Scumbag ASUS: Overvolting CPUs & Screwing the Customer

flegg said:
wouldn't surprise me if some on this forum are on the ASUS take. why replace a $500 mobo when you can pay a shill with a free $100 mobo inventory excess for fake praise. we are now literally seeing youtube tech reviewer collusion theories... that aren't jokes
Click to expand...
I'm no lover of ASUS products. I've had my fair share of good and really bad products from them, but it speaks volumes to me that Steve of all people pile on ASUS concerning this shit over AMD who is ultimately responsible for their CPUs catastrophically failing as they have. So I can fully believe techtuber collusion on more than just one way.
 
If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. Asus has always been THE most innovative of the big four... at finding new and creative ways at denying legitimate RMA requests. By hook or by crook they will find a way to send that mb right back to you, untouched. ;)

There's a reason why everyone is so familiar with the age old Asus joke. Sure, you should be A-OK...as long as you don't have to send it in for RMA.
 
hititnquitit said:
If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. Asus has always been THE most innovative of the big four... at finding new and creative ways at denying legitimate RMA requests. By hook or by crook they will find a way to send that mb right back to you, untouched. ;)

There's a reason why everyone is so familiar with the age old Asus joke. Sure, you should be A-OK...as long as you don't have to send it in for RMA.
Click to expand...
If Razer made motherboards, they would be in direct competition with ASUS for this! 🤣
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Let's be fair, Ryzen CPUs are exploding all on their own. ASUS just happen to be the brand with boards that explode with the CPU. In all honesty I'm still flabbergasted that this thread is 3 pages long and AMD isn't being held accountable yet again. 🤯
Click to expand...
AMD specs are 1.0 v and Asus was running it at 1.45 volts.

How is that AMD “fault”. Should AMD be testing ASUS bios releases?

I’ve owned multiple Asus prime level boards from the Sandy bridge era till the 9000 series. They wouldn’t RMA a 9000 board (Z370) with memory stability issues with all 4 dimms populated. That turned me off from them.
 
Last edited:
Haven't really had Asus MB issues. I had a G15 2nd gen Laptop and an RTX3090 strix fail on me last year. The good thing was I knew that if I was buying Asus I should get an extended warranty so I don't have to deal with Asus RMA.
 
Thatguybil said:
AMD specs are 1.0 v and Asus was running it at 1.45 volts.

How is that AMD “fault”. Should AMD be testing ASUS bios releases?

I’ve owned multiple Asus prime level boards from the Sandy bridge era till the 9000 series. They wouldn’t RMA a 9000 board (Z370) with memory stability issues with all 4 dimms populated. That turned me off from them.
Click to expand...
You're way off, but I know you won't believe me. Expo pushed 1.4v, updates brought it down to 1.3v. The drama is that ASUS was still pushing 1.34v and their bios stated it voided your warranty.

On top of this AMD is actually much worse in voiding your warranty than even Intel.

Here's a little video about the subject for you.

 
ZeroBarrier said:
On top of this AMD is actually much worse in voiding your warranty than even Intel.

Here's a little video about the subject for you.

Click to expand...

I dunno that video just seems to be raising red flags about nothing that is new in the least which is the legalese that companies use to protect themselves, they basically state if you overclock and you break your shit that's on you not us... IMO nothing wrong with that. Then arguably a bit more sketchy is the cooler recommendations, but again 'what cooler are you using?' "fuck if I know it came with the computer" 'ok here's your RMA number' seems to be the status quo.
 
I
sfsuphysics said:
I dunno that video just seems to be raising red flags about nothing that is new in the least which is the legalese that companies use to protect themselves, they basically state if you overclock and you break your shit that's on you not us... IMO nothing wrong with that. Then arguably a bit more sketchy is the cooler recommendations, but again 'what cooler are you using?' "fuck if I know it came with the computer" 'ok here's your RMA number' seems to be the status quo.
Click to expand...
Is that the only thing you got from it? Shit, if this had been intel they would have been raked over the coals for their very specific wording on flat out voiding the warranty.

The TLDR of it is that almost everything AMD touts as advantages voids their warranty, while Intel leaves these intentionally vague by stating it "might void your warranty". In this case of 2 negatives, I would prefer that "might" void the warranty vs the "voids your warranty" outright option.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
ASUS' actions relating to the Exploding Ryzen CPU debacle are disgraceful and abrasive to the trust that the brand has earned. ASUS has demonstrated clearly it wishes to not only avoid supporting users, but actively engineers ways to abandon them. ASUS' updates haven't even fixed the problems, yet they posture as if they have while simultaneously suggesting that users 'just run defaults' on their $700 motherboards, as if that makes any sense whatsoever. So, to accommodate ASUS' request, we ran defaults and re-benchmarked the Ryzen 7000 series. It sucks. Big surprise. They also don't support their own BIOSes for the ASUS ROG boards.



I would also hold AMD partially responsible for this debacle. They have enough power, and certainly obligation, to influence their partners' behavior and practices when it directly compromises AMD's reputation and business. Intel is, for better or worse, much better in that regard. Asus and its customer relation is standard MO for them.
Click to expand...

Had this been posted already?

ASUS UK PR believes it is ‘legal to buy positive reviews’​

https://www.kitguru.net/channel/gen...believes-it-is-legal-to-buy-positive-reviews/
 
ZeroBarrier said:
I

Is that the only thing you got from it? Shit, if this had been intel they would have been raked over the coals for their very specific wording on flat out voiding the warranty.
Click to expand...
Yes that is what I got out of it because that is all that was presented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
ZeroBarrier said:
Let's be fair, Ryzen CPUs are exploding all on their own. ASUS just happen to be the brand with boards that explode with the CPU. In all honesty I'm still flabbergasted that this thread is 3 pages long and AMD isn't being held accountable yet again. 🤯
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I missed something, but my understanding of the issue is that the motherboard makers are overvolting the CPU's and as a result they are - in some circumstances - burning up.

You tell me the CPU that won't be damaged if it is significantly overvolted. I don't think in the history of mankind, that CPU has ever been made, or even can be made.

IMHO, the only way AMD is at fault here is for not better controlling their motherboard partners, and that is a real and valid complaint against AMD, but it's a little bit like blaming the police for not stopping a burglar that stole shit from your home, rather than blaming the burglar themselves (the motherboard makers running things out of spec by default).

When you buy a product from Asus/Gigabyte/MSI/ASRock and others, you are not buying an AMD product. Yes, there is a chipset on there, but in this arrangement AMD is a supplier, they don't control the motherboard makers design process.

What AMD should probably do is have a legally binding supply agreement in which the motherboard vendors have to commit to meeting certain specifications, and face penalties if they don't.
 
Last edited:
erek said:
More info here

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/13ghl5a/comment/jjzvs5a/
Click to expand...

ASUS would go on to ignore those limits as explained below:
Click to expand...

Sr5clVut-1TgfH_OmzKvhRDJcYWMFpKqsqs5PeJo0&usqp=CAU.jpg
 
erek said:
More info here

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/13ghl5a/comment/jjzvs5a/
Click to expand...

Ugh.

I mean, I'm not convinced buying positive reviews is illegal either, but there are plenty of things that are perfectly legal, but still amount to a huge dick move.

I think we need to take collective regulatory action to end the practice of "influencers" and protect what little is left of honest tech journalism.

By all means, tech manufacturers should be allowed to advertise their product, but require them to make it excruciatingly clear when they have paid for content or provided the hardware for free or the reviewer is in any other way has a financial interest in the proxy ts they are reviewing or is otherwise biased.

Of course they tried this with local news channels and paid content and pretty much failed, but I think that was because they didn't try hard enough, not because it can't be done.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I t we need to take collective regulatory action to end the practice of "influencers" and protect what little is left of honest tech journalism.
Click to expand...
Honestly dont see any difference between the two groups the "influencer" is more likely to churn out good reviews because they fear being black balled and having their income revenue in some way lessened, the tech journalist basically churns out good reviews because they want that precious ad revenue which is less about the journalist and more about the overlords that care about the bottom line. And of course you have any range from good to bad with in both groups
Zarathustra[H] said:
By all means, tech manufacturers should be allowed to advertise their product, but require them to make it excruciatingly clear when they have paid for content or provided the hardware for free or the reviewer is in any other way has a financial interest in the proxy ts they are reviewing or is otherwise biased.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the FTC requires that anyways, it largely is a matter of whether or not people listen to those subtle clues like "Evga sent us this card"
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
You know, I had a weird feeling this might end up being more widespread than thought at first. New generation of hardware, new platform, new everything - and looking at how much the "auto boost" has done over the last few years...

We talk about modern CPUs not having a lot of overhead left - that PBO and Intel's Velocity Boost got almost as much, if not more, and that overclocking outside of the extremes was pretty much dead. This has been why - each vendor has been pushing more and more to win both the benchmark crown and the "goes the farthest at 'stock' settings" crown - and this is the result. It finally went too far. I still say ASUS has done some super shitty things here - but Gigabyte being in the same boat (or close), and even MSI showing up... wouldn't surprise me one bit.
 
erek said:

Gigabyte AM5 Motherboards Also Pull More Than 1.3V On The SoC Even With New BIOS​

weak
Click to expand...
This honestly shouldn't surprise anyone. MSI, ASUS, GIGABYTE, etc. all pretty much do the SAME stuff.

Let me give you guys a rundown of how this business actually works. Motherboard manufacturers all copy each others homework. They all physically buy each other boards and reverse engineer everything on them. Every board maker knows what all of the other board makers are doing at any time. A motherboard maker is lucky to have something unique on the market for six months. The audio design that most motherboards employ today with PCB isolation and isolated power, separate audio channel layers in the PCB, etc. all comes from ASUS' ROG line. When they came out with the design it was revolutionary. Features like circuit de-pop, auto-sensing audio impedance for connected devices, etc. I saw on ROG boards first. Six months later, everyone was doing the same stuff. Even boards today are built with that same design for audio. Initially, the Realtek ALC1220A HD audio CODEC was advertised by ASUS as an exclusive. Shortly thereafter it ended up everywhere. The suppliers of these parts want to sell more parts. They'll flat out call the other motherboard companies and say: "Hey MSI, ASUS is using XYZ CODEC or whatever on their boards. How many do you want?"

These companies also do their own internal testing on CPU's. ASUS typically gets no less than 100 CPU's from any generation from Intel for example for internal testing. All of these companies have done stupid things with voltages at one time or another. They all have mucked around with RAM timings, run the base clock, QPI, FSB etc. out of spec just a bit to win at benchmarks. This includes overvolting CPU's to do it.

This isn't new. Normally, it doesn't result in a fried CPU. Normally, CPU's are durable enough to handle it for the relatively short service life most of these enthusiast parts see. Especially since the vast majority of PC users do NOT overclock. Normally there is enough overhead regarding what the silicon can handle that its a non-issue. These days, the CPU's are binned so tightly that the overhead is largely gone. Even so, there is usually a bit of leeway. According to ASUS, the vast majority of users who would buy the highest end ROG motherboards never ran them beyond motherboard default settings. Where ASUS has really gone wrong is in their handling of the situation and comments about voiding warranties and putting up a BIOS image that is supposed to fix the issue but doesn't really do anything.

When it comes to bought reviews and buying reviews, most of you guys have no idea what you are talking about. A lot of people throw around terms like "shill" and "bought and paid for reviews" etc. without understanding how that business really works. I'm not saying that paid reviews or bribes don't happen in the sense that people often think of them. I'm sure they do, but you've probably got to be a pretty big player as a website or Youtuber in order to get that kind of offer. These companies ultimately do not have to resort to buying reviews with cash. They leverage human nature to do it. How these companies buy positive reviews is far more subtle than an envelope full of cash. Most of the time, these companies give you free product for testing purposes. Rarely do they ever ask for it back outside of rare cases. As a reviewer, you will end up with thousands of dollars worth of free product a year. I have never had to return review hardware to the manufacturer ever. Again, this does happen under some circumstances but its very rare. An example of this is with GPU's when availability is extremely poor.

Most reviewers feel they are dependent on those relationships for product. If you piss off MSI, GIGABYTE, ASUS, Intel, ASRock, NVIDIA, AMD, etc. you will end up blacklisted by those companies or whatever external PR firm they've hired to manage that side of the business. As a reviewer, or someone who runs a review site, Youtube channel, etc. the fear is that if you piss off these companies, you will not get free products and you will not get early access to hardware for product launches, etc. Because this is a business, releasing a bad review is a calculated risk. When you have a board that isn't working right, these PR people will send you more boards, even offer to come to your house in some cases and work through issues with you because they absolutely want you to provide a positive review. That's the PR guys job. If you test a board and its shit, you are often better off trashing the board and not publishing the review from a business perspective. If you'll notice, bad reviews for hardware are extremely rare. This is because hardware reviewers feel an obligation not to ruin these relationships because of all the free products they'll lose out on if they do.

These PR guys will take you to dinner, hang out with you and give you free stuff. They'll befriend you so that its even harder to call a product a piece of shit because now you personally know people that will be hurt by such reviews. It rarely takes money to do that and the integrity required to call a turd a turd and suffer the consequences is very rare. Bigger players in the space like Gamer's Nexus can afford to do it because of their viewership. They can most likely afford to buy all the products and take the hits from being black-listed here and there. Smaller operations have a much harder time of it. Even so, the actual hardware costs aren't really the problem. Most of the time, you can review something and sell it quickly enough to avoid taking too big a hit on the hardware itself. Even so, being blacklisted means not making launch dates for new hardware. That hurts you far more than not getting free motherboards and GPU's.

For websites its a tough to give bad reviews in cases where that hardware manufacturer pays for advertising on your website. Calling out a company for a bad product will get them to yank that advertising and you could lose out on thousands of dollars a month. Since traditional long form review sites are few and far between and money and focus has shifted to the Youtube and video space, this isn't as big an issue as it once was. But back in the early to mid-2000's it was a big problem.
 
Dan_D said:
This honestly shouldn't surprise anyone. MSI, ASUS, GIGABYTE, etc. all pretty much do the SAME stuff.

Let me give you guys a rundown of how this business actually works. Motherboard manufacturers all copy each others homework. They all physically buy each other boards and reverse engineer everything on them. Every board maker knows what all of the other board makers are doing at any time. A motherboard maker is lucky to have something unique on the market for six months. The audio design that most motherboards employ today with PCB isolation and isolated power, separate audio channel layers in the PCB, etc. all comes from ASUS' ROG line. When they came out with the design it was revolutionary. Features like circuit de-pop, auto-sensing audio impedance for connected devices, etc. I saw on ROG boards first. Six months later, everyone was doing the same stuff. Even boards today are built with that same design for audio. Initially, the Realtek ALC1220A HD audio CODEC was advertised by ASUS as an exclusive. Shortly thereafter it ended up everywhere. The suppliers of these parts want to sell more parts. They'll flat out call the other motherboard companies and say: "Hey MSI, ASUS is using XYZ CODEC or whatever on their boards. How many do you want?"

These companies also do their own internal testing on CPU's. ASUS typically gets no less than 100 CPU's from any generation from Intel for example for internal testing. All of these companies have done stupid things with voltages at one time or another. They all have mucked around with RAM timings, run the base clock, QPI, FSB etc. out of spec just a bit to win at benchmarks. This includes overvolting CPU's to do it.

This isn't new. Normally, it doesn't result in a fried CPU. Normally, CPU's are durable enough to handle it for the relatively short service life most of these enthusiast parts see. Especially since the vast majority of PC users do NOT overclock. Normally there is enough overhead regarding what the silicon can handle that its a non-issue. These days, the CPU's are binned so tightly that the overhead is largely gone. Even so, there is usually a bit of leeway. According to ASUS, the vast majority of users who would buy the highest end ROG motherboards never ran them beyond motherboard default settings. Where ASUS has really gone wrong is in their handling of the situation and comments about voiding warranties and putting up a BIOS image that is supposed to fix the issue but doesn't really do anything.

When it comes to bought reviews and buying reviews, most of you guys have no idea what you are talking about. A lot of people throw around terms like "shill" and "bought and paid for reviews" etc. without understanding how that business really works. I'm not saying that paid reviews or bribes don't happen in the sense that people often think of them. I'm sure they do, but you've probably got to be a pretty big player as a website or Youtuber in order to get that kind of offer. These companies ultimately do not have to resort to buying reviews with cash. They leverage human nature to do it. How these companies buy positive reviews is far more subtle than an envelope full of cash. Most of the time, these companies give you free product for testing purposes. Rarely do they ever ask for it back outside of rare cases. As a reviewer, you will end up with thousands of dollars worth of free product a year. I have never had to return review hardware to the manufacturer ever. Again, this does happen under some circumstances but its very rare. An example of this is with GPU's when availability is extremely poor.

Most reviewers feel they are dependent on those relationships for product. If you piss off MSI, GIGABYTE, ASUS, Intel, ASRock, NVIDIA, AMD, etc. you will end up blacklisted by those companies or whatever external PR firm they've hired to manage that side of the business. As a reviewer, or someone who runs a review site, Youtube channel, etc. the fear is that if you piss off these companies, you will not get free products and you will not get early access to hardware for product launches, etc. Because this is a business, releasing a bad review is a calculated risk. When you have a board that isn't working right, these PR people will send you more boards, even offer to come to your house in some cases and work through issues with you because they absolutely want you to provide a positive review. That's the PR guys job. If you test a board and its shit, you are often better off trashing the board and not publishing the review from a business perspective. If you'll notice, bad reviews for hardware are extremely rare. This is because hardware reviewers feel an obligation not to ruin these relationships because of all the free products they'll lose out on if they do.

These PR guys will take you to dinner, hang out with you and give you free stuff. They'll befriend you so that its even harder to call a product a piece of shit because now you personally know people that will be hurt by such reviews. It rarely takes money to do that and the integrity required to call a turd a turd and suffer the consequences is very rare. Bigger players in the space like Gamer's Nexus can afford to do it because of their viewership. They can most likely afford to buy all the products and take the hits from being black-listed here and there. Smaller operations have a much harder time of it. Even so, the actual hardware costs aren't really the problem. Most of the time, you can review something and sell it quickly enough to avoid taking too big a hit on the hardware itself. Even so, being blacklisted means not making launch dates for new hardware. That hurts you far more than not getting free motherboards and GPU's.

For websites its a tough to give bad reviews in cases where that hardware manufacturer pays for advertising on your website. Calling out a company for a bad product will get them to yank that advertising and you could lose out on thousands of dollars a month. Since traditional long form review sites are few and far between and money and focus has shifted to the Youtube and video space, this isn't as big an issue as it once was. But back in the early to mid-2000's it was a big problem.
Click to expand...
Random thought; how much of a degradation in lifespan would you expect for some of the things we know they all do (overriding the boost timeouts to keep at full boost all the time, etc)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
Actual / measured, or just via software?
Guess I must be lucky. Have been running 2x 7900X + Gigabyte B650M Aorus Elite AX setups (see sig) since last Nov with no issues.
Still on the (now defunct) F3c BIOS, and VSOC has always behaved itself with EXPO on (< 1.3V, usually 1.29V whether idle, or under various loads according to HWInfo readings)

That said, recently built another 7900X setup (ASUS ROG Strix B650E-F), and it also seems to behave itself (VSOC < 1.3V) with EXPO on (same RAM kit as B650M Aorus Elite AX) on BIOS 1413.

All three 7900Xs are stable at -30 offset, 135W PPT limit. Same ST and MT performance as stock, max temp ~70C
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
lopoetve said:
Random thought; how much of a degradation in lifespan would you expect for some of the things we know they all do (overriding the boost timeouts to keep at full boost all the time, etc)?
Click to expand...
Historically, the degridation (if present at all) was generally negligible. The issue is that the CPU silicon is being binned for less conservatively than it has been in the past. It's at the edge or even the bleeding edge of what its capable of.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest base on how Gigabyte fried two of my $1,200 Threadripper 3960x at stock settings.
Click to expand...
1684203661060.png

























s%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.jpg

First page of this thread, 13th post. Been saying it from the start, but it is apparently more fun to pile on ASUS than put the blame squarely on AMD. Because for some odd reason AMD is absolved of blame at every fuck up.
 
Last edited:
ZeroBarrier said:
View attachment 570586
View attachment 570587
First page of this thread, 13th post. Been saying it from the start, but it is apparently more fun to pile on ASUS than put the blame squarely on AMD. Because for some odd reason AMD is absolved of blame at every fuck up.
Click to expand...

All that means is that both Asus and Gigabyte are running AMD CPU's out of spec.

We can blame AMD for lax control of their motherboard partners, but really all the blame here lies on the motherboards and their manufacturers. They are responsible for controlling the voltage the CPU gets, and if they don't do that right, there is nothing AMD can do about it.
 
Last edited:
RanceJustice said:
Maybe its just me, but some aspects of this discussion seem to be getting rather shady or potentially unfair? Don't get me wrong, Asus absolutely has some potential blame here, but it seems like there's a hyperfixation on Asus when the same sorts of problems have been reported on other mobos but neither they nor AMD themselves are receiving the kind of hostility that is being aimed at Asus.

For instance, on the previous page the GN tweet about "Oh Asus said they'd fly us out on their dollar, but we said we wanted to record the whole thing and they didn't get back to us in 5 days" is designed to imply that Asus is trying to hide something shady, will attempt a bribe, and has ghosted them upon their desires to record what they saw. While it is possible this could be what really happened, it may also be not a particularly good faith assertion. Maybe Asus' legal team will take a few days to approve or deny what's been asked? Maybe Asus doesn't want to foot the bill and generate a high profile episode for GN without having a say in what is on the record/can be showed/how it will be edited etc , or some part of GN's reply to their invitation gave them pause etc.. There are plenty of possible situations but this is not something verifiable unless both GN and/or Asus provide documentation that is uncontested showing both sides of the story, its not something we can really verify, so instead GN's tweet stands atop their other accusations and I'm not sure that's really a great thing.

Regarding the JayzTwoCents video, one of the bits discussed regarding the recent X670E mobo issue is about the new beta BIOS. Given the screencap, this seems to have been taken from the GN video as well. He talks about how horrible it is that the beta BIOS has been released for something this important and also mentions using it voids your warranty. However, unless there is something to add to the context of which I am unaware, this does not seem to be true. Both the picture in the video and going to the Asus support site shows the text to be.....
"Please note that this is a beta BIOS version of the motherboard which is still undergoing final testing before its official release. The UEFI, its firmware and all content found on it are provided on an “as is” and “as available” basis. ASUS does not give any warranties, whether express or limited, as to the suitability, compatibility, or usability of the UEFI, its firmware or any of its content. Except as provided in the Product warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by law, ASUS is not responsible for direct, special, incidental or consequential damages resulting from using this beta BIOS.""
Bold emphasis mine. This seems like standard legalese for a beta release and does not suggest its use voids your warranty, but rather that it conveys no additional special protections above that of the warranty. Now, there's an argument to be made if they should be offering additional support because of the nature of the problem here, but that isn't what Jay / GN is saying, they're asserting that it voids your warranty to use it and that if anything bad happens when a user is using the beta BIOS, they will be denied any warranty support and at least as I read what is written, that doesnt' seem to be accurate. There's also the issue that I have a feeling that GN, JTC etc would be impugning the company if it did NOT offer an updated firmware (beta or otherwise) as soon as possible to fix what is presented as a serious problem. In fact, it seems that Asus was one of the first to offer BIOS updates and this is the result, whereas other mobo companies took equal or longer times to release it, also offering beta status and apparently having similar potential bugs (ie AGESA 1.0.0.7 , 1.0.0.7a etc ) but less focus is given there. This does not absolve Asus of responsibility for their mistakes, but it does seem odd how they seem to be the primary focus.

The rest of his video talks about his experiences with RMAs which (putting aside the "creator/influencer/sponsor" experience which may deviate from the standard rank and file customer in both expectations and other parameters) while certainly are worth talking about when negative, but seem to fall into the "person X has repeated bad experiences with company Y, leading them to choose Company Z instead , but person W had great experiences with Y and thinks that Z is garbage" variation that seems to repeat itself between different users. Likewise with the "I had a bunch of disparate issues on stream" thing which could have many factors. If he doesn't want to use Asus that's fine, but both his large presence online and the cases of other content creators discussed in the thread , it begins to feel more like there is some degree of generation or amplification of controversy and how it is presented for the purpose of gaining more viewers/views.
Click to expand...
the hyperfixation is due to the way ASUS conducts business on the public side.. their big selling point has always been about selling the brand. so when you want to be held as the higher standard over everyone else and charge people for it yet you repeatedly make mistake after mistake and refuse to admit it. you better be ready to be called out for it otherwise there's no excuse for putting a brand tax on your product if you're not going to support it properly. end of the day this was a failure on ASUS part by allowing the lawyers to control the company, if they had immediately come out and said they were investigating the problem and released a warning to consumers to disable XPO as a stop gap until they were done investigating the problem this would of been a non issue but instead the lawyers told them to stay silent and they did. this isn't specifically an ASUS problem either, it's an industry wide problem that has allowed lawyers to have far too much control over these companies because at the end of the day stupid crap like this drives class action lawsuits which benefit these law firms while the companies have to foot the bill for it win or lose.

as far as the beta bios warning it's not about whether or not they'd specifically deny an RMA because of it, it's more so about the users perception of the warning. if you get less experienced users that see a warning like that they're more likely not to install it thinking it'll void their warranty or if they install it and the system fails they won't bother RMA'ing it because they used that bios and thats what Steve was getting at with it. but the reality is the beta bios didn't fix shit and was a smoke screen since the problem persisted and the user would never even know it since what the bios was reporting for voltages wasn't what was actually going to the SOC.

i'm not at all surprised with what Jay did. i know they've had way more issues with ASUS then what he even talked about in that video or even on his podcast on Friday over the last 3-4 years.

ASUS has a chance to turn this around for themselves but i have a feeling they'll take the newegg approach and make it look like they're fixing it then go right back to status quo.

ZeroBarrier said:
First page of this thread, 13th post. Been saying it from the start, but it is apparently more fun to pile on ASUS than put the blame squarely on AMD. Because for some odd reason AMD is absolved of blame at every fuck up.
Click to expand...
Steve even said that there had been reports of it on gigabyte boards but the problem is it's not repeatable, it just seems to be random boards. while the asus boards are repeatable and you can do it with every single one of their 670e boards.

sfsuphysics said:
Evga doesnt make AMD motherboards unless things changed
Click to expand...
they did one x570 dark board but it was a very late release aimed at people going for memory overclock records i believe.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
Historically, the degridation (if present at all) was generally negligible. The issue is that the CPU silicon is being binned for less conservatively than it has been in the past. It's at the edge or even the bleeding edge of what its capable of.
Click to expand...
Google has written some good papers on the topic as they have access to otherwise unique sample sizes of hardware and had encountered bugs specifically caused by it.
They determined that new silicon broke down faster and was generally less tolerant because of how finely tuned the processes were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
I’m skeptical on this being an AIB issue, AMD doesn’t give a lot of leeway on their BIOS as they compile and provide the AGESA and the changes the AIB’s can make are largely cosmetic in nature and not structural.
Asus likely got the brunt of it, probably from trying to push things at a hardware level maybe some fancy power tuning that interacts with the sensors in an unexpected manner or something. But not a unique thing, just more apparent. AMD is pushing the TSMC process pretty hard and it may have just bitten them in the ass this time around is all.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
We can blame AMD for lax control of their motherboard partners,
Click to expand...

What control? If you are suggesting that AMD should review every BIOS release from every mobo builder, well, that is a bridge that will never be crossed.

Lakados said:
Google has written some good papers on the topic as they have access to otherwise unique sample sizes of hardware and had encountered bugs specifically caused by it.
They determined that new silicon broke down faster and was generally less tolerant because of how finely tuned the processes were.
Click to expand...

Links to what you are referring to please. Would really like to give that a read. :)

Lakados said:
I’m skeptical on this being an AIB issue, AMD doesn’t give a lot of leeway on their BIOS as they compile and provide the AGESA and the changes the AIB’s can make are largely cosmetic in nature and not structural.
Click to expand...

AMD gives the mobo partners what mobo partners demand in order to design and sell boards for the CPU platform. Sure, there are areas AMD do reign those companies in on some specs. Notice that AMD has had no issue with warranty on this extremely small "problem?" Mobo makers have been pushing even default voltages out-of-the-box for years. Hard to sell a $700 mobo that has no chance of outperforming a $250 mobo.

This whole thing would have been a popcorn fart had ASUS not acted liked....ASUS. LOL!
 
Lakados said:
I’m skeptical on this being an AIB issue, AMD doesn’t give a lot of leeway on their BIOS as they compile and provide the AGESA and the changes the AIB’s can make are largely cosmetic in nature and not structural.
Asus likely got the brunt of it, probably from trying to push things at a hardware level maybe some fancy power tuning that interacts with the sensors in an unexpected manner or something. But not a unique thing, just more apparent. AMD is pushing the TSMC process pretty hard and it may have just bitten them in the ass this time around is all.
Click to expand...

if it was happening on every single board sure i could see it but the fact that it's 100% reproducible on ASUS boards while every other manufacture falls at or below AMD's recommended SOC voltage tolerance when using the auto setting with a few outlier failures on other manufacture boards it's unlikely an AMD specific problem. we've always known that the x3d chips were very voltage sensitive which is why they were so locked down on am4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
FrgMstr said:
Links to what you are referring to please. Would really like to give that a read. :)
Click to expand...
This one is gonna take a while to dig out. It’s not a problem limited to CPU’s alone but silicon as a whole.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/drams-damning-defects-and-how-they-cripple-computers#toggle-gdpr

https://research.google/pubs/pub50337/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.11245.pd...neficial for reducing the error rates in SRAM.

https://www.amd.com/system/files/documents/advanced-memory-device-correction.pdf

https://support.lenovo.com/ca/en/so...uncorrectable-memory-error-lenovo-thinksystem

There’s more out there on this but I should have been asleep hours ago.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
if it was happening on every single board sure i could see it but the fact that it's 100% reproducible on ASUS boards while every other manufacture falls at or below AMD's recommended SOC voltage tolerance when using the auto setting with a few outlier failures on other manufacture boards it's unlikely an AMD specific problem. we've always known that the x3d chips were very voltage sensitive which is why they were so locked down on am4.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a lot of AMD 7000 series on site but all our x670 based boards received AGESA bios updates to fix the issue regardless of which brand they were. If it was only Asus why would Gigabyte need to patch for it?
The “fix” is in AGESA 1.0.0.6, and if the fix is there it would stand that the flaw was there as well. As AMD provides the AGESA and it comes pre compiled it could be many places not all boards may use the effected code the same way though.

I use the term fix loosely here because independent tests are still out on weather it fixes anything or not.
 
Lakados said:
I don’t have a lot of AMD 7000 series on site but all our x670 based boards received AGESA bios updates to fix the issue regardless of which brand they were. If it was only Asus why would Gigabyte need to patch for it?
The “fix” is in AGESA 1.0.0.6, and if the fix is there it would stand that the flaw was there as well. As AMD provides the AGESA and it comes pre compiled it could be many places not all boards may use the effected code the same way though.

I use the term fix loosely here because independent tests are still out on weather it fixes anything or not.
Click to expand...
Why would motherboard makers other than just Asus do this? The optics alone for looking like something is being done is enough.

It's unlikely that's the whole story. It's not just Asus who has been juicing hardware although Asus is probably the worst culprit. There may also have been an issue with the Agesa which needed to be fixed and possibly something that was exploited by motherboard makers but not intended by AMD.

There are all kinds of reasons for this but it doesn't change the proof that Asus has been doing what Asus has been doing for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top