Ryzen 5 1500X + AB350M Pro4 |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | |
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 22 Dec 2018 at 10:26am |
The GPU upgrade mentioned in the previous post happened recently and the EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB gave way to Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB. So, another GPU with a half-sized PCB, but the cooler in this Vega 56 is twice as large as the PCB. I've already tweaked the settings a bit, landing with 10% increase in power limit, +150MHz overclock on the memory and undervolting so that power states 5-7 are set to 1050 mV. With these settings my system's power draw from the wall has increased to ~450W while running Superposition and Prime95 simultaneously with the same settings as previously. Comparing with my previous numbers, that means roughly 310W of the total is due to the GPU - and by GPU I mean the whole graphics card. Based on GPU-Z readings the GPU itself accounts for 200W and the memory, fanse etc. account for 110W.
Other than the Superposition + Prime95 test, I don't think I've seen numbers above 400W during normal usage or even Firestrike's combined test. However, I doubt I'll push the GPU any harder as long as I have my current PSU - at least not for 24/7 use. Not that I really need to push the GPU harder, since the upgrade is in any case significant. Compared to my old GPU, graphics scores are not up by ~65% in 3DMark Timespy and ~75% in 3DMark Firestrike. In Firestrike's combined test the score went up only ny ~25%, which means my CPU is now the bottleneck, but I'm going to replace the CPU after a suitable Zen 2 Ryzen CPU is released. Hopefully ASRock can provide a decent BIOS for this motherboard then.. |
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This is slightly off topic, but since I'm planning to upgrade my GPU at some point, I decided to find out what sort of power headroom I have with my PSU. So, I went out and bought a plug power meter to measure my system's power consumption at the wall. When running in-place large FFTs with Prime95 (supposed to give the maximum CPU power consumption), the meter showed my system was drawing ~140 W. Running Superposition @ 1080p (windowed and maximum settings) alongside Prime95 raised the figure to ~260 W, which fits quite nicely with the 120W TDP of my GPU. Although this may not be the absolute maximum amount of power my system can draw from the wall, I doubt I'll see anything beyond this in normal use. On the other hand I should be prepared to see power consumption similar to this during gaming, since I saw consumption figures of up to ~240 W during Firestrike (the combined benchmark).
So, since my PSU can sustain 550W and since my PSU's +12V rail is rated at 45.8 A (~550 W), in principle I should be able to run any contemporary GPU without issues (if we disregard the fact that I would need to use a split cable instead of two separate cables). Even if I wanted to leave 100 W of "breathing room" for the PSU, I could still go for a ~300 W GPU, which includes anything up to a reference Vega 64. |
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Tightening the timings was a no-go with RAM sitting at 3333 MHz. The system is stable at stock timings but I think (I did the testing a few months ago) just dropping from CL 16 to CL 14 made BIOS crash within a few seconds. It's a shame the board doesn't allow me to bump up RAM voltage above 1.35V, since this severely limits any further testing. Anyways, here are finally some benchmark results for my current 3.8GHz / 3333MHz (16-18-18-38 CR1) settings: Passmark 9.0 Memory Mark: 2218.52 Database Operations: 90.6 KOps./s Memory Read Cached: 27825.8 MB/s Memory Read Uncached: 18488.8 MB/s Memory Write: 8626.6 MB/s Available RAM: 14269.9 MB Memory Latency: 58 ns Memory Threaded: 44931.8 MB/s AIDA64 Memory Read: 48677.2 MB/s Memory Write: 46550 MB/s Memory Copy: 42012.6 MB/s Memory Latency: 76 ns L1 Cache Read: 471.588 GB/s L1 Cache Write: 236.436 GB/s L1 Cache Copy: 471.686 GB/s L1 Cache Latency: 1.1 ns L2 Cache Read: 448.282 GB/s L2 Cache Write: 231.6 GB/s L2 Cache Copy: 398.214 GB/s L2 Cache Latency: 4.5 ns L3 Cache Read: 315.69 GB/s L3 Cache Write: 221.878 GB/s L3 Cache Copy: 286.204 GB/s L3 Cache Latency: 11.9 ns So, nothing major in the memory department. Some benchmarks show worse results than 3200 (14-18-18-38 CR1), some better and overall the performance is in practice the same. As can be expected, other benchmarks showed gains you could expect from a 100Mhz bump on the CPU frequency: CPU-Z CPU Single Thread: 437.18 CPU Multi Thread: 2344.96 Passmark Performance Test 9.0 Total: 5511.66
CPU Mark: 11026.5 2D Graphics Mark: 903.48 3D Graphics Mark: 11056.26 Memory Mark: 2218.52 Disk Mark: 15805.46 Integer Math: 22165.6 Floating Point Math: 8166 Prime Numbers: 41.8 Extended Instructions (SSE): 391.6 Compression: 13678.8 Encryption: 2170.8 Physics: 648.6 Sorting: 8185.6 CPU Single Threaded: 2017.6 There's a notable difference in the Disk Mark results and the disk mark results are far more stable than what they were in the first benchmarks with this hardware. This can be due to Windows updates, driver updates, updates to the benchmark engine or all combined. All these should also be taken into account when comparing any other differences with previous numbers, so it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but the overall picture is what I'd expect. A small bump in clock speeds gives a small bump in performance. However, the difference is only really noticeable in benchmarks. |
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Testing is still ongoing, but looks like 3.9 GHz requires more voltage than I'd like to use. However, 3.8 GHz was stable in Prime95 blend test for 8 hours @ 1.325 V - and with RAM speed increased to 3333 MHz! It seems that the lower temperatures and/or higher Vcore also help the IMC handle higher clockspeeds. I haven't touched the timings yet, but I might give that another try as well.
The maximum temperatures during the 8 hour Prime95 stress test were 68.5 C for the CPU and 49.5 C for the socket. Vcore (SVI2 TFN) sat mostly at 1.337 V under load, so a bit more than what was set in BIOS and still under the "safe" value. Edited by PetrolHead - 21 Apr 2018 at 12:14am |
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hmm. In January I posted that 3.8 GHz @ 1.3125 V was only stable for a few minutes in Prime95. No temperatures were written down for that combination. On the other hand 3.7 GHz was stable at that voltage and temperatures had maxed out at 84 C (CPU) and 61 C (socket) after two hours. Well, now I've been running the 3.8 GHz @ 1.3125 V settings for half an hour and temperatures have maxed out at 66.9 C (CPU) and 48 C (socket). Looks like higher clocks may be achievable after all with reasonable voltages.
|
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I decided to upgrade my CPU cooler, and after some thought I decided to go with an AIO liquid cooler, namely Fractacl Design Celcius S24. Installation was relatively easy, but would have been even easier if the manual hadn't instructed to twist the Intel mount in the wrong direction to get it off. The end result is good regardless. There was no increase in noise levels*, yet max temps** in P95 blend test (after roughly 20 minutes) fell from 74.3 C to 61.8 C, and max temps in AIDA64 stress test (after the temperature plateaued) fell from 70.9 C to 59 C. Socket max temps fell from 54.5 C to 46.0 C and from 52.5 C to 44 C, respectively. There were some temperature spikes - up to 66.8C - during AIDA64 after the installation, but I'm not sure if these are just sensor glitches or if it's something related to running in the cooler. I saw no such spikes during Prime95 and the cooler seems quick to react to increases in load.
Overall, the drop in max temperature is maybe not the biggest, considering I was using the stock Wraith Spire cooler. On the other hand, the Wraith Spire is very capable for a stock cooler. Running the CPU fan at higher RPM could have resulted in even lower temperatures, but it would have also increased the noise. Another nice feature of the liquid cooler is that now hot air is blown directly out of the case (from the top). The airflow over the VRMs' heatsinks may not be as good as before, but what air flows through them should now be cooler. All that's left to do now is to see if I can run higher clocks and voltages without the system becoming unstable. *The cooler has two settings: "Auto" and "PWD". Since reviews saw no significant difference between the two, I'm running the cooler on "Auto". **Temperatures from HWiNFO64. |
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This weekend I tried the newest version of Ryzen DRAM Calculator by 1usmus (1.1.0 Beta 1). The timings it suggested were a lot tighter than before (using the Safe-preset), but I gave them a shot. Benchmarks did improvements on average, but again some benchmark results (for example Memory Read Unchached in Passmark's Performance Test 9.0 build 1024) gave worse results than with looser timings. Also, even though I had no trouble running benchmarks after benchmarks, Aida64 stress test reported hardware errors within a few minutes of starting the test, so I went back to my old timings after a few attempts to loosen the timings a bit more to find stability.
Since fiddling with timings didn't seem to give me any results, I decided to give 3333MHz a try. The computer wouldn't boot to Windows with CL14, but with CL16 (and thus normal XMP timings for 3466MHz) it did and managed to finish a few benchmarks as well. However, two hours into Prime95 blend test the machine booted itself, so I went back to 3200MHz, since I can't increase RAM voltage beyond its current 1.35V setting. Furthermore, I set CL to 16 because my computer had a BSOD for the second time during this year. It could just be a driver issue, but let's see if this helps. I also did a few feeble attempts to OC the CPU a bit, but decided anything less than 100MHz was not worth the effort at this point (and I already know that 3.8GHz requires more voltage than what I'm willing to give the CPU). If I decide to upgrade the CPU cooler, I may give OC'ing the CPU another go. |
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It seems I was partially right about the CPU fan header after all, but the issue seems to be related to software, not hardware. The cooler spins at different rpms when I use silent, standard or performance mode, but the custom setting doesn't work. The fan spins at roughly the same rpm regardless of whether the CPU is under the 65% limit or over the 90% limit. I guess I'll have to wait and see if the next BIOS update will fix it.
|
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
3.7GHz @ 1.2375V (1.264V) was stable for an hour in the standard Prime95 blend test, but BSOD struck and the computer rebooted. I think temps maxed out at 74C CPU and 55C socket. In any case, the instabilities seem to be memory related, so I'm guessing if I ran the RAM at 2933MHZ or maybe with looser timings, I could push the CPU further. I'm not sure it would be worth it from a performance perspective, though, unless I could push the CPU to 3.9GHz or 4.0GHz. With a custom fan profile I could also try and keep the temperatures lower under stress testing without suffering from increased noise in normal use. That might be next on the list of things to try.
|
|
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
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
3.7GHz @ 1.25V (1.280V) was stable for 8 hours in the standard Prime95 blend test. Max temps were 77C CPU and 57C socket.
|
|
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
|
|
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |