ROG Maximus XII Apex

[Falkentyne]

11 hours ago, marco.is.not.80 said:

OC Family,

I just got my Apex XII and a 10900k (can't believe I found both in stock at the same place at the same time - thumbs up for www.neweggbusiness.com) and have a few questions.

1) Can someone explain to me what exactly the legacy memory mode is all about and do I need to worry about it if I'm just running the stock latest BIOS from the Asus support site? Also, all this talk about A2 only - is this just in regards to the high clock/low latency settings (like 4800 14-13-13 or whatever)?

2) The VRM tool listed in the first post - It works how? I just make a task scheduler event and run it at login!??! What does it do exactly? What should I be looking for when monitoring the changes it makes?

3) I was pulling 190 amps according to hwinfo by doing an overclock of 52 on all cores/0 avx/50 uncore - just how many amps do you think is safe with something like chilled water setup?

4) I can't believe how cool the 10900k runs. Not a question - just a comment. Some of the reviews I've read make me wonder if they even actually used it.

Any insights would be appreciated. Thanks, love reading and learning from you all.

Marco

VRM tweak enables adaptive transient algorithm algorithm, which can reduce vmin by up to 10mv in some loads.  It won't do much if your cache ratio is set too high though (cache is far more sensitive to transients than core is).  

Max amps is 245 amps, or 24 amps per core, but no one knows what load vcore should not be exceeded at X # of amps, as the 1.52v ceiling is different since the chip can potentially request 1.50v load voltage at max turbo multiplier at all auto settings and max (=1.1 mOhms) AC/DC Loadline  and 1.1 mOhms (level 3) loadline calibration now, due to some thing about 1.520v max VID + 200mv=1.720v initial.

Under the old system, you would not want to exceed 1.30v load voltage at 200 amps of current (1520mv - 200 * 1.1 mOhm), but the new system says "1.520v max VID +200mv Serial VID Offset, and not a single person knows why it doesn't just say "1.720v max VID".

On Z390 this could be enabled or disabled via a VRM register (33h).  Asus enabled this by default and Gigabyte disabled it by default (and they gave you a way to enable it but it was extremely buggy and unreliable, it only worked half properly (without locking out ALL voltage control afterwards) in test bios T0D on the Z390 Aorus Master as they didn't understand the difference between "SVID Support" and "SVID Offset", so in all OTHER bios versions, enabling SVID Offset disabled voltage control afterwards, and enabling SVID Offset if fixed vcore was at 1.20v in ALL Bios versions would send 0v into the CPU and no post code readout).  Seems like everyone has this enabled by default in Z490 now.

Sorry I know nothing more.

So no I can't answer this.  It seems like the chip can request "up to" 200mv extra VID whenever it wants under certain conditions.  Only Intel can answer this if someone wants to contact them.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Falkentyne

[marco.is.not.80]

Thank you both for taking the time to answer my questions regarding the vrm2.exe tool and my amperage inquiry.

Falkentyne,

you say "So no I can't answer this" but in reality you may not be able to say exactly what the maximum is but certainly we can deduce that as one is approaching 200 amps it might be best to consider not going much further ? Is that fair?

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by marco.is.not.80

[Falkentyne]

57 minutes ago, marco.is.not.80 said:

Thank you both for taking the time to answer my questions regarding the vrm2.exe tool and my amperage inquiry.

Falkentyne,

you say "So no I can't answer this" but in reality you may not be able to say exactly what the maximum is but certainly we can deduce that as one is approaching 200 amps it might be best to consider not going much further ? Is that fair?

 

Ok let me put this a completely different way.

Maybe this will explain the awkwardness of what you're trying to ask a video gamer (me) who just plays videogames and who is not a hardware engineer. 

Let's say you set 1.45v in BIOS, Loadline calibration level 3.  1.1 mOhms of LLC.  This is a perfectly safe setting.  And 1.1 mOhms of LLC is intel default vdroop.

Put 245 amps into the cpu that's 1450mv - (245 * 1.1) =1.180v.  Clearly that's safe.  If you want to "assume" 1.52v is "max VID", ignoring the "1.52v + 200mv" thingy, that would be 1520mv - (245 * 1.1)=1.250v.  Now that's an ALL CORE LOAD.  All 10 cores.

So now you said 1 core load is 24.5 amps per core.  245 / 10.  that makes sense.

Now, what happens if you have a ONE CORE (2 thread) application that is putting 24.5 amps by itself, with NO other cores loaded?  Then what???

At that 1.450v, the vdroop and load vcore will be: 1450mv - (24.5 * 1.1) =1.423v !  So according to the above, that "one" core with a 24 amp load on it will be getting a LOAD VCORE of 1.423v!!  So that by logic should degrade that core pretty fast, shouldn't it?  Because the total amps load is so low that the load vcore is going to be super high.

Unless EACH CORE has its OWN VOLTAGE?  But only on HEDT does each core have its own voltage rail because its supplied by VCCIN (1.8v).

Do you see the position you put me in here??  I have absolutely NO idea or clue what I'm talking about anymore or any insider knowledge of how these chips work.

I don't know the answers to these questions.  I'm sorry.

[marco.is.not.80]

I understand that you are saying that with the absence of VccIn on the 10900k whatever Intel is telling us makes no sense and that only some Intel engineer hidden in Portland somewhere knows the answer. How is that?

Thank god for video games!

[Sladen]

On 7/17/2020 at 3:26 PM, Sparky's__Adventure said:

@Sladen Two things I'd try:

Disabling cores

Try a no-ucode bios

So i got new ram 4100 cl 15 15 15 35 with really low subtimings and 36ns in aida memory Benchmark. 

Also tried with 4 cores only in firestrike and went from the Bad 29500 GPU score to Almost 31000, which is even better than with my 7700k.

So for me that means firestrike is bugged in Terms of gpu score with more than 4 cores. 

[SparkysAdventure]

@Sladen try 8 cores and 16 threads, or 10 cores with hyperthreading disabled

[DStealth]

I've lost GPU points in FS also with 10900k and 3900x compared to z370/90 with both 9900 and 8700k 

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/22877585/fs/23032415/fs/20163933/fs/15014694

 

Edit: In TimeSpy everything is intact through

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/12695670/spy/12479317/spy/8127984/spy/3037002

 

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by DStealth

[keeph8n]

10/16 is bae for 3D

[unityofsaints]

On 5/6/2020 at 7:40 AM, FireKillerGR said:

!!!Gdrive folder that includes everything since dropbox links seem to have issues!!!:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DjnhLFpKA_-aORnt1gKOyD7w5SXGA7gj?usp=sharing

The Windows 7 USB drivers is identified as a virus by Google Drive and therefore can't be downloaded 

[SparkysAdventure]

New bios 0088

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dw0-MLeNHCteoYa_silqCv4T2LU5ubeN/view?usp=sharing

Try tXP 4 and PPD 0

[chispy]

On 6/26/2020 at 4:50 AM, FireKillerGR said:

till confirmed (and fixed) u can try using this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1en7v8q11i14yx0/Ratio_Hotkey_with_V.zip?dl=0

hotkeys for multi + vcore

Hola amigo @FireKillerGR any news about a new turboV with fix on it ? I try to run that utility hotkeys for multi + v.core but i cannot get it to run , would anyone explain to me how to use this utility or how to run it ( step by step ) thank you. 

 

Kind Regards: Angelo

[keeph8n]

Angelo,

 

if using XP for 4 core or less, there is a beta version that was used for X299(10980XE) and 3970X, 0.5.13 or something that I have a copy of that works fine in XP.

