All Activity

Yeah that is out of my neck of the woods at 1.7 VDD. I stick to 1.5 max and let the chips fall where they may still #2 at 1:1 is a 6400 beast. If you're hell bent on 1:1 that is the way I would go. Curious to see what #1 and #2 do at 8000+ maxed out for some H2H "which one stays and which one goes," game show elimination. 🤣

I appreciate the sharp humor in your dictionary. It got me thinking about social media's dark side. For a side project, I used https://famoid.com/ to get some real followers. The gradual delivery and no-password policy felt secure, and it did the job without fuss.

For those who own a 16 with a dGPU, are the vents on your base cover open over all 3 fans or only 2?

😬 It seems like the jump from 6400c28 to 6400c26 needs significantly more voltage, I am using 1.700v VDD currently. Anyone else try this profile before? What sort of voltages did you require? I do not know why, but for some reason I do like the 2167 chip #2 better, the memory controller is more fun to play with. I will enjoy it for another 1-2 days, and then I will pop Chip#1 back in for 2200fclk and more testing! And if I find myself where I cannot live without Chip#2, then we will go from there! lol. But 6400c26 is amazing to me. 1.700vdd is high, but keeping the 1.400vddq keeps temps realistic with a fan. (3) cycles on VT3 and sticks were 45c.

OMG..... 🤣

That's unfortunate 😞 I'd presume maybe the R3 and r4 share similarities with the Msata slot.

Here are some nice free to play internet arcade games.

None of them (NVIDIA or AMD) are genuinely good products that are priced to value. They're all grossly overpriced, flawed, poorly designed and compromised products that are destined for premature failure and fail to perform adequately based on what the pricetag suggests they should, including 5090. The current GPU market represents the most horrific example of poor value the world has ever seen. If something goes wrong, there is maybe a 10% chance your warranty will be honored, because the companies that build them are universally dishonest. Totally not worth the cost. The 4090 is better than 5080, but if you can even find one for sale it's nearly as overpriced as 5090 (double what an overpriced 5080 costs).

Ironically I bought a RTX 5080 in early 2025 before all the AI hype but returned it because it felt weird going from 24GB RTX Titan SLI to RTX 5080. I was hoping to find a 5090 but at this rate I might as well wait for the 6090 😄

Yeah, 2200 over 2167 for sure Hey brother, good to see you. Nice setup! Yeah, I agree with you. I don't like the newer versions of Cinebench. R23 and R20 are both better IMHO. Now is the worst possible time to try to jump onto the 50 series bandwagon, but things are going to get worse before they get better. Maybe you can find a good 5080 or 5090 second hand from a trustworthy seller that isn't going to try to scam you.

Hello did anyone manage to allow undervolting or not all all? I know someone tried but wasn't successful.

I sadly couldn't find any more information maybe I didn't do a very deep search. Only info I got was from Kela and we chatted in DMs. I wanted to purchase but the first revision is in pure iGFX so nope. No mux, no PEG. It only has one NVMe slot lol They also have different heatsinks for different MXM. X-VSION cards are good but I didn't rely on them for the backlight mod. They didn't care back. Embedded use

I already tried multiple MXM cards years ago in my X170SM, I didn't just make up the story that it's not wired in the mxm port. Don't rely on X-VSION to do anything. Have you purchased their latest laptops? If so how are they?

Words are word, need certitude. Future people won't know about this, till now, I couldn't find information online. Don't want someone to spend thousands on that system. At least I tested on both SM and KM models. Even in iGPU it doesn't work (KM). E1 - E4 power pads don't provide all the needed power and I can't solder (risky to damage both motherboard and card) Kela and me tested with bunch of different GPUs so we are 100% certain that regular cards don't work. A guy in ebay chat tried to lie to me about KM being "more compatible" so I had to test for good and for once. Even the GTX Clevo cards don't work well in KM... They remade the Clevo X7200 in terms of compatibility which sucks. I had an idea which is to make a cable that translates to a flex cable and slide them to E1 to E4 pads. We need 19.5V-20V 10A for the MXM. But that's also risky, the flexcable could burn... X-VSION allowed me to send an email to their PO about the "new revision". I hope X-VSION fix their laptops with pure PEG compatibility or with advanced optimus (and also add better VRMs for their motherboard).

Hiya fellas. Good to see everyone around here. Thought I'd drop this here as I had a little time to play with my desktop. BTW am I the only one who doesn't like the new Cinebench 2026? I feel like R23 was better. I like seeing all the threads populate the image. W7-3465X 3.2Ghz all core stock > 4.3Ghz all core (28-cores). Single thread should be around 5-5.2ghz somewhere (I didn't check to see if it was actually sticking). I have a VM open and some other stuff but doubt it'd drastically change the score. Also got a Z890+270K Plus to play with next week. Still no 5000 series gpu though lol

Here is mine all stock no tuning to the cores or anything like that, PBO is auto so I am not sure if thats enabled or not. These Gskills 6800's are fantastic rams. Running 6400c28 with 1.45vdd and 1.40vddq. They destroy my last Corsair rams!

I told you this before you even wanted to buy a x170 clevo. The pins on the mxm port are not wired for power. You need to use a gpu that uses clevo's power connector. if you want to use a standard mxm card on the x170 you need to solder all the power pins from the clevo power connector area.

Lunacy pricing.... 5060ti costs more than the 9070xt in the US atm retail pricing....just how much Nvidia doesn't care as consumers swirl the "edge computing" toilet bowl atm.... 62% faster at 1440p. 71% faster at 4k, costs less yet you know people will keep scarfing up the Nvidia brand. PC Partpicker: Cheapest 9070xt = $739.99 (~23% over MSRP $599.99 launch price) Cheapest 5060ti 16gb = $749.99 (~75%+ over MSRP $429.99 launch price) ------------------------------------------------------- Hmmmm..... Well 6400 vs 8000 you're not going to see much difference on average so you're right there. I talked about that over a year or so ago but 8000 is a cake and eat it too frequency to run. I kept going back and forth testing 6400 1:1 c30 and 8000 1:2 c36 and my final conclusion (YMMV of course) was that at worse, 6400 = 8000 and at best it beats on a varying scale so if your system supports it, especially running dual CCD which I don't even run on desktop, I am hard pressed to finalize around 6400. I would settle in and test at 8000 across the board and see which chip is fully stable at 8000c34 and weigh that equally, if not higher than 1:1 testing at this point, but again, that's just me. That is also one reason I've been jumping through so many hoops lately testing memory cooling the last 5-6 months because of the 270k adventures and finally adopting 8000+ on AM5. All setups going forward, after having stuck to 1:1 for over a year, will be 8000+ and those temps are getting juicy. On the other hand, if you're fully locked into wanting to run 2167/6400 tuned to the gills, CPU#2 would be the direction I would go too because it just seems made for 1:1. I'm hoping you get to eat your cake and eat it too and #2 also turns out to be the best at 8000. But man that not hitting 2200 is a (mild) kick in the teeth. The real suck out scenario is if CPU #2 is a beast at 1:1 and CPU #1 is a beast at 1:2. In that scenario, I'm picking #1 all day everyday. As for overclocking, I was pulling teeth and went with per CCD not per core like @Mr. Fox because it was quicker and you know if your weakest core is rock solid, the rest of them are too even with ambient changes. Last time I did per core was my 5800x and that took forever and even then I would sometimes get little instability and crashes. I was content with per CCD but of course you're not extracting the most performance possible so there's a trade off. Yeah, I don't know if I could let the 2200 chip go......

If you want to see the difference 2200 FCLK makes, run Y-Cruncher 2.5B and look at the speed improvement compared to 2167.

Hybrid OC (or Dynamic Overclock Switcher aka as "DOS" in ASUS terminology). Basically tune your PBO to the best stable undervolt that gives the highest low core use clock speed for gaming (which is the only thing PBO is actually good for) and them set your per CCD manual overclock and VCore/VID and power switch threshold. If you followed the videos I shared with you previously to tune your PBO then the tedious part is over and the core overclocking is much easier. You will want to set LLC Level 6 or 7. LLC does not apply to PBO, only the manual OC. For the manual overclock switch I have all cores set at 54x for each CCD and 1.275V VCore and VID voltage. I have the switch threshold set for 120A, so it runs PBO clocks until the CPU pulls 120A, then switches to the manual OC. Using the video I shared with you for PBO per-core tuning, this is where I ended up with my per core PBO negative offset (which may not work well for your dual 3D cache CPU, but you can certainly test and see). I do not use Curve Shaper, only Curve Optimizer. Curve Shaper doesn't really do anything for me other than contribute to freezing while watching YouTube videos and web browsing and tuning Curve Optimizer properly is already a pain in the a$$ without complicating matters with Curve Shaper. For illustration, here are the settings I used with the 9950X in the X870E Apex for the hybrid/DOS daily driver settings. I later increased the switch threshold to 120A instead of using the ASUS recommended value (89A) in the "Prediction" window. In case you missed the post with the PBO tuning video, it is posted here. Do the PER CORE tuning (versus per CCD) to maximize your results. Otherwise, per CCD will limit your maximum stable negative offset to your WORST core on each CCD. When you tune the Curve Optimizer offset for the maxium negative offset each core can run stable, all of your cores will boost higher, the CPU will run cooler and be more stable. It's a pain in the butt, but worth the effort if you want the best overall result. Your best cores (that use less voltage) will likely handle less undervolt (negative CO offset) simply because they are already using less voltage by default. If you set all the same on one CCD your best cores will under-perform due to voltage starvation, or your system will be unstable (random lockups in light loads like web browsing and watching YouTube videos).

Unless the core overclocking is worse on the one that runs 2200 FCLK, I would keep that one and send back the one limited to 2167 FCLK. If memory serves me correctly, they are the same SP rating and have a similar V/F curve. The one that cannot run 2200 FCLK would end upl being your weakest link in the system and memory overclocking is the least important performance factor with Ryzen, and even less important with an X3D CPU. Being limited to 2167 tells you on face value that it has a weaker fabric interconnect and is the inferior sample of the two.

That’s pretty amazing temps for an SFF! Can you tell me what sort of settings you run here on this SFF PC? Do you run a manual OC with this?

I just tested some of the Vallhalla PC Bifrost Alloy thermal paste (company owned by drajav at overclock.net) and it is a good thermal paste. I tested using the SFF living room build that has a 360 AIO. https://www.valhallapc.com/products/bifrost-alloy-thermal-paste

You need to use them. It was obvious you'll get a black screen.