AMD Motherboards - AMD FX-9370 on 990FX Killer

Print Page | Close Window

AMD FX-9370 on 990FX Killer

Printed From: ASRock.com
Category: Technical Support
Forum Name: AMD Motherboards
Forum Description: Question about ASRock AMD motherboards
URL: https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=507
Printed Date: 19 Apr 2024 at 8:28am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: AMD FX-9370 on 990FX Killer

Posted By: bnhrdn
Subject: AMD FX-9370 on 990FX Killer
Date 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?

Replies:

Posted By: ping127
Date 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.

Posted By: Skwerl
Date 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?

Posted By: Skwerl
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2015 at 5:16am

Here's a screenshot of what I am seeing.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B380B3DB2F071E10!54881&authkey=!AOBSaZXnBh09dnk&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg" rel="nofollow - https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B380B3DB2F071E10!54881&authkey=!AOBSaZXnBh09dnk&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

Posted By: bnhrdn
Date 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.

Posted By: ping127
Date 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.

Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 1:01pm

It seems that support for the http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?toolid=10029&campid=CAMPAIGNID&customid=CUSTOMID&catId=281&type=2&ext=201388975548&item=201388975548" rel="nofollow - 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 http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?toolid=10029&campid=CAMPAIGNID&customid=CUSTOMID&catId=58058&type=2&ext=111711170963&item=111711170963" rel="nofollow - 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.

Posted By: parsec
Date 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" rel="nofollow - 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" rel="nofollow - 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.

-------------
http://valid.x86.fr/48rujh" rel="nofollow">

Posted By: WKjun
Date 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:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5989/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-s-native-pcie-ssd-performance-preview/index3.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5989/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-s-native-pcie-ssd-performance-preview/index3.html

http://benchmarkreviews.com/21005/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-am3-motherboard-review/5/" rel="nofollow - http://benchmarkreviews.com/21005/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-am3-motherboard-review/5/

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" rel="nofollow -

This knowledge could appease your customers and clear things up!

Posted By: noname
Date 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/" rel="nofollow - http://www.modders-inc.com/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-motherboard-review/2/

Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2015 at 2:50pm

WKjun wrote:

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.

The answer is the BIOS simply did not block the use of an FX-9000 series processor. If that was a simple mistake or more likely an oversight, I don't know. I can only theorize about why the FX-9000 series processors were allowed to be used on boards until recently, that could not handle them long-term, or when stressed. Remember, these are only theories and guesses:

AMD thought they would be fine to use with any half way decent board. AMD may have told mother board manufactures this. It was later that this was discovered to be false.
AMD is not doing very well with sales, and hoped a CPU that could do 5GHz would attract attention and sell very well. They also did not want to limit sales to a small group of boards. But in this case, AMD's wide range of compatibility with their CPU sockets and chipsets caught up to them because the FX-9000 series processors cannot be used safely in a low or midrange board.
Imagine if one mother board manufacture did not block the use of an FX-9000 series CPU on any of their boards, but another manufacture did on some models. Then some people would think the manufacture that did block them made bad, cheap boards, even though that manufacture was doing the right thing.
I think that most people (outside of AMD) really knew how much power these processors would actually need, and were surprised when boards started failing. Also as you experienced yourself, if you don't use a "top down" type CPU cooler that blows air across the VRM heatsink and chips, the CPU VRMs can over heat and fail. So the users of these CPUs did not configure the cooling of their boards properly.

WKjun wrote:

Really interesting by the way, that even review sites chose that combo, without knowing of its absent support:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5989/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-s-native-pcie-ssd-performance-preview/index3.html
http://benchmarkreviews.com/21005/asrock-fatal1ty-990fx-killer-am3-motherboard-review/5/
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

I'm so glad you brought this up, it's a topic I've wanted to talk about for a long time! Thumbs Up

My father was an electrical engineer, and I was taught enough to know something about this.

As is common with people when dealing with complex topics like computers and electronics, that takes a lot of training to truly understand, we try to make things simple so we can understand and discuss them. But making things too simple causes mistakes in our reasoning and conclusions.

For example, in general a "phase" is one chip used in the CPU VRM stage to convert +12V DC into the ~1.5V DC maximum that is used by a CPU. That is a bit different for Intel Haswell CPUs, but in general is the same.

These chips have a limit to the amount of "power" (Amps or Watts) it can produce without over heating and destroying itself. So multiple chips or "phases" are used because one chip alone cannot produce enough power for most CPUs. Then if we OC that CPU, it uses even more power, and even more chips are needed to provide the necessary power. Otherwise the VRM circuit reaches its limit for power output, or over heats trying to produce more power than the heat sink can keep all the chips/phases cool.

Then some people start analyzing the VRM circuit, and say it really does not have, for example, eight phases because of the way the circuit is designed with its drivers or doublers. IMO, that is where people make mistakes about what is "better" or what is "worse", and overlook what is really important.

Imagine I have a CPU VRM design that could produce 300 Watts of power for a CPU, and not over heat or fail. Does it matter if it has one phase or 25, as long as it does the job? Transistors which are used in the VRM chips have different power capacities, which means the chips have different power capacities. So what is better, one 100 Watt chip, or ten, 10 Watt chips? My point is counting phases without knowing what each phase is capable of, does not tell us very much.

So the 8 + 2 phases on one board may not be equal to the 8 + 2 phases on another board. One phase is not a standard of power output, it refers to one chip in the VRM circuit.

Actually, IMO the best test of a VRM design is if we could measure how much power in Watts it could produce continuously without over heating. Doing that is very difficult, and requires special equipment and knowledge of electronics and the design of the VRM circuit.

I noticed in the specs of the ASRock X99 OC Formula it states about the VRM design, "12 Power Phase design (Supports up to 1300w)". Finally an actual power output specification!

While more phases can make for a more efficient VRM design (less wasted power), IMO should I care if one board uses a doubler to drive two chips, and another doesn't, if both produce the same amount of power to a CPU?

The heat sink on the VRM chips is very important. The chips power output vs temperature is shown as a graph in the specifications for the chip, or for a single transistor. You measured how hot the chips or VRM heat sink became, and posted that in your thread about your board. They over heated, failed, and apparently damaged your CPU!

I just realized something, how many electronic devices like audio amplifiers have fuses in the circuit that open/blow when a certain amount of power is being used by the circuit, so it won't be destroyed if more power is drawn through the circuit? Most of them do. We never see that in mother boards, it might be a good idea.

Enough of this, if you read it all, thanks, I hope it made sense, feel free to comment away!! Geek

-------------
http://valid.x86.fr/48rujh" rel="nofollow">

Posted By: WKjun
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2015 at 7:00pm

noname wrote:

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

---

Parsec, that's highly interesting stuff!

Thanks for sharing your knowledge! I always wanted to know more details about these matters!

When I find the time, I'll have to read through at least one more time to be uppermost in it. My work arrests me right now...