Amd new ageesa

[Ebony Falcon]

Looks like the new ageesa is slowing for 6400 1:1 ratio

 

is that what they already have ? Or is it 6200 ish 1:2 atm ? 

[RONOTHAN##]

8 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Looks like the new ageesa is slowing for 6400 1:1 ratio

 

is that what they already have ? Or is it 6200 ish 1:2 atm ? 

It's a little complicated. 

 

There are chips that can do 6400 already in 1:1 mode (not many, but some), and most can do 6200 in 1:1 mode. By default, 6200+ will go in 2:1 mode, but in practice if it works in 2:1 it'll work in 1:1.

 

That was until the 1.0.0.7b AGESA released yesterday on ASRock boards. That AGESA finally fixed 2:1 mode so that it actually behaves like you expect it to and can scale memory to Intel 2 DIMM board speeds. Supposedly it also allows for chips to go to higher memory speeds in 1:1 mode, where 6400 should work on more chips at lower SOC voltage levels, though I haven't really seen much proof of that since most of the coverage yesterday was on boards running at 7200+. 

[Ebony Falcon]

3 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

It's a little complicated. 

 

There are chips that can do 6400 already in 1:1 mode (not many, but some), and most can do 6200 in 1:1 mode. By default, 6200+ will go in 2:1 mode, but in practice if it works in 2:1 it'll work in 1:1.

 

That was until the 1.0.0.7b AGESA released yesterday on ASRock boards. That AGESA finally fixed 2:1 mode so that it actually behaves like you expect it to and can scale memory to Intel 2 DIMM board speeds. Supposedly it also allows for chips to go to higher memory speeds in 1:1 mode, where 6400 should work on more chips at lower SOC voltage levels, though I haven't really seen much proof of that since most of the coverage yesterday was on boards running at 7200+. 

Is amd 1:1 the same as intel’s gear 2 ? 
 

[RONOTHAN##]

1 minute ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Is amd 1:1 the same as intel’s gear 2 ? 
 

No, AMD 1:1 is the same as Intel's Gear 1. Gear 2 is the equivalent as 2:1

[Ebony Falcon]

Just now, RONOTHAN## said:

No, AMD 1:1 is the same as Intel's Gear 1. Gear 2 is the equivalent as 2:1

So is it the f clock holding it back ? 

[WereCat]

7 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

It's a little complicated. 

 

There are chips that can do 6400 already in 1:1 mode (not many, but some), and most can do 6200 in 1:1 mode. By default, 6200+ will go in 2:1 mode, but in practice if it works in 2:1 it'll work in 1:1.

 

That was until the 1.0.0.7b AGESA released yesterday on ASRock boards. That AGESA finally fixed 2:1 mode so that it actually behaves like you expect it to and can scale memory to Intel 2 DIMM board speeds. Supposedly it also allows for chips to go to higher memory speeds in 1:1 mode, where 6400 should work on more chips at lower SOC voltage levels, though I haven't really seen much proof of that since most of the coverage yesterday was on boards running at 7200+. 

I thought its no longer necessary or it makes little difference for FCLK to be in either 1:1 or 2:1 on Zen4. 

[Ebony Falcon]

12 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I thought its no longer necessary or it makes little difference for FCLK to be in either 1:1 or 2:1 on Zen4. 

Think I’m confused because I that the f clock was the speed to the gear 

[RONOTHAN##]

Just now, Ebony Falcon said:

So is it the f clock holding it back ? 

Nope, FCLK is completely desynched on Ryzen 7000, where whether you're running at DDR5 6000, 6400, or 8000 it will hit have the FCLK at 2000MHz by default. It was the UCLK holding it back in 1:1 mode, and it's probably going to be board signal integrity holding it back in 2:1 mode. 

 

Just now, WereCat said:

I thought its no longer necessary or it makes little difference for FCLK to be in either 1:1 or 2:1 on Zen4. 

So kinda, pretty sure there's some misconceptions about this. The FCLK did need to be in a 1:1:1 ratio back in Ryzen 3000/5000 for the best performance, and that need was dropped with Ryzen 7000 where you can have any relationship you want between those (say 2133MHz FCLK and DDR5 5800). However, the memory controller clock (UCLK) and memory clock (MEMCLK) still need to be in a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio as they did with Ryzen 3000/5000. If you've heard people talk about Gear mode on Intel, that's essentially what it is on AMD, where in 1:1 the memory controller and memory run at the same frequency resulting in lower latency, while in 2:1 mode the memory controller runs at half the frequency of the memory resulting in worse latency but higher memory speeds and therefore a theoretical higher peak bandwidth if the memory is clocked up enough. 

 

AMD did say initially that 6000 CL30 was the sweet spot so the 2:1 mode might not be worthwhile outside a few benchmarks, though until people have time to benchmark it we won't know if that was because they just hadn't gotten 2:1 mode working yet where it will have good performance when clocked high enough, or if the latency penalty really is great enough that you can't overcome it with high clocks and tight timings like you could somewhat do on Intel. 

[WereCat]

9 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Nope, FCLK is completely desynched on Ryzen 7000, where whether you're running at DDR5 6000, 6400, or 8000 it will hit have the FCLK at 2000MHz by default. It was the UCLK holding it back in 1:1 mode, and it's probably going to be board signal integrity holding it back in 2:1 mode. 

 

So kinda, pretty sure there's some misconceptions about this. The FCLK did need to be in a 1:1:1 ratio back in Ryzen 3000/5000 for the best performance, and that need was dropped with Ryzen 7000 where you can have any relationship you want between those (say 2133MHz FCLK and DDR5 5800). However, the memory controller clock (UCLK) and memory clock (MEMCLK) still need to be in a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio as they did with Ryzen 3000/5000. If you've heard people talk about Gear mode on Intel, that's essentially what it is on AMD, where in 1:1 the memory controller and memory run at the same frequency resulting in lower latency, while in 2:1 mode the memory controller runs at half the frequency of the memory resulting in worse latency but higher memory speeds and therefore a theoretical higher peak bandwidth if the memory is clocked up enough. 

 

AMD did say initially that 6000 CL30 was the sweet spot so the 2:1 mode might not be worthwhile outside a few benchmarks, though until people have time to benchmark it we won't know if that was because they just hadn't gotten 2:1 mode working yet where it will have good performance when clocked high enough, or if the latency penalty really is great enough that you can't overcome it with high clocks and tight timings like you could somewhat do on Intel. 

That makes sense. I just didn't understood he meant UCLK as people usually refer to the ratio as MEMCLK vs FCLK. 

[Ebony Falcon]

11 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Nope, FCLK is completely desynched on Ryzen 7000, where whether you're running at DDR5 6000, 6400, or 8000 it will hit have the FCLK at 2000MHz by default. It was the UCLK holding it back in 1:1 mode, and it's probably going to be board signal integrity holding it back in 2:1 mode. 

 

So kinda, pretty sure there's some misconceptions about this. The FCLK did need to be in a 1:1:1 ratio back in Ryzen 3000/5000 for the best performance, and that need was dropped with Ryzen 7000 where you can have any relationship you want between those (say 2133MHz FCLK and DDR5 5800). However, the memory controller clock (UCLK) and memory clock (MEMCLK) still need to be in a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio as they did with Ryzen 3000/5000. If you've heard people talk about Gear mode on Intel, that's essentially what it is on AMD, where in 1:1 the memory controller and memory run at the same frequency resulting in lower latency, while in 2:1 mode the memory controller runs at half the frequency of the memory resulting in worse latency but higher memory speeds andgo  therefore a theoretical higher peak bandwidth if the memory is clocked up enough. 

 

AMD did say initially that 6000 CL30 was the sweet spot so the 2:1 mode might not be worthwhile outside a few benchmarks, though until people have time to benchmark it we won't know if that was because they just hadn't gotten 2:1 mode working yet where it will have good performance when clocked high enough, or if the latency penalty really is great enough that you can't overcome it with high clocks and tight timings like you could somewhat do on Intel. 

I saw one guy with 55ns which is somewhat decent at 7800

[Somerandomtechyboi]

9 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

It's a little complicated. 

 

There are chips that can do 6400 already in 1:1 mode (not many, but some), and most can do 6200 in 1:1 mode. By default, 6200+ will go in 2:1 mode, but in practice if it works in 2:1 it'll work in 1:1.

 

That was until the 1.0.0.7b AGESA released yesterday on ASRock boards. That AGESA finally fixed 2:1 mode so that it actually behaves like you expect it to and can scale memory to Intel 2 DIMM board speeds. Supposedly it also allows for chips to go to higher memory speeds in 1:1 mode, where 6400 should work on more chips at lower SOC voltage levels, though I haven't really seen much proof of that since most of the coverage yesterday was on boards running at 7200+. 

No wonder why ive never seen non desync uclk/fclk or whatever the proper term is now for higher clocks

 

Now im kinda curious as to how the b650m hdv clocks rams since its a 2dimm board