Official GIGABYTE Forum
Overclocking, Benching, Events, Tweaking & Modding => Overclocking motherboards with AMD processors => Topic started by: gareth170 on June 24, 2011, 11:07:36 am
-
hi
i have a GA-990FXA-UD5 motherboard with a 1090T.. the system is running but the vcore on this motherboard is so bad. for example it says my stock vcore is 1.30v in M.I.B menu which is right but in pc heath menu it says 1.344, when i put the system under load it drops to 1.280v, but when i try to overclock it's impossible, for example, i set the cpu multiplier to 20 and up the vcore to 1.425v in M.I.B menu but in pc heath menu it says 1.475v, when i get in to windows and put the system under load it drops to between 1.360v/1.380v and the system crashs because of that
on my other motherboard (GA-890FXA-UD5) it has never had this issue, the vcore stays at what you set it at, no vcore drop. it did 4ghz with my 1090t at 1.425v fully stable...
what i want to know is will a bios update fix this or not? i need to know quick because if the answer is no then i'll send the motherboard back...
-
Hi there,
yes, there does seem to be an issue here and I have sent you a BETA BIOS (F5a) via e-mail to see if it addresses the problem for you. Please let me know how you get on.
If any other user is facing this, or other BIOS problems and wishes to to try the BETA f5a BIOS please send me a PM with your e-mail address and I will forward it on to you.
Please note that I am in the UK and it may take a little while for me to reply, if you are in other parts of the world, as I need to get some sleep occasionally! :P
-
I am also having this issue, have pm'd you my email i would like to try the updated bios
-
I have sent it on to you, hope it helps. ;)
-
Hi there,
yes, there does seem to be an issue here and I have sent you a BETA BIOS (F5a) via e-mail to see if it addresses the problem for you. Please let me know how you get on.
If any other user is facing this, or other BIOS problems and wishes to to try the BETA f5a BIOS please send me a PM with your e-mail address and I will forward it on to you.
Please note that I am in the UK and it may take a little while for me to reply, if you are in other parts of the world, as I need to get some sleep occasionally! :P
hi
i haven't received the email..
-
Hi there,
I sent it to the e-mail you have given on your profile page at 11.32 am.
If this is not correct please PM me here: http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1342 with correct address and I will resend it. It's also worth double checking you SPAM and JUNK mail boxes just in case it was automatically deleted because of the attachment.
-
Hi there,
I sent it to the e-mail you have given on your profile page at 11.32 am.
If this is not correct please PM me here: http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1342 with correct address and I will resend it. It's also worth double checking you SPAM and JUNK mail boxes just in case it was automatically deleted because of the attachment.
yeah i've found it in JUNK box..
will flash now thanks
-
yeah i've found it in JUNK box..
will flash now thanks
Pleased that is what happened but a bit worried in case DM reads this thread. He's bound to make some comment about my e-mails being filtered as junk! :'(
-
hasnt made any difference for me :(
-
well i've just flashed and it's still the same...
i really need to know if it's a bios fault or motherboard fault?
i only have till monday to send it back
-
I understand your frustration and feel pretty certain this is a problem with the BIOS rather than the hardware. The fact that several of us are able to get the same or similar results, using different hardware configurations would also, I feel, point to this.
The only advice I can give is to show a little patience. Gigabyte are aware of this issue and hopefully we will see a new BIOS pretty quickly, that does resolve the problem.
-
I understand your frustration and feel pretty certain this is a problem with the BIOS rather than the hardware. The fact that several of us are able to get the same or similar results, using different hardware configurations would also, I feel, point to this.
The only advice I can give is to show a little patience. Gigabyte are aware of this issue and hopefully we will see a new BIOS pretty quickly, that does resolve the problem.
but what if gigabyte can't slove it or say it's a hardware fault? will gigabyte be prepared to swap the motherboard or something?
-
thats my biggest concern really, if its a bios fault presumably it will get fixed soon enough, but if its a hardware fault then what ???.
-
nearly all my motherboards has been gigabyte because they have great features.. i only had one other gigabyte motherboard which had this same issue which never got slove..
i'm a disabled person, i don't have money to throw away.. that why i need to be sure....
-
Hi again,
I can only speak from my own experience as a long time user of Gigabyte motherboards and I am confident that this IS primarily a BIOS issue. Gigabyte have always incorporated in their BIOS a little bit higher voltages than one will get on some other manufacturer's board. This is to make things as stable as possible for the end user without overly stressing the components.
If you have concerns over the hardware then only you can make the call as to whether or not you wish to return it. All Gigabyte Motherboards come with a 3 year warranty from date of manufacture and, although you won't be able to swap it for a different maker's board as you can within the 30 days guarantee from most sellers, you are covered by Gigabyte if the hardware is faulty.
Personally, although a little frustrated with the BIOS issues I have encountered, I do not feel in any way that the basic hardware is at fault and I am quite prepared to wait a few weeks whilst this issue is resolved.
If you wish to try and hurry the process along then you will really need to contact GGTS here: http://ggts.gigabyte.com/tech.asp?ClassID=2&Country=U.K.&SourceWeb=B2C but I should make you aware that it can take several days before you will get any response.
-
incorporating a higher standard Vcore would be one thing, it is easy to adjust around that to get the desired voltage. However the primary issue appears to be the level of drop we are experiencing with this board.
As of the F5a bios I am now getting a full 10/100ths Vcore drop underload, The problem is this makes overclocking difficult. I do not like going over 1.45v for my extended duration clocks (for Folding) I still think the biggest fall back of this board so far (and inexcusable) is the drop. To acheive 1.45V under load (required for 4.3ghz on this my 1100T) I will need 1.55v+ in bios.
my 2 cents
Everything else on the board so far is very nice. I have yet to have a single issue with the board for its non overclocked use.
C&Q works just fine, C1E steps the power of the CPU nicely all the way down to 1.08v @ 800mhz idle
-
Hi again,
I can only speak from my own experience as a long time user of Gigabyte motherboards and I am confident that this IS primarily a BIOS issue. Gigabyte have always incorporated in their BIOS a little bit higher voltages than one will get on some other manufacturer's board. This is to make things as stable as possible for the end user without overly stressing the components.
If you have concerns over the hardware then only you can make the call as to whether or not you wish to return it. All Gigabyte Motherboards come with a 3 year warranty from date of manufacture and, although you won't be able to swap it for a different maker's board as you can within the 30 days guarantee from most sellers, you are covered by Gigabyte if the hardware is faulty.
Personally, although a little frustrated with the BIOS issues I have encountered, I do not feel in any way that the basic hardware is at fault and I am quite prepared to wait a few weeks whilst this issue is resolved.
If you wish to try and hurry the process along then you will really need to contact GGTS here: http://ggts.gigabyte.com/tech.asp?ClassID=2&Country=U.K.&SourceWeb=B2C but I should make you aware that it can take several days before you will get any response.
the main issue is the vcore drop
but ok. i'll give gigabyte a chance but if they don't fix this ether bios or hardware issue i'll never buy gigabyte motherboards again. i've already contacted GGTS ...
-
i think they need to sort it as to me its just downright faulty! the vcore is never what you set it to, my cpu is not supposed to be at 1.52 volts at idle! but thats where it sets it if i leave it to auto control for voltages, it should be 1.4v, and it fluctuates all over the place, i've missed the boat as far as returning it under drs but may still try yet, if there isnt any progress by the end of next week, i'll be seeing what my options are this is to much money to waste . if gigabyte admit there is a problem and that they are going to correct it then i'll be happy to wait for them to figure it out i think thats fair even though i am extremely dissapointed they would let a motherboard with these issues go on sale.
-
Painful as it is this is the cost of being at the bleeding edge and as early adopters of this type of technology it must be expected. As long as Gigabyte are aware and working on a fix I really don't think that any more can be asked of them at the moment. ;)
-
Painful as it is this is the cost of being at the bleeding edge and as early adopters of this type of technology it must be expected. As long as Gigabyte are aware and working on a fix I really don't think that any more can be asked of them at the moment. ;)
personally i disagree the box didnt say "beta" on it, yet i feel like its still in the testing phase and not ready for release, I expect a working and properly tested product, unless of course its been caused by a batch of faulty components, which would be easier to understand. small bugs are understandable but this seems to be a fundemental issue, and its happening with every board, which is pointing more towards a design flaw, and its almost like gigabyte have purposly set the vcore higher than it should be in order to attempt to compensate for the voltage drop and that just seems terrible.
If gigabyte are aware then it will be nice to hear from them regarding this problem and then i'll be happy to wait as long as they admit there is a problem and state what they are will do in order to resolve it. Until then i am still very angry about it, if i dont get a response before say the middle of next week i think i'll be attempting to return this as faulty and going for a competitors board instead.
-
Painful as it is this is the cost of being at the bleeding edge and as early adopters of this type of technology it must be expected. As long as Gigabyte are aware and working on a fix I really don't think that any more can be asked of them at the moment. ;)
yes but if gigabyte can't solve the issue via bios then everybody who bought this motherboard has wasted £160~
but if gigabyte has to release another rev to fix this issue, i would think gigabyte SHOULD swap all the rev 1.0 boards for the new rev, if they don't then most people won't buy gigabyte again.
-
If that was the only solution then I expect Gigabyte would follow that path but I think that you are getting a bit too far ahead of the game here and this is turning into pure conjecture. If you really feel this concerned then I would get it rep[laced whilst you still have time, however another manufacturer's board could have the same or a different issue that could be just as hard to fix. Your call!
-
If that was the only solution then I expect Gigabyte would follow that path but I think that you are getting a bit too far ahead of the game here and this is turning into pure conjecture. If you really feel this concerned then I would get it rep[laced whilst you still have time, however another manufacturer's board could have the same or a different issue that could be just as hard to fix. Your call!
has i said before i had one other gigabyte motherboard which had this same issue which never got slove.. thats why i'm worrying. why release it if they known theres issue...
what if it kills the cpu due to it over voltaging even at stock some are at 1.52v~, gigabyte won't replace the cpu, right?
i don't mind waiting has long as gigabyte can sure us it's a bios issue
-
Well as I stare into my crystal ball and the swirling mists start to clear...... I guess you get the idea ;) If it was as easy as that to come up with a solution I am sure there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
-
Well as I stare into my crystal ball and the swirling mists start to clear...... I guess you get the idea ;) If it was as easy as that to come up with a solution I am sure there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
my point was if they knew there is a problem, why did they release it still?
-
Possibly they didn't realise there was a problem at release.
-
lol then they have some serious quality control issues as it seems to be every single board that is affected :o, actually it might not be, but i've yet to see anyone who doesnt have the problem after getting one of these boards.
-
Well from your point of view that is good news as the more cards that are involved the more weight is brought to bear on the fix for the issue. ;)
-
none of it is good news from my point of view, perhaps you wouldnt take it so lightly if it was your £160 tied up in a faulty product with so far no official recognition of there even being a problem.
-
Well from your point of view that is good news as the more cards that are involved the more weight is brought to bear on the fix for the issue. ;)
but as i said what IF gigabyte can't fix the problem.
theres always that chance..
u need to think of it both ways.
-
My thoughts are when they test boards they do it all at default setting. Dont you remember all the overclock warnings Do at Your Own risk.
-
the voltages are wrong at default.
-
My thoughts are when they test boards they do it all at default setting. Dont you remember all the overclock warnings Do at Your Own risk.
even if they test boards at default/stock settings they would of seen the voltage is way off and drops badly.
i had a system crash when the system was under load due to the bad vcore drop under load, and this was at stock settings .
i don't mind the 0.044v that it adds on , but the bad vcore drop under load i do mind.... a 0.060/0.100v drop isn't right..... i accept if it's 0.001/0.003 drop.
-
thats what gets me the most with this, it isnt a problem with overclocking, its a really basic issue.... I can not help but look at it and think they have tried to cover this issue by upping the voltage a certain amount above what it is set in the bios in an attempt to cover off the voltage drop, i'm not columbo, but unless this is a bad batch of parts that looks very much like what has happened, and if true its quite frankly shocking, conjecture or simply a theory we wont know until gigabyte confirm what the problem is .
-
I have read this thread and my first point is, that I am not in any way connected with Gigabyte and only own a GA870A-UD3 board with a 1090t CPU.I think it is totally unrealistic to think that the core voltage will vary from .001 to .003 volts or 1 to 3 millivolts even if "Cool and Quiet' is disengaged"..From my own tests I determined the CPU at idle will dissipate somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 watts and at full throttle around 120 watts..
If you assume some average core voltage say 1.45 volts, that translates to about 41 amperes to 82 amperes at wide open..This core voltage comes from the +12 volt line where it is created by an array of power FET's to each turn on and off to average,filter and regulate the lower core voltage..Each FET has a Rds (FET on resistance) and also consider the copper path from the FET's to the CPU..Also consider if the power supply 12 volt source drops as load increases..Not ever mentioned is where the voltage sensors are placed and how accurate they are to begin with.. these factors plus more not mentioned can determine the variance of core voltage..We can only assume that Gigabyte as well as Asus and others test their boards for the worst case conditions that will allow stable operation..
With todays low voltage high current CPU's I fully expect there will me more variations then yesteryear..
I am not in any way suggesting you do not have a bad Motherboard but the expectation of that very small variance is in my opinion unreasonable..Granted you should not get blue screens at wide open but there are other factors to also consider.Temperature of both CPU as well as chipset may also play a part..
I hope you iron out your difficulties,be patient and methodical and most of all Goodluck..
jolphil :)
-
at stock my cpu which is supposed to be a 1.4v cpu is set to 1.52v, it drops to 1.46, then 1.44, then 1.47 and is quite frankly all over the place if it doesnt crash first, it is never stable, it is always a long way off whatever is set in the bios, given i had a gigabyte 880gm-ud2h board before this that had none of these issues and could even clock my 1090t higher than the ud5 i think there is without a doubt a problem with this board. If it was just me having these issues then that would seem ok i am just unlucky but i have seen so many other people have this exact issue.
thankfully my retailer will take this board back and have offered me a refund as they agree it is faulty, if i dont hear from gigabyte on monday it will be going back.
-
I have read this thread and my first point is, that I am not in any way connected with Gigabyte and only own a GA870A-UD3 board with a 1090t CPU.I think it is totally unrealistic to think that the core voltage will vary from .001 to .003 volts or 1 to 3 millivolts even if "Cool and Quiet' is disengaged"..From my own tests I determined the CPU at idle will dissipate somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 watts and at full throttle around 120 watts..
If you assume some average core voltage say 1.45 volts, that translates to about 41 amperes to 82 amperes at wide open..This core voltage comes from the +12 volt line where it is created by an array of power FET's to each turn on and off to average,filter and regulate the lower core voltage..Each FET has a Rds (FET on resistance) and also consider the copper path from the FET's to the CPU..Also consider if the power supply 12 volt source drops as load increases..Not ever mentioned is where the voltage sensors are placed and how accurate they are to begin with.. these factors plus more not mentioned can determine the variance of core voltage..We can only assume that Gigabyte as well as Asus and others test their boards for the worst case conditions that will allow stable operation..
