bdubbs

On 10/13/2019 at 8:34 PM, BuckGup said:

Your 1080 is fine. OC it if you want to get more performance. But a 2080 isn't that much faster and new GPUs, from Intel too, are right around the corner

I would agree to wait. BUT a 2080 Super is signifigantly faster than a 1080 non ti. 

On 10/10/2019 at 5:36 PM, DyachVt said:

Yesterday, I still was able to start the installation of a 64-bit system. But I failed to install the system. I tried installing ubuntu server x64 12.04, 14.04, 16.04, 18.04, 19.04. I did not have other distributions. I used the distributions for the test, I have no task to install them. During installation, it shows errors in unpacking archives. But during installation on a real machine, there are no errors.
I tried installing ubuntu server 16.04 x86 on the virtual machine and the system installed normally.
I assume that the x64 processor is used as 32-bit in the virtual machine and therefore errors occur during the installation program. I think the errors are due to the incorrect processing of 64-bit numbers.
I did not think that there would be such problems with the AMD processor, since AMD is the founder of x64. But, until I turned on virtualization, it displayed as 32-bit. Now it does not work with 64-bit numbers.

If you didn't have a fresh installation of windows old chipset drivers could be causing a problem. 

Is virtualization enabled in the BIOS. By default its usually disabled. 

What brand is the card?

Its those games. Witcher depending on the settings can cause your game to crawl, same with Assassins Creed. You chose probably two of the most unforgiving games. 

On 7/10/2019 at 6:35 PM, Rodoval507 said:

Thanks for this man, i have the same board and the processor is on its way, was already thinking if i had to buy another board. As of today in the cpu compatibility they haven't updated that that the 3900x is compatible. I do modest gaming and modest video editing, I don't think I'll stress all 12 cores more than 10 mins on heavy load. Question, is it more recommended to allow the coreboost option enabled instead of a modest 4.0 OC fixed?     Also, wondering which was the previous processor  you had, was it the 2700x, do you see day and night difference others mention in the forums? thanks.

It seems that the standard boost has been really good and people don't get much more out of overclocks. Under gaming loads my cores all run around 4.2 or 4.3. 

Coming from a 1700x i had overclocked to 3.8. Not night and day but def seems snapier. Which i think would be the case for any of the new gen. 

I thought the X370 pro had the same VRMs as Strix???

Either way it works well and has decent clock speeds. Pretty happy to not buy another mobo (more happy to not have to install one). 

Just in case anyone was wondering about 3 series mobos. 

With the newest BIOS installed this is working and all the testing is showing great performance. 

The average boost seems to be around 4.3 to 4.4 running around mid 60s in temps. 

21 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

You probably won't hit consistently 144 with that. It's got lots of cores but most games only use 4 of them, and the clock speed is pretty low. Buying the most expensive option rarely gets you the best performance in gaming.

I actually have a 1440p with RTX 2080 with a 1700x and it hits 144hz on the games that I really care about. With something like Rage 2 it averages around 90 FPS. Still taking advantage of the >60fps framerate and G-Sync. 

I'm also interested in any recommended 1080p 144hz monitors. I'm planning to buy one for my brother in law. 

So i play at 4k and go the 2080. The promise of DLSS in the future is too good to pass up. Essentially it gives you better 4k speeds. This feature the 1080ti won't have. 

Those are great temps. I think my 2080 averages around 74 after getting to full temp. 

I'm assuming temps are fine and clocks are boosting to around 1900?

Try changing the Windows Power settings to max and see. i had an issue with my Ryzen this fixed recently. 

I am another one that agrees that GPU is the way to go. I wouldn't buy an 8300 unless it was for like $20 and I say that as an owner of one in my old machine. 

980ti is a great card. Can get around 1080 performance in some games. Generally performance is between 1070 and 1080. 

I'm in a pretty similar boat. The R9 390 is holding strong so you need something that will make a large impact. 

What CPU mounting is the cooler using? I recently switched from a 2i2 to my first AIO and I noticed if i didn't screw the cooler down nice and snug it wouldn't cool properly. 

So it seems I have fixed this issue. I installed the AM4 chipset drivers seperate of a bios update. Just directly in windows. I reset the bios to factory defaults, moved my memory from A1/A2(single channel) to A2/B2. Booted up with default 2400mhz speed.

Windows was able to see all 16GB of RAM!

Now the real test, i enabled DCOP profile for 3200MHZ and it worked fine. I can't say that this was definitly the fix, but it did work on my reboot after that. worth a try for someone having the same issue. 

5 minutes ago, johndms said:

The only reason I can think of for it only reading half is a dead stick of ram. Update to the most recent bios. Make sure the ram is in the correct ram slots. SOC Voltage to 1.1 (no higher than 1.2). Increase DRAM Voltage to 1.36, 1.37.. no higher than 1.4. Just keep trying different combinations. Try only one stick in A2, try the other stick in A2. Send it back if this is too difficult.

Thanks. I ended up purchasing another set of RAM for testing and had the same results. A different set that was actually on the QVL. I have a ticket open with Asus for the mobo. What i have it down to now is the mobo or CPU. 

18 hours ago, johndms said:

Update the bios to the most recent version if you haven't already. Technically, anything over 2666 is considered an overclock and not guaranteed, but G.Skill should have no problems with any board.

 

Edit: If you have a setting called "VDDCR SOC Voltage" increase that to 1.1v

Thanks I'm trying it at default speed which is 2400. SHows up in BIOS in dual channel but once in windows half the RAM is "System Reserved"

Tried some different RAM because I don't live too far from a microcenter. One on the approved list and no luck. 

I'm still a year under my parts so i'm hoping an RMA will fix it. must be mobo or proc at this point. 

6 minutes ago, strat guy said:

Not sure if this will help but check your socket, spray it with some compressed air or a blower, check for bent pins on the chip and reseat it. I had a strand of hair on a socket once that that was killing PCIe lanes and disabled a DIMM slot even though the system was posting and booting up just fine. 

 

 

Thanks I reseated my chip. I did notice something white on the chip and socket and wiped that off the socket surround. Still no luck after that. I don't think there are any bent pins because the chip goes in smoothly and i don't see anything wonky. 

Long story short I have a Ryzen 1700x and an asus prime x370 pro with 16 GB of G.skill flarex as 2x8GB. 

If i run both chips in single channel (slot A1 and A2 or B1 and B2) i can clock to 3200 and it works fine. 

If i run both chips in dual channel A2 and B2 or A1 and B1 it will boot at 2400 but windows only gets 8 GB to use and says 8 GB is reserved. 

Does this seem like a board, memory or CPU issue?

I have the Jaybird X3s and like them. Battery life is very solid and they have like 10 configurations to try to keep in your ear while working out. 

Yeah just get the new headphone covers and you will be all set. No reason to mess with a good thing. I have the cloud IIs and they are great for my gaming.