Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    New ROGer Array Addiecool PC Specs
    Addiecool PC Specs
    MotherboardAsus Rampage VI APEX
    ProcessorIntel 7900X OC to 4.6Ghz Custom Loop
    Memory (part number)Gskill Trident Z RGB 3000 Mhz CL14
    Graphics Card #1GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    Graphics Card #2GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    MonitorAsus PG279Q 165Hz 27"
    Storage #1Samsung 960EVO NVME
    Storage #2Kingston HyperX 240 GB PCIE M.2
    CPU CoolerCustom Loop EKWB
    CaseCorsoair Obsidian 900D
    Power SupplyCorsair AX1500i
    Keyboard Razer Deathadder
    Mouse Razer Gaming Mouse
    Mouse Pad iChill
    Headset/Speakers B&O
    OS Windows 10

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    32

    CPU Cache speed question on the x299

    Hi

    In my recent build as soon as I finished installing the system I ran some benchmarks. I saved a screen shot for only CPU-Z 1.80. To my surprise I got a score of 7100.
    I had set the following parameters on the first stage and the system passed all stability tests.

    4.7Ghz @ offset of 0.012v
    3.2Ghz Cache @ 1.16v
    DRAM at 3600Mhz @1.35v (16-16-16-32)
    Rest everything I set to Auto

    While testing a few things, I set the cache to 3 Ghz down from 3.2Ghz @1.155v. Though the system worked perfectly still and made no noticeable difference, the CPUZ score fell by 1200 points to 5700-5800. I did not know at this time that this was due to the what reason.

    Baffled much, I tried everything I knew to fix this (thanks to my OCD :-) )

    And suddenly I realized setting the cache to 3200Mhz upped the scores back to 7100 and a little better on other benchmarks.

    So my question is, can cache speed make such a big difference in speeds? Is this possible? or a bug? I am sorta baffled still.

    System spcs

    Intel 7900x OCd to 4700ghz @ 1.238v
    Asus Rampage Extreme VI
    64GB GSkill DDR4 Ocd to 3600mhz
    Samsung EVO 960 256GB on the PCH NVME slot
    Kingston 240 GB NVME on the DIMM.2 Slot
    2 x Samsung 850 1TB SATA SSD's
    2 x GTX 1080TI SLI
    Corsair 1500Axi PSU
    Corsair Obsidian 900D
    Enermax pump
    2 x 360 RAD's and 1 x 240 RAD. Single loop
    Heatkiller IV CPU Waterblock
    EKWB 1080ti waterblocks

    Screen shots below. The pic with the higher score is at 3200mhz cache.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7900x-4.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	197.1 KB 
ID:	67665

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7900x-41.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	175.7 KB 
ID:	67666

    Thanks a ton

  2. #2
    ROG Guru: White Belt Array Moloch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    91

    Quote Originally Posted by Addiecool View Post
    While testing a few things, I set the cache to 3 Ghz down from 3.2Ghz @1.155v. Though the system worked perfectly still and made no noticeable difference, the CPUZ score fell by 1200 points to 5700-5800. I did not know at this time that this was due to the what reason.

    Baffled much, I tried everything I knew to fix this (thanks to my OCD :-) )

    And suddenly I realized setting the cache to 3200Mhz upped the scores back to 7100 and a little better on other benchmarks.

    So my question is, can cache speed make such a big difference in speeds? Is this possible? or a bug? I am sorta baffled still.
    That seems like a huge difference from 3000 to 3200, but I'm no expert on cache.

    My personal experience was having ~85GB/s RAM bandwidth with default 2400 cache speed. When I bumped it to 3200, I got 105GB/s... 25% increase in RAM bandwidth from a 33% increase in cache speed

    So yeah, I'd guess that is somewhat normal, though I wouldn't expect to see a 20% change in benchmark with only a 5% change in cache speed. That seems like too much... that's similar to what I got moving from 2400 to 3200 (though I did not test to see where the gains were made, it could have been 90% in the 3000-3200 range)
    Last edited by Moloch; 09-24-2017 at 03:53 PM.

  3. #3
    Tech Marketing Manager HQ Array Raja@ASUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Reputation
    164
    Posts
    7,454

    Real world gains are often very small. However, it's worth taking what's on the table, without needing to increase voltages excessively.

  4. #4
    New ROGer Array Addiecool PC Specs
    Addiecool PC Specs
    MotherboardAsus Rampage VI APEX
    ProcessorIntel 7900X OC to 4.6Ghz Custom Loop
    Memory (part number)Gskill Trident Z RGB 3000 Mhz CL14
    Graphics Card #1GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    Graphics Card #2GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    MonitorAsus PG279Q 165Hz 27"
    Storage #1Samsung 960EVO NVME
    Storage #2Kingston HyperX 240 GB PCIE M.2
    CPU CoolerCustom Loop EKWB
    CaseCorsoair Obsidian 900D
    Power SupplyCorsair AX1500i
    Keyboard Razer Deathadder
    Mouse Razer Gaming Mouse
    Mouse Pad iChill
    Headset/Speakers B&O
    OS Windows 10

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    32

    Quote Originally Posted by Moloch View Post
    That seems like a huge difference from 3000 to 3200, but I'm no expert on cache.

    My personal experience was having ~85GB/s RAM bandwidth with default 2400 cache speed. When I bumped it to 3200, I got 105GB/s... 25% increase in RAM bandwidth from a 33% increase in cache speed

    So yeah, I'd guess that is somewhat normal, though I wouldn't expect to see a 20% change in benchmark with only a 5% change in cache speed. That seems like too much... that's similar to what I got moving from 2400 to 3200 (though I did not test to see where the gains were made, it could have been 90% in the 3000-3200 range)
    yup. Major increase seems in the higher cache speeds. Also improves gaming performance in some games.*

  5. #5
    New ROGer Array Addiecool PC Specs
    Addiecool PC Specs
    MotherboardAsus Rampage VI APEX
    ProcessorIntel 7900X OC to 4.6Ghz Custom Loop
    Memory (part number)Gskill Trident Z RGB 3000 Mhz CL14
    Graphics Card #1GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    Graphics Card #2GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    MonitorAsus PG279Q 165Hz 27"
    Storage #1Samsung 960EVO NVME
    Storage #2Kingston HyperX 240 GB PCIE M.2
    CPU CoolerCustom Loop EKWB
    CaseCorsoair Obsidian 900D
    Power SupplyCorsair AX1500i
    Keyboard Razer Deathadder
    Mouse Razer Gaming Mouse
    Mouse Pad iChill
    Headset/Speakers B&O
    OS Windows 10

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    32

    Quote Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS View Post
    Real world gains are often very small. However, it's worth taking what's on the table, without needing to increase voltages excessively.
    agree. I also find it exciting to keep discovering new things about this platform*

  6. #6
    ROG Guru: Blue Belt Array jab383 PC Specs
    jab383 PC Specs
    Motherboard24/7 rig : Maximus VI Extreme
    Processori7 4790K
    Memory (part number)16GB Mushkin Redline 2400 10-12-12-28 + 16GB Corsair Vengeance 2400 10-12-12-31
    Graphics Card #1AMD Firepro W5000
    Sound CardM6E Supreme FX
    MonitorDell U2413
    Storage #1Kingston SH103S3240G SSD
    Storage #2Seagate ST1000DM003 1TB
    CPU CoolerCustom water loop, Delidded, Liquid Metal TIM
    CaseCoolerMaster HAF XM
    Power SupplyCorsair HX-750
    Keyboard Logitech G710+
    Mouse Logitech M705
    OS Windows 7 64 Pro
    jab383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Reputation
    107
    Posts
    853

    Raja hit the key. Yes, cache speed in relation to memory speed can improve or reduce benchmark scores. The point of diminishing returns is where the cache can handle all the memory data traffic - after that higher cache clock makes very little difference. Where it hurts with the current crop of Skylake-X is that higher cache clocks and the required voltage burn a lot of power and heat. As you raise cache clock, watch CPU package temperature.

  7. #7
    New ROGer Array Addiecool PC Specs
    Addiecool PC Specs
    MotherboardAsus Rampage VI APEX
    ProcessorIntel 7900X OC to 4.6Ghz Custom Loop
    Memory (part number)Gskill Trident Z RGB 3000 Mhz CL14
    Graphics Card #1GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    Graphics Card #2GTX 1080TI FE Watercooled
    MonitorAsus PG279Q 165Hz 27"
    Storage #1Samsung 960EVO NVME
    Storage #2Kingston HyperX 240 GB PCIE M.2
    CPU CoolerCustom Loop EKWB
    CaseCorsoair Obsidian 900D
    Power SupplyCorsair AX1500i
    Keyboard Razer Deathadder
    Mouse Razer Gaming Mouse
    Mouse Pad iChill
    Headset/Speakers B&O
    OS Windows 10

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    32

    Quote Originally Posted by jab383 View Post
    Raja hit the key. Yes, cache speed in relation to memory speed can improve or reduce benchmark scores. The point of diminishing returns is where the cache can handle all the memory data traffic - after that higher cache clock makes very little difference. Where it hurts with the current crop of Skylake-X is that higher cache clocks and the required voltage burn a lot of power and heat. As you raise cache clock, watch CPU package temperature.
    Found the sweet spot at 3.2ghz with 1.16v. Very little or no temp increase. System is rock solid

  8. #8
    ROG Enthusiast Array ExcessiveGBH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    68

    Increase in FPS

    Quote Originally Posted by Addiecool View Post
    yup. Major increase seems in the higher cache speeds. Also improves gaming performance in some games.*
    Went from default 2.4GHz to 3.2GHz and had a 10% performance in 3 games I tested, GTA5, Tomb Raider 2013 and Rise of Tomb Raider DX12.

    Here is GTA5 benchmark @4K

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GTA5 Benchmark.JPG 
Views:	6 
Size:	107.6 KB 
ID:	68064z.
    Last edited by ExcessiveGBH; 10-13-2017 at 04:59 AM.
    Win 10 64 bit Pro 1909
    Rampage VI Extreme
    BIOS 3006
    Core i9 10920X @5.0GHz all cores
    EK-KIT G360 (CPU only)
    Samsung 960 PRO NVMe M.2 1TB
    Samsung 970 EVO PLUS NVMe 2TB
    Samsung 860 EVO SSD 4TB
    2 x 4TB drives
    1 x 2TB drive
    Nvidia 2 x Sli Titans Pascal @2035Mhz
    32GB G Skill Trident Z 3466MHz
    Corsair 1200w psu
    Sound Denon AVC-A1
    Panasonic 65 plasma
    Predator XB321HK

  9. #9
    ROG Member Array FaaR PC Specs
    FaaR PC Specs
    MotherboardASUS ROG Strix X299-XE Gaming
    ProcessorIntel Core i9-7900X
    Memory (part number)G.Skill TridentZ RGB F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR (64GB)
    Graphics Card #1ASUS Radeon RX Vega 64 ROG Strix Gaming OC
    Graphics Card #2ASUS Radeon RX Vega 64 ROG Strix Gaming OC
    MonitorSamsung SyncMaster SA850
    Storage #1Intel Optane SSD 905P 2.5" 960GB
    Storage #2Samsung 960 Evo M.2
    CPU CoolerNoctua NH-U14S
    CaseFractal Design Define C TG
    Power SupplyCorsair RM1000i
    Keyboard Corsair Vengeance K70
    Mouse Logitech G700s
    OS Windows 10 Pro

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    17

    Quote Originally Posted by Addiecool View Post
    Hi
    Hi!

    4.7Ghz @ offset of 0.012v
    3.2Ghz Cache @ 1.16v
    DRAM at 3600Mhz @1.35v (16-16-16-32)
    Rest everything I set to Auto
    Interesting... Where, in what software do you set these parameters? I took a quick peek in UEFI, and there was no direct cache speed setting that I could find, only an offset setting, which I did not dare touch.

    Also, do you run all cores at 4.7GHz? I don't watercool, so there's like no way I could pull that off. OCing used to be so simple back in the day, now there's millions of options and settings, and many different turbo modes.

    Like, my CPU (7900X) is IIRC 3.3GHz base frequency on all cores, but it runs AVX loads at 3.5GHz all cores (Prime95 max burn test), and apparently non-AVX loads at 4GHz on all cores (I used Folding@Home for some stress testing), so I'm a bit confuzzled here! Then there's turbo 2.0 and 3.0 on top of that and how they work and on how many cores they apply to is even sketchier... I was thinking maybe I could get away with bumping all the various turbo levels like two bins without having to raise volts any and watch CPU temp skyrocket, maybe three for the turbo boost Max 3.0 to 4.7 or 4.8GHz for what, 4 cores? Not sure how to accomplish that though or if it is even possible to be so specific.

    Thanks for any help and input!

  10. #10
    ROG Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    18

    Another sample point for all on my X299 Prime Deluxe. I am running 4.8 (Silicon Lottery 4.7 purchase) using 1.3v. Running 4000Mhz memory. I'm on water using Koolance's best. Still cannot contain heat!

    Addiecool's sample is the only one I could find in regards to CPU Cache voltage. That is where I started - thanks. I'm at 3.1 at 1.185v (manual setting). I have a 25% increase in performance via CPU-Z - 7285. Linx w/AVX is only 5.5% increase - @ 275 GFlops. I can only run Linx w/AVX approximately 10 passes before it scares me - not real work load for my work anyway. Still no throttling or critical tempsI I have AVX down 300 Mhz as per Silicon Lottery specs. So really I'm running 4.5 on AVX.

    Would love to see more samples and examples of cache adaptive or offset mode. I have no idea where to start there. And I cannot find what the defualt cache voltage is.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1.jpg 
Views:	235 
Size:	67.6 KB 
ID:	68495
    Last edited by RTitan; 10-31-2017 at 02:56 PM.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •