Overclock.net banner
41 - 58 of 58 Posts
If it failed at 1900 surely it would insta-fail at 1933? Or am I missing something? probably!
Not entirely. Dead straps do exist, we've seen this even on older AM3 platforms with the 2666 strap not POSTing and the 2133 strap getting out-performed by 1866. You may find that you can achieve an FCLK of 1800, 1866 and 2000, but every strap in between refuses to POST no matter what you do. These would be considered dead straps.

It can differ per setup, so it's always worth testing even if you feel like you've hit a wall. You might find that you were being held back by an artificial limit and the next strap might work just fine.
 
Not entirely. Dead straps do exist, we've seen this even on older AM3 platforms with the 2666 strap not POSTing and the 2133 strap getting out-performed by 1866. You may find that you can achieve an FCLK of 1800, 1866 and 2000, but every strap in between refuses to POST no matter what you do. These would be considered dead straps.

It can differ per setup, so it's always worth testing even if you feel like you've hit a wall. You might find that you were being held back by an artificial limit and the next strap might work just fine.
Is That the AMD CPU or the motherboard issue?
 
If it failed at 1900 surely it would insta-fail at 1933? Or am I missing something? probably!
AFAIK, all b550 Asrock boards are still on agesa 1100D and there's a 1900 IF hardcap somewhere in the bootloader.
 
Well, it did insta fail at the higher FLCK settings too, but it was worth a punt :)

Actually, I'm principally reporting that I've been having random restarts with this board. Was rock solid with the Unify-X (but terrible while) but difficulties here.

The ASRock website, which is awful compared to MSI, suggests that there is only one bios for this board... but actually looking at my bios just now it's an even older version than the December updates... hopefully updating to this new (yet old...) bios will solve it for me.

So if you are having problems too, do double check your bios version and don't rely on their website!!

Thanks.
 
I've had this board for about a month now and it's been nothing but fighting with it to make things work correctly. This is mostly power consumption telemetry related as the Renesas reading for the core VRM in HWiNFO reports up to 450 watts consumed when that clearly isn't correct. The power deviation (accuracy) being around 200% at full load being a small key toward finding the info I needed.

Spent quite a while looking into this as I don't want to deal with RMAs or anything, as it seems to be more of a bad software thing than hardware related.

Rather than go into all of it, it seems like the value in (Advanced/AMD PBS) > (Adjust VddcrVddfull Mode) > (VddcrVddfull_Scale_Current) should be set to the CPU TDC value automatically, but in my case isn't and is fixed to 230. Stock on a 5900X being 95.

After doing this my power deviation accuracy was more around 100 +/- 10% and the power consumption figures made more sense and the clock speed I'd expect under full all-core loads returned. Assuming this should be changing on the backend when TDC is modified.

TL;DR - Value for telemetry to the CPU isn't being automatically set for TDC = VddcrVddfull_Scale_Current causing massive performance regressions.

Not sure if this is widespread or just a fluke though.
 
Not sure if this is widespread or just a fluke though
Which BIOS version is atm on a board? I just saw one user reported ss with PRD ~500% in CB R23 multicore test, and clocks were stretched as hell, though it was on Asus 570 tuf.
 
Which BIOS version is atm on a board? I just saw one user reported ss with PRD ~500% in CB R23 multicore test, and clocks were stretched as hell, though it was on Asus 570 tuf.
Board came with 1.30 out of the box, first thing I did was flash 2.00 for AGESA version 1.2.0.3C. I have tried rolling back to a couple of older versions, but the memory support ends up being horrible and the issue still remains.
 
and the issue still remains.
So did you experienced something like high Power Deviation reported by HWInfo or low multicore score in CB R20/23 accompanied by clock stretching, i.e. effective clock much lower than peak ones in a first frequency group?
The strange thing is the behavior seem not to related to mb vendor. At least my Extreme4 never had such problems
 
Here's the before and after of setting that value with PBO disabled.

Edit 1: Seems like LLC must be set to Level 1 or else the reported vs effective clocks have a massive deviation.

Computer Font Screenshot Technology Software
Font Screenshot Software Computer Technology
 
Ended up contacting their support which told me to just submit an RMA form. We'll see if a replacement takes care of the issues I was experiencing.
 
Took a little over 2 weeks, but got my replacement back. Issues I was having with power reporting no longer exist.
 
Took a little over 2 weeks, but got my replacement back. Issues I was having with power reporting no longer exist.
The update to this is the board functions fine. No issues to report after that easy RMA. I did learn my 5900X has weak cores with very little headroom so I went for the push the memory as far as possible route. Tested to 900% in HCI. I'm still messing with the curve optimizer at stock power limits since my cores don't gain much with more power. Upside is that it saves me the heat at noise.

I did try the latest beta BIOS, L2.05, but it limits performance of the CPU cores by being capped at 1.425v for low thread work. Sticking to P2.00 until there's a stable version out. Not that I have any reason to update it on a working system. Fix it until it's broken they said... 😁 Since ZenTimings doesn't show the DIMM voltage it's set to 1.452v in BIOS, SoC LLC Level 1 with the vCore set to Level 3.
Font Screenshot Software Electronic device Multimedia
Font Technology Screenshot Electric blue Software
 
The update to this is the board functions fine. No issues to report after that easy RMA. I did learn my 5900X has weak cores with very little headroom so I went for the push the memory as far as possible route. Tested to 900% in HCI. I'm still messing with the curve optimizer at stock power limits since my cores don't gain much with more power. Upside is that it saves me the heat at noise.

I did try the latest beta BIOS, L2.05, but it limits performance of the CPU cores by being capped at 1.425v for low thread work. Sticking to P2.00 until there's a stable version out. Not that I have any reason to update it on a working system. Fix it until it's broken they said... 😁 Since ZenTimings doesn't show the DIMM voltage it's set to 1.452v in BIOS, SoC LLC Level 1 with the vCore set to Level 3.
View attachment 2544478 View attachment 2544477
RC - RAS = RP
Set RC 50 or RAS 40.
WR/2 = RTP
Set RTP 7.
ClkDrvStr 60Ω
Smile Outerwear Eyebrow Eyelash Sleeve
 
I see your cpu usage is at 100%, what kind of load were you using during that period?
Honestly can't remember. Used a mix of Prime95, LinpackXtreme, y-cruncher, and Cinebench R23 on loop.
 
41 - 58 of 58 Posts