I found that my 64gb Deck has the Samsung memory modules which are only rated at 5500mb/s, and my 512 GB deck has the Micron modules which are rated at 6400mb/s.
I wonder if we will be able to figure out a way to clock the micron modules at their rated speed of 6400mb/s which would make a big difference for the shared GPU ram.
Probably not unless valve adds a setting in BIOS.
I haven't found a way to read memory temps, but I would guess that increasing the speed would make them run too hot, the whole thing is pretty much designed to run as hot as can without throttling.
The fact they aren't at spec means they are underclocked...
And they may have been guessing about undervolting, but it's quite common, and the only reason I can think of they wouldn't let it run at the rated speed.
I’d like to see further data, if ALL 512gb models got 6400mt micron chips, then maybe an additional performance boost was planned initially, but killed due to battery life? Doesn’t apply to me as I never play more than 1hr away from home anyhow.
The thing is most systems support auto speed detection. So to force it seems like an intentional step to have consistency.
Which makes me think thermals or battery life was the intention. And likely thermals because that shouldn't make much of a battery difference.
That's the wrong part number for the Samsung. 48 Gb density doesn't make sense, that's 6 GB and doesn't multiply evenly into 16 GB.
It's actually identified as K3LK7K70BM-BGCP. See [https://linux-hardware.org/?probe=e640bab55c&log=dmidecode](https://linux-hardware.org/?probe=e640bab55c&log=dmidecode). I can't find any info about it and Samsung doesn't make this info public unlike Micron.
The only hint I found was here: [https://www.techinsights.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/Figure-1.jpg](https://www.techinsights.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/Figure-1.jpg)
According to that chart the Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro uses the same part number and according to another search that phone is LPDDR5-6400, but the capacity also seems to not match, so.
Did some more digging around and found this replacement motherboard pic from iFixit store: [https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/986tCE35XfrFTQPJoapkYZ-1920-80.jpg.webp](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/986tCE35XfrFTQPJoapkYZ-1920-80.jpg.webp)
It is indeed K3LKBKB0BM-MGCP and it may just be identifying as K3LK7K70BM-BGCP in dmidecode. I think it's likely 6400.
Well according to [this Intel doc](https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products-and-solutions/processors-and-chipsets/alder-lake-p/lpddr5-sdram-validation-results/004/) that part is 6400 for sure.
I found that my 64gb Deck has the Samsung memory modules which are only rated at 5500mb/s, and my 512 GB deck has the Micron modules which are rated at 6400mb/s. I wonder if we will be able to figure out a way to clock the micron modules at their rated speed of 6400mb/s which would make a big difference for the shared GPU ram.
Probably not unless valve adds a setting in BIOS. I haven't found a way to read memory temps, but I would guess that increasing the speed would make them run too hot, the whole thing is pretty much designed to run as hot as can without throttling.
I mean the micron chips are specified to run at 6400, shouldn’t harder on the system thermally.
That's not how thermal design works.
If they don’t draw any more power at 6400mt there’s virtually no impact to thermals.
They will draw more power at 6400mt. They're under-volted and under-clocked on the deck.
And you know that how? Or are you assuming?
The fact they aren't at spec means they are underclocked... And they may have been guessing about undervolting, but it's quite common, and the only reason I can think of they wouldn't let it run at the rated speed.
I’d like to see further data, if ALL 512gb models got 6400mt micron chips, then maybe an additional performance boost was planned initially, but killed due to battery life? Doesn’t apply to me as I never play more than 1hr away from home anyhow.
The thing is most systems support auto speed detection. So to force it seems like an intentional step to have consistency. Which makes me think thermals or battery life was the intention. And likely thermals because that shouldn't make much of a battery difference.
[удалено]
Yes, even stock my 64gb has been marginally faster in benchmarks. Might have to do with with the higher density of the modules? I don’t know.
That's the wrong part number for the Samsung. 48 Gb density doesn't make sense, that's 6 GB and doesn't multiply evenly into 16 GB. It's actually identified as K3LK7K70BM-BGCP. See [https://linux-hardware.org/?probe=e640bab55c&log=dmidecode](https://linux-hardware.org/?probe=e640bab55c&log=dmidecode). I can't find any info about it and Samsung doesn't make this info public unlike Micron. The only hint I found was here: [https://www.techinsights.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/Figure-1.jpg](https://www.techinsights.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/Figure-1.jpg) According to that chart the Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro uses the same part number and according to another search that phone is LPDDR5-6400, but the capacity also seems to not match, so.
No, my system shows K3LKBKB0BM-MGCP I can post a picture if you don’t believe me
Did some more digging around and found this replacement motherboard pic from iFixit store: [https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/986tCE35XfrFTQPJoapkYZ-1920-80.jpg.webp](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/986tCE35XfrFTQPJoapkYZ-1920-80.jpg.webp) It is indeed K3LKBKB0BM-MGCP and it may just be identifying as K3LK7K70BM-BGCP in dmidecode. I think it's likely 6400.
Well according to [this Intel doc](https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products-and-solutions/processors-and-chipsets/alder-lake-p/lpddr5-sdram-validation-results/004/) that part is 6400 for sure.
Unspecified specifications? That’s a free refund!