Sorry for the rant but feel like it needs to be said.

1. Ryzen Master can set SOC and Startup DDR voltage.  Why not add option to Bios for us 350 users?  it must be possible.

2. Pstate Overclocking is not working at all like 2.50 bios.  I put same values in and the processor now defaults to pstate1 freq.  I can only keep the stock voltage in Pstate0 and whatever I can set freq at stock voltage is what I get. Very limiting. 

3. DDR4 timings and settings has to be the most confusing thing I have seen in a bios.  Why have the ddr timings in 2 places?  I can only change timings if I select xmp profile in overclocking screen.  If I try to adjust in AMD settings I cant post above 2133.  Almost like a puzzle to figure out which area of the bios you are supposed to adjust.

4. Had to set XMP profiles then one at a time boot up every DDR4 speed individually to get to post at 3033.  Granted it was stable at decent timings. 3200 is not bootable on my corsair vengeance 3200.  however if I use ryzen master to set it and adjust SOC I can get it to post but not stable at 3200 DDR4.

 

took me 3 days of playing with this bios to get my pc set to optimal timings and speed.  Should not have to use an desktop application to overclock. 

 

I know it may seem that the lower tier boards get less love but that is not the case. 

We are seeing issues on all boards from all manufacturers using AGESA 1.0.0.6. I think a lot of people overestimate how unique a UEFI is to any given manufacturer. The UEFI is the firmware for the motherboard and it's components. Manufacturers are provided with a base firmware by AMD or intel then customize it and add functionality for additional controllers (LAN, IO controllers etc). This base is the same across all manufacturers with each adding to/altering it to suit their products. 

Ultimately the best the manufacturer can do with a core UEFI package is fine tune and add to it. The base code often proprietary and not accessible for changes. 

So, my point here is that some of the features we may want on a particular chipset based board may be restricted by the chipset manufacturer not the board partner. I don't know if this holds true with AMD but I know it does with intel. When board partners find a workaround to add a feature that should not exist on say an H110 chipset board, intel will most often put it's foot down and demand it be removed. AMD and intel make different chipsets to address different markets, if workarounds are added to allow functionality not intended for a particular chipset then it eats into profit margins and causes problems, like compatibility issues. Allowing overclocking on a non overclocking chipset can potentially cause major issues/hardware failure because it has not been tested with or designed for that configuration.

This is not a defense for ASRock, I am just sharing some factoids regarding how these things work. I do hope ASRock will add some more functionality to the lower tier B350 boards, they have done things like this in the past, even risking the ire of Intel by adding overclocking to low tier chipset boards. I guess what I am saying is that ASRock often pushes the envelope with it's products. They will probably want to work out all the kinks first before adding more that could go wrong  Time will tell.