Print Page | Close Window

AGESA 1.0.0.6a

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=5451
Printed Date: 16 Jun 2024 at 11:19am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: AGESA 1.0.0.6a
Posted By: wardog
Subject: AGESA 1.0.0.6a
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2017 at 8:59pm
Coming to an ASRock motherboard near you. Soon. REAL soon.

Keep an eye peeled.



Replies:
Posted By: Heyitsaaron
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2017 at 9:03pm
Yes! Can't wait. 1006 fixed my issues with ram. Let's see what's next!
















Edited to remove the odd ASCII characters


Posted By: delukz
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2017 at 9:50pm
1.0.0.6 made everything worse for me, even booting at 2400 would not work where the older one allowed me to boot at 2666.
Let's hope this solves it, but I have my doubts.


Posted By: Dogmifier
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2017 at 10:19pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Coming to an ASRock motherboard near you. Soon. REAL soon.

Keep an eye peeled.


Of course this comes out 3 days after I Gifted it to a friend in need..hahah...

I need to change my sig...gonna get a threadripper next time, I think



-------------
X99X Fata1ity
5930k
16GB Crucial
1200W Corsair
evga GTX 1080
Samsung 950 Pro


Posted By: sobekite
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2017 at 10:46pm
Clap, Let's hope it fixes some of the odd 2.50 issues. 


Posted By: Denroth
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 3:49am
Hopefully well, although at this point I think it is an IMC problem


Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 1:59pm
" rel="nofollow - So... "just around the corner"-soon? :)

I'm really looking forward to it, though. 


Posted By: kebl3739
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 6:19pm
Since 1006 didn't fix my RAM problems at all (AB350 Pro4) I asked the tech support guy I've been in contact with the whole time about 1006a.

This was his response (after asking their BIOS team in Taiwan):

"My colleague replied that our BIOS team is currently busy with new BIOS versions to fix the Intel Hyperthreading bug. But they will put AGESA 1.0.0.6a in their schedule."

I am hopeful but after being so disappointed with 1006 I'm not holding my breath.


Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by kebl3739 kebl3739 wrote:

Since 1006 didn't fix my RAM problems at all (AB350 Pro4) I asked the tech support guy I've been in contact with the whole time about 1006a.

This was his response (after asking their BIOS team in Taiwan):

"My colleague replied that our BIOS team is currently busy with new BIOS versions to fix the Intel Hyperthreading bug. But they will put AGESA 1.0.0.6a in their schedule."

I am hopeful but after being so disappointed with 1006 I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, their world revolves around you and your problems. Clap

Give it time, geez.
The team is only so big and there are plenty of problems to solve and resolve, each having their priority.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 9:50pm
ASUS Prime X370 Pro Users seem to be calling 1.0.0.6a" a better mixed bag that 1.0.0.6 yet still needing work Ouch


Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 9:53pm
" rel="nofollow - What did you expect? :D

The road ahead is still long.

When 2600K came out, it took Intel at least 1 year to optimize it.
Also, motherboard manufacturers took even longer.
This is no different.


Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 9:58pm
" rel="nofollow - How much of this "work still to do" is implementation (by ASUS) and how much is coding (by AMD)?
I'm still sad and a little upset, my k4 has been declared dead... ?


Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 10:01pm
AsRock and other motherboard manufacturers can do little if AMD does not supply them with a new AGESA.

They just need to implement it, and that takes anywhere from 1 -7 days on one board, depending if they run in some outstanding issues.

Even then, it is only for their top tier motherboards, which then later trickles down to cheaper ones (month or months later).


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 11:34pm
Originally posted by Star_Pilgrim Star_Pilgrim wrote:

Even then, it is only for their top tier motherboards, which then later trickles down to cheaper ones (month or months later).


While it seems I'm tooting horns, I'm not.

ASRock is rather good at releasing an entire platforms worth of new BIOSes in one or two day. Yea. I do know what that might mean, but still ........

Surely it keeps the "I've been waiting two whole days now for MY board to get the Taichi's 1.0.0.6a AGESSA. I'm sending my board back as ASRock has left me out to dry. And never buying another ASRock." whiner posts


Posted By: kebl3739
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 11:44pm
Originally posted by Star_Pilgrim Star_Pilgrim wrote:

Originally posted by kebl3739 kebl3739 wrote:

Since 1006 didn't fix my RAM problems at all (AB350 Pro4) I asked the tech support guy I've been in contact with the whole time about 1006a.

This was his response (after asking their BIOS team in Taiwan):

"My colleague replied that our BIOS team is currently busy with new BIOS versions to fix the Intel Hyperthreading bug. But they will put AGESA 1.0.0.6a in their schedule."

I am hopeful but after being so disappointed with 1006 I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, their world revolves around you and your problems. Clap

Give it time, geez.
The team is only so big and there are plenty of problems to solve and resolve, each having their priority.

Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

I'm just suggesting the timeline may be longer than "real soon".

E: forgot to quote


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2017 at 11:49pm
Originally posted by kebl3739 kebl3739 wrote:

Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

I'm just suggesting the timeline may be longer than "real soon".


hahaha Na! I'm good.

That line is as inevitable as the sun rising from the east.


Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2017 at 12:33am
Originally posted by kebl3739 kebl3739 wrote:


Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

I'm just suggesting the timeline may be longer than "real soon".

E: forgot to quote


I agree.

Someones definition of REAL soon, may be hours, while those that work on it, may actually mean days. :D

Time flies fast when you are in a crunch.


Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 5:47am
As long as it is a "better" mixed bag.


Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 12:08pm
Star_Pilgrim's reality check posts (which I agree with) inspired me to add one of my own. Geek

What I'd like to know is, what board(s) does AMD use to test their AGESA updates? Or what other methods do they use for testing? I hate to say this, and I usually have almost infinite patience, but I'm starting to feel like a beta tester. Or is that simply ignoring reality?

We are told very little by AMD about what "improved memory compatibility" really means. Some Ryzen users assume that means any model of DDR4 memory will suddenly become compatible, or be able to reach higher speeds than currently possible. Is that even possible? IMO, no it's not.

For example, Intel never made statements (promises?) regarding the memory over clocking capability of their processors (memory controller is part of the CPU), or that processor microcode updates would improve memory support and speed.

The waiting for microcode fixes for memory compatibility and speed is unique to Ryzen, with what other platforms have we had this situation? Yes, Ryzen seems to have been pushed out the door a little early, but IMO what could be improved should have been done so by now. The apparent upcoming release of new stepping models of Ryzen 7 processors is very interesting, why would they be needed?

Also, where is the reality of memory over clocks are not guaranteed? We accepted that as a simple reality with DDR2 and DDR3 memory, why would DDR4 be any different? It took Intel three platform generations (X99, Z170, and Z270) to get where they are today with X299, which can supposedly surpass DDR 4000 speed memory OCs. Yet the guaranteed supported memory speed is well below that. Why do we expect AMD to duplicate that with their first system using DDR4?

Where is all the Ryzen specific memory, if it is needed? We can find many, many models of DDR4 memory whose QVL's include only Intel chipset boards. Have Ryzen boards been added to the lists? In most cases, no. What's the best we know about Ryzen memory compatibility? Samsung B-die memory chips. The few models of Ryzen specific memory, one of which I use, can't reach its rated OC speed with AGESA 1.0.0.6.

Personally, I'm done with having faith in AGESA updates to bring me memory salvation. But who am I to question the faith of others?


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


Posted By: chainsaw
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 8:54pm
Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 


Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 10:30pm
" rel="nofollow - Yes, but why and what are they doing differently? We don't have any info in that and it seems to me, neither does ASRock. ...


Posted By: Teckie
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 3:24am
Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.


-------------
Ryzen 1700X
Asrock X370 Fatal1ty prof gaming (1.0.0.6a)
G.Skill 8gx2 3200 FlareX 14-14-14-34 CAS 14 (F4-3200C14D-16GFX)
EVGA G3 750 80Gold
EVGA clc 280 AIO
960 EVO M.2
860 EVO SSD


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 9:30am
Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked



Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 12:49pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO.?


This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked




It could indicate a faulty manufacturing process, could it not?


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by Jakob Jakob wrote:

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO.?


This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked




It could indicate a faulty manufacturing process, could it not?


It could indicate faulty User processes too, could it not? just sayin'


Lets stop with the speculation and rumor mongering like a gaggle of old ladies at knitting night.


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 2:10pm
" rel="nofollow - Here we go again with the blame throwing and "but manufacturer X can do it" comments.

I am not going to jump in here and defend ASRock, ASRock is in the same boat as everyone else with this. Stating that other manufacturers had better results from day one... I am sorry I just can't swallow that. The statement has no basis in fact, all manufacturers have success stories from early on but for every success story there were horror stories. All you need to do is look at day one Ryzen reviews and take a note of all the complaints using RAM that AMD actually provided in the Review kits. This RAM was cherry picked and still had problems with the platforms it was provided with. 

The truth is, every manufacturer has had and still has issues with RAM since day one. Those instances that show otherwise are with particular RAM kits, most notably Samsung B-Die kits which worked fine with ASRock's boards too from the start in most cases, at least enabling 2933. 

Could there be manufacturing issues with the new AM4 designs? It is certainly possible that the designs need some refinement and tweaking given the new nature of the platform. This could have been said of every generational board release since the advent of the PC. I highly doubt that something like that is the cause of the "issues" people are having with RAM compatibility, a design/manufacture flaw would be more prominent and prevent all users using any RAM from being able to achieve stability beyond a certain frequency if at all. 

I think people underestimate the diversity of RAM manufacturing. RAM is not RAM, there are numerous differences in RAM kits, even within the product stack of a single manufacturer. Often we can even find RAM of the same model using different RAM chips because the manufacturer ran out of X and substituted Y, this is why we always stress the importance of getting your RAM kits (if more than one) at the same time and with serial numbers that are as close to one another as possible. Many users are not even aware that RAM has firmware, every RAM module has a ROM on it that is programmed with it's timings, voltage etc. If RAM were truly "plug and play" and made to an exacting standard then this would not be necessary. RAM is a complex piece of hardware, one that is often regarded as simple or inconsequential because by and large it has typically been a case of plug it in and go. 

Most users never experience memory compatibility issues. For those that do often times, in the case of established platforms, it comes down to BIOS support from the motherboard manufacturer. So I do understand where all this is coming from. This is not the whole story with Ryzen though, it is a new platform, RAM manufacturers are scrambling to adjust their products for compatibility, AMD is trying to address issues with AGESA and motherboard manufacturers are doing their best to do the same. We have 3 groups all trying to fix something and in a lot of cases we will see the "too many cooks" adage hold true. 

When I was doing my review on the X370 Taichi I had no issues getting my 3600 Samsung B-Die RAM to work with older UEFI versions @3200. I did have issues with 2.4 which includes AGESA 1.0.0.6. I found a workaround but it still was not as solid for me as previous versions. When I tested my 2800 non B-Die kit however, it worked perfectly. It did not allow anything past 2666 on older versions but with 2.4 went all the way to 2800 without issue. This is because of the differences from one kit to the next, a fix for one could break things for another. This is not a motherboard manufacturer caused issue but simply the nature of a new platform with unestablished parameters.  

Every now and again one or another manufacturer will hit on a lucky fix or workaround that will give them the edge, that is just how competition works. 


-------------


Posted By: noneis
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2017 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked



Some subtimings are tighter with AGESA 1.0.0.6 and some are looser. That explains a lot.  tRC, tWTRL, tWR, tCWL, tRTP,... are tighter and tRRDL, tFAW, tRDWR, tRFC,... are looser.
AGESA 1.0.0.6 BIOS defaulted for me to 1T without Geardown unlike 1.0.0.4a which deafulted to 1T with Geardown. I didn't have patience to test subtimings to get 3066/3200 memory clock when P-State 1&2 overclock didn't work. 


Posted By: Joe_User
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2017 at 1:15am
Memory speed is dependent on SoC memory controller timing parameters, PCB layout, memory module timing+layout.  The layout quality affect signal integrity while the chip timings (aka Silicon Lottery) affect the timing margins.

The physical parts have not changed across BIOS updates, so that leaves the timing parameters for the BIOS defaults profiles.  Most users probably not playing with custom timing.

You can try the experiment by looking at the actual parameters using Ryzen Timing Checker of one BIOS version vs the other.



Posted By: ZeroSynk
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2017 at 2:17am
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by Teckie Teckie wrote:

Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO. 

This^.


Yet that doesn't explain away why some Users on board x have better results with a BIOS that has 1.0.0.4 over the newer 1.0.0.6.

Shocked


I think it depends on the kit of memory. On 1.0.0.4 really all bios before agesa 1.0.0.6 I could not get my dual rank 32GB kit to 3200.  With 1.0.0.6 I can, and I am running some pretty tight timings as well.

14-15-14-21-29-1 (tCAS-tRC-tRP-tRAS-tCS-tCR)
https://valid.x86.fr/h1yzfa

And my subtimings are even tighter.




Posted By: glhrmbhnrt
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2017 at 9:36pm
" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Coming to an ASRock motherboard near you. Soon. REAL soon.

Keep an eye peeled.


I'm refreshing the bios page of my MB every day, Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4.
Is there any possible date for this new bios to arrive?


-------------
Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4
Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz 1.37v
G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C16-8GTZ @ 2933Mhz 14-14-14-31 1T - 2x8gb 1.35v
Seasonic 620w
Sapphire R9 290


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2017 at 10:20pm
Originally posted by glhrmbhnrt glhrmbhnrt wrote:

" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Coming to an ASRock motherboard near you. Soon. REAL soon.

Keep an eye peeled.


I'm refreshing the bios page of my MB every day, Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4.
Is there any possible date for this new bios to arrive?


Every day? hahahaha Chill

No sadly, I was told it'd be out by now.


Posted By: oile
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2017 at 1:26am
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by glhrmbhnrt glhrmbhnrt wrote:

" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Coming to an ASRock motherboard near you. Soon. REAL soon.

Keep an eye peeled.


I'm refreshing the bios page of my MB every day, Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4.
Is there any possible date for this new bios to arrive?


Every day? hahahaha Chill

No sadly, I was told it'd be out by now.

Could you ask a timeline? :)


-------------
R5 1600 3.9 1.32v-Taichi-16gb LPX-1060-TT850w


Posted By: Heyitsaaron
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2017 at 8:38pm
Probably delayed to allocate more resources to the intel hyperthreading issue.


Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2017 at 9:26pm
They have been doing that since weeks ago.

Doubt they have only one team, that deals specifically with only that and nothing else.


