Clevo Overclocker's Lounge

Though - their OS is the core of why people buy them. Unless more people would start to install it into normal PCs, too many rely on MAC OS to survive.

To remain on thread - I wonder about how much voltage on + is needed for 4.4 on a normal Clevo

 

depends on the CPU and its stock voltage forget the offset, best to jot down the actual voltage, thats the way to compare and find out where u stand. on a side note, that DDR4-3000 is a biatch to tune! but so much fun at the same time

 

Where are you at with it?

 

well its really finicky even just to get to 3000 mhz. i cant jump from the stock 2666 directly to 3000 (even at the stable settings ive found), but have to take it step by step "ease it in", so to say first 2800, then 2900, then 3000. upping the system agent voltage helped in getting it boot stable and i think i ironed out the memtest errors by upping the VCCIO voltage. unfortunately, it seems that it is connected to the cache voltage, which in turn cannot be adjusted independently from the VCore so right now im basically at stock 4Ghz CPU with +100 mV VCore/Cache/VCCIO, +200 mV System Agent and trying to find the tightest timings i can set for 3000 Mhz. once i found those, im planning to dial the voltages back down to a minimum, so i can get back to ocing the cpu properly

the whole shebang just takes foreeeeeeveeeeeeer, cuz every time i reach an unbootable RAM setting i have to do a complete CMOS reset, ugh! ive already taken out the BIOS battery and so i just need to unplug the adapter for a little bit instead of opening up the machine every friggin time. still, takes me 3-4 reboots before reaching 3000 mhz and only THEN can i start tuning again add to that the fact that apparently disabling C states kinda helps a bit with stability, and it just gets reaaaaal complicated just to get those corsair ddr4-3000 sticks to even run at their XMP speeds oh, and naturally, i can only be sure of complete stability after an overnight run of memtest....for. every. friggin. single. timing..... yay

 

Before i even start...Which laptop do you have?

 

I tried XMP 1 & 2 profiles on my G.Skill 3000mhz sticks and had to do a CMOS reset both times. I thought the BIOS supported them P&P style unlike the 1st gen that required alot of fiddling. hmm.

 

Same happen to me the first time, but now they work as expected. No matter if I take them out or swap them around.

 

If they are in the RAM slots below the keyboard simply move them to the two slots under the system.
Those are the 'RAM Master Slots' while the ones under the keyboard should only be populated if the others are already in use.

For me the 3000Mhz G.SKILL boot fine with 2400Mhz in the Master Slots. Then just switching to XMP1 in BIOS (don't use software) and voila.

 

hope these corsair sticks goona be good

 

Ha ha, he makes a secret about that since two weeks! Dunno if he discovered the holy grail under the laptops that such secrecy is needed!

@jaybee83: just teasin' ya!

 

16-18-18-36? That's a good deal better than the G.Skill. Though it's a bit more expensive.

Edit: I cannot find 3000MHz corsair RAM for laptops on their own website. Searching the model number only turns up seller websites. As far as Corsair is concerned, they handle DDR4 2400MHz at the abysmal 16-16-16-36 timings, and the god freaking awful pathetic sonuvacrapshoot 2666MHz at 16-18-18-39 timings. In other words, they make the equivalent of dog feces (their 2400MHz laptop RAM has WORSE timings than their 3000MHz QUAD CHANNEL desktop RAM) and charge as much as G.Skill does or more.

So take that Corsair RAM with a grain of salt.

 

Thank you Prema!!!

Then I will sometimes remove my RAM below the keyboard and install into the master slots.

 

lol, its not about the laptop itself, but the circumstances

@Johnksss@iBUYPOWER ill shoot u a pm, maybe u can help me out with that ram. i for one am beginning to think that the machine just cant handle these sticks ^^

@D2 Ultima: the corsair sticks are actually rated for 16-18-18-39 via xmp. at stock they boot with 2666-18-19-19-39. i bought those over the g.skill cuz at the time of purchase they were like 30€ cheaper, and that with slightly better timings.

Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10

 

That's what I've done but no dice. They boot fine at 2400mhz but trying any XMP it gets stuck in a boot loop and never POSTs
Master 1 & 2 where both populated too .

 

Boot with a single stick in slot 4, once you have that working put the second stick in slot 1.

 

Thanks for the tip. I'll give that a try

 

um...wouldnt that result in a single channel configuration? or is the slot numbering different on each machine?

Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10

 

No. I was waiting on another member who actually had them.

Nope. That's why I asked what laptop you had. Slot 1 and 4 work in dual channel on the laptops from Gentech/Sager as far as I can tell. This was what I explained when I first got my laptop.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/clevo-overclockers-lounge.788975/page-504#post-10347128

 

dbl post...

 

Chanel 1a (slot1) can work in dual channel with 2a (slot2) or 2b (slot4) and the same goes for channel 2a working with 1a (slot1) or 1b (slot3)

Its just a t shaped connector to either bank of a channel so it does not matter which it is in just so long as each channel has one.

 

ok, so based on your other post to Meaker:
"As to your memory problem, you need to boot one stick at stock first. This may take a few boots. And it needs to be in top slot under the keyboard or the top slot under the bottom cover.
Once it boots, then set it to xmp1
Once that boots, then add the second chip. Opposite the location i mentioned earlier.
Once it finally boots, it will be fine from that point on.
Then go into the bios and change it to custom. And set your custom settings
I can run your clocks at 3k, so i'm guessing...So can you."

I tried putting one stick into the top slot beneath the system. it booted fine at 2666 (as do both stick when i plug them in). setting XMP1 in the bios resulted in the same as before, black screen and no boot. am i assuming correctly that i should just keep switching the machine off and on until it finally boots?
once thats done, add the second stick in the lower slot beneath the system, correct? and keep rebooting until the machine switches on properly?

just making sure i got the details right here... would be sweet if its really that simple

 

Does XMP 2 boot?

 

XMP2 doesnt have anything in it, only XMP1 contains settings. still, for fun's sake i tried it but that doesnt boot either ^^

Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10

 

@Mr. Fox had a post detailing how the Clevo EC. Likes to cling to the old settings and timings.
Might want to try a NVRAM/CMOS reset once. IF you are on a Clevo.

 

ha, u dont wanna know how many NVRAM/CMOS resets ive done while playing around with the timings that doesnt help, unfortunately... and yes, I´m on a Clevo, otherwise i wouldnt post this here ^^

 

HaHa, Don't say that. Maybe you thought you got best help here

 

How do I know if I am already running Dual Channel? Any way to check this?

 

How many sticks do you have ?

 

2 and both of them are on the back - I was curious if this shows in any software.

 

CPUZ will show dual channel.

 

It might in CPUZ/HwInfo
I'm not too sure though.
But check Markers reply a few posts back, that should help understand which slots help to run in Dual Channel .

 

Thank you!

It shows in CPU-Z

I was a bit curious since I never really understood what dual channel is or why I would want it.

 

dual channel is a parallelisation of memory bandwidth. it basically doubles your throughput and thus gives you significantly higher RAM performance than single channel. same goes for quad channel, only with a factor 4 ^^

Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 NXT-AL10

 

That's just putting salt on the wound - makes me want to get two more sticks and see if I can feel improvement in work. I should - since photoshop eats RAM like there's no tomorrow but still...

 

Your chipset still does not support quad-channel DDR4 memory but more RAM will help, Oh' yes if you need more than you have

 

That's sad!

Well - drawing at 8K and 12K didn't seem to require more than 32 GB of RAM - but I can't have an image open in Photoshop and open another in Clip studio - it doesn't open the image before it has enough free RAM available.

 

Sad until you realise that dual channel is enough to feed any quad core CPU, even 6 cores would be fine.

 

Any number of channels is how many sticks of memory can run in tandem something not so far off from RAID-0. Dual channel is supported by most any motherboard in the last 10 years. Triple Channel was tried before but discarded because it didn't give enough benefit due to the overhead of the only chipset I knew that used it (the X58 chipset). Quad Channel was a thing since Sandy-E and beyond. Hexa-channel is rumored for Skylake-E and I very much hope it's true.

Most games/programs/etc have always run fine whether memory was single or dual or tri or quad channel, but lately some games/game engines and many productivity-focused programs show increased benefit from single to dual, and from dual to quad. I can tell you with all certainty that if you throw BF4 to min graphics and force a CPU bottleneck and use single channel configurations for your memory on your motherboard (in a desktop that is) and then change it to dual channel afterward, you're likely to see upwards of 50fps gains (90fps with drops to 144fps+ constant). Quad channel only makes it easier for the frostbite 3 engine too.

Since games are finding new ways to unoptimize themselves, I'd say dual channel is basically a must at this point, which is why I asked the people at HID to offer 2 x 8GB sticks for their 3000MHz 16GB option instead of forcing someone to get 32GB to get "dual channel" when buying RAM from them with their notebooks. I personally wish quad channel would come to notebook chipsets eventually (along with non-crap-binned CPUs and socketed CPUs as well, but that's another story) since unless they shove an enthusiast line into a notebook again like with the P570WM there's no way to go above dual channel.

Also, as a kind of final idea, I was told that having four sticks over two sticks in dual channel gives a very slight boost to operation performance, though nowhere near to the benefit of single --> dual or dual --> quad. If you DO need the memory, I'd say you can go ahead and toss in an extra two sticks. It will only benefit, really. But it's not enough to write home about, so don't toss money you otherwise would put into say... getting better temps etc (with thermal pads, delidding/CLU the CPU, etc) into the RAM unless you really need more memory.

Also, better speeds/latencies will at some point surpass dual channel --> quad channel. Quad channel memory in general has higher latencies for the speeds that dual channel does, but not enough to kill the benefit. If you're considering say... quad channel 2400MHz 14-14-14-36, then dual channel 3200MHz 14-14-14-34 (which exists for desktop chips) will probably be better for most operations. Since quad channel kits cost more, this is something to consider. Of course, since I know corsair has a 3000MHz 14-16-16-36 quad channel kit for desktops, it'd probably be better to grab quad channel at that point. But that kit would be more expensive, etc.

Finally, in addition to being harder to hold reduced latencies, the difficulty also increases with higher numbers of memory sticks and higher memory densities per stick. So a quad channel 16GB kit might be similar to a dual channel 16GB kit in price (though the timings would likely be a bit better for the dual channel), but if you're looking for say... a 64GB kit? Expect quad channel to have even worse timings and/or cost more. And expect the memory to have more bad reviews of it "not working".

 

The difference actually tends to be quite small,

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/does-dual-channel-memory-make-difference-in-gaming-performance/3/

For example.

 

Half of that stuff is considered..."Which way the wind blows" that day....

 

I've seen this before, but a friend of mine using an i7-3820 at 4.3GHz and two dual channel sticks which he accidentally didn't place in the machine in dual channel compatible slots noted a lot more FPS drops and an average lower FPS than he had before. After correcting the positioning, he got 144fps (with a couple drops). After getting a quad channel kit I picked out for him, he didn't go below 144fps anymore. Then he later got a 4930K and then things were even better for him. It's where I got my info from, as he forced CPU bottlenecks since high FPS was what he wanted for his 144Hz monitor. I was the one setting up everything via skype with video calls to his phone while he was in the BIOS etc so I remember all his settings well.

But I did distinctly make the statement about very new AAA titles in general for reliance on RAM. Most games 2013 and prior won't notice very much difference unless they were heavily pushing the boundaries of what tech existed and didn't exist that wasn't the GPU. As far as I see it now, if people want to hold high FPS in new games, the fastest, best timings, most channels of memory they can get and the fastest quadcore-or-more CPU they can get and the best single video card is the way to go. Being lax with the CPU and pairing i5s with 1080s and stuff won't cut slack anymore I think.

But this is one of those things I put together after finding the "controversial" (aka more in-depth and thus different results produced) articles around, or what my friends and I get ourselves up to with our PCs and their upgrades.

 

Maybe something else was going on, I can't really comment on that level of information but most of the stuff I have seen mostly agrees with what I linked. DDR4 is a lot faster on average than DDR3 so that will help.

4 sticks will perform just like 2 sticks with DDR4 assuming the timings are the same (unless you needed that extra ram in which case the difference is huge).

 

Anyone using their Broadwell-E chips delidded? I have read that its better to use them direct contact after a delid, since after the solder is cut/removed the IHS performance drops by a lot.

 

I wish somebody would or could explain to me how much RAM I actually need

I have no idea how much RAM photoshop eats or actually needs. All I know is that it eats 70% or more from the RAM installed when doing heavy work (more than 30 layers and more than 8K resolution)

 

It depends on your use. And Photoshop does not use as much RAM as people think it does.
Unless you are doing a lot of high res (and i mean 5k +) image editing, with a **** ton of filter work. Or dealing with Satellite images and stitching things together.

 

Most users will find 16GB meets their needs for now. The great thing about 4 slots is you can always add up to 32GB more fairly easily. So just add more when you find yourself running low.

 

Start Task Manager. From that dialog, choose Monitor Resources ( or something like that ). From there choose the memory tab and leave it running off to the side.

You may want to configure it to show a longer time period and possibly add some other properties to watch. Consult MS's documentation on these options.

Finally, run Photoshop, load some images, and do some work. I think the more virtual memory is being swapped (search for virtual memory thrashing) the more you may want to consider adding more memory. If nothing or very little virtual memory is being used, then you are A-Ok. Note, if all your drives are ssd based, then it might be something you can live with.

 

Performance will tank when you are truly out of memory so it should be obvious when it starts happening.

 

8K - 12K in size and up to 100 layers for work usage

Art.

nuff said.

16 GB are way too little from the start, only the init phase for an image 5K and 20-50 layers eats >17GB of RAM in both CSP and Photoshop. I have no virtual memory and I won't make any. Photoshop doesn't force close nor CSP, but neither opens an image if it can't process it.

Also I work with 100 history states, maybe this affects performance.

 

Had this happened once with 100 images of FHD open in photoshop.

The entire computer took 5 - 10 minutes to go out of screen saver, and every image took 1 minute at first then 10-30 seconds to save. Nasty thing.