# Timing rules



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 19, 2013)

Working on tightening my timings, mainly secondary at this point, and I keep seeing people mentioning rules that many don't seem to follow. Like tRAS is supposed to stay above CL + tRCD + 2, but I've plenty of people drop tRAS to the floor without issue. I've seen a similar formula for tFAW.

And for stuff like tREF and tRFC what increments am I supposed to move those in? They're both such random numbers it makes me feel like they're supposed to follow a formula.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 19, 2013)

ive been doing this also

what ive learnt, two days studying.... got a headache as well lol

http://forum-en.msi.com/faq/article/ddr3-memory-timings-explained


in my notes i got some formulas for better timings.

so far im 2500mhz 11-13-13-31 1T 300ns 1.65v fully stable


heres some for rock solid stable:

TRAS = CL + TRCD + TRP (+/-1)

TRC = TRAS + TRP

TWR = TCL-1 + burst length/2 + TWTR


some for tighter:

TRC = CL + TRAS

TRAS = TCL + TRCD + TRP/2 + 2


What im looking for is if there is a calculation to guage whether higherspeed/looser timing vs lowerspeed/tighter timing

its easy doing a maxmem/aida test but theyre inconsistent and are based on cpu/cpunb/ht which changes with frequencies


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 19, 2013)

d1nky said:


> TRAS = CL   TRCD   TRP ( /-1)



Not sure I buy this. Kits don't even follow this from the factory. You aren't, I'm not, nobody is. Just seems plain wrong. And this is what I keep running into which makes me think nobody knows what they're talking about.

Also why does quoting get rid of plus signs?


----------



## d1nky (Jun 19, 2013)

its in that guide. i used there formulas on a lot of factory kits and most are out.

but if ya read that article it explains tras cant be completed until cl-trcd-trp has completed.

not many peple do know the timings thing, ive been learning for about a week and asked but didnt get many responses.

ive even learnt about block cycles and shit 

however those formulas (stability) ones got me a memtest pass at 2600mhz


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 19, 2013)

I see nothing in that guide that explains why their tRAS formula doesn't match any kit I've seen. You say you followed it for 2600 but not for 2500? Cause 11+13+13=37, not 31.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 19, 2013)

that got me bootable on something ive never booted on before.

the other formulas i posted (tighter) ones are what im using.

if that passes, i drop tras or trc down one until it errors, then voltage back down until it errors, and finally try 1T


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 19, 2013)

Just confuses me when there are rules you don't really need to follow. Are we hurting performance by running tRAS so low, and if so why are kits shipped with those timings in the first place?



d1nky said:


> its easy doing a maxmem/aida test but theyre inconsistent and are based on cpu/cpunb/ht which changes with frequencies



I do all those plus pi, but I repeat them and look at the averages, going by that I want to dig into tRFC next. Haven't even tried testing tREF, it's at 8320. Now what am I supposed to do with that? Not moving it one notch at a time that's for sure.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 19, 2013)

i dont tbh, i was trying to work out why all profiles dont match the formulas. i guess its stability at said speed.

im subbed to this as i want to know more.

maybe some other more experienced people may know.. hopefully


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2013)

Trying to give the stable formulas a try but I can't find anything resembling burst length/2 on my Asus board.

Ok tried a few things. tREF hurt my performance. tRFC gave me the biggest latency drop I've seen on secondary timings. tRAS didn't seem to effect score with either the loose or tight formula, but loose let me boot a lower tRFC.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

burstlength for DDR3 = 8. its binned code or something. forgot to mention so BL/2 = 4

ive left the majority of subtimings alone. as the formulas didnt help, i used 

TRC = CL + TRAS

TRAS = TCL + TRCD + TRP/2 + 2

and tightened them up again.

ive also been told that lower ns latency damages the ram at higher speeds. i.e 160ns and less.

i would love to know the formula RAM makers use.


today ill test some more, as i want to guage speed vs timing


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2013)

So far tFAW, tWCL, tREF, tRRD, and tRAS haven't helped my scores in any of the "short" benchmarks. Maybe a longer test would expose something, but it's not worth 10 hours of memtest if I'm not seeing the benefit.

I think my last tweak will be the tRFC as the drop in latency I got from cutting that in half was equal to a tRCD drop.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 20, 2013)

I remember reviews of the Athlon 64 with DDR1 memory being sensitive to TRAS.  There was an optimal timing where memory bandwidth would peak and the reviewers would need to test each new processor model to see what the optimal TRAS was.  They did tests like the one below http://www.anandtech.com/show/1948/5.  I am not sure if this is still the situation with more modern processors and memory controllers.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jun 20, 2013)

Changing the Refresh rate from 7.8 to 3.9 can be VERY important, dependant on the module... the 2400 Transcend 10-13-11 i have, require that, my Gskill 2000 9-9-9 do not, to reach good speeds and timings...tREF does matter too, but it was negligible compared to the first one...having a low TRC improves the Latency and throughput of the NB too, at least on AM3


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

ive just been testing a few different configs.

i loaded 2133mhz with 1600 jedec subtimings, and well it knocked TEN minutes off a memtest pass. i thought wow! but the end was full of errors. so sub timings matter a lot.

that older stuff from reviews etc is a bit obsolete so ive heard.


here is a comparison between stock 2133 and 2500mhz(slightly looser)



i really need to work on the subtimings to squeeze more out but 1T gives me a gain again.


i feel like emailing Gskill asking for a formula!


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 20, 2013)

You know, it's exceedingly difficult to find information on secondary timings, as I'm sure you're aware (I assumed you tried to Google it first). My understanding of DRAM timings in general is that many timings overlap with respect to when they actually occur during any memory operation and several timings occur within the primary timings. The real benefit from reducing secondary timings would really be to stabilize lower primary timings at any given frequency as opposed to actually improving performance. Beyond that, I'm not sure if I can be very helpful.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> many timings overlap with respect to when they actually occur during any memory operation and several timings occur within the primary timings



we need a formula for just that or some sort of rule.

its easy knocking numbers down but its difficult to find an order or the correct way. from what ive read there is a formula in the madness but no one knows, publicly anyway.

for example if, CL-TRCD-TRP-TRAS were x-x-x-x

what would the subtimings be....

and looking at my jedec profiles the subtimings follow some sort of formula as they are all different.



HELP IS NEEDED


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 20, 2013)

d1nky said:


> we need a formula for just that or some sort of rule.



No you don't. You need to understand what you're changing, not use a forumula that figures it out for you. It's not that simple and it varies between any different DRAM ICs.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

to understand it all, well id basically need a PHD in dram.

ive been reading up on these two links for some time, and its still not clear

so excuse me if i seem like a noob, but i do need some direction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random-access_memory
http://forum-en.msi.com/faq/article/ddr3-memory-timings-explained


edit lost another link


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 20, 2013)

d1nky said:


> to understand it all, well id basically need a PHD in dram.



Yeah, basically. What the descriptions of the timings do makes sense when you know what the DRAM is doing. I recommend learning a bit about DRAM or just leaving them be. You're not going to see any amazing benefits from changing secondary or tertiary timings, even if you know exactly what you're doing.

You're looking for an easy answer where these is none. I'm just saying.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

yea i do feel its all over my head, i actually got a headache the other day from reading for several hours.


i guess ill keep my secondary timings the same, oc higher speeds and try keep the main ones as tight as possible. currently stable @ 2500mhz 11-13-13-31 1T

my copy/read/write really depend on cpu speed but have gained, latency has dropped loads. and at stock cpu speeds ive gained a few fps in physics, just from oc ram.

maybe when im older ill get a phd in dram but im too young now lol

i can see why many people dont have a clue about subtimings


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 20, 2013)

d1nky said:


> maybe when im older ill get a phd in dram but im too young now lol



A bachelors in computer science or electrical engineering will typically help. There isn't really isn't such a thing as a Ph.D in DRAM.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

NO wayy..... LOL

sorry lan derf ha for overtaking the thread.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm a bit surprised it's not more well covered because you'd think anyone who is serious about benchmarking would be dealing with this regularly. I know I found at least one sub-timing that's reducing my latency by a whole point.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

would be nice if there were some sort of order/calculation without having to understand the ins and outs oof memory.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2013)

It seems motherboard bios come with some basic ability in that regard with auto settings when you increase clock speed, but it's hit or miss.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jun 20, 2013)

From what i was able to gather, most professional overclockers that know the secrets of ram, tend not to tell their tricks regarding that, because it seems to be one of the hardest things to get right


----------



## Sasqui (Jun 20, 2013)

Nice thread, subb'd.

I suspect, like everything...  there's a tradeoff between secondary timings and speed (and stability) + the interelationships with other timings.

If there is a general theory of relativity for DRAM timings, I'd like to see it... after reading this, I doubt it's linear like x+x+x+x, there's probably some x^(y-z) stuff going on.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

theres a couple guys on this site that seem to masters of ram, wonder if theyll chip in.


and i doubt its a secret or something to be hidden, unless its used in competition.


ram manufacturers must have a formula like sasqui said above. even a laymans guide would be good.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> You're not going to see any amazing benefits from changing secondary or tertiary timings, even if you know exactly what you're doing.
> 
> You're looking for an easy answer where these is none. I'm just saying.



I see almost 25% more memory performance from tertiary timing adjustments at lower and at higher speeds, depending on the board used. Does it affect overall performance? marginally.


Not all boards use the exact same labels for timings, either, so that complicates things.

As to formulas for memory timings, there is not one for general use. finding out what each IC likes is easy, simply go to the IC OEM's website, download the whitepapers, and decipher the mess inside. It's not really that hard, for me.

Like Samsung DDR3 ICs...when I got them, I read the provided info, and found that there is a relation between CAS Latency, and tWCL. Nobody was talking about tWCL is any way, on any forum I could find. Nothing in extreme sites, nothing in normal sites...so I posted some info in my review on what I found during testing.


Today, you'll find countless mentions of tWCL on extreme forums, looking at efficiency tweaks or pushing a stick higher. Did I point that setting out? Maybe..but probably not. If you took the time to adjust each individual setting, you would have discovered the same just as easy.




d1nky said:


> theres a couple guys on this site that seem to masters of ram, wonder if theyll chip in.




So...yous wants dat timings guide, eh? Imma goona tell you, it doesn't exist, and that it changes with every platform, too. Intel SNB and IVB like some settings, Haswell, completely different. AMD, yet another set of settings to worry about.


I should start giving courses, with high entry fees. 


Dumo is a hidden Guru on this stuff. That guy..his ram...OMG...


----------



## d1nky (Jun 20, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> So...yous wants dat timings guide, eh? Imma goona tell you, it doesn't exist, and that it changes with every platform, too. Intel SNB and IVB like some settings, Haswell, completely different. AMD, yet another set of settings to worry about



wasnt look for the answer, just direction. 

seems a bit alien going in and lowering numbers thinking they have an effect when actually they could be doing nothing or worse.

i like what you said about the manufacturers schematics. 

guess its in the art of tweaking and finding out for ourselves.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2013)

d1nky said:


> guess its in the art of tweaking and finding out for ourselves.



Yes, very much so. I could give you general guidelines, as I have for years for many members here. From general user to forum moderators, there are many people here running timings I gave them.

Like MXPhenom...his sticks wouldn't work with his board at all until I told him what timings to change...and rather than changing things to make them looser...or increasing voltage, I had him TIGHTEN secondaries. Just three settings, set tighter, and everything worked perfectly.


I don't think I'm all that bright, honestly, so if I can figure this out ,anyone can, but as you said, it does involve devoting some time and attention to it. I have literally 1000's of pages of notes from memory clocking over the past 10 years or so. Memory is what I like to play with. I got into reviewing boards, since some boards offer better options than others, and what better way to get the boards I wanted to overclock my memory with?

I've recently started to focus more on memory, and less on boards. I have about 20 Z87 boards for review, and then I might completely switch to memory only, while going to school in the fall. Memory just offers me too much fun. I'd rather have one excellent board and 5 or 6 good memory kits to play with, than all these motherboards.


----------



## m1dg3t (Jun 20, 2013)

Dumo = RAM God! 

I hate messing with RAM, frustrating as all hell to max out


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 20, 2013)

wow, so much math. i just try the timings for the next lowest clock. if it doesnt work, i try upping one by one


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 20, 2013)

I feel like there must be some catch to this tRFC thing. I dropped it from 171 to 88 and it's appears to pass memtest. Should I just take it to the floor or can it damage something?

@cadaveca
I changed my tWCL down a notch after seeing your samsung review mention that. Even though I doubt I have Samsung chips it seems whenever I look up what timings to try I end up in a thread about those chips and what works for them seems to work for my sticks.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 20, 2013)

I personally tweek for hours and generally fall upon best settings to be honest I think I do ok but on my amd rig that's taking some time as is the heat tradeoff in cpu max clock v memory , how high would you all push the voltage on 1.5v ram reasonably well cooled.

Oh and thanks I had not thought of actually looking up the ic info doh.

GDAMIT now I wanna crack my memory open.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 20, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> @cadaveca
> I changed my tWCL down a notch after seeing your samsung review mention that. Even though I doubt I have Samsung chips it seems whenever I look up what timings to try I end up in a thread about those chips and what works for them seems to work for my sticks.



Yeah, it seemed really odd to me that this crucial timing was something not looked at or at least talked about until after I posted that review. Obviously the OEMs knew, or they wouldn't have included the option as adjustable.

and yeah, the same rules, in general, apply as you scale clocks up, it's when you start to hit the limits that what you have to tweak changes, or if the IC density changes, like going from 2 GB sticks to 4 GB to 8 GB requires you adjust things as well.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 21, 2013)

can we keep this thread alive for RAM timings and alike. turn into some informational help each other out kind of thread.?! and i like posting links that i find good reads!


well i was thinking last night, and if hypothetically i manufactured some ram from scratch how would i create timings profiles for such. id guess most manufacturers have templates etc.

but after testing the ram for its maximum voltage handling/speeds etc. they get binned based on the tests. 

so if your ram is X speed, from that the mb/s (transfer rate) is worked out and that sets out a formula to work the timings.

now the timings act like a set of instructions for delays and precharging cells in order for data to be transferred, based on the X speed/timings.

what ive learnt so far.... ive seen something for RAM profiling and it looks like physics... maybe DRAM physics LOL

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Understanding-RAM-Timings/26/3

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/arti...o-Know-About-DDR-DDR2-and-DDR3-Memories/167/5


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 25, 2013)

I tried tRAS at half the formula recommend speed thinking it might not cause any stability issues if it's running at twice the speed instead of something irregular. I was at 9-10-10-28, tried 9-10-10-14 and it worked fine, but I can report zero performance benefit. So I'd say only bother adjusting tRAS for the sake of stability at higher overclocks.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 26, 2013)

i havent been paying much attention lately, but if i get my ram to 2550mhz with slightly looser timings my performance is a lot better.... and benching is phenenenenenemonal, was able to hit 10k physics 3dmark firestrike, but stock speed/timings no chance.


after i finished setting a waterloop i want to learn about this and hopefully come with some sort of strategy.

i messaged gskill asking if theres things i should and shouldnt do, they replied saying its mainly in the major timings and didnt help lol


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 26, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I tried tRAS at half the formula recommend speed thinking it might not cause any stability issues if it's running at twice the speed instead of something irregular. I was at 9-10-10-28, tried 9-10-10-14 and it worked fine, but I can report zero performance benefit. So I'd say only bother adjusting tRAS for the sake of stability at higher overclocks.



