Did you have any fan profiles set on the previous BIOS?Quote:
Originally Posted by minaelromany
Check the fan speeds for your CPU cooler etc are ok.
-Raja
Printable View
Did you have any fan profiles set on the previous BIOS?Quote:
Originally Posted by minaelromany
Check the fan speeds for your CPU cooler etc are ok.
-Raja
Interesting, didn't personally think this would make such a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by skuldarin
Do you really need the CPU PWM freq to be at 1000 though? Should be unrelated to IMC and ram....
hi here, happy owner of that rolls royce :)
'have a curious issue: just cant get acces to the .. support disk from asus, when i put it in the DVDdriver it misses with my windows explorer, takes hours and still not getting it...
Im running under Win7 64.
this kind of makes me laugh, but any suggestion/help will be mostly welcome:confused:
Why don't you just download from their site whatever you need? It's has updated versions of software or drivers.
Or you can ask here, if you need something and can't find it.
well thank you :)
I want to install Kaspersky, i suppose it is on that support disk. i don't know
Why the hell isn't the auto execution simply working ???
Cheers
Edit: http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4517/capturezb.png
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You got Kaspersky on disk with R3E? I got 3DMark Vantage.
You can always DL from net and just use the serial. That's what I did with Vantage. Don't even know what's on the disk. :D
EDIT: About your screenshot, what is your VTT voltage (QPI/DRAM)?
I didn't found the serial in the box of the mobo :(
i have the trial version of kaspersky atm.
1.5250vQPI BIOS means approx 1.488when in 'dows
1.642vDIMM
1.55V VTT is too much for daily use, even for me. :D
I wouldn't use more then 1.4-1.45V for 24/7.
In the bundle it says that Kaspersky is offered. I'm just looking after that
inno im working my system out, inno, happy enthousiast i am ain't it xD
i really couldn't tell ya why it was required. it just wouldn't post. i just swaped it from 500 to 1000 just try it and it worked. i put it back down to 750 and it went back to not working... only worked at 1000.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
i ended up backing down to roughly stock with 7-9-7-24-88 T1 at 1866 though cause with uncore at 4000-ish it wants around 1.43-1.44 vtt to be stable.
if that's the case then i might just go back to 4000-ish uncore. i've been stuck in the (don't go over 1.4125) thing for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
That's weird. Anyone have an idea why CPU PWM freq would directly affect the IMC's ability to run higher uncore and ram freq? From the description CPU PWM Freq should only affect the switching freq of the voltage delivered to the core itself, not anything else.
in the mean time, here's some eye candy.
just about done here:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71.../435634562.jpg
I upgraded a from a dual radiator to a tripple radiator to increase my cooling efficiency.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by skuldarin
I really don't know or get why people lap their i7 cpu.
AMD I understand:welcome:
I hope to one day run my chip to through hell and when it burn, if it ever does!
I hope its under warranty.
I know its a lot of I but.........why would you do that to an I7:p:
OK..........I cried enough:yepp:
Still having trouble with coming out of sleep. Had to uncheck using usb to come out of sleep because it wouldn't go to sleep with the usb enabled to do that. Now I just use the power button to come out of sleep. That works but not if I go any higher than 4.0GHz cpu and like 1333 ram. I can go 2000 on the ram with the cpu at stock speed but as soon as I start bringing the cpu back up I have to bring the ram down.
I can pass prime95, I can run over 20 loops with linx and everything runs just fine at much higher speeds like 4.5GHz with 2000 ram and vcore / vtt voltages in the 1.4 ranges all day long, but as soon as it goes to sleep I can't bring it out of sleep. The fans and everything will run but thats it, I have to turn the power off and reboot.
Any ideas. Do you guys use the sleep mode, or is that normal with higher clock speeds and having ssd's in raid 0?
Watercooled, first attempt, pretty happy :)
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8127/cpu3034.png
@ zinsco, Are you using anything usb 3.0? If not do you have the drivers loaded. as mine did weird things until i removed the usb 3.0 drivers. Check that and see what you get.
To attempt to level out temps across the cores. Cores 2 and 5 consistently show to be nearly and sometimes 10*c and over on temp compared to the other 4 cores which consistently stay within 3*c of each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreezy
When I started lapping, two narrow and long areas on the plate that were parallel to one another were positioned approximately over where cores 2 and 5 should be. It took alot is sanding to get it all level.
@Zinsco- I would suggest not using sleep/hibernate at all honestly... if you're using that fiction to save power... then simply turn the system completely off. I really don't hear much good things from having sleep/hibernate fictions turned on. Problems ranging from what your having to drives failing and so on. If you're going to be overclocking your system, I wouldn't waste time trying to get those to work.
Theres nothing wrong with using sleep - whatsoever.......just ensure your ram is good and OC in general.. HDD will NOT fail your OS will NOT become corrupt.. not unless you neglect stability.... !Quote:
Originally Posted by skuldarin
Whats better than having a task running, knowing your pc will auto sleep when finished.. many hours work saved this way, not to mention electricity.
I'm @ 4.4 24/7 with the 960 utilising sleep.. sure i've had issues with sleep like many others but that was attributed to and confimed throughout other forums to be stability related and nothing more.
edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by ToyTen
I just tested the support-cds for r3e and black edition. on both there is a folder "AntiVirus" just start "AsusSetup.exe" from there and it will install.
http://img3.picload.org/image/ocodgo/kav2.png
you dont need a serial or key, it will auto activate over the internet and then you have a 365-day licence.
http://picload.org/image/ocodgi/kav1.png
I think its crapware anyway. this version from support-cd is outdated and stoneold. its kav 2010 on r3e and also on r3be support-cd. there is no way to update to the current version kav 2011, so I deinstalled it already a minute later hehe. they call it "software bundle" but since anti virus is only useful in latest version (if any) in my eayes this is just a sort of compulsion to buy a current version.
http://usa.kaspersky.com/products-se...ity/anti-virus
regards ac001
Thank you for your useful report !
As i understand it, nno intrests at all, who needs an heavy out of date AV ?!? in deed...
The issue i am meeting is that when the dvd is set in the computer, automatic start isn't working at all (not desactivated in my OS). Worst, it completely screws my windows explorer:shocked: even on a friend non-OC computer ?????
im swimming in full uncomprehension with this :p:
Again, thx for your report :)
I've had this system for about a year running on default settings. During that time it has gone in and out of sleep using the usb with out ever having one issue, until now that I have OC'ed. My concern is that I damaged something, because now, even at default settings it won't work with usb anymore. I will check out the usb 3.0 regardless. ThxQuote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_K
I can confirm that those two cores run hotter that the others. I think that's awesome that you managed to even them out by lapping your cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by skuldarin
Would you be willing to share your settings so that I can compare and see if I can get beyond 4.0? I can get to 4.7 with my voltages high but not too high and 4.5 with them below 1.45 running stable but not allowing sleep to work. I have a 980x so of coarse like for like settings won't work but I could play with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbo353
My real concern though, is that I have damaged something. If I did, do you guys think it would be my board, ram, or cpu.
I have no issues going in and out of sleep at 4.2GHz with 2GHz mem using usb. From what I understand some usb devices can cause the sleep mode to hang. Try unplugging all usb stuff except your keyboard and see if it will come up out of sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
I very much doubt he had any effect since he has not posted screenshots. It is a known fact released by Intel that the sensors on 32nm parts are just bad and barely reflect the actual temperature of the processor. Intel says it is within specification to see temp differences of up to 15C per core, even if they're all actually the same temperature. Not to mention the sensors are not even in the same location on every core, so they measure different parts of each core.Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
I went back to 0003 bios yesterday as I restarted a few times and Memory Recheck did NOT find all my ram!!! I went back to 0003 and manually specify tRL and it always works.Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
Here are my working settings:
Code:
Target CPU Frequency 4200MHz
Target DRAM Frequency 2005MHz
LN2 Mode [Disabled]***
QPI Loadline Calibration [Enabled]***
Sync Mode []
AI Overclock Tuner [Manual]
OC From CPU level Up [Auto]
2D Performance Booster [Disabled]
CPU Ratio Setting [21.0]
CPU Turbo Power Limit [Disabled]
>CPU Configuration----------------------------
CPU Ratio Setting [21.0]
C1E Support [Enabled]
Hardware Prefetcher [Enabled]
Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch [Enabled]
MPS and ACPI MADT ordering [Modern ordering]
Intel(R) Virtualization Tech [Enabled]
CPU TM Function [Enabled]
Execute Disable Bit [Enabled]
Intel(R) HT Technology [Enabled]
*Active Processor Cores [All]
A20M [Disabled]
*Intel(R) SpeedStep(TM) Tech [Disabled]
Intel(R) C-STATE Tech [Enabled]
C State package limit setting [Auto]
C1 Auto Demotion [Auto]
C3 Auto Demotion [Auto]
----------------------------------------------
BCLK Frequency [200]
PCIE Frequency [100]
DRAM Frequency [DDR3-2005MHz]
UCLK Frequency [3608MHz]
QPI Link Data Rate [7218]
Memory Configuration Protect [Disabled]
>DRAM Timing Control--------------------------
CAS# Latency [ 7 DRAM Clock]
RAS# to CAS# Delay [ 9 DRAM Clock]
RAS# PRE Time [ 7 DRAM Clock]
RAS# ACT Time [20 DRAM Clock]
