News New AMD Ryzen 3000 Firmware May Cut Boot Times Considerably

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
This article is mistaken as the boot-time improvement cited is for MSI boards--certainly not every x570 mboard...😉 My x570 Aorus Master boots in 10 seconds right now and has done so since I installed it on July 9th. Why people do not understand that in every bios version released for every motherboard, there is of course the AMD AGESA it's built on, but also the fixes and improvements each motherboard vendor makes to their specific motherboard designs--all of them are different! Which is why you cannot use an Asus bios version for a like-featured Gigabyte or MSI motherboard, and etc. This stuff is basic, Computers 101.
 
Lol can they release a patch for my b350 board. It takes like 15-20 sec to post.

Oh wait, it has been almost 4 months since ryzens launch and yet msi still hasnt released an alpha bios with ryzen 3000 support.Apparently they literally dont care about people with older boards.

So i dont expect any more bioses.
 
Honestly, I don't get it anyway.

Seriously, is it REALLY that big of a deal that your system can POST in 16 seconds instead of 20? Four seconds of your life, really? How many hours of human resources went into producing that? Geezis, there's got to be some other performance related aspect of the system that would benefit in a far more frequent and noticeable way that they could put their time into, rather than this.

People sit and stare at nothing, on random sites, or spend hours searching for something actually interesting in a sea of stupidity, but they lose their marbles if the system takes 20 seconds to boot.

It's just like when I ask WHY did you buy that NVME drive? So I could shave off two seconds from my boot times. Seriously? You spent 100-140 bucks so you could save TWO SECONDS on the rare occasion you have to restart or shut down? Ridiculous.
 
Long POST times (20+ seconds) appear to be a very consistent complaint about X570 motherboard / 3000 series cpu. The usual explanation is "increased memory training time".

So this is really good news. A fast boot up time makes all the difference between "just a sec. let me check something on the computer real quick" vs. "ahh forget it, lets go. I don't want to wait for that stupid thing to boot".

Or the more common scenario: Your game hard crashes, and you need to power cycle and get back into the game immediately. Every second matters.
 
Last edited:
CheckDM said:
Long POST times (20+ seconds) appear to be a very consistent complaint about X570 motherboard / 3000 series cpu. The usual explanation is "increased memory training time".

So this is really good news. A fast boot up time makes all the difference between "just a sec. let me check something on the computer real quick" vs. "ahh forget it, lets go. I don't want to wait for that stupid thing to boot".

Or the more common scenario: Your game hard crashes, and you need to power cycle and get back into the game immediately. Every second matters.
Click to expand...

Most people, don't leave their computers in a shut down state when not in use these days. The majority of users will return to their systems in a sleep state of some kind. And if they don't, then they should, because resuming from sleep is a lot faster than the fastest boot time.

And, if waiting 20 seconds for your system to boot because you DO usually shut it down is too long, then you must be a CEO of a major fortune 500 company whose time is REALLY valuable, in which case you should have somebody else to "check something really quick" for you. Plus, the majority of people these days have a phone or other device for "checking things really quick". Desktops are generally reserved for heavier work, gaming or extended periods of browsing.

If your game is crashing, you have bigger problems that need to be resolved than just a 20 second boot time. Fix the problem and you won't be crashing. If a fast boot time is your cure for crashing problems, then you are the problem, not your system.
 
Darkbreeze said:
Honestly, I don't get it anyway.

Seriously, is it REALLY that big of a deal that your system can POST in 16 seconds instead of 20? Four seconds of your life, really? How many hours of human resources went into producing that? Geezis, there's got to be some other performance related aspect of the system that would benefit in a far more frequent and noticeable way that they could put their time into, rather than this.

People sit and stare at nothing, on random sites, or spend hours searching for something actually interesting in a sea of stupidity, but they lose their marbles if the system takes 20 seconds to boot.

It's just like when I ask WHY did you buy that NVME drive? So I could shave off two seconds from my boot times. Seriously? You spent 100-140 bucks so you could save TWO SECONDS on the rare occasion you have to restart or shut down? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


In general use, I would agree. Boot times are irrelevant. However, 20+ seconds to boot to BIOS is pretty bad. If you're an overclocker trying to dial in an overclock, with many reboots in quick succession, that 20 seconds would get pretty irritating pretty quickly. Luckily, AMD's CPU's don't overclock worth a damn, so in this case, the slow boots really are a non-issue.
 
I just don't think, in the overall scheme of things, considering how MUCH time we WASTE in other areas, that shaving four seconds off your boot time is something that needs to be extolled as a priority or is something of great importance to the masses.

I mean, sure, I can see that four seconds faster boot time being really important to somebody that is in a hurry to get into their browser so they can go spend five hours on Youtube trying to figure out why they aren't getting a bazilliony FPS on Minecraft or finding that purrfect cat video. Everybody else, knows it's going to take however long it takes, and will mostly use sleep anyhow.

For overclocking, this isn't going to apply anyway because traditional POST times are not going to be applicable in instances where training and auto reconfiguration are applicable due to user changes anyway. Overclocking, if you're doing it right, is a fairly long process anyway. Saving 160 seconds in a day's worth of experimentation doesn't REALLY seem to be an area of emphasis to me, and I'm an overclocker. I'd rather see the resources put into areas of the BIOS that might actually HELP with overclocking or stability or compatibility, not saving two seconds between trips to the setup program.
 
Darkbreeze said:
I just don't think, in the overall scheme of things, considering how MUCH time we WASTE in other areas, that shaving four seconds off your boot time is something that needs to be extolled as a priority or is something of great importance to the masses.

I mean, sure, I can see that four seconds faster boot time being really important to somebody that is in a hurry to get into their browser so they can go spend five hours on Youtube trying to figure out why they aren't getting a bazilliony FPS on Minecraft or finding that purrfect cat video. Everybody else, knows it's going to take however long it takes, and will mostly use sleep anyhow.

For overclocking, this isn't going to apply anyway because traditional POST times are not going to be applicable in instances where training and auto reconfiguration are applicable due to user changes anyway. Overclocking, if you're doing it right, is a fairly long process anyway. Saving 160 seconds in a day's worth of experimentation doesn't REALLY seem to be an area of emphasis to me, and I'm an overclocker. I'd rather see the resources put into areas of the BIOS that might actually HELP with overclocking or stability or compatibility, not saving two seconds between trips to the setup program.
Click to expand...
I cannot believe that you have spent this much time complaining about improving boot time. Since I started reading this I have shut down and rebooted 8 times so far. 😀
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryoburner and NightHawkRMX
It's not free. You pay for it by sacrificing other things that would have been a better use of their developer time. I'd rather see a board manufacturer improve memory settings and configuration compatibility, or fix the damn boost issues, or anything that actually has a sensible tangible value.

It's like this. It's just like the people you see that drive 40mph, on the gas the whole way, accelerating, just to have to brake hard at the stop light and wait three minutes for it to change to green. Does that make sense? No. Neither does this. Be assured, I'm not saying I prefer LONG boot times either, it's just that this shouldn't even be a news item. It should be a foregone conclusion that they reduce boot and POST times when possible, but don't go looking for pats on the back afterwards or release it to the tech pipeline as though you've just overcome the 5.5Ghz OC threshold or some equally fantastical accomplishment.
 
I feel like this is less for consumers and more for companies and the like. I can tell you that waiting for a system to reboot is AGONY when the system relying on that computer is down as a result and other things that rely on that system are stopped because of it. 20 seconds is an ETERNITY in those cases. When there is a plane in the air on final approach and you lose comms with it because the server decided to flip the damn table over something stupid, every second counts... I hate that system... I hate it so much... Anyways, for systems that have to be brought up quickly after faults this kind of thing is pretty important.

But I mean, if it means I can get to playing games sooner on my computer at home, well, that is fine too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alextheblue
Darkbreeze said:
I just don't think, in the overall scheme of things, considering how MUCH time we WASTE in other areas, that shaving four seconds off your boot time is something that needs to be extolled as a priority or is something of great importance to the masses.

I mean, sure, I can see that four seconds faster boot time being really important to somebody that is in a hurry to get into their browser so they can go spend five hours on Youtube trying to figure out why they aren't getting a bazilliony FPS on Minecraft or finding that purrfect cat video. Everybody else, knows it's going to take however long it takes, and will mostly use sleep anyhow.

For overclocking, this isn't going to apply anyway because traditional POST times are not going to be applicable in instances where training and auto reconfiguration are applicable due to user changes anyway. Overclocking, if you're doing it right, is a fairly long process anyway. Saving 160 seconds in a day's worth of experimentation doesn't REALLY seem to be an area of emphasis to me, and I'm an overclocker. I'd rather see the resources put into areas of the BIOS that might actually HELP with overclocking or stability or compatibility, not saving two seconds between trips to the setup program.
Click to expand...

MSI's X570 boards top out at $700 for the Godlike Gaming. The next one down is the $500 Prestige Creation. If I'm dropping that type of coin on a motherboard, I expect the engineering team to work on improving EVERY aspect of the board. That's where my standards would be, you're certainly entitled to have lower ones.

I somehow doubt MSI's BIOS engineering team was tied up for months working on this so I fail to see the big deal. You have no idea how much time was spent on this, could have been one guy spending a few hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alextheblue and NightHawkRMX
Darkbreeze said:
Seriously, is it REALLY that big of a deal that your system can POST in 16 seconds instead of 20? Four seconds of your life, really? How many hours of human resources went into producing that?
Click to expand...
If you start up your computer an average of once per day, four seconds per boot could work out to around 24 minutes per year. And that's just for one person. Multiply that by a million systems, and it could save 400,000 man-hours per year. : D

alextheblue said:
Hmm it would be interesting to see a shootout article with boot-to-BIOS times for various boards.
Click to expand...
I thought the same. It would be interesting to see how much variance there is, at the very least, and whether any brands boot faster than others. Maybe also test some prior-gen boards and processors, as well as some Intel systems with comparable specs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alextheblue
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom