News Ryzen Burnout? AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan

[bit_user]

trying to fit in the pertinent details in a short enough title is hard.

I'm sympathetic to this, but I'd move the word "AMD":

Ryzen Burnout? Board Power Cheats May Shorten AMD CPU Lifespan​

The phrase "AMD Board Power Cheats" makes it sound like AMD is the perpetrator, whereas "May Shorten AMD CPU Lifespan" makes it sound like AMD CPUs are the victim (which is consistent with the story).

 

[GenericUser]

Here is my favourite quote from the article:
"In fact, nearly every motherboard vendor makes adjustments with Intel's chips, but there's a big difference: Intel expressly approves and even encourages motherboard vendors to adjust power limits to differentiate their products, and those adjustments don't impact chip longevity within the warranty period. "

Interesting fact
Check out the Intel website:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...roduct-briefs/10th-gen-core-desktop-brief.pdf

From page 7:
3 Unlocked features are present with select chipsets and processor combinations. Altering clock frequency or voltage may damage or reduce the useful life of the processor and other system components, and may reduce system stability and performance. Product warranties may not apply if the processor is operated beyond its specifications. Check with the manufacturers of system and components for additional details.

So I read this as you operate right out of the box: Outside of operating specs, waranty is gone. You decide for yourself.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you stating that the warranty is voided because of adjustments made to operating specs by motherboard manufacturers? If that were the case, warranties on Intel CPU's would technically not even exist as they would all automatically be void immediately upon install. I doubt that's the case.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you stating that the warranty is voided because of adjustments made to operating specs by motherboard manufacturers? If that were the case, warranties on Intel CPU's would technically not even exist as they would all automatically be void immediately upon install. I doubt that's the case.

And wouldn't that also be the case with AMD?

I don't think Intel nor AMD have a good way of monitoring if a CPU has been run out of spec (either by motherboards defaults or by user overclocking) thus they cannot void the warranty if a CPU fails due to this. Also its hard to prove why a CPU died if it randomly dies.

 

[James_514]

HWinfo releases a new feature that detects which motherboard vendors are cheating AMD Ryzen power limits, which can result in decreased CPU lifespan.

Ryzen Burnout? AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan : Read more

The Stilt specifically stated there is no risk to damage to the CPU. Its the same as increasing or simply theoretically removing PPT limits. The processor if not manually OC is still going to be limited to a max voltage (FIT) limit or a throttle temperature if the microcode is in control, whichever comes first. Its not allowed to cook itself.

It would indeed be nice if the motherboard manufactuers that have done this on their specific boards had not done this, I will agree. Not only does it literally accomplish the same thing as increasing the PPT limit, but when it comes to reviewer benchmarks, it makes it look like STOCK Zen 2 processors use more power than they really should. You see 142w on a HW monitor but if you clamp the EPS cable you get more. I'm actually surprised GN or so didn't find this out before The Stilt made that post.

Note that it isn't all board and processor combinations too. My Crosshair VIII Formula and 3900x does not have any power misreporting.

 

[CerianK]

Oddly, the Asus TUF Gaming X570 Plus WiFi is running at 115% with a 3800X.

BTW, a comment above mentioned 150% being half... 200% would be half in this context.

As far as another comment goes, Intel publishes the normally hidden figures for maximum power in an obscure document that THG just reported on a few days ago. No doubt abusing an Intel CPU by applying those maximum power figures continuously for a few years would have an impact on stability. The issue with the AMD motherboard makers is that they are flying on figures they made up, which may, or may not, translate into issues for AMD. That being said, only those loading their system fully 24/7 (like I typically do with my Intel servers) would ever notice an issue, if one really exists. Perhaps just another reason for me to upgrade to Threadripper, where I 'hope' the attention to detail by the MB makers is better (considering the price of the average TR board).

 

[bit_user]

Doctor Ian Cutress. Tweet here. Shame on you Tom's.

Shame for what, exactly? They're reporting on an evolving story that originated elsewhere - not something they invented. And this was their first word on the matter, but they had already promised to follow-up.

It's great that Anandtech is on the case, as well.

 

[bit_user]

So "some" mobo manufacturers are treating ryzen official specs like they treat Intel's official specs? Hardly news I think ... Where's the article citing the concern of Intel processors that get the same treatment? Its not like almost every reputable reviewer hasn't pointed this exact same thing out with the 9900k and 10900k.

That's really not accurate. Anandtech's article breaks it down quite clearly: AMD told motheboard makers to report the VRM's current load and those boards are deliberately doing something different.

In Intel's case, they said: "Here are 3 parameters controlling processor power utilization. Here's the baseline, but you can adjust them to match the power delivery of your board."

According to the article, AMD has since followed-up with the out-of-spec board makers and asked them not to mis-report the VRM load.

So, you're drawing a false-equivalence, though there are certain similarities.

 

[bit_user]

Hi, is this piece of software is even accurate in the first place?? Because we all know that there is a variation between whats really measured using real measuring/testing equipment and such monitoring utilities.

As I understand it, they're basically just showing you what the motherboard is reporting to the CPU.

The way you perform the test is by running some software that should stress the CPU at 100% load. Then, if the reported value is much less than 100% (specifically, below 95%), then you know the motherboard is lying.

There's no need for calibration, or anything like that, since that's the motherboard's job.

 

[bit_user]

What is hwinfo using as a reference to determine how the reported power relates to actual power?

They don't, because it doesn't. That's why you need to run a test that you know should max the current draw of the CPU. Because, only in that scenario do you know the VRM should be telling you it's at 100%

Did the creators of hwinfo test every board and measure power using external test equipment while also recording the power being reported by the CPU/motherboard,

No, calibration of that value is the motherboard maker's job. There's a well-defined value for what should represent 100% load.

 

[bit_user]

Its probably a "Good cop, Bad cop" strategy.

The problem with that theory is: who'd want to be the bad cop?

Anandtech often arrives on the scene later, but with more in-depth analysis. There's nothing all that different, here. However, their volume is significantly less.

 

[bit_user]

I wager my kidneys, that nobody will run a CPU for ten years+ at least not as their main machine,

I don't play games on them, but I have 2 Sandybridge desktop/workstations and one Phenom II in a fileserver. The last one might get replaced this year, but I don't plan to replace the Sandybridges.

I'm not even bother reading it, when I see such sensational titles.

Please don't comment on articles you don't read.

I've commented on articles before I've finished them, but then gone back and edited my comments, accordingly.

 

[bit_user]

Here is my favourite quote from the article:
"In fact, nearly every motherboard vendor makes adjustments with Intel's chips, but there's a big difference: Intel expressly approves and even encourages motherboard vendors to adjust power limits to differentiate their products, and those adjustments don't impact chip longevity within the warranty period. "

Interesting fact
Check out the Intel website:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...roduct-briefs/10th-gen-core-desktop-brief.pdf

From page 7:
3 Unlocked features are present with select chipsets and processor combinations. Altering clock frequency or voltage may damage or reduce the useful life of the processor and other system components, and may reduce system stability and performance. Product warranties may not apply if the processor is operated beyond its specifications. Check with the manufacturers of system and components for additional details.

The article said "power limits", not voltage or frequency settings! And they are referring to this:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-pl1-pl2-tau-10th-gen-comet-lake-processors​

So I read this as you operate right out of the box: Outside of operating specs, waranty is gone. You decide for yourself.

These types of articles is why Toms has lost the respect and credibility of most tech savvy people following the industry. When one manufacturer is notorious to operate in a certain way, Toms publishes an article about how the other manufacturer is actually too, which everyone word may be technically true, has no barring on reality. I suppose we should just buy it!

Sure, lash out at them because of your own misunderstanding. Seems totally fair.

 

[bit_user]

I don't think Intel nor AMD have a good way of monitoring if a CPU has been run out of spec (either by motherboards defaults or by user overclocking) thus they cannot void the warranty if a CPU fails due to this. Also its hard to prove why a CPU died if it randomly dies.

We're sort of getting off-topic, but I've long wondered the same thing.

Maybe you could put some kind of reference crystal inside the CPU, so it can detect when it's being overclocked. Then, it could burn a fuse to permanently record that fact. Perhaps there are ways to do similar, with temperature or voltage.

I've noticed some of my HDDs now have a SMART field that reports lifetime maximum temperature. So, if you make a warranty claim, the manufacturer can check it to see if you ran it outside the approved temperature range. I realize HDDs are a different animal, but it's a similar theme.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

The problem with that theory is: who'd want to be the bad cop?

Anandtech often arrives on the scene later, but with more in-depth analysis. There's nothing all that different, here. However, their volume is significantly less.

If no one wanted to be a bad cop to make more money this strategy wouldn't be widely used in media today. If you go to Anand's comment board you see a whole bunch of doubters and questioners of what Ian is saying, that undoubtedly would gravitate more to what is being said here ... so who's the "bad cop"? As you mentioned in an earlier post this is just an evolving story, and people will tend to pick sides. It is the playing on the dynamic of the perceived sides that is the strategy.

I put "good cop, bad cop" in quotes to try to emphasize that those labels don't need to be taken literally, and they are interchangeable, viewer perspective dependent.

Its all just perspective ... humans don't see reality, they see their perceptions that is created by their biases and programming. Racism is a purely learned trait, for example - no human is born racist.

An AMD promoting site will seem like a "bad cop" to an Intel fanboi and a "good cop" to an AMD fanboi, and vice versa ... your's, or anyone's personal opinion on what is "good" vs "bad" has no relevance to this marketing strategy.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

That's really not accurate. Anandtech's article breaks it down quite clearly: AMD told motheboard makers to report the VRM's current load and those boards are deliberately doing something different.

In Intel's case, they said: "Here are 3 parameters controlling processor power utilization. Here's the baseline, but you can adjust them to match the power delivery of your board."

According to the article, AMD has since followed-up with the out-of-spec board makers and asked them not to mis-report the VRM load.

So, you're drawing a false-equivalence, though there are certain similarities.

But the rational of the pain point being increased electromigration should be a concern for both cases - in both cases the power the CPU is receiving is out of official spec - which leads to the concern of electromigration. It should be a concern in both cases. Considering the 9900ks has a 1yr warranty only, Intel is aware of that concern, but not the media ... ?

And Does Intel say "use whatever specs you want?" -- or does it just not complain when the mobo makers do so, as it keeps them sitting in a better position vs AMD?

 

[CerianK]

I'm not sure if Dr. Cutress made up those 1% degradation numbers in his tweet or not, but they seem suspicious to me. Electro-migration in materials I've studied follows an order 13 (or maybe 11... can't recall exactly) equation. The implication for something as simple as a light bulb filament (per very old G.E. docs) means that 5% more voltage (affecing power) results in half the lifespan. Perhaps the equations are many orders of magnitude different for semiconductors at sub-luminant temperatures, which I guess is quite possible.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I'm not sure if Dr. Cutress made up those 1% degradation numbers in his tweet or not, but they seem suspicious to me. Electro-migration in materials I've studied follows an order 13 equation. The implication for something as simple as a light bulb filament (per very old G.E. docs) means that 5% more power results in half the lifespan. Perhaps the equations are many orders of magnitude different for semiconductors at sub-luminant temperatures, which I guess is quite possible.

The only people that would have hard data on this would be AMD itself, and AMD's own Ryzen Master software has some clear warnings and disclaimers. What's the normal lifespan of a CPU, and how much does that change with PBO -- or this similar but potentially worse cheating that's going on? But AMD's stance is clear:

"DAMAGES CAUSED BY USE OF YOUR AMD PROCESSOR OUTSIDE OF OFFICIAL AMD SPECIFICATIONS OR OUTSIDE OF FACTORY SETTINGS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER ANY AMD PRODUCT WARRANTY AND MAY NOT BE COVERED BY YOUR BOARD OR SYSTEM MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY."

Yes, partly that's to be able to say "we said if you overclock and your chip fails, it's your responsibility." However, certain boards are doing exactly that without letting you know. Is ASRock, Asus, Gigabyte, or MSI going to replace your Ryzen CPU if it fails in a couple of years? Nope. And neither will AMD if it was overclocked by your motherboard's stock settings.

I suspect with Zen 2, a big part of AMD's concern is that the smaller things get, the worse heat density problems become. An extra 100W on 14nm is going to be different than an extra 100W at 7nm.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Nope. And neither will AMD if it was overclocked by your motherboard's stock settings.

I highly doubt this. AMD has no way of verifying whether a CPU has died because the motherboard auto"overclocking" it or if the CPU just died due randomly, because of this they cannot deny a return.

 

[TJ Hooker]

As I understand it, they're basically just showing you what the motherboard is reporting to the CPU.

The way you perform the test is by running some software that should stress the CPU at 100% load. Then, if the reported value is much less than 100% (specifically, below 95%), then you know the motherboard is lying.

There's no need for calibration, or anything like that, since that's the motherboard's job.

This still doesn't make sense to me. Even if the motherboard is lying, I'd still expect it to report 100% under full load (i.e. CB R20), assuming you're operating at power limits rather than voltage or thermal limits. It's just that what it's calling 100% might be 130W, rather than 95W as it's supposed to be. If the CPU was still being limited to its official power limits, there wouldn't be any difference in performance and there'd be no point in the mobo manufacturer skewing the parameter in the first place. And if it's not abiding by the official limits, then you have no reference against which to compare the potentially bogus values that the motherboard is reporting.

So again, I don't see how they could know the deviation without first knowing the "true" value.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I highly doubt this. AMD has no way of verifying whether a CPU has died because the motherboard auto"overclocking" it or if the CPU just died due randomly, because of this they cannot deny a return.

Perhaps, just because it would be better for good will, but there's no real way to know without trying. Anyone here actually have a dead Zen or later CPU they've tried to get replaced? It seems like it would be relatively easy for AMD to have some small indicator in a chip that would 'blow' to indicate over-current, over-voltage, or over-power operation.

My own experience with RMAs has been checkered -- not for CPUs, but for other parts. I have had multiple GPUs fail on me over the years. One, an R9 290X, apparently burned itself out. All I knew was that it stopped working, so I sent it in. Three weeks later I got a response back saying my RMA was denied "due to physical damage" with a photo showing a circled resistor or something. Can't say it made me happy, since it was my own card and not a review sample.

 

[TJ Hooker]

This is bunk. The phrasing does not imply anything. It says "Ryzen Burnout?' [Note the question mark.] "AMD Board Power Cheats May Shorten CPU Lifespan." Anyone trying to read anything more into it is on their own. Nowhere do we / Paul say there are CPUs failing,

Eh, I'm really not a fan of this 'hey, we're just asking questions!' defense. Even if TH had innocent intentions, this approach is something you see all the time in news and politics as a way to insinuate something without actually having any evidence. The publication can then point to the question mark if anyone accuses them of dishonesty (or of libel, depending on the situation).

So let's say someone publishes an article with the headline "Does TJ Hooker kick puppies?". Sure, the article itself could go on to clarify that no, there's no reason to think that TJ Hooker does that, but we all know (including the publisher) that many people will only see the headline. So we've now planted the idea in peoples heads that whether TJ Hooker kicks puppies is up for question, which implies a non-zero chance that he does. And that might end up being repeated and twisted in other articles to become something like "Some people are saying that TJ Hooker kicks puppies" ("some people say" is another sneaky way to make poorly supported accusations).

I'm being a little dramatic here, but the 'just asking questions' phenomenon, particularly in headlines, is a bit of a pet peeve for me because the practice is so rife with cases of intellectual dishonesty. Frankly, I don't think it would have been hard to predict that people might read too much into the title as it's written, nor would it have been difficult to avoid this (if desired) with different wording.

 

[richardvday]

This article just seems like blatant sensationalism. Let's make it as controversial as possible. It's not that big of a deal. It's sop for the board manufacturer mostly.

 

[RodroX]

I was about to write something else, but I will hold my impulse lol.... examples, examples, is like always picking the same example (cough brand.. cough)

 

[Phaaze88]

Steve at Gamers' Nexus addressed it too, if ya'll rather see that...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10b8CS7wQcM


After checking that out, my view is now:
Nothing new to see here. It's just the usual crap from motherboard vendors trying to one-up each other...
Although it does kinda paint Asus in a better light compared to the other vendors, as they seem to be sticking the closest to Intel and AMD's guidelines for their boards out of the box.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Steve at Gamers' Nexus addressed it too, if ya'll rather see that...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10b8CS7wQcM


After checking that out, my view is now:
Nothing new to see here. It's just the usual crap from motherboard vendors trying to one-up each other...
Although it does kinda paint Asus in a better light compared to the other vendors, as they seem to be sticking the closest to Intel and AMD's guidelines for their boards out of the box.

Thanks for the quick recap ... I hadn't got around to watching that yet, and how you summed it was exactly what I was expecting Steve to say.