ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > OverClocking(OC) Zone > Achivement&Record
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ryzen 5 1500X + AB350M Pro4
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Ryzen 5 1500X + AB350M Pro4

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2018 at 4:37am
Originally posted by PetrolHead PetrolHead wrote:

-The CPU fan header doesn't seem to know any other settings than "full blast".


I'm happy to report I was wrong about this. I just chose my custom fan profile settings so that there didn't seem to be much difference. The fan tends to spin around 2000rpm, but it actually has roughly 700rpm in reserve. An it's really loud when it's actually spinning at full speed. I'll probably play around with the custom fan setting a bit more in the near future.

Today I switched the stock Phanteks case fans to Fractal Design Venturi HF-14 units. I'm using the low speed adapter in order to keep them more silent, but frankly they weren't a huge improvement over the Phanteks units. The frequency of the noise is a bit better, the volume of the noise is roughly the same and after another hour of Prime95 the temps had maxed out at 79C / 58C, which is probably within the margin of error. Well, at least nothing seems to have changed for the worse.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2018 at 10:08pm
3.7GHz @ 1.3125V  (1.344V) was stable for 4 hours in the standard Prime95 blend test. Max temps were 84C CPU and 61C socket.

3.7GHz @ 1.275V (1.296V) was stable for 1 hour in the standard Prime95 blend test. Max temps were 80C and 59C socket. I'll do a longer test later, but so far so good.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2018 at 5:03pm
3.8 GHz was stable @ 1.3V (BIOS, 1.328V according to HWMonitor) for one hour in Aida64. However, it wasn't stable in Prime95 for five minutes at that voltage. Instead, I got a blue screen and the machine rebooted. I increased the voltage to 1.3125V (or 1.344V according to HWMonitor) and I was stable for a few minutes longer before the machine crashed again. The dump file indicated a memory related issue with CUE.exe (Corsair Utility Engine) and I noticed there was an update for it, so I tried if that would help. It didn't, so I dropped the clock speed to 3.7 GHz while keeping the voltage @ 1.3125V (1.344V). Now Prime95 has been stable for two hours. Temperatures have maxed out at 84C and socket temperature has maxed out at 61C.

Considering that the real Vcore seems to be constantly higher than what I set in BIOS, I don't think I'll be able to hit 3.8GHz on this system without going over the safe limit of 1.35V. Better cooling could possibly help, but I was not hitting over 80C/60C before the crashes so I should have been "safe". Maybe the CPU just can't handle 3.8GHz, or maybe the 3 phase VRM of my motherboard isn't able to keep the voltage steady enough to achieve stability at those settings (even though the time resolution of HWMonitor is such that it seems to be rock solid). Or maybe I'm on the edge of my CPUs IMCs capabilities with running my RAM at 3200MHz, which is why pushing the cores makes it become unstable. I'm not yet sure what I'll do next. I will either try to see how low in voltage I can go before 3.7GHz becomes unstable, or then I'll see how much over the safe limit I have to go to reach 3.8GHz. With the latter option heat might become an issue with the stock cooler. I'm planning on getting new case fans today, though, so I'll see if those affect temperatures at all.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2017 at 11:36pm
The CPU settings had at some point switched to auto, which meant the CPU was running at 3.6 GHz. This explains large part of the lower scores in benchmarks and once I corrected the clock speed to 3.7 GHz I started seeing familiar figures. For some reason I still seem to get the best scores in CPU-Z, if I keep the timings at stock XMP timings with CL set to 14 (I haven't tested with CL16, though). As soon as I switch from 14-18-18-18-38-56 to, say, 14-16-16-16-35-51, I seem to lose some points. Also, Aida64's L3 Cache results start to show very low figures, although I'm not quite yet sure if this is just bad luck. In any case, I ran Passmark's MemTest86 from a bootable USB stick at 14-18-18-18-38-56 and no errors were encountered (4 passes, roughly 3.5 hours). At least for now, I'll consider these memory settings stable.

At the moment I'm stress testing 3.8GHz @ 1.3V with Aida64. The stress test crashed within a minute @ 1.25V and within two minutes @ 1.275V, but has now been running without issues for about half an hour. The measured Vcore seems to be constantly higher than what I've set in the BIOS. Aida64 is now showing a steady Vcore of 1.318V, and the offset was more or less the same with the other settings. Now, assuming 3.7GHz was stable at 1.25V (I'm not 100% it was, although I didn't encounter any issues), and assuming 3.8GHz is stable at 1.3V, getting 3.9 GHz stable would likely require unhealhy amounts of Vcore. We'll see how stable this current setting is, but it may be that I'm close to the limit already. The positive thing about the current settings is that temperatures do not seem to have skyrocketed. Instead, I'm looking at an increase of about 5C compared to my previous settings, which leaves me hovering at 77-78C, apart from a few very short spikes to slightly over 80C. I'll have to see where Prime95 takes those numbers, but so far the numbers feel acceptable.

Slightly off topic, but while doing all this, I've encountered a few issues with my motherboard:

-The CPU fan header doesn't seem to know any other settings than "full blast".
-The BIOS profiles do not work. If I save a set of settings and try to load it, the BIOS crashes slightly after the settings have been loaded or reboots the computer even before I have the chance to click "ok". (This is on BIOS 3.3, the only BIOS version I've tried.)
-Booting from an USB stick is a pain, since for some reason the motherboard is picky about which port I use. I had this issue already when trying to install Windows and had to try a few different ports before the BIOS realized there was an USB option for booting. Same thing happened today with the Passmark MemTest86 USB-stick (USB 3.0 just like the Windows installation media). I don't remember which port accepted the Windows USB-stick, but with MemTest86 I tested one of the front panel USB 3.0 ports and one of the rear panel USB 3.0 ports until a rear panel USB 2.0 port finally found the USB stick (edit: This seems to only occur at boot. When Windows has started, it hasn't so far mattered which port is used).

Needless to say, I'm not very impressed with the quality control of ASRock. This stuff is basic and any manufacturer should be able to get these features rock solid, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be happening at ASRock (I don't know about the others). I also had USB port issues with my previous ASRock board, the 970M Pro3, so it feels like ASRock keeps repeating at least some of its mistakes.


Edited by PetrolHead - 31 Dec 2017 at 11:38pm
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2017 at 6:17am
Hmph. I did some benchmarking and was a little worried because I was seeing lower numbers than in my original benchmark runs, so I reverted back to my old timings and now I'm seeing even lower results. Weird. I think I'm going to stick with these looser timings for now and maybe wait for AGESA 1.0.0.7 before trying again.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2017 at 2:37am
I noticed that I had had gear down mode enabled the whole time, which means the CR1 I stated earlier wasn't exactly accurate. I've set tRDWR to 6 instead of seven, disabled gear down mode and set command rate manually to 1T and the next step is to do stability testing.

The L3 Cache test on Aida64 has me a bit worried. The results are all over the place, with the worst runs scoring less than half of what the best runs score. Even the latency, which most of the time is 12.2 ns, can sometimes hop to over 20 ns. Maybe the RAM timings are somehow indirectly affecting L3 Cache? Or maybe the benchmark is just very sensitive to background processes.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2017 at 12:45am
Here are the benchmark results with the new timings.

Passmark 9.0

Memory Mark: 2216.6
Database Operations: 92.8 KOps./s
Memory Read Cached: 27128.4 MB/s
Memory Read Uncached: 17578.8 MB/s
Memory Write: 8987.2 MB/s
Available RAM: 14487.6 MB
Memory Latency: 58 ns
Memory Threaded: 44914  MB/s

AIDA64

Memory Read: 48462.2 MB/s
Memory Write: 47562 MB/s
Memory Copy: 44226.2 MB/s
Memory Latency: 76.48 ns

L1 Cache Read: 459.12 GB/s
L1 Cache Write: 230.188 GB/s
L1 Cache Copy: 459.116 GB/s
L1 Cache Latency: 1.1 ns

L2 Cache Read: 423.664 GB/s
L2 Cache Write: 226.626 GB/s
L2 Cache Copy: 384.774 GB/s
L2 Cache Latency: 4.7 ns

L3 Cache Read: 315.002 GB/s
L3 Cache Write: 217.934 GB/s
L3 Cache Copy: 248.62 GB/s
L3 Cache Latency: 12.2 ns

The cache results should not really be affected by the timing changes and differences between these five benchmark sets are mostly indicative of how much the results vary from run to run.

Aida64 shows small gains for the memory accross the board, but weirdly the Passmark memory test shows worse results for the read tests. I wonder if that small bump in read-to-write latency affects those numbers at all. I might test setting tRDWR back to six, but otherwise I think I won't tweak the timings more - at least not before we have a working version of AGESA 1.0.0.7.

I doubt the gains (and losses) seen here affect other benchmark results in any noteworthy way, but I'll probably run some tests just out of curiosity.


