Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/13/20 in all areas

  1. 13 points
    Elmor recently started taking orders for the AMPLE 20A power card. It’s a simple little single-phase VRM that can be used to replace a broken VRM or simply overcome that pesky OCP/OVP. The most common potential usage would be for a GPU memory rail. However, with an output voltage from 1.0-3.4 V it could be used for many different applications. I obtained a test sample of this new device and I intend to put it to the ultimate test. I have an RX 580 GPU with a damaged memory voltage rail, but otherwise the GPU is in perfect condition. The plan is to solder on the AMPLE power card and observe the impact on the memory overclocking. I know what the card was capable of before the memory VRM died, so it’s the perfect test case for this little device. So follow along as I put this thing to the test and find out if it’s capable of delivering sufficient power to 8 GB of GDDR5. The AMPLE Device The device ships in an anti-static bag with the 6-pin connector added in as an accessory. This gives you the flexibility to power up the AMPLE from any qualifying voltage source you desire. Product Specification Output voltage adjustable 1.0-3.4 V using the on-board potentiometer (range can be increased by adding your own potentiometer) Nominal input voltage 12 V (functional from 4.5 V up to 16 V) Max output current 20 A (thermally limited). Active cooling may be required to achieve high output current. Efficiency at max output 91.5% (3.4 V, 20 A, 750 KHz) Switching frequency selectable between 300 KHz and 750 KHz OVP (+20%), OCP (24A) and OTP (Tj = 150*C) Output voltage can be monitored and adjusted using the EVC2 VMOD1-header Ships with a PCIE 6-pin power connector which can be soldered on by the user Source Credit: elmorlabs.com There is one switch on the device which acts as a mode selector. There are a total of 4 different combinations you can set, which change the output delivery settings. Switch 1 OFF = 750 KHz switching frequency Switch 1 ON = 300 KHz switching frequency Switch 2 OFF = PSM = Power Saving Mode, higher ripple but lower loss at low loads Switch 2 ON = CCM = Constant Conduction Mode. The PMIC is always regulating to the best of its ability, for the tightest possible voltage regulation. In some cases, for example with this project at 3.0V+, that will create a high loss in no-load or low-load situations. For controlling the voltage there are multiple different methods you can choose from. To make things simple, there is a potentiometer on the power card for direct control. For more advanced control, you have the ability to integrate the device with an EVC2 module using the vmod connection. Mounting the Power Card Before you just hastily solder on the AMPLE device, you should take the time to power it on and make sure it works. I would suggest powering it up and setting the desired voltage before you attempt to solder it on a GPU. The underside of the AMPLE has power and ground planes. In my particular case I won't need these connections so I decided to insulate them with a few layers of Kapton tape. This is an unnecessary step, but in my case there were a few components on the card which were extremely close to shorting on the AMPLE device. I chose to mount mine with 0.8 mm copper plate. I kept the plane-to-plane distance as short as possible. Furthermore, I always prefer to make my ground connections on the front of the card after where the main connection is. In the picture below you can see both ground connections come after the memory plan connection. In my testing this provides the best realized MHz whether it be core or memory external VRM replacement. Test Setup The overall goal is to compare stock PCB memory overclocking with AMPLE power memory overclocking. To make the test consistent, I will use the same load voltage for both test conditions. The test methodology is to overclock memory and record the passable frequency in Fire Strike GT1. I will start at 2280 MHz, increase +10 MHz until it becomes unstable PowerColor RX580 8GB Golden Sample Z490 test platform AMPLE VRM on memory rail Memory IC: Micron D9VVR 1625 MHz strap timings copied to 2000 MHz strap (Most efficient timings possible without diminishing returns on frequency) In order to get a realistic look at the voltage response of the device, I have placed voltage test points (TP1-3) at various distances away from the main inductor. During the load tests, I will also be conducting thermal tests of the mosfet heatsink. Ambient temperature for all tests around 24c The voltage read points are as follows: TP1 = AMPLE power voltage at C10 cap TP2 = GPU plane voltage at solder connection TP3 = Memory IC voltage at MLCC cap on back of card, at least 100mm distance from AMPLE Vout solder connection Test Results Voltage droop is the enemy of external VRM mods. It’s important to know exactly where the voltage droop occurs because it can narrow down the cause. The voltage test point results indicate that the droop is not caused by the solder connection. The voltage droop is present at the C10 capacitor so therefore it’s coming directly from the AMPLE VRM. This makes me happy because the solder connection is relatively perfect, but it’s mildly concerning to see the AMPLE being stressed under load. Regardless of any droop, the card was still able to pass FS GT1 test at the highest possible memory frequency. There is effectively no difference between the stock VRM and the AMPLE VRM for this test application. The temperature reached a peak at the end of GT2 and was still climbing. With the Fire Strike test, GT3 is CPU based so it had a cooldown period. The max temp of around 50c seems reasonable but further testing may be needed. Sustained loads of 1hr might show a different result. SW1 Test results proved inconclusive. Disregarding experimental error, there was effectively no difference in the realized MHz or voltage response. Conclusion Overall I am extremely pleased with this little device. It performed exceptionally well and the end result is that I was able to achieve the same overclocking performance as the stock PCB. The AMPLE single-phase power card has been validated for benchmarking purposes. In terms of the switch options, my expectation was that CCM mode with 750 KHz would be the optimal configuration. The switch test results showed that the various combinations didn't have any noticeable effect on realized Mhz or voltage response. The 10 mV voltage droop is a mild concern because it’s coming directly from the AMPLE, however, it did not affect the overall overclocking result. With a price tag of just $20,, it’s an absolute must-have tool for extreme overclockers. My RX580 is the perfect use case. The card was effectively dead and useless, but the mighty little AMPLE device brought it back to life and it still holds gold in TIme Spy. Even if the price was tripled, I would still recommend it because of its potential value. This was just my first test, stay tuned for more tests to come.
