chew* Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) Really need to be in 17's to 18s range @ only 3200 memory to be a competitive board now. I am knocking out low 18s on taichi with on 12-11-11 3200 no bclk. Gain from the next memory divider is about 3s...if you can hold timings together and not slack them. 3200->8:17 3333->8:14 3466->8:11. Any board doing less is slow. For cold i just tune @ 2666 now since its guaranteed and work my way up once cold. Edited June 6, 2017 by chew* Quote
chew* Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 Here Flanker......I ran one so you could see actual ram speed..... This is the bar that basically K7 and taichi have set.......this is the standard...anything less is slow and not competitive.... You can ask zen......this is extremely fast for 3200. 1 Quote
flanker Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Did you tried, if TRC 48 is worse? It could be hold the test. Im surprise from D-die, tomorow Il continue with higher memory clocks. But 8:15 is really awesome. Quote
zeneffect Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Did you tried, if TRC 48 is worse? It could be hold the test. Im surprise from D-die, tomorow Il continue with higher memory clocks. But 8:15 is really awesome. I'm sandbagging man, 8:15 is still slow... And I'm not the only one *cough**chew*cough* Just gotta carry rounds so you guys can see there is progression and possibility and hopefully light a fire to get others encouraged to participate. Ryzen isn't fully tapped out of performance, not by a long shot. Every time we are testing we are still learning and still gaining ground. As far as 48 being worse, I use b die obviously so my timings will be quite different. Just saying don't just test tighter as it's not always faster. Test everything tighter and looser then set what is faster. Edited June 9, 2017 by zeneffect Quote
chew* Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) I am bored....think zen is to...time to shake things up.... Maybe if someone copies my settings they can go fast... I do not share bench settings of course...so you are on your own for that....but my prime stable settings I do share and those are good enough to beat everyone but zen Just for the hell of it i tested 4.2....people still slow in the higher than 4 gig range....probably more in this but something came up so i had to shut rig down. Edited June 21, 2017 by chew* Quote
I.nfraR.ed Posted June 26, 2017 Posted June 26, 2017 Got back to Ryzen, but I'm still 10sec behind. Currently only trying 4GHz, 100bclk and 3200 divider for good measure. Quote
chew* Posted June 26, 2017 Posted June 26, 2017 Hate to say it infra...and i have poked ASUS enough to be annoyed already....but going to need a K7 or Taichi....unless ASUS gets there act together. I got one more idea to push them...no clue if it will work. Quote
I.nfraR.ed Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Still struggling with Win7. Same bios settings (slacker timings close to auto atm, except primaries and tWCL). Installing same stripped windows 7, fresh boot, no tweaks, everything should be 1:1 and I get 3 seconds difference with the different installations. Can't figure out why. And it was consistent, not just some random run. Latest beta bios has drive strengths, but haven't played with them yet. Trains the memory first try though. Quote
chew* Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) Yah they are on taichi to. No impact in times usually drives can help attain higher clocks or stabilize rather unstable memory on the platform like say Hynix DR.. ODT however impacts times. More or less the right setting is normal...wrong setting slower. We both obviously have faster times than what is posted. I have not run 32m in weeks...but plan to this week. Been busy helping the 24/7 crowd. Edited June 27, 2017 by chew* 1 Quote
I.nfraR.ed Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) Yeah, I know you both have better scores and I'm slower even than what have been posted until now. Maybe there's something significant I'm missing, but I will keep trying. 3600 tight is working here, but even at that speed I'm slow. Guess I can push it even further, but no point in this until I figure out the baseline at 3200. I know about ODT, it should be "just right" to work optimally. I'm talking about scores in the 8:30 ballpark with windows "untweaked", just bios settings. Every time I try to tweak something in Win it makes things even worse. Reverting the tweak does not get the score to the previous level. So I'm currently scratching my head... Didn't count how many times I've reinstalled OS. Edited June 27, 2017 by I.nfraR.ed 1 1 Quote
chew* Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 You on newer bios? Have you tried reverting back? Quote
I.nfraR.ed Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 Newest. I will flashback 1001 or 1002 to compare, but I was slow with 1002 too before . Quote
chew* Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) Its still slow but faster...or was faster than the most recent that i tested...which i admit not tested in recent weeks. I will just show you this. Scaling or more so the lack there of is spot on and exactly what i would expect from speed bump/timing sacrifice. Hynix DR...nothing could be more head/desk than these. Both runs are at what should be prime stable..but that remains to be seen...know more in a day or so. Edited June 28, 2017 by chew* Quote
zeneffect Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 You are so close to the answer to your problem, yet you don't see it. I haven't tested an Asus bios for a while, but consider this... You were faster, slower on 1002. Inefficiency is not your fault, there is no magic setting that I could find on crosshair so I jumped ship and haven't looked back. Quote
chew* Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) I have a theory but msi kind of tosses a curve ball. Asrock/Giga copy paste ref trace layout. Asus got creative. Clocks higher/easier..took a hit in PI for it. Normally board to board 1 sec is deviation across vendor. 10 is way out in left field. Weekends coming so is ln2. Time to make AMD look halfway decent @ PI...5.2 6:54 is making AMD look horrible at it. Edited June 29, 2017 by chew* Quote
I.nfraR.ed Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 The thing is I don't want to buy another board just for Pi . Will flashback 1001 or 1002 to compare with latest beta, however I can probably compensate with better timings on current bios vs the fixed timings on old ones if the newest bios is slower. Fact is I can't get even 8:20.xxx which puts me well behind scores you have. Best I have is 8:23 or something like that, don't remember. Even 3600 tight timings can't get me down to your scores. Looking forward to your LN2 run. Quote
chew* Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Cold bug cpu wise @ -120 plus 98% humidity has put a damper on my taichi bench session...impossible to go up down temp wise in this humidity...everything will be soaking wet. Think we know what issue is but need a bios to default @ a certain setting or a hardmod to force the setting. Soon as you crash/clear cmos stuck on 54 colder than -120... Shame the effeciency was on par from 4.0 to 4.5 on phase...just needed colder and 5.0 run. 1 Quote
l0ud_sil3nc3 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Cold bug cpu wise @ -120 plus 98% humidity has put a damper on my taichi bench session...impossible to go up down temp wise in this humidity...everything will be soaking wet. Think we know what issue is but need a bios to default @ a certain setting or a hardmod to force the setting. Soon as you crash/clear cmos stuck on 54 colder than -120... Shame the effeciency was on par from 4.0 to 4.5 on phase...just needed colder and 5.0 run. Force pcie gen 2 this should fix your issue. It seems like you need a KPC inferno in your life, it's humidity's biggest enemy Quote
chew* Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) Forcing promontory gen 2 was the plan...but in the event of a crash or setting that forces clear cmos....stuck on 54. Simple solution. Bios 2.36 with promontory gen 2 loading @ default/bios clear etc etc..2.34 has some annoying bugs...time consuming wise...waste of ln2. Then humidity can kiss mine...i will just freeze everything. Granted it will not clock as high...i only need 5.0 for what i am doing right now. My profile was only @ 2666. Also 2.4 bios freaked out just in general even -30c...2133 was bricking an OS instantly. Bricked SPD on a stick of ram to lol... 2.34 was booting no issues up to -120c. Oh my cpu has a really bad imc btw so might be a factor. Edited July 3, 2017 by chew* 1 Quote
chew* Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) Annoying board and cpu. gen 2 no coldbug? lol. gen 1 no coldbug? lol. got tired of the shenanigans broke mount on cpu, tossed water in the bottom of pot taaadaaa CB gone...technically speaking it acts like cold slow. No clue exhausted a ton of time on it last night. results suck due to trials and tribulations. It can go faster but whatever sub 7 5gig is done. Edited July 5, 2017 by chew* Quote
chew* Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) Here is an example of semi proper scaling. As you can see my ln2 run was "slow" ( sucked monkey balls ) target was and should be 7:48 give or take a second. If I can get a proper run in and hit the target I see no reason why sub 6 could not be done @ 5.4-5.5. Its not perfect math but scaling should be a about 9.5secs shaved per 100 MHz at this crappy memory speed. Better scaling can be had with higher mem speed. Edited July 6, 2017 by chew* Quote
newlife Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) has anyone tried this on a 1400 because I'm getting about 8m 56s with e-die and 4g cpu plus would be good to have an idea how bad I'm doing Edited July 6, 2017 by newlife Quote
chew* Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) I will run a 4.0 run off on a 1400 for you. Half the cache takes a performance hit but I discussed that quite awhile ago. crappy run ( can go faster ) but gives you a ballpark target. Edited July 6, 2017 by chew* Quote
newlife Posted July 8, 2017 Posted July 8, 2017 I will run a 4.0 run off on a 1400 for you. Half the cache takes a performance hit but I discussed that quite awhile ago. crappy run ( can go faster ) but gives you a ballpark target. Thanks and gave it another try on fresh os and I'm down to 42s Quote
newlife Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 I gave this a try in xp yesterday and performance is worse than win 7 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.