Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD Motherboards › ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread - Page 1013

post #10121 of 16832
The attitude in this thread has changed considerably over the weeks and seems almost hostile towards Raja and Elmor. Sure, everyone's frustrated with this platform but MOST concerns/issues should be directed towards AMD to get their collective **** together, Raja and Elmor have no obligation to make an appearance on this or even entertain any of these posts. Critically, most of the issues are totally out of their control due to the AGESA that's provided to them from AMD. 99% of the answers to questions or issues can be found with a simple search of this thread, stop tagging these two in every post.

We've been getting solid updates, solid transparency and a kick ass array of beta EFI's for more than just one set of people. Relax, people. Take a breath, it isn't that serious.
post #10122 of 16832
Right on commander! Totally agree. I've moaned a bit myself. But I felt guilty afterward, lol.

I just have my fans set so that the random spikes dont trigger them. Sustained high load ramps them up normally.
I think the transient on the CPU will be absorbed by the thermal inertia of the cooler block.
In reality it does not matter if the temps are right, all that matters is if it gets hotter than idle for ages then your fans respond.

Also on a side note, I got the dead Trident Z RGB Bling going again by uninstalling Aura with the aforementioned method and the Gskill software actually loaded and reset the sticks first time!
I was utterly astounded.
Its the little things...
smile.gif
Edited by dorbot - 4/19/17 at 12:16pm
post #10123 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotstocks View Post

Why would AMD just pick a random number and report temperatures 20C higher then reality for their X chips. Seems retarded to me, why not just report the correct temps like the non-x chips do? hell, why not pick 24C or 23.843233C too high?

This has been answered time and time again and even directly from AMD in their own blog. In short, it's to help create consistent fan profiles across board manufacturers. Do you think it'd be easy to write fan profiles over a whole range of board offerings, even for just one manufacturer, depending on CPU?

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update
post #10124 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProTekkFZS View Post

The attitude in this thread has changed considerably over the weeks and seems almost hostile towards Raja and Elmor. Sure, everyone's frustrated with this platform but MOST concerns/issues should be directed towards AMD to get their collective **** together, Raja and Elmor have no obligation to make an appearance on this or even entertain any of these posts. Critically, most of the issues are totally out of their control due to the AGESA that's provided to them from AMD. 99% of the answers to questions or issues can be found with a simple search of this thread, stop tagging these two in every post.

We've been getting solid updates, solid transparency and a kick ass array of beta EFI's for more than just one set of people. Relax, people. Take a breath, it isn't that serious.

Blame is on both, you can't have one without the other. Even though people will beat it to death that it's AMDs fault its also mobo manufacturers fault for prioritizing Intel Z270 over AM4 and that came back to bite em in the butt. How come MSI has a whole lot less of issues then Asus does, so does Gigabyte for that matter.

If it was across the board AMDs fault ALL mobo manufacturers would have the same issues. We were told from the get go that the major BIOS update would be in May, Asus can't do anything till then but they could have polished their BIOS a bit more before release. They chose to devote the majority of resources towards z270 and thats understandable.

There is no one side to blame more then the other blame game, its equal.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1700X asus crosshair 6 Sapphire R9 390 Nitro CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate ST2000DM006 EKWB Supremacy Evo EK-XRES 100 Revo D5 - Acetal 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool GPX r9 390 m01 alphacool xt45 240 Alphacool xt45 360 Alphacool D5 PWM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 LG 29UM68 Corsair Strafe Corsair RM1000 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake X5 Corsair M65 Pro RGB Razer Goliathus Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1700X asus crosshair 6 Sapphire R9 390 Nitro CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate ST2000DM006 EKWB Supremacy Evo EK-XRES 100 Revo D5 - Acetal 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool GPX r9 390 m01 alphacool xt45 240 Alphacool xt45 360 Alphacool D5 PWM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 LG 29UM68 Corsair Strafe Corsair RM1000 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake X5 Corsair M65 Pro RGB Razer Goliathus Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10125 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProTekkFZS View Post

This has been answered time and time again and even directly from AMD in their own blog. In short, it's to help create consistent fan profiles across board manufacturers. Do you think it'd be easy to write fan profiles over a whole range of board offerings, even for just one manufacturer, depending on CPU?

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update

Shouldn't fan profiles be aimed at the real temperature, not "fake" temperature? XFR or not, fans should be responding appropriately based on temperature. CPU temperature is CPU temperature, except for Ryzen, where X chips have a different reported temperature than non-X chips. That makes no sense.
post #10126 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluej511 View Post

Blame is on both, you can't have one without the other. Even though people will beat it to death that it's AMDs fault its also mobo manufacturers fault for prioritizing Intel Z270 over AM4 and that came back to bite em in the butt. How come MSI has a whole lot less of issues then Asus does, so does Gigabyte for that matter.

If it was across the board AMDs fault ALL mobo manufacturers would have the same issues. We were told from the get go that the major BIOS update would be in May, Asus can't do anything till then but they could have polished their BIOS a bit more before release. They chose to devote the majority of resources towards z270 and thats understandable.

There is no one side to blame more then the other blame game, its equal.

I do see your point but to say MSI is flawless isn't accurate. I had the MSI Titanium along side of two C6H's. Can you take a guess which got returned after 2 days?

Re: polishing BIOS before May. Doesn't make much sense from a development cycle POV. The May AGESA update will more than likely be radical enough that it will null and void a lot of the tweaks and already implemented custom bits, measure twice, cut once.
post #10127 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluej511 View Post

Blame is on both, you can't have one without the other. Even though people will beat it to death that it's AMDs fault its also mobo manufacturers fault for prioritizing Intel Z270 over AM4 and that came back to bite em in the butt. How come MSI has a whole lot less of issues then Asus does, so does Gigabyte for that matter.

If it was across the board AMDs fault ALL mobo manufacturers would have the same issues. We were told from the get go that the major BIOS update would be in May, Asus can't do anything till then but they could have polished their BIOS a bit more before release. They chose to devote the majority of resources towards z270 and thats understandable.

There is no one side to blame more then the other blame game, its equal.

Actually, the updates have been released each month. One of the May updates is more focused on RAM, and Elmor hinted that almost all of the people with 3200 memory should be able to hit it with the update.
post #10128 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Targonis View Post

Actually, the updates have been released each month. One of the May updates is more focused on RAM, and Elmor hinted that almost all of the people with 3200 memory should be able to hit it with the update.

Yea that's part of it, i hit 3200mhz with some tweaking on BIOS 1002. There is monthly updates but they haven't been as major as the one in May will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProTekkFZS View Post

I do see your point but to say MSI is flawless isn't accurate. I had the MSI Titanium along side of two C6H's. Can you take a guess which got returned after 2 days?

Re: polishing BIOS before May. Doesn't make much sense from a development cycle POV. The May AGESA update will more than likely be radical enough that it will null and void a lot of the tweaks and already implemented custom bits, measure twice, cut once.

Well yea thats my point exactly, one day 1 everything was an utter mess. But to blame AMD entirely is just non sense. Yes the launch was pulled back a month, but its already been a month and its been polished but no one near what people think an extra month would. Then people forget that the launch was also pushed forward from Q4 2016 to Q2 2017 then Q1 2017 so they did have time, how they choose to use it isn't AMDs fault.

Don't forget Z170=Z270 what BIOS changes and revisions did they need to make between the two, my guess? Very very little. AM3≠AM4 now imagine those revision considering its nothing we've ever seen in terms of architecture, which one do you think is more profitable?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1700X asus crosshair 6 Sapphire R9 390 Nitro CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate ST2000DM006 EKWB Supremacy Evo EK-XRES 100 Revo D5 - Acetal 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool GPX r9 390 m01 alphacool xt45 240 Alphacool xt45 360 Alphacool D5 PWM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 LG 29UM68 Corsair Strafe Corsair RM1000 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake X5 Corsair M65 Pro RGB Razer Goliathus Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1700X asus crosshair 6 Sapphire R9 390 Nitro CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate ST2000DM006 EKWB Supremacy Evo EK-XRES 100 Revo D5 - Acetal 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool GPX r9 390 m01 alphacool xt45 240 Alphacool xt45 360 Alphacool D5 PWM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 LG 29UM68 Corsair Strafe Corsair RM1000 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Thermaltake X5 Corsair M65 Pro RGB Razer Goliathus Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10129 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProTekkFZS View Post

This has been answered time and time again and even directly from AMD in their own blog. In short, it's to help create consistent fan profiles across board manufacturers. Do you think it'd be easy to write fan profiles over a whole range of board offerings, even for just one manufacturer, depending on CPU?

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update

Maybe I'm looking at it too simplistically.

Would it not be a case of for x temp do x PWM?

For example AMD GPU have 2 fan profile options in ROM. One is lookup table, it has 3 temp values with PWM for each, min / med / max, then there is temp hysteresis to solve unnecessary fan ramping when GPU is between temp ranges.

That is like manual curve in UEFI for us on C6H, but it is still "hit'n'miss" for us to use. "X" owners have unrealistic temps and highest value of temp is 75C in there. Then we have what is going on with SIO CPU Sensor. Which is used for fan control.

Another profile GPUs have is Fuzzy Logic. Here there is a target temperature that cooling solution will maintain on GPU, it can automatically adjust PWM so as "factors" affect temps or cooling solution variation it changes PWM "on the fly". There is settable min/max fan limit, so Fuzzy Logic knows what is the lowest it can go and max it can go. It has temp sensitivity to vary fan speed granularity, so say you want more reactive fan profile it is tweaked, etc.

In my view AMD are to blame for this issue. Never had this kinda stuff on Intel and are we saying Intel does not need to consider variation?

And as said by another all they had to do was show "real" temps, would it not be easier to set profiles for variation on that?

If I'm highlighting my woes on temps to Elmor it is down to how the SIO CPU Sensor mode is for me on R7 1700, which to me is in their control.

Yeah I have contacted AMD_Matt on OCUK as well, as @LtMatt on here. He is AMD techie, is on here and other forums plus official AMD community forum. Does own C6H.
Edited by gupsterg - 4/19/17 at 12:01pm
XPS - R7 1700
(14 items)
 
XPS - i5 4690K
(12 items)
 
XPS - Q6600
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire Fury X@1145/545 G.Skill Trident Z 2x 8GB 3200MHz C14 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung Evo 840 ThermalRight Archon IB-E X2 + 2x TY143 ThermalRight TY-143 2x front case intake Arctic Cooling F12 + 2x F9 as rear case exhaust 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 7 Pro x64 / Win 10 Pro x64 Asus MG279Q Cherry MX-Board 3.0 Cooler Master V850 
CaseMouse
SilverStone TJ06 Logitech G700S 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4690K@4.9GHz 1.255V Asus Maximus VII Ranger Sapphire Fury X@1145/545 HyperX Savage 2x8GB 2400MHz C11 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung Evo 840 TR Archon SB-E X2 Win 7 Pro x64 / Win 10 x64 Asus MG279Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Cherry MX-Board 3.0 Cooler Master V850 SilverStone TJ06 Logitech G700S 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 Asus P5K Premium Black Pearl Sapphire Toxic HD5850 Corsair Dominator 4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Crucial MX 100 256GB TR TRUE Rev.A Win 7 Pro x64 Cooler Master V650 
  hide details  
Reply
XPS - R7 1700
(14 items)
 
XPS - i5 4690K
(12 items)
 
XPS - Q6600
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire Fury X@1145/545 G.Skill Trident Z 2x 8GB 3200MHz C14 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung Evo 840 ThermalRight Archon IB-E X2 + 2x TY143 ThermalRight TY-143 2x front case intake Arctic Cooling F12 + 2x F9 as rear case exhaust 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 7 Pro x64 / Win 10 Pro x64 Asus MG279Q Cherry MX-Board 3.0 Cooler Master V850 
CaseMouse
SilverStone TJ06 Logitech G700S 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4690K@4.9GHz 1.255V Asus Maximus VII Ranger Sapphire Fury X@1145/545 HyperX Savage 2x8GB 2400MHz C11 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung Evo 840 TR Archon SB-E X2 Win 7 Pro x64 / Win 10 x64 Asus MG279Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Cherry MX-Board 3.0 Cooler Master V850 SilverStone TJ06 Logitech G700S 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 Asus P5K Premium Black Pearl Sapphire Toxic HD5850 Corsair Dominator 4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Crucial MX 100 256GB TR TRUE Rev.A Win 7 Pro x64 Cooler Master V650 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10130 of 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by gupsterg View Post

Maybe I'm looking at it too simplistically.

Would it not be a case of for x temp do x PWM?

For example AMD GPU have 2 fan profile options in ROM. One is lookup table, it has 3 temp values with PWM for each, min / med / max, then there is temp hysteresis to solve unnecessary fan ramping when GPU is between temp ranges of 3 temp values.

That is like manual curve in UEFI for us on C6H, but it is still "hit'n'miss" for us to use. "X" owners have unrealistic temps and highest value of temp is 75C in there. Then we have what is going on with SIO CPU Sensor. Which is used for fan control.

Another profile GPUs have is Fuzzy Logic. Here there is a target temperature that cooling solution will maintain on GPU, it can automatically adjust PWM so as "factors" affect temps or cooling solution variation it changes PWM "on the fly". There is settable min/max fan limit, so Fuzzy Logic knows what is the lowest it can go and max it can go. It has temp sensitivity to vary fan speed granularity, so say you want more reactive fan profile it is tweaked, etc.

In my view AMD are to blame for this issue. Never had this kinda stuff on Intel and are we saying Intel does not need to consider variation?

And as said by another all they had to do was show "real" temps, would it not be easier to set profiles for variation on that?

If I'm highlighting my woes on temps to Elmor it is down to how the SIO CPU Sensor mode is for me on R7 1700, which to me is in their control.

Yeah I have contacted AMD_Matt on OCUK as well.

No, you're right, I don't think this was the absolute best way to go about it either. Just rather wanted to point out that it was AMD's choice and their "reasoning" for it, if you will. Quite a few people in this thread think it's ASUS making that choice. With AMD pulling back on Ryzen Master showing the offset, I'm pretty sure we will see the whole offset crap going away fairly soon™.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD Motherboards
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD Motherboards › ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread