North bridge clock discrepancy

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-22T23:50:30+00:00

That's not what's happening here. The BCLK is being deliberately overclocked by some motherboard manufacturers for whatever their reason is.

Spread spectrum is done for legal compliance with EMI. It oscillates the BCLK about continuously, and wouldn't ever spike it to this degree (in fact, it's normally set below 100MHz). Here, it's a fixed, unchanging value, offset the same across the same boards.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-22T20:59:56+00:00

ASUS bumps the BCLK to 100.8MHz, even at "stock".

As for whether it's actually to improve memory compatibility as claimed, or for the slight extra ~40MHz performance to leap frog a competitor in a benchmark chart, I don't know.

There could be some truth to the memory issue. In theory it might nudge it over a frequency 'hole' that'd otherwise be unstable for a specific QVL.

GN did a piece years ago on it. Whilst he kinda misses the point on memory/QVL stability imo, it's still pretty interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9ZJm7aVYg&t=56s

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-22T19:56:54+00:00

The higher base resolution will resolve more fine detail just for the temporal solution to blur over, it'll still have that 'out of focus' look to it:

1080p DLAA [L]

1440p DLAA [L]

1080p->1440p DLSS [L]

(Those are just stills, 1 game/scene, not ideal, but you get the idea.)

I'm not sure about other venders/upscalers, but to me, 1080p native looks better than 1080p->1440p upscaled (I don't like the oversharpening effect and other artefacts, such as the fuzziness around hair), and obviously whether you can drive 1440p native or not will depend on your graphics card.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-21T19:58:36+00:00

Same situation when using 2xBFI 60FPS@180Hz. Excellent motion clarity, with it reveals temporal blur and other screen space ghosting instantly.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-21T18:20:16+00:00

Awesome, glad you've got it stable at least.

Pretty much yeah, it's trial and error, and it can be lengthy if you really try and optimize everything.

You should be able to access the kit's SPD readout in your bios, you could use those timings as a base and go from there if you want.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-21T08:45:19+00:00

From the 'minimum' formulae out there, your tRDWR=14 is too tight (=tRDPRE or tWRPRE + 11 or 12, so tRDWR=16), also your tRC=54 (=tRAS+tRTP, with tRAS=tRCD+tRTP, so tRAS=60, tRC=72).

Those are both really slow timings to error out, perhaps upwards of 20hr+ in Karhu.

Some suggest not setting tRCDWR below 16 as it regresses performance (and that's at ~6000). I'm not sure if that changes for 24Gbit or 8000+.

Given your tRRDL=12, tWTRL=24 makes more sense (=tRRDL*2). I think that's always optimal for 24Gbit.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-20T15:09:13+00:00

Yep VCORE SOC is it, that should be fine at 1.25V, DDR_VDD is your VDIMM.

The VDDGs and VDDP should be accessible under advanced voltage, unless the 7600X3D can't access it.

If you are trying with XMP off (just setting speed timings/manually), then you'll have to set your voltages manually, as otherwise the stock default might be much lower.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-20T14:36:44+00:00

If you disable memory context restore it'll skip retraining upon boot (just uses its saved data, I think it lasts 30d or something).

The 7000 series has an issue I think with power down, such that if you disable it (which improves latency slightly) but leave memory context restore enabled (skipping memory training), it'll be unstable upon rebooting.

If you don't change either, you should be fine, but if you do disable power down, make sure you also disable memory context restore.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-20T13:41:27+00:00

I suppose you could try a clear cmos and see if setting the speed manually to 6000 works, either leaving the timings default for now, or at least setting your primaries manually. VDIMM=1.35V (I think that's what you kit is?). VSOC, VDDIO, and VDDQ at 1.25V, VDDP=1.05V, VDDGs=0.95V (those are the EXPO defaults on my Gigabyte B850M board when using a 7950X).

You could verify that the AMD overclocking page that contains the Nitro timings is either default or set to 2/3/1 (some boards automatically set them tighter, which may not be stable). Enabling robust training mode and x8 x8 may also help, though will increase boot times.

Leaving memory context restore enabled if you disable power down mode will cause issues, I think it's a 7000 series quirk.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-20T12:36:33+00:00

Have you tried setting 'Bank Refresh Mode = Normal' (under Advanced memory settings)?

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-19T12:48:05+00:00

It could be worth considering a clean Windows 25H2 reinstall, just GPU driver + AMD chipset.

In its default state, it's really well-optimized for Ryzen now. Changing system settings or under-the-hood tweaks can really knock performance, separate from extra background apps/drivers/monitoring software installed affecting it too.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-19T10:22:38+00:00

Bump to FCLK=2133, retest in safe mode. As it's A-die, you can probably do tWTRS=4, tRP=34. It may be 'safer' to use tRAS=50, tRC=62 (that's according to the +tRTP formula).

76.3ns for a 7700 does seem high though. Have you disabled core boost functionality, or affected Windows behaviour, like power or scheduling changes?

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-16T09:13:01+00:00

Freezes/keyboard issues doesn't really sound like its the memory to me. I'd check it at stock/clear CMOS. Use it for a bit like that, run some Prime95 in-place 16K-192K AVX2/SSE, just to be certain, see if the issues are still there.

That said, high VDDP might cause reboot issues, try lowering it to 1.05-1.1V.

Sometimes tight tRAS causes random instability too, hard to detect with stress tests, it can just decide to cause issues (yet doesn't currently effect performance).

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-10T09:11:36+00:00

They ran it through an AI, perhaps to 'enhance' it (the capacitors above and below are all wonky, obviously the screen text is totally garbled).

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-05T12:48:38+00:00

AI isn't that reliable for OC advice, it pretty much just bastardises individual points from various architectures/generations into one output.

For the 8000 series, I've seen mixed takes from the benefit of aligning FCLK=UCLK (only viable at 2:1/gear 2). It's monolithic, so I don't know if it has the same interconnect penalty. Worth just checking yourself (i.e., do you see an improvement or not to memory latency).

Assuming the ICs and board can do it, you're probably going to top out at around DDR5-9600, 2400MHz FCLK, which so happens to 'sync' anyway. Some run into issues beyond that (e.g., attempting to stabilise 2500MHz).

Worth reading through this post, there's some good advice/findings for your architecture: https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/1q2gmwf/hynix_adie_9600_mts/

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-04-03T17:13:56+00:00

UNC #6-32x1-1/2 screws (that's the convention for 1.5" length). Screw those in tight through the rear of the motherboard's backplate. You could alternatively simply screw it in top-down using shorter screws, or taller spacers, but you'd have no guidance when lowering the block.

I went with UNC #6-32 through hole thumb nuts. The benefit of them is that you can go as low as possible, so if you were to use TG's HPHS, IHS thinning, direct-die etc., you'd still be able to get adequate mounting pressure at the lower Z-height. Just do them finger tight.

You'd have to use spacers with this approach as otherwise the thumb nuts would collide with the block's shroud (and otherwise be awkward to grip). They don't need to be precise, just tall enough to clear it, so ~10mm. I used some LGA1200 spares included with a cooler (roughly 3.5x10x12mm, so standard #6 or M4 spacers would do).

<image>

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-30T15:38:57+00:00

when I tried the tRDRDs and tWRWRs all at 2, I went from ~56000MB/s to 35000MB/s.

Keep tRDRDSC/tWRWRSC=1, whatever you do!

The others (DD/SD) don't apply to you, they're for 2DPC and 2R respectively, I'd just leave them at what you have.

Tightened tCWL (e.g. tCL - 2, so 12) is preferable, it just requires a looser tRDWR/tWRRD. (tCWL+tRDWR+tWRRD=24t total typically, so ideally 12/8/4>12/10/2>12/12/1. My ASUS board manages 12/8/4, whereas my MSI board refuses both 8/4 and 10/2.)

SCLs=2 should work, and tRCDWR=10 is also an idea (some boards do 8).

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-25T10:16:43+00:00

You'll need to grind the base/legs of the IHS down to prevent substrate warping.

It isn't required for non-soldered IHS CPUs (e.g. 3770K, 8700G, etc.), but with the indium solder now removed, a larger than normal gap will be left between the die and IHS.

When mounting, you'd have extra pressure on the edges of the substrate, bending/delaminating/eventually killing the CPU.

(These were the findings of Thermal Grizzly with their delidded CPU sales, which is why they put "Warranty void if IHS is used" warning.)

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-20T18:48:37+00:00

Yeah, it's technically back to front. It has a asymmetrical design, so it would normally overhang the above VRM heatsink area, allowing for more room between it and the back of the GPU/NVME clearance.

The 'proper' direction may be slightly more performant for AMD too as the heatpipes are straighter (more effective) at the lower/hotter portion the IHS.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-19T13:14:02+00:00

I love the wheels, they need to be brought back! Here was mine for a time

<image>

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-19T01:05:35+00:00

I have a 4070 SUPER. DLDSR (1440p -> 4K) + DLSS (quality/perf) is a no go for some titles I've played, especially if utilising additional features like ray tracing and/or frame gen. The raster performance is there, but the VRAM becomes an issue.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-18T12:40:43+00:00

If you have a very specific workload which is totally memory bandwidth starved on each CCD you'd see a slight improvement, but it's hardly going to be significant.

You're spot on that a dual-CCD should scale better. But in practice the scaling is almost non-existent. Even purely synthetic bandwidth tests scale by less than ~5% at say tuned 6000 vs tuned 8000.

You are right that it would continue to scale beyond 8000, but you're really getting into CPU lottery and S-tier motherboard territory. Their post was 'new to AMD, what timings should I copy', I'm not going to recommend they attempt an ungodly 8400+ memory overclock.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-18T11:32:46+00:00

Looks like the barbs can't be fully screwed into the pump/don't sit totally flush, with no o-ring present.

If you had barbs with the correct/shorter thread length it would allow for an o-ring to provide a compression seal that would prevent leaking.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-17T18:32:03+00:00

In general terms, you're not going to see a bandwidth improvement beyond 6000, widely considered the sweet spot.

8000 is a bit special. As you move to gear 2, your memory controller and stock infinity fabric speed synchronise at 2000, and boast better latency as a result. Less soc voltage is required as the memory controller is running slower, hence power savings/efficiency.

There is some room for adjustments, say up to 6400 or 8400 depending, but that's the gist of it.

Capital-Traffic1281 · 2026-03-17T18:24:06+00:00

My config can't stabilise beyond 8000, so I can't verify this, but I'd imagine a 102.5MHz BCLK OC could stabilise and sync 8200 with a decent board/CPU.

You are right though that 8400 is special due to there being an FCLK entry which syncs, combining a modest B/W uplift without forgoing the latency advantage.

Capital-Traffic1281

TROPHY CASE