|
AGESA 1.0.0.6 |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 910111213 21> |
| Author | ||
Burstaholic 
Newbie 
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 Status: Offline Points: 5 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 10:21pm |
|
|
Small update, since my big tweaking session I've rebooted several times for various updates, and now it seems to be reliably booting with my RAM at 3066, so that's nice.
Not sure why it seems to have "settled down," but I'll take it.
|
||
 |
||
|
Heuvanek
Newbie
Joined: 10 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 19 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 1:48am |
|
|
I would like to believe that asrock is not in fault, but...
With the Asusmotherboard, there is a long moment that we see a lot of ram references working at their nominal frequency (I dont know for other constructers) So how believe that is the amd fault when asus have significantly less problem with the same Agesa ? hard to believe. I had test to do with this motherboard/ram, and i cant, cause never working at nominal clock. I guess in one month we will get the 2.6 bios "Update Agesa Version string "SummitPI-AM4 1.0.0.6a" sorry, its true, i lose my patience. Edited by Heuvanek - 15 Jun 2017 at 1:53am |
||
|
||
|
AlbinoRhino
Newbie
Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 153 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 2:23am |
|
What board do you have? My Asrock board has 1.0.0.6. |
||
|
||
|
Pinscher
Newbie
Joined: 21 Apr 2017 Location: Vancouver Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Jun 2017 at 1:02am |
|
|
My update to 2.6 was successful and i'm able to run my 3200 memory at 3433, though i am no longer able to make memory timing attempts without clearing the CMOS after each failed attempt.
Brutal when you're trying to figure out what is bootable setting. Also, when at max speed, the system is hanging in awkward ways. From Asrock anyways, it seems that comparability has increased boot-ability at the cost of stability.
|
||
|
||
|
wardog
Moderator Group 
Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Jun 2017 at 8:46am |
|
Yeppers Here's some AIDA64 Cache and Memory benches using Cursair CMK16GX4M2B3600C18 2x8GB Kit. I've been busy here   16-16-16-16-34 1T  16-17-17-17-35 1T  18-17-17-17-36 1T  18-17-17-17-36 1T  HWiNFO  |
||
|
||
|
parsec
Moderator Group
Joined: 04 May 2015 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 4996 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Jun 2017 at 10:36am |
|
|
The same, identical models of memory, and a lot of them, are working at their nominal speeds on Asus mother boards, with significantly less problems, but not on ASRock mother boards. This is also comparing boards in the same price range? You had made some serious claims, with zero data and other information to prove that it is true. Anyone can do that. Anyone can say anything. When I see posts like this, I immediately know they cannot be believed. Right, the AGESA version string in the UEFI/BIOS actually proves what microcode version is in it. There is another way to check if the processor microcode changed after a UEFI update now, without looking into the UEFI file, or running a program that simply reads whatever characters are in the AGESA string field, which could be anything, but I guess you don't know how to do that? |
||
|
||
|
||
|
wardog
Moderator Group
Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Jun 2017 at 11:38am |
|
I'm not piggybacking parsecs thoughts but would like to add my own observation that he missed. Consider that are far more ASUS motherboards sold than any other manufacturer. Thus you will see and read more posts concerning their boards when compared to ASRock. This has been true for years and if you look subjectively at it it goes to say. More boards equates to more mem being exposed that work.
My patience with AMD is becoming strained. All Ryzen early adopter have become guinea pigs while they sort out this AGESA mess. ASUS uses the same AGESA releases that others do. They are no different in this matter than the next. So I must disagree when you state "its true'. Edited by wardog - 21 Jun 2017 at 11:39am |
||
|
||
|
Xaltar
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 May 2015 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 24653 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Jun 2017 at 1:52pm |
|
|
Guys, I understand the frustration but please bare in mind that this issue is platform wide, it does not only effect ASRock.
We saw similar issues with the launch of X99 and Z170, it took months before RAM compatibility became a non issue (provided you used supported kits). With intel it made less of a splash because with intel the RAM speed did not impact gaming in any significant way. Now with Ryzen there is a slight impact but many people seem to think that the margins are night and day, they are most certainly not. With anything short of a GTX 1070 you will not notice any gains/deficit, 1 - 5fps in games running over 60fps is widely considered within the margin of error and could be caused by an update running in the background or open browser tab refreshing. The ONLY game that people seem to be citing as showing a large difference is Rise of the Tomb Raider and that is because of poor testing, not faster RAM. Any time you see someone show 10 - 20fps improvements in Rise of the Tomb Raider it is because they did not retest the slower RAM with the RoTR Ryzen Performance patch. A lot of reviewers will rely on old tests to get reviews/videos out faster, in this case it means that the results are completely inaccurate. The correct difference on a 1080 is about 5fps between 2133 and 3200. If you look around at other reviews/memory test videos you will see what I mean. I discovered all this while doing my own testing and benchmarks for the review I am currently working on. I am testing RAM performance extensively.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Burstaholic
Newbie
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Jun 2017 at 1:19am |
|
|
Good grief. The AGESA code is the same for everyone, but obviously everyone's actual BIOS is different, and therefore the process of integrating the two is at least a little different. If you don't understand/believe that I could dig up links to statements from AMD and others explicitly saying so, but come on.
Software is complicated - from the outside we do not have enough information to share out blame. Maybe ASRock is having a harder time making the new AGESA play nice with their BIOS and hardware than other vendors, but if for example it is because of some cool feature they have that others don't, it would be worth it. Maybe AMD's changes do something that's harder to adapt to some random choice ASRock made writing their BIOS that others made differently - is that AMD's fault for screwing them over, or their fault for not being clairvoyant? Neither, because software is complicated and there's no way to anticipate every problem and complication. We don't have enough information to share out blame in a useful way and angry speculation isn't helpful, especially going round with "It could be A's fault!" "Yes, but it could also be B's fault" endlessly. |
||
|
||
|
Xaltar
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 May 2015 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 24653 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Jun 2017 at 4:20am |
|
|
Thanks for the comment Burstaholic. What we are seeing, from all board partners, is classic new platform teething issues. It happens every time we see a completely new architecture. I think the problem stems largely from AMD not having released anything truly new for almost a decade. AMD fans have not been subjected to the teething issues new platforms bring. AMD may have been behind the tech curve but their products were matured and bug free for the most part.
Regardless of AGESA code and teething issues Ryzen is a huge success IMO. I am loving my Ryzen system, bugs and all. I am enjoying tinkering with it and trying to find that magical UEFI setup/version that will allow me to run my RAM at 3600 without stability issues. I am an early adopter junky tho, for me it's half the fun. That said, most users don't have half a dozen PCs up and running at any given time and something like instability ceases to be amusing as a challenge and becomes problematic. I fully understand the frustration. I want users to be aware that there is a lot less to be gained by RAM frequency than most reviews/articles claim. Sure, if you are using a GTX 1080, 144hz monitor and want to trounce intel gaming performance then RAM is where you need to look but for most people on lower tier GPUs it isn't anywhere near as significant. 100fps vs 110fps is not even going to be visible on a 60hz monitor, 5 seconds quicker in X or Y benchmark isn't going to magically make your PC feel snappier. AMD caught flack for Ryzen not matching up to intel in 1080p gaming on high end hardware, RAM speeds in part contributed to this fact. Fans have taken this and really run with it....
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 910111213 21> |
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 |
Topic Options
Heuvanek wrote: