Which bios version for the X58 UD5?

JonJ678

JonJ678

JonJ678

Soldato
Joined
22 Dec 2008
Posts
10,369
Location
England
Simple enough, I'm using the F7 bios it came with and am considering blaming this for various eccentric behaviour. F9E is available on their website marked beta, but since there are many numbers between 7 and 9E there are probably others out there.

About to see which others I can find through google, any in particular to keep an eye out for/avoid? Probably searching through tweaktown, considering a ud5 extreme bios file.

XS seems to rate F9k for the UD5, so I'll try this.
 
Last edited:
Gigabyte did have an F8 final BIOS on the website for a while, but it was really buggy, so they removed it when F9* beta BIOS'es started getting released..

I personally prefer F9e, as it has more options for RAM timings like Back to Back (B2B) CAS delay, some extra sub-timings, and also the option to quickly set RAM timings, which means that you only have to set them on 1 channel and it does the other 2 channels automatically.

Another reason why I prefer it over F7 is that PWM fan control works perfectly.

Also, as I'm using a RAID0 array for my OS, I used to get a long delay in the POST with F7, this no longer occurs with F9e.

There was also another delay with F7 when you first power the system on the LED debugger would cycle through the same codes 3 times before it would eventually POST (this only happens when your chip is o/ced, at stock settings it only cycled through the codes once before POST'ing), but now that delay isn't as bad anymore.

I really don't understand why F9 hasn't been finalized yet, I've been using it since it was released, and I haven't had any issues at all, and find it to be much better than F7.

Though there are newer ones on Tweaktown than F9e I think, I'm sure I saw someone using F9k on XS, so it might be worthwhile giving it a try instead.

Is your system working now Jon, or are you still having issues?
 
B2B delay is very exciting, there's an article on madshrimps to the effect of this setting being important and only existing on Asus boards. The quick setting of ram timings is lovely. I'm using F9k now. It would be amazing if the time between hitting power and it posting is reduced, but it hasn't been turned off yet so I don't know.

I'm testing at 3.5ghz, two loops finished so far. Using the system at the same time and it hasn't fallen over yet. It's broadly speaking working, my backup machine has been turned into an NAS and is working fine on one of the dodgy power sockets. A bit weird really. So while I'm far from the 4.5ghz target, it is at least running well enough to deal with cad. However I'm being walked over in the f@h tables, so the sooner it's stable the better.
 
Yeah, I read that article on Madshrimps about B2B Delay, I have it set to 6 on my system with the RAM at 1600MHz, however I haven't actually tested the difference between auto and 6 to see if it does increase bandwidth, I was actually thinking about testing this later on today.

Let me know how you get on with F9k, as I have been thinking about trying it out.

Have you powered down yet to see if the delay has been decreased when you power up??

I've been playing around with my system recently trying to push for higher clocks, and I've managed to get my system stable at 4.4GHz, but in order to get it stable, I've had to downclock my RAM to 1260MHz, as I just can't get my RAM to run on the 8x multi with 210Bclk, I've tried loosening timings to 9-9-9-26-2t, and I've also set vDIMM to 1.7v and 1.45v Vtt, but LinX ends up failing after 2 or 3 passes.

Anyway Jon, I hope you get everything sorted out with your rig soon mate. :)
 
I just loaded up F9k today (built machine yesterday), was managing to get 3.8 without much effort previously on F7, however with F9k I haven't even got 3.2 to work. :(

Doesn't even get through bios before it reboots and reduces the settings.

UD5 i7 920, currently OC'd to 2.8 :p
 
I personally prefer F9e, had a few minor errors with F7, however have not had one single error with F9e. However F9e has been around for a long time, so I am as well confused as to why F9 has not been standardised as of yet. Anyway, as soon as it is, it will definitely be a success :-)
 
F9k is behaving itself for me. Boot times are down, but there is still a definite delay between hitting power and seeing post. It's passed 25 loops of ibt at 200x20, which took 8 1/2 hours. It stays at 4ghz until I know if its stable in normal use as well.

But yeah, so far I like this bios.
 
Good to hear Jon.

There is still a delay with me between powering up and seeing POST, but it isn't as long as the delay I had with F7, when I used to look at the debug LED it would cycle through the same codes several times before it would actually get to the POST, but with F9e, instead of cycling through a bunch of codes, it reads "C1" and then it flickers really quickly, then goes back to C1, it does this twice, and then up comes the POST screen..
 
Got it back up to 3.8 stable. It was the uncore setting that was screwing me up, I was setting it to x2 however it seems to want to go higher.

Currently running uncore at 3.6k with memory only on 724 :rolleyes:
 
ChileanLlama said:
Boot times better than F7, but with F9e I'm finding it harder to get it stable at 4Ghz without increased vCore and QPI and subsequent temperatures. :(
Click to expand...

I found it tricky to get my o/c stable to begin with on F9e, but now I have it nice and stable at 4GHz (200x20) with lower Vcore and Vtt than I was using on F7...
 
I've been running F9E for some time now with no problems whatsoever. I had no trouble with vcore or vtt and temps are the same as with the previous f7 and f8 that I used before
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom