# Intel 10980XE Benchmarks and optimizations



## Manaberry (Jan 14, 2021)

Hello VI-C community,

I've been using the 10980XE for a year now. I've put a lot of effort into making my system and my hardware solid as a rock in order to produce music with "no limits". I'm sharing with you what this big boy can handle.

First, I would like to point out that this CPU is the last of a very long generation of processors. Intel has been struggling a lot lately to move their product lines to a 10nm lithography. However, 2 things pushed me to get the 10980XE even having AMD coming back with loads of great alternatives.

*The first thing* is exactly what most of you don't like about this CPU: It's based on a recycled dying (or already dead) lithography process and architecture. For me, it's a huge argument! From my point of you, Intel masters the 14++++++++++++++ like no others. A good sample means *low voltage*, *stability*, and *greater *overclocking headroom and potential.

*The second *one is Intel's background in the audio industry. For years and years, Intel has been the processor of every professionals' studio. There is no doubt AMD is back in the CPU game, but Intel's past means rock-solid computing power at low buffers.

Enough blabla. Let see the specs.
_To avoid any unexpected processes, I captured the screenshot with my phone._


*System*
Windows 10 Pro 2004 /build: 19041 (x64) -_Debloated and heavily optimized and reg-edited_

Cairo Shell
Nvidia Studio drivers _-NVSlimmed _
All internal and external devices are running on _MSI routine_
The cooling system is managed by a Python script to avoid tier software unstable behavior
BIOS: Virtualization disabled, audio chip disabled, no CPU states C3, static manual voltage value and ratio value @ all cores

*What's inside the PC?*

Intel 10980XE @ 4.4 Ghz - 1.112v (all cores, c-states disabled, AVX offset 0, AVX512 offset 2)
_Cooling: NZXT Kraken x62



_

256 GB (8x32) of Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3200 Mhz CL16 (16-20-20-38) @ 1.35v
Asus Prime X299 A-II



Spoiler: Startup system activity












Other -irrelevant- pieces.


Spoiler



MSI NVIDIA GTX 1650 SUPER / driver 460.89
Gigabytes Alpine Ridge TB3
Samsung SSD 860 EVO 2TB
Samsung SSD 960 EVO 1TB
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 500 GB
Corsair SSD Force MP510
PSU Corsair 750 Watt



*Audio interface*
Universal Audio Apollo x6 + 4 DSP Satellite

Driver 9.12.1
Settings for the test: 44.1 kHz / buffer size: 32, 64, 256

*DAW*
Cubase 11 Pro (11.0.0)

Asio Guard _-High_
Multi-Processing_ -Activated_
Processing Precision_ -32 bit float_
Audio Priority_ -Boost_

(AG seems to introduce a very high latency, which provides a lot of headroom in this benchmark, even at a very low buffer. Please note this benchmark cannot speak for everyone's situation)



Spoiler: See Cubase Settings screenshot













*Horsepower benchmark*

CPU-Z
Single-core *524.2*
Multicore* 11917.3



Spoiler: See CPU-Z screenshot











*
Cinebench R20
10107 pts



Spoiler: See Cinebench R20 screenshot













*Audio Benchmark*

The following test features 2 results (see graph below).

The first one is the result with Cubase authorized to use all 36 cores (18 cores, 36 threads)
The second one, only 34 (core 0 and 1 being removed from the list, as they are usually used by drivers and external devices to run)
*Update:* _There is a new polyphony score column with tRFC memory adjustment available in the __Graph spreadsheet_

*Test #1 Polyphony*
Kontakt 6.4.2 instance with

3 patches of Cinematic Studio Strings Violin -Spiccato only-
3 mics enabled (36 voices per patch, 108 voices per instance)
Pre-load size: 6Kbs.
Notes round-robins loaded only.



Spoiler: See Kontakt Patch


















Very little difference between 32, 64, and 256. I've tried 2048 just to see how it would change the result and it's about 37000 voices. Overall, it seems that even at 32, we reached the capacity of the CPU with AG:High. More buffer "doesn't help" to get more headroom to increase the voice count with that option on. I mean, not like we used to see. Even 256/34c perform "poorly" compare to 64/34c.
Quick video during the test.

*Test #2 Diva*

Preset -_HS Albert Hall Mini _
multicore _-on_
accuracy _-divine_





Surprisingly, I can add more Diva instances by having core 0 and 1 removed from Cubase's reach. The buffer size from 64 to 256 allows 4 more instances at 34c, but no big differences here. Synths are known to just eat CPU power regardless of the buffer.




*Conclusion*

I managed to get a solid result with buffer 32, after a year of tweaking that machine. Increasing the buffer doesn't allow much more headroom. I'm impressed to see that Diva benefits a lot from removing core 0 and 1 from being used by Cubase.
I'm starting my software with batch files containing command lines and proper CPU affinity tweaks. Pro Tools also benefits a lot from having core 0 and 1 removed from its reach (on Windows.)

On the temp side, the water-cooling does a fantastic job. In a real-world utilization, the CPU doesn't go above 60C (average temp). The GPU is undervolted and underclocked, Kboost is also deactivated. 22 Watt is what the GPU eats for lunch, so quite on diet. The CPU is free to enjoy all the PSU's power 

UPDATE: 
I'm trying some memory latency tweaks. I ended up having 36,504 @ buffer 32/36c. If all is stable, I will update the post.


If you have any questions, shoot!

All the best


----------



## Paul Jelfs (Jan 14, 2021)

Very impressive and detailed. I would really appreciate it if you could have a read over my spec, and suggest any settings or improvements that I could make , to run my buffer lower than I do. 

I have a really good cpu, not quite at the level of yours - i9 9940x. with 28 threads , 14 cores. I use it with a Ray Dat PCIE card so it should be pretty capable. 

However, I have never tried out these tests myself, and have often found with Kontakt in Cubase, that some older patches really hit the CPU hard, when Kontakt has its Thread Sharing OFF, and Cubase does it instead. 

I have ran latency mon, no problems there. I have not made any changes to the Bios, and though I know my way around software and windows 10 and Cubase, I am certainly not an expert. 

I am not sure if its the programming of the patches, or something I am not setting right for my PC with Cubase. 

I would be tempted to use Kontakt Multi Core again with Cubase 10.5, but people say it will probably cause problems. 

It would be interesting to try the same test as you, to see what sort of results I am getting - Depending on how well Cubase handles the cores , Perhaps 70% + of your score I am guessing ? 

I have a really good PSU, a Radeon 570 for graphics, I have not overclocked or water cooled the PC, but it does have a really large metal fin cooler on the CPU.

Like i say, I would appreciate your wisdom, and any bios , registry or other settings would be great- and advice on how you performed the above test. 

Sorry if I am going on a bit, midnight hear, and I am starting to fall asleep ! Last thing, Power Profile is maximized for Audio, turning off all the sleep etc. 

I do wonder if it is perhaps the amount of USB devices I have hooked up that could be affecting its performance, but then I would of expected that to show in Latency MON.

All the best 

PJ


----------



## R. Soul (Jan 14, 2021)

Thanks for doing this. 

I did the Diva test as posted by 'Funnybear' about a week ago on my new 5950x, just to see how it stacks up.

With no overclocking or any other tweaks - BIOS or otherwise, apart changing the power scheme, I was able to run 280 instances of Diva, which surprised me. 
I just loaded it again, to make sure they are set to 'Divine' mode, and loading the project as is, with 127 instances enabled puts my 'average processing load' in Cubase 11 at roughly 45% at 128 samples. Windows CPU sits at 57%.
So, somehow Diva seems better optimised for AMD. Not sure how there's such a big difference.
This is only using 32 GB RAM by the way. 

I might try to run Cinebench R20, for reference.


----------



## NothingToHide (Jan 14, 2021)

Interesting read and impressive results! My main question is regarding your template: you write Asio Guard is at high setting, so, I assume you use a disabled template (no VEpro), right? If that is so, how large is your template? How much ram does it use loading all template instruments? And in relation to that, how long does saving take?

The reason I am asking is, I like the idea of a Cubase-only approach. But what kept me form doing that is the long saving time of using a large dibbled template.


----------



## kro (Jan 14, 2021)

nm


----------



## Manaberry (Jan 15, 2021)

R. Soul said:


> Thanks for doing this.
> 
> I did the Diva test as posted by 'Funnybear' about a week ago on my new 5950x, just to see how it stacks up.
> 
> ...



Funnybear's CPU smokes everything in terms of horsepower. Cannot compete with AMD using synths. If I remember well, he has a score of 16000 in Cinebench R20. It's...HUGE!

Pretty sure Diva benefits a lot from the new AMD architecture.




NothingToHide said:


> Interesting read and impressive results! My main question is regarding your template: you write Asio Guard is at high setting, so, I assume you use a disabled template (no VEpro), right? If that is so, how large is your template? How much ram does it use loading all template instruments? And in relation to that, how long does saving take?
> 
> The reason I am asking is, I like the idea of a Cubase-only approach. But what kept me form doing that is the long saving time of using a large dibbled template.



Doing a benchmark straight in the DAW (such as Cubase) is common practice. However, I'm working with VEP as it reduces drastically my project file size and offers a faster way to switch between projects. A VEP benchmark would make sense. But I feel so lazy now. I've spent too much time doing this one already :D


@Paul Jelfs

Here is the project file: https://we.tl/t-iZEXABMdtx (32 x 108 voices)
You just have to duplicate Kontakt instances until ASIO spikes/overload appear. It can take a lot of memory by doing so.

On my system, I've disabled swapping memory and memory compression for instance. I've also reduced processes using another shell, optimized the way Windows service host works.
I've changed the system clock.
Explaining everything would take ages and I'm pretty sure to forget a few things along the way.


----------



## Paul Jelfs (Jan 15, 2021)

Thanks anyway, I will show your post to a PC expert I know and get him to see if he understands it better than I do ! 

And i thought I knew how to get good performance on Cubase !


----------



## NothingToHide (Jan 15, 2021)

I see! So, you work with VEPro. I think the test cannot be transferred to working with VEpro, though! With Asio-Guard, all tracks that are currently not active get a time buffer. That is why you get almost the same voice count for high and low buffer sizes, I believe. With VEpro, there is no Asio Guard, so, probably your voice count will be lower with low buffer settings.


----------



## Manaberry (Jan 15, 2021)

NothingToHide said:


> I see! So, you work with VEPro. I think the test cannot be transferred to working with VEpro, though! With Asio-Guard, all tracks that are currently not active get a time buffer. That is why you get almost the same voice count for high and low buffer sizes, I believe. With VEpro, there is no Asio Guard, so, probably your voice count will be lower with low buffer settings.


I tried Asio guard on low with a buffer of 32 and 36c: 14148


----------



## NothingToHide (Jan 15, 2021)

Did you try Asio Guard off?


----------



## Hendrixon (Jan 17, 2021)

37k voices? with a 32 sample buffer?! what does that even mean?
If you load CSS sustains all section all mics and play chords you'll trigger +/-600 voices.
To get 37k voices playing you'll need to duplicate that track 61 times... unless you have a Cray supercomputer I don't see this happening.

And I'm sorry, I don't now how you guys test polyphony/voice count, but the fact that you don't get more voices with larger buffers means that something in the way you test things if fundamentally flawed


----------



## Manaberry (Jan 17, 2021)

Hendrixon said:


> 37k voices? with a 32 sample buffer?! what does that even mean?
> If you load CSS sustains all section all mics and play chords you'll trigger +/-600 voices.
> To get 37k voices playing you'll need to duplicate that track 61 times... unless you have a Cray supercomputer I don't see this happening.
> 
> And I'm sorry, I don't now how you guys test polyphony/voice count, but the fact that you don't get more voices with larger buffers means that something in the way you test things if fundamentally flawed


Yep, it's called ASIO guard: high. The voice count drops to 14K at low. Pretty sure it wont hit 5k without it, or even less as it may be very unstable.
The screenshot show overall latency introduced by AG.
I just took the same settings as funnybear as it make sense to take the same settings from... an other benchmark.

Long sustain voices somehow get killed by kontakt. Going for spiccato patch was the best way I found to get a stable voice count with proper note trigger and avoid release sample (creating a huge voices bump). Resulting in 300+ instances and around 125GB de RAM.

Sorry if the benchmark is not perfect. Just trying to help and bring optimizations ideas to the table. New results will be added to compare how settings affect things.


----------



## Raphioli (Jan 18, 2021)

Manaberry said:


> Sorry if the benchmark is not perfect. Just trying to help and bring optimizations ideas to the table. New results will added to compare how settings affect things.


Your benchmarks are very much appreciated!
Thank you


----------



## colony nofi (Jan 18, 2021)

Hendrixon said:


> 37k voices? with a 32 sample buffer?! what does that even mean?
> If you load CSS sustains all section all mics and play chords you'll trigger +/-600 voices.
> To get 37k voices playing you'll need to duplicate that track 61 times... unless you have a Cray supercomputer I don't see this happening.
> 
> And I'm sorry, I don't now how you guys test polyphony/voice count, but the fact that you don't get more voices with larger buffers means that something in the way you test things if fundamentally flawed



Its worth having a read up on what ASIO GUARD (and other systems in other DAW's) are doing.
It is very possible (when nothing is being played in real time / nothing in record) that having buffers set to 32 means absolutely nothing - and that the "real" buffer (due to the non-real-time magic of playback) is able to be much higher. 
Its unfortunately not as simple as "the buffers on all tracks other than the recording tracks are set to maximum" but thats a decent place to start as far as an explanation goes.
And under certain circumstances, it can definitely appear exactly that way. However, there are many other variables at play (and even some things that SB keep under wraps) which mean that it doesn't always behave nicely / as one would like. Indeed, if it did, it would make talking about / setting latency levels for one's sound card almost irrelevant. And thats clearly not the case.

But I'd bet a decent sized wager that the above results are due to asiobuffer working very well in that circumstance.


----------



## Manaberry (Jan 18, 2021)

colony nofi said:


> But I'd bet a decent sized wager that the above results are due to asiobuffer working very well in that circumstance.


I don't even know why AG introduces that much latency at high @ 32. It should scale on the buffer size no?
Going for the low settings reduces by half the voices count. Having it disabled makes everything unstable to the point that nothing works.
Maybe the latest Cubase releases modify somehow how it works but I've never witnessed something like that. 
SB is hiding something from us!


----------



## Hendrixon (Jan 18, 2021)

Manaberry said:


> I don't even know why AG introduces that much latency at high @ 32. It should scale on the buffer size no?
> Going for the low settings reduces by half the voices count. Having it disabled makes everything unstable to the point that nothing works.
> Maybe the latest Cubase releases modify somehow how it works but I've never witnessed something like that.
> SB is hiding something from us!


I don't use Cubase, but a bit of google reveals that asio guard at "high" setting simply puts 4096 samples buffer on the playback tracks. the real asio buffer you set in the driver is only effecting real time input or real time monitoring.

4096 samples at 48khz/44.1khz is around 90ms of latency.
Your pc simply bounces down all the playback tracks FX and VI 90ms ahead of time... that's why setting 32 samples or 1024 samples in the driver shows no difference in voice count.

Doing a benchmark like that, simply shows how well your pc can bounce tracks, it shows nothing what your pc can handle playing in real time.


Edit:
Just want to add that its perfectly fine doing that, no need to playback real time VIs and FX on midi tracks that are already recorded. but be aware that that's what you're testing, that way you even mask the difference between highly optimized engines (like kontakt) to others that are not.

If you want to know how well your pc will play big heavy libs under your fingers?
Don't add any pre-processing like asio guard in cubase or "anticipate fx processing" in reaper (same thing).


----------



## Hendrixon (Jan 18, 2021)

@Manaberry

Who or what is SB you guys mention?  

Can you please explain how you prevented cubase from using cores 0 and 1?
Seems like a very logical idea


----------



## Hendrixon (Jan 18, 2021)

Btw, I just checked "anticipate fx processing" in reaper, which is the same idea as asio guard.
Reaper has that feature enabled by default, with a value of 200ms!
That's equivalent to almost 8800-9600 samples

No wonder my old audio pc with a cpu from 2011 and mobo from 2009 worked fine for many years


----------



## Manaberry (Jan 18, 2021)

Hendrixon said:


> @Manaberry
> 
> Who or what is SB you guys mention?
> 
> ...


SB for Steinberg (but it reminds me South Bridge as well hehe)

Sure thing. To start Cubase I use the following command:


```
C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe /C start "Cubase11" /affinity 0x0000001FFFFFFFFC "C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Cubase 11\Cubase11.exe"
```

The affinity command control which core can be used by the program. Windows use a Hexadecimal mask to define the core count and which one has to be used. There are tools out there to generate the hexadecimal code based on the core count of your CPU.

Another way to change core affinity is to start the *Task Manager>Details tab> right-click* on *Cubase *and select "*set affinity*". You should see a window with all cores checked.

By nature, drivers processes such as audio should be handled by the first physical core (with HT on, it's core 0 and 1.)

I still don't know why I do have more Diva instances without core 0 and 1 as it should just eat raw power...



Hendrixon said:


> Edit:
> Just want to add that its perfectly fine doing that, no need to playback real time VIs and FX on midi tracks that are already recorded. but be aware that that's what you're testing, that way you even mask the difference between highly optimized engines (like kontakt) to others that are not.


I've edited the post regarding Asio guard just to let everyone know that it has a big influence on those numbers. It should be clear now, thanks for pointing that out


----------



## Raphioli (Jan 18, 2021)

SB probably stands for Steinberg.

In regards to this benchmark, the OP clearly mentions under the "DAW" section that ASIO guard is set to high.
So its not like this thread is misleading or anything.

I think its perfectly fine and useful for people who are using Cubase under windows (or thinking of migrating to Cubase).


----------



## Hendrixon (Jan 18, 2021)

Manaberry said:


> The affinity command control which core can be used by the program.


affinityyyyy
The last time I used this option was on a server 20 years ago (quad cpu dual core behemoth) 

I have beside me now a 5950X, double the cores, with a x10 clock (almost 5ghz vs 500mhz) , and a feature that doubles the thread count. its amazing to think that we have all that in our homes.

Imagine where we could have been today if only Intel didn't seat on their asses for like 7-8 years.
Honestly Lisa Sue should get a Nobel prize


----------



## Paul Jelfs (Jan 18, 2021)

Manaberry said:


> I tried Asio guard on low with a buffer of 32 and 36c: 14148



Can i also ask why you have adjusted , under record latency , you Record shift back by -10000 samples - Does this actually help in day to day composing with VSTs , or just a setting to get the best benchmark ? 

I am referring to your VST Audio system photo in your original post


----------



## Hendrixon (Jan 31, 2021)

> 256 GB (8x32) of Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3200 Mhz CL16 (16-20-20-38) @ 1.35v


I started tightening my memory timings, using 128GB G.Skill Ripjaws V.
These dimms have a single XMP of 4000mhz 18-22-22-22-42 @1.4v which to that my AMD said something like "are you kidding me?!" and refused to even try memory training  

I did get it to work with its stock 1.4v at 3600mhz 18-22-22-22-42.
From there managed to set primaries of 16-19-19-19-38 which interestingly are very close to yours.

* it seems that tightening the timings with quad rank doesn't give a big performance boost *

I managed to push the memory to 3733, but for that to happen I bumped the memory controller from 1.08v to 1.2v (max safe voltage) and the memory sticks to 1.7v!
3733 gave a nice bump in performance, but ddr4 at 1.7v is like 0.2v above recommended max voltage so had to dial things down.

I can decouple the clocks and probably post at XMP, but AMD cpus seem to be most efficient when all clocks are in sync, meaning the clocks of the memory sticks, memory controller and infinity fabric (the interconnect of the chiplets and memory controller) so it seems 3600 is the max I can get. at least with these sticks and bios.
Or maybe its my cpu memory controller that can't handle all that dram (2 channels of quad rank).

I think you can get 3600 if you'll bump the memory voltage to 1.4v-1.5v.
From everything I read it seems 1.5v if fine for daily.


----------



## Manaberry (Jan 31, 2021)

Maybe you should look into tRFC once you found some stable timings. It can drastically decrease overall latency (I went from 81.9 ns to 69-70 ns just tweaking it)

1.5v is the absolute max and I would not recommend having this parameter above 1.4v for daily use (unless people saying that have been running those settings for 5+ years, which I doubt)
I was able to bring down the tRFC to 551 instead of 881 with 1.36v. I usually not overclock my memory and prefer to stay in the low voltage range to get a decent lifespan.

If you can't get better timings with your memory, maybe trying to optimize the tRFC value could be helpful to improve the overall performance of both your CPU and memory.

Here is a test I've done with my memory. Sadly it was not stable at 501, so I just added a little voltage boost to the ram to improve the refresh cycle efficiency and bring it to 551.
9 hours of memory testing without any issues after the move (it took 16 mins to get the first error @ 501)


----------



## Hendrixon (Jan 31, 2021)

I did tweak the tRFC, on auto it chose around 900, I could lower it to 650 but not less. still it did provide some boost.
Your latency seems high for an Intel platform, shouldn't it be around 40ns? maybe its the 3200 clock?
Though 80gb read is a massive number!
Right now I'm getting around 62.5ns avg latency and 54,750mb read.
At stock 3600 I had about 73ns and 50,000mb.

Once I'll reach the tightest memory timings over all, I'll start stressing and lowering the voltages.
Btw my dimms produce heat more then I'm comfortable with. adding a small fan on them keeps them cool and it also added to over all stability.
I guess that even though my memory has an XMP of 1.4v which means it should be fine, its still on the high side.

Here are my timings so far:





Edit:
I see your CR is at 2T, this could explain some things.


----------



## Cat (Feb 9, 2021)

Manaberry said:


> Hello VI-C community,
> 
> I've been using the 10980XE for a year now. I've put a lot of effort into making my system and my hardware solid as a rock in order to produce music with "no limits". I'm sharing with you what this big boy can handle.
> 
> ...


Thank you for all the great information you have provided. 

I have also ordered the i9 10980xe/Gigabyte Aurus Master (I could not find the Asus Prime-A II). I will start building it and then testing it in a couple of days.

Not sure I understood the DIVA test. Did you just load instances of Diva without playing any notes? You are probably aware that Diva is a VST3 instrument; Therefore it will take no CPU if there is no sound (I think there is an option in Preferences about that). Also, since you had ASIO GUARD on (and even set on High), the instrument tracks that are not record enabled take much less cpu than they would normally do. Were all these points observed during your test?


----------



## Manaberry (Feb 9, 2021)

@Cat 

Every instance of Diva played the same note.
I've seen some ASIO meter behavior by selecting the instruments yes indeed.


----------



## Cat (Feb 19, 2021)

I managed to get my 10980xe stable at 4.6 GHz and 1.13V. Air cooled with Noctua and a few extra large fans. For Ram I couldn't get the tRFC any lower than 700 (XMP1 at 3600 MHz). The whole overclocking process seemed very easy. Also this computer is replacing my older 5th generation i9 and I didn't have to re-install Windows (only the motherboard drivers and then a few authorizations). Yay!
Thank you again @Manaberry for all the information that helped me a lot.
​


----------



## Cat (Mar 28, 2021)

@Manaberry Does your Cubase ever freeze on your PC? Every hour or two it freezes for 3-4 seconds (CPU utilization peaks to 100%, then drops to almost zero, then back to normal). I run the performance monitor and the CPU frequency doesn't drop at all. It could be Cubase, but I though I'd ask here first.


