Ryzen 5 - 2500X or 2400G ?

[AlwaysHope]

Really, the QVL lists aren't really the motherboard manufacturers saying what works with their motherboard. That used to be the case when the memory controller was on the motherboard, but now that it is on the CPU, all the QVL list does it give you an idea of what RAM they've tested to work at the full rated speed. The motherboard has little to do with this. You can put any DDR4 RAM in an AM4 board and it will run, but it might not run at its rated speed.

Intel were the last to move memory controller from NB to cpu, but that was with 1156 platform, nearly a decade ago...
AM4 is still relatively immature platform Heck, Asus still produced bios for my Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 even in 2016! 18 bioses already for that board... Bios efficieny & maturity has a heck of a lot to do with system performance & that certainly includes RAM.

IME, with first gen Ryzen, anything over 2933 was a real craps shoot, but 3200 seems to work better than 3000 for some reason(I don't even think they had a divider for 3000). With second gen Ryzen, memory compatibility is greatly improved, and pretty much anything up to 3200 will work out of the box without much tweaking.

That's to be expected among early adopters of AM4, nothing really new here when it comes to new platforms.

"The best OC expereience" and Ryzen shouldn't ever be said together. You are going to get minimal overclocking with either chip, and the 2600 at 4.0GHz is going to play any game you throw at it, your GPU will be the bottleneck long before the CPU. You might get a couple hundred MHz more out of the 2600X, but you will never actually notice that speed difference.

It will be the best OC experience in my opinion for multi core/thread non iGPU chips especially from the point of view seeking best "bang for buck" value that a lot of budget conscious OC enthusiasts have always participated in.
Considering the entire x86 desktop market is dominated by 2 vendors though really gives PC enthusiasts & Overclockers a lot of choice doesn't it?
We take what they dish out when it suits them, & not us the consumers.
I'm just thankful AMD have non iGPU Ryzen's that can even OC, and that's a boring task these days compared to what we use to get up to before Intel decided to lock down BCLK OC due to iGPU back in Sandy bridge era.
AMD have more choices for OC enthusiasts than Intel ever do these days from their selected overpriced i3s,i5s & i7s.

 

[eidairaman1]

So has a decision been made?

 

[newtekie1]

??? I guess if you say the chipset and bus speeds have nothing to do with the motherboard, then you can say the motherboard has little to do with which RAM is compatible with that board. But that does not really make sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense. The chipset and bus speed have nothing to do with the motherboard, at least the part of the chipset that is related to memory. Unless you are doing a BCLK overclock, the bus and chipset are fixed, and the motherboard has nothing really to do with wh memory will work and which won't.

Sorry, but not necessarily true. But don't take my word on it. See Doesn't every DDR4 motherboard support any DDR4 stick?

So your "proof" that not all DDR4 will run in an AM4 motherboard is forum post from a person that test motherboards for a living that says in his ten years of testing motherboards has only had it happen once or twice... Seems like the exception that proves the rule to me.

JDEC pretty much ensures that any DDR4 RAM will run in any AM4 motherboard. It might not run at the advertised speeds, but it will run.

It will be the best OC experience in my opinion for multi core/thread non iGPU chips especially from the point of view seeking best "bang for buck" value that a lot of budget conscious OC enthusiasts have always participated in.
Considering the entire x86 desktop market is dominated by 2 vendors though really gives PC enthusiasts & Overclockers a lot of choice doesn't it?
We take what they dish out when it suits them, & not us the consumers.
I'm just thankful AMD have non iGPU Ryzen's that can even OC, and that's a boring task these days compared to what we use to get up to before Intel decided to lock down BCLK OC due to iGPU back in Sandy bridge era.
AMD have more choices for OC enthusiasts than Intel ever do these days from their selected overpriced i3s,i5s & i7s.

AMD might give you that warm fuzzy feeling because most of their processors are unlocked, but that still doesn't amount to the best OC experience. The fact of the matter is Ryzen chips are not good overclockers. AMD is already pushing them very close to their limits(not that Intel isn't either at this point). Go look at the reviews here for the Ryzen 2000 processors, out of the 2600, 2600X, 2700, and 2700X the only one that even manages to get an overclock that is higher than its stock boost clock is the 2600.

And at the end of the day, the 2600 managed a 4.0GHz overclock(100MHz over the stock boost) and the 2600X managed just 4.1GHz. So the X series is not going to give you the best OC experience, 100MHz is so minor you'll never feel it.

 

[Bill_Bright]

So your "proof" that not all DDR4 will run in an AM4 motherboard is forum post from a person that test motherboards for a living that says in his ten years of testing motherboards has only had it happen once or twice... Seems like the exception that proves the rule to me.

And your proof is?

Nothing.

How about you show in the DDR4 JEDEC standard where all DDR4 is supported by all DDR4 motherboards. Or just AM4 motherboards.

You said you can put any DDR4 RAM in an AM4 board and it will work. Then why do AM4 board makers even bother and cut into their profits "expending" resources to make RAM QVLs? For the fun of it? Why don't they just say use any DDR4 RAM you want? Then they would not even have to worry about the list being accurate or keeping it updated. I note Gigabyte alone has 28 AM4 boards currently in production. In the specifications for each one of those, Gigabyte refers readers to the memory QVLs and each board has a very extensive RAM QVL. Why would any board maker "expend" the resources necessary to create, post and maintain those lists if, as you claim, any DDR4 the user wants to use would work?

Why don't DDR4 RAM makers market their all their DDR4 as compatible with all DDR4 motherboards?

Ideally it would be great if all DDR4 RAM worked with any other DDR4 RAM (at the slower RAM's speed of course) in any DDR4 motherboard. But that's not happening.

The chipset and bus speed have nothing to do with the motherboard, at least the part of the chipset that is related to memory.

 

[newtekie1]

And your proof is?

Nothing.

How about you show in the DDR4 JEDEC standard where all DDR4 is supported by all DDR4 motherboards. Or just AM4 motherboards.

My proof is the forum post you linked to. A motherboard tester confirms that in over 10 years of testing, he's only experienced issues once or twice. Thanks, you posted my proof for me. There is effectively no chance of DDR4 RAM not working with any motherboard that will take DDR4 as confirmed by a well known motherboard tester with over 10 years of expereience.

You said you can put any DDR4 RAM in an AM4 board and it will work. Then why do AM4 board makers even bother and cut into their profits "expending" resources to make RAM QVLs? For the fun of it? Why don't they just say use any DDR4 RAM you want? Then they would not even have to worry about the list being accurate or keeping it updated. I note Gigabyte alone has 28 AM4 boards currently in production. In the specifications for each one of those, Gigabyte refers readers to the memory QVLs and each board has a very extensive RAM QVL. Why would any board maker "expend" the resources necessary to create, post and maintain those lists if, as you claim, any DDR4 the user wants to use would work?

The QVL is done to ensure the RAM will work at the advertised speeds. As I said, any DDR4 will work in any DDR4 motherboard, but possibly not at the rated speed.

Ideally it would be great if all DDR4 RAM worked with any other DDR4 RAM (at the slower RAM's speed of course) in any DDR4 motherboard. But that's not happening.

Yeah, actually it is happening. If you put a bunch of mismatched DDR4 in an AM4 motherboard, there is a 99% chance it will boot. It will probably be running all the RAM at 2133, but it'll boot.

This is literally the entire reason JDEC standards for RAM exists.

 

[biffzinker]

And at the end of the day, the 2600 managed a 4.0GHz overclock(100MHz over the stock boost) and the 2600X managed just 4.1GHz.

I happen to have one of those 2600X that only does 4.1GHz on all cores, if I try for another 25MHz it's a no go.

 

[Bill_Bright]

My proof is the forum post you linked to. A motherboard tester confirms that in over 10 years of testing, he's only experienced issues once or twice.

That's not even what he said. Did you bother to read his whole comments? Have you read the JEDEC standards? The QVLs are not just about meeting advertised speeds - which you seem to want every one to believe. It is about compatibility, stability, proper detection and more.

Did you see where Dan_D said (my bold added),

I frequently change the modules I use in reviews because newer platforms supporting the same memory interface don't always work well with the modules I have on hand.

Compatibility problems can arise when the motherboard doesn't detect the SPD timings or XMP timings correctly.

This is either due to an error in the UEFI code, the SPD lookup tables or a conscious decision by the motherboard manufacturer to set memory values a certain way.

Some motherboard brands have more glaring issues with compatibility than others. Sometimes, compatibility comes down to the memory manufacturers.

In truth, you take a risk using RAM on any motherboard that's not on that motherboard's QVL list. The QVL process for motherboards essentially involves testing those modules on the motherboard in question, and ensuring that the detected and chosen values in the UEFI allow for stable operation at supported speeds.

Why would those issues exist if all DDR4 was compatible with all DDR4 motherboards as you claim?

I ask once more, why do all the motherboard makers waste all those resources (profits) testing and publishing those extensive lists if not necessary?
Why don't RAM makers market their DDR4 as compatible with all DDR4 motherboards? That surely would be a good marketing campaign.

What you also seem to be ignoring for some reason is some RAM makers intentionally tweak their sticks for performance with higher voltages and/or timings - sticks designed specifically for high-performance gaming boards, for example. Boards with specifically modified firmware.

Again, I am not saying you must buy listed RAM. But I am saying you should buy RAM with the same specs as listed RAM to ensure compatibility.

Now if you can show us a white paper, JEDEC standard, motherboard maker, RAM maker or some other recognized expert who reports all DDR4 is compatible with all DDR4 motherboards and therefore RAM QVLs can be ignored, I would be interested in reading it. But "because newtekie1 says it", that's not good enough.

 

[newtekie1]

That's not even what he said.

Actually that is literally exactly what he said in the first paragraph:

I've only ever had trouble making memory work on motherboards at JEDEC speeds once or twice in the last ten years or so that I can recall. It doesn't happen very often. At speeds above the JEDEC standards is another story.

The entire rest of his post is talking about RAM running outside of JEDEC specs. And this is what the QVL list is for.

 

[AltCapwn]

I happen to have one of those 2600X that only does 4.1GHz on all cores, if I try for another 25MHz it's a no go.

I think it's the only thing I can hate about current AMD CPUs; There's no OC room.

But 4.1Ghz for a 8 core/16 threads is still impressive to say at least.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Actually that is literally exactly what he said in the first paragraph:

No. Not his first paragraph and that was not the whole of what he said. That's the difference. What he said there was specifically about making the RAM work at JEDEC "speeds". Read the rest of what he said for the full story of the incompatibility issues he encountered.

Since you refuse to address the other questions:

Why do DDR4 motherboard makers have DDR4 QVLs?​

Why don't DDR4 RAM makers tout DDR4's universal DDR4 compatibility (as you claim)?​

Why did that same author report all those compatibility issues?​

And since you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim that "You can put any DDR4 RAM in an AM4 board and it will run, ", I see no reason to discuss this further. And until shown otherwise, I will continue to advise and recommend users buy RAM with the same specs as QVL listed RAM - just as the motherboard makers do for their own boards.

 

[newtekie1]

No. Not his first paragraph and that was not the whole of what he said. That's the difference. What he said there was specifically about making the RAM work at JEDEC "speeds". Read the rest of what he said for the full story of the incompatibility issues he encountered.

Oh Jesus Christ, go re-read his post. It doesn't get much more direct than:

I've only ever had trouble making memory work on motherboards at JEDEC speeds once or twice in the last ten years or so that I can recall.

Period, end of story. He is directly saying, in his first paragraph, that he has only had issues with ram not running at JEDEC speeds once or twice in ten years. It is literally spelled out for you by him in the post you linked to as your "proof".

The incompatibility issues he discusses are with the XMP profiles and other entries in the SPD table for the RAM. Go look up what these terms mean.

And his very last sentence that you quoted also says exactly the same thing I said about QVL lists. They are done to ensure the memory will run properly at it's advertised speed, or in his words "supported speed".

If you want direct answers to your questions, here you go:

Why do DDR4 motherboard makers have DDR4 QVLs?

Already answered multiple times, even Dan_D answered it for you. They do it to confirm that the memory will work at its advertised speed, which is beyond the standard JEDEC specs for DDR4.

Why don't DDR4 RAM makers tout DDR4's universal DDR4 compatibility (as you claim)?

They almost all do. Under supported memory, they almost always list just DDR4-2133 with no qualifier such as "check memory compatibility list". They usually also list DDR4-2400 and sometimes even DDR4-2666 now too.

Take the AsRock Z370 Taichi for example. Go to AsRock's website and the advertising on the main page for the board just says DDR4-4333+(OC), and the specs page lists a bunch of supported memory speed with the only one with an * next to it, which means check the QVL, being the DDR4-4333. They apparently feel so comfortable with JEDEC speed compatibility that they are perfectly willing to basically say "put some RAM in the board, and it will run at DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 or DDR4-2666, no need to check the QVL, the RAM will run at one of those speeds".

This is pretty well standard across all motherboards. You'll find DDR4-2133, and even DDR4-2400 now, as a pretty universal supported memory speed listed in the specs with no need to check the QVL list.

I've built a lot of computers, and one thing I notice the first time I boot the computer is the RAM is always, without fail, running at DDR4-2133. Have you ever wondered why that is? I'll tell you, because that is the JEDEC standard for DDR4. It is the spec that all DDR4 is supposed to support no matter what, and as such, it is the speed that is guaranteed to work.

Why did that same author report all those compatibility issues?

Again, his compatibility issues were with the entries in the SPD table that were beyond the basic JEDEC speed. As he said, the RAM always works at JEDEC speed, with the exception of once or twice in ten years of testing. It is going beyond that where the issues start to happen.

I think the final thing I'll say on the subject before moving on, because I'm really tired of going around in circles with someone that doesn't even seem to understand what JEDEC standards are, is another direct quote from Mr. Dan_D:

In closing, theoretically any module should be compatible with any motherboard. This is only more or less possible or even guaranteed at JEDEC approved specifications and speeds. Going beyond that it's a clusterfuck and almost a total crap shoot from the consumer's perspective.

 

[Bill_Bright]

They almost all do.

ROTFL

Okay. So according to newtekie1, it is okay to ignore QVLs.

Yeah right.

The problem with that position is it fails to recognize the fact theory and real world don't always jive. That is exactly why those motherboard makers go to great expense - and loss of profits - to test 100s of different RAM and publish those lists - for every board they make! Why? Because not all RAM adheres to published standards!

I've built a lot of computers

So have I. That does not mean I know everything there is to know about computers.

It is funny how you are willing to extract tidbits out of that article and use Dan_D to justify your claim, yet ignore everything else he has to say, including,

In truth, you take a risk using RAM on any motherboard that's not on that motherboard's QVL list. The QVL process for motherboards essentially involves testing those modules on the motherboard in question, and ensuring that the detected and chosen values in the UEFI allow for stable operation at supported speeds.

Ensuring such stable operation would not be necessary if things were as perfect as you believe all RAM to be.

This debate has gone on long enough.

 

[newtekie1]

Ensuring such stable operation would not be necessary if things were as perfect as you believe all RAM to be.

This debate has gone on long enough.

Again, as I've said from the very beginning, the risk is not if the RAM will work at all, the risk is if the RAM will run at its full advertised speed. And it is very obvious that is what Dan_D is talking about, he makes it very clear.

I'm done with this. You clearly have a very big lack of understanding on the subject, and the fact that you think Dan_D's post backs you up makes that obvious.

 

[eidairaman1]

ROTFL

Okay. So according to newtekie1, it is okay to ignore QVLs.

Yeah right.

The problem with that position is it fails to recognize the fact theory and real world don't always jive. That is exactly why those motherboard makers go to great expense - and loss of profits - to test 100s of different RAM and publish those lists - for every board they make! Why? Because not all RAM adheres to published standards!
So have I. That does not mean I know everything there is to know about computers.

It is funny how you are willing to extract tidbits out of that article and use Dan_D to justify your claim, yet ignore everything else he has to say, including, Ensuring such stable operation would not be necessary if things were as perfect as you believe all RAM to be.

This debate has gone on long enough.

Qvls are a guide of what companies had physically tested in their boards and is known working. Doesn't mean other ram won't work with it. My ram was not on the QVL, I however did my own research, whereas Corsair Vengeance was a no-go.

Board manufacturers do not keep those lists updated like they should but then again they're not going to continually test when all they're going to do is just release a new product anyway.

Everyone please just stop arguing it's pointless.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Doesn't mean other ram won't work with it.

FTR, I never said other RAM won't. In fact, I said you don't have to buy listed RAM. But I added to ensure compatibility, you should get RAM with the same specs as listed RAM.

Board manufacturers do not keep those lists updated like they should but then again they're not going to continually test when all they're going to do is just release a new product anyway.

I agree 100% with this too. But also, it should be noted chipsets and boards only support a finite line of CPUs and RAM anyway (especially on the Intel side). And processor and RAM makers don't typically introduce new products with different specs for superseded chipsets.

That said, the board makers could do better as a whole to keep QVLs current and more inclusive - especially if they continue to refer users to them.

 

[Caring1]

This debate has gone on long enough.

Just over an hour later, posts again …

 

[Bill_Bright]

Just over an hour later, posts again …

An hour? Some of us have lives outside of on-line forums so we don't sit glued to screens waiting for replies. And for the record, if you had looked, I was replying to another poster, and was in agreement with what he said.

 

[Caring1]

An hour? Some of us have lives outside of on-line forums so we don't sit glued to screens waiting for replies. And for the record, if you had looked, I was replying to another poster, and was in agreement with what he said.

You just don't get it "I have to have the last word Bill"
Usually when someone says the debate is over, they stop replying!
They don't carry on repeatedly like you do.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You just don't get it "I have to have the last word Bill"
Usually when someone says the debate is over, they stop replying!
They don't carry on repeatedly like you do.

Never underestimate a persons ego, pride and arrogance.

@AlwaysHope
My vote is for the 2500x. Sure it'll be a bit more cost, but the performance gains will more than make up for it. It's worth the wait.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Never underestimate a persons ego, pride and arrogance.

Especially in technical forums like computer gear...

@AlwaysHope
My vote is for the 2500x. Sure it'll be a bit more cost, but the performance gains will more than make up for it. It's worth the wait.

The wait is downright annoying, already got my mobo selected & some high end 120mm fans for my cpu cooler, but my supplier won't have them in stock until 31\8... in the meantime that 2600X Is looking more practical ..... also does AMD with new released TR2's know something about future gaming engines that we 'humble' consumers don't know yet??

Devs aren't going to code for games unless the hardware is well & truly out there on the market, so it's always been a bit of chicken & egg thing...

I think it's the only thing I can hate about current AMD CPUs; There's no OC room.

But 4.1Ghz for a 8 core/16 threads is still impressive to say at least.

That was my thoughts too with OC headroom today on current Ryzen 5 & 7 lines but seems anything more than 4c/8t cpus stuggles for what I consider decent OC headroom. But if history is anything to go by, bios improvements along with quality VRM designs should improve this.

 

[AltCapwn]

Especially in technical forums like computer gear...
The wait is downright annoying, already got my mobo selected & some high end 120mm fans for my cpu cooler, but my supplier won't have them in stock until 31\8... in the meantime that 2600X Is looking more practical ..... also does AMD with new released TR2's know something about future gaming engines that we 'humble' consumers don't know yet??

Ryzen 2600X is a very decent CPU that you won't regret buying if you do. the 6 cores will just be for "Future proof".

TR2 is not a gaming cpu at all. Not alot of people might find it interesting; It's for a public of content creators. It's just so f*cking impressive that we're now, in 2018, able to buy consumer CPUs that has 32 freaking cores with 64 threads! THANKS AMD BTW. But as Linus says in its review video; Once somebody get a faster horse breed, someone will create a harder course for it. It's just a matter of time .

Once higher core count will become mainstream, 4 cores CPU will be entry level

Anyway, I'm becoming an AMD fanboi.

 

[N-Gen]

Ryzen 2600X is a very decent CPU that you won't regret buying if you do. the 6 cores will just be for "Future proof".

TR2 is not a gaming cpu at all. Not alot of people might find it interesting; It's for a public of content creators. It's just so f*cking impressive that we're now, in 2018, able to buy consumer CPUs that has 32 freaking cores with 64 threads! THANKS AMD BTW. But as Linus says in its review video; Once somebody get a faster horse breed, someone will create a harder course for it. It's just a matter of time .

Once higher core count will become mainstream, 4 cores CPU will be entry level

Anyway, I'm becoming an AMD fanboi.

With the clocks it can sustain it's more than fine for gaming but there are two issues with it;

The first one being that it's not worth it if you're just gaming, even if you're trying to future proof. The sheer amount of cores is way too big for games to manage that and the pool of gamers having these CPUs is very very small.

The second one being a lot of games, especially older ones have terrible issues handling a large amount of threads. I have a problem with a few of the Assassin's Creed games (Rogue, Unity and Syndicate) where the game would decide that it's fine for it to peg all 32 threads and make my encoder suffer a bit in the process.

I think it's still a long way before these ridiculously high core counts are useful to the masses.

On the other hand, talking about OC, I have previously owned a Ryzen 7 1800X and managed 4.1GHz on all cores and am now running my 1950X at 4GHz on all cores. This seems to be somewhat the limit before you start running into trouble. Let's just remember that this is all still very new and we might have to wait before we'll see higher clocks. Then again, as some of you have said before, 4GHz on a high core count is nothing to throw away.

I'm in no way anyone's fanboy but I have to say that all the machines I've built for myself, friends and clients over the last year or so have been AMD based.

 

[newtekie1]

The wait is downright annoying, already got my mobo selected & some high end 120mm fans for my cpu cooler, but my supplier won't have them in stock until 31\8... in the meantime that 2600X Is looking more practical .....

After seeing the specs of the 2500X, it just makes the standard 2600 even more appealing...

 

[eidairaman1]

Ryzen 2600X is a very decent CPU that you won't regret buying if you do. the 6 cores will just be for "Future proof".

TR2 is not a gaming cpu at all. Not alot of people might find it interesting; It's for a public of content creators. It's just so f*cking impressive that we're now, in 2018, able to buy consumer CPUs that has 32 freaking cores with 64 threads! THANKS AMD BTW. But as Linus says in its review video; Once somebody get a faster horse breed, someone will create a harder course for it. It's just a matter of time .

Once higher core count will become mainstream, 4 cores CPU will be entry level

Anyway, I'm becoming an AMD fanboi.

Considering it was only 6-7 years ago we had 4 times less cores than now.

 

[lexluthermiester]

in the meantime that 2600X Is looking more practical

If the wait is killing you, that CPU is a very good value. And it also has good OC headroom. Temps stay cool as well.