chew*

define stable. I probably run more stability then most. I could pass anything anyone asked before at 2k yet not load the profile 100% and get a failed Oc reset. Now I don't get a failed Oc reset loading a 2k profile I'm let see at 23 hour mark in prime 95 which 99% of users won't even run.... That would denote more stable. Oh before I forget. At least on my bios they added the DLLbwEN options theres 4 of them.

Artificial manual tuning DR dimm wall at 2000 is gone. No clue how far it can go yet. Seems that training may be improved I'll test more my 2000 profile would load from defaults sometimes and sometimes I had to baby step to 1900 then 2000 but seems to handle shotgun approach better now. Not 100% sure but looks like have lost 1ns latency.

As of 1.2w yes. txp on its own makes no difference in the unify I latency. I tested just PPD 0 and that alone solves the latency issue roughly lowering it 4-5ns. I still think its maybe 1-2 ns off but then I'm comparing to a very mature z390 board I have pulling sub 40ns at only 16-16-16 3600 with similarly conservative sub timings like the above screenshots. Considering we are only 3 1/2 bios in on z490 I feel like this is rather reasonable as the platforms certainly not mature yet. As far as stability goes. The above settings still work except trefi. It passed hci 2000% task and tm5 anta extreme but failed prime 95 ( hard crash reboot ) custom full mem use. Set trefi to auto retested and now passing prime like its literally about 1hr and 15min away from a full 24 hour pass now. Could just be the added strain to IMC+32gb+PPD 0 and most likely will not effect 2x8gb users. This is at 2000 ( 4000 effective ) 1900 ( 3800 ) might be able to handle it. Keep in mind I'm using a NEO ( AMD ) 3600 c16 bin of b die as well. *EDIT* Added screenshots. What I passed in HCI/TM5 versus prime custom full memory usage which is why I still trust prime to this day. Also tossed in the z390 3600 latency expectations that I'm comparing to my z490 latency expectations.

1.2w bios definitely helps with the poor latency results. PPD 0 txp 5 gave a little boost to bandwidth not much. I tried it auto ( 12 for my memory config ) and 5 it made no impact to latency. The 1.2w bios or the above PPD 0 setting got the latency down roughly 4-5ns even running rather relaxed timings. Back to running memory tests to verify it sacrificed no stability.

Thought I might add that I was wrong. The board does not have a wall at 2000 with 2x16gb bdie. It has a bug artificially limiting it if you set vccio vccsa or vddr manually. 2 examples and be warned around 4500 the auto vccio/vccsa gets excessive. Excuse the crappy timings but since you can't set vddr vccio or vccsa manually or it won't post I only set the 3 primaries to just test what speeds it could possibly boot. Limited to 1.35 vddr I did not have much choice You will only want to set desired memory speed. 3 primaries. turn lucky mode on if you would like to test this yourself. Do not touch anything else. 4600 was max I could get into windows. 4633 tried to bork my OS but I got past bios. YRMV.

I'm sure they may have a problem and with single rank diims one could expect 1T CR to scale above 3600 but my expectations are realistic and I would not expect to be able to pull 3600 1T CR or even higher with a 2x16b DR configuration so just speaking on behalf of 2X16gb the only abnormality I'm experiencing is lower than expected latency performance. Clocks/timings are about what I expected for 2x16gb bdie. I'm not expecting $500 apex results out of a board that retails between $240-270 USD Just better than average memory oc's which when compared to say the Asus z490 itx it's doing better than average vs the ASUS with 2x16gb. Just the latency is annoying as is the lack of vtt volts/sensors for an allegedly tuned to OC memory board. Well that and the useless VRM fan that stole potential USB port space and poor passively cooled performance requiring you to at least get some airflow over m2 SSD/Southbridge at the very least and lastly the power reset location. Literally other than that the board works great. It's recovery from failed overclocks is nothing short of amazing ( I've yet to need clr cmos for anything ) I think the only other thing I found somewhat annoying was the inability to "unlink" fan control. Like say one fans quiet even at max as its a low rpm. I want to run that full speed I can't unless all run full speed. It applies to all or none unless you set custom profile for each.

Yah 2x8 can pull in a lot easier. IO-L with 2x16gb 8 is the lowest that will post. For reference sake my asrock z390 9900k with 4x8gb bdie and only 3600 c15 can pull 37ns. It should not be that hard or need that much power to get latency down. 3800 is even worse in the 45ns range. 2000 gets me into mid 41ns

Here I did a quick write up on the board. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?296970-An-unbiased-and-unsponsored-MSI-Z490I-Meg-Unify-Motherboard-Review

Ryzens limitations has always been the chiplet. I've told people this many many times but they don't listen. it's why latency is poor. It why we have struggled to clock ram although they kinda but not really fixed that on 3000 lets just say they unlinked it but the results were not what they were "hoping" for. They needed the chiplet gone but...I'm not sure how it will impact other results and I am also not sure how they will deal with multiple die product like 3900/3950 without it.

The latency issue at least for DR dimms lies in RTL IO-L I believe. At 3600/3800 you should be able to run 6/6/6/6 or 7/7/7/7 but currently board is freaking out if set lower than 8 and having a mind of it's own and loosening them up to 9/10 if you attempt to do so. This is my findings on B die 2x16gb. your results may differ on diff IC and density. 1T is not happy on DR but usually not a realistic goal DR. Included a screen to show the state of latency currently. 32gb not 16gb........ EDIT FOR A BUG REPORT ( Opening dragonball z or whatever app even if you close it completely and then open AIDA and run cache/memory = a result of 0/0/0/0 across the board )

be a good 2 secs faster if you dump the 3800x and use 3900x

c9 might not be as fast as c10. It wasn't on zen1 at least according to the data I collected. at 1333 c9 is easily doable yet I did not use it I always follow the philosophy I got from tony @ OCZ. Use what IS fast not what you THINK is fast. That's why we tested multiple boards under multiple speeds etc etc etc. I must have tested at least 10+ motherboards on zen 1. Even cpu's impacted the results, tested a lot of those 2. Example I ran multiple tests last week with 3800x over 3900x. The closest I could get was within 1 second of 3900x on good runs and more often than not it was 2 secs slower. I think the largest problem with 32m pi and zen 2 will be the inability to use very low dividers and bumping back up via ref clock to get the boards to "train" at tighter inaccessible "settings" when you go cold to make up for the lack of speed. You can try this on intel and pay attention to RTL in AMD land I think it was MRL on older arch. Not sure if they call it that anymore on AMD but I know as of now and zen1 its not accessible in bios or software but is via lower dividers and ref clock. On zen+ it may not work because its not achieved natively but on a chip separating PCI but I never tested it so who knows. I also know on zen1 when we set timings they had no effect at higher speeds but when we used a lower divider + ref clock to "trick" the cpu they actually worked. I can guarantee you 1 thing for certain. The OS is hardly optimized. I'm not even using max mem. The "spectacle" others put on about the OS was a bunch of dogs barking up the wrong tree. I found it mildly amusing for a little while but the amusement wore off quickly as the drama escalated and I decided to go back to hibernating as that's what's best for me to avoid drama. The only thing people really did not try was a giga or asrock to beat us and we never used the asus to try to beat anyone ( I had it, it was slow cpc ). The asrock and giga used a ref memory trace layout. the asus did not....the asus clocked higher and easier. quite obvious what was going on. they slacked board to "gain" visual speed. This is why infras fastest run is with very high refclock and high mem speed. He got the MRL or whatever they call it now down and bypassed all the slacking crap asus did to achieve higher speeds than other boards could do. Also as to why we didn't bother with ref at 3333-3400 was simple. our boards were not very fond of over 110 and you needed 1866/2133/2400 dividers to get the real gains. 2933 gained nothing and 2666 was not all that fast either. Once again use what IS fast not what you THINK is fast. These cpus have a lot of features that can be used towards your advantage. I believe error correction is 1 so using maxmem to gains stability because your actually unstable....I wonder how that works with the cpu's error correction feature

yah im not sure but based on my run and loud_silences 5.2 untuned run and comparing that to my tuned 5.0 run I personally feel that zen 2 when I run some 7 will be faster. its a different kind of fast but faster none the less I think. I think if you cold bug imc hard though and you had to run both zen 1 and zen 2 @ 1333 10-9-9 etc zen 1 would win however but I don't think that will ever be the case where you need to go that low on zen 2 cold. If you were able to maintain your above runs mem speeds cold @ 5.0 there is no doubt in my mind that it would be faster than my 6:53 5.0 @ 1333 ddr. its looking like a 6:50-6:40 range run to me if you ran @ 4999.

I dug up a couple more screens to show scaling with frequency. Like I said 10s per 100 MHz cpu so if zen 2 is = zen 1 target for say 4.6 should be 7:15 but....I think just based on my 9:11 w10run on zen 2 and knowing how fast 7 is compared to 10...might want to shoot for even faster times as I'm fairly certain zen2 is faster.

OK so It took a little while to figure it out in w10 probably because I never bother due to 10 being slow but none the less it's repeatable in either OS. So first the comparison. taichi vs taichi. The bios is worth nothing time wise. The tighter timings are worth 2 seconds at best on a good run. vddr is 1.44 which is my artificially limited max for the time being it also passed a quick 360% hci run lol. Ill even post the settings for this run. you figure out how I pulled 6 secs out of my ass and you will be efficient Looking forward to getting back on w7

No steam just shedding some light on my own personal reasons.

I was not referring to you dumo. Your thread is not titled OFFICIAL support. And its not on XS either. It's rather simple though. If a company puts hardware in your hands to put up scores you put up scores. If its to help avg/gamers endusers then do that. Often I see it that its to help endusers but they put up scores. Those are the ones that probably should not be getting samples.

I am was still am but what I work on and what my goals are now are vastly different. I'm also usually late to party intentionally than the me first this is how to as I've been around long enough to know nothing is set in stone especially with ryzen and guides or info is better done on a more mature agesa. I stopped posting scores while having manufacturer support so to each his own. A lot go to unboxing/youtubers so I can't argue with that. My other favorite is when someone hits the avg 24/7 oc forums posts a support thread then proceeds to show the board doing 12-11-11 1900 with clearly unsafe 24/7 voltages and calls it done. Here is what you won't be able to achieve for your 24/7 usage but i'm going to show it anyway and call it official support and I'm not going to dive into actually stability because its time consuming and boring I just wanted the free hardware with the least time invested. ACTIONS > WORDS.

5. yep to gain recognition meant leader boards meant benching intel, not to mention there were those that claimed AMD blah blah blah so it was also to prove a point I was not a 1 trick pony.

I'll tell you why I don't. 1 hwbot should be for end users not manufacturers playground. 2 I want to bench the hardware and benchmarks I want to bench not what POINTS dictate I have to bench to be "good" or "top 100" 3 I want a challenge....how long since I submitted a score? still rank 217? that's sad.... 4 they flat out just burned me out. 1 can only do so much 5 I had to start benching intel even though my specialty and expertise was/is AMD.

that aqua is an expensive mofo….. yah zens sending me a card that's native to xp and 7. zen has my windows oc tool and winring file for r1. Its possible that it might still work for bumping manual voltage and multi in 7. getting bored running prime and hci 24/7. Need some 32m love to break up the monotony. Once I have finished all the boring crap i'm working on I can put the screws to this hardware but for now all results will be done @ realistic 24/7 conservative voltages as I need the hardware to stay reliable and consistent till I am done.

just checking efficiency per board. C8H on chopping block next. No luck with the 32m w7 yet, injected drivers into my old os still no usb Only difference in the timings is the boards preferred default odt everything else identical. Looks very close.

I agree and I can never leave something untouched. If I can't find headroom in core clocks it onto uncore or nb and memory ocing however in its current state core clocking in the high end segment for the ambient casual 24/7 guys is rather demotivational in its current state. I'm not really complaining as AMD and Intel is doing what I and many ocers used to do as far back as 3dmark 01 and they are doing it better. We used to boost clocks/voltage per game test. As benches evolved and you could not "pause" between tests so to speak we started using OC on the fly buttons, maybe drop cpu speed through a cpu test bump back up in game tests. Hell I recall doing some MOA comp where I was benching vantage on an IGP and I used + - OC button to run varied clocks through each test. Manufacturers took it a step further with variable on the fly voltages and clocks so in a sense put the ambient ocers out of a "job" so to speak. Ambient > sub zero as far as the populus went, no clue where it stands now but I imagine that ratio has gone down with the way things are currently compared to say 10 years ago.

chip does a sustained 4.8turbo all core with reasonable temps. asrock z490 average chip does 5.0 all core with NH-d15 or drp4 and 100c+ in real stability tests.