• 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 ***

BRIGGBOY81 said:
Were you on about my timings fella?. If so what do you recommend. The 3600 fast profile I am going to try later this week is 14, 14, 15, 14, 28. Does that sound ok.
Click to expand...

The minimum clock cycle is CAS+tRCD+tRTP. One of 1usmus's articles on TPU conflates some of these timings and their importance.

For instance he states tCAS as irrelevant in tRAS min, yet all papers show tCAS features in tRAS min. By definition tCAS is the time before data is available on the output pins, therefore the delay of CAS is significant to operations. The guide doesn’t state why or how tCAS can be left out of any evaluation of RAS active times. The burst of one row needs to be complete before tRC is complete, so it impossible for the delay of tCAS not to be accounted for. This is also why all timing tables show tCAS when detailing a read operation that includes tRAS min.

In short, just be wary of the timing profiles shown in that app. You can test before and after affects. Normally, the chipset will substitute an arbitrary timing with a valid one without the user realising.
 
Silent_Scone said:
The minimum clock cycle is CAS+tRCD+tRTP. One of 1usmus's articles on TPU conflates some of these timings and their importance.

For instance he states tCAS as irrelevant in tRAS min, yet all papers show tCAS features in tRAS min. By definition tCAS is the time before data is available on the output pins, therefore the delay of CAS is significant to operations. The guide doesn’t state why or how tCAS can be left out of any evaluation of RAS active times. The burst of one row needs to be complete before tRC is complete, so it impossible for the delay of tCAS not to be accounted for. This is also why all timing tables show tCAS when detailing a read operation that includes tRAS min.

In short, just be wary of the timing profiles shown in that app. You can test before and after affects. Normally, the chipset will substitute an arbitrary timing with a valid one without the user realising.
Click to expand...

I've always thought it was tcas + trcd = tras then trp + tras = trc

Have my 8 pack 3200/14 set to 3800 16 16 16 32 48
Have trfc set to 280 also.
 
Last edited:
Joxeon said:
I've always thought it was tcas + trcd = tras then trp + tras = trc

Have my 8 pack 3200/14 set to 3800 16 16 16 32 48
Have trfc set to 280 also.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most simplified read cycles I've found in recent memory:

image-1-png.119176



image-png.119175
 
Last edited:
Just built a 3600x system and I also have a 9700k system. When I put a RTX 2060 Super in either machine and play the same games, I can see no noticeable difference in FPS/gaming. At £178 these 3600x's are an absolutely monstrous value beast.

3600x bios all set to manual save for A-XMP on 3200Mhz RAM. I do find it odd that the Vcore hovers around 1.45-.475 all the time but it drops to 1.34 on full load. Just how the 3000 series works I guess.
 
yeah same here dude. my 3600x will hit 4.4 but the volts would go to the 1.48 range which for me is crazy. im running 4.2 all core at 1.3125 now and she still paces through any game i throw at it at 1440p. yeah amd have really upped there game with the 3000 series and like you say the 3600x and non x are phenomenal value for money as well.
 
BRIGGBOY81 said:
yeah same here dude. my 3600x will hit 4.4 but the volts would go to the 1.48 range which for me is crazy. im running 4.2 all core at 1.3125 now and she still paces through any game i throw at it at 1440p. yeah amd have really upped there game with the 3000 series and like you say the 3600x and non x are phenomenal value for money as well.
Click to expand...

Having done some research the CPU is designed to go 1.4+ volts under small loads to enable to boost clocks. When on full load at 4.4Ghz it goes down to 1.34ish so I am not worried. Although the volts are high the temps are low as the higher volts are for the single thread bursts. I find it very interesting the way they have designed it, the opposite to have intel boost in terms of voltage control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom