1 2 3 4 5 6 143 Replies Latest reply on Dec 22, 2017 7:42 PM by colesdav Go to original post
      • 45. Re: Oscar Mike

        Was playing around a bit with Vega FE - not going to post detailed info on this here as I want to give a fair review of the FE cards I have. In short, I think a lot of tuning can be done with the current driver releases, especially when switching between Pro to Gaming mode. Anyway, I'll keep on testing tweaking and breaking things and eventually we'll have stable driver releases.


        While I was randomly dropped to the BIOS after a system crash I decided to play around with memory settings - and bumped my memory up to 3466MHz and the system surprisingly boot up as if nothing was changed! So I did some memory stress tests with the Google stress test (thanks ajlueke for mentioning the Google stress test!), Prime95, and finally ran AIDA64Extreme's bench without any issues!



        CPU-Z verification link: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ 3991.91 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


        Asus still does not have an official AGESA BIOS release so I'm still using a release candidate (1403). So apart from WattMan/Radeon Pro Settings related crashes, this system runs great!

        1 of 1 people found this helpful
        • 46. Re: Oscar Mike

          And another Cinebench R15 run. I know it's all synthetic but so far this is a stable OC. I do notice a slight decrease if I simply use the multiplier (x40) versus P-State OC to 40 with a voltage offset. I can't complete a Vega FE run without it crashing hard, so reverted back to my trusty Rx-480's.



          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 47. Re: Oscar Mike

            I was just about to ask where the Vega FE numbers were hopefully we can see some in the near future.

            • 48. Re: Oscar Mike

              Very creative build you have done...I know the feeling when doing custom builds like this one.....

              • 49. Re: Oscar Mike

                Still having stability issues - mostly due to issues with Blender; eventually we'll have stable drivers. Almost everything I have is pretty much covered on GamersNexus

                • 50. Re: Oscar Mike

                  There's one fundamental error I've made and that's with the timings on this board. I wrote this article elsewhere so I'm going to copy it verbatim (it is part of a Memory tuning series I'm working on and this was a prelude if you will).


                  Note: It was my intention to start a series on the various parameters added to AGESA  for the purposes of performance tuning. In the process of gathering my material I noticed a fundamental error which is apparently repeated often across the internet. So this installment is explaining one of the errors before delving into the original intent.


                  With the latest BIOS releases which include AMD’s AGESA we’ve seen 26 parameters added for overall memory compatibility and stability support, documented in AMD’s Community Update #4: Let’s Talk DRAM! One parameter we’re going to take a look at is tRC; this is row cycle time, or the number of clock cycles required for a memory row to complete a full operational cycle. This specific parameter caught my attention; after looking at older CPU-Z and AIDA64 Extreme outputs, I noticed the same timings for my memory 14-14-14-34-82 (CAS-tRCD-tRP-tRAS-tRC respectively). These values are wrong for my specific memory as it does not match the information stored in SPD, which should be 14-14-14-34-48 (also verified with Thaiphoon Burner). I clearly made an input error which I want to address first.


                  Before I explain my error (and one I’ve seen in many screenshots of other systems on the internet), I’ll describe the hardware used; I am using my trusty Asus Crosshair VI Hero motherboard, AMD Ryzen R7 1800X, and a G.Skill TridentZ RGB quad kit (F4-3200C14Q-32GTZR). The settings (parameters) used in this article should be available on most X370 motherboards with an AGESA updated BIOS. As always, going beyond the stock DDR4 frequencies (2133MHz) and above JEDEC standards (2667MHz) is considered overclocking, regardless of the advertised speeds! As such, the possibilities of system instabilities with resulting BSODs etc do exist and you do so at your own risk.


                  Now on to fixing my error, and hopefully showing you in the process how not to make the same mistake. In the heat of the moment (being excited and all to build my first Ryzen system), I overlooked some of the timings used and went straight down the row and entered 14-14-14-34-48, which would end up being wrong. The corrected way it should look in the BIOS for my memory:


                  Going down the row on this BIOS would put the tRP to 34, and the tRAS to 48. The error was skipping the Write Delay entry which should’ve been 14T as shown in the picture above! You can see how easily this entry can be missed if not paying close attention.


                  Now why did my CPU-Z/AIDA64 outputs show 14-14-14-34-82? In most cases the row cycle time (tRC) is the sum of tRP and tRAS, in my case (with the error) it would be (34+48).


                  Now CPU-Z information shows the correct information under the memory tab:


                  The moral of the story: take your time and make sure you know the correct timings for your memory, but also make sure you understand or know which values are correct per BIOS. To make matters even more confusing, the same values may be described differently (if at all!), for instance “tRC” is also shown as ‘tCS” but in this case they are the same thing. A good example: take a look at the CPU-Z validation link below, the Crosshair VI Hero BIOS screenshot, and the CPU-Z screenshot and compare the descriptors for the same values!


                  Even between BIOS revisions for the same motherboard, I’ve seen different descriptions/headers often as a result of hurried coding during BIOS assembly. Anyway, with this out of the way, stay tuned for a proper guide on memory tuning and overclocking


                  CPU-Z validation: https://valid.x86.fr/9u2uw3

                  • 51. Re: Oscar Mike

                    holy crap, you went all out with this one.

                    • 52. Re: Oscar Mike

                      I'm actually not even close to being done with this one. The case is still going to be modded to finish the theme, and of course, the GPUs will see something a little newer once waterblocks are available.

                      • 53. Re: Oscar Mike

                        Try as I may, I cannot get my board to hold the correct timings.  My tRC should be 54 but keeps boot looping the system and settling at 74.  Even with the correct timings in all the correct places.  Very strange.  I keep tinkering with it each day to see if I can get it to stick.  No luck so far.  Still 1000x better to work with than my last board.

                        • 54. Re: Oscar Mike

                          Very beautiful build! I love the way you made those cables dance right through each other. A very harmonic tone to the whole build.



                          • 55. Re: Oscar Mike

                            Thank you very much artmods - you noticed the cable dance! Like you said I felt it added a balance to an otherwise linear build/look.

                            • 56. Re: Oscar Mike

                              Damn nice build dude! Love the hardline as well as the ryzen logo

                              Glad to see a fellow SWTOR player!!!!

                              • 57. Re: Oscar Mike

                                Thank you! Which server do you play on and what are you favorite classes?

                                • 58. Re: Oscar Mike
                                  1 of 1 people found this helpful
                                  • 59. Re: Oscar Mike

                                    Congrats man! You deserve it!  Snag me a quake hat if you can. I'll pay you back for whatever it costs.

                                    1 of 1 people found this helpful
                                    1 2 3 4 5 6