* Official Ryzen Owners Thread *

eyetrip · 29 Apr 2017 at 15:51

Tomorrow morning - I'm not one for waiting. Which is why it's killing it's taking so long for them to get this platform sorted!

gavinh87 · 29 Apr 2017 at 16:01

I'll look forward to you opinion of it. Miles ahead of the MSI b350 it replaced IMO.
Another one, I think the ryzen power plan is causing random code 8 crashes.......

eyetrip · 29 Apr 2017 at 16:03

gavinh87 said:
I'll look forward to you opinion of it. Miles ahead of the MSI b350 it replaced IMO.
Another one, I think the ryzen power plan is causing random code 8 crashes.......

I'll just move it back to balanced I think - when I was stock, I got hte odd black screen at idle after latest chipset drivers - maybe related, maybe not.

gavinh87 · 29 Apr 2017 at 16:33

eyetrip said:
I'll just move it back to balanced I think - when I was stock, I got hte odd black screen at idle after latest chipset drivers - maybe related, maybe not.

Yeah I've had 2 today just browsing in Google chrome. Yet I've had it pass every test I've thrown at it. Power plan is the only thing I can think of. Before I installed that I was on balanced and had no real issues.

eyetrip · 29 Apr 2017 at 16:41

God, we are such guinea pigs!

You played around with blck adjustments but then stopped using that didn't you? If that is me remembering correctly, why did you stop using it?

gavinh87 · 29 Apr 2017 at 16:59

eyetrip said:
God, we are such guinea pigs!

You played around with blck adjustments but then stopped using that didn't you? If that is me remembering correctly, why did you stop using it?

It refused to boot at anything above 101

I believe that was memory related though, the 3600 gskill I was using had some absurdly low write and copy speeds more than half as slow as the corsair at 2133 :/
I've got some 4266 ram now - (I find it funny that my memory is faster than my cpu) and this performs as I'd expect.
I'll play with bclk if we don't get another ram divider in May, the performance I have now is just fine for me. The 1070 will be going once vega releases, if I'm not dead by then.

Theagg · 29 Apr 2017 at 17:45

Dicehunter said:
Got the new chipset update from AMD's site and the new 1.41 beta bios from MSI for the Gaming Pro Carbon and things do seem snappier, Also enabled me to run my memory at 2666MHz, Not quite it's rated 3000MHz but better than 2133MHz.
Also upped my Cinebench score from 1600 to nigh on 1800

There are some Cinebench scores out there I don't quite trust. Yours here, like mine seems to be around the average for a 4Ghz Oc, the vast majority posted being in the 1750-1780 range. Then there are a very, very small minority I have seen posted, for approx the same OC but scoring up at 1900 or higher.

These 1900+ scores seem to be an anomaly, either based of the Bios CB bias, or fiddling with BCLK with HPET turned off in Windows, thus throwing out Cinebench's timing, give false readings. Either way, I doubt those few 1900+ scores are bona fide..

eyetrip · 29 Apr 2017 at 18:18

Yeah, with 3.95 to 4ghz I'll generally hit around 1650-1680 with ram at 2400.

Can get around 1720 (ish) with bias.

gavinh87 · 29 Apr 2017 at 18:46

Theagg said:
There are some Cinebench scores out there I don't quite trust. Yours here, like mine seems to be around the average for a 4Ghz Oc, the vast majority posted being in the 1750-1780 range. Then there are a very, very small minority I have seen posted, for approx the same OC but scoring up at 1900 or higher.

These 1900+ scores seem to be an anomaly, either based of the Bios CB bias, or fiddling with BCLK with HPET turned off in Windows, thus throwing out Cinebench's timing, give false readings. Either way, I doubt those few 1900+ scores are bona fide..

I had 2200 due to the rtc clock being out of whack. Messed up a few other benchmarks too. My firestrike score with a 1070 was beating 1080ti's lol

antonusklesk · 29 Apr 2017 at 23:38

I banged together a new 1700 build today replacing a 2500k.

Got 3200 RAM running at 2993 and 3.6Ghz @ 1.25v straight away. No limitation testing yet as I'm happy with 3.6 for now.

However.....I thought that the scheduling problem was supposed to be fixed? I just tested BF1 and only the physical cores were being used, 8 under load and 8 almost idle.

Safetytrousers · 30 Apr 2017 at 00:07

antonusklesk said:
However.....I thought that the scheduling problem was supposed to be fixed? I just tested BF1 and only the physical cores were being used, 8 under load and 8 almost idle.

On my C6H distribution among core load has not been an issue that I have noticed even in the very early shaky days (I keep HWinfo on and I can see what my cores have been getting up to). This may vary between games/applications and boards I suppose.
This is a snapshot from a few moment ago, not bad I think:

antonusklesk · 30 Apr 2017 at 01:03

That looks good, and what it should look like!

In BF1 for me it's more along the lines of 90%-5%-90%-5% etc, with overall utilisation around 35-40%.

That said though, my 1070 chugs along at 99% load so it's not too much of a problem.

Dicehunter · 1 May 2017 at 14:12

antonusklesk said:
That looks good, and what it should look like!

In BF1 for me it's more along the lines of 90%-5%-90%-5% etc, with overall utilisation around 35-40%.

That said though, my 1070 chugs along at 99% load so it's not too much of a problem.

You could always try the unparking tool, Seemed to fix cores just sitting idle for me.

http://www.coderbag.com/programming-c/disable-cpu-core-parking-utility

antonusklesk · 1 May 2017 at 16:53

I've done some more testing and it seems that in more demanding situations it begins to behave as it should, with relatively even distribution.

Unfortunately when it did this there were FPS dips as if the CPU were hitting its limit, but it wasn't. Seems there's still a fair bit of optimisation required.

LtMatt · 1 May 2017 at 17:57

antonusklesk said:
That looks good, and what it should look like!

In BF1 for me it's more along the lines of 90%-5%-90%-5% etc, with overall utilisation around 35-40%.

That said though, my 1070 chugs along at 99% load so it's not too much of a problem.

Make sure you are using the 17.10 Chipset drivers which will install and apply the Ryzen Power Profile.

http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset?os=Windows 10 - 64

eyetrip · 1 May 2017 at 19:57

AMDMatt said:
Make sure you are using the 17.10 Chipset drivers which will install and apply the Ryzen Power Profile.

http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset?os=Windows 10 - 64

Why does that profile want to set a lower limit of 90% though.

Seems unnecessary

What's different about this profile compared to the high performance profile?

gavinh87 · 1 May 2017 at 20:02

Ryzen power profile caused random crashes for me. Using windows plans fixed it.
In fact I'm sure these chipset drivers have caused more than that. Now when CPU is at 100% load I get little freezes here and there. 2 ram kits, stock and overclocked both give me same results, cant narrow it down anymore than that so currently reinstalling windows AGAIN.

Silent_Scone · 1 May 2017 at 20:37

Some more stability testing with high memory tweaking from earlier. Working on 3.9 core currently

gavinh87 · 1 May 2017 at 20:40

Silent_Scone said:
Some more stability testing with high memory tweaking from earlier. Working on 3.9 core currently

Nice work. I couldn't get my timings low with any use of the blck. 3600 is bootable but far from stable.
I may have a key for AIDA if you want it.

Silent_Scone · 1 May 2017 at 21:20

Honestly, there's a bit of patience involved in terms of what voltages work (SOC specifically), but good sticks are essential.

EDIT, sorry didn't see the bit about AIDA, i have two keys already but thanks for the offer, I just haven't used them on that build

Competitor rules

*** Official Ryzen Owners Thread ***

* Official Ryzen Owners Thread *