Mr. Fox

That only partially makes sense and doesn't explain why they are going full Nazi retard and forcing such draconian anti-cheat blocks on single-player campaign. I honestly think it is as much a social engineering experiment to see how all of the zombie gamer sheeple react to being told how things are going to happen and driven by nefarious intentions as much or more than the surface-level appearance of an effort to make cheating more difficult. And yes, I do fully expect the gaming sheeple to value their online gaming experience more than personal freedom and autonomy. When a game uses a different EXE and config file for SP vs MP forcing this feces on everyone carte blanche is purely a butthead dictator move.

Totally absurd and such a low-value. Sad. It is nice that not all tech is crazy overpriced. My wife and I last purchased phones 5 years ago. We have been using our OnePlus 8T phones since early 2021. I finally decided to upgrade them and our new Google Pixel 10 Pro XL phones are out for delivery today. The price is essentially the same for the new Pixels as what I paid for the new OnePlus phones (within $25 of the same). I chose the Pixel for both of us not only because of their outstanding quality, but also because I am going to be using GrapheneOS rather than Android. Time to give Google the same treatment as Micro$lop.

It sucked when they ruined Battlefield and Call of Duty single-player campaign with this rancid feces. I refuse to purchase games where the developers have gone down the dictatorship path. I wouldn't install and play them even if they were free. I am happy to say that I don't care about Fartnite so this butthead move won't affect me directly, but it still sucks because some people do care about it. I really do hope that all of these game developers start losing money and struggle to maintain solvency because of their stupid decisions. They do not deserve to be successful when they force anti-cheat cancer on people that only play single-player campaign. #36,537·a moment ago (Edited) I will not purchase or play (even if free of charge) any game that requires me to enable TPM or Secure Poot in the BIOS. I have been buying and playing Battlefield and Call of Duty since the first release in each franchise, but I am done with them now. I only play single-player campaign. Yet, they insist on dictating this unacceptable filth even in circumstances where cheating is a non-issue, so to hell with them and their cancer game crap. They will not receive another cent from me if this is how they roll now. And, I am not the only former player they have lost. If they were paying attention they would recognize that this dictatorship mentality is one of the reasons that Micro$lop is losing OS market share at an unprecedented rate. PC gamers and enthusiasts are not Kool-Aid drinking zombie sheeple like crApple users are.

I think they know that they have already lost the support and confidence of all of the smart people of the world. That leaves them with people that are not smart, which buy crap like Arm devices and disposable trashbooks.

https://www.overclock.net/posts/29559222/ So I did more testing and this is where I am at now. My max boost is no longer hitting 5950 and maxing out at 5819. I will see if I can figure that out. Maybe I can deepen CO a bit more on one or two of my best cores and get that back. But, no more TM5 or Karhu errors. Passes fine now with PBO same as it did with manual OC. So, it was CO causing the errors and not memory. I also ran two iterations of CoreCycler without error. (Man, talk about boring... takes forever, LOL.) What is interesting is how the individual core SP ratings in the BIOS coincide with the stable CO negative offset. So far I have found cores with the same SP rating are stable with the same negative CO offset. I am sure there is some fine tuning to be done on top of that, but it might be a good starting point or point of reference in troubleshooting. With the current CO settings (5819 MHz vs 5950 MHz max clock) CPU-Z single thread shows a loss of about 8-10 points and multi-thread about 200 points loss. If I use "Balanced" power profile and enable core parking all core intensive benchmarks end up in the toilet. This is a Windoze garbage OS performance-destroying issue (Micro$lop calls it a "feature" LOL) and not hardware.

After all is said and done, with Ryzen the benefit (or lack thereof) doesn't scale with the effort involved. Lots of time and fussing to get it right with a teeny-tiny (or no) gain in return. Nothing to write home about going from 8000 to 8400. Exactly the opposite with Intel memory overclocking.

OK. Enough of the silly gamerboy normie crap. Back to speed trumps everything.

If you keep the GPU for a few years it will be worth doing. When you to move to a newer platform the GPU will be ready for it.

Dropping tRFC to 388 shaved a ns off of memory latency, but otherwise unremarkable by other measurements. There is very little difference between 6400 1:1 and 8000/8200 2:1 on Ryzen due to architectural limitations. Adding 3D cache makes it even less relevant. Y-cruncher is around ~1.0 second slower at 6400.

How plentiful are waterblocks for the Red Devil? When I still had the AORUS 9070 XT the only one was an Alphacool block that was never available for purchase. It was always pre-order and/or out of stock. That played a significant part in my decision to get rid of it. I was sick of living with a hot air-cooled GPU. It was miserable. Radeon GPUs take "hot" to the next level of cray cray when it comes to air cooling.

You better snag that 3090 Ti while you can. Hopefully it is not a scam. If it is not that is an insanely good deal. If you are not going to buy it, I will.

Which 9070 XT do you have, Brother @Rage Set. (I think you mentioned it before but I do not remember.) I got bored and decided to mess with slower memory speeds to see how fast I could make it go. This is stable so I will see how low I can get tCL before it unravels. 6400 1:1 is snappy feeling even though it is a bit slower on read/write/copy.