ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > AMD Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - AMD FX-9370 on 990FX Killer
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

AMD FX-9370 on 990FX Killer

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
bnhrdn View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 30 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bnhrdn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: AMD FX-9370 on 990FX Killer
    Posted: 30 Jul 2015 at 5:54am
My FX-9370 was working flawlessly on a Fatality 990FX Killer until I updated the bios today to P1.40. Now on boot it stops during post and says "This CPU is not in the CPU support list". It lists the functions to get into setup, but it is locked up. I believe I have just bricked my machine.

Is there a way to roll this update back so I can get back to work? The update was in my Asrock live update app where I downloaded the update.

Any ideas or suggestions?
Back to Top
ping127 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 30 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ping127 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2015 at 7:42am
Same exact thing just happened to me.  Have a AMD FX-9370 processor.  Was working fine until the update today via the ASRock tool.  Now entire machine is bricked.
Back to Top
Skwerl View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 31 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skwerl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2015 at 5:12am
And this just happened to me, too.  And boy, am I angry!  Can't enter UEFI to try to reflash it or anything.  Aren't we just screwed?
Back to Top
Skwerl View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 31 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skwerl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2015 at 5:16am
Back to Top
bnhrdn View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 30 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bnhrdn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2015 at 8:59am
I was informed I could purchase a new bios for $15 check or money order with the previous version installed.

I was told this "feature" was added because Asrock was aware some people were running the FX-9000 series CPUs and they wanted to quote "Prevent us from damaging our boards or processors".

It would have been great to see this "feature" in the release notes before it rendered a perfectly functional (for over 8 months) inoperable.

I decided to decline the option to purchase the bios and went with the ASUS Crosshair 990fx edition.

Note to ASRock---- When including a "feature"  that renders perfectly functioning PCs inoperable, include that "feature" in the release notes or better yet, a warning before you install it.
Back to Top
ping127 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 30 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ping127 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 4:46am
Much broader than people just using FX-9000 series.  OEMs were selling computers with that combination in a certified configuration that according to OEMs was supported by ASRock until recently.  My "certified" computer is now completely bricked. My OEM told me they were completely caught by surprise by this and are talking directly to AS Rock.
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 10338
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 1:01pm
It seems that support for the FX9000 series was removed from the bios in the latest update. The only thing I know will work is to get your hands on an AM3 CPU that is supported and install it then flash back to your previous bios.

Semprons can be found dirt cheap these days and you can usually return it within a certain window if you don't want to keep it as a spare.

I don't know why this happened but doubtless ASRock is aware and should be working on a fix, for now, for those who have access to a spare AM2/3 CPU the above method should get you up and running again.
Back to Top
parsec View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4996
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote parsec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2015 at 5:05pm
The surprise removal of support for FX-9000 series processors on these boards is difficult to defend.

Were FX-9000 processors ever on the CPU support list of the 990FX Killer?

The 990FX Killer is rated to support processors up to 140 Watts:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty%20990FX%20Killer/?cat=Specifications

The FX-9370 processors is rated at 220 Watts:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-9370.html

Using a processor that is far beyond (220 - 140 = 80 Watts) the specification of a mother board is no doubt the motivation for that BIOS update.

Imagine many boards arriving for RMA due to the use of a processor beyond the specifications of the board's capability. How do you stop users from using a processor that is physically compatible with a board, but is not 100% electrically compatible?

AMD created the FX-9000 series of processors. But AMD is not controlling the use of these processors in inappropriate mother boards. Intel is strict about which boards can over clock, and have minimum specifications for them regarding power output of the CPU VRM stage.

The FX-9000 series was released after the FX-8000 series, that are 140 Watt processors. So AMD released a line of processors that could be put in mother boards designed for 140 Watt processors, but are rated at 220 Watts. How do you deal with that?

The ASRock 990FX Extreme9 and 990FX Extreme6 are rated for 220 Watt processors. They were specifically released for the FX-9000 series processors.

I understand both sides of this situation, but don't have a better solution for dealing with it.

IMO, it was irresponsible for AMD to release the FX-9000 processors, when they can be easily used in boards that are not capable of providing the power they need, over a long term basis.

Back to Top
WKjun View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 17 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WKjun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Aug 2015 at 12:56am
Dear parsec!
Dear Moderator Group!
Dear users!
 
This is a really interesting consideration in many ways, parsec! I consider this thread a perfect fit to discuss what components are needed on a mainboard to use that CPU.
 
I'm totally with you, parsec, that this CPU can regrettably be plugged into any AM3+ socket, it shoudn't be used on boards with poor VRMs/cooling and I totally understand that ASRock prohibits its use on unsupported boards.
 
My experience is though, that if the BIOS is not supporting a CPU, thus not recognizing it, either no POST screen shows up, or wrong/lower clock rates are set, which are hard or impossible to correct manually.
Therefore I wonder, why so many people were able to use it without running into configuration troubles! I can only think of a mistake by ASRock in accidently having it supported at BIOS level, while correctly not listing it in the CPU support list? If that is true, I don't take your point blaming AMD, while board vendors are unobservant and accidently include the CPU in their BIOS programming.
 
Really interesting by the way, that even review sites chose that combo, without knowing of its absent support:
So it seems certain that the FX-9000 series must have been supported at BIOS level, otherwise they would have reported the issue or used other parts and why else should there be a BIOS release to correct this?
 
Besides why the CPU previously worked at BIOS-level, I begin to wonder why it shouldn't work at hardware-level! Even though I do not have the same problem, it correlates to my recently posted problem (http://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=660&title=970-performance-fx9590-overheating-ram-incomp)
 
How come that both the Fatality FX990 Killer and 970 Performance has "Digi Power  8 + 2 Power Phase Design" but only one of them supports 220W CPUs? It cannot be the phase count alright, although it is said that more phases can handle more load more stable, i.e. 3 phases cannot handle 125W CPUs, but 5 phases can. I never heard of differences between how they were realized. So what's the deal with 8+2 Phases which allegedly cannot deal with 220W? Is it the VRM heatsink? They seem quiet similar.
 
This knowledge could appease your customers and clear things up! Beer


Edited by WKjun - 19 Aug 2015 at 3:28pm
Back to Top
noname View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 11 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote noname Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Aug 2015 at 10:23pm
@WKjun

This review say its 4+1  : http://www.modders-inc.com/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-motherboard-review/2/


Edited by noname - 19 Aug 2015 at 10:24pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.