• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Ryzen Owners Zen Garden

You may be a bit confused. According to the BIOS page for my board (X370 taichi, in pic attached), Agesa 1.0.0.6 and and PinnaclePI-AM4 1.0.0.5 are completely different.

View attachment 112852

With my board, BIOS 2.4 brings AGESA 1.0.0.6 but PinnaclePI 1.0.0.1a starts from BIOS 4.60.

Are you talking about Pinnacle BIOS or pre-Pinnacle BIOS?

Yep you're right I was mis-interpreting what I saw with ASRock's page between AGESA and post-PinnaclePI, which started at 4.7 for the AB350 Pro4. It does look like that board for @Durvelle27 has had AGESA 1.0.0.6 since 3.20 in 9/2017. Crazy it took Asus until 12/2018 to get it on my X370!!!

:toast:
 
on the other hand 9m later asrock's x470 fagship mb is at agesa 1.0.0.4 :wtf:
 
on the other hand 9m later asrock's x470 fagship mb is at agesa 1.0.0.4:wtf:

PinnaclePI or pre-PinnaclePI?

Don't confuse the two.

EDIT

OTOH, in the beta section it states with Beta 1.36A:

Update AGESA 1.0.0.2 Patch C

When this board only uses PinnaclePI BIOSes ..., so there's that ...
 
Last edited:
4.Update PinnaclePI-AM4_1.0.0.4 Patch C
edit: pfu bloody mess. 1.0.0.4 patch C is latest agesa for ryzen 2XXX
1.0.0.6 is latest for ryzen 1XXX
so asrock are actually up to date with their ryzen+ mbs
 
Last edited:
4.Update PinnaclePI-AM4_1.0.0.4 Patch C
edit: pfu bloody mess. 1.0.0.4 patch C is latest agesa for ryzen 2XXX
1.0.0.6 is latest for ryzen 1XXX
so asrock are actually up to date with their ryzen+ mbs

AFAIK, 1.0.0.6B is the latest for Ryzen 1000 series.

@Kursah was mentioning PinnaclePI 1.0.0.5: i've yet to see that one for my board.

My board has had version 1.0.0.4 since August 30th.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I have an asrock board
 
I have an asrock board
Where can I find the soc voltage. I want to try an increase to see if that helps with achieving higher RAM clocks
 
Please list your voltage options, or take a picture.
 
Rig is finallly 100% complete and it turned out great

E014E442-2AD0-4C3C-BEEF-FD7473B1D9D8.jpeg


53626B04-3C85-4197-A182-9A4CE2829F7D.jpeg


E7CB6D88-B4CA-47FD-A369-3019C6A9D7AF.jpeg


740B12A9-6F52-4DD8-97D8-0DC2A57359C9.jpeg
 
Seems PBO was removed from 4207 official, was able to set 3200 CL14 same as before w/o issue. Loaded modded 4207, got PBO back and am seeing 4.35GHz single core boost and more 4.2. Can't say I notice any differences TBH. But I also haven't had time to mess around or push beyond known good settings. Been busy prepping my boys' builds for xmas (specs in sig).

:toast:
 
@Durvelle27
Had a look at your BIOS from a manual and from those pics looks like you have very few options. I didn't even see where you could change the multi. If things are different in a "manual" mode or something then you'll need to post some pics of your BIOS.
 
@Durvelle27
Had a look at your BIOS from a manual and from those pics looks like you have very few options. I didn't even see where you could change the multi. If things are different in a "manual" mode or something then you'll need to post some pics of your BIOS.
I'll do it later today once i have time to sit down

Something a little weird to me or maybe Ryzen is just different than all the previous arcs i've used. I have a Ryzen 7 1700X which has a max XFR of 3.9GHz. Instead though i manually overclocked it to a consistent 3.9GHz and now under full load i noticed it actaully now boosts upto 4GHz on all cores. I've never seen a CPU boost above a manual OC

boost.PNG
 
I'll do it later today once i have time to sit down

Something a little weird to me or maybe Ryzen is just different than all the previous arcs i've used. I have a Ryzen 7 1700X which has a max XFR of 3.9GHz. Instead though i manually overclocked it to a consistent 3.9GHz and now under full load i noticed it actaully now boosts upto 4GHz on all cores. I've never seen a CPU boost above a manual OC

View attachment 112959
Probably accounted for by sensor accuracy and the fact base clock(100hz) actually varies.
 
I think it's just an error in monitoring the clocks. PBO should be off.
 
I think it's just an error in monitoring the clocks. PBO should be off.
1st Gen Ryzen doesn't have PBO

PBO was introduced with 2nd Gen
 
Xfr not pbo , it should still be off.
 
A
I'll do it later today once i have time to sit down

Something a little weird to me or maybe Ryzen is just different than all the previous arcs i've used. I have a Ryzen 7 1700X which has a max XFR of 3.9GHz. Instead though i manually overclocked it to a consistent 3.9GHz and now under full load i noticed it actaully now boosts upto 4GHz on all cores. I've never seen a CPU boost above a manual OC

View attachment 112959
Are you using HWMonitor HWinfo64
 
Typically it's best to use one or the other, don't need multiple programs pinging the sensor that can cause issues. HWInfo has consistently worked the best for Ryzen in my experience
 
I find HWInfo to be the most accurate too, generally use it in most situations. HWInfo however I'll use on older systems. CPU-z only to verify. OCCT, AsusROG, CinibenchR15 and Unigine stress tests for stability.

Got the rear IO panel for my MB (bought used, didn't include it), shipped from the Netherlands and made it sooner than expected! I've been waiting to reseat my HS anyways...I did a rush job installing the MB back when I got it in mid-November...wondering if I can get better temps out of it and maintain 4.35GHz single and 4.2 all cores a little longer. Maybe...maybe not.

The modded 4207 has been solid, definitely curious that 4207 official removes PBO seeing that it works as intended with my 2700X. I haven't tried pushing my RAM any harder. So far as stable as I was before!
 
Typically it's best to use one or the other, don't need multiple programs pinging the sensor that can cause issues. HWInfo has consistently worked the best for Ryzen in my experience
I mainly was testing as i had one program that showed twice as high temps as another program i had but i prefer Hwinfo64

I find HWInfo to be the most accurate too, generally use it in most situations. HWInfo however I'll use on older systems. CPU-z only to verify. OCCT, AsusROG, CinibenchR15 and Unigine stress tests for stability.

Got the rear IO panel for my MB (bought used, didn't include it), shipped from the Netherlands and made it sooner than expected! I've been waiting to reseat my HS anyways...I did a rush job installing the MB back when I got it in mid-November...wondering if I can get better temps out of it and maintain 4.35GHz single and 4.2 all cores a little longer. Maybe...maybe not.

The modded 4207 has been solid, definitely curious that 4207 official removes PBO seeing that it works as intended with my 2700X. I haven't tried pushing my RAM any harder. So far as stable as I was before!
I used Prime95 for stability testing
 
Prime's still a solid option, I keep it handy but rarely use it anymore as I prefer OCCT.-

I usually start out with OCCT Linpack, with and without AVX, using all logical cores (if you have logical cores), 90% memory usage, etc. If it makes it through that, then I do the VGA test (depending on if I did anything with the VGA, I've also seen this test root out unstable CPU OC's and undervoltage situations as it only ever partially loads the CPU), then if that passes, I go to the PSU test which runs both Linpack and the GPU test. If it survives that, I generally move onto Asus ROG Realbench (Stress test) and Cinebench. That's been my stability routine or close to it for years, still does the trick too. :)
 
Crazy it took Asus until 12/2018 to get it on my X370!!!
Yeaah they caught a lot of flack for that. For whatever reason they couldn't keep up with it. Lots of people talking on their forums, but not a lot coming back. No time frames or anything. Most of the boards they released were solid, but the lack of timely BIOS updates was gimping a lot of otherwise decent mid/upper-mid range boards. Some had it a lot worse than others, especially in the RAM department. And it sucked because you would look at the board's designs and components and some of them were just okay, but most, like our board was actually all-around solid. In terms of quality of components and design it's probably one of the best in its class. Doesn't have all of the top features but for the money you get something that's built to perform and last. But, like... that BIOS man! WHY? I guess it works well enough but it's been perpetually lost to time.

That, to me, has been Ryzen's biggest achille's heel from the jump... ...motherboards. From weak VRM's, to crummy BIOSes, poor compatibility, messy feature implementation and adaptation. It's getting a lot better now, but I'm sure that's been a big deterrent for a lot of people. Made it hard to recommend to anyone who wanted something that would just work, though the more patient of us saw signs of things to come. Boards are finally getting to a point where very few of them will really hold back performance in any meaningful way. I guess the upside to sticking to a platform across generations is that even old boards continue to improve over time. I think it's just that nobody expected their AMD boards to be so important this time around. Nobody in the market was ready for Ryzen to take off like it did, so the mobos didn't get the same treatment that would be standard with Intel counterparts. It was only after they caught on that they realized there was actually potential and ramped up the effort/resources. Everything has happened so fast. It was a matter of just months before things really came together.

I'm just happy to see them actually making some progress with my board, man. :p So far nothing has changed for me since the swap, which is good, because I haven't changed anything :p I'm holding off until after Christmas. Drop a 970 Evo in there, do a little refresh and start playing with RAM again. I've been wanting to try for 3333/14 fully stable again and see what kind of manual CPU OC will work with that. I know I can do 3466/16 all day. I want to see if the BIOS update really helps much with getting the stability with tighter timings. Sometimes it feels like I hit some walls where I shouldn't. Like certain combinations just don't work no matter what I do, even having gotten more technically demanding, if not under-performing ones to float just fine. That could really be anything. Might even just be hardware limitations. Just feels like the RAM has a little more in it, and it wants to.

Either way, I gotta say I don't find myself tempted to tinker much with this build these days. I have the time, but I feel like I've hit a good point with it and I've already put in so much time. It's been fun, but any gains at this point are personal brownie points. Save for a few quirks I've been continually impressed as I've gone along. Ryzen+ has been a fun and rewarding line to tinker with, for sure. I've done a handful now and it's always been an interesting learning experience. They haven't let anybody down yet, either. All of my personal builds throughout history have been AMD, but in a lot of ways it's been a different beast for me. Most of my builds have been done for other people, and it's almost always been Intel, if not by request, then recommendation. Not much seems to change as far as setting those up goes, and I've had many more chances to learn about them. I feel like I could go right back into it pretty quickly. You always know what you're getting and how/where. I fact I had initially planned to make my reentry into the hobby with an Intel build, but right then Ryzen came into the picture and I was intrigued. Suddenly it makes real sense to go with them again. It gave me some new little challenges to sink my teeth into. Slightly different parameters and a little character. They're kinda feisty. I felt completely out of my element starting off. It was great. A lot of things were easier than they've ever been, but there's still a lot you kinda gotta just know, and a lot of potential was yet unseen and locked away. 'Something kind of satisfying about taking 'underdog' stuff and making it into something surprisingly good. It's more personal, that way.

I guess in that way AMD really kind of carries the enthusiast torch now. For me, anyway. Maybe Intel still sort of holds the top-tier performance crown, but AMD's offerings this year cater more to the tinkerer's mindset imo. There's just so many more little things you gotta learn and experiment with to get to the pulp of a Ryzen system. It takes a little more effort and forethought to get things working juuust right. But you're rewarded with that hard-earned performance-per-dollar. There's something endearing about picking up their hardware and getting surprising performance out of it after putting in some time and love. It's a bit like a puzzle game, and I mean that in a really endearing way. There's a point of pride to having one that doesn't revolve around how much money you spent or whether it tops everything else. Your average user may not see the point in picking up the "lesser of the two" but someone who enjoys the whole process sees the potential. In this market, these chips are comparatively priced like toys, but beneath that is some pretty legit hardware. Affordable enough to take a chance on for kicks, but capable enough to put to serious use. They tapped into something that speaks to enthusiasts in a way that is not always obvious, and it's something I think a lot of companies in this business tend to miss. Something you can justifiably pick up for the sake of doing a new build... ...for discovery and experimentation. But also something you can rely on just the same. Or maybe you love building PC's but don't love spending ridiculous money for an upgrade you don't fully need lol.

It's like... do we really want "buy this and have the best build evarrrr!!!" We all want to buy good hardware, sure. But is that why we build PC's?

And then there's always that shared experience of everyone sort of discovering new stuff together. Not as much of that to be had with Intel. Every new iteration has become sort of the same routine, while Ryzen is new for everyone.

I kinda think of it like this... ...I would be so stoked to have a top-shelf, maxed-out Intel system, but I would much rather play with a brand-new AMD one... see what tricks it has.

I feel like it's a pretty exciting time to be into building PC's thanks to AMD's new direction. More than likely do it all over again next year, heh. I have problems.
 
Back
Top