RAS# to RAS# Delay [3]
REF Cycle Time [82]
WRITE Recovery Time [9]
READ to PRE Time [5]
FOUR ACT WIN Time [24]
Back-To-BackCAS# Delay [Auto]
Timing Mode [1N]
Round Trip Latency on CHA [53]
Round Trip Latency on CHB [55]
Round Trip Latency on CHC [57]
tRL CHA [-1]
tRL CHB [-1]
tRL CHC [-1]
WRITE To READ Delay(DD) [Auto]
WRITE To READ Delay(DR) [Auto]
WRITE To READ Delay(SR) [Auto]
READ To WRITE Delay(DD) [Auto]
READ To WRITE Delay(DR) [Auto]
READ To WRITE Delay(SR) [Auto]
READ To READ Delay(DD) [Auto]
READ To READ Delay(DR) [Auto]
READ To READ Delay(SR) [Auto]
WRITE To WRITE Delay(DD) [Auto]
WRITE To WRITE Delay(DR) [Auto]
WRITE To WRITE Delay(SR) [Auto]
----------------------------------------------
CPU Differential Amplitude [Auto]
CPU Clock Skew [Auto]
IOH Clock Skew [Auto]
------------ Extreme Engine Digi+ ------------
Digi+ PWR Mode [T-Balanced]
PWM Volt. Control [6V]
Load-Line Calibration [Full Calibration]
CPU Voltage OCP [Enabled]
CPU PWM Frequency [500KHz]
Extreme OV [Disabled]
Extreme OC [Auto]
CPU Voltage [1.37500]
CPU PLL Voltage [1.25625]
QPI/DRAM Core Voltage [1.35000]
DRAM Bus Voltage [1.65625]
>DRAM REF Voltages----------------------------
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHC [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHC [Auto]
----------------------------------------------
IOH Voltage [1.20525]
IOH PCIE Voltage [Auto]
ICH Voltage [1.16600]
ICH PCIE Voltage [Auto]
---------- Spread Spectrum Control -----------
CPU Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
PCIE Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
***on-board jumper dependant
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
Your memory dropping is possibly being caused by running an insufficient tWR for that frequency - the tRL values tie into the tWR table offsets. At DDR3-2000 speeds the tWR should default to between 10~12 clocks.
if you want to save electricity... shutting off your system is the ONLY way to legitimately say you're "saving electricity". when on sleep your harddrives are still on and it's been a prooven study that even having solid state harddrives, if you take the average power use of a disc based harddrive and that of a solid state that they both still use just about the same amount of power over time, one just does it in periodic spikes, the other with a constant pull.Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbo353
if you want to save electricity... shut your system off. simple as that.
i hadn't posted yet because i hadn't gotten the cpu back on the bored yet. there is such thing as having more than 1 computer. i also have 2 980x chips here, both who show such high deviation on the exact same cores and both are a decent gap in batch. i've also compared temps to others who hadn't adjusted their RealTemp programs and i've seem a similarity in just about all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
but if you want shots, here's a few i did between stages.
Start: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71...428_001646.jpg
Stage 1: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71...428_011034.jpg
Stage 3: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71...428_030057.jpg
i could probably bet a good chunk of change if i lap my other 980 that it'll do just about the same thing as seen here.
I haven't added or changed any usb devises for a year with this system and it only just started being a problem now that I started OC'ing. I have unchecked the box in the usb properties that says to use usb to wake up out of sleep and I use the power button and that works. It's just that if I clock my cpu over 4GHz with my ram higher than 1333, it won't come out of sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
OK, that makes since. I thought that I shouldn't comment on this, because I don't know what I'm talking about and you just proved that. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by zoson
The same settings in 0003 work fine, 1301 drops a memory channel occasionally...Quote:
Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS
Are you offsetting tRL in 003 yourself, though?Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
That's what I said in the first post. :( In 1301 there is no tRL, but it has 'memory recheck' which is supposed to make tRL setting obsolete. It does not. Exact same settings in 1301 does not always work with my memory. It always works in 0003.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS
Moral of the story is that the memory recheck doesn't do the job perfectly.
@zoson:
I agree that 0003 works and "feels" better then 1301, but as Raja said, your tWR setting is to tight.
I would even consider raising tRRD and tRTP by one each.
Doesn't seem to cause any stability issues (1 day 23 hours so far) to have them set as is. Also gives me a little more bandwidth. Do we know the actual relationship?Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
I took the timings that my memory would run at 1600MHz, divided by the stock timings to find the time in ns that would be required for state to be saved, then calculated out the timings at 2000MHz based on the times I found... These are the closest settings...
For example: tWR for my ram at 1600Mhz is 7. So that's ~230ns, right?
Some simple algebra later: 2000 / x = 230 x = ~8.7
Maybe I've messed up my understanding somewhere, but I'm pretty sure that's correct...
i'm gonna have to go with Zoson on this, i'm noticing an issue with mem recheck aswell... it works about 80% of the time, other times with the same untouched settings it fails to boot, even on a warm restart.
also, another comparison between 0003 and 1301, my system has required higher voltage for stable clocks on vcore. with 0003 and several other past BIOS versions, 1.44325v vcore was perfectly stable at 4.522ghz (133x34) where as 1301 requires a bump upto 1.45. every stable clock setting i have saved is like this when trying them through 1301, they all require 1 bump higher over previous versions.
on another note, i haven't done a REAL burst test for temp results yet after lapping. but so far at 4.522, cores 2 and 5 are both almost dead even with the other cores now. core 3 still shows MUCH cooler than the rest by almost 10*c but nothing i've tried has helped that so... ohwell. but overall i'm pleased. i'll be testing temps at 4.710ghz which is so far the highest clock / temps i've had. i will compare temps at this point to what i have pictured in my sig.
EDIT: well 1301 required 1.58125 vcore to be stable at 4.710, unlike 0003 which only needed 1.55625, so these temps are pretty hot, but they are much more even compared to temps seen in my sig regardless of the increase of heat due to the higher voltage. obiously this is not a 24/7 setup, this is also done with ambient temps around roughly 21-22*c. i'm also noticing heat soak is definitely a problem.
Average before lapping w/ 1.55625v = 86-87*c
Average after lapping w/ 1.58125v = 91-92*c
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/Emobulus/heat.jpg
i'm thinkin of going back to 0003 and seeing if i can touch 4.8ghz at a maximum of 1.58125v. doubtful... but maybe.
The tWR setting is intrinsically tied to tRL in the Intel MRC code. The tables offset at 4,6,8,10,12,14, 16..... Try using a tWR setting of 10 on 1301 and see if the system is stable - if it isn't I'll make a case for having tRL open.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
The table default on this platform is set for 10ns~12ns cycle time on tWR at every 266MHz step (offsetting at higher frequency to promote stability) - that's how Intel programs it. Setting the table anywhere else means you then have to force a tRL to a looser value than would have been used at the next clock offset - which effectively gives you the same performance or trades one for the other as running that default table. I've managed to force a tWR of 4 at DDR3-2000 on some Hyper modules, but the performance was the same as running 10 clocks for tWR on the default table.
That's why once we found the major problem of DIMMs dropping, the tRL option was removed.
-Raja
is since 1207 and previous i've being having this problem ... :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
As it seems you are involved in some way in BIOS developing and/or testing, are you aware of the issue that is preventing to use a third party RAID card together with the ICH10r controller in RAID mode?Quote:
Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS
This started from BIOS 1208, where the Intel RAID Option ROM was changed to version 10.x.
Who has OCZ Revo drive, for example, can not use a couple of mechanical disks or SSD in RAID mode on Intel controller.
I read many reports around the world and I confirm that I have same issue with an Adaptec 5405 controller.
If I enable RAID mode in BIOS on ICH10R, as soon as the POST arrives at the point where Intel option ROM is launched, the PC reboots.
If I take away the Adaptec disk controller card, the Intel Option ROM starts and I can set my disks as I wish.
Thanks for attention.
By this logic, if I set tWR to 10, I should be able to use tRL -2/-2/-2? I know for a fact this doesn't work. :( I recently tightened tWR, tRRD and tRTP. Previuosly they were 10/4/6. I'll boot off 1301 tonight with those settings and see if it makes a difference... I don't think it will though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS
I'm also wondering why my RTL's seem to change every bootup if I set them to Auto? Sometimes I boot and they will be 53/55/57... Other times they're 54/56/56 or 53/56/59... I manually set them to 53/55/57 because of this...
I think the default tRL changes and you're just offsetting it - in which case you're just adding to or subtracting from a moving value.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
This isn't directly related to BIOS but rather drift in the IMC sensing mechanism during POST. The further outside specification (beyond officially supported memory speeds) you push the more drift the mechanism can be subject to. Manual settings are advised at speeds over DDR3-1600 if required (you can calculate approximate RTL, send me a PM if you don't have the calc).Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
-Raja
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/9...98241001t1.pngAs all of us i wish it was rock stable :D
no, 1.5750vQPI(BIOS), 1.709vDIMM, no..
and worst; i got a 'NOT EXACT IN ROUND' on spi32M oups !! ^^
Are you referring to:Quote:
Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS
Read in ns = RTL * (1000/Uncore) ?
I was never sure how to use this since it has two missing values that I don't know... How do I get the base RTL(so i can calculate the base read time in ns?) Set my memory to its XMP and see what BIOS selects?
Thanks!
Hello.
How is this board compared to EVGA Classy3?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
There are a few more variables. Here's a calc for that:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/oz0moi...TL%20calc.xlsx
Min sep delay is the clock skew between the Uncore and DRAM bus. Default is circa 670ps (0.67) - this will need to be advanced at higher frequency. Start with 0.67 at DDR3-1600, and then apply offsets watching what the board defaults to and whatever is stable as you increase frequency. No other way to get this right as there is no way we can probe the clock skew value (it varies with different IC types very slightly, too).
-Raja
i have noticed this myself also, my RTL's would go up/down as i either increase or decrease 1st CAS Information.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoson
edit: you actually can manually hardcode RTL's =), i didnt noticed jajaja
swapped back to my original 980 (batch code ending in 438, not 540). disappointing... i originally swapped it out due to temp issues... now it's doing 4.538ghz stable at a bump higher than the other 980 (1.45 vcore over 1.44325 with the 540) and the darn thing is going fine at roughly 12*c COOLER now than the one i used to replace it... so even though lapping the batch 540 one WAS helpful in controling temps... the non-lapped batch 438 is randomly significantly 12*c cooler across all cores... not to mention it requires less VTT now for the same mem speeds as before AND does, on average, between 4-8gflops faster on linX... seems my original 980 was a much closer to a golden chip than the replacement...
i still want to see if i can't RMA this non-lapped one in and see about swapping it for a 990 with a slight expense difference.
Would guess you'll probably still get a 980x but you may get lucky. I have heard of guys RMAing QX9650's after 2-3yr and they still had stock!
OK, this hasn't happened to me before. I set bclk to 147 and x30 1.4v and when I boot up cpuz shows only 1.38v.
I went back to bios and it's 1.4. After booting up it's all good. I put it in sleep and when it came out of sleep the
bclk is only 133. Go back to bios and it shows 147, boot up and shows 147. After coming out of sleep again it
shows bclk at 133. I changed the bclk in turboV instead of rebooting and put it in sleep and when I brought it back out of
sleep it stayed at 147.
I checked the clock in cpuz, turboV, and aida64 and they all showed the same thing. Bios is 0003
What's going on?
Hy guys! I just wanted to know if the EK-FB RE3 - Acetal+Nickel chipset waterblock would work on the Rampage 3 Black Edition? I emailed EK about it and they replied to me that it would fit fine but they are still testing it. Hmm...I wonder if its safe to mount it on? Has any body here tried it yet? Thanks for your considerations.
It should fit fine. There's only a few different chips on the board compared to the re3 and theyer not in the path of the water block to my understanding.
Hello. This morning buy OCZ VERTEX 3. I put and look this...
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/31/ocza.jpg/
&
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/attoz.jpg/
Marvell sux. The only solution is upgrade sandy bridge?....
:(
Yes, Marvell sux, but only solution is not upgrade to sandy bridge. That is one good solution, but other solution is to getQuote:
Originally Posted by Xipe
a good raid card. Best raid card would most likely be LSI 9265-8i but expensive.
Now my vertex 3 is like vertex 2?
I have i7 4,2. Asus rampage 3 extreme, 6gbs 1600 6-6-8-20 gskill, msi 580gtx. I dont upgrade to sandy bridge, my pc is very good...
Asus will upgrade the bios to fix this problem? or dont have solution...
The Marvell 9128 chip that you have on your R3 running your 6GB sata 3Quote:
Originally Posted by Xipe
ports will never allow you to use your vertex 3 at it's fullest ability no
matter what is done with the driver in a bios update. It is limited to
only 1 lane.
Only solution using your R3 is to add a good raid card, and even at that,
only one vertex3 will still do better on intel's new chip, but the card will
do better than marvell.
Read though this:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ax-my-Vertex-3
do any one have any template for an i7 970? i've got a new toy to play with :) i've already seen that the locked multy is such a limitation to the overclock it self...
and the saddest thing is that... something went burn in my mainboard, i think is the transistor which operate on OPT_FAN2 .... :( btw the mainboard is however fully working.
Vertex 3 on Sandy Bridge is about 500 MB/s sequential read and 220 MB/s write after it's been used. That's the nature of the Sandforce controller. Don't fall for the crazy never used benchmark speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xipe
Yeah, the Marvell controller isn't all that good. You're better off with the Intel even if the sequential is lower. Alternatively you could get two smaller SSD drives and RAID 0 them on the Intel ports. For that I recommend the Crucial C300 due to the excellent native garbage collection.
I got this board a few days ago. It clocks better then my Gigabyte ud7. My question.. is the usb on the bottom of the board the only onboard 2.0/1.0 usb? I have 2 usb needs in the front of my 800d(one being a fan controller for LC) and there is a lot of real estate between the front and back. If that's it, either they ran out of room or a design flaw? The Ud7 has 3 or 4 for this reason.
You need this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickles24
Hello guys,
Thanks for responding to my raid questions earlier in the thread.
I now have my second RealSSD C300 256GB drive and i'll be trying out raid sometime later on.
At the moment i'll be keeping both my RealSSD C300 drives as non raid but the thing I was wondering, you guys said that I would not get full performance from these drives raiding them together on the marvel controller but as i`m going to use them as normal non raid drives at the moment on the marvel controller, will I still get the full performance from each drive with both marvel ports being populated or will both drives performance suffer because of the two drives being connected at the same time and because you have said the marvel controller share a pcie lane?
Thanks for responding.
Sylver123.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylver123
I would think you would be fine because you won't be accessing them at the same time.
hello
I wonder what the bios more stable / better to R3E and a 980X
board is currently with the 0901
thanks
Thanks a lot mate for responding.Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
I thought that would be the case but I was unsure.
Can anyone else please confirm that both drives should work at their full performance on the marvel controller even when the two drives are connected on the marvel ports at the same time and used as normal non raid?
i get very close to 500mb/sec reads on marvell with my two 80gb g2's in raid0.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylver123
Remember, PCIe x1 is still 5Gbps... (~640MB/sec)
Thank you.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
... is something wrong in here?
http://www.xtremeshack.com/immagine/i91782_wtf.jpg
why i'm getting so low gflops?
HyperthreadingQuote:
Originally Posted by p3gaz_001
for me, it's 82 Gflops with my 970 @4.25GhZ and HT
what is your max overclock ? (and offcourse benchable)Quote:
Originally Posted by tistou77
You need the updated LinPack files.
can you help me out? i'm not that "linx guru" ..... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookiesowns
is the max I've tested yet ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by p3gaz_001
here for the Linpack filesQuote:
Originally Posted by p3gaz_001
thanks! :)
quite good result for now ...
http://www.xtremeshack.com/immagine/t91910_4.4rs..jpg
http://www.xtremeshack.com/immagine/...3dm0632579.jpg
My goodness, all I had to do was clear cmos and now sleep works like a charm with or without usb. :rofl::brick:Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
I'm running 24/7 at 4.3GHz with ram at 2000 for now. I might go up to 4.5 max 24/7 but I'll have to
raise vcore to 1.45 maybe even a little higher. What do you guys think about the difference between
4.5 and 4.3? I'm thinking not much and keeping my vcore at 1.4 is probably better. Do you guys agree or not? :shrug:
Kinda late to the party but I just re-did my loop and added in the EK-FB block :D Enjoying sub 30c temps on IOH/ICH :cool:
With the stock air cooling the IOH was always warmer than the ICH. But now with the water block, and I guess because of it's design, the IOH is now cooler than the ICH! 2-in-1 improvement :)
welcome to the ek'd rIIIe :)
i use 1.45 vcore for 4.5 daily now without issue. as long as your VTT is within spec and you have decent cooling (running 4.5 at 80*c max load or lower) i personally think you'd be fine. mine runs at about 68-70*c at full load with 4.5 and 1.45vcore.Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
though there really isn't that much of a difference betwen 4.3 and 4.5 so it's up to you really. if you run 4.3 at 1.4 that's perfectly fine too, though you might be able to get away with 1.38-1.39 range. out of the chips i've had (2 980's and 2 930's) all needed 1.41825vcore to be stable at 4.4ghz so... it's up to you if you really want to run that extra voltage for the 100mhz and are capable of dealing with the heat.
What are you running your ram, uclk and vtt 24/7?Quote:
Originally Posted by skuldarin
Hi all
Any of you using the Sata 3 Marvell 9128 controller.
I'm wondering if you can help me out with what drivers give the best performance and are most stable on that Marvell. Ive heard there have been mixed results. I'll be using a OCZ Vertex 3 ssd and I'm still using BIOS version 1005 on the R3E.
Many of us moved to the R3E from R2E, why ............. because it has Sata 3 6gb/s and USB 3, those are the main changes, well guess what, the marvell 9128 is almost useless if you are using SSds in raid, ask any one, as for usb 3 yes it works, its quick but for what purpose, oh my back up drive is really quick now........whoope friggin do !
You best run your vertex 2s on the intel for now.
I dont think the firmware we need will ever be released.
Your vertex 3 will be seriously limited on the marvell because it only uses 1 lane. In fact, it may even do better on the intel sata 2 ports. If you want your vertex 3 to perform as it should you will need to get a raid card.Quote:
Originally Posted by angel_dust
I would suggest going to the ocz form about this. There is tons of talk about this subject.
The Marvell firmware update was released, sort of. Asus has yet to implement it into a BIOS release though. I'm running a modded BIOS from Mr. Toad for the Rampage III Gene, contact him and he may be able to mod the Extreme BIOS for you too. To be used at your own risk of course, but I've got nothing but smooth sailing going on. :)
Ya, but are you using a vertex 3. I don't care what is done to the firmware. The marvel 9128 is limited to only 1x PCIe lanes and the vertex 3 needs more. Now, the marvel 9182 uses 2x PCIe lanes,Quote:
Originally Posted by WangChung
but even at that the numbers are still not as good as intel and our board doesn't have the 9182.
PCI-E 2.0/2.1 has theoretical throughput of 640MB/s, which is 500MB/s practically. Now, Vertex 3 has maximum read speed up to 550MB/s.Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
I wouldn't call it seriously limited. Even if you use two of them, non RAID, you shouldn't experience any bottlenecks, as they are rarely used at the same time.
hi extreme friends...
higher bclk so far with this board???
hi extreme friends...
higher bclk so far with this board???
Bclock is hit and miss mate, sometimes it's CPU limited ( but rare), mostly it's chipset dependant, sometimes mobo design dependant ( eg MSI Xpower has issues to boot at high bclocks) ... if you have a lesser IOH chipset ( X58) then it could be you are limited to 220 or even lower... no setting (besides QPI Slow mode) will get you over that... Cold might do the trick...
I have done 233-235 (no slouch mode) on both my RE3s with a bloomfield Xeon CPU : so it's not the board design. Some have failed at 220 or lower, while their cpu did far better on other boards : Chipset limitation...
my R2E is stuck on 220,221. tried with slow mode but no go...........................
How much voltage did give it (vIOH)?
@donmarkoni
tried 1.2,1.3 and auto as well.
That's true about the throughput but I have spent a lot of time reading in the ocz forums about the vertex 3's and no one has been able to get the full performanceQuote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
from them with the marvell. The reason has been given that it only uses 1 lane. There must be something more to it than the fact that 1 lane has throughput of
640. I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this, or to know more than (especially you) any of you here, but I've read every page on the thread below and it is the consensus that the marvell
won't give full performance.
Here's on the intel controller
Here's on a LSI raid card
Here's on the Marvell controller 9128
Sorry that I didn't mention it right away, but what is your PCI-E speed when you're trying to go over 221?Quote:
Originally Posted by xpower
I had best results if keep PCI-E speed half of the BCLK.
Hmm... Strange... As you said, there must be something more. I wouldn't be satisfied with the answer: one PCI-E lane is to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by zinsco
If there was any other way to test...
I think I found one: Buy ASRock SATA3 Card for 25-30$ (sorry for saying so directly: go and spend money :) ). It is PCI-E x1 SATA3 controller with Marvell 88SE9123 / 88SE9120 chipset. Similar chipset, still one lane used, but different aproach. ;)
Maybe you get more conclusive results.
I think this is board dependant. I can get to 221BCLK without changing PCI-E speed. I can get 232BCLK with 104 PCI-E.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
I agree with this also. The PCI-E lane itself is NOT the limiting factor. The controller itself just sucks. The way around it is use two drives in raid0. Neither drive performs at 'full' speed, but the overall reads and writes are still just as fast, or faster than any sata6 ssd.Quote:
Originally Posted by donmarkoni
My two 80gb x25-m g2's outperform a vertex3 in every possible category except sequential write speed. The marvell has no problem saturating my ssd's write speed at 140mb/sec, and gets ~450mb/sec-470mb/sec read speed.
Overall, I think the complaining about the marvell's performance is just nitpicking. Sure it doesn't give you the best possible performance, but it's still very good performance.
is booting with 223 bclk with diff volts and diff conbination of PCI-I of 107 110 115 but is freazes.
tried ioh 1.35v and vtt 1.39v.
still testing .....................
sorry for second post above^^^^^^^^^^^^
220 booting fine but when trying to stress with linx it freezes.
"uncorrectible hardware error"
trying to low the mem as when it auto its reaching 1800.
trying :12x220 easy
pci freq:115
any other setting to stablize 220bclk?
why on earth would you need 115PCI-E for just 220 Bclock... are you sure your rams can handle 1800mhz ? What are the temps of the IOH ? 1.35 IOH seems a bit out of whack too for just 220 and single GPU...
Yesterday I've using my computer and after a suddenly reboot my R3E say this:
Please enter setup to recover BIOS settings
CMOS DATE/TIME Not set
Press F1 to run SETUP
Press F2 to load default values and continue
Load defaults, reboot, and get into Windows. After a while, reboots again, but I've no more response, even keeping pressed the power button onboard or Reset, NOTHING. The board stay turned on but no response of any kind. I need to remove the battery, shutdown power supply and then Windows loads againg, but after some minutes this issue shows again. This occurs with any BIOS, doesn't matter if I change between chips.
What's going on? :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhpsystems
Try another CMOS battery and see what happens.
-Raja
It's done, but issue persist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS
110 115 dosnt help. use ram to 1323mhz that i dont think is the problem.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
any other settings to run that bclock.
You can try to use second BIOS chip and check that cpu is well seated.Quote:
Originally Posted by rhpsystems
6Gb/s controller...
I feel sorry for Marvell they are being dragged through the mud on this for nothing. Highpoint do a 640 Rocket raid controller card based on the 9128 and it performs great. Well above that of the motherboard.
Sapphire Black board works as promised.
Asus even to this day post
"True SATA 6Gb/s Support
Experience the future of storage!
Supporting next-generation Serial ATA (SATA) storage interface, this motherboard delivers up to 6.0Gb/s data transfer rates. Additionally, get enhanced scalability, faster data retrieval, double the bandwidth of current bus systems." - Taken this morning from Asus webpage on the R3E.
The above statement can be taken as the following.
Get enhanced Scalability... - When you raid 0 you get less performance than with one drive.
Double the Bandwidth of current bus systems.... - I’m the ICH10R scales over 500MB/s when used in raid 0. The limit on the 6Gb/s controller if max was ever possible is 500MB/s. Not 1000MB/s.
Faster data retrieval... - Only if your using mechanical drives.
this motherboard delivers up to 6.0Gb/s data transfer rates.. - THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. Its capped at 5Gb/s due to that being the max that one PCI 2.0 lane will ever achieve.
The sale of all motherboards by Asus, Gigabyte, Intel are sold under false information.
I bought my Asus Rampage Extreme 3 as an upgrade from an extreme 2. Because it had 6Gb/s controller and I had every intention of using it when the drives became available. I bought two C300 drives and ran into the issue where they where no longer detected on the Marvell chip after a windows install. So the drives where returned to Newegg for a refund after restocking fee. So fast forward to 3 weeks ago when I bought 2 Intel 510 120GB drives I bought them with the purpose of making use of Asus ROG super speed drive app (raids 2 drives to raid 0 on the same Marvell controller). Its now on its way back to Asus because I can not get the board to run above 330MB/s in raid 0 on the Marvell controller (something i believe is due to limitations on the board not the drives). On a standalone LSI 9240 4I I get 770MB/s in raid 0. The only drawback to this is I have to impede on the performance of my SLI setup to be able to use the card.
in summary
I bought the board purely for the 6Gb/s controller because it was advertised. It failed to do just that. I should have stayed with my rampage 2 Extreme and bought the card I ended up buying anyway and saved a lot of money.
Asus support has sucked through out all of this.
My motherboards had to go back to asus. They had no stock to process a Advanced RMA so I had to buy another motherboard in the mean time.
Some Mod on Asus website insists its ok to get 250MB/s sustained transfer on the Marvell controller because the rest is lost to system overhead.
Tech support informed me that they would not upgrade or downgrade to a board that meet the advertised statements because its not Asus policy. He then said to sell my board and go and buy a new one for my needs.
This is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Kay
The theoretical maximum of a single PCI-E lane is 640MB/sec, which is above 5.0Gb/sec.
PCIe 2.0 delivers 5 GT/s, but employs an 8b/10b encoding scheme which results in a 20 percent ((10-8)/10) overhead on the raw bit rate, which brings transfer down to about 500MB/s.
My two x25-m G2's get up to 480MB/s reads on my marvell chip with superspeed. You're doing it wrong. Maybe drive alignment or stripe size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Kay
Sounds to me like you didn't do your research before you purchased and got burned. You won't find any pity here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee_Kay
I bought the board when it first came out back in 2010. And if you look at the post bios screen on the Marvell screen it clearly states Maximum Bandwidth on one PCI-E is 5Gb/s Also PCI-E 2.0 spec is 500Mb/sQuote:
Originally Posted by zoson
"PCI-SIG announced the availability of the PCI Express Base 2.0 specification on 15 January 2007. The PCIe 2.0 standard doubles the per-lane throughput from the PCIe 1.0 standard's 250 MB/s to 500 MB/s. This means a 32-lane PCI connector (x32) can support throughput up to 16 Gb/s aggregate. The PCIe 2.0 standard uses a base clock speed of 5 GHz, while the first version operates at 2.5 GHz."
Im using windows 7 64 bit Ultra. so no alignment is needed.