Caporegime
Its getting late, i'm getting tired, take a stab at it, i want to end this circular argument.
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AND again you might have a point, IF the point of failure was only ASUS, except it wasn't, and they were all at it.
Again, it's not about do anything for anyone else, it's about doing the right thing for yourselves and your customers. you out source AND get lazy with QA, you have to take part of the blame.
AMD's platform? AMD don't make a platform, they make a chip and the firmware to make it work, Motherboard vendors making their own firmware is the responsibility of that motherboard vendors Q&A, not AMD's, its not their product, AMD can't police a third parties software, its not theirs. all they can do is give guidance.
Just like its not AMD's responsibility to police Windows, that's on Microsoft.
Actually the point of failure has yet to be determined, other than it’s inside AMD’s CPU. Two points of contention here were the CPU’s thermal protection wasn’t working correctly prior to 1.0.0.7 and at least some select CPU are potentially prone to failure under high VSOC. Both of these conditions were present on all motherboards, not only ASUS.The point of failure IS ASUS.
AMDs initial figures are all based around their reference design [motherboard]. It’s mentioned in their review kit. Just to put what you’re saying into perspective, you’re suggesting AMD hand over ES to partners having not plugged them into anything at all themselves. Requirements need to be met for PCIE and regulatory purposes and board partners are quite obviously given these designs.
Actually the point of failure has yet to be determined, other than it’s inside AMD’s CPU. Two points of contention here were the CPU’s thermal protection wasn’t working correctly prior to 1.0.0.7 and at least some select CPU are potentially prone to failure under high VSOC. Both of these conditions were present on all motherboards, not only ASUS.
Aren't AMD responsible for the AGESA code that used in Asus/MSI/Gigabyte's motherboard firmware's ?
It is AMD that give the specifications of the platform to the board makers, so yes AMD is responsible if they give them the wrong voltage specs.
Aren't AMD responsible for the AGESA code that used in Asus/MSI/Gigabyte's motherboard firmware's ?
It is AMD that give the specifications of the platform to the board makers, so yes AMD is responsible if they give them the wrong voltage specs.
Third party overclocking tools are not a part of that platform design, in the same way MSI Afterburner is not a part of Nvidia's platform design, if that Russian fellow who made MSI Afterburner gets something wrong and it melts your GPU whose responsible for that, the argument you're making here that would be Nvidia's responsibility.
You know it isn't.
You need to watch the GN video again.
The CPU receives power from externally, ie the motherboard, it relies on the motherboard to stop feeding it power when: in this case the CPU gets too hot, no one has suggest that in-of-its-self does not work, if you overheat these CPU's they will first throttle and eventually shut off, your screen will go black as the system reboots.
The motherboard reads thermal sensors located physically on the die, there are 64 of them on Ryzen CPU's, they are also critical the AMD's dynamic boost algorithm.
Again that thermal shut off depends on the interphase between the CPU its self and the thing that's feeding it power, that is the firmware, where you're using the Asus Republic Of Gamers Hero Extreme 670 Extreme BIOS that is not something AMD made or have any control over.
Steve Burke mocked Asus for having extra protection chips on the motherboard, various motherboard circuit sensors like you would find in a high end PSU, that did absolutely nothing.
PS: Just for info, the point of failure was at the base of the Through Silicon VIA's for the 3D chache. Again you need to whatch the GN video.
Yes, again tho you need to watch the GN Video, all of it and carefully, Steve is a clever guy, he knows what he's talking about and he's identified everything about this.
That's his job as a competent and knowledgeable tech journalist.
In your Asus BIOS there are two overclocking sections for both the CPU and the RAM, i don't have and Asus motherboard, mine is Gigabyte, i can see the two menus in my BIOS, one is quite simple, just does the job kinda thing, the other is more Gygabyte'ish and is more advanced, the former is the AMD AGESA menu, if you use it it will will use AMD's own firmware, if you use the more fancy one, in your case probably called something like Republic Of Gamers Extreme Tweaking Utility you're using the one Asus made and relying on the Asus firmware.
Steve Burke addressed this. if you use the basic one, the AMD AGESA utility it will set the correct SoC voltages, there is no problem with that. If you use the ROG utility that's when the CPU goes bang.
The AGESA code does all the CPU initialisation, it isn't just an alternative overclocking menu.Yes, again tho you need to watch the GN Video, all of it and carefully, Steve is a clever guy, he knows what he's talking about and he's identified everything about this.
That's his job as a competent and knowledgeable tech journalist.
In your Asus BIOS there are two overclocking sections for both the CPU and the RAM, i don't have and Asus motherboard, mine is Gigabyte, i can see the two menus in my BIOS, one is quite simple, just does the job kinda thing, the other is more Gygabyte'ish and is more advanced, the former is the AMD AGESA menu, if you use it it will will use AMD's own firmware, if you use the more fancy one, in your case probably called something like Republic Of Gamers Extreme Tweaking Utility you're using the one Asus made and relying on the Asus firmware.
Steve Burke addressed this. if you use the basic one, the AMD AGESA utility it will set the correct SoC voltages, there is no problem with that. If you use the ROG utility that's when the CPU goes bang.
1) Can you explain how third-party overclocking tools are related with anything we are discussing?
You're being deliberately obtuse at this point, it should be obvious to you by now ^^^^^^^
Read the post above you.
----
You answered your own question @Silent_Scone the CPU was already dead when Steve lifted the cooler, Steve made this point in Asus continuing to slam an already dead CPU more more voltage after killing it by over-volting it in the first place, the dead CPU reached 213c before Steve cut the power, mocking that even the Asus external custom protections did absolutely nothing to prevent power being feed to a CPU that had long since short circuited.
I'll address the 1.4c thing as well, AMD allowed 1.4v to the SoC, that was the limit cap, they did this so extreme overclockers could have some fun with it. that's not to say Asus or you should set that, unless you're doing LN2 overclocking, the AMD AGESA never did.
AMD have now reduced that cap to 1.3v, because if you can't play nice with your toys we will take your toys away, refer my point in post #1,188.
You're being deliberately obtuse at this point, it should be obvious to you by now ^^^^^^^
Read the post above you.
----
You answered your own question @Silent_Scone the CPU was already dead when Steve lifted the cooler, Steve made this point in Asus continuing to slam an already dead CPU more more voltage after killing it by over-volting it in the first place, the dead CPU reached 213c before Steve cut the power, mocking that even the Asus external custom protections did absolutely nothing to prevent power being feed to a CPU that had long since short circuited.
I'll address the 1.4c thing as well, AMD allowed 1.4v to the SoC, that was the limit cap, they did this so extreme overclockers could have some fun with it. that's not to say Asus or you should set that, unless you're doing LN2 overclocking, the AMD AGESA never did.
AMD have now reduced that cap to 1.3v, because if you can't play nice with your toys we will take your toys away, refer my point in post #1,188.
You can trick the firmware in to thinking the CPU is running at a lower voltage than it actually is, its why you get readings from the software that are lower than the readings from the circuit its self through a multimeter.
Asus, and others have been accused of doing this in the past.
If you do that you overide the physical cap, one might argue its why they do it, its how you get 1.46v from a 1.4v cap.