I would imagine that tRAS would improve the amount of latency to read data out of a DRAM page that the IMC isn't currently on. It's the amount of time (in clocks) to change which DRAM row (page) is being selected. This only impacts data that is accessed from that page for the first time, subsequent reads from the same page don't get impacted by tRAS.

So even though your bandwidth might be unchanged, your latency may have dropped as a result but only during random reads from different DRAM pages.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 26, 2013)

I reran the tests again just for you. Multiple runs of Aida, maxxmem, and super pi all say nada. If I ran 32m all day long and averaged it out I could see something but I'd have to file that under too small to bother. Maybe it can help someone somewhere at some point but not me. 

So far mhz, CL, tRCD, tRP, and tRFC are all I've found that increase scores on a large enough scale for me to confirm.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 28, 2013)

i see the biggest improvements from upping my cpunb and with a bit more northbridge voltage.

changing speeds or timings help with the latency and slightly improve read/write/copy


does anyone know if its ok to copy the XMP profile for AMD chips? otherwise i have no settings to copy lol


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 28, 2013)

d1nky said:


> i see the biggest improvements from upping my cpunb and with a bit more northbridge voltage.
> 
> changing speeds or timings help with the latency and slightly improve read/write/copy
> 
> ...



Im using mine to get to 2145 so I doubt it can hurt plus following this thread ive messed with a fair few but I am not finding any better timings at this speed I did at 1333 , 1600 and 1800-2000 but not near my memories top frequency , mushkin got them pretty close.

Argh phones r crap.


----------



## erocker (Jun 28, 2013)

d1nky said:


> does anyone know if its ok to copy the XMP profile for AMD chips? otherwise i have no settings to copy lol



Well... It works for some things but not for others. It's a good place to start though.

Just to add a couple cents to this thread I've found that sometimes one or two sub-timings can be the difference between a running and stable system and a system that won't boot at all.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 28, 2013)

d1nky said:


> i havent been paying much attention lately, but if i get my ram to 2550mhz with slightly looser timings my performance is a lot better.... and benching is phenenenenenemonal, was able to hit 10k physics 3dmark firestrike, but stock speed/timings no chance.
> 
> 
> after i finished setting a waterloop i want to learn about this and hopefully come with some sort of strategy.
> ...



What's your northbridge and ht frequency at that memory speed please and how's your memory cooled.


----------



## erocker (Jun 28, 2013)

Leave HT frequency alone! It does nothing!!!

I found with Bulldozer and later CPU's anything over 2400mhz NB requires a lot more voltage if it's going to be stable at all.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 28, 2013)

erocker said:


> Leave HT frequency alone! It does nothing!!!
> 
> I found with Bulldozer and later CPU's anything over 2400mhz NB requires a lot more voltage if it's going to be stable at all.


I know what your saying but due to other component speeds I can now run it higher or lower then spec but rarely on spec so I asked out of interest no need to shout 
Plus as you well know pushing every clock you can as high as you can is a bit addictive but fraught with a new issue every try so high memory speeds might need lower nb speeds forsstability which is actually why I asked that and nb speed affects memory a lot.


----------



## erocker (Jun 28, 2013)

It was just excitement!!! THIS IS SHOUTING!!!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 29, 2013)

I got a consistent 0.002% performance boost by raising tREF from 8320 to 10400. Yes I had to go back and forth a lot to confirm that one. I picked that number because the highest I saw in reviews was 9360 which is a 1040 step so I just ran with that. I'm reasonably confident that's the end of the road for tweaks with my system at least.


----------



## niko084 (Jun 29, 2013)

I hope some of you have spent this much time clocking your gpu/cpu 

I haven't spent a serious amount of time playing with memory timings since getting my first i7.
But now this makes me want to again, blast you benchmarkers... It's an addiction gotta push for the top!


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 29, 2013)

erocker said:


> Leave HT frequency alone! It does nothing!!!
> 
> I found with Bulldozer and later CPU's anything over 2400mhz NB requires a lot more voltage if it's going to be stable at all.



Just to expand upon this, HT does nothing for CPU performance, I hardly say that it does nothing. For everyone else (who may not know,) the hyper-transport link is for all PCI-E and southbridge communication. Pushing HT too high makes your NB on the motherboard work harder (not just the CPU,) and won't result in increased performance. If for some reason you were ever able to saturate HT between video cards, SATA, and such, then you would see a performance boost but that's incredibly unlikely.

As for the CPUNB speed, I've found that with the 940, 960t, and 965 that 2.6Ghz was usually a sweet spot without needing too much voltage and offered the best memory performance at 3.4-3.8Ghz on the Phenom IIs I've owned in the past. Maybe I was lucky.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 29, 2013)

i use all these higher frequencies for benching. im able to get loads better scores with cpunb around 2.7ghz HT about 2.7ghz cpu 5ghz+ ram from 2450-2550mhz

volts really depend on temps and i usually give about 0.1 extra on most. 

i would thought my cpu being AMD copying an xmp profile is wrong as theres different stepping etc but id have to copy a 1800 Jedec which would be difficult to get stable at 5ghz cpu


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 29, 2013)

d1nky said:


> i use all these higher frequencies for benching. im able to get loads better scores with cpunb around 2.7ghz HT about 2.7ghz cpu 5ghz  ram from 2450-2550mhz



There also is a point of diminishing returns when a higher CPUNB doesn't offer you better performance. I've found that there is a sweet spot depending on what frequency you're running the core at, it's just a matter of finding it. In this case though, higher isn't always better.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 29, 2013)

i have noticed this effect, its the same when my cpu goes above 5.1ghz it has a negative effect. 

plus theres only a certain amount of data the cpu can process no matter the clock, so i think its kind of at its limits. 


however i did boot with a 2.9ghz cpunb and ran a maxmem with stock speed and setting and well it was pretty darn good. definitely not stable tho.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 12, 2013)

I'd like to see if anyone else can confirm this tweak. Lowering vccsa made a consist, however small, score improvement. Note this is on a platform where vccsa and vccio are supposedly linked. I say supposedly because according to aida vccio didn't get any lower which is just confusing.

vccsa 0.925v






vccsa 0.8v


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 12, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> You know, it's exceedingly difficult to find information on secondary timings, as I'm sure you're aware (I assumed you tried to Google it first). My understanding of DRAM timings in general is that many timings overlap with respect to when they actually occur during any memory operation and several timings occur within the primary timings. The real benefit from reducing secondary timings would really be to stabilize lower primary timings at any given frequency as opposed to actually improving performance. Beyond that, I'm not sure if I can be very helpful.


Best post in this thread so far...



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I'd like to see if anyone else can confirm this tweak. Lowering vccsa made a consist, however small, score improvement.


Those differences are WELL within the margin of error/differences between runs...as you mentioned in the quoted post below, actually.


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 12, 2013)

d1nky said:


> ive been doing this also
> 
> what ive learnt, two days studying.... got a headache as well lol
> 
> ...



I tested memory, sometimes 2133MHz at cas 9 gives better performance. Maybe you can get 2400MHz cas 9 then you have a winner


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 12, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Those differences are WELL within the margin of error/differences between runs...as you mentioned in the quoted post below, actually.



I'm not joking when I say consistent. I test and test and test and I can ONLY get those scores with those respective voltages. I'm very familiar with the score ranges.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 12, 2013)

these timings ^^^ 11-13-13 allow me to get my speeds quite high. which in benchmarks is doing me well.

i need to tweak more to get my timings down. 2133mhz at CL11s is pretty mundane. im tied between speed or tight timings lol


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 13, 2013)

Finally figured it out. It was a "boot variance" coincidence. Idk what the proper term is but some benchers may have noticed scores are better on some reboots more than others regardless of how long you let the system settle. So I left the voltage alone, rebooted, ran 10 times looking at the peak scores. Rebooted 6 more times repeating that sequence and found the scores to be up and down almost every other time which explains why I thought it was coinciding with the voltage change since I kept changing it every other time.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 13, 2013)

LOL kind of cat and mouse effect!


----------

