Question GIGABYTE 5700 XT Bios mod fails

AlleyCat

Veteran
Mitglied seit
Okt 9, 2020
Beiträge
290
Bewertungspunkte
17
Punkte
17
Hi,
I am failing to update Gigabyte 5700 XT. The same procedure updates the BIOS on MSI cards with no problem. I follow the instructions on Igors Lab.

The sign of having trouble with the card bios flash shows in GPU-Z. After flash using amdvbflash the values of GPU and memory frequencies is empty. With stock bios there are Mhz frequencies.

Is there any known problems with flashing Gigabyte cards?
Any suggestions on what other forums I may ask for assistance?
Is it possible that the OEM bios is signed, and any modified bios will be rejected?
If the bios is signed, any tools to resign, or would I need to buy a card from a different vendor?

Thanks,

Alley Cat
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet :
all guy
Run Teamredminer 0.7.22

NAVI KERNEL REWRITE! Over the last month we've been working on new kernels. The first one released is for Navi. The main feature is lower power consumption, hashrate will remain about the same but depends somewhat on clocks. NOTE: please let the miner retune any existing --eth_config arguments for all Navi gpus, the new values will be significantly lower.

Tested and works fine
power lower
I confirm the reduction in power consumption using the new Teamredminer 0.7.22.
My rig has 7 GPUs, the total power with revision 0.7.21 was 1,085W at the wall, and with revision 0.7.22, the total system power consumption is an average of 1,060W. This is approximately a 25W reduction over 7 GPUs, which is about 3.5% less GPU power.
The system hash remained the same at 394 MH/s.

Thank you, RTM, for developing a solid product.
 
I confirm the reduction in power consumption using the new Teamredminer 0.7.22.
My rig has 7 GPUs, the total power with revision 0.7.21 was 1,085W at the wall, and with revision 0.7.22, the total system power consumption is an average of 1,060W. This is approximately a 25W reduction over 7 GPUs, which is about 3.5% less GPU power.
The system hash remained the same at 394 MH/s.

Thank you, RTM, for developing a solid product.

yes i am run trm 0.7.22 is very good work
 
Hello and thank you Mini_Me & AlleyCat for testing these cards thoroughly, your posts helped me a lot tweaking a dozen of 5600XTs and 5700XT&nonXTs.


I have a question:
Due to air cooling is being used, the highly recommend setting as below,

Core clock, VDD : Memory clock, VDDCI, MVDD
- 1380 MHz, 770 mV : 900 MHz, 800 mV or 850 mV, 1310 mV or 1350 mV,
- 1385 MHz, 770 mV : 905 MHz, 800 mV or 850 mV, 1310 mV or 1350 mV,
- 1390 MHz, 775 mV : 910 MHz, 800 mV or 850 mV, 1310 mV or 1350 mV,
- 1430 MHz, 795 mV : 950 MHz, 850 mV or 900 mV, 1350 mV or 1360 mV,
1435 MHz, 800 mV : 955 MHz, 850 mV or 900 mV, 1350 mV or 1360 mV,
- 1440 MHz, 800 mV : 960 MHz, 850 mV or 900 mV, 1350 mV or 1365 mV,
So you have found out that the optimal gap between cclock and mclock is 480mhz (which is true),

and I was wondering what would be the number for 5600XT?

So far for me 170MHz is the optimal gap between cclock and mlock for 5600XT with samsung memory (C:1070MHz/M:900MHz)
Yet, I want to hear Mini_Me's thoughts and comments on this.


With regards
 
Hello and thank you Mini_Me & AlleyCat for testing these cards thoroughly, your posts helped me a lot tweaking a dozen of 5600XTs and 5700XT&nonXTs.


I have a question:

So you have found out that the optimal gap between cclock and mclock is 480mhz (which is true),

and I was wondering what would be the number for 5600XT?

So far for me 170MHz is the optimal gap between cclock and mlock for 5600XT with samsung memory (C:1070MHz/M:900MHz)
Yet, I want to hear Mini_Me's thoughts and comments on this.


With regards
Do you think there is a problem if we do not repeat 480 and it will be 470 or 490?
 
Do you think there is a problem if we do not repeat 480 and it will be 470 or 490?
Hello!

No, I do not think there is a problem. Its perfectly fine with your own values. I just wanted to say that in my experience below or above 480 either increases watt or decreases mhs, and it turned out to be the best number for my cards. That's all.
 
Hello and thank you Mini_Me & AlleyCat for testing these cards thoroughly, your posts helped me a lot tweaking a dozen of 5600XTs and 5700XT&nonXTs.


I have a question:

So you have found out that the optimal gap between cclock and mclock is 480mhz (which is true),

and I was wondering what would be the number for 5600XT?

So far for me 170MHz is the optimal gap between cclock and mlock for 5600XT with samsung memory (C:1070MHz/M:900MHz)
Yet, I want to hear Mini_Me's thoughts and comments on this.


With regards
Hello and welcome,

Regarding the 480 MHz gap between core clock and memory clock, it is true I choose this as an optimal value for most cards however I believe even if I mention it people will not stick with it and try to venture on their own,

Regarding the 5600 XT, please could you inform what is your hashrate at the meantime?
 
Hello and welcome,

Regarding the 480 MHz gap between core clock and memory clock, it is true I choose this as an optimal value for most cards however I believe even if I mention it people will not stick with it and try to venture on their own,

Regarding the 5600 XT, please could you inform what is your hashrate at the meantime?
1608833294162.png

It's actually a Sapphire Pulse 5600XT BE with Samsung memory flashed with PowerColor's corresponding card.

These are test values, I'm testing it as we speak. Most stable I've seen it running for days was 42.4mh @ 1070/900 685/850/1350
 
This is what my platform with the TRM miner looks like, after 24 hours
 

Anhänge

  • nanopool hive tmr 24 ore.png
    nanopool hive tmr 24 ore.png
    123,5 KB · Aufrufe : 83
  • 24 ore hive trm miner.png
    24 ore hive trm miner.png
    113,5 KB · Aufrufe : 126
This is what my platform with the TRM miner looks like, after 24 hours
Greetings,

Those who have Gigabyte Gaming 5700 non XT, in the kindly attached link below is the latest vbios for it, original without any modification.
 

Anhänge

  • Gigabyte-RX57-GAMING-OC-F50-v68.rom
    512 KB · Aufrufe : 19
Zuletzt bearbeitet :
Oben Unten