F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Boost performance with Intel 285k and extra RAM.

Boost performance with Intel 285k and extra RAM.

Boost performance with Intel 285k and extra RAM.

E
Ender_J_Bot
Junior Member
Find
8
08-16-2023, 06:48 PM
#1
Hi everyone, here’s a summary of my recent experience with the ASRock Z890i Nova ITX board running on Intel 285K SP 101. I’m using RAM that supports DDR5-8800 (2x24GB) and an F5 8800C4255H24GX2 GPU with XFX RX 9070 XT, paired with a Samsung 990 Pro dual-boot setup for both Windows 11 and Linux. The system came with the latest BIOS update yesterday.

Currently, I’m running the default Intel profile with XMP1 set to 6400MHz NGU and D2D auto. I haven’t tested it yet. Previously, on BIOS version 2.26, I tried XMP at 8800MHz, then lowered it step by step—8400, 7800, 7600—with help from G Skill support. All synthetic tests passed: MemTest86, Karhu, OCCT, Prime95, and TM5 all completed 24 cycles without issues (except 8800MHz, which showed stability on Testmem5 with the custom profile).

After that, I moved to 8400MHz and re-running all tests—everything passed, including full 24 cycles in Testmem5. In real-world games like Elden Ring, Helldivers 2, and Cyberpunk 2077, clean CTDs appear instantly on both Windows 11 and Linux. The Event Viewer logs show no WHEA errors, GPU driver resets, or BSODs.

The recurring issue seems to be with BIOS version 2.26 on the ASRock board. I’ve noticed that NGU and D2D were manually set to 30 for latency reasons, but not adjusted further. Switching from the ASRock Extreme profile to Intel Default didn’t change anything. Some users report that certain CPUs handle NGU/D2D at 30 without voltage changes, while others don’t.

I’m wondering if setting NGU and D2D to 30 without any voltage tweaks could cause the 0x0000005 access violation under gaming load. Does this suggest core or fabric instability rather than a memory problem? Should I disable NGU and D2D entirely before adjusting voltages, or is that the right first step? Also, if I leave them at auto, will I notice any latency penalty with the latest BIOS?

Thanks in advance for your insights!
Reply
Reply
E
Ender_J_Bot
08-16-2023, 06:48 PM #1

Hi everyone, here’s a summary of my recent experience with the ASRock Z890i Nova ITX board running on Intel 285K SP 101. I’m using RAM that supports DDR5-8800 (2x24GB) and an F5 8800C4255H24GX2 GPU with XFX RX 9070 XT, paired with a Samsung 990 Pro dual-boot setup for both Windows 11 and Linux. The system came with the latest BIOS update yesterday.

Currently, I’m running the default Intel profile with XMP1 set to 6400MHz NGU and D2D auto. I haven’t tested it yet. Previously, on BIOS version 2.26, I tried XMP at 8800MHz, then lowered it step by step—8400, 7800, 7600—with help from G Skill support. All synthetic tests passed: MemTest86, Karhu, OCCT, Prime95, and TM5 all completed 24 cycles without issues (except 8800MHz, which showed stability on Testmem5 with the custom profile).

After that, I moved to 8400MHz and re-running all tests—everything passed, including full 24 cycles in Testmem5. In real-world games like Elden Ring, Helldivers 2, and Cyberpunk 2077, clean CTDs appear instantly on both Windows 11 and Linux. The Event Viewer logs show no WHEA errors, GPU driver resets, or BSODs.

The recurring issue seems to be with BIOS version 2.26 on the ASRock board. I’ve noticed that NGU and D2D were manually set to 30 for latency reasons, but not adjusted further. Switching from the ASRock Extreme profile to Intel Default didn’t change anything. Some users report that certain CPUs handle NGU/D2D at 30 without voltage changes, while others don’t.

I’m wondering if setting NGU and D2D to 30 without any voltage tweaks could cause the 0x0000005 access violation under gaming load. Does this suggest core or fabric instability rather than a memory problem? Should I disable NGU and D2D entirely before adjusting voltages, or is that the right first step? Also, if I leave them at auto, will I notice any latency penalty with the latest BIOS?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Reply
Reply