----------



## Manaberry (Mar 28, 2021)

Absolutely no freeze at all on my end.


----------



## fdango (Feb 4, 2022)

Thank you for all the info you posted, I am new here, and registered just because of this post. I have the same new computer configuration and have quite some problems with the performance. I will try a couple of things you posted, thank you.
Fdango


----------



## szczaw (Feb 4, 2022)

I agree about the great performance. I was considering getting used 10980XE workstation, but it was too expensive (I got used 3700x which I will upgrade to 5950x). I'll get one in a few years, when the price will start going down.


----------



## fdango (Feb 8, 2022)

Cat said:


> I managed to get my 10980xe stable at 4.6 GHz and 1.13V. Air cooled with Noctua and a few extra large fans. For Ram I couldn't get the tRFC any lower than 700 (XMP1 at 3600 MHz). The whole overclocking process seemed very easy. Also this computer is replacing my older 5th generation i9 and I didn't have to re-install Windows (only the motherboard drivers and then a few authorizations). Yay!
> Thank you again @Manaberry for all the information that helped me a lot.
> ​


Have you tested on Prime95?


----------



## Pictus (Feb 8, 2022)

Hendrixon said:


> Here are my timings so far:


*Your CLDO VDDP is toooooooooooooooooo high!!!!!!!!!!* 
I would keep at *0.900V*
The SOC, VDDG IOD/CCD are also higher than necessary, check


https://www.overclock.net/threads/amd-max-overclocking-voltage.1775745/#post-28703233



You can get better latency with GDM(GearDonw) disabled and Cmd2T = 2

You may get good advice at:



https://www.overclock.net/threads/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.1628751/page-835


and








Leserartikel - AMD Ryzen - RAM OC Community


dann siehst du jetzt schön, wie viel Müll im normalen Betrieb bei dir im Hintergrund läuft :D




www.computerbase.de


----------



## Sample Fuel (Feb 9, 2022)

Manaberry said:


> Hello VI-C community,
> 
> I've been using the 10980XE for a year now. I've put a lot of effort into making my system and my hardware solid as a rock in order to produce music with "no limits". I'm sharing with you what this big boy can handle.
> 
> ...


A couple of Cubase questions for you....

With ASIO GUARD on I assume you experience the 1 second or so audio cutting out when you switch tracks as Cubase has to re-adjust the buffers?

The bigger issue I have.....In my giant template I experience a huge delay in exporting audio with ASIO GUARD on either "low" or "high". By huge I am talking it takes over 2 minutes to start the export and over 2 minutes to become responsive after the export. In the NORMAL setting or ASIO GUARD this delay does not happen. Steinberg has tried to investigate but has not figured out the issue yet. So it would be helpful for you to share if you are seeing any sort of issue like this.


----------



## Hendrixon (Feb 10, 2022)

Pictus said:


> *Your CLDO VDDP is toooooooooooooooooo high!!!!!!!!!!*
> I would keep at *0.900V*
> The SOC, VDDG IOD/CCD are also higher than necessary, check
> 
> ...


I'll check it out  
I'm still on an oldish bios/agesa so will need to flash first.
I don't remember why some of the numbers are higher, it was a long time since I tweaked things  
Most of it is because I wanted to overclock the memory. AMD in general is not great in this aspect, and trying to o/c 128GB of ram seems even harder. what's more the dimms suggested V is 1.45v!
Maybe later agesa will help? not holding my breath


----------



## Pictus (Feb 10, 2022)

VDIMM at 1.45V is not a problem if you got good airflow, but the CLDO VDDP is critical.
Newer AGESA usually makes things a bit better, but the main limiter is the chip memory
controller.


----------

