ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > AMD Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Fatal1ty 970 Performance problem
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search Search  Events   Register Register  Login Login

Fatal1ty 970 Performance problem
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6447 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 12:05am
Please read the below AMD FX-9000 AIO Water-Cooling Instruction Sheet for a list of approved FX-9k 220W motherboards

www.amd.com/Documents/FX-9000-Installation-Guide.pdf
Back to Top
PetrolHead View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 403 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PetrolHead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 12:26am
Originally posted by VojislavM VojislavM wrote:

Firstly I've realized that memory that I bought isn't compatible and that this MoBo can use only memories which are on memory support list.


That's actually not 100% correct. Of course the best option is to get memory modules that are on the memory support list, but these lists are not always complete. You can often search for compatible RAM for a certain motherboard on memory manufacturers' websites, so if you can't find a certain memory module on ASRock's compatibility list, you can use those and see if the module is compatible.
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
Back to Top
VojislavM View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 15 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 11 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VojislavM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2016 at 12:27am
Thank you so much!Exactly the info that I needed! Thumbs Up I wont be doing any OC but I will consider changing the MoBo regardless.
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 Jan 2016 at 7:56pm

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

I've built at least 20 systems using the FX-9k processors on ASRocks 990FX Extreme9 since it first came out and none have come back with any issue relates to vrm/cpu/heat issues.

Good to know another option now! Thanks for sharing your statistics! Thumbs Up
And respect for those 20+ systems you've built with my favourite, the critically endangered FX-9000! Cool
 
 

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Please read the below AMD FX-9000 [...] Sheet for a list of approved FX-9k 220W motherboards

www.amd.com/Documents/FX-9000-Installation-Guide.pdf

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

I will concur that the Fatal1ity 970 Performance is not for the 220W FX series processors. I've seen and replied to here and elsewhere too many VRM issues when coupled with the FX-9k processors.

How very intersting! The 970 Performance is not AMD approved to be FX-9000 compatible after all! Angry
 
After taking another look at the VRM heatsink installed on the 970 Performance vs. the 990FX Killer, visually both the same and promoted as "8 + 2 Phase Design", I cannot comprehend why the 970 Performance was given FX-9000 "support" in the first place!
While the 990FX Killer never had ASRock's FX-9000 approval, people used it and its use was prohibited via BIOS update for a reason.
I think the only reason why ASRock didn't recall FX-9000 support for the 970 Performance is, that it is possibly the most uncommon combination, because most people (would) chose a 990FX chipset board, for it's high-end touch and multi-GPU features.
 
My VRMs got 90-100° C! No fan could cool this reasonably. And other AMD approved boards don't need that kind of extra. A descent air cooler is definetly sufficient! I'm not talking about overclocking (the FX-9000), but at stock values it is no problem to cool or work with, on the right platform. After all, there is no hint on the box or in the manual to buy and realize better VRM cooling, when using the FX-9000...
PC1: FX-9590@def|290 |16GB@2133|Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
PC2: FX-8320@4.5|290 |16GB@2133| "
PC3: FX-9590@def|280X|16GB@2133| "
PC4: FX-9370@def|280X|16GB@2133| "
PC5: FX-6300@4.6|7950|16GB@1866|990FX-UD3
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: 19 Jan 2016 at 11:13pm
IMO, it was not understood at first how difficult the FX-9590 would be for even the best boards to deal with. I wonder how AMD could not have known this. Was it simply ignored by the board manufactures?

I also wonder why the better Intel boards have 12 phase VRM designs for processors that have rated TDPs of under 100 Watts. Yes they can be over clocked fine on those boards, but won't be near 200W or power usage while stress testing.

My solution for the 970 Performance with an FX-9590 is this:




The blue fan in the upper right side is an 80mm fan aimed directly at the VRM heatsink. Plus the case mounts the board horizontally, and I'm using the crazy Cooler Master Jet Flo fans for intake and exhaust.

I had more trouble with the CPU temperature than the VRM temperature, the latter never went past ~120F. Headphones or hearing protection required.
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6447 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2016 at 6:50am
Originally posted by parsec parsec wrote:

IMO, it was not understood at first how difficult the FX-9590 would be for even the best boards to deal with. I wonder how AMD could not have known this. Was it simply ignored by the board manufactures?


AMD did prior to release publish a set of minimum specs that the manufacturers knew of well in advance.

cough..sputter..ASRock????
http://www.asrock.com/news/index.asp?id=1564

Originally posted by parsec parsec wrote:

I also wonder why the better Intel boards have 12 phase VRM designs for processors that have rated TDPs of under 100 Watts.


cough..sputter..AMD.inexpensive...Intel ..blech...... Prolly because Intel purchasers love to brag and aren't as easily phased(get it? Phased. I made a funny there Pig) by dispensing with their hard earned moola. Why 12 is beyond me. Really? Twelve?


Let the flaming begin. Ha! Another funny. Flaming ..... ASRock??





Edited by wardog - 20 Jan 2016 at 6:50am
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6447 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2016 at 5:29pm
The ASRock 990FX Extreme9 was greeted with much fanfare and ballyhooed as being the first motherboard to market that met those AMD FX-9xxx specs.
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: 20 Jan 2016 at 10:31pm
Market share of AMD users is what today, 15%? And how few of them have a FX-9000? It is a niche product and no wonder AMD boards do not have the latest and greatest stuff on it. However, many qualified boards do their job right and withstand the FX-9000 or an OC'ed FX-8000, without extra cooling, the right CPU cooler joice presumed. I've already recommended the Noctua NH-D14/15, which is dead silent while in idle mode and very silent under load, keeping my FX-9590 OC'ed static at 4.9 GHz well below 60° under full load, while sufficiently cooling the VRMs of my Sabertooth.
 
Parsec, we've talked a lot about this matter ;) and it is a fine fan implementation you have. However, it is absolutely unacceptable for a regular customer to implement such a loud super-fan, just to keep the board alive, while using the CPU at stock values! APM should limit the CPU under high workloads, but the 970 Performance gives the already exhausted FX-9000 +50mV extra CPU Offset Voltage. Thats ridiculous, as it is an OC-only option.
 
In your case, did you take a look at HWMonitor after putting the CPU under full load? One parameter climbed above 90° and even 100° C, if I have left CPU VCore Offset Voltage to +50mV. That must have been the reason why both died. No component on the board should exceed 70°-80° C.
 
If you like, do me the favor and actually use this setup for some time for everyday work and gaming. I fortell its death within some weeks. The VRM heatsink and passive cooling is just half the battle. How much heat they produce is the other half. And don't forget to activate the Turbo mode (Turbo enabled + C6 enabled). Check with HWMonitor if it's active. It was unstable while installing Windows, Internet browsing, in gaming and prime95 with 1-2 threads, replicable all the time. Leaving Turbo deactivated on the second board gave it back its stability, but didn't spare it from dying however.
 
Thanks wardog, even this ASRock announcement suggests a liquid cooler and no word about extra cooling whatsoever! Just because the customer has to purchase a proper cooling solution for the CPU spearately, no one can expect the regular customer to be an IT pro and know anything about VRMs and its cooling needs. The customers only priority is to keep the CPU cool and that one has the 220W bugaboo on it, not the MB. There is no mention on the mainboard box or in the manual about extra active or passive (by modding) cooling of the VRMs! And some mainboards can do it, like mine and apparently the 990FX Extreme9.
 
Ultimately, I think it is an impertinence of ASRock to claim the 970 Performance FX-9000 capable, while it isn't even in AMD compatibilitly list and customers prove its guiltiness. Dead


Edited by WKjun - 20 Jan 2016 at 10:45pm
PC1: FX-9590@def|290 |16GB@2133|Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
PC2: FX-8320@4.5|290 |16GB@2133| "
PC3: FX-9590@def|280X|16GB@2133| "
PC4: FX-9370@def|280X|16GB@2133| "
PC5: FX-6300@4.6|7950|16GB@1866|990FX-UD3
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6447 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2016 at 5:48am
^^^

I consider it a serious omission by most if not all manufacturers. Yet call me old school but some blame I do lay on the consumer. Venturing beyond stock parts req's knowledge while doing so. Knowledge, or research.

Witness the clueless posts here that have miraculously and surprisingly somehow managed to NOT have fried their motherboard and or CPU with utterly insane voltages before deciding to ask for help. Woefully incompetent CPU heat sink, PSU's that date back to the Athlon II days of old, cases that provide no proper air flow/circulation. And, boards that have CPUs mounted that have no right whatsoever being installed and OC'd, this, comes from experience.

And don't get me started on the folks who spend $1,100.00 on a new system : SLI graphics, 4 RAIDed SSDs, big money case, AIO 240mm  radiator water cooling, big money PSU, and 32/64GB of memory to have only allotted a measly $69.00 towards their chosen motherboard.

Anyways. I'll say this! At least AMD in their instructions included when you purchase an AMD branded water cooler AMD doe state the requirement of an additional fan blowing over the VRM section.

Corsair, arguably the largest seller of liquid AIO water coolers does not mention one needed in their instructions. Go figure!!


Edited by wardog - 21 Jan 2016 at 7:32am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  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 0.219 seconds.