Where's the screenshot?ID: gwnckp8ID: gwncmrs
Oh, I see it now.
Bigger than expected drop on some L1, L2, and L3 read and write speeds. Some of that is noise, but that drop in L3 cache read between 3600 vs 4000 looks bigger than just noise.
I wonder if this is a side effect of putting more stress on the memory controller with high infinity clocks?ID: gwofv9n
I intend to find out and will let you know. Interesting for sure.ID: gwppvuq
when I OC'd my memory with a 5900x and 1:1 IF, SoC power went up by 10~20w. if OP is running stock PPT then it might mean less power for cache and cores.
The one on the right(4000) is betterID: gwndw0d
Even with the slower L3 cache results? Found that strange, but both are in a 1 to 1 to 1 ratio.ID: gwnh9e1
Are you actually running 4000MHz without errors though?
Why's the cpu clock different?ID: gwnhtiz
The CPU is at it's default settings, I am thinking it's just a matter of when I press the benchmark button. Ran it a few times and it's always different clock speeds.
Can you post a screenshot of your zentimings.exe
I’m running 2x16gb 3600 14-14-14-14-28-42 260trfc 1.45v on my 5900x getting 57.2ns latency in Aida64 and passed 10hrs of karhu ram test + occt for a few hours also
I’ve only had my 5900x a few days so haven’t tried pushing the fclk to 1900-2000 yet I’m hoping to get 3800cl14 or 4000cl16ID: gwo1kys
All that is low % gains at best. If it's stable I literally would pretend IF clock doesn't exist anymore and go about my day...ID: gwo1qcx
Yeah I tempted to leave as is but I like tinkeringID: gwnrezg
Which kit is that with?ID: gwnsxjb
32gb Trident z neo 3600cl14 kit
Lol people still haven’t realized that running high memory frequency put more load on the memory controller inside the cpu, therefore reduce the max boost clock? Yes you win some on memory bandwidth but you lose cpu performance.ID: gwnwzzu
This is probably true but this aida tests never gets consistent clockspeed readings with zen3, as zen3 always modulates its boost clocks, but the variation is bigger here than usual. Usually its varying in in 50-100mhz area and here its 200mhz so it can be the reason you mentioned.
I heard higher frequency ram is naturally better for higher core count higher thread processors which is why I went with 3200 for my 5600x and I tell people to go for 3600 for their 5800x’s
the 4000 one looks better
Whichever setting performs better in the task that you prioritize the most. Only you know what that is. I assume you didn't buy this PC for AIDA benchmarks?
Both of these settings are good and easily usable (assuming both are equally stable). It's diminishing returns with some of this stuff. A lot of work (and money) for minimum gains. Sometimes there's no gain at all.
But there's situations where one approach will be rewarded over the other. The best thing is to test it yourself and see which performs better. Whether it's a certain game you care about, or a full core load like encoding large video files etc. The one on the right will be more likely to favor a lot of games if you are CPU limited and have a really good GPU. It might actually be better overall at most things, but there's also more chance of instability.
A tip to consider.. get it as stable as possible at 4000, and then dial it back to 3800. It should be 100% bulletproof stable. The benchmarks won't look as good but in real world usage, you'll have a super fast super stable system.. even as it degrades over time. Which people don't like to talk about and try to argue it.. but it usually does. All silicon does, especially when you are pushing it to it's limits. Interestingly, over the years, I've noticed less of this with GPUs. But with CPU, especially when you are pushing the RAM and memory controller to it's limits.. I've noticed it more.
Upload stuck on processing image... should show up in a few minutes