post #2747 of 3216 (permalink) Unread 10-29-2018, 09:28 AM
SpeedyIV
New to Overclock.net

SpeedyIV's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 431
Quote: Originally Posted by elmor View Post
I think the extended design was temporarily used because of supply issues, if those got solved I'd assume they went back to the previous design. I don't think the PCB Revision would indicate anything about which VRM configuration is on there.
Quote: Originally Posted by g7713019 View Post
Can you clarify which version of Maximus X Hero is inferior?(Original or rev 1.01?)

If I recall, the original is this: http://112.172.165.208/data/editor/1...8_gxbdqovi.jpg

And the revision 1.01 looks like this: https://www.overclock.net/forum/atta...1&d=1537441897
Quote: Originally Posted by porksmuggler View Post
The original ROG Maximus X Hero / (WiFi) use an ASP1400BT PWM controller and a parallel 4 x 2 BSG0812ND FET arrangment. Likely most of the ROG Maximus X Hero / (WiFi) Rev.1.01 boards have that same VRM. Possibly due to a supply shortage, there are these boards with the ASP1405I PWM controller, IR3599 doublers and ZF906 FETs, like used in the ROG Maximus X Formula and Code.
Quote: Originally Posted by Feklar View Post
I have the Hero X non-WIFI and it does report vrm temps. I have a few friends that have the Hero X non-wifi and some with the Hero X wifi. Those with the Hero X have a vrm temp reporting and those with the Hero X wifi do not have vrm temp reporting. Perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not.
I don't know which revision of the Max X Hero ( or wifi) is inferior, since Elmor stated that he does not "think the PCB Revision would indicate anything about which VRM configuration is on there." So maybe the rev1.01 has nothing to do with the apparent fact that there are at least 2 different VRM designs floating around on the Max X Hero boards. Maybe the rev1.01 boards have some other difference. What I do know that is my Max X Hero wifi absolutely does NOT report a VRM temp, or have any option or setting for it in the Bios. No VRM Temp reported in HWINFO64 or SIV. Some other do get a VRM temp reported - maybe most. It's hard to tell because more people post with a problem than without. The 8 or so reviews I read with BIOS screen shots did not show it, and it was never mentioned as being present or not.

So if I have this right, they designed the board with VRM design A. Mid production, they had a component sourcing issue, so they started using VRM design B, then when back to VRM design A when the parts shortage was over. Whether the rev number (1.01) directly relates to that is unknown. From what porksmuggler says, VRM B was actually the better design, already used on the Max X Formula and Code. In the pics g7713019 provided links to, you can see additional components (doublers?) around the VRM area that are absent on the original version. It looks like the solder pad and traces are there but unused. Maybe the board trace work is done so they can populate it with either VRM design. So they switched to the better. more expensive solution when they had to, and then went back to the cheaper design when they could. Maybe they just never stopped printing "rev1.01" on the boards after that.

What I don't get is why one version reports a VRM temp and the other does not. This seems like a pretty basic function, and they used to advertise it by having a thermometer over the VRM on the web page for the board. So it seems like they intended to provide a VRM Temp. So does the inferior (standard for Max X Hero) VRM design not report a VRM temp and the better design that was temporarily used does? And the thermometer over the VRM on the web site was a marketing error? I am happy with my Max X Hero board. It overclocks my 8700K just fine and I have never had a thermal issue with the VRMs (that I am aware of). I am guessing on VRM temps with a temp probe and would just like to know why there is no VRM temp reported on my Max X Hero wifi, and I would like an answer from Asus.

As for the practice of switching components mid production, I guess this sort of thing happens now and then, but switching out critical components (like the VRM section), and taking away a basic system monitoring feature - that bugs me. Still hoping that Elmor or someone in the know at Asus will step up and address this issue.
Last edited by SpeedyIV; 10-29-2018 at 09:51 AM.