ASRock Z270 Extreme4 Kaby Lake ATX Motherboard Review

[Crashman]

Thomas,

Apologies if I am rattling your cage here, but your reply "not measuring the return voltage from the DIMM" isn't something you can downplay at this point. Professionally, it shows you are out of your depth and not qualified to publicly call out practices or in this case over-voltage at this level. It's best to leave those things to people who understand these things better, and stick to things that you are better qualified to proclaim.

The real time voltage and the VID in BIOS are not one and the same. This is because any power delivery circuit is susceptible to transients. As I've already mentioned a few times (which you've actively ignored), this is why an oscilloscope is needed to confirm whether the DIMM is really being subjected to overvoltage.

You keep rolling back to someone must be doing something wrong, but in this case it is you who is doing something wrong. A multi-meter is not the right tool here. At 5-20mv levels, this will likely fall within bounds of the undershoot of two phase power delivery systems.

If you really understood this, we wouldn't be having this back and forth. A multi-meter or any onboard voltage monitoring is not capable of measuring this, which is something you're failing to acknowledge.

Ah crap, let me bring you down to my level, there's still a supply voltage that's supposed to be constant right? And what I'm saying, is that my meter measures correctly the supply voltage on regular office PC boards.

You say "don't do that, you don't have an oscilloscope attached to the CPU socket". And I say "if it's DIMM voltage, it should be attached at the DIMM". When I say a voltage is High, I'm not talking about Signal High, I'm talking about the reference point to which signal high and signal low would be based.

1) Firstly, stop there. The voltage is never perfectly constant, so this is also incorrect. It is subject to deviations which your multi meter cannot read. This is why you are spiraling, and continually going down the wrong path...


2) I've never once mentioned the CPU socket, this is you misinterpreting the use of the word. Anyone that understands about measurements would not confuse that in this instance.

OK, OK, but the supply voltage is supposed to be an average (my word constant was relative, meaning the average typically moves a few millivolts rather than tens of millivolts), and my meter measures averages. I'm sure I could get more data by measuring peaks and valleys, but I'm only even attempting to measure inconsistent motherboards in a consistent way.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Thomas,

Apologies if I am rattling your cage here, but your reply "not measuring the return voltage from the DIMM" isn't something you can downplay at this point. Professionally, it shows you are out of your depth and not qualified to publicly call out practices or in this case over-voltage at this level. It's best to leave those things to people who understand these things better, and stick to things that you are better qualified to proclaim.

The real time voltage and the VID in BIOS are not one and the same. This is because any power delivery circuit is susceptible to transients. As I've already mentioned a few times (which you've actively ignored), this is why an oscilloscope is needed to confirm whether the DIMM is really being subjected to overvoltage.

You keep rolling back to someone must be doing something wrong, but in this case it is you who is doing something wrong. A multi-meter is not the right tool here. At 5-20mv levels, this will likely fall within bounds of the undershoot of two phase power delivery systems.

If you really understood this, we wouldn't be having this back and forth. A multi-meter or any onboard voltage monitoring is not capable of measuring this, which is something you're failing to acknowledge.

Ah crap, let me bring you down to my level, there's still a supply voltage that's supposed to be constant right? And what I'm saying, is that my meter measures correctly the supply voltage on regular office PC boards.

You say "don't do that, you don't have an oscilloscope attached to the CPU socket". And I say "if it's DIMM voltage, it should be attached at the DIMM". When I say a voltage is High, I'm not talking about Signal High, I'm talking about the reference point to which signal high and signal low would be based.

1) Firstly, stop there. The voltage is never perfectly constant, so this is also incorrect. It is subject to deviations which your multi meter cannot read. This is why you are spiraling, and continually going down the wrong path...


2) I've never once mentioned the CPU socket, this is you misinterpreting the use of the word. Anyone that understands about measurements would not confuse that in this instance.

OK, OK, but the supply voltage is supposed to be an average (my word constant was relative, meaning the average typically moves a few millivolts rather than tens of millivolts), and my meter measures averages. I'm sure I could get more data by measuring peaks and valleys, but I'm only even attempting to measure inconsistent motherboards in a consistent way.

Right. Which is why you aren't able to form a true conclusion on what is happening...

 

[Crashman]

Ah crap, let me bring you down to my level, there's still a supply voltage that's supposed to be constant right? And what I'm saying, is that my meter measures correctly the supply voltage on regular office PC boards.

You say "don't do that, you don't have an oscilloscope attached to the CPU socket". And I say "if it's DIMM voltage, it should be attached at the DIMM". When I say a voltage is High, I'm not talking about Signal High, I'm talking about the reference point to which signal high and signal low would be based.

1) Firstly, stop there. The voltage is never perfectly constant, so this is also incorrect. It is subject to deviations which your multi meter cannot read. This is why you are spiraling, and continually going down the wrong path...


2) I've never once mentioned the CPU socket, this is you misinterpreting the use of the word. Anyone that understands about measurements would not confuse that in this instance.

OK, OK, but the supply voltage is supposed to be an average (my word constant was relative, meaning the average typically moves a few millivolts rather than tens of millivolts), and my meter measures averages. I'm sure I could get more data by measuring peaks and valleys, but I'm only even attempting to measure inconsistent motherboards in a consistent way.

Right. Which is why you aren't able to form a true conclusion on what is happening...

Except that I can see the change in what's happening to the average. Yes, I have noticed that VDD looks like a furry line on an oscilloscope until you zoom in, but when they say 1.35V, I don't think their talking about the peaks or the valleys, is it fair by you if I say "nominal" instead?

 

[Silent_Scone]

Ah crap, let me bring you down to my level, there's still a supply voltage that's supposed to be constant right? And what I'm saying, is that my meter measures correctly the supply voltage on regular office PC boards.

You say "don't do that, you don't have an oscilloscope attached to the CPU socket". And I say "if it's DIMM voltage, it should be attached at the DIMM". When I say a voltage is High, I'm not talking about Signal High, I'm talking about the reference point to which signal high and signal low would be based.

1) Firstly, stop there. The voltage is never perfectly constant, so this is also incorrect. It is subject to deviations which your multi meter cannot read. This is why you are spiraling, and continually going down the wrong path...


2) I've never once mentioned the CPU socket, this is you misinterpreting the use of the word. Anyone that understands about measurements would not confuse that in this instance.

OK, OK, but the supply voltage is supposed to be an average (my word constant was relative, meaning the average typically moves a few millivolts rather than tens of millivolts), and my meter measures averages. I'm sure I could get more data by measuring peaks and valleys, but I'm only even attempting to measure inconsistent motherboards in a consistent way.

Right. Which is why you aren't able to form a true conclusion on what is happening...

Except that I can see the change in what's happening to the average. Yes, I have noticed that VDD looks like a furry line on an oscilloscope until you zoom in, but when they say 1.35V, I don't think their talking about the peaks or the valleys, is it fair by you if I say "nominal" instead?

Not really, no. It's more fair if you explain why you think it is overvoltage.

The "furry line" would tell you why the nominal voltage is set that way and whether it's done for good reason or not. This is why your info is half baked.

 

[Crashman]

OK, OK, but the supply voltage is supposed to be an average (my word constant was relative, meaning the average typically moves a few millivolts rather than tens of millivolts), and my meter measures averages. I'm sure I could get more data by measuring peaks and valleys, but I'm only even attempting to measure inconsistent motherboards in a consistent way.

Right. Which is why you aren't able to form a true conclusion on what is happening...

Except that I can see the change in what's happening to the average. Yes, I have noticed that VDD looks like a furry line on an oscilloscope until you zoom in, but when they say 1.35V, I don't think their talking about the peaks or the valleys, is it fair by you if I say "nominal" instead?

Not really, no. It's more fair if you explain why you think it is overvoltage.

The "furry line" would tell you why the nominal voltage is set that way and whether it's done for good reason or not. This is why your info is half baked.

OK, so what would you prefer I use instead of the nominal voltage? So far I've only said that the average is higher on some boards, and you're telling me that average isn't good enough even though I'm fairly certain that it's going to be what nominal voltage looks like when it reaches the DIMM. By that metric, you also wouldn't be satisfied if I used the manufacturer's voltage check points and only on boards that have them.

 

[Onus]

Thomas, I think he's being critical that you aren't measuring deviations; you may have an "average," but what if it's the peaks or valleys that are actually mattering most?
Scone, I think Thomas' point, and one his methods consistently demonstrate, is that his measurement results accurately predict the behavior of the products being tested. This suggests that even if the peaks/valleys are mattering, they are either the same on all boards, or correlate at a statistically significant level with the way he is measuring.
I believe there might be a way to test this, Thomas, if you can get your hands on boards with different numbers of power phases for the RAM. Use an oscilloscope to see if the waveforms are notably different based on number of phases, and also correlate with the results you get.

 

[Silent_Scone]

OK, OK, but the supply voltage is supposed to be an average (my word constant was relative, meaning the average typically moves a few millivolts rather than tens of millivolts), and my meter measures averages. I'm sure I could get more data by measuring peaks and valleys, but I'm only even attempting to measure inconsistent motherboards in a consistent way.

Right. Which is why you aren't able to form a true conclusion on what is happening...

Except that I can see the change in what's happening to the average. Yes, I have noticed that VDD looks like a furry line on an oscilloscope until you zoom in, but when they say 1.35V, I don't think their talking about the peaks or the valleys, is it fair by you if I say "nominal" instead?

Not really, no. It's more fair if you explain why you think it is overvoltage.

The "furry line" would tell you why the nominal voltage is set that way and whether it's done for good reason or not. This is why your info is half baked.

OK, so what would you prefer I use instead of the nominal voltage? So far I've only said that the average is higher on some boards, and you're telling me that average isn't good enough even though I'm fairly certain that it's going to be what nominal voltage looks like when it reaches the DIMM. By that metric, you also wouldn't be satisfied if I used the manufacturer's voltage check points and only on boards that have them.

Well, you would need to measure them all properly and work it out...

 

[Silent_Scone]

Thomas, I think he's being critical that you aren't measuring deviations; you may have an "average," but what if it's the peaks or valleys that are actually mattering most?
Scone, I think Thomas' point, and one his methods consistently demonstrate, is that his measurement results accurately predict the behavior of the products being tested. This suggests that even if the peaks/valleys are mattering, they are either the same on all boards, or correlate at a statistically significant level with the way he is measuring.
I believe there might be a way to test this, Thomas, if you can get your hands on boards with different numbers of power phases for the RAM. Use an oscilloscope to see if the waveforms are notably different based on number of phases, and also correlate with the results you get.

This wouldn't give you anything conclusive, either. It depends on more than just phase count.

 

[Onus]

Hmmm, then I'm going to say it looks like you are asking for what amounts to many more "significant digits" than are needed to get a practical, relevant answer. Thomas' methods may not be as precise as a disciplined EE may like, but they serve their intended purpose, including they are not likely to lead someone to pair the "wrong" components and then wonder why they don't work.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Hmmm, then I'm going to say it looks like you are asking for what amounts to many more "significant digits" than are needed to get a practical, relevant answer. Thomas' methods may not be as precise as a disciplined EE may like, but they serve their intended purpose, including they are not likely to lead someone to pair the "wrong" components and then wonder why they don't work.

No, not at all. Without using the right methods, you're making blanket statements. That's the issue here...

And the funny thing is, it was Thomas who was mistaken into thinking I was referring to the CPU socket. Let alone the readers making mistakes...

 

[Crashman]

Thomas, I think he's being critical that you aren't measuring deviations; you may have an "average," but what if it's the peaks or valleys that are actually mattering most?
Scone, I think Thomas' point, and one his methods consistently demonstrate, is that his measurement results accurately predict the behavior of the products being tested. This suggests that even if the peaks/valleys are mattering, they are either the same on all boards, or correlate at a statistically significant level with the way he is measuring.
I believe there might be a way to test this, Thomas, if you can get your hands on boards with different numbers of power phases for the RAM. Use an oscilloscope to see if the waveforms are notably different based on number of phases, and also correlate with the results you get.

Hmmm, then I'm going to say it looks like you are asking for what amounts to many more "significant digits" than are needed to get a practical, relevant answer. Thomas' methods may not be as precise as a disciplined EE may like, but they serve their intended purpose, including they are not likely to lead someone to pair the "wrong" components and then wonder why they don't work.

While that could add more to the discussion of why one board overclocks better than the other at the same average voltage (more noise, poorer signal quality), my major point was to make sure everyone was getting the same opportunity in the O/C test. That's opportunity-driven, not outcome-driven. I'd hate to see a company win the O/C test by using unsafe voltage levels, which would of course be an extreme example of what I'm trying to avoid.

 

[PowerOC]

Pretty good board, looking to buy this one or the Fatal1ty.
which would be best for overclocking?

 

[Crashman]

Pretty good board, looking to buy this one or the Fatal1ty.
which would be best for overclocking?

Considering that this is the same board with an extra controller or two left off? Flip a coin.

 

[Mark_304]

Can you guys review the Z270 SuperCarrier?

 

[Crashman]

Can you guys review the Z270 SuperCarrier?

OK!

 

[shrapnel_indie]

DX12 testing is not important at all since brings 0 performance improvements. It is another DX10 fiasco. Microsoft will have to do some serious rework with DX12 especially with MGPU support.

Source?