Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Anmerkung: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
another new beta bios,
safedisk posted them on ocn idk if i can link that here or link his stuff but its on the asus z790 motherboard thread at the end for both apex and encore
Maybe. It could also be the same with direct die like it is for me.This could be due to the IHS. A delid / relid with TGC would help you a lot on your CPU temps.
Maybe your die surface uneven.Could be the block too. I have Iceman ATM. On long stress tests the E cores are hotter than P cores.Maybe. It could also be the same with direct die like it is for me.
@Veii
Neuer Kühler, Supercool Direct-Die, selbe Voltage Settings wie zuvor.
Original Befestigung, kein Mountingframe bzw Direct-Die mit befestigungsrahmen.
Zack 7800 statt 7600
Anhang anzeigen 974192
Seems E-cores are making a huge difference:Good time zone
Are you on a 250W power limit?
You lose about 50% of the compute performance with the OC.
It may even be slower than "stock".
7800MT/s sits close to 1.37 * 10^10
As an orientation example:
14900K 8P 16E 8200MT /s ~ 1.42 * 10^10
14900K 8P 16E 8400MT /s ~ 1.45 * 10^10
12900K AVX512 8P 0E 7000MT/s 4.9GHz ~ 1.12 * 10^10
14600K 6P 8E 5.4GHz DDR4-3600 G1 Nanya ~ 5.65 * 10 ^9
5600X Veii 6C 0E (4.55GHz) DDR4-4200 G1 ~ 5.58 * 10^9
14600K 6P 8E 5.3GHz DDR5- 8200 ~ 8.28 * 10^9
14600K 6P 8E 5.3GHz DDR5- 8400 ~ 8.29 * 10^9
14700K 8P 12E 5.0GHz DDR5- 7800 ~ 1.14 * 10^10
The last 14th gen tests from my buddy are on a Giga B760M AX X , with sole access to IA_AC_LL. No V/F curves.
14900KF 8P 16E 5.8/4.475 Fixed XOC DDR4- 4300 G1 ~ 1.09 * 10^10 && 5.7 /4.5
You can clearly notice how far away you are from the actual goal.
If DDR4 systems or CPUs with half as many cores, you have the same raw performance.
Or how big the difference is if cores are simply missing.
The 5.xx difference between 10^9 & 10^10 is immense.
1.05 vs 1.4 is equally immense. Since MemOC increases ComputePerf by 0.03-0.05 steps.
Either you have HT out, or the E-Cores out.
Or you really plod so hard that you lose ~50% of your performance.
Basically your CPU is slower than a 14700 with the same MemCLK.
E-cores on vs off would be exciting to compare, but there must be something going wrong for you to do so poorly.
The bandwidth/core also plays a role in whether the MemOC actually makes sense or scales. This also applies to the program load. How many cores it addresses.
However, I expect at least 1.20 * 10^10 from you here.
If not close to 1.26*10^10.
Beitrag automatisch zusammengeführt:
@tibcsi0407 if you're bored and want to do me a favor
Can you disable all E-Cores and run a short 2-3 cycle test of VT3 with HWInfo or HWMonitor open.
Any clock really. We know the +8000MT/s scale's. People still struggle to match your boosting load, haha.
I'm curious how high in % the difference is between same P-Core amount.
Look how close 14600K vs 5600X are. It's silly.
VT3 is mostly Cache/Ring/Mem, back and forth. E-Cores just add offload cache.
4 E-Cores on 14700K vs 14600K are around ~1.50 Factor of compute + slight boost due to 300MHz more.
For @AndreasP1981 score to make any sense. It must be HT off.
Or cores package throttle ~50%.
14700K @ 8200 should score around 1.28 * 10^10.
14900K @ 8200 does score around 1.42 * 10^10, iirc
That's again "just 4 e-cores" more + boost diff.
Anhang anzeigen 974345
7800MT/s sitzt nahe 1.37 * 10^10
Als Orientierungs-Beispiel:
14900K 8P 16E 8200 MT/s ~ 1.42 * 10^10
14900K 8P 16E 8400 MT/s ~ 1.45 * 10^10
I can do that later. Unfortunately the new BIOS has the same issues as 1001, I have to figure out wtf happened. 😊Moin
These are rough estimates for 2* 16GB DIMMs. Pardon me, but tibcsi’s testing is irrelevant in regards to bitrate, because he’s only stressing 30GB out of 48GB.
@tibcsi0407 Maybe let us see some bitrate figures with the full available mem loaded?
Добро утро !Moin
These are rough estimates for 16GB DIMMs. Pardon me, but tibcsi’s testing is irrelevant in regards to bitrate, because he’s only stressing 30GB out of 48GB.
I agree with the values for 2x16GB, but yeah working with 48GB is slower, it has to do with the batch size per node IME. Just like we see tibcsi‘s bitrate fall down when disabling the E-Cores which raises the batch size to 1.79GB/Node. I believe Andreas‘ performance is on point as is But let‘s see.Добро утро !
