"For AMD" memory

[Vya Domus]

You probably can't go over 2400MHz because you have 1700X.

Nope, it's because of the kit that I have. But keep saying the same erroneous thing over and over. There are people on here with 1300Xs on which they can easily hit 3200+ with the right kit and that's silicon that's supposed to be of much worse quality, statistically.

 

[Ferrum Master]

shit, I read this post headline, like someone died...

 

[R4k4n0th]

Nope, it's because of the kit that I have. But keep saying the same erroneous thing over and over. There are people on here with 1300Xs on which they can easily hit 3200+ with the right kit and that's silicon that's supposed to be of much worse quality, statistically.

1300X are better binned than 1200. No doubt there are more people with 1300X hitting over 3200+ than people with 1200.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

1300X are better binned than 1200. No doubt there are more people with 1300X hitting over 3200+ than people with 1200.

its called a central processing unit , not a memory controller with cores.

as someone said the differences between cpus carrying the same IMC are neggligable and untested, they don't care how fast the IMC can go thought they do care about how fast the cpu goes and do tests to clarify and bin ,your talking out your ass and making shit up , but inadvertently hit one single accidental positive to your point


with way less cores beside an IMC that IMC may,, MAY, might possibly be nudged higher because of a latent heat bonus but nope i tried disabling cores SMT and it does'nt budge my max.

and Ryzen's a complete shit at memory fails, i get 3200 here fine, 3400 i can do fine too , but give it crunching And folding 100%24\7 for 48 hours, it will crash,, my thoughts HEAT.

 

[Super XP]

In my post I did not say 1700X had a bad memory controller. It is 1700 with which you might have a problem. The pricier ones are supposed to have a better memory controller so you are more likely to hit high ram frequencies. Am I wrong?

Ah OK, I thought you meant in general, all 1700's. OK, thanks for the explanation.
With respect to Memory Controllers, I don't believe so personally. The 1700 is practically identical to the 1700x and so forth with the 1800 to the 1800x. I think the Ryzen's really rely on a solid IMC. Correct me if I am wrong of course.

 

[R4k4n0th]

its called a central processing unit , not a memory controller with cores.

1.) I know what a CPU is.
2.) CPUs have memory controllers.
3.) Use proper English (with correct punctuation) so that we can understand you. I have no idea the rest of your post means:

as someone said the differences between cpus carrying the same IMC are neggligable and untested, they don't care how fast the IMC can go thought they do care about how fast the cpu goes and do tests to clarify and bin ,your talking out your ass and making shit up , but inadvertently hit one single accidental positive to your point

with way less cores beside an IMC that IMC may,, MAY, might possibly be nudged higher because of a latent heat bonus but nope i tried disabling cores SMT and it does'nt budge my max.

and Ryzen's a complete shit at memory fails, i get 3200 here fine, 3400 i can do fine too , but give it crunching And folding 100%24\7 for 48 hours, it will crash,, my thoughts HEAT.

 

[Gorstak]

I fail to see the point of pushing so high frequencies. If you run memory tests, usually the lower latency ram wins, not higher frequency ones. For desktop ryzens it doesn't need to be high frequency, but it would help apu ryzens like 2200g and 2400g, or better put, the vega graphics inside, since it would effectively increase gigapixels per second that apu can supply, and would mean better performance at higher resolutions. I fail to see which part it would play for "normal" ryzens.

 

[cdawall]

I haven't had a single ryzen chip I have overclocked that could not hit 3200 with the ram kit I hit 3866 with on an 1800x. I would bet money any of the chips any of you mentioned are no different and that I could hit 3200+ with them.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

1.) I know what a CPU is.
2.) CPUs have memory controllers.
3.) Use proper English (with correct punctuation) so that we can understand you. I have no idea the rest of your post means:

The memory controller is to a spec only not several graded specs

Stop being special , I'm no longer going to give you this special treatment.

Im on a phone, shit excuse,but you have shit reading skills ,so we're tied.

I mean"I have no idea the rest of your post means"


That's not how it would be written, "I have no idea what the rest of your post means"

And ,,or what , stop telling me what to do.......

 

[95Viper]

Stop bickering.
Discuss in a civil manner.
Stay on topic.

Thank You.

 

[robot zombie]

I fail to see the point of pushing so high frequencies. If you run memory tests, usually the lower latency ram wins, not higher frequency ones. For desktop ryzens it doesn't need to be high frequency, but it would help apu ryzens like 2200g and 2400g, or better put, the vega graphics inside, since it would effectively increase gigapixels per second that apu can supply, and would mean better performance at higher resolutions. I fail to see which part it would play for "normal" ryzens.

The infinity fabric tying everything together is tied to ram speed. It's the only way the 2 CCX's on all of your standard Ryzen and Ryzen 2's communicate. Anything happening across cores and especially across the two groups of cores has to traverse that bottleneck. The latency penalty is supposed to be pretty significant, more so the slower your RAM clocks in at. Multicore performance improves with faster RAM, from what I've seen.

I'm honestly not sure on the real-world side of that. I just know that's the common assumption for why people always recommend 3200/14 RAM for Ryzen, when possible. Good balance between low latency on the ram side and better throughput/latency on the IF bottleneck. There definitely seem to be diminishing returns past that point IME, unless you can keep the timings down it just isn't worth it. Whether or not it makes a huge difference, I don't know. Personally I think Infinity Fabric being what it is there is probably only so much you can do to combat what is essentially inherent to its function. The only way it gets better is through further development of the whole architecture. Can only do so much to get around the trade-offs of the current implementation. I remember mostly seeing differences in CB multicore scores going up from 2400 to 3200. It's been a while since I ran any benchmarks, and I didn't do much looking specifically at RAM. I can say that memory tests really only show part of the picture with Ryzen, and other benchmarks sometimes improve where memory tests may show deficits when you increase the speed a little.

Whether it's worth it for everyone is another question. Personally I think it's good practice to set up your system so everything works together as best as it can. And I think that's the general idea behind it. At this point it's not a ridiculous amount more to get some b-die if all you need is two 8's. Good measure and all that.

 

[Wavetrex]

AGESA 1006, Memory seems to be running at 3000 Mhz just fine (so not 2933 or something weird like that)
However, CL15 won't set no matter what, I clearly pick it "15" in Bios and it boots with 16. +1 is added to RC as well, I've manually set it to 52 but shows as 53. Strange....

The system works fine, it's "slightly" overclocked (3500), using it as a media server (PLEX) + other background tasks. No gaming, so don't need top class performance. Just many cheap cores to do lots of stuff in the background.

 

[Vario]

@Wavetrex I am pretty sure that CMK16GX4M2B3000C15 is the Hynix IC, so your result is typical. It just isn't capable of low latency. For your intended use, go with whatever is stable and don't worry about it.

 

[robot zombie]

View attachment 113264View attachment 113265View attachment 113266

AGESA 1006, Memory seems to be running at 3000 Mhz just fine (so not 2933 or something weird like that)
However, CL15 won't set no matter what, I clearly pick it "15" in Bios and it boots with 16. +1 is added to RC as well, I've manually set it to 52 but shows as 53. Strange....

Sounds about right for that memory. As for the rounding, sounds like you have geardown enabled. It'll round your CAS up to the nearest even number.