[XFastest] Puts different boards through VRM heat test, which will burn first?

http://picx.xfastest.com/elvis/Activ...228-X79/07.jpg
Here is the Link, and I posted a summary below: http://www.xfastest.com/thread-69873-1-1.html

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3526/capturewpi.png


Platform Setup: The CPU voltage as 1.4V, load line to maximum.

ECS: Due to no turbo boost function, it's only ran as 3.2GHz，so highest mosfet temperature only 54.3ﾟC, and CPU voltage only 1.34V.
MSI: Due to no turbo boost function, it's only ran as 3.2GHz，so highest mosfet temperature was 65.2ﾟC
ASROCK:The guy said Asrock's CPU voltage is reliable(ran as 1.4v), However their CPU frequency start from 3.5GHz, than drop to 3.2GHz, at last down to 1.2GHz, and their highest mosfet temperature was 89.8ﾟC
ASUS: CPU voltage was 1.44V, higher than 1.4v, and CPU ran as 3.5GHz in whole test, the highest mosfet temperature was 85.1ﾟC
GIGABYTE: BIOS version was F7, CPU voltage was 1.392V，Lower than 1.4V（Due to load line set up）, and CPU ran as 3.5GHz in whole test, the highest mosfet temperature was 83.9ﾟC

Very interesting results if I might say so myself. Excellent effort XFastest!

Wait! No one burned up? Are they still going... or??? Up the voltage? confused...

judging from those pictures they're measuring the heatsink temperature without consistent probe placement. so what exactly do these results mean?

Not sure what that quy measures or how it tests, but the guys from lab501 tested Asrock X79 Extreme4 and they run 3930K at 5ghz 1.5v stable.
Nu throttle, no burn. With a Corsair H80 cpu cooler.
http://lab501.ro/placi-de-baza/asroc...reme4-review/4
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...000_asrock.jpg

I think on purpose they didn't put airflow over the VRMs. I think they were trying to burn up a board again, so show that some new BIOS was throttling, but in fact the GB didn't throttle.

These tests are to see how the boards handle the environment they first put that other UD3 in, so see what happens. The boards SHOULD throttle down when they reach their VRM limit. The whole point is seeing how high one can set that limit.

This is actually good people, if such a test although a more refined one (with an IR camera as well imo) would become mainstream when reviewing enthusiast mainboards then the companies would pay more attention!

I 100% agree, I think Tin did a test of the UD7 Vs M4E remember that? He used his IR camera and took shots. Pretty interesting stuff.

of course then you get into the mess of which board has higher switching frequency, which board has a more aggressive PWM scheme, and which board has more phases, which infact would affect the temperature.

Of course it is interesting to put up too boards and compare none the less. I do however agree that IR camera is the best way to do it. Of course if most reviewers don't have a scope how can you expect them to have an IR camera of any value? The FLIR ones are like $1000.

switching frequency does almost nothing for pwm temperature. Only way to bring temperatures down significantly is to use more fets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

switching frequency does almost nothing for pwm temperature. Only way to bring temperatures down significantly is to use more fets.

---

That isn't really accurate. As switching frequency goes up, potential output quality increases but at the expense of efficiency if everything else stays the same. As efficiency drops, VRM temp will increase when the load remains constant.

who has the hottest heatsinks win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

I 100% agree, I think Tin did a test of the UD7 Vs M4E remember that? He used his IR camera and took shots. Pretty interesting stuff.

of course then you get into the mess of which board has higher switching frequency, which board has a more aggressive PWM scheme, and which board has more phases, which infact would affect the temperature.

Of course it is interesting to put up too boards and compare none the less. I do however agree that IR camera is the best way to do it. Of course if most reviewers don't have a scope how can you expect them to have an IR camera of any value? The FLIR ones are like $1000.

---

I don't remember Tin's test. Have a link? =)

IR cameras are indeed expensive, but should be able to get a second hand one on the cheap though if one is able to find?

Scopes wont be a problem for us much longer:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...l?ref=category

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

switching frequency does almost nothing for pwm temperature. Only way to bring temperatures down significantly is to use more fets.

---

It does increase the temperature if raised and lower it is lowered. How can you increase the frequency at which the VRm operates at and have no repercussions, and expect the switching losses to what, disappear?

Why don't we quote Raja's R4E OC Guide?:

Quote:

---

CPU Voltage Frequency: Sets the switching frequency of the power FETs supplying processor Vcore. Lower switching frequencies lead to a higher VRM efficiency (small power saving) and lower VRM operating temperatures. Setting a higher switching frequency aids transient response (the recovery of voltage to the applied level after a load condition) – at the expense of heat.

---

From what i saw for the IR meter when i googled retail is like 1000+ so second hand maybe $500? Still pretty expensive.

here is his comparision: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...lutions-review

Um I think they measured MOSFET temperatures, Maybe they put a probe next to the FET or between the heatsink and one of the FETs. I don't really know what they did, but they said MOSFET temp.

What is that you linked?

What I was getting at is that manufacturers are using increased switching frequencies to make things look more stable voltage wise, which increases VRM temperatures and reduces efficiency, as you guys said. The fet transient states (voltage spikes basically) get pretty ugly with the larger switching speeds as well, which means more smoothing capacitors required.

More fets is really the only way to decrease VRM temperatures, with or without the higher switching speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

The fet transient states (voltage spikes basically) get pretty ugly with the larger switching speeds as well, which means more smoothing capacitors required.

---

This isn't true, there are a whole host of factors that determine the amount of bulk capacitance a given VRM needs. Buck controllers and FETs that support higher switching freqeuncies (provided the implementation is optimized for the task at hand) are generally less reliant on large amounts of bulk capacitance to meet ripple and overshoot tolerance margins - otherwise there is no real reason to use them.

Which is why I made a general statement about them. When used within their limitations things are fine, but when they get out of range it turns ugly, and getting a single fet out of range isnt very hard, I mean that is what caused so many Z7S-WS deaths in the end, right?

Which reminds me I should PM gary, your email server isnt letting my emails through again I think..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

What I was getting at is that manufacturers are using increased switching frequencies to make things look more stable voltage wise, which increases VRM temperatures and reduces efficiency, as you guys said. The fet transient states (voltage spikes basically) get pretty ugly with the larger switching speeds as well, which means more smoothing capacitors required.

More fets is really the only way to decrease VRM temperatures, with or without the higher switching speed.

---

I thought it was the opposite...

Load Line Calibration being used to make voltages more stable but increasing the amount of transient overshoot, increased switching speeds reduce that transient overshoot when coupled with aggressive Load Line Calibration at the expense of efficiency and heat.

We all know the Z7S-WS was an extremely poorly designed board...and I can understand why you'd hate on ASUS for it however that is just one product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Which is why I made a general statement about them. When used within their limitations things are fine, but when they get out of range it turns ugly, and getting a single fet out of range isnt very hard, I mean that is what caused so many Z7S-WS deaths in the end, right?
.

---

This has more to do with OCP and OTP than the number of capacitors used, so the "general" statement angle isn't correct either. Regardless of switching frequncy, if a FET or VRM is used out of range things can get ugly if OCP or other safety features don't kick in.

And thats the issue, its easier to push them out of spec now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

And thats the issue, its easier to push them out of spec now.

---

Which has not relation to capacitance at all. And seeing this thread is about X79, we had OTP and OCP implemented properly on our boards from the get-go, so you cannot push them "out of spec" to the point of failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS

Which has not relation to capacitance at all. And seeing this thread is about X79, we had OTP and OCP implemented properly on our boards from the get-go, so you cannot push them "out of spec" to the point of failure.

---

Not enough capacitance on either side of the fet could allow for out of spec operation dependent on the implementation method and BIOS settings. As was stated earlier though, the capacitance issue is more of a general issue and was not meant to be the "end all be all" statement nor to point to it being the largest of the issues or the cause of the fets entering cascade, only that due to the implementation methods used it is an issue.

You monitor each fet separately? I highly doubt that.

Do you even know how the monitoring functions of the drivers and fets work? If one fet enters a cascade scenario there is almost no method of reliably saving it from damage, let alone outright failure.

you can see from these results, and other recent performance and power results, that today's high-end asus boards really are high-end. they are good engineering. they have a premium price, but they back it up with premium engineering. am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamtan2

you can see from these results, and other recent performance and power results, that today's high-end asus boards really are high-end. they are good engineering. they have a premium price, but they back it up with premium engineering. am I right?

---

I'd say they're decent, about average on the high end, though you're the only one to bring up current Asus build quality directly so far.. for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

I'd say they're decent, about average on the high end, though you're the only one to bring up current Asus build quality directly so far.. for some reason.

---

The R4E is getting nothing but huge praises from owners and reviewers alike, i can see via your sig that your not keen on Asus, but even still they have their X79 range almost perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

From what i saw for the IR meter when i googled retail is like 1000+ so second hand maybe $500? Still pretty expensive.

here is his comparision: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...lutions-review

Um I think they measured MOSFET temperatures, Maybe they put a probe next to the FET or between the heatsink and one of the FETs. I don't really know what they did, but they said MOSFET temp.

What is that you linked?

---

Quite the sum of money that, problematic. Did a little more searching as well, found a second hand one for 3000USD :p

Wow, Tin really knows his way around!

The link includes a USB oscilloscope, if you watch the short video you can see a bit of its capture software, it looks very easy to use and makes nice graphs to read.
And it is extremely cheap, 20USD if I haven't misunderstood anything, and that is silly money for a proper scope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Copie

The R4E is getting nothing but huge praises from owners and reviewers alike, i can see via your sig that your not keen on Asus, but even still they have their X79 range almost perfect.

---

Thats 1 board which has had no 3rd party thermal tests performed of its VRM yet.. (to points of failure/protection I should say, which isnt an extreme issue on most top end boards anyways).

I'm sure it'd do fine though.

EDIT

For those who didnt look close enough, xfastest's tests were done with a simple thermal temperature probe taped to each VRM heatsink.

EDIT 2

That Gigabyte board really made some ugly waves in TiN's tests. The fet drivers looked a bit toasty too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Not enough capacitance on either side of the fet could allow for out of spec operation dependent on the implementation method and BIOS settings. As was stated earlier though, the capacitance issue is more of a general issue and was not meant to be the "end all be all" statement nor to point to it being the largest of the issues or the cause of the fets entering cascade, only that due to the implementation methods used it is an issue.

You monitor each fet separately? I highly doubt that.

Do you even know how the monitoring functions of the drivers and fets work? If one fet enters a cascade scenario there is almost no method of reliably saving it from damage, let alone outright failure.

---

I think I know my way around a VRM solution well enough to make a statement. And I certainly don't think you are in a position to be telling me how things work nor do I need educating on cascade scenarios :)

I think everyone knows me and Raja don't always see eye to eye, but what he said about switching frequency is very true and that is the reason i quoted him.

Lol good discussion, no body has mentioned digital PWm algorithms like ATA? which can turn off all pulses at a load release or increase the frequency of the pulses when there is a huge load step. I would think turn off all the pulses at the same time would greatly help with overshoot. That is an example of a Digital PWm technology.

This has nothing to do with the VRM heat thingy, I was just talking about how it would be hard to compare VRMs based solely on temperature alone, a lot of boards would off the bat run at higher switching frequencies opening room for people to say no, they have to be equal.

I would not have responded to be honest Steve but post 8 was very misinformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS

I think I know my way around a VRM solution well enough to make a statement. And I certainly don't think you are in a position to be telling me how things work nor do I need educating on cascade scenarios :)

---

So you are monitoring each fet and driver separately, or are you not?

If you want to banter on the less than two digits of temperature change due to switching efficiency on an average system (read as stock to mild overclock), then have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

So you are monitoring each fet and driver separately, or are you not?

If you want to banter on the less than two digits of temperature change due to switching efficiency on an average system (read as stock to mild overclock), then have fun.

---

That information is publically available in the datasheet, which I am sure you will have read by now but probably misunderstood. Take a look and then think about how a cascade event would occur with the fault protection in place (that's how we have it implemented).

After my experiences with ASUS boards (11 of 12 dead in six years, including two workstation boards that arrived DOA and they refused to even talk about support) I'm rather unsure that ASUS has an idea as to what to do. But, if ASUS reps speak that way to people on a forum, then I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in their products even if I felt like giving them a second chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

So you are monitoring each fet and driver separately, or are you not?

If you want to banter on the less than two digits of temperature change due to switching efficiency on an average system (read as stock to mild overclock), then have fun.

---

I think I just now realized what you were trying to say, that the minor PWM adjustments available wouldn't cause too much temperature change, right? With my point i was trying to make it was that it is hard to get different boards on the same level, when there are so many aspects to the equalized testing that readers could complain about. Switching frequency is widely known to increase temperatures, but yes that amount could be small or it could be big. On most boards now, at least the Digital PWM ones, you are able to greatly influence the switching frequency across a large range and that might pose to be an issue when comparing boards, especially analog vs digital.

Sin - yes.

Raja - So you did what everyone else did, a thermal probe on the PCB or against the VRM heatsink and a current divider for sensing, and called it good. I noticed you caught some flak over that in the ROG forums..

edit

Wait, is there even a sensor? http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5024295

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayin

After my experiences with ASUS boards (11 of 12 dead in six years, including two workstation boards that arrived DOA and they refused to even talk about support) I'm rather unsure that ASUS has an idea as to what to do. But, if ASUS reps speak that way to people on a forum, then I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in their products even if I felt like giving them a second chance.

---

11 out of 12 :eek:. Sounds some user error to me :rolleyes:.

Hmm. Let's see, so two DOA, so I'm down to nine. A8N-SLI Deluxe 1, died with mosfet failure, stock clocks. RMA replacement for the board blew up at the first PCI-E slot, killing my 6600GT in that slot and my RAM as well. Replacement two went in my little brother's system, lived at stock clocks until it too crisped its VRM area, taking PSU, CPU and RAM. Six to go, so let's see. P5ND32-SLI Deluxe simply never could overclock at all. Also didn't like cards in slot 1 after a month or two. A8N32-SLi Deluxe was the same, started throwing Memtest errors on sticks that passed in other boards. Its replacement was the same. For all of those boards the stock cooling wasn't touched. So no improper remounting or anything. Two P5Bs decided to have boot issues, flashing didn't help. The P7P55 I had when I first got my i7 decided it wouldn't run with my Ballistix which are still memtest fine now. And the one that's living has a dead PCI-E slot.

I think that somebody ought to go back to the drawing board. Especially when you buy a $400 WS board that arrives DOA, and they refuse to assist you. I have plenty of other boards that haven't died, and they happen to be other brands. So I don't think it's user error-I'm more inclined to believe it's substandard parts. It's one reason I moved to workstation/server boards-they're simply built better than desktop equipment. I'm quite a big fan of Intel boards-all the ones I had were unkillable for the most part-as in it took a direct lightning strike on the house to kill my BadAxe2. I've used a LOT of Gigabyte and MSI, and barring mechanical damage I've lost two MSI total and no Gigabyte. I don't really want to spend my tie chasing motherboard bugs, so I moved to manufacturers that give me less trouble. That's my experience, YMMV. It's more the support I've seen than the failures even-seeing a rep be rude on a forum where they're supposed to be here to help just reinforces the idea that I have better places to spend my money.

My i7 is on a Big Bang Fuzion, my media center is a Zotac, my workstation is an Intel board, and my server is an Arima. And they're all fine. My wife's board is a Crosshair IV and like I said, it has PCI-E 1 dead or flaky. She'd rather run it like it is than fight ASUS RMA. I don't blame her. But, as stated earlier, this is an opinion, and you're entitled to yours, but I feel that I have based mine on sufficient evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Sin - yes.

Raja - So you did what everyone else did, a thermal probe on the PCB or against the VRM heatsink and a current divider for sensing, and called it good. I noticed you caught some flak over that in the ROG forums..

edit

Wait, is there even a sensor? http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5024295

---

That question is referring to an external temp monitor or linkage to the Super IO that reports temps to an end user - has nothing to do with the VRM sensing mechanism. The board will throttle past a certain point irrespective of end-user settings (the way it's implemented and the thresholds that are observed by the thermistor or current balancing are the critical factors). The rest is down to what kind of features each vendor's buck controllers support for the failsafe mechanisms to work and how they have gone about insuring that the hard-set/programmable thresholds are adequate (we did our homework on this platform).

One must be careful when using various online sources to glean information from, while some are accurate at the time of writing, they need updates to reflect the capabilities of modern digital controllers.

So I was right - you tossed a thermal probe in the mix and called it good, and are relying on the manufacturer to have done their part.

Its par for the course, good enough to cover your butts from parts failure from your supplier, just like everyone else.

Doesnt seem to fit the bill for this statement, though:

Quote:

---

And seeing this thread is about X79, we had OTP and OCP implemented properly on our boards from the get-go, so you cannot push them "out of spec" to the point of failure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

So I was right - you tossed a thermal probe in the mix and called it good, and are relying on the manufacturer to have done their part.

Its par for the course, good enough to cover your butts from parts failure from your supplier, just like everyone else.

Doesnt seem to fit the bill for this statement, though:

---

No, you are assuming. How do you know where the temp limit is set or what the OCP thresholds or vendor specific conditions are? You don't. Don't assume. Any more than this also implies that Chil have put no thought behind their controller and its safety features, which is completely absurd. Use the built-in features correctly and the solution works fine.

I dont recall telling you your products are not currently working fine, but as you've stated "Any more than this also implies that Chil have put no thought behind their controller and its safety features, which is completely absurd. Use the built-in features correctly and the solution works fine." means you're just relying on what they said was good enough to cover warranty claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

I dont recall telling you your products are not currently working fine, but as you've stated "Any more than this also implies that Chil have put no thought behind their controller and its safety features, which is completely absurd. Use the built-in features correctly and the solution works fine." means you're just relying on what they said was good enough to cover warranty claims.

---

This latest post is full of further assumptions on your part. It means nothing of the sort; the component values and thresholds are set after months of rigorous testing. I am currently at HQ and I know what kind of work we put into the VRM and BIOS for these boards. You have convinced yourself and that is fine, the sad part is that you are creating misinformation for others so I have to respond.

Every manufacturer uses pretty much the same monitoring scheme, what makes you think you're special for using different values on OCP or OTP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Every manufacturer uses pretty much the same monitoring scheme, what makes you think you're special for using different values on OCP or OTP?

---

Because we have the boards here and we test them. The implementation does not have to be "special", it just has to be right for the task at hand.

That means the right FETs, inductors and placement of thermistor/s together with ensuring the current and temp trip thresholds are effective in worst case scenarios. All of this takes time and manpower - R&D time, together with investment in equipment. Get it wrong and you encounter issues in the field. That's how things evolve.

The point here is that Chil provide the failsafe mechanisms, it is up to the vendor to invest time into researching optimal layouts and programming those failsafes.

And everyone else did the same testing as you to validate the parts for their boards and the boards for resale, some got lucky or unlucky, or even had to backpedal (nVidia 570 and 590) for errors.

You did more than the rest, i'll give you that, but that doesnt mean you've swayed me to believe you've built a VRM as well as you could have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

And everyone else did the same testing as you to validate the parts for their boards and the boards for resale, some got lucky or unlucky, or even had to backpedal (nVidia 570 and 590) for errors.

You did more than the rest, i'll give you that, but that doesnt mean you've swayed me to believe you've built a VRM as well as you could have.

---

The Chil controller is pretty much the best you can get right now as an off-the-shelf solution, we teamed that with good FETs and inductors so the design is solid.

nevermind the single piece heatsink and not monitoring each fet and driver individually.

Congrats on getting me away from general VRM design and specifically into your design btw, walked right into that. Maybe I am more aggravated than I had realized over the lack of action on the Z7S-WS fiasco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

nevermind the single piece heatsink and not monitoring each fet and driver individually.

Congrats on getting me away from general VRM design and specifically into your design btw, walked right into that. Maybe I am more aggravated than I had realized over the lack of action on the Z7S-WS fiasco.

---

You obviously are disgruntled looking at the posts. No hard feeling on my side to be honest, I don't expect anyone to know everything that goes on behind the scenes. The team we have here right now is the best we have ever had, past mistakes withstanding. The initial assumption was that very little work goes into this stuff at all, and that is not true.

Very little work at all? No, not all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

I dont recall telling you your products are not currently working fine, but as you've stated "Any more than this also implies that Chil have put no thought behind their controller and its safety features, which is completely absurd. Use the built-in features correctly and the solution works fine." means you're just relying on what they said was good enough to cover warranty claims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Very little work at all? No, not all.

---

That part there - relying on what they said, it implies we don't test anything and just take the stock solution and put it on the board. Anyway, let's move on.

interesting test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Very little work at all? No, not all.

---

My p5k-e has served me well. However there was (is) a huge problem. All the bios voltage settings were wacky, i.e. if you set the lowest voltage for pll, fsb term, etc. it will actually run at the highest possible voltage (Checked with DMM):eek:

I't degraded a couple of e8400's before I finally found out what was going on:down: Definitely left a sour taste in my mouth.


I still use the board and it works fine, but I did have to use the help of my DMM to get the voltages in range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raja@ASUS

That part there - relying on what they said, it implies we don't test anything and just take the stock solution and put it on the board. Anyway, let's move on.

---

I've been running Asus boards for about 15 years now, and after seeing how they treated many customers who were sold defective boards... I'll be looking for a more ethical company for myself and customers. Asus should have thought things through because the costs of "greasing a squeaky wheel" would have been far cheaper than the bad reputation.

And before you try to defend your employer... everyone knows Asus will never admit to the boards being faulty. Doing so would immediately open the flood gates to lawsuits or even a big class action.

hope here are some usefull links

latest betabioses for none turbo-trotteling - X79 ecs and X79 msi-boards

ecs:

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Pro...ID=151&LanID=0
http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Pro...ID=151&LanID=0

msi:
u must restister in forum
http://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=154186.0
http://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=154374.0
Fix CPU Ratio when manuel select CPU ratio < Maxnoturboratio
and more usefull issiues

i mean like other guys here
cheap mosfet temperature test by xfastest with the tape on heatsinks!
hope someone test the boards with thermal camera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I've been running Asus boards for about 15 years now, and after seeing how they treated many customers who were sold defective boards... I'll be looking for a more ethical company for myself and customers. Asus should have thought things through because the costs of "greasing a squeaky wheel" would have been far cheaper than the bad reputation.

And before you try to defend your employer... everyone knows Asus will never admit to the boards being faulty. Doing so would immediately open the flood gates to lawsuits or even a big class action.

---

This is what makes me laugh at all the anti Gigabutt Asus shills on this forum, because god know Asus has such a sterling reputation in comparison. Their boards, specially low to upper midrange are often overpriced and underbuilt in comparison to their competitors, as are their notebooks. The whole operation just oozes arrogance from the pricing, marketing and most of all their customer service.