4 ms·

That's really weird, the author of the bandwidth tool has line graphs with >100GB/s on weaker hardware. https://zsmith.co/bandwidth.php https://zsmith.co/bandw

by effie 3y ago

That's really weird, the author of the bandwidth tool has line graphs with >100GB/s on weaker hardware. https://zsmith.co/bandwidth.php https://zsmith.co/bandwidth.php Make sure all power saving stuff is disabled in BIOS, that XMP is being used, and Linux is not booting with some weird ACPI/APIC flags. Try ganged/unganged mode (DCT) in BIOS.

vlovich123 3y ago
You have to be careful reading the charts. The author of that tool doesn’t do the best job clarifying that most of that chart is showing L1/2/3 cache speeds. That tool could definitely use some TLC. I don’t see any that get anywhere near that once your out of cache range.
- effie 3y ago
  Oh, you might be right. Not sure what you mean by TLC. But indeed the charts lack an explanation, so I've looked instead into this table: https://zsmith.co/bw-table.php https://zsmith.co/bw-table.php First row for Intel Core i7-930, DDR3 2000 MT/s he should be getting at most 16GB/s for reading from DRAM modules (not cache), but he's actually getting 18.4 GB/s, big 15% more. Maybe more cores were used, then the theoretical limit of that processor is 25.6GB/s, and the result is not that great. But then for i5-520M, 1066MT/s he should be getting 8.5GB/s per core, but he's getting less, only 7.1GB/s. Maybe contact the author (his email is in README.txt) and ask for clarifications on these discrepancies and help on your problem. I think there is a problem somewhere with your system/measurements. With 6000 MT/s, there's no way getting 25GB/s is fine - that's what DDR4 3200MT/s should able to do. You should be getting close below 48 GB/s on one core, and 89.6GB/s multicore. And writes should be slower than reads.
- effie 3y ago
  People are getting 95GB/s with AIDA64 on Windows. https://www.thefpsreview.com/2022/10/20/intel-core-i9-13900k-cpu-review/4/#ftoc-heading-17 https://www.thefpsreview.com/2022/10/20/intel-core-i9-13900k...

by effie 3y ago

vlovich123 3y ago

You have to be careful reading the charts. The author of that tool doesn’t do the best job clarifying that most of that chart is showing L1/2/3 cache speeds. That tool could definitely use some TLC. I don’t see any that get anywhere near that once your out of cache range.

effie 3y ago
Oh, you might be right. Not sure what you mean by TLC. But indeed the charts lack an explanation, so I've looked instead into this table: https://zsmith.co/bw-table.php https://zsmith.co/bw-table.php First row for Intel Core i7-930, DDR3 2000 MT/s he should be getting at most 16GB/s for reading from DRAM modules (not cache), but he's actually getting 18.4 GB/s, big 15% more. Maybe more cores were used, then the theoretical limit of that processor is 25.6GB/s, and the result is not that great. But then for i5-520M, 1066MT/s he should be getting 8.5GB/s per core, but he's getting less, only 7.1GB/s. Maybe contact the author (his email is in README.txt) and ask for clarifications on these discrepancies and help on your problem. I think there is a problem somewhere with your system/measurements. With 6000 MT/s, there's no way getting 25GB/s is fine - that's what DDR4 3200MT/s should able to do. You should be getting close below 48 GB/s on one core, and 89.6GB/s multicore. And writes should be slower than reads.
effie 3y ago
People are getting 95GB/s with AIDA64 on Windows. https://www.thefpsreview.com/2022/10/20/intel-core-i9-13900k-cpu-review/4/#ftoc-heading-17 https://www.thefpsreview.com/2022/10/20/intel-core-i9-13900k...