|
AGESA 1.0.0.6 |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 89101112 21> |
| Author | ||
jdhardware 
Newbie 
Joined: 22 Mar 2017 Status: Offline Points: 5 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 3:51pm |
|
|
Similar experience with myself.
3200 unstable even relaxing the timings on the g-skill trident 3200 rbg ram, basically the same ram as yours with xmas tree decorations. 3066 stable, 30 runs of cinebench and hours of gaming on Mass effect 1.4v needed 1.17v soc https://valid.x86.fr/8dhixw for all stats Frequency 1529.7 MHz - Ratio 3:46 Timings 14-14-14-34-48-1 (tCAS-tRC-tRP-tRAS-tCS-tCR) Slot #1 Module G.Skill 8192 MB (DDR4-2137) - XMP 2.0 - P/N: F4-3200C14-8GTZR |
||
 |
||
|
Dogmifier
Newbie
Joined: 04 May 2017 Location: Boston Status: Offline Points: 43 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 7:03pm |
|
|
Well, it's always the manufacturer of the motherboard and not the manufacturer of the Chipsets/CPU that's at fault..... Come now wardog ;) Anyway...I can still hit 2933 on my Gaming K4, so no worse than before, but no better...I am not reverting..I see no point, since I still get what I got before. Then again, if you look at the specs on this motherboard, it clearly states that 2933MHz is the max memory will do ...so if I ever get my 3200MHz to do 3200MHz, I'll consider myself lucky! Edited by Dogmifier - 13 Jun 2017 at 7:04pm |
||
|
X99X Fata1ity
5930k 16GB Crucial 1200W Corsair evga GTX 1080 Samsung 950 Pro |
||
|
||
|
Kirurgs
Newbie
Joined: 09 Jun 2017 Status: Offline Points: 136 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 9:28pm |
|
This, "DDR4 2933+ (OC)" or "DDR4 3200+ (OC)" - the plus sign... It seems to me that it' considered as "or more", but max supported OC speed is the one stated. Otherwise why put a "plus" sign at the end, right... Ok, we are still not there, getting closer, but by this I mean that number should not be a hard limit for everyone :) There are reports of Taichi owners which got their memory to 3400 or more while on spec sheet it clearly states - 3200 +, so... I hope I'm not wrong and will get my 3200 up to rated speed some day :) Currently 2800 seem to work for me since 1.0.0.6 (Gaming K4). |
||
|
||
|
mgilbert
Newbie
Joined: 23 Mar 2017 Status: Offline Points: 61 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 9:58pm |
|
|
Like many others, 1.0.0.6 didn't change a thing for my X370 Gaming K4. Still at 3.8 GHz on the CPU, and 2,933 MHz on my Corsair 3,600 MHz RAM. I had at least hoped for an improvement in RAM speed, but at least I didn't lose anything.
|
||
|
||
|
oile
Newbie
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 10:01pm |
|
I agree with you in the last part. They did release one with 1.0.0.6 and that's a good thing. And yes, for some people with Samsung B-Die and even D-Die works even better than 1.0.0.4 ! But Asrock can't really worsen what was running good on 2.30 1.0.0.4 instead it seems so in my Hynix system and in many others (look over forum threads on the net) IMHO it could have been better to call this 2.40 for what it is, a beta. And release a final "STABLE" version only when this was sorted out and properly tested. IMHO it just lacked a deep base of testing, and it was like this also on the pre-2.30 bios wich was clearly not tested because settings just reverted itself oddly at every change trying to OC. AMD Ryzen has its "youth" problems. But ASrock has its own too |
||
|
R5 1600 3.9 1.32v-Taichi-16gb LPX-1060-TT850w
|
||
|
||
|
Xaltar
Moderator Group 
Joined: 16 May 2015 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 22763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 12:03am |
|
|
AGESA 1.0.0.6 is an all or nothing addition. ASRock is not writing the code for it so they can't just snip the best of 1.0.0.4 and hybridize the 2 to create the perfect UEFI. What 1.0.0.6 fixes for some it breaks for others. If we could just take the best bits of the bunch (AGESA versions) then maybe we would have a stable UEFI for everyone by now but we have to wait for AMD to gather the data and release the next iteration.
ASRock is working hard to fix these issues but they can only do so much, most of the issues stem from the AGESA code itself. If this were not the case we would not be seeing such massive changes from one version to the next. I guess we all just have to be patient and stick with whatever UEFI version works best for us.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
oile
Newbie
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 6:26am |
|
|
You're right.
Let's hope in a fast fix from AMD
|
||
|
R5 1600 3.9 1.32v-Taichi-16gb LPX-1060-TT850w
|
||
|
||
|
wardog
Moderator Group
Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 3:15pm |
|
 I call out ASRock to the mat when they've pulled a boner. They haven't taken away my Moderator status. Yet! Na. I have, and been belligerent while doing so too. There's not not much Gray Area that I let slide silently. Most of these are mere growing pains with Ryzen. AMD has made us Guinea Pigs in their rush to quash Intel. It's that some of us have more patience than others and I'm ok with that. Yea, it's hard to sit here and read some posts some days. Most, most not all, of these User/BIOS/Memory issues need fixes from the top, that being AMD. |
||
|
||
|
Denroth
Newbie
Joined: 02 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 46 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 5:35pm |
|
Some news with the oc of ram? |
||
|
||
|
wardog
Moderator Group
Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 6:57pm |
|
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 89101112 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
wardog wrote: