About my Gigabyte B550M DS3H motherboard (version 1.2)...

[Kerozen1973]

I can't install more than 32gb of ram while yet I can put up to 128gb. On this card there are 4 slots for the ram. So I think my card has a problem. Are you going to tell me why I want to install 128 GB of RAM? And I answer you then that it concerns me and it is not your onions.

[Revy]

32GB is already an overkill anyway. You dont really need to add more.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Origineel geplaatst door emoticorpse:

Not everyone cares what you think.

Well that's really damn rude out of no where for no reason. :( I'm just trying to be helpful and help people. There's no reason to respond like that in this thread. :(

[Illusion of Progress]

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Origineel geplaatst door Kerozen1973:

Ah okay, thank you. I understand. Then I'm staying with my 32gb.

I wanted to add additional first-hand information for you. I own an AMD X570 motherboard and I have an AMD Ryzen 5800X processor in it. I too like you would like to use 128GB of ram in my motherboard. My motherboard says it supports it. I attempted to purchase 4 x 32GB memory modules rated for 4000 Mhz, which in theory should operate at any speed this motherboard and processor is capable of. I have many years experience configuring ram and it's timings and speeds manually. I spent much time with this memory configuration (3 weeks) attempting to get it functioning. I worked on it with all of my free time every day for 3 weeks. Eventually after all of that time the maximum speed I was able to achieve that was stable without errors was 2600 Mhz.

I spoke with other people about this issue on other forum websites (overclock.net, Techpowerup forums, Linus tech tips forums) after some back and forth with others I realized that this is a limitation of AMD's AM4 platform in general. All AMD AM4 processors are not able to run faster than 2400 <-> 2600 Mhz on memory when using 128GB of ram in an AM4 system.

I returned that memory kit to Newegg claiming it wasn't compatible with my system.

I instead returned to my old 2 x 16GB (32GB) kit and it has been functioning normally at 3866 Mhz for several months now without issue. It is not the capacity that I want but the performance is significantly higher than with the 128GB kit. For me the performance is more important. I will later wait and upgrade to a computer that supports DDR5 to be able to run 128GB of ram at higher ram speeds. DDR5 compatible systems are capable of running 128GB of ram at higher speeds (5000 Mhz or more).

This is partially correct but partially wrong.

The motherboard lists that as it can address that much capacity. It doesn't mean it will do it at the maximum supported speed.

See this for reference... (Click the "detail" tab.)

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-X570S-TOMAHAWK-MAX-WIFI/Specification

"4x DDR4 memory slots, support up to 128GB
Supports 1866/ 2133/ 2400/ 2667/ 2800/ 2933/ 3000/ 3066/ 3200 MHz by JEDEC1
Max overclocking frequency by A-XMP OC mode:

For Ryzen™ 5000 G-Series & 4000 G-Series processors
1DPC 1R Max speed up to 5100 MHz
1DPC 2R Max speed up to 4000 MHz
2DPC 1R Max speed up to 4266 MHz
2DPC 2R Max speed up to 3600 MHz
For Ryzen™ 5000 Series & 3000 Series processors
1DPC 1R Max speed up to 5100 MHz
1DPC 2R Max speed up to 3866 MHz
2DPC 1R Max speed up to 4000 MHz
2DPC 2R Max speed up to 3600 MHz"

The "xDPC xR" part means "DIMMs per channel" and "ranks" respectively.

Notice how the maximum supported speed drops as more DIMMs/ranks enter the equation? A lot of people like to go "IMC load, who cares" but turns out... this stuff matters.

It's not at all an AM4 specific thing. This is happening more in modern times with either faster DDR4 or DDR5, but it's not exclusive to AM4. Ask those on LGA 1700 and AM5 what was happening if they tried to do an analogous thing. Remember when the platforms launched and either our modules or higher speeds wasn't stable? Same thing, and because of the same reason. Over time, the new CPU IMCs or platform chipsets or new BIOS (those "improved memory compatibility" in the notes often mean just that) will get better at it, like it did with AM4. But trying to max DIMM count/capacity and still have the fastest supported speed? That's asking for a lot on any modern consumer platform.

Instead of being an AM4 thing, it's simply a "lighter memory configurations can run at higher speeds" and a "heavier memory configurations may have a maximum speed below that".

What determines "light" or "heavy" for memory?

Capacity (higher is heavier, there's more address space to keep track of), DIMM count (more is heavier), rank count (more is heavier), frequency (higher is heavier), and timings (tighter is heavier).

Capacity and ranks usually go hand in hand because for DDR4 right now, 128 GB (and usually even 64 GB) is going to be dual rank DIMMs. Putting four modules of those on a dual channel platform means quad ranks per channel. Yeah, that's heavy.

Now try doing it all at 4000 MHz? Yeah that's (probably) not happening. I am surprised you had to go all the way to 2,600 MHz to get it stable though. I might have expected 3,000 MHz to 3,200 MHz maybe, but I admit I'm guesstimating based on my experience with late AM4 and DDR4.

I'm running 64 GB, dual rank DIMMs (so system has to manage quad ranks per channel), 3,600 MHz, at CL 16-19-19-39. The stock CPU IMC and RAM voltage is enough to keep it stable. I'm not sure how much having 128 GB instead would change this; I know more capacity should be harder to run but I'm not sure how much it moves it (as the motherboard table above mentions DIMM count and rank but not capacity).

This RAM worked fine on two motherboards (Asus ROG Strix B550-F Gaming and MSI MAG X570S Tomahawk Max) with both a 3700X and 5800X3D, so you don't need a Ryzen 5000 series CPU. It is true that very early Ryzen Generations (Zen and Zen+, meaning 1000 and 2000 series) and/or their boards couldn't do as well with heavier memory configurations, though. Things have improved since then.

4,000 MHz on Zen 2 or 3 (3000 or 5000 series) is pointless anyway. The Infinity Fabric for those CPUs usually caps around 1,800 MHz to 1,866 MHz (or a bit above) so going above 3,600 MHz (or the somewhat rare 3,733 MHz) on RAM means you have to drop from 1:1 sync to 2:1 sync, and you actually lose a bit of speed until it gets fast enough to compensate. So there's a bit of a "performance hole" just above those speeds. There's therefore little point going above 3,600 MHz on these platforms. Likewise, I wouldn't go below 3,200 MHz on them as it's leaving more performance on the table. For AM5 this value is ~6,000 MHz as the sweet spot for RAM IIRC.

You might find this interested for further information. While it focuses on motherboard topology, a lot of it is analogous to the fact that heavier memory configurations can drop the maximum stable operational speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vQwGGbW1AE

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

This is partially correct but partially wrong.

That's a very long-winded and quite verbose way of repeating what I already said. I will admit you went to a lot more detail than I did however, but it's still the same thing. Thanks.. I guess?

[Illusion of Progress]

It's not repeating what you said.

You said...

"I spoke with other people about this issue on other forum websites (overclock.net, Techpowerup forums, Linus tech tips forums) after some back and forth with others I realized that this is a limitation of AMD's AM4 platform in general. All AMD AM4 processors are not able to run faster than 2400 <-> 2600 Mhz on memory when using 128GB of ram in an AM4 system."

...Which is wrong. I was addressing this part.

To the underline part...

The overall behavior you observed of "more demanding memory configuration required concessions" is expected, but it's not an "AM4 limitation" in particular. I was trying to explain to you that it's more of a "heavier memory configurations are more demanding". It's old news that the ceiling is lower when the configuration is heavier. It's not exclusive to AM4; it's just how it works.

To the bold part...

128 GB at (at least) 3,200 MHz has also been done on AM4.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

...Which is wrong. I was addressing this part.

As I said right there (you even quoted me, did you read my words that you quoted?) I have already discussed it at length in multiple threads in multiple tech forums in the past. Many people weighed in on it that likely have more knowledge and experience with AM4 than either you or I do combined. The general consensus was exactly as I stated there in my comment. Even with an X570 motherboard and a 5000 series processor no one is ever going to get any AM4 motherboard to run with 128 GB of ram installed and also get the ram to run faster than 2600 Mhz. It just isn't possible. There's not much point in repeating everything that was already discussed in the past again as if it's something new. It's not. I've been over and over and over with this before already. I'm just trying to share information with the OP, not start an argument.

[Reaper]

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

...Which is wrong. I was addressing this part.

As I said right there (you even quoted me, did you read my words that you quoted?) I have already discussed it at length in multiple threads in multiple tech forums in the past. Many people weighed in on it that likely have more knowledge and experience with AM4 than either you or I do combined. The general consensus was exactly as I stated there in my comment. Even with an X570 motherboard and a 5000 series processor no one is ever going to get any AM4 motherboard to run with 128 GB of ram installed and also get the ram to run faster than 2600 Mhz. It just isn't possible. There's not much point in repeating everything that was already discussed in the past again as if it's something new. It's not. I've been over and over and over with this before already. I'm just trying to share information with the OP, not start an argument.

AM4 motherboards can on 96GBs of ram so I believe they can manage 128GB. What I had to do was reset the profile back to 'profile 1' because when installing more ram it defaulted back to 2600mhz
https://ibb.co/FB56sgH

[Illusion of Progress]

Yes, I read it, but I don't withhold my better judgment because someone states the equivalent of "you're one person, and more than one other person thinks X, so you're wrong".

I'll do you one better. I not only read your post, but I read it with such attention that I took notice of you using these words...

"...after some back and forth with others I realized that..."

This isn't reading to me as "the facts are this, and here's multiple sources that state it". No, instead it describes "I had multiple discussions to draw from, and here's what I personally arrived at from that".

And my post was telling you that a few of the things you described as arriving at were not correct.

The fact is what you described is not at all an AM4 thing. It's rather universal. Your ceiling is going to be higher with a lighter memory configuration (and vice versa). It's old knowledge, and anyone who's actually done this for any length of time will tell you this. This has been established behavior since before AM4 even existed, and is even observable on platforms more recent than it (LGA 1700 or AM5). I notice you're not touching this; is it because you can't acknowledge it and maintain that an "it's an AM4 thing specifically" stance at the same time?

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

The general consensus was exactly as I stated there in my comment. Even with an X570 motherboard and a 5000 series processor no one is ever going to get any AM4 motherboard to run with 128 GB of ram installed and also get the ram to run faster than 2600 Mhz. It just isn't possible.

General consensus?

Can you clear something up for me? Is this "general consensus" actually a consensus that 128 GB will not work on AM4 above 2,600 MHz? Or is it merely a consensus that heavier memory configurations may require concessions to run, and the rest is your inference? I think it's the latter, like I pointed out with your word choice above.

If general consensus is on the table, there's enough anecdote out there to suggest it has been done (some of them with images substantiating it, such as this one[imgur.com]), so what of all those? Onus is on you to prove all of them are just random lies/fake images spread out over a large time span of years and years for... whatever reason. I'm going with Occam's razor here, but you do you.

I get the impression that because you had to take RAM rated for 4,000 MHz down to 2,600 MHz to be operational, that you presume that's the factual maximum for that capacity on that platform. There's a lot that goes into it like CPU, motherboard, BIOS version/AGESA, RAM timings, voltages, and probably more. You didn't get it working higher than 2,600 MHz with your combination and whatever you tried. I believe that. Doesn't mean it's the factual maximum for it in all possible configurations.

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

I'm just trying to share information with the OP, not start an argument.

Which makes this ironic as I was only trying to share information with you too.

The general idea, you had absolutely right. Heavier memory configurations are harder to run, and may require concessions (like lower frequency) to be stable. You did, however, have some details wrong. The behavior is not exclusive to AM4 (it's more universal), and 2,600 MHz certainly isn't the maximum for 128 GB on AM4 (nothing to substantiate this, and only some anecdotes to suggest the opposite).

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

And my post was telling you that a few of the things you described as arriving at were not correct.

Okay then. If you're going to claim I'm wrong then I hope you own a AM4 motherboard yourself and you installed 128GB of ram in it and you tried to make it work. Because I spoke before with people who actually owned and actually tried it. That's how we all arrived at the conclusion I spoke of before. If you have not personally done it yourself then I think you don't have much reason to try this thing that you are doing.

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

I notice you're not touching this; is it because you can't acknowledge it and maintain that an "it's an AM4 thing specifically" stance at the same time?

For your information: The OP in this thread owns an AM4 motherboard. I only mentioned or spoke of AM4 systems because that's what they have and they asked the question. It's called staying on topic.

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

Can you clear something up for me? Is this "general consensus" actually a consensus that 128 GB will not work on AM4 above 2,600 MHz?

In the threads I started and discussed in before in the past we had multiple people that actually owned AM4 motherboards, they bought 128GB of ram, and they all struggled to get it to run faster than 2600 Mhz. Many different motherboards from different companies, almost all of the 5000 series processors were used from the 5950X to some people using the 5600X. We even had some people where the motherboard companies advertised 3200 and 3600 Mhz possible with 128GB of ram installed but it never would do it for them. So that's what I mean: From all those people talking together to try to get it working no one could figure out how to make it run above 2600 Mhz with any configuration on any motherboard. So yes. General consensus was arrived at. I saw some people that were able to use faster ram speeds up to 3200 Mhz and above but they would boot to windows, try to run a few programs, crash, bluescreen, massive WHEA errors, failing AIDA64 stability tests, failing kahruu ram tester, etc. It was never stable even though it appeared to work. The only speed that worked and was stable for everyone was 2600 Mhz. Just because faster ram speeds work long enough for someone to boot windows and run a few programs does not mean it's going to be 100% perfectly stable for long-term usage.

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

Onus is on you to prove all of them are just random lies/fake images spread out over a large time span of years and years for... whatever reason.

No actually it's not "on me" to prove anything. I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else if I don't want to and I don't want to so I won't bother.

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

Which makes this ironic as I was only trying to share information with you too.

No. You are not "sharing information" you are arguing and attempting to start arguments. Instead of just letting things be you responded and started all of this and made us end up here. This is all your doing. You did this. You caused this situation. You're just arguing because you enjoy arguing with people for some unknown reason. I am still confused why you are doing this to me and why you chose to start this with me. You are a very confusing person.

[Illusion of Progress]

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Okay then. If you're going to claim I'm wrong then I hope you own a AM4 motherboard yourself and you installed 128GB of ram in it and you tried to make it work. Because I spoke before with people who actually owned and actually tried it. That's how we all arrived at the conclusion I spoke of before. If you have not personally done it yourself then I think you don't have much reason to try this thing that you are doing.

This reads an awful lot like "you can't verify anything as fact unless you personally do it yourself". I'm sorry, but I'm not entertaining that. Nobody would be able to prove anything about anything in life if you want to narrow it down like that. I don't limit reality to my own experiences only. At some point, we have to trust and rely on third party evidence in absence of out own experience and knowledge. Humanity's collective knowledge kind of works that way, no?

The entirely ironic thing is you're sitting there telling me anecdote doesn't cut it while... giving me anecdote as your source? Oh my. Even if I were to play by your rules, I can't accept 2,600 MHz is the maximum because I haven't tried it on everything and verified it can never go higher. I mean, that's the very logic you telling me applies, right?

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

For your information: The OP in this thread owns an AM4 motherboard. I only mentioned or spoke of AM4 systems because that's what they have and they asked the question. It's called staying on topic.

You made a claim that something applies only to AM4.

I responded by pointing out it happens beyond AM4.

Your reason for ignoring this fact was because the thread is about AM4?

Be right back, I'm going to go into the next topic to tell them something that's applies broadly instead only applies to whatever the thread is about, and if anyone calls me out on it, I'll just tell them they're being off topic for bringing it up. But that seems silly.

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

In the threads I started and discussed in before in the past we had multiple people that actually owned AM4 motherboards, they bought 128GB of ram, and they all struggled to get it to run faster than 2600 Mhz. Many different motherboards from different companies, almost all of the 5000 series processors were used from the 5950X to some people using the 5600X. We even had some people where the motherboard companies advertised 3200 and 3600 Mhz possible with 128GB of ram installed but it never would do it for them. So that's what I mean: From all those people talking together to try to get it working no one could figure out how to make it run above 2600 Mhz with any configuration on any motherboard. So yes. General consensus was arrived at. I saw some people that were able to use faster ram speeds up to 3200 Mhz and above but they would boot to windows, try to run a few programs, crash, bluescreen, massive WHEA errors, failing AIDA64 stability tests, failing kahruu ram tester, etc. It was never stable even though it appeared to work. The only speed that worked and was stable for everyone was 2600 Mhz. Just because faster ram speeds work long enough for someone to boot windows and run a few programs does not mean it's going to be 100% perfectly stable for long-term usage.

Ah, so now the first signs of the story shifting and goal post moving come out.

Now you're partially accepting that speeds above 2,600 MHz are out there, but discarding them because they're all unstable?

So you know for a fact that they are all unstable? Every single one? Like, you personally verified every AM4 system with 128 GB above 2,600 MHz is, in fact, not stable? Because your opening logic says you have to do this, no?

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

No actually it's not "on me" to prove anything. I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else if I don't want to and I don't want to so I won't bother.

That's fair, you don't have to do anything.

But wanting to make claims and not substantiate them when presented with conflicting information comes off as "I am not willing to support myself". If you aren't even willing to support yourself, why should anyone put worth into what you present?

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

No. You are not "sharing information" you are arguing and attempting to start arguments. Instead of just letting things be you responded and started all of this and made us end up here. This is all your doing. You did this. You caused this situation. You're just arguing because you enjoy arguing with people for some unknown reason. I am still confused why you are doing this to me and why you chose to start this with me. You are a very confusing person.

Wait, so how is this supposed to work according to you? Others are not allowed to respond to statements they find wrong? Are we supposed to let wrong information fly freely because someone might not like an argument? Are you for real?

Maybe lay off the ad hominem a bit, as well.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

You made a claim that something applies only to AM4.

Nope. I did not write that. I only said that this was a limitation of the AM4 platform. I never mentioned any other computer system or platform. You started talking about that. Not me.

Origineel geplaatst door Illusion of Progress:

But wanting to make claims and not substantiate them when presented with conflicting information comes off as "I am not willing to support myself". If you aren't even willing to support yourself, why should anyone put worth into what you present?

I did not "Claim" anything. I shared information I know to be factual based on first hand accounts and research in order to share knowledge with someone else. YOU are starting internet arguments for no actual logical reason. I honestly have no idea what your problem is or why you decided to try and start this with me. I didn't do anything to you. And you just come in here out of no where and start arguing with me when I'm trying to help people? That's extremely damn rude of you. :(

I certainly do know what to do with people like you: I will not continue this conversation further. I do not argue with people on the internet. I will not give you the argument that you so desperately want from me. I'll just go ahead and block you and unsub from this thread and go on with life.

I do have one parting comment for you: We all have a fixed amount of time left on this planet. Perhaps you may want to spend what time you have left on happy thoughts and being nice to others instead of arguing with everyone for no reason.

[Reaper]

Post link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/lext52/are_there_any_expected_potential_issues_with/?rdt=42426


Post: Are there any expected potential issues with running 128 GB 3200 Mhz RAM with a 5950x?

I'm spec-ing out a new workstation to replace my current one at work and one of the main needs is having a lot of RAM. My current workstation has 32 GB, but the point of upgrading my workstation is so I can run 4 simulations at once (instead of one at a time currently) and each one takes up to 32 GB, hence the need for 128 GB RAM. However, I've read that for previous gen Ryzen CPUs that there can be difficulty getting max RAM capacity to run at 3200 MHz or higher, even though that speed is officially supported.

Is this still an issue for Ryzen 5000 CPUs and if so, what kinds of workarounds do I need to plan for?

For reference - I'm currently planning to use an Asrock B550 Taichi as the motherboard with a 5950x. It states that it supports 128 GB RAM (4x 32 GB), but the QVL doesn't have many 32 GB modules on it that are certified to work and only one of them is currently in stock.

I've usually stayed within the QVL in previous PC builds and its usually not an issue since lower capacity modules tend to have a much larger QVL-certified selection, so will it be an issue if I have to get RAM that isn't on the QVL?

Top answer:
I have a 3950x and 5950x both with 128gb of ram. Depending on the motherboard, the 3600c18 memory runs at full speed or 3333mhz. It is limited by the motherboard, not cpu.

[Kerozen1973]

Maybe I can't install my other 2 RAM sticks of 16 GB each because my bios is too upgraded?
I will test that.

[Reaper]

Origineel geplaatst door Kerozen1973:

Maybe I can't install my other 2 RAM sticks of 16 GB each because my bios is too upgraded?
I will test that.

Have you tried this.

Don't know why but when you further upgrade your ram, the ram speed gets lowered to 2600mhz. Go into your bios and reset your ram speed to profile 1 that should fix it.

[Illusion of Progress]

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Nope. I did not write that. I only said that this was a limitation of the AM4 platform. I never mentioned any other computer system or platform. You started talking about that. Not me.

Are you really going to try that angle?

You said "it's a limitation of the AM4 platform" and yes that implies that it's exclusive to the AM4 platform. If you were just describing the behavior as a universal thing, you would have said that instead of mentioning AM4 specifically.

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

I did not "Claim" anything.

You didn't?

What of the statement that the behavior was a limitation of the AM4 platform?

What of the statement that it's outright impossible to run beyond 2,600 MHz on AM4 with 128 GB?

These are both statements you literally made. And you're now going say you made no claims?

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

YOU are starting internet arguments for no actual logical reason.

The logical reason was I saw a false statement. I merely corrected you, and you got upset.

So correcting information is illogical now? Well that's quite a statement.

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

I honestly have no idea what your problem is or why you decided to try and start this with me. I didn't do anything to you. And you just come in here out of no where and start arguing with me when I'm trying to help people? That's extremely damn rude of you. :(

I have no problem. The fact that you think addressing some statements I found to be wrong implies I have some problem is quite telling though.

What's rude is your constant attempt to use ad hominem against me while I've done nothing of the sort to you. Not a good look, and the inclusion of sad faces doesn't give your accusations merit.

Addressing statements does not equal "starting arguments". If we can just use the "you're starting arguments with me" card every time someone says something we don't like or disagree with, well... that would mean there's no point for anyone to ever say anything.

Notice I never belittled your intention. I have no doubt you were trying to share information/help people. And I never mocked that, did I? Saying "hey, this is mostly right in concept, and here's some further reading if you're interested, although these these parts are wrong" is not belittling your intention. Stop taking a correction as an attack on your person. My goodness.

Origineel geplaatst door 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

I do have one parting comment for you: We all have a fixed amount of time left on this planet. Perhaps you may want to spend what time you have left on happy thoughts and being nice to others instead of arguing with everyone for no reason.

I'm quite happy, but thank you for the advice.

Others taking corrections as personal attacks to the point that they'll throw the fault of the argument on me isn't something I can control, it it? When I'm actually personally attacking someone, your accusation will have merit. Until then, correcting something isn't "starting arguments", and it's quite telling that you see it that way.

I have no problems with you (I've never even seen you until very recently so how could I?), so I wish you well likewise.