ASUS Crosshair V Formula Z issue - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

ASUS Crosshair V Formula Z issue

 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-26-2019, 07:37 AM - Thread Starter
AMD OC'ing Enthusiast
 
mattliston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,511
Rep: 104 (Unique: 82)
ASUS Crosshair V Formula Z issue

Anyone ever experience the inability to set a tRFC of 350 on this motherboard?


I can set 300, and reboot, showing 300.


Set 350, save and reboot, shows it is 300, but now shows the button as 350.


So it is showing that it recognized me wanting 350, but to the left of the choice, still shows 300 as the active setting.




I have reflashed the correct BIOS a few times, yanking the CMOS battery, Ive tried unplugging all devices except GPU, mouse, and keyboard.


I have tried removing the BIOS chip, and using 70% rubbing alcohol to clean the area, and re-installing the BIOS chip, to no avail


Has anyone been through this?


Anyone who is a BIOS person, here is a link to fiddle with
https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards...Desk_Download/


I DO remember this setting working quite a ways back when I was working harder on my northbridge overclocking and ram fiddling. 350 worked great.


Took a break from fiddling for nearly a year as far as that setting was concerned, and when I removed 16gb of ram to give to my brother, I once again started fiddling, seeing what timings I could work down. Never again, was I able to get 350 working.
.
Im thinking my next course of action should be removing the motherboard from the case, and doing a full system cleaning, just to eliminate the chance of dust doing something goofy
mattliston is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-26-2019, 08:36 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,375
Rep: 462 (Unique: 262)
Why would you want to set it that high?
Edit added pictures etc.
160 ms vs 90 ms 90 gets better numbers on my rig ( lowest setting there is).
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cachemem52620191.png
Views:	1
Size:	70.3 KB
ID:	271518  

Click image for larger version

Name:	cachemem52620192.png
Views:	1
Size:	70.3 KB
ID:	271520  


Last edited by cssorkinman; 05-26-2019 at 09:03 AM.
cssorkinman is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-26-2019, 05:26 PM - Thread Starter
AMD OC'ing Enthusiast
 
mattliston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,511
Rep: 104 (Unique: 82)
It helps to stabilize high northbridge overclocks, such as 2850mhz+


It does not have a large memory bench impact for me. Using GSkill 2400 CL10 that has reached as far as CL10 2600 before, but cannot do so with 300 tRFC




You have CL12-14-14, so your ram will have a different sensitivity to the tRFC setting.
mattliston is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-26-2019, 06:35 PM - Thread Starter
AMD OC'ing Enthusiast
 
mattliston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,511
Rep: 104 (Unique: 82)
odd, you are getting stronger memory performance, even with looser primaries.


Here is my result.


Setup is 9590 at 5ghz, 2800mhz northbridge, 2400 CL10-12-12-31 @ 300 tRFC, HTlink is at 2400mhz currently.


This was a quick clock, as I recently have been running stock 4.7 with 2400 ram and 2600 northbridge to keep computer quieter and cooler
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	5cachemem.png
Views:	2
Size:	103.1 KB
ID:	271582  

mattliston is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-26-2019, 08:25 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,375
Rep: 462 (Unique: 262)
The differences might be in the version of AIDA. In the case of running 4 dims of the Kingston beasts - this is a pretty good daily setting for the chip /board/ ram combo.

The 90 setting seems to be hard to beat for gaming in my situation.

API feature test should be helpful if that is the goal.
cssorkinman is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-27-2019, 07:59 AM - Thread Starter
AMD OC'ing Enthusiast
 
mattliston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,511
Rep: 104 (Unique: 82)
I did forget to mention, anything under 300 doesnt post.


Asus were fools, and left a BIG gap from 160 to 300 on this board, at least for the 2015 BIOS update.


Perhaps I should experiment with older BIOS's, back when the board was newer and ram overclocking was more popular for ddr3 and amd
mattliston is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-27-2019, 08:56 AM
Overclocking Enthusiast
 
ozlay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 5,463
Rep: 268 (Unique: 215)
There is a modded 2201 bios you could try. At your own risk... I used it to run an NVME ssd on my formula Z. It might not have what you need. But it did add a bunch of microcode and agesa updates. And NVME support.

In Loving Memory Of Kassandra

Kaby
Rikka
(11 items)
CPU
Intel I5-7600k
Motherboard
Asrock Z270M Extreme 4
GPU
Titan X
GPU
Titan X
RAM
Galax HOF
Hard Drive
850 pro
Hard Drive
960 Pro
Hard Drive
970 Evo
Power Supply
Seasonic Prime Snow
Case
enthoo evolv matx tempered glass
Operating System
windows 10 pro
▲ hide details ▲

Last edited by ozlay; 05-27-2019 at 09:12 AM.
ozlay is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 05-27-2019, 09:47 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
cssorkinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,375
Rep: 462 (Unique: 262)
Quote: Originally Posted by mattliston View Post
I did forget to mention, anything under 300 doesnt post.


Asus were fools, and left a BIG gap from 160 to 300 on this board, at least for the 2015 BIOS update.


Perhaps I should experiment with older BIOS's, back when the board was newer and ram overclocking was more popular for ddr3 and amd
On certain AM3 +boards the early bios versions were "friendlier" to the settings commonly used to get more performance out of the phenom/thuban - lower ram freq/tighter timing with higher NB. While updates to those same boards would allow for higher freq ram more suited for BD/Vish. 990 GD 80 seems to be that way - early UD5's too.



I see people talk about "fsb holes" - i think this is the sort of thing that was happening Bios was hanging on to the more demanding tertiary settings until it was obvious that it couldn't work - finally relaxing the settings and allowing the user to set a higher fsb. When there are big gaps in settings such as those , I think it would allow for that type of thing to happen.

I think you'll be best served by the bios versions just after Vishera released for all around performance - if your going for low latency , best performance with lower freq ram , or some other performance niche - earlier ones may be better for that.
cssorkinman is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 06-01-2019, 05:04 PM - Thread Starter
AMD OC'ing Enthusiast
 
mattliston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,511
Rep: 104 (Unique: 82)
When I said "under 300" I meant under tRFC 300.



I have to drop my ram down to 1866 with loose timings for tRFC 160 to work.


I may try that modded 2201 BIOS. Might be worthwhile, especially if it has agesa and microcode updates.
mattliston is offline  
post #10 of 10 (permalink) Old 06-01-2019, 05:44 PM
Iconoclast
 
Blameless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 30,080
Rep: 3134 (Unique: 1869)
Higher density ICs typically need more time devoted to tRFC to ensure they can be charged fully. The numbers in the BIOS of ASUS boards are the standard JEDEC values for tRFC (in ns) at the various DRAM IC sizes available around the time the platform was launched, with a few arbitrary notches added for good measure; that's where the numbers came from (and there is a big gap between the JEDEC vlaues for 4Gib and 8Gib ICs).

Would certainly have been nice to have more granular control.

Anyway, if you haven't changed firmware versions, I'm not sure what would be causing an inability to set 350ns, unless the memory is clocked so high that 350ns exceeds the maximum tRFC the firmware can recognize in actual cycles.

...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson
Blameless is offline  
Reply

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: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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