Supermicro C7H170-M BIOS

As noted in many previous motherboard reviews, some users care deeply about the BIOS interface, whereas others might not care at all. In all honesty, it only gets accessed by a few percent of all users, and usually at most just to set defaults or due to an accidental BIOS reset. Despite this, manufacturers need to spend time on it for two reasons – enthusiasts and optimization. Because the C7H170-M is being advertised as an overclocking motherboard, this means the overclocking tools should be easy to use.

One of the issues of using BIOSes outside the main four motherboard manufacturers is that they tend to be 2-3 years behind in terms of interface, implementation and options. Supermicro is in this space – while there is a graphical interface, it is a bit of a handful to use and doesn’t open up as many options as I would like. One example is that the BIOS does not have a screenshot mode, so apologies for the following photos of a screen. One big aspect I should point out here is that the BIOS does not have an update tool – in order to update the BIOS, the user needs to have a DOS bootable USB with the required files already in place or use the HTML interface after already installing an OS.

The first screen on entry is a basic display showing the time, the board name and the BIOS version. Typically we want to see a lot more in the opening screen – the CPU installed, the CPU speed, voltage, temperature, the DRAM installed, the DRAM speed, the storage drives installed, the fans installed, the fan speeds, the boot order, and basically everything that could facilitate an easy fix for 85% of all problems without entering any other menus. In time, Supermicro will learn to add this, and should see that other motherboard manufacturers typically do this via an Easy Mode.

Regarding the controls of the BIOS, it can be rather confusing to get to grips with. There is mouse movement and selection, however the use of a high-DPI implementation of the BIOS and my usual DPI setting on my mouse meant that it takes a while to scroll over to any of the options. Normally I would use a keyboard anyway, but that can be confusing too. Selecting an option on the far left automatically moves the cursor to the new menu on the right, but it is not always obvious whether it is the first option in the secondary tabs or the list of options at all. Normally most BIOS implementations would leave the cursor on the far left and not move it at all, so you can go through each of the main tabs without any forced movement. I suspect that Supermicro hasn’t done much QA or market research on their BIOS implementation beyond the small group of engineers that coded it.

As for the BIOS options themselves, we have a few options worth talking about. The first set of menus are the System Information screens, which as mentioned above should all be placed in a single entry screen rather than split apart.

The Processor/CPU tab is the list of standard options we typically get relating to CPUs: hyperthreading, ratio, power states, C-states, turbo mode and so on.

As with other BIOS implementations, the actual overclocking options are in a different menu. Supermicro has them here under ‘Extra Performance’, which gives a single menu with a drop down for base clock frequency adjustment (BCLK Clock Frequency, that second clock being grammatically redundant). Here, with our i3-6100TE processor sample, it offered 100 MHz to 150 MHz in 5 MHz increments.

It is worth noting here that this isn’t an automatic overclock look-up table as with some other motherboard vendors – this is simply a MHz adjustment and users will have to manage their own processor voltages. In this case we have a CPU core offset, rather than an absolute value. This can play havoc if the DVFS table decides that the stock voltage needs to be high, and is why we typically request absolute value adjustments (such as the System Agent voltage shown in the screen shot). We also like to see load line calibration options, but they are not enabled here. Nevertheless, our overclocking tests showed that without touching the voltages, we were able to happily push some boundaries moving up to 135 MHz without issue.

Memory options are relatively limited here – no option to change any sub-timings, but the motherboard is only rated at DDR4-2133 anyway. The maximum memory frequency and fast boot options are the primary ones people may use.

The booting menu is similar to other vendors, offering a complete list for boot options. There is no ‘Single Boot’ option here though to boot from a device in a single instance. By default the boot mode is set to Legacy, which may want to be changed if implementing a UEFI boot protocol.

The Input/Output tab is where we see the majority of the options we normally see in a BIOS, such as AHCI/RAID with the chipset ports as above, or enabling/disabling controllers as shown below.

Ideally we would like to see an image of the board and a list of everything that is user installed, such as memory, PCIe devices, USB ports. Both ASRock and MSI do this as a handy aid when hardware might have an issue or is not detected properly.

The monitoring tab is the usual array of temperatures, fan speeds and voltages, although they are split up somewhat and could have been enabled in the same screen. For users that are into their fan controls, unfortunately Supermicro only offers ‘standard’ and ‘full speed’, which is extremely limited. We typically suggest that a motherboard vendor implements an on screen point-and-click multi-point gradient in a graphical interface, ideally with hysteresis so the fans stay on for a short while when coming out of an intense workload to help with cooling.

Nothing else is worth discussing in the BIOS, aside from the ability to save a couple of profiles. For enthusiasts it is worth noting that the button to save and exit the BIOS is F4, rather than the F10 we see on consumer platforms.

Ultimately Supermicro has a long way to go in order to make the BIOS as consumer friendly as their competition, and as mentioned above it is eerily similar to the implementations we saw from the big four when they first started going graphical in the BIOS. Hopefully the Supermicro engineers can have a look at their competition in detail and take some feedback as to how to move forward with their design.

Motherboard Features and Visual Inspection Supermicro C7H170-M Software
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • ViperV990 - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    The i5-6400 @ $180 seems to be a much better part to OC.
  • nightbringer57 - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Heh, when some of the younger ones today speak about overclocking, I like to remember them of how much more financially interesting overclocking used to be. It's like everyone forget how overclocking worked a few years ago. I still remember my cheap student gaming PC with a Pentium E2180 that went from 2GHz to 3GHz with a standard tower rad and only a slight voltage boost. Then you could have almost all of the performance of the 300€ CPUs (except a good bit of the cache) for 60€ or so. Multiplier overclocking is easier, yes, and it's good to reach insane peak frequencies - but this market of the "buy low, push high" overclocking has faded out (courtesy, of course, of the segmentation by core numbers as well)
  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Oh yeah, well I overclocked when there were still turbo buttons on the fronts of AT cases! So nyah nyah!

    Sarcasm aside though, drawing a line in the sand to mark when overclocking was "good" or "worthwhile" and when it stopped being fun or have any sort of point would result in an awful lot of people drawing an awful lot of lines all over the place. For instance, the last processor I bothered with overclocking was a 2GHz Pentium 4 derived Celeron. Pushing the FSB from 100 to 150MHz on an Intel boxed cooler with a little bit of extra voltage netted a 3GHz chip...which rapidly became highly unstable over the course of a few months. After that and numerous PIIs, PIIIs, the infamous Celeron 300A and whatnot, I got bored with it and my priorities shifted. I would have overclocked my VIC-20 and Trash 80 if I'd known more about computers because I couldn't resist tinkering. I think if one were to ask other people, they'd find different points in time and different processor technologies so it's probably unfair to people who are simply by nature of the date of their birth, unable to discuss overclocking in terms you're more comfortable with.
  • nightbringer57 - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Yes, but still. There had been a more or less constant trend of tinkering around with low-end CPUs to get quasi-high-end performance out of them for quite a long time. I quote my old E2180, but over the "modern" history of computers (that is, in the current context, IBM PC and their heir), there had always been such shenanigans available to the tinkerers. If you go further in time, the trend fades as the modern concept of CPU "range" fades out and it came more down to boosting your X - generation CPU to still have a bit more oomph after most of the software environment of you given platform had moved to a new generation.
    And not only Intel processors, but AMD processors as well, with the pencil unlockable Durons and whatnot.

    As this article states, this kind of overclocking has more or less died in recent years, partly due to technical issues (as systems get more and more complex and integrated, it becomes riskier), partly due to the current state of the market, partly due to marketing practices.

    It's not about discussing overclocking in terms I personally am comfortable with or whatnot. It's just about being realistic. I hope that AMD can come back with Zen and bring a bit more freshness into the low-end overclocking market.
  • Spoelie - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    Still had a lot of fun in the period between 2000-2010 with the Athlons, always buying the lowest end SKU of the performance line, and ocing between 20-40% to reach the same performance of the highest end SKU in the line.

    E.g.
    On an nForce2 board IIRC
    * Athlon XP 1800+ (Socket A Thoroughbred 256KB cache) 1533mhz OC to ~2ghz
    * Athlon XP 2500+ (Socket A Barton 512KB cache) FSB166 to FSB200 = OC to "3200+"

    Had a Athlon 64 2800+ on a Socket 754 for a very short time, don't remember what I did to it.

    Then a "DFI LanParty UT NF4 Ultra-D" (Socket 939 w/ nForce4 & 2*512MB Winbond BH-5 PC3200 @ 250mhz 2-2-2), cream of the crop at the time.
    * Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice) OC 1800 to 2250 (250bus)
    * Opteron 165 (Toledo) OC 1800 to 2475 (274bus)

    I loved those days
  • Murloc - Sunday, March 20, 2016 - link

    yeah I remember a 45nm core 2 duo I had, with the boxed stock cooler I was able to lower the voltage quite a bit and daily OC it at 4GHz at the same time.
    It was a lucky piece compared to others.
  • cobrax5 - Monday, March 21, 2016 - link

    I'm thinking about replacing my 45nm i7-930 @ 3.8ghz with a hex-core, 32nm Xeon and OC that to > 3.6ghz. You can get them for like under $200, and I'll keep my (admittedly aging) X58 platform.
  • benedict - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Single-threaded benchmarks show this processor to be much better than what it'd be in real life. I don't know if there are people who only run a single program at a time on their PCs. Having more cores is much more valuable than most benchmarks will show.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    I can run 7 programs at once, but if one is very demanding and is single threaded, then single threaded performance is still quite relevant. Multiple programs/=/not needing single threaded performance. Thinking that single threaded performance is not important got AMD the FX series, and subsequently a large portion of their users jumping to intel.
  • calculagator - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Everyone is different, but single threaded benchmarks give a much better picture of performance for "normal" users than multithreaded in my experience. Even if they have lots of programs running, most users are only using one program at a time. All of those open documents and web tabs use very little CPU power while they just sit there. I have about 100 active processes right now, but my CPU is idling at about 3% usage.
    Even a basic dual-core CPU can handle most users' multitasking. The most common exceptions are gaming and video editing, but most users are not doing those things most of the time. Consider how people use laptops so often: their CPUs have such high single-threaded/burst performance that they hardly notice how much less powerful they are than much more powerful desktop CPUs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now