cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
744 Views
1,118 REPLIES 1,118

TeutonJon78 wrote:
That's kind of why I asked. The uncompressed flash sizes are the full chip size. So it should literally be writing every bit anyway, so I don't see how one method would be different than the others. Maybe the flashback method clears out some UEFI variable or something, but loading the optimized defaults should essentially do the same thing.

And it's not like they advertise that on all the various motherboard models either. And in fact all it says on the listings is you need to rename the file if you are using flashback, not that you need to use flashback. It's probably the same as people who thought you need to factory reset a phone 3 times when you install a 3rd party ROM for some reason -- like it would actually clear anything different.


Actually there are several parts of the Flash ROM that are NOT flashed by default. Frequently the boot code and ACPI tables are not, for example. It has always been this way back to the Intel Pentium/AMD K6 motherboard days. Back in the day, there were special command line switches you would use with the BIOS flasher to force program those normally ignored regions.

And back in the day, there were valid reasons for things to be this way: There was no such thing as "flashback." Heck, Gigabyte's "Dual BIOS" was new thing and a big deal when they came out with it during the Dark Ages. So the boot block of the BIOS was frequently not flashed so that in the event of a flash failure, there was at least a chance that you could get to a DOS prompt and run the flasher again. I had a mainboard once where I had a flash failure rendering that board dead. I worked in a shop, so I had a few identical boards to work with. I had to hot swap the BIOS chips between the boards (they tended to be socketed at the time) on the booted board, and I was able to successfully flash the failed chip in the working board.

Duvar
Level 7
Did not work for me EZ. CPU-Z Bench was increasing its numbers für 10min without doing anything, it jumped up to 4050 with my 3600 and lil later dropped to 4043 and stayed there, even if i bumped voltages +100mV no changes at all, 4043 all the time.

Duvar wrote:
Did not work for me EZ. CPU-Z Bench was increasing its numbers für 10min without doing anything, it jumped up to 4050 with my 3600 and lil later dropped to 4043 and stayed there, even if i bumped voltages +100mV no changes at all, 4043 all the time.


What voltage have you increased?
What is your FCLK frequency?
Did you undervolt the CPU?
Do you have ALL C-states enabled?
Did you turn off PBO and Auto Overclock?

EZ_PC_TECH wrote:
What voltage have you increased?
Do you have ALL C-states enabled?


Where besides Global C-states should C-states be enabled? I am running a C6H with a 3900X.

EZ_PC_TECH wrote:
What voltage have you increased?
What is your FCLK frequency?
Did you undervolt the CPU?
Do you have ALL C-states enabled?
Did you turn off PBO and Auto Overclock?


Increased SoC and Core voltage.
FCLK @ 1900
No undervolt (auto voltages)
Found 2 C-States on Bios 2703 Global and DW C-State or so
Yes PBO+Auto OC were disabled.

Sturmer
Level 7
Curious about ALL C-state. Any advise where I can find them all?

Heh I didnt find ALL C-state. Please help 🤣

ozzed
Level 7
So I'm currently on 2606 and thinking of updating to 2703, but I don't feel like it's worth is unless boost has been at least somewhat improved. My 3900X currently tops out at 4525Mhz according to HWINFO64. Will I see higher boost with 2703 or nan? System is stable overall for me so I don't need any of the bugfixes. Only gonna upgrade if boosts are better.

Lentis
Level 7
The link of bios in the first page are offline. Thanks

6kbyte
Level 7
My 3600 Ryzen only boosts up to 3942MHz on all cores @CB20 (~70 degrees). CH6 with bios #7403. Iam not sure if its amd´s or asus fault.

6kbyte wrote:
My 3600 Ryzen only boosts up to 3942MHz on all cores @CB20 (~70 degrees). CH6 with bios #7403. Iam not sure if its amd´s or asus fault.


if its the all-core run then theres not much wrong with 3942mhz with a 3600. Thats higher than its base clock. The boost clock of 4200 at stock is only guaranteed (when things are working) on a single core. Technically tho with these processors they should be aiming to get that boost clock on 3 cores instead of 1, IMO.