new beta bios for X399 is up on ASRock site

ajc9988 wrote: SoniC wrote: I am not sheepish, but overclocking it in a different way. That is why my system is stable. That is fine, and I can understand that. But an all core overclock is very common. That is why when I saw thread handling errors, I immediately stopped, troubleshot what caused the problem, and identified it as the overclocking on the cores, specifically keeping bclk at 100, then changing the multiplier for all cores. If it did it for one program that ran fine on the prior BIOS, it really is something for them to be aware of, especially approaching about 1 month before TR2. I'm hoping we see a new beta BIOS in the next week or so, that way to give feedback over the next month if we find anything. I do apologize for the more gruff response this morning. Guess the heat is getting to me (still no excuse). But I also hope I gave more information to show it is a legit concern and why.

Just out of curiosity, did you try giving the all core overclock that was stable on bios 2.00 a slight vcore bump ^ when trying bios 1.91E?, perhaps that particular bios (1.91E) need more vcore than the previous bios to be stable.

lowdog wrote: ajc9988 wrote: SoniC wrote: I am not sheepish, but overclocking it in a different way. That is why my system is stable. That is fine, and I can understand that. But an all core overclock is very common. That is why when I saw thread handling errors, I immediately stopped, troubleshot what caused the problem, and identified it as the overclocking on the cores, specifically keeping bclk at 100, then changing the multiplier for all cores. If it did it for one program that ran fine on the prior BIOS, it really is something for them to be aware of, especially approaching about 1 month before TR2. I'm hoping we see a new beta BIOS in the next week or so, that way to give feedback over the next month if we find anything. I do apologize for the more gruff response this morning. Guess the heat is getting to me (still no excuse). But I also hope I gave more information to show it is a legit concern and why. Just out of curiosity, did you try giving the all core overclock that was stable on bios 2.00 a slight vcore bump ^ when trying bios 1.91E?, perhaps that particular bios (1.91E) need more vcore than the previous bios to be stable.

To be honest, I cannot remember. After it failed, I remember going back to the 2.00 version. But, because we were headed into summer, around that time I started playing with what voltages worked with which multipliers for full stable in the hotter months so I cannot remember at all. I can probably go back and test in the next couple days. That is a great point. I do think I did try a higher voltage, but since I do not have it logged or clearly remember doing it, I cannot say for sure.

Edit: Also, if my voltage looks low in my signature, it is because I paid the premium for the top binning from Silicon Lottery. This chip can do 4.1 on all cores at 1.35V.



Edited by ajc9988 - 30 Jun 2018 at 10:46am

If the error with bios 1.91E was happening at stock it would be a worry but if it's only when overclocked it's more than likely a voltage matter?

Edited by lowdog - 30 Jun 2018 at 11:12am

I totally agree Asrock support for addressing BIOS issues is unacceptable. I still recommend TR to friends but I will not recommend Asrock MB compared to the competition.

lowdog wrote: antorsae wrote: I totally agree Asrock support for addressing BIOS issues is unacceptable. I still recommend TR to friends but I will not recommend Asrock MB compared to the competition. Exactly!....Asrock are just shooting themselves in the foot, they need to get some good bios programmers on board or else they will keep loosing customers because they can't sort out bios issues that other vendors don't have of at least fix. Honestly it was a first time Asrock buy for me when AM4 and TR4 came out, bought both the Fatality Pro Gaming boards and a X370 Taichi and I will not buy another Asrock motherboard again because their bios is nothing short of sub standard to put it simply.

First time Asrock owner, too. But, from the threads, etc., WE HAD LESS BIOS ISSUES THAN ASUS DID. They crank it out regularly, but have a lot of broken stuff in theirs. On offerings from MSI and Giga at the time of release, there really wasn't a good reason to get either of those.

With that said, I would like a more open BIOS like ASUS offers. And, if ASUS didn't try to bundle the 10Gbps card with the MB (added $100 to the price and all of my network is setup for 1Gbps, meaning it would go to waste), then they would have been in consideration (although I'm happy I didn't have to go through their BIOS firmware again, was a Maximus VIII Extreme owner).

Now, I do agree on getting a BIOS programmer that does what is needed. I don't know if Prema has worked much with AMD, but his work turning crappy Clevo stock BIOS into a working, thriving masterpiece is something I greatly respect. And he is starting to do desktop BIOS, or so I've heard. Forgot his actual name atm, but that is someone that knows how to take input from alpha and beta samples to good overclockers and tweak it to improve behavior and performance. I know Chew was giving feedback for awhile as well, don't know if that is still happening. But, I also read about all the others being broken on AGESA 1.0.0.6 back in May, don't know if it was ironed out or not by now. So let's keep with facts in calling for action.

I got this board to get away from ASUS firmware nightmare at times, and on board breakdown, and because giga was sending more volts and blowing up AM4, along with other recent issues historically, and the breakdown on the MSI board. Now, if EVGA did an X399 Dark board, I think I would jump ship (maybe wait until 7nm so that I might get PCIe 4 or 5 next year, but still).