***Asus Rampage III Extreme Owners Thread***

[nightwoodwolf]

Hey guys, been running prime95 for 6 hours with these settings, guess i am gonna keep it for my 24/7 ... next weekend gonna try to push the RAM further hopefully without upping the voltage much.

[donmarkoni]

@[200], dejanbinladen, GunGod

I was intrigued by same question @i4memory, so I did some researching.

I found pictures of 5 different board revisions (1.00G, 1.00GT, 1.03GT, 1.04G, 1.04GT), but there could be up to 10, if you see the pattern.
1.04G is probably the final and most used. CPU-Z says rev. 2.xx for it, but I saw it says 1.xx on some pictures, probably on older revisions.

[borntowin]

@[200], dejanbinladen, GunGod

I was intrigued by same question @i4memory, so I did some researching.

I found pictures of 5 different board revisions (1.00G, 1.00GT, 1.03GT, 1.04G, 1.04GT), but there could be up to 10, if you see the pattern.
1.04G is probably the final and most used. CPU-Z says rev. 2.xx for it, but I saw it says 1.xx on some pictures, probably on older revisions.

Sorry, just maybe you guys can tell me where exactly you spotted the version number of the board. Again I am sorry as I my eyes somewhere bit screw up.

[donmarkoni]

Sorry, just maybe you guys can tell me where exactly you spotted the version number of the board. Again I am sorry as I my eyes somewhere bit screw up.

Between NB-CPU and RAM says "RAMPAGE III EXTREME", revision is just under "...EME"

[borntowin]

Between NB-CPU and RAM says "RAMPAGE III EXTREME", revision is just under "...EME"

Thank you for the helping hand. Kudos.

[carl_lazlo]

I am stuck with a few questions about my Asus rampage III extreme:

1. Is there any form of digital input on this board? I was able to get the toslink optical digital output working but i can't seem to find a digital input. is there one available?

2. Building RAID arrays with the 6 Intel Sata II ports. Can I build multiple RAID arrays using individual Sata ports? i.e Build a RAID 0 with Sata ports 0 and 1. Then build a raid 5 array with Sata ports 2-6.

Thanks in advance for the advice.

Adam

[DOM.]

load line calibration, it "stabilizes" your qpi voltage droop

if you dont move the jummper what you set in the bios the qpi is still going to be lower untill you move it

Yep ++++1 on this, can someone show where to measure the QPI PLL ?

read the manual

the spot are by the power button

[donmarkoni]

read the manual

the spot are by the power button

Well, you should read it, or at least look at the board, cause there is no voltage read point for QPI PLL.

Should I laugh now?

[DOM.]

Well, you should read it, or at least look at the board, cause there is no voltage read point for QPI PLL.

Should I laugh now?

i just saw qpi haha but there is qpi/dram and cpu/pll

[spoolindsm127]

Well, you should read it, or at least look at the board, cause there is no voltage read point for QPI PLL.

Should I laugh now?

I got a good laugh for ya

I found pictures of 5 different board revisions (1.00G, 1.00GT, 1.03GT, 1.04G, 1.04GT), but there could be up to 10, if you see the pattern.
1.04G is probably the final and most used. CPU-Z says rev. 2.xx for it, but I saw it says 1.xx on some pictures, probably on older revisions.

Whoa had no clue there were so many different revisions. I remember when this topic was brought up in the past, we concluded that there was only one known revision (1.04G) that some boards showed as 1.xx or 2.xx in CPU-Z.

Which revision do you have Don?

Also what kind of IOH voltage are you guys using for a 100% stale (100+ Pass) LinX overclock with baseclock at or near 200?

This is a bit off topic but can anyone tell me why does the R3E set the BCLK to 200.45 whereas in some screenshots of other boards (e.g. UD9) you see those boards showing a perfectly even 200.00 baseclock? Something to do with R3E's Digi+Analog VRM? At stock baseclock of 133 it's actually set at 133.50, so I like to use baseclocks where I get a similar frequency. 200 is 200.45 whereas 202 baseclock is 202.50. I have no evidence to support this but it feels better to me to use the more rounded baseclocks. Any thoughts on why the R3E is like this?

[donmarkoni]

I tested various parameters for the OC, if I lower the cpu-pll to 1.81v to 1.55v, should I increase the Vcore to be stable

Better to increase the cpu-pll or Vcore?


and does the cpu-pll to 1.55v is not dangerous for a 970?

thanks

The reason for lowering CPU PLL is to not increase vCore. The best is to keep them both low.
I'm testing right now, but it looks to me my CPU "likes" 1.35V CPU PLL the most at 4.5GHz.
But no matter where you set CPU PLL sometimes you just need to increase vCore to stabilize CPU.

Should not be dangerous. I ran my 970 at 1.2V CPU PLL for 2 month and it's fine. If someone did it for longer, should advise.

I got a good laugh for ya



Whoa had no clue there were so many different revisions. I remember when this topic was brought up in the past, we concluded that there was only one known revision (1.04G) that some boards showed as 1.xx or 2.xx in CPU-Z.

Which revision do you have Don?

Also what kind of IOH voltage are you guys using for a 100% stale (100+ Pass) LinX overclock with baseclock at or near 200?

This is a bit off topic but can anyone tell me why does the R3E set the BCLK to 200.45 whereas in some screenshots of other boards (e.g. UD9) you see those boards showing a perfectly even 200.00 baseclock? Something to do with R3E's Digi+Analog VRM? At stock baseclock of 133 it's actually set at 133.50, so I like to use baseclocks where I get a similar frequency. 200 is 200.45 whereas 202 baseclock is 202.50. I have no evidence to support this but it feels better to me to use the more rounded baseclocks. Any thoughts on why the R3E is like this?

Replied to you at the other forum.

[tistou77]

The reason for lowering CPU PLL is to not increase vCore. The best is to keep them both low.
I'm testing right now, but it looks to me my CPU "likes" 1.35V CPU PLL the most at 4.5GHz.
But no matter where you set CPU PLL sometimes you just need to increase vCore to stabilize CPU.

Should not be dangerous. I ran my 970 at 1.2V CPU PLL for 2 month and it's fine. If someone did it for longer, should advise.

that's what I understood, to lower the CPU-PLL could avoid increasing the Vcore,
in my case, I can increase the Vcore ... (Putting the cpu-pll of 1.81 to 1.55v)

but I'll leave it at that

Vcore: 1.337v instead of 1.333v
cpu-pll: 1.55v instead of 1.81v

thanks

[dejanbinladen]

if you dont move the jummper what you set in the bios the qpi is still going to be lower untill you move it

it should be more stable not drooping like when jumper is off

[tistou77]

I tested various parameters for the OC, if I lower the cpu-pll to 1.81v to 1.55v, should I increase the Vcore to be stable

Better to increase the cpu-pll or Vcore?


and does the cpu-pll to 1.55v is not dangerous for a 970?

thanks