Foxconn Bloodrage-Quantum Force- -X58- -Retail-

[Rammsteiner]

is there way to not allow turbo mode to change the multiplier so much? i disable the CxE, enable ppm and Eist. but it seem jumping between mult 20-21, i heard i7 920 doesn't like even mult?

Set CPU Turbo to Always On instead of Enabled and disabling EIST might help as well.

[BenchZowner]

EIST Enabled
CxE Disabled
Turbo Mode set to Always On

[s002wjh]

it seem when i put bclk 200, vcore +100mv, set mult=19, CxE disable, everything else enable, turbo always on, it always set to multi 20, but never 21. ne1 know whats the deal here?

k ill try disable EIST, see if it help

[BenchZowner]

it seem when i put bclk 200, vcore +100mv, set mult=19, CxE disable, everything else enable, turbo always on, it always set to multi 20, but never 21. ne1 know whats the deal here?

k ill try disable EIST, see if it help

It's normal.
Turbo sets the multi 1 time higher when in load and you're using more than 1 cores.
To use the 2nd step over you need to disable HT and enable & use one core only

[Theansweris42]

Noob question incoming... get your facepalms ready

What is EIST? (is it speed step? is it needed to use turbo mode?)

My Bloodrage comes in on Thursday and I am prepping myself for the project and this has me confused.

Ok I'm done witht he noob questions back to reading. I'm in information overload and alot of these terms are basically a foreign language to me coming from an AMD rig.


Thanks!

[i7luver]

yes it is speedstep, i don't know if its needed for turbo on the bloodrage tho, some boards need it, some don't

[Utnorris]

I thought you wanted to disable everything under CPU features except for turbo and possibly HT. I know on my EVGA that is what is recommended to get the best overclock. Does enabling EIST allow the turbo function to work properly and does this mean disabling EIST in effect disables Turbo mode?

[saaya]

Ive yet to power up my i7 system, but using Turbo mode sounds good after all (I actually didnt want to use it). But, if you set performance mode in Windows and use anything non-multithreaded, will all cores remain at the same multiplier? So say Ive a 20x multi, with Turbo that would be 21x on all cores. But there's this thing that if you've a single threaded app all cores will stay at 20x and the main core will be 22x instead right? Is there a way to prevent that from happening?

actually the turbo+2 mode doesnt kick the other cores back to normal, they stay in turbo+1 mode, so at 21 for a 920 that booted with 20 multiplier.

Anyway, Im happy with my Bloodrage. Didnt even fire it up yet, but Im already in love

haha, glad you like it

I hope I wont get dissapointed like I got with DFI's AM2 boards, that was ridiculous Installed my waterblock with backplate, high force Installing fan on north bridge was... well, harder than expected. Not hard though, but my two last cooling solutions were a TRUE and TR IFX-14+IFX-10 combo, if you survive that you can survive anything

yeah not exactly plug and play solutions... i really like zalmans mounting system, though the best would be something like the original 754/939 mounting system! hook it in on one side and then pull the lever and hook the level in on the other side... mounting and unmounting the heatsink was a thing of seconds and didnt require any force at all... would be awesome if something like this would exist for tower heatsinks or waterblocks!

I updated the FTP with more BIOSes and working on adding release notes & change list per BIOS now

Here's the address once again

schweeeet! thanks bill!

Thanks for posting p06 I gave it a try but I am still having the issue with the dropped multiplier set 29 and end up with 24 with latest cpuz.One of the good things is cpu turbo is now working for me at lower overclock and the voltage seems a little better.

thats odd... what temperature are you at? current is def not throttling the cpu multi with p06 so it must be temperature...
just to be sure, can you change the tdp tdc settings in the cpu feature menu to see if that helps? set it to 2000 both, or maybe 3000, that should work in case current is throttling the cpu.

Yeah FOXCONN
It holds the 21 Multi,even at high VCore.
Fantastic job and the best X58 Mainboard now
Here a picture,dont kidding,the VCore is only for a test

glad your happy with it

Indeed, very nice job Foxconn! This board is amazing. Im still testing but thus far it has been a very solid piece of w... art

This is my first i7 system and have been using AMD for the past 7 years. So I didnt have a clear thought what Voltages to start with. I simply set Vcore +20mV, VTT +80mV, X58 IOH 1.12V and didnt have to change anything thus far

Then I set 160Mhz Blck and a RAM multi of 10 (since my RAM is made for that) and changed everything according to that while keeping the CPU around stock speed. All was set simple and fast without hick ups.

Then I changed CPU to 20x with Turbo enabled, no issues.

Changed to 180Mhz Blck, RAM back to 8x, VTT to 16x and QPI to 9:8 VTT, stable.

Set Blck to 191 (for the 'mighty 4Ghz'), already going for an hour. If this continues like this Ill end up maxing out the Bloodrage its self and having to test for lower Voltages

Temps are only 47C/45C/45C/42C under full load!

thats very nice... really very nice... congrats!

Back to this board though, it's simply amazing. How easy things are changed, unbelievable. I didnt know I could expect this ever again from a motherboard after my DFI experience from 3 boards the past 1.5 year;
UT 790FX-M2R, digital PWM's were screaming and need a fan at stock to not let them reach 85C. BIOS is after 1.5 years still not bug free and incomplete.
DK 790FXB-M2RS, waited 4 months for arrival and then NB/HT MOSFET blew within a week with a marginal OC.
DK 790FXB-M2RSH, simply refused to boot.
Loads of other AM2+ boards had varying issues. Now Im just happy I took the i7 way because of the available boards for that platform, and it seems like I picked the right one to start with

glad you like it
if you want anything in bios changed let me know or post in the thread in the foxconn suggestion box section here on xs

Vcore - i tend to get a reverse vdroop - when the CPU is under 100% load, the board increases the voltage, sometimes by quite a bit. e.g. at 1.33v it increase's to 1.344v when priming. Note, i have EIST/CxE etc turned off. Whats more interesting, is the amount it increases buy, changes depending on the multi I use. On my 965 for example at a 25 multi, it overvolts FAR more than at 23 multi. But at 21, it hardly overvolts at all. Has anyone else noticed anything likethis? Its not a deal breaker cos i can adjust the voltage in bios accordingly. BTW, I have measured with a DMM to check this wasnt just everest misreporting.

hmmm if eist is turned off you shouldnt be able to use a 25 multiplier... are you sure its turned off? and are you sure CxE is turned off? tried the vdroop setting?

can you tell me what vcore is like in idle and under load for the different multis using the same vcore setting? thanks!

uncore Everst seems to read considerably higher voltage than DMM - the DMM is pretty much spot on vs. hardware monitor in bios. E.G. Everest reads 1.38v when DMM reads 1.33v from the pad. Also, I am after some guidance on what would be considered 'Safe' 24/7 uncore voltage. Ive been as high as 1.36v, is this still within the realms of everyday use?

yes, the onboard monitor reads vtt much too high since it reads it inside the vtt pwm... once it reaches the cpu its actually up to .1v lower depending on the load and voltage setting... we adjusted the bios reading/setting a bit to make up for it, but tools reading from the hw monitor directly report it too high.

what vtt is safe?
i know a lot of people who ran 1.5v for a long time without any problems.
Actually quite some people run 1.7v vtt to max out the uncore and i havent heard of any cpu dieing from that so far...

Finally, just wanted some pointers with the overclock on my 965. I have 4ghz nice and stable at 1.33v, but i just cant get it any higher... maybe I have just hit a wall, but was wondering if there is a setting ive missed somewhere. Ive been up to 1.41v vcore so far (I know i can push higher as im on water, but it seems a big just from 1.33v @ 4ghz) 1.36v uncore, 1.30v NB, 1.88v QPI. Is there anything that can aid stability? this is at 179x23 btw.

have uncore run at the same clocks as core seems to help iirc, and... you run 1.88v qpi voltage? what do you mean?
ive heard from several people that a voltage jump is needed to get the cpu past a certain point, check if 1.5v helps. make sure mem isnt limiting you and try different uncore ratios, some work better than others.

Apologies for the long winded post, but some of you thoughts would be extremely useful! (oh, and im about to stick my 920 back in and try 21 multi now its fixed! )

have fun!

Ive been playing with Vdrop Control too. With +150mV I got this;
Enabled -> Idle 1.392V -> Load 1.424/1.44V
Disabled -> Idle 1.376V -> Load 1.392V

Seriously, in combination with the 'Enabling Vdrop Control might damage the board' warning in BIOS, WTF is the point of this feature to begin with

Anyway, testing at 4.3Ghz now, it's stable but at what Voltage is unknown yet Somewhere between 1.392 and 1.44V At least I know I ain't missing anything on the Vdrop Control part

so vdroop disabled does work fine, almost no fluctuation there, right?
dont get what you mean regarding what the point of vdroop is...
vdroop is necessary for the pwm since we are pulling a huge current out of it and keeping the voltage 100% stable while switching from load to idle would hurt the cpu and the pwm. thats why vdroop disabled still has some droop, if it would be disabled completely it would damage the cpu and pwm in the long run.

Does anyone know if the Kingston 6GB HyperX DDR3 2000MHz will work on this board?

elpida reference pcb, should work fine

I have a big problem here!!! Last night I went to switch back to my 920 to test the 21 multi. Switched CPU's as normal, but the board wouldnt POST. Odd I thought. fiddled around with a few things, still nothing. At first I thought my 920 had gone, so I put the 965 back in... same problem (I had been running it 15 mins earlier no probs).

Basically all the lights/fans come on, but there is no code displayed on the code debug LCD. Ive tried everything now, I even put the batt discharge jumper accross overnight, with no power to the board. After reading Benchzowners error code post, I see its either no CPU detected, or an issue with power to the board. I find it VERY hard to believe both CPU's have busted, so I unplugged and plugged back in the ATX and 8pin connectors. Still no joy.

I thought perhaps the bios had screwed up, so i selected the 2nd one via the jumper on the board.

