LLC (Load Line Calibration) not working... Bios fix required ASAP

[morph_]

Any eta on when there will be a bios patch/fix for LLC?

Vdrop is just too high at the moment it seems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCAQpvFhiUs

[Raja]

Sometimes we do. However, I'm not at liberty to discuss who we sample boards to and why.

[Korth]

A fair answer. Thanks 😉

[ClearedIn2Bravo]

So @Raja is Asus fixing this issue or not? I am seeing 50-60mV drop under load even with LLC set at it's highest setting. This is not acceptable as I am running a manual voltage of 1.290v on my Z370-E with 8700K. This results in me needing to use a much higher voltage than necessary for any given clockspeed to achieve stability when overclocked.

Is Asus saying there isn't an issue? If they are I'll proceed with my purchase protection/charge back against the vendor who is unwilling to accept a return/exchange for a different product. I refuse to keep a product that is not fully functional or inferior to other brands. I paid over $200 for this motherboard and expect a product that is both supported fully by Asus for it's product lifespan and a quality product out of the box.

Yes I am running latest BIOS from Asus website, yes I am on a new Window 10 Clean install, yes I am running latest software versions.

[Raja]

ClearedIn2Bravo2 wrote:
So @Raja is Asus fixing this issue or not? I am seeing 50-60mV drop under load even with LLC set at it's highest setting. This is not acceptable as I am running a manual voltage of 1.290v on my Z370-E with 8700K. This results in me needing to use a much higher voltage than necessary for any given clockspeed to achieve stability when overclocked.

Is Asus saying there isn't an issue? If they are I'll proceed with my purchase protection/charge back against the vendor who is unwilling to accept a return/exchange for a different product. I refuse to keep a product that is not fully functional or inferior to other brands. I paid over $200 for this motherboard and expect a product that is both supported fully by Asus for it's product lifespan and a quality product out of the box.

Yes I am running latest BIOS from Asus website, yes I am on a new Window 10 Clean install, yes I am running latest software versions.

Seeing 50-60Mv of droop in software or measured from a behind-socket MLCC cap? If you read the first page properly, you'll see that I said I'll look into it. The posts were made yesterday. Today is one day later and a Sunday. There is no way for me to get a board and test it this quickly. It'll take a week (minimum) for me to get a board and test it. On the flipside, I know R&D is looking into this. Going by the "scanty" evidence that's being presented by all parties (including the 'reviews' and your post), my suspicion is that there may be a combination of issues between some monitoring software, and on the board side, the IA AC/DC load line setting. The former requires the third-party software developers to update. The latter can be changed manually in UEFI:


Try setting 2.10 for the IA AC/DC load line settings in the Internal CPU Power Management page of UEFI.

Here's a sample screenshot of these two settings:

http://edgeup.asus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/UEFI-3.jpg

Just remember that you want to set 2.10 and not 0.01 as shown. This will change how much VID is requested by the CPU. On these newer architectures, Intel recommends these values are changed in relation to the VRM load line setting.

ClearedIn2Bravo2 wrote:
So @Raja is Asus fixing this issue or not? I am seeing 50-60mV drop under load even with LLC set at it's highest setting. This is not acceptable as I am running a manual voltage of 1.290v on my Z370-E with 8700K. This results in me needing to use a much higher voltage than necessary for any given clockspeed to achieve stability when overclocked.

This statement is ambiguous. Needing to use, and needing to set, are two different things. Let's not confuse them. Needing to use implies the voltage needs to be 50-60mV higher on the ASUS boards under full load. Needing to set implies you have to set 50-60mV higher than the target voltage due to droop. The implications of these statements are completely different.

[Tech_Hog]

Raja@ASUS wrote:
Seeing 50-60Mv of droop in software or measured from a behind-socket MLCC cap? If you read the first page properly, you'll see that I said I'll look into it. The posts were made yesterday. Today is one day later and a Sunday. There is no way for me to get a board and test it this quickly. It'll take a week (minimum) for me to get a board and test it. On the flipside, I know R&D is looking into this. Going by the "scanty" evidence that's being presented by all parties (including the 'reviews' and your post), my suspicion is that there may be a combination of issues between some monitoring software, and on the board side, the IA AC/DC load line setting. The former requires the third-party software developers to update. The latter can be changed manually in UEFI:


Try setting 2.10 for the IA AC/DC load line settings in the Internal CPU Power Management page of UEFI.

Here's a sample screenshot of these two settings:

http://edgeup.asus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/UEFI-3.jpg

Just remember that you want to set 2.10 and not 0.01 as shown. This will change how much VID is requested by the CPU. On these newer architectures, Intel recommends these values are changed in relation to the VRM load line setting.




This statement is ambiguous. Needing to use, and needing to set, are two different things. Let's not confuse them. Needing to use implies the voltage needs to be 50-60mV higher on the ASUS boards under full load. Needing to set implies you have to set 50-60mV higher than the target voltage due to droop. The implications of these statements are completely different.

I tried this and the software reported over 1.5V Vcore with 1.355V set in the BIOS. You really released this board without any testing whatsoever, huh? ANd on top of that, you're getting snarky over being called out and you're shifting the blame. You couldn't have delayed the boards another 2-3 weeks to make sure it launched in a usable state? Last Asus product I'll ever even consider buying.

[Raja]

Tech Hog wrote:
I tried this and the software reported over 1.5V Vcore with 1.355V set in the BIOS. You really released this board without any testing whatsoever, huh? ANd on top of that, you're getting snarky over being called out and you're shifting the blame. You couldn't have delayed the boards another 2-3 weeks to make sure it launched in a usable state? Last Asus product I'll ever even consider buying.

R&D does the testing, not me. Again, measure the voltage properly and see what it's actually feeding, then adjust the ia ac/dc loadline to get the voltage you want. If third party software isn't accurate, you'll need to talk to them about it. 2.10 mOhms is Intel ref. I'm not sure if this affects all voltage modes. Like I said, I need a board to see what's going on. If you don't want to test or can't, then you'll need to wait until I do (or someone more capable tests).

Asking for proper testing before drawing firm conclusions isn't snarky.

[morph_]

Raja@ASUS wrote:
2.10 mOhms is Intel ref. I'm not sure if this affects all voltage modes. Like I said, I need a board to see what's going on.

Raja is it 2.10 mOhms or 2.10 value? it seems to be different.

As a value of 100 = 1.0 mOhms.

so in theory to get 2.10 mOhms value needs to be 210?

[Raja]

morph. wrote:
Raja is it 2.10 mOhms or 2.10 value? it seems to be different.

As a value of 100 = 1.0 mOhms.

so in theory to get 2.10 mOhms value needs to be 210?

The value I wrote is as r&d suggested. I'd stick to what was supplied rather than applying your own reasoning to the unit value (flip the UEFI unit explanation and it makes sense). And I'd suggest measuring the voltage before making changes, too. The required value may not be the same, and will likely need changing according to the external VRM LLC used. This is for adaptive/offset modes only. Plus, I'd wait and see if they patch it via a UEFI update. Especially if you can't make measurements.

[Tech_Hog]

Raja@ASUS wrote:
R&D does the testing, not me. Again, measure the voltage properly and see what it's actually feeding, then adjust the ia ac/dc loadline to get the voltage you want. If third party software isn't accurate, you'll need to talk to them about it. 2.10 mOhms is Intel ref. I'm not sure if this affects all voltage modes. Like I said, I need a board to see what's going on. If you don't want to test or can't, then you'll need to wait until I do (or someone more capable tests).

Asking for proper testing before drawing firm conclusions isn't snarky.

And the only way yo properly test is to buy a new cooler? Fine, then buy me one and for all of your future boards indicate that noctua's coolers are incompatible with your boards. 🙂

And you are being snarky. You're putting others down for questioning the greatness of Asus. And even if it's off, it's not .15V off. You people are just shifting responsibility and throwing blame wherever you can. All that you should have said is "We'll look into it. Also keep in mind that third party software could be reading incorrectly." When I put in 0.01 instead the reading is close to what I set in BIOS, and the temps seem in line with what to expect at that voltage, so there's no freaking way that the actual Vcore is far enough away from the true Vcore for it to be safe. I've seen people measure it. The Delta is half of what it would need to be for your advice to be sound. Tell R&D to look into it. I can guarantee that doing that will cause voltage to spike to no less than .1V higher than it should be.

[Raja]

Tech Hog wrote:
And the only way yo properly test is to buy a new cooler? Fine, then buy me one and for all of your future boards indicate that noctua's coolers are incompatible with your boards. 🙂

And you are being snarky. You're putting others down for questioning the greatness of Asus. And even if it's off, it's not .15V off. You people are just shifting responsibility and throwing blame wherever you can. All that you should have said is "We'll look into it. Also keep in mind that third party software could be reading incorrectly." When I put in 0.01 instead the reading is close to what I set in BIOS, and the temps seem in line with what to expect at that voltage, so there's no freaking way that the actual Vcore is far enough away from the true Vcore for it to be safe. I've seen people measure it. The Delta is half of what it would need to be for your advice to be sound. Tell R&D to look into it. I can guarantee that doing that will cause voltage to spike to no less than .1V higher than it should be.

No, you wouldn't need a different cooler, because you'd see the initial delta on a DMM and would use values within its confines. Remember, I already stated that I'd look into it or have R&D look into it. Those posts were made on a Saturday. No fewer than 24 hours later, someone came in asking for a definitive answer. Let's digress, though.

The sag that is being reported and you've allegedly seen people measure would take more than a value of 0.01 to cure, so something in your 'testing' is off. But if you are happy with 0.01, carry on. The value of 0.01 was for Kaby Lake (as shown in this guide).


And oddly enough, I'm expecting some UEFI updates later. 😉