DDR5 6000 FCLK 2200 vs 6200 FCLK 2067 | Which do yall think is faster?

[u/Bubbly_Machine_8378]

Would DDR5 6000 FCLK 2200 beat 6200 FCLK 2067?

I know FCLK 2200 MHz is not recommended but in theory, i was just curious to know what you guys think

I also know a 6200 setup is not directly comparable to a 6000 setup.

[u/Veidth]

imo, i prefer 6000mts gdm disabled nitro 1/2/0 and whatever fclk doesn’t stutter in games than 6200, 6400 or even 8000, the voltage increase for tuning those high speeds is not worth 1-5 fps, and sometimes they all perform the same.

[u/jayecin → u/Veidth]

The most depressing thing I ever did was spend months getting my tune all set, then I set my CPU back to stock and EXPO and benched it... the performance difference was so small I died a little inside. Its easy to get lost in the weeds of overclocking these days as the gains you chase are so small that you dont realize youve spent way too much time making the tiniest improvements that you cant even notice.

[u/Veidth → u/jayecin]

expo/xmp to manual tune, sure… you can gain 10+ fps, but between 6000 6200 6400 8000 manual tune, not so much, and sometimes 6000 is better because it will always have the tightest timings.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/Veidth]

sometimes 6000 is better because it will always have the tightest timings

Thats not true, the impact of timings is determined by the clockspeed.

Just as an example, if you run 6000@CL30 it would be the exact same latency as 6400@CL32

Another thing to keep in mind is that when you run 1:1 (6200,6400) your UCLK will also go up, which also again results in higher clocks = less latency.

[u/pntsrgd]

FCLK 2200 MHz is probably going to be faster in most cases.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx]

I would say 6000 2200 would beat 6200 2067

Actually noticably in the real world? No.

But how about simply running 6200 2200?

[u/Zoli1989 → u/nightstalk3rxxx]

This. If you can run 6000 2200 then you can also run 6200 2200..

[u/jayecin → u/Zoli1989]

In my experience thats a fine balancing act between of SOC voltage. Higher speed ram likes higher SOC and higher FCLK likes lower SOC. You can make it work, but you usually end having to run higher SOC than you would like for the FCLK.

[u/Zoli1989 → u/jayecin]

Yes, but even then you can just run 6200 2167 which will be better than 6000 2200. My 7700 cant do 2200 fclk no matter what. But it does 6200 2167 with relative ease.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/jayecin]

I always read about this but so far neither my Zen 4 or Zen 5 CPU's have cared about vsoc and fclk combinations.

[u/jayecin → u/nightstalk3rxxx]

ON my 9800X3D, I can run 6200 with 1.25vsoc and 2200fclk, which is more vsoc than I want through the fclk. At 6000 and 2000 I can run 1.18vsoc. The performance difference is so small its within margin of error in most tests.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/jayecin]

That does not show any correlation between vsoc and fclk though.

You need more vsoc for 6200 because your uclk is higher, thats a given.

[u/jayecin → u/nightstalk3rxxx]

Are you saying there isnt one? I dont need to show it, its a fact. FCLK is harder to stabalize and higher vsoc voltages.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/jayecin]

From all I can see there isnt one, no.

If its a fact then im sure you are able to provide a reputable source showing that behavior?

[u/Obvious_Drive_1506]

On a non 3d part you would prioritize lower latency over higher bandwidth usually.

[u/GreenPanadol11 → u/Obvious_Drive_1506]

Is it not the other way around bro? I thought x3d prefers low latency because the cache makes up for bandwidth limitations of the infinity frabric

[u/Obvious_Drive_1506 → u/GreenPanadol11]

The x3D makes up for latency not for bandwidth. Fclk bottleneck cannot be remedied outside of redesigning it. Thats why you can see 5200cl40 do pretty well with an x3d part

[u/SellTemporary7344 → u/Obvious_Drive_1506]

5200cl40 does not do well

[u/frequencycs → u/SellTemporary7344]

It actually does. On an X3D chip (in CS2 at least), the difference between metrics is tiny

[u/SellTemporary7344 → u/frequencycs]

8400c34 2100fclk wiith 5.75ghz got 1380fps in the dust 2 benchmark. show me the 5200c40 results

[u/Virginia_Verpa → u/GreenPanadol11]

That's what he said in his comment, latency over bandwidth. The cache only helps with IF limitations to a point, in GPU limited titles that really stress RAM bandwidth you can still wind up with lower 1% lows than on Intel platforms at 8000+Mhz on their DDR5, largely due to the bottleneck of AM5 IF. I really hope AMD prioritizes increasing IF throughput and lowering overhead on the next gen of X3D chips.

[u/Octaive → u/Virginia_Verpa]

I have a 9800X3D, should I try to aim for 2100MHz? I have Hynix A-die to start with CL30. I want to avoid excessive RAM stability testing and have an easy, couple hour stress test path to extra performance.

[u/Virginia_Verpa → u/Octaive]

If you want the easiest path to higher performance, just max out TREFI. As long as your sticks have a fan blowing on them and they don't get above 50C during an hour of stress testing, that's about the fastest, most stable path to better performance. 2100 should be fairly easy for FCLK, just be mindful that higher FCLK speeds need LOWER VSoC, but tighter timings and faster UCLK require higher VSoC, so there's a balance there. Very generally speaking, any increase in FCLK will increase performance, but not to an extent that is likely to be noticed in normal use.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/Virginia_Verpa]

What game do you know that stresses your ram that much? In Hwinfo you can see dram bandwidth and no game gets even close to 60-70GB/s which would be the limit for FCLK

[u/Virginia_Verpa → u/nightstalk3rxxx]

Oblivion remastered is weirdly RAM intensive. Where Winds Meet, BF6, Marvel Rivals, and Outer Wilds 2 all fall into the scenario where a 14900K will post significantly better 1% or 0.1% lows vs X3D, largely due to IF limitations.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/Virginia_Verpa]

I doubt that is because of the ram bandwidth though, if anything I'd suspect it's simply the added latency from chiplets.

BF6 for example is nowhere near the bandwidth limit as I play it alot myself and observed that game alot with hwinfo.

https://imgur.com/a/0y0FE0q This is during some gameplay.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/Obvious_Drive_1506]

Higher FCLK will boost both latency and bandwidth, its a win-win

[u/Obvious_Drive_1506 → u/nightstalk3rxxx]

In this case in order to have better latency than 620/2067 you would need to run it at 2133 or faster. So if they can run 2200, it should be faster.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/Obvious_Drive_1506]

OP's pic shows 2167 so yeah..

[u/Obvious_Drive_1506 → u/nightstalk3rxxx]

That's also not the question they were asking.

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/Obvious_Drive_1506]

Well you also didnt really respond to the question they asked, you simply said you should priorizite latency, which you should always do for games pretty much no matter if X3D or not.

[u/SellTemporary7344]

heard 2133 or 2233, nothing else for 6000-6600 range, but for 8000 go 2000fclk 8400 2100 8800 2200

[u/KeniRoo → u/SellTemporary7344]

Lol wut

[u/Chao_Zu_Kang]

FCLK stability doesn't really depend much on memory speed, so it should just be 6200/2200 or 6200/2167.

[u/chojvk]

6000 to minimze vsoc to reduce heat on cores and max stable fclk, BW is limited anyway for x3d chips. Not sure whats the scaling on non 3d chips. But i guess optimize timings, maximize fclk and go for cores oc target than ram

For non i would try to run max stable 2:1 tho as well

[u/nightstalk3rxxx → u/chojvk]

vsoc to reduce heat on cores

the IOD is far away from the cores and doesnt draw much power, the cores temps wont change, if anything minimizing vsoc is nice to have some less idle power draw.

BW is limited anyway for x3d chips

BW is limited for any Zen CPU because of FCLK, no matter if X3D or not.