  2. 6 points
    Its often confusing which category to choose for the IGP part of a APU, so here is a incomplete list to help find you the correct one. AMD ZEN: AMD choose to change their name scheme in 2020. Before we had Radeon Vega 3 to 11 Graphics, now it's just "Radeon Graphics" independent of existing shaders. Also there is actually "RX Vega" for everything from Vega 10 but for some reason and for some cards they omitted that. In late 2019 they introduced with the Athlon 3000G a new entry level CPU featuring a native 2 core die with a 3 CU graphics part in the desktop market. But for some very strange reason, they want to let the world believe that this one is a Picasso part, yet delidding shows that this is actually the same core like the embedded Banded Kestrel, which is also known as Dali in the consumer market and AMD itself says 14nm on its HP. Speculations are that those CPUs should be using harvested Picasso dies but the yield of those chips was too good and they made a last minute decision and used Dali cores instead. This is very confusing and almost all detection tools give wrong information. We have the situation that CPU-Z reports "Picasso" while GPU-Z says "Raven Ridge". Sadly we got no real response from CPU-Z authors to fix the incorrect reporting. Looks like they wait for official response from AMD on that matter. Anyway without knowing too much about technical details, those chips are are something between Raven Ridge and Picasso but overclocking wise it's not really making a difference. 14nm vs 12nm is actually more important. So that's why those Dali chips go in the same category as Raven Ridge. Name Core GPU Hwbot Category 3015e Dali Radeon Graphics Mobile (Dali, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ 3020e Dali Radeon Graphics Mobile (Dali, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Athlon 200GE Raven Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon 220GE Raven Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon 240GE Raven Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon 3000G Dali Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Dali) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon 300GE Dali Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Dali) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon 300U Dali Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Dali) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon 320GE Dali Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Dali) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon Gold 3150G Picasso Radeon Graphics (Picasso, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_picasso/ Athlon Gold 3150GE Picasso Radeon Graphics (Picasso, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_picasso/ Athlon Gold 3150U Dali Radeon Graphics Mobile (Dali, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Athlon Gold PRO 3150G Picasso Radeon Graphics (Picasso, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_picasso/ Athlon Gold PRO 3150GE Picasso Radeon Graphics (Picasso, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_picasso/ Athlon PRO 200GE Raven Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon PRO 200U Raven Radeon Vega 3 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Athlon PRO 300GE Picasso Radeon Vega 3 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_picasso/ Athlon PRO 300U Dali Radeon Vega 3 Graphics Mobile (Dali) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Athlon Silver 3050e Dali Radeon Graphics Mobile (Dali, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Athlon Silver 3050GE Dali Radeon Graphics (Dali, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_raven_ridge/ Athlon Silver 3050U Dali Radeon Graphics Mobile (Dali, 128 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_dali_128_shaders/ Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE Picasso Radeon Graphics (Picasso, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 3 2200G Raven Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 2200GE Raven Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 2200U Raven Radeon Vega 3 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 2300U Raven Radeon Vega 6 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_6_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 3200G Picasso Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 3 3200GE Picasso Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 3 3200U Dali Radeon Vega 3 Graphics Mobile (Dali) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 3250U Dali Radeon Graphics Mobile (Dali, 192 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_3_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 3300U Picasso Radeon Vega 6 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_6_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 3 4300G Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 384 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_384_shaders/ Ryzen 3 4300GE Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 384 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_384_shaders/ Ryzen 3 4300U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 320 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_320_shaders/ Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G Raven Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 PRO 2200GE Raven Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 PRO 2300U Raven Radeon Vega 6 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_6_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 3 PRO 3200G Picasso Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE Picasso Radeon Vega 8 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U Picasso Radeon Vega 6 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_6_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 384 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_384_shaders/ Ryzen 3 PRO 4350GE Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 384 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_384_shaders/ Ryzen 3 PRO 4450U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 320 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_320_shaders/ Ryzen 5 2400G Raven Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 5 2400GE Raven Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 5 2500U Raven Radeon Vega 8 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 5 2600H Raven Radeon Vega 8 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 5 3400G Picasso Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 5 3400GE Picasso Radeon Vega 11 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 5 3500U Picasso Radeon Vega 8 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 5 3550H Picasso Radeon Vega 8 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 5 3580U Microsoft Surface® Edition Picasso Radeon Vega 9 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_9_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 5 4500U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 384 Shader) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_384_shaders/ Ryzen 5 4600G Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 448 Shader) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 5 4600GE Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 448 Shader) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 5 4600H Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 384 Shader) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_384_shaders/ Ryzen 5 4600U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 448 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G Raven Radeon Vega 11 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE Raven Radeon Vega 11 Graphics (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U Raven Radeon Vega 8 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G Picasso Radeon Graphics (Picasso, 640 Shader) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_picasso_640_shaders/ Ryzen 5 PRO 3350GE Picasso Radeon Graphics (Picasso, 640 Shader) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_picasso_640_shaders/ Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G Picasso Radeon Vega 11 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE Picasso Radeon Vega 11 Graphics (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_picasso/ Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U Picasso Radeon Vega 8 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_vega_8_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 448 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 5 PRO 4650GE Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 448 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 384 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_384_shaders/ Ryzen 7 2700U Raven Radeon RX Vega 10 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_10_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 7 2800H Raven Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 7 3700U Picasso Radeon RX Vega 10 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_10_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 7 3750H Picasso Radeon RX Vega 10 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_10_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 7 3780U Microsoft Surface® Edition Picasso Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_11_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 7 4700G Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 512 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_512_shaders/ Ryzen 7 4700GE Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 512 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_512_shaders/ Ryzen 7 4700U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 448 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 7 4800H Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 448 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 7 4800HS Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 448 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 7 4800U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 512 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_512_shaders/ Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U Raven Radeon Vega 10 Graphics Mobile (Raven Ridge) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_10_graphics_mobile_raven_ridge/ Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U Picasso Radeon Vega 10 Graphics Mobile (Picasso) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_rx_vega_10_graphics_mobile_picasso/ Ryzen 7 PRO 4750G Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 512 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_512_shaders/ Ryzen 7 PRO 4750GE Renoir Radeon Graphics (Renoir, 512 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_renoir_512_shaders/ Ryzen 7 PRO 4750U Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 448 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_448_shaders/ Ryzen 9 4900H Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 512 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_512_shaders/ Ryzen 9 4900HS Renoir Radeon Graphics Mobile (Renoir, 512 Shaders) https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_graphics_mobile_renoir_512_shaders/
  3. 6 points
    New version of ZenTimings, with more items, Renoir and future CPUs support. https://github.com/irusanov/ZenTimings/releases Still working on the new ZenStates version. A new Linux version based on GTK3 coming too.
  4. 6 points
    https://hwbot.org/submission/4508826_ New score timing super tight TCWL 12
  5. 5 points
    Thx DaQueteness for another piece of art
  6. 5 points
    A software tool killed your psu?? Getting too old for this...
  7. 5 points
    After I stumbled over over a Toshiba DDR PC2100 stick on german ebay, which had exact the same looking of the typical Winbond IC, I think Winbond are actually Toshiba. The ICs were labeled with production year 2002 in Japan. In December 1995 Toshiba and Winbond started their first technology transfer agreement and over the next years 3 other generations followed. They mentioned in April 2000 that they were the first manufacturer in Taiwan who successfully offered 0.175µm 256Mbit DRAMs. And me guesses that this was the start of the BH chip, even though the birth of the holy BH-5 should be somewhat later. Anyway they also agreed to develop 0.130µm 512Mbit DRAMs for the first time together with Toshiba engineers and hope to start producing by the end of 2001, later mid 2002. However in the meantime Toshiba decided to exit dram market and Winbond lost its technology partner. This article states that they also ended the production at Winbonds fabs for Toshiba. But apparently they were still allowed to use Toshiba technologies to produce chips as claimed in February 2003, that the share of 0.130µm DRAM chips of the whole output should reach 33% in the first quartal. I think this makes also clear, that BH-5 and CH-5 were produced parallel in different fabs. Me guesses that they developed the 0.130µm process but didnt reached the goal of 512Mbit chips, as CH-5 were still 256Mbit. This forced Winbond once again into action and as result they decided to sign a contract in May 2002 with Infineon to use their 0.11µm process. In 2004 they signed another contract for 0.09µm process. In both contracts, Infineon gained access to the produced DRAM chips. It is very well possible that Winbond gave them some chips from their older fabs as well. I have an AT-6 as low as week 33 year 2002, so I think this matches. I also own a BT-5 "Winbond" week 36 year 2003, so this is probably the CH-5 equivalent while AT-6 should be BH-6. Anyway Winbond decided to focus on special ICs and virtually exited DRAM market, becoming just another manufacturer for Infineon. Which is probably also the reason there was no successor to their BH / CH chips. Taiwanese manufacturers simply had not the resources to develop their own chip designs by that time. The plan was to earn money by manufacturing chips for partners but they never had enough market share and revenue to start R&D by themselves. Also DRAM manufacturing was not the healthiest business. In the nineties were a lot of companies but most vanished. The ProMos Ram definitely got no Winbond IC on it. When Infineon left the joint venture, they made a new arrangement with Elpida. Also if you desolder any other IC, you probably will see those two flat dots on the backside. So its all about which machines were used for production.
  8. 4 points
    Still think that there is more involved than just having the best processor to win this....
  9. 4 points
    I deleted the wrong screenshot,But thanks to the BIOS from safedisk
  10. 4 points
    The problem is that those 4 metal dots on chips side are very common. Also Infineon BT and PowerChip have those metal dots in this arrangement but first one is usually not rated at CL3-4-4 and the later are quite rare chips and afaik nobody did OC them. Hynix however made several revisions of its chips, so OC behavior could improve over time because of better manufacturing process. If the GEIL were late produced, maybe you are just lucky. It's actually not quite correct to speak of "D43" as its just the speed bin. The actual chip depends on chip density and revision. Anyway this is most likely a Hynix 512Mbit late Revision D4 IC. D4=CL3-4-4 DDR400. I think when the party with DDR ram was over, because of the appearance of DDR2, interesting ICs appeared on the market but little is known about their OC potential. Even though I dont think there is still a chip out there which would be able to beat TCCD or BH to be OC relevant. But its an interesting field nonetheless as new DDR1 ICs were engineered till 2010. For example the successor of Infineon CE, the DE IC was available in 2008. Also Qimonda DF BGA ICs were introduced in 2009 and I saw results from someone with CF-5 already reaching DDR-600... You can find basically nothing about ELPIDA or Powerchip but who knows if a late revision of them is something interesting for us. Also Elixir is something like Kingston, they don't have their own chip design or even a fab. They just buy untested chips and place them on a pcb. Most Elixir chips I saw looks like to be Infineon BT. ProMos and Mosel are IMO also Infineon BT. Edit: Later ProMos and Mosel chips should be Elpida as Infineon left the Joint Venture and Elpida jumped in.
