"...was told it had improved memory performance..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
improved is always a beloved word !
Can you share this BIOS with us please ? Give us a link to download.
Printable View
"...was told it had improved memory performance..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
improved is always a beloved word !
Can you share this BIOS with us please ? Give us a link to download.
Has anyone else had issues with the board not booting with the QPI PLL jumper on? I was setting everything back up today after a bench session yesterday and I decided to use QPI LLC. However, the board refused to boot with it...
I don't have a copy of it, they just loaded it on my machine for me, so unless there is a way to copy it off of my bios chip, I cannot share it. I believe it will be released by the end of the month if not sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
I managed to get this over the weekend:
http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/1346574.png
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1346574
funny that dropping the PLL helps so much, what probs did you have with it before? I've found that turning the LLC to 50% is the key (for me). I don't like having it on 100% because then it seems to overvolt under load. on 0% mines vdroops over 0.05V, it is much more stable with it on 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
bizarrely it seems that it can run with lower load voltages at 50% LLC than it can with 0% LLC. eg it is stable at 4.0 at 1.27 under load with 0% LLC (1.325 in BIOS), but unstable at 4.13, even at load 1.296 (1.35 in BIOS). But with 50% LLC it seems to be stable at 4.13 with 1.27 under load (1.30 in BIOS).
Great bclk bassplayer! LN2 right?
Dice! And thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ccaution
Updated 08/16/2010 -
Rampage III Extreme -
BIOS 0878 -
1. Opened Memory Timing Selections for Ultimate Tweaking
2. General Performance Enhancements for Overclocking
3. AnandTech Memory Article BIOS - Support provided by ASUS USA Tech Support (that would be me) Only
http://www.mediafire.com/file/850dsy...-ASUS-0878.rar
BIOS 0002 -
1. Improved Overclocking
2. General Performance Enhancements including correct Temperature Monitoring
3. Support provided by ASUS USA/UK Tech Support Only
4. Newer Code than the 0009 BIOS leak
http://www.mediafire.com/file/mi95l6...-ASUS-0002.rar
Bingo, can I request BIOS features here?Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
If so, I'd really like a separate QPI PLL control in the BIOS. It would be extremely helpful for clocking Nehalem high for 3D.
I dont seem to understand why we have BIOS files with smaller numbers? As they make improvements doesn't the number supposed to get larger? i.e 0802>0878 etc etc
I have the exact same experience with LLC, 50% works the best for me. I'm stable at 4.13 and 1.30v in the bios. I've been running my PLL at 1.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by facboy
Before dropping the PLL to 1.4v I couldn't get 4.2Ghz stable to save my life. As far as LLC, I keep mine at full and the voltage doesn't move up or down.Quote:
Originally Posted by facboy
first of all, thanks bingo13 for your outstanding support!Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
does 0002 also include all three points included in 0878?
is 2) in 0878 the same as 2) in 0009?
assume this are still 2 different bios version including different features, right?
besides that, depending on features included are those two bios versions the most recent ones?
from looking at it, for me 0878 would be the one to go with. cant see the advantage of 0002 over 0878. anyway need to compare both of them as soon as my now cpu and mem comes in ...
THANKS
Thanks Bingo! 0002 seems to be stable as the 901 is and a little more efficient.
thank you for the bios ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
why 2 new bios same time?
bios 878 will be more recent than the 0002 (date of the file, 878: 8/13, 0002: 8/10), it is also includes "changes" of 0002?
Yeah thx for support =]
I wish ASUS finaly prepare some realy good bios just for bloomf's ;]
Really nice Bios the BIOS 0878 -, with the 0002 my board cant save any settings. I take this results with Single Stage
http://hwbot.org/community/submissio...30_5402.81_mhz
http://hwbot.org/community/submissio...930_5sec_103ms
Regards!
seriously any hope for bloomfeild biosQuote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
i have no plans to go subzero yet lol
i would like to know if it can run my 920 as good as the rexII or should i just sell my board
I'm thinking of upgrading my PSU to the just released Corsair AX1200 PSU. I've got the HX1000 now but the AX1200 has better specs and a better warranty and I want to future proof my system a bit. Has anybody used this PSU with the Asus Rampage III Extreme?. How do you like it? Does it live up to the excellent reviews that I've seen from JonnyGuru and others. Most of all I want to be assured that this PSU is compatible with the Rampage III Extreme. The first PSU I tried with the R3E, a PC Power&Cooling 1K-SR apparently fried 3 motherboards that I connected to it so compatibility is very important to me. Please let me know your opinions
Thanks
I just flashed BIOS2 to 0002 and it seems to work pretty well so far...I think it reduced the flakeness at higher bclk...still early stages but seems good so far. This is with my Bloomfield 950
Guys i need some help i just figured my 480 is running x8 is this board, 2nd slot. What should i do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglatins
put it n 1 or 3
Add another 480 and don't worry about it.
CPU PLL : Phase Locked Loop (PLL) relates to a chip that is responsible of regulating the power supply provided to one or more of the CPU cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
It helps calibrate CPU clocks and voltages.
I have been told that it can be lowered as far down as 1.35v and doing so can help keep your temps lower, thus helping your overclock.
On the other hand, increasing PLL voltage can help stabilize overckloced frequencies form fluctuation during load. However, raising too much can
hurt overclocks and cause instability. Too high can cause chip damage. Best to stay bellow 1.9v. Recommended middle ground: 1.5v.
Mine is set to 1.4v
LoadLine Calibration (LLC) reduces voltage drops (but doesn't eliminate it) keeping the CPU voltage more constant under light and heavy CPU load.
So it is obvious that enabling it would help overclocks. However ! It has been suggested that LLC can allow for dangerous voltage spikes and can (once again)
potentially damage the CPU (especially one running 24/7) lowering or eliminating its overclockability.
Essentially, if you can get your overclock without it, better !
Just my 2 cents worth.
Yeh, I was wondering the same thing ;) They seem to be all-over-the-place ?!Quote:
Originally Posted by SkOrPn
Yes, I have the same question. Does BIOS 878 contain all the improvements of BIOS 0002 and then some ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tistou77
Or is it the other way around ? Or not at all ?!
Hooked mine up today and my only complaint is that I would have liked 1 longer SATA power cable or at least an extension for that cable. I really haven't put it through the paces as yet, but so far I'm happy with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolbreeze
Excellent results !! Love the high speed qpi clocks . :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by nacho_arroyo
Good info about PLL thanks. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
On LN2 I would run 1.8 or 1.85v because it would increase stability and temperature isn't a problem right?
Anybody know? Going to try out 878 on 2nd BIOS chip 601 has been running fine for my 980x so will leave it on chip 1. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
Are the high QPI speeds just luck? Mine seems to have the 4GHz wall...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stelios
Nacho_arroyo, would you mind sharing your BIOS settings?
Tks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stelios
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayer
Yes, but your chip is GULF or BLOM? this chip can run at 245bclk on water cooling with NO QPI SLOW MODE, and my setting was:
115 - 117 pcie frec
1.35ioh
1.45cpu pll
1.45vtt
1.75vdimm
regards!
The W3520 is the Xeon equivalent of a 920. I know the chip can go higher than the 225 max that I hit on my RIIIE because I took it higher back when I had my GA-EX58-UD4P and that didn't have QPI Slow Mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by nacho_arroyo
This board is really keeping my 3D scores down and I can't figure out how to get around it.
Yes, i know about this cpu, in my case, is more hard clock bclk on blomf, i test always on 980x, but with my 930 i can do 250bclk, but booting from bios at 240 if my memory is good. I test lot of board * R3e * and this one , i keep it because is the best that i tryQuote:
Originally Posted by bassplayer
Regard
You tested multiple RIIIE's or just different boards?Quote:
Originally Posted by nacho_arroyo
i have bios 1003 why 0878 is the newest?
my bootblock with bios 1003 is 43 with bios 0878 bootblock is by 66?????
Warning : I also flashed to BIOS 0002 to find that the BIOS would not save its settings to the CMOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by nacho_arroyo
The previous BIOS before flashing was BIOS 0009. So I then flashed to BIOS 0878 and then back again to BIOS 0002,
and now it does save it's settings.
But I also noticed the BIOS dated on these.
BIOS 0009 2010-08-13 01:08:52
BIOS 0878 2010-08-13 05:34:32
BIOS 0002 2010-08-10 04:09:12
But bingo13 tells us that BIOS 0002 is " 4. Newer Code than the 0009 BIOS leak "
If this is so, then the dates and times on these are of no relevance. And thus, no way for us to know which is newer.
THX 4 Sharing!!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
cool...vlad...I am seriously thinking about getting the 1200AX as well. I originally ordered Enermax 1250w rev 85+. Had to RMA as the fan was messed up. Readh JG's review but he failed to say anything about the noise. Then did some digging and while no can say the psu is not good. Its so freeking loud. I need the power and the silence. Corsair have an awesome PSU, just not something u would stick in a serious home workstation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayer
yes, i test diferent r3e and xpower, ud7/9.
Anyone experiencing S3 issues? Apparently some people from OCAU are experiencing problems resuming from sleep mode, going back to sleep/shutting down after going into sleep mode...
I ask a dumb question. You are using it with the Asus Rampage III Extreme?Quote:
Originally Posted by vladimir
Ok people. I really need help with this.
I am asking for someone to "please" give me a correct and definitive answer.
I had a problem placing my two Radeon HD5970 in CrossFireX on this board. But I need them running at 16x each.
I had to put them in PCI-E slots #2 and #4 instead of slots #1 and #3,
because I have need of the standard old PCI slot under #3. The cards would
not fit any other way.
Now I was told that I could still get my cards to run at 16x like this.
But in Windows 7 (64-bit) in Catalyst 10.6 driver I saw something that worries me. (Please see screenshots bellow).
It says Maximum Bus Setting PCI Express 2.0 x8
Also in Everest (one of the latest versions) gives me confusing info.
Under Chipset (North Bridge) I see
PCI-E 2.0 x4 port 5 In Use @ x8
PCI-E 2.0 x4 port 5 In Use @ x8
Yet in Everest again, when I click on GPU, at the top of the right side I see
PCI Express 2.0 x16: Saphire Radeon HD5970
and further down I see
Buss Type PCI Express 2.0 x16 @ 16x
In CPU-Z (ver 1.55) under the Mainboard tab in the Graphic Interface section I see
Link Width x16 Max. Supported x16
I would also like to say that I called up Asus Tech Support and they told me that I could run a single card at 16x on any one of the four PCI-E slots.
So I tested it. With everything in place I switched to off all the PCI-E lane switches except for PCI-E slot #2
and then ran these programs again with one card enabled and I get exactly the same results you see bellow but for one card alone.
So am I running at 16x or 8x for each card ??????
Please, if anyone has a correct answer please let me know. I am very upset and worried about running at 8x.
Perhaps someone with an ATI Radeon card can explain what's going on.
As far i know... PCI Express #2 and #4 will always be PCI Express x8. No matter if PCI-Express #1 or #3 are free.
If I were you, I would try many combinations to find out. :) First try PCI-E #1 and #3 and compare findings with these you have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
This is not the answer you were looking for, but it could be helpful.
Anyway, look down to my reply to kpablo and what I'm going to do, so we'll know if #2 and #4 run @16x if #1 and #3 are not populated.
I doubt that, but not sure. I'll try putting my GTX 480 from slot 1 to slot 2 and post result.Quote:
Originally Posted by kpablo
Thanks for the reply, but it was hell setting this up inside and I can't just pop them out and test in slots 1 and 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
I'm hoping someone that understands the screenshots can tell me from that.
If you could test yours in slot 2 and tell us it would be good.
Like I said. When I called up Asus Tech Support the guy told me I could put
a single card in any PCI-E slot and get 16x. That's what he said, but he could be mistaken too.
When I disabled all my slots except for #2 I got exactly the same results as my screenshots above but for one card.
(If all four slots are not in fact 16x then this board is wrongly advertised as
having FOUR 16x PCI-E slots.)
Will do, when I get home from work. I don't know if I could put VGA in slot #4 cause of water tubes length, but at least I'll test in slot #2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
on my board in slot #2 GPU-Z shows X8, in slot #1 GPU-Z shows X16. i know because i changed it over last night b/c of this problem. had to cut the tubes too, not flexible enough to bend and fit in slot #1.
Samson,
the RIIIE comes WITHOUT nv200! thus the four x16 slots share 32 pci lanes to connect to the cpu.
the question now is how are the 4 slots sharing this 16 lanes. from looking in the userguide at page 2-28 you can see the following table:
Attachment 106786
so in your configuration, using slots 2 and 4 you will always get x8 no matter if anything is connected to the other slots. there are just two situations where you will see x16:
either
using slots 1 and 3 AND leaving slots 2 and 4 empty, thus running both slots (1 and 3) at x16 each
or
using slots 1 which runs at x16 AND slots 3 and 4 which both will run at x8 now
but there is another option available, look here:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,74...ainboard/News/
this is some sort of daughter board to be connected into slots 1 and 3 and itself is equipped with two nv200 chips to multiplex the 32 pci lanes from the motherboard to the four slots on the daughter board, providing each of the four slots on the daughter board with 16 lanes. but you have to keep in mind, that while this allows to communicate all four pci slots on the daughter board between each other by x16, you still have just 32 lanes for communication with the cpu!
also using this daughter board will for obvious reasons, not work in a standard case!
no idea on availability or price, just found this some days ago ...
Slots 2 and 4 are hardwired for x8. No way around it, bud :(
Hi
what is the best current bios to use? the 878 or 0002?
thank you
It is not so simple.
IIRC, if you put 3 VGA's (Tri-SLI) in slots 1, 2 and 3, you will have following configuration:
slot#1 @ 16x
slot#2 @ 8x
slot#3 @ 8x
not x8, x8, x16 that might be expected and what diagram shows. It has been argued before, asked Asus, and they said it's like that.
IIRC. :rolleyes:
don't get me wrong donmarkoni, but i doubt this is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
if slots 1 and 2 share 16 lanes and also slots 3 and 4 share 16 lanes there is no way that slot 1 and slot 2 might get 24 lanes in total! might be wrong, but so might be the guy at asus who told you this.
anyway, as most of us wont use 3 way or even 4 way its more or less a hypothetical discussion. but if somebody with three cards at hand is willing to test this for us i'm curious to see the results.
ps. still waiting for my cpu and ram, so cant test this myself right now. besides that, my old cards wont support 3 way sli, so i'm lost here anyway ...
Silverstone 1500 is stealthy quiet. 19db right up to 1000W draw.Quote:
Originally Posted by JenBell
I think "0878" is very nice one.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by tistou77
I just tested only 2D benchmarks, its improvement DRAM efficiency.
The result reported at my blog.
"0878" improve Super Pi 1M finished time 0.05sec faster than "9124".:up:
(When I check SuperPi 1M time, I run these benchmark program over 20 - 30 times.
Same MEM setting, Same CPU clock.)
But I'm very sorry, don't know 24/7 OCing stability.:shrug:
Don't worry, I won't. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by fgw
Just came home, moved my GTX 480 from slot #1 to slot #2 and what I found out is that bassplayer's statement "Slots 2 and 4 are hardwired for x8" is absolutely right.
I'm not sure about configurations of lanes when using Tri-SLI and could be wrong. I just might not remembered correctly, but anyway it would be a little stupid if MB could not re-route lanes to be 16x-8x-8x and run @ 8x-8x-16x, when it has 32 for those 4 slots.. Why the fcuk would I need third card running @ 16x :mad:
However, this will probably stay a hypothetical discussion as you said, if someone doesn't step up with 3 VGA's to test. :)
You are wrong in there... It should be:Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
Slot #1 @16X
Slot #3 @16X
Or:
Slot #1 @16x
Slot #3 @8x
Slot #4 @8x
Or if you use Slot #2 it should be: (This i am going to test it to be 100% sure).
Slot #2 @8x
Slot #3 @8x
Slot #4 @8x
I was right, #2 and #4 will always be @8x Max.
Look at this 2 screenshots i just took:
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1903/84068001.png
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1873/40091534.png
All three BIOS releases are built on the same base code that will be officially released shortly and combines the 0002/0878 changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
The difference between BIOS 0002 and BIOS 0003 is temp reporting and a few minor changes on the LN2 side. BIOS 0878 does not have the same temp reporting changes in the 0002/0009 BIOS code but does have the open memory settings and will be just a bit faster in certain operations than the other two betas.
0009 was an internal build that never should have been leaked and due to the way it was leaked, it will slow down future beta releases from us until this problem is solved. :mad:
I've always wondered why they don't give them all 16 physical lanes and then dynamically adjust them for best results.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
However, if you look in slots two and four, you'll see that the pins only travel about half of the slot. Bummer :(
ok thanks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kurumi_Japan
but I'd like to know 24/7 OCing stability :D
I have 802 actually
thanks ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpablo
I know. :( It is just plain stupid if it can't be re-routed to be 16x-8x-8x when using slots #1, #2 and #3. If you have 3 Tri-SLI capable VGA's and you are willing, please test them in first three slots, so we all know configuration of lanes.
That would be best. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayer
I didn't know that! :eek: Never took a look at them. However, it wouldn't pose a problem for 16x-8x-8x configuration.
Hmm... while writing, I looked at slots and they seem to have all pins. :confused: What is going on? Are there two versions of MB?
P.S. Will try to take a picture(s).
EDIT: Here are the pics:
slot #2: http://a.imageshack.us/img713/115/r3...2010155.th.jpg , slot #4: http://a.imageshack.us/img844/2599/r...2010154.th.jpg
EDIT2: There is a dead mosquito on slot #4 I didn't even noticed. This is so embarrassing. :yawn:
But the bright side is that my Nokia N86 8MP takes such good photos. ;)
Hi Guys I have joinned the club and got one of these Mb which I think are great.
This is my rig
i7 930 in the process of over clocking
MB R3E
6GB Gskill 1600 Mhz ram
GTX 480 SLI
Silver stone 1500W strider
Case HAFX.
Any way I have been overclocking this thing over the past month and last night I noticed that while stressing @3200MHZ Blck 153 with prime95 my core vid in CPU-Z was jumping from 1.085, 1.091 , 1.098 to 1.105 when I have set the bios to 1.091. (note with the V core at 1.091 I have not had any crashes or issues)
Would any one be able to explain why this happening and if it is normal.
I am hoping to get around 4.2Ghz out of the CPU and am pushing the Blck up 10Mhz each run untill I need to up the V core and then up again.
Im new to i7 OC so is this right so far.
Cheers for any help.
vid changes with load...idle...or temp...
First of all, a big Thank You to all of you who have replied to me on this issue trying to help.
Special thanks to donmarkoni who took the trouble of removing his card and place it in slot #2 to test.
And for also taking the PCI-E socket pictures.
I see that all of you are saying now that PCI-E slots #2 will only do 8x
However the situation is not so simple or so clear-cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by facboy
With my two Sapphire Radeon HD5970 always in slots #2 and #4
I downloaded GPU-Z ver 0.4.4 (the latest version I could find), and as you can see in the image bellow
it says I am getting
PCI_E 2.0 x16 @ x16 2.0
Way at the bottom corner of the GPU-Z screen there is the drop down menu where I can select my GPU
ATI Radeon HD 5900 series
I can select all four of my 5970 GPU's and for all four I get the same result
PCI_E 2.0 x16 @ x16 2.0
So, I called up Sapphire U.S. Tech Support today (1-909-594-3128) and explained about my odd result of
Maximum Bus Setting PCI Express 2.0 x8 in the Catalyst 10.6 driver. Unfortunately the guy I spoke with
didn't know much about Video Cards it seems as he told me to try the newer Catalyst 10.7 driver
and if that didn't work to RMA both of my cards. I Thanked him very much and called up Asus U.S. Tech Support again.
1-(812)-282-2787
This time I spoke with "Bill" (a different person than yesterday). He told me the diagram on Page 2-28 is just
a general guideline. He also confirmed that all four PCI-E slots should do 16x for a SINGLE card provided
nothing else is plugged to the other PCI-E slots. (But this contradicts your results).
He also says that if GPU-Z is showing me 16x in slots #2 and #4 then it should be correct.
He also explained that the ATI driver is giving me that result because these are Dual-GPU cards.
Each of the GPU's on one card (so he says, remains to be confirmed) is like it is using 8 lanes for a
total of 8 + 8 = 16 PCI-E lanes.
It is true that in my Catalyst 10.6 driver the result
Maximum Bus Setting PCI Express 2.0 x8
is shown four times for each of the GPU's in my system (you must scroll down). I was aware of that.
I told him so myself.
This is why I am asking someone else with a Dual-GPU Radeon card in slot #1 to confirm.
From donmarkoni's pictures I have to agree that all the PCI-E sockets look fully wired.
To kpablo , the difference is that for you in your second screenshot of Everest for GPU it clearly shows
Buss Type PCI Express 2.0 x16 @ x8
Whereas for me, even in the most recent version 2232 (downloaded today) I get (Please see image bellow)
Buss Type PCI Express 2.0 x16 @ x16
but in the Chipset (North Bridge) section I still get
PCI-E 2.0 x4 port 5 In Use @ x8
PCI-E 2.0 x4 port 5 In Use @ x8
But since you people have tested slot #2 with a Single card and are getting only x8 then what is the truth here ????
Was today's Asus Tech Support guy "Bill" right about what he explained or mistaken ?!
I was using 0704 then have been using 0002 which I think is better for 24/7 o/c. Better stability I think. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tistou77
Thanks:) so its normal then to fluctuate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
What would the safest voltage be for 24/7 OC
i run mine stock :D
less heat less noise..100% stable
intel specs 1.35-1.4v max.....depends on temperature...if you're @ 20c and below you can do 1.35-1.4v safely.
I actually believe you're talking about VDroop. It's a feature of i7 cpus that fluctuates the voltages rather than keeping them at a constant value. For me it's something that doesn't make sense, but still makes sense. Did that make any sense? Well anyways what you want to do if you don't want the voltage fluctuating so much is to turn on LLC (Load-Line Calibration). This is what Asus calls it, other mobos have different terms ie VDroop Control. You will find this setting in the Extreme Tweaker section. And for QPI voltage, the LLC has to be enabled via a jumper on the board, not thru the bios. Although once the jumper is set, the bios will show QPI LLC: Enabled (before will show : Disabled). The jumper is near the 24 pin ATX connector. People have found it easier to get stable clocks with LLC enabled, but some people also like to leave it off. See if it helps in your case :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by leighl
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighl
Welcome!
Your voltage fluctuation are of no significance and should not concern you. There is nothing
wrong with your system and it (at least this small variation) has nothing to do with any feature
of the Core i7.
People. We are talking about fluctuations here of 0.006 to 0.014 volts. When dealing with voltages
this low do you know how difficult it is to maintain some fixed value ? We are dealing with laws
of Physics here. Electricity.
A Pentium 4 will have Vcore fluctuations of 0.04 ~ 0.05 Volts and that is normal !
Can it be stabilized? Of course! To a degree though, and this would involve complex and more
expensive circuitry. When dealing with Life-dependant (or some types of Industrial) equipment
the expense is justified. But when dealing with a "Gaming" PC. Well then you can play with
LLC and raise it a bit (read previous posts for more info.)
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1903/84068001.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by kpablo
By the way, from your image here it looks to me that your results for
PCI-E 2.0 x4 port #5 In Use @ x8 <---- this is slot #2
PCI-E 2.0 x4 port #7 In Use @ x16 <---- this is slot #3
are for slots #2 and #3. Not slots #2 and #4.
My results in the image bellow are for slots #2 and #4 ( notice the port #'s )
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayer
Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
It is in fact true that some boards are hard wired that way. The reason why the MoBo can't re-route lanes
"would" be because the lanes physically are not there. The board's design simply trace out only 8 PCI-E
lanes to that particular PCI-E slot. This is done to significantly reduce the cost of production.
In such a case, the 8 lanes that go to that slot are taken from the 16 available lanes of that pair, and
become unavailable to the slot that has all 16 lanes traced out to it. Thus, droping them both to x8/x8
when used at the same time.
I hoped that a board of this caliber and quality, however, would not be so cheaply made.
This is why I asked both Asus Tech Support guys if sticking one SINGLE card on any of the
four PCI-E slots would give me 16x. And both have answered Yes. But I know that sometimes (even often)
they can be mistaken and you guys here know more than they. Your results of testing would contradict them.
However, my own results make everything ambiguous to say the least because if in fact slots #2 and #4
have only 8 lanes traced out to them then I should never be getting results like this in GPU-Z
Bus Interface: PCI_E 2.0 x16 @ x16 2.0 (image shown in previous post)
Nevertheless, your findings make me wonder and worry since I am still getting this (image) bellow that
confuses the matter.
I am sorry for the double post but I have been asked a question and think it best to post for everyone.
Anyone that wants to correct me on anything they feel is mistaken, please do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
RAM brings data to the processors to be processed, (or stores data for "fast" later use). The idea of faster
RAM is to be able to keep pace with the processing speed of your CPU. So that the CPU is always fed data and
never sees an idle time (when under load) simply because your RAM can not deliver data to it fast enough, and
thus, the RAM becomes a bottleneck.
But there is the opposite situation also. That being when the RAM is capable of delivering data faster
than the CPU can process it. In that case the speed of your RAM becomes redundant (not providing any additional
benefit).
If this RAM speed was achieved by overclocking, then you are overheating your RAM for nothing and risk
data corruption (errors) and possible damage to your RAM.
So now, the million dollar question is ! What is the optimal speed of the RAM ?
Core i7 by Intel specs is intended to support Triple-Channel DDR3 RAM of 1066MHz.
The designation for DDR-3 1066Mhz is PC3-8500.
In triple-channel the (theoretical bandwidth) Data-Transfer Rate for PC3-8500 is
3 x 8500 MB/sec = 25500 MB/sec
For triple-channel DDR3-1600MHz (PC3-10600) it would be
3 x 10600 MB/sec = 31800 MB/sec
That is about 31 GB per second. In other words, A LOT !!
So now, the million dollar question again. What is the optimal speed of the RAM ?
And how much is too much ?
Of course it depends on what CPU you have ? How many cores ? What speed is it running at ?
So, I think no one but an Intel engineer that designed the Core i7 can really answer that.
But "I would think" that at 31 GB/sec it is already more than any i7 can handle.
If someone knows better, please say so.
The benefit of having an Un-Locked multiplier on a CPU is that when the RAM speed is already
fast enough, you can speed up the CPU to use up the data delivered by your fast RAM.
So now, what is better? Higher MHz on your RAM or better timings ?
When you have decided on a RAM speed that you feel is sufficient (and no one can tell you what
that exactly is) then the thing to do is to lower your timings as much as possible.
The timings are what determine how fast your RAM can search for, find, and retrieve data to
deliver to your CPU. And often, lower timings result in much better data transfer rates than
simply overclocking your RAM at higher MHz. Lower timings are often more important than faster MHz.
Determining what is more advantageous is a game of Benchmarking trial and error.
But to better answer your question specifically, I would say that 1600MHz is already fast enough,
and I would prefer 1600MHz with timings in the 6's than 2000MHz with timings in the 9's.
(Though actual values can be calculated mathematically to determine which is better I don't know
the math off hand. Read my links for that).
Keep in mind that Benchmark results do not always reflect real world application improvements, since
Benchmarks are often optimized for the task while real world apps are not. ( i.e. A Benchmark that
tests your RAM will not suddenly request data from your HDD thus causing thrashing, but a real
world app may).
To better understand RAM timings please refer here
Everything You Need To Know About DDR, DDR2 and DDR3 Memories
================================================== ==============
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...3-Memories/167
Understanding RAM Timings
============================
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/26
Memory Overclocking
===================
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...erclocking/152
And most importantly !
Have FUN !!! But try not to fry anything !
ok thank you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kill_a_wat
The 0002 will be better than 0878 (although the 0878 is newer)
Actually I recently did a typical linx run to see how it went and it's at least as stable as 0704 which I am happy with. It feels more stable but obviously I don't expect it to perform any miracles ;)
http://a.imageshack.us/img31/5695/9504ghz25linx.png
By kill_a_wat at 2010-08-17
ok thank you for the information ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kill_a_wat
did you test the 0878? or just the 0002
I haven't tried the 0878 BIOS yet unfortunately so can't speak from experience only comparing 0704 to 0002 so far for 24/7 oc on bloomfield. But I am now using 0002 as my daily BIOS :)
Samson, there are two revisions of the board. I'm not sure if the PCI-E lanes differ between them. I thought mine only had 8 lanes in the second and fourth slots, but I could be thinking of my Gigabyte board. I'll give it a look when I get home from work.
Thanks once again Samson great explanation!
@ Bootsy and Splave
Can either of you please take a look at your board itself to see what revision is stamped on it? Just started looking into this new theory of the 2.xx revision boards reaching higher BCLK... I have a 1.04G lucky me :( Also how about everyone else?
Are all online e-tailers likely to be shipping the 2.xx revision now,Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
or is there remaining stock of the older boards still being sold?
Is Newegg likely to have the newest stock due to their volume, or not?
Got an R3E openbox deal last week from newegg and its rev 1.xx maybe that was because it was open box though. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by aamsel
Quote:
Originally Posted by aamsel
Thanks, I was only inquiring about currently shipping new stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linuxfan
If anyone just ordered and received a 2.xx version in new, retail
box, where did you order it from?
Looking at Newegg pictures they are showing revision 1.04g. Don't know if they just havent updated their pictures, but like it was mentioned earlier they are one of the major online retailers so maybe they have the latest stock. I know there's someone out there with one sowould appreciate it if they can do a quick check thanks :)
Would be interesting to know if the egg does actually update their pictures with revisions of boards. I figured they didn't. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
^^ I assumed the same.
Come on someone chime in already!
To be honest my board has so far (knock on wood) worked 100%. And since I'm on air there's no way my R3E will ever see a BCLK higher than 205 :p: Also this board is handling my Corsair CMGT 2000C8s very well :woot:
If I may...Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
My MB has stamped rev. 1.04g, but CPU-Z shows 2.xx. Which one are you talking about actually?
Oh please do and thank you sir :). Wow that is very very interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
I was referring to the actual revision # stamped on the board, since I figured that's the 'official' one to go off of. My board also says 1.04G, however in CPU-Z it shows rev 1.xxx.
Are you running a Bloomfield or Gulf? Can it have anything to do with that? At the moment I can't see how though..
EDIT: Nevermind I forgot about your sig and just noticed it, you're running a bloom. Further confusion..awesome :rolleyes:
RE:EDIT: No wait you do have a Gulf right? That's the new hex with the locked multi yes? Wow I need sleep. Very nice btw ;)
205 hmmm...what are your bios settings?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
I mean I haven't hit a wall or anything, just temps were getting out of control.
As we speak I am at 201 trying to stabilize 6GB Corsair GT 2000MHz @ 7-7-7-20-1N. Will see how far it goes but so far it looks very promising :)
What CPU are you using?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
On a different board, I used 930 and W3520 with the same temps "issues". They were within TJMax ok, but higher than I want. The 930 already has a new owner, and the W3520 may follow soon! I am considering tring an E5620 but concerned with the low multi. I will air cool only.
Back on topic: I am about to order the RIIIE but waiting on a clarification about the revision currently likely to ship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aamsel
Rev 1.xx & Rev 2.xx are PCB marking "1.04G".
You can not check rev ver. from board & retail box.
In Japan, only 1st delivery lot is rev2.xx, after 2nd lot are all rev1.xx.
I guess rev2.xx has any problems, so after 2nd lot changing to rev1.xx.
My board is rev 1.xx but QPI Link speed & BCLK limitation is very nice.
So you do not mind rev differences so seriously.
Last month I bought latest lot (original BIOS:0901) is rev 1.xx.
who's on first?Quote:
Originally Posted by kurumi_Japan
Great information Kurumi you basically cleared the air about that all that revision confusion. As you said, no need to make a big deal about the revision.
So I have the better revision then? Yesssss
@ aamsel
I'm using a 920 batch# 3949A372. Incredibly strong IMC on this chip. If you can get a hold of one, GO FOR IT! When I purchased mine, coincidentally another one sold (also brand new sealed) in the same area (which also happened to be my local area!). They might have had that batch at a local retail store, but keep an eye out for one on ebay or craigslist. I knew a guy who bought one let me see if he's interested in selling :)
One a side note, do my temps look normal for air? 73, 72, 71, 70. Full load, 19x201. Is this variance normal?
Yeah, now gulf, but ran bloom until a week ago. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
Makes sense. I bought mine as soon as it came out, so it's of early ones. Actually it might be the first one in my country. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kurumi_Japan
Nice you have the what seems to be more forgiving 'unlocked' revision. Time to set some records ;)
Don't know how you guys get your hands on these sweet hexcores, but if theres a deal pass it my way haha
Don do you run the stock heatsinks w/ no fan on your Mushkin?
Thank you Hondacity, SPpplindsm127 and Samson
For you info and help, I will not worry to much about it now and enable LLC if need be when the GHz is getting up there.
Hoping to get 4.2 or 4.3 out of the chip if I can. Might ask more questions later if having a hard time getting it there.
Sorry for the delay but I am having problems of my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linuxfan
The default setting for CPU PLL on 980X is 1.8v. Setting to 1.85v is not a significant risk of danger.
But the closer you approach 1.9~2.0v or pass it the more at risk you are.
Power = Current x Voltage
So people. Keep in mind we are playing with Electricity here and the Laws of Physics.
It is not only heat that Kills. Does an external light bulb ever burn out in the dead of winter in CANADA ?
Yes! even when it's -30 degrees C. Is it because of heat ? Not necessarily. It's more complicated than that.
When you play with Voltages you run the "risk" of damage to your system or shorten its expected life.
But "risk" does not necessarily mean certain damage.
Your second question is answered here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
Mine is 1.04 and I've hit 257.5 BCLK with QPI Slow Mode on. I haven't been able to get very high with it off, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
Your temps look great.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
Let me know if that chip is for sale, would only be interested in a sealed retail box, not something
that might have been tried out.
Anyone tried an E5620, or any Gulftown (Westmere) on this board other than the high-dollar 980x?
If so, how did it do?
I've seen a few people with the E5620. I almost ran one but decided I wouldn't be able to get enough out of it for 3D with its low multi.Quote:
Originally Posted by aamsel
Thanks :) First time in my life I've overclocked a cpu. If I get my hands on a gulf my chip is yours!Quote:
Originally Posted by aamsel
Just got the GTs stable at 19x201 2013MHz 7-7-7-20-1T 1.65v :yepp: :cool:
Nothing wrong with rev 1.xxx :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Linuxfan
spoolindsm127, are u talking about CMT6GX3M3A2000C8Quote:
Originally Posted by spoolindsm127
would you mind posting your complete bios memory settings as a starting point? expect two sets to arrive here next week ...
Thanks Samson. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
For sure, it works perfectly. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Viss