News Asus Owns Up to Fiery Z690 Motherboard Flaw, Starts Recall Program

[Admin]

Asus admitted that its Z690 Hero motherboards suffer from a flaw that led to widespread reports of melted motherboards. The company has begun a recall program.

Asus Owns Up to Fiery Z690 Motherboard Flaw, Starts Recall Program : Read more

 

[derekullo]

The hero they were going for was the Human Torch.

 

[ottonis]

So, I guess this is the kind of risk for early adopters of a new platform. There were also rumors about some DDR5 timing issues on the new Intel platform.
For critical work, e.g. everything that demands high stability, (e.g. people working from home on their own machines and who need to update or replace an old system), one would certainly be be better off with something that has been in the market for at least 12 months - the usual time frame for CPU, RAM and Mobo makers to sort out all kind of hardware and driver glitches, make firmware updates and adapt their components to work with each other flawlessly.
If I was in the market for a new system, the Core i5 12600k would be my favourite CPU with a good motherboard - in theory. However, the new Intel platform is certainly not sufficiently real-word tested in order to be blindly trusted for critical work especially by those who are not willing or not able to tinker around with tons of firmware updates etc.
If I was earning money with creative work (e.g. video editing, some rendering), then I would rather opt for a trusted Ryzen-based system that's been out there for year or so.

 

[svan71]

Inexcusable mistake from a "premium" board manufacturer. How did it pass QC and actually ship?

 

[Co BIY]

ottonis beat me to the early adopter comment.

I believe this is why HED usually lagged behind the consumer market.

 

[-Fran-]

So, I guess this is the kind of risk for early adopters of a new platform. There were also rumors about some DDR5 timing issues on the new Intel platform.
For critical work, e.g. everything that demands high stability, (e.g. people working from home on their own machines and who need to update or replace an old system), one would certainly be be better off with something that has been in the market for at least 12 months - the usual time frame for CPU, RAM and Mobo makers to sort out all kind of hardware and driver glitches, make firmware updates and adapt their components to work with each other flawlessly.
If I was in the market for a new system, the Core i5 12600k would be my favourite CPU with a good motherboard - in theory. However, the new Intel platform is certainly not sufficiently real-word tested in order to be blindly trusted for critical work especially by those who are not willing or not able to tinker around with tons of firmware updates etc.
If I was earning money with creative work (e.g. video editing, some rendering), then I would rather opt for a trusted Ryzen-based system that's been out there for year or so.

This particular defect found on the board has absolutely nothing to do with "early adoption". This same problem could have happened to an X470, B550, or any other already "old" motherboard. It just happened to a new model.

Batches with bad components or very specific defects happen in all industries and it's just related to bad QC.

Regards.

 

[Why_Me]

So, I guess this is the kind of risk for early adopters of a new platform. There were also rumors about some DDR5 timing issues on the new Intel platform.
For critical work, e.g. everything that demands high stability, (e.g. people working from home on their own machines and who need to update or replace an old system), one would certainly be be better off with something that has been in the market for at least 12 months - the usual time frame for CPU, RAM and Mobo makers to sort out all kind of hardware and driver glitches, make firmware updates and adapt their components to work with each other flawlessly.
If I was in the market for a new system, the Core i5 12600k would be my favourite CPU with a good motherboard - in theory. However, the new Intel platform is certainly not sufficiently real-word tested in order to be blindly trusted for critical work especially by those who are not willing or not able to tinker around with tons of firmware updates etc.
If I was earning money with creative work (e.g. video editing, some rendering), then I would rather opt for a trusted Ryzen-based system that's been out there for year or so.

I take it you didn't read the article. This has nothing to do with Intel and all to do with Asus quality control.

 

[ottonis]

I take it you didn't read the article. This has nothing to do with Intel and all to do with Asus quality control.

And yet this kind of problems is mostly found at production start of a new platform or new model, where existing QC SOPs have not yet been fully adopted to the new parts and processes.
We are not talking about generally good or bad QC with the occasional between-item variations in quality and montage precision but about gross variations of QC over time during the course of a generational iteration.

Usually, at the beginning of a new (model/platform) generation there are more errors and mistakes than later. This entirely normal.
And yes, this Asus mobo is a new model and belongs to a new generation and completely new platform.

 

[Why_Me]

And yet this kind of problems is mostly found at production start of a new platform or new model, where existing QC SOPs have not yet been fully adopted to the new parts and processes.
We are not talking about generally good or bad QC with the occasional between-item variations in quality and montage precision but about gross variations of QC over time during the course of a generational iteration.

Usually, at the beginning of a new (model/platform) generation there are more errors and mistakes than later. This entirely normal.
And yes, this Asus mobo is a new model and belongs to a new generation and completely new platform.

It was bad QC on Asus part. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[hasten]

And yet this kind of problems is mostly found at production start of a new platform or new model, where existing QC SOPs have not yet been fully adopted to the new parts and processes.
We are not talking about generally good or bad QC with the occasional between-item variations in quality and montage precision but about gross variations of QC over time during the course of a generational iteration.

Usually, at the beginning of a new (model/platform) generation there are more errors and mistakes than later. This entirely normal.
And yes, this Asus mobo is a new model and belongs to a new generation and completely new platform.

On a product they have been producing for decades. And because of a quite obvious engineering flaw. I would love some evidence to back up the "usually" and "mostly found" claims. Being an early adopter for over 20 years I've yet to run into soldering a component on reverse or anything close to such a egregious QC oversight which leads me to believe this doesn't "usually" happen.

As stated by the individual above, this is a QC disaster nothing more nothing less. They green lit production with a component on reverse.