Soldato
I use these on a 3600C16 ram, and works like a charm weeks now
Thankyou, I'll try those myself
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Thankyou, I'll try those myself
Soldato
Heh, did anyone saw the 1065G7 vs 3700U?
The 10nm Ice Lake is barely faster than the 12nm Zen+!
The 10nm Ice Lake is barely faster than the 12nm Zen+!
Associate
@Panos Why set mem to 3866MHz with 1866Mhz FCLK? 3733MHz with 1866MHz would be 1:1 and theoretically should give better latency.
I hate to pick up on this as it makes me look like an Intel fan boy - but I'm assuming you are talking about the gaming APU results here? where they mostly traded blows because in raw CPU tasks the 1065G7 for the most part is quite a bit ahead - in some cases running away from the 3700U. Another factor as well as the Ice Lake CPU stock for stock is running a tighter TDP profile - if you unlock both to similar power profiles the 1065G7 generally pulls ahead in every benchmark.
The disinformation that gets perpetuated in this section really does no one favours.
Unless they can pull a rabbit out the hat I dunno why Intel is persisting with 10nm it seems like throwing good money after bad at this point - by the time they've tweaked it to get the first generation of high performance products on it it won't be hugely better than refined 12nm/FF.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Its worth pointing out that the 3700U is NOT Zen 2, it is infect Zen+ and Vega, last generation Ryzen 2000, 12nm.
Why AMD chose to do this to themselves, why they don't use Zen 2 and Navi for their Portables is beyond me...
Why AMD chose to do this to themselves, why they don't use Zen 2 and Navi for their Portables is beyond me...
Caporegime
It seeks to confuse and nigh on decieve consumers.
Whether it's better than Intel's offerings isn't relevant to that specific.
Soldato
The clock speed on the 3900 will make it not best suited as a gaming chip. Pure desktop/workstation sku.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 529
Because it takes time to design and validate an SoC, and Zen 2 was not mature enough? It wasn't a choice as much as a time constraint.
Soldato
I have IF 1900.
And was adamant that I am correct. Off to calculate 3800 now
Last edited:
Sounds like games won't run at all - sounds as an over exaggeration which is not correct. Games is about more threads and performance difference would be 1-2 FPS, not more.
And the SKU can be OCed by the user.
Soldato
Soldato
If you are using RTX2080Ti probably. Anything lesser there won't be any difference except on archaic low core count games.
Soldato
Wonder if they've re-binned their own chips due to the boost debacle hence the lack of supply, and made these as a separate tier. Though the 3900 does have a lower TDP. The 3950 doesn't though, same 105W
Soldato
Why wouldn't games run on it at all?
Soldato
I see all over the internet this myth that VDDG should be 40-50mv below SOC. This is a Chinese whisper if you ask me.
This is from the likes of the Stilt and 1usmus, but what makes them qualified to say this is correct?
Show me AMD words that say the same and I'll believe you.
The only official AMD words I can find come from the Ryzen master documentation that says VDDG and SOC should be started at 1.1v for ram (IF) overclocking.
Page 34
---
This bothers me clearly. As the one aspect I hate about overclocking is the unknowns and when certain things get thrown around as fact, when in the end they are just whispers which have became truths.
---
It bothers me because I think the VDDG voltage might be the missing ingredient to getting my ram stable, something I have not been setting as the dram calc claims that 0.950v which is stock was sufficient. (Hence my instability)
---
Anyway I've set both SOC and VDDG to 1.1v and if things are still stable in a good 3 weeks I'll know I'm in the clear.
This is from the likes of the Stilt and 1usmus, but what makes them qualified to say this is correct?
Show me AMD words that say the same and I'll believe you.
The only official AMD words I can find come from the Ryzen master documentation that says VDDG and SOC should be started at 1.1v for ram (IF) overclocking.
Page 34
---
This bothers me clearly. As the one aspect I hate about overclocking is the unknowns and when certain things get thrown around as fact, when in the end they are just whispers which have became truths.
---
It bothers me because I think the VDDG voltage might be the missing ingredient to getting my ram stable, something I have not been setting as the dram calc claims that 0.950v which is stock was sufficient. (Hence my instability)
---
Anyway I've set both SOC and VDDG to 1.1v and if things are still stable in a good 3 weeks I'll know I'm in the clear.
Last edited:
Soldato
I think he's being sarcastic.
Soldato
Ah right, when it followed with -sounds as an exaggeration which wasn't correct - I thought there was something saying the reason why that he'd read somewhere.
Soldato
@opethdisciple idk mate, i use what ever the calculator gives.
Scalled back to 3800 ram speed and used the recommended settings of 1.1 SOC, 0.950 VDGG, 0.900 VDDP.
Already had a spin with Windows memory testing app, and the Ryzen Dram calculator benchmark tool.
Scalled back to 3800 ram speed and used the recommended settings of 1.1 SOC, 0.950 VDGG, 0.900 VDDP.
Already had a spin with Windows memory testing app, and the Ryzen Dram calculator benchmark tool.
Soldato
