News ASRock attributes premature Ryzen 9000 CPU failures to aggressive PBO settings, per YouTuber

[Admin]

ASRock has reportedly identified that excessive PBO settings on their mid-range to high-end AM5 motherboards are leading to Ryzen 9000 CPU failures.

ASRock attributes premature Ryzen 9000 CPU failures to aggressive PBO settings, per YouTuber : Read more

 

[A Stoner]

These are complicated systems, but you have to wonder how so many errors have been happening in computing. Particularly with respect to overpowering the CPUs to the point of failure. Intel had a huge issue here, and now AMD. Don't these people read the literature of their own business and take lessons learned?

 

[redgarl]

These are complicated systems, but you have to wonder how so many errors have been happening in computing. Particularly with respect to overpowering the CPUs to the point of failure. Intel had a huge issue here, and now AMD. Don't these people read the literature of their own business and take lessons learned?

This is the AIBs fault. They are pushing for obtaining the performance crown at the expense of safe power distribution.

Since more than 90% of the cases are reported with Asrock hardware, it is obviously an Asrock problem. AIBs are really quick to point fingers and deny they are responsible when, most of the time, their BIOS are the issue.

This is totally different from Intel which literally choose to push the voltages on their CPU to be able to compete with AMD and TSMC.

 

[derekullo]

"ASRock has also reportedly reduced "shadow voltages," which are settings not visible to users."

Reduced "shadow voltages" isn't exactly a vote of confidence!

 

[UnforcedERROR]

Intel had a huge issue here, and now AMD.

These are not comparable. Intel's was their design. AMD's was the result of a motherboard manufacturer. AMD had no issues with other vendors, so it's not something they caused.

 

[thestryker]

I mostly just wonder if this is like the overly aggressive SoC voltage which happened pre-Zen 5. That was mostly being exploited by Asus and had just been a setting AMD neglected to hard limit. These things happen and hopefully this is indeed the final resolution for this issue.

 

[Notton]

Ah, so exactly as I suspected when it was something like 50~80% of Asrock mobos with Sudden Ryzen Death Syndrome. (If anyone remembers Northwood SNDS) Except now the mobo manufacturer does it, rather than something you can only cause by yourself.

 

[HardwiredWireless]

These are not comparable. Intel's was their design. AMD's was the result of a motherboard manufacturer. AMD had no issues with other vendors, so it's not something they caused.

Right, it would obviously be the fault of whoever it was that provided the specifications to the motherboard manufacturers for the AMD CPUs.

 

[EzzyB]

These are complicated systems, but you have to wonder how so many errors have been happening in computing. Particularly with respect to overpowering the CPUs to the point of failure. Intel had a huge issue here, and now AMD. Don't these people read the literature of their own business and take lessons learned?

Did they? I see it differently.

I go back to building my current PC. It's based on a 9700K and a Gigabyte Motherboard. That processor is advertised as running at 3.6 GHZ with a boost of up to two cores to 4.8 GHZ. I assembled it and booted it up for the first time. With NO user intervention it booted up with all 8 cores at 4.7 GHZ and all cores would boost to 5GHZ.

If something happens, is that Intel's fault? I don't think so. It's fine, it's actually been running at all-core 4.9 GHZ for five years now with no issues whatsoever (one blue screen after a week when I tried 5 GHZ so I dialed it back a notch.) Still, I wouldn't feel it was Intel's fault if that first boot had crashed.

 

[YSCCC]

"ASRock has also reportedly reduced "shadow voltages," which are settings not visible to users."

Reduced "shadow voltages" isn't exactly a vote of confidence!

I wonder what's the shadow voltage and it's value...

 

[abufrejoval]

I used to buy quite a bit of stuff from ASRock, first purchase trace I could find was a 939 Dual VSTA from 2006, which offered the ability to upgrade from an AMD K8 939 socket to a AM2 940 one. Which I also did and that system might actually still running today (don't ask). It could have been the essential step to AMD64 64-bit, which I absolutely couldn't miss, but not afford a new system for.... I'd have to check.

I liked them precisely because they were always extra createive, they'd alway play a little loose with the vendor imposed limitations.

E.g. they'd simply ignore the official RAM limits Intel imposed on their Atoms, ASRock Mini-ITX Atom boards would always support as much RAM as the hardware could, so DDR3 with 16GB and DDR4 with 32 GB when 4/8 GB were officially the maximum supported: other vendors stuck to those limits and that's why I discarded them, because I really wanted those silent Atoms to run quite a few VMs.

They still work btw, 24x7 since 2019...

It's by sheer accident, or lack of stand-out features, that I didn't pick them for most of my builds since then.

And I'd sure hate to be in that spot with a failed or damanged system, because I can't quite imagine them replacing board and CPU today, nor would it be much use when you can't wait ages for a working system.

 

[dalek1234]

Motherboard manufacturers have been doing this sine I can remember. They OC stuff so that when compared to a competing motherboard, they can claim a win. The problem is that the other mobo is doing the same thing to win. ASRock just pushed it too far.

I think that AMD should forbid mobo makers from doing this sort of shady stuff.

 

[ak47jar3d]

All other mobo manufacturers have the same PBO settings. Get real!