With todays low voltage high current CPU's I fully expect there will me more variations then yesteryear..
I am not in any way suggesting you do not have a bad Motherboard but the expectation of that very small variance is in my opinion unreasonable..Granted you should not get blue screens at wide open but there are other factors to also consider.Temperature of both CPU as well as chipset may also play a part..
I hope you iron out your difficulties,be patient and methodical and most of all Goodluck..
jolphil :)
it seem some here like to blame everything else but the motherboard.
i know alot about hardware. has for the psu i have a Corsair AX1200 1200w and the +12v line doesn't hardly drop under load so it's not that,, also my cpu temp is around 44c under load so it's not that.
it isn't unrealistic to say that the vcore shouldn't drop more than 0.001/0.003.. my other motherboard gigabyte 890fxa-ud5 has NO vcore drop under load, not even 0.001v, so theres NO reason why this motherboard shouldn't be like that.
to be honest, all i want is for someone from gigabyte to come on this forum and say "that they working on the vcore issues via bios , but if it turns out to be a design flaw then they'll replace the motherboard with the next rev for free.."
simple as that
-
it seem some here like to blame everything else but the motherboard.
If you read carefully my post I did not suggest that it could not be the motherboard and in fact I said....
I am not in any way suggesting you do not have a bad Motherboard but the expectation of that very small variance is in my opinion unreasonable.
My point is and was that most motherboards makers do vary the V core voltage with CPU load .. Usually they increase the Vcore with load
depending on the CPU chip as well as other factors..So it could very well be that your Motherboard is defective because your Vcore drops under load..It also could be that the CPU may draw more current than the supply can deliver..AMD CPU's will throttle back if the temperature gets too high ..These are just possibilities not Fact..Again you may have a defective board..Who Knows..
There is one way to find out and that is to RMA the board ..
Here is just one URL that shows other users complaining about varing Vcore..It is just one example of my point..There are four(4) pages so please read all four..
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/751265-1055t-vcore-goes-up-load-turbocore.html (http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/751265-1055t-vcore-goes-up-load-turbocore.html)
Again good luck and I hope you find out whats wrong
jolphil :)
-
As I stated previously, I do believe this issue is BIOS and not hardware related.
The VCore voltage drop is being shown across several different PC configurations and in testing on my own set up I have encountered a drop in VCore voltage when stressing the CPU which was not shown on the GA-890FXA-UD5.
The primary reason I believe the BIOS is at fault is because I have been testing this board for two weeks and have encountered other issues with the BIOS which I can best describe as "glitchy". The hardware I am using has been tested (over the past 10 days) on a series of Gigabyte motherboards and they have all worked perfectly. It is only on this board that I have encountered any problems.
Gigabyte are obviously trying to sort things out, hence them sending me the F5a BETA BIOS but unfortunately the issues are still there. Gathering information, testing, writing a new BIOS and all of the steps involved in resolving problems such as this do not happen over night. If you are not happy then, by all means swap your board for another. Or, you could do as I am doing, gather as much accurate information along with screenshots and pass this back to Gigabyte to help them with helping us. The more accurate information they receive the easier it will be for them to diagnose the cause and come up with a solution.
Hopefully, it is not a hardware issue but if it is, then like the recent problems with Intel's chipsets, I am confident that Gigabyte will do the right thing and replace the boards.
-
Good morning Ladies & Gentlemen!
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to perceive the sub-par performance of the power delivery subsystem of the recent Gigabyte motherboards (i.e. those using the new Dr. MOS tech) as a trend.
There was an in-depth review/comparison of the GB P67 UD7 board and the ASUS ROG P67 board. Now even though the UD7 has 100+ phases, Dr. MOS and an all new Intersil controller, its power system performance was much worse than that of the ROG board. To be exact, it demonstrated random oscillations and fluctuations of VCore. ASUS board, which uses a relatively simple digital power subsystem, performed much better.
It's very sad to see posts like this, because they make me believe that the intensive promotion of the new Dr. MOS & friends tech is nothing but marketing hype, and that the famous Gigabyte quality is slowly becoming a thing of the past, simply a legend.
Coming back on topic, absic, could you please explain why would BIOS affect the CPU power delivery? IIRC the controller has its own BIOS of sorts, which can not be easily replaced or upgraded (if possible at all.) And a BIOS update doesn't seem to upgrade the controller microcode I think.
Regards,
--Night Gyr
-
@absic , but surely if it was a bios issue why would the 990fxa-ud7 have the same issue, but the 990fxa-ud3 seens that it doesn't have the issue.
surely the ud7 doesn't use the same bios has the ud5..
-
surely the ud7 doesn't use the same bios has the ud5..
I would imagine the base BIOS for all four of the 990FX boards is pretty similar as the basic hardware and CPU options are the same. All these boards use the same Northbridge and Southbridge chips as well as LAN, Audio & USB3 chips. Yes, the configuration is different but the underlying hardware is the same.
@absic , but surely if it was a bios issue why would the 990fxa-ud7 have the same issue, but the 990fxa-ud3 seens that it doesn't have the issue.
With this question you have to consider the fact that not too many of these boards are out there at the moment and, of those that are, not everyone will be examining them with as much scrutiny as we are.There are probably plenty of users blissfully unaware of the VCore Voltage and other BIOS problems who are running their systems quite happily in ignorance. The fact that issues are not being reported here, or on other forums, doesn't mean there aren't any. I first reported my concerns to Gigabyte (via runn3R - The forum moderator) on the 12/6/2012, a clear 12 days before you started this thread. At the time I was unaware of any other user having problems despite searching the internet and other forums and thought it might just be down to my own choice of hardware. Only when you, along with other's posted was it apparent the problem was not only on my system but on others too.
-
ok..
i thank im keeping the board because it's a big hassle changing motherboards, has it takes over 3 hours to install a motherboard due to a woman doing it for me (being my hands)...
but theres no way im letting this go. i'll give gigabyte a chance with a new bios and if it doesn't fix it i will want gigabyte to replace the board with ether a new rev, or a working rev 1.0 board which doesn't drop the vcore under load..
i'm being fair..
because has it is now it's not 100% stable at stock under fully load due to the vcore badly droping under load.
-
Ok I know you are good absic but I never realised that's how you got your answers. Don't you think that time travel is cheating just a little bit ?
;D ;D ;D
-
i think i'm just going to send the board back and go for another, dont see the point in testing this board for gigabyte and there is no way they didnt know about this problem before release and the more i think about it the more disgusted i am about it. I feel part of gareth170's frustration about this though,i beleive he knows what he is talking about as he helped me understand this problem in the first place, its a an inconvenience to change mobo at best, as far as i'm concerned this should not be happening.
-
Ok I know you are good absic but I never realised that's how you got your answers. Don't you think that time travel is cheating just a little bit ?
;D ;D ;D
Funny thing is I had to sign some documents a few days ago and I signed them with 2012 too! I'm sure it's all the talk of the Olympics I keep hearing on the local news bulletins that has got me thinking 2012 not 2011. :-[.
-
I think I'm going to return my UD5 as well, If I wanted this ammount of Vdrop, I would not have bought a new board. I did not buy the UD5 for the upcomming bulldozer, I bought it for the better voltage regulation.
My M4N98TD EVO gives me 131/1000ths Vdrop with the same OC I was using on the Gigabyte UD5, and the M4N98 never got better with subsiquent driver releases.
So here is a direct comparision of the two.
UD5 @ 4ghz Idle 1.475v in bios 3/1000ths Drop
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/4ghzidle.jpg)
EVO @ 4ghz Idle 1.475v in bios 31/1000ths Drop
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/M4N98TDEVO/4ghzidle.jpg)
UD5 @ 4ghz Load 1.475v in bios 83/1000ths drop
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/4ghzload.jpg)
EVO @ 4ghz Load 1.475v in bios 131/1000ths drop
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/M4N98TDEVO/4ghzload.jpg)
Now, here is the real kicker, on the UD5 if the voltage drops below 1.36v under load @ 4ghz, I throw errors, mean while over on the EVO the CPU can drop all the way to 1.34v and remain stable. Not only that, my temps are higher on the UD5 then on the EVO. I hate to say it, but I'll be returning thie board, I had very high hopes for the UD5. But I've already thrown my EVO back in, and there really is no performance difference between the two.
-
@absic , can u please get a tech guy from gigabyte to come on this forum and give us some information on this???
-
I'm sorry but I have no more real power than the rest of you guys.
I may have the title of moderator but it doesn't give me any extra real clout with Gigabyte. runn3R, the forum moderator and my usual line of communication is on holiday this week. I have contacted one of his work colleagues via PM this morning and also raised a support ticket with GGTS and all I can do is wait until I get a response.
Believe me, I am doing the best I can and I am as concerned over these problems as the rest of you are. As soon as I get any feedback or firm advice from Gigabyte I will let you all know.
-
ok
i heard theres a F5B bios, do u have?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271757-GIGABYTE-9xx-AM3-thread&p=4888802&viewfull=1#post4888802
p.s whenever u receive new bios's could u send to me also
-
No, I haven't been sent that one yet. I'll make some enquiries and If I can get hold of it I will e-mail it to you.
-
I have something Intresting I thought I would share.
I decided to try locking off 2 cores (making my Hexa, a Quad) I found that the drop almost halved, which either means the Vregs cant keep up with the Hexa, or the bios dosnt tell them too. (Also My Vreg temp dropped 10C running the 1100T as a Quad @ 4ghz)
For consistency AMD Turbo Core, Cool & Quiet, and C1E are disabled.
Bios @ 1.475v Windows Idle 1.504 (29/100ths V Rise)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/4ghzidlex4.jpg)
Bios @ 1.475v Windows Load 1.424 (51/100ths V Drop)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/4ghzloadx4.jpg)
-
I have to say that I hadn't thought of trying that particular strategy but it does raise another thought.
Do you have the same VCore drop if you leave the CPU at stock settings and don't bump it up to 4.0GHz whilst 2 cores are disabled?
-
Almost no Vcore drop with 2 cores disabled @ 3300mhz 1.275v (only 8/100ths)
-
Interesting, although I am no expert I still feel this is down to the BIOS rather than the hardware and it makes one wonder how much testing goes into such things.
The problems I am encountering on the GA-990FXA-UD5 are now being seen across a range of Gigabyte AM3+ motherboards, all of which are using the larger BIOS chips. My same hardware, installed onto 3 different older AM3 motherboards with the 8Mb chips work faultlessly and I can't help feeling that the BIOS coding on these AM3+ boards is at fault.
I still have had no reply from Gigabyte from my PM and e-mail sent yesterday and the support ticket I raised on the 25/6 is still unread so I am still none the wiser as to what exactly is going on.
EDIT: UPDATE - I have just received the F5b beta BIOS from Gigabyte and have sent via e-mail to gareth170, zuban & Lordred. Check your spam and Junk boxes just in case it has been deleted by mistake. I am unable to run a complete set of tests at the present but I did run a very short one and it does seem to be better.
If any other user wants this beta BIOS then send me a PM with your e-mail address and I will forward it on to you.
-
This is the big problem as far as we are concerned isn't it absic, the fact that we cannot get answers or communicate along any more effective paths than anyone else outside the company payroll. It is something I have been pushing for for a long time that we as moderators should be able to have direct communication with techs at head office.
-
You and me both DM.
Squeezing blood from a stone is much easier than getting anything technical or really helpful out of some of these hardware companies.
-
I have just been sent some screenshot images by Gigabyte of their F5b BIOS tests.
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1162/biosf5b.jpg) (http://img9.imageshack.us/i/biosf5b.jpg/)
(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/4696/defaultloading.jpg) (http://img832.imageshack.us/i/defaultloading.jpg/)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/205/noloading.jpg) (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/noloading.jpg/)
(http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/3707/normalvalue.jpg) (http://img849.imageshack.us/i/normalvalue.jpg/)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3273/pchealthvcore.jpg) (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/pchealthvcore.jpg/)
(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/3904/superpitest1.jpg) (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/superpitest1.jpg/)
(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/991/vcoreaddvoltagexy.jpg) (http://img221.imageshack.us/i/vcoreaddvoltagexy.jpg/)
-
i've tested f5b but my vcore still drops under full load.
i have turbo,c1e,CnQ disabled...
on auto vcore it says 1.30 which is right, in pc health it say 1.344v which i don't mind, but when i put it under load with prime95 or linx the vcores to 1.296v which is better than before 1.280v.
but when i up the vcore to 1.425v , pc health says 1.475v~ and when i put it under load with prime95 or linx the vcores drops to 1.396v and crashs due to being well under 1.425v, i admit it's slightly better than before 1.360v-1.380v.
with turbo,c1e,CnQ enabled the vcore is at 1.475v and in pc health it says 1.520v...
-
Super PI is not an effective load test Abisc, it only uses 1 thread.
IBT, or Lin-Pac (LinX), Prime 95. Those would be good tests as they utilize the CPU and RAM
-
Super PI is not an effective load test Abisc, it only uses 1 thread.
IBT, or Lin-Pac (LinX), Prime 95. Those would be good tests as they utilize the CPU and RAM
i agree....
seens like gigabyte doesn't know how to test in the right way
-
I agree about Super PI but that is what Gigabyte seem to be using.
I did a really short test using Heavyload and monitored the Voltage using EasyTune6 and it did seem better than the previous BIOS versions. Unfortunately, I am not really in a position to do too much testing as I am still having other problems (namely getting my GPU to be recognised) and am having to run with an old 3450 that I have.
I have updated my Tech request with the latest information I have and would recommend that you all do the same (if you have raised a support ticket with GGTS) so they are aware of your own findings. You may wish to link them back to this thread so they can see what we are trying and also the results we are having.
-
I have updated my Tech request with the latest information I have and would recommend that you all do the same (if you have raised a support ticket with GGTS) so they are aware of your own findings. You may wish to link them back to this thread so they can see what we are trying and also the results we are having.
i've updated mine.. but not had any reply since i contacted them on 24th
also i've found another issue about the ram voltage, if i set it to 1750v it goes to 1.724v~
tbh i'm getting so board with this motherboard.
-
The F5B is much improved, this I can live with, and can only hope it gets even better. I went a step further and showed the exact settings in Bios, as well as the Bios's PC Health section to see what it reports as well.
For consistency AMD Turbo Core, Cool & Quiet, and C1E are disabled.
STOCK (no OC, no tweeks, no nothing, just power saving features off)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/stset1.jpg)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/stset2.jpg)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/stset3.jpg)
Windows Idle 1.312v (37/100ths Rise)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/stockidleF5b.jpg)
Windows Load 1.232v (43/100ths Drop
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/stockloadF5b.jpg)
OVERCLOCK CPU 4000mhz, HT 2500mhz, NB 2750, DRAM 1666 8-8-8-24-34-1T
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/ocset1.jpg)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/ocset2.jpg)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/ocset3.jpg)
Windows Idle 1.488v (13/100ths Rise)
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/4ghzidlef5b.jpg)
Windows Load 1.392 (83/100ths Drop) Which is a step in the right direction from 100/100ths drop
(http://pumpgasracing.homestead.com/files/Comp/Defiant/990FXAUD5/F5b/4ghzloadf5b.jpg)
-
As you say a step in the right direction and I think it shows that it is the BIOS, as I suspected and not the hardware. Hopefully, when they release a full update, things will be even better and we can put all these teething problems behind us.
-
As you say a step in the right direction and I think it shows that it is the BIOS, as I suspected and not the hardware. Hopefully, when they release a full update, things will be even better and we can put all these teething problems behind us.
i admin it is slightly better but still far from being right... if gigabyte is claming its fixed with this bios it would mean they won't be doing anymore to the voltage.
-
Gigabyte US tech support doesnt even know about the F5a or F5b bios.. lol
I was on the phone with them earlier.
-
I feel that 2 BIOS revisions in 3 working days show that Gigabyte are working hard to resolve these issues. I doubt if any other motherboard manufacturer would be so willing to do this.
As I have stated all along, the only way Gigabyte really knows there is an issue is by clear and accurate feedback by users. No company in the world can be expected to test every conceivable configuration of PC components and I assume they have a standard set-up that they build and test to and this would not necessarily include overclocking a system. For the vast majority of users, the default settings are all they want and they want reliability which, in most cases, Gigabyte motherboards provide.
Yes, it is very annoying and frustrating for those of us who have spent a lot of hard earned cash, on new tech, when we encounter issues and we resent having to be the ones to help iron out the glitches. I still resent the fact that I spent so long beta testing Windows 7 when Microsoft first released it under the guise of Vista. But sadly, this is a fact of life, whether we like it or not. We are the pathfinders and without us nothing would ever progress.
-
Yes absic I would totally agree with that. We have the option of course of waiting untill all the issues have been ironed out and the BIOSes all running smoothly and maybe even a cheaper price before we jump in and buy our bit of technology but by then all the fun has gone out of it and it is mainstream and everyone has it. Where is the fun in that ? ;)
-
i've done some more testing with the f5b
if i set the vcore to 1.475v in M.I.B, but in pc health its really 1.520v cos it adds 0.044v~, under load with Prime it drops to between 1.455-1.440v so thats a 0.030v~ drop from 1.475v but really it's a 0.75v~ drop from the true voltage reading of 1.520v
if i set the vcore to 1.450v in M.I.B, but in pc health its really 1.488v cos it adds 0.038v, under load with Prime it drops to-1.408v so thats a 0.042v~ drop from 1.450v but really it's a 0.80v drop from the true voltage reading of 1.488v
has it is now theres no way of getting to 1.425v or even close to it without having very high idle voltage, also from them 2 tests it seems the amount of vcore drop/adds is different with each vcore setting
-
i havent noticed any difference with the latest bios. i'm just trying to get my money back on this board now, if they fix it before i get that far then great otherwise oh well.
-
Not sure if I need a new thread for this, but I am having very similar issues with a 990xa-ud3 I have have recently bought. At first I thought the xms3 I had bought alongside it was faulty, however ive now tested this extensively, 1 stick at a time, every slot etc with memtest+. System was more unstable with my ati4870 in, now ive just got my old 1950xt in its more stable until i stress it with games or orthos when it resets/bluescreens. Using a Corsair 650watt psu thats been fine in my last build for a year. Temps are all fine. Vcore is dropping.
Is there a beta bios for this board I can try as a last option as Im close to returning?
-
@arithdcael
probably best to post here as it all seems relevant. I have asked Gigabyte UK about a BIOS update for your board and will let you know as soon as I get a reply.
-
OK just had this information sent to me by Gigabyte UK.
Since this CPU AMD 1090T X6 supports CPb function (AMD turbo core boost) when all cores run at full loading it does not reach the designated assigned Voltage Pb0. (due to CPb features). (note from absic: Although this refers to the 1090T the same applies across all the multicore CPU's.)
Using Super PI testing one core full loading test software and it can reach the designated Vcore Pb0.
We have tested Asus M5A99X EVO and this has the same outcome under full loading.
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7683/asusmotherboardtest.jpg) (http://img843.imageshack.us/i/asusmotherboardtest.jpg/)
To understand what is actually happening with AMD Turbo core you might like to look at this article: http://tech.icrontic.com/news/amds-dynamic-overclocking-turbo-core/
You learn something new everyday. :)
-
absic, I want to thank you for being as helpfull as you have been. But I think I have decided to return the motherboard for now rather then go though its growing pains. It performs no better then my M4N98TD EVO other then that it has slightly less Vdroop. It is a very fine board other then that. But I've always picked boards that seam to have growing pains. This time I wish to avoid that.
So I thank you for your time and effort in helping us and hearing us out. When I called Gigabyte US, they were very helpfull as well, albit a little confused about what I was talking about. (They All had very strong accents it was difficult for me to understand them at times)
On a side note, the M5A99X EVO is only a 6+2 Phase board, the board that would be best to line up with the UD5 would be the 990FX Sabertooth, which is also a 8+2 board like the UD5
Dunno, I'm just sort of underimpressed. I like the board so far But something inside makes me feel unsatisfied
-
Hi all, I got this information from Gigabyte UK. and I did try and post it earlier but for some reason it doesn't seem to be showing.
Since this CPU AMD 1090T X6 supports CPb function (AMD turbo core boost) when all cores run at full loading it does not reach the designated assigned Voltage Pb0. (due to CPb features). Note by absic:- this applies to all the multicore processors not just the 1090T
Using Super PI testing one core full loading test software and it can reach the designated Vcore Pb0.
We have tested Asus M5A99X EVO and has the same outcome under full loading.
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7683/asusmotherboardtest.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/asusmotherboardtest.jpg/)
For a better understanding of how AMD's Turbo Core works you might like to look at this post: http://tech.icrontic.com/news/amds-dynamic-overclocking-turbo-core/ which goes into the subject a little bit.
I apologise if you can see the original posting of this.
-
However As I have stated, I have Turbo Core disabled (always)
(It would seem your post wishes to remain hidden. Inless Quoted)
Edit: I have the return setup with newegg, but I have 14 days to get it to them (9 to be safe) Which is the time I will allot to seeing if my mind can be changed on the VRM performance.
Hi all, I got this information from Gigabyte UK. and I did try and post it earlier but for some reason it doesn't seem to be showing.
Since this CPU AMD 1090T X6 supports CPb function (AMD turbo core boost) when all cores run at full loading it does not reach the designated assigned Voltage Pb0. (due to CPb features). Note by absic:- this applies to all the multicore processors not just the 1090T
Using Super PI testing one core full loading test software and it can reach the designated Vcore Pb0.
We have tested Asus M5A99X EVO and has the same outcome under full loading.
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7683/asusmotherboardtest.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/asusmotherboardtest.jpg/)
For a better understanding of how AMD's Turbo Core works you might like to look at this post: http://tech.icrontic.com/news/amds-dynamic-overclocking-turbo-core/ which goes into the subject a little bit.
I apologise if you can see the original posting of this.
-
NM, you fixed it.
-
lol, I have been fighting this since around midday and can't find out what is going wrong. I'm not even sure if this will show up!
-
lol, I have been fighting this since around midday and can't find out what is going wrong. I'm not even sure if this will show up!
I'm sorry its giving you such a rough time. However it should be noted that Gigabytes image you recived is only showing load, and when you have Turbo Mode on, the idle voltage is increased.
A proper test would be to have all power saving and state changing features off (Al-la Turbo, C&Q, C1E disabled) as for Overclocking, and full stress opperation like Folding (something I do often) My CPU will be running at 100% TDP for 72 hours straight. Which is why I want the board with the lowest ammount of Vdroop possible, so I can set the Vcore and VID as low as possible with the CPU Speed as high as possible, and keep the load and temps down on the VRM's.
Protein Folding is something near and dear to me. I have lost family members to Alzheimer's, Leukemia, and Renal cell carcinoma. All of which folding offers the slimist of hopes of helping to find a cure for.
:D
-
Well, although I don't seem to be able to resolve your Mobo problem I can definitely say that you seem to have solved mine with regards to posting in this thread.... thanks. :D
On a side note, I did play around a little with O/C'ing and checking voltages etc. on my system and although I didn't go as high as you are aiming at I did hit 3.8GHz, although the VCore dropped from the 1.45V I had set it to in BIOS down to 1.38V the system was stable. I used Heavyload to stress the system for over an hour and the CPU temp never went above 39C and the voltage stayed at 1.38V throughout the test.
-
when turbo is enable the vid goes to 1.475v which is normal...
if your wanting a proper overclock, u need to disable Turbo, C&Q, C1E .
-
I'm having issues with the 990FXA-UD5 too.
I have a X2 555 BE that unlocked 4 cores perfectly on my older MA-770T-UD3P board, no issues even after running several stress tests at the same time over the course of a day. It was rock solid and now I can't unlock the cores with the UD5 without it freezing or BSOD.
I've checked around and found another guy with the same issue on another forum, he switched to a competitor board and the unlock was faultless.
I'm thinking it may have something to do with the voltage drop. Would appreciate any feedback and I'm going to try the new 5B bios once I receive it.
Thanks for any help you can give.
-
if your wanting a proper overclock, u need to disable Turbo, C&Q, C1E .
Yes, I agree and part of the Overclocking process is finding the voltages that are stable if you want to push all the cores in the CPU rather than just a few. That is what I did during my brief tests yesterday. I allowed for the VDrop by increasing the baseline to 1.45V and the voltage dropped, under load, as expected but stayed constant throughout an hours stressing with HeavyLoad.
-
Thanks for looking into it absic. Hope theres some more news soon.
-
if your wanting a proper overclock, u need to disable Turbo, C&Q, C1E .
Yes, I agree and part of the Overclocking process is finding the voltages that are stable if you want to push all the cores in the CPU rather than just a few. That is what I did during my brief tests yesterday. I allowed for the VDrop by increasing the baseline to 1.45V and the voltage dropped, under load, as expected but stayed constant throughout an hours stressing with HeavyLoad.
the problem i'm having is i need 1.425v under load for 4ghz to be fully stable, if i set it to 1.45v it'll drop to 1.408v under load, if i set it to 1.475v it'll drop to 1.440v which is ok but the idle voltage is 1.520v which is bad.
-
OK I have some further information which hopefully will explain things a little more.
The 990FXA-UD5 will have Vcore drop from 1.344V to 1.296V under loading even when Core Performance Boost and Power Saving options are off. (absic note - I would guess this applies to all of the 9 series boards but it is only a guess)
Earlier 7 and 8 series motherboards don't suffer from this because the motherboard hardware on these does not have load line calibration design.
The 9 series motherboards do and follow AMD's AM3+ design guide line for LLC.
I also had a chat with AMD in the UK today and they confirmed that this board is operating within their specified voltage range and how they would expect it to. They also told me that they do not recommend Overclocking, so ..... nothing new there! :D
They also stated that If you disable the Turbo Core Feature the CPU Voltage will drop to around 1.30V. This is because, unlike using Turbo Core you are attempting to run all of the cores at a stated value whereas, for example on the X6 processors, Turbo Core actually disables 3 of the cores and only uses the remaining ones for the speed gain. Lowering the voltage across the processor when all the cores are enabled, is done by design to help protect the CPU and is not a fault.
-
Nicely worked out in the end Absic and as you said it would sound like this is across the board(no pun intended) even with other manufacturer's offerings then. Anyway I am sure that it will clear up this issue for a few people who were having problems with it. ;)
-
Thanks have to go to Ken at Gigabyte UK and also the guys at AMD who have helped me understand what is happening and why. Without their help I would still be struggling for answers. ;)
-
So if this is a feature, shouldn't we have an option to turn this feature off? Also if is basically a new feature with these 990FXA boards, why isn't there any mention of it on their website or in the manuals?
Also about the assertion that this is happening due to a new LLC design, I thought LLC was designed to counter vdroop, not cause it!
-
found this
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/ASRock-Explains-the-Differences-Between-AM3-and-AM3-Sockets-5.jpg/
so this could be by design, well i have to admit the thought had crossed my mind at one point that perhaps this was a difference in the am3+ boards, but couldnt find anything on it. been extremely frustrating experience if this is the case, the change could have been handled better with more information provided, i'm still not sure why the board is setting the vcore on my cpu so high at 1.52 volts at idle, but i've had a response from gigabyte and they have asked me to the try the f5b bios which i have and nothing has changed, i've asked them about the high idle voltage, if it turns out thats how its meant to be fine, and if they say it wont harm my cpu great, for all intensive purposes the board is running ok, just want to understand the high idle voltage, the voltage still moves around a lot more than i'm used to when the cpu is underload, but again if this turns out to be by design, then fine. I have a slightly better overclock than my previous board, in terms of temps and speed, but i cant seem to push the cpu as far as i could previously, perhaps thats due to my old boards power design, but i never ran those clock speeds anyway due to the temps. I have an rma open with my vendor to send the board back, but i've been holding back with this nagging worry that maybe this is a different way of working, and if i send the board back and they find it works ok, ie this is by design, i will have to pay even more to cover all the postage thats been incurred. Feeling a bit better now, i feel like i need to understand it better still though.
-
So, reading that link:
"This will be accompanied by a more advanced load-line design that minimizes vDroop by monitoring the electrical loads placed on the CPU and keeping voltages within a stable range."
Hmm, well I think that we can all agree that vdroop is NOT being minimized on the new Gigabyte 990fx boards. I am still convinced that there is something wrong.
-
i think there is still something not quite right, hence why gigabyte are releasing new bios's and telling me to update mine, they recognise it isnt right, but perhaps this is a mix of a major design change, and some teething troubles, which makes a lot more sense.
-
I've also tried the F5b BIOS, and no change for me either. Behaves in exactly the same way voltage-wise. The only improvement is it no longer occasionally gets stuck when I'm trying to get into the BIOS!
-
yes i noticed that too! my monitors are quite slow to go on/off and i often press the keys guessing when the bios is on, and it would jam it a lot, hasnt happened on this latest bios!
-
well after talking to a tech guy from the eretailer that i bought it from said the voltage shouldn't be out by that much. he said 0.015-0.20v vdoop is acceptable and 0.020v~ increase....
i admit stock is fine with f5b but when uping the vcore the vdoop gets worse.
so im sending it back tomorrow and i've ordered a different 990fxa board which has LLC option..
