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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gridironcpj

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.

---

I'm doing this to you tomorrow for the 49 ;)

No problem using it with a CPU 7000 (just that it is not up to date for the latest vulnerabilities, but these vulnerabilities have been around for more than 10 years and have only been discovered recently)

There would just be a bug with the AVX512 if greater than 4200mhz, if I remember correctly (never tested)
Not using any programs supporting the AVX512, I always set this frequency @stock

@vmanuelgm
The Asus also have this "option" since the release of the R6E (if we talk about the same thing in Gigabyte's post)
It's just if we want to have a "protection" temperature different from that applied by the TJmax but it does not modify the TJMax (only the microcode can do it)
Some had set to 90° (the CPU goes into safety at this temperature)

Since I didn't have an Asus from the beginning, don't know if Asus had a 120 degrees limit for CPU protection, but Gigabyte did under TJMax temperature parameter. Windows would only report 105 degrees because of the Microcode limitation in that time. Having a parameter like this is what really matters, in order to avoid processor throttling=practical differences.

U opened threads and threads, Intel or Aida webs for example, they never say bug, u still using Microcode 49. Intel says in its FAQ there is no problem nowadays reaching the TJMax cos of Processor protections. MC 49 bugged for AVX512, obsolete, doesn't protect against anything, performance is similar (u can get 50 points more in Cinebench at most)...

A bit stubborn???


What is Tjunction max temperature?
What is Tcase max temperature?
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.

Does Intel provide temperature ranges for each processor?
How can I check the Tjunction max or Tcase max for my processor?
Is it bad if my processor frequently approaches or reaches its maximum temperature?
Not necessarily. Many Intel® processors make use of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology, which allows them to operate at very high frequency for a short amount of time. When the processor is operating at or near its maximum frequency it's possible for the temperature to climb very rapidly and quickly reach its maximum temperature. In sustained workloads, it's possible the processor will operate at or near its maximum temperature limit. Being at maximum temperature while running a workload isn't necessarily cause for concern. Intel processors constantly monitor their temperature and can very rapidly adjust their frequency and power consumption to prevent overheating and damage.

How can I check if my system cooling solution is adequate?
Where can I find more information if my computer is overheating?


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

I don't care about all that :p
I do not do "the hunt" at temperatures (watercooling, etc ...) to have a microcode that heats up more

If you have trouble understanding this, I can't help you
Pass to another thing ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tistou77

I'm doing this to you tomorrow for the 49 ;)

No problem using it with a CPU 7000 (just that it is not up to date for the latest vulnerabilities, but these vulnerabilities have been around for more than 10 years and have only been discovered recently)

There would just be a bug with the AVX512 if greater than 4200mhz, if I remember correctly (never tested)
Not using any programs supporting the AVX512, I always set this frequency @stock

@vmanuelgm
The Asus also have this "option" since the release of the R6E (if we talk about the same thing in Gigabyte's post)
It's just if we want to have a "protection" temperature different from that applied by the TJmax but it does not modify the TJMax (only the microcode can do it)
Some had set to 90° (the CPU goes into safety at this temperature)

---

Thank you! I appreciate it. I haven't run across ant issues with AVX-512 loads with frequencies higher than 4200MHz. In fact, a few months ago I was running 3dmark Time Spy Extreme's CPU test with the instruction set changed to AVX-512 for a "bench-a-thon" with some other folks and everything ran fine. This was all with microcode 49.

@tistou77, thanks for the releases. Wonderful.

I see that MC69 is the latest release. Are you going to update R6E 3006 bios with MC69?

Avx512 is buggy in MC 49. U can try ycruncher and u'll see it ends stopping upon an error above 4200, or even at lower clocks.

@Tistou77
So u don't care after going around several webs and having been told it must be intentional, also after multiple MC revisions which confirm there is no bug=stubborn.

Then u say u don't want to heat up, who wants to heat up??? Not me, I just checked if your beloved MC is really important to achieve better overclocks , and found it isn't. What it is=obsolete and buggy.

I even tried 2E, before any mitigations to find it is also buggy.

After discussing with Intel Engineer many time. The storyline is very tiny @vmanuelgm

The guy that you havens seen on Intel forum is me not master tistou77.

Idata@intel had told me these by mail since that time 0200004D microcode release.

Quote:

---

We’re planning to release solder (STIM) version processors that many user requests soon.
( I guessed he meant the Core X i9 9XXX series aka Skylake X refresh ).
The new microcode design for new processors and compatible with existing products.
It was a little bit higher temperatures but not harmful existing products.*

---

*

So if that was a real engineer, he was saying Microcode 4D was inducing higher temperatures, no bug, no damage danger as they also say in their FAQ (nowadays u don't break a CPU because of temperatures, but sustained volts/amps). Did he mention the specific reason to have higher temperatures???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gridironcpj

Thank you! I appreciate it. I haven't run across ant issues with AVX-512 loads with frequencies higher than 4200MHz. In fact, a few months ago I was running 3dmark Time Spy Extreme's CPU test with the instruction set changed to AVX-512 for a "bench-a-thon" with some other folks and everything ran fine. This was all with microcode 49.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GTi-6

@tistou77, thanks for the releases. Wonderful.

I see that MC69 is the latest release. Are you going to update R6E 3006 bios with MC69?

---

Done ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vmanuelgm

So if that was a real engineer, he was saying Microcode 4D was inducing higher temperatures, no bug, no damage danger as they also say in their FAQ (nowadays u don't break a CPU because of temperatures, but sustained volts/amps). Did he mention the specific reason to have higher temperatures???

---

Nothing at all.

From my opinion, Skylake X and Refresh are the same chip model. They’d factory overclock based clock higher around
400-600MHz each models then apply STIM to keep it idle operation temperatures at same level of original models.
The microcode 0200004D and higher may increase TJ Max from 105 to 110 to fit the Skylake X refresh models above.
**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tistou77

Done ;)

---

Thanks again!

i have the 3006 bios updated and on default settings, i use i9 10920x and tested with various apps to stress test but processor wont ever go past 4300mhz when intel specs are 4600mhz all core boost and 4800mhz boost on 2 performing cores, i have disabled asus multicore enhancements and xmp enabled with auto for core settings, with ITB enabled its the same and with native os support also the same, what am i doing wrong and does the microcode 69 do anything and how do flash it, thank you.

@tistou77 will you make a modded bios for the APEX boards?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zocker

@tistou77 will you make a modded bios for the APEX boards?!

---

Same for me @tistou77. I am about to rebuild my X299 Apex workstation.

The BIOS can be found here:

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

Thanks in advance :)

Hello

Microcode 69 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tistou77

Hello

Microcode 69 ?

---

Please. Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nosirrah

Please. Thanks again.

---

Done ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tistou77

Done ;)

---

Thanks man :)

I'm still showing being on 60H after utilizing the flashback bios option with this modded bios for the r6e. Is there something I did wrong or is it just not flashing through the flashback either? It goes through it's routine like it should be flashing.. I'm trying to use the 69 coded bios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewebsiteisdown

I'm still showing being on 60H after utilizing the flashback bios option with this modded bios for the r6e. Is there something I did wrong or is it just not flashing through the flashback either? It goes through it's routine like it should be flashing.. I'm trying to use the 69 coded bios.

---

Attachment 84211

Checking again mate. If you done correctly , you'll get this.:o

I used the link listed in the pic and did the procedure listed in the pic. I used flashback with utilizing the right usb port with the pc off,. and it went through it's procedure of flashing the bios and I'm still showing 60h You can see it programming the bios with the flashing bios light and the flashing bios flashback light. There must be something I'm missing or it is not sticking on my board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewebsiteisdown

I used the link listed in the pic and did the procedure listed in the pic. I used flashback with utilizing the right usb port with the pc off,. and it went through it's procedure of flashing the bios and I'm still showing 60h You can see it programming the bios with the flashing bios light and the flashing bios flashback light. There must be something I'm missing or it is not sticking on my board.

---

You must contacted Master tistou77 for the new copy of file first.:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by restsugavan

You must contacted Master tistou77 for the new copy of file first.:o

---

@tistou77 May I haves please sir? I know I did the procedure correctly because I've done it before3 to fix minor corruption issues from tweaking memory before. You're either doing it right or wrong.

Well, this is odd,

After flashing the lastest 3006 -Microcode 69 it shows on AIDA64 Extreme:


7900X CPU:

Microcode Update Revision 68h
Stepping : U0 ???

Also, I am using Intel ME 11.12.0.1622 + Intel Mei 1931.14.0.1323.
Is this the right configuration?

Looking forward to hear your opinions.
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desertum_0

Well, this is odd,

After flashing the lastest 3006 -Microcode 69 it shows on AIDA64 Extreme:


7900X CPU:

Microcode Update Revision 68h
Stepping : U0 ???

Also, I am using Intel ME 11.12.0.1622 + Intel Mei 1931.14.0.1323.
Is this the right configuration?

Looking forward to hear your opinions.
Thanks

---

I figured it out for us. So apparently if you're on the BIOS revision 3006 for example already, it will remain unchanged. If you're on the previous BIOS 2002 for example and flash up to 3006 modded for 69h microcode, it sticks just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewebsiteisdown

@tistou77 May I haves please sir? I know I did the procedure correctly because I've done it before3 to fix minor corruption issues from tweaking memory before. You're either doing it right or wrong.

---

I checked and no worries on this bios
Try to download it and install it again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tistou77

I checked and no worries on this bios
Try to download it and install it again

---

I got it thank you though. It was because I was on bios 3006 already and so even flashback didn't update the bios so it didn't give me the updated 69h. I went back to the 2002 BIOS and then stepped back up to your 3006 modded BIOS using the flashback option and that fixed the issue.

Thank you for your hard work on this seriously.

You're welcome ;)

flashed 3006 with microcode 69 and in aida64 it shows microcode revision as 2f00h for my i9 10920x instead of 69, is that something i need to look further into?, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lingaraju06

flashed 3006 with microcode 69 and in aida64 it shows microcode revision as 2f00h for my i9 10920x instead of 69, is that something i need to look further into?, thank you.

---

Microcode 69 is for Skylake-X, as indicated on the link ;)