What about your car, TV, etc? Are you ok with that taking 60 seconds to start? Do you also just consider it a "silly party trick to show your friends" that your car and TV starts quicker than that?
A better procedures fixes nuances between boots how now?Further down:
" Arguably if the memory controller had a better memory training procedure it wouldn't have to retrain all the time as it would come to a set of settings that always work well enough."
So is the updated AGESA 1.0.0.7B just that?
I'm just wondering how much more stable a computer will be without context restore? I've used it since I've gotten it, and everything seems to run fine. I use Builzoids timings, so tight but not super tight timings. What are the MTBF difference between the two settings?
The good thing is we can run our computers exactly as we want.
I'm not an electrical engineer, just quoting Buildzoid as you do.
Stability in the interim or stability over time?I'm not an electrical engineer, just quoting Buildzoid as you do.
My point being, if I don't experience any crashes with memory context enabled, even if it is 100x less stable than disabled then, I still have a perfectly stable system.
Different devices for different applications. You're comparing apples, grapes, and potatoes.
Regardless, our very own Biostud has volunteered to test the long term stability of MCR. Isn't that right, Biostud?
Adding to this and going forth with what Builderzoid said on the reddit is that much constant changing variables requiring a retrain a car's ecu for example will adjust ignition timing at a constant rate to get the best fuel to air ratio to achieve peak power and clean burn. Obviously the booting/starting and warming up have little to do with a pc but much like a more complex device (a desktop computers performing more calculations per second than a car can) there's constant adjustments.
My English skills are coming short, into understanding your question.
Stability in the interim is alright but stability X time may not be. What may seem stable to you in your eyes may not be truly stable but not unstable enough to cause a fault in regular use without pushing the hardware through external tools available in the community.My English skills are coming short, into understanding your question.
If for some reason my computer should show signs of instability, I can always disable context restore. But on the other hand reboots are really quick with CR enabled
Also every time there's a bios update, I will retrain my memory.
Isn't MCR a jump in speeds that doesn't pay off until the end of DDR5's lifetime?
It doesn't ever hit even 5.8. The chip hits 5.75. the temps at that workload are around 76-80C. The only time it actually hits 90+ is in a doomsday multi-core scenario.
I was initially thinking that, however, while I don't watch LTT videos every day, I do keep an eye on his stuff. I found this little interesting video:
Didn't Zen 2 and Zen 3 show problems with the CCD's too close to each other? Perhaps that is why. I don't know for sure. I think AMD's biggest mistake was trying to maintain cooler design uniformity with their z height. der bauer made some videos of delidded zen 4 and others with shaved down ihs videos but I think amd should have let the uniformity gone to the trash. It will remain an issue until zen 5 3d or zen 6 provided it lives in the am5 lifetime.
How did you disable it? is it under nitro training options?
Once I've settled on a satisfactory OC with my B650 board, I'll disable nitro training options & put on auto then leave MCR & PDM on auto, my system boots up to the windows login screen in approx 10-12 seconds. Of course having a speedy PCIe4 NVME drive helps too, but the system just goes with the bios profile I've created in my OC when the first time training is done. The memory training thing can be an issue when you don't know or can't confirm what the system is doing when first booting with a given hardware profile. If my OC attempt is too aggressive or not properly configured with my particular hardware combo, the system will just hang & not boot. You can hear the case fans screaming away but nothing appears on the screen. Clear CMOS time!
& re configure.
I don't really understand what happens at the training, but shouldn't the result theoretically be pretty close every time as long as the hardware and settings are the same?
Smart phones and smart TVs take time to boot. They are only "instant on" devices once they have booted. How long does your phone take to fully start from being powered on? Your TV? How long does each take to reboot? A car has many dedicated computers, not a single one controlling everything. Your PC will spend more time applying Windows updates than it will booting up everyday.Please explain how a car or a TV is different from a PC with regards to startup time. They are both using computer based systems (yes cars have infotainment system etc too!). You turn them on. You want them to be working as quickly as possible so you can start using them. And then you use them for quite some time. Very similar. Why are you ok with sitting idle for 60 seconds and waiting until you can use your PC, but not prepared to wait the same time before you start using your TV or car?
Also, I might add that I've worked with several different consumer electronic products, and one of the top requirements is always to get the startup time as quick as possible. Often it's being chased in 100 millisecond steps. Something like 60 seconds which you are ok with is totally unacceptable. It's DOA. Consumers don't want it. You won't get the contract.
That said, everyone is different. And if you're ok with 60 second startup times then good for you. But to me it just seems weird to accept that, when there are competing PCs that are able to boot up in 10-15 seconds. I still don't see why you'd rather have a 60 second boot-up time to no benefit. Maybe it's some party trick to show that your PC can survive a 60 second boot-up.
How about your phone? Noticed you left that response out.
Someone is taking my comments personally.Please explain how a car or a TV is different from a PC with regards to startup time. They are both using computer based systems (yes cars have infotainment system etc too!). You turn them on. You want them to be working as quickly as possible so you can start using them. And then you use them for quite some time. Very similar. Why are you ok with sitting idle for 60 seconds and waiting until you can use your PC, but not prepared to wait the same time before you start using your TV or car?
Also, I might add that I've worked with several different consumer electronic products, and one of the top requirements is always to get the startup time as quick as possible. Often it's being chased in 100 millisecond steps. Something like 60 seconds which you are ok with is totally unacceptable. It's DOA. Consumers don't want it. You won't get the contract.
That said, everyone is different. And if you're ok with 60 second startup times then good for you. But to me it just seems weird to accept that, when there are competing PCs that are able to boot up in 10-15 seconds. I still don't see why you'd rather have a 60 second boot-up time to no benefit. Maybe it's some party trick to show that your PC can survive a 60 second boot-up.
Exactly... Now 5 minutes or more like my Genoa boxes takes get annoying, but since they are virtually never rebooted and run all the time who cares. As for my 7950x's when I do reboot, or power up, I hit the power button, then go the fridge for a drink, and when I get back its on, so who cares ? As Adam says, anything else is a party trick for non-computer people.
Example:
Facebook
Twitter