8 PACK MEMORY RANGE GROWING: SAY HELLO TO 8 PACK RIPPED EDITION & 32GB KITS!!!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
lol. just noticed your TRC is wild. Should be tRP + tRAS. So 50 in your case. apols, I should have picked up on that earlier.
ah tbh i saw in cpu z that trc number under xmp was 50 but was unsure weather to change it or not, i'll head into the bios and see if it will accept
Here is my current setup that I'm happy with. Only needs 1.4v, and tbh I think I could get it down to 1.37 as I havent clocked primaries from what the sticks are rated for. I have easily blown these scores away with 1.45v and cl14...but I don't see the point, I see no difference in what I actually use the machine for...
@Space Monkey Any luck getting the RAM XMP?
and yes please everyone manually set your tRC to the value that the CPU-Z table states. I cannot for the life of me find out why the XMP doesn't input tRC but the value of tRC in the XMP table is verified and since it's lower you should use it.
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...ry_optimisation_-_the_effect_of_trc_timings/2
"The important thing to note here is that your memory kit's rated (XMP) tRC timings are not being used here, but they are defined by your motherboard. These tRC timings are used by every Ryzen motherboard that we have tested so far, leaving room for optimisation."
My best guess is it's something overlooked since AMD allowed manual tweaking of tRC in 2017 "With AGESA version 1.0.0.6, AMD Ryzen users are able to adjust a lot more memory settings than before, giving us the option to change the tRC timings of our memory."
and yes please everyone manually set your tRC to the value that the CPU-Z table states. I cannot for the life of me find out why the XMP doesn't input tRC but the value of tRC in the XMP table is verified and since it's lower you should use it.
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...ry_optimisation_-_the_effect_of_trc_timings/2
"The important thing to note here is that your memory kit's rated (XMP) tRC timings are not being used here, but they are defined by your motherboard. These tRC timings are used by every Ryzen motherboard that we have tested so far, leaving room for optimisation."
My best guess is it's something overlooked since AMD allowed manual tweaking of tRC in 2017 "With AGESA version 1.0.0.6, AMD Ryzen users are able to adjust a lot more memory settings than before, giving us the option to change the tRC timings of our memory."
Last edited:
I think that is about right now without moving to 14-14-14 or upping your speed.headed into the bios and set trc to 50 as xmp and you suggested, all was good, re ran MEMbench at default again, it defiantly getting better, tbh i'd be fine where it is now in all honesty
Run karhu or tm5 for a few hours when you get the chance to confirm all is good.
You'll see no perceivable gains going faster.
headed into the bios and set trc to 50 as xmp and you suggested, all was good, re ran MEMbench at default again, it defiantly getting better, tbh i'd be fine where it is now in all honesty
Have you got it set at XMP and then just changed those handful of timings?
yeap set xmp and then headed into dram control and altered tRC, tRFC and finally tFAW to the values in my latest run, all good, Thanks to @Inoton
yeap set xmp and then headed into dram control and altered tRC, tRFC and finally tFAW to the values in my latest run, all good, Thanks to @Inoton
I'll give that a go later on and see how I get on thanks both
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
What does Aida64 say peoples latency is?
Mine is 66ns....
This is the lowest I have ever been able to get my ram so I am happy.
Mine is 66ns....
This is the lowest I have ever been able to get my ram so I am happy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
You're using a 3900x. Look how many threads it's running compared to mine.
That's where the difference lie.
Perhaps the test isn't all that consistent or has some bugs?
Either way, my ram 'must be faster than before' as Aida64 tells me I have a latency of 66ns. Also games do feel better especially BFV. Smoother.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
Better than nothing tho init
AMD / Intel are missing a trick here by not creating their own official ram overclocking utility.
Think how popular Ryzen would BE if AMD had an official dram cacl!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
3900x and a faster FCLK.
As far as I can tell a faster FCLK is better than tighter timings.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
Could my crappy time have something to do with the half write speed on the 3700x compared to the 3900x?
Even the 2700x has a lot more write speed then the 3700x.
Even the 2700x has a lot more write speed then the 3700x.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
What other programs can we use to compare speeds?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
here is my aida64 ram benchmark
As I wrote above, I would try to use the primary and secondary timings from the calculator as they will be slightly tighter than what is essentially the default timings your running.
It may need a tick or two more voltage. I'm at 1.47v for reference.
but would i notice any difference in real world tasks ie:gaming and benchmarking?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
I think so yes. It cant hurt to try.
I definitely gained from it.
But I was at around 70ns with just primaries and went down to 66ns with tweaked primary and secondaries.
You seem to be already at 67ns so hard to say if it will improve much on that. But its worth a go.