Ryzen AGESA 1.0.0.6 exposes more memory overclocking options

Over the past couple months, we've come to understand that memory speed and latency plays a major role in Ryzen CPU performance. Higher speeds and lower latencies are desirable for getting the most out of a Ryzen chip. Outside of a few motherboards with external base-clock generators, however, the memory multipliers for Ryzen CPUs have maxed out at 32. With a 100-MHz default base clock, that means builders have been limited to running overclocked RAM at DDR4-3200 speeds.

Today, that all changes. AMD has announced that its AMD Generic Encapsulated System Architecture, or AGESA, version 1.0.0.6 will expose 26 new RAM tuning settings to tweakers looking to extract the most from their Ryzen systems' RAM. These updates should bring AM4 motherboards' firmware settings for memory tweaking more on par with that of the Intel competition.

Of the wealth of memory overclocking options AGESA 1.0.0.6 will offer, the two most important settings to me are an extended range of memory multipliers (up to 40, or DDR4-4000) and the option to set command rates at one tick or two ticks (1T or 2T). For example, the hot G.Skill DDR4-3866 memory I have here requires a 38.66 multiplier and a 2T command rate, but those settings simply couldn't be dialed in on Ryzen motherboards under the current AGESA (1.0.0.4) without resorting to changes in the base clock that also controls important bus rates like PCI Express. Changing that base clock rate could result in unexpected behavior, so it's a relief that the masses won't have to resort to that approach any longer. 

Of course, AMD is quick to point out that using memory speeds above DDR4-2667 or settings not in accordance with JEDEC values is considered overclocking. Overclocking RAM with these new knobs will void a Ryzen CPU's factory warranty, even if you're using the company's Ryzen Master utility. Still, the temptation of performance gains will probably be too much to resist for many Ryzen owners.

In news that will be music to the ears of another class of users, AMD also says that AGESA 1.0.0.6 will improve support for PCI Express Access Control Services, or ACS. According to the company, these improvements will allow users who run virtual machines on their Ryzen systems to better manage the assignment of PCIe devices within IOMMU groups. In short, the company says this feature will let VM wizards dedicate multiple graphics cards within a Ryzen system to the operating systems of their choice, whether natively installed or virtual, among other benefits.

AMD says motherboard firmware incorporating AGESA 1.0.0.6 will be available starting in "mid-to-late June." The company notes that some motherboard makers have already begun issuing beta firmwares for some products with the new AGESA on board, most notably Gigabyte with its AX370-Gaming 5 and Asus with its Crosshair VI Hero. Folks eager to push Ryzen memory performance to its limits will doubtless welcome this update warmly.

 

Comments closed
    • thx1138r
    • 5 years ago

    You cared enough to respond!

    • thx1138r
    • 5 years ago

    Ahh, no response to my suggestion to use better comparisons then…

    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago
    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago
    • thx1138r
    • 5 years ago

    It’s your comprehension capabilities under question here.

    Comparing the 1600X with the 7700K, a much more fair comparison than your 1700 versus the 7700K. Why? the 1700 is a low-power 65W 8-core. The 1600X is closer to the 7700K in terms of power draw and core count. And, guess what, the 7700K loses in multi-threaded tests. So if they can’t win a 4-to-6 core comparison, there’s no guarantee they will win a 6-to-8 core comparison. It’s not rocket science.

    This kind of shenanigan is a typical fanboi ploy, cherry picking comparisons in a desperate attempt to justify a biased position.

    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago
    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago
    • synthtel2
    • 5 years ago

    That’s me downvoting you, bro. Take a careful look at which of your posts are downvoted and which aren’t – things like use cases have nothing to do with it, it’s all about that bad attitude.

    • synthtel2
    • 5 years ago

    Now that I pull language parsing out of subconscious mode (which I shouldn’t have to), no, you’re not technically wrong. You just have weird wording that makes it look like you’re saying that 4C KBL is equal-ish to 8C Zen in the average multi-threaded workload. It looks like thx1138r took the same meaning from it that I originally did, so I’m going to venture out on a limb and say that my reading comprehension isn’t the problem here.

    As I was saying, though, that wasn’t even the main point of my post.

    • synthtel2
    • 5 years ago

    By tweaking the use case in question (including in more subtle ways than just single- vs multi-threaded priority), it’s possible to make either chip look like a clear winner. In other words, there’s room to be a fan of one chip or the other and not be wrong. That’s what was supposed to fall under “off by <20% errors” in my previous post, and I wasn’t too concerned about it because the people making those errors (if you even want to call them that) usually aren’t objectively wrong.

    The trouble comes when someone is a big (probably legitimate) fan of one side or the other, but can’t see this meta, and wonders why the world doesn’t share their viewpoint. That’s you right now.

    Also, you’re veering a bit into being objectively wrong, but I think that’s more of a symptom. Thx1138r did a good job of responding to that, so I won’t bother.

    • helix
    • 5 years ago

    Dedicating PCIe cards to a VM would be really neat.
    Is this a firmware-only feature? Can we expect this to show up in most AM4 motherboards already on the market?

    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago
    • thx1138r
    • 5 years ago

    Cut the hyperbole, get over yourself and grow up.

    The fact that Ryzen has been released and the fact that it beats similarly priced intel chips at some benchmarks is a cause for celebration from both camps. The question is, why are you so begrudging of AMD’s multi-threaded benchmark victories?

    [quote<]NO ONE REPUTABLE ON THE DAMN WEB seems to have benchmarked the 7700k OVERCLOCKED HARD vs the 1800+ OVERCLOCKED HARD[/quote<] Seriously? There's loads of those reviews on the web. Now, if you actually took the time to realise that the vast majority of CPU's are never overclocked you would work out that these "overclocked" reviews are very much over-represented compared to the proportion of over-clocked chips actually in use. [quote<]The 7700k can do 4.8 dead easy, the performance *at stock* is close to the Ryzen 1700 in (some, I admit) multithreaded benchmarks.... (yes multithreadeD) [/quote<] Now this is where you come off looking like a foaming-at-the-mouth fanboi who has let his love of a certain company cloud his objectivity. The overclocked 7700K is simply nowhere near the R7's when it comes to multi-threaded tests, and is even behind the much cheaper stock R5 1600X with slow-ass RAM: [url<]https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/04/05/amd-ryzen-5-1600-review-leak-200-cpu-beats-350-intel-core-i7-7700k/#72bc8aef1784[/url<] "forbes" reputable enough for ya? The problem you are having on this site is that you expect AMD fans to acknowledge how good the intel chips are without your acknowledgment of the reality that the AMD chips have their strengths too. I'm an AMD fan, so I'll start. The i7 7700K is a great CPU, it has a very high IPC, it overclocks very well and it is certainly the best choice for people who take gaming seriously. now you try...

    • synthtel2
    • 5 years ago

    Who exactly ever claimed Zen was going to beat an Intel part with more cores by 50%? That’s the core of the problem here. If there were actually a clique saying garbage like that all the time, I’d kinda almost understand where you’d be coming from, but I can’t think of any regular commenters like that, much less a whole clique of them. On other sites, sure, but on TR the worst I see is sarcasm, off by <20% errors, and occasional obvious trolls who aren’t going to hang around long regardless.

    The dudes you want to fight aren’t here. If you really want to fight them this badly, why not go somewhere they actually are?

    • chuckula
    • 5 years ago

    How exactly have I “championed” Intel?

    All I have done is accurately call out the clique around here who have insulted anything and everything from Intel for the past 10 years when their holy miracle chip RyZen doesn’t blow the doors off of higher-core count Intel parts by 50%. Because that’s what they’ve been promising us and if an Intel part with RyZen’s performance launched this year there ain’t one single AMD shill around here who would be jumping up and down to praise it. That’s my objective standard, and literally every AMD fanboy on here has failed it miserably.

    Let’s put it another way: Here’s what I would actually do if I was an actually biased “Intel Champion”

    1. Denigrate RyZen in 2017 just as much as a d-bag loser like Bensam123 did to Haswell when it launched in 2013.

    2. Wait four years for Intel to launch an 8 core part on a more advanced node in 2021 with a noticeably higher clockspeed.

    3. Act like the greatest miracle in the history of the universe has happened when an Intel part from 2021 with a more advanced process node and the same core count as an AMD part from 2017 manages to beat the AMD part in some benchmarks some of the time kinda, while also literally flat-out losing in numerous real-world benchmarks [b<]and[/b<] not even being particularly "future proof". Bonus points for pretending to be some sort of hard-core "streamer" gamer while the 4-year-newer Intel part loses to the older AMD part pretty much across the board in games. 4. Oh yeah, and act like repeated additional miracles occur every few weeks when some idiotic "secret setting" is discovered that magically unlocks the Intel part while acting like there's some huge conspiracy and pretending that the chip manufacturer is intentionally trying to gimp its own product.

    • LostCat
    • 5 years ago

    chuckie seems to like chasing shadows.

    • cegras
    • 5 years ago

    I’m pretty sure intel parts have been picked apart in detail in the same fashion, especially when HT was first introduced, and even more so when they still had MCM that talked over FSB.

    Is it not their job to do this?

    • cynan
    • 5 years ago

    Regarding AMD “bias”, I think you’ve pretty much identified the issue. Enthusiasts are dying for some meaningful competition-fueled innovation (in technology, performance and pricing). More recently in the GPU space, and for the longest time in the CPU space – the two most exciting PC components – this has been relatively non-existent. And the only near-term hope for either is AMD. Suddenly, AMD is coming out full guns blazing (at least according Ryzen, their PR and released road maps), promising to change all of that. Kind of hard to avoid getting carried away at least a little by the hype.

    Also, I think a lot of TR’s membership has been building PCs long enough to remember the good old days when AMD-based systems represented the “enthusiasts” choice. Nostalgia is a powerful drug.

    And then there’s chuckula championing Intel, who has proven able to more than holds his own against an entire army of gerbils when it comes to the comments section 😉

    • LostCat
    • 5 years ago

    Voting is easier than entering conversations if you either don’t want to discuss things with certain people or don’t have anything to add.

  1. 🙂

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Oh TR just became your average club where going against the flow makes you unpopular. Kinda like the governments of the world.

    • Toby
    • 5 years ago

    What is going on at Tech Report? I’ve been a big fan of this site since near its inception and it seems the community has evolved into an reaffirming echo chamber for all of AMD’s efforts despite effectiveness. I’m cheering for AMD to provide some meaningful competition as much as the next guy, but every time I wander into the comments I feel like I’m wading through blind loyalty interspersed with tribal hatred to anyone that questions it. The up/downvoting of comments exacerbates the issue; I often see very negative attacking comments on the right hand side of the page because they’ve been “voted up”. I find this sort of thing somewhat depressing.

    Can someone please explain what I’m missing? How did this site get to this point? With the volume of tribalism in society right now, I don’t think I need it in my technology news.

    Thank you!

    • rika13
    • 5 years ago

    The Introlls and AMDbags will fight, but that is good. It means we have competition.

    AMD giving out settings that can break things that they won’t cover, not so much, unless there is a “you are doing something very naughty and we won’t cover it when it breaks” warning.

    • MOSFET
    • 5 years ago

    I never had any problems either (actually, and still don’t) with Vishera platforms, always the Asus 990FX Pro R2, about 5 different boards.

    On another note, I think Ryzen and Threadripper are excellent, memorable names. Much better than Celeron and Xeon.

    • MOSFET
    • 5 years ago

    Of course, you could use Intel and be stuck at 2133, and oh finally 2400, for the rest of your meaningful computing life.

    • terranup16
    • 5 years ago

    Apologies for linking to a possible competitor, but [H] did the best it could trying to do exactly a review like you’re requesting at launch-

    * [url<]https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/[/url<] 5GHz CPU + 3.6GHz RAM for the i7-7700K and 4.0GHz + 2.933GHz RAM for the R7 1700X. Short version- results are pretty much what you'd expect. The 7700K dominates most single-threaded workloads, while anywhere the R7 1700X can stretch its core count advantage and doesn't run into an architectural, bottleneck, it does. I don't think you're going to see many configurations nor benchmarks change the i7-7700K versus R7 picture. Where you're more likely to see some variability in overclocking/configuration/etc is R7 versus Intel HEDT... and even that probably won't matter in a couple of months because Intel is going to turn the page over to Skylake HEDT while AMD is going to be pushing ThreadRipper to counter that.

    • jihadjoe
    • 5 years ago

    That pretty much means we ought to run at a max of 2666MHz. If they’re going to put out firmware updates to support 4000MHz RAM, it comes with the implied guararantee that the IMC is good for that speed.

    • Redocbew
    • 5 years ago

    Especially since killing the memory controller probably doesn’t leave any visible signs of damage on the chip, I think? They’d have to do some pretty in-depth testing to find that out instead of the chip being dead for any other possibly unrelated reason.

    • anotherengineer
    • 5 years ago

    I think CPUs should be reviewed at whatever their official max. designed/supported memory clock is. If it is 2667, then bench at that. If it is 2133 or 2400 then bench at that. And there are the benches at the designed/recommended timings. If a cpu can/will run memory at it’s designed memory speed, I would not call it ‘beta hardware’ because of that reason alone.

    And bench again for whatever frequencies you can achieve, but put it under the overclocking benchmarks.
    -OC CPU benches @ stock ram speeds or
    -OC Ram benches @ stock cpu ram speeds or
    -OC Ram & CPU benches
    A good way to see how much gains can be had either way, but yes, definitely a lot more work.

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 5 years ago

    I think it’s mostly there if you try to return a CPU with scorch marks.

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 5 years ago

    I’m not blaming anyone for anything, just asking for things.

    If I get them? Great. If not? I’ll live.

    • albundy
    • 5 years ago

    void warranty by overclocking ram? who would offer amd solutions with that kind of liability?

    • jihadjoe
    • 5 years ago

    Still sounds like a bit of a cop-out though. It’s like “Hey guys, here’s a spiffy new multiplier you can use for 4GHz RAM, but we’ll void your warranty if you use it coz we only really certify to 2666MHz.”

    • ptsant
    • 5 years ago

    I haven’t yet tested anything because frankly I don’t have much use for it right now. The option is buried deeply in the Crosshair VI BIOS (under Advanced/AMD CBS/NBIO Common Options).

    This is what the latest linux kernel says on my machine (Ryzen 1700X/Crosshair VI):
    [quote<] [ 1.270269] AMD-Vi: Found IOMMU at 0000:00:00.2 cap 0x40 [ 1.270270] AMD-Vi: Extended features (0xf77ef22294ada): [ 1.270270] PPR NX GT IA GA PC GA_vAPIC [ 1.270272] AMD-Vi: Interrupt remapping enabled [ 1.270273] AMD-Vi: virtual APIC enabled [ 1.270373] AMD-Vi: Lazy IO/TLB flushing enabled [ 1.271036] perf: AMD NB counters detected [ 1.271039] perf: AMD LLC counters detected [ 1.271585] perf: amd_iommu: Detected. (0 banks, 0 counters/bank) [/quote<]

    • derFunkenstein
    • 5 years ago

    Hmm. Where did I get that idea?

    Not a question for you to answer. Maybe it was another review.

    All the same it’s still not like you need to benchmark beta hardware in depth. If the lack of a completed review is keeping people from buying, I say good. They should wait.

    • Jeff Kampman
    • 5 years ago

    This is incorrect; the Ryzen 7 review used DDR4-2933 for Ryzen CPUs and the Ryzen 5 gaming tests used DDR4-3200.

    • xDoritox
    • 5 years ago

    4GHz kits are really costly they go upward of $300. Some of these kits cost more than the CPU itself.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 5 years ago

    Well, at least in TR’s reviews they are yet to get memory to run at DDR4-3200. The Ryzen 7 review had DDR4-3800 running at 2400 speeds, and the Ryzen 5 review got that speed up to 2667. We’ve not see memory hit Ryzen’s previous theoretical max (my guess is that it’s always been because of Command T1 vs T2) so 1.0.0.6 might fix that. It’s just more and more triage of a product that was released too soon.

    • just brew it!
    • 5 years ago

    Ahh, that’s good to know. Last time I looked into this (maybe 2-3 years ago?) word still seemed to be that proper IOMMU support on consumer gear was iffy at best, even for boards that advertised IOMMU support and had the BIOS setting for it.

    • anotherengineer
    • 5 years ago

    Looks like to improve compatibility more than anything, but if performance increases, well I guess that’s a bonus.

    Just annoying when you plug in a couple sticks of ram and they don’t work :/ but I have seen that from both platforms. 10 BIOS updates later…………….improved stability/memory compatibility, not only amd mobos
    [url<]http://www.gigabyte.us/Motherboard/GA-Z170X-UD5-rev-10#support-dl[/url<] I think Ryzen for now is a finished product, it's the motherboard BIOS's that are not. But will they ever be?

    • CuttinHobo
    • 5 years ago

    If this site is so bad, why bother visiting and commenting? Is your time not valuable to you?

    • derFunkenstein
    • 5 years ago

    I wouldn’t mind it but I can’t blame them for not doing it.

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 5 years ago

    I wouldn’t mind quickies that just test 2-3 things and show us the progression of performance with updates

    • derFunkenstein
    • 5 years ago

    It doesn’t help that AMD is cranking out firmware updates that they SWEAR will improve performance so much, the old benchmarks aren’t worth running.

    I mean, yeah, I bought a Ryzen rig, but at this point I can’t blame Jeff for skipping it. Performance “right now” supposably won’t be the same as performance in 2 weeks. It’s not a finished product, so don’t bother reviewing until it is.

    • 5UPERCH1CK3N
    • 5 years ago

    I’m still having cold boot issues even with a beta update and the latest beta BIOS, so I’m hoping for a better memory training process with this upcoming AGESA update.

    • kuttan
    • 5 years ago

    Yet another Intel paid troll here,zzzzzzzzz

    • Concupiscence
    • 5 years ago

    I’m also pretty sure diminishing returns kick in after DDR4-3200, outside of mostly theoretical benchmarks or beating the crap out of I/O. When I sell off most of my other hardware and switch to an 8 core Ryzen box next month, I’m reusing 16 gigs of DDR4-2400 because it just won’t make that much of a difference for my use cases.

    • DPete27
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]using memory speeds above DDR4-2667 ... will void a Ryzen CPU's factory warranty[/quote<] Wait...really? Is this the same for Intel >2400MHz (Kaby Lake for example)?

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Yes I applaud Ryzen but it doesn’t mean I won’t criticize its weak points. Unlike some folks who are all over it and will look the other way when talking about its weak points.

    • chuckula
    • 5 years ago

    Whenever TR runs benchmarks of a RyZen part they get yelled at to turn off half the chip, get some new RAM, turn core parking on/off/sideways, turn off hyperthreading (no wait, turn ON hyperthreading), etc.

    If they had run more benchmarks, this announcement would be just another reason to invalidate any benchmarks that they had published in the first place.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 5 years ago

    You were the most obnoxious of all the AMD phanatix posting comment after comment about how Ryzen was really going to stick it to [s<]Sitwell[/s<] Intel.

    • just brew it!
    • 5 years ago

    Direct quote from Intel’s product warranty:
    [quote<]WHAT THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER: ... - damage to the Product, or errors or malfunctions in the Product, due to accident, abnormal electrical, mechanical or environmental conditions, use contrary to product instructions, misuse, neglect, alteration, mishandling, repair, improper installation or testing, combinations with incompatible products or any third party virus, infection, worm or similar malicious code ...[/quote<] Overclocking is an "abnormal electrical, mechanical or environmental condition", by definition. It is arguably also using the product "contrary to product instructions" and/or "improper installation or testing". Whether they (or AMD) would be able to tell if you didn't 'fess up, and would enforce that clause if they could, is a separate matter. My point is, you have [i<]technically[/i<] voided the warranty.

    • kuttan
    • 5 years ago

    Get your Intel troll somewhere else. Intel too do not provide any overclock warranty.

    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago
    • Spunjji
    • 5 years ago

    Not a problem with AMD either – tell me how they’d figure out whether the CPU you’re RMAing had its memory running at an overclocked speed. It’s standard legal protection for them to cover against obvious egregious abuse of the warranty terms.

    • ptsant
    • 5 years ago

    Worked nicely for me on the FX8350 with the Asus Crosshair V. It should also work well on the Ryzen, because IOMMU v2.5 is a requirement for HSA and AMD want to push for its adoption.

    I have no idea how the MB vendors handled support, but I am mildly optimistic.

    • ptsant
    • 5 years ago

    Maximum JEDEC spec is 2667 MHz and Ryzen supports it. Just because your tires are rated for 300km/h, doesn’t mean your car also has to do 300km/h…

    Anyway, I don’t think there are many people who actually damage the processor from RAM OC, and I don’t think AMD vigorously enforces the policy.

