Print Page | Close Window

H97 Performance OC disabled Bios 2.4

Printed From: ASRock.com
Category: Technical Support
Forum Name: Intel Motherboards
Forum Description: Question about ASRock Intel Motherboards
URL: https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=917
Printed Date: 23 Dec 2024 at 12:54am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: H97 Performance OC disabled Bios 2.4
Posted By: Namster
Subject: H97 Performance OC disabled Bios 2.4
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2015 at 3:29pm
Hi

I wasn't sure if I should post this here or under the OC section.
I updated to Bios 2.40 for my H97 Fatl1ty Performance motherboard and now my OC options are disabled within the bios.
Does anyone know if a new version is on the way to correct this or if I should role back if I want to OC?

Just to note I have not had time to test and see if the options are still available in the F-Stream software.

I have Windows 10 and i5-4670K.
(will be getting my 4790K today so I would like to know what my options are).



Replies:
Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2015 at 6:01pm
You will have to roll back, BIOS 2.40 for that board was purely to disable overclocking to enable G3258 users to install and operate windows 10 which would not work on overclocked non-Z platforms.

This was due to Microsoft releasing an update that essentially broke windows if you were using non-Z overclocking and it caused quite a scandal here and on the interwebs at large. Just roll back to the previous version, other than disabled overclocking there are no major changes between 2.40 and its predecessor. 


Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2015 at 11:31pm
Originally posted by Xaltar Xaltar wrote:

You will have to roll back, BIOS 2.40 for that board was purely to disable overclocking to enable G3258 users to install and operate windows 10 which would not work on overclocked non-Z platforms.

This was due to Microsoft releasing an update that essentially broke windows if you were using non-Z overclocking and it caused quite a scandal here and on the interwebs at large. Just roll back to the previous version, other than disabled overclocking there are no major changes between 2.40 and its predecessor. 


Xaltar, so the use of an earlier UEFI/BIOS version will fix this issue on these boards?

I'm simply not sure, since the microcode is not always updated by every UEFI/BIOS update.

I just want to know for future reference if using an earlier UEFI version after the MS update is applied fixes the issue. Or would this board need the UEFI update that fixed the bricked board issue caused by the MS update?

See what I mean? Confused


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


Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2015 at 12:21am
In most forums I have seen this issue brought up, flashing to a previous BIOS resolved the issue so I suspect a microcode update was not implemented in the updates but who can know for sure with every single board model this happened to. The issue is not specific to ASRock B and H series boards either, other manufacturers also released updates that disabled non-Z overclocking. I know the last time overclocking was disabled in this way it introduced a microcode update that essentially locked out overclocking no matter what BIOS version you flashed to after it was applied but that was forced by intel directly in the early days of the H81/87 and B85 based boards. I have not seen any evidence of that this time round. ASRock released these BIOS updates as a way to make Windows 10 run on B and H boards affected by the BSODs that this stupid MS update (purposefully) caused.

Thus far I have seen no evidence of bricked boards when flashing to an older BIOS, I am sure by now there would be a mention if someone experienced a bad regression flash. 

I know exactly what you mean about these BIOS issues, I have seen none too few people brick their boards trying to flash back to older BIOS versions to restore functions disabled in newer ones. It makes giving advice on these issues a little hair raising to say the least. Luckily in this case I am fairly sure that it would not be the case. 



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