Posted By: AlbinoRhino
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 12:54am
" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Memory support does not live and die by AGESA updates, Look at the other motherboard's that could run many of the popular Ram kits at rates speeds up to 3200mhz day one. Asrock is the one who is dropping the ball on memory support IMO.?


Eh. I tended to believe this in the beginning when ASUS was pumping out Bioses left and right and yet if you go over to overclockers.net those boards are still struggling with max Ram OC's.

I could always boot at 2933 on my Killer from the day I was finally able to POST and some boards still cannot clock that high. 3200 stable is what I'm aiming for next week when I get home. It's more of a mental win however as 3200 over 2933 performance will be lackluster at best.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 6:48am
I haven't heard squat from them concerning 1.0.0.6a.

Yet I 'hear' a 1.0.0.7 is in in-house testing.


Word on 1.0.0.6a doesn't seem much appreciative reading some forum posts elsewhere.


Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 12:38pm
Wow, I had not even heard about 1007.
Is there a link to the changenotes yet?
Thanks!


Posted By: oile
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 3:04pm
" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

I haven't heard squat from them concerning 1.0.0.6a.

Yet I 'hear' a 1.0.0.7 is in in-house testing.


Word on 1.0.0.6a doesn't seem much appreciative reading some forum posts elsewhere.

Would you mean that 1006a is not so good and they are looking to 1007 directly?
No 1006a bios within days?


-------------
R5 1600 3.9 1.32v-Taichi-16gb LPX-1060-TT850w


Posted By: Zwu
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 4:03pm
i dont care which agesa version number the next bios has as long as i can run my 3200mhz ram at its advertised speed ;D


Posted By: Asingo
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 7:34pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

I haven't heard squat from them concerning 1.0.0.6a.

Yet I 'hear' a 1.0.0.7 is in in-house testing.


Word on 1.0.0.6a doesn't seem much appreciative reading some forum posts elsewhere.

Any word on 3200mhz on x370 k4? There is still hope? Embarrassed


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 8:01pm
Originally posted by Asingo Asingo wrote:

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

I haven't heard squat from them concerning 1.0.0.6a.

Yet I 'hear' a 1.0.0.7 is in in-house testing.


Word on 1.0.0.6a doesn't seem much appreciative reading some forum posts elsewhere.

Any word on 3200mhz on x370 k4? There is still hope? Embarrassed


@ Asingo
I myself haven't seen 3200 on the K4 posted in the forums I occasionally frequent Embarrassed


re: 1.0.0.6a or 1.0.0.6a > 1.0.0.7
Date? Time? Change Log? No direct or indirect answers for any of those back to me so far.


Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 2:18am
There is always hope
I'm looking forward to what we will find out (or be told by someone who will be able to find out)


Posted By: xethi
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2017 at 6:32pm
" rel="nofollow - any news about that soon to come 1006a?;[

or any official release of the 2.36 version as 2.4 is worse.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2017 at 6:49pm
Originally posted by xethi xethi wrote:

" rel="nofollow - any news about that soon to come 1006a?;[

or any official release of the 2.36 version as 2.4 is worse.


As a matter of fact I just not 15mins ago received an email that BIOSes with 1.0.0.6A are just around the corner.


Posted By: AlbinoRhino
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2017 at 7:14pm
" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by xethi xethi wrote:

[URL=][/URL]any news about that soon to come 1006a?;[

or any official release of the 2.36 version as 2.4 is worse.


As a matter of fact I just not 15mins ago received an email that BIOSes with 1.0.0.6A are just around the corner.


Sweet. I fly home tomorrow so hopefully they'll have it available soon. 3200 stable is the last hurdle for me with my system.


Posted By: Dogmifier
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2017 at 7:22pm
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by xethi xethi wrote:

" rel="nofollow - any news about that soon to come 1006a?;[

or any official release of the 2.36 version as 2.4 is worse.


As a matter of fact I just not 15mins ago received an email that BIOSes with 1.0.0.6A are just around the corner.


well, I'll have to talk my friend who doesn't know how to do flashing and setting bio...

Nope..nevermind...she'll have to do with 2933MHz DDR4..




-------------
X99X Fata1ity
5930k
16GB Crucial
1200W Corsair
evga GTX 1080
Samsung 950 Pro


Posted By: xethi
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2017 at 10:49pm
Originally posted by Dogmifier Dogmifier wrote:

Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

Originally posted by xethi xethi wrote:

" rel="nofollow - any news about that soon to come 1006a?;[

or any official release of the 2.36 version as 2.4 is worse.


As a matter of fact I just not 15mins ago received an email that BIOSes with 1.0.0.6A are just around the corner.


well, I'll have to talk my friend who doesn't know how to do flashing and setting bio...