    • NTMBK
    • 5 years ago

    If the integrated memory controller doesn’t support 4000MHz memory, then don’t try to run your memory at 4000MHz. -_-

    • raddude9
    • 5 years ago
    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 5 years ago

    Why is his asking for too much?

    Let’s see some benchies baby

    • Jigar
    • 5 years ago

    I know this is asking too much but i would love to see a review of Ryzen 7 1800X running with RAM @ 3800 MHZ or 4000 MHZ.

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Sup yo!

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Because they want their fans to help them with testing. Go on, keep on testing guys. Tell me when everything’s ironed out so I can go out and buy a copy. 🙂

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    I always point out how the fine print on the box or manual of my Unlocked FX Processor™ says the warranty is void if the processor is overclocked or a third-party heatsink is used. I’m sure they don’t implement that seriously because they’d face a mountain of complaints but it’s a technicality they can fall back to if needed.

    • just brew it!
    • 5 years ago

    The possibility of functional IOMMU support on consumer-level gear is an interesting development. While it has theoretically been supported on AMD CPUs for a while, motherboard support has been flaky on non-enterprise platforms. Perhaps this added focus on IOMMU will push motherboard vendors to get it right this time around.

    • just brew it!
    • 5 years ago

    Running anything out of spec technically voids your warranty. This is standard industry practice, not limited to AMD. How likely it is to cause actual damage, and how strictly (if at all) it is enforced is a separate matter.

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    As we continue to unleash the power of Ryzen, we realize just how powerful this architecture is!! Don’t be surprised if it ends up being twice as fast as anything from Intel!

    Heh.

    Edit – er, I was being sarcastic.

    • LostCat
    • 5 years ago

    True, but I haven’t had any problems since the 1004 update.

    • shank15217
    • 5 years ago

    Can’t you just disable ACS for pci pass through?

    • DancinJack
    • 5 years ago

    AMD could have avoided a lot of headache by just waiting a couple months to launch Ryzen. I still just do not understand why they HAD to get it out when they did.

    That said, there are some good features included here. Awful name, but good content.

    • cynan
    • 5 years ago

    The memory controller is on the CPU package. If pushing ram speeds to the limits involves any significant added voltage to the controller – which have been sensitive to too much voltage on intel CPUs – it is only business as usual for a company to have a liability disclaimer protecting themselves.

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 5 years ago

    After I posted! This is exciting news. I need to go read some Ryzen memory scaling articles.

    BRB, bro.

    • RAGEPRO
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]In news that will be music to the ears of another class of users, AMD also says that AGESA 1.0.0.6 will improve support for PCI Express Access Control Services, or ACS. According to the company, these improvements will allow users who run virtual machines on their Ryzen systems to better manage the assignment of PCIe devices within IOMMU groups. In short, the company says this feature will let VM wizards dedicate multiple graphics cards within a Ryzen system to the operating systems of their choice, whether natively installed or virtual, among other benefits.[/quote<] Taken from the Tech Report post on this update. This is a major update for anyone whose been researching Ryzen for virtualization purposes. I'll definitely wait to see some independent testing, but prior to this update the PCIe lane groupings on the Ryzen chips produced tons of headaches when you tried to pass a GPU through to a VM. It was a complete show stopper for slowriot to use Ryzen in his main rig (he uses a Linux host and then a Windows VM for gaming).

    • slowriot
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]If you’re the kind of user that just needs (or loves!) virtualization every day, then AGESA 1.0.0.6-based firmware will be a blessing for you thanks to fresh support for PCI Express® Access Control Services (ACS). ACS primarily enables support for manual assignment of PCIe® graphics cards within logical containers called “IOMMU groups.” The hardware resources of an IOMMU group can then be dedicated to a virtual machine.[/quote<] Taken from the AMD site on this update. This is a major update for anyone whose been researching Ryzen for virtualization purposes. I'll definitely wait to see some independent testing, but prior to this update the PCIe lane groupings on the Ryzen chips produced tons of headaches when you tried to pass a GPU through to a VM. It was a complete show stopper for me to use Ryzen in my main rig (I use a Linux host and then a Windows VM for gaming).

    • morphine
    • 5 years ago

    Wazaaaaa?!

    • chuckula
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]Sup?[/quote<] The memory frequencies, didn't you read the story?

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 5 years ago

    Sup?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!