Comprehensive Memory Overclocking Guide

[jvmunhoz]

8 hours ago, MageTank said:

Sounds like you found a "bad strap". Back with DDR3, I would fail ANY 2666mhz configuration, but could do 2933 with the exact same setup. With early DDR4 samples, I was able to pass 3200 and 3466, but fail 3333. Glad you had the foresight to try another strap instead of giving up at the first sign of failure, I may have forgotten to mention that in my original guide.

 

As for your timings, I agree that the secondary and tertiary timings need work. Your RTL/IO-L offsets are definitely out of whack a little and need to be straightened out. On your 4100 C19 profile, there is a 3T gap between each RTL channel. This needs to be within 0-1T. The same goes for your IO values, which are 2T apart. They need to be 0-1T. Use the RTL Init formula to help narrow the window and tighten those values, or simply loosen the tRDWR timings a little and see how they train afterwards.

 

The same goes for the 4000 C19 profile, but I would work on the 4100 first. In both, you need to adjust tFAW to be 4x tRRD_S. In your 4100 profile, tFAW's value would be 36 (assuming you did not adjust tRRD_L at all) and in the 4000 profile it would be 28.

 

I also didn't mention in this guide, but you shouldn't adjust tWTR_L or tWTR_S manually. Adjusting the tWRRD timings will automatically change those, so leave those two secondary timings on auto and influence them using the tWRRD tertiary timings. 

 

I really do need to update this guide, there is a lot that I've learned over the years that I have not included that would probably help people understand this a bit better. I hope that helps in your tweaking, if you have any questions, let me know.

I actually mistakenly understood that the system should be totally stable after choosing the frequency/primary timings with the proper voltages. And only THEN we would start tinkering with secondary and tertiary timings. So yeah, my bad hehe. I've another doubt though.

 

The best config which passed on MemTest86 was the 4133 C17 that I mentioned on my last post, but my highest bootable config was definitely 4200 C16, which gave me some great performance out of the box, but it failed spectacularly on MemTest86. So is it safe to say at this stage that my mobo doesn't like 4200 C16 and it would be better to focus on the 4133 C17? Or was it my bios that may have messed up on the auto timings of the 4200 C16 and therefore made it unstable?

[MageTank]

On 4/17/2020 at 5:25 PM, jvmunhoz said:

I actually mistakenly understood that the system should be totally stable after choosing the frequency/primary timings with the proper voltages. And only THEN we would start tinkering with secondary and tertiary timings. So yeah, my bad hehe. I've another doubt though.

 

The best config which passed on MemTest86 was the 4133 C17 that I mentioned on my last post, but my highest bootable config was definitely 4200 C16, which gave me some great performance out of the box, but it failed spectacularly on MemTest86. So is it safe to say at this stage that my mobo doesn't like 4200 C16 and it would be better to focus on the 4133 C17? Or was it my bios that may have messed up on the auto timings of the 4200 C16 and therefore made it unstable?

If you did not tweak secondary/tertiary timings with the 4200 C16 profile, it's possible you can make it stable, but I would strongly advise that you test performance after each tweak to make sure you are not losing performance or leaving performance on the table. Sometimes, 4200 C16 will end up slower than 4133 C17 if you have to compromise a ton on tertiary timings to achieve stability.

 

When we are getting this high in clock speed, it blurs the line as to whether or not we are dealing with a board or IMC limitation. In my experience, it's a little bit of both for my setup.

[DonGuano]

Hi everyone.

 

I'm having hard time overclocking my memory. I have tried almost everything, and nothing seem to work. I won't be able to boot anything over 3266 MHz, even at 1.5 volts. Tried memory calculator, Ryzen Master, countless different settings. According to Typhoon I have Samsung B-die memory. I have heard there are some really bad B-dies that can't be overcloked, could this be the case? Can my CPU be the cause?

 

MEM: Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 2x8GB 3200Mhz CL16 CMW16GX4M2C3200C16

CPU: Ryzen 5 3600

MB: MSI B450i Gaming AC Plus

 

 

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, DonGuano said:

Hi everyone.

 

I'm having hard time overclocking my memory. I have tried almost everything, and nothing seem to work. I won't be able to boot anything over 3266 MHz, even at 1.5 volts. Tried memory calculator, Ryzen Master, countless different settings. According to Typhoon I have Samsung B-die memory. I have heard there are some really bad B-dies that can't be overcloked, could this be the case? Can my CPU be the cause?

 

MEM: Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 2x8GB 3200Mhz CL16 CMW16GX4M2C3200C16

CPU: Ryzen 5 3600

MB: MSI B450i Gaming AC Plus

 

 

It's difficult to say exactly what the limitation is given the many factors. All you can really do is tweak to the best of your abilities to achieve stability. There isn't really a guaranteed solution as nothing is guaranteed when overclocking, not even XMP/DOCP profiles. I would advise making sure you have the latest AGESA firmware to make sure you have the best memory compatibility with your board. Dial the VDIMM back, maybe add a little extra SOC voltage (no more than 1.2V) and see where that takes you. If you can't get higher than 3266mhz, then simply tighten your timings and aim for the lowest latency possible. You'll still see a pretty hefty boost in performance with tighter timings.

[DonGuano]

After a lot of browsing and trying differend timings I have learned CMW16GX4M2C3200C16 is is very bad for overclocking, at least on Ryzen setups. It is s bad B-die. I have been able to tighten the timings just a little bit. That's all. Running 16-17-17-36-60 at 3200 MHz. Stock is 16-18-18-36-75. Took hours and countless BIOS resets. I might try tweaking some more some day when sober..

[jvmunhoz]

On 4/20/2020 at 8:47 AM, MageTank said:

If you did not tweak secondary/tertiary timings with the 4200 C16 profile, it's possible you can make it stable, but I would strongly advise that you test performance after each tweak to make sure you are not losing performance or leaving performance on the table. Sometimes, 4200 C16 will end up slower than 4133 C17 if you have to compromise a ton on tertiary timings to achieve stability.

 

When we are getting this high in clock speed, it blurs the line as to whether or not we are dealing with a board or IMC limitation. In my experience, it's a little bit of both for my setup.

Ok, thanks for the clarification @MageTank!

 

I think I'll start tinkering the 4133 C17 since it seems It'll take less compromise to achieve stability. Besides adjusting TFAW to 36 (4x9), any other obvious improvements I could make?

 

Thanks for the tips so far!

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

@MageTank This thread is amazing and your posts here are helpful and detailed AF. I love it. I wish I had found this last year when I was tweaking my memory. I think I found an older version of the first post copy-pasted to another forum because it looks familiar.

On 1/10/2020 at 11:50 AM, MageTank said:

You can also see that my secondary timings are looser than yours, but I've made up for it with tighter primary and tertiary timings. My configuration is designed to achieve the lowest possible latency

Did you choose to leave some of the secondary timings a bit looser so that you could further tighten some tertiary timings? I notice, for example, that you have tWR, tRTP, tFAW, and even tCKE set looser than I have mine, in some cases much looser, but that some of your tertiary timings are a bit tighter. Did you set tertiary timings before some of these? I think I could go lower on some of my secondaries, but chose not to based on what I was reading around the web at the time. Any rules you have for these would be amazing.

 

Like I said, I dialed most of these timings in about a year ago. But, I just updated my bios to the latest version and decided to poke around with it a little more. Here is what I have been able to achieve with 2X this: F4-3200C14D-16GTZR

 

 

 

 

Any insight you have will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[MageTank]

20 hours ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

@MageTank This thread is amazing and your posts here are helpful and detailed AF. I love it. I wish I had found this last year when I was tweaking my memory. I think I found an older version of the first post copy-pasted to another forum because it looks familiar.

Did you choose to leave some of the secondary timings a bit looser so that you could further tighten some tertiary timings? I notice, for example, that you have tWR, tRTP, tFAW, and even tCKE set looser than I have mine, in some cases much looser, but that some of your tertiary timings are a bit tighter. Did you set tertiary timings before some of these? I think I could go lower on some of my secondaries, but chose not to based on what I was reading around the web at the time. Any rules you have for these would be amazing.

 

Like I said, I dialed most of these timings in about a year ago. But, I just updated my bios to the latest version and decided to poke around with it a little more. Here is what I have been able to achieve with 2X this: F4-3200C14D-16GTZR

 

Any insight you have will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I normally adjust tertiary timings after primary timings, leaving secondary timings last. My reason for this is that some tertiary timings will automatically adjust a few of the secondary timings for you (tWRRD_SG and tWRRD_DG will adjust tWTR_L and tWTR_S) and I also find that tighter tertiary timings will offer more performance than tightly tweaked secondary timings. As for why my tFAW and tCKE values are so high, frankly I couldn't tell a difference in performance between them, but increasing them gave me slightly more wiggle room to push 4000 C15 at 1.5V. Technically speaking, I can take tCKE all the way down to 1 and it doesn't appear to do anything at all. tFAW I can safely reduce to 16 based on tRRD_S x4, but it didn't impact my latency in the slightest, so I decided against it.

 

My advice to you would be to experiment with a little more VDIMM if you are comfortable doing so, and then play with those tertiary timings some more. Understand that with 4 DIMM's, you are operating under 2DPC, so all of those 2DPC timings (_DD or Different DIMM timings) matter quite a bit for your performance. 

 

Another lesser known secret is your CPU cache "uncore" clock. Your IMC is tied to this value, so pushing your cache even higher will ultimately improve your IMC performance. My cache is actually quite binned on my CPU and I can run it at 5ghz while my CPU runs around 5.1-5.2 depending on the time of year. The higher uncore has dramatically improved my memory latency over stock uncore, so push for that once you are done tweaking your memory, it'll help shave off some excess latency.

 

Your timings look quite good, especially for a cheaper B-die kit. At this point, you are likely held back by voltage and the binning of your IC's more than anything, so for 1.41V, I think you have a solid setup, especially compared to your XMP values.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

@MageTank

 

Thanks for the detailed response. I was able to get my uncore clock up to 4.8GHz, tREFI up to 65535, and tighten tRDWR_dd, tRDWR_sg, & tRDWR_dg.

 

I'm having an issue, though. Although I have had no errors in any stability tests with my current settings, my system is at times unable to post with errors codes 09 and d0. I have IOL and RTL settings locked in to known working numbers (although I have not tried tweaking them yet), and I have very few timings set to auto (just tREFI 2 & 4, tWR, & all variations of tWTR). 

 

Have you run into this sort of thing before, and do you have any recommendations? Below are my current settings.

 

 

Thanks!

[MageTank]

14 hours ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

@MageTank

 

Thanks for the detailed response. I was able to get my uncore clock up to 4.8GHz, tREFI up to 65535, and tighten tRDWR_dd, tRDWR_sg, & tRDWR_dg.

 

I'm having an issue, though. Although I have had no errors in any stability tests with my current settings, my system is at times unable to post with errors codes 09 and d0. I have IOL and RTL settings locked in to known working numbers (although I have not tried tweaking them yet), and I have very few timings set to auto (just tREFI 2 & 4, tWR, & all variations of tWTR). 

 

Have you run into this sort of thing before, and do you have any recommendations? Below are my current settings.

 

 

Thanks!

Were your RTL/IO-L settings dialed in before you tightened your tRDWR timings? The RTL/IO-L values will change as you adjust your tertiary timings, as "Round Trip Latency" changes as you improve essentially any timing. I normally recommend adjusting RTL/IO-L last.

 

As for whether or not I've ran into this issue before, I have, and it typically stems from MRC Fast Boot being enabled. There are also newer timings on Z390/Z490 that wasn't present on Z370 that involve additional real-time training/optimization, though I don't know if these settings are present on ASUS boards. I'll have to look further into it.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

Were your RTL/IO-L settings dialed in before you tightened your tRDWR timings?

No. I locked them down after. As an attempt to solve my issue. 

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

MRC Fast Boot

I'll play around with that.

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

newer timings

Are you talking about TWRPRE, TRDPRE, tREFIX9, and OREF_RI. Those are listed after tertiary timings in my bios.

 

I also have a whole page full of memory training algorithm settings.

[MageTank]

23 minutes ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

No. I locked them down after. As an attempt to solve my issue. 

I'll play around with that.

Are you talking about TWRPRE, TRDPRE, tREFIX9, and OREF_RI. Those are listed after tertiary timings in my bios.

 

I also have a whole page full of memory training algorithm settings.

My apologies, it was incorrect for me to call them "new timings", but rather specific options. ASRock has "XMP Optomized Mode", "ASRock Timing Optimization" and "Realtime Memory Training". Frankly, I have no idea what they actually do, but based on the names alone, I can tell you I already do not trust them. If you have something similar on your ASUS board, consider testing with and without the enabled and see if that resolves the weird training issues you are having. 

 

With the "Realtime Memory Training" setting in particular, I'd avoid using it altogether based on the description:

 

In my opinion, memory shouldn't train after you've already defined the values. This implies that the end result timings may differ from the ones you've manually dialed in, making performance and stability flaky. Still, do what works best for your setup. If you find your stability and performance is better with it turned on, then give it a shot.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

@MageTank

 

Ah excellent. I do have setting like that. "Realtime Memory Timings" or something similar to that. I had it enabled so I could quickly test for possible stable timings in Windows using Asus's utility MemTweakIt, but I lazily left it enabled. I'll try disabling it to see if that helps.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

@MageTank

 

I thought I'd give you an update on this because maybe you are interested.

 

I set "MRC Fast Boot" and "Realtime Memory Timings" to disabled as recommended and also set "MCH Full Check" to enabled. This seemed to solve the issue, but it presented itself again a few days ago and today. However, I did realize that it only happens with a warm system. Cold boots always POST fine, but warm boots tend to result in POST codes 09, D0, and 55 (repectively: "PCH initialization after microcode loading", "CPU initialization error", "memory not installed").

 

After some tinkering, I discovered that setting tertiary timings to auto resolves the issue. This is how I'll run the system for now since I need it stable atm.

 

My plan of action will be to try adjusting vDIMM up to at most 1.5V, and if that doesn't work then I'll go through the tertiary timings as groups (tRDRD_xx, tRDWR_xx, etc) with a warm system until I find the culprit. I strongly suspect it has something to do with tWRRD_xg, because I did not have this issue before when those were set to auto, and tWTR_S and L were each set to 6 (sort of the opposite of how you have recommended).

 

Any other thoughts you may have would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[MageTank]

On 7/3/2020 at 4:37 PM, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

@MageTank

 

I thought I'd give you an update on this because maybe you are interested.

 

I set "MRC Fast Boot" and "Realtime Memory Timings" to disabled as recommended and also set "MCH Full Check" to enabled. This seemed to solve the issue, but it presented itself again a few days ago and today. However, I did realize that it only happens with a warm system. Cold boots always POST fine, but warm boots tend to result in POST codes 09, D0, and 55 (repectively: "PCH initialization after microcode loading", "CPU initialization error", "memory not installed").

 

After some tinkering, I discovered that setting tertiary timings to auto resolves the issue. This is how I'll run the system for now since I need it stable atm.

 

My plan of action will be to try adjusting vDIMM up to at most 1.5V, and if that doesn't work then I'll go through the tertiary timings as groups (tRDRD_xx, tRDWR_xx, etc) with a warm system until I find the culprit. I strongly suspect it has something to do with tWRRD_xg, because I did not have this issue before when those were set to auto, and tWTR_S and L were each set to 6 (sort of the opposite of how you have recommended).

 

Any other thoughts you may have would be appreciated.

Thanks!

If it's only happening when the system is warm, look at tREFI. tREFI is extremely sensitive to temperature, which is exactly why I have my little pink fan pointing directly at my DIMMs. I can't run 65535 without active cooling pointing directly at my DIMMs.

Dial your previous tertiary timings in then bring tREFI down to 15600 and give that a try for a little while. If that proves to be stable, increase it from there. Just be mindful of the airflow near your DIMMs and if need be, improvise some better cooling to achieve a higher tREFI.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

6 hours ago, MageTank said:

If it's only happening when the system is warm, look at tREFI.

That was my first thought too based on what you've said earlier in the thread, and since it's one of the easier things to tweak, it was the first thing I tried.

 

I had some time today to mess with it, and it turns out that tWRWR_dd was my issue. Setting it from 7 to 9 (8 still caused problems) has resolved the issue. Later I might try getting it lower again by using more vDIMM.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

@MageTank I discovered something very interesting. In Buildzoid's latest video he mentioned that, in his experience, the 100:133 ratio tends to be more stable with no performance penalty. So I went in to my BIOS and manually set the ratio to 100:133 from auto and surprisingly I am now able to run my primaries at 16-17-17-35 vs previously 17-18-18-35. I haven't touched the secondaries or tertiaries yet after making this change. I'm excited to see if i can get some extra performance there. Here are my results and the clip from Buildzoid:

 

 

[straight_stewie]

On 7/3/2020 at 3:37 PM, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

Cold boots always POST fine, but warm boots tend to result in POST codes 09, D0, and 55

Can you better define "cold boot" and "warm boot"?

These terms are also used to refer to booting modes once we start processor initialization, and in this respect have nothing to do with the actual temperature of components, nor the amount of time they have been off for. In particular, a "warm boot" happens after the machine has been turned off in such a way that some components stay initialized. Interestingly, one of these components is RAM, which takes a while to initialize, but consumes little power at idle. If Windows is not configured properly, it's default when you use the shutdown button is to do a "soft shutdown", which leads to a "warm boot", which assumes that DRAM initialization procedures have already happened, and so skips them.

A warm boot in this respect is also what happens when you issue a restart (reboot) command.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if tight timings and high speeds led to instability in a warm boot from this perspective, especially if tREFI is very long. Memory does partial refreshes as you access it, so RAM sitting truly idle for long periods of time in a soft shutdown mode with a long tREFI may get invalidated, but still assumed to be valid on a warm boot.

In other words, a long tREFI may be stable when the system is under active use, but not while it's sitting truly idle (such as sleep, hibernate, or soft shutdown).

Keep in mind that "long periods of time" is a relative statement here. The maximum value should be 2¹⁶-1 microseconds, which is roughly 6/100 of a second.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

8 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Can you better define "cold boot" and "warm boot"?

I am aware of the meaning as you defined it, so I should have been more clear. I was speaking of temperature. Soft vs Hard boot made no difference to my issue, only the temperature of the system was a factor. But the issue has been resolved.

[MageTank]

32 minutes ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

@MageTank I discovered something very interesting. In Buildzoid's latest video he mentioned that, in his experience, the 100:133 ratio tends to be more stable with no performance penalty. So I went in to my BIOS and manually set the ratio to 100:133 from auto and surprisingly I am now able to run my primaries at 16-17-17-35 vs previously 17-18-18-35. I haven't touched the secondaries or tertiaries yet after making this change. I'm excited to see if i can get some extra performance there. Here are my results and the clip from Buildzoid:

 

 

Very interesting, I haven't see the "133 strap" strategy since DDR3, where you needed to use it to make 2666 work. This was due to the fact that some DDR3 motherboards simply hated running at higher memory multipliers, so using the 133 strap with a lower multiplier allowed you to achieve the exact same clock speed while bypassing the multiplier limitation. I have not watched Buildzoid's video (currently at work) so I don't know if he went over this or not, but I'll give it a watch as soon as I am off. Thanks for sharing, glad to hear you are seeing progress with this configuration.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

I have most things set now including IOL/RTL so I might only be doing miner tinkering from here.

 

I was able to get Trfc much lower (360 -> 296), and many of my tertiary timings. I was also able to reduce my VCCSA and VCCIO voltages from ~1.275V to ~1.20V or lower. 1.20V is the first thing I tried and it worked. I will try to go lower later. I worked on getting some of the secondaries tighter despite the minimal performance gains. I found some relationships between TRDPRE, TWRPRE, tWR, and tRTP. Oddly for me, decreasing rather than increasing the IOL offsets helped me lower my RTLs. I achieved good latency results with IOL offsets of 14 and RTL initial value 61.

 

Overall I am much more pleased with these results:

 

 

 

[MageTank]

15 minutes ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

I have most things set now including IOL/RTL so I might only be doing miner tinkering from here.

 

I was able to get Trfc much lower (360 -> 296), and many of my tertiary timings. I was also able to reduce my VCCSA and VCCIO voltages from ~1.275V to ~1.20V or lower. 1.20V is the first thing I tried and it worked. I will try to go lower later. I worked on getting some of the secondaries tighter despite the minimal performance gains. I found some relationships between TRDPRE, TWRPRE, tWR, and tRTP. Oddly for me, decreasing rather than increasing the IOL offsets helped me lower my RTLs. I achieved good latency results with IOL offsets of 14 and RTL initial value 61.

 

Overall I am much more pleased with these results:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely impressive. Being able to lower VCCIO/VCCSA while maintaining stability is an excellent sign, as it means you've dialed in some very solid settings that your IMC is agreeing with.

[Slackaveli]

This thread has helped me so much. Im at 4000 15-15-15-30-300, (52x-core50x-uncore), all manual with super tight everything, even my iol looks right , 58,59,58,59 all the way down. Thanks so much everybody. Ill post more soon with pics and maybe Mage and Monkey will give them the eye over and tell me where i can find more latency lowering. Ive only gotten as low as 40.6 right now at I see you both had 40 or lower.

 

One thing I will mention, this is the famed NEO kit xmp 3800c14-16-16 for Ryzen but Im running it on an SP91 10900k on an Asus Hero. This thing has a great IMC. I was able to post at 4500 c18-19-19 but it wasnt stable. However, it was fast. 66000 read and 42ns .

Anyway, thanks for the thread. I wish it was updated with everything you've learned sense but it's great as-is.  

[Berk70]

I know this is not for  laptops but I have tried ram tweaking on my laptop before and it just doenst want to do it.

 

msi ge75 10sf 10875h and crucial 2x16gb dual rank 3200mhz cl16 ram kit

 

anything over 3200mhz even on 1.5v is not booting.

XMP of 3200mhz cl16 is giving bsod

 

I manually set it to cl18 1.35v and I am using like that for a year but I am still not satisfied

 

What quick settings can i do you must have experience on intel platforms for me to try out

 

I know laptops are not same but any help is appriciated

 

I have access to sub timings but I do not know the best values to test for stability while gaining a okay amount of performance

 

Photo is jedec vs cl18

[MageTank]

24 minutes ago, Berk70 said:

I know this is not for  laptops but I have tried ram tweaking on my laptop before and it just doenst want to do it.

 

msi ge75 10sf 10875h and crucial 2x16gb dual rank 3200mhz cl16 ram kit

 

anything over 3200mhz even on 1.5v is not booting.

XMP of 3200mhz cl16 is giving bsod

 

I manually set it to cl18 1.35v and I am using like that for a year but I am still not satisfied

 

What quick settings can i do you must have experience on intel platforms for me to try out

 

I know laptops are not same but any help is appriciated

 

I have access to sub timings but I do not know the best values to test for stability while gaining a okay amount of performance

 

Photo is jedec vs cl18

So this guide is actually pretty applicable to Intel laptops, though it depends entirely on whether the BIOS provides access to the required secondary and tertiary timings as well as VCCSA/VCCIO voltages. VDIMM is not enough to achieve stability and eventually you need to stabilize the IMC.

 

That said, your result is already very impressive. You pushed your bandwidth up nearly 7% on read, nearly 10% on write and a massive 20% on copy, all while dropping latency by 10%. This is not something to be unsatisfied with.

 

Something to keep in mind when it comes to stability in laptops is that ram thermals do become an issue. They ship these at 1.2V for a reason, and that is because airflow over SODIMMs isn't exactly common. TREFI is very heat sensitive and pushing high TREFI with high heat is easy instability. If you have access to TREFI, you may want to avoid increasing it as it could be another limitation.

 

Also remember that memory is heavily tied to uncore (cache) in general. When we get laptops, our first instinct is to undervolt them because Intel is insanely gratuitous with their stock voltage values and there is a ton of thermal headroom to claim in that endeavor. Sadly, this also comes at a cost of memory performance as it means we can't push our cache clocks as high and as a result, we lose out on free latency being left on the table. That balance is difficult to find on a laptop.

 

If you can show me some screenshots of the memory OC settings on the BIOS as well as some of the voltage control settings, I might be able to help nudge you a little further, but I would honestly be very proud of your results. SODIMMs are not equipped with the best IC's and you just squeezed significant performance out of your DIMMs for free.