Modded bios Rampage VI

[tistou77]

Hello

I propose this topic to group the bios modded, it will avoid the interested person to seek the link 🙂

A feedback or thanks (or thanks boutton) is always nice (and I do not like leechers) 😄 😄

Rampage VI Extreme

Bios 3006 :

• Cascade Lake-X microcode - F01
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.3.4687
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.3.4687
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 7.5.0.1030
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 7.5.0.1030
  
• OROM Intel VROC for SATA - 7.0.0.2008
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.29
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.16
  

Microcode 49 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B35RXphbW4Fw5GXDvK6OfH-6_E_zxX3H
Microcode 6906 (Skylake-X) :https://drive.google.com/file/d/16uZBL1L_kwswA78fmCPOmJQ7F7L810rx

Bios 2002 :

• Cascade Lake-X microcode - F00
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.27
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.16
  

Microcode 49 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YAZpKM2sQe-aRXiGC_D5Jma7KwwWiZ3z
Microcode 68 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/12lowjxH8wj0qv8xxru3BKyExuNTuFSnf

Rampage VI Extreme Encore

Bios 0603 :

• Cascade Lake-X microcode - F01
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.3.4687
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.3.4687
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 7.5.0.1030
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 7.5.0.1030
  
• OROM Intel VROC for SATA - 7.0.0.2008
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.29
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.16
  

Microcode 49 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qIGVbjwVaupxRcJ5v9rxHiWaY4jC2gMv
Microcode 6906 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wS3T6iQuN-F9eKqrIijR6yBeDukgqubs

Bios 0505 :

• Cascade Lake-X microcode - F00
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.27
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.16
  

Microcode 49 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qqw9fuQVHr28ijLG2Diy4sLzI9gL7i5T
Microcode 68 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JjxzxN88HVthFlF8ikEr1rivbxdL0vNL

Rampage VI Extreme Omega

Bios 3006 :

• Cascade Lake-X microcode - F00
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.27
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.16
  

Microcode 49 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NXSLJ9M57AfGCj1YpK3nOph4LtMUWzLz
Microcode 69 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1drrSkY8gl1Xpcz4Pt_piJ0BgSYgiEnvn

Bios 0802 :

• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.7.0.4404
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.7.0.4404
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 6.1.0.1017
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 6.1.0.1017
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.23
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.14
  

Microcode 49 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m53Lk9NV_jKTL5ClFml_ee4VZ92IuMy8

Rampage VI Apex

Bios 3006 :

• Cascade Lake-X microcode - F00
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.8.0.4507
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 6.2.0.1034
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.27
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.16
  

Microcode 69 (Skylake-X) : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w0_jy2LyQDt-9kugPUZo4uyx3nPtwHM5

Bios 2002 :

• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.7.0.4404
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.7.0.4404
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 6.1.0.1017
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 6.1.0.1017
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.23
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.14
  

Microcode 49 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/18IuQv1e2AbS6N10_j42av2FZeonNruoc
Microcode 64 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MY6zc-UuiJSXNQJjNx_7LZotLgsDcTSY

Bios 1902 :

• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.5.4.4296
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.7.0.4404
  
• EFI IRSTe RAID for SATA - 6.1.0.1017
  
• EFI Intel VROC with VMD - 6.1.0.1017
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.23
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.14
  

Microcode 49 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C8unszxSAra03qLsWXWsQaqfOXBAVccc
Microcode 64 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AnPbZDxQVS7ocOOCieCzoID_JOgIgLsp

Bios 1705 :

• Microcode 49 and 5D
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.2.5.4046
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.2.5.4046
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.22
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.13
  
• Link : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GS1dqEIo_ZuoFJQWSlTWDSBcrCzAyphl
  

Bios 1602 :

• Microcode 49 and 59
  
• EFI IRST RAID for SATA - 17.0.0.3720
  
• OROM IRST RAID for SATA - 17.0.0.3720
  
• EFI Intel Gigabit UNDI - 0.0.22
  
• OROM Intel Boot Agent CL - 0.1.13
  
• Link : https://drive.google.com/file/d/14kWN...GfTQ1HzRHs6n
  

Use USB Flashback to flash these bios 🙂

* You are solely responsible for this manipulation

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

Registry keys (indicated Retpoline) :

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]
"FeatureSettingsOverride"=dword:00000400
"FeatureSettingsOverrideMask"=dword:00000400

Registry keys (disable Spectre patch) :

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]
"FeatureSettingsOverride"=dword:00000003
"FeatureSettingsOverrideMask"=dword:00000003

[gridironcpj]

tistou77 wrote:
Yes that's it
And no way to "correct" this with microcodes beyond 49

Got it. Any chance you can also modify 3006 with microcode 49? Also, any idea if using old microcodes could result in instability of any kind? Not necessarily hardware instability.

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/LGA2066/ROG_RAMPAGE_VI_EXTREME_OMEGA/ROG-RAMPAGE-VI-EXTREME-OM...

Also, my idle temperatures are about 5C above fluid temperature in my loop when using newer microcodes, whereas idle temps are the same as my fluid temperature when using microcode 49. The latter obviously makes sense and has always been the case with any CPU I've water cooled.

[tistou77]

gridironcpj wrote:
Got it. Any chance you can also modify 3006 with microcode 49? Also, any idea if using old microcodes could result in instability of any kind? Not necessarily hardware instability.

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/LGA2066/ROG_RAMPAGE_VI_EXTREME_OMEGA/ROG-RAMPAGE-VI-EXTREME-OM...

Also, my idle temperatures are about 5C above fluid temperature in my loop when using newer microcodes, whereas idle temps are the same as my fluid temperature when using microcode 49. The latter obviously makes sense and has always been the case with any CPU I've water cooled.

I'm doing this to you tomorrow for the 49 😉

No problem using it with a CPU 7000 (just that it is not up to date for the latest vulnerabilities, but these vulnerabilities have been around for more than 10 years and have only been discovered recently)

There would just be a bug with the AVX512 if greater than 4200mhz, if I remember correctly (never tested)
Not using any programs supporting the AVX512, I always set this frequency @stock

@vmanuelgm
The Asus also have this "option" since the release of the R6E (if we talk about the same thing in Gigabyte's post)
It's just if we want to have a "protection" temperature different from that applied by the TJmax but it does not modify the TJMax (only the microcode can do it)
Some had set to 90° (the CPU goes into safety at this temperature)

[gridironcpj]

tistou77 wrote:
I'm doing this to you tomorrow for the 49 😉

No problem using it with a CPU 7000 (just that it is not up to date for the latest vulnerabilities, but these vulnerabilities have been around for more than 10 years and have only been discovered recently)

There would just be a bug with the AVX512 if greater than 4200mhz, if I remember correctly (never tested)
Not using any programs supporting the AVX512, I always set this frequency @stock

@vmanuelgm
The Asus also have this "option" since the release of the R6E (if we talk about the same thing in Gigabyte's post)
It's just if we want to have a "protection" temperature different from that applied by the TJmax but it does not modify the TJMax (only the microcode can do it)
Some had set to 90° (the CPU goes into safety at this temperature)

Thank you! I appreciate it. I haven't run across ant issues with AVX-512 loads with frequencies higher than 4200MHz. In fact, a few months ago I was running 3dmark Time Spy Extreme's CPU test with the instruction set changed to AVX-512 for a "bench-a-thon" with some other folks and everything ran fine. This was all with microcode 49.

[vmanuelgm]

Have any of u thought about the chance Intel corrected a bad monitoring of temperatures after increasing the TJMax to 110 degrees in the newest Microcodes???

After releasing so many microcodes it is weird nobody in Intel realized that. They also corrected the bad misbehaviour with AVX512, without forgetting the newer MC's are safer and more refined in regards to performance in the latest Windows 10 versions (and Linux).

[tistou77]

The CPU 7000 had a TJmax of 105°, when Intel released the 9000 with a TJMax of 110°, microcodes went to 110° for CPU 7000 and 9000 (same architecture)
Before the 9000, the 7000 worked very well with their TJMax at 105°

[vmanuelgm]

Not exactly=I had a Gigabyte x299 board before I bought this Asus Omega and Gigabyte introduced the TJMax=110º before 9xxx release. Both Giga and Asus reported increased idle temperatures. But I didn't see a higher overclock in previous Microcodes with 105º. Either way, simply increasing the TJMax doesn't mean higher idle temperatures, unless they corrected the previous readings which could be wrong.

I insist, too many Bios and Microcodes revisions and nobody realized it???

[tistou77]

And yet the temperatures in idle are increased
And this is normal, the temperature of the cores is "read" over the distance from the TJmax (for DTS probes)
I thought everyone knew it

TJmax 105° : distance from TJMax 80 ° => core at 25°
TJmax 110° : distance from TJMax 80 ° => core at 30°

No matter, idle or load, it's the same thing
Which is logical, the CPU will not say "I will heat more in load, only, with this TJMax at 110°" 😄 😄

The 4D microcode, which introduced the TJMax 110° was released in May 2018
The 9000 were released in Q42018, so after
So normal that Gigabyte is updated the 4D microcode (with TJmax 110°) before the release of 9000
The motherboard must be updated before the arrival of the new CPUs

Of course there is no temperature increase for those who always use a CPU 9000, since by default, the TJMax is at 110°
many have tested and seen this difference, except you (or you have not tested)

Anyway, I provide the 2 microcodes, people use the microcode that wishes

[vmanuelgm]

Sorry for u, Tistou, but not true:

https://forum.gigabyte.us/thread/1425/x299-beta-bios-thread?page=6

TJMax in Gigabyte boards was altered some months before 2018. First they used an offset and then a specific value which could go to 120 degrees, but having in mind Windows would only report 105=TJMax=availabe microcodes then.

In regards to the rest of your speech, I would have to repeat the same words of previous pages in this thread, but summing up:

1. I talk about idle because I did test, not like u, my throttling temperatures at max OC. Your beloved microcode doesn't provide higher overclocks, and it should according to your theory because with your Microcode I should reach temperature limit later, not the case.

2. Of course I tested the several microcodes, I even asked u about the AVX512 bug present in your beloved microcode, and u answered saying u don't use AVX512... Funny!!!

3. I also tested performance under the latest Windows 10 versions, which, I must note, overrides to 5E previous Microcodes by default, at least if u don't force using a previous one, and I found that latest Windows versions perform similar with your beloved Microcode and the newest ones. I did disable all the mitigations, just in case u think I did not...


So, as I said before, I guess your beloved MC is obsolete, buggy for avx512 and don't know exactly if it registers the temperatures properly. But in your opinion, which is the problem and how can it be solved??? U talked to Intel Engineers about this issue??? U talked to Asus engineers about this issue??? We only have your opinion here, and I guess u are not Asus or Intel engineer, are u???

Well, I bet this guy is u:

https://forums.intel.com/s/question/0D50P0000490XqxSAE/intel-sa00115-microcode-patch-0200004d-bring-...

Pity Intel Agent's reply is not very professional (Intel or Microsoft web agents don't usually help much). The reality is those 5 degrees above previous Microcodes (43 and prior) don't make a difference since the TJMax has been upped to 110 degrees, so at max overclock the result=same. Of course u will see at idle or load with mild overclocks that difference of 5 degrees, but getting the CPU to the limit won't mean any differences in scores/overclockability. And remaining below the limit, be it 105 or 110, there are no practical differences either, only placebo seeing 5 degrees cooler.

Maybe they just increased the figure without touching anything else, so 5 degrees else in TJMax, and temperatures increased in 5 degrees by default. Or maybe to help security the processor is getting hotter, but power should also increase and seems it is not the case.

This guy is u again:

https://forums.aida64.com/topic/4656-tjmax-and-core-temperature-skylake-x-x299/

Aida replies=increase of temperatures=intentional.


Importance of the 5 degrees increase=Intel FAQ:

Could my processor gets damaged from overheating?
It's unlikely that a processor would get damaged from overheating, due to the operational safeguards in place. Processors have two modes of thermal protection, throttling and automatic shutdown. When a core exceeds the set throttle temperature, it will reduce power to maintain a safe temperature level. The throttle temperature can vary by processor and BIOS settings. If the processor is unable to maintain a safe operating temperature through throttling actions, it will automatically shut down to prevent permanent damage.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005597/processors.html


Also interesting:

Tcase: Technically this refers to the temperature that you can measure using a thermocouple embedded in the centre of the heat spreader, but this is only done in the factory by Intel or by users willing to drill their heat spreaders open to insert a thermocouple. Therefore Intel provided a diode between and below the cores with a reading calibrated by the BIOS which can be used instead. This reading can vary greatly when the BIOS version is changed, but will not necessarily change if the BIOS calibrations were not altered between versions.

TJMax which is the safe maximum operating core temperature for the CPU. As your CPU heats up, your Distance to TJMax will decrease. If it reaches zero, your processor will start to thermal throttle or slow down

[vmanuelgm]

Since I didn't have an Asus from the beginning, don't know if Asus had a 120 degrees limit for CPU protection, but Gigabyte did under TJMax temperature parameter. Windows would only report 105 degrees because of the Microcode limitation in that time. Having a parameter like this is what really matters, in order to avoid processor throttling=practical differences.

U opened threads and threads, Intel or Aida webs for example, they never say bug, u still using Microcode 49. Intel says in its FAQ there is no problem nowadays reaching the TJMax cos of Processor protections. MC 49 bugged for AVX512, obsolete, doesn't protect against anything, performance is similar (u can get 50 points more in Cinebench at most)...

A bit stubborn???


What is Tjunction max temperature?
What is Tcase max temperature?
Could my processor gets damaged from overheating?
It's unlikely that a processor would get damaged from overheating, due to the operational safeguards in place. Processors have two modes of thermal protection, throttling and automatic shutdown. When a core exceeds the set throttle temperature, it will reduce power to maintain a safe temperature level. The throttle temperature can vary by processor and BIOS settings. If the processor is unable to maintain a safe operating temperature through throttling actions, it will automatically shut down to prevent permanent damage.

Does Intel provide temperature ranges for each processor?
How can I check the Tjunction max or Tcase max for my processor?
Is it bad if my processor frequently approaches or reaches its maximum temperature?
Not necessarily. Many Intel® processors make use of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology, which allows them to operate at very high frequency for a short amount of time. When the processor is operating at or near its maximum frequency it's possible for the temperature to climb very rapidly and quickly reach its maximum temperature. In sustained workloads, it's possible the processor will operate at or near its maximum temperature limit. Being at maximum temperature while running a workload isn't necessarily cause for concern. Intel processors constantly monitor their temperature and can very rapidly adjust their frequency and power consumption to prevent overheating and damage.

How can I check if my system cooling solution is adequate?
Where can I find more information if my computer is overheating?


https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005597/processors.html

[tistou77]

I don't care about all that 😛
I do not do "the hunt" at temperatures (watercooling, etc ...) to have a microcode that heats up more

If you have trouble understanding this, I can't help you
Pass to another thing 😉