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.AMD's X3D designs are more sensitive to overvolting and overclocking than Intel and non-X3D designs. We've known this since the first X3D chips came out.
Pretty sure the motherboard vendors have been playing fast and loose with the voltages for a LONG time on both AMD and Intel platforms, and just continued doing so for X3D chips, despite it being well known that they really can't tolerate being run out of spec by much.
Is that AMD's fault for designing a CPU with all the benefits of an X3D chip despite it being more sensitive? I'd argue no. New solutions are going to have varying degrees of voltage sensitivity.
The truth is that X3D chips absolutely need to be run in spec, and Asus and Gigabyte just didn't give a fuck. It has always worked before, so why should we care now?
The only solution here is to adhere to the spec like it is a goddamn religion, and it is clear the board makers haven't.