Anhang anzeigen 974349
I think he shouldn't do that, mm mm
Else 2x16GB 8000MT/s ~ 1.38 * 10^10
// unlimited powerlimit but no curve tuning. Looks about where it has to be, subsystem is fully utilized and ~ +0.04 bump per 100MHz of QCLK.
Anhang anzeigen 974350
If filling 48GB is slower, thats an Arch and potentially CPU operation issue.
Not to forget the OS limits and too high timings influence it.
VDDQ has also own ICCMAX , same as PMIC has own Current Limiters.
Soo at very least, i should expect from @AndreasP1981 1.32 * 10^10 not 1.20 * 10^10
I was too generous, whops. Thank you 🤭
I can do that later. Unfortunately the new BIOS has the same issues as 1001, I have to figure out wtf happened. 😊
Sorry this i dont understand.I believe Andreas‘s performance is on point as is But let‘s see.
That also needs some further testing, but I will do that. I want to know what the hell happened with the new BIOS releases. Somewhere saw that we have to use much smaller VDD2, but it needs investigation and time. 😊Even a relaxed 8400 profile would be good enough for comparison
Maybe ~ same IVR. Voltage itself means nothing, especially those IVR/MEM VDD/Q ones.That also needs some further testing, but I will do that. I want to know what the hell happened with the new BIOS releases. Somewhere saw that we have to use much smaller VDD2, but it needs investigation and time. 😊
I don't know that, is it a BIOS editor?Are you a good hunter for amisce-win ?
Yep, it’s not about the big numbers. Don‘t think anyone can successfully run RRDL 8 on H24M through any of the common test tools at these frequencies Just like the primaries and RFC need to be looser. As for Y this would sit at around 1.4GB/Node on the i9 for the CPU side computation, hence the lower bitrate. It’s just my experience with all the different CPUs I‘ve tested.Sorry this i dont understand.
Ohhh, Andreas is on 24gb. Well ya ~ toucheé
I expected nobody to mess with y-cruncher and let the Dev optimize its own written Programm.
Bigger IC capacity is done due to extending Transistorcount per Bank.
Increasing density will not slow it down too much.
It will slow it on roundtrip because pure ban is bigger. Hence little more delay needs happen on RRDL
But i don't let tibcsi run RRDL 8.
It will mess with write-2-read tuning from CPU side.
Give and take, slow one down increase speed on another.
Variable editor of Database.I don't know that, is it a BIOS editor?
What a mess.Variable editor of Database.
One of the ways to access removed GUI-Menu options.
Soo it looks?
WhiteAPEX 9901_2002 Base ~ Safedisk
EncoreApex 9901_1002 Base ~ Safedisk
Final 2002/1002 Base ~ Safedisk
2001/1001 "OG" Base ~ Shamino ? 89% Confident.
Whoever fights with whoever @ HQ. You guys missed to edit WhiteAPEX page. You only changed Encore Page yesterday.
But talk about 2002 base, that's not on the site, haha.
Ahh silly heads.
Don't fight. You guys work at the same company ~ even with personal tuning differences 🤭🤭
Its funny from outsider perspective~~
APEX White:
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ASUS-1801.zip
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ASUS-1904.zip
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/MB/bios/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ASUS-2001.zip ~ SM ?
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ASUS-2002.zip ~ SD ?
APEX Black:
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ENCORE-ASUS-0801.zip
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ENCORE-ASUS-0904.zip
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/MB/bios/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ENCORE-ASUS-1001.zip ~ SM ?
https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/ROG-MAXIMUS-Z790-APEX-ENCORE-ASUS-1002.zip ~ SD ?
Idk who fights with whom, but you two are big silly heads ! 😋
First with BB now with SM 🙊🙉🙈
BB & SM work before coexisted in peace. Alpha & Beta turned to final.
Now its a casting show. Well its noticeable since some time now~
Unsure about 3rd player either, but get your stuff together 🤭
It can be that i mess up database order and its the exact opposite.
You silly heads run before .ZIP vs .zip. Now you run /MB/ vs /mb/
Such a trouble indexing.
EDIT:
Well that was fast
Thank you for stalking me ♥️
Thursday 22nd, 19:00 JST
Anhang anzeigen 974365
Today, 24th 16:00 JST
Anhang anzeigen 974366
Now, 16:30 JST
Anhang anzeigen 974367
Good Ty
Other way around was just confusing.
Please keep your inter-hq fights , hidden.
Its funny that "i" do notice again. Of all people.
Its fiiiine 🤭What a mess.
Maybe,Hm, could be interesting. BIOS support is questionable.
Please listen to me that you should be Thermal-Throttle stable.Hi @Veii, thanks for your answer. I didn't know that it was a new feature of the 14th gen, in my graph it is more noticeable how the peak of the PCores occurs at a maximum of 89 and the P7 shoots up to 97. I'm limited by my cooling capacity to run YC and not even think in SFT where the Package Power is surely going to 330W. I have to make an undervolt using the curve, I was thinking if it is more convenient to achieve a more positive slope if, for example, I raise almost all the points by +10mV (except P3 which I must correct because it goes to the floor), and then with AC, which By default in LLC4 it is 0.269, could I try later to lower it to 0.2, is the rational ok? I mean, thinking that my CPU reaches 6GHz at 1.423V according to its factory V/F
XMP is XMPOk, I'm going to do that, could I start with 8000, which is the XMP Profile? Something you told me is that VDDQ and TX are a fixed variable, my question is if I should take as an initial value, for example, 1.45V (which is the XMP value for 8000 2x16 A-die) for a 1.25v TX? , or do I look for a lower value, for example 1.4V (mem) / 1.2 (tx) as borders? That is my great doubt!
This is an interesting point. There was silence for two months, and now that the KS is about to come out, they may try to show off. Buying an Apex is a Pay2Win, as has been said many times, but I never thought that the Encore would have so many retraining problems. Then I changed the focus, trying to leave everything in Auto and trusting the BIOS, but I still have a lot of instability in SI, fundamentally looking for the delta, something that I think if you didn't mention it a while ago in OCN, no one was talking about it. Now I'm trying your SA advice on 1.14, VDDQ_Mem/TX deltas, and super low MC with an XMP profile. My case is simple and basic, because I am looking for stability and efficiency, not a score, but the rest, who do not understand why the not-so-new 8400@1.4 mems dont work, I think that is where the problem comes from, managing that frustration. The worrying thing is not the internal competition, but that there is no strong external competition in 1DPC. I'm going to try 1001 in one BIOS and 1002 in the second, with values in AUTO and then looking for the delta, to see if I notice any difference at 8000MT/s. Thank you for your contribution always.. doing a little research on SceWinBut hearing "Encore can't be stable on stock vs white Apex" from normal customers ~ it is a bit embarrassing.
Also !The worrying thing is not the internal competition, but that there is no strong external competition in 1DPC.
Use Bios flashback.I'm going to try 1001 in one BIOS and 1002 in the second, with values in AUTO and then looking for the delta,
I can currently not say how much is influenced due to CPU aware overrides.PS:I still have the spikes at P7, but I found out why the temperature rose so much, I had just tested AC at 0.3, which is not that high compared to my default value in LLC4 at 0.269. That difference and the adjustment of my V/F at P3 (+30mV), triggered the SVID and for this reason, in the transitions they made me reach thermal throttling.
Fused Curve vs Target Curve vs VID.I wonder why the OCTool reading indicates a lower value than the BIOS V/F, for example, 800MHz in my case should achieve 729v, however the OC Tool shows me 711v, and so on. Should I leave everything at default in LLC3 so that the factory values of the V/F can be seen?
Werde den sp noch auslesen. Habe mal die Schrauben bisschen gelockert. Habe erstmal verusucht WTRS und WTRL anzupassen. Hab jetzt 24 und 8 eingestellt. Hatte aber RRD_SG und RRD_dg gefixt.Die Berichte klingen nach einem überdruck Problem. Bzw eher ein krummer mount
Unterlegscheiben unter der Backplate erhöhen sogar den Druck davon.
Kannst du mir bitte den MC-SP 5x nacheinander auslesen lassen und mir die Werte davon durchgeben
Eins nach dem anderen.
CPU Write error.
WTR zu hoch.
WTRS immer 8 oder niedriger
WTRL meinstens doppelt RRDL mit ausnahmen.
tWR immer über WTRL mit ausnahmen.
#8 jedoch gehört der CPU. Meistens
CPU instabil. Wie erwähnt, bitte um ein remount bzw um ein 5*MC-SP check.
Federschrauben nur mit den fingerspitzen reindrehen.
Bzw anfangs gerne mit dem Schraubenzieher ansetzen und max andrehen, dann rausdrehen und alle 4 Schrauben mit den Fingerspitzen halten und reindrehen bis man nicht mehr kann.
Nach 25 min kam error 3. Also wtrl, wtrs Problem.
Vddq höher stellen?Anhang anzeigen 974495
Anhang anzeigen 974496
VDDQ error, sehr warscheinlich
WTR is korrekt so.
Write errors können von der CPU kommen, da diese die Writes kontrolliert.
Die Reads werden innerhalb des Ramspeichers ausgeführt.
Die Writes dürfen specifications brechen, da wir 2 individuelle MC-Links haben, welche das tBurstChop 8 limit leicht umgehen.
Reads müssen jedoch auf den RAM warten und somit bleibt BurstLength 16, bzw BurstChop 8.
Jeder Read geschieht in 8er clocks. Keine 7 keine 9.
8 , verschoben 12, oder doppelt von 8 = 16