ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > AMD Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - no reaction after contacting support 4 weeks ago
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

no reaction after contacting support 4 weeks ago

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
WKjun View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 17 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WKjun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: no reaction after contacting support 4 weeks ago
    Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 8:09pm
I've reported two issues regarding FX-9590 unstable Turbo Mode, RAM incompatibility and overheating due to wrong default CPU Offset Voltage on the 970 Performance to ASRock (http://event.asrock.com/tsd.asp - German language) four weeks ago! No reaction, except for two confirmation mails! How long does it usually take?! Or is (German) support non-existent? And is there any way to urge these support cases, so I do not have to write them again in English?!
 
Thanks for sharing your experience and advice!
 


Edited by WKjun - 05 Oct 2015 at 8:13pm
Back to Top
parsec View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 5003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote parsec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2015 at 11:58am
You may have better luck with support with a support request in English. Please understand there are still language barriers in our world today. I doubt that any mother board manufacture has support staff that speaks or can read all the more common languages in the world. English is the only language that is the most universal in our world.

I cannot and do not officially speak for ASRock's support team, and I am familiar with your other thread in this forum, so I will ask you directly. What response or action by ASRock support do you want?

In your other thread, you said the +50mv default CPU Offset voltage in the BIOS was more than necessary. Is that the value with the Multiplier/Voltage Change option set to Manual? Once you change to Manual, the CPU voltage settings are your responsibility. Manual is not a default setting.

Your statement in the other thread worries me and is confusing:

"I am not willing to experiment with undervolting to get a trustworthy system".

You're using the highest TDP processor available for PCs, and using Manual CPU voltage, but not willing to adjust it? If a 50mv offset voltage is to much, isn't reducing it under-volting?

The FX-9590 is an enthusiast's processor, it must be catered to in several ways, which includes the mother board being used. VRM cooling for this processor is essential when running Prime95. Recently, Intel users have begun to discover how terribly stressful Prime95 is. Haswell processors throttle their speeds in under a minute when reaching 100C+ running some version of Prime95. Those processors have a TDP of 84W.

The manual Offset Voltage default value is probably based upon the CPU being used. ASRock has used many FX-9590 processors for testing, at least 20 or 30. You had one or two. Unless that offset voltage value is a mistake, its value was chosen to accommodate the usual range of differences in processors.

IMO, AMD made a big mistake releasing a 220W TDP processor that is "compatible" with any AM3+ board with the appropriate BIOS. That is approaching twice the TDP of the FX-8350 (125W.) Intel has guidelines/requirements for minimum VRM capability for their over clocking chipset boards. Apparently AMD does not have this.

Speaking of which, did you have AMD Application Power Management enabled in the BIOS?

Your memory problem, for memory that is not in the QVL of both AM3+ boards you used, including this one, but because it worked in the other board means it is guaranteed to work in this one?

You said you had to set the memory to 800MHz (1600) to be Prime stable, but not stable at 1866 or 2133. The QVL for this board has very few entries over 1600, since these FX processors are not known for their great memory controllers. If you can get memory to work above 1600 with these processors, you are doing very well.
Back to Top
WKjun View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 17 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WKjun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2015 at 8:09pm
Hi Parsec!
 
Thanks a lot for throwing yourself into my problem, again. Hug
 
I fully understand what you mean by language barriers. BUT why do they offer several languages on their support webpage anyway, if it's no good?! A*** and G******* offer German support by the way...
 
What reaction I want? Isn't it courtesy to at least give a formal answer? On the other side a BIOS Update of course, which fixes the issues, at least the Turbo instability - reaching 5 GHz in Windows and benchmarks crashes them, with BIOS at default values! That's a major flaw! I don't know what or how long they have been testing the FX-9000 series on this board, but the second batch I have now makes no difference. Hence it becomes clear that it is a flaw in the whole series of 970 Performance.
 
As for the AMP/XMP profile compatible AMD RAM, my concern with it is not that it doesn't work, actually it works with the right manual settings, but it does not work at Auto, which does not set anything else than I do!
The reason why not much testing happens above 1600 MHz is not because of the allegedly medioce memory controller (I always use FX with 1866 or 2133), but because Intel does not support higher frequencies and AMD is not that present on the marked anymore. 1866 MHz is, however, officially supported.
But enough of RAM, it works manually adjusted and became a minor matter to me.
 
The Offset Voltage setting is automatically set by default to +50mV. To set it to 0mV manually is my only chance to confine VRM stress and temp, which most likely lead to the damage of my first board.
What I ment by "not willing to experiement with unvervolting" is, whatever CPU it is, ASRock gave official support for this board and there shouldn't be user-intervention necessary, but it is.
As I wrote, changing it does nothing for or against stability, but temperature. The name "Offset" speaks for itself, that it offsets the defaults. Each CPU has different Vcore values and reports the VID to the board which sets every C-state automatically right. I know of no board, that needs an offset to stabilize the given values (from AMD).
 
About prime95/VRM/CPU power usage, as I said, BIOS is at defaults, APM is active and therefore the CPU does not overheat at full load or any state. The CPU itself is cool enough and never uses more than the specified 220W. It's about the VRM and surrounding components. Any minor voltage raise stresses the board more.
 
I know your opinion/concern about AMD releasing such a CPU for AM3+ "without warning", but for me as a customer that isn't my problem! If a manufacturer deliberately declares a board to be FX-9000 compatible, I reckon with a proper VRM cooler onboard and usable default BIOS settings and it does not deliver what it promises, while others do! A decent CPU air-cooler like the NH-D1x is sufficient. Anyway, many users OC their CPU, deactivatie APM and so, these CPUs surely use more joice than a stock 9590.
 
Let's make an imaginary comparison:
Imagine you buy a car from ASRock, previously available with 125 hp, with a stock-tuned 220 hp engine from AMD. The cooling of the engine is difficult, but can be managed.
The problems:
.) gearbox overheats
.) torque is lower than it should be
.) and if final velocity is reached, a breakdown follows, where you have to stop and restart the car.
I cannot imagine the car vendor telling the customer, this engine so overpowered, it should never have been offered to us for this chassis and it's up to you to tweak the right settings manually, enhance cooling of the gearbox in the workshop, and so on...
 
What do you think? Do I really ask too much from ASRock here?


Edited by WKjun - 06 Oct 2015 at 8:16pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  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 0.094 seconds.