Question FX9590 intermittent no post -- but runs fine once started. Ruled everything but CPU. ?????

[DONINAUSTIN]

Asrock 970a-g/3.1
AMD FX-9590
NvMe SSD
Old generic video card. (PC is business use)
8 gigs Corsair ram
Problem exists with all drives except SSD unplugged.

Intermittent failure to post. Not even video. At one time the fans were clicking and cycling but that has stopped. I have swapped memory, video card, SSD, MB, 4 different power supplies 500w to 1000 watt.
No problem with temperature -- this is not a gaming PC. What is strange is that once I get the PC up and running it can go days or weeks with no faults or crashes. No problems found running burn-in software.
So it seems to come down to the processor. Today i underclocked it from 4.7 to 4.0 and reduced the turbo speed. This MAY have fixed it but it has been unpredictable so hard to say.
But can a CPU be flaky in such a way that the ONLY symptom is failure to post?

 

[chrisjames61]

I would never run a 9590 on that board. Only boards that truly have the power delivery system are the CHVF and CH5FZ and Sabertooth 990FX. If you go to ASRocks cpu support list for your board they list all these caveats to running a 9370 and 9590. Like running a downdraft cooler to help cool the fets and using additional fans to keep them cool. CPU's rarely die but boards die much more frequently. Oh by the way, how did you rule out the board? You try another cpu in it?

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

I would never run a 9590 on that board. Only boards that truly have the power delivery system are the CHVF and CH5FZ and Sabertooth 990FX. If you go to ASRocks cpu support list for your board they list all these caveats to running a 9370 and 9590. Like running a downdraft cooler to help cool the fets and using additional fans to keep them cool. CPU's rarely die but boards die much more frequently. Oh by the way, how did you rule out the board? You try another cpu in it?

I took the first ASRock board home and used it to upgrade the PC I am typing on now. It has an FX-6300 with no startup problems at all. Change of MB, SSD, memory, video card in the problem PC made no difference at all.
I have a couple big fans in the case. When I have experienced the intermittent failure to POST it is just as likely to happen with the PC stone cold having been off for a few hours as with the PC warm. Perhaps if I run the FX-9590 as FX-8350 it will be solid. Just really perplexed that the ONLY problem is with POST. I could run burn-in software all day long without faults or extreme temps.

 

[hojnikb]

That thing is a serious power hog and while board in question should have enough vrms to handle it, it's not really the best board for such a damn power hog. Might be that cpu pulls too much current at post and refuses to boot ? Keep it at 4.0Ghz (don't forget to undervolt as well) it may fix your problem.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I hope you haven't spent any significant amount of money doing part swaps on that machine.

That being said, I would suspect the IMC having issues with proper RAM training at boot. Other than that, it may be difficult - if not impossible - to diagnose the exact issue with the CPU. If it IS a RAM training issue, you may need to fiddle around with some of the more obscure RAM voltage settings to get it to work correctly.

And yeah, I would never run a 9xxx chip on one of those boards.

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

I hope you haven't spent any significant amount of money doing part swaps on that machine.

I have 5 PCs at my business and there is my home machine. So very little is going to waste. I am typing this on the first Asrock board that I took home. I have a couple of extra power supplies, but that is not such a bad thing.

That being said, I would suspect the IMC having issues with proper RAM training at boot. Other than that, it may be difficult - if not impossible - to diagnose the exact issue with the CPU. If it IS a RAM training issue, you may need to fiddle around with some of the more obscure RAM voltage settings to get it to work correctly.

And yeah, I would never run a 9xxx chip on one of those boards.

Right now the 9590 has turned into FX-8350. If the FX-9590 is simply incapable of booting reliably on the Asrock board I would think Asrock would be deluged with complaints about the problem. Oddly, I haven't found a single reference. Re' RAM, I swapped it with that in other machine to no effect, but I have not tried different voltages.

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

That thing is a serious power hog and while board in question should have enough vrms to handle it, it's not really the best board for such a damn power hog. Might be that cpu pulls too much current at post and refuses to boot ? Keep it at 4.0Ghz (don't forget to undervolt as well) it may fix your problem.

Right now my biggest problem is stubborn curiosity! I am aware that for less than $500 I could buy a Ryzen 2600x, MB and DDR4 memory. If the combination of Fx-9590 and the Asrock board are simply an unworkable combination -- and this seems plausible -- how come I can't find a complaint similar to mine? I hadn't thought of undervolting the CPU. Time will tell if running the FX-9590 as Fx-8350 is workable. My understanding is that an FX-9590 is simply an Fx-8350 tested for higher speeds. Perhaps the test was flawed?

 

[DigDog]

Likely the caps are failing on the board .. you should be able to fix it by simply raising the BIOS voltages.

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

Likely the caps are failing on the board .. you should be able to fix it by simply raising the BIOS voltages.

On two brand new boards?

 

[hojnikb]

Right now my biggest problem is stubborn curiosity! I am aware that for less than $500 I could buy a Ryzen 2600x, MB and DDR4 memory. If the combination of Fx-9590 and the Asrock board are simply an unworkable combination -- and this seems plausible -- how come I can't find a complaint similar to mine? I hadn't thought of undervolting the CPU. Time will tell if running the FX-9590 as Fx-8350 is workable. My understanding is that an FX-9590 is simply an Fx-8350 tested for higher speeds. Perhaps the test was flawed?

yes, fx9 is just a higher binned fx8.

 

[DigDog]

On two brand new boards?

I had the same happen on my 965p-ds3 board and E6600. Voltage leaks, and the cpu just isnt getting enough power. What you read in the bios isnt what is getting there. It's an easy test, raise the voltage a bit, and if the system stabilizes, then you know it's bad capacitors.

Two boards is bad luck, but it can happen.

 

[LTC8K6]

Maybe try taking the cpu out of the socket and putting it back in to clean up the pin connections?

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

Maybe try taking the cpu out of the socket and putting it back in to clean up the pin connections?

It has been in and out a time or two. I switched boards.

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

It has been in and out a time or two. I switched boards.

 

[LTC8K6]

Then it sounds like the CPU is all that's left? Have you tried bumping the voltage up a bit? Perhaps it now needs a bit more voltage to be stable?

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

Then it sounds like the CPU is all that's left? Have you tried bumping the voltage up a bit? Perhaps it now needs a bit more voltage to be stable?

Pretty sure I did, but will try again. Still puzzled that problem is only on POST.

 

[NTMBK]

Pretty sure I did, but will try again. Still puzzled that problem is only on POST.

During POST a lot of power saving functionality isn't available, so it might be that your CPU running flat out on all cores is just too much for that board.

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

Does fine with with burn-in type programs.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Does fine with with burn-in type programs.

Do you have a voltage setting available called VTT_DDR? Or a startup RAM voltage setting?

[QUOTE="DONINAUSTIN, post: 39691122, member: 437491" If the combination of Fx-9590 and the Asrock board are simply an unworkable combination -- and this seems plausible -- how come I can't find a complaint similar to mine? [/QUOTE]

It was general consensus among AMD fans that 9xxx chips only worked on a small handful of boards. 9590s and 9370s are actually 83xx chips that had such high current leakage that they were bound for the trashbin before someone decided to rebadge them as overclocker chips and sell them for high prices. I doubt many have tried running a 9590 in that particular board.

 

[Abwx]

9590s and 9370s are actually 83xx chips that had such high current leakage that they were bound for the trashbin before someone decided to rebadge them as overclocker chips and sell them for high prices.

Quite an urban legend of yours here...

Actually those chips were the first FXs to use an improved 32nm SOI process that increased the frequency ceiling by roughly 10%, and wich was also used for Richland in the APUs, Trinity using the previous 32nm.

Subsequent FX8350 produced after mid 2013 are the second rate chips with the 8320 being one step below, FWIW the most efficient chips are the FX8370E/8300 for the lower stock voltage at a given frequency, the 8320E being below those two (2.6% higher voltage).

For frequency ceiling the better chips are the 9370/9590/8370, the FX9590 is not automaticaly the best overclocker, some 9370 and even 8370 can clock higher or can work at lower voltages for a given (high) frequency.

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

Do you have a voltage setting available called VTT_DDR? Or a startup RAM voltage setting?

I don't think so. i have never heard of that setting.

[QUOTE="DONINAUSTIN, post: 39691122, member: 437491" If the combination of Fx-9590 and the Asrock board are simply an unworkable combination -- and this seems plausible -- how come I can't find a complaint similar to mine? [/QUOTE]

It was general consensus among AMD fans that 9xxx chips only worked on a small handful of boards. 9590s and 9370s are actually 83xx chips that had such high current leakage that they were bound for the trashbin before someone decided to rebadge them as overclocker chips and sell them for high prices. I doubt many have tried running a 9590 in that particular board.[/QUOTE] But would high current leakage go hand in hand with being able to be substantially overclocked?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Quite an urban legend of yours here...

Honestly. Let's not derail the thread too much, but:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1496284-huge-issues-9590-stability-2.html#post22433650

9370s and 9590s had such high leakage that they couldn't be sold as 83xx chips. Trash bin material. So they sold them to enthusiasts who actually wanted the high leakage. But hey if you don't believe me, @The_Stilt can chime in or not. The 32nm re-spin (post IBM acquisition) chips saw some slightly better chips all up and down the 83xx and 9xxx lineup, so the later 9370 and 9590 chips weren't quite as bad, but they were still binned according to leakage.

I don't think so. i have never heard of that setting.

Bummer. I'd still look at the IMC as the possible culprit.

[QUOTE But would high current leakage go hand in hand with being able to be substantially overclocked?[/QUOTE]

Yes. 9590s could usually go higher than just about anything. Usually. You paid a price for it though.

 

[SlowSpyder]

My FX9370 sipped power when I undervolted. I could run it at 4.4GHz at ~1.225 volts sucking <100 watts. If that board doesn't support the FX9xxxx CPU's you'll likely have some troubles.

 

[DONINAUSTIN]

My FX9370 sipped power when I undervolted. I could run it at 4.4GHz at ~1.225 volts sucking <100 watts. If that board doesn't support the FX9xxxx CPU's you'll likely have some troubles.

It is supposed to support FX9590

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My FX9370 sipped power when I undervolted. I could run it at 4.4GHz at ~1.225 volts sucking <100 watts. If that board doesn't support the FX9xxxx CPU's you'll likely have some troubles.

Wish I was smart enough to do this to my wife’s problematic FX6300 system.
Personally I think this whole run of chips from AMD were crap and too fussy about what board, what power and which memory.

*Not dissing you man and I hope you’ve had good luck with your system. Just a rant from my completely dissatisfied experience with the AMD machine.