ASRock X670E Steel Legend Motherboard Needs Hundreds of Seconds at First Boot or Clear CMOS to Train Memory

[Max(IT)]

The Fury X will be an overclocker's dream, and so will AM5!

Based on what ? AMD historically never has been an overclocker’s dream (if overclocking still makes any sense at all…).

 

[kapone32]

The same effect was seen on TR4 when the 2nd Gen came out the 2920x would take about 3 minutes (180 seconds) to cold boot after install. If the CPUs are still responsive to RAM speed this could be a good omen.

Based on what ? AMD historically never has been an overclocker’s dream (if overclocking still makes any sense at all…).

You mean AM4.

 

[ymdhis]

You misunderstood, first boot or cmos clear. Not every boot.

I did a cmos clear and installed new cpu + RAM in my b550m steel legend just last week, and it booted as fast as it normally did (around 10 sec).

 

[1d10t]

Bla..bla AMD ..yap yap...

This clearly ASRock's fault, they've been notoriously inflating their number and extremely finicky with memory timings. Heck even 1usmus's DRAM Calculator for Ryzen doesn't work at all.

I'm using ASRock B550M Steel Legend and back then, GSkill Flare X 3200MHz CL14 had trouble booting even at stock speed, let alone overclocked say at 3466Mhz and thus, I choose to live with loosely timing Team Dark α .

It's not even their high end, Taichi or OC Fomula for this matter, this is Steel Legends targeting casual user. If you want memory overclocking I suggest you look no further than MSI or Asus, as Gigabyte seem to fall in same ballpark as ASRock.

edit :

Update Sep 2nd: The source behind this story confirmed that this is an ASRock-level issue, and that it's been "fixed" with the latest BIOS.

Who would've thunk

 

[mama]

400 seconds?


I'd assume it was dead and have it packed away for an RMA by then


And you're already proven wrong, it's an asrock only bug that's already been fixed in a BIOS update

I was being sarcastic.

 

[ARF]

I'm using ASRock B550M Steel Legend and back then, GSkill Flare X 3200MHz CL14 had trouble booting even at stock speed, let alone overclocked say at 3466Mhz and thus, I choose to live with loosely timing Team Dark α .

It's not even their high end, Taichi or OC Fomula for this matter, this is Steel Legends targeting casual user. If you want memory overclocking I suggest you look no further than MSI or Asus, as Gigabyte seem to fall in same ballpark as ASRock.

Update the BIOS to the very latest version!
Then check the timings numbers under the SPD tab (which is the next one on your CPU-Z screenshot), and go to BIOS in order to make the timings as shown in the SPD tab!

No way 82 clocks for the tRC Bank Cycle Time!

 

[TheDeeGee]

Much like myself in the morning, i used to be able to sprint out of bed 25 years ago.

 

[jesdals]

"I’ll be avoiding first gen am5 like the plague"

I just want stability and good usability.

I second that - I love the move towards the AM5 socket and DDR 5 - but I do not fancy these new chipsets and the prospect of being beta tester for DDR5

 

[AM4isGOD]

I really think it is worth waiting at least a month or two rather than jumping on AM5 on release.

 

[1d10t]

Update the BIOS to the very latest version!
Then check the timings numbers under the SPD tab (which is the next one on your CPU-Z screenshot), and go to BIOS in order to make the timings as shown in the SPD tab!

No way 82 clocks for the tRC Bank Cycle Time!

Been fiddling with RAM since the dawn of DDR with Micron CL 1 and its glory, but no , that's not the point.
AMD release AGESA PI 1.2.0.7 back in June and until now ASrock still stuck in Beta phase, so no update (yet).
RAM overclocking is heavily dependant on divider, clock multiplier, etc it's boiled down to motherboard, why updating BIOS will make any differences? Just grab Asus or MSI for RAM overclocking.

 

[Valantar]

Whatever the reason for this is, it's clearly not acceptable. These aren't server boards, people don't generally keep their PCs on 24/7, and boot times - even after a CMOS reset - need to be snappy.

