ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread - Page 2145 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

ROG Crosshair VI overclocking thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21441 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 05:56 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,300
Rep: 111 (Unique: 51)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaseki View Post

Does this EC FW change occur as a result of using BIOS Flashback instead of loading a BIOS via one of the other methods? I have 312 under 1403 and don't have an EC upgrade tool, so I suspect that my using of flashback only is a factor.
My 312 likely came as part of 0096 when the EC changes of 0003 were removed. So if you ever went that route, this may be the source.
Timur Born is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #21442 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:09 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
gilly8192's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1
Rep: 0
Hi,
I am having a problem and i'm not sure whether it is the BIOS (tried 1401 and 1403) or the board. When i go and set the voltage on the vcore to 1.375v it comes up as 1.417v, the vsoc has the same problem where i set it to 1.21250v and it comes up as 1.264v, the dramm also seems to have the same problem where a voltage of 1.29500v comes up as 1.351v. Does anyone have any idea whether this is a known bios bug, a problem with the board or something else. This problem is consistent across cmos clears, bios versions etc etc for me. If anyone can point me in the right direction it would be appreciated. I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask but this seems to be somewhere with a lot of people with the board and everyone seems to know what they are talking about.
thanks


gilly8192 is offline  
post #21443 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:10 AM
Meddling user
 
gupsterg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Lurking over a keyboard
Posts: 6,924
Rep: 739 (Unique: 344)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaseki View Post

Does this EC FW change occur as a result of using BIOS Flashback instead of loading a BIOS via one of the other methods? I have 312 under 1403 and don't have an EC upgrade tool, so I suspect that my using of flashback only is a factor.

EC FW update does not occur via flashback, only the UEFI file as a whole is loaded. The UEFI file contains EC FW as stated by The Stilt.

EC FW update occurs once motherboard has finished posting.

EC FW updating is automatic feature but disabled from UEFI 0902 onwards, except two UEFIs, one publicly available, one not. Timur Born has highlighted both, as I did yesterday.

So as stated by The Stilt 0312 is part of newer UEFIs but I was not gaining it as updating blocked.

So I flash the UEFI that doesn't have block, mobo post, update EC FW, then I can flash any UEFI and it will still be there.

As highlighted some things I do believe have changed for me. Currently testing gaining 3466MHz tight. First I did several setups as previous testing as on EC FW 0310. All of these failed but with less errors from compares I did. I have only 1 error in 1 instance of 16 HCI windows to quash, which is eluding me now.

It maybe a placebo effect of having EC FW 0312 vs 0310, I will have to go over past data more thoroughly.
gupsterg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #21444 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:10 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
The Stilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,310
Rep: 782 (Unique: 301)
Swapped in the R7 1700 CPU, which has the MEMCLK hole located in the 3212.8 - 3347.2MHz region on dual rank modules and at default CLDO_VDDP voltage. I've usually used 96Ohm ProcODT on B-die dual rank modules, since it seems to provide the best cold booting ability. However it seems that with certain CPU, motherboard and DRAM configurations (even within the same exact spec) 96Ohm ProcODT might be too high and cause signaling issues (extremely random and < 80 in size errors in HCI Memtest). There seems to be some correlation with the memory timings as well, especially with the tWR value.

In some cases it might be that the system will require greater than 80Ohm ProcODT in order to be able to cold boot properly, but the next available option (96Ohm) is too high to maintain the signal integrity. In these cases I would suggest that you move the DIMMs for the normal A2 & B2 slot pair to A1 & B1 slots, since the slots closer to the CPU seem to be able to handle lower ProcODT (80Ohms) than the slots further away from the CPU.

- A2 & B2 slots populated
- ProcODT 80Ohms
- VDDCR_SoC 1.05000V
- DRAM Voltage & Boot Voltage 1.39000V (1.404V actual, keep the runtime and boot options synced)
- CAD Controls "Auto" (0-0/32, 0-0/32, 0-0/32, 24/24/24/24Ohm)
- Rtt_Nom = Disabled, Rtt_Wr = Disabled, Rtt_Park = RZQ/5 (48Ohm) - i.e. "Auto"
- CLDO_VDDP = 975mV (to push the MEMCLK hole further away from the current operating frequency, somewhat enhances cold boot capability)

These settings are pretty fast for a rather low quality B-die DR modules:



The Stilt is offline  
post #21445 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:19 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
ItsMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Rep: 4 (Unique: 2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaseki View Post

I think this message can prove helpful to new overclockers here. However, I need to point out a couple of related things. When The Stilt referred to the real-time-termination loadings as {disabled, disabled, RZQ/5} I don't think he meant that the first two parameters were zero ohms. More likely 'disabled' sets them at infinity ohms.

To high a terminating resistance does not increase circuit "stress." It may degrade signal to reflected signal ratio, just as too low a terminating resistance may also degrade signal to reflected signal ratio. This is also true of procODT.

What specifically did you find in the B-die specs about RTT values? I looked and failed to find anything, perhaps from data saturation ennui.

Thanks

This is a message in general, xd. I know that Proct is a termination resistance an does not have any effect on the current, but im showing my results llooking at voltages and temperatures cause i dont know the values that and specific procdt value can influde after a train, i know is just for noise etc.. like on any comunication bus, industrial, or any ethernet etc... More or less that i try to say is that i dont have enough information about all this stuff.

The Rtt values maybe are that infinite i dont know what he mean, maybe a disabled is infinite. I mean that 48 is more close to 0 than 240, its only a conclusion that can be wrong, xD

The B-die document about im talking is the Spec samsung support file on samsung site about our chips, but they only talk about speed to 2666 max, so 3200 is not specified in any caculation. I might be provided by Gskill to amd, and from amd to asus i guess, this is why im talking about the responsability of the vendors of suplly the proper specs. Excuse my confusing words im not a perfect english speaker, and imagine the expressions, xDDDD
ItsMB is offline  
post #21446 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:28 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
ItsMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Rep: 4 (Unique: 2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt View Post

Swapped in the R7 1700 CPU, which has the MEMCLK hole located in the 3212.8 - 3347.2MHz region on dual rank modules and at default CLDO_VDDP voltage. I've usually used 96Ohm ProcODT on B-die dual rank modules, since it seems to provide the best cold booting ability. However it seems that with certain CPU, motherboard and DRAM configurations (even within the same exact spec) 96Ohm ProcODT might be too high and cause signaling issues (extremely random and < 80 in size errors in HCI Memtest). There seems to be some correlation with the memory timings as well, especially with the tWR value.

In some cases it might be that the system will require greater than 80Ohm ProcODT in order to be able to cold boot properly, but the next available option (96Ohm) is too high to maintain the signal integrity. In these cases I would suggest that you move the DIMMs for the normal A2 & B2 slot pair to A1 & B1 slots, since the slots closer to the CPU seem to be able to handle lower ProcODT (80Ohms) than the slots further away from the CPU.

- A2 & B2 slots populated
- ProcODT 80Ohms
- VDDCR_SoC 1.05000V
- DRAM Voltage & Boot Voltage 1.39000V (1.404V actual, keep the runtime and boot options synced)
- CAD Controls "Auto" (0-0/32, 0-0/32, 0-0/32, 24/24/24/24Ohm)
- Rtt_Nom = Disabled, Rtt_Wr = Disabled, Rtt_Park = RZQ/5 (48Ohm) - i.e. "Auto"
- CLDO_VDDP = 975mV (to push the MEMCLK hole further away from the current operating frequency, somewhat enhances cold boot capability)

These settings are pretty fast for a rather low quality B-die DR modules:




This setup only work on your bios true???? Ty for share
ItsMB is offline  
post #21447 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:29 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
The Stilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,310
Rep: 782 (Unique: 301)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsMB View Post

This setup only work on your bios true???? Ty for share

Haven't tried, however by default the modified bios should always suit better for 1 DPC configurations.
The Stilt is offline  
post #21448 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:31 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
kaseki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 721
Rep: 75 (Unique: 37)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timur Born View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaseki View Post

Does this EC FW change occur as a result of using BIOS Flashback instead of loading a BIOS via one of the other methods? I have 312 under 1403 and don't have an EC upgrade tool, so I suspect that my using of flashback only is a factor.
My 312 likely came as part of 0096 when the EC changes of 0003 were removed. So if you ever went that route, this may be the source.

I have 0003, but don't recall ever installing it, or even putting it on a USB drive to apply to the Computer Under Test.

Rig running Ryzen [email protected] GHz, [email protected] MT/s, Linux Mint 18.1 on Asus C6H
kaseki is offline  
post #21449 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:37 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
ItsMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Rep: 4 (Unique: 2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt View Post

Haven't tried, however by default the modified bios should always suit better for 1 DPC configurations.
With that timings on 1401 and 1403 dont reach that percent HCI without fails, anyway youre setting some not auto values and higher voltage than i tried on every setup. It seems the higher speed rates you can reach with 2r 1dpc. and using 1t overided. Think only run on your bios, xD we should try.
ItsMB is offline  
post #21450 of 41653 (permalink) Old 06-29-2017, 06:44 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
lordzed83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 1,318
Rep: 31 (Unique: 25)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timur Born View Post

The clamp part where the tube enter the pump are made of plastic. I can push the tube (+O-ring) back in using quite some force, but pulling it out needs much less force. I suspect that some part of the plastic ring/clamp holding the tube's end is broken.

According to Arctic the coolant is distilled water plus small amounts of oil. I can certainly attest to the oily nature of the residue. For fun and profit I also stuck my multimeter's probes into an oily pool I found left on the frame of my GPU's cooler. No electrical currents going through there, so nothing to worry about.

Good to hear. I use compression fittings had plastic clamp ones that came in standard. I just used piece of copper wire and allot of turning force so it almost cut the hose off biggrin.gif Still on pump holding strong as hell.
lordzed83 is offline  
Reply

Tags
Bios5 , profiles to usb

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 16 (3 members and 13 guests)
CarnageHimura , psynapse , rob87
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off