AMD's Ryzen Cache Analyzed - Improvements; Improveable; CCX Compromises

C_Wiz · Mar 7, 2017

Grings said:
Im seeing too many badly theorycrafted reasons for that bad gaming performance (that disabling smt fixes)

We actually covered that in an update on sunday if you are interested : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-8/retour-smt-mode-high-performance.html

Long story short, some Windows 10 Anniversary Update scheduler settings aren't set the same way for Ryzen and Intel CPUs. We tested that and updated our article accordingly.

geon2k2 said:
My understanding from hardware.fr is that the CCX complex runs at the same frequency as the memory, and somehow the bandwidth is shared between inter module communication and memory access.

This is the reason for which higher memory frequency will provide much better results as the bandwidth for inter-module communication increases with frequency. From 2133 to 3200 the bandwidth for internal communication increases from 34GB/s to 51GB/s, and that's why the witcher 3 benchmark posted above scales so well, not necessarily due to faster memory, which by itself has little impact as we saw numerous times, but because the communication between modules increases drastically with better memory frequency.

Actually the Witcher 3 "bench" is from a MSI/Intel advert (if I remember correctly).

But your overall point is exactly correct : data fabric clock is set with memory (so DDR4-2400 = 1200 MHz clock for that bus), so if you are limited there, you'll see a componding effect by pushing memory higher.

mastrdrver · Mar 7, 2017

Wark0 said:
No, it's not the case with final bios :

http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Hardware/hfr/dossier-1800x-retour-sujet_1017196_20.htm#t10089095

When was final BIOS?

Because here's what Stilt originally got which is no where near what they got. Though this is from last Thursday and I've not been keeping up with how often BIOSes have been released.

Code:

Logical Processor to Cache Map:
*---------------  Data Cache          0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
*---------------  Instruction Cache   0, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
*---------------  Unified Cache       0, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
*---------------  Unified Cache       1, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Data Cache          1, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Instruction Cache   1, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Unified Cache       2, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Unified Cache       3, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Data Cache          2, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Instruction Cache   2, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Unified Cache       4, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Unified Cache       5, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---*------------  Data Cache          3, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---*------------  Instruction Cache   3, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---*------------  Unified Cache       6, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---*------------  Unified Cache       7, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Data Cache          4, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Instruction Cache   4, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Unified Cache       8, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Unified Cache       9, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Data Cache          5, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Instruction Cache   5, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Unified Cache      10, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Unified Cache      11, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
------*---------  Data Cache          6, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------*---------  Instruction Cache   6, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------*---------  Unified Cache      12, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------*---------  Unified Cache      13, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Data Cache          7, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Instruction Cache   7, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Unified Cache      14, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Unified Cache      15, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Data Cache          8, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Instruction Cache   8, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Unified Cache      16, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Unified Cache      17, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---------*------  Data Cache          9, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------*------  Instruction Cache   9, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---------*------  Unified Cache      18, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------*------  Unified Cache      19, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Data Cache         10, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Instruction Cache  10, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Unified Cache      20, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Unified Cache      21, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Data Cache         11, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Instruction Cache  11, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Unified Cache      22, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Unified Cache      23, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
------------*---  Data Cache         12, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------*---  Instruction Cache  12, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------------*---  Unified Cache      24, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------*---  Unified Cache      25, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Data Cache         13, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Instruction Cache  13, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Unified Cache      26, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Unified Cache      27, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Data Cache         14, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Instruction Cache  14, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Unified Cache      28, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Unified Cache      29, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---------------*  Data Cache         15, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------------*  Instruction Cache  15, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---------------*  Unified Cache      30, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------------*  Unified Cache      31, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64

C_Wiz · Mar 7, 2017

mastrdrver said:
When was final BIOS?

The Asus BIOS (5704) is dated 23/02 (it wasn't available publicly then obviously, but same bios is available on Asus's website now, we checked checksums to confirm it's the same). This is the BIOS that includes the "final" (before launch) microcode update from AMD. Cache is shown correctly there as wark0 posted earlier in the thread (here : http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Hardware/hfr/dossier-1800x-retour-sujet_1017196_20.htm#t10089095 )

To be clear, 5704 was not the BIOS given to reviewers (I think 5702 ?) on the motherboards by AMD, you had to flash it yourself but that's pretty common with launchs and AMD gave many heads up on that.

nemesis.ie · Mar 7, 2017

Just putting this out there as another data point for the RAM:

http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...latform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259

Imsochobo · Mar 7, 2017

Grings said:
Im seeing too many badly theorycrafted reasons for that bad gaming performance (that disabling smt fixes)

I can confirm that Windows 10 is a big issue and could cause 10FPS throughout most games.
SMT is also an issue but Windows 10 is worse than Windows 7 and Linux in terms of performance, most games have been benched in Windows 10.
I cannot find the same findings with a Xeon 2680 V2, it only drops a fps in windows 10 instead of 10 and in csgo 20 for me.

I can confirm something is iffy.

C_Wiz · Mar 7, 2017

Imsochobo said:
I can confirm that Windows 10 is a big issue and could cause 10FPS throughout most games.
SMT is also an issue but Windows 10 is worse than Windows 7 and Linux in terms of performance, most games have been benched in Windows 10.
I cannot find the same findings with a Xeon 2680 V2, it only drops a fps in windows 10 instead of 10 and in csgo 20 for me.

I can confirm something is iffy.

Again, we confirmed that scheduler isn't configured the same way for Ryzen and Intel CPUs in Windows 10, which explains the discrepencies between SMT OFF and ON in games, check my link above.

airfathaaaaa · Mar 7, 2017

the54thvoid said:
So...... Is this AMD's equivalent to Nvidia not doing Async? And can software coding help address this?

this is windows load balancing working like it id on nehalems and first gen skylakes

basicly windows treats ryzen as a massive 16 core cpu instead of 8c 16t
and that basicly creates all of the other problems that this cpu has because normally windows throw all of the heavy workloads into the physical cores and let the rest on the logical ones but here windows throw everything at everything resulting on the cpu to have to rely on "stealing" ram from the system ram because windows thinks it has a massive 138mb l3

and due to the nature of the smt some times when windows keeps a thread on the cpu (remember amd says that a ccx is a cpu not a core) the data on the l3 gets "lost" and thus windows re issues a new load to the said thread but the data is already on l3 thus resulting on the core parking bug because the cpu needs to pause the new workload to flush the identical one that is already on the l3

Kanan · Mar 7, 2017

airfathaaaaa said:
this is windows load balancing working like it id on nehalems and first gen skylakes

basicly windows treats ryzen as a massive 16 core cpu instead of 8c 16t
and that basicly creates all of the other problems that this cpu has because normally windows throw all of the heavy workloads into the physical cores and let the rest on the logical ones but here windows throw everything at everything resulting on the cpu to have to rely on "stealing" ram from the system ram because windows thinks it has a massive 138mb l3

and due to the nature of the smt some times when windows keeps a thread on the cpu (remember amd says that a ccx is a cpu not a core) the data on the l3 gets "lost" and thus windows re issues a new load to the said thread but the data is already on l3 thus resulting on the core parking bug because the cpu needs to pause the new workload to flush the identical one that is already on the l3

How did you come to this conclusion?

Gasaraki · Mar 7, 2017

Camm said:
One does wonder if the 4 core parts will suffer the same fate since it will be one straight core complex.

The quad cores might be a beast!

airfathaaaaa · Mar 7, 2017

Kanan said:
How did you come to this conclusion?

we already have the full picture of the problems

and we already have similiar problems in the past(identical to be honest ) its not really hard to connect the dots especially when we know that the smt taps into all the three caches

also a really good video to watch

r9 · Mar 7, 2017

geon2k2 said:
If this is the case, why on earth didn't AMD just send an email to Microsoft to modify the scheduler in the way they wanted, just before the launch or even better, why they didn't release a driver. In the old days for Athlon X2 there was a driver called dual core optimizer.

Good question. Also even all of that makes a lot of sense might be just load of BS who knows. But like I've said to many times already, for the love of God please somebody disable smt and one of the CCX and bench games and compare. If the scores sucks the same, means thread/cache shuffle has nothing to do with it.

r9 · Mar 7, 2017

akumod77 said:
I got it from Thailand (i think) tech website Zolkorn. Here's the link http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.zolkorn.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core/4/

In their review they either the found the answer to the poor gaming performance of Ryzen or they are doing something very wrong with the 7700k lol. Because in their test ryzen is matching 7700k more or less. And that is not bad taking into consideration ryzen will dominate everything else.

mastrdrver · Mar 8, 2017

C_Wiz said:
The Asus BIOS (5704) is dated 23/02 (it wasn't available publicly then obviously, but same bios is available on Asus's website now, we checked checksums to confirm it's the same). This is the BIOS that includes the "final" (before launch) microcode update from AMD. Cache is shown correctly there as wark0 posted earlier in the thread (here : http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Hardware/hfr/dossier-1800x-retour-sujet_1017196_20.htm#t10089095 )

To be clear, 5704 was not the BIOS given to reviewers (I think 5702 ?) on the motherboards by AMD, you had to flash it yourself but that's pretty common with launchs and AMD gave many heads up on that.

Ok I understand you now, thanks.

How much performance is left in Ryzen once things get tweaked out? 10%?

jahramika · Mar 8, 2017

Imsochobo said:
I can confirm that Windows 10 is a big issue and could cause 10FPS throughout most games.
SMT is also an issue but Windows 10 is worse than Windows 7 and Linux in terms of performance, most games have been benched in Windows 10.
I cannot find the same findings with a Xeon 2680 V2, it only drops a fps in windows 10 instead of 10 and in csgo 20 for me.

I can confirm something is iffy.

My windows 10 constantly keeps switching to Power Saving Mode setting.

nemesis.ie · Mar 8, 2017

I highly recommend everyone to take a look at this:

Some vary salient points in there and also showing that Bulldozer seems to have overtaken 2500k in gaming over time ...

EarthDog · Mar 8, 2017

Aging with this vid... I think its the third thread it was posted in already.

TRWOV · Mar 8, 2017

It all depends on how you see things really. If you want absolutely the best gaming performance then stick with Intel. If you need a CPU with lots of threads that can also game pretty well then go for the R7s.

My main gaming rig still has a 3770k, haven't found a reason to upgrade yet. Same with my Steambox build, running a 4590. I'll replace all my crunchers with 1700s, that's a given.

Shihab · Mar 8, 2017

Getting GTX970 feels for some reason. Also, Bulldozer "modularity."
Anyone tried to disable 4 cores (or 7, to be safe) in BIOS and see how it fares?

TRWOV said:
It all depends on how you see things really. If you want absolutely the best gaming performance then stick with Intel. If you need a CPU with lots of threads that can also game pretty well but doesn't cost an arm and a leg, then go for the R7s.

Fixed that for you.
Admittedly, first time I saw the Zen reviews I thought that it'd kill intel in anything outside games. Then I remembered that even industry standard productivity software can be -and often is- embarrassingly single threaded, so a combination of both (core count and per-core IPC) is often needed, and here Intel still reigns, as long as price isn't a factor.

nemesis.ie said:
I highly recommend everyone to take a look at this:

Some vary salient points in there and also showing that Bulldozer seems to have overtaken 2500k in gaming over time ...

IMO, saying that that channel is merely an AMD apologist would be an understatment.
(And I have a nagging feeling that I've already said that somewhere around here....)

mastrdrver · Mar 9, 2017

nemesis.ie said:
I highly recommend everyone to take a look at this:

Some vary salient points in there and also showing that Bulldozer seems to have overtaken 2500k in gaming over time ...

I think this is a better video with this post about Nehalem compared to Yorkfield:

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/why-nehalem-for-games-is-not-better-than-yorkfield.44382/

mcraygsx · Mar 9, 2017

Vlada011 said:
If Skylake-E and Kaby Lake-E samples are finished I don;t know how much Intel could change to improve his tragic position where his 1700$ worth CPU lost from 500$ AMD with 2 core less and much less power consumption, almost half.
Even if Intel catch AMD that would be with 8 and 10 cores processors and 150W power consumption.
Because of that upgrade on AMD is good choice at the moment.
Special if someone want small PC, mATX mobo, fanless 500W PSU and RX 580 + 1800X.

I don;t want to comment at all rumors about some strange lags, and some hidden problems of AMD.
Their CPU on paper shine, numbers are fantastic. If powerfull Intel fall so low that need to justify his presents with i7-7700K and
4.5GHz in games locked on 2 and 4 cores and on that way distract customers from AMD, than really no word. No one will help you except i7-7700K.
Everyone who sabotage real picture of AMD processor is enemy of enthusiasts and improvements and shoot in own legs.
Because AMD give you CPU capable to beat i7-6950X on LN2 for 500$, you can buy world recorder for 500$, with 2 core less, and far smaller power consumption.

In Windows 10 and DX12 people could get far better performance than Intel Broadwell-E. But Intel didn;t do nothing to provide that. We non stop listen about some walls and no space for improvements. No space to drain same architecture 5 years, everything what they done with X79 and X99 could fit in single socket, but there is space for new generations.

Well said, enthusiast should be thankful we have a real competition in high end CPU. This was my first AMD CPU and I am clearly impressed by 1800X and amazing by how much money I have thrown at Intel for better IPC. And AMD just gave me a 6900K/6850K equivalent for $499.

FordGT90Concept · Mar 9, 2017

When one core accesses another core's memory, it behaves like an L4 instead of an L3. The extra latency at L4 is still much better than the system RAM so, I really don't see the cause for the fuss.

In fact, it does look like 1800X's dedicated L3 (~15 ns) is faster than i7-6900K (~17ns).

TheLaughingMan · Mar 9, 2017

FordGT90Concept said:
When one core accesses another core's memory, it behaves like an L4 instead of an L3. The extra latency at L4 is still much better than the system RAM so, I really don't see the cause for the fuss.

In fact, it does look like 1800X's dedicated L3 (~15 ns) is faster than i7-6900K (~17ns).

I think people were bored and haven't needed to talk about AMD for like 5 years and it all came out at once. As the workstation CPU that it is, it is great and handling some gaming on the side pretty damn well. If we get 4 core /8 thread CPUs from AMD that still can't clock higher than 4.0 GHz and falling well behind 3000 series i5 CPUs, everyone can panic. Until then its bug squishing and industry adjustment time!

TheGuruStud · Mar 9, 2017

TheLaughingMan said:
I think people were bored and haven't needed to talk about AMD for like 5 years and it all came out at once. As the workstation CPU that it is, it is great and handling some gaming on the side pretty damn well. If we get 4 core /8 thread CPUs from AMD that still can't clock higher than 4.0 GHz and falling well behind 3000 series i5 CPUs, everyone can panic. Until then its bug squishing and industry adjustment time!

You'll have to wait till the refresh for (hopefully) better clocks.

TheLaughingMan · Mar 9, 2017

TheGuruStud said:
You'll have to wait till the refresh for (hopefully) better clocks.

I am going to wait to see Ryzen 5 in action. We have not concrete information about those chips and how they OC. Overclocking 8 cores is a different animal than overclocking 4 cores...historically at least. And I don't think the limit in OC is entirely the architecture, but we will find out.

FordGT90Concept · Mar 10, 2017

TheLaughingMan said:
I think people were bored and haven't needed to talk about AMD for like 5 years and it all came out at once. As the workstation CPU that it is, it is great and handling some gaming on the side pretty damn well. If we get 4 core /8 thread CPUs from AMD that still can't clock higher than 4.0 GHz and falling well behind 3000 series i5 CPUs, everyone can panic. Until then its bug squishing and industry adjustment time!

CPU matters less and less with the rise of Vulkan and D3D12. I am utterly unconcerned about it.

Proof: http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/

In games that are well multithreaded, Ryzen does fine. In games that aren't, it does well enough. The higher the resolution and detail, the more Ryzen closes the gap with Intel.

System Name	Money Hole
Processor	Core i7 970
Motherboard	Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Cooling	Noctua UH-D14
Memory	2133Mhz 12GB (3x4GB) Mushkin 998991
Video Card(s)	Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290X
Storage	Samsung 1TB 850 Evo
Display(s)	3x Acer KG240A 144hz
Case	CM HAF 932
Audio Device(s)	ADI (onboard)
Power Supply	Enermax Revolution 85+ 1050w
Mouse	Logitech G602
Keyboard	Logitech G710+
Software	Windows 10 Professional x64

System Name	7950X
Processor	R9 7950X
Motherboard	Asus X670 Hero
Cooling	Noctua DH15 black edition
Memory	64GB (4 x 16GB) 6000 MT/s
Video Card(s)	Radeon RX7900XT
Storage	Firecuda 540
Display(s)	Samsung Q95T
Audio Device(s)	On board
Power Supply	Seasonic Prime 1000W
Mouse	Roccat Leadr
Keyboard	K95 RGB
Software	Windows 11 Pro x64, insider preview dev channel
Benchmark Scores	#1 worldwide on 3D Mark 99, back in the (P133) days. :)

Processor	9800x3D\| 5800x \| 4800H \| Rog ally
Motherboard	Gb x870 Aorus Elite ice \| Asrack x470d4u \| Asus Tuf A15
Cooling	Air \| Air \| duh laptop
Memory	64gb G.skill SniperX @3600 CL16 \| 128gb \| 32GB \| 192gb
Video Card(s)	RTX 4080 \|Quadro P5000 \| RTX2060M
Storage	Many drives
Display(s)	AW3423dwf.
Case	Jonsbo D41
Power Supply	Corsair RM850x
Mouse	g502x Lightspeed
Keyboard	G913 tkl
Software	win11, proxmox

System Name	eazen corp \| Xentronon 7.2
Processor	AMD Ryzen 7 3700X // PBO max.
Motherboard	Asus TUF Gaming X570-Plus
Cooling	Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 w/ AM4 kit // 3x Corsair AF140L case fans (2 in, 1 out)
Memory	G.Skill Trident Z RGB 2x16 GB DDR4 3600 @ 3800, CL16-19-19-39-58-1T, 1.4 V
Video Card(s)	Asus ROG Strix GeForce RTX 2080 Ti modded to MATRIX // 2000-2100 MHz Core / 1938 MHz G6
Storage	Silicon Power P34A80 1TB NVME/Samsung SSD 830 128GB&850 Evo 500GB&F3 1TB 7200RPM/Seagate 2TB 5900RPM
Display(s)	Samsung 27" Curved FS2 HDR QLED 1440p/144Hz&27" iiyama TN LED 1080p/120Hz / Samsung 40" IPS 1080p TV
Case	Corsair Carbide 600C
Audio Device(s)	HyperX Cloud Orbit S / Creative SB X AE-5 @ Logitech Z906 / Sony HD AVR @PC & TV @ Teufel Theater 80
Power Supply	EVGA 650 GQ
Mouse	Logitech G700 @ Steelseries DeX // Xbox 360 Wireless Controller
Keyboard	Corsair K70 LUX RGB /w Cherry MX Brown switches
VR HMD	Still nope
Software	Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores	15 095 Time Spy \| P29 079 Firestrike \| P35 628 3DM11 \| X67 508 3DM Vantage Extreme

System Name	Unimatrix
Processor	Intel i9-9900K @ 5.0GHz
Motherboard	ASRock x390 Taichi Ultimate
Cooling	Custom Loop
Memory	32GB GSkill TridentZ RGB DDR4 @ 3400MHz 14-14-14-32
Video Card(s)	EVGA 2080 with Heatkiller Water Block
Storage	2x Samsung 960 Pro 512GB M.2 SSD in RAID 0, 1x WD Blue 1TB M.2 SSD
Display(s)	Alienware 34" Ultrawide 3440x1440
Case	CoolerMaster P500M Mesh
Power Supply	Seasonic Prime Titanium 850W
Keyboard	Corsair K75
Benchmark Scores	Really Really High

AMD's Ryzen Cache Analyzed - Improvements; Improveable; CCX Compromises

C_Wiz

hardware.fr

mastrdrver

C_Wiz

hardware.fr

nemesis.ie

Imsochobo

C_Wiz

hardware.fr

airfathaaaaa

Kanan

Tech Enthusiast & Gamer

Gasaraki

airfathaaaaa

r9

r9

mastrdrver

jahramika

nemesis.ie

EarthDog

TRWOV

Shihab

mastrdrver

mcraygsx

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"

TheLaughingMan

TheGuruStud

TheLaughingMan

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"

