ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > AMD Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - AGESA 1.0.0.6a
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

AGESA 1.0.0.6a

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 22>
Author
Message
Jakob View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 25 Jun 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jakob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 10:30pm
Yes, but why and what are they doing differently? We don't have any info in that and it seems to me, neither does ASRock. ...
Back to Top
Teckie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 12 Jun 2017
Location: GA
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Teckie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 3:24am
Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.
Ryzen 1700X
Asrock X370 Fatal1ty prof gaming (1.0.0.6a)
G.Skill 8gx2 3200 FlareX 14-14-14-34 CAS 14 (F4-3200C14D-16GFX)
EVGA G3 750 80Gold
EVGA clc 280 AIO
960 EVO M.2
860 EVO SSD
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6277
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 9:30am
Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked

X370 SLI/ac(r1.03, BIOS 4.80), 1500X, H115i, F4-4133C19D-16GTZA, 850 EVO 500GB+1TB, ThermalTake Core X9 Black

16,441 - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/13030306
Back to Top
Jakob View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 25 Jun 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jakob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 12:49pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO.?


This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked




It could indicate a faulty manufacturing process, could it not?
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6277
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by Jakob Jakob wrote:

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO.?


This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked




It could indicate a faulty manufacturing process, could it not?


It could indicate faulty User processes too, could it not? just sayin'


Lets stop with the speculation and rumor mongering like a gaggle of old ladies at knitting night.
X370 SLI/ac(r1.03, BIOS 4.80), 1500X, H115i, F4-4133C19D-16GTZA, 850 EVO 500GB+1TB, ThermalTake Core X9 Black

16,441 - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/13030306
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 4768
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 2:10pm
Here we go again with the blame throwing and "but manufacturer X can do it" comments.

I am not going to jump in here and defend ASRock, ASRock is in the same boat as everyone else with this. Stating that other manufacturers had better results from day one... I am sorry I just can't swallow that. The statement has no basis in fact, all manufacturers have success stories from early on but for every success story there were horror stories. All you need to do is look at day one Ryzen reviews and take a note of all the complaints using RAM that AMD actually provided in the Review kits. This RAM was cherry picked and still had problems with the platforms it was provided with. 

The truth is, every manufacturer has had and still has issues with RAM since day one. Those instances that show otherwise are with particular RAM kits, most notably Samsung B-Die kits which worked fine with ASRock's boards too from the start in most cases, at least enabling 2933. 

Could there be manufacturing issues with the new AM4 designs? It is certainly possible that the designs need some refinement and tweaking given the new nature of the platform. This could have been said of every generational board release since the advent of the PC. I highly doubt that something like that is the cause of the "issues" people are having with RAM compatibility, a design/manufacture flaw would be more prominent and prevent all users using any RAM from being able to achieve stability beyond a certain frequency if at all. 

I think people underestimate the diversity of RAM manufacturing. RAM is not RAM, there are numerous differences in RAM kits, even within the product stack of a single manufacturer. Often we can even find RAM of the same model using different RAM chips because the manufacturer ran out of X and substituted Y, this is why we always stress the importance of getting your RAM kits (if more than one) at the same time and with serial numbers that are as close to one another as possible. Many users are not even aware that RAM has firmware, every RAM module has a ROM on it that is programmed with it's timings, voltage etc. If RAM were truly "plug and play" and made to an exacting standard then this would not be necessary. RAM is a complex piece of hardware, one that is often regarded as simple or inconsequential because by and large it has typically been a case of plug it in and go. 

Most users never experience memory compatibility issues. For those that do often times, in the case of established platforms, it comes down to BIOS support from the motherboard manufacturer. So I do understand where all this is coming from. This is not the whole story with Ryzen though, it is a new platform, RAM manufacturers are scrambling to adjust their products for compatibility, AMD is trying to address issues with AGESA and motherboard manufacturers are doing their best to do the same. We have 3 groups all trying to fix something and in a lot of cases we will see the "too many cooks" adage hold true. 

When I was doing my review on the X370 Taichi I had no issues getting my 3600 Samsung B-Die RAM to work with older UEFI versions @3200. I did have issues with 2.4 which includes AGESA 1.0.0.6. I found a workaround but it still was not as solid for me as previous versions. When I tested my 2800 non B-Die kit however, it worked perfectly. It did not allow anything past 2666 on older versions but with 2.4 went all the way to 2800 without issue. This is because of the differences from one kit to the next, a fix for one could break things for another. This is not a motherboard manufacturer caused issue but simply the nature of a new platform with unestablished parameters.  

Every now and again one or another manufacturer will hit on a lucky fix or workaround that will give them the edge, that is just how competition works. 


Edited by Xaltar - 03 Jul 2017 at 2:30pm
Back to Top
noneis View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jun 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote noneis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked



Some subtimings are tighter with AGESA 1.0.0.6 and some are looser. That explains a lot.  tRC, tWTRL, tWR, tCWL, tRTP,... are tighter and tRRDL, tFAW, tRDWR, tRFC,... are looser.
AGESA 1.0.0.6 BIOS defaulted for me to 1T without Geardown unlike 1.0.0.4a which deafulted to 1T with Geardown. I didn't have patience to test subtimings to get 3066/3200 memory clock when P-State 1&2 overclock didn't work. 


Edited by noneis - 03 Jul 2017 at 7:15pm
Back to Top
Joe_User View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 Jun 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe_User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2017 at 1:15am
Memory speed is dependent on SoC memory controller timing parameters, PCB layout, memory module timing+layout.  The layout quality affect signal integrity while the chip timings (aka Silicon Lottery) affect the timing margins.

The physical parts have not changed across BIOS updates, so that leaves the timing parameters for the BIOS defaults profiles.  Most users probably not playing with custom timing.

You can try the experiment by looking at the actual parameters using Ryzen Timing Checker of one BIOS version vs the other.

Back to Top
ZeroSynk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 30 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ZeroSynk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2017 at 2:17am
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked


I think it depends on the kit of memory. On 1.0.0.4 really all bios before agesa 1.0.0.6 I could not get my dual rank 32GB kit to 3200.  With 1.0.0.6 I can, and I am running some pretty tight timings as well.

14-15-14-21-29-1 (tCAS-tRC-tRP-tRAS-tCS-tCR)
https://valid.x86.fr/h1yzfa

And my subtimings are even tighter.


Back to Top
glhrmbhnrt View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jun 2017
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote glhrmbhnrt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2017 at 9:36pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Coming to an ASRock motherboard near you. Soon. REAL soon.

Keep an eye peeled.


I'm refreshing the bios page of my MB every day, Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4.
Is there any possible date for this new bios to arrive?
Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4
Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz 1.37v
G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C16-8GTZ @ 2933Mhz 14-14-14-31 1T - 2x8gb 1.35v
Seasonic 620w
Sapphire R9 290
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 22>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.06
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.