Modded bios Rampage VI

Dear tistou,

Can you please upload a modified 3006 for the Omega with microcode 68 (69 if possible)? I would greatly appreciate it! Below is the link:

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/m...-ASUS-3006.zip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gridironcpj

Dear tistou,

Can you please upload a modified 3006 for the Omega with microcode 68 (69 if possible)? I would greatly appreciate it! Below is the link:

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/m...-ASUS-3006.zip

---

Done :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tistou77

Done :)

---

Thank you! So if I recall correctly, any microcode past 49 will result in higher reported temps for 7000 series Skylake-X due to the Tj max being 110, correct? Is there any way to correct this, even when using one of the newer microcodes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gridironcpj

Thank you! So if I recall correctly, any microcode past 49 will result in higher reported temps for 7000 series Skylake-X due to the Tj max being 110, correct? Is there any way to correct this, even when using one of the newer microcodes?

---

Yes that's it
And no way to "correct" this with microcodes beyond 49

Have any of u thought about the chance Intel corrected a bad monitoring of temperatures after increasing the TJMax to 110 degrees in the newest Microcodes???

After releasing so many microcodes it is weird nobody in Intel realized that. They also corrected the bad misbehaviour with AVX512, without forgetting the newer MC's are safer and more refined in regards to performance in the latest Windows 10 versions (and Linux).

The CPU 7000 had a TJmax of 105°, when Intel released the 9000 with a TJMax of 110°, microcodes went to 110° for CPU 7000 and 9000 (same architecture)
Before the 9000, the 7000 worked very well with their TJMax at 105°

Not exactly=I had a Gigabyte x299 board before I bought this Asus Omega and Gigabyte introduced the TJMax=110º before 9xxx release. Both Giga and Asus reported increased idle temperatures. But I didn't see a higher overclock in previous Microcodes with 105º. Either way, simply increasing the TJMax doesn't mean higher idle temperatures, unless they corrected the previous readings which could be wrong.

I insist, too many Bios and Microcodes revisions and nobody realized it???

And yet the temperatures in idle are increased
And this is normal, the temperature of the cores is "read" over the distance from the TJmax (for DTS probes)
I thought everyone knew it

TJmax 105° : distance from TJMax 80 ° => core at 25°
TJmax 110° : distance from TJMax 80 ° => core at 30°

No matter, idle or load, it's the same thing
Which is logical, the CPU will not say "I will heat more in load, only, with this TJMax at 110°" :D :D

The 4D microcode, which introduced the TJMax 110° was released in May 2018
The 9000 were released in Q42018, so after
So normal that Gigabyte is updated the 4D microcode (with TJmax 110°) before the release of 9000
The motherboard must be updated before the arrival of the new CPUs

Of course there is no temperature increase for those who always use a CPU 9000, since by default, the TJMax is at 110°
many have tested and seen this difference, except you (or you have not tested)

Anyway, I provide the 2 microcodes, people use the microcode that wishes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tistou77

Yes that's it
And no way to "correct" this with microcodes beyond 49

---

Got it. Any chance you can also modify 3006 with microcode 49? Also, any idea if using old microcodes could result in instability of any kind? Not necessarily hardware instability.

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/m...-ASUS-3006.zip

Also, my idle temperatures are about 5C above fluid temperature in my loop when using newer microcodes, whereas idle temps are the same as my fluid temperature when using microcode 49. The latter obviously makes sense and has always been the case with any CPU I've water cooled.

Sorry for u, Tistou, but not true:

https://forum.gigabyte.us/thread/142...-thread?page=6

TJMax in Gigabyte boards was altered some months before 2018. First they used an offset and then a specific value which could go to 120 degrees, but having in mind Windows would only report 105=TJMax=availabe microcodes then.

In regards to the rest of your speech, I would have to repeat the same words of previous pages in this thread, but summing up:

1. I talk about idle because I did test, not like u, my throttling temperatures at max OC. Your beloved microcode doesn't provide higher overclocks, and it should according to your theory because with your Microcode I should reach temperature limit later, not the case.

2. Of course I tested the several microcodes, I even asked u about the AVX512 bug present in your beloved microcode, and u answered saying u don't use AVX512... Funny!!!

3. I also tested performance under the latest Windows 10 versions, which, I must note, overrides to 5E previous Microcodes by default, at least if u don't force using a previous one, and I found that latest Windows versions perform similar with your beloved Microcode and the newest ones. I did disable all the mitigations, just in case u think I did not...


So, as I said before, I guess your beloved MC is obsolete, buggy for avx512 and don't know exactly if it registers the temperatures properly. But in your opinion, which is the problem and how can it be solved??? U talked to Intel Engineers about this issue??? U talked to Asus engineers about this issue??? We only have your opinion here, and I guess u are not Asus or Intel engineer, are u???

Well, I bet this guy is u:

https://forums.intel.com/s/question/...language=en_US

Pity Intel Agent's reply is not very professional (Intel or Microsoft web agents don't usually help much). The reality is those 5 degrees above previous Microcodes (43 and prior) don't make a difference since the TJMax has been upped to 110 degrees, so at max overclock the result=same. Of course u will see at idle or load with mild overclocks that difference of 5 degrees, but getting the CPU to the limit won't mean any differences in scores/overclockability. And remaining below the limit, be it 105 or 110, there are no practical differences either, only placebo seeing 5 degrees cooler.

Maybe they just increased the figure without touching anything else, so 5 degrees else in TJMax, and temperatures increased in 5 degrees by default. Or maybe to help security the processor is getting hotter, but power should also increase and seems it is not the case.

This guy is u again:

https://forums.aida64.com/topic/4656...kylake-x-x299/

Aida replies=increase of temperatures=intentional.


Importance of the 5 degrees increase=Intel FAQ:

Could my processor gets damaged from overheating?
It's unlikely that a processor would get damaged from overheating, due to the operational safeguards in place. Processors have two modes of thermal protection, throttling and automatic shutdown. When a core exceeds the set throttle temperature, it will reduce power to maintain a safe temperature level. The throttle temperature can vary by processor and BIOS settings. If the processor is unable to maintain a safe operating temperature through throttling actions, it will automatically shut down to prevent permanent damage.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...rocessors.html


Also interesting:

Tcase: Technically this refers to the temperature that you can measure using a thermocouple embedded in the centre of the heat spreader, but this is only done in the factory by Intel or by users willing to drill their heat spreaders open to insert a thermocouple. Therefore Intel provided a diode between and below the cores with a reading calibrated by the BIOS which can be used instead. This reading can vary greatly when the BIOS version is changed, but will not necessarily change if the BIOS calibrations were not altered between versions.

TJMax which is the safe maximum operating core temperature for the CPU. As your CPU heats up, your Distance to TJMax will decrease. If it reaches zero, your processor will start to thermal throttle or slow down