Well after a couple of days running the processor at 3.6Ghz and doing the final tweaks thanks to the advice of various members in particular Keith Myers, I have now bumped up the processor to 3.7Ghz.

We will see what happens and I will continue to play with the machine to see what we can get out of it.

Hi LooneyTunes, I quickly looked at your valids and everything looks good. I did see one thing that is a possible area for improvement. You are using the SSE3 CPU app that you either selected on purpose or let the Lunatics installer choose by default. You might be able to nudge a bit more performance out the 1700X by choosing the AVX app in the Lunatics installer. On the BLC CPU tasks, I find the AVX CPU app about 50% faster than the SSE3 app. Not so large an improvement in the Arecibo CPU tasks. I guess the difference being how the tasks are coded internally or something that responds especially well to the CPU's AVX instruction set or path through the registers. With the ongoing reduction in Arecibo datasets and eventual ending, it might make sense to optimize for BLC tasks since that will be predominately what the project is going to send us in the future.

Before I introduced the new 1070's to Numbskull, so was totally dependent on the CPU change from FX to Ryzen, the daily RAC increased by 12K/day.

I think that the 1050Ti only has 4GB of VRAM on each card. Correct? If that is so, you need to correct the -SBS 2048 parameter you pinched from me. You need to knock that down to -SBS 1024. You're using more ram at two tasks per card than the card has onboard.

So I just put the AMD Windows patch onto the machine for the Power Settings change so Windows 10 will handle the Ryzen a little better.

I also have just set the CPU clock to 3.6GHz so we will see if it stays stable while crunching.



Next I will play with some memory timings and see what can be done there.

The memory thing is a crap shoot right now. Only will know where we really stand when the 1.0.0.5 AGESA microcode releases this month by AMD. There is good evidence that not only can a motherboard have an influence on how fast you can run your memory, there is good experimental evidence by overclockers that the chips themselves play a part in how fast you can run your memory. Identical chips swapped in and out of the same system will run the memory at different max clocks and timings. Thinking is it is dependent on the quality of the IMC and Data Fabric backbone of each individual chip. I have had no issue tightening down my timings by two clocks just by changing them in the BIOS. No change to stock RAM voltage necessary. I'm sure it has a lot to do with having Samsung B-die chips. Ryzen REALLY LIKES Samsung B-dies. Really improved my memory latency and benchmark scores are higher and app loading is snappier. But the latest BIOS' have also seen big improvements in getting SK Hynix and Micron die sticks running at much faster memory clocks too. So progress is being made.

I figure the 960 and the 1050Ti are pretty close in compute units, so a single tuning parameter will likely work for both. I'm not sure if they have equal amounts of memory but I would go with this simple app_config.xml command line:

<cmdline>-sbs 512 -period_iterations_num 2 -tt 1500</cmdline>

If the system gets too laggy, then drop the -tt value down to 300 or something similar. If still too laggy, then increase -period_iterations to 5 or 10. If the first value works well without system lag, then try -period_iterations 1. If you are running only single task and the cards have at least 4GB of VRAM, try -SBS 1024. Also the best way to tune for the SBS buffer size is to look at your SoG task stderr.txt output and look at the tuning values that Raistmer prints out for tried tuning values in the output. Look for the size of the FftLength value that has the lowest total Sum time, Delta of 1 and highest N value. That is the value of the -SBS buffer size you should be using. Don't exceed the actual total amount of VRAM on each card.

If they're exhaust fans then why the dust filters?

Choice really...
Had I chosen a different MB and layout then the fans would become intake, but seeing as the GPU is constantly working better to suck the heat out as efficiently as possible.

Might as well remove them and improve the air flow considerably. And save having to clean them out later.

my bad, I saw them on the bottom with the dust filter and my brain automatically assumed they're intake fans :)

If they're exhaust fans then why the dust filters?

nice setup... congrats!

it would be better to remove the lower fans and keep one on the right hand side instead of having it under the GPU card... you're pushing air directly into the GPU fans while its fans are pushing air out...

This would even make Petri drool :P
Circumsised GTX 1080s Part of an interesting discussion on the limitation of the number of GPUs a system can handle.

It looks like they are stuffing all of that into a Thermaltake Core X9 case.
Which I have one of & when it arrived I thought someone left a fridge on my doorstep.

Yes, it is definitely not a stock Hyper 212. It doesn't have enough heat pipes protruding through the top. I only see two in the image. The Hyper 212 has four.

Here it is http://www.umart.com.au/umart1/pro/Products-details.phtml?id=10&id2=185&bid=2&sid=306828.

Cheers.