-
interesting you mention is has an llc option? should the gigabyte board also have this?
i've still got some time on my side but i was thinking today that i will let it run for a little more time, things seems like they are starting to make some sense but i'm still a bit clueless as to what to do. I will keep a dialogue open with gigabyte and with my retailer, i would like to know first that i'm not sending back a board that they will claim isnt faulty, so by that i mean something similar to what they have said to you gareth. all through this i have felt like i've been caught between a rock and a hard place. When you hear about asus boards not having more than 0.020v drop and a llc option it isnt helping gigabytes case tbh.
-
interesting you mention is has an llc option? should the gigabyte board also have this?
i've still got some time on my side but i was thinking today that i will let it run for a little more time, things seems like they are starting to make some sense but i'm still a bit clueless as to what to do. I will keep a dialogue open with gigabyte and with my retailer, i would like to know first that i'm not sending back a board that they will claim isnt faulty, so by that i mean something similar to what they have said to you gareth. all through this i have felt like i've been caught between a rock and a hard place. When you hear about asus boards not having more than 0.020v drop and a llc option it isnt helping gigabytes case tbh.
gigabyte as never had LLC options on they boards. having LLC option allows u to counteract the vdoop.....
if u want to send it back i would say put f3 back on which came with the board, and them test it. they'll see straight way that voltage doesn't stay anyway near where u set it at....
-
My final decision is to keep the board.
-
Red, what are your reasons for keeping? (To help me make my own mind up) :)
-
The List of things I like outweigh the the one thing I did not like at first.
According to Slides ASRock released, the 9 Series Chipset all have a Load Line Calibration in them that is designed to drop the voltage in proportion to the amperage that the CPU is drawing. I know this is something Intel has been doing for years, at first I did not like this idea. But after researching it more, this is actually a very good thing, as the CPU goes under load the voltage drops so that when you experience power spikes (rise and drop while under load due to the switching nature of the VRM's) the load Voltage will not rise over the chosen voltage in bios at any time. This is a good feature for people who are not expert Overclockers. I suspect that Gigabyte will add the option for use to adjust LLC in the future, so for now. I'm going to stick with the UD5
Now, on to the things that i love about this board already.
*The Onboard sound is fantastic!
*Up to 3-way SLI
*Electric PCI-E x4 (x16) slots for PCI-E x4 SSD's that do not run on the same lanes as the ones for GPU's (Revo Raid much?)
*USB ports everywhere.
*USB 2.0 Power X3, this feature is just great, not only does it help with charging devices, I have picky USB External HD's and with this feature so far every one of them have worked every time rather then having to play around and find the thickest cable which will carry the most current to power the device.
*Tons of Fan Headers
*Tons of Sata 3 Ports
*Split IDE Legacy / AHCI Support
It really is a good board and I was focusing only only the Overclocking end of the spectrum. It has a ton of features my M4N98TD EVO lacks. I think I was being unjustly hard on it.
-
i'm still curious as to why the voltage, when i set it to 1.475, as it does automatically in the bios, or when i set it manually, i get a voltage of 1.52v at idle, if this is just part of this llc setup then fine but would still like an answer.
-
This is a good question and I have actually asked Gigabyte about it. When I get a reply I will post it here.
-
So Gigabyte does not have VDroop control on their boards?? Even on the UD5 and UD7 overclocking beasts? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Guess I'm too used to EVGA boards' features... :P
-
The Intel boards do but for some reason the AMD boards do not.
-
Hi i have questions about this board:
i have no hard drive or anything connected on this port. Bios shows "NONE" but in preferences there is "Capacity 136GB", why?
(http://wstaw.org/m/2011/07/01/ide.jpg)
Under Ctrl+F1 advanced chipset menu i have this option GPP Core CFG, what is it for?
(http://wstaw.org/m/2011/07/01/pcie.jpg)
-
Look the AMD developper documentation :
http://developer.amd.com/Assets/43734_rs780_bdg_pub_1.01.pdf
Pierre
-
Look the AMD developper documentation :
http://developer.amd.com/Assets/43734_rs780_bdg_pub_1.01.pdf
Pierre
Hi Pierre, i found this earlier and i dont understand this document so thats why i asked ;-)
-
i have no hard drive or anything connected on this port. Bios shows "NONE" but in preferences there is "Capacity 136GB", why?
I don't know but my board shows the same. The only thing I can think of is it's another BIOS glitch that hasn't been noticed. :-[
Under Ctrl+F1 advanced chipset menu i have this option GPP Core CFG, what is it for?
Like you, I'm not sure exactly what this feature is for and despite reading the AMD Documentation I'm still none the wiser but, I do have a headache now! ::)
I will see if I can get answers to both these questions and will post back if/when I do. If someone else knows the answer, In simple terms, please let us know! :P
-
well after a ton of reading i'm almost doing a u turn on this and thinking i'll keep it, i still wish i had gone for one of the asus boards, but i could do without the expense and hassle of doing that, i dont understand it tbh, but i could be persueded to keep this board, gigabyte do seem to be recognising there is an issue, to what extent we dont know till maybe they say something, and it would be good if they would.
http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherboards/1023100-official-gigabyte-ga-990fxa-series-owners-42.html
there does seem to be alot of people making enough noise about it that it wont go away.
-
this is from a a ud3 user.
When running my cpu at 1.2v i dont get a single bit of v droop, when i raised the v core to 1.475 i only had 0.003 v droop which is excellent . ( Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3)
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=19502662&postcount=10
so it clearly shows theres a fault/issue with the ud5...
i'm glad i've sent mine back and gone for a asus board.....
-
Problem with this is he doesn't actually say which processor he is running and that would be an important factor.
-
this is from a a ud3 user.
When running my cpu at 1.2v i dont get a single bit of v droop, when i raised the v core to 1.475 i only had 0.003 v droop which is excellent . ( Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3)
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=19502662&postcount=10
so it clearly shows theres a fault/issue with the ud5...
i'm glad i've sent mine back and gone for a asus board.....
Damn simple. Exactly what I had thought.
The AMD UD3 does not have DrMOS. It uses a traditional analog design similar to the one used on the 890 boards.
Now the question is, do the P67 boards (UD4 and higher) have the VDroop issue? They use the DrMOS tech too.
(It still remains a secret why EVGA has such a good power subsytem on their boards and why that can;t be replicated by other manufacturers. Patents?)
-
I still don't buy what Gigabyte have come out and said. I think there are real issues with the UD5. They certainly haven't explained the vboost I get when idle (1.35v set in BIOS, 1.38v showing in HW Monitor). They also havent explained why setting 1.65v for my RAM I only get 1.62v. And they certainly haven't explained why the UD3 doesn't have this vdroop 'feature'.
-
Hi All
I have contacted HQ about voltage droop questions and received following official statement today:
"GIGABYTE 990 series motherboards strictly follow the AMD AM3+ load line calibration design guide, and so CPU V-core voltage will drop according to loading. Such calibrations are built into the platform to protect the user’s purchase and prevent damage to the PC system."
-
I wonder if they'd care to explain why then the UD3 does not have any vdroop. ???
-
I wonder if they'd care to explain why then the UD3 does not have any vdroop. ???
I think Night Gyr answered this question earlier:
The AMD UD3 does not have DrMOS. It uses a traditional analog design similar to the one used on the 890 boards.
-
All that says to me is that the UD5 is defective. Otherwise, if indeed it was a feature of the 990 series, ALL of them would have it.
-
@ iSeries
You may find the reply here:
Quote: Originally Posted by mjones1
Just a x2 550, even as a quad core i don't have a v droop problem.
oh thats why.
the vdoop seem to be with 6 core cpus
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=19510929#post19510929
the questions to everybody are (only when using 6 cores cpus):
- has anyone tested UD3 for vdroop?
- what is vdroop on other vendors 990FX mobos ?
-
update:
the eretailer where i bought this board from, they tested it and even they said it's faulty, so i got my money back, also i should be receive my Asus Crosshair V Formula today....
-
Well. I've read the AsRock documents and have a new idea.
It looks like the problem lies in the conflict between the Am3 CPU's and the Am3+ Boards. They say in the keynote that the power design has changed. But you are trying to use the old CPu's with the new power design. Who wins in this situation? Does the system behave according to what the CPU wants or what the VRM wants?
The other factor is that the UD3 behaves differently. It's a lower tier board and it's behavior is generally qualified by Gigabyte as slightly worse, so I think it's ok if the 5 and 7 differ from the UD3 in a certain way, that's how it should be.
-
It looks like the problem lies in the conflict between the Am3 CPU's and the Am3+ Boards.
I feel you have probably hit the nail on the head with this Night Gyr. I believe the new 9 series boards and newer 8 series boards with the AM3+ Socket, have been designed primarily with a view to the new AMD Fusion FX AM3+ CPU's and not for the existing AM3 processors. Backwards compatibility is always going to present some issues and I wonder how people would feel if these boards were only designed for AM3+ Processors with no backwards compatibility, in the same way that Intel releases their new CPU designs.
I feel the real test for these motherboards will only come when the new CPU's are available and that it is only then, that we will see their true strengths and weaknesses. I am not dismissing the current issues or ignoring them but I am a realist and it is obvious to me that, changing the socket design and the power design is not a task undertaken lightly and it is bound to have an impact on the existing technology. The Vdrop issue is more noticeable on the current 6 core CPU's than on those with four or less cores and the reason for this must be in the basic design of these processors. If you lock off two of the cores in these processors then the Vdrop is not so dramatic.
At present, as individuals, we do not know any firm details of the new AM3+ processors or their full specifications. The motherboard manufacturers must have more details and AMD would have supplied them with technical guidelines as to how the motherboards are to work. I would assume, that is the reason for the current problems and it is not down to bad design or faulty components.
-
The other factor is that the UD3 behaves differently. It's a lower tier board and it's behavior is generally qualified by Gigabyte as slightly worse, so I think it's ok if the 5 and 7 differ from the UD3 in a certain way, that's how it should be.
Agree. For sure looking at it's price UD3 must be kind of lower end mobo
@ absic
Yes it would be interesting to see the tests with am3+ cpus, but how long we have to wait for amd to release them? :(
I've heard they will have also many cores at least 6, is this true?
-
@Beekeeper
Still no firm release date for the new AM3+ processors. They were originally scheduled for early June but there were some speed issues that AMD felt needed addressing first. Latest info I have is August/September but this still hasn't been confirmed.
I believe that initially there will be 4 and 8 core versions released but again, I have no confirmation that this is true.
-
What I don't understand then is if its a new power design for AM3+ processors, why arent the owners of other brands of 990 boards complaining?
With that said though - my 1055t is OC'd at 3.75ghz @ 1.35v. At full load this drops to 1.31v but stays stable. On my previous board anything less than 1.35v was not stable so maybe there's more to all this than what meets the eye...
-
well the asus crosshair V formula board is great,
so far no vdoop at stock under load.. i set the vcore at 1.30v in the bios, it ideas at 1.308v and under load it goes to 1.320v.... love it ... it has the LLC options which u can control the vdoop or let it do it automaticly..
if the GA-990FXA-UD5 had the LLC options then maybe it would of be ok
-
I feel you have probably hit the nail on the head with this Night Gyr. I believe the new 9 series boards and newer 8 series boards with the AM3+ Socket, have been designed primarily with a view to the new AMD Fusion FX AM3+ CPU's and not for the existing AM3 processors. Backwards compatibility is always going to present some issues and I wonder how people would feel if these boards were only designed for AM3+ Processors with no backwards compatibility, in the same way that Intel releases their new CPU designs.
I feel the real test for these motherboards will only come when the new CPU's are available and that it is only then, that we will see their true strengths and weaknesses. I am not dismissing the current issues or ignoring them but I am a realist and it is obvious to me that, changing the socket design and the power design is not a task undertaken lightly and it is bound to have an impact on the existing technology. The Vdrop issue is more noticeable on the current 6 core CPU's than on those with four or less cores and the reason for this must be in the basic design of these processors. If you lock off two of the cores in these processors then the Vdrop is not so dramatic.
At present, as individuals, we do not know any firm details of the new AM3+ processors or their full specifications. The motherboard manufacturers must have more details and AMD would have supplied them with technical guidelines as to how the motherboards are to work. I would assume, that is the reason for the current problems and it is not down to bad design or faulty components.
I don't understand why the BIOS doesn't adjust to the CPU being detected ? So when it detects an AM3 CPU it runs with no vdroop/LLC enabled.
I'm currently running a 1100T BE on a GA-990FXA UD5 board while I wait for BD to be released and it's very frustrating to deal with the high idle vcore on this board. Normally it would be a breeze to get it to run >4GHz but not on this board with the vdroop. This is the first time ever I have opted for a Gigabyte board instead of my normal Asus choice ... I hope I'm not regretting it. I will keep my fingers crossed hoping there will be a fix to this issue.
-
i have heard nothing from here or gigabyte tech for a week, beyond the F5b bios flash which did nothing to help. the answer i received from tech last week was this...
"
"Dear Customer,
We followed the AMD AM3+ load line calibration guide line, therefore
Load will cause the voltage to drop is normal"
which sounds like they expect this and are done with the issue. makes me wonder why other boards, including the UD-7, are not having the v-droop problems.
i have my UD-5 RMA set up and am waiting for my replacement MSI board tomorrow.
-
The UD7 has the vdroop as well but it doesent bother me all. I can still get 4.0ghz stable on my 1090T.
-
The UD7 has the vdroop as well but it doesent bother me all. I can still get 4.0ghz stable on my 1090T.
I can live with the vdroop. What I can't live with is the overvolting. This board is feeding my 1100T (1.52v while idling at stock speed).
The VID for my CPU is 1.3750 not 1.52. The only time the board detects the correct VID is when I set the multiplier myself. Otherwise it want's to feed the CPU 1.4750v which is consistent with the fact that this boards overvolts by 0.1 in idle mode. Bios F5b is by far the best for this board up until now. But I'm still crossing my fingers for a fix for AM3 CPU's and the voltage issues.
-
it sounds like gigabyte are just being lazy.
they should add the LLC option in the bios, to let the user choose how much LLC is used.
the lower the LLC the more vdoop there is, higher the LLC the less vdoop there is,
-
Another happy customer
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/1066717-crazy-vdrops-please-help.html
-
i still say they should add the LLC option in the bios, to let the user choose how much LLC is used.
it would stop these issues.
-
Yes, I agree it would be nice to see some sort of LLC control on these boards and as they have it on the Intel platform I can't see why not.
-
No I would have to agree with you there absic as the Intel boards have had it for years. I sometimes wonder why so many issues with the motherboards come down to BIOS files in the end. Good hardware bad BIOS.
-
my asus Crosshair V board as llc , so no reason why gigabyte couldn't add it.
it's just being lazy tbh
-
I just bought this board version 1.0 and crap no LLC ??? Can we RMA this with a newer version 1.1? its only 4 days old and I'm frustrated with it. Its overvolting my 1090T to 1.5 @ stock configuration. I also tried f7h BIOS still same thing. What can I do with this board?