Crosshair VI Hero: UEFI build update thread

[Raja]

Directly from Elmor:

Beta BIOS 3008 for C6H/C6HWIFI/C6E:

AGESA 1.0.7.1, temperature offset fixed after S3 resume, GPU Post function fixed, 0d with some GPUs fixed

http://www.mediafire.com/file/f95motjmh211e7h/CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO-ASUS-3008.zip
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ntn6i3jiub610ai/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO-WIFI-AC-ASUS-3008.zip
http://www.mediafire.com/file/yj22ld2rmmedp01/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI-EXTREME-ASUS-3008.zip





C6H Test BIOS 0020 with AGESA 1007 (405200c4e299c1eed9a0044edec9aba51f37cee1d70caabe40b9485b0604521a)

In order to get back to an older version after flashing, you have to use USB BIOS Flashback.

Let me know how it works for you, especially regarding cold boot issues. Any confirmed bugs in the bug report form please




Beta BIOS 1501

* Workaround for some CPUs stuck at 22x ratio if using override voltage
* Fixes PCIEX4 bandwidth setting getting lost after power is removed
* Same DRAM boot behavior as 1403 (no cold boot fix)
* Same DRAM profiles as in 9920
* Still has the Vcore value issue when booting with Offset Mode and switching to Manual Mode

Crosshair VI Hero 1501 SHA256 EDE223DC6897B7199C93D9985E28B7A2CD1B8A8DB2DCBF3D3555A521DB4F045D
Crosshair VI Hero Wifi AC 1501 SHA256 0D9F51F43AA3A56A4AC984B11A52F58451B76F8A7CCB9A04E1C3194231C9D4DA






UEFI build 9920 for the C6H:

* Improved DRAM cold boot, results in slightly longer POST time
* Fix for CPU Ratio stuck at 22x on some CPUs when using Vcore override/offset
* SenseMi Skew is now Disabled by default. If you want to return to previous behavior set SenseMi Skew = Enabled and Offset = 272.
* Added DRAM profiles for Samsung B-based DIMMs with tuned subtimings, including The Stilt's settings



C6H beta UEFI 1403

* Fixed W_PUMP and AIO_PUMP speeds during POST
* Fixed Fan tuning sometimes failing
* Fixed a few issues with AMD USB3.1 ports
* Some tuning on DRAM settings, let us know how they work for you. tRDRD_Sc is still at 5 above 3500 MHz as it helps with stability. For performance you want to force this to 1. We'll consider changing this in future releases as the performance impact can be quite noticeable in certain applications.

An update on DRAM Boot Voltage, currently it should be 1.35V by default if the DRAM Voltage is changed. So if you're setting DRAM Voltage to above 1.35V, you might want to sync this setting. Additionally there might be scenarios where you will have better luck by syncing DRAM Boot Voltage to DRAM Voltage even at lower values.




AGESA 1006 RC4 official UEFI 1401

Just tested quickly 3600 memory and cold booting, seems good but you guys are going to have to help me test this before we have a judgement. Seems CPU temp reading from SIO now has -20*C offset for XFR enabled CPUs.





UEFI build 1107





Older test builds:


Test BIOS 0079

Test BIOS with new AGESA 1004a, with a couple of bugfixes. Up to 5% performance increases in specific applications. Also has P-state overclocking working with BCLK increase. If you want to keep C-states, make sure to set Advanced\AMD CBS\Zen Common Options\Global C-state Control = Enabled. There are two new settings under AMD CBS\UMC Common Options\DDR4 Common Options\ you might want to take a look at, Fail_CNT and ProcODT. Fail_CNT decides how many times to retry when DRAM training fails (F9 -> 0d), default is now 1. ProcODT can help improve your DRAM overclocking. There's a setting available also on previous BIOSes under AMD CBS\UMC Common Options\DRAM Memory Mapping named BankGroupSwap. If you have 2x Single-Rank modules you can try setting this to Disabled and you might see some performance boost in certain applications.

Test BIOS 0081

Same as 0079 but has ProcODT default = 53.3 ohm

Test BIOS 0082

Same as 0081 but with a DRAM compability patch for the below part numbers

CMK16GX4M4A2133C13
AHU08GGB13CGT7G
PV416G240C5QK
F4-2400C15Q-32GRR
TCD44G2400C14BK
F4-2666C16Q2-64GRB
AVD4UZ126661504G
BLT8G4D26AFTA.16FAD
IMA41GU6MFR8N-C F0
MD16GK4D4266615AXR
HX430C15PB2K4/16
HX430C15PBK4/32
AX4U3333W4G16-QGZ
GAM4DBLBM2133D15IE041C
TC48G24S817
SP004GBLFU213N02
78.C1GM3.AF10B
F4-3200C16D-8GVKB

MTA4ATF51264AZ-2G6B1
MTA8ATF1G64AZ-2G3B1
MTA16ATF2G64AZ-2G6B1
HMA41GU7AFR8N-TF T0
HMA451U7AFR8N-TF T0
HMA41GU6AFR8N-UH N0
M378A2K43BB1-CTD
M378A1K43BB1-CRC
M378A1G43EB1-CRC

Test BIOS 0083

Same as 0081 but with "2T" DRAM Mode when using above 2666 DRAM Ratio.

[Demoniacstar]

MNMadman wrote:
Hate to disappoint you but the CPU speed limitation is due to the process the CPU is made on rather than anything that would be improved by a BIOS update. If the CPUs could do higher speeds, the R5s would certainly be clocked higher.

the r5 is a r5 because it is a faild r7.......what do you think amd is doing with all the faild r7's that don't meet r7 requirements?
throwing them away?

and i will say this ....the micro code for the ram is needed to improve stability in ram overclocks and can and most likely will help the stability of the SoC.(imc) in the cpu ...that very well could help in higher cpu clocks and lower voltage.... by how much who's to tell.....but it very well could help in those area's

[MNMadman]

Demoniacstar wrote:
the r5 is a r5 because it is a faild r7.......what do you think amd is doing with all the faild r7's that don't meet r7 requirements?
throwing them away?

and i will say this ....the micro code for the ram is needed to improve stability in ram overclocks and can and most likely will help the stability of the SoC.(imc) in the cpu ...that very well could help in higher cpu clocks and lower voltage.... by how much who's to tell.....but it very well could help in those area's

I know this -- everything is like that in the computing world.

What I was saying was that with disabled cores, these CPUs SHOULD be able to clock higher. But they cannot. So the process is at fault. I heard this was a cell phone process node or something, not originally designed as a computer CPU process node.

A BIOS update cannot fix a process node that isn't designed for high clock rates.

And if IMC stability was at fault, just turning the RAM down to 2133 would improve overclocks -- but it doesn't.

Bottom line -- don't expect higher core clocks from the RAM update in May. Expect RAM to work better and that's it. That way you won't be disappointed.

[Kobura]

MNMadman wrote:
What I was saying was that with disabled cores, these CPUs SHOULD be able to clock higher.

That's only reasonable for temperature limits. Otherwise you only gain 100-200MHz headroom top from disabling cores.

Talking purely about ambient cooling ofc.

[brumylad2017]

hey there raja after a lot time and messing about with my ch6 and memory now finally been able to get my ram running at 2746mhz which is overclocked. the way its running at this speed is using the asus tuning tool in the bios put my 1700X to 3.80ghz and changes memory frequency for 2666mhz to 2746mhz. using 1.35v and ive managed to get it running with timings of 14-14-14-34 but the one i cant seem to figure out how to change is Bank Cycle Time (tRC) as atm mine is at 62 and i wanna try dropping it to between 52-56.

if u can provide some help with this id be very greatful

[MNMadman]

brumylad2017 wrote:
hey there raja after a lot time and messing about with my ch6 and memory now finally been able to get my ram running at 2746mhz which is overclocked. the way its running at this speed is using the asus tuning tool in the bios put my 1700X to 3.80ghz and changes memory frequency for 2666mhz to 2746mhz. using 1.35v and ive managed to get it running with timings of 14-14-14-34 but the one i cant seem to figure out how to change is Bank Cycle Time (tRC) as atm mine is at 62 and i wanna try dropping it to between 52-56.

if u can provide some help with this id be very greatful

There is no way to do so. However, there is a big AGESA code update for RAM compatibility/stability/speed coming from AMD to board manufacturers in May. BIOS updates for our boards using that new AGESA code will come after that.

The secondary timings might be opened up to us when those BIOS updates are released.

[MNMadman]

Kobura wrote:
Otherwise you only gain 100-200MHz headroom top from disabling cores.

Talking purely about ambient cooling ofc.

With less circuitry activated, it should also require less voltage. Which, if the process is capable, should allow higher overclocks. It worked that way on the last two generations of the Intel Core architecture I tried it on. It doesn't on Ryzen, however.

Being a gamer, I was willing to sacrifice a few cores for higher clock speed. In my case, I gained 0 MHz. Tried four cores (2+2 and 4+0) and six cores (even tried with SMT disabled) but gained nothing at all.

[Kobura]

MNMadman wrote:
With less circuitry activated, it should also require less voltage. Which, if the process is capable, should allow higher overclocks. It worked that way on the last two generations of the Intel Core architecture I tried it on. It doesn't on Ryzen, however.

That still sounds more likely like a thermal limit. Did you delid your CPUs? Part of the die just might run too high on a non-delidded Core i series.

The biggest difference i found was less than 200MHz, and usually it's actually less than 100MHz, unless the limit was temperature.

And as buildzoid mentioned, voltage doesn't change at all, neither on Intel nor AMD, when it comes to less or more cores. If you need less voltage on less cores, then you just disabled a core that needed more voltage than the other ones. But the difference should still be less than 100-200MHz.

[Demoniacstar]

MNMadman wrote:
I know this -- everything is like that in the computing world.

What I was saying was that with disabled cores, these CPUs SHOULD be able to clock higher. But they cannot. So the process is at fault. I heard this was a cell phone process node or something, not originally designed as a computer CPU process node.

A BIOS update cannot fix a process node that isn't designed for high clock rates.

And if IMC stability was at fault, just turning the RAM down to 2133 would improve overclocks -- but it doesn't.

Bottom line -- don't expect higher core clocks from the RAM update in May. Expect RAM to work better and that's it. That way you won't be disappointed.

hahhaha i see you edited this crap...a cellphone though uh ....lmao....
when i seen that i got a hell of a laugh out of it ..... you do not have a clue what you're even talking about do you ....
you don't even remember what the fx line /am3 platform wuz like when it came out do you......lmao.....
and yes i do know more then you seem to think you know there bud......
on bios 1001 .....



from bios 1002......


but the bios had nothing to do with the ram reaching 2832 though did it ....my ram just decided hey today after this bios update i'll fricken run faster
you don't have a clue what your talking bout chief so knock it off
i guess the 5ghz+ the pro's here are doing wuz all faked ...cuz its not designed for that uh .....

and i guess this 4.2 ghz here is fake too uh cuz it's not designed for this ......lmao.....

you need to step off your high horse ....it's pretty clear you dont know jack!

[MNMadman]

Demoniacstar wrote:
hahhaha i see you edited this crap...a cellphone though uh ....lmao....
when i seen that i got a hell of a laugh out of it ..... you do not have a clue what you're even talking about do you ....
you don't even remember what the fx line /am3 platform wuz like when it came out do you......lmao.....
and yes i do know more then you seem to think you know there bud......
on bios 1001 .....



from bios 1002......


but the bios had nothing to do with the ram reaching 2832 though did it ....my ram just decided hey today after this bios update i'll fricken run faster
you don't have a clue what your talking bout chief so knock it off
i guess the 5ghz+ the pro's here are doing wuz all faked ...cuz its not designed for that uh .....

and i guess this 4.2 ghz here is fake too uh cuz it's not designed for this ......lmao.....

you need to step off your high horse ....it's pretty clear you dont know jack!

You seem to be taking this personally and for that I apologize. It wasn't intended that way, and I wasn't comparing knowledge levels. You can take your mockery and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

I wasn't referring to RAM speed. I was referring to CPU core speed. You can clearly see that in my post.

I was also referring to ambient like 99% of people use. And yes some EXTREMELY lucky people might get 4.2GHz+ out of Ryzen on ambient cooling. The key thing to ask in those cases is whether or not it's stable enough for 24/7 usage. For most of those it likely isn't.

Of course using anything sub-ambient like LN2 is going to change things and enable the extreme overclocks.

I stand by what I said about not expecting higher core clocks from the May AGESA code update. The cell phone thing was probably a rumor, but the rest is good info. I would rather not expect it and be happy that I can overclock to faster core speed than expect it and be disappointed. What you do is up to you.

[OMG_Larson]

Hold Your horses boys.... 🙂