For 10 core stuff I needed to use the XP tool from Elmor(i think) to get adjustment of core/bclk etc

[marco.is.not.80]

4 hours ago, Sparky's__Adventure said:

New bios 0088

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dw0-MLeNHCteoYa_silqCv4T2LU5ubeN/view?usp=sharing

Try tXP 4 and PPD 0

You mean those settings were added to the BIOS? That's awesome - I was having to change them in MemTweakIt so this is awesome news. I know most here already know but in case you don't those two settings will get you a great bump in lower latency in AIDA64.

[gkmltd]

2 hours ago, keeph8n said:

Angelo,

 

if using XP for 4 core or less, there is a beta version that was used for X299(10980XE) and 3970X, 0.5.13 or something that I have a copy of that works fine in XP.

For 10 core stuff I needed to use the XP tool from Elmor(i think) to get adjustment of core/bclk etc

link please

[keeph8n]

7 minutes ago, gkmltd said:

link please

i can do that after work

[marco.is.not.80]

With BIOS 0088 and txp 4, ppd 0 and tcke 0 I get an amazing 39.4 ms latency score. Before someone says that sucks please realize I'm getting this with dual ranked 2x16Gb DIMMs. See below:

 

These are 24/7 memtested settings and even with a fairly high CL of 16 and CR of 2T I still manage to get 39.4 - sweet. Thanks Sparky and Asus team!

Edited July 21, 2020 by marco.is.not.80
his name is Sparky not Sparkly

[SparkysAdventure]

Exactly how long have people known about tXP 4 and PPD 0?

[marco.is.not.80]

45 minutes ago, Sparky's__Adventure said:

Exactly how long have people known about tXP 4 and PPD 0?

 

This is where I found it and believe it is the original place of origin:

 

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by marco.is.not.80

[Falkentyne]

Please doublecheck the TXP setting in *gaming* before all of you use it.

Check your 1% lows!

One user tried using TXP 4, and his benchmark/latency scores went down nicely a few ms, but his 1% lows were worse and he tested it by toggling it on and off each reboot (Gigabyte board so it was already in the BIOS).

So be sure to check it (assuming that some of you guys are actually gamers also).

[bscool]

Has anyone compared just setting PPD 0 and then compare with changing the setting TXP? I have and I see no difference. The only time I see a difference is when I set TXP down without setting PPD to 0. I am just using Aida64 to test so maybe it effect other benchmarks when both are set.

 

I just remembered seeing another person also found the same. That TXP does nothing, when PPD is 0. "*txp 3 does bupkus" https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff/page16#post810810

Edited July 22, 2020 by bscool

[Guest alatron978]

5 hours ago, bscool said:

Has anyone compared just setting PPD 0 and then compare with changing the setting TXP? I have and I see no difference. The only time I see a difference is when I set TXP down without setting PPD to 0. I am just using Aida64 to test so maybe it effect other benchmarks when both are set.

 

I just remembered seeing another person also found the same. That TXP does nothing, when PPD is 0. "*txp 3 does bupkus" https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff/page16#post810810

Yeah, tXP does nothing with PPD at 0. Since Power down is disabled tXP does nothing as it revolves around exiting power down.

[keeph8n]

@gkmltd

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cxOtecK8bQvVkMlH2oprpsR0Y8j_Rdeq/view?usp=drivesdk

[gkmltd]

4 hours ago, keeph8n said:

@gkmltd

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cxOtecK8bQvVkMlH2oprpsR0Y8j_Rdeq/view?usp=drivesdk

Tnx m8

[chispy]

On 7/21/2020 at 2:58 PM, keeph8n said:

Angelo,

 

if using XP for 4 core or less, there is a beta version that was used for X299(10980XE) and 3970X, 0.5.13 or something that I have a copy of that works fine in XP.

For 10 core stuff I needed to use the XP tool from Elmor(i think) to get adjustment of core/bclk etc

Thank you Mike , i downloaded your file.

[keeph8n]

absolutely. Hope you guys enjoy