System Name	Primary\|Secondary\|Poweredge r410\|Dell XPS\|SteamDeck
Processor	i7 11700k\|i7 9700k\|2 x E5620 \|i5 5500U\|Zen 2 4c/8t
Memory	32GB DDR4\|16GB DDR4\|16GB DDR4\|32GB ECC DDR3\|8GB DDR4\|16GB LPDDR5
Video Card(s)	RX 7800xt\|RX 6700xt \|On-Board\|On-Board\|8 RDNA 2 CUs
Storage	2TB m.2\|512GB SSD+1TB SSD\|2x256GBSSD 2x2TBGB\|256GB sata\|512GB nvme
Display(s)	50" 4k TV \| Dell 27" \|22" \|3.3"\|7"
VR HMD	Samsung Odyssey+ \| Oculus Quest 2
Software	Windows 11 Pro\|Windows 10 Pro\|Windows 10 Home\| Server 2012 r2\|Windows 10 Pro

System Name	Dell-y Driver
Processor	Core i5-10400
Motherboard	Asrock H410M-HVS
Cooling	Intel 95w stock cooler
Memory	2x8 A-DATA 2999Mhz DDR4
Video Card(s)	UHD 630
Storage	1TB WD Green M.2 - 4TB Seagate Barracuda
Display(s)	Asus PA248 1920x1200 IPS
Case	Dell Vostro 270S case
Audio Device(s)	Onboard
Power Supply	Dell 220w
Software	Windows 10 64bit

System Name	192.168.1.1~192.168.1.100
Processor	AMD Ryzen5 5600G.
Motherboard	Gigabyte B550m DS3H.
Cooling	AMD Wraith Stealth.
Memory	16GB Crucial DDR4.
Video Card(s)	Gigabyte GTX 1080 OC (Underclocked, underpowered).
Storage	Samsung 980 NVME 500GB && Assortment of SSDs.
Display(s)	ViewSonic VA2406-MH 75Hz
Case	Bitfenix Nova Midi
Audio Device(s)	On-Board.
Power Supply	SeaSonic CORE GM-650.
Mouse	Logitech G300s
Keyboard	Kingston HyperX Alloy FPS.
VR HMD	A pair of OP spectacles.
Software	Ubuntu 24.04 LTS.
Benchmark Scores	Me no know English. What bench mean? Bench like one sit on?

Processor	Intel 7700K 5.1Ghz (Intel advised me not to OC this CPU)
Motherboard	Asus Maximus IX Code
Cooling	Corsair Hydro H115i Platinum
Memory	48GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4 3200 Dual Channel (2x16 & 2x8)
Video Card(s)	nVIDIA Titan XP (Overclocks like a champ but stock performance is enough)
Storage	Intel 760p 2280 2TB
Display(s)	MSI Optix MPG27CQ Black 27" 1ms 144hz
Case	Thermaltake View 71
Power Supply	EVGA SuperNova 1000 Platinum2
Mouse	Corsair M65 Pro (not recommded, I am on my second mouse with same defect)
Software	Windows 10 Enterprise 1803
Benchmark Scores	Yes I am Intel fanboy that is my benchmark score.

System Name	BY-2021
Processor	AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard	MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling	Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory	2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s)	AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage	Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s)	Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case	Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s)	Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply	Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse	Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard	Tesoro Excalibur
Software	Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores	Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.

System Name	ODIN
Processor	AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard	Gigabyte B550 Aorus Elite AX V2
Cooling	Dark Rock 4
Memory	G Skill RipjawsV F4 3600 Mhz C16
Video Card(s)	MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Ventus 3X OC LHR
Storage	Crucial 2 TB M.2 SSD :: WD Blue M.2 1TB SSD :: 1 TB WD Black VelociRaptor
Display(s)	Dell S2716DG 27" 144 Hz G-SYNC
Case	Fractal Meshify C
Audio Device(s)	Onboard Audio
Power Supply	Antec HCP 850 80+ Gold
Mouse	Corsair M65
Keyboard	Corsair K70 RGB Lux
Software	Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores	I don't benchmark.

Processor	OCed 5800X3D
Motherboard	Asucks C6H
Cooling	Air
Memory	32GB
Video Card(s)	OCed 6800XT
Storage	NVMees
Display(s)	32" Dull curved 1440
Case	Freebie glass idk
Audio Device(s)	Sennheiser
Power Supply	Don't even remember