reservoir_dog

Answers from Amazon I got: Nathan answered: "The only differences on paper is that the 95b-b is able to be overclocked to 175hz, instead of maxing out at 144hz (but if you want true 10-bit color, you're stuck to 120hz regardless). However, you'll find that it's also cheaper and easier to find in-stock and available for purchase. I'm assuming that it's simply an updated model of the 950-b, whether because of production updates or something else." Nawaf-Z06 answered: "I searched a lot but there is nothing different between then except 38gn95b is for LG's business ver. instead consumer one which is 38gn950. I have 38gn95b & to be honest i didn't see any difference between them, & am enjoying playing games with this monitor." Michael Tucker answered: "This one is the business edition that includes an energy saving mode. Thats legit the only difference."

that's the point, both can be freely purchased from amazon they don't, correct

Two very confusing models, seem to be the same but still. 38GN95B-B is business 38GN950-B is consumer I wrote to LG and B&H here are their answers: B&H replied - “The primary difference is in the length of the warranty period.” LG replied - "The only difference is the 38GN95B-B has a built-in speaker and Commercial unit with a 3years warranty while 38GN950-B has no built-in speaker and a Consumer unit with a 1year warranty." Somehow I'm still no satisfied with the answers. They seem, from pictures at least, to have a different stand design as well. What's very strange is the one with less warranty and no speakers is more expensive. Makes little sense.

If AMD somehow fixed FCLK to higher than 2000, yeah, that would change things. though I think that not to be likely since they use the very same controller that was used in the previous Zen2 lineup. I think I'll do the following: I'll try to achieve the best possible results (like 4000cl12/cl14) with just 2x16 sticks of b-die, and after that I'll add two more and will see the damage introduced. From my tests of 3200cl14 I could post and run AIDA with 2x16 sticks 3800cl14, but with 4x16 the machine posted only with 3733c14, so the actual damage from introducing two more stick was a loss of 67MHz, kinda negligible for a daily runner. But of course I had to use a full fledged 14cm noctua fan to cool them properly, otherwise they constantly crashed. Since it's a workhorse I won't be able to keep it 2x16, I really need that 64Gb capacity for Adobe After Effects.

System: 5950X + X570 4x16GB sticks of F4-4266C17D-32GTRGB (4266MHz CL17-18-18-38 1.50V B-die) best currently available vs 2x32BG sticks of F4-4000C18D-64GTRS (4000MHz CL18-22-22-42 1.40V) best currently available 2x16 not an option, need 64 capacity for work tasks So I already own 4 sticks of F4-4266C17D-32GTRGB top rated 16Gb per stick B-die currently available on the market I already have experience overclocking similar 4 sticks of 3200 rated c14 b die and had them stable at 3733c16 The question is will I achieve a better overclock with 2x32 sticks rather than with 4x16 I know the rule of thumbs is always to use 2 sticks, 4 are a hassle for overclock (stability and temp issues). But in this particular case I don't even know what chips are used in these 2x32 modules, most probably new Samsung A-die, info is very scarce. No results anywhere online. The thing is I'm not aiming for high clocks since it's a ryzen system, I'm aiming somewhere around 3900/4000Mhz. But I'm aiming low timings, like CL12 low. So I'm really wondering should i return 4 stick of b-die and buy 2x32 a-die or not. Money not an issue. What I've heard is that these new 2x32 kits go high in speeds, but can't handle tight timings, and the base rating of 4000 18-22-22-42 kinda confirms it. Two edged sword here, either you use fast memory but you have to handle atrocious 4 stick layout and stability. OR you use slow memory but enjoy fast 2 stick stable layout. The question is which compromise to make. I can't find a single review or forum entry on this topic.

just a rebranding, couple different cables and velcro ties, thats it

Gave a pretty good explanation of AMD optimized

@Jurrunio I've hit 3733 c14-14-14.. that is kinda cool considering it's 4 double sided sticks... but failed to post with 1.45 on memory.. raised to 1.47.. too close to the thresholds, will need to step down a little for daily usage and run some stability suites. Still have no idea what causes boot fail on 3200, seems like some odd bug.

@Jurrunio now it gets even more weird. So not a single time a boot was successful with 3200, under any possible combination I tried - 3200 was not achievable, I never went higher, reckoned that to be pointless, guess what, just for fun I set the system to 3266 c14 and it worked. Looks like my testing is not over. Will also try to decouple FCLK, but frankly not sure whether that's a good idea.

So I've managed to hit 12-12-12-28-42 at 3133 with relative ease, zero freezes zero glitches, some extra sub-timings from DRAM calculator lowered as well. Kept voltage at 1.45v to have some headroom and not to worry about it just now, SoC on auto and hits around 1.075. System stable under AIDA stress, had no time yet to try full stability suite of memtest86. Temps are just fine at around 42C. I may even try my luck and push the timings further. But frequency wont move above 3133. This definitely looks like some mobo/ mem controller or ram PCB layout issue. I mean it does look good so far, not sure whether switching these Royal kits for newer AMD optimised Neos would be beneficial. Royals are allegedly better binned to start with. I may hit 3600 c16 or 3200 c14 right of the box with Neo (which I can't do with present kits), but would that be better than current 3133 c12? Overclocking 3600 to c14 or lower sounds cool. I've read materials that say that generally higher frequency + higher timings is more favourable than lower frequency with tighter timings, for most applications. It's marginal, but it's a matter of interest.

Yep, Aorus isn't really known for good memory support like MSI

I used 2500K @4.4GHz up until yesterday when I changed it to 3950X. And still 2500K was not that bad, while playing PUBG at 4K my fps are almost the same, I get less freezes on new processor, but 2500 did just fine. It's a bit different for CPU intensive games like BF5. 2700K overclocks well, it's a good buy considering price per performance.

The gain is negligible, but it's a matter of pure interest and getting what you pay for. This is a rendering/gaming machine.

So I have been able to hit 3133Mhz with SoC 1.07v and DRAM 1.37v. I was even able to lower the timing to 14-14-14-30 tRC-44, with more time I think I will be able to lower those and also some subtimings even more. But the funny thing is no matter how hard I try it just won't boot with 3200Mhz and CL14 stock XMP timings, tried memory voltage up to 1.45 (don't want to go any further for daily usage) and SoC 1.15. No matter how high the voltages are it wont even post to bios as soon as I set 3200Mhz. I was thinking maybe it has something to do with the XMP itself being a bit old and made originally for intel. Could it be that some single weird subtiming causes it. So hence the question, what is the difference between regular GSkill Royal and GSkill Neo (AMD)? Do those Neo AMD kits have some different hardware or is it only settings that differ? I've seen people post successful results and no problems with those neo kits. Some guys even hit 3600Mhz cl16 on 4x16 sticks. If it's only xmp settings then it would be easy to copy those for my ram. But if Neo AMD kits have some extra hardware it's totally different story. Finding info online on this discrepancy in kits is very hard. Everybody just says "they're optimised", but nobody knows exactly how they are optimised.

Checked lots of tests. At 100W load 1000 model is actually half percent more efficient than 850 model, the only one that is the most efficient at 100W load is actually 650 model, and even then the difference is about 1%. Basically the low load performance makes completely no difference between the lineup. However for the 500-600 load the difference is more significant, and for this type of load 1000 wins though again marginally, about 2% at 600 load equals to 12 Watts difference in heat and consumption. I will take a 1000 model, just in case i'll need to use some type of Threadripper + 2x 3080Ti's in future, just in case