Drain_Bamaged wrote: <span style=": rgb43, 43, 43;">A adjustment to procODT was absolutely necessary for my RAM.</span>

Yeah I'm at 53.3 Ohms@3066MHz, but am looking for a ballpark Ohm for 3200MHz.

I have no idea how high you can go with it still being considered safe. I tried 60 Ohms for 3200, but haven't tried higher.

At 2933 I was at 48 Ohms.

There will be no "reasonable' value.

procODT is derived from many variables(mem to CPU traces, CPU, Memory, "noise' levels over traces, voltages etc) and thus EACH Users computer will be different.

Consider procODT to be a tolerance level, in laymans terms.

Two old skool, and now outdated with the settings/options, for reference ONLY.

http://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/memory/the_secrets_of_pc_memory_part_3/8/

http://archive.techarp.com/showFreeBOG9847.html?lang=0


Those two pages have great background/info on procODT. But again, since both are rather dated now, the #'s themselves are ....... not up to date. Fortunately, their desc of the function IS applicable to today.


HTH

Finally. What I have been preaching here.

The ancient debate: frequency or timings?   Last, but not least, Sami set out to find whether it was tighter timings or higher clockspeeds that mattered most on the AMD Ryzen??processor. Sami pushed this combination of hardware up to DDR4-3520, DDR4-3466 with tighter timings, and DDR4-3200 with the tightest timings that could be achieved while maintaining stability with Memtest.   The verdict: tighter timings won. DDR4-3200 with aggressive timing adjustments outperformed the looser timings needed to hit DDR4-3520, while 3466 clearly split the difference with the right balance of timings and frequency. ................... ............ Conclusion #3: Chasing the highest possible clockspeed required timings so relaxed that real world performance suffered versus lower frequencies with tighter timings. This is a fine balance, however, so testing on your platform is always helpful.

Edited by wardog - 15 Jul 2017 at 2:45am