The only thing I can think of is this is a rev. 1.0 board, and i am using a 1.2kw PSU (thermaltake toughpower). Could it be something to do with this?

Does anyone have any thoughts to help before I RMA?

check the cpu socket, you might have bent/broken one or several pins :S
was the board powered off when you switched cpus?

Hmmm, guess Im seeing the possible benefits from having Vdrop Control enabled, with +200mV and Vdrop disabled, Vcore seems to vary from 1.392V/1.408V to 1.424V (CPU-Z) Now that cant be a good thing for reliable OC testing

why not? the only thing that matters is the load voltage.
i havent seen a cpu crash in idle cause vcore was too low, in idle even very low vcore is fine at high overclocks, its load vcore that matters.
if you need more vcore then its usually because as soon as the cpu starts crunching it doesnt get enough juice.

Marvel Controller:



Intel Controller:

thats with 2 SATA 75gb raptors in raid0 right?
so they are both about the same... i wonder how much faster sas is tho, havent seen any numbers myself.. been playing with sas here, but havent had time to bench.

Noob question incoming... get your facepalms ready

What is EIST? (is it speed step? is it needed to use turbo mode?)

My Bloodrage comes in on Thursday and I am prepping myself for the project and this has me confused.

Ok I'm done witht he noob questions back to reading. I'm in information overload and alot of these terms are basically a foreign language to me coming from an AMD rig.
Thanks!

turbo mode is basicaly reverse thermal throttling.
if your cpu gets too hot, itwill reduce the multiplier, right?
well to understand turbo mode better, imagine it like this.
a core i7 920 is actually not a 2666mhz (20x133) cpu but a 2933mhz (22x133) cpu! since, as we all know, i7 runs quite hot, its throttling to 2666mhz (20x133) all the time. UNLESS the temperature is ok and the current draw is ok... then it can run at 21 or 22...

turbo+1 works with all cores active
turbo+2 only works if 3 cores are idle/disabled

yes it is speedstep, i don't know if its needed for turbo on the bloodrage tho, some boards need it, some don't

all boards need eist for turbo, the cpu needs it, but some have added an option and call it disable eist which stops the cpu from throttling in idle mode, but turbo still working. basically we do the same but call it "turbo always on" mode... think about it, in that mode the cpu will not drop the multi in idle like EIST does, and you can still run turbo mode and turbo multipliers...
others might call this EIST disabled+turbo enabled...

EIST isnt disabled though, so we prefered to call things the way they are and not the way its easier for people to understand, as it might end up misleading and confusing them and helps spreading misinformation and misonceptions.

i recommend you guys to keep HT off... really, there is no single real workd scenario/game ive seen that benefits from it, it actually slows some apps and games down, and what it mostly is does is just heat up your cpu and burn some extra 10-20W. if your on air this is very crucial as disabling ht might reduce your temps enough to push higher vcore and get a higher oc, which, admittedly, wont have a big impact either since i7 is a damn fast cpu and we are anything but cpu limited nowadays, but its more of a boost than having ht on...

[Rammsteiner]

so vdroop disabled does work fine, almost no fluctuation there, right?
dont get what you mean regarding what the point of vdroop is...
vdroop is necessary for the pwm since we are pulling a huge current out of it and keeping the voltage 100% stable while switching from load to idle would hurt the cpu and the pwm. thats why vdroop disabled still has some droop, if it would be disabled completely it would damage the cpu and pwm in the long run.

I guess I misunderstood the point of the whole feature then. I thought, if enabled, it should actually be lowering Vdrop as much as possible, basicly keeping Volts stable at all times.

But I noticed that when it's enabled the Vcore fluctated only more between load and idle than when it was disabled.

But if some Vdroop is needed to prevent the board/CPU from dieing, then why is there a warning message in BIOS saying enabling this might hurt the board? Cause yeah, with disabled the Voltage is a lot more stable, still varies, but with enabled the Voltage can differ a whole 0.05~0.06V.

why not? the only thing that matters is the load voltage.
i havent seen a cpu crash in idle cause vcore was too low, in idle even very low vcore is fine at high overclocks, its load vcore that matters.
if you need more vcore then its usually because as soon as the cpu starts crunching it doesnt get enough juice.

As said, I guess I misunderstood the whole point of the feature to begin with I always thought you'd want the Vcore to be as stable as possible when OC'ing, so hardly no fluctuations.

Anyway, so what do you recommend then? Vdroop Control Enabled or Disabled? Cause Im confused which one to use now along with the warning message in BIOS saying enabling it might hurt the board, but at the same time with having it enabled the Vcore sky rockets under load, pretty much doing what you said was good (different Idle/Load Volts regarding Amps).

[rwoodburn1]

Thanks for reply saaya .I tried what you said but It didn't help.I have no problems achieving the 4.4 with decent temps at a lower multiplier but I just cant get past 24 with this bios.Here is a pic of temps and voltage with a lower multiplier.

[ANTC]

^ nice overclock man

[Utnorris]

So I just want to make sure I understand a few things Saaya:

EIST has to be enabled in order for turbo mode to work, correct? And all though other MFG's allow you to disable it, you really are not disabling it, is this correct?

You recommend HT off because real world software doesn't take advantage of it, is that correct? If so, then why does my Sony Studio 9 show it using all 8 threads when it is running?

Vdroop enabled means that the voltage to the CPU fluctuates, correct? Or do I have it backwards?

And you are recommending that you do have vdroop fluctuation for a better overclock unlike EVGA, Asus or Gigabyte, which recommend you enable Load Line Calibration in order to stabilize the voltage for a better/stable overclock, am I understanding you correctly? If I am, why do recommend that?

Are you saying 1.5v vcore is safe for the cpu? My understanding was that 1.45v vcore was the max Intel recommended, not saying we don't exceed that, I am just trying to understand yours and Foxconn's position on this.

I am just trying to figure out some things about this board since mine will be here Tuesday and I do not want to be let down with this board. This is suppose to be the "Ultimate" overclocking board and just plain bad a**. I currently have the EVGA and I have played with the Gigabyte Extreme. The EVGA is awesome, easy to overclock, stable bios and great support. The Gigabyte, not so much, rough bios' and the support is lacking. What can I expect from this board? Will I be pulling what little hair I have left out or will I be praising Foxconn? I am currently at 200blck x19 on my EVGA and with turbo and HT on which puts me at an effective 4.2Ghz clock. It was pretty easy to do, but I am expecting to hit higher on this board, is it wishful thinking?

Understand that I am just trying to set my expectations for this board and that if it isn't the right board for me then fine I will move on. Some of the statements from your last post seem to be opposite of other posts/threads and statements that I have read from various sources and I just want to make sure I understand correctly.

Thank you.

[rwoodburn1]

One more issue with p06 .My computer does not shut all the way off now.When I power down it puts windows to sleep instread of shutting completely down.Any body else having this issue?

[MpG]

Yeah, mine does that too. Kind of convenient, actually. I wasn't sure whether this was some Vista quirk or the board itself, but nothing's been hurt so far. I think it was doing it with G19a as well, but can't recall, I didn't have that bios loaded for very long.

[saaya]

I guess I misunderstood the point of the whole feature then. I thought, if enabled, it should actually be lowering Vdrop as much as possible, basicly keeping Volts stable at all times.

vdroop is the voltage fluctuating between idle and load, thats a design requirement from intel, trying to keep the voltage stable all the time when switching from idle to load would hurt the cpu and pwm alike.

the current the cpu sucks when going to load is huge, and the change is so fast that, as far as i got it, its physically impossible for the pwm to react fast enough to keep the voltage stable. it can try, but if it does that, the voltage drops quickly as soon as the cpu goes under load, then the pwm pulls it up agressively to compensate for it, then the voltage spikes up, spikes down, up and down until it stabilizes. you wont see this on the hw monitor or even with a digital multimeter, only a scope can meassure it afaik.

think of it this way, your holding an empty tablet in front of you (no load/idle) and your goal is to keep it at the same hight (same voltage).
as soon as somebody drops lets say a phone book on it (sudden load), you will either drop the tablet a bit, or you will actually pull the tablet up slightly since you push too hard.its the same with pwms... the harder you try to keep the voltage at the same level the higher the chance you actually pull it too high or have it drop a bit, at least for a short period.

NOW, this is all with you seeing things, you can see when somebody drops the phonebook, and you can see the tablets position and after some time you will have learned to adjust for the load of the phone book and the speed it falls with. a pwm can NOT see the phone book falling! So more realistically, imagine the whole situation with your eyes closed...
now imagine how hard it is to keep the tablet at the same level when all the sudden a phone book falls on it

and a pwm doesnt face the same load all the time!
picture the same secnario, with closed eyes, and sometimes somebody drops a cd on the tablet, sometimes a wallet, and sometimes 3 phone books... so, i think that gives you an idea why its not easy to keep vcore balanced, and why the harder you try to keep the change from idle to load close to zero and the voltage at the same level, the more you might pull the voltage higher than it should be or have it drop more than it should be.

voltage changes are not that important, and idle voltage is not that important, what matters is having the voltage stable once you load the cpu. and there is a complex design of capacitors, power planes, traces, and capacitors on the board and pcb package of the cpu again, and then a mesh of power and ground pins inside the cpu pcb package that irons out fluctuations very well. so even if you see vcore fluctuating, chances are the cpu never saw it.

again ,keep in mind that monitoring voltages via the hardware monitor is far from reliable, it could read a stable flat voltage but actually its not, and it can read fluctuations that arent actually there for the cpu since the voltage is read at a diferent spot than the cpu socket, or, the hw monitor chip or algorythm is simply unreliable and tends to fluctuate even though the reading is stable.

sorry for the long post :P

to sum it up:
vdroop = voltage change between idle and load
vdroop compensation = try to keep vdroop as low as possible
basicall vdroop compensation makes the pwm try harder to keep the voltage at the same level between idle and load.

the only way to improve this is having a faster feedback from the cpu to the pwm, to warn it as soon as it goes into load. thats basically what VRD12 is about that intel will introduce in H2-10 the way i got it. the cpu will communicate directly with the pwm controller, and the next step after that is probably the cpu having the pwm controller integrated. another point is that intel can watch over the voltages its chips get that way, but until the fully integrate the pwm into the cpu package or cpu, we will always find a way to trick them :P hehe

But I noticed that when it's enabled the Vcore fluctated only more between load and idle than when it was disabled.

is that with CxE enabled?
probably, right? in that case, what happens is that the cpu tells the pwm "im under load, i want more voltage please" and thats why it fluctuates.
core i7 has a dynamic vid adjustment which is basically intels way of forcing droop
the cpu will ask for higher vcore under load than in idle, it will change the vid just as it does hen it switches to power saving mode with 6x multi and lower vcore. to stop this, disable CxE...

But if some Vdroop is needed to prevent the board/CPU from dieing, then why is there a warning message in BIOS saying enabling this might hurt the board? Cause yeah, with disabled the Voltage is a lot more stable, still varies, but with enabled the Voltage can differ a whole 0.05~0.06V.

the option is not vdroop, the option is vdroop compensation as in telling the board/pwm "fight vdroop as good as you can"

and the fact that it causes more voltage fluctuations is most likely because it changes the vid to ask for more vcore under load.

As said, I guess I misunderstood the whole point of the feature to begin with I always thought you'd want the Vcore to be as stable as possible when OC'ing, so hardly no fluctuations.

yes, thats true to some point, but there is no pwm that could do this the way i understood it, and trying to do this will make the pwm overreact and voltages will shoot too high and then drop and wiggle around for a few fractions of a second every time the load changes, which in effect is worse than having is drop or increase slightly between idle and load.

like i said, what matters is stable load voltage, you can ignore idle voltages as they usually dont matter, i havent seen a cpu crash in idle cause idle vcore was too low, and having a high or low idle vcore doesnt mean a thing, what matters is if the cpu is stable under load, and what voltage it runs at under load
i never studdied anything remotely related to engineering, so dont stone me if im wrong! but thats how i understood what a bunch of engineers from different companies explained to me over the time.

Anyway, so what do you recommend then? Vdroop Control Enabled or Disabled? Cause Im confused which one to use now along with the warning message in BIOS saying enabling it might hurt the board, but at the same time with having it enabled the Vcore sky rockets under load, pretty much doing what you said was good (different Idle/Load Volts regarding Amps).

try both, it actually shouldnt make a difference if the resulting load vcore is the same, the max stable speed should be the same as well. the only difference really is rather that the voltage changes between idle and load, and unless your cpu needs vcore to be almost the same in idle as in load to be stable, there is no need to enable vdroop compensation actually... for all i could care vcore could drop .2v in idle or jump up .2v in idle, both wouldnt really matter since the cpu barely draws current in idle. lower is of course better since it saves a tiny bit of power...

Thanks for reply saaya .I tried what you said but It didn't help.I have no problems achieving the 4.4 with decent temps at a lower multiplier but I just cant get past 24 with this bios.Here is a pic of temps and voltage with a lower multiplier.

did you adjust the tdp tdc settings in bios?
everest reads les than 130W max tdp, which is lower than default...
not sure if it reads it correctly, but i think it does.
please increase the setting and check with everest, it should be 150W or more depending on how high of a vcore your running and how high your ocing the cpu, then any multiplier will work fine on a 965

So I just want to make sure I understand a few things Saaya:

EIST has to be enabled in order for turbo mode to work, correct? And all though other MFG's allow you to disable it, you really are not disabling it, is this correct?

as far as i know, yes... i asked the nehalem lead architect at idf last year, turbo is basically a EIST p-state, right? and he said yes... turbo works through eist. thats how its explained in all the intel docs as well...

You recommend HT off because real world software doesn't take advantage of it, is that correct? If so, then why does my Sony Studio 9 show it using all 8 threads when it is running?

there are some few apps that do use 8 threads, that doesnt mean its faster though... if it is, and you use that app a lot, then sure, keep it on. im just saying there are barely any apps that can even use more than 4 cores/threads... most apps and games struggle to use more than 1 core efficiently at the moment... there are games that use 4 cores, like assesins creed, but they dont nearly max them all out and barely get a perf boost from having extra cores. so if you can clock less cores higher by disabling additional ones, then it will most likely end up faster than having many cores barely beeing used running at a lower clockspeed. thats the whole idea behind turbo mode... intel realized that most apps are single threaded and run faster with one high clocked core compared to several lower clocked cores.

Vdroop enabled means that the voltage to the CPU fluctuates, correct? Or do I have it backwards?

vdroop is always enabled, its a design requirement for intel boards, amd as well...

vdroop compensation enabled means vcore should fluctuate less between idle and load. but like i said, if you keep CxE enabled, the cpu will request higher voltage by jumping up to a different vid state, which will make the voltage fluctuate even more as those steps are bigger.

And you are recommending that you do have vdroop fluctuation for a better overclock unlike EVGA, Asus or Gigabyte, which recommend you enable Load Line Calibration in order to stabilize the voltage for a better/stable overclock, am I understanding you correctly? If I am, why do recommend that?

only asus calls it load line calibration afaik, but yes. the thing is this, if we would follow intels spec on vdroop, then vcore would fluctuate a whole lot more, and would most likely cause problems for overclocking. disabling it makes things better, but hurts the pwm and the cpu. what we did instead is adjust vdroop so it DOES droop, but not nearly as much as intel calls for in their spec. and you can reduce the droop even more by enabling vdroop compensation.

Are you saying 1.5v vcore is safe for the cpu? My understanding was that 1.45v vcore was the max Intel recommended, not saying we don't exceed that, I am just trying to understand yours and Foxconn's position on this.

my position is that 1.6v+ is safe as long as the cpu is kept cool, foxconns position is probably "why are you increasing vcore? thats dangerous!"

I am just trying to figure out some things about this board since mine will be here Tuesday and I do not want to be let down with this board. This is suppose to be the "Ultimate" overclocking board and just plain bad a**. I currently have the EVGA and I have played with the Gigabyte Extreme. The EVGA is awesome, easy to overclock, stable bios and great support. The Gigabyte, not so much, rough bios' and the support is lacking. What can I expect from this board? Will I be pulling what little hair I have left out or will I be praising Foxconn? I am currently at 200blck x19 on my EVGA and with turbo and HT on which puts me at an effective 4.2Ghz clock. It was pretty easy to do, but I am expecting to hit higher on this board, is it wishful thinking?

hmmmm to tell you the truth, overclocking wise most boards seem to be very close to each other... like i said, there has been a hype for beefy pwms for a while and all current highend boards have very good pwms, so theres no big difference there...
at a certain point more just doesnt help anymore...

i dont like the bios layout of the gigabyte tbh, and the board layout either... i havent played with the evga but the bios i saw was ok, a bit simple but fine i guess... and the board layout and design seems good too. im curious how you will like BloodRage actually
i dont want to lie to you, evga has a very nice tool, while aegis panel is a bit unstable and buggy, so thats a drawback...
Another thing is that we are still tweaking the bios to get higher than 222 bclocks working. on the evga asus dfi and giga boards you can get 10mhz higher bclocks stable, maybe 20 under ln2... thats no big difference and for aircooling it wont make a difference even with 920s which are bclock limited.
some people still think higher bclock means better perf, but actually thats not the case. its a pure reference clock now, and if you run a lower multi with higher bclock and have cpu clocks, mem clocks and all other clocks the same, there wont be a difference in performance.

on ln2 and compressor cooling it makes a difference with 920s if you have a good one as the extra bclocks might help you to get an extra 200mhz cpu overclock. then again, if your benching ln2 or have a compressor cooping you will most likely be benching a 940 at least, so then bclocks dont matter again.
But we are working on it and should have 10mhz higher bclocks soon as well
i personally like the BloodRage the best of course, but thats cause its my baby to a big degree
better design, watercooling ready, better bios layout, more bios options, better cpu pwm, better mem pwm, better pcb layout for sli and xfire (free slot between the first 16x slots) 4 pciE 16x slots if you want to run tri sli or tri xfire (watercooled) possibly with a raid card, and pci soundcard, and a pciE x1 tv card
or quad xfire with 4 single slot cards, plus pci plus pciE cards...

Understand that I am just trying to set my expectations for this board and that if it isn't the right board for me then fine I will move on. Some of the statements from your last post seem to be opposite of other posts/threads and statements that I have read from various sources and I just want to make sure I understand correctly.
Thank you.

no worries
if there is anything you dont like about BloodRage or dont understand, just let me know!

One more issue with p06 .My computer does not shut all the way off now.When I power down it puts windows to sleep instread of shutting completely down.Any body else having this issue?

hmmm thats a vista thing i think?
ive always hated that, the default option is sleep mode...
weird that this changed when updating the bios though...
can you stil shut down if you click on the power button and then select shut down?

Yeah, mine does that too. Kind of convenient, actually. I wasn't sure whether this was some Vista quirk or the board itself, but nothing's been hurt so far. I think it was doing it with G19a as well, but can't recall, I didn't have that bios loaded for very long.

[rwoodburn1]

saaya I have tried tdp tdc without any changes took it up slowly even to 300w.Still nothing past 24x multiplier posts with p06.Here is a pic of 150 I have 29x set in bios.On the sleep mode issue, no my power button doesn't work.I have to hit the button on my backup to shut down now.Seriously thinking of RMA.

[saaya]

I have tried 2000 and 3000 tdp tdc without any changes.Should I go higher ? Is it safe to do so?On the sleep mode issue, no my power button doesn't work.I have to hit the button on my backup to shut down now.

button on the backup... what do you mean?
which button doesnt work? the button on the board or the vista power button in the task bar?

what if you use a lower setting? does everest read that correctly?
maybe the setting is too high already? hmmm

[rwoodburn1]

The button on my battery back up is the only I can turn off power to board now my case button has no effect either.When I shut windows down my fans and lights stay on but monitor goes off .Here is a pic of 150w result .Still stuck at 24.I didnt really explain properly.I tried several settings for tdc tdp even higher than 150w

[Rammsteiner]

Saaya, a hell of a long post but I fully understand it now, thx a lot

Ill keep it disabled then since there's basicly no reason to have it enabled. I did have it enabled but the difference between idle and load was in some cases huge, 0.5V! Although, idle and load Voltages were higher to start with when it was disabled, but FWIW that's all read by CPU-Z.

Im slightly dissapointed in my system though Ive beautfull components, but the Uncore refuses to work at high speeds 4.3Ghz requires quite some Volts compared to 4.2Ghz, but I tried hard getting 20x210 instead of 21x200, but it's a no go. I tried lowering Uncore multiplier (with RAM being 50% of that of course) which worked, but what's the point of DDR1260 RAM

[BenchZowner]

Saaya, a hell of a long post but I fully understand it now, thx a lot

Ill keep it disabled then since there's basicly no reason to have it enabled. I did have it enabled but the difference between idle and load was in some cases huge, 0.5V! Although, idle and load Voltages were higher to start with when it was disabled, but FWIW that's all read by CPU-Z.

Im slightly dissapointed in my system though Ive beautfull components, but the Uncore refuses to work at high speeds 4.3Ghz requires quite some Volts compared to 4.2Ghz, but I tried hard getting 20x210 instead of 21x200, but it's a no go. I tried lowering Uncore multiplier (with RAM being 50% of that of course) which worked, but what's the point of DDR1260 RAM

The UnCore frequency depends on the Vram ( DDR3 Voltage ).
Higher ram voltages allow the UnCore to gain stability at higher frequencies.
And of course, the maximum UnCore stable frequency depends on the CPU itself and not the board.
And keep in mind that there's nearly a wall on every i7's UnCore freq on air, restricted by the temps ( need to go subzero to be able to get pushed any further ) and not the voltages.

[Rammsteiner]

The UnCore frequency depends on the Vram ( DDR3 Voltage ).
Higher ram voltages allow the UnCore to gain stability at higher frequencies.
And of course, the maximum UnCore stable frequency depends on the CPU itself and not the board.
And keep in mind that there's nearly a wall on every i7's UnCore freq on air, restricted by the temps ( need to go subzero to be able to get pushed any further ) and not the voltages.

Im on water

But... in what terms of Vdimm are we speaking here, cause 1.75Vdimm didnt do it Also wtf is the scaling of Uncore then? Cause it's stable at 16x200, but 16x210 isnt like a lot more

[saaya]

The button on my battery back up is the only I can turn off power to board now my case button has no effect either.When I shut windows down my fans and lights stay on but monitor goes off .Here is a pic of 150w result .Still stuck at 24.I didnt really explain properly.I tried several settings for tdc tdp even higher than 150w

hmmm thats odd... so... you can use higher multis but under load it drops to 24? or you cant even use higher multis at all?
weird...

Saaya, a hell of a long post but I fully understand it now, thx a lot

well you understand what i mean
that doesnt necessarily mean its the truth, i always recommend taking everything with a grain of salt and question everybody and everything, even, and especially, the proven things and people! cause those are the things and people that tend to not get questioned.

Ill keep it disabled then since there's basicly no reason to have it enabled. I did have it enabled but the difference between idle and load was in some cases huge, 0.5V! Although, idle and load Voltages were higher to start with when it was disabled, but FWIW that's all read by CPU-Z.

hmmm but i think cpuz eads pretty accurately on BR... can you please try with CxE disabled and vdroop enabled and check? it should be much better then

Im slightly dissapointed in my system though Ive beautfull components, but the Uncore refuses to work at high speeds 4.3Ghz requires quite some Volts compared to 4.2Ghz, but I tried hard getting 20x210 instead of 21x200, but it's a no go. I tried lowering Uncore multiplier (with RAM being 50% of that of course) which worked, but what's the point of DDR1260 RAM

yeah uncore is a big limit for i7... im sure without that 2 to 1 limit to mem clock we would be seeing DDR3 3000 already... at huge timings, but still...

heres a hint, i heard 1156 has a 1.5 to 1 limit, so higher mem clocks with lower uncore will be possible

from what ive seen the realworld impact of mem ocing on i7 is tiny... ocing uncore seems to be a bigger boost than ocing memory itself.
and in some scenarios low speed tight timings seem to be better and other benchmarks/apps pefer high speeds with lax timings...
on x48 you could run low speed tight timings and high speed high timings and get about the same perf... the fastest was 1800 cas6, the second fastest was around 2000 cas7... i havent played that intensively with i7s imc yet, so im not sure about this stuff with i7... but i saw that tony from ocz focussed on low speed tight timings instead of high speed high timings when tweaking his i7 system...

from what ive seen most seem to aim for 2000+ cas7, still, same as on x48... so for that 4ghz uncore is more than enough... if you want more then you need to go subzero afaik... and you need a good cpu, the newer ones can run notably higher uncore with lower vtt, ive heard of 4ghz on water with 1.2v vtt not sure if that was 100% stable though...

The UnCore frequency depends on the Vram ( DDR3 Voltage ).
Higher ram voltages allow the UnCore to gain stability at higher frequencies.
And of course, the maximum UnCore stable frequency depends on the CPU itself and not the board.
And keep in mind that there's nearly a wall on every i7's UnCore freq on air, restricted by the temps ( need to go subzero to be able to get pushed any further ) and not the voltages.

vtt and vdimm, yes...with good mem that doesnt need high vdimm you can reach huge speeds without much vdimm, so in my experience vdimm is mostly needed if the mem needs it, not the uncore. but its similar to x48, more chipset voltage got you a higher mem clock stable or the same clock stable with less vdimm. its about the same with vtt and vdimm on i7. naturally... its most likely the same memory controller...

and the x48 memory controller stopped scaling around 1.8v, and for i7 it seems to be around 1.7v, slightly less...

and just like with x48, the first chipsets needed high voltages, some even 2v, and the later the stepping the less chipset voltage they needed to be maxed out, the latest x48 chips can do high mem clocks with 1.4v... same with i7, the first chips needed high vtt for high uncore and mem clocks, the more recent ones can do it with much less vtt...

Im on water

But... in what terms of Vdimm are we speaking here, cause 1.75Vdimm didnt do it Also wtf is the scaling of Uncore then? Cause it's stable at 16x200, but 16x210 isnt like a lot more

what are your cpu clocks?
i think uncore doesnt clock well if its above cpu clockspeed?
maybe thats why it needs so much vtt to get higher...

did anybody ever check how the efficiency is with uncore clocked the same as core compared to higher or lower? i remember anandtech did that but only briefly and they didnt check it at high overclocked speeds with fast mem speeds...

[Rammsteiner]

hmmm but i think cpuz eads pretty accurately on BR... can you please try with CxE disabled and vdroop enabled and check? it should be much better then

I always had CxE disabled

yeah uncore is a big limit for i7... im sure without that 2 to 1 limit to mem clock we would be seeing DDR3 3000 already... at huge timings, but still...

heres a hint, i heard 1156 has a 1.5 to 1 limit, so higher mem clocks with lower uncore will be possible

from what ive seen the realworld impact of mem ocing on i7 is tiny... ocing uncore seems to be a bigger boost than ocing memory itself.
and in some scenarios low speed tight timings seem to be better and other benchmarks/apps pefer high speeds with lax timings...
on x48 you could run low speed tight timings and high speed high timings and get about the same perf... the fastest was 1800 cas6, the second fastest was around 2000 cas7... i havent played that intensively with i7s imc yet, so im not sure about this stuff with i7... but i saw that tony from ocz focussed on low speed tight timings instead of high speed high timings when tweaking his i7 system...

from what ive seen most seem to aim for 2000+ cas7, still, same as on x48... so for that 4ghz uncore is more than enough... if you want more then you need to go subzero afaik... and you need a good cpu, the newer ones can run notably higher uncore with lower vtt, ive heard of 4ghz on water with 1.2v vtt not sure if that was 100% stable though...

Im not even pushing for DDR2000 lol, Im fine with DDR1600~1700. But yeah, my Uncore runs at 3.2 now, with a Blck of 210 it would run what, like 3.36Ghz. But it just refuses to, tried around 1.4VTT, 1.75Vdimm, just no way, C1 error.

Set RAM multi to 6 but still C1, which pretty much makes the only suspect Uncore Now if RAM multi at 6 would be worth while but it ain't regarding latencies (DDR1260 with tCL6)

Weird thing is, my Uncore does 3.2Ghz with +100mV and 1.65Vdimm, but upto +300mV and upto 1.75Vdimm it just doesnt do it

what are your cpu clocks?
i think uncore doesnt clock well if its above cpu clockspeed?
maybe thats why it needs so much vtt to get higher...

did anybody ever check how the efficiency is with uncore clocked the same as core compared to higher or lower? i remember anandtech did that but only briefly and they didnt check it at high overclocked speeds with fast mem speeds...

My CPU is at 4.2Ghz, 21x200. But I'd rather have 20x210 for the increased Uncore and RAM speeds, but whatever I do, no way. Sometimes it doesnt come up with a C1 error but simply BSOD's after POST or just before log on, even tried to increase Vcore a bit incase CPU likes more Volts with a higher Blck

[Lu(ky]

Does anyone know if the Kingston 6GB HyperX DDR3 2000MHz will work on this board?

Thanks saaya I want to make sure before I spend $400.00 bucks...

[M.I.K.E.Y]

Hi Gys,
maybe i am Blind or a retard but i d'hont see/have the option TURBO ALWAYS ON ??????? I just see ON or OFF ??? :-(
I use the PO6