency to become more quirky and can start to give issues on marginal voltages, "the tolerance drifts" with uptime, but it's really only noted when on the edge of frequency limit/board limits.

It's irritating when you find something "stable" you worked a whole day on and then in the decides to "break" and no longer work until you change your voltages around.


----------



## yrelbirb

nighthog is right, i had issues with testmem5 and it was because my ram oc was not stable

once i relax the timings i tightened a bit, test continues for 20 cycles

btw, i still can't get 3533 to work properly on my 2700x, still get error 6 and error 12 in quick succession


----------



## FlyByU

Nighthog said:


> It's unstable a voltage probably needs adjustment in relations to SoC & IMC. You might only need a small adjustment to fix it. I've seen it before, more often than not a voltage issue. The longer these cpu's run the more important proper voltage settings become.
> I've noted often after several hours testing stuff the SoC and it's parts has a tendency to become more quirky and can start to give issues on marginal voltages, "the tolerance drifts" with uptime, but it's really only noted when on the edge of frequency limit/board limits.
> 
> It's irritating when you find something "stable" you worked a whole day on and then in the decides to "break" and no longer work until you change your voltages around.


TM5 stopped testing before cycle 20 yesterday. I was just trying to lower my voltages, so I guess it is due to voltages that need adjustment.


----------



## deepor

GoforceReloaded said:


> Someone know why TM5 stop working after a while ? :
> 
> [...]
> 
> No errors so far but TM5 stopped working, i had this bug a few times with completely different timings/frequency.



I think it's happening when memory runs out. It seems to work fine when I don't touch anything while it's running, but it likes to stop if I try to use some other program while it's running.

There was also one time where it stopped while I wasn't touching anything. That time was caused by Windows Update starting to work on something in the background and using too much memory. I could see it in the Task Manager downloading stuff etc.

*EDIT:*

The "MT.cfg" config file that comes with the TM5 1usmus_v3 download has this line here in it:



Code:


Reserved Memory for Windows (Mb)=128

I changed that line into the following, and this helped make TM5 not stop anymore when memory is tight:



Code:


Reserved Memory for Windows (Mb)=1024

This larger number makes TM5 use a bit less memory. Trying to use a number larger than 1024 doesn't work for that config setting, it will ignore it and go back to using the same memory as with the default 128 number.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

Thanks,

Only thing i changed was LLC from high to auto for VSOC and Vdimm from 1.48V to 1.45V (but i know that these timings work perfectly with 1.45V so maybe it's the VSOC afterall).

I'll put back LLC to high on VSOC and see if 50 cycles TM5 is working ^^

LLC on auto = 1.069-1.081V on SoC Voltage (SVI2 TFN) // CPU VCORE SOC = 1.104-1.116V
LLC on high = 1.087-1.094V on SoC Voltage (SVI2 TFN) // CPU VCORE SOC = 1.116V


----------



## Nighthog

GoforceReloaded said:


> Thanks,
> 
> Only thing i changed was LLC from high to auto for VSOC and Vdimm from 1.48V to 1.45V (but i know that these timings work perfectly with 1.45V so maybe it's the VSOC afterall).
> 
> I'll put back LLC to high on VSOC and see if 50 cycles TM5 is working ^^
> 
> LLC on auto = 1.069-1.081V on SoC Voltage (SVI2 TFN) // CPU VCORE SOC = 1.104-1.116V
> LLC on high = 1.087-1.094V on SoC Voltage (SVI2 TFN) // CPU VCORE SOC = 1.116V


Are you using F20a BIOS on the X570 Xtreme?

If you do, change your vSoC to 1.000V and try with that. I noted myself 1.100V causes issues, they went away with a lower vSoC like 1.000V and appropriate VDDG choice below it.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

Nighthog said:


> Are you using F20a BIOS on the X570 Xtreme?
> 
> If you do, change your vSoC to 1.000V and try with that. I noted myself 1.100V causes issues, they went away with a lower vSoC like 1.000V and appropriate VDDG choice below it.


Yes i'm using F20A, every voltage are on AUTO (except Ram voltage)

VDDP is 900 (auto) and both VDDG are 1050 (auto).

I don't think 1.000V on vSoC will work with a FCLK of 1900 but I can try : p


----------



## FlyByU

(Deleted)


----------



## alefim

Veii said:


> This set is awkward, tRAS is far to low and autocorrected
> Minimum tRAS for you is tCL+tWR+tBL - as lowest lowest ~ else it's tCL + tRCD
> tRCD WR is strange too, push it up to 9 at least, soo avg tRCD is 14 and not 13 (easier to work with)
> tRFC is strange too but that's something you have to benchmark and figure out
> overall your timings are awkward in the sense of "broken awkward"
> please grab SiSoftware Sandra - Multi Core efficiency , test
> 
> And compare your timings with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same for @alefim
> tRAS is far to low, it has no wiggle room ~ this is 100% autocorrected
> only tRC has wiggle room with a negative effect that affects maximum tCWL and tRDWR range
> 
> Focus on tRDWR and SCL keeping low
> That's where performance comes from
> tRP is mostly only affected by supplied VDIMM
> but dropping tRAS under tCL+tWR+tBL is not a good option, it will be autocorrected
> soo use SiSandra as benchmark for such subtle changes
> Same goes for SuperPi 1.5 SX (32M) ~ it will show tiny performance differences


Hi @Veii, thanks for your time

I made some adjustments and came to that, also with stability, and with a little improvement. I increased tWR from 10 to 12.

Some doubts:

1) Why tRCDWR at 9? I did not understand this part.

2) tRP in 10 not post, in 11 normal, can it be?

3) SCL's can be 2 or 1, the smaller the better? I haven't tested it yet.

4) tRFC I used your link and I used tRF * 7, can it be less?

5) Are SD and DD correct or need to be 5-5 and 7-7?


----------



## fcchin

Ronski said:


> Being a cheapskate (a tight oldish git saving for retirement) I bought the cheapest CL16 3600Mhz memory I could buy,
> 
> so has anyone got any pointers for getting IF stable at 1900Mhz please?


Hello Ronski, same as you buying as economy and sensibly as you, although I do know the miracles and performance gains but I simply couldn't compel to paying nearly 100% more for these speed examples.

my ram at 3600mhz XMP original - 75ns latency, 1usmus easy. Sometimes 71ns 
my ram at 3600mhz 1usmus calculator 1.7.3 FAST - 67ns 1.376v soc 1.056v 
my ram at 3734mhz 1usmus calculator 1.7.3 SAFE - 65ns 1.400v soc 1.075v

expensive ram at 3600mhz only but timing 14CL, 60ns. WoW so wish I have this...... 

So why this big discrepancy? because I didn't push my CPU all core high mhz, while others did. but alas I didn't pay for it and no I don't want to run 24/7 @ 1.45V to push to 14CL.

Last, my CPU is week 1930 = year 2019 week 30, doesn't do FCLK 1900Mhz for me either. May be I haven't found the correct.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

Nighthog said:


> Are you using F20a BIOS on the X570 Xtreme?
> 
> If you do, change your vSoC to 1.000V and try with that. I noted myself 1.100V causes issues, they went away with a lower vSoC like 1.000V and appropriate VDDG choice below it.


*I put back LLC vSOC on high.*
I tried vSOC 1.000V - VDDP 900 - VDDG 950 : my AE-9 soundcard is "killed" (audio drop out) few seconds after windows is launched (hardware interrupt & dpcs increased to ~5%).
I tried vSOC 1.050V - VDDP 900 - VDDG 975: my AE-9 soundcard is "killed" 2min after kahru ram test is launched (hardware interrupt & dpcs increased to ~5%).

With vSOC 1.100V - VDDP 900 - VDDG 1000 : kahru ram test of 10000% passed in 4h30 but TM5 failed once before cycle 18 (don't know when) on test 5.

With vSOC auto - VDDP 900 - VDDG 1050 :









I got 1 error in test 10 in 50 cycles but don't know when it happen (why it's not written in english ? xD)

SO TM5 don't stop working anymore with the little bump on vSOC/VDDG.

Someone know what do i need to change ?

I think veii wrote this "Error 10 mostly affects the first 5 main timings
- noticed it can be tRCDWR to RD, can be tRP too, but it also can be the last two tRDWR & tRDRD which don't play well with your main tRCDWR/RD"

SO maybe it's tRDWRWRSD/DD, tRDRDSD/DD or tRDWR/tWRRD ? I don't know.


----------



## Nighthog

GoforceReloaded said:


> *I put back LLC vSOC on high.*
> I tried vSOC 1.000V - VDDP 900 - VDDG 950 : my AE-9 soundcard is "killed" (audio drop out) few seconds after windows is launched (hardware interrupt & dpcs increased to ~5%).
> I tried vSOC 1.050V - VDDP 900 - VDDG 975: my AE-9 soundcard is "killed" 2min after kahru ram test is launched (hardware interrupt & dpcs increased to ~5%).
> 
> With vSOC 1.100V - VDDP 900 - VDDG 1000 : kahru ram test of 10000% passed in 4h30 but TM5 failed once before cycle 18 (don't know when) on test 5.
> 
> With vSOC auto - VDDP 900 - VDDG 1050 :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got 1 error in test 10 in 50 cycles but don't know when it happen (why it's not written in english ? xD)
> 
> SO TM5 don't stop working anymore with the little bump on vSOC/VDDG.
> 
> Someone know what do i need to change ?
> 
> I think veii wrote this "Error 10 mostly affects the first 5 main timings
> - noticed it can be tRCDWR to RD, can be tRP too, but it also can be the last two tRDWR & tRDRD which don't play well with your main tRCDWR/RD"
> 
> SO maybe it's tRDWRWRSD/DD, tRDRDSD/DD or tRDWR/tWRRD ? I don't know.


Maybe a bump in DRAM voltage fixes that single error? You are at safe 1.450V it looks like, 1.460V doesn't hurt I think.


----------



## jamie1073

So I got this new kit and compared to my old kit this one seems to suck. My old kit was Corsair Vengence Pro RGB 3600C18 32GB (4x8GB) and I could easily clock it to 3800C18. This new kit is 3600C14 32GB Trident Z and the best I can get it without errors in memtest is 3733C14CR2 instead of CR1. Sad to say the old kit did much better than these 'B' Die G-Skill's. 



The first top cachemem is the G-Skill the other is the Corsair.


----------



## KedarWolf

jamie1073 said:


> So I got this new kit and compared to my old kit this one seems to suck. My old kit was Corsair Vengence Pro RGB 3600C18 32GB (4x8GB) and I could easily clock it to 3800C18. This new kit is 3600C14 32GB Trident Z and the best I can get it without errors in memtest is 3733C14CR2 instead of CR1. Sad to say the old kit did much better than these 'B' Die G-Skill's.
> 
> 
> 
> The first top cachemem is the G-Skill the other is the Corsair.


X570 boards are Daisy Chain, if you're going to go 32GB 2x16GB overclocks better than 4x8GB...


----------



## jamie1073

KedarWolf said:


> X570 boards are Daisy Chain, if you're going to go 32GB 2x16GB overclocks better than 4x8GB...



I know that, it is just very strange that the lesser timed chips clocked better than the new chips and had no errors. I just kind of expected more from the better timed ram. Was thinking maybe someone had some thoughts on it, maybe someone has the same kit.


----------



## GoforceReloaded

Nighthog said:


> Maybe a bump in DRAM voltage fixes that single error? You are at safe 1.450V it looks like, 1.460V doesn't hurt I think.


*I changed the ram voltage to 1.46V (in reality it's ~1.485V with 1.476V minimum), 1.45V was ~1.476V.*

I also changed both SCL to 2 instead of 4 (Needed to see if it was working xD), latency is a bit better (~64-64.3ns in AIDA64 with [email protected] without PBO) and MB/S in read/write/copy are faster too.










So far so good, 41 cycles in 4h43 without a single error, ram temp is currently ~41-43° and max was 42.8-45°. (25° amb temp)

1 cycle take ~6m 50s when TM5 is using 1.2GB*24.
1 cycle take less than ~6m30s when TM5 is using 1.1GB*24.

Writting the message and the test still running without problem (cyle 44)


I still don't understand correctly how to calculate tRDWR and tWRRD properly for 4 dimm and optimize these 2 timings with tRCDWR/tRCDRD.
8/4 with SCL 4 or 2 are fine. (8/4 with SCL 3 give some rare random errors ?)
8/1 & 9/1 with SCL 2/3/4 not even booting. (need to clear cmos)

Did not try other tRDWR/tWRRD timings for now.


Good news is TM5 now running without problem and the rare error seems to be gone.

*So yes, when TM5 stopped working, this was definitely due to lack of voltage on the vSOC ! (1.069-1.081V on vSOC = TM5 going to sleep after some while without finish all cycles, 1.087-1.094v = finish all cycles)*

Auto vSOC seem to be equal to 1.106V (manually) in the bios, with high LLC = 1.087-1.094V in reality (1.094V is the absolute maximum, it's 1.087V most of the time)

Edit : succes


----------



## FlyByU

(deleted)


----------



## GoforceReloaded

FlyByU said:


> Guys we're finally stable at 3800MHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I left all the red ones in "Auto" in the BIOS but that's what my MB assigned to them.
> 
> Any idea to tighten those timings? Appreciate the help!
> 
> @DeusM @LuckyBahstard


Hmm,

You will kill the SOC of your CPU with these values.

VSOC of 1.363V (*** ? oO) (absolute maximum is 1.200V for 24h/24 use and still not recommanded) (I hope that this a misreading)
VDDP of 1000 is totally useless for FCLK 1900.
VDDG of 1.150V (1.1481V) is way too high.

Can you take a screenshot of HWiNFO64 6.26-4160 like this to see the real value of SoC Voltage and CPU VCORE SOC ? :


----------



## FlyByU

GoforceReloaded said:


> Hmm,
> 
> You will kill the SOC of your CPU with these values.
> 
> VSOC of 1.363V (*** ? oO) (absolute maximum is 1.200V for 24h/24 use and still not recommanded) (I hope that this a misreading)
> VDDP of 1000 is totally useless for FCLK 1900.
> VDDG of 1.150V (1.1481V) is way too high.
> 
> Can you take a screenshot of HWiNFO64 6.26-4160 like this to see the real value of SoC Voltage and CPU VCORE SOC ? :


I just asked @LuckyBahstard and he found it weird as well. I set CLDO VDDP=950mV + VDDG (both)=1.0v and took a screenshot. here it is:










It was a misreading of Ryzen Master


----------



## KedarWolf

GoforceReloaded said:


> *I changed the ram voltage to 1.46V (in reality it's ~1.485V with 1.476V minimum), 1.45V was ~1.476V.*
> 
> I also changed both SCL to 2 instead of 4 (Needed to see if it was working xD), latency is a bit better (~64-64.3ns in AIDA64 with [email protected] without PBO) and MB/S in read/write/copy are faster too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far so good, 41 cycles in 4h43 without a single error, ram temp is currently ~41-43° and max was 42.8-45°. (25° amb temp)
> 
> 1 cycle take ~6m 50s when TM5 is using 1.2GB*24.
> 1 cycle take less than ~6m30s when TM5 is using 1.1GB*24.
> 
> Writting the message and the test still running without problem (cyle 44)
> 
> 
> I still don't understand correctly how to calculate tRDWR and tWRRD properly for 4 dimm and optimize these 2 timings with tRCDWR/tRCDRD.
> 8/4 with SCL 4 or 2 are fine. (8/4 with SCL 3 give some rare random errors ?)
> 8/1 & 9/1 with SCL 2/3/4 not even booting. (need to clear cmos)
> 
> Did not try other tRDWR/tWRRD timings for now.
> 
> 
> Good news is TM5 now running without problem and the rare error seems to be gone.
> 
> *So yes, when TM5 stopped working, this was definitely due to lack of voltage on the vSOC ! (1.069-1.081V on vSOC = TM5 going to sleep after some while without finish all cycles, 1.087-1.094v = finish all cycles)*
> 
> Auto vSOC seem to be equal to 1.106V (manually) in the bios, with high LLC = 1.087-1.094V in reality (1.094V is the absolute maximum, it's 1.087V most of the time)
> 
> Edit : succes


How do you set TM5 to 1.1GB?


----------



## mongoled

KedarWolf said:


> How do you set TM5 to 1.1GB?


Think its described in the post below

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-859.html#post28508908


----------



## GoforceReloaded

FlyByU said:


> I just asked @LuckyBahstard and he found it weird as well. I set CLDO VDDP=950mV + VDDG (both)=1.0v and took a screenshot. here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a misreading of Ryzen Master


Maybe try to reinstall the latest chipset driver and ryzen master after. (uninstall both before)

Good to know that it was a misreading xD

You can put VDDG to 1050 without any problem if 1000 is not enought.



KedarWolf said:


> How do you set TM5 to 1.1GB?


TM5 just take the ram that is available on the system.

If i close everything, it's ~24*1.2GB.

When i launch firefox (for example) when TM5 is running, on the next cycle it will be "only" 24*1.1GB.

Since you have a 3950X, the maximum would be 32*900 for you. (maybe a little more if you close everything except TM5)


----------



## FranZe

Where do i download zentimings for zen2?

EDIT: Never mind


----------



## KedarWolf

Lower timings are not necessarily better.

I can do 14-16-10-13-28 2T with 252 tRFC TM5 stable.

I can also do 15-16-10-13-29 2T with 273 tRFC.

The second gets considerably more bandwidth in AIDA64 cache and memory test and lowers almost a full second off Blender Classroom and the results are repeatable and consistent. :h34r-smi

I tried 14-16-10-13-28 2T with 270 tRFC to see if it helped, still much slower.


----------



## Awsan

@Veii I know you are busy these days 

But The latency is getting on my nerves, what do you think I should tweak on these DJRs.

Thanks


----------



## 2600ryzen

KedarWolf said:


> Lower timings are not necessarily better.
> 
> I can do 14-16-10-13-28 2T with 252 tRFC TM5 stable.
> 
> I can also do 15-16-10-13-29 2T with 273 tRFC.
> 
> The second gets considerably more bandwidth in AIDA64 cache and memory test and lowers almost a full second off Blender Classroom and the results are repeatable and consistent. :h34r-smi
> 
> I tried 14-16-10-13-28 2T with 270 tRFC to see if it helped, still much slower.



Yeah I like to benchmark every timing change in dram calculator to see if it's faster, maybe auto correct is doing a +4 on unstable timings?


----------



## Nighthog

Awsan said:


> @Veii I know you are busy these days
> 
> But The latency is getting on my nerves, what do you think I should tweak on these DJRs.
> 
> Thanks


Hynix DJR 17nm?

Here is what I could do on my Kingston kit with those. 
Same timings work for 3800Mhz 1900FCLK, tRFC can be a bit lower though instead. 
They require ~1.600V for tCL 15, tCL 16 can be done on 1.450V. 

tFAW on this kit requires higher clkDrvStr. 60 Ohm makes 8-16 tFAW possible.
GeardownMode:disabled works with ease on this specific kit but I would guess Hynix DJR could do it in general. I needed clkDrvStr 24-60 Ohm for that.

[60-20-20-20] CAD_BUS in general worked out great.

~1.500V should make SCL 2-2 possible.


----------



## jamie1073

This is what I ended up with. Seems better timings was better than raising IF speeds.


----------



## buyology

Hi there, im using F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC Double rank and Hynix Djr Ram kit with Crosshair VI Hero

Stable speeds are [email protected] @ 1.36v - Soc 1.1v

*But i'm concern about the ram temps, idle temps are 42-45 

Peak temp is 56 when i'm gaming.*

I have a good air flow in my case, also my friend using the same kit with X570 Strix-F @ Stock XMP settings and temps are the almost same just 2-3c difference at peak temps.

Is it a dangerous numbers for ram? And should i do something about it?


----------



## Nighthog

buyology said:


> Hi there, im using F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC Double rank and Hynix Djr Ram kit with Crosshair VI Hero
> 
> Stable speeds are [email protected] @ 1.36v - Soc 1.1v
> 
> *But i'm concern about the ram temps, idle temps are 42-45
> 
> Peak temp is 56 when i'm gaming.*
> 
> I have a good air flow in my case, also my friend using the same kit with X570 Strix-F @ Stock XMP settings and temps are the almost same just 2-3c difference at peak temps.
> 
> Is it a dangerous numbers for ram? And should i do something about it?


Does it get unstable when you let it run like that? If not I see not the problem, only when you want to push your kits further with more voltage should it become necessary if and when they become unstable because of the heat.


----------



## buyology

Nighthog said:


> Does it get unstable when you let it run like that? If not I see not the problem, only when you want to push your kits further with more voltage should it become necessary if and when they become unstable because of the heat.


Tested for 6 hours and didn't get any error. They are stable, i just wonder about temps. So in this situation, there' is nothing to worry about.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Sence alot of you been playing with samsung ram whats the most volts you would run thru samsung c memory currently trying to get 3566 or 3600mhz stable at 1.42 right now and 3566 is stable with that.


----------



## Veii

@buyology the only thing you should consider is calculating and setting correct tRFC for high thermals on dimms
These are capacitors not sillicon - they work, or don't work 
There is no middle ground
Dimms can get unstable after 42c, but it's a "can" a "maybe someday" value
Pretty much a chance to happen, up to how much wasted latency exists in the timings loop 
"Wasted lantecy" soo they can (p)recharge in time, as voltage and heat only do influence on this one thing "Capacitor discharge after time"

In short, don't worry 
If you go with very harsh no wasted latency timings, then worry about your thermals and timings accuracy
If you aren't - dont make yourself a headache about that topic - dimms are designed to opperate even up to 85c without issues, 
they pretty much autocorrect themself and adjust half of the timings in the hidden (you only see half of the timings in your bios section, and even these are autocorrected by your board)

Only advice to give is, fix your tRFC 1, 2, 4 
Getting that accurate will guarantee that neverless of the temp or autocorrection state, the remain timings will be accurate
Take a look here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw
On page 2, there is a tiny tRFC<->tRFC [ns] field, put your 524 on there and it will spill out tRFC 2 and tRFC 4 ~ just be sure to put in 3733.33333333 as frequency (MT/s)

I strongly hope tRDWR and tWRRD is wrong
It should be tRDWR 13 , tWRRD 1
And you can go down to 12-4 without fixing anything


Bal3Wolf said:


> Sence alot of you been playing with samsung ram whats the most volts you would run thru samsung c memory currently trying to get 3566 or 3600mhz stable at 1.42 right now and 3566 is stable with that.


C-Die was 19nm right ?
I heard they don't scale that well with voltage
1.46v always works on Samsung IC, maximum range depends on your PCB and nm of these units


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> I strongly hope tRDWR and tWRRD is wrong
> It should be tRDWR 13 , tWRRD 1
> And you can go down to 12-4 without fixing anything



18-7 are the auto values with the new AGESA 1.0.0.6 from Asus on the C6H. I believe it also happens on the C7H too. I assume it's a bug.


----------



## Veii

jamie1073 said:


> This is what I ended up with. Seems better timings was better than raising IF speeds.


You compared 2T timings with 1.5T = GDM , logically that GDM off is faster
While the 2T ones surely where not finetuned (taking that suspicion simply as tFAW and tRFC are wrong on your side)

tFAW = 4* tRRD_S , = 28 
No 5* no *6 , there are no exceptions to that rule as DDR4 will only allow 4* tRRD_S to pass
fix that and your tRFC is wrong by 1 (351 is wrong) , either rounding error or calculation error 
352-262-161 is your correct one , please fill all 3 of them

Might want to share the 2T timings for 3734MT/s ?
Also if you can update to AGESA 1005 - MSI should have pushed them out already, or even 1006


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Veii said:


> @buyology the only thing you should consider is calculating and setting correct tRFC for high thermals on dimms
> These are capacitors not sillicon - they work, or don't work
> There is no middle ground
> Dimms can get unstable after 42c, but it's a "can" a "maybe someday" value
> Pretty much a chance to happen, up to how much wasted latency exists in the timings loop
> "Wasted lantecy" soo they can (p)recharge in time, as voltage and heat only do influence on this one thing "Capacitor discharge after time"
> 
> In short, don't worry
> If you go with very harsh no wasted latency timings, then worry about your thermals and timings accuracy
> If you aren't - dont make yourself a headache about that topic - dimms are designed to opperate even up to 85c without issues,
> they pretty much autocorrect themself and adjust half of the timings in the hidden (you only see half of the timings in your bios section, and even these are autocorrected by your board)
> 
> Only advice to give is, fix your tRFC 1, 2, 4
> Getting that accurate will guarantee that neverless of the temp or autocorrection state, the remain timings will be accurate
> Take a look here
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw
> On page 2, there is a tiny tRFC<->tRFC [ns] field, put your 524 on there and it will spill out tRFC 2 and tRFC 4 ~ just be sure to put in 3733.33333333 as frequency (MT/s)
> 
> I strongly hope tRDWR and tWRRD is wrong
> It should be tRDWR 13 , tWRRD 1
> And you can go down to 12-4 without fixing anything
> 
> C-Die was 19nm right ?
> I heard they don't scale that well with voltage
> 1.46v always works on Samsung IC, maximum range depends on your PCB and nm of these units


Yea its not gonna be any wonder ram but my chips are 3200 that iv managed to get 3566 stable so far with relaxed timings not tuned yet tho its c or low end b die i think still new to the samsung ram stuff.
https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/ddr4/K4A8G085WB-BCPB/


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> 18-7 are the auto values with the new AGESA 1.0.0.6 from Asus on the C6H. I believe it also happens on the C7H too. I assume it's a bug.


Funny bug 
Litteraly using 3T timing and adding a whole cycle ontop of it ^^'


----------



## Veii

Bal3Wolf said:


> Yea its not gonna be any wonder ram but my chips are 3200 that iv managed to get 3566 stable so far with relaxed timings not tuned yet tho its c or low end b die i think still new to the samsung ram stuff.
> https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/ddr4/K4A8G085WB-BCPB/


Appears to be B-Die what you linked,
i don't have in my head right now which ICs where in the Corsair 3200CL16-18-18 units, as these where V2 B-dies or so called now "Bad Binn"
https://www.samsung.com/semiconduct...11/8G_B_DDR4_Samsung_Spec_Rev2_1_Feb_17-0.pdf


----------



## Bal3Wolf

but they are 20nm looks like so maybe they can take some more voltage to run higher clocks.


----------



## Veii

Bal3Wolf said:


> but they are 20nm looks like so maybe they can take some more voltage to run higher clocks.


Yep B-dies are 20nm 
Usually 1.46v on every kit, for higher voltage you need to check which PCB they are on
1.48 might work better, but might also show negative effects on A0 PCB 

A1 according to Thaiphoon Burner (if they really are A1 and not custom A2) 
should give you a range of 1.48-1.52vDIMM 
But of course it can happen that these ICs dislike voltage over 1.46v, test it out

Easiest way is, how much VDIMM do you need for 3600MT/s CL12 to boot up
On these "maybe A1" kits it shouldn't need more than 1.58v


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Veii said:


> Yep B-dies are 20nm
> Usually 1.46v on every kit, for higher voltage you need to check which PCB they are on
> 1.48 might work better, but might also show negative effects on A0 PCB
> 
> A1 according to Thaiphoon Burner (if they really are A1 and not custom A2)
> should give you a range of 1.48-1.52vDIMM
> But of course it can happen that these ICs dislike voltage over 1.46v, test it out
> 
> Easiest way is, how much VDIMM do you need for 3600MT/s CL12 to boot up
> On these "maybe A1" kits it shouldn't need more than 1.58v




Yea im gonna play with them more later right now im running 3566 but i had to reduce timings to 20-21-21-21 with 1.42 to get them stable that seems like a ton of voltage for ram lol.


----------



## Veii

GoforceReloaded said:


> I still don't understand correctly how to calculate tRDWR and tWRRD properly for 4 dimm and optimize these 2 timings with tRCDWR/tRCDRD.
> 8/4 with SCL 4 or 2 are fine. (8/4 with SCL 3 give some rare random errors ?)
> 8/1 & 9/1 with SCL 2/3/4 not even booting. (need to clear cmos)
> 
> Did not try other tRDWR/tWRRD timings for now.
> 
> Good news is TM5 now running without problem and the rare error seems to be gone.
> *So yes, when TM5 stopped working, this was definitely due to lack of voltage on the vSOC ! (1.069-1.081V on vSOC = TM5 going to sleep after some while without finish all cycles, 1.087-1.094v = finish all cycles)*
> 
> Edit : succes


Seems like it needs still a bit of spreading 
Here is a tiny guide at the bottom of the post and a link to an old tRDWR & tWRRD Guide
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232

TM5 crashing is mostly related to cores crashing
But you should figure core stability first out with Y-Cruncher and/or prime95 Large FFT 
Y-Cruncher will fail, if you have issues with voltages, under their AVX2 tests


----------



## buyology

Veii said:


> @buyology the only thing you should consider is calculating and setting correct tRFC for high thermals on dimms
> These are capacitors not sillicon - they work, or don't work
> There is no middle ground
> Dimms can get unstable after 42c, but it's a "can" a "maybe someday" value
> Pretty much a chance to happen, up to how much wasted latency exists in the timings loop
> "Wasted lantecy" soo they can (p)recharge in time, as voltage and heat only do influence on this one thing "Capacitor discharge after time"
> 
> In short, don't worry
> If you go with very harsh no wasted latency timings, then worry about your thermals and timings accuracy
> If you aren't - dont make yourself a headache about that topic - dimms are designed to opperate even up to 85c without issues,
> they pretty much autocorrect themself and adjust half of the timings in the hidden (you only see half of the timings in your bios section, and even these are autocorrected by your board)
> 
> Only advice to give is, fix your tRFC 1, 2, 4
> Getting that accurate will guarantee that neverless of the temp or autocorrection state, the remain timings will be accurate
> Take a look here
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw
> On page 2, there is a tiny tRFC<->tRFC [ns] field, put your 524 on there and it will spill out tRFC 2 and tRFC 4 ~ just be sure to put in 3733.33333333 as frequency (MT/s)
> 
> I strongly hope tRDWR and tWRRD is wrong
> It should be tRDWR 13 , tWRRD 1
> And you can go down to 12-4 without fixing anything
> 
> C-Die was 19nm right ?
> I heard they don't scale that well with voltage
> 1.46v always works on Samsung IC, maximum range depends on your PCB and nm of these units


Thanks for the response. This is little bit consufing for me

Should i change my tdrwr and twrrd to 13 & 1?

And the link you sent says for trfc 512,380,214

Did i calculate right?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

tested my memory no post at 3600 cl12 with 1.58 no post even at 3600 cl16 with 1.48.


----------



## mongoled

Bal3Wolf said:


> tested my memory no post at 3600 cl12 with 1.58 no post even at 3600 cl16 with 1.48.


Is CMD2T set on "Auto"?

If not put it on "Auto" than try to post with those frequencies/timings ...


----------



## Veii

buyology said:


> Thanks for the response. This is little bit consufing for me
> Should i change my tdrwr and twrrd to 13 & 1?
> And the link you sent says for trfc 512,380,214
> Did i calculate right?


Better change tRDWR , it's predicted far to high
But that aside, i just used what is predicted so you dont have to go through the trouble of testing

There wasn't more to it, the timings are a mess, but would require you some hours stresstesting (which you didn't ask for) 
The only important part was to fix tRFC 1,2,4 so even when they get hot - you won't have issues
As tRFC2 is predicted wrong on these boards

What you see are optimal values, but you'd need to change more than that
This tool requires you to use correct values, while your tRC isn't well predicted but has too much playroom
Well it was just so you use the tiny tRFC ns tool to get the correct values and familiarize with the tool for future projects


----------



## jamie1073

Veii said:


> You compared 2T timings with 1.5T = GDM , logically that GDM off is faster
> While the 2T ones surely where not finetuned (taking that suspicion simply as tFAW and tRFC are wrong on your side)
> 
> tFAW = 4* tRRD_S , = 28
> No 5* no *6 , there are no exceptions to that rule as DDR4 will only allow 4* tRRD_S to pass
> fix that and your tRFC is wrong by 1 (351 is wrong) , either rounding error or calculation error
> 352-262-161 is your correct one , please fill all 3 of them
> 
> Might want to share the 2T timings for 3734MT/s ?
> Also if you can update to AGESA 1005 - MSI should have pushed them out already, or even 1006



Thanks I will update that. I really only changed the tRAS, tRC, tRFC based on what the calculator said for Safe at 3600 based on the report from thaiphon burner. I am fairly new to this tweaking as the last kit just worked with what what was set. I did try tweaking that kit based on the Ryzen Calc but it would not boot so I kind of gave up since this new kit was on the way. 



The 2T timings at 3734 were basically all auto except I used the kits 3600 XMP profile numbers, 14-15-15-35.


Edit: I found the 3734 screenshot I did and posted it. I also posted my updated 3600 one. Also an updated cachemem test.


----------



## zsoltmol

Originally, my G.Skill Samsung b-die, single rank 3600MHz 16-16-16-36 rams went at 3733 / 1866MHz for almost 1 year.
I have 4x8GB installed in Asus C8H X570 non wifi board.

However, since Windows 10 2004 and / or Asus C8H 2010 bios (agesa v2 1.0.0.1/2) have been added, I have received some WHEA error every time I start computer or wake up from sleep.
This is a correctable WHEA error (event 19, bus / interconnect) so it didn't cause stability issues, but was annoying.

@Veii suggested try to change VDDG, VLDO SOC VDD values ​​because it causes this error.
At the time I used these:
CLDO VDDP: 0.910
CLDO VDDG CCX: 0.950
CLDO VDDG IOD: 0.950
SOC VDD with negative offset (1.088-1.064 reported in HWinfo)

During the adjustments, it could reach 3733/1866 again without WHEA errors, but I got a black screen after each reboot. Then booting perfectly if I pressed reset button.

Used bios flashback again to start fresh with 2010 bios and tested what the Asus C8H gives to the CPU with default settings.

2010 bios full default settings
CLDO VDDP: 0.900
CLDO VDDG: 0.950

XMP profile enabled 3600MHz / 1800 FCLK, rest is at default:
CLDO VDDP: 0.900
CLDO VDDG: *1.0979* ?

XMP profile enabled 3733MHz / 1866 FCLK, rest is at default:
CLDO VDDP: *0.990* ?
CLDO VDDG: *1.1481* ?

To me, those automatic voltages seemed very high, so I started adjusting everything again one by one. In doing so, I realized that even though I am using the Ryzen DRAM calculator properly (with Typhoon Burner profiles, etc.), the fast settings in the calculator with the new 2010 bios either don’t give a stable machine or I get a correctable WHEA error. I've used the same memory and voltage settings for almost 1 year and it was 100% stable before. With 2010 bios if I would like to have stable WHEA error free operation at 3733/1866MHz VDDP / VDDG voltage needs to be 1.05-1.07v instead of the previous 0.950v range.

I'm not that comfortable with VDDG CCD / IOD voltages at 1.05-1.07v, not to mention the Asus default XMP profile voltage of *1.09-1.14v*.

Currently I use 3666/1833:
CLDO VDDP: 0.910
CLDO VDDG CCX: 0.920
CLDO VDDG IOD: 0.980
SOC VDD with negative offset (1.088-1.072 reported in HWinfo)

Timings:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=356424&thumb=1

What is your experience with 3733/1866MHz? What VDDG CCD / IOD do you use?


----------



## FranZe

Want to try lower trfc and now lets see if i get this...










Then i try trfc 294. 2 and 4 on 218 and 134? If it is so do i need to change something else?


----------



## FranZe

zsoltmol said:


> What is your experience with 3733/1866MHz? What VDDG CCD / IOD do you use?


Think i'm on 900/950 VDDP/VDDG, or i'm sure  But i only have 16gb..


----------



## Nighthog

Just stress testing my stability IMC/MEM with Prime95, largeFFT 6hours now...




It only took me 2-3 days to make this work.

The pain.


----------



## FlyByU

GoforceReloaded said:


> Maybe try to reinstall the latest chipset driver and ryzen master after. (uninstall both before)
> 
> Good to know that it was a misreading xD
> 
> You can put VDDG to 1050 without any problem if 1000 is not enought.


Previous values were actually not stable. Yesterday night I realized I had set 1.1v to the CPU, not to the SOC (It was stupid. I know). Sooo, I fixed it and of course had to retest everything. We finally got it stable with this:










I also tried your 1050 on VDDG but did not work and I had to leave it at 1075. I think it's high but it's the only way it's stable with those timings... If you or anyone else got any suggestions, it'll be welcomed.

EDIT: this is weird/fun because I want to apply "VDDG should be at least 50mV more than SOC" but I just can't get it done.

I've tried VDDG 1.06 + SOC 1.1-||-VDDG 1.06 + SOC 1.125-||-VDDG 1.075 + SOC 1.125 and nothing seems to work. But VDDG 1.075 + SOC 1.1 works fine. I'm stuck here now... Any suggestions?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

mongoled said:


> Is CMD2T set on "Auto"?
> 
> If not put it on "Auto" than try to post with those frequencies/timings ...


it was i retried cl12 no post i can post and boot at cl16 but error city in windows these chips dont like tight timings at all. So looks like these are not b-die even tho Thaiphoon says they are they end in 10c which from the other thread means they are c-die im 3533 at 1.425 seems to be the limits i can push them any higher volts dont do anything cl18 19 19 19 seems to be as tight as they are going to go. High as i could get the memory stable in my zentiming screen shot trfc wont post under 545 and unstable till its set to 550.


----------



## jamie1073

I was able to tweak a little and get 3734 running stable. Here it is compared to my 3600.


----------



## jamie1073

Since the 3734 worked so well I tried 3800. I had to bump Voltage up to 1.46V instead of 1.45V to get rid of 2 errors I had. Which actually puts it more at 1.49V and in the low to mid 40C range temp wise. Not sure I like that but I really do not keep parts long so I am thinking it will be fine.


----------



## Azazel-

Hey guys, i have this Kit : Crucial Ballistix RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3600 , https://www.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g36c16u4wl

After a lot of Hours my Kit works now Stable @3533 16-17-17-35 paired with a 2700X (4.1 GHz Fixed ) on a Asus Prime X470 Board

Are my Results ok? can i maybe improve any timings
I Attached the Timings and Results

My System


Spoiler



Ryzen 2700X
Asus Prime 470X
Noctua DH-15
4 Intake ,2 Outtakes Fans, in a Fractal Design Meshify c

Cpu 
4.1 Ghz Allcore PBO etc Off
CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) 1.2875V LLC5 
Temps: Idle 35° -40° , 30 Min Prime Small FFT ~ Max 83°

Ram 
Dram 1.40V
SoC 1.1V LLC4 ~ 1.096 HWinfo
VDDP 0.900V
Temps: Idle ~37° , TestMEM 21 Cycles Max 57°



If you need any other Values, feel free to ask 
Thanks in advance


----------



## rares495

@Veii I'm back. 

Got lucky again. This chip does 1900 FCLK too (with 1.125V SOC and 1.075V VDDG/0.900 VDDP to stop audio crackle). Tried to push for 1933 but no luck.


----------



## VPII

I have not posted in hear much but I thought I'll drop my results with my 4 x 8gb G-Skill FlareX DDR4 3200 sets running 3740 CL16. I fine tuned some settings but was unable to drop fTAW as it would just not start up again. It is not great, but some of my bench results are better than before so I am happy.


----------



## hazium233

Azazel- said:


> Hey guys, i have this Kit : Crucial Ballistix RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3600 , https://www.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g36c16u4wl...


I didn't know thaiphoon would read out C9BKV. 

Also didn't realize the RGB sticks came with temp sensors.


----------



## jeremy.b

Hey all,

I'm smack in the middle of learning Ryzen memory tuning and run into a bit of a snag tuning an older Corsair 2x16GB LPX b-die set I picked up recently. I'm hoping for a nudge in the right direction.

I'm getting occasional Karhu RAM Test errors (anywhere between 2-8 hours in). I'm not seeing any other instability signs yet though.

I'm running the Fast timings from the calculator for B0 PCB. See below:










Here's what I've tried:



VDIMM between 1.39 - 1.45, no affect other than boot issues @ 1.42v ish (higher/lower is fine)

SOC voltage between 1.0 - 1.125, no affect

Increasing/Decreasing cLDO VDDP between 900-1050mv, no affect

Tweaking procODT & CAD bus up/down, no affect

Increasing tRFC from 319 - 384, no REAL affect, seems to MAYBE improve stability, but still getting random errors.


Performance is great at this level though and I'd like to not loosen up too much up if possible. As i've researched it seems like I'm probably fairly close to getting these stable but am just missing the one thing to get me there.

I'll be continuing to research on what to tweak next, but would appreciate any help to move along faster!


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Hey folks, sorry I've been quiet lately, I intend to keep diving in here and also helping if I can. I have lots of pages to catch up on. 

Question: What do you think of this 2x16RAM -- F4-3200C14D-32GTZR ?

Have you OC'd it? I see F4-3200C14's repeatedly in googledoc lists posted here
It's B-Die. I'm looking at getting this for my new PC.
Here is a customer's Thaiphoon image
DRAM Calc estimates tight timings at 3600: 14-14-15(rd)-14-28-42 etc
...and 3800: flat16s-32-48

Or would you strongly prefer F4-3600C16D-32GTZN for a $15 more (USD$)?

Hope you're all doing well.


----------



## Tobiman

LuckyBahstard said:


> Hey folks, sorry I've been quiet lately, I intend to keep diving in here and also helping if I can. I have lots of pages to catch up on.
> 
> Question: What do you think of this 2x16RAM -- F4-3200C14D-32GTZR ?
> 
> Have you OC'd it? I see F4-3200C14's repeatedly in googledoc lists posted here
> It's B-Die. I'm looking at getting this for my new PC.
> Here is a customer's Thaiphoon image
> DRAM Calc estimates tight timings at 3600: 14-14-15(rd)-14-28-42 etc
> ...and 3800: flat16s-32-48
> 
> Or would you strongly prefer F4-3600C16D-32GTZN for a $15 more (USD$)?
> 
> Hope you're all doing well.


I would personally opt for the 3600 CL16 kit.


----------



## Veii

@helsyeah tRDWR +1 and it should be fixed 
Later try if you can lower SCL 
And give these kits at least CAD_BUS 30-20-24-24 ohm, if not even 40-20-24-24 and up 

You could have a tRP voltage problem, but that should be fixed with voltage 
at worst, put it to 17 or lower tRCD WR down to 15 , if you can't run flat CL16-16-16 

@rares495 welcome back 
I'm sorry for judging - it just bothers a tiny bit
tRAS has playroom of 2
tCL 14 + tWR 10 + tBL 2 = 26 not 28 
Increasing tWR up to 12 could have positive effects, or just dropping tRAS to 26 and increasing tRP to 14 (minimum tRCD delay)
Lowering under minimum tRCD avg delay, would only work with high excessive voltage ~ while you can invest that voltage rather to push MT/s or maaybe try and work your way down to tRFC 228 [120ns] or even 224
Hey who knows, you might be able to run 232 tRFC @ 3867MT/s, tRC 40

If you are bored , compare both sets in SiSandra & Blender, between your current value and the tRP, tRAS fixed one

@Azazel- tWTRL to 15
SD, DDs to 1-4-4-1-6-6 for dual rank or 4 dimms / 1-1-1-1-1-1 for debugging, but it will cut perf
This are Micron Rev:E 
Your vSOC is far to high, you do compensate for the low CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh
Your cLDO_VDDP is also to high, memory hole does exist on 2nd gen 
3533MT/s is awkward to work with, somewhere between 863-864mV should be the correct cLDO_VDDP
700 or 913 is for 3200MT/s or 3734MT/s both work for both speeds
Focus on 3600MT/s @ 866mV cLDO_VDDp , cpu VDDP should be near 900mV
While you're at it, give these micron kits 1.42v unless your board already does push 1.4215ish @ 1.4vDIMM set
Around 1.43v they should get unstable for a bit -but increase CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh

Work with presets like
24-20-20-24, 30-20-20-24 , 40-20-20-20 
There's a lot you still can do - 3734MT/s is not golden sillicon 3800MT/s is on 2nd gen
If you run an allcore (i hope not) then find your lowest AVX2 stable voltage (y-cruncher or LinpackXtreme 1.1.1 not higher) and give it +2 steps on vCore to compensate for memory OC
Till 3600MT/s you barely need to get over 1.05vSOC ~ lower is better
Only use 1.075vSOC if you run a 4.35Ghz boosting PBO set with limited TDC,EDC,PPT and so also a strong SOC loadline 

@LuckyBahstard same here, could play Russian PCB roulette on the 3200C14, but the 3600C16 at least either would be 3200C14 oke'ish IC with B1 PCB, good IC with dud B0 pcb , or unlucky B2 PCB but then great IC 
Good luck :thumb:
I hope this are flat CL16 ?
How about 3600CL15-16-16 ones ?

EDIT:
If you can RMA, or check the PCB in the shop ~ check if these units are on B1/B2 
If not, it's not worth the roulette, save your money and go with 3200CL14 ~ these might end up on B1 PCB at least
If they are on x0, ICs will be great - if they are on x1 IC's might be a dud
But the chance remains that they are very good ones on this 3200C14 one - up to PCB as flat tRCD 14 is not easy
I had once great FlareX on A0 PCB on 3800MT/s tRCD 14 , and horrible ones which couldn't pass 3400 tRCD 14 
tRCD 16 is not that impressive, but tRCD 14 @ 3200 is PCB Roulette
* not to forget tRCD 14 on dual rank is a bit impressive


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> @rares495 welcome back
> I'm sorry for judging - it just bothers a tiny bit
> tRAS has playroom of 2
> tCL 14 + tWR 10 + tBL 2 = 26 not 28
> Increasing tWR up to 12 could have positive effects, or just dropping tRAS to 26 and increasing tRP to 14 (minimum tRCD delay)
> Lowering under minimum tRCD avg delay, would only work with high excessive voltage ~ while you can invest that voltage rather to push MT/s or maaybe try and work your way down to tRFC 228 [120ns] or even 224
> Hey who knows, you might be able to run 232 tRFC @ 3867MT/s, tRC 40
> 
> If you are bored , compare both sets in SiSandra & Blender, between your current value and the tRP, tRAS fixed one


I did tCL + tWR + tBL 4 = 28 because otherwise tRC would have to be 38 and tRFC lower than 240 (which I couldn't manage to get without errors @3800)

Yeah, I'll play with the kit some more. I wasn't that interested in 3866 before. For me it was always 3800 C14 or 3600 C13.

Glad to see that you recommend Blender  . I'll just use that instead of SiSandra.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I did tCL + tWR + tBL 4 = 28 because otherwise tRC would have to be 38 and tRFC lower than 240 (which I couldn't manage to get without errors @3800)
> 
> Yeah, I'll play with the kit some more. I wasn't that interested in 3866 before. For me it was always 3800 C14 or 3600 C13.
> 
> Glad to see that you recommend Blender  . I'll just use that instead of SiSandra.


You could just push tWR 12, works as equally well on 240tRFC :wubsmiley
KedarWolf , with his many #1 got us to it 
SiSandra shouldn't miss when you finetune timings, as the latency curve tests a wide band of data-sizes 
Tiny bumps there still reveal inconsistency across timings, while Blender might not use all of the different dataset sizes
Well Pi calculation still is my favorite part, but Yuri's benchmark is very valid too 

Sadly on our autonomous CPUs, all of these benchmarks are variable
it needs some 100% all-core AVX2 or SSE load to push the cpu to constant current and constant frequency 
Anything else, short burst tests give too much variety 
At least the latency curve remains a good usable baseline, while the scores seems like to change every blue moon 
SuperPi and Blender are long enough to make the results comparable , but on both windows services will have influence
SiSandra pushes itself for a short period of time to "Realtime" and the latency curve remains consistent
Although it doesn't deliver benchmark comparable results, only personal comparable ones

About tRC
tBL remains to be 2 on your set, but you can adjust tRP up and down to match tRC end result
While tWR 12 still looks like an easy resolve , just need to test if the positive effect is bigger
as tWR does influence the performance by quite a big chunk
tRAS sadly has no wiggle room, it needs to be accurate - the rest is a bit flexible, although tFAW shouldn't be flexible


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> You could just push tWR 12, works as equally well on 240tRFC :wubsmiley
> KedarWolf , with his many #1 got us to it
> SiSandra shouldn't miss when you finetune timings, as the latency curve tests a wide band of data-sizes
> Tiny bumps there still reveal inconsistency across timings, while Blender might not use all of the different dataset sizes
> Well Pi calculation still is my favorite part, but Yuri's benchmark is very valid too
> 
> Sadly on our autonomous CPUs, all of these benchmarks are variable
> it needs some 100% all-core AVX2 or SSE load to push the cpu to constant current and constant frequency
> Anything else, short burst tests give too much variety
> At least the latency curve remains a good usable baseline, while the scores seems like to change every blue moon
> SuperPi and Blender are long enough to make the results comparable , but on both windows services will have influence
> SiSandra pushes itself for a short period of time to "Realtime" and the latency curve remains consistent
> Although it doesn't deliver benchmark comparable results, only personal comparable ones
> 
> About tRC
> tBL remains to be 2 on your set, but you can adjust tRP up and down to match tRC end result
> While tWR 12 still looks like an easy resolve , just need to test if the positive effect is bigger
> as tWR does influence the performance by quite a big chunk
> tRAS sadly has no wiggle room, it needs to be accurate - the rest is a bit flexible, although tFAW shouldn't be flexible


I like to test my RAM with a manual CPU OC.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> If you can RMA, or check the PCB in the shop ~ check if these units are on B1/B2
> If not, it's not worth the roulette, save your money and go with 3200CL14 ~ these might end up on B1 PCB at least
> If they are on x0, ICs will be great - if they are on x1 IC's might be a dud
> But the chance remains that they are very good ones on this 3200C14 one - up to PCB as flat tRCD 14 is not easy
> I had once great FlareX on A0 PCB on 3800MT/s tRCD 14 , and horrible ones which couldn't pass 3400 tRCD 14
> tRCD 16 is not that impressive, but tRCD 14 @ 3200 is PCB Roulette
> * not to forget tRCD 14 on dual rank is a bit impressive


I ordered the 3200CL14's from Amazon.com. I can return if I don't open it, or if it's really bad. But it has 89% 5-star ratings, and someone's review saying they got 3800 CL16's flat, so it looks like it has promise. Also because I saw people with this kit (or a 2x8 variant) near the top of the google sheets, I thought "why not". The Thaiphoon showed it is B1, if we trust it.  But if someone else has experience with the 3600 kit I'd be interested to know.

I also initially had the thought to get the CL16 like you @Tobiman, but the price difference... if they can both do the same thing. That's what had me confused and wondering  Sadly, the 3200CL14 had gone down another $14 a few days ago (according to price trackers) and it hadn't even been so cheap. Oops, I missed it.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Oh and I'll soon be building my new PC to try my new B-Die RAM with... it's gonna be fun  I can also retry my Viper Steel 4400's on it later. I still need a case and a M.2 drive.

Ryzen 3900X, Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 cooler, Asus ROG Strix X570-E, Gigabyte 5700 XT, Seasonic Focus GX ('20) 850W.   I'm excited, just a little bit haha.


----------



## Veii

*Different PBO OC Method*



rares495 said:


> I like to test my RAM with a manual CPU OC.


Oh actually speaking of 
PBO might still be a mess, but i could play recent days with a 3600
Still not a fan of the EDC bug and a tiny bit offtopic right now

You can utilize the flexibility of variable clock, to push FCLK higher 
AutoOC mode the +200mhz mode, does work BUT
You have to start limiting both TDC and EDC ~ else it overvolts and shows "negative to non effects"

First you limit EDC to always peak @ 100% on every AVX2 test (y-cruncher for example)
Well at first first, you make a tiny sheet with the constant and avg voltage RyzenMaster reports for this test on stock @ full load (Y-Cruncher tests take 2 min each)
~ avg voltage inside RM will reset and be accurate after each test passes with different instruction sets

Then you also limit TDC to be near 95-98% 
They should be around 2-6 Ampere appart, maximum 10 to hit this desired result
You still let PPT to your desired TDP ~ the boosting algorithm will trigger around 85% load and FIT will lower the voltage

By playing around with this, and using several tests
Y-Cruncher all of them, Cinebench both and single threaded both, TM5 (important) 
You will have to play and match 12 voltage results , but you can adjust TDC and later PPT to artificially limit PBO voltage
This won't break the voltage curve, and no negative offset needs to be used
The chip will run to it's allowed voltage till either FIT module settles in and clocks down (doesn't still) or clock stretching starts to trigger

Soo, by going that way and still keeping anything variable
later also factoring in SOC TDC and EDC 
You should be able to surpass 1900FCLK because of the variability + increase your maximum single threaded boost
Keep in mind TM5 will run all cores at the set maximum boost, while other benchmarks will let cores sleep
See it as "more advanced OC method with higher limits" compared to per CCX constant OC 
3600 can now boost to 4400 without using dangerous high voltages, while per CCX allowed max 4150/4250 on the bad first batch
* sadly AutoOC mode just allows 200Mhz boost bump, but we should probably be able to increase that by mods
Probably should write soon a tutorial with this method :thinking:
Getting to a working sample is bothersome sadly, soo every research is slow-paced zZZ


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Oh actually speaking of
> PBO might still be a mess, but i could play recent days with a 3600
> Still not a fan of the EDC bug and a tiny bit offtopic right now
> 
> You can utilize the flexibility of variable clock, to push FCLK higher
> AutoOC mode the +200mhz mode, does work BUT
> You have to start limiting both TDC and EDC ~ else it overvolts and shows "negative to non effects"
> 
> First you limit EDC to always peak @ 100% on every AVX2 test (y-cruncher for example)
> Well at first first, you make a tiny sheet with the constant and avg voltage RyzenMaster reports for this test on stock @ full load (Y-Cruncher tests take 2 min each)
> ~ avg voltage inside RM will reset and be accurate after each test passes with different instruction sets
> 
> Then you also limit TDC to be near 95-98%
> They should be around 2-6 Ampere appart, maximum 10 to hit this desired result
> You still let PPT to your desired TDP ~ the boosting algorithm will trigger around 85% load and FIT will lower the voltage
> 
> By playing around with this, and using several tests
> Y-Cruncher all of them, Cinebench both and single threaded both, TM5 (important)
> You will have to play and match 12 voltage results , but you can adjust TDC and later PPT to artificially limit PBO voltage
> This won't break the voltage curve, and no negative offset needs to be used
> The chip will run to it's allowed voltage till either FIT module settles in and clocks down (doesn't still) or clock stretching starts to trigger
> 
> Soo, by going that way and still keeping anything variable
> later also factoring in SOC TDC and EDC
> You should be able to surpass 1900FCLK because of the variability + increase your maximum single threaded boost
> Keep in mind TM5 will run all cores at the set maximum boost, while other benchmarks will let cores sleep
> See it as "more advanced OC method with higher limits" compared to per CCX constant OC
> 3600 can now boost to 4400 without using dangerous high voltages, while per CCX allowed max 4150/4250 on the bad first batch
> * sadly AutoOC mode just allows 200Mhz boost bump, but we should probably be able to increase that by mods
> Probably should write soon a tutorial with this method :thinking:
> Getting to a working sample is bothersome sadly, soo every research is slow-paced zZZ



Not following on the FCLK thing. What does that have to do with PBO?



My CPU can do 4.4 @ ~1.3V and that isn't high IMO.


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> You could just push tWR 12, works as equally well on 240tRFC :wubsmiley
> KedarWolf , with his many #1 got us to it
> SiSandra shouldn't miss when you finetune timings, as the latency curve tests a wide band of data-sizes
> Tiny bumps there still reveal inconsistency across timings, while Blender might not use all of the different dataset sizes
> Well Pi calculation still is my favorite part, but Yuri's benchmark is very valid too
> 
> Sadly on our autonomous CPUs, all of these benchmarks are variable
> it needs some 100% all-core AVX2 or SSE load to push the cpu to constant current and constant frequency
> Anything else, short burst tests give too much variety
> At least the latency curve remains a good usable baseline, while the scores seems like to change every blue moon
> SuperPi and Blender are long enough to make the results comparable , but on both windows services will have influence
> SiSandra pushes itself for a short period of time to "Realtime" and the latency curve remains consistent
> Although it doesn't deliver benchmark comparable results, only personal comparable ones
> 
> About tRC
> tBL remains to be 2 on your set, but you can adjust tRP up and down to match tRC end result
> While tWR 12 still looks like an easy resolve , just need to test if the positive effect is bigger
> as tWR does influence the performance by quite a big chunk
> tRAS sadly has no wiggle room, it needs to be accurate - the rest is a bit flexible, although tFAW shouldn't be flexible


I find Blender really sensitive to RAM timing changes and it gets faster as you figure it out. Lower timings is NOT necessarily faster, you need to find the best timings that give you the fastest run.

That being said, someone beat my Blender Classroom recently, and by tweaking my RAM timings and a few other tweaks I got #1 again. Last I checked I had the top benchmarks in all six OpenData Blenders benchmarks.

Here is my recent classroom.

https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/ff7a2baa-1107-4fb0-a685-427ecd9a9490/  229.386


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Not following on the FCLK thing. What does that have to do with PBO?
> My CPU can do 4.4 @ ~1.3V and that isn't high IMO.


Constant current 1.3 can be high up to workload
Likely it won't be for you, but on some workloads it can

PBO does change the voltage curve by enabling it, making more issues than it's worth it
But, like 1st and 2nd gen, vCore still does play a role in maximum memory FCLK
And so does cpu frequency and resulting signal integrity out of it 
Spread spectrum is there to combat EMI, while constant frequency does have worse effects on EMI
Just then low voltage has positive effects  

It's been known tho, that variable boosting does lead to a better OC with higher frequency
Than constant overclock
Sadly, variable OC is too variable - in this case PBO does break more than it helps
The explained method above likely will help to increase FCLK, but not running constant frequency with constant voltage
SOC and FCLK since recently are put variable
To save power and to better up signal integrity
Overall, working with AMDs boost and so being able to control the throttling of it only has positive results
But it's much more work than just running constant current

Well yes, if 4.4 allcore works well for you
There are no gains from 200mhz boost over 4.2 stock 
I'm curious to see if this can push the 3950X to 5ghz boost with 101BLCK, or 4.9 single threaded
* well if this 4.7 are really hittable anywhere


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Oh actually speaking of
> PBO might still be a mess, but i could play recent days with a 3600
> Still not a fan of the EDC bug and a tiny bit offtopic right now
> 
> You can utilize the flexibility of variable clock, to push FCLK higher
> AutoOC mode the +200mhz mode, does work BUT
> 
> 
> You have to start limiting both TDC and EDC ~ else it overvolts and shows "negative to non effects"
> 
> First you limit EDC to always peak @ 100% on every AVX2 test (y-cruncher for example)
> Well at first first, you make a tiny sheet with the constant and avg voltage RyzenMaster reports for this test on stock @ full load (Y-Cruncher tests take 2 min each)
> ~ avg voltage inside RM will reset and be accurate after each test passes with different instruction sets
> 
> Then you also limit TDC to be near 95-98%
> They should be around 2-6 Ampere appart, maximum 10 to hit this desired result
> You still let PPT to your desired TDP ~ the boosting algorithm will trigger around 85% load and FIT will lower the voltage
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> By playing around with this, and using several tests
> Y-Cruncher all of them, Cinebench both and single threaded both, TM5 (important)
> You will have to play and match 12 voltage results , but you can adjust TDC and later PPT to artificially limit PBO voltage
> This won't break the voltage curve, and no negative offset needs to be used
> The chip will run to it's allowed voltage till either FIT module settles in and clocks down (doesn't still) or clock stretching starts to trigger
> 
> Soo, by going that way and still keeping anything variable
> later also factoring in SOC TDC and EDC
> You should be able to surpass 1900FCLK because of the variability + increase your maximum single threaded boost
> Keep in mind TM5 will run all cores at the set maximum boost, while other benchmarks will let cores sleep
> See it as "more advanced OC method with higher limits" compared to per CCX constant OC
> 3600 can now boost to 4400 without using dangerous high voltages, while per CCX allowed max 4150/4250 on the bad first batch
> * sadly AutoOC mode just allows 200Mhz boost bump, but we should probably be able to increase that by mods
> Probably should write soon a tutorial with this method :thinking:
> Getting to a working sample is bothersome sadly, soo every research is slow-paced zZZ


I've tried this method months ago on PBO both with and without the EDC bug.
Didn't work for me; my 3800x with the AORUS Master needs a negative offset.
Trying to compensate with PBO limits it's not the same.
I ended up getting in the best case worse performances up to low effective clocks/clocks stalling at 800/2200 MHz.

I can get the best performances limiting P95 to 99% which will be 70/80% on CB20.

From what I've seen it's not board dependent, not all but most CPUs needs a negative offset to give the best with PBO.

But it could be really nice if you could make a tutorial with this method


----------



## jeremy.b

Veii said:


> @helsyeah tRDWR +1 and it should be fixed
> Later try if you can lower SCL
> And give these kits at least CAD_BUS 30-20-24-24 ohm, if not even 40-20-24-24 and up
> 
> You could have a tRP voltage problem, but that should be fixed with voltage
> at worst, put it to 17 or lower tRCD WR down to 15 , if you can't run flat CL16-16-16


Thanks! Bumping tRDWR to 9 is showing promise, 6+ hrs last night with no errors. I'm running a longer test today.

I did experiment this morning with lower SCL, and increasing CAD_BUS to 30/40-20-24-24. I ended up with BSOD when trying to run RAM Test so I'll need to dig into how to tune SCL.

For fun I also did some tweaking with dropping tRCD RD down to 16, but it wasn't at all stable even after jumping vDIMM up to 1.45v.

For now I'll let RAM test run with my previous settings & tRDWR = 9 for at least 10 hours and see how that goes. After that I'll read up on playing with tRP and how it relates to tRCD WR and probably dig further into what might be able to be done to drop tRCD RD as well.


----------



## Veii

ManniX-ITA said:


> I've tried this method months ago on PBO both with and without the EDC bug.
> Didn't work for me; my 3800x with the AORUS Master needs a negative offset.
> Trying to compensate with PBO limits it's not the same.
> I ended up getting in the best case worse performances up to low effective clocks/clocks stalling at 800/2200 MHz.
> 
> I can get the best performances limiting P95 to 99% which will be 70/80% on CB20.
> From what I've seen it's not board dependent, not all but most CPUs needs a negative offset to give the best with PBO.
> But it could be really nice if you could make a tutorial with this method


Well it's pretty much the same thing, you use a global negative offset when enabling PBO to maaybe lift the limits
As you're shifting the voltage curve - sadly tho PBO doesn't override maximum programmed Boost of the unit
It could only help on units which don't hit the max boost all the time, to finetune the voltage curve a bit and let FIT decide it can boost now higher

Taking the 3600 as example, it has a lot of headroom even the worst sillicon to what i noticed
But it's artificially limited at 4.2, it does often pull 1.3625-1.375v, i mean it tries to boost higher, but it's limited 
Taming TDC and EDC limits actually forces the CPU to use lower voltages for allcore, while the AutoOC boost does increase the upper "allowed boosting range"
PBO on it's own does shift the boosting-voltage curve and doesn't deliver anything good except clock stretching
But if you tame both llimits, you artificially tell the CPU to use less voltage ~ doing exactly what a global negative offset would do
~ just with the tiny bit difference, that single threaded or "variable per CCX" boosting 
= the golden core identification boosting up to CPPC, is taken into consideration allowing it to boost higher with more taken voltage
^ and not limiting global maximum boost range, with the older global offset method

After all this sillicon has no problems beyond 5ghz if you suply it enough voltage
But 7nm doesn't like that much voltage
Soo by artifically limiting TDC and EDC while increasing the upper limits, you just extend the boosting behavior
~ while having to finetune allcore supplied voltage up to workload
As it will shift with over 50mV difference, instead of 1.2975 it might pull 1.3625 for the same workload 
~ already being too much for it and degrading slowly & at best triggering the FIT module to adjust

You only extend the maximum boost with that method, and can see if your sillicon can keep lower voltage @ the same allcore-workload or even run higher boost 
SMU boosting table seems to still use the same methods, and will boost higher if single cores can get more voltage
Only that more voltage is bad for the units 
Try to play a bit more with limiting TDC and EDC , 100% peaking only would limit allcore supplied voltage
Boost maximum voltage will be regulated by the FIT module anyways and can peak 1.48~ vCore
Just allcore should never go beyond it's save limits between 1.28975-1.37625v 
(up to unique sillicon characteristics & workload) 


helsyeah said:


> Thanks! Bumping tRDWR to 9 is showing promise, 6+ hrs last night with no errors. I'm running a longer test today.
> I did experiment this morning with lower SCL, and increasing CAD_BUS to 30/40-20-24-24. I ended up with BSOD when trying to run RAM Test so I'll need to dig into how to tune SCL.
> For fun I also did some tweaking with dropping tRCD RD down to 16, but it wasn't at all stable even after jumping vDIMM up to 1.45v.
> 
> For now I'll let RAM test run with my previous settings & tRDWR = 9 for at least 10 hours and see how that goes. After that I'll read up on playing with tRP and how it relates to tRCD WR and probably dig further into what might be able to be done to drop tRCD RD as well.


I'm happy this worked
While changing SCL, either it boots or it refuses to post at all
The same would go for tRDWR & tWRRD 
They either work well or don't work at all

A BSOD might indicate a voltage issue
As pushing ClkDrvStrengh and procODT impedance, will make it react different to supplied voltages
RTT values do exactly the same, but should be fixed to something usable ~ before working with CAD_BUS and procODT
higher vSOC requires higher procODT, lower vSOC needs lower procODT
Higher VDIMM requires less CAD_BUS overall
Higher cLDO_VDDG IOD does require lower procODT 
high ClkDrvStrengh should be used with less procODT / if VDDG IOD bump is needed, depends then on the Mainboard PCB quality

EDIT:
tRCD RD is bound to IC quality = binning
Voltage nearly never does anything to it
You can increase it to make it more stable on higher frequency
But ultimately it's depending on the quality of your chips
It's one of the indicators that separates low latency timings and good kits apart from each 
You might be able to get it down to 16 if it posts, but focus on the remain timings first 
It's not a scalable value at all


----------



## shotround

helsyeah said:


> Thanks! Bumping tRDWR to 9 is showing promise, 6+ hrs last night with no errors. I'm running a longer test today.


i had ram stable enough for my purposes at 3400 but was still getting errors with testmem5. but while on mandatory vacation this week, i started to tighten up things at 3333. then i saw the recommendation to increase tRDWR. so back to 3400 with tRDWR at 9 and bam, one error. never had i seen the error count this low. well, tRDWR at 10 results in 1 error also.

so im taking recommendations. otherwise, its back to 3333 and spend time with the kiddo.

1700x @ 3.9GHz with asus prime x370-pro.
SOC @ 1.8125V
Ram at 1.39V


----------



## 2600ryzen

My new micron rev E Crucial Ballistix kit arrived yesterday, I had a few hours of tuning before I went to bed. I left testmem5 running overnight and got a single error. Anyone have any idea what causes errors in test 4?
I suspect I had Tras too low at 30, bumped it up to 32 and will try again. I've mostly tuned the other timings to where I want except Trdwr/Twrrd and Trp.
Dimm temp sensors peaked at 57c during stress testing.


----------



## jeremy.b

Veii said:


> I'm happy this worked
> While changing SCL, either it boots or it refuses to post at all
> The same would go for tRDWR & tWRRD
> They either work well or don't work at all
> 
> A BSOD might indicate a voltage issue
> As pushing ClkDrvStrengh and procODT impedance, will make it react different to supplied voltages
> RTT values do exactly the same, but should be fixed to something usable ~ before working with CAD_BUS and procODT
> higher vSOC requires higher procODT, lower vSOC needs lower procODT
> Higher VDIMM requires less CAD_BUS overall
> Higher cLDO_VDDG IOD does require lower procODT
> high ClkDrvStrengh should be used with less procODT / if VDDG IOD bump is needed, depends then on the Mainboard PCB quality
> 
> EDIT:
> tRCD RD is bound to IC quality = binning
> Voltage nearly never does anything to it
> You can increase it to make it more stable on higher frequency
> But ultimately it's depending on the quality of your chips
> It's one of the indicators that separates low latency timings and good kits apart from each
> You might be able to get it down to 16 if it posts, but focus on the remain timings first
> It's not a scalable value at all


Excellent, thank you for the info! 

My experiments with SCL was combined with adjusting CAD_BUS too so the BSOD easily could have been due to CAD_BUS changes I made. I'll do some proper single-change testing later today with SCL as it did boot fine with it dropped down to 3.

And thanks for the notes on tRCD RD, which obviously gives me an idea where this particular set of RAM falls on the spectrum of dual-rank b-die (not that I expected much from a CL16 binned set!). I have to say I am having a good time seeing where I can get with my little "budget" set of b-die! 

I assume I'm approaching diminishing returns on effort vs. results, but aside from working SCL, I'm not sure what, if anything I can tighten up further on this particular set. Is it worth pushing to see if I can disable geardown mode next?

Thanks again for your feedback!


----------



## jeremy.b

shotround said:


> i had ram stable enough for my purposes at 3400 but was still getting errors with testmem5. but while on mandatory vacation this week, i started to tighten up things at 3333. then i saw the recommendation to increase tRDWR. so back to 3400 with tRDWR at 9 and bam, one error. never had i seen the error count this low. well, tRDWR at 10 results in 1 error also.
> 
> so im taking recommendations. otherwise, its back to 3333 and spend time with the kiddo.
> 
> 1700x @ 3.9GHz with asus prime x370-pro.
> SOC @ 1.8125V
> Ram at 1.39V


So, with the GIANT caveat that I'm no expert in this I read through 1usmus (possibly slightly dated) troubleshooting section over on techpowerup and maybe some of these may help??

Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html


Single and rare errors can be fixed by manually changing the following timings: (1) tFAW (tRRDS *4 <= best value <= tRRDS *6), (2) increasing tRRDS by 1 or 2, or (3) changing tRTP (from 1/2 * tWR to 12).
Single and rare errors can be fixed by changing tRDWR (from 6 to 9) and tWRRD (from 1 to 4). Note that timings must be configured in pairs. Example: tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 2, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 3, tRDWR 6 and tWRRD 4, tRDWR 7 and tWRRD 1, and so on.
Single and rare errors can be fixed by changing tRFC. The calculator suggests several options for tRFC. Also, do not forget that tRC is a multiple of tRFC. For example, tRC = 44 -> tRFC 6 (or 8) * 44; tRFC 2/4 does not need to be configured for Ryzen.

Not sure how much is helpful at this point but maybe something to try?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> Well it's pretty much the same thing, you use a global negative offset when enabling PBO to maaybe lift the limits
> As you're shifting the voltage curve - sadly tho PBO doesn't override maximum programmed Boost of the unit
> It could only help on units which don't hit the max boost all the time, to finetune the voltage curve a bit and let FIT decide it can boost now higher
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Taking the 3600 as example, it has a lot of headroom even the worst sillicon to what i noticed
> But it's artificially limited at 4.2, it does often pull 1.3625-1.375v, i mean it tries to boost higher, but it's limited
> Taming TDC and EDC limits actually forces the CPU to use lower voltages for allcore, while the AutoOC boost does increase the upper "allowed boosting range"
> PBO on it's own does shift the boosting-voltage curve and doesn't deliver anything good except clock stretching
> But if you tame both llimits, you artificially tell the CPU to use less voltage ~ doing exactly what a global negative offset would do
> ~ just with the tiny bit difference, that single threaded or "variable per CCX" boosting
> = the golden core identification boosting up to CPPC, is taken into consideration allowing it to boost higher with more taken voltage
> ^ and not limiting global maximum boost range, with the older global offset method
> 
> 
> 
> After all this sillicon has no problems beyond 5ghz if you suply it enough voltage
> But 7nm doesn't like that much voltage
> Soo by artifically limiting TDC and EDC while increasing the upper limits, you just extend the boosting behavior
> ~ while having to finetune allcore supplied voltage up to workload
> As it will shift with over 50mV difference, instead of 1.2975 it might pull 1.3625 for the same workload
> ~ already being too much for it and degrading slowly & at best triggering the FIT module to adjust
> 
> You only extend the maximum boost with that method, and can see if your sillicon can keep lower voltage @ the same allcore-workload or even run higher boost
> SMU boosting table seems to still use the same methods, and will boost higher if single cores can get more voltage
> Only that more voltage is bad for the units
> Try to play a bit more with limiting TDC and EDC , 100% peaking only would limit allcore supplied voltage
> Boost maximum voltage will be regulated by the FIT module anyways and can peak 1.48~ vCore
> Just allcore should never go beyond it's save limits between 1.28975-1.37625v
> (up to unique sillicon characteristics & workload)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy this worked
> While changing SCL, either it boots or it refuses to post at all
> The same would go for tRDWR & tWRRD
> They either work well or don't work at all
> 
> A BSOD might indicate a voltage issue
> As pushing ClkDrvStrengh and procODT impedance, will make it react different to supplied voltages
> RTT values do exactly the same, but should be fixed to something usable ~ before working with CAD_BUS and procODT
> higher vSOC requires higher procODT, lower vSOC needs lower procODT
> Higher VDIMM requires less CAD_BUS overall
> Higher cLDO_VDDG IOD does require lower procODT
> high ClkDrvStrengh should be used with less procODT / if VDDG IOD bump is needed, depends then on the Mainboard PCB quality
> 
> EDIT:
> tRCD RD is bound to IC quality = binning
> Voltage nearly never does anything to it
> You can increase it to make it more stable on higher frequency
> But ultimately it's depending on the quality of your chips
> It's one of the indicators that separates low latency timings and good kits apart from each
> You might be able to get it down to 16 if it posts, but focus on the remain timings first
> It's not a scalable value at all



That's what I did, at least attempted to, but it didn't work.
Maybe the board is a decisive factor or maybe the specific sample.
It bothered me to be forced to use a negative offset of course.
No matter how fine tuned I couldn't get the same performances.
Same clocks, even a bit higher like 25-50 MHz, same voltages but lower scores.
Will try again when I'll have some time; it was months ago with earlier BIOS versions maybe something changed in the meantime.


----------



## rares495

@Veii This little guy has great potential just like my old 3700X. Might even beat my old latency record. Such a shame that the 3300X was out of stock everywhere.


----------



## rares495

This kit would probably be great under LN2.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> @Veii This little guy has great potential just like my old 3700X. Might even beat my old latency record. Such a shame that the 3300X was out of stock everywhere.
> 
> 
> rares495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This kit would probably be great under LN2.
Click to expand...

What voltage does CL12 require ~ 1.68 ?
Or already near 1.76-1.78v ?
Try to keep tRAS consistent and play a bit with tRP and tRC to offset voltage and find your tRFC goal 
224 tRFC is your goal on CL12 
Well there is no single number as goal, but tRC has wiggle room
tRAS should be kept as fluid transition 



ManniX-ITA said:


> That's what I did, at least attempted to, but it didn't work.
> Maybe the board is a decisive factor or maybe the specific sample.
> It bothered me to be forced to use a negative offset of course.
> No matter how fine tuned I couldn't get the same performances.
> Same clocks, even a bit higher like 25-50 MHz, same voltages but lower scores.
> Will try again when I'll have some time; it was months ago with earlier BIOS versions maybe something changed in the meantime.


Yes try to note down your voltages with disabled PBO 
Through the whole y-cruncher test suite and then cinebench on both single and all-cores
Then lower TDC and EDC, might need bot h plus PPT to be lower till the the throttle settles in
If you change boost enchancer or auto oc range , it will reset the ranges and change them
+100mhz will require one set, +200mhz another set 

Lower perf should be at worst on multi-core results, but higher single core perf will make it up
Also be sure CPPC is enables and at best use 1usmus's powerplant with ryzen master
HWinfo vcore and minimum core clock lies
Ryzen master will eat away perf, but its enough of a help to set it inside windows before you apply the limits globally via bios 


shotround said:


> i had ram stable enough for my purposes at 3400 but was still getting errors with testmem5. but while on mandatory vacation this week, i started to tighten up things at 3333. then i saw the recommendation to increase tRDWR. so back to 3400 with tRDWR at 9 and bam, one error. never had i seen the error count this low. well, tRDWR at 10 results in 1 error also.
> 
> so im taking recommendations. otherwise, its back to 3333 and spend time with the kiddo.
> 
> 1700x @ 3.9GHz with asus prime x370-pro.
> SOC @ 1.8125V
> Ram at 1.39V


You mean 1.08125vSOC ?
Do you change cLD0_VDDP according to frequency?
3333MT/s should be 840 VDDP if I remember correctly
The HynixMFRresult in the signature had it accurately
3400MT/s was 860mV 
3467 worked then well with 700mV or up to 913 if you need procODT 60Ohm

tRCD WR down to tCL 16 
tRP 18 is fine
tRAS keep as accurate tCL+tWR+4 
tRC has wiggle room, no need to take care about it 
will make you a set once I get home~


----------



## shotround

helsyeah said:


> So, with the GIANT caveat that I'm no expert in this I read through 1usmus (possibly slightly dated) troubleshooting section over on techpowerup and maybe some of these may help??
> 
> Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html
> 
> Not sure how much is helpful at this point but maybe something to try?


appreciate the help. i read it when it was first published. at the time i had some micron b die rated at 2400 that maxed out at 3000 after some bios updates and this guide. :stun: but there is lot that i never grasped. so i just went with good old trial and error. but now that im stuck home this week....time for more better.
@Veii
you are correct: 1.08125vSOC
if i read thaiphoon correctly, its Hynix CJR.

procODT is at 53.3Ohm
cLD0_VDDP was at 900. it finally passed testmem5 with cLD0_VDDP at 1050 using the earlier posted settings. its my first time venturing from auto for cLD0_VDDP. i don't know the cLD0_VDDP to frequency relationship but ill read up on any resources. cant say ill comprehend them though.

going to try:
tRCD WR down to tCL 16
tRAS keep as accurate tCL+tWR+4


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> What voltage does CL12 require ~ 1.68 ?
> Or already near 1.76-1.78v ?
> Try to keep tRAS consistent and play a bit with tRP and tRC to offset voltage and find your tRFC goal
> 224 tRFC is your goal on CL12
> Well there is no single number as goal, but tRC has wiggle room
> tRAS should be kept as fluid transition


1.870V was the only voltage that alowed me to boot.


----------



## jeremy.b

Well, I'd call this successful!










I'll start tweaking SCL tomorrow and see where else I can squeeze out some extra from this set!

At some point I'd like to take a crack at lowering voltages too (not that they are excessive), but that'll wait a bit.


----------



## Veii

shotround said:


> @Veii
> you are correct: 1.08125vSOC
> if i read thaiphoon correctly, its Hynix CJR.
> 
> procODT is at 53.3Ohm
> cLD0_VDDP was at 900. it finally passed testmem5 with cLD0_VDDP at 1050 using the earlier posted settings. its my first time venturing from auto for cLD0_VDDP. i don't know the cLD0_VDDP to frequency relationship but ill read up on any resources. cant say ill comprehend them though.
> 
> going to try:
> tRCD WR down to tCL 16
> tRAS keep as accurate tCL+tWR+4


Directly on the first post of 1usmus is a link to cLDO_VDDP memory hole
Please read that post 
1050mV VDDP is borderline 
Less is better
For first two gens, maximum FCLK was achievable at 700mV
750 was what boards defaulted back then , which only allowed post till 2933MT/s
Everyone had issues actually getting 3200MT/s to even post
They where in the memory hole 

Every frequency stepping has its own optimal cLDO_VDDP
The values from 2nd gen 12nm, still apply to 3rd gen and threadrippee
Except that there is no "hole" anymore, as we have also control over cLDO_VDDG voltage to finetune according to vSOC

53.3ohm should be just enough for you to hit the 3467MT/s wall
3600MT/s there then requires 1.175vSOC 
Which is borderline too much
Well it's not coolable by normal circumstances, as 3.8 allcore @ 1.36~ Vcore, results in 210W LinX v1.1.1 heat output

I recommend to use a high LLC for leaky X units and a nearly not existing LLC for normal 1600,1700 units 
And AGESA 1.0.0.6 (the old with a PMU patch or 0.0.7.2) worked very well on these units 
Up till AGESA 1003ABBA was fine for first gen, over results are plain bad

Give your hynix either more voltage near 1.48v region
Or increase ClkDrvStrengh and to 60-20-20-24 , lower a bit VSOC not over 1.08v
fix your allcore at 3.8 if you can run 4ghz
Then check for minimum required VID under avx2 loads (occt medium chunks)
That way get your allcore correct and give +2 steps more vcore to cover for memory OC
High ClkDrvStrengh needs lower VDIMM


----------



## FlyByU

hey guys! Hope everyone is OK!

I was following this GitHub guide to see if I can achieve 3800MHz stable on my kits but I realize that when I run TM5 (guide says to set 16-20-20-40 + Soc 1.1v + DIMM 1.4v) it takes way longer than usual. It took me over 2h 20m to finish on a 20 cycles run. A friend of mine told me that it is not normal and I wanted to get more info about this. Is there something known about it?


----------



## KedarWolf

FlyByU said:


> hey guys! Hope everyone is OK!
> 
> I was following this GitHub guide to see if I can achieve 3800MHz stable on my kits but I realize that when I run TM5 (guide says to set 16-20-20-40 + Soc 1.1v + DIMM 1.4v) it takes way longer than usual. It took me over 2h 20m to finish on a 20 cycles run. A friend of mine told me that it is not normal and I wanted to get more info about this. Is there something known about it?


That's normal for a 3950x.


----------



## 2600ryzen

FlyByU said:


> hey guys! Hope everyone is OK!
> 
> I was following this GitHub guide to see if I can achieve 3800MHz stable on my kits but I realize that when I run TM5 (guide says to set 16-20-20-40 + Soc 1.1v + DIMM 1.4v) it takes way longer than usual. It took me over 2h 20m to finish on a 20 cycles run. A friend of mine told me that it is not normal and I wanted to get more info about this. Is there something known about it?



Do you have 32Gb ram? Took me over 3hrs for 30cycles with 32Gb.


----------



## 2600ryzen

I've got my rev E kit to [email protected] relatively painlessly. Needed 1.4v for vdimm, only 1.05v vsoc and 0.9v for both vddp/vddg. Passed just over 10cycles of testmem5 already so hopefully it'll be fine later when I run it overnight. Also did some p95 large fft and realbench to stress the soc/fclk a bit too.
[email protected] would probably require well over 1.5v so I'm happy enough with c16.


edit: Youtube audio died while watching a video so I added 25mv to both SOC and VDDG.


----------



## FlyByU

KedarWolf said:


> That's normal for a 3950x.





2600ryzen said:


> Do you have 32Gb ram? Took me over 3hrs for 30cycles with 32Gb.


I actually have a Ryzen 5 3600 and 2x8GB (F4-3600C17D-16GTZR) and for my 3600 and 3733 tests TM5 did not take that long. Normally around 1h30m


----------



## 2600ryzen

That's probably too long for just 20cycles then, maybe you're in single channel mode or something?


----------



## Farih

Is it me or do my results seem a bit low for the settings i run?

Dram 1.42V
SoC 1.1V (1.087-1.081V in HWI64)
VDDG both 1.025V
VDDP 0.95V

Tryed lowering/upping voltage and these seem to give the best and most steady results.


----------



## FlyByU

2600ryzen said:


> That's probably too long for just 20cycles then, maybe you're in single channel mode or something?


No, I haven't moved it and my 3600 and 3733 timings are ok, it finishes within 1h30m.


----------



## Veii

@FlyByU something was purely wrong
16gb take about 1:20-1:30h
32gb between 2:40-3:00h
64gb logically near 6h

You shouldn't use the PC at all while the test runs
Letting it lose focus will put in in slow mode or sometime fully hang up
On the positive side, its one of the fastest to deliver a result

@Farih , your timings are "open"
Slow 
Its no wonder that the result has a big difference to other 16gb sets 
Fix tWR to 16, tRTP to 8 and try to run tWTR_S/L as 4-12 
tWTR_ looks off on your side and tRTP too
About tRFC , if the calculator spilled out that value, its probably correct

Later after that is stable, drop SCL to 3 and give it tWRRD 4
after that is stable, try if you can post with SCL 2 and anyways aside from the result, lower tRDWR -1 , keep tWRRD 4 set


----------



## Farih

Veii said:


> @FlyByU
> 
> 
> @Farih , your timings are "open"
> Slow
> Its no wonder that the result has a big difference to other 16gb sets
> Fix tWR to 16, tRTP to 8 and try to run tWTR_S/L as 4-12
> tWTR_ looks off on your side and tRTP too
> About tRFC , if the calculator spilled out that value, its probably correct
> 
> Later after that is stable, drop SCL to 3 and give it tWRRD 4
> after that is stable, try if you can post with SCL 2 and anyways aside from the result, lower tRDWR -1 , keep tWRRD 4 set


Changed tWR from 14 to 16 and set tWTR_S/L to 4 and 12.

Results more or less the same.

I dont see tWTR, do you mean tWR or tWTRL? (tWR = 14 and tWTRL = 14)
tRTP is set to 8, calc. fast setting. 

Will try dropping SCL's to 3 now but could you tell me why set tWRRD to 4 when its on 1 now?

Ty for help so far.


----------



## shotround

@Veii. amazing wealth of knowledge and desire to share. same for 1usmus and others on here. thank you.


this generated errors, so i left it at 18: tRCD WR down to tCL 16
got this down to 44, 16+24+4: tRAS keep as accurate tCL+tWR+4

going to try below in that sequence.


Veii said:


> Directly on the first post of 1usmus is a link to cLDO_VDDP memory hole
> Please read that post
> 1050mV VDDP is borderline
> 
> 53.3ohm should be just enough for you to hit the 3467MT/s wall
> 
> Give your hynix either more voltage near 1.48v regionOr increase ClkDrvStrengh and to 60-20-20-24 , lower a bit VSOC not over 1.08v
> fix your allcore at 3.8 if you can run 4ghz
> Then check for minimum required VID under avx2 loads (occt medium chunks)
> That way get your allcore correct and give +2 steps more vcore to cover for memory OC
> High ClkDrvStrengh needs lower VDIMM


edit:
cLDO_VDDP now at 800. transition point somewhere between 775 and 800.
3467MT/s results in testmem5 errors right at start or bsod. ive tried various Vsoc (one or two notches up) and ram voltages (1.39V - 1.48V).
ClkDrvStrength: testing at 40-24-24-24 and Vsoc at 1.0688. 30-24-24-24 @ 1.075 Vsoc was good. 
then ram voltage. it will not boot with ram above 1.455V.

edit: 
looks like Vsoc at 1.0688 is as low as it goes.

edit: had to bump cLDO_VDDP up to 825. clkdrvstr 40-24-24-24 and Vsoc at 1.0688V.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Got a single error in testmem5 again as well as pc powering off randomly so I upped VDDG to 0.95v with VDDP at 0.9v and still have 1.075v for vsoc. This allowed me to pass 20cycles of testmem5 error free.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> Got a single error in testmem5 again as well as pc powering off randomly so I upped VDDG to 0.95v with VDDP at 0.9v and still have 1.075v for vsoc. This allowed me to pass 20cycles of testmem5 error free.


Not bad.

CL15 or pu$$y.


----------



## algida79

Hello friends,


Long shot on Zen+, I know, but I thought to try my Rev. E at 3600MT/s. Unfortunately the Safe preset of the Calculator gave me errors, even after increasing Vdimm from recommended 1.36V to 1.37V and 1.38V. All the other settings kept at Recommended values, except Vsoc (see below) and tRFC (used higher Alt value of 630).



Any suggestions to try and stabilize the memory? Or is 3600MT/s a lost cause because of Infinity Fabric/IMC limitations of my CPU?











Other important settings not shown in the screenshot

Vsoc: 1.025 V

CLDO VDDP: 866 mV


Thanks.


----------



## FranZe

New personal best time


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> Not bad.
> 
> CL15 or pu$$y.



I couldn't get 2t working the other day though I didn't spend that long trying, not sure if rev E can run with GDM off at higher frequencies?


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> I couldn't get 2t working the other day though I didn't spend that long trying, not sure if rev E can run with GDM off at higher frequencies?


When in doubt, just steal some settings from the germans. :thinking:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/590255495592542219/694159856382378005/39VCJN99iG.jpg


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> When in doubt, just steal some settings from the germans. :thinking:
> 
> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/590255495592542219/694159856382378005/39VCJN99iG.jpg



1T with GDM off that looks promising cheers!


----------



## Nighthog

algida79 said:


> Hello friends,
> 
> 
> Long shot on Zen+, I know, but I thought to try my Rev. E at 3600MT/s. Unfortunately the Safe preset of the Calculator gave me errors, even after increasing Vdimm from recommended 1.36V to 1.37V and 1.38V. All the other settings kept at Recommended values, except Vsoc (see below) and tRFC (used higher Alt value of 630).
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions to try and stabilize the memory? Or is 3600MT/s a lost cause because of Infinity Fabric/IMC limitations of my CPU?
> 
> 
> View attachment 356938
> 
> 
> 
> Other important settings not shown in the screenshot
> 
> Vsoc: 1.025 V
> 
> CLDO VDDP: 866 mV
> 
> 
> Thanks.


I would try more vSoC. They usually wanted more for higher frequency.


----------



## algida79

Thanks @Nighthog. I will try more Vsoc in +25mV steps (1.05, 1.075, 1.1V) and report back.


----------



## jeremy.b

@Veii I switched over to tm5 with the 1usmus v2 profile to further validate my prior settings and I'm getting consistent single errors on test 2.

I found the 1usmus v3 config and am running that shortly to get on the current config.

I have not played with SCL's yet as I'd like to button up this error that I'm seeing in TM5.


----------



## FlyByU

Veii said:


> @FlyByU something was purely wrong
> 16gb take about 1:20-1:30h
> 32gb between 2:40-3:00h
> 64gb logically near 6h


This is how it finished. I only set 16-20-20-20-40 + Dimm 1.4v + Soc 1.1v + VDDP 900 + VDDG 0.950

http://imgur.com/gallery/2xVcZwO


----------



## mongoled

FlyByU said:


> This is how it finished. I only set 16-20-20-20-40 + Dimm 1.4v + Soc 1.1v + VDDP 900 + VDDG 0.950
> 
> http://imgur.com/gallery/2xVcZwO


My advice would be to not be aiming for a FCLK of 1900, I am assuming that is what you are running with that TM5 screenshot.

Extreme slowdown in TM5 is strong evidence that your FCLK cannot handle that frequency in the manner you are running it and there isnt really a golden ticket to get you there!

Peoples assistance can only get you so far, you seem to have the correct base voltages in place but obviously something in your setup is not liking it.

Concetrate on running a lower FCLK first, so your TM5 times will be near where they should be.

From the look of that TM5 screenshot I would be very suprised if your 3d benchmark scores are where they should be.

Drop to 3733/1866mhz, run 3dmark timespy or something equivalent, note the score, than go back to 3800/1900 run the same benchmark, im pretty sure you will see a drop in performance when running 3800/1900


----------



## QB the Slayer

It also depends on what you have running in the background... I have tons of crap running (which I am okay with), so my times will be a lot slower than on a squeaky clean OS with everything disabled and services at a minimum... 

QB


----------



## jeremy.b

helsyeah said:


> @Veii I switched over to tm5 with the 1usmus v2 profile to further validate my prior settings and I'm getting consistent single errors on test 2.
> 
> I found the 1usmus v3 config and am running that shortly to get on the current config.
> 
> I have not played with SCL's yet as I'd like to button up this error that I'm seeing in TM5.


On the off-chance this will help someone along the way I'll continue to detail out what I'm trying as I debug these TM5 errors.

Firstly my configuration remains unchanged from my prior screenshots. However my voltages were not properly represented. They were as follows:

Dimm 1.4v
Soc 1.1v
VDDP 950mv
VDDG both 1.05v

I then bumped vDimm up to 1.42v and ProdODT down to 34.3ohm, did TM5 (with the 1usmus v3 config) and saw a single test 5 error.

I jumped vDimm up to 1.45v and now did not see any errors in TM5.

I'm setting up a 20 cycle run and will see how that fairs.


----------



## FlyByU

mongoled said:


> My advice would be to not be aiming for a FCLK of 1900, I am assuming that is what you are running with that TM5 screenshot.
> 
> Extreme slowdown in TM5 is strong evidence that your FCLK cannot handle that frequency in the manner you are running it and there isnt really a golden ticket to get you there!
> 
> Peoples assistance can only get you so far, you seem to have the correct base voltages in place but obviously something in your setup is not liking it.
> 
> Concetrate on running a lower FCLK first, so your TM5 times will be near where they should be.
> 
> From the look of that TM5 screenshot I would be very suprised if your 3d benchmark scores are where they should be.
> 
> Drop to 3733/1866mhz, run 3dmark timespy or something equivalent, note the score, than go back to 3800/1900 run the same benchmark, im pretty sure you will see a drop in performance when running 3800/1900


I actually got my kits stable at 3600 and 3733 but I'm now trying to reach 3800. I did the benchmarks on 3dMark (both with 16-20-20-20-40 + Dimm 1.4v + Soc 1.1v + VDDP 900 + VDDG 0.950 + GDM enabled + CPU fixed x38 (3.8GHz) at 1.2v + UncoreOC enabled + PBO disabled + SOC llc lvl4 [ASUS]) and here's what I got:

3733/1866:
https://imgur.com/Rkaac3J

3800/1900:
https://imgur.com/TSpWY8Y

I have no idea why when setting 16-20-20-20-40 it takes over 2h with my 2x8GB.

EDIT:

I also got my kits stable at 3800 BUT with weird voltages: VDDG (1.075v) is only 25mV less than SOC (1.1v) and I don't wanna break the rule of VDDG being *at least* 50mV less than SOC. I also have already tried:
1: increase soc to 1.125v
2: set VDDG to 1.050v
3: set VDDG 1.060v (with SOC 1.1v to at least have 40mV difference)

and no luck!. So, that's why I'm going back to the drawing board. I'm just following the GitHub guide but then I ran across this issue where TM5 takes 2h14m to complete, which is not normal as I can see.

Update: see the img attached here, this has also become a common issue when I try 16-20-20-20-40. TM5 just stops testing and it sits like that endlessly.


----------



## Veii

algida79 said:


> Hello friends,
> Long shot on Zen+, I know, but I thought to try my Rev. E at 3600MT/s.
> Any suggestions to try and stabilize the memory? Or is 3600MT/s a lost cause because of Infinity Fabric/IMC limitations of my CPU?
> View attachment 356938
> 
> Other important settings not shown in the screenshot
> 
> Vsoc: 1.025 V
> CLDO VDDP: 866 mV
> 
> Thanks.


How much is your progress to this date ?
You have dozzens of errors, far too many to nail down the result
Error 2 & 12 = Simple Test 32mb, transfer test, big timing issue
Error 13 = Simple Test 64mb, timeout while transfering big data = full crash, nearly always related to voltage ~ as memory was not able to autocorrect it
Error 1= Simple Test 16mb ~ can be voltage related, can be tRFC issues, tiny timeout issues for example tRRD_L looks like a bit awkward 

But starting with such an issue, and snowballing the remain rest without any error 6 spam
(6,12,6,12 is an IMC thing)
Error 6 = IMC, vSOC issue

On non of your work you had IMC issues, soo your vSOC is just fine
You aren't running 3600MT/s , you aren't even close to zen+ [12nm] IMC wall
your CLDO_VDDP is working as you can see

What i think is the issue, here is procODT and CAD_BUS
i didn't randomly picked 60-20-20-24 and not 40-24-24-24 
These two 20/24 values matter a lot  
24-24-24-24 works but 24-20-20-24 works better even on 1st gen
We don't see this, as the calculator didn't update that for zen 1 & zen+
Takes too much time to retest new research on a 2-3 year old platform

ProcODT, when you use very low vSOC - you have to drop procODT
if you can't because of memory controller stress (doubt on such low MT/s)
Then you have to work with ClkDrvStrengh or use high vDIMM to power the dimms somehow
Same goes for the RTT values, start here 
Timings are a bit strange, but nothing that would show such big issues

Don't forget, Micron E(asy) dies have their name for a reason
They need high drive impedance ClkDrvStrgh (Cad_BUS)
But they neither need high VDIMM, nor make high stress to the IMC = need way less procODT than B-dies = higher maximum FCLK
They just are a bit slower, but you can't have all 

Focus on these points and you should succeed
Your issue are not the timings atm, be sure your CPU is stable with low procODT else work on that and get it solid first before you move onto memory


shotround said:


> @Veii. amazing wealth of knowledge and desire to share. same for 1usmus and others on here. thank you.
> 
> this generated errors, so i left it at 18: tRCD WR down to tCL 16
> got this down to 44, 16+24+4: tRAS keep as accurate tCL+tWR+4
> 
> going to try below in that sequence.
> edit:
> cLDO_VDDP now at 800. transition point somewhere between 775 and 800.
> 3467MT/s results in testmem5 errors right at start or bsod. ive tried various Vsoc (one or two notches up) and ram voltages (1.39V - 1.48V).
> ClkDrvStrength: testing at 40-24-24-24 and Vsoc at 1.0688. 30-24-24-24 @ 1.075 Vsoc was good.
> then ram voltage. it will not boot with ram above 1.455V.
> edit:
> looks like Vsoc at 1.0688 is as low as it goes.


The same goes to you  
well, keep in mind cLDO_VDDP is very sensitive
+1, +2 ~ already can differ between rock stable and flickery instability
I can see tho how annoying it has to be, to figure that VDDP on an untested frequency
Just keep it in mind when you work with it

EDIT: 3467MT/s on first gen is again 700mV or 913mV
what you can also focus is vSOC LLC 
vSOC over 1.1 was never needed and has negative scaling upwards 
But if you need more than 1.075, try either 1.0875 or 1.1 with a strong loadline
You'll figure it out 
Just be sure that your CPU is stable at whatever you have it set
Linpack Xtreme 1.1.1 , not 1.1.2 or 1.1.3 
That's a very heavy stresstest for first two gens
Pass 20 cycles all-core and maybe one 30min test of OCCT Beta AVX2 medium dataset
Just to confirm core stability
And keep in mind, you will need a vCore bump on first two gens, when you increase FCLK 


Farih said:


> Changed tWR from 14 to 16 and set tWTR_S/L to 4 and 12.
> Results more or less the same.
> 
> I dont see tWTR, do you mean tWR or tWTRL? (tWR = 14 and tWTRL = 14)
> tRTP is set to 8, calc. fast setting.
> 
> Will try dropping SCL's to 3 now but could you tell me why set tWRRD to 4 when its on 1 now?
> 
> Ty for help so far.


Ah yes yes , bad wording 
tRRD_ and tWTR_ are the official names, on intel and on DDR4 spec
tRRD_S / tRRD_L , same as tWTR_S and tWTR_L go both in pairs
i ment the pair of tWTR_ 
4 tWTR_S and 12 tWTR_L, seem to have no need to ever be pushed higher 

Both of them depend on the IC and a bit on the PCB
It's just delay on (read to read, same row / read to read different row)
same as (write to write on the same bank, and write to write on a different bank)
They pretty much are binning dependent, nearly same as tRCD RD 
it's an IC thing, only some remain timings that are associated with these main ones


helsyeah said:


> @Veii I switched over to tm5 with the 1usmus v2 profile to further validate my prior settings and I'm getting consistent single errors on test 2.
> 
> I found the 1usmus v3 config and am running that shortly to get on the current config.
> I have not played with SCL's yet as I'd like to button up this error that I'm seeing in TM5.


This is interesting, v3 is actually better but the anta777 config from the intel thread seems to be similar with nearly identical testing time
Tho after TM5 always doublecheck the CPU - Y-Cruncher, Cinebench, OCCT 
~ has to pass all of them / first and 2nd gen can relay on LinX v1.1.1 too to stresstest it a bit more than P95


FlyByU said:


> This is how it finished. I only set 16-20-20-20-40 + Dimm 1.4v + Soc 1.1v + VDDP 900 + VDDG 0.950
> http://imgur.com/gallery/2xVcZwO


Yes no,
When the calculator gives you values, use them 
Don't try to trust the boards still
They sadly yet need a lot of research time to catch up on timings prediction
And what they surely need, is IC recognition mode ~ else it results in a mess

I see loading XMP uses algorithms and tries to give their best
PMU patch sadly had no update since mid AGESA 1.0.0.6 shortly before 0.0.7.2 
^ which was around mid 2018 
we can't expect everything from AMD, but they need some kind of IC recognition system, else the mess will continue 
well someday, they'll find time to fix it
But don't pray for magic that some Auto value might or might not be consistently everytime accurately predicted 
Fix everything (memory) that's on auto when you can 


FlyByU said:


> CPU fixed x38 (3.8GHz) at 1.2v
> I have no idea why when setting 16-20-20-20-40 it takes over 2h with my 2x8GB.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> I also got my kits stable at 3800 BUT with weird voltages: VDDG (1.075v) is only 25mV less than SOC (1.1v) and I don't wanna break the rule of VDDG being *at least* 50mV less than SOC. I also have already tried:
> 1: increase soc to 1.125v
> 2: set VDDG to 1.050v
> 3: set VDDG 1.060v (with SOC 1.1v to at least have 40mV difference)
> 
> and no luck!. So, that's why I'm going back to the drawing board. I'm just following the GitHub guide but then I ran across this issue where TM5 takes 2h14m to complete, which is not normal as I can see.


Your issue is the overclock, part of it
TM5 completion speed depends on your CPU speed too 
But everything i read goes back to the same drawing board issue
Be sure that the cpu is fine - be sure it has no issues to pass the whole y-cruncher test suite at least once, better twice

Changing vSOC will change how your CPU OC performs, 
Changing LLCs will change your CPU OC stability
Increasing FCLK usually too, but it's less of an issue on zen 2
and fix everything except vCore ~ memory OC is a deep rabbit hole
Everything around memory OC can go unstable by memory OC, even the OS and the bios


----------



## 2600ryzen

FlyByU said:


> This is how it finished. I only set 16-20-20-20-40 + Dimm 1.4v + Soc 1.1v + VDDP 900 + VDDG 0.950
> 
> http://imgur.com/gallery/2xVcZwO



Test might've just been slow because the auto timings were so bad.


----------



## shotround

Veii said:


> well, keep in mind cLDO_VDDP is very sensitive
> +1, +2 ~ already can differ between rock stable and flickery instability
> I can see tho how annoying it has to be, to figure that VDDP on an untested frequency
> Just keep it in mind when you work with it
> 
> EDIT: 3467MT/s on first gen is again 700mV or 913mV
> what you can also focus is vSOC LLC
> vSOC over 1.1 was never needed and has negative scaling upwards
> But if you need more than 1.075, try either 1.0875 or 1.1 with a strong loadline
> You'll figure it out
> Just be sure that your CPU is stable at whatever you have it set
> Linpack Xtreme 1.1.1 , not 1.1.2 or 1.1.3
> That's a very heavy stresstest for first two gens
> Pass 20 cycles all-core and maybe one 30min test of OCCT Beta AVX2 medium dataset
> Just to confirm core stability
> And keep in mind, you will need a vCore bump on first two gens, when you increase FCLK


cLDO_VDDP frustrating is right. its a huge range from 700mV to over 1050mV.
im back to work next week, so postponing 3467MT/s for next time.
ive noticed that stable/synchronized system ram affect gpu ram OC. with where im at now with system ram, the gpu ram is OC'd the highest its been. only through games, will verify its stability.

Veii, thank you once again.


----------



## Veii

shotround said:


> cLDO_VDDP frustrating is right. its a huge range from 700mV to over 1050mV.
> im back to work next week, so postponing 3467MT/s for next time.
> ive noticed that stable/synchronized system ram affect gpu ram OC. with where im at now with system ram, the gpu ram is OC'd the highest its been. only through games, will verify its stability.
> 
> Veii, thank you once again.


3467 & 3200MT/s are quite easy to work with on cLDO_VDDP 
Just 700mV 
But there is a cpu based VDDP too 
But odd speeds like 3333MT/s or 3533 are awkward to get running
At least 3600MT/s again is known as 866

Might want disable virtualization and hyper-V per power-shell on windows, to keep BLCK consistent, soo cLDO_VDDP won't mess up by shifting BLCK
I've never seen people use beyond 950mV on first gen, but we didn't know better back then that the upper range on 12nm IMC is 1050mV 
People would worry beyond 950mV to fry their IMC as 200mV can be deadly 
^ one of the reason i worry now with AGESA 1005/1006 (new) is a bug which pushes VDDP at 1150, soo VDDG 1.2 and vSOC near 1.25 to 1.3v
cLDO_VDDP is sensitive, but where would the fun be if stuff was easy 

Just get procODT down, that increases your chance to hit a higher FCLK
As the stress to the memory controller is reduced that way


----------



## algida79

@*Veii* thank you very much for your suggestions. I will work on them and report back. What changes can I make to the timings before I start playing with new combinations of ProcODT, CAD_BUS, RTT to ensure timings are 100% not the issue? Could you suggest a loose but correct set of timings for this purpose? Current set is the calculator's Safe profile for 3600MT/s.


----------



## Farih

Veii said:


> Ah yes yes , bad wording
> tRRD_ and tWTR_ are the official names, on intel and on DDR4 spec
> tRRD_S / tRRD_L , same as tWTR_S and tWTR_L go both in pairs
> i ment the pair of tWTR_
> 4 tWTR_S and 12 tWTR_L, seem to have no need to ever be pushed higher
> 
> Both of them depend on the IC and a bit on the PCB
> It's just delay on (read to read, same row / read to read different row)
> same as (write to write on the same bank, and write to write on a different bank)
> They pretty much are binning dependent, nearly same as tRCD RD
> it's an IC thing, only some remain timings that are associated with these main ones


Changed the settings you mentioned, results stayed more or less the same 
Only Memory read seems to have gone up a little (from 56600 to 56850)


----------



## zsoltmol

Hi @Veii,

Maybe I have traced down my issues to memory timings. And I would like to request your help. You share a lot of information in your posts, but I'm a bit lost to properly understand them. Memory holes, voltages, MT/sec, etc 

Here is my current setup:
CPU SOC with negative offset of 0.01250v (HWinfo report: 1.088 idle, 1.072 multi core load)
4x8GB Samsung b-die single rank memory in Asus C8H
PBO: enabled with motherboard limits, Scalar 1X, 0MHz uplift

3666MHz/1833MHz or 3733MHz/1866MHz
VDDG CCD: 0.920v
VDDG IOD: 0.980v
CLDO VDDP: 0.910v

What voltages do you suggest to set, I want to avoid I give too high voltage to parts. Can I decrease some of them?


----------



## Awsan

Nighthog said:


> Hynix DJR 17nm?
> 
> Here is what I could do on my Kingston kit with those.
> Same timings work for 3800Mhz 1900FCLK, tRFC can be a bit lower though instead.
> They require ~1.600V for tCL 15, tCL 16 can be done on 1.450V.
> 
> tFAW on this kit requires higher clkDrvStr. 60 Ohm makes 8-16 tFAW possible.
> GeardownMode:disabled works with ease on this specific kit but I would guess Hynix DJR could do it in general. I needed clkDrvStr 24-60 Ohm for that.
> 
> [60-20-20-20] CAD_BUS in general worked out great.
> 
> ~1.500V should make SCL 2-2 possible.


My ram is kinda weird, this with higher voltages ( I usually run 1.4 + 0.600/0.600 ) instead of ( 1.5 + 0.750/0.750) the only changes I did was disable GDM and its already not stable same timings. All @ (24-20-20-24)


----------



## DeusM

Hi guys, 



after a busy week at work i am back able to run down the rabit hole again.



@FlyByU i have gotten to 3800cl16 with these settings. First shot of testmem5 25 cycles there was 0 errors


The second run i just completed showed me 2 errors. Error no3 and error no4


If anybody can help what do these errors mean? More voltage? soc? loosen timings?


----------



## jeremy.b

Veii said:


> This is interesting, v3 is actually better but the anta777 config from the intel thread seems to be similar with nearly identical testing time
> Tho after TM5 always doublecheck the CPU - Y-Cruncher, Cinebench, OCCT
> ~ has to pass all of them / first and 2nd gen can relay on LinX v1.1.1 too to stresstest it a bit more than P95


Thanks and noted.

The more play with this my current setup the more I think the errors I'm seeing are voltage related. I just don't know enough (yet) to understand exactly which settings to adjust!

To continue here's where I left off yesterday afternoon:



helsyeah said:


> ... However my voltages were not properly represented. They were as follows:
> 
> Dimm 1.4v
> Soc 1.1v
> VDDP 950mv
> VDDG both 1.05v
> 
> I then bumped vDimm up to 1.42v and ProdODT down to 34.3ohm, did TM5 (with the 1usmus v3 config) and saw a single test 5 error.
> 
> I jumped vDimm up to 1.45v and now did not see any errors in TM5 in 3 cycles.
> 
> I'm setting up a 20 cycle run and will see how that fairs.


Well with 1.45 vdimm I again saw some test 2/5 errors at cycle 6 or so.

I dropped tRCD WR down to 15, vdimm back down to 1.4v. I don't recall if I'd bumped CAD_BUS up yet as I've been playing a bit since then and didn't take good notes. Whatever the settings I let TM5 run for 14 cycles without error. I then ran a couple benchmarks and they *might* have been down a tiny bit than when tRCD WR was at 16.

I then tried to dropping tWRWR SCL down to 3, no issues booting but I got immediate errors on test 6 in TM5 windows locked up and had to force reboot. 

I reset back to my profile that had the clean 14 cycle run and got stuck in a reboot/training cycle. Normally I can get out of that by bumping vDIMM up to 1.42-1.45 but it didn't work this time around. I had to finally load up a lower speed profile then back again to get a good boot.

Wanting to experiment a bit more I put tRCD WR back to 16, dropped VDDG both down to 1.03, vSOC down to 1.075 and vDimm back to 1.4v, CAD_BUS 40-20-20-24 & ProcODT up to 53.3ohm. Booted fine and let run on a 20 cycle TM5 overnight. Ended up with a number of test 11,13 and something else errors (10 total).

I saw @Veii's note on error 13 (probably) being voltage related.

BACK to the 14 hr profile and adjusting from there again.

Currently at 10 cycles into TM5 with the following:

All previous timings/settings (CAD_BUS (edit) 40 24-20-20-24) except:
tRCD WR: Back to 16 again
vDimm: 1.4v
ProcODT: up to 48 ohm
vSOC: 1.1125 (up from 1.1) Edit: LLC3 Asus
vDDG_IOD: up to 1.05
vDDG_CCD: down to 1.0 (seeing what happens when I de-sync IOD & CCD)

I know I'm changing multiple variables at once but there are so many to play with!

Edit: Corrected values.


----------



## FlyByU

@Veii thanks a lot for the info before. I was going to first test the CPU to see if there was any issue but a test was running at that moment and I let it finish.

Turns out it's stable at 3800MHz. I basically took my stable 3733 values, set it to 3800 + UncoreOC=enabled + Soc LLC lvl4 [ASUS] + CPU fixed at 38 1.2v (PBO disabled) and it worked just fine (20 cycles). However, I did not want to have my CPU fixed at that frequency, so I unfix it (multiplier and CPU v. back to *auto*) and enabled PBO; the result for this last one was a *failure*. So, I decided to disable PBO (not a big deal for me) and, here's what I got:




Spoiler














 @DeusM check this out.

Thanks a lot to y'all guy for helping me achieve 3800MHz on this lower bin b-die kit. Special thanks to @LuckyBahstard, this dude is awesome!

If anyone is interested, Here you have our spreadsheet with all the timings we've tried. If anything comes up I'll update the document but if there is any suggestion to tighten things, feel free to let me know, I'll be happy to try it.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

FlyByU said:


> @Veii thanks a lot for the info before.
> 
> _Moved quoted text block into spoiler, for saving space_
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to first test the CPU to see if there was any issue but a test was running at that moment and I let it finish.
> 
> Turns out it's stable at 3800MHz. I basically took my stable 3733 values, set it to 3800 + UncoreOC=enabled + Soc LLC lvl4 [ASUS] + CPU fixed at 38 1.2v (PBO disabled) and it worked just fine (20 cycles). However, I did not want to have my CPU fixed at that frequency, so I unfix it (multiplier and CPU v. back to *auto*) and enabled PBO; the result for this last one was a *failure*. So, I decided to disable PBO (not a big deal for me) and, here's what I got:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @DeusM check this out.
> 
> If anyone is interested, Here you have our spreadsheet with all the timings we've tried. If anything comes up I'll update the document but if there is any suggestion to tighten things, feel free to let me know, I'll be happy to try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot to y'all guy for helping me achieve 3800MHz on this lower bin b-die kit. Special thanks to @LuckyBahstard, this dude is awesome!


 @Veii is a stalwart for this forum, he's a consistent support, so thanks to him and also everyone else who shared and provided us info to work from. But we sure had fun getting you to stable 3800  Crossing fingers you have no random issue in a real-world activity later.

*I have a question then, for the group here...* so have you found PBO to be the difference in stability? (_that's a yes, I'm sure_) And, have you found a way to work it back in, but perhaps with boost limits or offsets to help prevent the chance of mem errors?

I assume this is what gave me a random Sony (Magix) Vegas error during video editing, even though I thought I had a stable 3733. I could have just turned off or tuned PBO and probably been fine.


----------



## jeremy.b

@FlyByU nicely done! Cool to see that you isolated the issue.

I completed my 20 cycle run based on my prior post. Turns out I didn't quite quote the configuration correctly, so I'll just include it all here in the attached img.

The only thing missing from above is that vSOC LLC is at 3 (ASUS).

I forgot to mention one of the other changes I made was to use @Veii google sheet to calc out tRFC values and used those.

I'm pretty happy with that so far.

@Veii (or anyone else for that matter!) I have some specific questions:


Is there any way to lower vSOC by tweaking other values? (I don't fully understand how the voltages/impedance relate to each other)
Can tRD WR be reduced back to 8 by adjusting other timings and still obtaining a performance boost?
How would I go about (if possible) stabilizing lower SCL values since I'm seeing errors/crashes going below 4?

I'll say this is a fun, although complex! project, tons more for me to learn!


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> @Veii is a stalwart for this forum, he's a consistent support, so thanks to him and also everyone else who shared and provided us info to work from. But we sure had fun getting you to stable 3800  Crossing fingers you have no random issue in a real-world activity later.
> 
> *I have a question then, for the group here...* so have you found PBO to be the difference in stability? (_that's a yes, I'm sure_) And, have you found a way to work it back in, but perhaps with boost limits or offsets to help prevent the chance of mem errors?
> 
> I assume this is what gave me a random Sony (Magix) Vegas error during video editing, even though I thought I had a stable 3733. I could have just turned off or tuned PBO and probably been fine.


Ahh PBO, my best friend this moment in time (along with BCLK).

Yeah, if you are getting errors using it than maybe one of the cores is boosting past where it is stable, so troubleshooting methods include things like reducing the max boost clock option, or decreasing the PPT/TDC ceiling.

Its quite invested but can reap a very balanced rig that can automatically adjust its frequency based on what app it is running.

Right now my "beastly" 3600 has passed several TM5 stress tests at over 4530 mhz


----------



## 2600ryzen

mongoled said:


> Ahh PBO, my best friend this moment in time (along with BCLK).
> 
> Yeah, if you are getting errors using it than maybe one of the cores is boosting past where it is stable, so troubleshooting methods include things like reducing the max boost clock option, or decreasing the PPT/TDC ceiling.
> 
> Its quite invested but can reap a very balanced rig that can automatically adjust its frequency based on what app it is running.
> 
> Right now my "beastly" 3600 has passed several TM5 stress tests at over 4530 mhz



allcore 4530mhz with PBO enabled?


----------



## DeusM

FlyByU said:


> @*Veii* thanks a lot for the info before. I was going to first test the CPU to see if there was any issue but a test was running at that moment and I let it finish.
> 
> Turns out it's stable at 3800MHz. I basically took my stable 3733 values, set it to 3800 + UncoreOC=enabled + Soc LLC lvl4 [ASUS] + CPU fixed at 38 1.2v (PBO disabled) and it worked just fine (20 cycles). However, I did not want to have my CPU fixed at that frequency, so I unfix it (multiplier and CPU v. back to *auto*) and enabled PBO; the result for this last one was a *failure*. So, I decided to disable PBO (not a big deal for me) and, here's what I got:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @*DeusM* check this out.
> 
> Thanks a lot to y'all guy for helping me achieve 3800MHz on this lower bin b-die kit. Special thanks to @*LuckyBahstard* , this dude is awesome!
> 
> If anyone is interested, Here you have our spreadsheet with all the timings we've tried. If anything comes up I'll update the document but if there is any suggestion to tighten things, feel free to let me know, I'll be happy to try it.



Thats awesome i will check out the spreadsheet later to have a go. I think my problem is how hot my ram is getting in gaming and underload. up to 46.1c and i was reading that above 40c it will throw random numbers which will explain why i can run TM5 perfect one day and not the next. Example. 3 nights ago i had 0 errors. 2 nights ago i had 2 errors on number 3 and 4 so i gave it a bit more voltage and last night it have me errors on 1 and 15.


3 tests 3 different results. 



Im going to buy a small 40mm fan to blow directly over the ram to see if it will help.


----------



## FlyByU

DeusM said:


> Thats awesome i will check out the spreadsheet later to have a go. I think my problem is how hot my ram is getting in gaming and underload. up to 46.1c and i was reading that above 40c it will throw random numbers which will explain why i can run TM5 perfect one day and not the next. Example. 3 nights ago i had 0 errors. 2 nights ago i had 2 errors on number 3 and 4 so i gave it a bit more voltage and last night it have me errors on 1 and 15.
> 
> 
> 3 tests 3 different results.
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to buy a small 40mm fan to blow directly over the ram to see if it will help.


I just found out I have the exact same issue. Yesterday when I all the tests my room was colder than today. I reran TM5 twice and got different errors.


----------



## DeusM

FlyByU said:


> I just found out I have the exact same issue. Yesterday when I all the tests my room was colder than today. I reran TM5 twice and got different errors.





I hope its the issues! 



i have ordered a 40mm Noctua PwM fan and i will modify my case ac bit so it can fit directly over the ram for airflow.


I will post up results by Tuesday night hopefully!


----------



## jigit_razgon

Got it! Dual-Rank Micron E-die @ 3800MHz with GDM off. Motherboard: B450i gaming plus ac, CPU: Ryzen 7 3700x with -0.75v offset SOc 1.1V VDDG 0.95 VDDP 0.9.
PROCODT 40 ohm CAD_BUS 60-20-20-24. DRAM Voltage: 1.38V. Now going for CL15.


----------



## Nighthog

Awsan said:


> My ram is kinda weird, this with higher voltages ( I usually run 1.4 + 0.600/0.600 ) instead of ( 1.5 + 0.750/0.750) the only changes I did was disable GDM and its already not stable same timings. All @ (24-20-20-24)


I'm unfamiliar with the ASUS VREF voltages, so wouldn't know what they are used for.

But GDM:disabled liked clkDrvStr @ 60 Ohm for best results. Did you try 60-20-20-24 CAD_BUS combo?


----------



## Awsan

Nighthog said:


> I'm unfamiliar with the ASUS VREF voltages, so wouldn't know what they are used for.
> 
> But GDM:disabled liked clkDrvStr @ 60 Ohm for best results. Did you try 60-20-20-24 CAD_BUS combo?


Tried 60-20-20-20 and it gave an error in the first 2 mins in TM5


----------



## FranZe

DeusM said:


> Thats awesome i will check out the spreadsheet later to have a go. I think my problem is how hot my ram is getting in gaming and underload. up to 46.1c and i was reading that above 40c it will throw random numbers which will explain why i can run TM5 perfect one day and not the next. Example. 3 nights ago i had 0 errors. 2 nights ago i had 2 errors on number 3 and 4 so i gave it a bit more voltage and last night it have me errors on 1 and 15.
> 
> 
> 3 tests 3 different results.
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to buy a small 40mm fan to blow directly over the ram to see if it will help.



Many people dont belive me when i say this, and say; Hey, thats not an issue! But there is a reason for i've gpu in the second slot etc,etc.. okay, so i've gone over the top with the cooling here but i dont have heat issues either. I know my memory throw errors in the middle of the 40's. Tighter timings before looser ones.



I haven't done this just for fun either, or i've, but there is a reason to it


----------



## DeusM

FranZe said:


> Many people dont belive me when i say this, and say; Hey, thats not an issue! But there is a reason for i've gpu in the second slot etc,etc.. okay, so i've gone over the top with the cooling here but i dont have heat issues either. I know my memory throw errors in the middle of the 40's. Tighter timings before looser ones.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't done this just for fun either, or i've, but there is a reason to it









Thats awesome! how much did it help the cooling of ram because that is exactly what im planning to do. even ordered the same fan!!!!





i tried to put my GPU in the second slot but i loose too much FPS on warzone. dropped from 110 average to 95, i dont know why tho it should of been the same unless pcie 4.0 makes that much of a difference but from what i have read it shouldnt.


----------



## Ronski

DeusM said:


> Thats awesome! how much did it help the cooling of ram because that is exactly what im planning to do. even ordered the same fan!!!!
> 
> i tried to put my GPU in the second slot but i loose too much FPS on warzone. dropped from 110 average to 95, i dont know why tho it should of been the same unless pcie 4.0 makes that much of a difference but from what i have read it shouldnt.


I've attached a picture of mine, I had a 120mm fan laying around so that's cabled tied in place. I have a proper memory cooler from my old build but annoyingly the GPU is too close to the memory slots and the brackets don't fit very well either. I was having loads of memory problems until I fitted this fan - IR heat detector gun showed them at around 50 degrees C.


----------



## kratosatlante

if need cooler on ram can try this https://www.in-win.com/es/cooling/mars/


----------



## FranZe

DeusM said:


> Thats awesome! how much did it help the cooling of ram because that is exactly what im planning to do. even ordered the same fan!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i tried to put my GPU in the second slot but i loose too much FPS on warzone. dropped from 110 average to 95, i dont know why tho it should of been the same unless pcie 4.0 makes that much of a difference but from what i have read it shouldnt.


The fan itself do help, but i couldn't make it without the AC in the room. In front of PC ambient temp is 20°C, on the other side of the room is it 26°C. So without AC i belive an ambient temp of around 30°C. 
That said, with a normal ambient temp just the fan help quite a lot. Without that one i couldnt hold my OC. Sorry, i dont have any numbers for you here and since i don't remember exactly how many °C it helped i rather shut up right now 
But i can dig a little and see if i can come up with some numbers to you, but i think thats no point at all. It helps, everything you do to better it. How much depends on... all the differents setups out there.


----------



## Ronski

kratosatlante said:


> if need cooler on ram can try this https://www.in-win.com/es/cooling/mars/


Nice idea, but very expensive at around 70 Euros/dollars, and not easy to find either.


----------



## rares495

Ronski said:


> Nice idea, but very expensive at around 70 Euros/dollars, and not easy to find either.


Caseking.de seems to be the only place that sells it.


----------



## kratosatlante

Ronski said:


> Nice idea, but very expensive at around 70 Euros/dollars, and not easy to find either.


yes its high price for cooler, but nice, find here https://www.amazon.it/Win-Mars-Nero-Ventola-120/dp/B07DH1XT63

https://www.amazon.co.jp/WIN-可変設置可能-12cm-ケースファン-BLACK/dp/B07DH2WM9Y
https://www.ldlc.com/es-es/ficha/PB00246620.html


----------



## nick name

Ronski said:


> I've attached a picture of mine, I had a 120mm fan laying around so that's cabled tied in place. I have a proper memory cooler from my old build but annoyingly the GPU is too close to the memory slots and the brackets don't fit very well either. I was having loads of memory problems until I fitted this fan - IR heat detector gun showed them at around 50 degrees C.


I also stand a 120 or 140 fan on my GPU right in front of my RAM.


----------



## mongoled

I use one of these

https://www.gskill.com/product/11/2...ulence-IIIFan-Speed:-3500RPMAir-Flow:-8.60CFM


----------



## FranZe

Maybe something like this for my 60mm https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2303949 ?


----------



## paih85

my low profile setting..run cooler and suitable for itx setup. vdimm @1.35v only


----------



## Dollar

So today I decided I wanted to see how things performed with two sticks instead of the usual four. This led me to discover the sad fact that Patriot sent me a mismatched PCB kit .... I bought two 2x8 kits of the same 4133 bin Viper Steel. Three of these sticks have A0 pcb but one has something different.... It appears to be the same A2 pcb shown on the 4400 viper steels in this buildzoid video. 





So yeah, Patriot sold me a kit with one A0 stick and one A2 stick in the same package. @Veii or anyone else, how does this affect overclocking? Three A0 sticks and one A2 stick.... Is it worth begging Patriot for an RMA? They all work so I'm expecting to get denied.


----------



## kenny0048

algida79 said:


> Hello friends,
> 
> 
> Long shot on Zen+, I know, but I thought to try my Rev. E at 3600MT/s. Unfortunately the Safe preset of the Calculator gave me errors, even after increasing Vdimm from recommended 1.36V to 1.37V and 1.38V. All the other settings kept at Recommended values, except Vsoc (see below) and tRFC (used higher Alt value of 630).
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions to try and stabilize the memory? Or is 3600MT/s a lost cause because of Infinity Fabric/IMC limitations of my CPU?
> 
> 
> View attachment 356938
> 
> 
> 
> Other important settings not shown in the screenshot
> 
> Vsoc: 1.025 V
> 
> CLDO VDDP: 866 mV
> 
> 
> Thanks.


If there is no change even if you try this setting, it may be the CPU limit.

SOC: 1.10v
COLD_CDDP: 960mV
tRCDRD: 19->20
tRDWR: 8->10
CADBUS: 120/20/20/120 (Timings 0/0/0) or 30-60/20/20/30-60 (Timings 60/60/60)


----------



## 2600ryzen

Further tuned my 3800mhz timings, almost got below 110 seconds in the calculator benchmark. Trcd might be autocorrected to 18 and Tras might be autocorrected to 34, making Tras 30 or lower isn't faster and doesn't cause errors. I think Trp at 15 is faster than 16 maybe GDM doesn't affect that? Or maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention.


----------



## DeusM

kratosatlante said:


> if need cooler on ram can try this https://www.in-win.com/es/cooling/mars/



Just ordered one of these! found them in stock at a retailer in australia for $59 ($40usd) thank you for this link!


----------



## KedarWolf

DeusM said:


> Just ordered one of these! found them in stock at a retailer in australia for $59 ($40usd) thank you for this link!


This is what on going with, incredible 45 CFM.

But it can take over a month to get here from China to Canada. 

Link might not being working as I copied it from my phone. 

ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500-4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4

https://m.aliexpress.com/item/32750...er_id=52919f963ddd4159af5357de038deb05&is_c=N


----------



## Ronski

KedarWolf said:


> This is what on going with, incredible 45 CFM.
> 
> But it can take over a month to get here from China to Canada.
> 
> Link might not being working as I copied it from my phone.
> 
> ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500-4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4
> 
> https://aliexpress.com/item/3275067...er_id=52919f963ddd4159af5357de038deb05&is_c=N


Thanks, I've ordered one, I can always change the fans if they are too noisy. Had to take the m out the link above as it was for a mobile phone.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Further tuned my 3800mhz timings, almost got below 110 seconds in the calculator benchmark. Trcd might be autocorrected to 18 and Tras might be autocorrected to 34, making Tras 30 or lower isn't faster and doesn't cause errors. I think Trp at 15 is faster than 16 maybe GDM doesn't affect that? Or maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention.


What memory voltage you running? Not having a clue what I'm doing I tried copying your timings, but couldn't even boot, dare say different CPU and motherboard has a bearing on it all.

I gave up trying for 1900 IF, just don't have the time to spare, and I doubt it will make much difference - current Membench score attached. Memory is at 1.375v


----------



## Gadfly

2600ryzen said:


> Further tuned my 3800mhz timings, almost got below 110 seconds in the calculator benchmark. Trcd might be autocorrected to 18 and Tras might be autocorrected to 34, making Tras 30 or lower isn't faster and doesn't cause errors. I think Trp at 15 is faster than 16 maybe GDM doesn't affect that? Or maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention.


I have never run this before so I closed my desktop apps and gave it a shot:


----------



## happyluckbox

Running 1usmus memtest for my 3990x and 256gb of ram. When I try to enable admin priveldges, it gives me a bunch of notifications and after clicking through them, the test only loads about half my system resources. Am I doing this right?


Update: OK so apparently we have to restart comp after getting the first error 
notifications. Now it's loading up all ram, but cpu usage still only half. Not sure if this program was designed to work with the 3990x haha


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> What memory voltage you running? Not having a clue what I'm doing I tried copying your timings, but couldn't even boot, dare say different CPU and motherboard has a bearing on it all.
> 
> I gave up trying for 1900 IF, just don't have the time to spare, and I doubt it will make much difference - current Membench score attached. Memory is at 1.375v



I was running 1.4v, 1.38v might be enough I didn't try to reduce it really. Do you know if your cpu can run 1900mhz fclk? Try with ram at a lower speed.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Gadfly said:


> I have never run this before so I closed my desktop apps and gave it a shot:



Looks like you have samsung b die, I've seen 99seconds with that but maybe he was running 1.7v or something crazy.


----------



## FranZe

3900X Stock, SMT off


----------



## 2600ryzen

happyluckbox said:


> Running 1usmus memtest for my 3990x and 256gb of ram. When I try to enable admin priveldges, it gives me a bunch of notifications and after clicking through them, the test only loads about half my system resources. Am I doing this right?
> 
> 
> Update: OK so apparently we have to restart comp after getting the first error
> notifications. Now it's loading up all ram, but cpu usage still only half. Not sure if this program was designed to work with the 3990x haha





You can manually type in the number of threads you want it to use in the mt.cfg file in the "cores = x" row.


----------



## 2600ryzen

FranZe said:


> 3900X Stock, SMT off



Does disabling SMT hurt ram latency for you? I want to disable SMT on my 3600 but RAM latency seems to increase by over 1ns.


----------



## gerardfraser

Some CL16 Fabric Clock 1933Mhz
Tested Ram CL16-3866Mhz 


Some CL14 Fabric Clock 1900Mhz
Tested Ram CL14-3800Mhz


----------



## kratosatlante

FranZe said:


> 3900X Stock, SMT off


shadow of tomb raider its good to test ram OC 
no test yet smt, but it think in my cpu decrece performance

3200 cl12 extreme









3733cl14









1900/3800*3792cl14


----------



## FranZe

2600ryzen said:


> Does disabling SMT hurt ram latency for you? I want to disable SMT on my 3600 but RAM latency seems to increase by over 1ns.


Aida shows +1ns


----------



## SpecChum

Guys, what's your take on https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/himgia/gskill_3800_cl14_kit_anyone_else_have_these/fwh3xhf/

Reddit user saying DRAM calc using pirated version of HCI.

Now, I'm not doing this to "rally the troops" as it were, but I'm a big enough man to say when I'm wrong, and will say sorry to him if proven, but he's officially dead against DRAM Calc both in functionally and it's inclusion of "pirated software", so I wanted your thoughts as well?

You can see my reply, defending 1usmus, below his.

Again, I'm not leading anyone, I want your genuine opinions - if you agree with me, that's fine, if you don't, that's fine too.


----------



## Veii

SpecChum said:


> Guys, what's your take on https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/himgia/gskill_3800_cl14_kit_anyone_else_have_these/fwh3xhf/
> 
> Reddit user saying DRAM calc using pirated version of HCI.
> 
> Now, I'm not doing this to "rally the troops" as it were, but I'm a big enough man to say when I'm wrong, and will say sorry to him if proven, but he's officially dead against DRAM Calc both in functionally and it's inclusion of "pirated software", so I wanted your thoughts as well?
> 
> You can see my reply, defending 1usmus, below his.
> 
> Again, I'm not leading anyone, I want your genuine opinions - if you agree with me, that's fine, if you don't, that's fine too.


Read the discussion although people are acting strange
The terminology of piracy is not bypassing rules ~ that's modding
Piracy counts in finding ways to reverse engineer the tool and selling  these methods or profitating around them

On top of that like it was written, piracy would be if Yuri found a way to continue with this method with a new version of HCI
That would be then against the developers ruleset
But you can't apply a new TOS to an old aoftware, and you can't stop distributing the old software

Also to include that the developer knew about the existence of DRAM calculator by the time he updated their TOS
Soo if he is credited, it was under both sided agreement, nothing a TOS or EULA influences on
It would be abusage of trust, if the calculator turned into donationware purely or shareware
Which it isn't, soon piracy doesn't even close apply here 

Awkwardly such assumption comes from people who don't know where these timings come from, and likely have no idea about the tool itself
Ignoring that all these settings where compared and tested, including trowing away his research on that matter ~ is just foolish 
As if calculators only purpose are timings which have been tested strictly ^^'
Funny thread, but the linked comment is a dead end


----------



## SpecChum

Ah, @Veii just the man - I need you!

Just trying 1900 ram out for first time and getting "simple test" errors, just 1 of each.

They're 1, 2, 12 and 13.

Ideas?

BTW my comments on that thread are on that link, you just need to scroll down, same username as this one.

EDIT: I've just remembered I had to increase tRCDRD by 1 when I went from 3200 to 3466, so trying that at 17 now...


----------



## Veii

SpecChum said:


> Ah, @Veii just the man - I need you!
> 
> Just trying 1900 ram out for first time and getting "simple test" errors, just 1 of each.
> They're 1, 2, 12 and 13.
> Ideas?
> 
> BTW my comments on that thread are on that link, you just need to scroll down, same username as this one.


Yep I read all comments
I was just about to go to bed, still have a lot old questions to process
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-391.html#post28519798 check this answer here

Both 2 and 12 are 32mb tests
They areb timings related
But as everything except strange trfc looks alright, I think you have to increase tRCD 

Your working fix would be
tWR 16, tRCD RD 18, tRP 16, tRAS 34, tRC 50, tWRRD 4
Just need to see what tRC 50 or 48 likes 
That's the easy fix
The other would require shuffling timings around and working with different tRFC, soo first try that one to test if 1900FCLK is a possibility

Edit
You could also try to push tWR 14, SCL 5 and tRDWR 9 as only changes
But unless it magically will be fine with the different tRFC, you might have to increase tRCD as 32Mb Simple Test is not voltage related
And tRCD doesnt scale with voltage


----------



## ManniX-ITA

SpecChum said:


> Guys, what's your take on https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/himgia/gskill_3800_cl14_kit_anyone_else_have_these/fwh3xhf/
> 
> Reddit user saying DRAM calc using pirated version of HCI.
> 
> Now, I'm not doing this to "rally the troops" as it were, but I'm a big enough man to say when I'm wrong, and will say sorry to him if proven, but he's officially dead against DRAM Calc both in functionally and it's inclusion of "pirated software", so I wanted your thoughts as well?
> 
> You can see my reply, defending 1usmus, below his.
> 
> Again, I'm not leading anyone, I want your genuine opinions - if you agree with me, that's fine, if you don't, that's fine too.



Absolutely silly and ridiculous discussion.
DRAM Calc is a de-facto standard, it's truly helping thousands of people for free; just arrogant losers in the wild.
Just mentioning the term piracy shows the total ignorance of the subject on this matter.
If you are so keen in avoiding pirated software just stop using anything from Microsoft, Apple and Google; you'll cover 95% of world-wide IP theft.


----------



## SpecChum

Veii said:


> Yep I read all comments
> I was just about to go to bed, still have a lot old questions to process
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-391.html#post28519798 check this answer here
> 
> Both 2 and 12 are 32mb tests
> They areb timings related
> But as everything except strange trfc looks alright, I think you have to increase tRCD
> 
> Your working fix would be
> tWR 16, tRCD RD 18, tRP 16, tRAS 34, tRC 50, tWRRD 4
> Just need to see what tRC 50 or 48 likes
> That's the easy fix
> The other would require shuffling timings around and working with different tRFC, soo first try that one to test if 1900FCLK is a possibility
> 
> Edit
> You could also try to push tWR 14, SCL 5 and tRDWR 9 as only changes
> But unless it magically will be fine with the different tRFC, you might have to increase tRCD as 32Mb Simple Test is not voltage related
> And tRCD doesnt scale with voltage


Just trying tRCDRD at 17 now, started it before you replied lol

Strange tRFC? Oh, I picked 304 as that's 160ns so I just went for that, as I know that works, but for some reason I put 302 and left it as I didn't think 2 would make much difference.

If this tRCDRD tweak doesn't work I'll have a play with some of the other suggestions you've put, cheers :thumb:


----------



## SpecChum

ManniX-ITA said:


> Absolutely silly and ridiculous discussion.
> DRAM Calc is a de-facto standard, it's truly helping thousands of people for free; just arrogant losers in the wild.
> Just mentioning the term piracy shows the total ignorance of the subject on this matter.
> If you are so keen in avoiding pirated software just stop using anything from Microsoft, Apple and Google; you'll cover 95% of world-wide IP theft.


Just so we're clear, I was the one defending DRAM Calc, not the one who claimed it used pirated software lol


----------



## Awsan

@Veii 

I tried raising the voltages on this kit but nothing will budge, Tried the same timing with GDM off with higher voltages and nothing worked.

What would you recommend? and I stay @ the same timings how much lower can I go on the system voltages do you think?(VDDP,VDDG,DRAM_VREF)

And one last question What is the difference between SOC Voltage and CHIPSET SOC Voltage)

Thanks


----------



## ManniX-ITA

SpecChum said:


> Just so we're clear, I was the one defending DRAM Calc, not the one who claimed it used pirated software lol



I know don't worry, it's pretty clear 
Just don't be too much worried about "pirating" anything, those persecuting it so fiercely "pirates" are almost always the real bandits.
It's part of their core business.


----------



## SpecChum

Woot!

tRCDRD to 17 and no errors this time!

Cool.

Not bad to say my vSOC is at 1v for the 1900 FLCK lol


----------



## FlyByU

Hey! I hope everything is going alright...

I got these problematic kits to run at 3800MHz, it's been a while but I think I finally found a baseline.
I used the safe preset from DRAM Cal. and only tightened primary timings (except tRCD_RD. It looks like my kits hate low RD and I had to increase it instead); I'm trying to get some help on tightening secondary and tertiaries timings.

Btw, I had to stress-test the GPU at the same time just to make sure it'd be stable in the worst scenario and I don't have the same issue than before (I thought I had found an stable 3800, but when my case got hotter due to ambient temperature, it gave immediate errors).



Spoiler


----------



## VPII

@Veii I just want to thank you for all the input into some of the struggles for some of the members on here. I have not really been part of the discussions all that much. In the past couple of months I’ve been through 2 x 3900X processors and 2 x 3950X processors, not really something you do while living in South Africa, but I got good money for the ones I sold.

I did not try 3800 memory with 1900 FCLK (fibre clock) on the first 3900X but I did try it with the second 3900X as well as the first 3950X I got and both worked without an issue. Got some great results. Now move on to the last 3950X, the one I am using at present and I just cannot get 1900FCLK (fibre clock) to work. System just will not start up. 

Now 3800 memory will boot up without an issue but I just cannot get 1900 FCLK to work. Now I have tried all of the voltages mentioned here by applying these and restarting as well as timings basically apply restart and only after all is set I try to up the FCLK to 1900 but it just would not start up. This I have done with both my single set of G-Skill FlareX but also with both sets to have 32GB RAM.
I did however get 3733 memory and 1866 FCLK to work without an issue. Passed TM5 without an issue with GearDown Enabled. Before I posted this, I also tried to see if this would work at Cmd2T-T1 but with GearDown disabled and it seems I have a go.
Interestingly when I ran Karhu Ram Test before, with the 3900X and 3950X with memory 3800 and FCLK 1900, it would run with the percentage being more than the seconds passing, but right now the seconds would be about double, maybe more than the percentage completed so the time running it takes a hell of a lot longer than before.

Furthermore I'd also like to understand, when running TM5 as administrator is there anything else to set for it to run the full test as it only does 5 cycles when I run it for the 32GB memory installed. Anyway, once again thanks for all your input. Below is the TM5 I've just ran with Aida64 showing memory latency. You'll notice tFAW is sitting at 40 even though the DRAM calculator says 16, but for some reason I cannot lower it. Maybe you can shed some light on this.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> I was running 1.4v, 1.38v might be enough I didn't try to reduce it really. Do you know if your cpu can run 1900mhz fclk? Try with ram at a lower speed.


Thanks, I've dropped my memory speed to 3200Mhz and set the IF to 1900Mhz, I got an error in Karho Ram Test at 8220% - note the duration shown in the attached is wrong, I left the system running and it went sleep - I woke it back up about 1.5 hrs later, Karho doesn't deduct the time the system is sleeping. 

I've ran my system for 12.5hrs /22573% at 3800/1867Mhz with zero errors, so I know the memory is good for 3800.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Thanks, I've dropped my memory speed to 3200Mhz and set the IF to 1900Mhz, I got an error in Karho Ram Test at 8220% - note the duration shown in the attached is wrong, I left the system running and it went sleep - I woke it back up about 1.5 hrs later, Karho doesn't deduct the time the system is sleeping.
> 
> I've ran my system for 12.5hrs /22573% at 3800/1867Mhz with zero errors, so I know the memory is good for 3800.



Yeah the memory's good for 3800mhz I think your voltages might need work, SOC could need 1.125v for 1900mhz fclk and a decent gap between VDDP/VDDG. Maybe 1.025v VDDG and 0.925v VDDP.


----------



## SpecChum

Guys, I'm fine with testing memory and cpu for stability, but what's best for testing the IF?

I got 1 WHEA error last night whilst running TM5 (which itself passed) at 1V SOC (1900 FCLK), so I've increased that a notch and want to make sure it's fine now.

I can just run TM5 again I guess, but wondered if there's something which specifically hammers the IF?

Aida64 cache stress maybe?


----------



## 2600ryzen

realbench, p95 large fft is meant to test the imc/infinity fabric. You could also run the aida64 gpu stress test while running tm5 to put some extra strain in the SOC.


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> realbench, p95 large fft is meant to test the imc/infinity fabric. You could also run the aida64 gpu stress test while running tm5 to put some extra strain in the SOC.


lol I'm always recommending RealBench to people, then forgot about it myself, good shout, cheers 

I'm still surprised it even booted at 1900 FCLK 1v SOC, let alone passed TM5


----------



## Veii

SpecChum said:


> Guys, I'm fine with testing memory and cpu for stability, but what's best for testing the IF?
> 
> I got 1 WHEA error last night whilst running TM5 (which itself passed) at 1V SOC (1900 FCLK), so I've increased that a notch and want to make sure it's fine now.
> 
> I can just run TM5 again I guess, but wondered if there's something which specifically hammers the IF?
> Aida64 cache stress maybe?


TM5 won't stress the IF, karhu with cache enabled does - but it takes too much time
After every TM5 run or even before, see if you can pass two cycles of Y-cruncher 
Mostly the first 3 tests are fabric related, the rest of them is Vdroop related
2 loops of each test, which take around 2min each test - 30-40min testing time 

P95 large FFT works but need 2+ hours for stability sake
OCCT Medium Chunks AVX2 was my go to before but then LinpackXtreme was too
Both seem to barely do anything on Zen 2, IBT is good for a quick test and SuperPi is a very fast test for IMC and Memory Stability - although it can only cause a hardcrash and won't track autocorrected timings


----------



## SpecChum

Veii said:


> TM5 won't stress the IF, karhu with cache enabled does - but it takes too much time
> After every TM5 run or even before, see if you can pass two cycles of Y-cruncher
> Mostly the first 3 tests are fabric related, the rest of them is Vdroop related
> 2 loops of each test, which take around 2min each test - 30-40min testing time


Alright, cheers,

vdroop should be fine, CPU is currently at stock so I don't see any issues there, CPU itself is proven stable - since that's the case, I might just loop the first 3 tests, or is that pointless?

EDIT: tried it anyway lol

Passed 2 loops of first 3 tests with no HWEA



Code:


Iteration: 0  Total Elapsed Time: 0.009 seconds  ( 0.000 minutes )
Running BKT: Passed  Test Time:  120.027 seconds  ( 2.000 minutes )
Running BBP: Passed  Test Time:  122.410 seconds  ( 2.040 minutes )
Running SFT: Passed  Test Time:  120.039 seconds  ( 2.001 minutes )

Iteration: 1  Total Elapsed Time: 362.489 seconds  ( 6.041 minutes )
Running BKT: Passed  Test Time:  120.024 seconds  ( 2.000 minutes )
Running BBP: Passed  Test Time:  123.058 seconds  ( 2.051 minutes )
Running SFT: Passed  Test Time:  120.014 seconds  ( 2.000 minutes )

Iteration: 2  Total Elapsed Time: 725.592 seconds  ( 12.093 minutes )


----------



## Awsan

SpecChum said:


> Alright, cheers,
> 
> vdroop should be fine, CPU is currently at stock so I don't see any issues there, CPU itself is proven stable - since that's the case, I might just loop the first 3 tests, or is that pointless?
> 
> EDIT: tried it anyway lol
> 
> Passed 2 loops of first 3 tests with no HWEA
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Iteration: 0  Total Elapsed Time: 0.009 seconds  ( 0.000 minutes )
> Running BKT: Passed  Test Time:  120.027 seconds  ( 2.000 minutes )
> Running BBP: Passed  Test Time:  122.410 seconds  ( 2.040 minutes )
> Running SFT: Passed  Test Time:  120.039 seconds  ( 2.001 minutes )
> 
> Iteration: 1  Total Elapsed Time: 362.489 seconds  ( 6.041 minutes )
> Running BKT: Passed  Test Time:  120.024 seconds  ( 2.000 minutes )
> Running BBP: Passed  Test Time:  123.058 seconds  ( 2.051 minutes )
> Running SFT: Passed  Test Time:  120.014 seconds  ( 2.000 minutes )
> 
> Iteration: 2  Total Elapsed Time: 725.592 seconds  ( 12.093 minutes )


Have any idea what this error is linked to?


----------



## SpecChum

Awsan said:


> Have any idea what this error is linked to?


Looks like you might need more Vcore as that's an in-cache test fail, so pretty much CPU only.


----------



## Veii

Awsan said:


> Have any idea what this error is linked to?


It's an unstable IMC 
but the resolve for it, i'm not sure
procODT can cause this error, same as the 3 votlages cLDO_VDDP , VDDG, VSOC
Try to decrease loadline vdroop, and it might resolve it
these tests cause a big voltage drop 

else run the whole range of tests, just to be sure


SpecChum said:


> Looks like you might need more Vcore as that's an in-cache test fail, so pretty much CPU only.


Correct  but first 3 are related to the IMC
Well it crashes because of too much vdroop


----------



## SpecChum

Veii said:


> It's an unstable IMC
> but the resolve for it, i'm not sure
> procODT can cause this error, same as the 3 votlages cLDO_VDDP , VDDG, VSOC
> Try to decrease loadline vdroop, and it might resolve it
> these tests cause a big voltage drop
> 
> else run the whole range of tests, just to be sure
> 
> Correct  but first 3 are related to the IMC
> Well it crashes because of too much vdroop


Hi mate, I'm certainly not one to question you! But that's an in-cache test, shouldn't be using the IMC at all?

All the data should be on-die already?


----------



## Awsan

Veii said:


> It's an unstable IMC
> but the resolve for it, i'm not sure
> procODT can cause this error, same as the 3 votlages cLDO_VDDP , VDDG, VSOC
> Try to decrease loadline vdroop, and it might resolve it
> these tests cause a big voltage drop
> 
> else run the whole range of tests, just to be sure
> 
> Correct  but first 3 are related to the IMC
> Well it crashes because of too much vdroop


Yea voltages are kinda on the low side (testing some stuff) so gonna raise them a little and see.

Thanks


----------



## FranZe

I've downloaded y-cruncher, but i dont understand it, what should i run?


----------



## Azazel-

Veii said:


> @Azazel- tWTRL to 15
> SD, DDs to 1-4-4-1-6-6 for dual rank or 4 dimms / 1-1-1-1-1-1 for debugging, but it will cut perf
> This are Micron Rev:E
> Your vSOC is far to high, you do compensate for the low CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh
> Your cLDO_VDDP is also to high, memory hole does exist on 2nd gen
> 3533MT/s is awkward to work with, somewhere between 863-864mV should be the correct cLDO_VDDP
> 700 or 913 is for 3200MT/s or 3734MT/s both work for both speeds
> Focus on 3600MT/s @ 866mV cLDO_VDDp , cpu VDDP should be near 900mV
> While you're at it, give these micron kits 1.42v unless your board already does push 1.4215ish @ 1.4vDIMM set
> Around 1.43v they should get unstable for a bit -but increase CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh
> 
> Work with presets like
> 24-20-20-24, 30-20-20-24 , 40-20-20-20
> There's a lot you still can do - 3734MT/s is not golden sillicon 3800MT/s is on 2nd gen
> If you run an allcore (i hope not) then find your lowest AVX2 stable voltage (y-cruncher or LinpackXtreme 1.1.1 not higher) and give it +2 steps on vCore to compensate for memory OC
> Till 3600MT/s you barely need to get over 1.05vSOC ~ lower is better
> Only use 1.075vSOC if you run a 4.35Ghz boosting PBO set with limited TDC,EDC,PPT and so also a strong SOC loadline


Its me again https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1640919-new-dram-calculator-ryzena-1-7-3-overclocking-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench-865.html#post28513210 

I cant type 15 in tWTRL , max is 14 , now i installed a Fan in my Case over the RAM Max Temp is @ 48.3° now instead of 57° on a 21 Cycle Testmem 5 Test 
I went back to stock PBO settings with , so no Allcore anymore 
Now i managed to get 3600MT/s with 1.43v and 866mv cLDO_VDDp like you said , VSOC is at 1.075 with LLC and is Stable @1.0699
Next what i will be to try is lower the Voltages, and timinigs when you have any advices


Thank you @Veii



*EDIT* DRAM @1.42 & VSOC @ 1.05 passes 21 Cycle


----------



## Azazel-

algida79 said:


> Hello friends,
> 
> 
> Long shot on Zen+, I know, but I thought to try my Rev. E at 3600MT/s. Unfortunately the Safe preset of the Calculator gave me errors, even after increasing Vdimm from recommended 1.36V to 1.37V and 1.38V. All the other settings kept at Recommended values, except Vsoc (see below) and tRFC (used higher Alt value of 630).
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions to try and stabilize the memory? Or is 3600MT/s a lost cause because of Infinity Fabric/IMC limitations of my CPU?
> 
> 
> View attachment 356938
> 
> 
> 
> Other important settings not shown in the screenshot
> 
> Vsoc: 1.025 V
> 
> CLDO VDDP: 866 mV
> 
> 
> Thanks.


 @algida79
i have almost the same components and with my current timings 3600 MT/s is stable, but it still needs improvements  
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1640919-new-dram-calculator-ryzena-1-7-3-overclocking-dram-am4-membench-0-8-dram-bench-878.html#post28521886


----------



## Ronski

Awsan said:


> Yea voltages are kinda on the low side (testing some stuff) so gonna raise them a little and see.
> 
> Thanks


Your not the only, I've even had a google and can't find any instructions on what options to use.


----------



## pipes

a first time have take setting for ddr 4000 and now i can't go over 3866 mhz


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Yeah the memory's good for 3800mhz I think your voltages might need work, SOC could need 1.125v for 1900mhz fclk and a decent gap between VDDP/VDDG. Maybe 1.025v VDDG and 0.925v VDDP.




Thanks, just tried those voltages, although can only set to two decimal places even though the BIOS shows three, it crashed pretty rapidly even getting stuck in a boot loop at one point. Then I remembered during previous testing I discovered that the lowest my VDDP voltage would go and still be stable was 0.97v.

So I'm adjusting one voltage at a time now and testing the other voltages at my known stable frequencies of 3734/1867 to see if it causes problems increasing them. 

I have two VDDG voltages shown in the BIOS, I've been setting these to identical values.


----------



## KedarWolf

I keep getting a single error in Test 11. I've tried raising tRFC, tWR, tWTRS, and RSD and DDD. RAM voltage higher then 1.47v gets me errors right away, my RAM doesn't scale well with voltage.


----------



## Awsan

KedarWolf said:


> I keep getting a single error in Test 11. I've tried raising tRFC, tWR, tWTRS, and RSD and DDD. RAM voltage higher then 1.47v gets me errors right away, my RAM doesn't scale well with voltage.


You are the only guy on the internet that is giving me hope for the B-die 32gb neos.


----------



## KedarWolf

Awsan said:


> You are the only guy on the internet that is giving me hope for the B-die 32gb neos.


I can do 3800MHz 15-16-10-13-28 2T GDM Off just fine with this kit TN5 stable It's CL14 GDM On that gives me issues. GDM On gives me better bandwidth and I'm determined to get CL14 stable.

This is what I've got stable so far.


----------



## Farih

Anything i can still do to improve?

Lowering both SCL's to 2 proved to be unstable 

Is lowering tFAW to 20 or 16 a good idea? or should i try lowering tRFC to 260-280?


----------



## jamie1073

This is my latest. I still need to tweak some more timings going off what the calculator says, but it would not boot before when I set them all as it said to. Maybe I need more voltage but I went with 1.47 and not higher and it would not boot, 1.47 equals about 1.5-1.51 once booted so I kind of held back because the RAM was getting into the low to mid 40C range and I did not like that. I now have a cooler above it so it stays in the mid 30's now at 1.46 with what I have here below.


----------



## VPII

@Veii It seems like you missed my previous mention, but that is fine. As I've said before, I want to really thank you for all your input in this thread. I have not been in here a lot, but mostly because I am stuck at 3733 memory with 1866 FCLK. Interestingly my previous 3950X and 3900X could run 3800 memory and 1900 FCLK without an issue, my latest 3950X however would have none of it. I have tried all the mentioned voltages and timings, applied them first restarted and then only made the change to the FCLK but without much luck. My memory is fine for 3800, but my cpu cannot seem to handle the 1900 FCLK. After playing around with the timings I managed to get Cmd2T to 1T with GearDown disabled. I also finally managed to get tFAW to be dropped, after realizing it depends on what is set for TRRD and TWR. I ran Karhu memtest through the night and stopped it this morning at 20 000% so I am happy. Latency also seem good to me, but I had to run Aida64 Cache and Memory Benchmark 3 times before it went below 64.


----------



## PJVol

Farih said:


> Anything i can still do to improve?


 Your memtest score quite high indeed (though aida one seems fine). 
Since our kits are similar bins, you may try my timings below:


----------



## Veii

SpecChum said:


> Hi mate, I'm certainly not one to question you! But that's an in-cache test, shouldn't be using the IMC at all?
> 
> All the data should be on-die already?


Logic would indicate that, you are correct 
But this "crash" always happens when you increase FCLK beyond stability , which is nearly always voltage related
It also is a good indicator that some stock samples where DoA to begin with
* it happened on the first batch ^^' 

It does show crash on core X , and you are right - it can also happen if you manually per CCX OC or PBO messes up your boosting table and the user doesn't limit the values
But nearly always the issue is on the fabric and/or the voltage provided to it
If it is "in cache" , then it's VDDG only ~ but i'm not certain on that part
The crashed X core is mostly a random writeout


Awsan said:


> Yea voltages are kinda on the low side (testing some stuff) so gonna raise them a little and see.
> Thanks


Only issue i see is cLDO_VDDP being too high , it has to have at least 50mV difference
and it's far better if the difference=voltage stepping remains consistent between VDDP-VDDG & VDDG -> VSOC 
Just as you have two VDDG's you can use the "average" method, like we do use between both tRCD
The key is just that the line gets enough current to it ~ how it does split it is either done automatically (even when you force even values it's split automatically) 
Or you finetune-split it by yourself , just then optimally have to calculate the average between them

Let's say cLDO_VDDP is 900
~you use 75mV stepping~
VDDG IOD
VDDG CCD 
would be in theory 975mV
~ how it's split is done automatically, it doesn't supply twice 975mV to it
But what you also can do up to board and situation is,
VDDG IOD 1000mV
VDDG CCD 950
it still will be correct as avg supplied voltage 75mV
vSOC ends up to 1050mV then

Let's take double 50mV stepping or 100mV
cLDO_VDDP 950
cLDO_VDDG would be 1050
But you can also split it awkwardly to
VDDG IOD 1075
VDDG CCD 1025
vSOC ends up to 1150mV then

Of course barely anyone would need such high IOD, but it's just a demonstration 
Even tho it looks very abstract, it still works - as again the voltage is regulated by itself
it doesn't supply twice the current to the fabric, and you can drive it a bit in one position if needed

At the end, you have to have some "stepping" difference between them
Even tho the minimum is around 48mV, while i remember The Stilt reported between 42-43mV
you have vdroop - and AMD seems to use 50mV stepping by default
Keep that up, else you'll have awkward issues 
cLDO_VDDP -> cLDO_VDDG has to have an "offset" between both 

But as this is still a 12nm IMC, try going down to 700mV if you want to lower stuff even more
The worst thing that can bother you, is creating that "memory hole" from back then
Was it because of too low fabric VDDG or not in sync VDDG ~ unsure so far, but it was an issue back then
Tho 700mV VDDP can work for this memory controller, nothing architectural changed preventing it


FranZe said:


> I've downloaded y-cruncher, but i dont understand it, what should i run?


Stress test mode, or I/O component test mode
Select all tests with number 6 , or 7 to disable all - else 11,12,13 to select individual tests
And 0 to run it
It's no benchmark, so it will loop till you stop it ~ but let it loop at least twice


pipes said:


> a first time have take setting for ddr 4000 and now i can't go over 3866 mhz


Try to find the PHY Memory Training submenu
And fix procODT to a useful value
Auto prediction doesn't recognize memory kits and just tries to bruteforce what can boot
Soo short memory training delay will make issues with post

Change this values:








You could miss some values and big A being accepted as " 10 " or " a "
It's either somewhere in AMD CBS, or some manufactures moved it down in the DRAM timings section
PHY Submenu, or PHY memory training 
Sometimes also hidden inside AMD CBS -> DF submenu, MBIO
Find it, it's there for sure and increase memory training time

Else random-training can only be fixed by fixing every value the DRAM calculator suggest
= RTT ones, CAD_BUS ones, [procODT, cLDO_VDDP, VDDG, VSOC] <- these go together 


KedarWolf said:


> I keep getting a single error in Test 11. I've tried raising tRFC, tWR, tWTRS, and RSD and DDD. RAM voltage higher then 1.47v gets me errors right away, my RAM doesn't scale well with voltage.


Error 11 is an annoying one, it can be everything at this time 
Did you get it only after 2h ? 
Do you remember at which cycle it was ?
To this day i don't understand why people lower tWTR_S to 3 instead of keeping it at 4 :thinking:
If voltage fixed it, you can try to shift stuff a tiny bit

What looks awkward, are your tRDRD SD DD's , why did you use 1-5-5-1-6-6 ?
Instead of 1-4-4-1-6-6 for dual rank units ?
I see you have +1 wasted delay on tRC, while tRDWR is already as low as it can go
Maybe this tiny delay there bothers

Low voltage crash would relate to tRP,
you could try:
tRCD WR 12, tRP 14
It shouldn't change anything on your rest, and still keep that +1 tRC 
as tRAS 28+ tRP 14 = 42, not 43
But higher tRP should resolve the low voltage issue
Although please fix your tRDRD SD , DDs 
Either 4-4-6-6 or 5-5-7-7 , but 4-4-6-6 works better on dual rank 


Farih said:


> Anything i can still do to improve?
> Lowering both SCL's to 2 proved to be unstable
> Is lowering tFAW to 20 or 16 a good idea? or should i try lowering tRFC to 260-280?


Not a good idea 
tFAW has to be 4* tRRD_S , it will only allow that many to pass
And i don't have enough experience testing how 3* tFAW behaves, or it would time-break again

Your loss in perf tho comes from the high tRRD_ values 
you can try to slowly lower them
instead of 6-8
to try 5-10, with tFAW 20


VPII said:


> @Veii It seems like you missed my previous mention, but that is fine. As I've said before, I want to really thank you for all your input in this thread. I have not been in here a lot, but mostly because I am stuck at 3733 memory with 1866 FCLK. Interestingly my previous 3950X and 3900X could run 3800 memory and 1900 FCLK without an issue, my latest 3950X however would have none of it. I have tried all the mentioned voltages and timings, applied them first restarted and then only made the change to the FCLK but without much luck. My memory is fine for 3800, but my cpu cannot seem to handle the 1900 FCLK. After playing around with the timings I managed to get Cmd2T to 1T with GearDown disabled. I also finally managed to get tFAW to be dropped, after realizing it depends on what is set for TRRD and TWR. I ran Karhu memtest through the night and stopped it this morning at 20 000% so I am happy. Latency also seem good to me, but I had to run Aida64 Cache and Memory Benchmark 3 times before it went below 64.


I didn't miss anything on purpose 
Still on hold, will answer the old mentions ~ just don't have that much time recent week 
I see you made good progress 
Will look later if there is anything i can support with on the set
Keep up the good work :thumb:
Be sure to include y-cruncher in your testing suite, maybe it's something else that bothers 1900FCLK 
It's reachable when voltages and procODT remain low


----------



## QB the Slayer

PJVol said:


> Your memtest score quite high indeed (though aida one seems fine).
> Since our kits are similar bins, you may try my timings below:


EDIT: I am a donkey... to early in the morning to be thinking straight...

QB


----------



## Awsan

@Veii guess what 

It was the PBO Bug I forgot to mention, hahaha now settled on 0.775/0.850 as it wont boot @ 0.700 and it acted weird on lower than 0.775.

Y cruncher still gives the same error on the same core with PBO (It might get better If its dialed in) but everything has been rock solid for the past month with these settings so hopefully its just Y cruncher being fussy.


----------



## Nighthog

Awsan said:


> @Veii guess what
> 
> It was the PBO Bug I forgot to mention, hahaha now settled on 0.775/0.850 as it wont boot @ 0.700 and it acted weird on lower than 0.775.
> 
> Y cruncher still gives the same error on the same core with PBO (It might get better If its dialed in) but everything has been rock solid for the past month with these settings so hopefully its just Y cruncher being fussy.


Y-cruncher is quite picky about voltage, VDDP/VDDG cause failures if they are too low, for me that meant not going below 900mv in my older testing.


----------



## Awsan

Nighthog said:


> Y-cruncher is quite picky about voltage, VDDP/VDDG cause failures if they are too low, for me that meant not going below 900mv in my older testing.


Thats the thing with these voltages no PBO bug worked perfectly. VDDP/VDDG were the first suspects but look its solid for now after 2 hours of testing with no PBO bug.


----------



## FranZe

Veii said:


> Stress test mode, or I/O component test mode
> Select all tests with number 6 , or 7 to disable all - else 11,12,13 to select individual tests
> And 0 to run it
> It's no benchmark, so it will loop till you stop it ~ but let it loop at least twice



yes, I found out  Then I started to overclock cpu manually .. I obviously never give up, always something new that I have to try out or aim for, why can i never be satisfied?? But y-cruncher failed and i wont spend more time on it. 

But "stock" cpu do pass, atleast


----------



## DetLoki

Hey guys, just a quick question: I'm only OC'ing my RAM at the minute, not touched the CPU. I'm having issues with the machine just rebooting without erroring. Only does it with the RAM OC active.

Is this related to voltage? I'm at 1.5v on the RAM (it's Samsung B-die) and wondering what timings might introduce this behavior?

Thanks


----------



## rares495

DetLoki said:


> Hey guys, just a quick question: I'm only OC'ing my RAM at the minute, not touched the CPU. I'm having issues with the machine just rebooting without erroring. Only does it with the RAM OC active.
> 
> Is this related to voltage? I'm at 1.5v on the RAM (it's Samsung B-die) and wondering what timings might introduce this behavior?
> 
> Thanks


In my experience, the reboots were always caused by the 4 main timings: tCL - tRCDWR - tRCDRD - tRP. These are limited only by the quality of your modules. Silicon lottery. 

The most recent reboots were caused by too low tRCDRD (tried 14 but the kit won't do lower than 15; maybe i'm missing something)


----------



## pipes

my problem is given by the DRAM ryzen calculstor program, it detects an error when I try to set the RAM to 4000 MHz, an old version had allowed me to have the settings for the RAM at 4000 MHz cl 16 with the BIOS version 1403, the penultimate one version, installing the latest version of the BIOS 2203 TUF X570 gaming plus, I cannot have these settings in the program. now I'm using the previous BIOS because I can keep the RAM at 4000 cl16. Anyone with my own card at these problems?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

DetLoki said:


> Hey guys, just a quick question: I'm only OC'ing my RAM at the minute, not touched the CPU. I'm having issues with the machine just rebooting without erroring. Only does it with the RAM OC active.


Any other changes, 1usmus powerplan ?

Mostly it's vSOC voltage that causes shutdowns
Sometimes VDDG when load is utilized
Can you grab ryzen master and maybe even get one of the dimms out for a photo session ? 
We need more information, you gave us nothing


----------



## jamie1073

Finally got the settings the Calculator suggested for my RAM. Here are some before and after shots. Quite pleased with the numbers I was able to get with some minor tweaks to get them. This is a 32GB system with all 4 slots filled.


----------



## DetLoki

Veii said:


> Any other changes, 1usmus powerplan ?
> 
> Mostly it's vSOC voltage that causes shutdowns
> Sometimes VDDG when load is utilized
> Can you grab ryzen master and maybe even get one of the dimms out for a photo session ?
> We need more information, you gave us nothing


Yeah using the powerplan from 1usmus, not changed anything in it other than to not turn my monitors off.

No other changes to the bios at all other than RAM (obviously) and fan curves etc.

I've attached an image of the ram label and the DRAM Calc readout i've been using. I put the XMP profile into it from thaiphoon.

Under the ram test i'm getting around 117-120 seconds (when it doesn't reboot), reckon i have room for improvement?


----------



## Veii

Awsan said:


> @Veii guess what
> 
> It was the PBO Bug I forgot to mention, hahaha now settled on 0.775/0.850 as it wont boot @ 0.700 and it acted weird on lower than 0.775.
> 
> Y cruncher still gives the same error on the same core with PBO (It might get better If its dialed in) but everything has been rock solid for the past month with these settings so hopefully its just Y cruncher being fussy.
> 
> 
> Awsan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing with these voltages no PBO bug worked perfectly. VDDP/VDDG were the first suspects but look its solid for now after 2 hours of testing with no PBO bug.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that i have to beg you for a replicate of the issue
But i don't think you've noted it exactly down
Install the bloatware Ryzen Master
Run all Y-Cruncher tests and note down without PBO on everyone of these tests, the current applied vCore
Make a google docs please and be accurate
Then replicate that PBO bug, and re-run the same thing, continue to fill out the applied voltages and note on which test @ what voltage it does crash/fail

Later i can help you finetune PBO with EDC bug a bit, so it shouldn't crash anymore 
Tho i need accurate work from you, as we have to replicate close to stock behavior - and on accurate work might even be able to extend the boosting behavior a bit under lower voltage :thumb:
* oh be also sure to run 1usmus powerplan and enforce in the BIOS both CPPC + CPPC preferred cores


jamie1073 said:


> Finally got the settings the Calculator suggested for my RAM. Here are some before and after shots. Quite pleased with the numbers I was able to get with some minor tweaks to get them. This is a 32GB system with all 4 slots filled.


Please grab SiSoftware Sandra
Run the multi-core efficiency test, but filter to local results only
Then try:








And please report back
You want to pass TM5 20 rounds, findable here


DetLoki said:


> Yeah using the powerplan from 1usmus, not changed anything in it other than to not turn my monitors off.
> 
> No other changes to the bios at all other than RAM (obviously) and fan curves etc.
> I've attached an image of the ram label and the DRAM Calc readout i've been using. I put the XMP profile into it from thaiphoon.
> Under the ram test i'm getting around 117-120 seconds (when it doesn't reboot), reckon i have room for improvement?


I see you have 4400 Vipers, these are A2 layout - well a custom A1 but pretty much A2 layout PCB
A2 needs higher supplied ClkDrvStrengh and low procODT
Apply the Green minimum voltages 1usmus Calculator suggests @ 32ohm, or even 30ohm procODT 
use CAD_BUS 40-20-24-24 

....well, actually forget the above voltages from the calculator ^^'
Use:
cLDO_VDDP 900mV
cLDO_VDDG CCD 925mV
cLDO_VDDG IOD 975mV
VSOC 1050mV
~ this should work with 32ohm procODT @ 1800MT/s
please run that and fix RTT values to what it says:
Disabled, disabled, RZQ/5
Be sure to enable UncoreOC mode under AMD OVERCLOCKING 

Report back with your progress~
at best if everything posts how it should be, run y-cruncher the whole suite and let it cycle twice 
^ just to confirm your voltages are fine


----------



## jamie1073

Veii said:


> Please grab SiSoftware Sandra
> Run the multi-core efficiency test, but filter to local results only
> Then try:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And please report back
> You want to pass TM5 20 rounds, findable here



I ran it and it was fine, or ran. I tired those values and was unable to boot, first I tried at 1.47V which is where I currently sit, then 1.48V and 1.49V and none booted. Not even the BIOS would come up so I looked at my board and the CPU LED was on and 22 code in my display. Below is what MSI set certain values at when I enabled PBO, of course I can change them if needed but not sure what to try.


VDDG CCD V 1.150
VDDG IOD V 1.150
VDDP V 1.100
SoC V 1.100


Thanks.


----------



## zsoltmol

jamie1073 said:


> Finally got the settings the Calculator suggested for my RAM. Here are some before and after shots. Quite pleased with the numbers I was able to get with some minor tweaks to get them. This is a 32GB system with all 4 slots filled.


Can you please share your voltages:
ram, SOC, CLDO_VDDP, VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD ? 

Many thanks


----------



## jamie1073

zsoltmol said:


> Can you please share your voltages:
> ram, SOC, CLDO_VDDP, VDDG IOD, VDDG CCD ?
> 
> Many thanks



They are in the post above yours here. But I will copy and paste them. 

VDDG CCD V 1.150
VDDG IOD V 1.150
VDDP V 1.100
SoC V 1.100


Ram is at 1.47V.


----------



## VPII

Veii said:


> I didn't miss anything on purpose
> Still on hold, will answer the old mentions ~ just don't have that much time recent week
> I see you made good progress
> Will look later if there is anything i can support with on the set
> Keep up the good work :thumb:
> Be sure to include y-cruncher in your testing suite, maybe it's something else that bothers 1900FCLK
> It's reachable when voltages and procODT remain low


Thank you, sorry for being a little quick to react. I used the Dram calculator to change some other settings to be the same as stated by the Dram calculator, but it meant increasing TRC and TRFC. But I was amazed to see by just how much the read, write and copy bandwidth increased but at the expense of Latency by about 1.3ns. I'll try my lower TRC and TRFC again to see if it still works and what the latency is. Currently running the TM5 referred to in one of your post to make it run 20 times instead of the 5 times I get with the normal one. Gut is is the Aida64 and Maxxmem2 results I got.


----------



## 2600ryzen

DetLoki said:


> Hey guys, just a quick question: I'm only OC'ing my RAM at the minute, not touched the CPU. I'm having issues with the machine just rebooting without erroring. Only does it with the RAM OC active.
> 
> Is this related to voltage? I'm at 1.5v on the RAM (it's Samsung B-die) and wondering what timings might introduce this behavior?
> 
> Thanks


I've had this happen, for me it's when VSOC is too low or VDDG.


----------



## rares495

I need that stupid tRCDRD to go lower...


----------



## DeusM

Hi guys, im back and finished testing after waiting for 1 week for my DRAM FAN.


Test results are in and it passed today with flying colors.


im going to see if i can push it to cl 15 15 15 30 later tonight before bed!


Its amazing how much keeping the ram cool helps and a fan blowing directly over it temperatures never went above 34.3 degrees!!


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> I strongly hope your board is T-Topology ~ else you will have soo much trouble with 4x A2 kits
> I can't seem to find anything indicating it's different from the X370 M7, but also nothing indicating it's actually T-Topology and not Daisy Chain
> Having used that one with 1usmus's bios, i remember how bad their Bios was for the board (the official on)
> while the board was actually a quite good OCer, quite sad it having horrible support mid 2018
> VRMs should hold near 160A while staying efficient, peak should be 210W, soo a 3950X on stock works but not much more
> Or a per CCD OCd 3900X as max
> 
> Does it let you adjust loadline on the current Titanium bios ?
> Happy testing :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RIP i guess
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FnsZYZiW1pfiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/edit#gid=2112472504
> well it will be a challenge, but i can't see anything beyond 3600MT/s as realistically achievable
> In this case A0 would've made your life easier - but let's see, we might be able to fix that with high impedance
> 
> EDIT:
> i actually found something valuable directly from Viper Taiwan
> https://iqmore.tw/2019-patriot-overclocking-ram-and-motherboard-layout
> Use yandex translate, or a better one than google's
> Hard limit from their point of view on both Daisy Chain and T-Topology is 3800MT/s
> I don't think you can put both with the same hard-limit, tho considering their PCB is a custom A1 unit with the benefits of a A2 PCB
> We maaybe can get 3734 to work
> For more depends on your control in the Bios
> I'd love if you for example had different voltage control on both channels
> Exmp: 1.48v on the main B1 B2 slot (2,4) ~ and 1.56v on the A1 , A2 slot (1,3)
> this would already drastically help with the loss from the Daisy Chain layout


So finally I got hold of a second set of Viper Steel 4400 mhz and things are looking bleak

:/

Ive spent most of the day trying to get the 4 sticks to simply boot above 3600/1800 but nothing I have tried has worked.

3533/1766 is the highest frequency I can boot the system.

Ive attached a screen shot of Ryzen Master with all memory and voltage related timings set to defaults to see what values the motherboard is auto choosing at 3533/1766 mhz.

Hopefully someone can suggest something I have not already tried .......


----------



## Farih

PJVol said:


> Your memtest score quite high indeed (though aida one seems fine).
> Since our kits are similar bins, you may try my timings below:
> 
> View attachment 358008





Veii said:


> Not a good idea
> tFAW has to be 4* tRRD_S , it will only allow that many to pass
> And i don't have enough experience testing how 3* tFAW behaves, or it would time-break again
> 
> Your loss in perf tho comes from the high tRRD_ values
> you can try to slowly lower them
> instead of 6-8
> to try 5-10, with tFAW 20


Tryed different settings with tRRDS, tRRDL and tFAW none gave any improvement (seems even a tiny bit lower performance but prolly in margin of error)
Tryed tRRDS-L at 5-10 with tFAW 20 and tryed TRRDS-L 4-8 with tFAW 16.

Is my RAM or IMC just maybe at its end? 

I tryed up Dram voltage to to see if that helps, it didnt and with 1.435V i get to 45c in stress tests so thats prolly the max voltage i can run to.

Only thing left to try is trying to lower tRFC i think unless anyone has another few pointers/tips?


----------



## rares495

@Veii I've officially joined the stability club. 

So happy that I managed to pass 20 cycles with these extreme timings. I don't know if it's because of the new CPU+MOBO or because I added a 120mm fan over the DIMMs but it doesn't matter.

1.52V DIMM, 1.15V SOC, 1.1V VDDG

60-20-20-20 CAD_BUS

36.9 procODT


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> @Veii I've officially joined the stability club.
> 
> So happy that I managed to pass 20 cycles with these extreme timings. I don't know if it's because of the new CPU+MOBO or because I added a 120mm fan over the DIMMs but it doesn't matter.
> 
> 1.52V DIMM, 1.15V SOC, 1.1V VDDG
> 
> 60-20-20-20 CAD_BUS
> 
> 36.9 procODT


Holly, what is the latency on that bad boy


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> Holly, what is the latency on that bad boy


I posted some benchmarks in #8804.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-881.html#post28524486


----------



## 2600ryzen

mongoled said:


> So finally I got hold of a second set of Viper Steel 4400 mhz and things are looking bleak
> 
> :/
> 
> Ive spent most of the day trying to get the 4 sticks to simply boot above 3600/1800 but nothing I have tried has worked.
> 
> 3533/1766 is the highest frequency I can boot the system.
> 
> Ive attached a screen shot of Ryzen Master with all memory and voltage related timings set to defaults to see what values the motherboard is auto choosing at 3533/1766 mhz.
> 
> Hopefully someone can suggest something I have not already tried .......



What cad bus strengths have you tried? Dram calc has a few suggestions.


----------



## VPII

@Veii

Okay, I lowered the TRC and TRFC as well the TRAS and rebooted with the processor again at 4.35ghz. I was pleasantly surprised to get under 64ns latency again but still with decent memory bandwidth. I ran Karhu memtest till 25000%, tried the TM5 to go till 20 cycles but it got stuck just after 7 cycles, not sure why. But at present I am happy, it seems I may have reached the max on my current setup, or just about.


----------



## VPII

Oop for got to add the Zen Timings


----------



## Eder

Meanwhile on the new MSI Unify beta bios. Did someone test the new settings?


----------



## jamie1073

So this is what I got from the changes that were suggested. I could not boot no matter how much I bumped the voltage with the tRDWR at 7 as suggested, I went as high as 1.5V from 1.47. I also could not get BGS to show as enabled even though it is enabled in BIOS. Which I re-booted and made sure it was enabled and then still says Disabled. Numbers are better as you can see compared to before.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Yeah the memory's good for 3800mhz I think your voltages might need work, SOC could need 1.125v for 1900mhz fclk and a decent gap between VDDP/VDDG. Maybe 1.025v VDDG and 0.925v VDDP.


I tried the above voltages, and whilst it was stable at 3734/1867, it was much more unstable once raised to 1900 IF, even with the memory running much slower.

But I'm very glad to say I've finally got to 3800/1900Mhz 

It seems less is more, @Veii posted the following for someone, no idea if they are even running the same CPU as me but I gave it a go, I went with 920mV & 970mV as my board doesn't allow me to change the 0 to a 5.



Veii said:


> Use:
> cLDO_VDDP 900mV
> cLDO_VDDG CCD 925mV
> cLDO_VDDG IOD 975mV
> VSOC 1050mV


and the results are attached, which brings me to one question, most screenshots I see of Ryzen Master show all the voltages under "Voltage Controls", why do I only have three voltages showing?

I tested to 17543% in Karho, and done 5 cycles of TM5, haven't tried Y cruncher yet. Just running 20 cycles of TM5, then will try Y cruncher.

Once I know it's stable I'll then have to see if I can tighten the timings.

One benefit of the lower voltages is my cores seem to be boosting higher, many have peaked in 4300Mhz area


----------



## FlyByU

Hey guys, I wanted to know your thoughts about these voltages for 3800CL16-16-19-16-36-52

VDDP 1050mV
vSOC 1.125v
DIMM 1.45v
VDDG(both) 1.075v

I find them a little high and I tried to lower them a bit (-25mV steps) but it becomes unstable.
Do you think this voltages could damage my components through time?

I'm stable at 3733CL16-16-17-16-32-48
VDDP 950mV
vSOC 1.1v
DIMM 1.4v
VDDG(both) 1.025v

My kit is F4-3600C17D-16GTZR


----------



## kratosatlante

Any advice to improve this , for better memory synchronous
vsoc 1.0625
vddp 0.927
vddg 0.977


----------



## DeusM

Hi guys, I am trying to get the cpu to boot at 3800 cl 14 or 15 but it will not even boot.


Am i better off loosening sub timings to lower max timings? or am i close to the limit of this RAM and cant get it better?


----------



## FlyByU

DeusM said:


> Hi guys, I am trying to get the cpu to boot at 3800 cl 14 or 15 but it will not even boot.
> 
> 
> Am i better off loosening sub timings to lower max timings? or am i close to the limit of this RAM and cant get it better?


Hey man! hope you're good...

The best I've been able to get out of this kit is 3800 16-16-19-16-36-52. Are you stable with the values of your previous screenshot?


----------



## DeusM

FlyByU said:


> Hey man! hope you're good...
> 
> The best I've been able to get out of this kit is 3800 16-16-19-16-36-52. Are you stable with the values of your previous screenshot?



Im doing good thanks for asking!




Yes this is stable i made a post a few days ago with all timings and aida64 screenshot.


The fan i have mounted over the ram is workings wonders, i don't go above 35-36 degrees in both testmem5 or gaming for 5+ hours. no random Errors in testmem5 and no BSOD!!!




Just trying for tighter primary timings and it wont even boot. I haven't gone past 1.44v yet but i think i might have too.


----------



## kratosatlante

DeusM said:


> Hi guys, I am trying to get the cpu to boot at 3800 cl 14 or 15 but it will not even boot.
> 
> 
> Am i better off loosening sub timings to lower max timings? or am i close to the limit of this RAM and cant get it better?


try tDRWR 10/4 or 11


----------



## blunden

Does anyone know the DRAM PCB Revision of the sticks in the G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZ kit (the sticks themselves show up as F4-3200C14-16GTZR)? These are dual-rank sticks.

I used to run them at 3200 14-14-14-14-30-44 on my 1800X on an ASUS ROG Strix X370-F Gaming motherboard. With my 3900X on the same motherboard I run them at 3600 16-16-16-16-32-48, which seems to be in the same ballpark as the A0/B0 revision profile in the calculator. Importing my Taiphoon Burner SPD profile dump suggests 14-15-15-15-30-48 timings at 3600, which I've never been able to even boot at this point. Is the calculator just way too optimistic in my case or could I have missed something?


----------



## rares495

blunden said:


> Does anyone know the DRAM PCB Revision of the sticks in the G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZ kit (the sticks themselves show up as F4-3200C14-16GTZR)? These are dual-rank sticks.
> 
> I used to run them at 3200 14-14-14-14-30-44 on my 1800X on an ASUS ROG Strix X370-F Gaming motherboard. With my 3900X on the same motherboard I run them at 3600 16-16-16-16-32-48, which seems to be in the same ballpark as the A0/B0 revision profile in the calculator. Importing my Taiphoon Burner SPD profile dump suggests 14-15-15-15-30-48 timings at 3600, which I've never been able to even boot at this point. Is the calculator just way too optimistic in my case or could I have missed something?


Even Thaiphoon has trouble with PCB revisions sometimes. 

We need photos of the DIMMs themselves in order to be able to tell.


----------



## jamie1073

blunden said:


> Does anyone know the DRAM PCB Revision of the sticks in the G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZ kit (the sticks themselves show up as F4-3200C14-16GTZR)? These are dual-rank sticks.
> 
> I used to run them at 3200 14-14-14-14-30-44 on my 1800X on an ASUS ROG Strix X370-F Gaming motherboard. With my 3900X on the same motherboard I run them at 3600 16-16-16-16-32-48, which seems to be in the same ballpark as the A0/B0 revision profile in the calculator. Importing my Taiphoon Burner SPD profile dump suggests 14-15-15-15-30-48 timings at 3600, which I've never been able to even boot at this point. Is the calculator just way too optimistic in my case or could I have missed something?



What voltage are you running. My G-Skill kit is a 1.45V kit that I need to push to 1.48 to get stable, it is the F4-3600C14Q-32GTZNB C14-15-15-35 Kit. I run it at 3800C14-15-15-30 1.48V with the pictured timings.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> I tried the above voltages, and whilst it was stable at 3734/1867, it was much more unstable once raised to 1900 IF, even with the memory running much slower.
> 
> But I'm very glad to say I've finally got to 3800/1900Mhz
> 
> It seems less is more, @*Veii* posted the following for someone, no idea if they are even running the same CPU as me but I gave it a go, I went with 920mV & 970mV as my board doesn't allow me to change the 0 to a 5.
> 
> 
> 
> and the results are attached, which brings me to one question, most screenshots I see of Ryzen Master show all the voltages under "Voltage Controls", why do I only have three voltages showing?
> 
> I tested to 17543% in Karho, and done 5 cycles of TM5, haven't tried Y cruncher yet. Just running 20 cycles of TM5, then will try Y cruncher.
> 
> Once I know it's stable I'll then have to see if I can tighten the timings.
> 
> One benefit of the lower voltages is my cores seem to be boosting higher, many have peaked in 4300Mhz area



Nice work, that will give you a nice performance boost once it's tuned up. For my kit [email protected] > [email protected] by a mile.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Nice work, that will give you a nice performance boost once it's tuned up. For my kit [email protected] > [email protected] by a mile.


Thanks, although I to be honest its more luck than work, how you doing with your timings?

I ran 20 cycles of TM5 this morning, all OK. Was running it last night but I think it had stopped (didn't show any errors though) on the 7th cycle, although it was late.

Currently running Y-cruncher - that makes it work, currently running at 75c


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Thanks, although I to be honest its more luck than work, how you doing with your timings?
> 
> I ran 20 cycles of TM5 this morning, all OK. Was running it last night but I think it had stopped (didn't show any errors though) on the 7th cycle, although it was late.
> 
> Currently running Y-cruncher - that makes it work, currently running at 75c



Still running these timings, everything's basically maxed out. I think trcdwr/tcwl/scl timings/trdwr/twrrd all relate to each other so it's possible a different combination of those timings could be faster than what I have now.


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> What cad bus strengths have you tried? Dram calc has a few suggestions.


Didn't notice Ryzen master wasn't not showing those values.

To answer your question, all of them and many more combinations as that is pretty basic stuff to try out and takes a few minutes I had spend most of the day on it so would have been pretty stupid to not have gone through those in the beginning ...…

I have managed to get it to boot reliably at 3600/1800, but that's as far as I can get.

I have settings for Vref (CHA / CHB) which I imagine is what feeds the data lines to channel A/B, but have so far not been able to get any results from playing with these.

I cant even see if they are taking effect also ...


----------



## blunden

rares495 said:


> Even Thaiphoon has trouble with PCB revisions sometimes.
> 
> We need photos of the DIMMs themselves in order to be able to tell.


 I would prefer not to remote the heatsinks from the DIMMs and I thought that these sticks were reasonably popular when they were released and therefore figured that someone else might have already checked theirs.  Thaiphoon lists "Module PCB Revision" as "00h" btw.



jamie1073 said:


> What voltage are you running. My G-Skill kit is a 1.45V kit that I need to push to 1.48 to get stable, it is the F4-3600C14Q-32GTZNB C14-15-15-35 Kit. I run it at 3800C14-15-15-30 1.48V with the pictured timings.


 These are 1.35V sticks and I run them at that voltage due to temperatures.


----------



## rares495

blunden said:


> I would prefer not to remote the heatsinks from the DIMMs and I thought that these sticks were reasonably popular when they were released and therefore figured that someone else might have already checked theirs.  Thaiphoon lists "Module PCB Revision" as "00h" btw.
> 
> These are 1.35V sticks and I run them at that voltage due to temperatures.


You don't have to remove anything, just take some photos at such angles that you'd be able to see the ICs under the heatspreader.


----------



## @purple

I'm looking for new RAM sticks. Please, guys, let me know what to buy. 

32GB 3600 ? G.Skill

Motherboard Rog x570-E Gaming


----------



## rares495

@purple said:


> I'm looking for new RAM sticks. Please, guys, let me know what to buy.
> 
> 32GB 3600 ? G.Skill
> 
> Motherboard Rog x570-E Gaming


Country? Budget?


----------



## @purple

rares495 said:


> Country? Budget?


EU, max 300€ 

Can also be two sticks because of my aio cooler.


----------



## rares495

@purple said:


> EU, max 300€
> 
> Can also be two sticks because of my aio cooler.


https://geizhals.eu/?cat=ramddr3&v=...4_16384~15903_DDR4~253_32768~254_3600~4277_16


----------



## @purple

rares495 said:


> https://geizhals.eu/?cat=ramddr3&v=...4_16384~15903_DDR4~253_32768~254_3600~4277_16


Looking at it now, mate, thanks.

Now I got F4-3600C16-16GTZNC, and the calculator doesn't read above 3600. 
Are those you posted Samsung because I don't want another Hynix?


----------



## rares495

@purple said:


> Looking at it now, mate, thanks.
> 
> Now I got F4-3600C16-16GTZNC, and the calculator doesn't read above 3600.
> Are those you posted Samsung because I don't want another Hynix?


Yes, they're Samsung B-die kits.


----------



## FranZe

What do i miss if i have a little higher Trfc? (Trfc 448) I've heard that Shadow Of The Tomb Raider is the game to test memory performance, and yes i do lose a few fps (5 on the minimum). 
So my question then becomes; where is the lost performance lost? I can live with "losing" a few fps, but I've already won about 30 fps VS pure 3600 16-16-16 XMP profile.


----------



## blunden

rares495 said:


> You don't have to remove anything, just take some photos at such angles that you'd be able to see the ICs under the heatspreader.


 Hmm, yeah I guess that could work. I'll try to do that the next time I turn off my computer, which doesn't happen very often. 

I should be able to figure it out based on the images shown in the post below then I guess.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1-7-1-–-what-is-new,1.html

With that said, I would've expected importing the stock SPD dump to be even more accurate to determine the DIMM and die binning quality than the built in profiles. Maybe that's not the case?


----------



## rares495

blunden said:


> Hmm, yeah I guess that could work. I'll try to do that the next time I turn off my computer, which doesn't happen very often.
> 
> I should be able to figure it out based on the images shown in the post below then I guess.
> 
> https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/dram-calculator-for-ryzen-1-7-1-–-what-is-new,1.html
> 
> With that said, I would've expected importing the stock SPD dump to be even more accurate to determine the DIMM and die binning quality than the built in profiles. Maybe that's not the case?


You can't rely on software or reviews for this. There can even be a different PCB unit to unit. You need to physically look at your particular modules.


----------



## blunden

rares495 said:


> You can't rely on software or reviews for this. There can even be a different PCB unit to unit. You need to physically look at your particular modules.


 Yeah, fair point.

I still find it odd how far off the values I get are when importing the SPD info though. Do people still use that feature or are the built-in profiles considered more reliable?


----------



## rares495

blunden said:


> Yeah, fair point.
> 
> I still find it odd how far off the values I get are when importing the SPD info though. Do people still use that feature or are the built-in profiles considered more reliable?


The built-in profiles are worse.


----------



## blunden

rares495 said:


> The built-in profiles are worse.


 That was my expectation too but thanks for the confirmation. I've seen others say that the built-in profiles might be better in some cases for DIMMs that didn't get validated with Ryzen which also seems somewhat logical, hence the question. 

I wonder what my issue is then? I would've expected to at least be able to POST at the suggested timings or be at the point where it succeeds to POST, even if it might not be stable enough for actual work. 

I think the latest version suggests slightly different timings than older versions did though, so I guess I should give those a try again at some point. The difference was minor at most though I think.


----------



## rares495

blunden said:


> That was my expectation too but thanks for the confirmation. I've seen others say that the built-in profiles might be better in some cases for DIMMs that didn't get validated with Ryzen which also seems somewhat logical, hence the question.
> 
> I wonder what my issue is then? I would've expected to at least be able to POST at the suggested timings or be at the point where it succeeds to POST, even if it might not be stable enough for actual work.
> 
> I think the latest version suggests slightly different timings than older versions did though, so I guess I should give those a try again at some point. The difference was minor at most though I think.


I can't really help you until you provide the necessary information. That is: screenshot of thaiphoon burner and photos of the DIMMs. Also knowing which CPU + MOBO you own would be great.


----------



## blunden

rares495 said:


> I can't really help you until you provide the necessary information. That is: screenshot of thaiphoon burner and photos of the DIMMs. Also knowing which CPU + MOBO you own would be great.


 I mentioned the motherboard and CPU in one of my earlier post but such things are easy to miss. 

CPU: 3900X
Motherboard: ASUS ROG Strix X370-F Gaming (BIOS: 5220, AGESA 1.0.0.3ABBA)










I can't really shut down my computer at the moment so I can't give you the photos yet unfortunately. 

EDIT: Oh wait, it says B1 right there under revision. I didn't see that in the HTML export. EDIT 2: That doesn't appear to be a thing though.


----------



## FlyByU

Hey guys I'm facing some weird results with my OC...

I thought I was stable with the following results:

The way I test my kits is with TM5 + stress testing my GPU with AIDA64. Why? Because that way it generates heat and I can make sure I won't get instability while gaming. It passes 20 cycles of TM5 1usmus_v3 with no errors. Last night I left it running TM5 (100 cycles) + GPU stress test and when I woke up my PC was just sitting at the desktop. I opened AIDA64 and it said that there was a crash after 5h (I don't remember how long exactly it lasted). Now, I don't know if the crash was because of the GPU (I did undervolt. though I made sure it was stable) or my RAM.

I was planning to leave my PC running TM5 (no GPU stress) tonight but something weird just happened:

I was playing NFS Heat for 55 minutes (at the same time I was also logging RAM, GPU and CPU temps with HWinfo) and nothing weird happened, not even signals of errors or anything like that. When I quit the game and go to Excel to average my results, the PC restarted out of the blue.

Here are my temp results:
CPU temp: 69°C
GPU Temp:66°C
GPU Hotspot: 78°C
DRAM Temp: 48.97°C

Do you guys have any idea why this would happen? @Veii @DeusM

Here's my OC if needed:


Spoiler


----------



## Veii

@FlyByU TM5 has a log.txt - it will be clean if there is no crash


----------



## DeusM

FlyByU said:


> Hey guys I'm facing some weird results with my OC...
> 
> I thought I was stable with the following results:
> 
> The way I test my kits is with TM5 + stress testing my GPU with AIDA64. Why? Because that way it generates heat and I can make sure I won't get instability while gaming. It passes 20 cycles of TM5 1usmus_v3 with no errors. Last
> night I left it running TM5 (100 cycles) + GPU stress test and when I woke up my PC was just sitting at the desktop. I opened AIDA64 and it said that there was a crash after 5h (I don't
> remember how long exactly it lasted). Now, I
> don't know if the crash was because of the GPU (I did undervolt. though I made sure it was stable) or my RAM.
> 
> I was planning to leave my PC running TM5 (no GPU stress) tonight but something weird just happened:
> 
> I was playing NFS Heat for 55 minutes (at the same time I was also logging RAM, GPU and CPU temps with HWinfo) and nothing weird happened, not even signals of errors or anything like that. When I quit the game and go to Excel to average my results, the PC restarted out of the blue.
> 
> Here are my temp results:
> CPU temp: 69Â°C
> GPU Temp:66Â°C
> GPU Hotspot: 78Â°C
> DRAM Temp: 48.97Â°C
> 
> Do you guys have any idea why this would happen? @*Veii* @*DeusM*
> 
> Here's my OC if needed:
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Hey, look im no expert and I only read conjecture in regards to heat and Samsung bdie ram. 

Apparently after 40 degrees Celsius its possible to throw random errors. 

I have attached a fan to my ram and it keeps it under 40c even after 7 hours of war zone. 


Your in Australia? I have a spare 120mm fan I can send you if you want to do the same as I did. It looks pretty **** but it works.


----------



## Ronski

@FlyByU +1 for getting a fan on that memory, I had no end of problems until I cable tied a 120mm fan over the memory. According to you're screen shot that memory is getting up to 58c


----------



## 2600ryzen

FlyByU said:


> Hey guys I'm facing some weird results with my OC...
> 
> I thought I was stable with the following results:
> 
> The way I test my kits is with TM5 + stress testing my GPU with AIDA64. Why? Because that way it generates heat and I can make sure I won't get instability while gaming. It passes 20 cycles of TM5 1usmus_v3 with no errors. Last night I left it running TM5 (100 cycles) + GPU stress test and when I woke up my PC was just sitting at the desktop. I opened AIDA64 and it said that there was a crash after 5h (I don't remember how long exactly it lasted). Now, I don't know if the crash was because of the GPU (I did undervolt. though I made sure it was stable) or my RAM.
> 
> I was planning to leave my PC running TM5 (no GPU stress) tonight but something weird just happened:
> 
> I was playing NFS Heat for 55 minutes (at the same time I was also logging RAM, GPU and CPU temps with HWinfo) and nothing weird happened, not even signals of errors or anything like that. When I quit the game and go to Excel to average my results, the PC restarted out of the blue.
> 
> Here are my temp results:
> CPU temp: 69°C
> GPU Temp:66°C
> GPU Hotspot: 78°C
> DRAM Temp: 48.97°C
> 
> Do you guys have any idea why this would happen? @*Veii* @*DeusM*
> 
> Here's my OC if needed:
> 
> 
> Spoiler



When I have random restarts like that it's usually because of VSOC or VDDG being too low. I don't think RAM that's as stable as yours could cause random restarts.


----------



## FranZe




----------



## FlyByU

Veii said:


> @FlyByU TM5 has a log.txt - it will be clean if there is no crash


The log file was clean, it didn't have any errors. But I tried this: I intentionally made it throw errors and after that I closed TM5. I went to the log file but it didn't show any errors either. However, my I saw that my first run of TM5 (long time ago) gave me errors and it didn't finish (I had cancelled it), so it makes me think that sometimes it logs the errors and sometimes it doesn't, or maybe it depends on which error it is, though I'm not sure about that. So, I'm confused there... 



DeusM said:


> Hey, look im no expert and I only read conjecture in regards to heat and Samsung bdie ram.
> 
> Apparently after 40 degrees Celsius its possible to throw random errors.
> 
> I have attached a fan to my ram and it keeps it under 40c even after 7 hours of war zone.
> 
> 
> Your in Australia? I have a spare 120mm fan I can send you if you want to do the same as I did. It looks pretty **** but it works.





Ronski said:


> @FlyByU +1 for getting a fan on that memory, I had no end of problems until I cable tied a 120mm fan over the memory. According to you're screen shot that memory is getting up to 58c


I'm actually in Dominican Republic haha, I had some fans but I don't remember what I did with them. I'll have to further look for them. Btw, I use Air Cooling, you know the ram is in between front fans and the CPU cooler fan; I think it would affect the airflow but I'll have to try it asap anyways. I also tried putting one of my top fans (the one that is above the RAM) to intake air towards the RAM modules (though they're not much aligned). See here:


Spoiler














But it doesn't seem to work, temps are above 45°C anyways... Thanks for the picture above and the intention of giving me the fan, appreciate it!




2600ryzen said:


> When I have random restarts like that it's usually because of VSOC or VDDG being too low. I don't think RAM that's as stable as yours could cause random restarts.


Actually my vSOC is 1.125 and VDDG is 1.075 and I find it a little high. But I'm just a newbie, so nevermind me there.


----------



## rares495

FlyByU said:


> Actually my vSOC is 1.25 and VDDG is 1.075 and I find it a little high. But I'm just a newbie, so nevermind me there.


I'd lower that to under 1.2V


----------



## FlyByU

rares495 said:


> I'd lower that to under 1.2V


Sorry, my keyboard's #1 doesn't work properly. I meant 1.125v on my SOC.


----------



## FranZe

Almost same as me, 1.15V in bios with low LLC, lowest i've seen in hwinfo 1.125V. I think I'm still a little high, but it's not like I'm not sleeping at night for that reason  1.2V on the other hand.. and was a lot more than plenty


----------



## TheGlow

@Veii I remember earlier when I was working with you on mem timings my Aida64 said I was on Bios 1407 Agesa Combo-AM 1.0.0.4. I checked and theres been 2 newer bios with different Agesa's, but lower? 
Do they reset the numbers? That is confusing.
Now theres a version 2204 from July 1st says AMD AM4 AGESA PI 1.0.0.1 and a version 2407 July 3rd with AM4 combo V2 PI 1.0.0.2.
So I dont know Asus' numbering scheme here but 1407 to 2204 is a jump, and then within 2 days another 200 version bump.
Almost seems like 2 different branches so not sure which, if any, would be optimal to upgrade to.


----------



## Hequaqua

TheGlow said:


> @Veii I remember earlier when I was working with you on mem timings my Aida64 said I was on Bios 1407 Agesa Combo-AM 1.0.0.4. I checked and theres been 2 newer bios with different Agesa's, but lower?
> Do they reset the numbers? That is confusing.
> Now theres a version 2204 from July 1st says AMD AM4 AGESA PI 1.0.0.1 and a version 2407 July 3rd with AM4 combo V2 PI 1.0.0.2.
> So I dont know Asus' numbering scheme here but 1407 to 2204 is a jump, and then within 2 days another 200 version bump.
> Almost seems like 2 different branches so not sure which, if any, would be optimal to upgrade to.


I thought the naming scheme changed when AMD released the 4000(APU) series? V2 would be the new moniker for AGESA....could be wrong....lol

Another note...looks like the V2 bios numbering is for X570/B550....at least on some MSI boards....so it make come down to mfg. 

https://www.msi.com/blog/with-upcom...n-msi-am4-300-400-and-500-series-motherboards


----------



## mongoled

Ive given up with the 4 x 8GB Viper Steel 4400 series,

was hoping some assistance would come from the community but alas this was not forth coming.

I spent over 36 hours reading, testing, reading, testing and have had enough, such a lonely battle...

Highest I could post was 3666/1833 but that was very hit and miss, 3600/1800 would post pretty consistantly and I could have gotten it TM5 stable but the regression in bandwidth/latency from 3776/1888 was too much considering I dont need the 32GB.

Would have been nice to have achieved some better results and to share these with other who may have been struggling with 4 x 8GB.

From the results ive seen around looks like mainly Asus daisy chain topology motherboards have any chance of hitting 3800/1900 with 4 x 8GB


----------



## algida79

Hello all. Does anyone know if it's possible to lock TM5 to a fixed amount of RAM allocated/tested? I am trying to keep detailed notes of various OC attempts and would like to also log TM5 runtime as an additional indication of performance regressions due to bad timings. With the stock config this is not possible as TM5 allocates anywhere between 28.7 and 30.2 GB on my PC.

Thanks!


----------



## Hequaqua

mongoled said:


> Ive given up with the 4 x 8GB Viper Steel 4400 series,
> 
> was hoping some assistance would come from the community but alas this was not forth coming.
> 
> I spent over 36 hours reading, testing, reading, testing and have had enough, such a lonely battle...
> 
> Highest I could post was 3666/1833 but that was very hit and miss, 3600/1800 would post pretty consistantly and I could have gotten it TM5 stable but the regression in bandwidth/latency from 3776/1888 was too much considering I dont need the 32GB.
> 
> Would have been nice to have achieved some better results and to share these with other who may have been struggling with 4 x 8GB.
> 
> From the results ive seen around looks like mainly Asus daisy chain topology motherboards have any chance of hitting 3800/1900 with 4 x 8GB


I think some of it may come down to silicon lottery(and motherboard), and how strong each IMC is. My cpu can't handle the IF above 1833. I was able to get 3666/1833 stable on a mismatched set of 8gb sticks though.


----------



## mongoled

Hequaqua said:


> I think some of it may come down to silicon lottery(and motherboard), and how strong each IMC is. My cpu can't handle the IF above 1833. I was able to get 3666/1833 stable on a mismatched set of 8gb sticks though.


Using 2 x 8GB is a breeze for 3800/1900, I am using 3776/1888 because im riding with a BCLK of 106.875.

So it looks like the CPU is capable, the RAM is capable but no bueno



I am either missing some setting, or as you have said its something to do with the equipment I am using which is most likely the motherboard...


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> Ive given up with the 4 x 8GB Viper Steel 4400 series,
> 
> was hoping some assistance would come from the community but alas this was not forth coming.
> 
> I spent over 36 hours reading, testing, reading, testing and have had enough, such a lonely battle...
> 
> Highest I could post was 3666/1833 but that was very hit and miss, 3600/1800 would post pretty consistantly and I could have gotten it TM5 stable but the regression in bandwidth/latency from 3776/1888 was too much considering I dont need the 32GB.
> 
> Would have been nice to have achieved some better results and to share these with other who may have been struggling with 4 x 8GB.
> 
> From the results ive seen around looks like mainly Asus daisy chain topology motherboards have any chance of hitting 3800/1900 with 4 x 8GB


Expected. 4 DIMMs on an old Daisy Chain board. It's a miracle that it managed to post 3666 tbh.

As for community help: 

1) Pretty much nobody owns an xpower board or even two viper kits so ???

2) All the theory we could type might not work in practice, especially in this 4x8 scenario. At some point you'd be alone anyway. 

3) The only advice I can give is play with proc_ODT in the 48-60-80 Ohm range and play with CAD_Bus values. Perhaps something like 60-20-20-24 could help. IDK


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> Ive given up with the 4 x 8GB Viper Steel 4400 series,
> 
> was hoping some assistance would come from the community but alas this was not forth coming.
> 
> I spent over 36 hours reading, testing, reading, testing and have had enough, such a lonely battle...
> 
> Highest I could post was 3666/1833 but that was very hit and miss, 3600/1800 would post pretty consistantly and I could have gotten it TM5 stable but the regression in bandwidth/latency from 3776/1888 was too much considering I dont need the 32GB.
> 
> Would have been nice to have achieved some better results and to share these with other who may have been struggling with 4 x 8GB.
> 
> From the results ive seen around looks like mainly Asus daisy chain topology motherboards have any chance of hitting 3800/1900 with 4 x 8GB


X370?

You need a better motherboard, First generation boards where mostly abysmal for memory OC. 
Change the board to B550/X570 and I think you will have it much easier.


----------



## mongoled

rares495 said:


> Expected. 4 DIMMs on an old Daisy Chain board. It's a miracle that it managed to post 3666 tbh.
> 
> As for community help:
> 
> 1) Pretty much nobody owns an xpower board so or even two viper kits so ???
> 
> 2) All the theory we could type might not work in practice, especially in this 4x8 scenario. At some point you'd be alone anyway.
> 
> 3) The only advice I can give is play with proc_ODT in the 48-60 Ohm range and play with CAD_Bus values. Perhaps something like 60-20-20-24 could help. IDK


alot of testing was done in 36 hours!

Covered almost every scenario i could think of, proc_ODT above 48 Ohm on this motherboard would never post, not even once, the balancing act I had to go over countless times was playing with 40 to 43 ohms and vSOC voltage.

CAD_Bus values, also been through so many combinations, i did not try 60-20-20-24 as I never came across such information after the countless posts on differnet forums across the Internet that I had read.



Nighthog said:


> X370?
> 
> You need a better motherboard, First generation boards where mostly abysmal for memory OC.
> Change the board to B550/X570 and I think you will have it much easier.


Well yes, of course that is the easy solution, throw money at it


----------



## FlyByU

algida79 said:


> Hello all. Does anyone know if it's possible to lock TM5 to a fixed amount of RAM allocated/tested? I am trying to keep detailed notes of various OC attempts and would like to also log TM5 runtime as an additional indication of performance regressions due to bad timings. With the stock config this is not possible as TM5 allocates anywhere between 28.7 and 30.2 GB on my PC.
> 
> Thanks!


Try this: consume the desired RAM you want to have free (e.g. by opening programs) BEFORE running TM5, after this you can run TM5 and then you can close the programs you opened. TM5 should not change the memory consumption after it started.

EDIT: nevermind, I just realized it does change the memory consumption after it started.


----------



## Nighthog

mongoled said:


> alot of testing was done in 36 hours!
> 
> Well yes, of course that is the easy solution, throw money at it


There are gen1 and gen 2 boards that barely do 3200Mhz, Some even said stop @ 2933Mhz on gen1. 
For sure a 3000series will have it easier than 2000/1000 series but the boards are limited in their capabilities. They really improved for the X570 ones, some B550 should be even better than the early X570 ones now unless really buying budget.

You have to consider the X370 board just can't do it @ 3800/1900. 
I tried out B350, B450, X470 & X570. Price makes a difference but my first B350 board was more capable than the B450/X470 boards I tried out.

Gigabyte GA-AB350-Gaming 3
ASUS PRIME B450-PLUS
Biostar X470GT8
Gigabyte X570 AORUS Xtreme

X470 had a ceiling @ 3200Mhz when the older B350 gaming did 3733Mhz stable.
Asus B450 I haven't played around with but it was having issues more than I bargained for with the kit I used for it in the end than the other boards. A later AGESA fixed most issues but it took a few months to see that happen.
X570 was so easy it was a laugh, why did I struggle so much with the other boards...


----------



## rares495

Nighthog said:


> There are gen1 and gen 2 boards that barely do 3200Mhz, Some even said stop @ 2933Mhz on gen1.
> For sure a 3000series will have it easier than 2000/1000 series but the boards are limited in their capabilities. They really improved for the X570 ones, some B550 should be even better than the early X570 ones now unless really buying budget.
> 
> You have to consider the X370 board just can't do it @ 3800/1900.
> I tried out B350, B450, X470 & X570. Price makes a difference but my first B350 board was more capable than the B450/X470 boards I tried out.
> 
> Gigabyte GA-AB350-Gaming 3
> ASUS PRIME B450-PLUS
> Biostar X470GT8
> Gigabyte X570 AORUS Xtreme
> 
> X470 had a ceiling @ 3200Mhz when the older B350 gaming did 3733Mhz stable.
> Asus B450 I haven't played around with but it was having issues more than I bargained for with the kit I used for it in the end than the other boards. A later AGESA fixed most issues but it took a few months to see that happen.
> X570 was so easy it was a laugh, why did I struggle so much with the other boards...


Really? Biostar's flagship board could only do 3200? Do you remember which kit and which AGESA you used?


----------



## Nighthog

rares495 said:


> Really? Biostar's flagship board could only do 3200? Do you remember which kit and which AGESA you used?


I tried all BIOS versions and used my Micron Rev.E that did 3733/3800 on B350 4x8Gb, T-topology. I think the Biostar was Daisy-chain. But it refuses to boot with any settings. A mismatch of board and memory. The board doesn't like low procODT settings while the memory needs it. But it received trash reviews. There was a fault in it's design I guess.
It was a challenger board for me. It got so much crap poured on it for Memory OC I felt the need to take the challenge and make it shine... was still a turd after all. I haven't tested my 3000 series if that makes it work. But that won't happen any time soon unless I get a 4000series and feel like playing with it again. (I'm waiting for someone to come pick it up with some other parts but seems they aren't interested)

Their X570GT8 seems to work on the other hand. Fixed whatever was the problem there. 

The Micron Rev.E did 4x8Gb 4266Mhz or 4400+ 2x8Gb on X570.
Now Rev.J does 4866Mhz in 2x8GB on X570.

I have a few combination that I could try if I feel like picking it up again, have all the parts needed to assemble it again. It's meant to be a build for a relative but they never come to pick up the parts. Even denied taking them when I was trying to force them to take them with them the last time. Just gathering dust in limbo as I wait for them to finally decide to fetch the parts. 
I can keep it but it's promised to be given away... RX480, Ryzen 1700, X470GT8, can now even throw in a ddr4 kit as I have extra.
Relatives that are afraid to build a system from parts.


----------



## rares495

Nighthog said:


> I tried all BIOS versions and used my Micron Rev.E that did 3733/3800 on B350 4x8Gb, T-topology. I think the Biostar was Daisy-chain. But it refuses to boot with any settings. A mismatch of board and memory. The board doesn't like low procODT settings while the memory needs it. But it received trash reviews. There was a fault in it's design I guess.
> It was a challenger board for me. It got so much crap poured on it for Memory OC I felt the need to take the challenge and make it shine... was still a turd after all. I haven't tested my 3000 series if that makes it work. But that won't happen any time soon unless I get a 4000series and feel like playing with it again. (I'm waiting for someone to come pick it up with some other parts but seems they aren't interested)
> 
> Their X570GT8 seems to work on the other hand. Fixed whatever was the problem there.
> 
> The Micron Rev.E did 4x8Gb 4266Mhz or 4400+ 2x8Gb on X570.
> Now Rev.J does 4866Mhz in 2x8GB on X570.
> 
> I have a few combination that I could try if I feel like picking it up again, have all the parts needed to assemble it again. It's meant to be a build for a relative but they never come to pick up the parts. Even denied taking them when I was trying to force them to take them with them the last time. Just gathering dust in limbo as I wait for them to finally decide to fetch the parts.
> I can keep it but it's promised to be given away... RX480, Ryzen 1700, X470GT8, can now even throw in a ddr4 kit as I have extra.
> Relatives that are afraid to build a system from parts.


Hah. I almost bought a GT8. Glad I dodged that bullet.

This cheap Gaming Plus Max seems pretty decent. I think I reached my kit's limit. Don't know if I could squeeze more with a higher-end board.


----------



## Hequaqua

mongoled said:


> Using 2 x 8GB is a breeze for 3800/1900, I am using 3776/1888 because im riding with a BCLK of 106.875.
> 
> So it looks like the CPU is capable, the RAM is capable but no bueno
> 
> 
> 
> I am either missing some setting, or as you have said its something to do with the equipment I am using which is most likely the motherboard...


I've had two or three sets of ram....all B-Die....and have never gotten any of them to run 3800.....had 3733 that I thought was stable...but turned out it wasn't. Like you....I just gave up, after I tested and tested with different timings/speed....I just didn't think it was worth the effort tbh.


----------



## Nighthog

rares495 said:


> Hah. I almost bought a GT8. Glad I dodged that bullet.
> 
> This cheap Gaming Plus Max seems pretty decent. I think I reached my kit's limit. Don't know if I could squeeze more with a higher-end board.


Yeah, that is as good as it gets on Ryzen 3000. It's another matter if you want to do asynchronous frequency OC. It's more fun to try but results never are good enough. You want that 1:1 with MEM/FCLK.

I'm curious about the APU's Ryzen 4000.. we have seen 2133Mhz FCLK on those was it when you disable the iGPU?


----------



## rares495

Nighthog said:


> Yeah, that is as good as it gets on Ryzen 3000. It's another matter if you want to do asynchronous frequency OC. It's more fun to try but results never are good enough. You want that 1:1 with MEM/FCLK.
> 
> I'm curious about the APU's Ryzen 4000.. we have seen 2133Mhz FCLK on those was it when you disable the iGPU?


Yeah, can't wait to play with one at work after we inevitably buy a few dozens of them. I could even do some binning. :thinking:


----------



## FlyByU

I made one of my outflow fans point towards my RAM modules and it improved almost 5°C










1h playing Need for Speed Heat:

Without fan above RAM / with fan above RAM
CPU temp: 69°C / 67°C
GPU Temp:66°C / 68°C
GPU Hotspot: 78°C / 80°C
RAM: 48.97°C / 43.38°C

I think it's worth!


----------



## speed_88

Hello guys i need help, latency does not drop below 64,7ns in 3800 and 65,1ns in 3733 regardless of whether the settings are 14 14 14 or 16 16 16

3800 16 16 16 32 48 = 64,7ns

3800 14 14 14 28 42 = 64,7ns

What am I doing wrong?


----------



## kazama

speed_88 said:


> Hello guys i need help, latency does not drop below 64,7ns in 3800 and 65,1ns in 3733 regardless of whether the settings are 14 14 14 or 16 16 16
> 
> 3800 16 16 16 32 48 = 64,7ns
> 
> 3800 14 14 14 28 42 = 64,7ns
> 
> What am I doing wrong?


Try lowering the trfc.


----------



## jamie1073

speed_88 said:


> Hello guys i need help, latency does not drop below 64,7ns in 3800 and 65,1ns in 3733 regardless of whether the settings are 14 14 14 or 16 16 16
> 
> 3800 16 16 16 32 48 = 64,7ns
> 
> 3800 14 14 14 28 42 = 64,7ns
> 
> What am I doing wrong?



Try these for tRFC, that is what I got from you settings in the tRFC calculator. 
252, 187, 115


----------



## 2600ryzen

FlyByU said:


> I made one of my outflow fans point towards my RAM modules and it improved almost 5°C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1h playing Need for Speed Heat:
> 
> Without fan above RAM / with fan above RAM
> CPU temp: 69°C / 67°C
> GPU Temp:66°C / 68°C
> GPU Hotspot: 78°C / 80°C
> RAM: 48.97°C / 43.38°C
> 
> I think it's worth!





Yes looks like it even helped cpu temps a little. luckily my RAM is stable up to 58c during stress testing and I haven't seen it go above 40c during normal desktop/gaming use so I don't need a fan.


----------



## KedarWolf

FlyByU said:


> I made one of my outflow fans point towards my RAM modules and it improved almost 5°C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1h playing Need for Speed Heat:
> 
> Without fan above RAM / with fan above RAM
> CPU temp: 69°C / 67°C
> GPU Temp:66°C / 68°C
> GPU Hotspot: 78°C / 80°C
> RAM: 48.97°C / 43.38°C
> 
> I think it's worth!


If you're willing to wait a month for it to ship and want something different then a ghetto rigged fan, this RAN fan is an amazing 45CFM and really cheap. I dunno how loud it is, still waiting for mine to ship, but I had something never arrive once and Aliexpress had no trouble refunding me. 

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/327...earchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_


----------



## 2600ryzen

speed_88 said:


> Hello guys i need help, latency does not drop below 64,7ns in 3800 and 65,1ns in 3733 regardless of whether the settings are 14 14 14 or 16 16 16
> 
> 3800 16 16 16 32 48 = 64,7ns
> 
> 3800 14 14 14 28 42 = 64,7ns
> 
> What am I doing wrong?



Maybe some bad autocorrecting? what happens if you do 14-14-14-32-48?


----------



## DeusM

kratosatlante said:


> try tDRWR 10/4 or 11



neither of them worked.


voltage up to 1.45 does not post!


----------



## Ronski

KedarWolf said:


> If you're willing to wait a month for it to ship and want something different then a ghetto rigged fan, this RAN fan is an amazing 45CFM and really cheap. I dunno how loud it is, still waiting for mine to ship, but I had something never arrive once and Aliexpress had no trouble refunding me.
> 
> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/327...earchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_


Ordered mine on 30 June, it's apparently arrived in the UK, so should have mine sometime this week by the sounds of it.



2600ryzen said:


> luckily my RAM is stable up to 58c during stress testing and I haven't seen it go above 40c during normal desktop/gaming use so I don't need a fan.


Interesting, mine was very unstable until I fitted a fan. How are you measuring the temperature? Mine which I believe is the same as yours doesn't appear to have temperature monitoring, so had to use an IR heat gun.

Also stable with 3 iterations of Y-Cruncher  Now just need to try and tighten them timings.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Hi everyone,

Quick update, I'm stable with my G.Skill 2x16GB (F4-3200C14D-32GTZR) B-dies at 3733 CL14.

Here's my spreadsheet with my notable tests:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FjX9V1hmpQCr_sfQBUBVlqTTlsrOQIRbJSnRNQjm3YY/edit?usp=sharing

And Ryzen Master screenshot if you prefer to see details that way:
https://i.imgur.com/faBaswv.png

Details:


Spoiler



I've tried every possible tweak in tightening my timings, and nothing helps -- some changes work, but have no benefit, or slight degradation in results. Only exception I haven't tried on 3733 is trdwr/twrrd at 8/2 (from 8/3).
edit: Trying 8/3 with SCLs = 4 actually was unstable on 20th cycle of TM5, ouch. But 9/3 and 5s are stable.

I'm annoyed my Dram Calc Membench test can't get down to 105 seconds. It's stuck around 108s and will go back to 107s when I enable PBO. Maybe I have wrong expectations here? My benchmark results are in the google doc.

I also don't understand how anyone in the google docs report that they have gotten 3800 stable on tight timings with various G.Skill b-dies at 1.400V dram. I was page faulting at 1.46 and had to raise to 1.48V to get into windows.

Anyway, next step is to turn PBO back on with my 3733 settings, re-test with TM5 and y-cruncher, then move onto 3800. I'm not going to shoot for GDM off at this moment.

Edit: this is with a new PC also:
_Ryzen 3900X, Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 cooler, Asus Rog Strix X570-E, 32GB G.Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZR, Dual 1TB (2tb) SN750 in RAID0 striped, Gigabyte RX 5700 XT 8GB, Seasonic Focus GX-850, Lian Li O11 Dynamic XL w/ 5 intake fans + 2 cooler fans exhaust, 27" AOC 1440p 144Hz curved monitor_



Extra tag for googlers -- F4-3200C14D-16GTZR -- in case this helps bring similar kit owners here to compare timings and results


----------



## LuckyBahstard

@Veii - quick question...
why do you recommend SC/SD/DD values at 1-7-7-1-5-5 for single rank and 1-6-6-1-4-4 for dual rank? I see no differences in tests that I've done, and I have dual-rank. Both are stable at 3600cl14 or 3733cl14


----------



## Dr. Vodka

LuckyBahstard said:


> @*Veii* - quick question...
> why do you recommend SC/SD/DD values at 1-7-7-1-5-5 for single rank and 1-6-6-1-4-4 for dual rank? I see no differences in tests that I've done, and I have dual-rank. Both are stable at 3600cl14 or 3733cl14



On this note, @*Veii* any recommendations for quad rank setups? (4x DR sticks)

1-7-7-1-5-5 works well in my experience for that setup, but maybe these can be configured better.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Ordered mine on 30 June, it's apparently arrived in the UK, so should have mine sometime this week by the sounds of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, mine was very unstable until I fitted a fan. How are you measuring the temperature? Mine which I believe is the same as yours doesn't appear to have temperature monitoring, so had to use an IR heat gun.
> 
> Also stable with 3 iterations of Y-Cruncher  Now just need to try and tighten them timings.



Mine has temperature sensors on the dimms, any errors I get from going over 50c can be fixed by adding 0.01-0.02v. Yours would definitely be going over 50c without a fan, possibly over 60c depending on ambient temp and case configuration.


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> Mine has temperature sensors on the dimms, any errors I get from going over 50c can be fixed by adding 0.01-0.02v. Yours would definitely be going over 50c without a fan, possibly over 60c depending on ambient temp and case configuration.


I got lucky with mine too, it seems.

I don't have a fan and they can hit 57 - 58C during ram intensive loads such as a memory test but there's no errors at 3800 C16 @ 1.35v. I was running 1.38v for a while and decided to lower it to try and lower the temps a little. I fully expected it to error when hot, but it's fine, somewhat to my surprise, and it only took like 0.5C off lol

Just another aspect of silicon lottery, I guess.


----------



## Zektbach

Hey guys is there any possibility to adjust the latency more?  
I tried 256 rfc and my pc wont post also, trying to change trdrdscl and twrwrscl to 3 my pc wont post


----------



## 2600ryzen

Zektbach said:


> Hey guys is there any possibility to adjust the latency more?
> I tried 256 rfc and my pc wont post also, trying to change trdrdscl and twrwrscl to 3 my pc wont post





Your trfc is very very high for 3200mhz speeds. Reducing it to 300ns at least should help a lot. Try trfc of 480-357-219, what memory ic do you have?


----------



## jamie1073

Zektbach said:


> Hey guys is there any possibility to adjust the latency more?
> I tried 256 rfc and my pc wont post also, trying to change trdrdscl and twrwrscl to 3 my pc wont post



I would try changing you tRFC values to 364, 270, 166 after you try the other suggested values to see if it works. The ones suggested by 2600ryzen are the failsafe values and the ones I posted are a bit better. You may have to bump voltage a hair to get them to boot.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> Your trfc is very very high for 3200mhz speeds. Reducing it to 300ns at least should help a lot. Try trfc of 480-357-219, what memory ic do you have?





jamie1073 said:


> I would try changing you tRFC values to 364, 270, 166 after you try the other suggested values to see if it works. The ones suggested by 2600ryzen are the failsafe values and the ones I posted are a bit better. You may have to bump voltage a hair to get them to boot.


Guys, hold on. This 3200 CL16 memory is obviously not B-die so tRFC lower than 500 won't work. 

Probably Hynix MFR or bad bin of CJR or but can even be Samsung E-die. If CJR you might get away with ~480 but definitely not 300.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Worst case is he can do 350ns trfc so 560-416-256. Though my old crappy micron rev A could do 290ns trfc and my current rev E can do 295ns trfc.


----------



## Zektbach

I'm really confused what im using cos in thaiphoon burner it says samsung b die. I haven't tried going down 400 trfc tho..


----------



## rares495

Zektbach said:


> I'm really confused what im using cos in thaiphoon burner it says samsung b die. I haven't tried going down 400 trfc tho..


Ok, it's a very bad bin of B-die.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Zektbach said:


> I'm really confused what im using cos in thaiphoon burner it says samsung b die. I haven't tried going down 400 trfc tho..





A lot of the time [email protected] of Samsung C die is identified as b die by thaiphoon. What trfc in ns does thaiphoon report? If it's 350ns it's definitely c die.


----------



## SpecChum

2600ryzen said:


> A lot of the time [email protected] of Samsung C die is identified as b die by thaiphoon. What trfc in ns does thaiphoon report? If it's 350ns it's definitely c die.


b-die reports as 350ns in Thaiphoon too.

This is from my 3200C14 b-die kit:


Code:


Normal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):	350.000 ns


----------



## Zektbach

Here.

I'm afraid what trfc i should use cos resetting cmos battery is such a hassle lol.


----------



## SpecChum

Zektbach said:


> Here.
> 
> I'm afraid what trfc i should use cos resetting cmos battery is such a hassle lol.


Wrong bit buddy, that'll be the same on any (that's basically the tech sheet from Samsung before they're binned by G-Skill or Corsair, or whoever), you need the XMP PARAMETER part, but that'll say 350ns too.


----------



## Zektbach

SpecChum said:


> Wrong bit buddy, that'll be the same on any (that's basically the tech sheet from Samsung before they're binned by G-Skill or Corsair, or whoever), you need the XMP PARAMETER part, but that'll say 350ns too.


Sorry my bad. Here.











****UPDATE

I have tried trfc 560 - 416 - 256 = my 76ns went down to 73ns! Is that good enough of should i push more?

****Another update

Tried 480 - 357 - 219 and it didnt work. (not posting)


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Hey memory-OC fam... correct me if I'm making an error in sharing this here, but you all are the most likely to benefit from this ... If you're in the states, then newegg (I hate them with a passion) has GSkill Bdie for $99 for 16GB (2x8) and $200 for 32GB (2x16). Models F4-3200C14D-16GVK and 3200C14D-32GVK. That's less expensive than I normally see (around $235 on sale, $250 otherwise), and may only last a few hours.

Also, does anyone have thoughts on my previous concerns as to why I'm having to push my B-die at 3733 to 1.48V when others with the same kit seemingly report 1.40V in a couple of google docs? I'm not shocked at 1.48V for b-die, I'm used to seeing that. It's that others show lower voltage with my G.Skill kit or close variants of it.

I have tried all timings tighter but no luck. My Dram Calc results of ~108s are far off the suggested "best time" of 104.5s. Should I loosen tRP, tRC, and tRFC so I can possibly lower voltage (and heat)? Though my temps aren't bad, around 48 C at max during TM5.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Mine has temperature sensors on the dimms, any errors I get from going over 50c can be fixed by adding 0.01-0.02v. Yours would definitely be going over 50c without a fan, possibly over 60c depending on ambient temp and case configuration.


Can't remember now what it was but certainly was around 50+, I'm using an AIO so no fan on the cpu, but there is a radiator fan directly above the memory.

I've updated my timings to match yours, and got 1 error in 20 cycles of TM5, and since running at 3800/1900 I've been having the odd restart issues, whether it be from windows or the BIOS, if I power off it boots no problem, and prior to tightening the timings it was stable, other than that it's looking good.

Anyone any pointers on what to tweak reference not rebooting please, but boots fine from power off?


----------



## mongoled

LuckyBahstard said:


> Hey memory-OC fam... correct me if I'm making an error in sharing this here, but you all are the most likely to benefit from this ... If you're in the states, then newegg (I hate them with a passion) has GSkill Bdie for $99 for 16GB (2x8) and $200 for 32GB (2x16). Models F4-3200C14D-16GVK and 3200C14D-32GVK. That's less expensive than I normally see (around $235 on sale, $250 otherwise), and may only last a few hours.
> 
> Also, does anyone have thoughts on my previous concerns as to why I'm having to push my B-die at 3733 to 1.48V when others with the same kit seemingly report 1.40V in a couple of google docs? I'm not shocked at 1.48V for b-die, I'm used to seeing that. It's that others show lower voltage with my G.Skill kit or close variants of it.
> 
> I have tried all timings tighter but no luck. My Dram Calc results of ~108s are far off the suggested "best time" of 104.5s. Should I loosen tRP, tRC, and tRFC so I can possibly lower voltage (and heat)? Though my temps aren't bad, around 48 C at max during TM5.


Unsure about those results you seen in the "Google Docs".

Generally from what ive seen for "regular" ambient temperatures and for frequency in access of 3600 mhz with CAS latency of 14 you need more than 1.45v to have any real stability while stressing the memory with the correct tools.

I'd say you are right on the money with 1.48v!

Regards the best times, from my own experience with GSkill and Vipers the Vipers were faster with the same timings, so that may also play a role on the final result ....


----------



## LuckyBahstard

mongoled said:


> Unsure about those results you seen in the "Google Docs".
> ...
> I'd say you are right on the money with 1.48v!
> ...


Thanks for the vote of confidence.  The google sheets I looked at were passed here on the forum and at least a few regulars here have entries in them.

I need to dive into understanding per-CCX OCs and adjusting thermal settings as @Veii was explaining with TDC a few pages back, since it appears I won't be using PBO anymore.

And yeah, regarding the Vipers, they are in the other PC, I need to pull them into this new one to see if I can do better with the 3900x and rog strix x570-E than the 3600 and cheap mobo.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

(deleted - double post occurred)


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Can't remember now what it was but certainly was around 50+, I'm using an AIO so no fan on the cpu, but there is a radiator fan directly above the memory.
> 
> I've updated my timings to match yours, and got 1 error in 20 cycles of TM5, and since running at 3800/1900 I've been having the odd restart issues, whether it be from windows or the BIOS, if I power off it boots no problem, and prior to tightening the timings it was stable, other than that it's looking good.
> 
> Anyone any pointers on what to tweak reference not rebooting please, but boots fine from power off?



I haven't had any booting/restart problems at 3800mhz, my cad bus is 24-20-24-24 maybe that's it? The extra write bandwidth looks like it really helps in the Dram calc benchmark that's almost 6 secs faster than my time with the same settings.
Not sure what caused the single error test 3 is mirror-move, I'm running VSOC 1.075v VDDG 0.95v and VDDP 0.9v. Or maybe the error is TRP too tight? I think that can be fixed by raising RAM voltage(I'm using 1.4v) or raising TRP to 16.


Edit: It's also possible TRDWR is too low and needs to be 11, that can cause posting issues.


----------



## Zektbach

Zektbach said:


> Sorry my bad. Here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****UPDATE
> 
> I have tried trfc 560 - 416 - 256 = my 76ns went down to 73ns! Is that good enough of should i push more?
> 
> ****Another update
> 
> Tried 480 - 357 - 219 and it didnt work. (not posting)


Update on 560 - 416 - 256 = seems like my games are crashing :/


----------



## VPII

Interestingly my first result added was running Karhu memtest up to 25000% and it passed with zero errors. I then ran TM5 for 20 cycles and got an error on 2 during the 18th cycle. So I went back to TRAS 32 , TRC 48 and TRFC 313 and now it seems to pass with only a small bump in latency. At least it seems it should be stable now with the second pic showing TM5 20 cycles passed.


----------



## TheGlow

How do you calculate the tRFCs again?
When I use Dram Calc and import my xmp and set speed to 3733mhz, and my trfc ns is 350, Dram calc says to set 503. But if I go to the Additional section and plug in 3733/350 it gives 653/485/299. 653 seems a big difference from 503.


Zektbach said:


> Here.
> 
> I'm afraid what trfc i should use cos resetting cmos battery is such a hassle lol.


I had to keep resetting my cmos as well. Do what I did, take your case's reset button and put it on the cmos pins.
So now just hold reset to reset the cmos. Still doing thats its labelled for.
Once its all settled you can put it back on the reset pins.



Zektbach said:


> Update on 560 - 416 - 256 = seems like my games are crashing :/


Yea I need to revisit mine as well. I just updated bios so will retry. I had games randomly crash so I removed all the mem oc's and gave it 2 weeks, no more crashes since. Needed to rule out other components.
But it would pass all the other tests I'd run.


----------



## jamie1073

Zektbach said:


> Update on 560 - 416 - 256 = seems like my games are crashing :/



What voltage are you running on your RAM?


----------



## Zektbach

TheGlow said:


> How do you calculate the tRFCs again?
> When I use Dram Calc and import my xmp and set speed to 3733mhz, and my trfc ns is 350, Dram calc says to set 503. But if I go to the Additional section and plug in 3733/350 it gives 653/485/299. 653 seems a big difference from 503.
> 
> 
> I had to keep resetting my cmos as well. Do what I did, take your case's reset button and put it on the cmos pins.
> So now just hold reset to reset the cmos. Still doing thats its labelled for.
> Once its all settled you can put it back on the reset pins.
> 
> 
> Yea I need to revisit mine as well. I just updated bios so will retry. I had games randomly crash so I removed all the mem oc's and gave it 2 weeks, no more crashes since. Needed to rule out other components.
> But it would pass all the other tests I'd run.


Tbh im not sure about the reset button.. lol. Anyway, I use additional calculator too. 3200MT then 350 rfc.



jamie1073 said:


> What voltage are you running on your RAM?


DRAM's advice was 1.365v so but my bios keeps 1.360v.


----------



## Ronski

TheGlow said:


> How do you calculate the tRFCs again?


I wondered that myself yesterday and found this posted over on Reddit

tRFC 2 = tRFC / 1.346
tRFC 4 = tRFC 2 / 1.625

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9o43j0/trfc_2_and_4_in_dram_calculator_should_i_bother/

If I leave my board on Auto it seems to work them out differently though.


----------



## rares495

TheGlow said:


> How do you calculate the tRFCs again?
> When I use Dram Calc and import my xmp and set speed to 3733mhz, and my trfc ns is 350, Dram calc says to set 503. But if I go to the Additional section and plug in 3733/350 it gives 653/485/299. 653 seems a big difference from 503.
> 
> 
> I had to keep resetting my cmos as well. Do what I did, take your case's reset button and put it on the cmos pins.
> So now just hold reset to reset the cmos. Still doing thats its labelled for.
> Once its all settled you can put it back on the reset pins.
> 
> 
> Yea I need to revisit mine as well. I just updated bios so will retry. I had games randomly crash so I removed all the mem oc's and gave it 2 weeks, no more crashes since. Needed to rule out other components.
> But it would pass all the other tests I'd run.





Ronski said:


> I wondered that myself yesterday and found this posted over on Reddit
> 
> tRFC 2 = tRFC / 1.346
> tRFC 4 = tRFC 2 / 1.625
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9o43j0/trfc_2_and_4_in_dram_calculator_should_i_bother/
> 
> If I leave my board on Auto it seems to work them out differently though.


You can just use Veii's tRFC calculator. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/edit#gid=0


----------



## TheGlow

Yea I've found the calculations since I posted, but as mentioned, the DRAM calc is great so not sure where its getting them numbers from.


----------



## DeusM

H guys, i have a small dilemma!


I have managed to boot at 3733cl14 and i dont think its stable because im unsure if i will damage the ram as my voltage is 1.5v


DDR4V: 1.5v
SOC:1.1v
Vddg: .950
VDDP:.900




Is this voltage safe or should i just give up on 3733cl14?


----------



## Veii

Ronski said:


> I wondered that myself yesterday and found this posted over on Reddit
> tRFC 2 = tRFC / 1.346
> tRFC 4 = tRFC 2 / 1.625
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9o43j0/trfc_2_and_4_in_dram_calculator_should_i_bother/
> If I leave my board on Auto it seems to work them out differently though.
> 
> 
> TheGlow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I've found the calculations since I posted, but as mentioned, the DRAM calc is great so not sure where its getting them numbers from.
Click to expand...

The board works it out differently because it's a mess  
(i think personally also a reason why PMU timing prediction is also still to this date incomplete)
DRAM Calculator by normal methods has a rounding error, but it's not the dev's fault
Frequency is inconsistent, it's not a whole value value
And so if you continue to use a fixed time divider from tRFC 2 -> 4 , the rounding error will exponentially be even more broken

Boards do autocorrect in realtime in the hidden, as timings are virtual long decimal values scaling by MT/s
Suggested tRFC by the Calculator factors in tSTAG and only works well for the whole set
Changing 1 little thing, makes the suggested lower tRFC value not optimal anymore 
Advanced calculator tRFC field is also accurate, but i am not sure if 1usmus factored in that 3333 and 3334 spit out different tRFC2/4 - as used tRFCns math will change

tRFC Calculator exists for solely this purpose although it doesn't spit by hand tested values like 1usmus calculator
But it does spit out decently accurate estimates for correct tRFC
I wouldn't suggest to use this reddit published math, and take a look how i get tRFC 2 and 4
(you do calculate tRFC 2 and 4 individually and not with combined rounding from tRFC)
You will have rounding errors if you do it the opposite way, and you will get rounding errors if you don't put the correct MT/s frequency 
You also won't get an accurate result from the advanced section in the calculator, if you don't put in an accurate tRFCns value
Which again, can be up to 11 decimals long


----------



## Maghook

@Veii
Could you please just take a quick look over the following settings? Any advice greatly appreciated.

3700X with [email protected] MT/S (Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3600C18 LPX, 2 x (SR-)kits / one kit containing Micron E-die and one kit containing Samsung B-Die (I had some bad luck)

Settings:
GDM: enabled (CR: 1) (well, with my low voltages I won't get GDM=OFF and CR1 proper without errors, but accepted that in 2 weeks of intense ram testing: vDIMM: 1,34v / vSOC: 1,0125v / cLDO_vddp: 0,781v (lower won't post, higher seems to bring no benefit at all to the table?) / cLDO_CCD: 0.950v / cLDO_IOD: 0,925v => trying to find efficient but still performant and stable sweep spot)
PDM: disabled
BGS Alt: enabled, interleaved @256bytes, Hw-prefetecher: enabled
tCL: 16
tRCDRD: 19 (->20 with GDM)
tRCDWR: 16
tRP: 16
tRAS: 36 (wouldn't it be better to go with 38 or 40 as tBL 2-4 has to be added to tRAS?)
tRC: 60 (could go stable for 58, with 56 getting errors - too low voltages I guess, but 60 seems okay for me. no clean division for 58 possible)
tRFCs: 540 / 401 / 247 (~300ns, clean divider to tRC=9. Once could go as low as 530 as hard border, then getting errors)
tWR: 16 (with 14 getting errors)
tWTR_S: 4
tWTR_L: 12 (10 was stable, but noticed you wrote once, that _S multiplied by 3 = _L)
tRRD_S: 4
tRRD_L: 6 (4 was stable but saw no improvement)
tRTP: 10
tFAW: 16
tCWL: 14
tCKE: Auto (BIOS sets always zero)
tRDRDSC_L: 4
tRDRDSC: 1
tRDRDSD: 4 (auto value from BIOS)
tRDRDDD: 4 ( I know, everybody is telling you to keep these on 5, but GDM would make them to 6?)
tWRWRSC_L: 4
tWRWRSC: 1
tWRWRSD: 6 (see above. would be 7, but with GDM should be 8 then, see no benefit from 1-5-5-1-7-7-0 over 1-4-4-1-6-6-0)
tWRWRDD: 6
tRDWR: 10 (reading ryzen calculator, B-die would need 9, while E-die would accept 8. But togehter i strongly need 10)
tWRRD: 4 (if I unterstand you correctly, these setting could also be set to '1', as 2 * tRDWR = 20 which is above tRCDRD=19. Is this correct?)

Thank you very much!


----------



## Veii

Maghook said:


> @Veii
> Could you please just take a quick look over the following settings? Any advice greatly appreciated.
> 
> 3700X with [email protected] MT/S (Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3600C18 LPX, 2 x (SR-)kits / one kit containing Micron E-die and one kit containing Samsung B-Die (I had some bad luck)


I read it, but many answers are on hold till i find more time to process everyone of them without prioritizing anyone
exceptions happen on short offtopic ones i can answer on the go or additional teaching material
My first question is, 
~ can your board even split DRAM voltage between both of the Channels 
I think it wouldn't work by the Daisy Chain Layout, but for example ASUS got creative on another iteration of Daisy Chain layout

You have several issues:
Micron E-Dies don't like voltage between 1.46-1.54~ volt, and after 1.6+ get far to hot 
B-dies don't like voltage between 1.56-1.6v, but scale well between 1.42-1.46v 
Soo your only range on which both work alright is around 1.38-1.45v

2nd issue,
Micron E-Die need CAD_BUS ClkDrv Strengh to drop GearDownMode, 
while b-dies scale better at lower unless they are dual rank

3rd issue,
SCL range will be different, micron requirements will strongly slow down B-dies 
And B-die requirements might not work on low end E-Dies (up to PCB)

Biggest issue,
Daisy Chain layout by itself
B-dies have no profit from increased signal strengthness and likely can be used as "slave" (dimm 1,3)
While Micron kits need that , just that are more sensitive to bad signal integrity
Overall VDIMM , cLDO_VDDG IOD and CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh are the key factors here
Daisy Chain Splits the main powerline into 75/25% - 25% for the slave set, while T-Topology splits it 50/50% 
Having now two very opposite kits - that's gonna be fun  

But the main key factor here, aside from the ICs 
Is the PCB these things are on
Please make a photo-session of one B-die and one Rev.E
Important is that the IC location is visible from the side (further up or further down on the PCB)
And then on the side where the ICs are (the other side on Single Rank kits has just padding there)
Try to use some lightning from far away soo your Camera can pick up the traces - Dead center should already show the difference:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/18051-memory/1746444-oc-ing-t-force-4133-cl18.html#post28423902
3rd and 4th picture, maybe 2nd one but it should be a tiny bit further away

Optimally you'd want here the slave ~ B-dies to be A0 and Rev.E in this case be A2
A1 will be a bit of an issue but can work, but if B-dies are A2 layout or both ~ i wish you good luck 

X2 kits need more current and love more current, you can go away with higher VDIMM on these and can put them on the main slot
While X0 kits don't scale well with high voltage, but aren't having much issues with bad signal integrity or weak signaling
A long-trace-layout , normal layout should usually like voltage and have a higher dropout rate, but funnily it's the opposite
A short-trace-layout X1 especially X2 kits love voltage but are sensitive to bad signal integrity 


Maghook said:


> Settings:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> GDM: enabled (CR: 1) (well, with my low voltages I won't get GDM=OFF and CR1 proper without errors, but accepted that in 2 weeks of intense ram testing: vDIMM: 1,34v / vSOC: 1,0125v / cLDO_vddp: 0,781v (lower won't post, higher seems to bring no benefit at all to the table?) / cLDO_CCD: 0.950v / cLDO_IOD: 0,925v => trying to find efficient but still performant and stable sweep spot)
> PDM: disabled
> BGS Alt: enabled, interleaved @256bytes, Hw-prefetecher: enabled
> tCL: 16
> tRCDRD: 19 (->20 with GDM)
> tRCDWR: 16
> tRP: 16
> tRAS: 36 (wouldn't it be better to go with 38 or 40 as tBL 2-4 has to be added to tRAS?)
> tRC: 60 (could go stable for 58, with 56 getting errors - too low voltages I guess, but 60 seems okay for me. no clean division for 58 possible)
> tRFCs: 540 / 401 / 247 (~300ns, clean divider to tRC=9. Once could go as low as 530 as hard border, then getting errors)
> tWR: 16 (with 14 getting errors)
> tWTR_S: 4
> tWTR_L: 12 (10 was stable, but noticed you wrote once, that _S multiplied by 3 = _L)
> tRRD_S: 4
> tRRD_L: 6 (4 was stable but saw no improvement)
> tRTP: 10
> tFAW: 16
> tCWL: 14
> tCKE: Auto (BIOS sets always zero)
> tRDRDSC_L: 4
> tRDRDSC: 1
> tRDRDSD: 4 (auto value from BIOS)
> tRDRDDD: 4 ( I know, everybody is telling you to keep these on 5, but GDM would make them to 6?)
> tWRWRSC_L: 4
> tWRWRSC: 1
> tWRWRSD: 6 (see above. would be 7, but with GDM should be 8 then, see no benefit from 1-5-5-1-7-7-0 over 1-4-4-1-6-6-0)
> tWRWRDD: 6
> tRDWR: 10 (reading ryzen calculator, B-die would need 9, while E-die would accept 8. But togehter i strongly need 10)
> tWRRD: 4 (if I unterstand you correctly, these setting could also be set to '1', as 2 * tRDWR = 20 which is above tRCDRD=19. Is this correct?)
> 
> 
> Thank you very much!


You can follow this baseline from here and find the tRDWR & tWRRD guide at the end of the same post, or just here
The same post also has voltage templates, or you use the first source - which is on the same 4133 T-Force thread at the bottom of this post
Else people here are knowledgeable enough to help you with timings 
These shouldn't be much of an issue after you try to equalize these kits - but you have to confirm first what they even are
Daisy Chain layout as great as it's marketed to be, will make you far more issues than T-Topology 

tBL is 2 yes
tRRD_ ones will be crucial for deciding how long these dimms need between same bank groups and between different ones 
Lower is beneficial, but always adjust tFAW accordingly 
tWTR_ goes the same, except i would match tWTR_L to either twice or tripple tRRD_S 

tWR you have to think SR and DR - SR kits will work with it between 10-18, Dual Rank logically 20-36 / just a double
Sometimes 4 dimms can have nearly the same requirements as to two dual rank dimms
same RTT requirements, same tRFC size, and also same tWR (write recovery) delays
What you can do, is use a double on some of the timings - some will just trigger later but not cause awkward desync's 
Try to do the math for tWR with what works for 2xSR kits, and then just double this number if it ends up too low
Doubling that timing won't break tRAS ruleset, even when it overshoots 
- but optimally you should try to hold both rulesets tCL+tRCD & tCL+tWR+tBL for tRAS 


> tWR Ruleset:
> Rec. = tRRDS + tWTRS
> Alt. = tCL + tRTP
> Alt. = tRAS - tRCD
> 
> Veii Rec. = tRTP *2
> Veii Opt. = Clean non decimal divider of tRFC


tCL + tRTP , in case you have to unlogicaly bump up tRAS for stability
tRAS-tRCD, if you use some other awkward timings math, but going the other way like usually based on tRFC makes it more scalable
Then you can adjust tWR lower or double it if ever needed
One rule exists that it should be * 8ns, but that is only an ETA, as timings and ns delays scale by frequency 
- no fixed numeral divider will be a correct ruleset
Try to keep tRAS to tRC (tRAS+tRP) transition clean, adding delay on tRC will mask timing user errors, but if it's not stable you have an issue somewhere
A cheating method there is just increasing tRP (p)recharge delay, and decreasing it to adapt for high vDIMM and lower tRC even further

It again ended up too long,
Don't use Interleaving size lower than 512 or go even higher, and keep both HW prefetchers on, same as Interleaving hashing
tCKE you want at 1 with GDM, and you want to keep IOD higher than CCD for 4 dimms - especially on your problem
Start with going to 2T mode with disabled GDM
If RTT, CAD_BUS, voltages and procODT are correct - it will let you without issues
if not, work on that one first 

You didn't mention the frequency you go for too
cLDO_VDDP is for the memory controller, as long as you aren't using high procODT, there is no need to bump this beyond 900mV
Well as endnote , fix everything that is on auto except for Vcore
you don't need random variables  and test voltages with Y-Cruncher (2-3 cycles all tests) + P95 Large FFT (2h usually)


----------



## Maghook

Just a quick reply for the moment. Fear, I have to read your post several times again
I just hoped for some timing correction tipps to prevent desync. 

ASUS Strix 570 - daisy chain. No option to set different vDIMM for each channel.
IIRC than the E-Dies are on ch. A while B-Dies are on ch. B according to displayed bios spd information.
Speed is 3600 currently and stable with that settings so far. Currently unsure if I should really aim for higher. Maybe just for GDM off /w CR1 and a latency stable at or below 67? According to latest thaiphoon burner both kits are A0.
According to Membench I had better results with 256bytes interleaved than higher values, strange...
CADs are: 24, 20, 20, 24
ProcODT, RTTs currently all on Auto

Oh, uhm 3700X is currently capped at 55W PPT for effiency in addition with a 0,0875v negative offset. 
Thanks!


----------



## Rawson

copied from asus owners club

Hi. I've got 2x kits of trident z. ones a samsung b and ones a hynix a. both kits are 16-18-18-18-38-58. The hynix will do 14-17-17-17-30-32, but the Samsung won't really do anything, no 16-16-16-16 either. Will I have to do step by step tuning on the Samsung? Is this motherboards overclocking support for RAM bad or is it bottom barley B die? I didn't expect B die to perform worse than Hynix A die - but will run in conjunction @stock XMP @1.4.


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Rawson said:


> copied from asus owners club
> 
> Hi. I've got 2x kits of trident z. ones a samsung b and ones a hynix a. both kits are 16-18-18-18-38-58. The hynix will do 14-17-17-17-30-32, but the Samsung won't really do anything, no 16-16-16-16 either. Will I have to do step by step tuning on the Samsung? Is this motherboards overclocking support for RAM bad or is it bottom barley B die? I didn't expect B die to perform worse than Hynix A die - but will run in conjunction @stock XMP @1.4.


Which B-die kit (which product model # from the product page)? A Trident Z should be able to stretch out nicely but will be finicky possibly. Is it 2x8, 2x16? What initial timings, voltages, and resistances (procODT, cad_bus) are you trying (e.g. a Ryzen Master screenshot)? And your X570 Crosshair VIII Formula is good.


----------



## Tobiman

DeusM said:


> H guys, i have a small dilemma!
> 
> 
> I have managed to boot at 3733cl14 and i dont think its stable because im unsure if i will damage the ram as my voltage is 1.5v
> 
> 
> DDR4V: 1.5v
> SOC:1.1v
> Vddg: .950
> VDDP:.900
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this voltage safe or should i just give up on 3733cl14?


If you can keep your dram below 45 degrees celsius or lower while running TM5 then you are less likely to get errors. I used to get errors then I added extra cooling and pass all my tests. Here are my settings with dram - 1.5v, soc - 1.15, vddg & vddp - 1.050


----------



## pipes

Why zentimings no work on my x570 system?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Maghook

@Veii

I've to apologize, cause:
1) Complete system purchased from a professional PC assembler who pulls some extra money for that (silent pc).
2) At first glance, I didn't like the idea of ripping out the 4 RAM sticks, since half of them were buried under the big Dark Rock 4 Pro cooler.

But then I took a look insight today and I'm happy that I did:

According to your advice the B-Dies should be in slave (A1+B1) und the therefore the E-Dies in master ch. (A2 + B2).
Now the prof. assembler obviously didn't care about the stickers of the sticks at all, as otherwise he would have noticed that different pairwise production dates und printed on version numbering of these two different kits. Of course he just pushed the sticks into the slots and didn't care for anything else.
The result: on master ch. as well as on slave one he mixed one B-Die with one E-Die. Yay... 

So I changed that according to your recommendation und put everything back in.
Also I've to apologize for the bad photos I took, but seems you will have to live with that 
Anyway...here they are.

Thanks!
-------
Edit:

So concerning to Short guide, baseline edition I see:
- tRAS (36) = tRCD+tCL (=>matched) or tWR+tCL+tBL (=> 34; no match would have to lower tWR=18 but does not quite seem to be a good decision)
- tRC = tRP + tRAS / +2 or +4 for stability (well, that claims for 56 which I had errors last time. 54 would be really nice with tRFC=540; is there a special rule for tRFC / tRC = even or uneven value allowed or better?)
- tWTRL = tRRDS*2 (=> uff. IIRC you once stated in another post: tWTRL = tRRDS*3. Cause of that I lowered that one from tWRTL=10 to 12)
- tWR (16) = tRAS-tRCD (optimal, check; lowest tRRDS + tWTRS ( 4 + 4 = 8, no chance ; Veii Rec. = tRTP *2 => would be 20 in my case, that one would be nice for tRFC and also tRTP but at the end: does set value to 16 or 20 make such a difference at the end?)
- SCL's (=> guess will never be tighter than 4 with my two opposite kits)
- tCWL = keep it identical to tCL (=> why? I noticed that this one alone with 14 and not 16 will do ~2ns in latency IIRC)
- tRTP = optimally clean divider of tRFC (54 =>check)
- tWRRD (=> well if I understood you correctly, than if tRDWR=10 in my case, RCD= 19(20 with GDM=on) than tWRRD doesn't have to be 4 - it could also be 1. Would GDM=on make implicitly a 2 out of this 1?)

Okay. Still have to work on voltages and CADs, procODT, RTTs.


----------



## TheGlow

Its all, all the stress tests I do pass. Yet my pc will crash randomly over night. And earlier it crashed about 3 minutes after closing out Dark Souls, and this time I removed all special timings.
Its a 3600 16-19-19-39 and I had it only 3733. I guess that speed just isnt stable. ill leave it stock for a few days and confirm if it doesnt just restart on me again.


----------



## DeusM

Hi everybody this is more an announcement as i learned something new today!


If you have 4 sticks of RAM it *ABSOLUTELY* matters which order they are in, i don't know why but here is what i went through.




Two nights ago i was pushing the ram so i can see what it can do, for fun i tried 4000mhz with IF at 2000 and the computer gave me the old black screen and not booting.


So as usual i removed the CMOS batttery and it did not reset for some reason. So i removed it again and Reseated the ram. i thought while i do that i can check what PCB layout i have.


After taking photos of the PCB layout i put the ram back in and didnt take care to put them in exactly the same positions. First boot into bios to load my Stable 3800 cl16 profile and it would not work. i wondered why?? i tried my 3733cl16 stable clock and again IT WOULD NOT BOOT!


After 2 days of testing and frustration i realised that the sticks were in random order. 



Today i tried 6 Different combinations of which ram stick goes where. and it made a HUGE difference to how many errors i would receive in the stress test. 



This may be known to other people but i never thought of this before since my kit is a 32gb kit and came with the 4 sticks in 1 package.




Im guessing this might have too do with the x570 gaming edge WIFI daisy chain.







@FlyByU have a go and see if this helps with your kit as i believe we have the same??


----------



## rares495

DeusM said:


> Hi everybody this is more an announcement as i learned something new today!
> 
> 
> If you have 4 sticks of RAM it *ABSOLUTELY* matters which order they are in, i don't know why but here is what i went through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two nights ago i was pushing the ram so i can see what it can do, for fun i tried 4000mhz with IF at 2000 and the computer gave me the old black screen and not booting.
> 
> 
> So as usual i removed the CMOS batttery and it did not reset for some reason. So i removed it again and Reseated the ram. i thought while i do that i can check what PCB layout i have.
> 
> 
> After taking photos of the PCB layout i put the ram back in and didnt take care to put them in exactly the same positions. First boot into bios to load my Stable 3800 cl16 profile and it would not work. i wondered why?? i tried my 3733cl16 stable clock and again IT WOULD NOT BOOT!
> 
> 
> After 2 days of testing and frustration i realised that the sticks were in random order.
> 
> 
> 
> Today i tried 6 Different combinations of which ram stick goes where. and it made a HUGE difference to how many errors i would receive in the stress test.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be known to other people but i never thought of this before since my kit is a 32gb kit and came with the 4 sticks in 1 package.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im guessing this might have too do with the x570 gaming edge WIFI daisy chain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @FlyByU have a go and see if this helps with your kit as i believe we have the same??


Dude, that photo is useless. We need to see how the tiny components are placed on the PCB. Just take the photo at an appropriate angle (i.e. as if you're trying to look under the heatspreader)


----------



## rares495

Maghook said:


> @Veii
> 
> I've to apologize, cause:
> 1) Complete system purchased from a professional PC assembler who pulls some extra money for that (silent pc).
> 2) At first glance, I didn't like the idea of ripping out the 4 RAM sticks, since half of them were buried under the big Dark Rock 4 Pro cooler.
> 
> But then I took a look insight today and I'm happy that I did:
> 
> According to your advice the B-Dies should be in slave (A1+B1) und the therefore the E-Dies in master ch. (A2 + B2).
> Now the prof. assembler obviously didn't care about the stickers of the sticks at all, as otherwise he would have noticed that different pairwise production dates und printed on version numbering of these two different kits. Of course he just pushed the sticks into the slots and didn't care for anything else.
> The result: on master ch. as well as on slave one he mixed one B-Die with one E-Die. Yay...
> 
> So I changed that according to your recommendation und put everything back in.
> Also I've to apologize for the bad photos I took, but seems you will have to live with that
> Anyway...here they are.
> 
> Thanks!
> -------
> Edit:
> 
> So concerning to Short guide, baseline edition I see:
> - tRAS (36) = tRCD+tCL (=>matched) or tWR+tCL+tBL (=> 34; no match would have to lower tWR=18 but does not quite seem to be a good decision)
> - tRC = tRP + tRAS / +2 or +4 for stability (well, that claims for 56 which I had errors last time. 54 would be really nice with tRFC=540; is there a special rule for tRFC / tRC = even or uneven value allowed or better?)
> - tWTRL = tRRDS*2 (=> uff. IIRC you once stated in another post: tWTRL = tRRDS*3. Cause of that I lowered that one from tWRTL=10 to 12)
> - tWR (16) = tRAS-tRCD (optimal, check; lowest tRRDS + tWTRS ( 4 + 4 = 8, no chance ; Veii Rec. = tRTP *2 => would be 20 in my case, that one would be nice for tRFC and also tRTP but at the end: does set value to 16 or 20 make such a difference at the end?)
> - SCL's (=> guess will never be tighter than 4 with my two opposite kits)
> - tCWL = keep it identical to tCL (=> why? I noticed that this one alone with 14 and not 16 will do ~2ns in latency IIRC)
> - tRTP = optimally clean divider of tRFC (54 =>check)
> - tWRRD (=> well if I understood you correctly, than if tRDWR=10 in my case, RCD= 19(20 with GDM=on) than tWRRD doesn't have to be 4 - it could also be 1. Would GDM=on make implicitly a 2 out of this 1?)
> 
> Okay. Still have to work on voltages and CADs, procODT, RTTs.


Those photos are useless. We need to see how the components are laid out on the PCB so again, take a photo as if you're trying to look under the heatspreader but at an angle so that we can still see the component placement.


----------



## masteratarms

I just upgraded to windows 10 version 2004 with a fresh install (microsoft gave me notice they were going to switch me anyway). I left the PC on with background tasks and it would not power on the monitor. I checked my G15 LCD and it was unresponsive and my power draw was about 20-40w lower than normal idle @ 160w (socket reading). So I thought I'd test for memory stability and running TM5 I get an error about first running in compatibility mode (need admin privileges) and then with admin mode selected "To enable AWE, you must run with Administrator privileges!". I am using a custom power profile which I was before the reinstall: "AMD Ryzen efficient community plan". Only other thing I changed in bios was to run in UEFI mode only. I've turned off hibernation, to recover SSD space (but I learned this is used useful for fast boot, booting speed seems ok).


----------



## pipes

Read cpu package Power smu on hwinfo64 

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## DeusM

rares495 said:


> Dude, that photo is useless. We need to see how the tiny components are placed on the PCB. Just take the photo at an appropriate angle (i.e. as if you're trying to look under the heatspreader)


:specool:


Photo was for show relating to what i wrote. i wasn't asking what Revision it was as i already know!


----------



## hazium233

Zektbach said:


> I'm really confused what im using cos in thaiphoon burner it says samsung b die. I haven't tried going down 400 trfc tho..


These are almost certainly Samsung 8Gbit C-die, and nothing in thaiphoon burner will help you determine this.

If you can see the label on the dimm, there should be a code starting with 042. If the last three digits are 10C, it is C-die.

C-die is very common in 3200 16-18-18-3x bins from Corsair and G Skill these days. For Corsair, if the version number is 4.32 it is likely C-die.

edit:

Similarly, it has become common in 3600 18-22-22 type bins. There was one guy in a Newegg review who claimed his Trident Z 3600 C15 kit had C-die, but that is very hard to believe, unless it was some sort of golden sample.

C-die has poor or negative voltage scaling generally, and will probably perform best ~1.35V for daily.


----------



## Ronski

Managed to knock 1.23 seconds off my Membench score, so getting closer to that 102.6 seconds, although not confirmed stable yet.
@2600ryzen I adjusted tRFCto 560,tRFC2 to 416 and tRFC4 to 256

Prior (haven't tested since) to updating tRFC I'm still having the problem when I reboot, and the odd TM5 error, but Y-Cruncher seems stable for the 4 cycles I've tested to.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Managed to knock 1.23 seconds off my Membench score, so getting closer to that 102.6 seconds, although not confirmed stable yet.
> 
> @*2600ryzen* I adjusted tRFCto 560,tRFC2 to 416 and tRFC4 to 256
> 
> Prior (haven't tested since) to updating tRFC I'm still having the problem when I reboot, and the odd TM5 error, but Y-Cruncher seems stable for the 4 cycles I've tested to.



Trfc 560 is 294.7ns which should be ok I think, the lowest I've got it to post was 293.3ns. Trfc is temp sensitive and the dimms run 30c hotter during stress testing than a cold boot so I try to keep it at 300ns or above just to leave a safety margin.
Do you have a fan for your Dimms yet I can't remember? Rare errors in tm5 from high temps might be fixed by raising trp by 1, trrds/l to 6-9 and I think putting Trdwr to 11 didn't hurt my benchmark scores indicating that 10 wasn't working right. I'm pretty sure trcdrd is being autocorrected to 18 because of GDM enabled.


----------



## Rawson

Okay i've put my Samsung @1.488v 
does anyone have any recommended next steps? frequency vs timings first?


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Trfc 560 is 294.7ns which should be ok I think, the lowest I've got it to post was 293.3ns. Trfc is temp sensitive and the dimms run 30c hotter during stress testing than a cold boot so I try to keep it at 300ns or above just to leave a safety margin.
> Do you have a fan for your Dimms yet I can't remember? Rare errors in tm5 from high temps might be fixed by raising trp by 1, trrds/l to 6-9 and I think putting Trdwr to 11 didn't hurt my benchmark scores indicating that 10 wasn't working right. I'm pretty sure trcdrd is being autocorrected to 18 because of GDM enabled.


Yes I have a makeshift fan, 120mm pointing at the memory, which helped a lot. I tried altering the above timings but still had the odd error. and the above adjustments did increase the time taken in memtest to around 106 seconds. So still fiddling.


----------



## FlyByU

DeusM said:


> Hi everybody this is more an announcement as i learned something new today!
> 
> 
> If you have 4 sticks of RAM it *ABSOLUTELY* matters which order they are in, i don't know why but here is what i went through.
> 
> Two nights ago i was pushing the ram so i can see what it can do, for fun i tried 4000mhz with IF at 2000 and the computer gave me the old black screen and not booting.
> 
> So as usual i removed the CMOS batttery and it did not reset for some reason. So i removed it again and Reseated the ram. i thought while i do that i can check what PCB layout i have.
> 
> After taking photos of the PCB layout i put the ram back in and didnt take care to put them in exactly the same positions. First boot into bios to load my Stable 3800 cl16 profile and it would not work. i wondered why?? i tried my 3733cl16 stable clock and again IT WOULD NOT BOOT!
> 
> After 2 days of testing and frustration i realised that the sticks were in random order.
> 
> Today i tried 6 Different combinations of which ram stick goes where. and it made a HUGE difference to how many errors i would receive in the stress test.
> 
> This may be known to other people but i never thought of this before since my kit is a 32gb kit and came with the 4 sticks in 1 package.
> 
> Im guessing this might have too do with the x570 gaming edge WIFI daisy chain.
> 
> @FlyByU have a go and see if this helps with your kit as i believe we have the same??


I never thought of it, but I'm glad you found out and things improved... I actually have the 2x8GB version.. If I try so, I think I'd lose my Dual Channel config, wouldn't I?


----------



## Ronski

KedarWolf said:


> This is what on going with, incredible 45 CFM.
> 
> But it can take over a month to get here from China to Canada.
> 
> Link might not being working as I copied it from my phone.
> 
> ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500-4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4
> 
> https://aliexpress.com/item/3275067...er_id=52919f963ddd4159af5357de038deb05&is_c=N


Tried mine today, fan's briefly spun when plugged in to a fan header and that was that. Connecting directly to a 12v PSU one fan spins, has a ticking noise and hardly moves any air, the other doesn't spin at all. I was going to fit different fans, but the brackets simply won't fit as my GPU is in the way. It was a gamble and not a lot of money.


----------



## Gerd_Gerdsen

Should i select Hynix CJR/DJR and memory rank 2 in the dram calculator?


----------



## rares495

Gerd_Gerdsen said:


> Should i select Hynix CJR/DJR and memory rank 2 in the dram calculator?


Yes.


----------



## hsn

thank you for the last tool. and my team xtreem finally past for the test

3800mhz 1.41v (didn't try to lower volt again) cl16-16-16-32


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Yes I have a makeshift fan, 120mm pointing at the memory, which helped a lot. I tried altering the above timings but still had the odd error. and the above adjustments did increase the time taken in memtest to around 106 seconds. So still fiddling.



Yeah I tried 560trfc and the timings I recommended you for a 40 cycle test when I went to bed and got a single error too with max dimm temp of 52c, woke up in the middle of the night and started tm5 again and the 2nd cycle ran error free(forgot to reset hwinfo64 so I don't know what peak dimm temps were). I think next time I run the tm5 I'll hook up my spare wraith stealth and try using that to cool the RAM below 50c.
I think it's safe to keep trp at 15 and trdwr at 10 because I've run 20cycle tm5 runs with those timings error free so the only other way to get rid of the rare errors would be to raise trrds/l to 6-9 but that really hurts performance so I don't want to do that, hopefully the stealth fan is enough to remove rare errors.


----------



## FranZe

First time i've seen 97 on my Membench, a small improvement, not that much but it is what it is


----------



## Gerd_Gerdsen

Is the membench feature in the dram calculator sufficient as a first stresstest? How should i go on after that? I'm checking temperatures right now with prime 95 running the long ram intense setting.


Edit: How long should i run prime 95 for a quick check?


----------



## DeusM

FlyByU said:


> I never thought of it, but I'm glad you found out and things improved... I actually have the 2x8GB version.. If I try so, I think I'd lose my Dual Channel config, wouldn't I?



Somebody can correct me if im wrong but i don't think for 2 sticks it will change.


From what i have read and my own conclusions it seems to stem from the Daisy Chain.






eg if you have a ram stick that is "stronger" it would be better in the primary position? i could be totally wrong about this.


but its also why iu think 2 sticks wont matter at all.


----------



## rares495

DeusM said:


> Somebody can correct me if im wrong but i don't think for 2 sticks it will change.
> 
> 
> From what i have read and my own conclusions it seems to stem from the Daisy Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eg if you have a ram stick that is "stronger" it would be better in the primary position? i could be totally wrong about this.
> 
> 
> but its also why iu think 2 sticks wont matter at all.


It could matter a little bit since the trace for the B2 slot is a bit longer. Will it be noticeable? I have no idea.


----------



## mongoled

FranZe said:


> First time i've seen 97 on my Membench, a small improvement, not that much but it is what it is


Hi!

Have you looked to see why your results do not follow other people results who have better timings at the same frequency ?

I am asking as the results you have shown are a huge jump to what is to be expected at the timings frequency you have in your screenshot.

I would expect such a score to either be using CAS latency of 12 or mem/fclk frequency in the 1966/3932 range.

Thanks


----------



## DeusM

rares495 said:


> It could matter a little bit since the trace for the B2 slot is a bit longer. Will it be noticeable? I have no idea.



I have no idea either how much of it is truth, but what i do know is if i swap my ram modules around it wont even boot at my current stable OC (3800c16)


One of the variations i tried did not even want to boot at 3733.


----------



## 2600ryzen

mongoled said:


> Hi!
> 
> Have you looked to see why your results do not follow other people results who have better timings at the same frequency ?
> 
> I am asking as the results you have shown are a huge jump to what is to be expected at the timings frequency you have in your screenshot.
> 
> I would expect such a score to either be using CAS latency of 12 or mem/fclk frequency in the 1966/3932 range.
> 
> Thanks



He has a 3900x which has 2 x the write speed of the 3800x or lower. Ronski who has the same RAM kit as me basically is over 5seconds faster than my time with the same timings because he has a 3900x vs my 3600.


----------



## FranZe

mongoled said:


> Hi!
> 
> Have you looked to see why your results do not follow other people results who have better timings at the same frequency ?
> 
> I am asking as the results you have shown are a huge jump to what is to be expected at the timings frequency you have in your screenshot.
> 
> I would expect such a score to either be using CAS latency of 12 or mem/fclk frequency in the 1966/3932 range.
> 
> Thanks


No, i've not  People are beating my time or getting almost the same time so there is nothing that is so exceptional when it comes to the time. I know its not bad, but it can also be better. The CPU count, 3600 and 3900X give different times. Times I see posted online are mostly used around 1.4v on the memory. Maybe MB also counts. I can not give you one answer to what you are asking. 101-103 is actually quite often I see with looser settings. 


Do you have a link or something like that to the other results you are referring to?


----------



## Yuke

FranZe said:


> No, i've not  People are beating my time or getting almost the same time so there is nothing that is so exceptional when it comes to the time. I know its not bad, but it can also be better. The CPU count, 3600 and 3900X give different times. Times I see posted online are mostly used around 1.4v on the memory. Maybe MB also counts. I can not give you one answer to what you are asking. 101-103 is actually quite often I see with looser settings.
> 
> 
> Do you have a link or something like that to the other results you are referring to?


There are so many variables its pointless to compare anyway. If your Windows installation is bloated like mine you gonna lose 1-2ms alone between fresh install and "now". My Mem-Benchmark also runs ~65% of its runtime on my weakest core = also less score.
Its useless if you dont use a flash bootdrive just for benchmarking (or a second Win installation on the same SSD) + an all core OC (which would also increase latency test but at least it will always run at the same cpu frequency).


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> He has a 3900x which has 2 x the write speed of the 3800x or lower. Ronski who has the same RAM kit as me basically is over 5seconds faster than my time with the same timings because he has a 3900x vs my 3600.


Maybe ive gotten this wrong then.

I just remember that it was a rarity to see anything below 100 seconds using any of the 3000 series chips irrespective of the double write performance



FranZe said:


> No, i've not  People are beating my time or getting almost the same time so there is nothing that is so exceptional when it comes to the time. I know its not bad, but it can also be better. The CPU count, 3600 and 3900X give different times. Times I see posted online are mostly used around 1.4v on the memory. Maybe MB also counts. I can not give you one answer to what you are asking. 101-103 is actually quite often I see with looser settings.
> 
> 
> Do you have a link or something like that to the other results you are referring to?


No as explained above, I dont have a link, just going off what I previously "remembered", its quite possible that I was sub-conciously filtering all results accept 3600 when I was looking at comparative times as somehow I was quite thrown by seeing sub 100 seconds and was curious as to why.

Anyhow, your results drove me to experiment with some of your settings and improving my memory performance so at least something positive has come out for me.



Can you link me to one of those results of other people who have better times than your 3900X ?

My latest result below


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> Maybe ive gotten this wrong then.
> 
> I just remember that it was a rarity to see anything below 100 seconds using any of the 3000 series chips irrespective of the double write performance
> 
> 
> No as explained above, I dont have a link, just going off what I previously "remembered", its quite possible that I was sub-conciously filtering all results accept 3600 when I was looking at comparative times as somehow I was quite thrown by seeing sub 100 seconds and was curious as to why.
> 
> Anyhow, your results drove me to experiment with some of your settings and improving my memory performance so at least something positive has come out for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you link me to one of those results of other people who have better times than your 3900X ?
> 
> My latest result below



I think it's related to cache and not memory write bandwidth.


----------



## 2600ryzen

mongoled said:


> Maybe ive gotten this wrong then.
> 
> I just remember that it was a rarity to see anything below 100 seconds using any of the 3000 series chips irrespective of the double write performance
> 
> 
> No as explained above, I dont have a link, just going off what I previously "remembered", its quite possible that I was sub-conciously filtering all results accept 3600 when I was looking at comparative times as somehow I was quite thrown by seeing sub 100 seconds and was curious as to why.
> 
> Anyhow, your results drove me to experiment with some of your settings and improving my memory performance so at least something positive has come out for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you link me to one of those results of other people who have better times than your 3900X ?
> 
> My latest result below



Those are pretty impressive benchmarks considering it's only 3533mhz.


----------



## t4t3r

I am trying to tweak memory again on my 3600x/X570 Taichi setup since I haven't messed with it for probably 4-5 months. I've got what's supposed to be a fantastic bin/kit in a 2x8 set of Team 4133 C19. The best I've been able to do with these is 3733 c16. My 3600x doesn't care much to go above 1867 IF, but I was still expecting to get closer to at least 3733 C14 with this kit.

I haven't had much luck with the DRAM Calc FAST preset, but I am basically in between SAFE and FAST (see screenshot). I've followed various guides so far - thoughts on what I'm doing wrong?


----------



## Guillaume51100

Hello possible improvements ?
Gskill Trident Neo 3600 c16 (b die)


----------



## FranZe

mongoled said:


> Maybe ive gotten this wrong then.
> 
> I just remember that it was a rarity to see anything below 100 seconds using any of the 3000 series chips irrespective of the double write performance
> 
> 
> No as explained above, I dont have a link, just going off what I previously "remembered", its quite possible that I was sub-conciously filtering all results accept 3600 when I was looking at comparative times as somehow I was quite thrown by seeing sub 100 seconds and was curious as to why.
> 
> Anyhow, your results drove me to experiment with some of your settings and improving my memory performance so at least something positive has come out for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you link me to one of those results of other people who have better times than your 3900X ?
> 
> My latest result below


For an 3600 thats a very good result 

I've no link with better time on the hand, but it started here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ster-overclocking-thread-19.html#post28283676
There you can see that the time i had is not far from what others can do, and that was with almost 80 higher on trfc. So its possible 

And i just kept trying  


Something good came out of it in the end, I got you in the mood to reach new heights, not bad just that


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> Those are pretty impressive benchmarks considering it's only 3533mhz.


No no



That would be amazing and impossible also!

The frequency is 3766/1888 as I am running a BCLK of 106.875


----------



## mongoled

FranZe said:


> For an 3600 thats a very good result
> 
> I've no link with better time on the hand, but it started here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ster-overclocking-thread-19.html#post28283676
> There you can see that the time i had is not far from what others can do, and that was with almost 80 higher on trfc. So its possible
> 
> And i just kept trying
> 
> 
> Something good came out of it in the end, I got you in the mood to reach new heights, not bad just that


Yup its a great result and TM5 stable, I dont know if it agesa ComboAm4PI 1.0.0.6 or running tRCDRW at 8, but I could never get those settings stable before when using tRDCRW of 14 on previous agesa that was available for the BIOS which I think was 1.0.0.4.

Will have a look at the thread you posted


----------



## mongoled

rares495 said:


> I think it's related to cache and not memory write bandwidth.


Most probably, 

I was just relaying back to what 2600ryzen said regards the double write performance.

It also looks that increased clock speed along with the cache that is giving a performance boost..


----------



## Ronski

Gerd_Gerdsen said:


> Is the membench feature in the dram calculator sufficient as a first stresstest? How should i go on after that? I'm checking temperatures right now with prime 95 running the long ram intense setting.
> 
> 
> Edit: How long should i run prime 95 for a quick check?


I've found the following two programs very useful for quickly finding if my memory is stable.

TestMem5 (free)
Karho Ram test $10

TM5 by default runs 5 test cycles, you can edit the cfg file to increase the cycles, 5 is good for a quick test, 20+ for stability
Karho 5000% for a quick test 10,000% for stability.

Both seem to find errors pretty quickly.

Other have mentioned Y-Cruncher but I've found that will run fine, for 3 or even 4 iterations, then the above two find errors.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Yeah I tried 560trfc and the timings I recommended you for a 40 cycle test when I went to bed and got a single error too with max dimm temp of 52c, woke up in the middle of the night and started tm5 again and the 2nd cycle ran error free(forgot to reset hwinfo64 so I don't know what peak dimm temps were). I think next time I run the tm5 I'll hook up my spare wraith stealth and try using that to cool the RAM below 50c.
> I think it's safe to keep trp at 15 and trdwr at 10 because I've run 20cycle tm5 runs with those timings error free so the only other way to get rid of the rare errors would be to raise trrds/l to 6-9 but that really hurts performance so I don't want to do that, hopefully the stealth fan is enough to remove rare errors.


That's good to get to 40 cycles, I've been testing to 20 and last night thought I'd made it as it was on the 18 cycle and still clear, came back later and had three errors, Karho also had errors pretty quickly- a lot quicker than TM5. Y-Cruncher seems to run fine every time I try it.

I've just noticed some of your timings a different to mine, so I've just changed them and trying that. I'll also need to sort out better cooling for the ram, the top of the sticks are about 45c, the bottom is closer to 40c, its also about 26c ambient here at the moment.

Once stable I'll still need to sort out my reboot issue, as in it doesn't reboot, just sits there doing nothing, but turning off and on again always boots fine.


----------



## jeremy.b

Ronski said:


> Once stable I'll still need to sort out my reboot issue, as in it doesn't reboot, just sits there doing nothing, but turning off and on again always boots fine.


 @Veii mentioned something about boot issues being tied to ProcODT/CAD Bus.



Veii said:


> ....
> Bad procODT would cause only full post issues, cold boot and warm boot issues belong to CAD_BUS
> ....


You might need to bump ClkDrvStren up to 24/40 or make other general CAD_BUS adjustments to clean it up.


----------



## Solohuman

I notice this DRAM calc does not give option to tell it if one has either 2x8GB or 2x16GB kit. I'm presuming if one marks dual rank sticks for 32GB kit, it will pick it up??


----------



## FlyByU

DeusM said:


> Somebody can correct me if im wrong but i don't think for 2 sticks it will change.
> 
> From what i have read and my own conclusions it seems to stem from the Daisy Chain.
> 
> eg if you have a ram stick that is "stronger" it would be better in the primary position? i could be totally wrong about this.
> 
> but its also why iu think 2 sticks wont matter at all.


If that is the case, and based on the previous image: I have them in the best slots. I'd just need to swap positions and see if it improves...


----------



## rares495

Solohuman said:


> I notice this DRAM calc does not give option to tell it if one has either 2x8GB or 2x16GB kit. I'm presuming if one marks dual rank sticks for 32GB kit, it will pick it up??



16GB sticks are usually dual rank so you can just select Rank: 2 in the calculator.


----------



## Solohuman

rares495 said:


> 16GB sticks are usually dual rank so you can just select Rank: 2 in the calculator.


Got it, thanks. 
Here's the readout for my new sticks.
Now to tune this up as far as possible for daily use.


----------



## FranZe

mongoled said:


> Yup its a great result and TM5 stable, I dont know if it agesa ComboAm4PI 1.0.0.6 or running tRCDRW at 8, but I could never get those settings stable before when using tRDCRW of 14 on previous agesa that was available for the BIOS which I think was 1.0.0.4.
> 
> Will have a look at the thread you posted


I must admit that the 97 sec Membench i was showing earlier wasnt TM5 stable (because of 258 trfc), and i do like to pass memtests. 301 trfc is TM5 stable. I like to do at least 50 runs with TM5 and Karhu over night. I also like to stay under or right over 1.5v on the memory. I'm on agesa 1.0.0.4 btw


----------



## DDSZ

Solohuman said:


> Got it, thanks.
> Here's the readout for my new sticks.
> Now to tune this up as far as possible for daily use.


Be aware that I have Trident Z kit with the same XMP profile, which is reported as CJR in the Thaiphoon Burner, but it is actually JJR, so not all Calc parameters will work. There is a sticker on the stick, mine says 04266X8820J, where J means JJR. From my observation JJR needs bigger tRFC, so take care 
It would be cool if someone here with JJR could share their experiences, especially with dual-rank sticks


----------



## Veii

DeusM said:


> Hi guys,
> @FlyByU i have gotten to 3800cl16 with these settings. First shot of testmem5 25 cycles there was 0 errors
> The second run i just completed showed me 2 errors. Error no3 and error no4
> If anybody can help what do these errors mean? More voltage? soc? loosen timings?


Non of either,
Error 3 & 4 by checking the MT.cfg - are MirrorMove errors
That set shows tRFC 2 issues and this tRFC "auto predicted" ? is wrong.
tRFC is so far always even 
as tRFC stepping are 32,16,8,4,2 , ~ 319 would be plain wrong
Also tWRRD should be 4 , as 4* X = 16 , 4 fits (it should undershoot but not overshoot)



LuckyBahstard said:


> *I have a question then, for the group here...* so have you found PBO to be the difference in stability? (_that's a yes, I'm sure_) And, have you found a way to work it back in, but perhaps with boost limits or offsets to help prevent the chance of mem errors?
> 
> I assume this is what gave me a random Sony (Magix) Vegas error during video editing, even though I thought I had a stable 3733. I could have just turned off or tuned PBO and probably been fine.


It does, as when the memory controller stress increases, so does procODT
when procODT increases, vSOC overall needs to be adjusted higher 
vCore plays a bit of a role too, soo as PBO does increase overall and average allcore voltage - it can happen that on an allcore, it takes too much voltage 

You can drive against it by limiting TDC & EDC
EDC especially always peaking at 100% will limit allcore voltage
although it will already limit it's range, even when you meet the 80% target
Seems to be, % stress to SMU limits go hand in hand and are predefined after which step, by how much should it should drop 



algida79 said:


> @*Veii* thank you very much for your suggestions. I will work on them and report back. What changes can I make to the timings before I start playing with new combinations of ProcODT, CAD_BUS, RTT to ensure timings are 100% not the issue? Could you suggest a loose but correct set of timings for this purpose? Current set is the calculator's Safe profile for 3600MT/s.


The calculators set probably is more stable than what i can suggest
Yuri's presets where all pre-tested and confirmed to work
I can suggest you something on an edit, or remake the whole set
But would need to know your tRCD limits, remind me your IC and PCB layout & maybe what SCL you have tested
tRCD depends on the kit, what is easy to run for someone else, might not even post for you 

Else , have you figured it out till now ?



zsoltmol said:


> Hi @Veii,
> Maybe I have traced down my issues to memory timings. And I would like to request your help. You share a lot of information in your posts, but I'm a bit lost to properly understand them. Memory holes, voltages, MT/sec, etc
> 
> Here is my current setup:
> CPU SOC with negative offset of 0.01250v (HWinfo report: 1.088 idle, 1.072 multi core load)
> 4x8GB Samsung b-die single rank memory in Asus C8H
> PBO: enabled with motherboard limits, Scalar 1X, 0MHz uplift
> What voltages do you suggest to set, I want to avoid I give too high voltage to parts. Can I decrease some of them?


I'm sorry, it's quite a lot of different information
But you can learn about the memory hole issue back then, on 1usmus's main page of this thread "cLDO_VDDP single error" 
and i suggest to read the old Techpowerup plus current Guide of him.
It shares a lot of maybe complicated but useful information 

When it comes to voltages, you know your board is Daisy Chain correct ?
Do you know the PCB of your dimms ?
I would suggest to figure that out, when you want to run run 4 dimms on Daisy Chain, where the signal is split 75/25%
If you have 4x A0 PCBs, it doesn't matter
But if you have 4x A2 PCBs, you'll have a hard time 
At best figure out which PCB these kits are on, to optimise placing a bit 
It would be even better if you can spare the time to figure out what the lowest voltage of each set is, at which of both will have negative scaling beyond 1.46 VDIMM

About voltage presets
It's not thaat much of an issue these days, but try to keep cLDO_VDDP to a fixed known to work voltage
900mV is known to work well up till 1900FCLK,
pass 950 only when you go beyond 1900FCLK
We know that 900 works across the whole range, but we don't know if 910 works across the whole range
For success, on 4 dimms - push more IOD and increase ClkDrvStrengh under CAD_BUS / in order to lower procODT more 

cLDO_VDDP 900mV
VDDG CCD 950mV
VDDG IOD 1000mV
vSOC 1075mV
^ for vSOC , if you want to keep it variable - adjust loadline to match 1075 and never fall bellow 1050 in any case

The global negative offset might cause you issues under low voltage lows, soo be sure to doublecheck vdroop on AVX2 tests
For example the whole y-cruncher test suite, and prime95 LargeFFT 



Dollar said:


> So today I decided I wanted to see how things performed with two sticks instead of the usual four. This led me to discover the sad fact that Patriot sent me a mismatched PCB kit .... I bought two 2x8 kits of the same 4133 bin Viper Steel. Three of these sticks have A0 pcb but one has something different.... It appears to be the same A2 pcb shown on the 4400 viper steels
> 
> So yeah, Patriot sold me a kit with one A0 stick and one A2 stick in the same package. @Veii or anyone else, how does this affect overclocking? Three A0 sticks and one A2 stick.... Is it worth begging Patriot for an RMA? They all work so I'm expecting to get denied.


If they missmatched one set of kits, RMA it
If you sadly bought it dimm by dimm - sorry but they might or might not accept

Viper is pretty chill usually when it comes to RMAs,
You might even be able to RMA the whole set and get only 2 dimms of higher capacity
Depends, but yes RMA
Memory goes into groups, same as bank group swap will adjust work
the difference between A0 and A2 big, you would need to overvolt the whole A0 set just to match A2 requirements
If you can , RMA - if you can't, try to sell it or buy a single 4400 C19-19 kit and sell it as a set of two A2's 
Then later buy a single 4000CL19-19 , and it will be A0 

4x A0 is easy to work with, 2x A2 and 2x A0 is alright under daisy chain
But 4x A0 is easier even on T.Topology , although 4000MT/s is around peak limit before the PCB starts to be an OC issue



helsyeah said:


> I'm pretty happy with that so far.
> 
> @Veii (or anyone else for that matter!) I have some specific questions:
> 
> Is there any way to lower vSOC by tweaking other values? (I don't fully understand how the voltages/impedance relate to each other)
> Can tRD WR be reduced back to 8 by adjusting other timings and still obtaining a performance boost?
> How would I go about (if possible) stabilizing lower SCL values since I'm seeing errors/crashes going below 4?
> 
> I'll say this is a fun, although complex! project, tons more for me to learn!


vSOC you can only lower if procODT is low
procODT you get low by working with CAD_BUS (lower everything except ClkDrvStrengh) and maybe increase RTT values till you can get away GDM
2T GDM even if it's slower will only work, if CAD_BUS & RTT is correct 

Also lower the main voltages,
you need to adapt cLDO_VDDP and VDDG if you want to have vSOC moving near 1050mV
Also i recommend to enable UncoreOC mode , soo the CPU doesn't autocorrect custom voltage sets, visible here
If you want to spare the time, you can try to play with "CAD_BUS Timings" and increase memory voltage
They change according to frequency, between 50-60 is useful
It does define the signal cut time, and is useful if you rock unstable kits under very high VDIMM
It will add latency, but is useful when you run ClkDrvStrengh of 120ohm 
This should help you hit higher FCLK, but needs a lot of testing work to figure lowest correct CAD_BUS Timing

Else lowering thermals works by finetuning TDC, EDC values
There is no need to go too low on voltages, if your main goal is saving power 



DeusM said:


> I think my problem is how hot my ram is getting in gaming and under load.
> Up to 46.1c and i was reading that above 40c it will throw random numbers which will explain why i can run TM5 perfect one day and not the next.
> Example. 3 nights ago i had 0 errors. 2 nights ago i had 2 errors on number 3 and 4 so i gave it a bit more voltage and last night it have me errors on 1 and 15.
> 3 tests 3 different results.
> Im going to buy a small 40mm fan to blow directly over the ram to see if it will help.


Yes it could be thermals related, but you could just change the set of timings
Increase tRP and maybe lower tWR soo tRAS changes, and tRC remains
Increasing tRP will combat high thermals, as it will take longer to (p)recharge cells, and not timeout

Error 3,4 remain timeout issues, but have you fixed tWRRD at this post up to 4 with tRDWR 9 ?
You should be able to lower even tRDWR to 8 , while using tWRRD 4
tRFC 2 and 4 was wrong, but i think you did fix it already ?

B-Dies overall get unstable after 42c
It's a chance to be unstable, and up to timing harshness, even at 48c they won't get unstable
Keep tRFC correct, and increase tRP is you have voltage/heat issues 
It's recommend, if you can't run GDM Disabled with 2T, to finetune first CAD_BUS 
You might be able to run 30-20-20-20 - this will also lower heat across the whole board 



Awsan said:


> Tried 60-20-20-20 and it gave an error in the first 2 mins in TM5


Between 60-20-20-20 and 60-20-20-24 is a big difference 
You can see if 40-20-24-24 runs, or 60-20-24-24 with lower procODT


----------



## algida79

Veii said:


> The calculators set probably is more stable than what i can suggest
> Yuri's presets where all pre-tested and confirmed to work
> I can suggest you something on an edit, or remake the whole set
> But would need to know your tRCD limits, remind me your IC and PCB layout & maybe what SCL you have tested
> tRCD depends on the kit, what is easy to run for someone else, might not even post for you
> 
> Else , have you figured it out till now ?



Thanks @Veii but I have abandoned the idea of 3600MT/s altogether. I tried to calculate the possible combinations and I don't think I would finish testing all of them in this life! 




Spoiler



Vdimm (1.35, 1.36, 1.37)
Vsoc (1.025, 1.05, 1.075, 1.1)
CLDO VDDP (700, 866, 900, 1050)
ProcODT (53.3, 60, 68.6)
RttNom (off, RZQ/7, RZQ/6, RZQ/5)
RttWr (off, RZQ/3)
RttPark (off, RZQ/1)
CADBUS (24-24-24-24, 20-20-20-20, 24-20-20-24, 24-20-20-30, 24-20-24-24, 30-20-20-30, 30-20-20-60, 60-20-20-30, 60-20-20-60, 60-20-20-24, 60-20-24-24)
GDM (on, off)

Max configurations to test = 3 * 4 * 4 * 3 * 4 * 2 * 2 * 11 * 2 = 50688






I am now concentrating on 3533 tuning where I am having some encouraging results already. Photos of the kit:




Spoiler












































Gradual tightening is still in progress, so far made it to this config:


Spoiler



3533MHz, Vsoc 1.025V, Vdimm 1.35V, timings 16-18-16-16-36-56-4-6-16-3-6-24-5-5-(576/428/263)-16-12-8-4-1-7-7-1-5-5-1, Cmd2T 1T, GDM on, PDM off, ProcODT 60.0, RttNom RZQ/7(34), RttWr RZQ/3(80), RttPark RZQ/1(240), DrvStr 24-24-24-24/0-0-0, CLDO VDDP 900



passing 30 cycles of TM5 last night. By the looks of things, tonight I will be testing this config:


Spoiler


----------



## Ronski

helsyeah said:


> @Veii mentioned something about boot issues being tied to ProcODT/CAD Bus.
> 
> 
> 
> You might need to bump ClkDrvStren up to 24/40 or make other general CAD_BUS adjustments to clean it up.


Thanks for this info, here's the scores you asked for in your PM. No idea why Maxxmem2 doesn't show my system spec or latency - I've contacted the author.

Edited to add last nights results, sub 104 second Membench, 1 error in 20 cycles of TM5


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Thanks for this info, here's the scores you asked for in your PM. No idea why Maxxmem2 doesn't show my system spec or latency - I've contacted the author.
> 
> Edited to add last nights results, sub 104 second Membench, 1 error in 20 cycles of TM5



I got another single error in tm5 100 cycles too last night, I've tried raising trtp-trp-twr-trdwr and tfaw and none of those have fixed the rare errors. Only thing left to try is raising trrds-l to 5-8 or 6-9, raising trcdwr to 10 or raising Trfc to 592 or higher. 
I think tonight I'll try raising trfc to 608 and leave raising trrds-l for later.


Another way to get some faster benchmark performance I tried yesterday is raising tcwl to 16 and trdwr-twrrd to 8-3 instead of 11-1. That might get you half a second I don't know if that's stable though.


----------



## hsn

Thank you for this tool

3800 cl16-15-15-30 1.41v
soc 1.1v

10 cycle testmem


----------



## Awsan

hsn said:


> Thank you for this tool
> 
> 3800 cl16-15-15-30 1.41v
> soc 1.1v
> 
> 10 cycle testmem


Is it stable with 1900mhz Fclk as its running @ 1:2 right now


----------



## Solohuman

DDSZ said:


> Be aware that I have Trident Z kit with the same XMP profile, which is reported as CJR in the Thaiphoon Burner, but it is actually JJR, so not all Calc parameters will work. There is a sticker on the stick, mine says 04266X8820J, where J means JJR. From my observation JJR needs bigger tRFC, so take care
> It would be cool if someone here with JJR could share their experiences, especially with dual-rank sticks


Thanks! yeah I found that out with Memtest v8.4 Free edition pretty quickly, got errors in tests 4... loosened up subtimings a bit, rebooted..another error in test 6, repeat again & passes all tests ok now. 
Starting off with safe settings & increasing frequency step by step... 
Don't want more then 1.355 Vdimm or 1.025 SOC despite having a well ventilated & big case around it all.
I'll put a screenshot up in windows after RAM testing there when done.


----------



## hsn

Awsan said:


> Is it stable with 1900mhz Fclk as its running @ 1:2 right now


Yes now with 1:1


----------



## 2600ryzen

2600ryzen said:


> I got another single error in tm5 100 cycles too last night, I've tried raising trtp-trp-twr-trdwr and tfaw and none of those have fixed the rare errors. Only thing left to try is raising trrds-l to 5-8 or 6-9, raising trcdwr to 10 or raising Trfc to 592 or higher.
> I think tonight I'll try raising trfc to 608 and leave raising trrds-l for later.
> 
> 
> Another way to get some faster benchmark performance I tried yesterday is raising tcwl to 16 and trdwr-twrrd to 8-3 instead of 11-1. That might get you half a second I don't know if that's stable though.



Ok I discovered running a vmware machine in the background causes me to error every 2-3 tm5 cycles instead of every 50 so I've been able to narrow down the cause of the random errors quicker to trcdwr, changing it to 10 seems to fix the random errors. That's good news it means I wont have to raise trrds/l or trfc(tried that and it didn't fix the errors only raising trcdwr fixed them).
I'll attach a pic of my current stable timings. Maybe I can lower trfc back down to 560.


----------



## caenlen

when it says SOC voltage 1.1, which SOC voltage does it mean? my mobo has 2 SOC voltages... one is under CPU so I am guessing it doesn't mean that one? i don't want to change anything under the CPU correct for pure ryzen calculator? a couple of the settings look very similar is why its confusing.


edit nm: it does mean the SoC voltage under CPU not chipset. derp I am an idiot.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Another way to get some faster benchmark performance I tried yesterday is raising tcwl to 16 and trdwr-twrrd to 8-3 instead of 11-1. That might get you half a second I don't know if that's stable though.


I tried this and it didn't seem to make any difference, still just over 104 seconds. Didn't test for stability.



2600ryzen said:


> Ok I discovered running a vmware machine in the background causes me to error every 2-3 tm5 cycles instead of every 50 so I've been able to narrow down the cause of the random errors quicker to trcdwr, changing it to 10 seems to fix the random errors. That's good news it means I wont have to raise trrds/l or trfc(tried that and it didn't fix the errors only raising trcdwr fixed them).
> I'll attach a pic of my current stable timings. Maybe I can lower trfc back down to 560.


Your new timings come out at around 105 seconds, or 106 if I use your tRFC as well - just going to check stability.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Actually those timings didn't turn out stable last night so back to the drawing board. Really struggling to work out what the offending timing/s is/are. Maybe tcwl doesn't like being 14? or trrds/l needs to be 6-9. I tested 5-8 and it still failed stability though.


----------



## Solohuman

Guys, I have a setting in my bios that is called - DRAM Latency Enhance. Should I disable this or what? to be on the safe side, I leave it on default auto for now.

Tried 3200MHz with safe settings but would not boot with tRFC 419 so tried alternate 464 & success. Did a successful test with Memtest v8.4 free edition 
However the bandwidth is now worse than at 2933 with safe settings.

Going to try for 3333MHz with safe settings but won't boot with tRFC 436 as suggested in the calculator, tried alt 480 & boot ok for further Memtest runs


----------



## caenlen

Solohuman said:


> Guys, I have a setting in my bios that is called - DRAM Latency Enhance. Should I disable this or what? to be on the safe side, I leave it on default auto for now.



I also would like to know this, my MSI X570 Tomahawk comes default with it disabled. i am curious if i should enable or not?


----------



## Solohuman

caenlen said:


> I also would like to know this, my MSI X570 Tomahawk comes default with it disabled. i am curious if i should enable or not?


Even though we don't have exactly the same mobo, at least the X570 is common. 

I ran the CL recommended from the calculator among all the other settings suggested & the system would not boot. This is with safe settings only.

Disabled that DRAM latency enhance option & system simply would not boot, even in its recovery mode from bad OC. 

Had to shorten the clear cmos to get it rebooting again.... although it still would not boot with suggested
CL 14, so I upped it to 16 (cause' Ryzen don't like odd number CL) I am definitely leaving it on it's default 'auto' option & now doing 2nd run of Memtest @ 3333MHz with recommended safe settings for my particular UDIMMs, so far so good!


----------



## rastaviper

Anyone with a 
G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3200C15D-16GTZ 
who has managed to keep them stable at 3773 with timings 14-14-14?

The best I can do is 3733 15-14-14.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## mongoled

rastaviper said:


> Anyone with a
> G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3600C15D-16GTZ
> who has managed to keep them stable at 3773 with timings 14-14-14?
> 
> The best I can do is 3733 15-14-14.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Is the 15 CAS latency ??

I have captured screenshot with CAS latency of 14-14-15-14 at higher frequency but not all 14s, the issue was never with CAS latency but with tRCDRD, I could only get rock stable at frequencies over 3733 mhz with it set to 15.

Could benchmark all 14s no issue but TM5 stable was a no go ......


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> Is the 15 CAS latency ??
> 
> I have captured screenshot with CAS latency of 14-14-15-14 at higher frequency but not all 14s, the issue was never with CAS latency but with tRCDRD, I could only get rock stable at frequencies over 3733 mhz with it set to 15.
> 
> Could benchmark all 14s no issue but TM5 stable was a no go ......



My kit is the same. Cannot set tRCDRD lower than 15 or I get instant errors. I did go crazy with everything else, though.


----------



## mongoled

FranZe said:


> For an 3600 thats a very good result
> 
> I've no link with better time on the hand, but it started here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ster-overclocking-thread-19.html#post28283676
> There you can see that the time i had is not far from what others can do, and that was with almost 80 higher on trfc. So its possible
> 
> And i just kept trying
> 
> 
> Something good came out of it in the end, I got you in the mood to reach new heights, not bad just that


So I went through that thread (page 15 to 34), but I could see no one else that was sub 100, the lowest score with a 3900x was 100.81 and the person says "just on the edge of stable"

The next lowest score was 101.29

I would love to see some of those other sub 100 results so we can all see how those peeps achieved it.

As 3 seconds is a huge amount to make up on this benchmark, thats what really got my curiosity going


----------



## mongoled

rares495 said:


> My kit is the same. Cannot set tRCDRD lower than 15 or I get instant errors. I did go crazy with everything else, though.


I no longer have the kit, but your kit sounds similar to the kit I had, could whack it with everything else but tRCDRD was a hard limit ...


----------



## rastaviper

mongoled said:


> Is the 15 CAS latency ??
> 
> 
> 
> I have captured screenshot with CAS latency of 14-14-15-14 at higher frequency but not all 14s, the issue was never with CAS latency but with tRCDRD, I could only get rock stable at frequencies over 3733 mhz with it set to 15.
> 
> 
> 
> Could benchmark all 14s no issue but TM5 stable was a no go ......


Yes buddy,
First is always the CAS.
In AIDA I can go down to 62.7 ns, but I want to push more in other benchmarks with higher CPU clocks too.

And which benchmarks you could run with all 14 at 3733?
CB20 and CB15 too?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## mongoled

rastaviper said:


> Yes buddy,
> First is always the CAS.
> In AIDA I can go down to 62.7 ns, but I want to push more in other benchmarks with higher CPU clocks too.
> 
> And which benchmarks you could run with all 14 at 3733?
> CB20 and CB15 too?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


Yes, I know, just needed to double check as i thought you would have been aware that these most b-die seem to have the same hard limit with regards to tRCDRD.

I didnt test extensivly, as first and foremost im looking for a 24/7 stable system, but if I remember correctly I probably ran some CB20 and 3DMark firestrike.....


----------



## jeremy.b

2600ryzen said:


> Actually those timings didn't turn out stable last night so back to the drawing board. Really struggling to work out what the offending timing/s is/are. Maybe tcwl doesn't like being 14? or trrds/l needs to be 6-9. I tested 5-8 and it still failed stability though.


Which error are you getting in TM5?


----------



## rastaviper

mongoled said:


> Yes, I know, just needed to double check as i thought you would have been aware that these most b-die seem to have the same hard limit with regards to tRCDRD.
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt test extensivly, as first and foremost im looking for a 24/7 stable system, but if I remember correctly I probably ran some CB20 and 3DMark firestrike.....


Btw, I have the 3200 not 3600 version.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## zsoltmol

Veii said:


> I'm sorry, it's quite a lot of different information
> But you can learn about the memory hole issue back then, on 1usmus's main page of this thread "cLDO_VDDP single error"
> and i suggest to read the old Techpowerup plus current Guide of him.
> It shares a lot of maybe complicated but useful information
> 
> When it comes to voltages, you know your board is Daisy Chain correct ?
> Do you know the PCB of your dimms ?
> I would suggest to figure that out, when you want to run run 4 dimms on Daisy Chain, where the signal is split 75/25%
> If you have 4x A0 PCBs, it doesn't matter
> But if you have 4x A2 PCBs, you'll have a hard time
> At best figure out which PCB these kits are on, to optimise placing a bit
> It would be even better if you can spare the time to figure out what the lowest voltage of each set is, at which of both will have negative scaling beyond 1.46 VDIMM
> 
> About voltage presets
> It's not thaat much of an issue these days, but try to keep cLDO_VDDP to a fixed known to work voltage
> 900mV is known to work well up till 1900FCLK,
> pass 950 only when you go beyond 1900FCLK
> We know that 900 works across the whole range, but we don't know if 910 works across the whole range
> For success, on 4 dimms - push more IOD and increase ClkDrvStrengh under CAD_BUS / in order to lower procODT more
> 
> cLDO_VDDP 900mV
> VDDG CCD 950mV
> VDDG IOD 1000mV
> vSOC 1075mV
> ^ for vSOC , if you want to keep it variable - adjust loadline to match 1075 and never fall bellow 1050 in any case
> 
> The global negative offset might cause you issues under low voltage lows, soo be sure to doublecheck vdroop on AVX2 tests
> For example the whole y-cruncher test suite, and prime95 LargeFFT


Thanks! I have changed some settings before seeing your post. I know it is a daisy 

My ram is G.Skill F4-3600C16-8GTZR x4 dimms (XMP: 3600MHz [email protected]), according to Thyphoon Burner it is A1 PCB type by SK Hynix
Currently I run 1.38V with these timings:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=360720&thumb=1

These are my voltages:
cLDO_VDDP 903mV
VDDG CCD 864mV
VDDG IOD 864mV
vSOC 1072mV - 1052mV range (negative offset type setting in BIOS)

Y-cruncher and CB20 multi puts vSOC down to 1062mV-1052mV, but never below it. System seems to be stable at 3666/1833 with these settings, 3733/1866 is not yet.
What I should set ClkDrvStrengh to?


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Actually those timings didn't turn out stable last night so back to the drawing board. Really struggling to work out what the offending timing/s is/are. Maybe tcwl doesn't like being 14? or trrds/l needs to be 6-9. I tested 5-8 and it still failed stability though.


It was a lot better for me, testing with Karho my first error occurred at 17222% after 8 hours 38 minutes.

PS. I've set my memory to 1.425v, and have CPU V-core and CPU VDDCR_SOC LLC both set to level 3. I noticed after a BIOS reset that these were both level 3, but my saved BIOS settings had them as Level 1, not sure if this has helped or not.


----------



## nick name

Ronski said:


> It was a lot better for me, testing with Karho my first error occurred at 17222% after 8 hours 38 minutes.
> 
> PS. I've set my memory to 1.425v, and have CPU V-core and CPU VDDCR_SOC LLC both set to level 3. I noticed after a BIOS reset that these were both level 3, but my saved BIOS settings had them as Level 1, not sure if this has helped or not.


I'd also consider heat. Did you have HWiNFO running during the test?


----------



## caenlen

im getting 68 ns latency with 3600 cas-14-14-14-34 is this good or bad? just want to make sure im sitting good


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> It was a lot better for me, testing with Karho my first error occurred at 17222% after 8 hours 38 minutes.
> 
> PS. I've set my memory to 1.425v, and have CPU V-core and CPU VDDCR_SOC LLC both set to level 3. I noticed after a BIOS reset that these were both level 3, but my saved BIOS settings had them as Level 1, not sure if this has helped or not.


Yeah that's much more stable than it was. I managed to run overnight error free with trrds/l at 6-9 tfaw 30 and twtrs/l 5-14. Raising twtrs/l to 5-14 seemed to help especially with getting consistent Aida64 latency results every boot.
Hopefully twtrs/l is what allowed me to run error free I'm going to try trrds/l at 4-6 again, raising those to 6-9 hurts Dram calculator benchmark by 2-3 seconds.


----------



## Solohuman

caenlen said:


> im getting 68 ns latency with 3600 cas-14-14-14-34 is this good or bad? just want to make sure im sitting good


How are you measuring this, what app?


----------



## rares495

caenlen said:


> im getting 68 ns latency with 3600 cas-14-14-14-34 is this good or bad? just want to make sure im sitting good


I'm assuming this is Aida64 latency? If yes, it's alright.


----------



## 2600ryzen

caenlen said:


> im getting 68 ns latency with 3600 cas-14-14-14-34 is this good or bad? just want to make sure im sitting good



It's OK but you should be getting better. I get 68ns [email protected] with 16-18-16-34.


----------



## 2600ryzen

nick name said:


> I'd also consider heat. Did you have HWiNFO running during the test?



He has a 120mm fan pointed at the sticks so temps should be fine. I have the same kit with no cooling besides the cpu fan and the hottest dimm peaks at 53c, I also ran testmem5 with my cpu fan off and dimm temps got up to 59c. I didn't get any errors running them at 59c for 3 cycles.


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> It's OK but you should be getting better. I get 68ns [email protected] with 16-18-16-34.


You cant really say that unless you know what frequency his CPU is running at because the latency test is CPU frequency sensitive and we know that you are running at 4.4 Ghz all core "stable"


----------



## 2600ryzen

mongoled said:


> You cant really say that unless you know what frequency his CPU is running at because the latency test is CPU frequency sensitive and we know that you are running at 4.4 Ghz all core "stable"



I assumed he's running at least 4.2ghz maybe he's not? My 4.4ghz is aida64 and realbench stable not p95 small fft stable, no issues so far and I overclocked my 2600 using aida64 and realbench and I had no issues with that. I can't run y-cruncher with this OC though.


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> I assumed he's running at least 4.2ghz maybe he's not? My 4.4ghz is aida64 and realbench stable not p95 small fft stable, no issues so far and I overclocked my 2600 using aida64 and realbench and I had no issues with that. I can't run y-cruncher with this OC though.


Totally understood, I put "stable" as we all have different interpretations regarding this.

As 4.4 Ghz all core for AVX2 intensive stuff is really hard on the CPU.

Hopefully the poster will update if he is running PBO or all core overclock as than he can get better advice


----------



## nick name

In Aida -- I get lower latency with a static overclock even when that overclock is at lower clock speeds.


----------



## 2600ryzen

nick name said:


> In Aida -- I get lower latency with a static overclock even when that overclock is at lower clock speeds.



Stock/pbo can only change frequency every 15ms so you could be stuck at your idle frequency for the first 14ms of the latency benchmark.


----------



## rastaviper

mongoled said:


> You cant really say that unless you know what frequency his CPU is running at because the latency test is CPU frequency sensitive and we know that you are running at 4.4 Ghz all core "stable"


Exactly to the point.
Maybe 68 ns is a ok latency for 4.200mhz, but it's not ok for 4.4+ghz

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

rastaviper said:


> Exactly to the point.
> Maybe 68 ns is a ok latency for 4.200mhz, but it's not ok for 4.4+ghz
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk



I was thinking his RAM must be Samsung b die so he should be getting 3-4ns better than my rev E kit. The difference in latency between 4.4ghz and 4.2ghz is only 0.4ns.


----------



## Alexshunter

Can I tighten anything more? I'm not really satisfied with scores.


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> Can I tighten anything more? I'm not really satisfied with scores.


tRFC 252-187-115

tWTRL 8

tRDRD 5, 5

tWRWR 7, 7

tWRRD 1

SCLs lower than 4

But you won't get much more at 3733.


----------



## Awsan

Alexshunter said:


> Can I tighten anything more? I'm not really satisfied with scores.


That 59.8 is a dream for everyone.
Gaming wise I think you are as good as it gets , A good EDC profile and you will have a gaming monster.


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> That 59.8 is a dream for everyone.
> Gaming wise I think you are as good as it gets , A good EDC profile and you will have a gaming monster.


It's bad for a 3300X. 

They can do 55-ish with top tier memory.


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> It's bad for a 3300X.
> 
> They can do 55-ish with top tier memory.


ohh, didn't know they were that tight :thumb:


----------



## Ronski

nick name said:


> I'd also consider heat. Did you have HWiNFO running during the test?


No I didn't have HWinfo running, presumably your referring to memory temperature, unfortunately my budget memory doesn't have temperature sensors. When I originally built the PC I did have a lot of crashes, fitting a spare 120mm fan blowing on the memory helped a lot. I'm probably going to make a better memory cooler at some point - my GPU is really tight against the DIM slots so the memory coolers I have don't fit.



2600ryzen said:


> Yeah that's much more stable than it was. I managed to run overnight error free with trrds/l at 6-9 tfaw 30 and twtrs/l 5-14. Raising twtrs/l to 5-14 seemed to help especially with getting consistent Aida64 latency results every boot.
> Hopefully twtrs/l is what allowed me to run error free I'm going to try trrds/l at 4-6 again, raising those to 6-9 hurts Dram calculator benchmark by 2-3 seconds.


Last night I left my PC running 3800/1900 with my memories stock timings, it errored really quickly in Karho around 2500% (previously I stopped it at 17500% error free), only thing I knowingly changed was a couple of the LLC settings I mentioned previously, so not sure if that caused it or not. Those LLC settings seemed to have helped with my restart problem I get when running 1900 IF

Currently I'm testing your tight timings at 3734/1867. I got a MEMbench score of 106.63 seconds, and so far Karho has reached 6790% / 3:27 without errors.


----------



## nick name

Ronski said:


> No I didn't have HWinfo running, presumably your referring to memory temperature, unfortunately my budget memory doesn't have temperature sensors. When I originally built the PC I did have a lot of crashes, fitting a spare 120mm fan blowing on the memory helped a lot. I'm probably going to make a better memory cooler at some point - my GPU is really tight against the DIM slots so the memory coolers I have don't fit.
> 
> 
> 
> Last night I left my PC running 3800/1900 with my memories stock timings, it errored really quickly in Karho around 2500% (previously I stopped it at 17500% error free), only thing I knowingly changed was a couple of the LLC settings I mentioned previously, so not sure if that caused it or not. Those LLC settings seemed to have helped with my restart problem I get when running 1900 IF
> 
> Currently I'm testing your tight timings at 3734/1867. I got a MEMbench score of 106.63 seconds, and so far Karho has reached 6790% / 3:27 without errors.


I stand a 120mm fan on top of my GPU in front of my RAM, but I can do that because I have an AIO. If you have an AIO that is what I would recommend.


----------



## Solohuman

I got these values in the bios of the board in my rigbuilder profile, don't know what to do with them but have them on default "auto" for now. Should they be tweaked, if at all?
Many thanks in return.


----------



## caenlen

Solohuman said:


> How are you measuring this, what app?


ryzen 3600 stock, aida 64, stock cpu no pbo, and 3600 cas 14-14-14-34 ram 2x8gb.

i plan to upgrade to a 4800x or 4900x stock no OC - so maybe my 68 ns latency will go to like 64 or 63 then?


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> No I didn't have HWinfo running, presumably your referring to memory temperature, unfortunately my budget memory doesn't have temperature sensors. When I originally built the PC I did have a lot of crashes, fitting a spare 120mm fan blowing on the memory helped a lot. I'm probably going to make a better memory cooler at some point - my GPU is really tight against the DIM slots so the memory coolers I have don't fit.
> 
> 
> 
> Last night I left my PC running 3800/1900 with my memories stock timings, it errored really quickly in Karho around 2500% (previously I stopped it at 17500% error free), only thing I knowingly changed was a couple of the LLC settings I mentioned previously, so not sure if that caused it or not. Those LLC settings seemed to have helped with my restart problem I get when running 1900 IF
> 
> Currently I'm testing your tight timings at 3734/1867. I got a MEMbench score of 106.63 seconds, and so far Karho has reached 6790% / 3:27 without errors.



I don't mess with LLC but I'm running different voltage to you, but I'm on a 3600 with only 1 connection between my CCD and SOC and you have 2 connections so more stressful for the SOC in some ways. [email protected]% with auto timings is a bad sign that indicates voltages aren't right or maybe cad bus strengths, I
use 24-20-24-24 on my kit I see you were at 20-20-20-20 but I don't know if that would cause problems.
I managed 180+ cycles of tm5 error free with trrds-l at 4-6 last night, the first 40 with Trfc at 576 then I lowered it to 560 and passed another 140+ cycles, that's the most stable I've ever got it I think raising twtrs-l to 5-14 helped a lot as well as raising trtp-twr to 10-20 helped stabilize trrds-l to 4-6. Dimms peaked at 52.5c with 1.4v.


----------



## rastaviper

caenlen said:


> ryzen 3600 stock, aida 64, stock cpu no pbo, and 3600 cas 14-14-14-34 ram 2x8gb.
> 
> 
> 
> i plan to upgrade to a 4800x or 4900x stock no OC - so maybe my 68 ns latency will go to like 64 or 63 then?


A good OCed Ryzen 3600 can easily go to 64-63 ns, it's really unnecessary to upgrade to a 4800x for this reason.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

caenlen said:


> ryzen 3600 stock, aida 64, stock cpu no pbo, and 3600 cas 14-14-14-34 ram 2x8gb.
> 
> i plan to upgrade to a 4800x or 4900x stock no OC - so maybe my 68 ns latency will go to like 64 or 63 then?


 Are you running auto secondary timings? Auto sets trfc to 350ns I think on B die but it can go much lower. Try trfc 450 that would reduce latency a few ns.


----------



## Ronski

nick name said:


> I stand a 120mm fan on top of my GPU in front of my RAM, but I can do that because I have an AIO. If you have an AIO that is what I would recommend.


That is exactly what I am doing, as I also have an AIO, but the very top of the memory can still get quite warm when checked.



2600ryzen said:


> I don't mess with LLC but I'm running different voltage to you, but I'm on a 3600 with only 1 connection between my CCD and SOC and you have 2 connections so more stressful for the SOC in some ways. [email protected]% with auto timings is a bad sign that indicates voltages aren't right or maybe cad bus strengths, I
> use 24-20-24-24 on my kit I see you were at 20-20-20-20 but I don't know if that would cause problems.
> I managed 180+ cycles of tm5 error free with trrds-l at 4-6 last night, the first 40 with Trfc at 576 then I lowered it to 560 and passed another 140+ cycles, that's the most stable I've ever got it I think raising twtrs-l to 5-14 helped a lot as well as raising trtp-twr to 10-20 helped stabilize trrds-l to 4-6. Dimms peaked at 52.5c with 1.4v.


When I said stock timings, it was the timings for running the memory at 3600Mhz, but I change the frequencies to 3800/1900, previously this ran to 17500% without error, when it failed at 2500% I had loaded the saved BIOS and changed the LLC as it seems to help with the restart issue. The tests I ran last night didn't fair well either. I need to get back to where it was stable, perhaps its those LLC settings, so this morning I've loaded my 3800/1900 stable BIOS settings and will test with that, just to check that is still stable.

ETA 20-20-20-20 is what I had it stable at before, with the exact same settings I used last time to get 17500% stable it just errored at 791%, some things not right.


----------



## pipes

My BIOS no take cl15 setting with 4000 MHz RAM give cl16 always

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## hsn

I have patriot viper rgb 3200 cl16-18-18. Use Hynix CJR (thypphoon burner).
Now try to find best setting. But this is for now the best and stable for daily.

3800mhz 1.4v


----------



## pipes

I can't reach 4000 cl15 no take setting onto bios

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

pipes said:


> I can't reach 4000 cl15 no take setting onto bios
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk



You need to disable GDM for c 15 to take effect which is unlikely to be stable. Also you should underclock your RAM to 3800mhz at least so you RAM:infinity fabric runs at 1:1 ratio.


----------



## pipes

2600ryzen said:


> You need to disable GDM for c 15 to take effect which is unlikely to be stable. Also you should underclock your RAM to 3800mhz at least so you RAM:infinity fabric runs at 1:1 ratio.


Can't take setting cl15 without put RAM:IF 1:1?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

pipes said:


> Can't take setting cl15 without put RAM:IF 1:1?
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


You need to disable GDM for odd tcl to work.


----------



## pipes

I don't Remember if disabile or not

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> I don't mess with LLC but I'm running different voltage to you, but I'm on a 3600 with only 1 connection between my CCD and SOC and you have 2 connections so more stressful for the SOC in some ways. [email protected]% with auto timings is a bad sign that indicates voltages aren't right or maybe cad bus strengths, I
> use 24-20-24-24 on my kit I see you were at 20-20-20-20 but I don't know if that would cause problems.
> I managed 180+ cycles of tm5 error free with trrds-l at 4-6 last night, the first 40 with Trfc at 576 then I lowered it to 560 and passed another 140+ cycles, that's the most stable I've ever got it I think raising twtrs-l to 5-14 helped a lot as well as raising trtp-twr to 10-20 helped stabilize trrds-l to 4-6. Dimms peaked at 52.5c with 1.4v.


Nice work, it'll be nice to get that stable here to. I've got my standard timings back stable at 3800/1900, I've fitted a pair of 60mm fans closer to the memory and also changed the LLC back to auto. Stopped Karho at 21049% after 11 hours and 17 minutes.

I'll try your cad bus strength settings and timings.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> I don't mess with LLC but I'm running different voltage to you, but I'm on a 3600 with only 1 connection between my CCD and SOC and you have 2 connections so more stressful for the SOC in some ways. [email protected]% with auto timings is a bad sign that indicates voltages aren't right or maybe cad bus strengths, I
> use 24-20-24-24 on my kit I see you were at 20-20-20-20 but I don't know if that would cause problems.
> I managed 180+ cycles of tm5 error free with trrds-l at 4-6 last night, the first 40 with Trfc at 576 then I lowered it to 560 and passed another 140+ cycles, that's the most stable I've ever got it I think raising twtrs-l to 5-14 helped a lot as well as raising trtp-twr to 10-20 helped stabilize trrds-l to 4-6. Dimms peaked at 52.5c with 1.4v.


Success, excellent work 2600Ryzen 

Just run Karho to 21209% (10hrs 41 min) stable, no errors, that's with your latest timings, cad bus strengths and 1.4v for the memory. I'm going to try the faster timings with those cad bus strengths and see how it goes. The temperature in my office at midnight was 28degree's C with the window open, but I was gaming on the other PC, and its a small room.


----------



## pipes

2600ryzen said:


> You need to disable GDM for odd tcl to work.


What Is gdm? Maybe I round under other name?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## deepor

pipes said:


> What Is gdm? Maybe I round under other name?
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk



GDM is "Gear Down Mode".


----------



## pipes

Thanks...today i try

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Success, excellent work 2600Ryzen
> 
> Just run Karho to 21209% (10hrs 41 min) stable, no errors, that's with your latest timings, cad bus strengths and 1.4v for the memory. I'm going to try the faster timings with those cad bus strengths and see how it goes. The temperature in my office at midnight was 28degree's C with the window open, but I was gaming on the other PC, and its a small room.



Nice work, if you could get GDM disabled 1t to work that would give you another 0.3ns latency and about 1 sec on dram calculator. That depends on your motherboard I believe. Mine can't cope with GDM disabled above 3200mhz but I was able to boot in windows once with GDM disabled 1t at 3800mhz after I pressed my heatsink into my motherboard to make sure the cpu pins made good contact.
You might be able to lower TWR to 18 or 16 and I benchmarked Tfaw earlier at 16 and it was slightly faster than 28.


----------



## Alexshunter

My scores got little better. But you mean to give higher number for trdrd and for twrwr? Lower isn't better?





rares495 said:


> tRFC 252-187-115
> 
> tWTRL 8
> 
> tRDRD 5, 5
> 
> tWRWR 7, 7
> 
> tWRRD 1
> 
> SCLs lower than 4
> 
> But you won't get much more at 3733.


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> My scores got little better. But you mean to give higher number for trdrd and for twrwr? Lower isn't better?


As far as I know, 44 & 66 are better for dual rank memory (2x16GB) whereas 55 & 77 are best for single rank (2x8GB)


----------



## Alexshunter

rares495 said:


> As far as I know, 44 & 66 are better for dual rank memory (2x16GB) whereas 55 & 77 are best for single rank (2x8GB)


Yes, works better. Tomorrow, i will try tighten little more again, sometimes I have over 57000 memory read. But don’t understand how others can do 55ns latency with 3300X. My sometimes go below 59ns, but that is still far from 55.


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> Yes, works better. Tomorrow, i will try tighten little more again, sometimes I have over 57000 memory read. But don’t understand how others can do 55ns latency with 3300X. My sometimes go below 59ns, but that is still far from 55.


Only with top memory and manual CPU overclock.


----------



## Alexshunter

rares495 said:


> Only with top memory and manual CPU overclock.


I have top memory and manual overclock, but what else could I?


----------



## OCmember

Is it recommended to use the XMP profile extracted by Thaiphoon Burner for proper use of the calculator? Otherwise what DRAM PCB revision do we use to get the right timings?


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> I have top memory and manual overclock, but what else could I?


You only have a manual overclock. 



OCmember said:


> Is it recommended to use the XMP profile extracted by Thaiphoon Burner for proper use of the calculator? Otherwise what DRAM PCB revision do we use to get the right timings?


Yeah, you should import the XMP profile. Otherwise you have to select the PCB revision according to your kit's actual physical layout but that's worse.


----------



## OCmember

rares495 said:


> You only have a manual overclock.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you should import the XMP profile. Otherwise you have to select the PCB revision according to your kit's actual physical layout but that's worse.


How do I determine the PCB revision for the physical layout? e.g. Thaiphoon Burner says, Module PCB Revision: 00h; I'm also looking at Reference Raw Card: A1 (10 layers) Yet in 1.7.3 calculator there is no option for 00h, or A1


----------



## rares495

OCmember said:


> How do I determine the PCB revision for the physical layout? e.g. Thaiphoon Burner says, Module PCB Revision: 00h; I'm also looking at Reference Raw Card: A1 (10 layers) Yet in 1.7.3 calculator there is no option for 00h


A0/A1/A2/A3 is what matters but you're way better off importing the XMP profile.


----------



## OCmember

What's a better buy?

DDR4 3800MHz, Timing 14-16-16-36 @ 1.5v, for $199
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232933?Item=N82E16820232933

or

DDR4 3600MHz, Timing 14-15-15-35, @ 1.45v, for $179
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232892?Item=N82E16820232892


Both are the "NEO" kits


----------



## Alexshunter

rares495 said:


> You only have a manual overclock.


So there must be something I don’t know.


----------



## andreiz

I've just switched to AMD platform, got MSI B550M Mortar + 3900X + G.Skill Ripjaws V 2x16GB kit. Generated the report via Thaipoon. Then downloaded 1.7.3 version of the calculator. Loaded up the profile from the report. 

Is this Hynix DJR or something else? Went with DJR for now.

B550 is not available in the dropdown, should I use B450 or X570? Went with B450 for now.

Did Calculate Safe. It gave me the timings as shown below. Rebooted into UEFI and changed just the main timings per calculator and set 1.35V. The machine wouldn't POST, after 2 retries went back to the last know good settings. But I was able to to get it to 15-18-18-36, so is calculator wrong or something else?


----------



## deepor

andreiz said:


> I've just switched to AMD platform, got MSI B550M Mortar + 3900X + G.Skill Ripjaws V 2x16GB kit. Generated the report via Thaipoon. Then downloaded 1.7.3 version of the calculator. Loaded up the profile from the report.
> 
> Is this Hynix DJR or something else? Went with DJR for now.
> 
> B550 is not available in the dropdown, should I use B450 or X570? Went with B450 for now.
> 
> Did Calculate Safe. It gave me the timings as shown below. Rebooted into UEFI and changed just the main timings per calculator and set 1.35V. The machine wouldn't POST, after 2 retries went back to the last know good settings. But I was able to to get it to 15-18-18-36, so is calculator wrong or something else?



Did you set RttNom, RttWr, RttPark and ProcODT like suggested in the bottom right? Those settings are important for dual-rank memory.


----------



## rares495

OCmember said:


> What's a better buy?
> 
> DDR4 3800MHz, Timing 14-16-16-36 @ 1.5v, for $199
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232933?Item=N82E16820232933
> 
> or
> 
> DDR4 3600MHz, Timing 14-15-15-35, @ 1.45v, for $179
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232892?Item=N82E16820232892
> 
> 
> Both are the "NEO" kits



The 3800 CL14 Neo is a dream kit for many. Probably only beaten by the 4000 15-16-16 kits.


----------



## rares495

Alexshunter said:


> So there must be something I don’t know.



You need 1900+ FCLK and better memory to get better results. 


I wouldn't stress about it at this point. You won't see any difference in games or anything else. Just enjoy your PC.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> What's a better buy?
> 
> DDR4 3800MHz, Timing 14-16-16-36 @ 1.5v, for $199
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232933?Item=N82E16820232933
> 
> or
> 
> DDR4 3600MHz, Timing 14-15-15-35, @ 1.45v, for $179
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232892?Item=N82E16820232892
> Both are the "NEO" kits


Both are overmarketed
Increased too high vDIMM just to run low tCL and make it look better
Low tCL has nothing special - low tRCD is interesting

Probably the 3600 kit, as tRCD 15 is not bad at this voltage
Although equally to what you can expect from a Viper Steel 4000CL19-19 kit for ~120$ (A0 PCB)
Running 14-14-15-14 @ 1.44v 
First set is already overvolted just to run tCL 14, but will guarantee you at least that the PCB is not A0 
Idk, probably would go for the 2nd set - as that looks like has headroom left
The 3800 doesn't at all, it's just overvolted to look good but still runs tRCD 16 like close to every FlareX 3200CL14-14 kit can do

EDIT:
Probably both are overpriced, if you want to go for 2 dimms only
Viper 4400CL19 still remain top, else the 3600 and you have to be lucky to get A1 or A2 PCB and be lucky that it's not dual ranked
EDIT 2:


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Both are overmarketed
> Increased too high vDIMM just to run low tCL and make it look better
> Low tCL has nothing special - low tRCD is interesting
> 
> Probably the 3600 kit, as tRCD 15 is not bad at this voltage
> Although equally to what you can expect from a Viper Steel 4000CL19-19 kit for ~120$ (A0 PCB)
> Running 14-14-15-14 @ 1.44v
> First set is already overvolted just to run tCL 14, but will guarantee you at least that the PCB is not A0
> Idk, probably would go for the 2nd set - as that looks like has headroom left
> The 3800 doesn't at all, it's just overvolted to look good but still runs tRCD 16 like close to every FlareX 3200CL14-14 kit can do
> 
> EDIT:
> Probably both are overpriced, if you want to go for 2 dimms only
> Viper 4400CL19 still remain top, else the 3600 and you have to be lucky to get A1 or A2 PCB and be lucky that it's not dual ranked



Those are the kits which can do tRCDRD 13/14 @3800. They're way better than my Trident Z for example. 


Check the top result in the germans' RAM OC spreadsheet.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Those are the kits which can do tRCDRD 13/14 @3800. They're way better than my Trident Z for example.
> Check the top result in the germans' RAM OC spreadsheet.


I hope, but overvolted at 1.5v out of the box, just to lower tCL sounds like trying to sell a bad binning  
tRCD 16 out of the box is high, in comparison to what we get ~ although selling as already high voltage :thinking:


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> I hope, but overvolted at 1.5v out of the box, just to lower tCL sounds like trying to sell a bad binning
> tRCD 16 out of the box is high, in comparison to what we get ~ although selling as already high voltage :thinking:



Yeah but in practice they seem to OC like a dream.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Yeah but in practice they seem to OC like a dream.


Did doublecheck the first 5 results
first top result, has a wrong picture, HynixCJR
one 4400C19 user got it down to tRCD 16
3600C15-15 one where 1x tRCD RD 14 & 3x tRCD RD 15
3600C14-15 2x tRCD RD 14

Can you link some 3800C14-18-18 kit results ?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Did doublecheck the first 5 results
> first top result, has a wrong picture, HynixCJR
> one 4400C19 user got it down to tRCD 16
> 3600C15-15 one where 1x tRCD RD 14 & 3x tRCD RD 15
> 3600C14-15 2x tRCD RD 14
> 
> Can you link some 3800C14-18-18 kit results ?



Yeah, I remembered the top result using the 3800 kit. My bad.


They should both lose to this, though: https://geizhals.eu/g-skill-ripjaws-v-black-dimm-kit-16gb-f4-4000c15d-16gvk-a2303965.html


Looks to be the same bin as in the 4000C15 G.Skill Royal which GamersNexus (who suck at mem OC) got to 3800 C13.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Yeah, I remembered the top result using the 3800 kit. My bad.
> 
> They should both lose to this, though: https://geizhals.eu/g-skill-ripjaws-v-black-dimm-kit-16gb-f4-4000c15d-16gvk-a2303965.html
> Looks to be the same bin as in the 4000C15 G.Skill Royal which GamersNexus (who suck at mem OC) got to 3800 C13.


Hahaha  
Nah, GN has also some help ~ he can't spend that much time learning it , it's tedious 
I wonder tho , was his result with GDM off ?  
Also wonder why JEDEC always uses tRAS as +4 too much, should be 15-16-16-32/31 not 15-16-16-36 :thinking: 
16-18-18-46 sounds strange too


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Hahaha
> Nah, GN has also some help ~ he can't spend that much time learning it , it's tedious
> I wonder tho , was his result with GDM off ?
> Also wonder why JEDEC always uses tRAS as +4 too much, should be 15-16-16-32/31 not 15-16-16-36 :thinking:
> 16-18-18-46 sounds strange too



I don't think it's JEDEC. Must be the memory manufacturers.


I don't know where you got the 16-18-18-46 from


----------



## 2600ryzen

Veii said:


> Hahaha
> Nah, GN has also some help ~ he can't spend that much time learning it , it's tedious
> I wonder tho , was his result with GDM off ?
> Also wonder why JEDEC always uses tRAS as +4 too much, should be 15-16-16-32/31 not 15-16-16-36 :thinking:
> 16-18-18-46 sounds strange too



Yeah he was running 13-13-13-13-28 with GDM and Command rate on auto. I guess he was really running 14-14-14-13-28.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> Yeah he was running 13-13-13-13-28 with GDM and Command rate on auto. I guess he was really running 14-14-14-13-28.



Yeah, but still. I can't even dream of that with this 3600C15 kit. 


Or maybe I can, hmm. I don't know if I've ever tried 2T 3800 C13/C14.


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> Yeah, but still. I can't even dream of that with this 3600C15 kit.
> 
> 
> Or maybe I can, hmm. I don't know if I've ever tried 2T 3800 C13/C14.



I watched the video again and he said he tested the timings by benchmarking them in aida64 so the timings probably weren't even stable.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> I watched the video again and he said he tested the timings by benchmarking them in aida64 so the timings probably weren't even stable.



Yeah, that's about what I'd expect from a youtuber.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I don't think it's JEDEC. Must be the memory manufacturers.
> I don't know where you got the 16-18-18-46 from


Out of my head what manufactures usually apply 
Jedec is lower, true - IntelXMP standardization nonsense i guess, but it's visible on close to every kit you buy :thinking:


----------



## Dollar

2600ryzen said:


> I watched the video again and he said he tested the timings by benchmarking them in aida64 so the timings probably weren't even stable.





rares495 said:


> Yeah, that's about what I'd expect from a youtuber.



He literally says he uses aida quickly BEFORE using HCI memtest pro to test for stability.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ok I missed that part or wasn't paying attention, he doesn't claim to be a great RAM overclocker or anything. I still don't think his timings would've been stable with a proper stability test(20 cycles+ of tm5).


----------



## jamie1073

OCmember said:


> What's a better buy?
> 
> DDR4 3800MHz, Timing 14-16-16-36 @ 1.5v, for $199
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232933?Item=N82E16820232933
> 
> or
> 
> DDR4 3600MHz, Timing 14-15-15-35, @ 1.45v, for $179
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232892?Item=N82E16820232892
> 
> 
> Both are the "NEO" kits



I have the 32GB 4x8GB version of the 3600 Kit.


----------



## algida79

Veii said:


> Out of my head what manufactures usually apply
> Jedec is lower, true - IntelXMP standardization nonsense i guess, but it's visible on close to every kit you buy :thinking:


It's not always the same, maybe depends on IC and bin. E.g. for the B-die 3200C14 bins, Teamgroup gives a tRAS of 31, GSkill even worse (34).

Crucial give a tRAS of 36 on their latest 3200-16-18-18-18 Rev E 32GB kits.


----------



## OCmember

Ok, so now I'm confused about what to look for, and what timings matter the most for the lowest latency. 

Where is this germans' spreadsheet?

I did find this spreadsheet, don't know what I'm looking at or if things are accurate on here.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qo0VGd4waXGfI3jXt5jF9ORxeLpXgEWvpnYKaXjWtgQ/edit#gid=0


----------



## rares495

OCmember said:


> Ok, so now I'm confused about what to look for, and what timings matter the most for the lowest latency.
> 
> Where is this germans' spreadsheet?
> 
> I did find this spreadsheet, don't know what I'm looking at or if things are accurate on here.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qo0VGd4waXGfI3jXt5jF9ORxeLpXgEWvpnYKaXjWtgQ/edit#gid=0


Here's the german OC spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383


----------



## Veii

Veii said:


> one 4400C19 user got it down to tRCD 16
> 3600C15-15 one where 1x tRCD RD 14 & 3x tRCD RD 15
> 3600C14-15 2x tRCD RD 14
> 
> 
> jamie1073 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the 32GB 4x8GB version of the 3600 Kit.
Click to expand...

That makes 1x tRCD RD 14 4x tRCD RD 15 
hmm
Only one 14-14 user 
Not that much of a great bin as it seems for 50bucks more

Jamie, what voltage did you use for that set ?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> That makes 1x tRCD RD 14 4x tRCD RD 15
> hmm
> Only one 14-14 user
> Not that much of a great bin as it seems for 50bucks more
> 
> Jamie, what voltage did you use for that set ?


Nothing's a great bin anymore if my kit goes for $125. Not even the $150 Viper Steel 4400. 

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb...3600c15-_-20-232-306-_-Product&quicklink=true

https://geizhals.eu/g-skill-trident-z-silver-red-dimm-kit-16gb-f4-3600c15d-16gtz-a1439046.html

Though I wonder how the low XMP speed will affect me once Ryzen 4000 increases max FCLK.


----------



## OCmember

I'm wondering if RAM makers are holding better bins for when Ryzen 4k series comes out. The IF is said to get a shrink from 12nm to 7nm so 2000/4000, I'm assuming, will be achievable.


----------



## andreiz

deepor said:


> Did you set RttNom, RttWr, RttPark and ProcODT like suggested in the bottom right? Those settings are important for dual-rank memory.


Yes, I did set them. I also increased the DRAM voltage to 1.37 and SOC to 1.05. Still doesn't POST.


----------



## PARTON

This thread is a gold mine. Thank you all.

Just put this system together a couple of weeks ago and really have been just stumbling around.

Any ideas on where I should go from here?

Edit: Search works well I see something on 06-18-2020 to try. Let's see...

Gear down is a must where I'm at currently, it bsods without it.


----------



## Ronski

rares495 said:


> Here's the german OC spreadsheet:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383


Thanks for posting, that spreadsheets interesting as it contains one result for the memory myself and Ryzen2600 is using.



2600ryzen said:


> Nice work, if you could get GDM disabled 1t to work that would give you another 0.3ns latency and about 1 sec on dram calculator. That depends on your motherboard I believe. Mine can't cope with GDM disabled above 3200mhz but I was able to boot in windows once with GDM disabled 1t at 3800mhz after I pressed my heatsink into my motherboard to make sure the cpu pins made good contact.
> You might be able to lower TWR to 18 or 16 and I benchmarked Tfaw earlier at 16 and it was slightly faster than 28.


It seems my motherboard will run with GDM disabled at 1t, it failed at 700% in Karho with memory at 1.4v so I've bumped it to 1.425v and currently at 3300%. MemBench score 105.55, so pretty much the same as running with GDM enabled - got 105.66. 

I've noticed there's a user in the above spreadsheet running at 15-15-18-15-32-60-550-1T, would this have any benefit for me? Aida scores are no better, but its for a 3600.

Edit. Spoke too soon, it errored at 3407%


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Thanks for posting, that spreadsheets interesting as it contains one result for the memory myself and Ryzen2600 is using.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems my motherboard will run with GDM disabled at 1t, it failed at 700% in Karho with memory at 1.4v so I've bumped it to 1.425v and currently at 3300%. MemBench score 105.55, so pretty much the same as running with GDM enabled - got 105.66.
> 
> I've noticed there's a user in the above spreadsheet running at 15-15-18-15-32-60-550-1T, would this have any benefit for me? Aida scores are no better, but its for a 3600.
> 
> Edit. Spoke too soon, it errored at 3407%



3300% is a good start, did you loosen the timings to test just the 1t? Some timings that are rounded up with GDM no longer get rounded up with gdm disabled so that can cause errors. Playing with data bus values and raising clkdrvstrnth to 40/60/120 can help stabilize gdm off but it looks like you're already close to being stable anyway.


15-15-18-15-32 would be some benefit at least with the better tcl, you would need a bit more voltage 1.44v maybe. trcdwr at 15 might let you use different trdwr/twrrd(8-4?) values which could be faster I guess, you would have to set tcwl=tcl for that.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> 3300% is a good start, did you loosen the timings to test just the 1t? Some timings that are rounded up with GDM no longer get rounded up with gdm disabled so that can cause errors. Playing with data bus values and raising clkdrvstrnth to 40/60/120 can help stabilize gdm off but it looks like you're already close to being stable anyway.
> 
> 
> 15-15-18-15-32 would be some benefit at least with the better tcl, you would need a bit more voltage 1.44v maybe. trcdwr at 15 might let you use different trdwr/twrrd(8-4?) values which could be faster I guess, you would have to set tcwl=tcl for that.


No I didn't change any other timings, I don't have much of clue to the relationship between different settings so it would be pure guesswork, also didn't think to go through and compare timings in case something had been automatically changed.

I have noticed that with GDM off 1T more cores seems to boost higher - had at least 4 cores showing a peak of 4400 - 4500Mhz.


----------



## Veii

PARTON said:


> This thread is a gold mine. Thank you all.
> Just put this system together a couple of weeks ago and really have been just stumbling around.
> Any ideas on where I should go from here?
> Edit: Search works well I see something on 06-18-2020 to try. Let's see...
> Gear down is a must where I'm at currently, it bsods without it.


A2 PCB, Vipers love voltage and need high ClkDrvStrengh (1st CAD_BUS value)
They dislike procODT tho, soo keep that low and keep vSOC low
If you have custom VDDG voltages, push IOD always a bit higher for A2 kits

Timings:
Push tRDWR to 7, tWRRD to 3
And fix tRFC to 336-250-154 

It should result in nearly identical Latency even with higher tRFC, but be a bit faster
Bonus points, if you get tRTP down to 6
More Bonus points, when you get them to work without GDM under 2T (optimise mentioned above)
And with higher than 1.46v run tRFC 288-214-132 
++ Bonus Points, if you get SCL down to 3 with tWRRD 4
+++ Bonus Points if you make it down to 2 with tWRRD 3 again


----------



## fcchin

Hello @1usmus, I bought this SPDtool kit https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a1z09.2.0.0.1e2b2e8dF4htwM&id=529037302142&_u=lb8lko6c57c

and will start notebook ram timing change/overclock on Lenovo E495 with Ryzen 3500U motherboard is 20NEA00BCD southbridge is Carrizo FCH Rev51

In your calculator, which chipset is most closely related to this [20NEA00BCD southbridge is Carrizo FCH Rev51] ??? I will attempt to use both X370 and X470 to see which is better or even works at all.

Hope you can advice a bit, thanks so much in advance.


----------



## andreiz

andreiz said:


> Yes, I did set them. I also increased the DRAM voltage to 1.37 and SOC to 1.05. Still doesn't POST.


So any idea if this memory will actually do CL14 at 3600 per calculator or am I missing something?


----------



## PARTON

Thanks!!! Really appreciate it, Veii.



Veii said:


> A2 PCB, Vipers love voltage and need high ClkDrvStrengh (1st CAD_BUS value)
> They dislike procODT tho, soo keep that low and keep vSOC low
> If you have custom VDDG voltages, push IOD always a bit higher for A2 kits
> 
> Timings:
> Push tRDWR to 7, tWRRD to 3
> And fix tRFC to 336-250-154
> 
> It should result in nearly identical Latency even with higher tRFC, but be a bit faster
> Bonus points, if you get tRTP down to 6
> More Bonus points, when you get them to work without GDM under 2T (optimise mentioned above)
> And with higher than 1.46v run tRFC 288-214-132
> ++ Bonus Points, if you get SCL down to 3 with tWRRD 4
> +++ Bonus Points if you make it down to 2 with tWRRD 3 again


Still no luck getting GDM off. What is a good value for ClkDrvStrength? try 40 instead of 24?

Got two I'm working and will work on these tips above.

Think I like the 3666C14 better, Guess that makes since as 3733C15 would be good but I cant get there.

I have more to learn certainly, but this is getting better.


----------



## KedarWolf

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/328...earchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_

ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500-4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4

My RAM fan arrived from Aliexpress. PWM as well. An amazing 45 CFM, likely loud though, but I never hear my fans over my headset. 

And I ordered it April 25th, so a few days less than three months to arrive. 

You actually have to put it together, but they even include a tiny screwdriver to do so. 

And it comes with a molex power adapter for the PWM if you want to run it that way, but I'm pretty sure it'll max out the RPM if you do do that.


----------



## FranZe

KedarWolf said:


> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/328...earchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_
> 
> ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500-4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4
> 
> My RAM fan arrived from Aliexpress. PWM as well. An amazing 45 CFM, likely loud though, but I never hear my fans over my headset.
> 
> And I ordered it April 25th, so a few days less than three months to arrive.
> 
> You actually have to put it together, but they even include a tiny screwdriver to do so.
> 
> And it comes with a molex power adapter for the PWM if you want to run it that way, but I'm pretty sure it'll max out the RPM if you do do that.


And if i buy one more Noctua 60mm (60x25) i can change out the fans?


----------



## KedarWolf

FranZe said:


> And if i buy one more Noctua 60mm (60x25) i can change out the fans?


Yes, you can swap your own fans in. I took it apart. The housing just holds two fans. It uses 60mm fans, I Googled it.

Fan Speed Control: 3500RPM
Fan Size: 60 x 60 x 25mm * 2 pcs
Fans: Dual 60mm fans

I'm sure the fans that came with it must be quite good to push 45 CFM though. 

In comparison my VENGEANCE Airflow was using until now gets 14.5 CFM.

https://www.corsair.com/ca/en/Categ...C-Components/Memory/VENGEANCE-Airflow/p/CMYAF


----------



## Ronski

@KedarWolf the fans that come with it are rubbish, one didn't even work, the other barely moved any air even at full power. Also it still didn't fit my system the GPU is just too close to the memory, going to make my own cooler.


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> @KedarWolf the fans that come with it are rubbish, one didn't even work, the other barely moved any air even at full power. Also it still didn't fit my system the GPU is just too close to the memory, going to make my own cooler.


I'm sure it'll for in my system as my Corsair fan legs are bigger and I can use it. I'll see about the fans though, and I'm not against putting my own fans in it either, it was only $15 USD or so.

I'll let you know if the fans are any good on mine. On my way home from work now, only 90 minute transit ride.


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> @KedarWolf the fans that come with it are rubbish, one didn't even work, the other barely moved any air even at full power. Also it still didn't fit my system the GPU is just too close to the memory, going to make my own cooler.


Works fine for me, pushes a lot more air than my Corsair RAM fan.

But I think I'm going to replace the fans with these PWM, 43 CFM, and really cheap on eBay. I never hear my fans over my headset anyways, so not concerned about noise.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/DELTA-6CM-6...-70A-4-wire-4Pin-PWM-cooling-fan/164097861896


----------



## OCmember

If your motherboard sits on the right side of the case, from looking at it from the front, rest a 120 or 140mm fan on top of the GPU pointing towards the ram.


What RAM testing apps are you guys using? I don't like memtest86 so I've been using hci memtest the past 10 some years (non-pro version)


----------



## jamie1073

KedarWolf said:


> Yes, you can swap your own fans in. I took it apart. The housing just holds two fans. It uses 60mm fans, I Googled it.
> 
> Fan Speed Control: 3500RPM
> Fan Size: 60 x 60 x 25mm * 2 pcs
> Fans: Dual 60mm fans
> 
> I'm sure the fans that came with it must be quite good to push 45 CFM though.
> 
> In comparison my VENGEANCE Airflow was using until now gets 14.5 CFM.
> 
> https://www.corsair.com/ca/en/Categ...C-Components/Memory/VENGEANCE-Airflow/p/CMYAF



I have that same cooler and it keeps my RAM temps around 32C for everday use. Although the fan is noisy. Cooler works great but mine needs a better fan I think, been noisy since I got it but does the job.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> If your motherboard sits on the right side of the case, from looking at it from the front, rest a 120 or 140mm fan on top of the GPU pointing towards the ram.
> 
> 
> What RAM testing apps are you guys using? I don't like memtest86 so I've been using hci memtest the past 10 some years (non-pro version)


TM5_1usmusV3 changed to 20+ cycles, as it will tRFC error on cycle 19
SuperPi 1.5 SX for a quick 7-8min test - 32mil iterations 
Y-Cruncher 3 cycles, for testing voltage stability by the 3 main voltages (cLDO_VDDP, cLDO_VDDG, SOC)
Prime95 LargeFFT 2-3h to test heat vdroop issues, mostly bound to LLC


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> You might be able to lower TWR to 18 or 16 and I benchmarked Tfaw earlier at 16 and it was slightly faster than 28.


I lowered both TWR and Tfaw to 16, and some how managed to get the attached, it wasn't remotely stable, and I could not repeat it either.


----------



## OCmember

Ronski said:


> I lowered both TWR and Tfaw to 16, and some how managed to get the attached, it wasn't remotely stable, and I could repeat it either.


What is that app, 'RAM test' I've been looking for it


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> I lowered both TWR and Tfaw to 16, and some how managed to get the attached, it wasn't remotely stable, and I could repeat it either.



Yeah I ended up not being able to get below 28 Tfaw stable too, I'm confused by seeing all the other people with Rev E running Tfaw 16 maybe they're on single rank? 

Twr might be able to do 16/18 though I haven't tested. Besides that my timings are as low as they can go unless you want to pump up the voltage to 1.55v for c14.


----------



## 2600ryzen

OCmember said:


> What is that app, 'RAM test' I've been looking for it



https://www.karhusoftware.com/ramtest/


----------



## overpower

How can I proceed from here? I'm stuck at 69.5-8 latency. trcdrd and trtp will crash my pc. 
(hw info is for you to see my voltages)

llc3 120% (for cpu) 120% (for dram)


----------



## fcchin

andreiz said:


> so is calculator wrong or something else?


calculator is just a guide, not the ultimate definitive results, we have to use it in conjunction with these advices "Theory: Sequence for Tuning RAM / SOC" = https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/5.html


----------



## fcchin

KedarWolf said:


> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/328...earchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_
> 
> ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500-4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4
> 
> , likely loud though,


I just installed one, even at 1390rpm lowest it can do, the bracket vibration is MASSIVE can feel it at external casing/main body and noisy low level humming AUDIBLE !!!! when max rpm crazy loud exactly like server PSU.


----------



## fcchin

overpower said:


> How can I proceed from here? I'm stuck at 69.5-8 latency.


tRFC is the primary determinant parameter for latency, drop around 50 at a time and quick test laterncy and you will see. You'll have to use the "additional calculator" to get exact figures and matching tRFC2 and tRFC4. 

and if you want to reduce the existing 122.4 seconds 1usmus easy test, manual overclock your CPU to stay high for benchmark only, works wonders hahahaahha.


----------



## rares495

overpower said:


> How can I proceed from here? I'm stuck at 69.5-8 latency. trcdrd and trtp will crash my pc.
> (hw info is for you to see my voltages)
> 
> llc3 120% (for cpu) 120% (for dram)



Upgrade to Zen 2 and buy better RAM. Tweaking won't get you anywhere with your current setup. You can't even reach the XMP speed. There is simply no point whatsoever in tuning the memory further on a 2600.


----------



## 2600ryzen

overpower said:


> How can I proceed from here? I'm stuck at 69.5-8 latency. trcdrd and trtp will crash my pc.
> (hw info is for you to see my voltages)
> 
> llc3 120% (for cpu) 120% (for dram)



Trp can't go lower? It can usually go lower or at least equal to trcdrd. I'm surprised your aida64 latency isn't that great. Also you have dual rank and you set single rank in dram calculator.


----------



## overpower

fcchin said:


> tRFC is the primary determinant parameter for latency, drop around 50 at a time and quick test laterncy and you will see. You'll have to use the "additional calculator" to get exact figures and matching tRFC2 and tRFC4.
> 
> and if you want to reduce the existing 122.4 seconds 1usmus easy test, manual overclock your CPU to stay high for benchmark only, works wonders hahahaahha.


Where can i find the trfc ns?



2600ryzen said:


> Trp can't go lower? It can usually go lower or at least equal to trcdrd. I'm surprised your aida64 latency isn't that great. Also you have dual rank and you set single rank in dram calculator.


I'll try to match the trp with trcdrd.


----------



## fcchin

overpower said:


> Where can i find the trfc ns?


You guess it.

Method one = A rule/formula but I forgot, never did it by myself, hence to

Method two = take tRFC from the calculator's other combinations, i.e. FAST A0, A2, bad bin, manual, etc 
since you know the dram mhz you want to use and with a tRFC then you guess the ns 

haha, I'm sure someone who properly knows will step in to correct me hahahahaha.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Usually if you can post Trfc is stable, so just keep reducing it by 8 until it doesn't post. You're already at 262ns Trfc so I doubt you can go much lower anyway.


Trfc*2000/Ram speed(3400mhz) = Trfc in nanoseconds. Use the calculator in dram calculator or find veii's calculator an d use that for better accuracy.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> I lowered both TWR and Tfaw to 16, and some how managed to get the attached, it wasn't remotely stable, and I could not repeat it either.



This guy found raising clkdrvstr to 60 helped him lower Tfaw below 32 to 16, going to test now.


Edit: Yeah it was stable for almost an hour. Going too test properly later but it's much more stable than it was.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> This guy found raising clkdrvstr to 60 helped him lower Tfaw below 32 to 16, going to test now.
> 
> 
> Edit: Yeah it was stable for almost an hour. Going too test properly later but it's much more stable than it was.


Changed just Tfaw to 16 and clkdrvstr to 60, lasted until 6305%


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> Changed just Tfaw to 16 and clkdrvstr to 60, lasted until 6305%


You guys know to really test your RAM with RamTest it's necessary to enable cache in settings as well.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Changed just Tfaw to 16 and clkdrvstr to 60, lasted until 6305%



Close, I'll try 20-24 later.


----------



## 2600ryzen

KedarWolf said:


> You guys know to really test your RAM with RamTest it's necessary to enable cache in settings as well.



Yeah I had cache enabled.


----------



## Ronski

KedarWolf said:


> You guys know to really test your RAM with RamTest it's necessary to enable cache in settings as well.


Mines is set to default, I'll change it to enabled once it's finished testing.


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> Mines is set to default, I'll change it to enabled once it's finished testing.



What will always pass on default often will fail on enabled. Unless you test with it enabled you likely will not find RAM instability.

Edit:' So really no point in testing with cache as default.


----------



## Solohuman

Quick question.
How long should I run Membench in Memtest mode for? 
Just started it on another machine, does it auto stop at a set time or not?


----------



## Ronski

KedarWolf said:


> What will always pass on default often will fail on enabled. Unless you test with it enabled you likely will not find RAM instability.
> 
> Edit:' So really no point in testing with cache as default.


Actually I think you may be misunderstanding, but at the same time do have a very valid point - we need to know the CPU cache is stable.

My understanding is that there's the RAM, and then there is the cache, cache being on the CPU.

So a pass with CPU Cache disabled = RAM is stable, with it in default it means the RAM is stable, if it fails in default its more likely to be the RAM that failed, but could be the CACHE, with it enabled it could be either the CACHE or the RAM that failed.

Changing between disabled and enabled allows one to differentiate between ram and CPU cache errors.

From the authors FAQ:



> Q: Can CPU cache instability distort the test results?
> A: Yes, but on default settings this is very unlikely. You shouldn't start overclocking RAM until your system is otherwise completely stable.


From the readme



> CPU cache:
> 
> The CPU cache mode to use during the test.
> 
> - Disabled:
> 
> The memory pages are marked non-cachable and the CPU cache is not
> used during the test. The test will progress very slowly and it
> will not pick up any CPU cache instability related errors.
> 
> - Write-combine:
> 
> The memory pages are marked write-combined and the CPU cache is
> used only for buffering writes. This is a little faster mode that
> might pick up CPU cache instability related write errors.
> 
> - Default:
> 
> The CPU cache is used, but flushed frequently. The test will
> progress very quickly and it might pick up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors.
> 
> - Enabled:
> 
> The CPU cache is used without restriction. This is the fastest
> mode and the probability of picking up CPU cache instability
> related read and write errors is also the highest.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Kinda sounds like it would be better to leave cache at default. We have other programs to test cpu stability like y cruncher. 

I tested lowering Twr to 16-18 and it wasn't stable so no good. I still think I could lower Tfaw to 24/20 I'll have to test that later.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Kinda sounds like it would be better to leave cache at default. We have other programs to test cpu stability like y cruncher.


Every time I've tried Y Cruncher its been stable, even when Karhu or TM5 has failed pretty rapidly. I do wonder if having cache enabled will speed up testing, but then there will be a slight doubt if its cache, but if I haven't altered that side of things it shouldn't be.



> I tested lowering Twr to 16-18 and it wasn't stable so no good. I still think I could lower Tfaw to 24/20 I'll have to test that later.


Upped my ram voltage from 1.4v to 1.44v (actually 1.488v in HW Info), and it's stable, stopped it at 25579% / 12 hours 48 minutes. This is with Tfaw at 16, haven't changed Twr. Will try changing Twr later.

Pretty fast MemBench time as well, I now close Ryzen Master, had previously been running Membench with it open, but of course it slows things down, have also found MemBench scores better if run after the PC's been on for a long time (presumably Window's isn't doing so much in the background) - I scored 104.7 prior to running Karhu, and 103.42 afterwards, no other changes.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Every time I've tried Y Cruncher its been stable, even when Karhu or TM5 has failed pretty rapidly. I do wonder if having cache enabled will speed up testing, but then there will be a slight doubt if its cache, but if I haven't altered that side of things it shouldn't be.
> 
> 
> 
> Upped my ram voltage from 1.4v to 1.44v (actually 1.488v in HW Info), and it's stable, stopped it at 25579% / 12 hours 48 minutes. This is with Tfaw at 16, haven't changed Twr. Will try changing Twr later.
> 
> Pretty fast MemBench time as well, I now close Ryzen Master, had previously been running Membench with it open, but of course it slows things down, have also found MemBench scores better if run after the PC's been on for a long time (presumably Window's isn't doing so much in the background) - I scored 104.7 prior to running Karhu, and 103.42 afterwards, no other changes.



That's a good score, 6.5seconds faster than my score with the same timings. Maybe 1.4v Vdimm slowed me down a little. I think trtp/twr maybe scale a little with voltage so possible you'll get better results than I did lowering them.


----------



## todaracing

*my first few tries*

first of all, thanks a lot for this calculator, tried it n it works! I'm new into this, i wonder if i should push my memory timings further? what should i aim for in memtest - score of seconds or latency? im mostly gaming

'easy' score was 121.45 seconds, BUT it says best time should be only 102.6 seconds?

other numbers
- custom latency 65.4 ns, random latency 57.4 ns
- read speed 48 GB/s, write speed 28 Gb/s

sorry there is no way to attach a photo here


----------



## OCmember

I've been able to get this kit stable at 3533 1:1 bit it fails at 3600 even pushing 1.5v on the DIMMS. Any suggestions for stability at 3600 would be appreciated, thanks!


----------



## Milestonegio

T-Force Dark 3000c16-18 at 3666c16-19
2R Samsung S-Die (Which is likely just E-Die due to similar behavior and XMP values) 
VDDR=1.45V
VDDP=950mV
VDDG=975/925mV
Proc=32
RTT=0/3/1
CAD=24/20/20/24
Was stuck at 2933c12-15 with R1600 before, can't reach stable 3733


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> I think trtp/twr maybe scale a little with voltage so possible you'll get better results than I did lowering them.


Tried lowering twr to 18, but it failed after an hour at 2269%


----------



## Ronski

Lowered trtp to 8, failed at 5816%, got my lowest latency so far and highest read speed in Aida, don't think I've ever come that close to 60,000MB/s read before.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Lowered trtp to 8, failed at 5816%, got my lowest latency so far and highest read speed in Aida, don't think I've ever come that close to 60,000MB/s read before.



If you do a manual OC your scores will be slightly better. I get Custom latency as low as 61.8 with 4.4ghz, my random latency is always 1-2ns worse than yours though because I only have half the write bandwidth. I probably wouldn't go too far over 1.2v if I did a manual OC.


----------



## Ronski

@2600ryzen I'll give at a go at some point.

Last night I lowered tRCDRD to 17 just to see what it would do, didn't score any better, but it lasted until 10842%


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Nothing's a great bin anymore if my kit goes for $125. Not even the $150 Viper Steel 4400.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb...3600c15-_-20-232-306-_-Product&quicklink=true
> 
> https://geizhals.eu/g-skill-trident-z-silver-red-dimm-kit-16gb-f4-3600c15d-16gtz-a1439046.html
> 
> Though I wonder how the low XMP speed will affect me once Ryzen 4000 increases max FCLK.


Hehe, yes 
The design of these could suite a Chevy Camaro build. Something red/silver black likely even on a MSI board ^^'
On the timings you shared, does tWR 10 deliver worse perf for you ?
You should be able to go down to tRDWR 7 / tWRRD 3 at least
and also likely have playroom to go down to 38 or even 36 tRC 

I was looking for tRC 34 @ 238-177-109 ~ which should later work without tRDWR change (under tRAS 26, tRP 10)
Else needs tRP of 10 or tCL help 
Can you actually run CL13 ? on something lower than 1.56v ?
(tCL 13, tRP 11, tRAS 25, tWR 10 ~ you can still go tRC -2 on single rank at the absolute end)

Hmm, your kit was A1 correct ?
Up till 4200 you shouldn't have an issue, but i am not sure if 2200FCLK isn't the limit
Maybe 2250 if we are able to use less than 1.2vSOC for that
My magic ball shows no information on 4xxx so far, but once Renoir launches, we likely will change the way we do memoryOC 
When MCLK, FCLK, VSOC are dynamic 
Likely would need to invest more time in TDC, EDC limiting and calculation ~ not only for vCore


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Hehe, yes
> The design of these could suite a Chevy Camaro build. Something red/silver black likely even on a MSI board ^^'
> On the timings you shared, does tWR 10 deliver worse perf for you ?
> You should be able to go down to tRDWR 7 / tWRRD 3 at least
> and also likely have playroom to go down to 38 or even 36 tRC
> 
> I was looking for tRC 34 @ 238-177-109 ~ which should work without tRDWR change
> Else needs tRP of 10 or tCL help
> Can you actually run CL13 ? on something lower than 1.56v ?
> 
> Hmm, your kit was A1 correct ?
> Up till 4200 you shouldn't have an issue, but i am not sure if 2200FCLK isn't the limit
> Maybe 2250 if we are able to use less than 1.2vSOC for that
> My magic ball shows no information on 4xxx so far, but once Renoir launches, we likely will change the way we do memoryOC
> When MCLK, FCLK, VSOC are dynamic
> Likely would need to invest more time in TDC, EDC limiting and calculation ~ not only for vCore


My kit is 100% A0.

Performance is about the same with tWR 12 or 10.

tRDWR 7 will not post no matter the other timings.

Last I tried tRC 34 seemed doable but would take me a bit to get it fully stable.

tRFC can't go lower than maybe 232 but even there is at the edge of stability. 238 could work I guess.

Will need to test tCL 13 again but I was never able to run it with 1T and GDM off.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> My kit is 100% A0.
> 
> Performance is about the same with tWR 12 or 10.
> 
> tRDWR 7 will not post no matter the other timings.
> 
> Last I tried tRC 34 seemed doable but would take me a bit to get it fully stable.
> 
> tRFC can't go lower than maybe 232 but even there is at the edge of stability. 238 could work I guess.
> 
> Will need to test tCL 13 again but I was never able to run it with 1T and GDM off.


Ooh that's why you run SCL 2
Hmm run tWR 10 then so you can lower tRAS down to 26. tRC 38 would be awkward 
228-169-104 likely will make issues, 
but tRC 36 @ 252-187-115 could maybe work out with tWR 10, and be faster

When did you try tRDWR 7 
was it already with GDM disabled ?
tRCD RD 15 isn't that far away, i can see it as possibility making it to work ~ if tWRRD is used
What RTT values are you atm on ?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Ooh that's why you run SCL 0
> Hmm run tWR 10 then so you can lower tRAS down to 26. tRC 38 would be awkward
> 228-169-104 likely will make issues,
> but tRC 36 @ 252-187-115 could maybe work out with tWR 10, and be faster
> 
> When did you try tRDWR 7
> was it already with GDM disabled ?
> tRCD RD 15 isn't that far away, i can see it as possibility making it to work ~ if tWRRD is used
> What RTT values are you atm on ?


I don't like to fiddle with that stuff too much so I just leave it on Auto.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I don't like to fiddle with that stuff too much so I just leave it on Auto.


Sadly you'd have to pray then, that the bios actually does predict and use correct voltages
Well we clearly see it doesn't 
VDDG 1.15v , means VSOC can't be less than 1.2 when we _hope_ that AMDs stepping remains 50mV
It might be more than 1.2v while HWInfo captures only what you put it ~ which meanwhile is autocorrected up


----------



## 2600ryzen

If you leave it auto ryzen master shows 1.15v vddg even though it's only 0.9v, you can tell it's 0.9v and not 1.15v by the amount of ppt you get idling.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Sadly you'd have to pray then, that the bios actually does predict and use correct voltages
> Well we clearly see it doesn't
> VDDG 1.15v , means VSOC can't be less than 1.2 when we _hope_ that AMDs stepping remains 50mV
> It might be more than 1.2v while HWInfo captures only what you put it ~ which meanwhile is autocorrected up


Ryzen master can't read VDDG correctly. Wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Ryzen master can't read VDDG correctly. Wouldn't count on it.


Which one can then ?
It only will accept set VDDG if UncoreOC mode inside AMD Overclocking is set to enable
What you read in HWInfo is not correct either, it does only read what the board tries to push and has SMU access 
But it won't detect autocorrection

RM is correct, because once you enable UncoreOC mode
It does drop the autocorrection and "randomly" applies it 
Wouldn't trust the bios anything these days, when we get a more and more bugged out bios after each update


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Which one can then ?
> It only will accept set VDDG if UncoreOC mode inside AMD Overclocking is set to enable
> What you read in HWInfo is not correct either, it does only read what the board tries to push and has SMU access
> But it won't detect autocorrection
> 
> RM is correct, because once you enable UncoreOC mode
> It does drop the autocorrection and "randomly" applies it
> Wouldn't trust the bios anything these days, when we get a more and more bugged out bios after each update


If Ryzen Master were correct, that would mean that every overclocker runs 1.2V+ VDDG for months and that would kill the IMC in very little time as seen on mongoled's CPU.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> If Ryzen Master were correct, that would mean that every overclocker runs 1.2V+ VDDG for months and that would kill the IMC in very little time as seen on mongoled's CPU.


When VDDG is high , and VDDP doesn't - it won't , as VDDG belongs only to the fabric not to the IMC 
But on some bioses VDDP bugs out and VDDG bugs out where 1.3vSOC is applied for a long time

Ryzen Master didn't lie on that part, it's the autocorrection that made issues
I don't hope that FIT would be able to downcorrect , but i am sure it does correct upwards
We had slowly degrading units too
What would kill the CPU is if VDDG is 1.3v , VSOC >1.35 would do it's job in less than 2 months 
Same when VDDP is 1.2v, around the same timeframe with nearly the same voltages the cpu would die

Just a warning from me, don't trust anything "auto" except for vcore
Mentioned here too, although his case was more mild while his unit still was shipped back as dead one which couldn't hold 2133MT/s anymore
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-768.html#post28496818

Enabling UncoreOC mode has only one sideeffect:
- it kills the maybe/maybe not functional variable vSOC / which on some units up to bios age and PSP firmware is or isn't locked
On the positive side, it does disable autocorrection and let's you use any random voltage you'd like, even when the cpu thinks it would be unstable 

Wouldn't spare the time to warn you, if it was nonsense 
But as this is the 8th case i see, on which 2 guys lost a cpu (got it replaced but still) 
I can beg you to at least to enforce these voltages


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> When VDDG is high , and VDDP doesn't - it won't , as VDDG belongs only to the fabric not to the IMC
> But on some bioses VDDP bugs out and VDDG bugs out where 1.3vSOC is applied for a long time
> 
> Ryzen Master didn't lie on that part, it's the autocorrection that made issues
> I don't hope that FIT would be able to downcorrect , but i am sure it does correct upwards
> We had slowly degrading units too
> What would kill the CPU is if VDDG is 1.3v , VSOC >1.35 would do it's job in less than 2 months
> Same when VDDP is 1.2v, around the same timeframe with nearly the same voltages the cpu would die
> 
> Just a warning from me, don't trust anything "auto" except for vcore
> Mentioned here too, although his case was more mild while his unit still was shipped back as dead one which couldn't hold 2133MT/s anymore
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...chi-overclocking-thread-768.html#post28496818
> 
> Enabling UncoreOC mode has only one sideeffect:
> - it kills the maybe/maybe not functional variable vSOC / which on some units up to bios age and PSP firmware is or isn't locked
> On the positive side, it does disable autocorrection and let's you use any random voltage you'd like, even when the cpu thinks it would be unstable
> 
> Wouldn't spare the time to warn you, if it was nonsense
> But as this is the 8th case i see, on which 2 guys lost a cpu (got it replaced but still)
> I can beg you to at least to enforce these voltages


Yeah, apparently the VDDG was set to 1.15V in the AMD Overclocking menu even though I never set it there. Strange.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Yeah, apparently the VDDG was set to 1.15V in the AMD Overclocking menu even though I never set it there. Strange.


It is applied, i hope you at least try it 
Better stay safe and have no change - than trust random autocorrection 
At least we do know the range of it, but on some bioses after you loaded XMP procODT 60 was pushed and 3600MT/s 1:1 mode by default wanted 1.1 VDDP on some gigabyte board
That overvolted the whole unit when a normal user just loaded the XMP profile without checking 

Fixing this, and the broken Memory Training they broke for anything that's non micron Rev.E after AGESA 1004B patch B
(they shorted the training duration and amount down ~ just because many users complained about longer boot times) 
= PMU pattern Bits increase to A=a=10 (hex) + forcing procODT
are the first things i always do on new builds
Too much bugged out predictions happen, and i don't like to trust it getting it magically correct


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> It is applied, i hope you at least try it
> Better stay safe and have no change - than trust random autocorrection
> At least we do know the range of it, but on some bioses after you loaded XMP procODT 60 was pushed and 3600MT/s 1:1 mode by default wanted 1.1 VDDP on some gigabyte board
> That overvolted the whole unit when a normal user just loaded the XMP profile without checking


Seems fine now.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Seems fine now.


Ty for listening  
i can't see vSOC , but hopefully it should be fine, wouldn't be much higher than 1.15 anyways

EDIT:
Oh after you wipe Ryzen Master
You might want to disable and Re'Enable CPPC and CPPC Preferred Cores mode again
Another bug is that ryzen master forcefully disables CPPC, even when the bios lists it as enabled ~ once you launch that application


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Ty for listening
> i can't see vSOC , but hopefully it should be fine, wouldn't be much higher than 1.15 anyways
> 
> EDIT:
> Oh after you wipe Ryzen Master
> You might want to disable and Re'Enable CPPC and CPPC Preferred Cores mode again
> Another bug is that ryzen master forcefully disables CPPC, even when the bios lists it as enabled ~ once you launch that application


I've used RM before and didn't perform that ritual, yet no performance difference. Is it that important?


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> I've used RM before and didn't perform that ritual, yet no performance difference. Is it that important?


When cores fully sleep or also a CCD, the main one can take more voltage to boost higher
it will also tell windows which cores are the good one - only important for single core perf, where it can try to boost the correct cores

HWinfo will report one set and RM will report another set to windows as "good cores"
both are not wrong, but both get confused - CPPC tells the windows powerplan or be it 1usmus powerplan to suspend the bad cores and shedule load correctly 
windows has to play with it ~ but as RM gives the OS another set of "maybe good" cores and bypasses CPPC 
You have to reactivate it after you wipe RM away

EDIT:
The disable enable part, is another design bug
Because hirarchy exists and AMD CBS having the lowest access of all - when AMD overclocking has it as enabled
RM then low level overrides it ~ it can happen that AMD Overclocking doesn't detect the change
Soo you need to disable CPPC again and enable it to fully function again

The absolute same bug happens when you by accident change a timing inside CBS->UMC -> Memory timings (hex)
This will keep overriding what the main OC menu defines for memory timings and couldn't be disabled till you clear cmos fully and start from scratch
Just funny design bugs


----------



## mongoled

rares495 said:


> If Ryzen Master were correct, that would mean that every overclocker runs 1.2V+ VDDG for months and that would kill the IMC in very little time as seen on mongoled's CPU.


Hey, my CPU is not killed


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> Hey, my CPU is not killed


sorry, thought it was.


----------



## mongoled

rares495 said:


> sorry, thought it was.


:thumb:

From the other thread


mongoled said:


> I cannot explain why, there is a possibility that I mixed up the two sets of 2 x 8GB Viper Steel's.
> 
> My issue was never to do with PBO, I only mentioned that I was disabling PBO so that it was known that this was not effecting the stability of the IF/RAM clocks.
> 
> After reading and reading and seeing the "Mirror Move" error explantion, and having gone through so many troubleshooting steps it dawned on me that the copying of data from one bank to the other was probably voltage dependant, so to clear things up I simply upped VDIMM from 1.5v in BIOS to 1.54v and voila no more weird error popping up in TM5!
> 
> How many hours I spent on this, swapping rigs, countless settings, countless configurations, oh well. Sorta explains why the first TM5 runs would generally pass, but after a warm boot would fail.
> 
> I am going to have to go through the 4 sticks one by one and test what voltage they require for a specific timing set etc and this time mark them so I know whats what!
> 
> I am currently back to what I was testing several days ago
> 
> CPU vCore Auto, CPU LLC 2, BCLK 107.5625 mhz, CPU PPT @142w, TDC @95a, EDC @3a, CPU Scaler @auto , CPU Boost @100 mhz,
> 
> this give exact 3800/1900 14-15-14-14-28-42-252-16, I dropped vDIMM to 1.52v in BIOS (1.536v load HWInfo64), vDDP 0.855v, vDDG 1.025v while vSOC is @ 1.069v under load, currently on cycle 9.


Passed two times after consecutive reboots.

Am now on 2nd run of TM5 with same setting as above accept

vSOC decrease to 1.044v under load
vDDG decrease to 1.0v
ProcODT changed to 28 ohms from 34 ohms
ClkDrvStrength changed to 20 ohms from 24 ohms

On 18th cycle ...

@Veii
The RM and CPPC bug, does it happen only when we open RM or when we change settings and apply those using RM ?

Also you keep mentioning "UncoreOC", I dont have such a thing in my BIOS, would setting mclk 1:1 with uclk be the same thing ??


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> @Veii
> The RM and CPPC bug, does it happen only when we open RM or when we change settings and apply those using RM ?
> 
> Also you keep mentioning "UncoreOC", I dont have such a thing in my BIOS, would setting mclk 1:1 with uclk be the same thing ??


UncoreOC is an own setting that exists inside AMD OVERCLOCKING - a whole category with sub categories 
RM bug happens once you open the program


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> UncoreOC is an own setting that exists inside AMD OVERCLOCKING - a whole category with sub categories
> RM bug happens once you open the program


Geez that should never happen!

** EDIT **
CPU vCore Auto, CPU LLC 2, BCLK 107.5625 mhz, CPU PPT @142w, TDC @95a, EDC @3a, CPU Scaler @auto , CPU Boost @100 mhz,

vDIMM to 1.52v in BIOS (1.536v load HWInfo64)
vDDP @0.855v
vDDG @1.0v
vSOC @1.044v under load
ProcODT 28 ohms
ClkDrvStrength 20 ohms

More experimentation tomorrow


----------



## 2600ryzen

My bios lets you do SOC OC mode, doesn't seem to do anything though, maybe because I don't have latest AGESA


----------



## Dollar

2600ryzen said:


> My bios lets you do SOC OC mode, doesn't seem to do anything though, maybe because I don't have latest AGESA



You can try gupsterg's advice from this post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ii-overclocking-thread-1088.html#post28318796


After doing that the soc voltage reports the same from everything. (ryzen master, hwinfo SVI2 and hwinfo ASUS WMI)


----------



## lexer

Hello guys, long time not visiting the forum. 

This is my configuration right now has been running for 2 months without any problems in my normal tasks (virtual machines,gaming,rendering ect). Anything can could be improved ? I'm a bit lost because this thread grow up a lot and I don't know where start reading lol. 

Thanks


----------



## 2600ryzen

Dollar said:


> You can try gupsterg's advice from this post: https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ii-overclocking-thread-1088.html#post28318796
> 
> 
> After doing that the soc voltage reports the same from everything. (ryzen master, hwinfo SVI2 and hwinfo ASUS WMI)



I like using the motherboard vsoc control so that if I reset cmos it goes back to auto.


----------



## overpower

KedarWolf said:


> You guys know to really test your RAM with RamTest it's necessary to enable cache in settings as well.


Are you talking about the karhu software? if yes, is there a free version?

thanks


----------



## overpower

I also run prime95 [email protected] for 40 mins.

I think im stable cause cod doesnt like unstable ram timings (had 3466mhz with same timings but it was giving me dev errors so i chose to decrease the speed instead of loosing the timings).

Should I increase vsoc/dram/cpu voltage more to tight even more the timings? 
With 3466 and trc at 438 it wouldnt boot. Should I try again now since it's @3400? trtp at 8 and trp at 18 was giving me errors before with 3466


----------



## algida79

Hey folks, how is everyone doing?

Is there a known method to quickly find optimal values for any of the ProcODT, RTT, CAD settings for a given combination of CPU/RAM/RAM speed, before starting to work on tightening timings? For example, would the optimal values require less Vdimm to successfully POST or boot into Windows or run a very quick TM5 test without BSOD/errors?

Context: I am picking up where I left off some time ago, trying to establish a baseline for a 2700X + 2x16GB Rev.E at 3533MT/s. Problem is, I was always using the calculator's values as a starting point but Veii suggested that its CAD recommended settings (24-24-24-24) might be outdated and 24-20-20-24 or 60-20-20-24 can work better on Zen+.


----------



## Ronski

overpower said:


> Are you talking about the karhu software? if yes, is there a free version?
> 
> thanks


No, but it's only $10.


----------



## 2600ryzen

lexer said:


> Hello guys, long time not visiting the forum.
> 
> This is my configuration right now has been running for 2 months without any problems in my normal tasks (virtual machines,gaming,rendering ect). Anything can could be improved ? I'm a bit lost because this thread grow up a lot and I don't know where start reading lol.
> 
> Thanks



B die should be able to do 16-16-16-16-32-48 pretty easy. Also try trrd s-l 6-9 Tfaw 24 Trtp-Twr 10-20. You can still improve a lot from the timings I give but they should be a good start.


----------



## whicker

What are you guys using for stability testing? I cant seem to run TM5, keep getting << thread error handler on launch>>.


----------



## Hequaqua

whicker said:


> What are you guys using for stability testing? I cant seem to run TM5, keep getting << thread error handler on launch>>.


Are you running it with Admin privilages?

I use the quick bench in the calculator. Then TM5 20 passes. Karhu(with cache enabled) to at least 8000%. Then TM5 again using the Anta777 Extreme profile.

Edit: Just a note on TM5 for anyone that cares. I download it from 1usmus' profile. It's listed at the bottom of his profile: https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html

Then I copy the folder. After the copy, I go into the bin file and replace it with the Anta777Extreme profile. I've found it's a little easier than to start it, find the config and then restart it. Just need to label which is which on either folder. 

EDIT II: It won't let me upload the cfg file for Anta777Extreme as the cfg file. Here is the text for anyone that doesn't have it:

Anta777Extreme Profile TM5


Spoiler



Memory Test config file v0.02
Copyrights to the program belong to me.
Serj
testmem.tz.ru
[email protected]

[Main Section]
Config Name=Extreme1
Config Author=anta777
Cores=0
Tests=16
Time (%)=500
Cycles=5
Language=0
Test Sequence=4,6,1,12,2,4,12,2,5,7,1,13,2,5,13,2,8,9,1,14,2,8,14,2,10,11,1,15,2,10,3

[Global Memory Setup]
Channels=2
Interleave Type=1
Single DIMM width, bits=64
Operation Block, byts=64
Testing Window Size (Mb)=1408 ; еще лучше установить 1536 но не во всех железных конфигах получится
Lock Memory Granularity (Mb)=16
Reserved Memory for Windows (Mb)=128
Capable=0x0
Debug Level=7

[Window Position]
WindowPosX=468
WindowPosY=344

[Test0]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=RefreshStable
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test1]
Enable=1
Time (%)=20
Function=MirrorMove
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=4
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test2]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=MirrorMove128
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=2
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test3]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=1
Pattern Param0=0x1E5F
Pattern Param1=0x45357354
Parameter=256
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test4]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test5]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test6]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=2
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test7]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=2
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test8]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0x1E5F
Pattern Param1=0x45357354
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test9]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0x2305B
Pattern Param1=0x97893FB2
Parameter=2
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test10]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0x98FB
Pattern Param1=0x552FE552
Parameter=0
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test11]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0xC51C
Pattern Param1=0xC5052FE6
Parameter=2
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test12]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=256
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test13]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0
Pattern Param1=0x0
Parameter=256
Test Block Size (Mb)=0

[Test14]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0xB79D9
Pattern Param1=0x253B69D4
Parameter=256
Test Block Size (Mb)=4

[Test15]
Enable=1
Time (%)=100
Function=SimpleTest
DLL Name=bin\MT0.dll
Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0x2305A
Pattern Param1=0x1789AB54
Parameter=256
Test Block Size (Mb)=0


----------



## MakubeX

Am I doing something wrong when exporting my settings from Thaiphoon? The timings suggested by the DRAM Calculator when I imported the report from Thaiphoon seem very aggressive. I first tried the looser timings I get when I select PCB revision A0/B0 and even with those I couldn't boot at all.

I'm running this set of memory: F4-3600C16D-32GTZN


----------



## mongoled

Does anybody know why when TM5 shows an error message that sometimes the error displayed shows correctly, i.e. it is in English characters and is readable, while sometimes if is not readable i.e. the characters are not English but some Greeklish/Cyrilic characters ??


----------



## jamie1073

MakubeX said:


> Am I doing something wrong when exporting my settings from Thaiphoon? The timings suggested by the DRAM Calculator when I imported the report from Thaiphoon seem very aggressive. I first tried the looser timings I get when I select PCB revision A0/B0 and even with those I couldn't boot at all.
> 
> I'm running this set of memory: F4-3600C16D-32GTZN



What voltage were you using? I found on mine I had to go over the suggested values for mine to be stable.


----------



## hazium233

Wasted some time yesterday trying to get decent timings with my 2x8GB Ballistix 3200 C16 sticks at 3600MT/s. 2700X on an X370-F (b 4207 - Pinnacle 1006). Running it loose at 3600 did not seem to be much of a problem. Trying to run it closer to "expected" 3600C16 was giving me problems. By that, it was pretty unstable.

Main question has to do with TM5 1usmus errors though, I searched back through threads to look for info. But I have one weird one.

Got Test 4 error x 2 in cycle 1 with "Error in 4 through 3m22s" - from searching, this can be the tRDWR / tWRRD pair. Or tRFC.

In cycle two though I got Test 8 errors x 4.

In an old comment, 1usmus said Test 8 was for core instability, or maybe tRDWR. Is that right? Running default core clocks, no PBO, no offset.

I had some luck with error rate increasing tRDWR, although the best run I had still had 8 , 3 configured (even though tRCDRD was at 20t).

Best I managed was only one error in 5726% coverage of Karhu so still a long way to go.

...

Also interested in the voltages and termination in the Rev E preset with a Zen+ and X370.

The DRAM voltage for the profile is 1.35 to 1.37, is that not low for the typical 3000C15 or 3200C16 bins?

Also somewhat weirdly it seemed like I could pass an hour of AIDA cache, or cache and memory with only 1.025V SOC with LLC3 and phases to Extreme, although for the cache only I also had switched core phase to Extreme. Current 120% for both. Starting to wonder if the chip needs positive core offset with good timings at this speed.

Termination seems pretty high in the calculator at 53 or 60ohm ProcODT. I was testing mostly 43. 48 seemed to be a little less stable, although I did not crank voltages.

Will maybe test PLL steps. Might try core offset, although I would imagine it will negatively affect boost. Will maybe play with strange RTT combos, and CAD.


----------



## MakubeX

jamie1073 said:


> What voltage were you using? I found on mine I had to go over the suggested values for mine to be stable.


I tried different voltages. I was surprised to see that it can handle almost all of these settings at the recommended voltages. I can't get it to boot at 3800 at all even with very loose settings (19-19-19-39) and 1.45v but it does run at 3600 16-15-15-15-30 with almost everything else as it is in my screenshot (stability tests in progress). So far running ok with tRFC at 230 but tRDWR cannot go lower than 10, so I can't do 8 like it recommends.

That said, it won't boot at all with a tCL of 14. I tried setting it to 15 but upon boot Ryzen Master shows 16 for some reason. So I can either do 16 or 14.


----------



## whicker

Hequaqua said:


> Are you running it with Admin privilages?
> 
> I use the quick bench in the calculator. Then TM5 20 passes. Karhu(with cache enabled) to at least 8000%. Then TM5 again using the Anta777 Extreme profile.
> 
> Edit: Just a note on TM5 for anyone that cares. I download it from 1usmus' profile. It's listed at the bottom of his profile: https://www.overclock.net/forum/27937684-post4314.html
> 
> Then I copy the folder. After the copy, I go into the bin file and replace it with the Anta777Extreme profile. I've found it's a little easier than to start it, find the config and then restart it. Just need to label which is which on either folder.
> 
> EDIT II: It won't let me upload the cfg file for Anta777Extreme as the cfg file. Here is the text for anyone that doesn't have it:
> 
> Anta777Extreme Profile TM5


Thanks for the reply and the Anta777 profile. Is Karhu worth buying if I have a Aida64 license?


----------



## Veii

MakubeX said:


> I tried different voltages. I was surprised to see that it can handle almost all of these settings at the recommended voltages. I can't get it to boot at 3800 at all even with very loose settings (19-19-19-39) and 1.45v but it does run at 3600 16-15-15-15-30 with almost everything else as it is in my screenshot (stability tests in progress). So far running ok with tRFC at 230 but tRDWR cannot go lower than 10, so I can't do 8 like it recommends.
> 
> That said, it won't boot at all with a tCL of 14. I tried setting it to 15 but upon boot Ryzen Master shows 16 for some reason. So I can either do 16 or 14.


dram calculator can't fully adapt to everything
For example tRRD_S 3 in reality would be correct
But we can't go lower than 4, soo there is mistake 1
Because tRRD_S is 4 and not 3, tFAW= 4* tRRD_S = 16

Dual rank needs tRCD RD/2 + 2
Single rank needs only tRCD RD/2 for tRDWR
For both you can go -1 which would require tWRRD added delay
tWRRD is the same but with tRCD WR
it's 4x value = < or = tRCD WR 
Soo dual rank with 16-16-16 would logically run 10-1 or 9-4 for TRDWR & tWRRD

Keep in mind, GDM does autocorrect upwards to even values on the primaries
soo when you can't run 8-4 or 8-3 you probably are running 16-16-16 
In order to run 15-15-15 you have to disable GDM , start with command rate 2T, get that stable and double check + work on your RTT and CAD_BUS values till it works out

Start with procOCD 43 (not higher)
Vsoc between 1.045-1.08v (3600MT/s) 
Cad_BUS 60-20-20-20 
VDDP has to be at highest 950mV , but what in reality helps the IMC and the board is higher VDDG IOD for dual rank
Try:
cLDO_VDDP 950
VDDG CCD 975
VDDG IOD 1025
VSOC 1050 no loadline , else keep vdroop at exactly 1050mV
Good luck :thumb:


----------



## Hequaqua

whicker said:


> Thanks for the reply and the Anta777 profile. Is Karhu worth buying if I have a Aida64 license?


If you have 10.00, then yea. It finds errors fairly quick and is simple to use. Just make sure you enable the cache when you test as well.


----------



## Veii

whicker said:


> Is Karhu worth buying if I have a Aida64 license?


It absolutely is a good tool and quite fast
But so is also HCI Memtest and GSAT googles server memtest

What makes TM useful is, that you see on what test it errors
On Karhu or hci (dram calculator) you don't
Tbh I am not sure about fastness, when 20-25 cycles 1usmus v3 take 1:30-1:50h
While Karhu or HCI 20 000% can take 6-8h 
MemtestX86 would technically be equally fast, but doesnt find errors well as memory keeps getting autocorrected

SuperPi and Y-cruncher are good stability tests after TM5 
And Prime95 large FFT for the end (3h) is a good stability check finisher 
Karhu would be a great tool, if we could get a database build what error means what, and a clear error description 
So far it's just accurate, but there are many other accurate tests too


----------



## overpower

MakubeX said:


> That said, it won't boot at all with a tCL of 14. I tried setting it to 15 but upon boot Ryzen Master shows 16 for some reason. So I can either do 16 or 14.


That's because of the gear down mode. When enabled, it will round (I think only the basic timings and not the subtimings, someone please correct me if wrong) to the lower even number (eg tcl at 15 will be rounded to 16, 13 to 14 etc.


----------



## whicker

Hequaqua said:


> If you have 10.00, then yea. It finds errors fairly quick and is simple to use. Just make sure you enable the cache when you test as well.


Not sure what version I have, ill have a look when I get home. 



Veii said:


> It absolutely is a good tool and quite fast
> But so is also HCI Memtest and GSAT googles server memtest
> 
> What makes TM useful is, that you see on what test it errors
> On Karhu or hci (dram calculator) you don't
> Tbh I am not sure about fastness, when 20-25 cycles 1usmus v3 take 1:30-1:50h
> While Karhu or HCI 20 000% can take 6-8h
> MemtestX86 would technically be equally fast, but doesnt find errors well as memory keeps getting autocorrected
> 
> SuperPi and Y-cruncher are good stability tests after TM5
> And Prime95 large FFT for the end (3h) is a good stability check finisher
> Karhu would be a great tool, if we could get a database build what error means what, and a clear error description
> So far it's just accurate, but there are many other accurate tests too


My ram/fclk OC passed the dram calc test and 20 cycles of 1usmus TM5. It was also stable for close to a year (almost the same settings as when I built the pc last july). A bios update got me to redo the OC with a few small tweaks. I will run some more tests tonight and hopefully be done with it. Likely some more TM5, maybe Karhu, Aida and Prime.


----------



## algida79

Some weeks ago we were discussing the issue of TM5 seemingly getting stuck after it finishes the last test of a cycle and whether it is indicative of an unstable OC.


Well, yesterday I was messing around with Windows process priorities and thought of using a batch file to launch TM5 tests with a High priority (the "why" is not that important).



Code:


cmd /c start C:\Users\algida79\apps\tm5\3cycles\TM5.exe
timeout /t 1 /nobreak & wmic process where name="TM5.exe" call setpriority "Above Normal"


Lo and behold, I can now get *almost consistent* reproduction of this issue, either at the end of the 1st or the 2nd cycle.









This could be a bug after all; perhaps a rare race condition triggered more frequently when running TM5 with a higher priority?

What are your thoughts folks? Anyone care to test this theory with some 2 or 3 cycle tests?


----------



## MakubeX

Veii said:


> dram calculator can't fully adapt to everything
> For example tRRD_S 3 in reality would be correct
> But we can't go lower than 4, soo there is mistake 1
> Because tRRD_S is 4 and not 3, tFAW= 4* tRRD_S = 16
> 
> Dual rank needs tRCD RD/2 + 2
> Single rank needs only tRCD RD/2 for tRDWR
> For both you can go -1 which would require tWRRD added delay
> tWRRD is the same but with tRCD WR
> it's 4x value = < or = tRCD WR
> Soo dual rank with 16-16-16 would logically run 10-1 or 9-4 for TRDWR & tWRRD
> 
> Keep in mind, GDM does autocorrect upwards to even values on the primaries
> soo when you can't run 8-4 or 8-3 you probably are running 16-16-16
> In order to run 15-15-15 you have to disable GDM , start with command rate 2T, get that stable and double check + work on your RTT and CAD_BUS values till it works out
> 
> Start with procOCD 43 (not higher)
> Vsoc between 1.045-1.08v (3600MT/s)
> Cad_BUS 60-20-20-20
> VDDP has to be at highest 950mV , but what in reality helps the IMC and the board is higher VDDG IOD for dual rank
> Try:
> cLDO_VDDP 950
> VDDG CCD 975
> VDDG IOD 1025
> VSOC 1050 no loadline , else keep vdroop at exactly 1050mV
> Good luck :thumb:


I appreciate the advice, thanks! I used your settings and so far so good. I'm getting about the same score on Cinebench R20 as when I ahd GDM on and 1T but I haven't tested much else. So far, stable though. Any timings you think I should try bringing down?


----------



## Veii

algida79 said:


> Hey folks, how is everyone doing?
> 
> Is there a known method to quickly find optimal values for any of the ProcODT, RTT, CAD settings for a given combination of CPU/RAM/RAM speed, before starting to work on tightening timings? For example, would the optimal values require less Vdimm to successfully POST or boot into Windows or run a very quick TM5 test without BSOD/errors?
> 
> Context: I am picking up where I left off some time ago, trying to establish a baseline for a 2700X + 2x16GB Rev.E at 3533MT/s. Problem is, I was always using the calculator's values as a starting point but Veii suggested that its CAD recommended settings (24-24-24-24) might be outdated and 24-20-20-24 or 60-20-20-24 can work better on Zen+.
> 
> 
> MakubeX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the advice, thanks! I used your settings and so far so good. I'm getting about the same score on Cinebench R20 as when I ahd GDM on and 1T but I haven't tested much else. So far, stable though. Any timings you think I should try bringing down?
Click to expand...

Forwarding you both to the middle post here 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232

CAD_BUS is testing knowledge, and 1usmus on Techpowerup has very valuable documentions
One for 1st & 2nd gen / one for 3rd gen with additions for sTR4 (which is useable on Matisse)
2nd gen maximum frequency 3734MT/s scales with procODT and cLDO_VDDP (must be calculated for every frequency step)
3rd gen takes that into consideration, but has voltage stepping

Both have the same IMC and so the same vSOC rulesets apply * 
2800-3200MT/s = 1025mV SOC
3334-3400MT/s = 1032.5mV 
3467-3600MT/s = 1050mV 
~3734~ = 1075mV
~ of these factor in +/- 10mV vDROOP 

AGESA 1.0.0.6 old liked CAD_BUS = 20-24-40-30Ω
AGESA 0.0.7.2, 1.0.0.2C = 24-24-24-24Ω
AGESA 1003ABB - 1006 do enjoy 24-20-20-24Ω / B350-450-B550 sub 100$ low end boards do like 24-20-24-24Ω to prevent boot issues
^ *****

RTT Value = 240Ω
RTT_PARK moves between 
RZQ/5 (48Ω) 
which is typical for B-dies
to RZQ/7 (34Ω)
which mostly belongs to easy to drive ICs like micron ones

RTT_WR nearly always is disabled except for Dual Rank units ****

RTT_NOM if needed 
RZQ/7 (34Ω) 
nearly always combined with RTT_PARK above 48Ω = RZQ/5 or RZQ/4, even RZQ/3 for some easy to drive dual rank

**** Dual rank units change this
RTT_PARK doubles to RZQ/1 (240Ω)
with RTT_WR being utilized as RZQ/3 (80Ω) 
RTT_NOM as always stays at RZQ/7, a subtle bump of 34Ω 
~ maybe RZQ/8 could work too on dual rank to lower the stress
One little exception that exists is 7/0/2 for Micron units or future Hynix 5000+ units
=
You can pass by not using RTT_WR on Dual Rank, when you push RTT_PARK to RZQ/2 (120Ω)
This will require high VDIMM voltage but is helpful and causes less strain although will need Higher CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh *****

**** Dual rank units follow always some exceptions to the rules
Not only does tRDWR, tWR change a bit ~ but so does also CAD_BUS and procODT
ProcODT often needs 2+ steps more , for example instead of 28-32Ω you'd use 39.6-43Ω as lowest optimal value
**** *CAD_BUS plays here a very important role too. ClkDrvStrengh the first value 
(also written in 1usmus's Threadripper OC Teardown ~ you should read his content  ) 

If you have 4 dimms, use values between 40-60Ω ClkDrvStrengh
If you run 2x A2 Dimms start with 30Ω ClkDrvStrengh
2x B1 or B0 DualRank dimms work well with 60Ω ClkDrvStrengh
2x B2/B3 PCB Dual Rank or 32GB dimms, should start with 120Ω ClkDrvStrengh
Exmp: 120-20-20-24Ω

Boards do autocorrect memory timings since 1st gen, but after 3rd gen the CPU does help too
(MBIST ~ Data Eye mode)
Soo whenever you enable or disable GDM, please use a correct tRFC2 & 4 
If not, use the same tRFC across the tRFC, tRFC2, tRFC4
tCKE works only when GDM is enabled, soo values between 1 & 6 are recommendable
It works with PowerDownMode, which we suggest to be disabled unless you run very sensitive kits under low voltage

*** VSOC and 3rd gen
your range usually goes up till 1.2 ~ but as lower remains better, 
we shouldn't exceed 1.1v after AGESA 1002v2/1006 as it has negative effects
Well working VSOC also depends on procODT impedance !
To share some examples here as addition to


> Both have the same IMC and so the same vSOC rulesets apply *
> 2800-3200MT/s = 1025mV SOC
> 3334-3400MT/s = 1032.5mV
> 3467-3600MT/s = 1050mV
> ~3734~ = 1075mV
> ~ of these factor in +/- 10mV vDROOP


2400-3000MT/s MT/s @ procODT 28Ω can run out of just 800mV VSOC, 750mV VDDG, 700mV VDDP on 3rd gen
20?-28Ω = 900-1025mV SOC, upper range 1075mV 
30-34Ω = 1025-1075mV SOC, upper range 1085mV
36-40Ω = 1050-1100mV SOC, upper range 1125mV
42-60Ω = 1062.5-1150mV SOC, upper range 1200mV
68-120Ω which no one should use ! = 1175-1250, upper Range 1300mV 
going beyond 1.3v SOC is nearly a guaranteed degraded fabric, unless you keep it under -90c
High Impedance mode beyond 120Ω procODT @ 1.35vSOC would require Liquid Helium !
Although without statistic data, dropping below -95 to -100c on this would pretty much kill the CPU :clock:


MakubeX said:


> I'm getting about the same score on Cinebench R20 as when I ahd GDM on and 1T but I haven't tested much else. So far, stable though. Any timings you think I should try bringing down?


Next to the big cheat sheet above, which sadly lacks space for more memory PCB talk

Decrease tRC to 45, at worst 46 
You cheat atm with stability by using more tRC than necessary.
tRFC you should fix, either use the same 280 across the whole range
Or by personal suggestion use
tRFC 270-201-123
tWR 12, tRTP 6
and fix your tFAW to be 16 + tCWL 16
then maybe tRDWR 9 can post and be stable, technically tRDWR 8 should work afterwards too

If you get tCL down to 14 with more voltage try,
tRCD WR 13, tRP 14, tRC 44, tRFC 264-196-121, tCWL 14
with same tWR 12, tRTP 6
tRDWR 8, tWRRD 3 ~ 9/3 if you still have issues getting it down to 8

Step 3 is trying if:
3734MT/s @
Bump tRCD RD to 16, tRCD WR to 14, 
tRP 15, tRAS stays 30, tRC 45, tRFC for now 315-234-144 (till you confirm stability)
tWR 14, tRTP 7 (if you get autocorrected by some bug, try 12 ~ but 9 would also work)
Both SCLs up to 4
tRDWR 10, tWRRD 1 ~ else tRDWR 9, tWRRD 3 would work

Step 4,
Going down to tRFC 270-201-123, tWR 12, tRTP 6
Checking if you can go down to SCL 3 again , and up to voltage maybe even down to SCL 2 :specool:


----------



## MakubeX

Veii said:


> Forwarding you both to the middle post here
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232
> 
> CAD_BUS is testing knowledge, and 1usmus on Techpowerup has very valuable documentions
> One for 1st & 2nd gen / one for 3rd gen with additions for sTR4 (which is useable on Matisse)
> 2nd gen maximum frequency 3734MT/s scales with procODT and cLDO_VDDP (must be calculated for every frequency step)
> 3rd gen takes that into consideration, but has voltage stepping
> 
> Both have the same IMC and so the same vSOC rulesets apply *
> 2800-3200MT/s = 1025mV SOC
> 3334-3400MT/s = 1032.5mV
> 3467-3600MT/s = 1050mV
> ~3734~ = 1075mV
> ~ of these factor in +/- 10mV vDROOP
> 
> AGESA 1.0.0.6 old liked CAD_BUS = 20-24-40-30Ω
> AGESA 0.0.7.2, 1.0.0.2C = 24-24-24-24Ω
> AGESA 1003ABB - 1006 do enjoy 24-20-20-24Ω / B350-450-B550 sub 100$ low end boards do like 24-20-24-24Ω to prevent boot issues
> ^ *****
> 
> RTT Value = 240Ω
> RTT_PARK moves between
> RZQ/5 (48Ω)
> which is typical for B-dies
> to RZQ/7 (34Ω)
> which mostly belongs to easy to drive ICs like micron ones
> 
> RTT_WR nearly always is disabled except for Dual Rank units ****
> 
> RTT_NOM if needed
> RZQ/7 (34Ω)
> nearly always combined with RTT_PARK above 48Ω = RZQ/5 or RZQ/4, even RZQ/3 for some easy to drive dual rank
> 
> **** Dual rank units change this
> RTT_PARK doubles to RZQ/1 (240Ω)
> with RTT_WR being utilized as RZQ/3 (80Ω)
> RTT_NOM as always stays at RZQ/7, a subtle bump of 34Ω
> ~ maybe RZQ/8 could work too on dual rank to lower the stress
> One little exception that exists is 7/0/2 for Micron units or future Hynix 5000+ units
> =
> You can pass by not using RTT_WR on Dual Rank, when you push RTT_PARK to RZQ/2 (120Ω)
> This will require high VDIMM voltage but is helpful and causes less strain although will need Higher CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh *****
> 
> **** Dual rank units follow always some exceptions to the rules
> Not only does tRDWR, tWR change a bit ~ but so does also CAD_BUS and procODT
> ProcODT often needs 2+ steps more , for example instead of 28-32Ω you'd use 39.6-43Ω as lowest optimal value
> **** *CAD_BUS plays here a very important role too. ClkDrvStrengh the first value
> (also written in 1usmus's Threadripper OC Teardown ~ you should read his content [emoji14] )
> 
> If you have 4 dimms, use values between 40-60Ω ClkDrvStrengh
> If you run 2x A2 Dimms start with 30Ω ClkDrvStrengh
> 2x B1 or B0 DualRank dimms work well with 60Ω ClkDrvStrengh
> 2x B2/B3 PCB Dual Rank or 32GB dimms, should start with 120Ω ClkDrvStrengh
> Exmp: 120-20-20-24Ω
> 
> Boards do autocorrect memory timings since 1st gen, but after 3rd gen the CPU does help too
> (MBIST ~ Data Eye mode)
> Soo whenever you enable or disable GDM, please use a correct tRFC2 & 4
> If not, use the same tRFC across the tRFC, tRFC2, tRFC4
> tCKE works only when GDM is enabled, soo values between 1 & 6 are recommendable
> It works with PowerDownMode, which we suggest to be disabled unless you run very sensitive kits under low voltage
> 
> *** VSOC and 3rd gen
> your range usually goes up till 1.2 ~ but as lower remains better,
> we shouldn't exceed 1.1v after AGESA 1002v2/1006 as it has negative effects
> Well working VSOC also depends on procODT impedance !
> To share some examples here as addition to
> 2400-3000MT/s MT/s @ procODT 28Ω can run out of just 800mV VSOC, 750mV VDDG, 700mV VDDP on 3rd gen
> 20?-28Ω = 900-1025mV SOC, upper range 1075mV
> 30-34Ω = 1025-1075mV SOC, upper range 1085mV
> 36-40Ω = 1050-1100mV SOC, upper range 1125mV
> 42-60Ω = 1062.5-1150mV SOC, upper range 1200mV
> 68-120Ω which no one should use ! = 1175-1250, upper Range 1300mV
> going beyond 1.3v SOC is nearly a guaranteed degraded fabric, unless you keep it under -90c
> High Impedance mode beyond 120Ω procODT @ 1.35vSOC would require Liquid Helium !
> Although without statistic data, dropping below -95 to -100c on this would pretty much kill the CPU :clock:
> 
> Next to the big cheat sheet above, which sadly lacks space for more memory PCB talk
> 
> Decrease tRC to 45, at worst 46
> You cheat atm with stability by using more tRC than necessary.
> tRFC you should fix, either use the same 280 across the whole range
> Or by personal suggestion use
> tRFC 270-201-123
> tWR 12, tRTP 6
> and fix your tFAW to be 16 + tCWL 16
> then maybe tRDWR 9 can post and be stable, technically tRDWR 8 should work afterwards too
> 
> If you get tCL down to 14 with more voltage try,
> tRCD WR 13, tRP 14, tRC 44, tRFC 264-196-121, tCWL 14
> with same tWR 12, tRTP 6
> tRDWR 8, tWRRD 3 ~ 9/3 if you still have issues getting it down to 8
> 
> Step 3 is trying if:
> 3734MT/s @
> Bump tRCD RD to 16, tRCD WR to 14,
> tRP 15, tRAS stays 30, tRC 45, tRFC for now 315-234-144 (till you confirm stability)
> tWR 14, tRTP 7 (if you get autocorrected by some bug, try 12 ~ but 9 would also work)
> Both SCLs up to 4
> tRDWR 10, tWRRD 1 ~ else tRDWR 9, tWRRD 3 would work
> 
> Step 4,
> Going down to tRFC 270-201-123, tWR 12, tRTP 6
> Checking if you can go down to SCL 3 again , and up to voltage maybe even down to SCL 2 :specool:


Thanks for the advice! I'll try your settings. I just passed 20 TM5 cycles with the attached settings so at least I have a stable baseline at the moment.

Edit: For now I set tRFC to 288-214-132.


----------



## fcchin

whicker said:


> What are you guys using for stability testing? I cant seem to run TM5, keep getting << thread error handler on launch>>.





algida79 said:


> TM5 seemingly getting stuck after it finishes


I get these exact problems when virtual memory pagefile is set to zero, a minimum of 50MB to 500MB is recommended.


----------



## Veii

MakubeX said:


> Thanks for the advice! I'll try your settings. I just passed 20 TM5 cycles with the attached settings so at least I have a stable baseline at the moment.
> 
> Edit: For now I set tRFC to 288-214-132.


288 tRFC doesn't divide well through 14
As you have GDM disabled try to use tWR 12 with tRTP 7, 8 works too 
I suggest to grab SiSoftware Sandra, there the Multi-Core efficiency test , filter to local results only and compare under "detailed" results both of your sets of timings
Whatever peaks highest is a better set of timings

You can also grab SuperPi 1.5 SX (32M iterations) and benchmark it there
the benchmark inside DRAM calculator is also an option, but i find SiSandra just visually more accurate
EDIT:
You should also fix your tRFC 2 - it's a mess  
Either use the same tRFC across all of them or calculate it under the advanced tab in the calculator section
Well you can also just use this tool here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/
and put tRFC 288 on the manual calculator - to turn it into a tRFC-tRFC2-tRFC4 set


----------



## MakubeX

Veii said:


> 288 tRFC doesn't divide well through 14
> As you have GDM disabled try to use tWR 12 with tRTP 7, 8 works too
> I suggest to grab SiSoftware Sandra, there the Multi-Core efficiency test , filter to local results only and compare under "detailed" results both of your sets of timings
> Whatever peaks highest is a better set of timings
> 
> You can also grab SuperPi 1.5 SX (32M iterations) and benchmark it there
> the benchmark inside DRAM calculator is also an option, but i find SiSandra just visually more accurate
> EDIT:
> You should also fix your tRFC 2 - it's a mess
> Either use the same tRFC across all of them or calculate it under the advanced tab in the calculator section
> Well you can also just use this tool here
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7G97QOL0dNMwJZa9SYEq2RElJ5T6Hcx9WdReTsnIWw/
> and put tRFC 288 on the manual calculator - to turn it into a tRFC-tRFC2-tRFC4 set


I did. That's where I got the values (under Manual). Maybe I used it wrong? I see that I was also using the pre-release sheet.

Edit. Maybe you're referring to the screenshot in my previous post? That was a mess. That's before I used your spreadsheet.


----------



## KedarWolf

This what what I settled on. Low voltages too. Well, except SoC but I find I need a higher SoC to keep my CCX overclock stable. 

Passes 25 cycles of TM5.


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> This what what I settled on. Low voltages too. Well, except SoC but I find I need a higher SoC to keep my CCX overclock stable.
> 
> Passes 25 cycles of TM5.


What did you set your IF clock to? 1900? And can you run the same RAM clocks even if you have your IF at 1800, say just for testing?


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> What did you set your IF clock to? 1900? And can you run the same RAM clocks even if you have your IF at 1800, say just for testing?


Yes, IF clock is at 1900. I'm not sure why I'd test it at 1800 though?


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> Yes, IF clock is at 1900. I'm not sure why I'd test it at 1800 though?


I just wanted to test your timings since I have the same RAM but I've had 0 luck running it at 3800. However, I wanted to eliminate my IF as a factor since I don't know if it can do 1900 yet (I just finished building this PC). I've been out of the game for a bit and wasn't sure if just overclocking the RAM without touching the IF was fine.


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> I just wanted to test your timings since I have the same RAM but I've had 0 luck running it at 3800. However, I wanted to eliminate my IF as a factor since I don't know if it can do 1900 yet (I just finished building this PC). I've been out of the game for a bit and wasn't sure if just overclocking the RAM without touching the IF was fine.


You want to run your IF at half your RAM speed or your RAM isn't synced and you take a huge latency hit. 

Edit: brb, getting BIOS settings for you.


----------



## caenlen

I upgraded to 2x16gb 32 total g.skill bdie and qvl for my mobo. got calculator printed out for 3600 safe mode, should be able to get 3600 14-14-14-34... that is my hope anyway. not going to push it further than that since it is 16 gig sticks. once i do a new bios update for ryzen 4800x, i might try to go higher, but i doubt it. i will be very happy if i can get it stable at 3600 14 since its dual rank


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> You want to run your IF at half your RAM speed or your RAM isn't synced and you take a huge latency hit.


Oh yeah, for sure. I'm hoping to run them 1:1. Right now I'm doing that at 1800. I just wanted to see first if my RAM can do 3800 at all before I try to do 1900 on the IF.


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> Oh yeah, for sure. I'm hoping to run them 1:1. Right now I'm doing that at 1800. I just wanted to see first if my RAM can do 3800 at all before I try to do 1900 on the IF.


Be better to run static voltages than an offset at first and keep your SoC no higher than 1.1v, I run it a bit high.

See in Spoiler. 



Spoiler


----------



## Dollar

Veii said:


> Wouldn't trust the bios anything these days, when we get a more and more bugged out bios after each update



On that note, what about CPU VDDP? I don't see it mentioned much. Auto is 1.05v, should I change it to the dram calc recommended 0.9v? (3700x)


----------



## Veii

Dollar said:


> On that note, what about CPU VDDP? I don't see it mentioned much. Auto is 1.05v, should I change it to the dram calc recommended 0.9v? (3700x)


I have seen people mistaking this and the other VDDP
running 900 or 950 didn't do any harm to the CPU, you can keep it lower 
Might try 900 only with VSOC near 1050, and 950 with vSOC near 1100 
Or just match it to the IMCs VDDP 

Haven't seen any correct answer, nor any negative results running at 900mV
Just doublecheck with SiSandra, not that the less voltage option increases Inter-Core Latency
Paste a whole report here or under google sheets to compare both


----------



## hazium233

Veii said:


> Both have the same IMC and so the same vSOC rulesets apply *
> 2800-3200MT/s = 1025mV SOC
> 3334-3400MT/s = 1032.5mV
> 3467-3600MT/s = 1050mV
> ~3734~ = 1075mV
> ~ of these factor in +/- 10mV vDROOP
> 
> AGESA 1.0.0.6 old liked CAD_BUS = 20-24-40-30Ω
> AGESA 0.0.7.2, 1.0.0.2C = 24-24-24-24Ω
> AGESA 1003ABB - 1006 do enjoy 24-20-20-24Ω / B350-450-B550 sub 100$ low end boards do like 24-20-24-24Ω to prevent boot issues
> ^ *****


I have been confused about AGESA and microcode. If you replace the microcode in an older bios, is that like an AGESA change, or are they separate things?

So like if you have a Pinnacle 1006 or older, but newest 2700X microcode, should that prefer the later AGESA impedances?


----------



## OCmember

I assume you guys have installed the latest chip-set drivers?


----------



## MakubeX

Veii said:


> Decrease tRC to 45, at worst 46
> You cheat atm with stability by using more tRC than necessary.
> tRFC you should fix, either use the same 280 across the whole range
> Or by personal suggestion use
> tRFC 270-201-123
> tWR 12, tRTP 6
> and fix your tFAW to be 16 + tCWL 16
> then maybe tRDWR 9 can post and be stable, technically tRDWR 8 should work afterwards too
> 
> If you get tCL down to 14 with more voltage try,
> tRCD WR 13, tRP 14, tRC 44, tRFC 264-196-121, tCWL 14
> with same tWR 12, tRTP 6
> tRDWR 8, tWRRD 3 ~ 9/3 if you still have issues getting it down to 8
> 
> Step 3 is trying if:
> 3734MT/s @
> Bump tRCD RD to 16, tRCD WR to 14,
> tRP 15, tRAS stays 30, tRC 45, tRFC for now 315-234-144 (till you confirm stability)
> tWR 14, tRTP 7 (if you get autocorrected by some bug, try 12 ~ but 9 would also work)
> Both SCLs up to 4
> tRDWR 10, tWRRD 1 ~ else tRDWR 9, tWRRD 3 would work
> 
> Step 4,
> Going down to tRFC 270-201-123, tWR 12, tRTP 6
> Checking if you can go down to SCL 3 again , and up to voltage maybe even down to SCL 2 :specool:


Got it 20 TM5 cycle stable with the settings you recommended. tRDWR would not boot at 8 but it's stable at 9. I'll test it with Sandra and see how it compares to the previous ones. Thanks again for the help! I've got RAM and GPU OCed. Just pending CPU now.


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> Be better to run static voltages than an offset at first and keep your SoC no higher than 1.1v, I run it a bit high.
> 
> 
> 
> See in Spoiler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


So as far as running the memory at 3800, all I had to do was bump the frequency up. I didn't need to change the timings (not tested with TM5 yet). I was able to run my IF at 1900 by upping the SOC. I had to do at least 1.125v. However, even though my temps are fine (so far under 70 under load) and I'm running 1:1 RAM:IF, my performance dropped significantly. I went from over 7K in Cinebench R20 to under 6K.

I'm testing additional voltages to see if it makes a difference but I'm not sure what's going on.

Any ideas, anyone?

Edit: I noticed my peak core voltage is lower and the CPU is running at lower speeds overall. I think their might be some over current protection or something of the sort going on.


----------



## rares495

MakubeX said:


> So as far as running the memory at 3800, all I had to do was bump the frequency up. I didn't need to change the timings (not tested with TM5 yet). I was able to run my IF at 1900 by upping the SOC. I had to do at least 1.125v. However, even though my temps are fine (so far under 70 under load) and I'm running 1:1 RAM:IF, my performance dropped significantly. I went from over 7K in Cinebench R20 to under 6K.
> 
> I'm testing additional voltages to see if it makes a difference but I'm not sure what's going on.
> 
> Any ideas, anyone?


Memory performance doesn't affect CB R20 scores. If it did, I'd have like 50k points.


----------



## MakubeX

rares495 said:


> Memory performance doesn't affect CB R20 scores.


Good to know. It appears my CPU is running at lower peak voltages but I don't think it's temp related. I think there's some protection setting kicking in that I need to tweak.


----------



## rares495

MakubeX said:


> Good to know. It appears my CPU is running at lower peak voltages but I don't think it's temp related. I think there's some protection setting kicking in that I need to tweak.


You can use Ryzen Master to check EDC, TDC and PPT during a CB run. PPT should be maxed, TDC and EDC at about 80-85%.


----------



## MakubeX

rares495 said:


> You can use Ryzen Master to check EDC, TDC and PPT during a CB run. PPT should be maxed, TDC and EDC at about 80-85%.


That's exactly what I did. I did have to increase the CPU voltage to get it to hit PPT 100% but the performance is still low. TDC/EDC are in that range, so maybe it's not a power thing.

PS. I have yet to touch CPU overclocking. Precision boost is on auto. Maybe is not triggering because of the higher voltages?

PPS. What does it mean when PPT is not at a 100% but EDC is? XD

Edit: It appears that setting the vrm pase control to extreme helped with the PPT/EDC thing. Still need to figure out why CPU core speeds are capping out at lower speeds.


----------



## overpower

I know I should have run the ramtest longer, but i'll also test playing cod mw. This game don't like unstable rams (at least for me). If i go too high on speed or reduce the timings too much, i'll get dev errors.


----------



## Dr Bananas

*It's my first time OCing my memory on my Ryzen 1700X system, did I do this right?*

This was my first time overclocking my memory, and I just wanted to double check to see if I got the settings right. I OCed my Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666 2x16 kit (Micron B-die) to 3133. It's stable for 12 hours in Memtest86+ 5.01. I followed DRAM Calculator for Ryzen 1.7.3 but couldn't find the tRFC (alt) setting in my BIOS, or BGS or BGS alt. I changed some settings in the Digi+ VRM (it's at the bottom), should I have done that?


I bought this 2x16GB DDR4-2666 kit last year because it seemed when going over the approved memory module list for my Prime X370 that this was the fastest 32GB set you could buy. Otherwise I would have gotten DDR4-3200 or something.


Motherboard: Asus Prime X370-Pro, latest BIOS
CPU: Ryzen 1700X
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666MHZ 2x16GB
Pictures (memory modules, Thaiphoon, DRAM Calculator for Ryzen, Ryzen Timing Checker, AIDA64)


Motherboard settings:
Ai Tweaker
Ai Overclock Tuner - Auto
Memory Frequency - DDR4-3133Mhz
Custom CPU Core Ratio - Auto
CPU Core Ratio - Auto
EPU Power Saving Mode - Disabled
TPU - Keep Current Settings
Performance Bias - Auto
VDDCR CPU Voltage - Auto
VDDCR SOC Voltage - Manual
VDDCR SOC Voltage Override - 1.04375
DRAM Voltage - 1.36500
1.05V SB Voltage - Auto
2.5V SB Voltage - Auto
CPU 1.80V Voltage - Auto
VTTDDR Voltage - Auto
VPP_MEM Voltage - Auto
VDDP Standby Voltage - Auto

DRAM Timing Control
DRAM CAS# Latency - 18
Trcdrd - 20
Trcdwr - 20
DRAM RAS# PRE Time - 20
DRAM RAS# ACT Time - 40
Trc - 62
TrrdS - 5
TrrdL - 8
Tfaw - 20
TwtrS - 4
TwtrL - 12
Twr - 24
Trcpage - Auto
TrdrdScl - 4
TwrwrScl - 4
Trfc - 548
Trfc2 - 407
Trfc4 - 250
Tcwl - 18
Trtp - 12
Trdwr - 7
Twrrd - 3
TwrwrSc - 1
TwrwrSd - 7
TwrwrDd - 7
TrdrdSc - 1
TrdrdSd - 5
TrdrdDd - 5
Tcke - 7
ProcODT - 60 ohm
Cmd2T - 1T
Gear Down Mode - Enabled
Power Down Enable - Enabled
RttNom - RZQ/7
RttWr - RZQ/3
RttPark - RZQ/1
MemAddrCmdSetup - Auto
MemCsOdtSetup - Auto
MemCkeSetup - Auto
MemCadBusClkDrvStren - 24.0 Ohm
MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren - 24.0 Ohm
MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren - 24.0 Ohm
MemCadBusCkeDrvStren - 24.0 Ohm
Mem Over Clock Fail Count - 4
CLDO VDDP voltage - 1012

DIGI+ VRM
VDDCR CPU Load Line Calibration - Auto
VDDCR CPU Current Capability - 100%
VDDCR CPU Switching Frequency - Auto
VRM Spread Spectrum - Off
VDDCR CPU Power Duty Control - T.Probe
VDDCR CPU Power Phase Control - Standard
VDDCR SOC Load Line Calibration - Level 3
VDDCR SOC Current Capability - 120%
VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency - Manual
Fixed VDDCR SOC Switching Frequency - 400
VDDCR SOC Power Phase Control - Optimized


----------



## algida79

Thank you very much @Veii for taking the time to post such a detailed reply! Some of my comments below are inline/within the quotes, some not.





Veii said:


> Forwarding you both to the middle post here
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-378.html#post28482232



I tried to create a loose/safe set of timings by combining your guidelines with some values from the Calculator's Rev.E 3800MT/s DR Zen+/X470 Safe preset where needed to fill in the blanks. So, this is what I have for a 3533MT/s starting point:


_*tCL* = voltage scaled_ - Calculator suggestion of *16* seems a good starting point
_*tRCD* = IC dependent_ - tRCDRD *20* from the Calculator, tRCDWR also *20* seems a reasonable choice
_*tRP* = voltage scaling and PCB dependent , defines capacitor discharge and recharge time - discharge happens automatically even without a triggered discharge_ - *20* should also be OK here, matches avg tRCD
_*tRAS* = tRCD+tCL or tWR+tCL+tBL (2 in this case), 2nd option is for awkward scenarios or high speeds - at best it meets both formulas with the same value / no wiggle room_ - 16+20=*36* seems reasonable
_*tRC* = tRP + tRAS / +2 or +4 for stability, -2 as lowest_ - taking the stability option: 20 + 36 + 4 = *60*
_*tRRD, tWTR* are unique (delay depends on bank amount) but tRRDL 8 is JEDEC spec_ - All taken from the Calculator: tRRDS *6*, tRRDL *8*, tFAW *24*, tWTRS *4*, tWTRL *12*
_ You want at best, run *tWTRL* = tRRDS*2_ - OK, matches
_*tWR* = tRRDS+tWTRS (lowest), tRAS-tRCD (optimal), tCL+tRTP (highest) , tRTP*2 (alternative) ~ has to be an even number_ - Calculator's suggested value of *24* matches alternative tRTP*2 formula, so should be OK
_*SCL's*= PCB, IC, voltage dependent / lower has a big boost_ - *5-5* as suggested by the Calculator
_*tCWL* = keep it identical to tCL - makes more issues than it's worth to tweak ~ makes issues with tRDWR delay_ - *16*
_*tRTP *= optimally clean divider of tRFC, even better if half of tWR but no must - tRFC divider is important_ - Calculator's suggested value of *12* is half of WR, we'll see about tRFC clean divider
_*tRFC* = baseline is clean multiple of tRC in ns not virtual value_ - I've been meaning to ask because I see you bringing this up all the time; what is the difference between using nanoseconds and "virtual values" (do you mean clock cycles?). If we are concerned about accuracy of divisions, we can do what we learnt in school and postpone the final division until after all multiplications have been done. If the value needs to work as input in a calculation of another timing, you can retain accuracy by carrying this value to the new calculation as a fraction instead. But even this is moot, since the timings are expressed in clock cycles already. The double of e.g. 12T value will always be 24T, whether you keep it in clock cycles or convert it to nanoseconds. Anyway, excuse the rant, the Calculator suggests 608 here but I will prefer to use your calculator and go with *600* which will work with tRTP 12 for clean division. So: *600-446-274*
_ (use https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1745688811 for help)_
_*SD, DD* values are a bit unclear but keep 2 as delay between tRDRD and tWRWR ~ or use 1-1-1-1-1-1 as failsafe for unstable kits, bad values will cut perf_ - Going with the Calculator's suggestion: *1-7-7-1-5-5*
 *tRDWR & tWRRD* where explained here / dual rank needs +2, math remains identical, 4 dimms might need tWRRD added delay with tRDWR= tRCD RD/2 - Since these are derived by tRCD and I didn't pick the Calculator's values for tRCD, I probably can't use its suggestion of 9-4 for tRDWR-tWRRD.
According to your formulas, I should use:
*tRDWR* = (tRCDRD/2) + 2 (for DR) = (20/2) + 2 = 10 + 2 = *12*
*tWRRD* = 1 + 2 (for DR) = *3*





Veii said:


> _Both have the same IMC and so the same vSOC rulesets apply *
> 2800-3200MT/s = 1025mV SOC
> 3334-3400MT/s = 1032.5mV _
> _ 3467-3600MT/s = 1050mV_ - I use a modest Vsoc LLC, so there is a small amount of droop; HWiNFO64 always shows a voltage step (-0.00625V), never 2 voltage steps (-0.01250V or lower). I will bump Vsoc up a notch from 1.05V to *1.05625V* to account for it.
> _ ~3734~ = 1075mV
> __~ of these factor in +/- 10mV vDROOP_





Veii said:


> _ AGESA 1.0.0.6 old liked CAD_BUS = 20-24-40-30Ω
> AGESA 0.0.7.2, 1.0.0.2C = 24-24-24-24Ω
> AGESA 1003ABB - 1006 do enjoy 24-20-20-24Ω / B350-450-B550 sub 100$ low end boards do like 24-20-24-24Ω to prevent boot issues_ - I recently upgraded to an 1.0.0.6 AGESA BIOS, so *24-20-20-24* should work for my X470 board, right?
> _ ^ *****_







Veii said:


> **** Dual rank units change this
> RTT_PARK doubles to RZQ/1 (240Ω)
> with RTT_WR being utilized as RZQ/3 (80Ω)
> RTT_NOM as always stays at RZQ/7, a subtle bump of 34Ω
> ~ maybe RZQ/8 could work too on dual rank to lower the stress


OK, so this matches the Calculator's suggestion of using Rtt 7/3/1





Veii said:


> One little exception that exists is 7/0/2 for Micron units or future Hynix 5000+ units
> =
> You can pass by not using RTT_WR on Dual Rank, when you push RTT_PARK to RZQ/2 (120Ω)
> *This will require high VDIMM voltage *but is helpful and causes less strain although will need Higher CAD_BUS ClkDrvStrengh *****


I think I will skip the 7/0/2 option for now, since I would like to keep the DIMMs in the 1.35-1.37V range if possible. My kit doesn't have a temperature sensor and while the case has a good airflow, I would like to avoid the need for any ghetto mods/dedicated RAM fan.





Veii said:


> **** Dual rank units follow always some exceptions to the rules
> Not only does tRDWR, tWR change a bit ~ but so does also CAD_BUS and procODT
> ProcODT often needs 2+ steps more , for example instead of 28-32Ω you'd use 39.6-43Ω as lowest optimal value



It looks like the Calculator already accounts for this. It bumps ProcODT from 53.3 for single rank to *60Ω* (recommended) and *68.6Ω* (Alt.1) for dual rank. So, I may have to test both of these values.





Veii said:


> **** *CAD_BUS plays here a very important role too. ClkDrvStrengh the first value
> (also written in 1usmus's Threadripper OC Teardown ~ you should read his content  )
> 
> If you have 4 dimms, use values between 40-60Ω ClkDrvStrengh
> If you run 2x A2 Dimms start with 30Ω ClkDrvStrengh
> * 2x B1 or B0 DualRank dimms work well with 60Ω ClkDrvStrengh*
> 2x B2/B3 PCB Dual Rank or 32GB dimms, should start with 120Ω ClkDrvStrengh
> Exmp: 120-20-20-24Ω



Great info, thanks! *60Ω ClkDrvStrength* seems the way to go for my kit, thus changing the recommended CAD values from 24-20-20-24 to the final *60-20-20-24* set.



I will start with the Calculator's Rec. Vdimm value of 1.35V and test up to the 1.36V Max. for now.


----------



## Solohuman

algida79 said:


> Hey folks, how is everyone doing?
> 
> Is there a known method to quickly find optimal values for any of the ProcODT, RTT, CAD settings for a given combination of CPU/RAM/RAM speed, before starting to work on tightening timings? For example, would the optimal values require less Vdimm to successfully POST or boot into Windows or run a very quick TM5 test without BSOD/errors?
> 
> Context: I am picking up where I left off some time ago, trying to establish a baseline for a 2700X + 2x16GB Rev.E at 3533MT/s. Problem is, I was always using the calculator's values as a starting point but Veii suggested that its CAD recommended settings (24-24-24-24) might be outdated and 24-20-20-24 or 60-20-20-24 can work better on Zen+.


Thanks for posting about raising CAD for DR on Zen+. Able to post & run memtest86 v8.4 for pre windows testing successfully with the kit in my rigbuilder profile @ 3600 ok now. But still battling with random errors in either tests 6,7 or 8.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Hehe, yes
> The design of these could suite a Chevy Camaro build. Something red/silver black likely even on a MSI board ^^'
> On the timings you shared, does tWR 10 deliver worse perf for you ?
> You should be able to go down to tRDWR 7 / tWRRD 3 at least
> and also likely have playroom to go down to 38 or even 36 tRC
> 
> I was looking for tRC 34 @ 238-177-109 ~ which should later work without tRDWR change (under tRAS 26, tRP 10)
> Else needs tRP of 10 or tCL help
> Can you actually run CL13 ? on something lower than 1.56v ?
> (tCL 13, tRP 11, tRAS 25, tWR 10 ~ you can still go tRC -2 on single rank at the absolute end)
> 
> Hmm, your kit was A1 correct ?
> Up till 4200 you shouldn't have an issue, but i am not sure if 2200FCLK isn't the limit
> Maybe 2250 if we are able to use less than 1.2vSOC for that
> My magic ball shows no information on 4xxx so far, but once Renoir launches, we likely will change the way we do memoryOC
> When MCLK, FCLK, VSOC are dynamic
> Likely would need to invest more time in TDC, EDC limiting and calculation ~ not only for vCore


I've put CL13 aside for now and focused on running flat 14s 3800. I started with 14-14-14-14-28-42 1T GDM off and set a few things on auto, tested for ~5 cycles each time then lowered stuff & repeat. I made decent progress and it seems that i need SCL 5 and tRRDS/tRRDL higher than 5 + tFAW over 20 to even get to cycle 3 without errors in TM5. I'll have to fiddle with it some more but I'm hopeful. We'll have to see if flat 14s with higher secondaries and tertiaries will yield better performance than my very tight 14-14-15-12.


----------



## Veii

@algida79 


> I've been meaning to ask because I see you bringing this up all the time; what is the difference between using nanoseconds and "virtual values" (do you mean clock cycles?). If we are concerned about accuracy of divisions, we can do what we learnt in school and postpone the final division until after all multiplications have been done. If the value needs to work as input in a calculation of another timing, you can retain accuracy by carrying this value to the new calculation as a fraction instead. But even this is moot, since the timings are expressed in clock cycles already. The double of e.g. 12T value will always be 24T, whether you keep it in clock cycles or convert it to nanoseconds.


You are correct.
Yes ns, and placeholding value
You are also correct on the method we learned in school

But in school, math was accurate, the foundation was accurate
On memory OC, autocorrection happens non stop, the foundation is broken
It starts by already having wrong written out MT/s values. 
If you go the normal way of reversing virtual values to ns, you will likely have rounding errors
They often end up as 11 digit decimal values - many calculators including google sheet peak at 8-9 decimals and round up
This stacks and makes accurate calculation nearly impossible.

Calculators tRFC is perfectly accurate, but only for the set you are supplied with
If you change one tiny variable or get rounding thanks to GDM , it won't be accurate anymore
tRFC mini is 93% accurate
It's playing a bit safe with the estimates, but everything at least works.

93% because it lacks tSTAG recognition
This lacks userinput and visibility these days
The predication happens on a discharge level of prediction. Down to *6 is fine, lower is hard
Of course it's not the only and correct answer, but i focus on ns when you do the calculation 
tRFC alone and it's little chains, can be rounded up. tRFC2/tRFC4 are rounded , nearly always. 
But they remain more accurate than the mess the board tries to calculate ~ while till recently noone bothered to use them
I think it's important use it when you do accurate calculation.

I try to push people to fix their sets and have a clean transition for tRAS and tRC 
But this will make stability issues if one little thing is off. So is also the tRDWR range
There are many methods to OC ram and every OCer has their own.
Some push tFAW low, some push tCWL very low, some don't even touch tRCD WR as it was unclear and had negative effects back then
Soo there is no "correct" way to begin with. Each of us tries to either trick the autocorrection that happens in realtime. Or just get a baseline up and let the memory do it's work without spending time on autocorrection

To the virtual value topic back above,
it's not always the case. 7T + 7T is not always 14T , sometimes it gets out as 15T 
It's logarithmic but rounding happens. And so the result is not correct. 
Also ns result under 3400MT/s on 14T will be higher at 3401MT/s 
Which as broken as it sounds, is delivered from MCLK ~ which then again is variable 
Some could say here, that accuracy is impossible including prediction is impossible
Which they are right to half of the timings, but this half is autocorrected anyways - the virtual values we use are fixed programmed delays, soo at least accuracy between them is important 
This and many other design flaws are the reasons for how i calculate it differently. 
Only when i am able to calculate how tSTAG will be generated accurately, only then it will be included and be 98% accurate
So far it's just 93% with a nearly 100% success rate on tRFC accuracy. point 1 to 1% difference happens when the user doesn't get tRC correct or i try to match tWR a bit different 

tRTP to tRFC can be used as virtual value, same as tWR
But it's less accurate than just doing the math by dividers and multipliers starting with the base ns value of primaries
Because again, every calculation step you continue to do already factors some kind of rounding (up to calculators decimal size possibility)
And if you aren't always starting from scratch (exmpl tRFC 2 and tRFC 4) you will have rounding errors often in the +1/-1 value, region


----------



## kazama

There are new features in the combopi 1002 bios (at least msi) on advanced features.

Dram latency enhace
dfi mrl margin
rxdatchndly
ardptrinitvatmp0
ardptrinitvatmp1

Anyone tested it?


----------



## algida79

Veii said:


> @*algida79*
> *It starts by already having wrong written out MT/s values. *
> If you go the normal way of reversing virtual values to ns, you will likely have rounding errors
> They often end up as 11 digit decimal values - many calculators including google sheet peak at 8-9 decimals and round up
> This stacks and makes accurate calculation nearly impossible.



Try to express the odd MT/s values as a fraction with 3 as a divisor. E.g. 3533.3... MT/s = 10600 / 3, 3466.6... MT/s = 10400 / 3 etc.


In your Google spreadsheets, you can then create hidden cells to store the divider and the divisor separately and rework your cell formulas to use those in further calculations.


----------



## PJVol

*@Veii*
Hi! Following up on discussion above, im wondering, is there a way to see "corrected" (real) clock values used by IMC, be it incorrect user input or gdm alignment or whatever? 
Thanks.


----------



## Veii

algida79 said:


> Try to express the odd MT/s values as a fraction with 3 as a divisor. E.g. 3533.3... MT/s = 10600 / 3, 3466.6... MT/s = 10400 / 3 etc.
> 
> In your Google spreadsheets, you can then create hidden cells to store the divider and the divisor separately and rework your cell formulas to use those in further calculations.


This is intelligent 
Thank you !
Yes I've considered it. It's been an issue since some time, but this resolve works out to make the life for users
Although it won't bypass the Google sheet limitation of 10 decimals 
You can see this by using CL14 , tRC 42 under 3734MT/s 
Only when you use 3733.33333334 the ns result is accurate 

But I switched fully to multiples and dividers 
Although its not perfect.
A real calculator needs it perfectly accurate, but this so far is not an issue
Its a bit of an issue on the manual calculation method, and I'm pretty sure 1usmus with the dram calculator faces the same issue 
But when you use an accurate ns value (which is a long number) his tool gets it also correct 

So far, its not an issue on the current way I do it
But its something to consider, as we can't relay on users to provide the long decimal number 
See Shenanigans Sheet #3 
Haven't filled out the rest, as it wasn't needed so far, but your point is valid and helpful 
Thank you~



PJVol said:


> *@Veii*
> Hi! Following up on discussion above, im wondering, is there a way to see "corrected" (real) clock values used by IMC, be it incorrect user input or gdm alignment or whatever?
> Thanks.


This is WIP, I can not say much more
Only can add that Renoir with variable MCLK,FCLK,ULCK will make calculation very fun
But some resolve is wip 

You could technically read out and calculate the fluctuation from BLCK
But this readout would be constantly variable, every time you open the readout tool
HWInfo uses SMU as direct connection, but this has next to accuracy positive effects
Also negatives on not detecting auto correction nor BLCK fluctuation
A 2nd negative is an architectural issue, where when ryzen master + hwinfo do an SMU readout 
And later you add another tool, the CPU hard freezes until cold reboot 

It hard freezes to protect itself against stacking attacks 
What I want to briefly mention is,
SMU readouts work as single probes, if you do more than 2 in a short time, the PSP Protection layer hardlocks 
except for the Ryzen master tool, there is no tool that does detect current fluctuations without hardlocking the CPU 
And normal detection can not include low level SMU readouts
Making UCLK,FCLK,MCLK not possible to be read out
* except if you do single probes, which logically can't be accurate on fluctuations 

We'll see
At best you want to readout memory's auto correction state and then by several times refreshing or reopening try to adjust your values to match with the rest
Very similar to how RTC worked back then, although RTC had also the same "single sample" readout issues, where sometimes what you read out is a mess 

Sorry I can't say more
Something is work in progress
But it might make no sense to read out constantly fluctuating memory.
And the memory itself knows how to handle most of the auto corrections
We just have to give it an as clean as possible preset with out little selection of timings
The other duplicated half is anyways adjusting on their own


----------



## koheyo

Hello,
Does anyone know why Dram Calculator 1.7.x is recommending way higher VDDG/VDDP values for Zen2 (3800MT/s) compared to older versions ?

Older versions were recommending: VDDP 0.9v, VDDG 0.95v, SOC 1.1v.
Later versions are recommending: VDDP 0.95v, VDDG 1.05v, SOC 1.1v.
Lower values were stable for me. Is there a reason to use higher ones?


Also can anyone advice if different values should be used compared to what Dram Calculator is recommending (screenshot attached)?
Thank you.


edit: Taiphoon indicates B1 revision, also running X470 chipset.


----------



## kratosatlante

rares495 said:


> I've put CL13 aside for now and focused on running flat 14s 3800. I started with 14-14-14-14-28-42 1T GDM off and set a few things on auto, tested for ~5 cycles each time then lowered stuff & repeat. I made decent progress and it seems that i need SCL 5 and tRRDS/tRRDL higher than 5 + tFAW over 20 to even get to cycle 3 without errors in TM5. I'll have to fiddle with it some more but I'm hopeful. We'll have to see if flat 14s with higher secondaries and tertiaries will yield better performance than my very tight 14-14-15-12.





Veii said:


> Hehe, yes
> The design of these could suite a Chevy Camaro build. Something red/silver black likely even on a MSI board ^^'
> On the timings you shared, does tWR 10 deliver worse perf for you ?
> You should be able to go down to tRDWR 7 / tWRRD 3 at least
> and also likely have playroom to go down to 38 or even 36 tRC
> 
> I was looking for tRC 34 @ 238-177-109 ~ which should later work without tRDWR change (under tRAS 26, tRP 10)
> Else needs tRP of 10 or tCL help
> Can you actually run CL13 ? on something lower than 1.56v ?
> (tCL 13, tRP 11, tRAS 25, tWR 10 ~ you can still go tRC -2 on single rank at the absolute end)
> 
> Hmm, your kit was A1 correct ?
> Up till 4200 you shouldn't have an issue, but i am not sure if 2200FCLK isn't the limit
> Maybe 2250 if we are able to use less than 1.2vSOC for that
> My magic ball shows no information on 4xxx so far, but once Renoir launches, we likely will change the way we do memoryOC
> When MCLK, FCLK, VSOC are dynamic
> Likely would need to invest more time in TDC, EDC limiting and calculation ~ not only for vCore


Thanks for your help veii, what you say about the voltage for cl13 did you mean 100% voltage and stable or just to boot? My stiks 3 out of the 4 can boot with 1.56 tcl 13 trfc 210 one only needs 1.57



I did not try much cl13 yet, the tm5 777 test passed, trf210 gave an error, it was with vram 1.60-1.62 bios, I did not see much difference in games or tests, any idea to change or try to notice a higher performance? Maybe tcl13 with 1t gdm off, but still I could not even achieve stability with tcl14 1t gdm off, the 3capture is the current config, the last one with trp12 gave me an error even then I raised the voltage to 1.58bios and it gave an error again
Most of the tests were with cad 24-20-24-24
Y cld vddp 927 vddg cd 977 vddg io auto
Vsoc 1.0625, now cad on 60-20-20-24 and it works the same.
actual stable config bclk 99.8 3800/1900 1:1 vram 1.515 hwinfo, bios vram 1.55 
Test each stick separately and the best stick 1 does (boot does not enter the SO to run test) cl14 trfc 228 with 1.49 vram bios
2 1,505
3 1.51
4 1.52

For cl13 trfc 210 vram vbios
1 1.54
2 1.55
3 1.56
4 1.57



So then I put the best stick in slot B1, the second one in B2, 3 in A1, 4 in A2, before doing this TRP 12 gave a lot of errors just like when trying tRCDRD 14, I keep trying error but the Stability is closer, I don't know if this is the best distribution of the sticks, I hear suggestions

PS: the ram is cooled by corsair airflow, tested with a multimeter (on the stick or should it be placed in some specific place on the ram?) On the stik, only 30c


----------



## Yoizhik

rares495 said:


> I've put CL13 aside for now and focused on running flat 14s 3800. I started with 14-14-14-14-28-42 1T GDM off and set a few things on auto, tested for ~5 cycles each time then lowered stuff & repeat. I made decent progress and it seems that i need SCL 5 and tRRDS/tRRDL higher than 5 + tFAW over 20 to even get to cycle 3 without errors in TM5. I'll have to fiddle with it some more but I'm hopeful. We'll have to see if flat 14s with higher secondaries and tertiaries will yield better performance than my very tight 14-14-15-12.


i've the exact same ram module if yours also non-rgb, i couldn't post my rams c14 no matter what, can you share your settings please?


----------



## rares495

Yoizhik said:


> i've the exact same ram module if yours also non-rgb, i couldn't post my rams c14 no matter what, can you share your settings please?


Sure. Yeah, it's the non-RGB. It could help if you posted a screenshot of Thaiphoon Burner though. Maybe even some photos of the modules themselves so we can see which PCB they use.

VDIMM 1.52V
VSOC 1.15V
VDDG 1.1V
VDDP 0.9V

procODT 28.2 ohm
CAD_BUS 60-20-20-20


----------



## Yoizhik

i'm gonna try your settings, thanks for your time.


----------



## rares495

Yoizhik said:


> i'm gonna try your settings, thanks for your time.


Good luck! 

Let me know how it goes.


----------



## hardwarelimits

Hey! Is there any list to know what tm5 errors are related? Thanks


----------



## Yoizhik

Unfortunately, seems like my temporary 3300x can't handle the process. I'll try again later with the next gen cpu's, thanks again.


----------



## nick name

Yoizhik said:


> i've the exact same ram module if yours also non-rgb, i couldn't post my rams c14 no matter what, can you share your settings please?


You can't get your kit to run at 14-15-14-14?


----------



## Yoizhik

nope
previous/current setup

3800X / 3300X (waiting for next gen)
CH7 / Strix X570-E
RTX 2080 / GTX 760 (waiting for next gen)

No cl14 in both system.


----------



## nick name

Yoizhik said:


> nope
> previous/current setup
> 
> 3800X / 3300X (waiting for next gen)
> CH7 / Strix X570-E
> RTX 2080 / GTX 760 (waiting for next gen)
> 
> No cl14 in both system.


Is it a 16GB or 32GB kit?


----------



## glnn_23

I’ve spent some time trying to get tRCDRD14 stable but kept getting errors in TM5 so dropped to 15.

Settled on these settings for now.

Vdimm. 1.475
Soc. 1.08125 droop to 1.056
Vddg ccd .975
Vddg iod. 1.0
Vddp. .925


----------



## chitos123

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...V3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=1439155382


Please test my calculator
And tell me, any mistake or wrong calculation


----------



## rares495

chitos123 said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...V3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=1439155382
> 
> 
> Please test my calculator
> And tell me, any mistake or wrong calculation


I don't understand what this is and what it does. Poor layout.


----------



## chitos123

@rares495 

Thanks for the advice
Now i'm gonna make help strings


----------



## algida79

Feels like I am so close to dialing in this OC. Do you think it's timings or voltages?











Previous TM5 long run (also 40 cycles) that passed was with these timings (voltages and termination values were the same):


----------



## 2600ryzen

algida79 said:


> Feels like I am so close to dialing in this OC. Do you think it's timings or voltages?
> 
> 
> View attachment 363566
> 
> 
> 
> Previous TM5 long run (also 40 cycles) that passed was with these timings (voltages and termination values were the same):
> 
> 
> View attachment 363568



I would raise twtrl-s to 4-12, and trtp-twr to 10-20. On my Rev e kit trp can easily go 2 lower than trcd.


----------



## KedarWolf

Zen Timings 1.0.8 released.

https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases


----------



## OCmember

How do you get TM5 to run for that many cycles? Mine only does 3


----------



## mongoled

OCmember said:


> How do you get TM5 to run for that many cycles? Mine only does 3


In the "bin" directory open the "MT.cfg" file using notepad and at the top of the [Main Section] edit the line "Cycles" to 25.

Make sure you save the file as .cfg

You will probably have to have the option "show extension for known file types" enabled otherwise you wont be able to remove the .txt extension notepad will automatically add.


----------



## deemon_

Hi. First time here. Few questions.

1. How do you calculate TRFC2 and TRFC4 from the DRAM Calculator only "TRFC" and "TRFC alt."?

2. What would be suitable PCB option for A1? (in calculator v1.7.3 there are A0 and A2 options only...)

3. Is it even possible to OC different manufacturer dram components? Like.... now what?










Thought that I upgrade RAM from 16 to 32G ... bought another kit of 2x8G and ... it's Samsung :-D

Yes yes, bad luck brian moment... I guess I have to buy 3rd kit and hope I get either Samsung (2020 model) or Hynix (2019 model was) and not some 3rd option like Micron this time 


As I have Ryzen 1700 only, I ran the first Hynix kit @ 3200MHz CL14-17-17-18-28 (provided by DRAM Calculator 1.5.1) for about a year perfectly stable. Not even trying to go faster than 3200 with this CPU.
Now ran the new calculator (1.7.3) for 4 dimms @ 3200MHz for both Hynix and Samsung and tried the lower timings of the slower option (Hynix) safe mode -- no luck.
But is there a way to make those RAM modules work together with not too horrible timings? (they run now at default 1866MHz or something ... mobo recovery mode)


----------



## Veii

@algida79 error 4 timeout issue - MirrorCopy size 0 / usually related to tRDWR or tWRRD, tWRRD +1 could help
Else
How awkward this set looks like at first - it's pretty consistent 








Try this


----------



## 2600ryzen

deemon_ said:


> Hi. First time here. Few questions.
> 
> 1. How do you calculate TRFC2 and TRFC4 from the DRAM Calculator only "TRFC" and "TRFC alt."?
> 
> 2. What would be suitable PCB option for A1? (in calculator v1.7.3 there are A0 and A2 options only...)
> 
> 3. Is it even possible to OC different manufacturer dram components? Like.... now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thought that I upgrade RAM from 16 to 32G ... bought another kit of 2x8G and ... it's Samsung :-D
> 
> Yes yes, bad luck brian moment... I guess I have to buy 3rd kit and hope I get either Samsung (2020 model) or Hynix (2019 model was) and not some 3rd option like Micron this time
> 
> 
> As I have Ryzen 1700 only, I ran the first Hynix kit @ 3200MHz CL14-17-17-18-28 (provided by DRAM Calculator 1.5.1) for about a year perfectly stable. Not even trying to go faster than 3200 with this CPU.
> Now ran the new calculator (1.7.3) for 4 dimms @ 3200MHz for both Hynix and Samsung and tried the lower timings of the slower option (Hynix) safe mode -- no luck.
> But is there a way to make those RAM modules work together with not too horrible timings? (they run now at default 1866MHz or something ... mobo recovery mode)



It's most likely samsung c-die not b-die, try c die in the calculator.


----------



## OCmember

mongoled said:


> In the "bin" directory open the "MT.cfg" file using notepad and at the top of the [Main Section] edit the line "Cycles" to 25.
> 
> Make sure you save the file as .cfg
> 
> You will probably have to have the option "show extension for known file types" enabled otherwise you wont be able to remove the .txt extension notepad will automatically add.


Do I need to run it as Administrator for it to work properly? I'm assuming no.


----------



## deemon_

2600ryzen said:


> It's most likely samsung c-die not b-die, try c die in the calculator.



You are probably right, but there is no such thing as Samsung C-die in the DRAM calculator 1.7.3. :-(

About other options, S, D/E, OEM, they are not even supported at the DRAM package XMP speed 3600, which obviously wasn't even made for first gen Ryzen, why I try to get some resonable downclock working... which I can't seem to get. Tried the most loose 3000MHz and this failed also. Probably going to remove the Hynix modules and try the Samsung ones alone to see how they perform without Hynix in the mix.


----------



## treestar

Hello guys, I'm stuck here. Trying to oc 4x8 b-die kit on Zen2 and keep facing little instability. The rest of the values: 

proc 43.6
rttwr 80
rttnom 34
rttpark 240
Cadbus: 60-20-24-24


----------



## 2600ryzen

treestar said:


> Hello guys, I'm stuck here. Trying to oc 4x8 b-die kit on Zen2 and keep facing little instability. The rest of the values:
> 
> proc 43.6
> rttwr 80
> rttnom 34
> rttpark 240
> Cadbus: 60-20-24-24



I think your trrds-l may need to be loosened if you're running your b die over 45c. Do auto ram timings fail at 3800mhz?


----------



## rares495

treestar said:


> Hello guys, I'm stuck here. Trying to oc 4x8 b-die kit on Zen2 and keep facing little instability. The rest of the values:
> 
> proc 43.6
> rttwr 80
> rttnom 34
> rttpark 240
> Cadbus: 60-20-24-24


Try tRDWR 9 and tWRRD 1.


----------



## treestar

2600ryzen said:


> Do auto ram timings fail at 3800mhz?


 Wanted to test it, but... Decided to check on PCB version before that and now nothing is stable, errors in a first run. What could go wrong? Although if you say 45+ degrees is not optimal for B-die, I will ramp up airflow, if manage to fix my new problem.
Here's the PCB btw, looks like A0?


----------



## rares495

treestar said:


> Wanted to test it, but... Decided to check on PCB version before that and now nothing is stable, errors in a first run. What could go wrong? Although if you say 45+ degrees is not optimal for B-die, I will ramp up airflow, if manage to fix my new problem.
> Here's the PCB btw, looks like A0?


Kinda looks like A0 yeah. The angles aren't great. A photo showing the side of the module would be ideal but avoid extreme angles.


----------



## 2600ryzen

treestar said:


> Wanted to test it, but... Decided to check on PCB version before that and now nothing is stable, errors in a first run. What could go wrong? Although if you say 45+ degrees is not optimal for B-die, I will ramp up airflow, if manage to fix my new problem.
> Here's the PCB btw, looks like A0?



Probably didn't reseat your ram properly, or put them in different slots. Increased airflow could fix the problem, or loosening timings whichever way you prefer. Ram should easily be able to cope with 45c with the right timings.


----------



## treestar

rares495 said:


> Kinda looks like A0 yeah. The angles aren't great. A photo showing the side of the module would be ideal but avoid extreme angles.


 I'm just not sure what to look at.
Anyway what could be the best ohm values for 4x8 B-die and Zen2? Motherboard is B550 Tomahawk btw, I think new ones are all daisy chain, but with some optimisations for 4 sticks.


----------



## rares495

treestar said:


> I'm just not sure what to look at.


I just said avoid extreme angles...

These are way too close. Take a photo of the whole module at an angle that shows the line of components on the side and also the notches.


----------



## ped5

Excuse if this is detailed again elsewhere, but I'm not 100% clear on the color indications, and evidentally a real noob when it comes to mem timings.

The quote from the article via the 1.7.1 release link:


> Note that some timings are already red - this indicates that the memory has already reached the limit for adequate voltage (up to 1.45v). The orange color indicates that memory may be able to compress these timings. Green and turquoise - these timings are far from the safe zone.
> 
> As a result, even an inexperienced user will now know where to "spin" the timings. This tool will help users in situations where "SAFE" is stable, but "FAST" has errors


So putting it in other terms, it's red - can't squeeze it timings even tighter -aka lower them.
Orange may be still tweak able, again to tighten the timings.
The green and turquoise are far from the safe zone, meaning they have much more room to tighten them? Wouldn't it be better to say "these timings are far from the limits for adequate voltage"? Saying it's far from the safe zone means we can loosen them instead, no?

Using an example from my usage, with the XMP profile selected (in the bios, not imported via Thaiphoon), this means that I can further tighten the tCL, tRCDWR/RD, & tRAS, or is it saying those timings are good, and I leave them and instead work on tRP?

Thanks,


----------



## rares495

ped5 said:


> Excuse if this is detailed again elsewhere, but I'm not 100% clear on the color indications, and evidentally a real noob when it comes to mem timings.
> 
> The quote from the article via the 1.7.1 release link:
> 
> 
> So putting it in other terms, it's red - can't squeeze it timings even tighter -aka lower them.
> Orange may be still tweak able, again to tighten the timings.
> The green and turquoise are far from the safe zone, meaning they have much more room to tighten them? Wouldn't it be better to say "these timings are far from the limits for adequate voltage"? Saying it's far from the safe zone means we can loosen them instead, no?
> 
> Using an example from my usage, with the XMP profile loaded, this means that I can further tighten the tCL, tRCDWR/RD, & tRAS, or is it saying those timings are good, and I leave them and instead work on tRP?
> 
> Thanks,


Ah, it seems that the colors appear only if you don't import the XMP from Thaiphoon. All red for me.


----------



## ped5

rares495 said:


> Ah, it seems that the colors appear only if you don't import the XMP from Thaiphoon. All red for me.


Ah I meant pulled/set from the mobo, not via Thaiphoon. Will update the post.


----------



## rares495

ped5 said:


> Ah I meant pulled/set from the mobo, not via Thaiphoon. Will update the post.


Yeah, well, it's better to import from Thaiphoon. That's the proper way to use the calculator.


----------



## poah

Trying to run memtest from dram calculator and it freezes the program. I can run memtest normally but not from the calculator. any ideas

ryzen 2600
B350 tomahawk
windows 7


----------



## rares495

Renoir is here, boys!

@Reous shows what can be achieved with the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G and top-tier B-die memory! Very exciting times ahead.

Check the AMD RAM OC spreadsheet to get some context for this amazing result.


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> Renoir is here, boys!
> 
> @*Reous* shows what can be achieved with the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G and top-tier B-die memory! Very exciting times ahead.
> 
> Check the AMD RAM OC spreadsheet to get some context for this amazing result.



Awesome, hope Zen 3 can do those speeds I want a reason to upgrade.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Renoir is here, boys!
> Reous shows what can be achieved with the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G and top-tier B-die memory! Very exciting times ahead.
> 
> Check the AMD RAM OC spreadsheet to get some context for this amazing result.


They don't bother to fix tRFC  
Be it equal or calculated, at least fix the mess the board predicts :/
tRCD 15 is a great result 

vSOC 1.25 is quite toasty tho :clock:
EDIT:
I think their spreadsheet need an own 7nm IMC category ~ unless this is again a rebranded 12nm +++ :thinking:


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> They don't bother to fix tRFC
> Be it equal or calculated, at least fix the mess the board predicts :/
> tRCD 15 is a great result
> 
> vSOC 1.25 is quite toasty tho :clock:
> EDIT:
> I think their spreadsheet need an own 7nm IMC category ~ unless this is again a rebranded 12nm +++ :thinking:


1.125V SOC though. 

Yeah, looks a bit out of place with the other 3000 CPUs.


----------



## mongoled

:drool: :yessir: :applaud:


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> 1.125V SOC though.
> 
> Yeah, looks a bit out of place with the other 3000 CPUs.


Oh yes yes, don't mind me then :ninja:
Still sleepy~


----------



## Dyngsur

Hello!

Could need som advice, I bought a 3900xt, that worked with FCLK 1900 without no issues.

Changed the processor to another 3900xt, that cant even boot with FCLK 1900, doesnt matter what timings etc etc I use, got the error code D7 when trying to use FCLK 1900 on the new 3900xt.
1867 in FCLK np, but as soon i change the value to 1900 FCLK in XFR menu, error code D7. 



I have use the memory @1900 easy so I guess its not the sticks, even used them @1934 aswell.

So is it the new CPU that sucks or can it be something else?

Would be very grateful for some tips and trix!

Got Gigabyte Aorus Master x570 mobo, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3600Mhz 16GB, Ryzen 9 3900XT,


----------



## Veii

Dyngsur said:


> Hello!
> 
> Could need som advice, I bought a 3900xt, that worked with FCLK 1900 without no issues.
> 
> Changed the processor to another 3900xt, that cant even boot with FCLK 1900, doesnt matter what timings etc etc I use, got the error code D7 when trying to use FCLK 1900 on the new 3900xt.
> 1867 in FCLK np, but as soon i change the value to 1900 FCLK in XFR menu, error code D7.
> 
> I have use the memory @ 1900 easy so I guess its not the sticks, even used them @1934 aswell.
> 
> So is it the new CPU that sucks or can it be something else?
> Would be very grateful for some tips and trix!
> 
> Got Gigabyte Aorus Master x570 mobo, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4 3600Mhz 16GB, Ryzen 9 3900XT,


Can you provide a screenshot of Ryzen Master, and the bios version 
It often happens that procODT peaks at 60ohm on XMP and voltages are all over the place 
Not every 3rd gen ryzen can do 1900FCLK - but most of the times it's plain stupid "high" voltages that mess it up


----------



## Dyngsur

Veii said:


> Can you provide a screenshot of Ryzen Master, and the bios version
> It often happens that procODT peaks at 60ohm on XMP and voltages are all over the place
> Not every 3rd gen ryzen can do 1900FCLK - but most of the times it's plain stupid "high" voltages that mess it up


Yeah I can when I come home.

But in Gigabyte bios the VDDG voltage is 1050 by automatic, if I try to lower it doesnt work.

Vcore Soc 1.1

Dram 1.5

Dram Termination 0.75

VDDG 1050
VDDP 950

ProcODT 36,9

CadBus etc

24, 24, 24, 24


Bios Version is F20 atm, Tryed with F12G aswell.. no luck there either! 

So dunno what to do, maybe switch cpu again?

Can tell that it doesnt matter what timing I use.


----------



## Veii

Dyngsur said:


> Yeah I can when I come home.
> But in Gigabyte bios the VDDG voltage is 1050 by automatic, if I try to lower it doesnt work.
> 
> Vcore Soc 1.1
> 
> Dram 1.5
> 
> Dram Termination 0.75
> 
> VDDG 1050
> VDDP 950
> 
> ProcODT 36,9
> 
> CadBus etc
> 
> 24, 24, 24, 24
> 
> 
> Bios Version is F20 atm, Tryed with F12G aswell.. no luck there either!
> So dunno what to do, maybe switch cpu again?
> Can tell that it doesnt matter what timing I use.


Inside AMD Overclocking -> UncoreOC mode, enable that one
Then voltages will stick
CAD_BUS you want to start with 24-20-20-24, if not even 30-20-20-24 or 40-20-20-24, up to memory amount and SR or DR
procODT you can change down to 32ohm, unless you have 4 dimms - then 34 i think was it ~ should be plenty

You need low procODT in order to boot higher FCLK


----------



## Dyngsur

Veii said:


> Inside AMD Overclocking -> UncoreOC mode, enable that one
> Then voltages will stick
> CAD_BUS you want to start with 24-20-20-24, if not even 30-20-20-24 or 40-20-20-24, up to memory amount and SR or DR
> procODT you can change down to 32ohm, unless you have 4 dimms - then 34 i think was it ~ should be plenty
> 
> You need low procODT in order to boot higher FCLK


Oh I see, gonna try that then! 

I can try with 32ohm and see! I just wanna boot for now, and not getting the bloody error code D7.

what do you men with "up to memory amount and SR or DR" ?


----------



## MakubeX

Dyngsur said:


> Yeah I can when I come home.
> 
> 
> 
> But in Gigabyte bios the VDDG voltage is 1050 by automatic, if I try to lower it doesnt work.
> 
> 
> 
> Vcore Soc 1.1
> 
> 
> 
> Dram 1.5
> 
> 
> 
> Dram Termination 0.75
> 
> 
> 
> VDDG 1050
> 
> VDDP 950
> 
> 
> 
> ProcODT 36,9
> 
> 
> 
> CadBus etc
> 
> 
> 
> 24, 24, 24, 24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bios Version is F20 atm, Tryed with F12G aswell.. no luck there either!
> 
> 
> 
> So dunno what to do, maybe switch cpu again?
> 
> 
> 
> Can tell that it doesnt matter what timing I use.


I'm also on Gigabyte and VDDG sticks fine for me. Where are you setting it? Are you setting it in the AMD Overclocking section?


----------



## Veii

Dyngsur said:


> Oh I see, gonna try that then!
> 
> I can try with 32ohm and see! I just wanna boot for now, and not getting the bloody error code D7.
> 
> what do you men with "up to memory amount and SR or DR" ?


2x Single Rank B-dies like= 28-32 ohm
2x DR between 34-42Ohm 
4x SR = 30-39ohm
4x DR = 42-53ohm


----------



## Dyngsur

MakubeX said:


> I'm also on Gigabyte and VDDG sticks fine for me. Where are you setting it? Are you setting it in the AMD Overclocking section?


it changes under XFR per auto to 1050, There I can change the VDDP voltage along with FCLK etc.


----------



## Dyngsur

Veii said:


> 2x Single Rank B-dies like= 28-32 ohm
> 2x DR between 34-42Ohm
> 4x SR = 30-39ohm
> 4x DR = 42-53ohm



Okey, mine is Single Rank B-dies


----------



## ped5

rares495 said:


> Yeah, well, it's better to import from Thaiphoon. That's the proper way to use the calculator.


Colors don't appear for manual inputs, correct?
If importing is the proper way to use it. Then when importing, can only select manual, therefore only click on safe.

When you do manual, then there are no color codes, or at least in my case.

Not understanding that the purpose of the feature then.


----------



## Dyngsur

*Dyngsur*



Veii said:


> 2x Single Rank B-dies like= 28-32 ohm
> 2x DR between 34-42Ohm
> 4x SR = 30-39ohm
> 4x DR = 42-53ohm


Tried all settings you wrote!

Error code D7.

Havent even started to change timings, they are on auto and still cant boot with 1900 FCLK, 1867 FCLK is np at all.


----------



## hazium233

Tried to play with 3200 and 3466 profiles with my 2x8GB Ballistix 3200 sticks (8Gbit Rev E - .M8FE1 week 51 2019). Couldn't do tRCDRD 16t at 3200 sadly, and so GDM off looked pretty similar to the Fast preset, although I used 1.380V. Termination though was ProcODT 43ohm, RTT 0-0-5, CAD 30-20-20-20.

Then I tried 3466 to see if it would at least do 18t there (GDM back on). It seemed to pass with pseudo-XMP like settings, so I tried to do a 3466C14 profile. It was something like ZeroCoolRiddler's profile but I tested up voltage steps, that profile was listed for 1.44V.

Anyway, I had first run through AIDA and RamTest with the attached profile with 1.400V. This also seemed to be my fastest Blender Benchmark setting to date (1.0 Beta 2 is what I have been using so I can run offline).

Tried to use tRDRDSCL, tWRWRSCL at 2, 2 but that did not seem to improve performance, and also it ended up with an error in Karhu at 14190. Then ran TM5 and it gave me a single test 2 error between cycle 7 and 12 (I had left the machine for a bit). Reverted the SCL to 3 and reran it which actually gave error test 10, and 2. Anyway, tested 1.410V and it went through.

I ran some of these through membench and noticed inter-ccx latency tests at ~111.3. On different bios with my 3466 Rev D profile, it had 109.2. Timing problem, or is this bios difference? I did cheat tRP, and tRAS is a little loose. The tRFC1, 2, 3 are 520, 386, 238 per Veii's calculator.

SOC is low because that was all it seemed to need in the past for 3466 (ran y-cruncher loops besides mem tests).


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Oh actually speaking of
> PBO might still be a mess, but i could play recent days with a 3600
> Still not a fan of the EDC bug and a tiny bit offtopic right now
> 
> You can utilize the flexibility of variable clock, to push FCLK higher
> AutoOC mode the +200mhz mode, does work BUT
> You have to start limiting both TDC and EDC ~ else it overvolts and shows "negative to non effects"
> 
> First you limit EDC ... (_full quote moved to spoiler_)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...to always peak @ 100% on every AVX2 test (y-cruncher for example)
> Well at first first, you make a tiny sheet with the constant and avg voltage RyzenMaster reports for this test on stock @ full load (Y-Cruncher tests take 2 min each)
> ~ avg voltage inside RM will reset and be accurate after each test passes with different instruction sets
> 
> Then you also limit TDC to be near 95-98%
> They should be around 2-6 Ampere appart, maximum 10 to hit this desired result
> You still let PPT to your desired TDP ~ the boosting algorithm will trigger around 85% load and FIT will lower the voltage
> 
> By playing around with this, and using several tests
> Y-Cruncher all of them, Cinebench both and single threaded both, TM5 (important)
> You will have to play and match 12 voltage results , but you can adjust TDC and later PPT to artificially limit PBO voltage
> This won't break the voltage curve, and no negative offset needs to be used
> The chip will run to it's allowed voltage till either FIT module settles in and clocks down (doesn't still) or clock stretching starts to trigger
> 
> Soo, by going that way and still keeping anything variable
> later also factoring in SOC TDC and EDC
> You should be able to surpass 1900FCLK because of the variability + increase your maximum single threaded boost
> Keep in mind TM5 will run all cores at the set maximum boost, while other benchmarks will let cores sleep
> See it as "more advanced OC method with higher limits" compared to per CCX constant OC
> 3600 can now boost to 4400 without using dangerous high voltages, while per CCX allowed max 4150/4250 on the bad first batch
> * sadly AutoOC mode just allows 200Mhz boost bump, but we should probably be able to increase that by mods
> 
> 
> Probably should write soon a tutorial with this method :thinking:
> Getting to a working sample is bothersome sadly, soo every research is slow-paced zZZ


 @Veii or others. After OCing my RAM to 3800 a few weeks back (and being too busy with work), I have now started on CPU OCing.
*Can I combine manual all-core with PBO or does FIT not apply once I'm manual*? I can't turbo (all core OC, so...) but I'm curious if the limits can prevent my temps from going wild in some way. I saw my ycruncher stress test pushing 96 C on my CPU at 4.1+Ghz in spite of my Artic Liquid Freezer II 280 AIO and 6 other case fans. Specifically, BBP and SFT (ycruncher test id's 10 and 11).

Details:


Spoiler



I see the limits of PBO + AutoOC on how much it enables precision boosts. I never see 4.6Ghz, let alone 4.4 rarely, and the +200Mhz autooc offset is never realized. PPT/TDC/EDC all get hit beforehand. On these stressful AVX2 tests, the CPU temp got to 82 C. Mobo was still frosty at 34, RAM at 42 C.

I then ran with 2x scalar and saw PPT go to 395W, and the other values increased. With PBO on, still with Auto vcore and multiplier, I saw 85 C iirc. It does it's job in limiting thermals and current, but it's also limited on how much it pushes clock speeds, and therefore there are negligible returns on the 3900X of 1-3%. Of note, I saw that FIT limited my voltage under sustained Blender load to 1.275V vcore but with many jumps to 1.294V at first (and nevermind the spikes to 1.4V), before settling down to 1.275.

Running fixed OC at 4.1Ghz or 4.2Ghz at 1.225-1.2325V vcore gave me the 96 C ceiling. I didn't throttle but was close to it! I'm going to test without those two tests, and run a kinder ycruncher test, because I know nothing in real life pushes AVX2 instructions that hard, that concentrated at once. My fixed OC to 4.2Ghz only gives 3% better Cinebench and 7% better Blender scores. After this fun, I will have to decide what OC solution I want for long term.

I may just settle with PBO and manual PPT/TDC/EDC limits based on what I see in Cinebench R20 and Blender Classroom (155 PPT, 95 TDC, 140 EDC), unless I can find a way to run an all-core OC with some sort of power/thermal throttling with PBO combined on top of it. That's where I'm going with my question here. 



I don't want to derail us too much here, sorry to bend the topic back to cpu briefly.


----------



## jfrob75

Dyngsur said:


> Tried all settings you wrote!
> 
> Error code D7.
> 
> Havent even started to change timings, they are on auto and still cant boot with 1900 FCLK, 1867 FCLK is np at all.


Could just be your CPU will not work at 1900 fclk, not all will. I have a 3900x that can not do 1900 fclk. I tried with 2 different sets of memory and 2 different X570 MB's(GB Master, ASUS CH8). I am able to get both memory kits to work using a 3800X and 2 3950X cpu's on 3 different x570 MB's(GB Master, GB Extreme and ASUS CH8).


----------



## MakubeX

Hey @Veii

These timings are based on the DRAM calculator fast preset. These are TM5 stable. Currently running at 1.41v. Do you recommend lowering/changing any timings that could make a noticeable improvement? tRC 48?

Thanks in advanced!


----------



## rares495

MakubeX said:


> Hey @Veii
> 
> These timings are based on the DRAM calculator fast preset. These are TM5 stable. Currently running at 1.41v. Do you recommend lowering/changing any timings that could make a noticeable improvement? tRC 48?
> 
> Thanks in advanced!


That memory kit can do 3800 CL14


----------



## algida79

2600ryzen said:


> I would raise twtrl-s to 4-12, and trtp-twr to 10-20. On my Rev e kit trp can easily go 2 lower than trcd.





Veii said:


> @algida79 error 4 timeout issue - MirrorCopy size 0 / usually related to tRDWR or tWRRD, tWRRD +1 could help
> Else
> How awkward this set looks like at first - it's pretty consistent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try this /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


Thank you both! Currently enjoying the Greek summer for 2 weeks, I will try your suggestions once I return to homebase. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

Although I don't think my Rev E kit can go so tight on tRFC; I am fully expecting a no POST.

In the meantime, I can keep a little busy tuning a 2x8GB Hynix AFR kit on a 2200G/2-DIMM slot B450 mATX combo.


----------



## treestar

Did I do 2 full cycles? Also 1h of TM5, finally zero errors, such a relief, thanks everyone for the priceless info! Funny thing it could do few stable TM5 runs at lower Vdimm, but much slower, now it's 8:20 average.
4x8 B-die, proc 43-34-80-240, CAD 40-20-24-24, VDDP 0.9 with 0.75 step
Four fat sticks get really hot, needed 80mm at 1800rpm to keep them within 43C. Gonna try 1-4-4-1-6-6 next, further advices appreciated.




Veii said:


> else always put the kit which doesn't need much voltage or likes less (like A0 kits)
> on the slave channel


I thought since it's closer to the socket, would be better to put worse sticks there?
Can't set tRFC2\4 manually, it's grayed out on MSI boards, am I missing something?


----------



## 2600ryzen

You could try 1-5-4-1-7-6 aswell. That's what my board trains at on auto for some reason.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> You could try 1-5-4-1-7-6 aswell. That's what my board trains at on auto for some reason.


That's really weird.


----------



## nick name

2600ryzen said:


> You could try 1-5-4-1-7-6 aswell. That's what my board trains at on auto for some reason.


I've seen others use those timings as well.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Yeah I haven't seen anyone elses board train like that, I guess most people leave those on auto like me.


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> @Veii or others. After OCing my RAM to 3800 a few weeks back (and being too busy with work), I have now started on CPU OCing.
> *Can I combine manual all-core with PBO or does FIT not apply once I'm manual*? I can't turbo (all core OC, so...) but I'm curious if the limits can prevent my temps from going wild in some way. I saw my ycruncher stress test pushing 96 C on my CPU at 4.1+Ghz in spite of my Artic Liquid Freezer II 280 AIO and 6 other case fans. Specifically, BBP and SFT (ycruncher test id's 10 and 11).
> 
> Details:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I see the limits of PBO + AutoOC on how much it enables precision boosts. I never see 4.6Ghz, let alone 4.4 rarely, and the +200Mhz autooc offset is never realized. PPT/TDC/EDC all get hit beforehand. On these stressful AVX2 tests, the CPU temp got to 82 C. Mobo was still frosty at 34, RAM at 42 C.
> 
> I then ran with 2x scalar and saw PPT go to 395W, and the other values increased. With PBO on, still with Auto vcore and multiplier, I saw 85 C iirc. It does it's job in limiting thermals and current, but it's also limited on how much it pushes clock speeds, and therefore there are negligible returns on the 3900X of 1-3%. Of note, I saw that FIT limited my voltage under sustained Blender load to 1.275V vcore but with many jumps to 1.294V at first (and nevermind the spikes to 1.4V), before settling down to 1.275.
> 
> Running fixed OC at 4.1Ghz or 4.2Ghz at 1.225-1.2325V vcore gave me the 96 C ceiling. I didn't throttle but was close to it! I'm going to test without those two tests, and run a kinder ycruncher test, because I know nothing in real life pushes AVX2 instructions that hard, that concentrated at once. My fixed OC to 4.2Ghz only gives 3% better Cinebench and 7% better Blender scores. After this fun, I will have to decide what OC solution I want for long term.
> 
> I may just settle with PBO and manual PPT/TDC/EDC limits based on what I see in Cinebench R20 and Blender Classroom (155 PPT, 95 TDC, 140 EDC), unless I can find a way to run an all-core OC with some sort of power/thermal throttling with PBO combined on top of it. That's where I'm going with my question here.
> 
> 
> I don't want to derail us too much here, sorry to bend the topic back to cpu briefly.
> 
> 
> Veii said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably should write soon a tutorial with this method :thinking:
> Borrowing a working sample is bothersome sadly, soo every research is slow-paced zZZ
Click to expand...

Actually, there is now something, but information is split across forums:
Take a look at this post 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ii-overclocking-thread-1201.html#post28555614
It forwards you to also another post, including what you quoted before
I think the information should be enough as a split guide. Someday i rly should combine that all into one place, but it lacks of 2CCD testing to figure out what freq offset between CCDs works well. It probably wouldn't matter as silicon is unique after all. But it did matter between CCX :thinking:

First make this with written out voltage scaling on single core and all core loads (test your golden cores)
That way determine actual save Allcore voltage - soo when you work with AutoOC scaling, you'd know how much to limit TDC, EDC in order to replicate default boosting behavior just with higher boosting targets


MakubeX said:


> Hey @Veii
> 
> These timings are based on the DRAM calculator fast preset. These are TM5 stable. Currently running at 1.41v. Do you recommend lowering/changing any timings that could make a noticeable improvement? tRC 48?
> 
> Thanks in advanced!
> 
> View attachment 364098


Start with tRC 48 yes
14,42 - 15,45 - 16,48 - 17,51
are good presets (tCL , tRC)
You can start to get slowly tRCD down step by step with higher voltage like rares mentioned 


Spoiler



16
16
16
16
32
48
288-214-132, 12 , 8

16
14
16
15
30
45
270-201-123, 12, 9
9 - 3
^ could be unstable

16
14
16
16
30
46
276-205-126, 12, 8
9 - 3 

15
14
15
15
30
45
270-201-123, 12, 9
8 - 3

14
11
15
13
29
42
294-218-134, 12, 7
252-187-115, 12, 6
8 - 3


> As for sorting
> tCL
> tRCD WR
> tRCD RD
> tRP
> tRAS
> tRC
> tRFC, tWR, tRTP
> tRDWR, tWRRD








treestar said:


> Can't set tRFC2\4 manually, it's grayed out on MSI boards, am I missing something?


MSI should have two fields
A combined tRFC/tRFC2/tRFC4 field which i've never seen working 
And a split one, 
If not, just use the same tRFC 1 - 3 times or ignore it, but take a closer look, you should be able to


2600ryzen said:


> You could try 1-5-4-1-7-6 aswell. That's what my board trains at on auto for some reason.
> 
> 
> nick name said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen others use those timings as well.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much the same autoprediction across many boards and AGESA versions
I have no idea why they use it, but to be clear - i have no clear idea what the SD, DD range is atm 
Follow 1usmus's timings so far, as they work well
computerbase, hardwareluxx started to use 1-4-4-1-6-6 more often even for single ranks, but i haven't seen them making better perf results outside of aida so far
soo 5-5-7-7 for SR, 4-4-6-6 for DR, 4 dimms seen 4-4-6-6 scale also better :thinking:


----------



## nick name

Veii said:


> -snip-
> 
> It's pretty much the same autoprediction across many boards and AGESA versions
> I have no idea why they use it, but to be clear - i have no clear idea what the SD, DD range is atm
> Follow 1usmus's timings so far, as they work well
> computerbase, hardwareluxx started to use 1-4-4-1-6-6 more often even for single ranks, but i haven't seen them making better perf results outside of aida so far
> soo 5-5-7-7 for SR, 4-4-6-6 for DR, 4 dimms seen 4-4-6-6 scale also better :thinking:



What I've read recently it would seem some of those timings only apply to dual rank setups? I'm not entirely sure which and I can't remember at which points in my searching I found the information. I probably should have kept track of it.


----------



## FranZe

Where can i download zentimings 1.0.8?


----------



## Veii

nick name said:


> What I've read recently it would seem some of those timings only apply to dual rank setups? I'm not entirely sure which and I can't remember at which points in my searching I found the information. I probably should have kept track of it.


Yes, that information has been from me, although following statistics and 1usmus calculator 
We know a difference of 2 between them is working well 
But that information is not from me.

We got to know that 1-1-1-1-1-1 works and helps to stabilize very unstable kits such as HynixMFR beyond 3200.
But at the expense of a lot of bandwidth loss.
You OCers need to test and compare it 
SiSandra works well for that and SuperPi 1.5 SX works well (32mil)
But ultimately, except for 2 offset between them, we don't know anything 
And that 1-4-4-1-6-6 goes well for DualRank


FranZe said:


> Where can i download zentimings 1.0.8?


Grab it from here 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-amd-general/1740690-zentimings-3.html#post28555146
If you have suggestions , let him know


----------



## FranZe

Thanks


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Actually, there is now something, but information is split across forums:
> Take a look at this post
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ii-overclocking-thread-1201.html#post28555614
> It forwards you to also another post, including what you quoted before
> I think the information should be enough as a split guide. Someday i rly should combine that all into one place, but it lacks of 2CCD testing to figure out what freq offset between CCDs works well. It probably wouldn't matter as silicon is unique after all. But it did matter between CCX :thinking:
> 
> First make this with written out voltage scaling on single core and all core loads (test your golden cores)
> That way determine actual save Allcore voltage - soo when you work with AutoOC scaling, you'd know how much to limit TDC, EDC in order to replicate default boosting behavior just with higher boosting targets


Thanks my friend. Interestingly, I ran more tests yesterday. I learned that of the four CCX', CCD0/CCX0 is my best -- by observation of max and average clock speeds achieved during the fixed duration of a test. I'm on old windows 1803 (don't ask hehe), but I installed the pre-1909 1usmus power profile.

I found that with PBO on, 2x scalar (for voltage flexibility), +100Mhz offest allowed, and PPT/TDC/EDC loosened to 160W/105A/160A (only needed 140 on EDC but shot higher)... that I can achieve a 9% improvement in single-threaded Cinebench R20 scores over my 4.1Ghz all-core. BUT, my multithreaded R20 score and Blender Classroom test were 3% worse.

Yesterday I already re-tested with 1usmus power plan enabled on top of my 4.1Ghz all-core, and my multi-threaded was close to the PBO test (1% worse), but the single threaded had no benefit.

In your link, I don't understand what you meant for Step 2, when you say, "keep the custom voltage except for auto vCore." What other custom voltage would you mean, besides CPU Vcore? SOC, CLDO VDDG and VDDP? I still have those fixed, and will keep them fixed, to keep my memory OC stable. It's been happy in spite of my various cpu experiments, so this is good. 

Once I better understand that, perhaps tomorrow I can go back and run per-core tests (your steps 2 and beyond). I'll then truly determine my better cores. What Ryzen Master highlights originally, vs what I see during benchmarking where all cores are loaded up... well it's a different answer between RM and real observations.  But to your point before, your goal is to work with PBO to fine tune it and not work against FIT (and thermals).

Additional note: My LLC 4 gives me some vdroop, aka from 1.225V to 1.212V. LLC 3 allows droop to 1.200V. LLC 5 is rock steady at the requested 1.225V in my all-core tests.

I'll re-read it in detail, and will ask any other questions tomorrow, and will start back on my CPU OC. Thanks @Veii . Also, don't hesitate to criticize or critique -- you're very kind to everyone, I welcome any push-back on choices I've made, if you have any. I also see Nighthog and Stilt were active in earlier discussions around PBO and CPU OCs too. I learned some from that closed thread (mostly the first half) from mid-2019:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1728758-strictly-technical-matisse-not-really.html


----------



## KedarWolf

I'm very happy with this.


----------



## Veii

@LuckyBahstard Yes, i've learned quite a lot from The Stilt's big teardowns
Back on Zen+ too

What i initially wanted you to do , is make a sheet
When you use PBO - allcore voltage is always around 75-125mV higher than needed
And the scalar option behaves more of a loadline 
On one hand PBO is useful, but without a lot of manual work it fully is useless
The scalar should only be used to help reach boosting targets ~ which it kinda does, it extends the boosting voltage the cpu can get, on some beyond 1.5v.
While 1.485v should be about FITs range before throttling down.

Without knowing which cores actually are good (Ryzen master and HWinfo both lie)
you wouldn't know which CCX is alright, and you wouldn't know on this good cores what the maximum boosting voltage it is that you can let it take

Enabling PBO will always override that, which you have to control
It will overvolt the cpu and can degrade it by specific allcore load
FIT is there and still active, unless you abuse the EDC bug - but AutoOC can do the same
Then just BLCK your way up with the frequency - a better method, than abusing the bug and pushing boosting voltage to an allcore load 

On the tutorial, be it per CCX or PBO
You have to know what voltage your sillicon likes without any overrides of PBO
Then with PBO you should determine how high with AutoOC can your golden cores aka your golden CCX even boost, without using any voltage scalar
Keep in mind, using more than 2 threads will let it fall down to allcore mode and drop voltage
It's expected behavior that on AVX/AVX2 loads, you jump-share the load between two cores
But still in the same CCX 

Figure the freq scaling inside your CCD's and default voltage scaling
Later when you use PBO , do indeed limit EDC where it has to peek constantly at 100%
TDC around 98% on AVX loads, while AVX2 can again peak at 100%
This is needed to preserve the life of the chip
Allcore load will always have some kind of offset by default
Only non AVX loads will boost maximum frequency across all threads ~ like TM5 does

It's not uncommon to run 4.6 PBO allcore on TM5, while still staying under 1.3v
Well the "under" range depends ultimately on your sillicon
soo figure this default allcore voltage range out, with enabled CPPC and a powerplan that supports it
Then you can try to peak boost maybe 4.8 or 4.9Ghz.
I think the same method should even allow 5ghz boost, but the 4.7-4.9 range from Robert Hallock is not a lie. Just PBO is not doing this without a lot of user work

PBO's only goal should be to extend the boosting range, and not in the procedure to shift the boosting curve twice
Keep the last part in mind, likely mentioned couple of times already
AutoOC will shift the boosting range (that's why you have the "LLC" scalar option) 
And PBO does shift the allcore voltage, so you have to limit EDC and TDC down to 100% on anything that's AVX or AVX2
To a point where it's allcore voltage matches stock behavior.
Else you only have negative results, too high allcore, and clock stretching by extending AutoOC=maximum boost even higher
Every AutoOC step needs to have a redone reconfiguration of TDC&EDC limits 
Soo make a big sheet and know your sillicon behavior, before you attempt either per CCX nor PBO OC method 
Well this is offtopic now :notontopi
Someday i'll have to write a guide, ~someday~


----------



## LuckyBahstard

Veii said:


> Well this is offtopic now :notontopi
> Someday i'll have to write a guide, ~someday~


Yeah, oops.  I'll stop the off topic here. I can ping you separately in PMs and share how it's going. Maybe I can help with that guide. Someday. 

quick notes ... Yes, RM is a lying bastard, but hwinfo64 too? say it ain't so! ... I didn't realize the EDC bug still existed on newer AGESA ... I did see my max boosts at 4.6Ghz+ on multiple cores in my previous R20 and Blender tests using Yuri's power plan and my PBO settings, so that was fun to see ... 4.7-4.9Ghz huh? people have blasted Mr. Hallock ... okay, I need to make a big sheet and dive in on your info. Not tonight, it's bedtime.


----------



## Veii

LuckyBahstard said:


> quick notes ... Yes, RM is a lying bastard, but hwinfo64 too? say it ain't so! ... I didn't realize the EDC bug still existed on newer AGESA ... I did see my max boosts at 4.6Ghz+ on multiple cores in my previous R20 and Blender tests using Yuri's power plan and my PBO settings, so that was fun to see ... 4.7-4.9Ghz huh? people have blasted Mr. Hallock ... okay, I need to make a big sheet and dive in on your info. Not tonight, it's bedtime.


RM is normally quite accurate at least when it comes to voltage redoubts
When it comes to golden cores, not that much 
RM does define own golden cores and overwrites FIT module
CPPC Preferred Cores feature does forward FITs info to the OS
HWinfo tries to read out via SMU stuff, but purely messes up variability which not only does factor auto corrected voltage, but also silicon changing characteristics

Ultimately CPPC APCI readout is accurate
But this you have to determine by yourself
Some can boost only a short time higher, some are on average better
You'll see the instructions in the linked posts 

Mr. Hallock is not wrong at all, the implementation and the lack of documentation was the issue.
You can extend the boosting behavior to 100-200MHz 
Most of the times 100-125Mhz 
But it should've been just a boost addition and a scalar field
Pushing PPT,TDC,EDC to manual without a guide and putting an allcore voltage overriding by default undocumented not a good and as easy as it looks way, on marketing PBO functionality ^^
Of course the FIT module will throttle down when you push dangerous voltages just by enabling it per default 
Else PBO OC is pretty similar yo 2nd gen. If you do it well, my record was 4.55 boost out of it and about 4.3 AC 
Just here you have two more undocumented variables, to the already 3 confusing ones :')


----------



## Dyngsur

jfrob75 said:


> Could just be your CPU will not work at 1900 fclk, not all will. I have a 3900x that can not do 1900 fclk. I tried with 2 different sets of memory and 2 different X570 MB's(GB Master, ASUS CH8). I am able to get both memory kits to work using a 3800X and 2 3950X cpu's on 3 different x570 MB's(GB Master, GB Extreme and ASUS CH8).


Yeah its probably the cpu that cant handle anything over 1900FCLK. Kinda bad imo cause XT version should be a more polished and optimised cpu etc etc, well dunno what to do.

Should I change it to another 3900XT or go for a 3900X instead?

And really how much does the 1900FCLK vs 1867FCLK do?

For example a 1867FCLK with 14.13.13.13.27.40 with trfc 240 wouldnt that be faster than 1900FCLK 15.15.15.15.30.45 with trfc 260?


----------



## rares495

Dyngsur said:


> Yeah its probably the cpu that cant handle anything over 1900FCLK. Kinda bad imo cause XT version should be a more polished and optimised cpu etc etc, well dunno what to do.
> 
> Should I change it to another 3900XT or go for a 3900X instead?
> 
> And really how much does the 1900FCLK vs 1867FCLK do?
> 
> For example a 1867FCLK with 14.13.13.13.27.40 with trfc 240 wouldnt that be faster than 1900FCLK 15.15.15.15.30.45 with trfc 260?


1900 will be much faster even with worse memory timings. 1900 CL16 > 1866 CL14


----------



## Dyngsur

rares495 said:


> 1900 will be much faster even with worse memory timings. 1900 CL16 > 1866 CL14


Think youre wrong,  Can you give me some information about that 1900 CL 16 is faster than 1866 CL 14. 

If you test the system in Aida64 or other benchmarks etc you will have better latency with 1866 CL 14 than 1900 CL 16, the read, copy, and write are almost identical! 

So how can you tell me that its faster?


I know that my sticks with my config atm is faster than 1900 CL 16, they are even faster than 1900 CL 15.


----------



## treestar

MakubeX said:


> These timings are based on the DRAM calculator fast preset.


Why don't you do CR1?


----------



## mongoled

Dyngsur said:


> Yeah its probably the cpu that cant handle anything over 1900FCLK. Kinda bad imo cause XT version should be a more polished and optimised cpu etc etc, well dunno what to do.
> 
> Should I change it to another 3900XT or go for a 3900X instead?
> 
> And really how much does the 1900FCLK vs 1867FCLK do?
> 
> For example a 1867FCLK with 14.13.13.13.27.40 with trfc 240 wouldnt that be faster than 1900FCLK 15.15.15.15.30.45 with trfc 260?


Why is it kinda bad in your honest opinion ?

Does it not run to the specification it was sold as ?

I dont see anywhere that its specification is to run at 1900 FCLK, so I think your honest opinion is misguided thats the only thing that is kinda bad that the CPU overclocking ability did not meet your expectation, that is not on AMD that is on you

And now you are considering returning a 2nd CPU ....

And Rares has given you good info, if you think he is wrong invest the time to making spreadsheets with your data to proove it


----------



## Dyngsur

mongoled said:


> Why is it kinda bad in your honest opinion ?
> 
> Does it not run to the specification it was sold as ?
> 
> I dont see anywhere that its specification is to run at 1900 FCLK, so I think your honest opinion is misguided thats the only thing that is kinda bad that the CPU overclocking ability did not meet your expectation, that is not on AMD that is on you
> 
> And now you are considering returning a 2nd CPU ....
> 
> And Rares has given you good info, if you think he is wrong invest the time to making spreadsheets with your data to proove it



Why the sarcasm?

1900 CL 16 aint faster than 1866 cl 14 not in latency atleast! you get a bit more read, write etc but not much. 
So thats was the point I wanted to state.

Well the XT version is a updated 3900x that has been improved, IF etc etc etc, godamn even spreedsheets about it exist. So yeah Im thinking of returning a second cpu, why shouldnt I when I can?


----------



## Veii

30Mhz shouldn't do that much , but between 3666 and 3800 is a difference 
Same as between 3600 & 3734 is a noticable difference.

You guys should compare SiSoftware Sandra latency curve results between both 
And SuperPi 1.5 SX - 32M 
If SuperPi needs 30sec less, the difference is around 3-4% of IPC.
Usually this jump mentioned above in games is around 8-12fps difference
3600-3800 should be 15-25FPS , game statistic


----------



## mongoled

Dyngsur said:


> Why the sarcasm?
> 
> 1900 CL 16 aint faster than 1866 cl 14 not in latency atleast! you get a bit more read, write etc but not much.
> So thats was the point I wanted to state.
> 
> Well the XT version is a updated 3900x that has been improved, IF etc etc etc, godamn even spreedsheets about it exist. So yeah Im thinking of returning a second cpu, why shouldnt I when I can?


No sarcasm here, 

just stating some facts and than opinion.

Facts that the CPU is not speced to run 1900, and opinion that you need to collect your own data before telling somebody they are wrong, especially considering they reached out to you to answer your question!

** EDIT **
And never mind me, im just frustrated with the state of current society, that people cannot "see"


----------



## rares495

Dyngsur said:


> Think youre wrong,  Can you give me some information about that 1900 CL 16 is faster than 1866 CL 14.
> 
> If you test the system in Aida64 or other benchmarks etc you will have better latency with 1866 CL 14 than 1900 CL 16, the read, copy, and write are almost identical!
> 
> So how can you tell me that its faster?
> 
> 
> I know that my sticks with my config atm is faster than 1900 CL 16, they are even faster than 1900 CL 15.





Check the AMD RAM OC spreadsheet.


----------



## Dyngsur

rares495 said:


> Check the AMD RAM OC spreadsheet.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit#gid=527992713

yeah look whos have the lowest latency, wow shiet can it be true? 1866mhz fclk goddamn..

Told you its about the timings.


----------



## Dyngsur

mongoled said:


> No sarcasm here,
> 
> just stating some facts and than opinion.
> 
> Facts that the CPU is not speced to run 1900, and opinion that you need to collect your own data before telling somebody they are wrong, especially considering they reached out to you to answer your question!
> 
> ** EDIT **
> And never mind me, im just frustrated with the state of current society, that people cannot "see"


True its not specced to run 1900! 

Where did I tell someone is wrong? It was a fact that cl 16 1900 mem is slower than 1866 cl 14... Thats fact or maybe im wrong and you could prove me that im wrong. 

Im letting this go now, no point argueing about this.


----------



## rares495

Dyngsur said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit#gid=527992713
> 
> yeah look whos have the lowest latency, wow shiet can it be true? 1866mhz fclk goddamn..
> 
> Told you its about the timings.



That spreadsheet seems suspicious. Specially the first two results seem fake. Check this german one instead.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383


----------



## mongoled

Dyngsur said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit#gid=527992713
> 
> yeah look whos have the lowest latency, wow shiet can it be true? 1866mhz fclk goddamn..
> 
> Told you its about the timings.


How old are you ?

Thats one result out of how many and its obviously an "outlier" which in my book is invalid.....


----------



## 2600ryzen

The top score is on a 3600x so fake somehow, the 2nd score is real because it's a 3300x and they can go under 60ns.


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> The top score is on a 3600x so fake somehow, the 2nd score is real because it's a 3300x and they can go under 60ns.


Same user has another score below (@4.4Ghz), which is somewhat on par with what one would expect.

Unsure if its a fake, just that the person should have realised its an erroneous result ....


----------



## 2600ryzen

Might be real if he was on a 3300x and forgot to update the cpu information from when he used the 3600x.


----------



## Dyngsur

mongoled said:


> Dyngsur said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit#gid=527992713
> 
> yeah look whos have the lowest latency, wow shiet can it be true? 1866mhz fclk goddamn..
> 
> Told you its about the timings.
> 
> 
> 
> How old are you ?
> 
> Thats one result out of how many and its obviously an "outlier" which in my book is invalid.....
Click to expand...


What have my age with timings to do?

Yeah i know the first result ain't correct but as you see 3733 can still be faster than 3800.

Not all but some, my memory does aida in 61.8 and those aint 3800, and I have almost same reading, write, copy results.


----------



## hazium233

2600ryzen said:


> Might be real if he was on a 3300x and forgot to update the cpu information from when he used the 3600x.


The album shots have 3600X in AIDA (safe mode) and Ryzen Master, so it is supposed to be a 3600X. But one thing that looks wrong in the listing is the Karhu shot is 8256% not 14000%.


----------



## treestar

Just looked through this https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dsu9K1Nt_7apHBdiy0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/
Nobody achieved GDM off on 4 sticks xD also noticed how AIDA latency vary a lot like +\- 5ns with equal tuning. Windows to blame or just slow PC parts?


----------



## Ortus

treestar said:


> Can't set tRFC2\4 manually, it's grayed out on MSI boards, am I missing something?


You should have four fields for tRFC in the MSI bios, you need to set the first field to auto then fill the next 3 with 1/2/4


----------



## treestar

Ortus said:


> You should have four fields for tRFC in the MSI bios, you need to set the first field to auto then fill the next 3 with 1/2/4


 Thank you, this worked.
Why though...


----------



## ribosome

Ortus said:


> You should have four fields for tRFC in the MSI bios, you need to set the first field to auto then fill the next 3 with 1/2/4


 I think I've had no-boot issues in the past when I did that, but when I just put my tRFC value in the first field then it works fine for me. But Ryzen Master reports that tRFC = tRFC2 = tRFC4. Like right now, all three values are showing 304. Is this bad?


Edit: Or rather I didn't do that in the past, but I simply filled in the second field and left the first, third, and fourth on auto. So I just filled in tRFC1.


Edit 2: I filled in the three using values from the DRAM calculator, so now I have tRFC1 = 304, tRFC2 = 226, tRFC4 = 139. But still I'm wondering, what effect does it have to set all three of these equal to each other?


----------



## Veii

treestar said:


> Thank you, this worked.
> Why though...


Can you redo this testing with 288-214-132 set in the bios
It's interesting that *6 one is worse :thinking: 
I get that 320 must have been DRAM Calculator (IF) then likely it is faster calculated
But please spare another 10min to reset it with a fully filled out tRFC1-2-4, while leaving tRFC main on Auto (on MSI)

Oh also wait a tiny bit after you boot up the OS
Windows services take couple of minutes, even if you disable everything and even if you can use Enterprise 
(still takes 2min to sync everything)


----------



## KedarWolf

Dyngsur said:


> What have my age with timings to do?
> 
> Yeah I know the first result ain't correct but as you see 3733 can still be faster than 3800.
> 
> Not all but some, my memory does AIDA in 61.8 and those aint 3800, and I have almost the same reading, write, copy results.


My 3950x does 61.8 and if I run the test enough times I'll get a 61.7, have several times.

I should post for that spreadsheet, I'd have the lowest latency for a 3950x. And in the last two days, I've passed 25 cycles of TM5 twice on different reboots.


----------



## treestar

Veii said:


> Can you redo this testing with 288-214-132 set in the bios


 Sure, I'm happy for any guidance. Waiting out 5 mins helped shaking some time, now average result is same for both. Still no perf improvements. Anything else I can try to do with my timings without abusing voltage?


----------



## rastaviper

2600ryzen said:


> The top score is on a 3600x so fake somehow, the 2nd score is real because it's a 3300x and they can go under 60ns.


Totally agree.
There is no way that a 3600x went down to 59 ns.
I can run my 3733 at 15-14-13 at 4.450mhz with minimum 62.5 ns.

No way to cut almost 3 ns with some small tuning.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## BloodDivine

Hey @Veii 

Any info on what could cause TM5 to throw errors on test 11?


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> The top score is on a 3600x so fake somehow, the 2nd score is real because it's a 3300x and they can go under 60ns.



Right, didn't notice that. My bad. The top result is fake news though. Not even a heavily overclocked a 3900XT with the best memory can get under 60ns. A 3600X can't even dream of that.


----------



## mongoled

BloodDivine said:


> Hey @Veii
> 
> Any info on what could cause TM5 to throw errors on test 11?


from the horses mouth



Veii said:


> Error 7, 11 are burst tests
> - it will error out if if CAD_BUS is not optimal
> - will error out of tRFC is too low
> - mostly errors out only after time


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

*Good latency*

If You (Any of Us) have latency at 61->65ns then, that is more that enough for Gaming.
I have ~63.1 to 63.4ns with those timings below.

Note: 
I just can't lower anything now, even with 1.5v (DRAM is cooled by add. fan)
Don't know how to get lower (yet )
@Veii any advise bro?
==
DRAM 1.42v (1.395v Real)
SOC 1.125v
VDDG 0.964v
==


----------



## zsoltmol

treestar said:


> Sure, I'm happy for any guidance. Waiting out 5 mins helped shaking some time, now average result is same for both. Still no perf improvements. Anything else I can try to do with my timings without abusing voltage?


If I understand correctly you have 4x8GB Samsung Bdie G.Skill ram.

What are your settings for:
ram voltage
VSOC
CLDO VDDP
CLDO VDDG IOD
CLDO VDDG CCD
UncoreOC mode
CAD_BUS settings
procODT

thanks!


----------



## nick name

zsoltmol said:


> If I understand correctly you have 4x8GB Samsung Bdie G.Skill ram.
> 
> What are your settings for:
> ram voltage
> VSOC
> CLDO VDDP
> CLDO VDDG IOD
> CLDO VDDG CCD
> UncoreOC mode
> CAD_BUS settings
> procODT
> 
> thanks!


When I run 4x8GB I keep everything pretty much the same. 1.1V SOC, 1.05V VDDG, 1.0V VDDP. Everything else I leave on Auto.


----------



## treestar

zsoltmol said:


> What are your settings for:


Hey! That google sheet should give a good idea. I'm not sure what suits me best so far. Playing around VDDP 0.9-0.925 with 50 or 75 step up for each of the rest. Never touched uncoreOC, not sure I even have this in bios. Do I need to? I think I had best results with CAD 40-20-24-24 and proc around 37-43. Ram voltage around 1.41-1.42, coz it gets quite hot even with airflow.


----------



## Solohuman

Not sure if any other users of this app have picked this up. But using the latest version today, gave me a slightly different reading for the timings than when doing it all over again with importing XMP profile in both cases.
I think this could be a bug. 
Was having challenges getting my rig to be stable in MEMbench stability test with 3533 speed.

Here is the problem with timings changing upon 2nd reiteration of XMP profile after reset the app.


----------



## KedarWolf

Good PC news, for months my fans wouldn't ramp up when temps got high like stress testing my CPU, had to manually put everything at 100% in BIOS, but last night I blew out my RADS, PC and motherboard with my DataVac electric blower, it's suddenly fixed itself!!


----------



## Veii

ribosome said:


> I think I've had no-boot issues in the past when I did that, but when I just put my tRFC value in the first field then it works fine for me. But Ryzen Master reports that tRFC = tRFC2 = tRFC4. Like right now, all three values are showing 304. Is this bad?
> 
> Edit: Or rather I didn't do that in the past, but I simply filled in the second field and left the first, third, and fourth on auto. So I just filled in tRFC1.
> 
> Edit 2: I filled in the three using values from the DRAM calculator, so now I have tRFC1 = 304, tRFC2 = 226, tRFC4 = 139. But still I'm wondering, what effect does it have to set all three of these equal to each other?


The "effect" is long and and tedious to explain, with only half knowledge from my side
It's seen that stability and rounding accuracy was influenced by it from very old testings
Soo while researching a bit more,
it is used for double checking tRFC size, 
used in calculating for tSTAG, tCKE and so influencing tMRD and tMOD state. Which both of them are changing in realtime, up to dataset size.
It does a bit mode with memory bann'ing ~ but the topic is too big to describe into a tiny post
The biggest effect it has if GDM is enabled, but it still does influence timings rounding on the remain realtime changing set

Honestly putting 3x tRFC 1 should be valuable/functional enough
But as boards do autofill garb*ge there, I tend to push people into filling this out correctly
Even more when we "try" to do clean cycles with as less autocorrection as possible 


treestar said:


> Sure, I'm happy for any guidance. Waiting out 5 mins helped shaking some time, now average result is same for both. Still no perf improvements. Anything else I can try to do with my timings without abusing voltage?


Avg result between different sets, shouldn't be compared 
Usually tRFC size, if not autocorrected ~ should make a difference
If you see absolutely nothing, then something else is rounded because of instability or strange transitions
Ryzen is artificially limited, but at least ~something~ has to be seen
You can try to compare the results between the first big tRFC and this smaller *6 mode one with SiSoftware Sandra - MultiCore Efficiency Test
The detailed result, in local only filtering. Comparing both latency curves


treestar said:


> Hey! That google sheet should give a good idea. I'm not sure what suits me best so far. Playing around VDDP 0.9-0.925 with 50 or 75 step up for each of the rest. Never touched uncoreOC, not sure I even have this in bios. Do I need to? I think I had best results with CAD 40-20-24-24 and proc around 37-43. Ram voltage around 1.41-1.42, coz it gets quite hot even with airflow.


Are you on dual Rank again, with such high procODT ?
You might try out ClkDrvStrengh of 60 or even 120ohm to help you disable GDM , either to 2T or 1T 

UncoreOC for Matisse does help to skip FIT voltage autocorrection , and applied custom voltages
Verifiable via Ryzen Master only
Up to where you set them, it sometimes is needed to enable it
At the expense of forcing SOC to stay in Powerstate 0 = flat state
In Renoir , this disables variable MCLk, FCLK and SOC
But nothing to worry, overall it has no negative effects so far


----------



## mongoled

I know some of you like the max AIDA64 benchies



Well here is mine, not tested for stability but based on previous PBO testing I imagine it would pass just fine

Obviously using ALL core overclock reduces the latency around 1ns compared to using PBO.

Using ALL core did not improve membench "easy mode" score, best I can get with 3600 is just sub 102 s


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> I know some of you like the max AIDA64 benchies
> 
> 
> 
> Well here is mine, not tested for stability but based on previous PBO testing I imagine it would pass just fine
> 
> Obviously using ALL core overclock reduces the latency around 1ns compared to using PBO.
> 
> Using ALL core did not improve membench "easy mode" score, best I can get with 3600 is just sub 102 s


Impressive.


----------



## treestar

Veii said:


> Are you on dual Rank again, with such high procODT ?
> You might try out ClkDrvStrengh of 60 or even 120ohm to help you disable GDM , either to 2T or 1T


 Single rank 4x8. Dunno, it just feels more stable than lower 30, but everything is so inconsistent and hard to tell for sure. I can validate stability, change one timing back and forth - aaand it's gone. Or randomly get training upon routine reboot, or screen flickers. Giving low proc (32) another chance atm.
Regarding GDM off with 2T - is it worth a try? I heard GDM on is like 1.5T, and 2>1.5.  How much extra Vdimm will I need approx?


----------



## mongoled

treestar said:


> Single rank 4x8. Dunno, it just feels more stable than lower 30, but everything is so inconsistent and hard to tell for sure. I can validate stability, change one timing back and forth - aaand it's gone. Or randomly get training upon routine reboot, or screen flickers. Giving low proc (32) another chance atm.
> Regarding GDM off with 2T - is it worth a try? I heard GDM on is like 1.5T, and 2>1.5.  How much extra Vdimm will I need approx?


Try playing with ProcODT in combination with vSOC.

I found it very important getting the right balance between these two when I was playing with 4 x 8GB sticks on my X370 and than vDIMM played the next big role on reliably posting.

Regards CAD_BUS, I found CsOdtDrv @30 ohms was helpful.

Of course this information is dependent on the combination of hardware ....


----------



## treestar

mongoled said:


> Try playing with ProcODT in combination with vSOC.


What relations should I aim for? BTW went 40 to 32 and it became unstable, soc was 1.08.


----------



## Dyngsur

About cadstrenght etc.

Is that only for when booting up or does the different values have stability impact aswell. 

Trying to get my b-dies stable, my proc is 32, then I have 24,20,20,24

So need some advice to get the ram stable, worth raise the cadstrenght or proc? Or both?


----------



## KedarWolf

Dyngsur said:


> About cadstrenght etc.
> 
> Is that only for when booting up or does the different values have stability impact aswell.
> 
> Trying to get my b-dies stable, my proc is 32, then I have 24,20,20,24
> 
> So need some advice to get the ram stable, worth raise the cadstrenght or proc? Or both?


On my 2x16GB Dual Rank, I have 60-20-20-24 and Proc at 43.6. it has passed multiple runs of TM5, but if I just lower Proc to 40, it fails every time.

And lots of posts about how ClkDrvStren helps you stay stable. Some have it running at 24 while others have suggested 60.

Edit Here's what i run.


----------



## DeusM

ok guys, im shopping for some new ram and if it worth it but i have a few questions first that i cant find answers for, first off:


I need 32gb of memory do i go for 4x8gb or 2x16gb


People say single rank is better for OC but would a Daisy Chain board affect that?


----------



## rastaviper

Ne01 OnnA said:


> If You (Any of Us) have latency at 61->65ns then, that is more that enough for Gaming.
> I have ~63.1 to 63.4ns with those timings below.
> 
> Note:
> I just can't lower anything now, even with 1.5v (DRAM is cooled by add. fan)
> Don't know how to get lower (yet )
> 
> ==
> DRAM 1.42v (1.395v Real)
> SOC 1.125v
> VDDG 0.964v
> ==


Well with timings 16-17 even 63ns is quite good.
To get lower ns you need higher CPU freq and lower Ram timings.


----------



## KedarWolf

DeusM said:


> ok guys, im shopping for some new ram and if it worth it but i have a few questions first that i cant find answers for, first off:
> 
> 
> I need 32gb of memory do i go for 4x8gb or 2x16gb
> 
> 
> People say single rank is better for OC but would a Daisy Chain board affect that?


2x16GB the way to go for 32GB. The 2x16GB Trident Z NEO 3600 16-16-16-36 kits are really good. Daisy Chain works much better with two DIMMs.

Edit: With that kit on my 3950x.


----------



## mongoled

treestar said:


> What relations should I aim for? BTW went 40 to 32 and it became unstable, soc was 1.08.


First find an a mclk/fclk frequency that you know is stable

Example 3533/1766 vDIMM @ 1.35v with loose known good timings

Set ProcODT to say 28 ohms and vSOC to 1.05v and see if you loose stability.

If its stable, bump up to 3600/1800 and check if it post reliably or not.

If it does not increase vSOC a notch an test again, if its not stable raise ProcODT to 30 ohms.

Rinse and repeat.

You need to build up a picture of how your combination of components act according to settings you choose and then document these.

It takes time but you will eventually get an idea of what helps and what does not.

Sorry but there is no silver bullet with this, some have gotten fortunate with 4 x 8GB, others not so much ...

I am one of those who didnt, but I have another set of 2 x 8GB incoming and will try again, but X370 is a different kettle of fish to X570/X470/B450/B550 etc, at least thats what ive been told


----------



## DeusM

KedarWolf said:


> 2x16GB the way to go for 32GB. The 2x16GB Trident Z NEO 3600 16-16-16-36 kits are really good. Daisy Chain works much better with two DIMMs.
> 
> Edit: With that kit on my 3950x.







That memory is not on my QVL does it matter?


i was planning for 



*F4-3200C14D-32GTZR *


----------



## nick name

DeusM said:


> That memory is not on my QVL does it matter?
> 
> 
> i was planning for
> 
> 
> 
> *F4-3200C14D-32GTZR *


I've seen the Intel guys doing well with the 3200C14 kits.


----------



## algida79

algida79 said:


> In the meantime, I can keep a little busy tuning a 2x8GB Hynix AFR kit on a 2200G/2-DIMM slot B450 mATX combo.



Ugh, this AFR kit is as disgusting as I remember when using it with a R2600 on my X470 Asus. It's the ubiquitous 2017/18-era Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000C15 kit that usually caused headaches to early Zen owners with its XMP profile.


I think the 2-slot mobo is helping a bit with my new tweaking attempts, maybe the Zen1 APU is holding it slightly back. So far it tops out at 3200MT/s 1T GDM off 16-17-17-17-33-54. Currently tweaking secondaries/tertiaries but AIDA bandwidth and latency is atrocious (46G/48G/42G/71ns), not holding my breath for significant improvements.


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

@Veii

Any advise how to get lower, CL14 perhaps?
Is it possible with my Kit?

HyperX Predator 32GB (4x8GB) on Hero VI (Cooled by add. Fan)
DDR4-4133 CL19-21-21-38 1.35v

My settings (Fully stable BTW):
===


----------



## mongoled

Hequaqua said:


> I've seen the WHEA error pop up...as have a few others after the update to Windows 2004. One said he lowered his memory speed and they went away. I had a few until I re-seated my 24-pin connector on my MB....haven't had them since. IIRC there were several of them that popped up when Zen2 first released....not as specific as these are though. I believe those were across all boards, at least the X470 that I'm aware of(I want to say those were related to PCIE/Grahpic cards). I think they were taken care of with a bios update that had newer AGESA code.
> 
> Like you, I had no crashing, no errors mem testing, just would pop up, but only after updating to Win 2004.


Thanks for this info,

I just updated to 2004 and have seen this twice so far and thats in the last hour after a few reboots.

Was on 1903 and never saw such an error.

The last time I saw these errors was on very early BIOS and when I was using Zen 1.

As I have thoroughly tested this system with settings in sig and have had no instability I will disregard this "warning"

:thumb:


----------



## Awsan

KedarWolf said:


> 2x16GB the way to go for 32GB. The 2x16GB Trident Z NEO 3600 16-16-16-36 kits are really good. Daisy Chain works much better with two DIMMs.
> 
> Edit: With that kit on my 3950x.


I swear to god if I get some of those B-Die tridents and they don't time close to yours I will be mad


----------



## hazium233

hazium233 said:


> I ran some of these through membench and noticed inter-ccx latency tests at ~111.3. On different bios with my 3466 Rev D profile, it had 109.2. Timing problem, or is this bios difference? I did cheat tRP, and tRAS is a little loose. The tRFC1, 2, 3 are 520, 386, 238 per Veii's calculator.


Quoting myself, but I played around a little with the timings and that inter-ccx latency didn't change. Sort of interesting, maybe it is the PMU difference or something else?

Be that as it may, the cheating of tRP is why I quoted myself. The Blender Quick Bench times below are from the old 1.0 Beta 2 benchmark, not the newer open one.

The 14-16/18-14-36-52 with SLCs at 3/3 at 1.410V ran the quick benchmark with a best time of 18:34.86

I loosened it to 14-16/18-16-36-54 with SLCs 4/4 which could work at 1.400V. That did 18:32.41, although it is like 2 or 3s slower in 'membench' then above.

Then 14-16/18-16-36-52 SLCs 3/3 at 1.410V beat the above only slightly at 18:32.17. Ties the first, faster than the second, in 'membench.' 'AIDA latency' is slightly better.

Blender is fairly consistent for me running with a single profile, such that the times for the first one listed never overlapped the other two.

Anyway, was tired of messing with 3466, so went back to messing with 3600.

Have a sort of lazy-ish 16-16/20-18-38-66 set at 3600 1.360V playing with (only did 18:39.69).


----------



## KedarWolf

DeusM said:


> That memory is not on my QVL does it matter?
> 
> 
> i was planning for
> 
> 
> 
> *F4-3200C14D-32GTZR *


Shouldn't matter it's not on the QVL. I think it's higher binned than the 3200 CL14.

Edit: It's not on my QVL either.

Second edit: Try calling your motherboard tech support. The QVL lists on the websites are really old and not updated, but the tech support can tell you if the kit has been added.

Wish they updated the sites more often.


----------



## treestar

Ne01 OnnA said:


> Any advise how to get lower, CL14 perhaps?
> ===


Doesn't GDM on round up your timings to 16-18-16?


----------



## DeusM

KedarWolf said:


> Shouldn't matter it's not on the QVL. I think it's higher binned than the 3200 CL14.
> 
> Edit: It's not on my QVL either.
> 
> Second edit: Try calling your motherboard tech support. The QVL lists on the websites are really old and not updated, but the tech support can tell you if the kit has been added.
> 
> Wish they updated the sites more often.





i checked Gskill website and they are fine for my MOBO. At least somebody updates the QVL


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> I swear to god if I get some of those B-Die tridents and they don't time close to yours I will be mad


Make sure you buy a top-tier kit so you have a better chance to get good timings. 

F4-3600C15D-16GTZ
F4-3600C14D-16GTZN
F4-3800C14D-16GTZN
F4-4000C15D-16GVK
F4-4000C15D-16GTRS
F4-4000C15D-16GTRG
F4-4400C19D-16GTZKK
Viper Steel 4400
TF10D416G3600HC14CDC01

The F4-3600C15 and the Viper Steel 4400 are the best value overall. You're getting 90% of the performance of the others but for half the price.


----------



## pipes

some models do not seem to exist

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## rares495

pipes said:


> some models do not seem to exist
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


Yeah I messed up some SKUs. Corrected.


----------



## Ronski

I've now 3D printed my memory cooler and fitted a couple of Noctua NF-A6x25 PWM 12V 3000RPM 60x25mm Low Noise Fans, the cooler doesn't quite latch on properly, but I can just adjust the top bracket and reprint it.
Going to change my rad fans and 3D print a spacer to block some holes under the rad which leak airflow.

As for memory overclocking I've turned off GDM and tweaked a few timings, now scoring around 103 seconds in MEMbench easy, occasionally getting sub 103 seconds. Tested to 20,000% in Karho, and 5 cycles of TM5, ambient temperature was 30c in my small office last night.

Any further adjustments anybody can recommend please, getting very close to that 102.6?


----------



## Veii

@Ronski , very good work 
If you can - measure the highest height between the PCB->Fan of similar coolers like the Dark Rock Pro 4 with a 140mm 
(specs should be findable online)
And try to implement some kind of "bearing" spike-engraved design, like watches and clocks have on spike wheels 
Soo not only you can adjust and fix the cooler distance and resize/adapt the height , but it should also lock down easier and do better vibration dampening
The same "encarved spikes" that are findable on zip-ties
Usually spike like designs are used on Speaker systems although differently oriented - to concentrate the weightpoint into a tiny hole and also filter vibration that way
Should work well by the zip-ties design to lock-adjust the height of the fans up to module size

Timings:








Might be too harsh, but try it anyways please
This are Micron ones ?
Unsure what voltage you run, but you can go up 1.42 without negative effects, sometimes 1.44vDIMM
EDIT:
Orange ones need voltage adjustment , as tRP is lower
Red ones should be tested, after you confirm the remain set + tRFC is fine and not too low


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> I've now 3D printed my memory cooler and fitted a couple of Noctua NF-A6x25 PWM 12V 3000RPM 60x25mm Low Noise Fans, the cooler doesn't quite latch on properly, but I can just adjust the top bracket and reprint it.
> Going to change my rad fans and 3D print a spacer to block some holes under the rad which leak airflow.
> 
> As for memory overclocking I've turned off GDM and tweaked a few timings, now scoring around 103 seconds in MEMbench easy, occasionally getting sub 103 seconds. Tested to 20,000% in Karho, and 5 cycles of TM5, ambient temperature was 30c in my small office last night.
> 
> Any further adjustments anybody can recommend please, getting very close to that 102.6?



GDM disabled 1t is best so it's good that that's stable, highest speed I can get gdm disabled to work is 3666mhz 2t. tcrdwr 9 was faster for me slightly in membench but seemed to make latency slightly worse, same as tfaw 16 it hurt latency compared to 20 but 16 was faster.
My aida64 latency is slightly better than yours when I use my unstable 2t 3800mhz settings(tm5 is stable but the comp just keeps randomly shutting off). My membench latency is also better, possibly because of my manual OC and also different timings for tcrdwr and tfaw. 

I've also tried tcl 15(tcwl needs 12 for this) and it's stable just fine but performs worse in latency and membench.
Another way you might be able to improve benchmark performance is playing with the timings I've circled in the zen timings screenshot. Maybe 1-4-4-1-6-6 could work, or 1-5-5-1-7-7 too.


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> Make sure you buy a top-tier kit so you have a better chance to get good timings.
> 
> F4-3600C15D-16GTZ
> F4-3600C14D-16GTZN
> F4-3800C14D-16GTZN
> F4-4000C15D-16GVK
> F4-4000C15D-16GTRS
> F4-4000C15D-16GTRG
> F4-4400C19D-16GTZKK
> Viper Steel 4400
> TF10D416G3600HC14CDC01
> 
> The F4-3600C15 and the Viper Steel 4400 are the best value overall. You're getting 90% of the performance of the others but for half the price.


Those are all great kits the issue is those neos are the only good clocking 2x16gb I have found evidence for online.

There might better binned Kits but its very hard to find data + kedar's setup is basicly similar to mine (ohter than his upgrade to the godlike) which gives me hope for similar outcome.

If I get anything under 64ms I would be satisfied.


----------



## rares495

Awsan said:


> Those are all great kits the issue is those neos are the only good clocking 2x16gb I have found evidence fro online.
> 
> There might better binned Kits but its very hard to find data + kedar's setup is basicly similar to mine (ohter than his upgrade to the godlike) which gives me hope for similar outcome.
> 
> If I get anything under 64ms I would be satisfied.



High capacity or high performance.


Pick one.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> High capacity or high performance.
> Pick one.


I pick Vermeer without FCLK limits


----------



## Awsan

rares495 said:


> High capacity or high performance.
> 
> 
> Pick one.


I understand, but for now some elbow grease helped Kedar to have his cake and eat it .

Those might not be the highest performing kit but they are in a very very good state for people that really want 2x16gb as they are High capacity on the speedy side.


----------



## nick name

Awsan said:


> Those are all great kits the issue is those neos are the only good clocking 2x16gb I have found evidence for online.
> 
> There might better binned Kits but its very hard to find data + kedar's setup is basicly similar to mine (ohter than his upgrade to the godlike) which gives me hope for similar outcome.
> 
> If I get anything under 64ms I would be satisfied.


Pop over to the Intel thread and those guys can give you some advice. I said earlier that I've seen some good results with 3200C14 32GB kits in that Intel thread. I can combine two 3600C15 kits that do 3800MHz 14-16-14-14 with tight subs. Essentially running the two kits at the voltage, speed, and timings of the weaker of the two kits.


----------



## Ronski

Veii said:


> @Ronski , very good work
> If you can - measure the highest height between the PCB->Fan of similar coolers like the Dark Rock Pro 4 with a 140mm
> (specs should be findable online)
> And try to implement some kind of "bearing" spike-engraved design, like watches and clocks have on spike wheels
> Soo not only you can adjust and fix the cooler distance and resize/adapt the height , but it should also lock down easier and do better vibration dampening
> The same "encarved spikes" that are findable on zip-ties
> Usually spike like designs are used on Speaker systems although differently oriented - to concentrate the weightpoint into a tiny hole and also filter vibration that way
> Should work well by the zip-ties design to lock-adjust the height of the fans up to module size


The problem I have is there is only 2.5mm between the dim slot clip and the GPU, and thus the side brackets are secured via two of the fan screws, hence it can't be adjustable. One benefit with it being loose is I can push the top in a bit, this pivots the lower bracket away from the GPU(first picture), therefore allowing a bit of space for air to circulate, with the cooler parallel (second picture) the bracket is tight against the GPU and could possible create a hot spot. I have an AIO so the CPU cooler isn't an issue for me.



> Timings:
> Might be too harsh, but try it anyways please
> This are Micron ones ?
> Unsure what voltage you run, but you can go up 1.42 without negative effects, sometimes 1.44vDIMM
> EDIT:
> Orange ones need voltage adjustment , as tRP is lower
> Red ones should be tested, after you confirm the remain set + tRFC is fine and not too low


Thanks you for the suggested settings, I've attached full details of my memory, it's basically the same as what @2600ryzen has, and it is their timings I've been tweaking, so the bulk of the work was done by him. I'm running my memory at 1.44v in the BIOS which equates to 1.448v in HWinfo, is this safe?




2600ryzen said:


> GDM disabled 1t is best so it's good that that's stable, highest speed I can get gdm disabled to work is 3666mhz 2t. tcrdwr 9 was faster for me slightly in membench but seemed to make latency slightly worse, same as tfaw 16 it hurt latency compared to 20 but 16 was faster.
> My aida64 latency is slightly better than yours when I use my unstable 2t 3800mhz settings(tm5 is stable but the comp just keeps randomly shutting off). My membench latency is also better, possibly because of my manual OC and also different timings for tcrdwr and tfaw.
> 
> I've also tried tcl 15(tcwl needs 12 for this) and it's stable just fine but performs worse in latency and membench.
> Another way you might be able to improve benchmark performance is playing with the timings I've circled in the zen timings screenshot. Maybe 1-4-4-1-6-6 could work, or 1-5-5-1-7-7 too.


Thank you for the suggestions, I'll will be trying both suggestions. I've briefly tried a manual CPU overclock, but it's not stable.


----------



## rares495

Ronski said:


> The problem I have is there is only 2.5mm between the dim slot clip and the GPU, and thus the side brackets are secured via two of the fan screws, hence it can't be adjustable. One benefit with it being loose is I can push the top in a bit, this pivots the lower bracket away from the GPU(first picture), therefore allowing a bit of space for air to circulate, with the cooler parallel (second picture) the bracket is tight against the GPU and could possible create a hot spot. I have an AIO so the CPU cooler isn't an issue for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks you for the suggested settings, I've attached full details of my memory, it's basically the same as what @2600ryzen has, and it is their timings I've been tweaking, so the bulk of the work was done by him. I'm running my memory at 1.44v in the BIOS which equates to 1.448v in HWinfo, is this safe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the suggestions, I'll will be trying both suggestions. I've briefly tried a manual CPU overclock, but it's not stable.


Rather dusty on the GPU.


----------



## Filters83

Hi guys ! 1 question, this new agesa 1006 on ryzen 3000 change something ? Cause on my strix X-470-F im no more able to use over 3200mhz ram, i tried many time differente settings but it result all the time in a boot fail or windows error at login or worse in a stuck motherboard requesting original CD to recover xD ( btw this last one never seen before )

I have this kit G Skill F4-3200C14-8GTZ
Never had a problem till this new update
Ironically this new bios fixed finally my audio crackling and stuttering problem ....


----------



## 2600ryzen

> Hi guys ! 1 question, this new agesa 1006 on ryzen 3000 change something ? Cause on my strix X-470-F im no more able to use over 3200mhz ram, i tried many time differente settings but it result all the time in a boot fail or windows error at login !
> 
> I have this kit G Skill F4-3200C14-8GTZ
> Never had a problem till this new update
> Ironically this new bios fixed finally my audio crackling and stuttering problem ....



I just updated to 1.0.0.6 on my asus b350 a few days ago, memory support is definitely changed I'm getting much better latency now. Auto trains the trdwr and twrrd timings much different, do you have trdwr-twrrd manually set?


----------



## Filters83

2600ryzen said:


> I just updated to 1.0.0.6 on my asus b350 a few days ago, memory support is definitely changed I'm getting much better latency now. Auto trains the trdwr and twrrd timings much different, do you have trdwr-twrrd manually set?


yes but i also tried all auto just setting memory speed and got the same problem
i did 1 milion try nothing work, not even safe setting whit lot of voltage or just set memory speed and first value then the rest auto or changing proc etc thats why i was asking


----------



## nick name

2600ryzen said:


> I just updated to 1.0.0.6 on my asus b350 a few days ago, memory support is definitely changed I'm getting much better latency now. Auto trains the trdwr and twrrd timings much different, do you have trdwr-twrrd manually set?


On the ASUS CH7 we have the same problem. Leave tRDWR and tWRRD on Auto and it uses terribly high values. And that upsets me because I preferred to always leave those on Auto so it could set each channel differently.


----------



## Axaion

Nice ram cooler tho.


----------



## 2600ryzen

nick name said:


> On the ASUS CH7 we have the same problem. Leave tRDWR and tWRRD on Auto and it uses terribly high values. And that upsets me because I preferred to always leave those on Auto so it could set each channel differently.



Yes auto was faster than anything I could manually set for me too, when it auto trained different values for channel A/B.


----------



## nick name

2600ryzen said:


> Yes auto was faster than anything I could manually set for me too, when it auto trained different values for channel A/B.


I pointed it out on the beta they released before the final versions with the new AGESA, but I'm not sure Shamino saw the posts.


----------



## Ronski

Veii said:


> @Ronski , very good work
> Timings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might be too harsh, but try it anyways please
> This are Micron ones ?
> Unsure what voltage you run, but you can go up 1.42 without negative effects, sometimes 1.44vDIMM
> EDIT:
> Orange ones need voltage adjustment , as tRP is lower
> Red ones should be tested, after you confirm the remain set + tRFC is fine and not too low


With tRC lower than 56 it simply won't boot, also it doesn't like tCWL at 16, and I was going to say it didn't like tRDRDD at 4 and tWRWRSD at 6, but have realised that's what Ryzen2600 suggested which seams to be working fine, so perhaps I misentered or it was just the overall combination. Managed to change all the other options, including the red/orange ones, but didn't seem to make any speed difference. Running the ram at 1.44v (HWinfo reads 1.448v), presumably this is safe? Yes they a Micro E(asy) die.



2600ryzen said:


> GDM disabled 1t is best so it's good that that's stable, highest speed I can get gdm disabled to work is 3666mhz 2t. tcrdwr 9 was faster for me slightly in membench but seemed to make latency slightly worse, same as tfaw 16 it hurt latency compared to 20 but 16 was faster.
> My aida64 latency is slightly better than yours when I use my unstable 2t 3800mhz settings(tm5 is stable but the comp just keeps randomly shutting off). My membench latency is also better, possibly because of my manual OC and also different timings for tcrdwr and tfaw.
> 
> I've also tried tcl 15(tcwl needs 12 for this) and it's stable just fine but performs worse in latency and membench.
> Another way you might be able to improve benchmark performance is playing with the timings I've circled in the zen timings screenshot. Maybe 1-4-4-1-6-6 could work, or 1-5-5-1-7-7 too.


I'm presuming 1-4-4-1-6-6 is faster than 1-5-5-1-7-7, as I went with tcl 15 + tcwl 12 and 1-4-4-1-6-6 and have scored sub 101 seconds, most runs it's around 101.15 seconds though, no idea if it's stable though, going to change my rad fans now - will test stability once it's back together.



rares495 said:


> Rather dusty on the GPU.


I'm pretty sure I blew out (I have a compressor in the garage) the GPU cooler and fan when I built the PC in May, but I'm going to have to take the card out to change my rad fans so I'll give it another clean, I use my other PC for gaming so it's not much of an issue anyway.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> With tRC lower than 56 it simply won't boot, also it doesn't like tCWL at 16, and I was going to say it didn't like tRDRDD at 4 and tWRWRSD at 6, but have realised that's what Ryzen2600 suggested which seams to be working fine, so perhaps I misentered or it was just the overall combination. Managed to change all the other options, including the red/orange ones, but didn't seem to make any speed difference. Running the ram at 1.44v (HWinfo reads 1.448v), presumably this is safe? Yes they a Micro E(asy) die.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm presuming 1-4-4-1-6-6 is faster than 1-5-5-1-7-7, as I went with tcl 15 + tcwl 12 and 1-4-4-1-6-6 and have scored sub 101 seconds, most runs it's around 101.15 seconds though, no idea if it's stable though, going to change my rad fans now - will test stability once it's back together.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I blew out (I have a compressor in the garage) the GPU cooler and fan when I built the PC in May, but I'm going to have to take the card out to change my rad fans so I'll give it another clean, I use my other PC for gaming so it's not much of an issue anyway.



Very nice I didn't think Rev E could go that fast. Might be some benefit to reducing Tras to 32 because tcl + trcdrd = 33 and going lower than that doesn't seem to hurt stability. Latency looks better too. You could also try tcl-15 tcwl-14 and trdwr-twrrd at 9/10-3, they have to be set at the same time or it wont boot.


----------



## Ronski

I must have got extremely lucky, but we don't know if it's stable yet. I've got my rad pulled out at the moment so I could change the fans, also design and 3D print a spacer for it to stop air loss, and whilst it's off I can better measure for the cooler brackets, so I can make some adjustments to them whilst I'm at it. Once it's all back together I can try the above suggestions and see if it's stable.


----------



## fcchin

Ronski said:


> The problem I have is there is only 2.5mm between the dim slot clip and the GPU,


regarding ram fan, original I tilt the Alseye 15 degrees a bit so that some wind goes to VRM also .

but one of my Alseye fan was vibrating badly and noisy as hell, had to take them out and not use the bracket at all, no hard plastic contact, just foam double sided tape one for ram in the middle,

then 2nd fan move on top VRM, helped reduce around 2~3 degree celcius at idle.


----------



## KedarWolf

fcchin said:


> regarding ram fan, original I tilt the Alseye 15 degrees a bit so that some wind goes to VRM also .
> 
> but one of my Alseye fan was vibrating badly and noisy as hell, had to take them out and not use the bracket at all, no hard plastic contact, just foam double sided tape one for ram in the middle,
> 
> then 2nd fan move on top VRM, helped reduce around 2~3 degree celcius at idle.


My Alseye fan works fine. As I'm not concerned about the noise I'm replacing the stock fans with these. Super cheap, push a ton of CFM.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/DELTA-6CM-6...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649

Air volume: 37CFM / 1.5 (m3 / min)

Edited post to remove fake fan link.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32830021763.html



Large volume violent fan. :lachen:


----------



## Awsan

KedarWolf said:


> My Alseye fan works fine. As I'm not concerned about the noise I'm replacing the stock fans with these. Super cheap, push a ton of CFM.
> 
> https://www.ebay.ca/itm/DELTA-6CM-6...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649
> 
> Air volume: 37CFM / 1.5 (m3 / min)
> 
> And I just found them cheaper here. :/
> 
> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32830021763.html


Yo kedar any updates on your AF 280mm endeavors.


----------



## KedarWolf

Awsan said:


> Yo kedar any updates on your AF 280mm endeavors.


I don't understand what you're asking.


----------



## zhadoom

rares495 said:


> Large volume violent fan. :lachen:



Look at the label  ... fake "DETA "ELECTRPNICS"


----------



## KedarWolf

zhadoom said:


> Look at the label  ... fake "DETA "ELECTRPNICS"


The eBay one is the one i ordered. It has the correct label.


----------



## mongoled

zhadoom said:


> Look at the label  ... fake "DETA "ELECTRPNICS"


Ouch


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> The eBay one is the one i ordered. It has the correct label.


The one from eBay came today. Label is fine, and considering it came from China it was really quick, maybe a week or so to get here. 

Aliexpress, the fake label one, sometimes takes two months or more from China.


----------



## Awsan

KedarWolf said:


> I don't understand what you're asking.


Arctic freezer Installation xD


----------



## KedarWolf

Awsan said:


> Arctic freezer Installation xD


It's the Arctic Freezer II 360, and no, I'm still using my old AIO, no motivation to pull out my motherboard, install the OC Frame and do it.


----------



## Awsan

KedarWolf said:


> It's the Arctic Freezer II 360, and no, I'm still using my old AIO, no motivation to pull out my motherboard, install the OC Frame and do it.


Oh Nice, I want to see how it will perform in a tweaked machine with the OC bracket.


----------



## Veii

Ne01 OnnA said:


> @Veii
> 
> Any advise how to get lower, CL14 perhaps?
> Is it possible with my Kit?
> 
> HyperX Predator 32GB (4x8GB) on Hero VI (Cooled by add. Fan)
> DDR4-4133 CL19-21-21-38 1.35v
> 
> My settings (Fully stable BTW):
> ===
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I don't understand a lot of logic you used in your set
- VDIMM 1080mV
- Odd tRDRD SD,DD -> tWRWR SD,DD with only 1 off
- Odd tWR while running GDM enabled , which also rounds up primaries
- Running odd tWR, but didn't put tRTP 7 to be fine with tRFC 
- tWRRD should be 4 not 3 
overall the whole set i don't understand 

You can push CAD_BUS to 40-20-24-24 to help get GDM away and maybe drop to 2T soo your odd primaries will work
It's strange yes  why didn't you push memory voltage up and tried with lower tRCD ? 
Pretty sure it runs under tRCD RD 18 @ 3800MT/s if this is Hynix CJR or micron A-Die 
For Micron Rev.E it's a bit strange , for B-die tRCD is far to high ~ i think it's CJR by looking at the XMP profile
If you want low tRC, push tRCD_WR down to 10 and tRCD_RD up to 18 (when using gdm)
If we keep the theory that this are Hynix CJR, then they need at least 1.42v and scale only up after 1.48vDimm (nothing in between)
Soo with avg tRCD of 14, tRP can be 14 , but that still puts you at tRC 45
Yes even with the tRC math of tRCD_WR+tWR+4+tCWL , you end up as tRC 45
Lower should be autocorrected.
Also your tRFC is set up for tRC 45 and has another rounding issue. 
Correct tRFC is 315-234-144 , not 314 

Boards this days really are talented to do auto-correction, but it still is wrong


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

Veii said:


> I don't understand a lot of logic you used in your set
> - VDIMM 1080mV
> - Odd tRDRD SD,DD -> tWRWR SD,DD with only 1 off
> - Odd tWR while running GDM enabled , which also rounds up primaries
> - Running odd tWR, but didn't put tRTP 7 to be fine with tRFC
> - tWRRD should be 4 not 3
> overall the whole set i don't understand
> 
> You can push CAD_BUS to 40-20-24-24 to help get GDM away and maybe drop to 2T soo your odd primaries will work
> It's strange yes  why didn't you push memory voltage up and tried with lower tRCD ?
> Pretty sure it runs under tRCD RD 18 @ 3800MT/s if this is Hynix CJR or micron A-Die
> For Micron Rev.E it's a bit strange , for B-die tRCD is far to high ~ i think it's CJR by looking at the XMP profile
> If you want low tRC, push tRCD_WR down to 10 and tRCD_RD up to 18 (when using gdm)
> If we keep the theory that this are Hynix CJR, then they need at least 1.42v and scale only up after 1.48vDimm (nothing in between)
> Soo with avg tRCD of 14, tRP can be 14 , but that still puts you at tRC 45
> Yes even with the tRC math of tRCD_WR+tWR+4+tCWL , you end up as tRC 45
> Lower should be autocorrected.
> Also your tRFC is set up for tRC 45 and has another rounding issue.
> Correct tRFC is 315-234-144 , not 314
> 
> Boards this days really are talented to do auto-correction, but it still is wrong


THX for the Lesson 
It's B-die according to Taiphoon burner.

PS. Can You suggest me all timings? (use ZenTimings as an template)
THX Bratan'


----------



## Veii

Ne01 OnnA said:


> THX for the Lesson
> It's B-die according to Taiphoon burner.
> 
> PS. Can You suggest me all timings? (use ZenTimings as an template)
> THX Bratan'


Doesn't DRAM calculator work at all ?
The thing with memory OC is, you have to fix:
- all 3 voltages (SOC, cLDO_VDDP, cLDO_VDDG)
- all CAD_BUS values (but you kinda did)
- all the RTT values (up to memory amount and if dual or single rank)

i wonder, where do you struggle ?
3600 CL15 under GDM Off, is not that hard to run. About 1.42vDIMM should be enough
3200 CL14 even easier, near 1.38v should be enough for very harsh sets 
3800 CL16-16 around 1.46v

Maybe it's because it's a X370, and T-Topology
Soo you have to push cLDO_VDDG IOD higher


----------



## Dr. Vodka

Managed to get 2T stable! 

1T GDM off insta errors or BSODs @ 3800MHz with these settings, too much load on the memory controller I guess. 2T completes 20 TM5 passes ~5 minutes faster while being ~1ns faster on AIDA64's latency test over 1T+GDM.

tRCDRD 19 with these settings gave me ~800 errors in 20 TM5 passes  Probably some of all these 64 chips don't like to work at 10ns flat @ 3800MHz. tRCDRD 18 crashes mid boot (as expected, rev. E can't do tRCDRD < 10ns). Oh well, can't have it all I guess.

Do you see anything left to try or to improve? I've been reading and studying all the invaluable knowledge in this thread and thanks to you all got to this point, but I'm probably still missing something. What do you think?


----------



## 2600ryzen

Dr. Vodka said:


> Managed to get 2T stable!
> 
> 1T GDM off insta errors or BSODs @ 3800MHz with these settings, too much load on the memory controller I guess. 2T completes 20 TM5 passes ~5 minutes faster while being ~1ns faster on AIDA64's latency test over 1T+GDM.
> 
> tRCDRD 19 with these settings gave me ~800 errors in 20 TM5 passes  Probably some of all these 64 chips don't like to work at 10ns flat @ 3800MHz. tRCDRD 18 crashes mid boot (as expected, rev. E can't do tRCDRD < 10ns). Oh well, can't have it all I guess.
> 
> Do you see anything left to try or to improve? I've been reading and studying all the invaluable knowledge in this thread and thanks to you all got to this point, but I'm probably still missing something. What do you think?



Looks pretty good compared to my 2 x 16gb rev E Kit. Trcd wr can probably do 10 and trp maybe 15/14, 14 gives me errors eventually but that's possibly because I'm running low vdimm and high dimm temps because of no active cooling besides my cpu fan.
Your trdrdscl and twrwrscl are lower than mine I need 5, have you benchmarked 4 v 5? Keep 4 if it's faster of course.


----------



## Veii

Dr. Vodka said:


> Managed to get 2T stable!
> 
> 1T GDM off insta errors or BSODs @ 3800MHz with these settings, too much load on the memory controller I guess. 2T completes 20 TM5 passes ~5 minutes faster while being ~1ns faster on AIDA64's latency test over 1T+GDM.
> 
> tRCDRD 19 with these settings gave me ~800 errors in 20 TM5 passes  Probably some of all these 64 chips don't like to work at 10ns flat @ 3800MHz. tRCDRD 18 crashes mid boot (as expected, rev. E can't do tRCDRD < 10ns). Oh well, can't have it all I guess.
> 
> Do you see anything left to try or to improve? I've been reading and studying all the invaluable knowledge in this thread and thanks to you all got to this point, but I'm probably still missing something. What do you think?


Good job !
Try 4 things step by step 
- Make a bios profile first 
- Push ClkDrvStrengh to 120 ohm, check if it posts
- Push 1.46vDIMM let TM5 cycle at least go to cycle 2, and hope it won't error 6 or 12 crash
- now try 1T and see if the kits will crash under 1.46vDIMM 
(if HWInfo shows >1.475Vdimm, go down to 1.45, else if you stay under 1.44, go up to 1.47 in the bios)
1.48v likely will kill stability, and 1.44 wont be enough 
- When nothing works or did work, grab SuperPi 1.5 SX, clear-mem on Dram calculator, make an easy test bench with size 6000, make a SuperPi 32mill test
- And later try this set:









Please report back if you can't post that low tRC, but before you give up - increase tRDWR up to 9 and try again
It should work :thinking:


----------



## Dr. Vodka

2600ryzen said:


> Looks pretty good compared to my 2 x 16gb rev E Kit. Trcd wr can probably do 10 and trp maybe 15/14, 14 gives me errors eventually but that's possibly because I'm running low vdimm and high dimm temps because of no active cooling besides my cpu fan.
> Your trdrdscl and twrwrscl are lower than mine I need 5, have you benchmarked 4 v 5? Keep 4 if it's faster of course.


 Well, these settings boot and get to the desktop, so I'll have to do some testing. A quick benchmark run with both SCLs set to 5 was slower, so back to 4. Thanks 

How are you measuring temps on your sticks? Rev. E isn't temperature sensitive or doesn't seem to be, but it doesn't hurt if you can at least get a 80mm fan on them or nearby to get some air circulating.

I have plenty of airflow in my case (2x 140mm fans intake, 1x120mm fan in the back, got a nice wind tunnel in there) so my sticks have some cooling.




Veii said:


> Good job !
> Try 4 things step by step
> - Make a bios profile first
> - Push ClkDrvStrengh to 120 ohm, check if it posts
> - Push 1.46vDIMM let TM5 cycle at least go to cycle 2, and hope it won't error 6 or 12 crash
> - now try 1T and see if the kits will crash under 1.46vDIMM
> (if HWInfo shows >1.475Vdimm, go down to 1.45, else if you stay under 1.44, go up to 1.47 in the bios)
> 1.48v likely will kill stability, and 1.44 wont be enough
> - When nothing works or did work, grab SuperPi 1.5 SX, clear-mem on Dram calculator, make an easy test bench with size 6000, make a SuperPi 32mill test
> - And later try this set:
> 
> 
> Please report back if you can't post that low tRC, but before you give up - increase tRDWR up to 9 and try again
> It should work :thinking:


Thank you Veii. :thumb:



ClkDrvStrength set to 120 ohms POSTs and gets to the desktop, no problem. (120 20 20 24)
1.46v vDIMM set in BIOS results in 1.5v measured in software (C6H has ****ty sensors, 22mV measurement resolution and the multimeter measurement points are inaccurate... I should solder some leads on the back of the socket to properly measure with a multimeter). TM5 stability wasn't affected with the extra voltage.
Now, 1T + GDM off at 1.46v, 1.45v, 1.44v vDIMM set in BIOS result in ~20-30 errors three seconds into TM5 testing and a BSOD, lol. 1.1v vSOC didn't change this either.
tRCDWR 12 + tRAS 32 works and I'm typing this post with these settings right now, but tRC < 56 doesn't work even with tRDWR 9.
tRC 54 POSTs most of the time with 1T+GDM, 1T and 2T POST ~2 out of 10 tries. Not stable either way. tRC 48 impossible. POST code stuck in 07, pretty early in the training process.

membench

I've read someone here with a similar setup having a similar experience not being able to lower tRC below 56. Maybe DR ~mid quality Rev. E sticks don't like such tight tRC @ 3800MHz? This is a quad rank setup after all, so the IMC must already be insulting me in 20 different languages  I'll get back to you on testing tRCDWR 12 + tRAS 32, on both stability and performance, but it shouldn't make much of a difference if I can't tighten tRC to take advantage of the faster timings...


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Very nice I didn't think Rev E could go that fast. Might be some benefit to reducing Tras to 32 because tcl + trcdrd = 33 and going lower than that doesn't seem to hurt stability. Latency looks better too. You could also try tcl-15 tcwl-14 and trdwr-twrrd at 9/10-3, they have to be set at the same time or it wont boot.



Checked my previous settings for stability last night, passed TM5 5 cycles, but failed Karho at 4109%

Currently testing the above suggested adjustments, passed 10 cycles of TM5, currently testing with Karho.

I already had tcl at 15, and tcwl at 12, what's the reason for increasing it to 14?

I went with trdwr-twrrd at 9 - 3.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Checked my previous settings for stability last night, passed TM5 5 cycles, but failed Karho at 4109%
> 
> Currently testing the above suggested adjustments, passed 10 cycles of TM5, currently testing with Karho.
> 
> I already had tcl at 15, and tcwl at 12, what's the reason for increasing it to 14?
> 
> I went with trdwr-twrrd at 9 - 3.



I don't think trdwr-twrrd would work at 9-3 without tcwl raised to 14, if it does work I guess you could test that too. I'm not sure tcl 15 is faster anyway, at least it wasn't for me.


----------



## betam4x

This may have been brought up before, but does anyone know why the DRAM calculator itself requires Ring0 access?


----------



## kenny0048

My Recommended setting for 16GBx2 dual rank Micron E-die 19nm.
May not be very helpful...

RM Memory OC Profile
: Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 16GBx2 2R DDR4-3000 CL15-16-16 1.35v 
: Profile1 Slow @FCLK1800 DDR4-3600 CL18-10-23-18-40-62-1.5T 1.35v
: Profile2 Fast @FCLK1900 DDR4-3800 CL16-8-20-14-36-58-1T 1.40v

how to use
1. Download "configRM.json.txt"
2. Rename "configRM.json.txt" to "configRM.json"
2. Overwrite of "configRM.json" to "C:\Program Files\AMD\RyzenMaster\bin\configRM.json".
3. Excute Ryzen Master and Select Profile and fine tuning
4. Click Apply
* Clear CMOS if it does not start up properly


----------



## KedarWolf




----------



## Ronski

Latest settings tested over night to 22607% zero errors, also 10 cycles of TM5. These settings are very slightly slower in MEMBench, but it is stable.
@KedarWolf Some very nice results your getting there, what's your MEMbench easy time?


----------



## SneakySloth

KedarWolf said:


>





Where did you get the beta version of zentimings? Would you be able to post the link please?


Nice results btw. Are you able to drop down the SCLs or is 4-4 the max?


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> Latest settings tested over night to 22607% zero errors, also 10 cycles of TM5. These settings are very slightly slower in MEMBench, but it is stable.
> 
> @KedarWolf Some very nice results your getting there, what's your MEMbench easy time?


I have a saved result of 101.51 but that's with a 3950x and 480% completion, SMT not disabled. I think I had 96 something with SMT disabled.

Usually 3900x's etc get a bit better results because fewer cores completes it faster, like 3900x only does 360% in MemBench or something.

With SMT disabled I'm using 16 cores, not 32 and only do 240%, why I get 96 or so seconds.


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> Latest settings tested over night to 22607% zero errors, also 10 cycles of TM5. These settings are very slightly slower in MEMBench, but it is stable.
> 
> @KedarWolf Some very nice results your getting there, what's your MEMbench easy time?


This is with SMT disabled.


----------



## KedarWolf

SneakySloth said:


> Where did you get the beta version of zentimings? Would you be able to post the link please?
> 
> 
> Nice results btw. Are you able to drop down the SCLs or is 4-4 the max?


I'm waiting to hear from the guy that made the beta if I can share, they PM'd it to me, never posted it publically.

And I've tried up to 1.52v, cannot to lower than 4-4.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> I'm waiting to hear from the guy that made the beta if I can share, they PM'd it to me, never posted it publically.
> 
> And I've tried up to 1.52v, cannot to lower than 4-4.


For some weird reason, MemBench likes my traditional hard disk over my Gen 4 M.2.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Latest settings tested over night to 22607% zero errors, also 10 cycles of TM5. These settings are very slightly slower in MEMBench, but it is stable.
> 
> @*KedarWolf* Some very nice results your getting there, what's your MEMbench easy time?



Nice, seems tcwl at 12 was causing the error and not the 1-6-6-1-4-4 which is what adds a lot of speed. You could also try trp 14, it errors for me after 30-60min but I'm not running active cooling on my RAM and I'm only at 1.37v. I also tried 1-6-6-1-4-4 at 3666mhz2t and it was also stable.
Only way now to improve membench for you now is to probably tune your pbo for max sustained frequencies I think. Run p95 small fft and take note of TDC and EDC then limit those in your pbo settings to +1-5 of whatever they maxed out at.


----------



## KedarWolf

2600ryzen said:


> Nice, seems tcwl at 12 was causing the error and not the 1-6-6-1-4-4 which is what adds a lot of speed. You could also try trp 14, it errors for me after 30-60min but I'm not running active cooling on my RAM and I'm only at 1.37v. I also tried 1-6-6-1-4-4 at 3666mhz2t and it was also stable.
> Only way now to improve membench for you now is to probably tune your pbo for max sustained frequencies I think. Run p95 small fft and take note of TDC and EDC then limit those in your pbo settings to +1-5 of whatever they maxed out at.


I run a CCX overclock, never could get PBO to work right on my board, Cinebench R20 the all cores hover around 4.15GHZ no matter what PBO settings I tried.


----------



## 2600ryzen

kenny0048 said:


> My Recommended setting for 16GBx2 dual rank Micron E-die 19nm.
> May not be very helpful...
> 
> RM Memory OC Profile
> : Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 16GBx2 2R DDR4-3000 CL15-16-16 1.35v
> : Profile1 Slow @FCLK1800 DDR4-3600 CL18-10-23-18-40-62-1.5T 1.35v
> : Profile2 Fast @FCLK1900 DDR4-3800 CL16-8-20-14-36-58-1T 1.40v
> 
> how to use
> 1. Download "configRM.json.txt"
> 2. Rename "configRM.json.txt" to "configRM.json"
> 2. Overwrite of "configRM.json" to "C:\Program Files\AMD\RyzenMaster\bin\configRM.json".
> 3. Excute Ryzen Master and Select Profile and fine tuning
> 4. Click Apply
> * Clear CMOS if it does not start up properly



Any reason you recommend ckedrvstrength of 60ohms?


----------



## 2600ryzen

Dr. Vodka said:


> Well, these settings boot and get to the desktop, so
> How are you measuring temps on your sticks? Rev. E isn't temperature sensitive or doesn't seem to be, but it doesn't hurt if you can at least get a 80mm fan on them or nearby to get some air circulating.
> 
> I have plenty of airflow in my case (2x 140mm fans intake, 1x120mm fan in the back, got a nice wind tunnel in there) so my sticks have some cooling.


 I have rgb crucial ballistix and they include Dimm temp sensors I can read from hwinfo64, my dimms do receive a bit of cooling from my 120mm cpu fan, enough to keep temps under 53c during testmem5. If I run testmem5 with the cpu fan unplugged and cpu underclocked to [email protected] dimm temps get to 59c after 15min.
If I make my cpu fan spin more aggressive so that it's at 900rpm during testmem5 dimm temps stay under 49c.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Latest settings tested over night to 22607% zero errors, also 10 cycles of TM5. These settings are very slightly slower in MEMBench, but it is stable.
> 
> @*KedarWolf* Some very nice results your getting there, what's your MEMbench easy time?



I'm also testing a few other settings atm which seem to be stable so far(90min testmem5) 

I'm doing Tras = tcl+tcrdwr+1 = 26. Seems stable and it wasn't slower at membench. I'm also trying twtrs-l at 4-12 and it seems stable so far too, I think it helped membench and latency to be slightly better. I think you should definitely try Trp = 14 too, it did error for me but your dimms would be running much cooler than mine.


----------



## Hequaqua

SneakySloth said:


> Where did you get the beta version of zentimings? Would you be able to post the link please?
> 
> 
> Nice results btw. Are you able to drop down the SCLs or is 4-4 the max?



ZenTimings V1.01.0-Beta2

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G-dxnvMNs4wDQ6QNb0QCme4ZaSlhCR_p/view


----------



## nick name

KedarWolf said:


> For some weird reason, MemBench likes my traditional hard disk over my Gen 4 M.2.


Do you mean you have a separate OS install on a HDD?


----------



## SneakySloth

Hequaqua said:


> ZenTimings V1.01.0-Beta2
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G-dxnvMNs4wDQ6QNb0QCme4ZaSlhCR_p/view



Thank you so much for this


----------



## Hequaqua

SneakySloth said:


> Thank you so much for this


NP. YW. :thumb:


----------



## rares495

Can't score less than 102-ish no matter what I do. SMT off is even worse. I guess I'm at the limit of the 3600. 

Tried some 3800 13-13-13 nonsense with high voltage but couldn't get rid of the errors.


----------



## KedarWolf

nick name said:


> Do you mean you have a separate OS install on a HDD?


Windows 10 2004 fully updated, but with a bunch of tweaks and services disabled I don't need.

I use Optimize Offline to tweak the install ISO, then on install run a bunch of scripts and Autoruns to tweak the rest. One reason why on my 3950x I get really low AIDA64 latency.

https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...1803-1903-19h2-1909-20h1-and-ltsc-2019.80038/

Edit: No, I meant just running MemBench from a traditional hard disk rather than my Gen 4 M.2, where the folder is located.


----------



## pipes

KedarWolf said:


> Windows 10 2004 fully updated, but with a bunch of tweaks and services disabled I don't need.
> 
> I use Optimize Offline to tweak the install ISO, then on install run a bunch of scripts and Autoruns to tweak the rest. One reason why on my 3950x I get really low AIDA64 latency.
> 
> https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...1803-1903-19h2-1909-20h1-and-ltsc-2019.80038/
> 
> Edit: No, I meant just running MemBench from a traditional hard disk rather than my Gen 4 M.2, where the folder is located.


can these tricks also help on dev versions of windows 10 insider? and if you can help them in different situations, such as game bench etc?


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Nice, seems tcwl at 12 was causing the error and not the 1-6-6-1-4-4 which is what adds a lot of speed. You could also try trp 14, it errors for me after 30-60min but I'm not running active cooling on my RAM and I'm only at 1.37v. I also tried 1-6-6-1-4-4 at 3666mhz2t and it was also stable.
> Only way now to improve membench for you now is to probably tune your pbo for max sustained frequencies I think. Run p95 small fft and take note of TDC and EDC then limit those in your pbo settings to +1-5 of whatever they maxed out at.


I'll need to get my head around overclocking these, certainly not as simple as Intel.



2600ryzen said:


> I'm also testing a few other settings atm which seem to be stable so far(90min testmem5)
> 
> I'm doing Tras = tcl+tcrdwr+1 = 26. Seems stable and it wasn't slower at membench. I'm also trying twtrs-l at 4-12 and it seems stable so far too, I think it helped membench and latency to be slightly better. I think you should definitely try Trp = 14 too, it did error for me but your dimms would be running much cooler than mine.


I've changed those settings, actually changed TRAS to 25, as that's what tcl+tcrdwr+1 equals. Seems to have improved AIDA64 memory reads speeds, actually getting just over 60,000MB/s now, latency was 65.8ns, lowest I've got in MEMbench is 100.79, but it fluctuates around the 101 second mark. No idea if its stable will check tonight.



KedarWolf said:


> Windows 10 2004 fully updated, but with a bunch of tweaks and services disabled I don't need.
> 
> I use Optimize Offline to tweak the install ISO, then on install run a bunch of scripts and Autoruns to tweak the rest. One reason why on my 3950x I get really low AIDA64 latency.
> 
> https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...1803-1903-19h2-1909-20h1-and-ltsc-2019.80038/
> 
> Edit: No, I meant just running MemBench from a traditional hard disk rather than my Gen 4 M.2, where the folder is located.


I'm running the same SSD as you, and switching to running MEMBench from a HDD made no difference, strange, very nice times though.


----------



## KedarWolf

pipes said:


> can these tricks also help on dev versions of windows 10 insider? and if you can help them in different situations, such as game bench etc?


My Windows install is a fully functional Windows install, everything works on it the same as normal windows install, it's just optimized to be leaner and cleaner.

It's not really a benching version of the O/S completely stripped to be only used for benching though, but it does help improve benchmarks and even latency.

Optimize Offline and the scripts I run CAN be run of the Preview versions of Windows like 20190 with a few tweaks. 

Most of the Tweaking Programs and scripts I use you can back up a saved configurations of the settings you want to use to reapply them from a spare hard rive, or removable disk or USB if you want.

The tweaks you need for Optimize Offline are covered in that thread or register and make a new post and I'll help you figure it out.

Some of the scripts I use on a clean install are Black Viper Script and Win10Script https://github.com/madbomb122 Win10-Initial-Setup-Script https://github.com/Disassembler0/Win10-Initial-Setup-Script and the Ultimate Windows Tweaker 4. Winaero Tweaker is another good one but most of what's available is covered by Ultimate Windows Tweaker 4

I also remove OneDrive and use the services tweaker and start-up tweaker scripts the come with Optimize Offline.

The rest I do with Microsoft Autoruns, manually disable services etc. I can give you my backup file for Autoruns that shows exactly what I disable. You open it, compare your running system with my backup, they show side by side and let you choose what you want to disable or not.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> I'll need to get my head around overclocking these, certainly not as simple as Intel.
> 
> 
> 
> I've changed those settings, actually changed TRAS to 25, as that's what tcl+tcrdwr+1 equals. Seems to have improved AIDA64 memory reads speeds, actually getting just over 60,000MB/s now, latency was 65.8ns, lowest I've got in MEMbench is 100.79, but it fluctuates around the 101 second mark. No idea if its stable will check tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running the same SSD as you, and switching to running MEMBench from a HDD made no difference, strange, very nice times though.


I also disabled SMT on my 3950x in BIOS.


----------



## SneakySloth

rares495 said:


> Can't score less than 102-ish no matter what I do. SMT off is even worse. I guess I'm at the limit of the 3600.
> 
> Tried some 3800 13-13-13 nonsense with high voltage but couldn't get rid of the errors.





Whats the voltage you're running for that overclock on the 3600?


----------



## 2600ryzen

SneakySloth said:


> Whats the voltage you're running for that overclock on the 3600?


All of them.


----------



## rares495

SneakySloth said:


> Whats the voltage you're running for that overclock on the 3600?


1.5V just for a bit while running some benchmarks and then back to stock.


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

Nighthog said:


> Change your VDDG_CCD voltage around, it's related to FCLK. Your processor struggles to do 1866FCLK. Had the same issue when I was doing 1933FCLK.
> It shifts the problem around to other parts depending what you have it set to. Lower or higher, it might go away or present itself in another manner depending on the voltage choice.
> You have to experiment on which is acceptable.
> I hope you find a setting that gives no issues, I was struggling to find one @ 1933FCLK. But generally lower was better in most cases but there where a few voltage intervals that where more trouble than others.


Hey just wanted to say thanks for this post, I have been trying to find the source of WHEA-Logger warnings (event ID 19) and changing CCD voltage was definitely the fix for me. Started stepping down from .950 to ultimately .920 was where I found stability. 3900x/[email protected] 16-16-16-32-48-288-1T


----------



## MikeS3000

Jeffrey Kistler said:


> Hey just wanted to say thanks for this post, I have been trying to find the source of WHEA-Logger warnings (event ID 19) and changing CCD voltage was definitely the fix for me. Started stepping down from .950 to ultimately .920 was where I found stability. 3900x/[email protected] 16-16-16-32-48-288-1T


Do you mind sharing all of your voltage settings? I'm fighting the same thing on 3900x. What is VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD, VDDP, and VSOC? Thanks! Also, I know you have to set the VDDG voltages in AMD Overclocking menu. Are you touching AMD CBS menu for VDDG? Whenever I manually set in Overclock menu and leave VDDG on "auto" in CBS, it automatically sets the voltage to 1050 for VDDG but in Windows I seem to readout what I set in Overclock menu.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> I'm also testing a few other settings atm which seem to be stable so far(90min testmem5)
> 
> I'm doing Tras = tcl+tcrdwr+1 = 26. Seems stable and it wasn't slower at membench. I'm also trying twtrs-l at 4-12 and it seems stable so far too, I think it helped membench and latency to be slightly better. I think you should definitely try Trp = 14 too, it did error for me but your dimms would be running much cooler than mine.


With the attached timings it failed at 7275%.

I've just noticed you've managed to get tRC to 54, I've never managed to get below 56, is that because your running at 3666Mhz?

Been trying random things tonight, currently running tRP at 13, tRAS at 24, which doesn't seem to have made any difference benchmark wise, and will be unstable.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> With the attached timings it failed at 7275%.
> 
> I've just noticed you've managed to get tRC to 54, I've never managed to get below 56, is that because your running at 3666Mhz?
> 
> Been trying random things tonight, currently running tRP at 13, tRAS at 24, which doesn't seem to have made any difference benchmark wise, and will be unstable.



Probably trp 14 or twrts-l at 4-12 failed, possibly tcl 15 is a problem too. Did tcl 15 benchmark faster than tcl 16? I couldn't see a difference in anything. And yeah trc is 54 because I'm at 3666mhz, [email protected] equates to [email protected]


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

MikeS3000 said:


> Do you mind sharing all of your voltage settings? I'm fighting the same thing on 3900x. What is VDDG CCD, VDDG IOD, VDDP, and VSOC? Thanks! Also, I know you have to set the VDDG voltages in AMD Overclocking menu. Are you touching AMD CBS menu for VDDG? Whenever I manually set in Overclock menu and leave VDDG on "auto" in CBS, it automatically sets the voltage to 1050 for VDDG but in Windows I seem to readout what I set in Overclock menu.












What I set:
VDIMM 1.4
VDDG CCD .920
VDDG IOD .920
VDDP .850
VSOC 1.065

Warnings I was getting at VDDG CCD 0.950:










I set all values in my x570 unify's oc menu, and I'm still not sure I'm completely free from the WHEA warnings (although I haven't seen one in 48 hours). I've had no crashes and have been able to pass hci memtest pro after 4 hours, and membench in ryzen calc to 300%, and I have been thinking about just doing a clean windows install because everything else seems stable. These warnings are incredibly annoying and have been occurring at random, usually while not under load, and hours or even days apart. Not sure I can help you with the set/get problem, cause I haven't needed to go into the AMD OC menu, sorry. Good luck getting rid of the warnings, I am hoping that I took care of my issue.


----------



## MikeS3000

Jeffrey Kistler said:


> What I set:
> VDDG CCD .920
> VDDG IOD .920
> VDDP .850
> VSOC 1.065
> 
> Warnings I was getting at VDDG CCD 0.950:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I set all values in my x570 unify's oc menu, and I'm still not sure I'm completely free from the WHEA warnings (although I haven't seen one in 48 hours). I've had no crashes and have been able to pass hci memtest pro after 4 hours, and membench in ryzen calc to 300%, and I have been thinking about just doing a clean windows install because everything else seems stable. These warnings are incredibly annoying and have been occurring at random, usually while not under load, and hours or even days apart. Not sure I can help you with the set/get problem, cause I haven't needed to go into the AMD OC menu, sorry. Good luck getting rid of the warnings, I am hoping that I took care of my issue.


I appreciate it and will try these tonight. I get the same errors mostly at idle. I don't think clean install will help. I ran Windows 10 ver. 2004 off a USB drive on a fresh install and still got them. Ver 1909 was clean, no errors. Seems like a software/driver issue with AMD that needs to be resolved.


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Probably trp 14 or twrts-l at 4-12 failed, possibly tcl 15 is a problem too. Did tcl 15 benchmark faster than tcl 16? I couldn't see a difference in anything. And yeah trc is 54 because I'm at 3666mhz, [email protected] equates to [email protected]


TCL at 15 isn't the problem, I've been stable with TCL at 15, it will be one of the others. Not sure how much of a difference TCL 16 to 15 made, I'll have to run some tests, as I don't seem to have results with only that setting changed.

Did manage to get 100.58, and 100.59 earlier tonight with the same settings that failed last night - this was just after I updated to the latest chipset drivers, then after a reboot I couldn't reproduce those times.


----------



## nick name

Ronski said:


> With the attached timings it failed at 7275%.
> 
> I've just noticed you've managed to get tRC to 54, I've never managed to get below 56, is that because your running at 3666Mhz?
> 
> Been trying random things tonight, currently running tRP at 13, tRAS at 24, which doesn't seem to have made any difference benchmark wise, and will be unstable.


Hmmm, after that length of time I'd begin to consider heat as a source of instability. Did you monitor the temps of the DIMMs?


----------



## rares495

Ronski said:


> With the attached timings it failed at 7275%.
> 
> I've just noticed you've managed to get tRC to 54, I've never managed to get below 56, is that because your running at 3666Mhz?
> 
> Been trying random things tonight, currently running tRP at 13, tRAS at 24, which doesn't seem to have made any difference benchmark wise, and will be unstable.



tRAS 24/25 will never work. 



The rule is tRP + tRAS = tRC (+2/-2)


Your tRP is rather low but maybe it could work so => 14 + tRAS = 56 => tRAS = 42 at best.


----------



## mongoled

rares495 said:


> Can't score less than 102-ish no matter what I do. SMT off is even worse. I guess I'm at the limit of the 3600.
> 
> Tried some 3800 13-13-13 nonsense with high voltage but couldn't get rid of the errors.


Yup, thats pretty much the limit for us.

Have occasionaly got sub 102, like 101.9x

Looks like we have maxed out the 3600 memory performance


----------



## Ronski

nick name said:


> Hmmm, after that length of time I'd begin to consider heat as a source of instability. Did you monitor the temps of the DIMMs?


Unfortunately the DIMMS don't have temperature sensors, but I do have very good active cooling on them - see signature below.


----------



## pipes

Ronski said:


> Unfortunately the DIMMS don't have temperature sensors, but I do have very good active cooling on them - see signature below.


do you think it is useful to use active cooling on them?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> tRAS 24/25 will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> The rule is tRP + tRAS = tRC (+2/-2)
> 
> 
> Your tRP is rather low but maybe it could work so => 14 + tRAS = 56 => tRAS = 42 at best.



Yeah I think tras 25 just gets auto corrected, it's stable though.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Anyone else find cs:go is really good at finding memory errors by crashing? I tested these settings last night and passed 9hrs+ of testmem5 yet cs:go crashed 2x within 5min of launch. I've since raised trc-trfc to 56-560 and it's stable again now.


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> Anyone else find cs:go is really good at finding memory errors by crashing? I tested these settings last night and passed 9hrs+ of testmem5 yet cs:go crashed 2x within 5min of launch. I've since raised trc-trfc to 56-560 and it's stable again now.


Its been mentioned many times

TM5 is great for finding errors and letting us know, but you should not rely on it as the only "tester".

After you finished TM5 you should run several hours Y-cruncher


----------



## Ronski

pipes said:


> do you think it is useful to use active cooling on them?
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


Yes, prior to fitting a cooling solution I wasn't getting very good results, kept getting errors. I checked the DIMM temperature with an IR gun and they were around 50c to 55c (can't remember exactly) , fitted a make shift fan and temperatures dropped and became much more stable. 

I have an AIO, so no CPU fan, but there is 140mm fan on the rad above the memory.


----------



## DDSZ

2600ryzen said:


> Anyone else find cs:go is really good at finding memory errors by crashing? I tested these settings last night and passed 9hrs+ of testmem5 yet cs:go crashed 2x within 5min of launch. I've since raised trc-trfc to 56-560 and it's stable again now.


LOL, I just came here to ask the same question. My RAM OC passed 3 hours of TM5, 5 hours of Karhu RAM test, but I still get random CS:GO freezes/amdkmdag crashes/reboots and reboots when the PC is in idle. I even installed Win10 2004 on an external SSD to see if its OS related, but no...
Red text on Ryzen Master is what I tried to change, but it didn't help. Any ideas?
VRAM is 1.45V, VSOC is 1.075V
Those are 2x16 dual rank JJR sticks


----------



## Ronski

rares495 said:


> tRAS 24/25 will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> The rule is tRP + tRAS = tRC (+2/-2)
> 
> 
> Your tRP is rather low but maybe it could work so => 14 + tRAS = 56 => tRAS = 42 at best.


Can't remember exactly what settings I left it set at overnight, but it did 10 cycles of TM5 last night, and was on 16000% on Karho this morning, I left it going when I came to work this morning so if its still going when I get home tonight it will be around 32000%. 

I will admit I'm pretty clueless with memory timing and Ryzen in general, and it's thanks to users on here and particularly @2600ryzen who has near identical memory that I've got it to where it is now.


----------



## 2600ryzen

DDSZ said:


> LOL, I just came here to ask the same question. My RAM OC passed 3 hours of TM5, 5 hours of Karhu RAM test, but I still get random CS:GO freezes/amdkmdag crashes/reboots and reboots when the PC is in idle. I even installed Win10 2004 on an external SSD to see if its OS related, but no...
> Red text on Ryzen Master is what I tried to change, but it didn't help. Any ideas?
> VRAM is 1.45V, VSOC is 1.075V
> Those are 2x16 dual rank JJR sticks



Random resets are usually a problem with voltages like vsoc/vddg/vddp. All my cs:go crashes with bad memory OC's are from either trc/trtp/twr/trfc. Try vsoc 1.075v, vddg 1v and vddp 0.925v.


----------



## 2600ryzen

mongoled said:


> Its been mentioned many times
> 
> TM5 is great for finding errors and letting us know, but you should not rely on it as the only "tester".
> 
> After you finished TM5 you should run several hours Y-cruncher


 Yeah I've run y cruncher and p95 large fft before on those timings, except for trc/trfc. Trc/trfc are the changes I was testing last night.
Edit: I would also change trtp/twr/trfc so they sync up. Try trtp 14, twr 28, and trfc1 616 trfc2 457 trfc4 281.


----------



## nick name

2600ryzen said:


> Anyone else find cs:go is really good at finding memory errors by crashing? I tested these settings last night and passed 9hrs+ of testmem5 yet cs:go crashed 2x within 5min of launch. I've since raised trc-trfc to 56-560 and it's stable again now.


CS GO doesn't crash with my b-die, but with tRDRDSCL tWRWRSCL at 2 player models will pop when viewed from a distance. ie Just suddenly appear at top mid on Dust 2 (when viewing from mid truck) instead of seeing that player run into view from palm tree/barrels.


----------



## pipes

Ronski said:


> Yes, prior to fitting a cooling solution I wasn't getting very good results, kept getting errors. I checked the DIMM temperature with an IR gun and they were around 50c to 55c (can't remember exactly) , fitted a make shift fan and temperatures dropped and became much more stable.
> 
> 
> 
> I have an AIO, so no CPU fan, but there is 140mm fan on the rad above the memory.


Never see go down temp with a active cooling on my old gskill.
Have you buy One or have you made?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Ronski

pipes said:


> Never see go down temp with a active cooling on my old gskill.
> Have you buy One or have you made?
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


Designed and 3D printed my own - see attached, GPU was too tight against the ram to fit a bought one.



rares495 said:


> tRAS 24/25 will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> The rule is tRP + tRAS = tRC (+2/-2)
> 
> 
> Your tRP is rather low but maybe it could work so => 14 + tRAS = 56 => tRAS = 42 at best.


Failed at 19082%, if it's auto corrected will it show the corrected value in ZenTimings/RM?

PS. Cleaned the dust off the GPU, the fan and heat sink was pretty clean so I must have blown it out previously.


----------



## nick name

Ronski said:


> Designed and 3D printed my own - see attached, GPU was too tight against the ram to fit a bought one.
> 
> 
> 
> Failed at 19082%, if it's auto corrected will it show the corrected value in ZenTimings/RM?
> 
> PS. Cleaned the dust off the GPU, the fan and heat sink was pretty clean so I must have blown it out previously.


Have you tried Proc, RTT, CLKDRV all at Auto?


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

What did you set soc at? Zen timings and RM show a big variance


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> Designed and 3D printed my own - see attached, GPU was too tight against the ram to fit a bought one.
> 
> 
> 
> Failed at 19082%, if it's auto corrected will it show the corrected value in ZenTimings/RM?
> 
> PS. Cleaned the dust off the GPU, the fan and heat sink was pretty clean so I must have blown it out previously.



I'm surprised trp 13 took so long to fail, if that's what failed I remember trcdwr=8 used to cause me issues.


----------



## Ronski

nick name said:


> Have you tried Proc, RTT, CLKDRV all at Auto?


If you're referring to RTT Nom/Wr and Park they are on auto. CLKDRVStren I set manually some time ago following advice on here. ProcODT is on Auto



Jeffrey Kistler said:


> What did you set soc at? Zen timings and RM show a big variance


Isn't the SOC voltage shown in ZT different to SOC voltage? I have a CPU VDDCR_SOC Voltage setting and that is set to Auto. Actually just noticed this voltage varies in my screen shots.

In the BIOS i have the following:

SoC/Uncore OC Voltage (VID) set to 1.05v
CLDO VDDP Voltage Control is set to 0.9v
CLDO VDDP CCD Voltage Control set to 0.92v
CLDO VDDP IOD Voltage Control set to 0.97v



2600ryzen said:


> I'm surprised trp 13 took so long to fail, if that's what failed I remember trcdwr=8 used to cause me issues.


The odd thing is that when I tried your suggested alterations (as per attached) a couple of days ago it failed at 7275%, yet last night I kept those alterations and changed tRCDRD to 8, and tRP to 13, which by rights should have failed quicker, but it actually lasted longer. Perhaps the memory training at each reboot is playing a part in it?


----------



## FranZe

There is a difference here, anyone know what it is?


----------



## hazium233

FranZe said:


> There is a difference here, anyone know what it is?


A0 on 2019 sticks, A2 on 2020.


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

Ronski said:


> Isn't the SOC voltage shown in ZT different to SOC voltage? I have a CPU VDDCR_SOC Voltage setting and that is set to Auto. Actually just noticed this voltage varies in my screen shots.


They should be the same thing but RM doesn't always report it correctly, AFAIK zentimings looks to be grabbing the SVI2, which is more accurate. I think your motherboard is setting soc to 1.2v


----------



## Ronski

Jeffrey Kistler said:


> They should be the same thing but RM doesn't always report it correctly, AFAIK zentimings looks to be grabbing the SVI2, which is more accurate. I think your motherboard is setting soc to 1.2v


I've attached various screen shots, any one have any thoughts on this?

So should I change the CPU VDDCR_SOC Voltage from auto?

Edit: Having googled the above there seems to be quite a bit of confusion (which means I'm confused too), VDDCR appears to be for the iGPU, which of course the 3900X doesn't have, but then others say it should be set to your SOC voltage. Well if it is for the iGPU then changing it to 1.05v shouldn't make any difference, there's options for offset (offset from what??), or fixed, so I've changed it to fixed 1.05v and will see what happens - ZT reports the new voltage and shows a VDDCR OF 1.038v


----------



## FranZe

hazium233 said:


> A0 on 2019 sticks, A2 on 2020.


Thanks


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> I've attached various screen shots, any one have any thoughts on this?
> 
> So should I change the CPU VDDCR_SOC Voltage from auto?
> 
> Edit: Having googled the above there seems to be quite a bit of confusion (which means I'm confused too), VDDCR appears to be for the iGPU, which of course the 3900X doesn't have, but then others say it should be set to your SOC voltage. Well if it is for the iGPU then changing it to 1.05v shouldn't make any difference, there's options for offset (offset from what??), or fixed, so I've changed it to fixed 1.05v and will see what happens - ZT reports the new voltage and shows a VDDCR OF 1.038v



I think you're actually at 1.05v or SOC power consumption would be higher. What does your soc power consumption read if you set vsoc to 1.15v?


----------



## Veii

Ronski said:


> I've attached various screen shots, any one have any thoughts on this?
> 
> So should I change the CPU VDDCR_SOC Voltage from auto?
> 
> Edit: Having googled the above there seems to be quite a bit of confusion (which means I'm confused too), VDDCR appears to be for the iGPU, which of course the 3900X doesn't have, but then others say it should be set to your SOC voltage. Well if it is for the iGPU then changing it to 1.05v shouldn't make any difference, there's options for offset (offset from what??), or fixed, so I've changed it to fixed 1.05v and will see what happens - ZT reports the new voltage and shows a VDDCR OF 1.038v


VDDCR SOC only changes into APU SOC, IF an APU is present
This has been the same since gen 1.
AMD CBS -> NBIO has an SOC VID section (hex) for the same part
IF an APU is preset, this is the 2nd SOC voltage which nearly always is 0.1v higher than SOC 
But if there is no APU present, this controls the main SOC line and will override it
(the only method to fix the 1006 "lock" where beyond 1.1vSOC it causes hard crashes or even no post. Only way to use higher SOC voltage is from here)
ZenTimings same as HWInfo get it wrong
In theory SVI2 SOC should be accurate. But in practical 3rd gen terms it isn't
Unless you enable UncoreOC (AMD OVERCLOCKING section)
Or do change and force SOC powerstates through APBDIS set to 1 (AMD CBS)
Custom voltages for cLDO_VDDP, cLDO_VDDG, SOC won't be applied if they are too low or the CPU detects that you use a different "stepping". 
Soo it will autocorrect.

What you see in Ryzen Master for the SOC voltage, even tho it isnt variable anymore ~ is correct
It's what the cpu does autocorrect to while HWinfo does use SMU readouts to read out what it is send ~ yet not what is autocorrected.

For both questions, both options you mentioned are correct
But it depends on many things ~ soo again ZT and HWInfo here are not correct
HWinfo only will be correct on SVI2 SOC, IF RyzenMaster shows a lower voltage and LLC does upwards correct it to something higher
But if RM shows a higher voltage, even tho yours may try to be applied ~ it's corrected upwards to something higher ~ till you enable UncoreOC mode or fix SOC powerstate to disable this autocorrection

For FIT, stability of the silicon is more important and it will bypass couple of things if needed.
Not only goes that for VDDG "spreading", or visually set frequency (clock stretching).
But the cpu also often does that with memory training and timings correction
Trust ryzen master ~ till AMD gives us a better monitoring tool
SMU readouts are not accurate enough anymore, nor is a VRM readout 
~ as at the end, the cpu does what it wants anyways 

EDIT:
I'm not entirely sure, how the CPU will allow "more" voltage when the SOC VRM line only reads less
But like @2600ryzen mentioned - powerconsumption should make a big difference alone by 50mV which up to cores amount are around 20-40W
If you have a watt-wall measurement unit / compare it
With and without UncoreOC mode, to see what is really applied
VDDG voltage on some bioses bugs out and is set far to high. Soo SOC often peaks 1.3v
This is autocorrected higher and ryzen master did report only VDDG higher.
Trust it, until you can measure it's really off. I would trust it
Even if it's visual (doubt) it shows that something is not set right or from the correct place in the Bios.


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

Ronski said:


> I've attached various screen shots, any one have any thoughts on this?
> 
> So should I change the CPU VDDCR_SOC Voltage from auto?
> 
> Edit: Having googled the above there seems to be quite a bit of confusion (which means I'm confused too), VDDCR appears to be for the iGPU, which of course the 3900X doesn't have, but then others say it should be set to your SOC voltage. Well if it is for the iGPU then changing it to 1.05v shouldn't make any difference, there's options for offset (offset from what??), or fixed, so I've changed it to fixed 1.05v and will see what happens - ZT reports the new voltage and shows a VDDCR OF 1.038v


From my experience with an x570 taichi, asrock will auto SoC to 1.2v when overclocking memory above a certain frequency, if not set explicitly in the external voltage/llc page (not sure if they fixed it, I was using whatever the latest bios was in june 2020) So what you did is what I would've done so SoC isn't unreasonably high.


----------



## chitos123

I'm completely at a loss how to calculate *tSTAG* and *tREF* 
Anyone know about this. Please teach me


tSTAG



Spoiler

















tREF



Spoiler














 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...JV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=283210006


----------



## pipes

What Is tstag?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## OCmember

How does this look? Is the ProcODT a little high?

Passed 10 runs of TM5, 40 minutes worth


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> I'm also testing a few other settings atm which seem to be stable so far(90min testmem5)
> 
> I'm doing Tras = tcl+tcrdwr+1 = 26. Seems stable and it wasn't slower at membench. I'm also trying twtrs-l at 4-12 and it seems stable so far too, I think it helped membench and latency to be slightly better. I think you should definitely try Trp = 14 too, it did error for me but your dimms would be running much cooler than mine.


I tried twtrs-l at 4-12, left trp at 15 and set Tras to 41, tested to 50,000% with no error's. Still getting similar times, slightly slower if anything but windows updated, and I changed my AV but disabling that doesn't make much if any difference. 

I'll try lowering trp next.


----------



## hazium233

Ronski said:


> I tried twtrs-l at 4-12, left trp at 15 and set Tras to 41, tested to 50,000% with no error's. Still getting similar times, slightly slower if anything but windows updated, and I changed my AV but disabling that doesn't make much if any difference.
> 
> I'll try lowering trp next.


Membench seems pretty biased towards activation delays to me, tRC and tFAW.

Times here also don't always correlate with Blender performance for me, where relaxing a timing may slow membench slightly, but lead to gains in Blender outside the margin of error. KedarWolf, Veii or others probably have said something similar in the past. I still run 1.0 Beta 2 with Quick benchmark since I have data on that for older profiles. Open runs BMW+Classroom a good deal faster on the same profiles though, guess it is the Blender version.

I tried Sandra recently to look at the timings too, with the MCE test. Veii has recommended that a lot.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> I tried twtrs-l at 4-12, left trp at 15 and set Tras to 41, tested to 50,000% with no error's. Still getting similar times, slightly slower if anything but windows updated, and I changed my AV but disabling that doesn't make much if any difference.
> 
> I'll try lowering trp next.


Looks like Tras gets auto corrected to Trc-Trp no matter what you set.
I've tried lowering trdrdscl and twrwrscl to 4-4 before and it hurt performance(didn't test stability), but I'm running lower vdimm than you and I've heard a few people say it responds to voltage so maybe 4-4 could work for you.


----------



## DDSZ

2600ryzen said:


> Try trtp 14, twr 28, and trfc1 616 trfc2 457 trfc4 281.


I've noticed that I have tWR set to 28 in BIOS, but it is actually 26 for some reason. Any info on that?


----------



## Veii

Ronski said:


> The odd thing is that when I tried your suggested alterations (as per attached) a couple of days ago it failed at 7275%, yet last night I kept those alterations and changed tRCDRD to 8, and tRP to 13, which by rights should have failed quicker, but it actually lasted longer. Perhaps the memory training at each reboot is playing a part in it?


tRP for you was correct, its the avg tRCD delay although voltage dependent
If tRP 13 was too low. Try tRP 14 & tRCD_WR 10
tRC ruleset you can also use as tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
Optimally the result is tRP+tRAS and also ^ above 
But its easier if you start with tRP=tRCD_WR+RD/2 ~ aka avg tRCD delay for tRP 
tRP=tRCD_WR is very often far to low


OCmember said:


> How does this look? Is the ProcODT a little high?
> Passed 10 runs of TM5, 40 minutes worth


20 rounds 1usmus_V3 as absolute minumum
Below that you will have too many variables that can fail
Push tWR to either 12 or 16
tWR 16 matches set tRAS 32

@chitos123 Sorry, I lack tSTAG information too. This is what holds me back since some time.
I think ZenTimings does get it wrong, but I'm not sure how to calculate it~


----------



## OCmember

@Veii what is 1usmus_V3? Do I have the older version?


----------



## chitos123

@*Veii* 


Veii said:


> @*chitos123* Sorry, I lack tSTAG information too. This is what holds me back since some time.
> I think ZenTimings does get it wrong, but I'm not sure how to calculate it~



What do you think about this tRFC result (Source by Ryzen DRAM Calculator v1.7.3)
Seems OK ?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...JV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=217163994




>


Micron or Samsung OEM
more than tRC*8 is mandatory 

And, Ryzen DRAM Calculator has tRC*12 value
Seems tRC*12 =tRFC acceptable ?

But, my question is what happens after tRC*9 cycle ?
+ Does tRC*9 value will work ?


tSTAG... i'm completely at a loss, 
And it seems to be no answer...

I think tCWL, tRD_WR or tWR_RD change value
For now, try to focus on this.


And tREF 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...JV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=283210006

Found some value and try to calculate with it..
but it seems, there is something more to find :hmmsmiley


+EDIT1
Does tRP -2 or -1 value acceptable ?

Saw some people use -2 and -1
like 14-14-14-12 or 17-18-18-16 (not exact but like that)
And they manage to stabilize successfully 


+EDITI2 
Checked gmail,
It took a while because i didn't know how to do it, 

But now i'm sure you have the authority.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> @Veii what is 1usmus_V3? Do I have the older version?











This is how it should look like ~ just in white
else it defaults to @ serj 
Here is the same TM5 of 1usmus reuploaded just with a changed config to do 20 loops instead of 6
Run it with admin permissions 


chitos123 said:


> @*Veii*
> What do you think about this tRFC result (Source by Ryzen DRAM Calculator v1.7.3)
> Seems OK ?
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...JV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=217163994


The issue is, tRFC depends on a lot more to get an accurate one
1usmus uses a different way to calculate tRFC and it's pre-tested for the whole set.
if you change one little variable on his long tested sets ~ they won't be accurate anymore.
Soo his tRFC might be good if primaries are identical, but then at the same time ~ why would you as a user change anything and not just use his tested timings. 

We can't pre-calculate anything, as it misses a lot of crucial information. We can only predict the autocorrection and have to retest a lot of times with SiSoftware Sandra MCE Test


> Micron or Samsung OEM
> more than tRC*8 is mandatory
> 
> And, Ryzen DRAM Calculator has tRC*12 value
> Seems tRC*12 =tRFC acceptable ?
> 
> But, my question is what happens after tRC*9 cycle ?
> + Does tRC*9 value will work ?
> 
> 
> 
> +EDIT1
> Does tRP -2 or -1 value acceptable ?
> 
> Saw some people use -2 and -1
> like 14-14-14-12 or 17-18-18-16 (not exact but like that)
> And they manage to stabilize successfully
Click to expand...

This drawing is discharge prediction without thermals factored in.
They don't really need that high value, DRAM calculator often has *5 + X , less than *6 
Higher could be a calculation mistake by import

If you don't meet one tRFC target, it will be postponed 9x inside the whole tREFI range 
It can be variable postponed by the memory
But if your tRFC window is too small, it will choke and error out.

Usually if the user get's tRAS and tRC correct ~ there is no reason why it would need higher than *8, but i've included a failsafe.
High tRC low tRFC makes no sense either.
Too big tRFC will just push tREFI higher and slow down things, like too big tRC can be used to cheat and slow things down.
Nothing will happen as long as tRC and tRFC don't fully pass ~ memory will be stuck in a wait-for-action loop

What memory needs, is long enough tRP to cover tRCD delay
People can lower it, if they overvolt memory or if cooling is sufficient and they overvolt memory
Soo if thermals are lower, discharge will be slower and you can run lower tRP
A little advice used before to push lower tRC without triggering autocorrection
Like Yuri mentioned, tRC is a virtual value only we have. It often is autocorrected / but we can use couple of formulas to get it correct.
Really, memory is soo flexible ~ everyone has their own rulesets 

Answer, EDIT 1:
Stay with tRCD_RD&_WR / 2 aka avg delay rounded up
That shouldn't make issues with discharge delay


> tSTAG... i'm completely at a loss,
> And it seems to be no answer...


Needs research, it's there just not figured out. Couple tools allow readout, but no one so far calculated it


> I think tCWL, tRD_WR or tWR_RD change value
> For now, try to focus on this.


Need help ?
I think we got them already figured out ?



> And tREF
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...JV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE/edit#gid=283210006
> 
> Found some value and try to calculate with it..
> but it seems, there is something more to find :hmmsmiley


Haven't investigated into tREFI :thinking:



> +EDITI2
> Checked gmail,
> It took a while because i didn't know how to do it,
> 
> But now i'm sure you have the authority.


Had since 7-10 days, just investigations are on pause so far 
If i figure something out ~ you'll get to know


----------



## DeusM

KedarWolf said:


> Shouldn't matter it's not on the QVL. I think it's higher binned than the 3200 CL14.
> 
> Edit: It's not on my QVL either.
> 
> Second edit: Try calling your motherboard tech support. The QVL lists on the websites are really old and not updated, but the tech support can tell you if the kit has been added.
> 
> Wish they updated the sites more often.



OK Here is the numbers, I dont think its worth much as i am limited by motherboard OR CPU and i will wait until zen3 comes out!


Both my 3600c17 4x8gb sticks get the same timings and WILL NOT go 3800cl14 no matter what settings i try.




https://imgur.com/a/IKWRjxU


I have ordered a new MOBO which should be better, if not then it is my CPU.


----------



## jfrob75

DeusM said:


> OK Here is the numbers, I dont think its worth much as i am limited by motherboard OR CPU and i will wait until zen3 comes out!
> 
> 
> Both my 3600c17 4x8gb sticks get the same timings and WILL NOT go 3800cl14 no matter what settings i try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/IKWRjxU
> 
> 
> I have ordered a new MOBO which should be better, if not then it is my CPU.



I have the same 16GB memory as you and I am able to get my 2 X 16GB to run reliably at 3800 CL14 except for tRCDRD. Here are my timings/settings.


----------



## DeusM

jfrob75 said:


> DeusM said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Here is the numbers, I dont think its worth much as i am limited by motherboard OR CPU and i will wait until zen3 comes out!
> 
> 
> Both my 3600c17 4x8gb sticks get the same timings and WILL NOT go 3800cl14 no matter what settings i try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/IKWRjxU
> 
> 
> I have ordered a new MOBO which should be better, if not then it is my CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the same 16GB memory as you and I am able to get my 2 X 16GB to run reliably at 3800 CL14 except for tRCDRD. Here are my timings/settings.
> View attachment 366538
Click to expand...


I will give them a shot tomorrow. But it just will not post at all with 3800cl14


----------



## jfrob75

DeusM said:


> I will give them a shot tomorrow. But it just will not post at all with 3800cl14


 I forgot to mention that my VDIMM is set to 1.52 volts. When I measure it on the MB with a DVM I get 1.50 volts.
What MB do you have?


----------



## dkarDaGobert

jfrob75 said:


> I have the same 16GB memory as you and I am able to get my 2 X 16GB to run reliably at 3800 CL14 except for tRCDRD. Here are my timings/settings.
> View attachment 366538



same here


----------



## pipes

dkarDaGobert said:


> same here


I want Rey ti reach cl 14 at 3800 MHz with my patrioti vipera steel 4000 cl19.

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## Ronski

2600ryzen said:


> Looks like Tras gets auto corrected to Trc-Trp no matter what you set.
> I've tried lowering trdrdscl and twrwrscl to 4-4 before and it hurt performance(didn't test stability), but I'm running lower vdimm than you and I've heard a few people say it responds to voltage so maybe 4-4 could work for you.


Lowering those to 4-4 seemed to increase my Membench time slightly, but did seem to improve my Aida64 scores, got 65.6ns latency.


----------



## OCmember

I'll give that a try.

Have a new kit arriving tomorrow, 3800 cl14.16.16.36 1.5v


----------



## hazium233

For the Sandra MCE tests, is it the intercore bandwidths that are more important, or should the latencies take priority? I assume the values it puts at the top of the report are average.

Was testing some variants for 3533c14 2x8GB Rev E on the 2700X. Sample in spoiler.



Spoiler



SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 59.52GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 74.0ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3.72GB/s
No. Threads : 16
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 109.93W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 554.41MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 6.73ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 188.63kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 14.51MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.18ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 41.4ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 43.4ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 42.3ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 106.0ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 104.5ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 106.6ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 106.0ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 14.4ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 42.7ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 43.1ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 42.3ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 104.8ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 106.3ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 106.0ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 41.4ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 41.6ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 104.2ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 104.4ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 105.7ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 41.4ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 14.3ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 41.4ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 104.3ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 104.6ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 105.6ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 43.3ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 105.1ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 108.4ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 42.8ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 42.8ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 14.0ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 43.2ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 105.1ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 104.7ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 106.7ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 106.0ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 105.7ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 105.5ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 43.4ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 14.1ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 104.3ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 105.5ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 105.2ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 42.7ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 42.1ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 105.6ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 104.1ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 104.9ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 104.1ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 14.0ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 42.0ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 42.8ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 42.2ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 105.1ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 104.7ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 14.1ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 41.6ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 43.5ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 104.8ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 42.7ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 42.7ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 14.0ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 43.2ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 105.9ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 105.7ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 105.5ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 104.9ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 42.1ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 41.5ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 43.2ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 14.2ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 41.1ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 42.9ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 104.0ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 104.3ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 104.4ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 43.4ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 104.6ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 105.7ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 105.8ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 42.7ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 42.0ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 41.9ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 43.5ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 6.61GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 17.55GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 65.69GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 140.08GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 191.66GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 220.78GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 257.81GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 216.08GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 198GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 17.67GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 15GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 15GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.2GHz, 1.77GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 8MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F08020B
Computer : ASUS ROG STRIX X370-F GAMING
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 16
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core Processor
Speed : 4.2GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.7GHz - 4.2GHz
Maximum Power : 109.93W - 135.30W
Cores per Processor : 8 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 8 / 2
Microcode : MU8F08020B
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 8x 64kB, 4-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 8x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 8MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.77GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 883MHz - 1.77GHz


----------



## KedarWolf

Dyngsur said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0MWVPcYjf6nOlr9CtkkfN78tSo/edit#gid=527992713
> 
> yeah look whos have the lowest latency, wow shiet can it be true? 1866mhz fclk goddamn..
> 
> Told you its about the timings.


Where do you post to get your result on that spreadsheet? I have the lowest latency at 61.7ns TM5 stable for a 3950x.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Where do you post to get your result on that spreadsheet? I have the lowest latency at 61.7ns TM5 stable for a 3950x.



The first result is fake. That spreadsheet is a much worse alternative to this:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383


----------



## DeusM

jfrob75 said:


> I forgot to mention that my VDIMM is set to 1.52 volts. When I measure it on the MB with a DVM I get 1.50 volts.
> What MB do you have?



msi x570 gaming edge wifi


can somebody also link me the new zen timings?


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> The first result is fake. That spreadsheet is a much worse alternative to this:
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM/edit#gid=509536383


Yes, that may be true. I still have the lowest latency on both for a 3950x but I don't know where to show a screenshot of the result and TM5 for either spreadsheet.


----------



## Dyngsur

KedarWolf said:


> Where do you post to get your result on that spreadsheet? I have the lowest latency at 61.7ns TM5 stable for a 3950x.


Dont know where to post, but it was a discussion about how much faster 3800 mhz vs 3733 mhz was.
But I couldnt care less anymore.

I use your dram settings for my 3900xt, and so far they work great 

Btw what vsoc voltage do you use and what dram voltage? Would you mind share all of your settings?


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Yes, that may be true. I still have the lowest latency on both for a 3950x but I don't know where to show a screenshot of the result and TM5 for either spreadsheet.



You just fill in the first empty line and the owner will add your result later.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> You just fill in the first empty line and the owner will add your result later.


What, they don't verify the results with screenshots or anything?


----------



## KedarWolf

Dyngsur said:


> Dont know where to post, but it was a discussion about how much faster 3800 mhz vs 3733 mhz was.
> But I couldnt care less anymore.
> 
> I use your dram settings for my 3900xt, and so far they work great
> 
> Btw what vsoc voltage do you use and what dram voltage? Would you mind share all of your settings?


Lowered tRFC TM5 stable.










BIOS screenshots.

*Edit: DON'T use an Offset but manual voltages. It will likely for far too high or low until you figure out what your Offset applies. The manual static is to the left of the Offset, what the Offset actually applies.*

https://imgur.com/a/wrWWfPG


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> What, they don't verify the results with screenshots or anything?



Yeah, you have to post a screenshot of the Aida64 result and Karhu at least 10000%. You do that by adding a hyperlink over the timings.


----------



## Dyngsur

KedarWolf said:


> Lowered tRFC TM5 stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS screenshots.
> 
> *Edit: DON'T use an Offset but manual voltages. It will likely for far too high or low until you figure out what your Offset applies. The manual static is to the left of the Offset, what the Offset actually applies.*
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/wrWWfPG


Thanks a lot! Gonna try to fiddle som more with this!


----------



## DeusM

jfrob75 said:


> I have the same 16GB memory as you and I am able to get my 2 X 16GB to run reliably at 3800 CL14 except for tRCDRD. Here are my timings/settings.
> View attachment 366538



Tried your settings and they did boot! which is a first for cl14 and my pc!


But unfortunatley it spat out 9 errors in the first 10 seconds of TM5!


i even tried with looser secondary timings and it blue screened


----------



## SneakySloth

KedarWolf said:


> Lowered tRFC TM5 stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS screenshots.
> 
> *Edit: DON'T use an Offset but manual voltages. It will likely for far too high or low until you figure out what your Offset applies. The manual static is to the left of the Offset, what the Offset actually applies.*
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/wrWWfPG



Any change in latency? Impressive that you're hitting those timings at 1.48v.


----------



## OCmember

Testing out a new kit and in my bios I can't set the tRRD_S to 3 as the calculator suggests. The first option is 4. Does anything else need to be changed because of that?


----------



## SneakySloth

OCmember said:


> Testing out a new kit and in my bios I can't set the tRRD_S to 3 as the calculator suggests. The first option is 4. Does anything else need to be changed because of that?



tFAW is related to tRRDS. Minimum tFAW can be is tRRDS * 4.


----------



## OCmember

SneakySloth said:


> tFAW is related to tRRDS. Minimum tFAW can be is tRRDS * 4.



Thanks!

Yup, the tFAW was suggested to be 12 so I should set it to 16 then, right?

Also the tRRDL was suggested to be 8. Does that need to change also? Or does the tRRDS & tRRDL not need to have some type of related sync?


I currently can't get any screen shots. I'm running TM5. I can post some later if needed,

Thanks a bunch!


----------



## KedarWolf

SneakySloth said:


> Any change in latency? Impressive that you're hitting those timings at 1.48v.


See attached file. May have to actually click on it and open it to see it.

But 61.7ns in AIDA64.


----------



## SneakySloth

OCmember said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Yup, the tFAW was suggested to be 12 so I should set it to 16 then, right?
> 
> Also the tRRDL was suggested to be 8. Does that need to change also? Or does the tRRDS & tRRDL not need to have some type of related sync?
> 
> 
> I currently can't get any screen shots. I'm running TM5. I can post some later if needed,
> 
> Thanks a bunch!



Most commonly used combinations for these three are :
1. tRRDS = 6, tRRDL = 6, TFAW = 24 

2. tRRDS = 4, tRRDL = 6, TFAW = 16 

3. TRRDS = 4, TRRDL = 4, TFAW = 16


----------



## OCmember

SneakySloth said:


> Most commonly used combinations for these three are :
> 1. tRRDS = 6, tRRDL = 6, TFAW = 24
> 
> 2. tRRDS = 4, tRRDL = 6, TFAW = 16
> 
> 3. TRRDS = 4, TRRDL = 4, TFAW = 16


Thank you!


Did a 10 run non-admin TM5 with the XMP profile and it passed so that enforces the idea that the kit is good (tentatively) 


How different is the latency test between the calculator and AID64? With the calculator I'm at 63.2 Custom latency, & 66.2 Random latency.


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> Thank you!
> 
> 
> Did a 10 run non-admin TM5 with the XMP profile and it passed so that enforces the idea that the kit is good (tentatively)
> 
> 
> How different is the latency test between the calculator and AID64? With the calculator I'm at 63.2 Custom latency, & 66.2 Random latency.


In Dram Calculator I get 61.6/64.3.


----------



## SneakySloth

OCmember said:


> Thank you!
> 
> 
> Did a 10 run non-admin TM5 with the XMP profile and it passed so that enforces the idea that the kit is good (tentatively)
> 
> 
> How different is the latency test between the calculator and AID64? With the calculator I'm at 63.2 Custom latency, & 66.2 Random latency.



It should be fairly close but I find the calculator to be more consistent to be honest.


----------



## OCmember

Just curious, what happens if I don't run TM5 in administrator mode? I tried it once but it said "AWE" something is needed er something, heh


----------



## SneakySloth

OCmember said:


> Just curious, what happens if I don't run TM5 in administrator mode? I tried it once but it said "AWE" something is needed er something, heh



If I go to properties and change it to always run as admin and then restart your PC afterwards, it usually gets rid of that error.


----------



## OCmember

SneakySloth said:


> If I go to properties and change it to always run as admin and then restart your PC afterwards, it usually gets rid of that error.


Why is it recommended to give the app administrator privileges? Isn't that kinda risky?



With the latency test in Calculator, what's more important or representative of real world usage, the Custom Latency or Random Latency? With my XMP profile on my new kit the Custom Latency is ~63.4ns while the Random Latency is ~69. With the sub timings tweaked with Calculator the Random Latency drops to around 66 but I'm having trouble getting the kit stable with the timings from the calculator. I'm trying 1:1 3800 with Cl14, ram is pushing 1.52. ProcODT 60, RZQ/4, 40-20-24-24 for the Ohms, using Thaiphoon imported HTML file too


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> Why is it recommended to give the app administrator privileges? Isn't that kinda risky?
> 
> 
> 
> With the latency test in Calculator, what's more important or representative of real world usage, the Custom Latency or Random Latency? With my XMP profile on my new kit the Custom Latency is ~63.4ns while the Random Latency is ~69. With the sub timings tweaked with Calculator the Random Latency drops to around 66 but I'm having trouble getting the kit stable with the timings from the calculator. I'm trying 1:1 3800 with Cl14, ram is pushing 1.52. ProcODT 60, RZQ/4, 40-20-24-24 for the Ohms, using Thaiphoon imported HTML file too


Here are my BIOS settings for CL14 3800, but I'm using an older BIOS. I find new one overclocks memory poorly. 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/13-...membench-0-8-dram-bench-947.html#post28577724


----------



## KedarWolf

Been messing with BLCK overclock.

I can do 100.45 TM5 stable, and it helps my bandwidth some and now I get 61.7ns latency every AIDA64 run, don't need to hit in multiple times to get that low. :drum:


----------



## OCmember

Here's the XMP Profile in Zen Timings. I'm testing with a lower CLDO VDDP first. Set @ 1090 (1.090). If that passes I'll probably disable GDM next.


EDIT: A peculiar thing is my other kit doing 3600MHz cl14 finishes 10 cycles faster than this it at 3800MHz cl14 doing 10 cycles. Seem kinda counter-intuitive?


----------



## SneakySloth

OCmember said:


> Here's the XMP Profile in Zen Timings. I'm testing with a lower CLDO VDDP first. Set @ 1090 (1.090). If that passes I'll probably disable GDM next.
> 
> 
> EDIT: A peculiar thing is my other kit doing 3600MHz cl14 finishes 10 cycles faster than this it at 3800MHz cl14 doing 10 cycles. Seem kinda counter-intuitive?





You should reduce your CLDO_VDDP voltage. The maximum recommended is 1.05. I dont think you need more than .95 to plug any holes at 3800MT/s.


----------



## rares495

SneakySloth said:


> You should reduce your CLDO_VDDP voltage. The maximum recommended is 1.05. I dont think you need more than .95 to plug any holes at 3800MT/s.



VDDG goes hand in hand with the SOC voltage which shouldn't go above 1.2V therefore, if you're using 50/75/100mV stepping, VDDG would be 1.15/1.10/1.05 max.


High VDDG is needed on the lower end CPUs to get rid of audio crackle with 1900MHz FCLK.


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> VDDG goes hand in hand with the SOC voltage which shouldn't go above 1.2V therefore, if you're using 50/75/100mV stepping, VDDG would be 1.15/1.10/1.05 max.
> 
> 
> High VDDG is needed on the lower end CPUs to get rid of audio crackle with 1900MHz FCLK.


He was talking about VDDP.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> He was talking about VDDP.



I cannot read.


----------



## OCmember

I'll test the XMP profile again with .95 It's odd that the XMP Profile runs with some voltage specs out of the recommended range. It was 10 cycles of TM5 stable with 1.090. I'll re-adjust for .95 & 20 cycles also and test it again. Seems to be a good sign being stable at 10, so far. If it can do 20 stable then I'll give it a good review, and be confident the kit doesn't need an RMA.


Using the Fast presets from the Thaiphoon extracted HTML file plugged into the calculator seems to be giving my board and ram combination trouble. I took pics of the PCB and it seems to be A2 so I've changed to the A2 PCB Revision and started using the 'Fast' preset timings. It seems to be cooperating a little better.


Working on lowering the SoC and DRAM volts to 1.08, & 1.48, respectively, and the ram is being tested at 3733 cl14.14.14, 30, 46, 298. The suggested DRAM volt is 1.37v but I'm almost convinced that DRAM volt would be too low. 10 cycles just finished with the lowered SoC and DRAM volts, and this test finished in 37 minutes & 44 seconds (higher volts finished @ 37min 36sec) VS over an hour using the XMP profile speed & timing presets. And like I mentioned before my other kit tested at 3600 usually finished a little after 40 minutes.


----------



## Dyngsur

KedarWolf said:


> Been messing with BLCK overclock.
> 
> I can do 100.45 TM5 stable, and it helps my bandwidth some and now I get 61.7ns latency every AIDA64 run, don't need to hit in multiple times to get that low. :drum:


I have heard from some that you can go higher with BCLK if you change pcie gen from 4 to 3 or 2.
Might be worth a try.

The higher bclk is even more worth for the hdd than the gen apparently. Havent tested it myself yet.


----------



## KedarWolf

Dyngsur said:


> I have heard from some that you can go higher with BCLK if you change pcie gen from 4 to 3 or 2.
> Might be worth a try.
> 
> The higher bclk is even more worth for the hdd than the gen apparently. Havent tested it myself yet.


I have all my pci-e slots and my two video cards at Gen 3 but I have two Gen 4 M.2's so really don't want to change then to Gen 3.


----------



## Dyngsur

KedarWolf said:


> I have all my pci-e slots and my two video cards at Gen 3 but I have two Gen 4 M.2's so really don't want to change then to Gen 3.


Oh I see, yeah I guess the 2 Gen 4 will be faster even if you raise the bclk.

I will try and see what I can do with raising BCLK and using pcie gen 3 to start with, the 3900xt seems a bit meh with bclk oc, but maybe with pcie gen 3 or 2 I can get it higher.


----------



## Ronski

I've managed to get tRC to 55. Couple of runs attached, one with trdrdscl and twrwrscl set to 4-4, the other at 5-5.

The 5-5 reached 24,787 before suffering an error, any thoughts on getting it a bit more stable? Any problems with my timings? Memory voltage is 1.448v with active cooling.


----------



## OCmember

@Ronski

Try the FAW at 24


I've been trying to dial in my sub-timings, also, and kept rebooting around TM5 cycle 4. My FAW was 16. I set it to 24 and passed 10 runs but failed and rebooted before reaching 20 cycles. That might help


----------



## 2600ryzen

Ronski said:


> I've managed to get tRC to 55. Couple of runs attached, one with trdrdscl and twrwrscl set to 4-4, the other at 5-5.
> 
> The 5-5 reached 24,787 before suffering an error, any thoughts on getting it a bit more stable? Any problems with my timings? Memory voltage is 1.448v with active cooling.



Trfc doesn't work for me that low, causes rare errors, maybe trc 55 and trfc 560 could work.


----------



## OCmember

While testing the kit at 3800 I had a lot of reboots and crashes. My Logitech drivers went corrupt, a desktop shortcut went bad, and something else happened that I can't explain ??? Are there any tests to run to make sure the OS is still intact besides sfc /scannow ? I've ran that a few times and it's seems ok


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> While testing the kit at 3800 I had a lot of reboots and crashes. My Logitech drivers went corrupt, a desktop shortcut went bad, and something else happened that I can't explain ??? Are there any tests to run to make sure the OS is still intact besides sfc /scannow ? I've ran that a few times and it's seems ok


Overall a dism rebuild command helps
I've had nothing but issues with sfc /scannow
Often messing up my permission/user-account system and looping in the lockscreen
DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
^ neverless what issue you had, it will restore the original files 

But data corruption including borked tm5.exe, can not be fixed that way
A system restore point is more helpful than that.

I'd also like cleaning %temp% before dism
Just again, a system-restore point works more efficient than dism
EDIT:
Might also want to manually enforce SSD Trimming afterwards ~ else with 3rd party tools to enforce one
Usually for HDDs, defragmentation should detect/move/rebuild corrupted files ~ but for SSD storage that won't work
maybe a whole disk antivirus scan should let the storage detect corrupted sectors and move/rebuild them ~ but such take ages soo start with just an enforced trimming


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> Overall a dism rebuild command helps
> I've had nothing but issues with scf /scannow
> Often messing up my permission/user-account system and looping in the lockscreen
> DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
> ^ neverless what issue you had, it will restore the original files
> 
> But data corruption including borked tm5.exe, can not be fixed that way
> A system restore point is more helpful than that.
> 
> I'd also like cleaning %temp% before dism
> Just again, a system-restore point works more efficient than dism
> EDIT:
> Might also want to manually enforce SSD Trimming afterwards ~ else with 3rd party tools to enforce one


Thanks for the reply, I'll try the dism command. 

I don't think I have restore enabled so I'm out of luck in that department.

I did do a manual trim on the SSD

It seems my system is a little unstable even after all the crashes. I went back to my Trident Z kit that I thought was stable and it's now crashing at cycle 7 only thing different is I'm running it as admin and going for 20 cycles.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Thanks for the reply, I'll try the dism command.
> 
> I don't think I have restore enabled so I'm out of luck in that department.
> 
> I did do a manual trim on the SSD
> 
> It seems my system is a little unstable even after all the crashes. I went back to my Trident Z kit that I thought was stable and it's now crashing at cycle 7 only thing different is I'm running it as admin and going for 20 cycles.


Redownload that TM5 i've linked here
At best later move it from the download folder to another place and make there a new folder first
Corrupted TM5 will remember it's location and the folder can also be corrupt

This linked DISM command doesn't check for the health but enforces a rebuild from an online ESD file 
Oh you might want to admin perm powershell run it , but i think windows should UAC notification ask you ~ about higher permissions for the rebuild
Do the trimming after you rebuild the /Windows filesystem 
Else on a corrupted filesystem, the only thing that might work is another manual DISM command from an installation USB
Through windowsPE by hitting shift+F10 (bringing CMD up in the WIM ~ windows installation media, booted one)
Else, yes~
Nothing you can do 
Memory can corrupt the filesystem and the files ***
Moving them and changing location is one way to help restore half-corrupted files by moving them on another sector
But pure blank copying them, or override won't help it ~ when the sector is corrupt
You have to move stuff in order for a new link to build 

Well if you end up reinstalling, follow KenderWolf's OS trimdown guide on MyDigitalLife
https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...1803-1903-19h2-1909-20h1-and-ltsc-2019.80038/
But first check if it isn't just your TM5 plus the path plus the ZIP, that was corrupt and run that online rebuild DISM command 
EDIT:
*** but it will corrupt only .dll's and .exe's which run, never touch stuff that wasn't running while crashing & corrupting paths
Best of success :thumb:


----------



## Ne01 OnnA

OCmember said:


> Thanks for the reply, I'll try the dism command.
> 
> I don't think I have restore enabled so I'm out of luck in that department.
> 
> I did do a manual trim on the SSD
> 
> It seems my system is a little unstable even after all the crashes. I went back to my Trident Z kit that I thought was stable and it's now crashing at cycle 7 only thing different is I'm running it as admin and going for 20 cycles.


After the Hard Crash is best to turn on Working RAM OC (no errors) and boot up once, then restart and test new OC.
Thanks to this You will no longer suffer Windows errors.
It's tedious i know but it's safe, and You can test without problems.


----------



## OCmember

I continued testing my old kit till I got a stable setting. I'm going to look for file corruption and other issues before I try working on the old kit again. I'd like to see it working at 3400 or 3600. 

Here is what I managed with my old kit and the new kit. The NEO kit at 3733 hits 63ns Custom Latency 65ns Random Latency, 1.48v


----------



## KedarWolf

This is what I've settled on with my overclock on RAM.

My BLCK is at 100.45, I tried 246 tRFC but would get random reboots with TM5 running. They are gone with it at 252.

I get 61.7ns latency in AIDA64 and with tCWL at 12 I get decent Read, Write and Copy. 

I get Write well over 58k now. 

Oh, and I'm 25 rounds of TM5 stable. :drum:


----------



## jcpq

f4-3600c16d-16gtzn


----------



## Ronski

OCmember said:


> @Ronski
> 
> Try the FAW at 24
> 
> 
> I've been trying to dial in my sub-timings, also, and kept rebooting around TM5 cycle 4. My FAW was 16. I set it to 24 and passed 10 runs but failed and rebooted before reaching 20 cycles. That might help


Thanks, tried tFAW at 24, failed after just over 1000%



2600ryzen said:


> Trfc doesn't work for me that low, causes rare errors, maybe trc 55 and trfc 560 could work.


Thanks, just trying that, got my fastest MEMbench time of 100.49s, now checking stability.


----------



## chitos123

Veii said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is, tRFC depends on a lot more to get an accurate one
> 1usmus uses a different way to calculate tRFC and it's pre-tested for the whole set.
> if you change one little variable on his long tested sets ~ they won't be accurate anymore.
> Soo his tRFC might be good if primaries are identical, but then at the same time ~ why would you as a user change anything and not just use his tested timings.
> 
> We can't pre-calculate anything, as it misses a lot of crucial information. We can only predict the autocorrection and have to retest a lot of times with SiSoftware Sandra MCE Test


 Finally got some time to edit

Now it fixed
And while doing that

found a bug in Ryzen Dram Calculator

IF 3466 (or something) AND FAST selected
And change it to a different memory type that doesn't support FAST profile

The previously used value will be remain
Until you use another available FAST value



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> This drawing is discharge prediction without thermals factored in.
> They don't really need that high value, DRAM calculator often has *5 + X , less than *6
> Higher could be a calculation mistake by import
> 
> If you don't meet one tRFC target, it will be postponed 9x inside the whole tREFI range
> It can be variable postponed by the memory
> But if your tRFC window is too small, it will choke and error out.
> 
> Usually if the user get's tRAS and tRC correct ~ there is no reason why it would need higher than *8, but i've included a failsafe.
> High tRC low tRFC makes no sense either.
> Too big tRFC will just push tREFI higher and slow down things, like too big tRC can be used to cheat and slow things down.
> Nothing will happen as long as tRC and tRFC don't fully pass ~ memory will be stuck in a wait-for-action loop


So. that means "tRC*5<tRFC<tRC*9"
=IF tRFC>tRC*9 it will Repeat the meaningless charge the cycle
-> nothing happen until cycle end =push tREFI higher and slow down things

am i understand correctly?

+Add cheat metod for loose tRFC users (-+ functions)



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> What memory needs, is long enough tRP to cover tRCD delay
> People can lower it, if they overvolt memory or if cooling is sufficient and they overvolt memory
> Soo if thermals are lower, discharge will be slower and you can run lower tRP
> A little advice used before to push lower tRC without triggering autocorrection
> Like Yuri mentioned, tRC is a virtual value only we have. It often is autocorrected / but we can use couple of formulas to get it correct.
> Really, memory is soo flexible ~ everyone has their own rulesets
> 
> Answer, EDIT 1:
> Stay with tRCD_RD&_WR / 2 aka avg delay rounded up
> That shouldn't make issues with discharge delay


using "tRCD MIN value" are tRC only
But added -+ functions for some peoples

And tRAS -+ limit
"tRC is also a fixed delay but a variable=scale-able (only tRAS is not scale-able, tRP adapts)"
=Need to Remove -+ functions ?

#Attach Files 1.png#



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Needs research, it's there just not figured out. Couple tools allow readout, but no one so far calculated it
> Need help ?
> 
> I think we got them already figured out ?
> Haven't investigated into tREFI
> 
> Had since 7-10 days, just investigations are on pause so far
> If i figure something out ~ you'll get to know


Always thanks for the warm hands XD

Figured out why tSTAG turns +1 (causing from tFAW)
Doesn't figured out -1 it's random(don't know why..)

and 128Gb value too.


----------



## Ronski

That failed at 6973%, looks like I have to settle on my previous timings and work on a CPU overclock.


----------



## Jeffrey Kistler

Ronski said:


> That failed at 6973%, looks like I have to settle on my previous timings and work on a CPU overclock.


Does e-die trfc scale with voltage? A friend of mine couldn't get below 580 but didn't try beyond 1.42 vdimm


----------



## Ronski

Jeffrey Kistler said:


> Does e-die trfc scale with voltage? A friend of mine couldn't get below 580 but didn't try beyond 1.42 vdimm


I'm running the memory at 1.448v as it is, don't won't to go any higher.

I did manage to get under 100 seconds membench tonight, knew it wouldn't be stable but just wanted to get under 100


----------



## OCmember

I ran TM5 3 separate times over the course of 2 days, and each time 3733 passed. I ran a game, my sound channels got switched, meaning the directional sound was backwards. I ran TM5 again and got an error? Could my system and files gone corrupt from all the failed memory tests causing the new TM5 error, or is this solely an issue with the DRAM kit? 

I thought this was stable, refer to pic


----------



## SneakySloth

OCmember said:


> I ran TM5 3 separate times over the course of 2 days, and each time 3733 passed. I ran a game, my sound channels got switched, meaning the directional sound was backwards. I ran TM5 again and got an error? Could my system and files gone corrupt from all the failed memory tests causing the new TM5 error, or is this solely an issue with the DRAM kit?
> 
> I thought this was stable, refer to pic



Why dont you let TM5 run for a bit longer? Or run a different test like OCCT medium/large data set for a few hours.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> I ran TM5 3 separate times over the course of 2 days, and each time 3733 passed. I ran a game, my sound channels got switched, meaning the directional sound was backwards. I ran TM5 again and got an error? Could my system and files gone corrupt from all the failed memory tests causing the new TM5 error, or is this solely an issue with the DRAM kit?
> 
> I thought this was stable, refer to pic


I've actually never understood why you run tRC higher than 44 with this set and have tRDWR that high :thinking:
on both math examples
tRAS+tRP
&
tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
you still end up with tRC 44 not 46 
While tRDWR could be 8, could be 9 - but 10 ? 

TM5 won't spill out errors , not on 3rd gen if memory timings are fine
You'd still have to check the remain parts with different software
But that's some funny bug  
Sure it's not VDDG IOD causing some funkyness ~ like being not enough ?
This overall sounds more of an external issues, like a refrigerator and a bad house installation


----------



## garych

@1usmus is it possible to allow more than 2GiB per thread for memory test tool?

HCI MemTest’s limit is 3.5 GB per instance, so raising the limit to 3.5 will let people with 32GiB of RAM (like me) to test full memory capacity on a 12 thread processor, because right now the tool allows to set only up to 2048*12 MiB.


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> This overall sounds more of an external issues, like a refrigerator and a bad house installation


The outlet the system runs off of is not grounded and I've been uneasy and suspicious about running anything off it. The problem to ground it is to access it. I'd have to tear into a finished basement ceiling that's been stucko'd just to find it. 




Veii said:


> I've actually never understood why you run tRC higher than 44 with this set and have tRDWR that high :thinking:
> on both math examples
> tRAS+tRP
> &
> tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
> you still end up with tRC 44 not 46
> While tRDWR could be 8, could be 9 - but 10 ?
> 
> TM5 won't spill out errors , not on 3rd gen if memory timings are fine
> You'd still have to check the remain parts with different software
> But that's some funny bug
> Sure it's not VDDG IOD causing some funkyness ~ like being not enough ?


I've never touched anything in the bios to Overclock the cores. They are all running stock and always have been. 

Whatever the calculator suggested I just plugged in. Actually the tRC and FAW are the only formulas I know. I'll test with 44, & 8. I also increased the ProcODT to 60 and raised the DRAM volts to 1.5. What would you suggest for the VDDG IOD? It was doing test 20 last night when I clicked on ZenTimings 1.1.0 to position it next to TM5 for a screenshot and the system crashed and rebooted. I'm thinking of wiping out the OS and reinstalling, also.

EDIT: could the test be too abusive on the DRAM?

EDIT2: Ok, I just realized I changed the tCL, tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP, tRAS, from the recommended 15,15,15,15,30 for 3733MHz to 14,14,14,14,30 @ 3733. That's probably why the tRC number looked weird. Although that did pass again after raising the VDDG IOD to 1.0595v but I'm guessing that's probably still a little funky. The settings for 3800 are exactly the same except for the tRFC @ 304 so might as well try 3800.

EDIT3: 3800MHz failed


----------



## OCmember

SneakySloth said:


> Why dont you let TM5 run for a bit longer? Or run a different test like OCCT medium/large data set for a few hours.


Isn't OCCT more a CPU test? I have done no CPU overclocking at all. The CPU has been running at stock settings since I installed it.


----------



## OCmember

Having another odd issue with the test. The test will run and then the blue blocks that indicate which test it's on will stop. I was on cycle 6 for close to 45 minutes. That's with the 3733 settings at 15.15.15.30.46. That's looser than the cl14 test that just passed 20 cycles, an hour ago. Test that passed an hour ago attached below.

I'm doubting the test.
I'm suspect of my outlet.
It could be killing the DRAM modules
Highest DRAM module temps were 38.9*C with active cooling while testing.
My OS could be hosed.
Or there could be a system wide problem.
And no one has answered why TM5 needs admin privileges to run.

I'm a little frustrated.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Whatever the calculator suggested I just plugged in. Actually the tRC and FAW are the only formulas I know. I'll test with 44, & 8. I also increased the ProcODT to 60 and raised the DRAM volts to 1.5. What would you suggest for the VDDG IOD? It was doing test 20 last night when I clicked on ZenTimings 1.1.0 to position it next to TM5 for a screenshot and the system crashed and rebooted. I'm thinking of wiping out the OS and reinstalling, also.
> 
> EDIT: could the test be too abusive on the DRAM?
> 
> EDIT2: Ok, I just realized I changed the tCL, tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP, tRAS, from the recommended 15,15,15,15,30 for 3733MHz to 14,14,14,14,30 @ 3733. That's probably why the tRC number looked weird. Although that did pass again after raising the VDDG IOD to 1.0595v but I'm guessing that's probably still a little funky. The settings for 3800 are exactly the same except for the tRFC @ 304 so might as well try 3800.
> 
> EDIT3: 3800MHz failed


Your issue is procODT 60 - far to high
High procODT requires high vSOC
Low procODT requires low vSOC
low procODT = less strain to the memory controller, and also likes less cLDO_VDDP for even less strain
High strain ala >53ohm results in limitation on max hitable FCLK 
3734 has a max of around 53ohm 
Single Rank move between 28-34ohm , Dual rank around 39-48ohm
53 on 32gb dimms, or 4x16gb dual rank units
60 is what bioses default to on AGESA 1003 and 1004 ~ which is very bad and too high


OCmember said:


> Having another odd issue with the test. The test will run and then the blue blocks that indicate which test it's on will stop. I was on cycle 6 for close to 45 minutes. That's with the 3733 settings at 15.15.15.30.46. That's loser than the cl14 test that just passed 20 cycles, an hour ago. Test that passed an hour ago attached below.
> 
> I'm doubting the test.
> I'm suspect of my outlet.
> It could be killing the DRAM modules
> Highest DRAM module temps were 38.9*C with active cooling while testing.
> My OS could be hosed.
> Or there could be a system wide problem.
> And no one has answered why TM5 needs admin privileges to run.
> 
> I'm a little frustrated.


TM5 freezes relate to core freezes, mostly a voltage issue at this point
TM5 needs admin permission to bypass UAC , which allows it to run and duplicate itself to the amount of threads you have and run in high priority 
Soo use all the memory possible without getting killed by windows when it "runs out of memory"
Also needs it to create/access/modify the swap file, for cached testing which is faster 

You can't degrade memory that easy
They are not silicon but Capacitors , like your Mosfets on the board
They get abused by too high voltage and can loose charge faster after a loong lifespan
But DDR5 needs to be just EOL before DDR4 modules start to have negative effects
You only can abuse them a bit by 90c and higher thermals or beyond 1.92vDIMM
Around 1.56v many start to fail and dropout, and after 1.7v you need to disable 3/4th of the memory in order to keep the higher voltage up without failing cells
Nothing degradable exists here except for having negative effects by high voltage ~ because of smaller architectural nodes, resulting in higher voltage leakage inside them. Running lower voltages makes a small node possible, but dislikes higher voltage and will leak/jump. Same for CPUs or pretty much everything on a smaller manufacturing node


----------



## OCmember

When I tested with tRC 44, & tRDWR 8 I got a "core freeze" What is "core freeze" when testing with TM5, and what can be done to address the issue? All my CPU settings have been untouched, left on auto.

I changed back to 53ohm, tRC 46, tRDWR 10, and raised the VDDG IOD to 1.060 and 3733 passed but it seemed like it was on edge. I'm running TM5 again with the XMP profile to see if that passes, and then I'm going back to test 3733 with the settings posted in the latest pic on post #9514. Judging from the pic can you suggest any recommendations?

Thanks


----------



## Ronski

@OCmember

I've had better success with Karhu ram test, I've found it finds errors quicker than when I've run TM5 for ten cycles.


----------



## hazium233

Since this is sort of experimental, posting here instead of the 24/7 thread.

Working with Rev E 2x8 Ballistix 3200 kit, tried to see viability of running !GDM at 3533. Used a modified Rev E "safe" profile for this, as this kit does tRCDRD18 here. I suppose I am still playing with phase and VRM settings vs set voltage, but I gave it more SOC than I had been testing with figuring 2T might need it. Set CAD to only 40-20-20-24. Actually I expected to come home and see an error to point me to the next step, but it went through 20 cycles.

Read bandwidth doesn't seem quite right, ran just 30min y-cruncher on default test settings. Sandra first run was a little high on latency, second was ok I suppose.

The tRFC rec in the calculator is at 565t with tRC 56t, and I left that (maybe 560t better?). Similarly, I had bumped tWRRD to 4t which was necessary at one point with the tighter timings (3533c14 with test 4 error fixed with this with similar tRTP/tWR tWTRL, but different tRC and tRFC), but maybe not a great idea here. But also thought with SCL 4 and tRCDWR 16 this might be better.

What is the best test to check CAD impedance? Thought people usually needed higher ClkDrvStr impedance for Rev E ~GDM, or not needed with vdimm at 1.375? Mistake to increase SOC here? Previously this was a setting I used for sort of loose 3600c18 profile to get through AIDA stress cache.

Labeled the other things on the curve in the Sandra shot. Yellow is this profile, run 1. Red is run 2. Blue is 3533C14 previous set I messed with. Green is regular 3533 Rev E A2 Safe. Reports in spoiler.



Spoiler



Run 1

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 58.42GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 75.1ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3.65GB/s
No. Threads : 16
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 109.93W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 544.22MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 6.83ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 188.63kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 14.16MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.18ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 42.6ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 42.7ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 108.8ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 109.2ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 108.9ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 110.8ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 14.3ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 43.9ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 42.5ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 43.6ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 109.2ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 109.7ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 109.5ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 109.8ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 43.2ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 108.5ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 108.4ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 107.7ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 106.9ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 14.1ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 41.6ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 107.6ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 105.7ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 106.9ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 104.9ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 40.9ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 106.4ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 107.1ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 106.7ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 42.9ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 41.6ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 14.1ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 40.7ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 105.8ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 108.5ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 105.9ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 106.3ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 42.5ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 41.0ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 14.1ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 107.2ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 42.8ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 41.4ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 43.4ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 108.2ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 108.5ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 106.8ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 107.8ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 14.1ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 43.4ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 42.6ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 108.0ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 109.1ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 107.9ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 106.8ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 42.5ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 14.1ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 41.2ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 107.5ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 106.4ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 106.4ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 42.1ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 41.5ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 14.0ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 41.1ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 108.6ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 109.7ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 107.1ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 41.5ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 42.2ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 41.0ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 14.2ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 42.8ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 43.1ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 108.1ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 108.4ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 108.0ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 108.7ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 43.3ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 107.4ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 108.8ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 107.7ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 107.7ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 41.0ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 107.2ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 106.3ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 106.5ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 107.8ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 108.0ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 107.7ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 43.1ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 41.5ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 43.3ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 43.1ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 41.6ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 6.73GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 17.59GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 66.45GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 140.15GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 191.91GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 221.47GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 257.32GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 216.83GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 198.82GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.46GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 14.15GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 13.9GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.22GHz, 1.77GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 8MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F08020B
Computer : ASUS ROG STRIX X370-F GAMING
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 16
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core Processor
Speed : 4.22GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.7GHz - 4.22GHz
Maximum Power : 109.93W - 136.91W
Cores per Processor : 8 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 8 / 2
Microcode : MU8F08020B
Latest Version : MU8F080265
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 8x 64kB, 4-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 8x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 8MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.77GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 883MHz - 1.77GHz


*********

Run 2

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 58.59GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 73.9ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 3.66GB/s
No. Threads : 16
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 109.93W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 545.74MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 6.72ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 188.63kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 27.27MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.34ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 
U0-U2 Data Latency : 42.5ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 43.8ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 42.2ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 104.9ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 105.5ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 106.5ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 107.2ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 14.2ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 41.8ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 43.6ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 42.0ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 106.4ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 106.0ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 42.3ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 103.2ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 103.5ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 104.4ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 104.3ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 40.9ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 14.2ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 41.2ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 42.2ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 103.5ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 103.6ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 104.5ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 104.7ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 43.2ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 104.7ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 105.8ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 105.8ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 42.2ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 42.7ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 14.0ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 43.0ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 104.9ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 105.8ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 105.6ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 104.0ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 104.9ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 105.1ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 42.2ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 43.2ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 14.2ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 101.7ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 104.8ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 105.0ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 41.3ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 42.9ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 104.3ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 104.0ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 104.9ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 106.0ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 14.0ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 40.9ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 42.9ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 41.7ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 41.5ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 103.8ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 103.9ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 104.4ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 104.5ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 41.0ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 14.2ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 41.1ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 42.2ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 43.3ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 105.5ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 104.6ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 105.9ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 106.7ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 42.3ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 42.6ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 13.9ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 40.8ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 105.7ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 105.4ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 105.8ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 105.7ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 41.4ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 42.1ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 41.2ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 14.2ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 42.0ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 40.8ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 40.3ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 107.2ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 106.1ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 108.2ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 108.4ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 41.0ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 42.0ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 108.0ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 104.8ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 105.6ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 107.9ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 42.4ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 106.3ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 105.3ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 106.2ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 107.6ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 106.4ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 104.8ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 105.5ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 105.6ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 40.9ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 43.3ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 41.6ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 42.1ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 42.9ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 43.4ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 6.83GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 17.7GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 65.79GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 140.84GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 192.09GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 221.83GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 257.69GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 216.92GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 199.34GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.84GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 14GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 13.91GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core Processor (8C 16T 2.2GHz/4.22GHz, 1.77GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 8MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F08020B
Computer : ASUS ROG STRIX X370-F GAMING
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 16
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Eight-Core Processor
Speed : 2.2GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.7GHz - 4.22GHz
Maximum Power : 109.93W - 136.91W
Cores per Processor : 8 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 8 / 2
Microcode : MU8F08020B
Latest Version : MU8F080265
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 8x 64kB, 4-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 8x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 8MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.77GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 883MHz - 1.77GHz


----------



## Vidati

Hi Guys, 

A few questions:

Would it be correct to assume that these are B-Die?

https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...eoDDR4-3800MHz-CL14-16-16-36-1.50V32GB-(4x8GB)

If so, is this the correct way to setup the DRAM Calculator for 3600MHZ?


----------



## hazium233

Vidati said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Would it be correct to assume that these are B-Die?
> 
> https://www.gskill.com/product/165/...eoDDR4-3800MHz-CL14-16-16-36-1.50V32GB-(4x8GB)


Yes. If you imported from thaiphoon for manual mode, did it not read it?

If you want to cross check the report you can look on the labels for a code starting with '042.' Last three digits for B-die should be 10B.



> If so, is this the correct way to setup the DRAM Calculator for 3600MHZ?


Yes, if they are going into a C7H with a 3900X. Although 3600C12 should be interesting...


----------



## OCmember

Ronski said:


> @OCmember
> 
> I've had better success with Karhu ram test, I've found it finds errors quicker than when I've run TM5 for ten cycles.


Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll stick with TM5 for now.


----------



## hazium233

Hmmm solitary error 6 on this 3533C15 set.

One mistake was that I neglected to alter tRDWR / tWRRD with some of the other changes.

I can boot ProcODT 43 at this frequency, and tested it a good deal really with GDM on at lower SOC. Maybe ClkDrvStr a tad low.

vdimm is 1.375, I partly expected that tests might indicate too low here, but maybe since tRFC is still a little higher than I was running on some profiles it is still ok. Fast actually has 515t or 529t here.

VRM was on lazy setting, but unless I go down on voltage I don't think I will change it.


----------



## Solohuman

hazium233 said:


> Hmmm solitary error 6 on this 3533C15 set.
> 
> One mistake was that I neglected to alter tRDWR / tWRRD with some of the other changes.
> 
> I can boot ProcODT 43 at this frequency, and tested it a good deal really with GDM on at lower SOC. Maybe ClkDrvStr a tad low.
> 
> vdimm is 1.375, I partly expected that tests might indicate too low here, but maybe since tRFC is still a little higher than I was running on some profiles it is still ok. Fast actually has 515t or 529t here.
> 
> VRM was on lazy setting, but unless I go down on voltage I don't think I will change it.


Use to get the same thing whilst experimenting with 3533 b4 on my 2600X & X570 board. Seems its nearly always test 6 that does it.


----------



## 2600ryzen

hazium233 said:


> Hmmm solitary error 6 on this 3533C15 set.
> 
> One mistake was that I neglected to alter tRDWR / tWRRD with some of the other changes.
> 
> I can boot ProcODT 43 at this frequency, and tested it a good deal really with GDM on at lower SOC. Maybe ClkDrvStr a tad low.
> 
> vdimm is 1.375, I partly expected that tests might indicate too low here, but maybe since tRFC is still a little higher than I was running on some profiles it is still ok. Fast actually has 515t or 529t here.
> 
> VRM was on lazy setting, but unless I go down on voltage I don't think I will change it.



Here's an error guide by Veii, test 6 is an imc related error. 3533mhz is pushing it on zen+.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> Here's an error guide by Veii, test 6 is an imc related error. 3533mhz is pushing it on zen+.



Some 2700Xs can do 3800. You do need proper memory, though.


----------



## 2600ryzen

rares495 said:


> Some 2700Xs can do 3800. You do need proper memory, though.


And skill.


----------



## rares495

2600ryzen said:


> And skill.



That goes without saying.


----------



## KedarWolf

A little trick for TM5. 

Right-click on the TM5, choose 'Pin To taskbar', then right-click on TM5 on the taskbar, above 'Unpin from taskbar' right-click on the TM5 icon again, choose 'Properties', hit the 'Compatibility' tab, check 'Run this program as an administrator'.

Now when you click on TM5 in the taskbar it'll always run as Admin. You'll still have to reboot once after the first run to remove the warning message though.

Or you can just right-click where you have the shortcut and do the same to have it always run as Admin.


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> A little trick for TM5.
> 
> Right-click on the TM5, choose 'Pin To taskbar', then right-click on TM5 on the taskbar, above 'Unpin from taskbar' right-click on the TM5 icon again, choose 'Properties', hit the 'Compatibility' tab, check 'Run this program as an administrator'.
> 
> Now when you click on TM5 in the taskbar it'll always run as Admin. You'll still have to reboot once after the first run to remove the warning message though.
> 
> Or you can just right-click where you have the shortcut and do the same to have it always run as Admin.



Or you can just right click on TM5 and run it as admin.


----------



## Veii

hazium233 said:


> Hmmm solitary error 6 on this 3533C15 set.
> 
> One mistake was that I neglected to alter tRDWR / tWRRD with some of the other changes.
> 
> I can boot ProcODT 43 at this frequency, and tested it a good deal really with GDM on at lower SOC. Maybe ClkDrvStr a tad low.
> 
> vdimm is 1.375, I partly expected that tests might indicate too low here, but maybe since tRFC is still a little higher than I was running on some profiles it is still ok. Fast actually has 515t or 529t here.
> 
> VRM was on lazy setting, but unless I go down on voltage I don't think I will change it.


Yes error 6 spam is IMC, and voltages around it "error"
It can be memory very rarely - but as training succeeded but memory controller crashes ~ it's IMC
Try on this set to put tWRRD to 3 instead of 4
and lower ClkDrvStrength to 30 instead of 40
procODT 48 might be pushing it on micron kits - but it should work
i suspect here rather that cLDO_VDDP is wrong
Just try here first if tWRRD 3 & ClkDrvStrgth 30 will fix it (40 might be too much already)

What could also work is playing with vSOC
But nah, i know 3533 is a very very awkward set to work with
cLDO_VDDP has to be here something between 840-866
3333 being 840 and 3400 still working borderline on it
try something between 860 and 866 , maybe 862 ?

Or fully go up to 3600 with 866 cLDO_VDDP and try if procODT 48 would work, if not 53.3 it has to be 
EDIT:








Oh also swap them around, tCWL now being 16
soo tRP would be correct on this set
tRC = tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR 
is still a bit too high, and not 50 as a result
But in order to fix that - you'd have to use tRCD_WR 16, tCWL 16 and have tRC still be +4 
Overall 50 is the tRC you are looking for 
Example Rev.E set down bellow
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-452.html#post28583030


Spoiler














This meets all the rulesets, except that rev.E might not run tRC that low for whatever reason
higher tRFC and -2 lower tRDWR is known, but else ? :thinking:


----------



## nick name

2600ryzen said:


> And skill.





rares495 said:


> That goes without saying.


But most importantly . . . luck.


----------



## rares495

nick name said:


> But most importantly . . . luck.


Some people make their own luck. It's called binning.


----------



## nick name

rares495 said:


> Some people make their own luck. It's called binning.


Binning is luck. It's not called the silicon lottery for nothing.


----------



## hazium233

2600ryzen said:


> Here's an error guide by Veii, test 6 is an imc related error. 3533mhz is pushing it on zen+.


Right, I have those in my notes. Wrote it imprecisely, I meant to say I expected to see test 10 like I had gotten with CL14, albeit that was tighter tRC, tRFC with the tFAW.



Veii said:


> Yes error 6 spam is IMC, and voltages around it "error"
> It can be memory very rarely - but as training succeeded but memory controller crashes ~ it's IMC
> Try on this set to put tWRRD to 3 instead of 4
> and lower ClkDrvStrength to 30 instead of 40
> procODT 48 might be pushing it on micron kits - but it should work
> i suspect here rather that cLDO_VDDP is wrong
> Just try here first if tWRRD 3 & ClkDrvStrgth 30 will fix it (40 might be too much already)


Thanks for the input, appreciated.

I did end up testing ClkDrvStr to 60 last night just to see. Test 6.

Anyway, tested 40ohm combined with tRDWR, tWRRD to 8 and 3... this gave single Test 4, but it did seem to cure test 6. I thought I might have trouble with this, when testing Cl14 GDM on, I got this when I had the combo of tRCDWR 16, tCWL 14, and tWTR_ at 4 and 12. If tWTR_ were looser at 5, 14 it would go through although I think this was awkward and not right. At that point I had increased WRRD to 4 and that made error test 4 go away.



> What could also work is playing with vSOC
> But nah, i know 3533 is a very very awkward set to work with
> cLDO_VDDP has to be here something between 840-866
> 3333 being 840 and 3400 still working borderline on it
> try something between 860 and 866 , maybe 862 ?


Out of laziness, I was hoping not to have to check CLDO steps, until need be. 



> Or fully go up to 3600 with 866 cLDO_VDDP and try if procODT 48 would work, if not 53.3 it has to be
> EDIT:


Only reason I have really worked here is just because at 3600 I think I have to loosen tRCDRD. And I was trying to see more precisely the vSOC scaling on this cpu.

Anyway, I can still boot 43 at 3600, and tested a lazy 18-22-22 profile with vSOC same 1.025 LLC3, albeit modified phase control and switching.

I did most original testing at 3533 also at 43, with the lower vSOC. I thought to cross check 48 at one point, and I thought Sandra might have improved, but maybe it was an artifact of ambient temp change affecting boost and not a real result? I had been mostly using the lowest reliably booting value for testing. Not sure what a reasonable limit for vSOC at 43 is.

I thought it was plausible this board's VRM arrangement may allow relatively low SOC (4x IR3555, two phases off controller with doublers IIRC) perhaps.



> Oh also swap them around, tCWL now being 16
> soo tRP would be correct on this set
> tRC = tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
> is still a bit too high, and not 50 as a result
> But in order to fix that - you'd have to use tRCD_WR 16, tCWL 16 and have tRC still be +4
> Overall 50 is the tRC you are looking for
> Example Rev.E set down bellow
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-452.html#post28583030
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This meets all the rulesets, except that rev.E might not run tRC that low for whatever reason
> higher tRFC and -2 lower tRDWR is known, but else ? :thinking:


I had thought my board corrected tCWL down to tCL if set above, but maybe that was only if GDM was on, or it was last bios. Anyway tRCDWR 14 with tCWL 16 fails with fans spinning but no monitor. I didn't try voltage bumps.

With more voltage, I think tRC 54 is possible since I did that with GDM on, but I don't know that my cheap sticks will do 50. I ran 54 with GDM on, tRFC 540... but not synced tRTP and tWR. 52 at 3466, so maybe here too?

Lining up tRC, tRFC, and tRTP/tWR on these is a pain due to Rev E high tRFC ns, tRC, etc.

edit...

I need to napkin math it out later, but perhaps tRC 54, tRFC 540 and just bump tRTP / tWR to 10, 20. Odd tRTP seems like it might make fitting stuff together unlikely.


----------



## mongoled

Man, im not having any luck getting a "good" 2nd pair of Viper Steel Series PVS416G413C9K.

I have tried 4 pairs so far

First pair is excellent, look at sig.
Second pair, arrived DOA
Third pair, could not do [email protected] stable with any voltage
Forth pair, these are looking like the worst of the worst

I sold the third pair taking a hit and looks like im going to have to sell the forth pair taking another hit.

I noticed that the serial numbers on the 3rd/4th set were alot higher than the 1st set, so I am assuming they were manufactured at a later date.

Now I fully understand that the sticks are going to vary, just did not imagine that there would be such a difference in how same model sticks could vary to such a degree.

As I am purchasing these from Amazon.de, im wondering if these are modules other people are binning then sending them back so all the stock they have left are rubbish.

Maybe I should try to purchase elsewhere in Europe ....

Currently testing a fail safe that was posted by Veii some time ago using 1.420v...


----------



## mongoled

1st fail safe passed 25 cycles

Gone up one step 3533/1766, upped voltage 0.02v, on cycle 23 no errors so far.

At least according to Veii info these sticks are looking like a good pair, its just that prior testing at anything over 3600/1800, resulted in TM5 errors even when dropping timings to flat 16s.

Hence the reason I am going to take these up step by step to see at which point they choke.

Hopefully be able to work out why and what to change, but it does not look good in pairing these with my other set seeing how they respond completely differently!


----------



## hazium233

Was able to test some suggestions.

I did try the profile @Veii suggested for micron -> 16-14/18-16-34-50 tRFC 525 in the spoiler. Trained easily enough, but I think it will need a lot of voltage to work. Got a few BSOD trying to stress it. I was hoping to stay under 1.45 or so, but I might try this higher tonight.



Spoiler















I think I need to go back and try to look at the sync guidelines, but is tWR recommended as a divisor of tRFC, is it just tRTP?

Anyway, thought I might get away with tRC 52 but tRFC 528, with tRTP 8, tWR 16 as 528 is divisible by 16 and 8, not quite 52. Tested 14-16/18-16-52 1.44V. This gave me 4 x error test 4 somewhere in the last half of the test (no errors through cycle 10, I could recheck in between that and end). Plausible tRFC too low for voltage, or just a junk set?

I also wanted to just try something similar to what I have tested before 14-16/18-16-54, but I made tRFC 544 to be divisible by 8 and 16. Also tested at 1.44V, which passed. This may not be a good set. At least in AIDA had sort of pretty latency for Micron (61.7ns).

Anyway, rechecked tCWL > tCL and can't set it, I actually had it set like that in the first picture, but it shows in bios as 14 or in RTC as 14.


----------



## rares495

Just confirmed once and for all that the first result in this spreadsheet is fake.

Even when going dual core with a much better CPU at a much higher frequency + 1900 FCLK + better memory still can't even pass 61 ns. And he got 58.7 ns.


----------



## OCmember

Can either the DRAM timings or electrical settings for the DRAM and or Memory controller mess with sound coming from the speakers? When I was stability checking, I tried 1umus' suggestion of running the CAD Bus 24,30,24,24 listed here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html
and that's when I had a major crash. 

After the major crash I started having issues with my Zx. The channels would flip, positional sound coming from the right would be played from the left, same issue with Front to Rear. I just got back from Micro Center with a Creative Audigy Fx and and after installing it and running a game I'm getting the buzzing sound from the speakers that also was present after the major crash with the Zx. I haven't played anything long enough to see if the positional sound is flipped, but I could bet that it'll show up.

If it's not possible my next step would be re-installing the OS, and if that's not it them then could it possibly be the motherboard?


Thanks for your time


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Just confirmed once and for all that the first result in this spreadsheet is fake.
> 
> Even when going dual core with a much better CPU at a much higher frequency + 1900 FCLK + better memory still can't even pass 61 ns. And he got 58.7 ns.


Nothing to say, except TOP :thumb: :clock:
I think you can get that 0.1ms away 
Recently found this tool, which was inspired by the makers of O&O Shutup one ~ but it's a bit more lightweight
https://wpd.app/
Dropped my ivy notebook to 2% idle + 200mb less ram usage, instead of 15-20% idle, even tho this was a cleaned iso
While it only peaks to 5-6% after i move the mouse :doh:


Spoiler














Features are toggleable ~ but short time disabling everything, which also includes cortana and windows defender ~ should give you this whole value 61ns 
Try it out~


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Nothing to say, except TOP :thumb: :clock:
> I think you can get that 0.1ms away
> Recently found this tool, which was inspired by the makers of O&O Shutup one ~ but it's a bit more lightweight
> https://wpd.app/
> Dropped my ivy notebook to 2% idle + 200mb less ram usage, instead of 15-20% idle, even tho this was a cleaned iso
> While it only peaks to 5-6% after i move the mouse :doh:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Features are toggleable ~ but short time disabling everything, which also includes cortana and windows defender ~ should give you this whole value 61ns
> Try it out~


Thanks. 

Let's see what I can do.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Can either the DRAM timings or electrical settings for the DRAM and or Memory controller mess with sound coming from the speakers? When I was stability checking, I tried 1umus' suggestion of running the CAD Bus 24,30,24,24 listed here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-memory-tweaking-overclocking-guide/8.html
> and that's when I had a major crash.
> 
> After the major crash I started having issues with my Zx. The channels would flip, positional sound coming from the right would be played from the left, same issue with Front to Rear. I just got back from Micro Center with a Creative Audigy Fx and and after installing it and running a game I'm getting the buzzing sound from the speakers that also was present after the major crash with the Zx. I haven't played anything long enough to see if the positional sound is flipped, but I could bet that it'll show up.
> 
> If it's not possible my next step would be re-installing the OS, and if that's not it them then could it possibly be the motherboard?
> 
> Thanks for your time


VDDG IOD manages these things , and the Chipset
CAD_BUS doesn't , procODT & vSOC is more in control of PCIe stability
Data drive impedance, CKE and DQS Drive are managed from CAD_BUS, RTT and procODT
but they have nothing to do with anything PCIe related , nor chipset related

Why did you twice pick to PCIe Soundcards ~ i'm sorry for asking, but it's waste of money 
About the issue tho, CAD_BUS is not able in it's current form to do such type of harm at all
Something else has to be wrong.Unstable Memory can firetruck up a bios pretty hard including resetting it's PSP Firmware by a H/W Security lockdown 
I had such crash once, and the bios turned chinese plus the psp firmware hard reset  
But it would never "fry" anything. What only can happen is storage drive name corruption which crashes the bios (had that too) overall a messed up NVRam inside the bios ~ which fixes after a reflash

No connections to your chipset unless some other event happened like a bios update which does update PSP Firmware of the chip.
A one time upgrade without revert possibility


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Nothing to say, except TOP :thumb: :clock:
> I think you can get that 0.1ms away
> Recently found this tool, which was inspired by the makers of O&O Shutup one ~ but it's a bit more lightweight
> https://wpd.app/
> Dropped my ivy notebook to 2% idle + 200mb less ram usage, instead of 15-20% idle, even tho this was a cleaned iso
> While it only peaks to 5-6% after i move the mouse :doh:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Features are toggleable ~ but short time disabling everything, which also includes cortana and windows defender ~ should give you this whole value 61ns
> Try it out~


Managed to get it but had to push the CPU & memory to their limit. This 3800XT is amazing.

The FCLK reading in ZenTimings got messed up somehow. Beta software


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> VDDG IOD manages these things , and the Chipset
> CAD_BUS doesn't , procODT & vSOC is more in control of PCIe stability
> Data drive impedance, CKE and DQS Drive are managed from CAD_BUS, RTT and procODT
> but they have nothing to do with anything PCIe related , nor chipset related
> 
> Why did you twice pick to PCIe Soundcards ~ i'm sorry for asking, but it's waste of money
> About the issue tho, CAD_BUS is not able in it's current form to do such type of harm at all
> Something else has to be wrong.Unstable Memory can firetruck up a bios pretty hard including resetting it's PSP Firmware by a H/W Security lockdown
> I had such crash once, and the bios turned chinese plus the psp firmware hard reset
> But it would never "fry" anything. What only can happen is storage drive name corruption which crashes the bios (had that too) overall a messed up NVRam inside the bios ~ which fixes after a reflash
> 
> No connections to your chipset unless some other event happened like a bios update which does update PSP Firmware of the chip.
> A one time upgrade without revert possibility


I bought the sound card to trouble shoot the sound issues. I can return the Audigy within 30 days. So when I load Bios Optimized Defaults the sound issue goes away. When I load the XMP profile (3800MHz) the sound issue returns, using the Audigy. I'm going to test with the Zx to see if the same thing happens.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Managed to get it but had to push the CPU & memory to their limit. This 3800XT is amazing.
> 
> The FCLK reading in ZenTimings got messed up somehow. Beta software


 What vcore does this thing even run at  
there is one thing you can explore 
tRAS 22 tRC 36
tRC has another new ruleset you can use as absolute minimum:
tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
either tRAS lower, but it won't work with tCL+tWR+tBL ruleset, which is stated as wrong, but works well 
Soo maybe tRP down to 10 instead of 12 with tRAS 24

tRP 10 , hmm that would need too much vDIMM ~ maaybe you can get away under 1.56v
But i don't know
Anywho, try tRC 36 with 252-187-115 or 234-174-107



OCmember said:


> I bought the sound card to trouble shoot the sound issues. I can return the Audigy within 30 days. So when I load Bios Optimized Defaults the sound issue goes away. When I load the XMP profile (3800MHz) the sound issue returns, using the Audigy. I'm going to test with the Zx to see if the same thing happens.


Can it be that XMP like on old bugs loads procODT 60ohm in there ?


----------



## nick name

OCmember said:


> I bought the sound card to trouble shoot the sound issues. I can return the Audigy within 30 days. So when I load Bios Optimized Defaults the sound issue goes away. When I load the XMP profile (3800MHz) the sound issue returns, using the Audigy. I'm going to test with the Zx to see if the same thing happens.


Can you enter in your RAM details manually and not enable XMP at all?


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> What vcore does this thing even run at
> there is one thing you can explore
> tRAS 22 tRC 36
> tRC has another new ruleset you can use as absolute minimum:
> tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
> either tRAS lower, but it won't work with tCL+tWR+tBL ruleset, which is stated as wrong, but works well
> Soo maybe tRP down to 10 instead of 12 with tRAS 24
> 
> tRP 10 , hmm that would need too much vDIMM ~ maaybe you can get away under 1.56v
> But i don't know
> Anywho, try tRC 36 with 252-187-115 or 234-174-107


1.55V max allowed by the BIOS. Don't try this at home. 

I don't know about lower tRAS and tRC. I'll try but I don't see the point of going lower if I'll have to increase tRFC. 252 will work but 234 probably not.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> 1.55V max allowed by the BIOS. Don't try this at home.
> 
> I don't know about lower tRAS and tRC. I'll try but I don't see the point of going lower if I'll have to increase tRFC. 252 will work but 234 probably not.


You are right, tRFC has to pass
lower tRC did lead to a bit better perf, as long as it wasn't skipped
the ranges are broad between each of the tRFC, but it's the lowest i can think of so far 

Would someday love to test if XT units can actually reach 4.9 boost  
Someday with PBO 
4.725 is quite high already
Hey we'll see what you hit after the public Ryzen auto OC tool by 1usmus


----------



## OCmember

Before all this I tweaked the XMP. I changed the ProcODT to 40, the VDDP to 900, and the VDDG to 1000 and it still passed TM5 20 cycles. 

I double checked the XMP profile when loaded and the tweaked version was holding. 

I didn't try manually entering the DRAM settings.

A couple of the crashes were while I was IN the bios. 

So far I've reinstalled the Zx and am running it with Optimized Bios Defaults and the sound is clean. Bios profile 3733MHz also does not have audio issues, with the Audigy. I'm going to load it up and see if the audio is clean, with the Zx. If it is then I'll know the bios needs a re-flash, and that the Zx is still in perfect working condition.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> So far I've reinstalled the Zx and am running it with Optimized Bios Defaults and the sound is clean. Bios profile 3733MHz also does not have audio issues, with the Audigy. I'm going to load it up and see if the audio is clean, with the Zx. If it is then I'll know the bios needs a re-flash, and that the Zx is still in perfect working condition.


Do that 
I could play with an X570 Aorus Pro, which had nothing but bios issues with the dual bios functionality
Sadly it didn't allow USB access on anything Legacy Related and froze instantly on MS_DOS (for flashrom)
It's complicated with this board ~ in bios flashback is not thaat clean.
I hope you can get it sorted


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Do that
> I could play with an X570 Aorus Pro, which had nothing but bios issues with the dual bios functionality
> Sadly it didn't allow USB access on anything Legacy Related and froze instantly on MS_DOS (for flashrom)
> It's complicated with this board ~ in bios flashback is not thaat clean.
> I hope you can get it sorted


I use flashrom for Ryzen just fine with a FreeDos USB made with RUFUS. https://rufus.ie/

Try that.


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> Do that
> I could play with an X570 Aorus Pro, which had nothing but bios issues with the dual bios functionality
> Sadly it didn't allow USB access on anything Legacy Related and froze instantly on MS_DOS (for flashrom)
> It's complicated with this board ~ in bios flashback is not thaat clean.
> I hope you can get it sorted


Thank you! The only thing that I could imagine is that somewhere something in the system is weak at the XMP profile and it isn't stable. I did happen to try going back to the default XMP settings and it still had issues. If it still does after a bios flash then I'll have to run TM5 several more times with the default XMP, and if it's not able to pass then it's not stable at the XMP profile. But I feel that is a long shot estimation.


----------



## OCmember

KedarWolf said:


> I use flashrom for Ryzen just fine with a FreeDos USB made with RUFUS. https://rufus.ie/
> 
> Try that.


I have a USB drive that I formatted to exFAT through Windows. I was gonna load the bios onto that using the Q-flash method. Will fix what I need it to fix or does RUFUS handle things better?


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> I have a USB drive that I formatted to exFAT through Windows. I was gonna load the bios onto that using the Q-flash method. Will fix what I need it to fix or does RUFUS handle things better?


exFAT ?
Though only FAT(32) is accepted with a sizelimit of 16GB, and it has to be Legacy MBR Partition Table ?
Flashrom is a full wipe, but it hard freezed somewhy , across several bios versions


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> exFAT ?
> Though only FAT(32) is accepted with a sizelimit of 16GB, and it has to be Legacy MBR Partition Table ?
> Flashrom is a full wipe, but it hard freezed somewhy , across several bios versions



Yup, you're correct. I just tried using it and it didn't recognize the drive. I must have been using my 16gb USB drive the other times I flashed the bios. 

Is Flashrom risky? I've only used the Q-flash method. If Flashrom is somewhat risky I could just continue using the 3733MHz profile.


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> Yup, you're correct. I just tried using it and it didn't recognize the drive. I must have been using my 16gb USB drive the other times I flashed the bios.
> 
> Is Flashrom risky? I've only used the Q-flash method. If Flashrom is somewhat risky I could just continue using the 3733MHz profile.


I'll only use flashrom for Ryzen to flash my X570 board, I swear by it.

See link below, but I find a RUFUS FreeDOS USB works just fine, don't need to use the modded RUFUS linked in OP on that page.

Edit: I use UBU Tool from WinRaid forums to make the bios.bin from my BIOS file for flashrom.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...04-agesa-fw-stack-patched-bioses-3rd-gen.html


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Is Flashrom risky? I've only used the Q-flash method. If Flashrom is somewhat risky I could just continue using the 3733MHz profile.


It's as clean as it gets ~ on a SPI flash
But it will flash everything 
Soo risky for sure, but it does it's job well 
Read #4 in the linked thread from KedarWolf

Such type of flashes do wipe the serial number, because they wipe everything
But many boards don't have a serial number in the bios
Gigabyte one didn't have one, although make a backup just to be sure 
it backups also everything, which includes old profiles ~ in case you want to RMA the board someday
EDIT:
Oh also a full-wipe will reset and re-generate the Ethernet's MAC Address
But a backup-restore, restores also everything


----------



## Hequaqua

Think HWiNFO might be a tad off on my ram temps.


----------



## OCmember

I wonder if the Memory controller is just weak? Wouldn't TM5 expose that though?



EDIT: So the default XMP works without audio issues so that means the IF @ 1900 is unstable. I have no idea how it passed TM5 though.

First attachment is the Default NEO XMP Profile

Second attachment is my tweaked NEO XMP Profile running 1:1 (1900/3800) with the IF that passed TM5 but has audio issues in-game.



EDIT2: How do I make the IF stable at 1900 ???


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> You are right, tRFC has to pass
> lower tRC did lead to a bit better perf, as long as it wasn't skipped
> the ranges are broad between each of the tRFC, but it's the lowest i can think of so far
> 
> Would someday love to test if XT units can actually reach 4.9 boost
> Someday with PBO
> 4.725 is quite high already
> Hey we'll see what you hit after the public Ryzen auto OC tool by 1usmus


I don't even know if my CPU is any good or not. There isn't much XT data out there yet.

It does boost to 4775Mhz in light workloads with PBO though. Perhaps I can get 4800 with the PBO bug. If that thing even works anymore.


----------



## garych

OCmember said:


> I wonder if the Memory controller is just weak? Wouldn't TM5 expose that though?
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: So the default XMP works without audio issues so that means the IF @ 1900 is unstable. I have no idea how it passed TM5 though.
> 
> First attachment is the Default NEO XMP Profile
> 
> Second attachment is my tweaked NEO XMP Profile running 1:1 (1900/3800) with the IF that passed TM5 but has audio issues in-game.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT2: How do I make the IF stable at 1900 ???


Unstable IF doesn't necessarily manifest itself in memory errors, most likely it will just straight up crash the system or cause a bluescreen, so TM5 might just be unable to reveal it.
Most likely your IF is unable to do 1900 and be stable. My 3600 is only able to do 1766 without giving me rare crashes/bluescreens, for example.


----------



## OCmember

garych said:


> Unstable IF doesn't necessarily manifest itself in memory errors, most likely it will just straight up crash the system or cause a bluescreen, so TM5 might just be unable to reveal it.
> Most likely your IF is unable to do 1900 and be stable. My 3600 is only able to do 1766 without giving me rare crashes/bluescreens, for example.



So then the memory possibly is stable at the XMP 3800MHz speed, even without doing 1:1, and won't need an RMA. Let's hope! I guess the next step is to re-test the XMP Profile without changing the IF but tweaking the ProcODT, VDDP, VDDG


Would PBO help stabilize the IF? Is there anything I can do?


----------



## garych

OCmember said:


> So then the memory possibly is stable at the XMP 3800MHz speed, even without doing 1:1, and won't need an RMA. Let's hope! I guess the next step is to re-test the XMP Profile without changing the IF but tweaking the ProcODT, VDDP, VDDG
> 
> 
> Would PBO help stabilize the IF? Is there anything I can do?


You could try going with 1866 1:1 clock and tighten the timings instead of chasing 1900 that might never become stable.


----------



## OCmember

garych said:


> You could try going with 1866 1:1 clock and tighten the timings instead of chasing 1900 that might never become stable.


I think I have got 1866 dialed in but I haven't TM5 checked it in about 3-4 days. I need to revisit the test. The audio seems fine at 1866: I have it running 1:1. I'll test it tomorrow morning first thing. Either way I need to run and get another 16GB USB drive to flash the BIOS. It seems like things are getting worse with it. I saved settings, rebooted a totally different profile was loaded, it loaded windows and windows was acting like it was my first boot into it, asking me how I wanted to set it up, smh. For $3.49 I should have bought some a while ago.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Would PBO help stabilize the IF? Is there anything I can do?


It can, but without knowing your voltage->X-Frequency behavior , no 
Untuned, it will cause you more problems than you like to have

Also running 40ohm procODT on single Rank is high
36 to 39 for non b-dies
Down to 28-30 for b-dies

High procODT hard-limits your maximum FCLK you can reach
Less is more , same for the voltages 
Less cLDO_VDDP and less vSOC is key in keeping signal integrity up 
And less vSOC only works with low procODT
EDIT:
You test Fabric Stability with Y-Cruncher (all tests) for >3 loops
OCCT Medium Dataset AVX2 (30min), and prime95 large FFT 2-3h
All these should show indications of instability. usually Y-cruncher is enough to show voltage crashes


----------



## mongoled

@rares495

So 1900 > is a myth on the XTs ?

As I am pretty sure it would have been one of the 1st things you tried and seeing you have not posted any such info it means that your CPU cannot achive this ?

Those of us in the "know" realised this results is an anomoly/fake at least you have the hardware to prove it!

Gluck with the CPU


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> @*rares495*
> 
> So 1900 > is a myth on the XTs ?
> 
> As I am pretty sure it would have been one of the 1st things you tried and seeing you have not posted any such info it means that your CPU cannot achive this ?
> 
> Those of us in the "know" realised this results is an anomoly/fake at least you have the hardware to prove it!
> 
> Gluck with the CPU



Yeah, even with 1.15V SOC and 1.1V VDDG CCD it didn't want to post @1933 FCLK. For me it's always been the case of: if it posts, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Never had stability issues and such.


It does 1900 FCLK no problem even with just 0.900V VDDG.


----------



## mongoled

OCmember said:


> I think I have got 1866 dialed in but I haven't TM5 checked it in about 3-4 days. I need to revisit the test. The audio seems fine at 1866: I have it running 1:1. I'll test it tomorrow morning first thing. Either way I need to run and get another 16GB USB drive to flash the BIOS. It seems like things are getting worse with it. I saved settings, rebooted a totally different profile was loaded, it loaded windows and windows was acting like it was my first boot into it, asking me how I wanted to set it up, smh. For $3.49 I should have bought some a while ago.


Why do you think you will get tRCDRD running at 14 TM5/Y-crucher stable, at that frequency ??

Have not seen anybody achieve this and show a set of results with evidence of a completed TM5/Y-cruncher cycle which is repeatable after reboots etc.

Just drop tRDCRD to 15 and you will be stable.


----------



## mongoled

rares495 said:


> Yeah, even with 1.15V SOC and 1.1V VDDG CCD it didn't want to post @1933 FCLK. For me it's always been the case of: if it posts, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Never had stability issues and such.
> 
> 
> It does 1900 FCLK no problem even with just 0.900V VDDG.


Something I have not seen mentioned.

Are there any issues running vDDG alot less lower than 0.05v in comparison to vSOC ?

As usually for mem running at 3800 mhz you are going to need at least vSOC @1.0v.

Has anybody experienced RAM getting better with "burn in" ?? Actually that would be RAM/Mobo combination getting better with "burn-in" ...


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> Something I have not seen mentioned.
> 
> Are there any issues running vDDG alot less lower than 0.05v in comparison to vSOC ?
> 
> As usually for mem running at 3800 mhz you are going to need at least vSOC @1.0v.
> 
> Has anybody experienced RAM getting better with "burn in" ?? Actually that would be RAM/Mobo combination getting better with "burn-in" ...



There are no issues. I used 1.1V SOC and 0.950 VDDG / 0.900 VDDP for months with my 3700X.


----------



## kuutale

Veii said:


> It can, but without knowing your voltage->X-Frequency behavior , no
> Untuned, it will cause you more problems than you like to have
> 
> Also running 40ohm procODT on single Rank is high
> 36 to 39 for non b-dies
> Down to 28-30 for b-dies
> 
> High procODT hard-limits your maximum FCLK you can reach
> Less is more , same for the voltages
> Less cLDO_VDDP and less vSOC is key in keeping signal integrity up
> And less vSOC only works with low procODT
> EDIT:
> You test Fabric Stability with Y-Cruncher (all tests) for >3 loops
> OCCT Medium Dataset AVX2 (30min), and prime95 large FFT 2-3h
> All these should show indications of instability. usually Y-cruncher is enough to show voltage crashes



i dont understand my 3950x, ch6 i can do easy boot windows 1900flck . ch8 i cant boot windows flck 1900. i wondering is t-topology or daisy chain effective that flck thing?
So i need 4 sticks then i get flck 1900?
My sticks is single rank
and settings copy dram calculator
I dont think my cpu silicon cant do 1900flck because my old board ch6 easy boot windows.

Some advice or thoughts whats block my attempts to flck 1900


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> It can, but without knowing your voltage->X-Frequency behavior , no
> Untuned, it will cause you more problems than you like to have
> 
> Also running 40ohm procODT on single Rank is high
> 36 to 39 for non b-dies
> Down to 28-30 for b-dies
> 
> High procODT hard-limits your maximum FCLK you can reach
> Less is more , same for the voltages
> Less cLDO_VDDP and less vSOC is key in keeping signal integrity up
> And less vSOC only works with low procODT
> EDIT:
> You test Fabric Stability with Y-Cruncher (all tests) for >3 loops
> OCCT Medium Dataset AVX2 (30min), and prime95 large FFT 2-3h
> All these should show indications of instability. usually Y-cruncher is enough to show voltage crashes


I read this, changed ProcODT to 36.9, VoC to 1.1v. Had it at 1.1375v and 48.










*Edit: No, i just had a random reboot just with Twitch in Chrome running. I think VoC is tied in with my CCX CPU core overclock and if I lower it, random reboots. TM5 passes, but other issues. *


----------



## nick name

2600ryzen said:


> Here's an error guide by Veii, test 6 is an imc related error. 3533mhz is pushing it on zen+.


Maaaan, the error guide didn't mention 8.


----------



## TK421

Anyone can link the latest TM5 1usmus profile?


The post that it's linked, is from 2018.


----------



## KedarWolf

TK421 said:


> Anyone can link the latest TM5 1usmus profile?
> 
> 
> The post that it's linked, is from 2018.


https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BJTTsxMUX1278b9pjI_eRe5qYnJ6SZcT?usp=sharing


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> It can, but without knowing your voltage->X-Frequency behavior , no
> Untuned, it will cause you more problems than you like to have
> 
> Also running 40ohm procODT on single Rank is high
> 36 to 39 for non b-dies
> Down to 28-30 for b-dies
> 
> High procODT hard-limits your maximum FCLK you can reach
> Less is more , same for the voltages
> Less cLDO_VDDP and less vSOC is key in keeping signal integrity up
> And less vSOC only works with low procODT
> EDIT:
> You test Fabric Stability with Y-Cruncher (all tests) for >3 loops
> OCCT Medium Dataset AVX2 (30min), and prime95 large FFT 2-3h
> All these should show indications of instability. usually Y-cruncher is enough to show voltage crashes


I'm gonna run p95 as I'm somewhat familiar with it. What temperature sensor should I keep an eye on for this test? Is the temperature reading on Ryzen Master OK?


----------



## garych

goddammit! 
I was testing my RAM with HCI Memtest by manually opening 12 windows and punching 2500 MB in each one, because Ryzen DRAM Calculator doesn't allow to type in more than 2000 MB per thread.
I started my test and later opened DRAM Calculator to check out some stuff.
The thing that bothers me is that when I closed DRAM Calculator it also closed all my HCI Memtest windows wasting 1.5 hours I spent testing RAM, even though DRAM Calculator wasn't responsible for starting those Memtest instances. Why does this happen?


----------



## OCmember

^ lol hate that


----------



## garych

I wouldn't rely on TM5 alone for stability so much, even with 20+ cycles.
I was testing with it for 2 hours with no errors, but then it just stopped testing after one of the cycles with timer still running.
Opened up HCI Memtest and got an error in 10 minutes.


----------



## sleepwithechoes

garych said:


> goddammit!
> I was testing my RAM with HCI Memtest by manually opening 12 windows and punching 2500 MB in each one, because Ryzen DRAM Calculator doesn't allow to type in more than 2000 MB per thread.
> I started my test and later opened DRAM Calculator to check out some stuff.
> The thing that bothers me is that when I closed DRAM Calculator it also closed all my HCI Memtest windows wasting 1.5 hours I spent testing RAM, even though DRAM Calculator wasn't responsible for starting those Memtest instances. Why does this happen?


 IIRC DRAM Calculator uses HCI Memtest for it's memory error checker. It probably simply closes all HCI memtest.exe when you close the Calculator.


Karhu RAM Test is 10 euros... it has saved a lot of time for many people. Reliable and FAST.


----------



## garych

sleepwithechoes said:


> IIRC DRAM Calculator uses HCI Memtest for it's memory error checker. It probably simply closes all HCI memtest.exe when you close the Calculator.
> 
> 
> Karhu RAM Test is 10 euros... it has saved a lot of time for many people. Reliable and FAST.


that's what I'm talking about, it shouldn't "simply close all HCI memtest.exe", that shouldn't work like that. Also the 2000MB per channel limit is ridiculous since memtest supports 3500MB.


----------



## hazium233

I don't think tRC 50t at 3533 is possible with my 3200 Rev E at sane voltages, or perhaps it is a memory controller thing. I don't really recall seeing results that low with common bin Rev E, regardless of what they set tRAS and tRP to.

I did try to cheat and see if I could get "50t" to work with a timing set of 17-16/18-17-35-"50" with tWR 15t, tCWL 16t. But that didn't work either. Setting tRC manually made it at least not crash immediately in testing, but it was slow.

Otherwise, I guess I am stuck looking at tRC 52 or higher. tRFC 520, tRTP 8, tWR 16 combined went through 20c TM5, and went through Karhu 10k. Unfortunately it isn't quite right though, and screwing around with SOC v ProcODT showed a test 4 eventually. Got a couple nice screenshots with 61.6 AIDA latency.

I will try worse tWR with it, then maybe start on tRFC steps. 522 at least has a few divisors, then 525. Calc fast is using tRC 56 with 515 or 529 (and tRTP, tWR 6, 14). 

If I can go x10.5, it is 546, which is at least divisible by 6, 7, 14.

52t is what, 29.43396226415093784264862941 ns or some such.

I have previous TM5 20c passes with combo tRC 54 and 540, or 54 and 544. Don't know how many cycles it would take to show bad values there.


----------



## OCmember

Updated and flashed the bios from F21 to F22. Got the NEO XMP working 1:1 1900 IF. Passed 2hrs of p95 Large FFTs


----------



## garych

OCmember said:


> Updated and flashed the bios from F21 to F22. Got the NEO XMP working 1:1 1900 IF. Passed 2hrs of p95 Large FFTs


have you tried running 16 threads instead of 8 for memory tests? it should work faster with more stress/heat


----------



## OCmember

garych said:


> have you tried running 16 threads instead of 8 for memory tests? it should work faster with more stress/heat


No. I'm not using SMT if that's what you're assuming.


----------



## MakubeX

Does anyone know why my memory clock speed wouldn't show as 1900MHz? I have the multiplier set to 38 and the bclock to 100. I tried setting the clock speed of the memory directly in the "AMD Overclock" menu to 1900MHz but it didn't change anything.

Specs:
Motherboard: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master
RAM: 32GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3600 (F4-3600C16D-32GTZN)
CPU: 3900XT


----------



## rares495

MakubeX said:


> Does anyone know why my memory clock speed wouldn't show as 1900MHz? I have the multiplier set to 38 and the bclock to 100. I tried setting the clock speed of the memory directly in the "AMD Overclock" menu to 1900MHz but it didn't change anything.
> 
> Specs:
> Motherboard: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master
> RAM: 32GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3600 (F4-3600C16D-32GTZN)
> CPU: 3900XT


Have you disabled spread spectrum?


----------



## garych

MakubeX said:


> Does anyone know why my memory clock speed wouldn't show as 1900MHz? I have the multiplier set to 38 and the bclock to 100. I tried setting the clock speed of the memory directly in the "AMD Overclock" menu to 1900MHz but it didn't change anything.
> 
> Specs:
> Motherboard: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master
> RAM: 32GB G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 3600 (F4-3600C16D-32GTZN)
> CPU: 3900XT


just restart the HWiNFO application and it should be back to normal, and the issue is not your memory clock, but the bus clock displayed just above, HWiNFO just calculates bus x multiplier for you
do you run HyperV by any chance?


----------



## MakubeX

rares495 said:


> Have you disabled spread spectrum?


Yes, although the option goes away once I change the bclock from auto.


garych said:


> just restart the HWiNFO application and it will be back to normal
> 
> do you run HyperV by any chance?


I've restarted hwinfo many times and my computer. It hasn't helped. I do not have Hyper-V enabled but I do have SMV enabled in the BIOS (I need SMV for WSL2).


----------



## garych

MakubeX said:


> rares495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you disabled spread spectrum?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, although the option goes away once I change the bclock from auto.
> 
> 
> garych said:
> 
> 
> 
> just restart the HWiNFO application and it will be back to normal
> 
> do you run HyperV by any chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've restarted hwinfo many times and my computer. It hasn't helped. I do not have Hyper-V enabled but I do have SMV enabled in the BIOS (I need SMV for WSL2).
Click to expand...

well, there you go

it’s because of wsl2 as it’s virtualized the same way as hyper-v vms, which means your windows also runs as a vm

so your bus clock is just not reported correctly in windows


----------



## MakubeX

garych said:


> well, there you go
> 
> it’s because of wsl2 as it’s virtualized the same way as hyper-v vms, which means your windows also runs as a vm
> 
> so your bus clock is just not reported correctly in windows


So is it just the bus clock being reported wrong but not actually running under 100?


----------



## garych

MakubeX said:


> garych said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, there you go
> 
> itâ€™️s because of wsl2 as itâ€™️s virtualized the same way as hyper-v vms, which means your windows also runs as a vm
> 
> so your bus clock is just not reported correctly in windows
> 
> 
> 
> So is it just the bus clock being reported wrong but not actually running under 100?
Click to expand...

yes, nothing to worry about


----------



## MakubeX

garych said:


> yes, nothing to worry about


You were right, that was it. Simply disabling SVM fixed it. Also, it seems that it's not just reporting it wrong like I hoped. It was running at that lower speed. Disabling it bumped up my Cinebench R20 by like 200 points. That's a bummer. I need WSL2.


----------



## garych

MakubeX said:


> garych said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, nothing to worry about
> 
> 
> 
> You were right, that was it. Simply disabling SVM fixed it. Also, it seems that it's not just reporting it wrong like I hoped. It was running at that lower speed. Disabling it bumped up my Cinebench R20 by like 200 points. That's a bummer. I need WSL2. /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
Click to expand...

You have a WSL2 VM running on the background, of course you’ll lose some performance, though I would imagine it to be lower than 200 points, maybe the matter of what else is running on the background.
I wouldn’t sweat over that, just have your WSL2 and chill.
And try setting CR20 priority to some higher level than default “below normal”, because it might as well lose those points from just being at below normal priority, while WSL2 is probably higher than that.


----------



## MakubeX

garych said:


> You have a WSL2 VM running on the background, of course you’ll lose some performance, though I would imagine it to be lower than 200 points, maybe the matter of what else is running on the background.
> I wouldn’t sweat over that, just have your WSL2 and chill.
> And try setting CR20 priority to some higher level than default “below normal”, because it might as well lose those points from just being at below normal priority, while WSL2 is probably higher than that.


Yeah, I know I won't even notice the difference in real world usage but the enthusiast in me wants those points!  It's nice to finally see comparable numbers to what others are getting when running at similar clocks. I finally understand what the issue was. Thanks again for your help.


----------



## Veii

kuutale said:


> i dont understand my 3950x, ch6 i can do easy boot windows 1900flck . ch8 i cant boot windows flck 1900. i wondering is t-topology or daisy chain effective that flck thing?
> So i need 4 sticks then i get flck 1900?
> My sticks is single rank
> and settings copy dram calculator
> I dont think my cpu silicon cant do 1900flck because my old board ch6 easy boot windows.
> 
> Some advice or thoughts whats block my attempts to flck 1900


CH8 is daisy chain, yes
If you try 4 dimms on it - you will have a hard time without changing some of the presets
T-Topology split the signal cleanly into 50/50%
Daisy chain pushes the main set to 75% and the remain only gets 25% out of it

Resolves for this are:
- Using A0/B0 PCB kits which require barely anything but are slower , on the slave set and A2 on the main set
A2 require more current overall, soo by overvolting both at the same time - you can average it out
- pushing cLDO_VDDG IOD higher and lowering VDDG CCD with the same offset (25mV for example) 
That should give a stronger signal to the DIMMs, but yet the resolve is again "overvolt both"
- pushing ClkDrvStrength far higher here, and using lower procODT with just a bit more vSOC
Same as suggestion 2, higher vSOC limit allows you to use higher VDDG IOD. 
Just keep in mind lower procODT will require lower vSOC to begin with and can make issues with higher one. And in order for low procODT to work, you have to push ClkDrvStrength up under CAD_BUS (first value)

There is no other resolve, except trying to work against memory overvolting
Daisy-Chain and 4 dimms is just a bad idea to begin with
it's easier to run higher OC 2 dimms, but compared to T-Topology where you push all dimms equal
here you have to try and compensate for the difference between the sets


OCmember said:


> I'm gonna run p95 as I'm somewhat familiar with it. What temperature sensor should I keep an eye on for this test? Is the temperature reading on Ryzen Master OK?


It's fine there. On 3rd gen there is only one tDIE temp sensor ~ no offsets are used anymore
Else just the tDie temp sensor on HWinfo works equaly well


KedarWolf said:


> I read this, changed ProcODT to 36.9, VoC to 1.1v. Had it at 1.1375v and 48.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit: No, i just had a random reboot just with Twitch in Chrome running. I think VoC is tied in with my CCX CPU core overclock and if I lower it, random reboots. TM5 passes, but other issues. *


How high is your VDDG CCD ?
You will need more CCD voltage here, vSOC could be too low you are right
Let's see, do you still have 75mV playroom between VDDG and vSOC ?
if yes, you might go away with lowering IOD 25mV and pushing CCD up 25mV without having to bump procODT +1
EDIT:
If lowering VDDG IOD doesn't work
Push ClkDrvStrength even stronger. That should equalise lower procODT a bit
If that one crashes beyond 60, try to lower procODT one more step down and push 120ohm ClkDrv through it
But here you might want to lower vDIMM then a tiny bit, as it may be amped too much then
Overall , VDDG CCD up ~ your set is using a lot of IOD atm


----------



## OCmember

Is there a rule to the relationship of the volts? I remember back on X58 that the Memory controller volts (CPU VTT) had to be within .50v of the DRAM volts. e.g. the CPU VTT on my X58 rig is 1.223v while the DRAM volts are 1.611v


----------



## crackrupcitu

a little bit off topic but: the dram calculator isn't covering all the options i have in my uefi, and some of them are wrong, some of them are going over the maximum.
i don't want to need to replace my cmos battery ( i tried testing if the restart button method works, but guess what, it doesn't ) so the only option i have is the ryzen master, where almost half of them have different names. if someone knows a guide for dram calculator to ryzen master translation i would be grateful


----------



## Ronski

rares495 said:


> Just confirmed once and for all that the first result in this spreadsheet is fake.
> 
> Even when going dual core with a much better CPU at a much higher frequency + 1900 FCLK + better memory still can't even pass 61 ns. And he got 58.7 ns.



I was reading something the other day and had to laugh, someone was claiming they was getting 54ns at CL 16

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...zen-memory-frequency-vs-timings?page=comments

It's one of skaterbull's comments, I think the last half of their name sums it up.


----------



## KedarWolf

Ronski said:


> I was reading something the other day and had to laugh, someone was claiming they was getting 54ns at CL 16
> 
> https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...zen-memory-frequency-vs-timings?page=comments
> 
> It's one of skaterbull's comments, I think the last half of their name sums it up.


My 3950x and CL14 3800 TM5 stable gets 61.7ns, I have a screenshot with the TM5 25 cycles finished and 61.7ns. But I'd have to check my posts to find it, I'm at work currently.

And I was messing with memory addressing in my BIOS settings and at 256 I got 61.6ns but I accidentally closed AIDA64 before getting a screenshot. 

Edit: I'm really happy with it because it's 2x16GB of RAM Dual Rank. 

Oh wait, I have them.


----------



## rares495

Ronski said:


> I was reading something the other day and had to laugh, someone was claiming they was getting 54ns at CL 16
> 
> https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...zen-memory-frequency-vs-timings?page=comments
> 
> It's one of skaterbull's comments, I think the last half of their name sums it up.


Yeah, that's bull.


----------



## pipes

It's not an help user thread, Truth?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## MikeS3000

I know this Hynix DJR RAM that I have is not as exciting as B-die, but it is hard to find a lot of good information on tweaking DJR. I seem to get pretty nice performance after tuning. Since I keep getting random WHEA warnings at 3733 and 3800 mhz I decided to drop down to 3666 and tighten timings. I just can't get 1900 IF fully stable anymore on Windows 10 ver. 2004 without warnings. From my limited tuning I was surprised that my MEMBench Easy is only about 1.5 seconds slower at 3666 vs. the 3800 Fast preset. I'm scoring 112 seconds vs. 110.5. I think I would rather live without WHEA warnings and downclock IF and RAM speed and just tighten timings. The only timing I am afraid to tweak is tRFC. 468 seems to be fairly low for DJR. I was able to boot and bench at 454 but could not boot at 440. I hear that errors with tRFC are hard to detect and can slowly corrupt the OS. Any guidance on tightening these timings? Oh yeah, and my DDR voltage is at 1.42v.


----------



## hazium233

I tried to start CLDO VDDP testing. But seeing something which seems a little weird.

Started at 840mV, the first run 20 cycles gave one test 6 error and one test 0. I haven't had any test 0 errors testing at 3533, and these timings hadn't generated that in the past either (although the RDWR, WRRD 9, 1 only was tested and passed once).

843mV, 20 cycles and 1x test 0.

0 is voltage vs RRD_ and WTR_ from what I understand, but this set had basically the same old RRD 4, 6 and WTR 4, 12 respectively. Also possibly tRP or tRC. tRP is still 16, but has maybe borderline tRC at 52t.

Ah well, more testing to do.


----------



## upgraditus

Recently picked up a 32GB (2x16) kit of Viper Steel 3600C18 which I expected to be dual rank cjr but turned out to be mjr (H5ANAG8NMJR-VKC). Really whack tRFC listed on the SPD @ 991? Fails to boot @ 620, bluescreened @ 640, seems stable @ 680. They're not in the calc so don't really know what I'm doing...
Here's where I'm at so far, any help fine tuning would be appreciated:


----------



## OCmember

Been using the default timings with my 3800 kit, 14,16,16,16,36, tRC 89.. changed the tRC to 52 and haven't noticed any issues, although I haven't ran any stability tests but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it seems stable.


----------



## upgraditus

OCmember said:


> Been using the default timings with my 3800 kit, 14,16,16,16,36, tRC 89.. changed the tRC to 52 and haven't noticed any issues, although I haven't ran any stability tests but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it seems stable.


With timings like that it must be b-die 8gb dimms, I need help with hynix mjr (16gb dimms).

I've re-read the dram tuning guide and since lowered tRC to 66 and tWR to 12, not sure what else to do...


----------



## rares495

upgraditus said:


> Recently picked up a 32GB (2x16) kit of Viper Steel 3600C18 which I expected to be dual rank cjr but turned out to be mjr (H5ANAG8NMJR-VKC). Really whack tRFC listed on the SPD @ 991? Fails to boot @ 620, bluescreened @ 640, seems stable @ 680. They're not in the calc so don't really know what I'm doing...
> Here's where I'm at so far, any help fine tuning would be appreciated:


Yeah, that memory needs to stop existing. You need to return it or sell it asap.


----------



## upgraditus

rares495 said:


> Yeah, that memory needs to stop existing. You need to return it or sell it asap.


The kit was £105, cheapest b-die 32gb kits are like £250... is it worth 2.5x cost for 10-15%?


----------



## rares495

upgraditus said:


> The kit was £105, cheapest b-die 32gb kits are like £250... is it worth 2.5x cost for 10-15%?


Yes. B-die is the best memory and also the easiest to overclock.


----------



## 2600ryzen

I would try to go c16, what voltage are you using?


----------



## 2600ryzen

Looks fine, I don't really know what timings hynix can do but it seems to benchmark good enough. Can trrds-l/tfaw go lower?


----------



## upgraditus

2600ryzen said:


> Looks fine, I don't really know what timings hynix can do but it seems to benchmark good enough. Can trrds-l/tfaw go lower?


Cheers, down to 4/6/36 respectively though little to no gains. tfaw 28 saw lower scores and 1 error in hci in < 5mins.


----------



## Farih

Anyone knows why my Membench score's are so bad?

Aida scores seem in line with the RAM settings but Membench does not.
I was expecting somewhere around 105sec. for Membech, 121sec. seems way of.


----------



## 2600ryzen

Farih said:


> Anyone knows why my Membench score's are so bad?
> 
> Aida scores seem in line with the RAM settings but Membench does not.
> I was expecting somewhere around 105sec. for Membech, 121sec. seems way of.



Tried raising vsoc/vddg/vddp by +0.025v?


----------



## Farih

2600ryzen said:


> Tried raising vsoc/vddg/vddp by +0.025v?


Have allready tryed VSOC to 1.15V (1.1V now) VDDP to 1.05V (950mV now) and VDDG to 1.15V (1.025V now)

Tryed Dram voltage up to 1.46V (1.44V now)

Same results


----------



## rares495

Farih said:


> Anyone knows why my Membench score's are so bad?
> 
> Aida scores seem in line with the RAM settings but Membench does not.
> I was expecting somewhere around 105sec. for Membech, 121sec. seems way of.


Is your CPU overclocked?


----------



## Farih

rares495 said:


> Is your CPU overclocked?


Just PBO+Auto OC (hits up to 4450mhz ST and 4275-4325mhz all core non AVX)


----------



## rares495

Farih said:


> Just PBO+Auto OC (hits up to 4450mhz ST and 4275-4325mhz all core)


Hmm you might need a manual OC to reach 105 with that memory.


----------



## Farih

rares495 said:


> Hmm you might need a manual OC to reach 105 with that memory.


Would you say 121sec. is normal for these settings then?
Seems bit of the mark to me compared to others, though Aidia seems fine.


----------



## rares495

Farih said:


> Would you say 121sec. is normal for these settings then?
> Seems bit of the mark to me compared to others, though Aidia seems fine.


I don't know.

Here's what I get with a faster CPU and much faster memory on Auto frequency. 105 with your timings doesn't seem possible without a manual CPU OC.


----------



## Farih

rares495 said:


> I don't know.
> 
> Here's what I get with a faster CPU and much faster memory on Auto frequency. 105 with your timings doesn't seem possible without a manual CPU OC.


Hmm seems your right ,though 121sec. with my settings still doesn't seem right imo.
Maybe it should be around 110-115sec. then.

Ah well, attleast its stable


----------



## mongoled

Farih said:


> Hmm seems your right ,though 121sec. with my settings still doesn't seem right imo.
> Maybe it should be around 110-115sec. then.
> 
> Ah well, attleast its stable


Correct, it is not right.

Have you tried running it from a "cleanish" OS, i.e. running msconfig, disabling all services accept MS services and than going to ""startup" tab in task manager and disabling all startup items, then rebooting ??

It seems something is running in the background and taking resources away from the membench test.

As you should be somwhere around 107-112 with your setup.


----------



## hazium233

I tried to change tactics with CLDO VDDP testing, because it did not seem like sensitivity of 20cycles vs time taken for an iteration was efficient CLDO steps. So I tried something to increase error rate and measure the rate, but it may be the methodology was flawed. 

I used something that was similar to the 3533 Rev E Fast preset, with tRCDRD altered to 18t, and the alternate tRFC (529). Interestingly this seemed to need 9,3 for RDWR, WRRD to not get test 4 errors, I guess latency restored from RCD.

I had read elsewhere that some had success with Karhu to test CLDO VDDP, lowering vdimm to get errors in a reasonable amount of time. But to get at least an error within 500% I had to lower the voltage to only 1.335V. 1.330V did about 10 per 100% at the first stage.

Tested steps were 838, 840, 843, 849, 855, 860, 863, 866, 900, 913, 700, Auto

838 1/507

840 1/506

843 0/812

849 5/500

855 1/695

860 3/574

863 1/725 (BSOD when stopping test)

866 3/510

900 3/529

913 2/525

700 6/530

Auto 3/551

Ran second pass on only 838 and 843. It seemed like 843 had best rate, although 855 and 863 were close (even though BSOD).

Should CLDO VDDP depend at all on ProcODT, other termination, or voltage settings? Or just clock stage?

Or flipped around, does CLDO alter vdimm or SOC voltage requirement? Does it only alter them if it is wrong?

Inserting 843 into a previous profile at ProcODT 48, 1.025 SOC, 1.44 dimm first manifested with bad latency in AIDA. Retrained and it was about like normal and it passed 20 cycles magically. System put to sleep, woke up easily enough.

Restarted, latency was crap. Test 6 error immediately in TM5. Ran AIDA stress with cache + memory and it rebooted in about 7-10s.

Perhaps testing was too skewed by low vdimm. I have a TM5 config that is just test 6 I might try again at higher vdimm. Even with 6,0 for 20cycles, at close to stable settings it doesn't necessarily pick up differences in a timely manner. Maybe will try retest with slightly lower SOC, preserved vdimm using TM5 "me" config.


----------



## Massive

bluechris said:


> Anyone with 4 dualrank b-dies here was able to reach 3733mhz? I ask because im at 3600cl14 1T with 4x16gb and i want to know if its doable.


I have 4x8GB F4-3200C16D-GTZB (2kit)
On B550 and Ryzen [email protected]@1.275v, it booted and ran fine on memtest at CL16-18-18 at 3733Mhz, but somehow I have to raise my CPU voltage to get it stable, so I stayed at 3666Mhz.

Btw I load Dram Calculator v1.7.3 and it gave me BSOD, after I correct the timing and restart again, the DRAM calculator just won't load in my Windows 10 64 bit. It just load and close in task manager.
I only have Windows Defender for antivirus. The problem of Dram calculator loading happened after BSOD, and I can seem to use it again until now.

ANyone experiencing same problem on DRAM Ryzen Calculator v1.7.3 ?


----------



## algida79

Massive said:


> Btw I load Dram Calculator v1.7.3 and it gave me BSOD, after I correct the timing and restart again, the DRAM calculator just won't load in my Windows 10 64 bit. It just load and close in task manager.
> I only have Windows Defender for antivirus. The problem of Dram calculator loading happened after BSOD, and I can seem to use it again until now.
> 
> ANyone experiencing same problem on DRAM Ryzen Calculator v1.7.3 ?


I had the same issue a couple months back. It was caused by OS data corruption (maybe .net binaries/cache), solved by downclocking RAM to safe levels and performing restore to a previous Windows System Restore Point.


----------



## Farih

mongoled said:


> Correct, it is not right.
> 
> Have you tried running it from a "cleanish" OS, i.e. running msconfig, disabling all services accept MS services and than going to ""startup" tab in task manager and disabling all startup items, then rebooting ??
> 
> It seems something is running in the background and taking resources away from the membench test.
> 
> As you should be somwhere around 107-112 with your setup.


All startup items disabled, all non-MS services disabled and killed alot of background tasks before running Membench.

same results


----------



## mongoled

Farih said:


> All startup items disabled, all non-MS services disabled and killed alot of background tasks before running Membench.
> 
> same results


That is very strange.

In the BIOS what options do you have enabled for BGS, BGS-Alt, DRAM Powerdown mode ??

I am not familiar with your motherboard but im sure these values are in your BIOS.

Hopefully someone who is familiar with your mobo can be more helpful .


----------



## Farih

mongoled said:


> That is very strange.
> 
> In the BIOS what options do you have enabled for BGS, BGS-Alt, DRAM Powerdown mode ??
> 
> I am not familiar with your motherboard but im sure these values are in your BIOS.
> 
> Hopefully someone who is familiar with your mobo can be more helpful .


GDM enabled
Power Down Mode disabled.

Cant find BGS and BGS-alt options in BIOS


----------



## mongoled

Farih said:


> GDM enabled
> Power Down Mode disabled.
> 
> Cant find BGS and BGS-alt options in BIOS


Can you download the ZenTimings tool from 

https://zentimings.protonrom.com/ 

and post a screenshot.

Will tell us what those values are set at...

Ive never run that test with GDM enabled so unsure how much that will effect the benchmark, but I would not expect it to be effected by much


----------



## Farih

Seems BGS is disabled and BGS-alt enabled.

Edit:
Odd, says 299mhz FLCK but it says 1900mhz FLCK in BIOS and Ryzen Master.

Edit2:
It goes to 1900mhz FLCK under the slightest load


----------



## mongoled

Farih said:


> Seems BGS is disabled and BGS-alt enabled.
> 
> Edit:
> Odd, says 299mhz FLCK but it says 1900mhz FLCK in BIOS and Ryzen Master.
> 
> Edit2:
> It goes to 1900mhz FLCK under the slightest load


Looks normal.

When I get a chance will run your settings and post my time.

Its on a 3600, but the results will be similar as both CPUs use 1 CCD...


----------



## Veii

Farih said:


> Seems BGS is disabled and BGS-alt enabled.
> 
> Edit:
> Odd, says 299mhz FLCK but it says 1900mhz FLCK in BIOS and Ryzen Master.
> 
> Edit2:
> It goes to 1900mhz FLCK under the slightest load


Push tRDWR to 10
tCWL to 14
The rest is fine

Or as a new set:
tCL 16
tRCD_WR 12
tRCD_RD 16
tRP 14
tRAS 30
tRC 44
tRFC 308-229-141
tRTP 8 or without GDM 7
tWR 14 
tCWL 14
SCL 3
tRDWR 10
tWRRD 4

Same set but lower:
tCL 16
tRCD_WR 8
tRCD_RD 16
tRP 12
tRAS 28
tRC 40
tRFC 280-208-128
tRTP 8 or GDM off 7
tWR 14
tCWL 14
SCL 3
tRDWR 10
tWRRD 2

You'll need to up VDIMM as tRP 12 is harsh (1.46-1.54v)
tRP 14 should need around 1.44-1.48v
tRCD 15 is pretty impossible to get running
tRCD 14 , tCL 14 is only for high binned ICs and needs at minimum 1.54v
Tho if you're brave:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-461.html#post28591018

On all 3 sets, trow voltage at them till they boot up 
They will be stable


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> tRCD 15 is pretty impossible to get running


What do you mean by this ???


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> What do you mean by this ???


As discussion topic in creating better sets of timings from here
https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-463.html#post28591288

Because tWR can't be anything odd, even without GDM
There is no way to go around .5 values if you use odd timings like 15,17,13
You'd have to waste latency somewhere, to offset it
Impossible in the sense, that you can't make "perfect" transition sets *
* see tRFC 228 CL14 set


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> As discussion topic in creating better sets of timings from here
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-463.html#post28591288
> 
> Because tWR can't be anything odd, even without GDM
> There is no way to go around .5 values if you use odd timings like 15,17,13
> You'd have to waste latency somewhere, to offset it
> Impossible in the sense, that you can't make "perfect" transition sets *
> * see tRFC 228 CL14 set


Uggghhhhhhh,

so thats why I cant get this other pair to be stable after consecutive reboots!

I am having to use tC[email protected] and [email protected] (because they are crap compared to my good pair), TM5 is stable, Y-cruncher is stable for over 2 hours,

Reboot, run TM5, get random error, mainly error 1, may crop up once or twice on a 25 cycle pass,

Than reboot run again and TM5 will pass.

:buttkick:

Those setting you asked us to try

14-10-14-12-38-12-228-169-104-6-12

Need silly voltage to run

 

** EDIT **
Error 1 and 6 cropped up on 4th cycle ......

Dropping ClkDrvStr to 20 ohms and re testing.....

** EDIT2 **
Different errors after changing ClkDrvStr, now error after 2nd cycle with 4 and 11 ....

** EDIT3 **
Increasing ClkDrvStr to 24 ohms, dropping voltage to 1.58v

Now on 4th cycle one error 2 followed by error 11, 

going to let this run for a few more cycles to see what else crops up ....

No consistency with regards to error being thrown, change one setting, throws one set of errors, change to another setting throws a different set of errors ........

Error 4 cropped up on 6th cycle, rebooooooooot time .................


----------



## treestar

@mongoled Probably some adjustments bios make every reboot at different temperatures. Do you notice inconsistency at TM5 cycles length? I'm facing same problem currently, trying to lower tRFC. What I noticed is if TM5 runs faster there is a higher chance for random error to pop.


----------



## mongoled

treestar said:


> @mongoled Probably some adjustments bios make every reboot at different temperatures. Do you notice inconsistency at TM5 cycles length? I'm facing same problem currently, trying to lower tRFC. What I noticed is if TM5 runs faster there is a higher chance for random error to pop.


No, times are pretty even, all within 1 to 2 minutes.

Sometime such inconsistencies are just down to voltage, but on the "bad" pair im testing, even using "brute" voltage for the settings is not bringing a solution to the random errors.

Ignore the testing above, thats just for Veii, never going to run those settings 24/7 considering the amount of voltage required!

After I rebooted I pushed vDIMM to 1.63v and now I get a new error, almost straight away on first cycle, its an error 0 than a 10 and after a 4, so voltage does not seem to be solving the issue.....

So four reboots, with small changes in either voltage/cad bus and ive experienced different sets of errors each time


----------



## mongoled

@Farih

Here you go, best I could do.

I score 115.29 secs

So you have a ball park figure, now you need to find someone who has the same motherboard who could tell you if there is some setting I am not aware of that is effecting your score ...


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> Uggghhhhhhh,
> so thats why I cant get this other pair to be stable after consecutive reboots!
> 
> I am having to use [email protected] and [email protected] (because they are crap compared to my good pair), TM5 is stable, Y-cruncher is stable for over 2 hours,
> Reboot, run TM5, get random error, mainly error 1, may crop up once or twice on a 25 cycle pass,
> 
> Than reboot run again and TM5 will pass.
> :buttkick:


Sounds to me like something is wrong with memory training :thinking:


mongoled said:


> Those setting you asked us to try
> 14-10-14-12-38-12-228-169-104-6-12
> Need silly voltage to run
> 
> ** EDIT **
> Error 1 and 6 cropped up on 4th cycle ......
> Dropping ClkDrvStr to 20 ohms and re testing.....
> ** EDIT2 **
> Different errors after changing ClkDrvStr, now error after 2nd cycle with 4 and 11 ....
> ** EDIT3 **
> Increasing ClkDrvStr to 24 ohms, dropping voltage to 1.58v
> Now on 4th cycle one error 2 followed by error 11,
> going to let this run for a few more cycles to see what else crops up ....
> No consistency with regards to error being thrown, change one setting, throws one set of errors, change to another setting throws a different set of errors ........
> Error 4 cropped up on 6th cycle, rebooooooooot time .................


Silly Extreme Set needs Silly Voltages 
I got it confirmed to be stable with GDM Enabled, but it was impossible with GDM off  
He needed 1.54v (was able to post with 1.52 but was unstable)

rares needed 1.58v to even post with them
I think this Set is usable as binning checker now 
But to be honest, tRCD_RD 14 flat while technically down to tRCD 12 as avg, is extreme  
even more on 3800MT/s - while it would work well enough on 3600MT/s too
~ actually, MT/s wouldn't even matter. The set is in perfect sync.
tRRD_ tWTR_ SLC & tRDWR depend on your IC density and PCB anyways

tCL 16 set above should work well too
But i have to finish the remain ones.
Try again maybe with higher SCL and GDM enabled. 
For reference:

still haven't gotten a GDM off successful result. Only GDM enabled
EDIT: 
You might wanna try 3600MT/s
or even 3200MT/s :evo:
tRCD 14 is hard to run, i know that


----------



## 2600ryzen

mongoled said:


> No, times are pretty even, all within 1 to 2 minutes.
> 
> Sometime such inconsistencies are just down to voltage, but on the "bad" pair im testing, even using "brute" voltage for the settings is not bringing a solution to the random errors.
> 
> Ignore the testing above, thats just for Veii, never going to run those settings 24/7 considering the amount of voltage required!
> 
> After I rebooted I pushed vDIMM to 1.63v and now I get a new error, almost straight away on first cycle, its an error 0 than a 10 and after a 4, so voltage does not seem to be solving the issue.....
> 
> So four reboots, with small changes in either voltage/cad bus and ive experienced different sets of errors each time



Have you tried raising soc/vddg/vddp voltage? I had this issue where memory trained different rebooting sometimes because I was using too low vsoc.


----------



## mongoled

All my issues must be to do with memory training.

Ive just recovered my good set saved memory settings and have tested to see if they are still stable with the old settings and they are not.

The settings in my sig, had been thouroughly tested across many successive reboots, warm/cold, shutdown cycles and everytime I tested them they would be TM5 stable and Y-Cruncher stables, as well as with everything else I threw at them.

Since playing around with a different pair of memory modules that stability is gone out the window.

Its enough to drive someone mad



Now to dial in setting one by one to see if I can get the mobo to do the "correct" memory training


----------



## mongoled

2600ryzen said:


> Have you tried raising soc/vddg/vddp voltage? I had this issue where memory trained different rebooting sometimes because I was using too low vsoc.


There are many things I could try!

Just that this only happens when I swap round modules.

When I didnt swap round modules there were no issues at all .......


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> There are many things I could try!
> Just that this only happens when I swap round modules.
> When I didnt swap round modules there were no issues at all .......


Don't you have this option ? 








Or MBIST & Data Eye mode ~ also inside AMD CBS


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Don't you have this option ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or MBIST & Data Eye mode ~ also inside AMD CBS


Yes, I have that option.

Has always been on "Auto".

I should set it to 10 ??


----------



## Farih

Veii said:


> Push tRDWR to 10
> tCWL to 14
> The rest is fine
> 
> Or as a new set:
> tCL 16
> tRCD_WR 12
> tRCD_RD 16
> tRP 14
> tRAS 30
> tRC 44
> tRFC 308-229-141
> tRTP 8 or without GDM 7
> tWR 14
> tCWL 14
> SCL 3
> tRDWR 10
> tWRRD 4
> 
> Same set but lower:
> tCL 16
> tRCD_WR 8
> tRCD_RD 16
> tRP 12
> tRAS 28
> tRC 40
> tRFC 280-208-128
> tRTP 8 or GDM off 7
> tWR 14
> tCWL 14
> SCL 3
> tRDWR 10
> tWRRD 2
> 
> You'll need to up VDIMM as tRP 12 is harsh (1.46-1.54v)
> tRP 14 should need around 1.44-1.48v
> tRCD 15 is pretty impossible to get running
> tRCD 14 , tCL 14 is only for high binned ICs and needs at minimum 1.54v
> Tho if you're brave:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...memory-stability-thread-461.html#post28591018
> 
> On all 3 sets, trow voltage at them till they boot up
> They will be stable


Sadly i cant play alot with Dram voltage anymore (heat)  1.45V is about the max i can do atm (at 1.44V now)
Whats the advantage of setting tRDWR to a higher value and tCWL to a lower?
What is there correlation?

I'm ok with my RAM settings for now (until i get some RAM cooling)
Just wondering why Membench score's kinda low. (Aida does seem to score inline to my settings)


----------



## dgoc18

is there new update coming 1.74 for new AGESA ComboAm4PI 1.0.0.6 BIOS?
thanks.


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> Yes, I have that option.
> 
> Has always been on "Auto".
> 
> I should set it to 10 ??


Please replicate them how you see them here
This increases memory training duration 
AGESA 1004 broke memory training, because people where babycrying of too slow post times
Soo it broke memory training for everything that's not Rev.E  

Need to use 10 or A , with the above options enabled
To restore proper memory training


Farih said:


> Sadly i cant play alot with Dram voltage anymore (heat)  1.45V is about the max i can do atm (at 1.44V now)
> Whats the advantage of setting tRDWR to a higher value and tCWL to a lower?
> What is there correlation?
> 
> I'm ok with my RAM settings for now (until i get some RAM cooling)
> Just wondering why Membench score's kinda low. (Aida does seem to score inline to my settings)


You never know how much you need until you try

Correlation is -1 tCWL = +1 tRDWR
Also tRC formula:
tRCD_WR+tWR+4+tCWL 

Soo lowering tCWL would help the set
It still is not perfect, as tRAS is not tRCD+tCL
But as you used tRCD+tWR+tBL it can run stable , just it's not perfect

Fixing tCWL will help the set a bit,
Or just trying the first "easier to run" one i posted above should be in perfect sync 

I was always for pushing tRDWR low
But tCWL can be used now for better usecases than just increasing bandwidth a bit. Aka it can be used for tRC calculation


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Please replicate them how you see them here
> This increases memory training duration
> AGESA 1004 broke memory training, because people where babycrying of too slow post times
> Soo it broke memory training for everything that's not Rev.E
> 
> Need to use 10 or A , with the above options enabled
> To restore proper memory training


Interesting


----------



## Joseph_89

Hi Guys,

New Ryzen User here. Got my RAM already tweaked and stable. Now I want to OC Zen 2. What are safe voltages to run on all core OC all day?

My Chip is kinda bad. Needs 1.375V to run @ 4.4 ghz all core. Is this already to high?


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Please replicate them how you see them here
> This increases memory training duration
> AGESA 1004 broke memory training, because people where babycrying of too slow post times
> Soo it broke memory training for everything that's not Rev.E
> 
> Need to use 10 or A , with the above options enabled
> To restore proper memory training
> 
> You never know how much you need until you try
> 
> Correlation is -1 tCWL = +1 tRDWR
> Also tRC formula:
> tRCD_WR+tWR+4+tCWL
> 
> Soo lowering tCWL would help the set
> It still is not perfect, as tRAS is not tRCD+tCL
> But as you used tRCD+tWR+tBL it can run stable , just it's not perfect
> 
> Fixing tCWL will help the set a bit,
> Or just trying the first "easier to run" one i posted above should be in perfect sync
> 
> I was always for pushing tRDWR low
> But tCWL can be used now for better usecases than just increasing bandwidth a bit. Aka it can be used for tRC calculation


Will check tomorrow when I go back to the office.

As previously stated I changed that setting to 10 and saved the BIOS setting.

Am currently on cycle 13 with no errors so far, hopefully it will complete with no error than I can reboot and run TM5 again.

Hopefully that will proove to be the issue ive been plagued with, many many hours could have been lost with pointless "testing" because I didnt pay attention to its importance.

On the plus side, if it is just the memory training that was borked than maybe the other pair of sticks I have are not that bad and your special timings will get another whirl on my good sticks


----------



## Veii

Joseph_89 said:


> Hi Guys,
> New Ryzen User here. Got my RAM already tweaked and stable. Now I want to OC Zen 2. What are safe voltages to run on all core OC all day?
> My Chip is kinda bad. Needs 1.375V to run @ 4.4 ghz all core. Is this already to high?


Allcore loads are up to load type different.
AVX2 allcore voltage is far lower than AVX one, and SSE keeps up maximum boost without degredation
Real maximum voltage you need to figure out by silicon characterics
Every allcore voltage i would tell you is wrong, as it depends on your silicon and CCX "rating".
Just again only the FIT module would know this

Check this thread and the linked thread, with another linked thread
This should get you going into finding out your FIT voltage for each CCX & the quality of each core
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ii-overclocking-thread-1201.html#post28555614
Or just wait for 1usmus to publicly release his ClockTunerRyzen tool which auto overclocks the units 
Yet, an experienced user can do better than an automated program, soo get to know your silicon first and be sure PBO is off
How to use PBO and by how much to limit it, is a whole other topic ~ but or this you need to know your silicon, else you only lose performance by the overvolt

EDIT:
To answer the question directly
Safe AC voltage is near 1.2875v and Boost Peak voltage is 1.485v ~ although better at 1.48 resulting in 1.479vCore
*^* Zen2 *7nm*
* just maximum AC voltage depends on only your own silicon and the workload you throw at it


mongoled said:


> Hopefully that will proove to be the issue ive been plagued with, many many hours could have been lost with pointless "testing" because I didnt pay attention to its importance.
> On the plus side, if it is just the memory training that was borked than maybe the other pair of sticks I have are not that bad and your special timings will get another whirl on my good sticks


I wish you very good luck on that CL14, tRCD 14 set 
But maybe 3734MT/s with that set could outperform 3800 ones 

CL16 first one posted here should be solid too.
tWR 14 is not thaat low, but it's realistic at least
CL14 with tRCD 16 try will come tomorrow *, but tRCD 15 set won't work.
I mean it does work, but it won't be such a set that follows _all_ of the rulesets
Nothing bad against our old and current methods, but this current set calculation is just better in anything 

I noticed, Ryzen master does allow tWR to be odd if GDM is disabled
But only RM overrides it
Maybe AMD CBS via hex could let that pass too :thinking:
Will need to investigate. Hopefully manufactures will fix also that tiny bug and allow us to use ODD values there
* Hmm, probably would need to get a Micron.Rev E type of set with tRCD 18 also to be made :thinking: 
we'll see who can play testing rabbit on that one


----------



## Joseph_89

Ok. Thanks dude. Will try that guide out.


----------



## kratosatlante

mongoled said:


> All my issues must be to do with memory training.
> 
> Ive just recovered my good set saved memory settings and have tested to see if they are still stable with the old settings and they are not.
> 
> The settings in my sig, had been thouroughly tested across many successive reboots, warm/cold, shutdown cycles and everytime I tested them they would be TM5 stable and Y-Cruncher stables, as well as with everything else I threw at them.
> 
> Since playing around with a different pair of memory modules that stability is gone out the window.
> 
> Its enough to drive someone mad
> 
> 
> 
> Now to dial in setting one by one to see if I can get the mobo to do the "correct" memory training



It happened to me when changing the slot sticks, you should know which stick of your kit is the fastest and place it in the slot closest to your cpu if you have 4


----------



## Synoxia

I've gone back to 16gb because 1 kit of ram was defective. What do you think am realistically going to extract from 3200c14 tridentz rgb (usual b-die) rev 2019? I think it's a bad bin because i can only post 3800c16 with 18 trcdrd


----------



## treestar

Veii said:


> AGESA 1004 broke memory training, because people where babycrying of too slow post times
> Soo it broke memory training for everything that's not Rev.E


Is this valid for 5xx boards with latest AGESA's?


----------



## Veii

treestar said:


> Is this valid for 5xx boards with latest AGESA's?


Yes 
Even valid on 1002v2 AGESA (after 1006)
Memory training improved in accuracy, but the short delay still is an issue

Boards don't matter when the AGESA just forces very short training delays
Early on Boards didn't even know what CL12 was without that fix.
It's always been a mess, but recently a bigger one
TR4/sTR4 is also affected


----------



## mongoled

kratosatlante said:


> It happened to me when changing the slot sticks, you should know which stick of your kit is the fastest and place it in the slot closest to your cpu if you have 4


Thats good advice, though ive been through this before and had physically numbered each stick of ram 1 & 2 so that I cant mix them up and place them in the ""wrong" slots.

So when I replaced the dimms I know they are in the same place they were before I took them out.



Veii said:


> Allcore loads are up to load type different.
> AVX2 allcore voltage is far lower than AVX one, and SSE keeps up maximum boost without degredation
> Real maximum voltage you need to figure out by silicon characterics
> Every allcore voltage i would tell you is wrong, as it depends on your silicon and CCX "rating".
> Just again only the FIT module would know this
> 
> Check this thread and the linked thread, with another linked thread
> This should get you going into finding out your FIT voltage for each CCX & the quality of each core
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...ii-overclocking-thread-1201.html#post28555614
> Or just wait for 1usmus to publicly release his ClockTunerRyzen tool which auto overclocks the units
> Yet, an experienced user can do better than an automated program, soo get to know your silicon first and be sure PBO is off
> How to use PBO and by how much to limit it, is a whole other topic ~ but or this you need to know your silicon, else you only lose performance by the overvolt
> 
> EDIT:
> To answer the question directly
> Safe AC voltage is near 1.2875v and Boost Peak voltage is 1.485v ~ although better at 1.48 resulting in 1.479vCore
> *^* Zen2 *7nm*
> * just maximum AC voltage depends on only your own silicon and the workload you throw at it
> 
> I wish you very good luck on that CL14, tRCD 14 set
> But maybe 3734MT/s with that set could outperform 3800 ones
> 
> CL16 first one posted here should be solid too.
> tWR 14 is not thaat low, but it's realistic at least
> CL14 with tRCD 16 try will come tomorrow *, but tRCD 15 set won't work.
> I mean it does work, but it won't be such a set that follows _all_ of the rulesets
> Nothing bad against our old and current methods, but this current set calculation is just better in anything
> 
> I noticed, Ryzen master does allow tWR to be odd if GDM is disabled
> But only RM overrides it
> Maybe AMD CBS via hex could let that pass too :thinking:
> Will need to investigate. Hopefully manufactures will fix also that tiny bug and allow us to use ODD values there
> * Hmm, probably would need to get a Micron.Rev E type of set with tRCD 18 also to be made :thinking:
> we'll see who can play testing rabbit on that one


Didnt make any headway.

To answer your questions from before

DFE Read Training was on "Auto"
FFE Write Training was on "Auto"

Last night, while these two values were on "Auto" I successfully completed a full 25 cycle TM5 with no errors.

I then rebooted, and after cycle 7 error 0 and then 1 cropped up, so I switched off the PC

This morning I have set those values to enabled, dropped mclk/fclk down one notch, rebooted twice, than put mclk/fclk back up one notch, rebooted twice.

Unfortunately TM5 is throwing errors.

I didnt pull the power from the PSU so will do that now and see if anything changes ...

** EDIT **
So the conclusion is that my motherboard has a mind of its own



Soooooooooooooo

I knew that I "needed" the following settings for the overclock in my sig

ProcODT: 28 ohms
vSOC: 1.055 v
vDDG IOD: 1.015 v
vDDG CCD: 1.010 v
ClkDrvStrength: 20 ohms
vDIMM: 1.550 v

Now as mentioned before, this has/had been tested extensively, but the memory training settings were on "auto" which in latest agesa is borked. 

ClkDrvStrength of 20 ohms with these A2 Viper Sticks is definately not the norm, but its what worked and was stable.

Back to my issues, after spending copulous hours trying different things without getting stable results after consecutive reboots I did the following.

Upped ProcODT to 34.3 ohm
Upped vSOC: 1.070 v
Upped vDDG IOD: 1.020 v
Upped vDDG CCD: 1.015 v
Upped ClkDrvStrength: 60 ohms

Have now run two passed TM5 25 cycles before and then after reboot, not using BCLK just basic 3800/1900

Now I am running my sig settings, BCLK 107.6525 with 3533/1767, giving 3800/1900.

So far on cycle 12 no errors, than will reboot and run again, providing there are no errors.

Why this happens, I have not got a clue, 

borked memory training that just happened to hit the right values when using ProcODT 28 ohms and ClkDrvStrength 20 ohm, dunno.

ProcODT 34.3 ohms and ClkDrvStrength 60 ohm, is what is expected.

Finger crossed ....


----------



## reqq

how important is Soc LLC when overclocking the memory? Also can someone tell me if NB LLC on MSI is for the Soc.


----------



## rares495

reqq said:


> how important is Soc LLC when overclocking the memory? Also can someone tell me if NB LLC on MSI is for the Soc.





NB LLC is SOC LLC, yes. I leave it on auto.


----------



## rastaviper

Farih said:


> Sadly i cant play alot with Dram voltage anymore (heat)  1.45V is about the max i can do atm (at 1.44V now)
> 
> Whats the advantage of setting tRDWR to a higher value and tCWL to a lower?
> 
> What is there correlation?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ok with my RAM settings for now (until i get some RAM cooling)
> 
> Just wondering why Membench score's kinda low. (Aida does seem to score inline to my settings)


As long as you keep these 16-16-16, don't expect much to change.
You need to drop them to 15-15-15 and tune the other subtimings to expect better results 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## hardwarelimits

What's up ! Been wondering what is the TRFC2 And TRFC4 formula?


----------



## treestar

Veii said:


> Boards don't matter when the AGESA just forces very short training delays


Couldn't find those settings anywhere in MSI BIOS, although found "memory fast boot" - could it be the same thing? Nvm found it on the bottom of dram timings. Didn't notice any increase in boot or post time.


----------



## nick name

treestar said:


> Couldn't find those settings anywhere in MSI BIOS, although found "memory fast boot" - could it be the same thing?


Memory fast boot skips training entirely if I'm not mistaken. I think it's something you turn on after you find your very stable memory settings.


----------



## jfrob75

Hey all,
Here is my latest timings with 4 rank 2 DIMMs at 1.54 volts. I am able to pass TM5 for 9 cycles. Run out of patience as it takes about 15min/cycle. Initially when running any sort of memory test the max DIMM temperature would reach around 61 deg C. So, I installed a 120mm over the top of the memory and I am now able to keep the max DIMM temp under 45 deg C when testing memory. Any feedback on further improvements would be much appreciated.


Spoiler


----------



## mrsteelx

hardwarelimits said:


> What's up ! Been wondering what is the TRFC2 And TRFC4 formula?


trfc 264 trfc2 196 trfc4 121

(tRFC / 1.346), and tRFC4 should be (tRFC2 / 1.625)


----------



## treestar

nick name said:


> Memory fast boot skips training entirely if I'm not mistaken. I think it's something you turn on after you find your very stable memory settings.


It was enabled by default


----------



## mongoled

jfrob75 said:


> Hey all,
> Here is my latest timings with 4 rank 2 DIMMs at 1.54 volts. I am able to pass TM5 for 9 cycles. Run out of patience as it takes about 15min/cycle. Initially when running any sort of memory test the max DIMM temperature would reach around 61 deg C. So, I installed a 120mm over the top of the memory and I am now able to keep the max DIMM temp under 45 deg C when testing memory. Any feedback on further improvements would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 369024
> 
> 
> View attachment 369026


You want to start from a solid base right ?

So I would suggest you find some patience and run it for 25 cycles, reboot and run it for another 25 cycles, then if its stable, anyone who would like to help you knows that at least you have a solid base to tweak from!

9 cycles is not really enough


----------



## rares495

Some tuesday evening fun to test FCLK vs latency in Aida64. My conclusion is that lower FCLK is impossible to offset even with very tight timings. It's obvious if you compare the first 3 screenshots with my daily timings in screenshot 4. I also seem to have hit a latency wall at 61 ns. @Veii thoughts?

PS: Don't ask about the voltages. You don't want to know. 

PS2: Ignore the read/write/copy/cache numbers. Tests were done on two cores.


----------



## mongoled

VDIMM ??


----------



## dspx

Hey guys, I got a B550 motherboard but there is no option for it in the calculator. @1usmus should I use a B450 setting?


----------



## pipes

rares495 said:


> Some tuesday evening fun to test FCLK vs latency in Aida64. My conclusion is that lower FCLK is impossible to offset even with very tight timings. It's obvious if you compare the first 3 screenshots with my daily timings in screenshot 4. I also seem to have hit a latency wall at 61 ns. @Veii thoughts?
> 
> PS: Don't ask about the voltages. You don't want to know.
> 
> PS2: Ignore the read/write/copy/cache numbers. Tests were done on two cores.


Vdimm and vcore?


----------



## pipes

I try this until change to intel i7 10700k or 3800xt
one is with overclock cpu and other without overclock cpu that take more in read performance ram


----------



## garych

dspx said:


> Hey guys, I got a B550 motherboard but there is no option for it in the calculator. @1usmus should I use a B450 setting?


I would assume you need to select X570 option for B550, but I don't think it will matter much.


----------



## hardwarelimits

mrsteelx said:


> trfc 264 trfc2 196 trfc4 121
> 
> (tRFC / 1.346), and tRFC4 should be (tRFC2 / 1.625)


Thanks for help, cheers


----------



## b0ne

Is it normal that AIDA64 Cache & Memory Benchmark gets varying results on each run for L2 Write and whole L3 row? Is there some other more sure way to compare timing/voltage changes?


----------



## Veii

hardwarelimits said:


> What's up ! Been wondering what is the TRFC2 And TRFC4 formula?
> 
> 
> mrsteelx said:
> 
> 
> 
> trfc 264 trfc2 196 trfc4 121
> (tRFC / 1.346), and tRFC4 should be (tRFC2 / 1.625)
Click to expand...

Do not continue tRFC calculation from already calculated rounded result
This will just increase the chance of rounding mistakes

Use formula:
tRFC2 = tRFC / 1.346
tRFC4 = tRFC / 2.1875

And if you want to be extra sure,
You use tRFCns and calculate it freshly before you even use rounded virtual tRFC number
*( (*tRFCns*MT/s*)* / 2000*)* / 2.1875 for tRFC4
or just 
*(*tRFCns*MT/s*)* / 2000 for tRFC

tRFC 264 is perfect for tRC 44
You use 48
44 only remains stable as alt tRFC ruleset is:
tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
16+12+4+12 = 44
check the formula's here 

It's stable but it continues to timebreak tRC length at best, or waits till tRC has passed and postpones one tRFC cycle
You can try to lower tRC to 44, and just keep it that way
It will break old tRAS+tRP formula, but as you've technicaly used tRC 44 the whole time ~ it should pass
If it's unstable, then tRC never was time breaked and you always lost 140ns while this 264 tRFC was always postponed once ~ as trigger timings missmatched


----------



## Solohuman

Could I please get confirmation that this ram is classed as Samsung B die?


----------



## rares495

Solohuman said:


> Could I please get confirmation that this ram is classed as Samsung B die?



It's B-die.


----------



## Farih

@Veii

Changed tRDWR and tCWL as you said.

Scores didnt change and Membench still seems off for my settings


----------



## Solohuman

rares495 said:


> It's B-die.


Yeah, that's what I thought but seen posts on here about TB not reading SPD properly so just wanted to check.
In any case the DRAM calc is throwing up errors in "safe" settings for a measly 3066 OC. I followed the recommendations & system would not boot. 
Had to manually clear CMOS with old skool jumper!
Only way to boot was have literally everything on auto!


----------



## mongoled

Farih said:


> @Veii
> 
> Changed tRDWR and tCWL as you said.
> 
> Scores didnt change and Membench still seems off for my settings


Can you experiment with different ProcODT ?

While troubleshooting ive found that TM5 finishes faster (up to 4-5 mins when using 25 cycles) when using a ProcODT of 34.3 ohms in comparisson to 28 ohms that I was previously using, im still to test this with membench but thought it may be something easy to try.

You may have to play with vSOC as well.

Should be a quick an easy test to do


----------



## Farih

mongoled said:


> Can you experiment with different ProcODT ?
> 
> While troubleshooting ive found that TM5 finishes faster (up to 4-5 mins when using 25 cycles) when using a ProcODT of 34.3 ohms in comparisson to 28 ohms that I was previously using, im still to test this with membench but thought it may be something easy to try.
> 
> You may have to play with vSOC as well.
> 
> Should be a quick an easy test to do


A lower ProcODT then 40ohm you mean?

Played with all voltages allready, no changes


----------



## mongoled

Farih said:


> A lower ProcODT then 40ohm you mean?
> 
> Played with all voltages allready, no changes


Down, up, whatever, thats why I said "play" to see if there are any differences .......

And ProcODT is specifically tied with vSOC.

Thats why I didnt say play with any voltages, but specifically vSOC in tandem, with Proc ODT


----------



## reqq

rares495 said:


> NB LLC is SOC LLC, yes. I leave it on auto.


You have some nice mem overclock. Have you changed any oher power settings to make that stable? Just timings and 1.52 dram v?


----------



## rares495

reqq said:


> You have some nice mem overclock. Have you changed any oher power settings to make that stable? Just timings and 1.52 dram v?



Yeah, just the DRAM voltage.


----------



## Joseph_89

What Can I improve? Runs stable @ 1.46V










If I try tCL 14 even @ 1.54V it shows errors when testing.


----------



## Sphex_

Farih said:


> @*Veii*
> 
> Changed tRDWR and tCWL as you said.
> 
> Scores didnt change and Membench still seems off for my settings


It seems like you and I have an extremely similar kit. 

I think part of our problem is trying to set the primary timings lower than 16. As soon as I do that with my kit, the computer can't even POST. I just chalked it up to having a lower binned B-Die kit, which is most likely the case, at least for me, with a 3466 CL16 kit. But perhaps there's a secret to these kits to get them to perform better. Either way, with your settings, you're actually achieving better latency and bandwidth than me. I don't think we're going to get near the best latencies, times, etc. without being able to lower the primary timings to 15 or 14 like some of the people at the top of this chart.


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> It seems like you and I have an extremely similar kit.
> 
> I think part of our problem is trying to set the primary timings lower than 16. As soon as I do that with my kit, the computer can't even POST. I just chalked it up to having a lower binned B-Die kit, which is most likely the case, at least for me, with a 3466 CL16 kit. But perhaps there's a secret to these kits to get them to perform better. Either way, with your settings, you're actually achieving better latency and bandwidth than me. I don't think we're going to get near the best latencies, times, etc. without being able to lower the primary timings to 15 or 14 like some of the people at the top of this chart.


First step is accepting the fact that you're going to have to go beyond 1.5V and get proper cooling on the modules.


----------



## mongoled

See that rogue result is still top of that chart....


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> See that rogue result is still top of that chart....


The sheet owner doesn't seem to care that it is a fake result.


----------



## jfrob75

Hey all,
I received a new G-Skill memory set yesterday, which is the F4-3600C16Q-64GTZN. So far I have been able OC them to 3733 MHz easier than my previous 4 DIMMS and with a DRAM voltage of 1.48V.
TM5 with 20 cycles passes and so does AIDA64 stress test for cache and memory simultaneously. So for me the stability should be no issue but time will tell.



Spoiler


----------



## rares495

jfrob75 said:


> Hey all,
> I received a new G-Skill memory set yesterday, which is the F4-3600C16Q-64GTZN. So far I have been able OC them to 3733 MHz easier than my previous 4 DIMMS and with a DRAM voltage of 1.48V.
> TM5 with 20 cycles passes and so does AIDA64 stress test for cache and memory simultaneously. So for me the stability should be no issue but time will tell.


Try to see if you can pass 20 cycles again after lowering these:

tRC 44
tRFC 224
tRFC2 166
tRFC4 102
tCWL 12
tRRDS 4
tRRDL 4
tWTRS 4
tWTRL 8
tRDWR 10
tWRRD 1
tRDRDSCL 2
tWRWRSCL 2


----------



## jfrob75

rares495 said:


> Try to see if you can pass 20 cycles again after lowering these:
> 
> tRC 44
> tRFC 224
> tRFC2 166
> tRFC4 102
> tCWL 12
> tRRDS 4
> tRRDL 4
> tWTRS 4
> tWTRL 8
> tRDWR 10
> tWRRD 1
> tRDRDSCL 2
> tWRWRSCL 2


Those might be tough, might require more voltage. I'll think about trying them.


----------



## rares495

jfrob75 said:


> Those might be tough, might require more voltage. I'll think about trying them.


You might as well set the voltage to 1.5V and also push for 3800 if your CPU allows it.


----------



## jfrob75

rares495 said:


> You might as well set the voltage to 1.5V and also push for 3800 if your CPU allows it.


 I tried 3800 with these 4 DIMMs with a VDIMM upto 1.5V, with DOCP timings and it will not POST.
How did you come up with a suggested tRFC value of 224 with an tRC value of 44? It is my understanding tRFC should be 6*tRC which would be 264.


----------



## mongoled

jfrob75 said:


> I tried 3800 with these 4 DIMMs with a VDIMM upto 1.5V, with DOCP timings and it will not POST.
> How did you come up with a suggested tRFC value of 224 with an tRC value of 44? It is my understanding tRFC should be 6*tRC which would be 264.


Go with 264, must have been a typo!

3800 mhz [email protected] you are going to need 1.5x volts, not worth it unless you have great ram cooling.

Stick to tightening 3733, unless you really really want 3800


----------



## rares495

jfrob75 said:


> I tried 3800 with these 4 DIMMs with a VDIMM upto 1.5V, with DOCP timings and it will not POST.
> How did you come up with a suggested tRFC value of 224 with an tRC value of 44? It is my understanding tRFC should be 6*tRC which would be 264.


6*tRC is just one way to calculate out of many. I just set tRFC ns to 120 and that got me 224. Should be no problem @3733 but 264, 196, 121 will work for sure.


----------



## jfrob75

rares495 said:


> 6*tRC is just one way to calculate out of many. I just set tRFC ns to 120 and that got me 224. Should be no problem @3733 but 264, 196, 121 will work for sure.


I tried all your suggestions, except for tRFC which I set to 264, 195, 120, and they all would POST except for tCWL and tWRRD. So I left them at there current settings. At least I am able to boot into windows with these newer values. I will now do some short testing and if they look good will do the 20 cycle TM5 over night. I did bump up the VDIMM to 1.5V regardless if it needed or not.


----------



## Veii

jfrob75 said:


> I tried all your suggestions, except for tRFC which I set to 264, 195, 120, and they all would POST except for tCWL and tWRRD. So I left them at there current settings. At least I am able to boot into windows with these newer values. I will now do some short testing and if they look good will do the 20 cycle TM5 over night. I did bump up the VDIMM to 1.5V regardless if it needed or not.


rare's is correct, but 228 was a typo on 44 
220 and 242 works on 44 but 242 is a bit annoying to work with together with tWR and tRTP 
Suggested multipliers are for clean sync, which require the rest of the values to follow the basic rulesets for baseline results 
Our goal is after all to trigger as less autocorrection as needed ~ while what you can set up in bios is only a fraction of what really happens
Memory autocorrects and optimises itself up to dataset size
Our fixed timings are just baselines aka foundations ~ and so the foundation needs to be accurate and stable without help of autocorrection

That's why rulesets exist 
They aren't there because everything else is wrong (not fully) but they exist to get a clean baseline where anything breaking the rulesets needs excessive testing 
Testing with SiSandra MCE, SuperPi, Aida64, Geekbench, DRAM calculator Membench and Latency Curve
All to introduce different dataset sizes and check how much time this set of memory really needs on this data set, how low the latency there is
^ This is the reason why i push people to use SiSandra MCE test. The results aside, the latency curve is in our main interest.

If you can find a good divider that works with your tRFC grabbed out of thin air ~ go for it
Keep in mind, tRFC scales logarithmic soo:
tRC 48 your stepping is
24 for 1/2
12 1/4th cycle
6 1/8th cycle
3 1/16th 

usually it goes down to 1/32th 
And usually it's 32,16,8,4,2 as intervals.
But as tRC is defining the main and last Refresh Cycle, rather defining the end of it
It makes more sense to scale tRFC by tRC intervals 
Also grabbing research from another part here considering voltage dropout by heat & time
it makes sense to use these fixed multipliers ~ as anything under 6* will be too short and a too small time window

A little advice from me if you work with tRFC,
instead of going through annoying decimal math, just check the difference between 7* and 6* tRC
then half it, soo it's just 5.5 
5.5* happens rarely but it's possible to be covered
Only at the end adapt tRTP to it as clean or clean as possible divider. (Shouldn't have more than 3 or 4 decimals for example 15,125 or 30,25)

tWR being somewhere inside that tRFC target is a good manner to consider
tWR does change a lot memory's performance and delay, more than tRFC values 
But if Write Recovery delay is messed up ~ it will break not only tRFC but also your primaries where rulesets for tRAS and tRC exist together with tWR
Soo keep that one accurate with tRFC 
tRTP is needed to be inside tRFC target as clean divider. But it's size (6,8,10,20) is not thaat much of a issue. It doesn't kill perf if you use 8 instead of 6 for example

tRDWR usually is half of tRCD, sometimes +1 . For dual rank it's always +2
If you go down with tCWL, you need to scale up tRDWR accordingly (-1 = +1)
if 10 doesn't work, just try 11
if that doesn't work , try 12 and if that boots up - try tRDWR 11 with added tWRRD latency 
Informations back then here and here


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> The sheet owner doesn't seem to care that it is a fake result.


I'm the maintainer of that sheet. Apologies for not acting on it sooner. I usually check in most days and make sure that idiots haven't deleted cells and entire rows of previous entries, then sort by latency every Thursday. 

Thank you for pointing out the fake result and I'll be more diligent in the future. Also, labeling it "FAKE" was a nice touch lmao.:thumb:


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> I'm the maintainer of that sheet. Apologies for not acting on it sooner. I usually check in most days and make sure that idiots haven't deleted cells and entire rows of previous entries, then sort by latency every Thursday.
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the fake result and I'll be more diligent in the future. Also, labeling it "FAKE" was a nice touch lmao.:thumb:


Oh, great, thanks for taking it down.


----------



## Yviena

Why is the recommended voltage for fast preset 4x8 SR b-die at 3800mhz A2 PCB preset X570 so low, i need 1.43-1.44v for those settings to be stable.


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> I'm the maintainer of that sheet. Apologies for not acting on it sooner. I usually check in most days and make sure that idiots haven't deleted cells and entire rows of previous entries, then sort by latency every Thursday.
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the fake result and I'll be more diligent in the future. Also, labeling it "FAKE" was a nice touch lmao.:thumb:


The second result was valid though. That was a 3300X I believe and those can go under 60.


----------



## jfrob75

Veii said:


> rare's is correct, but 228 was a typo on 44
> 220 and 242 works on 44 but 242 is a bit annoying to work with together with tWR and tRTP
> Suggested multipliers are for clean sync, which require the rest of the values to follow the basic rulesets for baseline results
> Our goal is after all to trigger as less autocorrection as needed ~ while what you can set up in bios is only a fraction of what really happens
> Memory autocorrects and optimises itself up to dataset size
> Our fixed timings are just baselines aka foundations ~ and so the foundation needs to be accurate and stable without help of autocorrection
> 
> That's why rulesets exist
> They aren't there because everything else is wrong (not fully) but they exist to get a clean baseline where anything breaking the rulesets needs excessive testing
> Testing with SiSandra MCE, SuperPi, Aida64, Geekbench, DRAM calculator Membench and Latency Curve
> All to introduce different dataset sizes and check how much time this set of memory really needs on this data set, how low the latency there is
> ^ This is the reason why i push people to use SiSandra MCE test. The results aside, the latency curve is in our main interest.
> 
> If you can find a good divider that works with your tRFC grabbed out of thin air ~ go for it
> Keep in mind, tRFC scales logarithmic soo:
> tRC 48 your stepping is
> 24 for 1/2
> 12 1/4th cycle
> 6 1/8th cycle
> 3 1/16th
> 
> usually it goes down to 1/32th
> And usually it's 32,16,8,4,2 as intervals.
> But as tRC is defining the main and last Refresh Cycle, rather defining the end of it
> It makes more sense to scale tRFC by tRC intervals
> Also grabbing research from another part here considering voltage dropout by heat & time
> it makes sense to use these fixed multipliers ~ as anything under 6* will be too short and a too small time window
> 
> A little advice from me if you work with tRFC,
> instead of going through annoying decimal math, just check the difference between 7* and 6* tRC
> then half it, soo it's just 5.5
> 5.5* happens rarely but it's possible to be covered
> Only at the end adapt tRTP to it as clean or clean as possible divider. (Shouldn't have more than 3 or 4 decimals for example 15,125 or 30,25)
> 
> tWR being somewhere inside that tRFC target is a good manner to consider
> tWR does change a lot memory's performance and delay, more than tRFC values
> But if Write Recovery delay is messed up ~ it will break not only tRFC but also your primaries where rulesets for tRAS and tRC exist together with tWR
> Soo keep that one accurate with tRFC
> tRTP is needed to be inside tRFC target as clean divider. But it's size (6,8,10,20) is not thaat much of a issue. It doesn't kill perf if you use 8 instead of 6 for example
> 
> tRDWR usually is half of tRCD, sometimes +1 . For dual rank it's always +2
> If you go down with tCWL, you need to scale up tRDWR accordingly (-1 = +1)
> if 10 doesn't work, just try 11
> if that doesn't work , try 12 and if that boots up - try tRDWR 11 with added tWRRD latency
> Informations back then here and here


 The timings that passed TM5 20 cycles (5+ hours) as well as other shorter tests are shown below. Having a matched set of 4 DIMMs certainly seems to be a benefit compared to 2 pairs of identical(by P/N) DIMMs. @ *Veii* : I have SiSandra but not sure what memory test is the one you reference as MCE. Under memory controller there is Overall Memory Score, Memory Bandwidth, Cache & Memory Latency, Cache Bandwidth and Memory Transaction Throughput. Would you please elaborate?


Spoiler


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> The second result was valid though. That was a 3300X I believe and those can go under 60.


Fixed. I misread your note about being able to achieve sub-60ns latencies. 

Feel free to reach out whenever you see something wrong or if you or others have any suggestions. It's sometimes tough to keep the sheet perfect and I've found that as time goes on and the sheet becomes more popular, the further I have to lock things down so people don't screw up entries, sort the sheet, or generally just break the whole document. Trying to view the version history is a nightmare, so reversing big mistakes or vandalism is a time consuming process to say the least. It's probably too late to add new columns or fields for extra info, but for Zen 3, a sheet will be added where we can start fresh.


----------



## Nwanko

Any way to improve this?


----------



## Veii

Sphex_ said:


> Fixed. I misread your note about being able to achieve sub-60ns latencies.
> 
> Feel free to reach out whenever you see something wrong or if you or others have any suggestions. It's sometimes tough to keep the sheet perfect and I've found that as time goes on and the sheet becomes more popular, the further I have to lock things down so people don't screw up entries, sort the sheet, or generally just break the whole document. Trying to view the version history is a nightmare, so reversing big mistakes or vandalism is a time consuming process to say the least. It's probably too late to add new columns or fields for extra info, but for Zen 3, a sheet will be added where we can start fresh.


I wonder why the community started to make 2 sheets
Yours certainly is bigger than i think it was Computerbase's theirs
Let's start by having a strict requirement on results
- We shouldn't accept results without a screenshot proof 
There are many many methods to cheat and lower latency
- I'd like to see an L3 cache field, where latency of this does indicate CPU freq OC and spreading across R/W/Copy depends on the memory 
Amd uses their GameCache™ together with the memory. Same as PAM4 on consoles and current RTX's (and Navi™) does skip that and forwards it directly to VRAM ~ to not only increase cache size, but also increase access time 
Unsure tho if that wouldn't explode the size amount
- Zen 3 will have memory and SOC powerstates, same as Renoir does, just with even more powerstates
We will need an APBDIS field (SOC powerstate), a PPT, TDC, EDC field (if we factor in cpu OC , while the same goes for SOC powerstates)
We will also need Mem-Pstate's 
(But hold that field on WIP so far. I know the option is there & i'm sure it will be used. But no one has a unit to see how much of a benefit is to use different P-States)
- Make like on CB a field for Karhu > 10 000%, and accept only people who used TM5 and their test was longer than >1h 
(written out HCI/Karhu > 10000% or TM5 >1h ~ a checkbox field)

The rest looks to be fine 
More data will only increase the chart size
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKPVfDcFO-aieAOXHFQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM this layout was fine 
but we will have to work with powerstates on the new generation and PPT, TDC, EDC limits
limits can be read out by Ryzen Master and maybe soon ZenTimings , checker

EDIT:
@Sphex_ if you want, you can make a new sheet - without CPU limits
AMD SuperPi 1.5 SX results
Fields would be the same like the memory OC field, just including the windows OS & the time for 32M digits as benchmark result
CPU Name, 32M Time, FCLK, MT/s , timings with screenshots, Dimms and so on 
SuperPi does benchmark memory and cpu freq.
Boosting Cores will change the result as AVG frequency is used
And amount of cores will change the result 
Same as very low latency timings will ~ as the calculation is done inside the memory, well more a back and forth Between L3 and DRAM Cache
Passing that is enough to indicate stability and will take mostly only 8min


jfrob75 said:


> The timings that passed TM5 20 cycles (5+ hours) as well as other shorter tests are shown below. Having a matched set of 4 DIMMs certainly seems to be a benefit compared to 2 pairs of identical(by P/N) DIMMs. @ *Veii* : I have SiSandra but not sure what memory test is the one you reference as MCE. Under memory controller there is Overall Memory Score, Memory Bandwidth, Cache & Memory Latency, Cache Bandwidth and Memory Transaction Throughput. Would you please elaborate?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 369342


Multi Core efficiency test, filtered to local results with a screenshot on the detailed tab ~ the latency curve
Likely the overall memory score could be interesting, but we barely have testing data of such
The latency curve is what interests us ~ when you compare your own sets, as this one doesn't factor in CPU Freq


----------



## jfrob75

Veii said:


> Multi Core efficiency test, filtered to local results with a screenshot on the detailed tab ~ the latency curve
> Likely the overall memory score could be interesting, but we barely have testing data of such
> The latency curve is what interests us ~ when you compare your own sets, as this one doesn't factor in CPU Freq


 Is this what you are looking for?


Spoiler


----------



## Sphex_

Veii said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why the community started to make 2 sheets
> Yours certainly is bigger than i think it was Computerbase's theirs
> Let's start by having a strict requirement on results
> - We shouldn't accept results without a screenshot proof
> There are many many methods to cheat and lower latency
> - I'd like to see an L3 cache field, where latency of this does indicate CPU freq OC and spreading across R/W/Copy depends on the memory
> Amd uses their GameCache™ together with the memory. Same as PAM4 on consoles and current RTX's (and Navi™) does skip that and forwards it directly to VRAM ~ to not only increase cache size, but also increase access time
> Unsure tho if that wouldn't explode the size amount
> - Zen 3 will have memory and SOC powerstates, same as Renoir does, just with even more powerstates
> We will need an APBDIS field (SOC powerstate), a PPT, TDC, EDC field (if we factor in cpu OC , while the same goes for SOC powerstates)
> We will also need Mem-Pstate's
> (But hold that field on WIP so far. I know the option is there & i'm sure it will be used. But no one has a unit to see how much of a benefit is to use different P-States)
> - Make like on CB a field for Karhu > 10 000%, and accept only people who used TM5 and their test was longer than >1h
> (written out HCI/Karhu > 10000% or TM5 >1h ~ a checkbox field)
> 
> The rest looks to be fine
> More data will only increase the chart size
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKPVfDcFO-aieAOXHFQZp15rwWadbPTVDNgO8vtyDCM this layout was fine
> but we will have to work with powerstates on the new generation and PPT, TDC, EDC limits
> limits can be read out by Ryzen Master and maybe soon ZenTimings , checker
> 
> EDIT:
> @*Sphex_* if you want, you can make a new sheet - without CPU limits
> AMD SuperPi 1.5 SX results
> Fields would be the same like the memory OC field, just including the windows OS & the time for 32M digits as benchmark result
> CPU Name, 32M Time, FCLK, MT/s , timings with screenshots, Dimms and so on
> SuperPi does benchmark memory and cpu freq.
> Boosting Cores will change the result as AVG frequency is used
> And amount of cores will change the result
> Same as very low latency timings will ~ as the calculation is done inside the memory, well more a back and forth Between L3 and DRAM Cache
> Passing that is enough to indicate stability and will take mostly only 8min


Awesome suggestions and insight. I've bookmarked it for later when Zen 3 drops. 

I definitely agree that non-screenshotted entries should not be accepted. It's low effort and can lead to fake/false entries. I might flag the entry first with a comment and give a 24 hour grace period before deleting the entry. This should also take care of people submitting results with like 10 minute stress tests and calling them "stable". I like the idea of a checkbox field for a valid, proven RAM stability test like Karhu or TM5. Adding L3 Cache latency and more CPU info is a good idea, I just don't want to clutter up the sheet with more columns and information so I'll have to find a way to sneak the Precision Boost values in there. Shouldn't be a big deal. Again, it's too late to apply some of these changes to the current Zen 2 sheet, but if we start off with these new restrictions and column additions when Zen 3 is released, the right precedent will be set.


----------



## Veii

jfrob75 said:


> Is this what you are looking for?
> 
> 
> Spoiler


The bottom one yes
The tool has several usecases. You can use it to:
- check your timings consistency / you should never score beyond JEDEC results
- check inter- & inner-core latency between CCX and that way verify if something on AGESA was done aka also on PSP firmware to boost perf
- ^ above also to check voltages as sometimes just the right stable set of voltages will score way lower inter-core latency an higher inter-core bandwidth
- Check IPC 
- check frequency to powerdraw value

At the end factoring everything and the compute perf - you'll get out an result in GB/s 
Which is variable and is not thaat useful on >Zen 2 anymore
But for example correct loadline back then will show a jump of 5GB/s 
> 20GB/s is already a big deal and is about the difference you get for a unit which is has 4 more threads

With memory OC and a fully optimised system, you can expect around 30-35GB/s difference and about 20ns less inter-core latency 
(soo around >10% higher IPC boost ~ back then, today the range is even bigger)


----------



## Melan

Question about GDM.

Apparently, I have 3 separate switches for GDM on my MSI B450M Mortar Max. Two of them are in RAM timing section, Command Rate 1T/2T/GDM and Geardown Mode which is greyed out and set to Auto. Third one is in the AMD Overclocking section which was set to Disabled (I didn't change it).

To enable GDM, which setting do I actually have to change. My guess would be it's the Command Rate but I can't tell since this is very confusing.
DRAM calc has CR1 and GDM On in my case.


Edit: Yup. Setting Command Rate to GDM actually enables it. Ze goggles Rest of the settings do nothing apparently.


----------



## Veii

Melan said:


> Question about GDM.
> 
> Apparently, I have 3 separate switches for GDM on my MSI B450M Mortar Max. Two of them are in RAM timing section, Command Rate 1T/2T/GDM and Geardown Mode which is greyed out and set to Auto. Third one is in the AMD Overclocking section which was set to Disabled (I didn't change it).
> 
> To enable GDM, which setting do I actually have to change. My guess would be it's the Command Rate but I can't tell since this is very confusing.
> DRAM calc has CR1 and GDM On in my case.
> 
> 
> Edit: Yup. Setting Command Rate to GDM actually enables it. Ze goggles Rest of the settings do nothing apparently.


Command Rate 1T & 2T are GDM disabled
GDM enabled can only be it's own command rate.


----------



## HowYesNo

just a quick help needed.
ryzen 3700X, x570 taichi, g.skill F4-3600C18D-16GTZRX.
what numbers do i input in calculator on the lover left side in memory description.
i need to import that from taiphoon burner?? ram is samsung b-die, what about PCB revision and timings below motherboard selection? tnkas


----------



## chitos123

@Veii

tRDWR = tRCD RD/2

This image is people who complete TM5 20 cycle + HCI 2000%
Both use the tRDWR 8

What do you think of this result?
i don't know why this setting can stabilize 😊
maybe tFAW or tRFC are cause ?



Spoiler


----------



## Dash8Q4

Is this a good overclock?
My kit is Team Group Pro Dark 3200CL14, 16GB.


----------



## Pictus

@Veii

Looks like the new Ryzen 4000 Vermeer will be able to deal with faster RAM like 4000MHz.
Building a Ryzen 3000 now and waiting for the new CPUs to arrive, but what about RAM?
What would be better, Crucial 2x32 3600MHz or Crucial 4x16 4000MHz ?
The 4x16 4000MHz modules are the great Micron E-die 8gbt chips and the 2x32 3600MHz 
are Micron new 16gbt B-die, the old Micron 8gbt B-die are not much good...
Thanks!!


----------



## KedarWolf

On Ryzen 2 DIMMs generally do better than 4 DIMMs because the motherboards are Daisy Chain and overclock better with two DIMMs.


----------



## Veii

chitos123 said:


> @Veii
> 
> tRDWR = tRCD RD/2
> 
> This image is people who complete TM5 20 cycle + HCI 2000%
> Both use the tRDWR 8
> 
> What do you think of this result?
> i don't know why this setting can stabilize 😊
> maybe tFAW or tRFC are cause ?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2458533


This should help you/him as JEDEC reference








They are "newer" C-Dies although timings are big
The result he got is quite great - might even be able to lower tWTR_S down to 3 tWTR_L 9

Reading specs of them, their tCWL scales in -3 to -4 steps


Spoiler: CWL Scale














The only reason why tRDWR (12) -4 works, is because tCWL is high
For tCL 18 it should be either 14 or 16
Dual rank need usually tRCD/2 + 2
But when tCWL is high, you can lower tRDWR and the opposite

He/She/You should try tFAW 26 with your set
JEDEC states it's * 6.66667 of tRRD_S for this set
That factors in that your tRRD_S is correct
6-10, 5-8,4-6 looks to be correct for them

tWR is very low on his side
Never worked with C-die sadly, soo i can only go from JEDEC scaling

Let him try if


> RTT_NOM = RZQ/6 (40 Ohm in MR1);
> RTT_WR = RZQ/2 (120 Ohm in MR2);
> RTT_PARK = Disable;


^ can boot up for this capacity

tRFC Scaling looks to be just about *8 tRC which works well for them


Pictus said:


> @Veii
> 
> Looks like the new Ryzen 4000 Vermeer will be able to deal with faster RAM like 4000MHz.
> Building a Ryzen 3000 now and waiting for the new CPUs to arrive, but what about RAM?
> What would be better, Crucial 2x32 3600MHz or Crucial 4x16 4000MHz ?
> The 4x16 4000MHz modules are the great Micron E-die 8gbt chips and the 2x32 3600MHz
> are Micron new 16gbt B-die, the old Micron 8gbt B-die are not much good...
> Thanks!!
> 
> 
> KedarWolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Ryzen 2 DIMMs generally do better than 4 DIMMs because the motherboards are Daisy Chain and overclock better with two DIMMs.
Click to expand...

This is true but even Renoir scales beyond 4000MT/s
Hmm,
I remember there where new versions of Hynix and Micron Kits
New versions of Micron Rev.E used to hit the 6666MT/s record (ballistix Max)
and "newer" Hynix DJR which are a bit better CJR, used to hit 6665.4MT/s ~ both by BIANBAO on HWBot
They look loose - soo i am not sure if our old Viper 4400CL19-19 won't be a good option for Enthusiasts without going XOC
CJR and DJR love voltage near 1.6-1.7 range
Micron ones only scale beyond 1.62, else with max 1.46v

Hard to say on high capacity,
Samsung has new EUV UDIMMs but nothing was seen so far
Both Hynix-DJR & Micron Rev.E are good options ~ but only if you OC high
We don't know current fabric dividers, to say which MT/s speed is to target
On Renoir only beyond 5000 it makes sense to use 1:2 mode
On Vermeer likely even far beyond that - soo unsure
SR remains with B-dies, DR it's unclear so far ~ i'm sorry

Also +1 to KedarWolf
4 Dimms on Daisy Chain, without any ability to give both "Chain's/Channels" individual mem-voltage, will cause you issues
4x A2 & B2 PCB on Daisy Chain is a pain, and A0/B0 is fine, but fails near 4100MT/s

EDIT:
The Crucial Ballistix Max appear to be on A3/B3 PCB according to pictures
Or some own custom A2 variance with straight traces


----------



## HowYesNo

wasn't there an option i calc to read XMP setting before?
i get these numbers from taiphoon burner?? export in html an than import here??
thanks for help.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

HowYesNo said:


> wasn't there an option i calc to read XMP setting before?
> i get these numbers from taiphoon burner?? export in html an than import here??
> thanks for help.
> 
> View attachment 2458712


Yes with the button below, Import XMP.
You can generate a report with Taiphoon Burner, click the button Report in the action bar.
Scroll down the report you see in the main window to the bottom, click "Show delays in nanoseconds" (it will show then "Show delays in clock cycles").
Finally go to File -> Export to.. -> Complete HTML Report and save the file.
Load this report when you click on the Import XMP button.
If you need help it's also useful to upload here the report.


----------



## HowYesNo

thanks for quick reply.
here is that report. so it is samsung b-die? i just import this in calculator, an try safe. hwinfo reads 40/41C on modules in idle, that ok??


----------



## ManniX-ITA

HowYesNo said:


> thanks for quick reply.
> here is that report. so it is samsung b-die? i just import this in calculator, an try safe. hwinfo reads 40/41C on modules in idle, that ok??


Yes it's Samsung, the temperature is normal.
You should check after running TM5 for 10 mins.
Single Rank, can probably be squeezed well


----------



## HowYesNo

ManniX-ITA said:


> s



TM5? link?

got it.


----------



## KedarWolf

HowYesNo said:


> TM5? link?
> 
> got it.


forgot the link. 









Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs


Hello everybody I am just making a very light tutorial with a collection of custom config files and a DOWNLOAD LINK for TM5 v0.12 anta777 absolut config *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread None of the work is mine but it seems like a pretty good and fast testing app




www.overclock.net





This thread has every .cfg for TM5. And for the 1usmus_v3.cfg you want to edit it as well and change it to 20, or even better yet, 25 cycles.

Edit the .cfg file, change Language=1 to Language=0 to make it in English.


----------



## mongoled

You have to take the old URL, look to where it says the page number .html eg 500.html

Divide the page number by two and replace that number in the URL

Remove everything after the html

This should get you to the page, not the exact post.

So,

The link you are looking at becomes

NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 (overclocking...


----------



## Prsid

Dumb question, but how do I find DRAM PCB Revision? I can't find instructions on how to anywhere.


----------



## rares495

Prsid said:


> Dumb question, but how do I find DRAM PCB Revision? I can't find instructions on how to anywhere.


You can take a look at the modules themselves or post pictures here so we can check for you. What we're interested in is seeing the bottom part near the pins and the banks of components on the sides so the pictures need to be taken at such angles that allow us to see how these are laid out on the PCB.


----------



## fcchin

Prsid said:


> Dumb question, but how do I find DRAM PCB Revision? I can't find instructions on how to anywhere.


----------



## Prsid

rares495 said:


> You can take a look at the modules themselves or post pictures here so we can check for you. What we're interested in is seeing the bottom part near the pins and the banks of components on the sides so the pictures need to be taken at such angles that allow us to see how these are laid out on the PCB.


Ah, I've got heatsinks on my RAM. Does that make getting the revision impossible? I bought these in mid-2018, if that helps.


----------



## rares495

Prsid said:


> Ah, I've got heatsinks on my RAM. Does that make getting the revision impossible? I bought these in mid-2018, if that helps.


You don't need to take the heatsinks off. Just look around them and take photos of the visible components on the sides and near the pins.


----------



## Ricey20

Any suggestions on what other timings I can change to improve latency for my 16gb x2 b-die? The latest bios for my x570 made me have to drop down from IF 1867 to 1833. My cpu stinks.


----------



## Sphex_

Ricey20 said:


> Any suggestions on what other timings I can change to improve latency for my 16gb x2 b-die? The latest bios for my x570 made me have to drop down from IF 1867 to 1833. My cpu stinks.
> View attachment 2459024


I'm not Veii, but those look pretty damn tight already. According to the Community Overclocking sheet, the fastest 3666 MHz entry gets 65.0ns memory latency. Anything faster than that and you'll have to bump up the clock speed.


----------



## Ricey20

Awesome thanks. Just need a better cpu or ryzen 4000

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk


----------



## KedarWolf

Really happy with this. TM5 and GSAT stable.


----------



## rares495

Ricey20 said:


> Awesome thanks. Just need a better cpu or ryzen 4000
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk


tRCDWR 14 or even as low as 8 or 10
tFAW under 16 is pointless
tCKE 1
tWTRS 4
tRFC can go way lower. Use the pre-release sheet of this calculator to figure out which value is right for you: (remember to set tRFC2/4 as well)









tRFC mini


TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...




docs.google.com


----------



## chitos123

@Veii


Veii said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> This should help you/him as JEDEC reference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are "newer" C-Dies although timings are big
> The result he got is quite great - might even be able to lower tWTR_S down to 3 tWTR_L 9
> 
> Reading specs of them, their tCWL scales in -3 to -4 steps
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CWL Scale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason why tRDWR (12) -4 works, is because tCWL is high
> For tCL 18 it should be either 14 or 16
> Dual rank need usually tRCD/2 + 2
> But when tCWL is high, you can lower tRDWR and the opposite
> 
> He/She/You should try tFAW 26 with your set
> JEDEC states it's * 6.66667 of tRRD_S for this set
> That factors in that your tRRD_S is correct
> 6-10, 5-8,4-6 looks to be correct for them
> 
> tWR is very low on his side
> Never worked with C-die sadly, soo i can only go from JEDEC scaling
> 
> Let him try if


I think tRDWR may works with tCL
tCL - tRCD - tRP
= 17 - 21 - 21 Works with tRDWR 9 AND tWRRD 1
= 19 - 26 - 26 Works with tRDWR 10 AND tWRRD 1

and give tFAW > tRRD_S*4 can achive tRDWR -1 too
tCL - tRCD - tRP
= 18 - 22 - 22 Works with tRDWR 8 AND tWRRD 5~3
= 16 - 18 - 18 Works with tRDWR 7 AND tWRRD 4~3

I think it came out with a very interesting result 😆
Could you test if these results only work for me?

EDIT:
Avobe "tRDWR may works with tCL" ← Required tFAW > tRRD_S*4


----------



## Dan CARBONE

Hi! It's hard to find good informations on 3200 MHz Micron d-die. I got a 3800X on a MSI Creator with 32 Gb (2x16 Corsair CMK32GX4M2E3200C16). Latest bios from MSI with 7C36v1A (Updated AMD AGESA ComboAm4v2PI 1.0.8.1)
It's very hard to find correct settings from DRAM Calculator 1.7.3 now (firstly, I need to higher tRDWR from 7 to 8 with the precedent BIOS but it no longer works with the new one...)

Who can share its experience/settings please?

Thanks in advance











Prepared by Thaiphoon Burner Super Blaster
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORY MODULE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer : Corsair
Series : Vengeance LPX
Part Number : CMK32GX4M2E3200C16
Serial Number : Undefined
JEDEC DIMM Label : 16GB 2Rx8 PC4-2133P-UB0-10
Architecture : DDR4 SDRAM UDIMM
Speed Grade : DDR4-2133P downbin
Capacity : 16 GB (16 components)
Organization : 2048M x64 (2 ranks)
Register Manufacturer : N/A
Register Model : N/A
Manufacturing Date : Undefined
Manufacturing Location : Taiwan
Revision / Raw Card : 0000h / B0 (8 layers)
-------------------------------------------------------------
DRAM COMPONENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer : Micron Technology
Part Number : D9TZV (MT40A1G8WE-075E)
Package : Standard Monolithic 78-ball FBGA
Die Density / Count : 8 Gb D-die (Z01B / 20 nm) / 1 die
Composition : 1024Mb x8 (64Mb x8 x 16 banks)
Input Clock Frequency : 1067 MHz (0,938 ns)
Minimum Timing Delays : 15-15-15-36-50
Read Latencies Supported : 24T, 23T, 22T, 21T, 20T, 19T, 18T...
Supply Voltage : 1,20 V
XMP Certified : 1600 MHz / 16-20-20-38-58 / 1,35 V
XMP Extreme : Not programmed
SPD Revision : 1.0 / January 2014
XMP Revision : 2.0 / December 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE SPD DUMP
-------------------------------------------------------------
000 23 10 0C 02 85 21 00 08 00 00 00 03 09 03 00 00
010 00 00 08 0C FF FF 03 00 6C 6C 6C 11 08 74 F0 0A
020 20 08 00 05 00 A8 1E 2B 2B 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 16 36 16 36
040 16 36 16 36 00 00 2B 0C 2B 0C 2B 0C 2B 0C 00 00
050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
060 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
070 00 00 00 00 00 ED B5 CE 00 00 00 00 00 C2 AF E0
080 11 11 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0A0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0B0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0D0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DE 27
100 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
110 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
120 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
130 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
140 02 9E 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 43 4D 4B 33 32 47 58
150 34 4D 32 45 33 32 30 30 43 31 36 20 20 00 80 2C
160 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
170 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
180 0C 4A 01 20 00 00 00 00 00 A3 00 00 05 FF FF 03
190 00 50 64 64 10 BE 22 E8 0A 18 08 F8 04 00 B0 1E
1A0 2D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1B0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1D0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00


----------



## KedarWolf

forgot the link. 









Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs


Hello everybody I am just making a very light tutorial with a collection of custom config files and a DOWNLOAD LINK for TM5 v0.12 anta777 absolut config *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread None of the work is mine but it seems like a pretty good and fast testing app




www.overclock.net





This thread has every .cfg for TM5. And for the 1usmus_v3.cfg you want to edit it as well and change it to 20, or even better yet, 25 cycles.

Edit the .cfg file, change Language=1 to Language=0 to make it in English.


----------



## Veii

@mongoled @jfrob75 @chitos123 @KedarWolf
Let me get back to your questions in couple more days
Been working on a big round-up guide/writeup on how SDRAM behaves
Which far later will factor in GDDR6 timings calculation for RX cards and maybe GDDR6X remains on my wishlist of "needs to be able to work with" ~ up to community bios modding _freedom_

Anywho, sorry for being busy for couple more days 
Will come back with an easy to understand DDR breakdown and probably rewritten rulesets and orientations for memOC


----------



## HowYesNo

so these are my stock XMP results, will now try safe from calculator.
is it normal in zen timigs for FCLK in idle to go down to 1600-ish??
it is set to 1800 in bios, and uclk==memclk is set.
edit: cinebench R20 scores 4837, and HWINFO power diviation is around 94-96, during cinebench.
















now to try this.


----------



## HowYesNo

quick update, i can set these timing, just not at 3600, do i try main timings only for starter?
also should i update bios?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

HowYesNo said:


> so these are my stock XMP results, will now try safe from calculator.
> is it normal in zen timigs for FCLK in idle to go down to 1600-ish??
> it is set to 1800 in bios, and uclk==memclk is set.


You have to set Enabled the SOC/Uncore OC mode option to avoid the clocks going down.


----------



## HowYesNo

ManniX-ITA said:


> You have to set Enabled the SOC/Uncore OC mode option to avoid the clocks going down.


that is in the Advanced\AMD Overclocking tab??
enabled it, and at first it fell down to just around 300, now stays there.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

HowYesNo said:


> that is in the Advanced\AMD Overclocking tab??
> enabled it, and at first it fell down to just around 300, now stays there.


That's the one; now the clocks FCLK/UCLK should not fluctuate anymore.
It will prevent voltages auto-correction and improve memory training at boot.


----------



## HowYesNo

it still fluctuates down to 296

_update: seems that this setting is in 2 places:Advanced/Amd Overclocking, and Advanced/Amd CBS/ NBIO common.
second one does the job._


----------



## ManniX-ITA

HowYesNo said:


> it still fluctuates down to 296
> 
> _update: seems that this setting is in 2 places:Advanced/Amd Overclocking, and Advanced/Amd CBS/ NBIO common.
> second one does the job._


Yes I was going to suggest to look for a duplicate.
AMD did a miserable job with the CBS menu.


----------



## Sphex_

Can someone help me confirm these are A2 Revision? Just picked them up in preparation for Zen 3.


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> Can someone help me confirm these are A2 Revision? Just picked them up in preparation for Zen 3.
> View attachment 2459225


Looks like A2 but some more photos can't hurt.

PS: the sheet is messed up again.


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> Looks like A2 but some more photos can't hurt.
> 
> PS: the sheet is messed up again.


Took a few more photos


http://imgur.com/a/aozqziQ


Also, unless I'm blind, the sheet looks ok. I know Reous made an entry yesterday that totally crushes the speed and bandwidth numbers and what not but I'm fairly sure it's legit. The 4650G is a Zen 2 product. Just not sure how to handle people suddenly getting their hands on Ryzen 4000 Series APUs and submitting absurdly fast scores.


----------



## rares495

Sphex_ said:


> Took a few more photos
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/aozqziQ
> 
> 
> Also, unless I'm blind, the sheet looks ok. I know Reous made an entry yesterday that totally crushes the speed and bandwidth numbers and what not but I'm fairly sure it's legit. The 4650G is a Zen 2 product. Just not sure how to handle people suddenly getting their hands on Ryzen 4000 Series APUs and submitting absurdly fast scores.


Yup. Looks like A2.

About the sheet: some stuff got deleted a few days ago and people just copied what they liked to fill in the blanks. First place guy didn't use my timings, for example. Could you restore an earlier version and then just add the latest entries?


----------



## Ricey20

rares495 said:


> tRCDWR 14 or even as low as 8 or 10
> tFAW under 16 is pointless
> tCKE 1
> tWTRS 4
> tRFC can go way lower. Use the pre-release sheet of this calculator to figure out which value is right for you: (remember to set tRFC2/4 as well)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC mini
> 
> 
> TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


Thanks for the suggestions. I put tRCDWR to 10, tFAW back to 16, tCKE to 1, tWTRS to 4. My tRFC seems to be capped at around 255-260, anything lower errors out and I don't want to increase volts anymore.


----------



## MikeS3000

Can anyone explain this? I'm trying to stabilized FCLK at 1900 and one of the things I am trying is disabling DF C-States to lock IF at 1900. If this is enabled then it downclocks. My brain says this should also keep performance up, but actually I lose performance in the Membench test by 3 seconds and AIDA shows 1 second worse latency and 1000 MB/s worse copy bandwidth. Anyone know why?


----------



## Sphex_

rares495 said:


> Yup. Looks like A2.
> 
> About the sheet: some stuff got deleted a few days ago and people just copied what they liked to fill in the blanks. First place guy didn't use my timings, for example. Could you restore an earlier version and then just add the latest entries?


Awesome. And thanks for noticing the sheet. Had to restore it to like September 9th but maintained entries made after that so we should be in good shape.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Can a new GPU throw off a memory OC? 

I had my system running fine with a 1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti. After installing a 3080 with PCI-E 4, there was a boot error about the video card after the initial post boot. Upon returning to bios default or XMP profile, the beep went away. 

I had to back down from 3733 CL14 to 3600 CL14. Any insight on this? The motherboard did bark at me stating that SOC over voltages can mess up a GEN 4 PCI-E. I'm assuming that the 3080 being PCI-E 4.0 has thrown this off?


----------



## KedarWolf

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can a new GPU throw off a memory OC?
> 
> I had my system running fine with a 1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti. After installing a 3080 with PCI-E 4, there was a boot error about the video card after the initial post boot. Upon returning to bios default or XMP profile, the beep went away.
> 
> I had to back down from 3733 CL14 to 3600 CL14. Any insight on this? The motherboard did bark at me stating that SOC over voltages can mess up a GEN 4 PCI-E. I'm assuming that the 3080 being PCI-E 4.0 has thrown this off?


If you can on your board, try changing the PCI-e slot to 3.0, you only lose about 1% performance, but see if that fixes it.

How to check if it's a video card PCI-e 4.0 issue.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can a new GPU throw off a memory OC?
> 
> I had my system running fine with a 1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti. After installing a 3080 with PCI-E 4, there was a boot error about the video card after the initial post boot. Upon returning to bios default or XMP profile, the beep went away.
> 
> I had to back down from 3733 CL14 to 3600 CL14. Any insight on this? The motherboard did bark at me stating that SOC over voltages can mess up a GEN 4 PCI-E. I'm assuming that the 3080 being PCI-E 4.0 has thrown this off?


Try enabling Spread Spectrum.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

KedarWolf said:


> If you can on your board, try changing the PCI-e slot to 3.0, you only lose about 1% performance, but see if that fixes it.
> 
> How to check if it's a video card PCI-e 4.0 issue.


Okay, I tried this right now and still hear the warning beeps. The computer still boots, it's usable but I started to notice some freezes. 



ManniX-ITA said:


> Try enabling Spread Spectrum.


That didn't work sadly.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Okay, I tried this right now and still hear the warning beeps. The computer still boots, it's usable but I started to notice some freezes.
> 
> That didn't work sadly.


Then yes switching to PCI-E 3 is your best option.
But I never heard something similar with any Radeon PCI-E 4.


----------



## KedarWolf

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Okay, I tried this right now and still hear the warning beeps. The computer still boots, it's usable but I started to notice some freezes.
> 
> 
> That didn't work sadly.


I'm thinking it might be a faulty video card issue.


----------



## nick name

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can a new GPU throw off a memory OC?
> 
> I had my system running fine with a 1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti. After installing a 3080 with PCI-E 4, there was a boot error about the video card after the initial post boot. Upon returning to bios default or XMP profile, the beep went away.
> 
> I had to back down from 3733 CL14 to 3600 CL14. Any insight on this? The motherboard did bark at me stating that SOC over voltages can mess up a GEN 4 PCI-E. I'm assuming that the 3080 being PCI-E 4.0 has thrown this off?


Are you using CSM?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

KedarWolf said:


> I'm thinking it might be a faulty video card issue.



Here's a video


http://imgur.com/a/obtmXCv


I'm at 3600 CL14 and PC works fine. Did hours of stress test with GPU OC.

When I oc now my memory now the beers happen.

It's the memory for sure. One of the settings isn't playing well with my GPU. Perhaps more people will run into this issue soon when more people get their hands on the 3080 and put it in a CH8


----------



## SneakySloth

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can a new GPU throw off a memory OC?
> 
> I had my system running fine with a 1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti. After installing a 3080 with PCI-E 4, there was a boot error about the video card after the initial post boot. Upon returning to bios default or XMP profile, the beep went away.
> 
> I had to back down from 3733 CL14 to 3600 CL14. Any insight on this? The motherboard did bark at me stating that SOC over voltages can mess up a GEN 4 PCI-E. I'm assuming that the 3080 being PCI-E 4.0 has thrown this off?


Whats your SOC voltage?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

SneakySloth said:


> Whats your SOC voltage?


1.1 like dram recommends.


----------



## SneakySloth

KingEngineRevUp said:


> 1.1 like dram recommends.


A high soc voltage can affect PCIE gen 4 devices but I wouldnt say 1.1 is high to be honest. Its strange that this is happening though.


----------



## Veii

PCIe 4.0 can and does affect maximum fabric clock on Matisse and Renoir
Usually the Matisse lockdown @ 1900 was to fix IF crashing at 2000Mhz
Another option to work against it, where the lack of lanes on the Mobile Renoir CPUs

Change it down to PCIe 3.0, you at best would lose a bit of membandwidth on it
This ~6% can be offset by pushing core freq a bit higher and mem a bit down
Also DDR OC will make up for the loss of VRAM throughput @KingEngineRevUp

Another option is to push VDDG IOD a tad higher, but you shouldnt crash below 3800FCLK soo unsure what the issue is
Not enough content provided
A real bandwidth issue would only be the 3090 and anything AMD related exceeding ~700GB/s


----------



## mongoled

So guys its time to consider jumping off the x370 train and onto something newer in anticipation of Zen3.

As I have in my posession 4 x 8GB sticks of A2 Vipers what motherboard are my best options ?

Ive been looking at the differences between X570 and B550 so I fully understand whats going on, though I have not found information if running 4 x 8GB A2 on B550 is any better/worse than on X570.

As ive been on MSI for a while now, I had a look at what is available in my budget range and the Unify seems to fulfill what I require, however was a little worried that people running the latest BIOS were experiencing worse RAM overclocking results then they did on previous BIOS's.

Though looking at the Google sheet below, it seems a high end motherboard is not required for reaching the uber clock/timings









Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com


----------



## rares495

mongoled said:


> So guys its time to consider jumping off the x370 train and onto something newer in anticipation of Zen3.
> 
> As I have in my posession 4 x 8GB sticks of A2 Vipers what motherboard are my best options ?
> 
> Ive been looking at the differences between X570 and B550 so I fully understand whats going on, though I have not found information if running 4 x 8GB A2 on B550 is any better/worse than on X570.
> 
> As ive been on MSI for a while now, I had a look at what is available in my budget range and the Unify seems to fulfill what I require, however was a little worried that people running the latest BIOS were experiencing worse RAM overclocking results then they did on previous BIOS's.
> 
> Though looking at the Google sheet below, it seems a high end motherboard is not required for reaching the uber clock/timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zen RAM OC Leaderboards
> 
> 
> Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


I'm eyeing the Unify as well. Seems like the best board overall.


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> So guys its time to consider jumping off the x370 train and onto something newer in anticipation of Zen3.
> 
> As I have in my posession 4 x 8GB sticks of A2 Vipers what motherboard are my best options ?
> 
> Ive been looking at the differences between X570 and B550 so I fully understand whats going on, though I have not found information if running 4 x 8GB A2 on B550 is any better/worse than on X570.
> 
> As ive been on MSI for a while now, I had a look at what is available in my budget range and the Unify seems to fulfill what I require, however was a little worried that people running the latest BIOS were experiencing worse RAM overclocking results then they did on previous BIOS's.
> 
> Though looking at the Google sheet below, it seems a high end motherboard is not required for reaching the uber clock/timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zen RAM OC Leaderboards
> 
> 
> Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


Do you have to upgrade ?
What holds you back ?
Daisy Chain and 4*A2 are a very bad idea
You likely can figure it out, but it will push you to mem OC hell 

This will help you for B550 boards








B550 VRM DB sheet


시트1 Feedback : [email protected] Don't requst permission / You can leave comment :) Product,Price,Config,Phase Type,VRM Type,MOSFET (Vcore),PWM Controller,LAN,Wireless LAN,Audio ASUS ROG STRIX B550-XE Gaming WiFi,$ 330,14+2,Dual-Output,DrMOS,TI X95410RR 90A,ASP1405i (7+1),Intel I225-V (2.5...




docs.google.com




Although out of all of these, only the ITX and Infineon lineup are fine
X570 Tomahawk looks to be acceptable and has a TB3 header
For personally me, the whole B550 lineup is ... bad

You could just wait for X670
No really, why would you want to upgrade ?
X370 and X470 T-Topology are superior to Daisy Chain when it comes to 4 dimms OC, just need a bit more voltage
DaisyChain only would work, if you mix A0 with A2 dimms to offset overvolting the dimms
You'd pay more for a less than optimal result
Unless you can find a Fly-By Daisy Chain designed board, which can assign different memory voltages or different VTT_MEM to both A & B "channels"


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Veii said:


> PCIe 4.0 can and does affect maximum fabric clock on Matisse and Renoir
> Usually the Matisse lockdown @ 1900 was to fix IF crashing at 2000Mhz
> Another option to work against it, where the lack of lanes on the Mobile Renoir CPUs
> 
> Change it down to PCIe 3.0, you at best would lose a bit of membandwidth on it
> This ~6% can be offset by pushing core freq a bit higher and mem a bit down
> Also DDR OC will make up for the loss of VRAM throughput @KingEngineRevUp
> 
> Another option is to push VDDG IOD a tad higher, but you shouldnt crash below 3800FCLK soo unsure what the issue is
> Not enough content provided
> A real bandwidth issue would only be the 3090 and anything AMD related exceeding ~700GB/s


Thank you very much. I really appreciate this insight. I have decided just to stick to 3600 CL14. It's not that much worse than 3733 CL14 that I had it at.

I'm just afraid of spending hours tinkering with it.


----------



## treestar

Latest agesa allowed me to do GDM off with 4x8, but only CR2. Switching to CR1 results in couple errors to pop within a hour. I think I tried everything but increasing vdimm, because it gives worse results, I guess due to temp going over 43C.


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Do you have to upgrade ?
> What holds you back ?
> Daisy Chain and 4*A2 are a very bad idea
> You likely can figure it out, but it will push you to mem OC hell
> 
> This will help you for B550 boards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B550 VRM DB sheet
> 
> 
> 시트1 Feedback : [email protected] Don't requst permission / You can leave comment :) Product,Price,Config,Phase Type,VRM Type,MOSFET (Vcore),PWM Controller,LAN,Wireless LAN,Audio ASUS ROG STRIX B550-XE Gaming WiFi,$ 330,14+2,Dual-Output,DrMOS,TI X95410RR 90A,ASP1405i (7+1),Intel I225-V (2.5...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although out of all of these, only the ITX and Infineon lineup are fine
> X570 Tomahawk looks to be acceptable and has a TB3 header
> For personally me, the whole B550 lineup is ... bad
> 
> You could just wait for X670
> No really, why would you want to upgrade ?
> X370 and X470 T-Topology are superior to Daisy Chain when it comes to 4 dimms OC, just need a bit more voltage
> DaisyChain only would work, if you mix A0 with A2 dimms to offset overvolting the dimms
> You'd pay more for a less than optimal result


Well, if I want to play with Zen3 then I am going to need to change motherboard as X370 is not going to be supported.

Yes, you have explained this before that 4 x 8GB A2 is not a good idea, but that is what I currently have until I purchase a set of Viper 4000 A0's.

So you are saying the quality of the VRMs on almost all B550 motherboards is lacking compared to their X570 counterparts...



Veii said:


> Unless you can find a Fly-By Daisy Chain designed board, which can assign different memory voltages or different VTT_MEM to both A & B "channels"


Do these even exist ??


----------



## madmikelol

Hi. I got a pair of 2x16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz and I can't find the Nanya manufacturer in the calculator. Anyone got any idea what memory type I could use? My Thaiphoon report is attached as PDF.


----------



## Lexi is Dumb

what pcb revision do I select if mine comes up A1 on thaiphoon, its not an option in the calculator


----------



## rares495

Lexi is Dumb said:


> what pcb revision do I select if mine comes up A1 on thaiphoon, its not an option in the calculator


Thaiphoon doesn't know the PCB revision. It tries to guess and fails.


----------



## Lexi is Dumb

Is there a way to figure it out without pulling them out of the PC?

The model number is H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC
or F4-3600C16-8GVKC
single rank 4x8GB kit 3600 C16-19-19-39

Also why does my motherboard keep forcing the ram to 1.38v even at default xmp which should be 1.35v. I manually set 1.35v and it still says 1.35 in bios settings but then 1.38 in the side pane full of info and 1.38 again in hwinfo


----------



## treestar

Why do my 4x8 B-dies negative scale with voltage over 1.43? Temps are around 43-45C, I have small fan for the ram. Does higher VDimm need adjusting CAD values?


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> Well, if I want to play with Zen3 then I am going to need to change motherboard as X370 is not going to be supported.
> 
> Yes, you have explained this before that 4 x 8GB A2 is not a good idea, but that is what I currently have until I purchase a set of Viper 4000 A0's.
> 
> So you are saying the quality of the VRMs on almost all B550 motherboards is lacking compared to their X570 counterparts...
> 
> Do these even exist ??


Correct on the VRM assumption. They are horrible (OnSemi ones)
Some A320's back then used the same set
Renesas ISL 70 or 90A & Infineon TDA ~ as for Mosfets
Vishay of Renesas is a low end rebrand

And Renesas RAA / Infineon are acceptable VRM controller
Asus ASP1106 rebrand is a Richtec RT8877C. Unsure about their best ASP2006
The ASP1106G also apparently a RT8877C
While the flagship MSP one seem to be some awkward Mosfets
Never seen them around, but they seem to be optimised for very low powerconsumption
Looks like they are used in the automotive and cloud computing/server industry 

Anywho, yes
Most B550 boards just use rebranded low end Renesas (Vishay) and OnSemi setups
Which for a 200$ board with a similar "VRM setup" compared to old A320/B350 boards
Strongly underwhelming. At least the ITX AX boards use higher rated Renesas 70/90A mosfets and only the flagships going towards Infineon's

X570 Compared to that, is so much better - starting with the >250$ range and beyond using ISL (renesas higher tier) and infineon powerstages
Just not worth it, for a "PCIe 4.0 allowed by AMD" board without any need for increased chipset 4.0 cost, with such low end VRM setup ~ to cost twice as much as B350/B450 boards
At least they seems like look alright and the heatsinks are not cheap ~ H/W wise still low end ^^#

Don't give up on X370 yet, and reconsider X470 (maybe)
CSD mosfets are not far of OnSemi's quality, but at least when back then they stacked 10-12 of these
They still where cooler with lower ripple, than the OnSemi A320 conterpart
Guess both are really cheap - else i can't imagine why board partners still pick them and waste PCB space + lower signal integrity by populating the PCB with "less optimal options"

Fly-By topology, something Asus designed does exist
But i haven't seen it really
I mean still to this date, barely anyone cares for PCB Topology
It's just not optimal the Daisy Chain layout on it's own
Well looking from the perspective of 4 dimms usage
For 2 dimms, it's great 

You might want to try to sell and upgrade to Dual Rank with an ITX board ~ if you want to strongly push memory OC
Or just go with X570 something
The X570 Tomahawk looks to be a well rounder, the unify is a more expensive stepup ~ but misses the TB3 header
ASRock awaits a RAZER lineup apparently _(no more information than that)_
But it's booring, idk myself what to recommend for 4 dimm users except for X370 + mods
Both Taichi's and CH6/CH7 are still going strong


----------



## Hequaqua

Figured I paste this in here....have a set of Patriot Viper 4000(B-die) I'm selling. Here is a link to the listing if anyone is interested:









(SOLD)Patriot Viper Steel 16GB (2 x 8GB) 4000...


I have a set of Patriot Viper Steel 4000mhz. They are Samsung B-die. I've attached some relevant information. Asking $90.00 $80.00 Shipped. I accept PayPal, but Zelle or Facebook is even better. I currently have this set in my computer with a set of GSKill Trident (3466)...both are running at...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Sphex_

Lexi is Dumb said:


> Is there a way to figure it out without pulling them out of the PC?
> 
> The model number is H5AN8G8NDJR-TFC
> or F4-3600C16-8GVKC
> single rank 4x8GB kit 3600 C16-19-19-39
> 
> Also why does my motherboard keep forcing the ram to 1.38v even at default xmp which should be 1.35v. I manually set 1.35v and it still says 1.35 in bios settings but then 1.38 in the side pane full of info and 1.38 again in hwinfo


Best way to find out is to take one of the DIMMs out and look. Shouldn't take too long. Take pictures if you'd like.

As far as the vDIMM reading being off, this is normal. My Board does the same thing. A Gigabyte rep answered this a while back on Reddit and it basically comes down to slight inaccuracies in sensors. When you set 1.35V, the memory is getting ~1.35V. 

Edit: Found the Reddit post:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cmt280


----------



## mongoled

Veii said:


> Correct on the VRM assumption. They are horrible (OnSemi ones)
> Some A320's back then used the same set
> Renesas ISL 70 or 90A & Infineon TDA ~ as for Mosfets
> Vishay of Renesas is a low end rebrand
> 
> And Renesas RAA / Infineon are acceptable VRM controller
> Asus ASP1106 rebrand is a Richtec RT8877C. Unsure about their best ASP2006
> The ASP1106G also apparently a RT8877C
> While the flagship MSP one seem to be some awkward Mosfets
> Never seen them around, but they seem to be optimised for very low powerconsumption
> Looks like they are used in the automotive and cloud computing/server industry
> 
> Anywho, yes
> Most B550 boards just use rebranded low end Renesas (Vishay) and OnSemi setups
> Which for a 200$ board with a similar "VRM setup" compared to old A320/B350 boards
> Strongly underwhelming. At least the ITX AX boards use higher rated Renesas 70/90A mosfets and only the flagships going towards Infineon's
> 
> X570 Compared to that, is so much better - starting with the >250$ range and beyond using ISL (renesas higher tier) and infineon powerstages
> Just not worth it, for a "PCIe 4.0 allowed by AMD" board without any need for increased chipset 4.0 cost, with such low end VRM setup ~ to cost twice as much as B350/B450 boards
> At least they seems like look alright and the heatsinks are not cheap ~ H/W wise still low end ^^#
> 
> Don't give up on X370 yet, and reconsider X470 (maybe)
> CSD mosfets are not far of OnSemi's quality, but at least when back then they stacked 10-12 of these
> They still where cooler with lower ripple, than the OnSemi A320 conterpart
> Guess both are really cheap - else i can't imagine why board partners still pick them and waste PCB space + lower signal integrity by populating the PCB with "less optimal options"
> 
> Fly-By topology, something Asus designed does exist
> But i haven't seen it really
> I mean still to this date, barely anyone cares for PCB Topology
> It's just not optimal the Daisy Chain layout on it's own
> Well looking from the perspective of 4 dimms usage
> For 2 dimms, it's great
> 
> You might want to try to sell and upgrade to Dual Rank with an ITX board ~ if you want to strongly push memory OC
> Or just go with X570 something
> The X570 Tomahawk looks to be a well rounder, the unify is a more expensive stepup ~ but misses the TB3 header
> ASRock awaits a RAZER lineup apparently _(no more information than that)_
> But it's booring, idk myself what to recommend for 4 dimm users except for X370 + mods
> Both Taichi's and CH6/CH7 are still going strong


OK, so you have totally turned me off B550, sounds like the what MSI did with the VRM on my current motherboard which was a "flagship" mobo but cheaped out on VRMs that you would expect with a flagship product.

Why do you say dont give up on X370 just yet, from what we have officially been told X470 will not be supported so its very doubtfull X370 will be supported. The motherboard makers also need to make money to stay in business so I cannot see them supporting X470 let alone X370.

I wouldnt mind staying on X370 if it supported Zen3 seeing that in around 15 months Zen 4 should be on the horizon.

X670 seems a long way away and thats if it is something real, wouldnt make sense to wait for that seeing that shortly after I would be jumping to a new platform all together when Zen4 arrives, too little time on a premium mobo....

I reallly should grab a pair of A0's just to see if the MSI can run 3800/1900 stable at decent timings.

After revisiting 4 x A2's, the max I could get close to stability was 3666/1833 14-16-14-14-28-42 2T @ 1.50v, I could complete 25 cycle TM5 runs with no errors then on reboot I would get several errors mainly "error 1" so I gave up, spent tooo to many hours trying to get that to work...

The only results ive seen with 4 x A2's running 3800/1900 is on X470 and up motherboards and people on these forums have pointed out to me several times that X370 platform is must poorer than X470 and up with regards to RAM overclocking so I must take their advice as truth seeing it mirrors my own experience pushing 4 x A2's on my motherboard....


----------



## Veii

mongoled said:


> OK, so you have totally turned me off B550, sounds like the what MSI did with the VRM on my current motherboard which was a "flagship" mobo but cheaped out on VRMs that you would expect with a flagship product.
> 
> Why do you say dont give up on X370 just yet, from what we have officially been told X470 will not be supported so its very doubtfull X370 will be supported. The motherboard makers also need to make money to stay in business so I cannot see them supporting X470 let alone X370.
> 
> I wouldnt mind staying on X370 if it supported Zen3 seeing that in around 15 months Zen 4 should be on the horizon.
> 
> X670 seems a long way away and thats if it is something real, wouldnt make sense to wait for that seeing that shortly after I would be jumping to a new platform all together when Zen4 arrives, too little time on a premium mobo....


I wouldn't fully give up X370 yet
X470 which are T-Topology are strongly lacking, and we'd get only Cezanne & Vermeer out of them
~ afterwards either AMD needs to kill support for first Summit, Raven, Bristol, Pinnacle Ridge & Picasso
~ we do move up to 64mb rom & X670 is still DDR4
~ We just jump to X670 with DDR5 and cut the support

Downsupport is not locked yet, it's just that splitting of
Summit, Raven, Pinnacle & Matisse, Renoir, Vermeer, Cezanne
is done at 4 points
Two anchors ~ one at the start and one at the end before the split (to forward to the 2nd "partition" if > Zen 2)
And if not ,use the first 16mb rom
It's done because Zen and it's ++'s couldn't allocate/access a higher capacity/size (stupidly explained) ~ but the research belongs to The Stilt
~ soo they had to be split in order to access the first partition

Soo >Zen 2 support is split at the exact half of the bios ~ with only couple of anchors forwarding you to the 2nd partition

Out of a technical standpoint, there is no reason except time,
Why X370 and all other 16Mb boards can not support anything Cezanne or low TDP Vermeer related
X470 got only supported, because of the mass upset that they had in mind to PSP firmware lockdown it to 5xx boards only ~ guaranteeing 32mb rom chips

As CH6 98% likely will get bios support (considering it has a 32mb rom chip) ~ 2% unlikely if modders have a harsh RL and no one takes care of it
And so will also the X470 Taichi natively have support for them ~ which is just a X370 Taichi with 32mb rom and a type C header
Both being identical PCB vise to the CH6 (exception is CH uses an external voltage controller, but that's not important now)
Meaning two options and one maybe:
~ you will get native support on X370 with 32mb ROM
~ You will get native support on X470 with 32mb ROM
and maybe
~ you will get support on X370 with 16mb
else
~ you will get support on X370 Taichi with manually swapped ROM chip (considering we do jump back and forth between X370/X470 bioses just to find one which is well compiled)

Soo at the end, you can get support
There are more IF and MAYBE's
But it's rather a HOW out of this many possibilities, and not an IF 


mongoled said:


> I really should grab a pair of A0's just to see if the MSI can run 3800/1900 stable at decent timings.
> 
> After revisiting 4 x A2's, the max I could get close to stability was 3666/1833 14-16-14-14-28-42 2T @ 1.50v, I could complete 25 cycle TM5 runs with no errors then on reboot I would get several errors mainly "error 1" so I gave up, spent tooo to many hours trying to get that to work...
> 
> The only results ive seen with 4 x A2's running 3800/1900 is on X470 and up motherboards and people on these forums have pointed out to me several times that X370 platform is must poorer than X470 and up with regards to RAM overclocking so I must take their advice as truth seeing it mirrors my own experience pushing 4 x A2's on my motherboard....


They are not wrong, but not fully right either
You assume because your old board can't run this many things put to auto, that the new board is better
Then you also compare your assumption with the TechPowerUP reviews and similar pages stating "maximum frequency for X cpu" between boards
This is technically correct for these old CPUs, but it's not correct for every other CPU

Boards 6 layer or 8 layer
Do have some differences
And Topology makes a big difference
But it's overexaggerated 

Likely would bite my a** later, if the numbers are wrong without the proper measuring gear
But even low end B350 CAN run 3800MT/s on 2 dimms, and beyond 3600 on 4
The difference between the PCB layering without considering the "apparently better PCB type on X570"
Should be about 400MT/s ~ without also considering Topology differences

I'm sure B350 boards can run 4000MT/s memory
if we watch intels developement, around the 4133-4200 mark is where PCBs start to differ
Not only memory but also Boards

For 2 dimms likely the difference between X370 T-Topology & X470 Daisy-Chain, should be around
4200-4600
* if not for "low end" daisy-chain even up to 4800

LN2 changes that whole scale a bit upwards,
But we again aren't speaking of low numbers between the boards
We speak about an arbitrary but scaling integer

the lower the required signal strengthness is, the lower EMI and outer issues will be a trouble ~ even with B350
the lower required procODT is for X CPU & Y memory, the lower outer negative issues because and so PCB leakage will be an even lesser issue
Higher PCB quality is required for stronger signal "strengthness" to be pushed without "leakage" ~ on memory and board pcb
But the lower the strain is for the CPU's memory controller, the lower the board PCB requirements become to maintain clean signal integrity with lower in strength signal
Sure you might need to push a signal with stronger current and stronger impedance ~ to cover a longer distance on low end PCBs
But the more CPUs develop , the less of an issue this becomes 
Pretty sure i can run 3733MT/s with a 2700X on a B350 board ~ neverless how g*rbage their PCBs appear to be
It's overexaggerated 
3467MT/s 1700X on A0 PCB's was made on the B350 Toma with low timings and low memory voltage
3600MT/s was nearly stable on it too ~ but i couldn't get it stable before my board was destroyed (thought it's the CPU while pushing 1.175vSOC through it)


----------



## rares495

@Veii Got myself an open-box, unused Crosshair VIII Hero WI-FI since the price was fantastic. $265, less than the retail price of the MSI X570 Unify which I've been dreaming about for a while. Now I should be covered for Zen 3 as well. 

RAM behavior is exactly the same so far. I guess my cheap X470 board wasn't a bottleneck at all.

Next purchase will be the F4-4400C19D-16GTZKK. 4400 C19 & only 1.4V = seems like a nice bin + that black's sexy AF. What do you think?


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> @Veii Got myself an open-box, unused Crosshair VIII Hero WI-FI since the price was fantastic. $265, less than the retail price of the MSI X570 Unify which I've been dreaming about for a while. Now I should be covered for Zen 3 as well.
> 
> RAM behavior is exactly the same so far. I guess my cheap X470 board wasn't a bottleneck at all.
> 
> Next purchase will be the F4-4400C19D-16GTZKK. 4400 C19 & only 1.4V = seems like a nice bin + that black's sexy AF. What do you think?


Except "waah i'm jealous" - what should i say haha
I'm still waiting for the magic ASUS Impact sub 300$ offer 

According to comments,
These hit
4600Mhz 18,18,18,36,1,54,324 @ 1,57V on a 3950X
Pretty sure you can do better, but they looks like have potential
I wonder why no one goes beyond 4600 🤔
cm87 hit recently with HynixDJR 20-26-26-46-70-552 @ 1.5V


Spoiler














Yet people seem to fail near the 4733 mark
Oh benchmark wise, game perf results between 3800 tRCDavg 19, 4400 tRCDavg 22, 4600 tRCDavg 23 is pretty similar


Spoiler














I can see 4400CL-18-18 being very similar to 3800CL16-18 , even with 2:1 mode
4600C18-18 very similar to 3800CL15-16 
Good luck when you get them
Haven't seen 1.2v 4000 kits, so far 

F4-4133C19D-16GTZR are 4133C19-19-19 @ 1.35v
But Score comparison of
4400 / tRCD 19 = 231 @ 1.4v
4133 / tRCD 19 = 217 @ 1.35v
3600 / tRCD 15 = 240 @ 1.35v
usually 15-15 kits appear superior if you get them on a good A2 PCB
Else 4400 ones are just a good bin
Unless you get them very tight, shooting for speeds near the 4800 range would be recommendable with easy to run kits
(at least so far)
Or as absolute minimum 4200CL16 for Renoir and up 1:1:1


----------



## nick name

Veii said:


> Except "waah i'm jealous" - what should i say haha
> I'm still waiting for the magic ASUS Impact sub 300$ offer
> 
> According to comments,
> These hit
> 4600Mhz 18,18,18,36,1,54,324 @ 1,57V on a 3950X
> Pretty sure you can do better, but they looks like have potential
> I wonder why no one goes beyond 4600 🤔
> cm87 hit recently with HynixDJR 20-26-26-46-70-552 @ 1.5V
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people seem to fail near the 4733 mark
> Oh benchmark wise, game perf results between 3800 tRCDavg 19, 4400 tRCDavg 22, 4600 tRCDavg 23 is pretty similar
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see 4400CL-18-18 being very similar to 3800CL16-18 , even with 2:1 mode
> 4600C18-18 very similar to 3800CL15-16
> Good luck when you get them
> Haven't seen 1.2v 4000 kits, so far
> 
> F4-4133C19D-16GTZR are 4133C19-19-19 @ 1.35v
> But Score comparison of
> 4400 / tRCD 19 = 231 @ 1.4v
> 4133 / tRCD 19 = 217 @ 1.35v
> 3600 / tRCD 15 = 240 @ 1.35v
> usually 15-15 kits appear superior if you get them on a good A2 PCB
> Else 4400 ones are just a good bin
> Unless you get them very tight, shooting for speeds near the 4800 range would be recommendable with easy to run kits
> (at least so far)
> Or as absolute minimum 4200CL16 for Renoir and up 1:1:1


I have a couple 3600C15 and a 4400C19 kit and the 4400C19 kit is the only one that does 14-14-14-14. The 3600C15 kits need 14-15-14-14.

And I can occasionally POST with 4666MHz, but last time I tried was with CAS 15 so perhaps I could do it more frequently. I think it's the mobo as others seem to be able to get higher with different vendors. 

And at 2:1 I can get down to around 3 ns higher than at 1:1. That requires a bit of voltage though as tRFC needs to be low to close that latency gap.


----------



## rares495

nick name said:


> I have a couple 3600C15 and a 4400C19 kit and the 4400C19 kit is the only one that does 14-14-14-14. The 3600C15 kits need 14-15-14-14.
> 
> And I can occasionally POST with 4666MHz, but last time I tried was with CAS 15 so perhaps I could do it more frequently. I think it's the mobo as others seem to be able to get higher with different vendors.
> 
> And at 2:1 I can get down to around 3 ns higher than at 1:1. That requires a bit of voltage though as tRFC needs to be low to close that latency gap.


Yeah, I'm also chasing 3800 14-14-14 or better but I'm also thinking about Renoir/Vermeer FCLK of 2200+. I don't know about 4600+ right now because I haven't been able to boot over 4200 or 4400. Might be the memory as well, idk. The mobo is fine now haha.


----------



## masteratarms

If you're buying new RAM you should watch this (from a guy who just broke 3dmark port royal benchmark):


----------



## ManniX-ITA

That's a nice Hynix DJR kit from cm87 
I couldn't get past 4200 MHz at CL22 and 1.52v on the X570 AORUS Master.


----------



## 1216

Please take a look at these settings and tell me if there's something "off".
3600X on Asrock B450M Pro4-F
Hynix *CJR* G.Skill RipjawsV 3600 19-20-20-60 at 3666 16-20-20-36-56-485-1T 1.4V
Aida R 52.4, W 29.3, C 50.8, L 67.1







Thank you!


----------



## rares495

1216 said:


> Please take a look at these settings and tell me if there's something "off".
> 3600X on Asrock B450M Pro4-F
> Hynix *CJR* G.Skill RipjawsV 3600 19-20-20-60 at 3666 16-20-20-36-56-485-1T 1.4V
> Aida R 52.4, W 29.3, C 50.8, L 67.1
> View attachment 2459935
> 
> Thank you!


At 3666 you should be able to bring down tRCDRD to around 17 and tRP to 16-17.


----------



## 1216

rares495 said:


> At 3666 you should be able to bring down tRCDRD to around 17 and tRP to 16-17.


That's a no-go unfortunately. Can't even boot at 19.


----------



## Veii

1216 said:


> Please take a look at these settings and tell me if there's something "off".
> 3600X on Asrock B450M Pro4-F
> Hynix *CJR* G.Skill RipjawsV 3600 19-20-20-60 at 3666 16-20-20-36-56-485-1T 1.4V
> Aida R 52.4, W 29.3, C 50.8, L 67.1
> View attachment 2459935
> 
> Thank you!


Grab Sisoftware Sandra , run the multi-core efficiency test
Filter to local results, then viewing as detailed mode
tRFC 448-333-205, tRTP 8, tWR 14
that should work without issues
Later you can try tCWL 14, tRDWR 10
your tRP is off, a bit low - should be usually equal to tRCD(avg) delay

tRCD activates a row by a fixed delay
after the row is active,you can read or write
This row closes, after you issue tRP (PRE-charge) command
optimally they are equal delay ~ but if it's stable, it's stable 
Just fix tRFC, it's a bit too high
~ Retest with SiSandra MCE - compare both local/offline curves together under the detailed result and the aggregated result


----------



## gerardfraser

My old MSI X470 could run CL16 4200Mhz without problems. Bought a X570 Tomahawk and just set it to CL16 3600Mhz. Waiting for the Ryzen 5900X and maybe we can get to use 4200Flck. Synced1:1:1


----------



## karkass

Hello guys, I need help. I own two kits of CMK16GX4M2D3600C18 (2 x 2x8), and for the love of god, I can't find a way to make them stable, xmp or without.
So, I am sporting a x570 Aorus Elite, rev 1.0, bios F30 + 3800x on stock speeds (though I would like to set up that pbo or something to make it not stock, but after I finish setting my rams).
Link for the thaiphoon here - https://files.fm/thumb_show.php?i=x7qxbbv7


----------



## fcchin

karkass said:


> Hello guys, I need help. I own two kits of CMK16GX4M2D3600C18 (2 x 2x8), and for the love of god, I can't find a way to make them stable, xmp or without.
> So, I am sporting a x570 Aorus Elite, rev 1.0, bios F30 + 3800x on stock speeds (though I would like to set up that pbo or something to make it not stock, but after I finish setting my rams).
> Link for the thaiphoon here - https://files.fm/thumb_show.php?i=x7qxbbv7


Hello, I was am a CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 user on 1700x and 3800x, and apart from saying again Corsair are notorious with Ryzen, but "there's a will there's a way". 

My kit needed more V, one big step up voltage more 1usmus calculator, hence my guess is bump up 
VDDP to 0.95v 
both VDDG to 1v 
Uncore SOC 1.15v, 
soc for infinity fabric 1.125v
please realize all these voltages are BELOW default, hence difficult to stable, especially for Corsair. You should even try all default voltages, i.e. SOC 1.2v etc etc etc
tRFC 350 is too low for Corsair or tCL18, I seriously think it is left-over from 2133mhz boot and simply didn't memory-train to go up when XMP is engaged. That's why these kits are not qualified in motherboard list, in short and lazy term is something about the bios does not have library for it. So every single parameter must be manual.

Your case is easy, first collect more data and compare,
first boot on 2133mhz and capture all parameter write on spreadsheet,
booth on 2400mhz, 
booth on 2666mhz, 
all these should work without XMP, their default JEDEC behaviour should kick in.
write them all in column in spreadsheet and compare left to right and you will start to see which parameter goes higher when speed goes higher etc etc etc.

then when you load XMP and reboot immediately into bios, look at which parameter did not change and you will know those must set on manual, the bios unable to do it for you. 

do the 1usmus calculator is all combinations and permutation, and write them all in spreadsheet in column next to the 2133, 2400, 2666 and compare which parameter will go higher and which is stupidly stuck and never ever moves then you know that parameter do not rely on calculator and must human guess by trial and error and experience. 

Good luck.


----------



## HowYesNo

gerardfraser said:


> My old MSI X470 could run CL16 4200Mhz without problems. Bought a X570 Tomahawk and just set it to CL16 3600Mhz. Waiting for the Ryzen 5900X and maybe we can get to use 4200Flck. Synced1:1:1


Why is your memory control coupled mode OFF??


----------



## gerardfraser

HowYesNo said:


> Why is your memory control coupled mode OFF??


When you pass the limit for FCLK on AMD Ryzen,then coupled mode turns to off and synced clocks switch to 1:1:2. On that CPU the highest FCLK synced was 1933Mhz .

I made as well add supported FCLK on Ryzen synced is 1800Mhz.


----------



## 1216

Veii said:


> Grab Sisoftware Sandra , run the multi-core efficiency test
> Filter to local results, then viewing as detailed mode
> tRFC 448-333-205, tRTP 8, tWR 14
> that should work without issues
> Later you can try tCWL 14, tRDWR 10
> your tRP is off, a bit low - should be usually equal to tRCD(avg) delay
> 
> tRCD activates a row by a fixed delay
> after the row is active,you can read or write
> This row closes, after you issue tRP (PRE-charge) command
> optimally they are equal delay ~ but if it's stable, it's stable
> Just fix tRFC, it's a bit too high
> ~ Retest with SiSandra MCE - compare both local/offline curves together under the detailed result and the aggregated result


Thank you This was very helpful. I ran some tests and decided to use the tRFC, tRTP and tWR timings you suggested. I did try lowering tCWL to 14 and raising tRDWR to 10 but it seemed to perform worse both bandwidth and latency wise than 16/8. Not sure.
I will look into tRP and my voltages


----------



## Bubar37

If it can helps some with viper steel (cheapest b-die) 








Not still finnished but a good start


----------



## madmikelol

madmikelol said:


> Hi. I got a pair of 2x16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz and I can't find the Nanya manufacturer in the calculator. Anyone got any idea what memory type I could use? My Thaiphoon report is attached as PDF.


Anyone got any ideas?


----------



## 1216

madmikelol said:


> Anyone got any ideas?


try Micron A


----------



## karkass

karkass said:


> Hello guys, I need help. I own two kits of CMK16GX4M2D3600C18 (2 x 2x8), and for the love of god, I can't find a way to make them stable, xmp or without.
> So, I am sporting a x570 Aorus Elite, rev 1.0, bios F30 + 3800x on stock speeds (though I would like to set up that pbo or something to make it not stock, but after I finish setting my rams).
> Link for the thaiphoon here - https://files.fm/thumb_show.php?i=x7qxbbv7


I used the values that I attached. Voltage 1.37-1.38,Vddp/vddg 950/1000, vsoc auto 1.1v. It worked seemingly ok, no errors in 1usmus memtest. But soon after I got a plethora of BSODs, varying from memory error, irql less or not equal, pfn list corrupted etc. It also failed to re-train memory after a cold boot. Could some one point me to a direction?


----------



## rares495

madmikelol said:


> Anyone got any ideas?


Post a screenshot of the latest ZenTimings.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

karkass said:


> I used the values that I attached. Voltage 1.37-1.38,Vddp/vddg 950/1000, vsoc auto 1.1v. It worked seemingly ok, no errors in 1usmus memtest. But soon after I got a plethora of BSODs, varying from memory error, irql less or not equal, pfn list corrupted etc. It also failed to re-train memory after a cold boot. Could some one point me to a direction?


Your vSOC seems too low, try to set it at 1.100v.
If you can't train the memory at boot could be the ProcODT is too low; try 48/53.3 ohm.
Personally I'd also bump a bit the voltage, at least 1.40v.


----------



## karkass

ManniX-ITA said:


> Your vSOC seems too low, try to set it at 1.100v.
> If you can't train the memory at boot could be the ProcODT is too low; try 48/53.3 ohm.
> Personally I'd also bump a bit the voltage, at least 1.40v.


It seems stable now, I ramped the voltage to 1.4. But I've also lowered the procODT to 40, and it works just fine. Anyways, could I lower tRAS until it doesn't boot, or should I follow a rule?
I've attached a Ryzen Master screenshot.
I would gladly appreciate some advice regarding good PBO settings, I don't want my cpu so stock-ish.
Please note that I've applied my vddp/vddg solely from XFR menu, as I don't want to mess with the CBS menu .


----------



## ManniX-ITA

karkass said:


> It seems stable now, I ramped the voltage to 1.4. But I've also lowered the procODT to 40, and it works just fine. Anyways, could I lower tRAS until it doesn't boot, or should I follow a rule?
> I've attached a Ryzen Master screenshot.
> I would gladly appreciate some advice regarding good PBO settings, I don't want my cpu so stock-ish.
> Please note that I've applied my vddp/vddg solely from XFR menu, as I don't want to mess with the CBS menu .


Look here for the rules:








integralfx/MemTestHelper


C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com


----------



## madmikelol

rares495 said:


> Post a screenshot of the latest ZenTimings.


Here's the screenshot. It's running without XMP because I'm having frequent BSODs I haven't been able to locate - tested without XMP to see if that was the issue, but nope.


----------



## mongoled

Bubar37 said:


> If it can helps some with viper steel (cheapest b-die)
> View attachment 2460022
> 
> Not still finnished but a good start


What motherboard ?

And is that TM5 25 cycles, Y-Cruncher all test +3 hours stable ??


----------



## drkCrix

Hi all,

Trying to decide which ram I should use in my main system. Right now I have 4 x 8gb Team Group 4000 CL18 Bdie and 2 x 8gb gskill 3600 cl16 Bdie

I have just move to a tomahawk x570 and I can't seem to get the team group back the the 3733 settings I was using on my x470 board.

Should I scrap the 32gb and put it in my unraid server and use the 16gb instead?

CPU is a 3900x

Cheers

Chris


----------



## gerardfraser

@drkCrix
My MSI X470 Gaming Plus motherboard compared to my MSI X570 Tomahawk motherboard . MSI X470 wins. Anyway I would run 4 x 8gb Team Group 4000 CL18 Bdie @ 3600Mhz. How do I know because I also had 4 x 8gb Team Group 4133 CL18 Bdie .

The MSI X570 Tomahawk can only run certain combinations of ram above 3600Mhz with 4x8,well same as X470 really.

With the 4 slots covered you are good and at 3600Mhz it makes no difference in PC gaming. PC gaming at higher resolutions is all I tested with many combinations of Ram. I would not worry about Ram latency ,you are not missing anything for performance.


----------



## drkCrix

So try for 3600 CL16?

Here is the calculator using the values from the Tburner report for Team Group (also appears to use the A2 PCB Layout)









And here is the Gskill (Uses the original A0 PCB)









Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Yuke

Quick question: I figured out two sets of stable timings for 1.5V B-Die (2x 16Gb Dual Rank) but cant decide which one to use (especially for Gaming).

*1.* 2T/GDM Off

15 30 45 270

*2. *1T/GDM On

16 32 48 252

Benchmarks seem to show set number 1 (2T GDM Off) a tiny bit in front, but could be a placebo...

Input is appreciated.


----------



## gerardfraser

drkCrix said:


> So try for 3600 CL16?
> 
> Here is the calculator using the values from the Tburner report for Team Group (also appears to use the A2 PCB Layout)
> 
> View attachment 2460143
> 
> 
> And here is the Gskill (Uses the original A0 PCB)
> 
> View attachment 2460135
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Well CL16 3600 is fine. It is all about the timings. You could run your ram @ CL12 3000Mhz and it would be just as fast as CL16 3800Mhz.I can only tell you what I tested in PC gaming and Ram speed does not matter,it just setting proper timings.

AMD Ryzen Fabric Clock 1467Mhz (DDR4 2933Mhz) vs Fabric Clock 1933Mhz (DDR4 3866Mhz)

*BF5 and GTAV 1920x1080*


Spoiler











*RDR2 and Sleeping Dogs 1920x1080 and 2560x1440*


Spoiler


----------



## drkCrix

Went and pulled the Gskill out of my unraid server, it can probably use the 32gb ram upgrade. Here is where I am at right now with the Gskill ram.










Are there any decent 2x16gb kits worth getting? Or just stick with this until something decent does come around?

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## gerardfraser

drkCrix said:


> Went and pulled the Gskill out of my unraid server, it can probably use the 32gb ram upgrade. Here is where I am at right now with the Gskill ram.
> Are there any decent 2x16gb kits worth getting? Or just stick with this until something decent does come around?
> Cheers,
> Chris


Your 4 x 8gb Team Group 4000 CL18 Bdie will be perfect in two weeks when you upgrade your 3900X to 5900X. 
The memory clock (mclk), the memory controller clock (uclk), and the infinity fabric clock (fclk) will be able to be synced 1:1:1. for best results. Stop worrying about crap ram,you have a great system.


----------



## drkCrix

Hmmmm, I'll have to figure out timings from scratch as none of the settings from the calculator seem to work with the 4x8gb sticks.

Is this due to potential issues with 4 sticks in a daisy chain memory setup?

What timings are you using with your tomahawk board? Might give me a starting point for timings

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## KedarWolf

mongoled said:


> What motherboard ?
> 
> And is that TM5 25 cycles, Y-Cruncher all test +3 hours stable ??


Do yourself a favour if you run Y-Cruncher, when you start it have HWInfo open, by the second test my CPU temps were spiking 90+C which isn't good.

I'd rather run TM5, Linpack XTreme and maybe RealBench or 1344 FFT's Prime 95. Temps all reasonable using those.


----------



## Veii

Yuke said:


> Quick question: I figured out two sets of stable timings for 1.5V B-Die (2x 16Gb Dual Rank) but cant decide which one to use (especially for Gaming).
> 
> *1.* 2T/GDM Off
> 
> 15 30 45 270
> 
> *2. *1T/GDM On
> 
> 16 32 48 252
> 
> Benchmarks seem to show set number 1 (2T GDM Off) a tiny bit in front, but could be a placebo...
> 
> Input is appreciated.


Have you forgot the benchmark SiSoftware Sandra , MCE Test ? 
^ that Multi-Core Efficiency Test, filtered to local results - comparing both curves under (Detailed & Aggregated) Mode
^ #2 DRAM Calculator under "Draw Latency Curve" should give you numbers to compare too, but SiSandra i personally keep preffering

Can you Spoiler-Attach on both "presets" the timings
You can try if tRFC 225-167-103 can boot for 2T GDM off ***
118.42xx ns are a bit low, 120ns was the best we where able to get stable with reasonable voltage
If this are B2 PCB B-Dies you could try up til 1.55v (use 1.54 with stronger ClkDrvStrength, if you overshoot even a tiny bit)

GDM on 1.5T 😇
EDIT:
** *225 tRFC , followed by tWR 10 with tRTP 6 or 9 ~ optionally 10


----------



## Rapidian

HowYesNo said:


> so these are my stock XMP results, will now try safe from calculator.
> is it normal in zen timigs for FCLK in idle to go down to 1600-ish??
> it is set to 1800 in bios, and uclk==memclk is set.
> edit: cinebench R20 scores 4837, and HWINFO power diviation is around 94-96, during cinebench.


Those are not B-die, but Hynix CJR. I have the same memory but using a 2700x on my other machine. Try these, but they are tighter than the calculator. Stable for me; maybe the memory controller of my 2700x is decent..


----------



## Rapidian

karkass said:


> It seems stable now, I ramped the voltage to 1.4. But I've also lowered the procODT to 40, and it works just fine. Anyways, could I lower tRAS until it doesn't boot, or should I follow a rule?
> I've attached a Ryzen Master screenshot.
> I would gladly appreciate some advice regarding good PBO settings, I don't want my cpu so stock-ish.
> Please note that I've applied my vddp/vddg solely from XFR menu, as I don't want to mess with the CBS menu .


That RAM does not look like Samsung B-die to me, you have it wrong in the DRAM calculator. They probably are Hynix CJR. The timings like like mine on another machine. Please run Thaiphoon Buner and read one of the DIMMs. Seem my prior posting for the timings.


----------



## karkass

Rapidian said:


> That RAM does not look like Samsung B-die to me, you have it wrong in the DRAM calculator. They probably are Hynix CJR. The timings like like mine on another machine. Please run Thaiphoon Buner and read one of the DIMMs. Seem my prior posting for the timings.


Indeed, these are micron e. I knew that. I manage to get some stable values, but memory training fails at every cold boot. Do you have any advice for this particular issue?


----------



## rares495

karkass said:


> Indeed, these are micron e. I knew that. I manage to get some stable values, but memory training fails at every cold boot. Do you have any advice for this particular issue?


Enable the fast memory training thingy in the bios.


----------



## karkass

rares495 said:


> Enable the fast memory training thingy in the bios.


I own an aorus x570 elite, and I don't know of such a setting. If you have a clue on where to find such a thing I would be thankful.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> Do yourself a favour if you run Y-Cruncher, when you start it have HWInfo open, by the second test my CPU temps were spiking 90+C which isn't good.
> 
> I'd rather run TM5, Linpack XTreme and maybe RealBench or 1344 FFT's Prime 95. Temps all reasonable using those.


Wow that's quite hot... I don't see that difference on my 3800x. Time to beef up tour cooling? 

I guess it's BBP; It makes sense because it's an AVX2 load probably similar to P95 Small-FFT.
You can disable it from the list of tests to run in cycle if it's a problem.
But for me the temp peaks at just 80c while P95 1344 peaks at 76c, not much of a difference.
In 2 minutes P95 SmallFFT peaks at 84c but running longer I've seen it peaking at 88c.

I may be saved by my reasonable PBO configuration limiting PPT at 135W and TDC at 90A.

BTW I'm using this old post for the Prime95 configurations:









[Guide] - HowTo get my Haswell & Devil's Canyon stable - Guide und Full Custom Liste


[HowTo] Haswell & Devil's Canyon - Guide und Full Custom Liste Hallo Luxxer, :wink: ich möchte hier beschreiben, wie man effizient seinen Haswell Chip mit dem Programm Prime95 stabil bekommt. Es gibt viele Stresstools um sein System auf Stabilität zu testen. Prime95 hat den großen Vorteil...




www.hardwareluxx.de





The 1344 FFT configuration was meant for CPU testing, shouldn't be the best fit for memory.
That was made for Intel processors but I don't see why should be any different with the Ryzen.
Would be better a lower FFT size:

*672-720K = VTT / IO-Voltage
768K = Agent / IMC
800K = Vdimm / Timings* 

Small but not enough to fit in the L2 cache.



karkass said:


> Indeed, these are micron e. I knew that. I manage to get some stable values, but memory training fails at every cold boot. Do you have any advice for this particular issue?


With my Hynix DJR it happens when the ProcODT is too low.
If it doesn't help you can play with CAD bus timings to compensate.


----------



## rares495

karkass said:


> I own an aorus x570 elite, and I don't know of such a setting. If you have a clue on where to find such a thing I would be thankful.


Sorry, not familiar with gigabyte's mess. You can find it under dram timings i guess.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

karkass said:


> I own an aorus x570 elite, and I don't know of such a setting. If you have a clue on where to find such a thing I would be thankful.


Let me share a good quote from Veii:



Veii said:


> Higher ProcODT will decrease maximum FLCK your cpu can run, increase memory controller stress and it does scale up with used VSOC
> Less vSOC, less maximum procODT before too early cutoff happens"
> 
> higher AddCmdDrvStrengh - the first CAD_BUS value,
> ~ does help allowing lower procODT to run, at the exchange of required higher VDIMM
> 
> The 3rd value to be 24 should only be used if you face cold boot issues
> 20 is great and it helps signal integrity
> All of these resistance and impedance values should remain low, same for voltage issues
> Start low - i'm sorry back then it was not understandable what i mean
> Low VDDP , low procODT, low CAD_BUS, low RTT values
> Low everything is needed to preseve signal integrity and so increase the chance of higher MT/s to work
> Higher VDIMM requires higher cut-off resistance
> This means, higher procODT and this also means higher CAD_BUS and potencialy RTT values ~ which are memory drive impedance ones
> 
> CAD_BUS 40-20-24-24 does work borderline with low procODT
> CAD_BUS 48-20-24-24 works rarely, because procODT most of the times is too low, or VDIMM is too low and it will refuse to post
> In order for 60-20-24-24 or higher to work, you will need to fix other values
> Dual rank should use between 60-120ohm for the first value, 4x dual rank will need to help the board with VDDG IOD and procODT to tame the higher stress


----------



## kratosatlante

trfc 221-164-101 1.57v stable trcdrd 16 o 15 2t gdm off, try same voltaje 216trfc but get error, for 1.62 o more i think it stable but At that voltage I can already play with tcl 13, and I find almost nothing of benefit since my cpu does not want to go beyond 4200 oc all cores


----------



## ManniX-ITA

karkass said:


> I own an aorus x570 elite, and I don't know of such a setting. If you have a clue on where to find such a thing I would be thankful.


If you are using bios version F20 or later there's another option to try to fix ir.
Buried in the AMD CBS menu there's PMU training Pattern Bits Control; try setting to A or 10.
It did help fixing the cold boot training issue for someone.


----------



## HowYesNo

Rapidian said:


> Those are not B-die, but Hynix CJR. I have the same memory but using a 2700x on my other machine. Try these, but they are tighter than the calculator. Stable for me; maybe the memory controller of my 2700x is decent..
> 
> View attachment 2460167


we seem to have exact same memory module but mine are B-die. but they don't like any change in timing, only XMP working (16-22-22-42), changing any of primary timing will not boot.


----------



## Yuke

Veii said:


> Have you forgot the benchmark SiSoftware Sandra , MCE Test ?
> ^ that Multi-Core Efficiency Test, filtered to local results - comparing both curves under (Detailed & Aggregated) Mode
> ^ #2 DRAM Calculator under "Draw Latency Curve" should give you numbers to compare too, but SiSandra i personally keep preffering
> 
> Can you Spoiler-Attach on both "presets" the timings
> You can try if tRFC 225-167-103 can boot for 2T GDM off ***
> 118.42xx ns are a bit low, 120ns was the best we where able to get stable with reasonable voltage
> If this are B2 PCB B-Dies you could try up til 1.55v (use 1.54 with stronger ClkDrvStrength, if you overshoot even a tiny bit)
> 
> GDM on 1.5T 😇
> EDIT:
> ** *225 tRFC , followed by tWR 10 with tRTP 6 or 9 ~ optionally 10


Hi,

I've been using the Latency test in the DRAM Calc but things were really close as i mentioned so really no idea which of the two settings to use. Gotta DL Sandra i guess...

Here are the requested ZenTiming screenshots.

A few things that i've seen so far (no idea how important):

tCWL= 12 did not boot with the C16 timings, but works with the C15 timings
tWRRD = does not boot at 1, makes errors at 2 and works with 3 or 4

Lower tRFC / tCL does not work if i dont up the voltage to 1.53/1.54V in BIOS (im hesitant for a 24/7 setup, shows even higher in hwinfo64)


I've been reading that GDM has a negative effect on gaming performance, so the main question for me is if 2T/GDM Off > 1T/GDM On in gaming scenarios.

:edit: Typhoon says B1 PCB

Thanks for your time.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've been using the Latency test in the DRAM Calc but thinks were really close as i mentioned so really no idea which of the two settings to use. Gotta DL Sandra i guess...
> 
> Here are the requested ZenTiming screenshots.
> 
> A few things that i've seen so far (no idea how important):
> 
> tCWL= 12 did not boot with the C16 timings, but works with the C15 timings
> tWRRD = does not boot at 1, makes errors at 2 and works with 3 or 4
> 
> Lower tRFC / tCL does not work if i dont up the voltage to 1.53/1.54V in BIOS (im hesitant for a 24/7 setup, shows even higher in hwinfo64)
> 
> 
> I've been reading that GDM has a negative effect on gaming performance, so the main question for me is if 2T/GDM Off > 1T/GDM On in gaming scenarios.
> 
> :edit: Typhoon says B1 PCB
> 
> Thanks for your time.


Which kind of gaming are you into?
For normal gaming hardly matters; In general it's better to have a bit more bandwidth than better latency.
If you are in competitive or e-sports then the gain from a lower latency can be beneficial.
But we are talking about playing with low to mid quality settings and monitors at 120Hz and above.

If you want to spot the best setting use Sandra Multi-Core efficiency test.

Here's the output from my [email protected] MHz profile:



Code:


SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 103GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 45.7ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.43GB/s
No. Threads : 16
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Power
Processor(s) Power : 66.97W
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1574.20MB/s/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 6.82ns/W
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Capacity vs. Power
Total Cache Size : 554.28kB/W
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 23.04MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.10ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15
U0-U2 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 67.9ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 64.4ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.5ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 63.8ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 62.6ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 63.3ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 62.4ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 62.5ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 65.5ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 65.6ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 62.8ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 59.5ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 11.4ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 61.1ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 64.8ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 65.2ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 10.5ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 68.6ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 68.2ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.1ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 69.2ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 68.2ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 67.6ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 66.5ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 66.4ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 68.1ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 10.3ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 68.6ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 65.9ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 66.3ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 68.1ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 10.4ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 67.4ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 68.7ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 65.7ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 69.1ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 66.1ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 66.0ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 68.1ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 68.9ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 66.6ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 66.2ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 67.2ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 66.7ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 67.0ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 68.0ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 12.38GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 21.72GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 78.16GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 231.26GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 349.86GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 333.08GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 374.93GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 331.45GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 303.08GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 293.28GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.73GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 14.41GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.58GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710013
Computer : GigaByte X570 AORUS MASTER Default string
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 16
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor
Speed : 4.58GHz
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.9GHz - 4.58GHz
Maximum Power : 66.97W - 137.36W
Cores per Processor : 8 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710013
Latest Version : MU8F710021
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 8x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)

Memory Controller
Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
Tip 229 : CPU microcode update available. Check for an updated System BIOS with updated microcode.
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.

You need to check the bandwidth scores at different data sizes:



Code:


1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 12.38GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 21.72GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 78.16GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 231.26GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 349.86GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 333.08GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 374.93GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 331.45GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 303.08GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 293.28GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.73GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 14.41GB/s

You may have a better peak with a profile on one data size but worse results in others.

Then you need to check the average latencies between near/distant/over-CCX dies:



Code:


U8-U7 Data Latency : 66.9ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.1ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.0ns

A lower latency profile could have a better average latency but if something is wrong higher lows and highs.

To get this data use the copy button below the results, first in the bar at the bottom and copy it in notepad.
Run it a few times, 5 at least, and keep the best result.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Which kind of gaming are you into?
> For normal gaming hardly matters; In general it's better to have a bit more bandwidth than better latency.
> If you are in competitive or e-sports then the gain from a lower latency can be beneficial.
> But we are talking about playing with low to mid quality settings and monitors at 120Hz and above.
> 
> If you want to spot the best setting use Sandra Multi-Core efficiency test.
> 
> Here's the output from my [email protected] MHz profile:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 103GB/s
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Benchmark Results
> Inter-Core Latency : 45.7ns
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.
> 
> Performance per Thread
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 6.43GB/s
> No. Threads : 16
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.
> 
> Performance vs. Power
> Processor(s) Power : 66.97W
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1574.20MB/s/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 6.82ns/W
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Capacity vs. Power
> Total Cache Size : 554.28kB/W
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Performance vs. Speed
> Inter-Core Bandwidth : 23.04MB/s/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
> Inter-Core Latency : 0.10ns/MHz
> Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
> 
> Detailed Results
> Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15
> U0-U2 Data Latency : 25.7ns
> U0-U4 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U0-U6 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U0-U8 Data Latency : 67.9ns
> U0-U10 Data Latency : 56.9ns
> U0-U12 Data Latency : 64.4ns
> U0-U14 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U0-U1 Data Latency : 11.5ns
> U0-U3 Data Latency : 25.6ns
> U0-U5 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U0-U7 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U0-U9 Data Latency : 58.5ns
> U0-U11 Data Latency : 63.8ns
> U0-U13 Data Latency : 62.6ns
> U0-U15 Data Latency : 63.3ns
> U2-U4 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U2-U6 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U2-U8 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U2-U10 Data Latency : 58.6ns
> U2-U12 Data Latency : 58.7ns
> U2-U14 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U2-U1 Data Latency : 25.3ns
> U2-U3 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U2-U5 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U2-U7 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U2-U9 Data Latency : 60.9ns
> U2-U11 Data Latency : 62.4ns
> U2-U13 Data Latency : 62.5ns
> U2-U15 Data Latency : 58.3ns
> U4-U6 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U4-U8 Data Latency : 65.5ns
> U4-U10 Data Latency : 65.6ns
> U4-U12 Data Latency : 62.8ns
> U4-U14 Data Latency : 59.5ns
> U4-U1 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U4-U3 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U4-U5 Data Latency : 11.4ns
> U4-U7 Data Latency : 26.8ns
> U4-U9 Data Latency : 57.7ns
> U4-U11 Data Latency : 61.1ns
> U4-U13 Data Latency : 59.2ns
> U4-U15 Data Latency : 58.6ns
> U6-U8 Data Latency : 64.8ns
> U6-U10 Data Latency : 65.2ns
> U6-U12 Data Latency : 58.2ns
> U6-U14 Data Latency : 55.4ns
> U6-U1 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U6-U3 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U6-U5 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U6-U7 Data Latency : 10.5ns
> U6-U9 Data Latency : 68.6ns
> U6-U11 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U6-U13 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U6-U15 Data Latency : 68.2ns
> U8-U10 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U8-U12 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U8-U1 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U8-U3 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U8-U5 Data Latency : 67.4ns
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.1ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U8-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U8-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U10-U12 Data Latency : 26.2ns
> U10-U14 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U10-U1 Data Latency : 69.2ns
> U10-U3 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U10-U5 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U10-U7 Data Latency : 68.2ns
> U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U10-U11 Data Latency : 10.3ns
> U10-U13 Data Latency : 26.6ns
> U10-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U12-U14 Data Latency : 26.7ns
> U12-U1 Data Latency : 67.6ns
> U12-U3 Data Latency : 66.5ns
> U12-U5 Data Latency : 66.4ns
> U12-U7 Data Latency : 68.1ns
> U12-U9 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U12-U11 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U12-U13 Data Latency : 10.3ns
> U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U14-U1 Data Latency : 68.6ns
> U14-U3 Data Latency : 65.9ns
> U14-U5 Data Latency : 66.3ns
> U14-U7 Data Latency : 68.1ns
> U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U14-U11 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U14-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U14-U15 Data Latency : 10.4ns
> U1-U3 Data Latency : 25.8ns
> U1-U5 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U1-U7 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> U1-U9 Data Latency : 67.4ns
> U1-U11 Data Latency : 68.7ns
> U1-U13 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U1-U15 Data Latency : 65.7ns
> U3-U5 Data Latency : 26.1ns
> U3-U7 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U3-U9 Data Latency : 69.1ns
> U3-U11 Data Latency : 66.1ns
> U3-U13 Data Latency : 66.0ns
> U3-U15 Data Latency : 68.1ns
> U5-U7 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U5-U9 Data Latency : 68.9ns
> U5-U11 Data Latency : 66.6ns
> U5-U13 Data Latency : 66.2ns
> U5-U15 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U7-U9 Data Latency : 67.2ns
> U7-U11 Data Latency : 66.7ns
> U7-U13 Data Latency : 67.0ns
> U7-U15 Data Latency : 68.0ns
> U9-U11 Data Latency : 25.9ns
> U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U11-U13 Data Latency : 26.3ns
> U11-U15 Data Latency : 26.5ns
> U13-U15 Data Latency : 26.4ns
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 12.38GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 21.72GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 78.16GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 231.26GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 349.86GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 333.08GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 374.93GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 331.45GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 303.08GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 293.28GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.73GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 14.41GB/s
> 
> Benchmark Status
> Result ID : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.58GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
> Microcode : MU8F710013
> Computer : GigaByte X570 AORUS MASTER Default string
> Platform Compliance : x64
> Buffering Used : No
> No. Threads : 16
> System Timer : 10MHz
> Page Size : 2MB
> 
> Processor
> Model : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor
> Speed : 4.58GHz
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 2.2GHz - 3.9GHz - 4.58GHz
> Maximum Power : 66.97W - 137.36W
> Cores per Processor : 8 Unit(s)
> Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
> Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
> Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
> Microcode : MU8F710013
> Latest Version : MU8F710021
> L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 8x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 8x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
> L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 16MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 8 Thread(s)
> 
> Memory Controller
> Speed : 1.9GHz (100%)
> Min/Max/Turbo Speed : 950MHz - 1.9GHz
> 
> Performance Enhancing Tips
> Warning 242 : Dynamic OverClocking/Turbo engaged. Performance will not be consistent!
> Tip 229 : CPU microcode update available. Check for an updated System BIOS with updated microcode.
> Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.
> 
> You need to check the bandwidth scores at different data sizes:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 12.38GB/s
> 4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 21.72GB/s
> 4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 78.16GB/s
> 4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 231.26GB/s
> 4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 349.86GB/s
> 16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 333.08GB/s
> 4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 374.93GB/s
> 16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 331.45GB/s
> 8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 303.08GB/s
> 4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 293.28GB/s
> 8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 15.73GB/s
> 8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 14.41GB/s
> 
> You may have a better peak with a profile on one data size but worse results in others.
> 
> Then you need to check the average latencies between near/distant/over-CCX dies:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> U8-U7 Data Latency : 66.9ns
> U8-U9 Data Latency : 10.1ns
> U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.0ns
> 
> A lower latency profile could have a better average latency but if something is wrong higher lows and highs.
> 
> To get this data use the copy button below the results, first in the bar at the bottom and copy it in notepad.
> Run it a few times, 5 at least, and keep the best result.


I'll ckeck it out, thanks!

Im not playing competitive, just wanna optimize my hardware a bit i guess (i mean thats why we are all here i guess).

I dont see any differences in latency between the profiles but Write speed MIGHT be a bit higher on the C15 settings (or at least more consistent).


----------



## Yuke

Hmm, tool seems nice but i am wondering why it shows higher clock frequency with your CPU... @ManniX-ITA

Guess it only reads out Core 0 for it? Which is my weakest Core. ._.

Anyway here is my C16 1T/GDM...sorry for the german language but could not figure out how to change it...



Code:


SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmarkresultate
Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 104GB/s
Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
Base 2 Ergebnis Multiplikatoren : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), usw.
Latenzzeit Kern-Kern : 43.8ns
Ergebnisse : Geringere Werte sind besser.
Base 10 Ergebnis Multiplikatoren : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, usw.

Leistung pro Thread
Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 6.5GB/s
Threadanzahl : 16
Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
Base 2 Ergebnis Multiplikatoren : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), usw.

Gegenüberstellung Leistung und Energieverbrauch
Prozessorleistung : 66.97W
Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 1591.23MB/s/W
Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
Latenzzeit Kern-Kern : 6.54ns/W
Ergebnisse : Geringere Werte sind besser.

Gegenüberstellung Kapazität zu Leistung
Cachegröße gesamt : 554.28kB/W
Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.

Gegenüberstellung Leistung und Geschwindigkeit
Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 23.68MB/s/MHz
Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
Latenzzeit Kern-Kern : 0.10ns/MHz
Ergebnisse : Geringere Werte sind besser.

Benchmarkabbruch
Prozessorähnlichkeit : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 
U0-U2 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
U0-U4 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.7ns
U0-U6 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.6ns
U0-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 62.5ns
U0-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
U0-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.0ns
U0-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
U0-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.9ns
U0-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.0ns
U0-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.5ns
U0-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.6ns
U0-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 58.8ns
U0-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 57.6ns
U0-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.7ns
U0-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 62.1ns
U2-U4 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
U2-U6 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
U2-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.0ns
U2-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 54.8ns
U2-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.0ns
U2-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 54.7ns
U2-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.7ns
U2-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.7ns
U2-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
U2-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.9ns
U2-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 59.5ns
U2-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
U2-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
U2-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
U4-U6 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.6ns
U4-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.0ns
U4-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.6ns
U4-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
U4-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.6ns
U4-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
U4-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.8ns
U4-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.8ns
U4-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.6ns
U4-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.9ns
U4-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.7ns
U4-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.9ns
U4-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.5ns
U6-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
U6-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.7ns
U6-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.9ns
U6-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.3ns
U6-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.2ns
U6-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.0ns
U6-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.6ns
U6-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.7ns
U6-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
U6-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.6ns
U6-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.9ns
U6-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.5ns
U8-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.8ns
U8-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
U8-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.6ns
U8-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 59.9ns
U8-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.4ns
U8-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.5ns
U8-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
U8-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.6ns
U8-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.5ns
U8-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
U8-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.6ns
U10-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
U10-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
U10-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 59.9ns
U10-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
U10-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.2ns
U10-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.2ns
U10-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.9ns
U10-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.7ns
U10-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.4ns
U10-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
U12-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.8ns
U12-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.0ns
U12-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.2ns
U12-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.0ns
U12-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.9ns
U12-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
U12-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.1ns
U12-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.8ns
U12-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
U14-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 63.8ns
U14-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 66.0ns
U14-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 62.5ns
U14-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.2ns
U14-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.4ns
U14-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.2ns
U14-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
U14-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.8ns
U1-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.2ns
U1-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
U1-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.5ns
U1-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.1ns
U1-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.1ns
U1-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 64.5ns
U1-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 64.8ns
U3-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
U3-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.4ns
U3-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.5ns
U3-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.2ns
U3-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
U3-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
U5-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.5ns
U5-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.6ns
U5-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 64.6ns
U5-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.9ns
U5-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 66.3ns
U7-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.5ns
U7-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.8ns
U7-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 63.4ns
U7-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.4ns
U9-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.8ns
U9-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.2ns
U9-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.4ns
U11-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.4ns
U11-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
U13-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 1x 64bytes : 12.64GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 64bytes : 20.91GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 256bytes : 77.6GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 1kB : 229.09GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 4kB : 350.08GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 16x 4kB : 334.11GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 64kB : 378.16GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 16x 64kB : 335.1GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 8x 256kB : 305.61GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 1MB : 292.15GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 8x 1MB : 16.72GB/s
Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 8x 4MB : 15.52GB/s

Leistungsteststatus
Ergebnis-ID : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.5GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
Microcode : MU8F710021
System : GigaByte X570 AORUS MASTER X570 MB
Kompatibel mit Plattform : x64
Verwendete Pufferung : Nein
Threadanzahl : 16
Systemtakt : 10MHz
Speicherseitengröße : 2MB

Prozessor
Modell : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor
Geschwindigkeit : 4.5GHz
Minimale/Maximale/Turbo Geschwindigkeit : 2.2GHz - 3.9GHz - 4.5GHz
Kerne pro Prozessor : 8 Einheit(en)
Threads pro Kern : 2 Einheit(en)
Front Side Bus Geschwindigkeit : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
Microcode : MU8F710021
Interner (L1D) Datencache : 8x 32kB, 8-Weg, Exklusiv, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 2 Thread(s)
Interner (L1I) Anweisungscache : 8x 32kB, 8-Weg, Exklusiv, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 2 Thread(s)
L2D-Datencache/Einheitscache : 8x 512kB, 8-Weg, Voll integriert, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 2 Thread(s)
L3D-Datencache/Einheitscache : 2x 16MB, 16-Weg, Exklusiv, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 8 Thread(s)
Nennleistung (TDP) : 66.97W

Speichercontroller
Geschwindigkeit : 1.9GHz (100%)
Minimale/Maximale/Turbo Geschwindigkeit : 950MHz - 1.9GHz

Leistungstipps
Hinweis 242 : Dynamische Übertaktung/Turbo läuft. Die Leistung ist nicht gleichbleibend!
Tipp 2 : Drücken Sie die Eingabetaste oder doppelklicken Sie auf einen Tipp, um mehr Informationen zu erfahren.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> Hmm, tool seems nice but i am wondering why it shows higher clock frequency with your CPU... @ManniX-ITA
> 
> Guess it only reads out Core 0 for it? Which is my weakest Core. ._.
> 
> Anyway here is my C16 1T/GDM...sorry for the german language but could not figure out how to change it...
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> SiSoftware Sandra
> 
> Benchmarkresultate
> Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 104GB/s
> Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
> Base 2 Ergebnis Multiplikatoren : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), usw.
> Latenzzeit Kern-Kern : 43.8ns
> Ergebnisse : Geringere Werte sind besser.
> Base 10 Ergebnis Multiplikatoren : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, usw.
> 
> Leistung pro Thread
> Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 6.5GB/s
> Threadanzahl : 16
> Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
> Base 2 Ergebnis Multiplikatoren : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), usw.
> 
> Gegenüberstellung Leistung und Energieverbrauch
> Prozessorleistung : 66.97W
> Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 1591.23MB/s/W
> Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
> Latenzzeit Kern-Kern : 6.54ns/W
> Ergebnisse : Geringere Werte sind besser.
> 
> Gegenüberstellung Kapazität zu Leistung
> Cachegröße gesamt : 554.28kB/W
> Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
> 
> Gegenüberstellung Leistung und Geschwindigkeit
> Bandbreite Kern-Kern : 23.68MB/s/MHz
> Ergebnisse : Höhere Werte sind besser.
> Latenzzeit Kern-Kern : 0.10ns/MHz
> Ergebnisse : Geringere Werte sind besser.
> 
> Benchmarkabbruch
> Prozessorähnlichkeit : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15
> U0-U2 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
> U0-U4 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.7ns
> U0-U6 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.6ns
> U0-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 62.5ns
> U0-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
> U0-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.0ns
> U0-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
> U0-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.9ns
> U0-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.0ns
> U0-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.5ns
> U0-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.6ns
> U0-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 58.8ns
> U0-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 57.6ns
> U0-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.7ns
> U0-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 62.1ns
> U2-U4 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
> U2-U6 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
> U2-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.0ns
> U2-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 54.8ns
> U2-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.0ns
> U2-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 54.7ns
> U2-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.7ns
> U2-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.7ns
> U2-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
> U2-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.9ns
> U2-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 59.5ns
> U2-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
> U2-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
> U2-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
> U4-U6 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.6ns
> U4-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.0ns
> U4-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.6ns
> U4-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
> U4-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.6ns
> U4-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
> U4-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.8ns
> U4-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.8ns
> U4-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.6ns
> U4-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.9ns
> U4-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.7ns
> U4-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.9ns
> U4-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.5ns
> U6-U8 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.1ns
> U6-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.7ns
> U6-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.9ns
> U6-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.3ns
> U6-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.2ns
> U6-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.0ns
> U6-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.6ns
> U6-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.7ns
> U6-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
> U6-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.6ns
> U6-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.9ns
> U6-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.5ns
> U8-U10 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.8ns
> U8-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
> U8-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.6ns
> U8-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 59.9ns
> U8-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.4ns
> U8-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.5ns
> U8-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
> U8-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.6ns
> U8-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.5ns
> U8-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
> U8-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.6ns
> U10-U12 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
> U10-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
> U10-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 59.9ns
> U10-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
> U10-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.2ns
> U10-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.2ns
> U10-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.9ns
> U10-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.7ns
> U10-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.4ns
> U10-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
> U12-U14 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.8ns
> U12-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.0ns
> U12-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.2ns
> U12-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.0ns
> U12-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.9ns
> U12-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.3ns
> U12-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.1ns
> U12-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.8ns
> U12-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
> U14-U1 Latenzzeit Daten : 63.8ns
> U14-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 66.0ns
> U14-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 62.5ns
> U14-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.2ns
> U14-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.4ns
> U14-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.2ns
> U14-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
> U14-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 10.8ns
> U1-U3 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.2ns
> U1-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
> U1-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.5ns
> U1-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.1ns
> U1-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.1ns
> U1-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 64.5ns
> U1-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 64.8ns
> U3-U5 Latenzzeit Daten : 24.2ns
> U3-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 23.4ns
> U3-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.5ns
> U3-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.2ns
> U3-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 61.4ns
> U3-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.3ns
> U5-U7 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.5ns
> U5-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 60.6ns
> U5-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 64.6ns
> U5-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.9ns
> U5-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 66.3ns
> U7-U9 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.5ns
> U7-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.8ns
> U7-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 63.4ns
> U7-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 65.4ns
> U9-U11 Latenzzeit Daten : 25.8ns
> U9-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.2ns
> U9-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.4ns
> U11-U13 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.4ns
> U11-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.1ns
> U13-U15 Latenzzeit Daten : 26.3ns
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 1x 64bytes : 12.64GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 64bytes : 20.91GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 256bytes : 77.6GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 1kB : 229.09GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 4kB : 350.08GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 16x 4kB : 334.11GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 64kB : 378.16GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 16x 64kB : 335.1GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 8x 256kB : 305.61GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 4x 1MB : 292.15GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 8x 1MB : 16.72GB/s
> Inter-Core Bandbreite @ 8x 4MB : 15.52GB/s
> 
> Leistungsteststatus
> Ergebnis-ID : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor (8C 16T 4.5GHz, 1.9GHz IMC, 8x 512kB L2, 2x 16MB L3)
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> System : GigaByte X570 AORUS MASTER X570 MB
> Kompatibel mit Plattform : x64
> Verwendete Pufferung : Nein
> Threadanzahl : 16
> Systemtakt : 10MHz
> Speicherseitengröße : 2MB
> 
> Prozessor
> Modell : AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8-Core Processor
> Geschwindigkeit : 4.5GHz
> Minimale/Maximale/Turbo Geschwindigkeit : 2.2GHz - 3.9GHz - 4.5GHz
> Kerne pro Prozessor : 8 Einheit(en)
> Threads pro Kern : 2 Einheit(en)
> Front Side Bus Geschwindigkeit : 100MHz
> Revision/Stepping : 71 / 0
> Microcode : MU8F710021
> Interner (L1D) Datencache : 8x 32kB, 8-Weg, Exklusiv, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 2 Thread(s)
> Interner (L1I) Anweisungscache : 8x 32kB, 8-Weg, Exklusiv, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 2 Thread(s)
> L2D-Datencache/Einheitscache : 8x 512kB, 8-Weg, Voll integriert, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 2 Thread(s)
> L3D-Datencache/Einheitscache : 2x 16MB, 16-Weg, Exklusiv, 64bytes Zeilengröße, 8 Thread(s)
> Nennleistung (TDP) : 66.97W
> 
> Speichercontroller
> Geschwindigkeit : 1.9GHz (100%)
> Minimale/Maximale/Turbo Geschwindigkeit : 950MHz - 1.9GHz
> 
> Leistungstipps
> Hinweis 242 : Dynamische Übertaktung/Turbo läuft. Die Leistung ist nicht gleichbleibend!
> Tipp 2 : Drücken Sie die Eingabetaste oder doppelklicken Sie auf einen Tipp, um mehr Informationen zu erfahren.


Looks all fine, guess you are using one of the latest bios versions.
Now you can run it with the other memory profile setting and compare the results.
The CPU frequency it's just a spot check and probably on Core 0, it can change from run to run.


----------



## rares495

Sandra is really inconsistent so remember to test with a manual CPU OC.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Yuke said:


> I'll ckeck it out, thanks!
> 
> Im not playing competitive, just wanna optimize my hardware a bit i guess (i mean thats why we are all here i guess).
> 
> I dont see any differences in latency between the profiles but Write speed MIGHT be a bit higher on the C15 settings (or at least more consistent).


Sorry didn't see your post earlier.
If you don't see much difference well.. it's more a matter of personal preference 
I can run too a CL15 profile with the latest AGESA but it doesn't show any gain as well; more or less very similar.
Since I rolled back didn't really matter but I preferred to keep the CL16 at the time to avoid stability issues.
Don't think it's worth to stress more the memory if there's no gain.


----------



## Yuke

ManniX-ITA said:


> Sorry didn't see your post earlier.
> If you don't see much difference well.. it's more a matter of personal preference
> I can run too a CL15 profile with the latest AGESA but it doesn't show any gain as well; more or less very similar.
> Since I rolled back didn't really matter but I preferred to keep the CL16 at the time to avoid stability issues.
> Don't think it's worth to stress more the memory if there's no gain.


Finished testing...its super close...i think 2T/GDM Off could be faster if manage to get tRFC lower...need some values around ~250 tho...not sure if there is something that could work fine

Core-Core Bandwidth is around 3Gb/s lower with 2T/Gdm Off but Core-Core Latency around 0.8ns faster...did like 10 runs each for averages.


----------



## HowYesNo

been trying to adjust timings of my memory, and so far this is what i get.
changing any of timing in marked in red is a no go. no boot, board stuck at debug 22. resets itself to defaults.


----------



## rares495

HowYesNo said:


> been trying to adjust timings of my memory, and so far this is what i get.
> changing any of timing in marked in red is a no go. no boot, board stuck at debug 22. resets itself to defaults.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2460192
> 
> 
> View attachment 2460193
> View attachment 2460194


That's the most disgusting memory I think I've ever seen. You should have gone for no RGB but a way better bin. At least a 3200C14 kit. What you have right now is simply garbage and you shouldn't spend one more second of your life trying to overclock. It will lead to nothing but misery. Your results are so far off a good B-die kit. Well, even average stuff like CJR/DJR/Rev. E is way better than this "B-die". Tragic. Get rid of that trash as fast as possible, mate.


----------



## HowYesNo

*Rapidian* has the same module*,* but his are Hynix CJR.
well, i was looking for cheap price not much for an RBG. and C16 mem is a bit more expensive.
what would you sugest to get in C16 area?


----------



## rares495

HowYesNo said:


> *Rapidian* has the same module*,* but his are Hynix CJR.
> well, i was looking for cheap price not much for an RBG. and C16 mem is a bit more expensive.
> what would you sugest to get in C16 area?


The standard F4-3600C16-16GTZR(125 EUR) / GTZN(130 EUR) or even the 3600C15-GTZ(120 EUR) would be good options. There's also the Patriot Viper Steel 4400C19(115 EUR) kit and Trident Z 4400C19 Black (F4-4400C19-16GTZKK) but this one's 150 EUR.

If those are too expensive, there's the FlareX kit (F4-3200C14D-16GFX) for around 95 euros.


----------



## Rapidian

HowYesNo said:


> we seem to have exact same memory module but mine are B-die. but they don't like any change in timing, only XMP working (16-22-22-42), changing any of primary timing will not boot.
> 
> View attachment 2460188


I'm suspicious of the version of the database you have from thaiphoon burner. Those timings are not bdie. Bdie are like 14-14-14-34 or 16-16-16-36. 18-22-22-42 are classic hynix cjr. I've had these a long time.


----------



## rares495

Rapidian said:


> I'm suspicious of the version of the database you have from thaiphoon burner. Those timings are not bdie. Bdie are like 14-14-14-34 or 16-16-16-36. 18-22-22-42 are classic hynix cjr. I've had these a long time.


There are very bad bins of B-die that can only do those kinds of timings. That's usually what you get trying to overclock 3200 16-18-18 B-die kits.


----------



## Yuke

Quick question: Is there a certain ruleset for tRCDWR? I've seen people dropping it to the minimum without hesitating...

Thanks


----------



## 1216

deleted


----------



## HowYesNo

Rapidian said:


> I'm suspicious of the version of the database you have from thaiphoon burner. Those timings are not bdie. Bdie are like 14-14-14-34 or 16-16-16-36. 18-22-22-42 are classic hynix cjr. I've had these a long time.












even in BIOS it says samsung. i agree these are crap. wanted 3600MHz, at cheap, so C18 was choice. did not know it was samsung nor this bad.


----------



## drkCrix

What 32gb kits (2*16) would you guys recommend for speed/latency? Looking for at least 3600 c16, higher (3800 c16) would be ideal

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## KedarWolf

drkCrix said:


> What 32gb kits (2*16) would you guys recommend for speed/latency? Looking for at least 3600 c16, higher (3800 c16) would be ideal
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


You want to go b-die 2x16GB kit, like the Trident Z Neo 3600 CL16-16-16-36 kit. Two DIMMs much better than four for Ryzen and dual rank the way to go how the memory controller works with two DIMM's.

I got this with it.


----------



## mongoled

KedarWolf said:


> Do yourself a favour if you run Y-Cruncher, when you start it have HWInfo open, by the second test my CPU temps were spiking 90+C which isn't good.
> 
> I'd rather run TM5, Linpack XTreme and maybe RealBench or 1344 FFT's Prime 95. Temps all reasonable using those.


Hey,

we have been through this 27 days ago





mongoled said:


> It was just in jest
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I am well aware of the temps,
> 
> that why I stopped using all core overclock with fixed voltage and reverted to BCLK with EDC bug
> 
> 
> 
> And even using PBO to do the clocking I do see such temps but thats the norm for AVX2 workloads, the CPUs are designed for that.
> 
> So I abuse it a little with the EDC bug, but im not going to be keeping the CPU for a decade and the stess test is just for several hours so I know its stable with whatever I happen to throw at it.
> 
> I prefer peace of mind with regards to stability over worrying about a little heat.


----------



## Mx King Sniper

Anyone have same ram. How far you can go with this ram DJR Dual Rank 2x16GB F4-3600C16D-16GVKC? 
Right now I'm at 3733mhz @1.38v. I tried to lower some but cannot bring down latency below 66ns.
Is it possible while staying at 3733mhz?


----------



## Bubar37

Arf was answer for Mongoled
Asus x570 tuf gaming 3700x 1050w platimax df Enermax 4*
​
Patriot MemoryModule Part Number:4400 C19 SeriesDRAM Manufacturer:SamsungDRAM Components:K4A8G085WB-BCPB

I didn't know y cruncher so i did all the test passed . 1hour tm5 only .Maybe not enough but i only play games no bsod no errors since 1 week 7/24 . Atm 1.475v i'll tried to go 1.45


----------



## Bubar37

Bubar37 said:


> Arf was answer for Mongoled
> Asus x570 tuf gaming 3700x 1050w platimax df Enermax 4*
> ​
> 
> Patriot MemoryModule Part Number:4400 C19 SeriesDRAM Manufacturer:SamsungDRAM Components:K4A8G085WB-BCPB
> 
> I didn't know y cruncher so i did all the test passed . 1hour tm5 only .Maybe not enough but i only play games no bsod no errors since 1 week 7/24 . Atm 1.475v i'll tried to go 1.45


----------



## Bubar37

And for info with docp in bios they boot @4400cl18 1.45v


----------



## Yuke

tCWL = 16
tRDWR = 8

or

tCWL = 12
tRDWR = 10

?
Both are TM5 stable


----------



## mongoled

Bubar37 said:


> Arf was answer for Mongoled
> Asus x570 tuf gaming 3700x 1050w platimax df Enermax 4*
> I didn't know y cruncher so i did all the test passed . 1hour tm5 only .Maybe not enough but i only play games no bsod no errors since 1 week 7/24 . Atm 1.475v i'll tried to go 1.45


Thanks for the info,

Superior result to what I can achieve on X370!

If its only for gaming then no worries, i asked re stability so when others see your post they can use it as a reference, or not, as some people come and simply copy peoples timings so at least they will now have an idea on what you have tested and how stable the settings may be.


----------



## PuPpEt

Just returned to try OC after 3 years, on x370 Taichi with updated 5.60 bios from the very old beta one i had, and i have some questions.
Thanks to the newer DRAM Calculator i think i managed to get a stable (but i should do more cycles of TM5v3, did only 3) the FAST profile @3400 of my ram G.Skill F4-3466C16-8GTZR:








(here the only thing different is that ZenTiming sees CLDO_VDDP 0.950v while in the BIOS is set to 0.900v)

So i tried the calculator settings SAFE @3466 but with every combination of the suggested Termination Block the computer fail to start (3 attempts with F9 dr debug error) and go back in bios with CPU frequency at default; HOWEVER if i reload the calculator settings, it does start and boot to Windows; HOWEVER when i do the first test to see which suggested termination block settings have the minor error (as the oc ram guide suggests) "TM5 basic profile" it gives out 100+ errors.

I've tried changing the ProcODT even at 60Mhz but doesnt' change, i get POST reboot 3x fails or if reloading the settings and boots to Windows i still get tons of errors with TM5 0.12.

Those are the settings:









Can i do something if i want to try 3466?

Default XMP profile of the RAM at 3466 post without problems (however i get some errors, i was curious and tried TM5 with default XMP profile)


----------



## drkCrix

KedarWolf said:


> You want to go b-die 2x16GB kit, like the Trident Z Neo 3600 CL16-16-16-36 kit. Two DIMMs much better than four for Ryzen and dual rank the way to go how the memory controller works with two DIMM's.


Thanks for the recommendation, have the kit on order and should be here Thursday.

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## SteelWing

I'm having trouble getting my ram stable at 3600. Discovered recently that it is Samsung C Die so DRAM calculator isn't really able to help me because it doesn't have C die settings. Not sure where to go from these settings.

I've attached a Thaiphoon HTML report but I renamed it to a .txt and a Zentimings report.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Bubar37

For what it worths dram calculator is very accurate on my 3733 cjr cl17 kit on my b350 ryzen 1600 but a bit confused on my X570 with viper steel b_die don't know why and don't know if x570 tuf is daisy chain or not ...(if someone lnow  )
After month studying best way for me to be stable is to let many dram timing auto then try to lower the more i can and stay stable.
i'll putt a compare what ryzen calculator give as a result and what i need to be stable just for example not a complain about this amazing piece of work .
The good thing is that i needed to learn what all main timings and all sub timings do and some are still not easy to understand ...
The main probleme for me what prococdot setting : fact is if i don't let it to 36 my rig is unstable . If someone can help me on this ; ) thx


----------



## Prsid

Thanks - I managed to find my PCB revision.

How do I import the first column of data? The guide says to use R-XMP but that doesn't appear to exist anymore.


----------



## SneakySloth

Prsid said:


> Thanks - I managed to find my PCB revision.
> 
> How do I import the first column of data? The guide says to use R-XMP but that doesn't appear to exist anymore.


Export the html report from typhoon burner. I forget the exact way but basically read one of the memory sticks -> Scroll to bottom --> Show delay in nanoseconds -> Generate full html report -> Save -> Click Import button in Dram Calculator -> Open saved report.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bubar37 said:


> For what it worths dram calculator is very accurate on my 3733 cjr cl17 kit on my b350 ryzen 1600 but a bit confused on my X570 with viper steel b_die don't know why and don't know if x570 tuf is daisy chain or not ...(if someone lnow  )
> After month studying best way for me to be stable is to let many dram timing auto then try to lower the more i can and stay stable.
> i'll putt a compare what ryzen calculator give as a result and what i need to be stable just for example not a complain about this amazing piece of work .
> The good thing is that i needed to learn what all main timings and all sub timings do and some are still not easy to understand ...
> The main probleme for me what prococdot setting : fact is if i don't let it to 36 my rig is unstable . If someone can help me on this ; ) thx


Almost all X570 boards are daisy chain:









Elenco X570 con VRM


Foglio1 AMD,Creato da R3d3x Tech qp,Usa la visualizzazione filtrata per confrontare le schede madri! Come? Chipset X570,<a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/TechqpR3d3x">https://www.youtube.com/c/TechqpR3d3x</a>,1) Clicca sulla riga 8 2) In alto a sinistra vicino all'icona della st...




docs.google.com







Prsid said:


> Thanks - I managed to find my PCB revision.
> 
> How do I import the first column of data? The guide says to use R-XMP but that doesn't appear to exist anymore.


Open Taiphoon Burner, Read SPD, click Report.
Scroll the report in the main window to the bottom.
Click on "Show delays in nanoseconds", will change the label in "Show delays in clock cycles".
Now File, Export To..., Complete HTML Report.
You can now use it for Import XMP in DRAM Calculator.


----------



## Dr. Vodka

What do you guys set your VDDP at for 3800MHz mclk?

Not CLDO_VDDP, but VDDP, that power rail that quickly got phased out by CLDO_VDDP back in Zen1 AGESA 1.0.0.4/1.0.0.6. Auto settings on my C6H (7901) sets it to 1.05v, but that seems excessive. Stock is 0.9v IIRC

Right now I'm running 50mV stepping

vSOC 1.05v
Both VDDGs 0.95v
CLDO_VDDP 0.9v
Does VDDP set the main voltage rail for generating CLDO_VDDP as vSOC does for VDDG?


----------



## Kuroihane

Hello everyone!

Not sure anyone is interested in looking into this, but any help would be appreciated.

My current setup is a X370 Taichi, R7 1700 @ 3.8/1.325V and a pair of Trident Z 3200 C15 ram. I cannot for the life of me get this stable with either fast configs or any higher clocks in the ram.

Could this be a IMC limitation? This is the most I could get out of it, Safe settings with 1.34V (tested with included Memtest today).

Fast values with 1.36V gave me an error after about 16 minutes into the test. The ram is kinda warm, I do have a 140 mm fan on top of my case (corsair 400C) blowing air over the ram, it's also configured to ramp up over 45C.

Is there something I could do?


----------



## Sphex_

Dr. Vodka said:


> What do you guys set your VDDP at for 3800MHz mclk?
> 
> Not CLDO_VDDP, but VDDP, that power rail that quickly got phased out by CLDO_VDDP back in Zen1 AGESA 1.0.0.4/1.0.0.6. Auto settings on my C6H (7901) sets it to 1.05v, but that seems excessive. Stock is 0.9v IIRC
> 
> Right now I'm running 50mV stepping
> 
> vSOC 1.05v
> Both VDDGs 0.95v
> CLDO_VDDP 0.9v


I run VDDP and VDDG at 950mV and 1000mV respectively. Check this community sheet to see what others with a setup similar to yours are running.


Dr. Vodka said:


> Does VDDP set the main voltage rail for generating CLDO_VDDP as vSOC does for VDDG?


I actually would like to know the answer to this as well. I see VDDP, VDDG, CLDO_VDDP, IOD, and other terms thrown around all the time but I'm unsure what the differences are.


----------



## Dr. Vodka

Sphex_ said:


> I run VDDP and VDDG at 950mV and 1000mV respectively. Check this community sheet to see what others with a setup similar to yours are running.
> 
> I actually would like to know the answer to this as well. I see VDDP, VDDG, CLDO_VDDP, IOD, and other terms thrown around all the time but I'm unsure what the differences are.


I'm in that sheet already 

My particular inquiry was about VDDP.


----------



## jcpq




----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dr. Vodka said:


> What do you guys set your VDDP at for 3800MHz mclk?
> 
> Not CLDO_VDDP, but VDDP, that power rail that quickly got phased out by CLDO_VDDP back in Zen1 AGESA 1.0.0.4/1.0.0.6. Auto settings on my C6H (7901) sets it to 1.05v, but that seems excessive. Stock is 0.9v IIRC
> 
> Right now I'm running 50mV stepping
> 
> vSOC 1.05v
> Both VDDGs 0.95v
> CLDO_VDDP 0.9v
> Does VDDP set the main voltage rail for generating CLDO_VDDP as vSOC does for VDDG?


General rule is lower is better, I have mine set at 900.
With the latest AORUS Master F30 using ComboPI V2 1.0.8.1 had to increase to 950.
Never had to increase it before.
Both VDDP and VDDG are affected by the bios release and its AGESA version.

Glossary of terms from 1usmus article can be helpful:








AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide


Memory overclocking has a significant impact on performance of AMD Ryzen-powered machines, but the alleged complexity of memory tweaking on this platform, largely fueled by misinformation and lack of documentation, has kept some enthusiasts away from it. We want to change this.




www.techpowerup.com





Pretty sure VDDP isn't the main rail; CLDO is the Phy part.
You can run VDDP at 1000mV and still CLDO_VDDP is set at 900mV as I remember.
Till now I've only found helpful CPU_VDD18 at 1.760mV to boot at 1933 IF.


----------



## Yuke

Is it advisable to run tRP below tCL?


----------



## rares495

Yuke said:


> Is it advisable to run tRP below tCL?


Yes but it does require high voltage.


----------



## Nighthog

Dr. Vodka said:


> My particular inquiry was about VDDP.


You mean CPU_VDDP?

I've noted there are cases where running it around 1000mv-1040mv can increased memory stability depending on other settings. 
But normally it's not needed to be adjusted, only in specific cases have I noted advantage to alter it from stock 900mv.
There is reason to test it out if nothing else works. But the AMD_CBS/AMD_OVERCLOCKING VDDP/VDDG settings are usually more important.

VDDP (IMC) for memory is important for 4600Mhz++
I've noted 900-950mv range doesn't work at above 4600Mhz memory speed for myself. 900mv won't boot at all.
It needs to be in the 1050mv and + range for high frequency. 
But 3800Mhz and below 900-950mv usually isn't an issue but doesn't hurt to have more.


----------



## Mx King Sniper

jcpq said:


> View attachment 2460722


Can you try:
tWRWRSCL= 2
tRRDS/L= 5-5
tFAW = 20

just curious


----------



## fcchin

Kuroihane said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> Not sure anyone is interested in looking into this, but any help would be appreciated.
> 
> My current setup is a X370 Taichi, R7 1700 @ 3.8/1.325V and a pair of Trident Z 3200 C15 ram. I cannot for the life of me get this stable with either fast configs or any higher clocks in the ram.
> 
> Could this be a IMC limitation? This is the most I could get out of it, Safe settings with 1.34V (tested with included Memtest today).
> 
> Fast values with 1.36V gave me an error after about 16 minutes into the test. The ram is kinda warm, I do have a 140 mm fan on top of my case (corsair 400C) blowing air over the ram, it's also configured to ramp up over 45C.
> 
> Is there something I could do?
> 
> View attachment 2460697


Hello Kuroihane, wow, so many to say.

The IMC is running at limit, hence need more more voltage to push through, SOC too low, please remember and realize the default is 1.2v hence do not be afraid to try this. My soc got to run at 1.0625v where 1.05v sure fail mem test.

I recall samsung b-die also love voltages around 1.45v but not 1.5v they start to be crash, these are the 3600 or above type samsung b-die not sure about 3200 type. My 3600 got to run at 1.38v where 1.37v sure fail mem test.

your zentiming 1.1.0 shots tRFC2 value higher than tRFC, hence this must be corrected. Leave tRFC2 and 4 on auto and reboot a couple of times for memory training and it should show you new values. Mark it down for future manual keyin and faster achieve good results instead of a couple of crashes simply because it needs to train and give you false sense of problem.

Also refer to other users record/data/log in the 1usmus user results database and find your ram.

HWinfo not showing SOC voltages. It's showing the things we don't really need. Look at other places.

1usmus says it's just a guide, not defacto follow everything, he gives you the ball park then you find tune up or down, hence don't stick to those values, be brave, 

And try up and procODT too, zen-1 can't go low. the faster the ram or more rank or more dimm the higher it needs.

btw you remind me calculator 1.7.3 is not good for zen-1 my 1700x in b450 go haywire using 1.7.3, gotto use values from older calculator better, like 1.6


----------



## ManniX-ITA

fcchin said:


> Hello Kuroihane, wow, so many to say.
> 
> The IMC is running at limit, hence need more more voltage to push through, SOC too low, please remember and realize the default is 1.2v hence do not be afraid to try this. My soc got to run at 1.0625v where 1.05v sure fail mem test.
> 
> I recall samsung b-die also love voltages around 1.45v but not 1.5v they start to be crash, these are the 3600 or above type samsung b-die not sure about 3200 type. My 3600 got to run at 1.38v where 1.37v sure fail mem test.
> 
> your zentiming 1.1.0 shots tRFC2 value higher than tRFC, hence this must be corrected. Leave tRFC2 and 4 on auto and reboot a couple of times for memory training and it should show you new values. Mark it down for future manual keyin and faster achieve good results instead of a couple of crashes simply because it needs to train and give you false sense of problem.
> 
> Also refer to other users record/data/log in the 1usmus user results database and find your ram.
> 
> HWinfo not showing SOC voltages. It's showing the things we don't really need. Look at other places.
> 
> 1usmus says it's just a guide, not defacto follow everything, he gives you the ball park then you find tune up or down, hence don't stick to those values, be brave,
> 
> And try up and procODT too, zen-1 can't go low. the faster the ram or more rank or more dimm the higher it needs.
> 
> btw you remind me calculator 1.7.3 is not good for zen-1 my 1700x in b450 go haywire using 1.7.3, gotto use values from older calculator better, like 1.6


The motherboard Auto settings for tRFC2 and tRFC4 are often wrong.
Better to use the tRFC Calculator spreadsheet from @Veii.









tRFC mini


TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...




docs.google.com


----------



## t4t3r

Why is my latency so flipping high?


----------



## masteratarms

SK hynix launches industry's first DDR5 DRAM modules


Next gen RAM has 4,800-5,600Mbps transfer rates, built-in ECC, operates at 1.1V.




hexus.net





Transfer rate of 4,800 ~ 5,600Mbps
Operating voltage is 1.1V
Reduced power consumption and operating costs
Up to 256GB modules thanks to TSV


----------



## chitos123

Does anyone know??
Burst/Postponed Refresh,
UrgRefLimit, SubUrgRefLowerBound,
DRAM Maximum Activate Count.


----------



## rares495

t4t3r said:


> View attachment 2461160
> 
> 
> Why is my latency so flipping high?


It's actually quite low. You won't get lower without an allcore OC.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

t4t3r said:


> View attachment 2461160
> 
> 
> Why is my latency so flipping high?


It’s the same as my memory kit at 1900fclk @cl15 (3900x CH7), I can get under 62ns but like rarest said only with an all core OC 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## possessed

Sorry wrong thread.


----------



## bmagnien

*I have a pair of Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 ( Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) | BLM2K16G44C19U4BL | Crucial.com ). I want to use DRAM calculator to figure out how to run them at 3600MHz but at significantly tighter timings. If I enter all the info about the RAM into the utility, and just enter 3600 instead of 4400, will it output the correct lower timings? I'm hoping to get around CL14 but I'm not sure about all the other variables. I'm fairly new to this, so if this is not a good idea, or the utility won't support this, or there is another frequency/timing combo I should be targeting, I'd appreciate any advice. Currently running with a 3900x but planning to upgrade to 5900x. Thank you!*


----------



## t4t3r

rares495 said:


> It's actually quite low. You won't get lower without an allcore OC.


I was exaggerating a little but just meant high in reference to other screenshots with similar or worse timings. I knew processor speed had an impact just didn’t think it would be a couple ns but I guess it is. Appreciate the input.


----------



## gerardfraser

bmagnien said:


> *I have a pair of Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 ( Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) | BLM2K16G44C19U4BL | Crucial.com ). I want to use DRAM calculator to figure out how to run them at 3600MHz but at significantly tighter timings. If I enter all the info about the RAM into the utility, and just enter 3600 instead of 4400, will it output the correct lower timings? I'm hoping to get around CL14 but I'm not sure about all the other variables. I'm fairly new to this, so if this is not a good idea, or the utility won't support this, or there is another frequency/timing combo I should be targeting, I'd appreciate any advice. Currently running with a 3900x but planning to upgrade to 5900x. Thank you!*


Cool your ram by having airflow over ram.
Set DRAM voltage to 1.5v
tCL - 14
tRCDWR - 14 but can be set to anything low on Ryzen
tRCDRD -15/16
tRP - 14
tRAS -30

Test these settings for errors with mem test that comes in the DRAM Calculator. If your ram passes say 400% ,then lower DRAM 0.01v at at time until it fails.

Then after all the testing the only other timings you should need to adjust is but you can adjust all of them if you feel like it,just follow DRAM caculator suggestiions . It is a great tool.
tRC- 40 - 60
tRFC - the lower the better,start around 500 and see if it passes the mem test.

SOC voltage -1.05v - 1.10v or whatever DRAM calculator suggest
VDDG CCD - 1.0v
VDDG IOD -1.0v
cLDO VDDP - 0.95v


----------



## bmagnien

gerardfraser said:


> Cool your ram by having airflow over ram.
> Set DRAM voltage to 1.5v
> tCL - 14
> tRCDWR - 14 but can be set to anything low on Ryzen
> tRCDRD -15/16
> tRP - 14
> tRAS -30
> 
> Test these settings for errors with mem test that comes in the DRAM Calculator. If your ram passes say 400% ,then lower DRAM 0.01v at at time until it fails.
> 
> Then after all the testing the only other timings you should adjust is
> tRC- 40 - 60
> tRFC - the lower the better,start around 500 and see if it passes the mem test.


Wow thanks so much for the detailed response @gerardfraser ! All these labels are still like a foreign language to me, but I was basically just planning to match whatever came out of the calculator with the labels in the bios and just copy and paste, but your responses give me a great starting place as well as some direction for tuning. Am I correct in understanding that you believe I can hit 3600 CL14? I was also considering setting FCLK to 1900 and aiming for 3800Mhz, at maybe CL15/CL16? What do you think? And is there a way to make the calculator export similar data to what you've told me above so I don't have to keep bugging people? Thanks again!


----------



## gerardfraser

Well I add a couple voltages. You should be able to do 3600CL 14 no problem on 3900X.
FCLK/UCLK/MCLK on 3900X might be harder to get but if you have a good chip can be done easy on that Ram.Even 3800Mhz CL14 is doable ,if you CPU lets you ,other waise try 3733Mhz. 

I do not know anything about Ram but there are real experts in this thread like @Veii that knows what is going on. All I can say is try and use the suggestion from the DRAM calculator and match the symbols,just remember with lower latency you will need more DRAM voltage.

Have fun with it and good luck,there is no way you will screw anything up,you may not get some boot ups but no need to worry about that all all. Just reset and try again.


----------



## bmagnien

OK thanks for the encouragement @gerardfraser ! My one question is, and this may be a stupid question, but for the 5th field down in the calculator (Frequency MT/S) - do I have to put the number that comes on the box of my ram (4400) ? Or can I treat that field like what I want the calculator to 'target' (so 3600, 3800, etc.) as long as all the other fields I enter actually are specific to what my Ram actually is (with the auto-filled XMP fields and the rest from Thaiphoon) ?


----------



## gerardfraser

You enter what you want like 3600/3800 ,see your a pro already. Awesome and good luck


----------



## bmagnien

Awesome! I'm excited. Thanks again @gerardfraser


----------



## gerardfraser

If you want to use your Ram profile from thaiphoon burner in DRAM calculator and just change (Frequency MT/S) after import. Heres how to save and import.
In thaiphoon burner export your XMP profile with complete HTML Report and save delays in nanoseconds to desktop or somewhere you would remember.
Then import the XMP complete HTML Report to DRAM Calculator for Ryzen


----------



## bmagnien

gerardfraser said:


> If you want to use your Ram profile from thaiphoon burner in DRAM calculator and just change (Frequency MT/S) after import. Heres how to save and import.
> In thaiphoon burner export your XMP profile with complete HTML Report and save delays in nanoseconds to desktop or somewhere you would remember.
> Then import the XMP complete HTML Report to DRAM Calculator for Ryzen


Perfect, will do!


----------



## Yuke

Losing my mind here.

Im getting super random Karhu errors even tho i can run TM5 and Y-Cruncher for ages.

Sometimes i can even run Karhu for 6h straight without problems and other times i get an error within the first 5 minutes of testing. Its super, super random and i have no idea what the problem could be.

People said Karhu stresses the CPU cache a lot, so my question is, how do i tackle cache related problems?

I don't get crashes, reboots, WHEA errors or windows corruption...nothing. But those random Errors coming out of nowhere are killing me....when im sure i passed everything after 5-6 hours of Karhu without an error...i start my PC the next day and Karhu gives me an error within 5minutes...i swear i am close to punching through the wall.

Is it possible that it is a bug in the software? Should i just delete it and just use TM5 and Y-Cruncher? What else is there to use? Any help is appreciated.










@1.5V


----------



## Keith Myers

Why do you put so much credit to one application? Is it the only application you use? If other testing and stability applications find no faults, and more importantly, the real applications you use in daily life don't have issues, your computer doesn't have any issues. Just use it. Recommend you bin the Karhu application as it seems to cause you stress and discomfort.


----------



## Yuke

Keith Myers said:


> Why do you put so much credit to one application? Is it the only application you use? If other testing and stability applications find no faults, and more importantly, the real applications you use in daily life don't have issues, your computer doesn't have any issues. Just use it. Recommend you bin the Karhu application as it seems to cause you stress and discomfort.


I guess you are right. The sheer randomness of the Error is what i simply dont understand here.

I tried out one last thing yesterday to fix the "problem" and so far its looking good...at least i was able to do a 6h Karhu test twice in a row without the error popping up.

I increased CAD_BUS and procODT by a bit. No idea if it makes sense in that context, tho.


----------



## miguel1900

Hi guys,

Please, I would need a little help. I had 2 modules of 16gb (G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C14D-32GTZSW) at 3600 16-16-16-16-32-48 and Dram Calculator suggestions, v1.35, without any problems, but I have bought another pair to have a total of 64gb, but it's unstable, giving me errors after a time during MemtestPro. I have tried lot of things, higher timings even like 16-18-18-18-36-54, lower frequencies like 3533, but there is no way, only when maintaining the XMP/DOCP settings. And if I use Dram Calculator suggestions for subtimings, it even doesn't POST (with 4 sticks).

So, my main question would be: simply raising voltage, could become stable? And other questions would be: is it normal that they require more voltage when they are 4 ram sticks instead of two? (even if the Calculator suggests me the same voltage: min 1.34, rec 1.35, max 1.36) could I increase a little (let's say to 1.355 or even 1.36) my ram voltage without increasing the rest of voltages safely? I have read the IMC voltage is very very sensitive and I don't want to break anything (which one is the IMC voltage, the VDDP one?).

My current voltages are:
RAM v1.35 (theorically, as I can't check it with any sotfware, only in Bios)
Soc v1.0813 (Setted in Bios at v1.1)
VDDP 0,9
VDDG 1,0477

Thank you very much!


----------



## rares495

miguel1900 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Please, I would need a little help. I had 2 modules of 16gb (G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C14D-32GTZSW) at 3600 16-16-16-16-32-48 and Dram Calculator suggestions, v1.35, without any problems, but I have bought another pair to have a total of 64gb, but it's unstable, giving me errors after a time during MemtestPro. I have tried lot of things, higher timings even like 16-18-18-18-36-54, lower frequencies like 3533, but there is no way, only when maintaining the XMP/DOCP settings. And if I use Dram Calculator suggestions for subtimings, it even doesn't POST (with 4 sticks).
> 
> So, my main question would be: simply raising voltage, could become stable? And other questions would be: is it normal that they require more voltage when they are 4 ram sticks instead of two? (even if the Calculator suggests me the same voltage: min 1.34, rec 1.35, max 1.36) could I increase a little (let's say to 1.355 or even 1.36) my ram voltage without increasing the rest of voltages safely? I have read the IMC voltage is very very sensitive and I don't want to break anything (which one is the IMC voltage, the VDDP one?).
> 
> My current voltages are:
> RAM v1.35 (theorically, as I can't check it with any sotfware, only in Bios)
> Soc v1.0813 (Setted in Bios at v1.1)
> VDDP 0,9
> VDDG 1,0477
> 
> Thank you very much!


You can go way higher on voltage. Any RAM overclock starts by setting the voltage to 1.45V or more. Your memory is B-die and can scale beautifully with voltage.


----------



## IwannaKnow

miguel1900 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Please, I would need a little help. I had 2 modules of 16gb (G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C14D-32GTZSW) at 3600 16-16-16-16-32-48 and Dram Calculator suggestions, v1.35, without any problems, but I have bought another pair to have a total of 64gb, but it's unstable, giving me errors after a time during MemtestPro. I have tried lot of things, higher timings even like 16-18-18-18-36-54, lower frequencies like 3533, but there is no way, only when maintaining the XMP/DOCP settings. And if I use Dram Calculator suggestions for subtimings, it even doesn't POST (with 4 sticks).
> 
> So, my main question would be: simply raising voltage, could become stable? And other questions would be: is it normal that they require more voltage when they are 4 ram sticks instead of two? (even if the Calculator suggests me the same voltage: min 1.34, rec 1.35, max 1.36) could I increase a little (let's say to 1.355 or even 1.36) my ram voltage without increasing the rest of voltages safely? I have read the IMC voltage is very very sensitive and I don't want to break anything (which one is the IMC voltage, the VDDP one?).
> 
> My current voltages are:
> RAM v1.35 (theorically, as I can't check it with any sotfware, only in Bios)
> Soc v1.0813 (Setted in Bios at v1.1)
> VDDP 0,9
> VDDG 1,0477
> 
> Thank you very much!


Hi,

did you try this RTTs for your 4x16GB Sticks
7/3/1?


----------



## miguel1900

Thank you guys,



rares495 said:


> You can go way higher on voltage. Any RAM overclock starts by setting the voltage to 1.45V or more. Your memory is B-die and can scale beautifully with voltage.


But can I do it only rising the RAM voltage, without touching the others? What the worse case, frying the RAM, or even the Mobo of CPU?



IwannaKnow said:


> Hi,
> 
> did you try this RTTs for your 4x16GB Sticks
> 7/3/1?


Yes, I did. Here you are the timings and options when using 2 sticks (currently I'm testing them, only with 2 connected and they are already 350% without errors):








And with 4 (one of the lof of tries I did, lowering the timings), you can see the 7/3/1:









If you consider this may take longer, and it's better to create a new thread, I can do it.

Thanks!


----------



## Kuroihane

fcchin said:


> Hello Kuroihane, wow, so many to say....


I thought I would receive an e-mail when quoted here, this time I didn't get it, sorry for the late reply.

I usually avoid pushing my memory voltage any higher because it seems like my kit runs a bit hot. With that 1.35~1.36V I reach the upper 40C, sometimes over 50C. I noticed that everytime it cracks that temperature "barrier" I begin getting errors and reboots...Maybe that's because it lacks voltage to operate?

Well, I did try applying a few of your hints and for a beginning, it seems "ok". I was finally able to get it reasonably stable on the 3200 Fast preset from 1.6 calc.



Spoiler: Zentimings and HWinfo +memtest results



I had 1.37V set for Dram on BIOS. 1.125 for the SOC with LLC 2. I also bumped the ProcODT to 60. Is it bad that difference between the tasks to complete?



















After that, I tried a 3400 but...some weird stuff happens. Even on safe preset Windows can't "recognize" the ram speed on Task Manager. Even the calc doesn't read the speed.

I will try at 3333 and see if I get any results.



ManniX-ITA said:


> The motherboard Auto settings for tRFC2 and tRFC4 are often wrong.
> Better to use the tRFC Calculator spreadsheet from @Veii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC mini
> 
> 
> TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


Thank you very much! I will try using that calculator as well! ---> I used the calc on the above settings!


----------



## Yuke

I am testing out a new set of timings. I don't claim stability yet...but Karhu runs for 4 hours now without errors (probably will give me a random error tomorrow within the first 5min of my confirmation run anyway).

Funny thing is that its the first time that i got over 57k readspeed. Latency is 63.6ns with PBO and 62.5ns with All Core OC. 1.47V in BIOS.

Was hesitant first because tRTP is not a perfect divider of tRFC...but 32.5 seems good enough.


----------



## fcchin

Yuke said:


> View attachment 2461900


Hello @Yuke , I also use 3800x, and get 65ns in 1usmus memtest latency section, using 3600 C16-15-15-15-35 etc, CPU full auto, no PBO. Can you try 1usmus memtest latency section and let me know new latency?

Thanks so much in advance.


----------



## KedarWolf

fcchin said:


> Hello @Yuke , I also use 3800x, and get 65ns in 1usmus memtest latency section, using 3600 C16-15-15-15-35 etc, CPU full auto, no PBO. Can you try 1usmus memtest latency section and let me know new latency?
> 
> Thanks so much in advance.


Here is mine, 61.8 Custom Latency.


----------



## fcchin

KedarWolf said:


> Here is mine, 61.8 Custom Latency.
> 
> View attachment 2462015


Thanks @KedarWolf , yes I think this result is more like what 3800mhz should be or can achieve using high CPU clock too. What CPU clock was used for benchmark?

This is good reference for @Yuke


----------



## Yuke

fcchin said:


> Thanks @KedarWolf , yes I think this result is more like what 3800mhz should be or can achieve using high CPU clock too. What CPU clock was used for benchmark?
> 
> This is good reference for @Yuke


I am not a fan of memBench latency, its all over the place for me, especially custom latency.










Also i think there is not a second person on this planet who can run @KedarWolf timings.  Those are ****ing crazy...i would need like 0.7V more to have them run stable for a bench.


----------



## rares495

Yuke said:


> I am not a fan of memBench latency, its all over the place for me, especially custom latency.
> 
> Also i think there is not a second person on this planet who can run @KedarWolf timings.  Those are ****ing crazy...i would need like 0.7V more to have them run stable for a bench.


Hello there.


----------



## Yuke

I can also cheat with an All Core OC :X


----------



## SneakySloth

rares495 said:


> Hello there.
> 
> View attachment 2462035
> 
> View attachment 2462036


Whats the voltage you're running for those timings?


----------



## rares495

SneakySloth said:


> Whats the voltage you're running for those timings?


1.5V set in the BIOS 
1.52V read by HWInfo64


----------



## EniGma1987

bmagnien said:


> Awesome! I'm excited. Thanks again @gerardfraser


Were you able to run your Crucial memory at either 3600 or 3800 with 14-14-14 timings? I am looking at that memory too but want to see if it turned out any good.


----------



## rares495

EniGma1987 said:


> Were you able to run your Crucial memory at either 3600 or 3800 with 14-14-14 timings? I am looking at that memory too but want to see if it turned out any good.


Crucial uses Micron Rev. E chips which can't run flat timings. That's a Samsung B-die thing. With Rev. E you're looking at something like 3800 15-17-17-35-52 or 3800 16-18-18-36-54.


----------



## SneakySloth

rares495 said:


> 1.5V set in the BIOS
> 1.52V read by HWInfo64


That's very impressive for straight 14s, TRFC that low and GDM disabled as well. I'm guessing this is stable too? Very impressive though.


----------



## rares495

SneakySloth said:


> That's very impressive for straight 14s, TRFC that low and GDM disabled as well. I'm guessing this is stable too? Very impressive though.


Can't get tRCDRD stable at 14 no matter what I do. The rest pretty much is, yeah.


----------



## KedarWolf

fcchin said:


> Thanks @KedarWolf , yes I think this result is more like what 3800mhz should be or can achieve using high CPU clock too. What CPU clock was used for benchmark?
> 
> This is good reference for @Yuke



CCX overclock at 4.468/4.443/4.393/4.368GHz.


----------



## KedarWolf

deleted


----------



## KedarWolf

Yuke said:


> I am not a fan of memBench latency, its all over the place for me, especially custom latency.
> 
> View attachment 2462033
> 
> 
> Also i think there is not a second person on this planet who can run @KedarWolf timings.  Those are ****ing crazy...i would need like 0.7V more to have them run stable for a bench.


----------



## fcchin

Yuke said:


> I can also cheat with an All Core OC :X
> 
> View attachment 2462037


Thanks @Yuke, hahaha, that's exactly what I was hoping to see a best attempt CPU clock versus cheat all OC clock, gives the big laugh out of me......

Thanks @rares495 for sharing too.

You all lucky B, 3800mhz ram. Or more importantly 1:1 clock with IMC...... unfortunately for me can't reach this golden number, only managed 3733mhz for me with 1usmus safe timing, around 63ns+++ which is nearly exactly same with my 3666mhz with 1usmus fast timing, also around 63ns++++, I think 1.45v for ram,,,,, then I gave up altogether, because I recall getting 65ns+++ simply on 3600mhz 1usmus fast @ 1.38v thought save myself some electicity bills since most I do is movies & games. 

And I've got to cheat a little, i.e. aggresive power plan, make sure all apps closed, wait for CPU in very low stable idle, fans max, etc, hahahahhaha how we manipulate all these are so funny. Never tried all OC though.

Give you guys another laugh, I've been runing 50% CPU limit on custom power plan playing CoD MW WZ and still getting 70~100 fps, so WTH, just kept playing with various different lowest clock for a week or two then switch to aggresive clock boost for a week or two and vice versa, and dam surprised, in game play, can't tell the difference.

The obvious difference is friends on xbox using mechanical hdd always appear late / last, while friends on xbox self mod SSD sata will appear as fast as I do +/- sometimes faster. CoD multiplayer case.


----------



## Eder

Yuke said:


> I am not a fan of memBench latency, its all over the place for me, especially custom latency.
> 
> View attachment 2462033
> 
> 
> Also i think there is not a second person on this planet who can run @KedarWolf timings.  Those are ****ing crazy...i would need like 0.7V more to have them run stable for a bench.


I run his settings for two months now stable. I have a 3700x so I have some voltages set differently. For example I use 1.05v soc (+1 step with droop). I do have a fan pointed at my sticks combined with good case airflow.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

What is good RAM to get for Ryzen 5000? Would 3200 CL14 Samsung B-Die still good?


----------



## rares495

ZealotKi11er said:


> What is good RAM to get for Ryzen 5000? Would 3200 CL14 Samsung B-Die still good?


Probably not if the max will be ~4200MHz.


----------



## Yuke

Eder said:


> I run his settings for two months now stable. I have a 3700x so I have some voltages set differently. For example I use 1.05v soc (+1 step with droop). I do have a fan pointed at my sticks combined with good case airflow.


I'd need 1.53V in BIOS to run them, sadly. Guess my Kit came out of the Trash-Bin.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ZealotKi11er said:


> What is good RAM to get for Ryzen 5000? Would 3200 CL14 Samsung B-Die still good?


I guess we'll have to find out.
Probably better the many Samsung B-die good binning sold as 3600CL16 that can do 3800 CL14.
They are probably good as well at 4000 with more relaxed timings.
But for the best sure you need those very expensive binning for 4000+ clocks at lower voltage.


----------



## KedarWolf

SneakySloth said:


> Whats the voltage you're running for those timings?


I'm pretty sure @rares495 is running 2x8GB Single Rank RAM and I'm running 2x16GB Dual Rank.

Dual rank is harder to overclock, but that being said, rares495 still has a golden CPU to get those timings if they are TM5 stable. 

@rares495 Do you have a screenshot of say 25 rounds of TM5?


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> I'm pretty sure @rares495 is running 2x8GB Single Rank RAM and I'm running 2x16GB Dual Rank.
> 
> Dual rank is harder to overclock, but that being said, rares495 still had a golden CPU to get those timings if they are TM5 stable.
> 
> @rares495 Do you have a screenshot of say 25 rounds of TM5?


I've been fairly lucky with my CPUs. 3600, 3700X, 3800XT. They all did 1900 FCLK without much fuss and decent core overclockers too. The 3600 required higher VDDG to get rid of audio crackles but that's about it.

I do have an older screenshot. Different CPU and motherboard but this memory has behaved the same way every time. Notice how fast it did 20 cycles. Really great performance.


----------



## miguel1900

Why the bench included in the Calcutator uses HCI instead of TM5? @1usmus even made a config file for TM5, and it's seems to be more efficient (and/or faster) than HCI, right?

Regards!


----------



## KedarWolf

miguel1900 said:


> Why the bench included in the Calcutator uses HCI instead of TM5? @1usmus even made a config file for TM5, and it's seems to be more efficient (and/or faster) than HCI, right?
> 
> Regards!


TM5 Anta Extreme 3 rounds or 1usmus 25 rounds the way to go for memory testing.

On my 3950x 25 rounds takes about 2 hours and 44 minutes and it's the go to memory stress testing app now.

I've still run stressapptest (GSAT) and HCI MemTest though as well to further test. Even Karhu for a quick test.


----------



## KedarWolf

Do you peeps think 4000Mhz RAM will be the limit on 5000 series CPUs and will we be seeing 4200? Isn't 4000 the default strap so like we get 3800 from 3600, 3000 series we may get 4200 from 4000, 5000 series?

I'm buying a 5950x Nov. 5th or shortly after. I can't rightfully ask you peeps to pray I get a good chip, but you think someone can sacrifice a goat or something?


----------



## rares495

KedarWolf said:


> Do you peeps think 4000Mhz RAM will be the limit on 5000 series CPUs and will we be seeing 4200? Isn't 4000 the default strap so like we get 3800 from 3600, 3000 series we may get 4200 from 4000, 5000 series?
> 
> I'm buying a 5950x Nov. 5th or shortly after. I can't rightfully ask you peeps to pray I get a good chip, but you think someone can sacrifice a goat or something?


I think around 4200 will be the limit, yeah. Maybe 4400 if the good samples hit 2200 FCLK. I doubt they will, though.


----------



## KedarWolf

rares495 said:


> I think around 4200 will be the limit, yeah. Maybe 4400 if the good samples hit 2200 FCLK. I doubt they will, though.











Leaked AMD slide details Ryzen 5000 series memory overclocking - KitGuru


An AMD slide belonging to the




www.kitguru.net





The slide also claims that “memory/fabric is the biggest ROI for AMD Ryzen customers who want to overclock and tweak their systems”. Additionally, it also states that as DDR4-3800 was the top-performance configuration for Ryzen 3000 desktop processors, DDR4-4000 will be the same for Ryzen 5000 desktop processors.


----------



## bmagnien

Just picked up these: Are you a human?
Samsung B-die, dual rank, 2 dimms, xmp 4266 c17. I want to use the calculator to target 4000, but every time I try safe or normal at 4000mt/s with the profile imported from thaiphoone, across all four profiles (manual, bad bin, A0/B0, A3/A3/B2, I get a not supported error. What am I doing wrong? It can't even do anything more than 3800. At 3866 and 3933 I also get the not supported errors. I'm relying on the calculator pretty heavily to output some timings to try as without it I won't know where to start, and I know these sticks should perform well between 3800 and 4000 but I can't get any data from the calculator without an error. Any help is appreciated, thanks!


----------



## bmagnien

EniGma1987 said:


> Were you able to run your Crucial memory at either 3600 or 3800 with 14-14-14 timings? I am looking at that memory too but want to see if it turned out any good.


They turned out to be single rank micron revB so I returned them as the cost was not worth it.


----------



## KedarWolf

bmagnien said:


> Just picked up these: Are you a human?
> Samsung B-die, dual rank, 2 dimms, xmp 4266 c17. I want to use the calculator to target 4000, but every time I try safe or normal at 4000mt/s with the profile imported from thaiphoone, across all four profiles (manual, bad bin, A0/B0, A3/A3/B2, I get a not supported error. What am I doing wrong? It can't even do anything more than 3800. At 3866 and 3933 I also get the not supported errors. I'm relying on the calculator pretty heavily to output some timings to try as without it I won't know where to start, and I know these sticks should perform well between 3800 and 4000 but I can't get any data from the calculator without an error. Any help is appreciated, thanks!


You can't sync memory above 3800, won't post, though a very few people can at 3866 but that's rare. You need to unsync it above 3800 but latency will suffer.

The sweet spot is 3800 with great timings, see below.


----------



## bmagnien

KedarWolf said:


> You can sync memory above 3800, won't post, though a very few people can at 3866 but that's rare. You need to unsync it above 3800 but latency will suffer.
> 
> The sweet spot is 3800 with great timings, see below.
> 
> View attachment 2462212


Thanks but I'm not actually trying to run this with 1:1. I'm just trying to tune the memory to see what's possible with it for Zen 3, as that's expected to run with FCLK at 2000, or 1900 with a lowery binned chip. I'd keep FCLK at 1800 and just test the stability of the ram itself at 4000, not the whole system. Reagrdless, the calculator should export the settings I tell it to, no? Is it specifically coded not to export timings higher than 1900? I see a ton of successful timings in the spreadsheet at the beginning of thius thread that are over 4000...not sure how they used the calculator for that?


----------



## bmagnien

KedarWolf said:


> You can sync memory above 3800, won't post, though a very few people can at 3866 but that's rare. You need to unsync it above 3800 but latency will suffer.
> 
> The sweet spot is 3800 with great timings, see below.
> 
> View attachment 2462212


also, out of curiosity, where is your vram voltage in those screenshots? I feel like I can see everything erlse but that and might just give a try copying yours if I cant get the calc to work


----------



## KedarWolf

bmagnien said:


> also, out of curiosity, where is your vram voltage in those screenshots? I feel like I can see everything erlse but that and might just give a try copying yours if I cant get the calc to work


1.49v in BIOS.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

bmagnien said:


> Thanks but I'm not actually trying to run this with 1:1. I'm just trying to tune the memory to see what's possible with it for Zen 3, as that's expected to run with FCLK at 2000, or 1900 with a lowery binned chip. I'd keep FCLK at 1800 and just test the stability of the ram itself at 4000, not the whole system. Reagrdless, the calculator should export the settings I tell it to, no? Is it specifically coded not to export timings higher than 1900? I see a ton of successful timings in the spreadsheet at the beginning of thius thread that are over 4000...not sure how they used the calculator for that?


The calculator is made of presets; the one you are looking for is not supported.
You have to made your own.
Maybe for Zen3 some new 4000 profiles will be added.


----------



## bmagnien

ManniX-ITA said:


> The calculator is made of presets; the one you are looking for is not supported.
> You have to made your own.
> Maybe for Zen3 some new 4000 profiles will be added.


Ok, thank you. Are there any good resources you could recommend that might be able to help me to create my own? Maybe if I use the 3800 timings from the calc as a starting point and then try to manually go up from there...but I literally have no idea what the rules should be for altering all the settings so I’d sortve just be doing it blind so I doubt I’d have much luck


----------



## ManniX-ITA

bmagnien said:


> Ok, thank you. Are there any good resources you could recommend that might be able to help me to create my own? Maybe if I use the 3800 timings from the calc as a starting point and then try to manually go up from there...but I literally have no idea what the rules should be for altering all the settings so I’d sortve just be doing it blind so I doubt I’d have much luck


First you should look for someone else with the same memory die, maybe not the same module, that made a profile at that speed and just below or higher.
That's the most important source of info you can get.

Than you should boot in Auto and note what the board is setting if you can make it boot.
Probably wouldn't boot unless you set manually some or all the primary timings, tCL, tRP, tRCD, tRAS...

Then you should try to find what you can do with the sub-timings but you need to know how they interact with each other and the primaries.
Best way is to find something that works and then post it here for help 

This is the best guide:








integralfx/MemTestHelper


C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com





Look also at this spredsheet:








AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...




docs.google.com


----------



## KedarWolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> First you should look for someone else with the same memory die, maybe not the same module, that made a profile at that speed and just below or higher.
> That's the most important source of info you can get.
> 
> Than you should boot in Auto and note what the board is setting if you can make it boot.
> Probably wouldn't boot unless you set manually some or all the primary timings, tCL, tRP, tRCD, tRAS...
> 
> Then you should try to find what you can do with the sub-timings but you need to know how they interact with each other and the primaries.
> Best way is to find something that works and then post it here for help
> 
> This is the best guide:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> integralfx/MemTestHelper
> 
> 
> C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look also at this spredsheet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD RAM overclocking
> 
> 
> ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


They have high bin b-die. I have high bin b-die.

Edit: Both of us are 2x16GB.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> They have high bin b-die. I have high bin b-die.
> 
> Edit: Both of us are 2x16GB.


What is about?


----------



## KedarWolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> What is about?


You said get settings from someone with the same memory die. Everything I said is about having the same memory die.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> You said get settings from someone with the same memory die. Everything I said is about having the same memory die.


Maybe I understand now... not sure, maybe I'm still sleepy 

I'm going too for the 5950x, let's hope some will sacrifice a goat for me as well...
Tempted to change my cheapo Hynix DRJ kit with something better for the occasion but the availability is zero.

Like this kit that went down to 286 €:









G.Skill Trident Z RGB DIMM Kit 32GB, DDR4-4000, CL16-19-19-39 ab € 310,90 (2022) | Preisvergleich Geizhals Deutschland


✔ Preisvergleich für G.Skill Trident Z RGB DIMM Kit 32GB, DDR4-4000, CL16-19-19-39 ✔ Bewertungen ✔ Produktinfo ⇒ Typ: DDR4 DIMM 288-Pin • Takt: 4000MHz • Module: 2x 16GB • JEDEC: PC4-32000U… ✔ Speicher ✔ Testberichte ✔ Günstig kaufen




geizhals.de





Impossible to find anywhere like almost all B-die 32GB kits.
The really good stuff G.Skill announced months ago were total vaporware.
Never seen even listed. Damn... wish I went for something slightly better before now.


----------



## bmagnien

ManniX-ITA said:


> First you should look for someone else with the same memory die, maybe not the same module, that made a profile at that speed and just below or higher.
> That's the most important source of info you can get.
> 
> Than you should boot in Auto and note what the board is setting if you can make it boot.
> Probably wouldn't boot unless you set manually some or all the primary timings, tCL, tRP, tRCD, tRAS...
> 
> Then you should try to find what you can do with the sub-timings but you need to know how they interact with each other and the primaries.
> Best way is to find something that works and then post it here for help
> 
> This is the best guide:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> integralfx/MemTestHelper
> 
> 
> C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look also at this spredsheet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD RAM overclocking
> 
> 
> ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


@ManniX-ITA @KedarWolf thanks so much for both of your help. That spreadsheet ManniX linked looks perfect (and already set up for Zen 3 which is awesome!) and Kedar's timing screenshots are definitely in line if not better than some of the best timings in that sheet, so I'm going to try both for some stable 3800 times. One question I had - DRAM voltage is always left out on the screenshots and the spreadsheet. Isn't that a critical piece of information or am I missing something? Or do people just start at 1.5v by default and then come down .01v until it loses stability? That's probably what I'll try unless I'm just missing the posted dram voltage somehow?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

bmagnien said:


> @ManniX-ITA @KedarWolf thanks so much for both of your help. That spreadsheet ManniX linked looks perfect (and already set up for Zen 3 which is awesome!) and Kedar's timing screenshots are definitely in line if not better than some of the best timings in that sheet, so I'm going to try both for some stable 3800 times. One question I had - DRAM voltage is always left out on the screenshots and the spreadsheet. Isn't that a critical piece of information or am I missing something? Or do people just start at 1.5v by default and then come down .01v until it loses stability? That's probably what I'll try unless I'm just missing the posted dram voltage somehow?


No the VDIMM is always present in the spreadsheet, check again 

It depends on the IC and the type of cooling you have. In general around 50c you start getting errors.
Either you use active cooling in that area, big fan of top of the DIMMs, or a case very well ventilated sacrificing some mvolts.
Unfortunately the VDIMM, so far, can only be read via the AMD Ryzen Master driver which ZenTimings does not use.
Therefore you will not see screenshots including the VDIMM.


----------



## bmagnien

ManniX-ITA said:


> No the VDIMM is always present in the spreadsheet, check again
> 
> It depends on the IC and the type of cooling you have. In general around 50c you start getting errors.
> Either you use active cooling in that area, big fan of top of the DIMMs, or a case very well ventilated sacrificing some mvolts.
> Unfortunately the VDIMM, so far, can only be read via the AMD Ryzen Master driver which ZenTimings does not use.
> Therefore you will not see screenshots including the VDIMM.


You’re awesome! I definitely missed that in the spreadsheet. Thanks so much!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

bmagnien said:


> You’re awesome! I definitely missed that in the spreadsheet. Thanks so much!


You're welcome  

Another important resource is the tRFC calculator from @Veii:









tRFC mini


TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...




docs.google.com





You need to calculate and set tRFC2 and tRFC4 manually to get best latency results.


----------



## bmagnien

@ManniX-ITA 
Is there any evidence that something like these could help reduce temps? https://www.amazon.com/Easycargo-He...FRGNF1XB64D1&refRID=KW3T6M7WFRGNF1XB64D1&th=1

I'm in a mini ITX case and do have a fan directly underneath the ram as intake, and directly above as exhaust. But if I could squeeze some of these in between the AIO mount attached to the inside side of the ram's heatsink, do you think it'd help pull some heat off for the fans to exhaust?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

That stuff generally tend to detach after a while, even with the best quality thermal pad beneath.
And this generally means the mainboard will fry.

Yes it could help a bit if the airflow is strong but mostly for one DIMM which makes it nit useless.
To really bring down the temperature for both you need a fan on top pushing air.

Something like this:





Amazon.com: Corsair Vengeance Airflow Memory Cooling Fan CMYAF: Computers & Accessories


Buy Corsair Vengeance Airflow Memory Cooling Fan CMYAF: Fans & Cooling - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com





Or like usually everyone is doing a 12cm fan lousy mounted hovering the DIMMs 
It's more effective and cheaper.
But I guess could be a problem in an mini ITX case.

Set the voltage you aim for, check what's the DIMM temperature if it's reporting it after 20 minutes of TM5 testing.
You will know then if you need a better cooling.


----------



## clocker_xx

what about adding suport for 4000mhzzz


----------



## a93luhseg

Hi

I'm running 2x8GB Ballistix 3000CL15 (E-Die). I run them at 3000CL15 1.2V.

I want to add another 2x8GB (single rank) or a 1x16GB (dual rank) on top of it.

Unfortunately matching Ballistix modules are significantly more expensive than plain Crucial branded sticks (2666CL19 D-Die)

I'm not looking for super fast or tight but at least getting 4 modules at 3000CL16 would be nice.

- How good idea is it to mix E-die and D-die sticks? What should I expect?

- Is it guaranteed that the system would run at the rated 3000CL15 if I fill all slots with matching Ballistix 3000Cl15 E-die?
If it would run at decreased speeds like 2666 or similar despite all being E-die, does it make sense to buy cheaper D-die rams since they are rated at 2666 anyway?
(QVL has data on 4 slot/DS/2800 configuration which is encouraging)

- If mixing dies is a very bad idea should I sell the ballistix and go all D-Die 


(specs: Ryzen 1600AF + Asus Prime B350M-A - has 4 ram slots)


----------



## gerardfraser

Guys/Gals do not worry so much about DDR4 Ram. When it comes to PC gaming,adjusting timings are the main thing. Also resolution above 1920x1080 DDR4 Ram does not play a big role at all.I say use what you have and adjust timings the tightest timings you can get them and save some cash for a better GPU.I get the name of the forums ,it is not lost on me,I do see people buying 4/5 sets of DDR4 Ram and I do also but i am just sharing real information. If you need the fastest DDR4 Ram for some programs or to play with, well buy some DDR4 5000Mhz.

Anyway I posted this before in this thread. Memory timings at end of videos. *So slower DDR4 Ram vs the Highest you can get on AMD synced 1:1:1 to date.*

*AMD Ryzen Fabric Clock 1467Mhz (DDR4 2933Mhz) vs Fabric Clock 1933Mhz (DDR4 3866Mhz) PC Games*

*Battlefield 5 1920x1080*
DDR4 2933 Mhz (1467 MHz) 
AVG -143.8FPS
1%Low -82FPS
0.1%Low -58FPS

DDR4 3866 Mhz (1933 Mhz)
AVG -144.5FPS
1%Low -82FPS
0.1%Low -62FPS

*Grand Theft Auto V 1920x1080*
DDR4 2933 Mhz (1467 MHz) 
AVG -112.6FPS
1%Low -73FPS
0.1%Low -28FPS

DDR4 3866 Mhz (1933 Mhz)
AVG -114.5FPS
1%Low -76FPS
0.1%Low -28FPS

Video of test side by side


Spoiler












*Red Dead Redemption 2 1920x1080*
DDR4 2933 Mhz (1467 MHz) 
AVG -95.2FPS
Min -47.5FPS
1%Low -68.0FPS

DDR4 3866 Mhz (1933 Mhz)
AVG -97.0FPS
Min -47.2FPS
1%Low -70FPS

*Sleeping Dogs 1920x1080*
DDR4 2933 Mhz (1467 MHz) 
AVG -239.4FPS
Min -108.2FPS
1%Low -118FPS

DDR4 3866 Mhz (1933 Mhz)
AVG -243.9FPS
Min -109.6FPS
1%Low -118FPS

Video of test side by side


Spoiler


----------



## gerardfraser

bmagnien said:


> Ok, thank you. Are there any good resources you could recommend that might be able to help me to create my own? Maybe if I use the 3800 timings from the calc as a starting point and then try to manually go up from there...but I literally have no idea what the rules should be for altering all the settings so I’d sortve just be doing it blind so I doubt I’d have much luck


Here you go. I have memory set to 1.5v in screenshot but I could run B-die at 1.4v and you should be all to also if your CPU/Motherboard permits.I forgot what CPU/Motherboard you had.

4200mhz (16GB)CL16-18-17-17-36 -(memory clock 2100x2/fabric clock 1800x2/memory controller 1050x2) B-Die Timings


Spoiler







If you want some reading on Ryzen Ram

The man himself who actually made the tool your using
AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide

Another point of view
Demystifying Memory Overclocking on Ryzen

More tech crap
DDR4 SDRAM - Understanding Timing Parameters


----------



## fcchin

a93luhseg said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm running 2x8GB Ballistix 3000CL15 (E-Die). I run them at 3000CL15 1.2V.
> 
> I want to add another 2x8GB (single rank) or a 1x16GB (dual rank) on top of it.
> 
> Unfortunately matching Ballistix modules are significantly more expensive than plain Crucial branded sticks (2666CL19 D-Die)
> 
> I'm not looking for super fast or tight but at least getting 4 modules at 3000CL16 would be nice.
> 
> - How good idea is it to mix E-die and D-die sticks? What should I expect?
> 
> - Is it guaranteed that the system would run at the rated 3000CL15 if I fill all slots with matching Ballistix 3000Cl15 E-die?
> If it would run at decreased speeds like 2666 or similar despite all being E-die, does it make sense to buy cheaper D-die rams since they are rated at 2666 anyway?
> (QVL has data on 4 slot/DS/2800 configuration which is encouraging)
> 
> - If mixing dies is a very bad idea should I sell the ballistix and go all D-Die
> 
> 
> (specs: Ryzen 1600AF + Asus Prime B350M-A - has 4 ram slots)


1) if you already have 2x8GB, then you must add 2x8GB again to become 4x8GB in order to keep running 128 bits dual channel memory bandwidth. If you have 2x8GB+1x16GB then it will fall to 64 bits single channel and performance degrade 40%.
2) mix die is voodoo, not reall taboo, many people do it without saying much, mostly not succesfull when pushed, mostly only works when lowered speed. Not worth it not worth the trouble. 

If you can sell of the 3000 for more money than need to pay new 2666, then yeah, go for it. Most 2666 will run 3000 easily, may be timing a tad bit higher, still very high value for money buying the 2666.


----------



## fcchin

KedarWolf said:


> I can't rightfully ask you peeps to pray I get a good chip, but you think someone can sacrifice a goat or something?


Suspecting gods have updated themselves to use smartphones, not that they can't do anything more powerful, but they probably need smartphones for youtube and chats heh, hence they probably don't want a goat, but instead one of the most expensive consumuer CPU, something like a sacrifice of Intel Core i9-10900K, would probably satisfy the gods in exchange for a golden Ryzen 5000


----------



## a93luhseg

fcchin said:


> ...


Thanks for your reply!



> 1) if you already have 2x8GB, then you must add 2x8GB again to become 4x8GB in order to keep running 128 bits dual channel memory bandwidth. If you have 2x8GB+1x16GB then it will fall to 64 bits single channel and performance degrade 40%.


What about "Asymmetric Dual Channel"? At least the first 16GB should be dual channel, right?



> 2) mix die is voodoo, not reall taboo, many people do it without saying much, mostly not succesfull when pushed, mostly only works when lowered speed. Not worth it not worth the trouble.
> 
> If you can sell of the 3000 for more money than need to pay new 2666, then yeah, go for it. Most 2666 will run 3000 easily, may be timing a tad bit higher, still very high value for money buying the 2666.


I also read dual-rank is faster than single rank, so if I got 2x16GB dual rank 2666 what'd it be comparable to, single rank 2999?


----------



## Synoxia

@Veii
I want to understand the CLDO and Vsoc stepping correctly.

What if i want to undervolt the vsoc further than 1 mv... if i wanted for example run 975 vsoc stepping , i should use x2 vddg 925 and vddp 875. Correct? or like 950 vsoc, 900 vddg and 850 vddp? 900 vsoc = 800 vddg 750 vddp.
All of these are correct?









Do these look clean dividers to you guys? I want the cleanest sync possible


----------



## fcchin

a93luhseg said:


> What about "Asymmetric Dual Channel"? At least the first 16GB should be dual channel, right?
> 
> I also read dual-rank is faster than single rank, so if I got 2x16GB dual rank 2666 what'd it be comparable to, single rank 2999?


Not that I know off, 2x8GB+1 more stick of anything = 3 sticks regardless all same or mix should drop to single-channel, as far as I know.

Mixed brand / models are always OK, as long as able to force them all to run same speed same timing, i.e. 
stick 1 = 2666 C16
stick 2 = 3000 C15
stick 3 = 3200 C16
stick 4 = 3600 C18
but all run 2666 C16 then dual-channel mode will appear, else it will drop to single channel.

but not easy to OC the 2666 to 3600.

dual-rank faster than single-rank? yes and no!!! 

Not all case/benchmarks shows it faster, true also as not all applicable benefits from duak-rank, on those category that proof to be dual-rank faster than single-rank then around nearly 3 multiplier steps of 66mhz each, totaling around 200mhz are needed to compensate the difference. In the days of 3000mhz dual-rank vs. 3200mhz single-rank.

Everyone is going above 4000mhz and the difference becomes smaller I think. May be I guess wrong?


----------



## Valka814

I switched MB from x370 Crosshair VI Hero to x570 Aorus Elite. Dialed all of my stable 3800MHz memory settings and now in the GigaByte MB, the memory is not stable.
Can you guys give ideas where should I look?
Thank you!


----------



## fcchin

Valka814 said:


> I switched MB from x370 Crosshair VI Hero to x570 Aorus Elite. Dialed all of my stable 3800MHz memory settings and now in the GigaByte MB, the memory is not stable.
> Can you guys give ideas where should I look?
> Thank you!


x370 timing might not be usable in x470 and not unsable in x570, you need to re-find them.


----------



## Dreams-Visions

Do these timings look okay to you all? DRAM Calculator kept suggesting I should be able to go with GDM disabled, but it would never work. Perhaps because I'm on 4 sticks of RAM. Is there anything here that I should be concerned about or am I all set with this RAM kit?

Any divider or subtimings recommendations are more than welcome. I'm new to this.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dreams-Visions said:


> Do these timings look okay to you all? DRAM Calculator kept suggesting I should be able to go with GDM disabled, but it would never work. Perhaps because I'm on 4 sticks of RAM. Is there anything here that I should be concerned about or am I all set with this RAM kit?
> 
> Any divider or subtimings recommendations are more than welcome. I'm new to this.


Use the calculator for the tRFC2 and tRFC4:









tRFC mini


TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...




docs.google.com


----------



## Veii

Dreams-Visions said:


> Do these timings look okay to you all? DRAM Calculator kept suggesting I should be able to go with GDM disabled, but it would never work. Perhaps because I'm on 4 sticks of RAM. Is there anything here that I should be concerned about or am I all set with this RAM kit?
> 
> Any divider or subtimings recommendations are more than welcome. I'm new to this.


Up ClkDrvStr to 60Ohm & go for 2T 
If it runs,verify 120ohm ClkDrv with CsODTDrvStr 20
All fine, then drop cLDO_VDDP to 975mV / VDDG down to 1025, procODT to 40-42

You waste latency on tRC for no apparent reason
If your IC's can't run tRC 45, increase tRP to 16 but then likely the issue would be tRRD_L 
Using higher tRC to cover it up is an easy option ~ but you shouldn't do that 
Lower than 4* tRRD_S = tFAW , can work but you have to intensively test it

Following DRAM Calculator timings should either be done fully or non
They come as-is, pre tested and finetuned
Changing one timing value, breaks the efficiency of the whole set
Yes, also tRFC ~ which here is not well 
for tRC 46 it's
*276*,299,*322*,345,*368* and so on
for tRC 45 it's
225, 270, 315, 360....up till 630

FCLK is 1933 ?
Can't you push MCLK to 3866 under CL14
Anyways, main question was GDM ~ play with ClkDrvStr. 
Don't be afraid to push it up till 120ohm if needed , but IF needed ~ beyond 60ohm, start to drop the remain ones down to 20 / all depends on the quality of your board


----------



## Dreams-Visions

@Veii @ManniX-ITA ty for the recommendations!

this is all french to me so I'll try to implement your suggestions. I'm 100% sure you know better than I do what timings should look like. Thank you for the feedback.

My board is an X570 Auros Master if that's what you were asking.


----------



## Dreams-Visions

ManniX-ITA said:


> Use the calculator for the tRFC2 and tRFC4:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC mini
> 
> 
> TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com





Veii said:


> Up ClkDrvStr to 60Ohm & go for 2T
> If it runs,verify 120ohm ClkDrv with CsODTDrvStr 20
> All fine, then drop cLDO_VDDP to 975mV / VDDG down to 1025, procODT to 40-42
> 
> You waste latency on tRC for no apparent reason
> If your IC's can't run tRC 45, increase tRP to 16 but then likely the issue would be tRRD_L
> Using higher tRC to cover it up is an easy option ~ but you shouldn't do that
> Lower than 4* tRRD_S = tFAW , can work but you have to intensively test it
> 
> Following DRAM Calculator timings should either be done fully or non
> They come as-is, pre tested and finetuned
> Changing one timing value, breaks the efficiency of the whole set
> Yes, also tRFC ~ which here is not well
> for tRC 46 it's
> *276*,299,*322*,345,*368* and so on
> for tRC 45 it's
> 225, 270, 315, 360....up till 630
> 
> FCLK is 1933 ?
> Can't you push MCLK to 3866 under CL14
> Anyways, main question was GDM ~ play with ClkDrvStr.
> Don't be afraid to push it up till 120ohm if needed , but IF needed ~ beyond 60ohm, start to drop the remain ones down to 20 / all depends on the quality of your board


Alright, thank you again for the help. So I was able to implement several of your recommendations. Hopefully Zen Timings looks better. 😅

1.) I adjusted the tFAW to be 4x the tRRD_S. In Ryzen Calculator, it was recommended to set the tRRD_S to 3 (and tFAW to 12), but my Bios only allows that to go down to 4, so I set tFAW to 16.

2.) I was able to use the calculator to properly configure tRFC2 and tRFC4. Or, I believe the values are now correct. If they aren't please let me know.

3.) I was able to lower the VDDP and VDDG, and set the procODT to 40. 43.6 was recommended in Ryzen Calculator, but I'm not sure how important it is to go with a recommended value.

4.) I'm not sure why my FLCK was so high in that pic. It should have been 1900. That seems to have been resolved.

*Challenges:*

1.) any procODT value above 53 results in a failed boot.

2.) any ClkDrv value above 60 (only higher option is 120) results in a failed boot.

3.) GDM disabled while retaining full system stability remains elusive. While I had no problem booting in GDM disabled with 1T or 2T, MEMBench would always experience a few memory copy errors in its test. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but there were always errors. I tried several combinations of CAD_BUS settings and every procODT option between 40-53. Also tried increasing the DRAM voltage a bit. Best I saw was just 1 error in a test and but I never saw an error-free test with GDM disabled. If it is possible to achieve stability with GDM disabled at this frequency, I'm not sure how. Perhaps looser timings? But I'm not sure that would be worth the effort vs the completely stable GDM.

4.) 2T always benched worse than 1T.










If there are any other recommendations or things you think I should try, I'm happy to give GDM disabled another shot. But I definitely have some hard limits with ClkDRV and ProcODT. With these timings, anyway.

Note: I will be OC'ing this kit to 4000MHz at some point.

Thank you again, all! Again, I'm very new to this. If you see any other mistakes, I will appreciate the correction.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dreams-Visions said:


> Alright, thank you again for the help. So I was able to implement several of your recommendations. Hopefully Zen Timings looks better. 😅
> 
> 1.) I adjusted the tFAW to be 4x the tRRD_S. In Ryzen Calculator, it was recommended to set the tRRD_S to 3 (and tFAW to 12), but my Bios only allows that to go down to 4, so I set tFAW to 16.
> 
> 2.) I was able to use the calculator to properly configure tRFC2 and tRFC4. Or, I believe the values are now correct. If they aren't please let me know.
> 
> 3.) I was able to lower the VDDP and VDDG, and set the procODT to 40. 43.6 was recommended in Ryzen Calculator, but I'm not sure how important it is to go with a recommended value.
> 
> 4.) I'm not sure why my FLCK was so high in that pic. It should have been 1900. That seems to have been resolved.
> 
> *Challenges:*
> 
> 1.) any procODT value above 53 results in a failed boot.
> 
> 2.) any ClkDrv value above 60 (only higher option is 120) results in a failed boot.
> 
> 3.) GDM disabled while retaining full system stability remains elusive. While I had no problem booting in GDM disabled with 1T or 2T, MEMBench would always experience a few memory copy errors in its test. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but there were always errors. I tried several combinations of CAD_BUS settings and every procODT option between 40-53. Also tried increasing the DRAM voltage a bit. Best I saw was just 1 error in a test and but I never saw an error-free test with GDM disabled. If it is possible to achieve stability with GDM disabled at this frequency, I'm not sure how. Perhaps looser timings? But I'm not sure that would be worth the effort vs the completely stable GDM.
> 
> 4.) 2T always benched worse than 1T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there are any other recommendations or things you think I should try, I'm happy to give GDM disabled another shot. But I definitely have some hard limits with ClkDRV and ProcODT. With these timings, anyway.
> 
> Note: I will be OC'ing this kit to 4000MHz at some point.
> 
> Thank you again, all! Again, I'm very new to this. If you see any other mistakes, I will appreciate the correction.


There may be valid reasons why GDM off doesn't work; like VDIMM or VSOC. 
But considering you can run IF at 1900MHz at 1.075v VSOC it may not be a good trade off.
Especially if you are considering to go 4000MHz soon.

My only advice is to check the odd timings; GDM is forcing not only tCL and tCWL to even numbers.
Pretty sure it does it as well for tRCDRD.
Check with Sandra and other benchmarks what happens if you set them even.
If you don't have a degrade of scores than they were set to that number by GDM without you knowing.
It's better for latency if you don't let GDM adjust them.


----------



## rares495

Veii said:


> Up ClkDrvStr to 60Ohm & go for 2T
> If it runs,verify 120ohm ClkDrv with CsODTDrvStr 20
> All fine, then drop cLDO_VDDP to 975mV / VDDG down to 1025, procODT to 40-42
> 
> You waste latency on tRC for no apparent reason
> If your IC's can't run tRC 45, increase tRP to 16 but then likely the issue would be tRRD_L
> Using higher tRC to cover it up is an easy option ~ but you shouldn't do that
> Lower than 4* tRRD_S = tFAW , can work but you have to intensively test it
> 
> Following DRAM Calculator timings should either be done fully or non
> They come as-is, pre tested and finetuned
> Changing one timing value, breaks the efficiency of the whole set
> Yes, also tRFC ~ which here is not well
> for tRC 46 it's
> *276*,299,*322*,345,*368* and so on
> for tRC 45 it's
> 225, 270, 315, 360....up till 630
> 
> FCLK is 1933 ?
> Can't you push MCLK to 3866 under CL14
> Anyways, main question was GDM ~ play with ClkDrvStr.
> Don't be afraid to push it up till 120ohm if needed , but IF needed ~ beyond 60ohm, start to drop the remain ones down to 20 / all depends on the quality of your board


Dude, where have you been? I've missed you


----------



## Akex

Identical on my side with a 2700X and a Crosshair VI and a Bdie kit 4x8GB. Impossible for the moment of past GDM OFF, the best result obtained for the moment is this one [https://i.ibb.co/QMytkgp/Zen-Timings-Screenshot.png] 32min Membench. If I switch GDM to ON I regain total stability [https://i.ibb.co/7YV7vcG/Memtest-3568-Mhz-C12-1515min.png]
I still have some timing as the tRFC has finalized but I wanted to try the GMD OFF after reading @Veii message.


----------



## mongoled

Dreams-Visions said:


> Alright, thank you again for the help. So I was able to implement several of your recommendations. Hopefully Zen Timings looks better. 😅
> 
> 1.) I adjusted the tFAW to be 4x the tRRD_S. In Ryzen Calculator, it was recommended to set the tRRD_S to 3 (and tFAW to 12), but my Bios only allows that to go down to 4, so I set tFAW to 16.
> 
> 2.) I was able to use the calculator to properly configure tRFC2 and tRFC4. Or, I believe the values are now correct. If they aren't please let me know.
> 
> 3.) I was able to lower the VDDP and VDDG, and set the procODT to 40. 43.6 was recommended in Ryzen Calculator, but I'm not sure how important it is to go with a recommended value.
> 
> 4.) I'm not sure why my FLCK was so high in that pic. It should have been 1900. That seems to have been resolved.
> 
> *Challenges:*
> 
> 1.) any procODT value above 53 results in a failed boot.
> 
> 2.) any ClkDrv value above 60 (only higher option is 120) results in a failed boot.
> 
> 3.) GDM disabled while retaining full system stability remains elusive. While I had no problem booting in GDM disabled with 1T or 2T, MEMBench would always experience a few memory copy errors in its test. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but there were always errors. I tried several combinations of CAD_BUS settings and every procODT option between 40-53. Also tried increasing the DRAM voltage a bit. Best I saw was just 1 error in a test and but I never saw an error-free test with GDM disabled. If it is possible to achieve stability with GDM disabled at this frequency, I'm not sure how. Perhaps looser timings? But I'm not sure that would be worth the effort vs the completely stable GDM.
> 
> 4.) 2T always benched worse than 1T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there are any other recommendations or things you think I should try, I'm happy to give GDM disabled another shot. But I definitely have some hard limits with ClkDRV and ProcODT. With these timings, anyway.
> 
> Note: I will be OC'ing this kit to 4000MHz at some point.
> 
> Thank you again, all! Again, I'm very new to this. If you see any other mistakes, I will appreciate the correction.


I could not find anywhere if you mentioned what vDIMM you are running ?

Also, no mention of how you have tested for stability.

Dis regarding stability testing for the moment.

Running 4 sticks @ 3800/1900 with [email protected] and [email protected] you must be somewhere around 1.52v - 1.56v for any serious stability.

Now to some of your queries.

I would set ClkDrvStr to AUTO, ProcODT to AUTO, CMD1T to 2T, reboot and see what the AUTO settings are set at, than do the same test for 1T, note whats being applied.

After that I would so the following, set ClkDrvStr to 20ohms, ProcODT to AUTO, CMD1T to 2T and reboot, take note of the settings

Repeat using different ClkDrvStr.

This will give you an idea on what you motherboard is assigning by default.

I am currently working my way up with my 4 x 8GB A2 dimms, ive got some results in the 24/7 DRAM thread in the AMD General section of the forum.

Ive noted with my setup (X570 Unify) that when I set ClkDrvStr to 20ohm, ProcODT gets set to 36ohm and if I set ClkDrvStr to 24ohm ProcODT value changes when left on AUTO, so obviously the motherboard is doing its own evaluation on the memory you have installed and the settings you are running at.

Once you have a feel of the AUTO settings your board sets for ProdODT/ClkDrvStr, than use these as a baseline to experiment.

Oh and re the 4000mhz I am assuming you are talking about when you get a Zen3 CPU ??

As 4000mhz with IF @2000mhz is not happening with any Zen2 CPU.


----------



## rares495

Akex said:


> Identical on my side with a 2700X and a Crosshair VI and a Bdie kit 4x8GB. Impossible for the moment of past GDM OFF, the best result obtained for the moment is this one [https://i.ibb.co/QMytkgp/Zen-Timings-Screenshot.png] 32min Membench. If I switch GDM to ON I regain total stability [https://i.ibb.co/7YV7vcG/Memtest-3568-Mhz-C12-1515min.png]
> I still have some timing as the tRFC has finalized but I wanted to try the GMD OFF after reading @Veii message.


Your tRFC is waaaaay too high.Try to aim for around 300 or lower.


----------



## Akex

rares495 said:


> Your tRFC is waaaaay too high.Try to aim for around 300 or lower.


I am stable at 288, if I put back in auto for this test it is to see something else ^^ Thank you for your interest.


----------



## Dreams-Visions

mongoled said:


> I could not find anywhere if you mentioned what vDIMM you are running ?
> 
> Also, no mention of how you have tested for stability.
> 
> Dis regarding stability testing for the moment.
> 
> Running 4 sticks @ 3800/1900 with [email protected] and [email protected] you must be somewhere around 1.52v - 1.56v for any serious stability.
> 
> Now to some of your queries.
> 
> I would set ClkDrvStr to AUTO, ProcODT to AUTO, CMD1T to 2T, reboot and see what the AUTO settings are set at, than do the same test for 1T, note whats being applied.
> 
> After that I would so the following, set ClkDrvStr to 20ohms, ProcODT to AUTO, CMD1T to 2T and reboot, take note of the settings
> 
> Repeat using different ClkDrvStr.
> 
> This will give you an idea on what you motherboard is assigning by default.
> 
> I am currently working my way up with my 4 x 8GB A2 dimms, ive got some results in the 24/7 DRAM thread in the AMD General section of the forum.
> 
> Ive noted with my setup (X570 Unify) that when I set ClkDrvStr to 20ohm, ProcODT gets set to 36ohm and if I set ClkDrvStr to 24ohm ProcODT value changes when left on AUTO, so obviously the motherboard is doing its own evaluation on the memory you have installed and the settings you are running at.
> 
> Once you have a feel of the AUTO settings your board sets for ProdODT/ClkDrvStr, than use these as a baseline to experiment.
> 
> Oh and re the 4000mhz I am assuming you are talking about when you get a Zen3 CPU ??
> 
> As 4000mhz with IF @2000mhz is not happening with any Zen2 CPU.


Thanks for the thoughts. Yes, 4000MHz would be for Zen 3.


----------



## Dreams-Visions

ManniX-ITA said:


> There may be valid reasons why GDM off doesn't work; like VDIMM or VSOC.
> But considering you can run IF at 1900MHz at 1.075v VSOC it may not be a good trade off.
> Especially if you are considering to go 4000MHz soon.
> 
> My only advice is to check the odd timings; GDM is forcing not only tCL and tCWL to even numbers.
> Pretty sure it does it as well for tRCDRD.
> Check with Sandra and other benchmarks what happens if you set them even.
> If you don't have a degrade of scores than they were set to that number by GDM without you knowing.
> It's better for latency if you don't let GDM adjust them.


thanks again for the thoughts.

I've spent a couple more hours tinkering with it and just can't quite find the right combination of settings to even reach a place where I can begin testing for real stability. There are just so many variables here to consider and I feel too new at it to know what aspects I should be prioritizing or even how to tell if I'm getting closer to getting it working or not with GDM disabled. As you said, could be a VDIMM thing, maybe VSOC, ClkStr, ProcODT. Maybe the main timings themselves? Maybe several of these things. I have no idea and don't have any confidence in any setting. I've tried quite a few combinations over the last several hours and just can't find the magic settings.

Going to take a break from it for now and I've set it to the bios settings that was stable. It's just hard to even justify the time investment when I'm going to have to do this all over again in a couple of weeks @ 4000MHz on a new CPU (though there is value in the learning experience thus far).

I think what I was really hoping for out of all this was to be able to confirm that this new kit I bought is indeed a _good kit_ and that I don't need to exchange it for a different kit. It was purchased with Zen 3 in mind, but I might not get my 5900X before the return window on this new kit expires and I would be disappointed if the kit couldn't do 4000MHz solidly. So if for nothing else, I'm just trying to feel reassured that this kit will perform well. I'd like to think it is good (it certainly looks nice), but my ignorance in this realm is undoubtedly hurting my ability to maximize performance here. If I could pay someone to do this for me while I looked over their shoulder and took notes, I would.



mongoled said:


> I could not find anywhere if you mentioned what vDIMM you are running ?
> 
> Also, no mention of how you have tested for stability.
> 
> Dis regarding stability testing for the moment.
> 
> Running 4 sticks @ 3800/1900 with [email protected] and [email protected] you must be somewhere around 1.52v - 1.56v for any serious stability.
> 
> Now to some of your queries.
> 
> I would set ClkDrvStr to AUTO, ProcODT to AUTO, CMD1T to 2T, reboot and see what the AUTO settings are set at, than do the same test for 1T, note whats being applied.
> 
> After that I would so the following, set ClkDrvStr to 20ohms, ProcODT to AUTO, CMD1T to 2T and reboot, take note of the settings
> 
> Repeat using different ClkDrvStr.
> 
> This will give you an idea on what you motherboard is assigning by default.
> 
> I am currently working my way up with my 4 x 8GB A2 dimms, ive got some results in the 24/7 DRAM thread in the AMD General section of the forum.
> 
> Ive noted with my setup (X570 Unify) that when I set ClkDrvStr to 20ohm, ProcODT gets set to 36ohm and if I set ClkDrvStr to 24ohm ProcODT value changes when left on AUTO, so obviously the motherboard is doing its own evaluation on the memory you have installed and the settings you are running at.
> 
> Once you have a feel of the AUTO settings your board sets for ProdODT/ClkDrvStr, than use these as a baseline to experiment.


Also wanted to follow up here again. 

I've been testing for stability with Memtest/Membench. 

I tried your suggestion of setting those various settings to Auto and seeing what the system defaulted to: In every scenario, it would default to a ProcODT of 53.3 and a ClkStr of 24.

Also, my RAM voltage has been at 1.48v typically (1.45v stock with XMP), but I have tested it at up to 1.51v. No notable change in stability or memory error reduction when stress testing.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dreams-Visions said:


> thanks again for the thoughts.
> 
> I've spent a couple more hours tinkering with it and just can't quite find the right combination of settings to even reach a place where I can begin testing for real stability. There are just so many variables here to consider and I feel too new at it to know what aspects I should be prioritizing or even how to tell if I'm getting closer to getting it working or not with GDM disabled. As you said, could be a VDIMM thing, maybe VSOC, ClkStr, ProcODT. Maybe the main timings themselves? Maybe several of these things. I have no idea and don't have any confidence in any setting. I've tried quite a few combinations over the last several hours and just can't find the magic settings.
> 
> Going to take a break from it for now and I've set it to the bios settings that was stable. It's just hard to even justify the time investment when I'm going to have to do this all over again in a couple of weeks @ 4000MHz on a new CPU (though there is value in the learning experience thus far).
> 
> I think what I was really hoping for out of all this was to be able to confirm that this new kit I bought is indeed a _good kit_ and that I don't need to exchange it for a different kit. It was purchased with Zen 3 in mind, but I might not get my 5900X before the return window on this new kit expires and I would be disappointed if the kit couldn't do 4000MHz solidly. So if for nothing else, I'm just trying to feel reassured that this kit will perform well. I'd like to think it is good (it certainly looks nice), but my ignorance in this realm is undoubtedly hurting my ability to maximize performance here. If I could pay someone to do this for me while I looked over their shoulder and took notes, I would.


Well, I've tested already my kit at 4200MHz 

You need to disable the FCLK/MCLK sync and run it at 1/2 speed.
The IF will run at 1000Mhz which is limiting but at least you can verify if it can keep the timings and take out from the equation the CPU.

Not the same of course, you are not going to stress the memory as if the IF was in sync, but it's a quick & dirty check.
Run some TM5 cycles and at least you get some confidence.


----------



## Dreams-Visions

ManniX-ITA said:


> Well, I've tested already my kit at 4200MHz
> 
> You need to disable the FCLK/MCLK sync and run it at 1/2 speed.
> The IF will run at 1000Mhz which is limiting but at least you can verify if it can keep the timings and take out from the equation the CPU.
> 
> Not the same of course, you are not going to stress the memory as if the IF was in sync, but it's a quick & dirty check.
> Run some TM5 cycles and at least you get some confidence.


While it's great that your kit is good to go at 4200MHz, that doesn't really help me figure out if my kit will be good to go at 4000MHz. lol 😓

Which kit do you have, by the way? Is it also a 4x8?

As for the just testing it with the IF out of sync, yea I'll probably do that soon. But the problem for me is that Ryzen Calculator doesn't actually go up to 4000MHz yet. So I'd really be lost on finding timings for that frequency. If there are any good starter guides or tips for this, please slide them my way.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dreams-Visions said:


> While it's great that your kit is good to go at 4200MHz, that doesn't really help me figure out if my kit will be good to go at 4000MHz. lol 😓
> 
> Which kit do you have, by the way? Is it also a 4x8?
> 
> As for the just testing it with the IF out of sync, yea I'll probably do that soon. But the problem for me is that Ryzen Calculator doesn't actually go up to 4000MHz yet. So I'd really be lost on finding timings for that frequency. If there are any good starter guides or tips for this, please slide them my way.


LoL, I meant you can do same as me and test your kit at 4000MHz.
Hopefully 1usmus will update soon the DRAM Calc with settings for the new 5000s.

My kit is a Hynix DJR 2x16; I started with some settings posted here and found something I could boot with. Horrible timings BTW.
But at least I'll be able to test the IF till I get something better.

Of course almost nobody is yet running at these speeds unless is for some latency benchmarks.
You either Google to find something or check if there's something here to start with:









AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...




docs.google.com





Take some settings at 4000+ and then check what you can do lowering timings.

Of course you need to know how to lower the timings but even if it's not optimal whatever, at least you know it can run at 4000MHz.
For some knowledge use this:









integralfx/MemTestHelper


C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com





Once you find something decent that seems stable just post here and I guess you'll get some help in adjusting the profile.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Well, I checked again and still no decent memory kits for my incoming 5950x...
Nothing changed in the last 6 months and now it's going to be worse with everyone running to buy something better.
I couldn't risk to run it with this cheap Hynix DJR kit.
Ordered a G.Skill F4-4000C19D-32GTZR, 14 days return, let's hope it's decent.


----------



## Veii

rares495 said:


> Dude, where have you been? I've missed you


I changed country, and am still in the process of setting everything up 🥰
Would respond earlier, but a lot of questions and mentions are on backorder - yet i did ~nothing~ in the time i was away
Nothing for OCN at least, soo i didn't want to answer really and be only half-serious active here
Room is in WIP (accoustic DIY) , PC parts are waiting to arrive and ship over from AT & we'll likely again relocate into a new bigger house (roommate) 

I'm sorry for being away, but it still needs couple of more weeks before i can settle and do tech work back again
Also need to find a part-time-job here

Currently i look for something RX 5300,5500,5600 based
or sub 150 bucks GPU with GDDR6 to continue research on GDDR OC
While time has passed, i focused a bit more on DDR book theory
Baseline rules where good, but they are not good enough to write a public guide here 
I want to have a bit more playing hours with my Vipers + 14nm & 12nm IMC to verify stuff, before more lessons are shared here
Yet promissed to write it ~ soo i'm hiding a bit, till home & work stuff stabilizes a bit more locally
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my sources, i think AMD still struggles with crashing Fabric beyond 2000Mhz FCLK
Even with 7nm+ there is no big change, only on the Firmware level + more finetuning access to CCD+IMC
Didn't get a confirmation on 7nm IMC ~ but a lot more caching & prefetching happens inside the SOC (L1 & L2 prefetching behaves a bit different)
No subtle hint from Yuri if Fabric beyond 2133 is even possible without PCIe 2.0 enforcement

A good news i can share is, that running 5000MT/s on 2:1 mode, makes sense
Some boads under AMD CBS have the option TSME
If you turn that off ~ there is a cut of 10ns , which pushes BallistixMAX kits from 78ns to 68ns
Anything under 72ns on 12nm IMC has no negative bottleneck
What needs to be tested is, what the upper range is again on anything that runs beyond 4.6Ghz
72ns brickwall was till 4.45Ghz

Sad news is,
They didn't seem to fix the IMC with this generation [speculation from what i get to hear ~ till personally tested]
Fabric still crashes beyond 2000FCLK, but i strongly hope that AMD doesn't hardlimit it again on 2000 (this would be unfair, compared to Renoir)

Another sad news is, no RDNA1/2 on Cezanne (likely still PCIe connectivity and bandwidth issues) ~ while no Cezanne till Christmas
Renoir Pro 3/5 seems the way to go for learning to OC Memory (also cheaper than Vermeer) and 24/7 running >4800MT/s
Matisse hopefully someday ~maybe, hopefully~ get's an unlock , soo at least we can play till 1967Mhz even tho CCX's are a bit mediocre on launch models

Waiting for news on MSI B550 Unify-X & B550M dual DIMM boads
Waiting for parts list and trying to resolve the lack of LGA 115x bracket on my X570 ASRock ITX/TB3 (might jump down to B550 ITX and cut TB3 out of my life ~ yet don't want to)
Oh 2x32GB kits score sub 71ns on fixed D.O.C.P, which makes them usable on a 3900X (No CTR fix yet ~ stock boosting)


Spoiler: Hynix CMR Dual Rank





























Comes default at 1046 tRFC ~ which is strange predicted, needed fix with tRFC Mini
tRC*14 minus 1/4th minus 1/8th ~ works here = *13,375
Had no time to spend several times 4h memtesting , as this is a used media-work PC
Downtime = loss of money


----------



## CubanB

Since version 1.7.0, the program freezes when I launch it, it locks up my whole computer and restarts (no blue screen, just restart). Has anyone else experienced this problem? Keep in mind, this is on an Intel system, I haven't built my Ryzen system yet.


----------



## KedarWolf

CubanB said:


> Since version 1.7.0, the program freezes when I launch it, it locks up my whole computer and restarts (no blue screen, just restart). Has anyone else experienced this problem? Keep in mind, this is on an Intel system, I haven't built my Ryzen system yet.


the Intel Asrock RAM Configurator does that on my X570 system.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Just picked up a set of micron e ddr 3600 what can i expect out of them so far i bumped them to 3800 with same timings and ram a 20mins test no errors.
Crucial BL16G36C16U4W.M16FE1


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> Just picked up a set of micron e ddr 3600 what can i expect out of them so far i bumped them to 3800 with same timings and ram a 20mins test no errors.
> Crucial BL16G36C16U4W.M16FE1


Not sure but generally Micron E-die shouldn't be bad at all.
DRAM Calculator should have some good profiles.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

only has a safe profile i used it and tweaked some on my own this is what i settled on.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> only has a safe profile i used it and tweaked some on my own this is what i settled on.
> 
> View attachment 2463899
> View attachment 2463900


You should try to lower tRCDRD to 16; GDM is setting that even too.
Try adding a +1 to tRP to compensate. Once tRCDRD is set at 16 you can try tRCDWR at 8.
Is that really the best tRFC achievable?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

ManniX-ITA said:


> You should try to lower tRCDRD to 16; GDM is setting that even too.
> Try adding a +1 to tRP to compensate. Once tRCDRD is set at 16 you can try tRCDWR at 8.
> Is that really the best tRFC achievable?


i didnt try to lower it to much i got it down to where the setting was on the calc i will give trcdrd another shot at 16 but usualy it bsods booting at that.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Bal3Wolf said:


> i didnt try to lower it to much i got it down to where the setting was on the calc i will give trcdrd another shot at 16 but usualy it bsods booting at that.


Try, sometimes it just can't be reduced. But others you can compensate with something else.
At the end 1 or 2 ticks more on another and 1 less on tRCDRD can result in a small nice improvement.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

trcdr at 16 is a no go bsod every boot i did get gdm to turn off and played with some other settings. Really liking this ram so far if it boots its usualy good no errors so far thats what im seeing.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Good, if you can keep GDM Off is even better.
I see usually the tRFC can go down to 520-530; use the tRFC calculator to improve latency:









tRFC mini


TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...




docs.google.com


----------



## Bal3Wolf

so it looks like tfc cant be lowerd much on this ram i got it to 570 any lower and no post.


----------



## Veii

Bal3Wolf said:


> so it looks like tfc cant be lowerd much on this ram i got it to 570 any lower and no post.
> 
> View attachment 2463904
> View attachment 2463905


First run y-cruncher 3-4 loops all tests to confirm IMC & voltage stability

Get SCLs down to 4
and try to use tRRDL_7 (at the same time)

If it posts up to VDIMM push 20mV more to it
If 1.4 use 1.42v
If 1.44 use 1.46v

Try to drop down tRP to 13 and increase tRC to 57 with tRFC 570-423-261
If it posts , up tWR to 38, tRTP to 19
If it doesn't post, include this above while you try to get tRP 13 to run
^ tRP 13 will be a voltage issue likely, but you have to work around your set as your current position is not good to make changes (everything can fail)

Next step is to lower tRDWR and tWRRD step by step
tWRRD = x * SCL = lower or equal with tRCDavg
tRCD avg currently is 13 = tRTP「 (tRCDRD+tRCDWR) /2」
Result ~ tWRRD = 3 (3*4 = 12 = <13)

tRDWR = half of tRCDRD as lowest baseline
Samsung IC can go -1, baseline is flat
Micron IC can go -2, but baseline is always +2
Hynix AFR/MFR/CFR/CMR need +2, lower is only possible if tWRRD is used
tRDWR Baseline above expect tWRRD 1
* if tWRRD is used, tRDWR can drop
** if tCWL ≠ tCL ~ you increase tRDWR by the same amount you decrease tCWL & the opposite

tRAS optimal max
= tCL+tRCDRD
tRAS better optimal is
= tCL+tRCD「avg」
* avg math expects every other aspect to be correct, so it won't always work
** don't let tRAS have playroom, it's a very crucial timing [EDIT]

tRC has playroom in +4,+2,+1
Keep math active as tRP+tRAS=tRC
Start with +4 or even +8 and lower it till you hit the ruleset without other timing issues
tRC + something is cheating but helps with kits who need to increaes tRFC
* it's the fastest way to get a kit stable, as all your issues will be masked till tRC elapses. Only when you lower it to a fluid transition ,other issues will arise and show themself.
** just using a higher tRC multiplier for tRFC issues can be beneficial ~ but if tRC is not a fluid transition, you just go around the problem ~ instead of fixing the whole set of timings 

*** If you hang at tRP 13 being far to low, increase tRCD_WR and start over with different tRCDavg 
Advices down bellow are options you should try to follow and work on first, before you fall into a rabbit hole of issues
**** too low tRDWR or wrong tWRRD will plain refuse to boot. Awkward tRFC will just be postponed and ignored automatically by the memory. Low tRFC like *6 only works if other factors are correct. *6 or even *5.1375 is not single rank exclusive. tRC correctness plays the key factor here 😇

As always, TM5 1usmus_v3 20-25 cycles or HCI/Karhu 10 000% stable
TM5 stability can randomly fail or lie if IMC & voltage stability (y-cruncher) is not guaranteed beforehand
HCI/Karhu will fail if either memory or the CPU is not stable ~ without a reasoning as to why
Be sure you can pass all y-cruncher tests for several loops, before attending stricter memoryOC


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Played with timings some more today got a few more lower im getting pretty close to being tight as possable i put a fan over the ram to see if that would help out any.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I have validated a couple of profiles for the G.Skill F4-4000C16-16GTZR and added to the RAM sheets:









AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...




docs.google.com













Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com





Made a "summer" profile at 1.40v with tRFC 288 and SCL at 3.
And another "winter" profile at 1.45v with tRFC 275 and SCL at 2.

Seems they are a solid performer, good binning, excellent speed considering the timings.

The summer profile tops at 50.2c under TM5 stress while the winter at 51.7c.

In the link for the validation there are all the settings.


----------



## ApexJA

Hey everyone. I'm here in search of some help. I have a set of Crucial Ballistix, 3600 CL16 Micron-E die Link that I've been trying to get stable with GDM off. I've been at this for weeks and it has caused numerous fights between me and my wife, so any help I can get would be greatly appreciated. I feel like I've tried everything. I have a B450m motherboard (MSI Mortar Max), and a Ryzen 5 3600 CPU. Here are my current timings:










As I'm trying to achieve GDM off, these are the timings that have gotten me the farthest so far. With these timings, I've completed tm5 anta777 Extreme with no errors, but always get an error in 1usmus (20 cycles) near the end, on test 4 (MirrorMove128) although I've gotten other errors as well, so I'm not sure how pertinent that is. I also get errors in Karhu at around 1000% or 2000%.

I'm using 1.05 SoC Voltage with SoC LLC 1, because that seems to have been the most stable so far. I've also noticed my PC restarts randomly during testing if my SoC Voltage is too high. I'm also using 120-30-30-120 because I read as a tip somewhere that it sometimes helps with B450 motherboards, and it seems to have helped so I continued with it, but at this point I don't even know. I also read Veii say that ClkDrvStr needs to be high if you're using a low SoC and low ProcODT to keep GDM off. I'm also using 1.38 DIMM voltage (reported as ~1.404V in HWInfo64) but I've also tried to increase DIMM voltage and have not noticed any more stability whatsoever, but I could be wrong. Not sure if it helps, but just in case, here is a picture of my HWInfo64 (currently trying higher DIMM so that can be ignored).










Anyway, any help would be really truly appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

ApexJA said:


> Hey everyone. I'm here in search of some help. I have a set of Crucial Ballistix, 3600 CL16 Micron-E die Link that I've been trying to get stable with GDM off. I've been at this for weeks and it has caused numerous fights between me and my wife, so any help I can get would be greatly appreciated. I feel like I've tried everything. I have a B450m motherboard (MSI Mortar Max), and a Ryzen 5 3600 CPU. Here are my current timings:
> 
> View attachment 2464226
> 
> 
> As I'm trying to achieve GDM off, these are the timings that have gotten me the farthest so far. With these timings, I've completed tm5 anta777 Extreme with no errors, but always get an error in 1usmus (20 cycles) near the end, on test 4 (MirrorMove128) although I've gotten other errors as well, so I'm not sure how pertinent that is. I also get errors in Karhu at around 1000% or 2000%.
> 
> I'm using 1.05 SoC Voltage with SoC LLC 1, because that seems to have been the most stable so far. I've also noticed my PC restarts randomly during testing if my SoC Voltage is too high. I'm also using 120-30-30-120 because I read as a tip somewhere that it sometimes helps with B450 motherboards, and it seems to have helped so I continued with it, but at this point I don't even know. I also read Veii say that ClkDrvStr needs to be high if you're using a low SoC and low ProcODT to keep GDM off. I'm also using 1.38 DIMM voltage (reported as ~1.404V in HWInfo64) but I've also tried to increase DIMM voltage and have not noticed any more stability whatsoever, but I could be wrong. Not sure if it helps, but just in case, here is a picture of my HWInfo64 (currently trying higher DIMM so that can be ignored).
> 
> View attachment 2464227
> 
> 
> Anyway, any help would be really truly appreciated. Thank you.


I just got done tweaking my kit i never could get gdm to be stable no matter what i changed heres the settings i ended up using.


----------



## ApexJA

I see. Thanks for your timings. Have you ever experienced a random reboot during tm5 or something stressing the ram? I feel like it’s related to higher SoC/VDDG, or a voltage dropping. Just wondering if anyone else has figured out what causes it.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Only when i try to turn off gdm, if its not stable i get memory errors testing no random reboots when i leave it on.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

GDM is correcting a lot of timings in background, some that you don't have access to.
Sometimes is just not possible to do the same with manual timings.
Or it's not convenient cause you end up with a higher latency and lower bandwidth even with tighter timings.


----------



## Nighthog

Bal3Wolf said:


> Only when i try to turn off gdm, if its not stable i get memory errors testing no random reboots when i leave it on.


Have your tried GDM:disabled with tFAW @ 36 to just rule out a timing issue with regard to this timing in GDM:disabled mode.
It's a usual trouble timing I've noted, running it low ~16 usually needs quite a bit of tuning to work error free.


----------



## ApexJA

Nighthog said:


> Have your tried GDM:disabled with tFAW @ 36 to just rule out a timing issue with regard to this timing in GDM:disabled mode.
> It's a usual trouble timing I've noted, running it low ~16 usually needs quite a bit of tuning to work error free.


I have not, but I will try it. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Mx King Sniper

Bal3Wolf said:


> I just got done tweaking my kit i never could get gdm to be stable no matter what i changed heres the settings i ended up using.


Bro, can you try tRP +1 or +2 for GDM Disabled
And I think you can lower your tWRWRSCL=2 alone can add bandwidth.


----------



## Veii

Mx King Sniper said:


> Bro, can you try tRP +1 or +2 for GDM Disabled
> And I think you can lower your tWRWRSCL=2 alone can add bandwidth.


SCL 2 @ 3800MT/s is extremely hard and very memory PCB dependent.
4 is plausible, 3 is hard 

Before giving that low SCL a try, i would personally get tRDWR as tight as possible, or keep it at = /2 tRCDRD (max +1) while pushing tCWL down step by step


----------



## Mx King Sniper

Veii said:


> SCL 2 @ 3800MT/s is extremely hard and very memory PCB dependent.
> 4 is plausible, 3 is hard
> 
> Before giving that low SCL a try, i would personally get tRDWR as tight as possible, or keep it at = /2 tRCDRD (max +1) while pushing tCWL down step by step


Thank you for info.

I'm surprised that I booted with one SCL=2 not the two. I'm currently at 1.38v.

Seems I can do only 3733MT/s with my either CPU/Mobo, tried many voltages to boot 3800MT/s but no luck even at loose timings and with latest bios.. Not sure if there is any other trick to work on.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mx King Sniper said:


> Thank you for info.
> 
> I'm surprised that I booted with one SCL=2 not the two. I'm currently at 1.38v.
> 
> Seems I can do only 3733MT/s with my either CPU/Mobo, tried many voltages to boot 3800MT/s but no luck even at loose timings and with latest bios.. Not sure if there is any other trick to work on.
> View attachment 2464295
> View attachment 2464297


Are you using the same termination and bus settings for GDM enabled and disabled?
Cause that could be the issue if you have instability.

I have to run ProcODT 36,9 Ohm and Bus DrvStr 20/20/20/20 with Timings 0/0/0 for GDM Enabled.
For GDM Disabled is completely different; 48 (or 43? not sure) Ohm and Bus DrvStr 60/20/20/24 with Timings 60/60/60.


----------



## Mx King Sniper

ManniX-ITA said:


> Are you using the same termination and bus settings for GDM enabled and disabled?
> Cause that could be the issue if you have instability.
> 
> I have to run ProcODT 36,9 Ohm and Bus DrvStr 20/20/20/20 with Timings 0/0/0 for GDM Enabled.
> For GDM Disabled is completely different; 48 (or 43? not sure) Ohm and Bus DrvStr 60/20/20/24 with Timings 60/60/60.


Yes, it was stable with 24-20-20-24 GDM Disabled.
I tried many Cadbus/ProcODT to make stable GDM off but only tRP+1 works after all. I always trying to lower ProcODT and SOC as *Veii *recommendation in other post.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mx King Sniper said:


> Yes, it was stable with 24-20-20-24 GDM Disabled.
> I tried many Cadbus/ProcODT to make stable GDM off but only tRP+1 works after all. I always trying to lower ProcODT and SOC as *Veii *recommendation in other post.


For me the timings at 60 and ClkDrvStr at 60 were the most important.


----------



## Cidious

Exciting to see new Zen 3 timings being implemented. 4000Mhz. Another little step up the ladder.


----------



## Gadfly

I have read that there is a bios fix coming from AMD to help fix fclk issues; apparently a lot of people are having trouble getting over 1800mhz on some boards.


----------



## Sphex_

Just a reminder that there's now a *Zen 3 RAM Overclocking Community Sheet *if you'd like to add your Ryzen 5XXX Series results. I know people are starting to receive theirs and mess around so I'm excited to see how things fan out, particularly with FCLK. I maintain the sheet so if you'd like to suggest any columns be added while the sheet is in it's infancy, I'm all ears.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Sphex_ said:


> Just a reminder that there's now a *Zen 3 RAM Overclocking Community Sheet *if you'd like to add your Ryzen 5XXX Series results. I know people are starting to receive theirs and mess around so I'm excited to see how things fan out, particularly with FCLK. I maintain the sheet so if you'd like to suggest any columns be added while the sheet is in it's infancy, I'm all ears.


I'd add the Mainboard Release version, some some boards like the GB X570 is an important info.
Also set a filter for the headers; once there are many results like for Zen2 it's very hard to look for a similar configuration.


----------



## masteratarms

1usmus said:


> *TM5 0.12 v3 config*
> 
> TM5 - Google Drive
> 
> after the first start of the program, delete the file *cfg.link* otherwise, v3 config will not work
> p.s. you only need to delete this file once and only at the first launch


Thankyou, I changed drive letters and needed to delete cfg.link. Thanks for what you do to support AMD and its users. I have not yet tried clock tuner but I have a 5900x on preorder and I've just updated my bios to F31e for 5000 series support. Luckily my previous conservative timings worked (still testing with tm5 32GB patriot viper steel 4400, on Aorus Elite). Next I test mediacoder cause that is a real check of stability. Not sure I have unlocked my PPT to 180w on this bios yet, its very different to F12f (yet I recognise some features, and I have take pictures of my settings on F12f before I flashed to F31e.


----------



## Hequaqua

Anyone have/had/worked with this set of ram?

*CORSAIR - VENGEANCE RGB PRO 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 4000 (PC4-32000) C18 AMD Optimized Memory - Black
Model*:CMW16GX4M2Z4000C18


----------



## Bal3Wolf

do you guys think 1.47 volts is safe on micron E to get cl14 stable ? i have a fan dedicated to blowing on the ram.


----------



## ballade4

Hey all - trying to get my new Crucial Ballistix RGB 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR4-3600 CL16 RAM working at stated speed with my Ryzen 3900x. I have an ASUS ROG Strix 570-E motherboard, just updated to latest BIOS. I am able to get the ram running at 3200 MHz with just the default D.O.C.P settings but 3600 MHz is proving more elusive (results in failure to start if I attempt to just toggle the Auto profile). I have done a ton of research already but am hitting a wall..! What I have done and tried to date:


Ascertained that my RAM has a Micron B-die via Thaiphoon Burner. Looking like this is a "more exotic" die that has much less data than other options, great...
Noticed that my two otherwise identical sticks of RAM appear to have different descriptive info via Thaiphoon Burner:
Read SPD on SMBus #0 at 50h
*CLC ERR* SMBus 0 EEPROM 50h SMBC 790B:1002 SMBClock 396kHz on bottom bar
Module Manufacturer: Fairchild
Module Part Number: BL32G36C16U4BL.M16FB
DRAM Manufacturer: Micron Technology
DRAM Components: MT40A2G8??-075:?
Component Design ID: Not determined
DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: N/A / Not determined
Module Manufacturing Date: Week 40, 2020
Manufacturing Date Decoded: Sep 28 - Oct 2, 2020
Module Manufacturing Location: Unknown: F0h
Module Serial Number: E38B9BE6h
Module PCB Revision: 00h









(note: no Frequency: 1802 MHz section)

Read SPD on SMBus #0 at 51h
CLC OK SMBus 0 EEPROM 51h SMBC 790B:1002 SMBClock 396kHz on bottom bar
Module Manufacturer: Crucial Technology
Module Part Number: BL32G3C1U4BL.M16FB
Module Series: Ballistix RGB Black
DRAM Manufacturer: Micron Technology
DRAM Components: D9XPF (MT40A2G8VA-062E:B)
Component Design ID: Z22A
DRAM Die Revision / Process Node: B / 17 nm
Module Manufacturing Date: Week 40, 2020
Manufacturing Date Decoded: Sep 28 - Oct 2, 2020
Module Manufacturing Location: Boise, USA (SIG)
Module Serial Number: E38B9F30h
Manufacturing Identification Number: 421359351
Module PCB Revision: 00h











Determined that my motherboard has reversed RAM slots. Presently, the RAM sticks are located in the second and fourth slots, first and third are empty.
Realized that version 1.7.3 of the DRAM Calculator for Ryzen is NOT able to calculate settings for the following settings:
Processor - ZEN 2 AM4
Memory Type - Micron B-die
DRAM PCB revision - A0/B0
Memory Rank- 1
Frequency - 3600
BLCK - 100 (no idea what this does)
DIMM Modules - 2
Motherboard - X570 / sTRX4

Attempting to calculate SAFE settings gets "Not supported" popup, attempting to calculate FAST gets "Coming soon!.

Can someone please nudge me in the right direction? I am a bit pressed for time so do not have the luxury of sitting down and digesting the vast body of knowledge on this topic, need an Easy Button!

A few more screens (why would the RAM be showing 3200 MHz on the Memory but 2666 MHz on the SPD tabs of CPU-Z?):


----------



## Bal3Wolf

almost looks like one of your sticks has a spd problem not showing info it should show try taking the stick that dont show the right spd info out and see if the other stick will do 3600 just to test it.


----------



## EniGma1987

@ballade4
Personally, I think 3200mhz 16-18-18 is pretty good for a 32GB dimm on chips these CPUs dont really like too much.

But as for your screenshots themselves, it does look like one of them is bad. CPU-Z does not seem to be able to read SPD information and that could be throwing off all sorts of stuff and why auto settings do not post.
You might be able to tweak the performance higher with time, but I would just RMA them with one of the sticks looking like that.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Yea bad SPD data on the ram i had to RMA a set to GSKILL for that before.


----------



## KedarWolf

Bal3Wolf said:


> Yea bad SPD data on the ram i had to RMA a set to GSKILL for that before.


Might be able to try to flash the SPD of the RAM with the paid version of Thaiphoon Burner


----------



## ballade4

Thanks all! I am OK to RMA just one of the sticks, right? Or should I RMA both?

Realistically speaking, is it reasonable to OC these guys to 3800? Is there any resource that can help me with settings since the DRAM Calculator does not support the Micron B-die? Or would I be OK to use settings from Micron E/H-die?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Both sticks usually when you rma, my micron e does 3800 with tightens timings not sure about micron b.


----------



## Sphex_

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd add the Mainboard Release version, some some boards like the GB X570 is an important info.
> Also set a filter for the headers; once there are many results like for Zen2 it's very hard to look for a similar configuration.


Good call on the motherboard revision. That column has been added. I will add filters as the sheet populates. People like to make their own filters and really mess the sheet up so I'll try to find a good way to implement these. Thanks for the suggestions!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Sphex_ said:


> Good call on the motherboard revision. That column has been added. I will add filters as the sheet populates. People like to make their own filters and really mess the sheet up so I'll try to find a good way to implement these. Thanks for the suggestions!


You are right, didn't thought that the filters would be saved.
Also didn't notice you can create a temporary view with filters 
Indeed much better to leave it without.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

So I am at 3733 CL14 with my 3900X. It took 1.49V to get this baby stable, and this makes the ram pretty hot. If I don't have a fan over the ram, it will crash my system under heavy loads. 

My question to you all. Does the memory controller dictate stability? Lets say if I had a better 3900X, would I be able to run it at lower voltages? Or is it all on the sticks themselves? What if I upgrade to a 5900X? I have one coming in next week and would like to know. 

I don't like the way my ram fan looks in my system, I'l will to drop it back down to 3600 CL14 where I ran it at 1.45V and it produced less heat.


----------



## rares495

Bal3Wolf said:


> Both sticks usually when you rma, my micron e does 3800 with tightens timings not sure about micron b.


Micron Rev. B goes tighter and higher than Rev. E in theory.


----------



## rares495

.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> So I am at 3733 CL14 with my 3900X. It took 1.49V to get this baby stable, and this makes the ram pretty hot. If I don't have a fan over the ram, it will crash my system under heavy loads.
> 
> My question to you all. Does the memory controller dictate stability? Lets say if I had a better 3900X, would I be able to run it at lower voltages? Or is it all on the sticks themselves? What if I upgrade to a 5900X? I have one coming in next week and would like to know.
> 
> I don't like the way my ram fan looks in my system, I'l will to drop it back down to 3600 CL14 where I ran it at 1.45V and it produced less heat.


AFAIK no, a better IMC can improve stability and/or allow better timing/frequency. 
But the RAM will need always the same voltage and produce the same heat.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> AFAIK no, a better IMC can improve stability and/or allow better timing/frequency.
> But the RAM will need always the same voltage and produce the same heat.


But that's the thing. I can boot into 1.45V 3733 CL14 but it's not stable. It takes 1.49V for it to finally be stable, but the RAM gets hotter than I would like.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> But that's the thing. I can boot into 1.45V 3733 CL14 but it's not stable. It takes 1.49V for it to finally be stable, but the RAM gets hotter than I would like.


Yes, it's like a car; being on an highway doesn't make your car run at 200 km/h. You still need a powerful engine.
Slightly changes with different ICs but typically frequency and CL/RFC and other timings are scaling with voltage.









MemTestHelper/DDR4 OC Guide.md at master · integralfx/MemTestHelper


C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes, it's like a car; being on an highway doesn't make your car run at 200 km/h. You still need a powerful engine.
> Slightly changes with different ICs but typically frequency and CL/RFC and other timings are scaling with voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MemTestHelper/DDR4 OC Guide.md at master · integralfx/MemTestHelper
> 
> 
> C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com


I guess my question is, will I have a chance to run 3733 MHz CL14 at a lower voltage if the memory controller is better on the 5900X I'm getting?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I guess my question is, will I have a chance to run 3733 MHz CL14 at a lower voltage if the memory controller is better on the 5900X I'm getting?


No, 99.9% you'll need the same voltage.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> No, 99.9% you'll need the same voltage.


Okay thanks.


----------



## EniGma1987

KingEngineRevUp said:


> But that's the thing. I can boot into 1.45V 3733 CL14 but it's not stable. It takes 1.49V for it to finally be stable, but the RAM gets hotter than I would like.


Could you stick a fan over them?


----------



## SinisterPrince

Hey guys. I have a few issues I was hoping to get insight into.

I managed to pick up a 5600X last Thursday. I was previously running a 3700X. My mobo is a MSI X570 Unify. My ram is 2 8gb sticks of Trident Z Neo 3600MHz C16. Samsung B-die. I downloaded and installed the latest BIOS the day before launch. 1.1 agesa patch c. I was just running my mem on a standard XMP profile, no issues.

After installing the 5600X, my system will not boot with anything above 3200Mhz. I need to clear CMOS and bump it down. Now.. what I'm saying is that I cannot run my mem's XMP profile on this chip I attempted to play with MSI's suggested memory presets, even the safe side of 3333 will not boot.

I am unsure of what the root problem could be. I have a few theories. 1) This is related to a bug in the BIOS and will work properly on a new release. 2) I have completely lost the silicon lottery, and my FCLK will not boot over 1600Mhz. 3) Certain tendencies and characteristics of the motherboards stock sub-settings - voltage wise - are causing an issue.

I have since just tuned the sticks to DRAM Calc's fast settings for A1 chips. It kept pumping out 1.364v at the "1.35v" settings, so I bumped it down to 1.34 and it reads 1.352 now which I'm happy with. HW Monitor spits out 1.345.

My primary objective is just to get the best stable performance at a modest voltage and operating temp, e.g.~1.35v. I want the best performance at lower thermal output.. bc I like quiet PCs that don't throw off heat.

Forgive the wall of text.. I ran memtest in membench for a bit. I didn't realize it was an open-ended test at first. It ran for 28 minutes before stopping - presumably from an error that was thrown because that was checked off. However, I was opening tabs and programs, and playing videos. I'm hoping that was the culprit. Also.. what is the standard for a memtest run to verify stability? I wager I'm probably fine.. just looking for a little input. Thanks guys.


----------



## Sphex_

SinisterPrince said:


> Hey guys. I have a few issues I was hoping to get insight into.
> 
> I managed to pick up a 5600X last Thursday. I was previously running a 3700X. My mobo is a MSI X570 Unify. My ram is 2 8gb sticks of Trident Z Neo 3600MHz C16. Samsung B-die. I downloaded and installed the latest BIOS the day before launch. 1.1 agesa patch c. I was just running my mem on a standard XMP profile, no issues.
> 
> After installing the 5600X, my system will not boot with anything above 3200Mhz. I need to clear CMOS and bump it down. Now.. what I'm saying is that I cannot run my mem's XMP profile on this chip I attempted to play with MSI's suggested memory presets, even the safe side of 3333 will not boot.
> 
> I am unsure of what the root problem could be. I have a few theories. 1) This is related to a bug in the BIOS and will work properly on a new release. 2) I have completely lost the silicon lottery, and my FCLK will not boot over 1600Mhz. 3) Certain tendencies and characteristics of the motherboards stock sub-settings - voltage wise - are causing an issue.
> 
> I have since just tuned the sticks to DRAM Calc's fast settings for A1 chips. It kept pumping out 1.364v at the "1.35v" settings, so I bumped it down to 1.34 and it reads 1.352 now which I'm happy with. HW Monitor spits out 1.345.
> 
> My primary objective is just to get the best stable performance at a modest voltage and operating temp, e.g.~1.35v. I want the best performance at lower thermal output.. bc I like quiet PCs that don't throw off heat.
> 
> Forgive the wall of text.. I ran memtest in membench for a bit. I didn't realize it was an open-ended test at first. It ran for 28 minutes before stopping - presumably from an error that was thrown because that was checked off. However, I was opening tabs and programs, and playing videos. I'm hoping that was the culprit. Also.. what is the standard for a memtest run to verify stability? I wager I'm probably fine.. just looking for a little input. Thanks guys.


This is a widespread issue, mostly seems to be effecting MSI X570 boards. Apparently it's an AGESA issue and also effects other vendors, so swapping motherboards might not really fix your problem. I have an MSI B550 board and just plugged all my memory values in manually. Was able to hit 4000 MHz memory clock and 2000 MHz FCLK first try. Try doing the same, you'll probably have more luck. MSI X570 Unify users are having luck with a new Beta BIOS that dropped today, where they can now boot at 3800 without issue and no WHEA errors to speak of in Event Viewer. Otherwise, if you'd rather play it safe, run your memory at 3200, manual timings (or just auto) and wait for an official fix. :/


----------



## SinisterPrince

Sphex_ said:


> This is a widespread issue, mostly seems to be effecting MSI X570 boards. Apparently it's an AGESA issue and also effects other vendors, so swapping motherboards might not really fix your problem. I have an MSI B550 board and just plugged all my memory values in manually. Was able to hit 4000 MHz memory clock and 2000 MHz FCLK first try. Try doing the same, you'll probably have more luck. MSI X570 Unify users are having luck with a new Beta BIOS that dropped today, where they can now boot at 3800 without issue and no WHEA errors to speak of in Event Viewer. Otherwise, if you'd rather play it safe, run your memory at 3200, manual timings (or just auto) and wait for an official fix. :/


Yeah, my BIOS is actually one version new than that. That got posted to the product support page on the 3rd as a beta. And that forum post is from the 2nd. Mine is actually a non-beta/polished version of it released on the 4th. I did play with manual timings via suggested safe presets to no avail. That FCLK just won't budge beyond 1600.

I am pretty satisfied with CL14 3200Mhz with tightened timings for the time being. There are numerous benchmarks where that configuration outperforms CL 16 3600Mhz. Though, I would prefer to properly tune my sticks at 3600Mhz in the future. I am grateful you were able to shed some light on the issue for me though. Thank you for that.

Oh, and one more thing. My G.Skill ram's RGB control software also stopped functioning after upgrading; meaning I can no longer change the default lighting mode despite attempting to apply various other configurations in the software. Any speculation as to whether BIOS updates will have any bearing on that as well? I would hope so. I'm sure the industry just needs to catch up to Zen 3. I'm just not sure if it's hardware or software side. I would think it's hardware side.


----------



## KedarWolf

SinisterPrince said:


> Hey guys. I have a few issues I was hoping to get insight into.
> 
> I managed to pick up a 5600X last Thursday. I was previously running a 3700X. My mobo is a MSI X570 Unify. My ram is 2 8gb sticks of Trident Z Neo 3600MHz C16. Samsung B-die. I downloaded and installed the latest BIOS the day before launch. 1.1 agesa patch c. I was just running my mem on a standard XMP profile, no issues.
> 
> After installing the 5600X, my system will not boot with anything above 3200Mhz. I need to clear CMOS and bump it down. Now.. what I'm saying is that I cannot run my mem's XMP profile on this chip I attempted to play with MSI's suggested memory presets, even the safe side of 3333 will not boot.
> 
> I am unsure of what the root problem could be. I have a few theories. 1) This is related to a bug in the BIOS and will work properly on a new release. 2) I have completely lost the silicon lottery, and my FCLK will not boot over 1600Mhz. 3) Certain tendencies and characteristics of the motherboards stock sub-settings - voltage wise - are causing an issue.
> 
> I have since just tuned the sticks to DRAM Calc's fast settings for A1 chips. It kept pumping out 1.364v at the "1.35v" settings, so I bumped it down to 1.34 and it reads 1.352 now which I'm happy with. HW Monitor spits out 1.345.
> 
> My primary objective is just to get the best stable performance at a modest voltage and operating temp, e.g.~1.35v. I want the best performance at lower thermal output.. bc I like quiet PCs that don't throw off heat.
> 
> Forgive the wall of text.. I ran memtest in membench for a bit. I didn't realize it was an open-ended test at first. It ran for 28 minutes before stopping - presumably from an error that was thrown because that was checked off. However, I was opening tabs and programs, and playing videos. I'm hoping that was the culprit. Also.. what is the standard for a memtest run to verify stability? I wager I'm probably fine.. just looking for a little input. Thanks guys.


Try the new beta from here, fixes that.






MSI Global English Forum


...




forum-en.msi.com


----------



## Gadfly

Anyone had any luck running 4x8GB @ 4000 MT/s? @Veii ?


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> Anyone had any luck running 4x8GB @ 4000 MT/s? @Veii ?


Sorry i run dual dimm boards from now and soon Unify-X too 
But my cheapo A0 Vipers can run 4400MT/s haha 
Upwards we have to see , work in progres

@KedarWolf can you please give me your NTLite config or compile me maybe an iso ?
I'm right now in the progress of setting the 5600X up


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Sorry i run dual dimm boards from now and soon Unify-X too
> But my cheapo A0 Vipers can run 4400MT/s haha
> Upwards we have to see , work in progres
> 
> @KedarWolf can you please give me your NTLite config or compile me maybe an iso ?
> I'm right now in the progress of setting the 5600X up


I use Optimize Offline, with an answer file, much better than NLite, and then run a few scripts afterwards that finish my Windows configuration. See Spoiler



Spoiler: Off Topic



See my thread here, this post. It's an amazing PowerShell script.









Optimize-Offline Guide - Windows Debloating Tool, Windows 1803, 1903, 19H2, 1909, 20H1 and LTSC 2019


Your script works which helps my PC OCD a lot!! ty, REP. :) Here is something I recently used to 'treat' my PC OCD. On 20H1 (and maybe even earlier)...




forums.mydigitallife.net





Edit: I can upload an ISO for you to a fileshare with super fast download speeds, just check that post see if there is anything you'd rather not remove.

Let me know if you want the en-US ISO or the en-GB ISO, two choices available.

Oh, might just Google Drive it as well, with a private link to it, avoid the Microsoft police. :/

Second Edit: if you look at my answer file in the post, you'll see all the scripts I run on first logon after a clean windows install. A few are .cmd files to change a few settings I made but some are scripts from GitHub etc.


----------



## KedarWolf

I'm thinking about getting the Unify-X as well. I love MSI X570 boards and that MSI B550 board with a 5950x I have on preorder looks really appealing.


----------



## Gadfly

Veii said:


> Sorry i run dual dimm boards from now and soon Unify-X too
> But my cheapo A0 Vipers can run 4400MT/s haha
> Upwards we have to see , work in progres
> 
> @KedarWolf can you please give me your NTLite config or compile me maybe an iso ?
> I'm right now in the progress of setting the 5600X up



Isn't that a 550 board? Guess you are not running multiple m.2's?


----------



## Hequaqua

Anyone have any timings I can try? It's not listed in the calculator. 

Thaiphoon Report:
Corsair CMW16GX4M2Z4000C18

Zen Timings:









At the moment I'm running 3666mhz/IF 1833mhz with XMP timings, stock Voltage.


----------



## KedarWolf

Gadfly said:


> Isn't that a 550 board? Guess you are not running multiple m.2's?


The Unify-X has three Gen 4 M.2 slots according to the MSI website.


----------



## hsn

Maybe my team 3600 not good bdie. it need 1.505v and i put 2pcs fan on top to finish this test.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KedarWolf said:


> The Unify-X has three Gen 4 M.2 slots according to the MSI website.


I'm considering it too, seems a decent trade-off to have 3 x M.2 directly connected to the CPU and better memory OC vs GPU limited to x8 and 4 x SATA ports.

But you need a PCIe 4.0 GPU to avoid fps loss.
And of course you'll still have some loss at 1080p: 








PCIe 4.0 vs. PCIe 3.0 GPU Benchmark


With the launch of the new GeForce 30 series, PCI Express 4.0 performance has come up into the discussion. To find out exactly what we're talking about,...




www.techspot.com


----------



## Veii

Gadfly said:


> Isn't that a 550 board? Guess you are not running multiple m.2's?


i actually don't 
Wanted to stay ITX - but the DTX is not available anywhere & expensive
The X570 ITX/AX has design issues and a mux chip on the back where the backplate should be (Intel LGA 115x)
Not only did they waste all chipset 4.0 lanes for thunderbolt. They not only missed an m.2 port in the back, but also had a big storage controller & prioriatary mounting system ~ without a backplate included which doesn't cover this chip
Resulting in unmountable coolers + forced to 3D print & design a custom backplate. Too much work soo it was shipped back.
They should at least put a backplate in there, like on every other board. Even more when the design is custom :/

Gigabyte ITX i skip intentionally, because at this point i could also just get a Biostar and mod the bios myself ~ when i'd need to do the same fixing for 500 series gigabyte bioses
(their specs where great, but the bioses with double bios flashback, where special)

Unify-X seems to launch after the 20th , but a board was needed
B550 Strix-I looks good, but Mosfets are mid-low end
X570 Strix-I was my next option, but it was just 30€ away from the Impact ~ too expensive
Wanted to get it at the end, but the shop didn#t allow me to return the opened ASRock board "because it is open, ignoring 14 day return policy lol"
Well now i again have a not booting board (it froze mid flash in the bios) 😐
~ because the Romchip ASRock used is acting weird and not being a full 32mb rom ~ but rather a dual mode 16mb rom running in 8 x 2mb mode
Soo i can not even SOIC-8 clip - SPI flash it yet = bad experience
The board is a good OCer & specs are fine, but the experience around 500 series ASRock boards so far isn't

Would use the back m.2 slot with a pcie raiser cable, to make myself a x4 slot for a CaptureCard
Else no, no use for it yet 
Soundcards for example stay usb or thunderbolt for me~


----------



## Veii

Hequaqua said:


> Anyone have any timings I can try? It's not listed in the calculator.
> 
> Thaiphoon Report:
> Corsair CMW16GX4M2Z4000C18
> 
> Zen Timings:
> View attachment 2465120
> 
> 
> At the moment I'm running 3666mhz/IF 1833mhz with XMP timings, stock Voltage.


Actually yes 
Does this work for you ?
Lazy unoptimized timings, but they are stable

You can skip RTT values, as these are for higher capacity


----------



## Zektbach

What do you guys think about my ram?

G.Skill V Ripjaws 3200mhz 8x2 CL16 - According to Thaiphoon burner its a Samsung B Die.


----------



## Esticbo

Zektbach said:


> What do you guys think about my ram?
> 
> G.Skill V Ripjaws 3200mhz 8x2 CL16 - According to Thaiphoon burner its a Samsung B Die.


This times are for c die, the latest Thaiphoon burner have problems and no show the correct die


----------



## Hequaqua

Veii said:


> Actually yes
> Does this work for you ?
> Lazy unoptimized timings, but they are stable
> 
> You can skip RTT values, as these are for higher capacity
> View attachment 2465174


My IF won't run 3800....3733 is on the edge. 3666 seems solid. These timings do work, but a bit of a mixed bag testing. Latency was a bit worse at 3666 w/XMP enabled. I'm not sure how stable these settings are....might push to 3733 and see what happens. I'll run these settings with TM5 and Kahru and see if they pass...work from there. I have a set of Trident Z 3466 that run 3666 with pretty tight timings. Might end up throwing those back in here. This set can go into my back-up or my son's rig.

Appreciate the help. 

EDIT:
Passed TM5. I decided to go the other way and see what happens. Set the ram to 4200mhz XMP, IF to as high as I can go 1833mhz. Not coupled, but booted just fine. No strange behavior....yet.....I know there's a big penalty hit having it uncoupled, just messing with it though....lol


----------



## DeletedMember558271

Question for you guys, someone said if you have 4 Single Rank DIMM Modules (which will run in Dual Rank) you want to tell DRAM Calc your Memory Rank is 2 not 1, is this true? Because technically that's telling it you have 4 Dual Rank DIMM Modules (which will run in Quad Rank).


----------



## Kha

Veii said:


> Unify-X seems to launch after the 20th , but a board was needed


Greetings, do you have any info regarding the Unify-X launch ? Couldn't find any


----------



## Zektbach

Esticbo said:


> This times are for c die, the latest Thaiphoon burner have problems and no show the correct die


Do I have to download an older version?


----------



## Veii

Kha said:


> Greetings, do you have any info regarding the Unify-X launch ? Couldn't find any


Not more than that
Look on twitter for Shimizu_OC
He is the recent new partner and now freelancer Overclocker , for MSI 
Near december was mentioned, and MSI teased for the 20th something
It's unclear if they launch both boards at the same time. Only the B550 Unify non X was teased


----------



## Kha

Veii said:


> Not more than that
> Look on twitter for Shimizu_OC
> He is the recent new partner and now freelancer Overclocker , for MSI
> Near december was mentioned, and MSI teased for the 20th something
> It's unclear if they launch both boards at the same time. Only the B550 Unify non X was teased


But isn't the 20th November a graphic card release ?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326903163002232833


----------



## Esticbo

Zektbach said:


> Do I have to download an older version?


Yes, July or June version


----------



## Veii

Kha said:


> But isn't the 20th November a graphic card release ?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1326903163002232833


Also 
I dont know more, they stay quiet
Japan release is one thing, global can be delayed.
Sorry, reps behave like in shock after i ask about any information for the Unify-X 
Pure silence


----------



## Kha

Veii said:


> Also
> I dont know more, they stay quiet
> Japan release is one thing, global can be delayed.
> Sorry, reps behave like in shock after i ask about any information for the Unify-X
> Pure silence


Buildzoid did some memory overclocks yesterday with the Unify-X.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> Buildzoid did some memory overclocks yesterday with the Unify-X.


Watch a little bit and heard he was complaining about the lack of VTTDDR.
It was a problem of this pre-release bios not a general issue with MSI right?


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> Watch a little bit and heard he was complaining about the lack of VTTDDR.
> It was a problem of this pre-release bios not a general issue with MSI right?


Truth to be told, I didn't watch more than several minutes of it, but heard him say smth about the board having some new not yet released Bios. More I don't know.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> Truth to be told, I didn't watch more than several minutes of it, but heard him say smth about the board having some new not yet released Bios. More I don't know.


I'll check again later; it's more a question for current MSI users.
He said there's no new bios, in the chat someone was suggesting to check for a newer bios, because the board itself it's a pre-release.
There wasn't even yet a first release to download from MSI website, even less a new one...


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'll check again later; it's more a question for current MSI users.
> He said there's no new bios, in the chat someone was suggesting to check for a newer bios, because the board itself it's a pre-release.
> There wasn't even yet a first release to download from MSI website, even less a new one...


Possible I missunderstood. However, I remember clearly some visual differences between the ACE/X570 Unify bios and this one ; different menus/options/design.

Hoeever, given the board is advertised as the _mother-of-all_ in overclock, both cpu and ram wise, I don't think MSI would gimp it by not allowing tweaking impedances and stuff, would be stupid.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> Possible I missunderstood. However, I remember clearly some visual differences between the ACE/X570 Unify bios and this one ; different menus/options/design.
> 
> Hoeever, given the board is advertised as the _mother-of-all_ in overclock, both cpu and ram wise, I don't think MSI would gimp it by not allowing tweaking impedances and stuff, would be stupid.


I'd be surprised as well but it left the seed of doubt in me, need to know for sure


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd be surprised as well but it left the seed of doubt in me, need to know for sure


Well, possible also that MSI has a different aproach but given this board overclocks both ram and cpu like no other, I am not concerned much about this tbh.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> No, 99.9% you'll need the same voltage.


Reporting in, I do not have to run it at the same voltages with the 5900X more refined memory controller.

In addition, I am now running 3800MHz CL16 at 1.45V where before I was at 3733 CL14 at 1.49V

So far I've run through memtest and karhu ram test for a few hours.

Currently stress testing 3800MHz CL16 at 1.42V

Latency is 60.1ns






System manufacturer System Product Name - Geekbench Browser


Benchmark results for a System manufacturer System Product Name with an AMD Ryzen 9 5900X processor.



browser.geekbench.com





I believe the memory controller definitely plays a huge role in what the RAM can and cannot do.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> View attachment 2465471
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465472
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting in, I do not have to run it at the same voltages with the 5900X more refined memory controller.
> 
> In addition, I am now running 3800MHz CL16 at 1.45V where before I was at 3733 CL14 at 1.49V
> 
> So far I've run through memtest and karhu ram test for a few hours.
> 
> Currently stress testing 3800MHz CL16 at 1.42V
> 
> Latency is 60.1ns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> System manufacturer System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> 
> Benchmark results for a System manufacturer System Product Name with an AMD Ryzen 9 5900X processor.
> 
> 
> 
> browser.geekbench.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the memory controller definitely plays a huge role in what the RAM can and cannot do.


Interesting, thanks for the feedback.
I guess there was something wrong before; your limits where not due to the voltage.
This seems more in-line with good B-Die.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> Interesting, thanks for the feedback.
> I guess there was something wrong before; your limits where not due to the voltage.
> This seems more in-line with good B-Die.


With my 3900X I couldn't even post with 3800 CL16, with the 5900X I ended up passing stability test with 1.42V

I th it's definitely a combination of the two, RAM silicon and memory controller quality. In my case it was the memory controller that was holding me back.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> With my 3900X I couldn't even post with 3800 CL16, with the 5900X I ended up passing stability test with 1.42V
> 
> I th it's definitely a combination of the two, RAM silicon and memory controller quality. In my case it was the memory controller that was holding me back.


Yes what I meant is there are timings which are scaling with voltage.
If you can't go down below RFC 272 or CL 16 with at least 1.45V or above a different IMC will not change that.
But if you can go down with a lower voltage with a different CPU than the limit was not the voltage, maybe it was just looking like it was, but the IMC.
The AGESA is also critical, it could be considered the firmware for the IMC; different version and the IMC behavior can change completely.


----------



## Kha

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I believe the memory controller definitely plays a huge role in what the RAM can and cannot do.


Amen !


----------



## Veii

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Reporting in, I do not have to run it at the same voltages with the 5900X more refined memory controller.
> In addition, I am now running 3800MHz CL16 at 1.45V where before I was at 3733 CL14 at 1.49V
> 
> So far I've run through memtest and karhu ram test for a few hours.
> 
> I believe the memory controller definitely plays a huge role in what the RAM can and cannot do.


Except that the memory controller was never changed ~ only voltages around the IODie and some removed intentional limits
(signal integrity could be better ~ considering i got 4400 out of my A0 Vipers)

Take a look at this scale:
3200CL16 1.35v
3400CL17 1.35v
3600CL18 1.35v

And also this scale
3200CL14 1.35
3400CL14 1.42v
3600CL14 1.46v
3800CL14 1.5-1.52v

And what about this scale
3200CL16 1.2v
3200CL15 1.32v (GDM off, good non b-die)
3200CL14 1.35v
3200CL13 1.45v
3200CL12 1.5v

There is a rule of thumb
+4 steps up = ~200Mhz more requires +1 CL to be stable or +0.5-0.75mV more
It's a logarithmic scaling,and only b-dies behave nearly linear
(logarithmic in the sense that, the further you go, the higher voltage jumps would be needed)
Well, some hynix kits seem to scale linear in req voltage beyond 1.54v, just with smaller freq jumps ~ still requiring the same voltage jumps

Overall CL14 most of the times, requires between 1.475-1.55v on higher than 3600MT/s freq
At least that was the case with older memory PCBs and didn't change much recently
Your 3734MT/s CL14 will be equally stable and equally unstable, between both CPUs
Same would go for a 2700X with probably the same good or same not so good set of timings 

I suggest you rework your 3734MT/s CL14 set again, and see where the issue is, preventing you from getting it stable on 3800MT/s
Sometimes up to set, it can need 1.53-1.55v for 3800, some only 1.5
Memory lottery also exists, but let's hope that you can run tRCD_RD 14 on 3800MT/s
Overall, your CPU might made training easier, but it didn't change the outcome of your used set


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Veii said:


> Except that the memory controller was never changed ~ only voltages around the IODie and some removed intentional limits
> (signal integrity could be better ~ considering i got 4400 out of my A0 Vipers)
> 
> Take a look at this scale:
> 3200CL16 1.35v
> 3400CL17 1.35v
> 3600CL18 1.35v
> 
> And also this scale
> 3200CL14 1.35
> 3400CL14 1.42v
> 3600CL14 1.46v
> 3800CL14 1.5-1.52v
> 
> And what about this scale
> 3200CL16 1.2v
> 3200CL15 1.32v (GDM off, good non b-die)
> 3200CL14 1.35v
> 3200CL13 1.45v
> 3200CL12 1.5v
> 
> There is a rule of thumb
> +4 steps up = ~200Mhz more requires +1 CL to be stable or +0.5-0.75mV more
> It's a logarithmic scaling,and only b-dies behave nearly linear
> (logarithmic in the sense that, the further you go, the higher voltage jumps would be needed)
> Well, some hynix kits seem to scale linear in req voltage beyond 1.54v, just with smaller freq jumps ~ still requiring the same voltage jumps
> 
> Overall CL14 most of the times, requires between 1.475-1.55v on higher than 3600MT/s freq
> At least that was the case with older memory PCBs and didn't change much recently
> Your 3734MT/s CL14 will be equally stable and equally unstable, between both CPUs
> Same would go for a 2700X with probably the same good or same not so good set of timings
> 
> I suggest you rework your 3734MT/s CL14 set again, and see where the issue is, preventing you from getting it stable on 3800MT/s
> Sometimes up to set, it can need 1.53-1.55v for 3800, some only 1.5
> Memory lottery also exists, but let's hope that you can run tRCD_RD 14 on 3800MT/s
> Overall, your CPU might made training easier, but it didn't change the outcome of your used set


I had a launch day 3900X, the 5900X has a refined controller, I've mentioned that in my previous post. The fabrication process has been enhanced.

Iirc, IMC quality is a lottery in itself and AMD has had plenty of time to refine and enhance their processes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also my 3733 MHz was stable, it just needed 1.49V to do so.

With my 5900X I'm currently at 3800 MHz, CL16, 1.42V and 60ns of latency which is better than my previous results on my 3900X.

3733 MHz, CL14, 1.49V and 64ns latency.


http://imgur.com/a/af7Szwy


The 3900X didn't even want to post at 3800 MHz no matter what I tried and did.


----------



## Kha

A small paranthesis, if I may. @Veii, given that your experience in overclocking is clearly second to none here, can you please tell me what you think about F4-4000C17-8GTRS ?









G.SKILL Trident Z Royal DDR4 4000 Memory Review - Overclockers


The Trident Z Royal is G.SKILL's attempt at a high-end, premium RGB memory that is guaranteed to add a luxury element to your next build.




www.overclockers.com





It's a Trident Royal Silver kit that I have and I plan to couple with a Ryzen 5000 and a X570 Unify / B550 Unify, but before anything I am trying to find out what's their safe voltage for a daily use. Some say this kit should be ok at 1.5, others that should be safe much more.


----------



## elvior2

Hi @all,

I'm pretty new to this topic and also new to Ryzen platform but coming here for as a last chance before RMA, requesting some help that I would really apreciate for sure 

After following so many guidelines and reading so many posts about how to stabilice memory on Ryzen I can't make my system RAM to run fully stable. Many many days and weeks of testing.

Tried even at the lowest speed 2400mhz with all on Auto but it keeps firing some error in stress tests, sometimes just some minutes after the begining of the test and other times after hours wihout any error. On average same number of errors occurs at 2400 and other speeds like XMP 3200 or higher 3466.

These are the specs of the system:

MB: MSI B450M-MORTAR-MAX
CPU: Ryzen 5 3600
RAM: HX432C16FB3AK2/32 (Kingston HyperX Fury RGB DDR4 3200Mhz PC-25600 32GB 2x16GB CL16)
Notice that memory is supported in the QVL of the MB at rated speeds.

I'm doing the testing using: LinpackXtreme-1.1.3, TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected], Prime95 Small FFT, Large, Blend Custom, Memtest...

So far the most stable configuration with least number of errors is this one:













































The errors that appears in TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected]:










Any help will be really appreciated. Let me know if you need to add more details about any configuration or something.

Thank you!!!!


----------



## PraiseKek

All voltages on auto


----------



## ManniX-ITA

PraiseKek said:


> All voltages on auto
> View attachment 2465624


Pretty crazy... is the VSOC read right by ZenTimings?


----------



## EniGma1987

Kha said:


> It's a Trident Royal Silver kit that I have and I plan to couple with a Ryzen 5000 and a X570 Unify / B550 Unify, but before anything I am trying to find out what's their safe voltage for a daily use. Some say this kit should be ok at 1.5, others that should be safe much more.


All DDR4 is built to withstand at the very most 1.5v for short durations, this is the JEDEC spec. The ICs are not supposed to run that for 24/7 officially, and most DDR4 chips do show significant degradation at that voltage for too long. There are some chips like Samsung B-Die that actually does work quite well though and has minimal degradation at 1.5v. While people do go over this voltage, I would never recommend it to someone outside of very short run bench testing. There is not really enough of a sample size or a long enough period to know for sure about how much B-Die degrades at voltages above 1.6v, but it is still well beyond the rated specifications


Spoiler


----------



## Kmachine

Can you help me? I'm not able to boot with DRAM Calculator suggestions. Some differences for zen3? Is it possible to use 3800CL14 with 4 dimms and 1900 FCLK?

I'm defaults at 3800Mhz now:


----------



## EniGma1987

@Kmachine you are probably just unstable at 1900MHz FCLK right now. Wait for new bios with better AGESA.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

@Kmachine try setting Memory Rank to 2, some people have said that's what you're supposed to do even if you have 4 Single Rank sticks.
I have 4 sticks too and can't boot higher than 1867 FCLK


----------



## KedarWolf

elvior2 said:


> Hi @all,
> 
> I'm pretty new to this topic and also new to Ryzen platform but coming here for as a last chance before RMA, requesting some help that I would really apreciate for sure
> 
> After following so many guidelines and reading so many posts about how to stabilice memory on Ryzen I can't make my system RAM to run fully stable. Many many days and weeks of testing.
> 
> Tried even at the lowest speed 2400mhz with all on Auto but it keeps firing some error in stress tests, sometimes just some minutes after the begining of the test and other times after hours wihout any error. On average same number of errors occurs at 2400 and other speeds like XMP 3200 or higher 3466.
> 
> These are the specs of the system:
> 
> MB: MSI B450M-MORTAR-MAX
> CPU: Ryzen 5 3600
> RAM: HX432C16FB3AK2/32 (Kingston HyperX Fury RGB DDR4 3200Mhz PC-25600 32GB 2x16GB CL16)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that memory is supported in the QVL of the MB at rated speeds.
> 
> I'm doing the testing using: LinpackXtreme-1.1.3, TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected], Prime95 Small FFT, Large, Blend Custom, Memtest...
> 
> So far the most stable configuration with least number of errors is this one:
> 
> View attachment 2465612
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465614
> View attachment 2465615
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465616
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465619
> 
> 
> The errors that appears in TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected]:
> 
> View attachment 2465606
> 
> 
> Any help will be really appreciated. Let me know if you need to add more details about any configuration or something.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!!!!


Here are some additional settings you can try like the RTTNOM etc.


----------



## fcchin

Kmachine said:


> Can you help me? I'm not able to boot with DRAM Calculator suggestions. Some differences for zen3? Is it possible to use 3800CL14 with 4 dimms and 1900 FCLK?
> 
> I'm defaults at 3800Mhz now:
> 
> View attachment 2465669


Hello and welcome @Kmachine 

You are correct that you cannot use 1.7.3 calculator timing because it is not zen3.

More importantly 1usmus says the calculator is simple "guide" not defacto accurate, and specifically wrote a detailed procedure =
*Sequence for Tuning RAM / SOC*
step by step how to overclock from slow to fast, where you find out each bottomneck. Please read and follow AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide

Also, please run the 1usmus latency only test (fast get results) and I think you'll get around 80 nanoseconds, which is too high for 3800mhz ram. You're suppose to get 62ns +/- 1ns

Your tRCDRD and tRCDWR are too high, and makes your ram slower than 3600mhz performance.

If you want to boot easily, increase tRAS and tRC +2 or more instead of adding tRCDRD and tRCDWR.


----------



## KedarWolf

Deleted, thought it was the Unify motherboard.


----------



## Miiksu

ProcODT 40 is working fine for my system. This is T-topology board.


----------



## devoker

Current XMP profile

















I enter these values (all voltage auto except dram voltage 1.350) and my pcu doesn't boot. After 4-5 attempts bios automatically reverts back to 2666 settings.


----------



## elvior2

KedarWolf said:


> Here are some additional settings you can try like the RTTNOM etc.
> 
> View attachment 2465700


I've been testing whole nigth and day.

These are the findings:

LLC, now setting for CPU is LLC Mode 2 and for NB/SoC LLC is Mode 3.
Upping the NB SoC from 1.05 to 1.1 doesn't seem to help. On the contrary I think it make it worse as the stress testing fails more quickly.
Changing Command Rate to 2T doesn't seem to work also. It's already running in “Gear Down Mode” from what I see in ZenTimings.
Changing CAD_BUS Block to following values seems to make the RAM more stable

ClkDvrStr: 40
AddrCmdDvrStr: 30
CsOdtDvrStr: 30
CkeDvrStr: 30
These make me pass:

LinpackXtreme-1.1.3: 25 cycles
TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected]: 8 cycles (arround 8h)
Prime95 Small FFT: 2h for ensuring CPU is stable
But Prime Large FFT (512-4096) and MemTest DRAM Calculator seems to have strange behaviour.

Each of those either it fails in a couple of minutes just after starting or it can stay running for hours without reporting any error.

So I'm totally lost on that side. Just want to have a stable system, not focusing on big overclocks.

These are the current settings:










Any advice or setting to check or try?


----------



## SneakySloth

elvior2 said:


> I've been testing whole nigth and day.
> 
> These are the findings:
> 
> LLC, now setting for CPU is LLC Mode 2 and for NB/SoC LLC is Mode 3.
> Upping the NB SoC from 1.05 to 1.1 doesn't seem to help. On the contrary I think it make it worse as the stress testing fails more quickly.
> Changing Command Rate to 2T doesn't seem to work also. It's already running in “Gear Down Mode” from what I see in ZenTimings.
> Changing CAD_BUS Block to following values seems to make the RAM more stable
> 
> ClkDvrStr: 40
> AddrCmdDvrStr: 30
> CsOdtDvrStr: 30
> CkeDvrStr: 30
> These make me pass:
> 
> LinpackXtreme-1.1.3: 25 cycles
> TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected]: 8 cycles (arround 8h)
> Prime95 Small FFT: 2h for ensuring CPU is stable
> But Prime Large FFT (512-4096) and MemTest DRAM Calculator seems to have strange behaviour.
> 
> Each of those either it fails in a couple of minutes just after starting or it can stay running for hours without reporting any error.
> 
> So I'm totally lost on that side. Just want to have a stable system, not focusing on big overclocks.
> 
> These are the current settings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any advice or setting to check or try?


When you're running prime largefft. Run a gpu test alongside it, any GPU test will work (AIDA64, OCCT etc). This will test for the worst temperature scenerio and should make testing more consistent,


----------



## Kmachine

Dreamic said:


> @Kmachine try setting Memory Rank to 2, some people have said that's what you're supposed to do even if you have 4 Single Rank sticks.
> I have 4 sticks too and can't boot higher than 1867 FCLK


----------



## Veii

Kha said:


> A small paranthesis, if I may. @Veii, given that your experience in overclocking is clearly second to none here, can you please tell me what you think about F4-4000C17-8GTRS ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.SKILL Trident Z Royal DDR4 4000 Memory Review - Overclockers
> 
> 
> The Trident Z Royal is G.SKILL's attempt at a high-end, premium RGB memory that is guaranteed to add a luxury element to your next build.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclockers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a Trident Royal Silver kit that I have and I plan to couple with a Ryzen 5000 and a X570 Unify / B550 Unify, but before anything I am trying to find out what's their safe voltage for a daily use. Some say this kit should be ok at 1.5, others that should be safe much more.


As paranthesis and consideration i haven't touched these ones yet ~ if we only specify on the particular kit and not the forum,
They should be a new batch of less stressful 3600-15-15-15 rated ICs.
Doing the math again. They should be hand binned, but not a brand new fabrication node.
Technically, out of how memory continues to scale (+200mhz = +1 tRCD) ~ they would behave very similar to 4400-19-19 kits

But there is something fishy here.
I really don't think these are a new fabrication, not even a refined B-Die.
Because tRRD_L predicted is very high. While low tRRD_S makes them look like B-Dies and not something different.
It's a bit conflicting to me, because tRFC here is predicted very high too ~ which does go hand in hand with high tRTP and high tRRD_L

Soo what i think out off pure speculation is,
This might be a remade b-die, and likely one with more consistent yield & a bit slower
But they lie on a very bad PCB while the ICs are not that bad (if remade b-die with consistent better yield)
Bank to Bank (RRD_L), read to precharge (tRTP), tRFC ~ all are clear signs that either the ICs are slower (how do i explain that...less agressive maybe, more tame but less stressing) or the PCB these good b-dies are on, is holding them back.
3600C15 flat are usually a quite high bin, same as 4400C19 flat, are

Can't say more on that part.
I hope the price of these kits are humane, as they look a great upgrade for 3600C15 users/wishing people.
Just considering, F4-4000C16D-32GTZR & F4-4400C16D-32GTZR stil seem "not" to exist








G.SKILL Releases New Low-Latency DDR4-4000 CL16 and DDR4-4400 CL16 Memory Kits - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


24 September 2020 – G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd., the world’s leading manufacturer of extreme performance memory and gaming peripherals, is releasing new high-performance, low-latency memory kits at DDR4-4000 CL16 32GB 16GBx2 and DDR4-4400 CL16 16GB 8GBx2, and available across the...




t.co




I hope that this time, this ones are not lab products and actually buyable 
A friend of mine was waiting for his 16-18-18 kits , and 16-17-17 but they went from "available" to "waiting for manufacture delivery" with 6-8 weeks waiting time
Yes, let's hope the price is fine on these ones. I think they put them on the shiny edition, to be able to charge a higher premium for 5xxx users


----------



## Veii

Veii said:


> But there is something fishy here.
> I really don't think these are a new fabrication, not even a refined B-Die.


@Kha Two scenarios for these kits
1.)
They are slower than Viper 4400, by being refabricated and more consistent (hopefully cheaper)
They are on a new PCB and the ICs are just slower (maybe nm shrink & max voltage shrink)

2.)
They are identical to the Vipers. A good handselected old 20nm batch and just on a bad PCB


Kha said:


> It's a Trident Royal Silver kit that I have and I plan to couple with a Ryzen 5000 and a X570 Unify / B550 Unify, but before anything I am trying to find out what's their safe voltage for a daily use. Some say this kit should be ok at 1.5, others that should be safe much more.


The "fishy" part is, that these shouldn't be "brand new" kits 
Unless explicitly put inside a Royal housing, to sell old binned but limited again stock under high prices.
Something is just off - there should be 16-17-17 kits from them. Even as Dual rank 16gb dimms. 
Something is fishy, but yes ~ voltage and scaling should be similar like before

1.46v wont be an issue at all. Beyond 1.48 depends on nm fabrication node and PCB.
If this are lower stress PCBs - they could show negative scaling beyond 1.44v.
I need a magic ball , to give you the correct answer 
Depends on what PCB these are on
New PCB = run with 20ohm clkdrvstrgh, overal 20-20-20-20 and push VDIMM up
Older PCB new fabrication = run till 40-60ohm clkdrvstrgh and just move sub 1.46vDIMM


----------



## Veii

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I had a launch day 3900X, the 5900X has a refined controller, I've mentioned that in my previous post. The fabrication process has been enhanced.
> 
> Iirc, IMC quality is a lottery in itself and AMD has had plenty of time to refine and enhance their processes. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Also my 3733 MHz was stable, it just needed 1.49V to do so.
> 
> With my 5900X I'm currently at 3800 MHz, CL16, 1.42V and 60ns of latency which is better than my previous results on my 3900X.
> 
> 3733 MHz, CL14, 1.49V and 64ns latency.
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/af7Szwy
> 
> 
> The 3900X didn't even want to post at 3800 MHz no matter what I tried and did.


Excuse me if this sounds rude, it absolutely was not my intention ! 
Just want to say that you are wrong here, because you forget to consider some parts.

The latency difference between for example 3600X and a 3300X is about 8.5-10ns for Aida
The 3300X and the 5600X (example) are not far of when it comes to random memory access latency.
Your 3733 set is far faster and should move in the 54-55ns region with Vermeer.
It didn't need less voltage because of the memory controller. The set continues to take the voltage it requires
There can be -20/+20mV requirement difference, if ClkDrvStrength and procODT as outer requirements change.
Which pretty much goes back to "better signal integrity" . But this would also apply to for exmpl a PSU swap 

What has improved yes, was the lithography ~ ala fabrication process.
The reactive color of the lithographic atom substate (nickel, gold...) was changed for the silicon
This result in better higher boosting cores without an architecture change & without a fabrication process "enchancement"
On this process (now speaking for the CCX only) there was no big change and no big increase.
It was a very successful move "upgrading" it, but this doesn't take much time to readjust while in consideration for fabrication

The IMC on the other hand, no
It was borowed and continued to be used. (no readjust permission ~ speculation by logic)
It would cause an even bigger difference between yields & loss of money - if they would need to trow away all the remain GLFO silicon
Ontop of that, the years deal with GLFO is/was still standing by the manufacture date of 7nm. A vise business move for a cheaper contract but still standing when Matisse exist

I'm not in clear if the GLFO contract has expired ~ or when this year
But i am in clear, that this would have big losses IF even possible ,readjusting the color of that IODie substrate
GLFO wouldn't just like this help someone who quits their contract
Soo no, you are wrong ~ i'm sorry 
Matisse back 2019 could also run beyond 1900 Farbic ~ near 1966 before fabric started to crash and cause other annoying issues
It was artificially limited and not a "lottery" thing at all.
Take a look on how & why Renoir Mobile + Pro could move in the 2100-2200Mhz FCLK region.
All hangs together with PCIe and Fabric issues ~ but the IMC did not change a single bit. Only anything around it

Keep on trying to stabilize your CL14 set.
You did compare Apples to Pears
If 64ns was your Matisse result. Your Vermeer should be 54ns. Maybe 53ns if you get beyond 4.7Ghz boost
You currently run a slower set, with logically less required voltage & think it's faster ~ just because the architecture has improved
In reality tho, you just plain run a slower set and are fooled by the latency difference & the faster CPU 
EDIT:
The perf difference might not be big if you want to save heat
But as for theoretical and stability. If you have the willpower, keep on trying to stabilize your 3734C14 set
Or slowly downgrade to AGESA 1.0.8.0 and upgrade step by stept, to maybe get the new PSP firmware flashed @  >1.1.0.0 Patch C for higher than 1900FCLK
Anything under 1080 won't boot Vermeer


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Veii said:


> As paranthesis and consideration i haven't touched these ones yet ~ if we only specify on the particular kit and not the forum,
> They should be a new batch of less stressful 3600-15-15-15 rated ICs.
> Doing the math again. They should be hand binned, but not a brand new fabrication node.
> Technically, out of how memory continues to scale (+200mhz = +1 tRCD) ~ they would behave very similar to 4400-19-19 kits
> 
> But there is something fishy here.
> I really don't think these are a new fabrication, not even a refined B-Die.
> Because tRRD_L predicted is very high. While low tRRD_S makes them look like B-Dies and not something different.
> It's a bit conflicting to me, because tRFC here is predicted very high too ~ which does go hand in hand with high tRTP and high tRRD_L
> 
> Soo what i think out off pure speculation is,
> This might be a remade b-die, and likely one with more consistent yield & a bit slower
> But they lie on a very bad PCB while the ICs are not that bad (if remade b-die with consistent better yield)
> Bank to Bank (RRD_L), read to precharge (tRTP), tRFC ~ all are clear signs that either the ICs are slower (how do i explain that...less agressive maybe, more tame but less stressing) or the PCB these good b-dies are on, is holding them back.
> 3600C15 flat are usually a quite high bin, same as 4400C19 flat, are
> 
> Can't say more on that part.
> I hope the price of these kits are humane, as they look a great upgrade for 3600C15 users/wishing people.
> Just considering, F4-4000C16D-32GTZR & F4-4400C16D-32GTZR stil seem "not" to exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.SKILL Releases New Low-Latency DDR4-4000 CL16 and DDR4-4400 CL16 Memory Kits - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> 24 September 2020 – G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd., the world’s leading manufacturer of extreme performance memory and gaming peripherals, is releasing new high-performance, low-latency memory kits at DDR4-4000 CL16 32GB 16GBx2 and DDR4-4400 CL16 16GB 8GBx2, and available across the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that this time, this ones are not lab products and actually buyable
> A friend of mine was waiting for his 16-18-18 kits , and 16-17-17 but they went from "available" to "waiting for manufacture delivery" with 6-8 weeks waiting time
> Yes, let's hope the price is fine on these ones. I think they put them on the shiny edition, to be able to charge a higher premium for 5xxx users


The F4-4000C16D-32GTZR in Trident RGB is what I bought.
Hard to find but also someone else got it, not a lab sample this time


----------



## DeusM

Hi guys! been a while but i have a new toy to play with so i am back into OCing the memory.

Just got a 5900x and this is the results so far.
















Is stable with 3 cycles of tm5 ( i will leave it overnight) i do this to quickly ensure some stability and i leave it running overnight for the 4hr test.

dram Voltage : 1.47v
VDDP : .950v
IOD and CCD: 1.05v


Going to try lower my TFAW, TRC, TRFC tonight and hopefully it will post as i was suprisingly having problems with 3800c16 - dram calculator settings. Any recommendations are welcome and i will post any significant updates!!


----------



## Kha

Veii said:


> @Kha Two scenarios for these kits
> 1.)
> They are slower than Viper 4400, by being refabricated and more consistent (hopefully cheaper)
> They are on a new PCB and the ICs are just slower (maybe nm shrink & max voltage shrink)
> 
> 2.)
> They are identical to the Vipers. A good handselected old 20nm batch and just on a bad PCB
> 
> The "fishy" part is, that these shouldn't be "brand new" kits
> Unless explicitly put inside a Royal housing, to sell old binned but limited again stock under high prices.
> Something is just off - there should be 16-17-17 kits from them. Even as Dual rank 16gb dimms.
> Something is fishy, but yes ~ voltage and scaling should be similar like before
> 
> 1.46v wont be an issue at all. Beyond 1.48 depends on nm fabrication node and PCB.
> If this are lower stress PCBs - they could show negative scaling beyond 1.44v.
> I need a magic ball , to give you the correct answer
> Depends on what PCB these are on
> New PCB = run with 20ohm clkdrvstrgh, overal 20-20-20-20 and push VDIMM up
> Older PCB new fabrication = run till 40-60ohm clkdrvstrgh and just move sub 1.46vDIMM


Thank you. Is there any way for me to check if the PCB is new or old ?


----------



## chitos123

anta777 _ Extreme1



Spoiler



+--------------------------------+

Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0

Parameter=0
#Test0 Mb=0 [RefreshStable]
#Test4 Mb=4
#Test5 Mb=0

Parameter=2
#Test2 Mb=0 [MirrorMove128]
#Test6 Mb=4
#Test7 Mb=0

Parameter=4
#Test1 Mb=0 [MirrorMove]

+--------------------------------+

Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x*

Parameter=256
#Test12 Mb=4
#Test13 Mb=0

+--------------------------------+

Pattern Mode=1
Pattern Param0=0x*

Parameter=256
#Test3 Mb=4

+--------------------------------+

Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0x*

Parameter=0
#Test8 Mb=4
#Test10 Mb=0

Parameter=2
#Test9 Mb=4
#Test11 Mb=0

Parameter=256
#Test14 Mb=4
#Test15 Mb=0

+--------------------------------+


----------



## Molitro

I'll post my system as an example of a very comfortable (voltage wise), stable setup for 24/7 with 4 dimms of b-die on zen3. Dialed in at 1.05v Soc, 0.9v VDDP, 0.95v both VDDGs, 1.4v on the RAM.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Veii said:


> Keep on trying to stabilize your CL14 set.
> You did compare Apples to Pears


No problem, I don't think you're being rude at all. But I don't think you're reading my post because you keep telling me to stabilize my 3733 MHz and I've told you a few times already that it is stable.

I just don't get why I needed more voltage to stabilize 3733 MHz on my 3900X than Indo on my 5900X. I don't get why my 3900X can't boot 3800 MHz no matter what I tried and did and my 5900X can, and quite easily.

My point is, there are limitations to what my 5900X can do with ram that my 3900X can't. My question is, why?


----------



## dgoc18

i changed 3800 cl 16 to 3733 cl14 result score, see pix below.


----------



## fcchin

dgoc18 said:


> i changed 3800 cl 16 to 3733 cl14 result score, see pix below.
> View attachment 2465862
> View attachment 2465861


WoW your 3733 beats 3800, yummy. Makes me wanna try again to push timing tight... thanks for encouragement.


----------



## fcchin

KingEngineRevUp said:


> No problem, I don't think you're being rude at all. But I don't think you're reading my post because you keep telling me to stabilize my 3733 MHz and I've told you a few times already that it is stable.
> 
> I just don't get why I needed more voltage to stabilize 3733 MHz on my 3900X than Indo on my 5900X. I don't get why my 3900X can't boot 3800 MHz no matter what I tried and did and my 5900X can, and quite easily.
> 
> My point is, there are limitations to what my 5900X can do with ram that my 3900X can't. My question is, why?


great summary....... silicon lottery at play then.......


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

fcchin said:


> great summary....... silicon lottery at play then.......


Yeah, I lack knowledge. Is it the CPU itself or the quality of the memory controller? Or does the memory controller fabrication not matter at all?

I've heard people replacing their CPU via RMA before and they get better or worse memory OC. So just curious what causes it? Perhaps a combination of things I guess. Would love to know.


----------



## Axaion

So yeah, ive been using flareX 3200CL 14 at 3800 CL16 since i got my 3700x last years.

Buuut needed some more memory, so actually got a hold of the F4-4000C16D-32GVK kit.

And for the life of me my cpu and mobo does -not- like them, cant even run them 3600cl16 and not have massive dpc latency issues in latencymon
3800 cl16 with 1900flck?, cant even 99% of the time, hard crashes even in bios, tried both safe and tweaked dram calc values, even up to 53.3 procodt, 40 cadbus clkdrv, 1.45v + 1.45v boot voltage

Either i got a dud, or the crosshair vii hero just cant handle them along with my wood tier 3700x, even at 3800x that it handles fine for 2x8 flareX

Rip, this shop is gonna hate me for sending em back


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> No problem, I don't think you're being rude at all. But I don't think you're reading my post because you keep telling me to stabilize my 3733 MHz and I've told you a few times already that it is stable.
> 
> I just don't get why I needed more voltage to stabilize 3733 MHz on my 3900X than Indo on my 5900X. I don't get why my 3900X can't boot 3800 MHz no matter what I tried and did and my 5900X can, and quite easily.
> 
> My point is, there are limitations to what my 5900X can do with ram that my 3900X can't. My question is, why?


I think Veii about stabilizing is referring to what he said in his reply:

*Your 3733 set is far faster and should move in the 54-55ns region with Vermeer. *

Yes the 3733 profile is working but not as fast as it should; you have to work on your settings to fix the bottleneck.

The memory OC capability is an end-to-end problem.

Your physical DDR4 link is terminated into the cIOD SouthBridge; it's where the DDR4 DIMM modules traces are ending to.
Then it's going over the cIOD NorthBridge where there are others DDR4 PHYs; those are connected to the Infinity Fabrics interposer.
There the memory signal is encapsulated over the IF toward the CCDs using a set of GMI (Global Memory Interconnect) links; more or less it's what is a lane in PCIe.
Finally you have other DDR4 PHYs in the CCDs that will talk with the NorthBridge DDR4 PHYs in the cIOD.

Any weakness in this chain will dictate if and how fast and stable your IF and memory can run.

The weakest link is usually the Infinity Fabrics interposer; it can reach very high speeds but it's big and having ALL of it running at high speed is very challenging.
You can tell how difficult is it looking at the failure in mass marketing HBM2.

Then you have the cIOD which is an horrible design at 12nm, second problem. Some of them are real crap and gets incredibly hot (it's the same x570 chipset that needs a fan and sometimes goes up to 80c, others 55c, it's bad). It's mostly ASMedia stuff that AMD packaged as a chipset, awful stuff.
There's a lot of silicon lottery there and you can only tell how good is it checking if you can run at a high IF speed.
If it's bad the thermal contribution will kill any chances of a high IF speed.

Then you have the CCDs but they are at 7nm and the DDR4 PHY very likely isn't going to suffer any limitation.

So yes it really depends much on the specific CPU sample.
But not for the timings which are scaling with voltage.
CL and RFC and others will always require the same voltage no matter the CPU.
If you now need less voltage it's because something else was wrong earlier that would require more.
But not due to the memory IC, due to your CPU/setup.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> I think Veii about stabilizing is referring to what he said in his reply:
> 
> *Your 3733 set is far faster and should move in the 54-55ns region with Vermeer. *
> 
> Yes the 3733 profile is working but not as fast as it should; you have to work on your settings to fix the bottleneck.
> 
> The memory OC capability is an end-to-end problem.
> 
> Your physical DDR4 link is terminated into the cIOD SouthBridge; it's where the DDR4 DIMM modules traces are ending to.
> Then it's going over the cIOD NorthBridge where there are others DDR4 PHYs; those are connected to the Infinity Fabrics interposer.
> There the memory signal is encapsulated over the IF toward the CCDs using a set of GMI (Global Memory Interconnect) links; more or less it's what is a lane in PCIe.
> Finally you have other DDR4 PHYs in the CCDs that will talk with the NorthBridge DDR4 PHYs in the cIOD.
> 
> Any weakness in this chain will dictate if and how fast and stable your IF and memory can run.
> 
> The weakest link is usually the Infinity Fabrics interposer; it can reach very high speeds but it's big and having ALL of it running at high speed is very challenging.
> You can tell how difficult is it looking at the failure in mass marketing HBM2.
> 
> Then you have the cIOD which is an horrible design at 12nm, second problem. Some of them are real crap and gets incredibly hot (it's the same x570 chipset that needs a fan and sometimes goes up to 80c, others 55c, it's bad). It's mostly ASMedia stuff that AMD packaged as a chipset, awful stuff.
> There's a lot of silicon lottery there and you can only tell how good is it checking if you can run at a high IF speed.
> If it's bad the thermal contribution will kill any chances of a high IF speed.
> 
> Then you have the CCDs but they are at 7nm and the DDR4 PHY very likely isn't going to suffer any limitation.
> 
> So yes it really depends much on the specific CPU sample.
> But not for the timings which are scaling with voltage.
> CL and RFC and others will always require the same voltage no matter the CPU.
> If you now need less voltage it's because something else was wrong earlier that would require more.
> But not due to the memory IC, due to your CPU/setup.


Wow, thanks. I guess I'll wait for 1usmus to update the RAM calculator for Zen 3.

Do you have any advice on timings I can work on for my 3733 or 3800?

Will post screenshots on a second


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Wow, thanks. I guess I'll wait for 1usmus to update the RAM calculator for Zen 3.
> 
> Do you have any advice on timings I can work on for my 3733 or 3800?
> 
> Will post screenshots on a second


For the timings look at other B-Die configurations similar to yours in the spreadsheets:









AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...




docs.google.com













Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> For the timings look at other B-Die configurations similar to yours in the spreadsheets:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD RAM overclocking
> 
> 
> ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) s name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zen RAM OC Leaderboards
> 
> 
> Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


Okay I will do that. This is what I'm currently running off of.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Okay I will do that. This is what I'm currently running off of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465898


I'd check if you can use 14 for tRCDRD; it could need more voltage.
Then look for the lowest tRFC you can set, it's strictly dependent on voltage.
Better if a multiplier of CL at 14 eg. 14x18 = 252
Low like that will probably require 1.5V or more.
But 14 x 20 = 280 will probably need 1.45V or less.

And use the tRFC calculator to set the proper tRFC2/4 values or the latency will suffer.








tRFC mini


TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...




docs.google.com


----------



## Kha

Veii said:


> Not more than that
> Look on twitter for Shimizu_OC
> He is the recent new partner and now freelancer Overclocker , for MSI
> Near december was mentioned, and MSI teased for the 20th something
> It's unclear if they launch both boards at the same time. Only the B550 Unify non X was teased


@Veii and @ManniX-ITA , starting today B550 Unify-X was listed by some finnish retailer.









MSI MEG B550 UNIFY X, ATX-emolevy - 229.90€


Tekniset tiedot : Prosessorituki : Tukee AMD Ryzen 5000 & 3000 -sarjan työpöytäprosessoreja (ei yhteensopiva AMD Ryzen 5 3400G & Ryzen 3 3200G) ja Ryzen 4000 G-sarjan työp&




www.jimms.fi





You guys think it's coming, at last ?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> @Veii and @ManniX-ITA , starting today B550 Unify-X was listed by some finnish retailer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MEG B550 UNIFY X, ATX-emolevy - 229.90€
> 
> 
> Tekniset tiedot : Prosessorituki : Tukee AMD Ryzen 5000 & 3000 -sarjan työpöytäprosessoreja (ei yhteensopiva AMD Ryzen 5 3400G & Ryzen 3 3200G) ja Ryzen 4000 G-sarjan työp&
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jimms.fi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys think it's coming, at last ?


I hope so but I'm still hawking for a 5950x


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> I hope so but I'm still hawking for a 5950x


Tbh, thinking at a 5950x too, yet I don't know if I'll be able to get over the mediocre boosts of the second chiplet. I looked alot at both 5950x and 5900x, all the reviews shown that the second chiplet is really low binned, so it feels like a rip-off.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> Tbh, thinking at a 5950x too, yet I don't know if I'll be able to get over the mediocre boosts of the second chiplet. I looked alot at both 5950x and 5900x, all the reviews shown that the second chiplet is really low binned, so it feels like a rip-off.


Yes I expected that.
Didn't look a lot lately but mostly seems that also the second CCD can be clocked at 4.7-4.8 in most cases which would be awesome.
For PBO thanks to the curve optimization per core it should be less of a problem.


----------



## Kha

In all honesty, I am sad they didn't do an XT version of the 5800, I would've bought it in a split of a second. All this "we'll give you one decent CCD but you know, the 2nd is mediocre" is making me puke.


----------



## MikeS3000

dgoc18 said:


> i changed 3800 cl 16 to 3733 cl14 result score, see pix below.
> View attachment 2465860
> View attachment 2465862
> View attachment 2465861


The only reason your 3733 "beats" 3800 is because you ran 2 different versions of AIDA64. v6.30.5500 they revised the copy benchmark and it reads much lower. I was scratching my head the other day when I upgraded and ran it. Use the same version of AIDA for a true comparison and your 3800 will win.


----------



## Veii

KingEngineRevUp said:


> No problem, I don't think you're being rude at all. But I don't think you're reading my post because you keep telling me to stabilize my 3733 MHz and I've told you a few times already that it is stable.
> 
> I just don't get why I needed more voltage to stabilize 3733 MHz on my 3900X than Indo on my 5900X. I don't get why my 3900X can't boot 3800 MHz no matter what I tried and did and my 5900X can, and quite easily.
> 
> My point is, there are limitations to what my 5900X can do with ram that my 3900X can't. My question is, why?


I missed that point - because i read "it wasn't stable till 1.49v" or something similar. My bad~
To spoil a bit, my 5600X struggled to hit 1900 FCLK at the very start. It did work work with higher procODT then should be needed ~ near 48-53 region
I didn't want to touch on this topic, as i was investigating how VDDG voltages scale this time with procODT and where the ranges are now (we can go to procODT 480ohm after all)
Seeing on soo many zentimings readouts of Vermeer , all with identical cLDO_VDDP = cLDO_VDDG (usually an issue)
Something was different.
Didn't want to touch on this topic , till i figure out what changed ~ instead of spreading missinformation

Nearly all Matisse samples can stabilize 1900FCLK @ cLDO_VDDP 1000mV, cLDO_VDDG CCD 1050, IOD 1150, SOC 1200mV
But this is borderline high voltage which can degrade the fabric quite fast if the voltage peaks a subtle bit or you run beyond 48ohm proc
High impedance and high current = bad experience to the fabric
Soo i can not recommend this at all ~ but Matisse and Renoir purely on the IMC side are not different ~ just around it changed. Same story for the 2700X and 3700X 

On Matisse you can try to see if you get even to the bios , by using a SOC loadline 1 under flat (flat will overshoot and degrade it)
If that with procODT near 36-42ohm posts, just to the bios without any load ~ then you can scale down and likely need a bit more procODT and more SOC current to begin with.
But close to every Matisse unit can hit 1900FCLK. They could go beyond that, but other issues came with it.
Soo because of marketing and PCIe 4.0 user experience, it was hard locked
Although still, nearly all if not all 3rd gens should be able to run 1900FCLK.
If you can't get it to post at all with whatever options ,then maybe PSP Firmware wasn't updated.
Speaking of PSP Firmware ~ a 3950X was in coma by a bad OC which pretty much made the CPU report "dead memory controller" and refuse to post ~ till put on another board with higher major AGESA
Same apparantly was for my 1700X ~ but this poor little thing had many confusions and low level self-resets 

I focused on the 3734, as the difference should be bigger than you report
It would be good to get the same set stable at 3800MT/
a tRCD_RD bump of +1 (15 instead 14) is a very big difference. a tCL difference of 2 is not such a big one
If 3800 tRCD_RD 14 can not work, and a set of tRCD_WR 7 tRCD_RD 15 (GMD off) or 8-16 (GDM on) doesn't work.
The tRCD_RD 14 set will continue to be better ~ even at lower frequency

⚠ oh if you ever want to try this high voltages above, do not use procODT 53-60ohm.
The IMC will not like high SOC and high procODT.
Couple AGESA's ago, there was a bug which pushed cLDO_VDDP as 1150mV
Combined with a bug where procODT 60ohm was loaded by using XMP or pushing beyond 3600MT/s
~ result in couple of dead units, but where luckily warranty covered
The reason was, if your VDDP is already 1150, VDDG can be as absolute minimum 1200 (beyond 1150mV is strongly damaging) and SOC can be as absolute minimum 1250 here

"and my 5900X can, and quite easily"
~ well my could not before the new patches. It seems to be a voltage settings missmatch,
but i won't spread unclear information why and why not on this topic so far, till i figure out what's the current optimal set of voltages 
Many still wait for the "better Patch C" or "Pre Release Patch D" 1.1.0.0 Agesa


----------



## Veii

Kha said:


> @Veii and @ManniX-ITA , starting today B550 Unify-X was listed by some finnish retailer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MEG B550 UNIFY X, ATX-emolevy - 229.90€
> 
> 
> Tekniset tiedot : Prosessorituki : Tukee AMD Ryzen 5000 & 3000 -sarjan työpöytäprosessoreja (ei yhteensopiva AMD Ryzen 5 3400G & Ryzen 3 3200G) ja Ryzen 4000 G-sarjan työp&
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jimms.fi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys think it's coming, at last ?


309-319€ for EU
This is for Austria, once they actually get the slock back





MSI MEG B550 UNIFY-X Mainboard - AMD B550 - AMD AM4 socket - DDR4 RAM - ATX


357,18 € Mainboard, ATX, AMD AM4 Socket, AMD B550, 1x PCI-Express 4.0 x16 & 1x PCI-Express 3.0 x16, Dual DDR4-3200 - 2 x DIMM slots, 6 x SATA-600 / 3x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 4.0 (2280 / 22110) & 1x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 3.0 (2280), USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A & C & USB 2.0 Type A / 1x HDMI 2.1 Verbindung...




www.proshop.at




and Norway





MSI MEG B550 UNIFY-X Hovedkort - AMD B550 - AMD AM4 socket - DDR4 RAM - ATX


3 243,00 kr Hovedkort, ATX, AMD AM4 Socket, AMD B550, 1x PCI-Express 4.0 x16 & 1x PCI-Express 3.0 x16, Dual DDR4-3200 - 2 x DIMM slots, 6 x SATA-600 / 3x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 4.0 (2280 / 22110) & 1x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 3.0 (2280), USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A & C & USB 2.0 Type A / 1x HDMI 2.1...




www.proshop.no




Bit on the expensive side. Should move in the 259-275€ region. Sadly i have to pass on it for now


elvior2 said:


> Hi @all,
> 
> I'm pretty new to this topic and also new to Ryzen platform but coming here for as a last chance before RMA, requesting some help that I would really apreciate for sure
> 
> After following so many guidelines and reading so many posts about how to stabilice memory on Ryzen I can't make my system RAM to run fully stable. Many many days and weeks of testing.
> 
> Tried even at the lowest speed 2400mhz with all on Auto but it keeps firing some error in stress tests, sometimes just some minutes after the begining of the test and other times after hours wihout any error. On average same number of errors occurs at 2400 and other speeds like XMP 3200 or higher 3466.
> 
> These are the specs of the system:
> 
> MB: MSI B450M-MORTAR-MAX
> CPU: Ryzen 5 3600
> RAM: HX432C16FB3AK2/32 (Kingston HyperX Fury RGB DDR4 3200Mhz PC-25600 32GB 2x16GB CL16)
> Notice that memory is supported in the QVL of the MB at rated speeds.
> 
> I'm doing the testing using: LinpackXtreme-1.1.3, TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected], Prime95 Small FFT, Large, Blend Custom, Memtest...
> 
> So far the most stable configuration with least number of errors is this one:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465614
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465616
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465619
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The errors that appears in TestMem5 v0.12 (best configs) using [email protected]:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2465606
> 
> 
> 
> Any help will be really appreciated. Let me know if you need to add more details about any configuration or something.
> 
> Thank you!!!!


If anta's config did not change much, error 2 should still be a timeout issue
tRFC, tRDWR, tWRRD
"Crash on mirrormove big data size"
"copy from one bank to another" or "copy from one dimm to another"up to how the config is set up to test
~ timeout issue non there less

ProcODT 48 is too high for "just 1050mV" vSOC
Take a read on the bottom half of this post








OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18


I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...




www.overclock.net




If VDDP on the main menu is CPU VDDP, then it should be 900
If it's cLDO_VDDP , then you need to take care of the voltage stepping between VDDP-VDDG-SOC
925mV cLDO_VDDP and 1050 SOC - means VDDG could be at best 62.5mV. Or if the bios is inteligent it would push VDDG CCD to 975 and IOD to 1000mV
You can try applying this two voltages on VDDG and drop procODT to 32-36 range,. Maaybe 42ohm could be just enough ~ up to how SOC Loadline behaves on auto
It's better if you use a lower procODT and fix SOC loadline at 1 under flat

Then also manually set tRC as 75 and use tRFC 600-446-214 (for 1/2/4)
If this isn't stable at 1.42v memory voltage - then something is not correct with your setup
Try the voltage patterns first, see if it's cpu related - if not maybe RMA your RAM


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Veii said:


> "and my 5900X can, and quite easily"
> ~ well my could not before the new patches. It seems to be a voltage settings missmatch,
> but i won't spread unclear information why and why not on this topic so far, till i figure out what's the current optimal set of voltages
> Many still wait for the "better Patch C" or "Pre Release Patch D" 1.1.0.0 Agesa


Okay, this makes my a bit concerned. I am using a ASUS CH8, so I'm hoping the voltages are being reported correctly. I posted my Zentimings earlier and they seem safe right?

A user above recommended I play with tRFC and try to get it lower.


----------



## Veii

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Okay, this makes my a bit concerned. I am using a ASUS CH8, so I'm hoping the voltages are being reported correctly. I posted my Zentimings earlier and they seem safe right?
> 
> A user above recommended I play with tRFC and try to get it lower.


It should be just a configuation issue. IMC is still bad - but it should be able to run in the region of 2100~2200 after we get 1100 Patch D to every board
You have a lot of playroom on tRC, tRRD_
Get SiSoftware Sandra - run the "multicore efficiency test" with this set
Filter at the bottom to local results , and when you optimize this set , always compare the "latency curve" the ~detailed view~ what set looks to run better
Aida64 doesn't tell the whole story

Using tRFC mini so far has not lead to any issues. (not even one "doesn's work" report, but it's a simple tool) 
The timings copied from 1usmus calculator are perfect - but if you change one little thing, they will not be in sync.
Using timely triggered tRFC (mini sheet shows the range it "can potentially" trigger) does lower latency and helps stability against random postponed refresh cycles

Push tRDWR to 9 
maybe try SOC as 1.125 with a loadline that drops it to perfect 1.1v
Load procODT 42ohm and try to up BLCK to 100.9Mhz. Else just 110Mhz
See if you can get 1933Mhz stable. "not unlocked" firmware will refuse it post & and you either need to step by step update from 1080 AGESA upwards or just wait for the next official patch

Else you can just out of fun work on getting tRC= tRAS+tRP & the correct tRFC & tWR stable
tRTP = a clean divider of the used tRFC.
tWR = double the "tRC multiplier" 
if used *6 , then tWR is 12 
if used *8 then tWR is 16 
~ as for a stable baseline, not a "best possible option" ruleset


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Veii said:


> It should be just a configuation issue. IMC is still bad - but it should be able to run in the region of 2100~2200 after we get 1100 Patch D to every board
> You have a lot of playroom on tRC, tRRD_
> Get SiSoftware Sandra - run the "multicore efficiency test" with this set
> Filter at the bottom to local results , and when you optimize this set , always compare the "latency curve" the ~detailed view~ what set looks to run better
> Aida64 doesn't tell the whole story
> 
> Using tRFC mini so far has not lead to any issues. (not even one "doesn's work" report, but it's a simple tool)
> The timings copied from 1usmus calculator are perfect - but if you change one little thing, they will not be in sync.
> Using timely triggered tRFC (mini sheet shows the range it "can potentially" trigger) does lower latency and helps stability against random postponed refresh cycles
> 
> Push tRDWR to 9
> maybe try SOC as 1.125 with a loadline that drops it to perfect 1.1v
> Load procODT 42ohm and try to up BLCK to 100.9Mhz. Else just 110Mhz
> See if you can get 1933Mhz stable. "not unlocked" firmware will refuse it post & and you either need to step by step update from 1080 AGESA upwards or just wait for the next official patch
> 
> Else you can just out of fun work on getting tRC= tRAS+tRP & the correct tRFC & tWR stable
> tRTP = a clean divider of the used tRFC.
> tWR = double the "tRC multiplier"
> if used *6 , then tWR is 12
> if used *8 then tWR is 16
> ~ as for a stable baseline, not a "best possible option" ruleset


Sorry for continously bugging you. This is becoming mind boggling to me. I see other users with near exact RAM timings as me but they get latency in the 55ish range. I just tried this and get 60.7, not much improvement over my 60.9. Can be my mobo bios? I feel like with these timings I should be getting much better.









EDIT

Current Latency going back to 3800MHz CL16


----------



## EniGma1987

Veii said:


> ProcODT 48 is too high for "just 1050mV" vSOC
> Take a read on the bottom half of this post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18
> 
> 
> I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If VDDP on the main menu is CPU VDDP, then it should be 900
> If it's cLDO_VDDP , then you need to take care of the voltage stepping between VDDP-VDDG-SOC
> 925mV cLDO_VDDP and 1050 SOC - means VDDG could be at best 62.5mV. Or if the bios is inteligent it would push VDDG CCD to 975 and IOD to 1000mV
> You can try applying this two voltages on VDDG and drop procODT to 32-36 range,. Maaybe 42ohm could be just enough ~ up to how SOC Loadline behaves on auto
> It's better if you use a lower procODT and fix SOC loadline at 1 under flat


I didnt really notice any explanation of much talk about ProcODT in that post you linked. I really only do a bunch of memory tuning each time I build a new computer, so every 2-4 years so I always forget the ins and outs of these sorts of things from how long it has been. Could you help me understand the relationship with the voltage and on-die termination resistance? Why is it that you are supposed to lower the ODT setting as you go higher in voltage? And how are you determining the resistance setting based on voltage and the FCLK frequency you are going for?


----------



## Veii

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Sorry for continously bugging you. This is becoming mind boggling to me. I see other users with near exact RAM timings as me but they get latency in the 55ish range. I just tried this and get 60.7, not much improvement over my 60.9. Can be my mobo bios? I feel like with these timings I should be getting much better.
> 
> View attachment 2465969
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Current Latency going back to 3800MHz CL16
> 
> View attachment 2465970


I don't think the timings are good
You waste 2ck on tRC , should be 48
You waste 2ck on tRRD_S and
tFAW is 24 in this case , which is oke - but SCL is high too
Single Rank should be able to do 288-214-132 tRFC ~ near 1.44-1.46v

All this changes are a noticable bump
It's all about the tertiaries. Primaries can be worked on, but there is no need yet
tRTP can stay 8 , but tWR can go down to 12
tCWL can go -2 and tRDWR +2 as change
you can still do a lot 

Just double check under AMD CBS ,that TSME
and under NBIO or DF, Memory scramble - both are disabled
Memory encryption = scramble,could also be under a MBIST section ~ which has ECC stuff inside


EniGma1987 said:


> I didnt really notice any explanation of much talk about ProcODT in that post you linked. I really only do a bunch of memory tuning each time I build a new computer, so every 2-4 years so I always forget the ins and outs of these sorts of things from how long it has been.
> Could you help me understand the relationship with the voltage and on-die termination resistance?
> Why is it that you are supposed to lower the ODT setting as you go higher in voltage?
> And how are you determining the resistance setting based on voltage and the FCLK frequency you are going for?


I wish i could link you all the old posts from this and the AMD 24/7 mem stability thread
But since the Xenforo migration , the links are dead
And there is too much to explain alone for procODT
Not to forget explaining Ohm's law, of current~impedance~ampere

ProcODT has many usages,
You have to increase it in order to bruteforce higher FCLK ~ when signals are unstable
But you should lower it and start with lower current (voltage) soo signal integrity improves
Then the range "when" low procODT works, is bigger
Also lower procODT with improved signal integrity, guarantees higher potential FCLK

It has two usecases, one it's an impedance and scales with SOC
on the other hand it's a signal-cut-off resistance
Low proc resistance with high current is equally as bad , as high current with high impedance
You need to get a ohm-current-ampere calculator to visualize , but at the end ~ only the pushed amperage matters and so also heat density and signal loss (signal integrity)

each CPU gen had a bit of different ranges
on Zen 1 , proc 53.3 was about near 1.15v as peak while only functioning above 1.0675v (min)
Zen1+ around 48ohm with min 1.05v max 1.125v
Zen 2's 28ohm for example works as min 0.8875-0..9v optimal is then 1.025 and peak 1.075
30ohm here moves that near 1v min, optimal 1.05 , and peak about ~1.08
32ohm can run fine 1.1v , but 30 ohm will cause issues
It's a long long topic

I linked you this specific post only for the voltage patterns , as AMD on stock has a minimum "stepping" of ~46mV , +/- 3mV loss
+50mV is always requested afterwards, neverless of what the bios reads at first for the VDDG or SOC line. More is requested afterwards to guarantee stability
A big topic exists here on OCN by The Stilt
"Matisse demystified (not really)" or something similar in title


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Veii said:


> Just double check under AMD CBS ,that TSME
> and under NBIO or DF, Memory scramble - both are disabled
> Memory encryption = scramble,could also be under a MBIST section ~ which has ECC stuff inside


Okay, I think this is the major one I need to check because others with near identical if not exact same settings as me are getting better latency.

EDIT:

Okay your suggestions are definitely helping

















EDIT 2: Okay this is where I ended up



















EDIT 3:

Ran the same settings but this time in safe mode


----------



## chitos123

chitos123 said:


> anta777 _ Extreme1
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> +--------------------------------+
> 
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x0
> 
> Parameter=0
> #Test0 Mb=0 [RefreshStable]
> #Test4 Mb=4
> #Test5 Mb=0
> 
> Parameter=2
> #Test2 Mb=0 [MirrorMove128]
> #Test6 Mb=4
> #Test7 Mb=0
> 
> Parameter=4
> #Test1 Mb=0 [MirrorMove]
> 
> +--------------------------------+
> 
> Pattern Mode=0
> Pattern Param0=0x*
> 
> Parameter=256
> #Test12 Mb=4
> #Test13 Mb=0
> 
> +--------------------------------+
> 
> Pattern Mode=1
> Pattern Param0=0x*
> 
> Parameter=256
> #Test3 Mb=4
> 
> +--------------------------------+
> 
> Pattern Mode=2
> Pattern Param0=0x*
> 
> Parameter=0
> #Test8 Mb=4
> #Test10 Mb=0
> 
> Parameter=2
> #Test9 Mb=4
> #Test11 Mb=0
> 
> Parameter=256
> #Test14 Mb=4
> #Test15 Mb=0
> 
> +--------------------------------+


1usmus_v3


Spoiler



+--------------------------------+

Pattern Mode=0
Pattern Param0=0x0

Parameter=0
#Test 0 Mb=0 [RefreshStable]
#Test 7 Mb=2
#Test 9 Mb=4

Parameter=1
#Test 3 Mb=0 [MirrorMove]

Parameter=2
#Test 15 Mb=0 [MirrorMove128]

Parameter=4
#Test 5 Mb=0 [MirrorMove]

Parameter=510
#Test 4 Mb=0 [MirrorMove128]

Parameter=16384
#Test 14 Mb=0 [MirrorMove]

+--------------------------------+

Pattern Mode=1
Pattern Param0=0x*

Parameter=0
#Test 1 Mb=16

Parameter=254
#Test 2 Mb=32

+--------------------------------+

Pattern Mode=2
Pattern Param0=0x*

Parameter=125
#Test 6 Mb=1

Parameter=358
#Test 8 Mb=0

Parameter=477
#Test 10 Mb=8

Parameter=787
#Test 12 Mb=32

Parameter=8568
#Test 11 Mb=16

Parameter=8968
#Test 13 Mb=64

+--------------------------------+


----------



## DeletedMember558271

What can I do to get this stable?
Do any of these settings look wrong/suboptimal or too extreme/require excessive voltage for little latency gain?
I can last like 50 minutes TM5 1usmus_V3 before "Error 13", I don't know what that means.








Also I've tried so much to get 1900 FCLK... I don't if it's impossible or if someone smarter could do it, it just doesn't post, hope new BIOS will help.

Is it a problem tRTP isn't a clean divider of tRFC?
Thanks

Edit: got an Error 12 23 minutes in


----------



## fcchin

KingEngineRevUp said:


> View attachment 2465982


Holy Moly, latency 3.2, world record !!!! ok ok you've gotta tell us the story  hahahahah.


----------



## fcchin

KingEngineRevUp said:


> EDIT 2: Okay this is where I ended up
> View attachment 2466008
> View attachment 2466009


Didn't see these in post.
Only see them when replying before lick post reply.


----------



## fcchin

Veii said:


> A big topic exists here on OCN by The Stilt
> "Matisse demystified (not really)" or something similar in title











Strictly technical: Matisse (Not really)


07/08/2019 6:33 PM (GMT) - Update on the bios issue on Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard ("the thing"). Earlier today I received a response to my inquiries from ASUS. The response was rather technical and I cannot go into the specifics of what exactly it involved. However, it confirmed my...




www.overclock.net




thanks....


----------



## Veii

Dreamic said:


> What can I do to get this stable?
> Do any of these settings look wrong/suboptimal or too extreme/require excessive voltage for little latency gain?
> I can last like 50 minutes TM5 1usmus_V3 before "Error 13", I don't know what that means.
> View attachment 2466016
> 
> Also I've tried so much to get 1900 FCLK... I don't if it's impossible or if someone smarter could do it, it just doesn't post, hope new BIOS will help.
> 
> Is it a problem tRTP isn't a clean divider of tRFC?
> Thanks
> 
> Edit: got an Error 12 23 minutes in


Error 13 ~ simple test size 0
Memory crash by something / memory can't be utilized
Error 12 ~ Simple test size 4mb
Burst test. Crash by too high voltage or too small tRP window

Pretty sure it's voltage at this point
But your tWRRD is wrong
should be 3 not 4 
4*3 = 12 = <14 tRCD_WR = correct
4*4 = 16 = >16 tRCD = will timeout
tRDWR = 2 * x = equal or higher than tRCD_RD. If lower, tWRRD needs to be used, else tWRRD = 1 on equal or +1

RTT looks very awkward, but i think it's a voltage issue
They simply crash, likely overcurrent issue


KingEngineRevUp said:


> Okay, I think this is the major one I need to check because others with near identical if not exact same settings as me are getting better latency.
> 
> EDIT:
> Okay your suggestions are definitely helping
> 
> 
> EDIT 2: Okay this is where I ended up
> View attachment 2466009


tFAW down to 4* tRRD_S = 16
tRRD_L down to 5
tWTR_L down to 10 and tWTR_S down to 4

After you can post, SCL down to 3
and then make a stability check
Afterwards try tRDWR 9 and tWRRD 4


----------



## KedarWolf

To do a quick stability test I use the 1usmus_v3 but change Time (%)=100 to Time (%)=1000 and only do one cycle.

I've never had it pass this then fail 25 cycles of regular 1usmus_v3 or [email protected]

I DO let it run [email protected] overnight even if it passes though, just take an hour to do the quick test while watching Twitch, etc. 

Anything I need to tweak, @Veii ?


----------



## elvior2

Hi all, a little improvement but not able to make it fully stable.

I've adjusted IOD / CCD to 1.000v as SOC is 1.050v. Going higher on SOC is not helping. 
Tried this several times and is giving me more troubles making tests to fail much quicker.

Also already tested different ProcODT, RTTNom, RTTWR,...and the most stable config by far is with the following settings.

With VDDG IOD / CCD voltage adjustments a little improvement, but still 1 error...I don't know how to get rid of that one arggggg, failing always in Test 2. *What does this mean?*










I've been trying also changing DrvStr 24/20/24/24 and many more combinations but the best result so far is in Auto 24/24/24/24.
Also I've tried with little VDDP adjustments like 920mv, 925mv, but no chance.

Maybe some timing is not correct? I've only adjusted manually primary timings and the other subtimings etc are on AUTO.

Don't know what more to try. A bit lost right now. Any ideas?


----------



## Kha

Veii said:


> Bit on the expensive side. Should move in the 259-275€ region. Sadly i have to pass on it for now


Tell you what. We, here in eastern EU, usually have lower prices than the western EU for componnents. If this will be the case with this B550 Unify too, I'll let you know and we'll figure out a solution.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Stumbled upon this guide on how to find the right termination values:









How to do Stable DDR4 Tuning on Ryzen: Finding the Appropriate Values of the Termination Resistance (Rev. 2)


If you want to overclock DRAMs or reduce DRAM timings from XMP further, it is known that you can use Ryzen DRAM Calculator released by 1usmus. This calculates some values very easily, including det…




ocod.home.blog





What do you think, does it make sense?


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> Stumbled upon this guide on how to find the right termination values:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to do Stable DDR4 Tuning on Ryzen: Finding the Appropriate Values of the Termination Resistance (Rev. 2)
> 
> 
> If you want to overclock DRAMs or reduce DRAM timings from XMP further, it is known that you can use Ryzen DRAM Calculator released by 1usmus. This calculates some values very easily, including det…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ocod.home.blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think, does it make sense?


Which part, you linked a whole compendium of 20 pages lol.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> Which part, you linked a whole compendium of 20 pages lol.


Uh? It's only one page, one post, 6 steps, that I linked:

*How to do Stable DDR4 Tuning on Ryzen: Finding the Appropriate Values of the Termination Resistance (Rev. 2)*

I don't see other stuff...


----------



## DeletedMember558271

Veii said:


> Error 13 ~ simple test size 0
> Memory crash by something / memory can't be utilized
> Error 12 ~ Simple test size 4mb
> Burst test. Crash by too high voltage or too small tRP window
> 
> Pretty sure it's voltage at this point
> But your tWRRD is wrong
> should be 3 not 4
> 4*3 = 12 = <14 tRCD_WR = correct
> 4*4 = 16 = >16 tRCD = will timeout
> tRDWR = 2 * x = equal or higher than tRCD_RD. If lower, tWRRD needs to be used, else tWRRD = 1 on equal or +1
> 
> RTT looks very awkward, but i think it's a voltage issue
> They simply crash, likely overcurrent issue


I feel like giving up and going back to 16-16-16-16-32-48 lol..








Ran for over an hour fine before I left to sleep.
I don't know what to change, haven't messed with voltage related settings much cause I'm new and don't want to damage anything with things I don't understand, RTT/Proc/DrvStr all Auto.
Also ZenTimings is wrong, BGS is Enabled, BGS Alt is Disabled. 4x8gb B-Die Patriot.


----------



## bohemiocaa

Dreamic said:


> I don't know what to change, haven't messed with voltage related settings much cause I'm new and don't want to damage anything with things I don't understand, RTT/Proc/DrvStr all Auto.
> Also ZenTimings is wrong, BGS is Enabled, BGS Alt is Disabled. 4x8gb B-Die Patriot.


Im in a similar problem like you, but with 4x8gb B-Die Gskill 3600c17

With 2 sticks, i can reach 3733 without problem ... now with the 4 sticks, is very mostly impossible to find the rights timings to make it stable.

Here are my tuned 3600 C16 timings - 1.4v working without errors, and my failure timmings in 3733.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dreamic said:


> I feel like giving up and going back to 16-16-16-16-32-48 lol..
> View attachment 2466069
> 
> Ran for over an hour fine before I left to sleep.
> I don't know what to change, haven't messed with voltage related settings much cause I'm new and don't want to damage anything with things I don't understand, RTT/Proc/DrvStr all Auto.
> Also ZenTimings is wrong, BGS is Enabled, BGS Alt is Disabled. 4x8gb B-Die Patriot.


Maybe tRFC at 252 is a bit too much aggressive?
What kind of VDIMM voltage are you running?
I had a similar weird behavior with tRFC, not that dramatic though.
I'd try 266 with the same voltage or bumping up a little.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> To do a quick stability test I use the 1usmus_v3 but change Time (%)=100 to Time (%)=1000 and only do one cycle.
> 
> I've never had it pass this then fail 25 cycles of regular 1usmus_v3 or [email protected]
> 
> I DO let it run [email protected] overnight even if it passes though, just take an hour to do the quick test while watching Twitch, etc.
> 
> Anything I need to tweak, @Veii ?
> 
> View attachment 2466020


Passed Anta Extreme last night as well. I have a screenshot but never uploaded here before I came to work.

Like I said, if it passes one cycle of 1usmus_v3 set to 1000% it'll pass anything I throw at it.


----------



## mongoled

Dreamic said:


> I feel like giving up and going back to 16-16-16-16-32-48 lol..
> View attachment 2466069
> 
> Ran for over an hour fine before I left to sleep.
> I don't know what to change, haven't messed with voltage related settings much cause I'm new and don't want to damage anything with things I don't understand, RTT/Proc/DrvStr all Auto.
> Also ZenTimings is wrong, BGS is Enabled, BGS Alt is Disabled. 4x8gb B-Die Patriot.





bohemiocaa said:


> Im in a similar problem like you, but with 4x8gb B-Die Gskill 3600c17
> 
> With 2 sticks, i can reach 3733 without problem ... now with the 4 sticks, is very mostly impossible to find the rights timings to make it stable.
> 
> Here are my tuned 3600 C16 timings - 1.4v working without errors, and my failure timmings in 3733.
> 
> View attachment 2466072
> View attachment 2466074


Guys, when in search for stable base to work from and using 32GB of RAM I advise you drop the 1T with GDM enabled and use 2T.

My own findings have found (others to) that 2T gives better throughput and better latency than 1T GDM enabled.

CL14 needs 1.5v +
CL16 can be done with 1.4v +

Next, start with 
RttNom / RttWr / RttPark @ 7/5/1
ProcODT 43.6 ohms
vSOC 1.065 - 1.075
vDDP 0.900V
vDDG IOD -0.050v from vSOC
vDDG CCD -0.025v from vDDG IOD

Probably best to leave ClkDrv, AddrCmdDrvStr, CsOdtDrvStr & CkeDrvStr on auto....


----------



## bohemiocaa

mongoled said:


> Guys, when in search for stable base to work from and using 32GB of RAM I advise you drop the 1T with GDM enabled and use 2T.
> 
> My own findings have found (others to) that 2T gives better throughput and better latency than 1T GDM enabled.
> 
> CL14 needs 1.5v +
> CL16 can be done with 1.4v +
> 
> Next, start with
> RttNom / RttWr / RttPark @ 7/5/1
> ProcODT 43.6 ohms
> vSOC 1.065 - 1.075
> vDDP 0.900V
> vDDG IOD -0.050v from vSOC
> vDDG CCD -0.025v from vDDG IOD
> 
> Probably best to leave ClkDrv, AddrCmdDrvStr, CsOdtDrvStr & CkeDrvStr on auto....


Thanks for you tips bro, with

GDM Off
2T
Norm: 7
Wr: 1
Park:5

I have a lot of errors...... +800.

For the moment my best result (lower errors, was with this settings) With 1.39v , if i go with the same settings to 1.4.... more errors.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

ManniX-ITA said:


> Maybe tRFC at 252 is a bit too much aggressive?
> What kind of VDIMM voltage are you running?
> I had a similar weird behavior with tRFC, not that dramatic though.
> I'd try 266 with the same voltage or bumping up a little.


Just tried 266, 198, 122. Error 13 20 minutes in.
VDIMM I actually pushed up to 1.56v, it does increments of 0.010v and had errors at each step, though seemingly took longer up to about 1.53v 1.54v, don't know if anything higher actually helps more. I started at 1.5v for CL16 and didn't get around to trying lower, I'm not worried about 1.55v short term or maybe even long term just wanted to see if it would help. I don't want to go any higher though, even just to see
This is stable overnight:


Spoiler: CL16











[/ATTACH]





mongoled said:


> Guys, when in search for stable base to work from and using 32GB of RAM I advise you drop the 1T with GDM enabled and use 2T.
> 
> My own findings have found (others to) that 2T gives better throughput and better latency than 1T GDM enabled.
> 
> CL14 needs 1.5v +
> CL16 can be done with 1.4v +
> 
> Next, start with
> RttNom / RttWr / RttPark @ 7/5/1
> ProcODT 43.6 ohms
> vSOC 1.065 - 1.075
> vDDP 0.900V
> vDDG IOD -0.050v from vSOC
> vDDG CCD -0.025v from vDDG IOD
> 
> Probably best to leave ClkDrv, AddrCmdDrvStr, CsOdtDrvStr & CkeDrvStr on auto....


Alright I'll give these a try

Edit: Pretty sure my read speed is quite a bit worse with 2T, latency seems about the same as GDM
Also RttWr @ 3 was the closest option I had

Error 12 15 mins in...  And if that means too high voltage, it BSOD on boot lowering to 1.50v. I do create sys images, I'm not destroying my OS
Got an Error 6, which means I should raise vSOC vDDP vDDG? Feel like nothing I'm doing is reducing errors...
Error 10 32 mins in, already raised vSOC 1.1 vDDP 0.950v vDDG IOD 1.050v vDDG CCD 1.025v
Error 13 20 mins in with tRFC reduced to what I used with stable overnight CL16 (288, 214, 132)

What now?

(Reposted cause mods taking forever to unhide after too many edits, apparently I should just flood topic with new posts every update?...)


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dreamic said:


> Just tried 266, 198, 122. Error 13 20 minutes in.
> VDIMM I actually pushed up to 1.56v, it does increments of 0.010v and had errors at each step, though seemingly took longer up to about 1.53v 1.54v, don't know if anything higher actually helps more. I started at 1.5v for CL16 and didn't get around to trying lower, I'm not worried about 1.55v short term or maybe even long term just wanted to see if it would help. I don't want to go any higher though, even just to see
> This is stable overnight:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CL16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2466081
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright I'll give these a try
> 
> Edit: Pretty sure my read speed is quite a bit worse with 2T, latency seems about the same as GDM
> Also RttWr @ 3 was the closest option I had
> 
> Error 12 15 mins in...  And if that means too high voltage, it BSOD on boot lowering to 1.50v. I do create sys images, I'm not destroying my OS
> Got an Error 6, which means I should raise vSOC vDDP vDDG? Feel like nothing I'm doing is reducing errors...
> Error 10 32 mins in, already raised vSOC 1.1 vDDP 0.950v vDDG IOD 1.050v vDDG CCD 1.025v
> Error 13 20 mins in with tRFC reduced to what I used with stable overnight CL16 (288, 214, 132)
> 
> What now?
> 
> (Reposted cause mods taking forever to unhide after too many edits, apparently I should just flood topic with new posts every update?...)


I think this is way too much errors for that voltage.
Pretty sure your problem is the wrong termination settings.
I had to struggle a lot to find the right values for my F4-4000C16 kit.
I was getting too very weird and inconsistent TM5 errors.

Settings for GDM Enabled are different than those with GDM Disabled.

I'm running with GDM, any deviation is unstable:
ProcODT 36.9
ClkDrvStr 20
AddrCmdDrvStr 20
CsOdtDrvStr 20
CkeDrvStr 20

AddrCmdSetup 0
CsOdtSetup 0
CkeSetup 0

Without GDM somehow I can't find the settings saved.
I should have posted them here but I'm not sure when.

But should be those:

ProcODT 48
ClkDrvStr 60
AddrCmdDrvStr 20
CsOdtDrvStr 20
CkeDrvStr 20

AddrCmdSetup 60
CsOdtSetup 60
CkeSetup 60

The most important is the 60 for the CAD Bus Setup.
Followed by the ClkDrvStr at 60.
Then it was fine-tuning; but start form this and see if it's improving.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

ManniX-ITA said:


> I think this is way too much errors for that voltage.
> Pretty sure your problem is the wrong termination settings.
> I had to struggle a lot to find the right values for my F4-4000C16 kit.
> I was getting too very weird and inconsistent TM5 errors.
> 
> Settings for GDM Enabled are different than those with GDM Disabled.
> 
> I'm running with GDM, any deviation is unstable:
> ProcODT 36.9
> ClkDrvStr 20
> AddrCmdDrvStr 20
> CsOdtDrvStr 20
> CkeDrvStr 20
> 
> AddrCmdSetup 0
> CsOdtSetup 0
> CkeSetup 0
> 
> Without GDM somehow I can't find the settings saved.
> I should have posted them here but I'm not sure when.
> 
> But should be those:
> 
> ProcODT 48
> ClkDrvStr 60
> AddrCmdDrvStr 20
> CsOdtDrvStr 20
> CkeDrvStr 20
> 
> AddrCmdSetup 60
> CsOdtSetup 60
> CkeSetup 60
> 
> The most important is the 60 for the CAD Bus Setup.
> Followed by the ClkDrvStr at 60.
> Then it was fine-tuning; but start form this and see if it's improving.


Thanks, I can't tell if it helped, got to 45 minutes Error 7 and then Error 6 about a minute later.








Again ZenTimings is wrong, BGS is Enabled, BGS Alt is Disabled. 4xSR sticks.
I put tRFC2/4 back to Auto just to see, as that's what it was until a couple days ago.
This stuff is too complicated, I have no ideas

Edit:
vSOC to 1.125
vDDG CCD to 1.05
tRFC/2/4 to 336/250/154
Error 7 within 5 minutes


----------



## a93luhseg

hi

A local retailer has old Crucial Ballistix Sport (16GB 3000CL*16*) in stocks. BLS16G4D30*BES*B and BLS16G4D30*CES*T. BES one looks to be D-die but I couldn't find anything about CES suffix.

1. Which die is the CES one?
2. what would be the OC possibility of those on a ryzen 2600 & asus B350 board?

thanks


----------



## DeletedMember558271

@Veii Do you know what Error 3 is? Just got that for the first time 11 minutes in.








BGS Enabled, BGS Alt Disabled.

Edit: Changed tRFC/2/4: 294/218/134 = Error 13, 11 mins in
Upped voltages and got 3 Error 10's in first 10 minutes


----------



## MikeS3000

I need some help explaining this issue. I have been running 2x8 gigabyte DJR ram at 3800 using dram calc fast and gdm disabled for about a year. I decided to upgrade and put two more sticks of the identical ram in my system 2 days ago. I entered the timings for dram calculator fast four sticks single rank. I even tried gdm off. It had no problem booting every time and it threw a couple errors on tm5 20 cycles. I decided to turn gdm on. It passes TM5 20 cycles and memtest 500%. Fast forward to today. Cold booting I had no issues. Every restart would lead to a blue screen and corrupted Windows files. I could not figure out what was going on. I got desperate and reinstalled windows. Finally I decided to enter dram calc settings and put in dual rank instead of single rank by four sticks. So far no issues. Was I supposed to select dual rank when using four single rank sticks for the purposes of the calculator?


----------



## mongoled

Dreamic said:


> Thanks, I can't tell if it helped, got to 45 minutes Error 7 and then Error 6 about a minute later.
> View attachment 2466106
> 
> Again ZenTimings is wrong, BGS is Enabled, BGS Alt is Disabled. 4xSR sticks.
> I put tRFC2/4 back to Auto just to see, as that's what it was until a couple days ago.
> This stuff is too complicated, I have no ideas
> 
> Edit:
> vSOC to 1.125
> vDDG CCD to 1.05
> tRFC/2/4 to 336/250/154
> Error 7 within 5 minutes


set tRCDRD to 16

see if your errors go away


----------



## mongoled

bohemiocaa said:


> Thanks for you tips bro, with
> 
> GDM Off
> 2T
> Norm: 7
> Wr: 1
> Park:5
> 
> I have a lot of errors...... +800.
> 
> For the moment my best result (lower errors, was with this settings) With 1.39v , if i go with the same settings to 1.4.... more errors.
> View attachment 2466100


Are these your sticks









Search Results - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Search for a product by model number, series name, or specification.




www.gskill.com





Are these definately b-die ? I know "B-die Finder " resource says they are.

They could be a very bad bin, use tRFC set to 485 and see if the errors disappear


----------



## DeletedMember558271

mongoled said:


> set tRCDRD to 16
> 
> see if your errors go away


Maybe, but if it's not a timing issue, this RAM is going to learn to behave


----------



## DeletedMember558271

MikeS3000 said:


> Was I supposed to select dual rank when using four single rank sticks for the purposes of the calculator?


I've heard people say you're supposed to, and that's what I'm doing, but I haven't seen anyone like 1usmus confirm it.
It really doesn't make sense though, because technically you're telling it you have four dual rank sticks, for quad rank, so I guess the calculator just doesn't actually support or have a setting for actual quad rank systems, if this is how it works.

1usmus really should clarify if that's the case, because anyone that actually does the correct thing like you is not getting the right settings, apparently


----------



## KedarWolf

Dreamic said:


> I've heard people say you're supposed to, and that's what I'm doing, but I haven't seen anyone like 1usmus confirm it.
> It really doesn't make sense though, because technically you're telling it you have four dual rank sticks, for quad rank, so I guess the calculator just doesn't actually support or have a setting for actual quad rank systems, if this is how it works


Four Single Rank DIMMs run Dual Rank the same as two Dual Rank DIMMs do. It has to do with the memory controller. That is why two Dual Rank DIMMs are better than two Single Rank DIMMs.

Might take some Google to find out exactly why.


Edit: Ryzen Above: Best Memory Settings for AMD's 3000 CPUs, Tested


The best practical configuration is four ranks of DDR4-3600 at the lowest stable latencies. *Reminder: Four ranks can be achieved from either four single-rank or two dual-rank DIMMs. *And almost all X570 boards are Daisy Chain so two 2x16GB Dual Rank b-die is the way to go.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

KedarWolf said:


> Four Single Rank DIMMs run Dual Rank the same as two Dual Rank DIMMs do. It has to do with the memory controller. That is why two Dual Rank DIMMs are better than two Single Rank DIMMs.
> 
> Might take some Google to find out exactly why.
> 
> Edit: Ryzen Above: Best Memory Settings for AMD's 3000 CPUs, Tested


I know, but we're talking about when you have four single rank dimms, you can still choose Memory Rank 1 or 2 in the calculator. Which if you say 2 with 4 DIMMs, you're technically saying you have four Dual Rank DIMMs. Quad Rank. A lot of people say that's what you're supposed to do even with four single rank dimms.

You can't really have 4 DIMMs and not run in dual rank, can you? So what is it asking when you can say 4 DIMM 1 Rank.


----------



## mongoled

Dreamic said:


> I know, but we're talking about when you have four single rank dimms, you can still choose Memory Rank 1 or 2 in the calculator. Which if you say 2 with 4 DIMMs, you're technically saying you have four Dual Rank DIMMs. Quad Rank. A lot of people say that's what you're supposed to do even with four single rank dimms.
> 
> You can't really have 4 DIMMs and not run in dual rank, can you? So what is it asking when you can say 4 DIMM 1 Rank.


It looks likes its not been factored into the calculator, you have understood it right though, as KedarWolf has explained.

4 sticks of single rank need same settings as 2 sticks of dual rank.\

Re brute force with air and voltage, generally does not help tRCDRD, that why i said to drop to 16 for testing purposes


----------



## DeletedMember558271

mongoled said:


> It looks likes its not been factored into the calculator, you have understood it right though, as KedarWolf has explained.
> 
> 4 sticks of single rank need same settings as 2 sticks of dual rank.\
> 
> Re brute force with air and voltage, generally does not help tRCDRD, that why i said to drop to 16 for testing purposes


Yea so Memory Rank 2 with 4 Single Rank DIMMs for the calculator, which can be counter intuitive, like it was for this guy, and me.

I just set that fan up, so I'm going to be heartbroken if I see another error. It is depressing to be constantly let down all day no matter what you do...
If I have to throw tRCDRD back to 16 that loses a lot of latency if I remember correctly, more than maybe any other setting? 
I know this is stable:








I can't get FCLK 1900, would be nice to kinda make up for it


----------



## Veii

Dreamic said:


> @Veii Do you know what Error 3 is? Just got that for the first time 11 minutes in.
> View attachment 2466118
> 
> BGS Enabled, BGS Alt Disabled.
> 
> Edit: Changed tRFC/2/4: 294/218/134 = Error 13, 11 mins in
> Upped voltages and got 3 Error 10's in first 10 minutes


I'm looking at your case, much posts to process
Let's start with the acknowledgement, that you use 4x A2 B-dies on a Daisy-Chain Board
Where the slave set get's 1/3 of the ampere (current but not voltage one) ~ of the first set

Meaning you will either have to increase ClkDrvStrengh , or increase procODT (one of both)
And then look how to balance current

Mid-re'edit:
Anta777 and 1usmus_3 "error numbers" are apparently different
Many are identical but some tests are completely different
I am not sure what you run and what the errors would mean

Simple Test 0mb usually are refresh tests. A crashing memory would mean that either the resitance is too low with high current flowing through it
Or by distance/bad signal integrity ~ impedance is too low/unstable

Burst Test 4mb,
Are voltage related or cutoff related ~ timeout issue
i am really not sure what test file you let loop or run, but each test file has a different order of "test numbers"
They are not comparable - only the test types could be to some extend

Else,
Many tests which are not Simple Test 0 or Burst Test 4mb ~ are progress
EDIT:
They will not appear, if memory already fails "refresh stable" or Simple Test 0mb" tests
But i don't think you could drop tRCD to 14 on a Daisy Chain Board
The 2nd link is just too weak ~ maybe something can be done

GDM is helpful, because the internal Multiplex Driver -> Data Signal (MUX) is running at half speed with it enabled
Same goes for the Sense Amp -> I/O Gate
but this is one of the reasons why many timings are rounded in the hidden or "1.5T" exists
It will hide tho instability, same as higher than tRAS+tRP=tRC will
Better get GMD off 2T enabled, soo the "whole array of timings" will loop once ~ while MUX run at normal speed
Because you can optimize 2T sets to be lower and still outperform 1.5T rounding


Spoiler: Text-Illustration [Basics]














If you take a look at part of the illustrative example
You can see that Data Line is Sinus Curve like. Up to exterior state the signal will pass or not pass ~ but it is variable IF it will pass and can corrupt
The Driver Signal has no sinus behavior ~ only a "falloff current = remain current in cells" behavior

Meaning,
Bad signal integrity (noise), not enough impedance, too strong reistance cuttoff
will not allow the data-signal to pass. soo you should work your RTT values
(probably lowering the strengthness of them)
Then increase procODT a bit with more SOC voltage but a loadline with stronger vdroop
And increase ClkDrvStrength between 40-120ohm
Usually for Threadripper and similar "many dimms" setups , you move in the area of >60 ClkDrvStrength
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would here also double tWR & tRTP for now
And start with SCL of 5 & tWRRD 1 + higher tRDWR 10?
Also increasing both tRRD_ & tWTR_ by +1 each
tRRD_ 5/7
tWTR_ 5/14
tFAW 20

tRFC up to *8
384-285-176
tWR double 16( 32! )
tRTP double 8 ( 16 )

VDIMM near 1.48 should be fine
2nd set should get around 1.41-42ish
(current will be applied but amperage will be different, just illustrative example)
Show proof that you can get tRCD_RD 14 stable with these higher settings and changed CAD_BUS + RTT
Then we can continue the talk 


Dreamic said:


> I feel like giving up and going back to 16-16-16-16-32-48 lol..
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2466069
> 
> Ran for over an hour fine before I left to sleep.
> I don't know what to change, haven't messed with voltage related settings much cause I'm new and don't want to damage anything with things I don't understand, RTT/Proc/DrvStr all Auto.
> Also ZenTimings is wrong, BGS is Enabled, BGS Alt is Disabled. 4x8gb B-Die Patriot.


But don't worry all too much
4x A2 kits are already a big challenge on T-Topology.
@fcchin might be able to share some experience and advices
on Daisy-Chain it's nightmare 
_but you got to learn from hard stuff_


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> Uh? It's only one page, one post, 6 steps, that I linked:
> 
> *How to do Stable DDR4 Tuning on Ryzen: Finding the Appropriate Values of the Termination Resistance (Rev. 2)*
> 
> I don't see other stuff...


Dunno, I counted 20 pages scrolling, didn't count the rows )


----------



## elvior2

I'm starting to feel really really bored about my current memory ram kit and trully thinking of replacing it by a new set to see if I can get rid of all the instability issues and maybe get a bit better performance.

I'm thinking on replacing current kit https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX432C16FB4AK2_32.pdf which is only causing me troubles by this other one F4-3200C14D-32GTZ-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.

Do you think it's worthy? What can I expect from that kit? Better clocks, better latency?


----------



## bohemiocaa

mongoled said:


> Are these your sticks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Search Results - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Search for a product by model number, series name, or specification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these definately b-die ? I know "B-die Finder " resource says they are.
> 
> They could be a very bad bin, use tRFC set to 485 and see if the errors disappear


Yes bro, they are B-Die. I know they dont are the best bin o the b-die , but you think i cant get 3733 stable ?

I trow the towel with 3800, but 3733 ? 

Edit: A little better results with trfc 485, but errors.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

I was running this before your post @Veii
I think I'm just going to relax now for a bit, try to lower vDIMM over the next couple nights, 1.52v in BIOS unstable but 1.53v or 1.54v should be fine. Then I'll probably see if I can lower vSOC, vDDG, vDDP at all.
53.5ns AIDA.
They just need active cooling, doesn't matter how good your case airflow is


Spoiler: Cooling














Despite having 2x 140mm Noctua NF-A14 intake pretty close (not a long case) and 140mm CPU fan pulling air right off (it's practically touching leftmost DIMM) it's not enough.
Have to have one blowing right on


----------



## MikeS3000

I think I'm stable now with the 4x8gb djr using dual rank fast settings 3800. 1.42v. Passed 20 cycles tm5 and no reboot corrupted file blue screens. Crazy how changing just a few settings fixed everything. Still have no idea why reboot issues were non existent for 2 days and then blue screen on every reboot.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

So running Aida in safe mode makes a difference. I guess I have too much RGB bullshit running in the background.


----------



## nolive721

Any people having a combo running with 3500X and corsair 3200CL16 LPX with hynix chip from 1st gen ryzen times. Just played a bit with xmp in the bios of my B550 board but not tried Dram cakculator yet so looking for advice.apologize if i am too specific


----------



## Veii

nolive721 said:


> Any people having a combo running with 3500X and corsair 3200CL16 LPX with hynix chip from 1st gen ryzen times. Just played a bit with xmp in the bios of my B550 board but not tried Dram cakculator yet so looking for advice.apologize if i am too specific


If hynix MFR, check this picture


http://imgur.com/1h5L9qw

you can replicate RTT values and maybe find scaling similarities
This was under 1.56v, but it could need 1.62v on some cases

If HynixAFR, your max clocks move near 3600MT/s , maaybe 3700 ~ with rec voltage not beyond 1.45
If CJR , you can pretty much max out the IMC at 1900=3800MT/s ~ same rec voltage, peak aruond 1.48

MFR is 20nm , and it loves voltage ~ more than b-die soo you can safely push it to 1.62v
The remain voltage rulesets, well pretty much everything remains on Matisse with the 3500X


Dreamic said:


> View attachment 2466210
> 
> I was running this before your post @Veii
> I think I'm just going to relax now for a bit, try to lower vDIMM over the next couple nights, 1.52v in BIOS unstable but 1.53v or 1.54v should be fine. Then I'll probably see if I can lower vSOC, vDDG, vDDP at all.
> 53.5ns AIDA.
> They just need active cooling, doesn't matter how good your case airflow is
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Cooling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2466211
> 
> 
> 
> Despite having 2x 140mm Noctua NF-A14 intake pretty close (not a long case) and 140mm CPU fan pulling air right off (it's practically touching leftmost DIMM) it's not enough.
> Have to have one blowing right on


Wow that close.
It would question here if the thermal pads on these really touch the heatsink and probably remove one side of it like:


Spoiler: here














Keep in mind, they often use double sided-glue thermal pads
very sticky ones at least and you don't want to rip appart the ICs
Else , alone comparing both A2 vipers ~ if they really are A2 dimms - would be a worthful thing to do
Although once removed from the DIMM Slots, i'd probably wipe them once with isopropanol
As strong current causes an oxidation layer on their pins. Same goes for older 3xx series boards (CPU and DIMM pins)

tWR 12 is awkward for this tRFC, 14 would be better - just a bit slower
But is this really a good set 🤔
It's a bit too unstable at this high voltage with yet "high" tRFC
My vipers run 1.45 without any airflow at all - open bench with their "heatsink"
Really questioning how well yours touch the thermal pads of them

Well anywho, go for GDM off 2T now 
Then we shall see how stable the CAD/RTT setup really is 
Your tRFC alone with GDM on, should go one step further down at least

Probably get them out first and make a close up picture on the bottom of the dimm - the traces
OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18 visible like here, just a bit further away
Who knows, some old 4400 vipers apparantly where A0 not A2
It would be bad luck overall, but you might have lucked out - as A0 are less sensitive and can be placed on the slave set


elvior2 said:


> I'm starting to feel really really bored about my current memory ram kit and trully thinking of replacing it by a new set to see if I can get rid of all the instability issues and maybe get a bit better performance.
> 
> I'm thinking on replacing current kit https://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/HX432C16FB4AK2_32.pdf which is only causing me troubles by this other one F4-3200C14D-32GTZ-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> Do you think it's worthy? What can I expect from that kit? Better clocks, better latency?


How much would you pay for that C14-14 set
Have you looked for similar 3600CL16-16 or CL15-15 sets ?


----------



## mongoled

bohemiocaa said:


> Yes bro, they are B-Die. I know they dont are the best bin o the b-die , but you think i cant get 3733 stable ?
> 
> I trow the towel with 3800, but 3733 ?
> 
> Edit: A little better results with trfc 485, but errors.


Frendo,

Whats the reason you are running the Rtt values you have in the screenshot ?

I said previously to start with

RttNom / RttWr / RttPark @ 7/5/1

You wrote this previously (I missed this before)


> GDM Off
> 2T
> Norm: 7
> Wr: 1
> Park:5


You mixed up the settings, you have RttWr and RttPark the wrong way round ??

ProcODT 43.6 ohms -- You have this set
vSOC 1.065 - 1.075 -- You have your quite a bit lower, is there a reason for this? You must fix the Rtt first though!
vDDP 0.900V -- You are good here


----------



## paih85

hi @Veii

need ur help. 

dram: 1.44v


----------



## nolive721

Veii said:


> If hynix MFR, check this picture
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/1h5L9qw
> 
> you can replicate RTT values and maybe find scaling similarities
> This was under 1.56v, but it could need 1.62v on some cases
> 
> If HynixAFR, your max clocks move near 3600MT/s , maaybe 3700 ~ with rec voltage not beyond 1.45
> If CJR , you can pretty much max out the IMC at 1900=3800MT/s ~ same rec voltage, peak aruond 1.48
> 
> MFR is 20nm , and it loves voltage ~ more than b-die soo you can safely push it to 1.62v
> The remain voltage rulesets, well pretty much everything remains on Matisse with the 3500X
> 
> Wow that close.
> It would question here if the thermal pads on these really touch the heatsink and probably remove one side of it like:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, they often use double sided-glue thermal pads
> very sticky ones at least and you don't want to rip appart the ICs
> Else , alone comparing both A2 vipers ~ if they really are A2 dimms - would be a worthful thing to do
> Although once removed from the DIMM Slots, i'd probably wipe them once with isopropanol
> As strong current causes an oxidation layer on their pins. Same goes for older 3xx series boards (CPU and DIMM pins)
> 
> tWR 12 is awkward for this tRFC, 14 would be better - just a bit slower
> But is this really a good set 🤔
> It's a bit too unstable at this high voltage with yet "high" tRFC
> My vipers run 1.45 without any airflow at all - open bench with their "heatsink"
> Really questioning how well yours touch the thermal pads of them
> 
> Well anywho, go for GDM off 2T now
> Then we shall see how stable the CAD/RTT setup really is
> Your tRFC alone with GDM on, should go one step further down at least
> 
> Probably get them out first and make a close up picture on the bottom of the dimm - the traces
> OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18 visible like here, just a bit further away
> Who knows, some old 4400 vipers apparantly where A0 not A2
> It would be bad luck overall, but you might have lucked out - as A0 are less sensitive and can be placed on the slave set
> 
> How much would you pay for that C14-14 set
> Have you looked for similar 3600CL16-16 or CL15-15 sets ?


Thanks so much! Its MFR and i pushed the voltage at 1.4V so far in my light attempts to go beyond my current 3333mhz
Will try and report back, Danke nochmal


----------



## Veii

paih85 said:


> hi @Veii
> 
> need ur help.
> 
> dram: 1.44v
> 
> View attachment 2466298


Simple Test size 16 (Error1) and 32mb (error 2)
It's a primary timing missmatch
What happens if you just try tRP 20 and drop tRAS to 32 ?


nolive721 said:


> Thanks so much! Its MFR and i pushed the voltage at 1.4V so far in my light attempts to go beyond my current 3333mhz
> Will try and report back, Danke nochmal


On the old days i wasn't very good with timings, but they are stable and perform - even tho are autocorrected up
MFR needs this high tRCD_RD , but they love voltage a lot
There is no issue dropping down to CL14 if you give it voltage
Mine where luckily on A1 PCB
very g**bage 2666CL16-18 kits
Hopefully you have a bitter bin 

CAD_BUS timing on this target frequency you can replicate
i think cLDO_VDDP should be also replicatable, but better follow Matisse rulesets
SOC is different on 14nm than 12nm IMC

Edit:
Oh i ment also 25nm not 20nm 😐
25nm can run 1.6v without issues


----------



## bohemiocaa

mongoled said:


> Frendo,
> 
> Whats the reason you are running the Rtt values you have in the screenshot ?
> 
> I said previously to start with
> 
> RttNom / RttWr / RttPark @ 7/5/1


I got confused because i dont have RttWr 5 ... it have RZQ/2/1/3 and Hi-Rez.
For that reason i put Norm 7 / Wr 1 / Park 5 ,I thought you put it wrong 😅 sorry


----------



## Veii

bohemiocaa said:


> I got confused because i dont have RttWr 5 ... it have RZQ/2/1/3 and Hi-Rez.
> For that reason i put Norm 7 / Wr 1 / Park 5 ,I thought you put it wrong 😅 sorry


RZQ=240ohm
visibly written on the DRAM calculator 
Because this changes are low-level and borrowed from AMD CBS, not every brand translates them to ohm values
Causes less bugs that way
usually memory timings run in HEX


----------



## theciscokid

Noob 5900X owner here... coming from a 3900X and a stable system running a MSI Meg Ace x570 with GSkill Trident Royall 4000mhz CL15 kit. All was good until 5900X haha. I'm able to run memory at 3200mhz with a 1600fclk, but anything else is just not stable. Anyone have any basic/stable settings they can suggest? I've tried following a few setting listed here, but just am not having any luck? Should I just wait until a non-beta bios or can this actually work with the right settings?


----------



## Veii

theciscokid said:


> Noob 5900X owner here... coming from a 3900X and a stable system running a MSI Meg Ace x570 with GSkill Trident Royall 4000mhz CL15 kit. All was good until 5900X haha. I'm able to run memory at 3200mhz with a 1600fclk, but anything else is just not stable. Anyone have any basic/stable settings they can suggest? I've tried following a few setting listed here, but just am not having any luck? Should I just wait until a non-beta bios or can this actually work with the right settings?


settings ?
dram calculator?
cpu voltages ?
usually nearly identical to what matisse runs on ~ voltage wise
OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18 bottom half of the post









AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>,2x...




docs.google.com




Whole list of settings people run on Matisse ~ most should work on Vermeer


----------



## theciscokid

Veii said:


> settings ?
> dram calculator?
> cpu voltages ?
> usually nearly identical to what matisse runs on ~ voltage wise
> OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18 bottom half of the post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD RAM overclocking
> 
> 
> ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>,2x...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole list of settings people run on Matisse ~ most should work on Vermeer


Thanks, DRAM Calc keeps kicking a "not supported" error for me. All voltages I've left at AUTO for now.

I'll take a look at those links.


----------



## bohemiocaa

Veii said:


> RZQ=240ohm
> visibly written on the DRAM calculator
> Because this changes are low-level and borrowed from AMD CBS, not every brand translates them to ohm values
> Causes less bugs that way
> usually memory timings run in HEX


Thaks Vei ... im new with this. 

When you say RZQ = 240 , you mean the sum of the RTT Ohms equals need to equal to 240 ?


----------



## mongoled

bohemiocaa said:


> Thaks Vei ... im new with this.
> 
> When you say RZQ = 240 , you mean the sum of the RTT Ohms equals need to equal to 240 ?


Starting points is 240 ohms.

1 x 240 = 240
2 x 120 = 240
3 x 80 = 240
4 x 60 = 240
5 x 48 = 240
6 x 36 = 240
7 x 34.3 = 240

So from here we deduce Rtt values

A value of 1 is 240 ohms
A value of 2 is 120 ohms
A value of 3 is 80 ohms
A value of 4 is 60 ohms
A value of 5 is 48 ohms
A value of 6 is 36 ohms
A value of 7 is 34.3 ohms


----------



## Veii

bohemiocaa said:


> Thaks Vei ... im new with this.
> 
> When you say RZQ = 240 , you mean the sum of the RTT Ohms equals need to equal to 240 ?


Think simple 
X divided by Y = real value
RZQ / something = something


----------



## DeletedMember558271

Veii said:


> Wow that close.
> It would question here if the thermal pads on these really touch the heatsink and probably remove one side of it like:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, they often use double sided-glue thermal pads
> very sticky ones at least and you don't want to rip appart the ICs
> Else , alone comparing both A2 vipers ~ if they really are A2 dimms - would be a worthful thing to do
> Although once removed from the DIMM Slots, i'd probably wipe them once with isopropanol
> As strong current causes an oxidation layer on their pins. Same goes for older 3xx series boards (CPU and DIMM pins)
> 
> tWR 12 is awkward for this tRFC, 14 would be better - just a bit slower
> But is this really a good set 🤔
> It's a bit too unstable at this high voltage with yet "high" tRFC
> My vipers run 1.45 without any airflow at all - open bench with their "heatsink"
> Really questioning how well yours touch the thermal pads of them
> 
> Well anywho, go for GDM off 2T now
> Then we shall see how stable the CAD/RTT setup really is
> Your tRFC alone with GDM on, should go one step further down at least
> 
> Probably get them out first and make a close up picture on the bottom of the dimm - the traces
> OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18 visible like here, just a bit further away
> Who knows, some old 4400 vipers apparantly where A0 not A2
> It would be bad luck overall, but you might have lucked out - as A0 are less sensitive and can be placed on the slave set


What I can tell you right now is 1.52v or less with fan full speed these settings will error, but 1.53v or more they will be stable. So regardless of temps, 1.52v is just not enough.
1.50v 3733C16 without fan was stable overnight, could be stable less than 1.50v but I didn't get around to trying.

If I keep GDM on is there anything else I can change to reduce latency without having to increase voltage? Or anything I can change to reduce voltage without losing latency? 
Basically is there any such thing as free performance I'm leaving on the table, or any settings I have requiring excessive voltage for little latency improvement?
And what do you suggest for tRFC? I have tRC * 6 = 252


----------



## Veii

Dreamic said:


> If I keep GDM on is there anything else I can change to reduce latency without having to increase voltage? Or anything I can change to reduce voltage without losing latency?
> Basically is there any such thing as free performance I'm leaving on the table, or any settings I have requiring excessive voltage for little latency improvement?
> And what do you suggest for tRFC? I have tRC * 6 = 252
> View attachment 2466330


Free performance, tCWL 12
Should be stable with this set
later tWRRD 1 instead 3 and SCL drop to 3
Could be stable up to PCB
Another one is tRRD_L to 5 and tWTR_L to 10
~ maybe stable but needs perf testing with SiSoftware Sandra MultiCore Efficiency Test
it's a bit unclear, if it's better, just because Aida64 result will be better ~ even if stable

There is more on the table to do
But it's unlikely to work without a voltage increase
Well maybe 


Dreamic said:


> And what do you suggest for tRFC? I have tRC * 6 = 252


231 tRFC could work (use the calculator on manual mode & only try at the very end)
but it would only work with GDM enabled - because of the half speed mux units
120ns so far only worked on GDM on - and only a rare set of kits with 1.55v

Try it out
Sigh i miss my ryzen already ~ annoying itx board


Mx King Sniper said:


> Thank you for info.
> I'm surprised that I booted with one SCL=2 not the two. I'm currently at 1.38v.
> 
> Seems I can do only 3733MT/s with my either CPU/Mobo, tried many voltages to boot 3800MT/s but no luck even at loose timings and with latest bios.. Not sure if there is any other trick to work on.
> View attachment 2464295
> View attachment 2464297


Oho , this is interesting
I think you might have discovered something 🧐
I wasn't always too sure on SCL , except that it's a PCB dependent thing
_& either it will work or it won't even post _
while tRRD_ & tWTR_ are IC depending + dual or single rank PCB

There is no way for you to drop tRCD_RD to 18 down ?
Even with a voltage increase ?
If this is 4x8GB you can use tRAS 26 without issues - then just adjust tRC or add as much tRP till tRC+tRFC are identical again
If this is 2x 16gb single rank, the same applies
- but if dual rank and not new 2028mb chips which are single rank
Then the lowest tRAS is 28 for you here
Depends really 

I will keep this awkwardness in mind and let people try soon something
Don't think it's just random or board dependent 🤔

Still a bit unclear on SD DD ones
Some timings are just plain different from intels standartization
Hard to "learn" it really without comparable data online 

EDIT: i'm sorry for the 19days lat reply
The forum bugged out on writing, but i'm happy i discovered the post nonthereless 🙇‍♂️


----------



## theciscokid

@Veii 
Ok first attempt... figured I'd start with 3800mhz with a 1900fclk at 2T (XMP Profile 2 selected). Memory is Gskill Trident Royal 4000mhz CL15.

I ran TestMem5 with zero errors with the below config.



















So DRAM kicks me an error when I set to 4000mhz, however, it will provide info on 3800mhz. Should I try the below settings next? I've had trouble with 1T since installing the 5900X.


----------



## paih85

Veii said:


> Simple Test size 16 (Error1) and 32mb (error 2)
> It's a primary timing missmatch
> What happens if you just try tRP 20 and drop tRAS to 32 ?
> 
> On the old days i wasn't very good with timings, but they are stable and perform - even tho are autocorrected up
> MFR needs this high tRCD_RD , but they love voltage a lot
> There is no issue dropping down to CL14 if you give it voltage
> Mine where luckily on A1 PCB
> very g**bage 2666CL16-18 kits
> Hopefully you have a bitter bin
> 
> CAD_BUS timing on this target frequency you can replicate
> i think cLDO_VDDP should be also replicatable, but better follow Matisse rulesets
> SOC is different on 14nm than 12nm IMC
> 
> Edit:
> Oh i ment also 25nm not 20nm 😐
> 25nm can run 1.6v without issues


seems ok at first. but after 24th cycle of TM5 a ton of error came out on all test numbers. so im revert to old setting fclk 1900 1:1 which most stable so far  . anyway i have install new kit 2x16gb (dual rank). below is default setting (no xmp). what are the best setting for twrwr/trdrd & procodt? 1st time got this dual rank. so the value to set a bit confusing me. thanks


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> Watch a little bit and heard he was complaining about the lack of VTTDDR.
> It was a problem of this pre-release bios not a general issue with MSI right?


New Buildzoid stream (live now) with the Unify-X. New Bios, VTTTDDR fixed now.


----------



## Kha

@ManniX-ITA


----------



## bohemiocaa

Veii said:


> RZQ=240ohm
> visibly written on the DRAM calculator
> Because this changes are low-level and borrowed from AMD CBS, not every brand translates them to ohm values
> Causes less bugs that way
> usually memory timings run in HEX



Vei.
Mongoled help me tu understand what are u saying to me 😅.... but i check every option in the Bios of B550-F , and no setting to manual offset in Data Bus. 
Can be possible this mother + Bios dosent have? and the maximum ohms for RTTWr is 80 (Rzq/3)


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> @ManniX-ITA


BZ was not really pleased about the outcome


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> BZ was not really pleased about the outcome


Well, for start his ram wasn't too good (he also stated that), yet he managed to go up to 5 ghz with cl15, which isn't bad at all if you ask me. Also, both cpu and memory overclock records are on this mobo, so it can't be by any means worse than Gigabyte. My 0.02$.

It's VRM is second to none, with 90A power stage (yes I know we'll most probably never use it at fully, but man, it's insanely sexy !) and the 2 dimm setup is also very sweet. Bios also feels superior and the looks wise... **** me, but that's the most beautiful board I ever seen lol.

Dunno about you, buddy, but I'll buy it in a split, the second I'll see it listed.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> Well, for start his ram wasn't too good (he also stated that), yet he managed to go up to 5 ghz with cl15, which isn't bad at all if you ask me. Also, both cpu and memory overclock records are on this mobo, so it can't be by any means worse than Gigabyte. My 0.02$.
> 
> It's VRM is second to none, with 90A power stage (yes I know we'll most probably never use it at fully, but man, it's insanely sexy !) and the 2 dimm setup is also very sweet. Bios also feels superior and the looks wise... **** me, but that's the most beautiful board I ever seen lol.
> 
> Dunno about you, buddy, but I'll buy it in a split, the second I'll see it listed.


I'll buy as well in a split second 

BZ was disappointed he couldn't do the same he had done with his beloved Master. 
I wonder if he has a unique version because it was looking like when I was struggling with my Master...

But he also never changed once the termination parameters. Don't know... he doesn't like ram oc for sure!
BIOS just looks awesome, so many options that are missing on the Master... I feel that knowing every corner anything is possible.


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'll buy as well in a split second
> 
> BZ was disappointed he couldn't do the same he had done with his beloved Master.
> I wonder if he has a unique version because it was looking like when I was struggling with my Master...
> 
> But he also never changed once the termination parameters. Don't know... he doesn't like ram oc for sure!
> BIOS just looks awesome, so many options that are missing on the Master... I feel that knowing every corner anything is possible.


Yeah, most probably memory oc isn't his niche


----------



## DeletedMember558271

Veii said:


> Free performance, tCWL 12
> Should be stable with this set
> later tWRRD 1 instead 3 and SCL drop to 3
> Could be stable up to PCB
> Another one is tRRD_L to 5 and tWTR_L to 10
> ~ maybe stable but needs perf testing with SiSoftware Sandra MultiCore Efficiency Test
> it's a bit unclear, if it's better, just because Aida64 result will be better ~ even if stable
> 
> There is more on the table to do
> But it's unlikely to work without a voltage increase
> Well maybe
> 
> 231 tRFC could work (use the calculator on manual mode & only try at the very end)
> but it would only work with GDM enabled - because of the half speed mux units
> 120ns so far only worked on GDM on - and only a rare set of kits with 1.55v
> 
> Try it out
> Sigh i miss my ryzen already ~ annoying itx board





Spoiler: DRAM Calc Timings






























tCWL 12 and tWRRD 1 can't post, but SCL works. I also lowered tRDWR and tRTP, so I'm basically running the numbers DRAM Calc gives for 3333 fast but at 3733 with GDM. I also closed fan control software for some extra latency, 52.7ns, it's a shame I like my case fans controlled by GPU temp which you can't do in BIOS. I use Argus Monitor as stripped down as I know how to get it


----------



## Kha

Veii said:


> @Kha Two scenarios for these kits
> 1.)
> They are slower than Viper 4400, by being refabricated and more consistent (hopefully cheaper)
> They are on a new PCB and the ICs are just slower (maybe nm shrink & max voltage shrink)
> 
> 2.)
> They are identical to the Vipers. A good handselected old 20nm batch and just on a bad PCB
> 
> The "fishy" part is, that these shouldn't be "brand new" kits
> Unless explicitly put inside a Royal housing, to sell old binned but limited again stock under high prices.
> Something is just off - there should be 16-17-17 kits from them. Even as Dual rank 16gb dimms.
> Something is fishy, but yes ~ voltage and scaling should be similar like before
> 
> 1.46v wont be an issue at all. Beyond 1.48 depends on nm fabrication node and PCB.
> If this are lower stress PCBs - they could show negative scaling beyond 1.44v.
> I need a magic ball , to give you the correct answer
> Depends on what PCB these are on
> New PCB = run with 20ohm clkdrvstrgh, overal 20-20-20-20 and push VDIMM up
> Older PCB new fabrication = run till 40-60ohm clkdrvstrgh and just move sub 1.46vDIMM



Is there any way for me to check if the PCB is new or older ?


----------



## Kha

@ManniX-ITA 






MSI MEG B550 UNIFY-X Mainboard - AMD B550 - AMD AM4 socket - DDR4 RAM - ATX


282,57 € Mainboard, ATX, AMD AM4 Socket, AMD B550, 1x PCI-Express 4.0 x16 & 1x PCI-Express 3.0 x16, Dual DDR4-3200 - 2 x DIMM slots, 6 x SATA-600 / 3x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 4.0 (2280 / 22110) & 1x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 3.0 (2280), USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A & C & USB 2.0 Type A / 1x HDMI 2.1 Verbindung...




www.proshop.de


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Kha said:


> @ManniX-ITA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MEG B550 UNIFY-X Mainboard - AMD B550 - AMD AM4 socket - DDR4 RAM - ATX
> 
> 
> 282,57 € Mainboard, ATX, AMD AM4 Socket, AMD B550, 1x PCI-Express 4.0 x16 & 1x PCI-Express 3.0 x16, Dual DDR4-3200 - 2 x DIMM slots, 6 x SATA-600 / 3x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 4.0 (2280 / 22110) & 1x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 3.0 (2280), USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A & C & USB 2.0 Type A / 1x HDMI 2.1 Verbindung...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.proshop.de


Thanks mate 

_Dear customer,
Proshop ApS thanks you for your order. We will process your order as soon as possible. _


----------



## Kha

ManniX-ITA said:


> Thanks mate
> 
> _Dear customer,
> Proshop ApS thanks you for your order. We will process your order as soon as possible. _


Grats lol. Sadly these guys aren't delivering into all European Union, so I guess I'll have to wait for it come up to the other etailers before I can order it too.


----------



## elvior2

Continue tunning the F4-3200C14D-32GTZ-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.

Step by step, slowly. Current settings, stable so far.

SoC: 1.050mv, DRAM: 1,39v
View attachment 2466496


View attachment 2466497


Any sugestion to improve it? Maybe changing something in primary timings?


----------



## fcchin

Veii said:


> 4x A2 kits are already a big challenge on T-Topology.
> @fcchin might be able to share some experience and advices
> on Daisy-Chain it's nightmare
> _but you got to learn from hard stuff_


Hi @Veii, long time no see.......

My 4x8GB is A0 unfortunately, not A2, HOF4CXLBS3600K17LD162C, currently running 1usmus 1.7.3 calculator's fast, get 66ns, happy enough.

Running on x370_taichi is t-topology

It's was stable from around June to September, then October start random reboot nearly daily, in idling open youtube and reboot, but playing games sometimes 2 hours no problem, sometimes 1 hour game reboot, but rarely start game reboot..... also idling open excel would reboot.....

My salvation was VDDG must be 1V instead of recommended 0.95V. My fault for following it blindly.

Surprisingly other voltages can be lowered, currently running
Dram 1.36v in bios, 1.376v in HWinfo I'm thinking of lowering it. Was 1.385v
uncore soc 1.25v and 1.2v respectively same as before
VCCDR_SOC 1.v only reduced from 1.1v
cldo_VDDP 0.9v reduced from 0.95v
VDDG 1v up from 0.95v

I haven't tried 1900mhz fclk, worry cpu die 2nd time....

tried 3733 on slow calculator only get 64ns, with high dram voltages 1.4v, not worth the return of investment in my view.

procODT auto results 36.9ohms instead of using calculator's 40ohms
and RZQ auto 7/2/1 instead of calculator's 7/off/5


----------



## Veii

I will repost it here to share mind-clearity
I'm sorry if this is against any promotion ruleset
Not my intention 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1331640372116811779both posts are important


----------



## Veii

2100 1:1 runs - 2133 not yet
CPU VDDP + VPPM and around 53ohm play a bit role for beyond 2000FCLK

SOC limits are already very high
At the current moment, i try to get dynamic SOC back beyond 3600MT/s
Else 1.2 - 1.25 is just too much, but >1.18 is required

Will post later better info
Have to be cautious not to fry my what seems "good" IMC lol 
CPU needs about 1.248v for holding 4.65Ghz
ATM only using a stock wraith stealth cooler with multi used paste and not even screwed on - VRM heatsink 

I'm tempted to try B550->X570 convert
Waiting for ASRock to get the new bios out , B550 ITX got ignored - all other B550 + X570 boards have it :c


----------



## Veii

This are the settings required to run @ 2100 1:1
Attached is also the exact PSP firmware that injects 1900FCLK lockdown ~ but add's BAR support mode for RDNA2
(my unit could not even boot 1900 with 1.25v SOC)

Curve Optimizer is existing since first AGESA 1.1.0.0 Release,
just hidden inside PBO -> Manual -> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar (manual)
If it's not there you need to bios mod unhide it

I recommend to add later a negative SOC offset of around -50mV
SOC at this Bios is not variable , even with APBDIS
But this SMU will request 1.25v SOC for 2100 Fabric
Another specialty of it is to artificially slow down mem perf, if SOC voltage is too low (falling sub 1.18x volt)
Be sure to also check perf, when you play with SOC voltage

You can check PSP and SMU Firmware with ZenTimings








Releases · irusanov/ZenTimings


Contribute to irusanov/ZenTimings development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com





Lower voltages will come in some days,
Now it's bed time zZZ
Needs excessive freq->voltage pattern recognition

Oh,
The only way to downgrade PSP Firmware is making big jumps
Down to AGESA 1.0.8.0 works , then manually upgrade "officially" to 1.1.0.0 non Patch C
Single downgrade step doesn't remove the lock that was introduced


Spoiler: Pictures


----------



## wirx

I have Patriot ViperSteel 4400 4x8GB RAM-s, they are currently running with DRAM calculator 3800MHZ settings and auto voltage(1.46v) I have tried and they work fine with 4200Mhz also(same timings as picture), so there is room for improvement. But DRAM calculator won't calculate more than 3800Mhz, can anybody recommend how to get timigs even tighter and RAM faster? I have tried with 15-15-15-15-30 but system won't boot, also same with GDM disabled.


----------



## EniGma1987

@Veii So we either need a hacked bios that has agesa 1.1.0.0 patch C with the older SMU version, but this loses us resizable BAR? Or hope that AMD creates a new agesa and SMU version that contains both resizable BAR and once again gets past the FCLK wall?


----------



## Veii

EniGma1987 said:


> @Veii So we either need a hacked bios that has agesa 1.1.0.0 patch C with the older SMU version, but this loses us resizable BAR? Or hope that AMD creates a new agesa and SMU version that contains both resizable BAR and once again gets past the FCLK wall?


1.1.8.0 is out but technically just replacing SMU should work
There might be another working SMU with BAR - but i need to test it
I know that normal 1.1.0.0 to 1.1.0.0 does not remove the lock introduced

Guys from the Crosshair thread know how to do this
I'm too tired to think right now 

Will check the other option upgrade option tomorrow
Maybe we have a chance but i doubt
Such lockowns in Matisse where only introuce to prevent PCIe 4.0 crashing
Here it wouldn't be much different ~ but i let them the doubt till fully denied by myself 

I remember seeing BAR support before Patch C, and wasn't surprised about Curve Optimizer
Need to replace the paste and redo the setup. 
Little 5600X pulls only 47W at 4.65Ghz but still paste was multi used on a stock cooler lol
I'll have to spend tomorrow fully with stress tests only


----------



## elvior2

Hi again!

I've just tried with GDM off and 2T but system seems to be a bit more unstable doing this and also not getting any improvement in latency.

BTW I've run a test overnight 75 cycles of TM5 and got 1 error arggggg....

I'm wondering now that maybe my VDDP, IOD, CCD have wrong values

In BIOS I have manually configured SoC to 1.050, seems to be the one that gives me better stability, but the others are on AUTO, so maybe they're wrong.

Can you mates give me advice about those ones???











Thank you!!!!


----------



## Veii

elvior2 said:


> Hi again!
> 
> I've just tried with GDM off and 2T but system seems to be a bit more unstable doing this and also not getting any improvement in latency.
> 
> BTW I've run a test overnight 75 cycles of TM5 and got 1 error arggggg....
> 
> I'm wondering now that maybe my VDDP, IOD, CCD have wrong values
> 
> In BIOS I have manually configured SoC to 1.050, seems to be the one that gives me better stability, but the others are on AUTO, so maybe they're wrong.
> 
> Can you mates give me advice about those ones???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!!!!


Your IOD is far to high for Matisse
Your VDDP too
In reality you run autocorrected SOC of 1.2v. Get that down starting from VDDP 900 or 950mV at worst

You need higher ClkDrvStr if you want to run higher capacity or GDM off
If this is dual rank, fix tRDRD SD, DD 4-4 and tWRWR SD, DD 6-6
tWRT_L should be either 12 or tWRT_S should be 5
4-8, 4-12, 5h14, 5-14 is how they scale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of SOC, Zen3
This thing is really unique
2100 1:1 works between 32-68ohm ProcODT
30ohm posts but it has issues with SOC

Zen3 loooves SOC
It breaths SOC, lives from SOC and eats SOC 👹

2100FCLK only works with a range of 1.181-1.25v SOC
It defaults to 1.25v which well is stable, but just too much
You can balance it at around 1.22v with an LLC dropping to 1.195-1.2v
Later OCP triggers, lower it posts and works even down to 1.15v, but hard crashes on any memory load

I try to figure out how to enforce variable SOC voltage, as 1.2 is already borderline as constant current
IOD moves near 1.05-1.100. By default 1.15v is being applied
cLDO_VDDP is fine between 0.88-1v
900mV is still perfect for it
VDDG CCD is fine between 925-1050mV
950mV is perfect for it

SuperPI uses only 6-8W and finishes sub 7min :')
Incredible balance between low power and extreme soc voltage


----------



## glnn_23

Trying some new 2 x 8Gb sticks with C8H and 5950x.


----------



## elvior2

Veii said:


> Your IOD is far to high for Matisse
> Your VDDP too
> In reality you run autocorrected SOC of 1.2v. Get that down starting from VDDP 900 or 950mV at worst
> 
> You need higher ClkDrvStr if you want to run higher capacity or GDM off
> If this is dual rank, fix tRDRD SD, DD 4-4 and tWRWR SD, DD 6-6
> tWRT_L should be either 12 or tWRT_S should be 5
> 4-8, 4-12, 5h14, 5-14 is how they scale
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of SOC, Zen3
> This thing is really unique
> 2100 1:1 works between 32-68ohm ProcODT
> 30ohm posts but it has issues with SOC
> 
> Zen3 loooves SOC
> It breaths SOC, lives from SOC and eats SOC 👹
> 
> 2100FCLK only works with a range of 1.181-1.25v SOC
> It defaults to 1.25v which well is stable, but just too much
> You can balance it at around 1.22v with an LLC dropping to 1.195-1.2v
> Later OCP triggers, lower it posts and works even down to 1.15v, but hard crashes on any memory load
> 
> I try to figure out how to enforce variable SOC voltage, as 1.2 is already borderline as constant current
> IOD moves near 1.05-1.100. By default 1.15v is being applied
> cLDO_VDDP is fine between 0.88-1v
> 900mV is still perfect for it
> VDDG CCD is fine between 925-1050mV
> 950mV is perfect for it
> 
> SuperPI uses only 6-8W and finishes sub 7min :')
> Incredible balance between low power and extreme soc voltage


WoW! That's amazing.

I've done following changes based on you advices, not sure if I've done properly as there's a lot to learn.

I haven't changed all settings at the same time as I prefer going 1 by 1 and test it.

Still pending tRDRD SD, DD 4-4 and tWRWR SD, DD 6-6, tWRT_L should be either 12 or tWRT_S should be 5

In BIOS now I have

SoC: 1.0875
cLDO_VDDP: 900mV
IOD: 1050mV
CCD: Auto
DRAM: 1.40v
LLC for CPU and NB: Mode 2










Considering that now it's passing the test is it really worthy to adjust those timings? Or would be better to focus in other part?


----------



## Veii

Happy Replicating


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

So right now I am at 3800 MHz CL16 and 54ns of latency with dual channel *single rank ram. *Is there any benefit in me getting two more sticks for four sticks total? Specially if I game at 1440P?


----------



## elvior2

Thank you so much for the tips.

For the time being this is the most stable configuration that I've achieved.

In BIOS

SoC: 1.0875V
cLDO_VDDP: 900mV
IOD: 1050mV
CCD: Auto
DRAM: 1.40v
LLC for CPU and NB: Mode 2











Don't know if it's worthy trying to reduce a bit more tRC, tRFC or it's fine like it is. Sugestions?

I've also tried decreasing primary timings but no chance and also going DDR3800, but it's unstable, so...


----------



## EniGma1987

KingEngineRevUp said:


> So right now I am at 3800 MHz CL16 and 54ns of latency with dual channel *single rank ram. *Is there any benefit in me getting two more sticks for four sticks total? Specially if I game at 1440P?


Reviewers do say running dual rank of each memory channel does improve performance by a good margin.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

EniGma1987 said:


> Reviewers do say running dual rank of each memory channel does improve performance by a good margin.


Most of those reviews don't test a dual rank at the same highest single rank set-up though, they usually can't achieve the OC and CL of their dual channel single ranks.

See, right now I have my single ranks running at 54ns latency, 3800 MHz CL16. If I put in another pair, I might not be able to get those exact settings correct? And therefore there's a high probability of me getting similar, slightly better or slightly worse performance?

This is what I understand of it. Of you watch the HU video, none of his dual rank memory could reach his single rank max tuned ones with 54.6ns of latency.


----------



## EniGma1987

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Most of those reviews don't test a dual rank at the same highest single rank set-up though, they usually can't achieve the OC and CL of their dual channel single ranks.
> 
> See, right now I have my single ranks running at 54ns latency, 3800 MHz CL16. If I put in another pair, I might not be able to get those exact settings correct? And therefore there's a high probability of me getting similar, slightly better or slightly worse performance?
> 
> This is what I understand of it. Of you watch the HU video, none of his dual rank memory could reach his single rank max tuned ones with 54.6ns of latency.


It is possible you will not be able to achieve the same speeds. However, I just built this new PC and have 4 sticks of single rank B-Die in it. So far I have not done any real tuning, just set a speed and booted. I am at 3800/3800 CL16 1T and have 58ns latency. My secondary and tertiary timings are horrible right now, so I think I should be able to get down to 54-55ns latency when I dig into the tuning. So while you might be able to get higher and tighter on single rank with 2 sticks only, that doesnt mean it is impossible to manage the same as what you have with 4 sticks.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

EniGma1987 said:


> It is possible you will not be able to achieve the same speeds. However, I just built this new PC and have 4 sticks of single rank B-Die in it. So far I have not done any real tuning, just set a speed and booted. I am at 3800/3800 CL16 1T and have 58ns latency. My secondary and tertiary timings are horrible right now, so I think I should be able to get down to 54-55ns latency when I dig into the tuning. So while you might be able to get higher and tighter on single rank with 2 sticks only, that doesnt mean it is impossible to manage the same as what you have with 4 sticks.


But what will I get out of it for spending $100 for 2 more sticks at 1440P is my main question. If I needed the extra 16GB of RAM, that would probably be more compelling. But if someone has data (since I haven't seen it yet) of performance going up 5% or so at 1440P, perhaps it will be worth while.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> But what will I get out of it for spending $100 for 2 more sticks at 1440P is my main question. If I needed the extra 16GB of RAM, that would probably be more compelling. But if someone has data (since I haven't seen it yet) of performance going up 5% or so at 1440P, perhaps it will be worth while.


It really depends on what do you mean with performance increase.
You can have an average/max FPS increase with some games even higher than 5%, like SOTR or AC, because their game engines are quite peculiar and the speed is directly proportional to system RAM performances.
Those are the same engines which FPS will increase with better ram latency.

In general most game engines tend to be optimized for a working memory set that fits a 16GB system ram configuration.
Which means that average and max fps is mostly the same with a 16GB or 32GB memory configuration.
Not always, but very often, when the game is CPU bound there's a gap of about 5% or more between the 2 configurations.

The reason is the optimization itself; if you need to keep in check the memory usage you need to swap in and out a lot of data.
When you are CPU bound obviously this swapping is going to be slower cause the rendering pipeline has the maximum priority.
With the current GPUs it's very easy to be CPU limited at 1440p in many if not most games even with a mid/entry-level card.
If you have a good card and an average CPUI then is going to be very easy you'll be CPU bound most of the times.

There are a lot of videos on YouTube comparing 16GB vs 32GB like this one:





You can see which ones give you more avg/max FPS and which ones does not show any improvement.
But you can also see the most important performance gains with more system ram; min FPS and 0.1/1 percentile.

Because all this swapping in and out will likely at some point choke the rendering pipeline.
Which means lower fps at some point, usually when you really don't need it, and stuttering.

What these videos are failing to show is how big is the difference in an average PC.
These tests are ran on similar, clean, Windows installations.
Which is not how most people are using their PC.
Utilities, game panels, antivirus engines, it's pretty common to have a hell of apps running in background.
They all compete together with Windows for a share of the system ram.

When you have only 16GB there's not much left and the stuttering can be massive.
While with 32GB there's usually plenty of ram left for everything else.
Swapping ram to the pagefile is very expensive and if you only have one SSD it's going to compete with the game swapping its data.

Streaming, or just recording the session or the instant replays, it's another use case where only 16GB can kill your fps.

I have an old PC in Italy with an FX-8350 that I use only a few times per year and that one too I upgraded it to 32GB.
Games are on a RAID-5 array, which is just a tad better than an HDD.
Playing from HDD with 16GB was a truly horrible experience, massive stuttering in some games.
The difference with 32GB is like night vs day.

On top of all this Windows itself with every new release is increasing its memory usage.
Starting from 1909 notebooks with 4GB are almost unusable, 2004 is even worse.
I had to do 4 upgrades to 8GB, 2 from HDD to SSD, during last summer between family and friends, due to desperation.
So you have to expect in the next 1-2 years a constant decrease of gaming performances with Windows 10 and only 16GB.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> It really depends on what do you mean with performance increase.
> You can have an average/max FPS increase with some games even higher than 5%, like SOTR or AC, because their game engines are quite peculiar and the speed is directly proportional to system RAM performances.
> Those are the same engines which FPS will increase with better ram latency.
> 
> In general most game engines tend to be optimized for a working memory set that fits a 16GB system ram configuration.
> Which means that average and max fps is mostly the same with a 16GB or 32GB memory configuration.
> Not always, but very often, when the game is CPU bound there's a gap of about 5% or more between the 2 configurations.
> 
> The reason is the optimization itself; if you need to keep in check the memory usage you need to swap in and out a lot of data.
> When you are CPU bound obviously this swapping is going to be slower cause the rendering pipeline has the maximum priority.
> With the current GPUs it's very easy to be CPU limited at 1440p in many if not most games even with a mid/entry-level card.
> If you have a good card and an average CPUI then is going to be very easy you'll be CPU bound most of the times.
> 
> There are a lot of videos on YouTube comparing 16GB vs 32GB like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see which ones give you more avg/max FPS and which ones does not show any improvement.
> But you can also see the most important performance gains with more system ram; min FPS and 0.1/1 percentile.
> 
> Because all this swapping in and out will likely at some point choke the rendering pipeline.
> Which means lower fps at some point, usually when you really don't need it, and stuttering.
> 
> What these videos are failing to show is how big is the difference in an average PC.
> These tests are ran on similar, clean, Windows installations.
> Which is not how most people are using their PC.
> Utilities, game panels, antivirus engines, it's pretty common to have a hell of apps running in background.
> They all compete together with Windows for a share of the system ram.
> 
> When you have only 16GB there's not much left and the stuttering can be massive.
> While with 32GB there's usually plenty of ram left for everything else.
> Swapping ram to the pagefile is very expensive and if you only have one SSD it's going to compete with the game swapping its data.
> 
> Streaming, or just recording the session or the instant replays, it's another use case where only 16GB can kill your fps.
> 
> I have an old PC in Italy with an FX-8350 that I use only a few times per year and that one too I upgraded it to 32GB.
> Games are on a RAID-5 array, which is just a tad better than an HDD.
> Playing from HDD with 16GB was a truly horrible experience, massive stuttering in some games.
> The difference with 32GB is like night vs day.
> 
> On top of all this Windows itself with every new release is increasing its memory usage.
> Starting from 1909 notebooks with 4GB are almost unusable, 2004 is even worse.
> I had to do 4 upgrades to 8GB, 2 from HDD to SSD, during last summer between family and friends, due to desperation.
> So you have to expect in the next 1-2 years a constant decrease of gaming performances with Windows 10 and only 16GB.


Damn it... Okay I ended up buying another b-die kit... Hoping to get it to the same speed timings as my existing kit... They're identical, so it'll be 4X 3600 CL16 going to 3800 CL16


----------



## Ridianod

Guys hi. I have B-Die 4133 MHZ CL19 ram. I used dram calculator 3800 mhz fast mode with manual and imported timings but I dont have stability on my pc. Right now I have strange issues on my windows. So I disabled XMP settings then all problems(random reset etc) gone. I added my typhoon html. Can you also help me find the best values? I used recommend values
But when I run into a problem, I don't know what to do. Should I raise the voltage? If yes, which one? Should I play with "Termination Block" alternative values or "Cad_Bus Block"? if yes, in what order? Thanks. Have a nice day and be safe.

G.Skill F4-4133C19-8GTZR


----------



## OCmember

My second matching kit, 2x8 single rank B-die, will be coming in soon. I plan on taking out my current kit and just dropping them in and not touching the bios, in hopes it will work with the speed, volts, and timings, of my current kit. If they pass all stress tests, what needs to be adjusted going from a 2x8 setup to a 4x8 setup?

My current Zen Timings:


----------



## reqq

i rather have tight tuned 2x8 then 32gbb.. no way you gonna stay within 1.1 soc and reach same timings with that much more memory for your mem controller to handle.. Im running 3733 14-15-14-14 at 1.085 soc

BFV 64 player my mem was at 7.2 of 16gb.. lol.. if your game need much more then its just bad optimized.. like ..star citizen.. nothing happens around you.. you're alone ..yet wants 16 gb.. haha


----------



## OCmember

@reqq if you are replying to me it'd be best to understand why people are adjusting their memory to a 256bit path via configuring their memory to dual rank.


----------



## EniGma1987

@reqq I think you are greatly overestimating how hard it is to run 4x8 sticks on these platforms. Maybe way back when that would have been difficult, but not on modern systems. I am already on 4x8 with very simialr settings as @OCmember and even less voltage and it all boots up fine and hasnt even required any serious tweaking. It works so easily.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

OCmember said:


> My second matching kit, 2x8 single rank B-die, will be coming in soon. I plan on taking out my current kit and just dropping them and not touching the bios, in hopes it will work with the speed, volts, and timings, of my current kit. If they pass all stress tests, what needs to be adjusted going from a 2x8 setup to a 4x8 setup?
> 
> My current Zen Timings:
> View attachment 2467173


Me too, I'm doing exactly what you are doing. I bought a second 2x8GB and it should be here tomorrow, b-die. Wish me luck. I'm sure our post will cross in the near Future.



EniGma1987 said:


> @reqq I think you are greatly overestimating how hard it is to run 4x8 sticks on these platforms. Maybe way back when that would have been difficult, but not on modern systems. I am already on 4x8 with very simialr settings as @OCmember and even less voltage and it all boots up fine and hasnt even required any serious tweaking. It works so easily.


Are you using b-die and if so, what are your Zen timings and latency?


----------



## PowerK

What's the general consensus on GDM *enabled *1T vs. GDM *disabled *2T ?
I've done a comparisons using AIDA64's cache & memory benchmark, they seemed almost identical (differences within margin of error). However, AIDA64's accuracy is questionable.


----------



## Yuke

PowerK said:


> What's the general consensus on GDM *enabled *1T vs. GDM *disabled *2T ?
> I've done a comparisons using AIDA64's cache & memory benchmark, they seemed almost identical (differences within margin of error). However, AIDA64's accuracy is questionable.


My test on 2x 16gb dual rank b-die showed similar results:

15 15 15 30 45 270 2T GDM-Off was the same as 16 16 16 32 48 264 1T GDM-On - both @3800Mhz

tested with SiSoSandra


----------



## PowerK

Yuke said:


> My test on 2x 16gb dual rank b-die showed similar results:
> 
> 15 15 15 30 45 270 2T GDM-Off was the same as 16 16 16 32 48 264 1T GDM-On - both @3800Mhz
> 
> tested with SiSoSandra


You should make the timing same except for GDM for an apple-to-apple comparison.


----------



## Yuke

PowerK said:


> You should make the timing same except for GDM for an apple-to-apple comparison.


Yes, sure.

But not gonna bother if its already the same between such similar timings. I dont think you will see any beneficial gains. But i am ok with it...means you can use 2T to stabilise higher MCLK without losing too much performance, imho.


----------



## Veii

PowerK said:


> You should make the timing same except for GDM for an apple-to-apple comparison.


Yesterday 








[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Some manufactures introduced locks after 1900 with most recent updates, they got rid of WHEA at lower settings thou. I'll read through this voltage recommendations, thank you! Mine are all on auto so far, only thing I did was VDDR SOC line calibration set to 5 (highest) as it made 1.1V flat...




www.overclock.net






Yuke said:


> Yes, sure.
> 
> But not gonna bother if its already the same between such similar timings. I dont think you will see any beneficial gains. But i am ok with it...means you can use 2T to stabilise higher MCLK without losing too much performance, imho.


Sadly every person has to decide for himself, because it has negative sides

GDM OFF 2T
Positives:

faster at the same speed with same timings, same voltage, no pbo, nothing auto, just clkdrvstrgth difference
MUX run at fullspeed , it ends up faster even with two roudtrips

Negatives:

because memory runs at fullspeed it will fail faster on higher speeds.
As the strain is far higher on them
My apparently good A0s still are no exception from the PCB issues
GDM On can run these @ 4400, GDM off can just barely stabilize 4066, 4133 is a current ongoing issue again


GDM ON
Positive:

less strain on the memory
can run lower tRFC to compensate for being slower
if the PCB is a holding point, also higher maximum MCLK
lower voltage at the same speed and less mainboard depended (less clkdrvstr)

Negatives:

slower at the same speed, as MUX run at half speed internally
odd's rounding happens several times inside the chain, not only tCK | While tCK & tRP are only the "master timings" which will be read out rounded. Remain rounding happens down the chain internally
less timing finecontrol that way, as you should do the math with even numbers to skip double rounding/tripple rounding

At the ends its still for everyone to decide
If you have a weak PCB or already exceed 1.48vDIMM on this low end,
Pushing GDM OFF will not give you many positive results
If you are already at the FCLK limit, it is reasonable to get GDM away, as you get more out of the same speed and it leaves you more timing finecontrol

My current issues are that 1.46-1.48 is what these dimms work on on their limits
1.54 with high clkdrv are instant shutdowns and hard crashes. Sometimes a memory lane loss
1.5 are about the limit as high as i can go on them before instant reboots happen.
GDM off is hard to sustain beyond 4067MT/s so far. No voltage headroom left 😅😐
Ends up as a question between 4067MT/s low tings vs 4200 even timings and higher fabric
I'm playing with RTT values now to see if there is a possibility to filter the higher VDIMM and delay hardcrashes


----------



## EniGma1987

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Are you using b-die and if so, what are your Zen timings and latency?


These are 4x 8GB sticks of B-Die. I just built the computer, booted it up and set memory to 3800, fclk to 1900, and the voltage to the sticks to be what the XMP voltage should be and went to install windows and use the PC. All timings, voltages, and impedance are at auto right now.


Spoiler
























I have only been using the computer a few days now. Next weekend, after I have been using it a week, and know everything is properly stable without touching any settings I will begin tweaking timings and speeds and doing CPU OC. But for now, just setting the speed and leaving everything auto has worked extremely easily and performance is great.


----------



## DeusM

3800c16 STABLE
















Hi guys These are my current settings! Pretty happy with them but at a loss of how i can push them further.





I can boot at 3800c14 with these timings but it is very unstable.









Any ideas of what i can try to lower or what i should be doing to get 3800c14 stable?






I can Boot at [email protected] so timings are REALLY loose and i believe i got 72ns in AIDA64

Edit: After testing i found 3800 IF is a hard limit. As soon as go 3866 i put it in manually in the bios i get post code 07


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

DeusM said:


> View attachment 2467310
> View attachment 2467311
> 
> 
> Hi guys These are my current settings! Pretty happy with them but at a loss of how i can push them further.
> 
> I can Boot at [email protected] so timings are REALLY loose and i believe i got 72ns in AIDA64
> 
> I can boot at 3800c14 with these timings but it is very unstable.
> View attachment 2467312
> 
> 
> Any ideas of what i can try to lower or what i should be aiming for?


Are you using 4 sticks or 2?


----------



## DeusM

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Are you using 4 sticks or 2?


Sorry i should have put that in the info.

4x8GB


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

DeusM said:


> Sorry i should have put that in the info.
> 
> 4x8GB


Those are some really good at Auto timings, surprised how low it got you in terms of latency


----------



## DeusM

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Those are some really good at Auto timings, surprised how low it got you in terms of latency


Sorry but the first 2 SS are not auto timings, its what i have tuned to so far. What i was speaking about was my 4000mhz auto timings. Sorry for the confusion.

I am Really trying to get 3800c14 stable but it gives me 19 errors in the first TM5 cycle.

I have edited my original post. sorry for the confusion


----------



## mongoled

DeusM said:


> Sorry but the first 2 SS are not auto timings, its what i have tuned to so far. What i was speaking about was my 4000mhz auto timings. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> I am Really trying to get 3800c14 stable but it gives me 19 errors in the first TM5 cycle.
> 
> I have edited my original post. sorry for the confusion


One of the most important bits of information that you have not provided is vDIMM !

To run tCL @14 3800/1900 you need vDIMM +1.5v up to 1.58v depending on RAM module / PCB type etc.


----------



## X570-3900X-DE

@Veii

here some info, i made so far, maybe you can take a took, thanks

My Ram is
32GB (2x16GB) G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.45V F4-3600C14D-32GTZN

3800/1900
1.5volt
1100 SOC volt
1050 VDDP
1050 VDDC CCd
1050 VDDC IOD

its karhu over 10000%...so you can see my temps and rest


----------



## DeusM

mongoled said:


> One of the most important bits of information that you have not provided is vDIMM !
> 
> To run tCL @14 3800/1900 you need vDIMM +1.5v up to 1.58v depending on RAM module / PCB type etc.


1.5v


----------



## bmagnien

@X570-3900X-DE this is great - congrats on the timings. Could you confirm if F31k was the first BIOS you were able to run 1900fclk without WHEA errors? I'm on Asus 2816 beta bios and still have tons of WHEA over 3200 mt/s. I can run 1900fclk TM5 stable but I don't like the WHEA errors, and wondering if there's any other trick besides just waiting for better BIOS to get rid of them?


----------



## X570-3900X-DE

bmagnien said:


> @X570-3900X-DE this is great - congrats on the timings. Could you confirm if F31k was the first BIOS you were able to run 1900fclk without WHEA errors? I'm on Asus 2816 beta bios and still have tons of WHEA over 3200 mt/s. I can run 1900fclk TM5 stable but I don't like the WHEA errors, and wondering if there's any other trick besides just waiting for better BIOS to get rid of them?


yes had a hard time with the other bios release before that i tested even with the old 3600CL16 b-dies. And pushing to the CL14 all the way with the new 3600CL14 rams was a little tricky, i took some days to find the right settings. i was even more hard as i had no reverence that i could use for the right volts so i did play till i made it. I also try the newer beta bios but had WHEA again so went back to 31K. I did test a lot sadly but well it was strange, at the starting as my setting from 3000series 3733 did crash instand when i swap to 5900X so it was a shock, but only XMP worked then. so it was a long travel with the 5900 so far, i can tell to have this running. Well i think it takes 2 more month will we can push higher than 1900 without loosing boost on multicore scores. For me getting errors was also not the way to go. So i was not happy that i can game like crazy but i see like 7000 error lol if i go higher then 1900


----------



## Jackalito

Hey everyone!

I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.

The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config:










VDIMM: 1.365V

I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
Zen RAM Overclocking

...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.

Thanks!


----------



## bmagnien

@Jackalito honestly i'd just wait until the proper 1.1.8.0 agesa drivers due out this month are released before you really try to nail down tight timings/high frequencies/IF and PBO 1/2 optimization and certainly before you draw any conclusions regarding silicon quality. seems like all bios available for 5000 series prior 1.1.8.0 are either missing features, in beta, or unoptimized. Some might be able to work around these limitations to play around in the meantime, but I would count on a reset essentially with that release coming up.


----------



## Jackalito

bmagnien said:


> @Jackalito honestly i'd just wait until the proper 1.1.8.0 agesa drivers due out this month are released before you really try to nail down tight timings/high frequencies/IF and PBO 1/2 optimization and certainly before you draw any conclusions regarding silicon quality. seems like all bios available for 5000 series prior 1.1.8.0 are either missing features, in beta, or unoptimized. Some might be able to work around these limitations to play around in the meantime, but I would count on a reset essentially with that release coming up.


Yeah, I've been thinking about the same as well. I just hope it is as you say, and not a limitation of silicon quality of my 5800X sample taking into account how difficult they are to come by.
Thanks.


----------



## X570-3900X-DE

I also feel that pushing the Ram more make me loos boost from time to time. Just a feeling as my CPU is under water so no temp problem.

so 2 tests, first on less tight timing and 31i bios

Test

this one is the fast tight timings 3800 with 31k bios. bt shows less mhz in multicore strange and i had a few jumps down so i got even less score

Test2


----------



## Dollar

Jackalito said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.
> 
> The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config:
> 
> View attachment 2467411
> 
> 
> VDIMM: 1.365V
> 
> I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
> Zen RAM Overclocking
> 
> ...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
> I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.
> 
> Thanks!


Only 1.00 soc voltage? Is that what auto gives you? Surely that's what's stopping you from pushing higher speeds.


----------



## Esticbo

Jackalito said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.
> 
> The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config:
> 
> View attachment 2467411
> 
> 
> VDIMM: 1.365V
> 
> I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
> Zen RAM Overclocking
> 
> ...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
> I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.
> 
> Thanks!


Try with Vsoc 1,1 / vdimm 1.4 / mem vtt 0,7


----------



## Jackalito

Dollar said:


> Only 1.00 soc voltage? Is that what auto gives you? Surely that's what's stopping you from pushing higher speeds.





Esticbo said:


> Try with Vsoc 1,1 / vdimm 1.4 / mem vtt 0,7


Yeah, I know it's quite low voltage for SoC. The thing is I have tried with higher SoC voltages such as 1.025, 1.050, 1.075, 1.010 and even 1.150 without any success stability wise. I can even boot at 3800/1900 with VSoC at 1.0V.


----------



## paih85

Jackalito said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 7 5800X, which I'm using with the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero that I purchased last year. Currently using the latest official BIOS, 2702.
> 
> The thing is that it seems like I've gotten the worst piece of silicon imaginable for a 5800X, at least according to what I've been seeing online. Not only does it clock lower than others, I'm hitting a wall where it seems impossible to reach anything higher than 3666/1833 for RAM/IF. My RAM is 2x8GB F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (Samsung B-die, Single Rank). This is my current config:
> 
> View attachment 2467411
> 
> 
> VDIMM: 1.365V
> 
> I've tried going higher with ProcODT, voltages, lowering timings, etc., but it's unstable beyond those clocks. Something else worth noting is the fact that, according to this list of RAM OC with Zen3:
> Zen RAM Overclocking
> 
> ...the two people using the same motherboard can go to 3800/1900, although they're using older BIOS revisions, 2311 and 2502.
> I would appreciate any kind of insights you could share with me.
> 
> Thanks!



mine easy 1933 fclk. no boot issue, free whea error n etc..


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

So I bought a pair of 2x8GB stocks, I got my system to boot with the following settings and VDIMM at 1.49V









Is there anything for me to be concerned about with the voltage I applied and the ProcODT, RttNpm, RttWr and RttPark I applied?


----------



## PowerK

KingEngineRevUp said:


> So I bought a pair of 2x8GB stocks, I got my system to boot with the following settings and VDIMM at 1.49V
> View attachment 2467641
> 
> 
> Is there anything for me to be concerned about with the voltage I applied and the ProcODT, RttNpm, RttWr and RttPark I applied?


Looks fine.
I'd put tRAS to 34 (CL+tRCDWR+2) tRC to 50, tRFC to 300 (tRC*6), tRFC2 to 223 (tRFC/1.346) and tRFC4 to 137 (tRFC/1.625).
Also, tFAW at 16 could work.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

PowerK said:


> Looks fine.
> I'd put tRAS to 34 (CL+tRCDWR+2) tRC to 50, tRFC to 300 (tRC*6), tRFC2 to 223 (tRFC/1.346) and tRFC4 to 137 (tRFC/1.625).
> Also, tFAW at 16 could work.


Thank you. I had to bump the voltage to 1.495 and now I'm stable in hci.

I had those settings previously, Veii helped be adjust to what you see in my Zen timings which dropped me from 61ns to 54.1ns.


----------



## HowYesNo

would it be any upgrade going from my current G.Skill F4-3600C18-8GTZRX, 18 22 22 42, which don't allow tighter timings at all, even they are Samsung B-die,

was looking to go with Crucial Ballistix, BL2K8G36C16U4B, 16 18 18 38. these should be micron right? and allow for better timings, also cheap compared to g.skill.








Crucial Ballistix 16GB Kit (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3600 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) | BL2K8G36C16U4B | Crucial.com


Buy Crucial Ballistix 16GB Kit (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3600 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) BL2K8G36C16U4B. FREE US Delivery, guaranteed 100% compatibility when ordering using our online tools.




www.crucial.com





G.Skill F4-3600C18-8GTZRX


----------



## PowerK

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Thank you. I had to bump the voltage to 1.495 and now I'm stable in hci.
> 
> I had those settings previously, Veii helped be adjust to what you see in my Zen timings which dropped me from 61ns to 54.1ns.


Also, according to his recent test,
performance-wise, 1T (GDM OFF) > 2T (GDM OFF) > 1T (GDM ON).


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Some test I did today


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

PowerK said:


> Also, according to his recent test,
> performance-wise, 1T (GDM OFF) > 2T (GDM OFF) > 1T (GDM ON).


Interesting. I have mostly seen test where the last two are swapped.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

A user over at reddit posted the following response to my test. How true is this in terms of Zen 2 and Zen 3? 

*"With 4 single rank sticks you lose rank interleaving which is why a 2X16 kit of dual rank dimms can carry more bandwidth. Single rank dimms disable rank interleaving regardless of if you have 4 sticks running in dual channel for a pseudo "dual rank" setup.*

You still won't see _much_ of a performance difference, especially while gaming, but there is a technical advantage to using actual dual rank dimms.

See the quote from this article below, it goes it to more detail;"



> Interleaving across Ranks
> Interleaving is continued from interleaving across the channels to interleaving across the ranks in a channel. This only occurs when using dual or quad rank DIMMs. If a channel is populated with mixed ranking DIMMS and a single rank DIMM is present, rank interleaving will revert back to 1-way interleaving. 1-way rank interleaving results in storing bits in a single DRAM chip until it’s at capacity before moving to another DRAM chip. Rank interleaving provides performance benefits as it provides the memory controller to parallelize the memory request. Typically it results in a better improvement of latency. However the performance difference between dual ranking and quad ranking is minute and comes only into play when squeezing out the very last ounce of performance. Try to avoid single rank DIMMs.


----------



## Dyngsur

Hello!
Writing here to get some help with my timings, trying to get them working as good as possible.
People claiming they are wrong and shouldn't work or even post. My settings do 24cycle TIM5 without error etc, but if someone here can help me out I would be very happy!
My cpu is 5900x on gigabyte aorus master x570.
My memory is G.Skill ripjaws

Wouldn't i get better latency? Haven't reinstalled win10 in a while so its not a fresh install. But hope to get some help!


----------



## X570-3900X-DE

well ns is a problem if not all is closed in the taskmanager, what you can close and should be closed... and will not open again. My record was 54.0 same 31k bios but DS ram and crazy timings. 31N bios i lost 0.7ns with same timings as not so fast sadly. I don't think your timings will be working up to 10000% in karhu memtest. So here what i made and worked with my ram 10000%



















here the settings in 31N bios from this week


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> Hello!
> Writing here to get some help with my timings, trying to get them working as good as possible.
> People claiming they are wrong and shouldn't work or even post. My settings do 24cycle TIM5 without error etc, but if someone here can help me out I would be very happy!
> My cpu is 5900x on gigabyte aorus master x570.
> My memory is G.Skill ripjaws
> 
> Wouldn't i get better latency? Haven't reinstalled win10 in a while so its not a fresh install. But hope to get some help!
> 
> View attachment 2467809
> View attachment 2467810


That people would be me 

What I find weird is the latency which with such low timings, if they were not auto-corrected, my guess would be should give 53ms or even better.
Also that huge gap between R/W speed and copy speed, for what I remember, means something is wrong with timings. 
But it could be the AGESA version used in the latest GB BIOS releases.
I have a gap as well now but not that huge.

I mean SCL at 2, RTP at 6, RFC at 245, RRDS/RRDL 4/4, SC 1/1, etc
Don't think I have seen any profile with all this stuff so tight at the same time at 3800MHz.
If it was really working it the performances should be better than this, which is good but not that much.


----------



## Dyngsur

ManniX-ITA said:


> That people would be me
> 
> What I find weird is the latency which with such low timings, if they were not auto-corrected, my guess would be should give 53ms or even better.
> Also that huge gap between R/W speed and copy speed, for what I remember, means something is wrong with timings.
> But it could be the AGESA version used in the latest GB BIOS releases.
> I have a gap as well now but not that huge.
> 
> I mean SCL at 2, RTP at 6, RFC at 245, RRDS/RRDL 4/4, SC 1/1, etc
> Don't think I have seen any profile with all this stuff so tight at the same time at 3800MHz.
> If it was really working it the performances should be better than this, which is good but not that much.


well you linked med Zen RAM Overclocking
check all the gaps there! It must be the bios, I know my timings are extreme, but they work! Been running with the for months  And got with 3900xt around 62ns. 
So they work.


----------



## X570-3900X-DE

mmmh... hard to think as check my timings...I could not get ProODT under 48 working in 31K BIOS


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dyngsur said:


> well you linked med Zen RAM Overclocking
> check all the gaps there! It must be the bios, I know my timings are extreme, but they work! Been running with the for months  And got with 3900xt around 62ns.
> So they work.


Yes they work but not as you would think.
They are likely auto-corrected, probably the 3900XT was doing a very good job at it.
But on the 5900X you are beaten badly by a CL16 profile with RFC all sub-timings much higher.
This means if you do it right then you'll see a sensible improvement.


----------



## LionAlonso

Here are my BDIE timings, if it helps...
The copy value is behind, as i have the trial version.








Im also open for any recommendations!😄


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Can someone please share a source and answer a question about memory interleaving?

I understand that memory interleaving occurs in dual rank memory, but what about quad channel single rank memory running in dual rank?

Another user on Reddit claimed that 4x single rank sticks in dual rank mode does not take advantage of memory interleaving and used an article written in 2015. 

Is this the case with Zen 1, 2 and 3? Or is the controller different?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can someone please share a source and answer a question about memory interleaving?
> 
> I understand that memory interleaving occurs in dual rank memory, but what about quad channel single rank memory running in dual rank?
> 
> Another user on Reddit claimed that 4x single rank sticks in dual rank mode does not take advantage of memory interleaving and used an article written in 2015.
> 
> Is this the case with Zen 1, 2 and 3? Or is the controller different?


If you mean rank interleaving only happens within a memory module.
Two single rank modules in a single channel will not do rank interleaving.

Mixing a SR and a DR in a single channel will disable rank interleaving for the DR module as well.
At least that's what happens in a server, guess it's the same for Ryzen.

Quad channel SR is the same, rank interleaving will not work.

If you mean channel interleaving as long the layout of the 2 channels is identical will be enabled.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> If you mean rank interleaving only happens within a memory module.
> Two single rank modules in a single channel will not do rank interleaving.
> 
> Mixing a SR and a DR in a single channel will disable rank interleaving for the DR module as well.
> At least that's what happens in a server, guess it's the same for Ryzen.
> 
> Quad channel SR is the same, rank interleaving will not work.
> 
> If you mean channel interleaving as long the layout of the 2 channels is identical will be enabled.


Yes, I'm asking about memory interleaving and 4x single rank sticks. So there's no memory interleaving? And what is the performance impact?

The reason I ask is because from the test I have done, dual rank hasn't done much in terms of Performance. I posted some benchmarks earlier.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Yes, I'm asking about memory interleaving and 4x single rank sticks. So there's no memory interleaving? And what is the performance impact?
> 
> The reason I ask is because from the test I have done, dual rank hasn't done much in terms of Performance. I posted some benchmarks earlier.


There is _*channel *_interleaving, not *rank *interleaving, with 4 x SR modules.

When you talk generically about memory interleaving it's meant channel interleaving.
Which means bonding 2 channels and doubling the bandwidth for every memory transfer operation.

Rank interleaving means the DIMM will execute, internally, another operation on the 2nd rank while the 1st is doing something else, usually refreshing.
Which means a small improvement in latency, commands are executed faster.
Only those which doesn't need the data bus which is shared between the 2 ranks.
Another small bump comes from the higher density; same density (2x8GB SR vs 1x16GB DR) means 2 vs 1 DIMMs and that's less commands overhead.

If you want to see the performance increase, which is a very small 3-5% tops usually, you need a latency sensitive real workload.
Assassin Creed and Shadow of The Tomb Raider at 1080p should show a few fps more with Dual Rank.


----------



## glnn_23

Spent some more time today trying to run 32Gb 3800c14 GDM off with TM5.


----------



## mongoled

Just putting this out there for those who want a quick fix instead of spending time getting to know their hardware.

So.…..I receive a set of F4-3200C14D-16GTZR that are going to go into a friends rig, as I am waiting for the motherboard to arrive I decide to get some baseline settings for this set of modules

Now, look at the screenshot below, for this set of modules and with my hardware, one value made the difference between almost instant crash with TM5 to being "stable" TM5 when switching from command rate of 2T to 1T (stable in "" because I am yet to run a 25 cycle loop, but so far its at cycle 4 with no errors).

Try to guess which value that may be before looking below, a clue, its not a memory timing (BTW this is 3800/1900 as BCLK is @ 107.6 mhz)












So did you guess correctly ??

The change was simply ClkDrvStr from 20 ohms to 60 ohms (my vipers like 20 ohms for some strange reason).

Also, a difference between how motherboard autodetect DrvStr settings.

My A2s Vipers, CsOdtDrvStr & CkeDrvStr on AUTO are set at 24 ohms, where as these GSkills (unsure regards the PCB type, will post some images later) AUTO settings for CsOdtDrvStr & CkeDrvStr are 20 ohms when ClkDrvStr was on AUTO and defaulting to 24 ohms.

Once I set ClkDrvStr to 60 ohms, CsOdtDrvStr & CkeDrvStr revert to 24 ohms on AUTO.

TM5 reached cycle 5 while typing this, going to stop it now and see what happens with tRCDRD set @14



** EDIT **
ClkDrvStr to 60 ohms, CsOdtDrvStr & CkeDrvStr when on AUTO will flip flop between 20/24 ohms.

Nope tRCDRD not possible at 14/15 with above settings, I am sure with some tweaking I may be able to get there, but seeing these are going into a different motherboard I have a good baseline to work with.

Most important point, all the above is moot if the CPU IOD cannot handle 1900 MHz, seems to be the most important part of the equation. Will see what happens if the B550 motherboard paired with a new 3600x will act similar to my X570 with my 3600 CPU ….

GSkill F4-3200C14D-16GTZR on top, Viper Steel 4400 mhz below


----------



## mongoled

glnn_23 said:


> Spent some more time today trying to run 32Gb 3800c14 GDM off with TM5.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467978


Good going!

Have you tested tRDRDSCL/tWRWRSCL @ 4/5 instead of 2/3 with regards to bandwidth in AIDA64 ?

As on my 3600 4/5 is around 200-300 mb better throughput set @ 4/5

With 2 x 8GB at 2/3 the throughput results are flipped.

4 x 8GB better throughput with 4/5
2 x 8GB better throughput with 2/3


----------



## mongoled

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes they work but not as you would think.
> They are likely auto-corrected, probably the 3900XT was doing a very good job at it.
> But on the 5900X you are beaten badly by a CL16 profile with RFC all sub-timings much higher.
> This means if you do it right then you'll see a sensible improvement.


This 2, 3 times over, the devil is in the detail


----------



## Dyngsur

mongoled said:


> This 2, 3 times over, the devil is in the detail


Well still I posted all my settings, can someone change them to what they think is the best.
I just want some help, people showing their settings but most of them are with 32gb. If its autocorrect that makes me run this timings, than it would be awesome to get the timings a bit looser so it doesn't autocorrect and change them. So I maybe gets better results than what I have now.


----------



## devoker

Still have quite loose timings but I can't boot with dram calculator timings. Trfc doesn't go below 512 for example. Currently 1.35V voltage, I don't wanna increase it because my mobo goes up by .50V steps and the case has very minimal airflow. The best result is shown as 230 but is this achievable for my kit or is it the best of all 3200 like b die cl 14 for example?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> There is _*channel *_interleaving, not *rank *interleaving, with 4 x SR modules.
> 
> When you talk generically about memory interleaving it's meant channel interleaving.
> Which means bonding 2 channels and doubling the bandwidth for every memory transfer operation.
> 
> Rank interleaving means the DIMM will execute, internally, another operation on the 2nd rank while the 1st is doing something else, usually refreshing.
> Which means a small improvement in latency, commands are executed faster.
> Only those which doesn't need the data bus which is shared between the 2 ranks.
> Another small bump comes from the higher density; same density (2x8GB SR vs 1x16GB DR) means 2 vs 1 DIMMs and that's less commands overhead.
> 
> If you want to see the performance increase, which is a very small 3-5% tops usually, you need a latency sensitive real workload.
> Assassin Creed and Shadow of The Tomb Raider at 1080p should show a few fps more with Dual Rank.


Thank you, I did Shadow of the tomb raider testing and saw little to no difference. I'll share those later.


----------



## xyzzy42

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Another user on Reddit claimed that 4x single rank sticks in dual rank mode does not take advantage of memory interleaving and used an article written in 2015.


I see memory bandwidth about 39% higher with 4x one rank sticks vs 2x one rank sticks at the same timing. Ryzen 3700x + B550.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Thank you, I did Shadow of the tomb raider testing and saw little to no difference. I'll share those later.
> 
> View attachment 2468067


Mmmm... I remember some settings in AMD CBS about memory interleaving.
If you see zero difference is very likely that rank interleaving is disabled by a setting or a bug in the AGESA used in your BIOS.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

xyzzy42 said:


> I see memory bandwidth about 39% higher with 4x one rank sticks vs 2x one rank sticks at the same timing.


This can only be if with 2 DIMMs channel interleaving was disabled; you probably used the wrong slots.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> Mmmm... I remember some settings in AMD CBS about memory interleaving.
> If you see zero difference is very likely that rank interleaving is disabled by a setting or a bug in the AGESA used in your BIOS.


Can it just be that once you have good latency, you're pretty much not going to see much of a difference?

I haven't seen people actually test a single vs dual rank 54 Ms of latency. It's usually with altency on the low or mid 60s.

I think it's nice that we all can get together to reduce our latency in this thread, but I want to encourage others to do performance before an after test so we can see if it's actually doing anything for certain applications.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can it just be that once you have good latency, you're pretty much not going to see much of a difference?
> 
> I haven't seen people actually test a single vs dual rank 54 Ms of latency. It's usually with altency on the low or mid 60s.
> 
> I think it's nice that we all can get together to reduce our latency in this thread, but I want to encourage others to do performance before an after test so we can see if it's actually doing anything for certain applications.


Could be you hit a bottleneck on the controller... maybe try test with more relaxed timings.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> Could be you hit a bottleneck on the controller... maybe try test with more relaxed timings.


Something must be coming out of it, because my Geekbench multi-core score went up 



System manufacturer System Product Name vs System manufacturer System Product Name - Geekbench Browser


----------



## xyzzy42

ManniX-ITA said:


> This can only be if with 2 DIMMs channel interleaving was disabled; you probably used the wrong slots.


I am sure I did not do that.

I can read the manual and see what slots are to use.
The BIOS POST messages says dual channel, both with 4x and 2x sticks.
To verify, I tried the wrong slots too, and as expected it's single channel and much slower still.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

xyzzy42 said:


> I am sure I did not do that.
> 
> I can read the manual and see what slots are to use.
> The BIOS POST messages says dual channel, both with 4x and 2x sticks.
> To verify, I tried the wrong slots too, and as expected it's single channel and much slower still.


Unless it's a Threadripper and not a Ryzen there shouldn't be a 40% difference in bandwidth.
If you did it right then it's a motherboard issue.


----------



## xyzzy42

ManniX-ITA said:


> Unless it's a Threadripper and not a Ryzen there shouldn't be a 40% difference in bandwidth.
> If you did it right then it's a motherboard issue.


Unless I got really good deal on a TR4 motherboard and CPU that AMD mistakenly put into a CPU package marked Ryzen 3700X, I'm pretty sure it's not a threadripper!

I saw this same thing with my previous B350 motherboard, with the same memory, before I upgraded to a B550.

This article Ryzen Above: Best Memory Settings for AMD's 3000 CPUs, Tested also shows a significant increase in performance going from 2x 1R to 4x 1R. Their benchmark is two games and 7zip, so it's not going to be nearly as big a percentage as just a memory bandwidth test, since most of the games' speed is going to be GPU and CPU limited, and those didn't get any faster.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

xyzzy42 said:


> Unless I got really good deal on a TR4 motherboard and CPU that AMD mistakenly put into a CPU package marked Ryzen 3700X, I'm pretty sure it's not a threadripper!
> 
> I saw this same thing with my previous B350 motherboard, with the same memory, before I upgraded to a B550.
> 
> This article Ryzen Above: Best Memory Settings for AMD's 3000 CPUs, Tested also shows a significant increase in performance going from 2x 1R to 4x 1R. Their benchmark is two games and 7zip, so it's not going to be nearly as big a percentage as just a memory bandwidth test, since most of the games' speed is going to be GPU and CPU limited, and those didn't get any faster.


Why don't you run some benchmarks like I did? A lot of people here do stuff with their ram but I rarely see people show before and after results.

Personally, I believe if you get your latency below 60ns, then the performance difference diminishes quite a bit.

I have 3800 MHz CL16 running at 54ns in single and dual rank configurations and I'm not see too much of a difference in performance in some games but my geekbench (linked above) went up a bit in several areas which I find very interesting.


----------



## xyzzy42

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Why don't you run some benchmarks like I did? A lot of people here do stuff with their ram but I rarely see people show before and after results.


I did. That's where the memory bandwidth 39% higher came from. And the article on Toms hardware had benchmarks too.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

xyzzy42 said:


> I did. That's where the memory bandwidth 39% higher came from. And the article on Toms hardware had benchmarks too.


I remember now this article, read it at the time and I don't trust it even a bit.
Never tested myself but nobody confirmed such weird behavior, quite the opposite, every other similar test confirmed there's no difference.

If 4 DIMMs could work faster than 2 there's no way they could run 20% faster.
Even less 39% faster.
It's a 64bit channel running at the same speed, the throughput can't change much.

The only explanation I can think about is that with only 2 DIMMs there's something wrong and they don't run how they are supposed to.
While when testing with 4 it works as expected.
Do you have numbers, how did you test?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

xyzzy42 said:


> I did. That's where the memory bandwidth 39% higher came from. And the article on Toms hardware had benchmarks too.


You mind testing stuff like shadow of the tomb raider, heaven, super position, etc. Of course that is if you have time. I know it's a lot to ask for.

So far I've only seen improvements on geekbench, but not too much in game. It can be I've reached another bottleneck as the latency is quite low on my system.


----------



## xyzzy42

ManniX-ITA said:


> I remember now this article, read it at the time and I don't trust it even a bit.
> Never tested myself but nobody confirmed such weird behavior
> Do you have numbers, how did you test?


If you've never tested yourself, then do you have anything that shows 4x 1rank isn't faster than 2x 1rank?

Here's my tests. Notice how memory timing changes show improvement as expected with the same number of DIMMs. If the test was just broken, then it wouldn't show that.


----------



## bmagnien

How are people calculating timing for 4000mhz when DRAM Calc doesn't give results past 3866? Any tips? Thanks!


----------



## DeusM

bmagnien said:


> How are people calculating timing for 4000mhz when DRAM Calc doesn't give results past 3866? Any tips? Thanks!


Mostly trial and error. 

enable 4000mhz :2000IF and loose timings and start tightening them slowly.

If you have samsung bdie you could probably copy somebody elses timings but it doesnt mean that it will be stable for you.










Heres mine if you want to try them.


----------



## mongoled

bmagnien said:


> How are people calculating timing for 4000mhz when DRAM Calc doesn't give results past 3866? Any tips? Thanks!


Give props to @chitos123 who made this









Ryzen Google Calculator!


Ryzen Google Calculator! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cJmhO62WHPLNKGBtsJV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE_ Created from "Google Sheets" For mobile users, you need the Google Sheets app. Made for me to learn about timings I'd appreciate it if anyone tell me any advice or improvements...




www.overclock.net


----------



## ManniX-ITA

xyzzy42 said:


> If you've never tested yourself, then do you have anything that shows 4x 1rank isn't faster than 2x 1rank?
> 
> Here's my tests. Notice how memory timing changes show improvement as expected with the same number of DIMMs. If the test was just broken, then it wouldn't show that.
> View attachment 2468264


It's just logic, there's no reason why it should go 39% faster with 4 DIMMs.

Now about this graph... did you notice you can compare these results on openbenchmarking.org?

Start checking the test itself:





Stream Benchmark - OpenBenchmarking.org







openbenchmarking.org





If you see the performance metrics for copy, 18 GB/s is the average speed of a dual channel DDR3-1600 memory configuration.

Look for a configuration similar to yours, this test is very CPU dependent, and compare it to double check if there's something wrong.
Because you definitely have some configuration issues.

This a very old test with a Ryzen 1800x from 2017:






AMD Ryzen Memory Scaling Benchmarks - OpenBenchmarking.org







openbenchmarking.org














Even at 2133 MHz is trashing your best result at 3633 MHz.


----------



## Zektbach

I just bought a new crucial ballistix rgb CL16 3600mhz..
Managed to oc'ed it to fast preset in Dram Calc. 

Should I increase freq with looser timings or this is enough?


----------



## devoker

devoker said:


> Still have quite loose timings but I can't boot with dram calculator timings. Trfc doesn't go below 512 for example. Currently 1.35V voltage, I don't wanna increase it because my mobo goes up by .50V steps and the case has very minimal airflow. The best result is shown as 230 but is this achievable for my kit or is it the best of all 3200 like b die cl 14 for example?
> 
> View attachment 2468014
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468012


Why do I have so much difference between read and write speeds?


----------



## Hequaqua

devoker said:


> Why do I have so much difference between read and write speeds?
> View attachment 2468468


 CCX's and CCD's.....normal on 3700X and below I believe.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

devoker said:


> Why do I have so much difference between read and write speeds?
> View attachment 2468468


Normal, write speed is half of read speed.
This up to x800 models, x900 and x950 have full write speed.
According to AMD doesn't change much, better thermals allow more boosting for the less quality CCDs used up the x800s.

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X CPU Review - Overclockers 



> “This is an expected result. Client workloads do very little pure writing, so the CCD/IOD link is 32B/cycle while reading and 16B/cycle for writing. This allowed us to save power and area inside the package to spend on other, more beneficial areas for tangible performance benefits.”


----------



## EniGma1987

devoker said:


> Why do I have so much difference between read and write speeds?


Benchmarks say 2x write speed on CPUs with a second core die in them. Actual real world performance of memory bandwidth is the same though.


----------



## OCmember

Picked up a new 3800C14-8GTZN kit. Took out my first kit (same kit) and just dropped the new kit in, same settings, voltages, etc. Ran TM5 v0.12, 25 cycles in admin mode, and it stopped at 23 with no errors but was still "running" with no memory being tested or in use. Here's my Zen Timings, followed by the error sheet from TM5 but no reason why my test did what it did. My other kit passed this test several times over 2-3 days. Running OCCT Med Data, AVX2 now to see if that'll pass.. Anyone know why TM5 just up and stopped at cycle 23 with no errors, etc?

UPDATE:
-new kit passed OCCT: medium data set, + AVX2, 50 minutes
-new kit passed P95: Large FFT 2+ hrs
-going to re-run TM5 for 25 cycles at same settings in Zen timings

UPDATE1:
-increased the VDIMM volts to 1.5v from 1.49v, TM5 passed


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Something I have always wondered is VDIMM boot voltage. Other motherboards let you boot with a higher VDIMM and then it will adjust the voltage when the system is running. I wonder why this feature has not been added to ASUS motherboards.


----------



## Keith Myers

????? My ASUS C7H board does that. DIMM boot voltage is down at the bottom of the LLC adjustment page.
Running DIMM voltage is in the main voltage configuration page.


----------



## paih85

My kit run super hot. only pump 1.45v. how u guys can run cooler than me @1.47v - 1.52v daily? my room temp around ~30c (no aircond).


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

paih85 said:


> My kit run super hot. only pump 1.45v. how u guys can run cooler than me @1.47v - 1.52v daily? my room temp around ~30c (no aircond).
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468606


I'm at 1.5V and my ram is at 60C. No stability errors after an overnight stress test.

I see other b-die from trident z that runs at 1.5V with the same heatsinks so i figure it's okay.


----------



## devoker

devoker said:


> Why do I have so much difference between read and write speeds?
> View attachment 2468468


Thanks for the answers, is there a website I can compare my result against other similar ram?


----------



## wirx

Here








Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Picked up a new 3800C14-8GTZN kit. Took out my first kit (same kit) and just dropped the new kit in, same settings, voltages, etc. Ran TM5 v0.12, 25 cycles in admin mode, and it stopped at 23 with no errors but was still "running" with no memory being tested or in use. Here's my Zen Timings, followed by the error sheet from TM5 but no reason why my test did what it did. My other kit passed this test several times over 2-3 days. Running OCCT Med Data, AVX2 now to see if that'll pass.. Anyone know why TM5 just up and stopped at cycle 23 with no errors, etc?
> 
> View attachment 2468514


Freezing TM5 belongs usually to cores crashing
You can add for Error 1:
"Freezing because of FFT AVX2 voltage / Cores crashing
Work on VDDG CCD ~ probably decrease it or increase SOC
Confirm with Y-Cruncher FFT and N32/N64 Test"
------------------------------------------------------------
A0 PCB will hardcrash after 4100MT/s within +/- 10mV
You can use CAD_BUS 60-20-20-20 with RTT 7-0-6 instead of 0-0-5 for Single rank B-dies
7-0-5 only works well for voltages near 1.42-1.46
7-0-6 does soften a bit voltages near 1.49-1.51v paired with high ClkDrvStr

tCKE is used on Vermeer, even when GMD is disabled
a value of 16 worked very well for 2x8 kits. it was a key factor for stability for me

Ruleset for tRDWR = (tRCD_RD / 2) - 1
Continues to work even @ 4200MT/s for Single-Rank B-dies
i know some guys didn't get it stable - but it's still working well enough

Right now there is an issue, where if you go sub 50ns Aida64 latency (neverless if by PBO or just FCLK)
You get hardcrashes & shutdowns while stresstests pass
Many things including L3 cache running at half speed ~ are still artificially limited
Soo i stopped OCing - bellow 50.6ns. Made no sense to push it further with all these limitations.
Waiting for new bioses and exploring microcodes now

Oh if it wasn't visible
Settings for 2100 FCLK Stable are
cLDO_VDDP 900
VDDG CCD 900
VDDG IOD 1050
VSOC 1175 (applied), soo about 1.2v with LLC
1150 is the absolute minimum that works for 2100
procODT 34.4 or 36 ~ needs user specific testing, up to sillicon strain and PBO setup


----------



## Nighthog

Still in the middle of tweaking my Renoir MEM OC but this looks to be completely safe to use.

Using my Micron Rev.J kit at the moment @ 4533Mts 2266FCLK.


----------



## mongoled

Nighthog said:


> Still in the middle of tweaking my Renoir MEM OC but this looks to be completely safe to use.
> 
> Using my Micron Rev.J kit at the moment @ 4533Mts 2266FCLK.


Nice



Any performance numbers?


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> Freezing TM5 belongs usually to cores crashing
> You can add for Error 1:
> "Freezing because of FFT AVX2 voltage / Cores crashing
> Work on VDDG CCD ~ probably decrease it or increase SOC
> Confirm with Y-Cruncher FFT and N32/N64 Test"
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> A0 PCB will hardcrash after 4100MT/s within +/- 10mV
> You can use CAD_BUS 60-20-20-20 with RTT 7-0-6 instead of 0-0-5 for Single rank B-dies
> 7-0-5 only works well for voltages near 1.42-1.46
> 7-0-6 does soften a bit voltages near 1.49-1.51v paired with high ClkDrvStr
> 
> tCKE is used on Vermeer, even when GMD is disabled
> a value of 16 worked very well for 2x8 kits. it was a key factor for stability for me
> 
> Ruleset for tRDWR = (tRCD_RD / 2) - 1
> Continues to work even @ 4200MT/s for Single-Rank B-dies
> i know some guys didn't get it stable - but it's still working well enough
> 
> Right now there is an issue, where if you go sub 50ns Aida64 latency (neverless if by PBO or just FCLK)
> You get hardcrashes & shutdowns while stresstests pass
> Many things including L3 cache running at half speed ~ are still artificially limited
> Soo i stopped OCing - bellow 50.6ns. Made no sense to push it further with all these limitations.
> Waiting for new bioses and exploring microcodes now
> 
> Oh if it wasn't visible
> Settings for 2100 FCLK Stable are
> cLDO_VDDP 900
> VDDG CCD 900
> VDDG IOD 1050
> VSOC 1175 (applied), soo about 1.2v with LLC
> 1150 is the absolute minimum that works for 2100
> procODT 34.4 or 36 ~ needs user specific testing, up to sillicon strain and PBO setup


Thanks for this info/help! 

I think what happened was TM5 was inbetween test 23 and 24 and was just taking longer than I anticipated. Either way I pushed the VDIMM volts from 1.49 to 1.50v and TM5 passed, as well as OCCT med data + AVX2 50 minutes, and P95 Large FFTs 2+hrs. The rest of the volts and advanced memory settings were the same.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to running 4x8 for dual rank I increased my ProcODT from 30 to 43.6ohm and increased the vSOC from 1.000v to 1.043v leaving the rest the same. _*My question*_, each b-die stick is single rank so should I still keep the ProcODT at 30ohm even though I'm running 4 sticks? 4 single rank sticks, I assume, brings me to a dual rank scenario so logic says dual rank b-dies should be between 39-48ohms, hence the 43.6ohm.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Thanks for this info/help!
> 
> Moving on to running 4x8 for dual rank I increased my ProcODT from 30 to 43.6 and increased the vSOC from 1.000v to 1.043v leaving the rest the same. _My question_, each stick is single rank so should I still keep the ProcODT under 30 even though I'm running 4 sticks? 4 single rank sticks, I assume, brings me to a dual rank scenario.


Under 32ohm you likely wont even be able to post beyond 1800FCLK
At least not without work elsewhere

procODT "working" range , is influenced by both VDDP and VDDG ~ not only VSOC
i had a bit of struggle to get 32ohm stable till everything else was lowered in voltage
lower procODT still leads to the best signal integrity ~ which logically requires less voltage

3rd gen wasn't such an issue as to 5000 series
what works for you stable on Matisse, keep it ~ the lower the better
On Vermeer autocorrection happens on nearly everything
you have to test if higher procODT gives you a more stable result
I know it's a very very variable CPU - but memory tets are pretty accurate on it
If you get a bigger than 0.3ns differenciation on Aida64 - then adjust procODT & voltages accordingly

Well y-cruncher does a fantastic job on destabilizing these CPUs
Focus on that part till you get your voltages right ~ later do 2-3 runs of aida64 with different procODTs , till you find what works the best for you
it will vary up to PBO too
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a done project yet and borrowed from HardwareLuxx & Computerbase + Adjusted a bit





PowerplanBackup.7z







drive.google.com




Windows on failed MemOC is known to adjust minimum powerstate
Soo for Vermeer users ~ be sure minimum powerstate is at 7%.
not 1% not 99% ~ 7% 

Matisse users should compare with SiSandra MCE , what runs better
Either 99% or 1%
It's not done yet and the software for modifying and creating powerplans kind of has malware in it
It has a tiny bit of a "initialize" / "boosting speed up" - issue 
Soo it's a bit slower than i like it to be 
~ but becaue of that annoying circumstances , i'll need to modify later and fix the issues
Well it's very usable and stable on how it is so far, soo i thought i'd share it for you to work on your 5xxx series
CPPC & CPPC Preferred Cores need to be enabled - also DF and C-States 
* about installing it ~ you need to adjust the .bat, to point to the correct filepath
** an actually own personalized version is still work in progress. See this as usable Alpha
i want to get on a good bios before wiping again windows after using their powerplan modification tool


----------



## OCmember

I'm approaching 2+hrs with P95 Large FFTs with 43.6ohm & 1.043v vSOC

When I started stability testing this morning, I started with TM5 = took 3 1/2hrs, OCCT 1hr, and those both passed. I played a game and was getting funny errors. I tested P95 and immediately had errors, that's when I increased the ohm from 40 to 43.6ohm, and increased the vSOC by 1 increment. Now I'm almost at the end of P95 with no errors.

UPDATE: rebooted, tried P95 an hour later and it failed immediately.

UPDATE1: going back to my new kit for testing (2x8) How long should I run y-cruncher for??


----------



## berger0

Hey all looking for some help as how I might improve my ram latency. I can't seem to get my latency below 60ns. I am running 4x8 Gskill F4-3600C15-8GTZ. My timings are in the image below. System is stable with these timings, but I feel like I can squeeze out more. Currently I am unable to boot if I try and push the memory & F-clock to anything greater than 1866mhz. I also have to keep Gear down mode enabled or else the system gets unstable. Maybe I have hit my ram wall? Maybe I am hitting the limits of what my motherboard can do? I am not sure. Looking for some advice as how I can further tune my memory.
CPU: 5900x
Motherboard: Gigabyte x570 ultra F31 bios
Ram: 4x8 Gskill F4-3600C15-8GTZ


----------



## OCmember

@berger0 In your processor power management settings, is 'Processor idle disable' set to enabled idle or disabled idle?


----------



## berger0

OCmember said:


> @berger0 In your processor power management settings, is 'Processor idle disable' set to enabled idle or disabled idle?


I am not sure what option you are referring to. Within my Processor power management options (within the advanced power plan settings) I only have Min processor state, system cooling policy, max processor state.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

berger0 said:


> Hey all looking for some help as how I might improve my ram latency. I can't seem to get my latency below 60ns. I am running 4x8 Gskill F4-3600C15-8GTZ. My timings are in the image below. System is stable with these timings, but I feel like I can squeeze out more. Currently I am unable to boot if I try and push the memory & F-clock to anything greater than 1866mhz. I also have to keep Gear down mode enabled or else the system gets unstable. Maybe I have hit my ram wall? Maybe I am hitting the limits of what my motherboard can do? I am not sure. Looking for some advice as how I can further tune my memory.
> CPU: 5900x
> Motherboard: Gigabyte x570 ultra F31 bios
> Ram: 4x8 Gskill F4-3600C15-8GTZ
> View attachment 2468789


I'd put more juice on that VSOC, it's only 25mV above VDDG.
Try with 1150mV.


----------



## berger0

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'd put more juice on that VSOC, it's only 25mV above VDDG.
> Try with 1150mV.


Thanks. I set the VSOC to 1150mV. No real change in performance. Thanks for the tip. I will leave it set at 1150 for a while and see how the system feels. Latency is still at 61.3ns.


----------



## Veii

berger0 said:


> Hey all looking for some help as how I might improve my ram latency. I can't seem to get my latency below 60ns.
> View attachment 2468789


Go couple of pages back in this thread to read 
4 Key mistakes you do:

Your RTT values are for single rank 2x8 kit setup, and then only near 1.46v / they are wrong for higher voltage and absolutely wrong for 4 dimms
your voltages overall are far to high , lower them (read the older posts before you)
timings are a bit of a mess . tFAW = 4* tRRD_S not 5 not 3 , maybe 8 would work. / tWRWR & tRDRD SD + DD are wrong, use a stepping of 2 between them , not a 1 = 1-4-4-1-6-6 for example
tRFC 1-2-4 should be used on Vermeer, and tCKE is used ~ even with GDM on / try tCKE 16 for b-dies

Overall voltage issues aside
your timings are harsh, and i am sure you didn't check the PCB version of each of your kit
It can be that these are on a different PCB (both sets) and just not plugged in the correct place
Yes, your timings are harsh ~ try something a bit more tame and first push FCLK & fix the voltages ,before you push both
Especially when 5xxx series does autocorrect on everything and slow itself down to prevent crashes

This two docs have "patterns" for you to copy








AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>,2x...




docs.google.com




&








Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com





CAD_BUS you should start with 40-20-20-20
maybe go up to 60-20-20-20 with 4 dimms

RTT is up to you to figure out with 4 dimms
try maybe if 7 / 0 / 6 works also for 4 dimms ~ but this one requires you to move near 1.47+ VDIMM , even 1.48+
Figuring out which PCB these kits are on, running a lose 16-16-16 set to figure out voltage & procODT
all these should be your first priority before you land in a deep rabbit hole of autocorrection
Crashing Vermeer is very very hard , but making it unhappy is as easy as just 20mV wrong voltage ~somewhere~

EDIT:
I would also try to CMOS reset & go back to 1800FCLK
There are bugs where 2:1 mode is turned on in the hidden 
61ns on Vermeer, equals about 71-72ns on Matisse
Either something is strongly autocorrecting and slowing itself down
Or you have the 10ns 2:1 mode penalty in there

It's a bit too slow for your used timings - soo something is clearlywrong
Also F31f is a bit slow - visible on t he old SMU 56.40
You can stay on this - if gigabyte also has no FCLK limits on it
Or try your luck and update to F31o or higher ~ just with the likelyhood of being limited beyond 1900FCLK



OCmember said:


> UPDATE1: going back to my new kit for testing (2x8) How long should I run y-cruncher for??


3 passed loops with all tests. 3x 18min
at best 4x18

it should already FFT & N32 crash on the first loop if voltages are wrong
or on the 2nd loop if your VRMs droop too much by heat ~ as an LLC issue


----------



## OCmember

@berger0 There's an app called power settings explorer that allows you to see the hidden registry settings of things like processor power management. Sorry I don't have a link for it. If you set Processor idle disable to disable idle you can gain up to a 1ns reduction in latency.

@Veii I'm back to testing 4x8

ProcODT @ 43.6ohm
RttNom RZQ/5
RttWr Off
RttPark RZQ/5
vSOC to 1.062 and it hits a droop of 1.0375v most of the time, sometimes hits 1.043v
vDDG to 1.029 which droops to 1.0271v.

The rest is the same as in the the Zen timings screen shot I posted a page back.

I'm on the second loop/iteration of y-cruncher at per how you suggested with All tests.
*I've had HWiNFO64 open for 2+hrs. WHEA errors: CPU Bus/Interconnect Errors - 1 during second loop/iteration*

UPDATE: trying vDDG @ 1.031 which droops to 1.0300v

UPDATE1: it seems the increase of vDDG both CCD & IOD to 1.031 helped


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> @berger0 There's an app called power settings explorer that allows you to see the hidden registry settings of things like processor power management. Sorry I don't have a link for it. If you set Processor idle disable to disable idle you can gain up to a 1ns reduction in latency.
> 
> @Veii I'm back to testing 4x8
> 
> ProcODT @ 43.6ohm
> RttNom RZQ/5
> RttWr Off
> RttPark RZQ/5
> vSOC to 1.043 and it hits a droop of 1.0375v most of the time
> vDDG to 1.029 which droops to 1.0271v.
> 
> The rest is the same as in the the Zen timings screen shot I posted a page back.
> 
> I'm on the second loop/iteration of y-cruncher at per how you suggested with All tests.
> *I've had HWiNFO64 open for 2+hrs. WHEA errors: CPU Bus/Interconnect Errors - 1*


This it?









Windows power plan settings explorer utility


http://www.mediafire.com/file/wt37sbsejk7iepm/PowerSettingsExplorer.zip MD5 hash for zip-file: BA6C57999611D0C48B9FF74AD09789EC I got sick of...




forums.guru3d.com


----------



## OCmember

@KedarWolf Yes, that's it. Someone made a tweaked version of it that places the windows differntly and gives descriptions of any highlighted key.. both are essentially the same.


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> @berger0 There's an app called power settings explorer that allows you to see the hidden registry settings of things like processor power management. Sorry I don't have a link for it. If you set Processor idle disable to disable idle you can gain up to a 1ns reduction in latency.
> 
> @Veii I'm back to testing 4x8
> 
> ProcODT @ 43.6ohm
> RttNom RZQ/5
> RttWr Off
> RttPark RZQ/5
> vSOC to 1.062 and it hits a droop of 1.0375v most of the time, sometimes hits 1.043v
> vDDG to 1.029 which droops to 1.0271v.
> 
> The rest is the same as in the the Zen timings screen shot I posted a page back.
> 
> I'm on the second loop/iteration of y-cruncher at per how you suggested with All tests.
> *I've had HWiNFO64 open for 2+hrs. WHEA errors: CPU Bus/Interconnect Errors - 1 during second loop/iteration*
> 
> UPDATE: trying vDDG @ 1.031 which droops to 1.0300v
> 
> UPDATE1: it seems the increase of vDDG both CCD & IOD to 1.031 helped
> View attachment 2468832


I did the Disable Idle and my read/write/copy was lower and my latency shot up from 61.9 to 90ms on my 3950x.


----------



## Veii

Please try how well the powerplan works for you
I would not disable idle states - especially on Vermeer

Unclear about good settings for Matisse, but you can surely figure it out @KedarWolf


----------



## OCmember

KedarWolf said:


> I did the Disable Idle and my read/write/copy was lower and my latency shot up from 61.9 to 90ms on my 3950x.


Are you using a timer resolution tool? I am not. My Matisse latency went from 65.4 to 64.3ns and I was able to reproduce it. Only thing I tried was 'disable idle'


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> Are you using a timer resolution tool? I am not. My Matisse latency went from 65.4 to 64.3ns and I was able to reproduce it. Only thing I tried was 'disable idle'


No, I'm not. I might have disabled HPET though, don't remember for sure.


----------



## OCmember

@KedarWolf Not sure why that's happening.

@Veii After the successful y-cruncher test, I played a few games. 3hrs later I rebooted, ran P95 Large FFTs and 1 core crashed immediately. Raised the vDDG IOD & CCD to 1.0330v and then y-cuncher crashed on HNT first loop. Rebooted and set the vSOC to 1.075v which droops to 1.050 and I'm running y-cruncher again.. I'll update more on this later, but it seems rebooting my machine destabilizes things..


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> @Veii After the successful y-cruncher test, I played a few games. 3hrs later I rebooted, ran P95 Large FFTs and 1 core crashed immediately. Raised the vDDG IOD & CCD to 1.0330v and then y-cuncher crashed on HNT first loop. Rebooted and set the vSOC to 1.075v which droops to 1.050 and I'm running y-cruncher again.. I'll update more on this later, but it seems rebooting my machine destabilizes things..


This might be hard to track for you
But is there any chance you can find out which ABL and SMU you are on ?
SMU is read out via ZenTimings - but ABL and the rest is only written on the AMD PBS menu - which is next to CBS
Usually in the same place where you can change PCIe Gen

I was pushing today the system a bit again
Got up to 2133FCLK ~ 2167 crashes a bit
Saved couple of pictures to showcase how worse auto correction can be

But my main intention with this post is:
ABL 09284010 & SMU 56.34 (known as Patch-C) ~ have completely broken memory training
I somehow barely got 1900FCLK to post ~ about 1 out of 6 to 7 tries & it was stable afterwards lol

There is a new ABL* that works on current SMU (gigabyte beta bios)
- which allows the utilization of the 2nd CCD (at least for L3 cache)
Apparantly atleast my 5600X is a full dual 8 CCD ~ 16core, with disabled CCD and two less cores
It's recognized as such one lol
This explains to me well why they cost more than usual
Fully no idea how to unlock it - but SMU reads it technically out as a 5950X 

* looking into how to transplant that ABL over ~ because ASRock doesn't do much, at all tbh
** if i figure it out ~ it should be replicatable to other boards with SMU 56.34,
which then just need AMD CBS -> PHY unlock to fix broken memory training
EDIT:
Or we could just grab the SMU 56.37 from ASUS boards 🤭
But i like this open ABL 09084010 ~ which has no! FCLK Lock
Only buggy SMU which goes to 2:1 mode on 2100 and 4:1 mode on 2134


----------



## berger0

Veii said:


> Go couple of pages back in this thread to read
> 4 Key mistakes you do:
> 
> Your RTT values are for single rank 2x8 kit setup, and then only near 1.46v / they are wrong for higher voltage and absolutely wrong for 4 dimms
> your voltages overall are far to high , lower them (read the older posts before you)
> timings are a bit of a mess . tFAW = 4* tRRD_S not 5 not 3 , maybe 8 would work. / tWRWR & tRDRD SD + DD are wrong, use a stepping of 2 between them , not a 1 = 1-4-4-1-6-6 for example
> tRFC 1-2-4 should be used on Vermeer, and tCKE is used ~ even with GDM on / try tCKE 16 for b-dies
> 
> Overall voltage issues aside
> your timings are harsh, and i am sure you didn't check the PCB version of each of your kit
> It can be that these are on a different PCB (both sets) and just not plugged in the correct place
> Yes, your timings are harsh ~ try something a bit more tame and first push FCLK & fix the voltages ,before you push both
> Especially when 5xxx series does autocorrect on everything and slow itself down to prevent crashes
> 
> This two docs have "patterns" for you to copy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD RAM overclocking
> 
> 
> ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>,2x...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zen RAM OC Leaderboards
> 
> 
> Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAD_BUS you should start with 40-20-20-20
> maybe go up to 60-20-20-20 with 4 dimms
> 
> RTT is up to you to figure out with 4 dimms
> try maybe if 7 / 0 / 6 works also for 4 dimms ~ but this one requires you to move near 1.47+ VDIMM , even 1.48+
> Figuring out which PCB these kits are on, running a lose 16-16-16 set to figure out voltage & procODT
> all these should be your first priority before you land in a deep rabbit hole of autocorrection
> Crashing Vermeer is very very hard , but making it unhappy is as easy as just 20mV wrong voltage ~somewhere~
> 
> EDIT:
> I would also try to CMOS reset & go back to 1800FCLK
> There are bugs where 2:1 mode is turned on in the hidden
> 61ns on Vermeer, equals about 71-72ns on Matisse
> Either something is strongly autocorrecting and slowing itself down
> Or you have the 10ns 2:1 mode penalty in there
> 
> It's a bit too slow for your used timings - soo something is clearlywrong
> Also F31f is a bit slow - visible on t he old SMU 56.40
> You can stay on this - if gigabyte also has no FCLK limits on it
> Or try your luck and update to F31o or higher ~ just with the likelyhood of being limited beyond 1900FCLK
> 
> 
> 3 passed loops with all tests. 3x 18min
> at best 4x18
> 
> it should already FFT & N32 crash on the first loop if voltages are wrong
> or on the 2nd loop if your VRMs droop too much by heat ~ as an LLC issue


Thank you for the response. The PCB of my ram chips are: K4A8G085WB-BCPB which match up with the majority of those on the google sheets page.
I did a CMOS reset and went to loose timings (16-16-16 at FCLK 1800). I set VDIMM at 1.45v and left everything else auto. I get about 65.4ns. 
The RTT values I was using came from the DRAM calc, but it sounds like that is not correct. I have been following the patterns from the google sheet. Trying to find someone with 4x8 single rank running at 3733. Even when I can boot with their settings I am still in the >61ns range for latency. 
I am wondering if it is a Bios thing. Gigabyte posted the final version of F31 on Dec 9, 2020. That is what I have been using. Before that I was on F31j and that seemed pretty stable too. With this final version of F31, I am still getting WHEA errors when I set FCLK to 1900. So maybe I need to wait for the next bios or stay at F31j.


----------



## OCmember

@Veii 

I'm currently on an old Gigabyte bios, F22. 
SMU 46.62.00

In my AMD CBS sub menu I have NBIO Common Options with another sub menu called SMU Common Options.

Another AMD CBS sub menu option I have is called Soc Miscellaneous Control which offers
ABL Console Out Control = Auto
ABL Basic Console Out Control = Auto
ABL PMU message Control = Auto

I don't know what ABL version I'm on ?


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> @Veii
> 
> I'm currently on an old Gigabyte bios, F22.
> SMU 46.62.00
> 
> In my AMD CBS sub menu I have NBIO Common Options with another sub menu called SMU Common Options.
> 
> Another AMD CBS sub menu option I have is called Soc Miscellaneous Control which offers
> ABL Console Out Control = Auto
> ABL Basic Console Out Control = Auto
> ABL PMU message Control = Auto
> 
> I don't know what ABL version I'm on ?


Ah oke oke, yes you are on Matisse 
ABL console out is for debugging purposes only ~ i see nothing that makes good usage out of it
As long as you have UncoreOC mode enabled - the voltages will be applied,soo it likely is an issue of too much strain ala bad signal integrity or just high voltages and high proc

SMU common options for you should have CPPC and CPPC preferred cores
nah not helpful
If you use PBO, you can try and limit SOC TDC & SOC EDC to 13A & 15A 
Idk how to help you here. Maybe you trigger some OCP or fabric crashes
It needs more debugging. Can't figure your issue out with this information


----------



## OCmember

@Veii Yes, I'm still on Matisse. I have updated to bios F31 so I'm back to square 1. I should just drop in my 5800X and completely start from the beginning, although I'm kinda holding out for AGESA 1180...

So F31 SMU 46.65.00

TM5 crashed and is now only showing 6 tests (0-5)... what do i change in the cfg file again? I still have it set for 25 cycles


----------



## Veii

berger0 said:


> Thank you for the response. The PCB of my ram chips are: K4A8G085WB-BCPB which match up with the majority of those on the google sheets page.
> I did a CMOS reset and went to loose timings (16-16-16 at FCLK 1800). I set VDIMM at 1.45v and left everything else auto. I get about 65.4ns.
> The RTT values I was using came from the DRAM calc, but it sounds like that is not correct. I have been following the patterns from the google sheet. Trying to find someone with 4x8 single rank running at 3733. Even when I can boot with their settings I am still in the >61ns range for latency.
> I am wondering if it is a Bios thing. Gigabyte posted the final version of F31 on Dec 9, 2020. That is what I have been using. Before that I was on F31j and that seemed pretty stable too. With this final version of F31, I am still getting WHEA errors when I set FCLK to 1900. So maybe I need to wait for the next bios or stay at F31j.


K4A8G085WB-BCPB is the model number of 1024mb 20nm B-Dies 
4x 1024 put together left , and 4 on the right
The real PCB you have to figure out in person
Here is a repost of all 3 shematics. I miss the A3 Shematic sadly

























A0 is easy to recognize, by the location of the ICs
A1 & A2 depend on the notch at the bottom

Corsair Vengeance Pro appears to use a custom A1 PCB without the little cap over the notch
Viper Taiwan (steel series) uses a custom A2 PCB on their 4400 series, and A0 on their 4000 series

Many timings and settings depend on the PCB version ~ many hardlimits and voltage limits
It could be a Bios thing - which you can try to resolve by using something pre-patch C, like i do
1800 CL16-16 should be in the 54ns region. Maybe you have bugs to push you to 2:1 mode
It would make sense latency wise, as it does add 10ns on it


----------



## Hale59

Veii said:


> K4A8G085WB-BCPB is the model number of 1024mb 20nm B-Dies
> 4x 1024 put together left , and 4 on the right
> The real PCB you have to figure out in person...


@*Veii*
K4A8G085WB-BCPB

Can you read my ram pcb? Here are the pics. Thanks


----------



## Veii

Hale59 said:


> @*Veii*
> K4A8G085WB-BCPB
> 
> Can you read my ram pcb? Here are the pics. Thanks
> View attachment 2468999
> View attachment 2469000


Seems to be B3 (dual rank)
I have no Shematic of it - but A3 exists, and B series is for dual rank
Interesting ~ no information on it at all
But traces indicate, that you should be able to run higher voltage
Unclear about this little chip tho


----------



## Hale59

Veii said:


> Seems to be B3 (dual rank)
> I have no Shematic of it - but A3 exists, and B series is for dual rank
> Interesting ~ no information on it at all
> But traces indicate, that you should be able to run higher voltage
> Unclear about this little chip tho


Its G.Skill F4-3600C16D-32GTZN Trident Z Neo 32GB (2x16GB) DDR4-3600MHz CL16 1.35V
F4-3600C16D-32GTZN

I believe it is the same set @KedarWolf uses.


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Seems to be B3 (dual rank)
> I have no Shematic of it - but A3 exists, and B series is for dual rank
> Interesting ~ no information on it at all
> But traces indicate, that you should be able to run higher voltage
> Unclear about this little chip tho


Thaiphoon Burner says it's B1 but that could be wrong.

Edit: https://www.samsung.com/semiconduct...11/8G_B_DDR4_Samsung_Spec_Rev2_1_Feb_17-0.pdf


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Keith Myers said:


> ????? My ASUS C7H board does that. DIMM boot voltage is down at the bottom of the LLC adjustment page.
> Running DIMM voltage is in the main voltage configuration page.


I haven't found it on the CH8, I believe it's not an option.


----------



## OCmember

Weird. TM5 needs to be in my Downloads folder to run in admin mode. You then get all 16 tests while running it from My Documents only runs 6 tests. Even if you have it in Documents and right click and run as administrator it still won't run all 16 tests.

Back to 4x8 with bios F31 and my 3800X
Running 1800
vSOC 1.0375
vDDP 880
vDDG 1015/1015
Proc ODT 40
RttNom FZQ/6
RttWr Off
RttPark RZQ/6
24/24/24/24
vDIMM 1.52
GDM Enabled
1T

Seems F31 doesn't like my 4x8 1900/3800 cl14 settings


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Does anyone got any advice? Sometimes my system will have to reboot 2 - 5 times to get its settings locked down. When it does, I pass ram test overnight fine. It just seems it has a little trouble booting up.

I switched from 1T GDM On to 2T GDM Off and it boots first try now.

Is there a particular setting I need to focus on to make sure it boots first try everytime?

I have tried to make sure memory clear is off but that doesn't help all the time. My motherboard also doesn't have boot voltage.

I'm running the dual rank set-up, 4x8GB. This didn't come up when I was in single rank 
2x8GB.


----------



## OCmember

What's the reason TM5 will take a while between cycles? Tuning a new config, my new 3800 kit 2x8, and previous tests the memory manager immediately switched to the next cycle. I'm seeing a slow transition to the next cycle.


----------



## Shenhua

Hey guys. I know this is kind of a bit offtopic, but it´s still related to the thread. I have a 3900x, and i'm trying to get my hands on a 2x16 crucial balistix 3600cl16 (micron e die).

2 months ago they were selling for 150€ the 2x16 kit and 75€ the 2x8 kit (which is pretty damn good value), but now they are out of stock everywhere and prices started hicking (and not only the 3600 2x16 kit, but all of them with micron e-die). I don´t see shortage with other RAM or price increases. W7H is going on?¿

Thanks.


----------



## Minusorange

If I load the thaiphoon burner profile into dram calc, can I just switch the 3200 to 3600 to get the numbers I need to OC my 3200 cl 16 to 3600 like below ?


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

Hey everyone! Alot of great info here. But have some questions.

I just picked up 32GB(4x8) of Viper Steel 4400(B die). Its running on a X470 Strix board with a 5800X. So far I have gotten 3600/1800 stable with following setting in BIOS:

Timings- 3800 from DRAM cal
Dimm- 1.5
SOC-1.1
CCD-1.025
IOD- 1.025
VDDP- .950

ProcDCT- 53.3
RTTNom-RZQ7
RTTwr- off
RTTpark- RZQ5

CAD-24-20-24-24

I was hoping for 3800/1900 but any attempt gets me errors during testing. Any ideas?

Also for some reason when I try and run Zen timings it acts like it loaded but nothing shows up on screen?? Any one have that happen?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Minusorange said:


> If I load the thaiphoon burner profile into dram calc, can I just switch the 3200 to 3600 to get the numbers I need to OC my 3200 cl 16 to 3600 like below ?
> View attachment 2469309
> View attachment 2469310


Indeed you can.
Just be aware sometimes 4 x DIMMs behavior can sway a lot between boards.
You may need fine-tuning.



Mr.Sunshine said:


> Hey everyone! Alot of great info here. But have some questions.
> 
> I just picked up 32GB(4x8) of Viper Steel 4400(B die). Its running on a X470 Strix board with a 5800X. So far I have gotten 3600/1800 stable with following setting in BIOS:
> 
> Timings- 3800 from DRAM cal
> Dimm- 1.5
> SOC-1.1
> CCD-1.025
> IOD- 1.025
> VDDP- .950
> 
> ProcDCT- 53.3
> RTTNom-RZQ7
> RTTwr- off
> RTTpark- RZQ5
> 
> CAD-24-20-24-24
> 
> I was hoping for 3800/1900 but any attempt gets me errors during testing. Any ideas?
> 
> Also for some reason when I try and run Zen timings it acts like it loaded but nothing shows up on screen?? Any one have that happen?


You need to download the latest ZenTimings beta from here for Vermeer:






beta - Google Drive







drive.google.com





Not sure about the best settings for the Viper but they are very popular here.
Someone should be able to help.


----------



## OCmember

Here's a guide for TM5 errors.

Save the image.


----------



## zazou

Hello,
I'm a relative new user to overclocking. I have a ryzen 3700X on en X570 MB. My ram is 2x8Gb - Crucial Ballistix Sport LT BLS2K8G4D32AESBK 3200 MHz. I put all values in the Bios. Then I tried the MemBench. Do youknow why my result are far away from best results ? Have I missed something ? Or is a expected result ?

Thank you


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

ManniX-ITA said:


> Indeed you can.
> Just be aware sometimes 4 x DIMMs behavior can sway a lot between boards.
> You may need fine-tuning.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to download the latest ZenTimings beta from here for Vermeer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beta - Google Drive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about the best settings for the Viper but they are very popular here.
> Someone should be able to help.


Thanks for response. Yea I download latest ZenTimings and it worked. Testing 3800 now so far stable in memtest for last 400 minutes. changed voltages and ODT, Rtt's. seems to have worked.


----------



## kratosatlante

[QUOTE = "Mr.Sunshine, publicación: 28693060, miembro: 642484"]
¡Hola a todos! Mucha información excelente aquí. Pero tengo algunas preguntas.

Acabo de comprar 32 GB (4x8) de Viper Steel 4400 (dado B). Se ejecuta en una placa X470 Strix con un 5800X. Hasta ahora he conseguido la estabilidad 3600/1800 con la siguiente configuración en BIOS:

Tiempos- 3800 de DRAM cal
Dimm- 1.5
SOC-1.1
CCD-1.025
IOD-1.025
VDDP- .950

ProcDCT- 53,3
RTTNom-RZQ7
RTTwr- desactivado
RTTpark- RZQ5

CAD-24-20-24-24

Esperaba 3800/1900, pero cualquier intento me produce errores durante la prueba. ¿Algunas ideas?

Además, por alguna razón, cuando trato de ejecutar los tiempos de Zen, actúa como si estuviera cargado pero no aparece nada en la pantalla. ¿A alguien le ha pasado eso?
[/CITAR]

screen of your timings, and ram voltaje


----------



## OCmember

60ohm ClkDrvStr too much for 2x8 b-die?

Got an error on test 2 or 10 on TM5 cycle 7, so I increased my ClkDrvStr from 40 to 60ohm and I haven't hit an error and I'm up to cycle 20 ... again 60ohms too much?

wassup ohms! lol


----------



## Alyjen

Mr.Sunshine said:


> Hey everyone! Alot of great info here. But have some questions.
> 
> I just picked up 32GB(4x8) of Viper Steel 4400(B die). Its running on a X470 Strix board with a 5800X. So far I have gotten 3600/1800 stable with following setting in BIOS:
> 
> Timings- 3800 from DRAM cal
> Dimm- 1.5
> SOC-1.1
> CCD-1.025
> IOD- 1.025
> VDDP- .950
> 
> ProcDCT- 53.3
> RTTNom-RZQ7
> RTTwr- off
> RTTpark- RZQ5
> 
> CAD-24-20-24-24
> 
> I was hoping for 3800/1900 but any attempt gets me errors during testing. Any ideas?
> 
> Also for some reason when I try and run Zen timings it acts like it loaded but nothing shows up on screen?? Any one have that happen?



This can be two things in general, your IF not being stable at 1900 or memory issues. So first check one thing then another. You can run it decoupled for testing (sure, performance will be slower). So you can leave your IF even at 1600 which is 100% safe (well 99% knowing current BIOSes) and set your memory to 3800MHz and then test, tweak and adjust until it's stable. 
Voltages suggested by this calc are usually way off for Zen 3, you can check various threads here on the forum about higher IF/FCLK stability.


----------



## Mr.Sunshine

Stable now. Anything higher than 3866mhz wont post. Will work on tighting sub timings.


----------



## equlizer34

Hello  I'm totally new to the B-die scene. I recently picked up some Gskill Flare X F4-3200C14D-32GFX memory. Im running a 5800x on a B550 motherboard with latest bios. Does anyone have the best general timings for these chips? I'm currently running them at 3400mhz with the same timings as 3200mhz but had to up the voltage to 1.4v. I'm starting down the rabbit hole here


----------



## Veii

equlizer34 said:


> Hello  I'm totally new to the B-die scene. I recently picked up some Gskill Flare X F4-3200C14D-32GFX memory. Im running a 5800x on a B550 motherboard with latest bios. Does anyone have the best general timings for these chips? I'm currently running them at 3400mhz with the same timings as 3200mhz but had to up the voltage to 1.4v. I'm starting down the rabbit hole here


Timings vary by Frequency - as timings are an integer placeholder for latency scaled from running MT/s

tRC 48 (16-16-16)
@ 3200 = 30ns
@ 3600 = 26.6666∞ ns
@ 4000 = 24ns

tRC 42 (14-14-14)
@ 3200 = 26.25ns
@ 3600 = 23.33333∞ ns
@ 4000 = 21ns

Fullest answer probably would be








Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com




to find here presets in what people run

After 1.48v depending on the IC luck you have, you start to get negative scaling
1.52v and higher depends on the PCB these ICs are on, if it has positive or negative scaling
1.56v is mostly the cuttoff point. Very PCB dependent, and IC dependent.
B-dies start to hardcrash at this voltage and beyond

Move near 1.42-1.46v ~ till you know what you actually have in your hands
10mV do a big difference on them if something is not stable

Another learning note
100mhz or 200MT/s (4 steps) = +1 tCL, +1 tRCD
3200C14 = 3600C16
3800C14 = 4200C16
latency wise ~ well nearly
Higher MT/s still wins by bandwidth


----------



## IwannaKnow

Veii said:


> Timings vary by Frequency - as timings are an integer placeholder for latency scaled from running MT/s
> 
> tRC 48 (16-16-16)
> @ 3200 = 30ns
> @ 3600 = 26.6666∞ ns
> @ 4000 = 24ns
> 
> tRC 42 (14-14-14)
> @ 3200 = 26.25ns
> @ 3600 = 23.33333∞ ns
> @ 4000 = 21ns
> 
> Fullest answer probably would be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zen RAM OC Leaderboards
> 
> 
> Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to find here presets in what people run
> 
> After 1.48v depending on the IC luck you have, you start to get negative scaling
> 1.52v and higher depends on the PCB these ICs are on, if it has positive or negative scaling
> 1.56v is mostly the cuttoff point. Very PCB dependent, and IC dependent.
> B-dies start to hardcrash at this voltage and beyond
> 
> Move near 1.42-1.46v ~ till you know what you actually have in your hands
> 10mV do a big difference on them if something is not stable
> 
> Another learning note
> 100mhz or 200MT/s (4 steps) = +1 tCL, +1 tRCD
> 3200C14 = 3600C16
> 3800C14 = 4200C16
> latency wise ~ well nearly
> Higher MT/s still wins by bandwidth


Hi @Veii
Maybe you can help me out a bit. I have a Crosshair VIII Hero Zen2 3900X. Was running with Bios 1302 3800/1900MHz without any issues with CL 16 17 16 16 32 timings on 1.38 DRAM Voltage
VSOC 1.1v (HWINFO)
VDDG 1.025V
VDDP 950
CADS 24 20 24 24
RTT 0 3 1 as the RAM is Dual Rank 2x 16GB

Any newer BIOS than 1302 don´t let me get the RAM stable.
I was forced to to the update to 2702 Bios as I experienced majos issues with PCIE4 with the old Bios.
My System is now almost stable but getting very seldom during games a softreboot.
When I test Karhu it softreboots to after 4hours or 1 hour.
If I use the above mentioned settings from 1302. I´m getting a lot WHEA errors.
So I needed to change the settings to avoid them to the following:
VSOC 1.1v (HWINFO)
VDDG 1.050V
VDDP 1.000
CADS 24 24 24 24 (just standard, didn´t touch it)
RTT 0 3 1 as the RAM is Dual Rank 2x 16GB
DRAM trying now with 1,45v

But I still have the issues that it softreboots after some time. Everything else is on Stock.
I really dont know how to fix it.
ProcODT is actually at 40








kind regards


----------



## Veii

IwannaKnow said:


> Hi @Veii
> Maybe you can help me out a bit. I have a Crosshair VIII Hero Zen2 3900X. Was running with Bios 1302 3800/1900MHz without any issues with CL 16 17 16 16 32 timings on 1.38 DRAM Voltage
> VSOC 1.1v (HWINFO)
> VDDG 1.025V
> VDDP 950
> CADS 24 20 24 24
> RTT 0 3 1 as the RAM is Dual Rank 2x 16GB
> 
> Any newer BIOS than 1302 don´t let me get the RAM stable.
> I was forced to to the update to 2702 Bios as I experienced majos issues with PCIE4 with the old Bios.
> My System is now almost stable but getting very seldom during games a softreboot.
> When I test Karhu it softreboots to after 4hours or 1 hour.
> If I use the above mentioned settings from 1302. I´m getting a lot WHEA errors.
> So I needed to change the settings to avoid them to the following:
> VSOC 1.1v (HWINFO)
> VDDG 1.050V
> VDDP 1.000
> CADS 24 24 24 24 (just standard, didn´t touch it)
> RTT 0 3 1 as the RAM is Dual Rank 2x 16GB
> DRAM trying now with 1,45v
> 
> But I still have the issues that it softreboots after some time. Everything else is on Stock.
> I really dont know how to fix it.
> ProcODT is actually at 40
> View attachment 2469806
> 
> kind regards


Zentimings doesn't usually lie
High procODT requires high VSOC voltage
your old set had a stepping of 75mV between VDDP-VDDG-SOC
but i am unclear at what procODT

Dual rank should need around 34-36ohm
Single rank can move and be fine with 28-30ohm
I don't think you need anything higher than 40ohm ~ even less on dual rank B-dies ?
Looks to be b-dies or HynixCJR

The only thing that i instantly see, is low tRC
What can potentially work is
tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
16+16+4+14 = 44
But the usually correct tRC that can work is
tRAS+tRP
32+16= 48

42 is too low 
Even if tRFC is copied from DRAM Calculator
(which you should not do. either copy the whole set or don't copy anything. tRFC will missmatch on a little timing change)
304-226-139
it's not
304-192-132
boards to this date still can not get tRFC 2 and tRFC 4 correct

Correct timings would be
tRC 44 (absolute lowest)
tRFC 308-229-141
tRTP 8 or 11 (11,7 only with GDM off)
tWR 14

tFAW = 5* tRRD_S does NOT work
Memory will timebreak after the 4th time tRRD_S passes. Which is in the name "Forth activate window" not "fifth"
drop that down to 4* tRRD_S or increase tRRD_S if your higher capacity needs this delay

tRDWR is a bit high, fine for Hynix not fine for Samsung B-Die
Pick between 9-1 or 8-4 as tRDWR/tWRRD. Maybe even 10-1, but not 10-4
10-4 only if you want to drop tCWL-2 = 14 instead of 16

EDIT:
If tRDWR 8-4 does not work with your set, then you have a timeout issues elsewhere
start by putting tRC 48 with 336-250-154 and work with tRTP 12 or 8
Everything goes in pairs


----------



## Hequaqua

I have a ad up for a set of Corsair ram that I no longer need if anyone is intereseted.









[SOLD]CORSAIR VENGEANCE RGB PRO 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4...


A set of CORSAIR - VENGEANCE RGB PRO 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 4000(CMW16GX4M2Z4000C18) for sale. I bought these for my AMD rig, but then moved to Intel. Yes, they work on Intel as well, but I have a 32gb set running on it for MS Flight Sim, so just don't need them. Here are some pics and screen...




www.overclock.net


----------



## IwannaKnow

Veii said:


> Zentimings doesn't usually lie
> High procODT requires high VSOC voltage
> your old set had a stepping of 75mV between VDDP-VDDG-SOC
> but i am unclear at what procODT
> 
> Dual rank should need around 34-36ohm
> Single rank can move and be fine with 28-30ohm
> I don't think you need anything higher than 40ohm ~ even less on dual rank B-dies ?
> Looks to be b-dies or HynixCJR
> 
> The only thing that i instantly see, is low tRC
> What can potentially work is
> tRCD_WR+tCWL+4+tWR
> 16+16+4+14 = 44
> But the usually correct tRC that can work is
> tRAS+tRP
> 32+16= 48
> 
> 42 is too low
> Even if tRFC is copied from DRAM Calculator
> (which you should not do. either copy the whole set or don't copy anything. tRFC will missmatch on a little timing change)
> 304-226-139
> it's not
> 304-192-132
> boards to this date still can not get tRFC 2 and tRFC 4 correct
> 
> Correct timings would be
> tRC 44 (absolute lowest)
> tRFC 308-229-141
> tRTP 8 or 11 (11,7 only with GDM off)
> tWR 14
> 
> tFAW = 5* tRRD_S does NOT work
> Memory will timebreak after the 4th time tRRD_S passes. Which is in the name "Forth activate window" not "fifth"
> drop that down to 4* tRRD_S or increase tRRD_S if your higher capacity needs this delay
> 
> tRDWR is a bit high, fine for Hynix not fine for Samsung B-Die
> Pick between 9-1 or 8-4 as tRDWR/tWRRD. Maybe even 10-1, but not 10-4
> 10-4 only if you want to drop tCWL-2 = 14 instead of 16
> 
> EDIT:
> If tRDWR 8-4 does not work with your set, then you have a timeout issues elsewhere
> start by putting tRC 48 with 336-250-154 and work with tRTP 12 or 8
> Everything goes in pairs


Hi @Veii ,

thanks for your time and detailed answer.
Yeah you are right, it was an older Screenshot from Zen Timings from the day before and I forgot that I lowered the procODT already.
My actual settings are like this and yes it´s Samsung B-Die. Today it passed Karhu with 1,45V DRAM Voltage (HWINFO 1,44V),
but if you compare to the old Bios 1302 Settings it requires a lot more voltage VDDG /VDDP /DRAM and I still not believe that it is stable now.
Especially after your answer 











Let me recap my rock stable settings from the Bios Version 1302 which are not working now anymore and the procODT was 34.3Ω.

TIMINGS(Stable)Speed3800MT/stCL16Trcdrd17Trcdwr16PRE (tRP)16ACT (tRAS)32Trc48Trrds4TrrdL6Tfaw16TwtrS4TwtrL12Twr12TrcpageAutoTrdrdScl4TwrwrScl4Trfc294Trfc2486Trfc4300Tcwl16Trtp8Trdwr9Twrrd3TwrwrSc1TwrwrSd7TwrwrDd7TrdrdSc1TrdrdSd5TrdrdDd5Tcke1ProcODT34.3ΩCmd2T1TGDMEnabledPDMDisabledRttNomRZQ/0RttWrRZQ/3RttParkRZQ/1AddrCmdSetup0CsOdtSetup0CkeSetup0ClkDrvStren24ΩAddrCmdDrvStren20ΩCsOdtDrvStren24ΩCkeDrvStren24ΩVOLTAGESCLDO VDDP950mVSOC1.1vDRAM1.4vVDDG CCD1.025vVDDG IOD1.025v


So if I understand I should try and change to this settings? Please correct me, if I´m wrong or have overseen something.
Thank you again for your help


----------



## equlizer34

So i went from 3400mhz to 3433mhz with the exact same timings as the stock 3200mhz i have and my scores went down in 3dmark and CPU-id bench. I'll post a SC of what i have so far. Maybe someone can help me with these numbers.


----------



## Veii

IwannaKnow said:


> Hi @Veii ,
> 
> thanks for your time and detailed answer.
> Yeah you are right, it was an older Screenshot from Zen Timings from the day before and I forgot that I lowered the procODT already.
> My actual settings are like this and yes it´s Samsung B-Die. Today it passed Karhu with 1,45V DRAM Voltage (HWINFO 1,44V),
> but if you compare to the old Bios 1302 Settings it requires a lot more voltage VDDG /VDDP /DRAM and I still not believe that it is stable now.
> Especially after your answer
> View attachment 2469921
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me recap my rock stable settings from the Bios Version 1302 which are not working now anymore and the procODT was 34.3Ω.
> 
> TIMINGS(Stable)Speed3800MT/stCL16Trcdrd17Trcdwr16PRE (tRP)16ACT (tRAS)32Trc48Trrds4TrrdL6Tfaw16TwtrS4TwtrL12Twr12TrcpageAutoTrdrdScl4TwrwrScl4Trfc294Trfc2486Trfc4300Tcwl16Trtp8Trdwr9Twrrd3TwrwrSc1TwrwrSd7TwrwrDd7TrdrdSc1TrdrdSd5TrdrdDd5Tcke1ProcODT34.3ΩCmd2T1TGDMEnabledPDMDisabledRttNomRZQ/0RttWrRZQ/3RttParkRZQ/1AddrCmdSetup0CsOdtSetup0CkeSetup0ClkDrvStren24ΩAddrCmdDrvStren20ΩCsOdtDrvStren24ΩCkeDrvStren24ΩVOLTAGESCLDO VDDP950mVSOC1.1vDRAM1.4vVDDG CCD1.025vVDDG IOD1.025v
> 
> 
> So if I understand I should try and change to this settings? Please correct me, if I´m wrong or have overseen something.
> Thank you again for your help
> View attachment 2469926


Hey @IwannaKnow ,
A failed post can mean a lot

Your old setlooks alright and should work
The only timings that fully refuse to post are

wrong tRDWR
too low tRFC
too low SCL
low tCL for this voltage
well and low vSOC overall
the rest most of the time just errors
It's strange that lower tRFC worked and now it doesn't work, but an update could maybe also change SOC loadline
procODT doesn't stop out of nothing to work, unless they changed a lot in SMU

tRC 48 try with 336-250-154
and tRDWR 10-1
maybe even tRRD_S 5 tRRD_L 7, tFAW 20

just to be sure your voltages run with lower proc
something has changed if your old profile is not able to post
But i would also copy the old one, save it and try to reboot 5-6 times with it
I remember newer agesa broke memory training for b-dies, maybe you got a victim of it too
Else, anything that was before on auto, can now be different on auto
That's a common thing with big updates ~ sometimes somewhere stuff changes and breaks old timings
Mostly it's for good but sometimes, well memory training breaks fully 

Try to post the suggested above with proc 39
Make a profile, to prepare against CMOS resets and check what causes an issue and refuses to post
Is it low tRFC, low tRDWR or just lower procODT somehow
Who knows, maybe you really need 1.125vSOC with a more dropping loadline now


----------



## KickAssCop

Does this work on 5000 series?


----------



## MakisOne

Hi.

I have a F4-3600C18Q-128GTRG (hynix mjr) memory with a 5950X and Crosshair 8 Hero Wifi.


















I have used the calculator values for cjr / djr.

I would like to be able to raise the ram to 3800mhz but it is impossible to boot at more than 3600mhz.




















*Any suggestions to optimize a bit more?*


----------



## IwannaKnow

Veii said:


> Hey @IwannaKnow ,
> A failed post can mean a lot
> 
> Your old setlooks alright and should work
> The only timings that fully refuse to post are
> 
> wrong tRDWR
> too low tRFC
> too low SCL
> low tCL for this voltage
> well and low vSOC overall
> the rest most of the time just errors
> It's strange that lower tRFC worked and now it doesn't work, but an update could maybe also change SOC loadline
> procODT doesn't stop out of nothing to work, unless they changed a lot in SMU
> 
> tRC 48 try with 336-250-154
> and tRDWR 10-1
> maybe even tRRD_S 5 tRRD_L 7, tFAW 20
> 
> just to be sure your voltages run with lower proc
> something has changed if your old profile is not able to post
> But i would also copy the old one, save it and try to reboot 5-6 times with it
> I remember newer agesa broke memory training for b-dies, maybe you got a victim of it too
> Else, anything that was before on auto, can now be different on auto
> That's a common thing with big updates ~ sometimes somewhere stuff changes and breaks old timings
> Mostly it's for good but sometimes, well memory training breaks fully
> 
> Try to post the suggested above with proc 39
> Make a profile, to prepare against CMOS resets and check what causes an issue and refuses to post
> Is it low tRFC, low tRDWR or just lower procODT somehow
> Who knows, maybe you really need 1.125vSOC with a more dropping loadline now


Good morning @Veii,
Maybe I was not accurate enough.
The old bios setting is booting, but creating WHEA machine errors and Karhu is showing errors too with the new bios.
I will try the old settings with your changes and report.

Thanks again


----------



## Veii

IwannaKnow said:


> Good morning @Veii,
> Maybe I was not accurate enough.
> The old bios setting is booting, but creating WHEA machine errors and Karhu is showing errors too with the new bios.
> I will try the old settings with your changes and report.
> 
> Thanks again


WHEA is not a post issue , yes 
they are mostly voltage missmatch issues and pcie / chipset issues

Karhu will error on close to everything
TM5 will error on memory timing issues and y-cruncher will error on voltage issues
get it first y-cruncher stable after you know that your timings work out for you


----------



## OCmember

Make sure you guys are inputting the correct DRAM PCB revision with Ryzen DRAM calculator. Don't just use the Thaiphoon Burner inputs when calculating things. I had to select the option that had A2. It was always defaulting to Manual. For me, it helped. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## IwannaKnow

Veii said:


> WHEA is not a post issue , yes
> they are mostly voltage missmatch issues and pcie / chipset issues
> 
> Karhu will error on close to everything
> TM5 will error on memory timing issues and y-cruncher will error on voltage issues
> get it first y-cruncher stable after you know that your timings work out for you


Hi @Veii 
thank you I will try this settings as soon I will find some time for excessive testing .
I did a short test with my old settings and it didn´t boot up. So I tried a bit with some settings and seems tRDWR is the issue.
As soon I set it to 9-1 or 8-4 or 10-1 the system won´t boot up. I didn´t try stability tests with 10-4 yet.

May I know, what could be the issue, if the PC sometimes (very seldom) turns off during Karhu test under heavy load?
Happened a few weeks ago to me, then I raised the DRAM Voltage to 1,45V. I´m still not sure, if it fixed the issue.
Any idea where to start with? There is no CPU OC active. Everything on auto and no PBO or FMAX.

All the BIOS Versions after 1302 caused random reboots under load and idle.
Till now the 2702 looks for me like the Bios which is not affected. At least not during idle and I encountered till now just 1 random reboot after 57 hours Cyberpunk and afterwards during the Karhu test overnight (around 4 hours) the system rebooted. So I raised the DRAM Voltage to 1,45V.

Is it possible that just the BIOS from ASUS/AGESA is creating all this trouble? 
I know the saying 90% of the problems are sitting infront of the display, but I just wonder why a rockstable setting is totally not working anymore with any Bios higher than 1302. At least for Asus.


----------



## Hmm on

Ok .what is important .it is very good memories .but they cost a lot more.What you choose will determine everything, unfortunately. Smile


----------



## Veii

IwannaKnow said:


> Hi @Veii
> thank you I will try this settings as soon I will find some time for excessive testing .
> I did a short test with my old settings and it didn´t boot up. So I tried a bit with some settings and seems tRDWR is the issue.
> As soon I set it to 9-1 or 8-4 or 10-1 the system won´t boot up. I didn´t try stability tests with 10-4 yet.
> 
> May I know, what could be the issue, if the PC sometimes (very seldom) turns off during Karhu test under heavy load?
> Happened a few weeks ago to me, then I raised the DRAM Voltage to 1,45V. I´m still not sure, if it fixed the issue.
> Any idea where to start with? There is no CPU OC active. Everything on auto and no PBO or FMAX.


IF you can confirm you are y-cruncher stable , over 3 loops 
(while the FFT test should show strong indication)
then it might be the memory PCB just hardcrashing

Simply as y-cruncher should confirm if VDDG CCD is correct and not softrebooting because of that 
It's one of both, CCD crashing or memory PCB crashing
But i need tests from you to figure it out
Well for sure it's a voltage issue, but it could be even as bizzare as a flickering house installation (fridge) where the psu for a short time loses power and for example the chipset doesnt get enough voltage
Many options 

tRDWR either works or doesnt at all,
Seems like you can not yet lower it, maybe in the future when the remain stuff is lower. Like SCLs lower and tRFC lower


----------



## IwannaKnow

Veii said:


> IF you can confirm you are y-cruncher stable , over 3 loops
> (while the FFT test should show strong indication)
> then it might be the memory PCB just hardcrashing
> 
> Simply as y-cruncher should confirm if VDDG CCD is correct and not softrebooting because of that
> It's one of both, CCD crashing or memory PCB crashing
> But i need tests from you to figure it out
> Well for sure it's a voltage issue, but it could be even as bizzare as a flickering house installation (fridge) where the psu for a short time loses power and for example the chipset doesnt get enough voltage
> Many options
> 
> tRDWR either works or doesnt at all,
> Seems like you can not yet lower it, maybe in the future when the remain stuff is lower. Like SCLs lower and tRFC lower


Hi @Veii again,

do I need to load this config file for y-cruncher, to check the stability, or should I let everything on default and just start the programm?
Thanks in advance 
y-cruncher memtest - Pastebin.com (its from https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#thaiphoon-report)


----------



## equlizer34

No one can help with my post from yesturday?  I got it up to 3600mhz with tighter timings. What more could i change? Thx


----------



## IwannaKnow

equlizer34 said:


> No one can help with my post from yesturday?  I got it up to 3600mhz with tighter timings. What more could i change? Thx
> View attachment 2470115


I´m not an expert, but the tRC looks too high for me.

You can try as a safe setting: tCL(tRP) + tRCDRD + tRAS = (in your case 14 + 14 + 28) 56
Or for tight setting (Just for Samsung B-Die): tCL(tRP) + tRAS = (in your case 14+28) 42
tRC 38 would be also an option


----------



## halcyonon

MakisOne said:


> Hi.
> 
> I have a F4-3600C18Q-128GTRG (hynix mjr) memory with a 5950X and Crosshair 8 Hero Wifi.
> 
> ... snip ...
> 
> I would like to be able to raise the ram to 3800mhz but it is impossible to boot at more than 3600mhz.
> 
> ... snip ...
> 
> *Any suggestions to optimize a bit more?*


I've got similar problems, running a Dark Hero, 5950x, Corsair Dominator 4x16GB kit (Samsung Bdie). Trivially stable at 3600mhz at stock 16-18-18-18-36 1T 1.35v (and likely faster, still testing). But just to get to 3666 at the same settings requires me to move to 1.435v + 1.1v soc, and nothing I seem to do will let me boot at anything higher.

Has anyone with high density ram (4x16GB or 4x32GB) had any success stabilizing anything meaningfully above 3600mhz on Ryzen, and if so, what were the secret combination of parameters that made it happen?


----------



## KedarWolf

IwannaKnow said:


> Hi @Veii again,
> 
> do I need to load this config file for y-cruncher, to check the stability, or should I let everything on default and just start the programm?
> Thanks in advance
> y-cruncher memtest - Pastebin.com (its from https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md#thaiphoon-report)
> View attachment 2470068


*Edit: Added more tests, changed the .cfg, but still avoids tests like the Small FFT tests that cause dangerous temps and crashes AMD Zen 2 and Zen 3 CPUs.*

This is my .cfg for y-cruncher for a 3950x or 5950x, hence the 0-31 cores setting and for 32GB of RAM. Adjust for your CPU cores and amount of RAM.

Remember, 0 in the cores settings is the first core, hence 0-31, not 32.

And best to keep the RAM amount around 90% of your RAM.

You need to make a shortcut to the .exe, right-click, go to Properties and add like below to the Target of the shortcut with your y-cruncher file path.



Code:


"D:\y-cruncher v0.7.8.9507\y-cruncher v0.7.8.9507\y-cruncher.exe" pause:1 config memtest.cfg

Right click the shortcut and Run As Admin.

The y-cruncher memtest.cfg below.



Code:


//  y-cruncher Configuration File
//  Version: 0.7.8 Build 9507
//
//  Load this from y-cruncher or run directly:
//      y-cruncher config filename.cfg
//
//  If you're copying Windows file paths into here, be sure to replace
//  all backslashes "\" with forward slashes "/". Backslash is an
//  escape character.
//

{
    Action : "StressTest"
    StressTest : {
        AllocateLocally : "true"
        LogicalCores : [0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]
        TotalMemory : 27487790694
        SecondsPerTest : 200
        SecondsTotal : 3600
        StopOnError : "false"
        Tests : [
            "BKT"
            "FFT"
            "N32"
            "N64"
            "VST"
            "C17"
        ]
    }
}


----------



## PraiseKek

equlizer34 said:


> No one can help with my post from yesturday?  I got it up to 3600mhz with tighter timings. What more could i change? Thx
> View attachment 2470115


tRC seems super high .. you might be able to tweak closer to 50 or 40


----------



## IwannaKnow

Veii said:


> IF you can confirm you are y-cruncher stable , over 3 loops
> (while the FFT test should show strong indication)
> then it might be the memory PCB just hardcrashing
> 
> Simply as y-cruncher should confirm if VDDG CCD is correct and not softrebooting because of that
> It's one of both, CCD crashing or memory PCB crashing
> But i need tests from you to figure it out
> Well for sure it's a voltage issue, but it could be even as bizzare as a flickering house installation (fridge) where the psu for a short time loses power and for example the chipset doesnt get enough voltage
> Many options
> 
> tRDWR either works or doesnt at all,
> Seems like you can not yet lower it, maybe in the future when the remain stuff is lower. Like SCLs lower and tRFC lower


Hi @Veii,

my System survived the y-cruncher test for 3 loops.
Voltage/Temp Screenshot directly after the test.
























kind regards.


----------



## IwannaKnow

halcyonon said:


> I've got similar problems, running a Dark Hero, 5950x, Corsair Dominator 4x16GB kit (Samsung Bdie). Trivially stable at 3600mhz at stock 16-18-18-18-36 1T 1.35v (and likely faster, still testing). But just to get to 3666 at the same settings requires me to move to 1.435v + 1.1v soc, and nothing I seem to do will let me boot at anything higher.
> 
> Has anyone with high density ram (4x16GB or 4x32GB) had any success stabilizing anything meaningfully above 3600mhz on Ryzen, and if so, what were the secret combination of parameters that made it happen?


@halcyonon @MakisOne 
As far I understand the actual AGESA Version is still Beta.
Thinks should be better soon when AGESA v2 1.2.0.0 will be released. I have also a friend who can´t boot with Zen3 with the newese Bios with 3800MHz.
1usmus also postponed his CTR update, because of the actual AGESA "mess". Right now (same goes for me and my Zen2) I would recommend to find a stable setting and use it till we get a stable BIOS/AGESA, all the time we know spending to optimize our settings is just wasted as it will change hopefully to a positive result, with the new AGESA.
For some ppl the BIOS with high RAM Frequency works for some ppl not it is too inconsistent.
I really hope it will get better soon, or at least latest when AM4 will be EOL and we will get at the end a final stable super nice optimized working BIOS/AGESA


----------



## ThomasCro

Hey guys, I'm trying to narrow down what's causing errors in my TM5 anta777 stress test and I've narrowed it down to eliminating the errors if I switch from 1T to gear down mode (which the calculator doesn't recommend doing for the fast setting).

Here is a screen of the safe (left) and fast (right) settings. The right settings with gear down enabled are stable and good, but I'm wondering if there is anything else I can tweak now that gear down is enabled. Does using gear down mode instead of 1T enable some headroom for reduced voltages or some other lower timings? I'm too afraid to change numbers because I don't understand them, any advice?
Running the lastest beta version of BIOS for the MSI B450 Tomahawk Max

Screenshot:


http://imgur.com/a/Igoj2Oh


----------



## umeng2002

I think over like 3200 or 3400 or something like that, Gear Down mode actually uses 2T. That's why it's more stable. Even if you explicitly select 1T, with GD enabled, it will use 2T at times. Turning off GD and 1T on will force it to use 1T all the time.


----------



## PraiseKek

100%+ memtestpro stable @ 1.5V. SOC Auto


----------



## KedarWolf

PraiseKek said:


> View attachment 2470296
> 
> 
> 100%+ memtestpro stable @ 1.5V. SOC Auto


Can you show us an AIDA64 Extreme Cache And Memory benchmark?


----------



## ThomasCro

umeng2002 said:


> I think over like 3200 or 3400 or something like that, Gear Down mode actually uses 2T. That's why it's more stable. Even if you explicitly select 1T, with GD enabled, it will use 2T at times. Turning off GD and 1T on will force it to use 1T all the time.


I appreciate your reply, but I understand that part, my question was:
"Does using gear down mode instead of 1T enable some headroom for reduced voltages or some other lower timings? I'm too afraid to change numbers because I don't understand them, any advice? "


----------



## jugs

ThomasCro said:


> I appreciate your reply, but I understand that part, my question was:
> "Does using gear down mode instead of 1T enable some headroom for reduced voltages or some other lower timings? I'm too afraid to change numbers because I don't understand them, any advice? "


Yes that is correct, geardown mode enables you to reduce voltages and/or tighter other timings.


----------



## S197Mach1

Anyone have any suggestions where to go from here? These settings netted a 5% increase in 3dmark Timespy Extreme CPU benchmark. Using the stock 1.45v from the XMP profile.

I cant change tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP (all 15's) with out running into problems. Also couldn't get them to boot at 1900mhz FCLK/MCLK based off some other users timings I found in Zen RAM Overclocking - Google Sheets . Also if anything just plain looks out of wack please let me know. First time messing around with subtimings.


----------



## umeng2002

ThomasCro said:


> I appreciate your reply, but I understand that part, my question was:
> "Does using gear down mode instead of 1T enable some headroom for reduced voltages or some other lower timings? I'm too afraid to change numbers because I don't understand them, any advice? "


It increases the headroom by not running the tighter 1T all the time.

With ram, looser timings usually always means less voltage requirements.


----------



## fcchin

S197Mach1 said:


> View attachment 2470337
> 
> 
> Anyone have any suggestions where to go from here?
> 
> Also if anything just plain looks out of wack please let me know.


Hello @S197Mach1

Your voltages are low compared to @PraiseKek below I quote him too. 

Although I've also seen someone else use even lower voltages than you @S197Mach1, but I want to say VDDGs are voltage from CPU core to IMC, surely this plays a part to influence the infinity fabric performance. 

While cldo_VDDP is voltage for infinity fabric from IMC to DRAM???

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, thanks. 




PraiseKek said:


> View attachment 2470296
> 
> 
> 100%+ memtestpro stable @ 1.5V. SOC Auto


----------



## fcchin

ThomasCro said:


> but I'm wondering if there is anything else I can tweak now that gear down is enabled.


Hello @ThomasCro , May be using the corresponding PCB layout to calculate the timing might help???










See through the lights to find out their height position









See along the width to determine their positions


----------



## Ridianod

Guys Hi. I have problem with errors on Dang Wang Memtest. What should I do to eliminate this problem?I could not understand what to do step by step when I encountered an error. Which of these do I need to raise or lower. This ram on 1.42v. Windows opens without any problems. I pass one round of Memtest86 + without errors. Can you help me? Thank you.


----------



## S197Mach1

fcchin said:


> Hello @S197Mach1
> 
> Your voltages are low compared to @PraiseKek below I quote him too.
> 
> Although I've also seen someone else use even lower voltages than you @S197Mach1, but I want to say VDDGs are voltage from CPU core to IMC, surely this plays a part to influence the infinity fabric performance.
> 
> While cldo_VDDP is voltage for infinity fabric from IMC to DRAM???
> 
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, thanks.


@fcchin Yeah I didn't touch voltages, left them on auto from the XMP profile. 1.45v for this model.


----------



## fcchin

S197Mach1 said:


> @fcchin Yeah I didn't touch voltages, left them on auto from the XMP profile. 1.45v for this model.


No, I don't mean the Dram voltage itself, but the VDDG and cldo_VDDP probably needs to be change for you to overclock higher. Look at other peoples VDDG and cldo_VDDP and various other voltages, not just Dram voltage.


----------



## mathiem

About the Memtest part of MEMbench: is anyone able to run the max amount of threads every time? For me, most of the time one of the threads doesn't run. EDIT: It was because I didn't have a pagefile, so it was running out of RAM.

Also, I don't understand the 2GB limitation that Memtest supposedly has and DRAM Calculator won't let you get past. If I run Memtest standalone I can put in 3400MB and it runs fine. Am I missing anything?


----------



## umeng2002

1 error in 17000% coverage in Karhu 😖 Didn't stop on beep... don't know when it happened... God I hate how long RAM testing takes.


----------



## Plazmaterial

Hi guys, pls help. I have high latency for 3600 - 69.7 ns. mother and model memory on screenshot. Bios 1.1.0.0 Patch D .
(this is Micron E-die)


----------



## devoker

I have an asrock b450 it says it supports up to 3200 mhz. Currently I oced the ram to 3200 16-20-20-38. Is it ok to try higher like 3600? (I have micron e)


----------



## umeng2002

tRFC (alt) fixed it.


----------



## thegr8anand

umeng2002 said:


> tRFC (alt) fixed it.
> 
> View attachment 2471024


Have the same ram and can easily run 3733. Another member has it running at 4000. Try these settings. Voltage(vdimm) is 1.49 and boot voltage at 1.52.


----------



## umeng2002

I don't think my 2700X infinity fabric will take it. Zen1+ IF clock is locked to memory clock. I am curious about good 24/7 voltages for B-die. The highest I had it was like 1.38 when I was running at 3400 MT/s.


----------



## thegr8anand

1.5 is fine. There are b-dies with xmp of 1.45 or 1.5v i think. Been running at 1.49 past year and half no issues.


----------



## umeng2002

Thanks, my only concern with not going past 3400 MT/s was running the voltage over 1.38. At 3400 MT/s at 1.38v, my ram stability in ram stability tests has be dependent on what side of the bed the RAM woke up on (BIOS updates, etc.). I might crank up the voltage a bit more now.

I might make the jump to a Zen 3 CPU next year, so keeping this RAM would be great if it can go to 3600 or 3800 MT/s without insane voltages or latency


----------



## Kildar

I have this memory f4-3600c18d-32gtzr. It's Hyjnix, but I don't know what rev.
I can get it to 4000 with stock timings and 1.4v but I can't seem to get the timings tighter even at 3600.

Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## Veii

umeng2002 said:


> Thanks, my only concern with not going past 3400 MT/s was running the voltage over 1.38. At 3400 MT/s at 1.38v, my ram stability in ram stability tests has be dependent on what side of the bed the RAM woke up on (BIOS updates, etc.). I might crank up the voltage a bit more now.
> 
> I might make the jump to a Zen 3 CPU next year, so keeping this RAM would be great if it can go to 3600 or 3800 MT/s without insane voltages or latency


Don't overthink it too much
Pretty much all dimms scale positive till 1.44v
Most of them them till 1.46 (up to IC)
After 1.48v PCB and IC play a role (nm node size)
Beyond 1.51 it depends on the PCB and your setup. Most A0/B0 PCBs will start to hardcrash near 1.52+
1.52v and higher only works on A1 & A2 PCB (or B series for dual rank)
1.56v is often already dangerous for A0 kits. Capacitors won't just "die" by voltage, but A0 PCBs start to hardcrash ~ if ICs are not doing it before them.

All depends,
But as for 1st (3467MT/s) & 2nd gen (3734MT/s)
Really don't worry ~ you have headroom. 1.42v mostly is enough for pretty much anything till 3600. If not 1.46 is more than enough up till 3734MT/s
2nd gen likes 48ohm procODT more than 53. Low voltage = better signal integrity, is key in achieving high memOC on these

Edit:
This factors in common usage sense
Exotic cooling near sub-zero changes current behavior & capacitor discharge time


----------



## devoker

I can't seem to tighten tcl any lower than 16 (xpg d30 3000 16-20-20-20) and I can't post with higher than 3200 mhz at 1.35V (I don't want to increase voltage in a sff case with limited airlfow). I am sure it has a a2 pcb I checked the layout. Currently I have no errors with tm5. Should I use bad bin settings? XMP settings are still loose even though I keep tightening I get no errors.








XMP


----------



## KedarWolf

*The kits listed are b-die.

F4-3600C14D-32GTZN*
Trident Z Neo
DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.45V
32GB (2x16GB)










F4-3600C14D-32GTZN-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


G.SKILL




www.gskill.com





*F4-3800C14D-32GTZN*
Trident Z Neo
DDR4-3800MHz CL14-16-16-36 1.50V
32GB (2x16GB)









F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...




www.gskill.com


----------



## FishGogluglu

KedarWolf said:


> *The kits listed are b-die.
> 
> F4-3600C14D-32GTZN*
> Trident Z Neo
> DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.45V
> 32GB (2x16GB)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3600C14D-32GTZN-G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> G.SKILL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *F4-3800C14D-32GTZN*
> Trident Z Neo
> DDR4-3800MHz CL14-16-16-36 1.50V
> 32GB (2x16GB)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 1.50V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com


Hey man, i got the ripjaws cl14 ones, copied some of ur settings and works pretty good, i managed to make a maybe stable cpu oc with them aswell, 
First of all setup : x570 unify, 3950x , ripjaws 3200cl14 32gb, seasonic 1200, arctic liquid 360 ,gpu idk if it matters 6800xt oced from software to max.

Like i was saying, with the ram oc i get almost ur score in aida , cbr20 10370-10470 , in a loop for few min, temps max out at 95 after 3-5 min of cbr, ( cpu oc to 45.25 / 44.25 , 43.75 / 42.75 , offset voltage 1.31 + 005 ) 
I managed to boot up fist ccx with 4.8 but just boot, i didnt put time to decypher what is locked by the bios or what is bugged, etc

I managed to boot 4.7 / 4.6 , 4.5 / 4.5 , run cbr20 only with single core score 546 , and thats all ived done from my side, from what i saw cpu is perfectly locked by bios codding ( ctr told me that is bronze sample but i still managed to oc with (i think the aio is not good a sample it might be having cooling problems ) with this aio ) furthermore i saw stable ram oc on ryzen 3000 , with freq 5000 timmings, with looser timmings this is before they announced ryzen 5000 , that can "manage" higher freq, ived done my personal reaserch and everything is marketing, now im going into personal opinios but they are true, we are slowly but steady going into a marketing or if not we are already , in a marketing gimmick that everything is controlled by "updates" , "patches" , "security updates" etc. ( dont get me wrong, updates are good if they have the intent of adding perfomance, stability, security, features, etc, but they are enforced like they have an pattern ( ived tested stuff that were "outdates" and performed better then the "updated" softwares or hardwares ) i am saying this cuz i saw ur good at stuff and u might get stable fclk at 2000-2200 with 3950x but first u have to decypher or write ur own bios ) ty for the ram timmings.


----------



## equlizer34

Does anyone have the Gskill Flare X 3200mhz cl14 32gb kit? Let's see your timings!


----------



## OCmember

Updated my bios and I'm stability testing my kit again. I keep getting TM5 errors on 12 or 2. The one thing I've found that helps this is ClkDrvStr. I have a 2x8 kit of B-die, and I've had to set it to 60ohms. Is 60 too high?


----------



## Gadfly

OCmember said:


> Updated my bios and I'm stability testing my kit again. I keep getting TM5 errors on 12 or 2. The one thing I've found that helps this is ClkDrvStr. I have a 2x8 kit of B-die, and I've had to set it to 60ohms. Is 60 too high?


What is your dram voltage and proc_odt?


----------



## equlizer34

Is this about the best i can get or could i get more out of it? Shall i dare try cl12? My memory speed will not go any higher no matter what i do.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Unify-X rocks 
Such a pity the BIOS is buggy as hell.


----------



## OCmember

Gadfly said:


> What is your dram voltage and proc_odt?


Ah, that would help, hah. The kit is a 3800 CL14 1.5v kit. Sorry for the lack of Zentimings pic..

Proc_ODT 34.3
VDIMM 1.52v

VSOC - 1.081v
VDDP - 0.953v
VDDG - 1.053v

Earlier bios' e.g. F22 I was able to run 1900/3800 (Aorus Xtreme) I'm working with bios F31q. I'm currently at 1866/3733. I pushed to 1.12 VSOC and the machine would reboot during TM5 @ 1900/3800

Veii recommended with B-die 2x8 to run Proc_ODT between 28-34ohms

Here's the timings. The PCB is A2


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> Ah, that would help, hah. The kit is a 3800 CL14 1.5v kit. Sorry for the lack of Zentimings pic..
> 
> Proc_ODT 34.3
> VDIMM 1.52v
> 
> Earlier bios' e.g. F22 I was able to run 1900/3800 (Aorus Xtreme) I'm working with bios F31q. I'm currently at 1866/3733. I pushed to 1.12 VSOC and the machine would reboot during TM5 @ 1900/3800
> 
> Veii recommended with B-die 2x8 to run Proc_ODT between 28-34ohms
> 
> Here's the timings. The PCB is A2
> 
> 
> View attachment 2471278


On my Master I had to keep the XMP profile selected with manual timings with the B-die.
Otherwise would drop random errors and not POST or BSOD under Windows.
Also the Master didn't like voltages above 1.47V, would drop random errors like crazy.
If you Xtreme is Rel 1.0 could have the same issue.


----------



## OCmember

ManniX-ITA said:


> On my Master I had to keep the XMP profile selected with manual timings with the B-die.
> Otherwise would drop random errors and not POST or BSOD under Windows.
> Also the Master didn't like voltages above 1.47V, would drop random errors like crazy.
> If you Xtreme is Rel 1.0 could have the same issue.


With manual settings the calculator sets the tRRDS to 3 and my bios doesn't go below 4 with that setting so I've been unable to run 'manual'


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> With manual settings the calculator sets the tRRDS to 3 and my bios doesn't go below 4 with that setting so I've been unable to run 'manual'


You have a very good B-die kit.
Check some configs that are matching the VDIMM you can use in the spreadsheet:









Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com





Usually there's a ZenTimings screenshot telling you more or less everything you need.
Try to adapt it to your setup, it's the best and fastest way.
RRDS at 3 is very uncommon, you don't need it for almost any config.


----------



## OCmember

If I can get 1900/3800 stable with TRFC @ 304 it pulls 62ns


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> If I can get 1900/3800 stable with TRFC @ 304 it pulls 62ns
> 
> View attachment 2471395


Line 7 & 8 in the spreadsheet are using your kit and pushing about 61.5.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

@Veii 
The Unify-X is starting to please me 

Still a lot to optimize but it's a great start!






























Code:


SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 139.69GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Latency : 42.1ns
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.
Decimal Numeral System (base 10) : 1s = 1000ms, 1ms = 1000µs, 1µs = 1000ns, etc.

Performance per Thread
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 4.37GB/s
No. Threads : 32
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Binary Numeral System (base 2) : 1GB(/s) = 1024MB(/s), 1MB(/s) = 1024kB(/s), 1kB(/s) = 1024 bytes(/s), etc.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 42.07MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher Scores mean Better Performance.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.12ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower Scores mean Better Performance.

Detailed Results
Processor Affinity : U0-U1 U2-U3 U4-U5 U6-U7 U8-U9 U10-U11 U12-U13 U14-U15 U16-U17 U18-U19 U20-U21 U22-U23 U24-U25 U26-U27 U28-U29 U30-U31
U0-U2 Data Latency : 22.7ns
U0-U4 Data Latency : 24.1ns
U0-U6 Data Latency : 24.1ns
U0-U8 Data Latency : 24.5ns
U0-U10 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U0-U12 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U0-U14 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U0-U16 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U0-U18 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U0-U20 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U0-U22 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U0-U24 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U0-U26 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U0-U28 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U0-U30 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U0-U1 Data Latency : 12.7ns
U0-U3 Data Latency : 22.9ns
U0-U5 Data Latency : 24.0ns
U0-U7 Data Latency : 24.1ns
U0-U9 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U0-U11 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U0-U13 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U0-U15 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U0-U17 Data Latency : 55.2ns
U0-U19 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U0-U21 Data Latency : 55.4ns
U0-U23 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U0-U25 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U0-U27 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U0-U29 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U0-U31 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U2-U4 Data Latency : 23.5ns
U2-U6 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U2-U8 Data Latency : 24.0ns
U2-U10 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U2-U12 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U2-U14 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U2-U16 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U2-U18 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U2-U20 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U2-U22 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U2-U24 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U2-U26 Data Latency : 59.1ns
U2-U28 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U2-U30 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U2-U1 Data Latency : 22.7ns
U2-U3 Data Latency : 12.7ns
U2-U5 Data Latency : 23.4ns
U2-U7 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U2-U9 Data Latency : 23.9ns
U2-U11 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U2-U13 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U2-U15 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U2-U17 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U2-U19 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U2-U21 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U2-U23 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U2-U25 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U2-U27 Data Latency : 59.5ns
U2-U29 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U2-U31 Data Latency : 60.3ns
U4-U6 Data Latency : 24.4ns
U4-U8 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U4-U10 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U4-U12 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U4-U14 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U4-U16 Data Latency : 55.7ns
U4-U18 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U4-U20 Data Latency : 56.0ns
U4-U22 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U4-U24 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U4-U26 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U4-U28 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U4-U30 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U4-U1 Data Latency : 24.4ns
U4-U3 Data Latency : 23.7ns
U4-U5 Data Latency : 12.7ns
U4-U7 Data Latency : 24.2ns
U4-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U4-U11 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U4-U13 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U4-U15 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U4-U17 Data Latency : 55.9ns
U4-U19 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U4-U21 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U4-U23 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U4-U25 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U4-U27 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U4-U29 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U4-U31 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U6-U8 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U6-U10 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U6-U12 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U6-U14 Data Latency : 26.6ns
U6-U16 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U6-U18 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U6-U20 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U6-U22 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U6-U24 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U6-U26 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U6-U28 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U6-U30 Data Latency : 59.7ns
U6-U1 Data Latency : 23.7ns
U6-U3 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U6-U5 Data Latency : 24.1ns
U6-U7 Data Latency : 12.7ns
U6-U9 Data Latency : 24.6ns
U6-U11 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U6-U13 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U6-U15 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U6-U17 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U6-U19 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U6-U21 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U6-U23 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U6-U25 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U6-U27 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U6-U29 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U6-U31 Data Latency : 59.3ns
U8-U10 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U8-U12 Data Latency : 27.8ns
U8-U14 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U8-U16 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U8-U18 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U8-U20 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U8-U22 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U8-U24 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U8-U26 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U8-U28 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U8-U30 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U8-U1 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U8-U3 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U8-U5 Data Latency : 24.6ns
U8-U7 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U8-U9 Data Latency : 12.6ns
U8-U11 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U8-U13 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U8-U15 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U8-U17 Data Latency : 60.8ns
U8-U19 Data Latency : 60.9ns
U8-U21 Data Latency : 60.4ns
U8-U23 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U8-U25 Data Latency : 59.9ns
U8-U27 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U8-U29 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U8-U31 Data Latency : 59.9ns
U10-U12 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U10-U14 Data Latency : 28.1ns
U10-U16 Data Latency : 60.4ns
U10-U18 Data Latency : 60.3ns
U10-U20 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U10-U22 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U10-U24 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U10-U26 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U10-U28 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U10-U30 Data Latency : 59.5ns
U10-U1 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U10-U3 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U10-U5 Data Latency : 24.5ns
U10-U7 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U10-U9 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U10-U11 Data Latency : 12.9ns
U10-U13 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U10-U15 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U10-U17 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U10-U19 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U10-U21 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U10-U23 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U10-U25 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U10-U27 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U10-U29 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U10-U31 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U12-U14 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U12-U16 Data Latency : 57.4ns
U12-U18 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U12-U20 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U12-U22 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U12-U24 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U12-U26 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U12-U28 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U12-U30 Data Latency : 60.7ns
U12-U1 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U12-U3 Data Latency : 24.5ns
U12-U5 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U12-U7 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U12-U9 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U12-U11 Data Latency : 25.9ns
U12-U13 Data Latency : 12.7ns
U12-U15 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U12-U17 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U12-U19 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U12-U21 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U12-U23 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U12-U25 Data Latency : 59.1ns
U12-U27 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U12-U29 Data Latency : 60.5ns
U12-U31 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U14-U16 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U14-U18 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U14-U20 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U14-U22 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U14-U24 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U14-U26 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U14-U28 Data Latency : 60.2ns
U14-U30 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U14-U1 Data Latency : 24.5ns
U14-U3 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U14-U5 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U14-U7 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U14-U9 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U14-U11 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U14-U13 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U14-U15 Data Latency : 12.8ns
U14-U17 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U14-U19 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U14-U21 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U14-U23 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U14-U25 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U14-U27 Data Latency : 59.6ns
U14-U29 Data Latency : 60.2ns
U14-U31 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U16-U18 Data Latency : 23.4ns
U16-U20 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U16-U22 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U16-U24 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U16-U26 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U16-U28 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U16-U30 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U16-U1 Data Latency : 55.3ns
U16-U3 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U16-U5 Data Latency : 54.5ns
U16-U7 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U16-U9 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U16-U11 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U16-U13 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U16-U15 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U16-U17 Data Latency : 13.0ns
U16-U19 Data Latency : 23.1ns
U16-U21 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U16-U23 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U16-U25 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U16-U27 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U16-U29 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U16-U31 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U18-U20 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U18-U22 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U18-U24 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U18-U26 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U18-U28 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U18-U30 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U18-U1 Data Latency : 54.6ns
U18-U3 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U18-U5 Data Latency : 56.1ns
U18-U7 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U18-U9 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U18-U11 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U18-U13 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U18-U15 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U18-U17 Data Latency : 23.2ns
U18-U19 Data Latency : 13.0ns
U18-U21 Data Latency : 23.8ns
U18-U23 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U18-U25 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U18-U27 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U18-U29 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U18-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U20-U22 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U20-U24 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U20-U26 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U20-U28 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U20-U30 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U20-U1 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U20-U3 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U20-U5 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U20-U7 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U20-U9 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U20-U11 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U20-U13 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U20-U15 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U20-U17 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U20-U19 Data Latency : 24.0ns
U20-U21 Data Latency : 13.3ns
U20-U23 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U20-U25 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U20-U27 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U20-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U20-U31 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U22-U24 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U22-U26 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U22-U28 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U22-U30 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U22-U1 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U22-U3 Data Latency : 56.5ns
U22-U5 Data Latency : 56.8ns
U22-U7 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U22-U9 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U22-U11 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U22-U13 Data Latency : 59.1ns
U22-U15 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U22-U17 Data Latency : 23.8ns
U22-U19 Data Latency : 25.5ns
U22-U21 Data Latency : 24.5ns
U22-U23 Data Latency : 13.2ns
U22-U25 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U22-U27 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U22-U29 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U22-U31 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U24-U26 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U24-U28 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U24-U30 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U24-U1 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U24-U3 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U24-U5 Data Latency : 56.7ns
U24-U7 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U24-U9 Data Latency : 57.7ns
U24-U11 Data Latency : 58.0ns
U24-U13 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U24-U15 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U24-U17 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U24-U19 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U24-U21 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U24-U23 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U24-U25 Data Latency : 13.0ns
U24-U27 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U24-U29 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U24-U31 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U26-U28 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U26-U30 Data Latency : 28.0ns
U26-U1 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U26-U3 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U26-U5 Data Latency : 57.0ns
U26-U7 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U26-U9 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U26-U11 Data Latency : 59.5ns
U26-U13 Data Latency : 59.4ns
U26-U15 Data Latency : 59.3ns
U26-U17 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U26-U19 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U26-U21 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U26-U23 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U26-U25 Data Latency : 26.0ns
U26-U27 Data Latency : 13.2ns
U26-U29 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U26-U31 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U30 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U1 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U28-U3 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U28-U5 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U28-U7 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U28-U9 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U28-U11 Data Latency : 60.3ns
U28-U13 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U28-U15 Data Latency : 59.5ns
U28-U17 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U28-U19 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U28-U21 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U28-U23 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U28-U25 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U28-U27 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U28-U29 Data Latency : 13.1ns
U28-U31 Data Latency : 27.6ns
U30-U1 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U30-U3 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U30-U5 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U30-U7 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U30-U9 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U30-U11 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U30-U13 Data Latency : 60.1ns
U30-U15 Data Latency : 59.9ns
U30-U17 Data Latency : 24.8ns
U30-U19 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U30-U21 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U30-U23 Data Latency : 27.2ns
U30-U25 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U30-U27 Data Latency : 28.4ns
U30-U29 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U30-U31 Data Latency : 13.3ns
U1-U3 Data Latency : 22.8ns
U1-U5 Data Latency : 24.5ns
U1-U7 Data Latency : 23.7ns
U1-U9 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U1-U11 Data Latency : 24.7ns
U1-U13 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U1-U15 Data Latency : 25.1ns
U1-U17 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U1-U19 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U1-U21 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U1-U23 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U1-U25 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U1-U27 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U1-U29 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U1-U31 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U3-U5 Data Latency : 23.9ns
U3-U7 Data Latency : 25.3ns
U3-U9 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U3-U11 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U3-U13 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U3-U15 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U3-U17 Data Latency : 56.2ns
U3-U19 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U3-U21 Data Latency : 56.3ns
U3-U23 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U3-U25 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U3-U27 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U3-U29 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U3-U31 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U5-U7 Data Latency : 24.1ns
U5-U9 Data Latency : 26.4ns
U5-U11 Data Latency : 25.0ns
U5-U13 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U5-U15 Data Latency : 26.1ns
U5-U17 Data Latency : 55.6ns
U5-U19 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U5-U21 Data Latency : 56.9ns
U5-U23 Data Latency : 56.4ns
U5-U25 Data Latency : 57.5ns
U5-U27 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U5-U29 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U5-U31 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U7-U9 Data Latency : 24.6ns
U7-U11 Data Latency : 26.9ns
U7-U13 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U7-U15 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U7-U17 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U7-U19 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U7-U21 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U7-U23 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U7-U25 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U7-U27 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U7-U29 Data Latency : 58.9ns
U7-U31 Data Latency : 59.3ns
U9-U11 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U9-U13 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U9-U15 Data Latency : 26.2ns
U9-U17 Data Latency : 56.6ns
U9-U19 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U9-U21 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U9-U23 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U9-U25 Data Latency : 58.5ns
U9-U27 Data Latency : 58.8ns
U9-U29 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U9-U31 Data Latency : 59.2ns
U11-U13 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U11-U15 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U11-U17 Data Latency : 57.6ns
U11-U19 Data Latency : 57.2ns
U11-U21 Data Latency : 57.8ns
U11-U23 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U11-U25 Data Latency : 58.1ns
U11-U27 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U11-U29 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U11-U31 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U13-U15 Data Latency : 27.7ns
U13-U17 Data Latency : 58.2ns
U13-U19 Data Latency : 57.3ns
U13-U21 Data Latency : 58.7ns
U13-U23 Data Latency : 58.6ns
U13-U25 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U13-U27 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U13-U29 Data Latency : 60.0ns
U13-U31 Data Latency : 57.9ns
U15-U17 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U15-U19 Data Latency : 57.1ns
U15-U21 Data Latency : 58.3ns
U15-U23 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U15-U25 Data Latency : 58.4ns
U15-U27 Data Latency : 59.0ns
U15-U29 Data Latency : 60.4ns
U15-U31 Data Latency : 59.8ns
U17-U19 Data Latency : 23.4ns
U17-U21 Data Latency : 25.2ns
U17-U23 Data Latency : 24.3ns
U17-U25 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U17-U27 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U17-U29 Data Latency : 26.8ns
U17-U31 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U19-U21 Data Latency : 24.4ns
U19-U23 Data Latency : 25.8ns
U19-U25 Data Latency : 24.6ns
U19-U27 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U19-U29 Data Latency : 25.7ns
U19-U31 Data Latency : 27.0ns
U21-U23 Data Latency : 24.9ns
U21-U25 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U21-U27 Data Latency : 25.6ns
U21-U29 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U21-U31 Data Latency : 27.3ns
U23-U25 Data Latency : 25.4ns
U23-U27 Data Latency : 27.5ns
U23-U29 Data Latency : 26.3ns
U23-U31 Data Latency : 27.4ns
U25-U27 Data Latency : 26.5ns
U25-U29 Data Latency : 27.9ns
U25-U31 Data Latency : 27.1ns
U27-U29 Data Latency : 26.7ns
U27-U31 Data Latency : 28.1ns
U29-U31 Data Latency : 27.8ns
1x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.79GB/s
4x 64bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 24.89GB/s
4x 256bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 101.41GB/s
4x 1024bytes Blocks Bandwidth : 304.12GB/s
4x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 442.34GB/s
16x 4kB Blocks Bandwidth : 631.12GB/s
4x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 798.12GB/s
16x 64kB Blocks Bandwidth : 207.78GB/s
8x 256kB Blocks Bandwidth : 284.1GB/s
4x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 283.55GB/s
8x 1024kB Blocks Bandwidth : 37.37GB/s
8x 4MB Blocks Bandwidth : 20.82GB/s

Benchmark Status
Result ID : AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor (16C 32T 3.4GHz, 16x 512kB L2, 2x 32MB L3)
Microcode
Computer : MSI MS-7D13 (MSI MEG B550 UNIFY-X (MS-7D13))
Platform Compliance : x64
Buffering Used : No
No. Threads : 32
System Timer : 10MHz
Page Size : 2MB

Processor
Model : AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
Speed : 3.4GHz
Cores per Processor : 16 Unit(s)
Cores per Compute Unit : 2 Unit(s)
Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHz
Revision/Stepping : 21 / 0
L1D (1st Level) Data Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L1I (1st Level) Code Cache : 16x 32kB, 8-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L2 (2nd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 16x 512kB, 8-Way, Fully Inclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 2 Thread(s)
L3 (3rd Level) Data/Unified Cache : 2x 32MB, 16-Way, Exclusive, 64bytes Line Size, 16 Thread(s)


----------



## delta13c

Hello, two questions:

First is there a way to search this thread?

Second: I am new to Ryzen/ram OC so sorry if this is painfully obvious. I have improved my primary timings, yet get the exact same score in MEMbench - is this normal? My timings are only modestly tightened but my 10 run average is nigh identical. I can see in bios/ryzen master/DRAM calc that the new timings are there, but it seems to have no effect. Thanks for any pointers!

Details:


Spoiler: Details



Stable memtest 1000%
Stable Memtest86 4 passes

4X modules of BL8G36C16U4W, Micron E Die A2
X570 Aorus Pro
5600X (stock)


Old (XMP)NewtCL1615tRCDWR1815tRCDRD1818tRP1816tRAS3836


----------



## fcchin

delta13c said:


> Hello, two questions:
> 
> First is there a way to search this thread?
> 
> Second: I am new to Ryzen/ram OC so sorry if this is painfully obvious. I have improved my primary timings, yet get the exact same score in MEMbench - is this normal? My timings are only modestly tightened but my 10 run average is nigh identical. I can see in bios/ryzen master/DRAM calc that the new timings are there, but it seems to have no effect. Thanks for any pointers!
> 
> Details:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Details
> 
> 
> 
> Stable memtest 1000%
> Stable Memtest86 4 passes
> 
> 4X modules of BL8G36C16U4W, Micron E Die A2
> X570 Aorus Pro
> 5600X (stock)
> 
> 
> Old (XMP)NewtCL1615tRCDWR1815tRCDRD1818tRP1816tRAS3836


Yes, you can search this thread alone, or entire overclock.net

I'd suggest reduce tRFC significantly, this is the primay parameter to reduce latency. My XMP default latency was around 80ns, or less may be..... now under 65ns, this gives me the biggest "HIGH" feeling...... hahahahah 

use calculator / spreadsheet from previous links.


----------



## equlizer34

I'll save everyone the trouble since no one really helped me.

Twtrl =12 or 10 (mine was only stable at 14)
Twtrs =4
TWCL =TCL (can try -1 if unstable)
Trtp =14 (can try 12 or 10)
TrdrdScl/TwrwrScl =4 or 3 (mine is stable at 5)
TRC =Tras+Trp
Trrds =4
tFaw =4x Trrds
TWR =Tras minus trcd
TRFC =8x trc +8 (Can try lower but bench each time you change it)
ProCDDT =Between 28 and 43.3ohm (for amd)
TRRDS/L =4
Tras =TCL+tRCDRD (+2 if unstable)
Trp =Trcd

Adjust tCL, tRCDRW, tRCDRD,tRP and tRAS before adjusting other timings. Adjust each one separately and bench.
Leave all other settings on AUTO. If it is B-die, max safe voltage is 1.5v and SOC is 1.1v. With these settings my command rate is still 1T even though GDM (gear down mode) is enabled. STOP relying on the Dram calculator! Each kit and motherboard will be different. Trust me, do the work, its worth it.


----------



## yabdab

Hi, 
Its my first time overclocking RAM, so I don't know anything about it except a few articles and videos that I saw. My main problem is, that after I put these values from calculator to BIOS and reboot it does nothing and I have to clear CMOS and start again. This happens even if I try to put safe option values. I also tried the settings for 3200 Mhz but same issue, I tried to up Voltage little bit, but didn't help. Should I start with adjusting only the main timings and voltage and see if it works?


Spoiler: My RAM:

















Spoiler: My DRAM calculator settings


----------



## MechanicalNecro

Hey everyone, I just upgraded to a 5800x and 32GB of ram.

I'm trying to get the most out of this system and have never messed with ram beyond enabling xmp.

Here is my ram:









My goal was to either tighten timings to at least cl16 or go for 3800mhz and tighter timings.
I browsed the Ram Overclocking Spreadsheet to see if anyone was using this kit, but to no avail.
I've watched some videos on how to do this, but I guess the most daunting thing is dealing with errors and non-booting.
Any advice out there?

ETA: Forgot to mention that I've got an ASUS ROG Strix Gaming B550-A


----------



## ManniX-ITA

MechanicalNecro said:


> Hey everyone, I just upgraded to a 5800x and 32GB of ram.
> 
> I'm trying to get the most out of this system and have never messed with ram beyond enabling xmp.
> 
> Here is my ram:
> View attachment 2471632
> 
> 
> My goal was to either tighten timings to at least cl16 or go for 3800mhz and tighter timings.
> I browsed the Ram Overclocking Spreadsheet to see if anyone was using this kit, but to no avail.
> I've watched some videos on how to do this, but I guess the most daunting thing is dealing with errors and non-booting.
> Any advice out there?
> 
> ETA: Forgot to mention that I've got an ASUS ROG Strix Gaming B550-A


You can try all settings for the B-die Dual Rank.

Something like this:


http://imgur.com/j3am9h3


You may need to set tFAW to 16 or 24, tWR to 16 or higher, tRDWR/tWRRD at 10/1


----------



## equlizer34

You have the same mobo/cpu that i have and you also have B-die. Try these settings. Are you on the latest bios?

























MechanicalNecro said:


> Hey everyone, I just upgraded to a 5800x and 32GB of ram.
> 
> I'm trying to get the most out of this system and have never messed with ram beyond enabling xmp.
> 
> Here is my ram:
> View attachment 2471632
> 
> 
> My goal was to either tighten timings to at least cl16 or go for 3800mhz and tighter timings.
> I browsed the Ram Overclocking Spreadsheet to see if anyone was using this kit, but to no avail.
> I've watched some videos on how to do this, but I guess the most daunting thing is dealing with errors and non-booting.
> Any advice out there?
> 
> ETA: Forgot to mention that I've got an ASUS ROG Strix Gaming B550-A


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

Can I please get some help with this issue? I've been telling myself to wait for the BIOs update, but I don't know if I can wait any longer. There is one coming for my motherboard and it's right around the corner.

*My computer always takes 2-5 retrains of certain Auto settings to post.* Once it does, everything is fine. Not getting any WHEA errors and pass ram test over night.

I guess there's a setting somewhere I need to set something too. I don't know much about "LLC" settings or what they do. But can that be it? I believe every boot up it tries different settings until it finds one that sticks.


----------



## domdtxdissar

After wasting a few days on bios 3103 for the crosshair viii hero motherboard i'm back to the 3003 bios and have finalized my everyday 24/7 settings.

32gigabyte @ 1900MT/S 4x8gigabyte b-die gskill memory
Prettymuch all timings and voltages are handtuned/maximized/minimized.

Zero errors/WHEA after 1 hour in TestMeM5 with the 1usmus preset. (9 cycles for 32gig)










Screenshot show all settings and voltages, but i can write them also:
dram = 1.56 volt (warmest memorystick reached 44 degrees in TestMeM, normal temp is 32 degrees)
vsoc = 1.1188 volt
cldo vddp = 0.8796 volt
vddg iod = 1.0477 volt
vddg ccd = 0.8796 volt
ProcODT = 43.6

If anyone see something that can be improved/mistakes in the timings, please let me know


----------



## DeletedMember558271

domdtxdissar said:


> After wasting a few days on bios 3103 for the crosshair viii hero motherboard i'm back to the 3003 bios and have finalized my everyday 24/7 settings.
> 
> 32gigabyte @ 1900MT/S 4x8gigabyte b-die gskill memory
> Prettymuch all timings and voltages are handtuned/maximized/minimized.
> 
> Zero errors/WHEA after 1 hour in TestMeM5 with the 1usmus preset. (9 cycles for 32gig)
> 
> View attachment 2471726
> 
> 
> Screenshot show all settings and voltages, but i can write them also:
> dram = 1.56 volt (warmest memorystick reached 44 degrees in TestMeM, normal temp is 32 degrees)
> vsoc = 1.1188 volt
> cldo vddp = 0.8796 volt
> vddg iod = 1.0477 volt
> vddg ccd = 0.8796 volt
> ProcODT = 46.3
> 
> If anyone see something that can be improved/mistakes in the timings, please let me know


How are you measuring your RAM temp? Probe?
I have 4 sticks at 1.44v~ (haven't even bothered to check if I can go lower) and get only 0.2-0.4ns higher than you, for being all the way up at 1.56v I feel like you should be lower.
Also I have a 3080 Asus TUF, if I run that and the 5800x at 100% (or heavy load, playing a demanding game uncapped FPS) for 30 minutes and fire up TM5 right after before all the heat dissipates my RAM will error at 1.52v from heat. Perfectly stable as long I never use my GPU & CPU simultaneously though, which is pretty pointless unless you have no other components that will ever heat up the inside of your PC.

I wish all these RAM stability tests were done under full system load, half of them would probably fail unless your PC doesn't have a GPU or it's watercooled.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Dreamic said:


> How are you measuring your RAM temp? Probe?
> I have 4 sticks at 1.44v~ (haven't even bothered to check if I can go lower) and get only 0.2-0.4ns higher than you, for being all the way up at 1.56v I feel like you should be lower.
> Also I have a 3080 Asus TUF, if I run that and the 5800x at 100% (or heavy load, playing a demanding game uncapped FPS) for 30 minutes and fire up TM5 right after before all the heat dissipates my RAM will error at 1.52v from heat. Perfectly stable as long I never use my GPU & CPU simultaneously though, which is pretty pointless unless you have no other components that will ever heat up the inside of your PC.
> 
> I wish all these RAM stability tests were done under full system load, half of them would probably fail unless your PC doesn't have a GPU or it's watercooled.


Hwinfo can read the temp on my memory sticks








Iam using custom EK watercooling


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> Can I please get some help with this issue? I've been telling myself to wait for the BIOs update, but I don't know if I can wait any longer. There is one coming for my motherboard and it's right around the corner.
> 
> *My computer always takes 2-5 retrains of certain Auto settings to post.* Once it does, everything is fine. Not getting any WHEA errors and pass ram test over night.
> 
> I guess there's a setting somewhere I need to set something too. I don't know much about "LLC" settings or what they do. But can that be it? I believe every boot up it tries different settings until it finds one that sticks.
> View attachment 2471722


Can you be more specific?
I don't understand what is the issue, does it struggle to train the memory at boot?


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> Can you be more specific?
> I don't understand what is the issue, does it struggle to train the memory at boot?


I don't know if it's retraining the memory or if it's cycling through various auto settings it needs to set but the behavior is like it's training the memory for the first time randomly at some boot ups. It'll power on and off a few times and if it doesn't, it'll boot in bios safe mode saying it is having trouble with memory, I'll just reboot it again and it'll boot fine. It just seems to be finding some auto settings.

I hope the new agesa bios fixes it. When it does boot everything works fine. 

O rebooted my computer five times right now and didn't see any issues so I figure right now he has settings it set in the auto fields that it likes.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> I don't know if it's retraining the memory or if it's cycling through various auto settings it needs to set but the behavior is like it's training the memory for the first time randomly at some boot ups. It'll power on and off a few times and if it doesn't, it'll boot in bios safe mode saying it is having trouble with memory, I'll just reboot it again and it'll boot fine. It just seems to be finding some auto settings.
> 
> I hope the new agesa bios fixes it. When it does boot everything works fine.
> 
> O rebooted my computer five times right now and didn't see any issues so I figure right now he has settings it set in the auto fields that it likes.


Understood, most likely it's wrong CAD_BUS or ProcODT and/or VDIMM too low issue.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> Understood, most likely it's wrong CAD_BUS or ProcODT and/or VDIMM too low issue.


So VDIMM is at 1.50V, when it boots it's stabile.

I posted my settings a few post above, do you have a ProcODT or CAD_BUS for me to try?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KingEngineRevUp said:


> So VDIMM is at 1.50V, when it boots it's stabile.
> 
> I posted my settings a few post above, do you have a ProcODT or CAD_BUS for me to try?


What kind of setup is?
4 x 8GB SR?
I'd say try first ProcODT 37,43,48.
if you still have problems try with ClkDrvStr at 40.


----------



## OCmember

I was told 25 cycles of TM5 should be the minimum. Are you guys doing 25 cycles on TM5?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> I was told 25 cycles of TM5 should be the minimum. Are you guys doing 25 cycles on TM5?


Yes, at least 25 cycles 1usmus config to be pretty sure.
For Kahru should be 6400% for 8GB and double for 16GB.


----------



## TycStyle

Hi guys, a pretty basic question here (I think).
I have applied the Fast timings for my G.Skill 3600 cl16 kit (2x8GB). Results in 3dMark and Cinebench are not bad actually and pretty stable as in they run just fine/consistent.
Now, gaming is a whole other story. 2 simple examples: Cyberpunk crashes within a few minutes and even completely froze the PC. Rainbow Six Siege benchmark would crash every single time when starting to render the actual benchmark within a second or 2. So, what to do here? Where to start analysis? Because I'm quite curious about what's behind the behavior, considering the fact that benchmarks are doing fine? Why would in game be such an issue? Bringing back defaults immediately resolved the issues and both run just fine.
Interested in your thoughts.

Cheers

CPU: R7 3700X
Mobo: Gigabyte I Aorus X570 Pro Wifi
GPU: EVGA RTX 3080 xc3 Ultra


----------



## delta13c

So I guess my question is not so much what parameters to use, I'm enjoying the tuning process, but with the "Easy" benchmark results how much of a change should I expect to see? I'm now stable going from 

Old (XMP)CurrenttCL1614tRCDWR1814tRCDRD1817tRP1814tRAS3826

and further dialing down tRAS. My score has gone from 125.5 +/- 0.15 to 123.7 +/- 0.15. I'm not shooting for record-setting, but based on my improvements, how could someone else also at 3600 MHz hit 108.5? Is there some limiting factor in my secondary timings that I will get to later and start seeing more impressive changes maybe?


----------



## OCmember

@TycStyle how did you determine they were stable? Games crashing are a pretty good indicator of system instability


----------



## ManniX-ITA

delta13c said:


> So I guess my question is not so much what parameters to use, I'm enjoying the tuning process, but with the "Easy" benchmark results how much of a change should I expect to see? I'm now stable going from
> 
> Old (XMP)CurrenttCL1614tRCDWR1814tRCDRD1817tRP1814tRAS3826
> 
> and further dialing down tRAS. My score has gone from 125.5 +/- 0.15 to 123.7 +/- 0.15. I'm not shooting for record-setting, but based on my improvements, how could someone else also at 3600 MHz hit 108.5? Is there some limiting factor in my secondary timings that I will get to later and start seeing more impressive changes maybe?


Yes, many others like tRC, tRFC, SCL, etc
It's a "whole", you need to set them properly all together to see big improvements.

Maybe start from some good timings in the spreadsheet if your IC is there:








Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com


----------



## TycStyle

Thanks for asking lol. Well, my assumption was that when benchmarks are constant and do not result in crashes/bad results, this would indicate a stable situation. I was mistaken (as a old apprentice, new to OC'ing) Would trying safe settings be the first go-to strategy?
Cheers.


----------



## MechanicalNecro

equlizer34 said:


> You have the same mobo/cpu that i have and you also have B-die. Try these settings. Are you on the latest bios?
> View attachment 2471657
> View attachment 2471658
> View attachment 2471661


 I am on latest bios. Thank you for these!


----------



## MechanicalNecro

ManniX-ITA said:


> You can try all settings for the B-die Dual Rank.
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/j3am9h3
> 
> 
> You may need to set tFAW to 16 or 24, tWR to 16 or higher, tRDWR/tWRRD at 10/1


Alright will give it a shot thanks!


----------



## delta13c

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes, many others like tRC, tRFC, SCL, etc
> It's a "whole", you need to set them properly all together to see big improvements.
> 
> Maybe start from some good timings in the spreadsheet if your IC is there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zen RAM OC Leaderboards
> 
> 
> Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com


OK, thanks, was just worried my timings were like being ignored or overwritten despite showing up in the calc.


----------



## KingEngineRevUp

ManniX-ITA said:


> What kind of setup is?
> 4 x 8GB SR?
> I'd say try first ProcODT 37,43,48.
> if you still have problems try with ClkDrvStr at 40.


Yes, this exact ram configuration. I'll give it a try. Thank you.


----------



## JimWindy

Happy Holidays!

Q: Is anyone running the new G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C14D-32GTZN memory with a Ryzen 9?


----------



## equlizer34

Please people. DO NOT RELY ON THE CALCULATOR! If you follow the memory overclocking guides, you will find out for yourself what works and what doesn't.


----------



## Kildar

Thaiphoon Says my F4-3600C18-16GTZR are Hynix C-die on a Rev B1 board.
I can OC to 4000 at stock timings and 1.4v but can't seem to get tighter timings even at 3600.
Can anyone offer any suggestions?


----------



## Dash8Q4

Hi all,
I had these settings dialed in(with the exception of RTT_NOM which was off) with a single 16gb kit(2x8gb) and it was working for months. Basically i had them running at 3600 cl16. Now I got another kit and the pc wont even train the ram. Ive tried upping the ram voltage to 1.37v but nothing. Sometimes it goes into a bootloop and after three tries it enters bios. But other times it gets stuck in the dram light and doesnt even POST, which leads to me clearing the cmos to be able to get in again. Any idea what I can try to get all 32gb overclocked?

R7 3700x
ddr4 3200 cl14 bdie
2x m.2s
4x sata drives
2080 super


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Dash8Q4 said:


> Hi all,
> I had these settings dialed in(with the exception of RTT_NOM which was off) with a single 16gb kit(2x8gb) and it was working for months. Basically i had them running at 3600 cl16. Now I got another kit and the pc wont even train the ram. Ive tried upping the ram voltage to 1.37v but nothing. Sometimes it goes into a bootloop and after three tries it enters bios. But other times it gets stuck in the dram light and doesnt even POST, which leads to me clearing the cmos to be able to get in again. Any idea what I can try to get all 32gb overclocked?
> 
> R7 3700x
> ddr4 3200 cl14 bdie
> 2x m.2s
> 4x sata drives
> 2080 super
> View attachment 2472153


Did you try to swap the DIMM slots?


----------



## Dash8Q4

Edit: swapped the dimms around, cleared cmos and reentered those settings and it's working now. I lowered trcdrd to 16 instead of 17 tho.
Anything else i can try tightening to keep squeezing? thx


----------



## Akex

Hi, on my old config [Crosshair VI + 2700X] my 4x8 bdie kit was running at 3600C12 h24. Today with a Strix B550-E I am stable at 3900C16, I managed to do 24 hours without error with DRAM calculator. Then I wanted to have fun trying to get past Cas12 but it is immediately unstable no matter how much voltage I apply. Any idea what can improve the situation?
@Veii Your analysis is welcome


----------



## OCmember

Quick question, does the latency test in the calculator work with Vermeer? I just installed a 5800X and ran the test and custom latency was 3.5? with random latency @ 80. Haven't tuned anything yet.. it's not even been 10 min since I installed it.


----------



## X570-3900X-DE

JimWindy said:


> Happy Holidays!
> 
> Q: Is anyone running the new G.Skill Trident Z Neo F4-3600C14D-32GTZN memory with a Ryzen 9?


yes me


----------



## Alexshunter

If my memory aint stable at 4000MHz fclk, than which components would need extra voltage and howe much?


----------



## OCmember

Alexshunter said:


> If my memory aint stable at 4000MHz fclk, than which components would need extra voltage and howe much?


Post a pic of your ZenTimings


----------



## Alexshunter

OCmember said:


> Post a pic of your ZenTimings


Yes, here it is coming,


----------



## newls1

using this ram ( G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Intel XMP 2.0 Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14D-32GVK - Newegg.com ) and dram calc 1.7.3 and i did the correct way of importing xmp timings, the program defaults to "manual" for PCB Revision and gives really LOW LOW timings that cant be correct for 3800MT/s speed. I've adjusted some but not all. TRFC is way low, and others... Anyone have this ram and can share with me the timings they used. Ill post my most current zentimings pic


----------



## OCmember

Alexshunter said:


> Yes, here it is coming,


My bios on my Xtreme says this about VGGD: _VDDG represents voltage for the data portion of the Infinity Fabric. It is derived from the CPU SoC/Uncore Voltage (VDD_SOC). *VDDG can approach but not exceed VDD_SOC*. _

If I were you I would lower the VDDG voltage as it exceeds the Vcore volts.


----------



## Alexshunter

OCmember said:


> My bios on my Xtreme says this about VGGD: _VDDG represents voltage for the data portion of the Infinity Fabric. It is derived from the CPU SoC/Uncore Voltage (VDD_SOC). *VDDG can approach but not exceed VDD_SOC*. _
> 
> If I were you I would lower the VDDG voltage as it exceeds the Vcore volts.


And it is right, and i changed these values and got stable, thank you. However still slower than at 3800MHz.


----------



## Alexshunter

So at 4000MHz, even my curzor is sluggish, I had to choose 3933MHz instead. I wonder for 4000MHz can I do something more? I link again my settings,










Or if I have to stick with 3933MHz, is it worth to tighten something more?


----------



## Alyjen

@Alexshunter have you tested your system for stability at higher FCLK? If your results gets lower as you increase FCLK it usually means you get a lot of whea warnings or errors in task manager. TM5 will work without errors, but system is not yet stable and this lack of stability impacts performance, at higher FCLK you'll get hundreds of these errors even at idle. If you don't get them at idle but some stress tests (Prime95, OCCT, y-cruncher) or even casual gaming can force them then you're close to stability.

Either user HWiNFO (it'll catch these errors, and present them at the very bottom by default).
Or check Windows Event viewer and look for something like the one attached


----------



## Hmm on

Alyjen said:


> @Alexshunter have you tested your system for stability at higher FCLK? If your results gets lower as you increase FCLK it usually means you get a lot of whea warnings or errors in task manager. TM5 will work without errors, but system is not yet stable and this lack of stability impacts performance, at higher FCLK you'll get hundreds of these errors even at idle. If you don't get them at idle but some stress tests (Prime95, OCCT, y-cruncher) or even casual gaming can force them then you're close to stability.
> 
> Either user HWiNFO (it'll catch these errors, and present them at the very bottom by default).
> Or check Windows Event viewer and look for something like the one attached
> 
> View attachment 2472486


In the past . You can do eweryting on all . But today very more difficult today. And All parameters have increased by over 1000%.


----------



## Hmm on

Hmm on said:


> %.


It is interesting that the new system is going now . Is exactly the old system . Single difference bytes to 64 bit system.


----------



## Gaav

Any help with settings cant seem to do CR1 ?


----------



## newls1

when might this app be updated for vermeer?


----------



## newls1

can someone please offer some assistance?! I've asked seversl times and have not gotten any feedback! Just a simple question for you smart people that know the correct settings... im usiing this ram G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Intel XMP 2.0 Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14D-32GVK - Newegg.com just looking to see what settings to input for my vermeer 5950x setup at 3800/1900. dram calc has settings that default to "manual pcb layout" and those settings are jacked... appreciate any feedback.


----------



## equlizer34

Use These guides as Dram calc is a very basic tool. You can't just throw numbers around. I would personally only change the settings they talk about and leave the rest at auto.
No one helped me either so i did some digging 








"

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2
"
"

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/c1ebrh
"
"integralfx/MemTestHelper"



newls1 said:


> can someone please offer some assistance?! I've asked seversl times and have not gotten any feedback! Just a simple question for you smart people that know the correct settings... im usiing this ram G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Intel XMP 2.0 Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14D-32GVK - Newegg.com just looking to see what settings to input for my vermeer 5950x setup. dram calc has settings that default to "manual pcb layout" and those settings are jacked... appreciate any feedback.


----------



## Hale59

newls1 said:


> can someone please offer some assistance?! I've asked seversl times and have not gotten any feedback! Just a simple question for you smart people that know the correct settings... im usiing this ram G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Intel XMP 2.0 Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14D-32GVK - Newegg.com just looking to see what settings to input for my vermeer 5950x setup. dram calc has settings that default to "manual pcb layout" and those settings are jacked... appreciate any feedback.


The calculator is for matisse, not vermeer.


----------



## Alexshunter

Alyjen said:


> @Alexshunter have you tested your system for stability at higher FCLK? If your results gets lower as you increase FCLK it usually means you get a lot of whea warnings or errors in task manager. TM5 will work without errors, but system is not yet stable and this lack of stability impacts performance, at higher FCLK you'll get hundreds of these errors even at idle. If you don't get them at idle but some stress tests (Prime95, OCCT, y-cruncher) or even casual gaming can force them then you're close to stability.
> 
> Either user HWiNFO (it'll catch these errors, and present them at the very bottom by default).
> Or check Windows Event viewer and look for something like the one attached
> 
> View attachment 2472486


Ohh, thanks, I have plenty whea errors in Windows 10 event. What should i do? I can give extra voltage to RAM it is only at 1.45V. Or do I need to lower DRAM frequency?


----------



## Alyjen

Alexshunter said:


> Ohh, thanks, I have plenty whea errors in Windows 10 event. What should i do? I can give extra voltage to RAM it is only at 1.45V. Or do I need to lower DRAM frequency?


This really depends. whea 19 warnings - bus/interconnect error are usually caused by infinity fabric (also called FCLK) instability. There's a lot of good info and discussions in this [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
My approach is:
If you are a little unstable, meaning no whea in idle, no crashes or weird issues, but stress tests or gaming are causing whea to appear then you can try to adjust VSOC, VDDP, VDDG voltages according to guides in the thread I've posted.
Or you are very unstable (lots of whea in idle) then drop fclk first and retest. For lots of users 1900 is the barier beyond which issues starts, there are of course lucky ones running FLCK 2000 without any issues 

So like I said it depends on how many you get and when. HWiNFO is really good in capturing these in real time, you'll find this at the very bottom.
I'd start from dropping to FCLK1900 memory 3800. But if you feel like it's close to have it stable at 2000 then go for it.


----------



## OCmember

newls1 said:


> can someone please offer some assistance?! I've asked seversl times and have not gotten any feedback! Just a simple question for you smart people that know the correct settings... im usiing this ram G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Intel XMP 2.0 Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14D-32GVK - Newegg.com just looking to see what settings to input for my vermeer 5950x setup at 3800/1900. dram calc has settings that default to "manual pcb layout" and those settings are jacked... appreciate any feedback.


Something is odd with the calculator. For the longest time my XMP profile for my F4-3800C-8GTZN kit with PCB revision on manual, and the Fast preset, the tCL was returning 12 for 1900/3800. Last night it started returning tCL14 for the same speed. I have no idea why that happened. Maybe try hitting the reset option above import XMP profile?

EDIT: or maybe try enabling Gear Down Mode in the bios?


----------



## equlizer34

DON'T RELY ON THE DAMN CALCULATOR!!! Gear down mode almost always lets you go higher mhz and lower timings. Read the memory guides that have been posted here many times. I was like you guys last month, asking how do i do this and that and trying to get a quick answer, but there is none. You need to try each setting and reboot and bench and pass. Then repeat process over and over and over and over again. For all you know you could be making your performance worse instead of better.


----------



## Akex

Hale59 said:


> The calculator is for matisse, not vermeer.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347567097342255104


----------



## Joeking78

Yo,

Started following this thread recently after clocking my ram...where can I find links/settings for stress testing tools to validate my overclock?

I've run several passes of Ryzen DRAM calc stress test but sure its not enough.

My best Aida run with PBO enabled:










Any tips on my timings would be greatly appreciated


----------



## KedarWolf

equlizer34 said:


> Use These guides as Dram calc is a very basic tool. You can't just throw numbers around. I would personally only change the settings they talk about and leave the rest at auto.
> No one helped me either so i did some digging
> View attachment 2472562
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/ahs5a2


Hey, if you going to post a guide the scrolls for pages and pages of the browser, can you please put it in a spoiler.

And could you do that now anyway, when I click on a new post on this page I need to scroll forever to get to it. Just edit the post, please.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Joeking78 said:


> Yo,
> 
> Started following this thread recently after clocking my ram...where can I find links/settings for stress testing tools to validate my overclock?
> 
> I've run several passes of Ryzen DRAM calc stress test but sure its not enough.
> 
> My best Aida run with PBO enabled:
> 
> View attachment 2473324
> 
> 
> Any tips on my timings would be greatly appreciated
> 
> View attachment 2473321


Use this:









Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs


Hello everybody I am just making a very light tutorial with a collection of custom config files and a DOWNLOAD LINK for TM5 v0.12 anta777 absolut config *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread None of the work is mine but it seems like a pretty good and fast testing app




www.overclock.net


----------



## Joeking78

Thanks @ManniX-ITA


----------



## Joeking78

Ran for 90 mins...errors in the first test but increased ClkDrvStr to 60 and it went well after that. Will play around some more later to try and get 14 tRCDRD


----------



## asphyxia

Question regarding VDDG voltages CCD and IOD, can they both be at 0.950v when my infinity fabric is at 1800mhz and soc voltage at 1.100v or i need to follow a pattern like this post OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18


----------



## ManniX-ITA

asphyxia said:


> Question regarding VDDG voltages CCD and IOD, can they both be at 0.950v when my infinity fabric is at 1800mhz and soc voltage at 1.100v or i need to follow a pattern like this post OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18


Depends on your CPU sample, some needs more others less.
Wrong or insufficient VDDG voltages can lead to instability, USB voltage drops, audio crackling and/or lower performances.
Same if the voltage is too high, usually first issue to pop up is audio crackling.

You need to raise IOD for higher IF and memory overclocking/tight timings.
High VSOC as well is needed for overlock and better performances; rarely 1.12V is enough, mostly at least 1.15V.
Sometimes also CCD; mine works at 950mV but I need 1000mV to get a proper score for AES-XTS benchmark in Geekbench 5.

Eg. for IF 2067 my 5950x need CCD 1050mV IOD 1120mV and VSOC 1180mV.

In general for IF 1800 shouldn't be needed more than CCD 1000 and IOD 1050.
VDDP can be left at 900 in most cases unless it's a very high frequency memory configuration.


----------



## asphyxia

ManniX-ITA said:


> Depends on your CPU sample, some needs more others less.
> Wrong or insufficient VDDG voltages can lead to instability, USB voltage drops, audio crackling and/or lower performances.
> Same if the voltage is too high, usually first issue to pop up is audio crackling.
> 
> You need to raise IOD for higher IF and memory overclocking/tight timings.
> High VSOC as well is needed for overlock and better performances; rarely 1.12V is enough, mostly at least 1.15V.
> Sometimes also CCD; mine works at 950mV but I need 1000mV to get a proper score for AES-XTS benchmark in Geekbench 5.
> 
> Eg. for IF 2067 my 5950x need CCD 1050mV IOD 1120mV and VSOC 1180mV.
> 
> In general for IF 1800 shouldn't be needed more than CCD 1000 and IOD 1050.
> VDDP can be left at 900 in most cases unless it's a very high frequency memory configuration.


I see, my cpu is ryzen 3600 and ram 2x8gb 3200mhz cl16 but I oc it to 3600mhz cl18, and my vddg voltage ccd and iod automatically changed to 1100v along with soc at 1100v and I heard it needs to be lower 50mV for the vddg 

With 3200mhz my vddg was at 0.950v


----------



## ManniX-ITA

asphyxia said:


> I see, my cpu is ryzen 3600 and ram 3200mhz cl16 but I oc it to 3600mhz cl18, and my vddg voltage ccd and iod changed to 1100v along with soc at 1100v and I heard it needs to be lower 50mV for the vddg


Shouldn't be needed VDDG at 1100mV for that speed.
Try with CCD at 900 and IOD at 950.
If you need more CCD 950 and IOD at 1050 should be already more than enough.
If you have to run IOD at 1050 set SOC higher, at least 1120.
Due to LLC it could go below 1100 and this could bring the gap with IOD too low and cause instability.


----------



## mikalcarbine

@Veii 

I was wondering if you could give some input on these timings for my Micron E Die. I can't seem to change tRDWR and tWWRD without failing to post. I realized after the fact I had these on auto while tightening tCWL. If I loosen tCWL I can run tCWL 16 tRDWR 9 and tWWRD 2 (I get these from auto) with the rest of these timings. Benchmarks from AIDA64 don't show any difference. I've read some of the info you posted about setting these and can't seem to get any of your rules to work.

Lowering tRP to 16 leads to a handful of errors I could not get rid of
tRC seems to have a wall, not sure if this could be related to other timings or just a bad bin
I haven't really pushed tRFC but it doesn't clock well with these sticks.


----------



## Audioboxer

Hey guys, pretty new to DDR4 tuning and having finally settled on my 3900XT OC, I'm looking for some RAM tips. I took safe settings from 1usmus' DRAM tool and done a bit of tweaking to the below










Any areas in there I should focus on? It's Micron E-die that's in Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro. So not necessarily the best. It was rated 3600 18-22-22-22-42 as standard so I'm already doing quite well (I think... lol).


----------



## mikalcarbine

Audioboxer said:


> Hey guys, pretty new to DDR4 tuning and having finally settled on my 3900XT OC, I'm looking for some RAM tips. I took safe settings from 1usmus' DRAM tool and done a bit of tweaking to the below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any areas in there I should focus on? It's Micron E-die that's in Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro. So not necessarily the best. It was rated 3600 18-22-22-22-42 as standard so I'm already doing quite well (I think... lol).


I'm no pro but it's looking pretty good so far. Can you tighten up tRP even with a little more voltage? TRCDWR should be able to go down a bit as well as your TWRTL 10 or 8. You might be able to lower TRTP as well try 10 and maybe 8


----------



## Audioboxer

mikalcarbine said:


> I'm no pro but it's looking pretty good so far. Can you tighten up tRP even with a little more voltage? TRCDWR should be able to go down a bit as well as your TWRTL 10 or 8. You might be able to lower TRTP as well try 10 and maybe 8


I tried 16-18-18-18 and whilst the PC boots it's a bluescreen or reboot on Windows login. I tried with 1.45V (currently using 1.42V) and no go either. But I've yet to try individually setting them.

I'll try your other suggestions as well thanks.


----------



## OCmember

Anyone using these in an AMD system?

Model F4-4000C15Q-32GTRS, CL15.16.16.36 @ 4000








G.SKILL Trident Z Royal Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) Desktop Memory Model F4-4000C15Q-32GTRS - Newegg.com


Buy G.SKILL Trident Z Royal Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) Desktop Memory Model F4-4000C15Q-32GTRS with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.com


----------



## devoker

Trining always fails at 3600 cl16. I tried all alternatives for cad bus but it doesn't work. should I change rtt_park and rtt_wr? What values do you suggest? (I have got a bad bin probably though)


----------



## hsn

i put ram cooler on my patriot


----------



## umeng2002

devoker said:


> Trining always fails at 3600 cl16. I tried all alternatives for cad bus but it doesn't work. should I change rtt_park and rtt_wr? What values do you suggest? (I have got a bad bin probably though)


It fails when you leave the Termination Block settings to auto? Leave RTT_NOM, WR, PARK, ProcODT, and the CAD_BUS settings all on Auto. Just put in the timings and voltages. 

On my system, I've had more instability when manually entering those Termination Block settings than just leaving them on Auto... with the latest BIOSs though.


----------



## DeletedMember558271

hsn said:


> i put ram cooler on my patriot
> View attachment 2473663


Now you just need to run benchmarks that get your GPU & CPU to heat up your case/room or play demanding games that put heavy load on both and run TM5 as soon as you're done playing before it all cools down and see if it spits out any errors in the first couple minutes. 3080 + 5800x in my case will get your RAM hotter than just stressing the RAM when everything else is cool and idle


----------



## hsn

Dreamic said:


> Now you just need to run benchmarks that get your GPU & CPU to heat up your case/room or play demanding games that put heavy load on both and run TM5 as soon as you're done playing before it all cools down and see if it spits out any errors in the first couple minutes. 3080 + 5800x in my case will get your RAM hotter than just stressing the RAM when everything else is cool and idle


how to find the result and the different between GDM enable vs Disable?


----------



## DeletedMember558271

hsn said:


> how to find the result and the different between GDM enable vs Disable?


Idk I haven't really bothered with it, I have 4 sticks and it seems hard to get off. On the Zen Overclocking Spreadsheet only one person with 4 sticks has it off and it's not even a good result really


----------



## devoker

umeng2002 said:


> It fails when you leave the Termination Block settings to auto? Leave RTT_NOM, WR, PARK, ProcODT, and the CAD_BUS settings all on Auto. Just put in the timings and voltages.
> 
> On my system, I've had more instability when manually entering those Termination Block settings than just leaving them on Auto... with the latest BIOSs though.


Doesn't matter auto or manual. I could hardly boot with cl16 3600 at 1.45V which results in system crash right after boot. Tried random rttpart and procodt settings but nothing helps.


----------



## KedarWolf

My b-die G.Skill is really sensitive to heat. If I run my RAM fans at 6800 RPM, which is kind of loud, can just hear it over my headset, my RAM temps top out at 31C and Ollie TM5 running 6 hours passes all tests.

If I run my RAM fans at 3000 RPM which is silent, my RAM tops at 41C, and Ollie RAM test running 6 hours spewed out 31 errors.









DELTA 6CM 6025 60x60x25mm QFR0612UH 12V 0.70A 4-wire 4Pin PWM cooling fan | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for DELTA 6CM 6025 60x60x25mm QFR0612UH 12V 0.70A 4-wire 4Pin PWM cooling fan at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



www.ebay.ca














You can get the same fans cheaper here, but shipping can take a month or more from China to the USA/Canada.









6.75US $ 10% OFF|6CM 6025 60x60x25mm QFR0612UH 4 wire 4Pin PWM double ball bearing high volume air cooling fan|Fans & Cooling| - AliExpress


Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com




www.aliexpress.com





My RAM fans I put in this frame.









14.43US $ 23% OFF|ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500 4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4|memory cooler|ram coolerram memory cooler - AliExpress


Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com




www.aliexpress.com


----------



## OCmember

Resting a 140mm fan on your GPU pointed towards the RAM is probably more effective than those tiny whinny fans.


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I was looking at doing the same with tiny fans on top of the memory but got lazy and just zip tied an extra 120mm fan I had laying around, on the same curve that my exhaust fans are running and the memory doesn’t go over 43c now where before I was getting 55+c. I will be looking into a more permanent solution when I get around to building my 1st custom loop this spring.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Claymore1984

HI, There I'am new to AMD and trying to get the best out of my system in terms of performance I have a question I'm using a Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 if I let it on auto It can do 1900/3800 16-18-18-18-38 (with just basic DOCP) I wanted to mess with tightening other stuff in the BIOS so I downloaded Typhoon and DRamCalc I export the report from Typhoon load it in DRamCalc fill out everything and no matter what frequency I set as long as I set *Micron-B die* which it is all I get is not supported if I set it to Samsung-B die it works otherwise it won't is there a solution for this or should/can I use a different die type???


----------



## algida79

@Claymore1984 the calculator's preset for Micron rev.B is for Micron's now very old 8Gbit rev.B memory chips. If your DIMMs are 16GB capacity each, they will either have 16x chips of Micron rev.E (8Gbit each) in a dual-sided configuration or 8x chips of the newer Micron rev.B (16Gbit each) in a single-sided configuration. In the calculator, you want to use the Micron rev.E preset and set the Ranks to 2. The 2 types of memory ICs have similar OC potential with subtle differences, e.g. if yours are the new rev.B you might be able to tighten tWR, tWRRD and tRFC a little further than what the calculator shows for rev.E


----------



## Claymore1984

algida79 said:


> @Claymore1984 the calculator's preset for Micron rev.B is for Micron's now very old 8Gbit rev.B memory chips. Your kit has either 16x chips of Micron rev.E (8Gbit each) in a dual-sided configuration or 8x chips of the newer Micron rev.B (16Gbit each) in a single-sided configuration. In the calculator, you want to use the Micron rev.E preset and set the Ranks to 2. The 2 types of chips are close to OC potential with subtle differences, e.g. if yours are the new rev.B you might be able to tighten tWR, tWRRD and tRFC a little further.


Thx for the reply the reason I'm a bit confused is when I red about this memory prior buying it ppl sad its lottery if I get dual or single rank they exist in both versions as I use it in a 32kit(2x16) I researched that in this case it shouldn't really matter, but typhoon sad it a rank 1 that should be single rank in that case could it be the older B die? Also do I have any real life benefit tinkering with it? or just let DOCP auto set things the main timings are 16 18 18 18 36 the rest is on auto (asus crosshair VIII Hero + 5900x)? tbh I like tinkering but most settings are an unknown to me and just setting them on whim and guesswork is pointless


----------



## devoker

I can push 3800 Mhz with my ram without whea errors but there are crackling sounds in the audio. I tried lowering soc voltage from 1.1 to 1.05 and 1.09 but didn't help and started getting errors in the prime98 smallest. Should I increase soc to 1.12?


----------



## KedarWolf

devoker said:


> I can push 3800 Mhz with my ram without whea errors but there are crackling sounds in the audio. I tried lowering soc voltage from 1.1 to 1.05 and 1.09 but didn't help and started getting errors in the prime98 smallest. Should I increase soc to 1.12?


I had to use DDU to uninstall my audio drivers, then reinstall them to fix that.


----------



## gooshpitz

Hi. I think this is about as good as it gets on my system. If anyone has some sugestions in regards to timings in case I'm breaking some rules pls let me know. 
Also no matter what I try I can't set AddrCmdSetup 0, unless it's a reading error, and ram voltage spiking is bothering me to no end )


----------



## drotaru

no matter what i do i cant lower TRCDRD more than 21 also cant seem to lower tRC more than 60, vdram is 1.42 in bios right now and showing 1.45v with hwmonitor64 ( calculated trfc based on trc with tRFC calculator mini by Veii ) is it mismatched timings ?
They seem stable with TM5 1usmusv3 profile and also OCCT ram test also checked the IF and that one seems stable aswell ( not fully sure as there isnt a dedicated stress test for that i just do P95 Blend and OCCT Power stress )
also my mem copy score(aida64) seems a bit low compared to others with same timings and freq as mine.
Another weird issue is that if i set a static OC of 4.4ghz on the CPU my aida64 score increases a bit ( 54700.. / 30399 / 50100 / 64.4 ) why is that ? Have it with pbo and EDC bug right now
Could someone chime in and tell my if my timings are good overall ?( i have the feeling iv set some of them wrong and its causing delays or the IC is autocorrecting them for me )
ICs are Hynix CJR acording to typhoon burner and as far as i could tell from examining them they are Rev. A2 originally corsair 3600 CL16/22/22/43
LE: if i lower tRCDRD to 20 i get alot of error 6 in TM5


----------



## Bohemian

I bought 2 kits of 2x8gb Patriot Viper Steel 4400mhz cl19 for my Asus Strix B450-E gaming mobo. After recent bios update I am able to run 1 kit at 4000mhz fclk 2000 cl16, 15,15,15,30,45 trfc 306 at 1.45V rock stable, but running 2 of this kits I am only able to run it on 3400mhz fclk 1700 cl14,14,14,28,44, trfc 256 at 1.4V. Its Samsung B-die, single rank. I am wondering if anyone can get higher frequencies with 4x ram sticks and what hold me down from maintain higher clocks. A) its B450 chip(probably Daisy chain config) or B) its not true 4x8gb kit. CPU used is Ryzen 9 5900x stock(no OC or PBO).


----------



## hsn

still try to get more low trfc


----------



## kratosatlante

hsn said:


> still try to get more low trfc
> 
> View attachment 2475231


less trfc need more voltaje, for you actual voltaje viper can do 245 or 240 trfc, for less 234 1.5 -1.51 v for 238 1.54v for 221 1.57v all in bios


----------



## kratosatlante

Bohemian said:


> I bought 2 kits of 2x8gb Patriot Viper Steel 4400mhz cl19 for my Asus Strix B450-E gaming mobo. After recent bios update I am able to run 1 kit at 4000mhz fclk 2000 cl16, 15,15,15,30,45 trfc 306 at 1.45V rock stable, but running 2 of this kits I am only able to run it on 3400mhz fclk 1700 cl14,14,14,28,44, trfc 256 at 1.4V. Its Samsung B-die, single rank. I am wondering if anyone can get higher frequencies with 4x ram sticks and what hold me down from maintain higher clocks. A) its B450 chip(probably Daisy chain config) or B) its not true 4x8gb kit. CPU used is Ryzen 9 5900x stock(no OC or PBO).
> View attachment 2475399
> View attachment 2475400


for 4000/2000 for sticks viper 4400 I must put procodt 32 , for 3800 work with 36, try 32 and up trwr to 10 and twrrd 4 1.5v+


ram stable but, whea error, not so stable, have les latency with 2t gdm off


----------



## Bohemian

Cur


hsn said:


> still try to get more low trfc
> 
> View attachment 2475231


I am trying to find perfect speed and timings for 24/7 use with safe voltage of max 1.45V which this kit is designed for. I dont think 1.5V+ is safe for 24/7 use, but just fore short testing.


----------



## Bohemian

kratosatlante said:


> for 4000/2000 for sticks viper 4400 I must put procodt 32 , for 3800 work with 36, try 32 and up trwr to 10 and twrrd 4 1.5v+
> 
> 
> ram stable but, whea error, not so stable, have les latency with 2t gdm off
> View attachment 2475424
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2475426
> View attachment 2475427


Impresive results with 4 sticks! I will try 4 sticks again, but I am afraid no matter what, my highest stable speed with 4 sticks and 0 errors is 3400mhz. I can boot up with 3466mhz, but with manny errors while testing. Whats your ram voltage for 4 sticks at 4000mhz? I think issue is with my B450 motherboard and its ram controller.


----------



## kratosatlante

Bohemian said:


> Impresive results with 4 sticks! I will try 4 sticks again, but I am afraid no matter what, my highest stable speed with 4 sticks and 0 errors is 3400mhz. I can boot up with 3466mhz, but with manny errors while testing. Whats your ram voltage for 4 sticks at 4000mhz? I think issue is with my B450 motherboard and its ram controller.


4x8 4000 cl 16 1.52v, cl15 1.55v but whea errors, runing 3800/1900 cl14 very tigh trfc 221 1.58v
old bios pbo auto









bios 4201 pbo + curve optimizer









last bios 4202 add latency









runing bios 4201 for now


----------



## Bohemian

kratosatlante said:


> 4x8 4000 cl 16 1.52v, cl15 1.55v but whea errors, runing 3800/1900 cl14 very tigh trfc 221 1.58v
> old bios pbo auto
> View attachment 2475457
> 
> 
> bios 4201 pbo + curve optimizer
> View attachment 2475458
> 
> 
> last bios 4202 add latency
> View attachment 2475459
> 
> 
> runing bios 4201 for now


1.58V jesus. You run this for 24/7?


----------



## kratosatlante

Bohemian said:


> 1.58V jesus. You run this for 24/7?


yes from 1 year or more with 3600 and now with 5600x ,have cooler in ram, set 1.57 drop to 1.537 in 3600, now set 1.58









for 1.45 try trfc 245 or more with same timings
or this less agresive


----------



## Audioboxer

With my original timings on Micron E-die and advice from an earlier post in this thread I went to work trying to tighten things more. I was only just made aware putting geardownmode on can lead to tighter timings even if there is a small latency penalty. Idea seems to be if you can tighten up enough it'll mitigate the penalty.

Currently sitting here now










No matter what I do I can't get tRCDRD stable at 19. Boots windows fine, but Memtest errors. The above has been stable for an hour of Memtest.

If it works fine after stability tests does everyone think that's about as tight as it'll go? Keep in mind this was rated 18-22-22-42 3600


----------



## algida79

@Audioboxer I suspect Micron is mostly keeping the good bins for their Crucial kits and giving slightly lower bins to customers like Corsair. At 3800MT/s GDM off 1.38V, my Ballistix Rev.E kit can do tRCDRD 20 or tRCDRD 19 if I enable GDM. ZenTimings screenshot from my current settings, which passed a 25cycle TM5 test last night:










SoC is 1.025V SET, here it shows a little droop because Prime95 Large FFTs is running.

I am currently in the process of finding minimum stable voltages and termination values before trying to tighten the timings, I have found this is a good approach to RAM OC. Or at least it has worked for me in the past with the same kit and a 2700X.


----------



## Audioboxer

algida79 said:


> @Audioboxer I suspect Micron is mostly keeping the good bins for their Crucial kits and giving slightly lower bins to customers like Corsair. At 3800MT/s GDM off 1.38V, my Ballistix Rev.E kit can do tRCDRD 20 or tRCDRD 19 if I enable GDM. ZenTimings screenshot from my current settings, which passed a 25cycle TM5 test last night:
> 
> View attachment 2475709
> 
> 
> I am currently in the process of finding minimum stable voltages and termination values before trying to tighten the timings.


Thanks, let me know how you get on! Seems there is a degree of black magic involved in memory OCing. I thought getting my CPU setup how I wanted it took hours, but the real end game seems to be DDR4 timings/stability 🤣

I didn't have a massive budget for a new rig 4-5 months ago so when it came to ram just about anything decent on offer was a massive improvement for me. Even if this was running around default I'd be happy enough so any sorts of improvements are welcome.

I'm at 1.45v just now which seems to be a bit pointless for E-die if my understanding is it doesn't scale that great with voltage. I too will see if 1.42-1.44v is stable once I'm happy timings can't be tweaked anymore.

Edit - Booo, AIDA64 stability test error. So we're not stable. Back to loosening and Memtest for longer than an hour lol.


----------



## Veii

@Audioboxer don't just run ClkDrvStr 60 with GDM enabled
that's for 2T GDM disabled, or 1T
Try to run RTT 7/1/2 or 7/0/2
CAD_BUS 40-20-20-20
CAD_BUS timing 3-3-15
tCKE 9
@ procODT 36.9
^ 2T

Fix your tRC to be tRAS+tRP "for now"








tRFC mini


TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...




docs.google.com




to figure out tRFC

Low tRRD_ & tWTR_ are not always beneficial
tFAW has to stay 4* tRRD_S ,
tWTR_L optimally is 2* tRRD_L

TM5 to test for errors , not Aida64








OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18


I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...




www.overclock.net




Voltage Patterns for Matisse








OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18


I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...




www.overclock.net




Deciphering TM5 Errors








Ryzen Google Calculator!


Change Note 0.7b 10-8-2021,- v0.7b.6c TM5 -,#ADD anta777_ABSOLUT 7-13-2021,- v0.7b.6b Layout -,#CHANGE some position and color TM5 -,#ADD some ex Voltage -,#CHANGE "VDDG CCD" multiplier min value to 0 5-1-2021,- v0.7b.6a tRFC -,#FIX "N/A" Error, when shoud show "tRTP_ERROR #2" 4-30-2021,- v0.7b.5c




docs.google.com





Rev.E scales positive only after 1.56v , it doesn't behave well between 1.47-1.54v
RTT values will need to change if you exceed beyond 1.48v-1.5v

Presets example of cm87


----------



## Saiger0

@Veii any timings i forgot that run (unnecessarily) out of sync?


----------



## Audioboxer

Veii said:


> @Audioboxer don't just run ClkDrvStr 60 with GDM enabled
> that's for 2T GDM disabled, or 1T
> Try to run RTT 7/1/2 or 7/0/2
> CAD_BUS 40-20-20-20
> CAD_BUS timing 3-3-15
> tCKE 9
> @ procODT 36.9
> ^ 2T
> 
> Fix your tRC to be tRAS+tRP "for now"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC mini
> 
> 
> TM5 Error Description ,TM5 Errors Decyphered,SOURCE 1usmus_V3,Error Type,Error Description ERROR #0,RefreshStable 0Mb,Voltage cutoff choke, suspect tRRD & tWTR Nearly always tRRD & tWTR but can also be too low tRP or tiny bit too low tRC (if user used > -3 on tRC) Start by adding VDIMM 6x Err...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to figure out tRFC
> 
> Low tRRD_ & tWTR_ are not always beneficial
> tFAW has to stay 4* tRRD_S ,
> tWTR_L optimally is 2* tRRD_L
> 
> TM5 to test for errors , not Aida64
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18
> 
> 
> I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voltage Patterns for Matisse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18
> 
> 
> I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deciphering TM5 Errors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen Google Calculator!
> 
> 
> Change Note 0.7b 10-8-2021,- v0.7b.6c TM5 -,#ADD anta777_ABSOLUT 7-13-2021,- v0.7b.6b Layout -,#CHANGE some position and color TM5 -,#ADD some ex Voltage -,#CHANGE "VDDG CCD" multiplier min value to 0 5-1-2021,- v0.7b.6a tRFC -,#FIX "N/A" Error, when shoud show "tRTP_ERROR #2" 4-30-2021,- v0.7b.5c
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev.E scales positive only after 1.56v , it doesn't behave well between 1.47-1.54v
> RTT values will need to change if you exceed beyond 1.48v-1.5v
> 
> Presets example of cm87
> View attachment 2475711


Thanks, very informative post.


----------



## Veii

Saiger0 said:


> @Veii any timings i forgot that run (unnecessarily) out of sync?
> View attachment 2475712


I saw the PM , but didn't get to find time for assisting
Are you having heat issues in your case ?
What vDIMM do you run
they look rather lose - low
can't you go for 3800+ ?


----------



## Saiger0

Veii said:


> I saw the PM , but didn't get to find time for assisting
> Are you having heat issues in your case ?
> What vDIMM do you run
> they look rather lose - low
> can't you go for 3800+ ?


Until I get a stable agesa 3800 is currently a no-go and after getting greeted with a random WHEA-bluescreen after a week of stable 3733 I´d rather settle for 3600. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Heat is indeed a issue in my case with a NH D15 overlapping the modules and a 3080 FE blowing hot air onto them.
Hence I´m running into temp errors at ~50C (which can be reached in games like cyberpunk) with 3600cl14 or 3600cl15CR1.
1.42V and CR2 seem to give me enough headroom to run even at 53C

edit: but my plan is to tighten my timings down to a certain blaseline of stability since as you said they are quite loose right now


----------



## Veii

Saiger0 said:


> Until I get a stable agesa 3800 is currently a no-go and after getting greeted with a random WHEA-bluescreen after a week of stable 3733 I´d rather settle for 3600. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Heat is indeed a issue in my case with a NH D15 overlapping the modules and a 3080 FE blowing hot air onto them.
> Hence I´m running into temp errors at ~50C (which can be reached in games like cyberpunk) with 3600cl14 or 3600cl15CR1.
> 1.42V and CR2 seem to give me enough headroom to run even at 53C


That explains more
I mean , if you can downgrade to AGESA 1.1.0.0 Patch B (C is bad)
Then you have memOC headroom till 2100FCLK (2098FCLK)
AGESA 1.2.0.0 has a headroom till 2000FCLK before package throttle starts to appear again (2033 throttles already by 6ns)

Was asking because of the set 
tRTP 9, tRRD_L 5, tWTR_L 10 , tRDWR 8, tWRRD 3
is probably all you can do without a voltage bump
maybe SCL 3 with tWRRD 4 later, but you have to test

There is a bit more you can do, but not without significant drive changes
RTT 7/0/6 with 40-20-30-24

You can also try as experimental for stability, if CAD_BUS 40-20-20-20 with CAD_BUS timing 1-1-12 tCKE 7 runs
else it's tCKE 9 , 3-3-15 for 3800MT/s
for 4000 it's tCKE 11, 4-4-18
Although you can just try and copy people's sets from








Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com




Usually this set should help you figure out FCLK limits








VDIMM 1.48
But the recommended RTT settings of 7/0/6 filter better and let's you run up till 1.62v without PCB crashes
Requires higher minimum voltage tho

EDIT:
tRFC 270-201-123
don't forget tRFC 2 and 4
It matters 
now even more when tCKE is actively used , neverless of the GDM state

EDIT2:
Only PCB dependent part on this easy to run set is tRDWR. Might need to go +1, might not


----------



## Audioboxer

@Veii If I could borrow you for a minute again I'd greatly appreciate it. Spent the best part of the last hour reading the topics you linked me to and more. My head is scrambled, lol. I thought overclocking a CPU was bad enough but there seems to be black arts involved in DDR4 OCing 😂

Anyway, back to basics for me. One thing I did originally was ignore the DRAM Calculator safe preset and jump right into fast, as impatient/ignorant people do.










I went back to safe, despite your suggestion ClkDrvStr _shouldn't_ be 60 when GDM is on/1T. Only change I made was tRCDRD at 19 and ProcODT at 36.9.

For the first time since I started this journey 19 for tRCDRD has passed 30 minutes of MemTest64 without an error. Previously it has continually errored within 1~7 mins. I know you said move to tm5, I've just downloaded it. With the extreme config.

As for why obsessing over tRCDRD, it seemed to be my biggest hurdle with all prior settings. I'll try and move from these safe settings going forward with continued reading from your prior advice.

*edit* - Running it now, think its setup correctly


----------



## Saiger0

Veii said:


> EDIT:
> tRFC 270-201-123
> don't forget tRFC 2 and 4
> It matters
> now even more when tCKE is actively used , neverless of the GDM state


Probem is that my MSI mb wont let me set trfc 2 and 4 manually. Is there any way to check whether they are being calculated correctly or not?


----------



## Veii

Saiger0 said:


> Problem is that my MSI mb wont let me set trfc 2 and 4 manually. Is there any way to check whether they are being calculated correctly or not?


MSI usually combines all 3 as one option, but still lists them separated later on
It should be there, but you can screenshot it for me to see what you mean
Pretty sure they have tRFC listed twice there, one combined and one split



Audioboxer said:


> @Veii If I could borrow you for a minute again I'd greatly appreciate it. Spent the best part of the last hour reading the topics you linked me to and more. My head is scrambled, lol. I thought overclocking a CPU was bad enough but there seems to be black arts involved in DDR4 OCing 😂
> 
> Anyway, back to basics for me. One thing I did originally was ignore the DRAM Calculator safe preset and jump right into fast, as impatient/ignorant people do.
> 
> I went back to safe, despite your suggestion ClkDrvStr _shouldn't_ be 60 when GDM is on/1T. Only change I made was tRCDRD at 19 and ProcODT at 36.9.
> 
> For the first time since I started this journey 19 for tRCDRD has passed 30 minutes of MemTest64 without an error. Previously it has continually errored within 1~7 mins. I know you said move to tm5, I've just downloaded it.
> 
> As for why obsessing over tRCDRD, it seemed to be my biggest hurdle with all prior settings. I'll try and move from these safe settings going forward with continued reading from your prior advice.


Problem is, ClkDrvStr 60 is too high for the PCB , it will make it crash sooner or later
It helps lowering ProcODT and helps running lower vDIMM - but it bothers RTT values
These values are already very high to begin with
RQZ/1 = 240ohm on Park
You can go by with just 120ohm
well 7/1/2 or 7/0/2

This is for Dual Rank B-die , but they are not much different








1.55v instead 1.58v
Maybe @KedarWolf could appreciate them


----------



## Audioboxer

Veii said:


> MSI usually combines all 3 as one option, but still lists them separated later on
> It should be there, but you can screenshot it for me to see what you mean
> Pretty sure they have tRFC listed twice there, one combined and one split
> 
> 
> Problem is, ClkDrvStr 60 is too high for the PCB , it will make it crash sooner or later
> It helps lowering ProcODT and helps running lower vDIMM - but it bothers RTT values
> These values are already very high to begin with
> RQZ/1 = 240ohm on Park
> You can go by with just 120ohm
> well 7/1/2 or 7/0/2
> 
> This is for Dual Rank B-die , but they are not much different
> View attachment 2475716
> 
> 1.55v instead 1.58v
> Maybe @KedarWolf could appreciate them


Yeah DRAM Calculator recommends 40 at 3600, but for whatever reason jump up to 60 for 3733/3800.


----------



## Saiger0

Veii said:


> MSI usually combines all 3 as one option, but still lists them separated later on
> It should be there, but you can screenshot it for me to see what you mean
> Pretty sure they have tRFC listed twice there, one combined and one split


msi graciously greys them out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Veii

Saiger0 said:


> msi graciously greys them out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> View attachment 2475717


user issue 
put combined tRFC on auto , then you can manually set them


----------



## Saiger0

Veii said:


> user issue
> put combined tRFC on auto , then you can manually set them


OMG thank you. I feel so dumb now..










Edit: And if those timings survive TM5 I'm guessing tRTP 8 and tWR 10?


----------



## wisebear

Hello there,
I'm trying to maximize my RAM performance, but i've very inexperienced when it comes to AMD.
I followed the basic guidelines to get some timings from DRAM calculator, however any change i make on the BIOS will result in no POST, which makes things a little stressful to test.
They ONLY thing i managed to successfully do, was to increase IF and make it stable with reasonable voltages, while keeping XMP values (which seem to be the only ones my RAM kit won't complain about).
I figured I would post as much info as i possibly can here and see if any of you has any clue on how (if) i could improve stuff.
There's always the chance that my RAM kit is poopy and if that's the case, I'm ready to accept it and move on.

My config is:
Ryzen 7 5800x (one of those shady double CCD versions, although it overclocks nicely and i have no problems with it whatsoever)
Gigabyte X570 AORUS Elite, running F33a AGESA 1.2.0.0 BIOS (which, at least on the Gigabyte side of things, is still deeply in beta, but at least now it allows me to boot at >1900 IF)
G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3600C16D-32GVKC

This is how Thaiphoon sees the kit:









and this is how they're currently working on my system (100% stable):










Any suggestion is more than welcome!


----------



## Audioboxer

If this can run stable for an hour and then some complete system stability testing can pass probably going to leave it around here.

tCL just errors out almost immediately at 15, tRCDRD becomes unstable at 19 when GDM is turned off and other timings tightened. 

Unless there is anything seriously wrong above micromanaging the last tiny bits of performance out of this RAM is too much of a ballache 😂


----------



## genelecs

Hello! Another post of "_I used to just load XMP on Intel and now I have no idea what I'm really doing_!" - I have some pretty average A0 b-die (2x8GB SR) and a 5950x which I cannot go above 1866 FCLK stable. 1900 doesn't post and 1933-2000 is WHEA city but I'm quite happy so far with 1866's performance.

I've got my RAM to this point so far at 1.4v - TM5/OCCT stable - My VSOC/DDG/VDDP voltages might be a tad high but the system is rock solid stable so leaving them for now.

I do have a few questions for the clever people on here:

a) No matter what I do I can't get tRCDRD stable at 16 - I've tried various voltages + resistances but nothing seems to work. The second I change it I will get errors in TM5, its annoying me a little as 16-16-16-16-32-48 seems to be a good starting point.
b) Anything obvious that looks wrong timing wise? I've tried my best so far to tighten secondary/tertiary timings but I'm wary that even though I'm stable I might be affecting my performance unintentionally.










Thank you


----------



## OCmember

Can't find this kit anywhere. Been looking for the last month for it.









G.SKILL Trident Z Neo Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3800 (PC4 30400) Desktop Memory Model F4-3800C14D-32GTZN - Newegg.com


Buy G.SKILL Trident Z Neo Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3800 (PC4 30400) Desktop Memory Model F4-3800C14D-32GTZN with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.com


----------



## KickAssCop

Anyone got tuned memory timings for this kit?

G Skill AMD Edition 16GB DDR4 3600 RAM Memory - Newegg.com
*Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC*

I am having a hard time tuning this ram as it keeps on giving me errors when I reduce tFAW or tRFC and any of the core timings (16-19-19-19-39). I have given it up to 1.45 volts without success. I also can't boot past 3733 (might be an FCLK issue). What's the best way to proceed further from here? DRAM calculator settings didn't help beyond what I have already tuned below.

Can someone post Zen timings?
Here are mine:


----------



## KedarWolf

The IMC on my 5950x is just average. Can't get 3800 or higher WHEA free on OCCT.

The below works though. I'll like do better when I get my MSI MEG B550 Unify-X two DIMM slot motherboard.


----------



## KickAssCop

Thanks for sharing. Those are very tight timings. Going to try and see if it works for me. Also seems like you are giving it quite a bit of volts.


----------



## KedarWolf

KickAssCop said:


> Thanks for sharing. Those are very tight timings. Going to try and see if it works for me. Also seems like you are giving it quite a bit of volts.


Yeah, 5000 series likes the volts, but if you check this spreadsheet it's nothing too radical.









Zen RAM OC Leaderboards


Zen 4 Sheet is sorted and verified submissions LOCKED each Thursday. Please provide proof of stability via Y-Cruncher AND a memory stability test, otherwise your submission will be removed. Refer to the FAQ for more info. MEMORY,PROCESSOR Username,Memory Latency,L3 Latency,DIMMs,Die Type,Rank,Me...




docs.google.com


----------



## mrsteelx

KickAssCop said:


> Anyone got tuned memory timings for this kit?
> 
> G Skill AMD Edition 16GB DDR4 3600 RAM Memory - Newegg.com
> *Model F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC*
> 
> I am having a hard time tuning this ram as it keeps on giving me errors when I reduce tFAW or tRFC and any of the core timings (16-19-19-19-39). I have given it up to 1.45 volts without success. I also can't boot past 3733 (might be an FCLK issue). What's the best way to proceed further from here? DRAM calculator settings didn't help beyond what I have already tuned below.
> 
> Can someone post Zen timings?
> Here are mine:












we have very similar ram. try going to 1933


----------



## sp00n82

Does anybody have experience with 4x16GB overclocking, i.e. 4x dual rank with Samsung B-dies (G.Skill RipJaw F4-3200C14-16GVK)?
I've managed to get it error free to 3733 MT/s and 1866 FCLK, but 3800/1900 seems to be impossible, it won't even boot. And even with my current 3733 setup I sometimes get booting issues where the memory doesn't train and then reverts to the default JDEC values. Generally it then works if I just load the saved setting and let the computer restart.










Lowering tRP & tRC to 17/51 results in an error, as does lowering the tRFC to 392. I'd really like to get it to 3800/1900 though. Maybe I'll have to wait for the official release of AGESA 1.2.0.0 for my MSI X570 Tomahawk.


----------



## OCmember

It seems AGESA 1.2.0.0 is slower. On both the Aorus Xtreme and Dark Hero it's increased memory latency.


----------



## KickAssCop

mrsteelx said:


> View attachment 2476520
> 
> 
> we have very similar ram. try going to 1933


do you mean that 1933 is likely to work compared to 1867?

Tried it. System didn’t boot. I think I am done and have made peace with the fact that the ram is crap. I even tried hitting 1900 without upping FCLK and it still didn’t boot. Since I know that I don’t want to pay upwards of $300 for b die ram, I think I am quite OK with the performance of this $165 ram kit. Already now retails for $209 at the egg. I tightened some more timings and am now at 57.3 G read and 61 ns latency.


----------



## thurmsy

Hi everyone,

This is where I've managed to get my Micron E-Die (Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro) on my Ryzen 5600x. I haven't tested anything past 2000 FLK, and prior to agesa 1.2.0.0 on the bios I'm running, I was very stable at 1900 FLK and I haven't seen a WHEA error as of yet.

At CL16 I get errors almost immediately in TM5 (error 6 and error 4 usually), same if I lower my RCDRD under 21, (20 was the hard cap when I ran 3800). I played with upping the voltage and adjusting the RTT, at 1.46 it wouldn't post with RTTNom disabled or a RTTPark higher than RZA/4 and didn't seem to effect stability. With GDM on I still get errors at CL16 but haven't played with 2T yet.

I can lower RCDWR and RC among a few others but I see an increase in latency when testing so I didn't go too far to test stability. 

Overall way faster than I was expecting to achieve with my original goal to be anywhere sub 60ns. I have one test in safe mode at 55.8ns, the other AIDA run is in windows with as much as I could shutdown but still had a fair amount running.

If anyone has any suggestions, would love to hear them - I'm very new to adjusting memory timings to this extent.


----------



## mrsteelx

KickAssCop said:


> do you mean that 1933 is likely to work compared to 1867?
> 
> Tried it. System didn’t boot. I think I am done and have made peace with the fact that the ram is crap. I even tried hitting 1900 without upping FCLK and it still didn’t boot. Since I know that I don’t want to pay upwards of $300 for b die ram, I think I am quite OK with the performance of this $165 ram kit. Already now retails for $209 at the egg. I tightened some more timings and am now at 57.3 G read and 61 ns latency.


I may feel dumb for asking but did you try with my zentimings setting at 1933.


----------



## KedarWolf

mrsteelx said:


> I may feel dumb for asking but did you try with my zentimings setting at 1933.
> View attachment 2476807


Can you pass OCCT at default settings with no WHEA errors?


----------



## KickAssCop

mrsteelx said:


> I may feel dumb for asking but did you try with my zentimings setting at 1933.
> View attachment 2476807


I tried it with much looser settings and much more voltage than yours. I even tried without touching the FCLK to determine whether it was a FCLK issue or ram issue. It seems it is a ram issue. It just doesn’t work at 3800 or higher speeds.


----------



## Hale59

KickAssCop said:


> I tried it with much looser settings and much more voltage than yours. I even tried without touching the FCLK to determine whether it was a FCLK issue or ram issue. It seems it is a ram issue. It just doesn’t work at 3800 or higher speeds.


RAM issue? Its more to do with CPU IMC


----------



## KickAssCop

And how do you suggest I can go around it? How high volts should I give the CPU?


----------



## Hale59

KickAssCop said:


> And how do you suggest I can go around it? How high volts should I give the CPU?


Sell that CPU and buy another one. Repeat until you find the CPU that can do more.


----------



## Bojamijams

I see people using DRAM 1.7.3 for Ryzen5000 but I thought it wasn't meant for that. 

Is there an update on next version meant for 5000 series will be released?


----------



## BIRDMANv84

KickAssCop said:


> And how do you suggest I can go around it? How high volts should I give the CPU?


I had similar issues with my old 3900x, did a RMA thru AMD and got my new cpu in about a week turnaround. I had 2 memory kits I couldn’t get stable but it was the cpu, now it can do 1900, 1833 no whea errors and it overclocks way better than my old cpu, I believe it’s still one of the top CB20 scores for a 3900x on the CTR spreadsheet with 1.256v. Before it wouldn’t do 4.2 @ 1.3v with the old cpu on any memory speed 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KickAssCop

RMA is not an option for me since I purchased this CPU on a forum from a member who got it from micro center. Also I can’t be without a computer for 2-3 weeks. Finally I am not in USA and CPU was purchased in USA.


----------



## mrsteelx

KedarWolf said:


> Can you pass OCCT at default settings with no WHEA errors?


I see your point now. only 2 WHEA errors in 1hr seems not bad.


----------



## KickAssCop

Any WHEA error is not good.


----------



## Valka814

Do you guys had issues with Aida Benchmark latency? Did a clean Windows install, updated my bios and the benchmarked latency now is 2-2.5ns higher than it was.
The settings are the same in Zen Timings, still using PBO.


----------



## KickAssCop

1-2 NS delta is par for the course between multiple runs. If you are consistently above then try to minimize all background processes and do a run. Mine bounces around between 61-63 NS depending on its mood without any changes in timings etc.


----------



## Blac

So I have been having a hell of a time trying to get anything past 3333 to load up. I am running 2x 16gb sticks of BL16G36C16U4WL. It is 3600 ram. I'm running a 5800x on a B550-F wifi. Anytime I went over this it just won't post. I had to actually up voltage from 1.35 to 1.39 to get it to go from 3200 to 3333... If I up it to 3400, it wont post.

Anybody have a suggestion/idea? Here are my current ZenTimings


----------



## KickAssCop

Seems like a candidate for RMA if it can’t run the rated speed. It should literally boot up with XMP profile at 3600 with your processor.

Make sure you have latest bios for the board even a beta one.


----------



## algida79

@Blac , power off and fix your DIMMs:










2-DIMM configuration on most 4-DIMM slot motherboards should be slots A2 + B2


----------



## Blac

algida79 said:


> @Blac , power off and fix your DIMMs:
> 
> View attachment 2477188
> 
> 
> 2-DIMM configuration on most 4-DIMM slot motherboards should be slots A2 + B2


I spent hours today trying to figure this out... and this stupid simple thing... holy **** man. Thank you. HOURS. I spent HOURS trying to make this work. ***.


----------



## KickAssCop

lol


----------



## OCmember

Bought a dual rank 3600 cl16.16.16. 1.35v kit. Haven't received them yet. Upon checking the calculator with my current kit, by setting ranks to 2 and checking different frequencies, there isn't a frequency that has GDM disabled. Does dual rank work in Gear Down Mode disabled?


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> Bought a dual rank 3600 cl16.16.16. 1.35v it. Haven't received them yet. Upon checking the calculator with my current kit, by setting ranks to 2 and checking different frequencies, there isn't a frequency that has GDM disabled. Does dual rank work in Gear Down Mode disabled?


The same kit, 5950x. 1T impossible to get on high FLCKs though.


----------



## OCmember

KedarWolf said:


> The same kit, 5950x. 1T impossible to get on high FLCKs though.
> 
> View attachment 2477348


I hope to atleast achieve what my 2x8 3800 CL14 timings can do with the 3600 kit, via what the calculator suggests for 3800. CL14.14.14.28.42 is possible but this is fine









For me, I've found that tWR 10 & tRTP 6 creates issues with my mouse tracking/accuracy. 


EDIT: Well those timings aren't going to work. WHEA errors


----------



## KickAssCop

Got Aida64 for a buck and a half.


----------



## KedarWolf

KickAssCop said:


> Got Aida64 for a buck and a half.


And... They sold you a key that'll work forever that you can Google and find online. 

Any place that sells it that cheap is selling you a hacked key.


----------



## KickAssCop

KedarWolf said:


> And... They sold you a key that'll work forever that you can Google and find online.
> 
> Any place that sells it that cheap is selling you a hacked key.


You must be new to the internet lol.


----------



## OCmember

OCmember said:


> I hope to atleast achieve what my 2x8 3800 CL14 timings can do with the 3600 kit, via what the calculator suggests for 3800. CL14.14.14.28.42 is possible but this is fine
> 
> View attachment 2477354
> 
> For me, I've found that tWR 10 & tRTP 6 creates issues with my mouse tracking/accuracy.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Well those timings aren't going to work. WHEA errors


Changed only the ProcODT to 53.3 and the system seems stable. It's been 10hrs so far and now WHEA errors


----------



## Bojamijams

OCmember said:


> Changed only the ProcODT to 53.3 and the system seems stable. It's been 10hrs so far and now WHEA errors


Did you raise it to 53.3 or lower it to 53.3?


----------



## Hale59

Bojamijams said:


> Did you raise it to 53.3 or lower it to 53.3?


According to his attachment above, seems like he increased from 40 to 53.3


----------



## OCmember

Yes, I raised it. Haven't seen any WHEA errors since then.


----------



## hurricane28

i could use some help here with oc my RAM as i discovered something weird. 

I'm running 4.4 GHz and 3800 CL16 1900 FCLK and been stable in every program i know of for hours. Than gaming also works great. 

After a while i get mouse skipping and some weird latency issues and games start to run poorly. I do windows sfc /scannow and it turns out that windows has been corrupted, most likely due to the RAM... Strange thing is that im stable in all the programs but not in windows or light tasks.. I get no WHEA errors nothing at all. 

Im running the mus1mus calc 3800 setting.


----------



## rul3s

Hi guys!
I bought this RAM kit Corsair vengenace PRO 3200CL14 SKU CMW16GX4M2Z3200C16 for 80€


They work perfect on XMP [email protected] 1.35v. I wanted to optimice them with Ryzen DRAM Calculator and when I opened Typhoon I saw that they are labeled as Samsung B-die!!










So after runing calculator it says go to [email protected], but didnt boot. After that, I tried some safe values as [email protected] but also it cant boot. It's not about MB or CPU because I have another BDie that can run 3200CL14 without problems, so...
Are they really Bdie but lowest quality? I've opened the kit and those are the chips:










They are really Samsung Bdie? Lowest quality? How should I configure the calculator¿?

Thanks!

EDIT: Complete PCB:


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rul3s said:


> Hi guys!
> I bought this RAM kit Corsair vengenace PRO 3200CL14 SKU CMW16GX4M2Z3200C16 for 80€
> 
> 
> They work perfect on XMP [email protected] 1.35v. I wanted to optimice them with Ryzen DRAM Calculator and when I opened Typhoon I saw that they are labeled as Samsung B-die!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So after runing calculator it says go to [email protected], but didnt boot. After that, I tried some safe values as [email protected] but also it cant boot. It's not about MB or CPU because I have another BDie that can run 3200CL14 without problems, so...
> Are they really Bdie but lowest quality? I've opened the kit and those are the chips:
> 
> View attachment 2478015
> 
> 
> They are really Samsung Bdie? Lowest quality? How should I configure the calculator¿?
> 
> Thanks!


Maybe they are low quality, indeed B-die.
The PCB layout seems A2, try to set it on the DRAM Calc.


----------



## rul3s

ManniX-ITA said:


> Maybe they are low quality, indeed B-die.
> The PCB layout seems A2, try to set it on the DRAM Calc.


Still says to go [email protected], but I cant even boot at 16-16-16-32-48. I've uploaded PCB pic on previous message. They are Corsair version 4.32


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rul3s said:


> Still says to go [email protected], but I cant even boot at 16-16-16-32-48. I've uploaded PCB pic on previous message. They are Corsair version 4.32


Post a Zentimings screenshot and try with tRCDRD at 18.


----------



## Esticbo

rul3s said:


> Still says to go [email protected], but I cant even boot at 16-16-16-32-48. I've uploaded PCB pic on previous message. They are Corsair version 4.32


The version 4.32 in Vengeance LPX is Samsung C - die 

Are you sure that the ram is cl14? Corsair part number says cl16


----------



## BIRDMANv84

His Taiphoon screenshot shows 3200c16


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hurricane28

hurricane28 said:


> i could use some help here with oc my RAM as i discovered something weird.
> 
> I'm running 4.4 GHz and 3800 CL16 1900 FCLK and been stable in every program i know of for hours. Than gaming also works great.
> 
> After a while i get mouse skipping and some weird latency issues and games start to run poorly. I do windows sfc /scannow and it turns out that windows has been corrupted, most likely due to the RAM... Strange thing is that im stable in all the programs but not in windows or light tasks.. I get no WHEA errors nothing at all.
> 
> Im running the mus1mus calc 3800 setting.
> 
> View attachment 2478006



Any ideas? 

I bumped the voltager on the ram to 1.425 and soc to 1.1 proc is set to 53 instead of 40. Seems good now but who knows.


----------



## Esticbo

hurricane28 said:


> Any ideas?
> 
> I bumped the voltager on the ram to 1.425 and soc to 1.1 proc is set to 53 instead of 40. Seems good now but who knows.



Try with occt to test the cpu


----------



## hurricane28

Esticbo said:


> Try with occt to test the cpu


I did, no issues man. Stable in every program i can think of. 

OCCT for hours, memtest5 for 15 runs, linpack etc. 

Its running great now though.


----------



## OCmember

Anyone running ProcODT 60ohm for dual rank, 2x16 sticks, ?

Just got a new kit I ordered.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

rul3s said:


> Still says to go [email protected], but I cant even boot at 16-16-16-32-48. I've uploaded PCB pic on previous message. They are Corsair version 4.32


They are indeed C-die as said by @Esticbo, took me a while to read the writings on the ICs 
Doesn't match the Taiphoon Burner report.


----------



## OCmember

Found a handy tRFC chart. Helped me lower mine from 304 to 247 (3800MHz)


----------



## OCmember

KedarWolf said:


> The same kit, 5950x. 1T impossible to get on high FLCKs though.
> 
> View attachment 2477348


Did a 1.2v for your VSOC help stop WHEA errors?


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> Found a handy tRFC chart. Helped me lower mine from 304 to 247 (3800MHz)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2478200


The correct way to calculate tRFC settings is to use the tRFC calculator posted earlier in this thread. The Search tool is your friend.


----------



## KedarWolf

OCmember said:


> Did a 1.2v for your VSOC help stop WHEA errors?


Yes, I need to run it at 1.2v for CL14 3800MHz.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Did a 1.2v for your VSOC help stop WHEA errors?
> 
> 
> KedarWolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The correct way to calculate tRFC settings is to use the tRFC calculator posted earlier in this thread. The Search tool is your friend.
Click to expand...

For people it's been Hoax and unexplained hypotheses by personal "non verifiable rules"
Don't enforce it on people ~ it makes them only more mad.
The sheet he has, is not bad
Let me add this one too ~ by Reous & the community @ [HardwareLUXX]








Sadly all of them focus on 120nm as lowest for B-Die, while you can stable sub 120ns for daily usage
If everything in the chain is correct.

Eh, yes it's a topic combined with a lot of babycrying & attacking others from people who have no desire in life, except to spare demystifying others methods they don't seem to understand
I can suggest to try and follow the mini module, but it's up to everyone to follow
Don't want people to fight over something little 🙇‍♂️


----------



## OCmember

I can't even get all timings on auto @ 3800 1:1 w/1.2vSOC to pass OCCT 45m Medium Data set + AVX2


----------



## Yoizhik

I've GSkill F4-3600C15-8GTZ ram kit (2x8gb) but it doesn't work C14, probably i'm doing something wrong. It's neither A0 nor A2 version, it's A1, i don't know is this any related. I've tried 1.45V, any advice for C14?


----------



## OCmember

@Yoizhik post a pic of your ZenTimings.


----------



## Yoizhik

OCmember said:


> @Yoizhik post a pic of your ZenTimings.


I'm just using first 6 settings (tCL, tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP, tRAS, tRC) rest is auto but it doesn't work 14, i'm setting 15 and it makes 16 auto (because of 1T i guess)


----------



## Veii

Yoizhik said:


> I'm just using first 6 settings (tCL, tRCDWR, tRCDRD, tRP, tRAS, tRC) rest is auto but it doesn't work 14, i'm setting 15 and it makes 16 auto (because of 1T i guess)
> View attachment 2478238


Use CAD_BUS 40-20-20-20 , CAD_BUS Timings 3-3-15, tCKE 9, RTT = 706 and move beyond 1.48v for anything CL14 related
You will need between 1.48-1.56vDIMM to run 3800CL14-14
Use that under GDM off, 2T
RTT:
NOM /7 = 34ohm
WR disabled
PARK /6 = 40ohm

EDIT:
Inside your bios, be sure to fix memory training
AMD CBS -> DF -> DDR4 Common options -> PHY
Both training methods enabled and PMU Pattern bits to manual , A or 10 (it's in HEX)


----------



## Yoizhik

Veii said:


> Use CAD_BUS 40-20-20-20 , CAD_BUS Timings 3-3-15, tCKE 9, RTT = 706 and move beyond 1.48v for anything CL14 related
> You will need between 1.48-1.56vDIMM to run 3800CL14-14
> Use that under GDM off, 2T
> RTT:
> NOM /7 = 34ohm
> WR disabled
> PARK /6 = 40ohm


You are talking alien language to me rn, if i should do these settings why program is giving different numbers, doesn't that mean program is sorta meaningless? I thought using 1.5V 24/7 is not good for rams but i'll try these settings later. Thanks for you time.


----------



## OCmember

@Yoizhik Your Zentimings pic, not DRAM Calculator.


----------



## Yoizhik

OCmember said:


> @Yoizhik Your Zentimings pic, not DRAM Calculator.


----------



## Veii

Yoizhik said:


> You are talking alien language to me rn, if i should do these settings why program is giving different numbers, doesn't that mean program is sorta meaningless? I thought using 1.5V 24/7 is not good for rams but i'll try these settings later. Thanks for you time.


Because programm was designed for ryzen 3000 series - last release is about half a year ago, version 1.7.3
Currently stuff changed
You will find them - it's written out stuff
RTT values are under Data_BUS configuration, all of them are inside memory timings

Only AMD CBS you have to manually go and find
Entry guide is integralfx/MemTestHelper


----------



## KickAssCop

Hey guys, what can I continue to do to improve my memory clocks. Here are my Zen timings. 


I have tried multiple things but it seems I am unable to go above 3733. Also I really don't know which timing to further tighten. As an addition, I am also adding my screenshots of DRAM calculator.


----------



## Joeking78

KickAssCop said:


> Hey guys, what can I continue to do to improve my memory clocks. Here are my Zen timings.
> 
> 
> I have tried multiple things but it seems I am unable to go above 3733. Also I really don't know which timing to further tighten. As an addition, I am also adding my screenshots of DRAM calculator.


Is that gskill bdie?

I have 3200 C14 Gskill kit and can do 3733 C14 but need 1.5v to do it

Another UAE member


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KickAssCop said:


> Hey guys, what can I continue to do to improve my memory clocks. Here are my Zen timings.
> 
> 
> I have tried multiple things but it seems I am unable to go above 3733. Also I really don't know which timing to further tighten. As an addition, I am also adding my screenshots of DRAM calculator.


You can try these:


----------



## KickAssCop

Joeking78 said:


> Is that gskill bdie?
> 
> I have 3200 C14 Gskill kit and can do 3733 C14 but need 1.5v to do it
> 
> Another UAE member


No mine is **** die Hynix CJR. lol.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

KickAssCop said:


> No mine is **** die Hynix CJR. lol.


Should be Hynix DJR.


----------



## OCmember

Yoizhik said:


> View attachment 2478242


Have you tried leaving your VDDP, & VDDG both, on Auto? For some reason I've had good luck leaving them on Auto when using GDM Enabled. Same with Clk, AddrCmd, CsODT, Cke; & Rtt - Nom, Wr, & Park, but I manually entered in my PrcODT, VSOC, & VDIMM. I used the Fast Preset for 3800


----------



## KedarWolf

This is 100% stable. I can get tRFC as low as 240 but it actually hurts my latency and bandwidth to have it lower than 252.

I did 1usmus_v3 2500% instead of 100%, four cycles. I prefer longer single tests then repeating shorter ones, find it ferrets out errors better.


----------



## KedarWolf

Deleted


----------



## kratosatlante

KedarWolf said:


> This is 100% stable. I can get tRFC as low as 240 but it actually hurts my latency and bandwidth to have it lower than 252.
> 
> I did 1usmus_v3 2500% instead of 100%, four cycles. I prefer longer single tests then repeating shorter ones, find it ferrets out errors better.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2478300
> 
> 
> View attachment 2478302


v soc its a little high, this is stable for me, al versions of asus bios for ch7wifi , from 4007 to 4204, best bios 4007 others add latency
i have the same ram settigs and voltaje witch use with ryzen 3600

















try set same voltaje in your 3950x for vddp , vddg ccd and io,only let in auto rttnom rttwr and rttpark











with ryzen 5 3600


----------



## hurricane28

4.4 GHz 3800 CL16 1900 Fclk and it seems stable again. 

Had to throw 1.450v in to the ram and 1.2 soc voltage but everything is cool and quiet.


----------



## kratosatlante

hurricane28 said:


> 4.4 GHz 3800 CL16 1900 Fclk and it seems stable again.
> 
> Had to throw 1.450v in to the ram and 1.2 soc voltage but everything is cool and quiet.
> 
> View attachment 2478619
> View attachment 2478620


you have b die, easy can do trfc 300 for this voltaje, set 300-222-136


----------



## OCmember

@hurricane28 Are you getting any WHEA errors?


----------



## hurricane28

kratosatlante said:


> you have b die, easy can do trfc 300 for this voltaje, set 300-222-136


What do you mean? Its rated for 3200 MHz stock lol. Its a good kit though. I think my Soc voltage is a bit high at 1.2 though. What was the memory voltage again? 



OCmember said:


> @hurricane28 Are you getting any WHEA errors?


Nothing man, stable as it can be. No mouse issues either so far.


----------



## kratosatlante

hurricane28 said:


> What do you mean? Its rated for 3200 MHz stock lol. Its a good kit though. I think my Soc voltage is a bit high at 1.2 though. What was the memory voltage again?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing man, stable as it can be. No mouse issues either so far.


your trfc is 494-192-132, for b die its high, you loss latency, bench aida and then set trfc 300-222-136 and compare, try, this trfc for b die hurt my eyes


----------



## hurricane28

kratosatlante said:


> your trfc is 494-192-132, for b die its high, you loss latency, bench aida and then set trfc 300-222-136 and compare, try, this trfc for b die hurt my eyes


lol, been a while when i tempered with ram settings and this CPU is relative new to me. 

This is what i get so far: 










I went from 65 to 64 ns. 

Changed soc to 1.150 and VDDG 1.1 temps are no issue though as im on custom water and i have an 90mm fan on the RAM.


----------



## jonatj

ManniX-ITA said:


> You can try these:
> 
> View attachment 2478261
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2478263





ManniX-ITA said:


> You can try these:
> 
> View attachment 2478261
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2478263


Thank you, thank you! Both your Zentimings worked on my new RipJaws V 3600C16 (Hynix CJR). The 1st one with 16-19-19-19-35 had the lowest latency and seemed most stable. This is gave me a great head start to getting the best performance out of my new RAM.

I have a new 5600X and the FCLK can reach 2000Mhz, so my next goal is stable 4000CL18. 

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## eliwankenobi

Any users here pushing 64GB RAM? I am considering making the jump. Current kit is F4-3600C16D-32GTZN (B-Die). I have them tuned to 3800mhz C16 timings @1.42v. I will soon upgrade from 3800X to 5900X when it arrives.

I am wondering if 3800mhz C16 tight is still possible or if at least 3733 or 3600 C14 timings are possible...


----------



## Hale59

The DRAM Calculator is a mess.
Tried to follow the suggestions for 3800 Fast, and it suggested GDM - Disabled.
I was getting errors left, right , center.
When I changed GDM to enabled, everything was sorted.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Hale59 said:


> The DRAM Calculator is a mess.
> Tried to follow the suggestions for 3800 Fast, and it suggested GDM - Disabled.
> I was getting errors left, right , center.
> When I changed GDM to enabled, everything was sorted.
> 
> View attachment 2479026


What RAM kit were you using? 

Were you able to import the XMP profile from Typhoon Burner? I see the default menu as using single rank memory sticks, if so, for b-die it will point towards GDM OFF because it is achievable with tight timings like cl15 for 3800mhz...


----------



## Hale59

eliwankenobi said:


> What RAM kit were you using?
> 
> Were you able to import the XMP profile from Typhoon Burner? I see the default menu as using single rank memory sticks, if so, for b-die it will point towards GDM OFF because it is achievable with tight timings like cl15 for 3800mhz...


All the info below 'Motherboard' is imported profile from TB
I achieved CL14 but that is not for 24/7. For 24/7 I use CL16. Below is a pic of my CL14, as well my daily CL16.
Here is my ram (2x8GB). This time I'm not using th2 2X16GB like yours.


----------



## hsn

i'm still try to find lower dram volt.


----------



## Br3ach

Quick question on the Calculator's settings: if I have 4 SR DIMMs, should I select 1 rank/4 DIMMS or 2 ranks/4 DIMMS? Should 2 ranks/4 DIMMs be interpreted to be selected for:

a) 4 DR DIMMs or b) 4 SR DIMMs (which is dual rank per channel)

Otherwise, MB Auto Rtts actually matches the calculator's DR / 4 DIMMs output. Thanks.


----------



## OCmember

If there are 4 SR dimms, I'd configure the calculator settings for 4 SR dimms.


----------



## VPII

Can someone please direct me to where I can get the various TM5 memory tests. The one I use only does 3 cycles and I'd like to test it for longer please.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VPII said:


> Can someone please direct me to where I can get the various TM5 memory tests. The one I use only does 3 cycles and I'd like to test it for longer please.











Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs


Hello everybody I am just making a very light tutorial with a collection of custom config files and a DOWNLOAD LINK for TM5 v0.12 anta777 absolut config *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread None of the work is mine but it seems like a pretty good and fast testing app




www.overclock.net





You can edit the MT.cfg to change the cycles and remove the Cfg.link file to update it.


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs
> 
> 
> Hello everybody I am just making a very light tutorial with a collection of custom config files and a DOWNLOAD LINK for TM5 v0.12 anta777 absolut config *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread None of the work is mine but it seems like a pretty good and fast testing app
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can edit the MT.cfg to change the cycles and remove the Cfg.link file to update it.


Thank you kindly.... HOw do I remove the link?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VPII said:


> Thank you kindly.... HOw do I remove the link?


It's a file in the bin directory just press the Delete key and say yes 
At next boot will be re-created and you'll have to remove it again if you want to make further changes in the CFG file.


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs
> 
> 
> Hello everybody I am just making a very light tutorial with a collection of custom config files and a DOWNLOAD LINK for TM5 v0.12 anta777 absolut config *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread None of the work is mine but it seems like a pretty good and fast testing app
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can edit the MT.cfg to change the cycles and remove the Cfg.link file to update it.


How many cycles does the [email protected] run? I am just asking as I started it now but it is taking really long. My reason for asking as their are some itterations that it runs two or three times.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VPII said:


> How many cycles does the [email protected] run? I am just asking as I started it now but it is taking really long.


Look in the MT.cfg file, that's the 1usmus:

[Main Section]
Config Name=Default
Config Author=1usmus_v3
Cores=0
Tests=16
Time (%)=100
*Cycles=25*
Language=0
Test Sequence=6,12,2,10,5,1,4,3,0,13,9,14,7,8,1,11,15


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> Look in the MT.cfg file, that's the 1usmus:
> 
> [Main Section]
> Config Name=Default
> Config Author=1usmus_v3
> Cores=0
> Tests=16
> Time (%)=100
> *Cycles=25*
> Language=0
> Test Sequence=6,12,2,10,5,1,4,3,0,13,9,14,7,8,1,11,15


But with this anta777 extreme some sequences are run 2 or even 3 times. I mean 42m24 seconds now and not even one itteration complete


----------



## ManniX-ITA

VPII said:


> But with this anta777 extreme some sequences are run 2 or even 3 times. I mean 42m24 seconds now and not even one itteration complete


That's the main reason we mostly use 1usmus config file, you get to know much earlier if something is wrong.


----------



## Spectre73

ManniX-ITA said:


> That's the main reason we mostly use 1usmus config file, you get to know much earlier if something is wrong.


Is this so? Anta777 is said to be more stressful, even though it takes longer.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Spectre73 said:


> Is this so? Anta777 is said to be more stressful, even though it takes longer.


Yes it is, the tests are different and takes much more time to complete.
This makes it more stressful but also slower to catch issues.

The 1usmus config it's very quick; if you have an issue with timings it will come out _earlier _with an error.
Usually trivial errors will error in the first round of 6m30s, most of them in the first 3 rounds.
With the anta777 extreme config it can take 1 hour to catch the same issue.

I'd go over the extreme config only after at least 3-5 cycles of 1usmus.
Unless you have a lot of time to spare.

Personally I've never found any additional error than wasn't uncovered already by 25 cycles of 1usmus.
If it passes the first rounds I'll let it finish and then run Kahru to double check.


----------



## VPII

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes it is, the tests are different and takes much more time to complete.
> This makes it more stressful but also slower to catch issues.
> 
> The 1usmus config it's very quick; if you have an issue with timings it will come out _earlier _with an error.
> Usually trivial errors will error in the first round of 6m30s, most of them in the first 3 rounds.
> With the anta777 extreme config it can take 1 hour to catch the same issue.
> 
> I'd go over the extreme config only after at least 3-5 cycles of 1usmus.
> Unless you have a lot of time to spare.
> 
> Personally I've never found any additional error than wasn't uncovered already by 25 cycles of 1usmus.
> If it passes the first rounds I'll let it finish and then run Kahru to double check.


Hi thanks, I have done the anta777 Extreme now completed in 2:14:13 for 3 complete cycles, it is more stressful as I saw it in my dimm temps reaching 43c towards the end but it passed so I am happy with it.


----------



## Veii

Pretty much what ManniX-ITX mentioned
We spend 3 digit hours on 1usmus_v3 TM5, soo we just learned it
Anta's is equally well ~ sadly the problem with 1usmus his was it being "too efficient"

Memory nearly never reached thermal equilibrium, soo while you could catch tiny errors at cycle 3-6, you never could catch out of sync or slowly stacking delay issues
That's the reason we increased it to 20 cycles and later 25

It's kind of known, some errors can appear on the end of the 19th cycle
25 is just for good measure, but 20 is perfectly fine
20 end up taking about the same time, as anta's method of scanning

The main difference is mostly the package size and the "method" of X after Y ~ transfer
Just the order is different
But if you want to all-night it, you change
Time (%)=100
to
Time (%)=1000
~ credits Kedarwolf

6 loops on this should take instead of ~1:30h , about 5-6 hours
Unclear if that is really beneficial, when timeout errors can appear after the 19th loop
But it surely is better than running HCI or Karhu ~ which will fail by more than just memory timings (CPU)


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Pretty much what ManniX-ITX mentioned
> We spend 3 digit hours on 1usmus_v3 TM5, soo we just learned it
> Anta's is equally well ~ sadly the problem with 1usmus his was it being "too efficient"
> 
> Memory nearly never reached thermal equilibrium, soo while you could catch tiny errors at cycle 3-6, you never could catch out of sync or slowly stacking delay issues
> That's the reason we increased it to 20 cycles and later 25
> 
> It's kind of known, some errors can appear on the end of the 19th cycle
> 25 is just for good measure, but 20 is perfectly fine
> 20 end up taking about the same time, as anta's method of scanning
> 
> The main difference is mostly the package size and the "method" of X after Y ~ transfer
> Just the order is different
> But if you want to all-night it, you change
> Time (%)=100
> to
> Time (%)=1000
> ~ credits Kedarwolf
> 
> 6 loops on this should take instead of ~1:30h , about 5-6 hours
> Unclear if that is really beneficial, when timeout errors can appear after the 19th loop
> But it surely is better than running HCI or Karhu ~ which will fail by more than just memory timings (CPU)


If I remember correctly, I'm on the bus going to work, for a 6+ hour test I change it to 1000% but 7 cycles.

Theoretically just changing it from 100% to 1000% would take 10 times longer so 25 cycles would be well over 20 hours I think.

But if I'm adjusting timings a lot I'll change it to 1000% 1 cycle for a quick under one hour test, it'll usually pickup errors, then after I find out what to keep my timings at, let do that 7 cycle night all test.


----------



## algida79

Hello all,

Any tips on making a stubborn dual rank Rev.E kit respond to higher Vdimm to help lower tCL? I am currently seemingly stable at the following settings with 1.39V Vdimm but any higher than 1.42V destabilizes the DIMMs even with a 120mm fan cooling them and I don't think +0.3V is enough to go from CL16 to CL15:


----------



## Valka814

Someone can tell me, what can effect Aida memory latency? Rarely can achieve less than 69ns in Aida and before never was more than 68ns. Both picture was taken after a system restart.
66.6ns









69ns


----------



## hurricane28

Woohoo, look what the mailman brought in Saturday:



















Can't complain really and the performance is amazing and it also looks very nice! 
Sadly my FlareX 3200 kit doesnt wanna play along so i'm stuck at "only" 16 GB. 
I could make it work on 3600 MHz maybe but i think 3800 MHz 16 GB is better.


----------



## hurricane28

How is this result for 4 dimms 3600 MHz?


----------



## bbowseroctacore

KickAssCop said:


> I tried it with much looser settings and much more voltage than yours. I even tried without touching the FCLK to determine whether it was a FCLK issue or ram issue. It seems it is a ram issue. It just doesn’t work at 3800 or higher speeds.


try disabling sb spread spectrum and re-boot. i upgraded from x370 - x570 and was stuck with 3600mhz 1800fclk where the previous would do 3733 1866fclk with the same 3800x


----------



## Leilu

Hi, I get the message "Not supported!" when I try to calculate safe at 3600MHz. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## algida79

Leilu said:


> View attachment 2479898
> 
> 
> Hi, I get the message "Not supported!" when I try to calculate safe at 3600MHz. What am I doing wrong?


Same reply as here:








NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 (overclocking...


HI, There I'am new to AMD and trying to get the best out of my system in terms of performance I have a question I'm using a Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 if I let it on auto It can do 1900/3800 16-18-18-18-38 (with just basic DOCP) I wanted to mess with tightening other stuff in the BIOS so I...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Peanuts4

Leilu said:


> View attachment 2479898
> 
> 
> Hi, I get the message "Not supported!" when I try to calculate safe at 3600MHz. What am I doing wrong?


Do you have Oloy or as I call them Yolo ram? That's what I am using with Microns. Thaiphoon can't read which die I have so I've tried a couple options in the calculator. When I import from Thaiphoon the only option it gives me is letting me try the safe option in the Calc. However the timings it provides are pure unstable trash. Cas 14 for my ram that I am lucky that it runs CAS 16 stable for example. Honestly I just spent a day and a half this weekend tweaking my main ram timings manually and that that's probably the best you're going to find. I wouldn't say DRAM Calc is great for everyone.


----------



## Leilu

Peanuts4 said:


> Do you have Oloy or as I call them Yolo ram? That's what I am using with Microns. Thaiphoon can't read which die I have so I've tried a couple options in the calculator. When I import from Thaiphoon the only option it gives me is letting me try the safe option in the Calc. However the timings it provides are pure unstable trash. Cas 14 for my ram that I am lucky that it runs CAS 16 stable for example. Honestly I just spent a day and a half this weekend tweaking my main ram timings manually and that that's probably the best you're going to find. I wouldn't say DRAM Calc is great for everyone.


Indeed, I tried the settings offered by Dram calc and it is hardly if I manage to start Windows. As this is the first time in my life that I am tweaking ram timings (usually I put the XMP and that's it), I told myself that it was because of me if it didn't work. Maybe it's not all my fault.

I don't have the patience to spend a day rebooting in the bios trying values, especially with the little knowledge I have on this subject. xD


----------



## Peanuts4

Leilu said:


> Indeed, I tried the settings offered by Dram calc and it is hardly if I manage to start Windows. As this is the first time in my life that I am tweaking ram timings (usually I put the XMP and that's it), I told myself that it was because of me if it didn't work. Maybe it's not all my fault.
> 
> I don't have the patience to spend a day rebooting in the bios trying values, especially with the little knowledge I have on this subject. xD


In CPU-Z for example it shows my XMP profile 1. I have no idea what profile 2 is in my memory. When I changed it in the BIOS I don't think it made a difference. However! At the stock XMP profile its pretty garbage like DDR3200 and _18-20-20-20-40-55_. I don't know if it's because of micron or the memory manufacturer but I would work with this. I found the best setting so far to be DDR3600 18-22-22-22-42-64 was my best. A lot of memory kits were kinda similar and could get 38 instead of 42 or 60 instead of 64 however this is what's working best for me stable and Cinebench R20 and Aida64 Ram/latency test. A lot of trial and error. With this ram being so wonky I found, look at common timings for faster speeds and loosen them a bit here and there. At the end of the day I saved like $50 cause my bud sent me this ram for $30 brand new so was it worth all the time putting into it that I did? Probably not. I think if you devoted a solid few hours you could probably get your ram running where you'd be fine leaving it at for a couple years. Oh well little bummed DRAM CALC didn't work but also kinda proud of myself I got this accomplished on my own.

I don't know much about sub ram timings, maybe someone can recommend changing a few good options. tRC was the only one I ended up keeping changed. 

Anyone with a B550 I would also highly recommend a BIOS update to AGESA 1.2.0.0. Overall I think it was a good upgrade for the system.


----------



## PowerK

These are stable settings I've settled on for 1T GDM and 2T.
Also, I'm not seeing any differences between 1T GDM and 2T. I thought 2T was supposed to be better than GDM1T But from what I've seen, from AIDA64 test and several game benchmarks, the difference is well within a margin of error.


----------



## hurricane28

Best result so far: 










3800 MHz is really borderline of what this CPU/RAM or motherboard can do.


----------



## Kildar

I wish 1usmus would update this app for more ram types...... He has not done any work on it in months....


----------



## KedarWolf

Kildar said:


> I wish 1usmus would update this app for more ram types...... He has not done any work on it in months....


COVID slowing a lot of small developers down, a bunch of apps I really on that used to update every few weeks haven't updated in a couple of months now. 

And they are likely working on 5000 series compatibility which would be a lot of work.

Good thing I checked this carefully on my phone before posting, autocorrect saying 'are likely 'f-word-ing' on 5000 series' wouldn't have went over well.


----------



## jcpq

hurricane28 said:


> Best result so far:
> 
> View attachment 2480416
> 
> 
> 3800 MHz is really borderline of what this CPU/RAM or motherboard can do.


Please share printscn zentimings


----------



## jamie1073

Compared to my 3900X I had to raise tRFC values to make it stable for my 5900X.


----------



## Bojamijams

hurricane28 said:


> Best result so far:
> 
> View attachment 2480416
> 
> 
> 3800 MHz is really borderline of what this CPU/RAM or motherboard can do.


I think there might be something wrong. Those copy values on memory are way too high. I think that's higher than the theoretical bandwidth at 3800Mhz


----------



## hurricane28

jcpq said:


> Please share printscn zentimings


Sure thing man:


----------



## hurricane28

Bojamijams said:


> I think there might be something wrong. Those copy values on memory are way too high. I think that's higher than the theoretical bandwidth at 3800Mhz


Nothing is wrong mate, scores seem good. Its stable as well for hours in any benchmark, stress test or game i tested so far.


----------



## hurricane28

This is as tight as i can get it. Weird thing is that no matter to what value i set tCl it doesn't appear to change.. At least to show up in hwinfo64 and Aida64, weird. 

Anything higher or tighter than this results in weird BIOS behavior and or not boot so i think im at the limit here. I wish i could squeeze a little more out of it but this is borderline stable. I think with x570 chipset i can get little more though but maybe my CPU is the limiting factor here. I would like to get my hands on an Ch8 but nothing is in stock here or prices are ridiculously high...


----------



## Hale59

hurricane28 said:


> View attachment 2481400
> 
> 
> This is as tight as i can get it. Weird thing is that no matter to what value i set tCl it doesn't appear to change.. At least to show up in hwinfo64 and Aida64, weird.
> 
> Anything higher or tighter than this results in weird BIOS behavior and or not boot so i think im at the limit here. I wish i could squeeze a little more out of it but this is borderline stable. I think with x570 chipset i can get little more though but maybe my CPU is the limiting factor here. I would like to get my hands on an Ch8 but nothing is in stock here or prices are ridiculously high...


Impossible. 
Is this for 24/7? 
What is the voltage?


----------



## algida79

@hurricane28 ProcODT seems a tad high for a Zen2 2x8GB configuration. Have you tried lower values?


----------



## hurricane28

Hale59 said:


> Impossible.
> Is this for 24/7?
> What is the voltage?


You see its possible lol. Yes this is my 24/7 setup. Been gaming, rendering, benchmarking on it for weeks now. 

Voltage is at 1.450 on the RAM. The Ryzen Calculator program says that i have an golden sample so that would explain it i guess. 



algida79 said:


> @hurricane28 ProcODT seems a tad high for a Zen2 2x8GB configuration. Have you tried lower values?



No i haven't. I tried 34.6 but it won't boot. What would be an good setting you think? I forgot what it does to be honest lol.


----------



## Hale59

hurricane28 said:


> You see its possible lol. Yes this is my 24/7 setup. Been gaming, rendering, benchmarking on it for weeks now.
> 
> Voltage is at 1.450 on the RAM. The Ryzen Calculator program says that i have an golden sample so that would explain it i guess.


I'm talking about CL not changing. If you want to input CL as 15, you have to use 2T.

You can go lower CL. Up to 1.5V is OK for 24/7


----------



## algida79

hurricane28 said:


> What would be an good setting you think? I forgot what it does to be honest lol.


The lowest you can go while being able to boot (lol obviously) and passing stability tests consistently. It's a very important value when pushing the limits of what your CPU-mobo-RAM combo can do, less so at lower DDR clocks say ≤3600 MT/s as there is more tolerance there. IIRC it's the termination resistance value of the signal across the whole IMC <-> RAM ICs pathway, at the processor's end.


----------



## hurricane28

Hale59 said:


> I'm talking about CL not changing. If you want to input CL as 15, you have to use 2T.
> 
> You can go lower CL. Up to 1.5V is OK for 24/7


Oh sorry. ah that is why. Ye some overclockers put even 2.0 voltage but 1.500 is the max save ive reed indeed. 



algida79 said:


> The lowest you can go while being able to boot (lol obviously) and passing stability tests consistently. It's a very important value when pushing the limits of what your CPU-mobo-RAM combo can do, less so at lower DDR clocks say ≤3600 MT/s as there is more tolerance there. IIRC it's the termination resistance value of the signal across the whole IMC <-> RAM ICs pathway, at the processor's end.


Alright, i remember. Its stable now but i think i need T2 and lower procODT


----------



## hurricane28

Nope, i tried T2 and still no Cl15 in software.. It also doesnt show up as T2, nothing changes in software reading oddly enough..


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Hale59 said:


> I'm talking about CL not changing. If you want to input CL as 15, you have to use 2T.
> 
> You can go lower CL. Up to 1.5V is OK for 24/7


I use 1.55V for daily, many high frequency premium kits are sold with an XMP profile at 1.55V.
What matters is if you get errors after over 1h of testing or not.

Wouldn't go over it without a fan over it or water cooling.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

hurricane28 said:


> Nope, i tried T2 and still no Cl15 in software.. It also doesnt show up as T2, nothing changes in software reading oddly enough..


It may depend on the BIOS settings.
On the MSI BIOS you can select T1/T2/GDM in the first option under advanced memory.
But if you don't first set to disabled GDM in another option below, default is Auto, then it will always enable GDM whatever in the first option is selected 1T or 2T.


----------



## Veii

hurricane28 said:


> This is as tight as i can get it. Weird thing is that no matter to what value i set tCl it doesn't appear to change.. At least to show up in hwinfo64 and Aida64, weird.


This is GDMs fault ~ rounding


----------



## hurricane28

ManniX-ITA said:


> I use 1.55V for daily, many high frequency premium kits are sold with an XMP profile at 1.55V.
> What matters is if you get errors after over 1h of testing or not.
> 
> Wouldn't go over it without a fan over it or water cooling.


Ye i've seen G.skill kits with stock 1.5v too. Im running 1.450 and i think its too low for what i want with it. 

Cooling is not a problem as i always have a fan on top blowing air over the heatsinks. 



ManniX-ITA said:


> It may depend on the BIOS settings.
> On the MSI BIOS you can select T1/T2/GDM in the first option under advanced memory.
> But if you don't first set to disabled GDM in another option below, default is Auto, then it will always enable GDM whatever in the first option is selected 1T or 2T.


Ye maybe man, its just weird how these things work sometimes. Gonna try more later. 

Thnx.


----------



## makkara

Finally its stable, this took almost a week of constant testing and tweaking to get stable. With tRDWR 8 i had error even at ~7500%. Tested with 1.4V DRAM voltage but going to use 1.41V set (1.408 - 1.424V actual). 1.4V set was dropping to 1.392V rarely and testing with 1.39V set caused error.


----------



## Veii

makkara said:


> Finally its stable, this took almost a week of constant testing and tweaking to get stable. With tRDWR 8 i had error even at ~7500%. Tested with 1.4V DRAM voltage but going to use 1.41V set (1.408 - 1.424V actual). 1.4V set was dropping to 1.392V rarely and testing with 1.39V set caused error.
> 
> View attachment 2481433


tRDWR 8 wouldn't work as you run tRCD 17
8-4 (tWRRD) would work tho 

Congrats on GDM off 1T
If you ever feel like tinkering more
Give
RTT 736 a try ~ with CAD_BUS 60-20-20-20, SETUP Time 3-3-15 @ 34ohm proc
(maybe 36 on your board, but i think you can run 34ohm too)

I am unclear if this would be working well under such low voltage ~ but you can give it a try
EDIT, if you decide to use TM5 ~ you'd get a more helpful error report list


https://www.overclock.net/attachments/tm5-zip.341454/


----------



## hurricane28

makkara said:


> Finally its stable, this took almost a week of constant testing and tweaking to get stable. With tRDWR 8 i had error even at ~7500%. Tested with 1.4V DRAM voltage but going to use 1.41V set (1.408 - 1.424V actual). 1.4V set was dropping to 1.392V rarely and testing with 1.39V set caused error.
> 
> View attachment 2481433


Looks good man.

What is your latency at in Aida64?


----------



## makkara

Thanks, proc 34 and 36 would not boot last time i tried with previous bios. 32 did boot and i used it with old 3800 dram calc settings.


----------



## makkara

hurricane28 said:


> Looks good man.
> 
> What is your latency at in Aida64?


I think my aida trial ended so dont know, but here is easy mem bench on dram calc. mb that 62.4 EDIT: Aida64 latency was 64.1 ns


----------



## hurricane28

makkara said:


> I think my aida trial ended so dont know, but here is easy mem bench on dram calc. mb that 62.4
> View attachment 2481434


Very nice. 

I booted at proc 40 and 288 tRFC and got the best result so far:


----------



## Bojamijams

Veii said:


> tRDWR 8 wouldn't work as you run tRCD 17
> 8-4 (tWRRD) would work tho


What is the relationship between tRCD and tRDWR/tWRRD

I ask because I'm running tRCD 17 and tRDWR-tWRRD of 8-3 and it seems fine though I have not tested it at 7000+% stability

DRAM calculator suggests 8-3 for my Rev.E whether I try to run it at 3600 or 3800 but tRCD changes from 17 to 18.


----------



## hurricane28

Nope, Proc 40 is stable in any benchmark but Windows and my mouse doesn't like it lol. Set it back to 53.3 and all is well again. 

I think proc 40 is for x570 boards or newer CPU's but for me it doesnt work.


----------



## SaarN

Hey guys,
After more than 10 years of using an old X58 I finally switched to something a bit more modern 

I have no experience with memory OCing, but I read the guides and experimented a bit by myself to see what it's like. So I bought a pic of my first OC attempt and I'd love to hear what you think.
My kit is a DR 32GB ('Ryzen Optimized') 3600CL18 kit from Corsair with (?? according to Thaiphoon Burner) SK Hynix chips. They're probably 16GB DJR because of how well they handle sub 450 TRFC, but you tell me.


*So right as I'm about to upload the picture, I instantly notice that something's off with my TWRRD and TRDWR values. Shouldn't they be 3\13 because [(Wd|Rd)/2 + 2(if DR) ]? heh, this might be rough, not a very good start.

DRAM voltage: 1.42v and I don't think it can handle anything higher than that because it really dislikes heat.
Voltages: There's 0.05 offset between the voltages, it goes VDDP(0.9) -> CCD(0.95) -> IOD(1) -> VSOC (1.1).
I pretty much gave up on lowering TRCD and TRP, but I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## Veii

Bojamijams said:


> What is the relationship between tRCD and tRDWR/tWRRD
> 
> I ask because I'm running tRCD 17 and tRDWR-tWRRD of 8-3 and it seems fine though I have not tested it at 7000+% stability
> 
> DRAM calculator suggests 8-3 for my Rev.E whether I try to run it at 3600 or 3800 but tRCD changes from 17 to 18.


[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread 
or color coded and everything combined ~ but in korean








쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네


출처 Veii 님https://www.overclock.net/forum/28385690-post3279.htmlhttps://www.overclock.net/forum/28385



coolenjoy.net




It was color coded here once, before the change to Xenforo ~ which lead to a lot of featureloss

Rev.E Cheat with their PCB
They can go -2


----------



## hurricane28

Can someone plz tell me why my RAM is stable in any benchmark program at good temps but i still have mouse issues and in games its just not responsive and sometimes i get micro stutter with the mouse. I'm using Logitech G903 wireless and wired but the result is the same.

I mean, i know why it happens, i just need to know what to adjust to prevent this from happening without having to dial down the RAM OC too much.


----------



## Peanuts4

What memory stability tests are you guys running these days?


----------



## zhadoom

hurricane28 said:


> Can someone plz tell me why my RAM is stable in any benchmark program at good temps but i still have mouse issues and in games its just not responsive and sometimes i get micro stutter with the mouse. I'm using Logitech G903 wireless and wired but the result is the same.
> 
> I mean, i know why it happens, i just need to know what to adjust to prevent this from happening without having to dial down the RAM OC too much.


Many of the usb ports are controlled by the Ryzen itself subject to effects of OC in bus, IF, etc. On the mainboard there are some extra ports controlled by an external chipset. Did you try other usb ports ? if available did you test with an pcie usb card ?


----------



## fcchin

hurricane28 said:


> Can someone plz tell me why my RAM is stable in any benchmark program at good temps but i still have mouse issues and in games its just not responsive and sometimes i get micro stutter with the mouse. I'm using Logitech G903 wireless and wired but the result is the same.
> 
> I mean, i know why it happens, i just need to know what to adjust to prevent this from happening without having to dial down the RAM OC too much.


because of this AMD Finds a Fix for Ryzen's USB Problems, BIOS Patch Coming in Early April


----------



## hurricane28

fcchin said:


> because of this AMD Finds a Fix for Ryzen's USB Problems, BIOS Patch Coming in Early April


Thnx man! Im so happy to know it's not me. 
Can't wait for the fix!


----------



## algida79

algida79 said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Any tips on making a stubborn dual rank Rev.E kit respond to higher Vdimm to help lower tCL? I am currently seemingly stable at the following settings with 1.39V Vdimm but any higher than 1.42V destabilizes the DIMMs even with a 120mm fan cooling them and I don't think +0.3V is enough to go from CL16 to CL15:
> 
> View attachment 2479560


Quoting myself here to give an update on said Ballistix kit.

After countless hours of tests thinking it was a termination issue, I was able to find the actual issue only after testing the modules separately. Unfortunately, one of the two is much weaker than the other and doesn't respond well to increased voltage. As mentioned in the quoted post, it becomes unstable over 1.42V and in fact it appears to be the upper regions of the memory banks judging by the memory addresses lighting up RED in the MemTest86 error list, after converting them from hexadecimal to decimal.

The other stick is much stronger, stays stable up to 1.49V which was the max I was willing to test with and can probably do 3800 CL15 at around 1.44V according to another quick test.

I have ordered a similar kit (3000C15 hoping I can get 3800 tRCDRD lower than 20 this time) and this one will go to the wife's PC.


----------



## Lambish

Hello everybody, 
I came here because i'm facing a strange situation today. I've imorted my profile from Thaiphoon, calculate SAFE, but if i apply the settings, the PC won't boot... I've tryed with the default setting (right column on the screen) but it didn't work. Also, if i just set the memory type etc... without import and calculate FAST on A2 or A0 it work !!! Why the safe preset with ram information imported doesn't work ? It strange no ? I've tryed to change some settings (volateg and timmings) but i can't boot...


----------



## hurricane28

zhadoom said:


> Many of the usb ports are controlled by the Ryzen itself subject to effects of OC in bus, IF, etc. On the mainboard there are some extra ports controlled by an external chipset. Did you try other usb ports ? if available did you test with an pcie usb card ?


Yes i know all that though. I tested on every USB port possible but same result. I tried wired, wireless, different ports, different cables, drivers you name it man. New windows installation. 

Its just Ryzen again being erratic as always.. Been like this for me since my x370 board.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Lambish said:


> Hello everybody,
> I came here because i'm facing a strange situation today. I've imorted my profile from Thaiphoon, calculate SAFE, but if i apply the settings, the PC won't boot... I've tryed with the default setting (right column on the screen) but it didn't work. Also, if i just set the memory type etc... without import and calculate FAST on A2 or A0 it work !!! Why the safe preset with ram information imported doesn't work ? It strange no ? I've tryed to change some settings (volateg and timmings) but i can't boot...
> 
> View attachment 2482222
> View attachment 2482223


Because that profile is too aggressive for that kit; maybe works with Hynix CJR.

You can try these profiles I was using at 3800 MHz:








NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 (overclocking...


Hey guys, what can I continue to do to improve my memory clocks. Here are my Zen timings. I have tried multiple things but it seems I am unable to go above 3733. Also I really don't know which timing to further tighten. As an addition, I am also adding my screenshots of DRAM calculator. Is...




www.overclock.net


----------



## eliwankenobi

Hey All,

Finally got to buy a 5900x.... the CPU is a dud... can't boot at above 1866 FCLK. Tried it on two different motherboards. 1900 and above it doesn't boot. Anyone experienced this on Ryzen5000?

Anywho, here is what I got. Passed HCI 1000% 

Any suggestions for improvement? Would like to achieve 55ns


----------



## ManniX-ITA

eliwankenobi said:


> Finally got to buy a 5900x.... the CPU is a dud... can't boot at above 1866 FCLK. Tried it on two different motherboards. 1900 and above it doesn't boot. Anyone experienced this on Ryzen5000?
> 
> Anywho, here is what I got. Passed HCI 1000%
> 
> Any suggestions for improvement? Would like to achieve 55ns


You probably need to run at 1866 FCLK for 55ns.
I'd wait for the AGESA fix for IF to declare it a dud.
AMD is 4 months late already but there's still a tiny thread of hope they can make it.


----------



## eliwankenobi

ManniX-ITA said:


> You probably need to run at 1866 FCLK for 55ns.
> I'd wait for the AGESA fix for IF to declare it a dud.
> AMD is 4 months late already but there's still a tiny thread of hope they can make it.


Thanks. I thought it is the CPU itself since the problem is present in two different motherboards where others run their 5900x at 1900 mhz no problem. So it can still be AGESA at this point?

Thanks for the suggestion... will retest same timings at 3733 mhz and see where I land


----------



## ManniX-ITA

eliwankenobi said:


> So it can still be AGESA at this point?


Yes, it can still be possible a newer AGESA will fix it.


----------



## jamie1073

eliwankenobi said:


> Hey All,
> 
> Finally got to buy a 5900x.... the CPU is a dud... can't boot at above 1866 FCLK. Tried it on two different motherboards. 1900 and above it doesn't boot. Anyone experienced this on Ryzen5000?
> 
> Anywho, here is what I got. Passed HCI 1000%
> 
> Any suggestions for improvement? Would like to achieve 55ns
> View attachment 2482586


It took me a little bit of extra time to get my Ram to run at the same settings it was running on my 3900X with the 5900X. But I got there with the appropriate voltage tweaks. I did need to run the memory at 1.55V and VSCO at 1.1V, VDDP @.95V, IOD and CCD @1.050V.


----------



## Saidou

Hello,
Regarding that new AGESA, im currently running 3800, but last night, i've updated to F13e bios on B550 Aorus Pro V2 and pushed 4000, which required 1.45V RAM and slight bump to 1.125V SOC, been playing games and everything was ok, however:
I've had previous issue with sound blaster z, channel swap, which was fixed by setting PCIE to Gen3 from Auto/Gen4 @ 3800/CL16 (ss below).
And when i've set 4000 Mhz RAM, it came back, its swapping again, despite PCIE set to Gen3. Everything else works. Didnt stress with TM5 or anything, just a quick jump into games for about an hour.
So i wonder if new AGESA will be able to fix it.
I will try to mess with it later today.


----------



## hurricane28

i noticed something weird. 

I'm having some mouse and other stutter issues but the scores and benchmarks seem fine until i come across this: 
























Why is the L3 cache latency so erratic? It goes from 18.9 to 9.9! That is too much, never seen anything this high.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

hurricane28 said:


> Why is the L3 cache latency so erratic? It goes from 18.9 to 9.9! That is too much, never seen anything this high.


It's weird indeed.
Maybe IOD is too high at 1100?
If you didn't try yet, I would lower it to 1060.


----------



## hurricane28

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's weird indeed.
> Maybe IOD is too high at 1100?
> If you didn't try yet, I would lower it to 1060.


Thnx man, i think it did the trick. I\m gonna start some games but my mouse and windows feels better. That voltage is for the infinity fabric isnt it?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

hurricane28 said:


> Thnx man, i think it did the trick. I\m gonna start some games but my mouse and windows feels better. That voltage is for the infinity fabric isnt it?


Nice! Yes it's the IF voltage.
Just as being too low also being too high can cause this kind of issues.
Same goes for CCD, must be in the correct range.


----------



## hurricane28

ManniX-ITA said:


> Nice! Yes it's the IF voltage.
> Just as being too low also being too high can cause this kind of issues.
> Same goes for CCD, must be in the correct range.


Ye i just dialed it in and let it go and forgot about it lol. They are both at 1060 now.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

hurricane28 said:


> Ye i just dialed it in and let it go and forgot about it lol. They are both at 1060 now.


CCD at 1060 is already in the too high range.
If you still have intermittent issues set it at 1020, it's usually enough.


----------



## hurricane28

ManniX-ITA said:


> CCD at 1060 is already in the too high range.
> If you still have intermittent issues set it at 1020, it's usually enough.


Thnx will do man 🤙


----------



## hurricane28

Nah, i think something is broken man  Can't play warframe normally anymore while my scores in benchmarks are good... 

This happens overnight without me changing anything at all.. Was working fine and all of a sudden this happened. I did migration from my older Samsung 950 Pro SSD to my Samsung 970 EVO plus, might do a reinstall after all...


----------



## eliwankenobi

jamie1073 said:


> It took me a little bit of extra time to get my Ram to run at the same settings it was running on my 3900X with the 5900X. But I got there with the appropriate voltage tweaks. I did need to run the memory at 1.55V and VSCO at 1.1V, VDDP @.95V, IOD and CCD @1.050V.
> 
> View attachment 2482709
> View attachment 2482710


Thank you, will try that out, and see what happens hopefully it does the trick.... but to be sure... you weren't able to boot at 3800 mhz RAM before trying this?


----------



## sneida

hi, looking for feedback - is this high latency to be expected with my system/settings?

3900x, vi hero (x370), 2x16 gb 3200 cl14 (gskill):










Any help/feedback is appreciated.

System does not boot with 3600mhz (even on cl16).


----------



## eliwankenobi

sneida said:


> hi, looking for feedback - is this high latency to be expected with my system/settings?
> 
> 3900x, vi hero (x370), 2x16 gb 3200 cl14 (gskill):
> 
> View attachment 2482854
> 
> 
> Any help/feedback is appreciated.
> 
> System does not boot with 3600mhz (even on cl16).


I would say it is fine. That is what I get with my GSkill Trident Z Neo at 3600mhz with CL16 XMP timings. 

I am not sure how much further you can push on x370.. but with a 3900x I would try to push for 3600 mhz...your memory surely can take it and the CPU too. Surely you can push similar CL14 timings. Also at 3466, try chaning PCB revision from Manual to A3/A2/B2. I find using that provides tighter timings and your kit is surely using that PCB revision. 

In fact very little change in in settings from 3466 to 3600....


----------



## sneida

eliwankenobi said:


> I would say it is fine. That is what I get with my GSkill Trident Z Neo at 3600mhz with CL16 XMP timings.
> 
> I am not sure how much further you can push on x370.. but with a 3900x I would try to push for 3600 mhz...your memory surely can take it and the CPU too. Surely you can push similar CL14 timings. Also at 3466, try chaning PCB revision from Manual to A3/A2/B2. I find using that provides tighter timings and your kit is surely using that PCB revision.


Thank you! Unfortunately, the A3/A2/B2 settings do not boot (at 3466mhz) - only the manual ones do. for 3600mhz, neither A3/A2/B2 nor manual boots.


----------



## hurricane28

There is definitely something wrong with my RAM: 










This is not normal behavior. Im gonna try previous BIOS tomorrow and if that doesn't help i RMA this RAM.


----------



## fcchin

sneida said:


> hi, looking for feedback - is this high latency to be expected with my system/settings?
> 
> 3900x, vi hero (x370), 2x16 gb 3200 cl14 (gskill):
> 
> Any help/feedback is appreciated.


Your latency was 69.6ns @ 3466mhz with CPU clock 4300mhz.

I think can be lower, by cheating a bit, the singular most dominate parameter to reduce latency is tRFC, you was on 337.

I run tRFC 304 I think and get 65ns @ 3600mhz CL16 with 3800x CPU on full auto, benchmark using HIGH_PERFORMANCE Ryzen power plan or Ryzen_Balance usually around 4350mhz (+/-100mhz)

I get 63ns @ 3733mhz but tRFC raised to around 312 I think.

i.e. use tRFC from 3600mhz calculator is the cheat.


----------



## Spectre73

hurricane28 said:


> There is definitely something wrong with my RAM:
> 
> View attachment 2483021
> 
> 
> This is not normal behavior. Im gonna try previous BIOS tomorrow and if that doesn't help i RMA this RAM.


What scores do you get with 3600 RAM speed? Maybe your chips IMC is at its limit at 3800 and error corrects like crazy? My old 3700x could not do 3800 reliably.


----------



## hurricane28

Spectre73 said:


> What scores do you get with 3600 RAM speed? Maybe your chips IMC is at its limit at 3800 and error corrects like crazy? My old 3700x could not do 3800 reliably.


It was stable for weeks without any issues. This happened randomly so something is broken or its software related. 

Most of the time the scores are the same but every now and then i get ridiculous high L3 cache latency. Windows 10 gets corrupted too multiple times, it even happens on stock DOCP settings that the mouse is behaving erratically and in gaming i get ridiculous high latency which makes it unplayable. I flashed the BIOS again but didn't do anything. 

Only thing i can think of is reinstalling Windows and if it occurs again im gonna RMA my RAM. Too bad i sold my FlareX kit though, i could test it.


----------



## hurricane28

here are some of my scores at the same settings:


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I had similar issues last year with my 3600x while my 3900x went for RMA, tried a B450-f board and ch7 non wifi along with a few different memory kits. 3800mhz I couldnt get stable on that cpu so I just called it quits, I settled on 3666c14, screenshot below with the info but I did go back bios versions from 3004 to 2703 after the screenshot was taken, no issues to this day on that machine still my brother uses it everyday to game.


----------



## hurricane28

You also had mouse erratic issues and USB like keyboard issues? Im having lots of mouse movement issues and when i start a game Warframe, i cannot even do anything without massive lag issues. FPS and the scores are fine and when i do RAM test i pass everything i throw at it so its really the weirdest thing i ever encountered... Rather frustrating too to be honest.. 

Maybe when i power down the system and reseat the CPU it might help otherwise i have no clue anymore. I also got one WHEA in event viewer about an bad CPU core, so it might be an indication that my CPU is going wrong..


----------



## BIRDMANv84

That bad core error (I think event 19 bus/interconnect error I was getting)never saw it again after I went to 3666c14. If I recall there were a few threads on there talking about it, some fixed by voltages( I think SoC) and some just couldn’t go to 3800stable 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BIRDMANv84

I didn’t have keyboard issues or mouse stutters but I would get random blue screen restarts an hour or 2 into a game, along with the whea errors, sometimes one all day, sometimes one every 30 minutes. I would stay away from the zen3 bios (4204,4007) on a zen2 chip personally since some users have complained about usb issues (maybe that’s your culprit?) asus is supposed to release a beta bios next month to address it. Have you tried all the same settings with previous gen bios? like 3004 or 2703


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> You also had mouse erratic issues and USB like keyboard issues? Im having lots of mouse movement issues and when i start a game Warframe, i cannot even do anything without massive lag issues. FPS and the scores are fine and when i do RAM test i pass everything i throw at it so its really the weirdest thing i ever encountered... Rather frustrating too to be honest..
> 
> Maybe when i power down the system and reseat the CPU it might help otherwise i have no clue anymore. I also got one WHEA in event viewer about an bad CPU core, so it might be an indication that my CPU is going wrong..


Set manual VDDG voltages.
VDDG_CCD & VDDG_IOD

They are your stutter culprits.


----------



## hurricane28

Nighthog said:


> Set manual VDDG voltages.
> VDDG_CCD & VDDG_IOD
> 
> They are your stutter culprits.


Nice, that did the trick man! Thnx, i totally forgot about this voltage.


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> Nice, that did the trick man! Thnx, i totally forgot about this voltage.


Good to see you got it worked out. More people should be aware of these voltage settings and the difference they might make.


----------



## hurricane28

Nighthog said:


> Good to see you got it worked out. More people should be aware of these voltage settings and the difference they might make.


Thnx. Its weird because i was reading about it and The Stilt also on this forum said that 0.950 should be enough while its not even close from being enough and The Stilt is an renowned overclocker. 

what is your max RAM speed? Im at 3800 CL16 which is quite nice for X470 and 3000 cpu imo. Im saving for an X570 board but idk how much that will gain me.


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> Thnx. Its weird because i was reading about it and The Stilt also on this forum said that 0.950 should be enough while its not even close from being enough and The Stilt is an renowned overclocker.
> 
> what is your max RAM speed? Im at 3800 CL16 which is quite nice for X470 and 3000 cpu imo. Im saving for an X570 board but idk how much that will gain me.


troubleshooting 4200-4333Mhz speeds (4x8GB). Getting some random error issue and going through my settings to get it fixed.
X570 will only give you PCIE gen 4.0. 
B550 boards are just as good or better sometimes because not all X570 boards are updated to new board revisions with better MEM OC capabilities B550 arrived with.


----------



## hurricane28

Nighthog said:


> troubleshooting 4200-4333Mhz speeds (4x8GB). Getting some random error issue and going through my settings to get it fixed.
> X570 will only give you PCIE gen 4.0.
> B550 boards are just as good or better sometimes because not all X570 boards are updated to new board revisions with better MEM OC capabilities B550 arrived with.


ah ok, that's a lot. 

So overclocking wont do much from x470 to x570?


----------



## Nighthog

hurricane28 said:


> ah ok, that's a lot.
> 
> So overclocking wont do much from x470 to x570?


To be said it's the IOD/CCD communication of the 3000 & 5000 series cpu that is the limit for 3800Mhz MEM OC for 1:1 that you want to run. For that most boards have no issues running it @ 3800Mhz if your CPU can do it (not all can).

The better boards need you to run 1:2 ratio on the 3000/5000 series for you to see the better MEM OC capabilities of the new X570/B550 motherboards. But 1:2 ratio is just worse than 1:1 in general unless you run a 4800-5000Mhz MEM OC anyway and that might not even be better than a good low timings 3800/1900 OC in the end.

Only the 4000 series have the IMC to run 4200~4600Mhz in 1:1 ratio. Not every CPU can do it either. Some can only do ~4466/2233 at best for MEM/FCLK which is about the limits of my 4650G for 1:1. but only for 2 dimms.
In 1:2 ratio with the right motherboard & memory kit 5100+ can be done. (these kind of clocks might not be possible on X470)

So you see it's only for those who like to experiment that it's a valid point to consider. Average users are good if they have 3600/1800 running with XMP enabled. Most of the performance is already gained. And you avoid all the headache & tuning.


----------



## hurricane28

Nighthog said:


> To be said it's the IOD/CCD communication of the 3000 & 5000 series cpu that is the limit for 3800Mhz MEM OC for 1:1 that you want to run. For that most boards have no issues running it @ 3800Mhz if your CPU can do it (not all can).
> 
> The better boards need you to run 1:2 ratio on the 3000/5000 series for you to see the better MEM OC capabilities of the new X570/B550 motherboards. But 1:2 ratio is just worse than 1:1 in general unless you run a 4800-5000Mhz MEM OC anyway and that might not even be better than a good low timings 3800/1900 OC in the end.
> 
> Only the 4000 series have the IMC to run 4200~4600Mhz in 1:1 ratio. Not every CPU can do it either. Some can only do ~4466/2233 at best for MEM/FCLK which is about the limits of my 4650G for 1:1. but only for 2 dimms.
> In 1:2 ratio with the right motherboard & memory kit 5100+ can be done. (these kind of clocks might not be possible on X470)
> 
> So you see it's only for those who like to experiment that it's a valid point to consider. Average users are good if they have 3600/1800 running with XMP enabled. Most of the performance is already gained. And you avoid all the headache & tuning.


True i am one of the lucky ones that has a good CPU that can handle good CPU core and RAM speed. Im running 4.4 GHz 1.275vcore. Under a custom loop its never ever running hot and my fans are at 50%  

The only issue here is the erraticness of the platform that one minute its stable and the other it creates problems like mouse issues etc. 

My CCD/ IOD voltage is at 1.050. Should i get it higher for 3800 MHz?


----------



## hurricane28

Nope, not stable at all. 

I don't get it man, seems like there is some kind of incompatibilitie issie with my new RAM and system. No matter what speed, voltage or whatever its not stable anymore and it triggers WHE errors...


----------



## hurricane28

This is the error i get when stressing with OCCT: 











Yesterday it was good for 1.5 hours of OCCT and today it was "unstable" again.. When testing with TM5 i never find any issues and it passes everything.. 

Does this mean that my new RAM kit is utter trash or compatibility issues? I mean, with my g.skill FlareX kit i never encountered these issues and it was stable as a rock always.. 

My new kit should also be B-die but i highly doubt it because if it was why so much issues with only a slight over clock.. Its not the CPU as i could run 3800 MHz on my other RAM kit just fine.. 

I tried more or less voltage, proc ODT settings. One minute its stable and the other its acting up again.. I tried resetting everything, using the same BIOS as on my FlareX kit but nothing works.. I saved .CMO file so i have exactly the same settings as on the FlareX but no go.. 

Before i send this RAM kit back i want to know for sure if its the RAM or something else, idk anymore.


----------



## OCmember

@hurricane28 Means you IF is unstable. Either play with the voltages or lower your IF speed. My 3800X could do 1900, this Vermeer I have can only do 1866


----------



## hurricane28

That is correct. 

There was something wrong with the settings it seems and now its all working well again... 

I saved BIOS settings to .CMO file and i could flash it. But it seems that when you flash BIOS settings it "forgets" or simply cannot apply some settings.. I had to search trough them to see that and make it work again. Now everything is good again.


----------



## Zeuskk

Hey guys, can you help with overclocking Crucial Ballistix 3000mhz CL15 2x8GB (BLS2K8G4D30AESBK) to 3800Mhz?
Im struggling another day to reach 3800Mhz with this kits. Without any problems I reached 3733Mhz following DRAM calculator, 1usmus Techpower guide and github DDR4 OC Guide, but 3800Mhz can't even boot. I tried loosing timings to 18-22-22-42 and tCWL 18 and rest on Auto, 1.5v DRAM, SOC 1.17v, played with ProcODT from 40 to 63Ω, VDDG and VDDP on Auto, even putting all safe timings from DRAM Calculator didnt help. I tried to follow all recommendations from both guides and I still can't boot. Should I play more with VDDG and VDDP (system auto set them to 1.07v and 1.14v AFAIR) or increase more ProcODT?
My comp is: Ryzen 3600 not OC (yet ;p), B450 Tomahawk Max (latest BIOS), very decent case cooling (2x120mm blowing straight on RAM), BIOS loaded with default settings and Micron E-die Crucial Ballistix Sport LT 3000Mhz CL15 2x8GB BLS2K8G4D30AESBK (Rank 1).
Reading comments and posts from around net I thought that it will be easy process to reach 3800Mhz and then struggle a bit with rest settings but I can't even boot, have to clear CMOS everytime


----------



## algida79

@Zeuskk your DIMMs are more than capable, it's the CPU that might be holding you back.

Try desynchronising Infinity Fabric clock from Memory clock. i.e. run your RAM at a lower speed e.g. 3200MHz with loose/XMP timings and only increase your FCLK to 1900MHz. See if you can POST. If not, you'll need to try different Vsoc, VDDG, CLDO_VDDP voltages to stabilize the Infinity Fabric if possible. E.g. try CLDO_VDDP 900mV, VDDG_CCD/IOD 975mV, Vsoc 1.05V.


----------



## Zeuskk

algida79 said:


> @Zeuskk your DIMMs are more than capable, it's the CPU that might be holding you back.
> 
> Try desynchronising Infinity Fabric clock from Memory clock. i.e. run your RAM at a lower speed e.g. 3200MHz with loose/XMP timings and only increase your FCLK to 1900MHz. See if you can POST. If not, you'll need to try different Vsoc, VDDG, CLDO_VDDP voltages to stabilize the Infinity Fabric if possible. E.g. try CLDO_VDDP 900mV, VDDG_CCD/IOD 975mV, Vsoc 1.05V.


Ye CPU is my limit I guess, tried desynchronising with 3200Mhz loose timings and only increasing FCLK to 1900MHz and I couldn't boot even if I manualy set VDDP, VDDG and SOC to your recommendations and higher. I think the best will be to stay on 3733MHz and find good timings or maybe there is other way that is worth trying?


----------



## wuttman

I still can't figure out what slots to put weakest ram kit in, when doing 4x8. Initial slots or physically closer to the socket?


----------



## mrsteelx

wuttman said:


> I still can't figure out what slots to put weakest ram kit in, when doing 4x8. Initial slots or physically closer to the socket?


put weakest ram kit in A2 and B2


----------



## wuttman

I was messing around with ram leaving vsoc on auto when I noticed in zen timings that vsoc voltage bumped from 1.1 to 1.55 upon launching tm5. Was it real or monitoring bug? I'm afraid I fried mem controller a bit and it will never show good results now. For example going from 1.1 to 1.12 gives me tons of errors, not sure if related.


----------



## Veii

wuttman said:


> I was messing around with ram leaving vsoc on auto when I noticed in zen timings that vsoc voltage bumped from 1.1 to 1.55 upon launching tm5. Was it real or monitoring bug? I'm afraid I fried mem controller a bit and it will never show good results now. For example going from 1.1 to 1.12 gives me tons of errors, not sure if related.











Bugs 
Both actually, readout and requested but never provided


wuttman said:


> I still can't figure out what slots to put weakest ram kit in, when doing 4x8. Initial slots or physically closer to the socket?


Weakest on the main-master slots, best set (user binned) on the slave set


----------



## wuttman

Veii said:


> Both actually, readout and requested but never provided


Such a relief, thank you


----------



## Veii

wuttman said:


> Such a relief, thank you


There are over 12 protections in place to prevent too high voltage passing through
You can bug out FIT and request 1.55vCore through CTR by accident
Yet even if you do that and it bugs out - as the user used "offset mode on an too early version of CTR"
There are 4-5 more protections left after FIT bugs out.
You can also bug out FIT with the old EDC bug, of 1,2,3 as a value
But then another protection triggers and package throttles the whole CPU including cache

Even if anything leaked in there. The cpu would be slower than 550Mhz , and there 1.6v wouldn't do anything to it
It can request it if all goes haywire and breaks, but at the end even if the VRMs supply it - it will never arrive in that form to the CCDs 

The only "user influential" degradation voltage you can use is too high VDDG CCD (beyond 1100+)
or cLDO_VDDP beyond 1.15v

Oor 1.3v SOC with 120ohm procODT
useless stuff like this , would damage it
Ooor running 1.65v for over 30min at beyond 90+ Celsius

Soo don't worry about it
Only keep VDDG voltages lower than 1150mV
well and maybe take a reading through this whole thread








AMD max overclocking voltage


Hello, I'm new to overclocking and I'm not shure about the max "safe" voltages on an amd 5000 platform. I have a 5950x a asus crossfire dark hero and a gskill 4000 cl16 kit. I have a kind of stable profile where i did only memory, soc, and fclk overclocking. memory voltage = 1.51 v, soc = 1.3 v...




www.overclock.net





Degradation is hard on these chips. They will throttle on close to every little issue and autocorrect 
Really "breaking" them is hard, and bypassing FIT close to impossible


----------



## OCmember

Is 1.125vSOC a little high for 1700/3400 cl14, GDM Disabled 1T ?


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> Is 1.125vSOC a little high for 1700/3400 cl14, GDM Disabled 1T ?


Could imagine it with dual 64gb dimms at 53ohm procODT
else, just waste of heat 


Veii said:


> Minimum Requirements of VSOC mV @ Frequency
> 
> 3200 - 980-1000mV
> 3400 - <1040mV
> 3600 - <1060mV
> 3800 - <1075mV
> 4000 - <1137,5mV
> 4067 - 1165-1200mV
> 4200 - 1187,5-1225mV
> maximum being 1300mV, while 2100 defaults to 1250mV SOC.


These are GET values , not SET
IMC scales similar to Matisse on low voltages. Maybe a bit better even , just procODT is one step higher than Matisse
Less than 1050mV will run 1700 FCLK ~ when less than 1.1v can run 1900 FCLK

Usually the IMC should be able to run 1800 FCLK at 1.025vSOC ~ but depending on loadline and thermals + memory dimm strain. The limits are subtle bit higher
Also higher because the CPU boosts higher. But on Matisse it certainly does work @ 28ohm procODT
Linking you to the same thread again








Stable a 1060mV-SOC (1900 FCLK)
That's another dual CCD gimped unit, soo nothing single CCD exclusive


----------



## wuttman

Veii said:


> These are GET values , not SET


Excuse me, is there a guide how to narrow down the search for best values of voltages and impendences? How likely for same motherboards to share same best settings?


----------



## Veii

wuttman said:


> Excuse me, is there a guide how to narrow down the search for best values of voltages and impendences? How likely for same motherboards to share same best settings?


It's a long routine in 3 steps/stages:

1st stage (exploring)

Use very lose timings you know which will run and have an allcore CO set. Alone -3 is enough as long as all cores reach that same freq
figure out what VDDG combinations you need , probably at the same time you also do SOC testing
run y-cruncher through it and see if you fail on each of the tests per frequency
aida64 confirm that you actually do subtle but positive changes step by step
note all this down

2nd stage (undervolting)

learn how loadline on your board behaves and check how much is required till you do crash on y-cruncher or refuse to post
at this point VDDGs should be fine but you never know, soo be sure it really is y-cruncher stable

3rd stage (benchmarking)

after figuring out "random optimals" and "minimum undervolts", use the minimum load as a baseline for aida64 benchmarking & change procODT +1 / -1 , to figure out instabilities ~ 0.3ns variance is instability or an unoptimized OS
above should be in an own stage, but keep benchmarking - till you figure out the min/max of vSOC inside your procODT range / the one you've settled down for. Keep benchmarking till the result improves
like again one above, scale up freq till you see that either VDDG is not enough, SOC is not enough or procODT is not enough
at this point you should be able to feel what is wrong and what is autocorrecting

Not really a guide, but that's usually it
Benchmarking benchmarking benchmarking.
It needs a high timings foundation for such, and before all that ~ needs a non varying cpu setup. With cache hitting optimal access time on all cores
I can see that 12 threads holding the same stock freq, is easier than 32 threads holding the same stock freq, per core 
Cache access times:
10.9ns = 4.65 allcore
10.7ns = 4.75 allcore
10.4ns = 4.85 allcore
10.2ns = 4.95 boost on allcores for a short time

I have the unit since so far around 6 months
the post was written after around two months
All sounds easy , but a lot of 12h days went into it exploring how it behaves
Overall the guide is the same

Y-cruncher, SiSoftware Sandra MCE Test, Aida64, HWinfo (CPU Snapshot pooling mode)
Where all you need
OCCT extreme came to existence far later, including all per-core test tools & CTR
Currently it's easier to test things


----------



## wuttman

Veii said:


> It's a long routine in 3 steps/stages:


Any settings I can steal from another owner of same motherboard?  Or everything, rtt's, cad buses, etc are tied to cpu sample?


----------



## Veii

wuttman said:


> Any settings I can steal from another owner of same motherboard?  Or everything, rtt's, cad buses, etc are tied to cpu sample?


If you are willing to downconvert to v1.20 & update to 1.60 from the bios, i can give you a whole rom copy
So you can flash it with flashrom and have all my profiles

It's up to you what you decide then
Either a black-copy of anything till 1866-2033 FCLK
or one that starts from 2033 FCLK and goes till 2167 + 5ghz presets

Maybe i can just export the profile files for you to load from the usb, that could also work
I even think it should compatible across all B550 ASRock boards ~ but somebody has to try
The profiles that are loaded, do also change settings which are in the hidden. For example ones that where exposed in a previous bios but aren't anymore

Current bioses have a flashlock since AGESA 1.2.0.0
Current 1201 is plain bad, but you can normally downgrade
Soo if you go to anything that's lower than 1200 , you can use flashrom to flash the romfile with all profiles in there
=====
If you mean "copy from another owner" in general,
RTTs are depending a bit on the PCB quality, but a lot on the DIMM amount and capacity (dual rank or single rank)

cLDO_VDDP and VDDG are pretty much sample dependent , but it's also architecture dependent
Soo you can copy what people use on the zen 3 sheet








AMD RAM overclocking


ZEN 2 - Matisse (7nm TSMC) name,latency,FCLK,MT/s,timings,DIMMS,IC-type,part number,read,write,copy,VSOC,VDDG,VDIMM,VDDP,ProcODT,RTT,stability test,CPU,mainboard Reous,57,5 ns,1900 Mhz,3800 Mhz,<a href="https://abload.de/image.php?img=380014-14-13-1310000kzbkdb.png">14-13-14-13-30-44-247</a>,2x...




docs.google.com





Just don't really run cLDO_VDDP beyond 1020mV, 1050mV as max
It's a bad idea. Also a bad idea is to run VDDG CCD beyond 1050 or IOD beyond 1150mV
SOC can go up till 1.3, but 1.2 is about what you need most of the times


----------



## wuttman

Veii said:


> So you can flash it with flashrom and have all my profiles


No, I mean if I have b550 tomahawk, can I just copy another tomahawk owner's values and hope it will fit me best?


----------



## dymONE

Hi

something what could be enhanced here?

4x8GB
VDDG CCD: 0.85V
VDIMM: 1.53V
watercooled


----------



## OCmember

@Veii 

First test run with vSOC 1.068v passed the latest OCCT test. BTW it's a single rank kit. Using 53.3 ODT. CR1 seems to need this or maybe it's my memory kit, but I'll try lowering that after my TM5 run which should complete in the next few hours.


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> @Veii
> 
> First test run with vSOC 1.068v passed the latest OCCT test. BTW it's a single rank kit. Using 53.3 ODT. CR1 seems to need this or maybe it's my memory kit, but I'll try lowering that after my TM5 run which should complete in the next few hours.


Latest, you mean newest "Extreme" ?
Else y-cruncher is your friend


wuttman said:


> No, I mean if I have b550 tomahawk, can I just copy another tomahawk owner's values and hope it will fit me best?


I see no issue there


----------



## OCmember

@Veii OCCT 8.1.1 default test 

Y cruncher kills my CPU 90's almost immediately


----------



## hurricane28

dymONE said:


> Hi
> 
> something what could be enhanced here?
> 
> 4x8GB
> VDDG CCD: 0.85V
> VDIMM: 1.53V
> watercooled


Impressive. 

How did you test stability? Did you use OCCT mem bench? That one really finds errors fast. TM5 is not that reliable anymore imo.


----------



## dymONE

hurricane28 said:


> Impressive.
> 
> How did you test stability? Did you use OCCT mem bench? That one really finds errors fast. TM5 is not that reliable anymore imo.


TM5, P95 Large FFTs + MSI Kombustor, Y-Cruncher full component stress tester. All for 12+ hours

Going to test OCCT bench now  fingers crossed


----------



## Veii

OCmember said:


> @Veii OCCT 8.1.1 default test
> 
> Y cruncher kills my CPU 90's almost immediately


You can still put a PPT limit on it for Heat-Taming
Same as an TDC limit if voltage limits are needed
Else OCCT basic is weaker than p95's typical testing method

A stable CPU will use it's enforced 90c throttle limit and package throttle
A crash on y-cruncher, is a crash ~ a real crash, it's not purely thermal related, as the CPU will do it's best to stay at peak 90c and not overshoot it
Exceptions are OC_Mode settings, with enforced fixed frequency and bypassed Precision Boost scaling & safety features


dymONE said:


> something what could be enhanced here?


GDM Off , 2T
Which very likely will show if your low tRRD & tWTR have a chance to survive normal not half-speed slowed down load
MUX run at half speed with GDM.
The positive of it is that you can run "apparently lower" tRFC, and lower looking secondary's
In reality it runs at half speed and fakes "low timings". Also hides RTT powering issues


----------



## OCmember

Veii said:


> You can still put a PPT limit on it for Heat-Taming
> Same as an TDC limit if voltage limits are needed
> Else OCCT basic is weaker than p95's typical testing method
> 
> A stable CPU will use it's enforced 90c throttle limit and package throttle
> A crash on y-cruncher, is a crash ~ a real crash, it's not purely thermal related, as the CPU will do it's best to stay at peak 90c and not overshoot it
> Exceptions are OC_Mode settings, with enforced fixed frequency and bypassed Precision Boost scaling & safety features


Ok, I'll give it another try. PBO has been disabled for about a week. Seen better results with CoreCycler having higher clock speeds with better stability. How many runs 3 minimum? I'll enable all tests, too.


EDIT: passed 3 runs, also no WHEA errors, thanks for the suggestions  

EDIT2: 1700/3400, GDM disabled CR1, BGS Disabled, VSOC 1.0750, DRAM 1.452v, 53.3 Ohms, RZQ/5, 24-24-24-24, tRFC 160, 14-14-14-14-28-42, Single Rank kit. Dual Rank kit cl14 3800 coming in today due to thinking my IF was stable at 1900 lol ooof


----------



## hurricane28

dymONE said:


> TM5, P95 Large FFTs + MSI Kombustor, Y-Cruncher full component stress tester. All for 12+ hours
> 
> Going to test OCCT bench now  fingers crossed


Very nice, 

Let me know how it goes. 

What board are you using and what CPU oc? Can you show an Aida64 membench?


----------



## slice313

Hello folks,

I need help tightening my timings.  @Veii

I recently switched to a 32GB DDR4 kit since I needed more than 16GB. The chip seems to be Micron Rev. J (I checked the Patriot barcode: *19JJB*) and also exported a Full Thaiphoon report.

Until now I managed to drive the DIMMS to CL16 and sightly tightened everything, but I don't know if something looks out of place since I don't have any experience with this Micron "weird" Rev. This have been tested with Karhu until 6500% and with TM5 using 1usmus profile for 3 cycles. *All pass*. 

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Nighthog

slice313 said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> I need help tightening my timings.  @Veii
> 
> I recently switched to a 32GB DDR4 kit since I needed more than 16GB. The chip seems to be Micron Rev. J (I checked the Patriot barcode: *19JJB*) and also exported a Full Thaiphoon report.
> 
> Until now I managed to drive the DIMMS to CL16 and sightly tightened everything, but I don't know if something looks out of place since I don't have any experience with this Micron "weird" Rev. This have been tested with Karhu until 6500% and with TM5 using 1usmus profile for 3 cycles. *All pass*.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2487688
> View attachment 2487690
> View attachment 2487684


Rev.J has same behaviours as Rev.E. Settings are interchangeable. (might like a slightly different procODT but otherwise similar)
My Rev.J kits are better than my Rev.E kits.


----------



## slice313

Nighthog said:


> Rev.J has same behaviours as Rev.E. Settings are interchangeable. (might like a slightly different procODT but otherwise similar)
> My Rev.J kits are better than my Rev.E kits.


I tried booting with the "1usmus Calc" + with the Rev. E preset (Bad bin and safe) and no luck sadly. Something is stooping me or my just have a bad bin. I attach the timings I tried with the comparison ON. Ty @Nighthog


----------



## Asmodian

Have you tried the import XMP option:


> I used the import manual XMP option vs simply clicking R-XMP and noticed a pretty big difference in the suggested timings. This could be why some people may be having issues using the calculator.
> 
> Open Thaiphoon, click Report button
> Scroll all the way to the bottom
> Click 'Show delays in nanoseconds'
> Export, Complete HTML Report, Save
> Click Import XMP button in DRAM Calc
> Navigate to your saved HTML Report.


----------



## hurricane28

I think my new RAM kit is utter trash or my PSU is going bad.. 

No matter what setting or what i change, it remains unstable in gaming.. At first its okay but after a while i get lots of input lag in games which makes it unplayable.. I wish i never sold my FlareX kit... 

I tried other BIOS as well but nothing works.. what an nightmare.


----------



## OCmember

@hurricane28 It's more likely the RAM kit. I have 1.35v cl19 4133 2x8 kit that I was thinking I could tighten the timings with higher volts at 3800, nope, kit is trash. I bought a 2x8 Cl14 3800 1.5v kit and it's a great kit. According to Ryzen Calculator the memory chip quality % is 114 and it's OC potential is 5040 @ cl16 but the calculator has known to been wrong at times.


----------



## hurricane28

OCmember said:


> @hurricane28 It's more likely the RAM kit. I have 1.35v cl19 4133 2x8 kit that I was thinking I could tighten the timings with higher volts at 3800, nope, kit is trash. I bought a 2x8 Cl14 3800 1.5v kit and it's a great kit. According to Ryzen Calculator the memory chip quality % is 114 and it's OC potential is 5040 @ cl16 but the calculator has known to been wrong at times.


I think so too man. I was 100% stable with my FlareX kit and since i got this one i get nothing but problems.. I highly doubt its B-die though. Cant even run 3800 MHz from 3600.. while the FlareX did 3800 MHz Cl14 without any issues!

Im returing this kit and get new one and go from there.

Here are my settings: 










Nothing special so if it can't run this its trash imo..


----------



## Asmodian

hurricane28 said:


> At first its okay but after a while i get lots of input lag in games which makes it unplayable..


This doesn't make sense as a simple hardware issue. What could the RAM be doing that would cause increased input lag after a bit, while not causing stability issues at the same time?

I would look for software, temperature, or power issues.


----------



## OCmember

@hurricane28 Is Spread Spectrum disabled in your bios? Might want to make sure that's disabled first.


----------



## hurricane28

Asmodian said:


> This doesn't make sense as a simple hardware issue. What could the RAM be doing that would cause increased input lag after a bit, while not causing stability issues at the same time?
> 
> I would look for software, temperature, or power issues.


That is what im saying too but can't find anything. Im starting to see the PSU as suspect as its already 7 years old.. I don't see anything weird though but still it can be a good explanation as it happens over time and one day its stable and the other its acting up.



OCmember said:


> @hurricane28 Is Spread Spectrum disabled in your bios? Might want to make sure that's disabled first.


Yes its always disabled in BIOS. I knew this could cause some problems indeed.


----------



## jollydet

hurricane28 said:


> That is what im saying too but can't find anything. Im starting to see the PSU as suspect as its already 7 years old.. I don't see anything weird though but still it can be a good explanation as it happens over time and one day its stable and the other its acting up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its always disabled in BIOS. I knew this could cause some problems indeed.


You say its unstable in gaming. Most likely your ram is getting warm from gpu heat and your low trfc is causing errors. try setting your trfc to 400, open hwinfo64 during some gaming sessions so you can log your dram temps. if it cures the issue then its simply your sticks getting to hot for the set trfc which is temp sensitive. Long term fix- increase cooling or increase trfc accordingly.


----------



## hurricane28

jollydet said:


> You say its unstable in gaming. Most likely your ram is getting warm from gpu heat and your low trfc is causing errors. try setting your trfc to 400, open hwinfo64 during some gaming sessions so you can log your dram temps. if it cures the issue then its simply your sticks getting to hot for the set trfc which is temp sensitive. Long term fix- increase cooling or increase trfc accordingly.



Thnx for feedback.

My RAM never gets hot as i keep an keen eye on temps on all of my components. My RAM never exceeds 35c during gaming or even heavy stresstesting as i have an fan blowing on bot dimms. 

I think this RAM kit is just a dud as my FlareX kit could do much the same at lower voltages.. I might return this one and get 3800 MHz kit instead or higher speed. 

As of now its running pretty good but with some mouse lag issues which i don't know what is causing this. Can be Windows, can be the BIOS, can be software, can be anything really. So i stick with it so far until new updates roll out.


----------



## dymONE

hurricane28 said:


> Very nice,
> 
> Let me know how it goes.
> 
> What board are you using and what CPU oc? Can you show an Aida64 membench?



OCCT passed several times without error/s.
MB is Asus Crosshair VIII Formula
CPU is in AutoOC mode with vcore offset -0.1V
Aida with AutoOC / AllCore 4.5GHz






















Veii said:


> GDM Off , 2T
> Which very likely will show if your low tRRD & tWTR have a chance to survive normal not half-speed slowed down load
> MUX run at half speed with GDM.
> The positive of it is that you can run "apparently lower" tRFC, and lower looking secondary's
> In reality it runs at half speed and fakes "low timings". Also hides RTT powering issues


Ok will try that, but I'm doubt that it will survive it, if it's like you described regarding the GDM.
Any suggestion regarding the timings values to that bootable? GDM Off , 2T


----------



## OCmember

Is it me or does CR1 GDM Disabled feel and perform better for gaming than GDM Enabled?


----------



## hurricane28

dymONE said:


> OCCT passed several times without error/s.
> MB is Asus Crosshair VIII Formula
> CPU is in AutoOC mode with vcore offset -0.1V
> Aida with AutoOC / AllCore 4.5GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok will try that, but I'm doubt that it will survive it, if it's like you described regarding the GDM.
> Any suggestion regarding the timings values to that bootable? GDM Off , 2T


Very nice man! Is this the best result you can get out of it or do you leave it at this? Nothing wrong with it obviously, just curious. 

The thing with my system is that i can pass anything one day and the other it can't.. Seems like power issues to me. Gonna buy new PSU anyway soon. 

This new kit i have is also B-die but not from the same quality as my Flare X i think.


----------



## hurricane28

Man, i tried everything but this RAM kit is giving me lots of issues man... 

Nothing will work anything out of spec and it becomes unstable... nothing runs too hot or too much voltage whatsoever im doing this for a long time now and this kit is the worst B-die kit i ever heard of.. 

**** what an frustration this can be.. Im running stock settings now, im done with this ****. Returning this crappy kit and get something that is actually quality instead of this dud.. My Flare X was 10000x better than this.


----------



## OCmember

@hurricane28 tl:dr have you tried a different PCB revision? Like A2

My DR 3800 Cl14 is limited by my IF to 1866 so with GDM Enabled it can do Manual timings from Calculator, and at the same settings it won't boot when I change ONLY GDM from Enabled to Disabled + CR2. It might need a little more volts, however. When I use the A2 PCB revision setting & plug in the timings I can use less volts with the IF and it's stable. The only caveat is that I've only stability tested today and I'll need to run tests again tomorrow to make sure it's good to go, but that's besides the point.


----------



## lmfodor

OCmember said:


> @hurricane28 tl:dr have you tried a different PCB revision? Like A2
> 
> My DR 3800 Cl14 is limited by my IF to 1866 so with GDM Enabled it can do Manual timings from Calculator, and at the same settings it won't boot when I change ONLY GDM from Enabled to Disabled + CR2. It might need a little more volts, however. When I use the A2 PCB revision setting & plug in the timings I can use less volts with the IF and it's stable. The only caveat is that I've only stability tested today and I'll need to run tests again tomorrow to make sure it's good to go, but that's besides the point.


Hi! I also have the one of the new memory kits 3800CL14 that Gakill released on November 2020 optimized for Rayzen 5000. In my case I have 2x16 that are dual rank and because of that Little bit hard to overclock. I saw two members how with these memories (PCB A02) manage to reach 3800-14-14-14 and in my case, it is hard to achieve. Indeed now im trying to lower my tRCDRD to 15 and as I’m using as an exception GDM enable, I know that I need some tweaks not only to reach 15 but also lower to 14 and then jumó to 4000/2000-16/16-16 thank should be easy 

This are my timings now with a good bandwidth an latency. But I want to improve it. 

View attachment 2488172

This configuración are extremely stable 

From here first set I want to do is to lower 15 and set GDM off with 2T

The lower to 14z. And last 4000-16-16-16. 
These are my kits. Do you have the same?










Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## OCmember

@lmfodor Yes, I said they were DR (Dual Rank) I got them a few days ago. I also have a single rank 2x8 3800 CL14 1.5v kit that can do GDM Disabled CR1 @ 3400, again it's limited by my weak IF. I also have a 3600 2x16 DR CL16 1.35v kit that can do exactly what the 2x16 CL14 3800 kit can do. I think our kit is PCB revision A2, correct me if I am wrong. My 2x16 3800 kit did 3800 with manual timings however it was only doing 1800 IF. I just wanted to verify that the kit could do what it was sold to do. I used the manual timings from Calculator so I'm sure it'll do the XMP profile. So for me I've learned my new kit will do CR2 with GDM disabled @ 3733 but only with the A2 timings from Calculator. IIRC my 2x8 kit was the same way, but with a 2x16 DR kit you get Interleave so it's nice play with that option. You can disable Interleave through the bios. You can also play with BGS (Bank Group Swap) An article on the AMD forums suggests gaming fps are higher with BGS disabled however you lose Memory Read bandwidth.


----------



## hurricane28

OCmember said:


> @hurricane28 tl:dr have you tried a different PCB revision? Like A2
> 
> My DR 3800 Cl14 is limited by my IF to 1866 so with GDM Enabled it can do Manual timings from Calculator, and at the same settings it won't boot when I change ONLY GDM from Enabled to Disabled + CR2. It might need a little more volts, however. When I use the A2 PCB revision setting & plug in the timings I can use less volts with the IF and it's stable. The only caveat is that I've only stability tested today and I'll need to run tests again tomorrow to make sure it's good to go, but that's besides the point.



Well the problem is that with my Flare X it was stable as a rock at the same settings.. This is weird as they are both B-die and my Trident Z neo is rated at 3600 CL16 and Flare X is 3200 Cl14 so i know my CPU/IF can handle 1900 fclk. 

I have the same, no boot with GDM disabled. I'm running 1.450v on the RAM and 1.050 on the CLDO VDDP and VDDG IOD.

It is strange that i can pass Memtest5 and game for hours but with OCCT memtest i get WHEA error after one hour or less. Some day its good other day its within 30 or 1 hour mark.. I don't get it. 

Why is OCCT so good in error detecting?


----------



## OCmember

@hurricane28 Where do the memory chips line up at with the NEO kit? I think the Flare X is an older design so I would guess the IC layout would differ than the NEO. I could be wrong though.


----------



## lmfodor

OCmember said:


> @lmfodor Yes, I said they were DR (Dual Rank) I got them a few days ago. I also have a single rank 2x8 3800 CL14 1.5v kit that can do GDM Disabled CR1 @ 3400, again it's limited by my weak IF. I also have a 3600 2x16 DR CL16 1.35v kit that can do exactly what the 2x16 CL14 3800 kit can do. I think our kit is PCB revision A2, correct me if I am wrong. My 2x16 3800 kit did 3800 with manual timings however it was only doing 1800 IF. I just wanted to verify that the kit could do what it was sold to do. I used the manual timings from Calculator so I'm sure it'll do the XMP profile. So for me I've learned my new kit will do CR2 with GDM disabled @ 3733 but only with the A2 timings from Calculator. IIRC my 2x8 kit was the same way, but with a 2x16 DR kit you get Interleave so it's nice play with that option. You can disable Interleave through the bios. You can also play with BGS (Bank Group Swap) An article on the AMD forums suggests gaming fps are higher with BGS disabled however you lose Memory Read bandwidth.


Hi! This is my best stable settings but now I’m working to set 2T. I only have two errors on TM5 so I need to find out what values is preventing to not work with GDM or better said, to use a tRCDRD at 15. I










I will try disable interleaving. I never heard about that. If I loose bandwidth I prefer to not use BGS. I will research a little about this options. 

What mobo are you using?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ManniX-ITA

lmfodor said:


> I only have two errors on TM5 so I need to find out what values is preventing to not work with GDM


Did you set the timings? 3-3-15 or 4-4-18?
Without the setup timings right it'll be difficult to get it error free.


----------



## k1rOuX

Hi guys, I have a issue in the MEMbench feature inside the DRAM Calculator. When I do the Easy or Default bench, it only use 4 or 5 threads instead of my 12 threads (I have a r5 3600) Do you know why ? I dont use PBO, I'm on a manual fixed OC.
Thanks =)


----------



## wuttman

Does tRCDWR even work on amd?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

wuttman said:


> Does tRCDWR even work on amd?


AFAIK it works but not a huge bump in performances.
Preferably tWRRD x SCL < tRCDWR.


----------



## k1rOuX

k1rOuX said:


> Hi guys, I have a issue in the MEMbench feature inside the DRAM Calculator. When I do the Easy or Default bench, it only use 4 or 5 threads instead of my 12 threads (I have a r5 3600) Do you know why ? I dont use PBO, I'm on a manual fixed OC.
> Thanks =)
> View attachment 2488397


I deleted config file in %appdata%, now it use all threads, but I got the same score lol ^^
Just to give a little feedback


----------



## 1s1mple

There's no B1 option for DRAM PCB Revision for CJR?


----------



## OCmember

Is Memory Interleave on Dual rank responsible for the inability to run true CR1 (1T), or is it something else?


----------



## rickje159

What does ProcODT do? Should i worry about changing the termination block?
Everything seems to be stable as of now after 1 and a half hour of testing.

Is there any way i can reduce the voltages like VDIMM?
It looks really high to me and my memory sticks are 55C at daily usage. I had heard you should keep them under 45C to not receive thermal errors.

I also was wondering if you guys have some recommendations and tips on what i should do / which timings i should change further to improve game performance & general performance & latency.

I am still fairly new to overclocking memory.

I had achieved 3733 in the first 4 days of me starting to overclock.


----------



## AMDfreak

I'm getting a not supported message for a new Crucial Ballistix kit (BL2K32G36C16U4B). Is this really not supported or have I entered something incorrectly?


----------



## Audioboxer

Yay, I upgraded to a 5950x from a 3900xt and 1900FLCK was as easy as setting it in the bios. Never managed to get 1900 booting on my 3900xt.

Boo, memory is now unstable and it's going to be hours again to try and find settings lol. The calculate SAFE for Micron E-die at 3800mhz is unstable for me. I was previously running 3733mhz at some pretty low settings for Micron E-die.

Hope I'm not going to have to upgrade my memory now to get some decent settings at 3800mhz 

I guess to keep my sanity I'll drop back down to 1866/3733 and first work on overclocking/undervolting this 5950x. The dark arts of memory magic can wait a few days.


----------



## thomasck

Hi guys, I've upgraded from a RadeonVII to a 6900XT and I started to notice some stuttering. I can't think of anything apart from some memory timings that might not be playing well now after the upgrade. PSU has enough power, CPU (3900x) is stock and with a small negative offset, gpu is also stock, just again a small undervolt. RAM is HCI/Karhu/TM5 @ anta's and 1usmus stable.
Here are my timings, in case someone could give a north in this.


----------



## Audioboxer

My B-die arrived today. No experience with this RAM and what I've bought is rated for 3200, CL14, so some help for where to start first would be appreciate.










Just punched some pretty basic 3800 settings in to let it run for an hour and make sure the RAM isn't dodgy out the gate. I did buy 2nd hand.

I'm going to guess trying to get 16-17-16-16 down should be my first bet.


----------



## jon666

Dialed back into the Fast calculator timings at stock CPU (3.9 boost if I am very lucky) Trying to feed everything less volts and giving the negative offset thing a go. I also managed to change a setting so the PC sleeps even with the Membench stress test running(woops, problems for later, went on to benching anyways). Everything appears to be in order and ambients are climbing past mid 80s F easy in the evenings so I don't know that I want to push things anymore til summer ends. Never could get bios to update which might be for the best. I think bios got bigger with every update iirc. If I do play around with RAM again it will be at 3k mhz for my sanity, and maybe for better latency? XMP for 3466 is bootable no problem if I ignore the extra juice to CPU and heat. That,and anything above 3200 enables gear down mode because I left that on auto til the troubleshooting is over. Newer Zen clocks are making me envious. DRAM Voltage on 1.36, been at that since the beginning and going up or down with it always turns into a headache, oh well.
























AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ 3497.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[q3rcgz] Validated Dump by yawwwn (2021-06-22 19:50:05) - MB: MSI X370 GAMING PRO CARBON (MS-7A32) - RAM: 16384 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## herericc

http://imgur.com/056eAI3


Seems to be pretty stable at this speed, but I couldn't seem to get it to boot up at 3800 FCLK.
Still, 3733 at relatively low voltage (1.4V on VDRAM) should let me do some tinkering on the timings!

I'm hoping that Gigabyte eventually releases a non-beta BIOS that also fixes all the USB / Bluetooth issues that my board has.

Dual sticks of 16gb E-die, 3200C16 XMP settings.


----------



## Synoxia

Has dram calc been unstable for you lately?
My 3200 c14 tridentz b-die (3200c14-8gtzr) cant even run 3600c14 safe preset settings from the calc... I've made sure that I've correctly imported "complete html report" from taiphoon burner and obviously i copied every value.
Mobo is c7h wifi hero and cpu 3700x.
Any hint @Veii ? I've seen you recommending -0.5 vddsoc offset and 40mv stepping in some threads


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Any hint @Veii ? I've seen you recommending -0.5 vddsoc offset and 40mv stepping in some threads


That's been AGESA 1100A/B times
Where SOC always was 50mV too high predicted
This post is a bit more up to date, yet still 6 months old








AMD max overclocking voltage


Hello, I'm new to overclocking and I'm not shure about the max "safe" voltages on an amd 5000 platform. I have a 5950x a asus crossfire dark hero and a gskill 4000 cl16 kit. I have a kind of stable profile where i did only memory, soc, and fclk overclocking. memory voltage = 1.51 v, soc = 1.3 v...




www.overclock.net





After SMU 56.50, we got what seems to be an IMC FW patch
At least something behaves different
soo you can lower procODT once & you can increase RTT_PARK to one value weaker
for example 005 up to 006 or better 706
or 731 to 732 now (RTT's)

DQs, RZQ, procODT range ~ and couple more, should have changed since AGESA 1081/1082 before 1100, but somehow the change came far later when dLDO_Injector was "enabled"
The Digital Low Dropout regulator, which doubled cache bandwidth (if you max out EDC and limit voltages with TDC value)
But this created the so called overboost and idle crash, issue
Soo you need to enable Powersuply Idle Controll to "typical current" & disable DF-C States

Global C-State generation was/is need, soo the boost functions well and it doesn't stick at P0 powerstate = 3.7ghz or for a 5950X it should be 3.4? ghz
It's good that the CPU idles down, as power reserves are very tight and low
Read post:
CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings and one bellow it the other longer one

FUSE liimt still will be enforced, nevertheless what PBO EDC value you set
Soo it's a good thing if you unlock and run unlimited EDC + limit voltages and instability for y-cruncher with TDC and PPT value

Generally, dram-calculator is out of date
1usmus Timings either work perfect, or you change one thing and they don't work at all
The recommended voltages and RTT's + CAD_BUS are different for Vermeer

CAD_BUS 24-20-24-24 works on it
30-20-20-24 works
30-20-30-20 fixes broken memory training
40-20-40-20 and above are needed for GDM off, 2T
60-20-20-24 can function on high capacity dimms
~ and so on
x-x-30+-X value is needed to fix memory training issues, which exist since AGESA 1100B+, soo all till now



Spoiler: Fixing memory training














if you have access to this CBS function ~ adjusting it that way, also helps with better memory training
Pure Data-Eye mode, takes 50-60sec to post. Is a great training but takes far too long
Soo this workaround just takes ~3 to 3.5sec to post, not more and is a more accurate training than stock

Hmm,
Yes that's about it, for a quick overview
Else focus on Zen RAM Overclocking
To have preset examples of timings people run 
Only rock stable results are allowed there
Soo run y-cruncher all tests 4 loops , OCCT Extreme AVX2, show that WHEA-Logger (Kernel-Whea) is error free (no #19 or #18) and you are pretty much stable
* a picture usually takes 6h to make, if it doesn't crash mid-test


----------



## Synoxia

Thanks bro for your usual detailed and exhaustive answers.
I'm on 4301, Agesa 1.2.0.1, will look later for the SMU version. 
I'm still on Matisse and not Vermeer, i remember you saying that splitting CCD and IOD doesn't work anymore, right? Not even with Uncore OC mode


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Thanks bro for your usual detailed and exhaustive answers.
> I'm on 4301, Agesa 1.2.0.1, will look later for the SMU version.
> I'm still on Matisse and not Vermeer, i remember you saying that splitting CCD and IOD doesn't work anymore, right? Not even with Uncore OC mode


Ah no, not really 
They do work, but i see they updated the microcodes for every ryzen down the line to first gen - after AGESA 1.2.0.0
Behaviour changed.
Early on you had to enable UncoreOC mode, else Matisse would continue their 50mV predefined stepping ~ and often fully ignore the voltages set
CCD you can not read out, as the Unit misses a sensor for it ~ but it is still applied
Soo either you only change IOD and let CCD be autoconfigured (they adjust both and leverage both on their own)
Or you fix it ~ both should work

Sadly i don't know if cLDO_VDDP 700 works, but 900 works with Matisse
Keep in mind to remain under 1.125v SOC, well ~ under 1.15v for sure
Higher has negative impracts, and could even crash because of OCP


----------



## fcchin

Good day gentlemen, ladies,

Just want to share a China indigenous ram's Thaiphoon readout, DDR4 3000Mhz CL16-18-18-38-60 (tRFC 525), it's XMP runs compatibly with 1700x, load XMP and instant bootup, no windows crash for a few days now. 1usmus latency test came back 80ns with many apps opened, versus tight-timing of the Ryzen incompatible CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 @ 3133Mhz CL-16-16-16-36-56 (tRFC413) of 75ns on the same 1700x with all apps forced closed. Meaning before overclock the CUSO's ram it is as fast as Corsair's after overclock. Imagine with all app closed, highest power plan, coolest resting CPU state then run test, the latency probably hit 75ns.

Brand is CUSO, model is download CUSO's YX4U3000E16081C Thaiphoon's readuout

view html of Cuso YX4U3000E16081C.html

So the golden question(s), Dram calculator does not have memory maker from "ChangXin Memory Technologies", but with the 
Module_Series:Night_Owl 
and 22nm_A_die, 
plus DRAM_Components:CXDQ3A8AM-CG
etc etc 

Does anyone know is it's a licensed Samsung or Hynix or Micron or is it truly China's indigenous?

Thanks.


----------



## fcchin

Veii said:


> Sadly i don't know if cLDO_VDDP 700 works,


Long time no see @Veii, today I confidently say 700 will not work, based on new discovery for me, see below:-

After using new China's purposed built Ryzen compatible ram, see ZenTiming below, XMP's full auto, it successly adjust 5 critical parameters: -

1) SoC to 1.1v this is my new reference now.
2) CLDO_VDDP to 0.95v even on Zen_1 the 1700x is my new reference too.

So now we know these are the default voltages by Cuso on 3000Mhz with 1700X. Probably means for all others Zen2, Zen3 I guess.

As well as set the tRFC's group respectively 
3) tRFC 525
4) tRFC2 390
5) tRFC4 240










Notice the next picture UEFI's SoC is still "0" zero = auto and cLDO_VDDP is auto, but Cuso's XMP manages to set them to 1.1v and 0.95v respectively. 










which the Corsair's CMK32GX4M2B3000C15's XMP probably did not contain these 5 critical parameters = SoC, cLDO_VDDP, tRFC, tRFC2, tRFC4 ??? 

Yes procODT also extremely important, but they seem to always load correctly enough I think.....

because on F41 and F50 UEFI, everytime I load the XMP and reboot back into UEFI the old 2133Mhz values remains, probably SoC raised to 0.9v instead of 0.7 for 2133mhz, where the 0.9v just passed allow the 3000Mhz XMP to boot into UEFI, but not stable for windows.

After upgrade to F61c UEFI, loading CMK32GX4M2B3000C15's XMP would always fail UEFI, cannot enter UEFI, crash and self recovery UEFI, I suspect Gigabyte removed some library in F61c, hence lost the AI for SoC up voltage on incomplete XMP cases.

Only 10MB rom file size of F61c versus x370_Taichi's 16MB rom file. Something must be missing.

because x370 taichi UEFI version 5 onwards would always raise SoC to 1.2V for CMK32GX4M2B3000C15's XMP as well as tRFC 560, and always Windows OK, plus a lot of attempted correcting incompatible values, like C15 push to C16, (oh this is the geardown mode's doing).

anyway..........


----------



## fcchin

jon666 said:


> Dialed back into the Fast calculator timings at stock CPU (3.9 boost if I am very lucky) Trying to feed everything less volts and giving the negative offset thing a go. I also managed to change a setting so the PC sleeps even with the Membench stress test running(woops, problems for later, went on to benching anyways). Everything appears to be in order and ambients are climbing past mid 80s F easy in the evenings so I don't know that I want to push things anymore til summer ends. Never could get bios to update which might be for the best. I think bios got bigger with every update iirc. If I do play around with RAM again it will be at 3k mhz for my sanity, and maybe for better latency? XMP for 3466 is bootable no problem if I ignore the extra juice to CPU and heat. That,and anything above 3200 enables gear down mode because I left that on auto til the troubleshooting is over. Newer Zen clocks are making me envious. DRAM Voltage on 1.36, been at that since the beginning and going up or down with it always turns into a headache, oh well.
> View attachment 2514862
> View attachment 2514860
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ 3497.93 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
> 
> 
> [q3rcgz] Validated Dump by yawwwn (2021-06-22 19:50:05) - MB: MSI X370 GAMING PRO CARBON (MS-7A32) - RAM: 16384 MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valid.x86.fr


Always good to see 1700X bretherens, especially under 70ns, kudos !!!


----------



## fcchin

thomasck said:


>


Hello @thomasck how you get the MEM VTT reading? my x370_taichi bios 6.62 and all previous bioses never ever read out MEM VTT, on both my previous Corsair CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 and current HOF 4CXLBS3600K17LD162C. HWinfo also not showing it the MEM VTT. So worrying for me 4 years now owning this mobo but not sure of MEM VTT voltage.


----------



## fcchin

zentiming 1.2.5 not showing MEM VTT of x370 taichi and can't read memory model


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Ah no, not really
> They do work, but i see they updated the microcodes for every ryzen down the line to first gen - after AGESA 1.2.0.0
> Behaviour changed.
> Early on you had to enable UncoreOC mode, else Matisse would continue their 50mV predefined stepping ~ and often fully ignore the voltages set
> CCD you can not read out, as the Unit misses a sensor for it ~ but it is still applied
> Soo either you only change IOD and let CCD be autoconfigured (they adjust both and leverage both on their own)
> Or you fix it ~ both should work
> 
> Sadly i don't know if cLDO_VDDP 700 works, but 900 works with Matisse
> Keep in mind to remain under 1.125v SOC, well ~ under 1.15v for sure
> Higher has negative impracts, and could even crash because of OCP


Weren't you developing your own calculator for clean syncs on Matisse? Something changed i think, and i can't figure out what. I can't even post 3800 anymore


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Anyone benched with OCCT?
Wondering if it could be a reliable option to compare CPU & memory settings



Spoiler: OCCT CPU

















Spoiler: OCCT Memory


----------



## thomasck

fcchin said:


> Hello @thomasck how you get the MEM VTT reading? my x370_taichi bios 6.62 and all previous bioses never ever read out MEM VTT, on both my previous Corsair CMK32GX4M2B3000C15 and current HOF 4CXLBS3600K17LD162C. HWinfo also not showing it the MEM VTT. So worrying for me 4 years now owning this mobo but not sure of MEM VTT voltage.


Not sure if I changed that voltage or not, I need to check once I get to the pc. Are you using the latest version of zentimings?

Edit

Yes you are using same version. I don't know what to say, IIRC mem vtt is even on auto.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Weren't you developing your own calculator for clean syncs on Matisse? Something changed i think, and i can't figure out what. I can't even post 3800 anymore


While Matisse was ongoing and me having no functional unit, i did help and research on DDR4
Made something "small" for me and as a scratch sheet
But promised that i'll be back with Vermeer and cover it, as Yuri, The Stilt & many other where taking over Matisse
Held the promise 

But i'm kind of done with Vermeer too,
There is not that much more to share on it
Only stage thats missing, is rebranding my lucky unit (16 core 5600X) to its original state
That's work that hasn't been finished yet
And here and there FCLK pushing beyond 2133
Bios things

The "calculator" changed to a big community project by chitos








Ryzen Google Calculator!


Ryzen Google Calculator! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cJmhO62WHPLNKGBtsJV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE_ Created from "Google Sheets" For mobile users, you need the Google Sheets app. Made for me to learn about timings I'd appreciate it if anyone tell me any advice or improvements...




www.overclock.net




Quite a few people contributed on it, but not everyone wants to be mentioned

Out of my personal project came tRFC mini for public usage
The community docs is already sufficient
I personally rarely use it. Only for tRFC for 16gb dimms
But the thing you where waiting for exists, in some form or another
Its a good docs, if people wouldn't break it that often ^^#


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> While Matisse was ongoing and me having no functional unit, i did help and research on DDR4
> Made something "small" for me and as a scratch sheet
> But promised that i'll be back with Vermeer and cover it, as Yuri, The Stilt & many other where taking over Matisse
> Held the promise
> 
> But i'm kind of done with Vermeer too,
> There is not that much more to share on it
> Only stage thats missing, is rebranding my lucky unit (16 core 5600X) to its original state
> That's work that hasn't been finished yet
> And here and there FCLK pushing beyond 2133
> Bios things
> 
> The "calculator" changed to a big community project by chitos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryzen Google Calculator!
> 
> 
> Ryzen Google Calculator! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cJmhO62WHPLNKGBtsJV3BjdL-dcfJJeyhdSAoJmuzJE_ Created from "Google Sheets" For mobile users, you need the Google Sheets app. Made for me to learn about timings I'd appreciate it if anyone tell me any advice or improvements...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a few people contributed on it, but not everyone wants to be mentioned
> 
> Out of my personal project came tRFC mini for public usage
> The community docs is already sufficient
> I personally rarely use it. Only for tRFC for 16gb dimms
> But the thing you where waiting for exists, in some form or another
> Its a good docs, if people wouldn't break it that often ^^#


I'm reading in that post, people changing permissions and editing things, that's really unfortunate. 
These days i'm just chasing a 100% solid and clean sync ram OC, doesn't matter if it's a bit loose.

For some reason i can't edit some values, that's the thing right?


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> These days i'm just chasing a 100% solid and clean sync ram OC, doesn't matter if it's a bit loose.
> 
> For some reason i can't edit some values, that's the thing right?


Can you check inside TOOLs what tCCD_L is for you , if 6 or 7 ?

You likely missed this post:








OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18


I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...




www.overclock.net




Bottom half of it (but i hope you are already y-cruncher stable with the voltage & have pretested it already)

CAD_BUS you want to use 24-20-20-24 or 30-20-20-24
* need to check if you have cold boost issues with it
If you do, then 24-20-24-24 is the right one for you / but 30-20-24-24 also works

We want GDM Off to run
2T , till you can run 1T
2T doesn't need any VDIMM increase and just reflects if dimm powering is correct in the first place
Soo it will need correct RTT and correct CAD_BUS 

so far you can use tRRD_S * 4 = tFAW 
but if you ever upgrade to AGESA 1.2.0.0 or higher, rather 1201+
Then you want to use tRRD_S * tCCD_L = tFAW
And also use tRCDmax * 2 + tCCD_L = tRAS , (as failsafe tRAS) ~ (later)
This is as close to JEDEC rules as possible and should allow you to scale down primaries a bit

2x8gb want to have SD,DD at 1-5-5-1-7-7
But 1-5-4-1-7-6 work too there (this is what you setup at the very end)
Soo start with 1-4-4-1-6-6 which you currently run
and get tRDWR as close as possible to tRCDRD/2 (equal or higher)
tWRRD you want as 1 , for 2x8gb dimms
later you change both down to (tRDWR / 2 (-1) & then change tWRRD to X * SCL = equal or lower than tRCDavg

tRFC mini you still are missing i feel like








tRFC Calculator ~ i know it says 3866, ignore it 

tRTP is the multiplier you picked here
tWR is double of it
Only dual rank or 4 dimms can need double of that "double" tWR
same for Rev.E , they move in the range of 20+


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Can you check inside TOOLs what tCCD_L is for you , if 6 or 7 ?
> 
> You likely missed this post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OC'ing T-Force 4133 cl18
> 
> 
> I built my first real PC just a couple months ago. I've recently been trying to get the most out of the system... both just for ****s and for some extra performance. My current build is PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($174.15 @ Walmart) CPU Cooler...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom half of it (but i hope you are already y-cruncher stable with the voltage & have pretested it already)
> 
> CAD_BUS you want to use 24-20-20-24 or 30-20-20-24
> * need to check if you have cold boost issues with it
> If you do, then 24-20-24-24 is the right one for you / but 30-20-24-24 also works
> 
> We want GDM Off to run
> 2T , till you can run 1T
> 2T doesn't need any VDIMM increase and just reflects if dimm powering is correct in the first place
> Soo it will need correct RTT and correct CAD_BUS
> 
> so far you can use tRRD_S * 4 = tFAW
> but if you ever upgrade to AGESA 1.2.0.0 or higher, rather 1201+
> Then you want to use tRRD_S * tCCD_L = tFAW
> And also use tRCDmax * 2 + tCCD_L = tRAS , (as failsafe tRAS) ~ (later)
> This is as close to JEDEC rules as possible and should allow you to scale down primaries a bit
> 
> 2x8gb want to have SD,DD at 1-5-5-1-7-7
> But 1-5-4-1-7-6 work too there (this is what you setup at the very end)
> Soo start with 1-4-4-1-6-6 which you currently run
> and get tRDWR as close as possible to tRCDRD/2 (equal or higher)
> tWRRD you want as 1 , for 2x8gb dimms
> later you change both down to (tRDWR / 2 (-1) & then change tWRRD to X * SCL = equal or lower than tRCDavg
> 
> tRFC mini you still are missing i feel like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tRFC Calculator ~ i know it says 3866, ignore it
> 
> tRTP is the multiplier you picked here
> tWR is double of it
> Only dual rank or 4 dimms can need double of that "double" tWR
> same for Rev.E , they move in the range of 20+


I might be stupid, but i don't clearly understand what i should test out with ycruncher (and never used it, lol) but CPU-side i should be 100% stable since i'm on stock settings.
I used to use 24-20-20-24.
I'm on 1.2.0.1

ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO BIOS 4301

"- Update AMD AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.1


Support Smart Access Memory for Ryzen 3000 Series Processors
Improve system performance

2x8gb want to have SD,DD at 1-5-5-1-7-7
But 1-5-4-1-7-6 work too there (this is what you setup at the very end)
Soo start with 1-4-4-1-6-6 which you currently run

^
What you see in zentimings is basically just primary timings, trfc and the rest being auto... i'm now going to try what sheet calc spit it out.
I just want to be easy and stable with 1900fclk at this point, i've been fiddling with rams too much.

Is it 2T gdm off better than 1t GDM on? 
I've tried 1T GDM off and istantly crashed after boot, now i'm set like this, does it look clean enough?


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Is it 2T gdm off better than 1t GDM on?


Yes 2T is faster than GDM, but shows if powering issues are bad
Y-cruncher will show if the CPU or Fabric is unstable
You press 1-7-0, 1 enter, 7 enter and so on
to test all tests

This will verify if our top right voltages on ZenTimings are even stable & if your CPU is able to throttle back on overheat ~ or just hardcrashes *
It needs to loop 4 times, soo that's 4*18min

GDM 1T is another world, for it you need more voltage and generally first be GDM off stable
getting GDM away, takes a lot of effort if something with powering is messed up & 2T doesn't require any VDIMM change to run
You should also 0-0-0 the CAD_BUS SETUP timings , on the bottom right of your picture

* you shouldn't continue with pushing RAM OC, till you know your CPU is stable = y-cruncher stable, as bare minimum
** you can tho verify your XMP runs with TM5, but still should verify first if the CPU and Fabric ~ is stable at this frequency & voltage (too high procODT makes also a difference)


----------



## FleischmannTV

@Veii, does OCCT CPU (large/extreme/variable) stress IF as well?


----------



## Veii

FleischmannTV said:


> @Veii, does OCCT CPU (large/extreme/variable) stress IF as well?


OCCT EXTREME AVX2 , is a good fabric test - but even when it's linpack, it rather shows loadline instabilities and CO instabilities
Found the best tool to stress fabric, was y-cruncher 
FFT will fail nearly instantly if IMC is unstable - or everything crashes on the 4th loop after reaching thermal equilibrium


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Yes 2T is faster than GDM, but shows if powering issues are bad
> Y-cruncher will show if the CPU or Fabric is unstable
> You press 1-7-0, 1 enter, 7 enter and so on
> to test all tests
> 
> This will verify if our top right voltages on ZenTimings are even stable & if your CPU is able to throttle back on overheat ~ or just hardcrashes *
> It needs to loop 4 times, soo that's 4*18min
> 
> GDM 1T is another world, for it you need more voltage and generally first be GDM off stable
> getting GDM away, takes a lot of effort if something with powering is messed up & 2T doesn't require any VDIMM change to run
> You should also 0-0-0 the CAD_BUS SETUP timings , on the bottom right of your picture
> 
> * you shouldn't continue with pushing RAM OC, till you know your CPU is stable = y-cruncher stable, as bare minimum
> ** you can tho verify your XMP runs with TM5, but still should verify first if the CPU and Fabric ~ is stable at this frequency & voltage (too high procODT makes also a difference)


So basically... to test fabric, one should reset to default everything, put CPU on stock settings, only modify frequency and FCLK to 3800 and 1900 and set voltages, then do all 7 ycruncher tests, right? If 1900 is stable then push ram, right?


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> So basically... to test fabric, one should reset to default everything, put CPU on stock settings, only modify frequency and FCLK to 3800 and 1900 and set voltages, then do all 7 ycruncher tests, right? If 1900 is stable then push ram, right?


Also, but this method expects that RAM is rated for XMP higher than what FCLK usually can do

And you can not test FCLk without MCLK OC


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Also, but this method expects that RAM is rated for XMP higher than what FCLK usually can do
> 
> And you can not test FCLk without MCLK OC


eh... thing is i don't even know if i am stable anymore... idk if my ram damaged or 4301 bios from asus is trash but even that calc is unstable for me, 3600 and 3800 doesn't matter edit: i can't post dimms anymore after 3600. I Just tested this by using decoupled fclk at 1900. Bad BIOS, damaged RAM... What do you think? I used to run 3600 c16 pretty much stable


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Bad BIOS, damaged RAM... What do you think?


Ram is not silicon, it can not get damaged
It can die instantly & show signs of near death
But it can not degrade


----------



## Synoxia

Synoxia said:


> eh... thing is i don't even know if i am stable anymore... idk if my ram damaged or 4301 bios from asus is trash but even that calc is unstable for me, 3600 and 3800 doesn't matter





Veii said:


> Ram is not silicon, it can not get damaged
> It can die instantly & show signs of near death
> But it can not degrade


Ok i Just tested out, i cannot post more than 3200 MHz for some reason. I used to post 3800 and 3600 fine, now even 3266 auto Will not post... Gg Asus i Guess?


----------



## jon666

I couldn't leave things alone once I realized I could seemingly run higher then 3200 stable with gear down mode enabled. Last heat wave had me disabling half the cores and seeing what could be cut which led to this. 3600 at any setting is the next goal whenever that happens. Super Pi loved only running at 4 cores, will have to revisit that later as well.


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> Ok i Just tested out, i cannot post more than 3200 MHz for some reason. I used to post 3800 and 3600 fine, now even 3266 auto Will not post... Gg Asus i Guess?


Sadly such is hard to judge, when you don't remember what settings you used
Trusting Auto values never is a good idea to begin with

If you have some kind of orientation point, we can work something out
But without anything just trusting on the predictions ~ you'd have a bad time.
Boards to this date are not PCB or IC aware. They will always mess ~something~ up, without even being aware why they messed up their calculations.
General wise words "Do not trust AUTO values"


----------



## Synoxia

Veii said:


> Sadly such is hard to judge, when you don't remember what settings you used
> Trusting Auto values never is a good idea to begin with
> 
> If you have some kind of orientation point, we can work something out
> But without anything just trusting on the predictions ~ you'd have a bad time.
> Boards to this date are not PCB or IC aware. They will always mess ~something~ up, without even being aware why they messed up their calculations.
> General wise words "Do not trust AUTO values"


I do remember which settings i used i think... i've posted them too.
Anyway, i can't post more than 3200 mhz and even XMP is not stable (1 error anta extreme).
What could have happened? Broken board or bios? I have no clue at this point

EDIT: I reseated ram and blow on it (same a2 b2 slots).
Probably the contacts went ****. Now something works.










I would guess this is stable, it's what i've been running for a year, i just corrected VDDSOC to 1.05, (previous 1.0) TRCDRD to 16 (previous 18), trc to 56 (previous 50) and TRFC to 392 (previous 400)

I think 1900 was fairly stable when i ran it, it never crashed nor gave WHEAs when i used it but since i have never been able to stress test it properly, i thought to just use 1800 because it was officially supported by AMD.

Should i now just reset to default everything, put 1.45 ram voltage, vsoc 1.10, vddg to 950, cldo vddp to 900, memory/if to 3800/1900 and just do all seven ycruncher tests? Or even put all primaries to cl 20 with everything on auto... i just want ram to be stable in order to test if i can run IF at 1900, right?

EDIT: I've found out my tccd_l value is 6, how does this look? (i will tm5 extreme + ycruncher it now)


----------



## FranZe

Hello 

I'm new to dualrank memory. Is this settings looking good? GDM, procODT vs Vdimm voltage++? None stability testing yet..



Spoiler


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> Sadly such is hard to judge, when you don't remember what settings you used
> Trusting Auto values never is a good idea to begin with
> 
> If you have some kind of orientation point, we can work something out
> But without anything just trusting on the predictions ~ you'd have a bad time.
> Boards to this date are not PCB or IC aware. They will always mess ~something~ up, without even being aware why they messed up their calculations.
> General wise words "Do not trust AUTO values"


I'm STILL waiting for MSI to fix/replace my motherboard. I found the number to the repair centre here in Toronto, and they FINALLY admitted my replacement board was stuck in customs with no ETA.


Edit: I think I'm going to buy a Gigabyte B550m Aorus Pro tomorrow as a place holder until I get my replacement board.

It's a solid board and on sale here $30 off.

Second edit: I found a B550 Tomahawk for $150 locally with no tax, from a guy on a local buy and sell site with all 5 star reviews.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

No the best but pushing my 3600mhz c16 18 18 18 38 to 4000mhz on c16 18 19 18 36 with 1.42 volts have taken the long hrs to tune all the sub timings yet memory is a kit of* BL16G36C16U4W*


----------



## Nighthog

Bal3Wolf said:


> No the best but pushing my 3600mhz c16 18 18 18 38 to 4000mhz on c16 18 19 18 36 with 1.42 volts have taken the long hrs to tune all the sub timings yet memory is a kit of* BL16G36C16U4W*


Quite nice result for dual-rank Micron Rev.E there. 

Not tried lower SCL? the single-rank kits can do SCL 4 no troubles and better.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

these are dual rank ram from what cpuz tells me and few posts i found on some forums the bw results arent correct i found out older aida gives false results i havet really mesed with sub timings took enough time to get cpu to 2000.


----------



## FranZe

FranZe said:


> Hello
> 
> I'm new to dualrank memory. Is this settings looking good? GDM, procODT vs Vdimm voltage++? None stability testing yet..
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Here is my Aida numbers


----------



## Synoxia

@Veii sorry to bother you, but after how many hours can someone consider himself stable with ycruncher? Thank you


----------



## 1s1mple

Synoxia said:


> @Veii sorry to bother you, but after how many hours can someone consider himself stable with ycruncher? Thank you


IMO, minimum 8hrs


----------



## Veii

Synoxia said:


> @Veii sorry to bother you, but after how many hours can someone consider himself stable with ycruncher? Thank you


Thermal Equilibrium takes 40-45min to be reached - up to air cooler and case/room-open bench size
The bigger your room, the longer it will take.

Generally 4 loops (4*(9tests*2min)) = 72min, is the absolute minimum required on the stresstest mode (with all 9 tests)
Soo 4 loops+ , is the answer

Stability is a personal decision, and some people don't need to run P95 at all. It depends
Putting your testbench on an open window outside, just soo the test passes ~ might meet the criteria (or running phase change in the backyard), but it will not be daily usable
The only person that you'd lie towards, is you 
(key is for y-cruncher [CPU] to keep stability for over 1+ hour at 90-94c ~ or how long it can take to reach thermal equilibrium in your household)

Soo up to your personal stability criteria.
Server operations would at least like 10 loops (180min) but this is really a personal thing
You can "waste" the time just with running OCCT Extreme (AVX2) , instead purely relying on y-cruncher
Both are required, and TM5 20+ loops are required.
Meaning, if you end up running 64GB ~ TM5 might even take 7-8 hours, who knows

HCI, Karhu ~ community stability was rated at 10 000%
GSAT i think around 4+ hours ~if i remember correctly~

Intel Burn Test (prettty much also linpack) was 30-45min
Yea no, it varries. But community established where around these example-times
For my screenshots, it takes generally 6hours to make (2:30h TM5 25 loops, 4 loops y-cruncher and 1h OCCT Extreme)
~ soo if one fails (commonly OCCT at the end when memory is already warm), i can re-run everything again
Remain issues like idle instability you notice after using your PC


----------



## Kildar

I just updated AIDA64 to the latest version from an older version I have had and my read and write speeds drop from the lower 70's to the upper 50's. Latency has stayed pretty much the same.


----------



## fcchin

delete because wrongly post to this section, was supposed to be in ASRock 370 Taichi, sorry !!!!.


----------



## kratosatlante

I ask about this result, I can't replicate it, could it be a bug? Although I don't think so, first I got 103 time, I didn't realize it was in 2t, I went down to 1t, I got 95, then I started testing the boostester to see what pbo and scalar settings, along with other values that I don't remember well , I got test for search better boost, pbo mother limit, scalar x10 I got almost the same result with less boost, then x5, I got 85 time (don't save capture), x2 best boost and 70 time, I don't remember exactly these values, memoryinterleaving 256-512-1k-2k, I think what had it in 512 (512 gave me the better performance for plotting chia)
Dfstate disable (99% safe)
Gobalstate disable (99% safe)
Cppc disable (99% safe)
Cppc cores enable (99% secure)
Apbis I don't remember
dark hero bios 3701


















Ccx 4775 ccx 4625 1.275v CO -30 all core when run all test, now the last screen with -26 best cores and -30 the rest
Llc3
Dark hero dynamic OC enable 75a
When dram runs, the consumption is around 62a, placing a higher value, the boost of all the cores on average remains at 4820mhz.
Does anyone have any idea what setting I can be the one that improved the times so much?

the last bios 3703


----------



## Alpharevx

Hello guys, this is what i got stable so far, kit is Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 3600mhz CL18 4x8gb, Micron E-die, managed to get it here but i feel like i can push it more, what timings you suggest me to change?

VDIMM : 1.4v (1.421v in hwinfo)


----------



## slice313

I have got a Patriot Viper Steel PVS432G360C8K CL18 32GB kit, presumably Hynix MJR? I spent some time trying to tighten the timings but I am not sure if I did a good job with it :/ Any hints? @Veii

I need 1.45v for it being stable (Karhu and HCI tested)

Ty


----------



## Jayjr1105

Is this tool ill advised for Zen3 chips such as the 5800X? What tool should be used nowadays to tune RAM for Zen3?


----------



## Taraquin

1usmus said:


> You use typical FAST mode timings for CJR. Also note that some motherboards have an error in microcode, latency can "fail". This is not an error in timings, this is a problem with Power Down mode.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it'll help you
> VDDG 1.05
> 
> I also want to say that the presence of this error may not affect the system stability. Unfortunately, C6H still has MBEC and some BIOS modules conflicts, so you should expect such situations. In my practice there is a situation when Zen2 refused to work stable on this board but was absolutely stable on X570. If you have the option, I recommend changing the motherboard to B550.


Hope you can make a new dram calc Yuri! Many new ICs, ryzen 5000 behaves differently from 3000 etc


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Picked up some more memory now at 64gigs running 3800mhz had to tweak timinings some but its stable.


----------



## cfranko

@Veii Hey Veii, I have a 5900X and B550 Gaming Carbon WIFI and 4x8 Micron Rev. E. I can’t get past 1900 FCLK without WHEA errors with almost everything set to Auto. Is there anything in the bios I could change to get 2000 FCLK stable or is it pure silicon lottery?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

try raising your soc volts i need about 1.1-1.15 to get my 1900 stable my 3900x and 5950x both ran 1900 no issue at all.


----------



## jon666

Maximum voltage, minimal gains which seems to be the rule for memory. Tried to drop write speed timings as low as possible, feels good for a stock 1700x-3.5ghz, and temps are decent.


Spoiler
























Stretching beyond that feels like it should work, but I don't know what it would take to maintain stability. Probably a newer CPU. I didn't spend too much time on it after the second bluescreen, I need to read up on whatever those ohm settings are, cpu already been coaxed into that high voltage rock and roll territory.


----------



## fcchin

jon666 said:


> View attachment 2530384


WoW and who says Zen 1 can't run 3666mhz DDR4. OMG.


----------



## jon666

fcchin said:


> WoW and who says Zen 1 can't run 3666mhz DDR4. OMG.


lol anythings possible with Gear Down Mode and enough voltage 😈 Did keep the 3466 timings and dropped soc voltage back down to 1.2 because everywhere I've read that is the absolute max anyone should run daily. bios 1.nv seemed to open things up, even though it isn't supposed to work with 1st gen as far as I know, not that I want to change bios versions since this one has been working so well, and I don't care about windows 11 compatibility since 1st gen isn't supported to begin with. I don't see 1.nv on msi's website anymore, maybe that turned into 1L? 1.23 volts seems to be the minimum required to boot into 3666. I'm guessing to run that speed daily would require 1.25 into the soc which makes me nervous since I think that is the thing that regulates voltage for the cpu. All write speed timings would probably have to be loosened up a bit more to avoid errors, not sure I want to spend the time testing different timings again. Been reading everyones results with 3000 and 5000 series, those are inspiring so it might happen for the giggles.


----------



## Bohemian

I just bought new motherboard and just turned XMP on(no other settings were changed). Actualy I have 2 of these Viper Steel 4400mhz CL19 kits and want them all 4. Can You help me to find some stability/performance sweet spot? I am thinking of 3800/fcl1900 CL16 or 3600/fclk1800 CL14.
I tried:
4 sticks 3800 FCLK 1900, 16,16,16,16,32,48 trfc 288, TFAV16 @1.45V. SoC 1.1. Rest AUTO I got performance decrease a bit across the board and AIDA 64 freezes my PC.

Curently sitting on this XMP with all other settings stock.


----------



## Taraquin

Bohemian said:


> I just bought new motherboard and just turned XMP on(no other settings were changed). Actualy I have 2 of these Viper Steel 4400mhz CL19 kits and want them all 4. Can You help me to find some stability/performance sweet spot? I am thinking of 3800/fcl1900 CL16 or 3600/fclk1800 CL14.
> I tried:
> 4 sticks 3800 FCLK 1900, 16,16,16,16,32,48 trfc 288, TFAV16 @1.45V. SoC 1.1. Rest AUTO I got performance decrease a bit across the board and AIDA 64 freezes my PC.
> 
> Curently sitting on this XMP with all other settings stock.
> View attachment 2534774
> View attachment 2534775


Safe and easy: Try 3800/1900 1.42V dimm
16 16 16 
32 ras
48 rc
4/6 rrds/l
16 faw
16 wr/8 rtp
280 rfc
4/12 wtrs/l
4 rdrd/wrwr scl
8 rdwr
1 wrrd

1.1v soc
1.05v iod
0.95v ccd
0.9v vddp

Turn off spread spectrum

Rest on auto


----------



## Bohemian

Thank You a lot. I will try it tomorrow and let You know, how it went.


----------



## Bohemian

First of all I want to thank You! I never expected such result which is .... INSANE!
CPU is on stock and just tunned ram. My mind is blown how good is Gigabyte Aorus B550 Pro V2 motherboard compared to my old Asus Strix B450-e.


----------



## Taraquin

Bohemian said:


> First of all I want to thank You! I never expected such result which is .... INSANE!
> CPU is on stock and just tunned ram. My mind is blown how good is Gigabyte Aorus B550 Pro V2 motherboard compared to my old Asus Strix B450-e.
> 
> View attachment 2534976


You can try cl15 aswell, save your current config, then set
1.48V dimm
Cl15 15 15
30 ras
45 rc
272 rfc (maybe 256 will work, but try 272 first) 
14 cwl
14 wr
7 rtp

Disable gear down mode and set 2T, cl15 won't work with gdm. Set ProcODT to 48, keep rest of timings/voltages the same.


----------



## shiznit

How does this look for 3200 Ballistix RevE? 3600 CL14 would be nice but I gave up too early trying to stabilize it. GDM OFF 2T was also not stable, but I don't know what anything in the bottom right corner does. I guess I could push for 3800 with a little more voltage? Any tips? Thanks.


----------



## Taraquin

shiznit said:


> How does this look for 3200 Ballistix RevE? 3600 CL14 would be nice but I gave up too early trying to stabilize it. GDM OFF 2T was also not stable, but I don't know what anything in the bottom right corner does. I guess I could push for 3800 with a little more voltage? Any tips? Thanks.
> 
> View attachment 2535070


Mostly good, but try WR 12 and RTP 6, RP might do 11-14, wtr might to 3/6, RC 56, RDWR maybe 9 and RFC might do 544. On 2x8 rev E I did the above timings but 1T, CL 15, RCDRD 20 and RFC 528.


----------



## Bohemian

Even at suggested 3800mhz 1900fclk I got PC crashes time to time. 1 - 2 per day or like 6 in single hour. I pulled down the clocks to 3600mhz fclk 1800mhz cl 14,15,15,15,35 TRFC 288 as Dram calculator suggested at 1.45V, but crashes persist. I have tried to update bios from base F10 the mobo came with to latest F14e and it crashes even with default bios with ram at 4x2133mhz. 
I started to test each ram stick individualy and all of them passed Memtest86 and OCCT ram and CPU+GPU torture test. 
I noticed even it appears the two sets are identical, they are a bit different in secondary and tertiary timings so I think my crashes are tied to incompatibility with each other.
I start saving money for some 4x8 or 2x16 ram stick now, because even the "same" 2x8 ram can show instability with 4x8 settings.


----------



## Bohemian

Taraquin said:


> You can try cl15 aswell, save your current config, then set
> 1.48V dimm
> Cl15 15 15
> 30 ras
> 45 rc
> 272 rfc (maybe 256 will work, but try 272 first)
> 14 cwl
> 14 wr
> 7 rtp
> 
> Disable gear down mode and set 2T, cl15 won't work with gdm. Set ProcODT to 48, keep rest of timings/voltages the same.


Not even boot to bios. had to remove batery to be able to reset cmos. 🥴

Edit: It was bios and/or Logitech G-hub program. After updating bios to latest one F14e system got big performance hit, but it seems stable. I also uninstalled Logitech G-Hub program which I have read in some cases also caused PC restarts, BSODs for some users.


----------



## Taraquin

Bohemian said:


> Not even boot to bios. had to remove batery to be able to reset cmos. 🥴
> 
> Edit: It was bios and/or Logitech G-hub program. After updating bios to latest one F14e system got big performance hit, but it seems stable. I also uninstalled Logitech G-Hub program which I have read in some cases also caused PC restarts, BSODs for some users.


Did the suggested settings work?


----------



## Bohemian

Taraquin said:


> Did the suggested settings work?


Nope with cl16 trfc 288 at 1.42 I had pc selfrestarts and black screens. 0had to imcrease voltage to 1.45V to stabilize it(but pc still crash time time) CL15 not even boot to bios.

Curently sitting on 3733mhz CL15,15,15,15,30,45 TRFC 272 at 1.45V


----------



## Echoa

Ive been trying to figure this out on my own for months but finally decided to just ask here. Any help would be appreciated

Im just trying to run the default XMP for my ram but cant seem to get it stable. I pass every single mem test with no issues for hours but when the PC sleeps it wont wake or it just randomly restarts. The only way ive found to fix this is to run at 3000 MT/s @ 1500mhz IF clock.

Board: X470 Gaming 7 Wifi Rev 1.1
CPU: 5600x
RAM: Crucial Ballistix 3600 4x8gb Rev A2 Micron E die
VSoc 1.15
VDDG/VDDP 0.950v

Ive tried everything i can look up so far, read the XMP from the sticks and checked those settings, etc.
I tried the calculator with safe settings and bumping voltages too. Even with 2 sticks this happens

My current settings as of this moment while tinkering


----------



## fcchin

Echoa said:


> Ive been trying to figure this out on my own for months but finally decided to just ask here. Any help would be appreciated
> 
> VSoc 1.15
> VDDG/VDDP 0.950v


Hello Echoa, I would suggest manually setting CLDO_VDDP, which is not the normal vddp and not the vddg/vddp, it is by itself CLDO_VDDP, for 3600mhz I think around 0.95v is needed. I am using 0.95v on x370_taichi, if I use less will experience random crash at idle, gaming and high load no problem.

CLDO_VDDP in PERIPHERALS
gigabyte don't use normal text 1, 2, 3, gigabyte uses hexadecimal = 00, 01, 0A = 10
I tried looking for the text to hex conversion of gigabyte, but couldn't find it, sorry, you'll have to search for it.

This post shows the parameter CLDO_VDDP CONTROLS
NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 (overclocking...

good luck

and
edit = CPU loadline to level 3 or level 2 for more stability but looses some power saving, because various voltages does not dip as much as before i.e. auto = level 5 power saving maximum voltage dip a lot.

and some other loadline also to level 3, I think is SOC or dram, forgot. Try.

use zentiming and show us a screenshot = ZenTimings

for procODT, my auto gives me 36.9ohms but only 99% stable, random idle crashes and auto reboot. 40 ohms is 99.99% stable for me, now I'm using 43ohms. I'm now on 4 sticks of 8gb

I think dual rank = both sides with chips on ram stick needs more, i.e. my old Corsair 16gb*2 default procODT 53ohms and 60ohms respectively depending on bios version.


----------



## Echoa

fcchin said:


> Hello Echoa, I would suggest manually setting CLDO_VDDP, which is not the normal vddp and not the vddg/vddp, it is by itself CLDO_VDDP, for 3600mhz I think around 0.95v is needed. I am using 0.95v on x370_taichi, if I use less will experience random crash at idle, gaming and high load no problem.
> 
> CLDO_VDDP in PERIPHERALS
> gigabyte don't use normal text 1, 2, 3, gigabyte uses hexadecimal = 00, 01, 0A = 10
> I tried looking for the text to hex conversion of gigabyte, but couldn't find it, sorry, you'll have to search for it.
> 
> This post shows the parameter CLDO_VDDP CONTROLS
> NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 (overclocking...
> 
> good luck
> 
> and
> edit = CPU loadline to level 3 or level 2 for more stability but looses some power saving, because various voltages does not dip as much as before i.e. auto = level 5 power saving maximum voltage dip a lot.
> 
> and some other loadline also to level 3, I think is SOC or dram, forgot. Try.
> 
> use zentiming and show us a screenshot = ZenTimings
> 
> for procODT, my auto gives me 36.9ohms but only 99% stable, random idle crashes and auto reboot. 40 ohms is 99.99% stable for me, now I'm using 43ohms. I'm now on 4 sticks of 8gb
> 
> I think dual rank = both sides with chips on ram stick needs more, i.e. my old Corsair 16gb*2 default procODT 53ohms and 60ohms respectively depending on bios version.


So far this week I seemed to have it working now

I upped VSoc VDDG/VDDP to 1v, set procodt to 60ohms, and slightly loosened the timings on my ram. Even with slightly looser timings 4x8gb @ 3600mhz sticks is still faster than 2x8gb @ 3600mhz so if this remains stable Ill be good to go


----------



## STaRDoGG

Hey all, anyone have any experience with the Neo Forza brand? Any good? Bad? Thinking about buying a couple of sticks.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

Hello everybody!
I just bought a G skill kit *G-Skill Trident Z Royal 3600C16Q-32GTRS 4x8*
I have a crosshair viii formula and a ryzen 5900x
At the moment I am on 3800 mhz safe preset fclk 1900 dram 1.5v soc 1.2v pll 2.0v vtt ddr 0.75v
The problem is that I can't get it stable no matter what, there must be something that I am doing wrong maybe? 
I have also tried 3600 mhz fast preset from DRAM Calculator, but it's still not working, doesn't even boot.


----------



## connectwise

What have you tried before those speeds?

You're running c16 3600 in 1T at c14 3800mhz? Have you been able to boot up with IF 1900 in any other ram speed/timing before?


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

connectwise said:


> What have you tried before those speeds?
> 
> You're running c16 3600 in 1T at c14 3800mhz? Have you been able to boot up with IF 1900 in any other ram speed/timing before?


I have been able to boot with 3600 / 1800 fclk fast preset but GDM ON, and 3800 / 1900 fclk CL16 again fast preset but GDM ON with GDM OFF I can't boot. 
I can not boot with 4000 / 2000 fclk no matter what I do for example.
I also get errors in TM5 and OCCT, other than that the system is stable.

Yes, the kit is 4x8 CL 16 3600 and I run it in CL14 but even CL16 tightened is giving me errors with DRAM calculator presets


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Any word on adding Micron 16Gbit B die?


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

anybody can help me get this kit stable at 3800 mhz / 1900 fclk please?


----------



## slice313

I need help tightening my timings. 

I recently switched to a 32GB DDR4 kit since I needed more than 16GB. The chip seems to be Micron Rev. J (I checked the Patriot barcode: *19JJB*) and also exported a Full Thaiphoon report.

Until now I managed to drive the DIMMS to CL16 and sightly tightened everything, but I don't know if something looks out of place since I don't have any experience with this Micron "weird" Rev. This have been tested with Karhu until 6500% and with TM5 using 1usmus profile for 3 cycles. *All pass*.

Thank you in advance. 


View attachment 2487688
View attachment 2487690
View attachment 2487684


----------



## fcchin

UnchiuNarcis said:


> View attachment 2542682


procODT only 43.6ohms could be raised to increase stability, I'm on 3600mhz only and sure crash when 36.9ohms and occasional random reboot at 40ohms, only when increased to 43.6ohms no problem at all.

also needed loadline level 3 to cpu and soc.

all timings original, I think if I use tight timing, i.e. from calculator, would first need to increase procODT, I've tried 60 ohms, very good too.


----------



## connectwise

UnchiuNarcis said:


> I have been able to boot with 3600 / 1800 fclk fast preset but GDM ON, and 3800 / 1900 fclk CL16 again fast preset but GDM ON with GDM OFF I can't boot.
> I can not boot with 4000 / 2000 fclk no matter what I do for example.
> I also get errors in TM5 and OCCT, other than that the system is stable.
> 
> Yes, the kit is 4x8 CL 16 3600 and I run it in CL14 but even CL16 tightened is giving me errors with DRAM calculator presets


Prob cus you're running 4 sticks of ram on samsung b die that puts tremendous load on cpu imc that you're further pushing with high IF, while already pushing OC on the ram. Could try with 2 sticks first and fingers crossed b/c high IF is always held back by the cpu itself.


----------



## OCmember

What's the latest and best cfg file for TM5 to stability test? The one I apparently have is v0.02, author =1usmus_v3, and where can I get other mem testing apps? I also have memtest hci..

Thanks!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

OCmember said:


> What's the latest and best cfg file for TM5 to stability test? The one I apparently have is v0.02, author =1usmus_v3, and where can I get other mem testing apps? I also have memtest hci..
> 
> Thanks!


The Extreme from anta is the other recommended









Memory Testing with TestMem5 TM5 with custom configs


Hello everybody I am just making a very light tutorial with a collection of custom config files and a DOWNLOAD LINK for TM5 v0.12 anta777 absolut config *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread None of the work is mine but it seems like a pretty good and fast testing app




www.overclock.net





1usmus_v3 is the latest from 1usmus

I wouldn't look for anything else unless you want to buy Karhu RAM Test:



RAM Test - Karhu Software


----------



## OCmember

Playing around with GDM disabled 1T and trying to see if I can get my game rig stable above 1333/2666. I'd like to atleast reach 1800/3600 My IF isn't the best. Questionable stability at 1866. But with GDM disabled 1T 1333/2666 it's as easy as increasing the VDIMM & VSOC, the rest on auto. For that I run 1.025 VSOC, 1.45 VDIMM. My current 1833/3666 GDM Enabled 1T is 1.050 VSOC, 1.45 VDIMM the rest on auto. 

I've been trying to find some Zen Timings screen shots of GDM disabled 1T from Veii and others as a suggestive template for volts etc.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

1T is not so much faster than 2T 
if you need to scale the clock too much is not worth it


----------



## Leoshleo

Hi All,

I recently began OCing ram on a new 3700x platform (B550 Aorus Pro AX). I just had a question regarding VDIMM, sticks of ram and 1T/2T.

I began with 2x8gb 3600mhz SR djr modules. I purchased another set 2x8gb set (same djr chips and manufacturing date). I have no problems running either 2x8gb or 4x8gb.

I can run them 3666mhz (2x8gb) 1T at the standard 1.35v VDIMM. However in 4x8gb mode it requires 1.41v VDIMM. I can also run 3733mhz (4x8gb) 2T at the standard 1.35v VDIMM. Infinity fabric in all scenarios is 1:1

My Question is. Is the increase in VDIMM required to run 1T in 4x8gb mode because all ram slots are populated and the mobo is finding it difficult to power them? or is this purely 1T just becomes more demanding to run with 4x8gb sticks?

Thanks everyone.

Leo.


----------



## SneakySloth

OCmember said:


> What's the latest and best cfg file for TM5 to stability test? The one I apparently have is v0.02, author =1usmus_v3, and where can I get other mem testing apps? I also have memtest hci..
> 
> Thanks!


I've had good luck with the Universal2 profile. Much more than anta's. Its either that or 1usmusv3


----------



## KedarWolf




----------

