![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Oh, trust me, I know. What I'm saying it that ultimately AMD should have known and put some hard limits in both hardware and in writing to their partners. But they were too busy enjoying the lime light of amazeballs benchmark numbers and techtubers throating them hard for making something exciting and new.
"should have known" how/why?
Not going to bother debating with you, you have made it abundantly obvious that you will die on the "defend AMD at all cost" hill.
I had issues with the quality and the second RMA. Same problem. Board just failed. ASUS wouldn't cover it. It was a microATX ROG board. Had solid experiences with an MSI board overclocking.
These AMD cpus are DYNAMIC with the power, as most modern CPUs.
The X is easily put into eco mode @ 65w and becomes a non-x. I'd rather have the flexibility of the X. Non-X are good for budget boards that have no hope of ever supplying stable power anywhere near the 7000's power envelope of 170w.
Yeah but that sweet Wraith cooler!!!!
That does look kind of cool, and I'm sure is more than sufficient cooling for any non-x 7000 series CPU too. But the question is between X and non-X it's usually like only $20 difference in price, and hell I've seen discounts on the X version that even bring it cheaper.
aren't the X3Ds even hotter for some reason beyond the standard Xs?
The V-cache is stacked on top of the cores, which increases the distance between the IHS and the cores. The distance decreases the heat transference from the cores to the IHS to the cooler.
1.4v on the cpu can be normal 1.4v on the soc is not. which are you seeing?
I haven't looked closely at the SOC just the voltage the cores are requesting. See them calling for as high as 1.45v and they seem to get a little over 1.4v
that sounds normal. pretty sure this is an am5 only issue though.
But wait, we were told that ASUS was the culprit! This can't be AMDs fault, no sir!
EFI is massively better than BIOS. Especially at any kind of scale.
Yes, three steps forward, two steps back.
Motherboard makers should leave their crapware utilities where they belong: on optical discs, as those carry a low risk of installation. The UEFI specification already defines methods for updating firmware via "capsules". If Gigabyte wants to make automatic firmware updates available to end users, it should use the existing distribution channels such as Microsoft/Windows Update and LFVS (Linux). I don't know whether any of the "enthusiast" consumer motherboard manufacturers currently offer updates that way.
Have you seen the bugs with windows updates doing that?? Or the security issues that have happened?
What I'm suggesting is that a standard, OS-agnostic approach to handling firmware updates is preferable to the alternative of motherboard vendors attempting to reinvent the wheel by creating proprietary update mechanisms that are more buggy and less secure, such as what Gigabyte did. I don't see how simply making the updates available through established distribution channels would create new bugs or insecurities. It would do the opposite by making it easier for users to patch security vulnerabilities. I'd be pleased if more hardware vendors published firmware updates to LVFS. They can be applied at the user's discretion without any form of automation necessary.
