Print Page | Close Window

X370 Chipset / Memory

Printed From: ASRock.com
Category: Media&User's Review
Forum Name: AMD Motherboards
Forum Description: ASRock AMD Motherboards
URL: http://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4563
Printed Date: 04 Mar 2024 at 9:11am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: X370 Chipset / Memory
Posted By: twf85
Subject: X370 Chipset / Memory
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 12:04am
" rel="nofollow -
This is mostly directed towards ASRock, but anyone else that can help, please chime in.

I'm having a difficult time choosing the right memory to go with my new Fatal1ty Professional mobo. It doesn't help matters that the listed max is 2667, and the Memory QVL lists many sticks that go beyond that. Very confusing ASRock, very confusing. Add to that, Googling many of the listed sticks turns up no matches. Are these sticks not available yet?

More to the point, the board itself has "1.2V" embossed on the DIMM slots, but there is a VERY small selection of that type of RAM. Furthermore, some of the sticks that I was able to find that are listed on the QVL are rated at 1.35V. So which is it? Is the 1.2V the base voltage, and you can go higher if you OC?

Lastly, the guidelines for "Single Rank" / "Dual Rank" thing you have listed in the manual is virtually useless. You say to look at the labels on the actual DIMMs, but I can't for the life of me find a single example of memory where the label has "1xR" or "2xR" listed.

I don't know when you added the Memory QVL section, but I don't believe it was present when I was buying RAM. There was a deal on some G.Skill sticks (F4-3000C15D-16GRBB - $96.99) that I went for, but I can only push them to 2400mhz. Any further than that, and I get stuck in a boot loop. Fortunately, it dies quickly and only fails three times before resetting itself (much better than having to wait ages or fiddle with the battery). I plan on returning the RAM, but I need order a replacement set before I do. I will likely buy a 32GB set (16x2), and would like them to be at least 3000mhz (no more than 3400mhz).

Can you offer up some suggestions that you can verify will work with this board? You don't have many 16GB options listed on the QVL, but I have seen this list growing over the past few days..  So I am hopeful you have some sticks in the pipeline that will fit what I am looking for.



Replies:
Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 12:17am
At this time there are very few RAM models that work correctly with Ryzen. Ryzen has some very particular requirements from the RAM and as such we see the speed limitations you noted on your GSkill kit. There are a fair number of kits listed in the QvL but I am not sure even those will run at their rated speeds.

GSkill has released some Ryzen compatible RAM recently, I would strongly advise that whatever RAM you settle on is Ryzen certified. As for QVL lists, these are all but useless at this point given the above mentioned Ryzen requirements, most current kits cannot provide the required 1T command rates at their full rated frequency and some will not even function at a forced (by Ryzen) 1T command rate.

As for voltage, DDR4 is officially 1.2v so this is why the slots have that label but most performance kits use 1.35v as you have seen, this is not a problem in the least merely the "official" DDR4 spec. The same applies to Ryzen's 2667 support, this is what the memory controller is rated for not the maximum it can accomplish. This figure is more like intel's Skylake 2133 support or Kaby Lake's 2400, these are rated frequencies not what XMP (overclocked) kits will be limited to.

I do not speak for ASRock, this is just the information I have been able to dig up.

I hope this helps.  


-------------


Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 1:35am
Originally posted by twf85 twf85 wrote:

" rel="nofollow -
This is mostly directed towards ASRock, but anyone else that can help, please chime in.

I'm having a difficult time choosing the right memory to go with my new Fatal1ty Professional mobo. It doesn't help matters that the listed max is 2667, and the Memory QVL lists many sticks that go beyond that. Very confusing ASRock, very confusing. Add to that, Googling many of the listed sticks turns up no matches. Are these sticks not available yet?

More to the point, the board itself has "1.2V" embossed on the DIMM slots, but there is a VERY small selection of that type of RAM. Furthermore, some of the sticks that I was able to find that are listed on the QVL are rated at 1.35V. So which is it? Is the 1.2V the base voltage, and you can go higher if you OC?

Lastly, the guidelines for "Single Rank" / "Dual Rank" thing you have listed in the manual is virtually useless. You say to look at the labels on the actual DIMMs, but I can't for the life of me find a single example of memory where the label has "1xR" or "2xR" listed.

I don't know when you added the Memory QVL section, but I don't believe it was present when I was buying RAM. There was a deal on some G.Skill sticks (F4-3000C15D-16GRBB - $96.99) that I went for, but I can only push them to 2400mhz. Any further than that, and I get stuck in a boot loop. Fortunately, it dies quickly and only fails three times before resetting itself (much better than having to wait ages or fiddle with the battery). I plan on returning the RAM, but I need order a replacement set before I do. I will likely buy a 32GB set (16x2), and would like them to be at least 3000mhz (no more than 3400mhz).

Can you offer up some suggestions that you can verify will work with this board? You don't have many 16GB options listed on the QVL, but I have seen this list growing over the past few days..  So I am hopeful you have some sticks in the pipeline that will fit what I am looking for.


The 2667 memory speed is the AMD maximum memory speed specification. Any memory speed above that is a memory over clock. That is shown in the memory specifications of the Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming.

Intel has similar specs for their processors (memory controller is part of the CPU) and all the memory speeds above that are over clocks. Memory speed specs and over clocks have been that way for years, I don't understand why that is confusing.

Memory manufactures do not normally include the number of ranks in the basic specs of their products. The single and dual rank memory specs shown are again from AMD, and I'm glad ASRock is including them in their mother board specifications.

You may have noticed the Single Sided (SS) and Double Sided (DS) notation in the Memory QVL. That is related to the number of Ranks used in a memory design, but also depends upon the memory chips being used, the capacity of each of the memory chips.

Single Sided memory only has memory chips on one side of the circuit board, Double Sided memory has memory chips on both sides of the circuit board.

Single and Dual Rank memory refers to a group of memory chips organized into a "Rank". SS memory is usually Single Rank, and DS memory is usually Dual Rank. But that has changed now that higher density (capacity) memory chips are available. The higher the capacity of a memory stick is, the more likely is will be Dual Rank and Dual Sided. Those specs must be checked for each memory model with DDR4 memory.

These memory specifications were not created by ASRock, and it is the responsibility of the memory manufacture to make these specifications available. ASRock is simply the messenger of the memory specifications from AMD and the memory standards organization.

Purchasing random DDR4 memory because it was on sale is simply a gamble regarding compatibility. DDR4 is also a new technology and we have been dealing with its growing pains in the few platforms that support it for a while now. Ryzen is now a part of that battle.



-------------
http://valid.x86.fr/48rujh" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: twf85
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 2:45am
Thank you for such a comprehensive answer!

I realize that I took risk buying the memory that I did, but at the time, there wasn't much to base my decision on.

Also, stating that "Intel does it so that means it's okay for us to do the same" is hardly any justification. That's childish logic. AMD boards, particularly ASRock boards, have ALWAYS listed their overclocking potential (e.g. "3000(OC)"). To switch course and offer no explanation is a pretty ridiculous way to advertise. There are plenty of people who are confused. Check the QA on NewEgg.

In any event, the explanation for single rank / dual rank was extremely helpful. Thank you!


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 3:11am
" rel="nofollow - Tucson huh? I'm up in Apache Junction. Hi neighbor.

Here's your answer.

http://www.gskill.com/en/configurator?manu=52&chip=2952&model=2984


Hooray G.Skill


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 3:42am
No (board) manufacturer is able to publish RAM OC figures yet because at the time of Ryzen's launch there were no officially supported memory kits Wink

As I said in my first response, Ryzen has particular requirements from the RAM, these are not met by any of the RAM kits that were available at launch. Most consumer grade DDR4 is optimized for 2T command rates, setting these kits to 1T results in instability at higher clocks or even no stability at all. Higher frequency rated kits are more likely to work but at lower frequencies where lower rated kits may not work at all or prove unstable even at the lowest possible speed. We have already seen this here on the forums. The more performance oriented kits tend to be better binned and so can handle the much more demanding 1T command rates Ryzen needs, albeit at lower clocks.

The new Ryzen approved kits like the GSkill link Wardog provided are tuned for 1T command rates so we should see much better compatibility and higher frequencies from them.

Ryzen is an entirely new platform rather than an iterative improvement over an established one. This means that it will take time for both motherboard and RAM manufacturers to fully implement proper support. In the case of motherboards we will see BIOS updates and AMD will also provide microcode updates to improve things as the platform matures. RAM needs to be designed specifically to support the platform and we are already starting to see this happen. This is a very interesting launch, it has been a very long time since we have seen a completely new platform come to market. The down side is that there are going to be a LOT of teething issues while all the kinks are worked out.  

Parsec wasn't saying that because intel does it it's ok, he was just stating an industry fact. The IMC (integrated memory controller) at the time of it's design will typically be designed to handle the fastest RAM of the type it is designed for that falls within the official specs. So when intel designed Skylake's IMC the standard DDR4 RAM frequency was 2133 @1.2v, while there were faster kits available they were rated for higher voltages and hence considered "out of spec". Ryzen is a much newer CPU and at the time it's IMC was designed 2667 is what AMD must have decided was the optimal frequency to support. Once the CPUs launch however the story changes as RAM manufacturers push for higher frequencies on the new platforms. What we end up seeing is "official support" for 2133 on Skylake and 2667 on Ryzen. Memory manufacturers then use overclocking through the likes of XMP (intel specification) to allow for higher frequencies than the IMCs are rated for. This is also why we see only intel's high end chipsets supporting XMP and high frequency RAM. So Z170 and Z270 support frequencies greater than 2133 and 2400 (Skylake and Kaby Lake) but H and B series boards are limited to these speeds. Intel considers XMP to be overclocking and only their Z and X series chipsets support overclocking of any kind (officially). AMD are better with this and typically allow higher RAM speeds on all of their chipsets, I am not sure about the non overclocking Ryzen chipsets yet though, they may be locked like intel but I guess we will see soon enough.


-------------


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 3:59am
" rel="nofollow - G.Skill Flare X Performance Memory for AM4/Ryzen in stock at NewEgg!

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=g.skill+flare&N=-1&isNodeId=1


Posted By: twf85
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

http://forum.asrock.com/RTE_textarea.asp%3cmode=quote&ID=24752&CACHE=146" rel="nofollow - Tucson huh? I'm up in Apache Junction. Hi neighbor.

Here's your answer.

http://www.gskill.com/en/configurator?manu=52&chip=2952&model=2984


Hooray G.Skill

Haha, AJ huh?!? Howdy, neighbor! I've only been up there a couple of times. The parts I saw were primarily retirement communities. Last I heard, my ex settled there with her new bf.

That's a pretty nice list, thank you! Doesn't get me any higher than I'm at right now though Cry

Originally posted by Xaltar Xaltar wrote:

No (board) manufacturer is able to publish RAM OC figures yet because at the time of Ryzen's launch there were no officially supported memory kits Wink

As I said in my first response, Ryzen has particular requirements from the RAM, these are not met by any of the RAM kits that were available at launch. Most consumer grade DDR4 is optimized for 2T command rates, setting these kits to 1T results in instability at higher clocks or even no stability at all. Higher frequency rated kits are more likely to work but at lower frequencies where lower rated kits may not work at all or prove unstable even at the lowest possible speed. We have already seen this here on the forums. The more performance oriented kits tend to be better binned and so can handle the much more demanding 1T command rates Ryzen needs, albeit at lower clocks.

The new Ryzen approved kits like the GSkill link Wardog provided are tuned for 1T command rates so we should see much better compatibility and higher frequencies from them.

Ryzen is an entirely new platform rather than an iterative improvement over an established one. This means that it will take time for both motherboard and RAM manufacturers to fully implement proper support. In the case of motherboards we will see BIOS updates and AMD will also provide microcode updates to improve things as the platform matures. RAM needs to be designed specifically to support the platform and we are already starting to see this happen. This is a very interesting launch, it has been a very long time since we have seen a completely new platform come to market. The down side is that there are going to be a LOT of teething issues while all the kinks are worked out.  

Parsec wasn't saying that because intel does it it's ok, he was just stating an industry fact. The IMC (integrated memory controller) at the time of it's design will typically be designed to handle the fastest RAM of the type it is designed for that falls within the official specs. So when intel designed Skylake's IMC the standard DDR4 RAM frequency was 2133 @1.2v, while there were faster kits available they were rated for higher voltages and hence considered "out of spec". Ryzen is a much newer CPU and at the time it's IMC was designed 2667 is what AMD must have decided was the optimal frequency to support. Once the CPUs launch however the story changes as RAM manufacturers push for higher frequencies on the new platforms. What we end up seeing is "official support" for 2133 on Skylake and 2667 on Ryzen. Memory manufacturers then use overclocking through the likes of XMP (intel specification) to allow for higher frequencies than the IMCs are rated for. This is also why we see only intel's high end chipsets supporting XMP and high frequency RAM. So Z170 and Z270 support frequencies greater than 2133 and 2400 (Skylake and Kaby Lake) but H and B series boards are limited to these speeds. Intel considers XMP to be overclocking and only their Z and X series chipsets support overclocking of any kind (officially). AMD are better with this and typically allow higher RAM speeds on all of their chipsets, I am not sure about the non overclocking Ryzen chipsets yet though, they may be locked like intel but I guess we will see soon enough.

I'm not very educated on all of this, so I appreciate all the info. The last board I had (ASRock 990FX Extreme9 + 8350 + 2133DDR3) overclocked without too much trouble, so I never bothered to dig very deep into any of this. I was sad to see that die on me, but it did last 3+ years. Made me a bit of an ASRock loyalist. I almost always go for an ASRock board (unless NewEgg is sold out of the form factor + feature set I'm buying for) when I build PCs for other people.

I hope I haven't been coming across as overly critical of ASRock. I realize that the other MOBO manufacturers are creating many of the same confusion traps, and from what I can gather reading the responses here, much of the blame for the current state of things is the nascent technology. I do have to wonder, with everything AMD has riding on RYZEN, were they perhaps a little too quick to market? If I am correct, and that QVL did indeed show up post launch (I didn't simply overlook it), it would seem that a matter of days may have helped people in my situation make better buying decisions for their RAM.



Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

" rel="nofollow - G.Skill Flare X Performance Memory for AM4/Ryzen in stock at NewEgg!

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=g.skill+flare&N=-1&isNodeId=1

Sweet, thanks! That was fast..


From what you guys can tell, is 16GB per module going to be a problem for RYZEN in these early days? Should I just hold off on capacity or speed to give the platform time to mature?

Also, I read in a review that the timings need to be manually adjusted in order for the higher frequencies to be obtained. Should I try fiddling with that to see if it makes a difference? The review was for an ASUS board, but perhaps the same is true for ASRock boards?

Even without overclocking the CPU, and the RAM only running at 2400, some of the Excel Workbooks (varying file sizes, up to 76MB, some with hundreds of thousands of calculations)  I use frequently are loading 44-55% faster (9-235 seconds vs 29-423 seconds) than they did on my 8350. That's impressive. Also, the MOBO is a thing of beauty (using a matte black finish was a very nice touch). Seeing the processor in there, with the light refracting off the lazer etched logo, made it a bit painful to go and apply thermal paste. A bit like seeing fresh snow as a kid. You want to play in it, but at the same time, a part of you doesn't want to spoil something so perfect.


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2017 at 2:46pm
The RAM issue, regarding supported speeds vs achievable speeds is something I have seen cause a lot of confusion Wink

Basically the IMC can't be updated once the CPU is released so whatever speed it was designed for remains the "supported" figure until a new generation is released. Higher frequencies are then achieved via overclocking. Now why I didn't say it that way to begin with escapes me but oh well Embarrassed


-------------


Posted By: twf85
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2017 at 4:38am
BIOS version 1.54 (beta) says it improves XMP compatibility! I wonder if I can downgrade to my current version if this beta version turns out to be buggy..


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2017 at 4:59am
Considering I know what's happening behind the curtains just as soon as you flash 1.54 there'll be a new non-BETA production BIOS released as fast as you can say Rumpelstiltskin.

You accept the risks involved in daily flashing. Me, I'd hold on a day or three.


Posted By: twf85
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2017 at 6:07am
" rel="nofollow - Fair enough. Part of me wanted to test it to "do my part" and provide feedback, but I can't risk a dead board right now. Too much work to do..

When do you figure MS will get around to fixing the SMT/Event Timers issue that's been reported? It seems like the longer I've left Windows running, the slower programs are to load or respond.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2017 at 8:41am
Originally posted by twf85 twf85 wrote:

hen do you figure MS will get around to fixing the SMT/Event Timers issue that's been reported? It seems like the longer I've left Windows running, the slower programs are to load or respond.


Teething issues aren't good. When? I don't have a clue other than to say you can bet MS is coding 24/7 at it.

Same with devs of the programs that view/account for the cache discrepancies being reported to.





re: chasing that elusive and magical BIOS revision

AM4/Ryzen BIOSes are being updated seemingly hourly, regardless of MB manufacturer. "Ryzen' upended a lot of complacency in terms of how it's addressed Wink

Right now isn't the best time in terms of new learning curves at the BIOS engineer level to be flashing each and every BIOS release. They too are working their fannies off addressing this and that.

Look at the current situation with your board. 1.50 is the ONLY rev being offered at d/l. Were the previous rev's defective or otherwise unstable? Only two days separate 1.50 and 1.54.

If I were you and needing a working computer, as Ryzen just entered "The Wild' , I'd rather hold off and pass some time doing something productive other than recovering my computer.

Let the BIOS chasers be the guinea pigs until the dust settles some









Posted By: twf85
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2017 at 9:24am
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Teething issues aren't good. When? I don't have a clue other than to say you can bet MS is coding 24/7 at it.


I don't know.. They've known about the issues with the Windows Search service for approximately one year now, yet they still (to my knowledge) have not fixed it:
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/b72c763e-d029-4e65-a2dc-885a5aabf643/problem-creatingrenaming-a-folder-on-a-network-share-with-win10-anniversary-update-error?forum=win10itpronetworking

Also, throughout the course of researching Zen, I read numerous comments of people who said that MS waited about a year until they enabled full support for Athlon 64 back in the day. Some even suggested that the delay was intended to give Intel time to catch up. As cutthroat as AMD is making the new playing field with their RYZEN pricing.. History could be due to repeat itself here.

Even if they weren't going to delay any updates to benefit Intel, they have really sh1t the bed in terms of their updates since the W10 launch. Every new update comes with a substantial risk that it will break something new.

I have a maintenance script running on all the computers I look after that runs SFC and DISM weekly to attempt to mitigate update related issues. Where possible I've deferred the feature updates, but you don't get that functionality unless you have a Pro license (most low-to-mid range store-bought PCs come with Home) or want to muck about in the registry. It's a sorry state of affairs, and it is really pissing a lot of people off.

TL:DR; I'm not holding my breath for an immediate fix from Microsoft, but I would be pleasantly surprised if they too felt motivated to help foster the introduction of some much needed competition into the marketplace. Motivated enough to release an update that fixes the RYZEN compatibility issues within the next 30-60 days. After all, new computers mean new licenses, so I would think they would want to help smooth things over. Only time will tell.

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

re: chasing that elusive and magical BIOS revision

AM4/Ryzen BIOSes are being updated seemingly hourly, regardless of MB manufacturer. "Ryzen' upended a lot of complacency in terms of how it's addressed Wink

Right now isn't the best time in terms of new learning curves at the BIOS engineer level to be flashing each and every BIOS release. They too are working their fannies off addressing this and that.

Look at the current situation with your board. 1.50 is the ONLY rev being offered at d/l. Were the previous rev's defective or otherwise unstable? Only two days separate 1.50 and 1.54.

If I were you and needing a working computer, as Ryzen just entered "The Wild' , I'd rather hold off and pass some time doing something productive other than recovering my computer.

Let the BIOS chasers be the guinea pigs until the dust settles some

I updated to 1.5 when I discovered I couldn't push the RAM very far, and I liked that 1.5 would take me away from the USB-Drive based updating. I now see that ASRock has changed the verbiage on the page. It used to say something like, "If you update, and it breaks, you may need to send the board in for service." Now it's very clear. Updating is completely the responsibility of the user.

Honestly, the system seems to be very stable. I appreciate the "insider" info though, it's good to know that ASRock is embracing the new platform and is working diligently to improve the performance / user experience!


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2017 at 10:17am
Agree, somewhat. The change from 32bit to 64bit was an exciting time, Wild Wild West style. Yet it did take some time, not a year, for everyone to catch up. x64 driver incompatibilities come immediately to mind. Which of course left many first x64 adopters high and dry when the device manufacturers drug their feet and took their sweet time pushing out x64 supported drivers.<cough>HP<cough>

Leaving a lot of stubborn first adopters wanting/needing x64 drivers for their printer and scanners. Me!

In looking at Ryzen in terms of life span, hell, they haven't yet severed its umbilical cord from birth yet. It'll mature over time sure as the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west.





Patience Grasshopper. Patience.









Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2017 at 11:33am
Originally posted by twf85 twf85 wrote:

Thank you for such a comprehensive answer!

I realize that I took risk buying the memory that I did, but at the time, there wasn't much to base my decision on.

Also, stating that "Intel does it so that means it's okay for us to do the same" is hardly any justification. That's childish logic. AMD boards, particularly ASRock boards, have ALWAYS listed their overclocking potential (e.g. "3000(OC)"). To switch course and offer no explanation is a pretty ridiculous way to advertise. There are plenty of people who are confused. Check the QA on NewEgg.

In any event, the explanation for single rank / dual rank was extremely helpful. Thank you!


Sorry, I don't follow your line of thought in the underlined above. In what way do the Ryzen board specs not show the overclock potential? This is from the Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming specifications on their information page on ASRock's website, and a link to that specifications page:

Supports DDR4 3200+(OC)/2933(OC)/2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming/index.asp#Specification" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming/index.asp#Specification

Here are the specification for the X370 Taichi:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification

The Intel specs I am referring to is the maximum memory speed guaranteed to be supported by a processor. As with the Ryzen spec above, that is the maximum memory speed that does not have "(OC)" next to it.

There is no difference in the format between the Ryzen memory spec, and the way it is shown in the specifications for Intel boards.

Your board's manual also has the memory specifications in the format shown above:

http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming.pdf

Otherwise, what are you referring to?



-------------
http://valid.x86.fr/48rujh" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: twf85
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2017 at 1:02am
Originally posted by <strong>wardog wardog wrote:

Agree, somewhat. The change from 32bit to 64bit was an exciting time, Wild Wild West style. Yet it did take some time, not a year, for everyone to catch up. x64 driver incompatibilities come immediately to mind. Which of course left many first x64 adopters high and dry when the device manufacturers drug their feet and took their sweet time pushing out x64 supported drivers.<cough>HP<cough>

Leaving a lot of stubborn first adopters wanting/needing x64 drivers for their printer and scanners. Me!

In looking at Ryzen in terms of life span, hell, they haven't yet severed its umbilical cord from birth yet. It'll mature over time sure as the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west.

I was a broke teenager when all of that was going on, and was more concerned with getting laid than getting better FPS or load times Wink It has been interesting reading more about the history of the rivalry from the "survivors".. Seems like old wounds are all too eager to surface now that the competition is heating up again.

Originally posted by <strong>parsec parsec wrote:

Sorry, I don't follow your line of thought in the underlined above. In what way do the Ryzen board specs not show the overclock potential? This is from the Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming specifications on their information page on ASRock's website, and a link to that specifications page:

Supports DDR4 3200+(OC)/2933(OC)/2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming/index.asp#Specification" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming/index.asp#Specification

Here are the specification for the X370 Taichi:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification

The Intel specs I am referring to is the maximum memory speed guaranteed to be supported by a processor. As with the Ryzen spec above, that is the maximum memory speed that does not have "(OC)" next to it. 

There is no difference in the format between the Ryzen memory spec, and the way it is shown in the specifications for Intel boards.

Your board's manual also has the memory specifications in the format shown above:

http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming.pdf

Otherwise, what are you referring to?


Well, that's embarrassing. Is that new? I don't remember that info being there at launch, and the product listing on Newegg still only shows 2667 as the max supported. Also, just below where you're referencing, there is still the table that shows the SR/DR info, and max freqs supported (2667). This is exactly the sort of conflicting information that will cause confusion.

It's not letting me copy paste the table from the page, but it does say 2667 and max supported currently.

I see in bullet points at the top of the page, there is now 3200+(OC). Again, I might have missed that before, but I don't think so. ASRock has been updating the info, which is great, and is probably in response to what I can only assume was numerous customer inquiries.

In any case, I am glad the info is there, and now maybe people who are on the fence because of a perceived shortcoming can hop aboard the AM4/RYZEN train. I apologize if I spoke out of turn and simply did not see the info, but again, I wasn't the only person who was unsure or confused. Plenty of others were confused, and may still be, given the currently conflicting information.

EDIT: This is my third try trying to post this, I thought it didn't like that I was "quoting" a non-existent user, but now I think it was because I was trying to post a table.


Posted By: twf85
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2017 at 1:18am
Originally posted by parsec parsec wrote:

Sorry, I don't follow your line of thought in the underlined above. In what way do the Ryzen board specs not show the overclock potential? This is from the Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming specifications on their information page on ASRock's website, and a link to that specifications page:

Supports DDR4 3200+(OC)/2933(OC)/2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming/index.asp#Specification" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming/index.asp#Specification

Here are the specification for the X370 Taichi:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification

The Intel specs I am referring to is the maximum memory speed guaranteed to be supported by a processor. As with the Ryzen spec above, that is the maximum memory speed that does not have "(OC)" next to it.

There is no difference in the format between the Ryzen memory spec, and the way it is shown in the specifications for Intel boards.

Your board's manual also has the memory specifications in the format shown above:

http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Manual/Fatal1ty%20X370%20Professional%20Gaming.pdf

Otherwise, what are you referring to?


I'm almost positive that info was not there at launch. Here are pics from my box/manual for the board:

X370_Fatal1ty_Box_Specs
https://ibb.co/eC4fiv" rel="nofollow - https://ibb.co/eC4fiv

X370_Fatal1ty_Manual_02
https://ibb.co/jfHi3v" rel="nofollow - https://ibb.co/jfHi3v

X370_Fatal1ty_Manual_01
https://ibb.co/nHP2wF" rel="nofollow - https://ibb.co/nHP2wF

EDIT: Pics were hard to read, and I couldn't figure out how to resize them, so I just added links to them instead.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net