0403 official BIOS is out:
http://support.asus.com/download/dow...%20Formula
Just another memory tweak it looks like. Anybody try it yet?
Printable View
0403 official BIOS is out:
http://support.asus.com/download/dow...%20Formula
Just another memory tweak it looks like. Anybody try it yet?
Anyone seen this about loadline? http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-14.html
I thought it was a no no for 45n cpu's.
Well it's said it is a no no.I think that site is where it came from.I have mine turned off.I don't have much of a vdroop.It's only 0.02volts.Now I may find out different when I go to do some heavy overclocking.But it's still going to be turned off till I hear different.I still have both spread spectrums turned on and still clock to 450fsb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrus
:)
With loadline enabled on my Q9450, it is prime stable at 3.6ghz with 1.35625v, and never crashes during intensive load. However, it randomly BSODs and resets at idle.
With it disabled, I need to increase the vcore to 1.40625 to get prime stable, and it no longer crashes at idle.
hmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by 003
I really don't see what it would hurt, just set vcore at the value you really need in bios.
I don't understand the issue either, and I sent a ticket to ASUS support about it, detailing all the info I knew. I hope it is fixed in a BIOS release.
Hey,
Tiny question: which Intel Chipset Installation Utility version are you using with the Rampage?
I installed the latest one I found on Intel's website (which is 8.3.1.1009, thus newer than those on Asus' Install CD and website) but it's not said anywhere that it actually really supports X48 :confused:
If you go through Intel's X48 chipset information page to download software, etc it will take you to the latest version of the chipset software. Based upon this I would say the software does support the chipset properly.
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/CS-028823.htm
8.3.1.1009 9/24/2007
Not so new. The one from msi (linked before) is more recent maybe?
Ver : 8.3.1.1011 ...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Xelation
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...94&postcount=2Quote:
Originally Posted by thefiddler
I use the v8.3.0.1013 Intel(R) Chipset Software Installation Utility (which appears sorely our of date) available on Asus global website here on my Vista Ultimate 64bit installation. A have also upgraded MB Bios to v403. No glarring issues but detailed system testing not yet completed.
See here for results when searching for x48 (series 4 drivers) on the Intel website. :shrug:
The links provided by 003 seem to have much newer versions, but I am unable to locate them on Intel site. 003 have you used these newer drivers you referenced? .. are they working okay for you?
Yes, I use them, as do most people. For whatever reason, intel has terribly out of date drivers on their site, they have not been updated for like forever.
Thanks for the info 003.
Has anyone experienced the atikmdag error. It seems there are a huge number of forums about the problem and that there is currently no 100% fix. I just returned my entire system for repair because it was freezing so frequently under Vista64. It was after that I discovered the numerous forums.
I realize this may be straying somewhat off topic so feel free to delete question if so.
I just downloaded the driver from the link you provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelation
It is now 8.4.0.1018 and identifies itself as an X38/48 driver. :up:
Anyone knows what's the latest revision of Ramapage Formula? What I heard about is 1.00G only. Just confused that Anandtech in its review reports about board revision 1.03G while it is perfectly seen on the pictures that they have 1.00G.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3208&p=2
Can anyone confirm that 1.00G is the latest revision of RF?
It's probably a typo. No way they move through the alphabet on 1.00, then again all the way up to 1.03, and then all the way to G. Mine is 1.00G.
I'm getting almost exactly the same behaviour trying to get my E3110 stable at 4GHz+, Load Line on I get no problems at full load and much less vDroop but at low usage/idle is will just freeze/crash. Without there is quite severe vDroop but no crashing (so far).Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Any word on this issue?
I read something at anandtech that said not to use load line on 45 nm CPUs :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Helfarch
They said it's overshooting some voltages or whatever. If all it does is prevent the voltage from dropping under load, then I don't see what they are talking about, unless ASUS has implemented it poorly.
Same processor but the exact contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helfarch
With LLC on, perfect stability at 4150 MHz and 1.335 V
at idle (460x6) and full load (460x9).
With LLC off I have to put 1.40 V in BIOS to have some kind of stability.....
Strange behaviour.....
This is the article at anandtech -
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3184&p=5
Basically what they are saying is that vdroop is not a problem - its deliberate, and that the vcore you set in bios is a MAXIMUM allowable vcore, not the TARGET vcore. If you enable loadline calibration then you risk overvolting your CPU without even realising it. Read the article and it all makes sens ;)
I presume its any implimentation of vdroop control not just asus loadline calibration that it refers to. However, i used it on my DFI P35 with no problem.
Brama:
What revision of the board are you using? What BIOS? What voltage settings? GTL settings?
Not exactly opposite settings, you're using C1E where most overclocking I'd say disable it. So at idle it'll be under clocking/volting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brama
vDroop of .05 and greater isn't a problem? :ROTF: with LLC on at least it was a predictable and stabe .02 vDroop. Pencil mod helps a little but come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMK
My P5E had no such problems with LLC though, only my Rampage Formula.
The article really doesn't make any sense when overclocking with these boards, without LLC you have to set a FAR FAR higher voltage to get stability. So much so that in my completely uneducated opinion you'd never exceed the 'max voltage' you need to set without LLC on when using LLC and the 'over volt' state occurs.