Edited by PetrolHead - 31 Dec 2017 at 12:46am
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2017 at 12:00am
I'm now running on the "Safe" timings that are listed in the previous post. I haven't done extensive stability testing yet, but six MemTest instances each with 2 GB allocated just ran for over an hour without errors. I did also try the "Fast" timings given by the program but these resulted in a MemTest failure within a minute or two. So, I'll keep testing with the timings I have. I doubt I'll be able to go to 3466MHz, since apparently my board is limiting me to 1.35V on the RAM. I haven't found a way to adjust the SoC voltage either.

Here are the timings I had before:

tCL: 14
tRCDWR: 18
tRCDRD: 18
tRP: 18
tRAS: 38
tRC: 56
tRRDS: 7
tRRDL: 9
tFAW: 42
tFAWDLR: -
tFAWSLR: -
tWTRS: 4
tWTRL: 12
tWR: 24
tRCPage: 0
tRDRD SCL: 6
tWRWR SCL: 6
tRFC: 607
tRFC 2: 451
tRFC 4: 278
tRFC (alt): -
tRFC 2 (alt): -
tRFC 4 (alt): -
tCWL: 14
tRTP: 12
tRDWR: 6
tWRRD: 3
tWRWR SC: 1
tWRWR SD: 7
tWRWR DD: 7
tRDRD SC: 1
tRDRD SD: 5
tRDRD DD: 5
tCKE: 8

In other words no radical changes and one of the values (tRDWR) actually gets bumped upwards. The fast timings were considerably tighter, so I was half expecting to be unable to boot, but everything actually seemed fine before running MemTest. I even managed a few tentative benchmarks. The gains were not huge, so I'm not expecting very notable gains with these timings, either. I'll be back with the numbers soon...
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2017 at 7:44pm
As I stated in the first post, the XMP speed of 3466MHz didn't work, so I've set the speed to 3200MHz and lowered the CL value to 14 from 16. Other than that all RAM timings have been XMP values. The next step was to feed my XMP profile info to Ryzen DRAM calculator by 1usmus to get timings for the speed 3200MHz. I'll first use the "Safe" preset and if everything works fine, I might go for the "Fast" preset or 3466MHz and "Safe". We'll see what happens. These are the timings that the calculator gives me:

tCL: 14
tRCDWR: 16
tRCDRD: 16
tRP: 16
tRAS: 35
tRC: 51
tRRDS: 6
tRRDL: 9
tFAW: 39
tFAWDLR: 0
tFAWSLR: 0
tWTRS: 4
tWTRL: 12
tWR: 24
tRCPage: 0
tRDRD SCL: 3
tWRWR SCL: 3
tRFC: 560
tRFC 2: 416.1
tRFC 4: 256
tRFC (alt): 416
tRFC 2 (alt): 309.1
tRFC 4 (alt): 190.2
tCWL: 14
tRTP: 12
tRDWR: 7
tWRRD: 3
tWRWR SC: 1
tWRWR SD: 7
tWRWR DD: 7
tRDRD SC: 1
tRDRD SD: 5
tRDRD DD: 5
tCKE: 8

I'll write down the old values when I edit them in BIOS.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 411
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2017 at 7:19pm
Now, onto the baseline memory benchmarks. The CPU is running @ 3.7 GHz and the RAM is configured to run @ 3200 MHz (14-18-18-38 CR1). Results are averages of five benchmark runs.

Passmark 9.0

Memory Mark: 2187.2
Database Operations: 91.4 KOps./s
Memory Read Cached: 27160.6 MB/s
Memory Read Uncached: 18245.6 MB/s
Memory Write: 8579.6 MB/s
Available RAM: 14135 MB
Memory Latency: 59.2 ns
Memory Threaded: 43223.8  MB/s

AIDA64

Memory Read: 46849.6 MB/s
Memory Write: 45354.4 MB/s
Memory Copy: 40837.8 MB/s
Memory Latency: 77.48 ns

L1 Cache Read: 459.156 GB/s
L1 Cache Write: 230.184 GB/s
L1 Cache Copy: 459.12 GB/s
L1 Cache Latency: 1.1 ns

L2 Cache Read: 433.8 GB/s
L2 Cache Write: 225.972 GB/s
L2 Cache Copy: 388.276 GB/s
L2 Cache Latency: 4.7 ns

L3 Cache Read: 306.972 GB/s
L3 Cache Write: 218.552 GB/s
L3 Cache Copy: 292.34 GB/s
L3 Cache Latency: 12.2 ns

Out of these benchmarks, the L3 Cache Read and L3 Cache Copy had the biggest variation with about 26% and 18% differences between the worst and best results, respectively. Otherwise all results seemed to be reasonably stable.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.06
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.