Review Zen4 3D review thread

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,328
11,123
136
Thread to focus on Zen4 3D cache CPUs.

New gaming king (as most expected), though the 2 CCD 7950x3d does seem to have issues with some games, more than I would expect of it getting stuck on the "wrong" CCD. I imagine it will get cleared up with subsequent updates but we'll see. Simulated 7800X3D showed no such issues and overall has the gaming lead (real product might be slightly slower though depending on in game clocks).


Computerbase also has the 7950x3d as the gaming champ. They (and TPU) also show that efficiency while gaming is extremely good.







Just to toot my own horn a little, it landed spot on with my prediction of fastest gaming CPU but not significantly so over a 13900k on average, but with much higher efficiency.

Additional reviews, will add more later.

Gamers Nexus
 
Last edited:

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,328
11,123
136
It goes beyond bias and has to be attributed to malice at this point. If Intel released a 14900X3D and it was the clear winner for gaming while using 1/2 the power of the nearest competitor... I would buy it. Their reaction tells me they probably have undisclosed financial dependencies...

I honestly think at this point the guy is just playing the heel to get clicks. I think after his extreme bias was exposed, he decided to just lean hard into it for the drama because it gets people talking about his site and checking it out after every release to see what outlandish claims he's making now.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,719
24,960
146
I honestly think at this point the guy is just playing the heel to get clicks. I think after his extreme bias was exposed, he decided to just lean hard into it for the drama because it gets people talking about his site and checking it out after every release to see what outlandish claims he's making now.
They suck in even seasoned vets like we have here in the forums. One or 2 has even tried to defend them. Confirmation bias is a powerful drug. The easy comparison info, biased as it is, has an attraction all its own I suppose. Paying to appear at the top of search results also gets many new clicks.

I was going to post the aggregate of all the reviews for the 3D CPUs, but it included data from reviewers as bad as loserbench. capframeX among them. I decided not to bother.
 

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,126
1,191
136
7900X3D gaming review at Computerbase, not as dominant as the 7950X3D, but as much power efficient or so :

Durchschnitt nur auf dem Niveau eines Core i7-13700K, der für 250 Euro weniger zu haben ist.

Hmmm, this does not sound good, does it?

7900X3D snail tempo puts it sometimes behind all K Raptors in gaming.

I have no idea why they did not make the CPU in 8+4 configuration.
 

Hail The Brain Slug

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2005
3,525
2,493
136
Hmmm, this does not sound good, does it?

7900X3D snail tempo puts it sometimes behind all K Raptors in gaming.

I have no idea why they did not make the CPU in 8+4 configuration.
Still seems to be a rule of some sort that the CCD core counts have to be symmetrical. Even with the new bit field core management option In the UEFI it will refuse to post if you set an asymmetrical core layout (excepting, of course, fully disabling one CCD)
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,094
8,098
136
Ah, my mistake, re-read this when I was about to post it for you and realised it was purely about power (I initially interpreted it as average FPS next to power usage).
But you are right. 7950X3D loses hard in there by asking for way too little juice. This is really uncommon these days, with AMD's AM5 otherwise also taking the "all juice you can get" path that Intel prepared for years. So 7950X3D being an absolute outlier in this is bound to confuse at first sight.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
8,141
6,838
136
It goes beyond bias and has to be attributed to malice at this point. If Intel released a 14900X3D and it was the clear winner for gaming while using 1/2 the power of the nearest competitor... I would buy it. Their reaction tells me they probably have undisclosed financial dependencies...

I don't know if I'd attribute it to any financial reasons when it's perfectly possibly the person running it is just fanatical idiot. I've seen plenty of people more passionate about something on tech forums and I doubt most of them were getting paid. Think of all the football hooligans that start fights over their favorite club. None of them are getting paid by the team they support. Some people are just idiots.

We've seen some Intel sponsored results in the past where we know Intel paid some research group for a puff piece. Those just had tortured statistics or questionable methodology to try to make Intel's results look better. The UserBenchmark guy is completely unhinged and no company wants the blowback from having a rabid whacko on the payroll. And crazies like that will work for free anyways so why pay them anything when you don't have to?
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,094
8,098
136
Or he lives close to an Intel fab.
I don't know, with the many layoffs Intel did beyond the past decade the likelihood that he or somebody near him would have been affected by that then would be rather high. So instead maybe he lives close to AMD and was laid off there before.

----

Btw. the texts by CPUPro seem highly redundant to me, as if he has several standard sentences he keeps repeating every single time. Seems striking to me since even ChatGPT would do a better job. But it's always infallible entertainment.
 

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,553
1,668
136
As I said in the past, the only reason to buy a budget system like Intel at this point is if your workload revolves around software being optimized for Intel. Really wondering what Intel has in stock outside of the same hashed over rumors these past few months.

Yeah, it is not good price/perf wise for them. Intel and AMD have swapped again on the budget and entry level mid range as it were. I was pricing out a 13500 system, ddr4 or 5 and its not that impressive. Same with a Ryzen 7600(X or not). Intel wins there just for the DDR4 option. But then you look at the prices of a 5500, 5600X and nonX, the 12400, 5700X, the 13400 and 12600k. For a mega budget build the 5500 wins, then the $130-50 Ryzen 5600 or the $180 5700X. The 12400 is pointless compared to the 5600/5700 and the 13400 is just dumb unless you can't find a 13500 at $250 and are building right now.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,198
203
106
Alright so I finished my build, it's up and running (Windows 11 installed).

So, recap:

- ASUS X670E-F (currently on latest BIOS, version 0922* ... more on that one below)
- Air-Cooled 7900X3D (using a Noctua NH-U9S cooler with an extra, 2nd Noctua fan mounted)
- G.Skill 32GB @ 6000 CL30 (works well with EXPO1 settings in the BIOS, auto-detected, stable)

Got all the latest drivers (Chipset, GPU, Audio, Lan).

However, I'm confused (not to say concerned) about a few things; I'd appreciate some help.

#1: The (new?) "Prediction" feature thing in the BIOS. I haven't had the time to search much into it, but it's about Silicon quality and generally-informing how the components can, or should perform?; or something like that. In my case, it says this:

----------
SP 107 (zero idea what that is, no description, can't hover on it or click it)
Cooler 169 Points (ummm, thanks?)
V for Vendetta... no actually, V for 4932 Mhz = 0.999V @ L5 (haven't done any manual OC in ages, can't even recall what "@ L5" even is)
V for 4400 Mhz = 0.930 @ L5
Heavy Frequency = 4932 Mhz
Dos Threshold = 67
----------

Now, I do know that the 7900X3D, by default, is rated (minimum) to run at 4.4Ghz, so that it tells me I need 0.930 Volt on the Core if I want to ensure that it runs at that speed is fine, I get it, that's cool. It's the other extreme of the spectrum that I'm confused about. It tells me that if I want to run the CPU at 4932 Mhz, I need 0.999 Volt. Ok... but... the 7900X3D is advertised as being able to reach Boosted speed of 5.6Ghz. I wouldn't mind much of this Prediction thing was telling me that the "Heavy Frequency" would be along the lines of maybe 5.3 Ghz or 5.4 Ghz, so I'd take that. But 4.9Ghz? That seems so completely arbitrary (but obviously there has to be a reason why this feature tells me this, specifically).

The rest? The "Dos Thresh" and the "SP" numbers, no idea what those are and what they mean (and it doesn't explain it at all in the BIOS, thanks ASUS for that; maybe next time include Google in your BIOS, if anything). I'd appreciate some extra guidance (if required) and info about this Prediction stuff going on here (and if what it tells me actually holds up according to my hardware... if anyone would know).

#2: Ok so in Windows, so far everything works, no hanging, no crashing, no freezing. I've done a couple of tests (nothing too crazy and nothing that lasted more than 2 hours straight, all of this is very recent). I've tried a couple of in-game Benchmarks (Cyberpunk 2077, etc). I've played a couple of matches in some MP games, played some Offline games (15 mins to 30 mins sessions, nothing too crazy there). I've been running Cinebench r23 and about 2 hours of Prime95. So far, stability seems to be king (which I highly appreciate). Nothing - so far - seems to be "faulty" (at least in terms of stability).

BUT...

If I put the 'rock solid' stability out of the equation there's some things that got my attention.

1) During the games and synthetic benchmark tests I've done, I've noticed that both the Windows Task Manager [Performance Tab] and AIDA64 Sensors reported that the CPU Speed was essentially never going past the 5 Ghz mark (or nearly so). In fact, HINFO64 reported that the absolute highest 'peak' speed I saw for a very brief moment during my Cyberpunk benchmarking was exactly 5.15 Ghz; and it doesn't last long, we're talking about 2 or 3 cores here and there showing that much for maybe 1 or 2 seconds, every now and then.

2) When idling in the Desktop (literally doing nothing for instance, even as I type this, a single browser window opened and that's it), the CPU speed idles between 4.75 Ghz to 5.15 Ghz too. Even there, it doesn't do too much in terms of 'extremes': I.E. It doesn't power down while idling to save power like say... going down to at least the base speed of 4.4 Ghz... it NEVER does that... nor does it power up too much either I guess, never gets past that weird limit of 5.15 Ghz.

#3: This one is about Temperatures (weird stuff there, too). Now, prefacing: I made 100% sure that the Noctua cooler was physically well-installed, that the Thermal Paste (the one included in the Noctua cooler box, seems good to me so far) wasn't over-done, nor that it was lacking either. That part is fine. As I mentioned above earlier I have 2 fans on that heat sink installed properly, blowing air in one direction out towards the back of the case. So in terms of actual physical installation and thermal-pasting, it went well.

1) AIDA64 currently reports (as I type this, idling in the Desktop and doing nothing else) a CPU Temperature of 45º C. And the CPU Diode (which I know is the one that is the most important to consider) reports a Temperature of 54º C. IF these reports ARE accurate (and I think they are), then the Temps are actually even better than my previous 5800X (which wasn't even overclocked past the regular auto boosting by default). Even the Motherboard Temperature seems pretty good at 36ºC. That's in a living room ambient temp of around 27.5ºC.

Seems fine yeah? Ok... wait a second, because...

2) When I checked AIDA64 while I was doing the Cinebench r23 testing (Multi-Core test) the CPU Diode Temp absolutely sky-rocketed to orbit at 89ºC to 90ºC. Now, it DID stay at _exactly_ 90ºC and never went any higher (occasionally dropped by 1 or 2 degrees below at maybe 88ºC here and there, but overall remained at 90 exactly). On a side note, however: the regular CPU Temp (non-Diode one) was 50ºC only (but it seems to be a massive gap to me, no?). I do know that the AMD CPUs are "made to" operate well at high temperatures, but I'm not 100% sure if even Cinebench is actually supposed to make CPUs go bunkers like that with Temps. Is it?

3) However, maybe a little bit of "consolation" is that so far only Cinebench made the CPU Diode reach 90 degrees. All the testing I've done so far in actual games barely reach to 70ºC, there seems to be an "average" load Temp (in games) at around 65ºC to maybe 68ºC or so (peaks to 70, haven't seen above not even in Cyberpunk so far).

#4: About Cinebench's actual Benchmark points. I find them "low" for my system (compared to similar systems I've done comparisons to). My Since Core score is 1846 points (highest so far), and the Multi-Core score was I believe around 25900 or so. Whereas other scores of nearly indentical systems I've seen (with at least the same CPU of course) had Single Core scores ranging more into the 1950+ points, and Multi-Core scores that easily went into the 28500 to 29000+ points. Then again, there's this weird "issue" I seem to have where my CPU boost speed can't seem to reach the advertised 5.6Ghz maximum boost (my previous 5800X did actually reach up to its maximum advertised speeds, regularly, without any issues).

#5: About the FSB:Memory Ratio thing (haven't looked in to that stuff for ages at this point). CPUz, and AIDA64 both report a 1:30 ratio, if that makes any sense (I'm saying this as I myself can't recall what it is besides I think some multiplier thing, like 100 Mhz x 30 or something like that). I'd need a memory refresh on this one if anyone can help with it. Am I supposed to get that 1:1 ratio thing? If it's still a thing anymore? (*I only recall back a few years when the first Ryzen generation came out that it was recommended to run AMD CPUs with a 1-to-1 ratio, but it's been too long, that was the last time I did any amount of manual over-clocking, even then it was minimal stuff).

-----------------------

With all this said, I don't know if - just maybe - the current BIOS (version 0922) is maybe at fault for some of this? Or not (I wouldn't know for sure). Or if I'm maybe not turning On, or Off some BIOS options that should be. Or if I'm doing something wrong in Windows 11 (albeit everything is up to date there, all drivers, and also have all the actual Windows 11 updates installed too). Or maybe it's related to Chipsets drivers, or maybe I should install some AMD software or... I don't know, maybe the Power Plan in Windows? I do want to specify here that - besides all the apparent issues I seem to have - the system actually is stable, nothing 'weird' in terms of shut downs, hangs, freezes, game crashes or anything.

But I do have the feeling that some things may not be quite right (or, on the contrary, everything is right and I'm just over-thinking all of this). If there's anything that anyone is reading in this that immediately sounds some sort of 'alarm' please do let me know. I just want to make 100% sure that everything is as "it should be" for my system. I won't consider that it is "final" until I'm certain of it. Then I'll sleep better.
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
20,419
14,087
146
#1: The (new?) "Prediction" feature thing in the BIOS. I haven't had the time to search much into it, but it's about Silicon quality and generally-informing how the components can, or should perform?; or something like that.

You may want to check the SP rating of all cores as shown in the screenshot in the above post.
 
Reactions: Tlh97 and Zenoth

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,198
203
106

You may want to check the SP rating of all cores as shown in the screenshot in the above post.

Alright so I checked that AI Features thing in the BIOS, didn't have my tablet with me to just take a picture of the monitor but basically the gist of the information it this:

-----------------------------------------

P0 Frequency = 5023Mhz
P0 VID = 1.184v

Cores 0 to 11, then CCD0 and CCD1 are... (Core name / indicated speed / SP score)

0 | 4555 Mhz / 96
1 | 4516 Mhz / 95
2 | 4398 Mhz / 91
3 | 4485 Mhz / 94
4 | 4381 Mhz / 90
5 | 4418 Mhz / 91
6 | 5342 Mhz / 118 ( *this one indicates higher-than-'normal' default voltage with 1.190v, and it keeps going higher below)
7 | 5650 Mhz / 124 ( * 1.305v )
8 | 5650 Mhz / 124 ( * 1.309v )
9 | 5650 Mhz / 123 ( * 1.330v )
10 | 5637 Mhz / 122 ( * 1.354v )
11 | 5600 Mhz / 120 ( * 1.357v )
CCD0 | 4458 Mhz / 92 ( * 1.062v, going back to closer-to-normal defaults it seems for this one)
CCD1 | 5588 Mhz - 121 ( * 1.307v )

-----------------------------------------

So what am I supposed to interpret from this?

My understanding is that - currently - with defaulted Voltages in the BIOS, the 'scores' and perceived 'maximums' (or minimums) of each Cores (in terms of frequency and associated voltages) is showing me what " could " be done if I was to increase the vCore by some amount? It is as if all of this was essentially telling me that my CPU's maximum [potential] frequency _cannot_ effectively be reached if I stick with the default vCore I have right now (correct me if I'm wrong). Currently (without manual overclocking) my vCore varies (just a little) between 1.170v to around 1.200v, or so (according to what I've seen in AIDA64 during tests).

So that screen tells me that - at least for some of the Cores as shown - I should be able to hit 5650 Mhz if the vCore was set to 1.300v+ ? Am I reading that right?

So what is the "normal" vCore for a 7900X3D anyway?

Thanks for pointing me to that BIOS thing though, never noticed it.
 
Jul 27, 2020
20,419
14,087
146
CCD0 | 4458 Mhz / 92 ( * 1.062v, going back to closer-to-normal defaults it seems for this one)
CCD1 | 5588 Mhz - 121 ( * 1.307v )
Your CCD0 SP is kinda low but CCD1 SP is very good. I guess AMD is prioritizing the higher binned CCD0's for 7950X3D's.

This gives me a really bad feeling though. What if the 7800X3D CCD has an SP of 85?

That would mean people will need to spend $699 for best quality CCDs. I hope that's not what we see though. I hope at least 90% of 7800X3D's have SP 95.
 
Reactions: DAPUNISHER

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,733
5,496
136
Alright so I checked that AI Features thing in the BIOS, didn't have my tablet with me to just take a picture of the monitor but basically the gist of the information it this:

-----------------------------------------

P0 Frequency = 5023Mhz
P0 VID = 1.184v

Cores 0 to 11, then CCD0 and CCD1 are... (Core name / indicated speed / SP score)

0 | 4555 Mhz / 96
1 | 4516 Mhz / 95
2 | 4398 Mhz / 91
3 | 4485 Mhz / 94
4 | 4381 Mhz / 90
5 | 4418 Mhz / 91
6 | 5342 Mhz / 118 ( *this one indicates higher-than-'normal' default voltage with 1.190v, and it keeps going higher below)
7 | 5650 Mhz / 124 ( * 1.305v )
8 | 5650 Mhz / 124 ( * 1.309v )
9 | 5650 Mhz / 123 ( * 1.330v )
10 | 5637 Mhz / 122 ( * 1.354v )
11 | 5600 Mhz / 120 ( * 1.357v )
CCD0 | 4458 Mhz / 92 ( * 1.062v, going back to closer-to-normal defaults it seems for this one)
CCD1 | 5588 Mhz - 121 ( * 1.307v )

-----------------------------------------

So what am I supposed to interpret from this?

My understanding is that - currently - with defaulted Voltages in the BIOS, the 'scores' and perceived 'maximums' (or minimums) of each Cores (in terms of frequency and associated voltages) is showing me what " could " be done if I was to increase the vCore by some amount? It is as if all of this was essentially telling me that my CPU's maximum [potential] frequency _cannot_ effectively be reached if I stick with the default vCore I have right now (correct me if I'm wrong). Currently (without manual overclocking) my vCore varies (just a little) between 1.170v to around 1.200v, or so (according to what I've seen in AIDA64 during tests).

So that screen tells me that - at least for some of the Cores as shown - I should be able to hit 5650 Mhz if the vCore was set to 1.300v+ ? Am I reading that right?

So what is the "normal" vCore for a 7900X3D anyway?

Thanks for pointing me to that BIOS thing though, never noticed it.
You probably need to run a game and test clockspeeds when running the game. Computerbase has a 7900X3D review here where you can see their clocks:

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D vs. 7950X3D im Test - ComputerBase
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,198
203
106
You probably need to run a game and test clockspeeds when running the game. Computerbase has a 7900X3D review here where you can see their clocks:

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D vs. 7950X3D im Test - ComputerBase

Well, according to their Average / Max 7900X3D chart where they tested a bunch of games, the speeds vary between 4.9Ghz to 5.2Ghz.

In my case (yes I tested in games quite a lot by now), in games, the clocks vary between 4.7Ghz to very rarely going to 4.9Ghz, and extremely rarely reaching 5.0Ghz. The only game where I saw a few select Cores reaching 5.0Ghz to 5.15Ghz (absolute max observed yet) was in Cyberpunk 2077's benchmark. Not a single other game I've tested had anything above 4.9xxGhz.

I'll increase the vCore one notch at a time and I'll see if that improves the maximum boost potentials I get. If not... then I'll simply accept that my 7900X3D happens to be 'mid range' in quality (silicon quality). It happens (if that's the case). It's not like I'm not happy with my system, quite the contrary. But I do want to conduct all the tests to ensure that I haven't left anything behind and that it performs at the best of its capacity.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,733
5,496
136
Well, according to their Average / Max 7900X3D chart where they tested a bunch of games, the speeds vary between 4.9Ghz to 5.2Ghz.

In my case (yes I tested in games quite a lot by now), in games, the clocks vary between 4.7Ghz to very rarely going to 4.9Ghz, and extremely rarely reaching 5.0Ghz. The only game where I saw a few select Cores reaching 5.0Ghz to 5.15Ghz (absolute max observed yet) was in Cyberpunk 2077's benchmark. Not a single other game I've tested had anything above 4.9xxGhz.

I'll increase the vCore one notch at a time and I'll see if that improves the maximum boost potentials I get. If not... then I'll simply accept that my 7900X3D happens to be 'mid range' in quality (silicon quality). It happens (if that's the case). It's not like I'm not happy with my system, quite the contrary. But I do want to conduct all the tests to ensure that I haven't left anything behind and that it performs at the best of its capacity.
Do you use PBO and curve optimizer?
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,719
24,960
146
Yes. If 7800X3D on average doesn't offer a good CCD (speculation at this point), a lot of enthusiasts may be forced to buy the 7950X3D. This may be different to the 5800X3D where since it was the only V-cache SKU, AMD may have gone with the best binned CCDs. Again, I'm speculating.
That's not merely speculating. In old school colloquial English that is an idiom we call muckraking. You just can't help but trash talk AMD tsk tsk tsk. Better grab your pearls and get near your fainting couch, just in case, you know?
 
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Joe NYC

Platinum Member
Jun 26, 2021
2,622
3,676
106
Yes. If 7800X3D on average doesn't offer a good CCD (speculation at this point), a lot of enthusiasts may be forced to buy the 7950X3D. This may be different to the 5800X3D where since it was the only V-cache SKU, AMD may have gone with the best binned CCDs. Again, I'm speculating.

Just a speculation, but I don't think binning quality of 7800x3d will be the bottleneck. These are very low clock speeds it needs to hit (5.0 to 5.25 GHz). Plain 7700x can do 5.4 GHz boost.

It may need to do it at lower voltage, but still, this is not a high bar.
 
Reactions: ZGR
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/    |