  11. 4 points
  12. 3 points
    Beta version of ZenStates with advanced Memory Controller config included. Should work on all Zen2-based CPUs and Renoir (Desktop АМ4). Readings are not realtime, but just a snapshot on app open. Don't have plans to add realtime reading, maybe a simple separate monitor app with just voltages, clocks and power. Still haven't found how to read BCLK, ACPI always reports 100. Download from GoogleDrive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YfHep9mX2POJhRrdEM_0WQklMDd0amZb/view?usp=sharing. 10/08/2020: Re-uploaded with a fix for first read after reboot.
  13. 3 points
    This is fascinating. Thanks, @Splave, for taking the time to write this up. A couple of things that might be helpful: You can still download Geekbench 3.1.5 from our servers if you'd prefer an official link: https://geekbench.s3.amazonaws.com/Geekbench-3.1.5-WindowsSetup.exe Geekbench 3.4.3 is out of beta and is now the default download on the Geekbench 3 website: https://www.geekbench.com/geekbench3/download/
  14. 3 points
    M12E 0098 BIOS DDR4 4750 CL14-13 1T TXP 4 PPD 0 Geeekbench 3 Passed, this bios much stronger than previous BIOS.
  15. 3 points
    @mllrkllr88 + @elmor = anything is possible
  16. 3 points
  17. 3 points
    Dfi Ultra-B is the great board. Don't be surprised at the price, it's a fairly rare card.
  18. 3 points
    I got better results. 😀
  19. 3 points
    I modded your BIOS for the EPOX 8RDA3I. Before flashing, please make sure, that CMOS register 73-78 are free. You can check it with this program. It should look something like this (in this screen CMOS register 73-78 are used by my mod): Some things left to say: the FSB Frequency is limited in the BIOS by 250MHz. 256KB BIOS! BPL is 3.09 by default, I left it in the original version. I do not own good BPL Versions for 256kb BIOSes. This BIOS versions should work, but they are completely untested! I will not be responsible for any damages! Having a programmed backup bios chip before flashing is not a bad idea. 8RDA3I_EBED_A6.zip 8RDA3I_ED_A6.zip 8RDA3I_X1_A6.zip
  20. 3 points
  21. 3 points
  22. 3 points
    I immortalized the LLC scores before something happens at HWBot forums again 😛
  23. 3 points
    Sub 7 minutes would need 6700-6710MHz. I definitely have multiple capable CPUs, but my best board stops at 655-660 5:8 even though its IMC can do 1080+ 6-7-5 32M with Hypers running same timings easily. Given how hard it is to find an X48 these days, let alone a decent one, this might never happen ... unless I somehow find a magical recycler that sits on a thousand boards
  24. 3 points
    Overal ranking wiill be adressed next week by Frederik
  25. 3 points
    Hi, posting this here since I am not sure if it has been posted previously. So, as we all know, sometimes AB comes with some limitations that require to test and find the appropriate version of AB/ABX. With this in mind, you can use Cheat Engine to lock values in the different voltage/clock memory addresses. On the following video, it is shown how to overcome the 1300 (1.3v) core voltage on the 5970. Please note that you can save the memory address as a profile on cheat engine so you can load it every time you select ab on cheat engine. That way you don't have to do the whole search. PS. similar program that works as well is artmoney Cheers
  26. 3 points
    V-GeN Samsung B-Die A0 PCB is working 4700 CL14-13-13 on M12E 🤯
  27. 3 points
    Certainly. Please don't think I was trying to nic somebody elses work. That's not the case. Just wanted to add the pics to the public volt mod section of my site, in case anybody wanted them. Didn't really think that was a big deal.
  28. 2 points
    well when setting up some made the comments the 3D stages were too easy and all doable with just a few cards So I added extra hardware specifics. No further remarks/opinions before we went live (besides the nforce board limitation, so we added some more nForce chipsets). Nothing is undoable… you need to get the team to sort out things, if the hardware is unavailable in your region, someone else might get it cheaper and get the score(s) done. Again you don't loose a Team Cup based on one stage where you miss one or two scores. People are way too focused on always getting the best gear.
  29. 2 points
  30. 2 points
    I flashed the EBED version , on my version 2.0 , 8RDA3I Everything worked smoothly , and the board bios booted and memtested up to 240 with 2x512MB and 245 with 2x256MB I will further test , when i have more free time. Thank you.
  31. 2 points
    This should be all belong to Picasso: https://url.hwbot.org/33xL1Wv All other categories should now correctly created although it might be hard for users to find the correct category. Wish we had already a feature to match the IGP automatically to the used CPU.
  32. 2 points
    Parts being used lg 1/2 hp r410 compressor free from an ac on the side of the road. Condenser from the same ac 0$ Evaporator made from 5 pipe caps 10$ Bronze flexible suction line dn6 8$ SUD 111 filter dryer 6$ Copper :5$ Brazing stuff: 7$ Total cost: 36$
  33. 2 points
    Wow, you made our score look inefficient as fuck. Guess some beer must be ordered.
  34. 2 points
    windows N never been great for me waiting for someone to beat me then I will
  35. 2 points
  36. 2 points
    This is the best score I managed to do with 500x9 Wolfdale with new OS and good memory config. If someone can do better at 500x9 flat then that would be nice to see so that I need to improve. Any Wolfdale E8400-E8700 is fine but 500x9.
  37. 2 points
    Well if it's the intention to have another ranking for memory records, a missing way to detect LPPDR is probably the show stopper. On the other hand, this could be also added, just to be more exact. We know that some SoCs use LPDDR. But currently, they stand with regular DDR memory in our db. We would be able to offer more correct information for those. But as we are more a overclocking database than a technical database, it wouldn't be much of a benefit I guess. But if it's possible to detect this properly, I don't see why we shouldn't do this. Even though I don't expect much of it -overclocking wise. (But honestly don't know much about those stuff, so I actually cant judge.) Has anyone already asked CPU-Z devs about this? Maybe we should postpone discussion till we have an answer here. I guess they would first need to find a way to properly detect this + making lot of testing. Well the issue seems to be, that regular Picasso and the 3000G share exact the same CPUID. This ID is should be Picasso only and as we all know the difference to Raven Ridge is the Die shrink to 12nm + some minor modification. The core of the 3000G was already identified as Dali and AMD itself states 14nm for this CPU. But for some reason AMD _wants_ to let all people believe it is pure Picasso which it simply can't be. Anyway the identical ID is the problem why CPU-Z detects it wrong. I contacted CPU-Z author about the problem and hope for an answer. AFAIU from this file in AMD Linux driver, the Dali IGP shares also the same Device ID like Picasso, 15D8. But they doing some code dance to separate Raven2, Pollock and Dali from pure Picasso party, mainly by reading Asic revision. Unfortunately this seems to be not the same Revision which GPU-Z shows us.
  38. 2 points
    DDR3L isn't relevant here, that's just DDR3 at a different voltage. LPDDR3 is different. I cannot stress enough that DDR3L and LPDDR3 are not interchangeable terms! Fundamentally LPDDR3 is not a Low Power version of DDR3. Rather, it is the third version of LPDDR memory, like how we have GDDR memory. This applies to other generations as well, from LPDDR1 to LPDDR5. The biggest difference I'd point to when it comes to LPDDR3 specifically is that the command/address bus is double data rate, as well as the data bus. Regular DDR isn't getting a double data rate cad bus until DDR5. However there are a number of other details, as this excellent article covers; https://blogs.synopsys.com/committedtomemory/2014/01/10/when-is-lpddr3-not-lpddr3-when-its-ddr3l/. What yos means about data widths is an LPDDR chip can be 32, 64 or even 128 bits wide whereas a normal DDR device is 4, 8 or 16 bits. The cad bus width changes too. Related to this is the fact that LPDDR never appears on SODIMMs, it is always soldered (or stacked in the case of Intel Lakefield's LPDDR4X). As technology moves on we're seeing greater and greater divergence between LPDDR and DDR. We see for example that the Intel i7-10710U supports LPDDR3-2133 and not DDR3, and also supports LPDDR4-2933 but DDR4 only up to 2666, despite a DDR4-2933 standard being available. An older CPU like the i7-8665U supports DDR4 and not LPDDR4, but does support LPDDR3 (and not DDR3). We also now have LPDDR4X standards up to 4266 while DDR4 is stuck at 3200. Because of this I'd come down strongly on the side of saying LPDDRx should be distinguished from DDRx. Maybe LPDDR1 and DDR1 could stay together as their differences come down to more economical self-refresh operation, though I'm not sure LPDDR1 (or 2) are used in anything but phones anyway. LPDDR3, LPDDR4, and LPDDR5 should definitely be separate though, IMO. LPDDR4X is fundamentally the same as LPDDR4 so could be in the same category, although as a database it might be good to distinguish them (this would also prevent stock LPDDR4X frequency subs getting too many points because of being so far ahead of LPDDR4). CPU-Z not being able to tell the difference is a problem, and it's something the CPUID guys ought to look at. It's not the first time there's a problem with CPU-Z, it still calls the Athlon 3000G 12nm Picasso, it's 14nm and a 2-core die.
  39. 2 points
  40. 2 points
    Close enough that I'm going to run this on LN2. RTLs still could use some work, but may revisit another day.
  41. 2 points
    Setting PPD to 0 disables power down.
  42. 2 points
  43. 2 points
    HiCookie just released the new GTL no microcode version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qAfjS4MnxOS8BW-FOx9f5rlupLw_9GzQ/view?fbclid=IwAR1aRUQAttNaq2cFMD0BGjf3n6xpSprGDpYPflq7fjwEAz8EkHqkNZwFDuc Quote HiCookie's manual: GTL for No microcode preview version is out! master and extreme(WF) would work, not sure the rests. This patch fixes the CPU/Uncore ratios and throttling issues for overclockers using our Z490 no code bios 1. must use Vcore fix mode (PWM to CPU) ( or Vcore mode: auto with voltage = fixed mode ) 2. Boot in the OS, open GTL and click the "patch" 3. each time you want to reboot OS, click "restore" in case hang at restarting. 4. This patch isn't for "removing microcode from current bios", it's for fixing ratios and power with nocode bios. You can open CPUz then click " patch" and " restore" back and forth, and see frequencies changing on CPUz. end quote.
  44. 2 points
    Angelo, if using XP for 4 core or less, there is a beta version that was used for X299(10980XE) and 3970X, 0.5.13 or something that I have a copy of that works fine in XP. For 10 core stuff I needed to use the XP tool from Elmor(i think) to get adjustment of core/bclk etc
  45. 2 points
    I don't know how you can stand this place Albrecht
  46. 2 points
    What the hell? Am I going to have to actually go outside instead of bench for a day or two? BS
  47. 2 points
    It isn't a big deal, i just noticed it and thought i'd point it out. That's why i posted it as a question and not as accusation @4n0nym0u5b3nch3r Well, the -X is singlechannel. As long as we can't make DC work that board isn't interesting at all. At least for benching. SC will give you a disadvantage in 32M and for valids the NF7 is wayyy more interesting, because 2.25V Vcore. And the -X doesn't even have SATA... I own two of these myself and still got to test if we can mod dualchannel into it or if nvidia somehow blocked it inside the chipset on silicon level.
  48. 2 points
    Hey George! If the price ever drops below £100, hit me up.
  49. 2 points
    anyone want to try some daily mem presets? https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Voa-zBpBVtlHFAMtxLH8cMeqxFpOGaO/view?usp=sharing These have been verified so far by testing a couple bdie kits and few micron ones. More kits to be tested but thought to share for any of you who might be interested. Please note that each kit/imc etc will behave differently so you might need/want to fine-tune timings and voltages.
  50. 2 points
    Gdrive folder with everything that can be found on the main post: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DjnhLFpKA_-aORnt1gKOyD7w5SXGA7gj?usp=sharing
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...