The QVL is REAL... ANYONE UPGRADING THEIR PC OR BUILDING A NEW ONE NEEDS TO READ THIS!

[An0maly_76]

This is a bit of a read, but well worth it in potential aggravation and wasted time saved.

 

What is QVL? It stands for Qualified Vendor List, more or less a listing of components the board manufacturer certifies as being compatible with the board. Basically, a means of determining whether a potential purchase is guaranteed to work or not. And with some boards, this list can vary by processor choice. So, if a RAM kit or other component is on this list, that means the board manufacturer certifies the board will work as intended with that particular component. Some say a component's absence from such lists means it wasn't tested with it, but it can also mean that it WAS tested and had some sort of issue that warranted exclusion. Any way you look at it, bottom line, if a component is not on the QVL list for a board, the manufacturer does not guarantee its compatibility and stability is not guaranteed. Which means you may or may not have issues with it, as some components can and will create issues with either other devices or the board itself.

 

I myself have experienced this with an Asus Tuf B550-PLUS that randomly showed a blank screen at startup every eight to twelve cold boots, that appears to have been due to RAM that was not on the board's QVL list. Four months, twelve partial disassemblies, many hours re-seating components, checking connections, (and a LOT of cussing) later, I've switched to a RAM kit from Asus' QVL for that board and haven't seen that issue again after at least twenty cold boots and twenty more restarts. Side note here, the kit that had issues and the one that replaced it used the same timings and voltage, so it wasn't a matter of those. Also, in cases of crashes potentially caused by RAM instability, be sure to check XMP and DOCP profile settings where applicable -- they don't always get the profile right on their own, requiring that timings be set manually. My replacement RAM installed in my Asus board is certified for 16-18-18-36 timings, but DOCP came up with some wonky 20-20-20-43 settings. That's right, the board's DOCP did not detect the timings for which Asus certified the RAM to use with this board Go figure. So that's something else to watch out for.

 

This is something that I think most people are unaware of as yet, because I think it's more of a factor with some boards than others. Asus, for example, is known for quirky memory topology. And maybe, just maybe, it's becoming a thing in general where it wasn't before. I have lost count of the amount of posts I've seen with folks experiencing random unexplained crashes with no obvious cause that either could be or were tied to QVL status. It actually seemed to me for a time that Ryzen processors just flat did not like Corsair RAM. Now I think the pattern of posts regarding crashes with that particular pairing was likely a QVL compatibility issue. Hence, I decided to try to explain and simplify it for folks unfamiliar with the concept. Determining a component's QVL status is a pretty simple search process.

 

For simplicity's sake, I'll use the MSI PRO B660-A ATX motherboard as an example, having walked someone interested in this board through this process recently.

 

To start, Google "MSI PRO B660-A motherboard ram compatibility", which would give this somewhere in the list of search results... Usually the list will be the first result returned, but not always. Look for the manufacturer's website in the link...

 

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/PRO-B660-A-DDR4

 

MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, and ASRock all structure their sites and lists differently, but in this MSI example, from this link, you would click the Support tab up top, then Compatibility from the choices below.  Tabs for CPU, Memory, VGA, Storage, and Compatible Devices will appear, meaning compatibility of these components can all be determined here by searching in their respective tabs. In this example, we'll click on Memory, which by default will show all manufacturer RAM SKUs tested and certified compatible. You can also sort listings by a particular criteria (speed rating, voltage, etc.), as well as search a particular manufacturer or speed rating, or SKU / part #. I'll use ADATA AX4U36008G18I-DCBKD45 here, per another member's component PCPartPicker component choices. TIP: if you're copying and pasting, be sure no spaces were carried over, that can and will throw the search result. As shown below, that RAM SKU doesn't seem to be on this board's QVL list.

 

 

 

 

So what does this mean? A component's absence from this list means that the manufacturer has not certified the board will be stable with that component, meaning it either hasn't been tested, or it has been tested and created issues that warranted its exclusion from the list. So having searched this SKU, we can return to viewing the full list by clearing the search bar and pressing Enter. Listings can then be sorted by manufacturer, speed rating (Mhz), DIMM size (4 GB / 8GB / 16GB), and voltage rating, among other things. So for this example, if you want to stick with a particular manufacturer, in this case ADATA, searching ADATA will show only that manufacturer's components in the list, as shown below.

 

 

 

Voila. You now see the ADATA RAM SKUs / part #s certified by MSI as working with this board without issue. At least ten pages, as you can see, all of which MSI vouches for as working without issue. See how simple that is? You should also check the processor manufacturer's website for the max supported RAM speed as well, as this, too, can be a factor in at least some cases. Some say QVL means nothing and that it's nothing to worry about, but that's not always true, as I found out. At least in a handful of cases, it can make all the difference, and ignoring this simple process can be an expensive mistake.

 

For instance, in addition to spending $138 on RAM that created issues with my build, that I can't even return as I found out after it was too late for a return, I spent another $180 on a board and CPU for a test bed to troubleshoot the RAM and GPU while the Asus board was being RMA'd. Further, in my case, the Ballistix SKU I previously used was also previously installed in another machine I own before I got it, and is not on that board's QVL for Summit Ridge processors (in that case, an MSI B450M Bazooka with a 1700 Ryzen). So that might explain that machine's quirkiness to the point of appearing neurotic. A quick check revealed the DIMMs actually register in DOCP as different speeds, which is a huge red flag. So even though that RAM kit appears to be fine otherwise, finding someone else that can use it is like a needle in a haystack, as I can't find that SKU on any QVL list anywhere.

 

So ten minutes doing this when selecting my components could have saved me a LOT of time and aggravation. Still cheaper than taking it to a shop, I'd wager, because they might have spent just as much time on it before finding the problem (IF they found it at all). Lots of aggravation over ignorance of or skipping a process that takes maybe ten minutes before ordering your parts. So be sure to use this simple search process to eliminate costly mistakes and lots of aggravation. Believe me, it's way easier than hours of frustrating crashes and troubleshooting when you're not even sure what you're looking for.

Edited August 24, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[Somerandomtechyboi]

My p5q clocks my extreem dark ddr2 1066c6 to 1520 7-9-6-9 80trfc 2.38v, i honestly thought it was likely in the qvl cause like its a 1066 kit why the hell wouldnt it be in the qvl, surprisingly not since i just checked it

 

Also not to mention theres prob gonna be tons of bare pcbs that arent qvled although those are guaranteed to work cause theyre usually jedec spec

[An0maly_76]

  

8 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

My p5q clocks my extreem dark ddr2 1066c6 to 1520 7-9-6-9 80trfc 2.38v, i honestly thought it was likely in the qvl cause like its a 1066 kit why the hell wouldnt it be in the qvl, surprisingly not since i just checked it

 

Also not to mention theres prob gonna be tons of bare pcbs that arent qvled although those are guaranteed to work cause theyre usually jedec spec

All the same, my point here is that lots of people think QVL doesn't mean anything because in their mind, manufacturers can't possibly test any and all combinations out there, when in fact, it's a good guideline to go by, because just because a component isn't listed doesn't necessarily mean that it will or will not work, the manufacturer just simply does not guarantee it will work without issue. And goofing on such things can be a lot of time, money and aggravation that can easily be avoided.

 

In my case, checking this prior to ordering my parts could have saved me a lot of unnecessary aggravation -- twelve partial disassemblies in four months, checking cables, reseating RAM / GPU, each time struggling to lug a 25-50 lb machine down from a hutch about five feet off the floor and back up again with severe asthma and moderate to severe issues with balance, fine motor skills and other autism-related issues. And it could have saved me over $300, which is now part of the $1000 I need to to try to get out of flipping the test bed machine. All over a simple ten minute verification process I simply wasn't aware is necessary.

Edited August 24, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[Somerandomtechyboi]

1 minute ago, An0maly_76 said:

All the same, my point here is that lots of people think QVL doesn't mean anything because in their mind, manufacturers can't possibly test any and all combinations out there, when in fact, it's a good guideline to go by, because just because a component isn't listed doesn't necessarily mean that it will or will not work, the manufacturer just simply does not guarantee it will work without issue. And goofing on such things can be a lot of time, money and aggravation that can easily be avoided.

Fair enough, basically noone has any idea on rams considering that morons still fall for the 3600 cl16 bin trap (overpaying for literally nothing)

 

But still though i assume the reason why ram sometimes doesnt work is just bad binning, i mean every ram uses the same ics from the same manufacturers so i dont see why 1 pair of djr works and another doesnt work other than terrible binning which is apparently something corsair is notorious for

[An0maly_76]

22 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Fair enough, basically noone has any idea on rams considering that morons still fall for the 3600 cl16 bin trap (overpaying for literally nothing)

 

But still though i assume the reason why ram sometimes doesnt work is just bad binning, i mean every ram uses the same ics from the same manufacturers so i dont see why 1 pair of djr works and another doesnt work other than terrible binning which is apparently something corsair is notorious for

I wouldn't say literally nothing. Once I discovered the test machine didn't like my existing RAM either, the one RAM SKU that I could get my hands on that was QVL'd for the test bed machine happened to be CL16 3600. That said, I do think a lot of people buy this spec RAM without verifying it will run right, which IS a waste of time and money if it does not. So it depends on the combination of components, but you won't know WITHOUT CHECKING THE QVL. As as aside, the RAM now happily humming away in my 5900X uses the same timings as the previous Ballistix kit it had so much issue with. While I can see where my particular two kits of the previous RAM might have been from bad batches, I can't see two kits produced two years apart both being bad. I can't see anybody being THAT unlucky.

 

So I wouldn't assume anything at this point. Up to now, I'd assumed my previous machine just had a flaky POS board, that my new Asus Tuf B550-PLUS was also bad, and the the used 3600X in the test bed might have some problem, when the common denominator across all three machines was the SAME KIT OF RAM. That same kit, still in the previous rig, registers at different speeds in DOCP, a major red flag. By way of comparison, replacing it with QVL-approved kits in the other two machines have cured their ills completely and both now run like a striped-assed ape. You ever seen a striped-assed ape? Neither have I, so, they must be pretty damned fast.

 

So, as the old saying goes, the word ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Edited August 24, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[Somerandomtechyboi]

20 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

As as aside, the RAM now happily humming away in my 5900X uses the same timings as the previous Ballistix kit it had so much issue with. While I can see where my particular two kits of the previous RAM might have been from bad batches, I can't see two kits produced two years apart both being bad. I can't see anybody being THAT unlucky

Guess your board just doesnt like micron ics, yea id also have doubts of someone being that unlucky

 

Btw you still running that tuf b550 or did you swap?

[An0maly_76]

20 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Guess your board just doesnt like micron ics, yea id also have doubts of someone being that unlucky

 

Btw you still running that tuf b550 or did you swap?

 

Excluding the previous Ballistix BL16G32C16U4B.16FE (failed in the test bed), the Asus Tuf B550-PLUS was reunited with the same components and migrated to a Fractal Pop XL Air with Patriot Viper 4 Blackout PVB432G320C6K and a Pioneer BDR-212DBK Blu-Ray Writer. Wiped boot M.2 and reinstalled Win10 and apps for good measure. Runs beautiful now with no issues, even feels a little snappier.

 

The ARock B450M-HDV / 3600Xtest bed was given Ballistix BL16G36C16U4B.M16FE1 and an Asus Phoenix GTX1650 OC, runs beautifully now and might even be as fast as my 5900X in certain scenarios that wouldn't push the 5900X any harder. But that 3600X won't have near as long of a shelf life as gaming software becomes more demanding in the future.

I never would have thought these issues would come down to RAM. Which is why I did this write-up, I think a lot of people are mistakenly assuming the wrong component is to blame for whatever issue they might be having, as I did. Or worse, pulling their hair out trying to troubleshoot without even knowing what to look for. Like I said, I thought I was having bad luck with motherboards, when in fact the RAM was to blame. I felt it was my duty to enlighten folks to this possibility in troubleshooting and even maybe save themselves the aggravation before wasting money on RAM that won't let the machine run as intended.

Edited August 24, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[Somerandomtechyboi]

16 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

The ARock B450M-HDV / 3600Xtest bed was given Ballistix BL16G36C16U4B.M16FE1 and an Asus Phoenix GTX1650 OC, runs beautifully now and might even be as fast as my 5900X in certain scenarios that wouldn't push the 5900X any harder. But that 3600X won't have near as long of a shelf life as gaming software becomes more demanding in the future.

Ballistix in that boards qvl or no?

 

17 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

I never would have thought these issues would come down to RAM. Which is why I did this write-up, I think a lot of people are mistakenly assuming the wrong component is to blame for whatever issue they might be having, as I did. Or worse, pulling their hair out trying to troubleshoot without even knowing what to look for. Like I said, I thought I was having bad luck with motherboards, when in fact the RAM was to blame. I felt it was my duty to enlighten folks to this possibility in troubleshooting and even maybe save themselves the aggravation before wasting money on RAM that won't let the machine run as intended

Well you sure prob helped some ppl with this, but i may aswell just also put an extra warning on rams to save ppl some money and likely some frustration (if they happen to buy higher bin >4000 rams)

 

 

3200 cl16 and 3600 cl18 if you just need rams that work and perform fine (3600 cl16 has no benifit in performance compared to its price)

 

specific bare pcb rams, high bin djrs (>4400), or samsung bdie (3200 cl14, 3600 16-16-16 not 16-18-18/19-19, 4400 19-19-19, etc.) For ppl who are willing to overclock their rams to the max

 

High performance ram is OC ONLY so if you dont wanna oc to the max (ex 5200+ c20 djr 1.6v+)  do not bother and stick to 3200 cl16/3600 cl18, besides the performance gain is minimal at best and only in some games so mostly just for fun

[An0maly_76]

On 8/24/2022 at 1:43 AM, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Ballistix in that boards qvl or no?

 

Well you sure prob helped some ppl with this, but i may aswell just also put an extra warning on rams to save ppl some money and likely some frustration (if they happen to buy higher bin >4000 rams)

 

 

3200 cl16 and 3600 cl18 if you just need rams that work and perform fine (3600 cl16 has no benifit in performance compared to its price)

 

The original Ballistix kit used in all three boards was not QVL. The Ballistix replacements for the ASRock were QVL, and the Patriot Viper 4 Blackouts for the Asus board were QVL also. Both machines now run perfectly without issue. The MSI B450 / 1700 system has yet to be addresed, as it is not really in use these days.

 

And I agree in general here, situations excluded where >3200 is the only option on a QVL that you can actually get right away. Apart from that, I don't see RAM speeds >3200, especially DDR5, really being necessary for quite some time to come yet. And they certainly aren't cost-effective. They yield at max about 5-10% performance increase for probably double, triple the price, which is terrible bang for the buck.

 

To illustrate, when I saw how a $98 Patriot Viper kit solved my boot issue and actually seems faster than a $138 Ballistix kit that wasn't QVL'd, I was World War III nuclear P*SSED. I'm glad I found the issue, but aggravated I could have avoided the issue and saved $323 to boot ($138 RAM, $75 test board, $105 test CPU).

 

But that cost-benefit perspective is exactly why I often recommend PCIe3 M.2s to folks over PCIe4 models, or recommend the WD Blue SN570s over the Samsung 9x0 EVOs. Samsungs have a higher rated speed, but over 3,400-3,500 mbps, you don't even notice the difference, so it's really not worth paying extra for right now, nor do I see it being worth the money in the near to distant future. Some boards boast 32 Gbps for M.2s, but 3,500 mbps is plenty fast for most anyone. And PCIe3 M.2s run cooler to boot.

