• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

MSI Breaks DDR4 World Record at 5608 MHz Using Z390I Gaming Edge AC

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,283 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Years after year, MSI dominates the memory frequency record to show the strength on overclocking performance. Just in the beginning of 2019, MSI's in-house overclocker, Toppc, pushes the DDR4 speeds to 5.6GHz, setting another barrier using Kingston memory and the MSI Z390I GAMING EDGE AC motherboard by liquid nitrogen cooling. Undoubtedly, this is a revolutionary breakthrough for the Intel 9th generation processors for the first time. This world record not only shows MSI's dominant position on performance for Intel 9th generation processors by using MSI MPG Z390I GAMING EDGE AC and MSI's unique and patented DDR4 Boost technology, but also reveals team-up power with Kingston DDR4 memory.

More information on the record can be found here.



Stay sharp with a nimble mini-ITX design but mighty power, the MPG Z390I GAMING EDGE AC is designed with premiere layout, Dr. MOS and DigitAll power. This motherboard releases all Intel 9th Gen CPU performance by MSI exclusive DDR4 Boost and Core Boost. Featuring Twin Turbo M.2 and USB Type-C to make sure the support of high-speed peripherals, MPG Z390I GAMING EDGE AC is the best motherboard choice of performance and space.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
473 (0.17/day)
Wow, surprised to see this done with an ITX board, even one as good as that. I suppose VDDR delivery isn't as crippled with that form factor as the CPU but it still looks weird, you would think anybody shooting for a record overclock would be using a full-size PCB with lots of extra phases and MOSFETs to share the voltage required.

Then again, I don't tend to follow world records so as far as I know this could be pretty common.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
805 (0.29/day)
Location
Riverwood, Skyrim
System Name Storm Wrought | Blackwood (HTPC)
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900x @stock | i7 2600k
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro WIFI m-ITX | Some POS gigabyte board
Cooling Deepcool AK620, BQ shadow wings 3 High Spd, stock 180mm |BQ Shadow rock LP + 4x120mm Noctua redux
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 2x32GB 4000MHz | 2x4GB 2000MHz @1866
Video Card(s) Powercolor RX 6800XT Red Dragon | PNY a2000 6GB
Storage SX8200 Pro 1TB, 1TB KC3000, 850EVO 500GB, 2+8TB Seagate, LG Blu-ray | 120GB Sandisk SSD, 4TB WD red
Display(s) Samsung UJ590UDE 32" UHD monitor | LG CS 55" OLED
Case Silverstone TJ08B-E | Custom built wooden case (Aus native timbers)
Audio Device(s) Onboard, Sennheiser HD 599 cans / Logitech z163's | Edifier S2000 MKIII via toslink
Power Supply Corsair HX 750 | Corsair SF 450
Mouse Microsoft Pro Intellimouse| Some logitech one
Keyboard GMMK w/ Zelio V2 62g (78g for spacebar) tactile switches & Glorious black keycaps| Some logitech one
VR HMD HTC Vive
Software Win 10 Edu | Ubuntu 22.04
Benchmark Scores Look in the various benchmark threads
Wow, surprised to see this done with an ITX board, even one as good as that. I suppose VDDR delivery isn't as crippled with that form factor as the CPU but it still looks weird, you would think anybody shooting for a record overclock would be using a full-size PCB with lots of extra phases and MOSFETs to share the voltage required.

Then again, I don't tend to follow world records so as far as I know this could be pretty common.
I think the reason you see them using ITX boards is that the trace lengths are minimized for that last few MHz
 
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,890 (0.89/day)
Location
Cusp Of Mania, FL
Processor Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix X370-F
Cooling Dark Rock 4, 3x Corsair ML140 front intake, 1x rear exhaust
Memory 2x8GB TridentZ RGB [3600Mhz CL16]
Video Card(s) EVGA 3060ti FTW3 Ultra Gaming
Storage 970 EVO 500GB nvme, 860 EVO 250GB SATA, Seagate Barracuda 1TB + 4TB HDDs
Display(s) 27" MSI G27C4 FHD 165hz
Case NZXT H710
Audio Device(s) Modi Multibit, Vali 2, Shortest Way 51+ - LSR 305's, Focal Clear, HD6xx, HE5xx, LCD-2 Classic
Power Supply Corsair RM650x v2
Mouse iunno whatever cheap crap logitech *clutches Xbox 360 controller security blanket*
Keyboard HyperX Alloy Pro
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores ask your mother
I can see how the ITX form factor could be really beneficial... or more just the two slot configuration. 4 almost always compromises performance on at least two of the slots, just because of added complexity in trace layouts... a little easier to make 2 sets the same length versus 4. Doesnt always shake down that way in reality because of what winds up being most reasonable to produce... two slots winds up being a compromise for other reasons. But a premium two slot board should almost always have better RAM performance, assuming you stay in the sweet spot for two-stick configurations. The traces matter that much. The same two sticks are theoretically gonna be faster on the two-slot-only layout than in the two fastest slots of 4, assuming they use a trace layout that leads to one set being better, as they often do. Of course there are many different ways to terminate either and it comes down to engineering choices with any given board, though. Often it doesn't work that way simply because its not practical for other reasons. The cost of compact boards is already higher and requires more compromises, so even a top-end ATX board with an inferior (in terms of raw speed) 4 slot layout can still work better.

In this case I think MSI specifically designed this board to do insane RAM speeds with a two slot ITX as a calculated decision. It had to be conceived specifically for record breaking in that specific area, no holds barred. I wonder what compromises came along with that though. Im sure there are good reasons why its not usually done the way it had to be done with this board to get those speeds. But that's getting beyond the limits of what I know about motherboard design. I just know that any other ITX board coudnt have done this without losing out in eiter cost, vesatility, or both. For most people, a board built to do these speeds probably isnt worth it... and thats why it isnt done... its not like it couldn't have been done before, you know? Its a matter of balancing on the engineers' parts, not necessarily engineering innovation.

5000+ is as cool as it is stupid to me. Theres a part of me that would have a blast trying for that. And then there's the pragmatist in me that asks "Why? Just... why."
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.08/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
5000+ is as cool as it is stupid to me. Theres a part of me that would have a blast trying for that. And then there's the pragmatist in me that asks "Why? Just... why."
I'm square in the latter camp. This benefits maybe a handful of actual workloads, and certainly none that are likely to be run on that platform. Also, for perspective, outside of pure bandwidth this will likely be noticeably slower than a DDR4-3200 C14 kit. Going by Anandtech's memory "Performance Index" (calculated by dividing data rate by CAS latency), which is a pretty decent predictor of real-life performance across workloads, this is way slower, scoring 180,9 (5608/31) vs. 228,6 (3200/14). It's barely faster than DDR3-1600 C9, and slower than DDR3-2133 C11 or DDR4-2666 C14.

In other words, this is like all most world records: (moderately) impressive on its own grounds, but useless in the real world. Unless your Z390 ITX board is running an extremely bandwidth-hungry server workload, that is.
 
Top