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
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 373
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ryzen 5 1500X + AB350M Pro4
    Posted: 17 Dec 2017 at 3:20pm
A new rig, a new thread. Here are the specs:

CPU: Ryzen 5 1500X
GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5
MB: ASRock AB350M Pro4
RAM: 2 x 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ (F4-3466C16D-16GTZSK)
PSU: Corsair RM550x
HDD: Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB + Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500GB
Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv mATX Tempered Glass
CPU Cooler: AMD Wraith Spire
Fans: 2 x Phanteks 140 mm case coolers
OS: Windows 10 64-bit

At the moment I haven't pushed the system very far, since I'm interested in doing comparisons to my old rig at the same CPU clockspeed (even though it's a bit of an arbitrary limitation with CPU architecture, RAM speeds etc. being different). I've also left BIOS settings mostly to their default settings due to the fact that the manual doesn't explain any of them. So, here are the few things I've done:

-Set CPU clockspeed to 3.7 GHz
-Set core voltage to 1.25 V (seems to stay around 1.28 V when running prime95)
-Set the RAM speed to 3200 MHz, since the XMP speed 3466 MHz didn't work (no surprises there)
-Set RAM CL to 14

I haven't really stress tested the system - apart from a minute or two in prime95 just to test the temperature behaviour - since I only need it to be "bench stable" at the moment, but so far there have been no issues with stability. Compared to stock settings the CPU seems to run cooler(!) in prime95 and the Vcore has stopped bouncing around like a lunatic and reaching numbers above 1.4 V. The stock cooler does seem to be working very hard even with this four core CPU, and I'm hitting at least 75 C with these settings in prime95. I'm not sure if I want to push the CPU any further than that without upgrading the cooling...

P.S. For some reason the CPU cooler seems to be at full blast all the time, even though the BIOS setting should allow it to slow down when the CPU is idle. I'll probably need to do a few checks before blaming the motherboard, but I'm a bit worried. I _really_ do not want to RMA the board.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2017 at 2:10am
Okay, time to look at some CPU-Z comparisons. I'll post more benchmarks later. But first, these are the systems I'm comparing to each other:

Old

CPU: Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.7GHz
GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5 @ stock
RAM: 2 x 8 GB Kinsgston HyperX Fury Black @ 1600MHz CL9
HDD: Samsung 850 EVO SSD 250GB + Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500GB
OS: Windows 10 64-bit

New

CPU: Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.7GHz
GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5 @ stock
RAM: 2 x 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3200MHz CL14
HDD: Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB + Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500GB
OS: Windows 10 64-bit

Neither system was maxed out, but I preferred running the Phenom at 3.7GHz and wanted to see what the Ryzen would be like at the same clock speed, even though it will still be an apples to oranges comparison due to all the other factors. Anyways, here are the averages of five benchmark runs for CPU-Z 1.82:

Old

CPU Single Thread: 179.36
CPU Multi Thread: 1078.20

New

CPU Single Thread: 426.42
CPU Multi Thread: 2294.32

So, an increase of 137% and 113%. Not bad. However, as l will show later, the gains vary a lot depending on the benchmark, and games especially can be totally oblivious to the new CPU due to a GPU bottleneck.



Edited by PetrolHead - 19 Dec 2017 at 2:11am
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Dec 2017 at 7:48pm
More benchmark results. Again, all results are the average of five benchmarks runs and the systems are as described in the previous post.

Cinebench R15

Old

OpenGL: 69.896 fps
CPU: 538.4 cb
CPU  (Single core): 95.4 cb
MP Ratio: 5.66x

New

OpenGL: 115.248 fps
CPU: 824.6 cb
CPU  (Single core): 150.8 cb
MP Ratio: 5.47x

Thus, a 56%-65% increase and an MP ratio that's pretty close to the six-core Phenom II. Cinebench doesn't scale very well with threads (for an Intel Xeon with 12C/24T the MP ratio is below 14, and a similar trend is seen for other Intel CPUs as well), so the Ryzen results are as expected. There are two noteworthy things about these results:

1. The first multi-core result with the Phenom II was only 502, without which the average (of four results) would have been about 10 cb higher and the MP ratio would have been over 5.7x. The single-core result for that run was in line with the other results, so I can only assume Windows was doing something in the background when I started the benchmark.

2. The OpenGL results were worse on each run with both CPUs. With the Phenom II the results were (first/last) 73.42 fps/ 67.68 fps and with the Ryzen they were 126.98 fps/109.98 fps. It's not because of thermal throttling, so I'm not quite sure what is going on. Maybe quitting Cinebench and launching it again between every bencmark would have solved this issue, but I'll have to test that later.

Edit: Found a typo in the Cinebench results for Ryzen.


Edited by PetrolHead - 31 Dec 2017 at 6:12am
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Dec 2017 at 4:38am
Next up with the averages of five runs:

Passmark 9.0

Old

Total: 3094* (*this is the average of four values, since I forgot to write down the total points for the first run)
CPU Mark: 6149.98
2D Graphics Mark: 551.58
3D Graphics Mark: 7641.66
Memory Mark: 1295.94
Disk Mark: 4043.28

For the CPU Mark, I also took the more detailed values:

Integer Math: 10374.2
Floating Point Math: 7508
Prime Numbers: 21.4
Extended Instructions (SSE): 29
Compression: 8093.4
Encryption: 1451.6
Physics: 335
Sorting: 5734.8
CPU Single Threaded: 1300.6

New

Total: 5287.7
CPU Mark: 10674.8
2D Graphics Mark: 872.58
3D Graphics Mark: 11031.1
Memory Mark: 2178.12
Disk Mark: 11806.84

Integer Math: 21671.8
Floating Point Math: 7992
Prime Numbers: 36.4* (*this contains an outlier value of 30, with the rest being 36-39 and the Phenom also exhibiting only a ~10% difference between runs)
Extended Instructions (SSE): 383
Compression: 13391
Encryption: 2117.8
Physics: 638.4
Sorting: 8056.6
CPU Single Threaded: 1970.2

A lot of values to compare, but for the CPU single threaded we're looking at a slightly over 50% increase and for the CPU mark a slightly over 70% increase. There's a nice increase in the overall system score as well, but the 3D graphics mark is strangely CPU bound (in other words it's too easy for the GPU) and the disk mark varied roughly 30% between tests on my new system, so not all the numbers are very reliable or indicative of real world performance gains.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Dec 2017 at 2:13am
The series continues. All results again the average of five benchmark runs.

Geekbench 4.2

Old

OpenCL Score: 131094

(Single-Core Score / Multi-Core Score)
Total Score: 2425.8 / 9565
Crypto Score: 153.8 / 908.2
Integer Score: 2805.6 / 13045.4
Floating Point Score: 1935.6 / 9826.4
Memory Score: 2874.4 / 3506.4

New

OpenCL Score: 133389.2

(Single-Core Score / Multi-Core Score)
Total Score: 4356.4 / 15474.6
Crypto Score: 5695.4 / 14259.6
Integer Score: 4059.4 / 18739.6
Floating Point Score: 3959.2 / 16889.4
Memory Score: 5285.6 / 6309.6

Here we see a ~80% increase in single-core score and ~62% increase in multi-core score for the total result. The crypto results for the Phenom II are abysmal in comparison, possibly due to a more limited collection of instruction sets. Single-threaded floating point performance is in turn doubled when moving to Ryzen, whereas (single-threaded) integer performance sees a comparatively mild 45% increase.

The OpenCL test is a separate test and didn't affect the CPU results. The increase is roughly 2%, which is not surprising. After all, the benchmark should measure GPU performance.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Dec 2017 at 6:06am
Let's move on to a few gaming related benchmarks. First up Firestrike (averages of five runs):

Old

3DMark Score: 9628.2
Graphics Score: 13367
Physics Score: 7807
Combined Score: 3504.6

Graphics Test 1: 63.514 fps
Graphics Test 2: 53.57 fps
Physics Test: 24.788 fps
Combined Test:  16.304 fps

New

3DMark Score: 11312.8
Graphics Score: 13504
Physics Score: 12454.4
Combined Score: 4805.8

Graphics Test 1: 64.292 fps
Graphics Test 2: 54.028 fps
Physics Test: 39.542 fps
Combined Test: 22.354 fps

Nothing that surprising here. In the graphics tests the results are in practice the same, in the physics test there's a big difference and in the combined test there's a smaller, yet still notable difference. There's another way of seeing these results: In graphically demanding games - note that this was just Firestrike - my GPU was already performing at its limit with the old Phenom II. The Ryzen upgrade only helps in situations where the Phenom II would be stressed to its limit due to complex physics/AI or where my GPU is overkill and the CPU sets the pace. Unfortunately I didn't benchmark any such games. I was, however curious to see whether the upgrade would have an effect on the lowest FPS figures in a game I was about to start playing, so I did one gaming benchmark:

Metro Last Light Redux (3.00 x64), max settings @1080p

(Averages of five benchmark runs)

Old

Total Frames: 8573.6
Total Time: 171.0154
Average Framerate: 50.168 fps
Maximum Framerate: 112.44 fps
Minimum Framerate: 15.144

New

Total Frames: 8814
Total Time: 171.15328
Average Framerate: 51.534 fps
Maximum Framerate: 162.356 fps
Minimum Framerate: 15.004

Not much of a difference, except for the maximum framerate. The minimum framerate is practically the same, although it has to be said that with the Phenom II it varied between 13.72 fps and 16.27 fps, whereas with the Ryzen 5 it varied between 9.73 fps and 18.25 fps. Maybe more benchmark runs would have given a more representative average, maybe the test is just sensitive to whatever Windows is doing in the background or maybe frametimes just are a bit all over the place with my Ryzen 5 at its current settings.

To sum up the benchmarks, the Ryzen 5 1500X is a good replacement for my old Phenom II, which was still totally usable despite its age. In gaming I am limited by my GPU at the moment, so that's what I'll upgrade next, but I could also try to overclock my GPU a bit further. As for the 1500X, I know there's still some performance to be squeezed out of it. I'll start with memory timings and see where I end up. I'll post the timings and some benchmark results when I'm ready to move on to bumping the CPU multiplier a bit higher.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
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, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
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, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
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, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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: 373
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, EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5, 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 ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.