Nope..nevermind...she'll have to do with 2933MHz DDR4..




great news so like in coming 24 to 48h?:]

and bios flashing have never been that easy thats wihout the hundreds of guides and videos taking you step by step through it for your friend :]




Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2017 at 11:48pm
Hope it does not screw up my out of the box XMP 3600 Mhz profile (15-15-15-35). :)


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2017 at 12:47am
Originally posted by Star_Pilgrim Star_Pilgrim wrote:

Hope it does not screw up my out of the box XMP 3600 Mhz profile (15-15-15-35). :)

If your system is working then don't update the BIOS. If it ain't broke.... Wink


-------------


Posted By: foppe
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2017 at 1:18am
For that purpose it would be helpful to know what features are being added with every update to the agesa, though. :p (E.g. I'm particularly interested in iommu/virtualization fixes, the compilation segfaults, etc...)


-------------
AB350 Pro4, Ryzen 1600, 3.8GHz@1.35625v, Vengeance LPX 4x8GB b3000c15 2666@1.35v


Posted By: foppe
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2017 at 1:09pm
yes, I'm sure -- Qubes user here. It's the future of the desktop. ;)

For an intro as to the why you might want to: https://level1techs.com/video/qubes-os-part-1-overview-and-features" rel="nofollow - https://level1techs.com/video/qubes-os-part-1-overview-and-features


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2017 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by foppe foppe wrote:

yes, I'm sure -- Qubes user here. It's the future of the desktop. ;)

For an intro as to the why you might want to: https://level1techs.com/video/qubes-os-part-1-overview-and-features" rel="nofollow - https://level1techs.com/video/qubes-os-part-1-overview-and-features


Interesting.

Yet this looks like a Qube issue.


Posted By: yue0707
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2017 at 7:52am
Every freaking B-Series Mobo I've gone through and updated to 1.0.0.6 in the past week from ASRock and Gigabyte have shared the same RAM issues.

I was just able to OC my ram with 1.0.0.6 just fine and it was stable, then all of a sudden the triple failure boot loop of doom. Now no matter what I do (reset CMOS, switch ram around, etc.) The RAM nor the CPU will overclock at all. I have to use the ASRock A Tuning tool for the CPU and the RAM... Well it just has to stay at its XMP profile of 2400MHz. It was at 3200MHz stable @1.4v. Idk i'm probably going to return this ASRock board and get a ASUS X series board and avoid 1.0.0.6 like the plague.

I don't need crazy 4000MHz RAM OC's but I just find it extremely annoying that I sold my Geil Evo Potenza's and went out and got the HyperX Fury ram as the Mobo RAM sheet said and I can't even touch anything dealing with timings or even a mild 2667MHz OC which can be done on this RAM without even raising voltage.

Ugh, well at least the ASRock OC tool got my CPU to 3.9GHz without any major voltage increases.


Posted By: yue0707
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2017 at 8:08am
But at this point I don't even see the point of returning it. I'm pretty sure every Ryzen Mobo with 1.0.0.6 is acting like a pile of garbage when OC'd. So I guess we just have to wait for ASRock engineers to fix the crap stain of a garbage baby mistake called the Intel X299 Chipset and CPU's lol.

Seriously the way Intel is pushing the mobo manufacturers around to put out a completely overpriced scam of a chipset is appalling. They must be living in lala land because nobody (except the fanboys, they are like the apple cult) is going to want to buy it, the scam is exposed, cats out of the bag. Leave it to Intel to rush a chipset out just to disrupt the market and force manufacturers to divert their attention away from fixing AM4 issues and rub dirt on AMD for stability issues. Which the conspiracy side of me believes that was their plan all along, which would make X299's purpose in life make more sense being that its sole purpose is to just give Intel a upper hand and slow AMD's releases down or disrupt them to give them a bad name.

Intel could of waited for a solid platform to be developed (as they planned), but no. Gotta compete with muh Threadripper and muh $2,000 Skylake X CPU and force the lower end of the market into limited PCI-E lanes, no I-GPU for Quick Sync, etc "just because deal with it". /endintelrant

I don't blame ASRock for this mess, they are trying to do their best in dealing with two upcoming releases from AMD and Intel all while trying to fix the AM4 platform and get it ready for the upcoming APU's. That's a lot of work.


Posted By: xethi
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2017 at 2:01am
" rel="nofollow - so whats coming soon mean really? its been some time to be honest why announce it as soon and it really doesnt feel anything like it.

how can 1006 be worse then 2.36 and earlier. and dont tell me about more ppl getting their ram to rated speed since most if they do are on terrible timings.

better then soon a timeline would be better.





Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2017 at 10:58pm
Originally posted by yue0707 yue0707 wrote:

Every freaking B-Series Mobo I've gone through and updated to 1.0.0.6 in the past week from ASRock and Gigabyte have shared the same RAM issues.


heh. For kicks I went to the local Frys this past Sunday and bought a Gigabyte Aorus Gaming K5. Conclusion; Same as you. Not different with the situation of X370 boards across brands.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2017 at 11:03pm
" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by yue0707 yue0707 wrote:


Intel could of waited for a solid platform to be developed (as they planned), but no. Gotta compete with muh Threadripper and muh $2,000 Skylake X CPU and force the lower end of the market into limited PCI-E lanes, no I-GPU for Quick Sync, etc "just because deal with it". /endintelrant


Isn't that something. Skylake-X pricing? Dayyyyum!



Originally posted by yue0707 yue0707 wrote:


I don't blame ASRock for this mess, they are trying to do their best in dealing with two upcoming releases from AMD and Intel all while trying to fix the AM4 platform and get it ready for the upcoming APU's. That's a lot of work


Are you shilling there? j/k LOLTongue

That is the most refreshing, and realistic, words spoken here in some time.


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2017 at 11:07pm
Originally posted by yue0707 yue0707 wrote:


I don't blame ASRock for this mess, they are trying to do their best in dealing with two upcoming releases from AMD and Intel all while trying to fix the AM4 platform and get it ready for the upcoming APU's. That's a lot of work.

Beer


-------------


Posted By: foppe
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2017 at 11:25pm
Main thing I dislike is lack of, and/or misleading expectation management. (Among other things,) I wish we could live in a world in which people and companies weren't so afraid to be transparent when it comes to the choices they are making.


Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2017 at 11:43pm
Yeah! And maybe, where people agree, that - liking each other or not - life is so much easier when we all agree to not hurt each other and maybe not even lie, cheat and steal..

I have always been a gigabyte-person and gave ASRock a chance this time. I like the customer service and these forums. I think it's a good company, maybe even trustworthy, for a company. And I honestly agree with you. I guess as long as there are competitors in the market, no sane company would show is their inside decision making... No matter how customer friendly they are ascending to be


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 12:15am
Oh sh*t!

You guys are inflating our egos here.




Posted By: PinetreeRoad
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 5:04am
Any word on what's going on with the BIOS updates? Looking at the BIOS release page all the last BIOS updates were about a month ago.

Are they still working on that HT bug? Is that the big delay?

We have been waiting for AGESA .6a for some time, now i'm reading about a .7 in the nerdy forums. Is there an issue with the AGESA versions? I was hoping that AM4 development would be ramping up with all the new AMD CPUs being announced. It would be nice to know whats going on if you guys have any info you are allowed to share.

I know its not a big deal to most users. I just like to be on that cutting edge Cool


Posted By: celerity
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 10:50am
UEFI 3.0 released for X370 K4!

Changelog: Update AGESA to 1.0.0.6a


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 11:31am
BIOSes with AGESA 1.0.0.6a for all boards are now beginning to be made available.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 11:50am
Remember FIRST to Reset to UEFI Deaults, Save and Exit, then flash as this is major BIOS rewrite/update.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 12:35pm
Your Profiles WILL be overwritten.

Myself, as 3.00 is a major rewrite, I would NOT worry of saving them.

Instead choosing wisely to begin anew.


Posted By: mgilbert
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 1:29pm
Updated my X370 Gaming K4 to UEFI 3.0 - AGESA 1.0.0.6a.  I'm not seeing any difference between UEFI 2.5 and 3.0, and can't find any information about what the new AGESA is supposed to do.  My Corsair 3600 MT/s RAM still won't run beyond 2933...  Oh well...


Posted By: Coldstance
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 2:09pm
The only thing I have noticed is that my mobo debugger LED is displaying the correct temperature now. I still can only run my 3200 ram at 2933 stable.


Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 2:11pm
" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by Coldstance Coldstance wrote:

The only thing I have noticed is that my mobo debugger LED is displaying the correct temperature now.


Say WHAT?


Posted By: rpmrg
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 2:40pm
" rel="nofollow - Any news for the B350 boards? Today 14/07/2017 or tommorow?


Posted By: Zwu
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 3:00pm
well 11mins prime stable then 1 error at 3200mhz on first try

i think one can work with that

bios seems to read cpu(1600x) temp wrong again


-------------


Posted By: rpmrg
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 3:32pm
I use Google's Stressapptest memory test tool for Linux, the best memory tester in the world used by Google to test its own servers.

1 hour with it using a linux live cd is sufficient for memory stability.






Posted By: Zwu
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 4:24pm
http://imgur.com/EHY3T3i" rel="nofollow - http://imgur.com/EHY3T3i

1 hour prime blendtest without errors: seems stable for me

finally



-------------


Posted By: soleil14
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 4:40pm
" rel="nofollow - My only concern is the post time? Will the system boot faster with Bios 3.0 ? I have a x370 Taichi mobo.


Posted By: Asingo
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 5:42pm
Originally posted by Zwu Zwu wrote:


1 hour prime blendtest without errors: seems stable for me

finally



OT: Good VRM temps Smile Do you use something to cool VRM?


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 5:55pm
Using 3.0 on my X370 Taichi and have 3600 stable on my corsair 3600 kit. All I did was enable XMP Clap

These new updates show some serious promise so far. I am still testing but so far, considering I couldn't even post at 3600 before, things are looking great.


-------------


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 6:00pm
Spoke too soon, random BSOD... AFTER my stress testing was done LOL

Back to tweaking....


-------------


Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 6:15pm
Originally posted by soleil14 soleil14 wrote:

" rel="nofollow - My only concern is the post time? Will the system boot faster with Bios 3.0 ? I have a x370 Taichi mobo.


Try setting AM4 Advance Boot Training to Disabled to shorten POST time.

If your memory does not need training on every startup, that will shorten POST time.


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


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 6:19pm
I had no issues with POST times on my Taichi. As Parsec said, the biggest issue with POST times and AM4 is usually memory training related. 

-------------


Posted By: Zwu
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 7:30pm
Originally posted by Asingo Asingo wrote:

Originally posted by Zwu Zwu wrote:


1 hour prime blendtest without errors: seems stable for me

finally



OT: Good VRM temps Smile Do you use something to cool VRM?

nope just some casefans


-------------


Posted By: Heyitsaaron
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 8:35pm
" rel="nofollow - Have any of the b350 boards received the 3.0 update? Still waiting on it for my Ab350m pro4.


Posted By: mgilbert
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 8:55pm
Originally posted by Heyitsaaron Heyitsaaron wrote:

" rel="nofollow - Have any of the b350 boards received the 3.0 update? Still waiting on it for my Ab350m pro4.

Apparently not...  Watch this page...

http://www.asrock.com/support/download.asp?cat=BIOS



Posted By: Heyitsaaron
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 9:10pm
Thanks mgilbert! I imagined they would roll it to X370 boards first. Man I wish that asrock would give us matx guys a X370 board to buy. May buy the X370 itx board; but under protest lol.


Posted By: Star_Pilgrim
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 9:16pm
Originally posted by Xaltar Xaltar wrote:

Spoke too soon, random BSOD... AFTER my stress testing was done LOL

Back to tweaking....

Just put latency one higher.


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 9:21pm
Thanks Star_Pilgrim, this was just with XMP set to on, no other tweaks at all. It passed all my stress testing then BSOD using chrome for some reason. I will be doing a fresh OS install later this weekend too, I want a clean testing environment to try the new AGESA 1.0.0.6a BIOS out. 

The system has been up and stable for a few hours since the last BSOD, I just upped my RAM voltage to 1.375. After a clean install I will look at things again. I can't rule out OS and driver issues at this point with all the different all in one drivers I have installed on here. 


-------------


Posted By: Cap.T
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 11:29pm
I wouldn't recommaned installing the 3.00 Bios-Update if you using a customizied CPU-Fan Setting. I have an X370 Gaming K4 and when I set the CPU-Fan Setting to customizied and use the exact same settings I used with the the previous Bios, my CPU-Fan will not slow down. Even while I'm still in the Bios itself the Cooler will go to full speed. It also won't slow down after Windows starts. As soon as I change the settings to Silent- or Standardprofil things seem to be working ok, but on customizied something seems to be broken.
I'm not the only one with this issue. In the German "HardwareLuxx"-Forums a user has the exact same issue with an 370 Taichi since he updated to 3.0.


Posted By: Akagami
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 11:29pm
" rel="nofollow - Zwu- what settings did you use? I've tried adjusting SOC, DRAM, geardown and advanced training but I can't get my Corsair LPX stable at 3200. That said 3.0 seems more stable all around in my limited testing.


Posted By: chainsaw
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 11:55pm
Cap.T i just tryed it out, My fans slowly went up to 100% also and just stayed their till the system crashed. i have R7 1700 / Gaming K4 bios 3.0


Posted By: Cap.T
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 12:02am
Originally posted by chainsaw chainsaw wrote:

Cap.T i just tryed it out, My fans slowly went up to 100% also and just stayed their till the system crashed. i have R7 1700 / Gaming K4 bios 3.0


Yeah, something seems to be broken there. I've tried CMOS-Clear just know and that didn't help either.


Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 12:26am
Seems like just a little bug. Nothing that would keep me from updatin anyways. I mean, why use custom settings for case fans? I had to look: mine are at a medium setting. I do not hear them and CPU/GPU/MB are quite cool. What else is the to do? ^^

If it's a bug, it has to be reported. So I will try to reproduce it when I update (prly sunday).

Any other issues?Star


Posted By: baskura
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 12:40am
" rel="nofollow - I don't know if the fan profile thing is a bug, I believe what they've done is change which sensor is being monitored to control fan speed.

In the previous bios fan speed was controlled by the 'CPU' sensor under the motherboard section (ASRock X370 Taichi) in HWiNFO64.

Now it appears to being controlled by the Tctl sensor (which I believe is actually just a fake sensor).

If you look in the BIOS at the temperature you should see what your idle temperature is roughly - mine was at about 55 degrees, in which case would match Tctl more or less. Remove the 20 degree offset of my X chip and that gives me an idle of around 35 degrees in the bios - which again is about right since there's no power saving etc running while not in Windows.

If you have a non X Ryzen CPU then your Tctl temperature would be 20 degrees lower.

So for my fan profile now, I have to set the trigger temps much higher to get the same results as the previous bios.

I'm guessing the reason they have done this is because the sensor they were using was slow to react and only peaked at 50 degrees for me. By using Tctl for the fan profiles the CPU cooler will react much faster to temperature increase, with the downside being your fans will spin up/down more often because the temperate from Ttcl is more jumpy.

I really think ASRock should be releasing change notes with new bios releases though, it shouldn't be down to people like me to have to work these things out.

Could someone actually confirm this, or is it indeed a bug?




Posted By: Jakob
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 12:45am
Thank you anyway, baskura!
I am looking forward to trying it out.
Change log would be very nice though...


Posted By: Zwu
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 12:58am
what baskura said - i added 20° and it was like before - seems to be related to temperature offset

@akagami

Dram voltage 1.36
SoC Voltage 1.15
Geardown disabled
procODT 56 Ohm
Commandrate 1T
XMP @ 3200


-------------


Posted By: Teckie
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 1:20am
So far CPU running at 3.9 fine. Turned on xmp profile at 3200 and the board failed again.
Looks like I cant win.


-------------
Ryzen 1700X
Asrock X370 Fatal1ty prof gaming (1.0.0.6a)
G.Skill 8gx2 3200 FlareX 14-14-14-34 CAS 14 (F4-3200C14D-16GFX)
EVGA G3 750 80Gold
EVGA clc 280 AIO
960 EVO M.2
860 EVO SSD


Posted By: SoniC
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 1:43am
Originally posted by Xaltar Xaltar wrote:

Thanks Star_Pilgrim, this was just with XMP set to on, no other tweaks at all. It passed all my stress testing then BSOD using chrome for some reason. I will be doing a fresh OS install later this weekend too, I want a clean testing environment to try the new AGESA 1.0.0.6a BIOS out. 

The system has been up and stable for a few hours since the last BSOD, I just upped my RAM voltage to 1.375. After a clean install I will look at things again. I can't rule out OS and driver issues at this point with all the different all in one drivers I have installed on here. 

Remember that setting XMP doesn't touch the Command Rate (probably your modules have 2T CR).
Had exactly the same issue with mine 4x running @ 3200 --- loaded XMP and BAM! it worked but somehow only 99% stable. 

CR needs to be at least checked in e.g. CPU-Z.

If you want to set it you will find it under the advanced DDR settings (first you need to disable Geardown else the CR setting will be ignored).

Njoy your now stable & fast RAM ;-)


-------------
-=SoniC=-
TR x1950, ASRock X399 FPG (v. 3.33A), G.Skill 3200 CL14 64GB, Enermax LiqTech 280,
AMD Vega 64 LC, 10x HDDs (mostly Hitachi), 2x M.2 (970EVO,960Pro), Xonar DX, AX1200i PSU


Posted By: PinetreeRoad
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 7:55am
Originally posted by baskura baskura wrote:

Now it appears to being controlled by the Tctl sensor (which I believe is actually just a fake sensor).


According to the HWiNFO author the Tctl reading is the actual on die temperature sensor for the CPU. The Tdie reading is the Tctl with the -20c offset.

Source https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/Thread-Ryzen-1700x-temp-sensor-which-one" rel="nofollow - https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/Thread-Ryzen-1700x-temp-sensor-which-one


Posted By: Ricky
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 2:01pm
for fan curve, i prefer using CPU socket sensor. As Tctl is a bit jumpy.

asrock should include an option that let us choose either CPU socket or Tctl. 


Posted By: baskura
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 9:23pm
Originally posted by PinetreeRoad PinetreeRoad wrote:

Originally posted by baskura baskura wrote:

Now it appears to being controlled by the Tctl sensor (which I believe is actually just a fake sensor).


According to the HWiNFO author the Tctl reading is the actual on die temperature sensor for the CPU. The Tdie reading is the Tctl with the -20c offset.

Source https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/Thread-Ryzen-1700x-temp-sensor-which-one" rel="nofollow - https://www.hwinfo.com/forum/Thread-Ryzen-1700x-temp-sensor-which-one

Good to know, I knew one wasn't an actual sensor.


Posted By: AlbinoRhino
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 10:48pm
" rel="nofollow -
Originally posted by Ricky Ricky wrote:

for fan curve, i prefer using CPU socket sensor. As Tctl is a bit jumpy.

asrock should include an option that let us choose either CPU socket or Tctl.?


My TCTL pretty much mirrors my CPU power demands. If you pull up a graph of your CPU activity you will see that every 10 seconds or so it spikes. Consistently. I haven't figured out why or how to make it smooth, but i believe it is typical across all Ryzen processors.

I have removed TCTL from HWInfo as my temps come nowhere close to justify a +20% offset so I removed it to reduce clutter. I kept TDIE as the reading since it is correct.

Do all CPU_Fan headers read TCTL as a default?


Posted By: Denroth
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2017 at 1:05am
" rel="nofollow - any info for killer sli?



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net