AMD response to AGESA/BIOS query.

JUANNY wrote: SoniC wrote: Aaaand the results from 1.71 testing are in.... that was fast! OMG!! IT IS WORKING! My memory problems are solved! I now remember even who I was in the last life and I can predict future now! ... ... ... unfortunately - just joking. Results as expected --- no difference between 1.70, 1.71 and 1.80. Maybe they have fixed a bug with 128GB RAM, maybe some users did some mistakes or reported just a placebo effect... dunno... Max stable for me is... 2933 with 4 d-s sticks. Samsung B-Die. Pity. Im not surprised we will have to wait until AMD os Asrock clarifies whether TR is physically limited to 2933ish or thereabout. Odd that the board is advertised to support 3600+ in the product page

TR and AM4 memory speed and memory OC specs are from AMD, mother board manufactures simply pass them on. Some low end AM4 boards won't reach the same memory OC speeds of better boards, but that should not apply to X399.

TR currently not meeting its memory speed specs? Welcome to Ryzen and Ryzen derivative processors! The memory controller is part of the processor, and memory compatibility and speed is primarily determined by the AMD AGESA processor microcode that is part of the UEFI/BIOS.

AM4 board owners lived through the same type of fiasco with memory compatibility and speed. We had several AM4 AGESA updates, and our memory OC speeds slowly improved. But AMD is not done yet with the AM4 AGESA updates. The upcoming AM4 1.0.0.7 update is such a big change that it requires major rewrites of the UEFI/BIOS code. Memory compatibility and OC speed is still a work in progress for AM4 and TR. But AM4 and TR is AMD's first time with DDR4, Intel is on its fifth platform using DDR4.

AM4 memory compatibility and OC capability with existing DDR4 memory, and even DDR4 designed for AM4 is easily described in one word. Random. The best we know is Samsung B-die, but there is more to it than that, not that we know what it is. Some memory released for the first two (Intel) DDR4 platforms can OC over 3200 on X370 boards, but most won't. My G.SKILL FlareX 3200 memory, "designed for Ryzen", finally reached 3200 with my X370 board's latest UEFI/BIOS/AGESA version, but with manual entry of the secondary and tertiary memory timings with settings found on the Internet.

Comparing the history of Intel's and AMD's use of DDR4 is an interesting story. Starting with Intel's X99 system, we got a couple memory divider OCs over the max stock specs. But with nothing to compare it with, who could complain? No one did. Then with each new Intel system, the OC speeds got a little better. No one did better, so nothing to compare it with.

Now Intel's X299 and Z370 systems have DDR4 OC specs of speeds over 4000. AM4 and TR users see that and wonder what the problem is. AMD is still learning, and their first generation DDR4 memory controllers cannot be expected to be the equal of Intel's fourth and fifth generation DDR4 memory controllers. That is the reality, in contrast to what some users expect and want from AMD.

Yes, AMD over-specified their memory OCs early on, and maybe they won't be reached. But all OCs are not guaranteed, right? How soon we forget. Or do we acknowledge that?

SoniC wrote: Aaaand the results from 1.71 testing are in.... that was fast! OMG!! IT IS WORKING! My memory problems are solved! I now remember even who I was in the last life and I can predict future now! ... ... ... unfortunately - just joking. Results as expected --- no difference between 1.70, 1.71 and 1.80. Maybe they have fixed a bug with 128GB RAM, maybe some users did some mistakes or reported just a placebo effect... dunno... Max stable for me is... 2933 with 4 d-s sticks. Samsung B-Die. Pity.

Im not surprised we will have to wait until AMD os Asrock clarifies whether TR is physically limited to 2933ish or thereabout. Odd that the board is advertised to support 3600+ in the product page

Yeah.... overlooked it...

SoniC wrote: MisterJ wrote: Thanks SoniC and JUANNY.  How SAD!  This really stinks.  I hope some of the users of Beta 1.71 will try 1.80 and let us hear how they compare.  Have either of you tried 1.71?  Thanks and enjoy, John. 1.71?  There was no 1.71 beta ... at least not for the X399 FPG... or I overlooked it...

if youre interested in the beta I had it emailed to me from one of the forum members-it is older then todays releas bios so not sure if it is helpful or not-name of beta is X399PG1.71.rom-pm me if interested

Thanks SoniC and JUANNY.  How SAD!  This really stinks.  I hope some of the users of Beta 1.71 will try 1.80 and let us hear how they compare.  Have either of you tried 1.71?  Thanks and enjoy, John.