 

To illustrate, I actually exchanged a WD Black SN850 for the WD Blue SN570 that's in my rig now, and I'm pretty sure the SN570 isn't slowing my 5900X down. Even with the crappy RAM I previously used that wasn't QVL'd, it scored higher than expected on Cinebench R23. And at the time, the SN850 was about $150 more, for performance I wasn't going to notice or need until a long way down the road, by which point prices will be probably be 1/3 what they are now.

Edited September 2, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[Blue4130]

22 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

my point here is that lots of people think QVL doesn't mean anything because in their mind,

I think most people just know that the QVL is not the be all and end all list that you make it out to be. There are pleny of ram sku's that are perfectly compatible that are not tested.

 

If you don't have the desire or patience or skill for validating your own setup, sure grab something off the QVL, but don't think that the QVL ram is the only option. My ram is not on the qvl and works just fine.

[An0maly_76]

Show where I said it was a be-all, end-all. This is not the first time you've thrown shade at me, and you obviously haven't read the entire thread, just enough to think you had enough to grind whatever axe you wield. All I said was that if a component is not on a particular board's QVL list, its compatibility and stability is not guaranteed, and that one might be better off to stick with what is known to work.

 

That's no grounds to assume anyone's skill or patience, nor is it a matter of skill or patience. It's a matter of not wasting money and time troubleshooting an issue when you don't even know where to start looking, because there is literally nothing to indicate where the issue lies.

 

I actually wondered and asked a couple times in the past few months if the memory might be the problem, or perhaps was not fast enough for the 5900X's liking, and what have I heard from most anybody on here? "RAM is RAM. QVL means nothing, they probably didn't even test that kit."

 

Well, now I know and have proven different. I might add that that same RAM SKU caused problems in an ASRock B450M-HDV (not QVL'd) and an MSI B450M Bazooka (also not QVL'd). Not to throw shade at anyone, but this issue and how it was resolved has proven to me that are far more users here who claim to know what they don't know than you can shake a stick at.

 

When I noticed a pattern of folks having crashes and reboots running Corsair RAM with Ryzen, I heard a lot of catcalling in similar fashion asking how I could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. More than likely the RAM chosen was not on the QVL list. And guess what? A few folks I've mentioned this to, have found that to be their exact issue. How 'bout that...

 

Patience may indeed be a virtue, but when it comes to stuff like this, it's a huge waste of time and money chasing problems. Those of you who like to cheap out or push the limits with unknown compatibility, hey, knock yourself out. But no need to throw shade at those who try to save others from wasting time and money creating and fighting a dumpster fire, just because they weren't aware of a simple process that could have saved them a lot of headache.

[Blue4130]

31 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

Show where I said it was a be-all, end-all. This is not the first time you've thrown shade at me, and you obviously haven't read the entire thread, just enough to think you had enough to grind whatever axe you wield. All I said was that if a component is not on a particular board's QVL list, its compatibility and stability is not guaranteed, and that one might be better off to stick with what is known to work.

 

That's no grounds to assume anyone's skill or patience, nor is it a matter of skill or patience. It's a matter of not wasting money and time troubleshooting an issue when you don't even know where to start looking, because there is literally nothing to indicate where the issue lies.

 

I actually wondered and asked a couple times in the past few months if the memory might be the problem, or perhaps was not fast enough for the 5900X's liking, and what have I heard from most anybody on here? "RAM is RAM. QVL means nothing, they probably didn't even test that kit."

 

Well, now I know and have proven different. I might add that that same RAM SKU caused problems in an ASRock B450M-HDV (not QVL'd) and an MSI B450M Bazooka (also not QVL'd). Not to throw shade at anyone, but this issue and how it was resolved has proven to me that are far more users here who claim to know what they don't know than you can shake a stick at.

 

When I noticed a pattern of folks having crashes and reboots running Corsair RAM with Ryzen, I heard a lot of catcalling in similar fashion asking how I could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. More than likely the RAM chosen was not on the QVL list. And guess what? A few folks I've mentioned this to, have found that to be their exact issue. How 'bout that...

 

Patience may indeed be a virtue, but when it comes to stuff like this, it's a huge waste of time and money chasing problems. Those of you who like to cheap out or push the limits with unknown compatibility, hey, knock yourself out. But no need to throw shade at those who try to save others from wasting time and money creating and fighting a dumpster fire, just because they weren't aware of a simple process that could have saved them a lot of headache.

I only "throw shade" because your posts come off and quite preachy/know-it-all. Sorry if you dislike my post but I stand behind it.

[freeagent]

What about the people who have ram not on QVL and just have problems? Or Corsair users for instance? Even Steve says to double check QVL

[Blue4130]

14 minutes ago, freeagent said:

What about the people who have ram not on QVL and just have problems? Or Corsair users for instance? Even Steve says to double check QVL

Like I said, it's fine, just don't treat it as gospel. If a ram does not show up on the list, don't discount it so quickly. Check other sources to see if it works.

[An0maly_76]

  

5 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

Like I said, it's fine, just don't treat it as gospel. If a ram does not show up on the list, don't discount it so quickly. Check other sources to see if it works.

 

I did, actually, and Crucial states the Ballistix SKU I used is compatible with this board, which it clearly is not. So who's the know-it-all now? Just because it installs and boots and runs a couple games a few times without obvious issue does not guarantee compatibility. My seemingly random blank-screen issue cropped up like clockwork every 8-12 cold boots. And since replacing that RAM with QVL-listed RAM, it has ceased. Case closed.

 

9 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

I only "throw shade" because your posts come off and quite preachy/know-it-all. Sorry if you dislike my post but I stand behind it.

 

Hmmm... Lot of hostility there. I create a thread sharing my findings contradicting general consensus to save others time, trouble, and money avoiding potential problems after wasting four months looking in the wrong place for an issue because of people telling me that QVL meant nothing (and spending $350 in he process that wouldn't have been necessary), yet in your mind, I come off 'and' quite preachy/know-it-all, when others have found my thoughts to be their exact issue.

 

I could have been a jerk about it and sought out and called out those who gave me that bad information, but instead gave the benefit of the doubt in assuming that my findings were something that up until recently might not have been a concern. Therefore, it would seem that you're calling me out just for the sake of calling me out, even though I can validate my findings.

 

As for your responses and general disposition, dissent and constructive alternative perspective is perfectly fine, but personal attacks just in the spirit of trolling I have no time, use, or energy for, especially with worsening autism and health issues. Further, I don't recall ever saying I know everything, because occasionally I may be unaware my information may be outdated or flawed secondhand information.

 

I share my thoughts on a subject, and sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm somewhere in the middle because of something I wasn't aware of. So I ask questions occasionally so that I might understand better when I'm not familiar. So why is that such an issue for you?

 

If you don't like my posts, then why are you bothering to read them? I certainly wouldn't want you to waste your time doing so, and quite frankly, whether you realize it or not, the responses you make speak volumes more of you than they ever will of me. Little do you know, I've twice now suspended my ignore list to see if listening to you might be worthwhile, yet you only validate my reasons for having you on ignore.

 

That's right, you've been wasting your time and (apparently negative) energy throwing shade on my posts, because I've had you on ignore anyway. Looks like I was right to do so, and will continue, if that's all you have to contribute. Word to the wise, if you really dislike my posts for whatever warped perception you feel justifies it, that ignore list certainly works both ways. And regardless of your opinion of me, my posts have helped several others here.

 

Maybe if you put a little more time and energy into similar efforts, you wouldn't have time to make such attacks. That's the difference between you and me, if I have an issue with someone, I just don't bother with them unless they feel so inclined to force the issue as you have. It's abundantly clear, however, the issue is yours, not mine. Practice your keyboard warrior skills on someone else. And that goes for anyone else who responds to me in this manner. Good day.

Edited August 25, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info