Threadripper BUILDERS thread

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
The Stilt, from what I can see XSPC has the largest true TR cooling block.
 

ddogg

Golden Member
May 4, 2005
1,864
361
136
Yeah that contact plate size looks like a joke... Noctua did this better.


Yeah, their water block looks like it has the best fin surface I've seen. It really looks like a beast :

Looks like the fin surface area is nearly double what i've seen even on the EK block. It looks like the EK block simply modified the base plate w/o modifying the fins. Best waterblock i've seen so far. Question i have for all of these is the flow pattern.. So, it flows from L->R or R->L, wouldn't one die get hotter water above it than the other? not that it will impact things much but still. Very impressed with the phantek block. This is the tiny EK block fin surface area for comparison :
Yeah, the EK TR block is lazy engineering. They reused their existing supremacy block and extended the cold plate. I initially wanted to wait for the Heatkiller TR block but it may be the end of the month before orders go live and I couldn't wait that long. The EK block does a decent job though or maybe it's because I have crazy radiator capacity I'll wait for some reviews on these blocks before thinking of swapping.
 
Reactions: IEC

FiLeZz

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
4,778
47
91
Well I read all the hype on ddr 3600mhz ram. So I bought the gskill 3600mhz ram. I put the ram in and set the profile in the bios to 3600mhz speed and boom I was up and running. I still have my 64gb 3000mhz corsair kit .. I want to see if it is worth it to have 3600mhz over 3000mhz ram. We shall see.. I will report back
 
Reactions: lightmanek

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
Well I read all the hype on ddr 3600mhz ram. So I bought the gskill 3600mhz ram. I put the ram in and set the profile in the bios to 3600mhz speed and boom I was up and running. I still have my 64gb 3000mhz corsair kit .. I want to see if it is worth it to have 3600mhz over 3000mhz ram. We shall see.. I will report back
Test it thoroughly. I can get 3600Mhz boom up and booting and then see stability issues only under hard stress tests. 3600@CL16 is even stable at mild stress tests .. When I pushed it hard, I get full lockups, bit errors, and I sometimes get post loops. I might see if a different kit works but I'm sitting on Samsung B-dies rated for 3600@CL16. Please post your memory details (product link preferred) also include your timings.
 
Reactions: Drazick

thesmokingman

Platinum Member
May 6, 2010
2,302
231
106
Yeah that contact plate size looks like a joke... Noctua did this better.


Their water block looks like it has the best fin surface I've seen. It really looks like a beast :

Looks like the fin surface area is nearly double what i've seen even on the EK block. It looks like the EK block simply modified the base plate w/o modifying the fins. The Phantek looks like the best waterblock i've seen so far. Question i have for this waterblock is the flow pattern.. So, it flows from L->R or R->L, wouldn't one die get hotter water above it than the other? not that it will impact things much but still. Very impressed with the phantek block. This is the tiny EK block fin surface area for comparison :


Although the water in/out is in the center, you'd still have an up->down or down->up flow having hot water from one die flow over the other and then out.

EK's jet plate design is still superior to the point that practically everyone has copied it. There's also the matter of fin width and channel spacing which is finer on the EK giving it more surface area. Also, I''m not a fan of the rudimentary inlet to outlet on that Phanteks. Without a jet plate design you will end up with hot and cold sides to the block. That's why all the major true watercooling companies have moved to a similar jet plate design, whether it be an actual jet plate or a integral jet design.
 
Reactions: IEC and ub4ty

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
EK's jet plate design is still superior to the point that practically everyone has copied it. There's also the matter of fin width and channel spacing which is finer on the EK giving it more surface area. Also, I''m not a fan of the rudimentary inlet to outlet on that Phanteks. Without a jet plate design you will end up with hot and cold sides to the block. That's why all the major true watercooling companies have moved to a similar jet plate design, whether it be an actual jet plate or a integral jet design.
I was unaware of this, I was wondering what that plate was for... Do you have a link to any animations that depict how the flow works across jet plates vs. other designs? I'm curious and want to know more
 
Reactions: Drazick

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
ALERT : Found root cause of inability to push RAM to 3600@CL16-16-16-36
2x (2x8GB 3600@CL16 kits)..
One kit is not up to snuff and is causing the bit errors.


I bought 2 independent kits of : https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...kill_tridentz_rgb_3600-_-20-232-491-_-Product

When all 4 are installed I can run 3200@CL-14-14-14-34 and 3433@CL16-16-16-36.
Unstable bit errors when I run them at 3600@CL-16-16-16-36. So I began investigating today.

@FiLeZz's post about successful 3600 out the box finally caused me to rage hard enough...

3600@CL-16-16-16-36
I had one kit to each side : This was the most unstable. Would get post loops and would get lockups quickly when I tried to run a stress test. In this configuration, each CPU had a mix of sticks. I then tried one kit spread across to the respective slot so there was one kit per CPU. In this configuration, no post loops occurred and the bit error didn't happen until 8min into the stress test. At this point, I figured it was one of the kits that were bad. So, I yanked both kits and ran one kit (16GB - 2x8GB). One of the kits hit a bit error after 7-8min in the stress test.. The other passed it with flying colors.

Tomorrow, I'm going to talk with newegg customer service on how to best handle this. Either RMA one kit or send them both back and get a proper quad-channel kit. Thing is, I better not have this issue with a quad channel stick and have to do QA for G.skill again . It's sort of why I bought 2 just so I could RMA only one kit if there was an issue. Sorta pissed right now but happy I isolated the ram stick kit that is the issue.

I urge anyone having similar issues to run in 2 stick configuration one kit at a time and see if its a particular kit you have that's the issue. Remember to look at the id # on the stick when yanking and replacing them. Matching kits will have sequential id #'s.
 
Reactions: Drazick

ddogg

Golden Member
May 4, 2005
1,864
361
136
ALERT : Found root cause of inability to push RAM to 3600@CL16-16-16-36
2x (2x8GB 3600@CL16 kits)..
One kit is not up to snuff and is causing the bit errors.


I bought 2 independent kits of : https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...kill_tridentz_rgb_3600-_-20-232-491-_-Product

When all 4 are installed I can run 3200@CL-14-14-14-34 and 3433@CL16-16-16-36.
Unstable bit errors when I run them at 3600@CL-16-16-16-36. So I began investigating today.

@FiLeZz's post about successful 3600 out the box finally caused me to rage hard enough...

3600@CL-16-16-16-36
I had one kit to each side : This was the most unstable. Would get post loops and would get lockups quickly when I tried to run a stress test. In this configuration, each CPU had a mix of sticks. I then tried one kit spread across to the respective slot so there was one kit per CPU. In this configuration, no post loops occurred and the bit error didn't happen until 8min into the stress test. At this point, I figured it was one of the kits that were bad. So, I yanked both kits and ran one kit (16GB - 2x8GB). One of the kits hit a bit error after 7-8min in the stress test.. The other passed it with flying colors.

Tomorrow, I'm going to talk with newegg customer service on how to best handle this. Either RMA one kit or send them both back and get a proper quad-channel kit. Thing is, I better not have this issue with a quad channel stick and have to do QA for G.skill again . It's sort of why I bought 2 just so I could RMA only one kit if there was an issue. Sorta pissed right now but happy I isolated the ram stick kit that is the issue.

I urge anyone having similar issues to run in 2 stick configuration one kit at a time and see if its a particular kit you have that's the issue. Remember to look at the id # on the stick when yanking and replacing them. Matching kits will have sequential id #'s.
Will try this right now and post back with my results
 
Reactions: Drazick and ub4ty

ddogg

Golden Member
May 4, 2005
1,864
361
136
Ok from what I can tell, one kit of RAM absolutely refuses to post at 3600. It will cause the machine to bootloop until the mobo resets it back to 2133. The other kit posts 9/10 times at 3600 and will boot loop once. Both kits work flawlessly at 3466 independently. I did not stress test the one that posts at 3600 to check for stability within windows as yet.
 
Reactions: ub4ty

thesmokingman

Platinum Member
May 6, 2010
2,302
231
106
I was unaware of this, I was wondering what that plate was for... Do you have a link to any animations that depict how the flow works across jet plates vs. other designs? I'm curious and want to know more

I don't know if there's an animation showing this, sorry. But its easy to follow the flow of water. I'll try to describe is as best I can. In the Glacier block, it looks like cold water travels from one side of the block (inlet) to the other in one direction(outlet). This fundamentally creates a cold side and hot side. The cold side gets fresh cool water, which then warms up as it travels across to the other side of the coldplate. The warmed water will carry less heat since its already carrying heat from the cold side. The major brands have been using central jets since like the mid 2000's. A jet plate design forces cold water over the center of the coldplate. The cold water moves from the center outward so the block is cooled evenly. A peripheral channel allows the warmed water to exit the block. The best blocks today all employ this principle or some variation of it.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
Ok from what I can tell, one kit of RAM absolutely refuses to post at 3600. It will cause the machine to bootloop until the mobo resets it back to 2133. The other kit posts 9/10 times at 3600 and will boot loop once. Both kits work flawlessly at 3466 independently. I did not stress test the one that posts at 3600 to check for stability within windows as yet.

Yep.. 100% friggin quality control. Amazing G.Skill. I'm pissed right now especially as this is Samsung B-die premium priced ram. Seems they've been cutting corners at the top of the stack w.r.t to speed ratings claiming ram that just barely can make it to rated speed can run @ it. This is likely due to systems never really running at 3600Mhz RAM settings @CL16 up until now thus they've been selling sticks that can't actually run at the rated speed for a premium hoping no one actually achieves that speed -_-). I say this because were two separate people who hit the same issue on different kits and because one kit works fine and another wont even post. The one kit that is fine btw ran aidi64 stress test for an hour flat out w/ no errors. It's now being tortured on prime95 w/o issue. Typically it threw bit errors one worker at a time starting at 3min until it crapped out or just outright locked up. So, yep.. one kit is arse. I'm guessing this is why the QVL lists look like a clown show w/ so many higher speed rated ram kits downclocked and tweaked w.r.t to timing. The upper reaches of speed on these ram kits seems to be a lottery which is bogus given that they're marketing, selling, and cashing in on guaranteed speeds.

Also, does anyone's system make a screeching noise when you power it on? Trying to figure out what the heck this noise is due to and where its coming from... My guess is a case fan but I will investigate further.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Drazick

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,856
15,840
136
Ok from what I can tell, one kit of RAM absolutely refuses to post at 3600. It will cause the machine to bootloop until the mobo resets it back to 2133. The other kit posts 9/10 times at 3600 and will boot loop once. Both kits work flawlessly at 3466 independently. I did not stress test the one that posts at 3600 to check for stability within windows as yet.
I know I said mine were stable, and they are under hard stress sometimes for days. Then I might get 2 reboots in a day, and the crash analyzer says its driver related. MAYBE mine are marginal also, The next time it reboots, I will try the 3466 setting.
 
Reactions: Drazick

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
RAM clock settings.
Did some poking around on the interwebs to see if this is widespread and it seems so :
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6upe0s/any_threadripper_memory_compatibilityperformance/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6x7mx9/1950x_and_memory_help/

I hear the number 3466 being expressed as a ceiling with instability at 3600 or having to do memory training at this setting. This coincides with all of the mobo QVL lists, my observations and other users here, as well as g.skills own customized kit :
https://www.gskill.com/en/press/view/g-skill-announces-new-ddr4-specifications-for-amd-ryzen™-threadripper™-processors

They've even loosened the timing on their own Threadripper specific kits from 16-16-16-36 to 16-18-18-38. The reasoning would likely be that it was hit or miss to get ram to truly run at 16-16-16-36 on Threadripper at 3600. For me, one two stick combo ran fine at 3600(16-16-16-36) through stress test. Another had post loops and hit errors. Both were stable at 3466@16-16-16-36 and 3200@14-14-14-34.

Making a decision as to whether or not to RMA tomorrow or just stay at 3466@CL16. I feel like, given that it's a lottery with these kits that I just might get another kit that has the same issue after having gone through an RMA, had an extra charge on my card and dealing with foolishness. So, I'm kind of thinking its not worth the hassle. Word is on other forums that many define 3600 as an unstable setting no matter what the kit. 3600-3466 = 133 .. I like the way 3600 rolls off the tongue but I can't sacrifice stability for it. My aim is a rock solid, no bit errors, high uptime system at mild OC settings. I'm backing off 4.0Ghz to 3.7Ghz so I think i'll back off 3600 to 3466 on the ram too. Lower power/rock solid stability...

Quick thoughts on this logic : If I RMA the 2 stick pack, i might get another with the same 3600ceiling issue... G.skill wont even sell threadripper specific kits at these timings, others report instability at 3600... Oh and, although I didn't hit any errors in hardcore testing on one of the 2stick packs, I did get a boot loop after I reset a couple of times later... So, 3600@CL16 just seems no bueno. Maybe bios updates stabilize it. Maybe it just is unreachable without diminishing timings.. But, for 133mhz more, it seems to require too much
 
Reactions: Drazick

ddogg

Golden Member
May 4, 2005
1,864
361
136
RAM clock settings.
Did some poking around on the interwebs to see if this is widespread and it seems so :
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6upe0s/any_threadripper_memory_compatibilityperformance/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6x7mx9/1950x_and_memory_help/

I hear the number 3466 being expressed as a ceiling with instability at 3600 or having to do memory training at this setting. This coincides with all of the mobo QVL lists, my observations and other users here, as well as g.skills own customized kit :
https://www.gskill.com/en/press/view/g-skill-announces-new-ddr4-specifications-for-amd-ryzen™-threadripper™-processors

They've even loosened the timing on their own Threadripper specific kits from 16-16-16-36 to 16-18-18-38. The reasoning would likely be that it was hit or miss to get ram to truly run at 16-16-16-36 on Threadripper at 3600. For me, one two stick combo ran fine at 3600(16-16-16-36) through stress test. Another had post loops and hit errors. Both were stable at 3466@16-16-16-36 and 3200@14-14-14-34.

Making a decision as to whether or not to RMA tomorrow or just stay at 3466@CL16. I feel like, given that it's a lottery with these kits that I just might get another kit that has the same issue after having gone through an RMA, had an extra charge on my card and dealing with foolishness. So, I'm kind of thinking its not worth the hassle. Word is on other forums that many define 3600 as an unstable setting no matter what the kit. 3600-3466 = 133 .. I like the way 3600 rolls off the tongue but I can't sacrifice stability for it. My aim is a rock solid, no bit errors, high uptime system at mild OC settings. I'm backing off 4.0Ghz to 3.7Ghz so I think i'll back off 3600 to 3466 on the ram too. Lower power/rock solid stability...

Quick thoughts on this logic : If I RMA the 2 stick pack, i might get another with the same 3600ceiling issue... G.skill wont even sell threadripper specific kits at these timings, others report instability at 3600... Oh and, although I didn't hit any errors in hardcore testing on one of the 2stick packs, I did get a boot loop after I reset a couple of times later... So, 3600@CL16 just seems no bueno. Maybe bios updates stabilize it. Maybe it just is unreachable without diminishing timings.. But, for 133mhz more, it seems to require too much

I am not going to RMA mine. The hassle is not worth it and like you said it's possible you will get another stick that doesn't run 3600. It's likely Gskill only tested these kits on Intel mainstream parts where 3600 is easily achievable.
 
Reactions: ub4ty and ajc9988

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,569
5,967
136
Ok from what I can tell, one kit of RAM absolutely refuses to post at 3600. It will cause the machine to bootloop until the mobo resets it back to 2133. The other kit posts 9/10 times at 3600 and will boot loop once. Both kits work flawlessly at 3466 independently. I did not stress test the one that posts at 3600 to check for stability within windows as yet.

This has been pretty much my experience from Day 1.

I wouldn't be surprised if a future UEFI update improves memory compatibility, but I wouldn't be surprised if ~3466 LL is the maximum readily achievable. For now.
 
Reactions: ub4ty

ajc9988

Senior member
Apr 1, 2015
278
171
116
I don't know if there's an animation showing this, sorry. But its easy to follow the flow of water. I'll try to describe is as best I can. In the Glacier block, it looks like cold water travels from one side of the block (inlet) to the other in one direction(outlet). This fundamentally creates a cold side and hot side. The cold side gets fresh cool water, which then warms up as it travels across to the other side of the coldplate. The warmed water will carry less heat since its already carrying heat from the cold side. The major brands have been using central jets since like the mid 2000's. A jet plate design forces cold water over the center of the coldplate. The cold water moves from the center outward so the block is cooled evenly. A peripheral channel allows the warmed water to exit the block. The best blocks today all employ this principle or some variation of it.

This is an incorrect understanding on fluid dynamics and what is happening. Yes, technically correct, but we are talking fractions of a degree, a degree tops, on water temp between the in and out on the block, which is found on ANY block, including with jets. Yes, it takes a little longer to transverse, thereby increasing time of contact, picking up more heat, thereby having more heat, but that is how water cooling works! Stop the scare mongering. Yes, there are better designs, but that DOES NOT mean other designs are bad.

RAM clock settings.
Did some poking around on the interwebs to see if this is widespread and it seems so :
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6upe0s/any_threadripper_memory_compatibilityperformance/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6x7mx9/1950x_and_memory_help/

I hear the number 3466 being expressed as a ceiling with instability at 3600 or having to do memory training at this setting. This coincides with all of the mobo QVL lists, my observations and other users here, as well as g.skills own customized kit :
https://www.gskill.com/en/press/view/g-skill-announces-new-ddr4-specifications-for-amd-ryzen™-threadripper™-processors

They've even loosened the timing on their own Threadripper specific kits from 16-16-16-36 to 16-18-18-38. The reasoning would likely be that it was hit or miss to get ram to truly run at 16-16-16-36 on Threadripper at 3600. For me, one two stick combo ran fine at 3600(16-16-16-36) through stress test. Another had post loops and hit errors. Both were stable at 3466@16-16-16-36 and 3200@14-14-14-34.

Making a decision as to whether or not to RMA tomorrow or just stay at 3466@CL16. I feel like, given that it's a lottery with these kits that I just might get another kit that has the same issue after having gone through an RMA, had an extra charge on my card and dealing with foolishness. So, I'm kind of thinking its not worth the hassle. Word is on other forums that many define 3600 as an unstable setting no matter what the kit. 3600-3466 = 133 .. I like the way 3600 rolls off the tongue but I can't sacrifice stability for it. My aim is a rock solid, no bit errors, high uptime system at mild OC settings. I'm backing off 4.0Ghz to 3.7Ghz so I think i'll back off 3600 to 3466 on the ram too. Lower power/rock solid stability...

Quick thoughts on this logic : If I RMA the 2 stick pack, i might get another with the same 3600ceiling issue... G.skill wont even sell threadripper specific kits at these timings, others report instability at 3600... Oh and, although I didn't hit any errors in hardcore testing on one of the 2stick packs, I did get a boot loop after I reset a couple of times later... So, 3600@CL16 just seems no bueno. Maybe bios updates stabilize it. Maybe it just is unreachable without diminishing timings.. But, for 133mhz more, it seems to require too much

Actually, the 16-18-18 ram were put out BEFORE the 16-16-16-36 ram. You have it flipped. They tightened it on the newer kits and that is why I used the older settings as I have the 4133 19-21-21 ram, not the 4133 19-19-19 ram that came out AFTER the release of my ram. So you have the order backwards.
 

ajc9988

Senior member
Apr 1, 2015
278
171
116
I am not going to RMA mine. The hassle is not worth it and like you said it's possible you will get another stick that doesn't run 3600. It's likely Gskill only tested these kits on Intel mainstream parts where 3600 is easily achievable.
They are working on TR specific tested ram.
 

thesmokingman

Platinum Member
May 6, 2010
2,302
231
106
This is an incorrect understanding on fluid dynamics and what is happening. Yes, technically correct, but we are talking fractions of a degree, a degree tops, on water temp between the in and out on the block, which is found on ANY block, including with jets. Yes, it takes a little longer to transverse, thereby increasing time of contact, picking up more heat, thereby having more heat, but that is how water cooling works! Stop the scare mongering. Yes, there are better designs, but that DOES NOT mean other designs are bad.

Scare mongering? What? No brand that matters is still producing blocks like that today. And the poster of the glacier didn't realize the differences between the designs over than what was seen on the surface. There are major differences. And the difference between a rudimentary block like that from 2005 vs 2017 is not fractions. Are you a CFD guy or something? WTF?
 

ajc9988

Senior member
Apr 1, 2015
278
171
116
Scare mongering? What? No brand that matters is still producing blocks like that today. And the difference between a rudimentary block like that from 2005 vs 2017 is not fractions. Are you a CFD guy or something? WTF?
Water delta is different from core delta.

Edit: also, you are attributing to the jet all benefits of other design changes in the past 12 years, which makes no sense. You also do not account for flow rate in the system, etc. So, yes, scare mongering.
 

ddogg

Golden Member
May 4, 2005
1,864
361
136
AJC9988 is correct. The difference between the water at different points is at most fractions of a degree. A computer system is not like a car that can cause massive deltas in water temperature due to high temperatures. The water moves so quickly in your loop, the differences are negligible. Also, one of the reasons why order of components in your loop doesn't matter (except reservoir to pump).
 
Reactions: ajc9988

thesmokingman

Platinum Member
May 6, 2010
2,302
231
106
Water delta is different from core delta.

Edit: also, you are attributing to the jet all benefits of other design changes in the past 12 years, which makes no sense. You also do not account for flow rate in the system, etc. So, yes, scare mongering.

So you're not a CFD guy but are a fluid dynamics expert yea? Um, no I'm not attributing the benefits of modern blocks to jet plate design, although many did move to a central inlet design as to cool the block evenly from the center outward. I'm saying clearly that the Glacier is a rudimentary design and the jet plate is a superior design. The differences are not fractional.

AJC9988 is correct. The difference between the water at different points is at most fractions of a degree. A computer system is not like a car that can cause massive deltas in water temperature due to high temperatures. The water moves so quickly in your loop, the differences are negligible. Also, one of the reasons why order of components in your loop doesn't matter (except reservoir to pump).

Sorry, I'm not talking about water delta.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |