Mr. Fox

And the cynical part of me wonders how many of these GPUs are stock they held back to create fake demand that were produced before the RAM prices got all effed up and now they are functioning as first-party scalpers, screwing their "customers" just because they can rather than passing on actual production costs as necessary to maintain an operationally viable profit margin. I have nothing to base it on, but my belief is all of them until there is evidence that proves otherwise. Hoping for the best, but always assuming the worst, is the best approach. (That assumption is frequently accurate.)

I have always held the opinion that Founders Edition GPUs are garbage, and the 50-series is their worst example to date. Tony reinforces it frequently in his videos. It seems like the engineers that design Founders Edition GPUs are always drunk or taking mind-altering drugs. Like my dad used to say "that piece of crap was designed by a drug Chinaman" LOL.

They make a trashy OS for stupid Kool-Aid drinking losers that are willing to put up with it. Why anyone would be willing to tolerate that is a mystery. How Micro$lop could expect anyone to is an even greater mystery. It seems obvious that they believe the users of their trashy OS are all very stupid people.

I only have the 6000 C26 V-Color dual rank kit that I never would have purchased had I known it was dual rank. It's unable to run above 6200. It's garbage and the only thing the dual rank seems to accomplish is limiting memory clock and adding latency. Not good. But, it totally makes sense that it would be the outcome. You've got twice as many memory chips for the CPU to manage, more circuits and traces, all of which contribute to hindering speed and taking more time for the data to go from point A to point B because it has to travel twice the distance. It doesn't work well like it did with DDR4 running at significantly lower speeds.

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).

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.

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.

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

The leaders of the computer tech industry are bad people, with bad intentions, that have no honor and deserve no respect from any of us. The only thing any of them deserve is misfortune and tragedy, and I hope that both are visited upon them corporately and personally.

Don't give up on the one that only runs 2167 just yet. If the voltage suggestions I texted to you work you might be able to run 2200 FCLK stable. If they do not work, then I would choose CPU #1 that does run 2200 FCLK at 6400 C28. The 2200 FCLK is more important than the 6600 C30. That is because the FCLK is the frequency that connects the CCDs and IO die and being limited to 2167 is not ideal because it becomes a bottleneck that affect more things adversely than just being able to run a 200 MHz higher RAM frequency. Because these components are physically separate, they must communicate across the CPU package. FCLK dictates how fast data can travel between these chiplets. If FCLK is low, it creates a bottleneck where your memory sends data faster than the internal highway can handle. Conversely, pushing FCLK too high past its physical stability limits (usually a maximum of 2200 MHz on Zen 5 CPUs) results in audio crackling, USB dropouts, system crashes or no boot (code 00). Running high memory frequency on Ryzen has diminishing returns, especially on X3D chips. You are better off focusing on bandwidth, which is why 8000 2:1 is better than 6400 1:1. It allows more data to pass through in the same amount of time due to higher bandwidth. You will find that 6600 1:1, 8000 2:1 have similar benchmark scores, but 8000 2:1 is higher bandwidth and allows you to do a little further with performance. And, 2200 FCLK matters for both configurations. The CPU that can do 6600 C30 1:1 has a very strong IMC and a weak fabric. Stronger fabric trumps stronger IMC unless the IMC is really horrible. There is not going to be much difference between 6600 C30 and 6400 C28, but a 2167 FCLK would hold you back and probably have measurably higher latency. The fabric is sort of like a transmission. If you have a strong engine and a fragile transmission with the wrong gear ratios the strong engine is going to be of limited benefit because it cannot push the performance to the wheels where it matters most.