Originally Posted by majestynl @gupsterg
1) Did you checked the cold boos issue on this new bios ( Shutdown, and restart with casebutton) ?
2) I was disabling CPB and noticed there are 2 pages where this option is available. Did you disable it on both pages?Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1) Yes I have it still
. I had several reboots without a problem yesterday. Then 1x times it fail
. So I still use "Sleep/Resume". TBH most users that use Win 10 and do not change "OS Fast Startup" option, the OS on shutdown is not doing a "full shutdown" like on Win 7. It does what can be described as "Hybrid Sleep Shutdown
". This is why members will see Uptime in Task Manager
not correct as well. Only a restart loads a "fresh" kernel.
Originally Posted by malitze
These settings do not reset every time, they just don't appear in the save dialog. If e.g. memory training fails and the CPU posts with safe settings some of the settings will be reset, procODT is one of them.
So as highlighted by malitze, as AMD CBS resets on a failed boot, it is futile changing CPB on AMD CBS
. "We" are better off changing CPB on Extreme Tweaker as that page does not reset on a failed boot
. And serves the better purpose of protecting CPU from excessive voltage when OC'ing using Pstate OC/offset mode voltage in UEFI and AMD CBS reset back to default.
Originally Posted by muffins
i've tested one 1700x, three 1800x's, two corsair hynix kits, three gskill samsung kits, two asus crosshairs and two gigabyte gaming 5's. i can confirm swapping to a different crosshair board did nothing. but swapping to a different manufacturer board, with the gigabyte gaming 5, BIG changes did happen.
i'll quote something i posted eariler.Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
so on the advice i gave my buddy, he picked up the gigabyte gaming 5 over the crosshair and i do truly believe a lot of issues plaguing ryzen is stemming from the use of the crosshair in regards to high temperatures, ram compatibility, and voltages. i helped him set everything up and before we built his computer together he let me use his gaming 5 for a shortwhile to further test somethings out. honestly, i just wanted to see if my 1800x and gskill 16gb flare x kit played well again like it did prior when i had the gaming 5... and lo and behold, they worked great at 3200 like before. no cold boot issues. unlike with my crosshair.
but i did some more testing regarding the complaints i made eailer about my 1800x running hotter and at higher voltage at stock settings with xfr enabled on the crosshair compared to my previous gaming 5. from digging into it i noticed the difference. the gaming 5 is simply not as aggressive as the crosshair in regards to xfr boosting. i noticed on the gaming 5 my 1800x RARELY boosted to 4.1ghz during an xfr boost. it only boosted to 4ghz the MAJORITY of the time when it boosted high with xfr. that little difference makes a WHOLE A LOT of a difference. with the gaming 5 only pegging 4ghz most of the time for the top end, the volts stayed below 1.4 volts range with an average of 1.34v's after monitoring for 40 minutes. this also caused the fans not to ramp up and down like crazy since any load, even the slightest didn't cause xfr to jump straight to 4.1ghz and 1.5v's like the crosshair does. i also noticed how my 1800x on the gaming 5 didn't stay at 4ghz for long and it didn't jump up to 4ghz frequently. it would mostly boost up to around 3.8 - 3.9ghz. only a few times would it boost to 4ghz, let alone 4.1. unlike the crosshair where its always pegging 4.1ghz anytime anything touches a core, regardless how heavy it is. idle, then open firefox? boom 4.1. load foobar? boom 4.1 with 1.5v's. alt tab to swtich a lot, boom 4.1 with 1.5v's. why i noticed a high 1.4v average with the crosshair with leaving hwinfo monitoring in the background for nearly an hour. that's right, average, not maximum.
i also noticed another odd ball. the gaming 5 when under abusive load, like intel burn test, both regular and avx, along with prime, my 1800x would operate at 3.5ghz rather than 3.7ghz it does on the crosshair. so this caused my 1800x to run cooler since it used far less volts at 3.5ghz.
after doing the testing and putting my buddies computer together i ran the same tests on his 1800x. what i observed with mine i observed with his. what i find odd the most was the heavy load when all 16 threads are used at 100% with how it runs at 3.5ghz instead of the stock 3.6ghz. let alone 3.7ghz because iirc, with xfr enabled, all cores operate at 3.7ghz instead of 3.6ghz stock. so i don't know why its dropping to 3.5ghz on the gaming 5. the cooler used for mine was a nh-d15s while my buddy is using a corsair h110i. so cooling shouldn't be an issue.
for those having ram issues, temps, and voltage it could just be the motherboard. even regarding overal ram stabilitly for the perfect case scenerio, samsung single rank 16gb kits. that's what puzzles me the absolute most is how i have cold boot issues with the SAME flare x kit on my crosshair but NOT on the gaming 5. for xfr with voltages and temperatures, for whatever reason i don't know. could be asus themselves tweaking bios settings to make xfr more aggressive since they figure those wanting the crosshair to run at stock settings can get the most out of it, or maybe since the crosshair has a better power delivery system it allows ryzen to boost to those high frequencies, and voltages at stock. i'm sorta leaning towards both with how the gaming 5 drops to 3.5ghz at full, 16 thread load since it does have a weaker vrm setup compared to the crosshair.
either way i would rather have my 1800x boosting to 3.8 - 3.9ghz frequently, with an occasion 4ghz, and rare 4.1ghz if it meant it kept voltages down allowing for lower temps and fan speeds.... but i also like the crosshair overall features wise. i just reconmended the gaming 5 to my friend because its an easier set it and forget it experience.
a simple processor change could easily fix it but i wouldn't rule out the motherboard either. not just replacing the motherboard with the same, but trying a completely different manufacturer board before trying to swap the processor. not all IMC are created equally, and the tweaks manufacturers could be making could not play nice with your ryzen memory controllers
. right now i feel like we are trying to find a ryzen that has a IMC that plays nice with the manufacturer boards of OUR choosing.
I had logged your previous post and appreciate the share
. To me all your share is pointing to is that the firmware difference between mobo manufacturer A vs B allowed higher RAM and not technically the mobo HW. IMO the Asus board with T-Topology
has the better HW elements and once FW has been ironed out should enable best RAM clocks.
Originally Posted by digitalfrost
Anyone else noticed DRAM overvolting under load? I have a 1800X with 2x 8GByte G.Skill with Samsung B-Die. I have set DRAM voltage to 1.35 and VTTDDR to 0.68v. However under load I see my DRAM voltage overvolting to 1.373v with the minimum at 1.330v. Just wondering if that is normal.
Originally Posted by Silent Scone
What are you using to measure? Using the ProbeIT points there is no fluctuation here.
I believe the ProbeIt points for all voltages are showing LLC from VRM to power plane. I read ~1.375V (+/- 5mV) on DMM for VBOOT/VDIMM set as 1.3500V in UEFI, so the MAX value of 1.352V I see in HWiNFO I reckon is in the "zone" to be right. I do believe what "we" set in UEFI is relevant to "actual" voltage x item gets. So props to Asus team for great UEFI
SOC: UEFI 0.975V DMM: ~0.989V HWiNFO: MAX SOC SVI2 TFN 0.969V
RAM: UEFI 1.35V DMM: ~1.375V HWiNFO: MAX 1.352V
Now as said before, a PState when changed to [Custom] is showing a ceiling VID. When "we" make CPU enter OC mode then SMU snap VCORE to ceiling VID. In the case of my R7 1700 1.1875V, so this is why HWiNFO in VID section shows MAX of 1.187V, then the offset mode voltage I apply of +162mV makes CPU VCORE MAX ~1.356V on CPU Core Voltage SVI2 TFN.
I believe HWiNFO is fairly accurate, those increasing LLC levels to CPU/SOC just be aware that SW/DMM is not going to show you the under/overshoot of voltage, only an Oscilloscope will.
So props to @Mumak
for all his support
.Edited by gupsterg - 4/30/17 at 2:28am