 

[mahirzukic2]

If the thermal paste is getting bad, you'll see it by checking the temperatures. I believe most quality pastes should last 3 years, but if it's older than that it's wise to replace it anyways.


Server and workstation boards have extensive POSTs, even mainstream boards get longer POSTs if you turn off quick boot (I usually do, I want it to fail if there is something wrong.). But this isn't memory training though, more like PCIe device validation etc.

I have never ever turned off the quick boot. A few times I've seen the PC booting up slowly. After some examination I switched the quick boot to ON.
I don't see what kind of errors would it give you which wouldn't be present otherwise (quick boot = ON).

And so the magic of 'new platform fetures' begin

I'm going with a 64gb ddr5 in the coming build, waiting 800 sec (more than 10 min..) will be a deal breaker.

I think you got it wrong. It's 200 sec as per the first image in the article. So about 3 minutes or a third of what you think it is.

I really think it is worth waiting at least a month or two rather than jumping on AM5 on release.

Just in time till the 3D-V cache models appear. Ironed out MB, BIOS and platform issues with the new cpus. Perfect.

 

[Bloax]

Based on what ? AMD historically never has been an overclocker’s dream (if overclocking still makes any sense at all…).

It's a joke about the Fury X, which prior to release was being teased as "an overclocker's dream"

.. it didn't overclock, at all
(and now here's a board that takes three minutes to POST after a CMOS clear from an explosive memory config hee hee, jab jab, hopefully a fluke rather than a mainstay)
Has everyone already forgotten their AMD history? Am I becoming the old man now?


Overclocking modern AMD hardware does make sense, though not in the sense of raising voltage and clocks;
more in cutting lard bad for system responsiveness, dialing in the right voltage combinations to minimize fabric error corrections, making the chips stop pointlessly gargling watts ...

In terms of "total throughput", outside of memory overclocking increasing it when memory-performance limited, since Zen2 it has been mostly in the realm of +0-4%
In terms of responsiveness and performance stability, then Zen3 (Vermeer) in particular was incredibly annoying to work with.

 

[The Von Matrices]

400 seconds?


I'd assume it was dead and have it packed away for an RMA by then

My thoughts are this way as well. I would not have a problem with a long wait but only if there is a progress bar indicating that the system is actually booting. Otherwise I don't want to wait 10 minutes before realizing the system is not booting because of some other problem, and I'm sure RMAs would increase if it isn't made abundantly clear to users that the system is working properly.

 

[Why_Me]

AMD slobnobbers love their bugs so this shouldn't hinder them.

 

[InVasMani]

Intel systems never receive bios updates confirmed they are error free designs MELTDOWN is a feature not a bug.

 

[[XC] Oj101]

Based on what ? AMD historically never has been an overclocker’s dream (if overclocking still makes any sense at all…).

I wouldn't say NEVER. ATB 1GHz AXIA (40% or more on air) AXP 1700+ JUIHB/DLT3C (75% on air), Barton in general (40%+ on air), A64 CABCE (30%+ on air), etc. The old Durons were also beastly, often 50%+ on air. More recently, Thuban clocked well enough. AM4 has been an OC disaster, but not AMD going back to the beginning of time.

 

[Valantar]

AM4 has been an OC disaster

That's debatable. AM4 CPUs generally don't scale very well to higher clocks, and the newer ones that clock higher don't have much potential for static, all-core OCs - but they do have potential for power and clock tuning to improve performance. It's not quite as high as with Intel, as Intel has a more simplistic boost management system that isn't as opportunistic or aggressive (though you wouldn't think so by the power numbers!), but the difference isn't huge. Zen1 and Zen+ were indeed terrible overclockers across the board.

 

[Mussels]

AM4 wasn't an OC disaster?
It's just not like intel where you can throw 400W at it for minimal extra gains

5800x is advertised as 3.8GHz to 4.7GHz

Yet stock settings will run all-core load at 4.4GHz to 4.85GHz boost, with PBO (which is overclocking) you can get 4.6GHz-5.05GHz

You could also run static OC's which are more limited, but my present 4.6GHz all core is hardly an issue - i can still easily game at 1440p 165Hz and be GPU limited with a 3090


So when they clock higher than advertised, PBO overclocking goes higher again, and then all core overclocking can boost sustained MT at the cost of some time limited ST - you call it a disaster?

 

[[XC] Oj101]

AM4 wasn't an OC disaster?
It's just not like intel where you can throw 400W at it for minimal extra gains

5800x is advertised as 3.8GHz to 4.7GHz
View attachment 261439

Yet stock settings will run all-core load at 4.4GHz to 4.85GHz boost, with PBO (which is overclocking) you can get 4.6GHz-5.05GHz

You could also run static OC's which are more limited, but my present 4.6GHz all core is hardly an issue - i can still easily game at 1440p 165Hz and be GPU limited with a 3090


So when they clock higher than advertised, PBO overclocking goes higher again, and then all core overclocking can boost sustained MT at the cost of some time limited ST - you call it a disaster?

I absolutely do, and I'll explain why. Overclocking is running a CPU outside of specification, PBO is part of specification so it can be argued that it should not be considered. If we go along the route of "PBO is overclocking" it still leaves next to nothing.

4.4GHz - 4.85GHz stock to 4.6GHz to 5.05GHz with PBO is a 200MHz overclock, or around 4%. Hitting those numbers at all is not common on the 5800X, which is an incredibly hot CPU.

I see you're running a custom loop for your 4.6GHz, which is lower than the all-core load frequency you listed as stock above ^^ Even if you pump that up to 5GHz, you're talking about a custom loop for a 2-10% overclock, whereas I was comparing to 30%+ overclocks on air on older CPUs.

Nobody is contesting whether it's a capable CPU or not, the matter being discussed is OC headroom, of which there is very little. AM4 also covers Ryzen 1000, 2000(G), 3000(G) and 4000G, all of which pretty terrible overclockers with the odd exception here and there.

If you look at my post,

• Athlon Thunderbird, highest SKU was the 1.4GHz, architecture topped out around 1.7GHz on air cooling (21%). The AXIA 1000 could do 40% with air cooling, with some doing 50% or more.
• Athlon XP Thoroughbred, highest SKU was 2.2GHz, architecture topped out around 2.5GHz on air cooling (13%). The lower end 1700+ could come pretty damn close to maxing out the architecture on air (around 64% on air cooling for a good number of them)
• Athlon64 San Diego, highest SKU was 2.8 GHz, architecture topped out around 3GHz on air cooling (7%). Take the lower end 3700+ which could do the same +/- 3GHz, and you're talking 36% on air.

Compare that to what you're running, which is (even by your definition) slap bang what you should expect from stock ignoring PBO. To get the overclocking headroom I was talking about, you'd need to run that somewhere around the 6.5 to 7.5GHz range on air to match headroom of old platforms - hence overclocking is significantly worse on AM4 than prior platforms.

Even if we take OC headroom as every MHz above the base speed and ignore boost/PBO/etc, 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz is 21%, and you'd need to be running in the 4.75 to 6GHz range on air to match.

I'm not sure why you brought Intel into it, as Intel as never part of the debate. The debate was old AMD vs new AMD OC headroom.

 

[Valantar]

I absolutely do, and I'll explain why. Overclocking is running a CPU outside of specification, PBO is part of specification so it can be argued that it should not be considered. If we go along the route of "PBO is overclocking" it still leaves next to nothing.

4.4GHz - 4.85GHz stock to 4.6GHz to 5.05GHz with PBO is a 200MHz overclock, or around 4%. Hitting those numbers at all is not common on the 5800X, which is an incredibly hot CPU.

I see you're running a custom loop for your 4.6GHz, which is lower than the all-core load frequency you listed as stock above ^^ Even if you pump that up to 5GHz, you're talking about a custom loop for a 2-10% overclock, whereas I was comparing to 30%+ overclocks on air on older CPUs.

Nobody is contesting whether it's a capable CPU or not, the matter being discussed is OC headroom, of which there is very little. AM4 also covers Ryzen 1000, 2000(G), 3000(G) and 4000G, all of which pretty terrible overclockers with the odd exception here and there.

If you look at my post,

• Athlon Thunderbird, highest SKU was the 1.4GHz, architecture topped out around 1.7GHz on air cooling (21%). The AXIA 1000 could do 40% with air cooling, with some doing 50% or more.
• Athlon XP Thoroughbred, highest SKU was 2.2GHz, architecture topped out around 2.5GHz on air cooling (13%). The lower end 1700+ could come pretty damn close to maxing out the architecture on air (around 64% on air cooling for a good number of them)
• Athlon64 San Diego, highest SKU was 2.8 GHz, architecture topped out around 3GHz on air cooling (7%). Take the lower end 3700+ which could do the same +/- 3GHz, and you're talking 36% on air.

Compare that to what you're running, which is (even by your definition) slap bang what you should expect from stock ignoring PBO. To get the overclocking headroom I was talking about, you'd need to run that somewhere around the 6.5 to 7.5GHz range on air to match headroom of old platforms - hence overclocking is significantly worse on AM4 than prior platforms.

Even if we take OC headroom as every MHz above the base speed and ignore boost/PBO/etc, 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz is 21%, and you'd need to be running in the 4.75 to 6GHz range on air to match.

I'm not sure why you brought Intel into it, as Intel as never part of the debate. The debate was old AMD vs new AMD OC headroom.

Or you could turn the entire argument on its head and say that lack of OC headroom is a good thing, as OC headroom is by definition performance left on the table by the manufacturer, that you're not getting unless you have the knowledge, time, patience and skill required to extract it yourself. IMO, AM4 being "bad" at overclocking is great, because the main reason for it is AMD's complex and highly optimized boost algorithms, which work extremely well at extracting maximum performance from their silicon. "Oh no, AMD didn't leave tons of performance on the table this time around" isn't much of a complaint IMO.

 

[[XC] Oj101]

Or you could turn the entire argument on its head and say that lack of OC headroom is a good thing, as OC headroom is by definition performance left on the table by the manufacturer, that you're not getting unless you have the knowledge, time, patience and skill required to extract it yourself. IMO, AM4 being "bad" at overclocking is great, because the main reason for it is AMD's complex and highly optimized boost algorithms, which work extremely well at extracting maximum performance from their silicon. "Oh no, AMD didn't leave tons of performance on the table this time around" isn't much of a complaint IMO.

You can twist it to match any agenda. Eg: AMD needed to ride the silicon on its limit to compete with Intel.

You've taken this far off topic, though, as my post was originally replying to "AMD has historically never been an overclocker's dream..."

 

[Valantar]

You can twist it to match any agenda. Eg: AMD needed to ride the silicon on its limit to compete with Intel.

You've taken this far off topic, though, as my post was originally replying to "AMD has historically never been an overclocker's dream..."

Which was a response to someone in turn responding to someone making a joke about AMD's framing of the Fury X, which was itself not on topic, so ... hooray? Point being: who cares? The performance we can get is what matters, and the more of it we get at stock, the better IMO.

 

[Mikael Andersson]

Or you could turn the entire argument on its head and say that lack of OC headroom is a good thing, as OC headroom is by definition performance left on the table by the manufacturer, that you're not getting unless you have the knowledge, time, patience and skill required to extract it yourself. IMO, AM4 being "bad" at overclocking is great, because the main reason for it is AMD's complex and highly optimized boost algorithms, which work extremely well at extracting maximum performance from their silicon. "Oh no, AMD didn't leave tons of performance on the table this time around" isn't much of a complaint IMO.

A high OC headroom makes the consumer happy and it will sell many overpriced radiators.

 

[Valantar]

A high OC headroom make the consumer happy and it will sell many overpriced radiators.

Nah, high OC headroom makes a small niche of enthusiasts happy, plus it sells products to friends and acquaintances of those enthusiasts (or internet randos with poor judgement) who are given bad/poorly adjusted advice. A high power draw sells many overpriced radiators - no need to gatekeep that behind a manual OC!