Z170 Pro4/D3 Beta BIOS needs attention |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||||||
peroni
Newbie Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Status: Offline Points: 65 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 29 Jan 2016 at 2:52am |
|||||
Well done with the Pro4, it is a sincere piece of hw, not too expensive but, so far, reliable and with nearly all the options that more expensive z170 boards have.
It scared me a couple of times when trying to find the optimum UEFI settings but nothing I could not eventually resolve. I think I have flashed the bios at least 10 times. Have not tried skyoc yet, I'm using iGPU and frankly it runs every game I throw at it with decent framerate at 1920x1200 with low or medium quality in game settings Bios 2.80 allowed me to set a BLCK of 103Mhz while the latest 3.10 is not stable past 102Mhz but the difference is minimal in games. It is a lot more important to try and keep the HD530 at its maximum speed without throttling.
Edited by peroni - 29 Jan 2016 at 3:12am |
||||||
Z170 PRO4
i5 6600 2x8GB Corsair DDR3000 SSD 950 Pro (OS) 850 Evo (data) GTX 960 4GB 2x LCD |
||||||
cainn24
Newbie Joined: 25 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 13 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
When I built this system I was initially going to go for a DDR4 board and an i5-6600k. But when I was researching all the options I did of course stumble across the Skylake BCLK OC phenomenon. The idea that Intel had taken control of the overclocking situation with a "yes, you can overclock, but only if you pay more for special CPUs and motherboards" approach had always bothered me so this discovery had me rejoicing. Somewhat "drunk" on the prospect of saving money and sticking it to Intel I thought why not go even further. Not only does Intel say "no overclocking for you" to a bunch of people, they also say "sorry, no, you can't use your old 1.5v DDR3 modules either". Now that's kinda fair enough if it's actually true, but when every major motherboard manufacturer is disagreeing with that assessment by way of producing Skylake boards that do in fact support 1.5v DDR3 modules, I'm thinking that it's ultimately more Intel nonsense that should be rejected. Shortened CPU lifespan? Maybe. But so what. That's a risk I have been taking since the dawn of overclocking, and as it turns out it was never a real risk at all given the nature of the average enthusiasts upgrade cycle. There are always exceptions of course, but they call them exceptions for a reason. If we lived our lives with constant reference to worst-case scenarios we'd never do anything. We'd barely have any fun. Being a little bit reckless can be invigorating, and we're hardly talking about life and death here.
Anyway... The problem with sticking it to Intel though, twice, is that the Z170 DDR3 boards are pretty low-end. I guess it makes sense that they are since most people who are looking to hold onto their DDR3 modules are probably budget conscious. And the fact that the Pro4/D3 might not ever get me into the performance ballpark I was initially aiming for, and might not be a great option moving forward, had started to bug me on some deep level, and I eventually acknowledged to myself that I was never going to be truly happy with this particular build. So I've now picked up a DDR4 board instead. The Pro4 specifically, which I got a great deal on. Better layout, better regulation (I think) and a more comprehensive array of OC-related BIOS options. I already have my i5-6400 up to 4.2 GHz and I'm sure I can get a little higher. It's still an entry-level overclockers board but I'm much happier with the build now. Still can't get Ubuntu to boot when doing a BCLK OC though, so I suspect that it's a widespread issue. I have posted about it here: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/hardware/processors-memory/848450-bclk-overclocking-on-z170-skylake-chipsets-prevents-ubuntu-from-booting I will probably post all future updates (and hopefully successes) there as well. Edited by cainn24 - 29 Jan 2016 at 7:12am |
||||||
cainn24
Newbie Joined: 25 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 13 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
I stumbled across that thread myself, and have tried all those options already (the nolapic option would disable all cores except one even if it did help I think, but it doesn't anyway). I've also tried arguments that relate to cpu frequency scaling, arguments that [purportedly] handle BIOS frequency limitations; pretty much anything that sounds even remotely related to my problem (and even a bunch of things that don't). To be honest I'm mostly flailing around in the dark hoping I get lucky, but my understanding of the issues involved here is nonetheless starting to take shape so hopefully I will get somewhere eventually.
Good thinking 99. But no cigar unfortunately. Thanks for your efforts nonetheless :) Edited by cainn24 - 28 Jan 2016 at 2:58am |
||||||
wardog
Moderator Group Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||||
Dang, ya know what?
Right after I edited my post above, nolapic, I had a brain storm. Maybe Go into the BIOS, disable HPET, and retry. |
||||||
wardog
Moderator Group Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||||
I'll post the below link with your understanding I know absolutely ZERO concerning linux
http://askubuntu.com/questions/691216/no-version-of-ubuntu-can-be-installed-with-any-skylake-6th-generation-intel-proc nomodeset / nolapic Edited by wardog - 27 Jan 2016 at 7:14pm |
||||||
cainn24
Newbie Joined: 25 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 13 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
So, the 1.90 BIOS is now available. However I am disappointed to report that all the same issues remain. I can't boot Ubuntu even with the smallest BLCK adjustment, the "Max Battery" boot performance setting stills locks the multiplier to x8 (even in Windows under load) and there is still the occasional UEFI GUI freeze (mouse cursor still moves but the GUI elements become unresponsive) whether I am overclocking or not.
I've also tried the automagical Sky OC "press X to overclock" feature (which seems to lock the OC to a speed that while higher than base is still less than the CPU's turbo boost speed? :/) and it doesn't behave any differently from a manual OC. I suspected that this would be the case but I tried it anyway. Vcore adjustments seem to be more reliable in the sense that they actually stick but since the problem was intermittent before only further testing will confirm an improvement. I haven't tried OC'ing beyond 4GHz on the new BIOS yet to see if there are any stability improvements but it's kind of a moot point anyway if I can't boot into Ubuntu (I do most of my gaming in Windows, but most of my really CPU intensive tasks in Ubuntu). There's probably just the right kernel argument (or combination thereof) out there somewhere to serve as a workaround but I haven't found it yet. At this point I'd like to encourage anyone who stumbles across this thread via a google search to sign up and report on their own experiences with BCLK OC'ing on this same motherboard as it would be profoundly useful to know whether or not I am the only one having these problems. Please :) I will of course wait to hear back from Asrock support before I decide what to do moving forward. Thanks for the input so far everyone :)
Edited by cainn24 - 27 Jan 2016 at 4:41pm |
||||||
Xaltar
Moderator Group Joined: 16 May 2015 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 25073 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
I would hold on for a bit for the Skylake prime bug fix BIOS to be released for your board, most other boards have updates available now so it shouldn't be long.
|
||||||
cainn24
Newbie Joined: 25 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 13 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Small update:
The Linux (Ubuntu 15.10) boot issue doesn't appear to be stability-related since even the tiniest of overclocks (110MHz BLCK for example) stops it from booting (hangs with a flashing cursor after grub with no useful information logged). This suggests that the issue might be related to bad handling of a scenario involving disabled CPU features or something like that. Knowing that Skylake support was basically sort of hacked together for 15.10 I decided to update it to kernel 4.3, but the boot failure persists in an identical fashion. Even a daily build of 16.04 behaved in precisely the same way. Again all it takes to make it all work again is to set the BCLK back to 100MHz. This is getting to be a bit of a deal-breaker. As it stands it would have made more sense to get a cheaper board with a low-end chipset to pair with something like an i5-6600. Roughly the same outlay, roughly the same performance (as my 4GHz i5-6400 OC) but without all the drama. Still hoping the situation can be salvaged with a BIOS update of course.
Edited by cainn24 - 27 Jan 2016 at 6:46am |
||||||
cainn24
Newbie Joined: 25 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 13 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Done :)
Enabling the Max Battery option is itself interfering with the overclock by virtue of locking the multiplier to a low value. Yes, that is appropriate behaviour, but only up until the point where the OS has booted. But for me it remains locked to x8 even after Windows has booted. This means that a 4GHz OC becomes a 1.2GHz underclock (while the baseclock remains at 150MHz). Setting it back to "Max Non-Turbo Performance" gets me back to 4GHz as a result of the multiplier being locked at x27, which is where it should be. "Max battery mode will set CPU ratio as x8 until OS handoff" Given the description, and the fact that it is the recommended setting for BCLK overclocking, one would have to conclude that this is a bug, right? Why bother with the setting then? My thinking is that it might solve some intermittent boot issues and help facilitate higher overclocks (by putting less initial strain on the system), so it seems like a useful feature. As such I'd like to see it working properly :)
Sure.
I haven't checked the log yet. But the system has no trouble coming out of sleep when I'm not overclocking.
The BIOS on this board is sparsely populated with settings compared to some other Asrock Z170 boards. I've disabled things like Speedstep and Turbo Boost obviously. I keep the RAM within spec. I keep the vcore at or close to 1.325v. About the only "special" BCLK OC-related option is the one that doesn't work properly: "Boot performance mode".
Yes, it boots fine when everything is running at stock speeds. It also wont boot with the "Max Battery" option, which as described above seems to result in a permanent (for the boot cycle at hand anyway) underclock.
Edited by cainn24 - 26 Jan 2016 at 5:59pm |
||||||
parsec
Moderator Group Joined: 04 May 2015 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 4996 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
No idea about the engineers, whom don't forget are in Taiwan.
You can contact ASRock Technical Support via the form on this page: http://event.asrock.com/tsd.asp The Max Battery option is supposed to do what you are experiencing. It keeps the core multipliers at a fixed setting so they don't interfere with a BCLK OC. Recall that C States are not active when doing a BCLK OC, since they do just that, vary the multiplier among other things. Back when over clocking was done mainly by the BCLK, disabling C States was a common practice for stability. Sometimes video cards have problems with coming out of Sleep, and a PSU can too. Did you check the Windows Event Log for any clues? What are your basic settings for your 4GHz OC? BCLK, multiplier for All Cores? Multi Core Enhancement should be Disabled. Do you have any special BCLK options (some boards do) that may make a BCLK OC more stable? Linux would boot for you when you are not using your BCLK OC? |
||||||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |