Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 129

Thread: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90




  1. #41
    Shiari is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by dehenry2 View Post
    Well now prime95 is running at the 4.8 turbo auto setting...the only difference is i didnt set my memory at 1600(which its rated for...) it defaults at 1333 for the profile... I dont know wtf is going on here
    For Haswell, what you can do with memory overclocking may affect what you can do with CPU overclocking, and vice versa (as I understand that is largely due to the IMC). The instability you're seeing is probably due to that, so you should first establish the CPU clock you can get to, then with stock settings establish the memory clock separately, and finally try to combine the both. But it is likely you won't achieve 1600 then. 4.8 is a pretty high clock btw ... what are the temperatures at?

    For stability btw, I recommend Intel XTU CPU stress test, AIDA64 stability testing, and finally a Handbrake encoding job to verify stability. Prime95 may be somewhat suitable since the inclusion of AVX instructions (it wasn't available when Haswell was just out), but you'll probably get much faster results with the other tools. Intel XTU is also extremely nice to fiddle with the OC settings in general, even restarts for you after a system crash so you can easily tweak the settings further.

  2. #42
    parsec's Avatar
    parsec is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    4,824

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by SLK View Post
    Wait... I just realized something. Read this thread here... The Gigabyte Z87/Haswell Overclocking(OC) Guide

    CPU-Z 1.65 does not read Vcore on my Gigabyte, it shows the "entered" voltage from what Forceman is saying. If I load up 1.64.0 then it shows idle and load volts perfect. I go into HWinfo64 and it shows the Vcore properly as well but the VID stays the same and does not throttle I am betting that CPU-Z is reporting the VID and not the actual Vcore on the Gigabyte board and I bet the same is happening on the ASrock but its not reporting Vcore at all and you are just seeing VID. The reason why I came to this conclusion is because my Idle temps on Fixed voltage on my extreme 6 was practically the same if it were to throttle the voltage. I bet Asrock has the sensors showing incorrectly throughout all the applications.
    SLK, I saw your posts and replies in that GBT OC thread before I saw your new post here. But I am confused now.

    I'm using HWiNFO64 v4.21-1963, and have been for a while now. I'm using Adaptive voltage with an offset (I know you are using manual/Override), C-States enabled down to C7, with Windows minimum processor state set to 0%. I'm at CPU multi of 38, uncore multi of 36, memory at 2133.

    HWiNFO64 Vcore at idle/800MHz reads 0.904V... and does not increase, even with Windows minimum processor state set to 100%, with cores at 3800MHz.

    HWiNFO64 Core VIDs vary from 0.755V - 1.200V, along with the core speeds, 800MHz - 3800MHz.

    I deleted CPU-Z 1.64.0 (of course, drat!), and CPU-Z 1.64.2's core voltage matches HWiNFO64's VID.

    I agree about the idle temps on manual or override voltage, I noticed that too, but I also noticed that the CPU package, and IA cores power readings in HWiNFO64 were higher with manual voltage settings. So who knows what is going on...

    Your theory about the ASRock voltages readings may be true, but the only one we have is in the UEFI for Vcore, and I always use something else in Windows. AIDA64 agrees with the HWiNFO64 and later CPU-Z readings, for what that is worth. You're saying that the ASRock sensor chip, etc, is providing the incorrect readings seen in all these monitoring programs? That is quite possible. Is that an error, on purpose, incompatibility, who knows?

    The HWiNFO64 author has said most of these programs show VID for Vcore anyway, which is why he labels it VID. Frankly, I imagine we've been seeing VID readings as Vcores for years, on any CPU you happen to name. Are they anywhere near the real value? Who knows?

    What a joke if true, and if so, are we a bunch of fools! Can we trust voltage reading points on a board? Where do those come from?

    (Rhetorical question) Does anybody really know what the core voltages are on Haswell?

    EDIT: Running Intel XTU shows Vcore readings matching HWiNFO64 and CPU-Z. So if that is wrong, they all are. I don't know what to believe anymore, even with previous generation CPUs and utilities.
    Last edited by parsec; 07-07-2013 at 04:45 PM.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiari View Post
    For Haswell, what you can do with memory overclocking may affect what you can do with CPU overclocking, and vice versa (as I understand that is largely due to the IMC). The instability you're seeing is probably due to that, so you should first establish the CPU clock you can get to, then with stock settings establish the memory clock separately, and finally try to combine the both. But it is likely you won't achieve 1600 then. 4.8 is a pretty high clock btw ... what are the temperatures at?

    For stability btw, I recommend Intel XTU CPU stress test, AIDA64 stability testing, and finally a Handbrake encoding job to verify stability. Prime95 may be somewhat suitable since the inclusion of AVX instructions (it wasn't available when Haswell was just out), but you'll probably get much faster results with the other tools. Intel XTU is also extremely nice to fiddle with the OC settings in general, even restarts for you after a system crash so you can easily tweak the settings further.

  4. #44
    Shiari is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by dehenry2 View Post
    ...snip...
    Not bad! I've also been thinking about doing a custom cooling loop, not just yet though. Seems you have an above average clocker, combined with the cooling ... I certainly wouldn't be able to push my voltage up that high on air, just can't cope with the temperatures.

    You should see whether you can lower that voltage a bit while remaining stable, 1.38V is a lot. If you can then you might be able to push 4.9. Or try 4.9 with that voltage. :)

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiari View Post
    Not bad! I've also been thinking about doing a custom cooling loop, not just yet though. Seems you have an above average clocker, combined with the cooling ... I certainly wouldn't be able to push my voltage up that high on air, just can't cope with the temperatures.

    You should see whether you can lower that voltage a bit while remaining stable, 1.38V is a lot. If you can then you might be able to push 4.9. Or try 4.9 with that voltage. :)
    4.9 and 5.0 both failed to boot even with 1.4...bit uneasy going beyond that...temps are obviously OK but it just seems extreme...Im miffed at the memory though...is there a real world benefit to higher speed ddr3 for gaming?

  6. #46
    Shiari is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by dehenry2 View Post
    4.9 and 5.0 both failed to boot even with 1.4...bit uneasy going beyond that...temps are obviously OK but it just seems extreme...Im miffed at the memory though...is there a real world benefit to higher speed ddr3 for gaming?
    For gaming there is really no noticeable benefit. Games need the GPU, games need the processor feeding the GPU, and the processor doing calculations (e.g. for AI). None of these are memory intensive tasks. Rendering, movie or image processing or other tasks that require loads of memory are the most likely to see any benefit, and even then a higher processing speed still trumps the faster memory.

    Benchmarks may show improvements from faster memory, but most of those are not real world applications and made to highlight the improvements from faster memory access.

    What is your uncore (cache clock) set at btw? Generally the recommendation seems to be to keep that within .3Ghz of the CPU clock.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiari View Post
    For gaming there is really no noticeable benefit. Games need the GPU, games need the processor feeding the GPU, and the processor doing calculations (e.g. for AI). None of these are memory intensive tasks. Rendering, movie or image processing or other tasks that require loads of memory are the most likely to see any benefit, and even then a higher processing speed still trumps the faster memory.

    Benchmarks may show improvements from faster memory, but most of those are not real world applications and made to highlight the improvements from faster memory access.

    What is your uncore (cache clock) set at btw? Generally the recommendation seems to be to keep that within .3Ghz of the CPU clock.
    Whatever the auto setting for 4.8 Turbo...38 I think? Ill check it tommorow, I just set xtu to run for 8 hours, I'm going to bed.

  8. #48
    Shiari is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by parsec View Post
    SLK, I saw your posts and replies in that GBT OC thread before I saw your new post here. But I am confused now.

    I'm using HWiNFO64 v4.21-1963, and have been for a while now. I'm using Adaptive voltage with an offset (I know you are using manual/Override), C-States enabled down to C7, with Windows minimum processor state set to 0%. I'm at CPU multi of 38, uncore multi of 36, memory at 2133.

    HWiNFO64 Vcore at idle/800MHz reads 0.904V... and does not increase, even with Windows minimum processor state set to 100%, with cores at 3800MHz.

    HWiNFO64 Core VIDs vary from 0.755V - 1.200V, along with the core speeds, 800MHz - 3800MHz.
    I can't even find the "HWiNFO64 Vcore" value. But that value sounds like the CPU VCORE from HWMonitor, and older CPU-Z core voltage. I think this particular value is meaningless, at least for the Extreme 6. It doesn't seem relate to anything set in UEFI, and it isn't needed to achieve an OC anyway. Just ignore this value, please ... makes life simpler.

    From what I see here (I don't really want to stress things much atm, we're at 26c ambient at the moment, 10:30 in the morning, puff puff) HWiNFO64 VID == CPU-Z 1.65/1.64.2 Core Voltage == HWMonitor VID == XTU Core Voltage == AIDA64 CPU VID, and this is the most relevant value for overclocking. It relates directly to the "CPU VCore voltage Mode", "Vcore Adaptive Voltage" and "Vcore voltage additional offset" values as they're named in the 1.90 UEFI. Yes, very nice there's so much consistency in the naming here!

    Quote Originally Posted by parsec View Post
    I deleted CPU-Z 1.64.0 (of course, drat!), and CPU-Z 1.64.2's core voltage matches HWiNFO64's VID.

    I agree about the idle temps on manual or override voltage, I noticed that too, but I also noticed that the CPU package, and IA cores power readings in HWiNFO64 were higher with manual voltage settings. So who knows what is going on...

    Your theory about the ASRock voltages readings may be true, but the only one we have is in the UEFI for Vcore, and I always use something else in Windows. AIDA64 agrees with the HWiNFO64 and later CPU-Z readings, for what that is worth. You're saying that the ASRock sensor chip, etc, is providing the incorrect readings seen in all these monitoring programs? That is quite possible. Is that an error, on purpose, incompatibility, who knows?
    I'm not sure what the value is supposed to represent, but it's pretty obvious it's not reported correctly. It might be an incompatibility, it could be something simply not registering anything and AsRock just having provided a value for it, could perhaps be behaviour of the Winbond/Nuvoton NCT6776 chip which reports these values, maybe a default value when nothing is connected to read it. I don't know, and tbh, I don't really care either.

    Quote Originally Posted by parsec View Post
    The HWiNFO64 author has said most of these programs show VID for Vcore anyway, which is why he labels it VID. Frankly, I imagine we've been seeing VID readings as Vcores for years, on any CPU you happen to name. Are they anywhere near the real value? Who knows?

    What a joke if true, and if so, are we a bunch of fools! Can we trust voltage reading points on a board? Where do those come from?

    (Rhetorical question) Does anybody really know what the core voltages are on Haswell?

    EDIT: Running Intel XTU shows Vcore readings matching HWiNFO64 and CPU-Z. So if that is wrong, they all are. I don't know what to believe anymore, even with previous generation CPUs and utilities.
    You can trust the "CPU Core Voltage" values I've mentioned, I'll repeat them here: HWiNFO64 VID == CPU-Z 1.65/1.64.2 Core Voltage == HWMonitor VID == XTU Core Voltage == AIDA64 CPU VID

  9. #49
    Shiari is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by parsec View Post
    Thank you for this, I'm glad your new board is working well... or should I say, correctly?

    I was afraid that is the situation with this ASRock board/UEFI

    I've stopped trying to OC it at all, all the stress on the other devices with the BSODs and freezing, and all the restarts afterwards. I can't even look at the "Unsafe shutdown count" SMART data values on my SSDs, more salt in my wounds...

    Yes, I see your new board for $10 less than the Z87 Ex 4, after rebate, at the same retailer. I'm past the retailer's return period on my ASR board...

    I'm not a hardcore OC person, and I know this board is not an extreme OC board, but I do expect the basic features and options to function correctly.

    Glad you found Sin's thread, it has taught me several things, and has also depressed me...

    A shame really, some things work so well on this board, but not the CPU and UEFI interaction. When I saw the CPU input voltage labeled as the Vcore in the UEFI, I just knew that was a bad sign. I decided to let it go... hindsight is 20/20.

    Time to explore my options.
    I think you're suffering a dog of a chip, not a bad board. To get any sort of "high" OC with it (4.3, maybe 4.4 with your chip) you'll need proper cooling and tweaking your voltage as low as you can get it. Changing the board might make the OC process a tad easier, but short of changing the CPU, won't give you more of a possible overclock.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    28

    Default Re: ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 UEFI 1.90

    Quote Originally Posted by dehenry2 View Post
    SNIP
    Thanks for posting this dehenry2.


    There's your proof Parsec. Asrock is pulling from the VID.

    Here is CPU-Z 1.64.0 thanks to Stasio posting all the versions. CPU-z I bet it will be showing VCCIO voltage instead of VCore. I think ASrock has the actual vcore sensor disabled.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •