Asnor

Appreciate the help of everyone. @Mark Kaine helped me look a different direction rather than thinking it could be PBO. And @filpo made me suspect some BIOS settings, that for whatever reason, locked the frequency to 4200 MHz. Edit: Also thank you @PDifolco. Before that, I wasn't sure if I'm supposed to hit the advertised 4.8 GHz as there was a lot of mixed info on other forums. My dumbass did another reply instead of edit, but to be fair, I'm just happy to have fixed this problem after 5 hrs of googling and trying things >.<

The Clock ratio being set to 42 was indeed the issue. I did adjust it to Auto and get the expected results now. The CPU also runs 20°C hotter now during the benchmark, around the same temps as the multi core benchmark, which is to be expected I suppose. Appreciate the help of everyone. @Mark Kaine helped me look a different direction rather than thinking it could be PBO. And @filpo made me suspect some BIOS settings, that for whatever reason, locked the frequency to 4200 MHz.

Thank you for clearing that up, at least I now know what the culprit likely is then. Okay, big thanks for that. I'll try it during the weekend then as I use this PC for work related stuff too. From what I've seen in the BIOS, the Target CPU Speed is locked at 4200 MHz and the CPU Core Ratio is set to a static value of 42.00. I suppose that is the culprit then? Would the fix be as easy as adjusting the ratio to 48.00?

Ty for sharing your benchmark. That's indeed very weird. I assumed it should boost to 4.8 as well so I googled and people said that's with PBO enabled. What BIOS Version are you on? I'm on AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch A. I'll keep the BIOS update in mind. A little hesitant cause so far my system has been running stable. Mine is AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch A released 2021/06/19, while the latest has been released 2023/03/14.

The utilized cores run at 4200 mhz according to hwinfo (effective clock). I'm not sure if the CPU is supposed to boost higher at stock settings. The max boost clock is supposedly up to 4.8 Ghz according to AMD, but I don't if that's achievable without PBO.

Hello, it seems like my 5900x is getting the same single core performance score as a 3900x in Cinebench R23. The expected score should be around ~1550±50. I have no clue why that could be, tried playing around with Windows Power Plan and made sure no other program is running in the background. The temps seem okay too the CPU is staying around 44-46 °C. My system: CPU: 5900x@Stock settings. 4200 Mhz during benchmark. Motherboard: Asus x570 TUF Gaming plus wifi Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 Memory: Crucial Ballistix 32 GB 3600 Mhz - cl16. Fclk 1800 mhz. PSU: Seasonic prime gx 850 OS: Windows 10 BIOS: Version 4002 - AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch A

If you buy 2 modules and then decide to upgrade later on with 2 more, they might not run stable when you turn on the DOCP/XMP profile. I think that's the reason why it is recommended to buy a new kit with 4 modules if you wanna avoid the headache of manually tuning the timings. But at that point I would rather just get two 16 GB DIMMs and run with dual channel, provided you have the spare money.

Didn't know about Crucial switching to lower quality components, but I recently bought one (8 months ago) and its running fine so far (using it as my Games Storage). I also have an 870 EVO, which funnily enough, was the reason I bought the MX500. 8 Months ago I randomly found an article about early batches of the 870 EVO being faulty, so I checked the SMART values and they indeed reported 2 critical values. The RMA process with Samsung here in Europe thankfully went without pain and the new one is now running well. Out of the 2 I'd prolly be leaning more towards the 870 EVO. Never used a SanDisk, so can't chime in on that one.

Appreciate the reply. I thought as much, but wasn't really 100% sure, thank you! I'll just jam it in then.

Hello, I have an x570 Asus TUF Gaming Plus motherboard and I'm not sure which M.2 slots I should use (it has 2 PCI 4.0 M.2 slots) with the new NVME that I'm going to add to my system. I already have a 500 GB PCI 3.0 NVME, which is in the 1st M.2 slot, using the CPU lanes. Ideally you would wanna use that slot for your OS drive from what I've heard, but if I now add a PCI 4.0 NVME, is it preferred to put it in that slot instead, so that it can leverage the extra bandwidth with as little latency as possible? Would the OS drive with it's slower speed be not affected as much by the chipset's M.2 slot latency? I guess the advantage from swapping them around would be that I do not put extra stress on the chipset (I've heard that using the chipset's lanes will disable 2 SATA ports). I know that in current games it wouldn't really matter if I used the chipset's M.2 slot for my gaming SSD, but with direct storage slowly creeping in, I'm interested what the optimal approach would be in this case. Thanks in advance. ---------------------- Update: The new NVME is a WD SN850X, which I installed into the 2nd slot (Chipset) at first. But this caused Sequential read and write to be not even close to hitting the advertised speed. I got 6300 MB/s Sequential read (advertised up to 7300 MB/s) and 6100 sequential write (advertised up to 6600 MB/s). The chipset also ran 4 °C hotter than before, hitting 71°C now during winter when gaming (67 °C idle). Out of curiosity I swapped my NVMEs around, OS drive (PCIe 3.0) going through the chipset now and the SN850X directly with the CPU. Now the SN850x was hitting its advertised speeds, but my OS drive (970 evo 500 GB) was running ~300 MB/s slower on the sequential read, every other metric stayed the same. So I'm gonna keep it like this.

I used to have this issue too but I forgot how I fixed it. What I can say though is that I didn't replace any of my hardware to fix it so I'd say it's a driver issue.

OK, thanks. I thought that I should update my situation for anyone having the same symptoms or issue: Defragmentation process was at 60 % after 36 hrs and then I got a system message telling me that my HDD is about to die and moving files from that HDD to the second became even slower, less than 1 Mb/s. Defraggler told me that my HDD was OK (I think it uses the SMART feature from the HDDs?), so I recommend double checking the HDD with a test tool. Again, thanks guys for taking your time to help me.

Im defragmenting my main drive now and the estimated time is around 24 hrs with 70 gb of fragmented data and 411 gb of the 1tb being occupied. I already defragmented my secondary drive the, WD and it took 1 hr with 15 gb of the data being fragmented and 132 gb of the 1 tb being occupied. Are these times normal or is it supposed to be faster? I fear that my main drive might die out soon given that the long generic test in seatools took 14 hrs to reach the 60% mark, so I canceled it. Ty

Hello kfarris, I'll get to it once I return home, thank you for taking your time to help me.

The mistake I made when building my first rig was that I forgot to give the CPU power, so my computer would start to boot and then reboot after a short time with a black screen.