Strange problem with X99M Extreme 4 motherboard

Hello,

Yesterday I bought a new i7 6800K with Asrock X99M Extreme 4 motherboard as they support the new processors after a BIOS update. Together with 16GB DDR4 Corsair memory. Connected it all but computer doesn't want to start. It gets stuck at BIOS code b7. So something with the memory/CPU according to the manual. I don't get to the UEFI at all yet to upgrade the BIOS for the new processor.


I reseated the CPU twice and also checked on bent pins. Nothing wrong and nothing changed, still b7.

Then memory, the manual said to put in only one stick. I tried 8-10 different combinations with random sticks and also combinations with 2 on the outside slots or 2 on the inside slots but again nothing helped. Stil b7 error on the LCD in the motherboard.

I checked the memory brand on Asrock.

http://www.asrock.nl/mb/Intel/X99M%20Extreme4/index.asp?cat=Memory&Model=X99M%20Extreme4&Vendor=Corsair

My set isn't listed there, I bought 4x 4GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX 2400mhz speed. To have 16GB total in the computer. The obvious ones as that is what the new 6800K likes best, 2400mhz speed.

But no modules listed at all with that speed in the link. Also the list says that only Quad channel will work, not single channel or dual channel. While the Asrock manual says to put in one stick when you get the b7 error. Strange.

Now what is wrong? Is the Asrock memory list old and not updated? Does 2400mhz memory really not work on the X99M Extreme 4 board?

EDIT: In the manual is stated under specs that the X99M Extreme 4 supports also 2400mhz dimms no problem. So that shouldn't be it either.:( Still trying to find the cause.


Help please. Many thanks in advance.





Edited by rocbouguet - 27 Jun 2016 at 12:03am

rocbouguet wrote: Hello, Yesterday I bought a new i7 6800K with Asrock X99M Extreme 4 motherboard as they support the new processors after a BIOS update. Together with 16GB DDR4 Corsair memory. Connected it all but computer doesn't want to start. It gets stuck at BIOS code b7. So something with the memory/CPU according to the manual. I don't get to the UEFI at all yet to upgrade the BIOS for the new processor. I reseated the CPU twice and also checked on bent pins. Nothing wrong and nothing changed, still b7. Then memory, the manual said to put in only one stick. I tried 8-10 different combinations with random sticks and also combinations with 2 on the outside slots or 2 on the inside slots but again nothing helped. Stil b7 error on the LCD in the motherboard. I checked the memory brand on Asrock. http://www.asrock.nl/mb/Intel/X99M%20Extreme4/index.asp?cat=Memory&Model=X99M%20Extreme4&Vendor=Corsair My set isn't listed there, I bought 4x 4GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX 2400mhz speed. To have 16GB total in the computer. The obvious ones as that is what the new 6800K likes best, 2400mhz speed. But no modules listed at all with that speed in the link. Also the list says that only Quad channel will work, not single channel or dual channel. While the Asrock manual says to put in one stick when you get the b7 error. Strange. Now what is wrong? Is the Asrock memory list old and not updated? Does 2400mhz memory really not work on the X99M Extreme 4 board? EDIT: In the manual is stated under specs that the X99M Extreme 4 supports also 2400mhz dimms no problem. So that shouldn't be it either.:( Still trying to find the cause. Help please. Many thanks in advance.

Sorry to say, not a strange problem at all.

Unless your board has the version 3.00 UEFI/BIOS, it will NOT start with your i7-6800K Broadwell-E processor.

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99M%20Extreme4/?cat=Download&os=BIOS

The BIOS chip(s) are located just below the CPU socket, to the right of the battery. They should have stickers on them with the UEFI version from the factory.

This situation is the same as the previous X79 HEDT system, which could use both Sandy and Ivy Bridge-E processors. The UEFI/BIOS version update must be done with the original generation CPU in the board. In this case (X99), that is a Haswell-E processor.

Intel has not found or supplied a workaround for this situation.

Your options:

Somehow get a Haswell-E processor to use for the UEFI/BIOS update.

Change the UEFI/BIOS chip(s) (the A chip at least) to one that has the 3.00 UEFI version on it. These chips are in sockets, and relatively easy to replace.

Where to get the chips? Two options:

First is from ASRock, you can start the order process on this page:

http://www.asrock.com/support/index.asp?cat=RMA

Note they are not free.

Second is from a source like eBay. There are several providers of BIOS or "CMOS" chips that also pre-load them with a specific UEFI/BIOS version. I can't suggest one of the sellers myself, you'll need to find them yourself.

Sorry but there is no other way around this.

wardog wrote: Appears it's an incompatibility issue with the memory. Check on Corsairs Memory Finder that they have checked compatibility of the sticks PN on your board. http://www.corsair.com/en-us/memory-finder

I checked the list, but it only mentioned memory in the classes 2666mhz, 2800mhz and 3000mhz.

No lower speeds mentioned while the Asrock page says for example that lower 2133mhz are working too.



So the tough thing is, how up to date are both websites? Asrock website hasn't mentioned the fast speed like 3000mhz while the Corsair website hasn't mentioned the slow speeds.


Edited by rocbouguet - 28 Jun 2016 at 11:01am

rocbouguet wrote: Thanks both for your answers. But It's very weird indeed that about everyone who now buys a Broadwell-E processor, needs to have their UEFI/BIOS activated by the computershop who has to have a Haswell-E processor at hand. Thank you for your answer. I already made an appointment with my local computershop to let them update the BIOS using a 5820K processor. Although they should have instructed the selling people that when buying a Broadwell-E processor in combination with a X99 motherboard to directly update the BIOS. That would have saved me a trip to the shop and a direct working system. Now I wasted half a day on trying all sorts of things like changing memory in the different slots, trying two different graphics cards in the PCIE slots etc.

Weird? Given the technical details of the situation, no. Unusual, yes.

Intel has had a few chipsets models that could work with different CPU generations, or "ticks" and "tocks" as they call it.

There was some of the Intel 6 series chipsets (P67, Z68) that could work with both Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors. The X79 chipset was really more related to the 6 series than being a 7 series chipset, since X79 was released with the Sandy Bridge-E HEDT processors. X79 could also work with Ivy Bridge-E HEDT processors.

All of the above chipset boards had to have the BIOS/UEFI update performed using the original/first generation processor in the board, before the new/second generation processor could be used. The only exception to this was a board from the factory with the new UEFI/BIOS version already installed.

Again, this limitation or reality is not a fault of, or something created by, mother board manufactures.  The CPU microcode that is part of the UEFI/BIOS file is different to the extent that the new generation processor cannot function with the previous generation's CPU microcode. Intel provides the CPU microcode to mother board manufactures, Intel creates it.

Feel free to ask Intel about this in their Processor support forum.

Regarding educating the staff at the PC shop, yes that would have been the most appropriate thing to do. That is, if they are even aware of it.

When I recently purchased a Broadwell-E processor, at what I consider an above average shop in the USA, I was asked if I needed a X99 mother board. I did not, and already had a Haswell-E processor. I was never asked about that, or warned about this situation. I doubt the majority of the staff were aware of this situation.

If your shop tells you this is wrong, which apparently they did not, I can assure you that this is all true. I would challenge them to prove it is false.

You are among the first in this forum to be bitten by this situation, and are far from the last, unfortunately.

Of course, try to find an explanation of this situation on Intel's website. If one exists, or existed for the same situations in the past, I've never seen it.