ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > Intel Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 5th Titan Z = 'bF" mobo startup error
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

5th Titan Z = 'bF" mobo startup error

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
GPUnk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPUnk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2015 at 3:29pm
Thanks again, I will take your suggestions when I put in my request.

Just FYI, I had written "Above 4G Option", and it is actually "Above 4G Decoding".

In case you or anyone is interested, here is some literature on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_hole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-mapped_I/O

Regards!

X79 Extreme 11 / Intl Core i7 3930K/ 32gb DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengnce/ Win 7 64bit / Thermaltake 1500 W PSU / GTX Titan X
GPU Rendering - 4 Titan Z (external USB 3.0 PCIE riser)/ EVGA 1600 W PSU (2)

Back to Top
GPUnk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPUnk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2015 at 3:51am
An update:
I sent request form for a TitanX-compatible-Above-4G-Decoding option, and received a new BIOS same day, P3.30K.  I tested and it did not work with the Titan X, I received the same "b2" error that I get with all the other non-Titan X compatible BIOSes.  The "b2" error merely comes up because it is the TitanX, which is separate from the "bF", which comes up when >10 GPU are boot up without a 4G Decoding enabled.

I have to admit, I was suspicious given that the only TitanX-compatible BIOS is the latest P3.30M (with 'M' coming after 'K' in the alphabet LOL)

However, everything works with my 660Ti, so I tried enabling the Above 4G and then again installing the TitanX, but still "b2" error.  Having the 660Ti is pretty valuable as a reference since I have it to bail me out of non-working BIOSes that I otherwise could not boot out of.  

I certainly appreciate ASRock following up with me so quickly.  I have already relayed back that the new P3.30K is non-compatible with Titan X, and that I welcome further testing. 
X79 Extreme 11 / Intl Core i7 3930K/ 32gb DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengnce/ Win 7 64bit / Thermaltake 1500 W PSU / GTX Titan X
GPU Rendering - 4 Titan Z (external USB 3.0 PCIE riser)/ EVGA 1600 W PSU (2)

Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 5885
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2015 at 3:59am
Glad to hear Asrock tech support is on it, good luck Thumbs Up
Back to Top
GPUnk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPUnk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2015 at 3:42pm
I received BIOS P3.30N with a 4G option (made me happy, with 'N' after 'M' LOL).  They stated it was based off the P3.30M, which to me was the only BIOS which thus far had supported the Titan X.

When I tested, both the Titan X and 660 Ti booted by themselves as primary with 4G into Windows.

However, when booted > 10 GPU cores, both Titan X and 660 Ti gave "d4" error (PCI resource allocation).
I was able to confirm too, through process of isolation, that all cards are functioning independent of one another.  So under 4G option, if < 10, fine.  If > 10, "d4".

What is interesting is that on the ones with the 4G option that the Titan X could not boot off of, P3.30F and P3.30K, the 660 Ti posted with > 10 GPU under the 4G option.

So, I replied back with all of this (more succinctly, I just said I wanted Titan X to boot >10 GPU cores under 4G like the 660 Ti had booted with >10 cores under 4G, on P3.30F and P3.30K...), I will see what they say.   
I told them I welcome the testing and assistance, they are very responsive Clap


X79 Extreme 11 / Intl Core i7 3930K/ 32gb DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengnce/ Win 7 64bit / Thermaltake 1500 W PSU / GTX Titan X
GPU Rendering - 4 Titan Z (external USB 3.0 PCIE riser)/ EVGA 1600 W PSU (2)

Back to Top
GPUnk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPUnk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2015 at 4:16pm
Another Update:

Received BIOS P3.30O, and it allowed me to boot into Win 7 64 with > 10 GPU attached under the 4G option, while using the Titan X as primary display, which is what I wanted.  I then looked to see what was different in BIOS, and it turned out that in Storage Configuration, Marvell eSata option was disabled in this new BIOS by default, whereas in the other BIOS it was by default enabled.

So, now I am out of BIOS world and into OS world, booted into windows.  All 11 GPU cores are listed in Device manager, BUT 1 core (a Titan Z core, as in 1/2 of a Titan Z) has the Yellow Triangle Error Code 43 thing happening, netting me 10 active GPU cores (1 Titan X, 9 Titan Z).  Doing some research it appears that the BIOS plays a role in allocating IO space for devices, and at root is responsible for # of max GPU.  However it is not exactly clear if I am facing a continuing BIOS issue, or an OS issue of some sort.  I have seen registry hacks attempting to unlock this type of error, with inconsistent results.

I asked the same ASRock support supplying the BIOSes to see what they think.  I asked if there were any mods that might enable this last 11th core.  
X79 Extreme 11 / Intl Core i7 3930K/ 32gb DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengnce/ Win 7 64bit / Thermaltake 1500 W PSU / GTX Titan X
GPU Rendering - 4 Titan Z (external USB 3.0 PCIE riser)/ EVGA 1600 W PSU (2)

Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 5885
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2015 at 5:49pm
Nice to see you are making progress. I applaud your patience as well as the constant updates Smile

Good luck getting that beast of a machine purring like a kitten Big smile 


Edited by Xaltar - 04 Jul 2015 at 6:14pm
Back to Top
GPUnk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPUnk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 12:43am
I received a response from ASRock R&D basically saying there is no restriction on the # of GPU's per say placed in a BIOS or motherboard.  However, if address space is not allocated to a GPU, it may not function properly...

I don't know if they were referring to BIOS or OS as far as the address space goes, but I am going to assume they are speaking of BIOS.

So, I am now asking them if there is a setting that can be modified in BIOS which will allow the user allocate address space to a GPU.  I have no idea if that term 'address space' could mean more power, memory, or what....but I will see how they answer my question.  

You know, there seems to be a lot of people saying things like:
"Windows 7 can only support 4 GPU (then 6, then 8 GPU in other posts)....", or "upgrade to Windows 8, and you will get one more GPU recognized by the OS", or "motherboards only typically support 7-8 GPU."
But, how do people know this, it half feels like vague new territory sometimes.  

Also FYI, not only does device manager show 11 GPU (with one having a yellow triangle), but GPU-Z shows 11 GPU, just that one has an unknown BIOS.  I tried less than 10 GPU will all the cards, and the 1 will always install itself if it was the one previously unrecognized.  But as soon as I go above 10, then a new 11th takes its place, tries to install and cannot.  That feels like a 'resource issue' with Windows 7 address space, but I have no idea what that resource space consists of, or how to stretch that space further.  Anyway, I will update! Embarrassed
X79 Extreme 11 / Intl Core i7 3930K/ 32gb DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengnce/ Win 7 64bit / Thermaltake 1500 W PSU / GTX Titan X
GPU Rendering - 4 Titan Z (external USB 3.0 PCIE riser)/ EVGA 1600 W PSU (2)

Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 5885
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 1:20am
One thing I can think of that may help is disabling all unnecessary devices in BIOS, that may free up some address space for the additional GPU. I doubt it will help but its worth a shot while you wait Wink 
Back to Top
GPUnk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPUnk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 4:01am
I actually tried disabling LSI Connector (extra non-boot SATA drive connections on mobo, I think), and USB 3.0 in BIOS, and tried installing the last rogue core...
Guess what happened...BSOD.  Oh well....

Just a piece of info to share, 2 of my Z's (4 cores) are by default overclocked.  I actually tried overclocking all of my active 10 GPU cores simultaneously for added render power insanity.  With my active 10 GPU cards overclocked (core clock) by 100 MHz on MSI Afterburner, my 15 Amp breaker for rig trips.  In fact, during an extended render w/o overclock (15 minutes), the power draw also tripped the breaker.  Temps were all > 85 C across last I saw before I tripped.  This makes me realize I am facing a more innate limit of electrical power if cards are maxed.  So, I have to limit usage (ie lower temp, less active cores) on longer render projects, ie videos involving a lot of simulated lighting.  (Lighting, and hair rendering, is a killer...)  I would like that last core active for those shorter burst image renders.  Some people who bitcoin attach their rigs to 20 amp outlets on their breaker to avoid tripping.  The gaming, bitcoin, and rendering communities often come across the same issues, because of a desire to throttle GPUs.   Many discussions surround manipulating the BIOS and motherboard (jumpers, pcie lanes) to achieve this.

But thanks for the suggestion.  I am wondering in my case where device manager and GPU-Z 'see' the 11th core, does this mean that I am actually beyond a need to manipulate the BIOS any further.
X79 Extreme 11 / Intl Core i7 3930K/ 32gb DDR3 1600 Corsair Vengnce/ Win 7 64bit / Thermaltake 1500 W PSU / GTX Titan X
GPU Rendering - 4 Titan Z (external USB 3.0 PCIE riser)/ EVGA 1600 W PSU (2)

Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 5885
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 12:55pm
The hardware addresses in modern systems are assigned dynamically. Its been a while but if memory serves each piece of hardware needs an IRQ (interrupt request), IO ranges and memory ranges. Things like GPUs need more IO and memory range allocation than other more simple hardware. If you look under device manager -> device properties -> Resources you will see what windows assigns to the device. So far as I am aware resource allocation is taken care of by PnP (plug and play) and allocated by windows. I know there used to be a way to force resource allocation but I have long since forgotten how to do it. This was back in the days of windows 98se trying to get 4 different sound cards to play nice together for a studio recording rig hehe. 

Looking under resources in windows 8.1 I see there is a check box to allow changing the allocation manually but it is grayed out. The resource tab will also show you conflicts, if you open up the properties of the GPU that is flagged "!" it may give you more info as to where the conflict is coming from. Back in the days of windows 95/98 these problems were a lot more common place and building systems back then often meant spending hours allocating resources to hardware that was trying to share with incompatible devices, especially with purpose built systems like studio/sound setups. I suspect that the checkbox to allow manual allocation may become available in the advent of a conflict. 

Another thing that may be useful to try is uninstalling Xfast RAM. Xfast RAM makes memory in the "memory hole" available to the system. Memory holes in the past were often used as additional resource allocation on certain devices so removing Xfast RAM may give your more resources to play with. I know there used to be an option on old socket 3-7 (486-Pentium) boards to enable/disable the 15-16mb hole for ISA expansion cards but I have not read up on the technicalities in modern boards for quite some time. May be worth a look.

Sorry about all the clarifications in brackets, I was trying to make sure anyone else reading could follow the conversation. Your particular case is a very interesting one Big smile


Edited by Xaltar - 08 Jul 2015 at 12:56pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.06
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.